Islamic historiography
-
Didn't want to derail the thread so I'm making a seperate one about it
the earliest sources of information for the life of Prophet Muhammad in a historical context (ca. 570/571 ? June 8, 632 AD) are non-Muslim sources written in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, and Hebrew by the Jewish and Christian communities, which are valuable both in themselves and for comparison with Muslim sources.
(my question isn't directed at Hicham9 specifically, it just brings up something I'm confused about)
'What' are muslim sources exactly? Aside from the Charter I see different people refer to different things as Islamic historical sources, it's kinda confusing and overwhelming for me to try and read up on it because of this. Despite the hadith as a whole not really aiming to be a historical record, are any hadiths viable historical sources? and what about stuff like Sira and Futuh literature? -
Didn't want to derail the thread so I'm making a seperate one about it
(my question isn't directed at Hicham9 specifically, it just brings up something I'm confused about)
'What' are muslim sources exactly? Aside from the Charter I see different people refer to different things as Islamic historical sources, it's kinda confusing and overwhelming for me to try and read up on it because of this. Despite the hadith as a whole not really aiming to be a historical record, are any hadiths viable historical sources? and what about stuff like Sira and Futuh literature?Salaam,
Red Answer to the highlighted part above is alQuraan.
I know this is not what you are looking for... but there is an answer to your confusion, if you really take some time and try to understand my answer, inshaAllah.May Allah bless you pr
mmKhan -
Thanks for replying
I already see the Quran as an Islamic historical source (as well as the religious authority, of course) unless you're implying it's the only viable Islamic historical source? What of stuff like the Achtiname of Muhammad and that other stuff I mentioned?
Peace.
-
Thanks for replying
I already see the Quran as an Islamic historical source (as well as the religious authority, of course) unless you're implying it's the only viable Islamic historical source? What of stuff like the Achtiname of Muhammad and that other stuff I mentioned?
Peace.
Salaam,
You are welcome.
Red Yes, alQuraan is the only Islamic historical source that we can rely and trust. So, if it is not in alQuraan, then that could be a lie or a made up thing.May Allah bless you pr
mmKhan -
Didn't want to derail the thread so I'm making a seperate one about it
(my question isn't directed at Hicham9 specifically, it just brings up something I'm confused about)
'What' are muslim sources exactly?Salam Azz,
You selectively quoted a line, of my reply to another member, discussing the Historicity of 'Muhammad'. Note that before this quoted portion there is a short paragraph which makes it cristal clear... By "Muslim sources" I simply meant "Coins, Inscriptions and texts written on Papyrus" which support the existence of Prophet Muhammad and are in fact the 'only' contemporary source for the first 200 years of Islamic history .... That being said, I consider the persian hadith corpus to be full of fabrications, errors, contradictions, absurdities, and false ancestral beliefs (such as ر.
Peace be unto you angel
Aside from the Charter I see different people refer to different things as Islamic historical sources, it's kinda confusing and overwhelming for me to try and read up on it because of this. Despite the hadith as a whole not really aiming to be a historical record, are any hadiths viable historical sources? and what about stuff like Sira and Futuh literature?
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_early_Islam
-
Salaam,
You are welcome.
Red Yes, alQuraan is the only Islamic historical source that we can rely and trust. So, if it is not in alQuraan, then that could be a lie or a made up thing.May Allah bless you pr
mmKhanI could the reasoning behind that line of thought. Don't you feel that sources could be judged against the word of the Quran in order to ascertain it's reliability? I mean, of course we can't be 100% sure, but we can make educated guesses on issues of history, right?
Salam Azz,
You selectively quoted a line, of my reply to another member, discussing the Historicity of 'Muhammad'. Note that before this quoted portion there is a short paragraph which makes it cristal clear... By "Muslim sources" I simply meant "Coins, Inscriptions and texts written on Papyrus" which support the existence of Prophet Muhammad and are in fact the 'only' contemporary source for the first 200 years of Islamic history .... That being said, I consider the persian hadith corpus to be full of fabrications, errors, contradictions, absurdities, and false ancestral beliefs (such as ر.
Peace be unto you angel
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_early_Islam
Right, thanks.
I've seen the wikipedia page, I was just hoping someone could point me in the right direction regarding some of it. How different in form and makeup is the Sira from Hadith?
Peace to both of you.
-
I could the reasoning behind that line of thought. Don't you feel that sources could be judged against the word of the Quran in order to ascertain it's reliability? I mean, of course we can't be 100% sure, but we can make educated guesses on issues of history, right?
Peace Azz,
How can you judge something which is not mentioned in alQuraan, with alQuraan? Lets say for example, the link in your opening post of this thread... how can you judge and make it sure that those letters and writings and hard print is of Muhammad? There is no way brother... alQuraan is enough for us, we actually don't need any history. Just follow those things which you have to answer on the day of judgement.
Hope you understand what I am saying..
May Allah bless you pr
mmKhan -
Which is getting at the heart of the matter, I suppose. In an age where claims of Muhammad (pbuh) "not existing" are rampant, does it not put you at ease to find material that suggests that both does suggest his existence and matches up/doesn't conflict with the word of the Quran? and being able to respond to people who come to you with those claims?
It's important to note the difference between religious significance of information and historical significance. The Quran may be the end-all religious authority, but at this moment I don't feel that the same book that encourages us to discover information about the world also acts as the end-all historical source of the matter (though it may serve as the "supreme islamic historical source", of course)
Peace
-
Peace Azz,
Well, it is inevitable that there is a prophet being addressed in Quran in present tense. The narration occurs in real-time, it is not portraying a past.
"Should he die, would you turn back on your heels?" - is one of many sample narratives. Who is that if not the prophet of the story?
"The prophet called from behind you..."
No important Messenger has been anonymous, why would the one who brought the Quran be that? Muhammad is most likely his name based on the Quranic discourse.
God bless you