the buhayra monk incident.pdf

7/27/2019 The Buhayra Monk Incident.pdf

1/15

The BuhayraMonk Incident

Abdus Sattar Ghauri

The Prophet of Islam (sws) never claimed that his teachings stemmed from his

own intellectual world. TheQuranexplicitly asserts:

Even so We have revealed to thee a Spirit of Our bidding. Thou knewest notwhat the Book was, nor belief; but We made it a light, whereby We guidewhom We will of Our servants. And thou, surely thou shall guide unto a

straight path -- the path of God, to whom belongs whatsoever is inthe heavens, and whatsoever is in the earth. Surely unto God all thingscome 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: the divine revelation; there is also a unity of purpose in all the divine

religions: providing guidance to mankind. The Prophet of Islam (sws) neverclaimed that Islam was a novel or a unique religion. This fact has beencategorically made clear in the Quran:

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

The resemblance of some aspects of Islam and the Biblical religions (Judaismand Christianity) is due to the unity of source of all the three religions. There is no

possibility of the Prophet of Islam (sws) having extorted and adopted his teachingsfrom 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 Christianbooks 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:

Muhammads 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 providingguidance to the whole of mankind through the ages and its basic teachings have

remained common in spirit and purpose all along. It would have been ridiculous if
http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#1.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#1.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#1.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#2.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#2.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#2.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#3.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#3.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#3.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#4.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#4.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#4.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#4.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#3.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#2.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#1.


2/15

its fundamental teachings, which are 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: These had been virtues

hundreds of thousands of years back, they are virtues today, and they will remainvirtues throughout the centuries and millennia to come. How can, then, the

teachings of one Prophet (sws) be different from other Prophets even though therebe a gap of hundreds and thousands of years between them? This fact should best

be known, and be made known to all others, by, of all people, the learned

orientalists. The Quran explains:

He has laid down for you the [same] way of life and belief which Hecommanded 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 idolaters whatyou invite them to. God chooses whom He please for Himself, and guides toHimself whoever turns to Him.5

The Prophet of Islam (sws) was an unlettered person. He had no contact withsome 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 guardianuncle,Abu Talib, in a trading caravan. The caravan broke journey atBusra. Amonk,Buhayra orBahiraby name, who lived there in a monastery, recognized

him to be the Apostle of the Lord of the Worlds. When asked about his source ofknowledge about Muhammads imminent apostleship, he replied that every treeand rock had prostrated itself before him; At his advice,Abu Talibsent him back

toMakkah withAbu BakrandBilal. Most of the renowned Orientalists have made

every effort to exploit this tradition and to assert that the Prophet (sws) of Islam

(sws) conceived the idea of apostleship and got most of its training and educationfrom this monk. They let aside all their scholarship, analytic study, objectivity and

their high standard of research for which they are conspicuously renowned andappreciated the world over and made a mountain out of a molehill.

The tradition has been reported through different chains of narrators and isfound in different collections. The strongest chain is that ofTirmizi. All other

stories are so obviously fabricated ones that none of the regular compilers of the

traditions of the Prophet of Islam (sws) considered them worthy of mention. Thechain of the narrators in Tirmizi is:

Tirmizi reports it fromFadl Ibn Sahl, who reports it from `Abd al-Rahman

Ibn Ghazwan, -- from Yunus Ibn Abi Ishaq, -- fromAbu Bakr Ibn Abi Musa,
http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#5.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#5.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#5.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#5.


3/15

from his father [Abu Musa Ashàri]. He said:Abu Talib set out for

Syria etc.6

Allama Shibli Nu`mani, and later on his learned student Allama Sayyid

Sulayman Nadwi, made some analytic observations on theBuhayra incident intheir esteemed seven-volume Urdu work on the life of the Prophet (sws), "Sirat al-

Nabi". A gist of their observations from Volume I and Volume III is given

hereunder:

Although one of the narrators, Àbd al-Rahman Ibn Ghazwan, has beenapproved by some of the critics ofAsma al-Rijal(the science of judging the

reliability of the narrators of the traditions); yet others have leveled chargesagainst him. AllamaDhahabi, in his "Mizan al-I`tidal", says: Àbd al-

