A man named Ibn Ishaq was a devout Muslim who lived from AD 704-767 and wrote the first biography of Muhammad. His biography is respected and studied in Muslim universities around the world. The English translation is 690 pages long, not counting introduction, endnotes and indices. Muhammad Biography has a short summary of Ibn Ishaq’s Life of Muhammad. Excerpts appear below. When time permits, please read the entire summary (only about 13 pages long) at Muhammad Biography.
Here is the life of the man a billion people revere as the greatest prophet of God and whom many love more than life itself:
"One day, Muhammad said that while he was sleeping, Gabriel came to him with something that had writing on it, and said “Read!” According to Muhammad,
“I said, ‘What shall I read?’ He pressed me with it so tightly that I thought it was death; then he let me go and said, ‘Read!’ I said, ‘What shall I read?’ He pressed me with it again so that I thought it was death; then he let me go and said ‘Read!’ I said, ‘What shall I read?” He pressed me with it the third time so that I thought it was death and said, “Read!’ I said, ‘What then shall I read?—and this I said only to deliver myself from him, lest he would do the same to me again. He said, “Read…So I read it and he departed from me" (106).
Muhammad woke up and began to wonder if he was demon possessed. Afraid that the local Quraysh tribes would think he was indeed demon possessed he considered throwing himself down a mountain to kill himself but on the way up the mountain he heard a voice saying he was the apostle of God (105-106). Instead of committing suicide, Muhammad decided to tell his wife, Khadija, of his dream and of his fear of demon possession (106). Khadija sought advice from her cousin who was a Christian. When he heard the story he assured her that Muhammad must be a prophet (107).
After that, Muhammad began receiving revelations. Khadija accepted his revelations as true, became his first convert, and helped him in his work (111). Soon…men and women began to accept Islam in large numbers “until the fame of it was spread throughout Mecca” (117).
Most Meccans did not turn against the Muslims until Muhammad “spoke disparagingly of their gods.” Then “they took great offense and resolved unanimously to treat him as an enemy.”
Many of the Quraysh “called him a liar, insulted him, and accused him of being a poet, a sorcerer, a diviner and of being possessed.” Muhammad, however, continued to proclaim his message and condemn their religion (130).
One day Abu Bakr, one of Muhammad’s most faithful followers who would eventually be Muhammad’s successor, saw this slave being tortured. Abu Bakr said, “Have you no fear of God that you treat this poor fellow like this? Umayya responded saying, “You are the one who corrupted him, you save him from his plight…” (144). Abu Bakr said he had a black slave who was not Muslim and was stronger than the slave being persecuted. He offered to trade slaves and the deal was accepted (144).
Although Muhammad escaped much of the persecution through the protection of his powerful uncle, Muhammad could not protect his followers so he suggested that they go to Abyssinia in Africa whose Christian king, Muhammad told them, “will not tolerate injustice.” Many Muslims followed Muhammad’s advice (146).
When the Quraysh heard this, they sent men to Abyssinia to force the Muslims to return. The case came before the king who said he would not surrender the Muslims to them. He then summoned the Muslims and asked them about their religion.
They said that Muhammad has summoned them to acknowledge God’s unity, to worship God “and to renounce the stones and images” which they had formerly worshiped. Muhammad had forbidden them from committing abominations, speaking lies, devouring property of orphans, or vilifying chaste women. On the other hand, they were commanded to worship God alone and not to associate anything with Him,” and to observe “orders about prayer, almsgiving, and fasting” (150-152).
Meanwhile, Muhammad became very pained about his estrangement from his people and “longed that there should come to him from God a message that would reconcile his people to him.” It wasn’t long before Muhammad got a revelation saying that the three goddesses of Mecca, al-Lat, al-‘Uzza and Manat were exalted and that their intercession was approved by Allah. The Quraysh “were delighted and greatly pleased at the way in which he spoke of their gods” (167).
Muslims, however, thought there must be some mistake since this seemed to contradict the essence of Muhammad’s monotheism. The issue was soon resolved when Muhammad got another revelation saying that Satan, not God, had told him the goddesses’ intercession was approved. Muhammad repented and “God annulled what Satan had suggested” (179).
