The Quran
While the Quran is of course central to Islam, it is not an objective of this site to provide commentary on the Quran, nor to provide a throughout understanding of this book. The focus here is on the life of Muhammad, as described in the Hadith. But of course the understanding of the Quran is easier when the context of Muhammad's life is known. Quran quotes are presented in this manner:
Hadith quotes will be presented like this:
Translating the Quran into other languages than Arabic has been controversial, and rightly so. The language used in the Quran is the oldest existing form of written Arabic, and is actually a dialect unto itself, which takes some learning to master. The structure and contents of the Quran also tends to make life miserable for translators. The ordering of the Quran is that it is sorted by longest chapter first, instead of a more logical chronological order. And many sentences are plain difficult to understand, in any language. It is, by any measure, a work that is hard to access.
Yet, other holy texts, like Christian or Jewish, have been translated with only minor problems. And great authorities, such as the Islamic University of Medina, have undertaken effort to transliterate the meaning of the Quran into English and other languages. Apart from the obvious sensibile point of coming from the heart of Islamic tradition, the Saudi translation ("The Noble Quran") has several other advantages. It is one of the clearest English translations, it has extensive footnotes, and it is distributed widely with the backing of the Saudi government, which means that this particular translation sees extensive usage worldwide. Thus, it is a translation easy to obtain a copy of. So easy, in fact, that an electronic copy can be downloaded right here: Noble Quran electronic version. This is a compiled Windows Help file, and includes the original Arabic script.
The Quran is naturally quoted often in the works of Ibn Ishaq and Tabari. Frequently the quotes are somewhat brief, not including the full context of the particular revelation. When appropriate, more verses will be quoted to provide the proper context.
The Sirat
Sirat Rasul Allah, or the Sirat, is the first biography of Muhammad. At almost 700 pages in the English translation, it is quite comprehensive and covers almost everything known about Muhammad, in a chronological order. The 'almost' comes from the fact that the original has been lost to time, and is preserved only through Ibn Hisham, who unfortunately chose to delete some passages from the original, because they were deemed unflattering for Muhammad. The original was compiled by Ibn Ishaq in Bhagdad under the auspicies of caliph Mansour, about 750 CE.
The translation by prof. Guillaume was first published in 1955 and has some quirks. The most obvious are the use of 'God' as the translation of 'Allah, and the use of 'apostle' instead of the more correct 'messenger'. Checking with the translations of the same passages in Tabari and Bukhari is good practice.
The History of al-Tabari
Tabari was the first person to create a complete account of the history of early Islam. His works comprise a whopping 39 volumes. The most relevant for knowing about Muhammad in person are volumes 6 through 9. Tabari uses the Sirat in his works, including passages deleted by Ibn Hisham. The English translation is generally more direct and reliable than that of the Sirat, and is the only uncensored account of the life of Muhammad. The works of Ibn Ishaq and Tabari are the only original, continous narratives about the life of Muhammad, and form the structure for the presentation of the commentary. Tabari generally verifies the narrative by Ibn Ishaq, and in many cases adds interesting details. Some stories that have a very brief recounting in Ibn Ishaq are found in much more complete versions in Tabari.
The additional details and hadith variants are impeding to the readability, though, which is why it will be used as supplementary rather than primary narrative on this site. The English translation by W Montgomery Watt and M. V. McDonald has a very readable foreword assessing the reliability of Tabari, and, from the viewpoint of a modern historian, considers it basically sound, though of course some hagiographical elements are found.
Bukhari
Sahih Bukhari was a great collector of 'traditions' (ahadith - plural of hadith) about Muhammad, and his work at ascertaining the validity of each story is unsurpassed. His hadith collection is ordered by topic, which is valuable when wanting to examine Muhammad's example and sayings on a particular issue, but less practical when examining the life story of Muhammad himself. However, the Bukhari collection is generally considered to be the best researched of any, and will be used from time to time for deepening the stories related by Ibn Ishaq and Tabari. The hadith in Bukhari are not contracting Ibn Ishaq or Tabari in anything of significance.
Muslim
Muslim created the last of the early hadith collections. 'Early' in this context means within 300 years of the death of Muhammad. Until then, the traditions had been mostly in oral transmission through the generations. We will quote Muslim occasionally.
What is 'Isnad'?
Each story in the hadith is usually preceded by a line or two detailing the persons alledged to have transmitted the story. There are sometimes interesting clues to be found in these introduction lines. If, for instance, the author inserts 'it is alledged' or 'only Allah knows the truth', it is an indication that his confidence in the story is limited. Tricky stories, like the affair of Aisha, can have multiple isnads.
There is a problem, however, to using isnads as a measure of validity for the individual stories. The problem is actually simple: Isnads can be forged, and quite easily. Independent scholars, who have analyzed the connection between the isnads and the traditions they testify, have found a negative correlation between the quality of the isnads and the quality of the traditions judged on their own merits. The better the isnad (the best are those traced to a companion of Muhammad), the more likely the tradition is to be lacking detail, chronology and other details distinguishing an authentic story. Thus, the isnads are not much use in distinguishing true stories from twisted or forged ones.
We have chosen here to generally omit isnads, both due the problem mentioned above and to improve readability. For those interested, they can be found by referring back to the original material. Page references will be given, so finding the actual isnads will be easy.
Are these sources reliable?
While isnads should provide a clue to their reliability, they are, as mentioned above, not particular reliable to verify the authenticity of the hadith. A better approach is usually to evaluate the amount of detail in each hadith - the more irrelevant details present, the better the chances that the tradition is authentic. Also, some hadith have obvious hagiographic purposes. These are usually devoid of the great amount of details otherwise present. Generally speaking, the earlier hadith have significantly less details than the later, and are thus more likely to be spurious or hagiographical.
Taken as a whole, the depiction of real events with plenty of names and details is the best proof that most of the hadith are probably largely true. But in a way, it is not important if they are objectively true or not. They are all considered true by the Islamic society. And since we have no other sources for the life of Muhammad, these traditions are generally held to represent a true image of Muhammad and the events he participated in.
The translator of al-Tabari in his foreword makes a detailed assessment of the reliability of Ibn Ishaq and Tabari, with the conclusion that the bulk of the material is basically sound, because they compose a consistent description of the events, with minute details present. The inclusion of material unfavorable to Muhammad, such as the 'Satanic verses' incident, is another indication that these accounts are genuine. No Muslim scholars would have invented such stories by themselves, nor would they be likely to accept them from non-Muslim sources.
This collection of hadith implicitly represents a Sunni view of Islam. The Shia tradition (15% of the Muslim population) has a different set of transmissions and hadith collectors. Various differences in the depiction of Ali suggest that some of the works have been edited with a pro-Sunni bias. This would not be surprising in any way, as caliph Mansour, who had just established his rulership of Baghdad, was the sponsor of Ibn Ishaq. Ibn Ishaq (or Ibn Hisham) tends to omit material about Ali, while al-Tabari in his more extensive works tends to include this, and supplement it with material about Abu Bakr and others who would end on the Sunni side of the schism.
Backbone of this commentary
The structure of the commentary on this site will be drawn from Ibn Ishaq, as he presents the most continous and concise narrative, or from al-Tabari, which exists in a more modern English translation and more details. Since most material is present in both works, it is natural to make page references to both in the commentary. At the moment, some of the Tabari references are not in place. They exist, and will be added as time permits.
Other sources
Apart from the scriptures themselves other sources may occasionally drawn upon to clarify and get overview. They are credited on the pages they are used.
On translations
The hadith, in contrast with the Quran, is considered translatable. And seeing the more straightforward prose of the hadith, the difference is clear. It is comprised of largely self-containing stories, and in the case of Ibn Ishaq and Tabari, a continous narrative. In other words, it makes much more straightforward reading than the rather opaque Quran. Futhermore, the hadith illuminates the Quran in significant ways. Many Quran verses have been given as responses to or instructions for specific situations, and make little sense outside of this context. The hadith provides an indispensable context for the Quran and is required reading for anyone wishing to understand Islam and Muhammad.
There are some issues pertaining to translation, of course. The word 'apostle' has been used by Guillaume to designate the relationship between Allah and Muhammad. But it would be more appropriate to use it between Muhammad and his closest supporters, as the word is largely defined by the relationship between Jesus and his disciples. We have chosen to use the more accurate 'messenger' instead.
Allah, God - or even Ar-Rahman?