Rahman relatesMunkar(unacceptable) traditions; the most unacceptable ofwhich is the tradition regarding the account ofBuhayra. The concocted

tradition regardingMamalikwas also reported by him.Hakim says: Hereported an unacceptable tradition fromImam Layth.Ibn Hibban writes: He

committed mistakes.Abd al-Rahman has reported it from Yunus Ibn Ishaq.Although some of the critics have approved this Yunus, yet generally he is

considered to be unreliable. Yahya says: He was very careless. Shu`ba has

accused him of deceit.Imam Ahmadhas termed his reporting, in general, asdisturbed and worthless. Yunus reported it fromAbu Bakrwho 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 Hunbalhas totally rejectedhis hearing from his father. Thats whyIbn Saàdhas declared him as

unreliable. Thus the tradition can safely be termed as Munqata` (whosechain of reporters is cut off).7

After giving a brief account of the chain of narrators from "Sirat al-Nabi", afairly detailed study of the narrators is undertaken hereunder. First of all, a few

words about the first narrator,Abu Musa Asha`ri. He was one of the companions of

the Prophet of Islam (sws).Ibn Athirasserts about him:

A group of scholars of genealogy and biography asserts thatAbu Musa cametoMakkah, entered into alliance with Saìd Ibn al-As and turned back to thearea of his tribe. Then [after not less than ten to fifteen years] he came withhis brethren and his journey coincided with the return of the refugees from

Ethiopia at the time of the conquest ofKhaybar. It is also said that their ship

was driven by the wind to the land of Negroes, where they stayed for sometime. Then they joined the Refugees in their return toMadinah from

Ethiopia.8Abu Musa died between 42-53 AH at the age of 63.9

Hafiz Dhahabi has collected some detailed information about him. He says:


4/15

It is reported thatAbu Musa died in the year 42 AH.Abu Ahmad al-

Hakim reports: He died in the year 42 AH; and it is also said that in 43

AH.Abu Naim,Abu Bakr Ibn Abi Shaybah, Ibn Numayrand Qa`nab Ibnal-Muharrarreported that he died in the year 44 AH]. So far as Waqidi isconcerned, he says: He died in the year 52 AH; andMadaÌni says: in the

year 53 AH afterMughirah. And I had mentioned in Tabaqat al-Qurra:True it is thatAbu Musa died inDhu al-Hijjah in the year 44 AH.10

Similar data has been recorded about him by the following authorities:

(a)Ibn Hajr.11

(b)Ibn Saàd.12

It is thus clear from the above that:

i)Abu Musa died at the age of 63.ii) He died between the year 42-53 AH and most probably in 44 AH, as stated

above byDhahabi.

iii) If he died in 42 AH, he was born when the Prophet (sws) was 32, i.e. 20 to23 years after the incident ofBuhayra.

iv) If he died in 53 AH, he might have been born when the Prophet was 34, i.e.

31 to 34 years after the incident ofBuhayra.

v) In no case canAbu Musa be treated as an eye-witness to the incident which

took place not less than 20-34 years prior to his coming into existence; and 30-40years before his pubescence, when he could have been expected to be able tounderstand and remember such an event even to a very small degree.

Even ifAbu Musabe not an eye-witness, his report could have been acceptable,had he stated that either he had heard it from the Prophet (sws) himself, or fromsome of the Prophets companions, who should have heard it from the Prophet

(sws) himself. In the absence of such a statement, the chain of the narrators is to be

considered as disconnected, and such a tradition is termed as Mursal, which is asort of a defect in a tradition. But even if this flaw is ignored, the chain has other

serious shortcomings, which render it quite unacceptable.

Abu Bakrreports the tradition from his father,Abu Musa Asha`ri. It is genuinelyquestionable if he ever heard some tradition from his father. He died in the year106 AH13whereas his fatherAbu Musa died [at the age of 63]14in 42 AH as has

been reported byImam Dhahabi, which is reproduced here:Ibn Saàdreports

fromHaytham Ibn Àdi: He died in the year 42 AH or later.15It means that he

lived for 64 years or so after the death of his father and would not have been morethan a boy at the death of his father.Imam Ahmad Ibn Hunbalhas categorically

rejected any possibility of it.Ibn Saadsays that he is considered as unworthy and

unreliable.Hafiz Yusuf al-Mizzi states that it is reported that his name
http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#10.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#10.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#10.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#11.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#11.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#11.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#12.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#12.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#12.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#13.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#14.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#14.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#14.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#15.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#15.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#15.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#15.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#14.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#13.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#12.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#11.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#10.


