The sira is bogus but so is the hadith

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Jul 3, 2007 at 07:02

Now let me start by stating that you are correct that the sira is bogus because what we have is a redacted (edited) copy of what Ibn Ishaq believed happened 125 years after the death of Muhammad and then enter ibn Hisham who tells us that he is indeed editing the oral material transmitted to him and attributed to ibn Ishaq. More damaging is the fact that ibn Hisham was born and died in al-Fustat in Egypt and he has never been to Mecca or to Medina and when did he die? We really do not know.

I have seen the following dates: 818CE, 834CE, 824CE and only Allahu A3lam but the fact is he died 200 years after the death of Muhammad which is the most damaging point to hoping that his biography of Muhammad would answer the question of: "what really happened? and the good the bad and the ugly in thelife of Abul Qasim". So just imagine if you or I are trying to write the biography of let us say George Washington with no written sources and some 200 years after his death! It will be all unhistorical and bogus. So much for the sira.

This does not change the fact that Ibn Ishaq and Waqidi described Muhammad as a caravan raider and an Arabian warlord

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".