Waed Khalifeh
The life of a Prophet is one that a historian will find to be a challenging task. It is filled with biased accounts and documentation. To find positive material on a subject, one would have to turn to a salvation historian’s account. To find an objective view one would only be able to turn to critics whose sole reason for their criticism is the promotion of their own religion, by propaganda and other unorthodox methods that a historian cannot rely on as a legitimate source of truth. One question lies, can we authentically sum up a prophets life, being Muhammad in this case? There has been a long debate whether information passed on from our previous generations can vividly and accurately sum up a history of a man who lived in a time that is beyond the reach of our historical field of vision. Let us not forget that there are debates on historical events and individuals whom are in our lifetime. The subject matter that is to be touched on is over a 1,000 years old.
Mohammad was a monotheist prophet, who lived in present day gulf region. In this region polytheism was the dominant religion, because Christianity had not yet become a major player in the region due to its lack of ability to sustain a settled civil society, therefore not many expeditions were taken by the Byzantium Empire. Arabs were a fragmented society and were divided between a settled and nomadic society. The two cities that were flourishing during that era were Medina, and Mecca. The latter being the financial center for tribes of that region. This is where Mohammed was born in the disputed year of 570AD. During his routinely prayers in Mount Hira in 610, it is claimed that the angel Gabriel appeared to him and commanded him to recite verses of what is now the Holy Quran. Mohammad eventually goes on to unite Arabia through the Islamic religion, turning back Mecca into a monotheist sanctuary rather than its former pagan association. Mohammad dies in 632AD, with none of his life ever documented in writing.
Over 100 years later a man named Ibn Ishaq begins to compile accounts of the life of the Prophet into a biography, Life of the Messenger of God. The book was composed by collecting oral traditions from previous eye witness accounts. The use of isnad, is to prove authenticity of the accounts provided to Ibn Ishaq. This is done by citing the source which is the person transmitting the oral tradition, and any previous individual who it had been transmitted from leading eventually to the main source. The question here is, can these sources be fully accepted as having been unaltered and as a legitimate source of historical accounts of Mohammad. The argument arises here between the Minimalists and Maximalists regarding the accuracy of the biographical account of Mohammad’s life. The Maximalists believe that an accurate account of the history of Mohammad can be composed using the evidence at our disposal like the Quran, Siras, Hadiths, and external accounts by non-Muslims. They feel that Mohammad lived in the full light of history. The Minimalists approach the subject from the historical-critical method perspective, which its primary goal is to ascertain the texts in its original historical context. This causes Minimalists skepticism regarding he documents presented to provide a historical account of the prophet’s life.
Oriental Philologist Ernest Renan felt able confidently to assert that ‘one can say without exaggeration that the problem of the origins of Islam has definitely now been resolved’, ‘The life of its founder’ he maintained, ‘is as well known to us as that of any sixteenth-century reformer. We can follow year by year the fluctuations of his thoughts, his contradictions, his weakness.( Hoyland). This view is a general consensus among the Maximalists. The Maximalists believed that since oral tradition was transmitted from generation to generation, ultimately converted into written documents, it was sufficient enough proof of information that would, and can draw a vivid picture of the life of Mohammad. The Maximalists felt that the Hadiths which are oral traditions passed down are vital in the use of writing of a biography of Mohammad. They are saying, stories, and occurrences from the time of the prophet. They are used to help interpret the Quran, since the Quran was not a very detailed in explaining the meaning of its very complicated verses.
The Hadiths were eventually compiled and organized by Buhari in 870AD, during this process he dismissed the hadiths with relatively weak isnads. The maximalist also believed that the Quran also plays a vital role in helping to understand the life of the prophet. The minimalists argue that the Hadiths are not a reliable source, due to the question of its authenticity. The Hadiths, the minimalists argue could have been falsified during its transmission throughout the years, and it cannot be proven that the information we have today are that the same of when it was originally recorded or orally transmitted.
The maximalist Montgomery Watt argues that Ibn Ishaq’s quarrel with Malik Anas shows a legitimate reason for the authenticity of Ibn Ishaq’s work. The point is that Malik was more interested in the juristic soundness of the Traditions than in their historical accuracy. Malik must have preferred a doctrine based on the opinions of sound scholars to one arrived at by the methods of a historian who was ready to accept evidence from inadmissible people like the Jews and Christians. The fact of this quarrel further confirms the independence of the historical interests from the theological and legal interest. (Watt). This for Watt affirms Ishaq’s devotion to the truth, regarding his biography of Mohammad. Can this be taken as a legitimate reasoning that Ibn Ishaq did not alter the traditions of accounts he used in his Sira? It is argued by the maximalists that if any alterations of the traditions would not have created much of a significant difference to the overall content of the traditions. Tampering of the traditions might have happened in regards to the sources cited for reasons of crediting a certain individual for the sake of appeasement to important individuals, or for the purpose of personal interest, but overall it does not affect the content.
Ibn Hisham who preserved Ibn Ishaq’s work and reedited his work had expressed some concern with Ibn Ishaq’s work “…Omitting some of the things which Ibn Ishaq has recorded in this book in which there is no mention of the apostle and about which the Koran says nothing and which are not relevant to anything in this book or an explanation; poems which he quotes that no authority on poetry whom I have met know of….matters which would distress certain people; and such reports as al- Bakka’i told me he would not accept as trustworthy- all these things I have Omitted.” (Watt). From this we understand that already there was an attempt to amend the original work of Ishaq which in this situation it is proposed to be in order to omit errors that the work contained. We can also debate that in his amending of the Ishaq’s work he could have changed some really important aspects of it, even if to Ibn Hisham it may have seemed as irrelevant, because let us not dismiss the fact that he admits the reason of his omission of material was based on judgment. Therefore this is another reason that we cannot take the traditions into genuine consideration. We also arrive at the issue problems of the traditions themselves. Traditions had been passed around for a century before being written down, which make it vulnerable to change throughout the years. Oral tradition was the way the Arabs documented their history during Mohammad’s time, even the Koran itself was briefly written during Mohammad’s life. The Koran was written through the dictation of Mohammad to a scribe, but it was not the entire work just a few verses. The rest were written into the “hearts of men”, meaning that it was memorized by Mohammad and his companions. During the battle for Mecca some expressed a concern that if Mohammad was killed the entire religion would be destroyed along with him, since he possessed the book within his memory. Another issue that arises in one’s mind is that even the parts of the revelations that were dictated to scribes cannot be confirmed to be genuinely the words of Mohammad, since Mohammad was an illiterate so how can he know if what he dictated was written down accurately.
The Koran was eventually compiled into a single volume by the third Caliph Uthman in 650Ad which is also disputed. There is also the issue of the fact that there were many hadiths for one single event, allowing for people to cherry pick certain Hadiths and apply in whichever way benefits them. For instance it is debated when exactly and whom had compiled the Koran into the edition available today. There are Hadiths that claim it was not the third Caliph that compiled but rather the second, and other hadiths even claim that it was the first caliph. If we cannot know precisely about the compilation of the very essence of the Islamic religion, how can we expect to adequately comprise genuine information regarding the life of Mohammad.
Are we to take the chains of authority genuinely? Michael Cook states ”A legal ruling of Muhammad, or an interpretation of a Koranic verse by one of his leading followers, will be quoted with such a chain, and a spurious tradition will be equipped with a spurious chain”. (Cook). According to Cook, to determine whether the chains are legitimate one would have to refer to the original source, which would require traveling down a long trail of chains of sources, and as we get closer to the primary source the more Vague the path will get. Another discrepancy we find with the hadiths is that false ascription was rife among the eight century scholars, “We have reason to believe that numerous traditions on questions of dogma and law were provided with spurious chains of authorities by those who put them into circulation…”. (Cook).
It is also debated by Cook that during the eight century it was inadmissible to reduce oral tradition to writing. Cook is not alone with this theory, Professor Schacht holds that it was not until the 820’s that it became regular practice for legal rules to be justified by a hadith or action of Muhammad through a continuous line of transmitters. (Watt). If this is true then it means that during the time of Ibn Ishaq the hadiths as they are found in the canonical collections did not exist. This causes for further Skepticism of the information used by Ibn Ishaq, as well as the Hadiths in general. The Hadiths had not legitimate authenticity since we cannot trace back their roots to its original source, and the evidence pointed out by Cook further confirms the fact that the hadiths had been altered during their transmission. They were not only altered for the sole purpose of paying homage to certain, but also to help support certain motives of individuals of power. We can safely conclude that the used of Traditions or Hadiths are not helpful when attempting to create a candid biography of the Prophet Mohammad. We cannot in our time transmit accurate accounts of incidents with all the material we have at our disposal, like that of the confrontation between two 20th century philosophers Ludwig Wittgenstein and Karl Popper.(Lyall). The two men got into a heated argument as Popper was presenting a paper at King’s college, supposedly Wittgenstein shouted as he brandished a poker threating, the very next day there were rumors that they had both got into an armed conflict both wielding pokers. The point of this example is to show that this is a modern day incident with a few individuals who witnessed the event still alive today and we still cannot figure out what really happened less than 70 years ago, imagine creating a biography of a man who lived thousands of years ago. All of the documentation of his life transmitted orally for a century before written down.
The Quran is a book that the maximalist claim can also help portray the life of the prophet. There are a few issues the Quran was not written as a story but rather as a revelation, therefore there is no reason for Mohammad to have an essential role in the book. He is rarely mentioned in the book, four to five times to be exact. Also the book is of a complex nature, it is written in verses that rhyme yet it is not in a poetic rhythm. It also lacks in structure and not very easy to understand let alone interpreted. One issue that stands out is the contradictions between the Koran and hadith’s. One particular one is that the Quran portrays Mohammad as nothing more than a mortal man, where the hadiths claim that he possessed supernatural powers and had the ability to make miracles. A reason for this is that since the Quran was that since the Quran was too complicated to be read by a simple minded man scholars would interpret verses to help men understand its content better. What added to this issue is that there were many hadiths created, but no one took on the responsibility of omitting the ones that would seem to be invalid, delegating the task to the higher Authority of God.
In conclusion since we can come to terms that the material at our disposal cannot be declared as legitimate sources for a historical candid biography of the Prophet Mohammad. Since the Hadiths could have been, or were most likely corrupted by the interest of men and we cannot immediately accept a product of salvation history to be an objective source. We must continue looking for material that is neutral in its portrayal of Mohammad, because we cannot use corrupted materials to portray the truth. Therefore it is most likely that we will not see an authentic biography of Mohammad until the Muslim authority relaxes its grip on the materials vital to our search for the truth. If not then most of the work to be published will be susceptible to further recrimination of historical critics.
Bibliography
Cook, Michael. Muhammad. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1983. Print.
Hoyland, Robert. “Writing the biography of the Prophet Muhammad: Problems and solutions History Compass 5.2 (2007): 581-602.
Ibn, Isḥāq Y. A. A. A. M, and Alfred Guillaume. The Life of Muhammad, a Translation of Isḥāq’s Sīrat Rasūl Allāh… Notes by A. Guillaume. London: Oxford University press, 1955. Print. xii-xxv, 3-5, 21-39, 45-49, 66-73, 78-107, 112-141, 155, 160-167, 180-187, 230-235, 460-469, and 678-691.
Lyall, Sarah. “The Red-Hot Poker and the Frosty Quip: 52 Years Later, they’Re Still Dueling.” New York Times (1923-Current file): 2. Mar 21 1998. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The New York Times (1851-2009).
Peters, F. E. “Ch. 13. The Quest of the Historical Muhammad.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 23 (1991): 444-475. Originally published in International Journal of Middle East Studies 23 (1991): 291-315. Reprinted by permission of Cambridge University Press.
Roberts, Paul Wiliam. “Secret Lives of the Wise Men.” New York Times (1923-Current file): 39. Dec 25 1995. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The New York Times (1851-2009).
Tosh, John. “Ch. 10. History by word of mouth,” in The pursuit of history : aims, methods, and new directions in the study of modern history. New York: Longman, 1984. 206-227.
Watt. W. Montgomery. “1. The Materials used by IBN ISHAQ,” in Historians of the Middle East. Ed. Bernard Lewis and P. M. Holt. London, Oxford Univ. Press, 1962. 24-34.
Watzman, Haim. “Archaeology vs. the Bible.” The Chronicle of Higher Education 21 Jan. 2000: A19.
