The Jewish Disciple: An Analysis of the Influence of Jewish Sources on the Structure of Umar’s Caliphate (6)

Among the groups outside the religion of Islam, Jews held a particular position in their obstinacy and hostility toward Islam and Muslims. At the beginning of the Prophet of Islam’s arrival in the city of Medina, the Prophet wrote a covenant with all Jewish tribes on the basis of the principles of peace and good coexistence. He neither compelled them to accept Islam nor to leave their lands, nor did he seek war and conflict with them. The Prophet’s first action was to establish a pact and peace with the Jews. But contrary to the Prophet, the Jews employed various methods to harm Islam and the Prophet; and after their obstructionism and dangerous conspiracies, which at times came close to destroying Islam, the Prophet was compelled to fight them in defense of Islam.

Although the Jews were defeated in these wars, they did not cease their hostility toward the Prophet and continued their conspiracies. So much so that in the final verses revealed to the Prophet, the expression «اشد عداوه و بغضا» was revealed concerning the Jews. This indicated their intense and unending hostility toward Islam and Muslims.

In this context, secret connections with Jews and the alignment of the current of hypocrisy with them testify to a behind-the-scenes conspiracy to weaken Islam. In this regard, the relations of Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second ruler, with Jews are also of particular importance. Examining these relations from a critical and analytical perspective can shed new light on political practice and various interactions during the time of the Prophet, and help us uncover the hidden secrets of the current of hypocrisy. That Jews are the principal enemy of Islam is a point of agreement among all scholars of religion and historians. Therefore, the various contacts of individuals with this political and cunning enemy reveal a complex and hidden conspiracy behind the scenes to prevent the proper guidance of people.

The Jews have never, at any time, been aligned with or friendly toward the Prophet and the current of guidance; they committed many acts of betrayal, obstruction, and crime. Naturally, the cordial relations of certain currents with Jews indicate their alignment with Judaism and their enmity toward the Prophet. It may be stated that if the Jews are «أَشَدَّ النَّاسِ عَداوَةً لِلَّذينَ آمَنُوا» toward Muslims, then the currents aligned with the Jews are likewise most intense in enmity and hatred toward Muslims and the Prophet. The Qur’an has explicitly described, in various verses, the intensity of the hostility of the Jews and the hypocritical currents that were also aligned with them: «لایوتون نقیرا», «أم یحسدون الناس..», and «یهلک الحرث و النسل». Meanwhile, many reports have been transmitted concerning the close, continuous, and distinctive connection of certain individuals with Jews—reports that show the relationship with Jews of individuals who made the greatest effort and engaged in the greatest struggle to obtain political power. During the time they held power, these individuals also displayed the intensity of their hostility, enmity, and hatred toward the Prophet’s Ahl al-Bayt; as though they manifested and demonstrated the intensity of that enmity and hatred in practice. One such report is a statement narrated by ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb himself. While seated in the position of power, he speaks of a remarkable connection with the Jews. The text of this report is as follows:

This article analyzes and critically examines the relations of ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb with the Jews. Using an approach of critical historiography, it seeks to uncover the various dimensions of these interactions and their effects on the religious and social policies of ʿUmar’s caliphate.

This confession contains several important and thought-provoking points, each of which, from different cultural, social, and historical perspectives on ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb’s relations with the Jews, reveals hidden dimensions of his life and interactions with this community.

The land on which Umar resided was located in a Jewish neighborhood in al-‘Aliyah of Medina, a mountainous area around Medina. This area is known for the presence of Jewish schools and the residence of Jews; thus, it may be concluded that Umar’s house or land was situated in this neighborhood. The question that arises is: if Umar himself had purchased this land, why did he choose it in the Jews’ neighborhood? And if the land had been granted to him, it was probably by the Jews.

In any case, the point to note is that Umar lived alongside Jews and regularly moved about in a neighborhood that was predominantly Jewish. This proximity and coexistence could have led to familiarity and affection between Umar and the Jews, and might even have brought with it certain inclinations toward the Jews.

The route Umar took to the land located in the Jews’ neighborhood passed not only through a Jewish-populated district, but also through the Jews’ educational and training centers. This passage through places that may have been sites of gathering and considerable population density merits reflection. A school, as a place generally established for the education and training of people, can have various effects on a person who passes through it or is present there.

Although no precise indication is given as to the type of school—whether it was intended for children or adults—since Umar was present in these educational centers, it may be surmised that the school was for adults. This may indicate Umar’s greater familiarity and closeness with the teachings and culture of the Jews in that period, which ultimately carried its own cultural and social effects.

Jewish schools, as centers of scholarly and religious education and training, constitute a highly important point in the history of the life of Umar ibn al-Khattab. Since the Jews attached special importance to teaching their religious doctrines, Umar’s repeated and regular presence in these schools indicates his close connection with this community. Although no Companion of the Prophet is specifically mentioned in history as having studied in Jewish schools, Umar’s presence in these schools and his conversations with Jewish scholars make it possible to conclude that he was closely acquainted with Jewish religious teachings and ideas, and that he was an outstanding student of Jewish schools.

A noteworthy point here is that the Jews made no effort to attract non-Jews to their religion and transmitted their teachings only to Jews. On the other hand, the Jews regarded themselves as a superior race, and it was rarely possible for someone from outside Judaism to enter this circle. Umar’s regular attendance at these schools and his conversations with Jewish scholars and rabbis indicate that he was, in some way, connected with the Jewish elite and interacted closely with them.

Moreover, this continuing connection with Jewish schools may indicate cultural and religious influences on Umar’s view of the Jews and their teachings. For, as noted, these schools were places where Jewish scholars were trained, scholars who might later become the most influential religious figures among the Jews. Thus, Umar was in close contact with a group of thoughtful and influential individuals in Jewish society. Undoubtedly, this connection was not an ordinary or merely curious one, especially since we know that the Jews coveted dominion and government.

Umar ibn al-Khattab’s relationship with the Jews went beyond mere teaching and learning. According to historical reports, some Jews considered him the most beloved and likable person among the Companions of the Prophet of Islam. This point not only indicates a kind of friendly relationship between Umar and the Jews, but also suggests that Umar enjoyed special popularity in the eyes of the Jews. Whether this affection was reciprocated by Umar toward the Jews is itself open to discussion; however, the main point is that he was a beloved figure among Jewish leaders. This is because ordinary Jews did not express affection for him; rather, those who were in Jewish schools stated that they loved Umar ibn al-Khattab greatly.

This point stands in contrast to the historical record of Jewish obstruction and conspiracies against the Prophet of Islam. While the Jews generally displayed intense hostility toward Muslims and the Prophet of Islam, here we find that, among the Prophet’s Companions, Umar was their most beloved person. This may be a sign of hidden and complex relations between Umar and the Jews, especially in light of what is stated in the Qur’anic verse: “لَتَجِدَنَّ أَشَدَّ النَّاسِ عَداوَةً لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الْيَهُودَ” (“You will find the Jews to be the most vehemently hostile people toward the believers”). It is clear that this intensity of hostility was not directed at Umar ibn al-Khattab; that is, he is not an instance of “الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا” in this noble verse.

This connection may indirectly indicate a kind of covenant or strategic interaction between Umar and the Jews, one that would have significant effects on Islamic society in the not-too-distant future. In the period after the Prophet of Islam, the Jews—especially those at the apex of Jewish power and influence—were continuously and regularly in contact with Umar; indeed, they held important positions in the government of Umar ibn al-Khattab. This connection may provide clues to potential changes in Islamic politics and its future. Especially in view of what is reported in history—that Umar’s party came to power in the near future—these relations and interactions may indicate the existence of hidden threats to Islamic society and plans drawn up in favor of the Jews and against the Muslims; or, in other words, that planning for a “coup” took place in Jewish schools.

According to historical reports, when the Prophet’s companions passed through “there” (huna), they would usually harass the Jews. Umar ibn al-Khattab, however, unlike the other companions, never harmed the Jews.

The place referred to in this report has not been identified precisely. If “there” means the very place where Umar owned land—namely, the Jewish schools—this clearly shows that the location was regarded by the other companions as detestable and unpleasant, whereas for Umar it was a beloved and respected place.

