Islamic
Law and
the Use and Abuse of Hadith
the Use and Abuse of Hadith
Dr.
Mohammad Omar Farooq
Associate Professor of Economics and Finance
Upper Iowa University
Associate Professor of Economics and Finance
Upper Iowa University
[Draft;
feedback welcome: June 2006;
Also, the readers are strongly recommended to read my essayShari'ah, Laws and Islam: Legalism vs. Value-orientation before this one.]
Also, the readers are strongly recommended to read my essayShari'ah, Laws and Islam: Legalism vs. Value-orientation before this one.]
***********************************************************************************************
The Qur’an is the fountain source of Islam. Essential principles, values and norms as well as a few – just a few legal matters – are from the Qur’an. Indeed, once we understand the importance of value-orientation, instead of legalism, as explained in the essay on Shariah,1 it should be clear that such essential principles, values and norms should be directly derived from the Qur’an. Muslims do not have any dispute about the Qur'an, as it is accepted by them as the only preserved and direct revelation from Allah. Such agreement does not exist about hadith.
At
one extreme is the orthodox position, which holds that the Qur'an and
hadith are two complementary primary sources of Islamic guidance.
There might be problems with hadith as a body of information, with
the way it was collected and compiled. However, hadith scholars have
been successfully able to separate the presumably authentic (sahih)
ones from the ones that are not. Despite any remaining problems,
hadith is an indispensable and generally reliable foundational source
of Islam. Some hadith collections as a whole are regarded as
generally authentic (sahih),
while many other collections are also recognized as sources
containing additional authentic hadith, mixed with weak (da'if)
or even spurious (maudu)
hadith. The vast and comprehensive body of Islamic laws (fiqh)
critically rests on the hadith literature. Islamic scholars,
including the experts in hadith, have gone to a great extent to
defend the sanctity of hadith literature and utilize it not just to
expound Islamic knowledge, but also to formulate Islamic codes and
laws pertaining to the entire gamut of life.
In
the preface of his book A Treasury of Ahadith, Dr. Mazhar Kazi,
states that "all the sayings, sermons, and utterances of the
Prophet were.. divinely inspired. ... all
of the actions and deeds of the Prophet were also divinely
inspired."2
His articulation represents a typical orthodox viewpoint.
"The sunnah and
ahadith
are not to be taken as the wise sayings of sages and philosophers or
the verdicts of rulers and leaders. One should believe with full
conviction that the words and actions of the Prophet represent the
will of Allah, and thus one has to follow and obey them in each and
every circumstance of life."3
At
the other extreme are those who reject the hadith literature
altogether. They claim that the Prophet Muhammad did not ask or
require that his words and actions be preserved as a separate body of
knowledge. The collection and preservation of hadith began more than
a century after the Prophet. Despite the best of the intention and
efforts, the hadith literature became mixed up in terms of authentic
and unauthentic reports. Even the collections that are generally
regarded as sahih
also contain non-sahih
hadith. Even in regard to many ahadith
that are considered sahih,
hadith experts differ about those. Many ahadith
about the same event or circumstance show significant variations.
Many of them are contradictory too. In the name of codes and laws,
many unacceptable dogmas and taboos have crept into Islam, based on
hadith literature. While the Qur'an is generally egalitarian, many
discriminatory or unjust (sometimes harsh or indefensible) laws,
codes or customs have been accommodated or validated by Islamic
scholars and jurists based on hadith. These rejecters of hadith
literature do accept the Qur'an as the primary and only divine source
of guidance, and shun the hadith literature altogether.
Both
of the extreme positions have serious problems, and the truth lies
somewhere in between. Indeed, while the essential position of the
hadith rejection movement is untenable and unacceptable, it has been
precipitated to some extent by extreme claims and dogmas of the
orthodox position.
While
the examination of these two extreme positions can interest some
people at the polemical level, the real importance of this issue is
that hadith also is the basis for most laws and codes at the detailed
level. Some of these laws and codes, often advocated as part of a
sacrosanct or immutable Shariah
(as
claimed), are in reality contrary to the intent and spirit of the
Qur'an and Islam's fundamental commitment to justice and fairness.
The issue is not merely authenticity of hadith/sunnah, but also of
how hadith/sunnah is applied in the formulation of laws and codes.
As Dr. AbdulHamid AbuSulayman, the former Rector of International
Islamic University in Malaysia, explains:
"The problem of the
authenticity of the Sunnah
is basically an expression and reflection of the unhappiness on the
part of Muslims with the centuries-old jurisprudence."4
Before
we explore the law and hadith connection, we need to explore some
pertinent aspects of hadith. There are some generally misunderstood
positions that common Muslims might not be familiar with, because
hadith literature, especially the science of hadith (ilm
usul al-hadith)
is a highly technical body of knowledge and the orthodox position
does not tolerate any observation, argument or evidence that attacks
or undermines the hadith literature in general.
Common
myths about hadith
1.
If a hadith quotes the Prophet, we know that's exactly
what the Prophet said.
Unfortunately,
this is not necessarily true. "To quote means to repeat the
exact words of another with the acknowledgement of the source."
Thus, quoting someone usually is recognized as (or it leaves the
impression) that that's exactly what the person said. When someone
reports "I heard the Prophet saying ..." or "the
Prophet said...", without pointing out that it is paraphrased,
the readers are left with justifiable impression that it is the
"exact word" of the Prophet. However, this is not always
the case for hadith.
In
a book, What
is Riba?,
Allamah Iqbal Ahmad Khan Suhail explains this fact about hadith that
is often not known and understood by common Muslims, because our
scholars do not adequately and specifically educate us about this
aspect.
"Most of the
narrations are derivations [i.e., not quotes of actual words], that
is, the actual words of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) have not been quoted
in the narration and whatever the narrator understood to be the
meaning of the Prophet's (pbuh) words, according to his capacity and
capability, he narrated with the best of intention as the saying of
the Holy Prophet (pbuh). Now, everyone knows that besides words even
the slightest change of delivery can induce great difference in the
meaning."5
In
this context, it is important to understand the distinction between
mutawatir
and
ahad
categories of hadith. Mutawatir
is a category of hadith that means "continuously recurrent"
or "a report by an indefinite number of people related in such a
way to preclude the possibility of their agreement to perpetuate a
lie."6
There is no agreement on the required minimum number of transmissions
to qualify for mutawatir.
Before
proceeding further, let me address a common question about where does
the sahih (authentic) category fit into the mutawatir-ahad
classification. Generally a hadith can't be mutawatir
without being sahih
(authentic, as per criteria applied by the hadith scholars). Ahad
category is used to distinguish from mutawatir.
Any non-mutawatir
hadith is by definition ahad
(solitary). Solitary does not mean a single chain. It can be more
than one chain, but as long as not mutawatir
(numerous). Ahad
hadith can fall in broad categories of sahih,
hasan,
daif,
etc.
There
are two types of mutawatir:
(a) Mutawatir
bil lafz
("all the reports must identical on the exact
wording
of the hadith as they were uttered by the Prophet himself. For
example, the hadith which reads: 'Whoever lies about me deliberately
must prepare himself for a place in Hell-fire."7
However, this type of hadith is extremely rare. (b) Mutawatir
bil
ma'na
(this type is agreed in concept or meaning, not in exact words). Most
ahadith
are of this type. Many such ahadith are narrated in such a way as if
quoting the Prophet. This type of transmission is also known as
"conceptual transmission."8
The
following is an example of variation in hadith without quoting the
Prophet.
This hadith has been
narrated from Jarir on the authority of A'mash with the same chain of
transmitters and he said (these
words with a little bit of variation from the previous hadith):
When (fasting) in Ramadan was (made) obligatory, he abandoned it (the
practice of observing fast on Ashura). [Sahih Muslim, Book 006,
#2511]
Now
consider the following example where there is a variation in ahadith
that does involve quoting the Prophet.
This hadith has been
narrated by Sulaiman al-Taimi with the same chain of transmitters
(but with
a slight variation of words)
that he (the Holy Prophet) said: The dawn is not like it as it is
said; he then gathered his fingers and lowered them. But he said, it
is like this (and he placed the index finger upon the other one and
spread his hand). [Sahih Muslim, Book 006, #2405]
The
abovementioned two ahadith
are from Sahih Muslim. There are ahadith
in Sahih Muslim as well as other respected collections, where some
ahadith
might not have variation within a collection or even across the
collections. Notably, not every hadith collection specifically points
out the variation as in Sahih Muslim. Regardless, even when there is
no variation reported, and the ahadith
are sahih,
it does not mean that those ahadith
are mutawatir,
yielding certainty of knowledge. The issue of certainty of knowledge
is discussed later in this essay in greater details.
Of
course, when variation in narrations exist (and such variations are
all too common), it poses a serious problem as to what were the exact
words used by the Prophet. This is important because in Arabic
language, even a slight variation of words (and sometimes letters)
can lead to divergent meanings.
[Shafi'i] replied: A
word might be omitted from the tradition and thus alter its meaning;
or a word might be pronounced differently from the way it was
pronounced by the transmitter, thus altering the meaning of the
tradition, even though he who pronounced it did not intend to do so.
If he who transmits a tradition is ignorant of its meaning, he does
not understand the tradition, and we do not accept it. [For] if he
transmits what he does not understand, he is of those who do not
transmit the tradition word for word; and he seeks to transmit the
meaning of the tradition, but he does not understand the meaning at
all.9
Should
we conclude from the above statement of Imam Shafi'i that unless word
for word, transmissions are not acceptable? Ironically, we can't,
because he himself does not apply that standard in determining
authentication of a hadith, the application of which would be binding
from the viewpoint of Islamic fiqh
(law).
2.
Sahih
collections contain hadith that are indisputable
Sahih
(authentic) hadith can be found in any hadith collection (except the
ones that are specifically for unauthentic hadith). Six hadith
collections are regarded as canonical. These are collectively known
as Sihah
Sitta
and include: Sahih
al-Bukhari,
Sahih
Muslim,
Sunan
Abu Dawood,
Jami
at-Tirmidhi,
Sunan
an-Nasai,
and Sunan
Ibn Majah.
Among
these six canonical collections, Sahih
al-Bukhari and Sahih
Muslim are held in the highest regard. Indeed, some regard al-Bukhari
as the most authentic and thus influential book in Islam after the
Qur'an.
“It was thus that the
sahih,
the work of a great traditionist who combined a vast knowledge of
traditions and allied subjects with scrupulous piety, strict
exactitude, the painstaking accuracy of an expert editor, and the
legal acumen of an astute jurist, rapidly attracted the attention of
the whole Muslim community, and became accepted as an authority next
only to the Qur'an."10
However,
let alone other collections, not all the ahadith
even in Bukhari are indisputable. "Many scholars criticized
Bukhari's work. The criticism concerns about 80 narrators and some
110 ahadith."11
Acknowledging
the preeminence of al-Bukhari, Siddiqi points out:
“It would be a mistake,
however, to suppose that the sahih
is free of defects, or that the Muslim scholars have failed to
criticise it in certain respects. Thus it is generally accepted that
like other traditionists, al-Bukhari confines his criticism to the
narrators of traditions, and their reliability, and pays
little attention to the probability or possibility of the truth of
the actual material reported by them.
In estimating the reliability of the narrators, his judgment has in
certain cases been erroneous, and the Muslim traditionists have not
failed to point this out."12
For
some specific examples of disputable or problematic hadith, please
see "Not
all the hadith in Bukhari are authentic".
Also, there are examples presented later in this essay.
Also
many Muslims might not know that while Sahih al-Bukhari is the most
highly regarded collection of the Prophetic narrations, he did not
specify what criteria he used to evaluate a narration and select
certain ones for his collection. Indeed, the compilers of the six
major collections [sihah
al-sitta]
generally have not specified or disclosed their criteria. Other
scholars later have attempted to identify what might have been their
criteria, in a manner of “reverse engineering” [the process of
determining how something was constructed by examining only the
finished product]. Maqdisi was a noted scholar of sixth century AH
and contemporary of Ibn Salah.. He wrote Risalat
al-Hafiz Mohammad ibn Tahir al-Maqdisi fi Shurut Kutub al-a'imma
al-Sitta
as a study of the authentication criteria in sihah
al-sitta. Muhammad
b ‘Uthman al-Hazimi was another scholar (d.584/1188), who probed
into determining the criteria used by hadith compilers. His book is
Shurut
al-A'immah al-Khamsah
(ed. M.Z. al-Kauthari, Cairo, N.D.).
"Because al-Bukhari
nowhere mentions what canons of criticism he applied to the
traditions to test their genuineness,
or tells us why he compiled the book, many later scholars have tried
to infer
these things from the text itself. Al-Hazimi, in his Shurut
al-A'imma,
al-Iraqi in his Alfiyya,
al-'Ayni and al-Qastallani in their introductions to the commentaries
on the Sahih,
and many other writers on the hadith sciences, including Ibn
al-Salah, have tried to deduce Bukhari's principles from the material
he presents."13
3.
There is no contradiction in any hadith
In
defense of the sanctity of the Hadith literature, there are bold
claims, especially from the orthodoxy, that there are no
contradictions in hadith, especially the sahih
ones.
It is asserted that every anomaly involving sahih
hadith can be explained. Since Bukhari is held in the highest regard,
here we will discuss some cases from Bukhari only.
a.
For example, Maulana Mohammad Akram Khan (a well-known Indian
scholar; see the link
above with detailed reference) cites a hadith from al-Bukhari:
“Narrated Jabir bin
'Abdullah:
I was present with my two maternal uncles at Al-'Aqaba (where the pledge of allegiance was given). (Ibn 'Uyaina said, "One of the two was Al-Bara' bin Ma'rur.") [Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 230]
I was present with my two maternal uncles at Al-'Aqaba (where the pledge of allegiance was given). (Ibn 'Uyaina said, "One of the two was Al-Bara' bin Ma'rur.") [Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 230]
The readers will be
presented with the Bay'at
(allegiance) of Aqabah at the appropriate place. There is a narration
about this matter from Jabir Ibn Abdullah in Bukhari. According to
that hadith, Jabir was present at that event of Bay'at along with his
maternal uncle Bara' ibn Ma'rur. [Bukhari, 15-464], However, it has
been definitively established that Bara' is not maternal uncle of
Jabir. Anisah, Jabir's mother, had only two brothers: Tha'laba and
Amr. They were present during the second Aqabah [Fat-hul Bari,
ibid.]. So there is something definitely wrong in this hadith, and
some kind of Ta'wil
(interpretive artifice) would be necessary to make it right.”
b.
After pointing out the discrepancy, the author leaves some room for
potential interpretive solution to explain it away, as he has
identified many such often futile attempts. Can the discrepancy in
the above hadith be explained away? Maybe. But there are also ahadith
in Bukhari that simply CAN'T be explained away. Consider the
following hadith, also offered as an example by Maulana Akram Khan.
Anas, Ayesha and Ibn
Abbas is narrating: "Allah sent him (as an Apostle) at the age
of forty (and after that) he stayed for ten years in Mecca, and for
ten more years in Medina." [Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:747-748;
7:787; also Sahih Muslim #5794.]
It
is an established and agreed upon historical fact that after
attaining the Prophethood at the age of forty, he stayed in Mecca for
13 years, not 10 years. However, the above hadith says that he stayed
in Meccah for 10 years. Interestingly, this is not a discrepancy
between a hadith in Bukhari and other sources for the same
information. Rather, this particular discrepancy is within Bukhari
collection itself. In Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, #190
and Number 242, it is reported that he lived in Mecca for 13 years.
Narrated Ibn
'Abbas:
Allah's Apostle was inspired Divinely at the age of forty. Then he stayed in Mecca for thirteen years, and then was ordered to migrate, and he migrated to Medina and stayed there for ten years and then died.
Allah's Apostle was inspired Divinely at the age of forty. Then he stayed in Mecca for thirteen years, and then was ordered to migrate, and he migrated to Medina and stayed there for ten years and then died.
Of
course, Sahih
Muslim, another collection held in regard close to Sahih
al-Bukhari, reports in another place that he stayed in Mecca for
fifteen
years. See Muslim, Book 030, #5809:
and Muslim, Book 030, #5805]
So,
did the Prophet stay in Mecca (after being the Prophet at forty) for
ten,
thirteen or fifteen
years? This is obviously irreconcilable. If there can be such
factually irreconcilable discrepancies, what is the scope of problem
with other ahadith
that are reports in words, conveying concepts and understanding,
often not in exact words of the Prophet, but paraphrasing by the
reporters?
c.
Another example of such contradictions: Which verse in the Qur'an was
revealed last?
Narrated Ibn Abbas:
The last Verse (in the Quran) revealed to the Prophet was the Verse dealing with usury (i.e. Riba). [Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, #67]
The last Verse (in the Quran) revealed to the Prophet was the Verse dealing with usury (i.e. Riba). [Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, #67]
Narrated Al-Bara:
The last Sura that was revealed was Bara'a, and the last Verse that was revealed was: "They ask you for a legal verdict, Say: Allah's directs (thus) about those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs." (4.176) [Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, #129]
The last Sura that was revealed was Bara'a, and the last Verse that was revealed was: "They ask you for a legal verdict, Say: Allah's directs (thus) about those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs." (4.176) [Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, #129]
The
same is also mentioned in Sahih Muslim.
Al-Bara' (Allah be
pleased with him) reported that the last verse revealed in the Holy
Qur'an is: "They ask thee for a religious verdict; say: Allah
gives you a religious verdict about Kalala (the person who has
neither parents nor children)". [Sahih Muslim, Book 011, #3939]
Now
please read the verse 4:176:
They ask thee for a legal
decision. Say: Allah directs (thus) about those who leave no
descendants or ascendants as heirs. If it is a man that dies, leaving
a sister but no child, she shall have half the inheritance: If (such
a deceased was) a woman, who left no child, Her brother takes her
inheritance: If there are two sisters, they shall have two-thirds of
the inheritance (between them): if there are brothers and sisters,
(they share), the male having twice the share of the female. Thus
doth Allah make clear to you (His law), lest ye err. And Allah hath
knowledge of all things. [4/an-Nisa/176]
Does
this verse have anything to do with riba
(or usury), as mentioned in the hadith by Ibn Abbas as the last verse
revealed?
d.
There are many examples of hadith, including those pertaining to
riba,
that are contradictory.
Narrated 'Umar bin
Al-Khattab: Allah's Apostle said, "The bartering of gold for
silver is Riba (usury), except
if it is from hand to hand and equal in amount,
and wheat grain for wheat grain is usury except if it is form hand to
hand and equal in amount, and dates for dates is usury except if it
is from hand to hand and equal in amount, and barley for barley is
usury except if it is from hand to hand and equal in amount."
[Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, #344]
According
to the above hadith, exchanges involving gold for silver is riba
except hand to hand (or spot/cash) transaction and
equal in amount. Now let's read the following hadith from al-Bukhari:
Narrated Abdur-Rahman bin
Abu Bakra:
that his father said, "The Prophet forbade the selling of gold for gold and silver for silver except if they are equivalent in weight, and allowed us to sell gold for silver and vice versa as we wished." [Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, #388]
that his father said, "The Prophet forbade the selling of gold for gold and silver for silver except if they are equivalent in weight, and allowed us to sell gold for silver and vice versa as we wished." [Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, #388]
According
to the above hadith, exchanges involving gold for silver is riba
except if they are equal in amount. There is no mention of
spot/cash/hand-to-hand restriction. Now let's read the following
hadith from al-Bukhari:
Yahya related to me from
Malik from Ibn Shihab from Malik ibn Aus ibn al-Hadathan an-Nasri
that one time he asked to exchange 100 dinars. He said, "Talha
ibn Ubaydullah called me over and we made a mutual agreement that he
would make an exchange for me. He took the gold and turned it about
in his hand, and then said, 'I can't do it until my treasurer brings
the money to me from al-Ghaba.' Umar ibn al-Khattab was listening and
Umar said, 'By Allah! Do not leave him until you have taken it from
him!' Then he said, 'The Messenger of Allah, ..., said, "Gold
for silver is usury except
hand to hand.
Wheat for wheat is usury except hand to hand. Dates for dates is
usury except hand to hand. Barley for barley is usury except hand to
hand.’"14
According
to the above hadith, exchanges involving gold for silver is riba
except hand to hand (or spot/cash) transaction. Here no mention of
equivalence in weight as a restriction. Now let's read the following
hadith from al-Bukhari:
Narrated Abu Bakra:
Allah's Apostle said, "Don't sell gold for gold unless equal in
weight, nor silver for silver unless equal in weight, but you
could sell gold for silver or silver for gold as
you like."
[Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, #383]
According
to the above hadith, when exchanges involve gold for silver or silver
for gold, there is no restriction whatsoever. But wait. Let's read
the following hadith from Sahih Muslim.
Ubida b. al-Simit (Allah
be pleased with him) reported Allah's Messenger (pbuh) as
saying: Gold is to be paid for by gold, silver by silver, wheat by
wheat, barley by barley, dates by dates, and salt by salt, like for
like and equal for equal, payment being made hand to hand. If
these classes differ, then sell as you wish if payment is made hand
to hand.
[Sahih Muslim, Book 010, #3853]
According
to above hadith, even when the classes differ - gold for silver or
silver for gold - we can't do as we wish. It still has to be
spot/cash/hand-to-hand transaction. So, which one is it? Even
the use of naskh
(abrogation)
argument is not adequate to address all the anomalies here.
e.
One more illustration of variations and contradictions is also taken
from Sahih Muslim. It pertains to Kitab
al-buyu'
(business transactions), Volume 2, Chapter 42: "The Selling
of the Camel and Stipulation of Riding on it." Since there are
several ahadith involved in this illustration, readers need to be
careful and thorough in reading these to fully appreciate the problem
involved.
In
studying these ahadith, consider the information about the following
matters.
- Was the price specified and agreed?
- Who set the initial price?
- Was Jabir reluctant to sell?
- Did Jabir stipulate or the Prophet offered the ride?
- How much did the Prophet pay?
- Did the Prophet return the camel with the price?
A
summary of the variations and divergences is presented at the end of
this set of hadith.
Jabir b. 'Abdullah
reported that he was travelling on his camel which had grown jaded,
and he decided to let it off. When Allah's Apostle met him and prayed
for him and struck it, so it trotted as it had never trotted before.
He said: Sell it to me for an 'uqaya. I said: No. He again said: Sell
it to me. So I sold it to him for an
'uqiya,
but made
the stipulation
that I should be allowed to ride back to my family. Then when I came
to (my place) I took the camel to him and he paid me its price in
ready money. I then went back and he sent: (someone) behind me (and
as I came) he said: Do you see that I asked you to reduce price for
buying your camel. Take your camel and your coins; these are yours.
[Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, #3886]
Jabir b. 'Abdullah
reported: I went on an expedition with Allah's Messenger. He overtook
me and I was on a water-carrying camel who had grown tired and did
not walk (trot). He (the Holy Prophet) said to me: What is the matter
with your camel? I said: It is sick. He (the Holy Prophet) stepped
behind and drove it and prayed for it, and then it always moved ahead
of other camels. He (then) said: How do you find your camel? I said:
It is, by the grace of your prayer, all right. He said: Would you
sell this (camel) to me? I felt shy (to say him," No" ) as
we had no other camel for carrying water, but (later on) I said: Yes,
and to I sold it to him on the condition that (I would be permitted)
to ride it until I reached Madina. I said to him: Allah's Messenger,
I am newly married, so I asked his permission (to go ahead of the
caravan). He permitted me, and I reached Medina well in advance of
other people, until I reached my destination. There my maternal uncle
met me and asked me about the camel, and I told him what I had done
with regard to it. He reproved me in this connection. ... When
Allah's Messenger came to Medina, I went to him in the morning with
the camel. He paid me its price and returned that (the camel) to me.
[Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, #3888]
Jabir reported: We went
from Mecca to Medina with Allah's Messenger when my camel fell ill,
and the rest of the hadith is the same. (But it in also narrated in
it: ) He (the Holy Prophet) said to me: Sell your camel to me. I
said: No, but it is yours. He said: No. (it can't be), but sell it to
me. I said: No, but, Allah's Messenger, it is yours. He said: No, it
can't be, but sell it to me. I
said: Then give me an 'uqaya of gold
for I owe that to a person and then it would be yours. He (the Holy
Prophet) said: I take it (for an 'uqiya of gold) and you reach Medina
on it. As I reached Medina, Allah's Messenger said to Bilal: Give him
an 'uqiya of gold and make some extra payment too. He (Jabir) said:
He gave
me an 'uqiya of gold and made an addition of a qirat.
He (Jabir) said: The addition made by Allah's Messenger was with me
(as a sacred trust for blessing) and lay with me in a pocket until
the people of Syria took it on the Day of Harra. [Sahih Muslim, Vol.
3, #3889]
Jabir reported: My camel
had grown tired as Allah's Messenger came to me. He goaded it and it
began to jump. After that I tried to restrain its rein so that I
could listen to his (Prophet's) words, but I could not do that.
Allah's Apostle met me and said: Sell it to me, and I
sold it for five 'uqiyas.
I said: On the condition that I may use it as a ride (for going back)
to Medina. He (the Holy Prophet) said: Well, you may use it as a ride
up till Medina. When I came to Medina I handed over that to him and
he
made an addition of an uqiya
(to that amount which had been agreed upon) and then
presented that (camel)
to me. [Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, #3891]
Abd Mutawakkil al-Najl
reported from Jabir b. 'Abdullah who said: I accompanied
Allah's Messenger in one of his journeys (the narrator says, he said
in Jihad), and he narrated the rest of the hadith, and made this
addition: He (the Holy Prophet) said: Jabir, have you received the
price? I said: Yes, whereupon he said: Yours is the price as
well as the camel.
[Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, #3892]
Jabir b. 'Abdullah
reported: Allah's Messenger bought a camel from me for two 'uqiyas
and a dirham or two dirhams. As he reached Sirar (a village near
Medina), he commanded a cow to be slaughtered and it was slaughtered,
and they ate of that, and as he (the Holy Prophet) reached Medina he
ordered me to go to the mosque and offer two rak'ahs of prayer, and
he measured for me the price of the camel and even made
an excess payment to me.
[Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, #3893]
Jabir b. 'Abdullah
reported this narration from Allah's Apostle but with this variation
that he said: He (the Holy Prophet) bought the camel from me on a
stipulated price. And he did
not mention two 'uqiyas and a dirham or two dirhams,
and he commanded a cow (to be slaughtered) and it was slaughtered,
and he then distributed its flesh. [Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, #3894]
Jabir (Allah be pleased
with him) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said
to him: I have taken your camel for
four dinars,
and you may ride upon it to Medina. [Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, #3895]
Let
us now review the above set of hadith for the questions we listed
earlier.
- Was the price specified and agreed to?
#3886, yes, one uqiya; #3888, no price mentioned; #3891, yes, five uqiya; #3893, yes, two uqiyas and a dirham or two; #3894, no mention of two uqiyas and a dirham or two; #3895, yes, four dinars. - Who set the initial price?
#3886: one uqiya - whether the Prophet offered or Jabir asked is not clear; #3889: Jabir asked - one Uqiya; #3891, five uqiya, unclear as to who offered or asked. - Did Jabir stipulate or the Prophet offered the ride?
Jabir stipulated, #3886, #3888, #3891; no stipulation mentioned, #3889. - How much did the Prophet pay? Did he pay any extra?
#3886, #3891, originally stipulated price and more; #3889, one qirat extra; #3893, unspecified extra; #3888, #3892, no extra is mentioned - Did the Prophet return the camel with the price?
yes, #3886, #3888, #3891, #3892; the returning of the camel is not mentioned, #3889, #3893.
As
the above case of camel transaction illustrates, whether (a) the
Prophet set the price or Jabir asked, (b) whether the price agreed
was one uqiya/five uqiya/two uqiyas and a dirham or two/or four
dinars or no price is mentioned at all, (c) whether ride was
stipulated by Jabir or not, (d) did the Prophet offer any extra and
how much, and (e) was the camel returned by the Prophet, none of
these aspects are consistent in regard to just this one transaction.
