Early islamic historians, how important are they to muslims?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chabambou
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Chabambou

Guest
Hi everyone

I’ve been doing my own research into things about islam. While i was reading about the satanic verses, i thought about researching both side of the arguments (regarding wether it happened or not) to make a fair analysis. So far what i have found is that muslims would mainly disagree with ibn ishaq’s authenticity due to a missing isnad or something to that effect. They go further by saying he was careless with his work and spoke to jews as well for some accounts. However, it is well noted that ibn ishaq’s biography on muhammad is the earliest one to date, and other islamic historians like Tabari make reference to his work regarding the satanic verses.

This leads me to ask: if the authenticity is in doubt, then of what value is the biography in it’s entirety to the muslim community today? How can the authentic chains of transmissions (isnads) be of any value if they do not come from an early and reliable source?

As for a history question, if there is a religious text or biography with its written traditions dating from the earliest time possible after the ‘sacred time’, is it not considered authentic? This question stems from a quote from an islamic apologist who said ‘just because something is early, it doesn’t mean its true’, or something to that effect.
This question goes for all text, not just islamic ones.

This research is not intended to offend, but to discuss in a fair manner.

Thanks
 
Hi Chabambou,

Nice to meet you!

You ask a very valid question and are very fair minded to be looking at both sides of the argument.

As we know people make mistakes, sometimes records get lost or can’t be verified so human stories passed down the ages may well be lost very inaccurate or distorted.

But with God is all knowledge correct?

So here’s how I get infallible uncorrupted knowledge about whether something about a Messenger or Prophet is true or not. This is just my system but it works every time. But I encourage everyone to use this system

This method requires belief that God sent all the Prophets and Messengers that they aren’t in competition with each other.

Now, say for instance, I am a Baha’i and I believe in Baha’u’llah and His Knowledge is the knowledge of God and infallible. Now if a 1,000 people tell me Muhammad was evil but Baha’u’llah tells me He’s a man of God then I know He’s a man of God because an infallible Messenger of God has spoken it and it cannot be wrong or incorrect.

If someone said terrible things about Moses, likewise Christians would refer to Christ and believe what He said not mortal men.

So, according to Baha’u’llah Muhammad is pure and holy and those are false lies propagated to defame Him. Muhammad defended Jesus. Jesus defended Moses. Baha’u’llah defended Muhammad.

When God speaks we don’t have to question further as He is always right. So what Moses, Jesus, Abraham, Muhammad and Baha’u’llah verify in their authoritative scriptures is the Word of God and unchallengeable. Stories though are not the Word of God so cannot be fully believed.

I’ll post something Baha’u’llah wrote about Muhammad to give you an idea of how different are the Words if God from the stories of men.
 
This is what a Manifestation of God Who is Infallible, says about Muhammad…
“Blessing and peace be upon Him [Muhammad] through Whose advent Bathá [Mecca] is wreathed in smiles, and the sweet savours of Whose raiment have shed fragrance upon all mankind-- He Who came to protect men from that which would harm them in the world below. Exalted, immensely exalted is His station above the glorification of all beings and sanctified from the praise of the entire creation. Through His advent the tabernacle of stability and order was raised throughout the world and the ensign of knowledge hoisted among the nations. May blessings rest also upon His kindred and His companions through whom the standard of the unity of God and of His singleness was uplifted and the banners of celestial triumph were unfurled. Through them the religion of God was firmly established among His creatures and His Name magnified amidst His servants.”*
  • Tablets of Baha’u’llah revealed after the Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 162
 
Chabambou said:
Hi everyone

I’ve been doing my own research into things about islam. While i was reading about the satanic verses, i thought about researching both side of the arguments (regarding wether it happened or not) to make a fair analysis. So far what i have found is that muslims would mainly disagree with ibn ishaq’s authenticity due to a missing isnad or something to that effect. They go further by saying he was careless with his work and spoke to jews as well for some accounts. However, it is well noted that ibn ishaq’s biography on muhammad is the earliest one to date, and other islamic historians like Tabari make reference to his work regarding the satanic verses.

This leads me to ask: if the authenticity is in doubt, then of what value is the biography in it’s entirety to the muslim community today? How can the authentic chains of transmissions (isnads) be of any value if they do not come from an early and reliable source?

As for a history question, if there is a religious text or biography with its written traditions dating from the earliest time possible after the ‘sacred time’, is it not considered authentic? This question stems from a quote from an islamic apologist who said ‘just because something is early, it doesn’t mean its true’, or something to that effect.
This question goes for all text, not just islamic ones.

This research is not intended to offend, but to discuss in a fair manner.

Thanks
Click to expand...
I hope an actual Islamic historian can weigh in. Islam should speak for itself.

MJ
 
worldcitizen said:
Hi Chabambou,

Nice to meet you!

You ask a very valid question and are very fair minded to be looking at both sides of the argument.

As we know people make mistakes, sometimes records get lost or can’t be verified so human stories passed down the ages may well be lost very inaccurate or distorted.

