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

Ibn Ishaq had his defenders as well. The early Muslim writer who collected all these unfavorable
statements about Ibn Ishaq, and many more as well, ultimately dismissed the criticisms and affirmed the
trustworthiness of the biographer's work. And indeed, many of those who objected to Ibn Ishaq's work did
so because he had Shiite tendencies or affirmed the free will of mankind, which many Muslims
considered to be a heresy. Some believed that he wrote too favorably of the Jewish tribes of Arabia.
None of this actually bears upon the veracity of what he reports, and many early Muslims affirmed that
veracity. One eighth-century Muslim, Shuba, dubbed Ibn Ishaq the “amir of traditionalists” (that is, hadith
specialists) because of his prodigious memory. A late-ninth-century writer, Abu Zura, said that Ibn Ishaq's
work had been scrutinized for accuracy and had passed the test. The early ninth-century jurist ash-Shafii
said that Ibn Ishaq was an indispensable source for the battles of the prophet, and even exclaimed that
“knowledge will remain among men as long as Ibn Ishaq lives.” 6
These widely divergent views may be attributable to the fact that the picture of Muhammad that
emerges from Ibn Ishaq's biography is not what one might expect from the founder of one of the world's
great religions. The Muhammad of Ibn Ishaq is not a peaceful teacher of the love of God and the
brotherhood of man but rather a warlord who fought numerous battles and ordered the assassination of his
enemies. “The character attributed to Muhammad in the biography of Ibn Ishaq,” observes the twentiethcentury
historian David Margoliouth, “is exceedingly unfavorable. In order to gain his ends he recoils
from no expedient, and he approves of similar unscrupulousness on the part of his adherents, when
exercised in his interest.” 7
It isn't so much Muhammad's wars that embarrass modern-day Muslims in the West—those they can
attribute to their prophet's particular time and place, glossing over his status as a “good example” (Qur'an
33:21) for Muslims in all times and places. Harder to explain away are incidents such as the notorious
“satanic verses” episode: Muhammad received a revelation naming three goddesses of the pagan Quraysh
as daughters of Allah, worthy of veneration. But when the prophet of Islam realized that he had
compromised his message of monotheism, he claimed that Satan had inspired those verses, and indeed
that Satan interfered with the messages of all the prophets (cf. Qur'an 22:52). Muhammad quickly
canceled the offending passages. Ibn Ishaq tells the story of this incident, which most other early
chroniclers of Muhammad's life omit from their accounts. Ibn Ishaq also recounts the horrific story of
Kinana bin ar-Rabi, a Jewish leader at the oasis of Khaybar, which Muhammad raided and conquered.
Thinking that Kinana knew where the Jews of Khaybar had hidden their treasure, the prophet gave this
order to his men: “Torture him until you extract what he has.” The Muslims then built a fire on Kinana's
chest, and when Kinana still wouldn't tell them where the treasure was, they beheaded him. 8
A modern-day Islamic apologist named Ehteshaam Gulam, a youthful writer at the website Answering
Christian Claims, offers a typical Islamic objection to this story when he rejects it for its lack of a proper
chain of transmitters (isnad): Ibn Ishaq doesn't name his source. Gulam also says that the story simply
can't be true, because Muhammad would not have acted this way: “That a man should be tortured with
burns on his chest by the sparks of a flint is too heinous a deed for a Prophet (Peace and blessings of
Allah be upon him) who had earned for himself the title of Rahma'lil Alamin (Mercy for all the
worlds).” 9 He suggests that Jews may have concocted the story and passed it along to a credulous Ibn
Ishaq.