Is the early history of Islam historical fact?

[D-MITCH777]

[youtube]6CLMifU3sfY[/youtube]
Historical Fact vs. Faith-Based Legend - YouTube

What do you think is he right?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What do you think?

 

[D-MITCH777]

From what I know, I think he is. The Hadeeths wasn't written down until 200 years after the death of Muhammad, and his life story was written down about the same time by Ibn Ishaq.

 

[839311]

What do you think is he right?

I thought it was interesting. Whether hes right or not, I don't know, Im not that knowledgeable on the subject. Im interested to see posts of our muslim members in reply.

 

[Marble]

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2877734-post28.html

 

[F0uad]

I don't see how hadiths have anything to do with writings, hadiths actually have a chain-of-narration and based on the chain-of-narration we can see if its authentic or not so even if its written 400years after Mohammed(saws) it wouldn't matter.

Cannons for the Evaluation of Ahadith

A hadith consists of two parts: its text, called matn, and its chain of narrators, called isnad. Comprehensive and strict criteria were separately developed for the evaluation of matn and isnad. The former is regarded as the internal test of ahadith, and the latter is considered the external test. A hadith was accepted as authentic and recorded into text only when it met both of these criteria independently.

Criteria for the Evaluation of Isnad

The unblemished and undisputed character of the narrator, called rawi, was the most important consideration for the acceptance of a hadith. As stated earlier, a new branch of 'ilm al-hadith known as asma' ar-rijal was developed to evaluate the credibility of EACH narrator. The following are a few of the criteria utilized for this purpose:

1. The name, nickname, title, parentage and occupation of the narrator should be known.
2. The original narrator should have stated that he heard the hadith directly from the Prophet.
3. If a narrator referred his hadith to another narrator, the two should have lived in the same period and have had the possibility of meeting each other.
4. At the time of hearing and transmitting the hadith, the narrator should have been physically and mentally capable of understanding and remembering it.
5. The narrator should have been known as a pious and virtuous person.
6. The narrator should not have been accused of having lied, given false evidence or committed a crime.
7. The narrator should not have spoken against other reliable people.
8. The narrator's religious beliefs and practices should have been known to be correct.
9. The narrator should not have carried out and practiced peculiar religious beliefs of his own.
​

Criteria for the Evaluation of Matn

1. The text should have been stated in plain and simple language.
2. A text in non-Arabic or couched in indecent language was rejected.
3. A text prescribing heavy punishment for minor sins or exceptionally large reward for small virtues was rejected.
4. A text which referred to actions that should have been commonly known and practiced by others but were not known and practiced was rejected.
5. A text contrary to the basic teachings of the Qur'an was rejected.
6. A text contrary to other ahadith was rejected.
7. A text contrary to basic reason, logic and the known principles of human society was rejected.
8. A text inconsistent with historical facts was rejected.
9. Extreme care was taken to ensure the text was the original narration of the Prophet and not the sense of what the narrator heard. The meaning of the hadith was accepted only when the narrator was well known for his piety and integrity of character.
10. A text derogatory to the Prophet, members of his family or his companions was rejected.
11. A text by an obscure narrator which was not known during the age of sahabah [the Prophet's companions] or the tabi'een [those who inherited the knowledge of the sahabah] was rejected.​

Along with these generally accepted criteria, each scholar then developed and practiced his own set of specific criteria to further ensure the authenticity of each hadith. For instance, Imam al-Bukhari would not accept a hadith unless it clearly stated that narrator A had heard it from narrator B. He would not accept the general statement that A narrated through B. On this basis he did not accept a single hadith narrated through 'Uthman, even though Hasan al-Basri always stayed very close to 'Ali(ra). Additionally, it is stated that Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal practiced each hadith before recording it in his Musnad [book or collection of hadith].

There is a basic distinction between Islam and other religions in this regard: Islam is singularly unique among the world religions in the fact that in order to preserve the sources of their religion, the Muslims invented a scientific methodology based on precise rules for gathering data and verifying them. As it has been said, 'Isnad or documentation is part of Islamic religion, and if it had not been for isnad, everybody would have said whatever he wanted.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't see how hadiths have anything to do with writings, hadiths actually have a chain-of-narration and based on the chain-of-narration we can see if its authentic or not so even if its written 400years after Mohammed(saws) it wouldn't matter.

Cannons for the Evaluation of Ahadith

A hadith consists of two parts: its text, called matn, and its chain of narrators, called isnad. Comprehensive and strict criteria were separately developed for the evaluation of matn and isnad. The former is regarded as the internal test of ahadith, and the latter is considered the external test. A hadith was accepted as authentic and recorded into text only when it met both of these criteria independently.

