This is a Readers Article. The views, opinions and understanding expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect our own understanding on the issue. Any visitor, with a membership may write an article which would be posted on these pages.
The Prophet of Islam never claimed his teachings to be stemming from his own ‘intellectual
world’. The Qur’an rather asserts about him:
Even so We have revealed to thee a Spirit of Our
bidding. Thou knewest not what the Book was, nor belief; but We made it a
light, whereby We guide whom We will of Our servants. And thou, surely thou
shall guide unto a straight path — the path of God, to whom belongs
whatsoever is in the heavens, and whatsoever is in the earth. Surely
unto God all things come home. 1
As regards the charge that his teachings ‘stemmed mostly from Judaism
and Christianity’, it is to be noted that the source of all true religions is
one and the same; i.e. the divine revelation; and there is also a unity of
purpose in all the divine religions; i.e. the guidance of mankind. The Prophet
of Islam never claimed that ISLAM was a novel or a unique religion. This fact
has been catagorically made clear in the Qur’an:
Say: I am not an innovation among the Messengers, and I know
not what shall be done with me or with you. I only follow what is revealed to
me; I am only a clear warner. 2
As to the resemblance of some aspects of Islam and the Biblical
religions (Judaism and Christianity), its reason is the unity of the source of
all the three religions. There is no possibility of the Prophet of Islam having
extorted and adopted his teachings from the Biblical sources. Some of the
Orientalists have also admitted this fact. Prof. Montgomery Watt observes:
(…). The possibility of his having read the Bible or other Jewish
or Christian books may be ruled out. [p.39] (….); and it is unlikely that he
had ever read any other books. 3
Marshall G. S. Hodgson has also expressed the same views:
Muhammad’s standard for prophecy was, in principle, the experience
and action of the old Hebrew prophets. But he knew nothing of them directly.
His own experience was evidently very personal. 4
Islam is a code of life revealed by God through his Messengers for providing
guidance to the whole of the mankind through the ages; and its basic teachings
remained common in spirit and purpose all along. It would have been ridiculous
if its fundamental teachings, which be not subject to time and space, had been
different. God is One; He is the Creator and Sustainer of every being; there is
no peer or partner to Him; Resurrection is unavoidable; murder, adultery,
telling a lie, stealing, cruelty, etc. are sins and liable to punishment; mercy,
truth, alms-giving, service to all beings and social welfare are virtues: it had
been true hundreds of thousands of years back; it is true today; and it will
remain true throughout the centuries and millennia in future. How can, then, the
teachings of one Prophet be different from the other; be there a gap of hundreds
and thousands of years between their preachings? Similar is the case of
historical events; except when there be some adulteration in them through some
irresponsible or careless committal to writing or faulty redactions (editing).
This fact should best be known, and be made known to all others, by, of all
people, the learned Orientalists. The Qur’an explains:
He has laid down for you the (same) way of life and belief which He
commanded to Noah, and which We have enjoined on you, and which We had
bequeathed to Abraham, Moses and Jesus, so that they should maintain the order
and not be divided among themselves. Heavy is to idolators what you invite
them to. God chooses whom He please for Himself, and guides to Himself
whoever turns to Him. 5
The Prophet of Islam was an unlettered person. He had no contact with some
authority of religious knowledge, nor had he any opportunity of receiving a
regular schooling or education from some religious scholar. There is a tradition
that the Prophet, at the age of nine or twelve, travelled to Syria, with his
guardian uncle, Abu Talib, in a trading caravan. The caravan broke journey at
Busra. A monk, Buhaira or Baheera by name, who lived in a monastery there,
recognized him to be the Apostle of the Lord of the Worlds. When asked how he
came to know about his imminent apostleship, he told that every tree and rock
prostrated itself before him; and they don’t do so but for an Apostle. At his
advice, Abu Talib sent him back to Makkah with Abu Bakr and Bilal. Most of the
renowned Orientalists have made every effort to exploit this tradition and to
assert that the prophet of Islam conceived the idea of apostleship and got most
of its training and education from this Monk. They let aside all their
scholarship, analytic study, objectivity and their high standard of research for
which they are conspicuously renowned and appreciated the world over; and make a
mountain out of a molehill.
The tradition has been reported through different chains of reporters (ISNAD),
and in different collections. The strongest channel is that of Tirmizi. All the
other stories are so obviously fabricated ones that none of the regular
compilers of the traditions of the Prophet of Islam counted them worth a
mention. The Chain of the reporters in Tirmizi is:
Tirmizi reports it from Fadl Bin Sahl, who reports it from Abd Al-Rahman
Bin Ghazwan, — from Yunus Bin Abi Ishaq, — from Abi Bakr Bin Abi Musa, from
his father [Abu Musa Ash’ari]. He said: “Set out Abu Talib for Syria …
etc. 6
Allamah Shibli N’umani, and later on his learned student Allamah S. Suleman
Nadvi, made some analytic observations on the Buhaira Event in their esteemed (7
Volume) Urdu work on the life of the Prophet, ‘Seerat Al-Nabi’. A gist of their
observations from Volume I (Shibli’s) and Volume III (Suleman Nadvi’s) is given
hereunder:
Although one of the reporters, Abd Al-Rahman Bin Ghazwan, has been
approved by some of the critics of Asma Al-Rijal (the science of judging the
reliability of the reporters of the traditions); yet others have leveled
charges against him. Allamah Zahabi, in his “Mizan Al-I’tidal”,
says: “Abd-al-Rahman relates Munkar (unacceptable) traditions; the most
unacceptable of which is the tradition regarding the account of Buhaira.”