But with God is all knowledge correct?

So here’s how I get infallible uncorrupted knowledge about whether something about a Messenger or Prophet is true or not. This is just my system but it works every time. But I encourage everyone to use this system

This method requires belief that God sent all the Prophets and Messengers that they aren’t in competition with each other.

Now, say for instance, I am a Baha’i and I believe in Baha’u’llah and His Knowledge is the knowledge of God and infallible. Now if a 1,000 people tell me Muhammad was evil but Baha’u’llah tells me He’s a man of God then I know He’s a man of God because an infallible Messenger of God has spoken it and it cannot be wrong or incorrect.

If someone said terrible things about Moses, likewise Christians would refer to Christ and believe what He said not mortal men.

So, according to Baha’u’llah Muhammad is pure and holy and those are false lies propagated to defame Him. Muhammad defended Jesus. Jesus defended Moses. Baha’u’llah defended Muhammad.

When God speaks we don’t have to question further as He is always right. So what Moses, Jesus, Abraham, Muhammad and Baha’u’llah verify in their authoritative scriptures is the Word of God and unchallengeable. Stories though are not the Word of God so cannot be fully believed.

I’ll post something Baha’u’llah wrote about Muhammad to give you an idea of how different are the Words if God from the stories of men.
Click to expand...
Hi, nice to meet you too, and thanks for the reply 🙂

Charitably i must admit, while the suggestion you proposed may work for you, it may not work for a muslim scholar; because they place a very large emphasis on tradition and its transmissions. And by this i mean, they treat the hadiths (particularly the bukhari and muslim hadith collectors) second to the quran. This is because the hadiths are the supposed sayings and actions of muhummad among other things.
Which relates to my initial question- if Ibn Ishaq’s work, the earliest known to scholars, is considered 70% unreliable, then what other earliest source can authentic hadiths, like those from bukhari, originate?
 
worldcitizen said:
This is what a Manifestation of God Who is Infallible, says about Muhammad…
“Blessing and peace be upon Him [Muhammad] through Whose advent Bathá [Mecca] is wreathed in smiles, and the sweet savours of Whose raiment have shed fragrance upon all mankind-- He Who came to protect men from that which would harm them in the world below. Exalted, immensely exalted is His station above the glorification of all beings and sanctified from the praise of the entire creation. Through His advent the tabernacle of stability and order was raised throughout the world and the ensign of knowledge hoisted among the nations. May blessings rest also upon His kindred and His companions through whom the standard of the unity of God and of His singleness was uplifted and the banners of celestial triumph were unfurled. Through them the religion of God was firmly established among His creatures and His Name magnified amidst His servants.”*
  • Tablets of Baha’u’llah revealed after the Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 162
Click to expand...
But the writings of Baha’u’llah are unBiblical .
 
Chabambou said:
Hi, nice to meet you too, and thanks for the reply 🙂

Charitably i must admit, while the suggestion you proposed may work for you, it may not work for a muslim scholar; because they place a very large emphasis on tradition and its transmissions. And by this i mean, they treat the hadiths (particularly the bukhari and muslim hadith collectors) second to the quran. This is because the hadiths are the supposed sayings and actions of muhummad among other things.
Which relates to my initial question- if Ibn Ishaq’s work, the earliest known to scholars, is considered 70% unreliable, then what other earliest source can authentic hadiths, like those from bukhari, originate?
Click to expand...
You can authenticate a Hadith another way and that is if it agrees with the Quran. The Quran is the master key. Anything that agrees with it can be accepted and anything that contradicts it cannot be considered truth. The Quran, God’s Word, says Muhammad was the best example. So it follows that any Hadith alleging misconduct or immorality is false.

That’s another method I use which is foolproof. The Quran, the Word of God says it is the best and most complete Hadith.

Now the Quran was revealed over a 23 year period and completed and copies made well before Muhammad died so the Quran is the most reliable Hadith. This translation of the Quran leaves the Arabic transliterated word that was English for story or fable. Except in Arabic it doesn’t say fable or story but Hadith.

39:23 God has sent down the best hadith, a book that is consistent, relating/contrasting/repeating.

31:6 Among the people, there are those who accept baseless hadiths to mislead from the path of God without knowledge, and they take it as entertainment. These will have a humiliating retribution.

7:185

Which hadith after this one will they acknowledge?*

Terrorism is a ‘humiliation’ for Islam because they use hadiths and also claims that Muhammad was a paedophile comes from hadiths which they were warned in the above verse would lead to humiliation and what more humiliation than Muhammad being accused due to these baseless hadiths. As long as they keep using them they will suffer humiliation.
 
worldcitizen said:
You can authenticate a Hadith another way and that is if it agrees with the Quran. The Quran is the master key. Anything that agrees with it can be accepted and anything that contradicts it cannot be considered truth. The Quran, God’s Word, says Muhammad was the best example. So it follows that any Hadith alleging misconduct or immorality is false.

That’s another method I use which is foolproof. The Quran, the Word of God says it is the best and most complete Hadith.