This set of incongruent information is just from one source. Also,
quite in contrast to the abovementioned set of hadith, in another
hadith elsewhere in Sahih Muslim, #3464,
it is indicated Jabir was deeply saddened at the camel returned to
him. Just to check a few other collections in this regard, in Sahih
Bukhari, Vol. 3, #570,
no extra payment or returning the camel is mentioned. Also in Sahih
al-Bukhari, Vol. 3, #310,
no extra is mentioned, but the camel was returned. Contradicting the
information about Jabir stipulated the ride, in another hadith from
Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 3, #589,
it is mentioned that the Prophet suggested it: "Sell it to me,
and you have the right to ride it till Medina." This hadith also
says that Jabir was paid the price, returned the camel, and the share
of the war booty.
Let
me close this part with one more hadith about this transaction with
even more drastic variations. It is from Sunan Ibn Majah.
Jabir b. Abdullah is
reported to have said, 'I was accompanying the Holy Prophet in a
military expedition.' He said to me, 'Will you sell this camel of
yours for a dinar
(to me)? May Allah forgive you.' I said, 'Allah's Messenger, it will
be your camel when I arrive at Madinah.' He said, 'Will you sell it
for two dinars, may Allah forgive you?' He (Jabir) said, 'He (the
Prophet) continued to increase a dinar for me and on each time he
continued to say, 'And may Allah forgive you,' till he arrived at
twenty dinars. When I arrived at Madinah, I caught hold of the
camel's head and came with it to the Holy Prophet, whereupon he said,
'O Bilal, give him twenty dinars from the spoils of war,' and he said
(to me), 'Take your camel and go with it to your family.'15
So,
did this transaction at all involve any stipulation? How is one
supposed to derive a rule or code about whether a stipulation is
permissible (especially, in transactions involving camels or animals)
based on all these variant ahadith? Some codes may still be
derived from the essence of the reports. Actually, the issue here is
whether stipulations can be added to a sale transaction. The answer
is a resounding yes. However, does that require reference to this
particular transaction and the widely variant reports about it? There
is a broadly established Islamic principle that anything that is not
specifically prohibited in the Qur'an or the Sunnah can be included
in setting terms of transaction through mutual agreement. Thus,
whether the ride is stipulated or not, or the extra price is paid or
not, or the camel is returned as gift or not is already covered by
the broad principle.
O you who believe! do not
devour your property among yourselves falsely, except that it be
trading by your mutual
consent;
... surely Allah is Merciful to you. [4/an-Nisa/29]
Abu Sa'id Khudri is
reported as saying:
Allah's Messenger (pbuh) said, 'A transaction is valid as a result of mutual
consent.' [Innamaa al-bay'u 'an taraadi; according to al-Zawaid, its isnad is sahih and its authorities are reliable (and authentic). Ibn Hibban transmitted it in his Sahih.16
Allah's Messenger (pbuh) said, 'A transaction is valid as a result of mutual
consent.' [Innamaa al-bay'u 'an taraadi; according to al-Zawaid, its isnad is sahih and its authorities are reliable (and authentic). Ibn Hibban transmitted it in his Sahih.16
However,
with so much discrepancy in report about this specific transaction,
can we present codes derived from these reports as divine,
authoritative or binding on the Muslims, when one can't ascertain the
relevant facts of the transaction?
4.
Hadith provides knowledge or information that is certain or
definitive
When
dealing with certain issues or information to determine whether it is
appropriate, credible and applicable from the Islamic viewpoint,
beyond the general principles and guidance laid out in the Qur'an,
Muslims invariably have to turn to hadith. Many Muslims are simply
satisfied, if someone would say that this is from hadith. They won't
even bother to ask (and the reporter usually won't bother to offer)
as to where in hadith it is said. There are others who would go as
far as mentioning the book of hadith (e.g. Bukhari, Muslim, Abu
Dawood, etc.). Others would seek or share, as appropriate, more
detailed information as to where in such a book the hadith is. Many
are thoroughly satisfied just by knowing that a particular position,
viewpoint or information is supported by hadith.
Others
probe further to find out if the hadith is sahih
or authentic. Some major problems arise at this level. First, as we
have explained above, even a collection of hadith known as Sahih
is not a guarantee that all the ahadith
in such collections are authentic. Second, even some of the ahadith
that are recognized as sahih
or authentic by some or many scholars, there are variant opinions
disputing the status of those specific ahadith
as authentic. One doesn't have to endorse the works, in part or
whole, of Shaikh Nasiruddin al-Albani, but one can read just his work
and see so many ahadith,
known otherwise as sahih,
is classified by him as unauthentic. One doesn't have to cite the
works of as controversial as scholar as al-Albani, such divergent
opinions about various specific ahadith
appear in works of most major hadith scholars.
Third
and the most important problem in this context is whether hadith,
even sahih
(authentic) ones, gives certainty of knowledge. In discussing this,
let's move beyond whether a particular hadith is authentic or not.
Suppose a hadith has been determined to be sahih
(authentic). Does such a hadith establish certainty of knowledge?
The
answer is: not necessarily, AND mostly not. It is generally agreed
that only mutawatir
hadith provides certainty of knowledge.
“Mutawatir:
report of a large number of narrators whose agreement upon a lie is
inconceivable. This condition must be met in the entire chain from
the origin of the report to the very end.
In the view of Muslim
scholars any hadith
which has been transmitted by tawatur
and whose reporters based their reports on direct, unambiguous,
perception unmixed with rationalization would produce knowledge with
certainty.”17
“A mutawatir
tradition is one which has been transmitted throughout the first
three generations of Muslims by such a large number of narrators that
the possibility of fabrication must be entirely discarded.”18
“According to the
majority of Ulama, the authority of a mutawatir
hadith
is equivalent to that of the Qur'an. Universal continuous testimony
(tawatur)
engenders certainty (yaqin)
and the
knowledge that it creates is equivalent to knowledge that is acquired
through sense-perception.”20
“A great majority of
Muslim legal theoreticians (usuuliyyun)
espoused the view that the mutawatir
yields necessary or immediate knowledge (daruri),
whereas a minority thought that the information contained in such
reports can be known through mediate or acquired knowledge (muktasab
or nazari).”21
The
ahadith
that are not mutawatir
are known as ahad
(solitary). The latter category, according to the overwhelming
majority of Islamic scholars, does not yield certainty of knowledge.
Also, mutawatir
ahadith
have two subcategories: mutawatir
bil lafz
(involves narrations in identical words) and mutawatir
bil ma'na
(involves narrations that "concur in their purport but differ in
wording or in form").22
Of course, the second category doesn't command the same status as
mutawatir
bil lafz,
which is regarded as "equivalent to that of the Qur'an".
Now,
mutawatir
ahadith
are sahih,
but not all sahih
ahadith are mutawatir.
So, how many hadith are Mutawatir?
“Only a few ahadith
have been mentioned as Mutawatir
by words, meaning all the narrators used the same expression.
However, Mutawatir
in the sense and meanings are numerous.”23
“Finally, we turn to
the problem of the Mutawatir
which engenders certainty. We recall that Ibn al-Salah himself
acknowledged that the traditionists' repertoire of hadith does not
include this category. But Ibn al-Salah said more. He argued in
categorical terms that the Mutawatir
is a rarity (**). "He who is asked to produce an example of a
hadith that is transmitted in a Mutawatir
[fashion] will be exhausted by his search" (**). In his own
search for such ahadith,
he
could cite only one,
presumably narrated by more than a hundred Companions: "He who
intentionally lies concerning something I [viz., the Prophet] have
said will gain a seat in Hellfire" (**). The other hadith which
he could find that seemingly met the standards of the Mutawatir
was: "Acts are Judged by intentions". However, he
acknowledges that although this hadith was reportedly narrated by a
Mutawatir
number of transmitters, its apodictic manner of transmission occurred
in the middle tiers of transmission, not from the outset (**). ...
The later legal theoreticians Ansari (1119/1707) and Ibn ' Abd
al-Shakur (1225/1810) accepted the general tenor of Ibn al-Salah's
argument about the scarcity of tawatur,
but seem to think that there are more ahadith of this type in
existence. Having enumerated, with what seems to be great difficulty,
four such ahadith, they call upon Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 598/1201) who is
quoted as saying: "I have tracked down the Mutawatir
ahadith and found a number of them." He
enumerates six,
at least one of which, and probably two, had already been listed by
Ansari and Ibn ' Abd al-Shakur (**). Thus, a thorough search by a
number of the most eminent traditionists and jurists
of Islam could yield no more than eight or nine hadiths of the
Mutawatir
type.”25
Thus,
there are only a few - no more than ten - ahadith
that are mutawatir
proper. The rest of them are ahad
(non-mutawatir).
These (ahad)
ahadith
yield not certain, but probable
knowledge. Hallaq analyzes this issue in detail based on the works of
major Islamic scholars, especially hadith scholars.
"The contents of the
former (i.e., ahad)
are known only with probability. ... When a person hears a hadith
narrated by one transmitter [i.e. ahad], he is presumed to have
gained only probable knowledge of its contents, and thus of its
authenticity.”26
In
understanding this classification of mutawatir
and ahad
in perspective, let's learn about two views. The first is
represented, for example, by an eminent Islamic scholar Ibn al-Salah
(d. 643/1245), "one of the most distinguished traditionists of
the muta'akhkhirun".27
Ibn al-Salah's work in the field of hadith "was so comprehensive
in its excellent treatment of the subject that it came to be the
standard reference for thousands of scholars and students of Hadith
to come, over many centuries until the present day." His major
work 'Ulum
al- Hadith
(commonly known as Muqaddimah
Ibn al-Salah)
was used by many eminent scholars of later generations. Among such
major scholars who have benefited from Ibn al-Salah's works are:
al-Nawawi, al-Suyuti, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, et al.28
Ibn
al-Salah "... explicitly states that in the traditionists'
discourse the taxonomy of the mutawatir
is nowhere to be found; and this, he says, is due to the fact that
such ahadith do not constitute part of their riwaya."29
Because
mutawatir
type hadith is rare, Ibn al-Salah has argued that for much of Islamic
praxis, certainty of knowledge is neither feasible nor required.
Rather, probable or reasonable knowledge is adequate for determining
the gamut of Islamic practices.
If the Mutawatir
was not part of the traditionists' repertoire of hadith, then what
they handled were ahadith of the ahad
type, or those even of a weaker sort. The sources, as is well-known.
make it quite clear that the traditionists set forth a classical
taxonomy which distinguishes between three main types: the sahih
(sound), the hasan
(good), and the da'if
(weak) (** ).30
Thus,
a separate taxonomy that includes sahih
came about as a result of the recognition that ahadith that
yield certainty of knowledge are rare. However, Ibn al-Salah and many
other scholars saw no problem with this. Instead, they have attempted
to argue that the category sahih
itself yields certainty of knowledge.
"The ahad,
or solitary, hadith ... is a hadith which is reported by a single
person or by odd individuals from the Prophet. ... [Such] hadith
fails to fulfil the requirement of either the mutawatir
or the mashur.
It is a hadith which does not impart positive knowledge on its own
unless supported by extraneous or circumstantial evidence. This is
the view of the majority, but according
to Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and others, ahad
can engender positive knowledge.
Some ulama have rejected it on the basis of an analogy they have
drawn with a provision of the law of evidence, namely that the
testimony of one witness falls short of legal proof. Those who
unquestioningly accept the authority of ahad,
such as the Zahiri school, maintain that when the Prophet wanted to
deliver a ruling in regard to a particular matter, he did not invite
all the citizens of Medina to attend."31
Majority
of orthodox ulama recognizes the reliability of ahad
ahadith, subject to some conditions. "According to the majority
of the ulama of the four Sunni schools, acting
upon ahad
is obligatory even if ahad
fails to engender positive knowledge.
Thus, in practical legal matters, a preferable zann
[meaning,
speculative] is sufficient as a basis of obligation. It is only in
matters of belief where conjecture 'avails nothing against the
truth'. Having said this, however, ahad
may only form the basis of obligation if it fulfils" six
conditions.32
As
usual, there is no unanimity among various schools regarding these
conditions. [See Kamali, pp. 101-106] However, the above statement -
acting upon ahad
is obligatory even if ahad
fails
to engender positive knowledge
- is
contradicted by other ulama, who believe that acting upon ahad
is preferable only, because it engenders only speculative
knowledge.
"The majority of
jurists, however, agree that ahad
may establish a rule of law provided that it is related by a reliable
narrator and the contents of the report are not repugnant to reason.
Many
ulama have held that ahad
engenders speculative knowledge, acting upon which is preferable
only.
In the event where other supportive evidence can be found in its
favour, or when there is nothing to oppose its contents, then acting
upon ahad
is obligatory. But ahad
may not, according to the majority of ulama, be relied upon as the
basis of belief (aqidah)."33
It
must be noted that this dictum - ahad
cannot be relied upon as the basis of belief - is merely a pious
statement. Any Muslim can read any book of aqidah,
such as Kitab at-Tawhid by Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, or Al-Wala'
Wa'l-Bara by Muhammad Saeed al-Qahtaani, and see how these lengthy
treatises could have been written without resorting to ahad
ahadith.
In
reality, since almost all ahadith
are ahad
(non-mutawatir)
that do not yield certainty of knowledge, the scholars had to stake
their claim that ahad
ahadith
also yield certainty of knowledge. Such claim is like having the cake
and eat it too. One of the reasons why Muslims regard the entire
Qur'an as based on certainty of knowledge, because each verse is
mutawatir.
"According to the majority of Ulama, the authority of a
mutawatir
hadith
is equivalent to that of the Qur'an."34
The authenticity of the Qur'an is based on this premise that
mutawatir
transmission yields certainty of knowledge, and since each verse of
the Qur'an is mutawatir,
the Qur'an as a book is regarded by Muslims as positive knowledge. If
ahad
or solitary transmissions also yield the same level of positive
knowledge, then basically that would amount to claiming that positive
knowledge can be achieved by either mutawatir
or ahad
transmission. Such a claim or premise, indirectly, undermines the
weightiness of using the special status of mutawatir
transmission.
Therefore,
whether ahad
hadith can be used for deriving or establishing laws or codes is a
different issue, but, unless Muslims are willing to reconcile with
undermining the basis of the Qur'an, the claim that ahad
hadith also can yield certainty of knowledge has to be firmly
rejected.
Indeed,
there are prominent Ulama, such as Imam Nawawi (d. 676/1277) opposes
Ibn al-Salah's view in this regard, and vehemently challenges such
untenable claim about ahad
hadith yielding certainty of knowledge..
“Nawawi (d. 676/1277)
and Ibn al-Salah seem to have spearheaded the two opposing campaigns.
Nawawi unequivocally states that the sahih
means just that, sahih,
and does not mean that it is certain." (**). He vehemently
argued that the majority of Muslim scholars and leading authorities
(al-muhaqqiqun
wal-akthartun)
held that unless the sahih
is of the mutawatir
category, it shall remain probable and can never attain the level of
certainty (**).”35
The
above exposition should make abundantly clear the weakness of Ibn
al-Salah's position that sahih-type
yields certainty as well. In this regard, Imam Nawawi's position is
sound and self-evident that only mutawatir-type
yields certainty of knowledge. Thus, as long as we are satisfied with
the probabilistic basis of ahad
or non-mutawatir-type
hadith in establishing our dogmas or practices, then that's a
different matter.
The
crux of the issue here that connects hadith and Islamic law is that
Islamic laws and codes are essentially based on mostly non-Mutawatir
or
ahad
ahadith
that are at best probabilistic.
“The legal
theoreticians' classification of the hadith into Mutawatir
and ahad
leaves us with a colossal number of the latter, merely probable type,
and less than a dozen of the former, reportedly apodictic, variety.
The ahad,
including the hasan,
were universally acknowledged to have constituted the bulk of hadith
with which the traditionists dealt, and on the basis of which the
Jurists derived the law (**).”36
Earlier
mutawatir
bil-ma'na was
explained and that type of hadith conveys what the Prophet said in
the narrator's own words. In other words, these are "conceptual
transmissions." The reality is that even in case of ahad
ahadith,
the scholars do not require verbatim transmission, yet insist that
laws and codes derived from ahad
hadith can still be binding.
"The majority of
ulama do not insist that the ahad
should consist of a verbatim transmission of what the narrator heard
in the first place, although this is the most authoritative form of
transmission in any kind of hadith. They would instead accept the
conceptual transmission of an ahad,
on condition, however, that the narrator understands the language and
purport of the hadith in full. ...
Some ulama of the Hanafi
and other schools have held that conceptual transmission is totally
forbidden, a view which is refused by the majority, who say that the
Companions often transmitted one and the same hadith in varying
words, and no-one can deny this. .. Having said this, however,
accuracy in the transmission of hadith and retaining it in its
original version is highly recommended."37
Majority
of the Islamic scholars holds the view that ahad
hadith can be used to derive laws or codes that are binding. However,
no matter of creeds (aqidah)
can be established by ahad
hadith. However, as I have pointed out, in practice, the domain of
creeds has not been immune to ahad
hadith. As has been explained above, the claim of many scholars - it
is not only alright to use ahad
hadith to formulate laws, but also, subject to some conditions about
which there is no agreement, such laws are also binding - is a rather
weak position and needs serious scrutiny.
Indeed,
even the best and the noblest of our scholars have shown remarkable
anomalies in their thoughts and practices in this
context. Imam al-Shafi'i writes in his famous Risala:
“It is the duty of
those who have [legal] knowledge never to express an opinion unless
it is based on certainty.
There are cases where men have discussed matters relating to [legal]
knowledge when, if only they had abstained from so doing, abstention
would have been more appropriate and safe, I trust.”38
One
is then left to wonder, if we are duty-bound not to express an
opinion unless
it is based on certainty,
then how do we build much of the Islamic legal edifice on the basis
of ahadith
that generally yield only probabilistic
knowledge and does not yield 'certainty'?
Thus,
as anomalous as it is, obviously, the majority of scholars and
jurists have held the position that a hadith being ahad
does not mean that it can’t or should not be used as a source of
guidance. Indeed, the majority of them even regard the injunctions of
such hadith as binding.
However,
the Ummah - the adherents of Islam - would be better served if it is
duly acknowledged that ahad
ahadith
- that is, most of the ahadith
- are probabilistic
in terms of reliability, and additional circumspection is a must in
utilizing these ahadith
for formulating laws, codes and dogmas. Even greater circumspection
is a must in formulating and enacting laws or codes that have major
ramification for the life, honor and property of people.
