Date OF: (3 Days)

Islamic Studies (Islamabad) 23:4 (1984)
THE DATE OF HIJRAH
F. A. Shamsi
In the first part of this essay, published in the Autumn number of this
Journal, we arrived at the conclusion that there could be no reasonable doubt
about the following itinerary :
1. Departure from home in Mecca Thursday (1st day of Hijrah)

2. Stay in the Cave of Thawr Friday, Saturday and Sunday
(3 days)
3. Departure from the Cave Monday (5th day of Hijrah)
4. At Umm Ma'bad's camp Tuesday (6th day of Hijrah)
5. Arrival in Yathrib Monday (1 2th day of Hijrah)
6. Stay in Quba' before visiting Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday
Medina. and Thursday (4 days)
7. First visit to Medina since Friday (16th day of Hijrah)
departure from the Cave
8. Stay in Quba' 14 days; from Monday (12th
day of Hijrah) to Sunday
(25th day of Hijrah)
9. Shift to Hazrat Abu Ayyub's Monday (26th day of Hijrah)
house in Medina.
In the discussion that follows, this itinerary will be taken for granted
and constitute the bash on which an endeavour will be made to determine
the dare of Hijrah.
I11 : TWO ALTERNATIVES
Given the above set of days, two, and only two, alternative
sets of dates suggest themselves such that all the dates of a set are consistent
among themselves and each of them is supported by some early report.
(1) The Qurayshite Meeting and the Prophet's departure from

home took place on Thursday the 1st of Rabi'I; the Prophet stayed in
the Cave of Thawr from Friday the 2nd to. Sunday the 4th of Rabi'I;
© Dr Muhammad Hamidullah Library, IIU, Islamabad. http://iri.iiu.edu.pk/

departed from the Cave on Monday the 5th of Rabi' al-Awwal; arrived in
Yathrib (i.e. QubB') on Monday the 12th of Rabi' al-Awwal; stayed in Quba'
from Monday the 12th of Rabi' al-Awwal to Thursday the 15th of Rabi'I;
addressed the people and led the Jum'ah prayers in Banii Siilim in Medina
on Friday 16 Rabi'I; and, shifted his residence from Quba' to Medina on
Monday 26 Rabi'I.
(2) The Meeting and departure from home took place on Thursday
26 Safar; stayed in the Cave from Friday 27 Safar to Sunday 29 Safar;
departed from the Cave on Monday 1 Rabi'I; arrived in Quba' on Monday
8 Rabi'I; led prayers in Banu Salim on Friday 12 Rabi'I; shifted residence
from Quba' to Medina on Monday 22 Rabi'I.
Before we discuss these possible sets of dates, let us point out that
no third consistent set of reported dates is possible. For example, Hazrat
Ibn 'Abbiis and Ibn Shihib al-Zuhri are said to have stated that the Prophet
arrived in MedinaIQuba' on 1 Rabi'I. If so, the Prophet must have left
the Cave on 23 Safar, and his house on 20 $afar;' but we have no single
report to that effect.= (I suspect that somehow 'left for Medina' became
'reached Medina', in all probability 'the date of hijrah' having been used by
an earlier reporter in the sense of 'the date of depature' which al-Zuhri,
Miisi b. 'Uqbah or a later reporter, took to mean 'the date of arrival'.)
The same is true, with the difference of one day, of the reports that
Abii Ma'shar, Ibn al-Barq'i and Ibn Ishiq state that the Prophet reached
Medina on 2 Rabi'I. (It is clear in the case of Ibn Ishaq that 'asharah of
'ithnatay 'asharah' got deleted, for, the date of 12 Rabi'I is reported from
him by all other writers. I suspect that the same has happened with Abu
Ma'shar and Ibn al-Barqi.) Similar is the case with the report that the
Prophet reached Medina on Monday 7 Rabi'I, for, even if we assume that
Yathrib is meant by Medina and that the Prophet departed from the Cave
on 1 Rabi'I (since we have no report of 29 $afar for departure either from
the Cave or from home), then the departure from the Cave would have
to happen on a Tuesday (since 7 Rabi'I is by assumption a Monday)
-something no writer reports.
*****
Let us now consider the two possible sets of dates.
We have so many reports regarding the Prophet's arrival in

MedinaIQuba' on Monday the 12th of Rabi'I that we can take it as the
generally accepted date. If we accept this date, then the date of departure
DATE OF IIJJRAH 29 1
from the Cave of Thawr would have to be Monday the 5th of Rabi' al-Awwal,
and, we have Ibn Sa'd's clear report to that effect. If so, the date of Quray-
shite Meeting must have been Thursday the 1st of Rabi'al-Awwal. We
have mentioned several reports to the effect that the Prophet left Mecca
(which would here mean that he left his house for the Cave) on the 1st of
Rabi'I, which would have to be a Thursday if 5 Rabi'I is to be a Monday.
(We would, of course, have to disregard the reports claiming that the
Prophet left his house at night, for, after the sunset the date would become
Friday the 2nd of Rabi'al-Awwal, or, would have to offer the far-fetched
explanation that the Prophet left his house with necessary luggage for
Hazrat Abu Bakr's house on Thursday the 1st of Rabi' al-Awwal, returned
to his house-which was really no more his house-to instruct Hazrat Ali
about the things kept with him in trust, and left the house a little after the
sunset on Friday the 2nd of Rabi'L3) We do have a report that the
Prophet left the Cave on Thursday night 1 Rabi'I, which we may
assume originally to have been 'left Mecca', meaning, left home.
On this view, the contrary reports can be explained partly by claim-

ing that the scholars had confused between departure from Mecca proper
and the Cave of Thawr in Mecca, and between arrival in Medina proper
and Quba' in Yathrib, and partly by claiming that they had used different
data in making their calculations so that they had arrived at different
results regarding the day-date correspondences.
But a very serious difficulty is involved in this view. On the present

view, the 1st. of Rabi'I in the year of Hijrah has to be a Thursday, and the
5th and 12th of Rabi'I have to be Mondays. But, the 1st of Rabi'I
in 1 A.H. (i.e., the year of Hijrah) is a Monday (corresponding to 13-9-622
A.D.) and not a Thursday, and the 5th and 12th of Rabi'I are Fridays
(corresponding to 17-9-622 A.D. and 24-9-622 A.D.) and not Mondays.
On reasonableassumptionsone can make the 1st. of Rabi'I, 1 A.H. to fall on
Saturday 11-9-622 A.D. , or on Sunday 12-9-622 A.D. But by no reason-
able rule of computation can 1-3-1 A.H. be made to fall on Thursday
9.9.622 A.D. or even Friday 10.9.622 A.D. It follows that if the 1st. of
Rabi'I in the year of Hijrah is assumed to be a Thursday, and the 5th and
12th of Rabi'I are assumed to be Mondays, then we have to assume that
these dates belong to a calendar other than the Muslim (i.e., the Hijrah)
Calendar, a calendar in which its month of Rabi' al-Awwal in its year of
Hijrah did commence on a Thursday (i.e. at sunset on Wedne~day).~
It may here be mentioned that if we accept that 12 Rabi' al-Awwal
1 A.H. was a Monday, this incompatibility between the reported day of
the week and the date would not be a unique illstance regarding events in
the life of the Prophet. Days and dates reported of such important events
as the Battle of Badr (Friday 17 Ramadan 2 A.H.), the Battle of Uhud
(Saturday 11 or 15 Shawwal 3 A.H.), and the Conquest of Mecca
(Friday 20 Ramadan 8 A.H.) are incompatible with each other in the Hijrah
Calendar.5 And this is not the only kind of chronological problem
infesting reports regarding dates of events in the life of the P r ~ p h e t .Hence,
~
scholars have come to assume that many of the reported dates belong to a
luni-solar calendar then in vogue in Arabia, for, we have considerable
evidence to show that the Arabs used to have a luni-solar calendar. It
will involve a great digression to go into this question. Hence, we shall
content ourselves here with stating that, according to one view (originated
probably by Silvestre de Sacy7 and accepted by Wincklers and Moulvi
Ishaq al-Nabig), at the time of Hijrah and till 9. A.H. the Arabs used to
have two calenders, a purely lunar one (among the Meccans according to
de Sacy and among the Medinese Arabs accordings to Moulvi Ishaq al-
Nabi) and a luni-solar one (among the Medinese according to de Sacy,
and among the Meccans and other Arabs according to Moulvi Ishaq
al-Nabi), and, according to another view, viz., that of Dr. Hashim Amir
Ali, the pre-Islamic Arabs used to have a luni-solar calendar which
continued to be in use during the lifetime of the Prophet, and that during
the caliphate of Hazrat 'Umar, in 17 or 18 A.H., when the Hijrah era was
adopted, it was further decided to take the lunar calendar backwards to the
year of Hijrah by removing those intercalary months from the pre-Islamic
calendar which had been intercalated after the migration of the Prophet. 1 O
I regard Dr. Hashim Amir Ali's view as the correct one, except that I bel-
ieve that when the pre-Islamic Arabian Calendar was abolished in (what be-
came) Ramadan 8.A.H. in pursuance of the command contained in Verses
9 : 36-37, the pre-Islamic Arabian calendar was recast into the lunar
mould ab initio.
In short, there is considerable justification for the view that the

pagan Arabs used to have a luni-solar calendar and that the dates of some
events, as recorded by Muslim historians, belong to that calendar. Hence,
at least prima facie, the possibility that the date of Hijrah, i.e., the date of
the Prophet's arrival in Yathrib (taking it to be Monday 12 Rabi' al-Awwal
in the year of Hijrah), too belongs to the pre-Islamic luni-solar calendar
DATE OF HIJRAH 293
cannot be discountenanced. (We shall later discuss the calendars proposed

by Perceval, Dr. Hamidullah and Moulvi Ishaq al-Nabi and their respective
datings.)
******
Let us now consider the other consistent set of dates for which we
have the support of early authorities (viz., departurc from home on Thurs-
day 26 Safar and from the Cave on 1 Rabi'I and arrival in Yathrib, i.e.
Quba', on Monday 8 Rabi61 and in Medina on Friday 12 Rabi'I, and
coming into residence in Medina on Monday 22 Rabi'I). We have alrcady
given necessary references. However, to refresh our memory let us look
at the reports again.
Al-Khwarizmi is reported by al-Hakim (apud Ibn Hajar) to have

said that the Prophet left Mecca on a Thursday. Ibn Hajar and al-Qas9l5-
ni report that Abii Bakr b. Hazm had said that the Prophet left Mecca on
26 Safar. We assume that they meant departurc from home.
We have Hazrat Asma', Hazrat Aisha and many others who say that
the Prophet stayed in the Cave for 3 days. This implies that the departure
from the Cave took place on Monday 1 Rabi'l. (In all computations,
$afar is taken to comprise 29 days.) We have moreover reports that Ibn
Ishaq and al-Umawi had stated that the Prophet had left Mecca (i.e. we
presume, the Cave) on 1 Rabi61 and that Ibn al-Kalbi had said that the
Prophet had left the Cave on 1 Rabi'I.
We have al-Bayriini's report that al-Sha'bi states that there can be