Criteria for the Evaluation of Isnad

The unblemished and undisputed character of the narrator, called rawi, was the most important consideration for the acceptance of a hadith. As stated earlier, a new branch of 'ilm al-hadith known as asma' ar-rijal was developed to evaluate the credibility of EACH narrator. The following are a few of the criteria utilized for this purpose:

1. The name, nickname, title, parentage and occupation of the narrator should be known.
2. The original narrator should have stated that he heard the hadith directly from the Prophet.
3. If a narrator referred his hadith to another narrator, the two should have lived in the same period and have had the possibility of meeting each other.
4. At the time of hearing and transmitting the hadith, the narrator should have been physically and mentally capable of understanding and remembering it.
5. The narrator should have been known as a pious and virtuous person.
6. The narrator should not have been accused of having lied, given false evidence or committed a crime.
7. The narrator should not have spoken against other reliable people.
8. The narrator's religious beliefs and practices should have been known to be correct.
9. The narrator should not have carried out and practiced peculiar religious beliefs of his own.
​

Criteria for the Evaluation of Matn

1. The text should have been stated in plain and simple language.
2. A text in non-Arabic or couched in indecent language was rejected.
3. A text prescribing heavy punishment for minor sins or exceptionally large reward for small virtues was rejected.
4. A text which referred to actions that should have been commonly known and practiced by others but were not known and practiced was rejected.
5. A text contrary to the basic teachings of the Qur'an was rejected.
6. A text contrary to other ahadith was rejected.
7. A text contrary to basic reason, logic and the known principles of human society was rejected.
8. A text inconsistent with historical facts was rejected.
9. Extreme care was taken to ensure the text was the original narration of the Prophet and not the sense of what the narrator heard. The meaning of the hadith was accepted only when the narrator was well known for his piety and integrity of character.
10. A text derogatory to the Prophet, members of his family or his companions was rejected.
11. A text by an obscure narrator which was not known during the age of sahabah [the Prophet's companions] or the tabi'een [those who inherited the knowledge of the sahabah] was rejected.​

Along with these generally accepted criteria, each scholar then developed and practiced his own set of specific criteria to further ensure the authenticity of each hadith. For instance, Imam al-Bukhari would not accept a hadith unless it clearly stated that narrator A had heard it from narrator B. He would not accept the general statement that A narrated through B. On this basis he did not accept a single hadith narrated through 'Uthman, even though Hasan al-Basri always stayed very close to 'Ali(ra). Additionally, it is stated that Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal practiced each hadith before recording it in his Musnad [book or collection of hadith].

There is a basic distinction between Islam and other religions in this regard: Islam is singularly unique among the world religions in the fact that in order to preserve the sources of their religion, the Muslims invented a scientific methodology based on precise rules for gathering data and verifying them. As it has been said, 'Isnad or documentation is part of Islamic religion, and if it had not been for isnad, everybody would have said whatever he wanted.

It is appropriate to quote your source.

 

[F0uad]

It is appropriate to quote your source.

I would have to quote my brain + different websites not all i mentioned is in there and there are more websites that have the same information.

And thanks for providing the link because i forgot.

 

[LaaIlahaIllAllah]

From what I know, I think he is. The Hadeeths wasn't written down until 200 years after the death of Muhammad, and his life story was written down about the same time by Ibn Ishaq.

Actually many were written down during the lifetime of the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and even after from the memory of the people.

It's a while after that people started compiling them, such as Imam al-Bukhari and many others.

 

[Bismillah]

Furthermore, what do you mean by early history of Islam? The spread of the Caliphate, the development of different mudahhabs, development of the legalistic aspect of the Shari'ah, the rise of Banu Ummaya?

This is a very encompassing term that can fit an infinite number of events, so what do you have in mind?

 

[YmirGF]

Furthermore, what do you mean by early history of Islam? The spread of the Caliphate, the development of different mudahhabs, development of the legalistic aspect of the Shari'ah, the rise of Banu Ummaya?

This is a very encompassing term that can fit an infinite number of events, so what do you have in mind?

Indeed, it's not as simple as pointing a sword and following the cut line.

 

[F0uad]

I would actually say no there is no historical evidence for the early history of Islam because it existed before man came to earth. ^_^

But if you wasn't to mention the hadiths as you did read my previous post.
(Remember Western-Scholars agree with the hadiths so they should be called liars if you do not accept there words for it)

 

[ankarali]

I didn't watch video but I read the answers

Islam begin by Prophet Adam (the first man in the world) Muslims believe in Jesus, Noah, Abraham, Moses and other prophets also.

The words of Prophet Mohammad (puwh) (hadiths) have been written after 150 years later from his death and the hadiths are the second ressource of islam after Qoran.

