Muhammad, the Qur'an and Islam
Western scholars, however, many of the poems cited by Ibn Ish^20 aq are
obvious forgeries, which possess little historical value.
With the exception of Ibn Hisham's Sira, other early Islamic works^21
containing information on Muhammad's biography also bring together a
vast collection of traditions from sources other than Ibn Ishaq. Waqidi may
have quoted Ibn Ishaq occasionally, however, much of the text o^22 f his
Maghazi appears to have come to him through other narrators. Among^23
Western scholars of Islam, Waqidi's Maghazi is generally held in almost
equal esteem with Ibn Ishaq's Sira, and Waqidi's use of isnads and his^2425
chronology are often regarded as superior to Ibn Ishaq's. The^2627 Kitab
al-Tabaqat, consisting of traditions collected by Waqidi's former secretary
Ibn Sad, not only relies on the Maghazi of Waqidi and several recensions of Ibn Ishaq in relating Muhammad's biography, but it genera^28 lly presents more developed forms of isnads than either Waqidi or Ibn Ishaq. Islamic^29 scholars are usually hesitant to accept some of Ibn Sad's traditions,
although they frequently view Ibn Sad as being more trustworthy than Waqidi. Western scholars, however, often consider his work wi^30 th respect to Muhammad's biography to be dependent on and yet practically as valuable as Waqidi's. The^31 Ta'rikh of Tabari is also based on a few recensions of Ibn Ishaq, as well as the works of Waqidi and Ibn Sa^32d. In^33
contrast to other early Islamic works, Tabari not only gives the texts of
traditions which others omitted, but he often presents narrations which
contradict one another. Tabari is generally regarded by Mu^34 slims as being
trustworthy, although they often maintain that his Ta'rikh contains
unreliable traditions.^35
In the mid-19th century, Western scholars began writing biographies of
Muhammad based on a critical analysis of Islamic traditions. With the^36
works of R. Dozy and I. Goldziher a great deal of skepticism dev^3738 eloped
regarding the truthfulness and authenticity of Islamic hadith; finally H.
Lammens claimed that the only historical foundation for Muhammad's
biography is the Qur'an itself. As some scholars have since^39 pointed out,
there are problems with Lammens' assumptions: the chronol^40 ogy of
Muhammad's biography cannot be determined from the Qur'an without the
aid of traditions, there are Qur'anic passages which are ex^41 plained only by
historical hadith, and many of the earliest sources for trad^42 itions were also
the transmitters of the Qur'an, etc.^43