"Oh Quraish, a new calamity has befallen you. When Muhammad was a young man, he was the most liked among you, the most truthful in speech and the most trustworthy, until, when you saw grey hairs on his temple, he brought you his message. You said that he was a magician, but he is not, for we have seen such people and their spitting and their knots. You said that he was a diviner, but we have seen such people and their behaviour, and we have heard their rhymes. You said a soothsayer, but he is not a soothsayer, for we have heard their rhymes; and you said a poet, but he is not a poet, for we have heard all kinds of poetry. You said he was possessed, but he is not for we have seen the possessed, and he shows no signs of their gasping and whispering and delirium. Oh men of Quraysh, look to your affairs, for by God, a serious thing has befallen you."- Alqama Bin Abdulmanaf,addressing the tribe of Quraish when Muhammad began preaching his message
Proof And Historiography
Historiography is the focal point of importance when it comes to verifying potential prophethood, by verifying the countless, collective eye-witness testimonies of those around a potential prophet. Historiography also verifies the preservation of scripture, and preserved scripture's reasonings and reminders put forth to the people of its time. The importance of understanding the historiographical preservation of the Quran and the countless, collective eye-witness accounts of those around Muhammad is due to these collective texts bearing witness to various miraculous events and precise prophecies that determine the prophethood of an individual.
According to Britannica.com, Historiography is:
"Writing of history, especially that based on the critical examination of sources and the synthesis of chosen particulars from those sources into a narrative that will stand the test of critical methods."
"Except for the special circumstance in which historians record events they themselves have witnessed, historical facts can only be known through intermediary sources. These include testimony from living witnesses; narrative records, such as previous histories, memoirs, letters, and imaginative literature; the legal and financial records of courts, legislatures, religious institutions, or businesses; and the unwritten information derived from the physical remains of past civilizations, such as architecture, arts and crafts, burial grounds, and cultivated land" ('History and Historiography', history.com)
If a trusted publication of a particular nation has a large readership consisting of its own people, reporting the publicly-viewed physical events of it's own nation, all this being backed up by one, or both, of the following:
- Multiple, collective, verifiable eye-witness accounts to re-verify and support the trusted core source at hand
Then historiographically speaking, an event is logically verifiable.
- There being no eventual redaction by the publication so as to maintain trustworthiness among the community readers
Examples of historiographically verifiable history are:
- The existence of certain historic individuals,
- The existence of historic civilizations, and
- The occurrence of historic events.
Such is a basic, comprehensible verification process in to determine whether or not historical events ever did, or did not, take place at all.
In this scenario, both Orientalist and Islamic scholars have overwhelmingly, with the exception of some (which we shall look into as well), confirmed that the Quran, the trusted core source of Islam, has been preserved since it's revelation 1,400 years ago. I shall delve into what the majority, in comparison to the minority naysayers, proves in this regard.
We also know from many Orientalist studies as well as Islamic sources that the verification process of the individual, collective eye-witness accounts have been individually preserved and isolated from any chainless, doubtful historical texts. I shall delve into what the majority, in comparison to the minority naysayers, proves in this regard.
Given all of the above, we know of various events and situations that occurred in the life of Muhammad. There are those historic events that anyone and everyone can verify seeing as those disbelieving in Muhammad's cause choose not to accept any miraculous events, however verifiable.
Let us look at examples from the Quran, followed then by examples from but a few of the countless, collectice eye-witness accounts.
An example of a normal, non-miraculous event that all historians, Muslim and otherwise, have absolutely verified based on the likes of Islam's trusted core source (the Quran) as well as the various eye-witness testimonials would be the battle of Badr. The following is but one example of the various texts pertaining to the Badr event:
"There has already been for you a Sign in the two armies that met (in combat): One was fighting in the cause of Allah, the other resisting Allah. these saw with their own eyes Twice their number. But Allah doth support with His aid whom He pleaseth. In this is a warning for such as have eyes to see." (Quran 3:13)
However, the trust area that is the Quran also reminds those that witnessed the life of Muhammad in regards to various miraculous events that took place before their eyes. No redaction ever took place in this regard, but rather the readership and eye-witness testimonials only increased:
"Have you (O Muhammad (Peace be upon him)) not seen how your Lord dealt with the Owners of the Elephant? Did He not make their plot go astray? And sent against them birds, in flocks, Striking them with stones of Sijjîl. And made them like an empty field of stalks (of which the corn has been eaten up by cattle)." (Al-Fil 105:5)
"O people who have believed. Remember the bounty of Allah, which He has (just now) shown you. When the hosts came down on you, We sent against them a violent wind and the armies which you could not see. Allah was watching all that you were doing. When the enemies came upon you from above and from below you. When eyes were petrified due to fear and the hearts leapt up to the throats, and you began to entertain all sorts of doubts about Allah, the believers then were thoroughly tested and severely shaken" (Quran, excerpted from chapter 33)
"The Hour has drawn near, and the moon has split in half. And when they see a Sign (from God), they turn away, and say: "This is but continuous magic!" They disbelieved and followed their own lusts. And every matter will be settled." (excerpted from the Moon Chapter, the Quran)
The miraculous acts of Muhammad are further pointed out by the Islamic trusted core source's citing of how the pagan Arabs had falsely accused Muhammad of sorcery:
"...and the Unbelievers say (ie they assumed of Muhammad's miracles) , "This is a sorcerer..."" (Quran 38:4)
Miraculous events are also further pointed out by the verifiable, multiple, collective eye-witnesses around Muhammad. The below are but a handful of the countless examples:
According to 'Umar: 'Before the Battle of Badr started, God's Messenger, upon him be peace and blessings, walked around the battlefield and pointed to some locations, saying, Abu Jahl will be killed here, 'Utba here, Shayba here, Walid here, and so on. By God, we found, after the battle, the dead bodies of all those men int he exact places that God's Messenger had pointed out'" (Sahih Muslim)
"Narrated Anas: A man came to the Prophet on a Friday while he (the Prophet) was delivering a sermon at Medina, and said, "There is lack of rain, so please invoke your Lord to bless us with the rain." The Prophet looked at the sky when no cloud could be detected. Then he invoked Allah for rain. Clouds started gathering together and it rained till the Medina valleys started flowing with water. It continued raining till the next Friday. Then that man (or some other man) stood up while the Prophet was delivering the Friday sermon, and said, "We are drowned; Please invoke your Lord to withhold it (rain) from us" The Prophet smiled and said twice or thrice, "O Allah! Please let it rain round about us and not upon us." The clouds started dispersing over Medina to the right and to the left, and it rained round about Medina and not upon Medina. Allah showed them (the people) the miracle of His Prophet and His response to his invocation." (Narrated by Bukhari)
