Talk:Ibn Ishaq

Let Discussion Begin

There was some bias in this account. The phrase "so-called" assumes the theory in a negative light. We also have no idea whether Ibn Is'haq "would have been the first to insist" on anything. We just know what he expressed. Wrsutton 03:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, fixed that. Now that we're talking on the talk page, we can collaborate rather than play revert war. Zora 03:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"so-called"?

What of the phrase "so-called" should we just bring Sir William Muir's name into this. That seems distracting to me. It would be best to simply let readers link to that controversy and decide if it should be "so-called" in their own minds. Wrsutton 03:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

If so-called doesn't work for you, and giving Muir's name is too much detail, there might be another way to phrase it. Story of a verse added and then removed from the Qur'an? Then a ref to Satanic verses in parens? Zora 03:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you think? Does "so-called" reflect a preconceived conclusion? This page could use some specific information about Ibn's writing. What would you suggest? Wrsutton 04:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Note re format

Usually we add new stuff at the bottom rather than the top. Also, use colons to indent a whole block of prose so that replies can be put in the middle of something rather than having to quote. Not the best interface, but we're making the wiki software do something it's not designed to do, really. Zora 03:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, got it! Wrsutton 04:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good

That reads much better. Good work. Wrsutton 04:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, now which of the other million articles do you want to tackle? :) Zora 04:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

New links

I've just added links to the Constitution of Medina and isnad with a little bit of explanation. This is my first Wiki edit and I don't know any of the rules or ettiquette, so I'd appreciate any feedback! malchikiwik 01:40, 2 July 2006

General Disatisfaction

I was unhappy with this article for a variety of reasons, most of them indicidually small, but adding up to a large total. So I rewrote it completely. The Satanic Verses are trendy just now but almost trivial in the big picture. The hostility shown by many Muslim writers extends to all the early historians - alKalbi and alWaqidi have worse reputations than Ibn Is'haq. If there are other historians - for example, Musa ibn 'Uqba - who have not been attacked so often it is because their works are now lost.

The tension and hostility between the historians and the fiqh is worth a whole monograph. But I think it is too technical a matter for an article in the Wikipedia. Another source of hostility to the historians is sectarian. The Shi'ites, for example, feel that Ibn Is'haq must have omitted pro-Ali material because things like Ghadir Khum do not appear in the Sirat. In fact, Ibn Is'haq contains a lot of pro-Ali material (it is the biggest flaw in his presentation). The fact seems to be that Ibn Is'haq was an strong supporter of the Abbascides and in his day the Shi'ites and the Abbascides were not yet differentiated. Rather than tackle all these issues, still fraught, I have attempted to reduce the negative material to the irreducible minimum.

Kleinecke 17:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

cleanup notice

i put up a cleanup notice for the following reasons:

-the article does not any references, since it seems a controversial topic would be helpful to know what is supported by references

-could do with a little structuring, separating intro from main article

-some of the language seems sloppy :'The first part did not interest Ibn Hisham and much of it is lost' , is this somebody guessing or did Ibn Hisham say so...

-from the article:In the third part there is a careful month-based chronology (which falls apart at the end) and the campaigns (Ibn Is'haq counts 27, but he stretchs the meaning of campaign) made by Muhammad from his base of operations in Medina are carefully embedded in this chronology. But before this campaign literature there is a copy of the document called the Constitution of Medina and an extensive section of tafsir and hadiths. Tafsir also occurs several times embedded in the campaign literature. The campaign literature itself includes extensive poetry and lists of persons involved as well as description of battles or why no battle took place. The tafsir is among the earliest in Islam and Wansbrough classifies it as haggadic in his most primitive subset of the tafsir. That is, it is primarily devoted to passing on a narrative. After the campaign literature proper ends there is an appendix describing campaigns made by other Muslims under Muhammad's directions and a relatievly brief account of his death and succession by Abu Bakr.

particularly this section could be improved, the language, more wikilinks, i don't even understand what is being said here -explain to the interested layman who wansbrough is and why he should be quoted.. trueblood 09:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

deleted this sentence:However, the legacy of Ibn Is'haq has a great deal more in it than just the campaigns. ' because it just horrible, seems pov and anyway sentences that start with however should be illegal... trueblood 10:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of this material comes from the Preface to Guillaume's translation. Wansbrough is in the references. Ibn Hisham says he omitted "irrelevant" material. I agree a few links to other articles would be helpful. Feel free to add them. DKleinecke 04:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Both the external links pointed to the same material so I deleted the one that wasn't quite a pretty as the other one. DKleinecke 05:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Complete revision

I haven't been keeping an eye on this article. It had been reworked by someone with some erroneous notions who gave no references. There was a very bad and garbled link, which a recent editor has removed and replaced with a "version" of Ibn Is'haq housed at a notorious anti-Muslim site.

I dug out a stack of books and rewrote, with references. I would have liked to use the Encyclopedia of Islam, but I don't have a copy. Anyone with access to the newer, second version could help by adding any new material there, or correcting anything that is wrong. I used Guillaume for the bio and he's an old source.

I also removed the new link, which is not encyclopedic. It's better to have no links than bad ones. Zora 07:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Here's a piece from NEW LIGHT ON THE STORY OF BANU QURAYZA AND THE JEWS OF MEDINA, By W. N. ARAFAT. From Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland,(1976), pp. 100-107^[1]:

"One authority, Ibn Hajar, however, denounces this story and the other related ones as "odd tales".⁹ A contemporary of Ibn Is'haq, Malik,¹⁰ the jurist, denounces Ibn Is'haq outright as "a liar"¹¹ and "an impostor"¹² just for transmitting such stories. "

⁹. Tahdhib al-tahdhib, IX, 45. See also `Uyun al-athar, I, 17, where the author uses the same words, without giving a reference, in his introduction on the veracity of Ibn Is'haq and the criteria he applied. <sup>10</sup>. d. 179. <sup>11</sup>. `Uyun al-athar, I, 12. ¹². ibid, I, 16. Faro0485 (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

critcism of ibn is'haq

i think it is exaggeration, different sources have different opinions on him

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XeMtAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA677

i have added a praise section to balance the article

--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform editors and those interested in the article that there is currently a discussion at noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with the Ibn Is'haq article --Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Translation by Rehatsek

The abridged translation of Rehatsek is available in the Internet, too. Just "google" it! --Dlugacz (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

neutral POV and different points of view

The wikipedia policy of neutral POV does not imply that contending points of view cannot be expressed. Yet one among several POVs, as I understand it, cannot exclude its rivals. Rather the whole of accepted commentary however divided and contradictory should be given a fair hearing in the text. Elfelix (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. But introducing a "praise" section that repeats information mentioned elsewhere doesn't fix the POV problem, rather it makes it worse. Also praise/criticism sections are considered bad style. Better to integrate both in other sections, which was already the case before your edits. Now, while some of your edits are useful, others are misleading. For instance, Eerik Dickinson's quote is about his hadith, why did you add it to the prophetic biography section? And Dickinson wasn't discussing the reliability of Ibn Is'haq per se, but was merely pointing out an example of how "seemingly" irreconcilable some statements are. In fact, Dickinson's quote of Ibn Uyayna is actually refuted in the primary sources (if not in a later chapter in Dickinson's, as the note seemingly indicates). Also, do you have a secondary source citing Ibn Khalikan's opinion on Ibn Is'haq? Ibn Khalikan's "summary" is not commonly cited in the literature and it's original research to handle a primary source like this (especially considering the outdated translation). Thus it should be removed. You also linked the name of Bukhari to Sahih Bukhari even though it is well known that Bukhari hardly ever cited Ibn Is'haq in his Sahih book. Are you sure about that link? Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, we're supposed to revert to the long-standing version until these major and controversial changes are discussed. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 05:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

