historical perspectives and implications of hadith in islam

8/14/2019 Historical Perspectives and Implications of Hadith in Islam

1/28

Historical Perspectives and Implications of Hadith in Islam

HomeHistorical Perspectives and Implications of Hadith in

Islam

y Dr. Manzoor-ul-Haque

NTRODUCTION

In the affairs of social life in general and those of the religious in particular, some matters

attune the status ofa priori where deep thought and mature deliberation are no more

considered sine qua non. One of the arguments for this is that the human mind has usually

happened to be very easy-going. The other more argumentative discourse is when a

hallow of religious sanctimony enshrines sucha priori, the human being frightens, and

shudders to inspect it with a critical look. He understands that drawing inference with

human thought and intellect is a heinous crime and a grievous sin. Even if he is taught theimportance of thinking and reasoning, his frontiers of deliberations lead him to a mental

juncture where, if he finds a reason justifying his maxim, he offers it as an accepted

authority. And abruptly rejects the very argument and authority that harps against that

professed maxim. He experiences exorbitant fear from the outward antagonism of the

religionists than that of his own inner qualm. The taunting, the reproaching, and the

denouncing of him as an infidel frighten him in the garb of a will- oth wisp. And he

dares not, in propria persona, go even in the proximity of the forbidden tree of research.

On the contrary, in the realm of reality the fact is thata priori of any sort ought not to beaccepted without sharpening on the whetstone of research, though, how long that may

have been transmitting. Ask any Muslim: Deen is the name of what? Unhesitatingly a

pun would be made: Deen is the name of the composite configuration of the Quran and

Hadith. But the question is has any one accepted it on the touchstone of research, and has

admitted it on the basis of knowledge of discernment? Or has any one simply bogged it

down in the core of ones heart just because that parlance has been inherited through

generations? If research and reflection lead to conclude that themaxim is indeed based on

reality, then this belief of the believers would be founded on knowledge of discernment

and the true satisfaction hemmed in would be quite evident. But if, on the ground ofknowledge and research, one reaps the conclusion that the obvious is not based on any

reality, the believers would be capacitated to dispense with the belief that they have

simply been clinging conventionally. In doing so, they will make compliance of a

peremptory command of the Quran in which it has been ordained:

Wala taqfu ma laysa laka bihi AAilmun inna alssamAAa waalbasara waalfu-

ada kullu ola-ika kana AAanhu mas-oolan (17/36)

ttp://www.tolueislam.com/bazms/Manzoor/MH_hadith_I.htm (1 of 28)1/22/2010 5:43:12 AM
http://www.tolueislam.com/index.htmhttp://www.tolueislam.com/index.htm


2/28


Do not follow that you have knowledge not. Remember, your hearing, seeing and faculty of

thinking, all will be questioned of it.

AN INTRIGUING QUESTION

Now the question is: When Deen as comprehended usually is a compendium of two parts,

the Quran and the Hadith, isnt anyone of these two presumptive, and that has Allah and

His Messenger (PBUH) bestowed these two parts to the Muslims as the ingredients of

Deen?

First consider the Quran. The proclamation of this reality has tens of hundred times been

made in the Quran that this is a Book of truth:

Waallathee awhayna ilayka mina alkitabi huwa alhaqqu . . . (35/31)

Whatsoever We have revealed to you from the Book is (absolutely) truth.

This magnificent Book unravels itself with these words:

Thalika alkitabu la rayba feehi (2/2)

There is no room of uncertainty, ambiguity, skepticism, or psychological perplexity in this

Book. It is out and out a truth; it is definitive, neither speculative, nor presumptive; it

transcends the barriers of skepticism.

Now, how did this benefaction come to the hand of Muslims, and in what outward form

would it remain with them? It is evident, it was revealed to Mohammed (PBUH) and

Allah took on Himself the responsibility of its lay up and compilation:

Inna AAalayna jamAAahu waqur-anahu (75/17)

Assuredly the compiling out of this (book) and its reading out is upon Us.

And not only of its lay up and assembling, but also of the dictum that there could neitherbe any altero-modification in it; nor could there be any human interpolations of any nature

to the last syllable of the recorded time. The Quran affirms:

Inna nahnu nazzalna alththikra wa-inna lahu lahafithoona (15/9)

Surely We have revealed this Quran, and it is We who are surely its guardians .



3/28


For executing this preservation into practice, the exalted Messenger (PBUH) was

unequivocally ordained:

Ya ayyuha alrrasoolu balligh ma onzila ilayka (5/67)

O Rasool, whatsoever has been revealed to you, deliver it to the mankind .

The Messenger (PBUH) made a party of his companions to pen down the Quran verbatim

et literatim. There were, as the history unfolds tens of thousands of Quran-conners who

used to recollect the Quran by words, then the Messenger (PBUH) himself used to listen

to what they had recollected. He used to rectify and emendate. Thus before departing this

world he got himself fully satisfied,pleno jure, that whatever the message of Allah was

revealed to him had been communicated to the humans in its complete and perfect form.

And that it had been preserved - not only in black and white but also within the hearts of

tens of thousands of Quran-conners. After the Messenger (PBUH), the guided caliphs

(concordant with the will of Allah) looked to the preservation of the Quran as their

bounded duty and adopted practical measures for this purpose. Thus, up till now, this text

of the Nourisher has come down safely preserved not only through the hearts of the Quran-

conners but also through the pages of papers writ large in a way that the protagonists and

the antagonists (aliens) both have assented: The Quran extant with Muslims is word by

word the same that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) has handed over to them. (Muqaam-e-

Hadith, 1992, p.1). Since Allah has undertaken the responsibility to have it preserved on His

own, thus, the last of His massages, will remain preserved till the day of Resurrection.

This is the definitive entity, far beyond any speck of suspicion and speculation. Had the

Messenger of Allah (PBUH) undertaken the same measures he exercised for the

preservation of the Quran?

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES OF HADITH

The historical record proves that he did not make any of such stringent arrangements.

There is a saying of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) in the books of Ahadith:

Do not write from me anything other than the Quran and rub off whosoever have written

something other than the Quran(Sahih Muslim). It is said it was but apro tempore order

because in some traditions it is found: On his request, Hazart Abdullah Bin Umroo was

accorded permission to write down the sayings if he so desires. But this, at the most, would

prove that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) simply granted permission. He never sparked

any order; he never made any arrangements. And that after showering this permission no

proof is available to this effect that the Messenger (PBUH) had enquired of some one who

had written such and such sayings and that he had heard out, rectified or emended these

sayings.



4/28


It is usually said that in those days Arabs memory was very sharp, so it was confidently

relied upon. If reliance upon memory was enough in the matters of Deen, then What was

the need of the write-up of the Quran? Why was the memory of the people not

considered squarely enough for this purpose? This may be recalled here that every word

of the Quran was recollected to the mind, was heard out and then was certified. If some

one had recalled a few sayings on ones own, these could command no authority for the

Ummah till the Messenger (SAW), after hearing these out, had attested their authenticity.

It was only when he had handed over them to Ummah fully preserved in the form of abook. And it was unless and until these very sayings would have passed on word by word

in their original dictate like that of the Holy Quran. But none of these traditions passed

through this process during the exalted period of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). (Muqaam-

e-Hadith, 1992, p.1). Pause and meditate: had the Ahadith been the integral part of Deen,

would have the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) not made any of the convoluted approaches

for their preservation?

The traditions unravel the fact that some miscellaneous articles other than the Quran were

also penned down on the orders of the Messenger (SAW). These included the writtencontracts, orders and proclamations etc. that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) sent to the

tribes and his executives. In this way whatever could be known today, in addition to the

Quran, is simply these written documents found at the time of the sad demise of the

Messenger (PBUH): (i) Names of 1500 companions of the Messenger (PBUH) written in

a Register; (ii) Letters the Messenger (PBUH) wrote to the rulers and the kings; (iii) A

few written orders, proclamations and contracts etc.; and (iv) A few traditions, which

Hazrat Abdullah Bin Umroo, or Hazrat Ali and Hazrat Uns wrote so jure -about these

Ahadith, it is neither proved from any source that the Messenger (PBUH) had certified

them, nor are these extant any where in their original form; so what the Messenger(PBUH) handed over to the Ummah was nothing but the Quran only. He did not give any

collection of Ahadith to the Ummah. Even in Bukhari this saying is extant that Hazrat Ibn-

e-Abbass was asked: What has the Messenger (PBUH) left for the Ummah? He said: The

Messenger (PBUH) did not leave any thing but the Quran. (Bukhari, vol. 3rd, Kitah-ul-Fazaa-

i-lul-Quran, p. 173)