But if another place is intended—which is also possible, since not all of the Prophet’s companions owned land near the Jewish schools—an important point can still be inferred: that place must have held a special and respected status among the Jews, and Umar likewise observed that respect.

In both cases, a clear difference can be seen between Umar’s conduct and that of the other companions: the others, in their encounters with the Jews, behaved with avoidance or even a kind of protest, whereas Umar displayed a gentle and friendly manner.

This difference in conduct may indicate a special and ongoing relationship between Umar and the Jews whom Islamic history describes as a group that, alongside Quraysh, exerted the greatest efforts to destroy the Prophet of Islam’s mission.

Of course, the precise nature of the companions’ «īdhāʾ»—or mistreatment—of the Jews is not specified either. Did this mistreatment include insults or physical assault? Or might mere severing of relations, indifference to what the Jews said, or even avoiding sitting with them have been regarded by the Jews as a form of īdhāʾ?

In any case, it is certain that Umar, contrary to the general atmosphere among the companions, treated the Jews differently and with kindness; this matter may be highly significant in analyzing the political and social relations of early Islam.

This report states that the Jews openly placed their hopes in Umar ibn al-Khattab and expressed this expectation to him without reservation.

But the main question is this: what were they hoping for?

Did they wish for Umar ibn al-Khattab to embrace Judaism? Did they want Umar to promote Jewish teachings? This seems unlikely, for Jews generally did not regard the propagation of their religion among non-Jews as necessary, and Jewish racial exclusivism posed a serious obstacle to such an assumption.

What, then, was their ambition?

Ambition for power. Ambition to acquire lasting influence within the future structure of Islamic governance. Ambition that Umar, as one of the prominent figures among the Muslims, would one day defend Jewish interests from within the heart of power.

Ambition that Umar would pave the way for Jewish influence in the heart of Medina and at the head of the Islamic government.

A very important and thought-provoking point is that Umar never openly rejected this hope and ambition.

Not only did he not disabuse the Jews of this unwarranted ambition, but the grounds for their hopefulness continued to be preserved.

This issue shows that Umar’s connection with the Jewish elite was not merely scholarly or social; rather, it had reached a higher and more sensitive level—the level of political relations and mutual influence.

Behind these outward relations, signs can be seen of an unwritten pact or a silent agreement whose effects and consequences later became apparent in the history of early Islam.

In response to the Jews’ affection, Umar ibn al-Khattab makes a statement whose surface meaning is a denial of affection, but which, upon closer examination, proves to be an affirmation of it. He says: “My friendship toward you is not because of your affection for me.” This statement clearly shows that Umar loved the Jews; yet not out of respect or reciprocal affection, but for reasons far deeper and more fundamental.

Umar loved the Jews because they were his fountainhead of knowledge and learning. The Jews were regarded as skilled teachers and masters for him—masters who taught him knowledge, thought, social insight, and perhaps political and military strategies. Umar visited Jewish schools and studied there, and this connection was not limited merely to learning; rather, it had led to his acceptance of Jewish intellectual authority.

In this relationship, Umar’s attitude toward the Jews was like that which a student normally has toward his teachers: unquestioning acceptance, complete trust in their teachings, and deep obedience. Whatever the Jews considered right, Umar also regarded as correct, and whatever the Jews rejected, Umar likewise avoided. This went beyond ordinary social affection; it was a deep intellectual bond and a commitment of thought to the Jewish current of Medina.

More plainly, Umar ibn al-Khattab had accepted the Jews of Medina’s scholarly, cultural, and even political authority—an authority rooted in their direct instruction of him and one whose effects later became clearly evident in major events of Islamic history.

In one of Umar ibn al-Khattab’s explicit admissions, he says without any concealment: “I ask you, but not because I have doubts about my religion.” On the surface, this statement is an attempt to justify his scholarly exchanges with the Jews; yet with a little reflection, one can discern the depth of Umar’s intellectual dependence on Jewish scholarly centers.

Umar’s recourse to the Jews was neither occasional nor born of childish curiosity. He frequented Jewish schools continuously, persistently, insistently, and purposefully, repeatedly asking Jewish scholars questions. These visits clearly show that Umar ibn al-Khattab had accepted Judaism as a scholarly and religious authority—an authority against which Islam had issued severe warnings at that time, and regarding whose scholarly betrayal verses had even been revealed in criticism.

If someone becomes afflicted with doubt and uncertainty in his religion, should he turn to the Jews? Both reason and religious law reject such recourse, for the very first verses revealed in Medina explicitly referred to the Jews’ scholarly betrayal. Nevertheless, through his conduct Umar implicitly affirms the legitimacy of such consultations.

Umar’s claim that he did not ask questions because of doubt about his religion is not very credible, since in various episodes, such as the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, he explicitly spoke of his own doubt concerning the religion. Therefore, Umar’s justification cannot be genuine.

Most importantly, the subject of Umar’s questions is explicitly specified: religion. This means that Umar would directly consult Jews regarding his religious matters. Thus, the religion to which Umar adhered was not one taken from the pure fountain of revelation; rather, it was a creed in which Jewish teachings played the role of its principal filter and purifier.

In other words, Umar learned and propagated a religion that was profoundly influenced by his Jewish teachers. This bitter truth needs no further elaboration; read the detailed account from this brief statement itself!

In a statement, Umar ibn al-Khattab attempts to exonerate himself from the accusation of doubting the religion, saying that his questions to Jews were not prompted by doubt but by other reasons. But to what extent is this claim acceptable?

The rational principle is clear: “An admission against oneself is evidence, but an admission in one’s own favor is worthless and inadmissible.” Here, Umar ibn al-Khattab speaks in self-defense; yet any reasonable person, with slight reflection on the evidence of his conduct, can discern the truth. How can one accept that someone whose intellectual life was intertwined with Jews, whose heartfelt affection for them was apparent, who continually turned to Jewish schools for his religious questions, who altered his route toward Jewish scholarly centers, who became the most beloved of the Prophet’s Companions among Jews and the object of their political ambition, could nevertheless have had no doubt at all in his religion?

Umar ibn al-Khattab’s dealings with Jews were not superficial or temporary, but deep, extensive, and continuous. He was someone in whom Jews had such confidence that they openly told him, “We have ambitions concerning you.” This degree of trust and ambition indicates a bond beyond an ordinary relationship: a bond formed not on the basis of hostility, but on empathy, intellectual closeness, and perhaps shared objectives.

Can this weak defense of Umar be accepted by ears that seek the truth? Or can only ears that have lost the ability to distinguish truth from falsehood be deceived by this justification?

The reality is that Umar ibn al-Khattab, as the evidence indicates, not only undoubtedly turned to the Jews, but in his intellectual and even political life had taken on a deep coloration from Jewish teachings—a truth that every truth-seeking ear will hear clearly.

Umar ibn al-Khattab says in a statement that the reason for his turning to the Jews was to increase his insight regarding the Prophet of Islam. Yet this statement presents a deeper picture of his scholarly and intellectual relationship with the Jews; a picture showing that he regarded the Jews as a reliable source for understanding prophethood.

It is clear that Umar accepted the sayings and teachings of the Jews with open eyes and without question. The insight regarding the Prophet that he claims was not derived from the Qur’an or the Prophet’s direct guidance; rather, it had been formed in the mirror of Jewish thought. This is itself a major admission of the role of Jewish influence in shaping his view of Islam.

On the other hand, this statement of Umar was a cover for broader intercourse and continual scholarly disputation with the Jews. Was the Qur’an not sufficient for guidance and insight? Could the Prophet’s direct presence and the reception of divine revelation not replace questioning the Jews? The answer is clear: when one has an intellectual attachment to the Jews and their teachings, even divine speech is viewed under their influence.

It is not surprising that the other Companions of the Prophet never turned to the Jews; rather, it was these Jews who would come to Imam Ali, the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, to resolve their scholarly and intellectual problems. But Umar took the opposite path, and this “Jewish insight” probably caused him to suffer a humiliating defeat before the Jews in the Battle of Khaybar. Perhaps it was a deliberate defeat! Can one draw a sword against one’s own teachers?

