Muhammad And His Personal Enemies

[r.gonzales]

here are some snippets from jalal abualrub’s two part rebuttal to craig winn’s prophet of doom. they (the snippets) deal with the islamic source books and their status amongst the muslims.

Undisputed Facts Universally Accepted by Muslims

The Quran is Islam’s holy book, as Allah stated in the Quran, what transliterated means, {And We (Allah) have sent down to you (O, Muhammad) the Book (this Qur’ân) in truth}; [5:48].
The Prophet’s Sunnah is also a Divine Revelation inspired by Allah, but formed by the Prophet’s own words, actions and practices, {Nor does he (Muhammad) speak of (his own) desire. It is only a Revelation revealed}; [53:3-4].

The two most authentic books after the Quran are the Hadeeth collections of al-Bukhari then Muslim . They are called, “As-Sahihan”, meaning, “The Two Authentic Collections”. Al-Bukhari and Muslim gained this status among Hadeeth Collectors on account of their successful implementation of the tough conditions they set for any Hadeeth to be included in their books, not because they were the oldest, or the largest, or the “inspired” or the “official” collections. Then, there is no agreement among Muslim Scholars on which Sunnah books respectively come after these two books in authenticity.

The mere suggestion by Winn that the Tarikh by Ibn Jarir at-Tabari and the Seerah by Ibn Is`haq qualify as being among the five earliest, most holy Islamic books is clear conjecture and demands proof, i.e. a list of Muslim Scholars who agreed with him.

Status of at-Tabari’s Tarikh

Imam Muhammad Ibn Jarir at-Tabari (224-310/838-922) was a major scholar of Hadeeth, Tafsir (meaning contained in the Quran) and Islamic History, as Imam adh-Dhahabi stated . At-Tabari started his book on Tarikh with creation and ended it with historical accounts that occurred during his time. But at-Tabari was not the first to write a book on Islamic history, as Winn claimed. Al-Ya`qubi wrote a Tarikh before at-Tabari that also started with the story of creation.

However, and just like many other Muslim historians, Ibn Jarir relied heavily on Ibn Ishaq’s Seerah while reporting the Prophet’s biography. This is why a good segment of at-Tabari’s Tarikh is almost identical to Ibn Ishaq’s Seerah; at-Tabari often quotes Ibn Ishaq even if to contradict him. The Tarikh by at-Tabari is by no means a Hadeeth or Tafsir collection. It is far larger than Ibn Ishaq’s Seerah, because it narrates the stories of Creation, earlier Prophets and nations, pre-Islamic history, the history of the Islamic era, until his time, and includes biographies of countless number of people. It also includes Quranic Verses and Prophetic Hadeeths relevant to the topics contained in the book. It is a book on Tarikh, not on Tafsir or Hadeeth. At-Tabari compiled another book on Tafsir, popularly known as, Tafsir at-Tabari, dedicated to explaining the meaning contained in the Quran. At-Tabari’s Tafsir is one of the major books of Tafsir. Yet, it also contains many false Hadeeths and unreliable narrations that he collected from various resources. At-Tabari was a scholar, but neither he nor his book are divine. In Islam, the only resources that are free from errors are the Quran and the authentic Sunnah as reported through reliable, established chains of narration.

To summarize, at-Tabari’s book on history suffers from similar defects as Ibn Is`haq’s Seerah. This is because when reporting history, Muslim scholars did not set a condition to only include authentic narrations reporting various incidents or statements. Thus, Seerah and Tarikh books are collections of stories that their authors collected from various sources, using authentic chains of narration, weak chains of narrations and even no chains of narration. Enjoying a book of stories about earlier nations and historical accounts is one thing. Using these stories as a source for Islamic legislation is an entirely different matter.

con’t…

 

[r.gonzales]

…

The Status of Muhammad Ibn Is`haq in Islam

In his scholarly encyclopedia on biographies of notable Muslims entitled, Siyaru Alami an-Nubalaa, Imam Shams ad-Din adh-Dhahabi (673-748 AH/1274-1347 CE), a major scholar of Hadeeth and Islamic History, stated the following facts about Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, author of, as-Seerah an-Nabawiyyah.

1 – He was born in the year 89 AH (707 CE) and met Anas Ibn Malik, the Prophet’s companion, and az-Zuhri, a major scholar among the second generation of Islam.