Now the Quran was revealed over a 23 year period and completed and copies made well before Muhammad died so the Quran is the most reliable Hadith. This translation of the Quran leaves the Arabic transliterated word that was English for story or fable. Except in Arabic it doesn’t say fable or story but Hadith.

39:23 God has sent down the best hadith, a book that is consistent, relating/contrasting/repeating.

31:6 Among the people, there are those who accept baseless hadiths to mislead from the path of God without knowledge, and they take it as entertainment. These will have a humiliating retribution.

7:185

Which hadith after this one will they acknowledge?*

Terrorism is a ‘humiliation’ for Islam because they use hadiths and also claims that Muhammad was a paedophile comes from hadiths which they were warned in the above verse would lead to humiliation and what more humiliation than Muhammad being accused due to these baseless hadiths. As long as they keep using them they will suffer humiliation.
Click to expand...
So the interpretation that Jesus was not crucified, and is not the Son of God… is a wrong interpretation ?
 
Techno2000 said:
So the interpretation that Jesus was not crucified, and is not the Son of God… is a wrong interpretation ?
Click to expand...
Its a wrong interpretation. Jesus the Son of God was not crucified only His Body.

The Crucifixion as Recorded in the New Testament is Correct

“The crucifixion as recounted in the New Testament is correct. The meaning of the Quranic version is that the spirit of Christ was not crucified. There is no conflict between the two.”

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, July 14, 1943)

The Christ could not be killed as He was born of the Holy Spirit. Only it appeared to them they killed the Christ because of what they did to His Body.

4.157 That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of God ;-but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
 
worldcitizen said:
Its a wrong interpretation. Jesus the Son of God was not crucified only His Body.

The Crucifixion as Recorded in the New Testament is Correct

“The crucifixion as recounted in the New Testament is correct. The meaning of the Quranic version is that the spirit of Christ was not crucified. There is no conflict between the two.”

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, July 14, 1943)

The Christ could not be killed as He was born of the Holy Spirit. Only it appeared to them they killed the Christ because of what they did to His Body.

4.157 That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of God ;-but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
Click to expand...
So it’s like a half-truth:rolleyes:
 
worldcitizen said:
Its a wrong interpretation. Jesus the Son of God was not crucified only His Body.

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, July 14, 1943)

The Christ could not be killed as He was born of the Holy Spirit. Only it appeared to them they killed the Christ because of what they did to His Body.
Click to expand...
What does that mean ?
 
worldcitizen said:
Its a wrong interpretation. Jesus the Son of God was not crucified only His Body.

The Crucifixion as Recorded in the New Testament is Correct

“The crucifixion as recounted in the New Testament is correct. The meaning of the Quranic version is that the spirit of Christ was not crucified. There is no conflict between the two.”

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, July 14, 1943)

The Christ could not be killed as He was born of the Holy Spirit.** Only it appeared to them they killed the Christ because of what they did to His Body. **

4.157 That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of God ;-but they killed him not,** nor crucified him**, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
Click to expand...
What did they do to his body ?
 
worldcitizen said:
Its a wrong interpretation. Jesus the Son of God was not crucified** only His Body.**

The Crucifixion as Recorded in the New Testament is Correct

“The crucifixion as recounted in the New Testament is correct. The meaning of the Quranic version is that the spirit of Christ was not crucified. There is no conflict between the two.”

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, July 14, 1943)

The Christ could not be killed as He was born of the Holy Spirit. Only it appeared to them they killed the Christ because of what they did to His Body.

4.157 That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of God ;-but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
Click to expand...
4.157… says not even his “Body” was crucified.
 
Techno2000 said:
4.157… says not even his “Body” was crucified.
Click to expand...
The Quran agrees with the New Testament. The latest Manifestation confirms it.

The Quran says they ‘appeared’ to have crucified Christ meaning they thought that by crucifying Him they had destroyed Christianity but the Quran is saying that they had achieved nothing.
 
Techno2000 said:
4.157… says not even his “Body” was crucified.
Click to expand...
It says it was made to appear to them that Christ had been killed. That is His crucifixion took place but the result was not what they had thought which was the destruction of Christianity.
 
worldcitizen said:
It says it was made to appear to them that Christ had been killed. That is His crucifixion took place but the result was not what they had thought which was the destruction of Christianity.
Click to expand...
You and Islam are twisting everything.
 
MartinJordan said:
Eeisegesis. Is a nicer word.😉

MJ
Click to expand...
It’s God’s interpretation not mine. So we must accuse God of twisting the meanings of His Own Holy Book to suit His agenda.

I don’t think I wish to dabble in God’s jurisdiction . I’ll leave it up to others.
 
worldcitizen said:
It’s God’s interpretation not mine. So we must accuse God of twisting the meanings of His Own Holy Book to suit His agenda.

I don’t think I wish to dabble in God’s jurisdiction . I’ll leave it up to others.
Click to expand...
All you need to do is an exegesis. 🙂

MJ
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top