Please note that a summary based on what I think to be the
important and interesting points will be subjective.
Therefore, for a more objective approach, a study of the
actual book may be necessary.
Sometimes the page number is indicated, this is for those who
have the book to be able to verify what I have written.
The relevance of the past: classical
conceptions of Prophetic authority
The word sunna predates the rise of Islam and is well
attested in pre-Islamic sources. The word sunna was
likely to be applied to Muhammad even during his lifetime
(p8).
The Quran never mentions sunna-al-nabi (sunna of
the Prophet). The application of the term sunna is
likely to be post-Quranic, especially when applied exclusively
to Muhammad.
Early muslims did not give precedence of Muhammad's sunna
over other sunnas, such as the sunna of the
early caliphs or early companions. The sunna term was
not exclusive to Muhammad. There were no rigid distinctions
about sources of religious law, i.e. it wasn't concrete that
Muhammad's sunna could be used as a source of law.
Shafi was born in 204 AH (193 years after Prophet Muhammad's
death). He was the first to argue the Prophet's sunna
as a source of law, identified to authentic prophetic
hadith, and give it an equal footing to The Quran.
Different attitudes to sunna existed during Shafi, al-kalam
(a particular group or school of thought) rejected hadith
altogether in favour of The Quran alone. Shafi's view was also
oppossed early by schools of jurisprudence in Hijaz, Iraq and
Syria, who applied the term sunna to Muhammad, his
companions and the early caliphs as well.
After Shafi, it is rare to find the term sunna applied
to other than Muhammad. Al-kalam argued the sunna of
Muhammad should never be allowed to rule on The Quran and
described the science of hadith (as in the methods used
to collect hadith) as arbitrary. Evidence of this was
the hadith was filled with contradictory, blasphemous
and absurd traditions. [top]
The emergence of modern challenges to
tradition
In
the 19th century William Muir and Alloyce Sprenger were the
first Western scholars to question whether hadith
really reflected the words and deeds of the Prophet. Whether
its transmission was reliable, and whether the science of
hadith (method of collection) was valid.
In
the 18th century, because of the decay of the society around
them Muslim reformers diagnosed the problem as straying from
the original sources, The Quran and sunna (p22). Shah
Wali Allah in the 18th century stressed the need to re-examine
the hadith and sunna with respect to legal
aspects. Shawkani emphasised the trend towards increased
stringency and rigorous scholarship in hadith studies.
He was willing to reject the whole structure of classical
Islam or at least subject it to tests, including all sunna
and hadith. The rejection of much of the classical
tradition by Shawkani and the followers of Shah Wali Allah and
their use of hadith to critique this tradition
represents a significant divergence from the attitudes of
classical law schools towards the sunna. Both figures
were not alone in this view, people before and also after held
this view, they were simply the two main scholars who
approached this topic. They prepared the ground for rigorous
hadith based reform movements in the 19th and 20th
centuries (p26).
The first major challenge to sunna in the modern period
came from the great Indian modernist Sir Sayed Ahmed Khan (SAK),
who lived from 1817 to 1898. He eventually came to reject all
hadith as unreliable, however he never fully rejected
the authority of sunna. He severely curtailed its
scope, and called for new methods of evaluating it and
insisted on its subordinate (lower) position with respect to
The Quran. SAK worked on the following: a commentary on the
bible, it was an attempt to establish an Islamic framework
within which The Bible could be understood and accepted as a
product of divine revelation. In the course of this venture,
he was confronted with Western methods of Biblical criticism
about questions of inspiration and revelation which caused him
to examine his attitudes on corresponding Islamic questions.
By accepting the Christian scriptures as revealed he was faced
directly with the problem of recording the form of the
Biblical text with Muslim preconceptions about what a revealed
book should look like.
The Bible he concluded is indeed a form of revelation (wahy)
but it is not the same kind of wahy as The Quran.
Jewish and Christian scriptures differ from Quranic revelation
in just the same way as does the sunna, both contain
the meaning and the general sense of the divine message but
they cannot be considered to be the very Words of God. He
invoked the classical distinction between recited revelation
found only in The Quran and unrecited revelation found in the
sunna. He reinforced this analogy between the Christian
scripture and the sunna by an unusual application of
the terminology of "hadith criticism" to the Biblical
text. Inconsistancies and corruption of the Biblical text can
be explained and reconciled with the general revealed
character of The Bible, by distinguishing within the text
between revelation itself and explanatory notes of those who
transmitted the text. By implication then, both pre-Quranic
revelation and the sunna are less trustworthy than The
Quran and unlike The Quran were liable to corruption.
In the course of subtly undermining The Bible, in relation to
The Quran, he also widened the gap between Quran and sunna.
Muir who wrote a critique of the hadith rejecting all
of it and stating that all Islamic information should come
from The Quran alone, deeply troubled SAK. So he prepared a
rebuttle in his series of essays on the life of Muhammad and
subjects. In this work and all of his subsequent writings on
hadith he demonstrated a preoccupation with issues
raised by Muir. He defended the value of isnad
(transmission) criticism, he argued that Muir was unreasonable
in attributing bias to the early narrators of hadith
and he suggested his opponent had vastly underated the power
of memory. Despite his apologetic tone in the face of Muir's
attacks, he made a critical concession agreeing that all
traditions, even those in the 6 collections of hadith
should be subject to criticism. SAK began to regard The Quran
as the supreme standard, against which other information about
the Prophet should be tested. He came to consider only
muttawatir traditions (those transmitted by great enough
number of persons to eliminate the possibility of collusion to
deceive) to be a reliable basis of belief independent of The
Quran. Of these, he claimed to have found only 5.
In
Egypt, Muhammad Abu began to express skeptisism about the
hadith about the same time as SAK, but much more
cautiously. In the generation following SAK and Abu, another
band in the spectrum of modern approaches to prophetic
authority took shape, with the emergence of Quranic
scripturalism. They were the ahl-i-Quran (p38). They came to
view adherence to hadith as the cause of Islam's
misfortunes, this was about in 1917 (p39).
How most of the people from ahl-i-Hadith (a group who
restricted the extent of usage of the hadith), or
ahl-i-Quran came about: an ardent student of hadith
came across traditions that shocked his moral sensibilites, in
the course of trying to explain the presence of such
traditions, he digs deeper and deeper into the study of
Hadith, only to become more and more disillusioned,
concluding in the end that no hadith can be trusted.
They were concerned with the precise form of salat
(prayer/link). They established their own mosques, refusing to
pray with other Muslims and they eliminated special prayers
for the dead aswell as Eid prayers. But in most matters of
doctrine and practice, again like the ahl-i-Hadith, they did
not differ significantly from other Muslims.
Simliar arguments made a surprising appearance in Egypt in
1906, Sidqi published an article stating that Muslims should
soley rely upon The Quran. He argued that the details of
Muhammad's behaviour were not meant to be imitated in every
particular. This article caused a controversy for four years.
In Egypt anti-hadith ideas have been the province of a
small number of isolated writers and they have never found
fertile ground or developed an institutional base. Anti-hadith
views, such as those of the ahl-i-Quran and Sidqi have never
attracted a large following. In the 20th century however,
there have been a handful of important writers, most notably
Ghulam Ahmed Parwez in Pakistan and Mahmoud Abu Riah in Egypt,
who have developed sophisticated arguments to defend anti-hadith
views (p42). [top]
Boundaries of revelation
Challenges to the view of the organic relationship between The
Quran and sunna are not completely unprecedented in the
history of Islamic thought. Some of the opponents of Shafi
argued that The Quran explains everything (e.g. 16:89) and
needs no supplement, this was because one of Shafi's central
arguments was the need to clarify The Quran. This opposing
viewpoint was snuffed out after the triumph of the
traditionist view. However and it was not until the 19th and
20th centuries that the argument was seriously revived. One of
the reasons Daniel Brown gives for the defeat of the opponents
of Shafi was that they could not deny the authority of the
Prophet. If for example, you found a hadith that was
truly authentic then there is no way you can deny it because
as it states in The Quran the Prophet was a very good example.
Also, Shafi emphasised that to obey the Prophet was to obey
God. Under this pressure, the opponents of Shafi were
defeated.
Rarely does the author address how
specific arguments were defeated unfortunately, which was the
most disappointing aspect of this book.
The question arose: how is it possible to determine which
hadith were authentic and which were not?
In
the 19th and 20th centuries, increased criticism and scrutiny
by Western scholars of Islam showed Muslims that the hadith
could not stand up to the criticism, whilst The Quran could.
It made Muslims look back on the hadith and reflect
more and examine their basis and origin in Islam.
SAK stressed that The Quran stands on its own requiring only
the application of a dedicated and enlightened mind for its
understanding. For SAK, the great miracle of The Quran is its
universality. He was struck by the fact that each generation
continues to find The Quran relevant despite the constant
increase in human knowledge. Too heavy a reliance on hadith
for interpretations of The Quran puts at risk this eternal and
universal quality. Hadith based tafsir
(explanation) tends to limit the meaning of The Quran to a
particular historical situation, thus obscuring its
universality (p44).