THE PRACTICE OF THE MESSENGER S COMPANIONS

After the exalted Messenger (PBUH), the practice of his companions, especially those ofthe guided caliphs, radiates with lucid light. It is written in the Masnat Iman Ahmed that

the companions of the Messenger (PBUH) said: Whatever we heard from the Messenger(PBUH), we used to have it written down. Then one day the Messenger (PBUH) appeared in

front of us and commanded: What is it that you are used to write? We submitted: whatever we

hear from you (we write it down). Then he commanded: What? Another book along with that

of Allah s book? (i.e. it ought not be done). He commanded again: (Manifest elegance: Keep

pure) the Book of Allah and keep it pure from any kind of doubt-speck. (The companions of

the Messenger, PBUH, say): Then whatever we had written, we gathered it in a ground; then



5/28


we burnt it up. (Tadveen-i-Hadith, p. 249)

About Hazrat Abu Bukr Siddique, Imam Zehbi has also written this tradition: After thedeath of Rasoolullah (PBUH), Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddique gathered the people and said, You

narrate traditions from Rasoolullah (PBUH) in which you contradict conjointly. And the

people to come after you will become more sordid in their contrariety hence it ought to be that

nothing be narrated confided to Rasoolullah (PBUH). Then if any one amongst you asks (of it),

tell: there is Allahs Book between you and us, hence it ought to be that the things this Book

has made lawful, declare them lawful and those it has made unlawful, declare them

unlawful.(Tazkarat-ul-Haffaz Zehbi Quoted in Jadveen-i-Hadith, p. 321)

Imam Zehdi has also written: Hazrat Aesha said: My father (Hazrat Abu Bakr) assembledthe traditions of Allahs Messenger (PBUH). Their number rose to 500. Then it was seen at one

night that he (i. e. Hazrat Siddique, the great) was adversely turning on his side. I beseeched: Is

it due to any physical pain that you are tuning your side or has any news reached you (the

hearing of which has made you restless)? He did not respond to it. When it was morning, he

said: My daughter, bring the copy of the Ahadith you have with you. He, then, asked to bring

fire and inflamed that copy. (Tadveen -i-Hadith, pp. 285 - 88)

Regarding Hazrat Ummar, Allama Ibn-e-Abdul Barr has copied this tradition in his

reputed book,Jamey Biyan-ul-Ilm: Hazrat Umar Bin Khattab desired that the Sanen i.e. thetraditions, be got transformed in written statements. He, then, asked the companions of the

Messenger for a legal opinion regarding the lawfulness of this write-up. The people asseverated

that the traditions might be got written down.But Hazrat Umar was not heartily satisfied withthis counsel, so he practiced divination on this matter for one month complete. Then one

morning God vested in him perfect sense of solace for this decision Hazrat Umar said to the

people I intended to get the traditions written down. I thought of the nations, which have

passed you by. They wrote books, pounced upon them, and gave up Allahs Book; I swear I donot desire Allahs Book to be mingled with any of the others. (Tadveen-i-Hadith, p.394)

And it was because of the fact that as the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) had himself said: Donot write any thing else from me except the Quran; whosoever has written from me any other

than the Holy Quran, he ought to scrub it off. (Saheeh Muslim)

I t was not the only thing that Hazart Ummar decided that the work of assembling and

laying up of Hadith ought not to be carried out he also went one step ahead. It is written

in Tabqat: At the time of Hazrat Umar, the traditions abounded in number. On oath, heordered the people to produce the copies of the traditions to him. The people, in compliance to

these orders produced their copies. He then ordered to burn these to a cinder. (Tabqat, vol. 5, p.141) (Tadveen -i- Hadith, p.399)

This is what happened in the capital. And what about afterwards? Hafiz Ibn-e- Abdul Barr

has copied this tradition in hisJamey Biyan-ul-Ilm: Hazrat Ummar Ibn-e-Khattab firstdesired that the traditions be written down. But later on it became quite clear to him that the

writing of the traditions would not be appropriate. He then sent dispatches to Al-Ahrar (i. e.



6/28


cantonments and other District Cities) in black and white that whosoever has had any of the

serials pertaining to traditions, he ought to efface these out i. e. expend these to no purpose. (Jamey Biyan-ul-Ilm, vol. 1, p. 65 quoted in Tadveen -i-Hadith, p. 400)

Maulana Manazar Ahsan Gilani (Deceased) has particularly reserved a separate chapter in

his book: In theprimus inter pares period (of Islam), Making of no Superintendence

for Preservation and Propagation of Hadith From the Government side was not a

Matter of Chance, but of a Matter Founded on Advisability. Prior to it, he hasreproduced this quote of Imam Ibn-e-Hazam: When Hazrat Umar died, the number ofcopies of the Quran spread abroad from Egypt to Iraq, from Iraq to Syria and from Syria to

Yemen - if not exceeded to one lac - was nor less even than that.(Tadveen-i-Hadith, p. 216) He

then described in detail when such a control was exercised for the propagation of the

Quran, had the Government so desired, what could have been the barrier deterring the

propagation of Ahadith? He has concluded that the Government did not do so

intentionally.

This is the status of compiling the traditions during the period of the companions of the

Messenger (PBUH). In a summery, it can be said:

1. The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) ordered not to write any thing from him exceptthe Quran.

2. Whichever Abadith the companions of the exalted Messenger wrote on their own,they burnt these out on the commandment of the Messenger (PBUH).

3. Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddique burnt his own compiled collection and ordered thepeople not to narrate the Abadith.

4. Hazrat Umar - after deep meditations and mature considerations for a period ofone month - decided that the Abadith ought not be collected and compiled.

5. Hazrat Umar gave oath to the people to bring the copies of their collections of theAbadith and burnt these out. He also issued orders for the remaining cities to waste the

Abadith if any one has had a collection thereof in written form.

6. This whole was not done by chance, but in the words of Maulana Manazar Ahsan(Deceased): This was all done with intention.

Hazrat Umar became more intense in this matter. He harshly abandoned the people for

propagating the Ahadith. Qezah bin Kaab narrates: when Hazrat Umar sent us to Iraq, he

emphatically made us remember, You are going to a place where the voices of the

people, like the humming of the bees, resonate with the recitation of the Quran, so do not



7/28


make them unmindful of the Quran by simply implicating them in Ahadith. (Muqaam-e-

Hadith, 1992, p.1). Hazrat Abu Huraira was asked: Did you also use to narrate the Ahadith at

the time of Hazrat Umar in the same manner? He said, If I had narrated the Ahadith at

the time of Hazrat Umar in the same way, he had whipped me. It is also narrated: Hazrat

Umar had put Hazrat Abdullah Bin Masood, Abu Darda and Abu Masood Ansari behind

the bars on their crime of narrating the Ahadith exasperatingly. (For all these sayings,

consult Tazkirat-ul-Hiffaz.)

These descriptions make this clear: had these caliphs considered Ahadith an integral part

of Deen, they would have definitely published a collection of these Ahadith under the

patronage of their caliphate just like the management they made for the general

propagation and publication of the Quran. That is why, after the Messenger of Allah

(PBUH), no measures were taken for the collection and compilation of Ahadith during the

period of Khailafal-i-Rashida.

FOUND COPIES AND THE CONTRIBUTORS

A. SAHEEF-E-HAMMAM IBN-E-MENBAH

This is the first century Hijra Compiled Collection of Ahadith known as Saheefa-e-

Hammam Ibn-e-Membah, It was published by Dr. Hameedullah, Hyderabad Daccan. It is

said of Imam Hammam Ibn-e-Membah that he was a student of Abu Huraira. He died in

131 H. In this Saheefa, there are 138 Ahadith of which he said he wrote these in front of

his teacher, Hazrat Abu Huraira. Hazrat Abu Huraira died in 58 H. Therefore, it can be

understood that this collection was compiled prior to 58 H. In this connection, this is

worth noting that Imam Hammam Ibn-e-Membah, while in Madina prior to 58 H,

compiles this collection of Ahadith and gets 138 Ahadith only. And, in the 3rd century

Hijra, when Imam Bukhari intends to collect Ahadith, he gets six Lac Ahadith. Imam

Ahmed Bin Hambal got ten Lac and Imam Yahya Ibn-e-Moin got twelve Lac Ahadith.

Likewise, this fact is also worth noting that the Ahadith narrated by Hazrat Abu Huraira

come up to the tune of thousands, but the collection of his student contains 138 Ahadith

only. Anyhow, the outcome of the individual efforts in the first century Hijra assembling

the Ahadith is the 138 Ahadith of Saheefa-e-Imam Hammam Ibn-e-Membah. Besides no

other trace of any written collection of Ahadith during this period is traceable.

B. IMAM ZAHRI (ON HIM THE MERCY)

In about the year 100 H, Umar Bin Abdul Aziz (on him the mercy), the caliph got a few

Ahadith assembled. Thereafter, Imam Ibn-e-Shahab Zehri (d. 124 H), by the orders of the

caliphs of Bani Umayyad, prepared a brief collection of Ahadith of which he himself says:

I found this work unpleasant (Mukhtaser Jamey Biyan-ul-Ilm ). But neither the assembled

Ahadith of Hazrat Umar Bin Abdul Aziz (on him the mercy), in any lay-up form, nor



8/28


those of Imam Zehris above mentioned collection are extant, though their traditions are

found in the later-on-compiled books of Ahadith.

C. OTHER COMPILATIONS AND CONTRIBUTORS

Thereafter started the era in which the idea of writing down the complete state-of-affairs,

the whereabouts (the History) of the best period burgeoned in the mind of the people. The

material of the writings was the traditions (sayings) coming down generally on the tips ofthe Muslims tongues. Some fellows raked up this vast vista and assembled the talks

confided to the exalted Messenger (PBUH) alone.

The First collection of Ahadith extant today is Mauta, the Book of Imam Malik (d. 179

H). The number of Ahadith found in its various versions ranges from 300 to 500. After

Imam Malik, this stream continuously went on widening and other scholars also thought

of compiling the collections of Ahadith; so a number of books were compiled during this

period. In the period of the Abbassides, various branches of Islamic Arts and Sciences

flourished extra-ordinarily, and the printing and publication of the books of Ahadith, also,attained a distinctly widened circulation. The most important, among these books, are

Sahiheen (Sahih Bukhari and the Muslim). Imam Bukhari (d. 256 H) assembled nearly six

Lac (traditions), out of which after rejecting, discarding and eliding the repetitives the

collection he prepared contains 2600 Ahadith. This book is called As-hul-Kutub Baad az

Kitab Allah (i. e. after the Quran, the most correct book in the world). These are the very

collections of Ahadith, which are now called the integral part of Deen. Six of these

collection are the ones, which the Ahl-i-Sunnat wal Jamat (the Sunnis) accept as the most

correct collections. These are called the Sihah-i-Sitta, the correct six books of Ahadith.

These are: (i) Sahih Bukhari; (ii) Sahih Muslim; (iii) Tirmzi; (iv) Abu Dawood; (v) Ibn-e-Majah; and (vi) Nesaai.

The various collections of the Shiites are: (i) Al Kaani known by the name of Jamey Abu

Jafar Muhammad Jok-leeni; he died in 239 H;(ii)Min La Yastah Zera Al Faqyya: this is the

compilation of Shaikh Muhammad Ibn-e-Ali (d. 381 H); (iii) Tehzeeb: compiled by Shaikh

Abu Jafar Muhammad Bin Hassan, died in 460 H. No one amongst them is Arab. Neither

the Shiites, nor the Sunnis consider each others compilations worth-accepting.

A brief introduction of the compilers of these collections inpaucis verbis is given below:

1. IMAM BUKHARI (ON HIM BE MERCY)

He was born in Bukhara and died in 256 H (or, according to some others, in the proximity

of 260 H) in the vicinity ofSam-ar-qand. It is said he collected approximately six Lac

Ahadith roaming from city to city and village to village , out of which he found nearly

7300 Ahadith as the correct ones by judging on his own criterion and compiled these in



9/28


his book. The remaining nearly 5,93,000 , he rejected. Many out of these (7300)

have been repeatedly written in various Chapters. If these repetitives are not included, the

remaining number comes up to the tune of 2762 or 2630.

2. IMAM MUSLIM (ON HIM THE MERCY)

The compiler of Sahih Muslim was Imam Muslim Bin Hajjaj, the inhabitant of a well-

known city of Neishapur in Iran. He was born in 204 H and died in 261 H.

3. TIRMZI

Imam Abu Essa Muhammad Tirmzi was a native of Irans prominent city, Tirmiz. His

year of birth is 209 H and of death is 279 H.

4. ABU DAWOOD

He was a resident of Seestan (Iran), born in 202 H and died in 275 H.

5. IBN-E-MAJA

Abu Abdulah Muhammad Bin Zaid Ibn-e-Maja was a resident of Qizwain city in North

Iran. His year of birth is 209 H and of death is 273 H.

6. IMAM ABDUL RAHMAN NESAAI

He was born in a village Nesaa of Khurasaan Province in Eastern Iran. His year of death is

303 H.

With this brief introduction of these scholars of Hadith, the following points gush forth to

the mind:

1. They were all Iranian; no one was from Arab. It is the occasion of consternationthat no one from the Arabians accepted the responsibility of this great work and the

non-Arabians (aliens) materialized the work of assembling and compiling of theAhadith.

2. All these fellows came to pass in the 3rd century Hijra.

3. They found tens of thousands of Ahadith but there were a few which considering these to be correct they entered in their collections.



10/28


4. The people verbally narrated all these Ahadith. There was no prior extantwritten record of these Ahadith.

5. Their selection out of the thousands of the Ahadith was the result of theirpersonal vision and decision. For judging whether these Ahadith are correct, they

neither enjoyed the authority of God (i.e. God had not revealed to them that so and so

Ahadith are correct, so retain them, and such and such are incorrect so reject them), nor

the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) conferred any attestation (that the Ahadith youselected are, in fact, My sayings), nor had they any prior written record with them on

the basis of which they could make the selection of these Ahadith. These were simply

the peoples verbal discourses based on their vision and wisdom they incorporated

these in their collections.

Now reflect considerably: can it, in any way, be said that the results of such individual

efforts are actually the sayings of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH)? Also keep this point in

mind: it can not be said of any one of these verbal talks, transmitted through the people

during these 200 to 250 years that these were the actual words of the Messenger (SAW),which were remembered by heart when the son heard from his father and the student from

his teacher verbatim et literatim, word for word and letter from letter. Every narrator

described these talks in his own words.

COLLECTION, COMPILATION AND RETENTION

How many Ahadith did these fellows collect? And making selections, how many Ahadith

did they retain for their collections? The detail is given below:

1. Imam Bukhari, out of six Lac, removing the repetitives, retained 2762 or 2630.2. Imam Muslim, out of three Lac, retained only 4348.3. Tirmzi, out of three Lac, retained only 3115.4. Abu Dawood, out of five Lac, retained only 4800.5. Ibn-e-Maja, out of four Lac, retained only 4000.6. Nisaai, out of two Lac, retained only 4321.

It is obvious when the touchstone for repudiating the Ahadith was the personal, subjective

vision of the compilers, no one can say how many would have been wasted. More over,

out of the selection they made, how many which could not be called the sayings or

deeds of the Messenger (PBUH) would have been included.

TRADITIONS AS UNDERSTOOD: NATURE AND SCOPE

All the books of Ahadith, including the Bukhari and the Muslim extant today, do

not have the actual words of the Messenger (PBUH). These Ahadith are the



11/28


traditions as understood. It means their style is like this: when, for instance, any

companion of the Messenger (PBUH) heard anything from him, whatever he

comprehended, he narrated it to the other companion in his own words. Whatever

that fellow deduced, he passed it onward. Now pause for a while and think: if this

state of affairs is allowed to continue on this pattern - not for days, for months, not

for a few years, but for a period of 200 to 250 years - and then these talks so spread

among the people are compiled together. Then the extent of the relevance of these

talks to that of the stated exposition of the first narrator, the Messenger, the exalted,

is quite evident. Allowing ten persons sit jointly in a room, simply narrate the detail

of an incidence in the ear of one man only. After that when that detail having

transmitted from ear to ear, reaches you, you will find how different that is what you

said and what you heard from the tenth person. And when this state of affaires

continues for 250 years and these talks incessantly go on transferring downward to

at least Lacs of people, if not Crores, - then the genuineness reflected through these

talks would be, sans doute, quite clear.

PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS IN UNDERSTANDING THE EXPOSITION

In this connection, the criticism of Syed Abu-ul-Aala Maudoodi is worth considering. So

far as the understanding of the correct exposition of the quotes of the Messenger (PBUH)

is concerned, he sweeping aside the narrators coming later on, writes (while criticizing a

Hadith of Bukhari) about Hazrat Abu Huraira (on him the mercy): It seems either HazratAbu Huraira misapprehended the statement of the Messenger (PBUH), or he could not hear

the full talk . . .The examples of such type of misunderstandings are found in numerous

traditions out of which certain traditions have certified certain other traditions and certainhave remained hum and haw. The happening of this sort in verbal traditions is not a matter of

any awe.(Tasneen, Ahadith Number, Dated 14/10/1959)

For gushing forth the exposition onward, he writes in the first part of his book,

Tafheemaat(PP. 329-30): As an example, I deliver a speech today and thousands of the personshear it. Just a few hours (neither months, nor years, but just a few hours) after the gathering is

disbanded, ask the people, What did the speaker say? You will find no uniformity in copying

down the contents of the speech. Some one will chaw a certain fragment, other will cop the

other. Some one will copy a certain sentence word by word, other will describe in his own

words the exposition, he has understood. Some one more sharp intellectual will elicit the

correct gist of the speech he has comprehended, other of less comprehension will not be able to

give effect of his import. Some one whose memory is sharp will transcribe most of the portions

of the speech verbatim, other of low sharpness will commit blunders in transcription and

encryption.

This was the mechanism by which the collections of Ahadith were compiled 200

to 250 years after the sad demise of the Messenger (PBUH). That is why when you

recite the Quranic verses, you say with full conviction: Qaal Lallah-u-Taala i.e.



12/28


Allah has said. And when any Hadith is narrated, it is said in the beginning, QAAL-

UR-RASOOL. (The Messenger of Allah said). And at the end it is said,Auo

Kamaa Qaal Rasoolullah Sall-ullah-o-Elaih-i-Wa Sallam,(in this way or as such

said the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). That is why, the Ahadith are never called the

quotes of the Messenger (PBUH), but, an contraire, the quotes confided to the

Messenger (PBUH) i.e. the talks which the people confided to the Messenger

(PBUH) at the time of the compilers of Ahadith.

INHERENT INFIRMITIES IN ASMAAR-UR-REJA, THE CHAIN OF

REPORTERS

It is obvious that in this way many a narrator pop up in narrating each tradition. When the

collection of Ahadith were made, there heisted a cross purpose whether research ought to

be instituted about those narrators whose names have been mentioned in Ahadith to

ascertain whether or not they were really reliable. When they are judged as such, each

tradition (Hadith) is taken up one by one to scrutinize as to what kind of quality itsnarrators have been. It is this art of cross-questioning, cross equivocating and cross-

examining of the narrators i.e.Asmaa-ur-Rejaal, the chain reporters, which is bragged so

flamboyantly as if it has no other precedence. There is no doubt that the scholars of this

art burnt the midnight oil for this work. But the question is, can any one reach any edge of

fervid conviction, what so ever, in this way? You can say of a person from whom you

have heard anything personally that he is trust worthy. But if, in describing an incidence,

there is a mention of 5 to 7 persons who are dead now during the last 200 to 250 years

what source you can possibly dig out to determine whether or not they were really

reliable. And, more over, to be or not to be reliable is not the only question. The matterin hand is that it must even be made sure whether they had the essential potential to

comprehensively understand the talk and after understanding, they are capacitated to

transmit its true exposition onward in their own words. Is it possible to say this all for

the people who lived during the past 200 to 250 years with confidence and conviction?

This is impossible. That is why Syed Abu-ul-Aala Maudoodi (Tafheemaat, Part-1, p. 318)

writes:

These people (i.e. those who attend to Hadith as Deen), in their servitorship to the

traditionists (Muhadithin) opsonise aggravation far beyond the limits of justification.Their premise is that the traditionists have cast the straw off as a fly from milk. Now

our assignment is to affix the same label of credit and credence to the Ahadith, as

these notable predecessors have imputed to, e.g. the weak in contrast to the strong

authentic Ahadith are deserted. The contributions of the traditionists (May they are

blessed) are taken for granted. And this too is accepted that the material they

provided for the settlement of Ahadith is very conducive in the search of the gazettes,

the relics and the vestiges of the prime period (of Islam). It is above and beyond any

speck of double. But objection lies in this point: To what extent is the total reliance



13/28


upon them justifiable? By all means, they were the humans they could not

transgress the limits of human knowledge Gods creation is destined to. They were

never guarded against the natural phenomenon of to err is human. Then how can

you claim the things they established to be true were true in the real earnest? They

were themselves never polite for to fart.

Again he writes:The traditionists (Mohadithin) embellished a grand vast vista of Ismaa-ur-

Rejal (the chain of reporters), which, beyond any shadow of doubt, is very precious but there isnothing that is not devoid of even an inkling of the possibility of error. (p. 319)

The errors are not based on inadvertence or oversight, but are founded on the factual

grounds. It is because: Concupiscence was stuck deep with every anima. And there

was a strong possibility that there be any degree of distinct extent in forming good

or bad opinions about others. It was not merely the feasibility of any vision; but a

proof of this occurrence is extant. (Tafheemaat, Part-1, p. 319)

After this, he writes: By such example we do not mean the total knowledge of thediscipline of Asmaa-ur-Rejal, the chain of reporters, is farce and false, but our

purpose is to make this fact known to all that the fellows who have burgeoned cross-

questioning and cross-equivocating the witnesses were, any-how, the humans. To err

is human was stuck deep to them. Is it a must that those whom they adjudged to be

reliable, must be reliable with confidence and be confirmed trustworthy in the

repertoire of all Ahadith and whom they determined to be unreliable, be unreliable

with firm conviction! (Tafheemaat, Part-1, p. 312)

Again he writes: They have investigated all these matters to the extent that the humans coulddo. But it is not essential that, in the conduct of research for narrating the Ahadith, they would

have identified all the facts accurately and correctly. It may just be possible that the tradition

adjudicating to be contiguous to reliance is cut off in terms of its patent authenticity in the real

sense . . .. This and the many more are the factors on the basis of which the knowledge of

accreditation, of cross-questioning and of cross equivocating can not be thought of as accurate

in earnest. This material is reliable only to the extent that it can be used in taking help for the

purpose of conducting research in the areas of Sunnah and the relics, the vestiges of the

companions of the Messenger (PBUH) and be given due consideration. But it is not so

reliable, that it be absolutely doted upon.(Tafheemaat, Part-1, pp. 321-322)

As far the personal preferences are concerned, it is obvious that when a man makes

judgement about the other man - whether he was reliable or not - the feelings of his heart

would generally adulterate his decision how unbiased that decision might be. And in the

feeling of the heart, the belief relishes a tremendous encroachment. On the issue whether

conviction augments or diminishes, Imam Bukhari had difference of opinion with Imam

Abu Haneefa. The result of this difference is that he did not accept Imam Abu Haneefa

trustworthy. The matter does not end up here. Since Imam-e-Azam (on him the mercy)



14/28


was a native of Kufa, so all the Kufians were adjudged to be unreliable, incapacitated for

narrating the Ahadith. And as Kufa is in Iraq, the Iraqians were also bracketed in the same

category and it was finally decided that out of the 100 Ahadith narrated by the Iraqians, 99

are bequeathed even the one taken to be accepted be termed dubious. Similarly on the

contrasting bases of preliminary doctrine of faith, the two most respect worthy Imams,

Imam Abu Zaraa and Imam Abu Hatim, themselves questioned the reliability of Imam

Bukhari and abandoned to accept the Ahadith narrated by him. The Books of Bukhari and

Muslim are called Sahiheen. Their mutual interaction is on such a contrasting scale thatImam Muslim considers Imam Bukhari as refractory and rabid for Ahadith. Numerous

examples of this type of mutual wrangling and refit among these scholars are found paved

in the Books of traditions. With the difference in beliefs, the difference in perceiving the

Ahadith to be true or weak is the glaring manifestation of the two factions, the Sunni and

the Shia. As already written, Sunnis have their own collections of Ahadith and their

sequence of narration goes as far back as to the Tabain and the companions of the

Messenger. From the teaching confided to the Exalted Messenger (PBUH) in these

collections, a very much contrasting teaching is found stemmed in the collections of

Ahadith, the Shias hold. Similarly their sequence of narrating the Ahadith gets back to thetabain and the companions of the Messenger (on them be mercy). Now these fellows (at

least the Sunnis) can not even imagine that those noble ancestors, who are the narrators of

those Ahadith included in the collections of Shias, were all (God forbid) liars and

unreliable. These, too, would have to be accepted, undoubtedly, to be reliable and

trustworthy. Now the statement of the facts emerged to be like this: that the Ummah,

from a group of reliable narrators, came upon the Ahadith which are held to be true among

the Sunnis and another body of trustworthy narrators also clasped those Ahadith which are

held true among the Shias. And both of these types of Ahadith stood to be disfigured

mutually. Now lookout: which of the teaching be judged to be the true teaching of theExalted Messenger (PBUH), which to be thought of as an integral part of Deen and which

one to be erroneous? For being a reliable narrator, if the necessary condition is that he too

be a co-doctrinaire of those who cross-question, of those who cross-equivocate, or of

those who compile Ahadith, then this is obviously partisanship not a fair play. Is it

necessary that a partly, which is not of your doctrine be a composite body of the numbers

who are en bloc false and unreliable? Another inveigling phenomenon is that Imam

Bukhari himself (as well as other compilers of Ahadith), who adjudge the predecessors

unreliable and their traditions outcast, - incorporate the very traditions narrated by them

in the repertoire of their own collections of Ahadith. ( For more detail consultMeezan-ul-Aeta Daael by Allam Zehbi and Tadreeb-ur-Raavi etc)

These are the external evidences, which lead us to the conclusion that the Ahadith were

neither the integral part of Deen in the opinion of the Messenger (PBUH) himself, nor to

the companions of the Messenger. And that the collections of Ahadith held today are not

the real words of the Messenger (PBUH). And beyond any shadow of doubt, the contents

of these collections inperpetuum are the internal evidence. Even a mention of the matters,

written in these collections, shakes the very soul, and totter the very pen held in the grip of



15/28


the very hand.

This is because the honor of these recollections puffed up in the hearts has reached

at par with that of the Qurans. Take out Sahih Bukhari, bring it under your own

study and scale out to what extent, whatever have been said is right. You would be

asked: How erudite Imam Bukhari relished his position! Then during the last 1000

years how many clans of scholarly qualified persona and reputed predecessors,

who assigned this book the rank of the most correct book after the Book of Allah,

have passed; hark! Can (God forbid) there be found such an obnoxious material

stemmed in this book? There is no doubt that the honor and dignity of these noble

predecessors is above-aboard. But, when the text of Bukhari is available, why any

one should not cast a look over it and decide as to what ever has been written is

right or wrong. Youll find such a material written over there. You will never dare

confide this type of material to the noble balanced personality of the Messenger

(PBUH), who was thepersona grata, the propitious and splendid persona, the

perfect manifestation of the highest ascension of humanity, the elevator, the exalted,the noble. It was he who owned the vast vista of erudition and vision. You will be

taken aback to note the kind of absurdities ascribed to him, the excellent of the

created.

That is why Syed Abu-ul-Aala Maudoodi (Tarjamaan-ul-Quran, October-November, 1952) had

to

pen down:This assertion is not valid that the contents of all the Ahadith embeddedin Bukhari be accepted in toto without imbuing any tint of criticism.

Commenting upon the Hadith of Bukhari in which it has been said that Hazrat

Ibrahim (AS)- God forbid- thrice told a lie, Maulna Abu-ul-Kalam Azaad writes:Out of the lot of traditions, how best any kind of tradition it may be, it cannot be

taken more than the evidence of an uningenuous (non-innocent) narrator in anyway.

And the evidence of an uningenuous (non-innocent) narrator, in comparison to the

faith fervidities of Deen, can not be accepted for a moment even. It ought to be

confessed this tradition can not be the word of Allahs Messenger (PBUH); thenarrators have committed some mistake here. And having confessed this, there

would neither be Divine Wrath, nor would the World cry shame upon. (Tarjamaan-ul-

Quran, vol. II, pp. 499-500)

Maulana Ubaidallah Sindhi went too ahead and declared: I can not even teach the Hadith

of Bukhari to any new European Muslim. (Risalat ul Furqan Wali Allah No. 287)

This is the criticism of the individuals. The whole rank and file of the Hanafee faction



16/28


does not consider nearly 200 Ahadith of Bukhari and Muslim to be true (Muqaam-e-Hadith,

1992, p.1).

It is said: let these collections be considered presumptive, but there are many presumptive

things in the world accepted to be true; even the diurnal routine of life regulates on it.

Hark! You accept the historical events, though they too are presumptive, - and you study

the newspaper, though they are also not surely definitive Then why to jeer at Ahadith.

That you abandon these just on the plea that these are speculative. This argument appearsto be reasonable on its face value, but after making judgement of how diverging these two

entities are, the reality unveils itself.

History or newspapers do not attain the position of Deen. If you wish, you may accept an

incident as true and if you have arguments against it, you may refute it simply because

you doubt its validity. Contrary to it, if Ahadith are adjudged to be Deen, it means these

are beyond any tint of criticism. You saw how contrasting these two are! If there is a

mention in the history that so and so a king gave the lie to job at such and such a place,

you may accept it to be true if you wish so and you may reject it so as you desire.Neither is any limit imposed on you, nor is your conviction affected upon. But when this

Hadith of Bukhari comes to your mind that Hazart Ibrahim(AS) thrice told a lie since

Ahadith is adjudged to be an integral part of Deen its acceptance, hence forth, became

imperative upon you. If you do not accept it as true, you are criminated in suspecting the

very soundness of Hadith. And if you believe in its soundness, you are constrained to

concede a noble Rasool of Allah (PBUH) to be false (God forbid). Or take another

example: you read in the newspaper that a person has cut the nose of another person in a

certain city, its acceptance or denial is not an integral part of your conviction. But when

you study this Hadith of Bukhari: When the angle of death approached Moses (AS) tocaptivate his soul away, he gave it such a slap that it lost one of its eyes , you have to accept

this incidence because giving an element of doubt to this Hadith means you are very much

doubting the Deen itself. This made it very clear to you that what a difference does it

make in accepting the worldly speculative things to be true and in accepting a speculative

thing which has been adjudged to be the integral part of Deen!

What is the practical bearing of Hadith? Let this example help you take it off. When a

verse of the Quran about a matter is presented, it is possible that one may differ with its

translation, but no one will say it is not known whether or not this is the verse of theQuran. But in case of Hadith, the first, the foremost, question that will come under

discourse will be whether or not this is the word of the Messenger (PBUH). In this regard,

Maudoodi Sahib (Resaail-o-Masaail, Part-I, p. 290) writes: The real incidence in the tradition,which is confided to the Messenger (PBUH), in terms of its correct and reliable imputedness, is

disputable in itself. To you (the opposite group) the acceptance of the tradition which the

traditionists (Muhadethin) adjudge to be true from the credibility of its attestation its being

the Hadith of the Messenger (PBUH), is a must. But to us, it is not a necessary condition. We do

not take the credibility of attestation a necessary justification to accept the Hadith as true.



17/28


Whenever any Hadith is presented, the first question that arises is whether or not that

Hadith is the word of the Messenger (PBUH). All the haggling among the various factions

of Muslims are pinned around this phenomenon. One sect presents any of its beliefs and

brings forth any Hadith in support of it; the other sect refutes with these words this Hadith

is absolutely not the word of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). These wrangling are

continuously pouring in since the last thousands of years. And it is evident there is no

possibility to blot these out. Therefore, the whole of the Ummah has no means on thebasis of which it may be investigated that such and such Hadith is the word of the

Messenger (PBUH) in the real sense.

ANOTHER DIMENSION: WEEK AND STRONG

Hark this fact : No body will say about any verse of the Quran that it is weak, not strong.

Every verse of the Quran is strong. The question of its being weak or strong does not

arise. But when any Hadith is presented, the opposite group refutes it in these words: It is

a weak Hadith. Since the mutual disagreements on the basis of divergent view of Ahadithare, more or less, infiltrating down among the various factions there is no way to blot

these out.

THE MESSENGERS (PBUH) TEMPERAMENT ACQUAINTED

It is told: A form of obliterating these disagreements is extant because there is a

touchstone on the basis of which it can safely be decided whether or not such and such is

the Hadith of the Messenger (PBUH). This does not end up here alone. It goes further.

This is also possible that if regarding any matter, there is no Hadith found in any of thecollections of Ahadith, it can even be judged with confidence what the Messenger

(PBUH) would have affirmed at such an occasion. Syed Abu-ul-Aala Mandoodi

(Tafheemaat, Vol. I, pp. 323-324) says: The person whom God bestows the blessing of the art ofjurisprudence with the in-depth study of the Quran and the conduct of the Messenger

(PBUH) comes by a particular type of taste, the quality of which is exactly like that of the

lapidarys vision that tests the most delicate characteristics of the germs. His eye scans the

system of the real Sharia comprehensively and he perceives the ins and outs of that system.

Later on, when the subsidiaries come to pass, his taste makes him cognize: which of the matters

suit the nature and the intrinsic quality of Islam and which does not. When he casts his eye on

the traditions, the same touchstone-taste comes to be the standard of approval or disapproval.The nature of Islam is exactly the temperament of the personality of the Messenger (PBUH).

Who-ever understands the nature of Islam and who has intensively and frequently studied

the Book of Allah (the Quran) and the Sunnah of the Rasoolullah (PBUH) becomes

temperament-acquainted of the Messenger (PBUH) to such an extent that his vision, with a

simple causal eye over the traditions, automatically tells him: which one of these can be the

word or action of my chief, the Messenger (PBUH) and which one is the nearest to the Sunnah

of Messenger of Allah (PBUH). Not suffice this alone; if he finds no precedence of the Qur'an

and the Sunnah in any matters, he can ever say: Had a problem of such a nature come by the

Messenger (PBUH), he would have decided it in such and such a manner. It is because his soul



18/28


synchronizes with the soul of Mohammed (PBUH) and his eye harmonizes with the vision of the

Messenger (PBUH). His brain runs down with the mould of Islam; and he does see and

contemplate in just the same way Islam desires it to be seen and contemplated. After clinching

such an elevated position, the man remains no more confined to the serfdom of any

authentication, his judgement is no more founded on these. He often takes out even a tradition

poor, weak, authenticity-cut off, hexed his vision perceives, the brilliance of a gem in that

untilled stone. And, more often than not, he even deflects his face aside from a Hadith non-

schismatic, unexceptional, authenticity-contiguous, popular just because the meaningfulness

of the wine, brimmed onto the precious goblet, does not look to him appropriate to thetemperament of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH).

