9. Islam: Hussein, Ali essays - Pro/Con research 4.D. thru K.
4. D. Muhammad Kamel Hussein 'City of Wrong”
Muhammad Kamel Hussein is a surgeon and educator in Egypt. His natural curiosities carried him to literature and philosophy and “City of Wrong” is a work of fiction inspired from his reading Freud's “Moses and Monotheism,” Personal traumas can be enlarged to cultural traumas and the experience of Exodus for the Jews in their formative stages had identifiable psychological consequences for them as Mr. Hussein explores.
He further explores the trauma of Christianity when on the day of the Crucifixion the Apostles denied their Lord and betrayed him by doing so. Unable to redo this action in time and space left an indelible mark in the Apostles' psyches and did so to following generations of Christians. Atoning for this sin explains Christians' phobia for sin and guilt thereof.
What is interesting for this writing is the influence of Freud on Islamic thought and the intertwining between Islamic thinking and Western psychology.
4. E. Mauliv Muhamad Ali “Muhammad and Christ”
Mauliv Huhammad Ali was active through the early 20th century and was founder and President of the Ahmadiy movement in Lahore, India. It seems they take strong issue with orthodox Christianity as this article projects. They feel Jesus never died but journeyed to India where he preached until 120 years of age.
What Mr. Ali questions is, if true, why their success was so limited in the aftermath? If the people saw miracles they should have believed. If so many were healed, multitudes, how could so many reject him and not have belief? Few from the 500 believed after even witnessing what occurred, Jesus chose 12 to follow him and even they exhibited many doubts. Peter denied him 3 times and Judas betrayed him. Where is the real success the author asks and the real transformation? Why when Jesus wanted them to pray for him did they fall asleep?
In contrast to this lack of success Mohammed transformed the Arabic world in twenty years. There became a love of knowledge and learning. From the depths of degradation came a high level of achievement. Mark in 8:12 laments this lack of success when saying 'Why doth this generation seek after a sign? …..There will be no sign given unto this generation.” Luke 11:29 writes “.........Master, we would see a sign from thee. …....An evil and adulterous generation seekth after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.” (Mathew 12:38-39)
The author wonders why the healings Jesus performed were not considered a sign? Would not most people be amazed after witnessing such a performance and be changed? Some thought 'healings' were not a big deal? What about raising the dead and the amazing miracles he performed? Why did he not mention them? The author holds they were added at a later date. Even if valid they were not unique to Jesus, for Elisha and Elijah also had done the same. Probably the author claims these earlier men from the Bible had their deeds reattributed later to Jesus. In any event little transformation took place according to Mr. Ali.
The failure here is on, according to the writer, having the emphasis on the physical deeds of physical life being restored and of water turned into wine. These later writers he feels were out to impress and stimulate and arouse awe. It almost was a magical show. Ali resets the sights and said no matter what was written later on, the real transformation came from a spiritual awakening. The spirit was dead and now it was alive. The Qu'ran emphasizes the spiritual aspect of rebirth and makes clear the physical is not a factor. From Qu'ran 32:99-100 Mr. Ali comments “Thus we are told in the clearest possible words that no one who has passed through the door of death into the state of barzakh is allowed to go back into the previous state.” He spends some time on this and adds later “....the return to life shall only take place on the great day of Resurrection.'
So it is that the author sees the Gospels as wanting and attributes the Qu'ran as clarification for what the Gospels meant to say.
4. F. Historicity of Mohammed positive
Historicity is concerned with the actual existence of a person. Meeting today's academic standards for proof is not always an easy accomplishment. Wikipedia presents some sources of support for Mohammed's life. The sources for such information are numerous. Numerous scholars are quoted so there won't be biographical information for each.
The Qu'ran is an obvious source for accounts of Mohammed's life written by his circle roughly from 610-632 AD. Much originated in oral form. It's completed form was many years later and it's use as a source is disputed among scholars. F.E. Peters finds little difference between what the text is and the variants found before the 640s. Gerd R. Puin's research into the Yemen texts feels its consists of numerous texts perhaps up to a hundred years before Mohammed. Accept for small spelling differences the texts are similar to what is already in libraries. He sees it as an organic document continually growing with time rather than written and finished in one short time span.
