Village Journals
Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.
Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.
Martin Lings Book Review of the Holy Prophet's Life
REVIEW OF A NEW BIOGRAPHY OF HOLY PROPHET MUHAMMAD
By Dr Zahid Aziz, Nottingham, England
'Muhammad, his life based on the earliest sources', by Martin Lings Published by George Allen & Unwin Ltd., and the Islamic Texts Society, London 1983. Pp. 357
Martin Lings' book consists of a collection of the least reliable (and in many cases false and damaging) reports and stories about the Holy Prophet's life. When it first appeared in 1983 or 1984 it was awarded the first prize in the Seerat competition of the religious department of the government of Pakistan. The author was presented with a prize of 3000 dollars in the Pakistan embassy in London (I still have the newspaper cutting).
I published a review of this book at that time, which I have been considering reviving. (below)
Amongst all the founders of the great religions of the world, the Holy Prophet Muhammad holds the distinction of being a historical figure, about whose life a wealth of authentic information and detail is available. This unique information covers not only the general events of Muslim history during his lifetime, but also details relating to his personal life, habits and character. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that more is known of the life of the Holy Prophet than of any other figure in human history, ancient or modern.
The collection and compilation of the details of the Holy Prophet's life, which took place in the early days of Islam, was done not merely for historical or sentimental interest, but also because his deeds and sayings are regarded as an indispensable part of the teachings of the faith, being a practical illustration and a commentary of the precepts given in the Holy Quran. The Holy Prophet is recognized in Islam as the "best model" (the Quran 33:21) for a Muslim to follow and emulate, and as a "teacher of the scripture and wisdom" (62:2), and therefore details of his life both mould the moral outlook of Muslims and are used to derive laws and regulations of Islam (whether `religious' or `secular', using these terms in their modern sense). Hence it is vitally important for both Muslims, if they are to be true to their faith, and for non-Muslims, if they are to appreciate Islam, to have a correct and accurate account of the Holy Prophet's life before them.
Sources of Life
The Holy Quran, which was recorded contemporaneously with the Holy Prophet and which is admitted by all to have survived intact since that time, refers to many events and features of the Holy Prophet's life. Any information that it provides on any such aspect must be regarded, from a purely objective, historical point of view, as the most authentic and reliable. Then there are the collections of the sayings and deeds of the Holy Prophet, such as Bukhari and Muslim, from which much detail can be obtained of various facets of his life. These collections of `Tradition' or Hadith, made about two hundred years after his time, do not contain any continuous accounts of the Holy Prophet's life as such, but consist of reports of his sayings and actions, traced back to him through lines of known narrators by the compilers of these books, and arranged according to subject. Lastly, we have the earliest continuous biographies of the Holy Prophet and histories of early Islam which are, of course, interesting and engaging to read, as narrative accounts are, but whose authors made little attempt to discriminate between true, muddled, and blatantly false reports in the mass of raw information current at the time.
Martin Lings' book, subtitled "His life based on the earliest sources", is a narrative account culled and compiled largely from the biographies just mentioned, with some additions from the books of Tradition and occasional references to the Holy Quran. It is an unusual biography, especially among such Western works, in that the author does not give any views, comments or conclusions of his own regarding the Holy Prophet and his life, not even a preface explaining the author's purpose or approach except for a list of authorities at the end, but has apparently prepared a biography based wholly on the texts of ancient Islamic sources. It is this aspect, we fear, which is very likely to mislead readers into believing that this book is an objective and impartial reflection of the Holy Prophet's life, as given in classical Muslim sources, untinged by the author's own views and conceptions. Had Martin Lings simply translated one of these source works as a whole, he could not have been blamed for any lack of authenticity in the contents, nor could a charge of bias be laid against him. However, in the book under review, he has obviously used his judgment and discretion to give far more weight and credence to one type of source (the biographies) than the others (Quran and Hadith), and is also responsible for making particular selections, as well as omissions, from his own preferred sources. We shall show that Lings can be heavily criticised on both these counts, and that the `image' of the Holy Prophet's life in this biography is indeed very much influenced by the author's use and editing of the source-material.
Lings' use of source material
As is indicated on the page where the sources are listed, Lings' book is based mainly on the classical biographies of Waqidi, Ibn Sa`d and Ibn Ishaq, with some references to the Hadith works such as Bukhari. Although he does not list the Quran among his authorities, his references to it in the book show that he considers it to be a source as well. As noted in the brief discussion of the sources of the Holy Prophet's life above, in order of authenticity of information the Quran comes first, then the Hadith books, and finally the popular biographical works to which we have just referred. Lings, in his approach, simply follows the biographies, and makes use of the Hadith and the Quran only to support or supplement some point made in those works. In cases where the Quran or Hadith can be shown to contradict the biographies, the author makes no reference to what these two authentic sources have to say. The result is that his book is full of spurious, discredited stories of various so-called `miraculous' occurrences, and relates those highly superficial accounts of wars, raids, and marriages of the Holy Prophet which have been the basis of so many distortions about the Founder of Islam and his teachings over the ages. The biographies from which Lings has acquired these details, as we now intend to expand, contain many reports which are devoid of authority and have been condemned as fictitious by Muslim scholars throughout history who spent their lives investigating the authenticity of these accounts. Just because a report occurs in these classical biographies does not mean that it is an acknowledged fact of Islamic history accepted by Muslims.
Muslim scholars and classical biographies
The early Muslim scholars who compiled books of Hadith and scrutinised this particular field undertook thorough and painstaking investigations to determine the authenticity of the reports from the Holy Prophet's time by tracing them back to eye-witnesses of the time, through unbroken lines of reliable narrators. As a result, they never held a high opinion of the biographies whose authors had simply copied masses of reports without check or criticism. One such scholar of Hadith, Hafiz Zain al-Din of Iraq, says about the biographies:
"The student should know that the biographies contain all kinds of reports, both true and false."
Turning to the three particular biographies which are the main sources of Lings' book, he has most often referred to Waqidi, as is apparent from his footnotes. Now regarding Waqidi, all scholars are agreed that he used to fabricate reports. As Maulana Shibli Numani writes in his excellent, renowned Urdu life of the Holy Prophet, Sirat an-Nabi, published about 65 years ago:
"Of the classical biographies, Waqidi is to be dismissed completely. The scholars of Hadith unanimously say that he fabricated reports. In fact, Waqidi's book itself provides proof of this because the manner in which he gives the most minute and interesting details of every minor event, even today the greatest writer could not record events seen by himself in this manner" (p. 48).
As regards the biographies of Ibn Sa`d and Ibn Ishaq, and the historical work of Tabari, these individuals were themselves trustworthy and reliable, but, as Shibli adds:
"Unfortunately, these persons being reliable does not have any effect upon the reliability of their writings. These people were not witnesses of the events, and so whatever they relate is through narrators. However, many of their narrators are weak in reporting and unreliable . . . More than a half of the reports of Ibn Sa`d have come through Waqidi, and therefore have the same position as Waqidi's own reports. Of the rest, some are reliable and others not" (p. 49).
In his highly informative discussion on the standard of reports passed down from the Holy Prophet's time, Shibli underlines various weaknesses of the reports contained in the classical biographies, contrasting this with the stringent tests applied by the compilers of Hadith to the reports before approving them for their collections. Without going into the technicalities of this field of criticism, the conclusions drawn in his discussion can be summarised as follows. The biographers copied all sorts of reports about the events of the Holy Prophet's times, without caring to trace them back to any eye-witness of the time, and they ignored all the tests relating to the conditions to be met with in a reporter before his narration may be accepted. Besides these drawbacks, the biographies appear to be compiled as chronicles of events, centred around battles, which simply list various events, especially accounts of battles, without at all inquiring into or indicating their causes. It is this feature of the biographies which, due to the popularity of these works, has created the widespread impression that Muslim armies were sent on battles, campaigns and raids for aggressive purposes.
Shibli also quotes a rather interesting comment about Damyati, a biographer of a later period who died around 1300 C.E. A classical scholar, Ibn Hijr, made the following observation:
"This saying of Damyati proves that in most matters regarding which he had followed the biographers and gone against reliable Hadith, he eventually recanted from his original views. However, since his book had spread widely, he could not correct it" (Sirat an-Nabi, p. 55).
Thus many reports contained in biographies - reports relating to battles, concubinaage, and certain miraculous occurrences - are contradicted by the much more authhentic information recorded in works of Hadith. Damyati lived to realise this, but did not get the opportunity to correct his earlier writing.
Detailed look at typical chapter
We now briefly examine a group of chapters in Lings' book, those relating to the battle of Badr (chs. XLI to XLV), which illustrate all the worst features he has copied from his sources, and are quite typical of the tenor of the whole book. The two main misconceptions conveyed in these chapters, which are both contradicted by the Quran and authentic Hadith, are that it was the Muslims who initiated aggression against the Makkans after the emigration to Madina, and that the `angelic' help that came to the Muslims during the battle consisted literally of armies of angels descending from heaven!
After the Muslims were forced to leave Makka, having borne great persecution there, and they settled in Madina, the Divine revelation permitted them to take up the sword to defend themselves, should they be attacked by a Makkan army. The first revelation on this point said:
"Permission to fight is given to those upon whom war is made (Arabic: yuqataluna, or `those who are fought against'), because they have been wronged . . . " (22:39).
Lings, at the head of chapter XLI as well as within it, quotes the above verse as: "Permission to fight is given to those who fight because they have been wronged." This is clearly incorrect, for the Qur'anic text uses the passive yuqataluna (those fought against), not yuqatiluna (those who fight). Furthermore, Lings' translation makes no sense, for what is the meaning of giving permission to fight to those who fight! Lings adds:
"The Prophet had received this Revelation not long after his arrival in Medina. He knew moreover that permission here was a command and the obligations of war had been stressed in the covenant with the Jews" (p. 135).
Who is his authority for saying that the Holy Prophet considered this permission to be a command? As to the covenant with the Jews, it expressly stated that, should either party be victims of aggression, the other would be bound to come to its aid. Lings' mistranslation of the Qur'anic verse above, his misreading of the Holy Prophet's mind, and his misrepresentation of the pact with the Jews, are the basis of his implied suggestion that the Muslims initiated the fighting. If Lings had used the Quran as his primary source, a book earlier than his "earliest sources", rather than dragging in and misquoting occasional Qur'anic passages when they can be made to suit the biographies and his own prejudices, he would have quoted the following:
"Fight in the way of God against those who fight you, but be not aggressive" (2:190).
and the significant observation:
"Fighting is enjoined upon you, though it is disliked by you" (2:216).
We do not know how the last verse above escaped Lings' notice, since in the same chapter (XLI) he has occasion to reproduce the very next verse (2:217). What can be said with great certainty is that if this verse had only said, "Fighting is enjoined upon you", and had omitted to describe the Muslims' dislike of war, Lings would surely have quoted it to prove that "the permission to fight was a command".
After this, Lings mentions what he calls "raids" by Muslim detachments on Quraish trading caravans, in the period of tension leading up to the battle of Badr. The impression created by him, in pursuance of the biographers, is that the Muslims were on the offensive, harassing the Quraish. Yet if we consult the Hadith we find that it was the Muslims who were harassed and threatened by their opponents:
"When the Holy Prophet and his Companions came to Madina, and the helpers gave them shelter, all the Arabs combined to fight them. The Companions had to sleep by their weapons, till the morning"
(Hakim and Darimi, quoted in Shibli's Sirat an-Nabi, p. 308; interestingly enough, Darimi is listed by Lings among his
authorities).
The so-called "raids" were, in fact, reconnaissance missions whose purpose was not only to detect any move by the Quraish, but also to approach tribes living in the vicinity of Madina to secure pacts of neutrality with them. Even Lings admits the fact that these "raids" failed to intercept any Quraish caravan, but to fit this fact to his theory he ascribes this to the inaccuracy of the Muslims' information about the caravan movements.
Badr
According to Lings, following the biographies, the cause of the battle of Badr was that a Muslim army, led by the Holy Prophet, left Madina on one of these "raids" to intercept and capture a Quraish trading caravan returning from Syria with merchandise. In response to this threat, runs this account, the Quraish sent an army from Makka, and the Muslims found themselves having to fight these troops rather than being able to capture the caravan. According to this account, when the Muslim army left Madina, they did so solely with the intention of capturing the caravan, being unaware that a Quraish army had set out. It was only sometime after they had marched out that they learnt of the approach of the armed enemy force, and decided to encounter it. The Holy Quran, however, acknowledged by friend and foe as the most authentic record, begins its account as follows:
"Even as thy Lord caused thee (O Muhammad) to go forth from thy house on the side of truth, though a party of the believers were surely averse, disputing with thee about the truth after it had become clear - as if they were being driven to death and could see it in front of them" (8:5,6).
