A friend (Ijaz) brought this document (Criminals of Islam) to my attention, for the first time, back in 2002. I was too naïve and this document was too bizarre for me to swallow at that time. Today, I came across it again, serendipitously. Still not 100% sure of what to make of it! Any help/comments would be welcome.
I cross-checked some of the given references here and found them all accurate.
Assalamu Alaikum,
What I find most shocking about the book is not the content but the lack of understanding and restraint on the part of the author. He is somewhat reckless in his slandering of some of the giants of our tradition.
I think you know me well enough to know that I do not idolize any man be he prophet, companion, or scholar. At the same time, I see no need to demonize them either. Humans are, and will always be, products of their time, culture, and personal experiences. Many of these quotes are easily understood when viewed in that light.
I think the author would have done the community a much greater service if he had taken the time to research the background of these quotes and helped to put them in a context that we can understand. This is the correct approach (and the one that Jeffrey Lang has taken, for whom I know you have a great respect). Without that, this author only continues to spread ignorance, undermine faith, and provide the bigots out there with great ammunition.
Enough about my thoughts — what about your’s Gohar?
The document seems a healthy reminder that the opinions of scholars are the opinions of people in the end.
Here is a video from a former sheikh who used to be an Imam in Mosul, and who was active in the Ahl Al-Hadith Movement in Mosul. He got involved in sectarian killings in Iraq–and was also discharged from the masjid for “engaging in a3mal qaum Luut” IN THE MASJID!
Never surrender your intellectual sovereignty.
Mohammad
Wa alikum salam Rabih and thanks for your sincere and thoughtful comments.
I brushed him off the first time for that very reason; there must be some explanation, I told myself. But I now think that given enough religious credulity, virtually anything can be “explained” away. And this path, to be intellectually honest, leads not to Pluralism – as many modern academicians want us to believe – but to Relativism. And thus we arrive at a point where all religions, at a broader level, and all traditions within a religious system, at a narrower level, could conveniently be “explained” and accepted by its adherents. Hence, Hindus would “explain” the presence of God in the idols of stone and wood; Christians would “explain” God-Incarnate and God-dying-for-my-sins; Jews would “explain” Jacob’s bloodline having special relationship with God, and so on and so forth.
To be honest, this document did further deteriorate my confidence in such works of Islamic ancient traditions. I’m studying Islamic History these days (for an MA degree) and all this resonates perfectly with the people and milieu of those times that I’m reading about.
That being said, I do think that the mode that this guy has adopted – hammer and chisel – is not only indecorous to the prevailing scholarly flair but is also exaggerated and overbearing; most of these “giants of our tradition”, I believe, were sincere, moral and conscientious scholars, but humans like us in every respect; and like you said, we humans are but product of our social context, with all our limitations. But then again, sometimes chisel is the only effectual tool, especially, when you need to shake a people out of intellectual slumber and religious complacency. I believe that we – not much unlike other religious peoples – are carrying a lot of unnecessary baggage, when it comes to our religious beliefs and faith. And I for one, agree with Prof. Al-Faruqi when he says that the Arabic word “iman” should not be translated in English as “faith” because its Christian spin and connotation implies blind wager [Islam and other Faiths by Islamil R. Faruqi. Page 310]. The word “iman” is better translated as “conviction”; which comes from convincing (when you are absolutely convinced of something, that becomes your conviction; and convincing in turn comes from an argument – which in essence the Qur’an is. On page 320 of the same book, Prof. Faruqi further goes on to say that “[Islam/revelation] be subject to analysis and critique without offence and religious sentiment”.
I agree with you that this document can be misused by Islam bashers and could be misleading to lesser faithful followers but the real question is; should we hide the truth for that fear and keep following these traditions in reverence?
Many of the quotes he brings from scholars actually give very merit to the ideological state during the time. Criticism, questioning and debate but I think the important aspect here is the scholars who discussed such matter had a certain level of knowledge and had obtained Ijazas. Have sent you a short scholarly paper by an Arab Christian Professor George Makdisi who taught at Ivy League Universities. He makes the case that the Ijaza system was a major if not the defining factor in evolving Universities in the west not only in Religious but Secular Knowledge, actually do not like to separate the two as classical Islam never did until creation of nation states. Scholars who obtained ijazahs were licensed to teach and hold scholarly criticisms with others who were qualified (ijazahs). This then evolved as Makdisi deduces into the university curricula of obtained Phd’s or licenses to teach.
The method in which he nit picks hadiths and other sayings is very unacademic and an ad hov method to interpret with modern scholars, such as Mawdudi, that if he were to go into his own profession (it seems he is an MD doctor) his article were certainly be rejected by any Medical Publication. An academic scientist or professional first acknowledges the evolving of knowledge with in a subject. For example, Mendels theory of genetics or the fact scientists tried to extract Penicillin and other antibiotics we use in every day life from fungus on bread! seems absolutely absurd to us but yet this is how Penicillin was discovered and doctors and scientists always bring up the great feat this was in the evolution of science. For example it was through the memorization of Arabic Grammar in beautiful poetic form (Ibn Malik known as Aliffiyah) and the great efforts of Muslim philologists and linguists that preserved the arabic language that some Jewish Scholars actually attribute the preservation of Hebrew grammar to the efforts of Muslim grammarians and philolologists. Yet the study these old texts are deemed as backwards and useless?
Ilm’ hadith was compiled and classified with a rigorous process as you know, don’t know much about it but would like to learn. The relationship between fiqh and hadith scholars say is like a pharmacist (Muhadith) and Doctor (Faqih). Bukhari or other hadith compilers did not intend for hadith to be rulings or aqeedah, this was based on a logical process from fuqahah. The little I know a single hadith is not considered a proof in itself for hukm sharia or aqeedah, but rather for aqeedah numerous reports (mutawwitir) and not khabr al-ahad (single narrarations) must be taken for proof in aqeedah. There is no reference of the great Hadith commentators Ibn Hajar or Imam Nawawi? This is like trying to understand the American Consititution without the commentary of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and the rest of the founding fathers. Therefore a single hadith in itself does not prove nothing in relation to aqeedah or fardh actions binding to a believer. Personally, I find orientalists paying more respect to fiqh and Islamic Law than this author, I think Daniel Pipes would respect classical Islam more.
The authors statement of killing the apostate as Quran refers to there is no compulsion in religion. Actually the famous classical Jurist and Political Scientist Mawardi, states this is an act against the state (treason) as the hadith states ‘li thafaariqu jamaa'”, which many ‘Democratic’ governments in the world hold the same reasoning in relation to treason and plotting against their own governing bodies. Again not knowing the arabic portion, “li thu faariqu jamaa'” and translating as simply apostate is very misleading to a person who does not know nothing about the arabic language. Also Ghazali and Ibn Taymiyyah held the most Islamic system is the most ‘adl regardless of being muslim or non-muslim and God will aid this nation.
May Allah guide us and increase us in understanding of our Deen
Asif: You hit on some great insights here. I would like to echo the reminder that most of the jurists used hadith material selectively. As you point out, a fundamental flaw in Dr. Ahmed’s work is the premise that every hadith is sacrosanct and incorporated into the religion wholesale. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I also agree that Dr. Ahmed’s assualt on the great scholars of hadith is unwarranted. He assigns blame to Bukhari and others for transmitting content he finds objectionable. It is as if Dr. Ahmed expects men writing a 1,000 years ago to share his modern sensibilities and rather prudish views on sexuality.
The reality is that the imams of hadith outlined a method of hadith criticsm and sought to classify the soundness of traditions they collected based on that methodology. It was a tremendous and invaluable undertaking. While traditional hadith criticism may have its flaws, the scholarship reflected a much greater degree of academic integrity than Dr. Ahmed’s approach which seems to dismiss or mock anything and anyone he disagrees with.
