Muhammad's Genealogy - Extracanonical Traditions

Muhammad's Genealogy

While Muhammad's genealogy is not found in the Qur'an (in fact, almost no information on Muhammad is found in the Qur'an), we here at the FTMecca wanted to offer this wonderful bit of trivia that the mutaqeen have been hiding from the kuffaar for far too long. We would like to present this to the readers not as a devastating blow to Islam, but rather as something we can all point and laugh at. While Muhammad's lineage is not crucial to the Islamic faith, demonstrating that genealogies given by respected Islamic historians were nothing more than pious fibs is something that can bring the traditions into question. Without further introduction, let us plunge right in...

The following was taken from a page made by Syed Yusuf:

1  Abraham Hanifa (AS) was the father of
2  Isma'il (AS) was the father of
3  Kedar was the father of
4  'Adnaan was the father of
5  Ma'add was the father of
6  Nizaar was the father of
7  Mudar was the father of
8  Ilyaas was the father of
9  Mudrikah was the father of
10 Khuzaimah was the father of
11 Kinaanah was the father of
12 Al-Nadr was the father of
13 Maalik was the father of
14 Quraysh was the father of
15 Ghaalib was the father of
16 Lu'ayy was the father of
17 Ka'ab was the father of
18 Murrah was the father of
19 Kilaab was the father of
20 Qusayy was the father of
21 'Abd Manaaf was the father of
22 Haashim was the father of
23 'Abdul Muttalib was the father of
24 'Abdullah was the father of
25 Muhammad (SAW)

[ http://home.velocitus.net/yusuf/bible/line.html ]

Now, we do not assume that Syed Yusuf is an authority on Islamic history, and akhoona Syed failed to cite a reference regarding where he got the genealogy from. That being said, this is something the Muslims are trying to push out there, and we'd like to comment on it.

First of all, there are only 24 generations from Abraham to Muhammad, which is quite fantastic. Now, if we grant 30 years to each generation (i.e. make the generous assumption that each male fathered his respective son by age 30), this would place Abraham some time around 150 BCE. The math behind such a conclusion goes as follows:

30 X 24 = 720

Muhammad was allegedly born 570 CE

570 - 720 = -150.

The oldest existing texts to mention Abraham are found among the scrolls from Qumran (so-called "Dead Sea Scrolls"), which date anywhere from the the 3rd century BCE to 68 CE. Wit that in mind it is reasonable to assume that writing already existed on Abraham (as well as numerous later Biblical heroes, such as Isaac, Jacob, Moses, et cetera) at the time the above genealogy places the patriarch. Of course, this is a moot point, as no Muslim would ever try and place Abraham's life around 150 BCE.

The only way out of this would be to take a page from the Judeo-Christian folklore, and start postulating wild scenarios, where patriarchs don't reach puberty until 90, father children at 120, and finally die some time around 200 years of age! Of course that is just plain absurd, and it shows the extent of the silliness found in the "intellectual" religion known as al-Islaam.

However, after reading this uncited (sans isnaad) genealogy courtesy of akhoona Syed Yusuf, we are tempted to wonder about the genealogy from Abraham all the way back to Adam. The Bible only gives 17 or 18 (depends if you're reading the NT or OT) generations from Abraham back to Adam, but what of the Islamic genealogies? Syed Yusuf's genealogy of Muhammad did not go all the way back to Adam (similar to Matthew's genealogy of Jesus). So we have decided to turn to Muhammad Ibn Ishaaq's genealogy of Muhammad, which does go all the way back to Adam (similar to Luke's genealogy of Jesus), as found in Ibn Ishaaq's Seerat Rasoolullaah (as found in the rescension of Ibn Hishaam). Consider the following:

1.  Adam, father of
2.  Sheeth, father of
3.  Yaanish, father of
4.  Qaynan, father of
5.  Mahlil, father of
6.  Yard, father of
7.  Akhnookh, father of
8.  Mattooshalakh, father of
9.  Lamk, father of
10. Nooh, father of
11. Saam, father of
12. Arfakhshadh, father of
13. Shaalikh, father of
14. Aybar, father of
15. Faalikh, father of
16. Raa'oo, father of
17. Saaroogh, father of
18. Naahoor, father of
19. Tarih, father of
20. Ibraheem, father of
21. Ismaa'eel, father of
22. Naabit, father of
23. Yashjub, father of
24. Ya'rub, father of
25. Tayrah, father of

26. Naahoor, father of
27. Muqawwam, father of
28. Udd (Udad?), father of
29. 'Adnaan, father of
30. Ma'add, father of
31. Nizaar, father of
32. Mudar, father of
33. Ilyaas, father of
34. Mudrika, father of
35. Khuzayma, father of
36. Kinaana, father of
37. al-Nadr, father of
38. Malik, father of
39. Fihr, father of
40. Ghaalib, father of
41. Lu'ayy, father of
42. Ka'b, father of
43. Murra, father of
44. Kilaab, father of
45. Qusayy, father of
46. 'Abdu-Manaaf, father of
47. Haashim, father of
48. 'Abdul-Muttalib, father of
49. 'Abdullaah, father of
50. Muhammad

