The Holy Prophet's Letter to Hiraql (Caesar) - Emperor of the Romans - Inviting Him to Islam

[arah]

The Holy Prophet's Letter to Hiraql (Caesar) - Emperor of the Romans -
Inviting Him to Islam

It was narrated on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas who learned the
tradition personally from Abu Sufyan. The latter said:

I went out (on a mercantile venture) during the period (of truce)
between me and the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). While I
was in Syria, the letter of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon
him) was handed over to Hiraql (Caesar), the Emperor of Rome (who was
on a visit to Jerusalem at that time). The letter was brought by Dihya
Kalbi who delivered it to the governor of Basra, and the governor
passed it on to Caesar.

(On receiving the letter) Caesar held a grand court. He donned a Crown
and sat on his throne and said: 'Is there anyone from the people of
this man who thinks that he is a prophet?' People said: 'Yes.'

So I was called along with a few others from the Quraysh. We were
admitted to Caesar and he seated us before him. He asked: 'Which of
you has the closest kinship with the man who thinks that he is a
prophet?' Abu Sufyan said: 'I.' So they seated me in front of him and
seated my companions behind me. Then he called his interpreter and
said to him: 'Tell them that I am going to ask this fellow (i.e. Abu
Sufyan) about the man who thinks that he is a prophet. If he tells me
a lie, then refute him.' Abu Sufyan told (the narrator): 'By God, had
there not been the fear that falsehood would be imputed to me, I would
have lied.'

(Then) Caesar said to his interpreter: 'Inquire from him about his
ancestry.'
I said: 'He is of good ancestry among us.'

He asked: 'Has there been a king among his ancestors?'
I said: 'No.'

He asked: 'Did you accuse him of falsehood before he proclaimed his
prophethood?'
I said: 'No.'

He asked: 'Who are his followers - people of high status or low
status?'
I said: '(They are) of low status.'

He asked: 'Are they increasing in number or decreasing?'
I said: 'No, they are rather increasing.'

He asked: 'Does anyone give up his religion, being dissatisfied with
it, after having embraced it?'
I said: 'No.'

He asked: 'Have you been at war with him?'
I said: 'Yes.'

He asked: 'How did you fare in that war?'
I said: 'The war between us and him has been wavering like a bucket,
up at one turn and down at the other (i.e. the victory has been shared
between us and him by turns).'

He asked: 'Has he (ever) violated his covenant?'
I said: 'No.'

He asked: 'Did anyone make the proclamation (of prophethood) before
him?'
I said 'No.'

He now said to his interpreter: 'Tell him - I asked him about his
ancestry and he replied that he had the best ancestry. This is the
case with prophets; they are the descendants of the noblest among
their people.'

(Addressing Abu Sufyan,) he continued:

'I asked you if there had been a king among his ancestors. You said
that there had been none. If there had been a king among his
ancestors, I would have said that he was a man demanding his ancestral
kingdom.'

'I asked you about his followers, whether they were people of high or
low status, and you said that they were of rather low status. Such are
the followers of the prophets.'

'I asked you whether you used to accuse him of falsehood before he
proclaimed his prophethood, and you said that you did not. So I have
understood that when he did not allow himself to tell a lie about the
people, he would never go to the length of forging a falsehood about
Allah.'

'I asked you whether anyone renounced his religion being dissatisfied
with it after he had embraced it, and you replied in the negative.
Faith is like this when it enters the depths of the heart (it
perpetuates them).'

'I asked you whether his followers were increasing or decreasing. You
said they were increasing. Faith is like this until it reaches its
consummation.'

'I asked you whether you had been at war with him, and you replied
that you had been and that the victory between you and him had been
shared by turns, sometimes he suffering loss at your hand and
sometimes you suffering loss at his. This is how the prophets are
tried before the final victory is theirs.'

'I asked you whether he (ever) violated his covenant, and you said
that he did not. This is how the prophets behave. They never violate
(their covenants).'

'I asked you whether anyone before him had proclaimed the same thing,
and you replied in the negative. I said: If anyone had made the same
proclamation before, I would have thought that he was a man following
what had been proclaimed before.'

(Then) he asked: 'What does he enjoin upon you?' I said: 'He exhorts
us to offer Salat, to pay Zakat, to show due regard to kinship, and to
practice chastity.'

He said: 'If what you have told about him is true, he is certainly a
prophet. I knew that he was to appear, but I did not think that he
would be from among you. If I knew that I would be able to reach him,
I would love to meet him; and if I had been with him, I would have
washed his feet (out of reverence). His dominion will certainly extend
to this place which is under my feet.'

Then he called for the letter of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) and
read it. The letter ran as follows:

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious and Most Merciful

From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, to Hiraql, the Emperor of the
Romans.

Peace be on him, who follows the right path.

After this, I invite you to the fold of Islam. Therefore, if you
desire security, accept Islam. If you accept Islam, Allah shall reward
you double and if you refuse to do so, the responsibility for the
transgression of the entire nation, shall be yours.

O people of the Book, come to the word that is common between us, that
we should worship none other than Allah, should not ascribe any
partner to Him, and that none of us should take their fellows as Lords
other than Allah.

If you deny this, you must know that we believe in Oneness of Allah,
in all circumstances.

Seal: Allah's Prophet Muhammad

The dialogue of Caesar, with Abu Sufyan, highly enraged the courtiers.
The Caesar, therefore, sent away the Arabs from the court. The love of
crown and throne and the opposition of the courtiers, however, did not
allow Caesar to accept Islam. But his searching questions and his talk
clearly show that he was convinced of the truthfulness of Islam, as he
had correctly judged that a person who never in his life, uttered even
a trifling lie, could hardly say anything wrong about Allah. He was
also certain that worldly riches, splendor, and ascendancy were not
the aims and objects of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.), but the
communication of the message of Islam to the entire world, was his
mission.

When Caesar was about to return to Constantinople, he again advised
his courtiers to follow the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) as he was the one,
they were awaiting. He further mentioned that their books contained
the description of the Holy Prophet, Muhammad (S.A.W.), and these
clearly and unequivocally indicate that he was the true Prophet of
Allah. It was, therefore, in their own interest to follow the guidance
given by the Holy Prophet (S. A. W.).