Use/abuse
of hadith in formulation and validation of Islamic laws
Over
the centuries since the time of the Prophet, Muslim society has
developed a legalistic tendency, where everything tends to be reduced
to black and white, right and wrong, permissible and impermissible.
While the emergence of various madhabs
(schools
of jurisprudence), arguably, have beneficial aspects, one important
consequence of such legalism was to have the Muslim society
splintered into many schools (madhabs)
and other offshoot groups (firqah)
that sometime even engage in takfir
(religious denunciations) against each other.39
The
second and more important consequence relates to many laws in the
name of Islam that show a clear gender-bias and other unfair
tendencies, inconsistent with Islamic principles of equity and
fairness. In this context, it is important to note that orthodox
Islamic positions are generally a male-exclusive domain, where women
are absent in deliberation and formulation of those laws, codes and
norms. The examples or observations cited below are basically
orthodox positions. Of course, there is no monolithic position on
most of these matters, and readers should note that due to pressures
of modernity and other factors, Muslim societies are in a flux.
However, the books of fiqh
are often untouched by such forces and remain as orthodox as ever.
Lest it
is misunderstood, let me state it unambiguously, by the word "abuse"
I don't mean or imply that our scholars or jurisprudent had any ill
intent. Rather, here abuse refers to excessive, improper or
unwarranted use of hadith.
Let us consider a few examples.
1.
Women are discouraged from participation in mosques.
In
most Muslim countries, if women are not seen in large numbers
participating in prayer (salat) in mosque (congregation), it is
because they are heavily discouraged from participating. In some
countries, Tajikistan for example, they are even banned.40
Even in North America, despite many mosques' attempt to be more
flexible, there are so many mosques that simply don't want women to
come to mosque, or even if they have to "tolerate" women's
presence and participation, it is made quite difficult and
uncomfortable for women. Many Islam-loving women are fuming and
turning rebellious. Read what one such orthodox position in response
to the question "Why is it better to pray at home for women?"41
There
are many ahadith
that clearly establish that the Prophet categorically instructed
Muslims not to prevent women from participating in mosques and women
did participate regularly and unhindered. However, among the ahadith
that are most commonly invoked to discourage or even prevent women
are as following:
Abdullah ibn Mas'ud:
the Prophet (s) said: It is more excellent for a woman to pray in her house than in her courtyard, and more excellent for her to pray in her private chamber than in her house. [Sunan Abu Dawood, Vol. I, #570]
the Prophet (s) said: It is more excellent for a woman to pray in her house than in her courtyard, and more excellent for her to pray in her private chamber than in her house. [Sunan Abu Dawood, Vol. I, #570]
Narrated 'Aisha:
Had Allah's Apostle known what the women were doing, he would have forbidden them from going to the mosque as the women of Bani Israel had been forbidden. Yahya bin Said (a sub-narrator) asked 'Amra (another sub-narrator), "Were the women of Bani Israel forbidden?" She replied "Yes." Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 12, #828]
Had Allah's Apostle known what the women were doing, he would have forbidden them from going to the mosque as the women of Bani Israel had been forbidden. Yahya bin Said (a sub-narrator) asked 'Amra (another sub-narrator), "Were the women of Bani Israel forbidden?" She replied "Yes." Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 12, #828]
Note
that the first report of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud is not a mutawatir.
Even if it is a sahih
hadith (but not mutawatir),
it doesn't yield certainty of knowledge that that's exactly what the
Prophet said or that the Prophet said it at all. Contradicting this
hadith, there are numerous ahadith
report that women used to participate in mosques regularly and in
large numbers. Therefore, either those participating women didn't
care about what the Prophet told them (even in his own presence), or
they understood this hadith differently, or
else!
As
far as the second hadith, note that even though it appears in Sahih
al-Bukhari, it is not a statement from the Prophet. It is merely an
opinion of a companion (a great and closest companion and wife of the
Prophet, to be specific). In technical Islamic jargon, it is called
athar.
However, even though she is highly respected and revered, quite
deservingly, among Muslims as a companion, narrator of hadith and
wife of the Prophet, it is still only a lone opinion. What is
interesting is that there is ABSOLUTELY no corroborating information,
statement or report from anyone else from
the same period
that women were doing or discussing such egregious things in the
mosques that had the Prophet known, he would have prevented them from
coming to mosques. Athar
does not even have any binding implication. As Sayyid al-Sharif
al-Jurjani, an eminent hadith scholar, commented in Mukhtasar:
“Whatever is related
from a Sahabi, either in the form of a saying or in the shape of
action, whether narrated by a continuous chair of narrators or not,
is not a binding instance.”42
Yet,
let along being a hadith, such athar
that is not even binding, not only had profound effect on the culture
of restricting women from attending mosques, but also that hadith or
athar
like this is still used and invoked by traditionalist orthodoxy to
drive a wedge between women and mosques.
2.
Women are barred from leadership
Let
alone being mutawatir,
a solitary (ahad)
report from Abu Bakra (not the first Khalifa Abu Bakr, see below),
orthodox position has basically banned women from leadership in
general. Some have limited the ban at the level of Khalifa
or the head of a state. Others basically have the position against
women assuming any
role of leadership, except among women or all-women structures
(organizations, institutions).
Narrated Abu
Bakra:
During the battle of Al-Jamal, Allah benefited me with a Word (I heard from the Prophet). When the Prophet heard the news that the people of the Persia had made the daughter of Khosrau their Queen (ruler), he said, "Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler." [Volume 9, Book 88, #219]
During the battle of Al-Jamal, Allah benefited me with a Word (I heard from the Prophet). When the Prophet heard the news that the people of the Persia had made the daughter of Khosrau their Queen (ruler), he said, "Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler." [Volume 9, Book 88, #219]
Not
only there are problems of internal consistency in terms of the
historical reference in this hadith,43
the individual, Abu Bakra, has been known, according to Fatima
Mernissi, for receiving punishment for false testimony.44
According to the standards of determining the authenticity (sahih),
this hadith does not meet the standard set by al-Bukhari himself,
even though he has included it in his collection. Even if Mernissi's
analysis and research about flogging of Abu Bakra are disputed,45
as far reaching a code as forbidding women from leadership can't be
deduced from such solitary reports of dubious of disputed
authenticity.
3.
Right of guardianship in giving minors into marriage
While
the orthodox Islamic law allows marriage of minors (even of infants),
the practice was merely inherited from the prevailing customs in
Arabia from the days even before the Prophet Muhammad. However, the
marriage of the minor is in fundamental contradiction with the
liberty and human dignity of each individual, where a person is
denied his own choice as an adult about one of the foremost decisions
in anyone's life. Assuming that marriage of minors is allowed, with
which as a Muslim and a human being I can't reconcile, let's try to
understand the orthodox position regarding the right of guardianship
in giving a minor boy or girl into marriage. Here is the order of
hierarchy specified by at least one of the orthodox schools:
- Father
- Grandparents and above
- Brother
- Step-brother
- Nephew
- Step-nephew
- Uncle
- Step-uncle
- Cousin
- Step-cousins and similar relatives (from the side of the father in priority according to inheritance law)
- Mother
- Son's daughter
- Daughter's daughter
- Grandson's daughter
- Daughter's granddaughter
- Sister
- Step-sister
- Step-brother
- Other relatives from the mother's side in accordance with the inheritance law
- Ruler/judge
Although
the above list may vary somewhat depending on the madhab,
in Bangladesh as well as South Asia, Hanafi Fiqh is predominant, and
it lists the hierarchy as above. It is taken from Bidhibadhdha
Islami Ain,
a well known compendium of Fiqhi
answers based on authoritative Hanafi sources and published by
Islamic Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh in 2004.46
One can also find it in the well known and very popular book
"Bahishti Zewar" by Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi.47
Note
the position of mother in priority of guardianship. She is #11, after
nine male relatives (including step-relations): paternal grandparent,
brother, step-brother, nephew, step-nephew, uncle, step-uncle,
cousin, step-cousins and similar relations.
Imagine, mother's RIGHT to guardianship in giving marriage is #11th in hierarchy!!! Is there any Islamic justification for this or basis in the Qur'an and Sunnah? A good question. Isn't it?
Imagine, mother's RIGHT to guardianship in giving marriage is #11th in hierarchy!!! Is there any Islamic justification for this or basis in the Qur'an and Sunnah? A good question. Isn't it?
Now,
consider the hierarchy from a different angle. For blood-related,
mahram
family members, according to orthodox Islamic law, on whom the
responsibility of maintenance is assigned in order of priority?
(in Bangla language: jahader upor bhoron-poshoner dayitto bortay porjaykrome)
a. on husband
b. on fatherc. on mother
d. jointly on paternal or maternal grandparents and grandchildren
e. on son, and
f. on blood-relations.48
Compare the hierarchy of DUTY of maintenance. Mother is ranked very high - immediately after husband and father. Is this based on justice or reciprocity (in duty and right)? Why mothers would rank #11 in the hierarchy in regard to their own children, but rank #3 in regard to the duty of maintenance?
(in Bangla language: jahader upor bhoron-poshoner dayitto bortay porjaykrome)
a. on husband
b. on fatherc. on mother
d. jointly on paternal or maternal grandparents and grandchildren
e. on son, and
f. on blood-relations.48
Compare the hierarchy of DUTY of maintenance. Mother is ranked very high - immediately after husband and father. Is this based on justice or reciprocity (in duty and right)? Why mothers would rank #11 in the hierarchy in regard to their own children, but rank #3 in regard to the duty of maintenance?
