Abstract
Commonly every religion has an urge to be testified by its predecessor religion. Although Islam does not need any such attestations, yet it is taken as a sigh of content, if some attestations are found in any like manner. The “Story of the Monk Bahira” can be said to be such an example, which is presented by Muslim scholars as an attestation for the prophet hood of Muhammad (PBUH). Nevertheless this story gained a lot of applause in Muslims, but fact of the matter is that it was nothing but a polemic tactic used by medieval christians to “prove” that Islam was nothing but a christian “heretic cult”, and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was depicted to be a person who got all his ideas from a christian monk, and received no revelations from Allah (S.W.T.). The whole story is crafted in such a manner that a lay man could easily be deceived, and consequently can reject to testify the prophet hood of Muhammad (PBUH). But, a close analysis of “facts” and “arguments”, and the manner of their presentation in the story lead to conclude that not only these stories were false and fake, but also it firmly denounced the myth that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was taught by some christian monk instead of being appointed as a messenger by Allah (S.W.T.) The objective of the article in hand is to discuss and analyze the “facts” and “arguments” presented in the non-Islamic traditions of the story of the monk Bahira.