Sunni Muslims often argue that the Hadith is necessary for understanding the context of the Quranic verses. Within the classical Islamic sciences, this genre is known as asbab al-nuzul — literally “the occasions of revelation” or “the causes of descent.” Its intended purpose is to document the specific historical circumstances, events, and questions that allegedly prompted the revelation of particular Quranic verses or passages. Scholars of tafsir (Quranic exegesis) have long treated this genre as indispensable: knowing why a verse was revealed was thought to illuminate its meaning, delimit its scope of application, and ground its interpretation in the lived experience of the earliest Muslim community.
The two most prominent works dedicated specifically to asbab al-nuzul are the Kitab Asbab al-Nuzul of ‘Ali ibn Ahmad al-Wahidi (d. 468 AH / 1075 CE) and the Lubab al-Nuqul fi Asbab al-Nuzul of Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d. 911 AH / 1505 CE). Al-Wahidi’s work holds the distinction of being the earliest extant dedicated compilation in the genre and served as the template upon which all subsequent works were modeled; al-Suyuti’s, completed more than four centuries later, expanded upon it with additional narrated material and editorial refinements. That these are the defining works of a genre held to be essential for understanding the Quran immediately raises a question that the tradition has difficulty answering: if knowledge of the occasions of revelation is genuinely indispensable to correct interpretation, why did it take over four and a half centuries after the Prophet’s death for the first person to attempt to systematically compile this? The hadith collections of Bukhari and Muslim were compiled in the third century AH; the earliest sustained theological and legal discussions of the Quran predate al-Wahidi by generations. Yet the genre that supposedly makes the Quran intelligible waited until the eleventh century CE to produce its first dedicated text. The delayed emergence of the literature is itself a signal worth attending to.
Equally telling is the coverage these works actually provide. Al-Wahidi’s compilation addresses approximately 570 verses out of the Quran’s 6,234—less than ten percent of the total. Al-Suyuti’s expanded version covers just over 800 verses, reaching perhaps thirteen percent. If asbab al-nuzul were genuinely required to understand the Quran, the overwhelming majority of the text — upwards of ninety percent of it—would be, by the tradition’s own logic, without recoverable interpretive context. The tradition has never resolved this tension satisfactorily, typically retreating to the position that most verses are sufficiently clear without a specific occasion of revelation, which is to say that the claim of indispensability is quietly abandoned for the very portion of the text the literature cannot cover.
Further, a review of the asbab al-nuzul literature reveals that it is riddled with contradictory narratives. This is often attributed to the fact that the majority of the narrations used are not considered sound; therefore, the expectation that a consistent narrative would be provided is reduced. But what if we limit the analysis exclusively to reports classified as sahih — do the asbab al-nuzul narratives cohere with one another? And if they do not, what does that incoherence reveal about the nature of these reports and their relationship to the Quranic text they purport to explain?
To answer these questions, we will examine the asbab al-nuzul material surrounding two verses — Quran 66:1 and 9:113—and trace the contradictions that emerge not between weak ( daif) and strong reports, but between the strongest authentic ( Sahih) reports the tradition has to offer.
The verse addresses the Prophet directly, reproving him for declaring something lawful ( halal) to be prohibited ( haram) for himself in order to appease his wives. Its general import is clear: a divine correction of a personal vow or self-imposed prohibition. What the asbab al-nuzul literature cannot agree upon, however, is the most basic factual question the verse raises—namely, what was the thing the Prophet had forbidden himself?
The Narrations: Three Incompatible Occasions for a Single Verse
Narration One: The Honey Incident — Zainab’s House (Abu Dawud 3714)
The first and most widely cited account attributes the verse to an episode involving honey. It is preserved in Sunan Abi Dawud (3714), transmitted through the chain: al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali ← Abu Usamah ← Hisham ← his father (‘Urwah ibn al-Zubayr) ← ‘A’ishah.