no doubt whatsoever that the Prophet had reached Quba' on 8 Rabi'I.
Al-Bayruni further says that there is a general agreement on this date. We
have reports that 'Abd al-Rahm5n b. al-Mughirah and al-Khwarizmi had
said that the Prophet had reached Medina on 8 Rabi'I. We assume that they
had meant Yathrib (i.e. Quba'). Al-Ya'qubi and al-Bayruni adopt this date.
Al-Hakim is reported as carrying reports that the Prophet reached Medina
on 8 Rabi'I. We have reports that Hazrat Ibn 'Abbas states that the
Prophet reached Medina on a Monday, and that al-Hakim says that there
is a tawatur in the report that the Prophet reached Medina on a Monday.
Ibn Ishaq, al-Waqidi, Ibn Sa'd, in fact all writers with the possible excep-
tion of Ibn al-Kalbi, give Monday as the day of arrival in Quba' or in
Medina, meaning, we suppose, Yathrib (i.e. Quba').
We have reports that Ibn al-Kalbi had stated that the Prophet
reached Medina on Friday 12 Rabi'I. We assume that he meant that the
Prophet had reached or cone to Medina proper o c Friday 12 Rabi'I.
We have several reports that the Prophet stayed in Quba' for 4 days,
from Monday to Thursday, and then on (the following) Friday came to
Medina.
We have reports that Hazrat Anas states that the Prophet had lived
among B a i i 'Amr b. 'Awf (in Quba') for 14 days. We have reports that
Hazrat Aisha and 'Urwah state that the Prophet had resided with Banu
'Amr b. 'Awf for more than twelve days. We have reports that Mujammi'
b. Ya'qub states that the Prophet had lived with Banu 'Amr b. 'Awf for
22 days. We assume that originally the statement had been that the Pro-
phet had stayed with Banu 'Amr till the 22nd of Rabi'I when he shifted to
Hazrat Abii Ayyiib's house in Medina.
Now, since 1.1.1. A.H. corresponds to Friday 16.7.622 A.D., we

have the following correspondences for the relsvant dates :
26 Safar, 1 A.H. =Thursday 9.9.622 A.D.
1 Rabi'I, 1 A.H. =Monaday 13.9.622 A.D.
8 Rabi'I, 1 A.H. =Monday 20.9.622 A.D.
12 Rabi'I, 1 A.H. =Friday 24.9.622 A.D.
22 Rabi'I, 1 A.H. = Monday 4.10.622 A.D.
Here, the reported dates are in accord with the reported days. That
is, the above set of dates can belong to the Hijrah calendar whether or not
this calendar (or a predecessor in continuity with it) was in vogue at that
time. Conversely, it is to be noted, if the event of Hijrah was recorded
in terms of the Hijrah calendar then the present set of dates must be taken
as truly dating the event of Hijrah. Thus the present set can be taken as
belonging to the Hijrah calendar.
*****
Before we go on to consider whichof the two sets of dates-the one
belcngir-g lo a resumed Arabian calendar and the oii.e~d e n p i n g to the
Hijrah klendar - is to be accepted, let us take inio i l c ; ~ , , ; ~ : :;:e reports
that appear to be inconsistent with the set of dates bel~r~,:.., .; ::le hijrah
Calendar.
DATE OF HIJRAEI 295
(i) Ibn 'Abd al-Ban says that the Prophet was permitted to
migrate (from Mecca to Medina) on a Monday. He quotes no earlier source
for his assertion. It is obvions therefore that this was his conclusion from
the reports that the Prophet migrated from Mccca the day he was permitted
by God to do so (as clearly appears from Hazrat Aisha's report) and that
the Prophet migrated from Mecca on a Monday, which Ibn 'Abd al-Barr
took to mean departed from home.
(ii) We have numerous reports that the Prophet left his house at
night with Hazrat Ali lying in his bed and his house having been surrounded
by Qurayshite representatives bent upon killing the Prophet that night.
Dr. Hashim Amir Ali regards these reports as fabrications pure and
simple.11 His view is based on the assumption that the Prophet had
migrated in the pagan month of al-Muharram and so during the sacred
period. Even apart from this possibility, the story is morally indefensible,
despite even the report that the Prophet had assured Hazrat Ali that no
harm would come to him,I2 implying divine intervention. Moreover,
there are many weaknesses in the story as narrated, for example, by Ibn
Ishaq and Ibn Sa6d.l3 According to this story, the Quraysh had decided
that a scion of each clan should attack and kill the Prophet. Sometime
after the sunset a number of them came to ihe Prophet's house and gathered
at his door. Hazrat Ali lay down in the Prophet's bed and covered him-
self with the burd (a sheet of cloth) of the Prophet. The Prophet came out
reciting verses of Siirah Ygsin and sprinkled dust on their heads. They were
unable to see the Prophet go. Then, a person, who was not of their
party and who had seen the Prophet going out, asked them as to what they
were doing there. They said that they were waiting for Muhammad. The
man told them that Muhammad had gone out unseen by them. There-
upon they looked into the house, and seeing Hazrat Ali in the Prophet's
mantle, swore that Muhammad was sleeping in his mantle. The attackers
remained there till the morning. When Hazrat Ali stood up on the bed they
asked him about the Prophet. When he told them that he had no knowl-
edge of himytheycame to know what had happened. Now, in the first place,
no matter whether it was Auntie Ruqayqah who had b.een an angel on the
~ccasionand had informed him of the planned swal~hy, c ,urnal, attack1 4,
or it was actually an angel, Gabriel, who had adviw! him not to sleep in
his bed that night,' a question arises as to why did the Prmhet not vacate
his house at'least sometime before the time appc ' ' " I .he attackers m
assemble if not immediately upon learning of the Qurayshite decision?
Why did he have to wait even after the sunset till it was time to go to sleep?
Secondly, even if we assume that Hazrat Ali was sleeping in the courtyard
or thzt it was possible to peep into the room through some hole in the wall,
the question is whether there would be sufficient light quite some time after
the sunset to enable the attackers to assure themselves that someone was
sleeping in the bed?16 Thirdly, according to Ibn Ishaq's explicit state-
ment, they were to attack the Prophet that night,l7 and in all other reports
this is clearly implied. But the attackers make no move to get into the
house to kill the Prophet. They only wait at the door (it seems) for the
Prophet to come out. Even assuming divine intervention, we fail to see
why no attempt should at all have been made to kill the person who they
thought was their quarry. If no attempt at his life was to be made, and
surely God would know that no such attempt would be made, then for what
purpose had Gabriel advised that the Prophet should not repose in his bed
that night, or, if it was Ruqayqah who had informed the Prophet, then why
should she say that the Quraysh had decided on a stealthy, nocturnat attack
(bsyat) upon him? Finally, one may ask, what did the Prophet expect to
gain from risking thc life of Hazrzt Ah? Surely not time, for, he went to
the Cave of Thawr and not to Medina, and remained there for three days.
The fact is, the later writers were confronted with the reports that the
Prophet migrated at night and that the Quraysh had decided to kill the
Prophet at night, and concluded that the escape must have been mira-
culous. This conclusion gains considerable weight from the fact that
the report does not accord with any reliable early report regarding the date
of Hijrah. If the arrival in Medina (i.e. Yathrib) was on Monday 12 Rabi'I
then the Meeting must have been held on a Thursday (for it to be a Day
of Assembly), and the Prophet must have left his house on Friday night;
but the date would then be 2 Rabi'I which no narrator mentions.'*
(iii) We have Ibn Hajar's report that 'Urwah had said that the
Prophet had stayed in the Cave of Thawr for 2 nights. We have already
discussed this report at length (in Section IT).
(iv) Al-Diyarbakiri appears to be saying that Musa b. 'Uqbah in

his Al- Wafi' reports from al-Zuhri that the Prophet left the Cave sometime
during the night of his arrival there. It is clear that what al-Zuhri must
have done was to mention the siege then give other reports and then, revert-
ing to the former, state that the Prophet had left his house (or, possibly,
DATE OF HIJRAH 297
Mecca, meaning Mecca proper) the same night. As it is, al-Samhudi does
the same, but here the implication is so clear that his statement cannot be
taken to mean that the Prophet had left the Cave the very night he had
amved there.
(v) Yazid b. Abu Habib reportedly states that the Prophet left
Mecca in Safar and reached Medina in Rabi'I. We assume that he meant
departure from home.
(vi) Ibn Ishaq and al-Umawi reportedly state that the Prophet
left Mecca on 1 Rabi'I. We assume that they meant actual departure for
Medina, i.e. departure from the Cave.
(vii) Al-Maqrizi (d. 84511441-2) gives 4 Rabi'I as the date of

departure from the Cave. He quotes no authority. I suppose that this was a
misinterpretation of Ibn Sa'd's report. Ibn Sa'd says, 'at night, 4 nights
of Rabi'I having elapsed'. If he would not have mentioned 'at night', it
would have meant the date of 4 Rabi'I. But, the statement really is
that the departure took place on the fifrh night of Rabi'I which means that
it happened on 5 Rabi'I.
(viii) Ibn Sa'd appears to report from 'Abd al-Malik al-Madhhaji

that the Prophet left the Cave on the 5th night of Rabi'I. This was worked
out by al-Madhhaji or an earlier writer, it seems, on the assumptions that
the Prophet had reached Medina on 12 Rabi'I and that the days of departure
from Mecca and arrival in Medina were Mondays. If the arrival was on
Monday 12 Rabi'I, then the departure must have been on Monday 5 Rabi'I
or Monday 27 Safar. The latter date, even as the date of departure from
home, would have appeared to give too longa period to the journey
between Mecca and Medina. Hence al-Madhhaji or his source concluded
that the Prophet must have left the Cave on Monday 5 Rabi'I. This is a
possible date. We shall discuss it when we discuss which of the two sets
of dates is to be accepted. All we need say here is that apart from the
p ossibility of this date having been derived from the date of Monday 12
Rabi'I, it is quite possible that 'Abd al-Malik had only said that the Pro-
phet had departed from the Cave on the 5th day of Hijrah which a later
narrator turned into 5 Rabi'I on the well attested report that the Prophet
left Mecca on a Monday and reached Medina on Monday 12 Rabi'l.
(ix) Al-Diyarbakiri reports that al-Ya'muri says in his Sirah that the
Prophet when he became 53 years old migrated from Mecca to Medina on
8 Rabi'I. As far as Ibn Sayyid al-Nas al-Ya'muri the Sirah writer is
concerned, he gives 8 Rabi'I neither as the date of departure nor as the date
of arrival. On the contrary, he gives 12 Rabi'I as the date of arriva1,lg
which fails to account for the date of 8 Rabi'I, i.e. we cannot assume that
he had given it as the date of hijrah. Al-Diyarbakiri perhaps means some
other al-Ya'muri who too may have written a book on sirah. In any case,
al-Diyarbakiri's statement is to be understood to mean not that the Prophet
left Mecca for Medina on 8 Rabi'I but that he came to Medina, i.e., to Quba',
on that date, having migrated from Mecca. That is, it is possible that Ibn
Sayyid al-Nas had given 8 Rabi'I as the date of arrival in Quba' and 12
Rabi'I as the date of arrival in Medina.
(x) Musa b. 'Uqbah (according to Ibn Hajar, al-Samhudi and al-

