It comes as no surprise to me that they would dispute it as it casts doubt on the 'divine revelations'. Whether its in the hadiths or not, it seems that if it supports the quran, its a strong hadith, and if it refutes it (as in this case) is it either weak or a lie.
I bet Salman Rushdie wasnt surprised that most mulim scholars reject it. It's embarrasing to the cause I guess.
Sorry to hear this part caused probelms with your Mrs. I wont ask for details. I hope she comes round and sees the light some day.
PS if anyone is interested, I am not an ex-muslim. I am an atheist. Questioning, doubting and refuting religious (mainly Xtianity) claims is kind of a hobby of mine. I hope no-one minds if I post here and give my tuppence-worth every so often. With regards to islam, I am a newbie and just learning the basic claims of islam. But it seems no less ridiculous to any other religion if you ask me.
My best mate (a muslim) urged me to watch it, thinking it would prove that allah is The One True God (TM), but the programme seemed more of an historic account of his life and the claims he made than a confirmation of the claims themselves.
Thanks for this. Was looking for an answer to this today. From what I gathered, it is a weak hadith, in that the account originated from the oral tradition and was written down two generations after Mo's companions had died. Nonetheless, it was written down by an ardent muslim and one that has mainly proven to be a reliable chronicler. To most neutral observers, it seems hard to believe that an ardent muslim would make up something so obviously defamatory about Mo. In other words, muslims would never have created this ugly smoke, had there not been some kind of fire. So, it probably did happen (in some form).