‘A’ishah said that the prophet ﷺ used to stay with Zainab, daughter of Jahsh, and drink honey. I and Hafsah counseled each other that if the Prophet ﷺ enters upon any of us, she must say: I find the smell of gum ( maghafir) from you. He then entered upon one of them; she said that to him. Thereupon he said: No, I drank honey at (the house of) Zainab daughter of Jahsh, and I will not do it again. Then the following verse came down: “O Prophet! Why holdest thou to be forbidden that which Allah has made lawful to thee?” … “If you two turn in repentance to Allah” refers to Hafsah and ‘A’ishah, and the verse: “When the Prophet disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his consorts” refers to the statement of the Prophet ﷺ: No, I drank honey.
حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ حَنْبَلٍ، حَدَّثَنَا حَجَّاجُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، قَالَ قَالَ ابْنُ جُرَيْجٍ عَنْ عَطَاءٍ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ عُبَيْدَ بْنَ عُمَيْرٍ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ عَائِشَةَ، – رضى الله عنها – زَوْجَ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم تُخْبِرُ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم كَانَ يَمْكُثُ عِنْدَ زَيْنَبَ بِنْتِ جَحْشٍ فَيَشْرَبُ عِنْدَهَا عَسَلاً فَتَوَاصَيْتُ أَنَا وَحَفْصَةُ أَيَّتُنَا مَا دَخَلَ عَلَيْهَا النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَلْتَقُلْ إِنِّي أَجِدُ مِنْكَ رِيحَ مَغَافِيرَ فَدَخَلَ عَلَى إِحْدَاهُنَّ فَقَالَتْ لَهُ ذَلِكَ فَقَالَ ” بَلْ شَرِبْتُ عَسَلاً عِنْدَ زَيْنَبَ بِنْتِ جَحْشٍ وَلَنْ أَعُودَ لَهُ ” . فَنَزَلَتْ { لِمَ تُحَرِّمُ مَا أَحَلَّ اللَّهُ لَكَ تَبْتَغِي } إِلَى { إِنْ تَتُوبَا إِلَى اللَّهِ } لِعَائِشَةَ وَحَفْصَةَ رضى الله عنهما { وَإِذْ أَسَرَّ النَّبِيُّ إِلَى بَعْضِ أَزْوَاجِهِ حَدِيثًا } لِقَوْلِهِ ” بَلْ شَرِبْتُ عَسَلاً ” .
Sunan Abi Dawud 3714
https://sunnah.com/abudawud:3714
In this account, the prohibited item is honey, the wife at whose home it was consumed is Zainab bint Jahsh, and the conspirators who manipulated the Prophet into forswearing it are ‘A’ishah and Hafsah.
Narration Two: The Honey Incident — Hafsah’s House (Abu Dawud 3715)
The same collection, just one hadith later, preserves a variant that subtly but materially contradicts the first:
‘A’ishah said: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ liked sweet meats and honey. The narrator then mentioned a part of the tradition mentioned above. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ felt it hard on him to find smell from him. In this tradition Saudah said: but you ate gum? He said: No, I drank honey. Hafsah gave it to me to drink. I said: Its bees ate ‘urfut.
حَدَّثَنَا الْحَسَنُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو أُسَامَةَ، عَنْ هِشَامٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، قَالَتْ كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يُحِبُّ الْحَلْوَاءَ وَالْعَسَلَ . فَذَكَرَ بَعْضَ هَذَا الْخَبَرِ . وَكَانَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَشْتَدُّ عَلَيْهِ أَنْ تُوجَدَ مِنْهُ الرِّيحُ . وَفِي الْحَدِيثِ قَالَتْ سَوْدَةُ بَلْ أَكَلْتَ مَغَافِيرَ . قَالَ “ بَلْ شَرِبْتُ عَسَلاً سَقَتْنِي حَفْصَةُ ” . فَقُلْتُ جَرَسَتْ نَحْلُهُ الْعُرْفُطَ .
Sunan Abi Dawud 3715
https://sunnah.com/abudawud:3715
Here the honey was given to the Prophet by Hafsah herself, not consumed by him independently at Zainab’s house. The wife who first confronts him with the smell complaint is Saudah, not one of the two conspirators from the previous version. The same transmitted chain—through Hisham ibn ‘Urwah from his father from ‘A’ishah—produces a meaningfully different scene. The wife who serves the honey, the wife who first raises the complaint, and the domestic setting of the exchange all differ between the two consecutive narrations in the same collection.
Narration Three: A Female Slave — Not Honey at All (al-Nasa’i 3959)
The third narration, preserved in Sunan al-Nasa’i (3959), transmitted through the chain: Ibrahim ibn Yunus ibn Muhammad ← his father ← Hammad ibn Salamah ← Thabit ← Anas (ibn Malik, a Companion), presents an occasion for the verse’s revelation so different from the honey story that the two cannot be reconciled as variant recollections of the same event:
It was narrated from Anas, that the Messenger of Allah had a female slave with whom he had intercourse, but ‘A’ishah and Hafsah would not leave him alone until he said that she was forbidden for him. Then Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, revealed: “O Prophet! Why do you forbid (for yourself) that which Allah has allowed to you.” until the end of the Verse.
The prohibited thing, in this narration, is not honey. It is a female slave. The same two wives, ‘A’ishah and Hafsah, are the instigating parties—the one consistent element across the accounts — but everything substantive about what was prohibited differs entirely.
The Anatomy of the Inconsistencies
The contradictions in the asbab al-nuzul material for Q. 66:1 are not peripheral. They concern the very substance of the verse—the identity of what was prohibited—which is the single most important factual question one would expect to find if Hadith genuinely served the purpose its adherents claim it does. Honey and a female slave are not alternative details of the same event. They describe categorically different situations, carrying different legal and moral implications. A man forswearing a pleasant drink at the urging of jealous wives and a man declaring his concubine sexually forbidden to himself are entirely different acts, and a divine reprimand addressed to one situation cannot simultaneously be a reprimand addressed to the other.
It is also telling that the two honey-based narrations, ostensibly the closest to one another, disagree on which wife served the honey (Zainab versus Hafsah), which wife first deployed the smell-complaint to manipulate the Prophet (an unnamed one of the conspirators versus Saudah), and therefore what the private domestic scene looked like. ‘A’ishah is reported as the source in both cases—meaning the discrepancies arise not between different witnesses but within the testimony attributed to a single witness transmitted through the same chain. That a narrator as authoritative as ‘A’ishah, and a chain as well-regarded as Hisham from his father, should produce internally inconsistent accounts is precisely the kind of problem that chain-based criticism is ill-equipped to detect. Isnad authentication at best can only provide insight into the formal integrity of a chain; it cannot adjudicate between two contradictory versions transmitted through the same chain.
The narration from Anas — which replaces the honey episode entirely with an incident involving a female slave — comes through a different Companion and an independent chain of transmission. It is not a variation of the honey report but a competing origin account, and it too is graded ṣaḥīḥ. Each tradition claims to preserve the occasion of revelation for the same verse, yet the two accounts are mutually exclusive. If both are deemed authentic, the authentication mechanism is shown not to accomplish what it claims, because both reports cannot simultaneously be historically true. This assumes, of course, that either report is historically reliable at all. It remains possible that neither reflects the original event, and that both emerged retrospectively, as part of the broader pattern seen in much of the asbāb al-nuzūl literature, where explanatory narratives were generated after the fact to anchor verses in concrete historical settings.
Sura al-Barã’ah, also known as al-Tawbah (Chapter 9), verse 113, reads:
[Quran 9:113] Neither the prophet, nor those who believe shall ask forgiveness for the idol worshipers, even if they were their nearest of kin, once they realize that they are destined for Hell.
This verse, in classical Islamic scholarship, is understood as a divine prohibition against seeking God’s forgiveness on behalf of those who died outside the fold of Islam. The asbab al-nuzul literature provides multiple occasions for its revelation, and it is here that the inconsistencies begin.
The Narrations: Four Distinct Occasions for a Single Verse
Narration One: The Deathbed Scene of Abu Talib (Bukhari 4675)
The first and most prominent narrative is preserved in Sahih al-Bukhari (hadith 4675), transmitted through the chain: Ishaq ibn Ibrahim ← ‘Abd al-Razzaq ← Ma’mar ← al-Zuhri ← Sa’id ibn al-Musayyib ← his father (al-Musayyib ibn Hazn).
Ishaq ibn Ibrahim narrated to us, ‘Abd al-Razzaq narrated to us, Ma‘mar informed us, from al-Zuhri, from Sa‘id ibn al-Musayyib, from his father, who said:
When death approached Abu Talib, the Prophet ﷺ entered upon him, and with him were Abu Jahl and ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Umayyah. The Prophet ﷺ said:
“O my uncle, say: ‘There is no god except Allah.’ I will argue on your behalf with it before Allah.”
Abu Jahl and ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Umayyah said: “O Abu Talib, will you turn away from the religion of ‘Abd al-Muttalib?”
The Prophet ﷺ continued saying to him: “I will surely seek forgiveness for you unless I am forbidden from doing so.”
Then the verse was revealed:
“It is not for the Prophet and those who believe to seek forgiveness for the polytheists, even if they are close relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are companions of the Hellfire.” (Quran 9:113)
حَدَّثَنَا إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، أَخْبَرَنَا مَعْمَرٌ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ الْمُسَيَّبِ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، قَالَ لَمَّا حَضَرَتْ أَبَا طَالِبٍ الْوَفَاةُ دَخَلَ عَلَيْهِ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَعِنْدَهُ أَبُو جَهْلٍ وَعَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ أَبِي أُمَيَّةَ، فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم ” أَىْ عَمِّ قُلْ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ. أُحَاجُّ لَكَ بِهَا عِنْدَ اللَّهِ ”. فَقَالَ أَبُو جَهْلٍ وَعَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ أَبِي أُمَيَّةَ يَا أَبَا طَالِبٍ، أَتَرْغَبُ عَنْ مِلَّةِ عَبْدِ الْمُطَّلِبِ. فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم ” لأَسْتَغْفِرَنَّ لَكَ مَا لَمْ أُنْهَ عَنْكَ ”. فَنَزَلَتْ {مَا كَانَ لِلنَّبِيِّ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَنْ يَسْتَغْفِرُوا لِلْمُشْرِكِينَ وَلَوْ كَانُوا أُولِي قُرْبَى مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُمْ أَنَّهُمْ أَصْحَابُ الْجَحِيمِ}
Sahih al-Bukhari 4675
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4675
This version is notable for what it does not include: it presents the Prophet’s promise to seek forgiveness and states that the verse was revealed in response, but does not record Abu Talib’s final words explicitly, though the implication is clear enough that he died without pronouncing the shahada.
Narration Two: The Same Scene, Expanded (Muslim 24a)
Sahih Muslim (Hadith 24a) preserves a more detailed account of the same episode, transmitted through the chain: Harmalah ibn Yahya al-Tujibi ← ‘Abdullah ibn Wahb ← Yunus ← Ibn Shihab (al-Zuhri) ← Sa’id ibn al-Musayyib ← his father.
Harmalah ibn Yahya al-Tujibi narrated to me, ‘Abdullah ibn Wahb informed us, he said: Yunus informed me, from Ibn Shihab, who said: Sa‘id ibn al-Musayyib informed me, from his father, who said:
When death approached Abu Talib, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ came to him and found with him Abu Jahl and ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Umayyah ibn al-Mughirah. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
“O my uncle, say: ‘There is no god except Allah’—a word by which I may testify for you before Allah.”
Abu Jahl and ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Umayyah said: “O Abu Talib, will you turn away from the religion of ‘Abd al-Muttalib?”
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ continued presenting it to him and repeating that statement to him until the last thing Abu Talib said to them was that he remained upon the religion of ‘Abd al-Muttalib, and he refused to say, ‘There is no god except Allah.’
Then the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
“By Allah, I will certainly seek forgiveness for you unless I am forbidden from doing so.”
So Allah, Mighty and Majestic, revealed:
“It is not for the Prophet and those who believe to seek forgiveness for the polytheists, even if they are close relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are companions of the Hellfire.” (Quran 9:113)
And Allah also revealed concerning Abu Talib, saying to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ:
“Indeed, you do not guide whom you love, but Allah guides whom He wills, and He knows best those who are guided.” (Quran 28:56)
وَحَدَّثَنِي حَرْمَلَةُ بْنُ يَحْيَى التُّجِيبِيُّ، أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ وَهْبٍ، قَالَ أَخْبَرَنِي يُونُسُ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، قَالَ أَخْبَرَنِي سَعِيدُ بْنُ الْمُسَيَّبِ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، قَالَ لَمَّا حَضَرَتْ أَبَا طَالِبٍ الْوَفَاةُ جَاءَهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَوَجَدَ عِنْدَهُ أَبَا جَهْلٍ وَعَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ أَبِي أُمَيَّةَ بْنِ الْمُغِيرَةِ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ” يَا عَمِّ قُلْ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ . كَلِمَةً أَشْهَدُ لَكَ بِهَا عِنْدَ اللَّهِ ” . فَقَالَ أَبُو جَهْلٍ وَعَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ أَبِي أُمَيَّةَ يَا أَبَا طَالِبٍ أَتَرْغَبُ عَنْ مِلَّةِ عَبْدِ الْمُطَّلِبِ . فَلَمْ يَزَلْ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَعْرِضُهَا عَلَيْهِ وَيُعِيدُ لَهُ تِلْكَ الْمَقَالَةَ حَتَّى قَالَ أَبُو طَالِبٍ آخِرَ مَا كَلَّمَهُمْ هُوَ عَلَى مِلَّةِ عَبْدِ الْمُطَّلِبِ . وَأَبَى أَنْ يَقُولَ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ . فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ” أَمَا وَاللَّهِ لأَسْتَغْفِرَنَّ لَكَ مَا لَمْ أُنْهَ عَنْكَ ” . فَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ { مَا كَانَ لِلنَّبِيِّ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَنْ يَسْتَغْفِرُوا لِلْمُشْرِكِينَ وَلَوْ كَانُوا أُولِي قُرْبَى مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُمْ أَنَّهُمْ أَصْحَابُ الْجَحِيمِ} . وَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى فِي أَبِي طَالِبٍ فَقَالَ لِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم { إِنَّكَ لاَ تَهْدِي مَنْ أَحْبَبْتَ وَلَكِنَّ اللَّهَ يَهْدِي مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَهُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِالْمُهْتَدِينَ}.
Sahih Muslim 24a
https://sunnah.com/muslim:24a
The Muslim version adds significant information absent from Bukhari: it explicitly records Abu Talib’s final declaration—that he remained on the religion of ‘Abd al-Muttalib — and appends a second verse (Q. 28:56) as also being revealed on account of this event. That the same chain through al-Zuhri from Sa’id ibn al-Musayyib from his father yields meaningfully different content in the two most authoritative collections is itself a point deserving attention.
Narration Three: A Different Occasion Entirely (al-Hakim 3290)
The third narration, preserved by al-Hakim in his Mustadrak (no. 3290) and classified as sahih al-isnad by al-Hakim, with al-Dhahabi’s endorsement, presents an entirely different occasion for the same verse’s revelation. The chain runs: Abu ‘Ali al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali al-Hafiz ← al-Fadl ibn Muhammad al-Janadi ← Abu Humah al-Yamani ← Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah ← ‘Amr ibn Dinar ← Jabir (ibn ‘Abdullah, a Companion).
Abu ‘Ali al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali al-Hafiz informed me; al-Fadl ibn Muhammad al-Janadi in Mecca narrated to us; Abu Humah al-Yamani narrated to us; Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah narrated to us, from ‘Amr ibn Dinar, from Jabir, who said:
When Abu Talib died, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
“May Allah have mercy on you and forgive you, O my uncle. I will continue to seek forgiveness for you until Allah forbids me.”
Then the Muslims began seeking forgiveness for their deceased relatives who had died as polytheists. So Allah, Most High, revealed:
“It is not for the Prophet and those who believe to seek forgiveness for the polytheists, even if they are close relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are companions of the Hellfire.” (Quran 9:113)
[Al-Hakim said:] “This hadith has a sound chain (sahih al-isnad), though al-Bukhari and Muslim did not record it.”
And Abu ‘Ali said to us afterward: “I do not know anyone who connected (i.e., transmitted with a complete chain) this hadith from Sufyan other than Abu Humah al-Yamani, and he is trustworthy. The other companions of Ibn ‘Uyaynah transmitted it in mursal form (with a missing link). It is sound.”
Where Bukhari and Muslim record the verse as being revealed at the deathbed scene itself, the Jabir narration places the triggering event after Abu Talib’s death, when a broader practice of intercession spread among the Muslim community. The verse, in this version, is not a response to the Prophet’s private promise to a dying man, but a correction to a communal religious practice that developed in the aftermath of that death.
Narration Four: An Entirely Different Context (al-Hakim 3289)
The fourth narration, also in al-Hakim’s Mustadrak (no. 3289) and likewise endorsed as sahih by al-Dhahabi, removes the episode from the Abu Talib context entirely. Its chain runs through various paths converging on Sufyan al-Thawri ← Abu Ishaq ← Abu al-Khalil ← ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.
Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Saffar narrated to us; Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Barti narrated to us; Abu Nu‘aym and Abu Hudhayfah both said: Sufyan narrated to us.
And ‘Ali ibn ‘Isa ibn Ibrahim informed me; al-Husayn ibn Muhammad ibn Ziyad narrated to us; ‘Uthman ibn Abi Shaybah narrated to us; Waki‘ narrated to us; Sufyan narrated to us, from Abu Ishaq, from Abu al-Khalil, from ‘Ali, who said:
I heard a man seeking forgiveness for his parents while they were polytheists. So I said, “Do not seek forgiveness for your parents while they are polytheists.”
He replied, “Did not Abraham seek forgiveness for his father while he was a polytheist?”
So I mentioned that to the Prophet ﷺ, and then the verse was revealed:
“It is not for the Prophet and those who believe to seek forgiveness for the polytheists, even if they are close relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are companions of the Hellfire. And Abraham’s seeking forgiveness for his father was only because of a promise he had made to him; but when it became clear to him that he was an enemy to Allah, he dissociated himself from him. Indeed, Abraham was tender-hearted and forbearing.”
(Quran 9:113–114)
This report, narrated on the authority of ‘Ali himself, attributes the revelation of 9:113–114 to a completely separate incident: an anonymous man’s argument with ‘Ali about the permissibility of seeking forgiveness for polytheist parents, grounded in a comparison to Abraham’s intercession for his father Azar. There is no Abu Talib, no deathbed, no dying uncle, and no communal outbreak of intercession. The verse here is a response to a theological dispute about prophetic precedent.
The contradictions in the asbab al-nuzul material for Q. 9:113 operate at several distinct levels. The triggering event differs across narrations: Bukhari and Muslim agree that the verse was revealed in response to the Prophet’s promise at Abu Talib’s deathbed, while the Jabir narration in al-Hakim places the revelation after the death and in response to a community-wide practice of intercession, and the ‘Ali narration places it in an entirely different context with no necessary connection to Abu Talib at all. These are not minor variations in detail; they are fundamentally different events, different settings, different interlocutors, and different precipitating causes for the same few words of divine speech.
Even between Bukhari and Muslim, which share the same underlying chain through al-Zuhri from Sa’id ibn al-Musayyib from his father, the accounts differ materially. The Muslim version includes Abu Talib’s final declaration, absent in Bukhari, and adds Q. 28:56 as a second verse revealed on the same occasion, something Bukhari does not record. If both reports faithfully transmit the same chain to the same source, the discrepancy in content demands explanation that isnad analysis alone cannot supply.
The Classical Attempt at Harmonization
Classical Islamic scholarship did not ignore these contradictions. The discipline of ta’arud wa’l-tarjih — reconciling apparently conflicting reports — was developed precisely to manage such tensions. When confronted with multiple sahih reports offering different occasions for the same revelation, the standard methodological move is to argue that the verse was revealed in response to multiple, overlapping occasions ( ta’addud al-asbab): the same divine ruling was prompted by several converging circumstances, and all of the reports are true simultaneously.
The most sophisticated version of this argument, as applied to Q. 9:113, runs roughly as follows. The Abu Talib deathbed account is taken as the primary trigger. The community’s subsequent practice of intercession for deceased polytheist relatives is treated as a secondary or reinforcing occasion that confirmed the need for the prohibition to be stated explicitly. The ‘Ali narration is understood as yet another circumstance in which the same prohibition needed to be grounded in further explanation, hence the additional verse about Abraham’s exception. On this reading, the several narrations each capture a different facet of a multi-layered divine response.