The trickiest translation subject, though, is the disctinction between 'God' and 'Allah', and the related 'Lord', 'god', 'Ar-Rahman' and 'ilah'. It is obvious that in many places in the English translations, 'God' is used where 'Allah' would be correct from context, as in magnifying God by shouting 'Allahu-Akbar'. In other places, like when Jews converse with Muhammad, the word 'God' signifying the Judeo-Christian god is appropriate. Since Muhammad is the 'Messenger of Allah', 'Allah', not 'God' is appropriate here. The word 'god' (non-capitalized) has a clear Arabic counterpart, 'ilah'. It is used occasionally and will be translated appropriately. It might be that 'Allah' is a contraction of 'Al-Ilah', signifying the top deity of the Ka'aba.
The solution adopted in this web site is inspired by the Quran. A fact obscured by the non-chronological ordering of the suras is that in the beginning of Muhammad's prophetic office, he does not name his god. When he does, the name is, surprisingly, Ar-Rahman, as in Sura 55, the first sura recited in public in Mecca. The name 'Allah' is used occasionally, though. We choose to use 'God' up to the Hijra.
After the Hijra, the situation changes. Ar-Rahman is mentioned only twice in the Medinan suras, and is then relegated to the opening stanza of each sura, as had been the tradition from the beginning. A curious episode is in the treaty of Hudaibaya, where Muhammad intends to open the peace treaty with the same opening lines as used in the Quran, but the Meccans point out that they recognize only Allah, not Ar-Rahman or Ar-Rahim. Muhammad gives in to the request of the Meccans, and is even reassured in the oneness of Allah by the Sakinah (tranquility) he experiences afterwards. We choose to use 'Allah' for all events in the Medina period, except where the context clearly indicates otherwise.
This leaves one less important period unaccounted for, namely the pre-Islamic. Since references to Allah are found quite frequently in this material, it is natural to use 'Allah' here as well.
Simplifications
The texts in the Sirat and Tabari are not simple. They have arcane sentence structures, long isnads, intricate family relations, titles etc. Also, the volume of text is simply really large, and every simplification that doesn't change the meaning of the stories is valuable. For the sake of readability, some simplifications will be made. Muhammad is often referred to by his various titles (apostle, messenger etc.) Since these titles are well known and beyond doubt, we shall apply the simplification of using 'Muhammad' throughout, except inside quoted dialogue.
Isnads are there to verify the validity of each story. But since these works have long since been canonized, they are hardly relevant and stands more as a distraction than as a help. Unless there is something remarkable about any particular isnad, they will be omitted. Those interested in the art of isnads can look up the isnads in the original texts, which are readily purchaseable through internet bookstores.
The stories themselves tend to be told in quite complex ways, intertwining various storytellers contributing their individual parts. It is the custom of these early writers to not leave out anything of relevance. This is good for research, but a bit hard on readability. The structure inside each story will be straigthened out, and less interesting asides will be purged, in order to create a more stringent narrative. Again, those interested in the original is encouraged to purchase the complete works for reference.
Quran or Hadith?
While it is asserted that the Quran is always more important than the Hadith, in some cases the Hadith is indispensable. For example, on an important matter such as the five pillars of Islam, the Quran is largely quiet. One has to refer to the Hadith to find these. Another is the issue of prayers. They Quran suggests that the Muslims should do 3 or 4 daily prayers (suras 11:114, 17:78, 30:17), whereas the Hadith demands 5. The latter is the number being used.
While the Quran remains the holiest book of Islam, the Hadith is in reality indispensable. It adds much material that is required by Muslims (not least the example (Sunnah) of the prophet), and in general provides context and meaning to much of what is otherwise incomprehensible in the Quran. Going through the stories of Muhammad, we will naturally encounter the situations that were occasions for particular Quran revelations, and in that context comment on the verses given, occasionally adding context of the surrounding verses. However, the text presented here remains a commentary on the life of Muhammad, not the Quran, and no comprehensive commentary on this book will be attempted.
The books
The primary sources are:
Ibn Ishaq: The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah) ISBN 0-19-636033-1
Al-Tabari: Volume VI: Muhammad at Mecca ISBN 0-88706-707-7
Al-Tabari: Volume VII: Founding of the community ISBN
Al-Tabari: Volume VIII: The Victory of Islam ISBN 0-7914-3150-9
Al-Tabari: Volume IX: The Last Years of the Prophet ISBN 0-88706-692-5
Samizdat publishing
Since wealthy Arabs have started intimidating publishers and abusing libel and/or copyright laws to kill freedom of expression, we are now reverting to samizdat publishing in order to keep information free. With our apologies to the publishers, please download and distribute these books on a non-profit basis. The information therein is invaluable.
More titles to follow.