"This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Abdullah b. Mas'ud (who said): We were along with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) at Mina, that moon was split up into two. One of its parts was behind the mountain and the other one was on this side of the mountain. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to us: Bear witness to this. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book Giving Description of the Day of Judgement, Paradise and Hell (Kitab Sifat Al-Qiyamah wa'l Janna wa'n-Nar), Book 039, Number 6725)"
Narrated Jubair B. Mutim: "The moon had split during the Prophet's lifetime. It split into two pieces, one piece seemingly over one mountain, the other over another mountain. And the people said: "Muhammad has bewitched us!", while others said "If he has truly bewitched us, surely he could not have bewitched all the people." (Note: this book shall look into the many other eye-witness testimonials regarding this particular event)
It was narrated by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, as well as Muslim and Bukhari, that when the Prophet's Mosque in Madina was being constructed, Muhammad had told 'Ammar: "What a pity O 'Ammar, a rebellious group will kill you." ('Ammar was eventually killed by supporters of Mu'awiya in the Battle of Siffin (Mu'awiya had rebelled against the Caliph 'Ali))
These are but a few of the multitudes of such examples that fall under the verifiable, collective eye-witness accounts. The study of Islamic historiography is truly nothing short of fantastic. The great Muslim Historiographer Ibn Khaldun, who had conceptualized many of the first sciences of historiography so as to determine fact from fiction in history, states in his "Muqaddimah":
"To build strong historical records, the historian should rely on necessary rules for the truth comparison"
This book delves into studies into the historiographical verification of not only the trusted core source at the heart of Islam, the Quran, but also of the verification of all verified, individual, and countless eye-witness testimonials that support Islam's core source that hardly any other early civilization, if any, had ever comparatively witnessed. We shall also delve into what Orientalist critics have had to say in this regard, and how other Orientalists themselves refuted the former type of Orientalists by revealing all the sources and texts that were, strangely and unscholarly, absolutely overlooked and negated by the former type of Orientalists.
Whereas Islam has various verification processes and meticulous methodologies to confirm it's overall authenticity, and despite the overwhelming majority of Islamic historians agreeing upon this, there are Orientalists that play a role in falsely deeming either the concept of God, religion (particular ones or in general), or various other things, as supposedly baseless and without any "supporting evidences". The Oriental's selective use of texts and evidences, as well as the negation of extremely important texts and evidences, have contributed immensely to their cause. This book delves into what isn't brought forth by Orientalists from the same sources that they use, and the impact of such negations in their false claims.
Since earlier times, there has been a clear disregard in Oriental studies as to what mainstream Muslim scholars have had to say in regards to the overall Muslim understanding of their own Islamic religion and it's overall creed and methodological verifications. In it's stead, Orientalism has always depended on the creation of it's own version of Islam when creating an overall, distorted picture for the Western mindset:
"The invariable tendency to neglect what the Qur'an meant, or what Muslims thought it meant, or what Muslims thought or did in any given circumstances, necessarily implies that Qur'anic and other Islamic doctrine was presented in a form that would convince Christians; and more and more extravagant forms would stand a chance of acceptance as the distance of the writers and public from the Islamic border increased. It was with very great reluctance that what Muslims said Muslims believed was accepted as what they did believe. There was a Christian picture in which the details (even under the pressure of facts) were abandoned as little as possible, and in which the general outline was never abandoned. There were shades of difference, but only with a common framework. All the corrections that were made in the interests of an increasing accuracy were only a defence of hat what had newly realised to be vulnerable, a shoring up of a weakened structure. Christian opinion was an erection which could not be demolished, even to be rebuilt" (Excerpted from 'Islam and the West: The Making of an Image', Normal Daniel)
Studies into Orientalism, when benchmarked to relevant Islamic refutations, have indicated Orientalists' half-citations of relevant sources, as well as a constant negation of additional relevant texts even from the very same sources they use in the first place to come to any conclusion. And in modern times, considering that publishers in the West are well aware of the absolute sellability of content that attacks Islam by depicting it as supposedly "evil", is the propagation of unscholarly Orientalist works really a surprise?
"The Orientalists focus on minor or odd events and then present them as being important subjects to the study of Islam. They like to make elaborate studies about Mu'tazilite rationalists, Jihad (holy war) as a sixth pillar of Islam, Sufi symbolism, al-Hallaj and the unIslamic thoughts of Ibn Arabi. They presented these subjects as important issues and as an introduction to Islam (see Denny, 1994)" (Article "Islam and the West", Bader Malek)
It is for this reason that I urge people that research into any topic to follow the scholarly art of constant comparative research: to always research into refutations, counter-refutations, and even counter-counter-refutations between arguments, in order to fully grasp who within a debate is truly the concealer of evidences, whether they conceal out of ignorance or otherwise.
Examples of specific metrics that determine an author's level of dependency on personal persuasion over factual findings are:
- An author's dependency of fewer sources over the opposition's multitude of sources in particular topics
- An author's selectiveness in citing/negating when using a particular source he/she has already deemed as authenticate by citing from it in the first place.
This can work in various ways. Any nation/people/movement can easily speak out against another nation/people/movement via proper or "selective" studies, but it is the constant comparative study between the use and origin of sources of both sides that ultimately identifies the concealer of relevant evidences. And in all of my studies so far, I always seem to find Orientalists, when they attack Islam, falling into both of the above traits.
Orientalists have put forth half-citations of Quranic quotes in an attempt to falsely portray Islam as "evil", only to be refuted by studies revealing the Tafsir (ie the Prophet's/Companions' interpretations of each Quranic Verse based on the context of each Verse's revelation) that was ultimately negated by many Orientalists, only to reveal that the Orientalists were portraying false notions by negating entire, relevant texts from the very same sources that they cherry-picked texts from in the first place.
S. Parvez states in his book "Muslim World Book Review" (Vo.7 No.4, Summer 1987, pp. 33-49):
"The ultimate trophy that the Western man (ie Orientalist) sought by his dare-devil venture was the Muslim mind itself. In order to rid the West forever of the "problem" of Islam, he reasoned, Muslim consciousness must be made to despair of the cognitive certainty of the Divine message revealed to the Prophet. Only a Muslim confounded of the historical authenticity or doctrinal autonomy of the Qur'anic revelation would abdicate his universal mission and hence pose no challenge to the global domination of the West. Such, at least, seems to have been the tacit, if not the explicit, rationale of the Orientalist assault on the Qur'an."
