So you are an expert in Islamic history? Or understanding Islam now too? It doesn’t suffice for you that we can just show that we believe this report - believe it to be a fabrication?Seerah Ishaq was compiled way before Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslims. Being closer to the period of the Prophet,Its arguably more authentic. All the early Muslims relied on the biography compiled by Ibn Ishaq to understand the life of the Prophet. The epistemology (isnad analysis) of hadith science is a deeply flawed field. You can't reject or accept a narration on the basis of isnad. For all we know, the isnad may be a later fabrication and in the best case scenario, it doesn't guarantee the people in the chain of transmission did meet each other in real life.
Let's assume it's a fabrication.
Why would Ibn Ishaq include it in his book, given its embarrassing depiction of the Prophet torturing prisoners to extract information. He ( and the countless scholars who relied on him for seerah) clearly believed it was authentic, not a mere hearsay. Using the embarrassment criterion, it's very likely a true story
The seerah of ibn ishaq is a useful source of information. But within the seerah itself, you have contradicting accounts- this is because tareekh(history) and seerah (by extension somewhat) in Islam are not not ever taken to be a source of Islam or understanding Islam. They are an attempt to record what is being reported rather or what is said. Ibn Ishaq will record everything that is being reported whether or not he agrees with it.
You can have all your beliefs about Hadith and isnad but they are all irrelevant. You can also believe that the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese. This has no bearing on how Islam is understood by Muslims. Nor does this make your approach intelligent.
Even the Hadith are not perfect. They serve as context for Quran. The elements in the seerah are to be taken for granted only in as so much as they are authenticated by rigorous historical approach.
Last edited: