Muhammad had no miracles

 Many muslim apologists, when trying to convince people that Muhammad was a true prophet, will point to him doing miracles. They will consult the earliest sources, including the Sira of Ibn Ishaq. This is one of the earliest biographies of Muhammad to demonstrate that the miracles recorded in early Islamic literature are not a later development; therefore, it is most likely that Muhammad performed these miracles. This article will show that Muhammad didn’t do these miracles and that there is a better explanation.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

Introduction:

Muslim apologists will turn to the Sira of Ibn Ishaq to attempt to demonstrate that Muhammad performed miracles to verify his prophethood. Miracles within the literature of Ibn Ishaq include Muhammad allegedly multiplying food & Water from Fingers Miracle, comparing them to the miracles of Jesus, then asking the question, “If Jesus and Muhammad did the same type of miracle, how can you claim Muhammad didn’t do miracles but accept Jesus did?

Response:

First, it is important to consider whether the Sira of Ibn Ishaq is reliable. When examining the miracles in the Sira, according to their own tradition, critics of Ibn Ishaq criticise the Sira. For example, when relating hadiths, he would not know how to distinguish words that are and are not part of a hadith. “I see him relating on the authority of a group of people a single ḥadīth, and he does not distinguish the words of this one from the words of that”¹ Which is the reason why, Mālik b. Anas b. Mālik says this about Ibn Ishaq, “Mālik “objected to Ibn Ishak tracing the ghazawat of the Prophet.”² Other Muslim scholars also report this; for example, Abd Allah b. Idris, who says, “I was with Mālik b. Anas, when a man said to him: ‘Muhammad b. Ishak says: Present to me the knowledge of Mālik, for I am the man to check it. Mālik said: ‘Look at this antiChrist saying ‘Present to me the knowledge of Mālik.”³ Other scholars also acknowledge this due to how he was deceptive with hadith sources, such as Al-Athram, who said, “I said to Abu Abd Allah (Imam Ahmad): ‘“’ What do you say regarding Muhammad ibn Ishaq?” He replied: “He is very frequent in tadlis (obfuscation of sources) indeed; therefore, the best of his narrations in my view are those in which he [explicitly] says: ‘He informed me’ (akhbarani).”⁴ The final person whom we can turn to is Abu Dawud, who says this: “I said to Ahmad: ‘“’ Ibn Ishaq says in the hadith of Abu Ruhm: ‘From Ibn Akimah, from Ibn Abi Ruhm,’ while Ma’mar says: ‘From al-Zuhri: Ibn Abi Ruhm informed me.’” Ahmad replied: “Muhammad ibn Ishaq did not hear it from al-Zuhri.”⁵

Therefore, it can be concluded that if we are to take from Ibn Ishaq, it must be attested by multiple sources, as Ibn Ishaq himself can’t be trusted due to his inability to distinguish words within the hadiths. Top scholars such as Mālik b. Anas attacked him and called him the Anti-Christ.

Second, the reliability of the Sira itself should also be assessed. Now it should be known that we don’t have the original work of Ibn Ishaq, but only what is given to us by others, as Ibn Warraq says, “However, it is of the utmost importance to realise that the Sira of Ibn Ishaq is not extant in its original form, and is not preserved as a single work. It has been preserved in two recensions, one by Ibn Hisham (d. 218/833; see below) and another by Yūnus b. Bukayr (d. 199/814–815); each text seems to vary from the other. Other parts of Ibn Ishaq’s work have been quoted by Muhammad b. Salaam al-Harrani (d. 191/807) and thirteen other students, compilers, and historians who had heard his lectures in various towns like Medina, Kufa, Basra, and so on.”⁶ This means when looking at what the Sira says, we should be sceptical of what it says, as different recensions of the work contain different events, and what is likely is that events have been added to the Sira.

