PDA

View Full Version : Allegations brought against the Prophet(PBUH) and Islam



Bittersteel
09-21-2005, 09:40 AM
:sl:


From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran#A...cular_scholars
Many scholars believe that Muhammad put forth verses and laws that he claimed to be of divine origin; that his followers memorized or wrote down his revelations; that numerous versions of these revelations circulated after his death in 632 CE, and that Uthman ordered the collection and ordering of this mass of material in the time period (650-656) described by the Islamic scholars. These Western scholars point to many characteristics of the Qur'an -- the repetitions, the arbitrary ordering, the mixture of styles and genres -- as indicative of a human collection process that was extremely respectful of the original sources. There has been no evident organizing and harmonizing of the text.

These scholars account for the many similarities between the Qur'an and the Jewish and Hebrew scriptures by saying that Muhammad was teaching what he believed a universal history, as he had heard it from the Jews and Christians he had encountered in Arabia and on his travels. Differences between the Qur'an and the Judeo-Christian scriptures can usually be explained by Muhammad's reliance on folk traditions rather than the actual text of the scriptures. There have been many studies of Muhammad's sources in the Jewish Mishnah, Gemara, and Midrash, and the Christian Apocrypha. This contradicts the Islamic teaching that it is the Judeo-Christian texts that are corrupt.

Secular scholars also dispute the Islamic belief that the whole of the Qur'an is addressed by God to humankind. They note that there are numerous passages where God is directly addressed, or mentioned in the third person, or where the narrator swears by various entities, including God.
"Some asked what need there was for God to take oaths like any mortal being, as when he swears by the fig and olive, and by Mount Sinai (95:1); by the declining day (103:1); and by the stars, the night and the dawn (81:15-18). Above all, they asked why the Almighty had to swear on himself ..." (Walker, cited in Foundations of Islam, Peter Owen, 1998 p. 156)

Secular scholars have also pointed out obscurities in the text, claiming that Muslim commentators have invented explanations rather than admit that they don't know what a word means. Some Western scholars have been actively trying to interpret these obscure words by reference to languages that Muhammad might have encountered, such as Aramaic and Syriac, and from which he might have adopted words not then found in Arabic. Some scholars have tried to resolve obscurities by positing textual corruption, and advancing plausible replacements -- which is, of course, anathema in Muslim eyes. Muslims believe that the Qur'an is complete, perfect, and uncorrupted.

Some Secular scholars are less willing to attribute the entire Qur'an to Muhammad. They argue that there is no real proof that the text of the Qur'an was collected under Uthman, since the earliest surviving copies of the complete Qur'an are centuries later than Uthman. (The oldest existing copy of the full text is from the ninth century [1].) They see Islam as being formed slowly, over the centuries after the Muslim conquests, as the Islamic conquerors elaborated their beliefs in response to Jewish and Christian challenges.

One influential proponent of this point of view was Dr. John Wansbrough, an English academic. Wansbrough wrote in a dense, complex, almost hermetic style, and he has had much more influence on Islamic studies through his students, Michael Cook and Patricia Crone than he has through his own writings. In 1977 Crone and Cook published a book called Hagarism, which argued that,

The Qur'an is strikingly lacking in overall structure, frequently obscure and inconsequential in both language and content, perfunctory in its linking of disparate materials, and given to the repetition of whole passages in variant versions. On this basis it can plausibly be argued that the book is the product of belated and imperfect editing of materials from a plurality of traditions. (Patricia Crone and Michael Cook, Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World, Cambridge, 1977, p. 18.)

Hagarism was extremely controversial at the time, as it challenged not only Muslim orthodoxy, but the prevailing attitudes among secular Islamicists. Crone and Cook have since retreated from their extreme claims that the Qur'an evolved over several centuries, but they still believe that the Sunni scholarly tradition is extremely unreliable, as it projects current Sunni orthodoxy onto the past -- much as if New Testament scholars were dedicated to proving that Jesus was a Presbyterian or a Methodist.

Fred Donner has argued against Crone and Cook, and for an early date for the collection of the Qur'an, based on his reading of the text itself. He points out that if the Qur'an had been collected over the tumultuous early centuries of Islam, with their vast conquests and bloody squabbles between rivals for the caliphate, there would have been some evidence of this history in the text. However, there is nothing in the Qur'an that does not reflect what is known of the earliest Muslim community. (Narratives of Islamic Origins: The Beginnings of Islamic Historical Writing, Donner, Darwin Press, 1998, p. 60.)

Recent archaeological finds have also shed some light on the origins of the Qur'an. In 1972, during the restoration of the Great Mosque of San'a, in Yemen, laborers stumbled upon a "paper grave" containing tens of thousands of fragments of parchment on which verses of the Qur'an were written. (Qur'ans were and still are disposed thus, so as to avoid the impiety of treating the sacred text like ordinary garbage.) Some of these fragments were the oldest Quranic texts yet found [2]. The European scholar Gerd-R. Puin has studied these fragments and published not only a corpus of texts, but some preliminary findings. Interestingly enough, the variations from the received text that he did find seemed to match variations reported by Islamic scholars, in their descriptions of the variant Qur'ans once held by Abdallah Ibn Masud, Ubay Ibn Ka'b, and Ali, and suppressed by Uthman's order. ("Observations on Early Qur'an Manuscripts in San'a", Puin, in The Qur'an as Text, ed. Wild, Brill, 1996)

Some allegations ahve been refuted here

1 Who's this Wansbrough?


2.QUOTE:

Some Secular scholars are less willing to attribute the entire Qur'an to Muhammad. They argue that there is no real proof that the text of the Qur'an was collected under Uthman, since the earliest surviving copies of the complete Qur'an are centuries later than Uthman. (The oldest existing copy of the full text is from the ninth century [1].) They see Islam as being formed slowly, over the centuries after the Muslim conquests, as the Islamic conquerors elaborated their beliefs in response to Jewish and Christian challenges.


I don't have anything to counter this.Please help.


3.Secular scholars also dispute the Islamic belief that the whole of the Qur'an is addressed by God to humankind. They note that there are numerous passages where God is directly addressed, or mentioned in the third person, or where the narrator swears by various entities, including God.

"Some asked what need there was for God to take oaths like any mortal being, as when he swears by the fig and olive, and by Mount Sinai (95:1); by the declining day (103:1); and by the stars, the night and the dawn (81:15-18). Above all, they asked why the Almighty had to swear on himself ..." (Walker, cited in Foundations of Islam, Peter Owen, 1998 p. 156)


I don't have a clue on this.


4.Secular scholars have also pointed out obscurities in the text, claiming that Muslim commentators have invented explanations rather than admit that they don't know what a word means. Some Western scholars have been actively trying to interpret these obscure words by reference to languages that Muhammad might have encountered, such as Aramaic and Syriac, and from which he might have adopted words not then found in Arabic. Some scholars have tried to resolve obscurities by positing textual corruption, and advancing plausible replacements -- which is, of course, anathema in Muslim eyes. Muslims believe that the Qur'an is complete, perfect, and uncorrupted.


Is this true?


Please help!

:sl:
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
kadafi
09-21-2005, 06:24 PM
Originally Posted by Abdul Aziz
:sl:


From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran#A...cular_scholars



Some allegations ahve been refuted here

1 Who's this Wansbrough?
:w:

Another revisionist historian. The works of his students (i.e. Hargarism) have been rejected in the academic world.

Brother MENJ from bismika published an article respondin' to the allegations cited in the book.

To quote a few observants,

Humphreys, Islamic History, p. 85 writes:
In the end perhaps we ought to use Hagarism more a 'what-if' exercise than as a research monograph...
R. B. Sergeant informs that
Hagarism...is not only bitterly anti-Islamic in tone, but anti-Arabian. Its superficial fancies are so ridiculous that at first one wonders if it is just a 'leg pull', pure 'spoof'.
And Josef Van Ess seems to think that
...a refutation is perhaps unnecessary since the authors make no effort to prove it (the hypothesis of the book) in detail...Where they are only giving a new interpretation of well-known facts, this is not decisive. But where the accepted facts are consciously put upside down, their approach is disastrous
Waines in his book An Introduction To Islam says that
The Crone-Cook theory has been almost universally rejected. The evidence offered by the authors is far too tentative and conjectural (and possibly contradictory) to conclude that Arab-Jewish were as intimate as they would wish them to have been.
More at: bismika

2.QUOTE:

Some Secular scholars are less willing to attribute the entire Qur'an to Muhammad. They argue that there is no real proof that the text of the Qur'an was collected under Uthman, since the earliest surviving copies of the complete Qur'an are centuries later than Uthman. (The oldest existing copy of the full text is from the ninth century [1].) They see Islam as being formed slowly, over the centuries after the Muslim conquests, as the Islamic conquerors elaborated their beliefs in response to Jewish and Christian challenges.
We have discussed this several times (refer to Christ thread at comp rel sect).

Firstly, the preservation of the Glorious Qur'aan is universally recognized. The first method to preserve the Glorious Qur'aan was tawatur. It has reached us through tawatur, meaning continous transmission from generation to generation. In addition, the generation-to-generation transmission was always muttawatir, meaning that the majority of the generation conveyed the Glorious Qur'aan to the next generation.

The second method is the written form. We have Quraanic manuscripts dating from second half of the first century hijra onwards.

The brothers at IA highlight some of these manuscripts at:
The Qur'anic Manuscripts

But I am not going to elongate the subject that has already been discussed. A brother, named Sabeel Ahmed, wrote it an article which can be read at:

Proof of The Preservation of the Quran




3.Secular scholars also dispute the Islamic belief that the whole of the Qur'an is addressed by God to humankind. They note that there are numerous passages where God is directly addressed, or mentioned in the third person, or where the narrator swears by various entities, including God.
Recycled garbage. Everything has been dealth with.

Brother M A S Abdel Haleem from IA writes:
....we must deal with the question of why God is referred to, and so frequently, in the Qur'ān, in the 3rd person.

The first and most important reason for God's speaking about Himself in the 3rd person relates to the fundamental message of the Qur'ān, which is calling men to the religion of tawhīd according to which 'there is no god but Allāh '. The testimony begins with the negation of any other god, then moves on to except only one, who is named Allāh. No pronoun, even of the first person, will do here in place of the name.
iltifaat11 1 -
'Call not upon another god with Allāh, lest you incur punishment' - 26:213.
This is clear in verses that show the contrast between Allāh - in this particular name - and any other assumed deity. In successive verses, for instance (27:60-4) we have a structure such as:

iltifaat12 1 -
' . . . Who created the heavens and the earth and brought down for you water from the sky. . . another god besides Allāh? Yet they make others equal (to Him).'
The sequence ends with 'Say: " No one in the heavens or on earth has knowledge of the unseen except Allāh".' The Qur'ānic message is meant to be communicated to men naming Allāh as the lord they should serve. Knowledge of the unseen, creation and Judgement are the prerogative of Allāh in the religion of tawhīd and as such frequently accompany His name which is considered in Arabic grammar a'raf al-ma'āirf (the most definite of all definite pro/nouns). Similarly, in the Qur'ān hamd truly belongs to Allāh and it occurs in the text forty odd times together with the name of Allāh or, if it is with His pronoun, comes very soon after the name: in a few cases it combines with rabb (cf. also hudā). The Qur'ān describes Allāh, in His particular name, to believers and non-believers: He does such and such, e.g. 16:65-81; it is He Who.... 16:10-20. Adjectival structures, ordinary or relative, require a noun before them - in this case, Allāh. Such combinations occur frequently in the Qur'ān (e.g. 1:1 4, 59:22 4). The name of Allāh is also used in verses (frequently at the end, commonly introduced by kān) indicating that such is His way, e.g.

iltifaat13 1 -
'That was Allāh's way with those who passed away of old - and the commandment of Allāh is certain destiny.' (33:38)
iltifaat14 1 -
' Give . . . before death comes to one of you and he says "Reprieve me, Lord a while". .. But Allāh reprieves no soul when its term comes: Allāh has knowledge of all your actions.' (63:10-1)
The Qur'ān, it should be remembered, is not an autobiography of Allāh which thus has to be cast wholly in the form of 'I' and 'me'; it is revealed for men who will speak in their prayers and to each other about Allāh. It urges the believers: 'Call, then unto Allāh, making your religion His sincerely, though the unbelievers be averse' (Q. 40:14). It teaches them how to call upon Him in this way: iltifaat15 1 - Al-hamdu li'llāh rabbi'l-'ālamin (40:65). It is not surprising, then, that this comes at the beginning of the Fātiha to be repeated in the obligatory prayers at least 17 times a day.

