Can we Write the Biography of Muhammad as History?

Suleiman A. Mourad (IEA Nantes & Smith College)

Historians face insurmountable obstacles in trying to establish the facts regarding Muhammad’s life and career. The absence of any literary, archeological, or other type of documentary evidence dating precisely to early seventh century western Arabia makes it impossible to form a solid foundation upon which to construct the biography of the prophet. Of course, various Muslim scholars and groups offered various narrative “histories” of Muhammad. But such narratives are often incoherent and at times contradictory. Some were even drafted with a back-projected understanding of what the life of a prophet should feature and how it ought to be presented. So, from very early on, Muslim chroniclers have disagreed over the historicity of essentially all important events in Muhammad’s life and career. For instance, we do not know when he was born (several reports offer different dates), which set of Qurʾanic verses he received in his first revelation (different reports name different verses), whether his legendary Night Journey to Jerusalem was a reality or a dream, whether his Ascension to Heaven occurred while he was in Jerusalem—during his Night Journey—or as a separate incident in Mecca that preceded the Night Journey by a few years, whether he named his sons after Meccan pagan deities or not, etc. Despite this, every modern biography of Muhammad presents the reader with a single, coherent narrative of his life, as if the records were clear, the facts well established, and no doubts regarding the chronology of his life remained. Thus the modern biographer, like his medieval predecessors, does not alert his audience that what they are reading has been sewn together from widely scattered bits and pieces of varying degrees of reliability and that no one before has presented them (and the

1 biography of Muhammad) in this way. In other words, each biography represents a new “collage” of narratives portraying, in their totality and given the biographer’s emphasis, a new image of Muhammad, even if the majority of the stories have been lifted from previous biographies. They also do not always reveal the ways in which the biographer’s own biases resulted in the selection of certain narratives while discarding others. Any “historical” biography cannot avoid becoming yet another entry in the list of “misleading” biographies of the prophet Muhammad, unless the focus is on how Muslims throughout the centuries have understood and represented their prophet’s life, career, and personality. Though a historian can only provide a broad sketch of factual evidence for the study of Muhammad’s life, we can offer with tremendous authority and accuracy a history of his veneration and the adaptation of this veneration to the changing religious views, socio-political circumstances, and challenges faced by Muslims from medieval times to the twenty-first century. Such an endeavor explains to the modern reader how Muslims have presented and articulated some of the most fundamental themes of Muhammad’s career as Messenger of God and created biographies for him to match their understanding of what the Messenger of God’s life should look like. Mapping Muhammad’s many legacies in this way allows the reader to better understand the crucial role his veneration played in combining a wealth of complex, scattered, and often contradictory evidence into the streamlined, unblemished portraits of Muhammad that medieval and modern Muslims have come to know and revere; and, in acknowledging the existence of the differing narratives of Muhammad’s life, we convey to the reader the complexity and diversity of beliefs within Islam.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

2

CASE STUDY 1: Annunciation of a Prophet

The famous historian al-Tabari (d. 922) in his History recounts that an old lady came to the pregnant young woman Aminah and said to her: “You are bearing the lord of this community. … you shall call him Muhammad.” Aminah probably thought that the old lady was consoling her, for she was a newlywed and her husband had left her in Mecca to join the trade caravan to Syria. She had no idea that he will meet his creator there and never come back. That night, she dreamt that a light came forth from her womb and lit the moonless sky: she could see the castles of southern Syria, hundreds of miles away. Al-Tabari also narrates that when Muhammad was nine years old, he accompanied his uncle Abu Talib on a trade trip to Syria. The caravan made a stop near the Christian city of Busra, next to the cloister of a monk called Bahira. The monk had noticed a cloud in the sky following the boy, and when he sat underneath a tree, its branches bent down to give him shade. Before the men of the caravan finished dismounting their loads, the monk came out running in their direction and invited them to dine in his cloister. He observed the boy carefully and asked him about what occurs to him during his awakeness and sleep. Everything matched exactly what the monk had read about the description of the new prophet. He then looked at the boy’s back and saw the mark of prophethood between his shoulders. The monk asked Abu Talib: “Is this boy a relative of yours?” Abu Talib said: “He is my son.” The monk replied: “No, he cannot be your son, for his father could not be alive!” Abu Talib answered: “He is actually my nephew.” The monk inquired: “What happened to his father?” Abu Talib responded: “He died when the boy’s mother was still pregnant.” The monk then said: “You spoke the truth. Take him back at once to your town and beware of the Jews, for if they see him and learn about him what I learnt, they would want to hurt him, for he will be a man of great significance.”

