A
CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF
THE BUHAIRA
MONK EVENT
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. ýImam 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)
ýýof 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 Aliý: 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. ý
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.