CoreIssue
02-06-2006, 10:38 AM
Muhammad and the Qur’an: What are the Sources?
By: LuckyStrike
The origin of Islam has been a subject that has fascinated many people. Generations of people have passed by hearing the same traditional story of how Muhammad became a prophet, destroyed the old system of idol worship in Mecca, and spread the new monotheistic religion of Islam throughout Arabia while writing the Qur’an. From the 7th Century CE to the 20th Century CE, people have accepted this story as historical fact without question.
However, in approximately the last twenty years, scholarly consensus between Muslim and non-Muslim scholars about the reliability of the sources used for historical data on Muhammad and the Qur’an has fallen apart.1 While skeptics have raised doubts about the reliability of eyewitness accounts attributed to Muhammad,2, 3 other scholars still accept the basic reliability of sources used for historical data on Muhammad and the Qur’an.4 Therefore, it is the goal of this paper to show important points of controversy between skeptical and non-skeptical scholars with regards to the sources.
Before moving on, it must be noted that the relationship between the hadith, the sira, and the Qur’an will be of central importance. Hadiths are accounts or reports of words or actions attributed to Muhammad.5, 6, 7 And a sira is literature about Muhammad’s life, which includes events and chronology.8 However, in comparison, the Koran is simply a record of Muhammad’s revelations.9, 10 The reason why this comparison is of central importance is that the hadiths and siras establish context and contextual meaning for the contents of the Qur’an. David Marshall explains:
The Qur’an, taken by itself, tells us very little about the events of external history; rather, it assumes knowledge of the events on which it comments, and rarely gives any details about them. In order to make sense of the Qur’an it is therefore necessary to supply, from other sources, at least the basic framework of these historical events.11
Peters agrees by calling the Qur’an “a text without context.”12 Michael Cook adds that “taken on its own, the Koran tells us very little about Muhuammad’s career. It does not narrate these events, but merely refers to them.”13 Therefore, it is clear that the Qur’an was meant to be read according to a traditional understanding, as specified by commonly accepted hadith and sira. However, this conclusion brings one to the controversial issue of exactly what hadith and sira are to be considered reliable and acceptable.
The first issue that will be examined is the origin of some well-known siras and their Muslim authors. The first biographical work on Muhammad, called Sirat Rasul Allah,14 was done by Muhammad b. Ishaq (d. 767 CE).15 The original copy of Ibn Ishaq’s work is lost,16 but scholars today possess an edited copy of it preserved in Ibn Hisham’s biography of Muhammad17 with a missing part preserved in al-Tabari’s work.18
But the fact that Ibn Ishaq’s work was edited is the starting point for controversy over his work. Cook points out that Ibn Hisham “was scrupulous enough to warn his readers in general terms that he had omitted a good many things from a variety of motives.”19 While Peters asserts that Ishaq’s work was edited for “extraneous material” dealing with “world history,”20 Ibn Al-Rawandi quotes Hisham as saying he omitted “things which it is disgraceful to discuss; matters that would distress certain people; and such reports as al-Bakka’i told me he could not accept as trustworthy.”21 Zakaria states that one thing Ibn Hisham omitted from Ibn Ishaq’s work was the famous “Satanic Verses”22 in which Muhammad recited a revelation accepting the three daughter goddesses of Allah (al’Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat) from the pre-Islamic tribal religion as intercessors in order to appeal to the Quraysh.23
In addition, while many people considered Ishaq’s work to be of good quality, other people mistrusted his work. Imam Malik, one of his contemporaries who founded a principle school of Islamic theology, called him “a devil.” Another one of his contemporaries, named Hisham bin Urama, who was a famous theologian stated, “The rascal lies.”24 So it is clear that Muslims were divided on the reliability on Ibn Ishaq’s work. In addition, Bennett points out that Ibn Ishaq frequently put in his documents the phrases “it is alleged,” “only God knows the truth,” and “that only God knows whether a particular statement is true or not,” thereby indicating Ibn Ishaq’s personal doubts about much of the information he had gathered personally as well.25
Bennett also raises the possibility of political sympathies effecting Ibn Ishaq’s work. He notes that in Ibn Ishaq’s work, he names Ali’ as the first male convert to Islam. This is significant because while the Shi’a interpreted tradition as supporting Ali’ as the first male convert, the Sunni interpretation of tradition supported Abu Baker as the first male convert. Because of this, Bennett speculates that Ibn Ishaq had Shi’a sympathies.26
While Ibn Ishaq was a prominent figure dealing with gathering biographical information, he was not the only one to produce a biography of Muhammad at the time. For instance, Ma’mar Ibn Rashid (d. 770 CE) produced a shorter biography. However, when compared, Ibn Ishaq’s biographical material and Ma’mar Ibn Rashid’s biographical material disagreed on many details. For example, Ibn Ishaq wrote that Muhammad’s father, ‘Abdallah, died while Muhammad was not born yet but with a notation that Muhammad’s father may have died when Muhammad was 28 months old. He included another note saying only God knows what is the truth. And Ma’mar also said that Muhammad’s father died while Muhammad was not born yet, but at the same time gave exact circumstances as to where he died (in stores of dates at Yathrib).27 While the subject matter of disagreement here may be relatively insignificant, scholars such as Muir argue that if the authors cannot even get the small details right, then it is not unreasonable to distrust their accuracy on the larger issues.28
The next prominent figure in biographical works about Muhammad is Ibn Hisham (d. 833), who had edited Ibn Ishaq’s biographical material. There is disagreement as to exactly what sources he used. Cook states that “what he did was to confine himself to the work of one and only one of his predecessors, Ibn Ishaq.”29 However, Bennett states that Ibn Hisham cited “alternative sources or additional material” in his notes.30 So while it is clear that Ibn Hisham’s work was at least partially based on Ibn Ishaq’s work, the reader is effectively “at the mercy” of this disagreement as to if Ibn Hisham used alternative sources or not. Nonetheless, according to Forward and Zakaria, Ibn Hisham’s biography of Muhammad is considered to be the standard biography and is the source used for all other biographies.31, 32
The next prominent figure in biographical works about Muhammad is al-Waqidi (d. 822/823 CE) and his secretary named Ibn Sa’d (d. 845 CE). Despite Ibn Hisham editing out the famous “Satanic Verses,” al-Waqidi put them into his work.33 While Bennett calls al-Waqidi’s work part of the “most reliable sources for Muhammad’s biography,” he also points out that al-Waqidi may have biased towards Shi’a beliefs because al-Waqidi also wrote that Ali’ was the first male convert to Islam.34 Cook points out that despite the disagreement and uncertainty between Ibn Ishaq and Ma’mar Ibn Rashid as to when and where Muhammad’s father (‘Abdallah) had died, al-Waqidi presented another version of ‘Abdallah’s death (he became ill while coming back from doing business at Gaza and died in the care of relations) as if it were certain fact.35 And while many people considered al-Waqidi’s work to be of good quality, later Muslim scholars criticized his work. For instance, Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) criticized al-Waqidi and other earlier scholars who:
Introduced into those books untrue gossip which they had thought up or freely invented, as well as false, discredited reports which they had made up or embellished. Many of their successors followed in their steps and passed that information on to us as they had heard it.36
The last major figure in biographical works about Muhammad is Tabari (d. circa 923 CE), who was a Muslim historian.37 In comparison to the previous assertions that ‘Ali was the first male convert to Islam, Bennett points out that al-Tabari left the matter open by only mentioning ‘Ali, Abu Bakr, and Zayd b Harithan as early converts.38 But as Zakaria mentions, Tabari did not escape criticism of having “fabulous material” in his work as well.39
While there many other Muslim scholars who did sira on Muhammad’s biographical information, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham, al-Waqidi, and al-Tabari are the most well-known and used sources of sira based biographical information on Muhammad. In addition, while many Western scholars point out the various disagreements between different accounts of Muhammad’s life (such as the first convert to Islam and where and when Muhammad’s father died), other Western scholars point out that there is a general agreement on the basic outline of Muhammad’s life. However, as pointed out before, other scholars such as Muir say that if the details are uncertain, then the major parts of the story are not trustable. So the reader and the researcher alike are left caught up in the dilemma of exactly how to view the sira.
