robert spencer-did muhammad exist__ an inquiry into islams obscure origins-intercollegiate studies institute (2012) (1)

Switching On the Full Light of History
Muhammad's First Muslim Biographer
The “full light of history” supposedly shining on Muhammad's life results largely from the work of a pious
Muslim named Muhammad Ibn Ishaq Ibn Yasar, generally known as Ibn Ishaq, who wrote the first
biography of Muhammad. But Ibn Ishaq was not remotely a contemporary of his prophet, who died in 632.
Ibn Ishaq died in 773, and so his work dates from well over a hundred years after the death of his subject.
What's more, Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah—Biography of the Messenger of Allah—has not survived
in its original form. It comes down to us today only in a later, abbreviated (although still quite lengthy)
version compiled by another Islamic scholar, Ibn Hisham, who died in 834, sixty years after Ibn Ishaq, as
well as in fragments quoted by other early Muslim writers, including the historian Muhammad ibn Jarir
at-Tabari (839–923).
The lateness of this material doesn't in itself mean that it is unreliable. Historians generally tend to
favor earlier sources over later ones, but an early source is not always more trustworthy than a later one.
A hurriedly written biography of a politician rushed into print within weeks of his death, for example,
would not be likely to have greater value than a more considered account published several years later,
after exhaustive research. But in light of the rampant forging of material concerning Muhammad's words
and deeds, and the way various factions in the eighth and ninth centuries used Muhammad's supposed
statements and actions to support their positions, Muhammad's first biographers would have faced an
extraordinary challenge in winnowing out authentic material from forgeries and fabrications.
Ibn Hisham, moreover, warns that his version is sanitized: He left out, he says, “things which it is
disgraceful to discuss; matters which would distress certain people; and such reports as al-Bakkai [Ibn
Ishaq's student, who edited his work] told me he could not accept as trustworthy.” 1 Abdallah ibn Numayr,
a collector of hadiths who died in 814, complained that although Ibn Ishaq's work contained much that
was authentic, the authentic material was mixed with “worthless sayings” that Ishaq had obtained from
“unknown people.” 2 The renowned hadith specialist Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 855) did not regard Ibn Ishaq
as a trustworthy source for Islamic law. 3 Since much of that corpus of law is derived from the example of
what Muhammad said and did, embraced and avoided, that is extremely significant: Ibn Hanbal's delicacy
in this matter implies that he considered the great bulk of what Ibn Ishaq reported about Muhammad to be
unreliable. On another occasion, however, Ibn Hanbal clarified his view, explaining that while he did not
believe Ibn Ishaq was trustworthy on matters of law, he saw Ibn Ishaq's work as reliable regarding
material about Muhammad that was more purely biographical, such as accounts of battles. A less
favorable view comes from another early Islamic jurist, Malik ibn Anas (d. 795), who called Ibn Ishaq
“one of the antichrists.” 4 Others simply called him a liar. 5
Defending Ibn Ishaq