2 – Adh-Dhahabi then mentioned these major Hadeeth scholars who stated that Ibn Ishaq was reliable in Hadeeth narrations, grading his narrations as Hasan : Yahya Ibn Maeen and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal . Abu Zurah stated that Ibn Ishaq was Saduq (truthful), Ali Ibn Abdullah said that Ibn Ishaq’s narrations are accepted; Ibn Adi said that Ibn Ishaq is acceptable; and Ibn Idris said that Ibn Ishaq was a Thiqah (reliable, or trustworthy). Also, Imam Abu Zurah stated that a group of scholars learned knowledge with Ibn Ishaq, such as Sufyan, Shubah, Ibn Uyainah, Ibn al-Mubarak, and so forth. Az-Zuhri, Asim Ibn Umar Ibn Qatadah and adh-Dhahabi also praised Ibn Ishaq’s knowledge in the Maghazi (narration of battles).

3 – Adh-Dhahabi also listed some of the major scholars of Islam who refuted Ibn Ishaq’s reliability in Hadeeth narrations. Imam Malik, for instance, called Ibn Ishaq a liar and Yahya Ibn Saeed al-Ansari, as well as, al-Amash refuted one of Ibn Ishaq’s narrations by saying that he lied. As a general statement, Yahya Ibn Saeed graded Ibn Ishaq as being weak in Hadeeth narration. Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal discounted the reliability of Ibn Ishaq if he alone narrates a Hadeeth. Also, Imams Yahya Ibn Maeen (in another narration from him), an-Nasaii and ad-Daraqutni stated that Ibn Ishaq was weak in Hadeeth. The great Imam of Sunnah, Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, also added that Ibn Ishaq’s narrations are not accepted if they are about the Sunan (Pl. for Sunnah; **yet, Craig Ibn Winn claims that Ibn Ishaq’s Seerah is a Sunnah book!**]), stating that even [in the rare occasions] where Ibn Ishaq clearly stated that he heard a Hadeeth from his teacher, he would often contradict other narrators. Therefore, and as Imam Ahmad stated, if Ibn Ishaq alone reports a Hadeeth, then that narration is not accepted. Adh-Dhahabi also stated that if a narration that Ibn Ishaq reports contradicts other [more established] narrators, then Ibn Is`haq’s narration is rejected.

4 – Adh-Dhahabi listed some of the reasons why Ibn Is`haq was considered weak regarding Hadeeth narration, as follows.

A – Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal stated that Ibn Ishaq was a Mudallis*], and in another occasion, he said that Ibn Ishaq’s Tadlees (v. for Mudallis) was substantial. Imam Ahmad also said that Ibn Ishaq did not care from whom he collected Hadeeth.

B – Imam Ibn Numair said that Ibn Ishaq reported false Hadeeths from unknown narrators. C – Adh-Dhahabi concluded by saying that among the worst errors made by Ibn Ishaq is that he used to record narrations he collected from anyone, and thus, did not have Wara` in this regard, may Allah forgive him.

5 – How Ibn Ishaq’s narration should be treated is summarized in this statement from Imam Ibn Numair, “If he narrates a Hadeeth from teachers he directly heard from and who are known to be truthful, then his Hadeeth is from the grade Hasan because he is truthful.” Yet, Imam Ahmad stated that if Ibn Ishaq is the only narrator of that Hadeeth, then his narration is discounted. And the key words to look for here, for Ibn Ishaq’s narration not to be dismissed outright, are, “If Ibn Ishaq says, ‘So and so narrated to me’, then he did hear that narration.’ Otherwise, if he says, ‘So and so said’, then the narration is rejected.’” Meaning, Ibn Is`haq would not lie; if he states that he heard the Hadeeth from his teacher, then his assertion is accepted.

Definition: A Hadeeth is a narration that starts with the collector of Hadeeth narrations, such as al-Bukhari or Muslim, wherein the collector names the teacher from whom he heard the Hadeeth, who also names his teacher, and so forth, until the chain reaches the Prophet’s companion and then the Prophet, peace be upon him.

*][Ibn Ishaq often started his narrations by saying, “Those whom I trust narrated to me”, or “Some men from this city told me”, etc. He also would collect Hadeeths from unreliable narrators and hide the name of his teacher by saying, “So and So said”, meaning the teacher of his teacher, who may be trustworthy, so that the Hadeeth narration is not rejected if the name of his own teacher is specified. However, whenever Ibn Ishaq said, “So and so said to me”, he would not lie.]

