It has become a habit for some people (especially atheists) to cast doubt on the reliability on the early Islamic sources regarding the early Islamic history, the Ahadith collections and in some cases the history of the Quran's compilation.

The most common is perhaps the Ahadith collections. They claim that since they were made so late they are very unreliable as historical documents, and they also bring up conflicting Ahadith from Sahih al-Bukhaari and then (ironically) ask which one is the correct, and use it in order to bash the isnad science, in order to prove its unreliability. They claim that the Ahadith were probably stories from Muslim folklore that were collected.

Then regarding the early Islamic history is in part connected to the Ahadith question, since doubting it comes after denying the Ahadith collections as reliable historical sources. The most radical theory is probably Hagarism which claim that the early Islamic history is "a pious forgery" and that even the Quran were probably collected 200 years after Rasul'Allaah (sall'Allaahu aleyhi was sallam) from multiple sources and that Islam as a religion evolved over the centuries and the Arabs who now were widespread among the Christians and Jews in the world in a great empire needed an identity.

There are also some theory circuling that the Quran must have been in either Syriac or Aramaic from the beginning. I've read the two articles from IA on the subject, but those contained more of ridiculing the theory rather than a refutation.

All in all, I would like some article which refutes these attempts to cast doubt on the early Islamic history altogether and shows that the Muslim sources are reliable.

Jazakum Allaah khairen.

I would recommend the following books which refute these allegations:

The History of the Qur'anic Text from Revelation to Compilation : A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments by Dr. Muhammad Mustafa al-Azami PhD (Professor Emeritus at King Saud University Riyadh) ~ a devastating refutation to all the attacks on the Qur'an's preservation

The above author also has a book entitled, "Studies of Early Hadith Literature".

A Textbook of Hadith Studies : Authenticity, Compilation, Classification and Criticism of Hadith by Dr. Mohammad Hashim Kamali PhD (Professor of Islamic Law at the International Islamic University Malaysia)

Hadith Literature: Its Origin, Development, and Special Features by Dr. Muhammad Zubayr Siddiqi.

Introduction to Hadith by Dr. Abdur-Rahman Doi

salam alaikum

one thing that i have noticed also helps is turning the tables on them and arguing their history and all sources are un reliable

it worked for me 3 times already with head banging effects (for them) lol

Jazakum Allaah khairen.

The worst with their scenarios is that according to them the early Islamic history is a forgery, Muhammed (sall'Allaahu aleyhi wa sallam) and the Sahabah are mythological figures, the miracles preformed by Rasul'Allaah (sall'Allaahu aleyhi wa sallam) are Muslim folklore tales without any historical evidence, and that his prophecies are latter day stories with a faked isnads to support them, projected back in time and the Quran is a work of multiple hands, that the stories told in it were circulating around the empire and then around 800 AD waived into one book projected back around 200 years. All this is extremly dangerous...

Are any of these books available to read online? I searched for it but didn't find them except for sale or in one case a review.

I haven't found them available online. These are true scholarly works for people who desire real knowledge, not just some ignorant people who sit in their basements on the computer and think themselves scholars, like these enemies of Islam who make the allegations you refer to. The notion that Muhammad did not even exist is not supported by any prominent historian, whether Non-muslim or Muslim.

Daniel Pipes said that the Quran did not originate from Arabia.....tsk tsk....

anyways do we have books which speak definitely about Islamic history ?You know like encyclopedias ?I heard the writer of the Sealed Nectar covered entire Islamic history in three volumes?

The best argument I heard was from an athiest against Christianity - he challenged a whole room full of Christians (in chat) to PROVE to him using History that Jesus existed

Surprisinglt non-christian historians say there is no evidence to support the existance of a man called Jesus even when using archeology and anthropology - in fact all these sciences do not believe he ever existed lol

needless to say the Christians in the room were defeated by the 2 athiest men!

it was hilarious!

In english you can read the three volumes on the History of Islam by Akbar Shah Najeebabadi and edited by SafiurRahman Al-Mubarakpuri.


It's true that there is no historical evidence concerning Prophet Jesus (a good point to make against Christians who try to argue the crucifixion according to 'historical evidence'). But the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, who came 600 years later, does come into historical records and no reputable historian has ever disputed his existence.



ps. I forgot to point out that even the biggest enemies of Islam from amongst western scholars still affirmed the authenticity of the Qur'an (Non-Muslims from different backgrounds quotes). I once got into a debate with a Christian Missionary who challenged the authenticity of the Qur'an. Instead of getting into a long debate over arabic paleography and orthography (which I was also well prepared for), I merely showed him these quotes and he retracted his original position. Easiest debate ever

Masha'Allaah that's great. Yes there are much evidence for the Quran's authencity. Some of them is three of the copies sent out by Uthmaan (raa) (although there seems to be some doubt wether they really are among the ones sent out by him) which are preserved today. Another is the fact that John of Damascus, the first Christian polemicist against Islam lived 675-749, hence it would make no sense at all if Islam was created around 800 A.D since he wrote against the Quran and Islam in general. Also the fact that during the war between Muawiyah (raa) and Ali (raa), Muawiyah's forces had sheets of the Quran on their lances to interrupt the battle. Also there is an article written by a kaafir about evidence for an early codification of the Quran and refutation about that inscriptions on Dome of the Rock would prove the Quran as inauthentic. Here it is:

Forgotten Witness: Evidence For The Early Codification Of The Qur'an

So it is not suprising that they turn to Ahadith and Sirah in order to attack Islam, since both these sources were compiled much later.

Ok one specific thing I've seen them claiming about Ahadith is the thing about judging narrators according to sects. The argument goes like "You will only choose people with the same beliefs as you as good and reliable narrators, while the other sects will do the same. Thus every sect will choose narrators who believed as the specific sect does as good narrators, thus it is impossible to know what is really true."

Ok I've searched around on the web now and found answers to most things, the early conquerors being Muslims etc. That is especially true if you read the inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock, which is mostly a polemic against Christianity, saying that Isaa ibn Maryam (aleyhi salaam) was a Messenger and also containing the basmalah, which is definatly Islamic. Also that John of Damascus wrote against Islam at an early stage (he lived between 675-749) shows that Islam did exist in his time.

There also seems to be some good evidence for an early collection of the Quran, outside of the event told in the Ahadith. Now there is just one thing bothering me about it, and that is the manuscripts at Sana which some orientalists boastfully put forward in order to "challenge the Islamic faith" (so much for them being unbiased scholars). Some on the manuscripts are told to have differences from today's Quran. According to Wikipedia, these differences seem to match the minor variations in the codics reported to be once held by Abdallah ibn Masud (raa), Ubay ibn Kab (raa) and Ali ibn Abu Talib (raa). But Wikipedia is the only source which tells this, and isn't a very reliable source. So I wonder if the differences is as Wikipedia described, because wasn't their Musahif their own poeronal copies which never became mass-copied? Islamic Awareness have published some of these manuscripts. I asked them concerning this and they asked back if differences "is not what I expect in the very early manuscripts of
the Qur'an?" Now I'm totally confused. According to the history the Quran was collected during Uthmaan (raa) and then stayed intact for 1400 years. So differences isn't what I expect, or should I?

It may seems weird me posting a post like the one above after posting a post like this. But all this really leaves me in a confused state.

I know I should have purchased the books you mentioned, but I'm underaged and can't really buy books online like nothing.

a cd lecture set on the Mahdi by Yasir Qadhi also briefly touches on the attempts to refute ahad hadith.

That's true. They used their masahif as personal tafsir. This is evident in the fact that they had different order of the soowar, spelling mistakes, personal translations of certain words, different pronouncation, etc. Moreover, these variants readings were reported by a single person which questions its authencity, whilst the uthmaanic qur'aan is muttawatir.

Any authenthic book that covers the uloom al-quraan will also cover this subject.

Jazakum Allaah khairen.

That they match minor variations as reported by Islamic sources is somewhat of confirming them in a unique way, and at the same time showing that the Quran was collected early.

However, I've seen Crone and those arguing that Islam was orginally "Judaism for Arabs", and asking "if Islam was universal from the beginning, why did the Umayyads demand that non-Arabs converting to Islam to be adopted by Arab families?" and "why did not the conquered people begin to convert until the Abbasid period?". At first, I thought that the letters that the Prophet (sall'Allaahu aleyhi wa sallam) sent to the kings would easily disprove that claim. But do there exist from their sources that they recieved the letters? Are (some of) the letters preserved?