3

Putting the issue of historicity aside for now (given that we have several conflicting reports about the monk’s identity, location, and exchange with Muhammad), the legend is essentially meant to say that a Christian monk who was well versed in Christian canonical texts knew about the coming of a prophet after Jesus, and that this was something that was well known among Christian sages at the time. Indeed, the Qurʾan 7:157 declares that Muhammad is named in the Torah and the Gospels:

Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find﴾ ﴿.described in their Torah and Gospel

In another verse, the Qur’an asserts that Jesus proclaimed the coming of Muhammad as God’s new messenger:

Jesus son of Mary said to the Israelites: “I am God’s messenger to you, to﴾ confirm the already revealed Torah, and give news of a messenger coming (after me, whose name is Ahmad.”﴿ (Q. 61:6

These two examples indicate that Muhammad and his followers believed that a true and legitimate prophet was one proclaimed in prior scriptures, and by prior prophets. Moreover, they also show that Muhammad perceived himself, and his followers did so too, as a prophet in the biblical tradition, and that his movement was anchored in the biblical religious narrative. For instance, Ibn Ishaq (d. 767), the author of the earliest and very authoritative biography (Sira) of Muhammad, reports that the Gospel of John documents the exact words that Jesus had uttered in his proclamation of the coming of Muhammad. According to Ibn Ishaq, Jesus said:

Whoever hates me hates the Lord also. If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not have sinned. Now they are

4

covetous and think they can prevail over me and the Lord. For the word that is written in the Law has to be fulfilled: They hated me without a cause. But when the Munahhemana comes, whom God will send to you from the Lord, the Holy Spirit who comes from the Lord, he will testify about me. You too are to testify because you have been with me from the beginning. I have said these things to you to keep you from despair.

Ibn Ishaq explains that the term Munahhemana is a Syriac word that means Muhammad; in Greek it means Paraclete, that is “helper” or “comforter.” The quotation is indeed verbatim what appears in the Gospel of John 15:23–16:1, except that we do not find there any reference to Muhammad. It is worth noting that Ibn Ishaq was the first Muslim scholar to offer this quotation as proof that Jesus prophesied the coming of Muhammad (as implied in Qurʾan 61:6). Many later Muslim exegetes repeated Ibn Ishaq’s view. Other scholars went searching for different “proof” that Muhammad’s birth was prophesied in the Bible. For example, Ibn Saʿd (d. 845), who also authored a very authoritative biography of Muhammad (included in his Great Generations of Muslims), was clearly unaware of Ibn Ishaq’s story. In his narrative, Ibn Saʿd claims that the Hebrew Bible proclaimed the coming of Muhammad; he takes as his evidence the testimony of Jewish converts to Islam. One such convert reported that the Torah describes Muhammad in the following manner:

He will not cry or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street. He will not reciprocate harm, but instead will forgive and forget.

The closest parallel to this description is found in the Book of Isaiah 42.1–3:

Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations. He will

5

not cry or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street; a bruised reed he will not break, and a dimly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice.

The reports found in Ibn Saʿd were very popular; indeed, they were quoted extensively in the major collections of Hadith authored in the ninth century. Later on, Ibn Zafar al-Makki (d. 1169) in his Best Good-Tiding about the Best of Mankind—the “best of mankind” being Muhammad—expands on Ibn Saʿd’s reports, and pointed to Isaiah 60.1–7 as the most obvious prophesy of Muhammad’s arrival:

Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord has risen upon you. For behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and thick darkness the peoples; …. And nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising. … All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered to you; … they shall come up with acceptance on my altar, and I will beautify my beautiful house.

Unlike what one would find in Biblical exegesis, Ibn Zafar contends that

These verses were addressed to the noble city of Mecca, to which good tidings were brought of the pilgrimage of Muhammad’s community. The darkness that engulfed the earth before was the darkness of polytheism and the one who dispelled it with the Book of God was Muhammad, peace upon him. And Kedar was the father of the Arabs.

It is worth noting here that the Islamic literary tradition documents many more accounts offered by countless Jews and Christians—including stories about the Negus of Abyssinia, the Byzantine emperor Heraclius, etc.—admitting supposedly upon receiving letters from Muhammad that he is indeed mentioned in the Torah and the Gospels.

6

This short examination leads me to argue that the narratives that speak of Muhammad’s birth and early years, in as much as they relate to predictions about his birth and mission, emerged out of the necessity to infuse his biography with essential components. Without these components, his legitimacy as a prophet would be in serious doubt.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CASE STUDY 2: Muhammad’s Infallibility (ʿisma)

The Qurʾan asserts that Muhammad was a fallible human being, capable of committing sins:

We have given you a glorious victory, so that God may forgive your past sins﴾ and future sins, complete his grace unto you, and guide you to a straight (path.﴿ (Q. 48:2

Despite this seemingly authoritative statement, the notion of Muhammad’s infallibility (ʿisma) has been hotly debated throughout the course of Islamic history. The earliest arguments about the doctrine of infallibility emerged in the eighth century, when the term seems to have simply referred to God’s protection of His prophets from sin and error. The early Muslim community needed Muhammad to be infallible for two reasons. The first of these reasons stemmed from the early divisions of the Islamic community into two factions: the proto-Shiʿis (the socio-political movement out of which Shiʿism as a religious sect emerged) and proto-Sunnism (the socio-political movement out of which Sunnism as a conglomeration of religious sub-sects

7 emerged). At the time, the proto-Shiʿis were starting to assert the infallibility of their religious leaders (imams). Thus they had to extend the doctrine to include the prophet Muhammad as well; he was, after all, the first and greatest of the imams. The proto-Sunnis were not alien to the idea. But their emphasis was on the need to emulate Muhammad and his Sunna (way of life); hence Sunnis, that is those who follow the Sunna of Muhammad. Muhammad was therefore the exemplar to be emulated and obeyed and the Sunna to be the perfect guide. This gradually meant that the proto-Sunnis needed Muhammad to be infallible (maʿsum) from sin and error if the obligation to emulate his example was to be both meaningful and credible to their followers. Muhammad also needed to be infallible as the divinely chosen recipient and proclaimer of the Qurʾan. Only with his infallibility established can the purity and incorruptibility of the Qurʾan be ascertained; that is neither he nor any other creature was capable of tampering with the divine revelation that he was entrusted to deliver. In this respect, Qurʾanic passages demonstrating God’s protection of his Word from corruption by human or satanic forces were considered especially powerful testimonies to Muhammad’s infallibility. The evolution of the legend of the Satanic Verses (Qurʾan 53:19–23) is a famous example of the ways Islamic thought has evolved regarding the doctrine of Muhammad’s infallibility. The legend alleges that Satan appeared to Muhammad in the form of an angel, and whispered to him some revelation. The earliest versions of the story acknowledge that Muhammad initially accepted what Satan had whispered to him and recited them to his followers; Satan’s purpose was to defile the entire divine revelation that Muhammad was receiving. But then Muhammad was admonished by God for this slip, and retracted the verses. In certain ways, the early versions of the legend intended to show that Muhammad was fallible, but incapable of persisting in sin, which became an essential component of the early doctrine of his infallibility. The celebrated theologian and jurist Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), for instance, argues that,

8

The Prophet’s proclaiming that God had established his signs and removed that which Satan cast is a yet greater proof of his striving for veracity and his innocence from lying. It is this that achieves the purpose of messengership, for indeed he is the truthful, the veracious, which is why calling him a liar is, without doubt, sheer unbelief.

In this way, Ibn Taymiyya asserts both the historicity of the Satanic Verses episode and Muhammad’s ability to commit sins. Yet acknowledging the event does not condemn Muhammad or tarnish his reputation. For Ibn Taymiyya, although the prophet was capable of committing sins, his infallibility meant that he could not persist in those sins once he had committed them.

Yet, the classical historical tradition shows that Muslim scholars could not agree on whether or not Muhammad was capable of committing major (kabaʾir) or minor (saghaʾir) sins. Nor could they agree on whether Muhammad should be considered infallible before or after his call to prophethood—or, by extension, whether God’s decision to protect him was dependent on his capacity for sin. And what was acceptable to a rather notorious theologian as Ibn Taymiyya became almost intolerable later on in Islamic thought. More recent versions of the legend edit out the part where Muhammad is said to have accepted the “revelation” of Satan, and instead present Muhammad as doubting it from the very beginning and rejecting it. Such versions reflect the period when Muslims became less tolerant with the idea of partial infallibility and more favorable of complete infallibility; hence the broad belief in modern Islam that Muhammad was perfect in every sense and completely infallible. Satan’s failure at corrupting Muhammad is taken as proof that the text of the Qurʾan is exactly what God revealed to Muhammad. (Modern Islamic thought thus also overwhelmingly rejects the historicity of the Satanic Verses episode: that is, Muhammad did not accept Satan’s words at any point).

9

Modern western scholarship tends to miss the entire point of the legend, treating it as a negative and thus historically accurate story. Many scholars do not see the reason why Muslims would have felt the need to make up such a negative story about their prophet. But if one looks at the legend as a pretext to establish the infallibility of the prophet with respect to his delivery of the Qurʾan, then, yes, Muslims would have made up such a negative story about Muhammad in order for him to emerge vindicated by God and for the Qurʾan to emerge incorruptible.

Conclusion

What I tried to establish in this paper is that the biography of Muhammad can only be understood and therefore written as dogma. Each group of Muslims promotes and tolerates narratives about the prophet’s life and career that are acceptable to it given its assumptions and beliefs. In other words, each group finds objectionable many historical narratives about Muhammad. Subsequently, the task of writing the biography of Muhammad as history either imposes the Muhammad of one of those groups on the rest, or produces a collage that no Muslim accepts in its totality.

10