A RE-EVALUATION
By
Kassim Ahmad
Translated from the Malay original
by
Syed Akbar Ali
1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I Introduction: Why we raise this Problem 1
CHAPTER II Refutation of the Traditionalist's Theory 21
CHAPTER III Source, Basis and Effects of the Hadith 50
CHAPTER IV Criticism of the Hadith 76
CHAPTER V Conclusion:
Return to Prophet Muhammad's Original Teaching — the Quran 106
ADDENDUM A Scientific Methodology for Understanding the Quran 126
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 152
ABOUT
THE AUTHOR
Kassim Ahmad was born on 9 September, 1933 in Kedah, Malaysia. He took his
Bachelor of Art's degree in Malay language and literature, but also read
widely in political science and Islamic philosophy. He taught Malay language
and literature for a time in the London School of Oriental and African Studies
and then in a secondary school in Penang where he has been staying with his
family since 1966.He has written several books on Malay literature as well
as on Islamic subjects.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION:
WHY WE RAISE THIS PROBLEM
-
... Therefore, congratulate My servants who listen to all views, then
follow the best. These are the ones guided by God; these are the intelligent
ones.
(Quran, 39:17-18)
All Muslims are required to uphold the hadith or sunna of the
Prophet, i.e. the so-called Prophetic traditions, as a primary source of
law apart from the Quran, according to the teachings of classical jurisprudence.
Yet not many, indeed very few, realize that the basis of this jurisprudential
theory was promulgated two hundred years after Muhammad's death by the famous
jurist Imam Shafi`i (d. 204/820). What have come to be known as the `Six
Authentic Books' of hadith of the majority Sunnite `orthodoxy' were compiled,
precisely after the promulgation of this theory, by Bukhari (d. 256/870),
Muslim (d. 261/875), Abu Daud (d. 275/888), Tirmidhi (d. 279/892), Ibn Maja
(d. 273/886), and al-Nasa'i (d. 303/915) during the second half of the second
and the beginning of the third centuries of Islam, between 220 and 270 years
after the Prophet's death.
The `heterodox' Shi`ite minority sect has its own sets of hadith compiled
during the third and fourth centuries, by al-Kulaini (d. 328 or 329), Ibn
Babuwayh (d. 381), Jaafar Muhammad al-Tusi (d. 411) and al-Murtada (d. 436),
who compiled sayings attributed to Ali.
Based on this Shafi`i theory and on what was later termed as the consensus
of scholars, the hadith/sunna was propagated to and accepted by the Muslims
as interpreter and complement to the Quran, implying thereby that the Quran
needs an interpreter and is not complete in itself. Although the Shi`ites
have not accepted the classical Sunnite jurisprudential theory in toto,
they do accept the doctrine that the hadith/sunna constitutes a source of
law on par with the Quran.
Background to this Study
In accordance with this Sunnite tradition, I also accepted this position
when I wrote my book on modern Islamic social theory in 1981-82, although
I qualified my acceptance according to Ibn Khaldun's formula, which requires
all acceptable traditions to be validated by the Quran and rational criteria.
However, this position, though a scientific one, is still not clear enough
until in 1985 the works of an outstanding Egyptian Muslim scholar, Dr. Rashad
Khalifa, particularly his The Computer Speaks: God's Message to the
World, Quran, Hadith and Islam and his superb translation of the
Quran have opened for me a way to solve the problem of the hadith. I therefore
began to re-examine the hadith: how they came about; the social factors that
brought them into existence; a review of the classical criticism; the actual
place of the hadith in relation to the Quran; their negative effects on the
Muslim community; their connections to the decline and fall of the Muslims;
and the way out of this impasse.
I am convinced that the time has come for the Muslim community and their
intelligentsia to critically re-evaluate the whole heritage of traditional
Islamic thought, including theology and jurisprudence. This is because the
traditional formulation was made by the society and intelligentsia of that
time in accordance with their knowledge and level of understanding, and
conforming to needs of that time. Now the situation has changed tremendously
and there is no doubt that the traditional formulation must be reconsidered.
Since the emergence of the modern reformism movement of Jamaluddin al-Afghani,
Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Ridha at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning
of the twentieth centuries, many studies have been made on the decline and
fall of the Muslims. These include the works of thinkers like Iqbal, Malek
Bennabi and Fazlur Rahman. However, the condition of the Muslim community
has not changed very much and continues to be precarious. In comparison with
other communities, especially those in Europe, United States, Russia and
Japan, the Muslim community is the most backward, especially in socio-economic,
scientific, technological and military fields.
What are the reasons for this backwardness? From the point of view of numbers,
the Muslims, now more than a billion, have outnumbered the Christians, and
from the point of view of natural resources, Muslim countries are among the
richest in the world. Why, with such vast resources and possessing an infallible
divine scripture, are the Muslims unable to compete with and surpass other
nations?
This situation is exactly the opposite of the situation of their early ancestors
who, within a short period of time, climbed the heights of success and created
a great world empire and a great world civilization. These early successes
which had astounded the world must have had their reasons based on the laws
of historical change. What are those reasons? This is the greatest challenge
facing Muslim intelligentsia at the close of the twentieth century and on
the threshold of the twenty-first: to seek the true causes of Muslim decline
and thereby to lay the ground for a new Muslim Renaissance.
As we have said, this study and review of our traditional formulation must
encompass classical theology and jurisprudence. The hadith, of course, is
at the core of these traditional disciplines.
Our present knowledge point to many factors that contribute to the rise and
fall of nations, factors that are ideological, political, economic, social,
cultural, historical, psychological, demographic, geographical, scientific,
technological and military in nature. But it is also quite certain that within
this pluralism of factors, not all play equally important roles. Technology
can surmount geographical limitations; military strategy can overcome numbers;
political leadership can offset economic weakness, and so on. Turning to
the Quran as our infallible guide, we find the following statements that
can give us a clue to the understanding of the problem under discussion.
-
Surely, God does not change the condition of any people until they themselves
change.
That is because God does not change the blessings He had bestowed upon
any people, unless they themselves change.
If only the previous generations had some intelligent people who enjoined
them from corruption, they would have been saved. But We saved a few of them,
while the rest pursued their material things and became sinners. Your Lord
never destroys any community unjustly while the people are righteous.
We will surely give victory to our messengers and to those who believe,
both in this life and on the day the witnesses are raised.
You shall never waver, nor shall you worry; you are guaranteed victory
for as long as you are believers.
All the above Quranic statements point to a people's ideology as the most
important component in the determination of their fate. This means that insofar
as a people is imbued with a scientific, dynamic and progressive ideology,
that far will it climb the ladder of success. Conversely, insofar as a people
revert to a previously held anti-scientific, static and regressive ideology,
that far will it degenerate. The strong unambiguous statements about victory
being granted to believers in both worlds necessarily follow from the definition
of believers as those possessing and practicing the true scientific ideology.
Basing ourselves on this premise, we can make the following hypothesis. The
rapid rise of the Arab nation from its dark period of paganism prior to Muhammad
to become the most powerful and civilized nation in the world then, within
a short period of time, is due to the new, inspiring, powerful and dynamic
Islamic ideology of monotheism brought by Muhammad. The Arabs, under his
and his immediate successors' leadership, discarded their erstwhile polytheism
and super-stitions. They united to fight and struggle under the guidance
of the Quran and set up a just social order. Because this struggle was based
on divine truth and justice as contained in the Quran, it was invincible.
It also gave rise to a great social movement, bringing forth with it outstanding
political, military and intellectual leaders who helped to create the first
scientific-spiritual culture in history.
This hypothesis, in contrast to the modernist or the traditionalist theses,
appears to be the most helpful in our effort to understand the history and
the decline of the Muslims. The modernist thesis, in brief, states that the
Muslims declined because they have remained traditional and have not modernized
themselves according to Western secular values. The traditionalist thesis,
on the other hand, blame the secularization of Muslim societies and the neglect
of orthodox Muslim teachings as the major cause of Muslim decline.
It is obvious that the modernist and the traditionalist theses cancelled
each other. Furthermore, the modernists have to explain why the Turkish
experiment with Westernized modernization failed. They also have to explain
why developed Western societies such as the United States and Europe have
been undergoing a multi-faceted crisis since the First World War, and why
a new philosophical trend of thought critical of Western-type modernization
has developed in Europe and America.
The traditionalists, on the other hand, must explain the failure of their
system from the beginning when it was first formulated around the third,
fourth and fifth centuries of Islam. Some Arab countries have hardly modernized
and had been practicing the traditional system for centuries – why have
these not progressed? If they have not progressed, it is idle to expect Muslim
countries to progress if they implement the traditional system.
The answer lies in our hypothesis. The early Muslims rose to the pinnacles
of success precisely because they were in possession of and practiced the
powerful and dynamic Islamic ideology as preached in the Quran. They subjected
other knowledge, local and foreign, to the discriminative teachings of the
Quran. As long as they did this, they progressed. A time came when other
teachings, local and foreign, gained the upper hand and submerged the Quran,
as witnessed by the following Quranic prophecy:
-
The messenger will say, "My Lord, my people have deserted this Quran."
We thus appointed for every prophet enemies from among the criminals, and
God suffices as Guide and Protector.
After about three hundred years, extraneous harmful teachings not taught
by Prophet Muhammad but skillfully attributed to him gradually gained a foothold
in the Muslim community and turned them away from the dynamic invincible
ideology that initially brought them success. This ideology, as we shall
show, is precisely the hadith. This is the main cause of their downfall.
It therefore follows that the purging of this harmful ideology, and with
it other foreign modern ideologies, from the Muslim community, and their
return to the original ideology brought by Muhammad in the Quran is the sine
qua non for the regeneration of the Muslim community and for a new Muslim
Renaissance.
Age of "Great Disorder"
The time has now arrived for the Muslims to examine their situation more
critically and boldly. Actually, this perilous situation is not confined
to the Muslims alone; it covers the entire mankind. A number of twentieth
century philosophers, historians and social critics have unanimously stated
that this century is the most critical century in human history. The late
Chinese leader, Mao Zedong, described the century as "Great Disorder under
Heaven." The American historical philosopher, P.A. Sorokin, has detailed
the crisis of the twentieth century in his able book, The Crisis of Our
Age, published in 1941. It is in this century that two terrible world
wars occurred, and a third more horrible one might still occur, in spite
of the end of the Cold War, to destroy the present civilization.
It is in this century also that an array of philosophies, ideologies, theories,
systems that includes liberalism, Marxism, pragmatism, logical positivism,
existentialism, Nazism, Fascism, Stalinism, Ghandhism, Maoism and religious
traditionalism collapsed. When dominant existing philosophies and systems
cannot solve the problems of human security and welfare, it is a sure sign
that a very serious crisis is upon us.