Gohar: I am not calling for “religious credulity” or blind adherence to tradition. I am calling for humility, courtesy, and intellectual rigor. I do not find any of these in Dr. Ahmed’s work.
I am also not seeking to defend traditions that I find morally repugnant or absurd. However, I would suggest that individuals excercise restraint and suspend judgement until they are able to make an informed decision – one which, among other things, seeks to understand the scholarship and positions of the classical imams. To dismiss fourteen hundred years of scholarship without due consideration is the height of folly and arrogance. While I recognize that our tradition has flaws, we ought not to “throw the baby out with the bath water.”
Let me present a simple illustration:
On page 7 in “Criminals of Islam,” Dr. Ahmed cites the following hadith:
“Mahmood bin Rabe’ narrates, “I still remember when I was five years old. The Prophet (S) rinsed his mouth and then poured the water into mine.” [Vol 1 Kitabul ‘Ilm pg 130, Hadith #77].”
He concludes: “Could the exalted Prophet hold any human being at that level of contempt?”
Cross referencing this hadith against the USC-MSA hadith compendium, it seems that the hadith may have been misquoted/mistranslated. In the USC-MSA it reads:
“Narrated Mahmud bin Rabi’a:
When I was a boy of five, I remember, the Prophet took water from a bucket (used far getting water out of a well) with his mouth and threw it on my face.”
It appears that the water was sprayed onto the boy’s face and not into his mouth although this is arguably a minor point.
So how should we approach such a hadith? I would suggest at a minimum:
* The original Arabic should be studied for accuracy.
* Classical books of hadith interpretation/commentary should be referenced.
* The chain of transmission should be analyzed to determine the frequency with which this event was corroborated. The greater the number of independent transmissions, the greater the historical claim of the text.
* The practice of spitting water should be researched: Was it an Arab tradition that had cultural significance lost to us today? Was this done by the Prophet in other situations? Why was it done? Was it done out of contempt as Dr. Ahmed suggests? Could it have been an accident? Was the Prophet being playful with the boy? Was it a form of blessing or healing? The intent behind the act is more important than the action itself.
If you are unable to do the above, then “ask those who know if you do not know.” If that’s not an option, then at least suspend judgement to a later date (qv. Chapter 49 in “The Search for Beauty in Islam: A Conference of the Books” by Khaled Abu El Fadl).
As it turns out, a cursory search in the USC-MSA compendium reveals that this event is also related in the Book of Ablution and in the Book of Invocations:
“Volume 1, Book 4, Number 188:
Narrated Ibn Shihab:
Mahmud bin Ar-Rabi’ who was the person on whose face the Prophet had ejected a mouthful of water from his family’s well while he was a boy, and ‘Urwa (on the authority of Al-Miswar and others) who testified each other, said, “Whenever the Prophet , performed ablution, his companions were nearly fighting for the remains of the water.””
From this we can reasonably posit that if the Prophet did spray the boy with water, it was done as a form of blessing. This interpretation seems to be inline with the text above and its placement under the Book of Invocations.
With a tiny bit of study, a vastly different picture begins to emerge from the one presented to us by Dr. Ahmed.
Kind of makes you wonder about all the other stuff in his book, doesn’t it?
Thank you Rabih for the explanation of this hadith; personally I never felt much wrong in it anyway. Given the fact that phlebotomy (i.e. bloodletting) was the most popular medical practice up until late 19th century, exchanging water from each other’s mouth – especially when one of them happens to be the final messenger of God – was not too bad at all. But hey! Don’t get me wrong guys. I never said that we should “throw the baby out with the bath water”. I’m aware of the historic importance of extra-Qur’anic literature, including Hadith, Sirah, Maghazi, Fiqh etc. But the question boils down to: what’s the appropriate place for such materials in our life and belief system?
I disagree with you (both Asif and Rabih) that “a fundamental flaw in Dr. Ahmed’s work is the premise that every hadith is sacrosanct and incorporated into the religion wholesale”. I don’t think that’s what he’s saying. I think he’s much more specific than that. For example, he’s presenting excerpts from Sahih Bukhari – by far the most authentic book in such literature – which I don’t find convincing as revealed truth. He’s not objecting to ANY hadith; he’s objecting to Bukhari, which in fact is sacrosanct and acceptable “wholesale” to many. For them, his objection is very much valid.
“Solomon having sex with 90 of his wives in one night“; “Prophet having intercourse with all 9 of his wives in a single night”; “Prophet having sexual strength equal to that of 30 men”; “most entering hell would be women because of their inherent flaws”; “Abraham lied three times”; “Israelites changed into rats, so they don’t drink camel-milk”; “Aisha taking bath in front of her brother and Abu Salama”; “monkeys stoning other monkeys for adultery”; “wife being cursed by angles for refusing to come to satisfy her husband” and on and on and on…You say, “Jurists used hadith selectively”; I say, what then “Sahih” stands for in “Sahih Bukhari”? You say, “chain of transmission be analyzed”; I say, that’s what Bukhari is supposed to have done for us, some 250 years after Prophet’s death. If even the most authentic of these books cannot be accepted per se, and we (or Jurists) have to be selective in what they take from it, let me ask you the following two core questions.
1. Can such literature be considered authoritative in deriving legal rulings or ascertaining Shariah (God ordained path)?
2. Can it be used as the foundation of Aqidah (faith) or understanding issues related to it?
These are the questions that practically matter. Saying that you believe it, or believe it selectively, is meaningless unless you specify “to what purpose”. And that’s exactly the question 2nd/3rd century Muslims raised.
Regarding the first question, Imam Shafi (d. 204AH), for example, writing in late 2nd century advocated for it. His polemic, al-Risala, argues that there are three types of hadith; first, that says exactly what is also said in the Qur’an; second, that explains, what in principle, is said in the Qur’an, and the third, where Qur’an is completely silent and the hadith stands at its own. Imam Shafi argued – contrary to the opinion of his contemporaries, according to his own admission – that this 3rd type of hadith must also be accepted for the purposes of deriving legal rulings [al-Risala, translated by M. Khuddari, end of chapter 5 “On the obligation of man to accept the authority of the Prophet”, page-120-122]. It so happened that this particular legal position won out in Islamic history, and hence, we now have the universally accepted cliché, “The foundation of Shariah is on Qur’an and Sunnah”. Imam Shafi was arrested and brought in the court of Harun al-Rashid (the famous 7th Abbasid caliph) with the conspirators in 187AH/803CE and while the other co-conspirators were executed, he was pardoned and entered caliph’s favor, partly because of his own eloquence and partly because of his lineage. Legality of capital-Punishments in Islam – i.e. execution and execution by stoning for apostasy and adultery respectively – are good examples. Qur’an does not sanction these punishments but jurists, accepting the line of reasoning from Imam Shafi, consider such punishments part of Shariah. Had history not taken that particular turn, and had left Imam Shafi and his work in oblivion like many other scholars and imams of that time, our understanding might have been very different on this core question.
