inform them about him.

The sixth point: If that were so, when the enemy (1) had come to the cave and walked above it, he could have emerged from the cave and alerted them to the Prophet’s presence. The Prophet was alone, with no one to protect him from Abū Bakr or the enemy. Anyone who hates another person and seeks his destruction would seize such an opportunity: in these circumstances, an enemy who gains access to his adversary would certainly capture him. For he was alone in the cave, and the enemy had arrived (2) at the cave, with no one there to defend its occupant. Those enemies held power, dominance and control in Mecca; there was no one in Mecca whose retaliation they feared if they captured him.

Thus, if Abū Bakr had been secretly allied with them, both the motivation to capture the Prophet and the ability to do so would have been fully present. When full ability and full motivation coincide, the act necessarily follows. Since it did not occur, either the motivation or the ability must have been absent. Yet the ability was present, so we know that the motivation was absent and that Abū Bakr had no intention of harming him. Everyone knows this except those whose hearts Allah has blinded.

Some of these fabricators claim that Abū Bakr was pointing his finger toward the enemy, directing them (3) to the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—and that a snake (4) bit him, whereupon he drove it back until it stopped causing him pain. They further claim that the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—said to him, “If you break your pledge, your hand will fail you,” and that he subsequently broke his pledge and died as a result. The falsehood of this account is evident on several grounds, some of which we have already pointed out.