5/15

was ÀmarorÀmir. He further states:

He reported the traditions from: al-Aswad Ibn Hilal, Bara Ibn Àzib, JabirIbn Samurah, Abdullah Ibn Abbas, Àli Ibn Abi Talib, and what had been

said, which is a misconception, [emphasis added] from his father, AbuMusa.16

FromAbu Bakrthe tradition has been reported to Yunus Ibn Ishaq. As already

stated: he is unworthy, unreliable, careless and even a cheat.Abu Hakim assertsthat he is often baffled and hallucinated about his reports. Although some of thecritics have tolerated or even approved him, yet most of them consider him

unreliable.Hafiz Mizzi has collected some fairly detailed information about him. Itwould be pertinent to study some of the remarks made by him:

Salih Ibn Ahmad Ibn Hanbalreports from Àli Ibn al-Madyani that he was

listening to Yahya. When Yunus Ibn Ishaq was mentioned there, he said: He

was negligent and careless; and these were his natural and innatecharacteristics.Bundarquotes from Salm Ibn Qutaybah: I came fromKufah.Shu`bah asked me whom I had seen there. I said I saw such and such

persons there; and I also met Yunus Ibn Abi Ishaq. He asked: what [hadith]has he related to you. I narrated [whatever I had heard]. He kept silent for a

while. I told him that he said:Bakr Ibn Maiznarrated tome. Shu`bah observed: Didnt he say to you thatAbdullah Ibn Masùdhad

narrated to him? (which was obviously impossible due to the gap of time inboth of them. It means that Shu`bah treats him as a fabricator.)Abu Bakr al-Athram says: I heardAbu Abdullah. When [the name of]Yunus Ibn Abi

Ishaq was mentioned, he termed his reporting from his father as

unreliable.Abu Talib toldAhmad Ibn Hanbalas saying that in Yunusshadith there were some additions on the reports of the people. His son Israelheard and noted down fromAbu Ishaq; but there are no such additions in it

as Yunus adds.Abdullah Ibn Ahmad Ibn Hanbalsaid: I asked my father

about Yunus Ibn Abi Ishaq; he said that his reports are disturbed and

confused. (...). He is such and such a person.Abu Hatim said that he wastruthful 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 narratorÀbd al-Rahman Ibn Ghazwan -- although most of the learned

critics have declared him a strong, reliable or acceptable narrator -- is also notwithout a blame.Imam Mizzi observes as follows:

Ibn Hibban has reported about him: He used to commit mistakes. His report

from al-Layth -- fromMalik-- fromZuhri -- from Ùrwah --
http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#16.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#16.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#16.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#17.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#17.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#17.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#17.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#16.


6/15

from Àishah about the story ofal-Mamalikdisturbs and troubles the

heart. Tabari says that he died in the year 207 AH.18

Now there remains onlyFadhl Ibn Sahl Ibn Ibrahim al-Àraj. He is a reliable

narrator; but there are also some reservations about him.Khatib Baghdadi asserts:

Ahmad Ibn Sulayman Ibn Àli al-Muqriu reported to me fromAbu SaìdAhmad Ibn Muhammad al-Malini to whom reportedAbdullah Ibn Àdi -- he

said: I heardAbdansaying that he heardAbu Dawud al-Sajistani saying thathe did not [like to] report [some tradition] fromFadhl[the Lame]. I askedwhy. He said [how is it that] no goodhadith escaped from him.Ibn Àdi said

that he heardAhmad Ibn al-Husayn al-Sufi saying thatFadhlwas one of thefox like cunning, wily and crafty persons.19

It is to be noted that if only a single narrator is adversely criticized, or if there is

a disconnection in the chain of the narrators, or if the first narrator is not either a

part of the event himself or an eye-witness to the event, the whole chain of thenarrators becomes doubtful and the report or the hadithbecomes unreliable. Inthis hadith, most of the narrators are unreliable. Secondly, the chain of the

narrators is disconnected. And finally, the first narrator is not an eye-witness orpart of the incident. It is strange that in spite of all these defects and with the chain

of narrators being of such a dubious nature, how could a scholarly analyst haveeven dared to quote this tradition, not to say of presenting it as an evidence on an

important issue.After undertaking the external study of its chain of narrators of the tradition, its

text and content also needs to be looked into. The text of the tradition isreproduced below:

