From: ALACH@mscf.med.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Re: ibn Ishaq
Date: 25 Jul 92 11:47:00 GMT


paul@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu said:
======================================================================
|>
|>G Houseini writes...
|>
|>|>		Evaluating Muhammad Bin Ishaq's Narrations
|>|>
|>|>	   Muhammad bin Ishaq is counted among the writers of as-
|>|>	Sirah (narration about the life of the prophet 
|>|>	salla-l-lahu ^alayhi wa sallam).
|>|>
|>|>	   Al-Kattaniyy said about him: He is Abu Bakr (or Abu 
|>|>	^Abdillah) Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Yasar al-Matlabiyy 
|>|>	mawlahum, al-Madaniyy, the inhabitant of Iraq. He died in 
|>|>	Baghdad 151, 152 or 153 and most probably 151 AH. Ath-
|>|>	Thahabiyy said about him: He was one of the containers 
|>|>	of knowledge, specialized in al-Maghaziyy and as-Sirah, 
|>|>	but he was not that accurate person. Thus, his hadith did 
|>|>	not reach the rank of correctness. 
|>|>
|>|>	   Although ath-Thahabiyy said about him personally: He 
|>|>	himself does not lie and is acceptable, al-'imam Malik 
|>|>	was contemporary to Ibn Ishaq, lived in the same city 
|>|>	and his saying overweights that of ath-Thahabiyy; he 
|>|>	said about Ibn Ishaq: A liar, as mentioned in the history 
|>|>	of Baghdad. He also said about him: An imposter from 
|>|>	among the imposters as mentioned in Tahthib al-Kamal 
|>|>	and Tahthib at-Tahthib. 
|>
|>ibn Ishaq had detractors and supporters, as this paragraph notes,
|>among his contemporaries.
|>
|>|>	   His book of as-Sirah was re-written by Muhammad bin 
|>|>	^Abd al-Malik bin Hisham bin Ayyub al-Humayriyy al-
|>|>	Ma^afiriyy al-Misriyy who died in Egypt in 228. It was 
|>|>	then narrated to him through the route of Ziyad bin 
|>|>	^Abdillah al-Bika'iyy (who is not authentic, as will be 
|>|>	explained later) as mentioned by al-Kattaniyy.
|>|>
|>|>	   Al-muhaddith al-Kawthariyy said about Ibn Ishaq:
|>|>	Many of the critics belied him. The ones who commended 
|>|>	him required that the narrations which he narrated have to 
|>|>	fulfil many conditions. Such conditions were not fulfilled 
|>|>	in the places where his narrations were questionable.
|>
|> Many producers of maghazi during his time had no "need" for isnads
|>(isnad: names of those who passed the hadith down)
|>
|>|>	   In al-Fahrast by Ibn Nadim, one should look at his 
|>|>	biography and what was written about him.
|>|>
|>|>	   His relator Ziyad al-Bika'iyy is not accepted by many 
|>|>	critics. An-Nasa'iyy discredited him. Ibn al-Madiniyy 
|>|>	rejected him, Abu Hatim said about him: He cannot be 
|>|>	used as a proof.
|>
|>If you'd like to see a list of supporters and detractors see the
|>forward of Alfred Guillaume's translation of ibn Ishaq's _Seerat_ and
|>the translators conclusions.
|>
|>|>	   Ibn Jarir at-Tabariyy who is the reference to Ibn al-
|>|>	'Athir, Abi al-Fida', Ibn Kathir and Ibn al-Wardiyy has a 
|>|>	great honor in hadith, tafsir, fiqh and history, but he did 
|>|>	not always guaranty the validity of what he narrated in his 
|>|>	books. he siad in his book at-Tarikh. He said (1-5): 
|>
|>This is a huge work, containing not only ibn Ishaq's material, but
|>many others.
|>
|>|>	The things included in my book and which are criticized by 
|>|>	the reader or considered disgraceful by the one who hears 
|>|>	them because he did not find them authentic by anyway and 
|>|>	are also meaningless, let him know that this was not initiated 
|>|>	by me. These things were transferred to me by some of 
|>|>	those who narrated things to me and I narrated it the way 
|>|>	it was narrated to me. He also said: I did not write this book 
|>|>	with the intention of bringing a proof or validating a 
|>|>	point. 
|>|>	He showed in these statements that he repudiates 
|>|>	attributing what he narrated in at-Tarikh to him and 
|>|>	made their relators bear the responsibility of narrating 
|>|>	them. 
|>|>
|>|>	   Such attitude is not unfamiliar. The scholars -- al-Bukhariyy
|>|>	and others--, in many occasions, just documented what 
|>|>	they had received from relators before them. The rule 
|>|>	is: Just to relate a narration is not by itself a 
|>|>	validation of its authenticity. Authenticity is known
|>|>	when an authority in al-Hadith explicitly confirms that 
|>|>	the narration is authentic.
|>
|>Yet not many narrators of ahadith note that one hadith is "weak" or "strong".
|>You noted that even in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim that some
|>ahadith were "less authentic" (an interesting concept) than others.
|>Yet many take a hadith's inclusion into Sahih Muslim or Sahih
|>al-Bukhari as meaning that a particular hadith is trustworthy. Thank
|>you for helping to bring this to our attention!
|>
|>Tabari's work about the life of the Prophet (SAWS) is noteworthy in
|>that he quotes ibn Ishaq "wholesale", with miniscule additions or
|>corrections. Tabari seems to have much regard for that material.
|>
|>It's nice to have the source material around so that one can read it
|>and judge for oneself. As there were a plethora of opinions regarding
|>ibn Ishaq's trustworthiness, some of which were quoted above, it would seem
|>hasty to condemn him categorically.
-- 
==============================================================================
	Answer:
	Islam is not based on opinions. Islam is based
	on documentation.
	If you have knowledge about the narrators of Ibn Ishaq
	analyze them one by one and give us the result..
	Enough to say to someone who ignors the isnad altogether (like you):
			 go and learn...

G Housieni
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam