CIRA hosts Jay Smith. This parallels Ibn Warraq on how we can't trust Guillaume's Sira, on account it translates Ibn Hishâm. Smith digs deeper to find that "Ibn Hisham" here was that edited by Heinrich Ferdinand Wüstenfeld in the 1800s. Wüstenfeld might not have had all the best MSS.
Fuat Sezgin has since produced a Maghrebi recension, in 1967. So... compare and contrast?
The Malikis - interestingly, predominant in Maghreb - rate his source Ibn Ishâq as a liar. So it interests me to see how the Sezgin edition handles Maliki critique. Ibn Ishâq might represent Sufyân al-Thawrî and al-Awzaî, that Umayyad dark-matter behind the classical madhâhib.
Wâqidî was ashamed to use Ibn Ishâq too. Wâqidî actually was a liar, refusing to acknowledge his debt to that man; Ibn Sa'd's Tabaqât is from him.
Modern scholarship doesn't... much care. It has generally endorsed Wüstenfeld > Guillaume. Scholars pull up Tabarî next to him for the synopsis, and where they agree they call out "Ibn Ishâq!" and deem it good-enough, for that one. As Maghâzî goes they can also turn to Ma'mar bin Râshid.
Before Wüstenfeld, I am unsure how many Muslims cared about Ibn Hishâm. A lot of them were illiterate, remember. They just got the kiddie version from the local imam. The imam - mediaevally - had summaries from the likes of post-post-Malikites such as Ibn Kathîr. Ibn Hishâm was copied, but not too well, as I noted; Tabarî himself only resurfaced in the 1800s. Ditto Ma'mar (through 'Abd al-Razzâq).
Also I don't know how much traxion Ibn Ishâq gained among the Shî'a. All the people taking hadith from him, however honestly, roamed about the Sunnites.
To sum up, Smith is overstating the problems with the English-language Sîra. It is a close-enough approximation to consensus among Sunnis.
No comments:
Post a Comment