Sources of Advent of Islam

Bias is pernicious to any science.  In simple words, bias is a partiality in favour of or against anything or any person or any group or any phenomenon or any hypothesis when compared with another.  It can be present at any stage of scientific research whether it is data creation, data collection, data storage, data analysis or data dissemination.  Irrespective of the stage at which it emanates, end result is the same.  The final hypothesis derived is prejudiced.  Physical sciences have strived to develop foolproof tools to eradicate the possibility of bias in their research methodology.  Unfortunately, Social sciences are lagging behind.  History is more notorious among them. Many historical events were recorded according to the recorder’s inclination rather than objectively, to begin with. Preservation of recorded events was influenced by the forthcoming generation’s belief system.  Retrieval of sources of history totally depends upon the preferences of the collectors.  Finally, twists can be given while analysing the data depending upon the wishes of the analyser.  In the end, the historian, who presents the hypotheses to the public in the final format, has the freedom to select or reject analysed data at his whim. Lately, writers and readers of history have started accepting the phenomenon of inclination in a historical narrative to one or another point of view as unavoidable.  For example, we hear phrases like, ‘history of WWII from the Soviet point of view’ or ‘history of WWII from the allied point of view’ etc. Maintaining objectivity is particularly difficult in an area of history where passions are extensively involved, for example, the history of the advent of Islam.  No wonder, many historians of Islam are labelled as Western scholars, Islamic apologists, Christian missionaries, communist authors, prejudiced orientalists, Arab chauvinists, revisionists etc.  The latest addition to this never-ending list of viewpoints is ‘feminist’.

Absence of primary sources

Why are historians on the topic of the advent of Islam so divergent from each other? The problem partially lies in absence of primary sources.  Unfortunately, not a single inscription has come to the light from the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad. ¹  Neither there is any other archaeological material available like coins, manuscripts, ruins etc.  Even non-Islamic extant writings are absent for this period.

Availability of secondary sources

In absence of primary historical materials, which usually make the foundations of the history of the seventh century in other parts of the world, historians are left with only one choice.  That is to use secondary materials, mainly extant accounts of sīrah (سيرة) traditions and ḥadīth (حديث) traditions written by early Muslims.  Sirah traditions are recordings of events in the life of Prophet Muhammad and hadith traditions are recordings of sayings and practices of Prophet Muhammad.  Both these traditions remained oral for about a century after the death of the Prophet before being preserved in written form. ²  One reason for them circulating orally for a century or so was a public belief that a scholar should be intelligent enough to memorise his knowledge. ³  The earliest written accounts were personal notes of scholars rather than published books.

Limitations of secondary sources

Modern historians have raised serious concerns about both sirah and hadith traditions as authentic sources of history. ⁴  Sirah and Hadith are definitely not primary sources of the history of the advent of Islam.  The very process of their oral transmission for a long time raises doubts about their trustworthiness.  General consensus is that the written form of literature is more stable while being transmitted as compared to oral literature.  The longer a historical event remained oral before being subject to writing, the more doubtful its credibility is.

Then, there is a big question mark if names mentioned in the transmission of an oral tradition are genuine (chain of authorities, Isnād اسناد).⁵  The process of transmission may be conceived somewhat as follows.  To begin with, the stories would be handed down informally in families and clans, and from older men and women to younger acquaintances.  Before the end of the first Islamic century, however, a few persons had begun to collect all the information they could about the life and campaigns of Prophet Muhammad, and some at least wrote down what they had collected.  These earliest collectors of information, however, though they seem to have scrutinized their sources carefully and sometimes stated who they were, did not in every case give a complete chain of authorities going back to an eye-witness of the events.  It was only gradually that noting the complete chain of authorities became a regular practice.  Ibn Ishaq, working in the second quarter of the second Islamic century (middle of 8^th century CE) usually gives his authorities, but not always a complete chain, and he does not always repeat the words of the authority verbatim.  Waqidi, half a century later, is similar in method, but his secretary and follower, ibn Sa’d, some twenty years later, always attempts to quote exactly and to give a complete chain of authorities.  The insistence on complete chains is to be associated with the teaching of Ash-Shāfi’ī, who was roughly a contemporary of Waqidi.  Once it became fashionable to find a complete chain of authority, scholars might have been tempted to extend their chains backwards to contemporaries of Prophet Muhammad.  Even when they thus added to the chains, however, their additions might have been sound, since they probably knew in a general way where their predecessors had obtained information from.  Still, this means even when a whole chain of authority is given we cannot rely so fully on the early links of a chain as on the later ones.⁶

Another problem in using sirah and hadith literature to reconstruct the history of that time is bias in the recording process.  Earliest recorders deliberately omitted material from recordings that did not ‘suit’ them.  Hence material that has reached us is selected and important data has been deleted in a systemic way – a typical example of scientific bias.  Ibn Hishām (اِبنِ هِشَام) is one of the earliest sirah writers whose work has survived.  His main source was Ibn Ishaq, who belonged to an earlier generation of sirah writers.  In the preface of his book, Ibn Hisham admits, “For the sake of brevity, confining myself to the Prophet’s biography and omitting some of the things which Ibn Ishaq has recorded in this book in which there is no mention of the apostle and about which the Qurʾān says nothing and which are not relevant to anything in this book or an explanation of it or evidence for it; things which it is disgraceful to discuss; matters which would distress certain people; and such reports as Al-Bakkā’ī told me he could not accept as trustworthy – all these things I have omitted.⁷  Here we get a classic example of deleting data.  Not only this, we get reasons for doing this – ‘things that are disgraceful to discuss’ (i.e. in eyes of the public of that time) and ‘matters which would distress certain people’ (i.e. rulers).  Guillaume has worked meticulously to retrieve data deleted by Ibn Hisham and has demonstrated that some censored traditions were not politically acceptable to the rulers of the time and some others were not religiously acceptable to the people of the time.⁸  Actually early traditionalists were aware that material had been censored during the oral transmission phase due to political reasons.  For example, regarding the distribution of booty from the battle of Badr, Waqidi writes in one place “ ‘Abd al-‘Azīz bin Muḥammad related to me from Ja’far bin Muḥammad from his father that the Prophet apportioned a portion to Ja’far bin Abī Ṭālib as his reward.  But our companions do not mention it and his name is not in the sources.”⁹

