Among these well-known religious narratives is the story of a monk named Bahira, which is found in all the historical biographical books, with variations in its details. By chance, this story is also found in the well-known hadith book Tirmidhi. Because of this, the scholars gave it the status of an article of faith. However, some elements in the narration in Tirmidhi are clearly contrary to reason. Because of this, several prominent scholars changed their positions on this matter; even Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) declared the core account to be sahih, but accepted some parts as false. And some muhaddithin rejected this incident outright.
Verification of the Hadith:
We first quote this story from a well-known book of seerah, Asah al-Siyar, which is the work of Hakim Abd al-Rauf Danapuri. Hakim Sahib writes on page 51 of his book:
When the Prophet ﷺ reached the age of twelve years and two months, Khwaja Abu Talib undertook a journey to Syria for trade and took him along. When they reached the place Tayma, they met a monk named Bahira. In some narrations it is said that he was a Jewish scholar, and in some narrations it is said that he was a Christian scholar. والله اعلم.
Based on the prophecies in the ancient scriptures, he observed in him some signs of prophethood, and asked Khwaja Abu Talib: Who is this boy who is with you?
He said: He is my nephew. Bahira said: Do you have love for him? He said: Certainly. Bahira said: I will tell you something. By God, if you take him to Syria, the Jews will become his enemies and will want to kill him. Take him back. So Khwaja Abu Talib returned from there with the Prophet ﷺ. In some narrations it is said that he sent him back with a slave.
While Hakim Abd al-Rauf Sahib narrated the event in extreme brevity, he also made every effort, as far as possible, to defend the superstitions found in this event and the objections that are raised against it. To accomplish this, he freely tampered with the original event and cast aside all principles of honesty and trustworthiness.
Now listen to Qari Ahmad Pilibhiti Qadiri as well. In his book Tarikh Musalmanan-e-Alam he writes:
The last stop of Abu Talib was the place called Busra. Today this place is called Hauran. Trade caravans coming from Arabia to Syria were staying in this city of Busra. At a short distance from the resting place was the famous monastery of the monk Bahira. Bahira was a very great pious man (rather, an accomplished wali) and worshipper of the religion of Christ. The Torah, the Gospel and other heavenly books were preserved in his mind. He knew well what the signs of the birth of the Last Prophet were. He often came to watch the trade caravans of the Quraysh from the monastery, to find out whether the Last Prophet was among them or not.
By chance, just as Abu Talib’s caravan was about to descend from the pass and stop, Bahira’s gaze fell upon it. He was amazed to see that a piece of cloud was shading a child of the caravan, and all the trees and stones were bowing down in prostration, and were saying: Peace be upon you, O Messenger of Allah. Before the caravan people had even caught their breath, Bahira came from the monastery to Abu Talib’s side, took the hand of the Prophet, and said: This child is the master of the worlds and the Messenger of the Lord.
Historians state that Bahira also invited the caravan people to a meal in his monastery. When everyone sat down, he kept looking closely at the Prophet. After finishing the meal, he dismissed everyone but kept Abu Talib and the Prophet ﷺ back. He asked Abu Talib many questions about the Prophet ﷺ: about the conditions of his dreams and waking, and he asked about his lineage. Abu Talib told him about the death of his father. He looked at the blessed shoulder, and upon finding the seal of prophethood in accordance with the heavenly books, he said to Abu Talib: I give you a sincere advice: return home quickly, as the Jews have intense enmity toward the Arab Prophet. I fear that if they see him, they will certainly plot to harm him. Abu Talib accepted Bahira’s advice, and after buying and selling in Busra itself, he returned.
According to Tabari and others, Bahira kissed his hands and confirmed his prophethood; that is, he believed in him before his prophethood. One narration also says that while Bahira was looking at him in the monastery and telling Abu Talib to protect him from the Jews, seven Roman Christians were standing behind a screen listening. Bahira asked them why they had come here. They said that they had been informed that the Arab Prophet was to come here in this month. Bahira kept them in his monastery for several days.