However, the courtiers, said that it would mean their acceptance of
the lordship of the Arabs, although their's was the biggest kingdom of
the world and their nation the greatest nation of the world. Caesar,
thereon, said that although they were not prepared to accept Islam
then very shortly they would be overpowered by the Arabs. He was much
displeased by the arrogant attitude of the courtiers and immediately
left Syria. While departing, he looked at the Syrian territory and
said that he was leaving Syria for ever. And it was true, he never
returned to Syria.

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/heraclius.html

An examination of
Muslim tradition on Heraclius' response to Muhammad's invitation

Muslim tradition recorded for us a story of Heraclius, Emperor of the
Byzantine Empire (610-641 A.D.), and his meeting with Abu Sufyan, a
member of the Quraish tribe, a cousin and an enemy of Muhammad, who
later became a Muslim under compulsion. The year was 628 A.D. We are
told that Muhammad sent a letter to Heraclius inviting him to Islam as
well as Heraclius' response. In summary, the story tells of Heraclius
recognizing, through his questioning of Abu Sufyan, Muhammad as God's
messenger and that he wanted to become a Muslim. However, faced with
pressure from his subjects, he changed his mind. It is the purpose of
this article to examine this incident carefully.
This account is regularly included in Muslim sites and books [1, 2, 3,
4]. This account is rather impressive especially that such a
recognition of Muhammad's prophethood should be given so early in the
history of Islam, and by one so powerful as a Christian Emperor, which
acts like some kind of authentication of Islam. For example, we find
the following:

Furthermore the Prophet displayed numerous qualities which Heraculus,
the Byzantine Roman Emperor, recognized as indicating that Muhammad
was indeed the Prophet who they (the Christians) had been expecting as
the following narration shows: . . . (A Royal Enquiry)
Heraclius' obligation to defend Syria had been inhibited by his vision
of "the victorious kingdom of a circumcised man" and his belief that
this man was truly a Messenger of God. (Emperor Heraclius and Prophet
Muhammad)
Delving into the details of the responses of these kings to Muhammad's
messages is beyond the scope of this book. For more see any of the
many books available at one of the bookstores listed at the back of
this book. However, one response in particular bears a short mention.
It is the response of the Caesar of Rome (Hercules) to Muhammad's
message. (Misha'al Al-Kadhi, What did Jesus Really Say?, 2nd ed.,
chapter 10) [ Note: Al-Kadhi misnamed Heraclius to be Hercules, the
legendary God-Man figure in Greek Mythology. This is unlikely since
Heraclius was a Christian King. Al-Kadhi made this mistake no less
than three times in the second edition of his book, even though the
translations of Sahih Bukhari had "Heraclius". This mistake appeared
in the first edition of 1995, and in the second edition of 1998. (At
the time of writing this article, the second edition was online, but
not printed yet. Ten years later, it seems it never made it to print,
and the online edition was withdrawn.) When the Emperor Theodosius I
died in 395 A.D., the Roman Empire was divided into the Western and
Eastern halves, never to be united again. The western half had its
capital at Rome using Latin, but the eastern half had its capital at
Constantinople, and Greek became the official language by the time of
Heraclius. The western half fell to the Ostrogoths in 476 A.D., and
the eastern half continued as the Byzantine Empire. It is therefore
difficult to understand Al-Kadhi's title for Heraclius as "Caesar of
Rome" or "Emperor of Rome". ]
Impressive as it may be, however, it is precisely "the details of the
response" that Al-Kadhi did not examine in any detail which tell a
different story altogether. Our approach in this article is to assume
that this account of Heraclius is true, examine the Muslim story
carefully and compare this with some known facts about Muhammad and
his followers during the time of this story, as well as about
Heraclius himself. We will also look at what the Bible says. We want
to understand the kind of qualities Muhammad had that Heraclius found
important, and see how that was supposed to imply prophethood.
Summary: On closer examination below, we will find many flaws in
Heraclius' line of questioning. We will find that Heraclius was also
fed misinformation from Abu Sufyan, despite the fact that the latter
was supposedly telling the truth (or the truth as he knew it), and
when relating the above story to 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas, Abu Sufyan was
already a Muslim. Heraclius was probably a pious Christian, yet piety
does not a Christian define. In fact, history tells us that Heraclius
introduced a heresy (both from a Christian and a Muslim standpoint).

The Muslim Tradition
We are told that in the year 628 A.D., six years after the Hijira from
Mecca to Madinah, Muhammad sent letters to various kings around
Arabia, including Heraclius, Emperor of the Byzantine Empire, inviting
them to Islam. In his typical style, Muhammad warned him to "Embrace
Islam and yours shall be peace and safety" (Aslem, Taslam), or they
will be responsible for the sins of his people. After receiving this
letter, Heraclius met with Abu Sufyan, a Meccan who was on a
merchantile trip to Syria, and who was an enemy of Muhammad. During
this meeting, Heraclius inquired about Muhammad and his followers. The
details of this meeting are given in Sahih Bukhari:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas:
Abu Sufyan bin Harb informed me that Heraclius had sent a messenger to
him while he had been accompanying a caravan from Quraish. They were
merchants doing business in Sham (Syria, Palestine, Lebanon and
Jordan), at the time when Allah's Apostle had truce with Abu Sufyan
and Quraish infidels. So Abu Sufyan and his companions went to
Heraclius at Ilya (Jerusalem). Heraclius called them in the court and
he had all the senior Roman dignitaries around him. He called for his
translator who, translating Heraclius's question said to them, "Who
amongst you is closely related to that man who claims to be a
Prophet?" Abu Sufyan replied, "I am the nearest relative to him
(amongst the group)."

Heraclius said, "Bring him (Abu Sufyan) close to me and make his
companions stand behind him." Abu Sufyan added, Heraclius told his
translator to tell my companions that he wanted to put some questions
to me regarding that man (The Prophet) and that if I told a lie they
(my companions) should contradict me." Abu Sufyan added, "By Allah!
Had I not been afraid of my companions labeling me a liar, I would not
have spoken the truth about the Prophet. The first question he asked
me about him was:

'What is his family status amongst you?'
I replied, 'He belongs to a good (noble) family amongst us.'
Heraclius further asked, 'Has anybody amongst you ever claimed the
same (i.e. to be a Prophet) before him?'
I replied, 'No.'
He said, 'Was anybody amongst his ancestors a king?'
I replied, 'No.'
Heraclius asked, 'Do the nobles or the poor follow him?'
I replied, 'It is the poor who follow him.'
He said, 'Are his followers increasing decreasing (day by day)?'
I replied, 'They are increasing.'
He then asked, 'Does anybody amongst those who embrace his religion
become displeased and renounce the religion afterwards?'
I replied, 'No.'
Heraclius said, 'Have you ever accused him of telling lies before his
claim (to be a Prophet)?'
I replied, 'No. '
Heraclius said, 'Does he break his promises?'
I replied, 'No. We are at truce with him but we do not know what he
will do in it.' I could not find opportunity to say anything against
him except that.
Heraclius asked, 'Have you ever had a war with him?'
I replied, 'Yes.'
Then he said, 'What was the outcome of the battles?'
I replied, 'Sometimes he was victorious and sometimes we.'
Heraclius said, 'What does he order you to do?'
I said, 'He tells us to worship Allah and Allah alone and not to
worship anything along with Him, and to renounce all that our
ancestors had said. He orders us to pray, to speak the truth, to be
chaste and to keep good relations with our Kith and kin.'

Heraclius asked the translator to convey to me the following, I asked
you about his family and your reply was that he belonged to a very
noble family. In fact all the Apostles come from noble families
amongst their respective peoples. I questioned you whether anybody
else amongst you claimed such a thing, your reply was in the negative.
If the answer had been in the affirmative, I would have thought that
this man was following the previous man's statement. Then I asked you
whether anyone of his ancestors was a king. Your reply was in the
negative, and if it had been in the affirmative, I would have thought
that this man wanted to take back his ancestral kingdom.

I further asked whether he was ever accused of telling lies before he
said what he said, and your reply was in the negative. So I wondered
how a person who does not tell a lie about others could ever tell a
lie about Allah. I, then asked you whether the rich people followed
him or the poor. You replied that it was the poor who followed him.
And in fact all the Apostle have been followed by this very class of
people. Then I asked you whether his followers were increasing or
decreasing. You replied that they were increasing, and in fact this is
the way of true faith, till it is complete in all respects. I further
asked you whether there was anybody, who, after embracing his
religion, became displeased and discarded his religion. Your reply was
in the negative, and in fact this is (the sign of) true faith, when
its delight enters the hearts and mixes with them completely. I asked
you whether he had ever betrayed. You replied in the negative and
likewise the Apostles never betray. Then I asked you what he ordered
you to do. You replied that he ordered you to worship Allah and Allah
alone and not to worship any thing along with Him and forbade you to
worship idols and ordered you to pray, to speak the truth and to be
chaste. If what you have said is true, he will very soon occupy this
place underneath my feet and I knew it (from the scriptures) that he
was going to appear but I did not know that he would be from you, and
if I could reach him definitely, I would go immediately to meet him
and if I were with him, I would certainly wash his feet.' Heraclius
then asked for the letter addressed by Allah's Apostle which was
delivered by Dihya to the Governor of Busra, who forwarded it to
Heraclius to read. The contents of the letter were as follows: "In the
name of Allah the Beneficent, the Merciful (This letter is) from
Muhammad the slave of Allah and His Apostle to Heraclius the ruler of
Byzantine. Peace be upon him, who follows the right path. Furthermore
I invite you to Islam, and if you become a Muslim you will be safe,
and Allah will double your reward, and if you reject this invitation
of Islam you will be committing a sin by misguiding your Arisiyin
(peasants). (And I recite to you Allah's Statement:)

'O people of the scripture! Come to a word common to you and us that
we worship none but Allah and that we associate nothing in worship
with Him, and that none of us shall take others as Lords beside Allah.
Then, if they turn away, say: Bear witness that we are Muslims (those
who have surrendered to Allah).' (Âl 'Imran 3:64).

Abu Sufyan then added, "When Heraclius had finished his speech and had
read the letter, there was a great hue and cry in the Royal Court. So
we were turned out of the court. I told my companions that the
question of Ibn-Abi-Kabsha) (the Prophet Muhammad) has become so
prominent that even the King of Bani Al-Asfar (Byzantine) is afraid of
him. Then I started to become sure that he (the Prophet) would be the
conqueror in the near future till I embraced Islam (i.e. Allah guided
me to it)."

The sub narrator adds, "Ibn An-Natur was the Governor of
llya' (Jerusalem) and Heraclius was the head of the Christians of
Sham. Ibn An-Natur narrates that once while Heraclius was visiting
ilya' (Jerusalem), he got up in the morning with a sad mood. Some of
his priests asked him why he was in that mood? Heraclius was a
foreteller and an astrologer. He replied, 'At night when I looked at
the stars, I saw that the leader of those who practice circumcision
had appeared (become the conqueror). Who are they who practice
circumcision?' The people replied, 'Except the Jews nobody practices
circumcision, so you should not be afraid of them (Jews).

'Just Issue orders to kill every Jew present in the country.' While
they were discussing it, a messenger sent by the king of Ghassan to
convey the news of Allah's Apostle to Heraclius was brought in. Having
heard the news, he (Heraclius) ordered the people to go and see
whether the messenger of Ghassan was circumcised. The people, after
seeing him, told Heraclius that he was circumcised. Heraclius then
asked him about the Arabs. The messenger replied, 'Arabs also practice
circumcision.'

(After hearing that) Heraclius remarked that sovereignty of the 'Arabs
had appeared. Heraclius then wrote a letter to his friend in Rome who
was as good as Heraclius in knowledge. Heraclius then left for Homs (a
town in Syria) and stayed there till he received the reply of his
letter from his friend who agreed with him in his opinion about the
emergence of the Prophet and the fact that he was a Prophet. On that
Heraclius invited all the heads of the Byzantines to assemble in his
palace at Homs. When they assembled, he ordered that all the doors of
his palace be closed. Then he came out and said, 'O Byzantines! If
success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your
empire to remain then give a pledge of allegiance to this Prophet
(i.e. embrace Islam).'

(On hearing the views of Heraclius) the people ran towards the gates
of the palace like onagers but found the doors closed. Heraclius
realized their hatred towards Islam and when he lost the hope of their
embracing Islam, he ordered that they should be brought back in
audience.

(When they returned) he said, 'What already said was just to test the
strength of your conviction and I have seen it.' The people prostrated
before him and became pleased with him, and this was the end of
Heraclius's story (in connection with his faith). (Sahih Bukhari, vol.
1, book 1, no. 6)


Analysis of the Line of Questioning by Heraclius
The Muslim tradition recorded for us Heraclius' logic when determining
Muhammad's prophethood and this truth. Let us look at each of these in
turn (note that most of these are purely common sense anyway):

Noble birth.
The hadith tells us:

Heraclius asked the translator to convey to me the following, I asked
you about his family and your reply was that he belonged to a very
noble family. In fact all the Apostles come from noble families
amongst their respective peoples.
How does one define noble? Was Noah of a noble family? Was Abraham? We
really have no such knowledge. Now, of course, not all Arabs are of
noble descent (otherwise that question is totally useless), but
perhaps due to the high social status of the Quraish (due to their
custodial role of the Ka'aba), Muhammad was regarded as of a noble
family.
Yet we know that Jesus came from a poor family and Joseph too, and
Jesus worked as a carpenter before His ministry. Moses and Aaron were
descendents of slaves in Egypt (descendents of Jacob about 400 years
later). Also, we know that David was descended from an incestuous
relationship between Judah and his daughter-in-law, Tamar. The
genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-17 listed exactly four women, an
extremely unusual phenomenon in Jewish genealogy: Tamar (v. 3), Rahab
(v. 5), Ruth (v. 5) and Bathsheba (v. 6, indirectly as Uriah's wife).
Tamar had an incestuous relationship with Judah; Rahab was a foreigner
and a prostitute; Ruth was a Moabitess forbidden to enter into the
assembly of God, and Bathsheba and David had adultery. Such
unglamorous ancestry! Such gossip-inviting ancestry!

Should Heraclius disqualify David, Solomon and Jesus?


No one else among them claimed prophethood
Heraclius said:

I questioned you whether anybody else amongst you claimed such a
thing, your reply was in the negative. If the answer had been in the
affirmative, I would have thought that this man was following the
previous man's statement.
Now of course, Heraclius, according to this account, must be quite
ignorant of his own religion. Was not Jesus' relative, John the
Baptist, also ministering slightly earlier than Jesus. So, does that
disqualify Jesus? How should Heraclius deal with the Biblical
prophets, many of whom are contemporaries? Clearly, this line of
argument is also specious.

No ancestor was a king.
Heraclius said:

Then I asked you whether anyone of his ancestors was a king. Your
reply was in the negative, and if it had been in the affirmative, I
would have thought that this man wanted to take back his ancestral
kingdom.
Again, we find that David and Solomon were kings (and a number of
their descendents), and in fact, the Jews were looking for the
restoration of this Davidic Kingdom under the Messiah. And Jesus'
human ancestry was from David. So, should Heraclius disqualify Jesus?
On the other hand, Muhammad's great grandfather was the custodian of
the Ka'aba, and so although Muhammad's ancestors may not have kings,
his family was a powerful and influential one, although by the time it
reach Muhammad's time, he was not. Yet, when faced with opposition
from other Meccans, his uncle Abu Talib was influential enough to
protect Muhammad.

Note: Now, we should understand that, at most, these first three
questions can only establish if Muhammad was sincere (more or less),
but play no part really in prophethood, because we find that previous
prophets contradict these attributes. Unless one denies these previous
prophets' prophethood, these cannot be determining factors.


Not a liar.
Heraclius said:

I further asked whether he was ever accused of telling lies before he
said what he said, and your reply was in the negative. So I wondered
how a person who does not tell a lie about others could ever tell a
lie about Allah.
Now, this is of course reasonable, but very dangerous. Almost everyone
that is pious (of whatever religion) is sincere and very often very
honest about their faith. Yet, these different honest people held to
conflicting views of God. Surely, not all of them are correct. At
best, we can only say that they believed that to be true, not
necessarily the truth. Only the external evidence of God Himself can
authenticate them. In fact, a person can be lying about God but he
himself is unaware of it.
In fact, at the end of the Job's (Ayub's) severe trial, God asked:

Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said: "Who is this
that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? Brace yourself
like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. (Job
38:1-3)
One would disqualify a habitual liar, but what about an occasional
one? Interestingly, both the Bible and Muslim traditions recorded that
Abraham had lied. Yet, this did not disqualify Abraham from being a
prophet. Sahih Bukhari records for us:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Abraham did not tell a lie except on three occasion. Twice for the
Sake of Allah when he said, "I am sick," and he said, "(I have not
done this but) the big idol has done it." The (third was) that while
Abraham and Sarah (his wife) were going (on a journey) they passed by
(the territory of) a tyrant. Someone said to the tyrant, "This man
(i.e. Abraham) is accompanied by a very charming lady." So, he sent
for Abraham and asked him about Sarah saying, "Who is this lady?"
Abraham said, "She is my sister." Abraham went to Sarah and said, "O
Sarah! There are no believers on the surface of the earth except you
and I. This man asked me about you and I have told him that you are my
sister, so don't contradict my statement." The tyrant then called
Sarah and when she went to him, he tried to take hold of her with his
hand, but (his hand got stiff and) he was confounded. He asked Sarah.
"Pray to Allah for me, and I shall not harm you." So Sarah asked Allah
to cure him and he got cured. He tried to take hold of her for the
second time, but (his hand got as stiff as or stiffer than before and)
was more confounded. He again requested Sarah, "Pray to Allah for me,
and I will not harm you." Sarah asked Allah again and he became
alright. He then called one of his guards (who had brought her) and
said, "You have not brought me a human being but have brought me a
devil." The tyrant then gave Hajar as a girl-servant to Sarah. Sarah
came back (to Abraham) while he was praying. Abraham, gesturing with
his hand, asked, "What has happened?" She replied, "Allah has spoiled
the evil plot of the infidel (or immoral person) and gave me Hajar for
service." (Abu Huraira then addressed his listeners saying, "That
(Hajar) was your mother, O Bani Ma-is-Sama (i.e. the Arabs, the
descendants of Ishmael, Hajar's son)." ( Sahih Bukhari, vol. 4, book
55, no. 578, also no. 577 and vol. 7, book 62, no. 21)

The second occasion mentioned in this hadith is the apocryphal story
of Abraham breaking the idols and then lying about it when confronted.
More details here. This is not mentioned in the Bible.
The last occasion was mentioned in the Bible in Genesis 20 with some
differences [we will not discuss the differences here]. The hadith was
unable to name the "tyrant", but the Bible says that it was the king
of Gerar, Abimelech. Interestingly, Isaac committed the same mistake
(like father, like son?) with regards his wife Rebecca before
Abimelech, King of the Philistines (Genesis 26:1-31).

Now, given that the Bible recorded these, should Heraclius disqualify
Abraham and Isaac under this criterion? Should Abraham be disqualified
under Muslim traditions?

Therefore, this criterion is flawed, even though it is important. No
doubt, we should dismiss a habitual liar, but even a liar can be used
of God to be his messenger, as we saw in Abraham and Isaac [The Muslim
argument that prophets are sinless falls flat on these two examples.
The argument also that prophets do not sin after being called to be
prophets is also not true, since Isaac was already a prophet according
to Islam when he was born. (as-Saffat 37:112).]. In fact, many people
fit into the profile of an occasional liar. This criterion is not at
fault, but humans are. And all humans are sinners.


Followers are poor.
Heraclius said:

I, then asked you whether the rich people followed him or the poor.
You replied that it was the poor who followed him. And in fact all the
Apostle have been followed by this very class of people.
This is actually reasonable, but again we find that it is not always
true. Job, Abraham and Lot were rich people, and Abraham, Issac, Jacob
dealt with Kings. What kind of followers did they have? Even Jesus had
rich followers (like Joseph of Arimathea). But of course, a prophet's
message must appeal to the under-privileged.

Increasing or decreasing.
Heraclius said:

Then I asked you whether his followers were increasing or decreasing.
You replied that they were increasing, and in fact this is the way of
true faith, till it is complete in all respects.
This is again reasonable. Yet when the number of followers of Jesus
was swelling, He acted to make sure that only true believers followed
him. We find that Jesus said difficult words to his followers so that
many of them turned from following him after that (cf. John 6:53-66).
What we learned is that numbers of so-called followers is not an
issue, only true disciples. In fact, how many prophets in the Bible
can we count that had many followers? Even in the Qur'an most prophets
seem not to have found a large following. Man may be interested in
numbers, but God looks at the heart.
We note that many religions are increasing in number, simply because
of the population growth. The number of Christians, Muslims, Hindus
are all increasing. Even the number of Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, the
Ahmadis, the Nation of Islam, etc, are increasing. Clearly, it is just
not possible to use this to test the truthfulness of a religion. In
fact, Jesus tells us that numbers don't count:

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the
road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small
is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few
find it. (Matthew 7:13-14).
Further reading: Sura 61:14 and Church History

No apostates.

I further asked you whether there was anybody, who, after embracing
his religion, became displeased and discarded his religion. Your reply
was in the negative, and in fact this is (the sign of) true faith,
when its delight enters the hearts and mixes with them completely.
In another hadith, we are told that the last sentence was:
When its delight enters the heart and mixes with them completely,
nobody can be displeased with it." (Sahih Bukhari, vol. 1, book 2, no.
48)
This is false! There was a very highly regarded hanif (by Muslims)
that became a Muslim, and later gave up Islam. He was Abu Sufyan's son-
in-law, and his apostasy occurred long before Abu Sufyan's alleged
meeting with Heraclius!
In the year 615 A.D., a group of Muslims were persecuted and some of
them went to the Christian King of Ethiopia (Abyssinia) for refuge.
There they were accepted and allowed to live. A man, who was regarded
as a hanif before he become a Muslim was among them. This man was
Ubaidullah b. Jash, and his wife was Umm Habiba, daughter of Abu
Sufyan. Thus Ubaidullah was Abu Sufyan's son-in-law. The Muslim
chronicler, Ibn Ishaq, tells us:

"`Ubaydullah went on searching until Islam came; then he migrated with
the Muslims to Abyssinia taking with him his wife who was a Muslim,
Umm Habiba, d. Abu Sufyan. When he arrived there he adopted
Christianity, parted from Islam, and died a Christian in Abyssinia.
Muhammad b. Ja`far b. al-Zubayr told me that when he had become a
Christian `Ubaydullah as he passed the prophet's companions who were
there used to say: `We see clearly, but your eyes are only half open,'
i.e. `We see, but you are only trying to see and cannot see yet.' He
used the word sa'sa' because when a puppy tries to open its eyes to
see, it only half sees. The other faqqaha means to open the eyes.
After his death the apostle married his widow Umm Habiba." (Ibn Ishaq,
The Life of Muhammad, tr. Guillaume, 1967, p. 99)

A group of refugees returned around AD 628. Ubaidullah become a
Christian not long after arriving at Abyssinia. Not only that, we see
that Ubaidullah used to debate with the Muslims on religion. Now, Abu
Sufyan was the father-in-law of Ubaidullah, so thirteen years later,
at the meeting with Heraclius, Abu Sufyan should have known that his
son-in-law had become an apostate of Islam. Even if he did not know,
the facts given to Heraclius were false.

There were also other instances of apostasy from Islam during
Muhammad's lifetime.

Narrated Abu Burda:
.... The Prophet then sent Mu'adh bin Jabal after him and when Mu'adh
reached him, he spread out a cushion for him and requested him to get
down (and sit on the cushion). Behold: There was a fettered man beside
Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was
a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu
Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit
down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His
Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered
that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we
discussed the night prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and
I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my
prayers.'" (Sahih Bukhari vol. 9, book 84, no. 58, also Sahih Bukhari,
vol. 5, book 59, no. 632)
Narrated Anas:
There was a Christian who embraced Islam and read Surat-al-Baqara and
Âl 'Imran, and he used to write (the revelations) for the Prophet.
Later on he returned to Christianity again and he used to say:
"Muhammad knows nothing but what I have written for him." Then Allah
caused him to die, and the people buried him, but in the morning they
saw that the earth had thrown his body out. They said, "This is the
act of Muhammad and his companions. They dug the grave of our
companion and took his body out of it because he had run away from
them." They again dug the grave deeply for him, but in the morning
they again saw that the earth had thrown his body out. They said,
"This is an act of Muhammad and his companions. They dug the grave of
our companion and threw his body outside it, for he had run away from
them." They dug the grave for him as deep as they could, but in the
morning they again saw that the earth had thrown his body out. So they
believed that what had befallen him was not done by human beings and
had to leave him thrown (on the ground). (Sahih Bukhari, vol. 4, book
56, no. 814) [This man was said to have lived many years after
Muhamamd's death]
Even Muhammad knew that there will be apostates.
Narrated Ibn Abbas:
. . .
Then it will be said, '(O Muhammad) These people never stopped to
apostate since you left them." (Sahih Bukhari, vol. 6, book 60, no.
264)
Narrated Ibn Al-Musaiyab:
The companions of the Prophet said, "Some men from my companions will
come to my Lake-Fount and they will be driven away from it, and I will
say, 'O Lord, my companions!' It will be said, 'You have no knowledge
of what they innovated after you left: they turned apostate as
renegades (reverted from Islam). (Sahih Bukhari, vol. 8, book 76, no.
586. also no. 585, and no. 587 )
Shari'a law also prescribes punishment for the apostate (see here for
a more detailed discussion). There wouldn't be a need for such a
punishment if there is no prospect of apostasy.
Narrated 'Abdullah:
Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none
has the right to be worshiped but Allah and that I am His Apostle,
cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married
person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts
from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims." (Sahih Bukhari, vol. 9,
book 83, no. 17)
Narrated Abu Qilaba:
Once 'Umar bin 'Abdul 'Aziz sat on his throne in the courtyard of his
house so that the people might gather before him. Then he admitted
them and (when they came in), he said, "What do you think of Al-
Qasama?" They said, "We say that it is lawful to depend on Al-Qasama
in Qisas, as the previous Muslim Caliphs carried out Qisas depending
on it." Then he said to me, "O Abu Qilaba! What do you say about it?"
He let me appear before the people and I said, "O Chief of the
Believers! You have the chiefs of the army staff and the nobles of the
Arabs. If fifty of them testified that a married man had committed
illegal sexual intercourse in Damascus but they had not seen him
(doing so), would you stone him?" He said, "No." I said, "If fifty of
them testified that a man had committed theft in Hums, would you cut
off his hand though they did not see him?" He replied, "No." I said,
"By Allah, Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the
following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly,
was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal
sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His
Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate." Then the people
said, "Didn't Anas bin Malik narrate that Allah's Apostle cut off the
hands of the thieves, branded their eyes and then, threw them in the
sun?" I said, "I shall tell you the narration of Anas. Anas said:
"Eight persons from the tribe of 'Ukl came to Allah's Apostle and gave
the Pledge of allegiance for Islam (became Muslim). The climate of the
place (Medina) did not suit them, so they became sick and complained
about that to Allah's Apostle. He said (to them ), "Won't you go out
with the shepherd of our camels and drink of the camels' milk and
urine (as medicine)?" They said, "Yes." So they went out and drank the
camels' milk and urine, and after they became healthy, they killed the
shepherd of Allah's Apostle and took away all the camels. This news
reached Allah's Apostle, so he sent (men) to follow their traces and
they were captured and brought (to the Prophet). He then ordered to
cut their hands and feet, and their eyes were branded with heated
pieces of iron, and then he threw them in the sun till they died." I
said, "What can be worse than what those people did? They deserted
Islam, committed murder and theft." (Sahih Bukhari, vol. 9, book 83,
no. 37)
And do we not remember that after Muhamamd's death, many Arab Muslims
apostatize so that it took Abu Bakr more than a year to quell it all?
Thus Heraclius was given a false fact: at that meeting, there already
were apostates, and in later days of Muhammad as well, and there were
many dissatisfied Muslims that reneged immediately after Muhamamd's
death when they had the chance [doesn't that tell us something?], and
Muhammad expected it and made laws to punish them. Thus, Islam did not
have "(the sign of) true faith, when its delight enters the hearts and
mixes with them completely, nobody can be displeased with it" since
there really were apostates. Since the premise if false, the
conclusion is of no consequence. [Prior to my reading this, I did not
think to doubt Abu Sufyan's testimony. After reading this more
carefully, I now have a lot more doubt about this guy.]


Never betrayed.
Heraclius said:

I asked you whether he had ever betrayed. You replied in the negative
and likewise the Apostles never betray.
For this, one should read about Muhammad and the Jewish tribe Bani
Qurayza: The Bani Quraytha Jews, Traitors or Betrayed? and What really
happened to the Banu Qurayza?.

His order.
The last point is not really a reasoning, but rather more like an
acclamation of faith:

Then I asked you what he ordered you to do. You replied that he
ordered you to worship Allah and Allah alone and not to worship any
thing along with Him and forbade you to worship idols and ordered you
to pray, to speak the truth and to be chaste. If what you have said is
true, he will very soon occupy this place underneath my feet and I
knew it (from the scriptures) that he was going to appear but I did
not know that he would be from you, and if I could reach him
definitely, I would go immediately to meet him and if I were with him,
I would certainly wash his feet.
It should be noted that the phrase "from the scriptures" is an
interpolation as given in parenthesis and not in the text of the
tradition. Since no scripture verse was brought forward, we cannot say
that he meant scripture. In fact, in the next section, we will find
that the tradition says that Heraclius was a diviner, so it is more
likely that he meant that he knew through divination.
His attitude certainly does not accord with what we know of Heraclius
later on, when he fought against the Muslims (see the next section).

In summary, we looked at each of Heraclius' reasons in determining
prophethood:

Reason Acceptability Counter-Example
Noble birth Useless Jesus was not of a noble birth
No one else among them claimed prophethood Useless, but may show
sincerity John the Baptist was a prophet before and concurrent with
Jesus
No ancestor was a king Useless, but may show sincerity David,
Solomon were kings before Jesus
Not a liar Acceptable and important, but not foolproof. Abraham and
Isaac had lied
Followers are poor Useless Jesus had rich followers
Increasing numbers Useless, not necessarily true Many prophets had
small followings
No apostates Not true Abu Sufyan's son-in-law, Ubaidullah, was an
apostate of Islam
Never betray not true Banu Qurayza

All that Heraclius maybe managed to establish is Muhammad's sincerity
but not his prophethood. His reasons were contradicted by previous
prophets. But again, not only do we see flaws in his reasoning, but
also that he was not given the complete picture, and even untruths.

Jesus himself gave us these words on how to recognize a true prophet:

"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing,
but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will
recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from
thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree
bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree
cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is
cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will
recognize them. (Matthew 7:15-20).
About the life of Muhamamd: One

What kind of a Christian was Heraclius?
In this section, we will examine what kind of a Christian Heraclius
was. We will consider the Muslim tradition, assuming it is true, and
also Biblical and historical data.

Heraclius was a diviner.
We are told in Sahih Bukhari that the sub-narrator said that
"Heraclius was a foreteller and an astrologer." And since his means
were astrology to tell the future, that is divination. Despite its
popularity among many people, the Bible forbids divination and
considers it a sin:

For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the
evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he
has rejected you as king." (1 Samuel 15:23)
This is what the LORD says: "Do not learn the ways of the nations or
be terrified by signs in the sky, though the nations are terrified by
them. (Jeremiah 10:2)

"So I will come near to you for judgment. I will be quick to testify
against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud
laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless,
and deprive aliens of justice, but do not fear me," says the LORD
Almighty. (Malachi 3:5)

see also Isaiah 44:24-25, Micah 3:7, Malachi 3:5, Acts 19:19,

A Christian has no business in divination, not even to consult
diviners, much less be a diviner himself. If the hadith is true, then
Heraclius, according to the Bible, has the judgment of God upon him,
and his subsequent losing of Syria and Palestine to the Arabs must
also be seen in this light (just as God used the Assyrians and the
Babylonians to punish the northern and southern kingdom of Israel and
Judah respectively).

Heraclius lied.
We are told in the hadith above that:

When they assembled, he ordered that all the doors of his palace be
closed. Then he came out and said, 'O Byzantines! If success is your
desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain
then give a pledge of allegiance to this Prophet (i.e. embrace
Islam).'
(On hearing the views of Heraclius) the people ran towards the gates
of the palace like onagers but found the doors closed. Heraclius
realized their hatred towards Islam and when he lost the hope of their
embracing Islam, he ordered that they should be brought back in
audience.

(When they returned) he said, 'What already said was just to test the
strength of your conviction and I have seen it.' The people prostrated
before him and became pleased with him, and this was the end of
Heraclius's story (in connection with his faith).

According to this tradition, Heraclius was willing to lie and turn his
back from what he knew to be true to save his skin (and throne). Are
you sure you want to trust such a man?

Heraclius' heresy.
Perhaps, the most revealing of Heraclius' spirituality, was Heraclius'
introduction of the heresy known as Monothelitism in order to win over
the Monophysites (a belief that Jesus' had only a divine nature, no
human nature... the exact opposite of Islam's belief. The modern day
Abyssinian church, Armenian church, Coptic church, and Jacobite church
are Monophysitic. [Maria, a wife/concubine of Muhammad who bore him
Ibrahim, was a Coptic Christian. Isn't it interesting that she did not
convert and accept Islam?]):

Monothelitism, 7th-century belief that Christ has two distinct
natures, divine and human, manifested in only one will and activity
(See Christology). The doctrine was first promulgated about 624 by
Byzantine emperor Heraclius, in an attempt to bring back into the
church thousands of followers of Monophysitism who had been
excommunicated for heresy for claiming that Christ had only one
nature. Controversy on the question continued until the third Council
of Constantinople settled the issue in 680. (Encarta Online)
In 638 A.D., the Patriarch Sergios of Constantinople wrote a document
called the Ekthesis (meaning "Statement of Faith") and Heraclius used
it to promote this doctrine, although this doctrine was already
earlier introduced. The Ekthesis forbade discussion of Monoergetism
(one energy) and stated that the two natures of Christ were joined in
a single Will (Monotheletism).
This doctrine is of course blasphemous to Muslims, for it claimed that
Jesus is divine.


Heraclius believed in other than God's protection.

The Emperor Heraclius later transported St. Theodore's body to
Constantinople in order that its presence there might protect the
capital from the Persian attack: [cf. C. Kirch, Nicephori
sceuophylacis encomium in S. Theodorum Siceotam, Analecta Bollandiana
20 (1901), pp. 249­72]. (Medieval Sourcebook: The Life of St. Theodore
of Sykeon)
This incident also demonstrate the continual problem among many
Christians who believed in relics and charms, much like Muslims do,
instead of relying solely on the protection of God.

Heraclius' marriage to his niece
In 612 AD, Heraclius' first wife, Eudocia, died, and in the following
year, he married his niece Martina. The marriage of a man with an aunt
is forbidden in the Bible (Leviticus 18:12-13), and the reversal of
sexual roles is also considered incestuous.


Heraclius restored the "True Cross"
In AD 630, two years after the meeting with Abu Sufyan, Heraclius
restored the True Cross, believed to be the cross on which Jesus died,
to Jerusalem, which had earlier been captured by the Persians.

A month later [Jan 628 AD], Heraclius entered Dastagird with its
stupendous treasure. Khosrow was overthrown by his son, with whom
Heraclius made peace, demanding only the return of the Cross, the
captives, and conquered Roman territory. Returning to Constantinople
in triumph, he was hailed as a Moses, an Alexander, a Scipio. In 630
he personally restored the Cross to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre
in Jerusalem. ("Heraclius" Britannica Online)
Here, we see that Heraclius must have believed in the death of Jesus
(or at least paid verbal assent), contrary to Islam. His exploits mean
that he was still a defender of (Catholic) Christianity, at least in
name, (and his heretical views).