One day Muhammad reported that he and Gabriel had been carried away from the “mosque at Mecca” to “the Masjid al-Aqsa” in Jerusalem where “he found Abraham, Moses and Jesus among a company of the prophets.” Muhammad “acted as their imam in prayer.”…Muhammad then returned to Mecca in the morning and told the Quraysh people of his trip. “Most of them said…this is plain absurdity!” In fact, many Muslims even gave up their faith because of the story (181-183).
When asked what he thought of Muhammad now, Abu Bakr said if he says it, its true. Muhammad’s wife Aisha used to say that Muhammad’s body “remained where it was but God removed his spirit by night.” A woman named “Hind” said,
“The apostle went on no night journey except while he was in my house. He slept that night in my house. He prayed the final night prayer, then he slept and we slept. A little before dawn the apostle woke us, and when we prayed the dawn prayer he said…I prayed with you last evening prayer in the valley as you saw. Then I went to Jerusalem and prayed there” (183-184).
Muhammad’s wife Khadija and his uncle Abu Talib died in the same year. Khadija had been a faithful supporter who listened to his troubles while Abu Talib had been his protector. The Quraysh began to treat Muhammad “in an offensive way which they would not have dared to follow in his uncle’s lifetime”. Someone even threw dust on Muhammad’s head (191).
In the following year—“before the duty of making war was laid upon them”—twelve of Muhammad’s helpers met at al-Aqaba and pledged themselves to Muhammad, promising not to steal, not to commit fornication, not to kill their offspring, not to slander their neighbors, and not to disobey Muhammad in what was right. They understood that if they fulfilled these, paradise would be theirs but if they “committed any of those sins it was for God to punish or forgive as He pleased” (199).
“When God gave permission” for Muhammad to fight, “the second [meeting at] Aqaba contained conditions involving war” which were not part of the first pledge. The men “Now they bound themselves to war against all” for Muhammad and God (208). Muhammad received a revelation saying, “Fight them so that there be no more seduction” away from Islam and “Until God alone is worshiped” (213).
Once Muhammad emigrated to Medina he made a “friendly agreement” with the Jewish tribes of Yathrib (Medina). Any disputes were to be resolved by Muhammad (232). Once Muhammad was established in Medina he instituted prayers, fasting, alms tax, legal punishments and spelled out that which was forbidden and prescribed (235).
“Some Muslims remained friends with the Jews because of the tie of mutual protection and alliance which had subsisted between them.” Muhammad, however, received a revelation forbidding Muslims to take Jews as intimate friends. He explained that…“you have more right to hate them than they to hate you” (262-263).
One day Abu Bakr went to a Jewish school and called on one of their Rabbis to become a Muslim. The Rabbi’s response enraged Abu Bakr who hit the Rabbi in the face saying “Were it not for the treaty between us I would cut off your head.” The Rabbi complained to Muhammad and Muhammad asked Abu Bakr about it. Abu Bakr said the Rabbi had blasphemed but the Rabbi denied it. Muhammad then received a revelation supporting Abu Bakr (263).
One day Muhammad sent Abdullah b. Jahsh and eight other Muslims with orders to “Lie in wait for Quraysh and find out for us what they are doing….” A Quraysh caravan came by and the Muslim raiders “decided to kill as many as they could of them and take what they had.” When they returned to Muhammad he rebuked them for fighting during the sacred month. Muhammad, however, later received a revelation relieving them “of their anxiety” in the matter. Muhammad took one-fifth of the booty and rewarded the raiders out of what was left over (288).
Muhammad then heard that a large caravan of Quraysh loaded with money and merchandise was coming from Syria led by Abu Sufyan b. Harb. Muhammad ordered the Muslims to attack the caravan…Muhammad’s men routed their foe, killed many of their chiefs, and captured many of their nobles in this battle of Badr (289-294).
Muhammad then divided the booty including the captives equally among the Muslims (307). As Muhammad ordered one of the captives to be killed the captive pleaded, “Who will look after my children?” “Hell,” replied Muhammad, and the man was executed (308). Muhammad then divided the prisoners among his companions, telling them to treat them well (309).