The concocted tradition regarding Mamaaleek was also reported by him. Hakim
says: “He reported an unacceptable tradition from Imam Laith.” Ibn
Hibban writes: “He committed mistakes.” This Abd-al-Rahman has
reported it from Yunus Bin Ishaq. Although some of critics have approved this
Yunus, yet generally he is considered to be weak and unreliable. Yahya says:
He was very careless. Shu’ba has accused him of deceit. Imam Ahmad has
termed his reporting, in general, as disturbed and worthless. This Yunus
reported it from Abu Bakr who reported it from his father, Abu Musa Asha’ri;
but it is not certain that he ever heard some tradition from his father.
Imam Ahmad Ibn Hunbal has totally rejcted his hearing from his father.
That’s why Ibn S’ad has declared him as weak. Thus the tradition can safely be
termed as Munqata’ (Whose chain of reporters is cut off). 7
After giving a brief account of the chain of reporters from Seerat Al-Nabi,
a fairly detailed study of the reporters is undertaken hereunder. First of all
some words are given about the first reporter, Abu Musa Asha’ri. He
was one of the companions of the Prophet of Islam. Ibn Al-Aseer asserts about
him:
A group of Scholars in Genealogy and Biography Asserts that Abu Musa
came to Makkah, entered into alliance with Saeed Bin Al-As
and turned back to the area of his tribe. Then [after not less than ten to
fifteen years] he came with his brethren and his journey coincided with
the return of the refugees from Ethiopia at the time of the conquest of
Khyber. It is also said that their ship was driven by the wind to the land of
Negroes, where they stayed for some time. Then they joined the Refugees in
their return to Madinah from Ethiopia8.
Abu Musa died between 42-53 A.H., at the age of 63. 9
Hafiz Shams Al-Din Muhammad Bin Ahmad Bin Usman Al-Zahabi has
collected fairly detailed information about him. He says:
It is reported that Aba Musa died in the year 42 [A. H.]. Abu Ahmad
Al-Hakim reports: ‘He died in the year 42; and it is also said in 43.’ Abu N’aeem,
Abu Bakr Bin Abi Shaibah, Ibn Numair and Q’anab Bin Al-Muharrar reported that
he died in the year 44 [A. H.]. So far as Al-Waqidi is concerned, he says: ‘He
died in the year 52’ ; and Al-Mada’ini says: ‘in the year 53 after Al-Mugheerah.’
And I had mentioned in Tabaqat Al-Qurra: ‘True it is that Abu Musa died in Ze
Al-Hijjah in the year 44.’ 10
Similar data have been recorded about him by the following authorities:
It is thus clear from the above that:
- Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari died at the age of 63.
- He died between the year 42-53 A. H., and most probably in 44, as stated
above by Zahabi.
- If he died in 42 A.H., he was born when the Prophet was 32, i.e. 20 to
23 years after the incident of Buhaira.
- If he died in 53 A.H., he might have been born when the Prophet was 34,
i.e. 31 to 34 years after the incident of Buhaira.
- In no case Abu Musa can be treated as an eye-witness to the incident
which took place not less than 20-34 year prior to his coming into
existence; and 30-40 years before his pubescence, when he could have
been expected to be able to understand and remember such event even to a
very small degree.
Even if Abu Musa be not an eye-witness, his report could have been
acceptable, had he stated that either he had heard it from the Prophet himself,
or from some of the Prophet’s companions, who should have heard it from the
Prophet himself. In the absence of the statement of such connecting link, the
chain of the reporters is to be considered as disconnected, and such tradition
is termed as ‘Mursal’, which is a sort of weakness for the tradition. But even
if this flaw be ignored, the chain has other serious shortcomings, which render
it quite unacceptable.