The traces of this Jewish insight remained prominent throughout Umar’s caliphate. The entry of Kaʿb al-Ahbar—who became one of the most important Jewish figures at court—into the caliphal apparatus is presented as evidence for this claim and as an indication of the complete influence of Jewish teachings. This occurred while Umar, according to the text, recklessly burned Prophetic narrations and the interpretations of the Messenger of Allah, forbade the transmission of hadith and questions about Qur’anic verses, and repeatedly emphasized and threatened his associates that not even a single narration should be transmitted from the Messenger of Allah. This distinguished student of the Jews personally introduced Isra’iliyyat into the sources, to the point that, in a book such as Tafsir al-Tabari, some of the most important sources are individuals associated with Judaism.

In this historical perspective, Umar’s successors—especially Uthman—continued the same tradition, a tradition embodied in accepting Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf as the arbiter for appointing the caliph. Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf pledged allegiance to Uthman on the condition that he govern according to Umar’s tradition—a tradition that, according to the text, was deeply Jewish in character.

Understanding this course of developments leads us to a more precise understanding of Umar ibn al-Khattab’s momentous decisions, including the attack on Iran, in which the Jews, by supporting and advising Umar, were pursuing their own political and economic interests. Kaʿb al-Ahbar, the prominent adviser of this period, again played the same guiding Jewish role within Umar’s administration.

The conclusion is that the intellectual influence and Jewish insight attributed to Umar ibn al-Khattab were not merely a superficial connection; rather, they became a foundation for many political, scholarly, and cultural developments in early Islam.

The statement, “He was seeking the traces of the Prophet in Jewish books,” requires a more precise interpretation, for it conveys a meaning deeper than merely searching through earlier books. What is meant by “the traces of the Prophet”? Was ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb’s aim to look for references to the Prophet of Islam in Jewish books?

The Noble Qur’an explicitly states that the Jews concealed many of the truths found in their own books concerning the Prophet of Islam. In Sūrat al-Baqarah, verses 41 to 90, it is stated that Jewish scholars, despite possessing knowledge of the Prophet, denied him and even prevented the general body of Jews from accepting Islam. Jewish scholars concealed the truth or mixed it with falsehood, to the point that the Qur’an says they wrote a book with their own hands and sold it as the Book of God. How could this concealment of the truth concerning the Prophet have become apparent to ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb? Especially if we consider that these secrets were not disclosed even to the Jews closest to them, and that Jewish scholars avoided recounting them. Was ʿUmar somehow exceptional, such that the Jews did not conceal these matters from him? Or is this claim—that I was seeking traces which the Jews concealed—merely an artful display?

In fact, searching for traces of the Prophet in Jewish books would not naturally require numerous journeys and prolonged negotiations. If traces of the Prophet truly existed in Jewish books, ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb should have learned of them directly from the Jews themselves from the outset. Yet there is no report of ʿUmar disputing or debating with the Jews on the basis of their own books, even though he would have had to rely on the teachings of Jewish scripture to reach the traces of the Prophet.

Here, critical historiography must be considered. Although ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb could have become acquainted with the available sources concerning the Prophet, what we actually see is an explicit indication that he was seeking a deeper understanding of the Prophet and the Prophet’s Household, so that he could prepare himself for greater missions. These missions may have involved particular political and religious interactions with the Jews, especially with the aim of strengthening his position within Muslim society.

Such interaction with the Jews, aimed at gaining a deeper knowledge of the Prophet of Islam and a more precise analysis of the Prophet’s military and political methods, could have led to strategies ultimately employed by ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb. In other words, “seeking the traces of the Prophet” was not merely a simple scholarly inquiry; rather, it was part of a broader plan designed and managed in cooperation with the Jews.

This analysis is also documented in the Qur’an and in certain historical reports. This is especially evident when we know that the tribe of Banū Aslam, regarded as one of the tribes closest to the Jews, played a role in major events such as the Saqīfah and was specifically involved in ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb’s consolidation of Abū Bakr’s caliphate. These ties and strategic actions become more apparent. ʿUmar says: “When the tribe of Banū Aslam entered Medina, I became certain of victory.”