One day Muhammad received a revelation saying, “I am with you so strengthen those that believe…I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, so strike off their heads and cut off their fingers, because they oppose God and His apostle.” The revelation went on to say that Muslims on the march who turn back in the face of the unbelievers are destined for hell (322).
Muhammad heard that Ka’B b. Al-Ashraf had composed poetic verses insulting Muslim women so Muhammad asked who would rid him of Ka’B. The response came from Muhammad b. Maslama who said he would kill the man but would have to tell lies. Muhammad told him to kill Ka’B if he could and to say whatever he needed. When the Muslims came to Ka’B’s castle he suspected nothing. After some time Muhammad b. Maslama cried, “Smite the enemy of God!” He thrust his dagger into Ka’B’s body and “bore down upon it until I reached his genitals, and the enemy of God fell to the ground.” This attack “cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life” (367).
On another occasion Muhammad said, “Kill any Jew that falls into your power”. Muhayyish b. Mas’ud obeyed Muhammad’s command and killed a Jewish merchant… (369).
In one of the battles, the “Muslims were put to flight and the enemy slew many of them.” An enemy got to Muhammad, hitting him in the face with a stone, breaking one of his teeth and injuring his lip so that blood was running down his face. Muslims came to Muhammad’s aid and Muhammad ordered them to bring the attacker to him. The attacker “died with his face on” Muhammad’s foot (380).
After the battle, Utba and some women began to mutilate the bodies of the dead Muslims. “They cut off the ears and noses” and a woman named Hind made these body parts into “anklets and collars.” “She cut out Hamza’s liver and chewed it, but she was not able to swallow it and threw it away.” “Then she mounted a high rock and shrieked at the top of her voice: We have paid you back for Badr…” (385).
When Muhammad found Hamza “with his belly ripped up and his liver missing and his nose and ears cut off” he said, “If God gives me victory over Quraysh in the future I will mutilate 30 of their men.” Muhammad later pardoned some enemies and forbid mutilation (387). When he got home Muhammad handed his sword to his daughter Fatima, saying, “Wash the blood from this daughter for by God it has served me well today” (389).
One day Muhammad received a revelation saying, “God commands you, Muhammad, to go to B. Qurayza” because God was about “to shake their stronghold.” Calling the Jews of Qurayza “brothers of monkeys,” Muhammad laid siege to their forts for twenty-five nights. The people Qurayza finally surrendered to Muhammad who confined the captives in Medina while he had trenches dug in the market place. Muhammad then ordered the execution of every adult man of Qurayza. The captive Jews were brought out to the trenches in batches and the Muslims cut off their heads—estimates ranged from 600 to 900 men in all. Muhammad then divided their property, wives and children among his Muslim followers after selling some of them for horses and weapons and taking one-fifth for himself. Muhammad also chose “one of their women for himself.” He had proposed marriage to her but she “clung to Judaism.” She remained under his power until her death (461-466).
After “the fight at the trench and the affair of the B. Qurayza were over, the matter of Sallam b. Abu’l-Haqayq…came up…. Khazraj asked for Muhammad’s permission to kill Sallam who was in Khaybar and Muhammad granted it. Accompanied by Abdullah, Khazraj came to Sallam’s house and Sallam’s wife answered the door. They told her they were Arabs in search of supplies. Once inside they bolted the door behind them and killed Sallam with the sword. When they came back to Muhammad, Khazraj and Abdullah both claimed to have killed Salam. Demanding to see their swords, Muhammad said, “It is the sword of Abdullah b. Unays that killed him; I can see traces of food on it” (483).
…Muhammad received word that his milch-camels had been raided. The man guarding them had been killed and the man’s wife had been captured. Muhammad ordered his men to pursue. The perpetrators were captured and their heads were removed (486-489).
In A.H. 6, Muhammad “received news that B. al-Mustaliq were gathering together against him.” In the ensuing battle, Muhammad put them to flight, killing some of them and taking “their wives, children and property as booty.” Muhammad distributed them among the Muslims but kept a most beautiful captive, Juwayriya d. al-Harith, for himself. She agreed to marry him in return for his agreement to release a hundred families of her tribe (490-493).
One day Muhammad marched against Khaybar. When Khaybar workers came out in the morning and saw Muhammad’s army they turned and ran. Muhammad cried, “Allah akbar! Khaybar is destroyed!” Muhammad “seized the property piece by piece and conquered the forts one by one.” He also took captives including a woman named Safiya b. Huyayy. Although Kihya b. Kahalifa had asked Muhammad for this woman, Muhammad took her for himself. Muhammad, however, gave Kihya her two cousins. The rest of the women were distributed among the Muslims (510-511).
Kinana b. al-Rabi had custody of the treasure from B. al-Nadir. He was brought to Muhammad who asked him about it and said, “Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?” Kinana said, yes. Muhammad excavated the place and found some of the treasure but Kinana refused to produce the rest so Muhammad gave orders to have him tortured “until you exact what he has.” They “kindled a fire with flint and steal on his chest until he was nearly dead.” Then Muhammad turned him over to Muhammad b. Masalama who cut off his head in revenge for killing his brother (515).
After Kaybar had been conquered, al-Hajjaj b.‘Ilat al-Sulami asked permission of Muhammad to retrieve money owed him by some merchants of Mecca. Muhammad gave permission but al-Hajjaj said, “I must tell lies, O apostle.” Muhammad said, “Tell them” (519).
One day Muhammad said to Abu Sufyan, “isn’t it time that you recognize that I am God’s apostle?” Abu Sufyan said that he still had some doubts. Umm Salama told Abu Sufyan to “Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of God before you lose your head.” Abu Sufyan converted (547).
When Muhammad and his armies finally attacked Mecca he instructed his commanders that they were “only to fight those who resisted them,” but that a few were to be killed no matter what. One of those doomed to execution was Abdullah b. Sa’d because he was once a Muslim who even wrote down Muhammad’s revelations, but he left the Muslim faith and returned to the Quraysh. Another was Abdullah b. Khatal who had also left the Muslim faith. Abdullah had two singing girls who “used to sing satirical songs” about Muhammad so Muhammad ordered them killed as well (Muhammad later granted one of them immunity). Another was al-Huwayrith b. Nuqaydh who used to insult Muhammad in Mecca (550-551).
Muhammad then conquered Mecca and ordered that their 360 idols be broken up and burned. He also ordered that the pictures in the Ka’ba (their temple) be erased, except the pictures of Jesus and Mary (552).
Muhammad “stood at the door of the Ka’ba and said…O Quraysh, God has taken from you the haughtiness of paganism and its veneration of ancestors.” Then he told them to go their way, they were free. The people of Mecca then gathered together to “do homage to the apostle in Islam” (552-553).
After the conquest of Mecca, Muhammad went out with 2,000 Meccans and 10,000 of his companions to Hunayn. “When the polytheists were routed” the Muslims continued on to al-Ta’if (569, 574).
In A.H. 9, Muhammad sent Abu Bakr in command of the pilgrimage to Mecca “to enable the Muslims to perform their hajj while polytheists were at their pilgrimage stations.” Muhammad then received a revelation “permitting the breaking of the agreement” between him and the polytheists. When the sacred months passed, the Muslims were to “kill the polytheists wherever you find them, and seize them and lie in wait for them in every ambush.” However, “if they repent and perform prayer and pay the poor-tax, then let them go their way” because “God is forgiving and merciful” (614-618).
After Muhammad conquered Mecca, Tabuk, and Thaquif, Arabs knew they could not fight Muhammad or even “display enmity towards him” so they came to him from all directions and converted to Islam “in batches” (628).
Then Muhammad sent Khalid b. al-Walid to the people of b. al-Harith and gave them three days to accept Islam. If they refused, Khalid was to attack. They decided to accept Islam so Khalid wrote to Muhammad informing him of their decision. When the people of al-Harith were brought to Muhammad he asked them if they were the people “who when they were driven away, they pushed forward.” They remained silent so Muhammad said, “if Khalid had not written to me that you had accepted Islam and had not fought I would throw your heads beneath your feet” (645-646).
Muhammad “took part personally in twenty-seven” raids and “actually fought in nine engagements” (659-660). Muhammad had said, “fight everyone in the way of God and kill those who disbelieve in God. Do not be deceitful with the spoil; do not be treacherous, nor mutilate, nor kill children” (672).