Qastalani) states that al-Zuhri says that the Prophet reached Quba' on
1 Rabi'I. But, Ibn al-Jawzi, (in his Al- Wafi) and al-Nawawi (apud al-Sam-
hudi) say that al-Zuhri gives 12 Rabi'I as the date of arrival; and, al-Zubayr
b. Bakkir (apud Ibn Hajar), al-Maqrizi, and Ibn Zabilah (apud al-Sani-
hudi), say that al-Zuhri states that the Prophet reached Medina in the middle
of Rabi'I. All the three statements become compatible if we assume that al-
Zuhri had given l Rabi'I as the date of Hijrah ,meaning the day of depar-
ture, 12 Rabi'I as the date of arrival in Medina which was wrongly taken
to mean the day of arrival in Quba', and n i ~ f Rabi'I, meaning not I6
Rabi'I but the Middle of Rabi'I, as the period of arrival in Medina proper.
As for Abii Nu'aym's report from Hazrat Ibn 'Abbas, there are two posai-
bilities: (a) The date is an interpolation. For, in all other reports, only the
day (Monday) has been mentioned.Z0 (b) The original statement had
'hajara (migrated)', meaning, departed from Mecca (i.e. the Cave) which
was later taken to mean 'arrived in Medina' and a later narrator changed
'hajara' to 'dakhala al-Madinah' (entered Medina).
(xi) Ibn Ishaq, Abu Ma'shar Najih and Ibn al-Barqi are reported
to have given 2 Rabi'I as the date of arrival in Medina. In the case of
Ibn Ishaq, it is clear that he could not have given 2 Rabi'I as the date of
arrival, for, in all other reports, including Ibn Hisham's Sirah (which is
Ibn Hisham's recension of Ibn Ishaq's book), he gives 12 Rabi'I as the
date of arrival, and he is reported by quite reliable writers to have
given 1 Rabi'I as the date of departure (and so he could not have said that
DATE OF HIJRAH 299
the Prophet reached Yathrib the next day). Hence it is obvious that the
'asharah of ithnatay 'asharah was dropped by some copyistlnarrator and
so 12 Rabi'I became 2 Rabi'I. (Interestingly enough, in both the editions
of Ibn Sa'd's Tabaqit, Ibn Sa'd has been made to make two statements.
At one place, he says that the Prophet reached Medina on 2 Rabi'I, but,
12 Rabi'I is also rnenti~ned.~'At another place, he says that the Prophet
reached Medina on 12 Rabi'I, but, 2 Rabi'I is also mentioned; he also says
that there is a consensus on the date of 12 Rabi'I.22 Although he does
not appear to be reporting from al-Waqidi - but if "qilii" is read instead
of "q81a7', ffien Ibn Sa'd would be narrating in the first instance from al-
Waqidi and ultimately from al-Waqidi's source or sources, and the same
would be the case if 'al-awwal' is taken to return not to the immediate
predecessor but to the first narrator, since al-Waqidi was his lone direct
source23-even so, Ibn Sa'd or al-Madhhaji could not have given the date
of 2 Rabi'I since in the same narration the Prophet was earlier stated to
have left the Cave on 5 Rabi'I.24 (Al-Waqidi, incidentally, says that the
Prophet reached Medina on 12 Rabi'I but it is also said that he reached
there on 2 Rabi'L25) I suppose that the same has happened in the case of
Abu Ma'shar and Ibn-Barqi. Alternatively, one might assume that this
was given out as the date of departure meaning departure from home. If
12 Rabi'I was a Monday and the Prophet reached Quba' on 12 Rabi'I
then it is possible-nay, so probable as to be necessary-that the Meeting
had been held on Thursday 1 Rabi'I and the Prophet had left his house
on Thursday 1 Rabi'I or on Friday night 2 Rabi'I. But, Abu Ma'shar
and Ibn al-Barqi are too late writers to be supposed that by the expression
'the date of hijrah' they would mean the date of departure. Hence the only
explanation is that these two had made the same statement as Ibn Ishaq
and that one of the narrators made it 2 Rabi'I for all the three by dropp-
ing 'asharah.
(xii) Ibn Hajar, al-Sarnhudi, al-Qastalani and al-Diyarbakiri

say that the date of 7 Rabi'I has also been reported as the date of arrival in
Medina. This date does not agree with the other reports. The only expla-
nation is that it is a variant of the date of 8 Rabi'I based on an alternative
method of computation. This date could have been worked out on various
assumptions. Perchance the epoch of the Hijrah era was calculated back
from such a point that the era was found to commence on Saturday 17.7.622
A.D. In that case, 7 and not 8 Rabi 'I would be a Monday. Alternatively, since
a conjunction of the sun and the moon occurred, in respect of Medina, at
about 10.30 P.M. on Saturday 11.9.622 A.D., it was assumed that the moon
could not have been visible the following evening and hence that the month
of Rzbi'I, 1 A.N. had commenced on Tuesday 14.9.622 A.D. If so,
Monday would fall on 7 and not on 8 Rabi'I. Thus, this report may be
taken to agree with the date of 8 Rabi'I.
(xiii) Al-Tabarsi gives I1 Rabi'I as the date of arrival in Medina,

and Muhsin al-Amin says that the Prophet reachcd Quba' on 11 or 12
Rabi'I. Like the date of 7 Rabi'I, this date is a variant of the date of 12
Rabi'I : if the Monday in question fell on 7 Rabi'I, then the Friday in
question will fall on 11 Rabi'I. Muhsin al-Amin is a recent writcr. He
clearly meant to specify the place to which the Prophet had come, taking
the report of Ibn Ishaq, etc., for granted but allowing for the views of
al-Tabarsi, etc.
(xiv) We have innumerable reports that the Prophet reached Medina/

Quba' on 12 Rabi'I. This is possible in itself. We shall consider it as
part of the first set of possible dates later. Here, we shall consider it on
the present assumption, viz., that the Prophet reached Quba' on 8 Rabi'I
and came to Medina on 12 Rabi'I for the first time after migrating from
Mecca.
(a) Those who say that the Prophet reaclied Medina on 12 Rabi'I
are to be taken to mean that the Prophet, so to say, remained on his way to
Medina while he was in Quba' and that he reached Medina on 12 Rabi'I.
(b) Hisham b. Muhammad b. al-SH'ib al-Kalbi is reported to have

said that the Prophet reached (in two reports, enteredZ6) Medina on
Friday 12 Rabi'I. We suppose that he meant what he said. Those
writers who suppose that he gave this as the date of arrival in Yathrib
(i.e., in Quba') and so went against the consensus on Monday as the day
of arrival are clearly mistaken. For, according to those reports, he
had taken 1 Rabi'I to have been a Monday and it should have been
clear that he was giving the day (with which all writers are agreed, since
they all mention Friday prayers) and the date of arrival in Medina and
not in Quba', and, in the light of the report of four days' stay in Quba'
before coming to Medina, he should have been taken to be in agreement
with the consensus on Monday as the day of arrival in (Haram) Medina,
i.e. Yathrib, or more specifically, Quba'.
DATE OF HIJRAH 301
(c) Al-Ya'qubi says that it is also said that the Prophet reached
Medina on Thursday 12 Rabi'I. This is the only report of its kind. One
could assume that 12 Rabi'I, 1 A.H. was calculated to be a Thursday (e.g.
on the assumption that a month is to begin with the day of conjunction),
but the day does not agree with the day of arrival in Yathrib on which there
is near unanimity (viz., Monday) nor with the day of the Prophet's first
appearance in Medina (Friday) on which too there is unanimity, for, all
reports mention the Friday prayers in the quarters of Banu Salim that day.
Hence the only explanation is that either al-Ya'qubi had reported al-
Jum'ah (Friday) which by mistake has become al-Khamis (Thursday), or,
that whoever had first proposed this date had relied entirely upon his
calculation and totally neglected, or been ignorant of, the traditions in
question.
(d) We now consider the date of Monday 12 Rabi'I as the date of
arrival in MedinalQuba'. This, we feel, has come about as a result of
confusing 'arrival in Medinn (proper)' with 'arrival in Yathrib or the Sanc-
tuary of Medina (i.e. in Quba')'. The Prophet arrived in Yathrib on a
Monday and probably shifted his residence to Medina proper on a Monday.
He came to Medina after 4 days* stay in Quba* on the 12th of Rabi' al-
awwal. The t ~ were o wrongly added together to become Monday the
12th of Rabi'al-Awwal. In all probability another consideration added to
this misconstruction. According to the popular view, the Prophet was
born on the 12th of Rabi' al-awwal,2' and there is almost complete unani-
mity that the Prophet was 53 years old at the time of Hijrah (i-e. when he
arrived in Medina).** On the 8th of Rabi'al-awwal, the Prophet would be
4 days short of 53 years. Moreover there is a consensus that the Prophet was
born on a M0nday;2~in fact, there is a tradition going back to the Pro-
phet himself to the effect that he was born on a M~nday.~O Now, 53 lunar
years ( = 53 x 12 lunar months) = 18781.458 days. Deleting the fraction of
0.458 because it is less than 0.5, these days amount to 2683 full weeks.
Hence, the day coming after 53 lunar years would be the same day of the
week. These two considerations must have weighed heavily in favour of
adopting Monday 12 Rabi'al-Awwal as the date of arrival. Furthermore,
even where coming to Medina meant coming to Medina proper, coming
from Quba' for the first time (on a Friday) was confused with shifting
from Quba' (probably on a Monday).
(xv) Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani and al-Qastalani say that Abu Sa'id
in his Sharaf al-Mus!a/iT narrates from Abu Bakr b. H a m that the Prophet
reached (Yathrib) on 13 Rabi'I. Al-Diyarbakiri says that it is reported from
Abu Bakr b. Hazm that the Prophet reached (Yathrib) on 13 Rabi'I. This
does no! agree with the date of 26 Safa: reported from Abu Bakr b. Hazm
for departure (in the sense that if 13 Rabi'I is a Monday - and, Ibn
Hajar says that there is a report in Abu Sa'id from Ibn Hazm that the
Prophet reached Quba' on a Monday and stayed with Hazrat Sa'd b.
Khaythamah3' - then 26 Safar is neither a Thursday nor a Monday),
nor with other quite authoritatively given dates. I believe that whoever
originally proposed this date did so on the assuniption that the Prophet
came to Medina on a Friday, for which the date of 12 Rabi'I was given, but
since the conjunction had occurred early at night on Sunday night (the
conjunction in question occurred, in respect of Medina, at 10.30 P.M.
on Saturday 11-9-622 A.D.) he held that the month of Rabi'I should be
taken as beginning on Sunday and the Prophet to have come to Medina
on 13 Rabi'I instead of 12 Rabi'I. Some later reporter took it to have been
the statement about the arrival in Yathrib, since Abu Bakr b. Hazm
was known to have mentioned his arrival in Quba', and, thus, it became
the statement recorded in Sharaf al-Mustafa of Abu Sa'id.
(xvi) Ibn Hajar says that Abu Sa'id reports from (Hazrat) 'Umar
that the Prophet reached Medina on 28 Rabi'I. (Al-Samhudi says so
too, but, I believe, he was only following Ibn Hajar.) Abu Sa'id (d.
407/1016-17) is too late a writer to be reporting from Hazrat 'Umar with-
out mentioning his source. No earlier writer known to me carries this
report. I think that Abu Sa'id had really written "Muhammad b. 'Umar"
(i.e. al-Waqidi), for, he could narrate from him without having to state
his authority. Now, as suggested by Ibn Hajar and al-Samhudi, Abu
Sa'id must have written 2 Rabi'I which became 28 Rabi'I because the
copyist changed madat (elapsed) to baqiyat (remaining, i.e. yet to elapse).32
Indeed, no one ever writes '28 nights of such - and - such a month yet to
elapse'. For the first 15 days all writers say 'so many nights (meaning dies)
of month x having elapsed', and only from the 16th onwards do some
writers begin to use baqiyat 'so many nights of month x yet to elapse', and
it is only the last few days of a month that are given in this form by all
writers. Now, al-Waqidi does say that the Prophet reached Medina on
12 Rabi'I but that it is dso said that the Prophet reached there on 2 Rabi'I.
(xvii) We have many reports contrary to our construction regard-

ing the Prophet's arrival in Medina. Rut these involve the confusion
DATE OF HIJRAH 303
between Medina and Yathrib, and a misunderstanding of the expression

'the Prophet came to Medina on Friday after 4 days' stay in Quba'IBanu
'Amr b. 'Awf". There can be no doubt that the Prophet stayed in Quba'
on reaching Yathrib. In the light of reported statements of Hazrat Aisha,
Hazrat Anas and 'Urwah, there can hardly be any doubt that the Prophet
lived in Quba' for 14 days in all. In view of the statements of such compe-
tent scholars as Ibn Ishaq, Ibn al-Kalbi and Ibn Sa'd, etc., there can be no
doubt that the Prophet came to Medina on (Friday) 12 Rabi'I, having stayed
in Quba' for 4 days till then. We believe that the last part of Hazrat al-
Bara's report was a later interpolation. We believe that the reported
reception in Medina on the day of arrival in Yathrib is really the reception
accorded to him on the day of arrival in Medina, on the day on which he
offered Friday prayer in Banu Salim. We have given reasons for this
belief earlier (in Section 11).
We thus see that the second set of dates presents quite an accept-
able account. We now consider the question as to which of the two sets of
dates is to be accepted.
. . IV : THE DATE OF HIJRAH
Thus, we have two alternative sets of dates to choose between.

Prima facie, both the sets of dates are viable. But, even apart from
objections pertaining to each of the proposed Arabian calendars, there are
a number of considerations which make the former set of dates unten-
able.
(1) No matter whether or not there actually were two calendars

in vogue at. the time of Hijrah including a lunar calendar with which the
Muslim calendar is in continuity, it is highly improbable that the date of
Hijrah would be recorded in terms not of the Muslim but the Pagan calen-
dar. Undoubtedly, the dates of such important events as Ghazwah Badr,
Ghazwah Uhud and the Conquest of Mecca appear to bear dates of the pre-
Islamic calendar, and, if the Muslim calendar was established no earlier
than 8 A.H., then it appears that the date of Hijrah too must belong to the
pre-Islamic calendar. But, those events were as important for the pagans
as for the Muslims and it is not very surprising that these should bear
pagan dates (the pagans having later adopted Islam). But, the event of
Hijrah, at least at that time, must have appeared to be of little consequence
to the pagans and they would have pretty little reason to record its date;
on the contrary, this event was of crucial importance for the Muslims and
was regarded as such by them. That is why in 17/18 A.H. the committee
appointed by Hazrat 'Umar to decide upon an era for the Muslims decided
upon the (lunar) year of Hijrah to mark the beginning of the Tslamic era.
Even if, till then, the event of the Prophet's hijrah had borne the (luni-
solar) Arabian date, it is simply unbelievable that the corresponding date
in the Muslim calendar would not be worked out and ever thereafter
used by Muslim scholars.
Dr. Hamidullah claims that al-Bayhaqi states that before the official
decision during the Caliphate of Hazrat 'Umar, the point of Hijrah had of
course been adopted as the beginning of chronological computation, but
that there were three modes of reckoning: some people began with the
Muharram of the year in whose Dhu al-Hijjah the second Bay'ah of
'Aqabah took place and Muslims started migrating to Medina in conse-
quence thereof; some began with the Muharram of the year in which the
Prophet migrated ; some others commenced with the Muharram which
came after the Prophet's migration.' Ahmad b. al-uusayn al-Bayhaqi
(3841994-458/1066) is too late a writer to be taken to have made a
statement of fact on his own. But, Dr. Hamidullah does not state on
whose authority al-Bayhaqi had made this statement. To me it seems
that this was d-Bayhaqi's conjecture to explain the contradictions in the
reports regarding dates of the post-Hijrah events. Be that asit may, al-
Bayhaqi's statement cannot be accepted for three reasons.
(i) Meccan followers had indeed started migrating quite some time
before the Prophet's hijrah. Hazrat Abii Salamah, according to Ibn
Ishaq, had gone to Medina a year before the (second) pledge of al-'Aqabah.2
Hazrat 'Umar had himself gone quite some time before the Prophet.3
But, it is unbelievable that even during Hazrat Umar's caliphate Muslim
scholars would choose to call the year of Hazrat Umar's migration as the
Year of Hijrah, specially if the hijrah of the Prophet himself and Hazrat
Abu Bakr would have to take place in the second year of Hijrah. Indeed,
it seems quite absurd to think that the year of anyone else's hijrah than
that of the Prophet could have been adopted as the Year of Hijrah.
(ii) Even so, why was not the Prophet's migration placed in the
second year of Hijrah, if he did migrate in that year? All writers and
DATE OF HIJRAH 305
narrators, including, ironically enough, Dr. Hamidullah himself, place the

Prophet's migration in the Rabi'I of the Year of Hijrah,4 and I am not
aware of myonc cver having held that the Prophet migrated in the year
preceding or following the Year of Hijrah. Surely, the early Muslim
scholars were not so incompetent as to place the Prophet's migration in
the earlierllater year by mistake.
(iii) Finally, we have reports from Companions, for example,

Hazrat Ibn 'Abbas and Hazrat Sahl b. Sa'd (d. 911709-lo), to the effect that
the people dated from the year in which the Prophet had reached Medina,5
and al-Bayruni states that al-Sha'bi says that the event of the Prophet's
Hijrah was adopted as marking the comnlencement of the Muslim era
because there was no doubt about the date of this event.6
Thus, we must take it for granted that the Prophet did migrate in the
Year of Hijrah, that is, in the lunar year that was worked out as Year
1 A.H. (While adopting the Hijrah era, we feel, only that period must
have been adopted as the Year of Hijrah in which the Prophet's migration
fell.) If so, we must further assume that the date of the Prophet's migra-
tion must also have been worked out in terms of this calendar, for, otherwise,
how could it be ascertained as to which of the years of the proposed lunar
calendar had happened to be the year of the Prophet's hijrah? To me
it seems to be a contradiction in terms to hold that the Year of Hijrah worked
out was the year of the Prophet's migration (i.e.l A.H.), but the date of the
Prophet's arrival and the real beginning of Muslim history was allowed to
remain a date in the abrogated calendar.
(2) While the first set of dates satisfies most of the reports, it fails
to explain the reports of 8 Rabi'I as the date of arrival in Quba'and Safar
having been the month of departure from Mecca. (In the first set,
the Meeting takes place on 1 Rabi'I.) We shall have to hold that the very
early and very reliable narrators like Yazid b. Abu Habib and al-Sha'bi
were mistaken. On the contrary, as shown earlier, the second set
not only explains the report of 12 Rabi'I as the date of arrival in Medina,
it also explains every other early report ;in fact, it can be said to be based
on all the early reports.
(3) While there is, or appears to be, a difference of opinion regard-

ing the date of arrival in Yathrib, there is no difference in the reports regard-
ing the month of arrival : all reporters are unanimous that it happened
in the month of Rabi'I. Hence, if we adopt the first set, i.e., if we
assume that the Rabi'I in question was the pagan Rabi'I, we have
to assume either (i) that the early Muslim scholars failed to work out the
month of Hijrah in the Hijrah calendar, or, at least, that the later writers failed
to mention that month, or (2) that the Rabi'I of the pagan year of Hijrah
(roughly) corresponded to the Rabi'I of the Year of Hijrah of the Hijrah
calendar. But neither alternative is aueprable. (i) One cannot confident-
ly work out the year of an event in any calendar without knowing the exact
date in another calendar. For, a month of one calendar can overlap with
two years of another calendar. Thus, in respeet of some calendar, the exact
date of arrival in Yathrib must have been known, and it is tbis date which
must have been converted into the Hijrah calendar. Now, it is possible to
stop calculating as soon as the year has been determined. But, it seems abs-
urd to me that anyofie would do a thing like that, unless he were in a great
hurry and further determinations (of the month and the date) were quite im-
material to him. Now, it is inconceivable that the early Muslim scholars who
worked out the Year of Hijrah in the Hijrah calendar would fail to deter-
mine the month/months and the date / dates of the Prophet's departure
and arrival in the proposed Hijrah calendar, or, having determined it,
would fail to mention it. (ii) Nor can we suppose that the Muslim and the
Pagan months of Rabi'I corresponded in the Year of Hijrah for two reasons.
(a) The preceding pagan Dhu al-Hijjah would fall in June-July, possibly
in May-June (if that year was embolismic), and, in any case, Hajj would
be performed in early July if not in June, whereas, according to all indica-
tions the hajj must have been scheduled for August-September period.' (b)
If the Rabi'I of 1 A.H. is the month of the Prophet's hijrah, in virtue of
roughly corresponding to the pagan Rabi'I, then 8 Rabi'I, 1 A.H. must
correspond to the pagan 12 Rabi'I, for, the latter is taken to be a Monday.
That is, since the pagan year is a luni-solar year, its months must roughly
correspond to actual lunations, and, since its 12 Rabi'I is a Monday, this
date must correspond to 8 Rabi'I, 1 A.H., since that is a Monday and since
the 12th of even a conventional lunar month cannot correspond to the 1st
or the 15th of a lunar month of the kind in use among the Muslims. If so,
nothing would be gained by accepting the first set, for, it would
amount to accepting both the sets and saddling us with a quite
unwarranted assumption regarding the pre-Islamic Arabian calendar:
it would remain true that the Prophet left his house on 26 Safar 1 A.H.
(corresponding to 1 Rabi'I of the presumed pagan calendar), left the Cave
on 1 Rabi'I, 1 A.H. (corresponding to 5 Rabi'I of the presumed calendar),
DATE OF HIJRAH 307
reached Quba' on 8 Rabi' I, 1 A.H. (corresponding to 12 Rabi'I of the

presumed calendar), etc. In other words, we would only be explaining the
report of 'Monday 12 Rabi'I' and nothing else, at the cost of equally
authoritative reports which we would nevertheless be accepting!
(4) While the latter set of dates is coherent with the tradition
regarding !jawm 'Ashiiri' (the Fast of 'Ashura'), the former set
would involve unnecessary assumptions. On the 10th of their month
called Tishri, the Jews observe what they call 'Yom Hakkippurim' (the Day
of Atonement), and fast on that day.8 The day of this fast of Kippur
or Hakkippurim, i.e. the 10th of Tishri, is called 'Asor in H e b r e ~ . Al-
~
Bayruni calls this the day of 'Ashor J+ and reports that some people say
that (the Arabic word) 'Ashiiri' is an Arabicised version of the Hebrew
word 'Ashor.' Hazrat Abfi Miisi al-Ash'ari is reported as having stated
that the Day of 'Ashura' was a day reverenced by the Jews who regarded
it as a holy day. Thus, Wensinck appears to be right in hofding that
'Ashura' 'is obviously the Hebrew '8s& with the Aramaic determinative
ending.'''
Now, we have a report from Hazrat Ibn 'Abbas that when
the Prophet came to Medina he found that the Jews were observing the
fast of 'Ashura' and commanded Muslims to fast on that day. Hazrat
Ibn 'Abbas reports :
The Prophet (may peace be upon him), on coming to (possibly,
on reaching: qadima) Medina, found the Jews fasting the fast of
'Ashura'. He asked, 'What is this?' They said, 'It is a holy
day, a day on which God had saved Israelites from their enemies
and Moses had fasted.' He (i.e. the Prophet) said,, 'I have
a greater right on Moses than you people'. Thereupon he himself
observed that fast and ordered others to fast.12
Hazrat Abu Musa al-Ash'ari reports:

The Day of 'Ashura' was a day reverenced by the Jews who
regarded it as a holy day. The Prophet said (to the: Muslims),
'Fast on this day.'13
. ... I
Already the wording of Hazrat Ibn 'Abbas's report gives the impression that
this fast of 'Ashura' must have come soon after the Prophet's arrival ip
Medina if not on the very day he came to Quba', especially ia view oft&
reports that the Fast of 'Ashura' ceased to be obligatory after the fast of
Ramadan became obligatory' and that Ramadan fastingbecame obligatory
in thc i s t or the 2nd year of Hijrah.' However, we have reports from at
least four Companions which make it clear that the day of 'Ashura' in
question must have coincided with the day of the Prophet's arrival in
Quba'. Hazrat Muhammad b. Sayfi says:
On the day of 'Ashura', the Prophet asked us, 'Has anyone of you
caten today'? We said, 'Some of us have eaten and some of
us have not'. He said, 'Complete the day (in fast), whoever has
eaten and whoever has not eaten, and inform the people of 'ariid
to complete the day (in fast).' [Muhammad b. Sayfi says, 'He
meant the people around Medina.'I1
i3a~rz.iSalamah b. ai-Akwa' b. 'Afrl' says :

The Prophet (may peace be upon him) commanded a man of
(Banu) Aslam to announce to the people that whoever had eaten
should fast during the rest of the day and whoever had not eaten
should fast (during the day), for, it was the day of 'Ashura'.'
Havat Rubay', daughter of Hazrat Mucawwidh, says :

The Prophet (may peace be upon him) sent (a message) to the
Ansar villages around Medina in the early morning (on the day)
of 'Ashura' that whoever had got up in a state of fast should
complete his fast and whoever had got up without being in a
state of fast should fast during the rest of the day. So, after that
we used to observe this fast.18
Hazrat Ibn 'Abbas says :

The Prophet sent a message to the people of villages at 4 farisikh
[or, 'Ikrimah adds, he (i.e. Hazrat Ibn 'Abbas) said 2 farsakhs
[about 4 miles)], on the day of 'Ashura' and commanded those
who had already eaten not to eat during the rest of the day and
those who had not eaten to complete their fast.
These reports show that the decision to ask the Muslims to fast was taken
early in the morning on the day of the fast, some 10 hours after the
ammencement of the fast. (The Jewish day, like that of the Muslims,
begins with the sunset,20 and they fast for a whole day on the 10th ofTishri,
D.4TE OF HIJR A H :30!4
actually, from half an hour before one sunset to half an hour afier the
following ~unset.~')The report of Hazrat Rubayc also shows that this
fast of 'Ashura' was the fast of nearly a whole day, for, one can be said to
get up in a state of fast only if one had not eaten during the preceding night.
This can of course be explained as a sudden decision taken by the Prophet
about a year after his arrival in Medina. But, such an explanation does
not appeal to me. I am unwilling to believe that even if the Prophet used
not to know about the Jewish fast of 'Asor before his coming to M&-na
he would remain in ignorance about it during the daytime preceding the
evening when the fast was to commence, nor am I willing to believe that
having come to know about it he would wait till the next morning to anno-
unce his decision. There is a very simple explanation which makes everyth-
ing quite clear: the Prophet arrived in Quba' only after the fast in question
had commenced.
This view is considerably strengthened by another consideration.

We have earlier held that the Prophet when he reached Quba' remained at
Havat Sa'd b. Khaythamah's till about the sunset and came to Hazrat
Bulthum's house at the time of sunset (to account for very reliable reports
that the Prophet remained in Quba'/Banu 'Amr b. 'Awf for 3 days before
coming to Medina). Now, al-Samhudi cames a report fiom Yahyii (b.
al-Hasan b. Ja'far al-'Alawi) al-Husayni from Muhammad b. Ismacil b.
Mujammi' to the effect that when the Prophet alighted at Hazrat KdtEum's
he asked for fresh dates.*2 In the whole narrative at no time before this
is found any mention of dates or any other edible thing or even of water
although the heat was then overpowering. This suggeststhat the Prophet, in
fact, most Muslims, must have been fastingthat day. Now add to thisHazrat
Anas's report that the Prophet used to break his fast with fresh dates
(rupbiit) before preforming (Maghrib) prayers and that if fresh dates were
not available then with dried dates.23 This again suggests h t the
Prophet must have been fasting. This view gains fiom the fact that it is
the Prophet himself who asks for fresh dates. I suppose no one likes to
ask for anything to eat from his host. The presumption therefore is that
the Prophet was fasting and told his hosts that he liked to break his fast
with fresh dates which must have been in abundance at that time.
The circumstance that 10 Tishri 4383 Mundi and 8 Rabi'I, 1 A.H.

correspond to each other lends weight to both the views that the Prophe$
reached Yathrib on 8 Rabi'I and that the traditions regarding the Fast of
'Ashura' relate to the Jewish 'Asor and to the Prophet's day of arrival in
Yathrib. Al-Bayruni reports al-Sha'bi as stating that it was certain and
beyond doubt that the Prophet arrived in Medina (i.e. Quba' in the Sanctuary
of Medina at a few miles from Medina proper) on Monday 8 Rabi'T.
We can now see why so learned and circumspect a person as al-Sha'bi should
have been so sure about this date: it was well known that the Prophet had
arrived in Yathrib (i.e. Quba') on the Jewish Day of Atonement 4383
Mundi (nota bene : it is al-Sha'bi himself who reports the statement of
Hazrat Muhammad b. Sayfi quoted above), which in the Hijrah calendar
corresponds to 8 Rabi'I A.H.
On the first view we are obliged to adopt one of two alterna-

tives: (a) That Monday 12 Rabi'I of' the Arabian year of hijrah
coincided with 10 Tishri 4383 Mundi (the day of wrival in Yathrib), or
(b) that the fast in question was not the Jewish fast of Atonement, or
that this fast, Jewish or Pagan, came quite some time after the Prophet's
arrival in Yathrib. But neither of these can really be accepted.
(a) This would amont to accepting both the views and obliging
us to assume that the pagan date of 12 Rabi'I in a certain year corresponds
tq. 8 Rabi'I,
. 1 A.H. We gain nothing thereby.
A ,.
'
a .
(b) While it is possible to suppose that thc traditions cited above

klat= to two 'Ashuras, to a Jewish 'Asor and to an Arabian 'Ashura',
it is not possible to suppose that all these traditions relate to the Arabian
'Ashura'. For, Hazrat Abu Musa and Hazrat Ibn 'Abbas both make it
dear that the Jewish 'Asor is meant. To refresh our memory, let us
point out that in the tradition carried by Imam Muslim, Hazrat Abu Musa
is reported to have said that the Day of 'Ashura' was reverenced by the
Jews whd regarded it as a holy day, and Hazrat Ibn 'Abbas, in a report
chmed by 'Imam al-Bukhari and Imam Muslim, etc., reportedly states that
h e ~ r d p h efound
t the Jews observing the fast of 'Ashura' and ordered its
dbserC.hce.
.
. Moulvi Tshaq al-Nabi holds that the pagan Arabs used to have
I < a
;I ,,
an 'Ashwa' of their own, that is, they used to fast on the 10th of the first
month of their year, that in 2 A.H. the Arabian and Jewish Ashuras fell
bn the same day, and that the Prophet ordered the Muslims to observe
thk fast of 'Ashura' not because it was a Jewish fast but because it was an
'Arabian fast.
DATE OF HIJRAH 31 1
There is considerableevidence for this view. We have a report from

Hazrat Aisha to the effect that the Quraysh used to fast on the day of
'Ashura' in the pre-Islamic days and so did the Prophet, and that when the
Prophet came to Medina he himself fasted on that day and commanded
Muslims to fast.Z4 In fact, Hazrat 'Abd Allah b. 'Umar reports the
Prophet himself as having stated that 'Ashura' was a day on which the
people (in one report, the Quraysh, and, in another report, the pagan Arabs)
used to fast in the pre-Islamic times.*S According to al-Azraqi (d. ca.
2501864-5), Ibn al-MuhGir reports the Prophet as having stated that
Yawm 'Ashura' was a day on which the Ka'bah used to be dre~sed.~6
Moulvi Ishaq al-Nabi states that Imam al-Bukhari carries a report from
Havat Aisha that the Quraysh used to place a new covering on the Ka'bah
on the day of 'A~hura.~'
There is at least prima facie no reason why the Quraysh should

have observed the Jewish 'Asor, fasting on that day, and washing and
placing a new covering on the Ka'bah on that day. Al-Bayruni says that
it is said that in the pre-Islamic times, the Arabs. like the Jews, used to fast
on the 10th of their 1st month.28 The tenth of al-Muharram we call
'Ashura' and it is regarded as virtuous - indeed as a sunnah, i.e. as
following the example set by the Prophet -to fast on that day. One would
therefore be quite justified in supposing that the pagan Arabs had an
'Ashura' of their own.
However, the question here is not whether there used to be an

Arabian 'Ashura' ; the question here is, what day was meant by the day of
'Ashura' in the traditions quoted above. Except for the traditions from Ha-
rat Abu Musa and Hazrat Ibn 'Abtias, in all other traditions it can mean the
pagan 'Ashura' as well as the Jewish 'Asor. In the traditions of Hazrat
Abu Musa and Hazrat Ibn 'Abbas it cannot mean the Pagan 'Ashura',
for, in these traditions it is the Jews who were observing the fast in question.
It is possible that while in the reports of these two Companions the Jewish
'Asor has been mentioned, in the other traditions the Pagan 'Ashura' had
been mentioned, though it is equally possible that in all the reports only
the Jewish 'Asor had been mentioned.
Now, the question arises as to the occasion for each of the traditions.
In the traditions in which the Prophet enquires whether the Companions
had already had their breakfast, as argued above, seem to imply the occasion
of the Prophet's arrival in Quba', though taken separately from the other
traditions these do not necessitate such an assumption. Hazrat Abu
M u d s tradition discloses nothing about the occasion. Hazrat lbn 'Abbas's
traditions indicate the Prophet's arrival in Quba'. On the first view
we have to assume that the Jewish 'Asor must have been that of 10 Tishri
4384 Mundi corresponding to Saturday 10-9-623A.D. and 9 Rabi' al-
awwal 2 A.H. and that the other traditions either relate to the pagan
'Ashura' or to the 'Asor of 4384 Mundi. This means that 'qadima' in
Hazrat Ibn 'Abbas's traditions must be taken to mean 'came to' instead of
'reached', and that we must assume that the Prophet suddenly decided in
the mornning of the fast, if not on two occasions (of the pagan 'Ashura and
the Jewish 'Asor) at least on one occasion (that of pagan 'Ashura') that
the Muslims were also to observe the fast. We have further to assume that
the Prophet on reaching Hazrat Kulthum's house just happened to call for
fresh dates without its having been the case that he was fasting, or that he
was fasting but not the fast of 'Asor /'Ashura'. I would not say that it
is impossible. But, as can be seen, it appears to be quite implausible.
Oo the contrary, as shown above, on the second view all the reports
cohere with each other and with the view that these relate to the day of the
Prophet's arrival in Quba'.
(5) While no satisfactory explanation of the reports of departure

in Safar and amval on 8 Rabi'I is possible on the first view a very
good explanation can be given for the report of arrival in Medina on
Monday 12 Rabi'I: a mistaken combination of the day of arrival in Yathrib
with the date of amval in Medina. We give two reasons for this mistaken
combination.
(i) At the time of Hijrah, there were two main Arab tribes in
Yathrib, al-Aws and al-l[(hauaj. Banu 'Amr b. 'Awf were an important
clan of the tribe of al-Aws and Banu al-Naiar a very important clan of the
tribe of al-Khazraj. According to Razin (apud alaamhudi), al8harqi
(probably, Al-Walld b. Husayn, d. ca. 1551772) says that so many battles
had been fought between al-Aws and al-Khazraj, and these had been
of such durations, that the like of it had not been heard about other tribes.Z9
The last of these battles, or series of battles, Bu'iith, fought about five years
before the Hijrah, is said to have taken a very heavy toll of lives on both the
sides so much so that Hazrat Aisha could say that through this battle God
had paved the way for the acceptance of the Prophet by the Aws and the
DATE OF HIJRAH 313
Khazraj inasmuch as most of the chiefs and elders of the various clans of the
two tribes had been slain in the battle.30 At the time the Prophet came to
Yathrib, these two tribes appcar to have been in a state of cold war. On
his arrival in Yathrib, the Prophet stayed with Banu ' A m b. 'Awf in Quba'.
Jewish elders came to see the Prophet there, but, except for Hazrat As'ad
b. Zurijrah, no important Khazajite appears to have come to the Prophet
while he was in Quba'. Even As'ad b. Zurarah is said to have come on
Wednesday night (two days after the Prophet's amval in Quba') sometime
after the sunset and wearing a veil, and to have remained that night with
the Prophet apparently because it would have been unsafe for him to return
to Medina at night after it had become known to the Awsites who he
was.3' Thus, there is reason to believe that the dormant jeolousy
between the Awsites and Khazrajites made the Khazrajites remember
and celebrate the Prophet's arrival in the habitation of Banu SSllim of
al-Khazraj in Medina (viz., 12 Rabi'I, or the date corresponding to it in
the calendar then in vogue) in contradistinction to his arrival among the
Awsites in Quba' (i.c.,8 kabicI or the corresponding date in the Arabian
calendar).
(ii) After the Jews of Medina came to cross purposes with the
Muslims, the Muslims could hardly celebrate the Prophet's arrival on a
day regarded as sacred by the Jews. Hence, even in the lifetime of the
Prophet, the date of celebration must have been shifted from the date of
arrival in Quba' to the date of arrival in Medina. We thus see the reason
for the popularity of the date of 12 RabicI: in all probability from 3 A.H.
onwards, the Muslims celebrated the Prophet's arrival in Medina, the arrival
in Quba' having been celebrated only once in 2 A.H. Most later writers,
except some scholars like 'Urwah and Ibn al-Kalbi, took both the
popular reports of Monday and 12 Rabi'I and unfortunately combined
the two to give rise to an apparently insoluble problem.
(6) Finally, let us point out that the day-date of Monday 12