Even certain Middle Easterner individuals take the Orientalist approach, but their works are constantly pointed out as unscholarly, methodologically flawed and historically misleading. For example, regarding Ibn Warraq's unscholarly anti-Islam book "Origins of the Quran", Herbert Berg states regarding Ibn Warraq's unscholarly methods:
"[i]t seems that Ibn Warraq has included some of the essays not on the basis of their scholarly value or their status as 'classics', but rather on the basis of their hostility to Islam. This does not necessarily diminish the value of the collection, but the reader should be aware that this collection does not fully represent classic scholarship on the Quran." (Herbert Berg, excerptet from his review from "Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies")
Regarding Ibn Warraq's other unscholarly anti-islam book "The Quest for the Historical Muhammad", American scholar Fred Donner states regarding Ibn Warraq's favouring of revisionist theories as opposed to authentic facts:
"This lopsided character makes The Quest for the Historical Muhammad a book that is likely to mislead many an unwary general reader" (Fred Donner, 'Review: The Quest for the Historical Muhammad')
Another example of as to how Orientalists have failed to properly cite, if at all, is the example of Hadith Science. Voluminous, early texts on the study around Hadith have proven the meticulous methodologies surrounding Hadith Science from the earliest of the Islamic Era. However, despite these voluminous texts, I’ve seen Orientalists use the exact same texts only to discuss Hadith history 200-300 years after Muhammad’s death, while somehow overlooking texts from the same sources that they research into that point out the entire history of Hadith during those 200-300 years, claiming that no Hadiths were written or compiled “until 200-300 years after Muhammad's death”.
Lack of sufficient citation, lack of sufficient evidence. And yet once again, we find the “cherry-picking” phenomenon used on the exact sources used by Orientalists that are also used to reveal their lack of sufficient investigation.
There are countless similar examples as to how Orientalists fail to use all relevant sources when putting forth their deductions to their readers. My question for a long time was: Why do they do this?
However, there are also various Orientalists that have counter-argued against other Orientalist claims, as this study will show.
Islam And The Historical Testimonies
The importance of history in relevance to religion is mainly due to the idea that, if a man at any point in time in human history claimed Prophethood, then various important factors would instantly come into play in the overall investigation:
- If the person was being truthful, then he would have brought forth signs: miracles, prophecies, etc.
- These signs would in turn have to be before the public eye, so as to create various eye-witnesses out of the masses
- These various witnesses would have to collectively/chronologically bear testimony of their eye-witness accounts of such signs to further generations and nations.
- then the eye-witness accounts of the people at the time would have to be thoroughly investigated if still existent in its original form, following both the collective verification method as well as the chronological verification method.
- The collective/chronological methodology/ies of confirming such eye-witness accounts of the people would have to be of utmost meticulousness, ensuring that no room for false-testimony is made.
Whereas there are various religions that have partially/completely been distorted in time as per studies into their preservation methodologies, Atheists and Agnostics have attempted to naively disregard all religion in its absolute totality by stating that "Well, since a lot of religions are ancient, in conclusion all original texts of religion must be distorted, and therefore we shall never really know if there were testimonies of a people witnessing Prophets that conducted miracles". Such is a flawed deduction methodology. But once any of them are challenged as to whether or not they have studied the authenticities, or lack thereof, of various world religions and their preservation methodologies if any, and they would inevitably admit that they haven't.
"Hadith Science?" they'd ask, "Never heard of it". And in all honesty, would you be surprised?
As much as Atheists/Agnostics see peoples of every single faith-type as merely comfortable in their comfort zones, why else would Atheists/Agnostics not delve sufficiently into comparative preservation methodologies of various world religions, other than due to them finding comfort in their current state of mind? Surely, if they were seeking actual answers, as opposed to questioning for the mere sake of comforting themselves, they would have done their sufficient comparative researches, right?
Should a comfort zone honestly determine what we refrain from delving into?
In order to investigate the collective testimonies of the people at the time of Muhammad by following both the collective verification method as well as chronological verification method, we must delve into two studies: The study of Hadith Science (as it contains the collective, recorded eye-witness accounts of the people in regards to various events that took place during Muhammad's lifetime, both miraculous and otherwise), and the study of Quranic preservation (seeing as books considered Divine by an entire people, so long as such books remain uncorrupted/unchanged, contain data events that took place around the people that they themselves didn't denounce as untrue during their lifetimes, but rather confirmed by their countless upon countless approvals of the faith):
Memoirs of the Companions:
One of the big themes of the Quran is how previous nations had failed to preserve their religious texts time and time again. This theme in the Quran seemed to have served a great purpose in the mindset of the first Muslims, for as soon as the Prophet had passed away, the Companions of the Prophet urgently needed to preserve their eye-witness testimonials/memoirs surrounding the Prophetic events and statements. Throughout the first years of the Islamic nation without the Prophet, the preservation methodology of the Companion's eye-witness testimonials had developed in a manner that left no doubt in the mindset of all that delved into this fantastic science.
Hadith Science is the overall collective methodologies that surround the preservation of the Hadith (memoirs of the Companions surrounding statements/actions of Muhammad), via preservation of the chronological channels (Isnad) as well as the alignment of all parallel chains of narration (Turuq) to deduce which testimonies are, or aren't, collectively and absolutely authenticate. These were among various other rules/regulations when determining the authenticity of Hadiths.
Although Hadith Science has far too many factors to go through in this report, I’ll attempt to portray the main factors of Hadith methodology, and provide you with sources should you wish to further delve into various other factors of Hadith Science.
Two important tools used by the first Muslims to historiographically preserve all eye-witness testimonials of all the Companions of Muhammad were the Sanad (single chain of narration) and Tawaatur (group testimonies), and these two tools must work together in order for a statement to be proven absolutely authenticate. A man may hear from his father of a saying his great-grandfather used to say, but this chain of narration cannot necessarily work alone if it is to be deemed absolutely authenticate. If other men are alive to collectively bear witness to what the great-grandfather had stated, and if all of them collectively agree on the exact same statement of the great grandfather, then this is considered a group testimony (Tawaatur), thus raising the status of the testimony altogether.
Hadith historiography works in such a fantastic way. When a Prophetic statement is witnessed by many people of a certain generation, and if the individual chains of narration work together to build a fantastic heirarchy of narration, then it is historiographically deemed impossible for all these people to have gathered upon a lie, as they do not collectively know one another in order for every single person's narration-chain to fit perfectly with the other narration-chains in the overall hierarchy. An example of a real-life heirarchy of one particular Hadith is as follows:
Furthermore, the exact-same Hadiths revealed "Common Links": that is, Muhadditheen preserved the chains of narration, and thus a Muhaddith that scanned the entire Muslim people to find out the parallel chains of narration would discover the verifiable points of Hadith transmission of every single generation (below picture same as above picture, with added red indicators revealing the "Common Links"):
Even more, they proved that the Muhadditheen that were stating a same Hadith, word-for-word, were Muhadditheen that were spread out throughout the entire Islamic Empire, not personally knowing one another, thus it being impossible for all of them to collectively agree upon a conspiracy.
Any Hadiths that weren't as superfluous but still had a number of Muhadditheen (that just so happened to have not known one another within the entire Islamic Empire) that related the exact same Hadith that flowed through the "firm tree" of Muhadditheen were conformable, but provided that they follow the various strict requirements for a Hadith to reach the level of “authenticate”, and were still not graded as authenticate as those with mutiple, parallel chains of narration.Furthermore, the studies of the later generations of Muhadditheen proved that, even in the last generations of Muhadditheen (when the authenticated Hadiths were being centralized into formal books), the independent works of the likes of Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, etc. were not only proven to be independent from one another in the scanning of collective Hadithic journeys, but they still matched with one another in regards to various authenticate Hadiths (below picture excerpted from islamic-awareness.org, with the last generation of Muhadditheen (Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, etc, as shown in color)
It is due to the immense amount of these 'Turuq' (parralel chains of narration) that, out of 600,000 Hadiths, traditionalist Al-Bukhari could only muster a little over 7,000 Hadiths as absolutely verifiable, with many of the roughly 7,000 Hadiths being merely the same Hadiths but from various narration chains. Furthermore, much of the remaining of the 600,000 Hadiths were either repetitions of verified Hadiths but with different narration-chains adding to the Turuq, or simply did not confirm with the strict verification methodology of Hadith Science.
"The second criterion adopted in hadith critique is the number of chains supporting one another on a narration or parallel to one another. In short, however many more parallel chains there are for a narrative, it becomes that much more reliable. We can see this rule as the second main rule in hadith critique. Again, it is obvious that a narration with more parallel chains is more reliable for listeners than one with few parallels. Legal experts give priority to a hadith with more parallel chains because it is accepted as more reliable" (Recep Senturk, 'The Social And Oral Structure of Isnad (Chain of Transmission), Whose Narrative')
Even Nabia Abott, an Orientalist rather than a Muslim scholar, had concluded regarding the parallel chains of transmission:
“... the traditions of Muhammad as transmitted by his Companions and their Successors were, as a rule, scrupulously scrutinized at each step of the transmission, and that the so called phenomenal growth of Tradition in the second and third centuries of Islam was not primarily growth of content, so far as the hadith of Muhammad and the hadith of the Companions are concerned, but represents largely the progressive increase in parallel and multiple chains of transmission” (Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri, Volume II)
Somehow, many Orientalists strangely leave out the concept of the parallel chains of transmission in their writings of Hadith Science altogether. Why?
Orientalist GHA Juynboll, along with some other Orientalists that didn't look into the parallel chains of transmission sufficiently, claimed that even if a Hadith had a firm tree of parallel chains of transmission from various locations of the Islamic Empire that originated from solely one Successor (ie one that comes after the Prophet’s generation of Companions), then that Successor must have supposedly lied about it being a Prophetic statement in the first place, not taking into sufficient consideration that every single Hadith is given a grading by Muhadditheen based on it's individual level of authenticity and early narration-chains anyways ('Absolutely Authenticate', 'Moderately Sound', 'Weak but not Necessarliy Forged', etc.). Nevertheless , this Orientalist claim was later refuted by yet another Orientalist, Harald Motzki, who had pointed out that, after he had delved into the books of Hadith that weren’t delved into by other Orientalists that only focused on but a few select books of Hadith, he discovered that there were, in fact, even more chains of narration of the Hadiths than thought by Orientalists, and that this revealed that there were various Companions, not Succesors, from the first generation of Islam that stated Hadiths.
Both Muslim scholars as well as many Orientalists have debunked previous claims of some Orientalists in this regard, by proving their (i) lack of investigating all relevant books on Hadith, and (ii) their delving into irrelevant studies when concluding on Hadith science. Let us look into examples of both, as stated by examples of both Orientalist and Muslim conformity:
"It seems quite clear that Schacht has not paid any attention to the differing nature of books of Hadith and books of law. Books of Hadith are concerned with presenting the full and complete status of each Hadith as a document, whereas the law books use parts of the Hadith, where appropriate, just to support their points. "The researches of the orientalists are based on the investigation of the wrong materials, consequently producing wrong results" (Azami, 1994, p. 51; see al-Azami, 1985, p. 183)" (Article "Islam and the West", Bader Malek)
"The American scholar and the distinguished papyrologist (Directory of American Scholars, 1978, vol. 1, p. 1; Irwin, 1994, p. 51), Nabia Abbott, as well as many researchers in the West and East, believes that the approach used by Orientalists in studying the Islamic tradition has been prejudiced and biased (vol. 2, p. 83). She collected some Arabic papyrus documents concerning Hadith in the early period of Islam. "Abbott set herself the laborious task of identifying, transcribing and translating" (Siddiqi, 1993, p. 131). She and other scholars "have opened new perspectives by their investigation of recently discovered material" (The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, vol. 2, p. 85)" (Article "Islam and the West", Bader Malek)
Dr. Jonathan A. Brown in his lecture “A Brief History of Hadith Collection And Criticism” states:
"So what you find is that these Hadiths that earlier people like Schacht and Juynboll said (ie they thought) were made up during the time of the successors...really came from, at the very latest, the Companions. And if the Companions are saying that the Prophet said something, then it's probably a good chance that he actually said it."
Dr. Jonathan A Brown later on concludes in the same lecture:
"So in a way, he (Motzki) said that you can't be lazy and just look at a few sources and look at those Isnads, you have to go look at all the different Muslim Hadith books out there, and you'll see that the Common Link is actually a lot earlier than you thought"
So if Orientalists are proving to other Orientalists that they’re not sufficiently using all the sources at hand to make their deductions, which is exactly what the Islamic sources have been pointing out about Orientalists in the first place, then what does that truly say about the Orientalists’ propagations as a whole?
Think about it.
Let us look at another Hadith example. The following is yet another hierarchy of one particular Hadith as testified by various people, excerpted from "Usool Al Hadith" by Bilal Philips:
Once again, if a Muhaddith of the very last era depicted in the above diagram were to scan all existing Muhadditheen from various parts of the Islamic Empire at the time, and find out that the pieces of the puzzle fit ever so accurately as depicted in regards to the narrations of every single generation, he would find it absolutely impossible for all of them to have come together to jointly agree upon a particular lie. And, once again, if one were to benchmark between all the mainstream Muhadditheen of the very last Hadith eras (Tirmidhi, Bukhari, Muslim, etc.) during the initial centralization of confirmed Hadith texts, one would find that even their various works of Sahih (authenticated) Hadith just so happened to confirm each other.
This methodology further ensured that authenticate Hadiths were not subject to the tampering of an individual politician, chauvinist, nationalist, and so forth, but rather subject to the widespread consensus of the various Muhadditheen who had lived in various parts of the Islamic world and studied the various methodologies of Hadith preservation. This is a collective, consensus-based, chronological methodology.
There's more. To further ensure strictness in the overall Hadith-verification methodology, every official Muhaddith was studied, including where he/she had resided in the overall Islamic Empire. The above Hadith’s chains of narrators were studied during their own eras to identify the following data (excerpted from the same book, “Usool Al Hadith” by Bilal Philips):
“At least thirteen students of Aboo Hurayrah transmitted this hadeeth from him.
8 out of the 13 were from Madeenah
1 was from Kufah
2 from Basrah
1 from Yemen
1 from Syria
There are sixteen scholars who transmitted this hadeeth from the students of Aboo
6 out of the 16 were from Madeenah
4 from Basrah
2 from Kufah, Iraq
1 from Makkah
1 from Yemen
1 from Khurasan (Iran)
1 from Hims (Syria)”
Such examples refute the notion put forth by Orientalists that Hadith was mainly made up by the Persians, in their very same 'studies' that negates the first few hundred years in the history of Hadith compilation and verification.
Many Orientalists attempted to refrain from studying into these particulars when writing against Hadith, many making uncited claims that Muhammad’s Hadiths were not put down in written form for hundreds of years after his death. Early Hadith texts proved such Orientalist claims to be wrong. We find from the same book, ‘Usool Al Hadith’ by Bilal Philips:
“…among the students of the companions, many recorded hadeeths and collected them in books. The following is a list of the top 12 narrators of hadeeths among the Prophet’s companions and their students who had their narrations in written form.
Aboo Hurayrah (5374)13: Nine of his students were recorded to have written hadeeths from him.
Ibn ‘Umar (2630): Eight of his students wrote down hadeeths from him.
Anas ibn Maalik (2286): Sixteen of his students had hadeeths in written form from him.
‘Aa’ishah bint Abee Bakr (2210): Three of her students had her hadeeths in written form.
Ibn ‘Abbaas (1660): Nine of his students recorded his hadeeths in books.
Jaabir ibn ‘Abdillaah (1540): Fourteen of his students wrote down his hadeeths.
Aboo Sa‘eed al-Khudree (1170): None of his students wrote.
Ibn Mas‘ood (748): None of his students wrote.
‘Abdullaah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas (700): Seven of his students had his hadeeths in written form.
‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (537): He recorded many hadeeths in official letters.
‘Alee ibn Abee Taalib (536): Eight of his students recorded his hadeeths in writing.
Aboo Moosaa al-Ash‘aree (360): Some of his hadeeths were in the possession of Ibn ‘Abbaas in written from.
13 The total number of hadeeths or more properly, channels of narration of hadeeth ascribed to the companion.
Al-Barraa ibn ‘Aazib (305): Was known to have dictated his narrations. Of Aboo Hurayrah’s nine students known to have written hadeeths, Hammaam ibn Munabbih’s book has survived in manuscript form and has been edited by Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah and published in 1961 in Hyderabad, India”
In regards to the aforementioned surviving manuscript of Hammaam Ibn Munabbih (a direct Hadith disciple of Abu Hurayrah), Orientalist Marston Speight benchmarked Hammaam's manuscript to 1,500 variant readings of the exact same Hadiths which were found in various other narration-chains by the likes of Ibn Hanbal, Bukhari and Muslim, to which Speight concluded (in his book "A Look At Variant Readings In The Hadith", Der Islam, 2000, Band 77, Heft 1, p. 170-175):
"... the texts in Hammam and those recorded in Ibn Hanbal, Bukhari and Muslim with the same isnad show almost complete identity, except for a few omissions and interpolations which do not affect the sense of the reports. On the other hand, the same ahadith as told by other transmitters in the three collections studied show a rich variety of wording, again without changing the meaning of the reports."
Speight further states in the same book:
"... I have found practically no sign of careless or deceptive practices in the variant texts common to the Sahifa of Hammam bin Munabbih."
Again: Is this all really one big coincidence?
To further benchmark the Isnaad aspect of Hadith Science to other citation sciences in historic studies, the book "Usool Al-Hadith" goes on to point out:
“…Muslims came to consider the isnaad an indispensable part of the hadeeths and developed it. They gave it a firm foundation by introducing the chronological method, assembling biographies of the transmitters, and establishing a science for determining the value of its contents and the authenticity of its channel of transmission. The ancient Indians, as far as is known, never made any attempt at a rigorous and consistent treatment of the isnaad, nor did they develop the chronological method. Likewise, Jewish literature had no usage of the chronological method thereby rendering their isnaads valueless. In fact, Professor Horovitz, himself, admitted that, ‘In the Talmudic literature there is no idea of chronological method, and the oldest extant work attempting such an arrangement was composed after 885 AD – more than a century later than the earliest Islamic work on isnaad-critique. From this fact,’ he goes on to say, ‘and from the fact that the important Jewish works [of this period] had been composed in the Islamic dominions, it may be inferred that this historical interest was due to the Islamic influence.’”
Furthermore, every individual Hadith is "graded": that is, based on all evidences, a Hadith can be deemed as "Accurate", "Good", "Weak", "Fabricated", or even gradings within the gradings.
Overall, these methodologies assisted in the following:
- Ensured that no governing authority of the first generation of Muslims could corrupt Hadith Science, as the Muhadditheen were the various Companions of the Prophet and were never collectively persecuted for their comparative Hadith works.
- Ensured that no governing authority of later generations could corrupt Hadith Science, as the documented students (as per consensus-based studies) of the Muhadditheen were by then in various parts of the Islamic Empire with their codified methods and studies, without a trace of persecution for practicing their comparative methodologies.
- Ensured that the science weighed upon the people and consensus.
- Ensured that even today, at this moment, no one can falsely add any new fabricated Hadith as "authenticate" via the strict methodologies of Hadith Science and the overall consensus of the Muhadditheen without being caught as a falsifier, as the collective input of Muhadditheen would not even consider it to be authenticate.
The Quran's Preservation:
The importance of studying Quranic preservation is due to the ‘Trust Area’ of religious texts. This basically means that, provided that a religious book that is considered to be of Divine origin is still intact without any changes over the years, and provided that the religion at hand had a massive following during it's Prophet's lifetime, then the religious text at hand would provide us with the then-common knowledge of actual events that took place around the people and their Prophet, whether miraculous or otherwise, seeing as the initial masses of followers of a particular Prophet would never have believed in a text should it have falsely made claims of then-current events that never actually took place at all.
It is for this ‘Trust Area’ reason that most Atheists attempt to look for flaws in the preservation of all religious texts. While it may be true that most religions have texts that have insufficient proof regarding the ‘Trust Area’ of the people around Prophets, evidence suggests that this does not pertain to every single religion. Here's a short summary of the history of the Quranic preservation:
During the Prophet's lifetime, he had scribes that would write down the Quranic Verses prior to the official compilation of all Verses into one physical book:
'Some people visited Zaid Ibn Thabit (one of the scribes of the Prophet) and asked him to tell them some stories about Allah's Messenger. He replied: "I was his (Prophet's) neighbor, and when the inspiration descended on him he sent for me and I went to him and wrote it down for him..." (Tirmidhi, Mishkat al-Masabih, No. 5823)
'The Prophet, while in Madinah, had about 48 scribes who use to write for him'. (M.M.Azami, Kuttab al-Nabi,Beirut, 1974)
Narrated by al-Bara': There was revealed 'Not equal are those believers who sit (home) and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah' (4:95). The Prophet said: 'Call Zaid for me and let him bring the board, the ink pot and scapula bone.' Then he (Prophet) said: 'Write: Not equal are those believers...' (Bukhari, 6.512)
Soon after the death of the Prophet, around the time of the battle of Yamama, an official project was set up by the very first Caliph (Abu Bakr, who placed the Prophet's personal scribe Zaid Ibn Thabit to lead the project along with other Prophetic Companions that had memorized the Quran) for gathering the Quran into one physical book in a precise manner. The following evidences prove that throughout the project:
Do take note that Orientalists have thus far only produced a small portion of the below texts to make it falsely seem as if the Quran compilation project was supposedly based solely on collection of scraps and nothing more. I have put forth other relevant texts not put forth by Orientalists from the same sources that they use, for your perusal:
- The persons overseeing the project were already authoritative figures regarding the Quran
- The project was primarily dependent on the collective, as opposed to individual, memory of the Huffadh (those that memorized the entire Quran by heart)
- To further back up the collective memory of the Huffadh/Companions, any written Quranic texts that were written during the Prophet's lifetime was to be brought forth to simply re-verify what was already known in the collective memory of the Companions.
Some of the mentioned Companions below were among those who participated in the Quran compilation project:
"Some of the companions who memorized the Quran were: 'Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Ibn Masud, Abu Huraira, Abdullah bin Abbas, Abdullah bin Amr bin al-As, Aisha, Hafsa, and Umm Salama" ('Al-Itqan fi-ulum al-Quran, Vol. I p.124)
We find regarding all written texts during the Quran compilation project:
"The Prophet permitted the writing of the Quran and prohibited the writing of anything else along with it, so Abu Bakr did not order anything to be written down except what has already been written down, and that is the reason why he (Zayd bin Thaabit) refrained from writing the last verses from Surah al Bara'a until he found it written, for he already knew it and had people who remembered it along with him" (Fath Al Bari)
- Only material that was written down in the presence of the Prophet would be accepted (Ibn Hajar, Fath, Vol. IX, p. 10)
- Furthermore, the material would have to be further confirmed by two trustworthy people testifying that they had heard the Prophet recite the passage at hand when testifying to the authority figures of the Quran (Ibn Hajar, Fath, Vol. IX, p. 11)
"Narated By Kharija bin Zaid : Zaid bin Thabit said, "When the Qur'an was compiled from various written manuscripts, one of the Verses of Surat Al-Ahzab was missing which I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting. I could not find it except (after seeking it) with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari...” (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 062)
Narrated Zaid bin Thabit al-Ansari, one of the scribes of the Revelation: Abu Bakr sent for me after the casualties among the warriors (of the battle) of Yamama (where a great number of Qurra (memorizers of the Quran), were killed). Umar was present with Abu Bakr who said: "Umar has come to me and said, the people have suffered heavy casualties on the day of (the battle) Yamama, and I am afraid that there will be some casualties among the Qurra at other places, whereby a large part of the Quran may be lost, unless you collect it (in one manuscript, or book)...so Abu Bakr said to me (Zaid bin Thabit): You are a wise young man and we do not suspect you (of telling lies or of forgetfulness) and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle. Therefore, look for the Qur'an and collect it (in one manuscript)'...So I started locating the Quranic material and collecting it from parchments, scapula, leafstalks of date palms and from the memories of men (who know it by heart)..." (Bukhari 6.201)Anyways, let's continue.
This gets one thinking: Why do Orientalists once again leave out texts from the exact same sources that they cite from?
There are seven known dialects of Quran recitation as per the various dialects used at the time of Muhammad, with the Quraishi dialect being the main Quranic dialect as it was the dialect of Muhammad's people, the Quraysh.
"For example, the phrase 'alayhim (on them) was read by some 'alayhumoo and the word siraat (path, bridge) was read as ziraat and mu'min (believer) as moomin" (Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, Tafseer Soorah Al-Hujuraat, p. 27)
The Prophet said: '... this Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in seven different dialects, so recite of it whichever is easier for you'. (Bukhari, VI No. 514)
'Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas: Allah's apostle said: Gabriel recited the Qur'an to me in one dialect. Then I requested him (to read it in another dialect), and continued asking him to recite it in other dialects, and he recited it in several dialects till he ultimately recited it in seven different dialects'. (Bukhari, VI No. 513.)
It was for this reason that, when the Caliphate had moved on to Muhammad's Companion Uthman, he had ensured that only the Qurayshi dialect was to be used when reciting the Quran to ensure that there were no tribulations in this regard during the expansion of Islam into new territories. Also, to ensure that no individuals of the Islamic Empire would try to create their own personal projects of compiling their own Qurans that accidentally differed from the official compilation of the Companions of Muhammad, Uthman had ordered that all such private projects be burnt:"The Qur'an continued to be read according to the seven Ahruf (dialects) until midway through Caliph 'Uthman's rule when some confusion arose in the outlying provinces concerning the Qur'an's recitation. Some Arab tribes had began to boast about the superiority of their ahruf and a rivalry began to develop. At the same time, some new Muslims also began mixing the various forms of recitation out of ignorance. Caliph 'Uthman decided to make official copies of the Qur'an according to the dialect of the Quraysh and send them along with the Qur'anic reciters to the major centres of Islam. This decision was approved by Sahaabah and all unofficial copies of the Qur'an were destroyed. Following the distribution of the official copies, all the other ahruf were dropped and the Qur'an began to be read in only one harf. Thus, the Qur'an which is available through out the world today is written and recited only according to the harf of Quraysh." (Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, Tafseer Soorah Al-Hujuraat, p. 28-29)
"...Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, 'In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish as the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue'. They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa..." (Bukhari, VI, No. 510)
Narrated Anas bin Malik: Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham (Syria) and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Armenia and Azherbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their differences in the recitation of the Quran, so he said to Uthman, 'O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and Christians did before'. So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, 'Send us the manuscripts of the Quran so that we may compile the Quranic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you'. Hafsa sent it to Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin Az-Zubair, Said bin Al-As and Abdur Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, 'In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Quran, then write it in their tongue (ie Qurayshi)'. They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied and ordered that all the other Quranic materials whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt..." (Bukhari, 6.510)
Uthman had personally supervised this Council during his Caliphate (Al-Itqan fi-ulum al-Qur'an, Vol. I, p. 59)
Of this, it was reported that Zaid Ibn Thabit had commented: "I saw the Companions of Muhammad (going about) saying, 'By God, Uthman has done well! By God, Uthman has done well!" (Naysaburi, al-,Nizam al-Din al-Hasan ibn Muhammad, Ghara'ib al-Quran wa-ragha'ib al-furqan. 4 vols. To date. Cairo, 1962)
Oral History of the Quran:
This overall Quranic codification history works parallel with the Oral history of the Quran. After all, the initial codification project did rely overwhelmingly on the Quran's initial oral history.
The reason why there have been so many memorizers of the Quran that were able to collectively agree upon the actual vocalization of the Quran (this type of verification methodology is referred in Arabic as 'Tawaatur') was due to the Quran's wording being made for memorizing in the first place. According to the Quran itself:
"And We have indeed Made the Quran easy for memorization: then is there any that will receive admonition?" (Quran, 54:40)
Furthermore, certain Orientalists have attempted to deem the Quranic recitation as "changed" by either mixing up the authenticate variety of recitation-types (based on the 'Ahruf' or 'Qiraa'aat'), or by pointing out how the first Quranic preservation did not need 'vowel points'. They further fail to point out Islam's ensuring of Quranic oral preservation by:
- Ensuring that the Quran is memorized by countless believers in the Islamic faith, a practice done to this day
- Ensuring that the Quran is recited in the five daily prayers, every day, a practice done to this day
- Ensuring that, during every Ramadhan, the entire Quran is recited in the Taraweeh and Qiyaam prayers in front of the masses (a practice which still takes place every year to this date)
- Ensuring that, via these practices, the oral preservation of the Quran keeps a stronger stance than the codification of the Quran itself, as the Muslims during Muhammad's time relied main upon memory.
Orientalists fail to further point out that when Muhammad had passed away, he had left an entire fortified Islamic empire, as opposed to leaving the Muslims in a state of minority unable to preserve their own lives, let alone their religion and Quranic vocalization. They also seem to fail to mention the reliance upon this collective consensus during the earlier history of Islam, which was based upon the collective consensus of the Companions themselves that taught the next generation their own collective understanding.
Considering the various incentives that Islam provided, mentioned above, that ensured the overall oral preservation of the Quran that is still practiced daily/annually to this day, where then were the gaps that would have enabled any change in the Quranic vowel-vocalization?
The Documented Events:
Once documentation of events have proven their strict methodologies of preservation, history bears witness that there are still people that require ‘leaps of faith’ to deny the documented events.
One example is how a certain demographic of people, both in the Western World as well as other parts of the world, somehow blindly refuse to believe that the Holocaust ever took place.
However, a proven event is nevertheless a proven event, regardless of what people wish to believe.
Seeing as there are various miracles mentioned in the Islamic testimonials, let us take one as an example: The Splitting of the Moon.
Below is the Quranic Reference, from the "Moon Chapter":
"The Hour has drawn near,
and the Moon has split asunder.
But if they see a Sign
they turn away,
saying "This is but sorcery!"
They considered it to be deceit,
and instead followed their desires,
while every matter has its appointed time"
Other than the Quranic references that point out both the event as well as what the reaction of the Quraysh was, we have the Hadith sources:
Do take note that the below Hadith narrations are merely the ones that I could personally find:
This event was related via the likes of Anas B. Malik, Jubayr B. Mutim, Hudhayfah, Abd Allah b. Abbas, Abd Allah b. Umar, and Abd Allah b. Masud
"This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Abdullah b. Mas'ud (who said): We were along with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) at Mina, that moon was split up into two. One of its parts was behind the mountain and the other one was on this side of the mountain. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to us: Bear witness to this. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book Giving Description of the Day of Judgement, Paradise and Hell (Kitab Sifat Al-Qiyamah wa'l Janna wa'n-Nar), Book 039, Number 6725)"
Narrated by Anas bin Malik: "The people of Mecca asked Allah's Apostle to show them a miracle. So he showed them the moon split in two halves between which they saw the Hiram' mountain. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar), Volume 5, Book 58, Number 208)"
Imam Bayhaqi narrated from Abdullah Ibn Umar that the moon had split during Muhammad's lifetime, whereupon he told the people to witness the miracle.
"Ibn 'Abbas reported that the moon was split up during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace he upon him). (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book Giving Description of the Day of Judgement, Paradise and Hell (Kitab Sifat Al-Qiyamah wa'l Janna wa'n-Nar), Book 039, Number 6730)"
Imam Bukhari, Ahmad, Abi Dawud and Al Bayhaqi all narrated from Ibn Mas'ud that the Quraysh, in order to determine as to whether or not this was an actual event or an illusion cast upon them, began to query travelers as to whether or not they saw the event, to which they confirmed the sighting.