 

[Cyber_Knight]

Off topic but why do need hadith or sira or whatever it names to support the Quran? Is Quran hard to understand so that people should clear it on other book? Back to ka’b murder, so Muslims just agree because he break the ‘treaty’ of his tribe by making poem and deserve dead in the hand of allah’s prophet…

 

[discipleofJesus]

r.gonzales:

you link to articles by orientalists to disprove what i said about the reliability of certain islamic texts? hah. that’s quite funny especially considering that many of these orientalists understood very little of what they were actually reading in the islamic source books. they would sift through the source books without the ability to discern the authentic from the weak and the valid from the invalid and they would take whatever fancied their desires and suited their preconceived notions and theories. and you expect me to seriously consider what they had to say about the texts and personalities of islam? no thanks.

well i didn’t put the links just for you but for the benefit of others too.

 

[discipleofJesus]

r.gonzales:

here are some snippets from jalal abualrub’s two part rebuttal to craig winn’s prophet of doom. they (the snippets) deal with the islamic source books and their status amongst the muslims.

The Introduction of ‘The Life Of Muhammad - A Translation Of Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, With Introduction And Notes’ By A. Guillaume contains a lot of information that establishes the trustworthiness and reliability of Ibn Ishaq and refutes what you quoted from jalal abualrub’s two part rebuttal to craig winn’s prophet of doom.

I wasn’t able to find a complete online copy of this book, but i did find a partial copy here kafirnation.ez-asp.net/portal/boxx/knowledgebase.asp?iid=27&Cat=1 (it would be better to check out a hard copy of this introduction since the site doesn’t seem to have scanned it perfectly as some slight errors seem to be there [e.g. 1.1. instead of I.I., Ibn Istlaq instead of Ibn Ishaq], but it would take me a long time to type out excerpts from the hard copy so i will just copy and paste from the introduction in the site)

here’s the link to the introduction kafirnation.ez-asp.net/portal/boxx/knowledgebase.asp?iid=27&Cat=1#THE%20AUTHOR and here are some quotes from it [note that 1.1. is meant to be I.I. (i.e. Ibn Ishaq)]

The best and most
comprehensive summary of Muslim opinion of 1.1. is that of I. Sayyidu’l-Nas in
his ‘Uyun al-A thar ft fununi’l-maghazi wa’l shamã’ili wa’l-siyar. He collected
all the references to our author that he could find, both favourable and
unfavourable, and then answered the attacks that had been made on him. The
relevant passage will be found in W.’ with a translation in German. The
following is a short summary of this account:

(a) Those favourable to 1.1.
were: ‘The best informed man about the magluizi is 1.1. al-Zuhri: Knowledge will
remain in Medina as along as 1.1. lives.’

Shu’ba, 85— Truthful in
tradition, the amir of traditionists because of his memory.

Sufyan b. ‘Uyayna, 107—98: I
sat with him some seventy years and none of the Medinans suspected him or spoke
disparagingly of him.

Ab Zur’a, d. 281: Older
scholars drew from him and professional traditionists tested him and found him
truthful. When he reminded Duhaym of Malik’s distrust of 1.1. he denied that it
referred to his veracity as a traditionist, but to his qadarite heresy.

Abfl I His traditions are
copied down (by others).

I. al-Madini: Apostolic
tradition originally lay with 6 men; then it became the property of 12, of whom
1.1. is one.

al-Shãfi’i: He who wants to
study the maghazi deeply must consult 1.1.

‘A b. ‘Umar b. Qatada:
Knowledge will remain among men as long as 1.1. lives.

II. x-xxiii.

2 As II. died in i this was
impossible.

xxxvi The Life of Muhammad

Introduction xxxvii

Abü Mu A great memory: others
confided their traditions to his memory for safe keeping.

al- Bukhãri: Al-Zuhri used to
get his knowledge of the maghazi from 1.1. ‘Abdullah b. Idris al-Audi: was
amazed at his learning and often cited him.

Mu He was attacked for reasons
which had nothing to do with tradition.

Yazid b. HarUri: Were there a
supreme relator of tradition it would be 1.1. Au b. al-Madini: His ahadith are
sound. He had a great reputation in Medina. Hishäm b. ‘Urwa’s objection to him
is no argument against him. He may indeed have talked to the latter’s wife when
he was a young man. His veracity in hadith is self-evident. I know only of two
that are rejected as unsupported’ which no other writer reported.

al-’Ijli: Trustworthy.

Ya b. Ma’in: Firm in
tradition.