Now, when comparing the lineage given by Syed Yusuf (contemporary Muslim) to the one found in Ibn Hishaam's rescension of Ibn Ishaaq's Seerat Rasoolullaah, we notice that the two are generally the same from 'Adnaan to Muhammad [Yusuf n. 4-25; Ishaaq n. 29-50]. The only difference would be the name Quraysh in Yusuf's [n. 14], while Ishaaq's lists Fihr [n. 39]. Of course, this is not a big deal, as Ibn Ishaaq's genealogy often had multiple names (Mudrika was also known as 'Amir, Haashim was also known as 'Amr, Qusaay was also known as Zayd, et cetera).

However, there is a major discrepancy when it comes from the simple lineage from Abraham to 'Adnaan. Syed Yusuf's version lists only three generations (n. 1-4), while Ibn Ishaaq's version lists nine (n. 20-29)! When we asked signore Yusuf about this, he simply wrote that Muhammad once said "genealogists are liars." The implication was that it was okay to trust the genealogy up to 'Adnaan, but anything after that is probably a lie.

That aside, the genealogy from Muhammad all the way back to Adam is only 49 generations! How interesting that the first man was born only 49 generations prior to 570 CE! Again, the Muslims may try to squirm out of this by stating that Adam lived 1,000 years or more. We aren't that generous; rather the most we're willing to grant each generation is 40 years (which is really pushing it!). That places the birth of the first human being some time around 1410 BCE, which really doesn't square up with what we know about history.

Most Western Muslims wont bother to even try and defend the genealogy going back to Adam. Isntead they will simply state that if this came out of a given hadith, it was a da'eef hadith to be sure. Still, it is interesting as Ibn Ishaaq's genealogy from Adam to Abraham closely resembles the same genealogy found among Jews and Christians. Let us compare the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim genealogies:

Jewish
1.  Adam
2.  Shet
3.  Enosh
4.  Kenan
5.  Mahalalel
6.  Yered
7.  Chanokh
8.  Metushelach   
9.  Lamekh
10. Noach
11. Shem
12. Arpakhshad
13. Shelach
14. Ever
15. Peleg
16. Re'u
17. Serug
18. Nachor
19. Terach
20. Avraham
           
(1 Divre Hayamim 1:1-27)

Christian
1.  Adam
2.  Seth
3.  Enos
4.  Cainan
5.  Mahalalel
6.  Jared
7.  Enoch
8.  Methuselah   
9.  Lamech
10. Noah
11. Shem
12. Arphaxad
13. Cainan
14. Shelah
15. Eber
16. Peleg
17. Reu
18. Serug
19. Nahor
20. Terah
21. Abraham
(Luke 3:34-38)

Islamic
1.  Adam
2.  Sheeth
3.  Yaanish
4.  Qaynan
5.  Mahlil
6.  Yard
7.  Akhnookh
8.  Mattooshalakh
9.  Lamk
10. Nooh
11. Saam
12. Arfakhshadh
13. Shaalikh
14. Aybar
15. Faalikh
16. Raa'oo
17. Saaroogh
18. Naahoor
19. Tarih
20. Ibraheem
            
(Ibn Ishaaq)

I think that after comparing the above three genealogies we can be justified in assuming that Ibn Ishaaq probably got his genealogy, at least in part, from the Yahoods (al-qiradat wa'l-khanazeer). Of course, Ibn Hishaam notes that a certain Khallaad bin Qurra bin Khaalid al-Sadoosee gave him a slightly different genealogy which has, among other things, the name Anoosh instead of Yaanish. Indeed Anoosh is closer to Enosh. One gets the impression that al-Sadoosee might've been a Jew (maybe even a sadducee?). Though I wont speculate any further, as that is akin to assuming that Salman al-Farisi was a Pharisee and not a Persian!

Regardless, we hope that you have had fun reading through the rather silly genealogies. While Syed Yusuf did not give any sources, Ibn Hishaam did give names of people from whom he got his genealogy (Shayban b. Zuhayr b. Shaqiq, Qatada b. Di'aama, Ziyad b. 'Abdullaah al-Bakkaa'ee, et cetera). If this is nonsense, we must wonder about Ibn Hishaam's sources over all (including Ibn Ishaaq). This should bring into question the historical reliability of the ahadith and the spurious "isnaad science." Indeed, the Islamic historians were writing theology, not history, and it is the Muslims that need to realize this.

| Home | Sign Guestbook | View Guestbook | Last Updated: Friday, August 17, 2001 [email protected] If for FTMecca Eyes Only specify in the e-mail

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws