Our Words
‘What Is the Legal Status of the Sunnah?’ is an outstanding work by Allama Maududi (may Allah have mercy on him), whose Bengali edition we have titled ‘The Legal Status of the Sunnah of the Messenger.’ Since the second century Hijri, a group of people has refused to accept the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) as a source and foundation of Islamic Shariah. Even today, their followers are making highly subtle efforts to create confusion among Muslims regarding the Sunnah of the Messenger. Many of them have received advanced training in logic, argumentation, and debate in order to prove the entire corpus of Hadith false. To those who lack analytical knowledge of Islamic Shariah and of Hadith and the Sunnah of the Messenger, the arguments of those who deny Hadith and Sunnah may seem very sharp.
In different ages, the muhaddithun and mujaddidun have made immense contributions toward protecting the Islamic ummah from their confusion regarding the Hadith and Sunnah of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him). The way Allama Maududi (may Allah have mercy on him) established Hadith, and thus the Sunnah of the Messenger, as the foundation of law and Shariah on the touchstone of reason and evidence—his unparalleled contribution will forever be written in golden letters in the history of the entire science of Hadith. He completely proved the so-called sharp arguments of the munkirin-e-Hadith (deniers of Hadith) to be utterly baseless. He made it clear, as plainly as sunlight, that by denying the entire corpus of Hadith and Sunnah they had in reality denied the Qur’an as well and were striking at the very foundation of the religion. Through his irrefutable arguments and proofs, their faces have effectively been blackened forever. In this way, Allama Maududi (may Allah have mercy on him) made arrangements to protect the Sunnah of Allah’s Messenger from the hands of conspirators.
Likewise, through his contributions to building the movement for establishing an Islamic state in the modern world, to the unity and reconstruction of Islamic thought, and to Qur’anic exegesis—and by protecting Hadith, that is, the Sunnah of the Messenger, from every conspiracy and freeing it from the debris and blemishes imposed by false sectarians—he established himself in the position of the greatest muhaddith and mujaddid of our age.
This book is essentially a compilation of the arguments and proofs that the Maulana presented, through letters and journals, in refutation of the statements, opinions, and verdicts of those who deny Hadith.
We believe that this book will prove highly appealing to Islamic thinkers, the community of scholars, Hadith experts, and lawyers. We also recognize the great need for this book to be read and kept in the homes of people of learning and discernment.
The book was translated by Maulana Muhammad Musa. I then edited it from beginning to end. Nevertheless, some terminological errors may remain. In this regard, we depend on the advice of knowledgeable readers.
May Allah, Lord of the worlds, reward Maulana Maududi (may Allah have mercy on him) abundantly for this great contribution. With a sincere desire to share in this blessing, we too raise our hands before the Most Merciful. Ameen.
Abdus Shahid Nasim
20.11.91
Contents
Introduction
An Important Exchange of Letters
What Is the Sunnah?
In What Form Does the Sunnah Exist Today?
Is the Sunnah Universally Accepted, and What Is the Method of Testing Its Authenticity?
Four Fundamental Truths
The Nature of the Messenger of Allah’s Work
The Difference between the Personal and Prophetic Capacities of the Noble Prophet
Being Additional to the Qur’an and Being Contrary to the Qur’an Are Not Synonymous
Can the Sunnah Abrogate Any Ruling of the Noble Qur’an?
The Second Point
Application of Riwayah and Dirayah in Examining Hadith
The Fourth Point
.The Rank of Prophethood
The Difference between Sound and Erroneous Concepts
The Doctor’s Letter
The Author’s Reply
1. The Rank of Prophethood and Its Responsibilities
The Messenger of Allah as Teacher and Mentor
The Messenger of Allah as Expositor of Allah’s Book
The Messenger of Allah as Leader and Example to Be Followed
The Messenger of Allah as Legislator of the Shariah
The Messenger of Allah as Judge
The Messenger of Allah as Head of State
The Ummah’s Consensus that the Sunnah Is a Source of Law
2. The Messenger of Allah’s Authority to Legislate
The Nature of the Noble Prophet’s Legislative Work
Several Examples of This Legislative Work
3. The Sunnah and the Meaning of Following It
4. Which Revelation Was the Pure Messenger Commanded to Follow, and Which Are We Commanded to Follow?
5. The Center of the Nation
Some Fundamental Questions
6. Was the Noble Prophet a Prophet Only Until He Conveyed the Qur’an?
7. The Noble Prophet’s Ijtihadi Error Presented as Proof of Error
8. An Imaginary Fear
9. Slander against the Rightly Guided Caliphs
10. Did Revelation Other Than the Qur’an Come to the Noble Prophet?
Some Further Questions about the Sunnah
The Doctor’s Letter
The Author’s Reply
The Reason for Believing in Revelation
What Is Meant by ‘Ma Anzalallahu’?
Where Is the Sunnah?
Has Allah Protected the Sunnah?
What Is Meant by Revelation?
Merely a Repetition of the Question
The Criterion of Faith and Disbelief
Can the Rulings of the Sunnah Change?
Objections and Replies
1. Relationship with the Bazm-e-Tulu-e-Islam Magazine
2. Was the Purpose of the Hostile Questionnaire Intellectual Inquiry?
3. The Personal and Prophetic Capacities of the Messenger of Allah
4. Gradation in the Teachings of the Sunnah
5. Pursuit of Knowledge or Love of Debate?
6. Principles and Methods for Distinguishing between the Two Capacities of the Messenger of Allah
7. Why Was No Arrangement Made to Record Hadith as the Qur’an Was Recorded?
8. An Example of Deception and Fraud
9. What in the Hadith Corpus Is Doubtful and What Is Free from Doubt?
10. Another Deception
11. Is There Nothing on Which the Ummah Has Reached Consensus?
12. Has the Sunnah Reduced or Increased Differences of Opinion?
13. The Similarity between Deniers of Hadith and Deniers of the Finality of Prophethood
14. Can Something in Which There Is No Possibility of Disagreement Be a Source of Law?
15. The Method of Removing Differences Is the Same for Both the Qur’an and the Sunnah
16. An Attractive Error
17. Why the Division between Personal Law and National Law?
18. Retreat from Decisive Statements Concerning the Messenger’s Status
19. Can a Non-Prophet Possess All the Authority of a Prophet?
20. There Is a Vast Difference between the ‘Amir’ in the Islamic System and the Hadith Deniers’ ‘Center of the Nation’
21. What Were the Limits of Mutual Consultation in the Age of the Messengership?
22. Was the Method of the Adhan Adopted on the Basis of Consultation or Divine Inspiration?
23. Are the Noble Prophet’s Judicial Decisions Proofs?
24. An Astonishing Example of Sophistry
25. There Was a Clear Difference between the Noble Prophet’s Personal Opinion and His Statements Based on Revelation
26. Did the Companions Hold That the Noble Prophet’s Decisions Could Be Changed?
27. The Nature of Hazrat Umar’s (may Allah be pleased with him) Ruling Regarding Triple Divorce
28. The Nature and Character of Hazrat Umar’s (may Allah be pleased with him) Reasoning Regarding the ‘Mu’allafat al-Qulub’
29. Was Hazrat Umar’s (may Allah be pleased with him) Decision Regarding Conquered Territories Contrary to the Noble Prophet’s Decision?
30. Hazrat Umar’s (may Allah be pleased with him) Decision Regarding the Distribution of Salaries and Allowances
31. Were the Economic Rulings of the Noble Qur’an Intended Only for That Era?
32. A Misinterpretation of ‘Contemporary Times’
33. Was the Noble Prophet Merely an Expositor of the Qur’an, or Also a Legislator?
34. The Significance of the Messenger of Allah’s God-Given Insight
35. The Classification of Revelation in the Light of the Qur’an
36. Belief in Non-Recited Revelation Is Part of Belief in the Messenger
37. Did Jibril (peace be upon him) Bring Indirect Revelation (Non-Recited Revelation)?
38. Are the Book and Wisdom the Same Thing or Distinct Things?
39. The Meaning of the Word ‘Tilawah’
40. The Meaning of the Mizan Being Revealed with the Book
41. Another Sophistical Argument
42. Which Qiblah Is Mentioned in the Verse Concerning the Change of the Qiblah?
43. How Did the Question Arise of Whether to Obey the Messenger of Allah Regarding the Qiblah?
44. The Slander that the Messenger of Allah Determined the Qiblah on His Own
45. The Significance of the Verse
46. Does Revelation Also Come in the Form of Dreams?
47. Meaningless Accusations and Slander
48. The Significance of the Portion of the Verse
49. Did the Marriage of Hazrat Zaynab (may Allah be pleased with her) Take Place by Allah’s Command?
50. Does It Mean Established Customs or Allah’s Command?
51. Another Fabricated Interpretation
52. An Inconsistent Reply
53. The Nature and Characteristics of Nonverbal Revelation
54. The Difference between Recited and Non-Recited Revelation
55. Denying the Established Sunnah Is Equivalent to Denying Obedience to the Messenger of Allah
An Important Judgment of the High Court of Pakistan 213
Review of the Judgment
Two Fundamental Questions of Principle
The True Status of Hanafi Fiqh
The Learned Judge’s Fundamental Perspective
Criticism of the Above Perspective
Several Examples of Ijtihad
The Learned Judge’s Ijtihad Regarding the Taking of More Than One Wife
The First Error in This Ijtihad
The Second Error
The Third Error
The Fourth Error
The Fifth Error
Regarding the Second Ijtihad and the Punishment for Theft
The Third Ijtihad—Regarding Guardianship of Children
The Fundamental Error
The Learned Judge’s Perspective on the Sunnah
The Ummah’s Perspective on the Sunnah
The Status of Women in Islam from the Judge’s Perspective
The Prophet’s True Status in the Light of the Qur’an
Is Revelation Limited to the Qur’an Alone?
Was the Noble Prophet Free to Follow His Own Thoughts?
Was the Noble Prophet’s Sunnah Free from Error?
The True Meaning of Obedience to the Messenger
Was the Noble Prophet’s Guidance Limited to His Era?
The Reason the Rightly Guided Caliphs Followed the Sunnah
Imam Abu Hanifa’s Knowledge of Hadith and Adherence to the Sunnah
The Judge’s Reason for Not Believing in Hadith
Criticism of the Stated Reasons
Have Fabricated Hadith Become Sources of Islamic Law?
Did the Circulation of Hadith Begin Only in the Noble Prophet’s Era?
Why Did Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) Prohibit Narrating Many Hadith?
Why Were Fabricated Hadith Composed?
Three False Foundations of the Argument
The Initial Prohibition on Recording Hadith and Its Reasons
General Permission to Record Hadith
Encouragement—and Indeed Emphasis—on Narrating Hadith Orally
Severe Warning against Narrating Fabricated Hadith
Conclusive Proof that the Noble Prophet’s Sunnah Is a Source of Law
Is Only What Has Been Recorded Reliable?
Did Hadith Remain in Unknown Chambers for Two and a Half Centuries?
From the Era of the Companions to the Era of Imam Bukhari
The Continuous History of the Science of Hadith
Hadith Compilers of the Second Hijri Century
The Significance of Differences of Opinion among Hadith
Is a Riwayah Copied from Memory Unreliable?
A Proof of the Authenticity of Hadith
The Learned Judge’s Objections to Some Hadith
Why Do Some Hadith Contain Indecent Content?
A Detailed Evaluation of the Objections
Objections Regarding Two More Hadith
Another objection against a hadith
The view of Justice Shafi that the Prophetic Sunnah is not a source of law
Two more proofs
Did the hadith scholars themselves have no confidence in the hadiths?
The charge of brevity and incoherence against hadith
Does hadith alter and amend the Qur’an?
Final submission
Introduction
The فتنة of rejecting the Sunnah first arose in the second Hijri century in Islamic history. This فتنة was initiated by the Kharijite and Mu‘tazilite sects. The Kharijites needed to raise this فتنة because the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) stood in the way of the anarchy they sought to spread in Muslim society; it had established that society upon an orderly system. The sayings of the Prophet (peace be upon him) were also obstacles to their path, since they rendered the Kharijites’ extremist doctrines untenable. For this reason, they adopted two approaches: casting doubt on the authenticity of hadith and denying that following the Sunnah is obligatory.
The Mu‘tazilites found it necessary to initiate this فتنة because, upon their first encounter with non-Arab and Greek philosophy, doubts began to arise concerning Islamic beliefs, principles, and laws, and they wished to resolve them in one way or another before fully understanding them. They had not developed sufficient insight into philosophy itself to assess its validity and strength critically. Whatever came in the name of philosophy, they regarded as a complete claim of reason, and they wanted Islamic beliefs and principles to be interpreted so as to conform to these merely intellectual claims. Here too, hadith and the Sunnah stood in their way. Thus, like the Kharijites, they regarded hadith as suspect and refused to accept the Sunnah as evidence.
The objective and strategy of both groups were identical. Their aim was to detach the Qur’an from the verbal and practical interpretation of its bearer, and from the system of thought and action that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) had established under his guidance and direction, present it merely as a book, and then transform it into another system by giving it an invented interpretation—a system bearing the label of Islam. The strategy they adopted for this purpose had two weapons:
(1) To create doubt in people’s minds as to whether hadith were actually the sayings of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
(2) To raise the fundamental question: even if a statement or action belonged to the Prophet (peace be upon him), when are we obliged to follow and obey it?
Their view was that Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), had been commanded only to convey the Qur’an to us. He had therefore conveyed it. Thereafter, Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah (peace be upon him) was a human being like us. Can everything he said and did constitute a hujjah (conclusive proof) for us?
After continuing for a short time, these two فتنةs brought about their own premature deaths, and for several centuries after the third Hijri century not even a trace of them remained anywhere in the Islamic world. The following important factors eradicated that فتنة at the time:
1. The extensive investigative work of the hadith scholars, which reassured all thoughtful and intelligent people in Muslim society that the reports through which the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) is established are by no means doubtful; rather, they reached the Ummah through highly reliable channels, and the best intellectual methods and means for distinguishing them from doubtful reports are available.
2. Exegesis of the Qur’an, through which the learned scholars of that age demonstrated to the Muslim public that the position of Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), in the Islamic way of life was not what those who rejected hadith wished to assign him. He was not appointed merely as a courier to deliver the Qur’an; rather, Allah Most High also appointed him as its teacher, guide, interpreter, lawgiver, judge, and administrator. Therefore, in the light of the Qur’an itself, obeying and following him is obligatory for us; and whoever claims to follow the Qur’an while freeing himself from this obligation is in reality not a follower of the Qur’an.
3. The self-invented interpretations of those who rejected the Sunnah—people who had turned the Qur’an into a plaything. In this regard, the hadith scholars fully exposed before the Muslim public the truth that, if the relationship between the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) is severed, the form of Islam is distorted in the most deplorable manner, the Book of Allah can be treated as a plaything in all sorts of ways, and absurd examples of distortion in its meaning emerge.
4. The united thinking of the Ummah, which was in no way prepared to accept that a Muslim could ever be free from obedience and adherence to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). In every age and every nation there are a few people who find rhythm in rhythmless speech and reason in unreasonable speech, but they can never become the driving force of the entire Ummah. It never fits properly into the mental framework of the Muslim public that people should believe in the messengership of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) while also removing the rope of obedience to him from their own necks. A simple, straightforward Muslim whose mind is free of crookedness may in practice fall into disobedience, but can never accept the belief that he is not at all obliged to obey the Messenger in whom he has believed.
This was the greatest fundamental factor that ultimately cut off the roots of those who rejected the Sunnah. Moreover, the temperament of the Muslim nation was in no way prepared to digest such a great innovation: rejecting, together with all its laws, rules, institutions, and structure, this complete way of life which, beginning in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), had continued to develop progressively and in a balanced manner under the guidance of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, the noble Companions, the Tabi‘in, the Imams of independent reasoning (the mujtahid Imams), and the jurists of the Ummah—and abandoning it in order to construct in the future a new system by people influenced by every philosophy and every whim in the world who wished to produce a modern version of Islam.
Thus, having sunk into the bottomless abyss of destruction, this فتنة of rejecting the Sunnah lay in its own graveyard for several centuries. Eventually, in the thirteenth Hijri century (the nineteenth Christian century), it came to life again. It had been born first in Iraq; now it was reborn in India. There, Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan and Maulvi Chiragh Ali initiated it. Then Maulvi Abdullah Chakralawi took on the role of its standard-bearer. Later, Maulvi Ahmaduddin Amritsari set it afloat, and Maulana Aslam Jairajpuri carried it forward. Finally came Chaudhry Ghulam Ahmad Parwez, who brought this misguidance to its extreme.
The reason for its rebirth was also the same as the reason for its birth in the second Hijri century: suffering mental defeat when confronted with foreign philosophies and anti-Islamic cultures, accepting these external things without criticism as complete claims of reason, and attempting to reshape Islam accordingly. But the circumstances of the thirteenth century were very different from those of the second. At that time the Muslims were victorious, possessed military and political dominance, and the philosophies they encountered belonged to conquered and defeated peoples. Consequently, the assault of these philosophies on their minds proved very mild and was rejected without delay.
By contrast, in the thirteenth century this assault was launched against the Muslims when they were retreating on every front; the bricks of their dominance were falling one by one, their lands had been seized by their enemies, they had been grievously crippled economically, their educational system had been overturned, and the victorious nations had imposed upon them in full their own education and culture, language, laws, and social, political, and economic rule and discipline. In this situation, when the Muslims encountered the philosophies, sciences, laws, and cultural principles of the victorious nation, Mu‘tazilites with minds a thousand times more fearful and affected than those of the earlier Mu‘tazilites began to appear among them. They assumed that every doctrine, thought, idea, principle of civilization and culture, and way of life imported from the West was wholly rational, and that to criticize it from an Islamic perspective and decide what was true or false was nothing but an ignorant notion. To keep pace with the age, Islam had to be cut and trimmed into a form suitable for the times, by whatever means necessary.
Whenever they sought to repair Islam for this purpose, they too encountered the same difficulty as the Mu‘tazilites of the past. They realized that it was the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) that had established the Islamic way of life in a complete and practical form. This Sunnah defined the purposes and objectives of the Qur’an, built the Muslims’ complete social and cultural concepts, and established Islam’s practical form in every branch of life upon a firm foundation. Therefore, no new repair of Islam was possible until people were made averse to this Sunnah. What would then remain would be only the words and sentences of the Qur’an, with no practical model, reliable interpretation, report, or precedent to guide their understanding. Thus it would become easy to turn the Qur’an into a skillfully misinterpreted product, and Islam would become a lump of wax that could be given a new shape every day according to every prevailing philosophy in the world.
To achieve this objective, they too adopted the two strategies used in the past as two deadly weapons. On the one hand, they created doubt about the authenticity of the hadith through which the Sunnah is established; on the other, they denied that the Sunnah itself is directly a hujjah (proof). But the difference in circumstances created a vast difference in the detailed form of this strategy and its deadly weapons. Those who had appeared in the past bearing the banner of this فتنة were mature in knowledge and intellect. They were highly proficient in Arabic language and literature, and sufficiently well versed in the Qur’an, hadith, and fiqh. They faced Muslims whose language of scholarly study was Arabic. The educational level of ordinary Muslims at that time was much higher. Specialists in Islamic sciences moved throughout the land, and anyone who presented an unsound statement before such people risked being trapped by his own words. For this reason, the Mu‘tazilites of the past spoke carefully. By contrast, the intellectual level of those who have appeared in our age to spread this فتنة has progressively declined from the time of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan to the present, from one person to the next. They must confront people among whom those who possess Arabic and Islamic knowledge are not called “educated”; rather, an “educated” person is one who, regardless of how much he may know about worldly matters, can at most read the Qur’an’s translation—if he is sufficiently kind to the Qur’an—and even that with the help of an English translation. Regarding hadith and fiqh, they possess mostly hearsay knowledge, itself dependent on knowledge conveyed by Orientalists. At best, they have cast a scattered glance at Islamic traditions, and even that from the perspective that these are merely heaps of stale bones which the age has kicked far ahead. Moreover, they have come to believe that they are fully capable of giving the final and definitive judgment on the treasury of Islamic knowledge and sciences. Under these circumstances, it is clear how much lower the standard of the Mu‘tazilites of the present age may be than that of the Mu‘tazilites of the past. Here, knowledge is scant, while the bravado and insolence of ignorance are excessive.
The main elements of the strategy currently being used to spread this فتنة are set out below:
1. To place confidence in the weapons used by Western Orientalists to prove hadith doubtful, add annotations of their own, and spread them among the Muslim public, so that ignorant people fall into the misconception that the Ummah received nothing through reliable channels from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) apart from the Qur’an.
2. To conduct a campaign of purification in the hadith treasury for the purpose of finding faults—just as the Arya Samaj and Christian missionaries once conducted campaigns of purification in the Qur’an—and to extract or even fabricate various things and present them to the public so as to influence them in the worst manner, making them believe that the hadith books are flooded with utterly shameful or ridiculous material. Then, with tears, to appeal that all these worthless treasures be thrown into the sea in order to save Islam from insult.
3. To reduce the rank of the messengership of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) to that of a postman whose sole duty was to deliver the Qur’an to the people.
4. To recognize only the Qur’an as a source of Islamic law and exclude the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) from the Islamic legal system.
5. To declare all the scholars, jurists, hadith scholars, Qur’anic exegetes, and linguist Imams of the Ummah unreliable and untrustworthy, so that Muslims do not turn to them to understand the teachings of the Qur’an, but instead fall prey to the misconception that they were all engaged in a carefully planned conspiracy to conceal the true teachings of the Qur’an.
6. To compile a new dictionary and thereby alter the meanings of all the Qur’an’s terms, and to discover such distorted meanings for its verses as no Arabic linguist in the world could possibly derive from the Qur’anic words. (The amusing point is that if several verses of the Qur’an were written before the person doing this without vowel marks, he would not even be able to read them correctly. Yet he claims that Arabs themselves no longer know Arabic. Thus, if an Arab cannot find the meanings he presents in the vocabulary of the Qur’an, the fault lies with those Arabs.)
Alongside this destructive work, an extraordinary reconstruction of Islam is also under way, based on only three principles—but see how incomparable these principles are (!)
1. The first principle is that all private ownership shall be abolished and vested in a central government, which will have absolute authority to distribute sustenance among the people. This is called the “provision system,” and it is said that establishing this system was the purpose of the Qur’an. Yet for thirteen centuries no one had the good fortune to understand it. Only the most venerable Karl Marx and his distinguished successor Engels were able to understand this fundamental purpose of the Qur’an.
2. Their second principle is that all parties and factions must be abolished, and Muslims must not be allowed to form any party, so that even if, despite their economic helplessness, they wish to protest against a decision of the central government, they will be unable to do so because they remain unorganized.
3. Their third principle is that the “Allah and the Messenger” in the Qur’an, whose belief, obedience, and recognition as the final decision-making authority are commanded, actually means “the Center of the Nation” (the central government). Since the government itself is “God and God’s Messenger,” whatever meaning this central government gives to the Qur’an will be its true meaning. No question may be raised about any of its commands or regulations as to whether they contradict the Qur’an. Whatever it declares unlawful is unlawful, and whatever it declares lawful is lawful. Its command is the Shariah, and from worship to dealings among people, whatever model it prescribes must be followed; indeed, this is a condition of Islam. Just as a “king” cannot make a mistake, so this “Center of the Nation” is completely infallible and pure. The people’s only duty is to bow their heads before it. For “Allah and the Messenger” can neither be objects of criticism, nor can the question of their making a mistake arise, nor can they be changed.
The number of those who believe in this new Islam’s “provision system” is still small. But all its other reconstructive and destructive branches are becoming very popular in certain prominent circles. Their doctrine of the “Center of the Nation” is highly appealing to our rulers. It is especially popular with them on the condition that all means and resources remain in their hands and that the nation, being completely unorganized, remain under their control. They find it attractive because the principles, fundamental outlook, and ancillary rules of the legal system in which they were educated and trained under British rule clash at every point with Islam’s renowned legal system, and they know nothing of its sources. For this reason, they found the above doctrine very appealing: they would be freed from the complications of the Sunnah and fiqh, leaving only the Qur’an, whose interpretation has now become even easier with the help of a modern dictionary. Furthermore, this doctrine attracts everyone influenced by the West, because no better formula has yet been found for remaining Muslim after being expelled from Islam. Besides, what could bring them greater joy than that whatever is lawful in the West and was hitherto unlawful in the “mullahs’ Islam” should now become lawful, with Qur’anic proof found in support of those who make it lawful?
For the past twenty-five or twenty-six years I have written many articles to eradicate this فتنة, which have been compiled in my various books. This book includes many articles, divided into two parts. The first chapter brings together all the long and continuous correspondence between Dr. Abdul Wadud Sahib and me concerning the “legal status of the Sunnah.” In the second chapter, a judgment by Justice Muhammad Shafi Sahib, a member of the West Pakistani High Court, is quoted. He delivered this judgment on 21 July 1960 in the case of Rashida Begum versus Shihabuddin and others, and I have presented a detailed critique of it.
In these two chapters, readers will hear, on the one hand, all the questions, arguments, and proofs of those who reject hadith in their own words, and on the other they will learn what the true status of the Sunnah is within the comprehensive system and structure of Islam. It is then the reader’s own responsibility to reach a decision about which view to adopt.
I wish to make a special appeal to the learned readers into whose hands this book will come. This discussion concerns an extremely important fundamental issue of the religion of Islam, in which the consequences of rejecting one side and accepting the other are far-reaching. Unfortunately, this debate about the foundations of Islam has not merely spread in our country; it has assumed a frightening form. A significant part of our ruling circles is being misled by the doctrine of rejecting the Sunnah. The judges of our higher courts are being influenced by it, and a ruling has even been issued by the High Court on the basis of a complete rejection of the Sunnah. Who knows in how many cases this ruling will be cited as a precedent in the future? This ominous movement is proceeding in an organized manner among our educated society, particularly in government offices. I therefore consider it urgently necessary that those to whom this book reaches should not content themselves with studying it deeply themselves, but should also draw others’ attention to it for study, whether they accept the Sunnah or reject it. Let everyone reach whatever decision he wishes. But it is unbecoming for any educated person to form a view through one-sided study alone and refuse to consider the opposing position. Since this book presents the statements of both sides in detail, it is hoped that it will help both those who accept the Sunnah and those who reject it to reach a balanced decision.
Lahore, 30 July 1961
Respectfully
Abul A‘la
The Legal Status of the Sunnah of the Messenger
An Important Exchange of Letters
(Presented here is the exchange of letters concerning the acceptance of the Sunnah as the basis of Islamic law between Dr. Abdul Wadud Sahib, a prominent member of the monthly journal entitled “Bazm-e Tulu-e Islam,” and the author of this book.)
The Doctor Sahib’s First Letter
Esteemed and honored Maulana! May you live long.
Peace be upon you. At this final stage of drafting the Constitution, the fundamental demand of the religious hopes and aspirations of every Muslim citizen is that Pakistan’s laws be enacted and completed on the basis of Islam’s permanent and distinctive values. In this connection, we have also noted your common demand, together with that of other distinguished scholars, in response to the questionnaire of the Law Commission: that the laws enacted for Pakistan must be based on the Qur’an and the Sunnah. I do not deny the practical importance of the Sunnah, nor do I intend to undermine that importance. However, when the Sunnah is mentioned as the basis of Islamic law, a doubt inevitably arises in the mind, and the questions that follow from it I present before you. I hope that at your earliest convenience you will answer them in order to dispel this doubt. The questions are given below:
1. What, in your view, is the meaning of “Sunnah”? That is, just as the term “Book” is understood to mean the Noble Qur’an, what exactly does Sunnah (the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him) mean?
2. Do we possess any book (like the Qur’an) in which the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) has been systematically compiled? In other words, is there any fundamental and meaningful book of the Sunnah, like the Qur’an?
3. Is the original text of this book of the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) acceptable, universally acknowledged, and beyond doubt and criticism among all Muslims, in the same way as the original text of the Noble Qur’an?
4. If no such book exists, then just as one can readily recognize that a verse or part of a verse belongs to the Noble Qur’an, how can it be known whether a particular statement is or is not part of the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)?
I assure you that I regard Islamic law with such complete devotion of heart and mind that I accept it as the purpose of a Muslim’s life. The purpose of this sincere appeal of mine is that, while calling for Islamic law, I want a clear, unified, and practical outline of it to be present in the minds of those who love Islam. This is so that the forces devoted to Islam do not become divided when confronting the country’s irreligious intellectuals, who are active with full force against Islamic law. Since public anxiety regarding the law is apparent, I hope you will have no objection if your answer is published in the newspapers for the information of the people. Wassalam.
Yours respectfully
Abdul Wadud
Reply
Respected Sir,
Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.
I received your letter dated 21 May 1960. You are not the first person to ask these questions today. They have previously been raised by various groups, and I have also answered them in clear language. Repeatedly asking the same kinds of questions from various quarters while paying no attention to the answers previously given is not reasonable. If it is assumed that you are unaware of the answer I gave long ago on this subject, I will give you its reference (see Tarjuman al-Qur’an, January 1958, pp. 209–220; December 1968, pp. 160–170). Study it and inform me in detail which of your questions has not been answered there, and what objection you have to the answers that are present there.
If you wish to print that series of my answers along with this letter of yours, then please print my two aforementioned articles in full as well. For, essentially, those articles themselves constitute my answers to your questions. Therefore, you cannot say that I have been unwilling to answer your questions.
Yours respectfully
Abul A‘la
The second letter of Dr. Abdul Wadud Sahib
Respected Maulana, may your honor be increased!
Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah. I have received your letter. I am grateful to you for replying to my letter. I know that questions of this kind had previously been asked by various groups. But I especially needed a detailed explanation because I had not yet come across a specific and clear answer to the questions mentioned.
I have seen the articles to which you directed me. But please allow me to say, with great regret, that I did not find specific answers to my questions there either. Rather, they have increased my uneasiness. This is because they contain several statements that contradict your other articles. In any case, debate is not my purpose (nor, in view of your standing, could I dare to engage in it); my purpose is to understand the argument. Therefore, I present below what I was able to understand from reading your articles. If I have understood correctly, please acknowledge it; and if I have misunderstood, kindly explain it. I shall remain grateful to you.
1. You have said that whatever the Noble Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said or actually did while explaining the Noble Qur’an during his twenty-three-year prophetic life is called the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him).
Two conclusions follow from this statement.
(a) Whatever the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said or did as an individual during those twenty-three years is not included in the Sunnah.
(b) The Sunnah is an explanation of the Qur’an’s injunctions and fundamental principles. The fundamental principles or injunctions of the religion of Islam cannot be established apart from the Qur’an, and the Sunnah cannot abrogate any command of the Qur’an.
2. You have said that there is no book currently available in which the entire Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) can be found compiled in full, and whose text (matn) is, like the text of the Noble Qur’an, universally accepted by all Muslims.
3. You have also said that authentic hadiths can be separated from the existing compilations of hadith. Therefore, the principles previously established for verifying hadith are not final. In addition to the principles of transmission (riwayah), recourse may be had to the principles of critical understanding (dirayah), and only the dirayah of those whose long study of the Islamic sciences has produced profound insight will be acceptable.
4. Even after verifying hadiths in this manner, it cannot be said that just as the Qur’an is the word of Allah, this too is the word of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him).
I await your answer. Wassalam.
Yours respectfully
Abdul Wadud
Reply
My respected and honored Sir,
Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah. Your letter dated 2 May 1960 reached me by post. Subsequently, on 28 May, you sent a copy of the same letter again by hand. But because of my continual preoccupation, I have not been able to reply until now. I regret this inability.
I was pleased that in your letter you assured me that your purpose was not to engage in debate through an exchange of letters, but rather to understand the matter. This is what I expected from a person of your stature. However, the method you have adopted through correspondence to understand the matter does not accord in the slightest with your assurance—at least, I cannot perceive that from your letter. Take out your letter dated 21 May and read it again. In it, you placed four specific questions before me and requested answers to them. On that very date, I wrote to you in reply to that letter: study my articles in the January and December 1958 issues of Tarjuman al-Qur’an and tell me in detail which of your questions has not been answered there and what objection you have to the answers that are present there. But after reading those articles, instead of making any statement about them in light of your earlier questions, you added several more questions, and now you want me to answer them. Can raising one discussion before concluding another, and continuing in the same way from one statement to the next without reaching any conclusion, really be a means of understanding any subject?
Before addressing your new questions, I want you to return to your earlier questions and see for yourself what answer you found to each of them in those articles of mine, and how you ignored it.
What is the Sunnah??
You raised four questions because, while answering the questionnaire of the Law Commission, I had “mentioned the Sunnah as the basis of Islamic law.” In other words, your four questions concerned “the legal status of the Sunnah.” In this connection, your first question was: “What is the meaning of the Sunnah in your view? That is, just as the term ‘Book’ means the Noble Qur’an, what is meant by Sunnah (that is, the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah)?”
The answer to this question that you found in my earlier articles was as follows:
This Muhammadan teaching is the higher law that represents the will and desire of the Supreme Lawgiver (that is, Allah the Exalted). This law reached us from Muhammad (peace be upon him) through two means. First, the Noble Qur’an, which, letter for letter, is the totality of Allah’s law and guidance. Second, Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) Uswah Hasanah (the exemplary model to be followed), or his Sunnah, which explains and analyzes the purposes of the Noble Qur’an. Muhammad (peace be upon him) was not merely Allah’s messenger, whose only responsibility was to deliver His Book; rather, he was also His appointed guide, lawgiver, and teacher. It was his responsibility to explain the Divine Law through his words and deeds, clarify its correct purpose, and train people according to that purpose. Thereafter, he was to form the trained people into an organized community and strive to reform and improve society. Then he was to transform this reformed society into an orderly and reforming state and demonstrate how a complete civilization could be established upon Islam’s ideals and principles. All this work of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), which he carried out during his twenty-three-year prophetic life, is the Sunnah. His Sunnah, combined with the Qur’an, gives expression and completion to the higher law of the Supreme Lawgiver. In Islamic terminology, this higher law is called the Shariah” (Tarjuman al-Qur’an, January 1958, pp. 210–211).
“It is an undeniable historical fact that after Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, assumed the office of prophethood, he did not merely convey the Noble Qur’an from Allah the Exalted; rather, he also led a comprehensive revolution, as a result of which a Muslim society emerged, a new system of civilization and culture came into existence, and a state system was established. The question may arise: apart from conveying the Noble Qur’an, in what capacity did Muhammad (peace be upon him) perform the other work he undertook? Did he do so as a prophet, representing Allah’s will and desire in the same way as the Qur’an? Or did his prophetic status end after he conveyed the Noble Qur’an, after which he remained merely an ordinary Muslim, whose words and deeds had no direct legal status in themselves? If the first proposition is accepted, there is no alternative but to recognize the Sunnah as a source of law alongside the Qur’an. Under the second proposition, however, there could be no reason to recognize it as a source of law.”
“The Qur’an’s statement on this matter is completely clear: Muhammad (peace be upon him) was not merely a messenger, but also a guide, lawgiver, and teacher appointed by Allah, whose obedience and following are obligatory for Muslims and whose life has been established as a model for the entire community of believers. Reason and intelligence refuse to accept that a prophet is a prophet only so long as he recites Allah’s Word to the people, and thereafter becomes an ordinary Muslim, while Muslims in every age have collectively accepted his commands and prohibitions as binding. Even a non-Muslim scholar cannot deny the factual reality that Muslims have always acknowledged this status of Muhammad (peace be upon him); and for this reason, the Islamic legal system has recognized the Sunnah, alongside the Qur’an, as the second source of law. I cannot at this moment see how anyone can challenge this legal status of the Sunnah unless he clearly states whether he himself grants Muhammad (peace be upon him) this status or whether the Qur’an has granted it to him. In the first case, his statement has no connection with Islam. In the second case, he must produce evidence from the Qur’an in support of his claim” (Tarjuman al-Qur’an, January 1958, pp. 216–217).
Now tell me: have you found the answer to your question, “What is meant by the Sunnah”? And have you understood what the Sunnah mentioned as the basis of Islamic law actually is? Before raising other questions, you must make clear whether, in your view, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) performed any other work in the world besides reciting the Qur’an to the people; and, if he did, in what capacity he performed it. If, in your view, after performing this work the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) became merely a Muslim like other Muslims, and had no prophetic status in his words and deeds beyond reciting the Qur’an, then state this clearly and also say what the source of this view is. Is it something produced by your own mind, or is there evidence supporting it in the Qur’an? If you acknowledge that, as Allah’s chosen guide, lawgiver, judge, teacher, and guardian, the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) had prophetic status in the work he performed of forming a Muslim society and establishing and demonstrating the functioning of a state system, then is that not the Sunnah which ought to have legal standing as a basis of law in Islam? It is a separate matter what this Sunnah applies to and what it does not apply to. First you must make clear whether, apart from the Noble Qur’an, the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) is itself a reality, and whether you recognize it as a source of law alongside the Qur’an. If you do not recognize it, what evidence do you have in support of that position? Until this fundamental matter is clear, what benefit is there in addressing the questions raised in your second letter?
In what form does the Sunnah exist?
Your second question was: “Do we have any book, like the Qur’an, in which the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) is systematically preserved? In other words, is there any complete book of the Sunnah like the Qur’an?”
The answer to this question was also present in the article I cited, and if you studied it carefully, you would have found the answer there as well. I am reproducing it here so that, if you did not find it earlier, you may find it now.
“After recognizing the Sunnah itself as a source of law, the question may arise: how can it be known? In reply, I would submit that, after fourteen hundred years have passed, we are not facing this question for the first time: did the one who was sent as a prophet fifteen hundred years ago leave behind a Sunnah? Two historical facts are undeniable:
First, the society established at the beginning of Islam on the basis of the teachings of the Noble Qur’an and the Sunnah of Muhammad (peace be upon him) has remained continuously alive from that time until today. It was not interrupted for even a single day throughout its entire history, and all its established institutions remained continuously active throughout this period. The profound similarity observable today among all Muslims of the world—in beliefs, ways of thinking, moral values, worship, conduct, transactions, philosophy of life, and way of life—in which the elements of unity and cohesion are greater than those of disagreement, and which, despite their dispersion throughout the world, has bound them together as a single ummah, proves that this society was established upon a single Sunnah and that this Sunnah has continued uninterrupted throughout this long passage of time. It is not something lost, in search of which we need to grope about in the dark.
The second clear and evident historical fact is that, in every age since the Noble Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, Muslims have continuously tried to determine what the authentic and established Sunnah is and what is entering their way of life through artificial means. Since the Sunnah held the status of law for them, their courts issued judgments on its basis, and all matters, from their homes to the state level, were conducted on its basis, they could not remain indifferent to its analysis. We have inherited the means and methods of this analysis and its results, through successive generations, from the earliest caliphate of Islam to the present day; and, without any break, the work carried out by each generation has been preserved.
“If anyone properly understands these two facts and studies the means of knowing the Sunnah in the proper manner, he can never fall prey to the doubt that he has suddenly been confronted with an insoluble problem” (Tarjuman al-Qur’an, January 1958, p. 218).
While shedding further light on the same subject, I wrote the following in my second article, whose reference I have already given you:
“During his prophetic life, the Noble Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, was not merely a spiritual guide and religious preacher for the Muslims; in practice, he was everything for his own community: its leader, guide, lawgiver, judge, statesman, patron, and teacher. From beliefs and ideas to every sphere of practical life, the entire structure of Muslim society was formed according to the methods he directed, taught, and prescribed. Thus, it was never the case that only the instruction he gave concerning the practices of prayer, fasting, and pilgrimage became current among Muslims, while they merely listened to all his other words as sermons and exhortations. Rather, what actually happened was that just as the prayer he taught was immediately established in the mosques and congregations began to form, so too the laws he prescribed concerning marriage, divorce, and inheritance began to be practically followed in Muslim families. The rules and regulations he laid down for transactions and exchanges came into use in the markets. The judgments he delivered in legal cases became accepted as state law. His conduct toward the enemy in the battlefield, and his conduct toward the people of conquered territories after victory, became the codified law of the Muslim state. In general, Islamic society and its way of life, in all their branches and dimensions, were established upon those Sunnahs that he himself introduced or that, by retaining previously existing customs and practices, he made part of the Islamic Sunnah.”
These were the known, familiar, and famous Sunnahs that began to operate during the lifetime of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) throughout every branch and department of the Muslims’ social life—from the mosque to the family, market, court, royal palace, and international politics. From the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs to the present day, the structure of our social institutions has remained established upon them. Until the previous century, the continuity of these institutions was not severed for a single day. If any interruption began thereafter, it was solely because institutions such as the government, judiciary, and legislative system had in practice become disorganized. Regarding these Sunnahs, the reliable transmissions of hadith on the one hand and the continuous practice of the ummah on the other are both mutually consistent (Tarjuman al-Qur’an, December 1958, p. 167).
Moving forward and providing further explanation on this subject, I also wrote:
Apart from these known and famous Sunnahs, there was another kind of Sunnah that did not become famous or generally prevalent during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). These consisted of decisions, statements, commands and prohibitions, tacit approvals [The original term for tacit approval is taqrir. It means that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) saw an act being performed in his presence, or saw a practice becoming established, and did not prohibit it. In other words, taqrir means allowing something to remain in force—the author], permissions, or actions that, at various times, came to the attention of particular individuals through seeing or hearing them, while the general public could not become aware of them.
The Ummah began, immediately after the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) death, its sustained effort to collect the knowledge of these Sunnahs, which had been scattered among different individuals. For caliphs, administrators, judges, muftis and the general public all considered it essential, before deciding matters arising in their respective fields or acting on the basis of their own opinions and derived legal rulings, to know whether any guidance from the Prophet (peace be upon him) existed concerning the matter. It was this need that led to the search for every person who possessed knowledge of the Sunnah. Whoever possessed such knowledge regarded it as his responsibility and duty to convey it to others. This was the starting point of hadith narration, and the effort to gather the Sunnah scattered from 11 AH through the third and fourth centuries AH continued thereafter. Whatever attempts the fabricators of forged hadith made to mix them with it were almost entirely thwarted. For the government, judiciary and fatwa authorities could not possibly be so careless about those Sunnahs by which something was established or rejected, on the basis of which something was declared haram or halal, by which a person was punished or a criminal released—in short, those Sunnahs on which laws were founded—that someone could suddenly stand up and say, “The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said,” and a judge, administrator or mufti would accept it and issue a ruling. Therefore, the Sunnahs related to law were thoroughly investigated. They were examined through the strict sieve of criticism, tested in the light of the principles of riwayah and also in the light of the principles of dirayah (reason and discernment). The principles on the basis of which a narration was accepted or rejected were also compiled, so that people in later times might investigate and decide whether to accept or reject each narration” (Tarjuman al-Qur’an, December 1958, pp. 168–169).
Having studied this answer attentively, now tell me: have you found the answer to your second question? Perhaps you may reply: You have not even mentioned the name of “a complete book like the Qur’an” in which the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) has been systematically compiled. But I will say that such an objection to my answer is nothing but a crude argument. You are an educated and intelligent person. Do you not understand even this much: the entire administration of a society and state is not conducted solely on the basis of a systematically arranged book of law? Rather, alongside that law book there is a long succession of conventions, traditions, precedents, judicial decisions, administrative laws, moral directives and the like, which results from the practical operation of a way of life on the basis of the law book. This is the vital essence of a nation’s way of life. Separated from it, a law book alone can neither present a complete picture of its way of life nor be properly understood. Nowhere in the world is this material systematically recorded in a single book, nor can it be. The absence of such a book does not mean that a nation possesses no customs or laws apart from the said law book. Go and say to England, America or any other nation in the world that everything they possess apart from their codified law is unreliable, and that all their customs, traditions and so forth must either be recorded in the form of a single book or be declared completely unreliable from a legal standpoint. You will then discover for yourself how much weight your statement deserves.
If someone claims that a complete record of the customs, traditions, precedents, decisions, laws and directives prevailing in the Prophetic era ought to be found systematically arranged in the form of a book, that is fundamentally an utterly unrealistic idea; only someone living in a world of imagination could make such a demand. Set aside the circumstances of the ancient Arabs for a moment and consider the circumstances of today, when the means and instruments for recording events and conditions have developed extraordinarily. Imagine that in this age there is a leader who, during twenty-three years of ceaseless activity day and night, brings about a great revolution; educates and trains thousands of people to prepare them for his intended revolution; uses them to revolutionize the intellectual, moral, cultural and economic life of the entire country; and, through his leadership and administration, establishes a new society and a new state. In this society his personality is present at every moment as a lasting model of guidance. In every circumstance people learn by observing him what should and should not be done. People from all levels meet him day and night, and he gives them fundamental guidance—and guidance in subsidiary matters—concerning beliefs, thought, character, morality, worship, transactions, conduct, in short, every aspect and department of life. Moreover, he is the administrator of the state, its judge, legislator, planner and commander-in-chief; for ten years he establishes the departments of that state on his own principles and personally administers them on that basis. Do you think that even today, if all these activities were carried out in a country, their entire record could be compiled in “a single book”? Would it be possible to keep a tape recorder attached to this leader at all times? Could a camera be kept behind him every moment to preserve every movement of his day and night? If that were impossible, would the impression this leader left on the lives of millions of people, on the character of the whole society and on the administration of the state not be evidence on which one could rely? Would you claim that the reports provided by the countless people who heard this leader’s speeches, observed his conduct and maintained relations with him are wholly unreliable because they were not recorded “in a library” before the leader himself and authenticated by him? Would you say that his judicial decisions, administration, laws, legal decrees, and all the information concerning war and treaties preserved in various sources and forms have no value or standing because they have not been compiled into “a complete book”?
If these matters are considered not for the purpose of disputation but for understanding the argument, any sensible person can realize for himself how meaningless this demand for “a single book” is. Saying such things while sitting in a closed room before a few half-educated and deceived followers is of little consequence; but presenting them as a challenge before educated people in an open forum is an act of considerable audacity.
Is the Sunnah universally accepted, and what is the method of verifying its authenticity??
Your third question was: “Is the original text of that book of the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) universally accepted by all Muslims, like the original text of the Qur’an, and beyond doubt, suspicion and criticism?”
And the fourth question: “If no such book exists, then just as it is readily known that this sentence or phrase is a verse of the Qur’an, how can it be known that a certain statement is part of the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)?”
If you have read the articles to which I directed your attention in response to the two questions mentioned above, you must have seen the following statement there:
“Undoubtedly, disagreements have arisen, and may arise in the future, in investigating information about the Sunnah and determining it. But such disagreements have also arisen, and may arise, in determining the meanings of many commands, rulings and statements of the Qur’an. If this kind of disagreement cannot serve as evidence in favor of abandoning the Qur’an, how can it be accepted as evidence in favor of abandoning the Sunnah? This principle was acknowledged in the past, and there is no alternative but to acknowledge it today: anyone who claims that a directive is a directive of the Qur’an or the Sunnah must present evidence in support of his claim. If his claim is sound, it must be endorsed by the expert scholars of the Ummah, or at least by a substantial part of them. It is on the basis of evidence that millions of Muslims in different parts of the world have joined one fiqh madhhab, and that their great communities have established their collective way of life upon an interpretation of a Qur’anic directive and a compilation of the established Sunnah” (Tarjuman al-Qur’an, January 1958, p. 219).
“If a disputed Sunnah cannot itself be a source and authority, while the disagreement concerns only whether something claimed to be Sunnah in a particular matter is in fact an authentic Sunnah, then disagreements have likewise arisen in determining the meaning and intent of Qur’anic verses. Every knowledgeable person may raise the question whether the ruling derived from the Qur’an on a particular matter is truly derived from the Qur’an. The respected letter-writer himself has mentioned disagreements in interpreting the Qur’an, yet despite the possibility of such disagreement he recognizes the Qur’an itself as a source and authority of law. The question is: why, despite the possibility of disagreement in investigating the evidence and information of the Sunnah concerning different legal issues, does he have such misgivings about recognizing the Sunnah itself as a source and authority of law?”
It cannot be unknown to a jurist like the letter-writer that, among the various possible interpretations of a Qur’anic directive, the interpretation which a person, institution or court ultimately determines—after applying the established intellectual methods of interpretation and analysis—to represent the real purpose of the law is, within the limits of that person’s or institution’s knowledge and jurisdiction, Allah’s directive, although it cannot finally be claimed that this is in reality Allah’s directive. In exactly the same way, after applying the scholarly methods of examining the Sunnah, whatever Sunnah concerning a matter is established before a faqih, legislative council or court is, for that authority, the command of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), although it cannot finally be said that this is in reality the Messenger of Allah’s (peace be upon him) command. In both cases, the matter may remain disputed as to what the command of Allah or His Messenger (peace be upon him) is for me and what it is for you. Nevertheless, so long as you and I accept Allah and His Messenger (peace be upon him) as the Final Authority, whether their commands constitute law for us and whether they are obligatory to follow cannot be a matter of dispute for us” (Tarjuman al-Qur’an, December 1958, p. 162).
“Consensus has been established among the fuqaha and muhaddithun concerning a substantial portion of the Sunnah, while there is disagreement concerning another portion. Some people have accepted something as Sunnah, while others have not. But discussion of all such disagreements has continued among expert scholars for hundreds of years, and the arguments and evidence presented in support of every viewpoint, together with the fundamental material on which those arguments are based, are all available in the books of fiqh and hadith. Today it is not difficult for any educated person to reach a conclusion, through personal investigation, as to whether something is Sunnah or not. Therefore, I cannot understand what reasonable grounds anyone could have for becoming apprehensive in the name of the Sunnah. Of course, the case of those unfamiliar with this branch of knowledge and those who have become terrified merely by hearing from a distance that there are disagreements in hadith is different” (Tarjuman al-Qur’an, December 1958, p. 169).
I advised you to study this discussion in response to your two questions above in the hope that an educated and aware person who desires to understand the argument would, through studying it, be able to recognize the fundamental errors contained in his questions and directly understand that disagreement in examining the Sunnah does not prevent it from being accepted as a basis of law, just as disagreement arising in interpreting the Qur’an does not prevent the Qur’an from being accepted as a source of law. But you have neither perceived this error nor tried to grasp the argument; instead, you have raised several more questions. I shall object later to the questions you have raised. First, state clearly: if, in your view, only something free from disagreement can be a source of law, then what thing under the sky and upon the earth discusses the various matters and problems of human life without allowing any scope for disagreement in human knowledge? Regarding the Qur’an, you cannot claim more than that its original text is universally accepted and that there is no disagreement over whether any verse or portion of a verse is a Qur’anic verse. But can you deny that there may be, and has been, considerable disagreement in understanding the aims and purposes of its verses and deriving various directives from them? If the true purpose of a law is not to describe the original wording but to state a ruling, then of what benefit is agreement concerning the wording when disagreement arises, and may always arise, in determining the ruling? You must therefore either change your view that “the basis of law can only be something in which there is no possibility of disagreement,” or refuse to accept the Qur’an as a source of law. In reality, no law could ever be formulated in the world under such a condition. What would become of the overall system of countries that have no written constitution at all, such as Britain? Even in countries possessing a written constitution, there is agreement only on the original text of the law; if there is also agreement in its interpretation and analysis, then please show it to us.
Four Fundamental Truths
Moreover, my stated argument contains several further points to which you have failed to pay attention and have raised different questions in order to turn away from the real issue. But I will not allow you to retreat until you present a clear statement concerning these matters. Either acknowledge them plainly and change your position, or reject them not merely on the basis of assertion but on the basis of reasoned evidence and proof. Those matters are as follows:
1. “The Ummah has reached consensus concerning a large and extensive portion of the Sunnah.” There is consensus concerning almost all the Sunnahs through which the basic framework of the Islamic way of life is formed. Moreover, substantial consensus exists concerning those Sunnahs on which the foundational principles of the Shari‘ah are based. Most disagreement has arisen only around those Sunnahs from which subsidiary rulings have been derived. Even all of those are not disputed; rather, the scholars of the Ummah are seen to have reached consensus concerning a significant portion of them. The fact that “disputed legal issues have been brought to the fore” is not sufficient to conclude that “the Sunnah as a whole is disputed.” Similarly, the attempts of a few small groups of madmen, mostly ignorant people, who have appeared here and there and tried to make even universally accepted matters disputed, cannot obstruct the recognition of the Sunnah’s vast acceptance. Such groups have not limited themselves to attacking the Sunnah; some of them have even claimed that the Qur’an has been altered. But the existence of such a handful of people cannot invalidate the collective consensus of the Muslim Ummah. Why should two or four hundred, or two or four thousand, such people ultimately be granted permission to rise up and remove from the law being framed for the whole country something that the entire Ummah, after the Qur’an, has accepted—and has always accepted—as the second foundation of Islamic law?
2. The nature of the disagreement concerning those Sunnahs related to subsidiary rulings is not that every individual disagrees with every other individual over them. Rather, “millions of Muslims in different parts of the world have organized themselves under a fiqh-based madhhab, and their great communities have established their collective way of life upon an interpretation of a Qur’anic ruling and a compilation of the established Sunnah.” For example, look at your own country, Pakistan, where the question of legislation is under discussion. From a legal standpoint, the entire Muslim population of this country is divided into only three large communities: Hanafi, Shi‘a and Ahl al-Hadith. The people of each community have adopted an interpretation of Qur’anic rulings and a collection of authenticated Sunnah. Can we not resolve the legal matter on democratic principles in this way: up to the limits of personal law, the Qur’anic interpretation and compilation of authenticated Sunnah followed by each community will be considered reliable for that community, while, in the case of national law, the Qur’anic interpretation and collection of Sunnah on which the majority has reached consensus will be considered reliable?
3. The question, “How can it be known whether a certain statement is a hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)?” is not an unanswerable question. Concerning those Sunnahs whose authenticity has been disputed, “discussion among expert scholars has continued for hundreds of years, and the arguments and evidence presented in support of every viewpoint, together with the basis on which those arguments rest, are all available in the books of fiqh and hadith in considerable detail. Today it is no longer difficult for any learned person to reach a conclusion, on the basis of investigation, as to whether something is Sunnah or not.”
4. The final solution to this matter for the purposes of law and legal rulings is this: “Among the various possible interpretations of the Qur’an, the interpretation which a person, institution or court ultimately determines, after applying the well-known scholarly and rational methods of interpretation and analysis, to represent the true purpose of the law is, within the limits of that authority’s knowledge and jurisdiction, Allah’s directive, although it cannot finally be claimed that this is in reality Allah’s directive. In exactly the same way, using the intellectual means and methods of examining the Sunnah, whatever Sunnah concerning a matter is established before a faqih, legislative council or court is, for that authority, the command of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), although it cannot finally be said that this is the Messenger of Allah’s (peace be upon him) command.”
Now ask your own conscience honestly: among the matters presented to you in my quoted statements, have you found the answers to your third and fourth questions? When faced with this, what reasonable explanation—one that could satisfy your conscience—is there for your attempt to fire a barrage of further questions instead of presenting a clear positive or negative statement on the matter?
Reply to the Second Letter
I now place your second letter before me. In this letter you have complained that, among the articles I directed you to consult in response to your first letter, you did not find specific answers to your questions; rather, your uneasiness increased further. But now, after reading the detailed discussion I have presented concerning your questions, decide for yourself whether you have found a specific answer to each question in it, and whether the real cause of your increased uneasiness is the articles mentioned or your own mind and thinking.
You have also said that the article mentioned contains several statements conflicting with my other articles. In reply, I ask you kindly to cite those articles and identify the matters in them that contradict this article. But I fear that you have sought another broad field in which to retreat. Therefore, in order to keep the discussion focused on the subject under discussion, instead of giving that answer I request that you set aside my other articles for the present and tell me about the statements I am now presenting to you: do you accept them or reject them? If you reject them, what reasonable evidence do you possess in support of your rejection?
Summary of the Four Points
You then assured me that your purpose in this correspondence was not debate, but rather understanding the matter. Having said this, you extracted the essence of my articles in four points and presented it to me, demanding that I either acknowledge that this is the essence of those articles or prove that you have misunderstood their meaning.
I shall now discuss, in numerical order, the points you have extracted from my articles as their essence. But before that discussion, I ask you to place the points you have adopted alongside the points I presented above from my articles, and decide for yourself whether the mind that was drawn to these points instead of those points is seeking to understand the argument or is a patient afflicted with a love of disputation.
The First Point
The first point you extracted is: “You have said that whatever the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) said or did during his twenty-three-year prophetic life while explaining and interpreting the Qur’an is called the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). Two things follow from this statement:
(a) Whatever the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said or did as an individual during those twenty-three years is not included in the Sunnah.
(b) The Sunnah is an explanation of the Qur’an’s rulings and principles. It does not establish any fundamental principle or ruling of the religion of Islam beyond the Qur’an, and the Sunnah cannot abrogate any Qur’anic directive.”
The Nature of the Messenger of Allah’s (peace be upon him) Actions
The first part of the essence you have extracted from my statement itself is incorrect. Where in any of these articles of mine is it written that whatever the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) said or did in the course of explaining and interpreting the Qur’an during his twenty-three-year prophetic life is called the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)? On the contrary, I have said that all the works which the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) carried out during his twenty-three-year prophetic life explained the purposes and objectives of the Qur’an, and that this Sunnah, together with the Qur’an, gives form and completeness to the magnificent law of the Supreme Being—namely, Allah the Exalted. Since the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) performed all these works as a prophet, he represented Allah the Exalted’s will and desire in these matters, just as the Qur’an does.
If you are not accustomed to reading your own notions into another person’s statement, then study what I said in reply to your first question and see what I actually said and what you have made of it.
The two conclusions you subsequently reached both testify that, instead of seeking the answer to your question in my stated position, you have sought a path to a new controversy. For your first question was not related to that statement, nor did I refer you to my aforementioned article so that you might seek the solution to this problem in it. Nevertheless, I do not wish to give you an opportunity to say that I have evaded answering the questions you put forward. Therefore, I shall briefly discuss these two conclusions.
The Difference between the Personal and Prophetic Statuses of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him)
(a) It is fully accepted in Islamic Shariah that everything the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) said and did as the Messenger is Sunnah, and following it is obligatory for the Ummah. Whatever he said or did as an individual is certainly worthy of respect, but following it is not obligatory. Shah Waliullah (may Allah have mercy on him) has given a brief yet comprehensive and meaningful discussion of this in the section entitled “Chapter on Explaining the Categories of the Sciences of the Prophet (peace be upon him)” in his celebrated work Hujjatullah al-Baligha. Imam Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him) devoted an entire section of his Sahih to discussing this principle, entitling it: “Chapter: The Obligation to Follow What He Said as Shariah, Rather than What He Mentioned (peace be upon him) Concerning the Affairs of This World as Personal Opinion” [Chapter: It is obligatory to follow what the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) said as a ruling of Shariah, but it is not obligatory to follow what he said as personal opinion concerning worldly matters]. The question now is: who will ultimately determine the distinction between the personal status and the prophetic status of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), deciding which of his statements and actions must be followed as Sunnah and which belong only to the personal sphere? It should be clear that we ourselves have no authority to define this distinction and boundary. This distinction can be made in only two ways. Either the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) himself clearly stated regarding a particular saying or action that it was personal, or learned scholars who are wise, cautious and far-sighted will, in the light of the principles of Shariah derived from the teachings of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), conduct an extensive analysis to determine which types of his statements and actions are connected with his prophetic status and which may be placed in the personal sphere. I discussed this matter in detail in one of my articles entitled “The Personal and Prophetic Statuses of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)” (Tarjuman al-Qur’an, December 1959).
Being Additional to the Qur’an and Being Contrary to the Qur’an Are Not Synonymous
(b) It is entirely mistaken for you to conclude that the Sunnah is an exposition of Qur’anic rulings and principles in the sense that “it does not establish any principle or ruling of the religion of Islam in addition to the Qur’an.” If you had used the expression “contrary to the Qur’an” instead, I would not only have agreed with you; all the jurists and hadith scholars of the Ummah would also have agreed. But you used the expression “in addition to the Qur’an,” which can mean precisely that it is additional to the Qur’an. It is clear that there is a difference as vast as heaven and earth between being additional and being contrary or opposed. [It should be noted that a hadith may be deemed contrary to the Qur’an when the Qur’an commands an action while the hadith prohibits it, or when the Qur’an commands abstention from something while the hadith commands doing it. But if a hadith explains a brief Qur’anic instruction, prescribes the method of implementing it, or clarifies its purpose, then it is not “contrary” to the Qur’an; rather, it is “additional” to the Qur’an.] If the Sunnah does not state anything additional to the Qur’an, then consider for yourself: what need would there be for it? Its need exists precisely because it makes manifest the purposes and objectives of the Qur’an that are not explicitly mentioned in it. For example, the Noble Qur’an stops after commanding the establishment of prayer. The Qur’an does not explain what prayer means or what establishing it means; the Sunnah does. For this purpose, the Sunnah explains to us in detail the construction of mosques, the five daily calls to prayer, the method of performing prayer in congregation, the times of prayer, the form of prayer, the number of its rak‘ahs, the special prayers of Friday and the two Eids, their practical form, and many other aspects. All of these are additional to the Qur’an, but none is contrary to it.
Likewise, in every aspect and department of life, the Sunnah has developed, in accordance with the purposes and objectives of the Qur’an, human character and ethics, Islamic civilization and culture, and the structure of the state. These are so much additional to the Qur’an that the scope of the Sunnah’s guidance has become considerably broader than the scope of Qur’anic rulings. Yet there is nothing contrary to the Qur’an in it, and whatever is genuinely contrary to the Qur’an is not acknowledged by any of the Ummah’s jurists or hadith scholars as the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him).
Can the Sunnah Abrogate Any Ruling of the Noble Qur’an??
In this connection, you have also reached the conclusion that “the Sunnah cannot abrogate any ruling of the Noble Qur’an.” You wrote this under a misconception, which needs to be clarified. What the Hanafi jurists explain through the technical expression “abrogation of the ruling of the Book with the help of the Sunnah” essentially means restricting a general ruling of the Noble Qur’an and explaining an intention that is not apparent from its wording. For example, in Surah al-Baqarah, the command was given to make a bequest for parents and close relatives (verse 180). In addition, the ruling concerning the distribution of inheritance was revealed in Surah al-Nisa, and it was stated that these shares would be distributed after the deceased person’s bequest had been fulfilled (verses 11–12). In explanation of this, the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “No bequest may be made for heirs.” In other words, no heir’s share may now be increased or decreased through a bequest, because Allah the Exalted Himself has specified the heirs’ shares in the Noble Qur’an. If someone increases or decreases any of these shares through a bequest, he has opposed the Qur’an.
Thus, the Sunnah restricted the general permission to make bequests, which is clearly understood from the Qur’anic verse, to rightful recipients who cannot be heirs. It also made clear that this general permission to make bequests may not be used to increase or decrease the shares legally prescribed for heirs.
Similarly, the verse of the Noble Qur’an concerning ablution (Surah al-Ma’idah: 6) commands the washing of the feet, without making any exception for any circumstance. The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), by wiping over his socks and permitting others to do likewise, explained that this ruling applies to feet without socks. When socks are being worn, wiping over them instead of washing the feet fulfills this purpose. Whether this is called “abrogation,” “exception,” or “explanation,” its meaning is the same, and it is entirely sound and reasonable in its proper place. What right, ultimately, do those people have to object to this who, despite not being prophets, declare some clear injunctions of the Noble Qur’an to be “interim-period rulings” solely on the basis of their personal perspective—meaning clearly that once “this interim period” has passed according to their ominous view, those Qur’anic rulings too will be abrogated? [Mr. Parvez declares all the rulings establishing the validity of settled ownership, including the Qur’anic rulings concerning inheritance, to be interim-period rulings. In his view, all these rulings of the Wise Qur’an will be abrogated when Mr. Parvez’s self-invented “Nizam-e-Rububiyyat” (Divine System) is established.]
The Second Point
The second matter you extracted from my article is this: you said, “There is no book in which the Sunnah of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) has been compiled completely and comprehensively, and concerning whose original text all Muslims agree as they agree concerning the original text of the Qur’an.”
Regarding this essence you have extracted from my article, I shall say only that people immersed in their own imaginings and those who refuse to understand rational statements are accustomed to extracting such essences from the statements of others. Read again what I wrote a little while ago in reply to the second question, while discussing your first letter. You will yourself learn what I said and what essence you extracted from it.
The Third Point
In the third point you have attributed to me, you said: “You have said that authentic hadiths can be distinguished from the present corpus of hadith. For this purpose, the principles previously established for examining transmissions are not the final word. Besides the principles of riwayah, dirayah may also be used. The dirayah of those whose practice of Islamic knowledge has produced profound insight will be regarded as reliable.”
The Use of Riwayah and Dirayah in Examining Hadiths
I shall reproduce here, verbatim, the sentences from which you have made this astonishing and extremely distorted extraction, so that the exact picture of my statement may be placed before you and there may be no need for a fabricated essence.
