Guillaume's Distortion of the Sirah by Ibn Ishaq
Anti-Islaam
forces while attacking Islaam and/or distorting the truth of Islaam always
quote the Guillaume's distorted translation of the
Sira by Ibn Ishaq. A separate book can be written
on the intellectual dishonesty of Guillaume not to mention his hate of Islaam. Following are some comments made the
readers about the book and/or about Guillaume.
Guillaume resorts to
dishonesties too numerous to mention; among them is the insertion of two pages
from one of at-Tabari's works, in which at-Tabari recounts a spurious tale
(Page 165). Guillaume never indicates his external quotations clearly, flanking
them with parenthesis instead of setting them apart from the main body text,
and preceding them with a "T" which is vigorously employed but never
explained. A lay Muslim can fall in the trap and swallow truth with
polytheistic fiction and unwittingly accept the tale as a definitive part of
Ibn Ishaq's serious historical work.
The sad part is that this book has been published continuously in Muslim
countries since 1967
Most Unfortunate
The simple fact that at least one of the
incidents in the book is false clearly shows that this book is a danger to a
new believer or anyone even curious about the Islamic Religion.
Needs to be read with an alert mind? Possible
inaccuracies
I was thoroughly disappointed with this book. However, I must admit to having approached it with high expectations. As one who does not speak Arabic, I had no choice but to rely on the various modern works available on the subject of Muhammad, his life and mission. While there are many excellent examples of such biographies, they inevitably mirror the author's particular way of thinking and this affects how they interpret certain important milestones in Muhammad's life. That left me feeling that I couldn't really pierce through the veil that was each author's interpretation.
When I came across Guillaume's translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirah, I was ecstatic. Here at last was an opportunity for me to read about Muhammad's life from primary sources, I thought. As I am quite familiar with translations (into English) of other Arabic works from the same period, I knew that reading the book would be hard work - the style in which classical Arabic texts are written just doesn't conform to modern prose, and I was prepared for that.
But what I wasn't prepared for was what I believe can only be construed as factual inaccuracies in the text. And here's why I believe so: There are just too many inconsistencies in both the style of prose as well as the picture it paints of Muhammad and his contemporaries that I cannot help but believe that something's gone amiss. For example, sometimes the exposition is somber, calm and considered. (I find these parts of the Sirah pleasantly enlightening.) At other times, the story becomes so incredulous - often childish - so as to defy belief. It is extremely difficult to believe that Ibn Ishaq could have varied that much in his style of writing.
The same thing goes for the picture Guillaume's rendition
of the Sirah paints of Muhammad and his companions. The
picture is simply too conflicting and inconsistent to make sense. I find it
quite beyond belief that a man who had painstakingly adopted an attitude of
non-confrontation in dealing with the prejudice of the Meccan elite - which
could often get very brutal and which culminated in an attempt on his life -
could also be the same person who attacks members of foreign delegations for
something so trivial as his being asked an odd question. Anyone familiar with
modern biographies of Muhammad will not, I am quite sure, readily identify the
latter as a feature of what they've read.
These kinds of inconsistencies begin imperceptibly at
first, but then become more glaring as one advances through the pages. In the
end, by the middle of the book, I found myself very confused and unable to
readily make out what was accurate and what was probably not. Reading
Guillaume's rendition of the Sirah had by then become a laborious affair for
me.
Some readers below have pointed fingers at Guillaume for his supposedly Orientalist bias. I don't know if this is a fair accusation - I am not familiar with Guillaume's views - nor do I think it is a very helpful stance to adopt.
Be that as it may, I do think Guillaume can be faulted for negligence in some aspects of the translation. One example of this is the section dealing with "the hypocrites" (around p.272 or so). Much of the text here is just an exposition of Qur'anic verses so that there would have been plenty of other references with which Guillaume could have cross-referenced.
Instead, the meaning of a number of Qur'anic verses here have been completely distorted (i.e. no translation of the Qur'an would ever give you that meaning). A person of Guillaume's caliber should have thought to double-check, surely - after all, many of the "standard" translations of the Qur'an we have today (viz., Pickthall and Yusuf-Ali) were already in circulation during his time.
By way of summary, Guillaume's translation of the Sirah is definitely not for the reader unfamiliar with the subject, in my view, however much (s)he is keen to learn of the life of Muhammad from the earliest sources. It will be just too easy to get lost and confused. I was disappointed with the book, but maybe that's only because I had such high expectations for it in the first place.
For those who deem themselves fit enough to swim in deep waters, as it were, this book can offer some rewards; but please keep an open mind and watch out for potential inaccuracies!
I have always been rejecting the work of non-Muslims including the translations done by non-Muslims, of Muslims’ work. I am no fan and/or fond of such disinformation. I would suggest that Muslims must cease accepting such sources and avoid using them as well.