Peter Kirby

It's an interesting question in its own right.

What do we know to be historical about the life of Muhammad? Anything? Should one rationally be an agnostic about Muhammad? Or can we reconstruct his life? And if so, how?

I suppose that it would be an issue of methods and materials. Perhaps more important than "What do we know about Muhammad?" is the question, "How do we know what we 'know' about Muhammad?" What are the sources and what distinguishes historical bits in these sources?

I ask from a position of having read just one book on the subject. Thank you for your answers in advance.

best,
Peter Kirby

Doctor X

Peter:

Great topic! May I ask a ground rule? I do not find reams of quotes from the Koran or Haddith without some independent confirmation. It would be the equivalent of, in response to a "historical Jesus" topic, simply posting the NT with--"that's what we know."

Thanks.

--J.D.

Peter Kirby

I expect our primary sources about Muhammad to be those of his followers and their followers--people who would be interested in recording things about him. So I will not be ruling Muslim sources out of court in the attempt to learn about the alleged founder of Islam. What I would be interested in, though, is how we distinguish historical bits from non-historical bits (assuming a position of errancy) in these sources about Muhammad.

Perhaps we are getting ahead of ourselves, though, by asking the question of "how" we know what is written is true before we even know "what" is written about Muhammad. So perhaps you, River, Carr, or someone else more knowledgeable about the origins of Islam could indicate the primary sources and basically what they say.

There is a searchable Qur'an here:

http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/simple.html

Surprising, to me anyway, is the (apparent) fact that the word "Muhammad" shows up only a few times in the entire Qur'an.

The Family of Imran
[3.144] And Muhammad is no more than an apostle; the apostles have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, he will by no means do harm to Allah in the least and Allah will reward the grateful.

The Clans
[33.40] Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Apostle of Allah and the Last of the prophets; and Allah is cognizant of all things.

Muhammad
[47.2] And (as for) those who believe and do good, and believe in what has been revealed to Muhammad, and it is the very truth from their Lord, He will remove their evil from them and improve their condition.

The Victory
[48.29] Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah, and those with him are firm of heart against the unbelievers, compassionate among themselves; you will see them bowing down, prostrating themselves, seeking grace from Allah and pleasure; their marks are in their faces because of the effect of prostration; that is their description in the Taurat and their description in the Injeel; like as seed-produce that puts forth its sprout, then strengthens it, so it becomes stout and stands firmly on its stem, delighting the sowers that He may enrage the unbelievers on account of them; Allah has promised those among them who believe and do good, forgiveness and a great reward.

Qaf
[50.1] Qaf. I swear by the glorious Quran (that Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah.)

A couple things interest me here:

Why aren't there more references to "Muhammad"?

Why are the references to "Muhammad" written from the perspective of his followers? Is Muhammad the author of the Qur'an as a whole, in part, or not at all?

And, again, what else is written about Muhammad, by whom and how long after? (Rather than posting reams, a link or a reference to an in-print edition would be helpful.)

thanks,
Peter Kirby

Sauron

The Qu'ran is one source.

Another more 'fruitful' source is hadith. In Islam, hadith (plural, ahadith) is the collected sayings, traditions, and stories of the Prophet. They form a body of text that is roughly analogous to the Apocrypha. Taken as a whole, they provide many, many stories and a tremendous amount of background material into the prophet's life, conditions during the early years, even into such things as what the prophet laughed at, or what foods he found tasty.

Each hadith has two parts:

(1) the story itself; and

(2) the isnad - the chain of communication - or, how was the hadith preserved and communicated to people down over the years.

An example of isnad would be:

"It has been related to me by Yahya on the authority of Malik on the authority of Nafi` on the authority of 'Abd Allah ibn Omar that the Prophet said: 'If someone sells a palm tree which has been fertilized, its fruit belongs to the seller, unless the buyer stipulate it for himself.' "

Each person in this chain of transmission would be known the Islamic hagiographers. And as with any chain, the weakest link determines the overall strength of the entire chain. That is why hadiths with strong isnad were highly valued.