“The science of hadith is another name for this very criticism—that is, historical criticism. From the first century of the Hijrah until today, this critical tradition in the science has continued, and no jurist or hadith scholar ever advocated that a hadith connecting any matter—whether related to worship or to conduct and transactions—to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) should be accepted as evidence without historical criticism. In reality, this science is the finest example of the criticism mentioned above, and even the best historical criticism of the modern age can, with great difficulty, be called only the sum or developed form (improvement) of that criticism. Indeed, I can say that there is such refinement and subtlety in the principles of criticism applied by hadith scholars that the intelligence of contemporary historians has not yet been able to reach it. Going further, and without fear of objection, I shall say that in the world only the Sunnah and way of life of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and the record of the history of his age, could have withstood the test of the strict critical standards adopted by the hadith scholars. Otherwise, to this day no person in the world and no history of any age has safely endured such stringent critical standards or been accepted as a reliable historical record. Nevertheless, I shall say that the path to further correction and improvement is not closed. No one can claim that the principles adopted by the hadith scholars for verifying transmissions are final. If someone today, after acquiring deep knowledge and wisdom concerning these principles, points out some rigidity or defect in them and presents, with sound evidence, certain principles for a more satisfactory criticism, he will certainly be welcomed. Ultimately, who among us would not want to attain certainty that something is an established Sunnah before declaring it to be the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), and to prevent any half-baked statement from being attributed to the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him)?”
The use of dirayah alongside riwayah in scrutinizing hadiths is also a generally accepted matter, which the respected letter-writer has mentioned…… However, the point that should be kept in view here—and I hope the honored letter-writer will not disagree—is that the dirayah of only those people will be acceptable who have spent a significant portion of their lives studying and practicing the Qur’an, hadith and Islamic jurisprudence; in whom prolonged effort and practice have produced a particular degree of experience and wisdom; and whose intellect has no inclination to adopt doctrines, principles and values outside the bounds of Islamic thought and action and then test the Islamic heritage by their standards. Certainly, we can neither impose an obligation on anyone regarding the use of reason nor restrain anyone’s tongue. Nevertheless, it is certain that if people ignorant of Islamic knowledge accept a hadith like amateurs merely because it pleases them and reject another because it conflicts with their wishes, or if people raised within an anti-Islamic system of thought and action suddenly come forward and set up a market for accepting and rejecting hadiths according to foreign standards, then their dirayah can neither be acceptable to the Muslim Ummah nor can the collective conscience of this nation ever be reassured by such meaningless intellectual judgments. Within the bounds of Islam, only intellect nurtured and trained in the light of Islam, and knowledge compatible with the temperament of Islam, can act correctly. Intellect colored by a foreign outlook and temperament, or intellect without training, can perform no constructive work within Islam’s sphere; it can only create disorder” (Tarjuman al-Qur’an, December 1958, pp. 164–166).
Compare the above statement yourself with the essence you extracted. It will become perfectly clear to you what an excellent example you have presented of the desire to understand a statement.
The Fourth Point
The fourth point you extracted from my article is: “Even after hadiths have been examined in this manner, it cannot be said that they are certainly the words of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), as the Word of Allah is.”
This too is an incomparable example that you have presented as a desire to understand a statement rather than as a love of controversy. I shall reproduce here verbatim the sentences from which you extracted the above summary: “Among the several possible interpretations of any instruction of the Noble Qur’an, the interpretation which a person, institution or court ultimately determines, after applying the recognized scholarly methods of interpretation and analysis, to represent the actual purpose of the ruling is, within the sphere of its knowledge and authority, Allah’s instruction. In exactly the same way, whichever Sunnah concerning a matter appears established to a jurist, legislative council or court after using the scholarly means and methods of examining the Sunnah is, for that body, the instruction of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him).”
Although I had mentioned the above statement earlier, I have mentioned it again, despite the undesirability of repetition, so that you yourself may provide an antidote to your skill in extracting essences. For my part, I offer you an antidote to this moral audacity: by tearing my statement to pieces and presenting it before me, you have indeed displayed great bravado. Personally, I hold you in proper regard, as well as the words one might expect from a conscientious person like you—but perhaps the magazine Bazm-e Tulu-e Islam has brought you to this level.
A Request for Publication in the Magazine
Finally, I would like to submit that you concluded your first letter with the following sentence:
“Since a certain anxiety can be observed in the minds of the general public regarding the law, I hope you will have no objection if your reply is published in the magazine for their information.”
Regarding this, I wish to say that, far from having any objection, it is my sincere desire that you publish this correspondence verbatim in the magazine. I am having it published in Tarjuman al-Qur’an myself. You too should arrange to publish it in an upcoming issue of the magazine Tulu-e Islam, so that the general public on both sides may become informed about the matter and be freed from anxiety.
Tarjuman al-Qur’an
Humbly,
July 1960
Abul A‘la
The Status of Prophethood
[In the preceding pages, readers have been made aware of the correspondence exchanged between Dr. Abdul Wadud Sahib and the author concerning the legal status of the Sunnah. Another letter from the Doctor has been received on this subject, and it is reproduced below together with the author’s reply.]
The Doctor’s Letter
Respected Maulana!
Peace be upon you. I received your letter on 8 August. I hope that after this we shall be able to speak with somewhat greater composure. At the conclusion of your reply to my first letter in your letter of 26 June, you said:
“Before raising the subsequent questions, you should have clearly stated whether the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) performed any work in the world besides reciting the Noble Qur’an to people; and if he did, in what capacity?”
You then also wrote: “First, you must clearly state whether the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) is itself anything at all. Do you recognize it as a source of law alongside the Qur’an? If not, what is your reasoning?”
Therefore, it seems reasonable to discuss in my present letter only this part of the subject under discussion. I shall defer discussion of the remaining part to the future. You may recall that I neither deny the practical importance of the Sunnah nor have any intention of eliminating its importance.”
Therefore, your question—“In my view, is the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) itself anything at all?”—is unnecessary. Of course, I disagree with you concerning what is meant by the Sunnah. What remains is the question whether I recognize the Sunnah as a source of law alongside the Qur’an. My answer in this regard is negative. You have asked what evidence I have for this. First, allow me to clarify whether the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) performed any work in the world besides reciting the Noble Qur’an to people; and if he did, in what capacity? Once the answer to this is established, the rational proof will also become clear.
I agree with you one hundred percent that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) was a teacher, a judge and also a commander. He trained people and established a well-organized community of those who had received training, and then established a state as well, and so forth. But I do not agree with your statement that “everything the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) did during his twenty-three-year prophetic life is that Sunnah which, together with the Qur’an, gives form and completeness to the magnificent law of the Supreme Lawgiver.”
Undoubtedly, the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) organized society according to the law of the Supreme Lawgiver. But I cannot understand the claim that the law of Allah’s Book—Allah forbid—was incomplete and that this law attained completeness through everything the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) actually did. In my view, the continuity of revelation ended forever with the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him). But the purpose of the responsibility of messengership fulfilled by the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was that society could continue to be governed, even after the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), by following in his footsteps, and that this process would continue. If the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) conveyed “what Allah has revealed” to others, then it is the Ummah’s responsibility and duty to convey it to others. If the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) formed a community, established a state and fulfilled the responsibility of enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong according to “what Allah has revealed,” then it is also the Ummah’s duty to act in exactly this way. If the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) settled various matters according to “what Allah has revealed,” then the Ummah too must
settle matters according to “what Allah has revealed.” If the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) administered state affairs on the basis of consultation in accordance with “consult them in matters,” then the Ummah too will do the same. If the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) spent his twenty-three-year prophetic life mounted on horseback in wars, then the Ummah too will wage war while keeping those principles in view.
Therefore, if the Ummah undertakes training, organization, the establishment of a state, consultation, adjudication, armed struggle and other such activities in accordance with “what Allah has revealed,” then this is following the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) likewise built society by acting in accordance with “what Allah has revealed,” as required by the needs of his age. Following the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah means that the Ummah of every age will build society by acting in accordance with “what Allah has revealed,” as required by the needs of its own age. In the present time, we will establish whatever form of government we deem suitable in view of the environment, circumstances and current needs. But this must be done while remaining within the bounds of “what Allah has revealed.” This is acting upon the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). If, with this purpose before us, we fight in accordance with what the verse entitled “what Allah has revealed” has specified, then this will be acting upon the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him).
If the meaning of Sunnah is this—as a certain maulvi sahib wrote in a local newspaper last week, that the army of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) was delayed in capturing a fortress because the soldiers had not used the miswak for several days, or that in today’s atomic age the use of arrows on the battlefield is essential in the sense of Sunnah because the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) used arrows during war—then what could be a greater mockery of the Sunnah of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him)?
In all the aforementioned activities, what the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) followed during his twenty-three-year prophetic life was the Book of Allah, and the Ummah too was instructed to follow it. While the members of the Ummah were encouraged with the words, “Follow what has been revealed to you from your Lord” (Al-A‘raf: 3), it was also declared that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) followed it as well: “Say: I only follow what is revealed to me from my Lord” (Al-A‘raf: 203). I do not know on what basis you have called the law of the Book of Allah incomplete. The very thought makes my whole body tremble. Can you produce from the Noble Qur’an any verse from which it may be known that the Qur’anic law is incomplete? Allah Most High has pointed to only one legal code for the guidance of humankind, one that is above all doubt; indeed, it begins with the words: “This is the Book in which there is no doubt.” Again, people have been instructed to turn to this code of life for decisions concerning every matter of life, and it has also been clearly declared that this legal code is comprehensive and detailed.
“Shall I seek a judge other than Allah, while it is He who has revealed to you the Book explained in detail?” (Al-An‘am: 114).
Rather, this distinction has been made between the believer and the unbeliever:
“Those who do not judge according to what Allah has revealed—they are the unbelievers” (Al-Ma’idah: 44).
Has the Noble Qur’an not been addressed as the Glorious Book? Is the declaration, “The word of your Lord has been perfected in truth and justice,” not sufficient to prove that Allah’s law has attained perfection? Everything that remained has been completed. What else could the unbelievers have hoped for their consolation besides this Book, when Allah Most High said, “Is it not sufficient for them”?
“Is it not sufficient for them that We have revealed to you the Book which is recited to them?” (Al-‘Ankabut: 51).
I feel most intensely that since the demand of the religion was that the Book be acted upon as a whole, it is impossible for every individual to act upon the Qur’an according to his own understanding. Therefore, a living person is needed to maintain the overall system. I also feel that where the establishment of an overall system is at issue, the position and status of the person who leads people to that goal is very elevated. He conveys the message because revelation comes to no one else. Thus the Noble Qur’an has made it clear: “Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah” (Al-Nisa: 80). Therefore, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was also the central point of the Ummah. This centrality will be maintained even after the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). The Noble Qur’an has therefore clarified this matter in the following words:
“Muhammad is only a messenger; messengers passed away before him. So if he dies or is killed, will you turn back?” (Al ‘Imran: 144).
It should be clear that the continuity of enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong (if its purpose is not preaching and admonition) can be maintained only when the founder of the nation’s central institution is kept continuously effective through acting upon the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). But this does not mean that the legal system which the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) intended to implement, and which will be the objective of the center of the Ummah in the future, is to be made incomplete.
Your previous question was: What was the status of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) in the work he carried out during his twenty-three-year prophetic life? My answer is that everything the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) demonstrated, he demonstrated as a human being, but in accordance with “what Allah has revealed.” The fulfillment of the responsibility of the Noble Prophet’s messengership was in his capacity as an individual. This answer of mine is not the product of my own mind; rather, its proof is found in the Book of Allah. The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) repeatedly emphasized: “I am only a human being like you.” It is clear from the Qur’anic verses that, in administering the state, the status of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) was that of an individual, and that occasionally he too made errors of ijtihad.
“Say: If I go astray, I will only go astray to my own detriment; and if I am rightly guided, it is because my Lord reveals to me. He is All-Hearing, ever Near” (Saba: 50).
Whenever an error of ijtihad occurred that could affect an important matter of the religion of Islam, its correction would also come from Allah Most High. For example, before a certain battle, some people asked permission to remain behind rather than join the battle, and the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) granted permission. Concerning this, the following was revealed by Allah Most High:
“May Allah pardon you! Why did you give them permission before it became clear to you which of them were truthful and you knew which of them were liars?” (Al-Tawbah: 43).
Similarly, a correction was revealed in Surah Al-Tahrim:
“O Prophet! Why do you prohibit what Allah has made lawful for you?” (Al-Tahrim: 1).
Similarly, in Surah ‘Abasa:
“He frowned and turned away because the blind man came to him. And how would you know? Perhaps he might be purified, or receive admonition, and the admonition might benefit him. As for the one who considers himself self-sufficient, you gave him your attention, although you are not responsible if he does not purify himself. But as for the one who came to you eagerly, while he was apprehensive, you disregarded him” (verses 1–10).
The foregoing discussion shows that, in conducting state affairs in the light of revelation, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) could also make errors of ijtihad in incidental matters. This was possible precisely because the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) carried out these activities as a human being. If this had not been so, two inevitable consequences would have followed.
First, the notion would arise that since everything the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) did, he did as a prophet, ordinary people cannot do it. Thus, even today, this notion is found somewhere in the world of despair: that the society established by the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) was beyond the ability of ordinary people and cannot be re-established. This notion itself rejects following the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him).
The second consequence could take the form of the notion that prophets must continue to come even after the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), so that they can establish this kind of society again, since ordinary people cannot do so.
Consider for yourself how terrible these two consequences are, emerging from the notion that whatever the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) did, he did only as a prophet. The finality of prophethood is a milestone on humanity’s journey. From this point, the age of personalities ends and the age of principles and values begins. Therefore, the notion that “the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) did everything as a prophet” becomes a reason for rejecting the principle of the finality of prophethood. Despite the clear verse, “Muhammad is only a messenger” (Al ‘Imran: 144), to say that whatever the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) did, he did solely in the light of revelation—and that the continuity of revelation ended with the person of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him)—is a clear declaration that the continuity of the religion of Islam cannot remain after the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him). The Caliphs understood very well that revelation was preserved within the Book, and that after this the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) carried out everything through mutual consultation. Therefore, no change could be introduced into the system established after his passing. As the state’s boundaries expanded, the list of needs also grew longer. New problems continued to arise in the days that followed. If an earlier decision could be found for resolving them and no change was needed, the Caliphs retained it as it was. If a change was needed, they adopted a new decision through mutual consultation. All this was done in the light of the Qur’an. This was the method demonstrated by the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), and his successors also maintained it. This was called following the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him).
If it is assumed, as you say, that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) did certain things in the light of revelation, then this would mean that because Allah Most High was not satisfied—God forbid—with the revelation He sent from Himself, another kind of revelation began to be sent down. Ultimately, why these two kinds of revelation? The revelation sent to the earlier prophets contained indications of the revelation of the Qur’an. Therefore, was it difficult for Allah, who has power over all things, to indicate in the Noble Qur’an the second kind of revelation you mention? I do not find any such thing in the Qur’an. If you can point to any verse of this kind, I shall be grateful to you. Wassalam.
Sincere
Abdul Wadud
The Author’s Reply
My respected and honored one
Peace and Allah’s mercy be upon you. I received your letter dated August 17, 1960. In this recently received letter, you have confined the discussion to the first of your four earlier questions, and from the opinion you have expressed concerning prophethood and Sunnah, it is becoming clear that your very conception of prophethood is fundamentally erroneous. It should be clear that if there is a flaw in the foundation itself, then discussing the subsequent questions connected with that foundation cannot lead us to any conclusion. This is why I requested that, instead of raising further questions about the answer I gave, you address the actual issue mentioned in my answer. I am grateful to you for accepting this request and expressing your opinion first on the fundamental question. I will now have the opportunity to render some service to you and to those who are immersed in this error.
The conception of prophethood and Sunnah that you have expressed is the result of an extremely defective study of the Noble Qur’an. The greatest danger is that you have become so reliant on this exceedingly flawed and limited study that you have come to regard as erroneous the united belief and practice concerning this matter maintained by the entire scholarly community and general public of the Ummah from the first Hijri century until today. You have convinced yourself that, throughout nearly fourteen hundred years, all Muslims have stumbled in understanding the status of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), that all their jurists erred in accepting the Sunnah as a source of law, and that all their empires fell into error by basing their legal systems on the Sunnah. I will discuss this conception in detail as we proceed. But before beginning that discussion, I want you calmly to examine for yourself the extent of your religious knowledge and consider whether the knowledge you have acquired on this subject is sufficient for so great a conception. You are not the only one who has read the Noble Qur’an. Millions upon millions of Muslims in every age and every part of the world have studied it, and countless eminent figures have lived throughout Islamic history and are still found today for whom studying the Qur’an was not a secondary occupation amid their many engagements. Rather, they devoted and continue to devote their entire lives to reflecting on every word of the Qur’an, grasping its inner meaning and deriving conclusions from it. How, then, did you ultimately fall into the error of believing that, on such an important fundamental matter as prophethood, all these people completely misunderstood the purpose of the Noble Qur’an, and that the correct purpose has become manifest only to you and a handful of people like you? In the entire history of Islam, you cannot name even one notable scholar who, in the light of the Noble Qur’an, expressed a conception of the status of prophethood like yours and established the status of Sunnah in the manner you do. If you can cite even one such scholar, please name him.
1. The Status of Prophethood and Its Responsibilities
After making this sincere appeal to your reason and conscience, I will now say something about the conception you have presented. Your entire discussion consists of ten points. According to your own words, the first of them is this:
“I agree with you one hundred percent that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) was a teacher, a judge and a military commander. He trained people and, with those who had been trained, established a well-organized community, and then established a state.”
The one-hundred-percent agreement you have mentioned is actually one percent, or not even one-thousandth of one percent. For you have accepted the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) merely as a teacher, judge, head of state and so forth, but not with the essential characteristic of being appointed by Allah Most High. Yet the entire difference arises precisely from whether this characteristic is acknowledged or denied. As you proceed, you yourself have made it clear that, in your view, the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) performed all these functions not as a messenger, but as an ordinary human being. For this reason, you do not accept the things he did as an ordinary human being as that Sunnah which is regarded as a source of law. In other words, according to your view, the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) was a teacher, but not appointed by Allah Most High; rather, he was a teacher like the other worldly teachers. Similarly, he was a judge, but Allah Most High did not appoint him as a judge from Himself; rather, he was a judge like the ordinary judges of the world. You have adopted the same perspective regarding the ruler, reformer, leader and guide. In your conception, the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) received none of these positions as someone entrusted with responsibility by Allah.
The first question is: How, then, did the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) acquire these positions? Did the people of Makkah who accepted Islam voluntarily choose him as their leader, and did they also have the right to remove him from this position of leadership? When the foundations of the Islamic state were established upon reaching Madinah, did the Ansar and Muhajirun hold a consultative assembly and decide that Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, would be the head of our state, its chief justice and the supreme commander of its army? During the lifetime of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), could any other Muslim have been elected to these positions? Were the Muslims entitled to take these positions, or any one of them, away from the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) and assign them to someone else through mutual consultation? Furthermore, did anything occur whereby, during the time of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), a legislative council was formed for the state of Madinah to draft a comprehensive legal code and constitution within the framework of the Noble Qur’an, where he would try to understand the purposes of the Noble Qur’an through consultation with his Companions, and laws would then be formulated according to the meaning of the Qur’an determined by the council? If the answer to these questions is affirmative, please present historical evidence for it. If it is negative, please present historical evidence for that as well. And if it is negative, do you mean to say that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) forcibly made himself a guide, head of state, judge, legislator and great leader?
The second question is: Does the Noble Qur’an also establish the status of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) that you ascribe to him? In this connection, open the Noble Qur’an and examine its explanation.
The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) as Teacher and Mentor
In this Holy Book, the following statement concerning the status of the Noble Prophet’s (peace be upon him) messengership appears in four places:
“Remember when Ibrahim and Isma‘il were raising the foundations of this House (the Ka‘bah), they prayed: ‘Our Lord! Send among them a messenger from their own people who will recite Your revelations to them, teach them the Book and wisdom, and purify their practical lives’” (Al-Baqarah: 127–129).
“Just as We have sent among you a messenger from your own people who recites Our revelations to you, purifies your lives, teaches you the Book and wisdom, and teaches you what you did not know” (Al-Baqarah: 151).
“Indeed, Allah has bestowed a great favor upon the believers by raising among them a prophet from their own people, who recites His revelations to them, purifies their lives, and teaches them the Book and knowledge” (Al ‘Imran: 164).
“He is the One who has sent among the unlettered a messenger from among themselves, who recites His revelations to them, purifies their lives, and teaches them the Book and wisdom” (Al-Jumu‘ah: 2).
The point repeatedly emphasized with great importance in the foregoing verses is that Allah Most High did not send His Messenger merely to recite the Qur’anic verses to them; rather, along with sending him as a prophet, there were three further purposes:
(1) He would teach people the Book.
(2) He would teach the method of acting in accordance with the purpose of this Book (wisdom).
(3) He would purify individuals and their society. That is, through his system of training, he would remove their individual and social faults and develop within them noble qualities and an advanced social order.
It should be clear that teaching the Book and wisdom was an activity beyond merely reciting the words of the Qur’an; otherwise, mentioning it separately would be meaningless. Similarly, whatever means and methods he adopted to train individuals and society were also something beyond reciting the words of the Qur’an; otherwise, mentioning this separate activity of training would have no meaning. Now say: Apart from conveying the Noble Qur’an, did he seize by force the position of teacher and mentor entrusted to the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), or did Allah Most High appoint him to this position? Even after these clear and repeated statements of the Noble Qur’an, can any person who believes in this Book dare say that these two positions were not part of messengership, and that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) performed the responsibilities and functions of these positions not as a messenger but personally? If he cannot say this, then tell me: If one refuses to acknowledge that the words the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) spoke beyond reciting the Qur’anic text concerning the teaching of the Book and wisdom, and the training of individuals and society that he provided through his words and actions, were received from Allah and to accept them as authoritative proof, then what is that other than rejecting messengership itself?
The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) as the Expositor of Allah’s Book
In Surah Al-Nahl, Allah Most High says:
“And We have sent down this Reminder to you, O Prophet, so that you may explain to people the teaching that has been revealed for them” (Al-Nahl: 44).
It is clear from the above verse that the Prophet (PBUH) was entrusted with the responsibility of explaining and interpreting the commands, injunctions, and guidance that Allah Most High had given in the Qur’an Majid. Even a dull-witted person can understand at least this much: explaining and interpreting a book does not consist merely of reciting its original text aloud. Rather, the interpreter says something beyond the original text so that the listener may fully understand the meaning of the book. If a statement in a book relates to a practical matter, the commentator gives a practical demonstration and explains that this is how the author intended the matter to be carried out. Otherwise, merely reciting the original text of a book to someone asking about the significance and implications of its contents could not be accepted as an explanation or commentary even by a child in a primary school. Now tell me: in light of this verse, was the Prophet (PBUH) a commentator on the Qur’an in his personal capacity, or did Allah Most High appoint him as its commentator? Here Allah Most High states that His Messenger would present the significance of the Book. How, then, can his status as commentator of the Qur’an be declared separate from his status as Messenger, and how can one accept the Qur’an he conveyed while refusing to accept the explanation and interpretation he gave? Is this refusal not tantamount to directly rejecting the Messengerhood?
The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) as Leader and Exemplary Model
Allah Most High says in Surah Al ‘Imran:
“Say, ‘O Prophet, if you love Allah, then follow me; Allah will love you … Say, ‘Obey Allah and the Messenger.’ Then if they turn away, Allah does not like the disbelievers”—(verses 31–32).
Allah Most High says in Surah Al-Ahzab:
“Indeed, in the Messenger of Allah you have an excellent example for every person who has hope in Allah and the Last Day”—(verse 21).
In the two verses mentioned above, Allah Most High Himself establishes His Messenger (PBUH) as a leader, commands obedience to him, recognizes his life as an example to be followed, and clearly says that if this principle is not adopted, one should have no hope with Him. His love cannot be attained otherwise; rather, turning away from it is disbelief. Now tell me: did the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) become a leader and guide on his own? Or did the Muslims elect him? Or was it Allah Most High who installed him in this position? If this verse of the Noble Qur’an unambiguously establishes the Prophet (PBUH) as a guide and leader appointed by Allah Most High, how can obedience to him and following his life be rejected thereafter? In answer to this question, it is entirely meaningless to say that this refers to following the Qur’an. If that were so, it would have said, ‘Follow the Qur’an,’ rather than, ‘Follow me.’ In that case, there would have been no meaning in describing the life of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) as an excellent example.
The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) as Legislator
In Surah Al-A‘raf, Allah Most High says concerning the Messenger of Allah (PBUH):
“He enjoins them to do what is right, forbids them from wrongdoing, makes lawful for them the pure things and makes unlawful for them the impure things, removes from them their burdens and the shackles that were upon them.”
The words of the above verse make one matter completely clear: Allah Most High granted the Prophet (PBUH) legislative powers. The commands and prohibitions, and the lawful and unlawful matters from Allah, are not limited to those mentioned in the Qur’an Majid. Along with them, whatever the Prophet (PBUH) declared lawful or unlawful, and whatever he commanded or forbade, are also included within the authority granted by Allah. Therefore, these too form part of Allah’s law. This very point is stated clearly in Surah Al-Hashr:
“Whatever the Messenger gives you, accept it, and whatever he forbids you, refrain from it. Fear Allah; surely Allah is severe in punishment.”
Neither of the two verses cited above can be interpreted as referring to the Qur’an’s commands and prohibitions or the Qur’an’s lawful and unlawful matters. That would not be an interpretation; it would be a distortion of Allah’s words. Allah Most High has established commands and prohibitions, and lawful and unlawful matters, here as the functions of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), not as the functions of the Qur’an. Does anyone still wish to tell poor Allah that there has been an error in His statement, that He mistakenly mentioned the Messenger’s name instead of the Qur’an—God forbid?
The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) as Judge
In the Qur’an Majid, Allah Most High has made this matter clear not in one place but in numerous places: He appointed the Prophet (PBUH) as a judge. A few verses are cited here as examples:
“O Prophet! We have sent down this Book to you with the truth so that you may judge between people according to what Allah has shown you”—(Surah An-Nisa: 105).
“And say, ‘I believe in the Book that Allah has sent down, and I have been commanded to judge fairly among you’”—(Surah Ash-Shura: 15).
“When they are told, ‘Come to what Allah has sent down and to the Messenger,’ you will see the hypocrites turn away from you in aversion and keep away”—(An-Nisa: 61).
“But no, by your Lord! They will never truly believe until they accept you as judge in their disputes, then find no resistance within themselves against your decision and submit wholeheartedly”—(An-Nisa: 65).
The verses above clearly state that the Prophet (PBUH) was not a judge by virtue of his own authority, nor a judge appointed by the Muslims; rather, he was a judge appointed by Allah Most High. The third verse makes clear that his status or office as judge was not separate from his office of Messenger. Rather, as Messenger he was also a judge, and a believer’s faith in the Messengerhood cannot be sound and genuine until he adopts an attitude of hearing and obeying before this status of his. The fourth verse
mentions Allah’s revelation—that is, the Qur’an—and the Messenger separately, which clearly shows that there are two distinct points of reference for obtaining a settlement: (1) the Qur’an, as law and regulation, and (2) the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), as judge. Turning away from these two is the work of a hypocrite, not of a believer. The fifth verse states in completely unambiguous terms that if a person feels any constriction in his heart regarding a judgment given by the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), his faith is ruined. After this clear statement of the Qur’an Majid, can you still say that the Prophet (PBUH) was not a judge as Messenger, but merely a judge like an ordinary judge or magistrate in the world? Can you say that, like the judgments of those ordinary judges, the Prophet’s (PBUH) judgments cannot be a source of law? Can any worldly judge possess such a status that a person’s faith would be destroyed if he did not accept the judge’s decision, criticized it, or considered it erroneous in his heart?
The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) as Head of State
Likewise, the Qur’an Majid says in detail, and repeatedly in numerous places, that the Prophet (PBUH) was a head of state and statesman appointed by Allah, and that he was given this position precisely as Messenger:
“We sent every Messenger for the sole purpose that he should be obeyed by Allah’s permission”—(An-Nisa: 64).
“Whoever obeys the Messenger has truly obeyed Allah”—(An-Nisa: 80).
“O Prophet! Surely those who pledge allegiance to you are in fact pledging allegiance to Allah”—(Al-Fath: 10).
“O believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and do not let your deeds go to waste”—(Muhammad: 33).
“It is not for a believing man or woman to have any choice in a matter once Allah and His Messenger have decided it. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear misguidance”—(Al-Ahzab: 36).
“O believers! Obey Allah, obey the Messenger, and those entrusted with authority among you. Then if you disagree about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day”—(An-Nisa: 59).
These verses clearly state that the Messenger was not a statesman who had become the head of the state he himself established, nor was he made head of state by the people’s election. Rather, he was a head of state appointed by Allah. His work as a statesman was not something separate from his status as Messenger; rather, being a Messenger itself meant being an obedient statesman appointed by Allah. Obeying him was in reality obeying Allah. Pledging allegiance to him was in reality equivalent to pledging allegiance to Allah. Not obeying him meant disobeying Allah, with the consequence that none of a person’s actions would be acceptable to Allah. Conversely, the believing community—which outwardly includes the entire Ummah, its ruling group, and its ‘national center’—has absolutely no right to adopt a different decision on any matter after the Messenger of Allah has given his decision.
Proceeding beyond these clear explanations, the final verse gives the definitive explanation, in which three commands of obedience are given consecutively:
1. First, obedience to Allah.
2. Then, obedience to the Messenger of Allah (PBUH).
3. Then, in the third order, obedience to those entrusted with comprehensive responsibility—that is, your national center.
From what was said earlier, it has become clear that the Messenger is not included among the ulil amr—the authorities entrusted with comprehensive responsibility. Rather, he is separate from and above them, and his position is second only to Allah. A second point learned from this verse is that there can be no dispute or disagreement with the ulil amr. Third, it is learned that in cases of dispute and disagreement there are two points of reference for settlement: (1) Allah, and (2) thereafter, the Messenger of Allah. It is evident that if Allah alone were the point of reference, mentioning the Messenger (PBUH) separately and explicitly would be entirely meaningless. Moreover, since referring to Allah means nothing other than referring to the Book of Allah, referring to the Messenger can mean nothing other than returning, during the era of Messengerhood, to the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) himself, and after that era, to the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). Indeed, on closer examination it becomes evident that even during the era of Messengerhood, in a broader sense, the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) was the point of reference. By the latter part of the Prophet’s (PBUH) era, the Islamic state had spread throughout the Arabian Peninsula. In this vast country, extending over ten or twelve hundred thousand square miles, it was by no means possible to obtain a direct decision from the Prophet (PBUH) on every matter. Furthermore, even during this period, the governors, judges, and administrators of the Islamic state had to refer, after the Qur’an Majid, to the second source of law in order to decide various matters; that source was the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH).
The Ummah’s Consensus that the Sunnah Is a Source of Law
Now, if you truly accept the Qur’an Majid and are not following a doctrine of your own invention in the name of this sacred Book, then observe that the Qur’an Majid establishes, in clear, explicit, and entirely unambiguous words, the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) as a teacher, guardian, leader, guide, commentator on the Word of Allah, legislator (Law Giver), judge, administrator, and statesman appointed by Allah Most High. In the light of this sacred Book, all these positions of the Prophet (PBUH) are inseparable parts of the office of Messengerhood. On the basis of this declaration of the sacred Word, whatever the Prophet (PBUH) did in all these capacities, from the era of the noble Companions until today, is the second source of law after the Qur’an Majid. Unless a person is profoundly misguided, he cannot imagine that all the Muslims of the world, and all Muslims of every age, misunderstood the significance of these verses of the Noble Qur’an, and that only he understood their correct meaning: namely, that the Prophet (PBUH) was a Messenger only until he recited the Qur’an to people, after which his status was like that of an ordinary Muslim. Finally, what kind of extraordinary dictionary has fallen into his hands, by means of which he has understood the words of the Qur’an Majid to have a meaning that has escaped the entire Ummah?
2. The Legislative Authority of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH)
The second point you made was this: “But I do not agree with your statement that whatever the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) did during his twenty-three-year prophetic life constitutes the Sunnah which, together with the Qur’an, organized society according to the structure of the great law of the Supreme Lawgiver. But that the law of the Book of Allah—God forbid—was incomplete, and that this law attained completion through whatever the Prophet (PBUH) actually did, is incomprehensible to me.”