The work by Guillaume has given us the names of all the people who transmitted the text,

Press enter or click to view image in full size

The Fifteen different Riwayas.⁷

As we don’t have the original and are relying on numerous people to transmit the text, this increases the likelihood that myths and legends will creep into the biography of Muhammad, as human memory and rhetorical report commonly inflate numbers. This is why, when looking at what is contained within the biography, each person should be checked, as W Raven notes, “There has hardly been any written standard text by Ibn Ishaq himself, and we depend on his transmitters, whose texts should be studied synoptically, in all their variants.”⁸ As it starts low with tens → hundreds → thousands, oral traditions, especially those memorised for didactic or devotional use, regularly convert several dozen into hundreds or thousands across generations as the reports of these miracles don’t turn up early which is what Michael Cook and Patricia Crone say, “Virtually all accounts of the early development of Islam take it as axiomatic that it is possible to elicit at least the outlines of the process from the Islamic sources. It is, however, well-known that these sources are not demonstrably early.”⁹ Finally, this is shown in modern scholarship, which has done work trying to find out what the historical Muhammad said and did,

Let us first consider Ibn Isḥāq’s (d. 150/767) version. His work is not extant in its original form (provided there was a single original form, which may be doubted), but only in different variants. The most famous one is that of Ibn Hishām, but numerous other traditions going back to Ibn Isḥāq can be found in the written sources. These versions differ considerably in content, as has been shown in other studies.¹⁰

From this section, we conclude that Ibn Ishaq’s work is not as reliable as Muslim apologists might wish us to believe, as there is no original text, many people have transmitted it, and the transmitters must be checked individually. Finally, the content of the stories differs depending on which recension of Ibn Ishaq you read.

One Example: Water from Fingers Miracle ( Miracle of the Well )

This section examines one example of a miracle, reported in the Sira of Ibn Isahq, known as the Miracle of the Well. Regarding the event of Water from Fingers Miracle, also known as the miracle of the well, when using Isnād-cum-matn Analysis, one can discern earlier reports, such as those from Urwa b. Al-Zubayr shows Muhammad’s actions at the well are described in relatively mundane terms. He uses an arrow to draw water or performs a ritual that leads to the well’s replenishment, while other reports, as time goes on, turn these into legends and myths to make him out to be Muhammad, someone he isn’t. As Harald Motzki notes when doing Isnād-cum-matn Analysis, he says this,

“Muhammed revives the dry well using an arrow. The order of the delegates is the same as that reported by Ma‘mar, but al-Ḥulays is mentioned by name in contrast to Ma‘mar’s report. The Muslims protest against the changes in the formulation. ‘Umar’s protest is mentioned before the contents of the treaty (as in Ibn Isḥāq’s report). He protests at first with Muḥammad, then with Abū Bakr (as in Ma‘mar’s report). As in Ma‘mar’s report, the treaty comprises only the clauses concerning the surrender of fugitives and the pilgrimage. This part displays the largest differences”¹¹

This shows that the earliest reports don’t depict Muhammad performing miracles; instead, they describe a natural event that occurred, indicating that, as the tradition passed to later generations, such as al-Zuhri, it was interpreted as a miracle. Eventually, the descriptions become increasingly supernatural: “Changes may have occurred in the process of transmission from the eyewitnesses to ‘Urwa.”¹² Therefore, it is safe to conclude that the Urwa material should be placed into doubt and can’t be trusted, as Muhammad and what he was really like changed over time. “A study of ‘Urwa’s material raises considerable doubts about whether his account describes what really happened. The Prophet’s image is already transfigured. He miraculously revives the well. Miracles in connection with water are a common motif in the legendary literature about Muḥammad and are encountered in various instances.”¹³ All this shows is that we can never know if Muhammad did do any miracles or not; everything which is reported should be in question, as Lawrence Conard states, “It is impossible to say whether the different elements originally belonged together”¹⁴

Naturalistic Explanation:

From everything which is given above, it is clear what the likely Naturalistic Explanation of the event is.

Get Gloria Veritatis’s stories in your inbox

Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.

