Hadith and Sunnah - a comment

[External Content]

Hadith and Sunnah - a comment

Posted by Felicity at Thursday, January 31, 2013
http://religionofthought.blogspot.co.uk/


I wrote this in response to a question posed to me in the comment section of a Facebook post by a friend. The post was of a video of Dr. Israr condemning the celebration of Eid Milad un Nabi as  an unlawful bid3at based on the fact that the Prophet (sw) never enjoined it's celebration. While I respect Dr. Israr, I found his view disagreeable, as well as his projection of the jihad from the heart against such acts of bid3at as hatred. My response elicited the question of what I see to be the role of the Hadith and the Sihah Sitta in deen.

When my response began to look like a book report, I chose to post it here...

My perspective on the Hadith and Sihaah Sitta is that these should be used as references if and when a subject in the Quran requires elaboration, but when the text is self-explanatory, the Quran should suffice.

The Hadith are believed to be a record of the sayings and Sunnah of the Prophet. What they really are is in fact a record of memories of people and their anecdotes regarding the Prophet and other events and persons from times past his lifetime. Most of these records were not documented in writing until almost a century after the Prophet's death, except for the narrations of Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al Aas, who, it is claimed, wrote his recordings with the permission of the Prophet himself during his lifetime. Setting aside concerns regarding the accuracy of the process of collection and compilation, it must be noted that there is, unfortunately, no evidence or suggestion that while the Prophet gave his permission, that he ever reviewed what was recorded by Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al Aas. This does not mean that we discount his recordings or any of the others simply because they are memories or because they have not been verified by the Prophet. They may well be true. However, from what I have been able to gather from what I have read in the Quran so far, any testimony regarding the Prophet, for that's what the Hadith are, must be subject to the same treatment as testimony regarding any other person, especially when considering their use to determine what is or isn't religiously lawful. This would mean that for a testimony to render legal use, it would require the witness(es) to take an oath (5:106, 24:6-9 and 3:61, which refers to testimony regarding what is truly the word of God). Such an oath would be required of each witness in the relay-chain of a Hadith, and unfortunately there is no evidence or suggestion that any of those who relayed the Hadith or were witness to them took such an oath. Thus, while the testimonies may be true, without an oath they cannot be deemed sufficient for the purpose of lawmaking or passing judgment.

The methodology employed to prove the authenticity or trustworthiness of a Hadith for the purposes of lawmaking involves placing blind faith in the character and trustworthiness of the narrators - this assignment of trustworthiness appear to be fairly arbitrary and varies between the Shia and Sunni sects - and then corroborating the account with verses from the Quran; in essence, using the Quran as a witness to the testimony - using the Word of God to bear witness to the trustworthiness of a testimony relayed years after the Quran was revealed. Regardless of ones faith in this process or the witnesses, it stands that the testimonies were relayed without oaths, which, if I understand the Quran right, I believe renders them unusable as the premise for religious law.

Moreover, the Hadith, while covering a variety of subjects, are not comprehensively all inclusive. A recording of the Prophet's words or his demonstration of an injunction of Allah could be just an example, one instance, of several possible answers or ways to accomplish the same thing... We don't know how many instances were forgotten, were never recorded or never passed down. So we cannot definitively say that because a certain action was never recorded it is not allowed, or if a certain action was recorded then that is the only way.

The Hadith of Allah however is comprehensive and complete, or so we believe. We believe the Quran was relayed to us by the Rasool exactly as he received it. We believe this because the Quran claims it to be so, saying that the Prophet was under oath to convey the message in it's true form. Now some might say, if I doubt the process of collection and the memories of people than I must doubt the Quran for it was compiled in a very similar manner to the Hadith collection, following the Prophet's death from the memories of men. To that I would say that I believe that this is an argument invented to coerce and blackmail people into blindly placing their faith on the Hadith, for the source of this information - that the Quran was compiled after the death of the Prophet - is the Hadith and those Hadith offer varying accounts and discrepancies regarding when this actually occurred. There are verses in the Quran that convince me that the Quran existed as a written compilation even as it continued to be revealed (52:2-3 and 80:11-16). I also find it difficult to believe that when God refers to the Quran as a "book" and in that Book He prescribes the writing of a Will to ensure that even in death a person is not devoid of his responsibilities (2:180), that He would allow the Prophet to leave without ensuring that the complete Message was compiled so it could be transmitted in its entirety accurately from generation to generation and to other parts of the world, given that the Message was not intended for a people of a particular time or locality, but for all of humanity - as if it were sufficient for people to only know or remember parts of the Quran and they could refer to each other for the parts they did not know, expecting that they would be around forever.

The Quran was the primary message delivered by the Messenger of Allah and hence should be the primary source source for determining what is and isn't lawful.  While I don't think many would dispute that, I think there is a prevailing assumption that the Quran requires further explanation and support from supplementary sources to be completely understood. I believe that the Quran (in verses 7:52 and11:1, 27:1, 38:29, 39:23 and 41:3) makes clear that it explains everything in detail and those who wish to understand it will find their guidance therein. To rely on another source before or alongside the Quran might be akin to suggesting that contrary to the Quran's claim (19:97, 44:58, 54:17, 54:22, 54:32), the message of Allah is in fact not easy to understand. To this end I have heard the argument that the Classical Arabic of the Quran is too difficult to be understood today as the language has evolved tremendously in 1400 years, and this adds to the difficulties faced by non-native Arabic speakers who must then rely on outside sources to understand a book that may indeed have been easy to understand for the Arabic speakers of that time. But then, the Arabic of the Hadith would technically need to be of the same era and just as difficult to understand. However, there doesn't appear to be as much resistance or hesitation regarding them.

In truth, and and as a manifestation of Allah's Power and Infinite Wisdom on ensuring that it is never too difficult to comprehend His Message, it turns out that Arabic is evolutionarily a very conservative language. James A Bellamy writes that the language of a pre-Islamic 5th century inscription (no. 8 from the slideshow menu) is closer to modern Arabic than the language of Shakespeare is to modern English (from Islamic-awareness.com)

The conservative evolution of Arabic over 1400 years and more means that the message is better preserved and remains accessible to todays population. With the growing number of resources available on the ever-accessible and faster Internet that can translate and explain the Arabic language and it's grammar for free and without the need to visit special libraries for resources, it is becoming increasingly more convenient and less difficult to decipher the language of the Quran.

What is perhaps most frustrating is that most claims about the difficulty of understanding the Quran's language are usually made without an honest attempt at reading the Book in a language that one may understand, likely because of the traditional discouragement towards making such personal attempts, which it is feared may result in a misunderstanding of the message... although one is encouraged to "recite" in the language they do not understand all they want. One cannot expect to understand a book or its subject matter simply by reading all the reviews, opinions and book reports on it and skimming over some excerpts. It could be that it is the various commentaries that produce the confusion and difficulties in comprehending the book and its message. Hence, the main source should be studied first or at least it should be the primary focal point, and everything else should be treated as supplemental. The Hadith in my opinion, would be supplemental to the study of the Quran and the determination of Islamic law.


Now I understand that the Quran, for instance, while ordaining Salah does not explain how to perform it step by step as it does the Wudhu. However it does set the following parameters about what Salat entails:

1. Remembrance 20:14 - (54:17, 22, 32, 40 show that Quran is for remembrance) 29:45, also reiterates that reciting Quran = establishing prayer = rememberance of Allah
2. Glorification 24:36, 33:42
3. For Allah 6:162
4. Seeking forgiveness for sin and exalting God 40:55
5. Standing 3:39, 4:102, 52:48, 26:219, 73:2, 20 (although this standing for prayer may be an expression and not literal)
6. Bowing 2:125, 9:122, 48.29
7. Prostration 4:102, 7:206, 15:98, 26:219, 50:40, 76:26
8. Specified times 4;103, 20:130 before sunrise (fajr) before sunset (asr) hours of the night (isha) ends/extremities of the day (at its zenith - zuhr, and when it is ending with the sun just below the horizon - Maghreb), 30:17-18
9. Orientation/ facing a particular direction 2:144, 2:149-150, 7:29

Because of the manner in which this information is relayed, it is not obvious that all of these are requisite for prayer and must be included in the salat, except where it is stated that the salat is meant for remembrance and where prostration is indicated as being part of the Salah. The Hadith would demonstrate how to pray within these parameters, although from what I understand, there are no hadith that specifically describe the prayer process even if there are references to certain postures held during Salah. Even so, had there been one or more recorded testimonies describing in detail the Prophet praying from beginning to end, it would only serve as an example of how these parameters can be met while praying; and while one may prefer to pray in the manner of that example because he desires to be like the Prophet, the example cannot be used to establish rules regarding prayer, simply because the Hadith is not verified by an oath, even if it is believed to be true and the chain of transmittance is trusted. Moreover, if a Hadith claims that the Prophet engaged in a ritual during prayer that challenges or goes against any of these parameters, then that testimony would need to be investigated and challenged, much like a law or a bill would be challenged if it went against the constitution.

The Wudhu is different (the term Wudhu does not exist in the Quran but that is of little significance) in that the steps, and in fact, the areas to be cleansed and how they are to be cleansed are explained. The text is self-explanatory and thus does not require supplemental material. However if a Hadith claims that the Prophet engaged in additional steps during Wudhu, so long as they do not counter or exclude the step laid out in the Quran, the Hadith may be followed. However, those additional steps may not be turned into requisites and added to the requisites laid out in the Quran.


My contention was chiefly that often times even when an explanation isn't necessary, the Hadith are primordially resorted to by scholars and clerics instead of what should be their principal source, the Quran. Using the Hadith as the primordial source tends to create rules where there are none. Is it that we feel that God did not establish sufficient rules for us? The parameters established by God in the Quran are sufficient. As long as a ritual does not transgress those parameters, there is no harm in it. But to outlaw something that the Quran did not outlaw, or to make compulsory something the Quran never enjoined, would be to transgress those parameters.

I would like to clarify, in case my writing created a different impression, that I am not at all dismissive of the Hadith. I do believe that some or most of the transmissions may in fact be true. However, they are not all-encompassing of everything the Prophet said or did during his lifetime as the Messenger of Allah and because there may be so much that is not documented, they cannot be use to conclusively establish or promulgate religious law; plus they were not transmitted under oath. Therefore, I believe they can only be used as supplemental reference but cannot employed in determining religious law or for the purposes of passing judgment on people or their actions.


And follow that which is revealed to you from your lord. Indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, acquainted. (33:2)

And rely upon Allah; and sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs. (33:3)