Regarding the migration to Abyssinia, it is imperative to mention that some historians have narrated a strange tale about the prostration of the disbelievers and the return of the immigrants to Abyssinia. For the Holy Prophetsa possessed an immense desire that such verses be revealed as would draw the Quraish to Islām, and dispel their hatred and contempt. As a result, upon his recitation of Sūrah An-Najm when the Holy Prophetsa reached the following verse:
“Now tell me about Lāt and ‘Uzzā, And Manāt, the third one, another goddess!”1
Satan took advantage of this passionate desire of the Holy Prophetsa and induced him to recite the following:
تِلْكَ الْغَرَانِیْقُ الْعُلیٰ وَ اِنَّ شَفَاعَتَھُنَّ لَتُرْتَجٰی
“Glory to these idols (Lāt ‘Uzzā and Manāt) and indeed, one should remain hopeful of their intercession.”
When the Quraish heard these words they were silenced, as the magnificence and power of their idols had been accepted. Hence, at the completion of the recitation of Sūrah An-Najm when the companions of the Holy Prophetsa prostrated, the Quraish also fell into prostration. In other words the two parties were reconciled into a peaceful settlement. However, following this occurrence, Gabrielas promptly came to the Holy Prophetsa and notified him of this mistake. Therefore, in place of the satanically inspired verse, the true word of God was revealed to him, which is now found in the Holy Qur’ān, whereby the Quraish resorted to their previous state of discontent. However, since the news of peaceful reconciliation had been widely divulged, prior to its negation, news also reached Abyssinia, and due to this, various immigrants returned to Makkah.
This is the tale that many historians narrate in relevance to this instance. However, bear in mind that this story is entirely a fabrication, and its forgery is clearly evident from every rational aspect. Hence, the great Muhaddithīn and leaders of Ḥadīth, such as ‘Allāmah ‘Ainī, Qāḍī ‘Ayāḍ and ‘Allāmah Nawawī have expounded with conclusive argumentation that this occurrence is false and nothing more than a fabricated Ḥadīth. Thus, ‘Allāmah ‘Ainī writes in debate of this issue:
لَا صِحَةَ لَهٗ نَقْلاً وَّ لَا عَقْلاً
“This story is evidently negated, both in light of narration and common sense.”2
Then, Qādī ‘Ayāḍ writes:
لَمْ یَخْرُجْهُ اَھْلُ الصِّحَةِ وَلَا رَوَاہُ ثِقَةٌ بِسَنَدٍ سَلِیْمٍ مَعَ ضُعْفِ نَقْلَتِهٖ وَاضْطِرَابِ رِوَایَاتِهٖ وَانْقِطَاعِ اَسَانِیْدِہٖ وَاَكْثَرُ الطُّرُقِ فِیْھَا ضَعِیْفَةٌ وَاھِیَةٌ لَمْ یَسْنِدَھَا اَحَدٌ مِنْھُمْ وَلَا رَفَعَھَا اِلیٰ صَاحِبٍ
“Prudent and reliable individuals have not accepted this narration due to the fact that the narration of this story is confusing, and its authenticity is very weak. Moreover, the manner of its narration is also weak and feeble. In addition, no narrator has successfully traced this narration to the Holy Prophetsa or any of his companions.”3
Furthermore, ‘Allāmah Nawawī writes:
لَا یَصِحُّ فِیْهِ شَیْءٌ لَا مِنْ جِھَةِ النَّقْلِ وَلَا مِنْ جِھَةِ الْعَقْلِ
“Nothing of this narration is correct, neither in the aspect of narration nor in the aspect of common sense.”4
On the other hand, many A’immah-e-Ḥadīth have not even made mention of this occurrence. For example, the Ṣiḥāḥ Ṣittah has not even hinted towards it, though mention of the recitation of Sūrah An-Najm and the prostration of the Quraish is present in it. It is apparent that this narration passed the eyes of the Muhaddithīn, who rejected it with belief of its forgery and unreliability.
In the same manner, many great Mufassirīn5, such as Imam Rāzī have declared this instance vain and devoid of truth.6 Moreover, among the mystics, sagacious ones, the like of Ibni ‘Arabī, have stated, لَا اَصْلَ لَھَا meaning, “There exists no truth in this occurrence”.7 Furthermore, if the verses of Sūrah An-Najm are analysed from beginning to end, which are replete with teachings against the concept of polytheism, the falsehood of this instance is conclusively established. One cannot entertain the belief that in a monotheistic message, which emphasises the oneness of God with such fervour, a clear verse of polytheistic nature could find way of inclusion, and that almost simultaneously the same tongue could utter two extraordinarily conflicting statements. In addition to this, the life of the Holy Prophetsa, compels common sense to fend off this tale. Prior to his prophethood, he was a man who, all his life, did not indulge in idol worship, despite the fact that his entire nation was idolatrous. Can the common sense of any individual entertain the belief that when a clear order from God Almighty was present, instructing him to raise a voice against idolatry, and enjoin the people to the worship of one God, and the foundation stone of his religion rests upon the unity of God the Almighty, for which he disputes with others, day in and day out, that merely to please the Quraish, upon this instance, he bowed his head towards idolatry? After all, is common sense nothing? Simply cast a glance upon the life of the Holy Prophetsa. For the pleasure of the infidels, did the Holy Prophetsa ever abandon any of his religious principles? In order to prompt the infidels to join forces with him did the Holy Prophetsa ever follow the course of hypocrisy and compromise? The Qur’ān clearly states:
Meaning, “They wish that thou shouldst be pliant so that they may also be pliant (so that apparently both parties may be reconciled in their opposite beliefs).”8
In regards to a man of this disposition, can one make the declaration that he abandoned the unity of God whilst following the course of polytheism?
Albeit, there is one possible explanation and as ‘Allāmah Qasṭalānī and Zarqānī have written and many research scholars have concurred, perhaps this explanation is correct. According to the narration in Bukhārī, when the Holy Prophetsa recited the verses of chapter An-Najm in the courtyard of the Ka‘bah, it is possible that someone from among the ringleaders of the Quraish included the phrase, تِلكَ الْغَرَانِیْقُ الْعُلیٰ in harmony with the voice of the Holy Prophetsa, by which some people fell to the misunderstanding that perhaps it was the Holy Prophetsa who said these words. For it is proven that during the recitation of the Holy Qur’ān, it was the practice of the Quraish to make noise, so as to erase the effect of it. The Holy Qur’ān has also mentioned their words as follows:
Meaning, the Quraish would say, “When the Qur’ān is recited before you, cause confusion by making noise. Perhaps this way, you might have the upper hand.”9
This explanation is also reinforced by the fact that during the Jāhiliyyah, it was the custom of the Quraish to utter this very phrase: تِلكَ الْغَرَانِیْقُ الْعُلیٰ during their Ṭawāf of the Ka‘bah.10 Thus, it is not beyond belief that when the Holy Prophetsa recited the verses of chapter Najam, someone from among them might have included this phrase as well, as per their custom. As a result, it might have spurred the temporary ambiguity that perhaps these words were also uttered by the Holy Prophetsa. Ibni ‘Arabī, Qāḍī ‘Ayāḍ, Ibni Jarīr, Imam Rāzī and Ḥāfiẓ Ibni Ḥajar have also supported this explanation.11 However, there is another fact, which makes the entire tale of this rumour and the return of the immigrants incredulous altogether. The beginning date of the