It is also related in some genuine traditions that an eclipse of the sun took place on the day of Ibrahim's death.[362] The historians have related only one eclipse, which occurred in the sixth year of the Hejira, when Mohammad was at Hodeibia. This shows that Ibrahim could not be Maria's son. She only could come to Arabia a year later, as the dispatches to several princes were sent only in the seventh year. Yafaee, in his history _Mirat-uz-Zaman_, has noted that the sun was eclipsed in the sixth year of the Hejira. In the tenth year, he says,--"A genuine tradition has that the sun was eclipsed on the day of Ibrahim's death, and it has been stated above that it was eclipsed in the sixth year. There is some difficulty. It was noted once only during the time of the Prophet. If it occurred twice, there is no difficulty; and if not, one of these two events must be wrong, either the eclipse took place in the tenth year, or the Prophet's son died in the sixth year." But historically the eclipse was noticed only in the sixth year. There are different dates of Ibrahim's death reported by the biographers--the fourth, tenth, and fourteenth of lunar months, but in none of them can an eclipse take place. [Sidenote: The story of Haphsa and Maria a spurious one.] 13. (5) Lastly, I have to notice the infamous calumny against Mohammad concocted up by his enemies, that Haphsa surprized the Prophet in her own private room with Maria. "She reproached her lord bitterly, and threatened to make the occurrence known to all his wives. Afraid of the exposure and anxious to appease his offended wife, he begged of her to keep the matter quiet, and promised to forego the society of Maria altogether." But he afterwards released himself from it by a special revelation--(Sura LXVI, 1). Sir W. Muir remarks:-- "As in the case of Zeinab, Mahomet produced a message from Heaven, which disallowed his promise of separation from Mary...." The passage in the Koran relating to the affair is as follows:-- "O Prophet! Why hast thou forbidden thyself that which God hath made lawful unto thee,[363] out of desire to please thy wives; for God is forgiving and merciful?"[364] [Sidenote: The affair not noticed in the early biographies.] 14. Now this is perfectly a fictitious story. Neither there was any such affair, nor is there anything on this head mentioned in the Koran. It is very strange that Sir W. Muir has abruptly left aside, in this instance, all his principal authorities, the Arabian biographers, Ibn Ishak, Wakidi (his secretary), and Tabari. The story is not to be found in any of these biographies, nor in the canonical collections of Bokhari, Muslim, and Tirmizee. Sir W. Muir had himself laid down the rule that only these original authorities are to be depended upon, and the later authors are to be rejected. He writes:--