Rabi'L, so far as we know, is found for the first time in the Sirah, and that
among those scholars about whom we have later reports, the earliest person
said to have given this as the day and date of arrival in Medina/Quba' is
either Ibn Ishaq or 'Abd al-Malik b. Wahb al-Madhhaji. Now, as argued
earlier, Ibn Ishaq could not have given this as the day and date of arrival
either in Quba' or in Medina. In the Sirah, we have two statements from
Ibn Ishaq. At one place, he says that the Prophet reached Quba' at noon
on Monday 12 Rabi'I, and at another place he says that the Prophet reached
Medina at noon on Monday 12 Rabi'I. Ibn Ishaq was born and brought
up in Medina and so he knew that Quba' was at a distance of some miles
from Medina. Moreover he states at one place that the Prophet came out
of Quba' and went to Medina from there. Hence, he cannot be assumed to
have taken Quba' as included in Medina. The possibility that by Medina
he may have meant Haram Madinah (=Yathrib) is discounted by the fact
that the statement in question occurs after the report regarding the Prophet's
arrival in Medina. That is, at p. 415, after having described the Prophet's
amval in Medina from Quba', he could not have been merely repeating the
statement made at p. 333, meaning merely to say that the Prophet arrived
in Yathrib (or, to be more particular, in Quba') on such and such a date.
If so, it is clear that Ibn Ishaq could not have made both the statements for
the reasons that (a) Quba' and Medina are two different places, and (b)
according to Ibn Ishaq, the Prophet reached Quba' on a Monday and came
to Medina four days thereafter on a Friday. Hence, he could not have
given the same day or the same date for amval in both the places. If so,
the question is, what had Ibn Ishaq himself stated and how is it that in the
Sirah we have the two statements in question? We have argued earlier that
these two statements could not have been the statements that 'the Prophet
reached Quba' on Monday 8 Rabi'I, and, the Prophet came to Medina on
Friday 12 Rabi'I,' or, 'the Prophet reached Quba' on Monday 12 Rabi'I,
and, the Prophet came to Medina on Friday 16 Rabi'I', for, we fail to see
how any reasonable mistake made by any reasonable editor could turn
either of the two into the statements 'the Prophet reached Quba' on
Monday 12 Rabi'I', and, 'the Prophet came to Medina on Monday 12
Rabi'I'. We have therefore suggested that the statements must have been
'the Prophet reached Quba' on a Monday (in Rabi'I)', and, 'the Prophet
came to Medina on 12 Rabi'I'. The editor, or, possibly, a copyist, who
regarded the two as the same statement because of his ignorance of the
difference in the two statements, made both the statements (in his own
opinion) more exact in the light of the other statement: he added the date
given at p. 415 to the statement at p. 333, and, likewise, added the day given
at p. 333 to the statement at p. 415. I see no other reasonable possibility
except that Ibn Ishaq may have stated that the Prophet reached Quba' on a
Monday (in Rabi'I) and, that he came to Medina on the 12th day since his
departure from Mecca, which, in the light of his statement that the Prophet
had departed from Mecca (i.e. from the Cave) on 1 Rabi'I, the editor con-
sidered himself only too justified in making those additions.
DATE OF HlJRAH 315
Thus, we can confidently say that Ibn Ishaq, first or not first, is not
an authority for this day-date; in this case, the authority is that of an i@to.-
rant editor or a semi-literate copyist.
I have not been able to find out 'Abd al-Malik's date of birth or
death. However it is reported by Ibn Abii Hitim that his father, Abii
Hatim, says on the authority of his tzachers that 'Abd al-Malik b. Wahb
al-Madhhaji is the same person as Sulaymiin b. 'Amr b. 'Abd Allah b.
Wahb al-Nakha'i.32 Ibn Abu Hatim also says that 'Abd al-Malikenarrates
from al-Hurr b. al-Sa~ySh.~ In the reports on Hijrah carried by
Tbn Sa'd, 'Abd al-Malik is said to have reported from Hazrat Ahu Ma'bad
via al-Hurr b. al-Sayyah the mirzcle performed by the Prophct at the
encampment of Hazrat Umm Ma'bad.34 So, we may take this 'Abd
al-Malik to be the same person as Sulayman b. 'Amr al-Nakha'i. Now,
Imam al-Bukhari says that Abii Dii'iid Sulaymiin b. 'Amr al-Nakha'i
a l - K i i is said by Qutaybah and Ishaq to have been a notorious lia1-.3~
Jbn Abu Hatim further says that 'Abd Allah b. Ahmad b. Hanbal reports
from his father, Imam Ibn Hanbal ( 1 6 6 2 4 1 A.H.) that Sulayman b.
'Amr al-Nakha'i was a liar and that .Imam Ibn Hanbal'had asked
Sulayman as to where he had met Yazid b. Abu Habib.36 It therefore
seems that Sulayman was a contemporary of Imam Ibn Hanbal. The
Imam was born after Ibn Ishaq's death, who is said to have died in ca.
151 A.H. Thus, even if Sulayman was a senior contemporary of Imam Ibn
Hanbal, he isat most to be regardedas a junior contemporary of Ibn Ishaq.
Now, even though 'Abd al-Malik/Sulayman may have narrated

traditions from people whom he had not'inet, it does not follow that all
that he has said must be rejected on that account. Ibn Sa'd accepted his
report. Hence, it merits consideration. Now, as far as thc report of
Monday 12 Rabi? carried by Ibn Sa'd is concerned, 'Abd al-Malik cites no
earlier authority therefor. A much earlier and more reliable scholar, al-
Sha'bi, reportedly gives Monday 8 Rabi'I and reportedly states this to 'be
beyond doubt. Surely, we cannot accept 'Abd al-Malik's w&d against
that of al-Sha'bi, specially in view of the fact that 'Abd al-Malik's repori<1
can be regarded as an innocent error, al-Sha'bi's report would have'to be

regarded as false and either al-Sha'bi or al-Bayruni would have to b<
regarded as a liar. The fact that al-Waqidi also acceptkd Monday 12 R~&?I,
proves nothing. For, it seems that by. his time, the authoritative sirah, .
316 F. A. SHAMSI
writer, Ibn Ishaq, thanks to the error of a copyist/editor, was supposed to

have given this day and date for the Prophet's amval in Medina, as is shown
by the reported statement of Ibrahim b. Sa'dg7 (ca. 108-ca. 183.4.H.). Even
so, let us look at al-Waqidi's report. He gives a summary of the events
in the Medinese life of the Prophet from the time of his arrival in Medina
till his death.3 8 This, he says, is based on the reports of (mentioning
only his direct sources) 'Umar b. 'Uthrn* b. 'AM al-R*min b. Yarbii'
al-Makhiimi, Miisi b. M&ammad b. Ibrihim b. al-Hirith al-Taymj,
Muhammad b. 'AM All* b. Muslim, Miisi b. Ya'qiib b. 'AM Allih b.
Wahb b. Zam'ah, 'Abd Allah b. Ja'far b. 'Abd al-Rahmin b. al-Miswar
b. Makhramah, Abii Bakr b. 'AM All& b. Muhammad b. Abii Sabrah,
Sa'Id b. 'Uthm- b. 'AM al-Rahmh b.'Abd Allah al-Taymi, Yinus b.
Maammad al-Zafari, 'A'idh b. Y&yi, Muhammad b.'Amr, Mu'idh
b. Maammad al-An@d, Y&yi b. 'AM All& b. Abii Qatidah, 'AM al-
R&& b. 'Abd a1 'Aziz b. 'AM All& b. 'Uthmin b. Hunayf, Ibn Abii
Habibah, Muhammad b. Y&yi b. Sahl b. Abii Hathamah, 'AM al-Hamid
b. Ja'far, Muhammad b. $ii&b b. Dinir, 'AM al-Rahmin b. Muhammad
b. Abii Bakr, Ya'qiib b. Mubarnmad b. Abii Sa'sa'ah, 'AM a l - w m b
b. AM al-Zanniid, Abfi Ma'shar, MAik b. Ab6 al-Rajjsl, Ismi'il b. Ibriihim
b. 'Uqbah, 'AM al-yamid b. 'Imrb b. Abii Anas, and 'AM al-Hamid b.
'Abs. Al-Waqidi finther says that each of these had narrated to him from
a group of persons. He W h e r says that the narratives of some of them
intermingle with those of the others. Moreover, he says that other scholars
had also narrated to him. He says that he had written down all that they
had said. He then says, 'They said.. . . . .' and gives the summary,
which begins with the statement that 'the Prophet reached (here, possibily,
came to) Medina on Monday 12 Rabi'I; though it is also said, on 2 Rabi'I;
but, the established (proposition) is (that it happened on) the 12th'.
I suppose this sufEces to show that al-Waqidi's statement in question