Questions raised when investigating the isnad might include:

(i) the reliability of the hadith - are the transmitters reliable? Are they known to be careful observers of word and deed?
(ii) the moral quality of the transmitter of the hadith - was the person a good muslim? Or was the person an infidel?
(iii) the practical questions of the hadith - if it references a person or a place, is it plausible that the individual in question actually ever traveled to that city?
(iv) forensic contraindications - is there evidence of tampering, or deliberate fabrication, a problem with certain dynasties who wanted to use hadith to justify their decisions;
(v) Quranic precedent - does the hadith support, contradict, or have no effect on Quranic doctrine? Would acceptance of this hadith harm Islam? Further it? Or have no effect at all?



This led to tremendous biographical documentation - the finest details of many peoples' lives were compiled, and used as reference, when deciding upon the reliability of the hadith. Entire *libraries* were created, just to hold the amassed biographical data of various individuals who were links in the chain of isnad. The review of the various hadiths took years to perform. When it was over, something less than 2% of all stories were accepted as hadith. Of that group, they were all broken down into "strength" categories". The hadith are organized by the trustworthiness of the sayings:

Xahih - sound, true
Hasan - good
Da'if - weak
Some Islamic traditions recognize all three. Libya, on the other hand, throws hadith out the window totally and relies solely upon Quranic precedent. Probably the best reference (and the benchmark reference) for hadith is the collection of Al-Bukhari.

One interesting hadith (from Bukhari) I studied in college related the story of a community of believers who were gathered around a campfire, for the evening meal. Muhammad was there. When the meat was cooked, they offered him the first piece. "What kind of meat is it?" He asked.

"Dubba", they answered - Arabic for 'lizard'.

The hadith says he pulled his hand back, as though he were bitten. "Prophet, what is wrong? Is the dubba forbidden of Allah to eat?"

"No, I am just not used to eating it."

But the effect of this is that many muslims consider any reptile meat to be unclean.

Doctor X

Very interesting Sauron.

Now, when I ask "how reliable" are the transmissions--and I imagine it varies with different cases--I wonder about materials outside of the tradition. I guess what I am asking is is whether or not the evidence for a transmission is external to the records. The NT texts did not seem as concerned with this chain of evidence; so an example of what I am asking about is if, say, as a supporter of Mk I constructed a "history" of him.

--J.D.

Sauron

I'm not following the question here.

If you're evaluating the reliability of the transmission, there are internal and external items to consider. I listed several.

Also, when you say "a transmission external to the records", what do you mean by the term 'records'?

Cheers.

Volker.Doormann

Peter,

There are some detailed hints in an article by A. Zohaar cyberistan.org/islamic/muhammad.html . Certainly that's not waterproofed history, but it gives an impression about what to be search.

I have done some research in this, because of the more unknown preIslamic history, culture and vedic religious rituals, which are captured by Muhammad then for Islam.

Volker

Doctor X

Sauron:

No I did not express my question at all well.

What I am asking is what is the independent verification of the evidence--are they external to the texts. You see, anyone can, possibly, create supportive texts later. I am not saying this is the case with what you list, I just do not know.

--J.D.

Jeremy Pallant

Frank Zindler has written an article "An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism" which might be of interest to the participants in this discussion.

Peter Kirby

Jeremy,

Thanks for pointing out that article. Zindler's article is based almost exclusively on two books edited by Ibn Warraq (which do apparently contain essays from many different writers). This makes me wonder, how much scholarship on the origins of Islam is available in English? Who are the notable people working in the field?

The notion of isnad reminds me of the claims made for the retention skills of Jewish rabbis, who supposedly transmitted volumes of tradition originating with famous teachers for centuries by word of mouth. These claims have been scrutinized by scholars such as Jacob Neusner. (It also reminds me of the "apostolic tradition." Churches in the late second century and later had developed lists of bishops tracing their authority back to the apostles. Many take a dim view of these lists too.)

Zindler points out that some Soviet scholars had argued that the life of Muhammad was part of the founding myth of Islam. Zindler himself argues that Mecca didn't play the role that is supposed for it in earliest Islam. Has anyone made a reasoned response to such skeptical ideas?

best,
Peter Kirby