Al-Tabari

Problems With Ibn Ishaq and Al Tabari 2 By Ehteshaam Gulam

• Report rights infringement
• published: 05 Mar 2012
• views: 3865

TO SEE ALL THE FALSE STORIES ABOUT PROPHET MUHAMMAD (PEACE BE UPON HIM) FOUND IN IBN ISHAQ'S BIOGRAPHY AND AL-TABARI SEE THE LINK BELOW: http://www.answering-christian-claims.com/The-Problems-With-Ibn-Ishaq.html http://islamicapologetics1.blogspot.com/2012_03_01_archive.html The concept of verifying where a report came from initiated during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and was common during Umar's caliphate as well. In his Ph.D. dissertation, Umar Fullaatah after discussing the question of the history of Isnaad in detail confidently concluded the following: 1. The Isnad was first used during the time of the Companions. 2. Abu Bakr was the first to force narrators to mention the source for their hadeeth. 3. The narrator himself insisted on mentioning the Isnad of each hadeeth on the heels of (1) and (2) above. (Fullaatah, al-Widha fi al-Hadeeth, vol. 2, p. 30) Ibn Ishaq was condemned by some of our major Islamic scholars. Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah said: Allah has provided evidence (i.e. Isnad) establishing the authenticity or lack thereof of the narrations that are necessary in matters of the religion. It is well known that most of what was reported in aspects of Tafsir (commentaries on the Qur'an) is similar to narrations reporting Maghazi (or Seerah) and battles, promoting Imam Ahmad to state that three matters do not have Isnad: Tafsir, Mala'him (i.e. great battles), and Maghazi. This is because most of their narrations are of the Maraseel (plural for Mursal) type, such as narrations reported by Urwah Ibn az-Zubair, ash-Sha'bi, az-Zuhri, Musa Ibn Uqbah and Ibn Ishaq." (Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmu' Al Fataawa, Volume, 13, page 345) There are several chainless stories in Ibn Ishaq's Biography of the Prophet Muhammad (p). Ibn Ishaq being the solitary narrator i.e. there is no chain for it that does not involve Ibn Ishaq. Solitary reports of Ibn Ishaq are not reliable. Imam Ahmad was asked about the solitary reports of Ibn Ishaq if they are considered reliable. He said "No!". See Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, Da'ira Ma'arif Nizamia, Hyderabad, 1326 A.H. vol.9 p.43 Adh-Dhahabi listed some of the major scholars of Islam who refuted Ibn Is`haq's reliability in Hadith narrations. Imam Malik, for instance, called Ibn Is`haq a liar and Yahya Ibn Sa`eed al-Ansari, as well as, al-A`mash refuted one of Ibn Is`haq's narrations by saying that he lied. As a general statement, Yahya Ibn Sa`eed graded Ibn Ishaq as being weak in Hadith narration. Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal discounted the reliability of Ibn Ishaq if he alone narrates a Hadith. Also, Imams Yahya Ibn Ma`een (in another narration from him), an-Nasaii and ad-Daraqutni stated that Ibn Ishaq was weak in Hadith. The great Imam of Sunnah, Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, also added that Ibn Ishaq's narrations are not accepted if they are about the Sunan, stating that even [in the rare occasions] where Ibn Is`haq clearly stated that he heard a Hadith from his teacher, he would often contradict other narrators. Therefore, and as Imam A`hmad stated, if Ibn Is`haq alone reports a Hadith, then that narration is not accepted. Adh-Dhahabi also stated that if a narration that Ibn Is`haq reports contradicts other [more established] narrators, then Ibn Is`haq's narration is rejected. (See Adh-Dhahabi Siyar a`lam al-nubala'. (The Lives of Noble Figures) Yahya bin al-Qattan would never quote Ibn Ishaq. Ahmed Ibn Habal son admitted that he incorperated many of Ibn Ishaq's traditions in his musnad but he never paid heed to them. Al-Nasai said that Ibn Ishaq was not strong. Yahya bin Said said that though he knew Ibn Ishaq in Kufa he abandoned him intentionally and he never wrote down traditions on his authority. When Malik bin Anas mentioned Ibn Ishaq he would say "He is one of the Anti Christs" When Hisham bint Urwa was told that Ibn Ishaq reported something from Fatima, he said "the rascal lies, when did he see my wife" Sulayman al-Taymi called Ibn Ishaq a liar. (Quotes from Sayydul Nas in his book "Uyun al-Athur fi fununil maghazi wal shamail wal-Siyar, Volume 2, Page 23) Early historians such as Imam Tabari would admit to his audience that the book that he has written is filled with weak narrations: (See Tabari, Volume 1, Page 13)  as Ibn Kathir said: In these volumes, he [Tabari] reported the various narrations as they were transmitted and by whom. His discussion is a mixed bag of valuable and worthless, sound and unsound information. This is in keeping with the custom of many Hadith scholars who merely report the information they have on a subject and make no distinction between what is sound and what is weak. (Ibn Kathir, al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, Vol.5, p.208) Muhammad bin Tahir Al Barzanji in his Saheeh Tareekh Al Tabari wa Da'eefuhu (The Authentic Narrations From Tareekh Al Tabari and Its Weak Ones) Multiple Volume Set wrote down all the false stories in Al-Tabari's work.