Along with the Prophet,Abu Talib set out to Syria with some of the elders

of the Quraysh. When they approached the monk, they dismounted for a

break. The monk came to them, whereas, previously, when they passed byhim, he never came out or took any notice of them. While they were

unfastening their saddle-bags, he passed through them. Coming to

Muhammad, 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 ofQuraysh 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 recognized him by means of an apple-like "Seal of Prophethood",which is below his shoulder-bones. Then he came back and got some 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 along with a cloud casting shadow on him. When he reached


7/15

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 towards him. Hewas yet standing with them, solemnly requesting them not to take him to theterritory of Byzantine, because no sooner would the Romans see him than

they would recognize him by his traits, and would murder him; when, all ofa sudden, seven persons appeared from Byzantine. He welcomed them and

asked the purpose of their visit. They said: It has been brought to ourknowledge that this [promised] Prophet is to come out [of his place of

residence] in this month. So, people have been dispatched on all sides and

we have been sent to this route of yours. The monk said: Is there anyonebehind you who is superior to you? They said that 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 toaccomplish? At their reply in the negative, he urged them to pledge theirallegiance to him. They stood with him. Upon his earnest request people

told him thatAbu Talib was his [Muhammads] guardian. On his

insistence,Abu Talib sent him back [toMakkah] withAbu BakrandBilal[or

it wasAbu Bakrwho sentBilalwith him; which does not look to be a properrendering]. The monk [then] offered them oil and cake for their en-route

provisions.20

When the text is critically analysed, it reveals serious flaws. 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 andAbu

Talib could not have dreamed of it. The story of the tradition is a fabrication; andthere is no mention of any trade activity ofAbu Talib any where else. He was a

simple perfume maker. He is also reported to have been lame21; and thusincapacitated to commit such a long and troublesome journey.

2. If it be true thatBuhayra was such a great scholar and manipulator that he

masterminded the prophethood ofMuhammad, there would have been a lot of

literature about this great benefactor of Christianity in the annals of Christianity.There would have been volumes replete with his life and works, whereas whatever

has been stated about him, is borrowed from a very weak tradition of Islamicliterature.

3.Buhayra singled out the would be Prophet and in the presence of the elders

of the Quraysh said that the boy shall become the "Choicest Leader of the Worlds,Apostle of the Lord of Worlds and Mercy for the Worlds". It is very likely that

after these elders had borne witness to this incident they would have described this
http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#20.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#20.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#20.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#21.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#21.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#21.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#20.


8/15

unusual event to the people ofMakkah on their return. It would have become the

talk of the town makingMuhammada very introduced personality inMakkah.

When, a few years later, he appeared in theKa`baone early morning to settle thedispute of the fixing of the Black Stone, people should have shouted: `TheApostle 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 himand will accept his decision. But history records that none of them uttered any

such epithets; they rather cried: `Here comes theAmin -- the trustworthy--etc.Then again, when this would be Prophet announced his being formally

commissioned to the position, every one should have rushed to pledge allegiance to

him. It should have been on record that whosoever embraced Islam had announcedthat he already knew him to be a prophet and he had been eagerly waiting for his

being commissioned as such.

4. When asked about his source of knowledge about the boy who was to becommissioned as a Prophet,Buhayra is reported to have answered that he saw allthe trees and rocks bowing down before him. Had it been so, every body coming in

contact with him inMakkah or elsewhere should have been aware of it. It was an

unusual, uncommon, supernatural and extra-ordinary phenomenon and could not

have escaped the notice of the people. It is strange that the caravan fellows whohad been travelling with him for hundreds of miles, failed to take note of it; and it

was onlyBuhayra who could catch sight of it. Also, this unusual happening should

have been recorded in the Bible as a sign to recognize Prophet of Islam (sws). Butwe do not find any such mention 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

thatMuhammadlearned and borrowed all the knowledge of his religious teachingsfrom Christianity through this monk, believed that this incident was a fact and not

fiction, and had they been sincere in their findings, their attitude towards Islamwould have been quite different. Their present negative attitude towards Islam

reveals that, as a matter of fact, they do not believe in the validity of thistradition.

6. Had the trees and stones bowed down toMuhammad, this prostration should

not have been confined for this journey only. Hundreds of thousands of peopleshould have already seen it inMakkah and elsewhere. But we do not find even asingle sound tradition in any book ofHadith reporting such a happening. This also

shows that the tradition is baseless.

It is also to be borne in mind that Islam has strictly denounced any prostrationbefore anyone exceptAllah. The Quranasserts:

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


9/15

up, and set the balance.