cannot be attributed to any single narrator even among his direct sources,
who themselves are very late narrators, and hence that no question of
attributing it to a Companion arises. That is, we have no reason to
believe that any Companion had given both the day (Monday) and the date
Q2 Rabi'I) of amval given by al-Waqidi; on the contrary, it seems highly
probable that al-Waqidi himself or one of his direct, or esrlier, sources
hi combined the reports of 'a Monday in Rabi' I' (for amval in Yathrib)
with the reports of'12 Rabi'I' (for the amval in Medina). Thus, we would
not be wrong in supposing that Ibn Ishaq's Siruh is the earliest source for
the conlbination of this day and date of arrival, and, we have seen that Ibn
Ishaq could not have given this as the day and the date o f arrival either in
Quba' or in Medina. Hence we have no reason whatsoever to take
"Monday 12 Rabi'l" as so fundamental a datum as to o v e m d e all other
reports a n d considerations.
*****
NOTES
SECTION m
1. Recall that we have come to the conclusion that the Prophet reached Quba' an
the 8th day since his departure from the Cave and on the 12th day since his
departure from home.
2. In the published text of al-Bayruni's AI-Qcinijn al-Mas'iidi (Hybrabad, Deccan,
1st. ed.. 137311954, vol. I, p. 255), the date of the Prophet's departure from Mecca
(proper) for the Cave of Thawr has been given as 24 Rabi'I. On the same page.
a few lines below, 12 Rabi'I has been given as the date of arrival in Medina.
It is therefore clear that the learned editor has wrongly drawn the line separating
events occumng in the month of Safar from those occurring in Rabi'I : instead
of being given as the first event in Rabi'I, the departure for the Cave should have
been given as the last event in Safar by drawing the line not above but below thi8
item. Hence the date would become 24 Safar and not 24 W i ' I as published.
[It is further clear that al-Bayruni must have written 26 ($)and not 24 (61, for,
we havenoother report in which the date of 24 Safarmay have been given,
whereas we have a very authoritative report for the date of 26 Safar, that of
Abu Bakr b. Hazm.] Even so, this date (of 24 Safar) too does not agree with
the date of 20 Safar or 23 Safar.
3. As is clearly implied by reports carried by Ibn Sa'd (Tcrbaqat, vol. I, pp. 2 1 - 2 8 ) .
Al-Samhudi accepts the implication and makes an explicit statement to that e&ct
(Wqfoal-Wafa, p. 238). and so does Dr. Hamidullah (Battlefieldr, p. 53).
Ibn Ishaq (Siralr,pp. 325-329) gives both the reports [left his house during day-
time and went to Hazrat Abu Bakr's and thence to the Cave (presumably during
daytime) and the other report that the Prophet left his house quite some time afkr
the sunset] and presents them as cenflicting reports.
4. It is to be noted that the period between two consecutive new moons or two con-
secutive full moons, called a'lunation' or a lunar month, is a vzriable magnitti&.
u s century B.C.),the averagelenptb
According to thz calculations of ~ i p ~ a r c h(2nd
of a lunation is very nearly 29 days 31-50-8-20 (in the sexagcsimal system) or
29.5305942 days. (Ptolemy, The Almqgest, Great Books of the Western Workf,
reprint, Chicago, 1975, p. 110.) Ptolemy (op. cit., p. 112) accepted this value and
we may safely accept it for our calculation. (According to modem scholars, the
value is slightly different for the preseat time.) The Hijrah year 1402 cornmencad
in Hejaz on Friday the 30th of October 1981 A.D. (in the Gregorian calendar).
Now, 30-10-1981 Gregorian corresponds to 17-10-1981 JuIian (because of
Pope Gregory's decision to suppress 10 days in 1582 A.D. and to adopt a rule
whsrzby thz years 1703, 1800 and 1900 A.D. became non-leap years; see, e.g.,
R. H. B l k r , AT Zilfr7+1rl^!io.1 . ed., N-w York, 1957, pp. 50-51).
t3 A s ~ r m m v 4th
, So, in thz Julian calendar, 1-1-1402 A.13. =Friday 17-10-1981. Now, 1401 lunar
yezrs- (1421 x 12) x (29.5305942) days = 496468.35 days. Deleting the fraction,
in virtue of its being less than 0.5, we havz 496468 days between 1.1.1. A.H. and
1.1.1402 A.H. Converting 496468 days to Julian years, we have 1359 (Julian)
years 93.25 days. Now, counting backwards from 17-10-1981 A.D. (Julian) we
arrive a t 16-7-622 A.D. as the day after 496468 days, i.e., as the day after 1359
(Julian) years 93 days. Since 496468 days are equal to 70924 full weeks, and 17.10.
, I981 (Julian) is a Friday, 16-7-622 A.D. must have been a Friday. Thus, 1.1.1.
A.H. must correspond to Friday 16.7.622 A.D. if 1.1.1402 A.H. corresponds to
Friday 17-10-1981 Julian= 30-10-1981 Gregorian. (Friday 16-7-622 A.D. is, as
a matter of fact, taken by all writers to mark the Hijrah epoch. See, e.g., al-
Bayruni, Athar, p. 330 and Wustenfeld-Mah:er9sche, Vergleichungs-Tabellen,
Wiesbaden, 1961 [herzinafter Wustenfeld], p. 2.)
As far as the historians are concerned, unless a n actual lunar date is gi-
ven as a datum, they calculate on the assumption that 11 out of every cycle of
30 years have 355 days each and the other 19 years have 354 days each. (A lunar
year, on a n average, comprises about 354.36713 days.) I n each cycle, years
2, 5, 7, 10.13, 16 (or 15), 18, 21, 24, 26, and 29 are taken to be 'leap' years and
given 355 days. In a 'common' year of 354 days, thelst, 3rd, 5th, 7th. 9th and
11th months (al-Muharram, Rabi' al-Awwal, Jumada al-Ula, Rajab, Ramadan
and Dhii al-Qa'dah) are each taken to comprise 30 days and the other 6 months
(Safar, Rabi' al-Thani, Jumida al-Ukhrs, Sha'ban, Shawwal and Dhii al-Hijjah)
are taken to comprise 29 days each. I n a 'leap' year, the month of Dhu-al-
Hijjah is given 30 days to meke the year cornprize 355 days.
I t is further assumed that year 1 A.H. is the first year of such a cycle of
30 years.
On this basis, the 1st of Safar, 1 A.H., being the 31st day of year 1 A.H.,
corresponds to Sunday 15.8.622 A.D., and so 26 Safar, 1 A.H. corresponds to
Thursday 9.9.622 A.D. Similarly, the 1st of Rabi'I, 1 A.H., being the60th
day of year 1 AH., corresponds to Monday 13.9.622 A.D. and, 2s such, 8 Rabi'
I, 1 A.H. corresponds to Monday 20.9.622 A.D., and 12 Rabi' al-Aw~al,
1 A.H. corresponds to Friday 24.9.622 A.D. Hence, the Hijrah's dates given in
the text (Thursday 1 Rabi'I, Monday 5 and Monday 12 Rabi'I in the year of Hijrah)
cannot belong to the Hijrah calendar.
According to Mahmud Pasha, a conjunction of the sun and the moon occur-
red at about 10.30 P.M. Medina-Time on Saturday 11.9.622 A.D. (i.e. Sunday
. night for us) and hence the crescent could be visible there in the evening of Sunday
12.9.622 (i.e. Monday night for us), so that theIst of the month would correspond
to Monday 13.9.622 A.D. (M&rniid Basha al-Falaki, Kitrib Nata'ij al-afhrimfi
taqwim al-'arab qabia al-Zslrim, tr. into Arabic, &mad Dhaki Afandi, Cairo.
DATE OF HIJRAH 319
1305 A.H.. p. 13.) Mahmud Pasha takes an actual conjunction, and allows visibi-
lity to the crescent moon only about 19 hours 30 minutes after the conjunction
took p h ~ .So, tvz mnv assum- that (a) the crescent was actually sighted in the
evening of Monday 13.9.622 A.D. so that the month commenced on Tuesday
14.9.622 A.D., or that (b) the Arabs had taken such an actual conjunction as
their point of departure that, on the basis of mean conjunctions, a conjunction
was calculated to occur before 6 A.M. on Saturday 11.9.622 A.D. so that the
month commenced on Sunday 12.9.622 A.D. If so, wemay make the 7th or 9th of
Rabi' al-awwal 1 A.H. a Monday. But, we cannot make the 5th and 12th of
Rabi' al-awwal 1 A.H. Mondays by any reasonable rule of computation.
It may here be mentioned that no hard and fast rule can be laid down
for the visibility of the new moon, for, the ability. to sight the new moon
depends not only on the positions of the sun and the moon relatively to each other
and relatively to the horizon of the place in question or the moon's distance from
the earth, but also on the height of the observer above the sea level, his visual
acuity, and the clarity and contrast in the atmosphere at the time of sunset at the
place of obsarvation. In principle, that is, given even the most favourable local
circumstances, the new moon is not visible if the moon's angular distance from the
horizon is less than 50 and from the sun less then 7O. Thereafter, the moon is
visible in principle. However, whether on a given day the new moon would be
visible at a czrtain place would depend on the circumstances mentioned above.
Thus, all that can be said is that the new moon should not be regarded as visible
unless about 20 hours have elapsed since the time of conjunction and that it should
be regarded as visible if the moon is 30 hours (or more) old at the time of sunset.
(See, e.g.. Science Research Council's Astronomical Information Sheet No. 6
prepared by Her Majesty's Natutical Almanac Office, Royal Greenwich Observa-
tory, England; Muammer Dizer, A Calculation Method for the Visibility Curve
of the New Moon. Kandilli Observatory, Istanbul, Turkey.) In the present case,
if the conjunction occurred at about 10.30. P.M. on 11-9-622 A.D., then the new
moon could have been visible at about 6.30 P.M. on 12.9.622 A.D. but might not
have been visible due to local circumstances. For purposes of computation, if
we were at liberty to make a choice here, our preference would have been for
taking the crescent as visible in the evening of 12.9.622 A.D. since the new
moon is then to be regarded as visible in principle. (The rule adopted by chron-
ologists, although it does not allow us a choice, here yields the same result.)
5. 17.9.2A.H.isa Tuesday; 11.10.3. A.H. i s a Wednesday; 15.10.3.A.H. i s a
Sunday ; 20.9.8. A.H. is a Thursday. See, e.g, Wustenteld, p. 1.
6. For details, see Ishgq al-Nabi 'Alawi, "Wgqe'st -e-Sirat-e-Nabawi men Tawqiti
Tadad awr uskg Ball" (Chronological Contradiction regarding Events in the
Life of the Prophet and its Solution), Burhin (Delhi), vol. LII (Jan-June 1964).
esp. pp. 264-296.
7. See, Perceval, "Notes on the Arab Calendar Before Islam" (tr. L. Nobiron).
Islamic C~rlture,XXI (1947). p. 141.
8. See, D.S. Margoliouth, Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, London and New York,
3rd. ed., 1923, pp. xix-xx. Margoliouth says: It has been pointed out by Winckler
(Altorientalische Forschungen, ii. 324-350) that the Calendar of Medina may
well have been different from that of Mecca, the same month names having quite
different values at the two cities.
9. Ishaq al-Nabi 'Alawi, Burhon vol. LII (Jan-June 1964), pp. 295-296, and
vol. LIII (July-December 1964), pp. 25-28.
10. Reconstrrrctionoflslamic Chronology, Patna (India), 1977, pp. 23-24, and 44-47.
11. Ibid., pp. 48-49.
12. Ibn Ishaq (Siroh, p. 325), in the report which seems to have wme from Hazrat
Ibn 'Abbas.
13. Sirah, pp. 323-326; Tobagat, Vol. I, pp. 227-228.
14. According to one report by Ibn Sa'd (Tabrrqat, vol. VIII, p.52), it was Ruqayqah,
daughter of Sayfi b. Hiishim, an aunt of the Prophet, who told the Prophet
that the Quraysh had decided to make a stealthy, nocturnal, attack on him.
15. According to most writers, including one report in Ibn Sa'd. See, e.g., Sir&,
p. 325, and Tabaqat, vol. I, p. 227.
16. Ibn Ishaq (Sirah, p. 325) says, 'fa-lamu b n a t 'atamah al-lay1ijtama'o 'ala
(Now, during the first third of the night-r, in the darkness of the night-they
-mbled at his door), wbkh Guilleaume renders as 'Before much of the night
had passed they assembled at his door.' (A. Guilleaume, Life of M&rn@,
reprint, Karachi, 1968, p. 222.) It is clear from the following statement in the
Sirah (waiting for him to go to sleep) that the attackers were being repond
to have come to the Prophet's house before one wodd expect a person to go to
Even so, it is difficult to say whether there would be light enough for t h
purpose. If, however, Ibn Ishaq or his source is supposed to have meant to say,
'They assembled at his door in the darkness of night' -which is indicated by t h
nature of the enterprise - then it wodd imply that there could not have been
s a c i e n t light to make out if a person Were lying in his bed in a probably dark
room.
17. sid,p. 325: Before much of the night had passed they assembled at his door
waiting for him to go to sleep so that they might fall upon him. (Guilleaume's
translation). Fa-yathibiina 'alayh (to pounce upon him).
18. We have no reason to believe that Ibn Ishaq, Abu Ma'shar Najih, or Ibn a]-
Barqi, who are reported to have said that the Prophet reached ,Medina on 2 Rabi'I
may have mzant to give this date as the date of departure. Mouhi Ishaq a]-
Nabi adopts this date, but, he does so because %e accepts the date of Monday 12
Rabi'I for arrival in Yathrib -just as we have done on the first construction.
19. 'Uyun, vol. I, p. 192.
20. E.g.Mmnad, Hadith no. 2506 (Vol. IV,p. 172), Al- Wafa. p. 249, and, al-Dhahabi,
Ta'rikh al-Zs&rn, Cairo, 1367 A.H., p. 23.
21. Ibn Sa'd, Tabaqat, vol. I, p. 233.
22. Ibid., vol. 11, p. 6. See also al-Qastalani, Mawahib, vol. I, p. 67.
23. Ibn Sa'd begins his section on Hijrah by saying that al-Waqidi reports (ultimately)
from Hazrat Akha, Hazrat Ibn ' Abbas, Hazrat 'A'ishah bint Qudamah, Haz-
rat Ali, and Hazrat Suriiqah b. Ju'shum, and gives the earlier part of the event.
Then he quotes from Muslim b. Ibriihim; then reverts to the former authorities.
DATE OF HIJRAH 321
Then he quotes from al- &with the story of Umm Mdbad; then from 'Abd el-
Malik (al-Madhhaji) and 'Uthman b. 'Umar. He then says, 'Thumma raja'e al-
badith il8 al-awwal. QUa.. .' It seems that here the editor should have read
'Qalil' and not 'Qala', for, it is very unclear whether the narrative goes back to
'Abd al-Malik or the first authorities via al-Waqidi. It is possible that Ibn Sa'd
had al-Waqidi in his mind while he wrote this and so instead of writing Qgla
he only wrote Qala, whereas al-Waqidi himself had, or would have. written Q a h
here. Hence, on the whole, it seems that the statement in question,' and this
was on Monday [12] RabiSI,and it is also said, on [2] Rabi'I', was given by I h
Sa'd on the authority of al-Waqidi and ultimately from HaPat Aisha and/or
Hazrat Ibn 'Abbas and/or Hazrat 'A'ishah bint Qudamah and/or Hazrat Ali andl
or Hazrat Suraqah and not on the authority of 'Abd al-Malik, but, the latter
possibility cannot be ruled out.
24. Ibn Sdd. Tabaqat, vol. I, p. 232.
23. Maghazi, p. 2.
26. Those of Ibn Hajar (Fath al-Bari. p. 98) and al-Qastalani (Mawahib, p. 67).
21. Ma'rOl b. Jabir apud al-Dhahabi; Ibn Jshq (Sirah, p. 102); Abu Ma'shar Nqjih
rpud al-Dhahabi (Tar'ikh al-Islam, p. 23); Ibn al-JazzBr (d. 369/980), according
to Mughalta'i (Isharah, folio 3-A), reports a consensus on this date ;al-Bayrunt
(Athar, p. 331); al-Maqrizi (Imta'. p. 3); al-Qastalani says that the Meccans of his
(i.e. al-Qastalani's) time had accepted this date in visiting the Prophet's birth
place on the day of his birth (Mawahib, p. 25). that is, the Maceans of al-Qasta-
lani's time used to celeberate the Prophet's birth-day on 12 Rabi'l by vrsiting the
house in which be had been born.
28. Muhammad b. Ja'far from Hisham from 'Ikrimah from Ibn 'Abbas (Musm4
Hadith no 2242); Ibn Ishaq (Sird, p. 415); Ibn Sa'd (Tabaqat, vol. I, p. 224)
from Sa'id b. al-Musayyib; Al-Mas'ndi (Kitab al-Tanblh wa al-Ashrii/l Cairo,
1357/1938. p. 200).
29. E.g. Hazrat Aba Qatadah apud Imam Muslim (Muslim , pp. 819-820); Hamat
al-Bara' b. 'Azib apud Ibn al-Jawzi (ACWafa, vol. I, p. 91); Hazrat Ibn ' A b b
apud Imam Ibn Hanbal (Musnad, Hadith 2506). Abu Ja'far Muhammad b. 'AU
apud Ibn Sa'd (Tabaqat. vol. I, p. 100); Abu Ma'shar Najih apud Ibn Sa'd (To-
baqaf, vol. I, p. 101) ; Ibn Ishaq (Sirah p. 102); Ibn IJabib ClpitrSb aCMu4u-
bbm, Hyderabad. Deccan, 136111942. p. 8); lbn Sa'd (Tabaqat, vol. I, p. 101);
al-Bayhaqi (Daki'il a/-nubuwwah, Egypt. 138911970, vol. I. p. 8); al-Maqrizi
(Imta', p. 3); and. Mughalta'i (IJlurah. folio 3-A).
30. Muslim, pp. 819-820(,Egypt, 1374/1955, vol. 11, KiUbal-$iytim, Hadith no. 197).
Cf. al-Bayhaqi, Dala'il, vol. I, pp. 6-7.
31. ForR a/-Bari, p. 118.
32. WS/o al- Wafa, p. 247.
SECTION IV
1. Muhammad Hamidullah. '"Ahd-e-Nabawi k% WBqe'U ki liyb Taqwimi P&
dgiyh", Oriental College Magaxiue (Lahore). XL, nos. 3 and 4 (May-Augusl
1964). pp. 77-86; see, pp. 84-85.
2. Sirah, p. 314; Bidayah, p. 169.
3. Sirah, p. 319.
4. Muhammad Hamidullah, "The Nasi", Jorwnal of the Pakistan Historical Soclety,
XVI (1968), p. 10, and, "The Concordance," JPHS, XVI (1968), p. 216.
5. Mustadrak, vol. 111, pp. 13-14.
6. Athar, p. 30.
7. According to Belisarius's reported statement, the Arabs used to have 2 sacred
months near the summer solstice. These two months must have been Dhu al-
Qa'dah and Dhu al-Hijjh. Now, if these two months used to commence right
with the day of the solstice, the month of Dhu al-Hijjah would span the period
from 22 July to 19 August ; if the period commenced even a few days later, then
the whole of Dhu al-Hijjah would go over to August; and if the period commenced
about a fortnight after the solstice then Dhu al-Hijjah would come in August-
September period. Secondly. there is conclusive evidence that the Arabian years
used to commence sometime in the season of autumn, in all probability very clo-
se to the autumnal equinox; hence, Dhu al-Hijjah must have coincided with the
August-September period.
8. See, e.g. F.H. Woods, "Festivals and Fasts (Hebrew)", Encyclopaedia of Religion
and Ethics, reprint, vol. V , 1960,p. 867 ; Burnaby, Elements of the Jewish and
Muhammadan Calendars, London, 1901,p. 186.Cf. al-Bayruni, Athar, pp. 277 and
330. (Al-Bayruni writes Kibkr, i.e. Kippur).
9. See, e.g. A.J. Wensinck, " 'Ashura' ", Encyclopaedia of Islam. New ed., Leiden,
1960, vol. I, p. 705; Cf. al-Bayruni, Athar, p. 330.
10. Athar, p. 330.
11. A.J. Wensinck, op. cit., p. 705. Wensinck points out that in the Old Testament
(Lev. XVI, 29). this word ('Asor) has been used for the Great Day of Atonement.
12. Bukhari, vol. I, p. 498. Cf. Musnad, Ahadith nos. 2644 and 2832; Mrrslim,
Ahadith nos. 2518-2521 ;Ibn Maja (b. 2071822-3;d.2751888-9), Sunan. Egypt.
137211952 (hereinafter Ibn Moja). Hadith no, 1734 (vol. Is p. 552); Al-Dgrimi
(d. 2551868-9), Sunan. Damascus, 1349 A.H., vol. I1 (hereinaftzr Darimi), p. 22.
13. Muslim. Hadith no 2522; cf. Hadith no. 2523.
14. Bukhari, vol. I, pp. 482-483 and 497-498; Muslim, Ahadith nos. 2499-2504;
Darimi. p. 23.
15. E.g. Al-Waqidi apud al-Zurqani(Sharh aCMawahib, vol. I, p. 407); Abu Hatim
apud al-Samhudi (Wafa al- Wafa, p. 276); Ibn 'Abd al-Barr (AI-Durarf i Ikhti~rir
al-Mag&zi wa al-Siyar, Cairo. l386/1966, p. 105).
16. Ibn Maja, Hadith no. 1735.
17. Buklrari. vol. I, p. 498. Cf. Muslim, Hadith no. 2530, and, Darimi, p. 22.
18. Muslim, Hadith no. 2533.
19. Musnad, Hadith no. 2058 (from Waki' from Isrg'il or someone else from Jabit
from 'Ikrimah from Ibn 'Abbas).
20. Burnaby, op. cit., p. 23.
21. Ibid, p. 186.
22. Wafa al-Wafa, p. 245.
DATE OF HIJRAH 323
23. Apud Ibn al-Jawzi, AI- Wafa, p. 517. AlSamhudi says that in his AI-Ghiliiniyiit.
(Ahmad b. 'Amr) al-Baz z l r (d. 2921905) carries a tradition that the Prophet
used to like to break his fast with fresh dates in the season for fresh dates and
with dried dates when there used not to be fresh dates ;see, Wafa al- Wafa,p. 72.
(Al-Samhudi does not say from whom al-Bazzar had carried this tradition.)
24. Bukhari, Vol. I, pp. 497-498; Muslim, Ahadith nos. 2499-2512; Darimi, pp. 22
and 23
25. Muslim, Hadith no. 2506; Darimi, pp. 22-23. Zbn Maja. Hadith no. 1737.
26. Al-Azraqi, AkhbrIr Makkah, Mecca, 1352 A.H., vol. I, p. 167.
27. Burhan. LIII (July - December 1964), p. 9.
28. Athar, p. 330.
29. Wafa al-Wafa, p. 215.
30. Bukhari, vol. 111, p. 48.
31. Wafa al- Wafa. p. 249.
32. Ibn Abij L;Iatim al-Razi (d. 3271938-9). Kitib al-Jirh waaGTa'dil, Hyderabad
(Deccan), 137211952, vol. 11, Part I, p. 132.
33. Ibn Abu Hatim, op. cit., vol. 11, Part 11, p. 373.
34. Tabaqat, vol. I,p. 230.
35. Muhammad b. Isma6.ilal-Bukhari, Kitib al-Ta'rlkh al-Kablr, Hyderabad (Deccan),
vol. 11, Part 11, 1st. ed., 1364 A.H., p. 29.
36. Kitib al-Jirh wa al-Ta'dil, vol. 11, Part I ,p. 132.
37. Apud Ibn Hajar (Fathal-Bari, p. 98) and al-Samhudi (Wafa al- Wafa, p. 246).
38. Maghazi. pp. 2-8.