Abu Bakr reports the tradition from his father, Abu Musa Ash’ari. It is
genuinely questionable if he ever heard some tradition from his father. He died
in the year 106 A.H.13
whereas his father Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari died [at the age of 63]14
in A.H. 42: as has been reported by Imam Shams Al-Din Al-Zahabi, which is
reproduced here: ‘Ibn S’ad reports from Al-Haisam Bin Adi: He died in the year
forty two [A. H.] or later.’15
It means that he lived for 64 years or so after the death of his father and
would not have been more than a boy at the death of his father. Imam Ahmad
Ibn Hunbal has catagorically rejected any possibility of it. Ibn S’ad says that
he is considered as feeble and unreliable. Hafiz Yusuf Al-Mizzi
states that it is reported that his name was Amar or Amir. He further states:
He reported the traditions from: Al-Aswad Bin Hilal, Bara Bin Azib,
Jabir Bin Samurah, Abdullah Bin Abbas, Ali Bin Abi Talib , and, what had been
said, which is a misconception, [emphasis added] from his father, Abi Musa Al-Ash’ari.16
From Abu Bakr the tradition has been reported to Yunus Bin Ishaq. As already
stated: he is feeble, unreliable, careless, and even a cheat. Abu Hakim asserts
that he is often baffled and hallucinated about his reports. Although some of
the critics have tolerated or even approved him, yet most of them consider him
unreliable. Hafiz Mizzi has collected fairly detailed information about him. It
would be pertinent to study some of the remarks reproduced by him:
Salih Bin Ahmad Bin Hanbal reports from Ali Bin Al-Madyani that he
was listening to Yahya. When Yunus Bin Ishaq was mentioned there, he said: ‘He
had negligence and carelessness; and it was his natural and innate
characteristic.’ Bundar quotes from Salm Bin Qutaibah: ‘I came from Kufah. Sh’ubah
asked me whom I had seen there. I said I saw such and such persons there; and
I also met with Yunus Bin Abi Ishaq. He asked what [Hadith] he related to you.
I narrated [whatever I had heard]. He kept silent for a while. I told
him that he said, “Bakr Bin Ma’iz narrated to me.” Sh’ubah observed,
“Didn’t he say to you that Abd Allah Bin Mas’ud had narrated to
him?” [which was obviously impossible due to the gap of time in both of
them. It means that Shu’abah treats him as a fabricator.]. Abu Bakr Al-Athram
says: “I heard Aba Abd Allah. When [the name of] Yunus Bin Abi
Ishaq was mentioned, he termed his reporting from his father as
unreliable.” Abu Talib told Ahmad Bin Hanbal as saying that in
Yunus Bin Ishaq’s Hadith there were some additions on the reports of the
people. His son Israel heard and noted down from Abi Ishaq; but there are no
such additions in it as Yunus Adds. Abd Allah Bin Ahmad Bin Hanbal said,
” I asked my father about Yunus Bin Abi Ishaq; he said that his reports
are disturbed and confused. (…). He is such and such.” Abu Hatim said
that he was truthful but his hadiths cannot be quoted as authentic or offered
as a proof for something. Imam Nasai tolerated him by saying that there is no
harm In him. (…). He died in 159 or 152 or 158; the first one is more
correct.17
The next RAVI (reporter) Abd-Al-Rahman Bin Ghazwan — although most
of the learned critics have declared him a strong, reliable or acceptable
reporter — is also not without a blame. Imam Mizzi observes as follows:
Ibn Hibban has reported about him: “He used to commit mistakes.
His report from Al-Lais—from Malik—from Al-Zuhri—from Urwah—from
Ayeshah about the story of Al-Mamaleek disturbs and troubles the ‘heart’
[mind]. Muhammad Ibn Jareer Al-Tabari says that he died in the year 207 [A.
H.].18
Now there remains only Fazl Bin Sahl Bin Ibraheem Al-A’araj. He was a strong
Ravi; but there are also some reservations about him. Khateeb Baghdadi asserts:
Reported to me Ahmad Bin Sulaiman Bin Ali Al-Muqriu—Abu
Saeed Ahmad Bin Muhammad Al-Malini—Abd Allah Bin Adi—he said, “I
heard Abdan saying that he heard Aba Dawood Al-Sajistani saying that he did
not [like to] report [some tradition] from Fazl Al-A’araj [the Lame]”. I
asked why. He said [how is it that] no good hadith be escaped from him.
Ibn Adi said that he heard Ahmad Bin Al-Husain Al-Sufi saying that Fazl Bin
Sahl Al-A’araj was one of the foxlike cunning, wily and crafty persons.19
It is to be noted that if only a single reporter be adversely criticized, or
if there be a disconnection in the chain of the reporters, or if the
first reporter be not either a part of the event himself or an eye-witness to
the event, the whole chain of the reporters becomes doubtful and the report or
the hadith renders unreliable. In this hadith, not to say of one, most of the
reporters are, one way or the other, ‘Majrooh’ (attacked, ‘wounded’). Secondly
the chain of reporters is to be considered as disconnected. And finally, the
first reporter is not an eye-witness or the part of the event. It is
strange that in spite of all these defects and with the chain of reporters being
of such a dubious nature, how could a scholarly analyst have even dared to quote
this tradition, not to say of presenting it as an evidence for such an important
theme i.e. the event described in the tradition being the main source of the
Prophet’s religious teachings.
After undertaking the the external study of the Isnad of the tradition, its
text and content is also to be looked into. The text of the tradition is
reproduced below:
Alongwith the Prophet, Abu Talib set out to Syria among some of the
elders of the Quraish. When they approached the monk, they dismounted for a
break journey. The monk came to them, whereas, previously, when they passed by
him, he never came out or took any notice of them. While they were unfastening
their saddle-bags, he passed through them. Coming to the Prophet he caught his
hand and said, “This is the Chief of the Worlds, Messenger of the Lord,
Allah shall appoint him as Mercy for the Worlds.” The elders of Quraish
asked him how he came to know about it. He said, “When you appeared from
the gorge, each and every tree and stone bowed down before him; and they never
prostrate for anyone except a prophet. I also recognize him by means of an
apple-like “Seal of Prophethood”, which is below his shoulder-bones.
Then he came back and got lunch prepared for them. When he brought it for
them, he [the ‘would be’ Prophet boy] was with the herd of camels. The
monk sent for him. The [‘would be’] Prophet came alongwith a cloud
casting shadow on him. When he reached the people he found that they had
already occupied all the shady place under the tree. The Prophet sat, and lo!
the shade of the tree leaned over him. The monk said, “Look here!
the shade of the tree has inclined to him.” He was yet standing with
them, solemnly requesting them not to take him to the territory of the
Byzantines, because no sooner would the Romans see him than they would
recognize him by his traits, and would murder him; when, all of a sudden,
seven persons appeared from Byzantines. He welcomed them and asked the purpose
of their visit. They said, “It has been brought to our knowledge that
this [promised] Prophet is to come out [of his place of residence] in this
month. So, people have been despatched on all sides and we have been sent to
this your route.” The monk said, “Is there anyone behind you which
is superior to you?” They said, they, being the best ones, had been
selected for this side. The monk said, “Have you pondered!
Can anyone prevent the accomplishment of a task that Allah has resolved to
accomplish?” At their reply in negative he urged upon them to pledge
their allegiance to him. They stood with him. Upon his earnest request
people told him that Abu Talib was his guardian. On his persistent insistence
Abu Talib sent him back [to Makkah] with Abu Bakr and Bilal [or it was Abu
Bakr who sent Bilal with him; which does not look to be proper rendering]. The
monk offered oil and cake for their en-route provisions.20
When the text is critically analysed, it reveals serious setbacks. Some of
the observations are given below:
1. Abu Talib had never been a wealthy person. His poverty was so dire
and it struck him to such an extent that he was unable even to support his
own children. Some of his close relatives, who were sympathetic to him,
undertook the up-bringing of some of his sons. Involvement in mercantile
activities and going out in trade caravans could have only been undertaken by
some rich person and Abu Talib could not have dreamed of it. The story of
the tradition is a fabrication; and there is no mention of any trade activity of
Abu Talib any where else. He was a simple perfumer. He is also reported to have
been lame21; and thus
uncapacitated to commit such a long and troublesome journey.
2. If it be true that Buhaira was such a great scholar and manipulator that
he masterminded behind the prophethood of Muhammad, there would have been a lot
of literature on this great benefactor of Christianity in the annals of
Christianity. There would have been complete volumes on his life and works,
whereas whatever has been stated about him, is borrowed from such a third class
tradition of the Islamic literature.
3. Buhaira singled out the ‘would be’ Prophet, and, in the presence of
the elders of the Quraish, said that the boy shall become the “Choicest
Leader of the Worlds, Apostle of the Lord of Worlds and Mercy for the
Worlds”. These elders would have borne witness and would have described
this unusual event to the people of Makkah on their return. It might have become
the talk of the town; and, when something significant happened pertaining to
this ‘would be’ prophet; these elders, and those who might have learned it from
them, would have reffered to this event. When, a few years later, he appeared in
the Baitullah in the early morning, the dispute of the fixing of the ‘Black
Stone’ to be settled through him; people should have shouted: “The Apostle
of the Lord of the Worlds has arrived, the Chief Leader of all the Beings has
come in, the Mercy for the Worlds has appeared. We pleasingly approve him and
will accept his decision.” But the history records that none of them
uttered any of such epithets; they rather cried, “Here comes the Ameen–the
trustworthy–etc.” Then again, when this ‘would be’ Prophet announced his
being formally commissioned for the position, every one would have rushed to
pledge an allegiance to him. It would have been on the record that whosoever
embraced Islam, must have announced that they already knew him to be a prophet
and they had been eagerly waiting for his being commissioned as such.
4. When asked how he came to know that the boy was to be
commissioned as a Prophet, Buhaira answered that he saw all the
trees and rocks bowing down before him. Had it been so, every body coming in
contact with him in Makkah or elsewhere, should have been aware of it. It was an
unusual, uncommon, ultra-natural and extra-ordinary phenomenon and
could not have escaped the notice of the people. It is strange that the caravan
fellows who had been travelling with him for hundreds of miles, failed to take
note of it; and it was only Buhaira who could catch sight of it. It being so,
this sign of the Prophet of Islam is purported to have been recorded in the
Bible. But we do not find any of such a sign for the prophets in the Bible. This
is an ample proof of this tradition being a fabricated one.
5. Had the learned Orientalists, who pick this event as a boon to
show that Muhammad learned and borrowed all the knowledge of his religiuos
teachings from Christianity through this monk, believed that Buhaira event was a
fact and not a fiction, and had they been sincere in their findings, their
attitude towards Islam would have been quite different, whereas their present
negative attitude towards Islam reveals that, as a matter of fact, they do not
believe in the validity of this tradition.