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 (sws) also prohibited the believers from prostrating before anyoneexcept 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 theLord 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 hateme.(...).25

It can thus be appreciated that prostration before the Prophet (sws) is notpermissible in any case.

7. As to the "Seal of Prophethood", there seems to be no clear account of it inthe Bible. Had there been any mention of this sign for the Prophet of Islam (sws) inthe Bible; and had this Seal physically existed on the back of the Prophet (sws),

the sincere among the scholars and the elders of the Quraysh should have

appreciated the genuineness of the claim of the Prophet of Islam (sws) as being the

apostle of Allah and, as a result, should have acknowledged his religion to be true.Although there was a gland-like blackish growth on the upper back (beneath theshoulder bones) of the Prophet of Islam (sws), yet he never claimed it to be a sign

for his apostleship. Had it something to do with a sign of his apostleship, theProphet (sws) would have insistently offered it as such; the absence of whichshows its irrelevance with any ultra-natural miraculous sign. It thus clearly

establishes the absurdity of this tradition.

8. Had it been a genuine tradition; the Prophet of Islam (sws) would haveasserted it as a conspicuous sign for his prophethood; and it would have been

difficult for an unbeliever ofMuhammadstime to reject outright such an

obviously tangible sign.9. The same above mentioned observations are pertinently applicable to the

shadow of the cloud for the Prophet of Islam (sws).10. The same observations are fully applicable to the inclination of the tree to

extend its shade for the Prophet (sws).

11. The tradition says that the monk urged them not to take the boy to theByzantine territory, because, seeing the boy, they would recognize him by his signs

and would put him to death. This only 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
http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#23.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#24.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#24.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#25.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#25.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#25.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#25.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#24.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#23.


10/15

with the monks 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 (sws) are really so plainly described in the Bible thatonly at the sight of him, and that too in his early age, a scholar of the Bible couldhave, of certain, recognized him to be the Prophet?

12. As regards the assertion of the group of seven elders from Byzantine that theProphet 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 itof 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 column to stand

upon13. Had the event been true, the elders ofQuraysh and especiallyAbu

Talib would not have refrained from embracing Islam as soon as the Prophet (sws)

declared his commissioning to 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

nowhere been mentioned in whole of the Islamic writings of that age.

15. According to the last part of the tradition, at the insistence of the monk,Abu

Talib sent the boy back withAbu BakrandBilal. This is a clear proof of the storybeing a blatant lie. It is a well known historical fact thatAbu Bakrwas two to three

years younger to the Prophet (sws). If the would be Prophet was 9 at that

time,Abu Bakrwould have been only 6; and had the would be Prophet been12,Abu Bakrwould have been 9. There is a Persian maxim: À liar has no

memory. The fabricator of the story forgot that Abu Bakr was younger to theProphet (sws), as is recorded in history.Ibn Saadreports:

Muhammad Ibn Ùmartold us that he heard from Shuàyb IbnTalhah [reporting] from a son ofAbu Bakr al-Siddique who said:Bilalwas

of the same age asAbu Bakr. Muhammad Ibn Ùmarsaid: If it is like this,

and it is a fact thatAbu Bakrdied in the year 13 [AH], when he was a boyof 63 years; thus, between this and between that which was reported to us

aboutBilal, [there is a gap of] seven years. And Shuàyb Ibn Talhah knowsbetter about the birth ofBilalwhen he says: He was of the same age asAbuBakr."26

Hafiz Dhahahbi, who is a reliable authority onAsma al-Rijal, has narrated a

brief account of the life ofAbu Bakr. He says:

al-Siddique died when eight days were left from the month ofJumada al-Akhirah in the year 13 AH and his age was sixty three years.27

The above reports reveal that there seems to be no sense in sendingAbu

Bakrwith the would be Prophet boy for his protection on his way back home.


