Writer:
Safi-ur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri
Life of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) Before & After Islam
Continue reading “The Sealed Nectar: Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum Part 2”
Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq ibn Yasār ibn Khiyār (according to some sources, ibn Khabbār, or Kūmān, or Kūtān, Arabic: محمد بن إسحاق بن يسار بن خيار, or simply ibn Isḥaq ابن إسحاق, meaning “the son of Isaac”) (died 767, or 761) was an Arab Muslim historian and hagiographer. Under the aegis of the ‘Abbasid caliph Al-Mansur, Ibn Ishaq collected oral traditions that formed the basis of the most important biography of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
Born in Medina, ibn Isḥaq was the grandson of a Christian man, Yasār, who had been captured in one of Khalid ibn al-Walid’s campaigns and taken to Medina as a slave. His grandfather became the slave of Qays ibn Makhrama ibn al-Muṭṭalib ibn ʿAbd Manāf ibn Quṣayy and, having accepted Islam, was manumitted and became his mawlā, thus acquiring the nisbat al-Muṭṭalibī.
Yasār’s three sons, Mūsā, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, and Isḥāq, were all known as transmitters of akhbār, who collected and recounted tales of the past. Isḥāq married the daughter of another mawlā and from this marriage ibn Isḥāq was born.
There are no details of his early life, but in view of the family nature of early akhbār and hadith transmission, it was natural that he should follow in their footsteps. He was also influenced by the work of ibn Shihab al-Zuhri, who praised the young ibn Ishaq for his knowledge of maghāzī (literally, stories of military expeditions).
Around the age of 30, ibn Isḥaq arrived in Alexandria and studied under Yazīd ibn Abī Ḥabīb. After his return to Medina, based on one account, he was ordered out of Medina for relating a false hadith from a woman he did not meet (Fāṭima bint al-Mundhir, wife of Hishām ibn ʿUrwa). But those who defended him, like Sufyan ibn `Uyaynah, stated that Ibn Ishaq told them that he did meet her.
Leaving Medina (or forced to leave), he traveled eastwards towards what is now Iraq, stopping in Kufa, al-Jazīra, Ray, finally settling in Baghdad. There, the new Abbasid dynasty, having overthrown the Umayyad caliphs, was establishing a new capital.
Ibn Isḥaq moved to the capital and found patrons in the new regime. He was commissioned by the Abbasid caliph Al-Mansur to write an all-encompassing history book starting from the creation of Adam to the present day, known as “al-Mubtadaʾ wa al-Baʿth wa al-Maghāzī” (lit. “In the Beginning, the mission [of Muhammad], and the expeditions”). It was kept in the court library of Baghdad, although none of his writings are now extant. He died in Baghdad around 761–770 AD.
Ibn Isḥaq collected oral traditions about the life of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. These traditions, which he orally dictated to his pupils, are now known collectively as Sīratu Rasūli l-Lāh (Arabic: سيرة رسول الله “Life of the Messenger of God”) and survive mainly in the following sources:
An edited copy, or recension, of his work by his student al-Bakka’i, which was further edited by ibn Hisham. Al-Bakka’i’s work has perished and only ibn Hisham’s has survived, in copies. An edited copy, or recension, prepared by his student Salamah ibn Fadl al-Ansari. This also has perished, and survives only in the copious extracts to be found in al-Tabari’s voluminous History of the Prophets and Kings. Fragments of several other recensions. Guillaume lists them on p. xxx of his preface, but regards most of them as so fragmentary as to be of little worth.
According to Donner, the material in ibn Hisham and al-Tabari is “virtually the same”. However, there is some material to be found in al-Tabari that was not preserved by ibn Hisham. For example, al-Tabari includes the controversial episode of the Satanic Verses, while ibn Hisham does not.
Following the publication of previously unknown fragments of ibn Isḥaq’s traditions, recent scholarship suggests that ibn Isḥaq did not commit to writing any of the traditions now extant, but they were narrated orally to his transmitters. These new texts, found in accounts by Salama al-Ḥarranī and Yūnus ibn Bukayr, were hitherto unknown and contain versions different from those found in other works.
Notable scholars like the jurist Ahmad ibn Hanbal appreciated his efforts in collecting sīra narratives and accepted him on maghāzī, despite having reservations on his methods on matters of fiqh. Ibn Ishaq also influenced later sīra writers like Ibn Hishām and Ibn Sayyid al-Nās. Other scholars, like Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya, made use of his chronological ordering of events.
The most widely discussed criticism of his sīra was that of his contemporary Mālik ibn Anas. Mālik rejected the stories of Muhammad and the Jews of Medina on the ground that they were taken solely based on accounts by sons of Jewish converts. These same stories have also been denounced as “odd tales” (gharāʾib) later by ibn Hajar al-Asqalani.
Mālik and others also thought that ibn Isḥāq exhibited Qadari tendencies, had a preference for Ali over Uthman (Guillaume also found evidence of this, p.xxii,xxiv), and relied too heavily on what were later called the Isrā’īlīyāt. Furthermore, early literary critics, like ibn Sallām al-Jumaḥī and ibn al-Nadīm, censured ibn Isḥāq for knowingly including forged poems in his biography, and for attributing poems to persons not known to have written any poetry.
The 14th-century historian al-Dhahabī, using hadith terminology, noted that in addition to the forged (makdhūb) poetry, Ibn Isḥāq filled his sīra with many munqaṭiʿ and munkar reports.
Guillaume notices that Ibn Isḥāq frequently uses a number of expressions to convey his skepticism or caution. Beside a frequent note that only God knows whether a particular statement is true or not (p. xix), Guillaume suggests that Ibn Isḥāq deliberately substitute the ordinary term “ḥaddathanī” by a word of suspicion “zaʿama” (“he alleged”) to show his skepticism about certain traditions (p. xx).
The original text of the Sīrat Rasūl Allāh by Ibn Ishaq (Medina 85 A.H.; Bagdad 151 ) did not survive. Yet it was one of the earliest substantial biographies of Muhammad. Fortunately, as noted above, much of the original text was copied over into a work of his own by Ibn Hisham (Basra; Fustat c. 218 A.H.).
Ibn Hisham also “abbreviated, annotated, and sometimes altered” the text of Ibn Ishaq, according to Guillaume (at xvii). Interpolations made by Ibn Hisham are said to be recognizable and can be deleted, leaving as a remainder, a so-called “edited” version of Ibn Ishaq’s original text (otherwise lost). In addition, Guillaume (at xxxi) points out that Ibn Hisham’s version omits various narratives in the text which were given by al-Tabari in his History. In these passages al-Tabari expressly cites Ibn Ishaq as a source.
Thus can be reconstructed an ‘improved’ “edited” text, i.e., by distinguishing or removing Ibn Hisham’s additions, and by adding from al-Tabari passages attributed to Ibn Ishaq. Yet the result’s degree of approximation to Ibn Ishaq’s original text can only be conjectured. Such a reconstruction is available, e.g., in Guillaume’s translation. Here, Ibn Ishaq’s introductory chapters describe pre-Islamic Arabia, before he then commences with the narratives surrounding the life of Muhammad (in Guillaume at 109-690).
In 1864 the Heidelberg professor Gustav Weil produced an annotated German translation. Several decades later the Hungarian scholar Edward Rehatsek left an English translation, but one not published until over a half-century later.
Alfred Guillaume’s 1955 English translation of Ibn Isḥaq is currently favored by non-Arabic speakers, although some have questioned the reliability of this translation. In it Guillaume combined ibn Hisham and those materials in al-Tabari cited as ibn Isḥaq’s whenever they differed or added to ibn Hisham, believing that in so doing he was restoring a lost work. The extracts from al-Tabari are clearly marked, although sometimes it is difficult to distinguish them from the main text (only a capital “T” is used).
Ibn Isḥaq wrote several works, none of which survive. Apart from al-Mubtadaʾ wa al-Baʿth wa al-Maghāzī, he is credited with Kitāb al-kh̲ulafāʾ, which al-Umawwī related to him (Fihrist,92; Udabāʾ, VI, 401) and a book of Sunan (Ḥād̲j̲d̲j̲ī Ḵh̲alīfa, II, 1008).
In hadith studies, ibn Isḥaq’s hadith is generally thought to be “good” (ḥasan) (assuming an accurate and trustworthy isnad, or chain of transmission) and himself having a reputation of being “sincere” or “trustworthy” (ṣadūq). However, a general analysis of his isnads has given him the negative distinction of being a mudallis, meaning one who did not name his teacher, claiming instead to narrate directly from his teacher’s teacher.
Because of his tadlīs, many scholars including Muhammad al-Bukhari hardly ever used his narrations in their sahih books. According to al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, all scholars of ahadith except one no longer rely on any of his narrations, although truth is not foreign to him. Others, like Ahmad ibn Hanbal, rejected his narrations on all matters related to fiqh. Al-Dhahabī concluded that despite his good qualities any narration solely transmitted through him should probably be considered as containing munkar.
As-Sahabah:
Uthman Ibn Affan ”Raddiya Allahu Anhu”
As-Sahabah:Khulufa’ Rashidun
Amirul Mu’minun: ‘Utham Ibn Affan
The Companions of Prophet Muhammad
(peace be upon him)
To download: Right click then Save Link As.
To Listen: Click On any Surah or Number.
Wajibad 
You must be logged in to post a comment.