The next major type of documentation related to the biographical information about Muhammad is the hadith, which as stated in the beginning of this paper, are accounts or reports of words or actions attributed to Muhammad. It is notable that Hadith also make up a portion of the Qur’an since Muhammad’s revelations are in fact words attributed to Muhammad.
The most famous and respected collections of hadith come from al-Darimi (797-868 CE), Muslim (810-874 CE), Ibn Maja (824-886 CE), Abu Daud (817-888 CE), al-Tirmidhi (821-892 CE), and al-Nasai (d. 915). They were all compiled by al-Bukhari (810-870 CE) and known to the Sunni Muslims as the six sound (sahih) collections. However, Shi’a Muslims put together their own collection of hadith, called the Four Books (al-kutub al-arb’ah). Nasr comments that “the content of most of the hadiths in the two collections, Sunni and Shi’ite, are basically the same.”40 Bennett states that Bukhari chose 7,275 hadith (including duplicates) out of 600,000 hadith he collected to put into his work. In addition, Abu Daud chose 4,800 hadith (including duplicates) out of 500,000 hadith he had collected to put in his work. But not all hadith in these collections are considered to be equal in value. Some hadith are considered good (hasan), because they passed most tests, while other hadith are considered weak (da’if) if they lack reliability for a variety of reasons (such as if they contradict other hadith, have an incomplete chain of transmission, are not traced back directly to Muhammad, or if they are simply considered weak).41 In addition, while some hadith forbid the recording of any questionable or unreliable words, others simply direct one to compare it to God’s Word for compatibility, which Bennett says “appear to license invention.”42 For instance, a hadith cited by Hughes and attributed to Ibn Abbas states, “Convey to other persons none of my words, except those you know of surely.” But another hadith cited by Goldziher stated, “When a saying is reported and attributed to me, compare it with God’s book. Whatever is in accordance with God’s book is from me, whether I really said it or not.”43 Based on these quotes, it seems that there were variations in the standards themselves as to what hadith should be considered trustable or not. Again, the reader and the researcher is left confused by the variations between hadith as to how to evaluate other hadith.
As with Ibn Ishaq and his sira, the famous sound collections of the Sunni Muslims and the Four Books of the Shi’a Muslims were not the only collections of hadith composed at the time. Other Muslim scholars, such as Ibn Hanbal (d. 855), made their own collections of hadith. However, according to Bennett, Ibn Hanbal’s collection of hadith contained “a lot of material not found elsewhere.”44 Ibn Hanbal’s work serves as an example of why other collections of hadith were not widely accepted by Sunni and Shi’a Muslims.
Now that this paper has briefly examined key points of controversy over the reliability of the sira and the hadith, this paper will now briefly examine the controversial circumstances in which the Qur’an was organized and standardized. Cook summarizes why the compiling of the Qur’an is an issue of controversy:
We learn that some of Muhammad’s followers already knew the whole Koran by heart in his lifetime – yet subsequently it had to be pieced together out of fragments collected from here and there. We are told that Muhammad regularly dictated his revelations to a scribe – yet the scripture was later in danger of being lost through the death in battle of those who had it by heart.45
After the battle of Yamama, the first caliph, Abu Bakr (who ruled 632-634 CE), decided on “putting the Koran between two covers.” The collection of fragments of text began, with the task of collecting the fragments of text given to Zaid bin Thabit, a former scribe and secretary of Muhammad. The longest pieces were put first and the shortest pieces were put last. An unharmonized collection was made, and after Abu Bakr’s death, a copy of it was given to Hafsa, a former wife of Muhammad and Umar’s daughter.46, 47 However, because the Qur’an had been written in Arabic text that lacked vowels, variant spellings, readings, and pronunciations developed.48, 49 Thus, under the Caliph ‘Uthman (643/644-656 CE), existing versions of the Qur’an were collected and examined by a committee (and Zaid was asked to consult other former Companions of Muhammad) so that it could be put into a single, standard text in the dialect used in Mecca.50, 51 Uthman then had this text standardized by destorying, or burning, the other variant texts.52, 53, 54, 55 Renan comments that “such a method of composition is likely to inspire doubts.”56 Peters points out that “pre-Uthmanic clues are fragmentary,”57 so there is insufficient evidence to judge the contents of Uthman’s standardized Qur’anic text in comparison to earlier Qur’anic texts.
In conclusion, after examining the available works on the original sources of hadiths, siras, and the Qur’an itself, the reader and the researcher alike are left with more questions than answers. In addition, such works continue to widen the split between Muslim scholars and Non-Muslim scholars. Unfortunately, in light of this disagreement, it is common for objective textual research and analysis to be clouded with other issues rooted in emotion, faith-based disagreements, and philosophical disagreements. This is why this paper was based on a variety of sources, including those skeptical and those not skeptical of the reliability of Muslim sources.
Notes
1. Forward, Martin. Muhammad: A Short Biography. (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 1997), 3, 99.
2. Peters, F. E. Muhammad and the Origins of Islam. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994), 264.
3. Bennett, Clinton. In Search of Muhammad. (New York, NY: Cassell, 1998), 38, 39.
4. Ibid, 38, 39.
5. Marston, Elsa. Muhammad of Mecca: Prophet of Islam. (New York: Grolier Publishing Co., Inc., 2001), 119.
6. Bennett, 17.
7. Forward, 3.
8. Bennett, 17.
9. Marston, 30-31, 119.
10. Peters, 257.
11. Marshall, David. God, Muhammad and the Unbelievers: A Qur’anic Study. (Richmond: Curzon Press, 1999), 16.
12. Peters, 259.
13. Cook, Micheal. Muhammad. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1983), 69.
14. Zakaria, Rafiq. Muhammad and the Qur’an. (New York: Penguin Books, 1991), 12.
15. Leites, Adrien. “Sira and the Question of Tradition.” The Biography of Muhammad: The Issue of the Sources. Ed. Harald Motzki. (Boston: Brill, 2000), 49.
16. Ibn Al-Rawandi. “Origins of Islam: A Critical Look at the Sources.” The Quest for the Historical Muhammad. Ed. Ibn Warraq. (New York: Prometheus Books, 2000), 90.
17. Zakaria, 12.
18. Bennett, 28.
19. Zakaria, 12.
20. Peters, 263.
21. Ibn Al-Rawandi, 91.
22. Zakaria, 12.
23. Armstrong, Karen. Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet. (New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992), 64, 113-114.
24. Zakaria, 12-13.
25.Bennett, 25.
26. Ibid., 26, 40, 55.
27. Cook, 62-63.
28. Bennett, 43.
29. Cook, 62.
30. Bennett, 29.
31. Forward, 3.
32. Zakaria, 12.
33. Ibid., 12.
34. Bennett, 30, 55.
35. Cook, 63-64.
36. Zakaria, 13.
37. Forward, 3.
38. Bennett, 40.
39. Zakaria, 13.
40. Bennett, 31.
41. Ibid., 32.
42. Ibid., 33.
43. Ibid., 33.
44. Ibid., 24.
45. Cook, 67-68.
46. Renan, Ernest. “Muhammad and the Origins of Islam.” The Quest for the Historical Muhammad. Ed. Ibn Warraq. (New York: Prometheus Books, 2000), 131.
