By Dr. Maxwell Shimba — Shimba Theological Institute
Abstract
A tradition recorded in the major hadith collections describes a vision in which a man identified as “al-Masīḥ (the Messiah), son of Mary” is seen circumambulating the Kaʿbah. That narration has been used within Islamic eschatological literature to support the claim that Jesus will physically return and perform rites associated with Islam. This article examines the textual record, places the narration against the historical record for the life of Jesus, surveys classical and modern Muslim interpretations, and argues that the hadith — read literally and used as proof that Jesus once visited Mecca or that Muhammad reliably reported a real historical visitation — is untenable. The narration is better understood as a dream-vision or eschatological symbol, not as documentary evidence that the historical Jesus ever travelled to the Arabian Peninsula. If the narration is pressed into literal historicity, it raises serious questions about the reliability of the prophetic report and the theological claims built upon it.
1. The Text (original hadith fragment and source)
A well-attested narration appears in the canonical collections (Sahih Muslim; versions of Sahih al-Bukhari also contain related material). A representative English rendering (paraphrased) reads:
“I saw a man, his hair falling on his shoulders and water dripping from his head; he was placing his hands on the shoulders of two men while circumambulating the Kaʿbah. When I asked, ‘Who is he?’ I was told, ‘Al-Masīḥ, son of Mary.’” (Sahih Muslim — narration of a dream/vision). (Sunnah)
Note: the wording above is a concise rendering of the hadith narrative; full English translations and the Arabic text are available in the cited hadith collections. (Sunnah)
2. Genre and Context: Dreams, Visions, and Eschatology in the Hadith Corpus
Two important contextual facts must be set out before drawing historical conclusions from the narration:
-
The report is presented as a dream/vision. Multiple chains present the episode as something seen in a dream or as part of a prophetic vision; the language of “I saw in my sleep / in a dream” recurs in the narrations. Dreams and symbolic visions occupy a recognized place in prophetic literature and classical Muslim hermeneutics—many early exegetes treat such reports as eschatological imagery rather than straightforward, empirical reportage. (Sunnah)
-
The wider eschatological corpus frames the event. The narration appears in passages that discuss the end-times (the return of ʿĪsā, the coming of al-Dajjāl, the Mahdī, the dismantling of the Kaʿbah, and related signs). Eschatological literature in Islam is highly symbolic and interpolated over centuries; commentators (classical and modern) offer a range of readings — literal, symbolic, local, and universal. See surveys in contemporary scholarship on Islamic eschatology. (Tilburg University Research Portal)
3. Historical Evidence on Jesus’ Life and Travel — The Weight of the Sources
The canonical gospels — the primary historical sources used in mainstream historical Jesus scholarship — consistently locate Jesus’s public ministry in Galilee, Judea and parts of the immediate Levant. There is no independently attested evidence in the earliest Christian texts that Jesus ever travelled to the Hijaz (the region containing Mecca and the Kaʿbah). Major scholarly overviews of the historical Jesus (and standard readings of the Gospels) place his activity in Capernaum, Nazareth, Jerusalem and surrounding regions. (Bible Gateway)
Archaeological and epigraphic evidence does attest to Christian presence in parts of Arabia by late antiquity, but that is centuries after the life of Jesus and does not supply evidence that the historical Jesus ever visited Mecca. Recent finds show early Christian inscriptions in Arabia, yet these document later Christian communities — not first-century travels by Jesus himself. (Biblical Archaeology Society)
Conclusion from historical evidence: there is no credible independent historical basis (from Christian or secular records) to assert that the historical Jesus visited Mecca or ever “kissed the Black Stone.” The hadith portrayal, taken as a claim about first-century events, conflicts with the better attested portrait of Jesus’s geographical activity. (Bible Gateway)
4. Interpretive Options within Islamic Tradition (summary)
Scholars and traditions within Islam have approached these hadiths in a few different ways:
-
Literal eschatological reading: Some traditional commentators accept a literal reading — that Jesus will return in the last days, will appear in Arabia, and may perform tawāf or speak near the Kaʿbah (or be seen in visions there) as part of the end-time events. This is a common reading among many Sunni commentators. (Sunnah)
-
Visionary/metaphorical reading: Other interpreters (and movements inside Islam, e.g., some reformist or Ahmadiyya commentaries) read the narration as symbolic: the “circling” may represent spiritual influence or the struggle between truth and falsehood centered symbolically on the Kaʿbah. In such readings the hadith is not evidence that a first-century Jesus physically travelled to Mecca. (ahmadianswers.com)
-
Late interpolation and eschatological development: Modern academic work on hadith formation and apocalyptic literature shows that eschatological motifs were subject to significant development and editing over time; hence late eschatological reports must be evaluated against textual history and genre. (MDPI)
5. Problems with a Literal, Historical Reading — Critical Objections
-
Genre mismatch: the report’s dreaming/vision framing undermines its use as straightforward historical testimony. Dreams are inherently subjective and symbolic; treating them as literal historical records requires additional independent corroboration, which is absent here. (Sunnah)
-
Lack of corroboration in contemporaneous sources: canonical Christian sources and near-contemporary historical records contain no trace of a journey by Jesus to the Hijaz. Mainstream historical Jesus scholarship emphasizes Galilean and Judean activity, not long journeys to the Arabian Peninsula. The burden of proof therefore lies on those asserting a literal first-century voyage to Mecca. (Bible Gateway)
-
Eschatological later-stage development: the hadith participates in a corpus of apocalyptic literature that developed over generations. Apocalyptic texts often use symbolic action and inversion (e.g., good and evil both appearing near sacred centres) and should be read with methods suited to prophetic/eschatological genres. (Tilburg University Research Portal)
-
Doctrinal consequences and epistemic risk: if a prophet’s report is read literally and leads to a claim that contradicts historical evidence, that raises the question of prophetic reliability. If one treats the hadith as a factual, eyewitness report of an event outside the prophet’s temporal range of knowledge (and it cannot be independently verified), then a serious epistemological tension arises for those who claim inerrant prophetic reportage. The tension is magnified if the report is used to assert historical facts about Jesus’s past movements. (This is the central critical point of this article.) (Hadith Collection)
6. Scholarly Conclusion and Theological Implication (argument summary)
-
The narration in Sahih Muslim and related streams is best read as eschatological vision-literature rather than reliable historical testimony that Jesus physically went to Mecca in the first century. The genre, chain of transmission framing, and lack of extraneous corroboration all support a non-literal reading.
-
If, however, the narration is pressed into a literal historical claim about Jesus’s pre-existing movement in the first century, it contradicts stronger historical evidence (the Gospels and patristic/archaeological record) and thereby undermines the epistemic status of the report. For those who argue that prophetic claims must be held to high standards of veracity, this tension calls into question whether such a hadith can sustain the weight of historical or theological claims made in its name.
-
Theologically, readers must choose: treat the hadith as symbolic/eschatological (which avoids a contradiction with the historical Jesus) or treat it as literal and historical (which generates a stark historical conflict and raises issues about the report’s reliability). The more intellectually responsible posture for scholars committed to historical method is to take the symbolic/vision interpretation, or else to acknowledge the hadith’s limits as a source for reconstructing first-century events. (Sunnah)
7. Selected References & Bibliography
-
Sahih Muslim (Book of Faith / Book of Pilgrimage). Text and English translations (see the entries on the dream/vision of circumambulation). (Sunnah)
-
Sunnah.com — searchable hadith collections (entries under “Isa / Jesus / circumambulation”). (Sunnah)
-
“The Descent of Prophet ʿĪsā (Jesus)” — survey articles on Islamic eschatology and the hadith literature discussing Jesus’ return and Hajj/Umrah predictions. (Islam 365)
-
Ö. F. Gürlesin, The Eschatological Role of Jesus (ʿĪsā) in Islamic Theology (scholarly article exploring contemporary readings). (Tilburg University Research Portal)
-
Matthew 4:12–25; Gospel narratives on Jesus’s Galilean ministry (canonical sources attesting to the historical locus of Jesus’s ministry in Galilee and Judea). Bible passages and scholarly summaries. (Bible Gateway)
-
Ahmad Al-Jallad and “Earliest Evidence of Christianity in Arabia” — archaeological/epigraphic discussions showing later Christian presence in Arabia (useful for distinguishing later Christian presence from first-century Jesus movement). (Biblical Archaeology Society)
Final Note (authorial stance)
This paper takes a critical, evidentiary approach: it does not aim to denigrate sincere belief, but to subject specific textual claims to historical and hermeneutical scrutiny. When a prophetic report appears to conflict with a robust body of independent historical evidence, scholars have an obligation to distinguish visionary/eschatological literature from historical reportage. In the absence of independent attestation that Jesus ever visited the Hijaz in the first century, the hadith in question cannot be used as reliable historical evidence that Jesus once ran around the Kaʿbah. Read in context and with genre awareness, the narration poses no necessary contradiction with the historical Jesus; read uncritically and literally for first-century events, it produces a problematic historical claim and a serious challenge to claims of infallible prophetic reportage.