Enter your email

Subscribe

Remember me for faster sign in

A regular event, such as Muhammad reviving a dry well with an arrow, over time became a myth and legend. Muslims saw this happen and decided to use this as an advantage to turn Muhammad into a prophet when he was a mere man. Muslims noted that the Quran states in Al-A’raf.

ٱلَّذِينَ يَتَّبِعُونَ ٱلرَّسُولَ ٱلنَّبِىَّ ٱلْأُمِّىَّ ٱلَّذِى يَجِدُونَهُۥ مَكْتُوبًا عِندَهُمْ فِى ٱلتَّوْرَىٰةِ وَٱلْإِنجِيلِ يَأْمُرُهُم بِٱلْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَىٰهُمْ عَنِ ٱلْمُنكَرِ وَيُحِلُّ لَهُمُ ٱلطَّيِّبَـٰتِ وَيُحَرِّمُ عَلَيْهِمُ ٱلْخَبَـٰٓئِثَ وَيَضَعُ عَنْهُمْ إِصْرَهُمْ وَٱلْأَغْلَـٰلَ ٱلَّتِى كَانَتْ عَلَيْهِمْ ۚ فَٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ بِهِۦ وَعَزَّرُوهُ وَنَصَرُوهُ وَٱتَّبَعُوا۟ ٱلنُّورَ ٱلَّذِىٓ أُنزِلَ مَعَهُۥٓ ۙ أُو۟لَـٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلْمُفْلِحُونَ

“Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them. He will enjoin on them that which is right and forbid them that which is wrong. He will make lawful for them all good things and prohibit for them only the foul; and he will relieve them of their burden and the fetters that they used to wear. Then those who believe in him, and honour him, and help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him: they are the successful.¹⁵

What they did next was see stories within the bible, such as Moses striking the rock or Jesus feeding the 5,000 and took these and their influence to try and make Muhammad like the prophets within the bible, so it is easier for people to accept Muhammad as a prophet.

Therefore, the naturalistic explanation is far more parsimonious and more likely of what happened than accepting the “miracles” within the Sira of Ibn Ishaq.

Conclusion:

It is reasonable to assume that Muhammad did not perform miracles and that we should not trust the Sira of Ibn Ishaq or any miracles narrated in Muslim sources, given the issues outlined above.

Reference:

[1] Tahdhīb, ix, 43

[2] Tahdhib , ix, 45

[3] Udaba’. vi, 400

[4] Al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil (7/193).

[5] Masa’il Abi Dawud (1883).

[6] The Quest for the Historical Muhammad, edited and translated by Ibn Warraq, page 27

[7] The Life of Muhammad by A. Guillaume Page xxx

[8] ‘Sira’ in Encyclopedia of Islam by W. Raven, volume 9, page 661

[9] Hagarism: The Making Of The Islamic World Page 3

[10] Cf. S.M. Al-Samuk, Die historischen Überlieferungen nach Ibn Isḥāq. Eine synoptische Untersuchung, Frankfurt am Main, 1978, 80, 162; M. Muranyi, “Ibn Isḥāq’s K. al-Maģāzī in der riwāya von Yūnus b. Bukair. Bemerkungen zur frühen Überlieferungsgeschichte”, in JSAI, 14 (1991), 269.

[11] The Biography of Muhammad: The Issue of the Sources, Edited by Harald Motzki, Page 250

[12] Cf. S. Leder, “The Literary Use of the Khabar: A Basic Form of Historical Writing”, in A. Cameron and L.I. Conrad, eds. The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East, I: Problems in the Literary Source Material, Princeton, 1992, 278 f.

[13] Cf. Ibn Hishām, Sīra, II, 527; cf. T. Andrae, Die Person Muhammeds in Lehre und Glauben seiner Gemeinde, Stockholm, 1918, 47 f.; J. Horovitz, “Zur Muḥammad-legende”, in Der Islam, 5 (1914), 47

[14] Cf. A. Noth, The Early Arabic Historical Tradition: A Source-Critical Study, Princeton, 1994, 176.

[15] Quran 7:157 M. Pickthall Translation