47. Zakaria, 67, 68.
48. Renan, 131.
49. Zakaria, 68.
50. Peters, 257.
51. Renan, 131.
52. Zakaria, 68.
53. Renan, 131.
54. Cook, 68.
55. Bennett, 22.
56. Renan, 131.
57. Peters, 257.
By: LuckyStrike
The origin of Islam has been a subject that has fascinated many people. Generations of people have passed by hearing the same traditional story of how Muhammad became a prophet, destroyed the old system of idol worship in Mecca, and spread the new monotheistic religion of Islam throughout Arabia while writing the Qur’an. From the 7th Century CE to the 20th Century CE, people have accepted this story as historical fact without question.
However, in approximately the last twenty years, scholarly consensus between Muslim and non-Muslim scholars about the reliability of the sources used for historical data on Muhammad and the Qur’an has fallen apart.1 While skeptics have raised doubts about the reliability of eyewitness accounts attributed to Muhammad,2, 3 other scholars still accept the basic reliability of sources used for historical data on Muhammad and the Qur’an.4 Therefore, it is the goal of this paper to show important points of controversy between skeptical and non-skeptical scholars with regards to the sources.
Before moving on, it must be noted that the relationship between the hadith, the sira, and the Qur’an will be of central importance. Hadiths are accounts or reports of words or actions attributed to Muhammad.5, 6, 7 And a sira is literature about Muhammad’s life, which includes events and chronology.8 However, in comparison, the Koran is simply a record of Muhammad’s revelations.9, 10 The reason why this comparison is of central importance is that the hadiths and siras establish context and contextual meaning for the contents of the Qur’an. David Marshall explains:
The Qur’an, taken by itself, tells us very little about the events of external history; rather, it assumes knowledge of the events on which it comments, and rarely gives any details about them. In order to make sense of the Qur’an it is therefore necessary to supply, from other sources, at least the basic framework of these historical events.11
Peters agrees by calling the Qur’an “a text without context.”12 Michael Cook adds that “taken on its own, the Koran tells us very little about Muhuammad’s career. It does not narrate these events, but merely refers to them.”13 Therefore, it is clear that the Qur’an was meant to be read according to a traditional understanding, as specified by commonly accepted hadith and sira. However, this conclusion brings one to the controversial issue of exactly what hadith and sira are to be considered reliable and acceptable.
The first issue that will be examined is the origin of some well-known siras and their Muslim authors. The first biographical work on Muhammad, called Sirat Rasul Allah,14 was done by Muhammad b. Ishaq (d. 767 CE).15 The original copy of Ibn Ishaq’s work is lost,16 but scholars today possess an edited copy of it preserved in Ibn Hisham’s biography of Muhammad17 with a missing part preserved in al-Tabari’s work.18
But the fact that Ibn Ishaq’s work was edited is the starting point for controversy over his work. Cook points out that Ibn Hisham “was scrupulous enough to warn his readers in general terms that he had omitted a good many things from a variety of motives.”19 While Peters asserts that Ishaq’s work was edited for “extraneous material” dealing with “world history,”20 Ibn Al-Rawandi quotes Hisham as saying he omitted “things which it is disgraceful to discuss; matters that would distress certain people; and such reports as al-Bakka’i told me he could not accept as trustworthy.”21 Zakaria states that one thing Ibn Hisham omitted from Ibn Ishaq’s work was the famous “Satanic Verses”22 in which Muhammad recited a revelation accepting the three daughter goddesses of Allah (al’Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat) from the pre-Islamic tribal religion as intercessors in order to appeal to the Quraysh.23
In addition, while many people considered Ishaq’s work to be of good quality, other people mistrusted his work. Imam Malik, one of his contemporaries who founded a principle school of Islamic theology, called him “a devil.” Another one of his contemporaries, named Hisham bin Urama, who was a famous theologian stated, “The rascal lies.”24 So it is clear that Muslims were divided on the reliability on Ibn Ishaq’s work. In addition, Bennett points out that Ibn Ishaq frequently put in his documents the phrases “it is alleged,” “only God knows the truth,” and “that only God knows whether a particular statement is true or not,” thereby indicating Ibn Ishaq’s personal doubts about much of the information he had gathered personally as well.25
Bennett also raises the possibility of political sympathies effecting Ibn Ishaq’s work. He notes that in Ibn Ishaq’s work, he names Ali’ as the first male convert to Islam. This is significant because while the Shi’a interpreted tradition as supporting Ali’ as the first male convert, the Sunni interpretation of tradition supported Abu Baker as the first male convert. Because of this, Bennett speculates that Ibn Ishaq had Shi’a sympathies.26
While Ibn Ishaq was a prominent figure dealing with gathering biographical information, he was not the only one to produce a biography of Muhammad at the time. For instance, Ma’mar Ibn Rashid (d. 770 CE) produced a shorter biography. However, when compared, Ibn Ishaq’s biographical material and Ma’mar Ibn Rashid’s biographical material disagreed on many details. For example, Ibn Ishaq wrote that Muhammad’s father, ‘Abdallah, died while Muhammad was not born yet but with a notation that Muhammad’s father may have died when Muhammad was 28 months old. He included another note saying only God knows what is the truth. And Ma’mar also said that Muhammad’s father died while Muhammad was not born yet, but at the same time gave exact circumstances as to where he died (in stores of dates at Yathrib).27 While the subject matter of disagreement here may be relatively insignificant, scholars such as Muir argue that if the authors cannot even get the small details right, then it is not unreasonable to distrust their accuracy on the larger issues.28
The next prominent figure in biographical works about Muhammad is Ibn Hisham (d. 833), who had edited Ibn Ishaq’s biographical material. There is disagreement as to exactly what sources he used. Cook states that “what he did was to confine himself to the work of one and only one of his predecessors, Ibn Ishaq.”29 However, Bennett states that Ibn Hisham cited “alternative sources or additional material” in his notes.30 So while it is clear that Ibn Hisham’s work was at least partially based on Ibn Ishaq’s work, the reader is effectively “at the mercy” of this disagreement as to if Ibn Hisham used alternative sources or not. Nonetheless, according to Forward and Zakaria, Ibn Hisham’s biography of Muhammad is considered to be the standard biography and is the source used for all other biographies.31, 32
The next prominent figure in biographical works about Muhammad is al-Waqidi (d. 822/823 CE) and his secretary named Ibn Sa’d (d. 845 CE). Despite Ibn Hisham editing out the famous “Satanic Verses,” al-Waqidi put them into his work.33 While Bennett calls al-Waqidi’s work part of the “most reliable sources for Muhammad’s biography,” he also points out that al-Waqidi may have biased towards Shi’a beliefs because al-Waqidi also wrote that Ali’ was the first male convert to Islam.34 Cook points out that despite the disagreement and uncertainty between Ibn Ishaq and Ma’mar Ibn Rashid as to when and where Muhammad’s father (‘Abdallah) had died, al-Waqidi presented another version of ‘Abdallah’s death (he became ill while coming back from doing business at Gaza and died in the care of relations) as if it were certain fact.35 And while many people considered al-Waqidi’s work to be of good quality, later Muslim scholars criticized his work. For instance, Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) criticized al-Waqidi and other earlier scholars who:
Introduced into those books untrue gossip which they had thought up or freely invented, as well as false, discredited reports which they had made up or embellished. Many of their successors followed in their steps and passed that information on to us as they had heard it.36
The last major figure in biographical works about Muhammad is Tabari (d. circa 923 CE), who was a Muslim historian.37 In comparison to the previous assertions that ‘Ali was the first male convert to Islam, Bennett points out that al-Tabari left the matter open by only mentioning ‘Ali, Abu Bakr, and Zayd b Harithan as early converts.38 But as Zakaria mentions, Tabari did not escape criticism of having “fabulous material” in his work as well.39
While there many other Muslim scholars who did sira on Muhammad’s biographical information, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham, al-Waqidi, and al-Tabari are the most well-known and used sources of sira based biographical information on Muhammad. In addition, while many Western scholars point out the various disagreements between different accounts of Muhammad’s life (such as the first convert to Islam and where and when Muhammad’s father died), other Western scholars point out that there is a general agreement on the basic outline of Muhammad’s life. However, as pointed out before, other scholars such as Muir say that if the details are uncertain, then the major parts of the story are not trustable. So the reader and the researcher alike are left caught up in the dilemma of exactly how to view the sira.
The next major type of documentation related to the biographical information about Muhammad is the hadith, which as stated in the beginning of this paper, are accounts or reports of words or actions attributed to Muhammad. It is notable that Hadith also make up a portion of the Qur’an since Muhammad’s revelations are in fact words attributed to Muhammad.
The most famous and respected collections of hadith come from al-Darimi (797-868 CE), Muslim (810-874 CE), Ibn Maja (824-886 CE), Abu Daud (817-888 CE), al-Tirmidhi (821-892 CE), and al-Nasai (d. 915). They were all compiled by al-Bukhari (810-870 CE) and known to the Sunni Muslims as the six sound (sahih) collections. However, Shi’a Muslims put together their own collection of hadith, called the Four Books (al-kutub al-arb’ah). Nasr comments that “the content of most of the hadiths in the two collections, Sunni and Shi’ite, are basically the same.”40 Bennett states that Bukhari chose 7,275 hadith (including duplicates) out of 600,000 hadith he collected to put into his work. In addition, Abu Daud chose 4,800 hadith (including duplicates) out of 500,000 hadith he had collected to put in his work. But not all hadith in these collections are considered to be equal in value. Some hadith are considered good (hasan), because they passed most tests, while other hadith are considered weak (da’if) if they lack reliability for a variety of reasons (such as if they contradict other hadith, have an incomplete chain of transmission, are not traced back directly to Muhammad, or if they are simply considered weak).41 In addition, while some hadith forbid the recording of any questionable or unreliable words, others simply direct one to compare it to God’s Word for compatibility, which Bennett says “appear to license invention.”42 For instance, a hadith cited by Hughes and attributed to Ibn Abbas states, “Convey to other persons none of my words, except those you know of surely.” But another hadith cited by Goldziher stated, “When a saying is reported and attributed to me, compare it with God’s book. Whatever is in accordance with God’s book is from me, whether I really said it or not.”43 Based on these quotes, it seems that there were variations in the standards themselves as to what hadith should be considered trustable or not. Again, the reader and the researcher is left confused by the variations between hadith as to how to evaluate other hadith.
As with Ibn Ishaq and his sira, the famous sound collections of the Sunni Muslims and the Four Books of the Shi’a Muslims were not the only collections of hadith composed at the time. Other Muslim scholars, such as Ibn Hanbal (d. 855), made their own collections of hadith. However, according to Bennett, Ibn Hanbal’s collection of hadith contained “a lot of material not found elsewhere.”44 Ibn Hanbal’s work serves as an example of why other collections of hadith were not widely accepted by Sunni and Shi’a Muslims.
Now that this paper has briefly examined key points of controversy over the reliability of the sira and the hadith, this paper will now briefly examine the controversial circumstances in which the Qur’an was organized and standardized. Cook summarizes why the compiling of the Qur’an is an issue of controversy:
We learn that some of Muhammad’s followers already knew the whole Koran by heart in his lifetime – yet subsequently it had to be pieced together out of fragments collected from here and there. We are told that Muhammad regularly dictated his revelations to a scribe – yet the scripture was later in danger of being lost through the death in battle of those who had it by heart.45
After the battle of Yamama, the first caliph, Abu Bakr (who ruled 632-634 CE), decided on “putting the Koran between two covers.” The collection of fragments of text began, with the task of collecting the fragments of text given to Zaid bin Thabit, a former scribe and secretary of Muhammad. The longest pieces were put first and the shortest pieces were put last. An unharmonized collection was made, and after Abu Bakr’s death, a copy of it was given to Hafsa, a former wife of Muhammad and Umar’s daughter.46, 47 However, because the Qur’an had been written in Arabic text that lacked vowels, variant spellings, readings, and pronunciations developed.48, 49 Thus, under the Caliph ‘Uthman (643/644-656 CE), existing versions of the Qur’an were collected and examined by a committee (and Zaid was asked to consult other former Companions of Muhammad) so that it could be put into a single, standard text in the dialect used in Mecca.50, 51 Uthman then had this text standardized by destorying, or burning, the other variant texts.52, 53, 54, 55 Renan comments that “such a method of composition is likely to inspire doubts.”56 Peters points out that “pre-Uthmanic clues are fragmentary,”57 so there is insufficient evidence to judge the contents of Uthman’s standardized Qur’anic text in comparison to earlier Qur’anic texts.