One
can find the importance of paternal kindred in hierarchy in one of
the most authoritative Hanafi collections, Hedaya.
A hadith is quoted there (without
any reference).
The Prophet having
declared "Marriage is committed to the paternal kindred. . . ."
49
While
Hedaya cites this hadith without any reference, it wasn't traceable
to any of the hadith collections. Thanks to Dr. Muhammad al-Faruque,
Associate Professor of Library Administration and Middle Eastern
Studies Librarian at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
who assisted to trace this hadith to the work of one of the earliest
and leading Hanafi scholar al-Sarakhsi (d. 490 AH/1096 AD), Mabsut.50
The Arabic text is as following.
Let
alone being any mutawatir
or mashhur
(well known) hadith, this is from a source outside the hadith
collections. Curiously, Haskafi' Durr-ul-Mukhtar, a Hanafi legal
compendium of a much later period, and written in the footstep of
previous works, such as Hedaya, omits this hadith in discussing the
relevant segment [p. 43]. Also, Dr. Faruque informed [in an email]
"the super-gloss (hashiyah) of Ibn 'Abidin (d. 1836), entitled
Radd
al-muhtar 'ala Durr al-mukhtar,
that summarizes all Hanafi views up to his time, does not include
this hadith."51
The
context and significance of this hadith are not clear either. Based
on a hadith from sources outside the hadith collections, such
outlandish restrictions on women or minors have been imposed in
regard to their guardianship in marriage. Yet, in terms of
responsibility of maintenance, the mother is right where she should
be: next to husband/father.
4.
Punishment of Apostasy
One
of the most glaring examples of abuse of hadith pertains to the issue
of punishment of apostasy. The preponderant traditional view is that
apostasy (riddah)
is not just punishable, but punishable by death.52
Even some of the contemporary scholars, such as Sayyid Abul A’la
Maududi,53Shaikh
Yusuf al-Qaradawi,54
and so on, uphold the traditional view.
Islam
does consider apostasy a grave sin, but that is between God and the
apostate. There is no verse in the Qur’an that deals with or
mentions any punishment solely for apostasy in this world.55
The Qur’an is unequivocal in affirming the freedom of faith.
[2:256]
The
traditional position that apostasy, even when it is not related to
treason or rebellion, is punishable or subject to capital punishment,
is based on hadith.56
One particular hadith that is central to the traditional position on
apostasy is: 'Kill the one who changes his religion' (man
baddala
dinahu
faqtuluhu).57
This
is an ahad
or solitary hadith. Majority of scholars “are
in agreement that the prescribed penalties (hudud)
cannot be
established by solitary Hadith
(ahad),
and that
unbelief by itself does not call for the death penalty.”58
Death
penalty is such a grave matter that it were that important then the
Qur’an itself would have dealt with it. Moreover, there is no
single hadith, attesting the Prophetic practice, that anyone was
punished solely for apostasy. On the contrary, a concreted example of
how the Prophet handled a case of simple apostasy, not related to any
treason or rebellion, in the following hadith:
A
bedouin gave the Pledge of allegiance to Allah's Apostle for Islam.
Then the bedouin got fever at Medina, came to Allah's Apostle and
said, "O Allah's Apostle! Cancel my Pledge," But Allah's
Apostle refused. Then he came to him (again) and said, "O
Allah's Apostle! Cancel my Pledge." But the Prophet refused Then
he came to him (again) and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Cancel my
Pledge." But the Prophet refused. The bedouin finally went out
(of Medina) whereupon Allah's Apostle said, "Medina is like a
pair of bellows (furnace): It expels its impurities and brightens and
clears its good.59
How
did the traditional position emerge the way it did? Primarily, it was
the scholars’ failure to separate the problem of apostasy from that
of treason or rebellion against the nascent community or state during
and immediately after the time of the Prophet. The later
crystallization of the traditional position was further due to the
legalistic bent that developed at the expense of value-orientation.
For example, the value or principle of freedom of choice (#4 value,
as discussed in the Shari’ah essay, referred to earlier), which
includes freedom to change one’s faith, is squarely contradicted by
this type of hadith, where a person is to be killed for changing
one’s faith. However, scholars seem to have put aside the Qur’anic
principle on the basis of solitary hadith. This hadith may appear in
Sahih collections, such as Bukhari, but unless mutawatir,
a hadith does not yield any certainty of knowledge. Moreover, this
hadith has so many weaknesses.
However,
most importantly, the legalistic approach and perspective quite
routinely ignores the Qur’anic principles and values, while laws
(particularly, harsh ones) must not be in contravention to the
Qur’anic principles and norms.
The
Qur’an categorically affirms the freedom of faith. The Prophetic
practice and legacy are also consistent with that. No hadith that is
solitary, or weak or dealing with apostasy-cum-treason should
override the principle of freedom as enunciated in the Qur’an. The
contemporary view on the issue of apostasy is clearly modulating
toward a new preponderance. A new blog “Apostasy and Islam” is
now dedicated to this particular matter, where views of 100+
scholars, jurists, academics, imams, etc. are compiled.60
Different perspective of legal and non-legal scholars about hadith
To
have the above exposition in perspective, it is vitally important to
keep in perspective the difference between the hadith scholars and
the legal scholar in their approach to hadith. While the focus of the
former is to study, scrutinize, analyze and categorize hadith, the
focus of the latter is to utilize or apply hadith (along with the
other sources) to derive or deduce laws.
The
hadith scholars have done a remarkable and noble job in preserving
and presenting the corpus of knowledge pertaining to what the Prophet
said or did. That the hadith literature classifies the ahadith
into sahih,
hasan,
daif
and maudu
indicates a strength of the field of hadith that the scholars have
exerted their utmost in preserving and passing on this body of
knowledge to us. While analytical scholarship in the field of hadith
is ongoing, how hadith is used in the fiqh
is the responsibility of the legal scholars.
Legal
scholars apply a different principle regarding the use of hadith than
the non-legal scholars. To them, in general, an ahad,
or even a da‘if
hadith is better as a source of law than the qiyas
of an individual, as long as that hadith does not contradict the
established principles of the Qur’an and other ahadith
as well as the ijma’
of Muslim scholars (in law). Of course, there are others who have
held a different position and emphasized qiyas
and ijma
much more.
While
Muslims need to have a better and more nuanced understanding of the
hadith as source of Islamic knowledge, the scholars, including legal
scholars, need to come forward to reexamine the existing body of
Islamic law in light of the intent (maqasid)
of Islam. It is also important to note that just as hadith in general
does not yield certainty of knowledge, fiqh
is not a divine enterprise. Rather, it is a fallible human understand
of the infallible divine will, as reflected in shariah,
a highly misunderstood and misinterpreted term.61
Conclusion
The
cases of misapplication of hadith cited above are merely for
illustrative purpose. Many conscientious Muslims would have problem
with such use of Hadith in coming up with some of the overstretching
reach of the laws in Islam - laws that are often presented as based
on divine Shariah,
while most of these laws [fiqh]
are merely fallible human interpretation.
Even
though wrong, it is understandable that some people would go to the
extreme and based on inappropriate use of hadith for such
unacceptable stretch of laws and codes would attack or reject hadith
literature in general. Indeed, there is now a breed that claims to be
followers of "Qur'an Only". One such group and its founder,
late Rashad Khalifa, not only rejected hadith, but Khalifa ended up
claiming messengership (risalah)
for himself. "Few years before his death, Dr. Khalifa declared
that he is the Messenger of the Covenant, prophesied in the Quran in
3:81."62
That, of course, understandably, earned discredit and repudiation
from the Muslims in general. However, not all rejecters of hadith are
of the extreme types that belong to groups bearing the false creed of
new divine messengers after the Prophet Muhammad. Such false creeds
need to be rejected and repudiated, but not necessarily by indulging
in takfir,
whereby even mainstream and orthodox Muslims have turned against and
disclaiming each other.63
As
I have mentioned earlier, the reality in regard to hadith might lie
somewhere in between. Hadith is our precious and indispensable source
to know in great detail about the life of the Prophet in terms of
what he said and did, as observed and attested by his noble
Companions. The Prophet is also the Qur'anic guidance in action.
Therefore, the Qur'an Only approach is fundamentally wrong and
misguided.
Another
common error of such Qur'an-only people is that they reject the
hadith literature altogether as man-made. In fact, the treasure of
hadith available to us, with all the authentication applied, is not
man-made. However, hadith definitely is not at the same level as the
Qur'an is, and since hadith is not like divine revelation, protected
by Allah from error and corruption, hadith has a level of human
element that must be acknowledged and taken into consideration.
Given
the fact that except a few (less than a dozen) hadith that are
mutawatir
(yielding certainty of knowledge), almost all ahadith,
including the sahih
ones, are probabilistic
in yielding knowledge. Hence, it is much desired that hadith is used
more as a source of information as well as moral inspiration and
wisdom than as an all-encompassing and sacrosanct basis for
formulation of laws and codes. As Muslims are also social beings,
they must have laws, and the Qur'an and the Sunnah naturally would
serve as sources of wisdom and guidance in formulating pertinent laws
and codes. However, given the probabilistic nature of hadith in
general, Muslims need to be more humble in this regard. Much more
restrained approach needs to be taken, where hadith is used to arrive
at laws or codes that have direct and serious implication for the
life, honor and property of people. Such restraint would also be
relevant in regard to any law or code that might be discriminatory or
unjust. Also, it is important that in deriving laws and codes,
whenever appropriate and relevant, a problem should be duly studied
from an empirical perspective to better understand the problems and
conditions that the Islamic laws and codes are to address.64
Once
we acknowledge the level of human input in hadith, in contrast with
the divinely revealed and protected Qur'an, we can turn to hadith for
details of laws and codes more dynamically. Such approach to hadith
would not require theologically elevating hadith to level that is
indefensible from the Islamic viewpoint. It would prevent any
imposition of harsh laws and codes as binding, when such binding
nature of those laws and codes can't be Islamically established in a
convincing manner. Yet, it would allow Muslims to turn to the
precious treasure of hadith to formulate laws and codes through a
process that is based on people's representation and participation.