11/15

As toBilal, he may not have even been born by that time.Ibn Saàdsays:

Bilaldied in Damascus and was buried atBab al-Saghirin the year 20 A Hwhen 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 byIbn Hajr. He Says:

He died in Syria in the year 17 or 18 AH and it is also said in 20 AH whenhe was above sixty.29

Shams al-ddin Dhahahbi has also noted some of the reports aboutBilal. He

says:

Yahya Ibn Bukayrreports:Bilaldied in Damascus of plague in the year 18AH.Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim Taymi, Ibn Ishaq, andAbu Ùmar al-Zarir,and a group report: He died in Damascus in the year 20 AH.30

Hafiz Jamal al-ddin al-Mizzi has also quoted some authorities aboutBilal. He

writes:

Bukhari says that he died in Syria in the reign ofÙmar. Ahvmad IbnAbdullah Ibn al-Barqi reports that he died in the year 20AH. Waqidi andAmar Ibn Ali say that he died in Damascus in the year 20

AH when he was a boy of over sixty years.31

From all the above references and general information, it can plainly be deducedthat:

i. The Prophet (sws),Abu BakrandBilallived to be of the same age, that is 63years.

ii. The Prophet (sws) died in the year 11 AH.

iii.Abu Bakrdied in the year 13 AH, 2 years and 3 months later than theProphets (sws) death.

iv.Bilaldied in the year 17 or 18, and, most probably, in 20 AH, i.e., at least 6or 7 years and most probably 9 years after the death of the Prophet (sws).

v. So, when the Prophet (sws) was 9, either he may not have been born or would

have been a child of 1-3 years.vi. When the Prophet (sws) 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

ofBilalhaving been sent with the Prophet (sws) fromBusra on the journey back

home for his protection. This renders the tradition as totally impossible and

obviously a concocted one. It is now everybodys case that where the grand


12/15

edifice of the learned orientalists, showing that the Prophet of Islam (sws) learned

all his religious teachings from a Christian monk, stands.

Abd al-Rahman Mubarakpuri in his commentary on Sunan al-Tirmizi, whileexplaining this tradition, observes:

And ourImams have counted it as an illusion in that the age of the Prophet,at that time, was twelve andAbu Bakrwas two [and a quarter] years

younger than the Prophet, whereasBilalwas not even born by that time.InMizan al-Itidal, it has been noted that of the points that indicate the

absurdity of this tradition is his words and he sent with himAbuBakrandBilalwhereasBilalwas not born by that time andAbu Bakrwasstill a boy. AndDhahabi declared this hadith as weak [and unreliable] due

to the words: AndAbu Bakrsent with himBilal, whereasAbu Bakrhad not

yet purchasedBilal[and as such he had no right to order him for some task].(...). AndHafiz Ibn Qayyim said in hisZad al-Maad(...); 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;becauseBilalhad perhaps not even been born. And if he had been born he

could not have been withAbu Bakr.32

The tradition says that on the persistent request of the monk, the would beProphet boy was sent back toMakkah under the protection ofAbu BakrandBilal,

because if he were to be taken to the Byzantine territory, there was a serious

danger to the life of the boy; the religious scholars of the territory would recognizehim and would put him to death.Abu BakrandBilalhad not been sent with him for

providing him company nor was it a sports trip. It is just silly, and quiteunbelievable, thatAbu Talib, who is believed to be loving the boy more than his

own children, put him in 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 thewould be Prophet (sws) 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, theyreally are, picked up this obviously fabricated tradition and, with their exquisite

and adroit pen, managed to build a complete castle in the air on its foundations.16. At the age of about 25 years, when the Prophet (sws) had become a young

man, he again undertook the journey to Syria with the trading caravan

forKhadijah. Had he known that the land and its people are so inimical to him, andthat, at the very sight of him, they would recognize him by his so conspicuoussigns, he would never have undertaken that journey. But at the offer of taking the

trading caravan byKhadijah, he showed no reservations; and unflinchinglyaccepted 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.

17. It is surprisingly noted that in all this tradition, which although is a


13/15

fabrication in itself, yet is stronger than all other narratives of the so-called

incident, 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 thestrange phenomenon. There has not been a single second person pronoun usedforMuhammadany 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 thatthe 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 thatnone of the narrators of the tradition either, had been so silly as to show the monk

addressing the boy directly; because they could naturally not have conceived a 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 "Mans Religions":

(...). The venerable tradition that he learned about Judaism and Christianity

during caravan trips to Syria, the first when he was twelve in the companyofAbu Talib and the second when he was twenty-five and in the employ

ofKhadija, whom he subsequently married, must be set aside asuntrustworthy.33

Thomas Carlyle observes:

I know not what to make of that Sergius [Bahira or Buhayra, whatsoever thepronunciation be, has also been called as Sergius], the Nestorian Monkwhom Abu Thalib and he are said to have lodged with; or how much anymonk 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 (sws) acquired all his religiousunderstandings from some Biblical scholar like Buhayra is baseless; and it is onlyout of their wishful miscalculations that they articulate such an obviously obscureand improbable story. Objective research demands sustained and un-prepossessed

efforts to secure facts with a reasonable, justifiable, and responsible approach.

Home

.The Quran, XLII:52f (Tr. A. J. Arberry, The Koran Interpreted, Oxford University Press,
http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#33.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#33.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#33.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#34.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#34.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#34.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/main.htmlhttp://www.renaissance.com.pk/main.htmlhttp://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#1http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#1http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#1http://www.renaissance.com.pk/main.htmlhttp://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#34.http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#33.


14/15

Worlds Classics Paperback 1983, p.504).2.The Quran, XLVI:9 (Tr. A.J. Arberry, op. cit., p. 522). Some other translations:

i. Say: I am no apostle of new doctrines. ( J. M. Rodwell, The Koran, London: J. M. Dent

& Sons Ltd., 1943, p.314).

ii. Say: I was no innovation upon the [other] messengers. (Richard Bell,The Quran Translated with a Critical Rearrangement of the Surahs, Edinburgh: T. & T.

Clark, 1937, p.508).

iii. Say: I am no new thing among the messengers [of Allah]. (M. M. Pickthall, The

Glorious Quran, Institute of Islamic Research, Islamabad, 1988, p.351).

iv. Say, I am not singular among the apostles. (George Sale, Al-Koran of Mohammed,

London & N. Y., Frederick Warne & Co., n.a., p.372).

v. Say: I am no prodigy among the apostles. (N. J. Dawood, The Koran, Penguin Books,

India, New Delhi, 1994, p.502).

vi. Say: I am not an innovator among the apostles. (E. H. Palmer,

The Quran Translated,Motilal Banarsidas Publishers Private Ltd., Delhi, Sacred Books of

the East Series,1993, p.225).vii. Say: I am no new Messenger. (M. Shayr Àli, The Holy Quran: Arabic Text and

TranslationAhmadiyya Muslim Foreign Missions Office, Rabwah - West Pakistan,1960,

p.504).

viii. Say: I am not the first of the apostles. (M. H. Shakir, The Quran, Tehrik-i Tarsili

Quran, Inc., Elmhurst, N. Y.,1988, p.337).

ix. Say thou: I am not a new-fangled one amongst the messengers. (H. Ghulam Sarwar,

Translation of the Holy Quran, National Book Foundation, Islamabad,1973, p.293).

x. 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). (The Noble Quran,Dr. Muhammad Taqi al-ddin al-

Hilali & Dr.Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Dar al-salam, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 1996, p.634).

xi. Say thou: I am not an innovator among the apostles. (Àbdul Majid Daryabadi, TheHoly Quranwith English Translation and Commentary, The Taj Company Ltd., Karachi,

1971, p.504).

xii. Say: I am not a new Messenger to come. (Ahmad Àli, Al-Qur'an,A Contemporary

Translation, Akrash Publishing, Karachi, 1995, p.431).

xiii. Say: I am no bringer of New-Fangled doctrine among the messengers. (Abdullah

YusufÀli, The Holy QuranText Translation and Commentary Sh. Muhammad Ashraf,

Publishers, Lahore, 1979, p.1305).

xiv. Say: I am not the first of [Gods] apostles. (Muhammad Asad, The Message of

the Quran, Dar al-Undalas, Gibraltar, 1980, p.771).

xv. Say to them: I am not a novel Messenger. (Mawdudi, The Meaning of the Quran (Tr.

byAbdul Àziz Kamal), Islamic Publications (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore,1994, Vol. XII, p.270).3.W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad Prophet and Statesman, Oxford University Press, Great

Britain, 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 Quran, XLII:13 (Tr. byAhmad Àli, Akrash Publishing, op.cit., p.413.)6.Imam Ibn Àrabi al-Maliki, Àrizah al-Ahwadhi Sharh Sahih al -Tirmizi, Dar al-Ihya al-

Turath al-Àrabi, Beirut, n.a., Vol.XIII, p.106 (H. No. 3629).7.Shibli Numani, Sirat al-Nabi, al-Faysal Publishers, Lahore, 1991, Vol. I, p.119f; and S.

Sulayman Nadwi, ibid., Vol. III, p.419f.8.

Ibn Athir, Usud al-Ghabah, Dar al-Ihya al-Turath al-Àrabi, Beirut, n.a., Vol.III, p.245.
http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#2http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#2http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#3http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#3http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#4http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#4http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#5http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#5http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#6http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#6http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#7http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#7http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#8http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#8http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#8http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#7http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#6http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#5http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#4http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#3http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#2


15/15

. Ibn Athir, Usud al-Ghabah, op.cit., p.246.10.Shams al-Din Dhahabi, Sayar Alam al-Nubala, Muassasah al-Risalah, Beirut, 1992,

Vol. II, p.397f.11.Ibn Hajr al-Àsqalani, al-Isabah fi Tamyiz al-Sahabah, Maktabah al-Riyadh al-

Hadithah, 1978, Part II, p.359f.12.Ibn Saad, al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, Dar al-Bayrut, Beirut, 1957, Vol. IV, p.105-115.13.Ibn Hajr al-Àsqalani, Taqrib al-Tihdhib, Dar al-Nashr al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah, Lahore,

1985, p.397.14.Ibn Athir, Usud al-Ghabah, op.cit., p.246.15.Shams al-Din Dhahabi, Sayar Alam al-Nubala, Vol. II, p.382.16.Hafiz Jamal al-Din Yusuf al-Mizzi, Tihdhib al-Kamal Fi Asma al-Rijal, Muassasah al-

Risalah, Beirut, 1992, Vol. XXXIII, p.144.17.Hafiz Jamal al-Din Yusuf al-Mizzi, Tihdhib al-Kamal Fi Asma al-Rijal, op.cit.,Vol.

XXXII, p.491f.18.Hafiz Jamal al-Din Yusuf al-Mizzi, Tihdhib al-Kamal Fi Asma al-Rijal, op.cit., Vol.XVII,

p.337f.19.Khatib al-Baghdadi, Tarikh-i-Baghdad, al-Maktabah al-Salafiyyah, Madinah, n.a., Vol.

XII, .p365.20.Tirmizi, Sunan, Kitab al-Manaqib (46), Bab:3,Hadith No.3629.21.Ibn Qutaybah, al-Maarif, p.252. [as quoted byHabib al-Rahman Kandhalvi, in his Urdu

work:Madhhabi Dastanayn awr un ki Haqiqat(Religious Myths and Their

Reality),Anjuman Uswah- i- HasanahPakistan, Karachi-18, 1986, p,110].22.The Quran, XLI:37 (Tr. by A. J. Arberry, op.cit., p.495).23.The Quran, LV:6 (Tr. by A. J. Arberry, op.cit., p.557).24.The Quran, 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 Saad, al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, op.cit., Vol. I, p.238.27.Shams al-Din Dhahabi, Tadhkirah al-Huffaz, Dar al-Kutub al-Ìlmiyyah, Beirut, n.a., Vol.

I, p.5.28.Ibn Athir, Usud al-Ghabah, op.cit., Vol. I, p.209.29.Ibn Hajr al-Àsqalani, Taqrib al-Tihdhib, op.cit., p.4830.Shams al-Din Dhahabi, Tareekh al-Islam etc., Age of the Guided Caliphs, Ed.Dr. Ùmar

Abd al-Salam Tadmury, Dar al-Kitab al-Àrabi, Beirut, 1987, p.205.31.Hafiz Jamal al-Din Yusuf al-Mizzi, Tihdhib al-Kamal Fi Asma al-Rijal, p.cit.,Vol. IV,

p.290.32.Àbdul Rahman Mubarakpuri, Jami Tirmizi with its Commentary, Tuhfah al-Ahwazi,

Dhia al-Sunnah, Faisalabad, Pakistan, n.a., Vol. IV, p.296f.33.John B. Noss/David S. Noss, Mans Religions, 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.
http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#9http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#9http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#10http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#10http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#11http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#11http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#12http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#12http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#13http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#13http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#14http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#14http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#15http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#15http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#16http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#16http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#17http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#17http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#18http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#18http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#19http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#19http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#20http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#20http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#21http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#21http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#22http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#22http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#23http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#23http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#24http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#24http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#25http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#25http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#26http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#26http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#27http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#27http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#28http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#28http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#29http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#29http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#30http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#30http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#31http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#31http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#32http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#32http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#33http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#33http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#34http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#34http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#34http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#33http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#32http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#31http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#30http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#29http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#28http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#27http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#26http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#25http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#24http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#23http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#22http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#21http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#20http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#19http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#18http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#17http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#16http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#15http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#14http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#13http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#12http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#11http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#10http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html#9

the buhayra monk incident.pdf

Documents