Verification of the Hadith:
Both of these authors have completely altered the final part of the incident. The early historians, however, state that Abu Talib sent the Prophet ﷺ back with Bilal (may Allah be pleased with him) and Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him). Some narrations say that Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) sent him back with Bilal (may Allah be pleased with him).
This sentence is the real point, and the whole structure of this account collapses with it. Allamah Shibli (may Allah have mercy on him) struck a decisive blow against it in his Seerat al-Nabi. Later Urdu writers therefore simply removed this sentence. Yet honesty and truthfulness required them to admit that a wrong thing was wrong. But, as the saying goes, “The earth may move, time may move, but Gul Muhammad Khan will not move,” how could a person afflicted with Sufism ever accept this?
We will discuss the actual sentence and the actual incident in the words of the late Allamah Shibli and the late Allamah Sayyid Sulaiman Nadwi, and others. Beyond the arguments they made and the objections they raised, new questions are arising in our minds. So we wish to present them first.
In Syria, what danger could the life of the Prophet ﷺ face from the Jews? Syria was then under Christian rule, and the Jews there were living a servile life. If any danger could arise, it could come from the Christians. Qari Ahmad Sahib attributed the danger to the Jews through Bahira, and then brought in the Christians for the search. This is a strange double-dealing policy. Furthermore, these two authors write in the account of the Battle of Mu’tah that the Prophet ﷺ sent Harith ibn Umayr al-Azdi to the governor of Busra with a letter inviting him to Islam. But that Christian governor martyred him, and this led to the Battle of Mu’tah. The Hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari also supports this. So, whether the danger came from the Jews or from the Christians, this claim is plainly false.
The real matter is this: when these scholars regarded Bahira as a pious and devout saint and accepted him as the first believer, how could they then fail to defend his people? So they placed this accusation on the Jews. But they had hardly written one line when they completely forgot their own deception, and while hunting others, they became the hunted themselves.
If it is accepted that the danger came from the Christians, then the Prophet ﷺ made several trading journeys to Syria with the wealth of Khadija (may Allah be pleased with her). One of these journeys is mentioned later. Then how did these dangers suddenly disappear in the prime of his youth? And where did all the signs of prophethood go, which every child in the Christian world knew?
➊ When Bahira the monk accepted the prophethood of the Prophet ﷺ, and believed in him even before the prophethood, then clearly he was the first believer. So in what rank are Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him), Khadija (may Allah be pleased with her), Zayd ibn Harith (may Allah be pleased with him), and the other foremost companions of Islam placed? Is this not a hidden insult to those noble Companions? Because later another Christian saint is also mentioned. I wish some scholar and historian would reflect on how skillfully the foremost early believers have been pushed behind even the Christians. Astaghfirullah, my Lord, forgive me for every sin, and I turn to Him in repentance.
➋ When trees and stones were prostrating to him on the way, and clouds were providing him shade, and trees were bowing down for his shade, then the question is this: did all the members of the caravan see these things in front of them, or did only the narrator of this account see them before his own creation? If everyone saw them, then how many of them believed after the prophethood, and who exactly was part of that caravan? And how could anyone believe when the very man whose nephew these miracles were appearing for did not believe? And if no one other than Bahira and Abu Talib saw these events, then Abu Talib died a disbeliever. Moreover, Bahira is nowhere mentioned in the whole history of Islam after this incident. Then who narrated this account to the narrators?
These are some of the objections that arose on rational grounds. But Allamah Shibli (may Allah have mercy on him) also raised objections to the chain of this narration. However, before presenting those objections, we consider it necessary to place before the readers the narration of Tirmidhi as well.
Tirmidhi reported from Abu Musa al-Ash’ari (may Allah be pleased with him) that Abu Talib went to Syria with the chiefs of Quraysh, and the Prophet ﷺ was also with them. When these people reached the monk, they made camp at that place and opened their pack-saddles. The monk, seeing them, came down. Before this, when they used to pass by him, he would never come down, nor would he pay any attention to these people. But they were busy opening their pack-saddles, and that monk, passing through them, reached the Prophet ﷺ, took hold of his hand, and said, “This is the Sayyid al-Alamin (Master of the Worlds). This is the Messenger of the Lord of the Worlds. Allah will send him as a mercy to the worlds.” The chiefs of Quraysh asked him, “How did you come to know this?” He said, “When you were descending from the mountain pass, there was no stone or tree that did not fall down in prostration. And these things do not prostrate except to a prophet. And I recognize the seal of prophethood, which is on his shoulder like an apple.” Then he went back and prepared food for them. When he came to them with the food, as soon as he reached the herd of camels, he said to the people, “Call this boy.” When he came, a cloud was shading him. When he approached the people, he saw that the people had already sat down in the shade of a tree. When he sat down, the shade turned in his direction. Seeing this, the monk said, “Look, the shade has turned toward him.” While he was still standing among them, urging them by oath not to take this boy to Rome, because if the Romans saw him, they would recognize him by his attributes and kill him.
Suddenly seven men were seen approaching from the direction of Rome. He turned toward them and asked them, “Why have you come?” They replied, “The Prophet who is to come has appeared in this town. So men have been sent in every direction in search of him. We were informed of his arrival here, so we were directed toward this route.” He asked, “Is there no one behind you who is better than you?” They said, “We were only sent toward this route.” He asked, “If Allah intends to do something, can anyone prevent it?” They said, “No.” The monk said, “Very well, then return.” And he himself stood up along with them. And as they were leaving, he said, “I adjure you by Allah, who is his guardian?” Abu Talib said, “I am.” He kept adjuring Abu Talib until Abu Talib sent the Prophet ﷺ back to Makkah, and sent Abu Bakr and Bilal with him. That monk gave him cake and olives as provisions for his journey.
Tirmidhi says: this hadith is hasan gharib. And we do not know of any chain for it other than this chain.
Verification of the Hadith:
The reality is that this narration is unreliable. All of its routes are mursal, meaning the narrator did not witness the incident himself, and he does not name the person who was present at the event.
The most authentic route of this narration is the one mentioned in Tirmidhi. Three points regarding it deserve consideration.
➊ Tirmidhi wrote regarding this narration that it is hasan gharib, and that we do not know this hadith through any route other than this one. The rank of hasan is lower than sahih, and when it is also gharib, its rank decreases further.
➋ One narrator in this hadith is Abd al-Rahman bin Ghazwan. Although many people have called him thiqah (trustworthy), most experts in the field have expressed doubt about him. Allama Dhahabi writes in Mizan al-I’tidal that Abd al-Rahman narrates munkar (rejected) hadiths, and that the most munkar of his narrations is the one in which the incident of Bahira is mentioned.
➌ Hakim wrote in al-Mustadrak regarding this narration that it conforms to the conditions of Bukhari and Muslim. However, Allama Dhahabi, in Talkhis al-Mustadrak, quoted Hakim’s statement and then wrote that he considers some of the events in this hadith to be mawdu’ (fabricated), false, and invented.
➍ This same narration mentions that Hazrat Bilal (may Allah be pleased with him) and Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) also took part in this journey. However, Bilal (may Allah be pleased with him) did not exist at that time, and Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) was a child.
➎ The last narrator of this narration is Hazrat Abu Musa al-Ash’ari (may Allah be pleased with him), and he was not a witness to the incident. He also does not name the narrator above him. Apart from Tirmidhi, the chain mentioned in Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d is mursal or mu’dal. That is, in a mursal narration, the Tabi’i, who is clearly not a witness to the event, does not name any Companion. And in a mu’dal narration, the narrator does not name the two narrators above him, who are a Tabi’i and a Companion.
➏ Hafiz Ibn Hajar, out of attachment to narrations, accepts this hadith as sahih. However, since the participation of Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) and Bilal (may Allah be pleased with him) is manifestly false, he is compelled to acknowledge that this portion is wrong, having entered the narration by mistake. But Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s claim that all the narrators of this narration are reliable is also not correct. Hafiz Ibn Hajar himself wrote in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib regarding Abd al-Rahman bin Ghazwan that he used to make mistakes. Doubt also arises about him for the reason that he narrated a report about the Mamalik. There is a report of the Mamalik which the muhaddithin consider false and mawdu’.
Verification of the Hadith:
This narration, in brief and in detail, is mentioned in most books of Seerah and in some hadith collections. However, the chains of all the reports concerning this incident in Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa’d and other books of Seerah are weak and broken. The chain of narration for this story that is considered the most protected is the one in which Abdur Rahman bin Ghazwan, known as Abu Nuh Qarad, narrates from Yunus bin Abi Ishaq, who narrates from Abu Bakr bin Abi Musa, who narrates from his father Abu Musa Ash’ari (may Allah be pleased with him).
This story, with this chain of narration, is mentioned in Jami’ al-Tirmidhi, al-Mustadrak of al-Hakim, Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, Dala’il al-Bayhaqi and Dala’il Abi Nu’aym.
Tirmidhi has described it as hasan gharib, and Hakim has called it sahih.
The late Ustadh, in the first volume of Seerah, first edition p. 130, second edition p. 168, has fully criticised this narration.
And he has declared Abdur Rahman bin Ghazwan discredited in this chain.
And he has quoted the statement of Hafiz Dhahabi that he considers this narration fabricated.
➊ Firstly, Abu Musa Ash’ari (may Allah be pleased with him) embraced Islam and came to Madinah in 7 AH, and this incident is fifty years before that. Abu Musa (may Allah be pleased with him) does not report from the blessed tongue of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ himself, nor from the tongue of any other eyewitness, that he heard it. Therefore this narration is mursal.
➋ This incident is narrated from Abu Musa (may Allah be pleased with him) by his son Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), but there is discussion about whether he heard any narration from his father. Accordingly, the critics of the field have much doubt in this regard. Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal has definitely denied it. Therefore this narration is munqati’ (broken). Apart from this, Ibn Sa’d has written that he is considered da’if.
➌ Yunus bin Abi Ishaq narrates this incident from Abu Bakr. Although many muhaddithin have declared him trustworthy, the general verdict is that he is da’if. Yahya says that there was great carelessness in him. Shu’bah has accused him of tadlis. Imam Ahmad says his narration from his father is da’if and his general narrations are mudtarib and of such and such kind. Abu Hatim’s opinion is that although he is truthful, his hadith from his father is not proof. Saji says that he is truthful, and some muhaddithin have called him da’if. Abu Hakim states that he often made mistakes (wahm) in his narrations.
➍ The fourth narrator is Abdur Rahman bin Ghazwan, whose name in al-Mustadrak and Abu Nu’aym is Abu Nuh Qarad. Although many people have declared him thiqah, he is the narrator of several munkar narrations. The fabricated hadith about the Mamaluk was narrated by him. Abu Ahmad Hakim states that he narrated a munkar narration from Imam Layth. Ibn Hibban has written that he used to make mistakes. And because he narrated the hadith of the Mamaluk from Imam Malik and Layth, there is doubt in the hearts about him.
➎ Hafiz Dhahabi writes in al-Mizan that among the munkar narrations of Abdur Rahman bin Ghazwan, the story of Bahira the monk is the most munkar. The proof that this story is wrong is that its narration states that Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) sent Bilal (may Allah be pleased with him) along with the Prophet ﷺ, whereas Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) was a child at that time and Bilal (may Allah be pleased with him) had not even been born.
➏ Hakim, after narrating this incident in al-Mustadrak, wrote that it is in accordance with the conditions of Bukhari and Muslim. Hafiz Dhahabi, in his summary of al-Mustadrak, writes that he considers this narration fabricated, because some of its events are wrong.
➐ Imam Bayhaqi accepts its authenticity only to the extent that this story is famous among the people of Seerah. Suyuti, in al-Khasa’is, understood from this statement of the Imam that he too holds it to be weak. Therefore he quoted several other chains from Ibn Sa’d and others in the original narration, but none of them is protected.
➑ Likewise, there is also confusion (idtirab) in this narration: in one narration it is stated that Abu Talib sent him ﷺ back along with Abu Bakr and Bilal (may Allah be pleased with him), and in another narration it is stated that Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) sent him back.