Ahmad b. Tlanbal: Excellent in
tradition.

cont…

 

[discipleofJesus]

…

(b) The writer then goes on to
state all that has been said against 1.1. Omitting details of little
significance we are left with the following charges which 1. Sayyidu’l-Nas goes
on to discuss and refute. Muhammad b. ‘Abdullah b. Numayr said that when 1.1.
reported what he had heard from well-known persons his traditions were good and
true, but he sometimes reported worthless sayings from unknown people. Ya b. al-Qa
would never quote him. Al b. I quoted him with approval, and when it was
remarked how excellent the stories (qica,c) were he smiled in surprise. His son
admitted that Al?mad incorporated many of I.I.’s traditions in his Musnad, but
he never paid heed to them. When he was asked if his father regarded him as an
authority on what a Muslim must or must not do he replied that he did not. He
himself would not accept a tradition which only 1.1. reported. He used to relate
a tradition which he gathered from a number of people without indicating who had
contributed its separate parts. I. al-Madini said’ that at times he was ‘fairly
good’. Al-Maymuni reported that I. Ma’in 156—233 said he was ‘weak’, but others
denied that he paid so. Al-DUn said he was trustworthy but not to be used as an
authotity ihfiqh, like Malik and others. Al-Nasã’i said that he was not strong.
Al-Daraqu;ni said that a tradition from 1.1. on the authority of his father was
no legal proof: it could be used only to confirm what was already held to be
binding. Yal b. Sa’id said that though he knew 1.1. in KUfa he abandoned him
intentionally and never wrote down traditions on his authority. AbU Da’Ud al- (x
I—203) reported that Uammad b. Salima said that unless necessity demanded it he
would not hand on a tradition from 1.1. When Mãlik b. Anas mentioned him he
said, ‘he is one of the antichrists’. When Hishãm b. ‘Ui-wa was told that 1.1.
reported something from Fatima he said, ‘the rascal lies; when did he see my
vife?’

When Abdullah b. Ahmad told
his father of this he said that this was not to be held against 1.1. ; he
thought that he might well have received permission to interview her, but he did
not know. He added that Mãlik was a liar. I. Idris said that he talked to Malik
about the Maghazi and how 1.1. had said that he was their surgeon and he said,
‘We drove him from Medina’. Makki b. Ibrãhim said that he attended lectures of
his; he used to dye his hair. When he mentioned traditions about the divine
attributes he left him and never went back. On another occasion he said that
when he left him he had attended twelve lectures of his in Ray.

AI-Mufa b. Ghassãn said that
he was present when Yazid b. HãrUn was relating traditions in al-Baqi’ when a
number of Medinans were listening. When he mentioned 1.1. they withdrew saying:
‘Don’t tell us anything that he said. We know better than he.’ Yazid went among
them, but they would not listen and so he withdrew.

AbU Dã’Ud said that he heard
Al b. 1 say that 1.1. was a man with a love of tradition, so that he took other
men’s writings and incorporated them in his own. AbU ‘Abdullah said that he
preferred 1.1. to Musã b. ‘Ubayda al-Rabadhi. Al said that he used to relate
traditions as though from a companion without intermediaries, while in Ibrãhim
b. Sa’d’s book when there is a tradition he said ‘A told me’ and when that was
not so he said ‘A said’.

AbU ‘Abdullah said that 1.1.
came to Baghdad and paid no attention to those who related hadith from al-Kalbi
and others saying that he was no authority. Al-Fallãs (d. 249). said that after
being with Wahb b. Jarir reading before him the maghazi book which his father’
had got from 1.1. we met Yal b. Qattan who said that we had brought a pack of
lies from him.

Al b. I said that in maghazi
and such matters what 1.1. said could be written down; but in legal matters
further confirmation was necessary. In spite of the large number of traditions
without a proper isn&1 he thought highly of him as long as he said ‘A told us’,
‘B informed me’, and ‘I heard’. I. Ma’in did not like to use him as an authority
in legal matters. AbU Ilatim said that he was weak in tradition yet preferable
to Aflah b. Sa’id and his traditions could be written down. Sulayman al-Taymi
called him a liar and Ya al-Qaflãn said that he could only abandon his hadith to
God; he was a liar. When Yal asked Wuliayb b. Khãlid what made him think that
1.1. was a liar he said that Mãlik swore that he was and he gave as his reason
Hishãm b. ‘Urwa’s oath to that effect. The latter’s reason was that he reported
traditions from his wife Fatima.

cont…

 

[discipleofJesus]

…

AbU Bakr al-Khatib said that
some authorities accepted his traditions as providing proof for legal precedent
while others did not. Among the reasons for rejecting his authority was that he
was a Shi’i, that he was said to hold the view that man had free will, and that
his isnãds were defective. As for his truthfulness, it could not be denied.

See No. 8.