 

[Caladan]

There is a basic distinction between Islam and other religions in this regard: Islam is singularly unique among the world religions in the fact that in order to preserve the sources of their religion, the Muslims invented a scientific methodology based on precise rules for gathering data and verifying them. As it has been said, 'Isnad or documentation is part of Islamic religion, and if it had not been for isnad, everybody would have said whatever he wanted.

And yet the Hadith were historically created in various different cultures, leading to a situation in which plenty of Hadiths were created in order to legitimize cultural practices, in addition one of the biggest problems with the Hadiths is that much of the Hadith were created by scholars with conflicting interests who wanted to promote their agenda over that of the other, the fact is that during the first couple of hundreds of years of Hadiths, they were disorganized and in a state of chaos and while there was a great effort in later centuries to bring order into this state of affairs, in great deal the Hadiths carry a lot of baggage of personal interests, cultural interests, and material which originated in other religions and cultures. It's not uncommon to hear Muslims even here complain about fake Hadiths. In fact everybody did say what they wanted. That is the truth of the matter. Many of the direct followers of Muhammad created fake sayings of the prophet in order to justify their agenda, this went on for the first and and second generations followers and continued into the tradition of the Hadiths.

 

[F0uad]

And yet the Hadith were historically created in various different cultures, leading to a situation in which plenty of Hadiths were created in order to legitimize cultural practices, in addition one of the biggest problems with the Hadiths is that much of the Hadith were created by scholars with conflicting interests who wanted to promote their agenda over that of the other, the fact is that during the first couple of hundreds of years of Hadiths, they were disorganized and in a state of chaos and while there was a great effort in later centuries to bring order into this state of affairs, in great deal the Hadiths carry a lot of baggage of personal interests, cultural interests, and material which originated in other religions and cultures. It's not uncommon to hear Muslims even here complain about fake Hadiths. In fact everybody did say what they wanted. That is the truth of the matter. Many of the direct followers of Muhammad created fake sayings of the prophet in order to justify their agenda, this went on for the first and and second generations followers and continued into the tradition of the Hadiths.

I don't think you have seen the criteria of a hadith being Authentic if you did. It would dismiss all the things you claimed.

 

[Caladan]

I don't think you have seen the criteria of a hadith being Authentic if you did. It would dismiss all the things you claimed.

This is again a classic dispute between Islamic scholarship and the western academy. non Islamic scholarship is highly skeptical about authenticity at all because it is strongly believed by them that these sayings were created much later after the death of Muhammad. You canno't possibly tell me that as a whole even in the Muslim word there is no great discretion between what may be Sahih or authentic and what may be weak or worse fake. Muslim scholars themselves throughout history had to take on this problem methodically, because there was so much chaos.

 

[F0uad]

This is again a classic dispute between Islamic scholarship and the western academy. non Islamic scholarship is highly skeptical about authenticity at all because it is strongly believed by them that these sayings were created much later after the death of Muhammad. You canno't possibly tell me that as a whole even in the Muslim word there is no great discretion between what may be Sahih or authentic and what may be weak or worse fake. Muslim scholars themselves throughout history had to take on this problem methodically, because there was so much chaos.

How did you come to the conclusion that ''Muslim'' or Arab ''Scholars'' are not sceptical? I would disagree and i can point out more then 50 points in our time that they are, hence i can even point out over 500 points that they were in history.

First of all before claiming it to be authentic it needs a special and close examination each Narrator needs to have a biography, trustworthiness, and evidence that he or she heard it from person A. So how is that not Sceptical in the first place.
How are Western-Scholars in disagreement when they actually agree with the history that it describes and on how the criteria should have been. There is no religious or historical script that has the same strong preservation among that time or before its time.

I think your ignoring my first post, Bukhari and Sahih muslim followed this criteria and more that are needed before claiming its authentic, after that they would even have there own criteria before writing it down. Also its not that 1 Scholarship said something therefore it is, it has been examined by 1000's of scholarships and agreed on before it can be called Authentic, otherwise it would be called a Strong Hadith instead of a Authentic hadith.

Ps: You forget that the Hadiths are still examined.

 

[beerisit]

The problem with he heard it from him nd he heard it from him and he heard it from him and he heard it from him, is a game called chinese whispers.
The basis for authenticating these hadiths is denied by a simple childrens game.

 

[F0uad]

The problem with he heard it from him nd he heard it from him and he heard it from him and he heard it from him, is a game called chinese whispers.
The basis for authenticating these hadiths is denied by a simple childrens game.

Let me start out with a double -

If you have never been to china how do you know that china exist? Either by pictures or by sayings.

Now i am not going to have a debate if we should belief in the hadiths when Western and Eastern Historians accept the hadiths to be true, maybe you didn't know but History has three ways of explaining itself and that is Oral, text and pictures.

If you want to deny history be my guest but lets then deny all history.

 

[beerisit]

:thud: