Question
Someone asked me about the hadith narrated by Ibn Abbas about the meeting of Abu Sufyan and Heraclius and he doubted the hadith for a few reasons:
- The hadith mentions Heraclius converting to Islam and inviting some of his noblemen to Islam. How is it possible an event like this happened but was not recorded by any Roman historians or chroniclers of the time?
- The hadith claims Abu Sufyan met Heraclius in Jerusalem during the peace of Hudaybiyyah. The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah lasted from 628-630AD. But, it is well-known in history that Heraclius spent most of this time campaigning against the Persians.
- How is it possible an aggressive polytheist like Abu Sufyan would praise the Prophet (SAW)?
- The hadith involves an enemy of the Prophet (SAW) and the emperor of Rome praising the Prophet (SAW). There is clear motive to fabricate that.
These are some of the reasons Western (or historical-critical) scholars would use to reject the hadith.
Answer
Initial Analysis
This is a long hadith narrated by Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri from Ubaidullah ibn Abdullah ibn Utbah from Ibn Abbas from Abu Sufyan.
Al-Zuhri was a famous scholar of hadith in Madinah who was among the teachers of Imam Malik. This was a well-known chain of his to Ibn Abbas (RA) quoted many times by Bukhari and Muslim.
Many students of Zuhri narrated this hadith, some in its full length and some in summarized form.
Since both Zuhri and his teacher Ubaidullah were reliable, the hadith is strongly reliable.
As a result, Bukhari, Muslim, Nasai, and Ibn Hibban included this hadith in their respective Sahihs. Tirmidhi also included a shortened version of the hadith and called it “Hasan Sahih.”
Content of the Hadith
This hadith, as quoted in Sahih Bukhari, is made of two parts:
- Zuhri’s narration with a chain to Ibn Abbas from Abu Sufyan
- Zuhri’s narration from Ibn al-Nazur
The first is the general story of Abu Sufyan. He was summoned by Heraclius and asked a series of questions where he was forced to tell the truth about the Prophet (SAW). At the end, Heraclius explained the purpose of those questions and how they were signs of prophethood.
Versions differ about the exact list of questions asked, but this is the list in Sahih Bukhari:
- “What is his lineage like?” Abu Sufyan said, “He has noble lineage.”
- “Has anyone claimed prophethood among your people before?” He said, “No.”
- “Was any of his ancestors a king?” He said, “No.”
- “Do the strong follow him or the weak?” He said, “The weak.”
- “Are they increasing or decreasing?” He said, “Increasing.”
- “Has anyone apostated from the religion after converting to it?” He said, “No.”
- “Did you consider him a liar before this?” He said, “No.”
- “Did he used to cheat or betray?” He said, “No. But, we have a peace treaty with him right now. We will see what he does in it.”
- “Have you fought him?” He said, “Yes.”
- “What was the result?” He said, “We won some and they won some.”
- “What does he ask you to do?” He said, “He asks us to worship Allah alone without associating anyone with him and to leave what our forefathers used to believe, and he commands us to Salah, honesty, chastity, and keeping ties of kinship.”
The second part is Zuhri narrating a long story about Heraclius from Ibn al-Nazur, who Zuhri says was the governor of Jerusalem at the time. A part of the story includes that Heraclius gathered the Christian nobles for a banquet and invited them to accept Islam. When they refused, he told them he was just testing them.
Ibn al-Nazur is majhul al-haal, meaning his reliability is unknown.
It is also unclear whether Zuhri ever met Ibn al-Nazur (or whether he learned from him if he did meet him).
Ibn Hajr quotes from Dala’il al-Nubuwwah by Abu Nuaim that al-Zuhri said: “I met him (Ibn al-Nazur) in Damascus during the reign of Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan.” The authenticity of this is unclear.
Ibn Main said, “The marasil (disconnected narrations) of Zuhri are like nothing.”
As a result, this part of the hadith is not authentic. The only reason it is included in Sahih Bukhari is because Zuhri narrated it after he narrated the actual Sahih hadith, not because Bukhari deemed it Sahih.
Did Heraclius convert to Islam or invite the noblemen to accept Islam?
The idea that Heraclius invited the noblemen to accept Islam comes from the second part of the hadith which is not intrinsically authentic.
As for whether Heraclius accepted Islam, the Sahih part of the hadith only quotes Heraclius saying, “If what you say is true, he will own the land I am standing on right now. I knew he was coming, but I did not think he would be from among you (i.e. Arabs). If I knew I would be free to reach him, I would go meet him, and if I was with him, I would wash his feet.”
It appears the passage is all under the conditional of “If what you say is true.” It does not necessitate Heraclius believed. It is also possible the last two sentence are referring in abstract to the true prophet who was known to come, not the Prophet (SAW) specifically.
Additionally, even if Heraclius had believed in his heart, it doesn’t necessitate the people surrounding him would have interpreted his words as belief.
It is also important to note that these words were transmitted to Abu Sufyan by a translator from Heraclius, then Abu Sufyan narrated the long story to Ibn Abbas who narrated it to Ubaidullah who narrated it to Zuhri.
Although the hadith is Sahih, that does not entail every word in it is precisely accurate for two reasons:
- Short hadith are usually more precise than long ones.
- Prophetic hadith are usually more precise than non-prophetic ones, because narrators tried to be more careful with the Prophet’s words.