6. Had it been so that the trees and stones bowed down to Muhammad, it could
not have been limited for this journey only. Hundreds of thousands of people
would have already seen it in Makkah and elsewhere. But we do not find even a
single sound tradition recorded about any of such event in some book of Hadith,
which shows that this is a baseless tradition.
It is also to be born in mind that Islam has strictly denounced any prostration
before anyone except Allah. The Quran Asserts:
Bow not yourselves to the sun and moon, but bow yourselves to God
who created them, if Him you serve.22
(…), and the stars and the trees bow themselves; and heaven—He raised
it up, and set the balance.23
And they serve, apart from God, what neither profits them nor hurts them;
(…)But when they are told, ‘Bow yourselves to the All-merciful,’ they say, ‘And
what is the All-merciful?’24
The Prophet also prohibited from prostrating before anyone except Allah. It
had also been prohibited in the bible:
You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of
anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is
in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them;
for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate
me.(…).25
It can thus be appreciated that the prostration before the prophet is not
permissible in any case.
7. As to the “Seal of Prophethood”, there seems to be no clear
account of it in the Bible. Had there been any mention of this sign for
the Prophet of Islam in the Bible; and had this ‘Seal’ physically existed there
on the back of the Prophet, as verified by the monk according to the tradition,
there should have, again, been no justification for the abstention of any
sincere scholars or the elders of the Quraish from appreciating the
genuineness of the claim of the Prophet of Islam for being the apostle of Allah
and, as a result, from accepting his religion as true. Although there was a
gland-like blackish growth on the upper back (beneath the shoulder bones)
of the Prophet of Islam, yet he never claimed of its being a sign
for his apostleship. Had it someting to do with a sign of his apostleship, the
Prophet would have insistently offered it as such; the absence of which shows
its irrelevance with any ultra-natural miraculous sign. It thus clearly
establishes the absurdity of the so-called tradition.
8. Had this event not been a fabrication of a credulous reporter,
some foolish friend or a cunning enemy of Islam; and had it been a genuine
tradition; the Prophet of Islam would have asserted it as a conspicuous sign for
his prophethood; and it would have been difficult for an unbeliever of Muhammad’s
time to reject outright such an obviously tangible sign.
9. The same above mentioned observations are pertinently
applicable to the shadowing of the cloud for the Prophet of Islam.
10. The same observations are fully applicable to the inclination of the tree
to extend its shade for the Prophet.
11. The monk urges them not to take the boy to the Byzantine territory,
because, seeing the boy, they will recognize him by his signs and will put him
to death. It means that the signs of this ‘would be’ Prophet were so
conspicuously laid down in the Bible, that he could in no case have escaped the
notice of the Roman elders. Do the learned Orientalists agree with the
monk’s observations? And if it be so, how far do they find themselves prepared
to surrender to the truth? Do these scholars believe that the signs in favour of
the Prophet of Islam are really so plainly described in the Bible that only at
the sight of him, and that too in his early age, a scholar of the Bible could
have, of certain, recognized him to be the Prophet; as the monk thinks?
12. As regards the assertion of the group of seven elders from Byzantines
that the Prophet is out of his station during this month, one may ask about the
source of their information. As far as the Bible is concerned, there is nothing
to be found in it of this sort. It is strange that the learned Orientalists
choose to build their castle on the ground of such a fabrication which itself
has got not a single leg to stand upon; and, that’s why it is bound to collapse
by a single stroke of an objective critical appraisal.
13. Had the event been true, the elders of Quraish and especially Abu Talib
would not have refrained from embracing Islam as soon as the Prophet declared
his commisioning for the office.
14. Had there been any truth in the story, the Islamic literature would
have been full of the description of various aspects of the life of this monk.
But he has no where been mentioned in whole of the contemporary Islamic
writings.
15. The last episode of the tradition is that at the insistence of the monk,
Abu Talib sent the boy back with Abu Bakr and Bilal. It is a clear proof of the
story being a blatant lie. Abu Bakr was two to three years younger than the
Prophet. If the ‘would be Prophet’ was 9 at that time, Abu Bakr would have been
only 6; and had the ‘would be Prophet’ been 12, Abu Bakr would have been 9.
There is a Persian Maxim: “A liar has no memory.” The fabricator of
the story forgot that Abu Bakr was younger than the Prophet, as is recorded in
history. Ibn S’ad reports:
Muhammad Bin Umar told us that he heard from Shuaib Bin Talhah
[reporting] from a son of Abi Bakr Al-Siddique, who said, “Bilal
was of the same age [Arabic word: ‘Tirb’ = of the same life span] as Abu Bakr.”