“After the killing of Khubayb and his companions” Muhammad sent Amr b. Umayya and an “Ansari” out telling them to kill Abu Sufyan.” The Meccans recognized these men so they fled to a mountain cave. While they were there ‘Uthman b. Malik came by the entrance of the cave cutting grass for his horse. Amr told his friend that Uthman would reveal their location so they “stabbed him under the breast with the dagger” (673-674).
Amr then hid in another cave and someone from his own clan came by. They stayed together in the cave until the passerby started singing “I won’t be a Muslim as long as I live…” As soon as the singer was asleep Amr put the end of his bow in the other man’s eye and “bore down on it until” it came out the back of his neck. Amr then came across two men who were sent to spy on Muhammad. He ordered them to surrender and when they refused he shot one (with an arrow) and killed him. When the other surrendered, Amr bound his thumbs with bowstring and brought him to Muhammad. Muhammad laughed when he saw the prisoner and, after hearing all that happened, blessed Amr (674-675).
On another occasion, Abu ‘Afak “showed his disaffection” when Muhammad killed al-Harith b. Suwayd. Muhammad asked, “Who will deal with this rascal for me?” Salim b. ‘Umayr went right out and killed Abu ‘Afak for Muhammad (675).
On yet another occasion the daughter of Marwan was criticizing Islam and asking, “Is there no man of pride who would attack” Muhammad? When Muhammad heard it he said, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter? Umayr b. ‘Adiy al-Khatmi went to her house that night and killed her. In the morning he reported what he had done and Muhammad told him, “You have helped God and His apostle, O ‘Umayr!” (675-676).
In the raid of Muharib, Muhammad “had captured a slave named Yasir, and put the slave in charge of his milch-camels.” Some men came to Muhammad saying they were “suffering from an epidemic and enlarged spleens.” Muhammad told them to drink the milk and urine of his milch-camels and they would recover. They drank it and recovered. Then they killed Muhammad’s shepherd-slave Yasar “and stuck thorns in his eyes and drove away his camels.” Muhammad sent Kurz B. Jabir who captured them and brought them to Muhammad who cut off their hands and feet and gouged out their eyes (677-678).
Muhammad “sent Usama to Syria and commanded him to take the cavalry into the borders of the Balqa and al-Darum in the land of Palestine.” Meanwhile, Muhammad began to suffer from the illness which eventually took his life. The pain overcame him as he was making the rounds to his wives. He asked their permission to be nursed in Aisha’s house and they agreed. His illness and pain worsened and after some time he “died with the heat of noon” (678-682).
(Ibn Ishaq. The Life of Muhammad. New York : Oxford University Press, 1955, 2006.)
Friday, January 19, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
The examples of text offered here are rather bloody and violent. But might a Moslem scholar retort: What have you Christians to say about some of the books in your Old Testment; EG: the Books of Kings.
You just can't help yourself, can you? You're obsessed with trying to justify your hatred of Muslims. It's really kind of sad.
Anonymnous, if you bothered to go to the Muhammad Biography site you would notice that it says, "Many Muslims are kind, generous and loving people and the owner of this blog believes they should be treated with love, kindness and respect. This blog is not about them."
You're not defending Muslims. You're defending Jihadist terrorists. That's not just sad, its truly scary and sick!
Ed, actually I think it is more likely that Western liberals would bring up such an objection. At any rate, my answer would be this:
First, I think there is value in understanding Muhammad regardless of how he compares to the Old Testament Kings. Most Americans know that Jesus taught love and forgiveness but I'm quite sure that most Americans know very little about Muhammad.
I’ve heard well-meaning but ignorant people say that all religions are basically the same and all paths lead to God! I think people need to understand that Muhammad and Jesus were about as different as two people could possibly be. Its hard to understand how they could both be on the right path.
Second, as you know, Christians and Jews do not believe that everything recorded in the Old Testament was recorded as a positive example for us to follow.
In fact, many things seem to have been recorded precisely as negative examples for us to avoid. Take King David for example. His polygamy seems to have been in direct violation of the Torah’s commands to kings against such practices--and the negative consequences were seen in the life of his son Solomon. Similarly, his affair with Bathsheeba was specifically condemned.
So, third, if Muslims repudiated Muhammad’s owning and selling of slaves, his robberies, and his brutal, violent behavior as ancient relics of seventh century Arab culture which are not to be emulated by any Muslims, I doubt that we’d even be having this discussion.
The problem is that there are tens-of-thousands, if not millions of Muslims who think they should follow Muhammad’s example and teachings—All of them! They think it is their mission to bring the world into submission to Islam, peacefully if possible, but by force if necessary.
By contrast, I know of no Christians or Jews today who seek to follow the example of warriors like Joshua or David by trying to spread Judaism or Christianity by force.
So the problem we face in the world today is not from Christians and Jews who want to be like Old Testament Kings, but from some Muslims who want to be like Muhammad. Because of this problem, people need to know who it is that the Jihadists are trying to emulate.
Ed: by the way, I wasn't intending to imply that you are one of those "western liberals" :-)
John, anonymous and Comrade are always predictably Left, and I'm sure they find me very predictable as well, but you tend to be a voice of reasoned moderation. That's a good thing.
Every time I come across a hate site like this, it makes me sad.
What is sad is that an individual is in such denial that they are unwilling to read historical information and respond to it any rational or logically sound way.
If Ed is the "voice of reasoned moderation" and he has repeatedly referred to me in a similar way...
...Well, I guess you can think whatever you want of me. As I've said before, there are plenty of issues that don't get discussed on this blog that I am probably more conservative on, which would balance out some of my views you see as liberal. (Or, at least, some of those views would be what conservatives used to believe. That has changed so much in recent years.)
Actually, I think when history is written, that you'll probably find the conservatives of my ilk being called liberal.
-- Barry Goldwater, 1963
I agree with Kevin. I have said over and over again on this blog that I am not targeting "peaceful Muslims" but Jihadists. I think its really sad that we've come to a place in America where ignorance or evil is so rampant that we can't even raise awareness about a terrorist threat without being labeled a "hate site." Some liberals minds are so "open" that their brains have apparently fallen out!
John, now you've got me curious. Would you mind elaborating on some of those issues on which you would be more conservative?
You continually maintain that you only hate jihadists on the one hand and then you attack Islam as a whole and call it barbaric. Ibn Ishaq's biography of Muhammad is regarded by many Muslims the way the Apocrypha is regarded by many Christians. There are many tales of the life of Jesus that could be quoted from non-canonical works that seem just as "barbaric." From the Infancy Gospel of Thomas:
16 Again on another day the Lord Jesus was with some boys by a river and they drew water out of the river by little channels, and made little fish pools. 17 But the Lord Jesus had made twelve sparrows, and placed them about his pool on each side, three on a side. 18 But it was the Sabbath day, and the son of Hanani a Jew came by, and saw them making these things, and said, Do ye thus make figures of clay on the Sabbath? And he ran to them, and broke down their fish pools. 19 But when the Lord Jesus clapped his hands over the sparrows which he had made, they fled away chirping. 20 At length the son of Hanani coming to the fish-pool of Jesus to destroy it, the water vanished away, and the Lord Jesus said to him, 21 In like manner as this water has vanished, so shall thy life vanish; and presently the boy died.
22 Another time, when the Lord Jesus was coming home in the evening with Joseph, he met a boy, who ran so hard against him, that he threw him down; 23 To whom the Lord Jesus said, As thou hast thrown me down, so shalt thou fall, nor ever rise. 24 And that moment the boy fell down and died.
It is ironic that you speak of ignorance when you are spreading ignorance and hatred about a religion of which you know little.
Well, I wouldn't presume to bore anyone with just a laundry list of my personal opinions, but I'll cite a couple of examples. Also, remember what I said about conservatism changing (especially in recent years). I would find more to agree on with conservatives of the past, and not necessarily the neocons of today.
One example would be fiscal responsibility. In 1994, the Republican "Contract With America" emphasized, among other things, a balanced budget. Now, I realize the budget can't always be balanced, but it did show a commitment to responsible government. Today, the Bush administration is running up ridiculous debts/deficits with not even a hint that they think this is a bad idea – and they even cut taxes! It used to be conservatives who called for the Democrats to spend less - now it's the other way around.