Ultimately, the search for “the آثار of the Prophet” in Jewish books may point to a more complex and orchestrated initiative by ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, designed in cooperation with Jews—especially in political and religious spheres—to achieve shared objectives.

In the continuation of this report, the Jews ask ʿUmar which of the angels accompanies the Prophet. ʿUmar replies that it is Gabriel. The Jews say that Gabriel is their enemy because he conveys their secrets to the Prophet. The discussion continues until ʿUmar says: Whoever is an enemy of Gabriel is an enemy of Michael, and whoever is an enemy of Michael is an enemy of Gabriel. Then ʿUmar goes to the Prophet and finds that, before he arrived, the following verse had been revealed: «قُلْ مَن كَانَ عَدُوًّا لِّجِبْرِيلَ فَإِنَّهُ نَزَّلَهُ عَلَىٰ قَلْبِكَ بِإِذْنِ اللَّهِ مُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ وَهُدًى وَبُشْرَىٰ لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ». The Prophet said: «لقد وافقك ربك يا عمر», and ʿUmar said: From that day onward, I became firmer in my religion than a stone.

In this report, it is plainly apparent that the one who related these statements seeks to create doubt and suspicion concerning Gabriel. It is as though Gabriel were acting on his own and conveying matters to the Prophet without God’s command. This view is incorrect, for Gabriel, God’s close angel, never acts without a divine command. The Qur’anic verse, «لا یسبقونه بالقول و هم بامره یعملون», shows that all of Gabriel’s actions are based on God’s will and command. Therefore, if Gabriel discloses something, he does so only by God’s command. Accordingly, those who regard Gabriel as an enemy must in fact be enemies of God Most High, since all of his actions follow the divine will. This is not something the Jews would be incapable of understanding; thus, this narration and ʿUmar’s report resemble an attempt to mislead the audience and divert it from reality.

Umar ibn al-Khattab says that whoever is an enemy of Gabriel is an enemy of Michael. After making this statement, when he went to the Prophet, he realized that Gabriel had descended and revealed the noble verse of Surat al-Baqarah—the very surah that Umar was unable to learn! The Prophet also said: “Your Lord agreed with you.” Yet, apparently, this noble verse has no direct connection with Umar’s words such that it could be considered God’s confirmation of his statement. In fact, the verse does not say that whoever is an enemy of Gabriel will also be an enemy of Michael. There is no correspondence in this verse with Umar’s words concerning enmity toward Gabriel and Michael. This point shows that this report is one instance of falsely attributing something to the Prophet, so that Umar ibn al-Khattab’s close and firm relationship with the Jews may be presented as legitimate, to the extent that even the outcome of these discussions is claimed to have been confirmed by God.

Umar ibn al-Khattab himself says that, in pursuit of greater insight, he turned to the Jews in order to find the truth. Therefore, how can one accept that a Qur’anic verse was revealed in agreement with the statement of someone who did not even have insight regarding the Prophet? And, of course, after studying in the presence of the Jews, he acquired a Jewish insight about the Prophet. Umar ibn al-Khattab also states that after this event he became firmer than stone in the religion of God; this means that before this incident he was not firm in religion, implying that doubt and denial existed within him. But from this date onward, did faith truly become deeply rooted in him? Never. His obstructionism, his flight from battles—especially the Battle of Uhud—and his doubting and questioning the truthfulness of the Prophet’s prophethood at the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah show that he never emerged from the domain of doubt and denial.

The verse «مَن كَانَ عَدُوًّا لِّجِبْرِيلَ» does not specifically address the Jews. Although some Jews may have been enemies of Gabriel, this enmity cannot be confined to the Jews. This verse and the following verses do not address the Jews specifically, whereas in the preceding verses God directly addresses the Jews. For example, in verse 94 of Surat al-Baqarah, God addresses the Jews, saying: «قُلْ إِنْ كانَتْ لَكُمُ الدَّارُ الْآخِرَةُ عِندَ اللَّهِ خَالِصَةً مِنْ دُونِ النَّاسِ فَتَمَنَّوُّوا الْمَوْتَ إِنْ كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ», in which the pronoun «لَكُمْ» specifically addresses the Jews.

But in the verse concerning Gabriel, the address is not restricted specifically to anyone. The statement is conditional and declares that anyone who is an enemy of Gabriel should know that Gabriel brings down divine messages, by God’s permission, upon the heart of the Prophet.

Enmity toward Gabriel is especially found among those whose plots are thwarted by Gabriel. Therefore, this enmity is not exclusive to the Jews; it includes those who stand against truth and divine messages. In fact, whatever Gabriel brings down from God is glad tidings and guidance for all believers.

Therefore, the verse “مَن كَانَ عَدُوًّا لِّجِبْرِيلَ” states, in general, a particular enmity toward Gabriel for anyone who stands against divine messages, and it by no means addresses only the Jews.

In the Qur’an and Islamic history, Gabriel is the angel charged with conveying divine revelation to the prophets. In this context, enmity toward Gabriel can be a sign of opposition to divine messages and the teachings of the prophets. But what factors cause some people to be specifically hostile toward Gabriel?

One possible reason for enmity toward Gabriel is his exposing the plots and sabotage of those opposed to religion and the Prophet. Gabriel has always uncovered the conspiracies of the hypocrites and neutralized actions undertaken to harm the Muslim community and the Prophet. These disclosures led some enemies of the Prophet—especially the hypocrites—to develop hostility toward Gabriel.

For example, on one particular occasion, Gabriel came to the Prophet’s aid against the obstruction carried out by two of the Prophet’s wives (Aisha and Hafsa) against him, and God informed the Prophet of this plot through revelation. Then, in a verse, God said: “إِن تَظَاهَرَا عَلَيْهِ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ مَوْلاهُ وَ جِبْرِيلُ وَ صَالِحُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَ الْمَلَائِكَةُ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ ظَهِيرٌ” (al-Taḥrīm: 4); this verse shows that Gabriel acted as one of the Prophet’s supporters in this affair and, by defending the Prophet, made his enmity toward them manifest.

Therefore, according to this verse, Gabriel was certainly an enemy of Aisha and Hafsa, the daughters of Abu Bakr and Umar ibn al-Khattab. These plots, which were directed against the Prophet himself, caused Gabriel to be specifically recognized as one of the Prophet’s defenders; consequently, those who take a stance against Gabriel are in fact hostile to divine messages and the religion of Islam.

Ultimately, it may be concluded that hostility toward Gabriel is not confined solely to the Jews; it also includes those who generally resist the truth and divine teachings. This includes hypocrites, certain enemies of the Prophet, and those who directly or indirectly stand against divine guidance.

According to this noble verse, Gabriel is certainly the enemy of Aisha and Hafsa, the daughters of Abu Bakr and Umar. From this, one may infer who, besides the Jews, are enemies of Gabriel like the Jews.

An examination of Umar ibn al-Khattab’s relations with the Jews reveals hidden dimensions of his deceptive conduct, which directly led to Jewish influence over his policies at that time. During the lifetime of the Prophet of Mercy, Umar acquired a particular popularity among the Jews through his interactions with them, such that they placed hopes in him and sought to benefit from him in various circumstances. These close relations with the Jews, especially during his caliphate, created conditions in which Jews obtained positions in important offices of his government, particularly in religious and social affairs. In fact, Umar directly contributed to the introduction of the teachings of “Isra'iliyyat” into Islamic culture, a matter clearly seen in some historical sources. Moreover, some analyses hold that Umar in practice acted more like a Jew presenting himself as a Muslim and, despite his Islamic outward appearance, strengthened the foundations of Jewish influence in Muslim society through certain policies and close relations with the Jews. These matters require more precise and critical examination so that the hidden dimensions of Umar’s policies in his dealings with the Jews and their effects on the Muslim society of that period may become clearer.

From Qatadah, Ikrimah, and al-Suddi: Umar had a piece of land in the upper part of Medina, and his route passed by the Jewish schools. He would sit among them and listen to their words. They would say: “O Umar, we love you and hope for something from you.” Umar said: “I have not come so that you may love me or so that I may seek anything from you. I have no doubt concerning my religion; rather, I come to you so that my knowledge concerning Muhammad (the Messenger of Allah) may increase and that I may see his traces in your Book.”

Tafsir al-Tha‘labi

Al-Tafsir al-Kabir, Fakhr al-Razi

Al-Kashshaf, al-Zamakhshari

Umar ibn al-Khattab lived in the Jewish quarter. Qatadah, Ikrimah, and al-Suddi narrated that Umar had a piece of land in the upper part of Medina and that his route passed by the Jewish schools. Umar would sit among them, listen to their words, and converse with them. They had said to him: “O Umar, we love you and hope for something from you, because whenever you pass by here, you do not harm us, whereas the Muslims harm us.” Umar had replied: “By Allah, I do not love you because of your affection, and I have no doubt concerning the religion I hold. I come to you so that I may learn more about Muhammad (may Allah bless him and his family) and observe his traces in your Book.”

He had doubted the prophethood even during the event of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah.

ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb said: “By God, I had not doubted since embracing Islam except on that day. So I came to the Prophet and said: ‘Are you not truly the Messenger of God?’ He said: ‘Yes.’ I said: ‘Are we not upon the truth and our enemy upon falsehood?’ He said: ‘Yes.’ I said: ‘Then why should we accept humiliation in our religion?’ He said: ‘I am the Messenger of God; I do not disobey my Lord, and He is my helper …’

ʿUmar said: “By God! Since I embraced Islam, I had never doubted the prophethood except today.” Then he came to the Prophet and said: “O Messenger of God! Are you not the Prophet of God?” The Prophet said: “Yes, I am.” ʿUmar said: “Are we not upon the truth and our enemies upon falsehood?” The Prophet said: “Yes, that is so.” ʿUmar said: “Then why should we show abasement and humiliation in our religion?” The Prophet said: “I am the Prophet of God; I will never disobey His commands, and He is my helper.”

Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān — authenticated as a sound hadith.

Al-Albānī’s Al-Taʿlīqāt al-Ḥisān on Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān: sound.

Musannaf of ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī.

Al-Bukhārī also transmitted the روایت, but he again altered it.

Sahih al-Bukhari

He even acknowledged it later.

Al-Waqidi, al-Maghazi

That is, if he had been able to, he would have opposed the Prophet.

Note:

Umar lived in the area of the Jews; therefore, it is possible that he was a spy and conveyed news of the Prophet to them.

The Jews expressed their affection for him; that is, they had seen so much forbearance and friendship from Umar that they loved him.

And he sought knowledge from the Jews in order to ascertain the truth of the Messenger of Allah’s claim. This means that the knowledge, miracles, graces, and Qur’an of the Messenger of God were not sufficient for him; and just as he had previously doubted the prophethood, this time too he was doubtful. Therefore, according to the Qur’anic verse, he was not a believer: “The believers are only those who have believed in Allah and His Messenger and then doubt not, and strive with their wealth and their lives in the cause of Allah. It is those who are the truthful” (15, al-Hujurat). That is, Umar is not truthful.

Umar ibn al-Khattab also stated in a conversation with the Messenger of God (may Allah bless him and his family): “Since my conversion to Islam, I have never doubted except on the day of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. That day I went to the Prophet and asked: Are you the Messenger of God? The Prophet said: Yes. I said: Are we not upon the truth and our enemies upon falsehood? The Prophet said: Yes. I said: Then why do we show humiliation in our religion? The Prophet said: I am the Messenger of God, and I will not disobey His commands.”

In other narrations from Ibn Abbas and Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, it is reported that Umar, at that time, had seriously doubted the prophethood of the Prophet and had said that if one hundred people agreed with him, he would leave the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah.

Overall, because Umar lived in the Jewish quarter and maintained contact with its inhabitants, he obtained information about the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), and at times even consulted Jews to verify the validity of his prophethood. These behaviors indicate doubt and uncertainty in his faith. Verse 15 of Surah al-Hujurat states that believers are those who have believed in God and His Messenger and have never doubted their faith, whereas Umar, on many occasions, had doubts about the prophethood of the Prophet. Therefore, according to the verses of the Quran, Umar cannot be a truthful believer.