Indeed, in such a dynamic framework, not only hadith literature can't
and must not be rejected, but also we must turn to hadith for
guidance as part of the law-making process of the society.
Ye
have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of
conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and
who engages much in the Praise of Allah. [33/al-Ahzab/21]
Say:
"If ye do love Allah, Follow me: Allah will love you and forgive
you your sins: For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
[3/ale
Imran/31]
Bibliography
AbdulHamid
A. AbuSulayman. The Islamic Theory of International Relations: New
Directions for Islamic Methodology and Thought [Herndon, VA: The
International Institute of Islamic Thought, 1987]
Abu
Bakr Muhammad ibn Ahmad as-Sarakhsi, Kitab
al-Mabsut
[Beirut: Dar al-Ma'rifa, 1993, vol. 4].
Al-Shafi'i.
Al-Shafi'i's
Risala: Treatise on the Foundations of Islamic Jurisprudence
[translated by Majid Khadduri; Cambridge, UK: The Islamic Texts
Society, 2nd Edition, 1987]
M.
M. Azami. Studies
in Hadith Methodology and Literature
[Indiana: American Trust Publications, 1977]
Mohammad
Omar Farooq_1. "Religious
denunciations and Takfir: Isn't there enough to go around?"
[November 2005; unpublished]
Mohammad
Omar Farooq_2. "Islamic
Fiqh (Law) and the Neglected Empirical Foundation"
[Unpublished, July 2006]
Mohammad
Omar Farooq_3. "Shariah,
Law and Islam: Legalism vs. Value-orientation"
[Unpublished, October 2006]
Wael
Hallaq. "The
Authenticity of Prophetic Hadith: A Pseudo-problem,"
Studia
Islamica
99 (1999), pp. 75-90
Suhaib
Hasan. An Introduction To The Science Of Hadith [London: Al-Qur'an
Society, 1994]
Mohammad
Hashim Kamali. Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence [Cambridge, UK:
Islamic Texts Society, 2003]
Mazhar
Kazi, A Treasury of Ahadith [Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: Abul-Qasim
Publishing House, 1992]
Burhan
al-Din al-Marghinani, Al-Hidāya (2nd ed.; London, 1870), translated
by Charles Hamilton (Karachi, 1989).
Maliha
Masood. "Untangling
the Complex Web of Islamic Law:
Revolutionizing the Sharia," Al
Nakhlah
– The Fletcher School/Tufts University Online Journal, Fall 2003,
#4.
Fatima
Mernissi. The Veil and the Male Elite: A Feminist Interpretation of
Women's Rights in Islam [Reading, Mass.; Perseus Books, 1987]
Kaukab
Siddique. The Struggle of Muslim Women [Singapore: Thinkers
Library, 1983]
Muhammad
Zubayr Siddiqi. Hadith
Literature: Its Origin, Development & Special Features
[Cambridge, UK: Islamic Texts Society, 1993]
Iqbal
Ahmad Khan Suhail. What is Riba? [New Delhi, India: Pharos, 1999]
1
Mohammad Omar Farooq. Shari'ah,
Laws and Islam: Legalism vs. Value-orientation
[unpublished essay, October 2006.
2
Mazhar Kazi. A
Treasury of Ahadith
[Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: Abul-Qasim Publishing House, 1992], pp. 1-2.
4
AbdulHamid A. AbuSulayman. The
Islamic Theory of International Relations: New Directions for
Islamic Methodology and Thought
[Herndon, VA: The International Institute of Islamic Thought, 1987],
p. 83.
6
Mohammad Hashim Kamali. Principles
of Islamic Jurisprudence
[Cambridge, UK: Islamic Texts Society, 2003], p. 93.
9
Al-Shafi'i. Al-Shafi'i's
Risala: Treatise on the Foundations of Islamic Jurisprudence
[translated by Majid Khadduri; Cambridge, UK: The Islamic Texts
Society, 2nd Edition, 1987], p. 244, #374.
10
Muhammad Zubayr Siddiqi. Hadith
Literature: Its Origin, Development & Special Features
[Cambridge, UK: Islamic Texts Society, 1993], pp. 57-58.
11
M. M. Azami. Studies
in Hadith Methodology and Literature
[Indiana: American Trust Publications, 1977], p. 92, quoting Suyuti
and Ibn Hajar.
15
Sunan Ibn Majah, trans.by Muhammad Tufail Ansari, New Delhi, India,
Kitab Bhaban, 2000, Vol. 3, #2205.
16
Ibn-i-Majah. Sunan Ibn-i-Majah, trans. by Muhammad Tufail Ansari,
New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 2000, Vol. III, #2185, p. 306.
19
Kamali, op. cit., p. 80.
21
Wael Hallaq. "The
Authenticity of Prophetic Hadith: A Pseudo-problem,"
Studia
Islamica
99 (1999), pp. 75-90, p. 79, referring to al-Qarafi.
25
Hallaq, op.
cit.,
p. 87, for the fully annotated work of Hallaq please refer to the
URL/link in the bibliography; asterisks represent footnotes that
have been left out of this excerpt.
28
Suhaib Hasan. An Introduction To The Science Of Hadith [London:
Al-Qur'an Society, 1994. Hasan, See the segment An
Introduction To The Science Of Hadith
32
Kamali, p. 98.
33
Kamali, p. 97.
34
Kamali, p. 94.
36
Hallaq, p. 88.
39
Mohammad Omar Farooq. "Religious
denunciations and Takfir: Isn't there enough to go around?",
NABIC-L, online document, October 17, 2005;
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nabic-l/message/3959
42
S. A. Rahman, Punishment
of Apostasy in Islam,
India, Kitab Bhaban, 1996, p. 72, citing Mukhtasar
of Sayyid al-Sharif al-Jurjani [d. 1413 AD].
44
Fatima Mernissi. The
Veil and the Male Elite: A Feminist Interpretation of Women's Rights
in Islam
[Reading, Mass.; Perseus Books, 1987], pp. 49-61.
46
Bidhibadhdha Islami Ain, p. 149.
47
It is available online. See
http://www.darululoom-deoband.com/english/books/nikah.htm#The%20Wali%20or%20Legal%20Guardian
49
Burhan al-Din al-Marghinani, Al-Hidāya (2nd ed.; London, 1870),
translated by Charles Hamilton [Karachi, 1989], p. 107.
50
Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ahmad as-Sarakhsi, Kitab
al-Mabsut
[Beirut: Dar al-Ma'rifa, 1993, vol. 4], p. 219.
51
Dr. Faruque's comments only pertain to tracing of the hadith; he
doesn't necessarily share the opinions, views or analysis shared in
this essay.
52
For one of the most thorough expositions of the traditional
position, see Chapter on Apostasy in Yohanan Friedman. Tolerance
and Coercion in Islam: Interfaith Relationships
[Cambridge University Press, 2003]
53
Sayyid Abul Ala Mawdudi. The
Punishment of the Apostate According to Islamic Law,
trans. by Syed Silas Husain and Ernest Hahn,1994; available online.
55
Mohammad Omar Farooq. “Apostasy,
Freedom and Da’wah: Full-Disclosure in a Business-like Manner”
[unpublished essay, September 2006]
56
For detailed analysis of those commonly cited hadith justifying the
punishment of apostasy, see Abdullah Saeed and Hassan Saeed. Freedom
of Religion, Apostasy and Islam
[Ashgate Publications, 2004]; M.E.
Asad Subhani. Apostasy
in Islam
[New Delhi, India: Global Media Publications, 2004]; S.
A. Rahman. Punishment
of Apostasy in Islam
[New Delhi, India: Kitab Bhavan, 1996].
57
Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, #57.
For a list of other sources where this hadith appears and a critical
analysis of it, see Dr. Ahmad Shafaat. "The
Punishment of Apostasy in Islam (Part II): An Examination of the
Ahadith on the Subject”
(APRIL 2007); online document.
58
Mohammad
Hashim Kamali. Freedom
of Expression in Islam
[Islamic Text Society, 1997], referring
to Shaltut, al-Islam
‘Aqidah wa-Shari’ah,
pp.
292-93.
61
Mohammad Omar Farooq. "Shariah,
Law and Islam: Legalism vs. Value-orientation"
[Unpublished, October 2006]
62
From the website of the followers of Rashad Khalifa.
63
Mohammad Omar Farooq. "Religious
denunciations and Takfir: Isn't there enough to go around?",
NABIC-L, online document, October 17, 2005;
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nabic-l/message/3959
64
Mohammad Omar Farooq. "Islamic
Fiqh (Law) and the Neglected Empirical Foundation"
[Unpublished, July 2006]
1 comment:
Fantastic job right here.
Very interesting...
Aqeedah
Post a Comment