Dear Reader,
Salamun Alaikum.
Thank you for your recommendations and comments. They are truly appreciated.
With regards Islamic secondary soures, I feel that my position is actually more nuanced then you may seem to be inferring. Much of my own study has been focused with Islamic secondary sources and no doubt it is in important area to scrutinise and appreciate.
I have even captured these sentiments in my writings.
I write in the following article:
http://quransmessage.com/articles/hadith%20FM2.htm"Both the Sunna (practice) and the Ahadith along with all other Islamic secondary sources must only be understood and appreciated in the light of the Quran and not vice versa. The Quran must remain the first principle, the ultimate filtering point, the supreme authority and the final judge between what is right and what is wrong. It is the ultimate source of interpretation, guidance and the perfect criterion. Anything which runs contrary to the teachings of the Quran, its own theology or wisdom must be instantly rejected.
However, it is also unreasonable to suggest complete corruption of the Islamic secondary sources. Classical scholars should be fully appreciated in the endeavours they have made to pass on their efforts to succeeding generations of Muslims. However, it is also a mistake to consider them as 'authorities' in such a way that their works become the source of guidance themselves and beyond reproach. Classical or modern works should always be understood, appreciated and critically evaluated in the light of the Quran."I also quote the sentiments of another scholar who I feel resonates my own views on the Ahadith corpus:
"It would, therefore, be improper to ignore or underestimate the significance of the Ahadith literature as a historical source even if its authenticity may appeal doubtful. The modern Occidentalists are of the opinion that in spite of the fact that Apocrypha are of doubtful authenticity, we can still peep through them into the social life and behaviour of their fabricators, hence their significance as a source of history should not be denied. Similarly, even such portions of the hadith material as have been declared fake, unauthentic and of doubtful nature, contain most valuable hints regarding one or the other aspect of the early Islamic society" [1]
Many Ahadith reports, irrespective of their authenticity contain wisdom, exquisite narratives and in keeping with the teachings of the Quran. However, their agreeable content does amount to prima facie evidence, that they were actually said by the Prophet.
However the focal consideration for me is
not the question of
authenticity of the Islamic Secondary Source literature. In my humble opinion, the question of 'authenticity' of the Ahadith corpus is relatively mute from a Quran's perspective. Rather, a more pertinent question for me is the question of
'authority'. Does the Quran recognise any other
authoritative source except for itself as Divinely ordained 'religion'? I find that no one has cogently ever proven this to be the case.
From my own ardent research,
I find the Quran gives absolutely no such authority to any other source. The Quran stands alone for sole
'religious' guidance as ordained by God.
006.114 "Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than God? - when He it is Who has revealed to you the Book, explained in detail (Arabic: Mufassalan)". They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it has been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt"045:006 "These are verses of God (Arabic: ayat-ullah) that We recite to you with truth. Then, in what HADITH (Arabic word: Hadithin) after God and His verses (Arabic: Ayati) do they believe?"I hope that this helps clarify my position with the Islamic secondary sources.
Your brother,
Joseph.
REFERENCES[1] SINGH. N.K, Encyclopaedia Historiography of the Muslim World, Global Vision Publishing House, First Edition 2003, Page 319