Ilmara.net

Koranists vs. Ahlul Hadith

When evaluating hadiths – that is, the traditions attributed to the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace) – there are two opposing positions: on the one hand, there are those who reject hadiths outright and recognise only the Qur'an as an authoritative source. On the other hand, there are those who regard hadiths classified as ‘sahih’ or even ‘mutawatir’ as almost on a par with the Qur'an.

The Koranists have a few good arguments:

They point out that many divisions within Islam are based on different interpretations of the Hadith. If Muslims were to follow the Koran alone – ‘Hold fast, all together, to the rope of Allah, and do not separate’ (Ali Imran 103) – they believe that the community would be more united.

In addition, the Quran emphasises its completeness and comprehensiveness in several places. From this, they conclude that no additional sources are necessary.

Should I seek a judge other than Allah, when it is He who has sent down the Book to you in detail? Those to whom We gave the Scripture know that it has been sent down from your Lord with truth. So do not be among the doubters. The word of your Lord is complete in truth and justice. There is none who can alter His words. And He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing. [al-Anam 114, 115. See also al-Anam 38, Yusuf 111, Qaf 45]

At the same time, they point out that numerous hadiths contradict each other and are difficult to reconcile with the wording of the Qur'an or with rational understanding. As an example, they cite different versions of a well-known saying of the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace): "I have left you something to hold on to, so that you will never go astray: the Book of God and my family (Ahlul Bayt)." The Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace) is said to have uttered these words during his farewell pilgrimage in front of hundreds of people. Since this was shortly before his death and what he said was part of his legacy and therefore particularly important, there should be no doubt about the exact wording, especially since it was witnessed by hundreds of people.

But surprisingly, there are two other versions: ‘I have left you something to hold on to so that you will never go astray: the Book of God and my Sunnah,’ and also: ‘I have left you something to hold on to so that you will never go astray: the Book of God.’ The first version is found in Muslim, ibn Hanbal and Darimi; the second in Ahmad's Muwatta and the third in Muslim, ibn Majah and Abu Dawud. If there is doubt about such a central hadith, what about the others, which are attested to by far fewer people?

There are reports about the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace) in which he forbade the writing down of hadiths: Ibn Said Al-Khudry reported that the Messenger of God said: ‘Write nothing of me except the Qur'an. Whoever writes anything other than the Qur'an should erase it.’ [Ahmed, Volume 1, Page 171, and Sahih Muslim, Zuhd, Book 42, Number 7147]

This is often explained by the fact that at that time there was still a fear that the sayings of the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace) could be mixed up with the verses of the Qur'an, but when this danger no longer existed, the ban was lifted.

However, there are numerous reports that many companions were also very doubtful as to whether they should pass on hadiths at all. Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), the second caliph, specifically forbade Abu Hurairah, but also other companions, from recounting hadiths because, among other things, he feared it might distract people from the Qur'an. He said: ‘I wanted to write the Sunan, but I remembered a people who came before you who wrote other books to follow them and abandoned the Book of God. And I will never, I swear, replace God's Book with anything.’ [Jami' Al-Bayan 1/67].

Ali Ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him), the fourth caliph, said something similar in one of his speeches: "I urge all those who possess the writings of the Messenger of God to go home and destroy them. The people before you were destroyed because they followed the hadiths of their scholars and neglected the Book of their Lord." (Sunan Al-Darami).

It was not until the caliphate of Umar Ibn Abdul-Aziz, a hundred years after the death of the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him salvation), that many books and notebooks containing hadiths appeared, e.g. Malik Ibn Anas and Mohammed Ibn Ishaq. At the end of the second century after the Hijrah, the books known as ‘Masaned’ appeared, e.g. the Musnad by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, but it was not until the first half of the third century that the famous six hadith books by Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Daud, Tirmidhi, An-Nasai and Ibn Majah appeared. Despite good methods of classifying the hadiths, it should be understood that after such a long time, it is no longer possible to have complete certainty. This is also supported by the immense number of hadiths that were collected and then discarded.

Imam Malik Ibn Anas collected about 500 hadiths in his famous book Al-Muwatta. Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbal collected about 40,000 hadiths in his famous Musnad. He selected these 40,000 hadiths from a total of 700,000 hadiths. In other words, he had doubts about 660,000 hadiths. Imam Bukhari collected about 600,000 hadiths. He accepted 7,275 hadiths and had doubts about 592,725 hadiths, i.e. 99%. Imam Muslim collected 300,000 hadiths. He accepted 4,000 of them and rejected 296,000. For Koranists, this shows how great the uncertainty in the material is.

Using the Hadith alongside the Quran as a legal basis is particularly problematic when the Hadith is not in accordance with the Quran. For Koranists, this is even a form of shirk. For example, the Koran only mentions three prayers, but the Hadith mentions five obligatory prayers plus all kinds of additional prayers that are not mentioned in the Koran, along with instructions for prayers and ritual washing. Koranists are of the opinion that here Muhammad (may God bless him and grant him salvation) is placed on an equal footing with Allah or even higher, since his commands seem to take precedence over those of God. As evidence, Koranists cite the following verses:

Should I seek a lawgiver other than God, when it is He who has sent down the Book to you with all its details? [Al-Anam 114]

These are God's revelations, which We convey to you in truth. In which hadiths (reports) other than God and His revelations do they believe? [Al-Jathiya 6]

The above verses are intended to prove that God is the sole lawgiver and that laws from scriptures other than the Qur'an constitute polytheism (shirk).

Symbolic equality of Allah and
Muhammad (may God bless him and grant him salvation),
as found today in almost every mosque and in many homes,
also symbolic of the equality of ‘Qur'an and Sunnah’.

How do Koranists manage without the Sunnah?

For example, they only pray three times a day because the Qur'an only mentions three prayers a day. The Asr and Maghrib prayers are omitted. There are no prayer cycles (rakaats) and nothing specific that must be recited. And if one recites salawat during prayer, it would be shirk. But God commands us in the Qur'an to recite salawat on the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him salvation) [Al-Ahzab 56]. Why should one not be allowed to do this in prayer?

Then they also believe, for example, that the Qur'an does not forbid women from becoming imams, and they allow women to become imams. However, the Qur'an does not forbid the call to prayer either. But it is not called out because it appears in the Hadith! So when they resort to their own interpretations, it is acceptable, but when it is based on the sayings of the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace), it is not. However, Allah tells us that the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace) should explain the Quran to the people and that we should follow his example:

And We have sent down to you (O Prophet) the Reminder, so that you may explain to people what has been revealed for them, and perhaps they will reflect. [an-Nahl 44]

Say (O Prophet), “If you love Allah, then follow me; Allah will love you and forgive your sins. For Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful. [Ali Imran 31]

It is not difficult to see that, despite some good arguments, the conclusions of the Koranists and a general rejection of the prophetic tradition are disproportionate. It is inconceivable, for example, that if the Prophet's companions had really prayed only three times, subsequent generations could have changed this to five, and done so simultaneously in all regions and among all factions of Islam, without triggering a storm of indignation. Today, from the jungles of Indonesia to the mountains of Pakistan, from the Sahel to Istanbul to New York City, one can go to any mosque and participate in communal prayer. There will be small differences, but these do not interfere with or even nullify individual prayer. One will always feel part of the Ummah. But not if one participates in the prayer of the Koranists! Even Koranists among themselves will then not know what to do.

Prayer, a key argument of Koranists,
is in fact the best counterargument.

The historical context is always very important in order to be able to classify things correctly. We must remember, for example, that even the Qur'an in its present form was not written down in this way at the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him). When Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) became Caliph, he initially had considerable reservations about compiling the Qur'an in book form. However, the majority of the companions were in favour of it, and Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) allowed himself to be persuaded by them. This was because many of the companions who had memorised it in its entirety had died in battle. The Qur'an also spread more and more in non-Arabic areas, where errors in pronunciation and incorrect reproduction occurred. And so, of course, it was with the Hadith. Here, however, there were even greater concerns, and these were shared by many companions, as already mentioned.

The Sunnah of the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him salvation) was initially passed on primarily through living example. For instance, one could see directly how to pray. The companions served as role models, followed by their successors. Inevitably, however, over time and depending on the region, the implementation of the Sunnah deviated more and more from that of the Prophet's companions. Thus, it became increasingly urgent to develop methods to preserve ‘authentic Islam’. However, the method of writing down and classifying the reports of the Prophet only became established relatively late. The first Islamic jurists based their legal considerations primarily on well-founded opinions (ray) or living local practices (urf). There were also the Mu'tazilites, who used rational considerations, but also the early Tassauwuf, who focused more on spiritual experiences.

The reason why the collection and systematic classification of hadiths ultimately prevailed as a method was not because it was a perfect method in itself, but because the other methods became increasingly irrelevant over time. Local practices, for example, were initially a good indicator of how authentic Islam was being practised, and also left room for the Islamic principle that what the majority of Muslims considered practical and sensible was also pleasing to Allah (as long as it did not violate Sharia law), but of course local customs deviated more and more from those of the early days as time went on. Initially, it was believed that a hadith should sometimes be subject to other overriding principles, such as the ‘continuing practice’ of the community and the ‘general principles of justice,’ which were claimed to better represent the spirit of the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him salvation). Over time, however, legal scholars gradually accepted the primacy of the hadiths and restricted the use of other forms of legal argumentation to the interpretation of the Qur'an and hadith.

The Ahl al-Hadith movement itself emerged towards the end of the 8th century AD among Hadith scholars who regarded the Qur'an and authentic Hadiths as the only acceptable sources of law and creed. Initially, these scholars formed minorities within existing religious study circles, but by the beginning of the 9th century, they had united under the leadership of Ahmad ibn Hanbal to form an independent movement. They were known as ‘Athari’ because they upheld traditionalist theological teachings that rejected rationalist approaches and advocated a strictly literal interpretation of the scriptures. In theological polemics, they were therefore often grouped under the term ‘al-Mujassimun’ (the anthropomorphists), as they themselves accepted only ‘billa kaifa’ (without how) for recognisably metaphorical phrases (such as ‘Verily, God's hands are wide open’ (al-Maidah 64) -> meaning: ‘He is generous and bountiful.’) only ‘billa kaifa’ (without how), rejecting the clearly metaphorical meaning and taking it literally instead. They were also referred to as ‘al-Hashwiyya’ (the verbose), which referred to the abundance of narratives and traditions in their works and compilations.

The Ahl al-Hadith liked to refer to themselves as Ahl al-Sunnah (people of [prophetic] traditions), which referred to their claim to represent orthodox (i.e. entirely tradition-based) Sunni Islam. Not only did the belief that their methodology was superior to others become increasingly prevalent, but also that it was the only valid method and that this method was virtually infallible. The delusion had taken hold that by classifying hadiths as sahih, daif and mauduh, one could say exactly what had happened 1400 years ago and what the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him salvation) and his companions had said, done and thought! This led to a rigid, intolerant scribalism that placed great emphasis on matters peripheral to the faith. Just as Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) had feared, these matters distracted Muslims from the central themes of the Qur'an.

Rejecting hadiths categorically is misguided. Without being able to verify the chains of transmission ourselves as laymen, we can easily see that many of them are correct, such as the hadith that the Bedouins will begin to compete in building tall buildings.

Other hadiths, on the other hand, seem very strange at first glance, such as the hadith about the fly that should be completely immersed in a drink if it falls into it, because one wing contains a disease and the other contains the cure for the disease. Koranists laugh at such hadiths, but this one has now been scientifically proven.

Others simply sound right and reasonable, such as that nothing weighs heavier on Judgement Day than good character. Even if it is not 100% authentic, it certainly does no harm to take it to heart.

The situation becomes much more problematic with hadiths that clearly violate Sharia law, such as the one stating that Rasulullah (may God bless him and grant him peace) married Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) at the age of 6 and consummated the marriage at the age of 9, portraying the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace) as a paedophile. God alone knows how many people this so-called hadith has deterred from Islam and how much suffering it has caused!

Other hadiths are extremely difficult to explain using common sense, such as the hadith that we should kill geckos because they blew into the huge fire in which Ibrahim (peace be upon him) was to be burned, which can be found in Bukhari, ibn Majah and others. Even Salafis recognise this and write on one of their websites: "The most correct view in this regard is probably that this version of the hadith is not authentically transmitted as a marfu' hadith, which is directly attributed to the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace). In fact, the statement “It blew (into the fire) on Ibrahim a.s.” comes from Ibn Jurayj and not from the Prophet (God bless him and grant him peace). Although this statement is attributed to the Prophet (God bless him and grant him peace) in hadith books other than the two Sahih books, these traditions are not authentic."

So, Salafis themselves believe that some hadiths in the relevant works are probably not authentic! However, they are quick to add: "In any case, this version of the hadith does not contradict reason, as some foolish people who are bent on questioning the hadiths with their flawed opinions might argue. The only thing that needs to be investigated is whether these hadiths are authentic or not, not whether they contradict reason or not. Why should it not make sense that the gecko blew into the fire?"

Silly question! Of course this version defies reason! First of all, no small gecko would be able to approach a huge fire to blow into it, and even if a few geckos had tried, why should thousands of generations of subsequent geckos be blamed for it?

That is precisely why it makes sense to examine whether the version is authentic. And what argument could there be for allowing the chains of transmission of the hadith (isnad) to be examined intellectually, but not the text (matn) itself? Should one accept it unquestioningly if one does not want to be called foolish, misguided or even an unbeliever? This abstruse, extreme view results from the belief that the man-made methodology of Hadith examination is virtually perfect. And yes, the Koranists are right about that: it means making the Hadith equal to the Koran, so to speak.

Thus We have made you a balanced nation... [al-Baqarah 143]

Being balanced means using both the Qur'an and Hadith in the search for truth, as well as intellect, inspiration and intuition, general knowledge and experience – in short, all the abilities and light that Allah has made available to human beings, while always asking for His guidance and taking His Book as the supreme guideline.

And Allah guides whoever He wills.

________________

Related Articles:

	Seeking Hidaya Guidance is a central theme of the Qur'ân, it is mentioned far more than a hundred times therein! It is itself called "the guidance for the god-fearing" and "the criterion (of right and wrong)"! Unfortunately, Qur'ân and Sunnah are nowadays mostly reduced to its function as the "lawgiver" only, not so much seen as a spiritual guide...
	A picture in the mirror The power of the rational mind is impressively demonstrated to us every day, because all modern technology is based on it. The fact that technical progress is linked with the destruction of the planet is, however, not blamed on rationality...