Saturday 7 January 2012

Qur'an vs Hadith

Say: "Allah's guidance is the (only) guidance and we have been directed to submit ourselves to the Lord of the worlds." Q. 6:71 


The Science of Hadith

For a Muslim, the prophetic Hadith is the secondary document after the Qur’an. However, the majority of Muslims have little or no background knowledge of the historical facts behind the compilation of the corpus of Hadith and will be more inclined to focus on the matn (content of narrative). It is not an easy task even for learned scholars to establish how reliable were these chains of narrators and/or compilers.  

The word "hadith" literally means; "a saying", "a report", "an account". Within Islamic circles and literature, the term is used to identify a text that is related to a "re-narrated" saying or account of deeds or approval by the Prophet. However, if one was to review the physical process involved in the collection and compilation of these texts, one realizes that these "reported" texts have gone through a process of several "re-narrated" verbal transmissions involving a chain of narrators covering six or more generations. Some of these narrators were reliable and unfailing in their verbal reports and others were not. Often, if the narrator was known as "a man of faith", then it was believed that he could not utter a lie, and this was an essential criterion used by a compiler.

Often the revealed verses of the Qur'an and the reported versions of hadiths are quoted on the internet concurrently or simultaneously. Internet surfers are not necessarily educated to know that these two separate "texts" are independent of one another. To define "hadith" as "the literal or precise verbatim of the factual sayings, deeds or approvals of the Prophet of Islam (peace and blessings of Allah be upon all Prophets and their true companions)", could be technically inaccurate and in some instances fundamentally wrong. The numerous and complex classifications of hadiths organize them into categories ranging from authentic to deliberate falsehood.

Today the corpus of Hadith is to be found far from its original home and context. Hadiths were originally part of the oral tradition of Islam, but after two hundred years of transmission and circulation, they were crystallized into written form.

To understand the background to the development of Hadith literature one must sift through the history of Islam from about 250 years after the time of our Prophet… during the first century of the Prophet's era no hadiths were written down… Stories circulated by word of mouth but they were never written down because the view was well known that the Prophet and the companions did not want anything of the kind to be done, and so there was a very strong feeling against the writing of any sort of 'Hadith' literature.

The so-called 'Science of isnad' -- touchstone of a hadith's authenticity -- has tremendous flaws in it. How, then, can we go on giving credence to something that was not written down and yet which, some 250 years after the fact, Bukhari supposedly managed to trace back to its source (i.e. the Prophet) by establishing all the links in a chain which cannot possibly have been genuinely reconstructed! How he (Bukhari) managed to do this without written records, bridging a gap of about eight generations, and simultaneously establishing not only biographical data but also a compelling analysis of the mental faculties of his subjects defies belief! One can quote several hundred hadiths that not only contradict the Qur’an but also clearly do damage to the Prophet's good name.

Did Prophet commend the writing of his “sayings”?

There was a lapse of nearly two centuries from the year of the death of the Prophet to the time when most of the hadiths were compiled. This time factor alone is enough to make one question the accuracy of the written hadiths. But why were hadiths not written down during the Prophet's time, or by his followers? Perhaps it was due to the Prophet's command to efface the texts of his sayings, which was reaffirmed and reenacted by Caliph Mu'awiyah, some thirty years or so after the death of the Prophet. This was when his attention to the Prophet's command was directed by Zayd ibn Thabit - the Prophet's closet scribe and secretary.

Here is the text that has been recorded in the Sunan of Abu-Dawood under Hadith No. 1635 (3640): 
Al-Muttalib ibn Abdullah ibn Hantab said:
   "Zayd ibn Thabit entered upon Mu'awiyah and asked him about a tradition. He ordered a man to write it. Zayd said: The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) ordered us not to write any of his traditions. So he erased it."
And another :
Abu Saeed al-Khudri said,
   "We exerted our best to get the Messenger of Allah to allow us to write his hadith but he refused." (This was recorded by al-Baghdadi in Taqyid.)
 It is an accepted traditional norm to classify the narrators upon the basis of their direct and personal contact with the Prophet or upon the basis of their direct and personal contact with someone who had direct contact with the Prophet. Within the revealed verses of the Qur’an, 9:43-50, Allah has given us an eye-opening example from which we must learn two most important lessons:

  1. The Prophet himself could not discern amongst his own people, amongst the people who were living in the same period in the history, or amongst those who had personally met and spoken with him, those who were sincere and those who were "the liars".
  2. There were limitations to the knowledge of the Prophet. Events that took place around him and in his own time were unknown to him. So, the Prophet cannot necessarily speak of the past, let alone of the future, unless Allah revealed it to him.
It is an undisputed fact that the compilers of the Hadith did reject a large majority of narrations (the figure runs in hundreds of thousands) as being invented, fabricated, faulty or too weak to be recorded. There are many reasons or circumstances for these superfluities.


The Recording of the Qur’an – a Striking Contrast
 
In contrast to the uncertainty surrounding the recording of hadiths, the Prophet not only permitted the recording of the revealed verses of the Qur'an but also personally dictated the revealed texts to scribes who were good in the art of calligraphy. The "pre-recorded" verses of the Revealed Texts (the Qur'an) were collected by the first Caliph of Islam - Abu Bakr, who died within two years of the death of the Prophet. The final compilation of these pre-recorded verses and the making of a definitive canon was undertaken by a commission appointed by the third Caliph Uthman ibn 'Affan. A well-known scribe named Zayd ibn Thabit headed this formal commission. Within twenty-three years of the death of the Prophet, copies made from the definitive canon established by the Commission and approved by the Caliph were distributed to various Islamic centers. One such is preserved in the former Soviet Union. Allah Himself has undertaken to safeguard the revealed verses of the Glorious Qur'an:
Is this not what the Prophet practiced and preached?
“Verily, We, it is We who have sent down the Qur’an and assuredly, We will guard it (from corruption).” Q. 15:9
Conclusion

The verses of hadiths have no such assurance, neither from Allah nor from the Prophet. In fact the Collection of Hadith has not been safeguarded. Perhaps the Muslims, with their different sects and factions, could be better united by upholding the Qur'an first and foremost:
And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allah, and be not divided among yourselves. And remember with gratitude Allah's favour on you; for you were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that you become as brothers by His grace... Q. 3:103 




Sahih Al-Bukhari -- Why was it chosen?

Watch this YouTube Video. Read the Note by publisher of Sahih Al-Bukhari Arabic-English Version. The translator gets a duly stamped letter from the Prophet in his dream and that motivates the translation and compilation. Also read the Revealed Word of Allah to mankind and the commentary by Yusuf Ali.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIsqozIvW5c

One may wonder why some so-called scholars uphold Sahih Al-Bukhari, a book of compiled ahadith. Inside Sahih Al-Bukhari english translation, signed and authorized by Abdul Malik Mujahid from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, one can read a peculiar story of a man named Dr. Muhammad Muhsin.

Dr. Muhammad Muhsin was a physician who worked in England and later moved to Al-Madina. He had a dream in which he was drinking the Prophet Muhammad's sweat until his thirst was quenched, and the Prophet stamped papers in his hand. He asked some religious scholars the meaning of the dream, and they told him he would narrate ahadith. Interestingly, he chose the book of Al-Bukhari, and began translating it into English.

My comment: If this is the basis on why we uphold and follow Bukhari, don't you think it sounds just a little ludicrous?

On what basis did he choose Al-Bukhari's work?

Imam Bukhari was born nearly 200 years after the Prophet, at a time when the Muslims upheld only one religious document, the Qur'an. Everything else was heresay. Imam Bukhari is said to have collected and memorized over 300,000 ahadith from the lips of others, in which some 200,000 were unreliable. One may wonder if he had first and foremost memorized the Quran. Sahih Al-Bukhari goes on to say, "He was born at a time when Hadith was being forged either to please rulers or kings or to corrupt the religion of Islam." Out of those ahadith, he chose 7,275 with repetion, and about 2,230 without repetition. It also claims that many religious scholars of Islam tried to find fault in his collection, Sahih Al-Bukhari, but failed. One may wonder who these scholars are, and what their arguments were. All of this was said by Dr.Muhammad Muhsin, who apparently studied at the Islamic University at Al-Madina in Saudi Arabia.

Perhaps this is why Sahih Al-Bukhari is put on such a pedestal. One may wonder if today's modern scholars know of this, or do they blindly follow a dogma that has simply been passed down from generations? Dogma is defined as "a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof." Does this not sound like the propagation of Sahih Al-Bukhari, or the story of Muhammad Muhsin?


Should our scholars not study this document with more scrutiny?