The Hadith in Question:
“Narrated Shaqiq: I heard Hudhaifa saying, “While we were sitting with `Umar, he said, ‘Who among you remembers the statement of the Prophet (ﷺ) about the afflictions?’ Hudhaifa said, “The affliction of a man in his family, his property, his children and his neighbors are expiated by his prayers, Zakat (and alms) and enjoining good and forbidding evil.” `Umar said, “I do not ask you about these afflictions, but about those afflictions which will move like the waves of the sea.” Hudhaifa said, “Don’t worry about it, O chief of the believers, for there is a closed door between you and them.” `Umar said, “Will that door be broken or opened?” I said, “No. it will be broken.” `Umar said, “Then it will never be closed,” I said, “Yes.” We asked Hudhaifa, “Did `Umar know what that door meant?” He replied, “Yes, as I know that there will be night before tomorrow morning, that is because I narrated to him a true narration free from errors.” We dared not ask Hudhaifa as to whom the door represented so we ordered Masruq to ask him what does the door stand for? He replied, “`Umar.”” (SB7096)
The Argument
Apologists argue that the Hadith narrated by Hudhaifa, recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari (7096), contains a prophetic prediction about the assassination of Umar ibn al-Khattab and the subsequent turmoil that engulfed the Muslim community. According to the narration, the Prophet Muhammad metaphorically described a “closed door” that would shield Muslims from catastrophic trials. When asked about the door’s identity, Hudhaifa later clarified it referred to Umar. The apologist claims this prophecy was fulfilled when Umar was assassinated in 644 CE, after which the “door” was “broken,” unleashing waves of strife, including civil wars, theological divisions, and political chaos. This, they argue, demonstrates the Prophet’s divine foresight.
However, this claim collapses under scrutiny as a classic ex eventu (after-the-fact) prophecy. The Hadith’s reliance on Sulayman al-A’mash (d. 765 CE) as the common link in its chain of transmission (isnad) exposes its late fabrication. Al-A’mash, a prominent narrator of the Abbasid era, lived over a century after Umar’s death, during a period of intense sectarian conflict. The vague metaphor of a “closed door” and “waves of affliction” lacks specificity and could be retroactively applied to any period of instability. Crucially, the Quran itself frames trials as inherent to faith (e.g., 2:155, 29:2-3), making such “prophecies” redundant as universal observations rather than miraculous predictions. The identification of Umar as the “door” was likely invented posthumously to sanctify his legacy and frame later chaos as divinely ordained, rather than as a product of human political failures. This narration reflects Abbasid-era attempts to reinterpret history through a theological lens, not genuine prophecy.

Transmission History

Several scholars critiqued Al-A’mash’s reliability. Abu Hatim noted he didn’t hear from certain figures, accusing him of being “mudallis.” Ahmad ibn Hanbal pointed out his mursal narrations, especially regarding Shumar ibn Atiyyah. Ibn Hajar called him a “mudallis” (a narrator who deliberately conceals the identity of a missing link in the chain of transmission, often by implying that they heard directly from someone when they actually did not) as well. Abu Dawood mentioned errors in his narrations, particularly from Ibrahim. Ibn Abi Haatim emphasized that he didn’t hear from figures like Ibn Abi Awfah and Akrama. These critiques are found across various texts like Ittihaf al-Tahsil, Ikmal Tahdhib al-Kamal, and Tahdhib al-Tahdhib.
Scholar | Criticism | Citation |
---|---|---|
Yahya ibn Ma’in | “Everything Al-A’mash narrated from Anas is an interrupted narration.” | Tadhhib al-Tahdhib 2/109 |
Yahya ibn Ma’in | “Al-A’mash did not hear from Abu Safar except one hadith, and he did not hear from Abu Amr al-Shaybani at all.” | Ikmal Tadhhib al-Kamal 6/90 |
Ya’qub ibn Shaybah | “There is nothing authentic in Al-A’mash’s narration from Mujahid except a few hadiths.” | Tadhhib al-Tahdhib 2/109 |
Salah Jazarah | “Al-A’mash did not hear anything from Ikrimah, the freed slave of Ibn Abbas.” | Ikmal Tadhhib al-Kamal 6/90 |
Al-Bukhari | “Al-A’mash from Anas and from Ibn Umar, both are interrupted narrations, and he did not hear from Ibn Buraydah.” | Tuhfat al-Tahsil fi al-Marasils 1/168 |
Al-Bazzar | “He did not hear from Abu Sufyan, Talhah ibn Nafi’, but this is strange since he narrated from him in the six books.” | Tuhfat al-Tahsil fi al-Marasils 1/168 |
Al-Bazzar | “He did not hear from Abu Sufyan Talhah, but narrated about a hundred hadiths from him, and this was from a document known to him.” | Ikmal Tadhhib al-Kamal 6/90 |
Al-Tirmidhi | “This is a strange hadith, and we do not know of Al-A’mash hearing from Anas except that he saw him and looked at him.” | Jami’ al-Tirmidhi 5/503 |
Al-Karabisi | “He concealed narrations from Zayd ibn Wahb often, and from Abu al-Duha, Ibrahim ibn Yazid, Abu Salih, Mujahid, Shaqiq, and others. All these narrations were concealed by him.” | Ikmal Tadhhib al-Kamal 6/90 |
Al-Karabisi | “Al-A’mash met Abu Sufyan, and there was a dispute between them, so he did not narrate from him. After Abu Sufyan passed away, Al-A’mash sought narrations from people.” | Ikmal Tadhhib al-Kamal 6/90 |
Al-Duri | “Al-A’mash saw Anas, and Abu Hatim said the same.” | Tadhhib al-Tahdhib 2/109 |
Al-Duri | “Al-A’mash did not hear from Abu Safar except one hadith.” | Ikmal Tadhhib al-Kamal 6/90 |
Al-Mizzi | “It is said that this is an interrupted narration.” | Tadhhib al-Kamal 12/76 |
Anas ibn Malik | “It is not confirmed that he heard from him.” | Tadhhib al-Kamal 12/76 |