|Those are body parts at his feet
THE QUEST FOR THE HISTORICAL MUHAMMAD
and the al-Maghazi, historical writings, survives chiefly in the form of quotes by later historians. The
Sira is on the
life of Muhammad, while the al-Maghazi is on the military conquest of the Prophet and his companions.
Koran and Koranic
exegesis (tafsir) contain little about Muhammad.
Hadith (the traditions), prophetic tradition.
The al Maghazi
(also maghazi 'l-nabi, maghazi rasul allah) are ascribed to al-Waqidi (d. 207/823) (at pages 24-5).
Aban b. `Uthman al-Bajkali (ca. 20/640-100/718), son of the murder caliph who wrote a book on maghazi which has not
survived, nor has it been cited by Ibn Ishaq or al-Waqidi.
`Urwa b. al-Zubayr b. al-Awwam (23/643-94/712) the cousin
of the Prophet and referred to the founder of Islamic history. There is doubt that he authored anything, but there are many
traditiions that have been handed down in his name.
Shurabil b. sa`d (d. 123/740), who wrote a maghazi, but this book
was considered unreliable and thus seldom used by later historians.
Wahb b. Munabbih (34/654-110/728), who wrote the
Kitab al-Mubtada, which inspired many Muslim versions of the lives of the prophets. However, much was attributed to him for
which he was not responsible, and the earliest fragment is 228/842, and several early writers did not use him.
Ishaq (ca 85/704-150/767), a main authority on the life and times of the Prophet. He is credited with the Sira and also A
History of the Caliphs, and a book of Sunan. His reputation varied considerably among the early Muslim critics: some found
him very sound, while others regarded him as a liar in relation to Hadith. His Sira is not extent in its original form, but
is present in two recessions done in 218/833 and 199/814-15, and these texts vary from one another. Fourteen others have recorded
his lectures, but their versions differ.
Al-Waqidi (130/747-207/822-23), who worte over twenty works of an historical
nature, but only the Kitab al-Maghazi has survived as an independent work. His reputation is mared by the fact that he relied
upon story tellers; viz., those who embellished the stories of others. Al-Waqidi did such embellish, such as by adding dates
and other details onto the account of Ibn Ishaq (at pages 25-29)
COMMENTS: "It was the storytellers who created the
tradition: the sound historical traditons to which they are supposed to have added their fables simply did not exist. . .
. Nobody remembered anything to the contrary either. . . . There was no continuous transmission. Ibn Ishaq, al-Waqidi, and
others were cut of from the past: like the modern scholar, they could not get behind their sources. . . (102). Finally, it
has to be realized that the tradition as a whole, not just parts of it as some have thought, is tendentious, and that that
tendentiousness arises from allegiance to Islam itself. The complete unreliability of the Muslim tradition as far as dates
are concerned has been demonstrated by Lawrence Conrad. After close examination of the sources in an effort to find the most
likely birth date for Muhammad--traditionally `Am al-fil, the Year of the Elephant, 570 C.E.--Conrad remarks that: 'Well into
the second century A.H. scholarly opinion on the birth date of the Prophet displayed a range of variance of eighty-five years.
. . ." Indeed, it appears that the only secure date anywhere in the whole saga of the origins of Islam is 622 C.E., which
has been confirmed from dated coinage as marking the beginning of a new era. . . . As we have seen, the important Islamic
concept of Sunna, the right or established way of doing things, began as generalized idea. There was Sunna of a region, the
Sunna of a group of persons, or the Sunna of some particular distinguished person, such as David or Solomon or the Caliph,
even the Sunna of Allah. It was not until the manufacture of Hadiths (Prophetic traditions) got under way in the second Islamic
century that all these vague notions were absorbed and particularized in the detailed sunnt an-nabi (Sunna of the Prophet).
. . . Muhammad, as Prophet and mouthpiece for the universal diety Allah, is an invention of the ulama of the second and third
centuries A.H. (at pages 102-05).
Non-Arab contemporary accounts: We conclude that the local sources written before
the early eighth century provide no evidence for a planned invasions of Arabs from the Peninsula, nor for great battles which
crushed the Byzantine army; nor do they mention any caliph before Mu`awiya, who by contrast is clearly a historical figure
fully attested from several works. The picture the contemporary literary sources provide is rather of raids of the familiar
type. And the raiders stayed because they found no military opposition. We suggest, on this and other evidence, that what
took place was a series of raids and minor engagements;, which gave rise to stories among the Arab newcomers of How We Beat
the Romans; these were later selected and embellished in late Umayyad and early ~Abbasid times to form an Official History
of the Conquest. The ayyam nature of these accounts explains why the written versions of the Traditional Muslim account disagree
with each other concerning the names of battles, of commanders, the number of participants and casualties, and so on. Furthermore,
if we are to judge from this literature, we must conclude that the mass of Arab tribesman were pagan at the time of their
influx into the Fertile Crescent, and remained so throughout the seventh century; the governing elite adopted a simple form
of monotheism, basically Judaeo-Christian, which may be discerned in an account of official Christian dealings with Arab governor
during the early years of Mu`awiya's rule (the 640s/20s)(at pages 433).
Archaeological evidence: archaeological evidence
thus indicates that Byzantium began to withdraw militarily from al-Sham already a hundred years before the Sassanian forays
started in 604 C.E. (at 435). This section of the book goes on to describe additional archaeological evidence that conflicts
with the official-religious account. Coinage, for example, does not until 71 A.H. contain "either the name Muhammad or any
specifically Islamic phrases." 436
The Quest for the Historical Muhammad, edited and translated by Ibn Warraq, Prometheus
Books, 59 John Glenn Drive, Amherst, New York 14228-2197, 2000.
Koran, slavery and anti-Semitism
The main source
of slaves was the pilgrimages to Mecca
where poor Sudanese would sell one of their children into slavery for to pay for they journey home. In 1962 the government changed the law, it no longer allowed the purchase of slaves, although it still
allowed the purchase of wives.
The Koran was used by
clerics to legitimize the government’s anti-Jewish fever. Portions of the
Koran that condemned Jews: The Jews are enemies of the of Allah, of the Prophets,
of the angels (297-98). They lies against Allah (450). They kill the prophets of Allah (571). They are enemies
of the believers (582). They will receive the punishment of hell fire (793). [These passages] were given evermore prominence.
[King] Fisal when beyond what even the Koran taught about Jews…. Fisal
ordered that all hotels have the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in every room….
Fisal believed the Jews used the blood of Moslems and Christians in their religious holidays [a widely held by Christians
Medieval belief]. From the Secrets of the Kingdom: The Inside Story of the Saudi-U.S. Connection, Chapter 3, Gerald Posner, 2005