The second question regarding Aqidah is even more hairy. It’s amazing to learn about the issues that were relevant to those early Muslims. Most people don’t even know about them today, nor can relate to them. The question of whether the Qur’an is a created or uncreated word of God? What would be the mode of seeing God on the day of judgment? Predestination; who makes our actions, we or God? What is the exact nature of faith, does it increase/decrease or is constant? Who was the rightful successor of the Prophet? Such where the issues upon which early Muslims debated and disagreed in a most vitriolic and vicious manner, slashing each other’s throats, cutting open pregnant women, whipping and other ingenious tortures, calling each other unbeliever/non-Muslim. The books of history are full of such graphic accounts. All that on the question of Aqidah. And where do you think they gathered evidence from to shore up their claims? Qur’an being fixed, they didn’t have much leeway beyond sympathetic interpretations. But hadith was game. Needless to say that hadith forgery is a well documented phenomenon of those times, even in the most orthodox accounts. The war kept raging between Mu’tazilah, Qadariyah, Ash’ariah, Kharijite, Murjite, Muhuddisun and many more. The official doctrine, however, took a 180 degree turn with the enthronement of al-Mutawakil, the 10th Abbasid caliph, reigned from 232AH/847CE through 247AH/861CE, who favored Muhuddisun over Mu’tazilah and turned the tables. Thus came to be our “orthodox” Aqidah on these questions.
May be I’m too radicalized in search of the truth but I’m not willing to compromise on the quality of the evidence that makes it God ordained. I know Qur’an says “follow Allah and His messenger” and that “Allah sent down kitab (book) and hikmah (wisdom)” and that in both these verses, the former refers to the Qur’an and the later to the Sunnah. Even if one buys into this interpretation – which too btw, finds its origin in the above mentioned book al-Risala – there is indeed a long way between the Sunnah and this extra-Qur’anic literature that we have at our hands.
Here is an example of finding a great jewel in the gutter. Rafique uncle stumbled across it fortuitously and brought it to my attention. The topic is somewhat related to our ongoing discussion so I’m plugging it in here. This guy, Akhtar, has recently posted a very potent reply to this Islam-bashing website on the topic of Ayesha’s age at the time of her wedding. The heading is “AYESHA’s AGE: THE MYTH OF A PROVERBIAL WEDDING EXPOSED”. I’ve saved the reply locally (in case they remove the post).
Asslamalaikum,
Inshallah everyone is well. I don’t see what this has specifically to do with the topic of discussion? In all due respect, have seen such replies from traditionalists, rationalists and other camps. My comments and Rabih, were not meant to be taken as disagreement/agreement or supportive of a specific ideology (traditionalist, rationalist, etc.) but rather the academic integrity of the work. You bring some great points and many which the author ignores, specifically the political and other conditions climate at the time, sometime the author is vastly ignorant of. Since the formation of nation states, everything has been nationalized subconsciously into the Muslim World.
Our concern was with the integrity in which the subject was handled. Specifically, the author’s lack of any comment in hadith or Quran to arabic philology and grammar (which I nor probably anyone in our discussion have a complete grasp of) and hadith commentators (something your friend Akhther has done very academically). It seems as though his knowledge of arabic would not allow him to read Fath al-Bari, commentary on Bukhari (available online in Arabic). Majaz, balagha (rhetoric) and grammar are crucial to the understanding of texts and taking a literal meaning in English can give strange meanings, which were not originally understood by the presiding audience. Also one thing we tend to ignore is the definition of ‘literacy’ among classical societies (Greek also) was not based on written work. Works such as Homer the Ilyad and Plato’s republic were actually memorized through the ages. I have met a Mauritanian Shaikh here in UAE who actually has texts and a lot section of Qamoos al-Arab and Lisan al-arab memorized not to mention the Quran and a lot of Jahiliyah poetry, giving him a clear understanding to the contextualization of the text. So it is not difficult to conjure the reliance of an oral tradition.
“If even the most authentic of these books can not be accepted per se, and we (or Jurists) have to be selective in what they take from it, let me ask you the following two core questions.”
I certainly believe we have the right to question but are we ‘Jurists’, I cringe at the knowledge (basic Arabic grammar, philology, balagha and other subjects required not to mention humility) compared to the likes of Shafi and other classical scholars. Even an Arab from the Middle East who has completed at least High School tried to read Shafii’s poetry he might understand 50-60% of it. There were many vicious and virulent debates between scholars from a variety of camps in early Islam and always has been. This is commong amongst scholars in any scholarly community who have achieved respect and gone through a curriculum.
If what your claiming is correct then 1200 years of scholarship and civilization somehow missed the greatest scholars even Fakhr al-din Razi (Shafi) and the ‘new’ knowledge we have obtained in the light of the Renaissance and Scientific Revolution we now have the answers? Also if I recall the arresting of Shafii was related to charges of him being aiding the Alawis in a revolt when he moved to Yemen? Risala was written later (dictated) so how is this related to his arrest? Are there any other texts relating to the jailing of Shafi based on Rashid’s charges of him in relations to his scholarly work?
Al-Raazi says, “This Hadith is attainable by a man who possesses three characteristics: 1. that he is from Quraish 2. that he has abundant knowledge among religious scholars 3. that his abundant knowledge will indeed reach from east to west of the world
After saying this Al-Raazi says, “The man described above is no other than Al-Shafi’ee.” (Musnad of Abu Dawood Al-Tabalusi, p. 39-40)
Moreover this would be very problematic suggesting Islam never establish it’s own principles of law (usool) and system but rather only incorporate foreign ideologies and revive them (Greek, Indian, etc.) or a product of the existing ideological environment of a certain time and not an ideology that a civilization is based upon (Religions are not ideologies or Civilizations, but Capitalism, Socialism, etc. are). Bernard Lewis and other political motivated orientalists would then be correct about Islam was never a Civilization and more credence could be given to Samuel Huntington (note: there are many orientalists who contributed to Islamic Literature, a good read for this is Edward Said “Orientalism”). However, in the scholarly papers had sent you written by George Makdisi (an Arab Christian Professor) titled ‘The Scholarly Method” he makes a pretty strong case of the Ijaza system (obtaining licences) to teach based on a certain curriculum (Arabic language, grammar, fiqh, etc.) was adopted by Western Universties (i.e. Magister title of the Middle Ages, given to a person in authority, or to one having a license from a university to teach philosophy and the liberal arts.)
I concur with you that personally find many hadiths you bring and have read, absurd to the Naked Eye. However, allowing academic integrity and not basing on one’s own notion of let’s say sexuality (Gay marriages are now a norm) to take precedence.
Walaikumsalaam
Let me first say: I am really enjoying this blog Its a great forum and much better than emails.
Gohar: you bring up some interesting and important questions about the role that the hadith should play in Islam. Before we get too far down that path, I wanted to step back and bring the discussion back to the book at hand. I agree with Asif that our primarily complaint is the caliber and tone of the work at hand. Specifically, I would focus my complaint again “Criminals of Isalm” on these four points:
1. Dr. Ahmed calls Bukhari and the Imams of hadith “criminals.” That’s strong language. Actually it’s slander and one of the most serious sins in our tradition. May God forgive him.
2. Dr. Ahmed’s diatribe is not just against the scholars of hadith or the hadith literature. Its an accusation against many giants of our tradition, who as you mentioned were “sincere, moral, and conscientious scholars.” Among the “criminals” Dr. Ahmed cites: Al-Ghazali, Rumi, Ibn ‘Arabi, Al-Jilani, Ibn al-Qayyam, Junayd, and Ibn Taymiyya to name a few. Whatever shortcomings these men had, they do not warrant this abuse.
3. Dr. Ahmed’s scholarship is juvenile. He cites quotes that he clearly does not understand (and has not researched) and uses them out of context in an attempt to portray these scholars in the worst possible light. It’s the same tactic used by anti-Muslim bigots to ridicule our religion.
4. Dr. Ahmed seems to claim an almost exclusive knowledge of the “true Islam.” Evidently, what most Muslims have been following for the past fourteen hundred years is a religion he calls the “Number 2 Islam.” That is bizarre almost to the point of being delusional.
So, let me turn to your post of June 19 and the interesting and important questions that it raises about the role of hadith in our lives.
You say: Dr. Ahmed is not “objecting to ANY hadith; He’s objecting to Bukhari, which in fact is sacrosanct and acceptable wholesale to many.”
The important question is, “many whom?” The average uneducated Muslim or the trained scholar? I would agree that the many Muslims do not understand the role that Sahih Bukhari plays within the religion. We all know people who will read a hadith on a topic and take it at face value as a legal ruling (which only serves to underscore the importance of the madhhab tradition). On the other hand, the scholars of our tradition approach the hadith material with a greater degree of circumspection. Although Sahih Bukhari as a whole is canonical (not sacrosanct), particular traditions within the collection may not be.
You asked: “what then [does] Sahih stand for in Sahih Bukhari” if hadith still have to be used selectively?
As you know, the Sahih designation means that the chain of transmission of a hadith is “sound.” Each scholar had their own set of criteria to establish this, but generally speaking it means that every narrator involved in the transmission of a hadith was known to be a virtuous Muslim with a strong and accurate memory.
That said, not every sahih hadith is considered equally reliable. Later scholars, most notably Ibn Hajar, built on Bukhari and Muslim and developed a full science around the grading of narrators. It was called ‘Ilm Jarh wa Ta’dil or the Science of Discrediting and Crediting [the reliability of narrators]. If I recall correctly, Ibn Hajar had eight levels for narrators. You could consider a hadith “sahih” as long as all the narrators were at least level five or better throughout the chain. That means, that some sahih hadith are stronger than others based on their chain. You may have heard of the “golden chain” – that referred to the chain of transmission that was considered the sounded of them all. Most agree that it was hadith that passed from the Prophet (pbuh) to Ibn ‘Umar to Nafi’ to Malik.
Even more important than this, frequency of report must also be considered. If a sahih hadith was narrated by only one person at any point along its chain, then it is considered less authoritative than if two, three, four, or more narrators transmit the same content indepedently. The logic behind this is self explanatory.
Last but not least, we should remember that the content of hadith traditions are wide ranging and many of the sahih narrations play no role in either formulating legal opinions or ‘aqeedah – as they are simply not applicable.
Most of the questionable narrations that Dr. Ahmed cites fall into this category. They may sound odd and bizarre to us and certainly worthy of a raised eyebrow and further research, but their impact on the fundamentals of our tradition (‘aqidah and fiqh) are often nil. Addtionally, we often find that these hadith, while they may be considered sahih, were narrated by only one person.
I think it also bears stating that traditional scholars differed on how to use the hadith material. Some individuals and some schools were more liberal and accepting of weaker traditions (so long as they did not contradict the Qur’an). Other scholars and schools were more conservative. For example, there is a principle in the Hanafi tradition that says that the greater the potential impact of a ruling on society, the greater the degree of proof is required. In other words, they may except a solitary hadith for a trivial matter but not on something that would affect the community as a whole. This approach has a lot of merit in my mind.
Nothing that I stated above is controversial. However, I will now make a statement that would be considered radical by traditional scholars. (Gohar, you’ll like that!)
As valuable as I believe it to have been, the classical methodology of hadith criticsm has a serious flaw. It does not apply the grading of narrators to any of the companions. All of the sahaba were considered to be reliable narrators – both from a standpoint of personal integrity as well as memory. Clearly, it does us no good to have a tradition narrated across two or three reliable sources if the original narrator is flawed. This is an area that needs more research. I believe the methodology of ‘Ilm Jarh wa Ta’dil should be applied to the sahaba. For example, many of the most objectionable hadith (especially those related to women) have been related exclusively from the companion Abu Huraira. There are reports that he was criticized by ‘Aisha for narrating so much from the Prophet and it is said that the Caliph ‘Umar even threatened to imprison him if he did not stop. I have not done the research and do not want to disparage another Muslim lightly, especially a companion of the Prophet. My point is that this is an important area that needs to be investigated by highly qualified individuals.
***
To answer the two questions you ask directly:
1. Can such literature be considered authoritative in deriving legal rulings or asserting Shariah (God ordained path)?
Yes – I believe it can assuming that the narrations being used to formulate legal rulings are authoritative enough (quality of chain, frequency, etc) and the principle of proportionality is applied.
2. Can it be used as the foundation of Aqidah (faith) or understanding issues related to it?
No and Yes respectively. Hadith should not be used as the foundation of ‘aqidah but I see no objection in using them to help inform our understanding and keep it in line with the Prophet’s teachings. (As ‘aqidah is even more important than legal rulings, we would need an even higher level of reliability for traditions to be considered authoritative at this level).
***
On a final note: I would respectfully disagree with your analyis of Al-Shafi’i’s role in establishing the place of hadith in fiqh. Many scholars before Al-Shafi’i used hadith to formulate independent legal rulings. In fact, many were less strict about the quality of hadith that they needed in order to consider it authoritiative. It was al-Shafi’i that started to put the emphasis on sahih traditions.
I would also suggest that your account of how our “orthodox aqidah” came about is an oversimplification (and perhaps a little dramatic). Let us not forget that there are three different schools of aqidah that are accepted within “orthodox” Islam.
Gohar: thank you for presenting the analysis of Akhtar on the age of ‘Aisha (ra). While the topic of Aisha’s age bears further research, his method is commendable and stands in stark contrast to Dr. Ahmed’s work.
As Salaam Aleikum wr wb
Very interesting stuff, It does not surprise me at all I deal on daily basis while giving dawah to non Muslims on internet and on street. But I like to study the most authentic report regarding Age of Aisha (ra). If there is any work available please refer to me.
Here is a link just 100 years ago in USA
http://journals.aol.com/stebrel/MoralityandtheLaw/entries/2007/06/24/statutory-rape-laws/1631
Consider our silly laws concerning sexual activity among children: In the United States, the uniform age of sexual consent prior to 1886 (a little more than a century ago) was 7 years old. That meant that a 7-year old could consent to sex. After 1886, the age of consent was raised to 10 in most states (Delaware stayed with the 7 year old standard).
Jazakallah khair
Gohar:
Salaam aley kum:
First, let me congratulate you on starting this web blog. It makes for an interesting exchange of ideas.
Secondly, on the discussion at hand, this only solidifies my own (minority-of-one) view that Hadiths (Bokhari’s or any one else’s) have to taken with a big grain of salt. From a practical point of view for us everyday Muslims (as opposed to scholars like your self), the maxim should be: read and try and understand the Qur’an. Interpret it with your own viewpoint in as sincere a manner as you can and then live your life according to it as your conscience dictates. By all means, read the scholars and try and understand their perspectives, but recognize that there is no one “right” view–only Allah has that. We do the best we can and discard any thing we read that makes no sense to us. After all, Islam (and Fiqh) must be contextual otherwise it is irrelevant.
Now for scholars, you do have a problem. But again do the best authentic research you can and come to your own conclusions–do not try to justify conclusions that any other scholar has come to–even if it is Bokhari. Sincere and honest as he may have been, he compiled his collection about 200 years after the death of the Prophet (pbuh). In this day and age, we should be able to appreciate how difficult a task that must have been for him!
Enough of my ramblings!!
Generally I do not post on blogs, but I would like to say that this post really forced me to do so, Excellent post!
–Robert Shumake
I READ THIS BOOK AND I FOUND THAT THE WRITER HAS STUDIED THE AHADETH JUST TO OPOSE THEM !! MOST OF THE POINTS HE RAISED ARE JUST FOOLISH ONES , IF A THING HE DOESN’T LIKE , THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT OTHERS DONT LIKE IT TOO , IT IS JUST A FOOLISH TRY TO DEFAME AHADEETH !!