It should also be noted that in some verses God is mentioned more than once, and is depicted from different perspectives so that we have a multiplicity of viewpoints:

iltifaat16 1 -
'We suffice you against the mockers who serve another god with Allāh. Certainly they will soon know. We know you are distressed by what they say. Proclaim your Lord: praise and prostrate yourself and worship your Lord until the certain end comes to you.' (15:95-99)
Here God Himself speaks in the 1st person plural of majesty to assure the Prophet: from the point of view of the mockers, they serve another God beside Allāh; and from the point of view of the Prophet, he should serve his caring, reassuring Lord. 'All that is in the heavens and the earth magnifies Allāh' (57:1, 59: 1, 61: 1, 62:1, 64: 1). From God's point of view, He proclaims to all that this is the prerogative of Allāh, shared by no other deity, and believers read this from their point of view, which is that of glorifying Allāh. It is important, then, when discussing reference to God in the 3rd person in the Qur'ān to bear in mind two things: the principle of tawhīd and the multiplicity of viewpoints observed in the language of the Muslim scripture.

In the following examples of the second category of iltifāt we see that there is a shift from the 1st person to the 3rd, in which God is referred to as Allāh or rabb, emphasizing tawhīd, and showing the multiplicity of viewpoints: 'Eat of the good things wherewith We have provided you, and render thanks to Allāh if it is He whom you worship' (2:172).'We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they ascribe partners to Allāh' (3:151). 'David, We have appointed you a viceroy in the land; therefore judge between men justly and follow not caprice lest it leads you astray from the way of Allāh' (38:26). 'We have given you a manifest victory, that Allāh may forgive you,... that Allāh may help you.' (48:1-3). (In this connexion we should remember that the Prophet used to repeat astaghfir Allāh.) (Cf. also Q. 4:106, 8:10). Finally: 'We have given you abundance: Pray then to your Lord and sacrifice to Him - it is he that hates you who is cut off.' (Q. 108).
"Some asked what need there was for God to take oaths like any mortal being, as when he swears by the fig and olive, and by Mount Sinai (95:1); by the declining day (103:1); and by the stars, the night and the dawn (81:15-18). Above all, they asked why the Almighty had to swear on himself ..." (Walker, cited in Foundations of Islam, Peter Owen, 1998 p. 156)


I don't have a clue on this.
That is because when Allaah (Exalted is He) swears by something, such as Al-Asr (the time), it is used to make it more emphatic, indicating its seriousness and importance.

4.Secular scholars have also pointed out obscurities in the text, claiming that Muslim commentators have invented explanations rather than admit that they don't know what a word means. Some Western scholars have been actively trying to interpret these obscure words by reference to languages that Muhammad might have encountered, such as Aramaic and Syriac, and from which he might have adopted words not then found in Arabic. Some scholars have tried to resolve obscurities by positing textual corruption, and advancing plausible replacements -- which is, of course, anathema in Muslim eyes. Muslims believe that the Qur'an is complete, perfect, and uncorrupted.


Is this true?
This doesn't even deserve a response.

One piece of advice akhee; stop debating with non-Muslims unless you have aquired sound knowledge and understanding of the Deen. It is not permissible to debate with them if you cannot respond to their false arguments using proof and evidnece.

Rememer, that when you're debating with Non-Muslims, you're automatically givin' daw'ah and performin' da'wah without any sufficient knowledge will never be succesful but rather contributes to the growth of the many preconceived notions held by your oppenent (i.e. the non-Muslim)

:w:
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
09-21-2005, 08:06 PM
Originally Posted by kadafi
One piece of advice akhee; stop debating with non-Muslims unless you have aquired sound knowledge and understanding of the Deen. It is not permissible to debate with them if you cannot respond to their false arguments using proof and evidnece.

Rememer, that when you're debating with Non-Muslims, you're automatically givin' daw'ah and performin' da'wah without any sufficient knowledge will never be succesful but rather contributes to the growth of the many preconceived notions held by your oppenent (i.e. the non-Muslim)
:sl: Br. Kadafi,
I think this last part is extremely important and I've been repeating the same thing to Abdul Aziz for a very long time, I'm not sure why he's not taking the advice.

:w:
Reply

Bittersteel
09-22-2005, 07:05 AM
No,I just got it from wikipedia.I was quite shocked to see wrong info there see.