In conclusion, after examining the available works on the original sources of hadiths, siras, and the Qur’an itself, the reader and the researcher alike are left with more questions than answers. In addition, such works continue to widen the split between Muslim scholars and Non-Muslim scholars. Unfortunately, in light of this disagreement, it is common for objective textual research and analysis to be clouded with other issues rooted in emotion, faith-based disagreements, and philosophical disagreements. This is why this paper was based on a variety of sources, including those skeptical and those not skeptical of the reliability of Muslim sources.
Notes
1. Forward, Martin. Muhammad: A Short Biography. (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 1997), 3, 99.
2. Peters, F. E. Muhammad and the Origins of Islam. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994), 264.
3. Bennett, Clinton. In Search of Muhammad. (New York, NY: Cassell, 1998), 38, 39.
4. Ibid, 38, 39.
5. Marston, Elsa. Muhammad of Mecca: Prophet of Islam. (New York: Grolier Publishing Co., Inc., 2001), 119.
6. Bennett, 17.
7. Forward, 3.
8. Bennett, 17.
9. Marston, 30-31, 119.
10. Peters, 257.
11. Marshall, David. God, Muhammad and the Unbelievers: A Qur’anic Study. (Richmond: Curzon Press, 1999), 16.
12. Peters, 259.
13. Cook, Micheal. Muhammad. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1983), 69.
14. Zakaria, Rafiq. Muhammad and the Qur’an. (New York: Penguin Books, 1991), 12.
15. Leites, Adrien. “Sira and the Question of Tradition.” The Biography of Muhammad: The Issue of the Sources. Ed. Harald Motzki. (Boston: Brill, 2000), 49.
16. Ibn Al-Rawandi. “Origins of Islam: A Critical Look at the Sources.” The Quest for the Historical Muhammad. Ed. Ibn Warraq. (New York: Prometheus Books, 2000), 90.
17. Zakaria, 12.
18. Bennett, 28.
19. Zakaria, 12.
20. Peters, 263.
21. Ibn Al-Rawandi, 91.
22. Zakaria, 12.
23. Armstrong, Karen. Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet. (New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992), 64, 113-114.
24. Zakaria, 12-13.
25.Bennett, 25.
26. Ibid., 26, 40, 55.
27. Cook, 62-63.
28. Bennett, 43.
29. Cook, 62.
30. Bennett, 29.
31. Forward, 3.
32. Zakaria, 12.
33. Ibid., 12.
34. Bennett, 30, 55.
35. Cook, 63-64.
36. Zakaria, 13.
37. Forward, 3.
38. Bennett, 40.
39. Zakaria, 13.
40. Bennett, 31.
41. Ibid., 32.
42. Ibid., 33.
43. Ibid., 33.
44. Ibid., 24.
45. Cook, 67-68.
46. Renan, Ernest. “Muhammad and the Origins of Islam.” The Quest for the Historical Muhammad. Ed. Ibn Warraq. (New York: Prometheus Books, 2000), 131.
47. Zakaria, 67, 68.
48. Renan, 131.
49. Zakaria, 68.
50. Peters, 257.
51. Renan, 131.
52. Zakaria, 68.
53. Renan, 131.
54. Cook, 68.
55. Bennett, 22.
56. Renan, 131.
57. Peters, 257.