Professor Jonathan Brown sees the Hadith tradition as a “common sense science” or “common sense tradition” and calls it “one of the biggest accomplishments in human intellectual history....in its breadth, in its depth, in its complexity and in its internal consistency.”
The Sira (biographical) writings describes less of Mohammed's life and more of his battles and excursions. Fred Donner writes the earliest historical writings concerning Islam's beginnings took place from 660-670 AD, not long after Mohammed's life and within the first century of Islam. Later texts from the 700s, 800s, and 900s are 'compilations of material derived from earlier sources.'
A counter argument to the inconsistencies of different viewpoints in the sira is the general agreement for the themes of the original origins story. With non-Muslim sources there is often some consistency on information about Mohammed and the other traditions of the Muslims.
Non-Muslim and Muslim historians find other parts of the sira seemingly authentic.
4. G. Non-Muslim sources
As per non-Muslim sources of Greek, Syriac, Armenian, Hebrew and Christian cultures around the time of 633 AD there is variance with Muslim sources in terms of chronology and Mohammed's opinions on Jews and Palestine.
A priest or monk of peasant stock (able to read) according to Wright recorded 'a nearly contemporary notice' known as 'Fragment on the Arab Conquests” soon after the battle of Gabitha (636 AD) where Mohammed is mentioned in a transcript also containing the gospel of Mark and Matthew. It is faded and much is unclear and disputable. The writer at the time knew the moment was momentous as the Arabs defeated the Byzantines.
Elsewhere two important dates are referenced by Wright. Friday, February 4, 634 AD at the ninth hour the Romans battled the Arabs of Mohammed in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. Roman legions escaped leaving a patrician and 4000 villagers to be killed, consisting of Jews, Christians and Samaritans. This is called the Battle of Dathin whose precise dating makes it believable as a source. It is the first direct mention of Mohammed from a non-Muslim source.
Sebeos was an Armenian bishop who chronicles Muslim battles and sounds as if he lived through them. His last event written somewhat after is the Mu'awiya's rise in the Arab civil war. As a non Muslim he is first to present a theory for their rise. He presents Mohammed as a merchant turned preacher somewhat learned and who instructed followers to pursue the God of Abraham and refrain from drinking, lying, fornication and so on. He preached to love the god of Abraham and to seize the land that was given to him. The writers of this article seem to feel Sebeos himself was changed and inspired.
4. H. Modern Historians
Wikipedi reports that Soviet orientalist Klimovich in the 1930's raised doubts as to Mohammed's existence. Various Islamic studies were unsympathetic also. In the 1970's the Revisionist school questioned the reliability of known Islamic sources and eventually did become part of Islamic studies. Still, according to Wikipedia it is a minority of historians that doubt the historicity of Mohammed.
Distinguishing between historical and non-historical elements is difficult, made moreso because of lack of knowledge of pre-Islamic culture. Harald Motzki writes that to write a critically historical accurate biography for Mohammed is almost undoable without being accused of being uncritical, and if one tries to write one using references critically it becomes an impossible task.
Some, such as Historian Michael have little doubt for Mohammed's historicity, but sees him as connected with Israel instead of directly to Arabia, hinting he had Jewish followers too and the Qu'ran had multi-sources. Patricia Crone uses one Greek text of the time on the prophet's death to claim his life was a fact. She also sees him as is claimed, a political person and prophet, plus author of most of the Qu'ran. However, she sees him as having inhabited a place near the Dead Sea instead of the Arab peninsula due to agricultural references in the Qu'ran.
The names Mohammed and Ali are seen by Popp as referring to Jesus Christ by Syriac Christians. In studying coins he saw MHMT in Pahlavi script and mhmd in Arabic script and surprisingly in some cases combined with Christian symbolism. The title for Christ Popp claims is not a disclaimer of the prophet Mohammed. Rather he sees three possibilities. First, Mohammed was not real but legendary. Second, he was historical but a century later and third there were two Mohammeds, one active in the early 7th century who wrote the Mecca suras, and the other Mamed of Hohannes Damascenus, responsible for the Medinian suras.
4. I. Robert Spencer/David Wood debate
Both Robert Spencer and David Wood are Christian apologists with some knowledge of Islam. Mr. Wood believes in the historicity of Mohammed, although doesn't agree with all the reasons the Muslim community gives. Robert Spencer believes there is little evidence he did exist and if he did he was a minor figure not resembling the Muslim version.
In this debate David Wood employs the principle of 'embarrassment' which puts forth the theory that if statements of someone are embarrassing to the religion but still recorded there is a good chance they are authentic because why would a religion record embarrassing details about its founder unless they were true. Some of these details that are embarrassing to Islam are that much of the revelations Mohammed had were from the devil, that he was demon possessed when he had his revelations, that he was a victim of black magic, that he had nine wives and that he was poisoned by a Jewish lady who was feeding him whose family he had wiped out. All do make him seem kind of weird. For instance, why would he eat with a Jewish lady whose family he had destroyed? Why would he break tradition and have nine wives when four was the limit? Why would he admit to being demon possessed or a victim of black magic? The only explanation Wood comes up with is that they must have been actual explanations for what happened at the time, else why submit such negative anecdotes to history?
Rob Spencer replies that David Wood might find them strange in his 20th century mindset but at the time were they? Mr. Wood counters by saying he feels they would be strange for anyone at anytime. If they were made up, why not make up more positive accounts? Since the 9th century, almost 200 years after he died, is when we first have knowledge of these stories, why would these negative stories last so long unless they were heard correctly by the original witnesses giving them the strength to carry through all the subsequent years? Later Mr. Wood explains these stories were modified and explanations were given to lessen their awkwardness so we've inherited both the original awkward stories and other versions that softened their impact.
Mr. Spencer counters by saying we are not sure which came first. There is no timetable for the different versions. There is no proof which cam first. We have no explanation for why they were written as such. Mr. Wood replies that given the choice between no explanation for why there were such discrepancies and an explanation that makes sense such as he offered why not go with what makes sense? Mr. Spencer counters by saying these were very strange times and there were political reasons unknown today for many choices. He says just because one interpretation make sense does not mean it is true.
As far as the transmitters of these statements, there were hundreds of thousands. The editor for them chose about 3000 because they had a word of mouth lineage, but as Spencer points out, even that might not be true.
I have found this all very interesiing.
4. J. Information that's negative towards Islam and the historicity of Mohammed.
In the previous section I used Wikipedia for a general synopsis for the historicity of Mohmamed in a positive sense. I'll continue with Wikipedia in this section for negative data on the subject. The information is not a comprehensive outline, but should give one an idea of some important points. I highlight certain arguments made in the article without interpretation. Rob Spencer after this further explains certain key issues.
4. K. The Materials
4. K. I. Qu'ran
Some see the hadith and biographies data as mythologies that arose to separate Islam from what is seen as it's Arabic-Christian roots. Karl-Heinz Ohlig is such a person whose thesis is that Mohammed was not the key figure to the young Islam religion but added later. This Arabic-Christian rejected the 'trinity' and hence sought another separate identity. Others, such as John Wansbrough sees the Qu'ran as partially a redaction of Judeo-Christian scriptures. Some scholars highly regard his work in whole or in part, particularly his methods and insights He does qualify his thesis with such words as 'conjectural' so is not careless in his assumptions. Others see him as stretching his conclusions just too far.
Carole Hillenbrand holds more research has to be done concerning the chronology for the Qu'ran, For instance, an ancient text found in Yemen in recent years called the Sanas manuscript could have been written from 645-690 according to carbon dating. Since the writing might have stretched over many years it could be considerably more recent. Hillenbrand also notes the parchment pages were recycled adding more difficulty to dating concerns,. She says “Paleography has dated the Sana manuscripts to 690-750 AD. The reader should realize even a few decades removed from the source can affect the credibility of a document immensely.
4. K. 2. Hadith
The hadith (traditions of Mohammed) and sira (biographic information) might have been fabricated according to early Muslim scholars so they developed a methodology to try to distinguish between authentic and false sayings. Bernard Lewis, discussed later says “The collection and recording of Hadith did not take place until several generations after the death of the Prophet. During that period the opportunities and motives for falsifications were almost unlimited.”
Isnads are 'chains of transmission' which are used to determine the credibility of a document. Steve Humphreys claims some scholars defend the isnads but most have 'deep suspicion' towards them.
4. K. 3.. Sira
The sira or biographical literature are dependent on two edited editions of Ibn Ishaq's (d. 768) work called 'Biography/Life of the Messenger/Apostle of Allah,' edited by Ibn Hisham (d 834) and Yunus b. Bukayr ( 814-15) What survives is not seen as the original. Ibn Ishaq writes Ibn Ishaq wrote the biography 120-130 years after Mohammed's death.. Some scholars view these biographies as accurate, some don't. Reliability for these biographies cannot be proven. Other biographies, such as Umar al-Waqidi's (d 822) were written with varying opinions of their accuracy. Rather than record biographical data about his life, they often describe his military activities. Contemporaries are described at the time in various dictionaries with little information on Mohammed.
Wim Raven feels a coherent picture of Mohammed's life cannot be constructed from sira, doubting its accuracy and facts on many levels. His reasons are listed below and are copied directly.
1. Hardly any sira work was compiled during the first century of Islam
2. The many discrepancies exhibited in different narrations found in sira works.
3. Later sources claiming to know more about the time of Mohammed than earlier ones (often they add embellishments and exaggeration common to an oral storytelling tradition).
4. Discrepancies compared to non-Muslim sources.
5. Some parts or genres of sira, namely those dealing with miracles, are not fit as sources for scientific historiographical information about Mohammed, except for showing the beliefs and doctrines of his community.
Muhammad Kamel Hussein is a surgeon and educator in Egypt. His natural curiosities carried him to literature and philosophy and “City of Wrong” is a work of fiction inspired from his reading Freud's “Moses and Monotheism,” Personal traumas can be enlarged to cultural traumas and the experience of Exodus for the Jews in their formative stages had identifiable psychological consequences for them as Mr. Hussein explores.
He further explores the trauma of Christianity when on the day of the Crucifixion the Apostles denied their Lord and betrayed him by doing so. Unable to redo this action in time and space left an indelible mark in the Apostles' psyches and did so to following generations of Christians. Atoning for this sin explains Christians' phobia for sin and guilt thereof.
What is interesting for this writing is the influence of Freud on Islamic thought and the intertwining between Islamic thinking and Western psychology.
4. E. Mauliv Muhamad Ali “Muhammad and Christ”
Mauliv Huhammad Ali was active through the early 20th century and was founder and President of the Ahmadiy movement in Lahore, India. It seems they take strong issue with orthodox Christianity as this article projects. They feel Jesus never died but journeyed to India where he preached until 120 years of age.
What Mr. Ali questions is, if true, why their success was so limited in the aftermath? If the people saw miracles they should have believed. If so many were healed, multitudes, how could so many reject him and not have belief? Few from the 500 believed after even witnessing what occurred, Jesus chose 12 to follow him and even they exhibited many doubts. Peter denied him 3 times and Judas betrayed him. Where is the real success the author asks and the real transformation? Why when Jesus wanted them to pray for him did they fall asleep?
In contrast to this lack of success Mohammed transformed the Arabic world in twenty years. There became a love of knowledge and learning. From the depths of degradation came a high level of achievement. Mark in 8:12 laments this lack of success when saying 'Why doth this generation seek after a sign? …..There will be no sign given unto this generation.” Luke 11:29 writes “.........Master, we would see a sign from thee. …....An evil and adulterous generation seekth after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.” (Mathew 12:38-39)
The author wonders why the healings Jesus performed were not considered a sign? Would not most people be amazed after witnessing such a performance and be changed? Some thought 'healings' were not a big deal? What about raising the dead and the amazing miracles he performed? Why did he not mention them? The author holds they were added at a later date. Even if valid they were not unique to Jesus, for Elisha and Elijah also had done the same. Probably the author claims these earlier men from the Bible had their deeds reattributed later to Jesus. In any event little transformation took place according to Mr. Ali.
The failure here is on, according to the writer, having the emphasis on the physical deeds of physical life being restored and of water turned into wine. These later writers he feels were out to impress and stimulate and arouse awe. It almost was a magical show. Ali resets the sights and said no matter what was written later on, the real transformation came from a spiritual awakening. The spirit was dead and now it was alive. The Qu'ran emphasizes the spiritual aspect of rebirth and makes clear the physical is not a factor. From Qu'ran 32:99-100 Mr. Ali comments “Thus we are told in the clearest possible words that no one who has passed through the door of death into the state of barzakh is allowed to go back into the previous state.” He spends some time on this and adds later “....the return to life shall only take place on the great day of Resurrection.'
So it is that the author sees the Gospels as wanting and attributes the Qu'ran as clarification for what the Gospels meant to say.
4. F. Historicity of Mohammed positive
Historicity is concerned with the actual existence of a person. Meeting today's academic standards for proof is not always an easy accomplishment. Wikipedia presents some sources of support for Mohammed's life. The sources for such information are numerous. Numerous scholars are quoted so there won't be biographical information for each.
The Qu'ran is an obvious source for accounts of Mohammed's life written by his circle roughly from 610-632 AD. Much originated in oral form. It's completed form was many years later and it's use as a source is disputed among scholars. F.E. Peters finds little difference between what the text is and the variants found before the 640s. Gerd R. Puin's research into the Yemen texts feels its consists of numerous texts perhaps up to a hundred years before Mohammed. Accept for small spelling differences the texts are similar to what is already in libraries. He sees it as an organic document continually growing with time rather than written and finished in one short time span.
Professor Jonathan Brown sees the Hadith tradition as a “common sense science” or “common sense tradition” and calls it “one of the biggest accomplishments in human intellectual history....in its breadth, in its depth, in its complexity and in its internal consistency.”
The Sira (biographical) writings describes less of Mohammed's life and more of his battles and excursions. Fred Donner writes the earliest historical writings concerning Islam's beginnings took place from 660-670 AD, not long after Mohammed's life and within the first century of Islam. Later texts from the 700s, 800s, and 900s are 'compilations of material derived from earlier sources.'
A counter argument to the inconsistencies of different viewpoints in the sira is the general agreement for the themes of the original origins story. With non-Muslim sources there is often some consistency on information about Mohammed and the other traditions of the Muslims.
Non-Muslim and Muslim historians find other parts of the sira seemingly authentic.
4. G. Non-Muslim sources
As per non-Muslim sources of Greek, Syriac, Armenian, Hebrew and Christian cultures around the time of 633 AD there is variance with Muslim sources in terms of chronology and Mohammed's opinions on Jews and Palestine.
A priest or monk of peasant stock (able to read) according to Wright recorded 'a nearly contemporary notice' known as 'Fragment on the Arab Conquests” soon after the battle of Gabitha (636 AD) where Mohammed is mentioned in a transcript also containing the gospel of Mark and Matthew. It is faded and much is unclear and disputable. The writer at the time knew the moment was momentous as the Arabs defeated the Byzantines.
Elsewhere two important dates are referenced by Wright. Friday, February 4, 634 AD at the ninth hour the Romans battled the Arabs of Mohammed in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. Roman legions escaped leaving a patrician and 4000 villagers to be killed, consisting of Jews, Christians and Samaritans. This is called the Battle of Dathin whose precise dating makes it believable as a source. It is the first direct mention of Mohammed from a non-Muslim source.
Sebeos was an Armenian bishop who chronicles Muslim battles and sounds as if he lived through them. His last event written somewhat after is the Mu'awiya's rise in the Arab civil war. As a non Muslim he is first to present a theory for their rise. He presents Mohammed as a merchant turned preacher somewhat learned and who instructed followers to pursue the God of Abraham and refrain from drinking, lying, fornication and so on. He preached to love the god of Abraham and to seize the land that was given to him. The writers of this article seem to feel Sebeos himself was changed and inspired.
4. H. Modern Historians
Wikipedi reports that Soviet orientalist Klimovich in the 1930's raised doubts as to Mohammed's existence. Various Islamic studies were unsympathetic also. In the 1970's the Revisionist school questioned the reliability of known Islamic sources and eventually did become part of Islamic studies. Still, according to Wikipedia it is a minority of historians that doubt the historicity of Mohammed.
Distinguishing between historical and non-historical elements is difficult, made moreso because of lack of knowledge of pre-Islamic culture. Harald Motzki writes that to write a critically historical accurate biography for Mohammed is almost undoable without being accused of being uncritical, and if one tries to write one using references critically it becomes an impossible task.
Some, such as Historian Michael have little doubt for Mohammed's historicity, but sees him as connected with Israel instead of directly to Arabia, hinting he had Jewish followers too and the Qu'ran had multi-sources. Patricia Crone uses one Greek text of the time on the prophet's death to claim his life was a fact. She also sees him as is claimed, a political person and prophet, plus author of most of the Qu'ran. However, she sees him as having inhabited a place near the Dead Sea instead of the Arab peninsula due to agricultural references in the Qu'ran.
The names Mohammed and Ali are seen by Popp as referring to Jesus Christ by Syriac Christians. In studying coins he saw MHMT in Pahlavi script and mhmd in Arabic script and surprisingly in some cases combined with Christian symbolism. The title for Christ Popp claims is not a disclaimer of the prophet Mohammed. Rather he sees three possibilities. First, Mohammed was not real but legendary. Second, he was historical but a century later and third there were two Mohammeds, one active in the early 7th century who wrote the Mecca suras, and the other Mamed of Hohannes Damascenus, responsible for the Medinian suras.
4. I. Robert Spencer/David Wood debate
Both Robert Spencer and David Wood are Christian apologists with some knowledge of Islam. Mr. Wood believes in the historicity of Mohammed, although doesn't agree with all the reasons the Muslim community gives. Robert Spencer believes there is little evidence he did exist and if he did he was a minor figure not resembling the Muslim version.
In this debate David Wood employs the principle of 'embarrassment' which puts forth the theory that if statements of someone are embarrassing to the religion but still recorded there is a good chance they are authentic because why would a religion record embarrassing details about its founder unless they were true. Some of these details that are embarrassing to Islam are that much of the revelations Mohammed had were from the devil, that he was demon possessed when he had his revelations, that he was a victim of black magic, that he had nine wives and that he was poisoned by a Jewish lady who was feeding him whose family he had wiped out. All do make him seem kind of weird. For instance, why would he eat with a Jewish lady whose family he had destroyed? Why would he break tradition and have nine wives when four was the limit? Why would he admit to being demon possessed or a victim of black magic? The only explanation Wood comes up with is that they must have been actual explanations for what happened at the time, else why submit such negative anecdotes to history?
Rob Spencer replies that David Wood might find them strange in his 20th century mindset but at the time were they? Mr. Wood counters by saying he feels they would be strange for anyone at anytime. If they were made up, why not make up more positive accounts? Since the 9th century, almost 200 years after he died, is when we first have knowledge of these stories, why would these negative stories last so long unless they were heard correctly by the original witnesses giving them the strength to carry through all the subsequent years? Later Mr. Wood explains these stories were modified and explanations were given to lessen their awkwardness so we've inherited both the original awkward stories and other versions that softened their impact.