I'll cite another example, but please, for everyone’s sake, let's not turn it into another debate on gay marriage - it's not my point. But conservatives used to stand for less government intrusion and states' rights. These days, they want to amend the Constitution to address the gay marriage issue. (As I think I've pointed out before, amending the Constitution is kind of a big deal – it’s been done less than 30 times.) Now, I don’t really support gay marriage (although I could probably support civil unions or something similar), but I strongly believe the Constitution is not the place to address such issues. The Constitution is to document how the government itself functions – not to address someone’s social agenda.
One area we could mostly agree on is abortion. However, I do realize it’s a complicated issue – both personally and governmentally - (which some on the Right forget or ignore), and I do take exception with how some on the Right go about their arguments (both sides can be insufferable, which is why I generally stay out of that debate these days).
Anyway, I could go on and on about how disappointed I am with how conservatism has changed. As I think I’ve said before, I used to be much more conservative. However, although some of my beliefs have certainly changed as well, the priorities of today's conservatives have also changed, much to my disappointment.
anoanymous, I just thought I would jump in before Dennis got a chance to correct you.
You say: "Ibn Ishaq's biography of Muhammad is regarded by many Muslims the way the Apocrypha is regarded by many Christians."
That may be correct, but then you go on to quote from the "Gnostic Gospels". The Gnostic Gospels are about as different from the Apocrypha as the Koran is from the Holy Bible. I reality, the Apocrypha has, until recently, been regarded by Christians as some of the best religeous writing ever done outside of the Bible itself. The reason it has "lost its lustre" among Protestants in the last hundred or so years, is probably due to the Roman Catholic Church accepting it as inspired scripture. Since Protestants didn't accept the Apocrypha as inspired and the Catholics did, it gradually got the "rap" that there was something wrong with it.
That is about all most Protestants know about the Apocrypha these days. On the other hand, no True Christian has ever accepted any of the the Gnostic Gospels as anything but heretical.
So in respect to a Muslim's attitude toward Ibn Ishaq's biography of Muhammad, perhaps you are correct that they accept it as some of the best writing ever done ouside their "inspired" writings.
I was using the term "Apocrypha" in its broader meaning, that is any Judeo-Christian writings that are non-canonical. I then referred to the gospel I quoted as a "non-canonical" gospel. The point is that the original post is using non-canonical Islamic texts to attack Islam without understanding their context or significance. I thought I would give him a little of his own medicine by using similar non-canonical texts which depict Jesus as a child murderer.
Anonymous: first, the story of Jesus and the sparrows comes from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. It is interesting that you quote this because Muhammad apparently believed this story was historical--he refers to it several times in the Qur'an. I know of no historians--Christian or not--who think it is historical.
Second, my copy of the Qur’an, which I believe is well respected in Sunni Islam, contains copious explanatory notes by a Muslim scholar. He is constantly relating what the text of the Qur’an says with events recorded by Ibn Ishaq. He apparently doesn’t think it is nearly as apocryphal as you do.
Third, there is no doubt in my mind that much of what is in Ibn Ishaq is apocryphal (in the broad sense of that word) and historically unreliable. Although it is the earliest biography of Muhammad, it was written long after Muhammad lived (much farther removed in time from Muhammad than the Gospels are from Jesus) and Ibn Ishaq is constantly saying that he heard such-and-such from so-and-so who heard it from someone else. My point is not to defend the historical reliability of Ibn Ishaq, only to provide a summary of the Life of Muhammad from the earliest biography of Muhammad which was produced by a Muslim.
While, from a historical perspective, I think much of Ibn Ishaq is suspect, there is much which overlaps with or even quotes from the Qu’ran which is much earlier. So I would certainly not quibble with someone who wants to say that this or that detail of Ibn Ishaq is historically unreliable, but if someone wants to systematically go through Ibn Ishaq and remove everything that is not politically correct by today’s standards in an effort to say that Muhammd was not violent, a robber, and slave trader, they are deluding themselves, or worse—deliberately attempting to delude others. While the details are suspect, there is really not much doubt about the broad picture.
Finally, If Muslims 1) threw out Ibn Ishaq as historically worthless as you seem to be suggesting, 2) dismissed the violent elements of the Qur’an as relics of seventh century Arab culture which should no longer be followed, and 3) sought to emulate only the “good” qualities of Muhammad, we would not be having this discussion. My quarrel is with those who seek to emulate all the teachings of Muhammad in the Qur’an and who seek to follow the broad portrait of Muhammad as presented in Ibn Ishaq. You seem determined to defend them. Why is that?
You seem determined to attack and demean someone else's religion by selecting texts you think proves your point and presenting them out of context and misinterpreting others, a method that could just as easily prove that Christians are violent and barbaric and Jesus was a child muderer. Why is that?
Anonymous, care to provide any evidence to support this claim, "selecting texts you think proves your point and presenting them out of context and misinterpreting others". How has Dennis misinterpreted these texts?
Also, in support of the reliability and use of the texts, here is an excerpt from page 36 of Islam written by Caesar E. Farah, Ph.D..
For biographical information on Muhammad we are dependent on the work of ibn Ishaq (d. 767) as preserved in the recension of ibn Hisham (d. 834) and the Maghazi of al-Waqidi (d. 822/23). Ibn Sa'd (d. 845), a noted historian, compiled an encyclopedic work on the Prophet and his followers which contains valuable information on the life and preachings of Muhammad. But no source of work can yield more dependable information on the genius of Muhammad or provide a greater insight into his personality and accomplishments than the Qur'an, the sacred book of Islam
Ibn Ishaq is well regarded and used as a source for Muhammad's history. To toss out stories that are offensive to modern sensibilities simply because they're offensive proves nothing... provide evidence that these stories are in fact false, or toss out the entire work of ibn Ishaq and provide justification for why you would toss out one of the earliest historical sources.
Caesar Farah is not a Muslim. He is a scholar of Islam. A number of scholars of Christianity believe that non-canonical Christian writings provide insight into Jesus as well. there is a big difference between historical scholarship and theology.
Anonymous, your statement, "A number of scholars of Christianity believe that non-canonical Christian writings provide insight into Jesus as well" is almost on the same level as saying, "A number of scholars believe the holocaust never happened," or, "A number of scholars believe Americans never landed on the moon," or "A number of scholars believe the Bush administration brought down the twin towers." You can always find "a number of scholars" to affirm anything.
What an incredibly incredibly offensive thing to say, to compare scholars who study Jesus and Christianity from a non-religious perspective to people who deny the holocaust. What a slanderous and disgusting insult to many scholars around the world as well as to the Jews who died in the Holocaust. You really must have no sense of shame.
Anonymous, I'm not discussing scholars who study Jesus from a non-religious perspective--most of these scholars agree that the 2nd-4th century "gospels" etc. have little or nothing to contribute to historical Jesus studies.
I'm talking about any "scholar" who for years has been telling their students that you can't trust the reliability of the four biblical Gospels because they were written "decades" after the time of Jesus--but are now trying to convince people that the rediculous gnostic "gospels" written hundreds of years after the time of Jesus have something to contribute.
Have you ever read these gospels and other 2nd to 4th century gnostic sources?
I challenge anyone--read the four first-century biblical gospels and then read the 2nd-4th century gospels: The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Truth, The Second Treaatise of the Great Seth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of the Egyptians, etc.
So which parts of these 2nd-4th century gnostic gospels do you believe?
Do you believe the parts about how Jesus was really laughing on the cross and never suffered in any way?
Do you believe the part that say women have to make themselves men if they want salvation? Or the part that says "do not become female lest you give birth to evil"? Or the part that says, "Flee from the madness and bondage of femaleness and chose the salvation of maleness"?
Or is it the various divine or semi-divine powers you believe in: the goddes Sophia, the aeons, the archons, the pleroma; the ogdoad-power, Mother, virginal Barbelon; the "thrice-male child telmael, the "Aeon of the aenos, Augogenes, self-begotten, self-producing alien"?
Now you know how Muslims feel when you contend that Ibn Ishaq is a credible source.
Post a Comment