.......about the context of the Qur`anic statements. Sunnah/Hadith is not an independent source of the Islamic guidance. (Some readers have made an issue of the distinction between Sunnah and Hadith but Sunnah is almost always known through the Hadith and is practically a part of the Hadith). The other is that the Qur`an is a crystallization or a comprehensive summary of the Sunnah/Hadith that God himself produced and preserved so that it can teach the basis of everything that we need to know.
A reader’s concern that the position that the Qur`an alone is the foundation of Islam sounds “dangerously close” to the Qur`an-only people is understandable. But it is dangerous only if we do not pay attention to words being used. I clearly recognize the role of the Sunnah/Hadith in Islam but not that of an independent source.
The position is supported by general rational arguments, by the Qur`an and by the MOST reliable ahadith. The rational argument is that if the Qur`an and the Sunnah/Hadith both constitute the foundation of Islam, they should have both been preserved with equal reliability which is obviously not the case. Clearly, then the role of the Sunnah/Hadith is so secondary in comparison to the Qur`an that it can perform that role despite the flawed nature of the transmission of the Sunnah/Hadith.
The Qur`anic basis of the position is provided by verses like:
And We have sent down unto you (O Prophet) the book explaining (tibyanan) everything and as a guidance, and mercy, and glad tidings for those who have surrendered (to God) (16:89). Shall I seek other than God as judge when it is he who has sent down unto you the book well explained (mufassalan)? … (6:114-115). A book whose revelatory statements (ayat) have been firmly formulated (uhkimat) and then explained (fussilat) by one wise and informed (11:1).
The statement that the Qur`an “explains everything” must mean at the very least that everything we need to know for our religion is found in the Qur`an in a clear reference, although some less significant details could be found in the Sunnah/Hadith. This is not to say, as one reader puts it, “the essentials of faith (Iman) are all grounded in the Qur'anic teachings themselves. Certainly, all ‘seven’ elements of the declaration of faith in detail (Iman-e Mufassal) are all there in the Qur`an.” This can hardly be described as “explaining everything”. The import of the words “explaining everything” is that whatever we are required to believe or do as Muslims and not just the “essentials of faith” is grounded in clear references in the Qur`an. Now this is not the case with the belief in Jesus’ return. I am well aware that there are two verses that some people interpret as a reference to Jesus’ return. But the references are far from clear and have led commentators to suggest a variety of different interpretations. If God wanted us to believe in Jesus’ return he would have been far clearer. Consequently, my interpretation of “explaining everything” requires me to seriously doubt whether belief in Jesus’ return is part of Islam.
The most reliable traditions also suggest that the Qur`an alone is the foundation of Islam. Thus in the well known khutbah that the Prophet gave during the farewell hajj he said:
Then [during his farewell hajj the Prophet] came to the bottom of the valley, and addressed the people saying: “…. I have left among you the Book of God, and if you hold fast to it, you would never go astray ….” .
Here there is no mention of the Sunnah. But Ibn Ishaq as quoted by Ibn Hisham records the saying in the following form:
I have left with you something which if you hold fast to it you will never fall into error – a plain indication, the book of God and the Sunnah of his prophet, so give good heed to what I say (p. 651).
Ibn Ishaq does not give any isnad for the hadith, but Muslim does give the isnad: Ja‘far bin Muhammad from his father Muhammad bin ‘Ali (bin Husayn bin ‘Ali bin Abi Talib) from Jabir bin ‘Abd Allah from the Prophet. The existence of isnad makes Muslim’s version somewhat preferable to that of Ibn Ishaq even though Ibn Ishaq is much earlier. If so, the Prophet only told people to hold fast to the Qur`an but someone added to his words a reference to the Sunnah.
It is because Sunnah was not part of the original tradition, it gets replaced by other sources. Thus in a farewell type of address set at Khumm the Prophet says in a hadith recorded by Muslim that he was leaving two things. The first is the Book of God but the second is NOT Sunnah:
The Prophet said: O people, I am a human being. I am about to receive a messenger (the angel of death) from my Lord and I, in response to God's call, (would depart from you). But I am leaving among you two weighty things. The first is the Book of God in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of God and adhere to it. He exhorted (us) (to hold fast) to the Book of God and then said: (The second are) the members of my household. I remind you of God regarding the members of my family.” (Muslim, Urdu, 6. p.101)
In the above hadith the source of guidance is still the Qur`an alone. Ahl al-bayt are not presented as a second source of guidance, for, Muslims are not exhorted to hold fast to ahl al-bayt as a source of guidance as they are exhorted to hold fast to the Qur’an. The Prophet only says, “I remind you of God concerning the ahl al-bayt” which could mean simply to be kind and just to them. But ahadith similar to the above are found in many later books, where the ahl al-bayt become a second source of guidance along with the Qur`an:
I have left among you that which if you abide by, you will never go astray: the Book of God, and my family, the members of my house (ahl al-bayt) (related by al-Tirmidhi, Ahmad, Ibn Abi 'Asim, al-Hakim, al-Tabarani and al-Tahawi).
The tendency to add other sources to the Qur`an is also found in other traditions. Thus in Ibn Sa‘d (Tabaqat) in the context of the farewell hajj we have the following hadith:
Umm al-Husayn narrated: I saw the Prophet on the night of ‘Arafah on a camel …. And heard him say: O people! Hear and obey, even if it be some deformed Abyssinian slave who establishes the Book of God among you.
Here only the Book of God is mentioned, but in the following hadith from Abu Da`ud, set in a similar farewell situation, the rightly guided khulafa` also become a source along with the Sunnah:
The Prophet said: I enjoin you to fear God, and to hear and obey even if it be an Abyssinian slave, for those of you who live after me will see great disagreement. You must then follow my Sunnah and that of the rightly-guided khulafa. Hold to it and stick fast to it.
A very well documented tradition about the khalifah ‘Umar shows that the sahabah clearly understood that the Qur`an alone is the foundation of Islamic guidance. The tradition is documented by Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa‘d, and Bukhari. Here are the three versions:
Bukhari’s version:
Anas bin Malik heard 'Umar speaking while standing on the pulpit of the Prophet in the morning (following the death of the Prophet), when the people had sworn allegiance to Abu Bakr. He said the tashahhud before Abu Bakr, and said, “amma ba'du God has chosen for his Messenger what is with him (paradise) rather than what is with you (the world). This (Qur`an) is the book with which God guided your Messenger, so hold on to it, for then you will be guided on the right path as God guided his Messenger with it.”
Ibn Ishaq’s version:
Al-Zuhri told me from Anas bin Malik, On the day after Abu Bakr’s acceptance in the hall he sat in the pulpit and ‘Umar got up and spoke before him, and after duly praising God he said: “O men, yesterday I said something which I do not find in the book of God nor was it something that the Messenger of God entrusted to me; but I thought that the Messenger would (continue) running our affairs and be the last of us (alive). God has left with you his book, by which he guided his Messenger, and if you hold fast to that God will guide you as he guided him ....”
Ibn Sa‘d’s version:
Al-Zuhri said that he was told by Anas bin Malik that he heard ‘Umar bin al-Khattab in the Prophet’s mosque on the morning of the day when people gave allegiance to Abu Bakr and when Abu Bakr was sitting on the pulpit. ‘Umar recited the tashahhud before Abu Bakr and said: “amma ba‘d, yesterday I said something to you which was not true. By God I did not find it in the book of God nor was it something that the Prophet entrusted to me. It only reflected my desire that the Prophet should remain alive. Then ‘Umar came to what he wanted to say, (my desire was to see) the Prophet die after all of us but God chose for the Prophet nearness to him rather than nearness to you. This (Qur`an) is the book with which God guided your Messenger, so hold on to it, for then you will be guided on the right path as God guided his Messenger with it.
In all versions ‘Umar regards only the Qur`an to be the source of guidance. In Ibn Ishaq’s and Ibn Sa’d’s versions, the words “something that the messenger of God entrusted to me” do show that the Prophet taught things not contained in the book of God and that this was important in the eyes of the companions. But in subsequent words, the focus shifts entirely to the Qur`an which is considered sufficient for guidance: “God has left his book with you, that by which he guided his messenger, and if you hold fast to that God will guide you as he guided him.” In Bukhari’s version, there is no reference to what the Messenger entrusted to ‘Umar and the entire focus is on the book of God. Ibn Sa’d seems to be dependent on both versions.
The farewell khutbah and the above traditions about ‘Umar have the earliest and most varied documentation among all the traditions that talk about the sources of guidance. That they originally talked only about the Qur`an supports the view that the Qur`an alone is the foundation of Islam.
2) Determining authentic ahadith is a human science
This becomes clearer if we compare the situation with the Christian tradition. Just as in Islam, Christianity was also faced with a great mass of traditions about Jesus -- some fabricated, some distorted, and a few genuine ones. At one point Christians could no longer avoid the decision as to which traditions are to be accepted and which are to be rejected. So they made their decision but the basis of the decision was to accept those books that had gained acceptability among the people and reject the rest. Later, they attributed the accepted books to the Holy Spirit. No rational analysis was used to separate the reliable from the unreliable traditions. Muslims in contrast attempted to base their decision on some objective rational methods, that is, they used a scientific approach. They gathered all the traditions that they could without prejudice, while at the same time collecting data about their transmitters and then reached some conclusions. This work needs to be developed further but its scientific spirit cannot be doubted.
3) The isnad method has not proved to be very successful and the results reached by our classical muhaddithun are not very dependable.
That the isnad method, on which our great muhaddithun primarily depended, has not produced sound results is clear from very significant differences in the various versions of the same ahadith. Previously I illustrated this with the example of the story of ‘Umar and Sawdah concerning the hijab. Another example is provided by the traditions where some versions have only the Book of God as the source of guidance while other versions mention the Sunnah and/or ahl al-bayt and/or rightly guided khulafa`. The addition (or, possible but unlikely omission) of the reference to the Sunnah etc as a source of Islamic guidance cannot be dismissed lightly. It is a difference of tremendous importance and it is clear that someone changed the words of the Holy Prophet.
Here is yet another example of serious changes in the earlier version:
Bukhari thrice tells us the following beautiful story:
Yahya bin Qaza‘ah related to us: Ibrahim bin Sa‘d related to us from his father from ‘Urwah from ‘Aishah who said: The Prophet in his fatal illness, called his daughter Fatimah and told her a secret because of which she started to weep. Then he called her and told her another secret, and she started laughing. When I asked her about that, she replied, The Prophet told me that he would die in his fatal illness, and so I wept, but then he secretly told me that from amongst his family, I would be the first to join him, and so I laughed".
In this version the second secret that turns Fatimah’s crying into laughing is the good news that she will be the first among the Prophet’s household to follow him (in death), which corresponds to the fact that she died very soon after his father. But in another version of the story this has changed as follows:
Musa related to us from Abu ‘Awanah, Firas related to us from ‘Amir from Masruq (who said): ‘Aishah related to me: … Fatimah said: “ … And when the Prophet saw me in this sorrowful state, he confided the second secret to me saying, O Fatimah! Will you not be pleased that you will be chief of all the believing women (or chief of the women of this ummah)?”
It is clear that someone had changed the reason for Fatimah’s laughing. Both ahadith are agreed upon in that they are found in both Bukhari and Muslim. It is clear that no category of ahadith, however trusted by some Muslims, was immune to tahrif of a significant nature. This is not the case just with a few ahadith. We can find similar differences in ahadith on almost every subject, even though the ahadith are supposed to be narrated by unbroken chains of trustworthy transmitters. We have over the centuries developed a tendency to pass over such contradictions and pretend that they do not exist or are not important. But the moment we open our eyes we begin to see that we are dealing with a rather flawed process of transmission.
My criticism of the isnad method resulted in some readers thinking that I consider Muwatta to be completely reliable and only reject traditions in Bukhari and Muslim. Thus one brother commented: “If Muwatta is the ultimate criterion for what we do, or do not, consider acceptable, then we should entirely do away with the rest of the authentic collection.” But this is the result of a misunderstanding. I do not consider Muwatta as the ultimate criterion. The ultimate criterion is the Book of God, the Furqan. I believe that there are some authentic ahadith that did not find their way into Muwatta while at the same time there are some inauthentic traditions that did get included in Muwatta. The misunderstanding of my position also prompted the same brother to raise the question: “Imam Malik was born in 93A.H, long after the prophet had passed away. It cannot be that what he collected is what he heard from the prophet himself. So he must also have relied on reports through chains of narration. Now how is that any different from the issue of isnad that Dr. Shafa'at questions?” My answer is that isnad method is subject to the same criticism in case of Muwatta as in case of Bukhari and Muslim except that Imam Bukhari was born in 194 and Imam Muslim was born in 204, more than hundred years after the birth of Imam Malik. This is surely significant from the point of view of a scientific approach to the Hadith. Imam Malik depends on only one or two narrators to reach a companion while Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim may need as many as five narrators to do the same. The possibility of errors in the asanid, the contents, and attribution of ahadith therefore increase considerably in case of Bukhari and Muslim. In other words, the importance of Muwatta arises not because its methods and approach are infallible or superior but simply because it is much nearer the time of the Prophet than Bukhari and Muslim.
If some belief or practice or event is found in the Qur`an and then in Muwatta and then in Bukhari and/or Muslim a certain continuity is established which inspires confidence in the authenticity of that belief/practice/event. But if some belief/practice/event cannot be established by a clear reference in the Qur`an and is absent from Muwatta and is first documented by the third-century collections such as Bukhari or Muslim then this continuity is lost and serious doubts about the authenticity of the belief/practice/event are justified. This is precisely the case with the belief in the return of Jesus.
Sometimes continuity can be established even if the belief/practice/event is not found in Muwatta. Thus for example the Muwatta mentions a story of the loss of Aishah’s necklace during one of the Prophet’s journeys, which was the occasion for the revelation of the verse about tayammum. But unlike Muwatta, Bukhari and Muslim mention that in this same journey the incident of the malicious accusation against umm al-muminin also took place. In this case, however, we can establish continuity, since a) the incident is clearly referred to in the Qur`an, although the relatively unimportant details about when it took place and who was involved etc are not mentioned in the Qur`an; b) the incident during the journey is mentioned in Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Sa‘d, of which the former was a contemporary of Imam Malik and therefore his book is of a date comparable to that of Muwatta. This continuity means that we can trust the historicity of the incident and with that trust proceed to examine the four available versions and try to reconstruct the historical truth.
In a few cases, the continuity is established by vast number of witnesses of a belief/practice/event in every generation. This is the case with details about the five daily prayers. On the basis of the Qur`an we can be certain that several prayers a day were prescribed for fixed times of the day involving adhan, wudu etc. We can also be certain that the practice continued among Muslims from generation to generation and consequently the form of the prayers as we have it today goes back to the Holy Prophet except that in some matters the Prophet himself did not follow a standard procedure leading to differences later. Now the belief in Jesus’ return does not possess such continuity. Almost all the traditions in Bukhari and Muslim about Jesus’ return are narrated on the authority of Abu Hurayrah. Only Muslim has a tradition on the authority of Jabir bin ‘Abd Allah. Thus we cannot say that the tradition was well known in the time of the sahabah and successors and hence we cannot establish its continuity.
4) The science of Hadith is capable of considerable further development.
One brother showed scepticism about this position by stating that he “does not see how the present authentic collection can be improved to a very significant degree”. Without actually plunging into a science the possibilities of its development cannot be seen and so such scepticism is understandable. Previously I tried to explain the situation by alluding to situation with such exact sciences as physics about which the same brother reacted by saying: “I think that the analogy is not apt.” This is because the brother completely missed my point. I was not using physics as an analogy. The point was that if in such an exact science as physics we find that at one point a theory is working perfectly well with remarkable exactness and later find it to be fundamentally flawed, this should be all the more so in inexact sciences such as the science of Hadith. Here it should be all the more expected that the results reached by one generation of scholars are found to be inadequate by a later generation.
A considerable further development in the science of Hadith is possible because the data that we possess in the form of traditions found in various books – Muwatta, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa‘d, Shafi‘i, Yusuf, Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Da`ud, Tirmidhi, Nasa`i, Ahmad, Ibn Majah, Bayhaqi, Daraqutni, Ibn Hibban etc – together with the information about the transmitters of those traditions, and about early Islamic history have not yet been subjected fully to a rational analysis. Carrying out such an analysis by putting sufficient resources, making full use of the computer and of other disciplines such as anthropology, history generally, and studies of the laws that govern the formation and transmission of traditions will certainly lead to some phenomenal developments.
A prerequisite to the further development of the science of Hadith is the revival of the scientific spirit. We must be willing to face the facts and the conclusions that they suggest. In particular we have to stop closing our eyes to the discrepancies between various extant versions of the traditions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
1Saul was chosen by God and anointed by Samuel (1 Sam 10:1). Later, God chose David to be the king and commanded Samuel to anoint him (1Sam 16:12-13).
2The priests of Aaron’s line and other priests were anointed (Exodus 29:7, Num 35:25).
3See 1 Kings 19:16, Elisha is anointed as a prophet and Isaiah 61:1-2, where an anonymous person with a prophetic role is anointed by the Lord.
4There is not a single saying of Jesus in the gospels that is generally accepted as authentic by critical scholars and that presents him as a Messiah.
5N. A. Dahl has noted that to understand Paul “it is never necessary to know that ‘Christ’ is a term filled with content and highly significant. All the statements in the letters make good sense even to those who only know that Christ is a surname for Jesus” (quoted from Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul, p. 68). Thus in the Pauline epistles, Christos is never used as a general term but always as a name of Jesus (contrast Acts 17:3, 26:23); it is never used as a predicate in a statement like “Jesus is the Christ” (otherwise Acts 18:5, 28); never a genitive is added as in “Christ of God.” Paul says “Christ,” “the Christ,” “Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus.” The term “the Christ” is not found in the oldest texts of the epistles (against 1 Cor. 3:11 TR). (Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul, p.72).
6There are two passages in the Qur`an in which one can see the idea that Jesus came in fulfillment of earlier prophecy: 3:45 and 3:81. In the first of these passages Jesus is called “a word from God” (see also 4:171), which can be interpreted to mean “a promise from God”, that is, an earlier prophecy from God. But this interpretation is not certain. The second passage, 3:81, talks of a covenant of the prophets by which all prophets are bound to believe in and help when another prophet comes confirming them. One possible interpretation of this verse is that earlier prophets prepare in some way for the coming of the later prophets and this preparation involves prophesying their coming. But this interpretation is not certain and does not particularly apply to messianic figures but generally to the whole series of prophets.
7The absence of any clear indications for identifying Jesus with a Messiah in any sense corresponds to a similar absence in Jesus’ own authentic statements, as observed in note 4.
8In Qur`an 3:39 the angels give to Zechariah the good news of the birth of his son Yahya (=John the Baptist) “verifying a word from God, outstanding in character, very chaste, and a prophet from among the righteous”. The words “verifying a word from God” are often understood to mean that John will testify to Jesus who is called “a word from God” some verses later. But there are several difficulties with this explanation: a) Verses 3:33-54 form a well-connected passage following a chronological order of the stories of Mary, John the Baptist, and Jesus. In this passage “a word from God” is not used in connection with Jesus until after its use in connection with John. b) If the passage about John is referring to Jesus why he is not referred to by his name? Why, for example, is it not said “musaddiqan bi ‘Isa al-Masih”? In view of these objections a better interpretation may be that “word from God” means an earlier promise from God, that is, John will come in fulfillment of earlier (messianic) prophecy. It is also possible that both interpretations are intended and that is why “a word of God” is used instead of Jesus or al-Masih. The two interpretations are consistent with some earlier Christian traditions. Thus in the Gospels Jesus is presented as the Messiah and John the Baptist as his Elijah-type forerunner. This means that John testifies to Jesus (the first interpretation) and since Elijah-type forerunner himself is promised in earlier prophecy, John himself comes in fulfillment of earlier prophecy (second interpretation). (See, A. Shafaat, Islam, Christianity, and the State of Israel:As Fulfillment of Old Testament Prophecl, American Trust Publication, 1989).
9Some Muslim scholars deduced from this hadith that pigs should be killed. This deduction is unsound for the following three reasons: a) The word for pig is in the singular (al-khinzir); b) The time of Jesus’ return will be a special time and what takes place during such a time should not become a general rule; c) there is a vast body of traditions that encourage us to be nice to all animals including dogs, wolves, snakes etc.
It should also be noted that not all earlier scholars agreed that the pigs should be killed or that Jesus will kill pigs because they should be killed. Thus in Muwatta we have the following tradition:
Malik related to me from Yahya ibn Said that Isa ibn Maryam encountered a pig on the road. He said to it, “Go in peace.” Somebody asked, “Do you say this to a pig?” Isa said, “I fear lest I accustom my tongue to evil speech.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.islamicperspectives.com/ReturnOfJesus.htm