This, then, was the state of mind of some of the Muslims - "as if they were being driven to death" - as the army was leaving Madina. Could it possibly have been so if they were proceeding eagerly to "waylay" an unarmed caravan with its easy, rich pickings? It is perfectly plain from this that the ill-armed Muslim army numbering a mere 300 (including raw youths and aged men) was marching out to face the three-times larger and much better-equipped Quraish invasion force, and this was why some of the Muslims did not like it. Hence the Muslims set out from Madina only to repel the Quraish invasion, not to capture their caravan.
To clarify the true situation, namely that the Muslims fought only in self-defence after the enemy had first raised the sword, and did not initiate the aggression by raids on caravans or by any other means, is not some academic point of historical interest only, or quibbling over details. As stated earlier, actions of the Holy Prophet carried out in pursuance of the Qur'anic teachings are an important source of Islamic law, and the basis of the moral standards of the Muslims. The circumstances under which Muslims may engage in war according to Islam are determined crucially by the reasons for which the Holy Prophet Muhammad took up arms on any occasion. Similarly, his conduct in battle lays down the Muslim code of conduct under such conditions. If, as is certainly the case, the Muslim army left Madina to fight in self-defence, it sets the seal of confirmation on the Qur'anic teaching permitting war only for defensive purposes, and makes it unlawful under Islam for a Muslim state ever to use aggression.
Angelic help during Badr
It is undoubtedly stated in the Quran regarding the battle of Badr:
"When you (O Muslims) sought the aid of your Lord, so He answered you: I will assist you with a thousand of the angels, following one another" (8:9).
From his "earliest sources", however, Lings has copied various stories of angels actually being seen by some as arriving and fighting at the scene of the battle, and putting the Quraish to rout. These fables are just too ridiculous to be repeated here. The Quran has itself clearly explained that "God gave it only as good news, so that your hearts might be at ease thereby . . . when He made slumber fall on you (during the night before the battle) as a security from Him . . . that He might fortify your hearts and make firm your feet thereby . . . I (God) will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve" (8:10-12). Thus the coming of the angels took place, as it always does, spiritually and upon the hearts. The Muslims were inwardly calmed and strengthened, while the enemy felt terrified, such was the force of truth and shakiness of falsehood. It is also true that some external circumstances of nature, such as rain at an opportune time for the Muslims, came about through Divine support for their cause. This was the Divine assistance which came to the small and weak Muslim army to serve as a fine and subtle sign showing that truth can be triumphant over superior physical might, even on the field of battle. The instances, quoted by Lings, of angels being seen to descend in clouds, mounted on stallions, and actually fighting the enemy, can only be described as extremely crude. If Divine assistance had come in such a palpable and visible manner, how could the disbelievers have continued to reject and oppose Islam? And why was it that when, earlier in Makka, they had demanded the coming of an angel instead of a mortal messenger, or in his support, the disbelievers were told that angels could not come to them as they demanded (see the Quran, 6:8-10; 17:94,95).
If it were argued that Lings has merely reproduced these stories of angelic intervention from his classical Muslim biographical sources, and therefore our criticism cannot be directed at him, we would refer the reader to chapter XXXII of the book, in which the author has described the `ascension' experience (mi`raj) of the Holy Prophet. This was the `night journey' of the Holy Prophet, during which he was "transported" from Makka first to Jerusalem, and then on to "heaven". Now while Lings' sources would consider the whole of this journey to be physical, yet as for the second part of this journey (to heaven), he writes:
"Led by the Archangel, who now revealed himself as a heavenly being, they ascended beyond the domain of earthly space and time and bodily forms . . . Everything he now saw, he saw with the eye of the Spirit" (p. 102).
Thus Lings believes the Ascension to heaven to be a spiritual flight (as indeed we do too), and has drawn a conclusion different from the views of his biographical sources. He thus allows himself the discretion of differing from the standard position of his sources when he so wishes, and therefore cannot be considered as a mere translator immune from any criticism as regards the contents of the book.
Other supernatural signs
At this point we broaden the discussion for a moment to include the other supernatural signs in support of the Holy Prophet that Lings refers to in the book. When the Holy Prophet, in his youth, traveled to Syria with a Quraish caravan a Christian monk noticed that there was "a small low-hanging cloud" following them overhead "so that it was always between the sun and one or two of the travelers", and the tree under which they sheltered "lowered its branches over them, so that they were doubly in the shade" (p. 29). These were supposedly signs of the presence of the Prophet-to-be among the caravan. Lings reports other such signs as well. Now although many Muslims subscribe to these supernatural happenings, yet the great characteristic of their belief in the Holy Prophet is to regard him as a human being, who led a completely human, down-to-earth life with human needs. To those unfamiliar with Islam, Lings' book is very likely to convey the gross misimpression that the Muslims have filled the Holy Prophet's life with myths and miraculous occurrences in the same way as such are to be found in the lives of founders of other religions. Yet another danger for the novice is that, with there being no discussion in the book concerning the historicity of the information in sources of the Holy Prophet's life, the mention of all these supernatural signs will suggest that there is no sure historical knowledge of any of the other, quite natural, events either. Such an impression would be a tragedy considering that a unique feature of the Holy Prophet, among founders of religions, is the reliability, soundness, and undisputed nature of the information about his life.
Captives of Badr
Turning back to the battle of Badr, Lings' chapter on 'The Captives' taken by the Muslims during the battle, and brought back with them to Madina after their victory, uses a selection of material which creates quite a distorted and unrepresentative picture of the Muslims' attitude towards the prisoners. The incidents relating to the release of the prisoners that he quotes suggest that the Muslims were simply interested in exacting the highest possible monetary ransom from the captives' relatives to effect their freedom. He only notes the cases of rich captives from whom a large ransom was obtained. There is no mention by Lings of the fact that poor prisoners were released without any ransom, except that those of them who were literate were required each to teach ten Muslim children to read and write as the only condition of their freedom. These facts are not only recorded in Lings' own sources, but quite well-known to Muslims generally, and show both the great mercy and love of learning which characterized the Muslims at a time when the very opposite of these qualities prevailed in the world generally.
Lings quotes an incident from Waqidi according to which a man who came to pay the ransom for his son threatened to kill the Holy Prophet if he got the chance. The Holy Prophet is said to have replied, "Nay, it is I who shall slay thee, if God will" (p. 157). An incident which Lings does not quote, but which is found in one of his sources, namely, Tabari, and is also well-known among Muslims, is that one of the captives was discovered to be a certain individual who used to deliver bitter speeches against the Holy Prophet. Someone suggested to the Holy Prophet that now that he was in their power, his front teeth should be knocked out to incapacitate his speech. The Holy Prophet replied, "If I disfigure one of his limbs, God will disfigure mine". On what grounds, we ask, did Lings omit this famous incident but mention the former one (which, being from Waqidi, is highly doubtful in any case)? Obviously this is a result of the author suffering from that widely-prevalent prejudice regarding Islam according to which this faith is violent and vengeful, not forgiving and merciful.
Another notable omission in this chapter is any mention of the general treatment accorded to the prisoners by the Muslims amongst whom they were divided for the short duration of their captivity. The fine, brotherly manner in which the Muslims treated them, as later described by many of the captives themselves, is recorded in Lings' sources. One prisoner recalled:
"The helpers who kept me in their house during my captivity would, when meal times came, give me a meal but have dates themselves . I would be embarrassed and return the food to them, but they would not touch it and would give it back to me. And this was because the Holy Prophet had directed that the prisoners should be treated well" (Tabari, quoted by Shibli in his Sirat an-Nabi).
Lings, of course, does not actually say that the prisoners were treated cruelly or badly, but the complete omission by him of facts such as the above, and the sole inclusion of only a certain kind of material as seen earlier, gives a highly misleading picture of the Muslims' behaviour and policy in this respect.
Another instance of selectivity
Having dealt with Lings' treatment of Badr, we move to one of his isolated examples of selectivity in using only a particular kind of material from his sources to reinforce the false, stereotyped image of Islam. This is the case of Rayhana, the widow of a Jewish chieftain taken as a captive, who came into the Holy Prophet's household. It may be noted that the most authentic source by which the Holy Prophet is to be judged - the Holy Quran - rules out concubinage (see 4:25), and therefore he cannot be considered to have resorted to this practice. Here, however, we are dealing with the comparative accounts given in the less authentic biographical sources used by Lings. According to Shibli's scholarly work quoted earlier, the biographers offer three different types of report about Rayhana: that she was set free by the Holy Prophet and went to live with her family; that the Holy Prophet offered to set her free and marry her but she chose to become his concubine (Ibn Ishaq); and that the Holy Prophet set her free and married her (Waqidi, Ibn Sa`d). Now Waqidi, Ibn Sa`d and Ibn Ishaq are Lings' chief sources, and in his footnotes the first two will be found referred to most frequently. Yet in connection with Rayhana, Lings opts for Ibn Ishaq's report, according to which she said: "O Messenger of God, leave me in thy power; that will be easier for me and for thee" (p. 233). What other reason can there be for Lings to abandon his two most favourite sources and to use the third one, except the desire to fit his book to the popular Western image of the Holy Prophet? He would rather have the world believe that the Holy Prophet kept Rayhana as a slave-girl than disclose the reports that she was set free, even if he has to reject the view of his two prime sources on this point.
Conclusion
Lings' work is no doubt a product of great labour, study and scholarship on the author's part. It makes available a cross-section of the information about the Holy Prophet's life as contained in the well-known, popular and voluminous biographies and histories referred to in this review. The book is also well-written and very interesting to read. The publisher's note on the jacket says:
"Based on Arabic sources of the eighth and ninth centuries . . .it owes the freshness and directness of its approach to the words of the men and women who heard Muhammad speak and witnessed the events of his life."
But the question is, In which sources is the testimony and record of these men and women preserved most accurately, authentically and without spurious addition? Certainly not the works on which Lings' book is based, however far these might date back. Unfortunately, the readers will not be aware of the strictures passed against these works by eminent Muslim scholars of Tradition and history (for example, the renowned Imam Shafi`i described the writings of Waqidi as "collections of lies"). Nor will the readers know that from even within these particular sources it is possible to choose selections which contradict the stereotyped portrayal of Islamic history given by Lings. His book will, therefore, only serve to reinforce the existing false Western misconception of the noble Prophet's times and teachings as standing for violent war, plunder and concubinage.
In the end, it must be added in all fairness that the greatest responsibility for the continued prevalence of such a picture of early Islamic times rests with the `popular' Muslim authors and writers who have elevated these biographies to the rank of reliable, historical works. Apart from rare and noble exceptions... the rest of the modern Muslim historians of Islam persist in slavishly following the biographies and giving them precedence over both the word of God (the Quran) and the labour of their forefathers who compiled the authentic Hadith books. Till they are bold and independent-minded enough to overthrow this attitude, authors such as Lings can continue to claim that their books reflect accredited Islamic sources.
NOTES:
The first edition contained that story about the Holy Prophet by chance catching sight of his married cousin Zainab when he went to her house and the weak sources from which he takes that story do mention that Zainab hurried to open the door to the Holy Prophet without completing her dressing. (I am sorry, readers, but Lings did write this), and both of them realizing that they had fallen in love ("love" is the word used by Lings). One wonders who was present to report all these details! Then according to this story the husband, Zaid, agreed to divorce Zainab and she was brought to the Holy Prophet's house without necessity of nikah because (says Lings' book) Allah in the Quran says: "We have given her to thee", so nikah was not required! (Read: Truth about Zainab, Zaid's divorced wife)
In the second edition Lings has toned this down. I think he has removed the word "love".
This story was always used by Christian missionaries to attack the character of the Holy Prophet, and in 1984 Lings won a prize from the Pakistan government of Zia-ul-Haq for a book which repeats it.
At one annual meeting of our Movement at our Lahore Centre some years ago, I made a speech about Lings' book.
Another story given by Lings is that the sahabi Abu Zarr belonged to a tribe whose occupation was highway robbery. Lings writes that after he came to Makka and embraced Islam and went back to his tribe, he continued this occupation, with the difference that now when he robbed anyone he would ask them to accept Islam and if they did so he would return their belongings!
Is this what he learnt by accepting Islam? Does Islam teach that you should not rob, or does it teach that you may rob people but return their possessions if they agree to accept Islam?
By Dr Zahid Aziz, Nottingham, England
'Muhammad, his life based on the earliest sources', by Martin Lings Published by George Allen & Unwin Ltd., and the Islamic Texts Society, London 1983. Pp. 357
Martin Lings' book consists of a collection of the least reliable (and in many cases false and damaging) reports and stories about the Holy Prophet's life. When it first appeared in 1983 or 1984 it was awarded the first prize in the Seerat competition of the religious department of the government of Pakistan. The author was presented with a prize of 3000 dollars in the Pakistan embassy in London (I still have the newspaper cutting).
I published a review of this book at that time, which I have been considering reviving. (below)
Amongst all the founders of the great religions of the world, the Holy Prophet Muhammad holds the distinction of being a historical figure, about whose life a wealth of authentic information and detail is available. This unique information covers not only the general events of Muslim history during his lifetime, but also details relating to his personal life, habits and character. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that more is known of the life of the Holy Prophet than of any other figure in human history, ancient or modern.
The collection and compilation of the details of the Holy Prophet's life, which took place in the early days of Islam, was done not merely for historical or sentimental interest, but also because his deeds and sayings are regarded as an indispensable part of the teachings of the faith, being a practical illustration and a commentary of the precepts given in the Holy Quran. The Holy Prophet is recognized in Islam as the "best model" (the Quran 33:21) for a Muslim to follow and emulate, and as a "teacher of the scripture and wisdom" (62:2), and therefore details of his life both mould the moral outlook of Muslims and are used to derive laws and regulations of Islam (whether `religious' or `secular', using these terms in their modern sense). Hence it is vitally important for both Muslims, if they are to be true to their faith, and for non-Muslims, if they are to appreciate Islam, to have a correct and accurate account of the Holy Prophet's life before them.
Sources of Life
The Holy Quran, which was recorded contemporaneously with the Holy Prophet and which is admitted by all to have survived intact since that time, refers to many events and features of the Holy Prophet's life. Any information that it provides on any such aspect must be regarded, from a purely objective, historical point of view, as the most authentic and reliable. Then there are the collections of the sayings and deeds of the Holy Prophet, such as Bukhari and Muslim, from which much detail can be obtained of various facets of his life. These collections of `Tradition' or Hadith, made about two hundred years after his time, do not contain any continuous accounts of the Holy Prophet's life as such, but consist of reports of his sayings and actions, traced back to him through lines of known narrators by the compilers of these books, and arranged according to subject. Lastly, we have the earliest continuous biographies of the Holy Prophet and histories of early Islam which are, of course, interesting and engaging to read, as narrative accounts are, but whose authors made little attempt to discriminate between true, muddled, and blatantly false reports in the mass of raw information current at the time.
Martin Lings' book, subtitled "His life based on the earliest sources", is a narrative account culled and compiled largely from the biographies just mentioned, with some additions from the books of Tradition and occasional references to the Holy Quran. It is an unusual biography, especially among such Western works, in that the author does not give any views, comments or conclusions of his own regarding the Holy Prophet and his life, not even a preface explaining the author's purpose or approach except for a list of authorities at the end, but has apparently prepared a biography based wholly on the texts of ancient Islamic sources. It is this aspect, we fear, which is very likely to mislead readers into believing that this book is an objective and impartial reflection of the Holy Prophet's life, as given in classical Muslim sources, untinged by the author's own views and conceptions. Had Martin Lings simply translated one of these source works as a whole, he could not have been blamed for any lack of authenticity in the contents, nor could a charge of bias be laid against him. However, in the book under review, he has obviously used his judgment and discretion to give far more weight and credence to one type of source (the biographies) than the others (Quran and Hadith), and is also responsible for making particular selections, as well as omissions, from his own preferred sources. We shall show that Lings can be heavily criticised on both these counts, and that the `image' of the Holy Prophet's life in this biography is indeed very much influenced by the author's use and editing of the source-material.
Lings' use of source material
As is indicated on the page where the sources are listed, Lings' book is based mainly on the classical biographies of Waqidi, Ibn Sa`d and Ibn Ishaq, with some references to the Hadith works such as Bukhari. Although he does not list the Quran among his authorities, his references to it in the book show that he considers it to be a source as well. As noted in the brief discussion of the sources of the Holy Prophet's life above, in order of authenticity of information the Quran comes first, then the Hadith books, and finally the popular biographical works to which we have just referred. Lings, in his approach, simply follows the biographies, and makes use of the Hadith and the Quran only to support or supplement some point made in those works. In cases where the Quran or Hadith can be shown to contradict the biographies, the author makes no reference to what these two authentic sources have to say. The result is that his book is full of spurious, discredited stories of various so-called `miraculous' occurrences, and relates those highly superficial accounts of wars, raids, and marriages of the Holy Prophet which have been the basis of so many distortions about the Founder of Islam and his teachings over the ages. The biographies from which Lings has acquired these details, as we now intend to expand, contain many reports which are devoid of authority and have been condemned as fictitious by Muslim scholars throughout history who spent their lives investigating the authenticity of these accounts. Just because a report occurs in these classical biographies does not mean that it is an acknowledged fact of Islamic history accepted by Muslims.
Muslim scholars and classical biographies
The early Muslim scholars who compiled books of Hadith and scrutinised this particular field undertook thorough and painstaking investigations to determine the authenticity of the reports from the Holy Prophet's time by tracing them back to eye-witnesses of the time, through unbroken lines of reliable narrators. As a result, they never held a high opinion of the biographies whose authors had simply copied masses of reports without check or criticism. One such scholar of Hadith, Hafiz Zain al-Din of Iraq, says about the biographies:
"The student should know that the biographies contain all kinds of reports, both true and false."
Turning to the three particular biographies which are the main sources of Lings' book, he has most often referred to Waqidi, as is apparent from his footnotes. Now regarding Waqidi, all scholars are agreed that he used to fabricate reports. As Maulana Shibli Numani writes in his excellent, renowned Urdu life of the Holy Prophet, Sirat an-Nabi, published about 65 years ago:
"Of the classical biographies, Waqidi is to be dismissed completely. The scholars of Hadith unanimously say that he fabricated reports. In fact, Waqidi's book itself provides proof of this because the manner in which he gives the most minute and interesting details of every minor event, even today the greatest writer could not record events seen by himself in this manner" (p. 48).
As regards the biographies of Ibn Sa`d and Ibn Ishaq, and the historical work of Tabari, these individuals were themselves trustworthy and reliable, but, as Shibli adds:
"Unfortunately, these persons being reliable does not have any effect upon the reliability of their writings. These people were not witnesses of the events, and so whatever they relate is through narrators. However, many of their narrators are weak in reporting and unreliable . . . More than a half of the reports of Ibn Sa`d have come through Waqidi, and therefore have the same position as Waqidi's own reports. Of the rest, some are reliable and others not" (p. 49).
In his highly informative discussion on the standard of reports passed down from the Holy Prophet's time, Shibli underlines various weaknesses of the reports contained in the classical biographies, contrasting this with the stringent tests applied by the compilers of Hadith to the reports before approving them for their collections. Without going into the technicalities of this field of criticism, the conclusions drawn in his discussion can be summarised as follows. The biographers copied all sorts of reports about the events of the Holy Prophet's times, without caring to trace them back to any eye-witness of the time, and they ignored all the tests relating to the conditions to be met with in a reporter before his narration may be accepted. Besides these drawbacks, the biographies appear to be compiled as chronicles of events, centred around battles, which simply list various events, especially accounts of battles, without at all inquiring into or indicating their causes. It is this feature of the biographies which, due to the popularity of these works, has created the widespread impression that Muslim armies were sent on battles, campaigns and raids for aggressive purposes.
Shibli also quotes a rather interesting comment about Damyati, a biographer of a later period who died around 1300 C.E. A classical scholar, Ibn Hijr, made the following observation:
"This saying of Damyati proves that in most matters regarding which he had followed the biographers and gone against reliable Hadith, he eventually recanted from his original views. However, since his book had spread widely, he could not correct it" (Sirat an-Nabi, p. 55).
Thus many reports contained in biographies - reports relating to battles, concubinaage, and certain miraculous occurrences - are contradicted by the much more authhentic information recorded in works of Hadith. Damyati lived to realise this, but did not get the opportunity to correct his earlier writing.
Detailed look at typical chapter
We now briefly examine a group of chapters in Lings' book, those relating to the battle of Badr (chs. XLI to XLV), which illustrate all the worst features he has copied from his sources, and are quite typical of the tenor of the whole book. The two main misconceptions conveyed in these chapters, which are both contradicted by the Quran and authentic Hadith, are that it was the Muslims who initiated aggression against the Makkans after the emigration to Madina, and that the `angelic' help that came to the Muslims during the battle consisted literally of armies of angels descending from heaven!
After the Muslims were forced to leave Makka, having borne great persecution there, and they settled in Madina, the Divine revelation permitted them to take up the sword to defend themselves, should they be attacked by a Makkan army. The first revelation on this point said:
"Permission to fight is given to those upon whom war is made (Arabic: yuqataluna, or `those who are fought against'), because they have been wronged . . . " (22:39).
Lings, at the head of chapter XLI as well as within it, quotes the above verse as: "Permission to fight is given to those who fight because they have been wronged." This is clearly incorrect, for the Qur'anic text uses the passive yuqataluna (those fought against), not yuqatiluna (those who fight). Furthermore, Lings' translation makes no sense, for what is the meaning of giving permission to fight to those who fight! Lings adds:
"The Prophet had received this Revelation not long after his arrival in Medina. He knew moreover that permission here was a command and the obligations of war had been stressed in the covenant with the Jews" (p. 135).
Who is his authority for saying that the Holy Prophet considered this permission to be a command? As to the covenant with the Jews, it expressly stated that, should either party be victims of aggression, the other would be bound to come to its aid. Lings' mistranslation of the Qur'anic verse above, his misreading of the Holy Prophet's mind, and his misrepresentation of the pact with the Jews, are the basis of his implied suggestion that the Muslims initiated the fighting. If Lings had used the Quran as his primary source, a book earlier than his "earliest sources", rather than dragging in and misquoting occasional Qur'anic passages when they can be made to suit the biographies and his own prejudices, he would have quoted the following:
"Fight in the way of God against those who fight you, but be not aggressive" (2:190).
and the significant observation:
"Fighting is enjoined upon you, though it is disliked by you" (2:216).
We do not know how the last verse above escaped Lings' notice, since in the same chapter (XLI) he has occasion to reproduce the very next verse (2:217). What can be said with great certainty is that if this verse had only said, "Fighting is enjoined upon you", and had omitted to describe the Muslims' dislike of war, Lings would surely have quoted it to prove that "the permission to fight was a command".
After this, Lings mentions what he calls "raids" by Muslim detachments on Quraish trading caravans, in the period of tension leading up to the battle of Badr. The impression created by him, in pursuance of the biographers, is that the Muslims were on the offensive, harassing the Quraish. Yet if we consult the Hadith we find that it was the Muslims who were harassed and threatened by their opponents:
"When the Holy Prophet and his Companions came to Madina, and the helpers gave them shelter, all the Arabs combined to fight them. The Companions had to sleep by their weapons, till the morning"
(Hakim and Darimi, quoted in Shibli's Sirat an-Nabi, p. 308; interestingly enough, Darimi is listed by Lings among his
authorities).
The so-called "raids" were, in fact, reconnaissance missions whose purpose was not only to detect any move by the Quraish, but also to approach tribes living in the vicinity of Madina to secure pacts of neutrality with them. Even Lings admits the fact that these "raids" failed to intercept any Quraish caravan, but to fit this fact to his theory he ascribes this to the inaccuracy of the Muslims' information about the caravan movements.
Badr
According to Lings, following the biographies, the cause of the battle of Badr was that a Muslim army, led by the Holy Prophet, left Madina on one of these "raids" to intercept and capture a Quraish trading caravan returning from Syria with merchandise. In response to this threat, runs this account, the Quraish sent an army from Makka, and the Muslims found themselves having to fight these troops rather than being able to capture the caravan. According to this account, when the Muslim army left Madina, they did so solely with the intention of capturing the caravan, being unaware that a Quraish army had set out. It was only sometime after they had marched out that they learnt of the approach of the armed enemy force, and decided to encounter it. The Holy Quran, however, acknowledged by friend and foe as the most authentic record, begins its account as follows:
"Even as thy Lord caused thee (O Muhammad) to go forth from thy house on the side of truth, though a party of the believers were surely averse, disputing with thee about the truth after it had become clear - as if they were being driven to death and could see it in front of them" (8:5,6).
This, then, was the state of mind of some of the Muslims - "as if they were being driven to death" - as the army was leaving Madina. Could it possibly have been so if they were proceeding eagerly to "waylay" an unarmed caravan with its easy, rich pickings? It is perfectly plain from this that the ill-armed Muslim army numbering a mere 300 (including raw youths and aged men) was marching out to face the three-times larger and much better-equipped Quraish invasion force, and this was why some of the Muslims did not like it. Hence the Muslims set out from Madina only to repel the Quraish invasion, not to capture their caravan.
To clarify the true situation, namely that the Muslims fought only in self-defence after the enemy had first raised the sword, and did not initiate the aggression by raids on caravans or by any other means, is not some academic point of historical interest only, or quibbling over details. As stated earlier, actions of the Holy Prophet carried out in pursuance of the Qur'anic teachings are an important source of Islamic law, and the basis of the moral standards of the Muslims. The circumstances under which Muslims may engage in war according to Islam are determined crucially by the reasons for which the Holy Prophet Muhammad took up arms on any occasion. Similarly, his conduct in battle lays down the Muslim code of conduct under such conditions. If, as is certainly the case, the Muslim army left Madina to fight in self-defence, it sets the seal of confirmation on the Qur'anic teaching permitting war only for defensive purposes, and makes it unlawful under Islam for a Muslim state ever to use aggression.
Angelic help during Badr
It is undoubtedly stated in the Quran regarding the battle of Badr:
"When you (O Muslims) sought the aid of your Lord, so He answered you: I will assist you with a thousand of the angels, following one another" (8:9).
From his "earliest sources", however, Lings has copied various stories of angels actually being seen by some as arriving and fighting at the scene of the battle, and putting the Quraish to rout. These fables are just too ridiculous to be repeated here. The Quran has itself clearly explained that "God gave it only as good news, so that your hearts might be at ease thereby . . . when He made slumber fall on you (during the night before the battle) as a security from Him . . . that He might fortify your hearts and make firm your feet thereby . . . I (God) will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve" (8:10-12). Thus the coming of the angels took place, as it always does, spiritually and upon the hearts. The Muslims were inwardly calmed and strengthened, while the enemy felt terrified, such was the force of truth and shakiness of falsehood. It is also true that some external circumstances of nature, such as rain at an opportune time for the Muslims, came about through Divine support for their cause. This was the Divine assistance which came to the small and weak Muslim army to serve as a fine and subtle sign showing that truth can be triumphant over superior physical might, even on the field of battle. The instances, quoted by Lings, of angels being seen to descend in clouds, mounted on stallions, and actually fighting the enemy, can only be described as extremely crude. If Divine assistance had come in such a palpable and visible manner, how could the disbelievers have continued to reject and oppose Islam? And why was it that when, earlier in Makka, they had demanded the coming of an angel instead of a mortal messenger, or in his support, the disbelievers were told that angels could not come to them as they demanded (see the Quran, 6:8-10; 17:94,95).
If it were argued that Lings has merely reproduced these stories of angelic intervention from his classical Muslim biographical sources, and therefore our criticism cannot be directed at him, we would refer the reader to chapter XXXII of the book, in which the author has described the `ascension' experience (mi`raj) of the Holy Prophet. This was the `night journey' of the Holy Prophet, during which he was "transported" from Makka first to Jerusalem, and then on to "heaven". Now while Lings' sources would consider the whole of this journey to be physical, yet as for the second part of this journey (to heaven), he writes:
"Led by the Archangel, who now revealed himself as a heavenly being, they ascended beyond the domain of earthly space and time and bodily forms . . . Everything he now saw, he saw with the eye of the Spirit" (p. 102).
Thus Lings believes the Ascension to heaven to be a spiritual flight (as indeed we do too), and has drawn a conclusion different from the views of his biographical sources. He thus allows himself the discretion of differing from the standard position of his sources when he so wishes, and therefore cannot be considered as a mere translator immune from any criticism as regards the contents of the book.
Other supernatural signs
At this point we broaden the discussion for a moment to include the other supernatural signs in support of the Holy Prophet that Lings refers to in the book. When the Holy Prophet, in his youth, traveled to Syria with a Quraish caravan a Christian monk noticed that there was "a small low-hanging cloud" following them overhead "so that it was always between the sun and one or two of the travelers", and the tree under which they sheltered "lowered its branches over them, so that they were doubly in the shade" (p. 29). These were supposedly signs of the presence of the Prophet-to-be among the caravan. Lings reports other such signs as well. Now although many Muslims subscribe to these supernatural happenings, yet the great characteristic of their belief in the Holy Prophet is to regard him as a human being, who led a completely human, down-to-earth life with human needs. To those unfamiliar with Islam, Lings' book is very likely to convey the gross misimpression that the Muslims have filled the Holy Prophet's life with myths and miraculous occurrences in the same way as such are to be found in the lives of founders of other religions. Yet another danger for the novice is that, with there being no discussion in the book concerning the historicity of the information in sources of the Holy Prophet's life, the mention of all these supernatural signs will suggest that there is no sure historical knowledge of any of the other, quite natural, events either. Such an impression would be a tragedy considering that a unique feature of the Holy Prophet, among founders of religions, is the reliability, soundness, and undisputed nature of the information about his life.
Captives of Badr
Turning back to the battle of Badr, Lings' chapter on 'The Captives' taken by the Muslims during the battle, and brought back with them to Madina after their victory, uses a selection of material which creates quite a distorted and unrepresentative picture of the Muslims' attitude towards the prisoners. The incidents relating to the release of the prisoners that he quotes suggest that the Muslims were simply interested in exacting the highest possible monetary ransom from the captives' relatives to effect their freedom. He only notes the cases of rich captives from whom a large ransom was obtained. There is no mention by Lings of the fact that poor prisoners were released without any ransom, except that those of them who were literate were required each to teach ten Muslim children to read and write as the only condition of their freedom. These facts are not only recorded in Lings' own sources, but quite well-known to Muslims generally, and show both the great mercy and love of learning which characterized the Muslims at a time when the very opposite of these qualities prevailed in the world generally.
Lings quotes an incident from Waqidi according to which a man who came to pay the ransom for his son threatened to kill the Holy Prophet if he got the chance. The Holy Prophet is said to have replied, "Nay, it is I who shall slay thee, if God will" (p. 157). An incident which Lings does not quote, but which is found in one of his sources, namely, Tabari, and is also well-known among Muslims, is that one of the captives was discovered to be a certain individual who used to deliver bitter speeches against the Holy Prophet. Someone suggested to the Holy Prophet that now that he was in their power, his front teeth should be knocked out to incapacitate his speech. The Holy Prophet replied, "If I disfigure one of his limbs, God will disfigure mine". On what grounds, we ask, did Lings omit this famous incident but mention the former one (which, being from Waqidi, is highly doubtful in any case)? Obviously this is a result of the author suffering from that widely-prevalent prejudice regarding Islam according to which this faith is violent and vengeful, not forgiving and merciful.
Another notable omission in this chapter is any mention of the general treatment accorded to the prisoners by the Muslims amongst whom they were divided for the short duration of their captivity. The fine, brotherly manner in which the Muslims treated them, as later described by many of the captives themselves, is recorded in Lings' sources. One prisoner recalled:
"The helpers who kept me in their house during my captivity would, when meal times came, give me a meal but have dates themselves . I would be embarrassed and return the food to them, but they would not touch it and would give it back to me. And this was because the Holy Prophet had directed that the prisoners should be treated well" (Tabari, quoted by Shibli in his Sirat an-Nabi).
Lings, of course, does not actually say that the prisoners were treated cruelly or badly, but the complete omission by him of facts such as the above, and the sole inclusion of only a certain kind of material as seen earlier, gives a highly misleading picture of the Muslims' behaviour and policy in this respect.
Another instance of selectivity
Having dealt with Lings' treatment of Badr, we move to one of his isolated examples of selectivity in using only a particular kind of material from his sources to reinforce the false, stereotyped image of Islam. This is the case of Rayhana, the widow of a Jewish chieftain taken as a captive, who came into the Holy Prophet's household. It may be noted that the most authentic source by which the Holy Prophet is to be judged - the Holy Quran - rules out concubinage (see 4:25), and therefore he cannot be considered to have resorted to this practice. Here, however, we are dealing with the comparative accounts given in the less authentic biographical sources used by Lings. According to Shibli's scholarly work quoted earlier, the biographers offer three different types of report about Rayhana: that she was set free by the Holy Prophet and went to live with her family; that the Holy Prophet offered to set her free and marry her but she chose to become his concubine (Ibn Ishaq); and that the Holy Prophet set her free and married her (Waqidi, Ibn Sa`d). Now Waqidi, Ibn Sa`d and Ibn Ishaq are Lings' chief sources, and in his footnotes the first two will be found referred to most frequently. Yet in connection with Rayhana, Lings opts for Ibn Ishaq's report, according to which she said: "O Messenger of God, leave me in thy power; that will be easier for me and for thee" (p. 233). What other reason can there be for Lings to abandon his two most favourite sources and to use the third one, except the desire to fit his book to the popular Western image of the Holy Prophet? He would rather have the world believe that the Holy Prophet kept Rayhana as a slave-girl than disclose the reports that she was set free, even if he has to reject the view of his two prime sources on this point.
Conclusion
Lings' work is no doubt a product of great labour, study and scholarship on the author's part. It makes available a cross-section of the information about the Holy Prophet's life as contained in the well-known, popular and voluminous biographies and histories referred to in this review. The book is also well-written and very interesting to read. The publisher's note on the jacket says:
"Based on Arabic sources of the eighth and ninth centuries . . .it owes the freshness and directness of its approach to the words of the men and women who heard Muhammad speak and witnessed the events of his life."
But the question is, In which sources is the testimony and record of these men and women preserved most accurately, authentically and without spurious addition? Certainly not the works on which Lings' book is based, however far these might date back. Unfortunately, the readers will not be aware of the strictures passed against these works by eminent Muslim scholars of Tradition and history (for example, the renowned Imam Shafi`i described the writings of Waqidi as "collections of lies"). Nor will the readers know that from even within these particular sources it is possible to choose selections which contradict the stereotyped portrayal of Islamic history given by Lings. His book will, therefore, only serve to reinforce the existing false Western misconception of the noble Prophet's times and teachings as standing for violent war, plunder and concubinage.
In the end, it must be added in all fairness that the greatest responsibility for the continued prevalence of such a picture of early Islamic times rests with the `popular' Muslim authors and writers who have elevated these biographies to the rank of reliable, historical works. Apart from rare and noble exceptions... the rest of the modern Muslim historians of Islam persist in slavishly following the biographies and giving them precedence over both the word of God (the Quran) and the labour of their forefathers who compiled the authentic Hadith books. Till they are bold and independent-minded enough to overthrow this attitude, authors such as Lings can continue to claim that their books reflect accredited Islamic sources.
NOTES:
The first edition contained that story about the Holy Prophet by chance catching sight of his married cousin Zainab when he went to her house and the weak sources from which he takes that story do mention that Zainab hurried to open the door to the Holy Prophet without completing her dressing. (I am sorry, readers, but Lings did write this), and both of them realizing that they had fallen in love ("love" is the word used by Lings). One wonders who was present to report all these details! Then according to this story the husband, Zaid, agreed to divorce Zainab and she was brought to the Holy Prophet's house without necessity of nikah because (says Lings' book) Allah in the Quran says: "We have given her to thee", so nikah was not required! (Read: Truth about Zainab, Zaid's divorced wife)
In the second edition Lings has toned this down. I think he has removed the word "love".
This story was always used by Christian missionaries to attack the character of the Holy Prophet, and in 1984 Lings won a prize from the Pakistan government of Zia-ul-Haq for a book which repeats it.
At one annual meeting of our Movement at our Lahore Centre some years ago, I made a speech about Lings' book.
Another story given by Lings is that the sahabi Abu Zarr belonged to a tribe whose occupation was highway robbery. Lings writes that after he came to Makka and embraced Islam and went back to his tribe, he continued this occupation, with the difference that now when he robbed anyone he would ask them to accept Islam and if they did so he would return their belongings!
Is this what he learnt by accepting Islam? Does Islam teach that you should not rob, or does it teach that you may rob people but return their possessions if they agree to accept Islam?