By Muhammad Asadi
The Quran and the History of Religion
"Humankind were one community, then God sent prophets as bearers of good news and as warners and revealed with them the Book with the truth that it [the Book] might judge between humankind concerning that in which they differed. And only those to whom the book was given differed concerning it, after clear proofs had been given them, through mutual hatred and rivalry." (Noble Quran 2:213)
Muslims have fallen victim to inventions against the word of God, the Quran. These inventions have distorted the way that God sent down via all the prophets. The message that God has been sending down has been the same throughout history .. Even though the Quran says in well over 15 places, that it is explained in detail (Verses 6:114 etc.) and contains a full explanation of whatever is needed by a believer (Verse 16:89) and should be enough, Kaafi, for them (Verse 29:51), and contains the complete law of God (Verse 45:18 and 42:13), as against man-made law or Shariah (Koran 42:21), "Muslims" insist that the Koran needs supplements to be understood, and lacks details. This amounts to disbelieving what God himself says in unequivocal terms in the Quran.
"Humankind were one community, then God sent prophets as bearers of good news and as warners and revealed with them the Book with the truth that it [the Book] might judge between humankind concerning that in which they differed. And only those to whom the book was given differed concerning it, after clear proofs had been given them, through mutual hatred and rivalry." (Noble Quran 2:213)
Muslims have fallen victim to inventions against the word of God, the Quran. These inventions have distorted the way that God sent down via all the prophets. The message that God has been sending down has been the same throughout history .. Even though the Quran says in well over 15 places, that it is explained in detail (Verses 6:114 etc.) and contains a full explanation of whatever is needed by a believer (Verse 16:89) and should be enough, Kaafi, for them (Verse 29:51), and contains the complete law of God (Verse 45:18 and 42:13), as against man-made law or Shariah (Koran 42:21), "Muslims" insist that the Koran needs supplements to be understood, and lacks details. This amounts to disbelieving what God himself says in unequivocal terms in the Quran.
The Quran and the Hadith
The Quran states explicitly that the messenger's duty was only to convey (Balagh) the message (Verse 29:18) contained in the Quran (Verse 69:44) and that the Quran was the only Wahi (revelation) given to the Prophet (S) to be conveyed to people (Verse 6:19) by testimony of God Himself. Therefore to follow the words of God in the Quran would be to follow the Messenger. Thus following God is the same as following the Messenger, who only conveyed the Quran (see Verse 4:80)
The inventions against the true words of God revealed to the messengers are the so called "Hadith" (stories about the sayings and doings of the prophets) as narrated by the writers of the Old Testament, the Gospels of Jesus (i.e. the "Hadith" about Jesus), and the various Hadith about Prophet Muhammed contained in the many "extra-Qoranic" books believed in by the Sunni and Shiia schools of thought. People have attributed these things throughout history to the messengers, whereas the messengers could never have said them given the history of the documents and the Criterion (Furqaan) of the Quran (Verse 2:185)
The Quran states explicitly that the messenger's duty was only to convey (Balagh) the message (Verse 29:18) contained in the Quran (Verse 69:44) and that the Quran was the only Wahi (revelation) given to the Prophet (S) to be conveyed to people (Verse 6:19) by testimony of God Himself. Therefore to follow the words of God in the Quran would be to follow the Messenger. Thus following God is the same as following the Messenger, who only conveyed the Quran (see Verse 4:80)
The inventions against the true words of God revealed to the messengers are the so called "Hadith" (stories about the sayings and doings of the prophets) as narrated by the writers of the Old Testament, the Gospels of Jesus (i.e. the "Hadith" about Jesus), and the various Hadith about Prophet Muhammed contained in the many "extra-Qoranic" books believed in by the Sunni and Shiia schools of thought. People have attributed these things throughout history to the messengers, whereas the messengers could never have said them given the history of the documents and the Criterion (Furqaan) of the Quran (Verse 2:185)
The Quran states:
"Do they not consider the Quran with care, If it had been from anyone other than Allah, it would contain many discrepancies" (4:82).
"Do they not consider the Quran with care, If it had been from anyone other than Allah, it would contain many discrepancies" (4:82).
Any document that claims to be from God but in actuality is not would contain some form of error. What we see on analysis is that the Hadith attributed to Prophet Muhammad and the Gospels attributed to Jesus fail this test of authenticity. What we also see is the subjectivity of the various Muslims groups. They reject the Gospels of Jesus based on the same test as being corrupt whereas similar defects found in the books of Hadith are overlooked by them and they accept them as being authentic sayings of Muhammed. Let us have a look at the books of Hadith:
Hadith are the various traditions contained in specific books, believed in by the majority of Muslims to be the sayings of the Prophet Muhammed (S). These are extra-Quranic, i.e. from outside the Qoran. They either contradict or add to the Quran. Muslims often present them as an explanation of the Quran or as an integral part of Islamic law, even though the Quran does not confirm them.
Hadith are the various traditions contained in specific books, believed in by the majority of Muslims to be the sayings of the Prophet Muhammed (S). These are extra-Quranic, i.e. from outside the Qoran. They either contradict or add to the Quran. Muslims often present them as an explanation of the Quran or as an integral part of Islamic law, even though the Quran does not confirm them.
A minority among the Muslims does not accept the various books of Hadith as being an accurate representation of what the Prophet Muhammed said. They take the Quran as Criterion (Furqaan) according to the Quran's own assertion (Verse 2:185), accepting only those Hadith [tradition or narration attributed to the Prophet] which the Koran confirms and attests in totality. I represent that view in this paper. Opposition to the Hadith and the whole body of extra-Quranic literature as doctrine, has existed from the early days of Islam. This is well documented by Shafi (died 204AH/ 819AD).
The Quran historically predates any written Hadith and there is no mention of Hadith or the Sunnah of the Prophet in what we possess as writings before the third century after the Prophet. Quran and rationality based on its principles formed the basis of religion for first century Muslims. Thus contrary to being an innovation, following the Quran alone is historically the original Islam and hadith, and other extra-Quranic literature is the innovation introduced in its written form in the 3rd century after the Prophet.
The Quran historically predates any written Hadith and there is no mention of Hadith or the Sunnah of the Prophet in what we possess as writings before the third century after the Prophet. Quran and rationality based on its principles formed the basis of religion for first century Muslims. Thus contrary to being an innovation, following the Quran alone is historically the original Islam and hadith, and other extra-Quranic literature is the innovation introduced in its written form in the 3rd century after the Prophet.
The Hadith and the Gospels
The various books of Hadith that we see in Muslim society today are the same in relation to Prophet Muhammed as the gospels are to Prophet Jesus. They are both similar in that both were complied centuries later [unlike the Koran which was memorized and written down at the time of its revelation] and they both present no proof of authenticity [unlike the Koran in which numerous verses say: "In this is a sign (or proof)" and then asks you to refute it]. Therefore, objectively speaking, both the Hadith and the gospels do not present any evidence as to be considered a 100% reliable representation of the words of the Prophets, Muhammad and Jesus. Modern scholarship of both the gospels and the Hadith finds them an unreliable representation of the words of the prophets or even their close companions.
Professor Schacht .. did not believe that the Hadith or the concept of "Sunna of the Prophet" were part of first century Islam. Shafi [150-204/767-819] introduced them, at the earliest, nearly two hundred years after the death of the Prophet. The Quran states exactly the same. The Quran was the only "Hadith" that was conveyed by the Prophet and formed the guidance for the early Muslim community.
The various books of Hadith that we see in Muslim society today are the same in relation to Prophet Muhammed as the gospels are to Prophet Jesus. They are both similar in that both were complied centuries later [unlike the Koran which was memorized and written down at the time of its revelation] and they both present no proof of authenticity [unlike the Koran in which numerous verses say: "In this is a sign (or proof)" and then asks you to refute it]. Therefore, objectively speaking, both the Hadith and the gospels do not present any evidence as to be considered a 100% reliable representation of the words of the Prophets, Muhammad and Jesus. Modern scholarship of both the gospels and the Hadith finds them an unreliable representation of the words of the prophets or even their close companions.
Professor Schacht .. did not believe that the Hadith or the concept of "Sunna of the Prophet" were part of first century Islam. Shafi [150-204/767-819] introduced them, at the earliest, nearly two hundred years after the death of the Prophet. The Quran states exactly the same. The Quran was the only "Hadith" that was conveyed by the Prophet and formed the guidance for the early Muslim community.
Most Muslims who have taken on themselves the responsibility of teaching Islam to others have themselves abandoned the Quran by upholding Hadith. They say without hesitation: "The majority of Shariah (Law) in Islam is contained outside the Quran, in books of Hadith and fiqh." Such a saying is a direct attack on the validity of the Quran which claims to contain the complete Islamic law from God. We need to ask ourselves, what kind of submission is this when you are rejecting God's words to follow your traditions.
"...If any do fail to judge by what Allah(God) has sent down (i.e the Quran), they are unbelievers (Kaafiroon)." (Verse 5:45).
"...If any do fail to judge by that which Allah has sent down, they are tyrants (dhilamoon)." (Verse 5:45)
"...If any do fail to judge by that which Allah has sent down, such are evil-livers (fasikoon)." (Verse 5:47)
The Quran reports that the messenger himself will complain to God about his so called followers abandoning the Quran:
"And the messenger says,"O my Lord, my OWN people have forsaken the Quran." (Quran 25:30)
"...If any do fail to judge by what Allah(God) has sent down (i.e the Quran), they are unbelievers (Kaafiroon)." (Verse 5:45).
"...If any do fail to judge by that which Allah has sent down, they are tyrants (dhilamoon)." (Verse 5:45)
"...If any do fail to judge by that which Allah has sent down, such are evil-livers (fasikoon)." (Verse 5:47)
The Quran reports that the messenger himself will complain to God about his so called followers abandoning the Quran:
"And the messenger says,"O my Lord, my OWN people have forsaken the Quran." (Quran 25:30)
Those Muslims who claim to believe in the Hadith need to be objective and not subjective. They should, as concern for truth demands not change standards while evaluating phenomena. If they reject the Gospels as being contradictions etc. (and they almost all do), then they should also reject the Hadith on the same criteria. Hadith has the same problems of authenticity as the gospels do. Hadith do not represent the words of Muhammed just like the gospels don't represent the words of Jesus.
Both the Hadith and the Gospels are based on oral traditions that were written down, in the written form that we have today, centuries after the prophets, Muhammed and Jesus. In recalling events, a gap of even a year can be distorted by memory beyond recognition. When the gap is of more than a hundred years, and you're narrating something to support a point of view [the Ahl-al Kalam and Mutizila, against the Ahl al Hadith in early Islam or the Judeo Christians against the Pauline Christians in early Christianity], your own as against conflicting points of view, the distortions are immense. Since history shows that eventually the followers of the Hadith and the followers of Pauline Christianity, politically dominated the scene both the teachings of Muhammed and Jesus got distorted. Modern scholarship recognizes this. Except for the QURAN, we have NO reliable historical record of the message that Prophet Muhammed conveyed.
The Noble Quran captures the similarity of what has happened in the case of both Jesus and Muhammed in this statement:
"Is not the time ripe for the hearts of those who believe to submit to Allah's reminder and to the truth which is revealed, that they become not as those who received the scripture of old but the term was prolonged for them and so their hearts were hardened, and many of them are evil-livers." (57:16).
"Is not the time ripe for the hearts of those who believe to submit to Allah's reminder and to the truth which is revealed, that they become not as those who received the scripture of old but the term was prolonged for them and so their hearts were hardened, and many of them are evil-livers." (57:16).
"Science of Hadith"
Hadith believing Muslims make big claims on the so-called scientific compilation of Hadith. Let it be clear however, that no matter how "scientific" you are in your compilation of what is false to start with, the compilation cannot make it true. Even the criteria that is presented are un-objective, i.e. the truthfulness of a particular narrator with a story of how truthful he was. To repeat, falsehood is not converted to truth by its "scientific" compilation.
The scientific method demands that "subjective" proof (i.e. how truthful a person was) be ignored and the item tested on objective criteria. What does the content say?
The scientific method demands that "subjective" proof (i.e. how truthful a person was) be ignored and the item tested on objective criteria. What does the content say?
The Dilemma
Hadith doctors have traditionally evaluated Hadith on its chain of narrators and its body text, according to their own criteria of what should be correct. However even according to their own standards, they fell into a dilemma. Some Hadith exist which have according to them a "sound" chain of narrators but they dispute the text of the Hadith. One example of this and their whole system collapses. The Quran gives us the standard for judging anything that is presented. If the Quran confirms it in total, its true. If the material adds to or contradicts the Quran, its source is not God nor His messenger.
Hadith doctors have traditionally evaluated Hadith on its chain of narrators and its body text, according to their own criteria of what should be correct. However even according to their own standards, they fell into a dilemma. Some Hadith exist which have according to them a "sound" chain of narrators but they dispute the text of the Hadith. One example of this and their whole system collapses. The Quran gives us the standard for judging anything that is presented. If the Quran confirms it in total, its true. If the material adds to or contradicts the Quran, its source is not God nor His messenger.
To read the history of Hadith compilation and the verdict of the Noble Quran, continue reading at MUSLIM VILLA.
Comments