Did you ponder as to what merit is there in it? This made it clear that:

1. Either you believe in Imam Bukhari and Muslim (and other Imams ofAhadith). You will, surely, have to believe in it on merit: All that the compilers of

Ahadith said is the word of the Messenger (PBUH); if you do not do so, you are

judged to be the refuter of Ahadith, - hence the one ousted from the fold of Islam.

2. And if you did not believe in the compilers of Ahadith, you will have tobelieve in the vision of a temperament-acquainted with the Messenger (PBUH) of

your time. It means it would have to be accepted whatever he says on any matter,

is the edict of the Messenger (PBUH) [whether that is present in any of the

recollections of Ahadith or is found no where under the canopy of this firmament].

You will have to confess: That is the Hadith of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH); if

you do not do so, you are judged to be the refuter of Ahadith hence the apostate

and infidel.

3. But if you believe in the selecting-eye of the compilers of Ahadith -but donot believe in the visionary-look of the one acquainted with the temperament of the

Messenger (PBUH), you are a refuter of Ahadith in the opinion of the acquainted

with the temperament of the Messenger (PBUH), hence infidel. And if you

believe in the visionary-look of the one acquainted with the temperament of the

Messenger (PBUH), and likewise refute the acceptance of any of the Ahadith of

Bukhari or Muslim to be true, you are the refuter of Ahadith in the opinion of Ahl-i-

Hadith (the pro-Ahadithians), - hence infidel.

RUNNING -DOWN-BELIEF OF HADITH

What type of belief about Hadith is successively running down? Late Maulana

Muhammad Ismail in the periodical Theory of Ahadith of Jamaet Islami P. 48 writes: Afterresearch and consolidation, Hadith occupies exactly the same position as that of the Quran.

And its denial, in fact, implicates exactly, the same effect on conviction and honesty as is that of

the denial of the Quran. . . the denial of the Ahadith which according to the correct principles

and exposition of the Imams of Sunnah are proved to be correct will be infidelity and liable to



19/28


exodus from the Ummah.

It means the denial of anyone of the Ahadith, which are held true among the sect of Ahl-i-

Hadith is paganism and the one who utters this comes to disengage from the fold of Islam.

To this sect, the Bukhari and the Muslim are Sahiheen, so the retracting of anyone of the

Ahadith of theirs is infidelity. He further writes: The Ummah is united on the Ahadith ofBukhari and Muslim. . . The validity of these Ahadith is peremptory. Theory of Ahadith of

Jamaet Islami,P. 55

Why is the disavowal of these Ahadith infidelity? Late Maulana Ismail (Theory of Ahadith

of Jamaet Islami P. 60) writes about it: Jibril (Gabriel) used to come upon with the Quranand Sunnah both, used to make the Messenger (PBUH) learn the Sunnah just like the Quran.

In this respect, we are not confuted to the division of revelation.

It means the Quran and Hadith is both the Divine Revelation. And any kind of division

between these two is not admissible. Therefore, for this purpose a tradition was coined

that the Exalted Messenger (SAW) said: The Quran, also, comes upon me and along with it exactly analogous to it an other thing (Hadith too). This led to the concept of two kinds

of Hadith: Wahee-i-Jali Handwritten Revelation (Quran) and Wahee-i-Khafi

Clandestine/Hidden Revelation (the Hadith). The Wahee-i-Jali Handwritten Revelation

is also called Wahee-i-Matlau Revelation-to-be-recited- and Wahee-i-Khafi

Hidden Revelation as Wahee-i-Ghair Matlau - Revelation-not-to-be-recited. It may be

known that there is no mention of these two types of revelations anywhere in the Quran.

Even no trace of this term is found imprimis, in the foremost instant literature of Hadith. It

was the belief among the Jews that Wahee Revelation is of two kinds: One Shab

kutab (that which is written) and the other Shab Alafah (that which is not written andconventionally transmits onwards). These fellows borrowed this belief from the Jews and

then, transforming it to be the exact Deen, projected it forward. How is this belief the

antithesis of the Quran? And how does it let the entire edifice of Islam crumble down?

The question to be asked is: If Hadith, along with the Quran exactly homologous to the

Quran , was also the revelation of God God took the responsibility to preserve the

revelation himself why did God not preserve this revelation (i.e. Hadith)? Neither did

the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) hand over this revelation fully preserved to the Ummah,

nor did the Khulfa-i-Rasshideen the guided caliphs get it written and preserved. Nor did

anyone amongst the companions of the Exalted Messenger (PBUH) bring it up in thewritten form. Whoever wrote anything on ones own either put it to flames or got it

inflamed. If the Quran and Hadith were equally the revelation, then making such a

magnificent arrangement for safeguarding one part of the revelation (i.e. the Quran) and

laxing its second part (i.e. the Hadith) stand to mean what? By the way, hark back to

answer this objection: if Hadith was equally revelation, why was it not included in the

Quran? Mandoodi (Tafheemaat, part-I, p. 236), responding to this objection, writes: Had this

been done The volume of the Quran would have become equal to that of the Encyclopedia of

Britannica at least. In other words it can be said that since it would have brewed up the



20/28


volume of the Quran many folds, Allah (TWT) did not think it proper to add up this part

of revelation. But when it was asked: All right the miasma of brewing up the volume of

the Quran did not allow it to be added up in the Quran why was it not written up in a

separate volume? He ((Tarjamaan-ul-Quran, March, 1954) said: its reason was At that time, the

literate were few and the copying material was even less procurable. But Dr. Hameedullah

of Hyderabad (Daccan) speaks of a different legend. In his article (published in The Al-

Islam issue of 1st and 15th of January 1959), he writes: The Messenger of Allah (PBUH), as

a man, happened to be careful and modest in his behavior. As a Messenger of God, he for thispurpose took every possible and necessary steps so that the message of God (i.e. the Quran)

is not only transmitted to the people but be also preserved. Had he taken the same steps for the

preservation of his own sayings some of the people would have conceited egoism on his behalf?

On this count, the story of Hadith is at variance from that of the Quran .

It is, thus, the story of Revelation, which, inclusive of the Quran, is adjudicated to be

homologous to the Quran. It is that same revelation which the Gabriel used to come upon

with; in just the same way he used to alight with the Quran. And with its denial infidelity

becomes incumbent on, in just the same manner as that of the Quran.

IMPLIED CONNOTATIONS OF HADITH

A. HADITH, PREFERRED OVER THE QURAN

It is being said that Hadith and the Quran both are of the same parlance. Now proceed a

bit ahead. Imam Auzaais saying is: The Quran wants far more Ahadith than do the

Ahadith for the Quran. (Mukhtaser Jamey Biyan-ul-ilm, p. 223). It means if the Quran

and Hadith conjointly confront each other, the judgment founded on the Hadith ought tobe accepted and not the one confounded on the Quran.

B. THE HADITH CAN REPEAL THE QURAN

These fellows also hold the belief: Hadith can repeal the commandment of the Quran. In

his booklet, Fitna Inkaar-i-Hadith (P. 85) Hadith denial coup de theatre - late Allama

Hafiz Muhammad Ayub writes: It is not essential for the saying of the Messenger that it mayconform to the Quran then it be justified and if it does not conform, it be not shown to be

well-founded . . . Its reason is, the Quran says: Kutiba AAalaykum itha hadara ahadakumualmawtu in taraka khayran alwasiyyatu lilwalidayni 2/180: Prescribed for you, when death

approaches any of you, if he leave behind goods, is to make testament for the parents. The

Messenger of Allah (SAW) said Laa waseyya tu lil warise. There is no testament for the heir.

And it is proved from contiguity that the business is being acted upon this very Hadith. It

means testament has been identified to be unfair for the heir. The Hadith annulled coup de

theatre the Quran and the saying of the Messenger (SAW) bolstered well founded against the

verse of the Quran and became the primary swamp of action.



21/28


C. HADITH IS A PERMANENT DEEN

The people say that Hadith invariably elicits the exegesis of the injunctions of the Quran

the details of the Qurans summed injunctions are found in it. But these people say so

only to respond to the objection. Their own belief is divergent to it. When they adjudge

Hadith homologous to the Quran, they do not refuse the natural consequence, which is

deduced from it. They do not accept Hadith as the exegesis of the Quran. On the contrary,

they acknowledge it as a permanent Deen just as the Quran is. Hence, in this regard,Maulana Mandoodi (Tarjamaan-ul-Quran, July September, 1950) writes: If, by the negation of theHadith being the permanent source, it is intended that the locus standi of Hadith is merely that

of an annotator and interpreter i.e. it explains those issues and events which got bogged down

in a summed up manner in the Quran and holds no permanent position on its own behalf

then it is an unfounded claim. In connection with issues and status, Hadith holds a

permanent locus standi.

Did you dilate upon the belief about Hadith? It emerged as:

1. Hadith and the Quran have both been revealed from God2. Hadith is homologue to the Quran3. Hadith is not so much wanting for the Quran, as is the Quran for Hadith4. Hadith is judge over the Quran5. It is not an interpreter and annotator of the Quran; on the contrary it enjoys apermanent position in the matters of Deen

6. Hadith can repeal coup de theatre the Quran7. Whoever does not stick to such a belief, is a renouncer of Hadith hence an infideland out-thrown of the fold of Islam.

D. EXEGESIS OF THE QURAN

It is said the Quran was revealed to the Messenger of Allah (SAW); he got it understood

to his companions (on them by the mercy); so no exegesis can come out to be better than

the exegesis of the Quran he gave light to. Therefore, if any one draws upon an

exposition of any verse of the Quran different from the one, the Messenger of Allah(SAW) has illuminated that ones exposition cannot be correct.

This thing looks to be very reasonable. There is no doubt that the exposition, the

Messenger (SAW) has expounded is the only correct one. But the question is, Is the

exegesis of the Quran elucidated through the Ahadith really the one illumined by the

Messenger (SAW) himself? In this regard, let it be understood first that the exegesis of

the entire Quran has never been expounded through the Ahadith only a few of its verses

have been provided with the exegesis. There is simply one chapter of the exegesis in the



22/28


Bukhari and that too has contained explanation of a few verses from here and there. Imam

Ahmad had said of the traditions given in the exegesis: These have absolutely no tangibility.

Harp it: If about the exposition of any verse of the Quran it can surely be said that it is

the edict of the Messenger of Allah (SAW): who among the Muslims, will be the one

whose head does not bow to it. But you can not say of any Hadith with conviction that it is

really the saying of the Messenger of Allah (SAW). Then if any body says this exegesis of

the Quran can not be the exegesis of the Messenger of Allah (SAW), he does not denythe told exegesis of Messenger of Allah (SAW). Whatever he says is simply that the

exegesis confided to Messenger of Allah (SAW) is, in fact, not the exposition of the

Messenger of Allah (SAW). Just think for a while. If Imam Bukhari rejected 5,94,000

Ahadith simply on the plea that to the best of his understanding, these could not be the

Ahadith of the Messenger of Allah (SAW) and that he had not been convicted to be the

renouncer of Hadith then, if anyone based on ones vision of the Quran says about

Hadith that it cannot be the Hadith of Messenger of Allah (SAW), how can one be

convicted to be an infidel and hence out thrown from the fold of Islam? Factually one

denies the judgement of the compiler of Hadith or the incorrectness of the narration of thereporter; one does never refute the injunction of the Messenger (SAW) One does not

disavow the saying of the Messenger (SAW). What one says is: Whatever saying is

confided to the Messenger of Allah (SAW), cannot be his saying; its imputedness to the

Messenger (SAW) is not correct.

E. IF HADITH NOT ACCEPTED, THEN HOW TO OFFER PRAYER (NAMAAZ)

For example, there is order of offering prayer (Namaaz) in the Quran. But no where has it

been written as to how to offer prayers (Namaaz), how many are its rakahs, what to recitein each rakah etc. The Allahs Messengers (SAW) showed how to act upon it. And every

Muslim ought to act upon it in the like manner.

But the question is, even after accepting the Ahadith surely to be true, how ought the

prayer to be offered? You know, the prayer (Namaaz) of Shia is different from Sunnees.

And Shia and Sunnee both claim about their prayer (Namaaz) that it is compatible with

the prayer (Namaaz) of the Allahs Messenger (SAW). Then take to the Sunnees: The big

contradiction, the vast difference between the prayer (Namaaz) of Ahl-e-Hadith and Sunee

is known to every body and even both of these factions judge their prayer to be exactlyin accordance with the prayer (Namaaz) of the Allahs Messenger (SAW). The question

is: Which one of these prayers be accepted to harmonize with the prayer told by the

Allahs Messenger (SAW), when the Ahadith are extant in the authenticity of each ones

prayer (Namaaz) and its subsidiaries? Can any such method be identified today, on the

basis of which it could surely be searched out as to how the Allahs Messenger (SAW)

offered the prayer (Namaaz)?



23/28


It is said that extraditing the prayer of Shia, the disagreement found among the prayer of

the various sects of Sunnees is just a sort of ad-libbed as of principle, prayer is a

common denominator among all the religious factions. And the disagreement linked to

the matters related to the preliminary doctrines of faith carries no weight. First of all to

say that the disagreements crept in the matters not related to the basic doctrines of the

faith absolutely carries no weight is exceedingly wrong and erroneous errand. Take the

followers of Sunnees sects and sweep aside their offering of prayer (Namaaz) jointly with

other religious sects. Suppose any one sect sayingAamee in low pitch in the congregationof prayers, offers prayer (Namaaz) in the mosque of the other religious sect saying

Aameen loudly. Look to the daily raving up of a trial of tiffs in the mosques of vahabis

and Bidatis (heretics) or Bralevis and Devbandis, where Imams are assassinated,

brawl erupts in Muqtadis, police intervenes, mosque is locked up and the case goes to

the court of law. This all is due to these jurisprudential disagreements in the congregation

of the prayer (Namaaz). Therefore to say that these jurisprudential disagreements carry no

weight is nugatory to the reality and tantamount to escape.

Again mark this point: When an order is judged to be God-defined (or HisMessengers) its principles and preliminary doctrines all carry weight on their

own and can never be ruptured not even a single one of these in any way. Take an

example, in connection with ablution, the Holy Quran says:

Wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows. (5/6)

Now, if one person washes hands up to wrists and the other up to elbow, then will you

say: This is correct and that too is correct, because this convergence of actions, in its

nature, is ascribable simply to a branch of religious sect, not of principle? Saying like that

would be expressly wrong. Only one of these two can be correct at a time and that too

of the one whose deed synchronizes the command of the Quran. Hence unless and until

the details of the prayer (Namaaz) are strictly acted upon in the same manner the Allahs

Messenger (SAW) has prescribed, the prayer (Namaaz) will not be judged to be on par

with the prayer (Namaaz) of the Allahs Messenger (SAW). To say that some one raised

hands to the ears or a bit below, some one folded hands up to the chest or under the

umbilicus, some one recitedAameen loudly or kept the voice low, some one kept this or

that much space between the feet, some one recited Surah Fateha behind the Imam or not,

or offered such and such benediction this way or that way, some one offered eight

traveeh or twenty, some one offered a little more or less takbireen in the congregation

of Eid prayer, some one offered prayer (Namaaz) on so and so a time it all makes no

difference because it is a difference of factional details alone. This is simply an excuse for

avoiding demur. If it makes no difference, then (take just as an example) and ask any one

of the Ahl-i-Hadith, who has just offered the prayer (Namaaz) in the way the Hanafees

offer, to proclaim that his prayer (Namaaz) is valid. You will mark he will never do so.

(Muqaam-e-Hadith, 1992, p.1)



24/28


Can you reckon upon that at the time of the Allahs Messenger (SAW), some people used

to offer Shia-like prayer (Namaaz) and some Sunee-like? Or some people used to offer

Ahl-i-Hadith-like prayer and some Hanafee-like? Or the condition of the Allahs

Messenger (SAW) himself was that he some times used to offer or made others offer

prayer (Namaaz) on the method the Shia offer now-a-days and some times on the method

the Sunnee offer today. And still some times on the method the Ahl-i-Hadith offer and yet

some times on the method the Hanafee offer! This would have never happened. The

Allahs Messenger (SAW) would have offered or have made others offer the same type ofprayer (Namaaz) and the entire Ummah would have offered exactly the same one prayer.

There is no room for any dimensional dissension in Deen. The Holy Quran determines

dissension as Allahs torment and that of sect-dichotomy as polytheism. If this is the

state of affairs, then the question is: Can now, in any way whatsoever, such a condition be

ingrained in which the same oneness is insinuated in the Ummah and the Muslim

community starts offering the prayer (Namaaz) of the same nature? The Ahadith cannot

put forth any solution to this impasse; it is just because this very impasse is the creation of

the Ahadith!

DISCOURSE ON SUNNAH: ANOTHER DIMENSION

Besides Hadith, there is another word Sunnah which has gained more momentum and is

held tightly hung with the utmost delicate passions. Obeisance to the Sunnah of Allahs

Messenger (SAW) is the real Deen. The religious scholars are not unanimous on any

agreed definition of Sunnah. Some years back, late Maulana Muhammad Ismail, -

President, Jamiat Ahl-i-Hadith, - published a magazine, Hadith-Theory of Jamaet-i-

Islami, where he fiercely rebutted Maudoodi Sahibs (and his associates) precept of

Hadith and told that with the exposition of Sunnah they doted upon the precept of

Hadith-renouncers. He has written about them that: These fellows are not the renouncers ofHadith but the locution they adopt looks to reflect indignity and despicability of Hadith and the

way they converse can liable for making the clandestine doors wide open for denial (of

Hadith). Late Maulana Ismail had written Sunnah and Hadith are both synonymous

words. It means Hadith alone is called Sunnah. With his very definition of Hadith, Kitab-

o-Sunnah will mean the Quran and Hadith. But Maudoodi Sahib upholds a different

connotation of Sunnah. In his book Resaael-o-Masaael (part-1, Pp. 311, 317), he

writes: Sunnah is that mode of practice for the teaching and sustaining of which Allah

(TWT) had sent his Messenger(s). The methods of private life which the Messenger (SAW)adopted as man or as a person born at a specific juncture of human history are excluded from

it. And from this very form, making of any distinction or discrimination as to which part of it is

Sunnahs and which of it is habits is not possible till any person acquires the in-depth insight

of the nature of Deen. . . . In the matters of culture and social setting, the principles of morality

to be perpetuated in the blood of life are the first entity for which the Allahs Messenger(SAW)

honoured his presence. And for the pursuit of these principles the second entity is that

practical form which the Allahs Messenger (SAW) himself opted in this own life. These

practical bearings were founded on a few of his personal traits and temperamental liking

some on the social fabric of the country where he was born and a few on the circumstance of



25/28


the time in which he was sent to. To make even one of these things to be Sunnah for all people,

for all nations and for the entire human population was not the end product.

At page 314 of the same book, he writes: There are a few things which pertain to his (SAW)own temperament, to the social fabric at the nation level, and to the culture of his (SAW) age.

To make them worthy of Sunnah was neither the desired purpose. Nor can its pursuance be

stressed on the ground that the Allahs Messenger (SAW), in consonance with Hadith, used to

have a peculiarmodus operandi. And that neither the Divine Sharaae used to come upon for

the only aim of making the personal taste of a particular person, or of the specific culture of a

nation or of the customs and rituals of a distinct age of Sunnah to remain operative for ever

and for the entire world. If this particular definition of Sunnah is kept in view, it can very

easily be comprehended that willy-nilly making the things not bogging down under the

terminology of Sharia as Sunnah is inclusive of those innovations in religion which cause

anagram to come into effect in the system of Deen.

It means, to late Maulana Ismail, all that has been given in Sahih Hadith, comes in the

fold of the Sunnah of the Allahs Messenger (SAW); and its denial is infidelity. But, to

Maulana Maudoodi those matters in Sahih Hadith that the Allahs Messenger (SAW)had habitually exercised as a human being are not included in the fold of Sunnah. But if

any one judges these very matters to constitute the fabric of Sunnah, Maudoodi Sahib

writes: I uphold this belief that adjudicating such matters to constitute Sunnah and then goon stressing for their pursuance is a fierce kind of heresy and a dangerous form of anagram in

Deen. It has been bringing adverse results prior to it and are liable to wring danger in the days

to come. (Ibid, p. 308)

A few pages earlier, he writes: Stemming the matters he (SAW) did as of his habit to form

Sunnah and staking a claim from all the people of the world to put these habits into theirpractice was never the will of Allah and His Messenger (SAW). This is anagram in Deen. (Ibid,

p. 300)

In the light of these illustrations, vie for a practical situation: a law is enforced. Late

Maulana Ismail and his co-believers challenge it in the court of law: that (the law) is

repugnant to Sunnah, hence it is unrecognized. They, supporting their stance, produce a

Hadith. Opposing them, Maudoodi Sahib says that the law is not repugnant to Sunnah.

The former group enquires whether or not the Hadith it has produced is true. Maudoodi

Sahib says: That Hadith is true but Allahs Messenger (SAW) had performed that deed asof habit being a human not as a Messenger of Allah (SAW). They enquire of him what

argument you have to support that the Allahs Messenger (SAW) did these deeds as of his

habit. In answer to this question, Maudoodi Sahib says such matters are not decided on the

plea of any authority and argument; only the one-acquainted-with-the-taste-of-the-

messenger is empowered to make its decision.

The second group responds to it: If any faction, esteemed of its religious reverence,considering any of its noble or guide acquainted-with-the-taste-of-Allah or that of Allahs



26/28


Messenger (SAW), allows him to exercise his option for accepting or rejecting any Hadith, in

contrary to the principles ofMuhaddetheen. Or a scholar or guide, without ascertaining any

reason or rhyme about the validity of any topic or of the various congruent or incongruent

Hadith, stakes this claim, I have seen in it the essence of the diamond, then this ridiculous

position is definitely unbearable to us. We will, by Gods grace, resist it to the last and will

struggle to ward off the Sunnah of the Messenger from the aerial marauders .

(Hadith, Theory of the Jamaet-i-Islami, P. 63)

It means the matters which Maudoodi Sahib hymns to be the Sunnah of the Allahs

Messenger (SAW), the Ahl-i-Hadith interpret them as the aerial marauding; and consider

to lynch them for warding off the Sunnah from such raids as the integral part of rendering

their duty.

Regarding this phenomenon Maulana Ameen Ahsan Islahi Sahib (Hadith, Theory of the

Jamaet-i-Islami, P. 25) pens down: Hadith is that very saying or deed or articulation the

reporting of which is confided to the Allahs Messenger (SAW)! But Sunnah is alone thatestablished and recognized method of the Messenger (SAW) he has repeatedly acted upon; he

has preserved; he has adhered to in general.

In this connection, Maulana Ismail writes: Maulana (Islahi) has narrowed down thedefinition of Sunnah to such an extent that it would merely be confined to a few deeds, the

proof of which lies through the manner the Allahs Messenger (SAW) has proceeded

consistently, such as, a few elements of prayer (Namaaz) . . . . Tens of thousands times it be

said: If any person does not accept this Sunnah as the source of Deen, I do not accept him as a

Muslim. The question is: What is the vastness of the spread of this Sunnah? Its precincts

would not gain ground beyond a few deeds. The entire Islam would have to be proved fromsome where else. Then what is the need of this drooling. (Ibid, p. 26)

It is this disagreement on Sunnahs definition on the basis of which late Maulana Ismail

had written: In my opinion the concepts of Maulana Maudoodi and Maulana Islahi are notonly repugnant to precept of Ahl-i-Hadith but are also contradictory to all the scholars of Ahl-i-

Hadith. Todays innovative germs of meandering and waffling hellish are clandestine in

them. (Ibid, p. 110)

It is obvious from these expositions that the-unanimously-agreed-upon-claim- projectorsof Kitab-o-Sunnah too have no concurrence on what the Sunnah is. Anything worthy of

Sunnah to one is schism and anagram in Deen to the another.

On this issue, there was a big hurly-burly against Tolu-e-Islam: it is renouncer of Sunnah,

is cedar of the radiance of Messengerhood, is an infidel, is a renegade etc. Tolu-e-Islam

was and is of the view that no unanimously agreed upon code of law strictly in

consonance with Kitab-o-Sunnah, could be established. At last Maudoodi Sahib (Asia,

Dated 23 August, 1970) had to accept that: No such interpretation of Kitab-o-Sunnah



27/28


unanimously agreed upon among the Hanafis, Shias and Ahl-i-Hadith in the matters of public

laws is possible.

This makes it clear that so far Islam remains segregated among the various outfits, every

faction will go on obeying the Sunnah suited to the genius of its own pluralistic discretion

(or norms). But no sooner did you try to transform it onto the configuration of a unified

Ummah than (as par the prevalent concept) the followings of Sunnah will become

impossible.

This gushes forth that aspect, which is the hub of all this discourse i.e. it is the

Commandment of Allah through which you obey the Messenger (SAW). Whosoever

obeyed the Messenger (SAW), obeyed Allah; whosoever defied the fidelity of the

Messenger (SAW), harbored straight forth to the hell. So this question cropped up if

Ahadith are not accepted, what can be the possible form of obeisance to the Messenger of

Allah (SAW)?

Whatever so far is said is this:

1. Since obeying the Allahs Messenger (SAW) as per the teachings of the Quran isobligatory

2. And, beside Ahadith, there is no other go for obeying the Allahs Messenger (SAW)

Therefore it is imperative that the Muslims may accept the Ahadith. It means, though the

History of Ahadith unfolds that these are speculative, not definitive, but the duty of

obeying the Allahs Messenger (PBUH) can not be discharged; so it became necessary

causa sinequa non that these (Ahadith) must be accepted to be definite.

A STRANGE DICHOTOMY

Now hark back to the original issue. It is a stark fact that eluding the observation of the

real insight of the concept of Obedience of Allah and His Messenger (SAW), is the

basic cause of the entire rumpus and confusion about Hadith (nay, about Islam itself). A

general sense drawn from this concept is that there are two segregat

historical perspectives and implications of hadith in islam

Documents