Forgery in traditions is the next problem a historian has to deal with.  Early Islamic sources were aware of forgery being committed.  For example, discussing the scribe of the treaty of Ḥudaybiyah, Ma’mar writes on the authority of ‘Abd al-Razzāq, “I asked al-Zuhrī About this, and he laughed and said, “The scribe was ‘Ali ibn Abī Ṭālib, but were you to ask them” – by whom he meant the Umayyads – “they would say it was ‘Uthmān.” ¹⁰

Unlike self-admitted account of Ibn Hisham of censoring the material in sirah literature or Zuhri’s acknowledgement that forgery was going on in the recording of sirah literature, no self-admitted account of forgery is documented for the hadith literature.  However, circumstantial evidence to prove later forgery is abundant.  For example, Muslim ibn al-Hajjāj, one of the hadith collectors, writes down in his Ṣaḥīḥ that Salama bin Yazīd asked the Prophet three times what did he think of future rulers who would demand from the public to discharge their responsibilities towards a ruler but themselves would not discharge their duties towards public.  The Prophet didn’t answer.  Then Ash’ath bin Qays pulled Salama aside and said ‘listen to them and obey them, for on them shall be their burden and on you shall be your burden. ¹¹  This kind of stuff is obviously concocted at the instigation of later rulers in Islam who were blamed for not fulfilling their duties towards the public.  Two points are worth noting.  The narrator of this hadith claims that he heard it from his father and does not give any further chain of transmission.  Second, the advice does not come directly from the tongue of the Prophet but from somebody else, and his words found a place in hadith literature because they are claimed to be uttered in presence of the Prophet.

Then comes the problem of ‘distortion during transmission’.  Early Muslim historians were aware of modifications in the content of traditions during the passage through the chain.  For example, Ibn Hisham did not record one poem in the text he was writing on grounds that, according to him, there was a line in the poem that was a later invention.¹²  Modifications were done either by the addition of a substance to the tradition or the combination of two different approaches into a single one.  Researchers have identified general trends that governed modification in traditions.  One was, quite naturally, the glorification of Prophet Muhammad.  Others were the glorification of the forefathers of the transmitter himself and the glorification of politically successful personalities at the time of the tradition being written.  Opposite to it, i.e. blackening of opponents of Prophet Muhammad and political opponents of the current writer was also practiced. ¹³

The matter gets further complicated when we see that whatever sirah or hadith literature has reached us is mutually contradicting even among the earliest sources.  Ibn Ishaq gives the timing of the murder of Asmāʾ bint Marwān and Abu ‘Afak after the battle of Uhud but Waqidi gives the dates of these executions in the week immediately after the battle of Badr. ¹⁴  Not only do different recorders disagree with each other on a particular matter but the same recorder pens down contradicting reports and leaves the judgement of the correct version to the reader.  For example, at one place Waqidi notes about the expedition of Nakhla, “Ma’mar related to me from al-Zuhrī from ‘Urwa saying: The Messenger of Allah paid the blood money for ‘Amr bin al- Ḥaḍramī. He observed the protected month as it was until Allah revealed Barā’a”.  At another place he notes, “Abū Bakr bin Abī Sabra related to me from ‘Abd al-Majīd bin Sahl from Kurayb, who said: I asked Ibn ‘Abbās, “Did the Messenger of Allah pay the blood money for Ibn al- Ḥaḍramī?”  He replied, “No.” Ibn Wāqid said: We are agreed that he did not pay the blood money.”¹⁵  Actually, entirely variant stories were circulating among Muslims during the second half of the eighth century CE about events that took place during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad.  It is confirmed by two entirely contradicting traditions noted by Ibn Ishaq who was active at that time, regarding the conversion of Umar bin Khattab.  In one version he notes that he converted after listening to the Qurʾan recited by his sister Fatima.  In another version, Ibn Ishaq notes that Umar converted after listening to the Qurʾan being recited by the Prophet Muhammad.  Ibn Ishaq himself is so confused with this situation that at the end of his reports he writes “But Allah knows what the truth was”.¹⁶  Contradicting reports about historical events had bothered the earliest historians of Islam who were using traditions recorded by earlier scholars.  Tabari admits that he has to note down totally conflicting reports of the events, which don’t make sense to Tabari himself.¹⁷

Furthermore, sirah literature is not a verbatim transcription of eyewitnesses.  It has been altered to sound convincing to the reader of the time.  Describing events of Hunayn, Ma’mar narrates, “Al-‘Abbās said: I was the one holding fast to the reins of the Messenger of God’s she mule, trying to turn her away, and Abu Sufyān held fast to his leather stirrup.”¹⁸  It is known that the use of stirrups started as late as the Umayyad period.¹⁹  It means Zuhri, who is a link in the chain of transmitters of this tradition, glamorized it to impress his audience.

It is known that sirah and hadith literature was already in written form by the end of the first Islamic century but later historians were not relying solely on the written materials.²⁰  They were still recording stories that were circulating orally.  Waqidi talks about one of his authorities that he had read something from an old transcript of Urwah bin Zubayr.  It shows that Urwah bin Zubayr had written something which Waqidi included in his monograph but other parts of the same tradition were still gathered from circulating oral accounts.²¹

So, where do we stand?

Some modern historians, like Koren and Nevo, outright reject early Islamic sources.  They believe that the discrepancies in early Muslim resources, both noted by early Muslim historians and observed by modern historians, are so extensive that they can only be believed if they match with a non-Islamic source. ²²  Patricia Crone joins the chorus. She is of the view that either one can adopt early Islamic traditions in total without criticism or reject them in total after critical analysis, but one can’t work with them.²³  Problem is, there are no other historical sources available to verify or reject the Islamic traditions.  If we strictly follow Koren and Nevo’s advice, we have to declare that nothing is known about the advent of Islam.  Wansbrough adopts exactly this position.²⁴  Haleem is at the same viewpoint when he declares, “We can never know exactly what historic Muhammad was”²⁵  Shoemaker, who himself holds this extreme position of total rejection of early Islamic traditions, laments, “Yet despite this widely held recognition (that sirah and hadith literature is not trustworthy historical source), it is peculiar that so many modern scholars have continued to write as if nothing has changed.”²⁶  Shoemaker is right in his observation.  Many researchers and students of the history of early Islam are not convinced that all early Islamic traditions have absolutely no historic value.  They are not convinced that after writing events of pre-Islam, a historian should leave a few pages blank under the heading of ‘advent of Islam’ and then proceed to what happened after the advent.  All modern historians of the advent of Islam acknowledge the limitations of early Islamic traditions but still, use them to create a history of that period. ²⁷  In doing so, modern historians tacitly admit that despite flaws, there is substance in early Islamic sources.  They can’t be taken at their face value but the truth can be dug out of them.  Hypotheses can be extracted from them after cautious scrutiny. ²⁸  This text adopts the same approach.

Introduction of sirah sources

One of the earliest known Muslim sirah recorders was Abān bin ‘Uthmān (اّبان بِن عُثمان), the son of caliph ‘Uthman. ²⁹ Being a son to the caliph he might be aware of some inside stories not known to the general public. ³¹  Aban’s work is lost forever.   

Another early Muslim historian was ‘Urwah bin Zubayr bin Awām (عُروَه بِن زُبَير بِن عَوّام).³²  Being nephew to A’isha he had access to her.   His original work is lost but few traditions have survived through citations in Ibn Ishaq, Waqidi and others.  Urwah died in 712 CE.³³  In this context he appears to be among the first published historians of Islam.  Umayyad caliph ‘Abdul Malik considered him an expert on Islamic history and modern historians consider him the founder of the history of Islam. ³⁴  All attempts to excavate ‘Urwah’s material have been futile up to now.³⁵

People like Aban and ‘Urwa, who had direct access to the Companions of the Prophet are called first-generation of Islamic historians.  Then comes the second generation.

Wahb bin Munabbih (وَهْب بِن مُنَبِّه) (654 CE – 728 CE), a Yemenite of Persian origin belongs to this generation of historians.  A few pages of his book on maghazi have survived on a papyrus (Heidelberger Papyrus) and it is the earliest extant writing of sirah literature.  This papyrus was written in 844 CE.³⁶  Though this manuscript does not give us any new insight into the life of the Prophet, it proves beyond doubt that verbal traditions about the Prophet were already written down by the time Wahb was active, i.e. end of the first Islamic century. Further, the analysis of the papyrus shows, like all other early sirah writings, giving a full line of isnad was still not popular. ³⁷, ³⁸  Interestingly, Wahb’s other work, ‘kitab al-Mubtada’ recorded biographies of prophets and other biblical stories and serves as the basis of all later biographies of prophets (qasas al anbia) written by Muslims. ³⁹

One interesting case of second-generation Islamic historians is that of Mūsā bin ‘Uqba (مُوسىٌ بِن عُقبَه)(c. 675 – 758 CE), a freedman of the family of Zubayr bin Awam.  A fragment of his work (Berlin manuscript) has survived and was published by Sachau in 1904.⁴⁰  Goldziher has proved that Musa’s work existed up to the end of the 9^th century of the Islamic era before being extinct.⁴¹

We don’t know the exact reasons why the writings of all first and second-generation sirah writers went extinct.  Some scholars were hopeful that they would be able to regenerate writings of second-generation Islamic historians by searching their quotes in later literature but they have given up.⁴²

The only written material that has reached modern historians is from third-generation sirah writers.  Even that comes from manuscripts found to be preserved centuries after original writings.  Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq (مُحَمَّد بِن اِسحاق), commonly known as Ibn Ishaq is one of the earliest biographers of Prophet Muhammad whose seminal work is preserved almost intact.  He had written about later events as well, but that is lost.⁴³  He was born in Medina (c. 704 CE) and died in Baghdad (c. 761 CE).⁴⁴  In this sense he was active during the first half of the second Muslim century and was in contact with the second generation of traditionalists.  As he was young when the Abbasid revolution took place (750 CE) and it is known that he presented his works to the Abbasid caliph Mansur, it can be assumed that his writings might have been twisted to Abbasid favour. ⁴⁵  His original book did not survive but he was extensively quoted by later historians.  Thanks to Guillaume who collected all his quotations from the books of later historians and published them in form of one book.  In doing so, Guillaume invented a technique for future historians on Islam to regenerate lost literature.

Abū ‘Abdullāh Muḥammad bin ‘Umar al Wāqidī (اَبُو عَبداللَّه بِن عُمَر الواقِدى) appeared almost half a century after Ibn Ishaq.  Commonly known as Waqidi, he was born in Medina (c. 747 CE) and died in Baghdad (c. 823 CE).⁴⁶  Originally a wheat trader interested in history, he acted as a tour guide to Abbasid Caliph Hārūn ur Rashīd during his visit to Medina and it was he who took Waqidi to Baghdad and appointed him a judge.⁴⁷  His book kitāb al Maghāzi, which appeared a few decades later than Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, is the earliest sirah tradition that has reached us in its entirety.⁴⁸  Its original manuscript, dated 1169 CE, is preserved in the British Library.⁴⁹  As Waqidi took up a government job and as the government provided him with a scribe (Ibn Sa’d), one can fairly assume that his writings might be skewered towards Abbasid favour.