W. N. Arafat as a source

Our WP:SOURCE policy requires that sources used to be independent, and Arafat clearly does not meet that criteria. His writings have also been rejected and refuted by top-quality scholars. M. J. Kister, in this paper of his on pages 68–80, also points out that Arafat misrepresents the statements of the early Islamic scholars he quotes. It is clear that Arafat is not a source that can be used in Wikipedia articles (except, perhaps, in articles about himself). Accordingly, I'm deleting all passages sourced from him and will try to find statements from truly reliable sources on the subject (Ibn Ishaq) later. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 12:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

It depends on context. Some of the claims made by Arafat are notable, such as the ones you have removed from Ibn Ishaq's[2]. If those claims have been refuted by top scholars, then it would be best to include the refutation in our article. Also, most historians aren't truly independent and are often swayed by their religious and national backgrounds. Wiqi⁵⁵ 17:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

most historians aren't truly independent and are often swayed by their religious and national backgrounds.

@Wiqi55: research books written by Aum Shinrikyo followers about the topics related to their religion are clearly not independent secondary sources about those matters, especially if the books contain apologetic or promotional content. On the other hand, books published by reputable academic publishers and written by top scholars outside Aum Shinrikyo are generally considered independent sources, although in some cases, such as when an author is paid to write favorably about the subject, this may negate their independent status and reliability. But to accuse independent sources of not being independent just because of the assumption that those outside the Aum Shinrikyo religion have bad intentions toward Aum Shinrikyo? That's not really a valid argument. The same applies to other religions, including Islam.

Some of the claims made by Arafat are notable, such as the ones you have removed from Ibn Ishaq's. If those claims have been refuted by top scholars, then it would be best to include the refutation in our article

You mean by keeping Arafat's claims, but also adding refutations of them by top scholars? No, Wiqi, that would only be giving undue weight to Arafat, a religiously driven fringe theorist who was clearly neither an independent nor a reliable source, as shown by his arguments that got nothing but rejection and refutation from top scholars. Rather, we should omit his statements entirely and include only those from truly reliable sources. Here, I quote what some of them had to say about the matter between Ibn Ishaq and Malik ibn Anas:

Page 75:
The utterance of Mālik b. Anas about Ibn Ishaq as it is recorded by Arafat from Ibn Sayyid al-Nās is in fact a combined saying blended together in a later period. The story of the enmity between Mālik b. Anas and Ibn Ishaq has it that Ibn Ishaq spoke with disdain about Malik's compilation and said: "Lay the knowledge of Malik before me, I will handle it as a surgeon". Thereupon Malik said: "Look at this dajjal of the dajājila, are my books to be in front of him?"

Page 76–7:
The assumption that the enmity between Malik and Ibn Ishaq was caused mainly (or even solely) by the fact that Ibn Ishaq disseminated traditions of Jewish converts to Islam seems an oversimplification. The main cause for the antagonism is indicated in the report of Ibn Sayyid al-Nās: Ibn Ishaq surpassed every scholar in the Hijaz in his knowledge of the tribal strifes and tribal genealogy. He claimed that Malik had to be counted as a maula of the Dhū Asbah, Malik stated that he was a genuine descendant of this clan. When Malik completed the compilation of the Muwatta' Ibn Ishaq asked for it to be brought to him for examination, since he had said that he would be its surgeon. Malik responded with the contemptuous comment quoted above. The genealogical discussion seems to have been heated, as it touched upon the status of Mālik and humiliated his ancestors: Ibn Ishaq claimed that these ancestors had come to Medina as a group of clients of Taym (mawālī), not as their allies (hulafa').
Ibn Ishaq was, however, not the first scholar who questioned the truth of Malik's pedigree. He was preceded in this matter by the highly respected traditionist Sa'd b. Ibrahim (d. ca 125 A.H.), the grandson of "Abd al-Rahman b. Auf, the distinguished companion of the Prophet. Sa'd's criticism of Malik's pedigree brought about a clash between the two scholars.

Page 78:
The accounts saying that the only reason for the enmity between Malik b. Anas and Muhammad b. Ishaq was the problem of Malik's pedigree are verified by a report transmitted by the well-known scholar of hadith, Baqiyy b. Makhlad (d. 276A .H.) and recorded in the compilation of Abu l-"Arab (d. 333 A.H.) “Kitab al-mihan". Baqiyy relates a question of Yaqub b. Ibrahim b. Sa'd (d. 208A .H.) addressed to his father Ibrahim b. Sa'd b. Ibrahim (d. 183 A.H.). He inquired whether Ibn Ishaq was indeed affected by the vices and faults of which he was accused by the people of Medina. Ibrahim denied it; Ibn Ishaq had the misfortune to abide in Medina with its people. They charged him with foul deeds because he knew the pedigrees (of the people of Medina - K.); thus there was no clan in Medina the pedigree of which Ibn Ishaq did not impeach.

This is also supported by this source:

Page 153–4:
“What seems really to have accounted for the longevity of the Medinans’ hostility to Ibn Isḥāq is his feud with Mālik ibn Anas, the revered doyen of the Medinan school and the author of the Muwaṭṭaʾ. The feud between Ibn Isḥāq and Mālik arose when Ibn Isḥāq exposed the falsity of Mālik’s claim to be of Arab descent. Mālik laid claim to Arab lineage from the Dhū Aṣbaḥ of Taym ibn Murrah, but Ibn Isḥāq rebutted this. He asserted that Mālik—as well as his father, grandfather, and uncles—descended rather from non-Arab clients of Taym ibn Murrah. Ibn Isḥāq was not the only scholar to make such accusations, nor was he the only learned Medinan to suffer Mālik’s wrath as a result. Indeed, every indication suggests that Ibn Isḥāq’s charge against Mālik was true.”

— Kaalakaa ^(talk) 10:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Possible cherrypicking and source misrepresentation

@Wiqi55, on this statement in our article's current version:

The 14th-century historian al-Dhahabī, using hadith terminology, noted that in addition to the forged (makdhūb) poetry, Ibn Isḥāq filled his sīra with many munqaṭiʿ (broken chain of narration) and munkar (suspect narrator) reports.

You use the following Arabic primary sources [3] to support that statement. But after I checked that source, it actually says:

وهو صالح الحديث، ماله عندي ذنب إلا ما قد حشا في السيرة من الأشياء المنكرة المنقطعة والاشعار المكذوبة
And he is truthful in the hadith, and the only fault I find with him is related to certain objectionable, disconnected things, and forged verses that have been inserted into his biography.

Why did you only include the latter part, even using the weasel word "many" when it's not used in the source, but omit the former part, which I bolded? And this statement does not seem to be al-Dhahabi's personal opinion but a continuation of Abu Salama ibn Abdurrahman's statement, which he quoted earlier from Ibn Ma'in, as can be seen from the use of the word و (and) at the beginning of the sentence. Besides Abu Salama's words, al-Dhahabi also quotes statements from others regarding Ibn Ishaq, many of which are positive. Why didn't you add their statements as well and only focus on extracting the negatives from it, especially into the reception section? Also, this passage in our article with its only citation being "Ibn Hajar, Ta’rif Ahl al Taqdis 38":

"According to Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Ibn Ishaq was notorious for committing Tadlis which is failing to disclose the names of those who he had heard the narration from due to him hearing the report from unreliable and unknown persons, he would also commit Tadlis, from individuals who were seen as unreliable for more severe reasons."

That passage quite contradicts what is written by the following reliable secondary source:

Page 80:
Ibn Hajar, in arguing against Ibn al-Jauzī who qualified Ibn Ishaq as majrüh (in connection with his transmission of a tradition with a clear Shi'i tendency about the death of Fatima) states that Ibn al-Jauzī's attack lacks substance; the leading scholars (of hadith – K.), according to Ibn Hajar, accepted Ibn Ishaq's transmission and he was accused of nothing worse than that he had transmitted on the authority of some unknown persons (majhūlin) and that he was a mudallis. Ibn Ishaq himself was a truthful person and an authority in the field of maghāzī (hujjatun fi l-maghāzī) in the opinion of the people (scil. of hadith, cinda l-jumhür).

And then, this sentence in our article:

Because of his tadlīs, many scholars including Muhammad al-Bukhari hardly ever used his narrations in their sahih books

Again, cherrypicking a certain part of a source and exaggerating it with the weasel word "many" when it's not used in the source, while omitting the part that says otherwise. Here is what the provided source actually says:

Ibn Ishaq was brought up in Madinah where he joined the study circles of the leading scholars of the time. Some have questioned his dependability. One of the reasons was that he was accused of being a Qadari. Imam Bukhāri for instance did not use his narratives except in hung reports. However, men like Shu'bah bin Hajjaj, a major Hadith scholar of his time, treated him with great respect calling him Amirul-Mu'minin fil- Hadith. Yahya bin Ma'in, another great Hadith critic, declared him trustworthy. Yahya bin Sa'eed Qattan, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Yahya bin Sa'eed Ansari, and several other scholars cleared him. Ibn Sayyidin-Nas and Khatib Baghdadi have recorded for posterity all the opinions that were voiced about him.
However, that was about him in the field of Hadith, where very strict measures prevail. In biography and war chronicles, his mastery is acknowledged by consensus.

The part that I bolded seems very significant, as well as all the positives preceding it, why did you not include them? Also, what's with some of the citations in this article of ours only being like "al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, Tārīkh Baghdād" while the statements they support are very extraordinary, such as:

According to al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, all scholars of ahadith except one no longer rely on any of his narrations, although truth is not foreign to him.

— Kaalakaa ^(talk) 12:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

This is actually Dhahabi's opinion because the و (waw) does not signify and; instead, it represents the initial letter of the word waththaqahu.[4] I also omitted the hadith part as the Reception section focuses on his Sira, not his hadith. Also, Dhahabi's conclusion about his hadith, which is more elaborate, is already summarized in the hadith section. Wiqi⁵⁵ 14:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Wiqi55: What I meant was not the "و" (waw) in "وثقه" but in "وهو". If you look at the previous page, in the last line, it is written:

‎"وقال ابن معين: قد سمع من أبي سلمة بن عبد الرحمن"
"And Ibn Ma'in said: He heard from Abu Salama ibn Abd al-Rahman."

This indicates that the initial lines on the page following it refer to what Ibn Ma'in said, until just before "قال الفلاس" ("Al-Falas said"), which then covers the quote from Al-Falas. Also, it seems you haven't addressed some of my earlier concerns, including your omission of the positive evaluations of Ibn Ishaq from this source you initially used, which you later deleted after I pointed out these positives:

However, men like Shu'bah bin Hajjaj, a major Hadith scholar of his time, treated him with great respect calling him Amirul-Mu'minin fil- Hadith. Yahya bin Ma'in, another great Hadith critic, declared him trustworthy. Yahya bin Sa'eed Qattan, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Yahya bin Sa'eed Ansari, and several other scholars cleared him. Ibn Sayyidin-Nas and Khatib Baghdadi have recorded for posterity all the opinions that were voiced about him.
However, that was about him in the field of Hadith, where very strict measures prevail. In biography and war chronicles, his mastery is acknowledged by consensus.

— Kaalakaa ^(talk) 17:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no confusion as waththaqahu starts a new paragraph. Besides, it's a famous opinion of al-Dhahabi, quoted in countless sources (search Google Books for the Arabic sentence).

And before accusing anyone of cherrypicking try to use wikipedia:WikiBlame. I didn't write the parts you claim I did, see [5]. Wiqi⁵⁵ 22:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Wiqi55:

it's a famous opinion of al-Dhahabi, quoted in countless sources (search Google Books for the Arabic sentence).

Well, if there are reliable, independent English-language secondary sources that confirm that it was al-Dhahabi's saying, then use those sources instead of WP:OR-ing with an Arabic-language primary source and cherrypicking details from it.

I didn't write the parts you claim I did

Yes, but you were the one who restored it, calling it, along with other sources I had deleted, a notable source. See: WP:BURDEN. Why, after I pointed out that that source says, "In biography and war chronicles, [Ibn Ishaq's] mastery is acknowledged by consensus", now you appear to dismiss it altogether? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 04:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

References