A number of modern writers and poets, such as Dostoyevsky, Albert Camus,
Jean-Paul Sartre, Y.B. Yeats and T.S. Eliot, had expressed this atmosphere
and sense of great crisis in their works. Listen to the loneliness and poignant
sorrow of Eliot:
I said to my soul, be still, and wait without hope
For hope would be hope for the wrong thing; wait without
love
For love would be love of the wrong thing;
there is yet faith
But the faith and the love and the hope are all in the
waiting.
and the deep despair and earnest prayer of Yeats:
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world;
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
This literature of pessimism and absurdity of life beginning in the twenties
and thirties and continuing after the Second World War is, of course, a
reflection of the great disorder currently existing in the world. This great
disorder is evidenced by the great ideological cleavage, the continuous raging
of the fires of war, the massive starvation and poverty in the Third World,
the steep decline in public morality, world-wide financial and economic crisis
and the inability of the United Nations to function effectively.
The Muslims had long lost their intellectual and political leadership of
the world. The break-up of their empire in 1258 AD gave way to independent
dynasties which continued until they were colonized by European powers beginning
in the sixteenth right up to the early twentieth centuries. Then, with the
rise of nationalism in Asia and Africa, nearly all of them regained their
independence and set up sovereign nation-states.
However, the Muslims had ceased to be creative around the fourteenth century.
Their period of intense creativity lasted three centuries from the ninth
through to the eleventh. Their last great philosopher was the Arab Ibn Khaldun
(d. 1406). Since that time Muslim intellect stagnated and even degenerated
and Europe took over to develop dominant philosophies and disciplines along
materialist and hedonistic lines.
After more than a century of modern reformism efforts initiated by Jamaluddin
al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh, the Muslim world, a world as disunited as
any other, have not progressed much. They have not been able to fight off
the ideological influence and domination of the world power-blocs. They are
not united in their Muslim purpose. Their economies are dependent and backward.
Their sciences and technologies are non-existent. Militarily, they are weak
and dependent on the big powers.
However, there has been much talk, since the early seventies, of implementing
the Shari`a or medieval Muslim law and the setting up of an Islamic
state. This is the slogan of the traditionalists who have taken over the
reform movement of Muhammad Abduh. The examples of mullah rule in
Iran since the great popular anti-Shah revolution and the Islamization programmes
in some countries do not give support to the traditionalist alternative.
The main weakness of the Muslims is their disunity. This disunity takes the
form in their inability to cooperate for the good of Muslims in individual
countries and the whole Muslim world. It also surfaces in the form of conflicts
and wars between Muslims, as typified by the Iran-Iraq war and the civil
wars in Lebanon.
What is the cause of this disunity? The Muslims claim that they worship one
God and follow His one religion. They also declare their religious brotherhood.
How then are they so disunited? This is the mystery that we have to unravel.
This is the reason for our re-evaluation of the hadith. Our hypothesis is
that the hadith — in principle, a false teaching attributed to Prophet
Muhammad — is a major factor causing disunity and backwardness among
Muslims. Our study is to prove this hypothesis.
Where Have We Gone Wrong?
The time is ripe for Muslims and for mankind as a whole to undertake a
fundamental study of this great human crisis. At some point, somewhere, we
have gone wrong. Where have we gone wrong? It will be recalled that modern
secular Europe emerged in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in rebellion
against the Catholic Church in particular and against religion in general
to embrace secular humanism of the liberal or Marxist variety. For the last
one to three hundred years it experimented with these social philosophies
and systems and the experiments have proved a failure. Today the two philosophies
and systems are seeking a synthesis. Can the synthesis be achieved? Can it
answer mankind's present quest for a new spiritual philosophy?
As for the Muslims, the new and young Muslim society and state set up by
Muhammad and his compatriots in seventh century Arabia developed and expanded
so rapidly that within a century it had become an empire to comprise also
Persia and Byzantium, and within two to three hundred years it had created
a great world civilization. But, as quickly as it had arisen, so quickly
had it declined and fallen. Today, the Muslim polity, science and civilization,
great though they were in their time, are glories and things of the past.
There seems to be no bridge linking their great predecessors of the early
centuries and present-day Muslims.
The great question mark hanging over the Muslims and the entire mankind today
is: Why? The short answer to the question, which is the thesis of this book,
is that mankind, including the Muslims, have deserted the true teachings
of God. The true teachings of God in the era of Muhammad is contained in
His final scripture to mankind, the Quran. The People of the Scripture, i.e.
believers before Muhammad, especially the Jews and the Christians, rejected
Muhammad because they had idolized their own prophets and religious leaders
and refused to acknowledge Muhammad's divine message. Modern secular rebellious
Europe not only turned against their religious priesthood, in which action
it was right, but also against religion altogether, in which action it was
wrong. This is the cause of the present Western impasse.
As regards the Muslims, Muhammad brought them the Quran, described by God
Himself as an invincible book, but no sooner did Muhammad die and leave them,
they contrived to make Muhammad bring two books and, after bitter quarrels,
they legislated, two hundred and fifty years later, that Muslims must uphold
not only the Quran but also the hadith. However, in truth, since then, they
followed the hadith rather than the Quran. This explains God's warning in
the Quran that we have quoted earlier. So it came about that while secular
Europe embraced either liberalism or Marxism, the Muslim world embraced the
hadith, with the philosophies of secular humanism infecting the elites of
Muslim societies, thus justifying the Quranic warning.
Avoiding Misunderstanding
Raising such a fundamental issue as this, it is difficult to avoid
misunderstanding from both sides. The secular side, being more open-minded
and tolerant, will simply dismiss this call to the Quran as antiquated, outmoded
and irrelevant. Many secularists will simply not consider it. On the other
hand, the traditionalist side, being close-minded and intolerant of dissenting
views on matters regarded as their preserves, will raise a hue and cry and
throw slanderous accusations into the debate.
One cannot be discouraged by the prospect. It is part of the social struggle
to expose falsehood and confirm the truth. The secularists will be worthy
opponents since they will be prepared to fight it out in open battles. Open
debate is part of their secular tradition. The traditionalists are a different
breed. Open debate is not part of their tradition. In fact, they came into
being in Muslim society by killing open debate. Authoritarianism is their
culture. Thus, slander, threats and falsehood will be their methods.
It will be claimed that the writer is trying to cause confusion and further
divide Muslim society. This is far from the truth. The Muslims cannot be
further confused and divided than they already have been for a long time.
What worse confusion and division can there be than when Muslims fight and
kill one another?
My aim is to try to establish the truth. My personal history bears testimony
to this tendency. Like other Malays, I was born and brought up in an ordinary
orthodox Malay Muslim family. However, my early interest in social philosophy
took me on a long spiritual quest, over a period of thirty years, spanning
liberal nationalism, Islamic liberalism and socialism, every single one of
which each time sat uneasily over traditional Islam. The failure became obvious
to me when the coherent integrated social philosophy that I was seeking eluded
me. It was in the Islam of the Quran, scientifically understood, that I
discovered the framework of such a philosophy.
Looking back, this is only logical, since the Quran contains the sure truth
from God, while most of human teachings, as the Quran points out, are mere
conjecture. But at that time, the Quran was, so to speak, covered up for
me by the fog of hadith.
It will be claimed that calling the people back to the Quran alone will create
a new sect, in addition to the sects that already exist. This is standing
the argument on its head. Since the Quran is, in the first place, anti-sectarian,
not only will it not create a new sect, but it will, on the contrary, eliminate
all existing sects and reunite all Muslims. This is precisely what we want
to do. History proves that under Muhammad the young Muslim society was completely
united and there was no sect whatever. It is ironic that the
Ahl'ul-Hadith who talk so much about following the example of the
Prophet have completely abandoned this finest of his examples!
It will also be claimed that in rejecting the hadith as a source of law,
we shall be rejecting the role of the Prophet. It will further be claimed
that this is the first step to the ultimate rejection of the Quran! As for
the first part of the claim, it is obvious to anyone that it was only through
Muhammad that mankind received the Quran from God Almighty. That was his
primary role — God's messenger — indeed his only role, as the Quran
stressed several times. Was not this role great enough for Prophet Muhammad?
Surely, it was.
As for the second part, it is too ridiculous to even think of it. But since
the die-hard traditionists would stop at nothing to slander their opponents,
one would lose nothing to spend a few lines exposing them. How can anyone,
after calling the people back to the Quran, then reject the Quran? Even if
he does, and this means reverting to disbelief after belief, how can that
benefit him? He would lose everything, while the people, on the contrary,
would benefit greatly by going back to the Quran.
The Muslims must re-possess critical consciousness and discard prejudice
and group fanaticism. We must avoid throwing slanderous accusations at what
we may not like at first. God Himself has taught us to verify things before
we accept or reject them. No less an intelligent man than Sayyed Hossein
Nasr who has said the following about those who deny the authority of the
hadith:
It is against this basic aspect of the whole structure of Islam
that a severe attack has been made in recent years by an influential school
of Western Orientalists. No more of a vicious and insidious attack could
be made against Islam than this one, which undercuts its very foundations
and whose effect is more dangerous than if a physical attack were made against
Islam.
How can this scholar, who has quoted a blasphemous hadith in the same book,
spout this slander? Why should we Muslims, in possession of an invincible
scripture from God Almighty, be afraid of the criticisms and even attacks
of Orientalists? Such fear, in fact, reflects our own weakness. It shows
that we are not sure of our own selves. The Quranic methodology should be
a lesson for us. The Quran incessantly reproduces the false arguments of
idol-worshippers and hypocrites and rebuts them with proofs and with better
arguments. We should do the same to expose falsehoods and confirm the truth.
The methods of suppression and slander are alien to the methods of truth.
Rejecting the authority of the hadith does not mean denying its existence.
Some true reports of what the Prophet said and did outside the Quran as leader
of his community and as an ordinary man must have been preserved. Such reports
deserve to be treated as any other historical account whose authenticity
must be judged against other historical accounts, against the higher authority
of the Quran, and against rational criteria. While Quranic pronouncements
are divine and are eternally binding on believers, those of Muhammad in his
capacity as leader must be treated in accordance with the Quranic injunction
regarding politico-social authority, i.e. that they are only conditionally
binding. The conditions are that they do not contradict the Quran, they are
binding only for the community of that time, and that for other communities
of other times they only constitute as precedents to be followed or bypassed
as and when deemed useful.
It should also be well understood that this re-evaluation of the hadith is
in no way a slur upon our classical scholars. They understood and reacted
to their problems as best they could. We who come after them are not bound
by their solutions. As Muhammad Abduh has well said, "They are human and
we are human. We learn from them but we do not [blindly] follow them." No
doubt our re-examination constitutes a criticism. But this is normal scientific
procedure. It has been done by all our great philosophers and scholars from
the beginning, by Ibn Sina, al-Ghazzali, Ibn Rush, Ibn Taimiya, Shah Waliyullah,
Muhammad Abduh and scores of others. We owe it to them and to ourselves to
constantly practice this method. For how else can knowledge develop and society
progress unless they continually be purged of errors. This accounts for the
very important Quranic directive, repeated many times, to believers:
-
Let there be a community among you who preach goodness, advocate righteousness
and forbid evil. These are the winners.
It must also be pointed out that this criticism and re-evaluation of the
hadith that we are making is nothing new. Imam Shafi`i who first stipulated
that the hadith should be accepted as a source of law had opponents that
he himself described in his book. In recent times there were such proponents
in Egypt, India and Indonesia. It may be that our treatment, thanks to recent
developments in Quranic and hadith studies, is more systematic than previous
efforts.
In this study we have adopted what may be termed as Islamic scientific
methodology. In is unfortunate that today we associate scientific methodology
to the Western empirical and rational methods, when, in fact, it was Islam
that introduced this methodology to the West. The words of the English historian
Robert Briffault deserve to be quoted in full:
-
"... It was under their successors at the Oxford school that
Roger Bacon learned Arabic and Arabic science. Neither Roger Bacon nor his
later namesake has any title to be credited with having introduced the
experimental method. Roger Bacon was no more than one of the apostles of
Muslim science and method to Christian Europe; and he never wearied of declaring
that knowledge of Arabic and Arabic science was for his contemporaries the
only way to true knowledge. Discussions as to who was the originator of the
experimental method ... are part of the colossal misrepresentation of the
origins of European civilization. The experimental method of [the] Arabs
was by Bacon's time widespread and eagerly cultivated throughout
Europe..."
However, the scientific methodology of Europe sought to bar supra-rational
and supra-sensory knowledge from science. It is now admitted that this is
inadequate to conform to the truly Islamic scientific methodology of combining
sensory, rational and supra-rational knowledge to produce true integrated
knowledge. Using this methodology, we take the Quran as our basis and starting
point and subject all the evidence of the hadith, i.e. the hadith itself,
the major classical writings on them and modern European and Muslim criticisms,
to Quranic and rational judgements. We may, of course, take ten years to
do this and produce five volumes that few will have the time and the stamina
to read. Our purpose is different. Ours is to write a readable book for the
general reader with enough matter for him to think and draw conclusions.
It is hardly necessary to state that this is a view offered to the reader
for his consideration. God Almighty Himself has ordered us to read in His
name, for doing that we cannot fail to develop our mind and increase our
knowledge. A good book will do that positively; a bad one, negatively. Reading
in His name, therefore, cannot but produce good results. Yet, the Muslims
today are very bad readers. Centuries of subservience to bigoted religious
authorities have shackled their minds. This subservience plus their deplorable
ignorance of the contents of the Quran combine to make what they are today
— a weak, backward and humiliated people. The time has come for us to
break out of this prison. It is for this purpose that this study is undertaken.
REFUTATION OF THE TRADITIONISTS' THEORY
-
Do not accept anything that you yourself cannot ascertain. You are given
the hearing, the sight and the mind in order to examine and verify.
(Quran, 17:36)
Modern Europe has succeeded in pioneering various fields of modern knowledge
and becomes a leader in these fields — especially science and technology
— because it holds firmly to the Kantian motto of the European Age of
Enlightenment: Dare to know. The Islamic world, in the early stages
of its second renaissance, must do likewise. Since in Islam knowledge is
based on revelation, the motto of the new Islamic Renaissance must read:
Dare to know under the guidance of the Quran.
Any study of the hadith and sunna must, of necessity, be based on the Quran.
Everything said about the hadith must be subjected to the critical scrutiny
of the Quran and science. Only what passes this test is acceptable.
The word hadith means `news,' `story' or `message', while the word
sunna means `law,' `system,' `custom' or `behavior.' In the hadith
literature, the word hadith carries the meaning of a report of an alleged
saying or action of Prophet Muhammad. Therefore, although sunna originally
refers to the customary behavior of the Prophet, in the hadith literature
both the terms sunna and hadith carry a similar meaning.
The Four Arguments of Traditionists
The Ahl'ul-Hadith or the Traditionists did not distinctly emerge in
Muslim society until the second Islamic century, more than a hundred years
after the Prophet's death. There is a big gap between the Prophet and the
first legal digest that contains some traditions, i.e. the Muwatta'
of Imam Malik (d. 179 AH). It is historically known that the `four guided
caliphs' — close companions of the Prophet — not only did not leave
us any collection of traditions, they did not make use or made very little
use of traditions.
Nevertheless, against all odds, the Traditionists prevailed in insisting
the hadith/sunna was binding on the Muslims from the beginning. They claim
to derive this authority for the hadith from the Quran itself, as we shall
presently show. They cannot do otherwise than make this claim, for without
the authority of the Quran as the basis of its legitimacy, the hadith is
automatically rejected. It will be seen that this claim is false.
They put forward four principal arguments. Firstly, the hadith is also Divine
revelation. Secondly, God's command to the believers to obey the messenger
means that they must uphold the hadith. Thirdly, the Prophet is the interpreter
of the Quran and the hadith is necessary in order to understand and carry
out Quranic injunctions. Fourthly and lastly, the Prophet is an example for
the believers to follow, and his sunna is binding on the believers.
We shall discuss these four principal arguments of the Traditionists in detail
and show that they are false.
Argument One: `Sunna is Revelation'
Their claim that hadith/sunna also constitutes revelation is based on the
following Quranic verses:
The famous classical jurist, Imam Shafi`i, basically the creator of the theory
of classical jurisprudence, interpreted the Arabic word hikmah in
above verse and in similar verses as meaning `sunna' or `hadith.' In his
major work, al-Risala, he stated:
-
So, God mentions His scripture, that is the Quran, and wisdom,
and I have heard from those who are knowledgeable in the Quran — those
whom I agree with — say that wisdom is the traditions of the Prophet.
This is the same as the Word [of God Himself]; but God knows better! Because
the Quran is mentioned, followed by Wisdom; then God mentions His blessing
to mankind by teaching the Quran and wisdom. So, it is not possible that
wisdom means other things than the traditions of the Prophet ... (Emphasis
added).
Shafi`i's interpretation of the word hikmah as meaning the Prophet's
tradition cannot but give rise to grave doubts. Was he justified in doing
so? He did not produce any support from the Quran for such an interpretation.
He merely reported the view of "experts" whom he concurred with. Who these
"experts" were and what their reasons for advancing such a view Shafi`i did
not say. According to the laws of logic, we can question any view put forward
by anybody, but we cannot question certainty. In the quotation above, we
notice that Shafi`i jumped from a statement of the status of probability
to a statement of the status of certainty without giving proper proofs to
enable the probable view to achieve the status of certainty. This is unacceptable
in any scientific discourse.
God Himself states in the Quran that it is He Who explains the Quran. This
means that the Quran explains itself. Taking this cue and examining the use
of the word hikmah, occurring twenty times in the Quran, it is obvious
that it refers to the teachings of the Quran, or to general wisdom that all
prophet-messengers or moral teachers were endowed with. The following Quranic
usage will illustrate :
-
This is part of the wisdom that your Lord reveals to you.
where the word `wisdom' refers to some thirteen ethical teachings enumerated
in verses 22 to 38. These teachings are the worship of God alone and the
prohibition of idolatry, doing honor and kindness to parents, giving charity
to relatives, the poor and needy and the alien, to be moderate in spending,
prohibition against child-killing for fear of poverty, prohibition against
adultery, prohibition against killing any human being except in the course
of justice, the safe-keeping of an orphan's property until he or she becomes
of age, honesty in trading, prohibition against the acceptance of unverified
news or views, censure against arrogant behavior and general censure against
evil.
Again the word `wisdom' in the following verse:
-
God has made a covenant with the prophets that He will give them the scripture
and wisdom.
refers to the contents of all divine scriptures. Similarly in the following
verse:
We have endowed Luqman with wisdom, for he was appreciative of
God.
where the wisdom in question refers to general wisdom of spiritual teachers.
Muhammad Ali in his translation of the Quran mentions al-Hikmah as
one of the names of the Quran based on the verse 17:39 that we have quoted
above.
Further evidence that the words hikmah or hakeem with the meaning
`wisdom' can be seen from the following:
These are the revelations and the message of wisdom that we recite
to you.
Y.S. By the wise Quran! You are indeed one of the messengers.
It should also be note that the word hakeem in the Quran meaning `wise'
without exception refers to God, as for example:
Our Lord, and raise among them a messenger who would recite for them Your
revelations and teach them the scripture and wisdom and sanctify them. You
are the Almighty, the Wise.
Glorifying God is everything in the heavens and the earth; He is the Almighty,
the Wise.
Based on the above Quranic evidence we can make two conclusions. Firstly,
the word `wisdom' quoted by Shafi`i in verse 2:129 refers to the ethical
teachings of the Quran. Secondly, general wisdom has been endowed to all
prophets. Can we, therefore, infer that Prophet Muhammad taught wisdom to
his community through his leadership of the community? The answer is, of
course, Yes. History proves that. But that wise leadership is also consequent
upon his acting strictly in accordance with the ethical teachings of the
Quran. All this wisdom is contained in the Quran, although some hadith may
also have preserved that wisdom. The case for upholding the hadith apart
from the Quran is, therefore, not proved by this argument.
Further examination of the use of the words `sunna' and `hadith' in the Quran
gives interesting information. The word `sunna' is used in the Quran to refer
to the divine system or law and to the example of the fate suffered by ancient
communities. None refers to the behavior of the Prophet. The two usages are
illustrated in the following verses:
The word `hadith' is used in the Quran to mean `news', `story', `message'
or `thing'. Out of the 36 times it is used in various grammatical forms,
none refers to what is known as the Prophetic hadith as another source of
law beside the Quran. On the contrary, in ten instances of very powerful
statements the word refers to the Quran and categorically rejects any hadith
besides the Quran. Here we give two of them:
The other verses, 53:3-4, that the Traditionists quote as proof that the
sunna is also divine revelation have been given. Commenting on these verses,
Fazlul Karim said:
-
The Holy Quran exhorts the people to believe the Hadith of
the Prophet as nothing short of revelation ... The only difference between
the Quran and the Hadith is that whereas the former was revealed directly
through Gabriel with the very letters that are embodied from Allah, the latter
was revealed without letters and words...
This interpretation of the hadith as revelation is patently false and has
its origin in earlier Jewish practice, as we shall show. Let us look closer
at the verses in question.
-
By the falling star. Your friend is neither astray, nor a liar. He does
not speak on his own. This is a divine inspiration. A teaching from a mighty
one. The possessor of omnipotence, who assumed (all authority). From the
highest horizon. He came closer by moving downwards. Until He became as close
as possible. He then revealed to His servant what He revealed.
The above verses clearly describe the process of revelation to Muhammad.
They refer to a specially inspired state, not to the ordinary state of Muhammad's
human existence. Apart from the fact that the verses themselves make this
clear, this is the interpretation given by all authorities. Thus, the later
extremely subjective meaning given to these verses to conform to the
Traditionists' theory, as exemplified by Fazlul Karim, must be rejected.
What should alert Muslims is the very close resemblance of this theory to
the much earlier Jewish theory of written and oral revelations. The Jewish
Talmud, consisting of the Mishnah and Gemara, the equivalent of Muslim Hadith
and Sunna, is a body of oral teachings of Jewish rabbis and jurists based
on their interpretations and expositions of the scripture over a long period.
In the words of the Jewish scholar Judah Goldin,
"...[It was believed that] along with the revelation of the
Written Torah was a revelation of an Oral Torah, that is, that interpretations
of and deductions from the Scriptures must have accompanied the Scriptures
themselves has at least this to recommend it: no written text, particularly
if it is meant as a guide for conduct, can in and of itself be complete;
it must have some form of oral commentary associated with it. This much however
is clear : from the fifth century BC onward there was a conscious effort
on the part teachers to expound the canonical books of the Torah, to make
clear its meaning and its applicability. `To make clear the Torah of the
Lord and put it into practice, and to teach in Israel statutes and
ordinances' (Ezra 7:10) was not only the programme of Ezra but of the
colleagues whom he attracted to himself, the Soferim ... It was the Soferim
who made what was implicit in the Book of the Torah of God explicit and
intelligible ..., and under their tutelage too, as times required, enactments
and decrees were issued. Such teaching and legislation as the Soferim conducted
through their schools and councils were carried on orally, in order to carefully
distinguish between what was the Written Torah, Scripture, and the
body of exegesis, interpretation by [word of] mouth, Oral Torah."
This historical testimony is self-explanatory. The theory of two revelations
that the Traditionists had propagated is Jewish in origin and had its beginning
in the teaching of scholar-priest Ezra, idolized by the Jews as the son of
God, and his followers.
We should note that this theory, built with such elaborateness, is demolished
by the Quran in just two words with its declaration that the Prophet believes
in God's words:
-
Therefore, you shall believe in God and His messenger, the gentile prophet,
who believes in God and His words, and follow him that you may be
guided.
Argument Two: `Obey the Messenger' Means
`Uphold the Hadith'
The second principal argument advanced by the Traditionists relates to God's
commandment to the believers to obey the messenger, which they have interpreted
to mean belief in the hadith/sunna. Shafi`i used this argument as his principal
argument and tirelessly repeated it in his book, al-Risala. He said,
-
But whatever is decided by him in the sunna God has decreed
that we should obey, and He considers [our] obedience to him as obedience
to Him, and [our] refusal to obey him as our denial of Him, which will not
be forgiven ...
The Traditionists use the famous verse 4:59 as well as two other verses as
their props for this argument. Let us look at the verses carefully:
O you who believe, you shall obey God, and you shall obey the messenger
and those in charge among you. If you dispute in
any matter, you shall refer it to God and the messenger, if you truly believe
in God and the Last Day. This is better for you and provides you with the
best solution.
Any gained spoils that the messenger gives you, you shall accept, and
whatever he forbids you, you shall desist from.
Never, by your Lord, will they be considered believers, unless they ask
you to judge between them, then find no hesitation whatsoever in their hearts
regarding your judgement, and unless they submit completely.
The Traditionists desire to convey two ideas by these quotations. Firstly,
the messenger is an independent power to be obeyed apart from God. Secondly,
obedience to the messenger means upholding the hadith/sunna. Are they right
in these?
It seems obvious that obedience to the messenger in the above verse and in
other similar verses means obedience to God, since the messenger is not an
independent agency. As messenger, he was the agency that delivered the message,
and obedience to him was equivalent to obedience to God. As stated in the
Quran several times, "The sole function of the messenger is to deliver
the message." It should be noted that the Quran uses the word `messenger'
and not `Muhammad'. The obedience is, therefore, to the messenger, that is,
to the message that he brought from God. In short, God and messenger in this
context constitute one concept which should not be separated.
We have said earlier that the Quran explains itself. Such verses where obedience
to God is coupled with obedience to the messenger is explained by other verses
where obedience is made due only to God. The following are examples:
The second idea that obedience to the messenger means upholding the hadith
is therefore categorically rejected by the Quran.
A question may still be asked: Did Muhammad the messenger not pronounce and
act outside the Quran? It is only too obvious that he did and must have done
so. He did so as leader of the then Muslim community and as an ordinary human
being. Under such circumstances, the Quranic directive regarding leadership
and obedience in verse 4:59 applies: that the people are duty-bound to obey
their rightful leader or leaders in so far as he or they do not trespass
the bounds of God. We may assume that Muhammad, the leader and the man, would
not have said or done anything contrary to the divine message he brought,
after he knew the message. Therefore, the truly genuine hadith can only be
the ones that do not contradict the Quran.
Certain decisions he made as leader of the community that history has recorded
must necessarily be circumscribed by the conditions of the time. The Madinah
Charter is a good example. Although the principles of religious freedom,
inter-communal equality and unity, local autonomy and just government underlying
the charter conform to the teachings of the Quran, the forms they took were
conditioned by the circumstances then prevailing. In the same manner, his
decisions on other matters concerning methods that the Quran, for obvious
reasons, does not stipulate were determined by historical circumstances and
do not bind the Muslims after him. History records that this was precisely
the attitude of the four righteous caliphs, although they did consider those
decisions as precedents. That past decisions are precedents is normal legal
procedure.
Argument Three: `Hadith Interprets the Quran'
The Traditionists claim that Prophet Muhammad is the interpreter of the Quran,
and that this interpretation is obtainable through the hadith. Without the
hadith, they assert, we cannot understand and carry out the commands of God
in the Quran. A typical statement of the Traditionists is as follow:
-
If the explanations of the Prophet (pbuh) regarding general
matters were not preserved and guaranteed from foreign interference, it is
certain that Quranic commands cannot be implemented. In this way, a great
part of Quranic directives which are binding on us will lapse. In this way,
we shall be unable to know the true purpose of God.
The Traditionists quote the following verses to support their contention:
-
We reveal to you this Reminder so that you may explain to the people what
is revealed to them and to let them reflect.
We did not send this scripture down to you except that you may explain
to them over what they dispute, and to provide guidance and mercy for those
who believe.
Commenting on these verses, one writer said that the Prophet detailed general
or universal matters in the Quran, such as the times and number of prostrations
of prayer and the rate of zakat or obligatory charity; the Prophet
clarified matters that were not mentioned in the Quran, such as the time
of imsak (early morning just before dawn when fasting begins in Ramadan);
the Prophet specified general commands in the Quran, such as division of
family property where, it was claimed, that the hadith forbid any share for
children who killed their parents; and the Prophet defined the limits of
Quranic orders, such as determining the methods of carrying out the punishment
for cutting off the hand.
It is clear from the above that what is meant by the Traditionists is the
role of the Prophet as leader, contained in the Quranic concept
ulil-amr (those in authority) that has already been explained.
As regards explaining and interpreting the Quran, Quranic statements and
historical evidence have shown that it is not given to Prophet Muhammad or
to any subsequent teachers to do so fully and all at once. The Quran, being
from the omniscient knowledge of God, cannot all be understood fully, except
through a prolonged process of rational understanding and scientific studies.
The long history of Quranic exegeses prove this. The Quran itself attests
to this when it declares about the allegorical verses:
No one knows their correct interpretations, except God and those well-grounded
in knowledge.
While this verse refers only to the understanding of allegorical verses,
God clearly states that it is He who teaches and explains the Quran. This
means, on the one hand, that the Quran explains itself and, on the other,
that God will, at the proper time, give man the necessary knowledge to understand
it. The various discoveries and findings of modern science within the last
four hundred years have thrown light on the meanings and corroborated the
statements made in the Quran fourteen centuries ago when modern science was
not yet born.
Mode of Prayer
The Traditionists invariably asks: If we do not have the hadith, how do we
pray? This shows that they have not studied the Quran nor Arab history prior
to Muhammad carefully. The Quran clearly states that the obligatory prayers
and all other religious observances of Islam were originally taught to Abraham.
All the prophets and their true followers since Abraham practiced them, but,
as the Quran also informs us, later generations, including the Arabs at the
advent of Muhammad, had lost these prayers. The prayers of the Arabs at the
Shrine at the time were described by the Quran as "no more than deceit and
alienation."
It should also be noted that the very early revelations, such as the chapter
73 entitled al-Muzzammil which was the third in order of revelation,
already mentioned salat and zakat, indicating that these religious
observances were well-known and were being practiced. This is confirmed by
early historical sources, such as Ibn Ishaq's biography of the Prophet. All
these conclusively prove that our salat prayers today were not originally
given to Muhammad during the Night Journey, as the Traditionists claim.
A moment's thought will also make us realize that we do not learn how to
pray from the hadith. We learn to do so from our parents and teachers who
inherit the practice through the generations from the first source, that
is Prophet Abraham.
Although the Quran needs no longer teach us how to pray, since we have learnt
and practiced it from the time of Abraham, still it gives us the main features
of salat prayer, i.e. the normal ablution (5:6), the abnormal ablution
(4:43), the proper dress (7:31), standing and facing the qiblah (2:144),
the times (11:114, 17:78, 24:58, 2:238, 30:17-18 and 20:130), the bowing
and prostrating (2:43,125,3:42, 22:77, 48:29), using moderate voice when
saying prayers (17:110), not calling anyone else besides God in prayer (72:18)
and modified mode of prayer at unusual times (4:101,103). It is quite obvious
that many important details regarding the mode of prayer are given in the
Quran.
It should be remembered that the Quran repeatedly teaches the people to be
concerned with doing good sincerely and not to be concerned with form. It
is obvious why this should be so. An obsession with form would defeat the
purpose of an action. The incidence of Saudi Prince Sultan Salman who accompanied
the American space mission, Discovery, in 1985 and who exposed the
inability of the traditional Saudi ulama to answer the question of
how he should pray in the space shuttle was a good modern illustration of
the error of obsession with form.
Argument Four: `The Example of the Prophet'
This is the fourth and last argument of the Traditionists: that the Prophet
constitutes a good example for the believers to follow, and following his
examples means following the sunna. They base this argument on the following
verses of the Quran:
-
The messenger of God is a good example for you, for any of you who truly
seek God and the Hereafter and commemorate God frequently.
Referring to this verse and the following verse
-
You are indeed endowed with a great character
one traditionalist writer remarked:
The messenger (pbuh) is a perfect man. He is the foremost example
to be followed in all aspects and fields, except in those that cannot be
followed.
According to the hadith scholar, M.M. Azami,
If we consider the Prophet as the model for the community,
the Muslims have to follow his example in every way, especially as they have
been specifically commanded to do so by Allah.
Even the late modern scholar Prof. Fazlur Rahman talks of the existence of
the exemplary conduct of the Prophet. However, if we look at the context
of verse 33:21 quoted above, it is clear that it does not refer to every
detail of the Prophet's behavior, such as his eating, dress, sleeping and
other personal habits. Actually, it refers to the Prophet's faith in God's
help and victory. The verse is put in the middle of the account of the Battle
of the Allies when the believers were really shaken and thought that the
cause of Islam was lost. Nevertheless, it would not be wrong if we derive
a general meaning for this verse that the Prophet provided a good example
for Muslims to follow. The Prophet's example is none other than his staunch
faith in God and strict adherence to the Quran.
That the phrase uswah hasanah, meaning `a good example' in this verse,
refers to one's conviction, stand and struggle, and not to one's personal
behavior, can be proved by its usage, twice, for Prophet Abraham who was
a staunch monotheist. Verse 4 of Surah 60 explains the meaning of the phrase:
A good example has been set for you by Abraham and those with him.
They said to their people, "We disown you and the idols you set up besides
God. We reject you, and you will see from us nothing but enmity and opposition
until you believe in God alone."
The above verse explains the meaning of uswah hasanah as referring
to one's religious conviction, ideological position and struggle. This is
an instance of how the Quran explains and interprets itself.
It is unreasonable and unthinkable that God would ask the Muslims to follow
the prophet's personal mode of behavior, because a person's mode of behavior
is determined by many different factors, such as customs, his education,
personal upbringing and personal inclinations. The prophet's mode of eating,
of dress and indeed of general behavior cannot be different from that of
other Arabs, including Jews and Christians, of that time, except regarding
matters which Islam prohibited. If the Prophet had been born a Malay, he
would have dressed and eaten like a Malay. This is a cultural and a personal
trait which has nothing to do with one's religion.
So were the methods of the Prophet's wars and his administration of the Medina
city-state. The weapons he used, such as swords, spears, arrows and shields,
were in accordance with the prevailing technology. Today, with the development
of modern weapons, the Muslims obviously cannot fight with the medieval weapons
used by the Prophet, although they must emulate his staunch faith in God
and complete adherence to God's teachings.
In political administration, the same Islamic principles operate. Some examples:
sovereignty of the people under God's sovereignty, government based on just
laws, complete freedom of religious worship, obedience to God and due obedience
to leaders, leadership to be exercised by those who are competent and morally
upright, and government through consultation. However, methods and the
institutions vary according to time and circumstances. The methods and
institutions used by the Prophet are not universally and eternally binding.
Actually, the ways of the Prophet were in strict conformity with the teachings
of the Quran. He held firmly to the Quran and obeyed its injunctions. Therefore,
following the example of the Prophet means upholding the Quran. The claim
of the Traditionists that the Quran is general and requires the hadith to
explain it and make it specific is based on a false understanding of the
Quran. This claim has been partially dealt with here. It will be fully dealt
with in Chapter V where we shall discuss the comprehensiveness of the Quran
as a guide.
The Quran is Complete, Perfect and Detailed
The hadith writers' allegations are clearly misleading. To say that the Quran
is incomplete or unclear can only be blasphemous. Such an opinion belittles
God's power by implying that He gave us an incomplete or unclear product.
It is just like the Christian Bible insisting that God created the heavens
and the earth in six days and then on the seventh day He had to take a break.
In the Quran, God tells us that He created the heavens and the earth and
God does not need to take any breaks for such is the power of God.
-
Indeed your Lord is God; the one God who created the heavens and the earth
in six days, then assumed all responsibility.
It is not likely that the God who created the whole wide universe and then
assumed all responsibility including revealing the Quran and teaching and
explaining it would reveal a Quran that was incomplete or unclear.
Also consider the following:
-
Any creature on earth and any bird that flies with wings, are all nations
like you. We did not leave anything out of this scripture. To their Lord
they will all be gathered. Those who reject our revelations are deaf, dumb
and in total darkness.
So if God "did not leave anything out of this scripture," how can the Quran
be incomplete?
These examples referred to in the above verse served the Prophet well such
that he in turn was able to learn from these examples and become a good example
himself for his followers. How then can the hadith writers insist that the
Quran is incomplete when it also has every kind of example quoted for mankind's
reference? The Quran therefore contains details for all our needs. The Quran
states general principles in places where it would be too burdensome for
us if God were to make strict rules. This is especially true when the Quran
touches on socio-cultural matters as they differ from place to place and
among different peoples.
But still, how do we come to a solution for a problem that we have to solve
by ourselves, for example, when Prince Sultan Salman wanted to pray aboard
the space shuttle Discovery? God answers:
The only way we can refer anything to God and His messenger today is by using
the teachings of God Almighty that is still with us in the Quran. We must
use our own intelligence to deliberate among ourselves to solve our problems,
but always guided by God, i.e. through knowledge of the Quran.
There are some matters whereby God clearly spells out exactly what we are
required to do. The rights of individuals, ownership of property, the rules
of marriage and divorce, the laws of inheritance, penal laws, the rules of
witness, dietary laws, the methods of ablution, and so on are all clearly
detailed in the Quran.
At other places, whenever God pleases, He provides us both the principles
and the methods. Let us explore further the issue of penal laws. The punishments
of hand-cutting for theft and a hundred lashes for adultery mentioned in
the Quran are forms, not principles, of punishment. Furthermore, these
forms are connected to specific historical circumstances.
What, then, are the Quranic principles for punishment? There are two, or
one can say three, if we include the principle that all crimes must be punished
and not overlooked. The two principles are: firstly, that every crime must
be punished in accordance with the severity of the crime, i.e. the principle
of equivalence; and secondly, the principle of mercy, as evidenced by the
following verses:
-
Whoever works evil must be punished.
They counter aggression with an equivalent response. However, those who
pardon and conciliate receive a better reward from God.
They counter evil with good.
According to the first principle, every crime must be punished, but following
from the second principle, the punishment meted out must match the crime.
This is the principle of justice designed to deter criminals. But the last
principle gives the power to our courts to lighten punishments of crimes
up to the point of pardon to encourage reformation on the part individual
criminals. What a beautiful penal system this is!
Similarly, God provides us the guiding principles and the detailed methods
of dividing property for inheritance purposes.
The man shall get a share of what the parents and relatives leave, and
the women shall get a share of what the parents and the relatives leave,
be it small or large, a decreed share.
This verse therefore sets the principle that men and women can inherit property.
God decrees what you shall bequeath for your children; the male shall
get the share of two females.
It will be seen that the above verses establish the general principle of
inheritability by both males and females, while at the same time fixes the
portions. The question arises: are the fixed portions of two for men and
one for women historically determined or absolute? Is it fair that working
women who also share the burden of family expenses be given less portion?
At a time when women looked after the home and men were sole breadwinners,
such portioning was fair. But when economic conditions change and women bear
equal burden, is it allowed for us to make adjustments, implying that we
consider the second verse as historically determined? (Hint: the above verses
also talk about will; see also 2:180, 240). This is something, as in many
other matters, that Muslim society, through council and through their rightful
leaders, must decide.
The Quran also makes provisions for Muslims to handle problems in difficult
or extraordinary circumstances. For example, foods that are forbidden to
eat under normal circumstances, like pork, become permissible out of necessity
and not by choice.
Thus, the Quran contains guidance and solutions to handle all of our affairs.
The Quran is complete, perfect and detailed. If God "leaves anything out"
of the Quran at all, it is only because God has put in place, elsewhere
throughout the Quran, sufficient guidance with which human beings can guide
their lives.
-
God never sends any people astray without first pointing out the consequences
for them. God is fully aware of all things.
In spite of repeated Divine proclamations that the Quran is complete and
perfect, the hadith writers insist that when the Quran is silent on some
issues, the Prophet steps in (allegedly) and provides the hadith to fill
in the gaps. Since, according to them, all the Prophet's words are inspired
by God, therefore, it is actually God Himself who indirectly fills the gaps
that He Himself created in the first place! A very neat and tidy explanation
to justify their going around in circles. However, God replies in the following
verse:
-
O you who believe, do not ask about things if revealed to you, you will
be hurt. If you consider them in the light of the Quran, you will realize
that God left them out as an alleviation. God is Forgiver, Clement.
Muhammad Ali interprets this verse thus:
As Islam discouraged religious practices, such as monastic
life, it also prohibited questions relating to details on many points which
would require this or that practice to be made obligatory, and much was left
to the individual will or circumstances of the time and place. The exercise
of judgement occupies a very important place in Islam and this gives ample
scope to different nations and communities to frame laws for themselves and
to meet new and changed situations. The hadith shows that the Prophet also
discourages questions on details in which a Muslim could choose a way for
himself.
God does not mention some things altogether or in detail for two reasons.
Firstly, like the regular prayer, because He has taught mankind these things
before Muhammad. Secondly, because such things concern the forms their principles
take at different times and different places. These forms are therefore decided
by the society's council or by customs or by personal preference. The principles
of decision-making through council, or through customary usage, or through
using reason are clearly enunciated in the Quran.
It is clear that the Quran, being the last of God's scriptures to mankind,
is the only infallible source of our guidance.
Other sources, including previous scriptures as well the hadith/sunna, are
subject to Quranic criticism. What passes this criticism is acceptable; what
fails is automatically rejected. This is plain, as the following verses state:
Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He revealed to you
this Book fully detailed? Even those who received previous scripture recognize
that it came down from your Lord, truthfully. Therefore, you shall not harbor
any doubt.
... Those who do not rule according to God's scripture are the unjust.
You should judge among them according to God's scripture and do not follow
their ideas, and beware lest they divert you from some of God's revelations
to you. If they turn away, then you should know that God wants to punish
them for their sins. Indeed, many people are wicked. Is it the laws of the
days of ignorance that they want to apply? Whose laws are better than God's,
for those who are firm believers?
Those who fabricate false doctrines are the ones who do not believe in
God's revelations. They are the liars.
Shall we treat the Muslims like criminals? What is wrong with you? How
do you judge? Do you have another book that you apply? One that gives you
anything you want?
So, do the hadith writers have another book that they apply? One that gives
them everything? Is this why God revealed the earth-shaking verse that we
have quoted several times?
The messenger will say, "My Lord, my people have deserted this Quran."
We cannot, therefore, use any other book other than the Quran to make our
laws and punish the guilty, attributing these laws to God. But what do the
hadith writers say? They say that anyone who does not accept the hadith books
immediately become unbelievers. They insist that the hadith, although it
is not the Quran, must be accepted. To them the hadith is "the other
book that they apply, one that gives them anything they want," as the Quran
puts it precisely and beautifully.
What does God say to these allegations?
-
Who is more wicked than one who lies about God, or rejects His revelations?
Indeed, the wicked never succeed. On the day when We gather them all together,
We will say to the idol worshippers, "Where are the idols you had fabricated?"
Their only response will be, "By God, our Lord, we were not idolaters!" Note
how they lied to themselves! Whatever they have invented have misled them.
When God alone is advocated, the hearts of those who do not believe in
the hereafter shrink with aversion. But when others are mentioned besides
Him, they rejoice.
They follow idols who decree for them religious laws never authorized
by God. If it were not for the predetermined decision, they would have been
judged immediately. The wicked have deserved painful retribution.
This is because when invited to worship God alone, you disbelieved, but
when others were made partners beside Him, you believed. Alas the judgement
has been decreed by God, the Most Exalted, the Great.
God cites the example of a man with partners who contradict one another
and a man who relies on one consistent source: are they the same? Praise
be to God, the majority do not know.
To place the hadith on an equivalent footing with revelation is to create
another source of guidance – an idol. This is the major problem with
the hadith. When we invite them to believe in God alone through the Quran,
they hesitate, but when we throw in the false hadith and other false teachings,
then they are happy!
In conclusion, the theory or doctrine that the hadith is an equal source
of guidance with the Quran, propounded by Shafi`i, is the most important
aspect of the hadith question. Even though we totally reject this doctrine,
we do not reject the hadith as a secondary source, provided that it does
not contradict the Quran. On this view also, we say that the hadith is an
important source of early Muslim social history. We shall have more to say
about this in the last chapter.
CHAPTER III
SOURCE, REASON AND EFFECTS OF HADITH
-
God created the heavens and the earth based on Truth.
