In its present form, the narrative seems to imply that: It was due to the Israelites that meat started to decay; and It was due to Eve that a woman may betray her husband. Obviously, in its present form, both these points seem to be quite incomprehensible. As far as the first point is concerned, it is obvious that the rotting of meat is a biological phenomenon, which has nothing to do with the Israelites. While as far as the second point is concerned, it clearly implies that Eve was the first person to betray her husband. This, in all probability, refers to Adam's (pbuh) slip in eating from the prohibited tree [1] . The obvious implication is that Eve played a major role in prompting Adam to eat from the tree and, thereby, disobey his Lord. This implication is clearly against the Qur'an. The Qur'an clearly says: But Satan lured them both [into disobeying their Lord] and brought about their banishment from the blessings they were both in. ( Al-Baqarah 2: 36) It further says: Thus did he [i.e. satan] seduce them both! ( Al-Aa`raaf 7: 22) The Qur'an, as should be clear from the above allusions, clearly puts the blame on satan, not on Eve. Thus, it seems that in its present form, a part of the narrative is against the confirmed human knowledge, while the other part is against the Qur'an. In view of this fact, it would only be prudent to put a question-mark on the accuracy of the ascription of this narrative to the Prophet (pbuh), till such time as a satisfactory explanation be given for the two points mentioned in it. As I have explained in a few of my earlier responses, the honesty and the reliability of the narrators and an unbroken chain of narration are indeed essential, but not sufficient, requirements in safely ascribing a narrative to the Prophet (pbuh). There are a few other requirements too. For instance, one such requirement is that the narration so reported should not be against the Qur'an or the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh). Another one of these requirements is that the narration should not be against any established and acknowledged scientific or historical facts [2] . Keeping these complementary conditions in ascribing a narration to the Prophet (pbuh) in perspective, it seems that the ascription of the narrative at hand to the Prophet (pbuh) - even though Bukhari [3] , Muslim [4] , and Ahmad ibn Hanbal [5] have reported it -- because of the stated problems in its text, is highly questionable. August 19, 2000 [1] As the reference could only be to something which is generally known. Had the reference been to some other incident, it should then have been explained in more detail. [2] These conditions seem necessary, merely on the basis of our everyday experience that the most honest, the most intelligent and the most reliable of persons can err in comprehending a statement or an incident as well as in narrating it to others.The application of these conditions in accepting a narrative to be correctly ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) reflects our confidence in the fact that the Prophet (pbuh) cannot say or do anything that is against the Qur'an, his Sunnah or anything which is contrary to an established fact. Thus, in all such cases where a narrative reports something contrary to the Qur'an, the Sunnah or an established and acknowledged fact, it would be presumed that any one or more persons present in the chain of narrators has, intentionally or unintentionally, incorrectly ascribed the narrated words to the Prophet (pbuh). This mistake may occur merely by omission and oversight of a few words. For instance, it may not be a very farfetched possibility that one of the narrators may have missed the opening words of this narration. The Prophet (pbuh) may actually have started with the words: "Some people incorrectly believe that...". [3] Kitaab Ahaadeeth al-Anbiyaa . [4] Kitaab al-Ridhaa` . [5] Reported by Abu Hurairah (ra), with a nominal addition of the words "and food would not rot" after the words: "meat would not decay". It should however remain clear that this narrative has been reported by all the three books on the authority of Abu Hurairah (ra) alone. Answer published by Moiz Amjad