Skip to main content
Refutations

Did the Monk Bahira Teach the Prophet ﷺ the Qur'an? — 6 Historical Proofs, Syriac Forgeries & Catholic Encyclopedia Answer

22 min read 4893 words

Did the Prophet ﷺ Learn the Qur’an from the Monk Bahira? — Complete Apologetics & Response

Table of Contents

The Doubt

An Old Doubt — From Atheists and Christians The Prophet ﷺ took the stories of the Qur’an from Bahira before calling to Islam.

What Is Actually Proven — The Authentic Narration

The Only Proven Narration — Without the Name “Bahira” No authentic narration has proven that the Prophet ﷺ met a monk named Bahira. Rather, what has been proven from the story is this narration:
Ibn Abi Shaybah — Book of Virtues — Hadith 31733 “Qurad ibn Nuh narrated to us, he said: Yunus ibn Abi Ishaq narrated to us, on the authority of Abu Bakr ibn Abi Musa, on the authority of his father, he said: Abu Talib went out to Ash-Sham, and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and elders from Quraysh went out with him. When they came near the monk, they dismounted and unloaded their belongings. The monk came out to them. Before that, they used to pass by him, but he did not come out to them or pay any attention to them.

He said: They were unloading their belongings. So he began to pass by them until he came and took the hand of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and said: ‘This is the master of the worlds. This is the Messenger of the Lord of the worlds, this is what God sends as a mercy to the worlds.’

Then the elders of Quraish said to him: What is your knowledge? And he said: ‘When you looked out from the pass, there was not a tree or a stone that did not fall down in prostration, and no one prostrates except to a prophet.’”

The Narration Did Not Mention the Name of the Monk As we see, the narration did not mention the name of the monk.

Six Reasons the Claim Is Rejected

First — A Fleeting Encounter, Not a Deep Study

Reason 1 — The Context Was a Passing Encounter The narration does not talk about the Prophet ﷺ staying for a long period of time or even an hour, but the context of the narration indicates a passing encounter that happened once with a monk, and the Prophet ﷺ was still a young child in the presence of his uncle and the elders of Quraysh.

So how can it be expected that the Prophet ﷺ received a deep theological study that would enable him to know the books of the Old and New Testaments and the books of the Apocrypha and Talmudic and Midrashic details during this passing, fleeting encounter while his uncle and the elders of Quraysh were present?

Second — The Quraysh Never Accused the Prophet of Learning from Bahira

Reason 2 — The Infidels Found No One to Accuse Him of Learning From — Except Two Syriac Slave Children The infidels of Quraysh did not accuse the Prophet ﷺ of learning from this monk. Rather, they did not find anyone to accuse him of that. However, they went bankrupt until the matter reached them to accuse the Prophet ﷺ of learning the eloquent and fluent Arabic Qur’an from two Syriac children who did not know Arabic except for the little that they could in their two days.

Allah the Almighty said in Surat An-Nahl: “And We certainly know that they say, ‘It is only a human being who teaches him.’ The language of the one they refer to is foreign, while this is a clear Arabic language.” — An-Nahl: 103

Tafsir Al-Tabari “Al-Muthanna told me, he said: Amr bin Awn told us, he said: Hisham told us, on the authority of Husayn, on the authority of Abdullah bin Muslim Al-Hadrami: That they had two slaves from the people of the Yemeni donkey, and they were children, and one of them was called Yasar, and the other Jabr. They were reading the Torah, and the Messenger of God ﷺ sometimes sat with them. The infidels of Quraysh said: He only sits with them to learn from them. Then God Almighty revealed: (The language of the one they refer to is foreign, while this is a clear Arabic language.)”

Imam Al-Wada’i, may God have mercy on him, authenticated it when he mentioned it in Sahih Asbab Al-Nuzul.

Third — Talmudic Details Were Inaccessible to a Syriac Monk

Reason 3 — Knowledge of the Talmud Was Confined to Jewish Rabbis The Qur’an contains details similar to those found in the Talmud, and such Talmudic details are difficult for such a Syriac monk to obtain, since the knowledge of the Talmud, in general, was confined to the rabbis and scholars, and they did not discuss it with the common Jew, let alone the non-Jewish Arab.
The Talmud — Its Origin, Its Sequence, and Its Manners — Page 8 “There was no indication at all of the existence of an Arabic translation of the Talmud, and the conclusion that we draw from these results is that the Jews in the Arab countries were keen to hide the Talmud and not let the Muslims know about it, and they were discussing some of what was mentioned in it with the Muslim scholars orally when they were asking them about what was mentioned in their books about this story or this issue.

It is well known that the Talmud (whether the Babylonian Talmud written in Babylon or the Palestinian Talmud written in Palestine) was not available to anyone other than Jewish rabbis to study and teach until the age of printing began in Europe in the sixteenth century. Translations of the Babylonian Talmud in particular began to appear in English and French translations, with the deletion of many paragraphs that offended Christ, peace be upon him, and the Virgin Mary, which could shock the Christian public from the translated text, as well as texts with racist dimensions that distinguished between the Jews (God’s chosen people) humans and the rest of the peoples of the world (the goyim) animals.”

Judge Iyad — Al-Shifa bi-Ta’rif Huquq al-Mustafa — Part One — Chapter Seven “What he informed of from the news of past centuries, extinct nations, and obsolete laws, of which only the unique rabbis of the People of the Book who spent their lives learning it knew a single story, so the Prophet ﷺ would cite it on his face, and he brings it according to its text, so the scholar acknowledges that as correct and true, and that the likes of it were not attained through education.

They knew that he ﷺ was illiterate, could neither read nor write, and was not engaged in teaching or studying. He was not absent from them, nor was any of them ignorant of his condition. The People of the Book would often ask him ﷺ about this, and he would send down to him from the Qur’an what he would recite to them as a reminder, such as the stories of the prophets with their people, and the news of Moses, Al-Khidr, Joseph, and his brothers, and the People of the Cave, and Dhul-Qarnayn, and Luqman and his son, and similar news, and the beginning of creation, and what is in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Psalms, and the scrolls of Abraham and Moses, which the scholars believed in them, and they were not able to deny what he mentioned of them.

It was not reported from any of the Christians and Jews, despite their intense enmity towards him, and their eagerness to deny him, and his lengthy arguments against them with what is in their books, and his rebuking them for what their scrolls contained, and their frequent questions to him ﷺ and their trouble with him about the news of their prophets, and the secrets of their knowledge, and the repositories of their lives, and his informing them of what was hidden in their laws — that any of them accused him of having learned it from a human teacher.”

Al-An’am 91 “And they did not estimate God with His true estimate when they said, ‘God has not sent down anything to any human being.’ Say, ‘Who sent down the Book which Moses brought, a light and a guidance for mankind? You make it into sheets, revealing some and concealing much, and you have been taught that which you did not know, you and your fathers. Say, God. Then leave them in their confusion to play.’”

Fourth — The Qur’anic Stories of Jesus Do Not Match Any of the Four Gospels

Reason 4 — The Qur’an’s Stories of Jesus Come from Apocryphal Gospels, Not the Four Canonical Ones The specific Qur’anic stories of Christ, peace be upon him, and his mother Mary, peace be upon her, do not resemble those stories mentioned in the four gospels. We know that in the seventh century the gospels spread among the Orthodox Christian sects (Jacobites and Melkites), Nestorians and Catholics — and these were the four gospels approved today (Matthew — Mark — Luke — John).

It is very unlikely to say that a person like this monk would teach the Prophet ﷺ Christianity and the life of Christ through the details found in some of the apocryphal gospels (such as the story of creation from clay in the form of a bird, or the vow of Mary’s mother to Mary, and the drawing of pens, and the food that was prepared for Mary, peace be upon her, in the sanctuary).

The Catholic Encyclopedia “Before the rise and spread of Nestorianism and Monophysitism, the Arian heresy was the prevailing creed of the Christian Arabs. In the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries Arianism was supplanted by Nestorianism and Monophysitism, which had then become the official creeds of the two most representative Churches of Syria, Egypt, Abyssinia, Mesopotamia, and Persia.” — https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01663a.htm
The Apocryphal Gospels Were Forbidden by the Church Fathers The apocryphal gospels were forbidden to be read by the Church Fathers and they warned against them — especially the Gnostic gospels before the extinction of the Gnostic sects in the fifth and sixth centuries — and were rather confined to their circulation among monks and Church Fathers in the first centuries of Christianity.
Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria — Fifth Lecture “But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to you by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines…

I wish you also to keep this as a provision through the whole course of your life, and besides this to receive no other, neither if we ourselves should change and contradict our present teaching, nor if an adverse angel, transformed into an angel of light should wish to lead you astray. For though we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than that you have received, let him be to you anathema. Galatians 1:8–9” — https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310105.htm

Cyril — Sixth Lecture — Warning Against the Gospel of Thomas “Let none read the Gospel according to Thomas: for it is the work not of one of the twelve Apostles, but of one of the three wicked disciples of Manes. Let none associate with the soul-destroying Manicheans.” — https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310106.htm
John of Damascus — The First to Make This Accusation It is worth noting that John of Damascus was the first to make this accusation in the eighth century. The Christian monk mentioned was Nestorian, which means that he believed in the four Gospels.

Fifth — The Meccan Surahs Are Dominated by Moses, Not Jesus

Reason 5 — If the Prophet Learned from a Christian Monk, the Meccan Surahs Would Be Full of Jesus The Meccan surahs, for the most part, did not mention the stories of Jesus, peace be upon him, and his mother except in Surah Maryam — and as mentioned previously, the details mentioned in it do not agree with any of the four Gospels. Rather, we find that the mention of Moses, peace be upon him, and his story with Pharaoh and the Children of Israel is much more than the mention of Jesus, peace be upon him.

If the Prophet ﷺ had learned from this Christian monk — God forbid — we would have found the Meccan surahs full of and abundant mention of the stories related to Jesus, peace be upon him, Mary, peace be upon her, Joseph the carpenter, and the disciples — but we find the opposite.

Jalaa Al-Afham — Ibn Al-Qayyim — Chapter Three “And for this reason, the Most High mentions the story of Moses and repeats it and shows it and consoles His Messenger ﷺ. And the Messenger of God ﷺ said when he was harmed by people: Moses was harmed more than this, but he was patient. For this reason the Prophet ﷺ said: ‘There will be in my nation what was in the Children of Israel.’ Reflect on this correspondence between the two Messengers, the two Books, and the two Sharias.”
Al-Itqan fi Ulum Al-Qur’an — Imam Al-Suyuti — Part One — Chapter One Abu Ja’far al-Nahhas said: Abu Ubaydah Ma’mar ibn al-Muthanna told us, Yunus ibn Habib told me, I heard Abu Amr ibn al-Ala’ say: I asked Mujahid about summarizing the verses of the Medinan Qur’an from the Meccan ones, so he said: I asked Ibn Abbas about that and he said:

“Surat Al-An’am was revealed in Mecca all at once… The previous surahs are Medinan. Surat Al-A’raf, Yunus, Hud, Yusuf, Ar-Ra’d, Ibrahim, Al-Hijr and An-Nahl were revealed in Mecca… and Surat Bani Israel, Al-Kahf, Maryam, Taha, Al-Anbiya, and Al-Hajj…”

This is how he narrated it in its entirety, and its chain of transmission is good. All of its men are trustworthy, among the famous scholars of Arabic.

Even in the Madinan Surahs — Jesus Mentioned Only in a Few Verses Even in the Madinan surahs, the stories of Jesus, peace be upon him, were only mentioned in several verses in Surat Al Imran, Surat An-Nisa, and Surat Al-Ma’idah.

Sixth — The Qur’an Denied the Crucifixion — The Most Central Christian Belief

Reason 6 — If the Prophet Learned from a Christian, Why Did He Deny the Crucifixion? The Qur’an denied one of the most important Christian beliefs that was and still is popular among Christians, which is the belief in the crucifixion. It is known that most Christians — even the majority of them at that time — believed in the crucifixion of Christ, peace be upon him.

If the Prophet ﷺ took from this monk or was influenced by it, then why did he not prove the story of the crucifixion, which is one of the essential stories in the four Gospels, and is in fact the origin of origins?

An-Nisa 157 “And their saying, ‘Indeed, we killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.’ But they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it was made to appear to them as if they had. And indeed, those who differ about it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.”

The Empty Claim About “Syriac Documents”

The Missionaries’ Additional Claim Some missionaries have stated that Bahira actually taught the Prophet ﷺ, and that he was in Mecca and Medina with him teaching him the Qur’an, and that the Qur’an is basically from him — based on what they called “Syriac documents” dating back to the seventh century.

Response 1 — The “Syriac Documents” Are a Late Fabrication

The “Syriac Documents” Date to the 9th–12th Century — Not the 7th What they called “Syriac documents” is in fact a late, fabricated Syriac Christian work dating back to the end of the eighth century and the beginning of the ninth century, and some place it in the eleventh or twelfth century. It is a fabricated work and has no relation to history.
Richard Gottheil — A Christian Bahira Legend — Page 189 “The texts which I here publish are a curious evidence of how historical tradition may be perverted for polemical purposes. The story of the Christian Monk Bahira and his meeting with Mohammed is made the basis for a series of apocalyptic visions and of prophecies designed to show that there was nothing at all original in the teachings of the Prophet, that he was an arch-fraud, and that he was instigated to practice this fraud by his mentor, who wished — in this manner — to bring the ignorant Arabs to the knowledge of one God. It is a form of polemics not unusual in the Middle Age literature.” — https://archive.org/details/AChristianBahira…
Richard Gottheil — Page 192 — The Origin Goes Back to the 12th Century “The Terminus ad quern in the vision is undoubtedly the ‘Kingdom’ or ‘King’ of the Romans. If I am right, the redaction of the first part, the apocalyptic vision, might well fall at the end of the eleventh, or the beginning of the twelfth centuries.”
Krzysztof Szlagi — Muhammad and the Monk: The Making of the Christian Bahira Legend — Page 202 “As (A) can be dated to the 810s, (M) probably to several years later, and WS, the earliest of the synoptic generations, to the period between 833 and 861, the bilingual copyist must have been at work between the 810s and 861. The Christian Bahira legend in this form soon became rather well-known, because al-Mas’ud, a Muslim historian, mentions in the 940s that ‘the name of Bahira is Sergius in the books of the Christians.’”
Shocking Errors That Prove Its Late Fabrication This work, which is supposed to date back to the seventh century according to the missionaries’ claim, shows shallowness and even great ignorance in knowledge of Islamic information:
  • It thinks that Muslims pray seven prayers a day.
  • It claims that Surat Al-Baqarah was named thus because the Arabs tied the horn of the cow.

This indicates that this work was composed in a purely Syriac Christian environment in the ninth century that knew nothing about Islam except some simple information, while being influenced by the popular culture of the Syriac Christian villages.

Krzysztof Szlagi — Page 201–202 “Similar stories, in which a Christian monk or cleric establishes Islam, circulated in medieval Europe. These European legends surprise no one; those who recounted them lived far away from the Islamic world… It seems, however, less likely that anyone would have such a legend a satisfactory explanation for the rise of Islam in early ninth-century Iraq… On the one hand, (M) shows a deep embeddedness in Islamic culture, as seen in the Muslim apocalyptic figures inserted into the Christian apocalypse; On the other hand, it claims that Surat al-Baqarah reached the Arabs tied to the horn of a cow, and that the Muslims pray seven times a day.”
The Irony What is striking and ironic is that Christians today have relied on Richard Gottheil’s first source to quote from, even though he stated that the story is a mere myth and that it is a Syriac work that came centuries after Islam.

Response 2 — The Claim of Bahira Being in Mecca and Medina Has No Evidence

The Claim Is Refuted by the Absence of Evidence The claim that the monk Bahira was in Mecca and Medina throughout the period of the Prophet’s mission ﷺ is refuted by the points mentioned earlier, and also by the absence of evidence:

His presence throughout this period in Mecca and Medina necessitates that a group of polytheists of Quraysh or even from the Muslims saw him — but we do not find a single narration that mentions this.

The presence of such a person educated in Christianity in Mecca means that the infidels of Quraysh would have directed accusations of teaching the Prophet ﷺ to him — while we do not find this, since, as mentioned, they made the accusation of teaching in two Syriac children who were slaves of Banu Hadrami.

The Hijaz Was Devoid of Christian Organizational Presence

Where Christian Presence Was Concentrated in the Arabian Peninsula The presence of Christian groups and tribes in the Arabian Peninsula was concentrated in three regions:
  1. The north-east of the Arabian Peninsula (the region of Al-Hirah, Basra, and Kazima under the rule of the Lakhmids).
  2. The north-west (Tabuk, Balqa, Ibna, and the Syrian desert in Jordan, Ayla, Dumat al-Jandal under the rule of the Ghassanids).
  3. The south-west of the Arabian Peninsula in Najran and Yemen.

As for the Hijaz, Najd, and Oman region, it was distinguished by the lack of church organization in it, as the presence of Christians there did not rise to the level of the tribe. The Christians there were merely scattered individuals. These areas were also devoid of the missionary activity of the church.

The Catholic Encyclopedia “Christianity in Arabia had three centres in the northwest, northeast, and southwest of the peninsula. The first embraces the Kingdom of Ghassan (under Roman rule), the second that of Hira (under Persian power), and the third the kingdoms of Himyar, Yemen, and Najran (under Abyssinian rule). As for central and southeast Arabia, such as Nejd and Oman, it is doubtful whether Christianity made any advance there.” — https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01663a.htm
New Catholic Encyclopedia — Part One — Page 620 (1967 Edition) “The Hijaz. In speaking of Christians in the Hijaz one must limit the term to mean Mecca, Tayma’, Khaibar, al-Ta’if, and Medina. The existing evidence refers to the time just before or during the lifetime of Muhammad. The Hijaz had not been touched by Christian preaching. Hence organization of a Christian church was neither to be expected nor found. What Christians resided there were principally individuals from other countries who retained some Christianity. Such were African (mainly Coptic) slaves; tradespeople who came to the fairs from Syria, from Yemen, and from among the Christian Arabs under the Ghassanids or Lakhmids; Abyssinian mercenary soldiers; and miscellaneous others whose Christianity was evidenced only by their names.

This Christianity had the marks that go with want of organization. It lacked instruction and fervor. It is therefore not surprising that it offered no opposition to Islam.”

Richard Bell — The Origin of Islam in its Christian Environment — Page 42 “From the northwest it spread into the northern center of the peninsula and southward to the shores of the Red Sea but — and this is important — in spite of traditions to the effect that the picture of Jesus was found on one of the pillars of the Ka’ba, there is no good evidence of any seats of Christianity in the Hijaz or in the near neighborhood of Mecca or even of Medina.”
Ibn Qutaybah — Book of Knowledge — Part One — Religions of the Arabs in the Pre-Islamic Era “Christianity was in: ‘Rabi’ah,’ ‘Ghassan,’ and some of ‘Quda’ah.’ Judaism was in: ‘Himyar,’ ‘Banu Kinanah,’ ‘Banu al-Harith ibn Ka’b,’ and ‘Kinda.’ Zoroastrianism was in: ‘Tamim.’ Heresy was in ‘Quraish,’ they took it from ‘Al-Hirah.’”
Zaid bin Amr bin Nufail — Went to the Levant, Not to Any Monk in the Hijaz When Zaid bin Amr bin Nufail went to ask about the religion after abandoning the idols, he only went to the monks and rabbis of the Levant and did not mention that he sought refuge with any known monk in the Hijaz.
Sahih Al-Bukhari — Book of the Virtues of the Helpers — Hadith 3827 “Musa said: Salim bin Abdullah told me: That Zaid bin Amr bin Nufail went out to the Levant to ask about religion and follow it. He met a Jewish scholar and asked him about their religion… So Zaid went out and met a Christian scholar and mentioned something similar… When Zaid saw what they said about Abraham, peace be upon him, he went out. When he came out, he raised his hands and said: O God, I bear witness that I am on the religion of Abraham.”

Mecca Was Also Free of Jewish Presence

The Infidels of Quraysh Had to Go to the Jews of Medina — Proving No Jews Were in Mecca Mecca was also free of Jewish presence. This claim is supported by the fact that the infidels of Quraysh were forced to go to the Jews of Medina to take from them what they could ask the Prophet ﷺ.
Sunan Al-Tirmidhi — Book of Interpretation — Hadith 3140 — Authenticated by Al-Albani “Qutaybah narrated to us, Yahya bin Zakariya bin Abi Zaydah narrated to us, on the authority of Dawud bin Abi Hind, on the authority of Ikrimah, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, who said: Quraysh said to the Jews: Give us something so that we may ask this man. He said: Ask him about the soul. He said: So they asked him about the soul, and Allah, the Most High, revealed: And they ask you about the soul. Say: The soul is from the command of my Lord. And you have not been given of knowledge except a little. They said: We have been given much knowledge. We have been given the Torah, and whoever has been given the Torah has certainly been given much good. So Allah, the Most High, revealed: Say: If the sea were ink for the words of my Lord, the sea would be exhausted.

He said: This is a good, authentic, strange hadith from this aspect.”

Imam al-Albani, may Allah have mercy on him, authenticated it in Sahih and Da’if Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Hadith No. 3140.

Israel Wolfenson — History of the Jews in the Lands of the Arabs — Page 98 “And this story supports what we have gone to, that there were no Jews in Mecca, because if one of them had been found in Mecca, the Banu Quraysh would not have sent their delegation to the city to ask the Jewish rabbis about the Prophet, and if they found any of them, he must be uneducated.”

References & Sources

Sources Referenced
  • Ibn Abi Shaybah — Book of Virtues — Hadith 31733
  • Tafsir Al-Tabari — on An-Nahl: 103
  • The Talmud — Its Origin, Its Sequence, and Its Manners — Page 8
  • Judge Iyad — Al-Shifa bi-Ta’rif Huquq al-Mustafa — Part One
  • Jalaa Al-Afham — Ibn Al-Qayyim — Chapter Three
  • Al-Itqan fi Ulum Al-Qur’an — Imam Al-Suyuti — Part One
  • Richard Gottheil — A Christian Bahira Legend — Page 189, 192 — https://archive.org/details/AChristianBahira
  • Krzysztof Szlagi — Muhammad and the Monk: The Making of the Christian Bahira Legend — Pages 201–202
  • Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria — Fifth and Sixth Lectures — https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310105.htm — https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310106.htm
  • The Catholic Encyclopedia — https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01663a.htm
  • New Catholic Encyclopedia — Part One — Page 620 (1967)
  • Richard Bell — The Origin of Islam in its Christian Environment — Page 42
  • Ibn Qutaybah — Book of Knowledge — Part One
  • Sahih Al-Bukhari — Book of the Virtues of the Helpers — Hadith 3827
  • Sunan Al-Tirmidhi — Hadith 3140
  • Israel Wolfenson — History of the Jews in the Lands of the Arabs — Page 98