(Quran, 29:44)
Everything has its reason for being and, in turn, has its consequences. Nothing
that happens is without its cause and, in turn, without its effect. This
is a divine natural law, stated in the verse we quote above, and acknowledged
by all mankind. This law applies equally to the hadith phenomenon. We shall
show that the so-called Prophetic traditions did not originate from the Prophet.
They grew from the politico-religious conflicts that arose in the Muslim
society then, during the first and second centuries. It constituted a new
teaching altogether, seriously deviating from the Quran that Prophet Muhammad
brought to them. It was done against his will, but skillfully attributed
to him.
According to the Traditionists, Prophet Muhammad left two legacies to his
followers: a divine scripture and his sunna. We shall show later that
this hadith is a fabrication. As a matter of fact, history has fully shown
that at the time of the Prophet's death, only the completed written Quran,
duly arranged into chapters by the Prophet, existed as his only legacy. It
was not yet compiled into book form, but complete writings of it on parchments
and other writing materials were kept in the Prophet's house and other houses
of the Prophet's scribes. The Prophet also taught many Companions to memorize
the Quran following the chapter arrangements he himself had made.
During the second caliph Abu Bakr's administration, Abu Bakr himself ordered
the Prophet's secretary, Zaid ibn Thabit, to compile the Quran into book
form, taking care that all its contents were corroborated by two or more
witnesses. When the third caliph, Uthman, prepared his official version of
the Quran for dissemination throughout the length and breadth of Islam, he
based it on this version. Thus, the Quran fully satisfies the requirements
of a well-corroborated text.
The Quran itself proclaimed the completion of Islam and of Muhammad's mission
eighty-one or eighty-two days before Muhammad's death with the following
famous verse:
-
Today I have perfected your religion for you and completed My favor to
you and I have chosen Islam as a religion for you.
The Beginnings of Hadith
Although some traditions may have existed during the time of the Prophet,
thus giving rise to his prohibition, their number doubled and tripled only
several decades after his death. At the time of their compilations, stretching
over a period of two to four centuries after his death, they existed in hundreds
of thousands. The compilations were made against Muhammad's expressed order,
but the Traditionists argued that this prohibition was conditional to his
desire to avoid mixing traditions with the Quran. When this condition no
longer existed, the prohibition was lifted. However, a historical report
exists stating that thirty years after the Prophet's death, the prohibition
was still on, showing that it had never been lifted.
As we have seen, what came to be regarded by the Sunnites as the `Six Authentic
Books' compiled by Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Daud, Ibn Maja, Tirmidhi and al-Nasa`i,
and the four Shi'ite compilations by al-Kulaini, Ibn Babuwayh, al-Murtada
and Ja`afar Muhammad al-Tusi did not exist at the time of the Prophet's death,
as the Quran did, but were made between 210 and 410 years later. Why were
the compilations not made earlier? Does not this fact alone show that the
hadith was a new development, not sanctioned by the Prophet?
Several modern hadith scholars claim that they possess new evidence to prove
that the hadith were written down at the time of the Prophet. They were memorized
and handed down from generation to generation until the second and third
Islamic centuries when the official compilations were made. The still unanswered
question, even if we were to accept the claim, is this: "Why was the official
compilation not made earlier, especially during the time of the righteous
caliphs when the first reporters, i.e., the eye witnesses, were still alive
and could be examined?" When we remember that there was an alleged statement
by the Prophet, made at his final Pilgrimage Oration and heard by tens of
thousands, exhorting his followers to hold on to the Quran and his sunna,
it is most unreasonable not to expect the great early caliphs to order the
writing down and compiling of the Prophet's sayings. That none of them did
so could only mean that the Prophet never made the statement, and that it
was a later invention attributed to him.
The answer given by the Traditionists that the hadith was not written down
during the time of the Prophet to avoid confusing them with the Quran is
not satisfactory. Not only did it contradict their own claim that the hadith
were already being recorded during the lifetime of the Prophet; several documents
of the Prophet, such as the Medina Charter, his treaties and letters, had
been written on his orders. The hadith too could similarly be written down
by indicating that they were hadith, and not the Quran. However, this constraint
no longer apply when the Quran was completed, written down and compiled into
a book, and the fear of mixing the Quran with the hadith was no longer a
valid concern. Yet the hadith was not immediately compiled. The only conceivable
reason why they were not compiled was precisely the Prophet's standing order
prohibiting it. It is apparent that later generations ignored this order.
We also have later historical sources which say that the Caliph Abu Bakr
burnt his notes of hadith (said to be 500 in all) for fear that they might
be false, and that Caliph Omar ibn Khattab cancelled his plan to compile
the hadith because he did not want to divert the attention of the Muslims
from the Quran to the hadith. It is quite possible that these statements
said to have been made by the first two caliphs are false, having been fabricated
by upholders of the hadith in order to prove that hadith had already been
written down at this early stage, but were not compiled by Abu Bakr and Omar
not because of the Prophet's prohibition (which they must know), but because
of other reasons.
Due to the fact that early historical writings about Muhammad and the early
Muslim society were not done until a hundred or a hundred and fifty years
after the Prophet's death, such as the works of Ibn Ishaq (d. 150) and Ibn
Sa`d (d. 168), it is impossible to obtain documentary evidence (apart from
the Quran, of course) on the precise position of the hadith/sunna between
the time of the Prophet's death and the time of these works. However, Ibn
Sa`d, an early major historian, showed that the first three caliphs did not
use the hadith at all. In any case, it is interesting to note, as we have
seen in Chapter II, that the phrases `the prophet's hadith' or the `the prophet's
sunna' are never used in the Quran. This shows that these concepts did not
exist in Arab society at the time of the Prophet. On the other hand, the
phrases `tribal sunna' or `the sunna of the people' to mean `customs' were
in vogue. It is this concept of sunna that was later transformed to mean
the Prophet's practice.
Basing ourselves on the Quran, we learn that a community did not break up
into sects after the coming of divine revelation to them except due to jealousy
and to vested interests. When jealousy and considerations of vested interests
overcame them, divisions occurred and sects emerged:
He has decreed for you the same religion decreed for Noah, and what is
revealed herein, and what was decreed for Abraham, Moses and Jesus. `You
shall uphold the one religion, and do not be divided.' It is simply too difficult
for the idol worshipers to accept what you advocate. God is the one who brings
towards Him whomever He wills; He guides towards Himself those who submit.
They became divided after knowledge had come to them due to sheer jealousy.
If it were not for a predetermined decision, they would have been judged
immediately. Even those who inherited the scripture continued to harbor doubts.
You shall preach and uphold this scripture as commanded and do not follow
their wishes.
You shall hold fast to the rope of God, all together, and do not be divided.
Be appreciative of God's favors upon you; you used to be enemies and He
reconciled your hearts. By His grace, you become brethren. God thus explains
His revelations for you that you may be guided. Let there be a community
among you who preach goodness, advocate righteousness and forbid evil. These
are the winners. Do not be like those who became divided and disputed among
themselves, despite the profound revelations that had come to them.
The above verses explain two things. Firstly, the divine revelations brought
by Muhammad and other messengers, although true and beneficial, were hard
to accept by the idol worshipers. They accepted them for a while and then
lapsed into their former condition. Secondly, they reverted to their former
condition because of jealousy towards one another and because of their love
of material things. In short, human propensity for materialism and jealousy
for one another made it difficult for them to follow the teachings of the
prophet-messengers, including prophet Muhammad. These are the factors that
cause division into sects and factions after the teachings had come to them.
We shall see that many hadith began to emerge and multiply at the same time
as the emergence of divisions in the early Muslim community in three civil
wars, beginning under Ali's rule right up to the end Mu`awiya rule. The relations
between these two phenomena were direct: power struggles giving rise to divisions
led to the fabrication of hadith to support each contending group, and the
fabrications of hadith further deepened divisions. It is clear that the division
originated in the power struggle to fill the post of caliph to succeed the
Prophet, but hadith were fabricated to use the name of the Prophet to bolster
politico-religious sectarianism.
Political Conflicts
A study of original sources, such as Ibn Sa`d (d. 230/845), Malik Ibn Anas
(d. 179/795), Tayalisi (d. 203/818), Humaydi (d.219/834) and Ibn Hanbal (d.
241/855) will show that all `four guided caliphs' made use of very little
sunna in their administrations. The very term "the Prophet's sunna"
was never used by the Prophet himself and did not emerge until the sixth
and seventh decades after the Prophet in the administration of Omar Abdul
Aziz (d. 720), and was first used by him. But later sources, such as Ibn
Qayyim (d.691/1292), had connected the names of the great caliphs Abu Bakr
and Omar ibn Khattab with the practice of following the sunna. It is clear
that the `authentication' of the sunna was carried out by the Traditionists
to ward off opposition to the hadith by using the names of these two great
authorities.
The development of the hadith, it seems, began in the form of stories about
the Prophet, told by professional story-tellers, as praises for Ali and Abu
Bakr and as guidance in matters permitted and prohibited. These were later
given the form of hadith.
Compositions in the form of eulogies for Ali and Abu Bakr which came into
being after the Prophet's death reflected the first political conflict between
supporters of Ali (the Shi`ites) and those of Abu Bakr (the Bakriyya). Ibn
Abi'l-Hadid (d. 655/1257), commentator of the compilation of famous sayings
attributed to Ali Abi Talib, Nahj al-Balaghah, admitted that it was
the Shi'ite party who began to create hadith eulogies. He said,
-
... Know that the origins of fabrications in fada'il
traditions were due to the Shi'ite, for they forged in the first instance
traditions concerning their leader. Enmity towards their adversaries drove
them to this fabrication ... When the Bakriyya saw what the Shi'ite had done,
they fabricated for their own master traditions to counter the former ...
When the Shi'ite saw what the Bakriyya had done, they increased their efforts
...
The same writer further wrote regarding hadith forgeries sponsored by caliph
Mu`awiya to oppose Ali. According to him:
-
Then Mu`awiya wrote to his governors saying: "Hadith about
Uthman has increased and spread in every city, town and region. When this
letter from me reaches you, summon the people to relate the merits of the
Companions and the first caliphs. And do not let any Muslim relate anything
about Ali without bringing something contradicting this about the Companions.
This I like better and it pleases me more, it invalidates Abu Turab's claims
and those of his Shi'ite in a more definitive way and it is for them more
difficult to bear than the virtues and the merits of Uthman."
Mu`awiya's letters were read out to the people. And many forged
reports concerning the merits of the Companions, in which there was no [grain
of] truth, were related. The people went out of their way in relating reports
in this vein until they spoke thereof in glowing terms from the pulpits.
The teachers in the schools were instructed to teach their young pupils a
vast quantity of these until they related them just as they studied the Quran
and they taught these to their daughters, wives and servants. God knows how
long they persisted in this.
It is abundantly clear from the above evidence that one of the sources of
hadith forgery at the early stage was the political rivalry between the
supporters of Ali and those of Abu Bakr, which continued unabated until Uthman's
administration and then to the enmity and conflict between the Shi`ites and
the Umayyad. This and other sources were pointed out by a modern Arab historian,
Dr. Ahmad Amin, in his book The Dawn of Islam. According to him, five
factors were responsible for the fabrication of hadith. These are political
conflicts between various factions, differences of opinions regarding matters
of theology and jurisprudence, materialistic ambitions among certain religious
scholars, the desire to promote good and forbid evil by fabricating hadith
to encourage and to discourage (tarhib wa-targhib), as well as to
provide a medium for transmitting good teachings from non-Islamic sources.
Although most of these hadith forgeries can no longer be found in the classical
compilations, anyone who studies the hadith carefully and objectively can
still observe the characteristics mentioned above. Hadith eulogies for the
Companions in the Mishkat-ul-Masabih compilation still portrayed political
conflicts between the Shi'ite faction and the followers of Abu Bakr and shows
that the hadith was fabricated by the factions to support their respective
sides. Note the following hadith:
Anas reported that the Prophet ascended Uhud with Abu Bakr,
Omar and Uthman. It trembled with them and so he struck it with his foot
and said: "Be firm, O Uhud, and verily on you there are a prophet, a truthful
man and two martyrs." (Bukhari)
Zerre-b-Hubaish reported that Ali said:
"By One who splits seeds and creates breath, the illiterate
prophet gave me a covenant: `Nobody except a believer will love me, and nobody
except a hypocrite will hate me.' " (Muslim)
The above traditions have been picked out at random from many others as examples
to show the characteristic partiality of hadith. The obvious omission of
Ali in the first hadith points to its fabrication by his detractors: there
was no other reason why Ali was not in that company. The second one takes
the opposite side, having the Prophet affirm Ali's faith and condemn those
who maligned him.
We shall be taking a lot of time if we are to give examples of each type
of hadith fabrication. It is not necessary. We shall be satisfied with quotations
from a few hadith scholars, namely Ahmad Amin, Fazlur Rahman, Goldziher and
M.M. Azami.
(a) Ibn 'Adli stated, "At the time when a forger of hadith
by the name of Abdul Karim ibn Abu al-'Auja was taken to the place of hanging,
he said, `I have forged four thousand hadith for you whereby I prohibited
and permitted.'"
(b) In the same book the author further noted, "Muslim reported
from Muhammad ibn Yahya ibn Said al-Qattan, and from his father, who said,
`I have never seen good people telling more lies in any matter than when
they do with the hadith.' Muslim explained these words: `The lies were not
intentional.' Some people who forged false hadith were motivated by good
intentions, i.e. they sincerely believed that all that they had heard were
true. In their hearts there was no desire to lie, and they repeated what
they had heard. Then other people picked up from them because they were deceived
by their outward show of truth."
(c) That opposing political parties tried to influence public
opinion through the medium of the hadith and used the names of great authorities
of Tradition is a fact no one conversant with the early history of Islam
may deny.
(d) ... Every stream and counter-stream of thought in Islam
has found its expression in the form of a hadith, and there is no difference
in this respect between the various contrasting opinions in whatever field.
What we learn about political parties holds true too for differences regarding
religious law, dogmatic points of difference etc. Every ra'y (opinion)
or hawa (personal desire), every sunna and bid`a
(innovation) has sought and found expression in the hadith.
(e) ... Most likely the first fabrication of traditions began
in the political circles, citing and discrediting the parties concerned.
In the well-known work of al-Shaukani concerning spurious and similar tradition
we find 42 spurious traditions about the Prophet, 38 spurious traditions
about the first three caliphs, 96 spurious traditions about Ali and his wife
Fatima [and] 14 spurious traditions about Mu`awiya. Therefore, it looks as
if the spurious traditions began to originate for political purposes at and
about the period of the war between Ali and Mu`awiya, and continued later
on as a counter-attack on the Umayyad dynasty ...
From the time of Mu`awiya's rule (661-680) until the end of the second century
Hijrah when the hadith were officially compiled, the fabrication of hadith
was done on a wide scale. Not only did the hadith become the medium of stories
and instrument for various political factions and theological sects to support
their sectarian positions, but, as Maurice Bucaille said,
In view of the fact that only a limited number of hadiths may
be considered to express the Prophet's thoughts with certainty, the others
must contain the thoughts of the men of his time.
In order to stop the continued fabrication of the hadith and contain further
divisions of Muslim society at that time, there arose a movement to fix the
sources of law in Islam and to standardize the hadith. This is the main social
determinant which gave rise to the major jurisprudential figure in Islam
in the person of Shafi`i. He laid down the bases of Islamic classical
jurisprudence with his theory that the sources of Islamic law were the Quran,
the Hadith, Ijma' or consensus of religious scholars, and Qiyas
or analogy.
The Compilation of Hadith
It was about this time that the hadith throughout the length and breadth
of Islam were collected, sifted and written down. What were later called
the `Six Authentic Hadith Books' of the Sunnites finally came into being.
These are the compilations of Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Maja, Abu Daud, al-Tirmidhi
and al-Nasa'i. The Shi'ites had their own four collections of hadith, compiled
each by al-Kulaini, Ibn Babuwayh and two by Ja'afar Muhammad al-Tusi. These
compilations were made within a period between 220 and 400 years after the
death of the Prophet.
With the victory and general acceptance of Shafi`i's jurisprudential theory
where the hadith was given a position of almost equal importance with the
Quran (the formula is "second primary source"), the use of creative thought
or ijtihad for all practical purposes was abolished. This came to
be known later as `the closing of the door of ijtihad' and the beginning
of the regime of taqlid or blind imitation of the great masters, a
period beginning from about the fourteenth century till the end of the nineteenth
or beginning of the twentieth centuries AD.
It can be seen from the above account that the conflict between the trend
favoring creative thought an the trend favoring sunna (in both senses
of the people's tradition and the prophet's practice) in early Muslim community
was won by the sunna party. If Shafi`i's aim was to combine and harmonize
these two trends and thereby to contain the process of disunity in Muslim
society, it was obvious that he failed. Disunity continued to prevail in
theology and law. By institutionalizing the hadith to achieve what he termed
as consensus, he with one stroke killed creative thought in Muslim society.
Fazlur Rahman rightly observed:
It is clear that al-Shafi`i notion of Ijma' was radically
different from that of the early schools. His idea of Ijma' was that
of a formal and a total one: he demanded an agreement which left no room
for disagreement ... But the notion if Ijma' exhibited by the early
schools was very different. For them, Ijma' was not an imposed or
manufactured static fact but an ongoing democratic process; it was not a
formal state but an informal natural growth which at each step tolerates
and, indeed, demands fresh and new thought and therefore must live not only
with but also upon a certain amount of disagreement. We must
exercise Ijtihad, they contended, and progressively the area of agreement
would widen; the remaining questions must be turned over to fresh
Ijtihad or Qiyas so that a new Ijma' could be arrived
at. But it is precisely the living organic relationship between
Ijtihad and Ijma' that was severed in the successful formulation
of al-Shafi`i. The place of the living Sunna-Ijtihad-Ijma' he gives
to Prophetic Sunna which, for him, does not serve as a general directive
but as something absolutely literal and specific and whose only vehicle is
the transmission of the Hadith ...
Thus, by reversing the natural order, Ijtihad-Ijma'
into Ijma'-Ijtihad, their organic relationship was severed.
Ijma', instead of being a process and something forward-looking —
coming at the end of a free Ijtihad — came to be something static
and backward-looking. It is that which, instead of having to be accomplished,
is already accomplished in the past. Al-Shafi`i's genius provided a mechanism
that gave stability to our medieval socio-religious fabric but at the cost,
in the long run, of creativity and originality.
The process of substituting ijtihad with the hadith was a complex
process, which took two centuries to complete. The social and historical
factors causing it are still not clear to us. There is no doubt that anti-Islamic
forces from the nations conquered by the Muslim Arabs, especially the Persians
and the Jews, had infiltrated the various groups and played their subversive
role to divert the early Muslims from the true teachings of the Prophet,
i.e. the Quran, to other teachings in order to destroy them from within.
However, looking at the matter from our modern perspective, we cannot help
but being amazed as to why the conservative and indeed reactionary forces
were able to defeat the dynamic and progressive forces, despite the constant
prodding of the Quran for human creative role and the freedom of a community
to administer its affairs.
The Effects of the Hadith
One of the most important aspects, neglected so far in any study of the hadith,
is their collective impact and effects on Muslim society. We have seen that
the fabrication of hadith took place because of the politico-religious divisions
which later resulted in the emergence of sects and legal schools. We have
also seen that the hadith became the instrument to channel views, prejudices,
customs and superstitions current in society then. Most of these views and
ideas were nothing but superstitions and customs rejected by Islam.
It is logical for us to assume that Prophet Muhammad would not have said
or done anything contrary to the teachings of the Quran. We make this assumption
because he was very conversant with the teachings of the Quran that he himself
had brought from God. As a messenger of God, he would not have acted contrary
to those teachings. This assumption is most reasonable and consistent with
his high moral character. Therefore, the greatest weakness of most hadith,
deemed to be `authentic' by classical criticism, is that they contradict
the Quran. They are therefore false and could not have originated from him,
but were falsely attributed to him. They actually originated from the various
factions and groups who, due to reasons which we have stated, put into the
hadith all manner of superstitions and customs current in society then.
The Quran tells us that God in His mercy has always sent His guidance to
mankind through His messengers. He guides mankind with His revelations to
the path of salvation, in this world and in the Hereafter. These
prophet-messengers began with Adam in the remote Primitive Age, through Abraham
at the beginning of the Ancient Age to the last prophet Muhammad at the dawn
of the Scientific Age. Deviations from these divine revelations and away
from the path of salvation, which is Islam (this is the meaning of the profound
verse that the true religion with God is Islam), spells doom and destruction
for the deviating society. The Quran tells us of the destruction of several
ancient societies and civilizations as a consequence of their deviations.
In the modern age (`modern' here is taken to mean the birth of the scientific
method beginning with the rise of Muhammad), we have seen the destruction
of the early Muslim empire and civilization and the destruction of several
Eastern medieval states and European empires. Because this historical law
operates objectively for all nations and civilizations, the decline and fall
of Muslim society must inevitably be connected with the historical deviation
from divine teachings that they had committed. We shall examine briefly the
role of hadith in this historical deviation.
(a) Sectarianism
One of the first major consequences of the hadith is the division of early
Muslim community into two major sects, the Sunnites and the Shi'ites. The
Sunni sect splits into four major legal schools, and the Shi'ite has several
of its own, each with its own political and theological beliefs. Without
doubt, this division had its ground in the still strong Arab feeling of tribalism
of the period of ignorance. Although Muhammad succeeded in breaking Arab
tribalism and uniting them, this tribal spirit did not die with Muhammad.
When he passed away, the resurrected tribalism led to the power struggle
for the position of caliph. Because of the very strong Quranic prohibition
against making factions in religion and the fact that they were unable to
use the Quran to support factional interests, the competing parties had to
recourse to the hadith — a convenient and clever way out. The Shi'ite
faction that wanted Ali to be the caliph after the prophet's death fabricated
hadith to support their contention. They claimed that the prophet had stated
before his death:
-
Whoever recognized me as their master, Ali too is their
master.
This forged hadith was then countered with another forged hadith by the opposing
Bakriyya group. This then was how forged hadith came into being — to
support political factions.
Now, let us assume for a moment that the hadith did not exist (in line with
the Prophet's wishes that nothing should be written down from him except
the Quran). This did not automatically mean that the split between the supporters
of Abu Bakr and the supporters of Ali would not have existed. As the split
was politically motivated, it would have happened anyway. But now, without
the hadith, the Bakriyya and the Shi'ites would have had only the Quran for
their guidance. In that case, how would they have solved their problems?
God answers this question for us:
-
They respond to their Lord, and observe the salat prayers. Their affairs
are decided by consultation among them, and from our provisions to them they
donate.
Without the hadith they would have had to read the Quran. Thus, they would
have had to read the verse just quoted above. And they would have had to
come to a consensus among them, because they were all Muslims, submitters
to God, "those who respond to their Lord and observe the salat prayers."
But such things never happened because they had more than enough hadith which
they could pull out of their hats and use it to stab each other. Even if
the Sunnites and the Shi'ites could not be reconciled, even if they had resorted
to killing each other (which they did), they still would not have had more
evil thoughts to provoke them had there not existed any hadith. They would
have been forced to refer to the Quran. Therefore, sooner or later, they
are bound to have solved their differences.
But unfortunately, history has merely repeated itself. The devils had laid
their plan well. The Muslims listened to anything and everything except the
Quran. The result is that they fell into the pits, and they are still there
today!
(b) Anti-Intellectualism
Beside factionalism between the Sunnites and the Shi'ites, the Sunnites
themselves are divided into different madhabs or schools of thought.
They broke up into many schools of thought because of the differences of
opinion between their founders. At the beginning of the establishment of
these schools, over 16 of them came to exist, but today only the Hanafi,
the Maliki, the Shafi`i and Hanbali schools predominate. There exist major
differences between the four dominant schools as well, due largely to the
differences between Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik, the respective founders
of the Hanafi and Maliki schools, which subsequently influenced the Hanbali
and Shafi`i schools.
Imam Abu Hanifa (d.767) pioneered the use of creative thinking or
ijtihad to settle his affairs. He lived in Damascus, far away from
the Hijaz and thus out of regular contact with any descendants of the Prophet
or his companions. Hence, he had little opportunity to listen to any hadith
or sayings of the Prophet. (These four theologian-jurists imams all existed
before the writing of the official hadith). He settled disputes by referring
to the Quran and by exercising his reason.
Imam Malik (d. 795) on the other hand lived in Medina. Throughout his life,
he never traveled outside Medina except once to make the pilgrimage to Mecca.
Unlike Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik had the luxury of meeting with many
descendants of the Prophet and his Companions. Therefore, he could refer
to many hadith to solve his problems. Thus, while Abu Hanifa advocated creative
thinking or ijtihad, Imam Malik advocated ijma' or referring
to the hadith.
To compound this problem, the rulers at that time depended very much on these
scholars to advise them. More often than not, the opinions of a particular
scholar who was eminent under a particular ruler became the established rule
in that territory.
Instead of being testimony to the dynamism of the Quran which allowed such
diverse opinions to exist and thus serve as a catalyst for Muslims to
continuously exercise their intellect, these differences of opinion gave
birth to the rise of the likes of Imam Shafi`i (d. 820) who found it difficult
to handle the freedom of thought and opinion that is allowed by the Quran.
Imam Shafi`i came to view differences of opinion as a problem. To solve this
problem he came up with his neat little idea to freeze everything as it were.
In other words, Shafi`i came to the view that all opinions existing at that
time would be acceptable, but nothing more than that – no new thinking
could be allowed. The status quo would be set in stone with no possibility
of new participants. Thus the idea of ijma' first and ijtihad
later was crystallized and given an official authority.
Conformity became the norm. This was followed by the passivity and blind
obedience that had to be fostered to maintain this conformity. The conformity
and the passivity soon fused together to breed the pessimism and the fatalism
which is a natural result of dead intellect. This came to be the character
of the majority of Muslims until today.
On the other hand, the Europeans, who were overawed by the success of the
Arabs in the earlier part of Muslim history, realized the importance of inquiry
and free thought. The Europeans have progressed ever since because they never
closed their doors to free thinking. The example that the Europeans copied
was an excellent example of a Muslim people unimpeded by any false teachings.
The early Muslims strove hard and achieved the success here on earth, precisely
as God wanted them to achieve. By doing so, they earned the credits to give
them an honored place in the Hereafter.
As for the hadith writers, God tells them:
-
Shall we treat the Muslims like the guilty? What is wrong with you? How
do you judge? Do you have another book that you apply? One that gives you
anything you want?
The Muslims developed the hadith that gave them everything they wanted. In
fact, the hadith would envelop the whole of Muslim behavior right from
prescribing the "correct" methods of sleeping to eating, dressing, etc. The
Muslims under the ulama, therefore, effectively killed themselves
off. For some ulama looking for easy followers, the hadith became
a most effective tool to achieve that end. For other ulama with no proper
objectives in sight, the hadith became an end in itself.
(c) Pessimism and Political Opportunism
Among the many myths that have also found their way into the hadith is the
belief in the Mahdi. The Mahdi is expected to arise towards the Last Days
and is expected to save all the Muslims from their cruel oppressors. The
Quran tells us to continuously strive to do good deeds and to make strong
efforts to improve ourselves. The Muslims are commanded to encourage the
good and to oppose evil. All this means continuous hard work in the path
of God to achieve good objectives.
-
God does not change the condition of any people, unless they change
themselves.
Therefore, encouraging the Muslims to hang their hopes on something called
the Mahdi is actually a subtle attempt to make defeatists and pessimists
out of them. The suffocating belief in fate: to make the Muslims submissive
to other than God and to wait for someone else to come along to save them.
The truth is that no one will help us unless we help ourselves first.
This pessimism, however, is further ensconced in another equally debilitating
hadith about the attestation of faith or the kalimah shahada. This
fabricated hadith says that just by reciting the kalimah shahada at
the time of death, one can be forgiven by God and make it to Paradise. Such
hadith was a necessary precursor to the pessimism and the passive lethargy
that was imposed upon Muslims. For how else could the people be made to resign
themselves to such docility? The promise of a savior, the promise of Heaven,
the "keys" to Heaven etc. were necessary tools to maintain the people's
subservience to the hadith and to the people who propagated such hadiths.
These are just two of the very many fabricated hadith that can be quoted.
Not only that; these fabricated hadith, unlike other fabricated hadith, sought
to freeze the dynamic thinking encouraged by the Quran. These hadith sought
to make vegetables of the people and hence make them totally subservient
to the hadith proponents. The result is that the Muslims lost everything
that they had striven so hard to achieve.
We also list here a few hadith that are attributed to the Prophet by way
of Hudhayfa, a Companion of the Prophet. They are set in a context of the
civil conflict engulfing the supporters of Abu Bakr and Ali. These hadith
seek to impose a certain will on the people so that the people may serve
as useful tools for the vested interests behind these hadith. We begin with
a hadith which most cruelly attributes the qualities of a soothsayer to the
Prophet.
-
The messenger of God took a stand to address us in which he
did not omit to mention anything that will occur in that place of his up
to the occurrence of the Last Hour. Whoso got it to memory remembered it
and whoso did not remember it forgot it. These companions of mine learnt
it, and there will occur something therefrom which I forgot. When it is shown
to me, I remember it, just as a man remembers the face of a man when he remains
absent from him, but when afterwards he sees him, he recognizes him. (Bukhari
and Muslim)
The people used to ask the Messenger of God of virtues, and
I used to ask him of evils, fearing lest they might overtake me. I asked,
"O Messenger of God! Certainly we were in ignorance and corruption. Then
God brought this good for us. Will there be corruption after this good?"
"Yes," he replied. I asked, "Will there be good after this corruption?" "Yes,"
he replied. I asked, "Will there be good after that corruption?" "Yes," he
replied. "There will be darkness therein." I asked, "What is darkness?" He
said, "A people who will introduce ways other than my ways and will give
guidance other than my guidance. So you will recognize some of them and reject
some." I asked, "Will there be corruption after that good?" "Yes," he replied.
"There will be those who will invite towards the doors of Hell. Whoso will
respond to them will be thrown therein." I asked, "O Messenger of God, give
us their description." He said, "They will be our people, and they will speak
with our tongues." I asked, "What do you enjoin me if I reached that time?"
He replied, "You shall stick to the united body of Muslims and their leader."
I asked, "If they have no united body and no leader?" He said, "Then keep
aloof entirely from those parties though you should have to cleave to the
root of a tree till death overtakes you ..." (Bukhari and Muslim)
The messenger of God said, "There will soon appear calamities
in which one's sitting will be better than one's standing, and one's standing
will be better than one's walking, and one's walking will be better than
one's running..." (Bukhari and Muslim)
The messenger of God said, "... Keep to your house and hold
your tongue, and take what you recognize and give up what you do not know,
and mind your own business and give up the affairs of the public."
(Tirmidhi)
The hadith concerning the Mahdi and the attestation faith and the hadith
concerning the Last Days quoted above all advocate a passive, pessimistic
and submissive community. It is totally contrary to the Islamic spirit of
striving for the good in the name of God and in the way of God. Why did the
ulama advocate such defeatist hadith? Fazlur Rahman says that these hadith
reflect the ulama's thinking and their objectives with regard to the factionalism
and the civil war that was going on between the Muslim factions. To them
the hadith appeared as very handy tool to neutralize the dissenting and damaging
effects of the Khawarij and the Mu`tazilites camps. By this simple means
of creating hadith and attributing it the Prophet, the orthodox Ahl'ul-Sunna
wa'l-Jamaah hoped to save the community from its internecine warfare.
Although these false hadiths were advocated to serve as a bridge to link
up all the warring factions in peace and harmony, it became evident soon
enough that these false hadith standing on their false foundations would
collapse. How could the advocating of pessimism and passivity guarantee peace
and harmony, unity and justice? Obviously the orthodox scholars were very
short sighted. And on top of everything, all these false teachings were clearly
against the teachings of the Quran. It would become all too clear how easily
the corrupted and cruel rulers, the foreign invaders and the colonialists
would overwhelm a docile and almost indolent Muslim populace. The Muslims
had been perfectly molded into its submissive and servile form through the
indoctrination of all these false hadith. This was the cause of their fall.
As we have stated, the passive political philosophy advocated by these hadith
were completely against the spirit of the Quran which advocated exactly the
opposite philosophy upon all Muslims. God enjoins believers in the Quran
to get fully involved in community affairs, to consistently advocate good
and to oppose evil.
Therefore, did the Quran not pose a serious problem for the hadith writers
then? Any careful reading of the Quran and any serious discussion would
definitely point out the errors of the hadith. So, how did the ulama handle
this potential threat to their hadith? Very simple. They sought to cut off
all intellectual discussion and inquiry in Islam. They came up with the
not-too-original but effective idea that only the ulama, the priestly class,
would be allowed to handle all matters pertaining to the religion.
Th