So, although the hadith is Sahih and the events In sha Allah did happen as narrated, that doesn’t mean every precise word or sentence attributed to Heraclius is entirely correct.
As a result, there is no large concern about Roman chroniclers not recording this incident.
Embellishment
He said to me, “You noted it is possible not every word is precise. Doesn’t this prove there was embellishment in the hadith? Doesn’t this mean we cannot trust even Sahih hadith?”
I responded as follows.
Embellishment is of two types:
- Intentional story-telling embellishment
- Accidental embellishment
The first is when story-tellers would add details to stories to make them more interesting to the listeners. People who did this were rooted out by hadith scholars and termed Qussas (story-tellers). This happened a lot outside hadith circles. It can be found in books of Tarikh and Seerah.
The second is when a narrator remembers a long story, but due to how memory works, misremembers or adds to or subtracts from some parts of the story.
The difference between the two is that the latter does not usually deviate from the gist of the truth. The “embellishment” arises because he remembers the meaning but not the exact words.
As a result, even with the possibility of accidental embellishment, you can accept the narration as a whole. But, with the possibility of intentional embellishment (when one of the narrators is known for that), you avoid accepting the narration at all.
However, because modern Western scholars do not believe any Muslim was honest and believe every hadith narrator was intentionally fabricating and embellishing hadith, they reject all narrations. But, this is poor methodology.
So, when we say this long non-prophetic hadith may have some inaccuracies in exact sentences, that does not entail we should reject Sahih hadith as a whole (even long non-prophetic ones) or that short or prophetic hadith are in doubt.
Do the timelines fit?
The hadith claims this meeting between Abu Sufyan and Heraclius happened during the treaty of Hudaybiyyah.
The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah lasted from 628 to January of 630 AD.
Heraclius was on campaign against the Persians for a lot of this time according to historical sources, however he did come to Jerusalem to restore the “True Cross” which the Persians had taken a few years back when they had conquered Jerusalem.
There is debate over when Heraclius returned to Jerusalem. Some say Spring of 629 and some say Spring of 630. One paper that supports 629 can be found here.
As a result, there is no contradiction in the timelines.
In fact, the hadith specifying the time to be the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah which just happens to overlap with when Heraclius was back in Jerusalem is a sign of its accuracy. If it were fabricated or most details were made up, the time could have been chosen as anything, including after the Battle of Badr, the Battle of Uhud, the Battle of Ahzab, and so on.
Why would Abu Sufyan praise the Prophet (SAW)?
First of all, Abu Sufyan was not like Abu Jahl, Abu Lahab, Utbah Ibn Rabee’ah, or Umayyah Ibn Khalaf. He did not resort to sly or dishonorable acts to attack the Prophet (SAW). Even in his disbelief, he was relatively honorable (as honorable as rejectors of the Prophet could be).
So, it is not surprising he would tell the truth when asked straightforward, one-word-response questions.
Secondly, the hadith mentions Heraclius asked Abu Sufyan’s companions to stand behind him and catch him if he said anything false. There is no doubt they expected Heraclius to reward them if they caught him.
So, Abu Sufyan could not lie even if simply for self-preservation. He feared the consequences of lying. This is what Abu Sufyan explicitly says in the hadith.
Was there motive to fabricate the hadith?
The hadith contains Abu Sufyan, one of the Prophet’s greatest enemies, and Heraclius, the very emperor of Rome, praising the Prophet (SAW) and confirming his veracity. Is that not clear motive to fabricate the hadith to confirm the truth of the Prophet (SAW)?
The response can be from two perspectives.
The first is the theoretical perspective: If the existence of motive was taken as independent evidence for a hadith being fabricated, that would require the rejection of every true prophet.
By definition, a true prophet would have performed or had happened to him events that are abnormal and indicate his truthfulness. So, if every event that indicates the truth of a prophet were rejected, you would never be able to accept even true prophets. This is obviously absurd. Only atheists or agnostics who do not believe in the possibility of prophets would believe this.
Motive, thus, cannot be used as independent evidence for fabrication of hadith.
The second is the practical perspective. These narrators are trustworthy according to historical evidence.
Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri was a well-known, trusted scholar of Madinah. He was endorsed and accepted by the likes of Imam Malik. He was one of the imams of hadith according to everyone in the field at his time and after.
Ubaidullah ibn Abdullah was a well-known teacher of al-Zuhri who narrated many hadith from Ibn Abbas.
We have no reason to suspect either of them was lying. That can only be assumed due to a pre-conceived rejection of the hadith without grounds to stand on.
However, the method of modern Western scholars is to start with the assumption the hadith is fabricated intentionally. Then, they simply use the isnad to decide whom to blame for the fabrication of the hadith without regard for the character of the person they are accusing. It is obvious how this method is circular. It also depends on the unreasonable and ridiculous assumption that everyone was fabricating hadith without care at the time, from the greatest scholars to the most rejected liars.
That is a poor method of determining the truth of narrations compared to the reasoned and systematic method of the hadith scholars.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this hadith is a Sahih hadith, excluding the part from Ibn al-Nazur. It is reasonable and logical to believe the events did happen as described even if some words or sentences are not exactly accurate. The reasons to doubt the hadith are all weak and can be responded to.
The part of Ibn al-Nazur may be reasonable to reject due to the weakness of its chain and other circumstantial problems.