migration to Abyssinia is mentioned as Rajab 5 Nabawī and the date of ‘the prostration’ has been mentioned as Ramaḍān 5 Nabawī and historical accounts state that as a result of this rumour the return of the immigrants to Abyssinia occurred in Shawwāl 5 Nabawī.12 Therefore, the gap in time-periods between the first migration and the return of the immigrants is merely two to three months. If the time period is calculated from the date of ‘the prostration’, the time is only one month. Now, in accordance with the circumstances of that era, it is categorically impossible, for three trips to have been undertaken between Makkah and Abyssinia in such a small time period. In other words, first the Muslims travelled from Makkah to Abyssinia, after which an individual from Makkah brought news to Abyssinia regarding the Quraish’s acceptance of Islām. Then the Muslims once again set off from Abyssinia and reached Makkah. The completion of these three trips (excluding the additional time that is consumed in various affairs), were absolutely impossible in such a short time frame. Furthermore, it is unpragmatic that two trips could have been completed between the time of ‘the prostration’ and the time of the alleged return of the immigrants to Abyssinia. At that time, in order to travel from Makkah to Abyssinia, one was required to first go south, then, from there, cross the Red Sea and reach the coast of Africa by ship (which was not always present). Then from the coast, further on to Axsun, the capital of Abyssinia, which was situated at quite a distance from the coast. And as per the slow mode of travel in that era, a trip of this magnitude could not have been performed in less than one and a half to two months. From this vantage point, the entire incident in itself, turns out to be fabricated and baseless. If hypothetically, there was some underlying truth, then it is no more than that which has been mentioned above. وَاللّٰهُ اَعْلَمُ
1 An-Najm (53:20-21)
2 ‘Umdatul-Qārī Sharḥu Ṣaḥīḥil-Bukhārī, Volume 19, p. 313, Kitābu Tafsīril-Qur’ān, Sūratul-Qamar, Under the verse “Fasjudū lillāhi wa‘budūhu” [An-Najm (53:63)], Dārul-Iḥyā’it-Turāthil-‘Arabī, Beirut, Lebanon, Edition 2003
3 Sharḥul-‘Allāmatiz-Zarqānī ‘alal-Mawāhibil-Ladunniyyah, By Muḥammad bin ‘Abdul-Bāqī Az-Zarqānī, Volume 2, p. 25, Bābu Dukhūlish-Sha‘bi wa Khabriṣ-Ṣaḥīfah, Dārul-Kutubil-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebehon, First Edition (1996)
4 Al-Minhāju bi-Sharḥi Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim bin Al-Ḥajjāj, p. 533, Kitābul-Masājid wa Mawāḍi‘iṣ-Ṣalāh, Bābu Sujūdit-Tilāwah, Dāru Ibni Hazam, First Edition (2002)
5 Commentators of the Holy Qur’ān (Publishers)
6 At-Tafsīrul-Kabīr, By Imām Muḥammad bin ‘Umar bin Al-Ḥusain Fakhr-ud-Dīn Ar-Rāzī, Volume 23, pp. 44-48, Tafsīru Sūratil-Ḥajj, Verse 53, Dārul-Kutubil-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon, Second Edition (2004)
7 Sharḥul-‘Allāmatiz-Zarqānī ‘alal-Mawāhibil-Ladunniyyah, By Muḥammad bin ‘Abdul-Bāqī Az-Zarqānī, Volume 2, p. 25, Bābu Dukhūlish-Sha‘bi wa Khabriṣ-Ṣaḥīfah, Dārul-Kutubil-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebehon, First Edition (1996)
8 Al-Qalam (68:10)
9 Ḥā Mīm As-Sajdah (41:27)
10 Mu‘jamul-Buldān, By Abū ‘Abdullāh Yāqūt bin ‘Abdullāh Al-Ḥamvī, Volume 3, pp. 322-323, Under the word “Al-‘Uzzā”, Dāru Iḥyā’it-Turāthil-‘Arabī, Beirut, Lebanon
11 Sharḥul-‘Allāmatiz-Zarqānī ‘alal-Mawāhibil-Ladunniyyah, By Muḥammad bin ‘Abdul-Bāqī Az-Zarqānī, Volume 2, p. 30-31, Bābu Dukhūlish-Shi‘bi wa Khabriṣ-Ṣaḥīfah, Dārul-Kutubil-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebehon, First Edition (1996)
12 Aṭ-Ṭabaqātul-Kubrā, By Muḥammad bin Sa‘d, Volume 1, pp. 98-99, Bābu Dhikri Sababi Rujū‘i Aṣḥābin-Nabiyyisa ‘an Arḍi Ḥabashah, Dārul-Iḥyā’it-Turāthil-‘Arabī, Beirut, Lebanon, First Edition (1996)