Mr. Spencer counters by saying we are not sure which came first. There is no timetable for the different versions. There is no proof which cam first. We have no explanation for why they were written as such. Mr. Wood replies that given the choice between no explanation for why there were such discrepancies and an explanation that makes sense such as he offered why not go with what makes sense? Mr. Spencer counters by saying these were very strange times and there were political reasons unknown today for many choices. He says just because one interpretation make sense does not mean it is true.
As far as the transmitters of these statements, there were hundreds of thousands. The editor for them chose about 3000 because they had a word of mouth lineage, but as Spencer points out, even that might not be true.
I have found this all very interesiing.
4. J. Information that's negative towards Islam and the historicity of Mohammed.
In the previous section I used Wikipedia for a general synopsis for the historicity of Mohmamed in a positive sense. I'll continue with Wikipedia in this section for negative data on the subject. The information is not a comprehensive outline, but should give one an idea of some important points. I highlight certain arguments made in the article without interpretation. Rob Spencer after this further explains certain key issues.
4. K. The Materials
4. K. I. Qu'ran
Some see the hadith and biographies data as mythologies that arose to separate Islam from what is seen as it's Arabic-Christian roots. Karl-Heinz Ohlig is such a person whose thesis is that Mohammed was not the key figure to the young Islam religion but added later. This Arabic-Christian rejected the 'trinity' and hence sought another separate identity. Others, such as John Wansbrough sees the Qu'ran as partially a redaction of Judeo-Christian scriptures. Some scholars highly regard his work in whole or in part, particularly his methods and insights He does qualify his thesis with such words as 'conjectural' so is not careless in his assumptions. Others see him as stretching his conclusions just too far.
Carole Hillenbrand holds more research has to be done concerning the chronology for the Qu'ran, For instance, an ancient text found in Yemen in recent years called the Sanas manuscript could have been written from 645-690 according to carbon dating. Since the writing might have stretched over many years it could be considerably more recent. Hillenbrand also notes the parchment pages were recycled adding more difficulty to dating concerns,. She says “Paleography has dated the Sana manuscripts to 690-750 AD. The reader should realize even a few decades removed from the source can affect the credibility of a document immensely.
4. K. 2. Hadith
The hadith (traditions of Mohammed) and sira (biographic information) might have been fabricated according to early Muslim scholars so they developed a methodology to try to distinguish between authentic and false sayings. Bernard Lewis, discussed later says “The collection and recording of Hadith did not take place until several generations after the death of the Prophet. During that period the opportunities and motives for falsifications were almost unlimited.”
Isnads are 'chains of transmission' which are used to determine the credibility of a document. Steve Humphreys claims some scholars defend the isnads but most have 'deep suspicion' towards them.
4. K. 3.. Sira
The sira or biographical literature are dependent on two edited editions of Ibn Ishaq's (d. 768) work called 'Biography/Life of the Messenger/Apostle of Allah,' edited by Ibn Hisham (d 834) and Yunus b. Bukayr ( 814-15) What survives is not seen as the original. Ibn Ishaq writes Ibn Ishaq wrote the biography 120-130 years after Mohammed's death.. Some scholars view these biographies as accurate, some don't. Reliability for these biographies cannot be proven. Other biographies, such as Umar al-Waqidi's (d 822) were written with varying opinions of their accuracy. Rather than record biographical data about his life, they often describe his military activities. Contemporaries are described at the time in various dictionaries with little information on Mohammed.
Wim Raven feels a coherent picture of Mohammed's life cannot be constructed from sira, doubting its accuracy and facts on many levels. His reasons are listed below and are copied directly.
1. Hardly any sira work was compiled during the first century of Islam
2. The many discrepancies exhibited in different narrations found in sira works.
3. Later sources claiming to know more about the time of Mohammed than earlier ones (often they add embellishments and exaggeration common to an oral storytelling tradition).
4. Discrepancies compared to non-Muslim sources.
5. Some parts or genres of sira, namely those dealing with miracles, are not fit as sources for scientific historiographical information about Mohammed, except for showing the beliefs and doctrines of his community.