Imam Ahmad narrated from Jubair B. Mutim: "The moon had split during the Prophet's lifetime. It split into two pieces, one piece seemingly over one mountain, the other over another mountain. And the people said: "Muhammad has bewitched us!", while others said "If he has truly bewitched us, surely he could not have bewitched all the people".
Imam Laith narrated from Mujaahid: "the moon split during Muhammad's lifetime into two pieces, and Muhammad said to Abu Bakr: "Witness, oh Abu Bakr!"..."
"Abu Ma'mar reported on the authority of Abdullah that the moon was split up during lifetime by Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) in two parts and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Bear testimony to this. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book Giving Description of the Day of Judgement, Paradise and Hell (Kitab Sifat Al-Qiyamah wa'l Janna wa'n-Nar), Book 039, Number 6724)
One might attempt to argue that others should have also seen the moon split in other countries at the time in which it was night time.
Lets look into this:
While there is such documentation in reference to the same Moon event of Muhammad's time, seeing as the documentation of other countries didn't follow a strict chronological methodology of preserving testimonials, I tend to hesitate from using such sources. But for the sake of argument, let's just put this forth as an example:
An old manuscript in the India Office Library in London (reference number: Arabic, 2807, 152-173) states that Chakrawati Farmas, a King in the South West Coast of India (Malabar) had claimed that he had seen the moon split in his lifetime. This manuscript further points out that he had lived during the same era of Muhammad, as he had personally journeyed to meet him. The same manuscript contains other details about King Chakrawati.
Once again, seeing as the above manuscript is not of the same level of methodological preservation that we find in Hadith Science, I usually prefer not to use such texts as evidences. But if one must ask for other sources, one would have to sadly delve into texts that lack chronolocial methodologies of codification and preservation.
Lets look into this via another Moon-event example, although this next example doesn't come close to a miraculous event such as the Moon splitting into two entirely separate pieces prior to re-connecting back. According to an article on BBC News Online by Jo Kettlewell, five witnesses saw a possible meteor-hit on the Moon's surface during Medieval times:
"On a clear midsummer night in AD 1178, five men gazing at the sky witnessed something astonishing; a mystery which remains unsolved. Stunned, they watched as the Moon began to spew out fire and sparks, and writhe as if in pain. Several times it did this, before taking on a blackish appearance.
The events of that night are recorded in the medieval chronicles of Gervase of Canterbury, and they have puzzled historians and scientists alike for most of a millennium. What could possibly explain this deeply strange phenomenon?How, then, can one deduce that if witnesses of a particular country hundreds, or thousands, of years ago had witnessed an event that wasn't recorded in ancient history by other nations, then in conclusion it must have never happened, seeing as it wasn't the first time an ancient testimonial is only recorded in one country? After all, isn't this in reference to a few seconds worth of an event regarding an object that can only be seen by parts of the world during certain hours depending on each time zone?
The most widely accepted theory is that the five men witnessed a huge meteoroid hitting the surface of the Moon; an impact so big it could have wiped out civilisation, had it occurred on our planet"
However, when attempting to research as to whether or not this was witnessed by other countries, Kettlewell continues:
"But no-one ever reported this firework extravaganza. Historical records show nothing, including the European, Chinese, Arabic, Japanese and Korean astronomical archives"
Moreover, we've so far only been talking about but one example of a miraculous event witnessed by the people around Muhammad and collectively codified, there being other testimonials regarding other miraculous events witnessed by the people as well. So if the Quran's 'Trust Area' and the people's collective/authentic testimonials bear witness that Muhammad did in fact perform miracles in front of the masses to prove his Prophethood, then what further proof could one possibly ask for?
Are people going to attempt to negate authenticate history, once its utmost authenticity has been proven? This is an important question, do earnestly think about it.Conclusion:
When looking at all the methodologies in verifying statements (prophetic or otherwise) and events (miraculous or otherwise) surrounding Muhammad, the overall collective methodologies can be depicted as such:
It's clear that, given the amount of texts negated by Orientalists that use the exact same sources of those negated texts to present their deductions, and given that such negations and half-citations of Orientalism have been proven in studies of Orientalism itself by both Westerners and Middle-Easterners alike, that modern-day Orientalism's negation of relevant texts is simply due to the fact that Orientalists just don't seem to have all the relevant texts at their disposal in the first place.
It is safe today, considering all the various comparative studies revealed throughout this book, that modern-day Orientalism isn't evil, but rather manifestly ignorant.
As for Atheists, it's pretty obvious that most Atheists that propagate against religion have an almost-total ignorance of the various verification methodologies that we have just gone through that is found within Islam that testifies not only to the existence of prophecy and miracles, but the existence of the metaphysical realm. Even Richard Dawkins seems to be completely ignorant in this regard:
"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm?" - Richard Dawkins
All supporting evidence? After everything we've discussed in this space thus far? Really?
And if all the methodologies presented here that testify to miraculous events and prophecies so far have included "necessary multitudes", as opposed to the rarities depended upon in Evolutionism that contradict even Darwin's requirement of necessary multitudes, then what does that really tell you?
It is imperative that any earnest seeker of authenticity in any study simply must investigate refutations, counter-refutations, and even counter-counter-refutations to truly find out the truths of any topic, rather than developing any comfort-zones for one side of a topic.
I leave you with a few quotes from the Quran...
Do those that deny not see
that the Universe and the Earth
were initially but a single entity,
before We Parted them?
And we made from water every living thing.
Will they not then believe?(Quran, 21:30)
And God Created every animal from water:
of them are some that creep on their bellies,
some that walk on two legs,
and some that walk on four.
God Creates what He Wills,
for God has Power over all things(Quran, 24:45)
...There has come to you obvious Evidence
from your Lord,
And we have sent unto you
a manifest light(Quran, 4:174)
We shall show them Our Evidences in the Universe,
and within their own selves,until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth
Part Two: The Quran & Science:
This section delves into the Quranic Verses that stated scientific aspects about the world and universe 1,400 years ago, and how these aspects have only been known to science recently. The scientific Verses are countless and straightforward.
Part Three: Disproving Darwinism:
This section delves into and refutes the false Atheistic notions, as well as looks into the Creationist/Evolutionist debate.Part Four: Refutations:
This section looks into how some Orientalists have misused and half-cited much information when making false claims against Islam. These are compared to the scholarly refutations against such claims by representing the information strangely missing in Orientalist works.
Part Five: Islam & Thought:
This section purely discusses the mindset of man, and the various aspects people need to take into utmost consideration when peering into Islam.Part Six: Convert Videos:
This section includes video interviews with converts to the religion of Islam