Muhammad Bin Umar said: “If it is like this, and it is a fact that Abu
Bakr died in the year 13 [A. H.], when he was a ‘boy’ of 63 years; thus,
between this and between that which was reported to us about Bilal, [there is
a gap of] seven years. And Shuaib Bin Talhah knows better about the birth of
Bilal when he says: He was of the same age as Abi Bakr.”26
Hafiz Zahabi, who is a reliable authority on Asma Al-Rijal,
narrated the brief account of the life of Abu Bakr. He says:
Al-Siddique died when eight days were left from the month of
Jumada Al-Akhirah in the year 13 [A. H.] and his age was sixty three years.27
The above reports reveal that there seems to be no sense in sending Abu Bakr
with the ‘would be Prophet’ boy for his protection on his way back home.
16. As to Bilal, he may not have even been born by that time. Ibn S’ad
says:
Bilal Died in Damascus and was buried at Bab Al-Sagheer in the year
20 [A. H.] when he was a ‘boy’ of over sixty; and it is [also] said that he
died in the year 17 or 18 [A. H.].28
Similar information has been provided by Ibn Hajr Al-Asqalani. He Says:
He died in Syria in the year 17 or 18 [A. H.] and it is also
said in 20 [A. H.] when he was above sixty.29
Shamsud Din Zahabi has also noted some of the reports about Bilal. He
says:
Yahya Bin Bukair reports: ‘Bilal died in Damascus of Plague in the
year 18 [A. H.].’ Muhammad Bin Ibraheem Taimi, and Ibn Ishaq, and
Abu Umar Al-Zareer, and a group report: ‘He died in Damascus in the year 20
[A. H.].’30
Hafiz Jamal Al-Din Al-Mizzi has also quoted some authorities about Bilal. He
writes:
Bukhari says that he died in Syria in the reign of Umar. Ahmad Bin
Abd Allah Ibn Al-Barqi reports that he died in the year 20 [A. H.]. Waqidi and
Amar Bin Ali say that he died in Damascus in the year 20 [A. H.] when he was a
‘boy’ of over sixty years.31
From all the above references and general information, it can plainly be
deduced that:
- The Prophet, Abu Bakr and Bilal lived to be the same age, i.e., 63 years.
- The Prophet died in the year 11 A. H.
- Abu Bakr died in the year 13 A. H., 2 years and 3 months later than the
Prophert’s death.
- Bilal died in the year 17 or 18, and, most probably, in 20 A. H., i.e., at
least 6 or 7 years and most probably 9 years after the death of the Prophet.
- So, when the Prophet was 9, either he may not have been born or would have
been a child of 1-3 years.
- When the Prophet was 12, he may have been either 5-7 years or most
probably only 3 years of age.
It can thus be easily concluded that there may have been no chance of Bilal
having been sent with the Prophet from Busra on the journey back home for his
protection. This renders the tradition as totally impossible and obviously a
concocted one. It is now every body’s case that where the grand edifice of the
learned Orientalists, showing that the Prophet of Islam learned all his
religious teachings from the Christian monk, stands.
Abd Al-Rahman Mubarakpuri in his commentary on Sunun Al-Tirmizi, While
Explaining this tradition, observes:
And our Imams have counted it as an illusion in that the age of the
Prophet, at that time, was twelve and Abu Bakr was two [and a quarter] years
younger than the Prophet, whereas Bilal was not even born by that time. In
Meezan Al-‘Itidal it has been noted that of the points that indicate the
absurdity of this tradition is his words ‘and he sent with him Abu Bakr and
Bilal’ whereas Bilal was not born by that time and Abu Bakr was still a boy.
And Zahabi declared this Hadith as weak [and unreliable] due to his words, ‘And
Abu Bakr sent with him Bilal’, whereas Abu Bakr had not yet purchased Bilal
[and as such he had no right to order him for some task]. (…). And
Hafiz Ibn Al-Qayyim said in his Zad Al-M’ad (…); when he became of 12 years,
his uncle set out with him to Syria. and it is also said that his age was only
nine years at that time. (…). And it is obviously wrong; because
Bilal had perhaps not even come into existence. And if he had come into
existence he could not have been with Abu Bakr.32
The tradition says that on the persistent request of the monk, the ‘would be’
Prophet boy was sent back to Makkah under the protection of Abu Bakr and Bilal,
because if he be taken to the Byzantine territory, there was a serious danger to
the life of the boy. The religious scholars of the territory would recognize him
and would put him to death. Abu Bakr and Bilal had not been sent with him for
providing him a company nor was it a sports trip. It is just silly, and quite
unbelievable, that Abu Talib, who is believed to be loving the boy more than his
own children, put him to the sole custody of two youngsters, one of whom was
three years junior to him, and the other (Bilal) was either yet to be born (if
the would be Prophet was 9 at that time), or a suckling baby of nearly two
years. It is difficult to interpret how the learned Orientalists, who are
genuinely acknowledged to be commendable research scholars, and which, no doubt,
they really are, picked up this obviously fabricated tradition and, with their
exquisite and adroit pen, managed to build a complete air castle on its
foudations; except that it was their wishful thinking which threw them to such
an abyss of the world of learnings.
17. At the age of about 25 years, when the Prophet had become a young man, he
again undertakes the journey to Syria with the trading caravan for Khadijah. Had
he known that the land and its people are so inimical to him, and that, at the
very sight of him, they would recognize him by his so conspicuous signs, he
would never have committed that journey. But at the offer of taking the trading
caravan by Khadijah, he showed no reservations; and unflinchingly accepted the
offer. And to the surprise of the scholars nobody put a hand on him. He returned
safe and sound after a very successful business.
18. It is surprisingly noted, that in all this tradition, which
although is a fabrication in itself, yet is stronger than all other narratives
of the so-called event, the monk is, at no time, seen to be addressing the ‘would
be’ Prophet boy directly. One may once more go through the tradition and observe
for himself the strange phenomenon. There has been not a single second person
pronoun used for Muhammad any where at any time in the whole of the report. At
every time the monk uses the third person or a demonstrative pronoun for the
boy. It shows that the monk did not consider that such a boy and from such an
unlettered back ground could have been able even to understand his assertions.
It can also be observed that none of the reporters of the tradition either, had
been so silly as to show the monk addressing the boy directly; because they
could naturally not have conceived the boy of his age worthy of such
conversation.
To end the article, it will be useful to look into some balanced
observations of some learned Orientalists. John B. Noss and David S. Noss write
in their esteemed work “Man’s Religions”:
(…). The venerable tradition that he learned about Judaism and
Christianity during caravan trips to Syria, the first when he was twelve in
the company of Abu Talib and the second when he was twenty-five and in the
employ of Khadija, whom he subsequently married, must be set aside as
untrustworthy.33
Thomas Carlyle observes:
I know not what to make of that ‘Sergius [Bahira or Buhaira,
whatsoever the pronunciation be, has also been called as Sergius], the
Nestorian Monk’ whom Abu Thaleb and he are said to have lodged with; or how
much any monk could have taught one still so young. Probably enough it is
greatly exaggerated, this of Nestorian Monk. Mahomet was only fourteen
[according to the tradition he was either only nine or, at the most, twelve];
had no language but his own: much in Syria must have been a strange
unintelligible whirlpool to him.34
From the perusal of the above analysis it can be concluded that the
claim of those scholars who assert that the Prophet of Islam acquired all his
religious understandings from some Biblical scholar like Buhaira is baseless;
and it is only out of their wishful miscalculations that they articulate such
obviously obscure and improbable story. Objective research demands sustained and
unprepossessed efforts to secure facts with a reasonable, justifiable, and
responsible approach.
1- The Qur’an, XLII:52f (Tr. A. J. Arberry,
The Koran Interpreted, Oxford University Press, World’s Classics Paperback1983,
p.504).
2- The Qur’an, XLVI:9 (Tr. A. J. Arberry,
op.cit., p.522). Some other Trans.
- J. M. Rodwell: “Say: I am no apostle of new doctrines: (The
Koran, London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1943, p.314).
- Richard Bell: Say: “I was no innovation upon the (other)
messengers;” (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1937, p.508).
- M. M. Pickthall: Say: I am no new thing among the messengers (of
Allah), (Institute of Islamic Research, Islamabad, 1988, p.351).
- George Sale: Say, I am not singular among the apostles; (AlKoran
of Mohammed, London & N. Y., Frederick Warne & Co., n.a.,
p.372).
- N. J. Dawood: Say: ‘I am no prodigy among the apostles; …’ (The
Koran, Penguin Books, India, New Delhi, 1994, p.502).
- E. H. Palmer: Say, ‘I am not an innovator among the apostles; …’
(Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Ltd., Delhi, in Sacred Books of
the East Series,1993, p.225).
- M. Sher Ali: Say, ‘I am no new Messenger, …’ (Ahmadiyya Muslim
Foreign Missions Office, Rabwah – West Pakistan,1960, p.504).
- M. H. Shakir: Say: I am not the first of the apostles, (Tahrike Tarsile
Qur’an,Inc., Elmhurst, N. Y.,1988, p.337).
- H. Ghulam Sarwar: Say thou: “I am not a new-fangled one amongst the
messengers …” (National Book Foundation, Islamabad,1973,
p.293).
- Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali & Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan,
Darussalam, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 1996: Say (O Muhammad S. A. W.
S.): “I am not a new thing among the Messengers (of Allah i.e. I
am not the first Messenger) …” (p.634).
- Abdul Majid Daryabadi: Say thou: I am not an innovator among the
apostles, (The Taj Company Ltd.,Karachi, 1971, p.504).
- Ahmad Ali: Say, “I am not a new Messenger to come, …”
(Akrash Publishing, Karachi, 1995, p.431).
- Abdullah Yusuf Ali: Say: “I am no bringer of New-Fangled doctrine
among the messengers, …” (Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Publishers,
Lahore, 1979, p.1305).
- Muhammad Asad: Say: “I am not the first of [God’s] apostles;
…” (The Message of the Qur’an, Dar Al-Andalus, Gibraltar,
1980, p.771).
- Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur’an, (Tr. by Abdul Aziz Kamal),
Islamic Publications (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore,1994, Vol. XII, p.270: Say
to them, “I am not a novel Messenger, …”
3- W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad Prophet and
Statesman, Oxford University Press, printed in Great Britain by
Stephen Austin & Sons Ltd., Hertford, 1961, p.40.