Ahl-i-Quran held that The Quran was intended to be clear,
accessible and readily understandable.
This meant first that The Quran was self contained and must be
interpreted according to internal logic. A conviction summed
up in the proposition that The Quran ought to be interpreted
by its own verses. In otherwords no external aids are needed
for its interpretation except a sufficient command of Arabic.
The correct and only meaning of The Quran lies and is
preserved within itself and a perfect and detailed exegis of
its words is within its own pages. One part of The Quran
explains the other. It needs neither philosophy, nor wit, nor
lexicography, nor even hadith. This conviction gained
some popularity.
The pressure for reform and for revision of traditional
viewpoints thus drove a wedge between The Quran and its
traditional sunna-based interpretation.
Chakralawi dedicated his study to showing that all the details
of Islam such as the 5 pillars and specifically the prayer
method can be found in The Quran. He even demonstrated that
the 5 prayers can be found in The Quran. However, divisions
amongst the group ahl-i-Quran grew because of this. One of his
diciples Muhammad Ramadan argued that his following of 5
prayers demonstrated a continued adherence to Islam of the
hadith. Ramadan found only 3 prayers (p46).
A
recurring point made by those who advocate hadith:
Prophet Muhammad's words and conduct, the stuff of sunna,
represent an authoritative interpretation of the revealed
text. He was in the best position to interpret The Quran,
understand it and implement it. He is the practical example.
If
hadith represents wahy (revelation), argues
Parwez, then why didn't God preserve it in the same way that
He preserved The Quran? Why would He treat the two kinds of
revelation so differently? In the case of Quarinic wahy,
Muhammad went to great lengths to assure its complete and
perfect registration in writing. From beginning to end every
word was both written and committed to memory. As for the
wahy allegedly recorded in hadith it was neither
written down, nor memorised, nor systematically collected or
preserved. No steps were taken by the Prophet or by his
immediate followers to preserve the integrity of hadith.
If
the Prophet failed to have his sunna written down, it
is also evident according to the "deniers", that God did not
preserve the integrity of tradition after the time of the
Prophet. At best the collections of traditions, even Bukhari
and Muslim, are mixtures of truth and falsehood. At worst they
are riddled with blatant blasphemies and absurdities. In such
a mixture, how can one distinguish what is revelation from
what is forgery? Here again arguments discrediting the
historical authenticity of hadith mingle with
theological assumptions about the nature of revelation. In
Sidqi's words "Is it conceivable that God would have subjected
the world to something in which it is impossible for anyone to
distinguish truth and falsehood?"
According to Parwez, support for the notion that sunna
is wahy can be found neither in The Quran nor in the
earlier traditions. Moreover, since neither the Prophet, nor
his Companions, nor the early Caliphs considered anything to
be revelation except The Quran, it is evident that the
elevation of sunna to this status must have been a
creation of later Muslims. He also speculates about what
motives might have led to the establishment of this doctrine.
The problem, he argues arises from The Quran itself where some
commands are explicit while others are vague. For example, a
penalty for adultery is clearly defined, while no punishment
is laid down for consumption of alcohol: does this mean that
drinking of it is allowed? Details such as the penalty for
drinking were left to the Prophet and his successors to
establish as sunna. God's intent was to allow such
details to be changed according to circumstance. But later
Muslims were faced with a challenge from non-Muslims and from
dissenters in their own community: if commands and
prohibitions not found in The Quran are important, why did God
not establish these details Himself? And by what authority did
the Prophet enforce commands not found in The Quran? In the
face of such challenges, and afraid that anarchy would result
if the basis for law was undercut, the ulama (Muslim
scholars) adopted the idea that sunna is wahy
(divine revelation). (p54-55)
The uncertainties surrounding hadith should not be
considered an indication of weakness but a necessary test of
faith. [top]
The nature of Prophetic authority
The concept of the infallibility of the Prophet found its way
into mainstream Sunni doctrine by the 9th century CE (over 160
years after Prophet Muhammad's death), p61. Almost all
theologians agreed that Muhammad was free from error when it
came to matters of revelation, but there were disagreements to
the nature and extent of isma (infallibility) in
matters outside the sphere of revelation. Only a minority held
to a doctrine of complete immunity from error. The majority
limited isma to the period after a prophet received his
call and considered matters only directly related to the
prophetic mission to be completely guaranteed. In matters that
would not affect the prophetic mission, prophets could
conceivelably commit errors or even minor sins, although they
would remain protected against major sins. Thus the Prophet's
persona was divided into human and prophetic spheres. In his
everyday life, personal affairs, and private judgements he was
potentially fallible, hence his words and actions are not
legally binding. In his capacity as Prophet however, his words
and actions were divinely guided and represent God's Will.
Authoritative sunna must be limited to those areas of
Prophetic activity that are protected from error by God.
Sidqi offers 10 proofs that the sunna was intended only for
those who lived during the Prophet's era; some of which are:
it was not written during the time of the Prophet, the
companions made no arrangement for its preservation whether in
a book or in their memories, they did not transmit the
sunna verbatim (word for word), it was not committed to
memory as was The Quran and differences therefore developed
amongst the transmitters, if sunna had been meant for
all people it would have been carefully preserved and
circulated as widely as possible (p67).
The relationship of The Quran to sunna is like the
relationship of a constitution and its bylaws. The Quran like
a constitution provides basic unchanging principles, the
sunna represents detailed laws which are derived from
these principles and are subject to change. This theory has
two results, first without completely rejecting the efficacy
of sunna or denying the authority of the Prophet in
secular spheres, it allowed a large degree of latitude
(scope/leeway) in the interpretation of the sunna,
secondly it clearly establishes the superiority of The Quran
over the sunna.
The hadith shows that there were situations in which
the Prophet and his companions disagreed with each other and
revelation subsequently confirmed the opinion of the
companion. And also he should make decisions unrelated to
revelation in a consultative manner with his companions.
Examples in The Quran 8:67, 9:43, 66:1. If God had given
Muhammad detailed guidance on every matter why would he have
commanded him to consult with his companions? (p71) The
prophetic example offers not a set of detailed precedents but
a model of how each generation of Muslims should determine the
details of Islam for themselves, by exercising reason under
the guidance of The Quran, just like Muhammad did.
In
Islam prophecy reaches its perfection in discovering the need
for its own abolition. The system had become perfected.
Reason under the guidance of The Quran is sufficient for all
situations. Muhammad was a normal human being set apart by
only his supreme dedication to understanding, teaching and
applying the message of The Quran.
Traditionists argue the very purpose of prophecy is to provide
a practical working example out of the Quranic commands.
[top]
The authenticity of hadith
The great compilations of the hadith took place in the
3rd century AH (i.e. beginning about 189 years after Prophet
Muhammad's death, with the 6 books being complete about 280
years after his death), p83. In the eyes of most Muslim
scholars sahih (reliable/authentic) hadith could
with a high degree of confidence be considered to represent
the actual words and deeds of the Prophet. On the other hand,
few scholars would have argued the system was full proof. Any
information in the hadiths was no absolute truth, it
had to be classified as conjecture. The opponents of the
hadith at the start were a minority. It was not seriously
questioned.
Goldziher was unquestionably the most important 19th century
critic of hadith. He became the first scholar to
subject the hadith to a systematic historical and
critical method. His study was published in 1896. Joseph
Schacht "origins of Muhammadan jurisprudence" in 1950 was
published. Like Goldziher, he concluded that few, if any
traditions originated with the Prophet.
Even the Prophet recognised that there were people among his
companions or those living during his lifetime were spreading
lies about him. This is testified to in a hadith in
Bukhari (p85). There is documented evidence that the
companions disagreed with each other and criticsed each other,
for example Aisha and Ibn Abbas were reported to have
criticised Abu Hurayra. A number of companions demanded
evidence for the truth of reports passed onto them. Umar
alledgedly questioned a report from Fatima bint Qays. Umar is
also reported to have confined three companions to Medina to
keep them from spreading traditions. Abu Huyrara was only with
the Prophet for 3 years, yet he is alledged to have been the
most prolific in transmitting hadith. Biographical
literature provides ample material for criticism for Abu
Huyrara's character, Umar called Abu Huyrara a liar for
example. Aisha criticised Anas for transmitting traditions as
he was only a child during the life of the Prophet. And Hassan
called both Umar and Zubair liars.
The process of hadith transmission was primarily oral,
at least through the first century. Even after written
collections of hadith were compiled, oral transmission
remained the ideal (p88). Abu Rayya argues that the late date
when traditions began to be registered in written form more
than 100 years after the Prophet's death became a major
obstacle to the fidelity of hadith (p89). Emerged in
final form only in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Transmitted in
the oral form at least until the 2nd century. Both classical
and deniers of hadith claim this. By the time the
traditions were gathered into the collections during the 3rd
century, the corpus of hadith was damaged beyond any
reasonable hope of restoration. Parwez draws parallels between
this situation and the alledged corruption of the Gospels. If
Muslims distrust the Gospels which were recorded within a 100
years of Jesus' death, how much more should they distrust
hadith? (p90)
Those who argue that Muhammad's companions began to record
hadith in writing during his lifetime must explain the
Prophetic prohibition on writing of hadith.
Contradictions within the hadith exist regarding this
subject. (p91)
Under orders from Caliph Hisham, Shihab al-Zuhri was first
assigned to collect hadith. This tradition has commonly
been taken to mean that al-Zuhri, under duress, became the
first traditionist to violate the Prophet's prohibition on
recording hadith in writing. Al-Zuhri is reported to have
said: "We disapproved of recording knowledge until these
rulers forced us to do so. After that reason we saw no reason
to forbid the Muslims to do so." In other words, before
al-Zuhri writing was the rare exception; after him writing of
traditions became commonplace. This argument is bolstered by
numerous accounts that early generations of pious Muslims,
including not only al-Zuhri and traditionists like him but
also the first four Caliphs, strongly disapproved of writing
hadith.
The evidence strongly suggests that early generations of
Muslims did record traditions in writing, however having
reports about written records is rather different than having
the records themselves. Thus, the apparent aversion of pious
Muslims to the recording of hadith should be
interpreted as reluctance to record an official, public
collection of hadith. (p92)
Scholars agree that forgery of hadith took place on a
massive scale. The science of hadith developed
gradually as a response to this problem. The early written
compilations called suhuf were little more than random
transcriptions or personal collections. Muslim sources
identify the first systematic collection in recording of the
hadith with the Ummad Caliph Umar and with the scholars
Abu Bakr. No such collection has survived. The earliest
systematic collection is the muttawata of Mailk bin
Anas, 179 AH (168 years after Prophet Muhammad's death), p94.
Isnad (checking of transmissions) was not applied until
after the early 2nd century AH according to Schacht. The book
studies in early hadith literature stated it was
earlier than this. For middle ground see Juynboll: "Muslim
tradition". Major works of hadith (p161 footnote 70).
According to some, forgers of hadith became active even
during the lifetime of the Prophet. In the Caliphate of Umar,
the problem became so serious that he prohibited transmission
of hadith altogether. The degree of the problem that
resulted can be seen from the testimony of the muhahadithin
(those who collect hadith) themselves. Bukhari selected
9000 traditions out of 700 000 (p96). When Bukhari reports
that he selected from over 700 000 traditions, he is counting
every different transmission chain, even when the substance of
the tradition are the same (p99). The point is that hadith
criticism did not begin during the 3rd century but was
practiced continually from the time of the companions onwards
(p99). [top]
Sunna and Islamic revivalism
Aisha for example when she heard it reported that the dead
suffer because of the mourning of the relations, a tradition
which is found in numerous versions of the classical
collections retorted by citing from The Quran "no-one will
bare the burden of another", and claimed the narrators of this
hadith had misinterpreted what the Prophet said. Her
objections did not prevent the tradition from being included
in the sahih collections however. (p117)
The hadith must be analysed not only by their
transmission chain but also the content, many of the early
hadith scholars neglected this aspect. The hadith
must be understood in the light of the background and
circumstances of the occurrence. Changable elements must be
distinguished from permanent principles. Figurative meanings
and literal meanings must be recognised. Apparent and hidden
meanings must be recognised, and the meanings of the words
themselves must be thoroughly understood. You must gather all
the information: the revelation, The Quran, then look at the
hadith, and other hadith that discuss the same
topic, then they should be rated on their degree of
reliability, then rejected or not. Some hadith are only
relevant for the time and should not be applied to shariah
(Islamic Law) in the present time. These have to be
distinguished, this has mainly not been done and not been
applied today. [top]
The spectrum of change
A
Pakistani court decision made by the judge Justice Muhammad
Shafi subordinated the hadith compared to The Quran, he
stated that "When The Quran demands obedience to the Prophet
all it means is that one should be honest, steadfast, earnest,
religious and pious as he was. And not that we should think
and act as exactly as he did, because this is unatural and
humanly impossible and if we attempted to do that, life will
become absolutely difficult" (p135). He also stated "Every
believer must have the right to read and interpret The Quran
for him or herself, no interpretation can be considered
binding." He was quickly replaced due to
these comments.
It should be remembered that the main aim of "traditionists"
as well as "deniers" of hadith is to please God. The
approaches differ, but they essentially have the same goal in
the end. [top]
Comments & Questions are always welcome by email: 786kas @
lineone . net (no spaces)