So whenever I see info like the below:

Secular scholars have also pointed out obscurities in the text, claiming that Muslim commentators have invented explanations rather than admit that they don't know what a word means. Some Western scholars have been actively trying to interpret these obscure words by reference to languages that Muhammad might have encountered, such as Aramaic and Syriac, and from which he might have adopted words not then found in Arabic. Some scholars have tried to resolve obscurities by positing textual corruption, and advancing plausible replacements -- which is, of course, anathema in Muslim eyes. Muslims believe that the Qur'an is complete, perfect, and uncorrupted.


I become utterly confused. :-[
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Bittersteel
09-25-2005, 12:38 PM
another allegation has been brought:

Originally Posted by an Islam hater ofcousre

The following Hadith shows the poor sanitation habits of Muhammad and his followers:

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 1, Number 0067:

Narrated AbuSa'id al-Khudri: I heard that the people asked the Prophet of Allah (peace_be_upon_him): Water is brought for you from the well of Buda'ah. It is a well in which dead dogs, menstrual clothes and excrement of people are thrown. The Messenger of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) replied: Verily water is pure and is not defiled by anything.


The issue here is not hygiene, but rather a lack of scientific understanding of bacteria, viruses, and germs that can be present in water. Excrement is a very common cause of water becoming contaminated with Escherichia coli (E. coli), a bacteria commonly found in the colon that is deadly to humans if ingested. Water contaminated with dead dogs or menstrual fluids can be equally dangerous.
umm...did I post this earlier?

:sl:
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
09-29-2005, 01:31 PM
:sl:
Originally Posted by Abdul Aziz
Secular scholars have also pointed out obscurities in the text, claiming that Muslim commentators have invented explanations rather than admit that they don't know what a word means. Some Western scholars have been actively trying to interpret these obscure words by reference to languages that Muhammad might have encountered, such as Aramaic and Syriac, and from which he might have adopted words not then found in Arabic. Some scholars have tried to resolve obscurities by positing textual corruption, and advancing plausible replacements -- which is, of course, anathema in Muslim eyes. Muslims believe that the Qur'an is complete, perfect, and uncorrupted.
But of course they never point out what these 'alleged obscurities' are!

The following Hadith shows the poor sanitation habits of Muhammad and his followers:

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 1, Number 0067:

Narrated AbuSa'id al-Khudri: I heard that the people asked the Prophet of Allah (peace_be_upon_him): Water is brought for you from the well of Buda'ah. It is a well in which dead dogs, menstrual clothes and excrement of people are thrown. The Messenger of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) replied: Verily water is pure and is not defiled by anything.


The issue here is not hygiene, but rather a lack of scientific understanding of bacteria, viruses, and germs that can be present in water. Excrement is a very common cause of water becoming contaminated with Escherichia coli (E. coli), a bacteria commonly found in the colon that is deadly to humans if ingested. Water contaminated with dead dogs or menstrual fluids can be equally dangerous.
This is a statement of Islamic Jursiprudence and not Medical science. It relates to the legal classification of substances for the purpose of ablution (wudu).

:w:
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
10-01-2005, 03:35 PM
:sl:
Actually, the following article explains the hadith in great detail:
http://www.islamtoday.com/showme2.cf...sub_cat_id=560

:w:
Reply

Bittersteel
10-02-2005, 08:57 AM
But of course they never point out what these 'alleged obscurities' are!
do they make the whole thing up just like on many occasions or is a kernel of truth?

:sl:
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
10-02-2005, 03:27 PM
Originally Posted by Abdul Aziz
do they make the whole thing up just like on many occasions or is a kernel of truth?

:sl:
:sl:
You seem very eager to find truth in their allegations - very persistent in asking if there could be even the slightest truth in their allegations. And the answer is no, it's simply false. These allegations are just reflective of their own ignorance of Uloom Al-Qur'an especially Tafseer. The Mufasireen never invent explanations for anything, they provide hadith for evey ayah. This is different from tafseer Ar-Ra'iy, which is when someone uses their own personal opinion in explaining the Qur'an, and that's not what the classical Islamic scholars did.

:w:
Reply

Bittersteel
10-02-2005, 03:49 PM
I was just checking.seriously anti-Islamists have confused me.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
10-02-2005, 07:29 PM
Originally Posted by Abrar
I was just checking.seriously anti-Islamists have confused me.
:sl:
Why should it confuse you? If you really didn't want it to confuse you then you wouldn't waste so much time hunting for allegations against Islam and hoping that they might have a "kernel of truth" to them. Anti-Islamists don't visit your house everyday, you are the one who hunts them down and you try to learn Islam from them. What else can one expect from this other than confusion?

You should stop wasting your time trying to find all the lies people have said about Islam and trying to prove that they are true. You should spend your time trying to get closer to Allah through Salah, because you will not attain faith and certainty through any other method.

:w:
Reply

Umm Yoosuf
10-02-2005, 10:35 PM
Originally Posted by kadafi
One piece of advice akhee; stop debating with non-Muslims unless you have aquired sound knowledge and understanding of the Deen. It is not permissible to debate with them if you cannot respond to their false arguments using proof and evidnece.

Rememer, that when you're debating with Non-Muslims, you're automatically givin' daw'ah and performin' da'wah without any sufficient knowledge will never be succesful but rather contributes to the growth of the many preconceived notions held by your oppenent (i.e. the non-Muslim)
Subhanallah! By Allah im one that took that advice. Debating with non-Muslims without knowldge is a dangrous matter!
Reply

Bittersteel
10-04-2005, 08:54 AM
yes I admit you are right.
Reply

Hashim_507
10-08-2005, 09:59 AM
The prophet p.b.u.h hadiths has been approve by sahabas and witneses repeated the same way as the were suppose to be said..
Reply

Bittersteel
10-09-2005, 07:10 PM
I did some research about the earliest biography of the Prophet saws.and again landed myself on wikipedia.Alright I admit its my fault.

The sources available to us for information about Muhammad are the Qur'an, the sira biographies, and the hadith collections. While the Qur'an is not a biography of Muhammad, it does provide some information about his life. The earliest surviving biographies are the Life of the Apostle of God, by Ibn Ishaq (d. 768), edited by Ibn Hisham (d. 833); and al-Waqidi's (d. 822) biography of Muhammad. Ibn Ishaq wrote his biography some 120 to 130 years after Muhammad's death. The third source, the hadith collections, like the Qur'an, are not a biography per se. In the Sunni belief, they are the accounts of the words and actions of Muhammad and his companions. In the Shia belief, they are the accounts of the words and actions of Muhammad, Ahl al-Bayt and their companions.

Some skeptical scholars (Wansbrough, Cook, Crone, and others) have raised doubts about the reliability of these sources, especially the hadith collections. They argue that by the time the oral traditions were being collected, the Muslim community had fractured into rival sects and schools of thought. Each sect and school had its own sometimes conflicting traditions of what Muhammad and his companions had done and said. Traditions multiplied, and Muslim scholars made a strenuous effort to weed out what they felt were spurious stories. Traditionalists rely on their efforts; the skeptics feel that the question must be revisited, using modern methods.
umm....just like before confused.wait I don't believe them.

I couldn't get anything about the sira from an Islamic site.Please help.
:sl:
Reply

Far7an
10-09-2005, 07:16 PM
Assalamu alaikum

I did some research about the earliest biography of the Prophet saws.and again landed myself on wikipedia.Alright I admit its my fault.
Now, why on earth would you do such a thing, hmmmm

Read this InshaAllah
Reply

Bittersteel
10-09-2005, 07:24 PM
umm...bro I was talking about who made the first biography of the Prophet saws.I know it was called the Sira and it was compiled after the Prophet's saws death.I thought Aisha made a contribution to it.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
10-09-2005, 08:11 PM
:sl: brother,
The ahadith provide the major source for the life of Prophet Muhamamd saws. The quote you cited only shows ignorance towards the methodologies used in authenticating ahadith. The authentic ahadith confirm the facts of Prophet Muhammad saws's life. Read here:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/

As for the Sirah biographies, then they need to be examined in the light of the Qur'an and Ahadith. And just because one biography happens to be earlier does not necessarily mean that it is the most authentic source. Besides, the Ahadith came before the biographies. So we use the material that is authentic to arrive at the correct understanding of the Prophet saws's life.
:w:
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-27-2012, 07:05 PM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-18-2009, 12:54 PM
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-07-2008, 07:01 PM
  4. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-20-2008, 05:19 AM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-23-2007, 12:21 PM
HeartHijab.com | Hijab Sale | Pound Shop | UK Wholesale Certified Face Masks, Hand Sanitiser & PPE

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!