That is all I have to say by way of response to those orientalists to whom the letter of the Egyptian Muslim had referred. Having thus refuted their views, let me now direct my attention to a number of observations made on the first edition of this book by the Islamicists at home.
It is my earnest hope that such base charges unworthy of science and unacceptable to scholars will never be repeated again. Perhaps, hitherto, the orientalists felt themselves excused on the grounds that they were writing for the consumption of their fellow Christians and Europeans and that they were actually discharging a national or religious duty imposed upon them by a patriotism or faith which requires scholarly form to make its propaganda palatable. Our day, however, is different. Communication between the various corners of the globe by means of radio broadcasting and the press has made it possible for anything said or published in Europe or America today to become known throughout the Orient in that same day or even the same hour. It is therefore the duty of those who assume the scholarly profession and the pursuit of truth to tear away from their hearts and eyes every curtain of national, racial, or religious isolation. They should realize that whatever they say or write will soon reach the ears of all men throughout the world and will be subject to universal criticism and scrutiny. The absolute and unconditional truth should be the objective of every one of us; and let us all take due care to connect the present reality of mankind with its past, to regard humanity as one great unit undivided by nationality, race or religion. Let such connection be the bond of free fraternity in the pursuit of truth, goodness, and beauty, and the noblest ideal that humanity has ever known. Such a bond is alone capable of guiding humanity in its quick march toward happiness and perfection.
Observations of Muslim Islamicists
Whereas the naive believers in the exaggerations of the orientalists blame us for having recourse to the Arabic sources and depending upon them, a number of Muslim Islamicists blame us for turning to the writings of the orientalists rather than limiting ourselves to the Islamic biographies and books of Hadith. The latter have also criticized us for not following the same method as these ancient books.
It was on this basis that some of them made friendly observations in hope of reaching the fact of the matter in question. Others made observations which betray such ignorance or prejudice as no scholar would wish to associate himself with. The former took note of the fact that we have not reported the miracles of Muhammad as the biographies and Hadith have done. In this regard we wrote in the conclusion of our first edition: “The Life of Muhammad, therefore, has realized the highest ideals possible to man. Muhammad-may God’s peace and blessing be upon him-was very careful that the Muslims should think of him as a human to whom revelation came. He never accepted that any miracle be attributed to him other than his association with the advent of the Qur’an, and actually told this much to his companions.” As regards the story of the splitting of Muhammad’s chest we wrote: “Orientalists as well as Muslim scholars take their attitude towards this event in the life of Muhammad on the grounds that Muhammad’s whole life was all too human and noble and that he never resorted to miracles as previous prophets had done, in order to prove the veracity of his revelation. In taking this attitude, the above mentioned thinkers rely upon the Arab and Muslim historians who share their view and who deny any place in the biography of the Arab Prophet to all that is irrational. They regard their stand as being in perfect accord with the Qur’an’s call to man to study the creation of God and discover therein His immutable laws. They find the claim for miracles incoherent with the Qur’an’s condemnation of the associationists as men who do not reason, as men who have no faculties with which to reason.” Other more considerate critics criticized us for having mentioned at all the orientalists’ attacks upon the Prophet, though we did so but to refute them. In their opinion, this procedure does not accord with the veneration due to the person of the Prophet-may God’s blessing be upon him. Lastly, there is the class of prejudiced critics who were known even before the first edition of this book had appeared and, indeed, even before my researches had been collected in book form. Their strongest criticism was that I have given my work the title, “The Life of Muhammad,” without joining it to an invocation of peace and blessing upon him. Such invocations occur frequently in the course of the book. I had thought, nonetheless, that they would discover their prejudice once the title page of the first edition came out decorated, as it was, with the verse: “God and his angels bless the Prophet. O you who believe, invoke God’s peace and blessing upon him and salute him with the salutation of peace.” [Qur’an, 33:56] I had also thought that the method used in this book would itself dissolve their prejudice. By insisting as they did, however, they betrayed their ignorance of Islamic truths and their satisfaction with the imitation of their ancestors.
Let us begin by answering their false criticism in the hope that neither they nor any others will repeat it regarding this or any other book. We shall refuse their criticism by turning to the books of the classical leaders of Islamic knowledge. Everyone will then realize the free stand Islam has taken vis-à-vis all verbal restrictions and will then appreciate the hadith, “This religion is indeed sound. Analyze it as you wish, but gently. You will never find a flaw therein.” Abu al Baqa’ wrote in his book, AL Kulliyyat: “Writing the invocation of peace and blessing on Muhammad at the beginning of a book occurred during the ‘Abbasi period. That is why the Sahih of al Bukhari and others are devoid of it.” [1574-1624 C.E., great grammarian, court clerk, and qadi who lived in Safad, Saida, Beirut and Jerusalem.] The majority of the great men of Islamic knowledge agree that the invocation of peace and blessing upon the Prophet need not be made by the Muslim more than once in his lifetime. In his book AL Bahr al Ra’iq, ibn Nujaym wrote: “The religious imperative implied in the divine command, ‘Invoke upon him God’s peace and blessing,’ is that it should be made at least once in a lifetime whether during or outside the prayer. For no command by itself implies repetition. On this there is no disagreement.” Likewise, al Shafi’i contended with his colleagues on “whether or not the invocation of God’s peace and blessing on the Prophet is imperative during the prayer or outside of it. Prayer is itself invocation. As it stands in the above mentioned verse, to invoke God’s peace and blessing upon the Prophet simply means that one should ask God to bless the Prophet and to salute him the salutation of peace.” That is the lesson which the Muslim men of knowledge and their leaders have taught in this regard. It proves that those who claim that this invocation is imperative whenever the name of the Prophet is mentioned or written are simply exaggerating. Had they known the foregoing facts, and that the greatest traditionists had not written such an invocation regarding the Prophet on the title pages or beginnings of their collections of hadiths, they would perhaps have avoided falling into their present error.
Refutation of the Orientalists and Its Method
As to those who claim that it does not become a Muslim scholar to repeat the attacks of the Orientalists and the missionaries against the Prophet even in order to refute them, they have really nothing to stand upon except an Islamic emotion which we salute. From the religious as well as scholarly points of view, they simply have no argument at all. The Holy Qur’an itself reported much of what the associationists of Makkah used to say about the Prophet and refuted them with clear and eloquent argument. The Arabic style of the Qur’an is the highest and its morals the noblest. [Arabic “adab al Qur’an.”]‘ It mentioned the accusation of the Quraysh that Muhammad was either possessed or a magician. It said: “We do know that they say that it is only a man who teaches Muhammad the Qur’an. But the tongue of him to whom they refer by this insinuation is foreign whereas this Qur’an is in the Arabic tongue, plain and clear.” [Qur’an, 16:103] There are many such statements in the Qur’an. Moreover, an argument is not scientifically refuted unless it is honestly and precisely stated. In writing this book, my purpose has been to reach objective truth by means of scholarly resear
ch. And I have written my book so that both Muslims and non-Muslims may read it and be convinced of this objective truth. Such a purpose cannot be achieved unless the scholar be honest in his pursuit. He should never hesitate to acknowledge the truth whencesoever it may come.
Biographies and Hadith Books
Let us return to the first criticism the Muslim students of Islam have kindly directed to our work, namely, that we have not taken into consideration the Islamic biographies and Hadith books and that we have not followed the same methodology as these ancient works. It should suffice to say in reply to this criticism that I have resolved to follow the modern scientific method and to write in the style of the century and that I have taken this resolution because it is the only proper one in the eyes of the contemporary world, whether for historiography or any other discipline. This being the case, ancient methods are ruled out a priori. Between these and the methods of our agcy there is great difference, the most obvious of which is the freedom to criticize. Most of the ancient works were written for a religious purpose and as devotional exercises, whereas contemporary writers are interested only in scientific analysis and criticism. To say this much concerning my method and work should be sufficient answer to their criticism. But I see the need for a more detailed treatment in order to show the reasons why our classical scholars of the past did not, and those of the present should not, assume in wholesale fashion the veracity of all that the books of biography and Hadith have brought. It is also my intention to clarify the reasons why we ought to observe the rules of scientific criticism as closely as possible in order to guard against all possible errors.
The Difference between These Books
The first of these reasons is the difference of these books in their reporting of events supposed to have taken place in the life of the Arab Prophet. Those who studied these books have observed that the miracles and extraordinary events reported increased or decreased for no reason other than the change in the time when they were written. The earlier report fewer miracles than the later; and the miracles they do report are less unreasonable than those reported in later books. The oldest known biography, namely, that of ibn Hisham for example, has far less material than the Tarikh of Abu al Fida’, than Al Shifa of Qadi ‘Ayyad and of most later writings. The same is true of the books of the Hadith. Some of them tell a story and others omit it, or they report it and point out that it is not trustworthy. The objective researcher investigating these books must therefore have a standard by which he can evaluate the various claims. That which agrees with the standard he would find acceptable and that which does not, he would subject to closer scrutiny wherever possible.
Our ancestors have followed this method in their investigations at times, and they have omitted doing so at others. An example of their omission is the story of “the daughters of God.” It is told that when the Prophet, under ever-increasing oppression of Quraysh, recited the Qur’anic surah “al Najm” and arrived at the verse: “Consider al Lat and al ‘Uzza ; and Mandt, the third goddess,” [Qur’an, 53:19-20] he added: “Those are the goddesses on high; their intercession with God is worthy of our prayers.” He then went on reciting the surah to its end and when he finished, he prostrated himself in worship, and Muslims and associationists joined him and did likewise. This story was reported by ibn Sa’d in his Al Tabaqat al Kubrd without criticism. It also occurs with little variation in some books of Hadith. Ibn Ishaq, however, reported the story and judged it as being the fabrication of zindiqs.” [Literally “hypocrite;” as a special name it applied to the Zoroastrians and Manicheans who pretended to embrace Islam but remained true to their old gods. -Tr.] In his AL Bidayah wa al Nihayah fi al Tarikh, ibn Kathir wrote: “They mentioned the story of the goddesses of Makkah, whereas we have decided to omit it for fear that the uninstructed may naively accept it as truth. The story was first reported in the books of Hadith.” He then reported a tradition from Bukhari in this regard and qualified it as being “unique to Bukhari, rejected by Muslim.” As for me, I did not hesitate to reject the story altogether and to agree with ibn Ishaq that it was the fabrication of zindiqs. In analyzing it I brought together several pieces of evidence. In addition to its denial of the infallibility of the Prophets in their conveyance of their divine messages, this story must also be subject to modern scientific criticism.