Date OF: (3 Days)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Date OF: (3 Days)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Islamic Studies (Islamabad) 23:4 (1984)

THE DATE OF HIJRAH

1. Departure from home in Mecca Thursday (1st day of Hijrah)

I11 : TWO ALTERNATIVES

(1) The Qurayshite Meeting and the Prophet's departure from

© Dr Muhammad Hamidullah Library, IIU, Islamabad. http://iri.iiu.edu.pk/

We have so many reports regarding the Prophet's arrival in

On this view, the contrary reports can be explained partly by claim-

But a very serious difficulty is involved in this view. On the present

In short, there is considerable justification for the view that the

cannot be discountenanced. (We shall later discuss the calendars proposed

Al-Khwarizmi is reported by al-Hakim (apud Ibn Hajar) to have

We have al-Bayriini's report that al-Sha'bi states that there can be

Now, since 1.1.1. A.H. corresponds to Friday 16.7.622 A.D., we

(iv) Al-Diyarbakiri appears to be saying that Musa b. 'Uqbah in

(vii) Al-Maqrizi (d. 84511441-2) gives 4 Rabi'I as the date of

(viii) Ibn Sa'd appears to report from 'Abd al-Malik al-Madhhaji

(x) Musa b. 'Uqbah (according to Ibn Hajar, al-Samhudi and al-

(xii) Ibn Hajar, al-Sarnhudi, al-Qastalani and al-Diyarbakiri

(xiii) Al-Tabarsi gives I1 Rabi'I as the date of arrival in Medina,

(xiv) We have innumerable reports that the Prophet reached Medina/

(b) Hisham b. Muhammad b. al-SH'ib al-Kalbi is reported to have

(xvii) We have many reports contrary to our construction regard-

between Medina and Yathrib, and a misunderstanding of the expression

. . IV : THE DATE OF HIJRAH

Thus, we have two alternative sets of dates to choose between.

(1) No matter whether or not there actually were two calendars

narrators, including, ironically enough, Dr. Hamidullah himself, place the

(iii) Finally, we have reports from Companions, for example,

(3) While there is, or appears to be, a difference of opinion regard-

reached Quba' on 8 Rabi' I, 1 A.H. (corresponding to 12 Rabi'I of the

Hazrat Abu Musa al-Ash'ari reports:

i3a~rz.iSalamah b. ai-Akwa' b. 'Afrl' says :

Havat Rubay', daughter of Hazrat Mucawwidh, says :

Hazrat Ibn 'Abbas says :

This view is considerably strengthened by another consideration.

The circumstance that 10 Tishri 4383 Mundi and 8 Rabi'I, 1 A.H.

On the first view we are obliged to adopt one of two alterna-

(b) While it is possible to suppose that thc traditions cited above

There is considerableevidence for this view. We have a report from

There is at least prima facie no reason why the Quraysh should

However, the question here is not whether there used to be an

(5) While no satisfactory explanation of the reports of departure

(6) Finally, let us point out that the day-date of Monday 12

Now, even though 'Abd al-Malik/Sulayman may have narrated

can be regarded as an innocent error, al-Sha'bi's report would have'to be

writer, Ibn Ishaq, thanks to the error of a copyist/editor, was supposed to

I suppose this sufEces to show that al-Waqidi's statement in question

You might also like