These probably belong to the
Sunan.

xxxviii The Life of Muhammad

Introduction XXXIX

Al-Bukhãri quoted him as an
authority and Muslim cited him often. Abu’l-Uasan b. al-Qattan relegated him to
the class ‘good’ (. because people disputed about him. As to the tradition from
Fatima, al-Khatib gave us an isndd running back through 1.1. and Fatima to Asmã’
d. Abü Bakr: ‘I heard a woman questioning the prophet and saying, “I have a
rival wife and I pretend to be satisfied with what my husband has notin fact.
given me in order to anger her”. He answered, “He who affects to be satisfied
with what he has not been given is like one who dons two false garments”.”
Abu’l-Uasan said that this was the tradition from Fatima which injured I.I.’s
reputation, so that her husband Hisham called him a liar. Malik followed him and
others imitated them. However, there are other traditions on her authority.

One cannot but admire the way
in which I. Sayyidu’l-Nas discusses these attacks on credibility of our author.
He goes at once to the root of the matter and shows what little substance there
is in them. Though, like the speakers he criticizes, he tacitly assumes that
early writers ought to have furnished their traditions with isndds which would
have met the rigorous demands of later generations who were familiar with a
whole sea of spurious traditions fathered on the prophet and his companions, his
common sense and fairness would not let him acquiesce in the charge of tadlis
which, by omitting a link in the chain or by citing the original narrator
without further ado, automatically invalidated a hadith in later days. Thus he
said in effect that though I.I.’s traditions at times lack complete
documentation there is no question of his truthfulness in the subject-matter he
reports; and as to the charge of shi and qadarite leanings, they are valid in
another field altogether and have nothing to do with the Sira. Again, what if
Makki b. Ibrahim did abandon his lectures when he heard him relate traditions
about the divine attributes? Many of the ancients failed to go the whole way
when such problems were discussed, so what he says is of little significance.

Yazid’s story that the
Madinans would not listen to traditions on I.I.’s authority does not amount to
much because he does not tell us why, and so we can resort oi to conjecture; and
we have no right to impugn a true tradition because of what we think is a
defect. We have already explained why Ya al-Qattan would have none of him and
called him liar on the authority of Wuhayb from Malik, and it is not improbable
that he was the cause of the Medinans’ attitude in the foregoing account…
Akimad b. Uanbal and I. al-Madini have adequately replied to Hishãm’s
accusation.

As to Numayr’s accusation that
he related false hadith on the authority of unknown persons, even if his
trustworthiness and honesty were not a matter of tradition, suspicion would be
divided between him and his informants; but as we know that he is trustworthy
the charge lies against the persons unknown, not against him. Similar attacks
have been made upon Sufyan al and others whose hadith differ greatly in this way

and what they base on unknown
informants is to be rejected while that coming from known people is accepted.
Sufyãn b. ‘Uyayna gave up Jarir al-Ju’fi after he had heard more than a thousand
traditions from him, and yet he narrated traditions on his authority. Shu’ba
related many traditions from him and others who were stigmatized as ‘weak’.

cont…

 

[discipleofJesus]

…

As to Alimad’s complaint that
he recorded composite traditions without assigning the matter of them to the
several contributors, their words agreed however many they were; and even if
they did not yet the meaning was identical. There is a tradition that Wãthila b.
al-Asqa’ said: ‘if I give you the meaning of a tradition (not in the precise
words that were used) that is sufficient for you.’ Moreover, Muhammad b. Sirin
said that he used to hear traditions from ten different people in ten different
words with the same meaning. Akimad’s complaint that 1.1. took other men’s
writings and incorporated them in his own account cannot be regarded as serious
until it can be proved that he had no licence to repeat them. One must look at
the method of transmission: if the words do not plainly necessitate an oral
communication, then the accusation of tadlis’ lies. But we ought not to accept
such a charge unless the words plainly imply that. If he expressly says that he
heard people say something when in fact he did not, that is a downright lie and
pure invention. It is quite wrong to say such a thing of

1.1. unless the words leave no
other choice. When Alimad’s son quoted his father as saying that 1.1. was not to
be regarded as an authority in legal matters though he saw how tolerant he was
to non-legal matters which make up the greater part of the MaghJzi and the
prophetic biography, he applied this adverse judgement on sunan to other
matters. Such an exten sion is excluded by his truthful reputation.

As to Yaliya’s saying that he
was trustworthy but not authoritative in legal matters, it is sufficient for us
that he is pronounced trustworthy. If only men like al-’Umari and Malik were
acceptable there would be precious few acceptable authorities! Ya b. Sa’id
probably blindly followed Mãlik because he heard from him what Hishäm had said
about

1.1. His refusal to accept him
as an authority .in legal matters has already been dealt with under Al Yal made
no distinction between them and other traditions in the way of complete
acceptance or downright rejection.

Other attacks on his
reputation rest on points that are not explained and for the most part the
agents are unfair. Even in legal matters AbU ‘Isa al-Tirmidhi and Abü klatim b.
Hibbãn (d. 354) accepted him as an authority.

The refutation of his
opponents would not have been undertaken were it not for the favourable verdict
and praise that the learned gave him. But for that a few of the charges would
have sufficed to undermine his

The meaning of this technical
term is clear from the context. W.’s falsche Nameiz unterschieben is not
strictly correct.

The discussion of I.I.’s
dislike of al-Kalbi’s traditions is unimportant and is therefore

omitted here.

This again has nothing to do
with the Sira.

xl

The Life of Muhammad

Introduction xli

cont…

 

[discipleofJesus]

…

stories, since but a few
attacks on a man’s good faith, explicit or not, are enough to destroy the
reputation of one whose former circumstances are not known when an impartial
critic has not done him justice.

In his book about trustworthy
narrators Abü ãtim said that the two men who attacked 1.1. were Hishäm and Mãlik.
The former denied that he had heard traditions from Fatima. But what he said
does not impugn men’s veracity in hadith, for ‘followers’ like al-Aswad and
‘Aiqama heard ‘A’isha’s voice without seeing her. Similarly 1.1. used to hear
Fatima when the curtain was let down between them. As for Mãlik, what he said
was momentary and afterwards he did him justice. Nobody in the Hijaz knew more
about genealogies and wars than 1.1., and he used to say that Mãlik was a freed
slave of Dhü A while Mãlik alleged that he was a full member of the tribe so
that there was bad feeling between them; and when Malik compiled the Muwatta’
1.1. said, ‘Bring it to me for I am its veterinary surgeon.’ Hearing of this
Mälik said: ‘He is an antichrist; he reports traditions on the authority of the
Jews.’ The quarrel lasted until 1.1. decided to go to Iraq. Then they were
reconciled and Malik gave him

50 dinars and half his date
crop as a parting gift. Malik did not intend to bring him into ill favour as a
traditionist: all that he disliked was his following the Jews who had become
Muslims and learning the story of Khaybar and Quray and al-Na hr and similar
(otherwise) unattested happenings from their fathers. In his Maghazi 1.1. used
to learn from them but without necessarily asserting that their report was the
truth. Malik himself only relied on trustworthy truthful men.

The author ends by remarking
that 1.1. was not the originator of the challenge to Mãlik’s Arab ancestry
because al-Zuhri and others had said the same thing.’

 

[discipleofJesus]

Also, here answering-islam.org/Responses/Abualrub/index.htm are some responses to Jalal Abualrub on various topics

 

[r.gonzales]

discipleofJesus:

The Introduction of ‘The Life Of Muhammad - A Translation Of Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, With Introduction And Notes’ By A. Guillaume contains a lot of information that establishes the trustworthiness and reliability of Ibn Ishaq and refutes what you quoted from jalal abualrub’s two part rebuttal to craig winn’s prophet of doom.

i wonder if you even read all of what you just posted, or even understood it if you did - i mean, the number of typos and abbreviated names make it hard enough to read, but i’m also pretty sure that you possess little to no knowledge of the islamic branch of knowledge concerning what’s known as “al-jarh wat-ta’deel” the knowledge of disparaigement and praise of narrators of hadeeth, which only adds to my validate what i suspect of you not understanding what you’ve posted here.

none of what is mentioned by guillaume of the actual comments made by various scholars regarding ibn ishaaq refutes what is mentioned by brother jalal in the quotes i posted from his rebuttal to craig winn. in fact, much of what you quoted affirms what was mentioned by jalal with regards to both the praise he received as well as the criticism.

point #4 from jalal’s quote, along with the footnote provided, outlines and details the reasons for why the criticism against ibn ishaaq takes precedence over the praises he received. and the general rule of thumb with respect to accepting criticisms and praises or rejecting them is that detailed criticisms take precedence over general praises and the only way these detailed criticisms can be dismissed is by refuting them by bringing detailed explanations showing the criticisms to be errors based on misconceptions or personal grudges.

so even if the statements regarding ibn ishaaq’s truthfulness were valid and are adequate in repelling the accusations of lying, the fact still remains that he was guilty of tadlees (swindling/cheating, i.e., being a mudallis). and due to this fact, ibn ishaaq’s narrations are to be treated just as is mentioned by jalal in point #5. and likewise, anyone else guilty of tadlees has conditions set upon the acceptance or rejection of their narrations… this includes the likes of sufyaan ibn 'uyainah and others… and how their narrations are dealt with is according to the severity of their tadlees.

 

[discipleofJesus]

There is a lot more from The Introduction of ‘The Life Of Muhammad - A Translation Of Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, With Introduction And Notes’ By A. Guillaume kafirnation.ez-asp.net/portal/boxx/knowledgebase.asp?iid=27&Cat=1#THE%20AUTHOR continue reading ( the introduction in kafirnation.ez-asp.net/portal/boxx/knowledgebase.asp?iid=27&Cat=1#THE%20AUTHOR ) from

(b) The writer then goes on to state all that has been said against 1.1. Omitting details of little significance we are left with the following charges which 1. Sayyidu’l-Nas goes on to discuss and refute…

all the way to the next several paragraphs which talk about Ibn Ishaq’s trustworthiness and reliablity or topics related to that.

 

[discipleofJesus]

r.gonzales:

And the key words to look for here, for Ibn Ishaq’s narration not to be dismissed outright, are, “If Ibn Ishaq says, ‘So and so narrated to me’, then he did hear that narration.’ Otherwise, if he says, ‘So and so said’, then the narration is rejected.’”... However, whenever Ibn Ishaq said, “So and so said to me”, he would not lie.]

The quote seems to be saying 2 different things. “if he says, ‘So and so said’, then the narration is rejected.” or “whenever Ibn Is`haq said, “So and so said to me”, he would not lie.”?

 

[discipleofJesus]

r.gonzales:

so even if the statements regarding ibn ishaaq’s truthfulness were valid and are adequate in repelling the accusations of lying, the fact still remains that he was guilty of tadlees (swindling/cheating, i.e., being a mudallis). and due to this fact, ibn ishaaq’s narrations are to be treated just as is mentioned by jalal in point #5. and likewise, anyone else guilty of tadlees has conditions set upon the acceptance or rejection of their narrations… this includes the likes of sufyaan ibn 'uyainah and others… and how their narrations are dealt with is according to the severity of their tadlees.

Quote from The Introduction of ‘The Life Of Muhammad - A Translation Of Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, With Introduction And Notes’ By A. Guillaume kafirnation.ez-asp.net/porta…=1#THE%20AUTHOR

One cannot but admire the way
in which I. Sayyidu’l-Nas discusses these attacks on credibility of our author.
He goes at once to the root of the matter and shows what little substance there
is in them. Though, like the speakers he criticizes, he tacitly assumes that
early writers ought to have furnished their traditions with isndds which would
have met the rigorous demands of later generations who were familiar with a
whole sea of spurious traditions fathered on the prophet and his companions,** his
common sense and fairness would not let him acquiesce in the charge of tadlis
which, by omitting a link in the chain or by citing the original narrator
without further ado, automatically invalidated a hadith in later days. Thus he
said in effect that though I.I.’s traditions at times lack complete
documentation there is no question of his truthfulness in the subject-matter he
reports;** and as to the charge of shi and qadarite leanings, they are valid in
another field altogether and have nothing to do with the Sira. Again, what if
Makki b. Ibrahim did abandon his lectures when he heard him relate traditions
about the divine attributes? Many of the ancients failed to go the whole way
when such problems were discussed, so what he says is of little significance.

(bold emphasis mine)

 

[r.gonzales]

discipleofJesus:

The quote seems to be saying 2 different things. “if he says, ‘So and so said’, then the narration is rejected.” or “whenever Ibn Is`haq said, “So and so said to me”, he would not lie.”?

they are saying two different things, however, not the two different things you think they are. the narration is rejected if ibn ishaaq is not explicit in stating that he heard the statement from the person he is narrating from, such as saying, “so-and-so said…” however, if he explicitly states that he heard it from the narrator he’s narrating from, such as saying, “so-and-so said to me…” or “so and so narrated to me…” or the like, then the narration is accepted. and this condition is stipulated due to the fact that he was a mudallis. if he were not guilty of tadlees, this stipulation would not apply.

as for your deleted posts, no worries. i’ve read them. as mentioned above in the quote from jalal, adh-dhahabee (one of the more just and fair scholars in his praise/criticisms of narrators) mentions that imam ahmad (ibn hanbal) declared ibn ishaaq to be a mudallis. tadlees is something that becomes very evident when examining a narrator’s narrations and their chains. and as jalal mentioned in his footnote to the term “mudallis”, ibn ishaaq often started his narrations by saying, “those whom i trust narrated to me,” or “some men from this city told me,” etc. such statements are used by the mudalliseen (pl. of mudallis) to hide the weakness of those they are narrating from and such methods are deemed as tadlees. likewise, as was mentioned, "he also would collect hadeeths from unreliable narrators and hide the name of his teacher by saying, “so-and-so said…” where “so-and-so” would be the name of the teacher of his teacher who may be trustworthy and reliable. in this case, he is narrating from someone he did not hear directly from so that his narration would appear to be stronger than it really is (by omitting the name of the weak narrator he got the narration from) so that the hadeeth wouldn’t be rejected.

so regardless of the possible explanations given by the person quoted by guillaume says in the case, the scholars of hadeeth are the ones who have examined ibn ishaaq’s narrations and found this to be the case (i.e., his tadlees). these possible explanations for ibn ishaaq’s “incomplete documentation” do not change the fact that narrations without full complete chains of transmission, or narrations that contain weak or unknown narrators in their chains of transmission are deemed to be weak and are rejected depending on the severity of the weakness and the absence of supporting narrations.

try as you might to legitimize the source you take from (ibn ishaaq’s seerah), the fact remains that it is full of weak and unacceptable reports that come from unknown sources.

 

[discipleofJesus]

r.gonzales:

you link to articles by orientalists to disprove what i said about the reliability of certain islamic texts? hah. that’s quite funny especially considering that many of these orientalists understood very little of what they were actually reading in the islamic source books. they would sift through the source books without the ability to discern the authentic from the weak and the valid from the invalid and they would take whatever fancied their desires and suited their preconceived notions and theories.

That is your opinion/assumption. I am sure the orientalists would disagree with you.

 

[discipleofJesus]

some important points

1. Our discussion on Ibn Ishaq isn’t very important in regards to our discussion on Ka’b because the story of Ka’b is confirmed in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim

here are the references
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369 usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.369

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 271 usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.271

Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4436
usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4436

1. Whether Ka’b broke a treaty or not, the fact is Muhammad sent people to murder Ka’b because Ka’b wrote a few poems against him. Ka’b did this because he was upset/angry after seeing the slain men of the Quraysh, who were slain at the battle of Badr. Muhammad also gave permission to the men he sent to lie in order to murder him. As a result, Ka’b was brutally murdered by the men Muhammad sent.
2. Muhammad or one of Muhammad’s followers could of responded by writing a few poems against Ka’b (and at least one of his followers did, Hassan b. Thabit) and that would of been enough. He did not have to send people to murder him.
3. This wasn’t the only time Muhammad caused the brutal murder of someone. Muhammad caused the brutal murders of several people (all, or at the very least most, of whom didn’t deserve to be murdered). The articles I linked to in my first post on this thread narrate several instances if Muhammad causing the brutal murders of people. Several of them were also murdered for composing poems against Muhammad.

 

[jimmy]

It is amazing how much muslims trust their own sources that support them and distrust the ones that oppose them. The ones that oppose them do not have the ability to discern and they pick and choose what they want.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Maybe r.gonzale can tell us how Muhammad made those ‘treaties’ with the Jews. I suggest he look no further than Abu Dawud 2998.

Thanks Gonzales. Much appreciated.

 

[r.gonzales]

Rodrigo Bivar:

Maybe r.gonzale can tell us how Muhammad made those ‘treaties’ with the Jews. I suggest he look no further than Abu Dawud 2998.

seems to me that you guys don’t know how to read properly. either that, or you’re completely ignorant of the timeline of events surrounding the expulsion of the jews from in and around al-madeenah.

the hadeeth you referenced tells the story of the expulsion of banu nadeer, which occurred after the battle of badr, a battle that took place during the second year after the migration. the original treaty with the jews and unbelievers of al-madeenah (which is described in one of the links i posted above) had already been in place for at least a year. the hadeeth referred to tells us of the successful attempts made by the unbelievers of the quraish to goad banu nadeer into violating the original treaty that was argreed upon at the time of prophet muhammad’s arrival to al-madeenah. the tribe of banu nadeer had received a msg from the polytheist makkans threatening them if they did not fight against prophet muhammad. they then gathered their forces to fight prophet muhammad and when the prophet came to know of this he went to them and told them that they would be fighting against their sons and brothers in attempts to dissuade them from fighting and violating the treaty.

nice try though.