4- Marshall G. S. Hodgson, The Venture of
Islam, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London, Vol. I, Book One,
1974. p.161.
5- The Qur’an, XLII:13 (Tr. by Ahmad Ali,
Akrash Publishing, op.cit., p.413.)
6- Al Imam Ibn Al-Arabi Al-Maliki, ‘Arizah
Al-Ahwazi Sharh Saheeh Al -Tirmizi, Dar Ihya Al-Turas Al-Arabi, Beirut, n.a.,
Vol.XIII, p.106 (H. No. 3629).
7- Shibli N’umani, Seerat Al-Nabi,
Al-Faisal Publishers, Lahore, 1991, Vol. I, p.119f; and
S. Suleman Nadvi, ibid., Vol. III, p.419f.
8- Ibn Al-Aseer, Usud Al-Ghabah, Dar Ihya
Al-Turas Al-Arabi, Beirut, n.a., Vol.III, p.245.
9- Ibn Al-Aseer, Usud Al-Ghabah, op.cit.,
p.246.
10- Shams Al-Din Zahabi, Siyar A’alam Al-Nubala,
Muassasah Al-Risalah, Beirut, 1992, Vol. II, p.397f.
11- Ibn Hajr Al-Asqalani, Al-Isabah fi
Tamyeez Al-Sahabah, Maktabah Al-Riyadh Al-Hadeesah,
1978, Part II, p.359f.
12- Ibn S’ad, Al-Tabaqat Al- Kubra,
Dar Beirut, Beirut, 1957, Vol. IV, p.105-115.
13- Ibn Hajr Al-Asqalani, Taqreeb Al-Tahzeeb,
Dar Nashr Al-Kutub Al-Islamiyyah, Lahore, 1985, p.397.
14- Ibn Al-Aseer, Usud Al-Ghabah, op.cit.,
p.246.
15- Imam Zahabi, Siyar A’alam Al-Nubala,
op.cit., Vol. II, p.382.
16- Hafiz Jamal Al-Din Yusuf Al-Mizzi,Tahzeeb
Al-Kamal Fi Asma Al-Rijal, Muassasah Al-Risalah, Beirut, 1992, Vol. XXXIII,
p.144.
17- Yusuf Al-Mizzi, Tahzeeb Al-Kamal,op.cit.,Vol.
XXXII, p.491f.
18- Yusuf Al-Mizzi,Tahzeeb Al-Kamal,
op.cit., Vol.XVII, p.337f.
19- Al-Hafiz Abu Bakr Ahmad Bin Ali Al-Khateeb
Al-Baghdadi, Tareekh Baghdad, Al-Maktabah Al-Salafiyyah, Madinah, n.a., Vol.
XII, .p365.
20- Tirmizi, Sunun, Kitab Al-Manaqib
(46), Bab:3, Hadith No.3629.
21- Ibn Qutaibah, Al-Ma’arif, p.252. [as
quoted by Habeeb Al-Rahman Kandhalvi, in his Urdu work: Mazhabi Dastanain aur un
ki Haqeeqat (Religious Myths and Their Reality), Anjuman Uswah -I- Hasanah
Pakistan, Karachi-18, 1986, p,110].
22- The Qur’an, XLI:37 (Tr. by A. J.
Arberry, op.cit., p.495).
23- The Qur’an, LV:6 (Tr. by A. J.
Arberry, op.cit., p.557).
24- The Qur’an, XXV:55,60 (Tr. by A. J.
Arberry, op.cit., p.367).
25- The Holy Bible, R. S. V., Catholic
Ed., London, Catholic Truth Society, 1966, Ex. 20:5, p.63.
26- Ibn S’ad, Al-Tabbqat Al-Kubra, op.cit.,
Vol. I, p.238.
27- Shams Al-Din Al-Zahabi, Tazkirah Al-Huffaz,
Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut, n.a., Vol. I, p.5.
28- Ibn Al-Aseer, Usud Al-Ghabah, op.cit.,
Vol. I, p.209.
29- Ibn Hajr Al-Asqalani, Taqreeb
Al-Tahzeeb, op.cit., p.48
30- Shamsud Din Muhammad Bin Ahmad Al-Zahabi,
Tareekh Al-Islam etc., Age of the Guided Caliphs, Ed. Dr. Umar Abd Al-Salam
Tadmury, Dar Al-Kitab Al-Arabi, Beirut, 1987, p.205.
31- Jamal Al-Din Mizzi, Tahzeeb Al-Kamal,
op.cit.,Vol. IV, p.290.
32- Abd Al-Rahman Mubarakpuri, Jam’e
Tirmizi with its Commentary, Tuhfah Al-Ahwazi, Zia Al-Sunnah, Faisalabad,
Pakistan, n.a., Vol. IV, p.296f.
33- John B. Noss/David S. Noss, Man’s
Religion, Macmillan Publishing Company , New York, 1984, p.501.
34- Thomas Carlyle, On Heroes
Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History, London, Oxford University Press, 1065,
p.68.