The Age of These Books
The books of the ancestors should be closely scrutinized and criticized in a scientific manner because the most ancient of them was written a hundred or more years after the death of the Prophet. At that time, many political and religious movements were spreading throughout the Islamic Empire, each of which fabricated all kinds of stories and hadiths to justify its own cause. The later books, written during even more turbulent and unsettled times, are more vulnerable. Political struggles caused a great deal of trouble to the collectors of Hadith because they took utmost care in scrutinizing these various reports, rejecting the suspicious, and confirming only those which passed the severest tests. It is sufficient to remember here the travails of al Bukhari in his travels throughout the Muslim World undertaken for this purpose. He told us that he had found some six hundred thousand hadiths current, of which only 4,000 he could confirm as true. The ratio is that of one to 150 hadiths. As for Abu Dawiid, he could confirm 4,800 hadiths out of half a million. Such was the task of all collectors of hadiths. Nonetheless, many of the hadiths which they had found true after criticism were found untrue by a number of other scholars under further criticism. Such was the case of the goddesses. If such is the case of Hadith, despite all the efforts spent by the early collectors, how trustworthy can the later biographies of the Prophet be? How can their reports be taken without scientific scrutiny?
Effects of Islamic Political Strife
In fact, the political struggles of the first century of Islam caused the various parties to invent, and press into their service, a great number of stories and hadiths. No Hadith has been committed to writing until the last years of the Umawi period. It was ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al ‘Aziz who ordered its collection for the first time. The job, however, was not completed until the reign of al Ma’mun, the time when “the true hadith was as discernible from the false as a white hair is in the fur of a black bull,” to borrow the phrase of Daraqutni. The Hadith was not collected in the first century of Islam perhaps because of the reported command of the Prophet: “Do not write down anything I say except the Qur’an. Whoever has written something other than the Qur’an, let him destroy it.” Nonetheless, the hadiths of the Prophet were current in those days and must have been varied. During his caliphate, ‘Umar ibn al Khattab once tried to deal with the problem by committing the Hadith to writing. The companions of the Prophet whom he consulted encouraged him, but he was not quite sure whether he should proceed. One day, moved by God’s inspiration, he made up his mind and announced: “I wanted to have the traditions of the Prophet written down, but I fear that the Book of God might be encroached upon. Hence I shall not permit this to happen.” He therefore changed his mind and instructed the Muslims throughout the provinces: “Whoever has a document bearing a prophetic tradition shall destroy it.” The Hadith therefore continued to be transmitted orally and was not collected and written down until the period of al Ma’mun.
The Standard of Hadith Criticism
Despite the great care and precision of the Hadith scholars, much of what they regarded as true was later proved to be spurious. In his commentary on the collection of Muslim, al Nawawi wrote: “A number of scholars discovered many hadiths in the collections of Muslim and Bukhari which do not fulfill the conditions of verification assumed by these men.” The collectors attached the greater weight to the trustworthiness of the narrators. Their criterion was certainly valuable, but it was not sufficient. In our opinion, the criterion for the Hadith criticism, as well as standard for materials concerning the Prophet’s life, is the one which the Prophet himself gave. He said: “After I am gone differences will arise among you. Compare whatever
is reported to be mine with the Book of God; that which agrees therewith you may accept as having come from me; that which disagrees you will reject as a fabrication.” This valid standard is observed by the great men of Islam right from the very beginning. It continues to be the standard of thinkers today. Ibn Khaldun wrote: “I do not believe any hadith or report of a companion of the Prophet to be true which differs from the common sense meaning of the Qur’an, no matter how trustworthy the narrators may have been. It is not impossible that a narrator appears to be trustworthy though he may be moved by ulterior motive. If the hadiths were criticized for their textual contents as they were for the narrators who transmitted them a great number would have had to be rejected. It is a recognized principle that a hadith could be declared spurious if it departs from the common sense meaning of the Qur’an from the recognized principles of the Shari’ah, [The Law of Islam] the rules of logic, the evidence of sense, or any other self-evident truth.” This criterion, as given by the Prophet as well as ibn Khaldun, perfectly accords with modern scientific criticism.
The Life of Muhammad Page 8