Heraclius fought the Muslims

After the conquest of Mecca, the sovereign of Arabia [i.e. Muhammad]
affected to prevent the hostile preparations of Heraclius; and
solemnly proclaimed war against the Romans, without attempting to
disguise the hardships and dangers of the enterprise. The Moslems were
discouraged: they alleged the want of money, or horses, or provisions;
the season of harvest, and the intolerable heat of the summer: "Hell
is much hotter," said the indignant prophet [i.e. Muhammad]. He
disdained to compel their service: but on his return he admonished the
most guilty, by an excommunication of fifty days. (Edward Gibbon,
History Of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire Volume 5, emphasis
mine)
When in 633 A.D., the ruthless Khalid ibn al-Walid, nicknamed "Sword
of Islam", a Muslim general highly regarded by Muhammad, came to
conquer Syria, Khalid said:
A smile of indignation expressed the refusal of Caled. "Ye Christian
dogs, you know your option; the Koran, the tribute, or the sword. We
are a people whose delight is in war, rather than in peace: and we
despise your pitiful alms, since we shall be speedily masters of your
wealth, your families, and your persons." (Edward Gibbon, History Of
The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire Volume 5)
In 635 A.D., the Muslims attacked Damascus, which then surrendered.
Heraclius counter-attacked in 636 A.D. and went to war with the
Muslims with an army of 200,000 at the Battle of the Yarmuk in Syria
on 20th August. At that time, the aging Heraclius was more than 60
years old, and had been involved in more than 100 battles. He was
soundly defeated, and lost Syria to the Muslims.

Abu Sufyan
We read in the hadith that:
Abu Sufyan then added, "When Heraclius had finished his speech and had
read the letter, there was a great hue and cry in the Royal Court. So
we were turned out of the court. I told my companions that the
question of Ibn-Abi-Kabsha) (the Prophet Muhammad) has become so
prominent that even the King of Bani Al-Asfar (Byzantine) is afraid of
him. Then I started to become sure that he (the Prophet) would be the
conqueror in the near future till I embraced Islam (i.e. Allah guided
me to it)."
This, however, does not really accord with what we know of Abu Sufyan.
Just before the Muslim attack of Mecca (one year after the incident of
Abu Sufyan meeting with Heraclius), Abu Sufyan was caught and brought
before Muhammad:
When Muhammad and his followers were about to attack Mecca to
subjugate it to Islam, his adherents arrested Abu Sufyan, one of
Mecca's inhabitants. They brought him to Muhammad. Muhammad told him:
"Woe to you, O Abu Sufyan. Is it not time for you to realize that
there is no God but the only God?" Abu Sufyan answered: "I do believe
that." Muhammad then said to him: "Woe to you, O Abu Sufyan. Is it not
time for you to know that I am the apostle of God?" Abu Sufyan
answered: "By God, O Muhammad, of this there is doubt in my soul." The
'Abbas who was present with Muhammad told Abu Sufyan: "Woe to you!
Accept Islam and testify that Muhammad is the apostle of God before
your neck is cut off by the sword." Thus he professed the faith of
Islam and became a Muslim. (Ibn Hisham, Biography of the Prophet, part
4, p. 11, "The Chronicle of the Tabari", part 2, p. 157, Ibn Kathir,
"The Prophetic Biography", part 3, p. 549, and "The Beginning and the
End", Ibn Khaldun, the rest of part 2, p. 43 and on Al-Sira al-
Halabiyya, Vol. 3. p. 18, Al Road Al Anf, part 4, p. 90, by Al
Sohaily, as quoted by Behind the Veil, Chapter 2 )
On the threat of being killed, Abu Sufyan became a Muslim. After
becoming a Muslim, we read:
Narrated 'Aisha:
Hind, the mother of Mu'awiya said to Allah's Apostle, "Abu Sufyan (her
husband) is a miser. Am I allowed to take from his money secretly?"
The Prophet said to her, "You and your sons may take what is
sufficient reasonably and fairly." (Sahih Bukhari, vol. 3, book 34,
no. 413, vol.3, book 43, no. 640)
It would be interesting to speculate on why Abu Sufyan said what he
said.
Conclusion
The Britannica Online has this to say about Heraclius:
No doubt he was an inspiring military leader who fired his army with
religious fervour and whose personal intrepidity, imaginative tactics,
and constant concern for his men evoked their love and loyalty. But he
was also a cautious and calculating strategist who did not hesitate to
employ religion to serve his military ends. Thus, when in 623 his
victorious soldiers wanted to penetrate deeper into Persia, contrary
to his plan to retire, he referred the matter to God. After his troops
had fasted and prayed three days, he opened the Bible in their
presence, apparently at random, and read a passage that could be
interpreted only as a divine command to withdraw. Moreover, even
though he fostered the crusading spirit, he waged war in a less
inhumane manner than most of his contemporaries. He did not enslave or
massacre the inhabitants of conquered towns and he treated his
prisoners of war well, releasing them rather than butchering them when
he could not feed them. His mercy contrasted sharply with Khosrow's
acerbity and probably hastened his victory in Persia. ("Heraclius"
Britannica Online)
In general, history tells us that Heraclius was a religious man,
championing the cause of Christianity, and in contrast to other
rulers, benevolent. He was also capable in his administration, and
most historians credit him with the system of theme for securing the
loyalty and payment of his soldiers. However, his spiritual state is
something else. In his eagerness to preserve his political empire, he
introduced the heresy of Monothelitism, which the church had to
wrestle for another 40 years after his death. I have not come across
documentation about Heraclius' divination, except in the Muslim
tradition, so I can't really say if that is the case. However, if the
Muslim story is correct, and Heraclius was indeed a diviner, then he
is condemned by the Bible. In short, Heraclius was a pious ruler, but
his religion is circumspect in many areas as we have seen above.
We have also reviewed the Muslim tradition on Heraclius' meeting with
Abu Sufyan and also historical facts about Heraclius. We scrutinized
Heraclius' line of questioning of Abu Sufyan as he tried to understand
Muhammad and Islam. Clearly, he was a man who sought to understand
before making conclusions. We found that his questions do not
adequately reveal if a person is really a true prophet or not,
although they can be used to partially assess a person's sincerity.
Most importantly, certain false information were given to Heraclius.
If Heraclius were to know the truth of the matter, his conclusions
might have been rather different.

In summary, would I trust Heraclius with my home (if I were living in
his Empire)? Probably. Would I expect him to rule well? Most likely.
Would I expect to trust him to lead me in spiritual matters? No, thank
you.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------