بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

يقول روبرت هويلاند ان مثل هذه المصادر كانت معتمدة و بشكل اساسي على فهم الكاتب المسيحي لما يجري حوله و كان ذلك بدوره معتمدا على مفهومهم و مصطلحاتهم الخاصة و المحدودة في بيئتهم التي كانوا عليها مما سبب كثيرا من الخلط و الخطا

يقول هويلاند في THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN WRITINGS ON MUHAMMAD: AN APPRAISAL' 289-290
This is hardly to be denied. Of course, Christians presented their information about Islam and its adherents on their own terms, which inevitably entailed a greater or lesser degree of distortion, but the point to note is that this information either had its basis in personal observation or else ultimately derived from the Muslims themselves.
When the Gallic bishop Arculf, on pilgrimage in the Near East ca. 670, says that in Damascus "a kind of church" (quaedam ecclesia) has been built for "the unbelieving Saracens", 33 he is, of course, using Christian vocabulary, and with a dose of polemic, but surely we can still infer from this that there was some sort of Muslim place of worship in the city. And when Anastasius of Sinai says that during his stay in Jerusalem ca. 660 he was woken up in the morning by Egyptian laborers clearing the Temple Mount, one might doubt his accompanying comment that demons collaborated in this task, but surely not the undertaking of the work itself.St
The excursus of the aforementioned chronicler of Khüzistنn (wr. ca. 660) upon the Arabs "dome of Abraham" is a concoction of elements from the Book of Genesis, 5 but the impetus to blend them at all must have come from outside. The chronicler can only be using biblical antecedents to make sense of the report, albeit rather vague, that has reached him regarding the Muslim sanctuary.

مثال ذلك مثلا اختلاف الكتاب المسيحيين في سنوات الفترة المدنية
نقرا من نفس المصدر السابق الصفحة 282
A Maronite chronicle, which contains firsthand information relevant to the 650s, makes the comment that Muلwiya "placed his throne in Damascus and refused to go to Muhammad's throne" 2 The implication is that Muhammad was a ruler like Muawiya, and indeed this is how he is most often described in Christian sources. In his chronicle, which halts in 692, Jacob of Edessa refers to "Muhammad, the first king (malka) of the Arabs", and this is echoed by the Chronicle of Zugnin "the first king was a man from among them by the name of Muhammad').? Moreover, numerous texts speak about the "reign" of Muhammad: a Syriac "report giving information about the kingdom of the Arabs and how many kings they produced" concluding with the accession of Walid I "in AG 1017 (705), at the beginning of October" ("he reigned for seven years")," the mid eighth-century Spanish chronicler ("he fulfilled ten vears of his rule"), 26 an anony- mous Greek chronographical compilation of 818 ("In the year 6131 of the world and the thirteenth ear of Heraclius there began the rule of the Saracens: Mouameth, 9 years; .. .")," and so on.

سؤال : هل كانت الاحاديث كتراث ادبي موجودة زمن المسلمين الاوائل في الكتابات غير الاسلامية

الاجابة : بلا شك نعم بشهادة غير المسلمين
نفس المصدر السابق الصفحة 291 نقلا عن يوحنا بار بنكاي
The answer is two-fold. In the first place, they are often precisely dateable, which for the first two centuries of Islam cannot normally be said to be true of Muslim writings. Since the Muslim perception of Muhammad underwent major change during this period, this means that Christian sources can sometimes provide evidence for this change where Muslim sources are silent. It is instructive, for instance, to compare the comment of John bar Penkaye (wr. 687), cited above, that the Arabs "kept to the tradition (mashlmanûta) of Muhammad...to such an extent that they inflicted the death penalty on anyone who was seen to act brazenly against his laws" with the following remark of the chronicler of Zugnin (wr. 775), writing in the same region but nearly a century later:They are a very covetous and carnal people, and any law, whether prescribed by Muhammad or another God-fearing person, that is not set in accord with their desire, they neglect and abandon. But what is in accord with their will and complements their desires, though it be instituted by one contemptible among them, they hold to it saying:
"This was appointed by the Prophet and Messenger of God, and moreover it was charged to him thus by God.»
The expression "the tradition of Muhammad" used by John bar Penkaye suggests something handed down, but one doubts that a defined corpus of rulings is meant. Most likely John is simply passing on the message given out by the Muslims themselves, that they adhere to and enforce the example of their Prophet. Since he writes at a time when there still survived a few Companions of the Prophet, this example would most likely have been living and only orally conveyed rather than fixed and written down. The situation was evidently very different by the time of the chronicler of Zugnin. Despite the highly polemical tone of his notice, it is patent that this author is writing at a time when Prophetic hadith had already gained currency, when a practice might receive sanction by saying: "This was appointed by the Prophet....
https://academia.edu/resource/work/3243391

نقرا تصريح ثان للدكتور Sean Anthony في THE EXPEDITIONS An Early Biography of Muhammad Ma mar ibn Rashid ACCORDING TO THE RECENSION OF 'Abd al-Razzمq al-San ani
وهو يقول بان المصادر الاسلامية ضرورية لمعرفة التاريخ الخاص بالنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لانهم هم من عايشوه و نقلوا ذلك
Modern historians speak of the historical Muhammad as a type of shorthand for an historical understanding of Muhammad's life and legacy that is humanistic, secular, and cosmopolitan. This is to say that any talk of a historical Muhammad is merely an interpretation of his life that is distinct from, but not necessarily incompatible with, either how his faith community imagined him centuries after his death or how rival faith communities viewed him through the lens of their own hostile religious polemic. Yet all modern understandings of Muhammad inevitably derive from a body of texts written by a faith community, for we have no contemporary witnesses to Muhammad's prophetic mission, and the earliest testimonies that do survive are penned by outsiders whose depictions and understanding of Islam in its earliest years are sketchy at best and stridently hostile at worst.
Hence, to speak of a historical Muhammad is not to speak of the real Muhammad. We recognize that we seek to understand, explain, and reconstruct the life of a man using the tools and methods of modern historical criticism. Whatever form such a project takes, and regardless of the methodology adopted, there is no escaping the basic conundrum facing all historians of early Islam: they must fashion their reconstruction of Muhammad's biography from the memories and interpretations of the community that revered him as Prophet. In other words, historians concerned with such topics must dare wrestle with angels.

نفس العالم يؤكد مرة اخرى لان الاحاديث و السير منقولة بالاسناد وهناك من الاسانيد ما يمكن الوثوق بها و هناك ما لا يمكن الوثوق بها
In practice, the process works like this: Ma'mar's student 'Abd al-Razzaq commits to memory and records his teacher's tradition (i.e., a khabar as related by him) but 'Abd al-Razzنg also memorizes the chain of authorities (isnad) that Ma'mar cites before he begins relating his tradition. This chain of authorities presumably goes back to eyewitnesses of the events, although in practice this is not always the case. Such chains are also cumulative. On any subsequent occasion in which Abd al Razzâg relates the tradition,\

وهذا ما لا نخالفه عليه لاننا نعلم ان هناك اسانيد ضعيفة وموضوعة

بيهنام صدقي في the codex of a companion of the prophet يرد على اطروحة باتريشا كرون قائلا
The amount of work yet to be done is great, and the main paths of embarking on the tasks are clear. It is now equally clear that recent works in the genre of historical fiction are of no help. By "historical fiction" I am referring to the work of authors who, contentedly ensconced next to the mountain of material in the premodern Muslim primary and secondary literature bearing on Islamic origins, say that there are no heights to scale, nothing to learn from the literature, and who speak of the paucity of evidence. Liberated from the requirement to analyze the literature critically, they can dream up imaginative historical narratives rooted in meager cherry-picked or irrelevant evidence, or in some cases no evidence at all. They write off the mountain as the illusory product of religious dogma or of empire-wide conspiracies or mass amnesia or deception, not realizing that literary sources need not always be taken at face value to prove a point; or they simply pass over the mass of the evidence in silence. A pioneering early example of such historical fiction was Hagarism, written by Patricia Crone and Michael Cook. While few specialists have accepted its narrative, the book has nevertheless profoundly shaped the outlook of scholars. It has given rise to a class of students and educators who will tell you not only that we do not know anything about Islamic origins, but also that we cannot learn anything about it from the literary sources. All this would be good and well if the mountain of evidence had been studied critically before being dismissed as a mole hill; but the modern critical reevaluation of the literary evidence has barely begun. And, signifi-cantly, any number of results have already demonstrated that if only one takes the trouble to do the work, positive results are forthcoming, and that the landscape of the literary evidence, far from being one of randomly-scat-tered debris, in fact often coheres in remarkable ways. A good example of such findings would be some of Michael Cook's own fruitful recent studies in the literary sources in two essays of his already discussed here. It is not his confirmation of some elements of the traditional account of the standard Quran that I wish to highlight here, noteworthy as it may be, but rather his demonstration that we can learn from the study of the literary sources.

وصلى الله على سيدنا محمد و على اله وصحبه وسلم