Ma’mar bin Rāshid (مَعمَر بِن راشِد) also belongs to the third generation of historians.  He was a disciple of Zuhri and has written whatever Zuhri told him.  His principal source, Zuhri was attached to the Umayyad court.  Zuhri’s contemporary Makḥūl (d. 731) reportedly once exclaimed, “what a great man al-Zuhri would have been if only he had not allowed himself to be corrupted by associating with kings!”⁵⁰  So the reader can safely assume that traditions recorded by Ma’mar are biased in favour of the Umayyads.  Ma’mar did not note down sirah traditions specifically.  He collected and noted hadith.  Even those hadiths, like any other third-generation traditionalist’s work, are lost.  Sean has tried to trace only those hadiths with some historical content in later sources and has published them in book form.

Early hadith literature

Now we divert our attention to the hadith literature.  It is known that the process of hadith narration and preservation started immediately after the death of Prophet Muhammad.  ‘Abdallah bin Abbas and ‘Abdallah bin Umar are two Companions who particularly devoted themselves to this work.  Their work has not survived except in traditions recorded by later hadith narrators.

Then comes the next generation of hadith collectors and narrators.  Most qualified among them is ‘Aṭaʾ Ibn Abī  Rabaḥ (عَطأ اِبنِ ابِى رَبَّاح) (653 – 732 CE), who lived in Mecca.⁵¹  He had been in contact with Abdallah bin Abbas and Abdallah bin Umar.  None of his work has survived.  His contemporary, and equally qualified, was Muhammad bin Muslim bin ‘Ubaydallah bin Shihāb al-Zuhri (مُحَمَّد بِن مُسلِم بِن عُبَيد اللَّه بِن شِهاب الزُهرِى), commonly known as Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhri.  Born in 671 CE, Zuhri died in 742 CE.⁵²  Zuhri also had been in contact with Abdullah bin Umar and Abdullah bin Abbas.  He earned a reputation of a scholar among Muslims.  Using his reputation, he attached himself to the court of Caliph Abdul Malik and remained attached to the succeeding caliphs until his death.⁵³  Zuhri was one of the earliest Muslim religious scholars to get gravy from a government.

Ibn Rabah and Zuhri were followed by a genre of hadith narrators including Ibn Jurayj (اِبْنِ جُرَيج) (c. 699 CE – 768 CE) and Ma’mar bin Rashid (714 – 770). ⁵⁴The later was teacher to Abd al-Razzāq (عَبدُالرَزَّاق).  Abd al Razzaq preserved the works of both Ibn Jurayj and Ma’mar in his Muṣannāf Abd al-Razzaq.⁵⁵

Ṣaḥīfah of Hammām bin Munabbih (هَمَّام بِن مُنَبِّه) (d. 719 CE) is another collection of hadith from that genre that has been edited by Hamidullah a scholar from India/Pakistan. ⁵⁶  However, critiques argue that the manuscripts Hamidullah saw at Berlin and Damascus, which he claims to be original from Hammam, are actually transmitted through many hands and are the same as those of Abd al Razzaq.

‘Abd al-Razzāq ibn Hammām al- Ṣan’ani (عَبدُالرَزَّاق بِن هَمّام اَلصَنَعنى) (c. 763 –826 CE) was from Sana’a.  He travelled to Mecca, Medina, Syria and Iraq.  He is credited with arranging hadith according to the categories of jurisprudence (fiqh).  This collection of hadith was lost but quoted in other books.  Indian scholar Maulana Habib al-Rahman al-Azmi collected them again and published from Beirut.  These are called Musannaf Abd al Razzaq.  These hadith were studied by Harald Motzki, who concluded that they could be of historical value. ⁵⁷

We do not know with surety when hadith literature started to be reduced to writing.  A small fragment of papyrus preserved in the Vienna National Library, Vienna contains a portion of Hadith ascribed to ‘Umar bin Khaṭṭāb.  The papyrus originated in Egypt and is part of Muwaṭṭā of Malik (c. 795 CE).  It has been guessed to be from the 7^th to 8^th century CE, the early Abbasid period. ⁵⁸  This is the earliest known piece of hadith literature in written form.  But, apparently, hadith literature was being written before it.  We are told that Abd al Razzaq organized the hadiths in categories of fiqh.  If true, they were definitely in written form.⁵⁹

The bottom line

Those historians who don’t mind using early Islamic sources, hold a general belief that the historical material that is blended with legal material might have been distorted by later theologians to fit it into their views.  On the other hand, the material that contained purely historical events was less prone to distortion.⁶¹  As far as pure historical material is concerned, these historians accept it as trustworthy unless there is an internal contradiction in it or where ‘tendential shaping’ is suspected.⁶²

Haleem considers anything written within two hundred years of the death of Prophet Muhammad to be an early Islamic source.⁶³  Actually, nobody has composed a satisfactory history of the advent of Islam without using sources that late. Whenever a source is claimed to be early in this text, it fulfills this criterion.  This text gives preference to earlier sources over later ones.   It is known that sirah literature was present in written form earlier than hadith literature.⁶⁴  So Sirah gets precedent over hadith in this text for the reconstruction of political developments.  ‘Triangulation’ is a reasonable tool used to overcome an observer’s bias in social sciences. ⁶⁵  It simply means if two or more observers examine the same object from different points of view and come to the same conclusion, the conclusion is valid.  This text uses this technique wherever possible by including only those traditions which are considered genuine by more than two historians of diverse backgrounds.

Qur’an as a historical source

Another possible source for the historical period of the advent of Islam can be the Qurʾan.  Ibn Ishaq’s notation that ‘Abu Bakr used to read the Qurʾan’ before Hijra gives a hint that at least some part of the Qurʾan was in written form by that time.⁶⁶  Archaeology tends to confirm it.  The earliest known portion of a Qurʾan manuscript is housed in the library of the University of Birmingham.  These are two folios that treasure hunters collected from the Middle East in the 1920s.  Carbon dating has confirmed that the animal on whose skin this manuscript is written was alive between 568 CE to 645 CE. ⁶⁷, ⁶⁸  Even if the Qurʾan was in written form during the lifetime of the Prophet, some historians raise the question if it has reached us in exactly the same form and in its entirety.  Ya’qubi mentions that Abu Bakr ordered the collecting of all written pieces of the Qurʾan and compiling them into a book after the war of Yamama. ⁶⁹  If correct, this tradition confirms that Quran was not in book form before the war of Yamama.  Ya’qubi also mentions that Uthman established a correct official version of the Qurʾan, made nine copies of it and sent one to each province of the Medinan Caliphate.  He kept one copy in Medina.  These copies were meant to be a template for any future Qurʾanic manuscript.  All other Qurʾan manuscripts except these nine copies were ordered to be destroyed.⁷⁰   This event is called codification of the Qurʾan and the text of the Qurʾan thus finalized is called ‘Uthmanic text.⁷¹

Kodex Wezstein II 1913 is a Qurʾān manuscript kept at Staatsbibliothek, Berlin and has 210 folios.  It contains 85% of ‘Uthmanic text.  Its radiocarbon dating has established it to be from 662 CE to 765 CE with a 95.4% probability. ⁷³  It is claimed to be the oldest most complete Qurʾan, written in Hejazi style.  Hence, Qurʾan is a stable text from the middle of the 7^th century CE and is preserved on paper much earlier than sirah or hadith literature.

The problem in using the Qurʾan as a source of history of the advent of Islam is in two folds.  One, the theme of the Qurʾan is religion, not history. ⁷⁴ It talks about historic events allegorically.  Second, the chronology of its contents is still not indisputably settled.  Early Muslim sources are unanimous that it was revealed gradually. But their opinion on which part was revealed when is contradicting. ⁷⁵  In modern times German scholar Noldeke was the first to try to arrange the Qurʾan chronologically in his History of the Qur’an first published in 1860.⁷⁶  The last such attempt was done by English scholar Bell in 1937.⁷⁷  Nothing concrete came out of these efforts.  No modern historian has used the Qurʾan as a source of Islamic history after Watt.⁷⁸  This text follows the trend.

Final words

Those historians who are willing to use early Islamic sources and generate a historical picture of the advent of Islam, consider that political events like immigration to Medina or the Prophetic battles have taken place.  And they have taken place in the same chronological order as early Islamic sources mention them.  However, their details are fuzzy and worth debating.⁷⁹

Currently, the whole body of history related to the advent of Islam is based on secondary sources.  Only future archaeological studies conducted inside Saudi Arabia have the potential of producing primary sources.  Unfortunately, archaeological work is not being done so enthusiastically there.  Moreover, the potential sites for such studies in Mecca and Medina are rapidly being destroyed. ⁸⁰

End Notes

1. Christian Julien Robin, in Languages and Scripts in Roads of Arabia ed. ‘Ali ibn Ibrāhīm Ghabbān, Beatrice Andre-Salvini Francoise Demange, Carine Juvin and Marianne Cotty (Paris: Louvre, 2010) 119.
2. Robinson Chase. Islamic Historiography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
3. Michael Cook, “Opponents of the Writing of Traditions in Early Islam.” Arabica 44 (1997): 437 – 530.
4. Ignac Goldziher. Muhammedanische Studien, (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1889 – 1890) Vol. I & II.  AND Ignac Goldziher, Muslim Studies, Ed. S. M. Stern, Trans. C. R. Barber and S. M. Stern.  (London: Allen & Unwin, 1967 – 1971), Vol. I & II.  See also: Leone Caetani, Annali dell’Islam, (Milano: Hoepli, 1905 – 1926), 10 vloumes.
5. Different ways of transmission of isnad is discussed by: Fuat Sezgin Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums I (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967), 53 – 84.
6. Montgomery W Watt, Muhammad at Medina.  (London: Oxford University Press, 1956; Repr. 1965) 338.  See also: Joseph Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1950), 3, 163 – 165.
7. Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad.  Ed. and Trans. Alfred Guillaume.  Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2013. 691.
8. Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad.  Ed. and Trans. Alfred Guillaume.  Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2013.  (Ibn Ishaq mentions Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib being a prisoner of war at the battle of Badr. Ibn Hisham omitted it (Guillaume’s note on P 313).  Similarly, Ibn Ishaq mentions abrogated āyah, Ibn Hisham omitted it.).
9. Muhammad bin ‘Umar al-Wāqidī,.  The life of Muḥammad:  kitāb al-Maghāzī.  Ed. Rizwi Faizer, Trans. Rizwi Faizer, Amal Ismail and AbdulKader Tayob.  (London: Routledge, 2011). 11.
10. Rāshid ibn Ma‘mar, The Expeditions. Ed. Joseph E. Lowry, Trans. Sean W. Anthony.  (New York: New York University Press, 2015).  28.
11. www.sahihmuslim.com/sps/smm/ the book on Government. chapter ‘obedience to be shown to the (Caliphs) even if they withhold the People’s due rights.  Hadith number 4551.  Accessed on 22/10/17.
12. Muhammad Ibn Ishaq,  The Life of Muhammad.  Ed. and Trans. Alfred Guillaume.  (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2013), 693.
13. Watt, Montgomery W.  Muhammad at Medina.  London: Oxford University Press, 1956; Repr. 1965.
14. Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad.  Ed. and Trans. Alfred Guillaume, (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2013), 675, 676.  AND Muhammad bin ‘Umar al-Wāqidī,.  The life of Muḥammad:  kitāb al-Maghāzī.  Ed. Rizwi Faizer, Trans. Rizwi Faizer, Amal Ismail and AbdulKader Tayob.  (London: Routledge, 2011). 85 – 87.
15. Muhammad bin ‘Umar al-Wāqidī,.  The life of Muḥammad:  kitāb al-Maghāzī.  Ed. Rizwi Faizer, Trans. Rizwi Faizer, Amal Ismail and AbdulKader Tayob.  (London: Routledge, 2011). 11.
16. Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad.  Ed. and Trans. Alfred Guillaume.  (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2013).   155 – 158.
17. Abū Jā’far Muḥammad bin Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, The History of al- Ṭabarī. Vol. XXVII, ed. Ehsan Yar-Shater, trans. John Alden Williams (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1985), 49.
18. Rāshid ibn Ma‘mar, The Expeditions. Ed. Joseph E. Lowry, Trans. Sean W. Anthony.  (New York: New York University Press, 2015). 66.  Tabari also mentions at least one horse in the battle of Hunayn having a stirrup.  See:  Abū Jā’far Muḥammad bin Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, The History of al- Ṭabarī. Vol. XIX, ed. Ehsan Yar-Shater, trans. I. K. A. Howard (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990), 131).
19. Kennedy, Hugh. The Armies of the Caliphs: Military and Society in the Early Islamic State. (Routledge: London, 2001) 171 – 72.
20. For a discussion on written material from the first Islamic century see:  Gorke, Andreas, Harald Motzki and Gregor Schoeler. “first Century Sources for the Life of Muhammad? A debate.” Der Islam 89 (2012): 2 – 59.
21. Muhammad bin ‘Umar al-Wāqidī,.  The life of Muḥammad:  kitāb al-Maghāzī.  Ed. Rizwi Faizer, Trans. Rizwi Faizer, Amal Ismail and AbdulKader Tayob.  (London: Routledge, 2011). 75.
22. J. Koren and Y. Nevo, ‘Methodological approaches to Islamic Studies’, Der Islam 68. (1991) 92 -3.
23. Patricia Crone, Slaves on Horses: The Evolution of the Islamic Polity. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 4.
24. John E. Wansbrough, “Review of Patricia Crone and Michael Cook, Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 41(1978): 155 – 156.  AND John E. Wansbrough, The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History. London Oriental Series 34.  Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978.
25. Rāshid ibn Ma‘mar, The Expeditions. Ed. Joseph E. Lowry, Trans. Sean W. Anthony.  M. A. S. Abdel Haleem, (New York: New York University Press, 2015) xvi.
26. Stephen J. Shoemaker, “Muḥammad and the Qur’ān” in The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity. Ed. Scott Fitzgerald Johnson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 1079.
27. For some modern histories of the advent of Islam, and how their creators use early Islamic sources see: Marshal G. S. Hodgson, The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilisation, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974.  See also: F. E. Peters, Muhammad and the Origins of Islam, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994.
28. Montgomery Watt utilizes this approach in constructing the history of the advent of Islam.  See: Montromery W. Watt, Muhammad at Mecca, London: Oxford University Press, 1953.  AND Montgomery W. Watt, Muhammad at Medina, London; Oxford University Press, 1956.
29. Ibn Sa’ad.  Biographien Muhammeds, seiner Gefahten und der spateren Trager des Islams bis zum jahre 230 der Flucht. ed. E. Sachau.   Leiden: 1905. 23 vol III.
31. Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad.  Ed. and Trans. Alfred Guillaume.  Alfred Guillaume (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2013), xiv.]  We would have not been aware of Aban’s writing activities had Zubayr bin Bakkār (d. 870), an Abbasid-era historian, not written about him.  According to Ibn Bakkār, Aban compiled his work in 702 CE at the behest of Umayyad prince (later caliph) Sulaymān bin ‘Abd al Mālik, who also provided Abān with ten scribes (Kuttāb) and the parchments needed to write the book.  It was soon burned on orders of caliph ‘Abd al Mālik, father of Sulayman, because it was brief on the virtues of Umayyad ancestors from Mecca and was full of praises for Muhammad’s Medinan Companions.³⁰al-Zubayr ibn Bakkār, Al-Akhbār al-Muwaffaqayyāt, ed. Sāmi al-‘Ani. (Baghdad: Maṭba’at al-‘Ani., 1972) 332 – 35.
32. Waqidi gives credit to Urwah bin Zubayr’s written material in his Kitab al Maghazi.(Muhammad bin ‘Umar al-Wāqidī,.  The life of Muḥammad:  kitāb al-Maghāzī.  Ed. Rizwi Faizer, Trans. Rizwi Faizer, Amal Ismail and AbdulKader Tayob.  (London: Routledge, 2011). 75.).  Urwah remained known to medieval historians.  For example, Turkish literary historian Ḥājjī Khalīfah (d. 1657) identifies ‘Urwah ibn Zubayr as the earliest gatherer of Sirah literature.  (Ḥājjī Khalīfah. Kashf al- ẓunūn ‘an asāmī al-kutub wal-funīn, Vol II. (Beirut: Dār al-‘Ilm, 1994), 604.).
33. Khalifa Ibn Khayyat, Khalifa ibn Khayyat’s History on the Umayyad Dynasty (660 – 750), ed. and trans. Carl Wurtzel, (Liverpool, Liverpool University Press, 2015), 178, Year 93.  AND Abū Jā’far Muḥammad bin Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, The History of al- Ṭabarī. Vol. XXIII, ed. Ehsan Yar-Shater, trans. Martin Hinds (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990), 213.
34. Muhammad Ibn Ishaq,.  The Life of Muhammad.  Ed. and Trans. Alfred Guillaume.  Alfred Guillaume (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2013). Xiv.
35. Stephen J. Shoemaker, “In search of ‘Urwa’s Sīra: Methodological Issues in the Quest for Historical Muhammad.” Der Islam 85 (2011): 257 – 341.
36. Raif Georges Khoury, Wahb bin Munabbih: der Heidelberger Papyrus PSR Heid. Arab. 23, Wiesbaden, 1972, 118 – 81.
37. Muhammad Ibn Ishaq,.  The Life of Muhammad.  Ed. and Trans. Alfred Guillaume.  Alfred Guillaume (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2013).  xvi.
38. There is another folio of Wahb bin Munabbih which is identified lately. It is kept at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and is studied by Kister.  (Kister, M. J. “Notes on the Papyrus Text about Muhammad’s Campaign against the Banu al-Nad.ir” Archiv Oreintalni 32 (1964), 27 – 32).
39. Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad.  Ed. and Trans. Alfred Guillaume.  Alfred Guillaume (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2013).  xvi.
40. Carl E. Sachau, Das Berliner Fragment des Mūsa ibn ‘Ukba, Ein Beitrag zur Kenntine der altesten arabischen Geschichtsliteratur, in: Sitzungsberichte der preussischen akademie der Wiss XI. (Berlin: 1904) 445 – 70.
41. Ignaz Godziher, Muhammedanische Studien, (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1889), 207.
42. Conrad, Lawrence I.  “Recovering Lost Texts: Some Methodological issues.” JAOS 113 (1993): 258 – 63.
43. Nabia Abbots has identified a papyrus fragment from Ibn Ishaq’s Tahikh al-Khulafā (Abbot, studies in Arabic Literary Papyri, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957 – 72) vol. 1 page 80 – 99.). It shows that Ibn Ishaq’s recension proceeded later than the death of the Prophet.  That part of his writings is lost.  (Horovitz, Joseph. earliest biographies of the Prophet and their Authors, ed. Lawrence I. Conrad. SLAEI 11. (Princeton: Darwin, 2002) 80 – 89).
44. Ibn Sa’ad.  Biographien Muhammeds, seiner Gefahten und der spateren Trager des Islams bis  zum jahre 230 der Flucht. ed. E. Sachau.   (Leiden: 1905) 67 Vol VII Part II.
45. For Ibn Ishaq’s presentation of his work to Mansur see: Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad.  Ed. and Trans. Alfred Guillaume.  Alfred Guillaume (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2013) xvi, xiv.
46. Ibn Sa’d, Kitāb al-Tabaqāt al-Kabīr, Ed. Eduard Sachau, (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1940) 314 – 21 Vol. V.
47. Josef Horowitz, the earliest biographies of the Prophet and their authors, ed. Lawrance I. Conard (Princeton: Darwin Press, 2002), 107.
48. Muhammad bin ‘Umar al-Wāqidī,.  The life of Muḥammad:  kitāb al-Maghāzī.  Ed. Rizwi Faizer, Trans. Rizwi Faizer, Amal Ismail and AbdulKader Tayob.  Rizwi Faizer and Andrew Lippin (London: Routledge, 2011) xiii.
49. British Library Or. 1617.
50. Rāshid ibn Ma‘mar, The Expeditions. Ed. Joseph E. Lowry, Trans. Sean W. Anthony.  M. A. S Abdal Haleem (New York: New York University Press, 2015) xxviii.
51. Harald Motzki, The Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence: Meccan Fiqh Before the Classical Schools. Trans. Marion H Katz, (Leiden: Brill, 202), 249 -262.  See also: Muhammad Mustafa al-Azami, Studies in Early Hadith Literature: with a critical edition of some early texts, (Indianapolis, Indiana: American Trust Publications, 1978), 80.
52. Khalifa Ibn Khayyat, Khalifa ibn Khayyat’s History on the Umayyad Dynasty (660 – 750), ed. and trans. Carl Wurtzel, (Liverpool, Liverpool University Press, 2015), P 74, Year 51 AND P 245, Year 124.  AND Ibn Sa’ad Vol II Ayeasha Bewley translation, 273 – 81.  See also: Michael Lecker. “Biographical Notes on Ibn Shihab al Zuhri”.  JSS 41 (1996): 21 – 63.
53. Ya’qūbī, Ibn Wāḍiḥ al-, The Works of Ibn Wāḍīḥ al-Ya’qūbī: An English Translation, Eds. and Trans. Matthew S. Gordon, Chase F. Robinson, Everett K. Rowson and Michael Fishbein, (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 1021, 1032.  AND Khalifa ibn Khayyat’s History on the Ummayyad Dynasty (660 – 750), ed. and trans. Carl Wurtzel, (Liverpool, Liverpool University Press, 2015), P 242, Year 123.
54. For a bio of Ibn Jurayj see: Harald Motzki, The Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence: Meccan Fiqh Before the Classical Schools. Trans. Marion H Katz, (Leiden: Brill, 202), 268 – 288.
55. Motzki, Harald. “the author and his work in the Islamic literature of the first centuries: the case of ‘Abd al Razzaq’s Muṣannaf” JSAI 28 (2003).
56. Muhammad Hamidullah, The Earliest Extant Work on the Hadith: Sahifah Hammam ibn Muhabbih. Tans. Muhammad Rahimuddin. Paris: Publications du Centre Cultural Islamique, 1961.
57. Harald Motzki, “The Musannaf of Abd al-Razzaq al-San’ani as a source of Authentic Ahadith of the First Century A.H”. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 50, (1991) 1 – 21.
58. Petra M. Sijpesteijn, Hadith Fragment on Papyrus, Der Islam: Journal of the History and Culture of the Middle East 90 (2), (2015) 321 – 331.
59. Sezgin, Fuat.  Geschichte des arabischen schrifttums (Leiden: Brill, 1967) Vol. 1. 115 – 52.
60. Current location: Austrian National Library, Vienna. Petra M. Sijpesteijn, Hadith Fragment on Papyrus. Der Islam (2015): 321 – 331
61. Watt, Montgomery W.  Muhammad at Medina.  (London: Oxford University Press, 1956; Repr. 1965) 337.
62. Watt, Montgomery W.  Muhammad at Medina.  (London: Oxford University Press, 1956; Repr. 1965) 336.
63. Rāshid ibn Ma‘mar, The Expeditions. Ed. Joseph E. Lowry, Trans. Sean W. Anthony.  M. A. S. Abdal Haleem (New York: New York University Press, 2015) xv.
64. Gorke, Andreas. “the relationship between maghazi and hadith in early Islamic scholarship”. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 74 (2011): 171 – 85.
65. Uwe Flick. “Triangulation in qualitative research” in A Companion to Qualitative Research.  Eds. Uwe Flick, Ernst von Kardorff and Ines Steinke.  Tans. Bryan Jenner.  (London: SAGE, 2004) 178 – 183.
66. See Ibn Ishaq’s notation: Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad.  Ed. and Trans. Alfred Guillaume.  (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2013), 171.
67. www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/latest/2015//07/qura-manuscript-22-07-15.aspx, posted on 22 July 2015.  Inventory No.  Arabe 328c and Mingana Islamic Arabic 1572a.    For initial cataloguing of these folios see: H. L. Gottschalk (ed.), Catalogue of the Mingana Collection of Manuscripts: Now in the Possession of the Trustees of the Woodbrooke Settlement, Selly Oak, Birmingham and Preserved at the Selly Oak Colleges Library, Volume IV – Islamic Arabic Manuscripts, (Birmingham: The Selly Oaks Colleges Library, 1948), 2.
68. Earliest known dated portion of the Qur’an is housed in the Egyptian National Library, Cairo, Egypt. The surviving portion of this Qur’an manuscript contains Surah Yā-Sīn from 72 to 83 and Surah Al-Ṣāffāt from 1 to 14.  Its date is 725 CE.  (B. Moritz, Arabic Palaeography: A Collection of Arabic Texts From The First Century of the Hidjra till the Year 1000, (Cairo, 1905) Plate 1 – 12).
69. Ya’qūbī, Ibn Wāḍiḥ al-, The Works of Ibn Wāḍīḥ al-Ya’qūbī: An English Translation, Eds. and Trans. Matthew S. Gordon, Chase F. Robinson, Everett K. Rowson and Michael Fishbein, (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 759.  See also: Tabri, Al- The History of al-Tabri: The Conquest of Iraq, Southwestern Persia and Egypt. Eds. Ihsan Abbas; C. E. Bosworth; Jacob Lassner; Franz Rosenthal; Ehsan Yar-Shater.  Trans. Gautier H. A. Juynboll. (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1989) 2 – 6.
70. Ya’qūbī, Ibn Wāḍiḥ al-, The Works of Ibn Wāḍīḥ al-Ya’qūbī: An English Translation, Eds. and Trans. Matthew S. Gordon, Chase F. Robinson, Everett K. Rowson and Michael Fishbein, (Leiden: Brill, 2018),811.
71. Angelika Neuwirth, Studien zur Komposition der mekkanischen Suren: Die Literische From des Koran – ein Zeugnis seiner Historizitat? 2^nd edition. (Berlin: de Druyter, 2007.
72. Folio 2 recto (left) and Folio 1 verso (right). Current location, Mingana collection of Middle Eastern Manuscripts, held in Cadbury Research library, University of Birmingham.
73. M. J. Marx & T. J. Jocham, “Zu Den Datierungen Von Koranhandschriften Durch Die ¹⁴C-Methode”. Frankfurter Zeitschrift Fur Islamisch-Theologische Studein, (2015), 24.
74. F. E. Peters, “The Quest of the Historical Muhammad,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 23(1991): 291 – 315.  AND Fred McGraw Donner, Narratives of Islamic Origins: The Beginnings of Islamic Historical Writing, Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, (Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 1998), 80. AND Fazlur Rahman, Major Themes of the Qur’an, Minneapolis, MN: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1980.
75. Montgomery Watt, W. Muhammad at Mecca.  (London: Oxford University Press, 1953; Repr. 1965) 32.
76. Theodor Noldeke. Geschichte des Qorans.  Gottingen: Verlag der Dieterichschen Buchhandlung, 1860.
77. Richard Bell.  “The style of the Qur’an” in Transactions of the Glasgow University Oriental Society, 9. (1942 – 44) 9-15.  AND Richard Bell. Translation of the Qur’an. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1937-9.
78. People have tried to compose the history of early Islam by using the Qur’an as the only source.  Results are limited.  For one such attempt see: Reges Blachere, Le Probleme de Mahomet: Essai de biographie critique du fondateur de l’Islam, Paris: Press Universitaires de France, 1952.
79. Jones J. M. B.  “the chronology of Maghazi – a textual survey.”  Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 19 (1957); 245 – 80.  AND Uri Rubin.  “Eye of the beholder: the life of Muhammad as viewed by the early Muslims.” Princeton: Darwin, 1995. Both works establish the chronology of political events using early Islamic sources.
80. Ziauddin Sardar. “The destruction of Mecca”.  The New York Times.   Sep. 30, 2014.