Everything you have said in the above lines is a major misconception. You have fallen prey to it because you have failed to grasp a self-evident principle of jurisprudence. It is universally accepted that if the person possessing the highest authority to make laws issues a brief directive, orders an action, or establishes a principle and grants a subordinate person or institution the authority to formulate rules concerning its detailed framework, then the rules it formulates are not something separate from the law; rather, they are considered part of that law. The lawmaker’s purpose is to specify the procedure for carrying out the action he has ordered by creating ancillary regulations, to formulate detailed rules in accordance with the principle he has established, and to explain in detail the purpose and objective of the guidance he has given in brief. For this purpose, he authorizes a subordinate person, persons, or institutions to formulate rules and regulations. These ancillary rules undoubtedly combine with the original fundamental rules to develop and complete them. But this does not mean that the lawmaker mistakenly created defective rules and someone else came along to remedy their defects. Rather, it means that the lawmaker himself described the fundamental part of his law and had its detailed and explanatory part formulated through the person or institution he appointed.
The Nature of the Prophet’s (PBUH) Legislative Work
Allah Most High employed this very method in legislating His law. In the Qur’an Majid, He gave brief regulations and guidance, described certain principles, or expressed what He approved and disapproved, and entrusted this task to His Messenger: the Messenger would not merely provide a verbal elaboration of this law, but would also implement it in practice and demonstrate its application through his own conduct. The directive granting legislative authority is itself present in the original text of the law—that is, in the Qur’an Majid:
“And We have sent down the Reminder to you so that you may explain to people what has been revealed to them”—(An-Nahl: 44).
After this clear directive granting authority, you cannot say that the verbal and practical explanations given by the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) are something separate from the regulations of the Qur’an Majid. They are, in essence, part of this law in the light of the Qur’an. Challenging them is tantamount to challenging the Qur’an itself and Allah’s directive granting this authority.
Some Examples of This Legislative Work
Although this is a complete answer to the questions you have raised, for greater clarification I will present several examples through which you will understand the nature of the relationship between the Qur’an Majid and the explanations, interpretations, and statements of the Prophet (PBUH).
In the Qur’an Majid, Allah Most High says, “He loves those who purify themselves”—(At-Tawbah: 108), and commands the Prophet (PBUH), “Keep your clothing pure”—(Al-Muddaththir: 4). In order to determine the aims and objectives of these two verses and put them into practice, the Prophet (PBUH) gave detailed instructions concerning cleansing oneself after urination and defecation and keeping the body and clothing pure, and demonstrated this through his own practice.
Allah Most High has commanded in the Qur’an Majid that if you become impure because of sexual intercourse, you must not pray until you have purified yourselves (see An-Nisa: 43; Al-Ma’idah: 6). The Prophet (PBUH) explained in detail what is meant here by impurity, or janabah; in which circumstances this impurity applies and in which it does not; and how one becomes pure from it.
In the Qur’an, Allah Most High has commanded: when you rise for prayer, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, wipe your heads, and wash or wipe your feet (Al-Ma’idah: 6). The Prophet (PBUH) explained that the command to wash the face includes rinsing the mouth and cleaning the nose. Since the ears are part of the head, they must also be wiped along with the head. If socks are being worn on the feet, they should be wiped; if no socks are being worn, the feet should be washed. At the same time, he explained in detail the circumstances in which ablution is nullified and those in which it remains valid.
Allah Most High says in the Qur’an Majid that a fasting person may eat and drink at night until, at dawn, the black thread becomes distinguishable from the white thread—(Al-Baqarah: 187).
The Prophet (PBUH) explained that this means the emergence of the white light of dawn from the darkness of night.
After mentioning which foods and drinks are lawful and which are unlawful, Allah Most High gives this general instruction concerning the remaining items: pure things have been made lawful for you and impure things unlawful (see Al-Ma’idah: 4). Through his statements and practical conduct, the Prophet (PBUH) provided a detailed explanation of what constitutes a pure thing that we may eat and what constitutes an impure thing from which we should stay away.
In describing the law of inheritance, Allah Most High says in the Qur’an that if a deceased person has no son and only one daughter, she will receive half of the property he leaves behind; and if there are more than two daughters, they will together receive two-thirds of the estate (see An-Nisa: 11). It is not stated here what share two daughters would receive. The Prophet (PBUH) explained that two daughters also receive the same share as more than two daughters.
In the Qur’an Majid, Allah Most High forbids marrying two sisters simultaneously to the same man (see An-Nisa: 23). The Prophet (PBUH) explained that this ruling also includes marrying an aunt and her niece, whether the aunt is paternal or maternal.
The Qur’an Majid permits men to marry two, three, or four women (see An-Nisa: 3). This verse does not state explicitly that a man may not keep more than four wives under his marriage at the same time. The Prophet (PBUH) explained the purpose and objective of this ruling, and instructed those who had more than four wives to divorce those in excess of four.
The Qur’an Majid gives a general command concerning the obligation of Hajj and does not clearly state whether, to fulfill this obligation, every Muslim must perform Hajj every year, whether performing it once in a lifetime is sufficient, or whether Hajj should be performed more than once (see Al ‘Imran: 97). It is through the Prophet’s (PBUH) explanation that we learn that a person is discharged from the obligation of Hajj by performing it only once in a lifetime.
The Qur’an has mentioned a frightening punishment for hoarding gold and silver (see al-Tawbah: 34). No room at all appears to exist within the general meaning of this verse for you to keep even a penny beyond your daily expenses, or to keep even a hair’s breadth of gold in the form of jewelry with the women of your household. The Prophet (peace be upon him) himself has stated that if a person who hoards gold and silver, or gold and silver beyond his needs, pays two and a half percent zakat on it, he will not fall under this frightening punishment.
From these few examples, you will understand how the Prophet (peace be upon him), exercising the legislative authority entrusted to him by Allah, explained the laws, guidance, indications, allusions, and underlying matters of the Qur’an. Since this was based on the Qur’an’s directive entrusting him with authority, it was not an independent body of law separate from the Qur’an; rather, it was itself a part of the Qur’an’s law.
3. The Meaning of the Sunnah and Following It
Your third point is: “The meaning of following the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) is to do what the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) did; it does not mean doing it in the manner in which the Prophet (peace be upon him) did it.” He has conveyed it to others, so it is also the duty of the ummah to convey what Allah has revealed to others…” [In saying this, the Doctor has forgotten the historical fact that the very first thing the Prophet (peace be upon him) did was to claim prophethood. From this perspective, the first element of following the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) is established as the requirement that one must first claim prophethood (God forbid).]
Regarding the meaning you have assigned to the Sunnah and following it, I consider it sufficient to say that it is not compatible with “what Allah has revealed,” whose observance you consider obligatory. In light of “what Allah has revealed,” following the Sunnah means that you will accept and follow as the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) everything he said and demonstrated in practice as Allah’s appointed teacher, guardian, patron, legislator, judge, administrator, head of state, and commentator on the Qur’an. I have already cited its proofs and evidence on the preceding pages, so I consider it unnecessary to repeat them.
The straightforward answer to what you have written here about the miswak is that, in a learned discussion based on deep thought, no matter can be settled by presenting such vague and unreliable statements as examples. Among the supporters and patrons of every school of thought, there are some people who turn their own viewpoint into a joke and farce through their irrational statements. If you present their statements as proof and then try to reject that viewpoint itself, it can mean nothing other than that, while avoiding a confrontation with highly reliable evidence, you are merely searching for weak arguments to subject to a difficult test.
Similarly weak is your argument that following the Sunnah means fighting with bow and arrow in today’s nuclear age, because wars were fought with bows and arrows in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). Ultimately, who told you that this is the meaning of following the Sunnah? No expert scholar has ever accepted this meaning of following the Sunnah—that we must use on the battlefield the very weapons used in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). Rather, it has always been understood to mean that on the battlefield we will follow the objectives, moral values, and Islamic laws whose observance the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) instructed us to follow through his words and actions, and we will refrain from the objectives for which he forbade us to fight and from the activities he prohibited us from pursuing.
4. Which Revelation Was the Holy Messenger (peace be upon him) Ordered to Follow, and Which Are We Ordered to Follow??
In your own words, your fourth point is that, in all the aforementioned matters, what the Prophet (peace be upon him) followed throughout his twenty-three-year prophetic life was the very thing present in the Book of Allah (“what Allah has revealed”), and the ummah was also instructed to follow it. Where the members of the ummah have been encouraged to do so, it has also been declared that the Prophet (peace be upon him) followed it as well.
In this statement you have cited two verses, and you not only copied the two verses incorrectly, but, in quoting them, made an error that even a person with elementary knowledge of Arabic could not make. The first verse is actually as follows:
“Follow what has been sent down to you from your Lord.” Yet the sentence you copied would mean: “Follow what Allah has sent down from your Lord.” The wording you cited means: “Say: Follow the revelation that is sent to me from my Lord.” I am cautioning you about this error so that at some point you may calmly consider that, on the one hand, this is the state of your knowledge of the Qur’an, while on the other hand you have fallen victim to the notion that the expert scholars of the entire ummah misunderstood the Qur’an and that you understood it correctly.
Let us now discuss the real issue. Here you have made two statements, and both are erroneous. One statement is that only the revelation contained in the Qur’an came to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), and that he was ordered to follow only it. Yet the Qur’an itself proves that, besides the Qur’an, laws were also revealed to the Prophet (peace be upon him) through revelation, and that he was ordered to follow both kinds of revelation. (The proof of this will be presented in the answer to the final question.) Your second statement is that the ummah was instructed to follow only the Qur’an. Yet the Qur’an says that the ummah was instructed to follow the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him).
“O Prophet! Say: If you love Allah, then follow me; Allah will love you” (Al-Imran: 312).
“My mercy encompasses all things. I shall prescribe it for those who refrain from disobedience, pay zakat, and believe in Our signs. So those who follow this unlettered Messenger and Prophet, whose mention they find written in the Torah and the Gospel preserved with them…” (al-A‘raf: 156–157).
“We established the qiblah which you had been following only so that We might know who follows the Messenger and who turns away” (al-Baqarah: 143).
In these verses, it is impossible, by resorting to the tricks of interpretation, to twist the command to obey the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) into the meaning that it actually refers to obeying the Qur’an. As I submitted earlier, if the intended meaning was truly that people should follow the Qur’an, then what was the reason that, in the first verse mentioned, Allah used the word “Messenger” instead of using the word “Qur’an”? Then, according to your assumption, did Allah make a mistake here? (God forbid.)
Moreover, there is no opportunity for this interpretation in the second verse mentioned either. For it separately mentions believing in Allah’s signs, and separately mentions obedience to the Prophet (peace be upon him).
The third verse makes the matter even clearer and cuts away the roots of such fabricated interpretations; at the same time, it completely destroys your notion that no revelation came to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) in any form other than the Qur’an. No command appears in the Qur’an to make the qiblah of the Muslims before the designation of the Masjid al-Haram their qiblah. If there is one, cite it. It is undeniable that, in the early period of Islam, the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself designated this qiblah, and for nearly fourteen years the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the Companions continued to pray facing it. After fourteen years, Allah confirmed the Prophet’s aforementioned action in this verse of Surah al-Baqarah and declared that this qiblah had been designated by Us, and that We had appointed it through Our Messenger in order to see who would obey the Messenger and who would turn away from him. This is, on the one hand, clear proof that commands and laws were revealed to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) through revelation besides the Qur’an; on the other hand, this verse states with complete clarity that the Muslims were also ordered to obey those commands of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) that are not mentioned in the Qur’an. Indeed, the Muslims’ faith in the messengership is tested before Allah in this very way: whether or not they obey the instruction given through the Messenger.
Now you and those who hold the same view as you should think for yourselves about the danger into which you have thrown yourselves. If there is even this much fear of God in your heart—that your body trembles merely at the thought of considering a course of action contrary to the guidance He has given—then my appeal is that you purify your mind and heart of the passion for debate and disputation and read the preceding few lines again and again. May Allah cause your body to tremble and save you from this error and misguidance into which you have fallen because of defective study.
5. The Nation’s Center
The fifth matter you mentioned, in your own words, is this: “Since the demand of the religion was that the Qur’an be acted upon collectively, and it is not possible for every individual to act upon the Qur’an according to his own understanding, a living person is necessary to maintain the collective system. I also feel that wherever the establishment of a collective system is concerned, the position and status of the person who conveys people to that goal is very high. He conveys the message because revelation comes to no one other than him. Thus the Qur’an has made it clear that ‘whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah.’ Moreover, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was also the focal point of the ummah. Acting upon the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) means maintaining this centrality even in his absence (after his death). The Qur’an has subsequently presented this matter in the following statement:”
You have not explained this matter adequately. The intention that can be understood from your overall statement is that, in his own era, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was made not only a Messenger but also “the nation’s center” solely for the establishment of the collective system. His status as “Messenger” was certainly permanent, but his status as “the nation’s center” lasted only as long as his living personality was directing the collective system. Then, when he died, the living personality who was made leader after him—and who will be made leader in the future—to maintain this system was, and will be, for his own era, “the nation’s center” in the same way as the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). The meaning of following the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), then, is that we will continue establishing, one after another, “the nation’s focal points” in order to maintain the collective system. In this regard, if the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) has any superiority over the “focal points of the nation” of later times, it is only that his status is much higher because he conveyed the Qur’an.
Several Fundamental Questions
If the interpretation I have given of your statement is incorrect, please correct me. As the speaker, your own explanation would naturally be more accurate. But if I have correctly understood your intention, several questions arise from it:
What do you intend by “the nation’s center”? The detailed description that Allah has given in the Qur’an of the Messenger of Allah’s (peace be upon him) responsibility as a messenger
1. Here too, an error was made while quoting the verse. It should be “rather,” not “rather.” (p. 44)
is that the responsibility of conveying Allah’s Book was entrusted to him; he was its commentator and explainer, the teacher of the method of acting according to it, the purifier of individuals and society, the model to be followed by Muslims, and a guide. Obedience to him was made obligatory by Allah’s command, and he possessed authority in matters of commands and prohibitions and of the lawful and unlawful; he was a legislator (Law Giver), judge, and head of state. The Qur’an tells us that the Prophet (peace be upon him) acquired these positions precisely because he was a Messenger, and that assuming the office of messengership meant that he had been invested with these positions by Allah. I have already quoted the Qur’an’s clear statements on this matter, so repeating them is unnecessary.
Now, since “the nation’s center” is not a Qur’anic term but an entirely invented term of your own, please tell us: Is the office called “the nation’s center” an independent office apart from the positions mentioned above? Or is it the sum of those positions? Or are some of those positions included within it and others excluded? If it is the sum of the positions mentioned above, how can you establish it as separate from messengership? And if some of those positions fall under the office called “the nation’s center” while others fall under the office of messengership, which positions are included in the nation’s center, and on the basis of what evidence are you separating them from the office of messengership?
The second question concerns assuming the position of “the nation’s center.” It is evident that this position can be assumed in three ways: (1) Allah appoints a person as the focal point of the Muslims; (2) the Muslims elect him according to their own wishes; or (3) someone forcibly seizes the office of the nation’s focal point. The question now is: whatever may be meant by the nation’s center, by which of these three methods did the Prophet (peace be upon him) ultimately assume that position? Did Allah appoint him to it? Or did the Muslims elect him for this office? Or did the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself become the nation’s focal point? Whichever method you accept, you should clearly explain it. It is also necessary to explain whether, after the Prophet (peace be upon him), whoever becomes “the nation’s focal point” will be appointed and installed by Allah, or whether the Muslims will elect him as the nation’s focal point, or whether he will himself assume the office by force. If, in your view, there is no difference between the two methods of appointment, say so openly, so that your position is not unclear. And if there is a difference, state what that difference is and whether, because of it, any fundamental difference arises between the status and authority of the two kinds of central leadership.
The third question is this: when you say, “The position and status of the one who conveys [the message] is much higher,” is the superiority and precedence you have granted the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) over the other “central leaders” of the nation merely a superiority of rank and status, or, in your view, is there also a difference in the nature and character of the two offices? I want to ask in even clearer terms: according to your conception, are the authorities that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) possessed as the nation’s central leader also possessed, with equal status, by those who come after his death? Is the only superiority of the Prophet (peace be upon him) over the others that he deserves somewhat greater honor than the central leadership after him because he conveyed the Qur’an? If this is your view, then say whether the status of the person who assumes, or is made to assume, central leadership after the Prophet (peace be upon him) would also be such that a person’s faith would depart merely by feeling constriction in his heart at his decision, let alone disobeying it. Would his status also be such that Muslims would not even have the right to hold an opinion contrary to a decision he himself made? Would his position also be such that Muslims could not debate with him, and that the ummah would have no option but to obey his commands without question if it wished to remain believing? Would these living personalities who assume central leadership of the nation be models to be followed, so that Muslims would observe their way of life and, with complete confidence, shape themselves in their likeness? Would they also be sent to purify us, teach us the Book and wisdom, and explain “what Allah has revealed”
and would their statements be accepted as evidence because they had been “sent” to provide its commentary?
It would be very good if you would discuss these questions in some detail, so that the true position and status of this “nation’s center,” which we have been hearing about for a long time, might become clear to everyone.
6. Was the Prophet (peace be upon him) a Prophet Only Until He Conveyed the Qur’an??
Your own statement is: “Your previous question was what status the Prophet (peace be upon him) had in the work he performed during his twenty-three-year prophetic life. My answer is that whatever the Prophet (peace be upon him) demonstrated, he did so as a human being. But he demonstrated it in accordance with ‘what Allah has revealed.’ The Prophet’s (peace be upon him) fulfillment of the responsibility of messengership was as an individual. This answer of mine is not the product of my own mind; rather, its proof is found in the Book of Allah. The Prophet (peace be upon him) repeatedly emphasized that ‘I am a human being like you.’”
The question I asked and which you answered in the foregoing statement was essentially this: in this prophetic life, did the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) perform the various tasks, besides conveying the Qur’an, as a prophet, representing Allah’s will in them just as he did in the Qur’an? Or was his position in these matters like that of an ordinary Muslim? Your answer to this question is that “the Prophet (peace be upon him) performed this task as an individual,” but “he did so in accordance with what Allah has revealed.” In other words, you mean that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was a prophet only up to the point of conveying the Qur’an. Thereafter, whatever he did as a leader and guide, teacher, mentor, legislator, judge, and head of state, he did not do as a prophet, but as an ordinary Muslim. That is, in these matters he was not a prophet, but an ordinary Muslim who acted according to the Qur’an. You claim that the Qur’an describes precisely this status of the Prophet (peace be upon him). But after reading the clear verses of the Holy Qur’an that I quoted earlier, no sensible person can accept that the Qur’an actually assigned the Prophet (peace be upon him) this status.
You have quoted an incomplete statement from the Qur’an, saying that the Prophet (peace be upon him) repeatedly said, “I am a human being like you.” The complete statement found in the Holy Qur’an is: Muhammad (peace be upon him) is a human being who has been made a Messenger.
“Say, O Muhammad: Glory be to my Lord! I am only a human being, a Messenger” (al-Isra: 93), and the Prophet (peace be upon him) was a human being upon whom revelation came from Allah: “Say: I am only a human being like you, but revelation is sent to me” (al-Kahf: 110). Do you not see any difference between an ordinary human being and a human being who possesses messengership and receives revelation? A human being who is Allah’s Messenger is necessarily Allah’s bearer of the message, and a human being to whom revelation comes acts directly under the guidance given by Allah. How can his status and the status of an ordinary person possibly be equal?
When you say that the Prophet (peace be upon him) acted according to “what Allah has revealed,” you mean by “what Allah has revealed” the Qur’an. Thus, you say something that is verbally true but conceptually false. Undoubtedly, the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not receive only “what Allah revealed” that is found in the Qur’an; rather, in addition to this, he also received instructions through revelation. I presented one proof of this while answering your fourth point. God willing, I will present further proof when discussing your tenth point.
7. The Prophet’s (peace be upon him) Ijtihadi Error Has Been Presented as False Evidence
In your seventh point you wrote: “It is clear from the Qur’anic verses that, in administering the state, the status of the Prophet (peace be upon him) was that of an individual, and that he sometimes made an ijtihadi error.”
If an ijtihadi error occurred that could affect an important matter of the religion of Islam, its correction would also come from Allah. For example, before a certain battle, some people asked permission to remain behind instead of joining the battle, and the Prophet (peace be upon him) granted them permission. Revelation was sent from Allah concerning this:
Similarly, a correction was revealed in Surah al-Tahrim:
Similarly, in Surah ‘Abasa: (p. 47)
It is deeply regrettable that people express opinions on such important and delicate matters on the basis of such shallow and minimal study. Do you suppose that Allah sent a Messenger from Himself and then Himself revealed the aforementioned verses in the Qur’an to prove him unreliable, prone to error, and misguided, so that people would not obey him with confidence? Alas, if only you had reflected on these verses before performing a postmortem on the Qur’an as carefully as a doctor reflects on an X-ray report of his patient.
By the first verse, you have sought to prove that, according to the Qur’an itself, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) would sometimes go astray, and that his life was essentially a combination of deviation and guidance (Allah forbid). While attempting to prove this, you did not reflect even a little on the context in which the verse was revealed. Allah first mentions in Surah Saba the allegation that the disbelievers of Makkah made against the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him):
“This man is either knowingly fabricating a lie against Allah or is insane” (verse 8).
Then, while replying to this allegation, He says in verses 46–50, concerning the second allegation: Abandon obstinacy and stubbornness, individually and collectively, and reflect sincerely for Allah’s sake. Your own hearts will testify that there is not the slightest trace of madness in this man who teaches you Islam. Then, in reply to their second allegation—that this man knowingly attributes lies to Allah—Allah says to His Prophet: O Prophet, say: In truth, my Lord has revealed this true message: “If I go astray, as you allege, the consequence of my going astray will fall upon me”; “and if I am rightly guided, it is by the revelation revealed to me by my Lord.” “He is All-Hearing, Near.” That is, it is not hidden from Him whether I am astray or guided by Him. You have taken what was said in this context to mean that Allah supposedly made His Messenger admit before the disbelievers of Makkah that he (peace be upon him) really sometimes went astray and at other times walked on the straight path. Subhanallah! What an astonishing kind of Qur’anic study and understanding!
Not in the verse mentioned under number 3, but rather it should read: (p. 47).
There is also a serious error in the verse mentioned under number 4. The correct verse should read similarly: (5), not “has been written in the Qur’an Majid.”
From your quotation of the second verse, you have concluded that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) made many mistakes in the judgments he delivered, of which
Allah has presented several examples here so that people may be cautious. Yet the real conclusion is entirely the opposite. It shows that throughout the whole prophetic life of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), only those few slips occurred which Allah immediately corrected. We may now practice his established Sunnahs with complete confidence. Had there been further errors or lapses among them, Allah would have corrected those as well, just as He corrected those few errors and lapses.
If only you had reflected somewhat on what kind of errors these were, for which Allah revealed verses to admonish him! Granting someone an exemption from participating in military action at his request during wartime, resolving not to eat something lawful, and apparently failing to notice an ordinary person while inviting several important people to Islam in one sitting—are these such great matters that their effects could be reflected upon an important aspect of the religion of Islam? Is there any leader, head of state, or, in your terminology, “central figure of the nation,” who has not fallen more than once in life into such errors, or even more serious ones? And did revelation descend from heaven every time to correct such errors? Ultimately, what reason could there be that when such a minor error occurred through the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), revelation immediately came to correct it and it was recorded in the Book? Had you tried to understand the matter, you would have learned how great a stumble you made while trying to grasp the importance and dignity of the office of messengership. No leader, head of society, or central figure of a nation is Allah’s bearer of revelation. Nor is his appointed legislator, or any person appointed by him, an exemplary model to be followed. Therefore, even his serious mistake cannot affect Islamic law, because it cannot bring about any change in the fundamental principles of the Shariah.
But since, according to Allah Almighty’s own declaration, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) represented Allah’s will before the people of the world, and Allah Himself commanded the believing community to obey and follow him, to regard as lawful whatever he declared lawful and to reject as unlawful whatever he declared unlawful, even the slightest error in his words and actions was serious. It was not the error of an ordinary person, but the error of a legislator whose every movement and stillness becomes law. Therefore, Allah Almighty took upon Himself the responsibility of keeping His Messenger established on the right path, protecting him from errors and lapses, and remedying even the slightest error through revelation should one occur.
8. Imaginary Fear
In your eighth point, you have said that if the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) performed these acts not as a human being—that is, an ordinary person not free from sin—but rather as a prophet, then two inevitable consequences would follow. First, continuing these acts after the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) would be considered impossible, and people would think that establishing and maintaining the way of life which the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) had established and maintained was beyond the capacity of ordinary people. Second, people would feel the need for prophets to continue coming even after the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) in order to continue these acts.
In your view, the only way to avoid these two consequences is to regard all the acts in the life of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), apart from conveying the Qur’an, not as the acts of a Messenger but as the acts of a non-prophetic person. In this connection, you further claim that considering these the acts of the Messenger rejects the belief in the finality of prophethood. For if the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) performed these acts under the direction of revelation, then the need for revelation to continue coming in all ages in order to perform these acts would remain; otherwise, the religion could not be established.
You have thought and spoken about all this while plunging about like a deranged person in the world of your imagination, with your eyes closed to the Qur’an and the history of its revelation. Your statements make me suspect that, before you, only those verses of the Noble Qur’an fell which the opponents of the Sunnah copied into their literature to prove a particular doctrine and stitched together in a particular order to extract a meaning, and that you placed your faith in the meaning they derived. If this were not so, and if you had ever read and understood the entire Qur’an Majid even once, you would have known that the dangers which, in your view, arise from accepting the Prophetic biography as the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) also arise from accepting the Qur’an as Allah’s revelation. The Qur’an Majid itself bears witness that this entire Book was not revealed all at once as a legal text. Rather, it is a collection of revelations that continued to descend from Allah over twenty-three years, at every stage of a movement and on every important occasion, in order to guide that movement. Studying it makes it clear that a person chosen by Allah was sent to lead the Islamic movement, and that Allah’s revelation was directing him at every step. Opponents showered him with accusations, and the reply came from heaven. Various obstacles obstructed the path, and guidance was given from above on how to overcome them: remove this obstacle in this way and confront that opposition in that way. The followers encountered diverse difficulties, and solutions were given from above: your difficulty can be removed in this way and such-and-such difficulty in that way. Then, when this movement advanced and entered the stage of a state, revelation guided the builder of this society, the head of this state, and the commander-in-chief of this army through every problem that arose over ten years—from building a new society and state to conflicts with hypocrites, Jews, and Arab polytheists. It was not merely that guidance came from heaven to solve the problems arising at every stage of this construction and conflict; when a war was faced, even the commander-in-chief’s address to inspire the people came from heaven. Whenever weakness appeared among the members of the movement, exhortations descended from heaven to remedy it. When the enemies slandered the Prophet’s wife, the rebuttal came from heaven. When the hypocrites built a harmful mosque (the Mosque of Dirar), revelation gave the order to destroy it. When some people stayed behind instead of joining a battle, the matter was decided directly by Allah. When someone sent a secret letter to the enemy, Allah Himself took notice of it.
Indeed, if it seems disappointing to you that the first movement to arise for establishing the religion should receive its guidance through revelation, then the reason for this disappointment is present in the Qur’an itself. Verses continued to descend from Allah to guide the leader of the movement at every need and every critical stage, from its first step to the final destination of success. How can this be established unless, in the same way, a stream of verses from Allah also begins to come to assist the “central leadership of the nation” striving to establish the religious order?
From this perspective, the correct course for Allah would have been to place a complete legal book in the hands of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) on the very first day of his prophethood, giving him at that time all His guidance concerning the problems of human life. Then, after declaring the finality of prophethood, the prophethood of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) himself would immediately have been terminated. Thereafter, he would no longer be Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, but Muhammad son of Abdullah; his task would have been to strive as a non-prophet with this book of law and demonstrate the establishment of a society and state according to “what Allah has revealed.” It seems as though Allah Almighty failed to receive the correct advice at the crucial moment and adopted an inappropriate method that would be disappointing for establishing the religion in the future. The unfortunate matter is that He could not perceive this foresight even when the declaration of the finality of prophethood was given in Surah al-Ahzab, which was revealed around the time when Zayd (may Allah be pleased with him) divorced his wife, after which the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), by Allah’s command, married the woman he had divorced. For several years after this event, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) remained the “central figure of the nation,” and despite the declaration of the finality of prophethood, neither was the prophethood of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) terminated nor was the continuing flow of guidance to him through revelation stopped.
Whether you agree or disagree with Allah’s plan, the Qur’an Majid tells us that His plan from the outset was not to place a book in the hands of humanity and tell them, “Using this book, build the Islamic way of life yourselves.” If that had been His plan, what need was there to choose one person and quietly place the Book in his hands? The better course would have been for Allah Almighty to deliver a printed book directly into the hands of the entire human community and write in its preface: “Read My Book and establish the true and correct system.” But Allah did not choose this method. Instead, He caused a man to appear as a Messenger and, through him, conducted a movement of reform and revolution.
The real operative in this movement was not the Book, but the living man who had been appointed to lead it. With the help of this great man, under His own supervision and guidance, Allah formed and implemented a complete intellectual and moral system, cultural system, and system of justice, law, economics, and politics, establishing it before the world as a brilliant example for all time, so that any well-wisher or seeker of salvation could strive to shape his own way of life accordingly by keeping this example before him. Any defect in this example would mean a defect and incompleteness in guidance and direction. Therefore, Allah formed this model directly under His own supervision, gave its builder the plan of construction, explained its meaning Himself, taught him the technique of construction, and supervised him while he built each room of the palace. During the construction, He guided him through direct revelation and also through indirect revelation. If the laying of any brick involved the slightest error, He immediately corrected it, so that the palace constructed as an eternal model might contain not the slightest defect. Then, when this builder—the Messenger—completed the construction according to his Master’s true will, a proclamation was made before the world:
“Today I have perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you, and chosen Islam as your religion” (Surah al-Ma’idah: 3).
The history of Islam bears witness that this course of action did not in fact create any despair among the Ummah. After the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), when the door of revelation was closed, did the Rightly Guided Caliphs not strive, despite the end of revelation, to preserve this model palace and expand its example? Did Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz (may Allah have mercy on him) not try to revive it anew upon its foundations? Did righteous and pious rulers and great reformers not appear in the farthest regions of the earth throughout the ages to follow this model? Which of them ultimately said, “The Messenger of Allah accomplished this with the help of revelation, so it is now beyond our capacity”? In reality, it is Allah’s favor that He has established the practical contribution of His Messenger in human history as a beacon of light, displaying the design of a true and correct way of life to humanity for hundreds of years and continuing to display it until the Day of Resurrection. If you wish, be grateful to Him for it, or close your eyes to it.
9। . Slander against the Rightly Guided Caliphs
Your ninth point is: “The caliphs knew perfectly well that revelation was preserved in the Book, and thereafter the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) did everything on the basis of mutual consultation. Therefore, no change could come into the established system after his death. As the boundaries of the state expanded, the list of needs also grew longer. Thus, new problems arose continually in the days ahead. When an earlier decision was found for their solution and it was necessary to modify it, they made a new decision on the basis of mutual consultation. All this was done in the light of the Qur’an. This too was the method demonstrated by the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), and his successors maintained it. This is what it meant that the Messenger of Allah did everything on the basis of mutual consultation.” Yet the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) consulted only concerning methods and procedures for carrying out actions, and even then only regarding methods about which he had received nothing through revelation. He did not consult anyone in interpreting the Noble Qur’an or determining the particular intent of any of its words or phrases. In this matter, his own interpretation was final. Similarly, throughout his entire prophetic life, no consultation assembly was ever held to declare anything obligatory, necessary, lawful, unlawful, permissible, impermissible, valid, or prohibited for the people; nor was any such assembly held to decide what customs and judicial system would be established in society. In the sacred life of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), only his statements and his practical way of life constituted the legislature. No believer could even think of speaking before the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) on the matters mentioned above. Can you present any example in which, during the era of messengership, an instruction of the Qur’an was interpreted on the basis of consultation, or a law was formulated through consultation? You need not present many; present just one example.
Secondly, contrary to the facts, you have said that the Rightly Guided Caliphs regarded only the Qur’an Majid as the source of guidance and did not regard the words and actions of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) as an indispensable source of law to be followed. This is a grave slander you have leveled against them, in support of which you cannot produce any statement or action of theirs. If you have any proof, present it. The testimony concerning their conduct given by those connected with their era is as follows:
Ibn Sirin (33–110 AH) said: “When a matter was brought before Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), and he found no solution for it in the Book of Allah and no precedent for it in the Sunnah, he would decide on the basis of his own ijtihad and say: This is my personal opinion; if it is correct, it is by Allah’s grace” (Ibn al-Qayyim, I‘lam al-Muwaqqi‘in, vol. 1, p. 54).
Maymun ibn Mihran (27–107 AH) said: The practice of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) was that whenever he had to decide a matter, he would first search the Book of Allah. If he found no ruling there, he would look for it in the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). If he found a ruling there, he would decide accordingly. If he had no knowledge of the Sunnah concerning the matter, he would ask others: Does any of you know of a decision by the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) concerning a matter like this?” (the same work, p. 62).
After a thorough review, Allamah Ibn al-Qayyim expressed the result of his research as follows:
“Not a single instance can be found in the life of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) of opposing the Qur’an and the Sunnah” (the same work, vol. 4, p. 120).
A well-known incident is that a grandmother came claiming her share of her grandson’s inheritance. The deceased’s mother was not alive. Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) said, “I find no ruling in the Book of Allah on the basis of which you can be made an heir to your grandson.” Then he asked the people whether the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) had given a ruling in such a matter. Hearing this, Mughirah ibn Shu‘bah (may Allah be pleased with him) and Muhammad ibn Maslamah (may Allah be pleased with him) stood and testified that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) had ordered that the grandmother be given one-sixth, namely the share due to the mother. Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) therefore decided accordingly (the incident is mentioned in all the well-known hadith collections, including Bukhari and Muslim).
Imam Malik’s (may Allah have mercy on him) al-Muwatta mentions that Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) had given his daughter Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) some property during his lifetime. However, he did not remember whether the property had been handed over to her. Near the time of his death, he said to her: If you have already taken possession of that property, it will remain yours, since it will count as a gift. But if you have not yet taken possession of it, it will now be distributed among all my heirs. This is because it is no longer a gift but falls under a bequest, and in light of the hadith “There is no bequest for an heir,” a bequest to an heir cannot take effect against the deceased’s estate. Numerous examples of this kind are found in the life of the first Caliph, proving that he did not consider it permissible to depart even by the slightest measure from the way of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him).
Who does not know that Abu Bakr’s (may Allah be pleased with him) first declaration after becoming caliph was:
“Obey me so long as I obey Allah and His Messenger. If I disobey Allah and His Messenger, you are not obliged to obey me.”
Who does not know that after the death of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), he insisted on sending the army of Usamah on campaign solely because he believed that he had no right to change a decision made by the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) himself? When the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them all), pointing to the grave situation emerging in Arabia, did not consider it reasonable to send the army to Syria at that moment, Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) replied:
“Even if dogs and wolves drag me away, I will not change the decision made by the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him).”
Umar al-Faruq (may Allah be pleased with him) expressed the wish that at least Usamah be removed from command of this army, because many senior
(p. 52) 1. Those who reject hadith say that wherever the two words “Allah and the Messenger” occur in the Qur’an Majid, they mean “the central leadership of the nation.” But this subtle point did not occur to Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him). The poor man understood that, as the “central leader of the nation,” he was obliged to remain obedient to Allah and His Messenger. Perhaps, if “The Rise of Islam” had appeared at the time of the first Caliph’s oath of allegiance, it would have told him: O central figure of the nation! You yourself are now Allah and the Messenger. Which Allah and Messenger are you going to obey?
The Companions were unwilling to serve under the leadership of this young man. Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) seized him by the beard and said:
“Son of al-Khattab! May your mother mourn you and lose you. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) himself appointed him, and you are telling me to dismiss him!”
In the speech he delivered while bidding farewell to that army, he said:
“I am merely one who follows and obeys; I am not one who introduces innovations.”
Moreover, who does not know that Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) refused to accept the inheritance claims of Fatimah al-Zahra (may Allah be pleased with her) and al-Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) precisely on the basis of a hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), and that he is still being insulted by the Shi‘a for this “crime”? When he was deciding to wage jihad against those who refused to pay zakat, Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) was doubtful about the correctness of this decision because, in his view, how could arms be taken up against people who professed the kalimah—there is no deity except Allah? But the reply Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) gave was:
“By Allah, if they withhold even a rope used to tie camels from this zakat which they used to pay in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), I will fight them for it.”
These words and this action belonged to that great man who, after the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), was the first to take the reins of leadership of the Ummah firmly into his own hands. And you have said that the great Caliphs considered themselves entitled to alter the decisions of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). After Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), Hazrat Umar al-Faruq’s (may Allah be pleased with him) view in this matter was himself stated by him in a letter to Qadi Shuraih as follows:
“If you find a ruling in the Book of Allah, decide according to it and do not look to anything else while it is present. If a matter arises whose settlement is not found in the Book of Allah, then decide according to the settlement found in the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). If both the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) are silent regarding a matter, you have the right either to proceed and offer a solution on the basis of your ijtihad, or to suspend judgment and wait.¹ In my view, however, it is better for you to wait”—(I‘lam al-Muwaqqi‘in, vol. 2, pp. 61–62).
This is Hazrat Umar’s (may Allah be pleased with him) own handwritten official directive, which, as the reigning Caliph, he sent to the Chief Justice of the Kufa High Court concerning the principles of judicial administration. Even after this, does anyone have the right to give a different interpretation of his view?
(After Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), the third Caliph was Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him).² After the oath-taking ceremony, he delivered a public address before the Muslim populace in which he said:
“Beware! I am one who follows and imitates; I am not an innovator. After obeying the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), you have three rights over me, for which I assume responsibility. (1) I will follow the decisions and methods adopted by consensus during the reigns of my predecessor Caliphs. (2) I will implement whatever decisions are now made on the basis of the consensus of the best and most qualified people. (3) I will refrain from interfering with you so long as you do not become liable to arrest under the law”—(Tarikh al-Tabari, vol. 3, p. 446).
The fourth Caliph was Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). After becoming Caliph, when he sent his official governor
¹ (p. 52), that is, wait until a consensus-based decision has been reached on the matter concerned.
² This passage was added later.
to Qays ibn Sa‘d ibn Ubadah, he entrusted him with an official decree in which he said:
“Beware! Your right over me is that I shall act according to the Book of Almighty Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, establish the rights granted to you by the Book and the Sunnah, enforce the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), and seek your welfare even without your knowledge”—(Tarikh al-Tabari, vol. 3, p. 550).
The statements of all four of the Rightly Guided Caliphs have been presented above. Which Caliphs were you referring to who considered themselves free from following the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)? By what means did you learn of that view of theirs?
Your notion is also completely baseless that the Rightly Guided Caliphs regarded the commands and injunctions of the Noble Qur’an as absolutely and necessarily binding, but among the decisions of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) they retained those that they considered reasonable to retain, and changed those that they considered necessary to change, adopting new decisions through mutual consultation. Produce an example showing that, throughout the entire era of the Rightly Guided Caliphate, any decision of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) was changed, or that any Caliph or Companion ever expressed the view that they had the right to change any decision of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) when necessary.
10. Did the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) receive revelation besides the Qur’an??
Now only your final point remains, which you expressed in the following words: “If it is assumed, as you believe, that whatever the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) did, he did in the light of revelation, then this means that, because he was not—God forbid—satisfied with the revelation Allah Almighty sent from His own side, another kind of revelation began to be sent. Why, ultimately, these two kinds of revelation? In the revelation sent to the prophets who came in earlier times, there was an indication that the Qur’an would be revealed. Therefore, was it so difficult for Allah, who has power over all things, to indicate in the Noble Qur’an the second kind of revelation whose revelation you have mentioned? I find no such thing in the Qur’an. If you can point to any verse of this kind, I shall be grateful to you.”
A very comforting statement indeed. According to your verdict, it seems that Allah did not send revelation for the guidance of His servants, but for His own consolation; and that, for His consolation, one kind of revelation ought to have been sufficient.
You become distressed merely on hearing of two kinds of revelation. But if you had read the Noble Qur’an with your eyes open, you would have known that this Book mentions six kinds of revelation—of which only one kind has been compiled in the Noble Qur’an.
“It is not for any human being that Allah should speak to him except through revelation, or from behind a veil, or by sending a messenger who reveals, by His permission, whatever He wills. Indeed, He is Most High, All-Wise”—(Surah al-Shura: 51).
The verse cited above mentions three ways in which directives and guidance are revealed by Allah Almighty to a human being: direct revelation (ilqa and ilham); conversation from behind a veil; or revelation sent through Allah’s messenger (an angel). The revelation compiled in the Noble Qur’an is only the third of these three kinds of revelation. Allah Almighty has Himself presented its explanation directly in the Noble Qur’an.
“Say, whoever is an enemy of Gabriel—for he has brought it down upon your heart by Allah’s command, confirming the scriptures that came before it, and as guidance and good news for the believers—then surely Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers”—(Surah al-Baqarah: 97–98).
“Indeed, it is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds. The Trustworthy Spirit has brought it down upon your heart so that you may be among the warners”—(Surah al-Shu‘ara: 192–194).
It is thus known that the Noble Qur’an is a collection of only one kind of revelation. The other two means by which the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) received guidance, mentioned in the verse of Surah al-Shura, are distinct from the revelation mentioned above. Now the Noble Qur’an itself tells us that the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) also received guidance through these means.
¹ As I stated while discussing your fourth point, verses 143–144 of Surah al-Baqarah clearly show that, before the Sacred Mosque was made the qiblah, the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) and the Muslims prayed facing another qiblah. In commanding the change of qiblah, Allah Almighty stated emphatically that the first qiblah toward which they had prayed had also been determined by His command. Yet nowhere in the Noble Qur’an is there a verse giving the initial command to face that qiblah. The question is: if the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) received no kind of revelation besides the Qur’an, by what means did he receive this command? Does this not clearly prove that the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) also received instructions that are not mentioned in the Noble Qur’an?
² The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) saw in Madinah a dream that he had entered Makkah al-Mu‘azzamah and circumambulated the Sacred House. He told the Companions about this dream and set out with fourteen hundred Companions to perform Umrah. The disbelievers of Makkah stopped him at a place called Hudaybiyyah, resulting in the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. When doubt and unease arose in the minds of some Companions, Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), acting as their representative, asked: “O Messenger of Allah! Did you not inform us that we would enter Makkah and perform circumambulation?” He replied: “Did I say that it would happen on this journey?” Regarding this, Allah Almighty revealed a verse in the Noble Qur’an:
“Indeed, Allah has fulfilled His Messenger’s vision. Surely you will enter the Sacred Mosque, if Allah wills, in safety—some with their heads shaved and others with their hair shortened—without fear. He knows what you do not know. In addition, He has granted you a near victory”—(Surah al-Fath: 27).
It is learned from this that, through a dream, the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) was informed of the course by which he would enter Makkah al-Mu‘azzamah: he would set out for Makkah with his Companions, the disbelievers would obstruct them, and finally a treaty would be concluded, as a result of which they would have the opportunity to perform Umrah the following year and the way would be opened for future victory. Is this not clear proof that he received guidance by a means distinct from the Noble Qur’an?
3. The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) told one of his wives a strictly confidential matter. She disclosed it to the others. When the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) reproached her for this, she asked, “How did you learn that I had told this to the others?” He replied, “The All-Knowing, Fully Informed Being (Allah) informed me.”
“When the Prophet confided something to one of his wives, then when she disclosed it to the others and Allah informed the Prophet of it, he disclosed some of it and withheld some. When he informed that wife of it, she asked, ‘Who informed you of this?’ He said, ‘I was informed by Him who is All-Knowing, All-Aware’”—(Surah al-Tahrim: 3).
Now tell me, where is the verse in the Noble Qur’an through which Allah Almighty informed the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) that his wife had disclosed his secret to the others? If there is no such verse, does this not prove that Allah Almighty sent messages to the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) besides the Noble Qur’an?
4. The Holy Prophet’s (peace be upon him) adopted son, Zayd ibn Harithah (may Allah be pleased with him), divorced his wife. Thereafter the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) married the woman he had divorced. On this account, the hypocrites and disbelievers raised a terrifying storm of propaganda against the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) and erected mountains of accusations. Allah Almighty answered these accusations in an entire section of Surah al-Ahzab, telling the people in this connection that my Prophet did not contract this marriage on his own, but did so at My command.
“Then when Zayd had ended his marriage with her, We married her to you so that there would be no difficulty for the believers in marrying the former wives of their adopted sons after they have ended their marriage with them”—(Surah al-Ahzab: 37).
This verse describes the event mentioned above. The question is: where in the Qur’an is it mentioned that, before this event, Allah Almighty had commanded the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), “Marry Zayd’s divorced wife”?
5. Exasperated by the repeated violation of their promises by the Banu Nadir, the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) led troops against their settlement near Madinah. During the siege, the Islamic army cut down many trees in the surrounding orchards to clear the way for attack. Opponents spread propaganda that, by laying waste to the orchards and cutting down fruit-bearing trees, the Muslims had caused corruption on earth. In response, Allah Almighty said:
“Whatever palm trees you cut down, or left standing on their trunks, was by Allah’s permission”—(Surah al-Hashr: 5).
Can you say in which verse of the Noble Qur’an this permission was revealed?
6. When the question of distributing the spoils arose after the Battle of Badr, Surah al-Anfal was revealed, reviewing the entire battle. Allah Almighty begins this review from the time when the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) set out from home for battle, addressing the Muslims in this connection as follows:
“And when Allah promised you that one of the two groups—the unarmed group, meaning the merchant caravan, or the Quraysh army—would be yours, you wished that the unarmed group would be yours. But Allah intended to establish the truth by His words and to eliminate the disbelievers”—(Surah al-Anfal: 7).
Now can you cite from the entire Noble Qur’an any verse in which Allah Almighty promised: “O you marching from Madinah toward Badr, I shall place one of the two groups under your control”?
While proceeding with the review of that Battle of Badr, it is stated:
“When you were seeking help from your Lord, He answered you, saying, ‘I will reinforce you with a thousand angels in succession’”—(Surah al-Anfal: 9).
Can you say in which verse of the Noble Qur’an this response to the Muslims’ prayer from Allah Almighty was revealed?
You were asking for only one example. I have presented before you seven examples from the Noble Qur’an, by which it is proved that the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) received revelation besides the Noble Qur’an. Before beginning any further discussion, I now wish to see whether you are prepared to bow your head before the truth.
Tarjuman al-Qur’an, October and November 1960.
Respectfully
Abul A‘la
Some More Questions Concerning the Sunnah
[In the preceding pages, readers have seen the correspondence between Dr. Abdul Wadud Sahib and the author. In this connection, another letter from the gentleman has been received, which is reproduced below together with the author’s reply.]
The Doctor’s Letter
Respected Maulana,
Assalamu alaikum. I received by post the October and November issues of Tarjuman al-Qur’an containing your reply to my letter of 17 August. At the end of this series of replies, you wish to see whether I am prepared to bow my head before the truth.
Respected Sir! Like a true Muslim, I am always prepared to bow my head before the truth. But where truth is not present, and the intention is instead to bow before an idol, I cannot at least bow my head there. For personality worship is not my ideal. I trouble you repeatedly for this reason: so that the matter under discussion may become clear, and those who live in the same country and are striving toward the same ultimate goal may not follow separate paths. Yet you have exhausted all the power of your pen merely by assembling verbal eloquence and emotion, with the aim of making me bow down. You must certainly have taken considerable trouble in preparing such a lengthy reply. But unfortunately, reading your answer has created still greater confusion within me.
You rightly said that, amid my many occupations, studying the Qur’an is also included, and that you have spent your life reflecting on each of its words and uncovering their underlying meanings. But I regret having to say that if this lifelong effort of yours had been for yourself, I would have no objection. Yet it cannot prove beneficial even to the slightest degree for the Muslim public. Your letter contains many ambiguous statements. Some statements are contrary to the Qur’an. Others prove that you have failed to understand the meaning and significance of the Qur’an correctly. A detailed reply is therefore necessary. God willing, I shall prepare a complete answer at the first opportunity. But in this connection there are one or two matters that must be clarified. At this time I shall present only those matters.
I think the entire discussion has repeatedly returned to one point: is all the revelation sent by Allah to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) contained in the Noble Qur’an, or is some of it found elsewhere? You claim that a portion of revelation exists besides the Qur’an. In this connection, the following matters need to be made clear.
1. Are the two kinds of revelation equal in status with regard to believing in them and obeying them?
2. When the Noble Qur’an says, “what has been revealed to you,” does this refer only to the Qur’an, or does it also include the principal portion of revelation mentioned above?
3. Where is this second portion of revelation? Has Allah Almighty also undertaken to preserve it, as He has the Qur’an?
4. If, in the Qur’an, an alternative Arabic word expressing the same meaning is substituted for a word, will it then be considered revealed by Allah? Is the status of the second portion of revelation mentioned above also the same?
5. Some people say that everything the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) did from receiving prophethood until the final moment of his life was revelation received from Allah. Do you agree with them? If not, what is your creed and belief on this matter?
6. If you believe that some of the Holy Prophet’s (peace be upon him) statements were revelation while others were not, where is the compilation of those statements of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) that were revelation?
At least, what is the status of those of his statements that were not revelation, from the perspective of Muslims’ faith and obedience?
7. If someone says concerning a verse of the Noble Qur’an, “It was not revealed by Allah,” will you agree that he is expelled from the fold of Islam? If someone says concerning a hadith in the existing collections of hadith that it is not Allah’s revelation, will he likewise fall outside the fold of Islam?
8. Can the methods proposed by the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) for implementing the ordinances of the religion of Islam be partially changed or rejected in view of the needs of a particular age and the general welfare? Can such partial change or rejection also be made with regard to the Qur’anic ordinances?
Wassalam.
Respectfully
Abdul Wadud
The Author’s Reply
My respected and honored friend,
Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah. I received your letter dated 5 November 1960. The reply was delayed partly because of health-related reasons and partly because of my busyness. I apologize for this.
You have once again adopted the same method as before and, avoiding clarification of one discussion, have raised several new questions. Before raising these questions, you should have stated which points among the ten matters I discussed in my previous letter you accept and which you do not, and what arguments and proofs you have for rejecting the points you do not accept. You should also have answered my clear and specific questions, which I put to you in my letter. But, having retreated from confronting these questions, you have now brought several new questions and demanded answers from me. What kind of method of discussion is this, after all? Your review of my earlier letter is somewhat strange. Ignoring all the important matters that appeared in this discussion and all the fundamental issues on which I shed light, your attention first fell upon my final sentence; in reply, you say: “I am prepared to bow my head before the truth, but I cannot bow before an idol, and personality worship is not my ideal.” The question is: ultimately, what was that “idol” before which you were asked to bow, and what invitation to personality worship was extended to you?
I have proved, with the clear verses of the Qur’an Majid, that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) is the head of state, lawgiver, judge, teacher, and guide appointed by Allah Most High, and that, on the basis of Allah’s command alone, obedience to and following him is obligatory upon every believer. I appealed to you to bow before this truth. In light of it, your foregoing statement gives rise to the suspicion that perhaps obedience to and following Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, is the very “idol” before which you have refused to bow, and that this is the “personality worship” at which you are angry. If my suspicion is correct, I would submit that you have not actually rejected personality worship; rather, you are denying the worship of Allah, while a gigantic idol is hidden within your own mind, before which you bow in prostration. Where Allah Most High has commanded that the head of obedience be bowed, bowing there is not bowing before an idol; rather, it is bowing before Allah, and it is not idol worship but worship of Allah. Indeed, whoever denies this ultimately bows, instead of before Allah, before the idol hidden within his own mind.
Moreover, you tried to dismiss all my arguments and proofs with a snap of your fingers, saying, “You have exhausted all the power of your pen in an accumulation of eloquence and emotion.” You may hold this opinion to your heart’s content, but thousands of readers will now decide whether I presented arguments and proofs or merely displayed verbal cleverness. They will also judge whether you have resorted to obstinacy or are worshipping the truth.
You lament your misfortune, saying that my series of replies has further increased the complexity, doubts, and suspicions in your mind. I too regret this. But the source of these doubts and complications is not anywhere outside; it lies within you yourself. If you had truly conducted this correspondence in order to understand the subject under discussion, the straightforward matter would have become clear to you in a straightforward way. But your plan was something else. As soon as you sent your initial questions to me, you also sent them to several other scholars, hoping to receive different answers from them.¹ Then you could publish all of them and spread the propaganda that there is no agreement concerning the Sunnah. We see an example of this same strategy in the Munir Report as well. Now, through my series of replies, your plan has rebounded onto your own neck. Thus, however much I try to make you understand, the complexity and doubts in your mind will only increase. What treatment can I offer for this kind of complication in the end? Its treatment lies in your own hands. Create within yourself a sincere desire to understand the truth and accept it, and abandon the idea of supplying weapons for propaganda in support of a particular line of thought. Then, God willing, every reasonable point will easily become clear to you.
Then you attributed to me a false claim: “I have spent my life thinking about each word of the Qur’an and grasping its underlying meaning.” Yet I have never made such a claim about myself. What I said in my earlier letter was only that, throughout Islamic history, countless eminent personalities have appeared whose examples can still be found today—people who devoted their lives to this work. How did you conclude from the above that I was making this claim about myself?
After saying so much that was irrelevant, you considered it sufficient to say only this about the main discussion of my letter: “There is considerable ambiguity in your letter, which shows that you have failed to understand the significance of the Qur’an correctly.” The question is: what could be more ambiguous than this statement of yours
¹ Later I learned through Maulana Daud Ghaznavi, Mufti Siahu’d-Din Kakakhail, and several others that you had sent the same questionnaire to them as well.]
Could anything be more ambiguous? You could have pointed out what ambiguous statement there was in that letter of mine, what contradicted the Qur’an, and which verse of the Qur’an I had failed to understand correctly. You have set all these matters aside for some future opportunity and have spent the time at hand composing several new questions. Yet this time should have been used to comment on the earlier questions.
If my sole purpose in this exchange of letters had been to “make you understand,” then, seeing this example of your attempt to “understand,” I would have declared myself unable to continue in the future. But in reality I am using you as an occasion to think about treating many other patients whose minds are being confused by attempts to hurl such questionnaires at them. God willing, I will therefore also answer these newly received questions of yours. As a result, those whose minds have not yet developed obstinacy and stubbornness regarding such deviation may properly understand every aspect related to the Sunnah and may not be easily led astray.
The Reason for Believing in Revelation
Your first question is: “Insofar as faith and obedience are related to revelation, are the two parts of revelation equal in status in this respect?”
No one can properly understand the correct answer to this question until he first grasps what the real basis of believing in revelation and following it is. The clear point is that, whatever form revelation may take, it did not come directly to us so that we ourselves could know that it had been sent down by Allah and follow it. We received it through the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), and he told us that this message of guidance had come to him from Allah. Before believing in revelation as coming from Allah, we believe in the Messenger and acknowledge him as Allah Most High’s truthful messenger. Only after placing our trust in the Messenger’s account does the question arise of accepting his revelation as revelation sent by Allah and following it. Therefore, the fundamental matter is not belief in revelation, but belief in the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and accepting him as truthful. As a consequence of accepting him as truthful, we accept revelation as revelation given by Allah. In other words, it may be said that the reason for our belief in the Messenger’s messengership is not the Qur’an; rather, the reason for our belief in the Qur’an is belief in the Messenger’s messengership. The sequence of events is not that the Qur’an first came to us, introduced us to Muhammadur Rasulullah (peace be upon him), and, finding its message correct, we accepted the Messenger of Allah as Allah’s Messenger. Rather, the correct sequence is that Muhammad (peace be upon him) first came and claimed messengership; then whoever accepted him as a truthful Messenger also accepted as true and correct his statement that this Qur’an he presented was not the speech of Muhammad (peace be upon him), but the speech of Allah Most High.
This is a self-evident status that no intelligent person can deny. If you accept this position, consider for yourself: the very Messenger on whose trustworthiness we accepted the Qur’an as revelation—if he tells us that, in addition to the Qur’an, he also received guidance and regulations from Allah through revelation, what reason could ultimately remain for refusing to believe it? When belief in messengership is the fundamental basis of belief in revelation, what difference does it make to one who obeys whether the Messenger (peace be upon him) conveys Allah’s command to us in the form of a Qur’anic verse or in the form of an instruction or action? For example, the five daily prayers are obligatory upon us in all circumstances, and although no verse of the Qur’an says, “O Muslims! The five daily prayers have been made obligatory upon you,” the Ummah accepts them as obligatory. The question is: if this command had also come in the Qur’an Majid, would their obligatory status or importance have increased? They would still have been obligatory in exactly the same way as they are now obligatory through the statement of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him).
What is meant by ‘what Allah has sent down’?
Your second question is: “When the Qur’an Majid says ‘what has been sent down to you,’ does this refer only to the Qur’an, or does it also include the principal part of revelation mentioned above?” The answer is that wherever the expression “sent down” occurs in the Qur’an Majid together with words such as “Book,” “Reminder,” or “Qur’an,” only the Qur’an Majid is meant by “what Allah has sent down.” But where no possessive expression restricts that phrase to the Qur’an, it refers to all the teachings and guidance we received from the Prophet (peace be upon him), whether in the form of Qur’anic verses or in some other form. Proof of this exists in the Qur’an Majid itself. The Qur’an tells us that Allah Most High sent down upon the Prophet (peace be upon him) not only the Qur’an, but something else as well. Surah al-Nisa states:
“Allah has sent down to you the Book and Wisdom, and has taught you what you did not know”—(Verse 113).
There is also a verse with similar content in Surah al-Baqarah. For example:
“And remember Allah’s blessings upon you and what He has sent down to you of the Book and Wisdom, by which He instructs you”—(Verse 131).
The same point is repeated in Surah al-Ahzab, where the Prophet (peace be upon him) is admonished.
“And remember the verses of Allah and the wisdom that are recited in your homes”—(Verse 34).
The verses cited above show that, in addition to the Book, something called “Wisdom” was also sent down upon the Prophet (peace be upon him), and he taught it to the people. What else could this mean except that the intelligence and discernment with which the Prophet (peace be upon him) worked to implement the Qur’an Majid’s program and fulfilled the responsibilities of leadership and guidance were not merely his independent and personal decisions; rather, Allah Most High also sent them down to him. Moreover, this was not something that he alone used; he also taught it to the people.
It is evident that this teaching could take the form of words or of practical actions. Thus, through the Prophet (peace be upon him), the Ummah received two things sent down by Allah Most High: one, the Book, and the second, Wisdom (practical method). They received this Wisdom both in the form of his sayings and in the form of his actual practices.
Furthermore, the Qur’an Majid mentions another thing that Allah sent down together with the Book.
“Allah is the One who sent down the Book with the truth and the Balance”—(Surah al-Shura: 17).
“Indeed, We sent Our Messengers with clear proofs, and sent down with them the Book and the Balance, so that people may uphold justice”—(Surah al-Hadid: 25).
This Balance, which was sent down with the Book, is obviously not a weighing scale kept in shops. Rather, it refers to something that establishes balance in human life according to Allah’s guidance, purifies its distortions, removes excess and extremism, and establishes human character, conduct, and dealings upon justice. The clear meaning of sending this thing down upon the Prophets and Messengers together with the Book is that Allah Most High specially granted the prophets, from Himself, such ability to guide that, with its help, they established just systems for individuals, society, and the state in accordance with the objectives of Allah’s Book. This work was not confined to their personal capacity for ijtihad and their own opinions. Rather, with the help of the Balance sent down by Allah Most High, they carefully measured and decided what weight each component of human life ought to carry.
Furthermore, the Qur’an Majid tells us of a third thing that was sent down in addition to the Book.
“So believe in Allah, His Messenger, and the Light which We have sent down”—(Surah al-Taghabun: 8).
“Therefore, those who believe in this Messenger, honor him, support him, and follow the Light sent down with him—it is they who are successful”—(Surah al-A‘raf: 157).
“There has come to you from Allah a Light and a clear Book. Through it He guides those who seek His pleasure to the ways of peace”—(Surah al-Ma’idah: 15–16).
The Light mentioned in these verses was something distinct from the Book, as the words of the third verse clearly indicate. This Light too was sent down by Allah Most High upon His Messenger. The knowledge, intellect, insight, wisdom, foresight, and discernment that Allah Most High granted the Prophet (peace be upon him)—with which he distinguished the right and wrong paths in life, offered solutions to life’s problems, and, acting in its light, brought about a great revolution in the realms of morality and spirituality, civilization and culture, economics and social policy, and law and politics—clearly constitute what is meant by this Light. This was not the personal work of someone who would read Allah’s Book and strive according to his own understanding. Rather, it was the work of that great representative of Allah who, along with receiving the Book, also received directly from Allah the Light of knowledge and discernment.
After the discussion above, it becomes clear that when the Qur’an Majid instructs us to abandon all other things and follow only “what Allah has sent down,” this does not mean following the Qur’an alone; it also means following the Light, Wisdom, and Balance that were sent down upon the Prophet (peace be upon him) together with the Qur’an, and whose expression necessarily appeared in the Prophet’s way of life, morality, deeds, and actions. Thus, the Qur’an Majid says in places, “Obey what Allah has sent down” (for example, verses 3:31, 33:21, and 7:156). If these were two separate things, it is clear that the guidance of the Qur’an would have become mutually contradictory.
Where is the Sunnah??
Your third question is: “Where is the second part of revelation? Has Allah Most High also undertaken to preserve it, as He has the Qur’an?”
This question has two distinct parts. The first part, “Where is this second part of revelation?” is exactly the question you asked me previously, and I gave you a detailed answer to it. Yet you have expressed it again as though you had received no answer at all. Please take out your first letter and look at it; the subject of its second question was the same as that of your present question. Then take out my second letter and read it, in which I gave you a detailed answer to this question. The meaning of your repeating this question while completely ignoring my previous answer is either that you have become lost in the world of your imagination and no path exists for other people’s words to reach your mind, or that you engaged in this controversy merely for the sake of disputation.
Has Allah also preserved the Sunnah??
Before hearing the answer to the second part of your question, reflect briefly on this: Has Allah Most High preserved the Qur’an Majid directly, or has He preserved it through people? You cannot answer anything other than that people were made the means of preserving it. In practice, its preservation took place as follows: the Qur’an that people received from the Prophet (peace be upon him) was memorized word for word by thousands of people during that very era; thereafter, thousands became hundreds of thousands, and hundreds of thousands became many millions, who received it generation after generation and continued to memorize it. It has become completely impossible for any word of the Qur’an to disappear from the world, or for the slightest alteration ever to occur in it without immediately being noticed. This extraordinary system of preservation has not been possible for any other book in the world to this day, and it proves that it is a system devised by Allah Most High.
Now examine how Allah Most High preserved the life and works of the Messenger who was made the Messenger of the entire world for all time, after whom the door of prophethood was declared permanently closed. In the history of humankind, no earlier prophet, guide, leader, administrator, king, or conquering hero has had his history preserved in this manner. This system of preservation too was accomplished through the same means by which the Qur’an was preserved. The declaration of the end of prophethood itself means that Allah Most High has assumed responsibility for keeping the guidance and footsteps of His appointed final Messenger alive until the Day of Resurrection, so that his life may guide humankind in every age and no need may remain for the coming of a new prophet after him. Now see for yourself how Allah Most High has truly strengthened these footprints throughout the earth, so that no power today can erase them.
Can you not see that ablution, the five daily prayers, the call to prayer, the congregational prayer in the mosque, the Eid prayers, the rites of Hajj, the sacrifice on Eid al-Adha, zakat, circumcision, marriage and divorce, the principles of inheritance, the rules of the lawful and unlawful, and countless other fundamental principles and methods of Islamic civilization and culture became established in Muslim society from the day the Prophet (peace be upon him) initiated them, just as the verses of the Qur’an Majid are recited from people’s mouths? Thereafter, from thousands to hundreds of thousands and from hundreds of thousands to many millions of Muslims, in the remotest regions of the earth, generation after generation have followed them exactly as they have transmitted the Qur’an from generation to generation. The proof that the foundational structure of our culture, established upon the Sunnahs of the Noble Messenger, is correct and authentic is precisely the same as the proof that the Qur’an is preserved. Whoever challenges this essentially shows the enemies of Islam the way to challenge the Qur’an.
Look again at the detailed picture of the life of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and the society of his age that we possess today, with such minute descriptions and in such reliable records. The chain of transmission for every event and every saying and action is available, enabling one to verify at any time how reliable a narrated hadith is. To learn the circumstances of a single individual, the circumstances of nearly six hundred thousand people of that era were recorded in books, making it possible to examine and assess the character of anyone who narrated a statement in the name of this great man and determine how far we may rely on his narration. A broad field of historical criticism was developed with exceptional precision solely so that anything connected with this incomparable personality could be examined from every angle and its authenticity established with confidence. Is there any other example in the entire history of the world where such an effort, using human hands, has been realized to preserve the complete circumstances of a person? If none exists and none ever will, is that not clear proof that behind this effort too operates the purpose of that mighty Allah who operates for the preservation of the Qur’an?
What is meant by revelation??
Your fourth question is: “If, in a place in the Qur’an, a different word expressing the same meaning is substituted for the Arabic word, will it be regarded as having been sent down by Allah? Is the status of the second part of revelation mentioned above the same?”
You have asked such a meaningless question that I would not have expected it from any educated person. In the end, who told you that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was an exegete of the Qur’an in the sense that he wrote a commentary like Tafsir al-Baydawi or al-Jalalayn, in which he explained the Arabic words of the Qur’an by supplying some Arabic synonyms, and that anyone now calls this explanatory material “revelation sent down by Allah”? What has been repeatedly explained to you is that whatever the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) did and said as a prophet was based on revelation. He did not carry out his entire prophetic activity as a private individual; rather, whatever he did and said as Allah’s appointed representative was based on revelation. He did not carry out his entire prophetic activity as a private individual, nor could he act against Allah’s will or without His wish. Whatever he did as a teacher, mentor, moral reformer, builder of civilization and culture, judge, lawgiver, adviser, commander, and head of state was fundamentally the work of Allah’s Messenger. In this, Allah’s revelation guided and supervised him. Whenever the slightest error or lapse occurred, Allah’s revelation corrected it at the proper time. If you understand this revelation to mean that some Arabic synonyms were sent down to explain the words of the Qur’an, then what else can I say except: “It is advisable to keep away from those whose stock of intelligence is such as this.”
You should know that revelation does not necessarily come only in the form of a collection of words; it may also come in the form of an idea poured into the heart. It may come as guidance for the mind and thought; as correct understanding of a matter; as the proper solution to a problem; or as an understanding of the appropriate strategy for managing a situation or circumstance. It may be nothing more than a lamp by whose light a person finds the right path. It may also be a true dream, a voice from behind a veil, or a message brought through an angel. In Arabic, the word “wahy” means “subtle indication.” The closest word to it in English is “Revelation.” If you do not know Arabic, look up the meaning of the above word in an English dictionary. You will then discover for yourself how childish is this strange idea—which you have accepted as the meaning of revelation—that replacing one word with a synonymous word in its place constitutes revelation!
Your fifth question is this: “Some people say that everything the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) did from receiving prophethood until the final moment of his life was revelation received from Allah. Do you agree with them? If you do not, what is your belief in this matter?”
The answer to this question has already been given in the answer to question four, and the belief I described above is not that of “some people”; rather, it is the united belief of all Muslims from the beginning of Islam until today.
Merely a repetition of the question
Your sixth question is: “If you believe that some of the sayings of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) were revelation and some were not, would you say where the sayings of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) that were revelation have been compiled? Furthermore, what is the status, in terms of the faith and obedience of Muslims, of those of his sayings that were not revelation?”
In the first part of the above question, you have repeated your third question, and its answer is therefore the same as what was said above in response to that question. In the second part, you have repeated what you said in your second letter, and I have also given its answer. I suspect that you do not even read my answers attentively and keep repeating questions of the same kind.
The criterion of faith and disbelief
Your seventh question is: “If a person says regarding any verse of the Holy Qur’an, ‘It was not revealed by Allah,’ would you agree that he would be expelled from the fold of Islam? If a person says regarding any hadith in the existing collections of hadith that it is not revelation from Allah, would he too depart from the fold of Islam?”
The answer to the above question is that the Sunnahs attested by the existing collections of hadith are divided into two major categories. One category consists of those Sunnahs regarding which the Ummah has unanimously agreed, from the beginning until today, that they are Sunnah—in other words, the mutawatir Sunnahs (received through continuous transmission)—and upon which the ijma‘ (consensus) of the Ummah has been established. Whoever refuses to accept any of them will be expelled from the fold of Islam, just as one who denies a verse of the Qur’an departs from the fold of Islam. The second category consists of those Sunnahs concerning which there is, or has been, disagreement. If someone says regarding one of these Sunnahs, ‘According to my overall assessment, this particular Sunnah is not proven, and therefore I do not accept it,’ his faith will not be harmed by this statement. Whether we regard his opinion, from an academic standpoint, as correct or mistaken is a separate matter. But if he says, ‘Even if it is in reality a Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), I am not prepared to obey it,’ then there is not the slightest doubt that he has departed from the fold of Islam. For he is challenging the authority of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), which has no place within Islam.
Can the rulings of the Sunnah be changed??
Your eighth question is: “Can some of the methods proposed by the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) for implementing the rulings of Islam be partially changed or rejected in consideration of the needs of a particular age and the general welfare? Can such partial change or rejection also be made in the case of the Qur’anic rulings?”
The answer to the above question is that, in both cases, portions of Qur’anic rulings may be changed only when, and to the extent that, the original text of the ruling allows any change, or when another nass (a Qur’anic verse or an established Sunnah) is found that permits a change in a particular type of ruling in view of a particular circumstance. Apart from this, no believer can even think of himself as entitled or qualified, under any circumstances, to alter the rulings of Allah and His Messenger. The case of those people who wish to remain Muslims even after being expelled from Islam is different. Their method is first to dispossess the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) of all authority over law and invent the strange doctrine of following the ‘Qur’an without Muhammad’; then, to escape the Qur’an, they begin giving it such fanciful interpretations that even Iblis the Satan is compelled to acknowledge the extremity they have reached.
Respectfully
Abul A‘la
Objections and Answers
[The lengthy letter received from Dr. Abdul Wadud Sahib after the correspondence mentioned above was printed in the ‘Mansab-e-Risalat’ issue of the Tarjumanul Qur’an journal. Reproducing this lengthy letter here is entirely unnecessary, as it is filled with much irrelevant material. Therefore, for the convenience of the general public, the letter-writer’s irrelevant statements are being omitted, and only his objections are being briefly mentioned here, with the answer to each objection given immediately, so that readers may become fully alert to the weapons of the rejecters of hadith and may at the same time learn how extremely weak their weapons are.]
1. Connection with the Bazm-e-Tulu-e-Islam journal
Objection:“At the beginning of the correspondence, you called me one of the members of the Bazm-e-Tulu-e-Islam journal. I am not even a primary or ordinary member of it, and I emphatically asked you to publish this statement of mine in the journal. But you did not publish it; rather, in the published letter you did not even make the slightest indication of it. Yet, in accordance with the demands of honesty and justice, you should have admitted your mistake and expressed your inability.”
Answer:It is better to hear the answer to this objection of the Doctor Sahib from Mr. Parvez himself, not from anyone else, on the pages of Tulu-e-Islam itself. The fourth annual conference of the Tulu-e-Islam organization was held in Lahore on April 8, 9, and 10, 1990. Before Dr. Abdul Wadud Sahib’s speech at this conference, Mr. Parvez introduced him by saying:
“The Doctor Sahib’s friendship is a matter of honor for us, and his greatest favor to us is that he has brought every word of each lecture in my Qur’an lesson and history class within the scope of writing. This is extremely arduous work, which he is carrying out with such great pleasure.”—(Tulu-e-Islam, May–June issue, 1960, p. 25).
Now, if the Doctor Sahib says that he is not even a primary member of Bazm-e-Tulu-e-Islam, that will be exactly like Gandhi’s statement. For he used to say, ‘I am not even a four-anna member of the Congress.’ Anyone familiar with Tulu-e-Islam’s propaganda can read this correspondence and determine whether Tulu-e-Islam itself is speaking through the Doctor Sahib’s mouth, or someone else.
2. Was the purpose of the insolent questionnaire intellectual inquiry??
Objection:You wrote: “If you had really undertaken this correspondence in order to understand the matter, you would have understood a straightforward statement straightforwardly. But your plan was something else. As soon as you sent me your initial questions, you also sent them to several other scholars in the hope of receiving different answers from them. Then those answers could be published and propaganda spread that no consensus exists concerning the Sunnah.”—(Tarjumanul Qur’an, December 1960).
May I ask how you came to know of this plan of mine? Do you have any evidence that the purpose you have attributed to me was indeed my purpose?
Answer:No one besides Allah can know what lies in a person’s heart. However, the things by which people form an estimate of someone’s intention are his actions and the overall conduct of those with whom he joins and works. The group of hadith-opposing people whom the Doctor Sahib is assisting and supporting is exerting all its strength, from head to toe, to prove that hadith is a doubtful and controversial matter. The pages of Tulu-e-Islam and the books published by this organization bear witness to the kind of propaganda they conduct for this purpose. In view of these activities, it is hardly difficult to conclude that the questionnaire sent by Dr. Abdul Wadud Sahib, a prominent figure of that very group, in the name of the respected scholars was genuinely intended only for intellectual analysis.
3. The personal identity and prophetic identity of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)
Objection:“In your book Tafhimat you said that nowhere in the Holy Qur’an is there even the slightest obscure indication on the basis of which any distinction has been made between the personal identity and prophetic identity of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). Yet now you have said that whatever the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) did as Messenger is Sunnah and must necessarily be followed, whereas whatever he did as a person is not Sunnah and need not necessarily be followed. Thus you have made two contradictory statements.”
Answer: During the correspondence in question, the Doctor Sahib raised this matter for the first time, and an answer was also given to him. I requested him that, if he wished to understand the matter, he should read my article entitled “The Personal Identity and Prophetic Identity of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)” in the December 1959 issue of the Tarjumanul Qur’an journal. The matter is discussed there in detail. But it seems that the Doctor Sahib did not take the trouble to read it. This matter is also among those around which the rejecters of hadith are trying, by various methods, to sow misconceptions in people’s minds. It is therefore being presented here briefly.
There is no doubt that Allah’s command to obey the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) is not based on any personal right of his; rather, it is based on the fact that He made him His Messenger. In this respect, as a matter of doctrine, there is certainly a distinction between his personal status and his prophetic status. But since, in practice, personal status and prophetic status were combined in the same person, and we were given a general command to obey him, we are not entitled to decide on our own that we will accept a certain statement of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) because he made or said it as Messenger, but will not accept another because it is related to his personal identity. This was the practice of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). In personal matters, he not only granted people freedom, but also trained them to exercise independent judgment; in matters connected with the Messengerhood, he made them obey without argument. The measure of freedom we possess here was granted by the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), whose principles and limits were themselves determined by the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). It is not our unrestricted freedom. To clarify the matter, I said in this connection:
Even those matters that are plainly personal—such as a person’s eating and drinking, dress, marriage, living with his children and family, carrying out household tasks, bathing, maintaining cleanliness, and relieving himself—are not, in the life of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), exclusively personal matters. Rather, they too include instruction in the limits, methods, rules, and laws of the Shariah. Consider, for example, the Holy Prophet’s (peace be upon him) clothing and eating and drinking. One aspect was that he wore a particular style of clothing that was customary in Arabia at the time, and his personal taste also played a role in selecting it. Likewise, among the contemporary Arab families, in matters of food and dress, he taught through his actions and words the limits of the Shariah and Islamic etiquette. We can now learn from the principles of the Shariah taught by the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) himself that one aspect of these matters was connected with his personal identity, while the other was connected with his prophetic identity. For the Shariah did not include within its scope the instruction for which he had been commanded by Allah—how people should sew their clothes or cook their food. However, the determination of the limits of lawful and unlawful, permissible and impermissible, in eating and dress, and the teaching of conduct and etiquette compatible with the morals and culture of believers, was included by the Shariah within its scope.”
In concluding the discussion of this matter, I said: “Whatever the actual distinction between the personal identity and prophetic identity of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), it exists with Allah and with the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). We have been informed of this only so that we do not fall somewhere into an error of belief. If we possess any freedom regarding Muhammad, the son of Abdullah (peace be upon him), that too is granted by Muhammad the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). Muhammad the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) has himself determined its limits, and it is also Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), who has trained us to exercise this freedom.”
Anyone who reads the above statement free from obstinacy will be able to reach the conclusion for himself: does the real cause of the difficulty from which the rejecters of hadith suffer lie in my statement, or in their own minds?
4. Grading the teachings of the Sunnah
Objection:“Regarding the matters that you acknowledge the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) said or did as Messenger, you initially made distinctions even concerning the obligation to follow them. Thus, in volume 1, page 279 of Tafhimat, you wrote that, in matters directly related to religion and the Shariah, following the actions and statements of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) at every step is essential, such as in matters of prayer, fasting, zakat, pilgrimage, and purification. In these matters, it is obligatory to follow exactly the instructions he gave and the way he himself demonstrated them in practice. Then, regarding things not directly related to religion, such as cultural, economic, and political matters and associated social matters, you said that some of these are matters regarding which the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) instructed people to act, or from which he instructed them to refrain; and there are also matters in which, through the Holy Prophet’s (peace be upon him) conduct, we find teachings of elevated morality, God-fearingness, and purity, and by observing his way we can learn which of the various methods of doing things is compatible with the spirit of Islam. But your present statement is that such a distinction is not correct.”
Answer:What was said in this discussion is only that everything we learn from the Sunnah does not belong to the same level or possess equal status; rather, there are gradations among it. Everything we receive from these two sources of guidance is not equally obligatory or necessary, nor is the purpose to apply the wording of every command indiscriminately in every situation. As an example, look at the Holy Qur’an itself: on the one hand, it says, ‘Establish prayer and give zakat,’ which is certainly obligatory and binding. Yet the imperative mood has also been used in the Qur’an in the following way:
Although the imperative mood is used in the two verses mentioned, here it expresses only permissibility; it does not express a binding command. If the Doctor Sahib had not engaged in this conversation for the purpose of disputation, it would not have been so difficult for him to understand the statement. Take out and read the passage he has quoted. Immediately alongside the above statement, it contains the following statement:
Therefore, if anyone sincerely wishes to follow the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) and studies his Sunnah for this purpose, it is not at all difficult for him to know which matters require following him at every step, in which matters principles must be derived from his statements and actions and laws formulated, and in which actions general principles of morality, method, welfare, reform, and improvement must be derived from his Sunnah.”
I would request readers that, if they can obtain this book of mine (volume 1 of Tafhimat), they should read the entire article. Then the true condition of the minds of the rejecters of hadith will be revealed to them—the condition that led them to search within that article for material to support their doubts and suspicions, which could have removed their earlier doubts. While reading this article, however, it must be remembered that the Mr. Parvez mentioned in it is not the Parvez of today, but the Parvez of 1935. At that time he was at the very beginning of deviation; today he has passed beyond the stage of manifest misguidance and reached the seat of leadership in deviation.
5. Seeking knowledge or love of disputation??
Objection:“On the one hand, in Tafhimat you say that prayer, fasting, and similar matters are directly related to religion and the Shariah, whereas cultural, economic, and political matters are not directly related to religion. On the other hand, your claim is that ‘establishing the religion’ means establishing, according to Islam, cultural, economic, and political systems. Consider: the matters discussed in connection with the laws of the country are related to the country’s cultural, economic, and political matters. If these matters are not directly related to religion, the question of whether the country’s laws are based on religion or outside religion would not arise. Furthermore, if following the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) in these matters is not of such a nature that following the Sunnah is essential—as, according to your statement, it is in matters directly related to religion, such as prayer—then what significance is there in raising the question, in these matters, of whether something conforms to the Sunnah?”
Answer:The Doctor has tried to derive this mistaken meaning—that I have declared political, cultural, and economic matters to be completely separate from religion—by isolating from the whole essay my statement that some matters are directly related to religion and some are not. Yet by the matters I described there as “directly” related to religion, I meant those acts of worship that the Lawgiver (the Messenger of Allah) granted the status of the “pillars of Islam,” namely prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, and zakat. Conversely, by matters that I said are not “directly” related to religion, I meant matters other than the pillars of Islam. This never means that they are entirely unrelated to religion. If they really were unrelated, why would Qur’anic and Sunnah-based legal rulings concerning them be found?
The Doctor selected only two phrases from my statement from which he derived this meaning—“directly related” and “not directly related”—and began constructing an entire edifice of his imagination upon them. Yet the very sentence itself contains a refutation of his interpretation. It clearly says that concerning matters of the second category, we receive teachings of various degrees from the Prophet (peace be upon him), and so on. Can these phrases possibly be understood to mean that it is permissible to oppose the Prophet’s instructions regarding acts he ordered or prohibited, or that his other instructions may be disregarded?
What remains are those words from which the Doctor is now trying to extract an illegitimate benefit. It may be mentioned that I had sensed long ago that some mischief-maker might use them in a mistaken sense. Therefore, look at the fifth edition of the first volume of Tafhimat (September 1949 CE); in it, the following sentence was written in place of the aforementioned sentence: “Those acts that are connected with the obligatory and necessary duties and the general directives of Islamic life.” I made this correction so that the notion—which could be derived from my earlier statement—that cultural, economic, and political matters are unrelated to religion would be removed. The full aim and purpose of an entire essay cannot be understood from merely two of its phrases. Anyone who reads the whole essay will clearly see that its purpose is the complete opposite of the meaning the Doctor derived from those two phrases. A person who debates for the purpose of review and investigation addresses the overall meaning after hearing someone’s entire statement. Picking out one or two words from somewhere and grinding away at them is nothing but fondness for disputation.
6. Principles and Method of Distinguishing Between the Two Aspects of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)
Objection:“If a distinction is made between the prophetic aspect and the personal aspect of the Prophet (peace be upon him), this inevitably raises the question: who will make this distinction? If the future Ummah must turn to expert scholars for this purpose, there is extreme disagreement among them. Whose view should be considered correct and whose mistaken? How weak this position is. You yourself will admit this. Therefore, you wrote:”
“Hadiths have come down through transmission from some people to others. At most, some correct understanding may be gained from them; certain knowledge cannot be gained through them. It is clear that Allah Most High could never wish to cast His servants into the anxiety that matters so important that they form the basis for distinguishing faith from unbelief in Islam should be restricted to the reports of only a few people. The very nature of such matters requires that Allah explain them clearly in His Book. The Messenger of Allah will regard them as the central task of his prophetic mission, proclaim them widely, and convey them to every Muslim in a way entirely free of doubt.—(Rasail wa Masail, p. 67).”
Answer:Your objection is fundamentally based on ignorance: who will determine the distinction between the personal and prophetic aspects of the Prophet (peace be upon him)? On the basis of the principles of the Shariah that the Prophet (peace be upon him) gave us, it is not difficult to know which matters of his blessed conduct relate to his personal aspect and which relate to his prophetic aspect. Anyone wishing to decide this for himself must spend a significant part of his life studying the principles and ancillary matters of the Qur’an, Sunnah, and Islamic jurisprudence. This is not a task for ordinary people. As for disagreement among expert scholars, it should be understood that whenever they disagree over whether something is established as Sunnah, each of them necessarily presents evidence in support of his view. They do not simply make claims by force. They must explain on the basis of which principle or method among the principles of the Shariah they establish something as Sunnah or reject its being Sunnah. In such a situation, the important view will prevail, and all the expert scholars will know that whatever prevails has done so on the basis of evidence. Even if disagreement of this kind remains, it is not something to cause alarm. Why try to inflate it needlessly?
Let us now discuss the statement quoted from my work Rasail wa Masail. Its meaning is clearly set out in the quoted sentence itself. It was not quoted here with the slightest attempt to explain it, but for the purpose of natural disputation. The statement discusses the fact that a solitary report alone is insufficient to prove beliefs on which a person’s being Muslim or not being Muslim depends. For that, there must either be proof from the Qur’an or a report at the level of mutawatir bil-ma‘na—that is, it is known from the reports of innumerable narrators that the Prophet (peace be upon him) taught such and such a belief. A solitary report may suffice to prove subsidiary rulings if it is transmitted through an authentic chain of transmission. But matters that determine faith and unbelief require very strong evidence. For example, very strong support and testimony are required to sentence someone to death in a murder case. Conversely, a relatively less important matter may be decided on the basis of comparatively less strong evidence.
7. Why Was No Arrangement Made to Record Hadiths Like the Qur’an??
Objection:“If two kinds of revelation came from Allah—one, wahy matlu, or manifest revelation, and the other, wahy ghayr matlu, or non-manifest revelation—was it not part of the Prophet’s mission that he should also have had this second part of revelation compiled and preserved and left it with the Ummah, just as he gave the first part of revelation, the Qur’an, to the Ummah?”
Answer:Hadith deniers generally raise this question very forcefully, believing it to be a question that leaves one unable to answer. They think that since the Qur’an was compiled in written form, it is therefore protected. But I ask them: if the Prophet (peace be upon him) had left the Noble Qur’an only in written form, and after thousands of people memorized it had not conveyed it orally to later generations, could this written document have been conclusive proof for later people that it was the Qur’an the Prophet had dictated? It too would itself have required testimony and evidence. For unless some people testified that the Prophet had had this Book written before them, doubt would have remained regarding the reliability of that written copy. From this discussion it is known that the reliability of something does not depend solely on its being written. Rather, it is not considered reliable until living people testify in its support. Suppose nothing written exists concerning a matter, but testimony from living people does exist. Ask a legal expert whether the testimony of these living people would be rejected until something written in support of it was found. It is very unlikely that you would find anyone experienced in law who could answer this question affirmatively. Today, no copy of the Noble Qur’an written at the initiative of the Prophet exists anywhere in the world, but this has no adverse effect on the reliability and authority of the Holy Qur’an. Its reliability is established through continuous and uninterrupted oral transmission. The fact that the Messenger of Allah had the Noble Qur’an written has itself become accepted on the basis of oral transmission. Otherwise, the original document could not be produced in support of this claim. And even if it were found somewhere, it could not be proved that it was the manuscript the Prophet had written. Therefore, the emphasis these people place on writing is entirely mistaken. The Prophet left behind a complete society founded upon his Sunnah, every aspect of whose life bore the seal of his Sunnah. Thousands of people were present in that society who had heard his statements, seen his actions, and received training under his supervision. This society conveyed all these signs to later generations, and in this way they reached us through successive generations. They cannot be rejected according to any universally accepted principle of testimony in the world. Moreover, it is incorrect to say that these signs were not recorded on paper. Rather, the process of preserving them began in the Prophet’s own time. Special attention was given to it in the first Hijri century, and the hadith scholars of the second Hijri century brought this entire body of memory within the scope of compilation with the help of both living testimony and written testimony.
8. An Example of Deception and Fraud
Objection:“Regarding the second part of revelation, concerning whose preservation you have just said that the same divine arrangement operates behind it as operates in the preservation of the Noble Qur’an: anyone who challenges this arrangement is essentially showing the enemies of Islam the way to challenge the authenticity of the Qur’an.” What is the nature of this? Learn about it not from me but from your own statement. On page 170 of Rasail wa Masail, you wrote:
“The statements of the Messenger of Allah and the reports found in the hadith books are not necessarily the same thing. Nor can these reports be declared equal to the verses of the Qur’an on the basis of their chains of transmission. There is no room for anyone to doubt that the verses of the Qur’an were revealed by Allah Most High. Conversely, there is room for doubt concerning a report: whether the statement or action identified as that of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is in reality connected to the Prophet (peace be upon him) or not?”
Answer:Just observe this example of honesty and fairness: the statement immediately following the quoted passage was deliberately omitted. Those who possess the first volume of Rasail wa Masail should open it and see that the following statement appears immediately alongside the quoted passage:
Those Sunnahs (hadiths) that have reached us from the Prophet (peace be upon him) through mutawatir transmission, or those reports that have met the standards of the conditions of a recognized mutawatir chain in the view of the hadith scholars, are certainly accepted as evidence that cannot be rejected. But reports that have not been transmitted through a mutawatir chain do not yield certain knowledge; rather, they produce a strong probability of certainty. For this reason, it is universally accepted among scholars of legal theory that hadiths not transmitted through mutawatir chains may be sources of law, but cannot be sources of faith—that is, they cannot be the basis for distinguishing faith from unbelief.”
This moral audacity is truly deserving of praise: an attempt has been made to deceive me by means of my own statement.
9. What Is Doubtful and What Is Beyond Doubt in the Treasury of Hadith
Objection: Concerning the Noble Qur’an, Allah Most High stated at the very outset: that is, “There is no room for doubt in this Book.” But the condition of the second kind of revelation is that there is room for doubt in it as to whether the statement or action attributed to the Messenger of Allah is actually the statement or action of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Is this what is called Allah’s protection?”
Answer:The truth is that hadith deniers have not even made the slightest study of the science of hadith. That is why they have repeatedly fallen into doubt over a matter that even a person of ordinary knowledge can easily understand. In fact, explaining this to such people is beyond my ability, because they show no desire to understand. But for the benefit of ordinary readers, I submit that if people properly understand two things, no doubt can arise in their minds.
First. Revelation has two major divisions. One is that which was sent as Allah Most High’s own words to the Prophet (peace be upon him), so that he might convey those very words verbatim to humanity. It is called wahy matlu (that which is recited), and all revelation of this kind was gathered in the Book known throughout the world as the Qur’an. The second kind of revelation was that which was sent to guide the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), so that in its light he could guide humanity, establish the Islamic way of life, and carry out the responsibility of leadership in the Islamic movement. This revelation was not meant to be conveyed to the people word for word; rather, its effects appeared in various forms and expressions in the Prophet’s words and actions. His entire conduct manifested this light. This is what is called Sunnah and wahy ghayr matlu—that is, revelation not intended for recitation.
Second. The chronological order of the means through which we acquired knowledge of religion is as follows: first, the Qur’an; then those Sunnahs that reached us from the Prophet (peace be upon him) through continuous practice, that is, practical observance—those actions that the Ummah has continuously practiced from the beginning until today.
Then those instructions, teachings, and guidance that have reached us through mutawatir and well-known reports.
Then those solitary reports that are sound in terms of their chains and do not conflict with any reliable report.
Whatever we have received from the Prophet (peace be upon him) through these means is beyond doubt and uncertainty. At a later level, however, the question may arise whether a statement or action attributed to the Prophet (peace be upon him) is actually his statement or action. This question can principally arise concerning the following types of reports:
1. Hadiths whose chains are strong, but whose content appears contrary to something more reliable.
2. Hadiths whose chains are strong, but which contradict one another and whose contradiction appears difficult to resolve.
3. Hadiths whose chains are strong, but which are solitary (munfarid) reports and contain some obscurity in meaning.
4. Hadiths whose chains contain some weakness, but whose content displays no defect; and
5. Hadiths concerning both whose chains and whose content there is room to raise objections.
Now, if an opportunity arises to raise an objection concerning reports of this second type, it cannot be presented as evidence in support of the claim that whatever we have received from the Prophet (peace be upon him) through the aforementioned means is also doubtful.
It should also be understood that all the matters of greatest importance in Islam reached us through the first-mentioned means. The matters received through the second level are mostly merely contextual, subsidiary, and secondary—though necessary—and in such cases accepting any one of several views makes no essential difference. If, on the basis of study, investigation, and research, one person accepts one of these reports as Sunnah while another does not, both will still be regarded as followers of the Prophet (peace be upon him). However, those who say that even when the Prophet’s words and actions are genuinely proven to be his words and actions, they do not have the force of law for us, are not followers of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
10. Another Deception
You yourself acknowledge the weakness in the system for safeguarding and preserving hadiths. You wrote: “At first glance, it seems entirely correct that those verbal and practical hadiths witnessed or heard by many people should be granted the status of mutawatir hadiths. There should be no disagreement concerning them. But everyone can understand by ordinary reasoning that when an event has been seen by many people or a discussion heard by many people, it is impossible for such complete agreement to be found among all of them in reporting it or acting upon it that there is not even the slightest difference among them. Suppose, for example, that I delivered a speech today and several thousand people heard it. Ask the people just a few hours after the meeting ends—not months or years, but only a few hours later—what the speaker said. You will see that their accounts will not be exactly identical in mentioning the content of the speech. One will report one part, another a different part, and another a particular sentence. People of keen intelligence will properly grasp the speech and report an accurate summary of it. Someone whose comprehension is not very good will be unable to recount the content accurately in his own words. Because someone has a powerful memory, he will be able to report most of the discussion verbatim. Someone else, because his memory is weak, will make mistakes while recounting the content” (Tafhimat, vol. 1, p. 330).
Answer:The first point is that a portion marked by lines in the very middle of the above quotation has been omitted, and anyone can read it for himself and see how honestly it was omitted. The omitted portion is given below:
“There will certainly be agreement among all regarding the important part of this speech, but some disagreement may be found concerning its subsidiary and minor parts; such disagreement can never prove that the reported event did not occur at all.”
Moreover, the entire discussion following this quotation was a response to the Doctor’s doubts and uncertainties, and could have removed those doubts; for this reason, the Doctor omitted mentioning it, since he is engaged in pursuing doubts and uncertainties. From a discussion, he takes as much as is needed to make it doubtful and to cause others to doubt, and cuts away the part that might unravel the confusion. The more amusing thing is that an attempt is being made to deceive an author with the help of his own book. I would ask readers, if they obtain the first volume of Tafhimat, to find and read the essay titled “Several Questions Concerning Hadith,” from which the quoted passage was taken. Nevertheless, I think it appropriate to mention here the statement of mine that immediately follows the cited passage, so that even those unable to obtain the book can give a fitting reply to the Doctor’s sleight of hand. The omitted passage is given below:
Now, if someone, seeing this disagreement, says that I did not deliver any speech at all, or that the speech was copied incorrectly from beginning to end, that would not be correct. On the contrary, if all the information concerning the speech is collected, it will be known that the narrators unanimously agree on one point: I delivered a speech, delivered it at such-and-such a place and at such-and-such a time, many people were present there, and this was the subject matter of the speech. Thereafter, a more reliable compilation can be prepared of those parts of the speech concerning which greater agreement is found, both verbally and in meaning. The parts of the speech reported by only a single narrator will be considered comparatively less reliable, but it would not be correct to call them fabricated or erroneous so long as they do not contradict the overall tenor of the speech, or contain something that makes their authenticity doubtful—for example, contradicting the reliable portions of the speech, or being contrary to the accurate knowledge already held by people regarding the speaker’s thought, manner of expression, and temperament.”
11. Is there nothing on which the Ummah has reached consensus??
Objection:“You say: The proof that the Sunnah has been preserved is that ablution, the five daily prayers, the call to prayer, the prayers of the two Eids, marriage, divorce, the laws of inheritance, and so forth are practiced in Muslim society exactly as the verses of the Qur’an have continued to be recited orally.” Can you say that the entire Ummah follows one and the same method regarding prayer, the call to prayer, marriage, divorce, inheritance, and so on?”
Answer:Gather on one side all the matters concerning prayer, the call to prayer, marriage, divorce, inheritance, and so forth on which the Ummah agrees, and gather on the other side the matters over which disagreement exists. You will see for yourself how extensive the agreement is and how little the disagreement. There is agreement on nearly all fundamental matters; disputes do not usually concern the points of agreement. Rather, debates always begin over the disputed matters, making those points appear conspicuous. For this reason, people of limited knowledge fall into error and think that there is nothing at all on which the Ummah has reached consensus. Take prayer as an example. Muslims throughout the world agree that the five daily prayers are obligatory, that their times are fixed, that the body and clothing must be pure and ablution must be performed before prayer, that prayer must be offered facing the qiblah, that a specified number of rak‘ahs is obligatory at each prayer, and that prayer must begin with the opening takbir. While standing in prayer, a particular thing is to be recited; while bowing, another; while prostrating, another; and while sitting, another. In short, there is broad agreement on the entire structure of prayer. The disagreement concerns only such matters as whether the hands should be folded or left at the sides, whether, if folded, they should be folded over the chest or below the navel, whether Surah al-Fatihah should be recited behind the imam, and whether “Amin” should be said aloud or silently after reciting Surah al-Fatihah.
Now the question is: Is it correct to base on these minor differences the claim that, in matters of prayer, the Ummah is fundamentally not established upon any unified method? The only difference in the call to prayer is that the Shi‘ah say “Hayya ‘ala khayril ‘amal,” whereas the Sunnis do not. There is complete agreement concerning all the remaining phrases of the call to prayer and the related legal details. Can this minor disagreement be presented as proof that the call to prayer itself is a disputed matter?
12. Has the Sunnah reduced disagreement or increased it??
Objection:“If you say that the disagreements arising from hadith are the kind of disagreements generally found in subsidiary and secondary matters, and that they have no effect on the religion, then I wish to ask: Do even the slightest disagreements concerning those subsidiary and secondary matters which, according to you, have been determined through Allah’s revelation, not become a cause of sin? For example, Allah the Exalted has commanded through the revelation quoted in the Qur’an that, in ablution, both hands are to be washed up to the elbows. According to your view, then, would the practice of a person or community that washes the hands up to the elbows be regarded as compliance with Allah’s command?”
Answer:This is simply a gross error. Openly contradicting a Qur’anic command is not what is meant by disagreement. Rather, disagreement means that two people dispute what the ruling of the Shariah is. A proper example of this is found in the Qur’an itself. The verse concerning tayammum in the Qur’an says:
“Wipe your faces and your hands with it [the earth]”—(Surah al-Ma’idah: 7).
Now observe: one person understands “hands” to mean up to the wrists and wipes only that much. Another understands it to mean up to the elbows and wipes that much. A third thinks that “hands” means the entire arms, and therefore wipes the whole arms. Tell me, does the wording of the Qur’an allow room for this disagreement or not? Moreover, does this disagreement become a cause of sin?
If those who reject hadith had applied a little thought, they would have seen for themselves that the Sunnah has greatly limited disagreement. Otherwise, if the Sunnah did not exist, extracting laws and rulings from the Qur’an alone would lead to such extensive disagreement that not even two Muslims could unite upon a comprehensive practice. For example, the Qur’an repeatedly commands prayer. If the Sunnah had not specified its structure and method, people could never have reached a conclusion about how this command should be fulfilled. The Qur’an commands the payment of zakat. If the Sunnah had not explained this command, consensus could never have been reached on how this obligation was to be discharged. The same is true of the other commands and rulings of the Qur’an: a teacher vested with authority from Allah—the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)—closed the door to disagreement by explaining the form in which these commands were to be carried out and demonstrating them in practice. If this had not happened, and the Ummah had merely taken up the Qur’an and attempted to construct a way of life with the help of a dictionary, there would not even have been enough agreement on fundamental matters to make it possible to establish a unified social order. Through the Sunnah, all possible disagreements have been narrowed, so that today only eight sects can be found in the Islamic world, of which only five are major sects, with millions upon millions of Muslims gathered around each of their respective schools of jurisprudence.¹ And does it continue? But if those who reject hadith succeed in the campaign they are waging against the Sunnah, the result will not be that everyone becomes united in the interpretation and explanation of the Qur’an. Rather, the result will be that disagreement will arise even over matters on which consensus has existed until now.
13. The resemblance between those who reject hadith and those who reject the Finality of Prophethood
Objection:“You say, ‘If there is so much disagreement in the original text of the Sunnah, then there can also be—and there have been—numerous disagreements in the interpretation of the Qur’an. If disagreement in the interpretation of the Qur’an does not prevent it from serving as a basis of law, how can variations in the original text of the Sunnah prevent it from doing so?’ Your argument is exactly like the character and conduct of the Qadianis: whenever they observe such-and-such a defect or error, they readily say, God forbid, ‘Was such-and-such a statement of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) not like this?’”
1. (p. 75) In the present world, only the following sects are found: Hanafi, Shafi‘i, Maliki, Hanbali, Ahl al-Hadith, Ithna ‘Ashari (Shi‘ah), Zaydi (Shi‘ah), and the Ibadi sect of the Kharijites. Among these, the Zaydis, Ahl al-Hadith, and Ibadis are very few in number. Some people have unnecessarily popularized the fabricated tale of seventy-three sects. In reality, this number is found only in books; it has no existence on the face of the earth.
Answer: This analogy is fundamentally false. For there can be no comparison whatsoever between a lying impostor prophet and a true prophet. Nor can there be any comparison between a true prophet and the Book of Allah.
This example given by the Doctor applies to him and his community themselves. Just as the Qadianis bring the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) into the discussion in order to prove the prophethood of a false and fabricated prophet, so those who reject hadith are using the Book of Allah to sever the relationship between the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and the Book of Allah. Just as the Qadianis have raised the mischief of a new prophethood against the universally held creed of the entire Ummah, the Finality of Prophethood, so those who reject hadith have raised another terrible mischief by challenging the legal status of the Sunnah. Yet, from the time of the Rightly Guided Caliphs until today, Muslims throughout the world have unanimously held in every age that, after the Qur’an, the Sunnah is the second source of law; even non-Muslim jurists unanimously acknowledge this. Just as the Qadianis have produced a new prophet through their erroneous interpretation of the Finality of Prophethood, so those who reject hadith, through their mistaken interpretation of following the Sunnah, have opened the way for the proposition that the entire office of guidance and instruction of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) must be closed down and that, in every age, some “center of the millah” must be granted authority over the Ummah analogous to that of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). The Qadianis point out defects in the person of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) to clear the path for their false prophet, while those who reject hadith criticize and point out defects in the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) in order to clear the way for their “center of the millah.”
In response to the allegation raised by the Doctor against my argument, it may be said that it is indeed baseless. My argument is not that the defect you have pointed out in the Sunnah is also present in the Qur’an. Rather, my argument is that the possibility of differences of opinion in interpretation and analysis is not, in itself, a defect or deficiency in any law. Therefore, on the basis of this possibility, neither can the Qur’an be denied as a foundation of law, nor can the Sunnah.
14. Can something in which there is no possibility of disagreement be a source of law??
Allegation:“The original text and its interpretation and analysis are two distinct things. There is no room for doubt or uncertainty regarding even a single letter of the original text of the Qur’an. Its interpretation, however, is a human undertaking and cannot constitute a religious authority or proof for anyone else. The interpretation of hadith, on the other hand, is not like that; there is disagreement even regarding its original text. In the presence of this disagreement, how can the Sunnah be made a source of Islamic law?”
Answer: The real question requiring consideration is this: if there is agreement regarding the original text of the Scripture but disagreement regarding its interpretation, how can it serve as the foundation of law? The Doctor himself says, “Interpretation is a human undertaking and cannot be an authority or proof for anyone else.” In that case, the original text can necessarily be an authority and proof, but once disagreement arises over its meaning, treating it as an authority and proof becomes meaningless. For in practice, what takes effect is not the original text of the Scripture, but the meaning that a person understands after studying the original text. Therefore, in my second letter I requested him to first change this view of yours: “Only something in which disagreement is impossible can serve as the foundation of law.” This matter may then be resolved in the following way: the Qur’an itself is the source of law, and among its various interpretations, the interpretation that is found to be more correct through impartial judgment based on reason and understanding will be applied. Similarly, one may reach the conclusion that the Sunnah itself must be accepted as a source of law, and in resolving any matter, the Sunnah that is established on the basis of impartial investigation will be applied. The benefit of accepting the original text of the Qur’an as the foundation of law will be that any disagreement arising in interpretation and analysis will revolve within the limits of the original text of the Qur’an. It will not be able to exceed those limits. Likewise, the benefit of accepting the Sunnah as the foundation of law will be that we will be able to turn, in our conduct, to those directions and teachings received from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), unless and until we learn, on the basis of investigation, that no Sunnah has been established regarding the matter in question. What ultimate benefit is there in understanding this simple point?
15. The method of removing disagreement is the same with regard to both the Qur’an and the Sunnah
Allegation:“Disagreement arose in deriving rulings from the original text of the Qur’an only when Islam was reduced from a comprehensive social system of life to a personal matter. As long as the comprehensive system of religion remained established, no dispute arose among the Ummah in this regard. Can you say that, during the era of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) or Umar al-Faruq (may Allah be pleased with him), members of the Ummah acted in different ways regarding any instruction of the Qur’an? If that system were re-established, this disagreement in interpretation would likewise disappear. That would only be possible if the original text of the Qur’an remained preserved and intact. If the original text of the Qur’an had not been preserved, and different sects had separate compilations of the Qur’an, just as they do of hadith, then no possibility of genuine unity among the Ummah would have remained until another Messenger appeared and securely conveyed the original revealed texts to the people.”
Answer:This is an interesting example of presenting an opinion without properly understanding the matter. Even during the eras of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) and Umar al-Faruq (may Allah be pleased with him), people reflected and conducted research on the verses of the Qur’an, and they differed among themselves in understanding their significance and interpreting them. However, at that time there was also an independent institution of the rightly guided Caliph and the Shura council, which possessed authority, and the Ummah was assured of its knowledge and piety. After comprehensive discussion and review in this institution, whichever interpretation of the Qur’anic ruling was democratically chosen would become effective as law. Similarly, proper investigation was conducted regarding the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), and when it was established that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) had [made a decision] regarding a matter, that decision was adopted. If such an institution existed even today, it too would adopt the most correct interpretation among the interpretations of the Qur’an and would likewise seek the most authentic hadith from the treasury of hadith.
16. An Interesting Fallacy
Allegation:“You say that the laws of Britain do not exist in written form. Even so, how do its affairs continue to function? Do you know how many constant new changes are being made to British law? Most members of its parliament can make any change they wish. In your view, is the situation of the religion of Islam the same? If the absence of Islamic laws in written form made no difference, why was the Qur’an committed to writing, and why did Allah assume responsibility for preserving this written compilation?”
Answer:This is another interesting fallacy. Allah Most High has assumed responsibility for preserving the Qur’an; He did not assume responsibility for preserving its written compilation, which the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) had written down in his own time with the help of the Companions who served as scribes of revelation. The Qur’an is certainly preserved in accordance with Allah Most High’s promise. But does the original manuscript written at the command of the Prophet (peace be upon him) still exist? If, according to those who reject hadith, it exists somewhere, let them certainly tell us where it can be found. The curious thing is that all those who reject hadith repeatedly base their arguments and evidence on the Qur’an having been written down and the hadith not having been written down. Yet the fact that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had every revelation written down during his lifetime with the help of the Companions who served as scribes of revelation, that the Qur’an was compiled into a book during the era of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) by copying from these written documents, and that later Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) distributed copies made from it—all this can be learned by the people of the world only through the narrations of hadith. There is no mention of it in the Qur’an. Apart from the accounts in hadith, no other witness to it exists in the world. Now, if the narrations of hadith are wholly unacceptable, by what means will you convince the people of the world that the Qur’an was in fact written down during the lifetime of the Prophet (peace be upon him)?
17. Why the distinction between personal law and national law??
Allegation:You say that the problem of legislating laws in Pakistan according to the correct Islamic law can be resolved as follows, while retaining the differences among the established Sunnahs:
“Within the limits of Personal Law, the compilation of the interpretations of Qur’anic rulings followed by each community and the established Sunnah will be regarded as reliable for each community. In matters of Public Law, however, it will conform to the interpretation of the Qur’an and the established Sunnah on which the agreement of the majority has been established.”
May I venture to ask whether this distinction between personal law and national law also existed during the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) or his rightly guided Caliphs? And can any argument or proof supporting this distinction be found in the Qur’an?
Answer:These questions have arisen solely because the Doctor has neither understood the significance and boundaries of personal law and national law, nor reflected on the practical problem we have faced in Pakistan. Personal law means the laws relating to the family life of the people, such as marriage, divorce, and inheritance. National law means the laws necessary for the general organization of the state, administration, and the maintenance of peace and order, such as criminal and civil law. Regarding the first type of law, it may be said that if different communities exist in the same country, the law followed by each community will be applied in its respective sphere. In this way, they can be assured that their family life will remain secure. With regard to the second type of law, however, separate communities cannot be taken into consideration. It must necessarily be uniform for everyone.
In the age when the Qur’an Majid was revealed, Muslims belonged to one community. But the Islamic state also included Jews, Christians, and fire-worshippers, whose personal laws were distinct from those of the Muslims. The Qur’an Majid allowed them to reside in the Islamic state upon payment of jizyah (the tax paid by non-Muslims in return for exemption from participation in war). This meant that their religion and personal laws could not be interfered with. Of course, the national laws of Islam would apply to them in the same manner as to Muslims. Accordingly, the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) and the governments of the Rightly Guided Caliphs followed this principle.
The age in which we now live in Pakistan is not the age of the Qur’an’s revelation; rather, it is fourteen hundred years removed from it. Over the past centuries, various sects have arisen among Muslims, and their foundations have become firmly established over several hundred years. They differ among themselves both in the interpretation of the Qur’an and in the investigation and evaluation of the Sunnah. If we can assure the communities concerned that, in matters relating to their schools of law and families, they will be prepared to establish a common state system on the basis of the majority. But if someone seated at the “center of the nation,” in the name of the Qur’an, attempts to forcefully interfere in their own beliefs, acts of worship, and family matters, and seeks to abolish all these sects, this will not be possible without a terrible massacre.
Undoubtedly, it would be an exemplary situation if Muslims once again assumed the form of a single community in which all laws for the Muslim ummah could be adopted through open and free discussion and debate. But this exemplary situation was not created earlier by force, nor can it be created today by force.
18. Retreat from the decisive statements concerning the status of the Messenger
Objection:“You have wasted a considerable number of pages of the magazine Tarjuman al-Qur’an in this discussion over who made the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) the head of the Islamic state, the leader of the Muslims, or a judge: Allah Almighty, or the Muslims through an election? It is not clear what the ultimate purpose of your discussion was. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) established an Islamic state according to the instructions of the Qur’an Majid. Even a child can understand that the first head of government of this state, the guide of the Muslims, and the final authority in deciding all matters, against whose judgments no appeal could be made anywhere—who could he be other than the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)?”
Answer:The question from which a retreat is being made, instead of confronting it by declaring it meaningless and unnecessary, was in fact a decisive question in this discussion. If the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) was a ruler, judge, and guide appointed by Allah Almighty, then there is no alternative but to acknowledge that the decisions of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), his teachings and guidance, and the laws he gave were from Allah Almighty; for this reason, they necessarily count in Islam as authority and proof. Conversely, if someone does not accept these things from the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) as authority and proof, he must inevitably say one of two things. Either he will say that the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) himself became head of state, judge, and guide. Or he will say that the Muslims elected him to these offices according to their own wishes, and that while the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) was alive they had the right to elect someone else in his place and also had the right to remove him.
Those who deny Hadith do not wish to accept the first statement, because accepting it would cut the roots of their doctrine. But they do not have the courage to state clearly either of the latter two statements. For after saying this, every thread of the web in which they seek to entangle Muslims would be severed. Therefore, instead of answering the question, such people hasten to flee. Readers should look again at the discussion entitled “The Center of the Nation” earlier in this book, and then see how, by evading the questions I have raised, a path of retreat is being adopted.
19. Can anyone who is not a prophet possess all the authority of a prophet??
Objection:At the time the Qur’an was revealed, religion and politics had become two separate spheres in the world. Religious leaders were followed in religious matters, while the government was followed in political or worldly matters. The Qur’an Majid eradicated this duality and told Muslims that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was not only their religious guide but also their guide in political and social affairs. Therefore, he must be obeyed in all the matters mentioned. After the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), all these offices—that is, all offices other than receiving revelation from Allah Almighty—were transferred to the person who succeeded the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) (Khalifat al-Rasul). Now obedience to Allah and His Messenger means obedience to a system expressed by the term “Khilafah ‘ala Minhaj al-Nubuwwah” (a caliphate administered according to the method of prophethood). It was this that I expressed by the term “the center of the nation”—a term over which you are ridiculing me.
Answer:What evidence supports the claim that, apart from being the bearer of revelation, all the offices held by the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) in the Islamic system were transferred after him to the caliph or to “the center of the nation”? Is this stated anywhere in the Qur’an Majid? Or did the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) give any such explanation? Or did the Rightly Guided Caliphs ever claim that they possessed these offices? Or, from the age of prophethood until today, has any notable scholar of the ummah held this view? Whatever the Qur’an Majid says, I have already mentioned it in this book under the section from “The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) as Teacher and Mentor” to “The Messenger (peace be upon him) as Judge and Head of State.” They do not accept any Hadith of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him); otherwise, I would have presented abundant Hadith of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) narrated through sound and reliable chains of transmission, by which it would be conclusively established that they considered themselves invested with these offices. But in the section of this book entitled “The Slander against the Rightly Guided Caliphs,” I have presented verbatim the statements of the eminent caliphs, including Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, Umar al-Faruq, Uthman, and Ali (may Allah be pleased with them), so that this false slander against them cannot be substantiated. Now let them at least say whether, during the past fourteen hundred years, any religious scholar has ever made such a statement.
20. There is a vast difference between the “Amir” in the Islamic system and the “center of the nation” of those who deny Hadith.
Objection:The statement I made—that “Allah and the Messenger” means “the Islamic system”—is not something I invented. You too are guilty of the same offense. In your commentary entitled Tafhim al-Qur’an, while explaining verse 33 of Surah al-Ma’idah, you wrote: “Waging war against Allah and His Messenger means waging war against that sound and beneficial system which the state organization of Islam has established within the country. When such a system is established anywhere on earth, attempting to destroy it is in reality waging war against Allah and His Messenger” (vol. 1, p. 365).
Answer:Here again, the audacity has been shown of presenting my own statement before me in fragments. The original statement is as follows:
When such a system has been established on earth, attempting to destroy it—whether on a small scale, merely reaching the level of murder, looting, robbery, and theft, or on a large scale, by replacing this sound system with a destructive one—is essentially tantamount to waging war against Allah and His Messenger. An example of this is that under the Indian Penal Code, every person involved in an attempt to overthrow the British government in India was considered guilty of the offense of “waging war against the king.” This applied even if his activity was that of an ordinary soldier located in a remote area deep within the country, and even if the king was far removed from his intervention.”
Now even a person of ordinary intelligence and common sense can see how great is the difference between waging war against a soldier representing the emperor and considering the soldier himself to be the emperor! There is precisely as great a difference between the following two statements: one person considers activity against the government administering the social system intended by Allah and His Messenger to be activity against Allah and His Messenger, while another claims that this government itself is Allah and the Messenger.
Until you give even a little thought to the consequences of these two statements, you will not fully grasp the subtlety and delicacy of this difference. Suppose that an Islamic government issues an erroneous directive contrary to the Qur’an and the Sunnah. According to my explanation, the Muslim public has the right to stand up and say: “Withdraw your directive, because you have acted in opposition to the command of Allah and His Messenger. Allah Almighty has said this in the Holy Qur’an. This is proven from the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). Yet you have deviated from it and issued this directive. Therefore, in this matter you have not correctly represented Allah and His Messenger.”
According to the explanation of those who deny Hadith, the Islamic government itself is Allah and the Messenger. Therefore, Muslims have no right to present the foregoing arguments against any of its directives. Whenever someone presents such an argument, the government will immediately silence him by saying: We ourselves are Allah and the Messenger; whatever we say and do is therefore the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
Those who deny Hadith claim that wherever the words “Allah and the Messenger” occur in the Qur’an, they mean the Islamic government. I appeal to the readers to open the Qur’an Majid, locate the relevant verses, and see what the consequences would be of taking the meaning of those two words, wherever they occur together, to be “the government.” For example, consider the following few verses.
“O Prophet! Tell them: Obey Allah and the Messenger. Then, if they turn away from them, Allah does not love the disbelievers” (Surah Al Imran: 32).
“O people who have believed—believe wholeheartedly in Allah and the Messenger” (Surah al-Nisa: 136).
“The true believers are only those who have believed in Allah and the Messenger and then have never fallen into doubt” (Surah al-Hujurat: 15).
“As for those who have not believed in Allah and the Messenger, We have prepared a blazing Fire for such disbelievers” (Surah al-Fath: 13).
“Indeed, Allah has cursed the disbelievers and prepared a blazing Fire for them, in which they will remain forever. They will find no protector or helper on the day when their faces are turned about in the Fire. Then they will say, ‘Alas! If only we had obeyed Allah and obeyed the Messenger’” (Surah al-Ahzab: 64–66).
“Their financial contributions were not accepted because they disbelieved in Allah and His Messenger” (Surah al-Tawbah: 54).
“O Prophet! Even if you ask forgiveness for them seventy times, Allah will never forgive them, because they disbelieved in Allah and His Messenger” (Surah al-Tawbah: 80).
“And never pray over any of them who dies, nor stand by his grave, because they disobeyed Allah and His Messenger and died as sinners” (Surah al-Tawbah: 84).
“O people who have believed—obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and do not invalidate your deeds” (Surah Muhammad: 33).
“Whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, for him is the Fire of Hell, in which they will remain forever” (Surah al-Jinn: 23).
“Do they not know that whoever opposes Allah and His Messenger will have the Fire of Hell, where they will remain forever?” (Surah al-Tawbah: 63).
“Allah and His Messenger have the greater right that they should satisfy them, if they are believers” (Surah al-Tawbah: 62).
Anyone who reads the above verses attentively will understand that if “Allah and the Messenger” were taken to mean “the government” anywhere, the structure of the religion of Islam would be distorted, and an exceptionally vile tyranny would be established, before which the tyrannies of Pharaoh, Genghis Khan, Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin would seem insignificant. This would mean that the government itself was the religion and faith of the Muslims. Those who obeyed it would remain Muslims, while those who disobeyed it would become disbelievers. Those who opposed this government would not merely be imprisoned in this world; in the Hereafter they would also suffer everlasting punishment in Hell. Anyone who disagreed with it would suffer everlasting punishment in Hell. Satisfying this government would become a condition of faith, and the prayers, fasting, zakat, and all good deeds of anyone who withdrew from obedience to it would be nullified. It would not be permissible for Muslims even to perform his funeral prayer, nor could prayers for his forgiveness be offered. Can any particular tyranny be compared with such a government?
Now also consider this point: from the time of the Umayyad dynasty until today, the entire Islamic world has never been united under one government even for a single day, and even today many governments exist in Muslim countries. Will there now be separate “Allahs and Messengers” for Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Iraq, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, and so on? Or will the “Allah and Messenger” of one state forcibly impose its dictatorship upon the other states? Or will Islam remain entirely ineffective and abandoned until the entire Islamic world jointly elects a single “Allah and Messenger”?
21. What were the limits of mutual consultation in the age of prophethood??
Objection:“If every directive of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), as head of state, was based on revelation, why was he then instructed to seek consultation? In the correspondence under discussion, you wrote in this regard that the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) sought consultation only in determining procedures. Previously you wrote that everything the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) said and did during his twenty-three-year prophetic life was based on revelation, and now you have excluded procedures from this.”
Answer:In matters concerning which Allah Almighty did not guide the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) through recited revelation or unrecited revelation, the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), with the help of the teaching given by Allah, understood that the matter had been left to human judgment. It was in such matters that the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) made decisions after consulting his Companions. Its purpose was to train people, through the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), in the Islamic method of consultation. Training Muslims in this way was itself part of the responsibility of prophethood.
22. Was the method of the adhan adopted on the basis of consultation or inspiration??
Objection:You wrote: “Can you present any example in which, during the age of prophethood, an interpretation of any part of the Qur’an Majid was made on the basis of consultation? Or any law was formulated on the basis of consultation? Not many—present just one example.” We find one such example in Mishkat Sharif. Allah Almighty instructed in the Qur’an Majid that a call should be made for prayer, but He Himself did not specify the method of making this call. The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) determined the method through consultation with the Companions and adopted a method contrary to his own view, because he had previously instructed that a horn should be blown. Tell us, is the adhan included among the regulations of the religion of Islam or not?”
Answer:Can any verse of the Qur’an Majid be cited in which there is an instruction to call out for prayer? The mention of calling for prayer occurs only twice in the Qur’an Majid. Verse 58 of Surah al-Ma’idah says: “When you call to prayer, they [the People of the Book and the disbelievers] take it as an object of mockery and amusement.” And verse 9 of Surah al-Jumu‘ah says: “When the call to prayer is made on Friday, hasten to the remembrance of Allah.” In both these verses, the call to prayer is mentioned as an established practice. We do not find anywhere in the Qur’an a verse instructing: Give the adhan for prayer.
The reference to Mishkat Sharif shows that it was not given after reading Mishkat Sharif; rather, hearsay has been reproduced here. Open the chapter entitled “Prayer” and the section entitled “Adhan” in Mishkat Sharif and see. The Hadith collected there show that when the regular congregational prayer system was established in Madinah Tayyibah, no instruction initially came from Allah Almighty concerning how people should be gathered for prayer. The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) gathered the Companions and consulted them. Some people said that a fire could be lit. Seeing its smoke rising, people would know that the congregational prayer was about to begin. Some people expressed the view that a horn should be blown. But some others said that the former was the practice of the Jews and the latter that of the Christians. No final decision had yet been reached on the matter, and further deliberation was under way. In the meantime, Hazrat Abdullah ibn Zayd al-Ansari (may Allah be pleased with him) saw in a dream that a man was carrying a horn. He said to him, “O servant of Allah! Will you sell this horn?” The man asked, “What will you do with it?” He replied, “I will call the people to prayer.” The man said, “I will tell you a better method than this.” Then, in the dream, the visitor taught him the words of the adhan.
In the morning, Hazrat Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with him) came and told the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) about his dream. The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “This is a true dream. Get up and dictate the words to Bilal one by one; he will proclaim them aloud.” Hearing the loud voice of the adhan, Hazrat Umar al-Faruq (may Allah be pleased with him) came running and said, “By Allah, I too saw this dream.” The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “All praise is due to Allah.” This is the summary of the section on the adhan in Mishkat Sharif. What appears from it is that the method of the adhan for prayer was adopted not on the basis of consultation, but on the basis of inspiration. This inspiration came to Hazrat Abdullah ibn Zayd (may Allah be pleased with him) and Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) in the form of a dream.
However, when the narrations found in the other Hadith collections besides Mishkat Sharif are brought together, they prove that on the very day the Companions received guidance concerning the adhan through a dream, this command also came to the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) through revelation. Allamah Ibn Hajar compiled these Hadith in the book Fath al-Bari.
23. Are the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) judicial decisions authoritative evidence??
Objection:“According to your claim, every decision of the Prophet (peace be upon him) should have been based on revelation. Yet you yourself admit that this decision of his was not based on revelation. Therefore, in volume one of Tafhim al-Qur’an, page 147, you have cited the following hadith, in which the Prophet (peace be upon him) says:
“Indeed, I am only a human being. You bring disputes before me, and one of you may be more eloquent than the other; after hearing their arguments, I may decide in his favor. But beware! If, through my decision, you acquire anything that belongs to your brother, then in reality you have acquired a piece of Hell.”
There was this possibility of error in the decisions of the Prophet (peace be upon him), concerning which the Qur’an Majid stated through the words of the Prophet (peace be upon him): “If I go astray, it is only to my own detriment; and if I remain on the straight path, it is because of revelation” (see Surah Saba, verse 50).¹
Answer: This too is another striking example of a lack of sound judgment. Even a person with only a superficial knowledge of legal matters knows that every judgment in a case contains two distinct elements. First, the facts of the case, which are established on the basis of testimony, evidence, and related matters. Second, the application of law to those facts—that is, determining, on the basis of the facts established from the particulars of the case, what the legal ruling applicable to that case should be. What the Prophet (peace be upon him) said in this hadith does not mean that he could err while applying the law to the facts of a case. Rather, the clear meaning of his words is that if you present false accounts and establish facts of a case contrary to reality, I will issue a ruling on that basis. The judge’s duty is to deliver judgment on the basis of the facts that are brought to light before him through the accounts and evidence of the plaintiff and defendant. Even if he learns the actual facts through some outside means, he cannot issue judgment on that basis. Rather, in accordance with the principles of justice, he must decide the case on the basis of the account presented. Therefore, a judgment based on facts established through a false account is not the judge’s error; rather, the party that secured a favorable decision by proving facts contrary to reality is responsible for that error. Where, then, did the conclusion that Dr. Sahib is trying to draw from this come from? Who has ultimately claimed that Allah the Exalted used revelation to tell the Prophet (peace be upon him) the actual facts of every case? The actual claim is only that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not fall into error in interpreting the law and applying it to the actual facts, because he was a judge appointed by Allah. The light-giving guidance granted by Allah guided him in this task, and for this reason his decisions are regarded as authoritative proof and evidence. If anyone possesses evidence contrary to this claim, let him present it.
¹ Dr. Sahib has once again drawn an erroneous inference from this verse of Surah Saba. Yet he had previously been warned about this matter (see the section entitled “Drawing an Erroneous Argument from the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) Ijtihadi Slips”).
The hadith from which Dr. Sahib has taken evidence above nowhere says, “I may make a mistake in issuing a decision.” It is universally acknowledged in jurisprudence as well that if, before a court, a person proves an account contrary to the actual facts through the force of testimony and evidence, and the judge, accepting it, delivers a ruling according to the correct law, the ruling itself is not erroneous. But Dr. Sahib is declaring this to be an error in the judgment.
24. A Remarkable Example of Sophistical Argument
Objection:You said: The Prophet (peace be upon him) made only a few slips. In other words, you believe that if the Prophet (peace be upon him) had made many slips, that would have been objectionable, but a few slips are not objectionable.
Answer:What a delightful extract is being drawn from my writing and presented before me! The statement from which this extract has been drawn is quoted verbatim below:
“From the second verse you cited, you conclude that the Prophet (peace be upon him) made many errors in his decisions, of which Allah the Exalted pointed out these two or four errors as examples, so that people would take warning that in the whole of the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) prophetic life there were only these few slips, which Allah the Exalted corrected immediately. We can now follow all the Sunnahs established from him with complete certainty. For if there had been any further slip in them, Allah the Exalted would not have allowed it to remain, just as He did not allow these slips to remain.”
The extract from the foregoing statement has been presented as follows: “If the Prophet (peace be upon him) had made many slips, that would have been objectionable, but a few slips are not objectionable.” How can people form a favorable opinion of those whose style of argument is like this, believing that they are speaking with an honest intention in order to understand the statement?
Objection:If every word of the Prophet (peace be upon him) had been based on revelation, then even one slip on his part would have been enough to throw the entire system of the religion of Islam into disorder. This is because it would not have been a human error, but—God forbid—an error in revelation, an error on the part of Allah Himself. And if Allah—God forbid—can make mistakes, what meaning can there be in believing in such a God?”
Answer:What is this if not a fallacy? Who has said that Allah the Exalted first gave erroneous guidance through revelation, causing the Prophet (peace be upon him) to slip? The central point, which can easily be understood without obstinacy, is that since even one slip by the Prophet (peace be upon him) would have been enough to overturn the entire system of the religion of Islam, Allah the Exalted took upon Himself the responsibility that, in carrying out the duty of prophethood, He Himself would guide and support the Prophet (peace be upon him), and whenever he slipped owing to human nature, He would immediately correct him, so that no defect could remain in the religion of Islam.
25. There Was a Clear Distinction Between the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) Personal Opinions and Statements Given on the Basis of Revelation
Objection:You have said that everything the Prophet (peace be upon him) did or said throughout his entire prophetic life was based on revelation. But regarding the hadiths concerning the Dajjal, you state:
“The various statements concerning these matters mentioned in the hadiths of the Prophet (peace be upon him) were essentially based on his conjecture, and he himself was uncertain about them”—(Rasail wa Masail, vol. 1, p. 55).
Immediately afterward, you yourself admit that, “The Prophet’s (peace be upon him) anxiety itself indicates that he did not make these statements on the basis of knowledge received through revelation, but rather on the basis of his own ideas and conjectures”—(ibid., p. 56).
Answer:The same skill in deception has once again been displayed in copying the sentences of mine being relied upon here. One sentence has been copied from one place and another sentence from a different passage, severed from their preceding and following context, in order to serve the writer’s purpose. What I actually said here was that the knowledge given to the Prophet (peace be upon him) through revelation concerning the Dajjal extended only to the fact that the Dajjal would appear and would possess such-and-such characteristics. The Prophet (peace be upon him) stated these matters as reports. But no knowledge was given to the Prophet (peace be upon him) through revelation about when and where he would appear. Therefore, whatever he said about these matters, he said not in the form of a report, but on the basis of analogy and conjecture. For example, he expressed doubt about Ibn Sayyad, saying that perhaps he was the Dajjal in question.
But when Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) wanted to kill him, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: If he is the Dajjal, you will not be his killer; and if he is not the Dajjal, you have no right to kill a dhimmi (a non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state). It is stated in another hadith: “If the Dajjal appears during my lifetime, I will confront him with argument and proof; otherwise, after me my Lord will be the patron and helper of every believer.”
This was my statement. It is clear from it that the Prophet (peace be upon him) expressed knowledge received through revelation in one manner, while he described matters about which he had not been given knowledge through revelation in an entirely different manner. His manner of expression itself made this distinction clear. But where the Companions could not easily grasp the distinction, they would ask him directly whether he had said something according to his personal opinion or on Allah the Exalted’s command. I have presented many examples of this in the essay entitled “The Islamic Concept of Freedom” in volume one of Tafhimat.
26. Did the Companions Advocate That the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) Decisions Could Be Changed?
Objection:“I had written that there were certain decisions adopted during the era of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), but after the Prophet (peace be upon him), the Rightly Guided Caliphs changed those decisions as circumstances required. You said that this was a grave slander against those great personalities. As proof, you could not produce any statement or action of theirs. You will now be surprised to learn that, regarding this matter, you yourself, just one page later, have presented clear proof that the noble Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) considered the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) decisions changeable according to changes in circumstances. See what you wrote:
“Who does not know that Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him), after the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him), insisted on sending the army under the command of Usama (may Allah be pleased with him) on an expedition solely because he did not consider himself entitled to alter a decision that the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself had made during his lifetime? When the Companions drew his attention to the fear that a terrible storm might arise throughout Arabia and deemed it unsuitable under those circumstances to send an army toward Syria, Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) replied, ‘Even if dogs or wolves were to snatch me away, I could not alter a decision made by the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)’”—(Tarjuman al-Qur’an, November 1960, p. ).
This proves that all the Companions other than Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) considered it permissible to alter the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) decision as circumstances changed. You have also written:
“Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) expressed his wish that at least Usama be removed from command of this army, because many senior Companions were unwilling to remain under the command of this young man. Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) then seized him by the beard and said, ‘Son of Khattab! May your mother mourn you and lose you. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) appointed him, and you say that I should dismiss him?’”—(ibid.).
This too proves that Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) considered it permissible to alter the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) decisions as circumstances changed. Indeed, in this incident there was no question of changing circumstances. Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) wanted to change it because the Companions were not pleased with him. Do you believe that none of the Companions [apart from Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him)] understood that the Messenger of Allah’s (peace be upon him) decision could never be changed under any circumstances?
Answer:This is an example of how hadith deniers search only for their own purpose within every sentence. Read again the two incidents concerning Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) mentioned above. Is it stated anywhere in them that when Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) refused to alter the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) decision, Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) or any of the Companions said: “O leader of the nation! In accordance with the Shariah, you are not obliged to follow the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) decisions; rather, you possess full authority to change them. If your personal opinion is that Usama’s army should depart at this time and that Usama (may Allah be pleased with him) should remain its commander, then so be it. Act accordingly, because you are ‘Allah and the Messenger.’ But do not offer as proof that this was the Messenger of Allah’s (peace be upon him) decision and therefore cannot be changed. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was the center of the nation in his era, and you are the center of the nation in your era. Today your authority is what the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) was yesterday.”
If Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) or the other Companions had said this, the hadith deniers would certainly have found an argument in their favor. On the contrary, what happened was that when Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) mentioned the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) decision, all the Companions, including Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), bowed their heads in obedience. Usama’s army set out, Usama (may Allah be pleased with him) remained its commander, and many senior Companions departed under his command with willing hearts and joy. Moreover, this also proves that after the Prophet (peace be upon him), a misunderstanding arose among some people that his administrative decisions could be changed when necessary. But as soon as the person who was most mature in the knowledge of religion at that time warned them, everyone recognized their mistake and bowed their heads in obedience.
This course of action is extremely painful: in order merely to establish their own position, the reaction of the noble Companions that occurred only during the discussion is being invoked, while the consensus-based decision reached by everyone at the end of the discussion is being ignored. The universally recognized principle is that the decision collectively reached after discussion is the admissible proof, not the opinions expressed during the discussion.
27. The Nature of Umar’s (may Allah be pleased with him) Ruling Concerning Triple Divorce
Objection:“You said that I should present an example of a decision from the era of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) that the Rightly Guided Caliphs changed. You cannot deny that during the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) era, three divorces pronounced in one sitting were treated as one divorce, and that divorce was deemed revocable. During his rule, Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) counted it as three divorces and deemed it an irrevocable divorce, and the Ummah has continued to act upon this in accordance with the science of jurisprudence.”
Answer:The correct position in this regard is that even during the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) era, three divorces pronounced together were considered three divorces, and on various occasions the Prophet (peace be upon him) ruled that they counted as three. However, if a person who pronounced the word “divorce” three times separately offered the excuse that he had intended only one divorce and had used the word the other two times merely for confirmation, the Prophet (peace be upon him) would accept his excuse.
What Umar al-Faruq (may Allah be pleased with him) did in his era was simply this: when people began widely pronouncing three divorces and turning the matter of one divorce into a game, he said, “I will not accept this excuse, and I will enforce three divorces as three divorces.” The Companions unanimously accepted this, and subsequently the Tabi‘un and the mujtahid imams also agreed upon this decision. None of them said that Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) had changed any law of the era of the Messenger. This is because accepting an excuse based on intention is not itself a law; rather, acceptance of the excuse depends on whether the person claiming his intention is truthful according to the judge’s ruling. During the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) era, a very small number of ordinary people in Medina offered this type of excuse. Therefore, the Prophet (peace be upon him) considered them truthful and accepted their statements. During Umar’s (may Allah be pleased with him) era, the excuse of every individual throughout the extensive realm stretching from Iran to Egypt and from Yemen to Syria could not necessarily be upheld in court. This was especially so when many people began pronouncing three divorces together and claiming that they had intended only one.
28. The Nature of Umar’s (may Allah be pleased with him) Reasoning Concerning the Mu’allafat al-Qulub
Objection: “During the era of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), assistance was given from the zakat funds to the mu’allafat al-qulub (new Muslims, or non-Muslims whose inclination toward Islam was intended to be cultivated). During his rule, Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) stopped this assistance.”
Answer:If anyone considers this an example of altering a decision, he should claim that the “center of the nation” can alter not only the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) decisions, but Allah’s own decrees as well. For the share of the mu’allafat al-qulub in zakat was not determined by the Prophet (peace be upon him) through any hadith; rather, Allah the Exalted Himself determined it in the Qur’an Majid (see Surah al-Tawbah, verse 60). If the hadith deniers have not reached the point of grasping at straws while drowning, and if they wish to understand the significance of the matter, they can grasp it by giving a little thought to the very term “mu’allafat al-qulub.” The term itself expresses its meaning: those whose hearts are intended to be won over may be given money from this category. Umar’s (may Allah be pleased with him) reasoning was that during the era of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), the Islamic government needed to spend wealth on the mu’allafat al-qulub. For this reason, the Prophet (peace be upon him) gave people grants from this category. Now our state has become so powerful that we do not need to spend money on anyone for the stated purpose. Therefore, we will spend no money from this category.
Can it be concluded from the foregoing account that Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) altered any decision from the era of the Prophet (peace be upon him)? Was there actually any decision of the Prophet (peace be upon him) that, whether or not there was a need to win hearts, certain people must in all cases be designated as mu’allafat al-qulub and their share must always be set aside from zakat? Did Allah the Exalted Himself make it obligatory in the Qur’an Majid that a portion of zakat funds must under all circumstances be spent on the category of mu’allafat al-qulub?
29. Was Ḥaḍrat ʿUmar’s (RA) decision regarding conquered territories contrary to the decision of the Great Prophet (PBUH)??
Allegation: “During the time of the Prophet (PBUH), conquered territories were distributed among the mujahideen. But during his era, Ḥaḍrat ʿUmar (RA) eradicated this practice.”
Answer: The Great Prophet (PBUH) never decided that conquered territories must always be distributed among the soldiers. Had he made such a ruling and had Ḥaḍrat ʿUmar (RA) acted contrary to it, you could have said that he had altered the Prophet’s (PBUH) decision. Or, if Ḥaḍrat ʿUmar (RA) had taken back from the mujahideen the lands that the Prophet (PBUH) had distributed among them during his lifetime, then the above claim could have been made. But neither of these two things occurred. The actual matter is that the obligatory distribution of conquered territories among the mujahideen was not, in itself, an Islamic law. Regarding conquered lands, the Great Prophet (PBUH) made different decisions in different places according to necessity. The arrangements for the conquered territories of Banū Naḍīr, Banū Qurayẓah, Khaybar, Fadak, Wādī al-Qurā, Makkah, and Ṭāʾif were each made in different ways during the Prophetic era, and no principle was laid down that the arrangements for these lands would necessarily be made in a particular way in the future. Therefore, the arrangement that Ḥaḍrat ʿUmar (RA) made for conquered lands in his own era after consulting the Companions cannot be established as an example of altering the decision of the Great Prophet (PBUH).
30. Ḥaḍrat ʿUmar’s (RA) decision regarding the distribution of salaries and allowances
Allegation:The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) fixed equal salaries and allowances for people. But Ḥaḍrat ʿUmar (RA) fixed them according to the extent of service and thereby altered the decision of the Great Prophet (PBUH). Several other examples of this and similar alterations are also found, which clearly show that during the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, amendments were made to the decisions of the Great Prophet (PBUH) as circumstances changed.
Answer:What evidence is there that the Great Prophet (PBUH) gave equal salaries and allowances to all the employees? In light of history, it appears that this was the practice of Ḥaḍrat Abū Bakr (RA). Thus, if it can be regarded as an example of anything, it shows that a caliph has the right to amend the decisions of his predecessor.
My request is that the Hadith rejecters collectively prepare and present a complete list of such examples. God willing, I will prove that not one of them is an example of altering the decisions of the Great Prophet (PBUH) during the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphate.
31. Were the economic injunctions of the Noble Qur’an intended only for that era??
Allegation:“You also ridicule me for saying that the Qur’anic injunctions that become operative under certain conditions remain suspended when those conditions are absent, until similar circumstances arise again. These have been interpreted as injunctions for the contemporary age. The instruction to assist the mu’allafatu al-qulūb from the zakat funds exists in the Noble Qur’an. Ḥaḍrat ʿUmar (RA) discontinued this category, saying that the injunction had remained operative only as long as the state needed to spend on it. Now that need no longer remains. This is also the intention of those who call such Qur’anic injunctions ‘injunctions for the contemporary age.’”
Answer:This sophistry will not actually achieve the intended objective. The Hadith rejecters have completely adopted the communists’ view regarding private ownership. They have named it the “Qur’anic system of sustenance.” Whenever they are told that the economic laws contained in the Noble Qur’an directly or indirectly aim at abolishing this system, they reply that these injunctions were for the contemporary age. In other words, once this age has passed and these people’s invented “divine system of sustenance” has been established, those injunctions will be abrogated. Mr. Parvez has stated this plainly:
“(It may be asked,) if the Qur’anic economic system is of this nature, why did it nevertheless prescribe laws concerning zakat, charity, inheritance, and similar matters? The reason is that the Qur’an does not wish to introduce this system all at once; it wishes to establish it gradually. Therefore, the injunctions concerning zakat, charity, inheritance, and similar matters were connected with that contemporary age, when this system had not yet been established in its final structure (see the paper ‘Economics in the Islamic System,’ presented at the International Conference).
But these people have been unable to show anywhere in the Qur’an that Allah Most High prescribed this invented “divine system,” or said that our real objective is to establish this “divine system,” and that, until it is established, We have instructed people to observe the laws concerning zakat, charity, inheritance, and similar matters. All of this is their own invention, while they wish to dismiss the Qur’an’s clear and definitive laws by regarding them as temporary injunctions. What relation does what Ḥaḍrat ʿUmar (RA) said concerning the mu’allafatu al-qulūb ultimately have to do with the matter stated above? His point was simply that, whereas we had previously been spending money to win their hearts, there was now no need to spend on this category, so we would no longer provide them financial assistance. This is entirely analogous to the command in the Noble Qur’an to give zakat to the poor and needy: under this command, we give zakat to a person as long as he remains poor or needy, and when his condition changes, we stop giving him zakat. This has not the slightest connection with Mr. Parvez’s doctrine of the “contemporary age.”
32. The erroneous interpretation of the “contemporary age”
Allegation: “You yourself also acknowledge that a definitive ruling of the Shariah may be kept in abeyance until circumstances become favorable. For example, regarding Pakistan’s constitution, you said: ‘The participation of non-Muslims in administering an Islamic state is incorrect both according to the Shariah and intellectually. But as a temporary arrangement, we consider it permissible and reasonable that they may be given representation in the country’s constituent assembly’ (Tarjuman al-Qur’an, September 1952, pp. 430–431).
Answer:This matter too is completely different from the outlook and doctrine of the Hadith rejecters. Regarding non-Muslims, we know with certainty that Islam does not include them in the responsibility of administering its state system. Therefore, it is our duty to implement this policy, and until we are able to implement it, whatever we do under compulsion will be a temporary arrangement. In contrast, the Hadith rejecters themselves devise a “divine system” for which they cannot produce a single authoritative Qur’anic injunction, while they regard the clear and definitive Qur’anic laws establishing private ownership as temporary injunctions. There is an enormous difference between these two matters.
In our view, the definition of a “temporary arrangement” is that, if obstacles exist to acting according to any injunction of the Noble Qur’an or any method or principle given by the Qur’an, then whatever we do temporarily until those obstacles are removed will constitute a temporary arrangement. In contrast, according to the Hadith rejecters, until the environment becomes suitable for acting upon their own invented principles, they will act upon the laws and principles given by the Qur’an only as a temporary arrangement.
33. Was the Great Prophet (PBUH) merely an interpreter of the Qur’an, or also a legislator??
Allegation:“The question also arose whether the Sunnah is merely an interpretation of Qur’anic injunctions and principles, or whether it also expands the list of Qur’anic injunctions. The correct position is that the Sunnah determines the subsidiary matters relating to the subjects on which the Qur’an has given fundamental directives. It is not that the Qur’an introduced some injunctions and the Sunnah added further injunctions to that list. If that were the case, the list of Qur’anic injunctions would have been incomplete, and the Sunnah would have completed it by adding something further. Yet, where you have described the first position in one place, elsewhere you have described the second. These two statements are mutually contradictory.”
Ask even people of ordinary understanding whether, according to your own statement, the Messenger of Allah’s (PBUH) saying, ‘It is also unlawful to marry a woman and her paternal niece together, or a woman and her maternal niece together,’ is an explanation and elaboration of the Qur’anic injunction—that is, the prohibition of marrying two sisters together—or an addition to the Qur’an’s divinely given list of prohibited women. Every sensible person—provided he is not obstinate like you or behaving like a fool—will say that it is an addition to the Qur’anic list. The important question arising from this discussion is: when Allah Most High has mentioned in the Qur’anic list paternal aunts, maternal aunts, nieces, foster mothers, foster sisters, wives’ mothers (mothers-in-law), sons’ wives, and even foster daughters, and has also stated that two sisters may not be married together, could Allah Most High not have stated this much as well—God forbid—that a paternal aunt and her niece, or a maternal aunt and her niece, may not be married together?”
Answer:The answer to the entire foregoing discussion is that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) was both an interpreter of the Qur’an and a legislator appointed by Allah Most High. One of his responsibilities was to explain Allah’s revealed law for humankind, and another was to make pure things lawful for people and impure things unlawful for them. Therefore, just as the Great Prophet (PBUH) had the authority to explain Qur’anic injunctions and his explanations are authoritative, he was also granted the authority to legislate, and the injunctions he gave are authoritative. There is absolutely no contradiction between these two matters. As for the issue of paternal and maternal aunts, if the Hadith rejecters had not been afflicted with the disease of crooked argumentation, it would easily have occurred to them that when the Noble Qur’an forbids marrying one woman together with her sister, its purpose is to protect the natural bond of love that exists and ought to exist between two sisters. The Great Prophet (PBUH) said that the same reason exists in the case of a paternal aunt and a maternal aunt. Therefore, one must refrain from marrying a paternal aunt together with her niece, or a maternal aunt together with her niece. Whether this is regarded as an explanation of the Qur’an, a ruling derived from the Qur’an (istinbāṭ), or a ruling given by the Messenger, the essential point is that it is the command of Allah’s Messenger, and from the beginning of Islam until today the entire ummah has unanimously recognized it as a legal ruling. No one disagreed on this matter except a subgroup of the Kharijites. The argument of that subgroup was exactly the one advanced today by the Hadith rejecters: since this ruling is not in the Noble Qur’an, we will not accept it.
The second point raised by the Doctor in this connection is entirely the result of limited knowledge and weak intellectual ability. Among the important principles of the Shariah is that if the purpose (‘illah) underlying an original command in one matter is found in another matter as well, the same ruling will apply to it. For example, the Noble Qur’an specifically prohibited the drinking of wine. The Great Prophet (PBUH) said that the purpose of the prohibition in this matter is intoxication; therefore, anything that causes intoxication is unlawful. Only a person of limited knowledge and foolish understanding could now ask: if that was Allah Most High’s purpose, could He not have given a list in the Noble Qur’an of all intoxicants, such as bhang, hashish, palm wine, and so on?
34. The significance of the Messenger of Allah’s (PBUH) insight being divinely granted
Allegation: “The central question of the entire discussion is whether all the revelation sent down to the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) was compiled in the Noble Qur’an, or whether only part of the revelation entered the Qur’an and the rest was not incorporated. Your answer here is that there were two—indeed, several—categories of revelation. Only one category was incorporated into the Qur’an; the remaining categories were not incorporated into it. I wish to remind you that in the first volume of Tafhīmāt you wrote:
“There is no doubt that the Qur’an is the fundamental law. But this law was not sent to us without an intermediary; rather, it was sent through the mediation of the Messenger of God (PBUH). The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) was made an intermediary so that he would implement the fundamental laws in his own life and the life of his ummah, present a model, and, with the help of his God-given insight, determine for us the manner in which these fundamental laws should be put into practice in our collective and individual conduct” (p. 237).¹
The characteristic of revelation, and the characteristic on the basis of which it is called something sent down by Allah, is that the insight of the one to whom the revelation is sent has no involvement in it. If the ‘revelation’ in light of which the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) determined the method of implementing the Qur’an’s fundamental laws had genuinely been sent down by Allah, the Messenger’s (PBUH) insight could not have had any intervention in it. And if the Prophet (PBUH) had determined it through his own insight, then it would not have been revelation. However elevated and developed the Messenger’s insight may be, it cannot be Allah’s revelation.
Perhaps you will say that I used the expression ‘God-given insight,’ and that there is a vast difference between human insight and God-given insight. If that is your answer, I would ask: is the discernment and insight you have received granted by Allah, or has someone else bestowed it? Every human insight is itself granted by Allah.”
Answer:Here the Doctor has again made the same mistake in understanding the word ‘revelation,’ about which I had warned him in my last letter (see the section entitled ‘What Is Meant by Revelation?’). Among the incomparable qualities of the Hadith rejecters is this striking characteristic: even if you prove one of their errors to be erroneous through argument ten times, they will continue repeating their own words and pay no attention whatsoever to what you say.
By ‘God-given discernment or insight,’ I did not mean any innate quality, as every person possesses some quality by birth. Rather, I meant the insight and discernment that Allah Most High granted the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), together with prophethood, so that he could fulfill the responsibilities of prophethood. On its basis, he reached the depths of the Qur’an’s purposes and objectives, to a point no non-prophet could reach; in its light, he himself followed the true path of Islam and showed others the way as well. This insight and discernment was an essential element of prophethood, granted to the Great Prophet (PBUH) along with the Book so that he could explain the Book’s fundamental purposes and objectives and guide people in the conduct of life. How can the discernment and insight of non-prophets ultimately be compared with this discernment and insight?
Whatever discernment a non-prophet may receive from Allah—whether legal discernment, medical discernment, technical or engineering discernment, or discernment regarding any other field—is, by its inherent nature, completely distinct from the light of knowledge and wisdom and the perfect acuity and understanding granted to a prophet for fulfilling the responsibilities of prophethood. However high and advanced the first kind may be, it is certainly not a definitive source of knowledge. For a conclusion reached by a non-prophet through this discernment, he cannot know with certainty whether it has been reached through Allah’s guidance or through his own personal thought and research. In contrast, just as the Book revealed to a prophet is a definitive source of knowledge, this second kind of insight is likewise a definitive source of knowledge, because a prophet knows with full awareness that this guidance comes from Allah.
But because of the extreme hostility that the Hadith rejecters harbor toward the person of the Prophet, they trample upon every one of the Prophet’s excellences and distinctions. Through desperate efforts, they seek to prove that there is no difference between a prophet and ordinary knowledgeable people. If he had any distinctive quality at all, they say it was merely that Allah appointed him as a runner or messenger to convey His call to His servants.
The remainder of the sentence that the Doctor omitted is this: “Therefore, in the light of the Qur’an, the correct method is: first, the fundamental laws granted by Allah; then, the method given by Allah’s Messenger; then, the ijtihad of those vested with authority among us in light of both:
“Obey Allah, obey the Messenger, and those vested with authority among you” (Surah al-Nisa: 59).
35. The classification of revelation in the light of the Qur’an
Allegation: “To prove the various categories of revelation granted by Allah, you cited verse 51 of Surah al-Shura. You translated it as follows:
“It is not fitting for any human being that Allah should speak to him except through revelation, or from behind a veil, or by sending a messenger who reveals, by His permission, whatever He wills. Indeed, He is Exalted and Wise.”
First, you have not understood the meaning of the concluding part of this verse at all (according to my insight into the Qur’an). From this verse I have understood that Allah Most High is not describing here only the ways in which He communicates with the prophets and messengers; rather, it states what His mode of communication with every person is. It is evident that human beings are of two kinds: first, the prophets and messengers, and second, non-prophetic people. The first two parts of this verse mention two ways of communicating with the noble prophets. One way is expressed by the word revelation, meaning the descent of revelation into the prophet’s heart, which took place through the mediation of Hazrat Jibril (peace be upon him). The second way was the direct divine voice, which was made audible from behind a veil; this is especially mentioned in the account of Hazrat Musa (peace be upon him). The Qur’an clearly states concerning this:وكلم الله موسى تكليما . Elsewhere it is stated that Hazrat Musa (peace be upon him) expressed the desire to see openly the Exalted Being who speaks to me from behind a veil. It can by no means be correct to interpret this part as meaning that the noble prophets received revelation through dreams. The third part of the verse states that Allah’s mode of communicating with ordinary people is that He sends messengers to them. Allah sends revelation to these messengers, and the messengers convey this revelation to ordinary people. In other words, when we recite the Qur’an, it is as though Allah is communicating with us.
Answer:There is no need to go very far to determine the dimensions of the sample of insight into the Qur’an presented here. Take out and examine the fifth ruku‘ of Surah al-Shura. In the very verse following the one whose meaning the Doctor has described above, Allah Most High says:
“And thus We have revealed to you a spirit from Our command. You did not know what the Book was, nor what faith was. But We made that spirit a light by which We guide whoever We will among Our servants. And surely you guide to a straight path”—(verse 52).
It is clearly known from this that no part of the aforementioned verse describes the manner in which Allah’s message reaches ordinary people; rather, it describes only the manner in which Allah conveys His message to His Prophet. The word “and thus” in this verse points to the three ways of conveying Allah’s commandments mentioned there. In other words, Allah Most High says to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him): Through the aforementioned three ways, We have revealed to you a spirit from Our command. It cannot be taken to mean “Jibril al-Amin,” because if that were intended, instead of ….. it would have said ….. . Therefore, “the spirit of the command” means all those guidances revealed to the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) through the three mentioned ways. Then, in the final two phrases, the sequence of events is described: Allah Most High guided one of His servants from among His servants by means of the light sent to him in the form of “the spirit of the command,” and that servant is still guiding people toward the Straight Path.
Nevertheless, even if the context is disregarded and attention is focused solely on the one verse explained by the Doctor, it still cannot bear the significance that he has tried to derive from it. He has interpreted the third part of that verse to mean that Allah Most High sends a messenger to ordinary people, Allah sends revelation to the messenger, and the messenger conveys this revelation to ordinary people. Yet the actual text of the verse is:
“Or He sends a messenger, and then he reveals, by His permission, whatever He wills.”
If the word “messenger” in the above phrase is taken to mean a “human messenger” instead of an angel, its meaning would be that the messenger ordinarily reveals to human beings. Did the prophets, peace be upon them, actually reveal to ordinary people? The very meaning of the word revelation is subtle indication and secret communication. Even lexically, this word cannot be used to describe the public preaching that the prophets, peace be upon them, carried out among Allah’s servants; nor is it used anywhere in the Qur’an in this sense. Here, the word “messenger” clearly refers to the angel who brought revelation to the prophets, peace be upon them. The act of conveying his message is explained, and may be explained, by the expression “to reveal.”
36. Belief in non-recited revelation (wahy ghayr matlu) is part of belief in the Messenger
Objection:“There is no mention anywhere in the Qur’an of a classification of the revelation that came to the noble prophets. Nor is there any mention anywhere that the Qur’an is the sum of only one type of revelation and that the remaining types of revelation—which were given to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)—have been compiled elsewhere. On the contrary, the Qur’an itself makes the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) say: ‘This Qur’an has been revealed to me.’”—(Surah al-An‘am: 19).
Is there even one place in the Qur’an where it is stated that the Qur’an was revealed to me and that, besides it, I received further revelation that is not mentioned in the Qur’an? The real point is that you have not understood the importance of revelation at all. A person becomes a believer by believing in revelation, and the name of complete and perfect faith is belief in revelation. It does not mean believing in one part of revelation while refusing to believe in another part.”
Answer:Evidence for the discussion entitled “Rules and injunctions were revealed to the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) through revelation apart from the Qur’an” has already been presented in the correspondence on this subject [see the section entitled “Did the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) receive any revelation besides the Qur’an?”]. The remaining question is: where has the command to believe in the second type of revelation been given? The answer is that believing in it is essentially an indispensable part of believing in messengership. The command Allah Most High has given to believe in His Messenger, in addition to His Book, itself demands that one must also believe in whatever guidance and teachings the Messenger gives. This is because they are received from Allah: “Whoever obeys the Messenger has in fact obeyed Allah”—(Surah al-Nisa: 80). “If you obey him, you will be rightly guided”—(Surah al-Nur: 54). “These are the people whom Allah has guided. So follow their guidance”—(al-An‘am: 91).
The Doctor may not know that countless prophets have passed away upon whom no Book was revealed at all. A Book has never come without a prophet, but prophets have come without a Book. People were commanded to believe in their teachings and guidance and to follow them, just as they were commanded to believe in and follow Allah’s Book. It is not essential that recited revelation (direct revelation) be revealed to prophets who brought a Book from the very first day. The Book of the Torah began to be revealed to Hazrat Musa (peace be upon him) only when, after Pharaoh drowned, he reached the foot of Mount Tur with the Children of Israel (see Surah al-A‘raf, verses 130–147, and al-Qasas, verses 40–43). No Book was revealed to him while he was in Egypt. Nevertheless, Pharaoh and every inhabitant of Egypt were commanded to believe in every word he presented on Allah’s behalf. Indeed, because he did not believe these words, Pharaoh was punished along with his army.
If the hadith rejecters refuse to accept this, I would like to ask them whether they believe that the present arrangement of the Qur’an is from Allah. The Qur’an itself clearly states that this sacred Book was not revealed as an organized book all at once; rather, it was revealed little by little, successively, at different times (see Surah Bani Isra’il: 106 and al-Furqan: 32). On the other hand, it is also clearly mentioned that Allah Most High Himself undertook the responsibility of arranging it and having it recited in an orderly manner.
This conclusively proves that the present arrangement of the Qur’an was made under the direct guidance of Allah Most High; the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not arrange it according to his own wishes. Can anyone produce from the Qur’an an instruction that its surahs must be recited according to the present arrangement and that its various verses must be placed in particular contexts? If the Qur’an contains no such guidance, and it is clear that no such command exists in it, then the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) must necessarily have received some instruction from Allah outside the Qur’an, under which he arranged this sacred Book as it is now and taught the Companions to recite it. Moreover, in Surah al-Qiyamah Allah has also said: “Then it is Our responsibility to explain its meaning”—(verse 19).
The foregoing discussion clearly proves that the explanation and interpretation of the Qur’an’s laws and teachings which the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) provided through his words and actions did not originate from his own mind. Rather, the Great and Holy Being who revealed the Qur’an to him also explained its meaning to him and gave detailed explanations of those matters requiring elaboration. No person who claims faith in the Qur’an can refuse to accept this.
37. Did Jibril (peace be upon him) also bring indirect revelation (wahy ghayr matlu)??
Objection: “You have written that only the revelation sent down to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) through Jibril (peace be upon him) is recorded in the Noble Qur’an. First, tell us how you learned that revelation was sent down to the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) without the mediation of Jibril (peace be upon him) as well. Second, perhaps you do not know that those who acknowledge hadith as revelation—what you call revelation without the mediation of Jibril (peace be upon him), namely hadith—hold the belief that Jibril (peace be upon him) descended with these hadiths exactly as he descended with the Qur’an (see the work Jami‘ Bayan al-‘Ilm). Therefore, even your own community does not accept this statement of yours.”
Answer: It is a strange kind of illness to ask about the source of a statement whose source has repeatedly been identified. From Surah al-Shura, verse 51, which the Doctor himself has just discussed, it is clearly evident that revelation was sent down to the prophets, peace be upon them, without the mediation of Jibril (peace be upon him) as well. It seems that the Doctor has not even looked at the appearance of the work Jami‘ Bayan al-‘Ilm and has cited it haphazardly from somewhere. This work records the following statement of Hassan ibn Atiyyah:
“Revelation was sent down to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and Jibril (peace be upon him) would come and explain it and show the manner of acting upon it.”
Where in the above statement is it found that Jibril brought every revelation? It tells us only that Jibril (peace be upon him) brought revelations besides the Qur’an as well. Understanding the difference between “Jibril also brought it” and “Jibril alone brought it” is surely not very difficult.
38. Are the Book and Wisdom the same thing or distinct things??
“You argued that Allah Most High described both the ‘Book and Wisdom’ as sent down from Allah. The Book means the Qur’an, and wisdom means the Sunnah, that is, hadith. No amount of lamentation would be excessive over such an understanding of the Qur’an. Servant of the Benevolent! The letter waw between ‘Book and Wisdom’ is not a conjunction, whose meaning is ‘and’; it is an explanatory waw. Proof of this exists in the Noble Qur’an itself. Allah Most High Himself called the Qur’an Hakim (full of wisdom). …………….. Elsewhere He called the Book al-Hakim. …………..
Answer:Hadith rejecters are under the delusion that people have complete freedom in determining the meaning of the letter waw: wherever they wish, they will call it a conjunction, and wherever they wish, they will establish it as an explanatory waw. But they should know that, not only in Arabic but in the literature of every language, the determination of a word’s meaning is not so arbitrary. Waw can be established as explanatory only when the two words between which it occurs are synonymous, or when the context indicates that the speaker intends to establish them as synonymous. Where this is not the case, the letter waw is either used to combine two different things, or to connect the general with the specific or the specific with the general; the matter is entirely unclear.
Now observe that, in the light of the Arabic language, it is clear that the two words Book and Wisdom are not synonymous; rather, both are used to express two distinct meanings. In the light of the Qur’an as well, it can be said that the Qur’anic usage of the two words does not establish Wisdom as synonymous with the Book. In Surah al-Nahl Allah Most High says:
“Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom.” Does this mean, call with the Qur’an?
Concerning Hazrat Isa (peace be upon him), Surah al-Zukhruf says: “He said, ‘I have come to you with wisdom.’” Does this mean, I have come with the Book? In Surah al-Baqarah it says: “Whoever is given wisdom has certainly been given abundant good.” Does this mean that he was given the Book? In Surah Luqman, concerning Luqman the Wise, it is said:
“We granted Luqman wisdom.” Does this mean that he was given the Book?
In fact, nowhere in the Qur’an is Wisdom meant by the word Book, nor is the Book meant by the word Wisdom. Wherever the word Book occurs, it means the collection of verses revealed by Allah Most High. And wherever the word Wisdom occurs, it is used to mean such intellectual understanding and insight by which a person can perceive the truth and adopt the correct perspective in thought and action. This may exist in relation to the Book, and it may also exist outside the Book. Where the word Hakim is used for the Book, its meaning is certainly that the Book contains wisdom, but not that the Book itself is Wisdom, or that wisdom exists only in the Book and nowhere outside it.
Therefore, it would not be correct to understand the revelation of the Book and Wisdom to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) as meaning that only the Book was revealed to the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Rather, its correct meaning is that, along with the Book, practical skill, intellectual understanding, and wisdom were also revealed to him, by means of which he correctly understood the purpose of this Book and demonstrated its implementation in human life in the most correct manner. Likewise, the meaning of the phrase ……….. is never that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) would merely recite the words of the Book to them. Rather, it means that he would explain the meaning and significance of the Book to the people and train them in the intellectual understanding and practical skill by which they could shape the system of life on earth according to the aims and purposes of Allah’s Book.
39. The meaning of the word “tilawah”
Objection:“The strongest evidence that the Qur’an itself is Wisdom is the verse from Surah al-Ahzab that you quoted, concerning which you did not think even a little about what you were saying. The verse is cited here:
You are well aware that you call the revelation incorporated in the Qur’an recited revelation, and revelation outside the Qur’an non-recited revelation.
In this verse, Wisdom too is called “that which is recited.” Therefore, by Wisdom, recited revelation—not non-recited revelation—is meant. Elsewhere the Qur’an is called recited revelation. For example, in Surah al-Kahf there is …………………….. Elsewhere ………………… Moreover, throughout the Qur’an the phrase ………… occurs; there is no mention of the recitation of hadiths. Therefore, the Wisdom whose recitation is mentioned in Surah al-Ahzab means the Qur’an.
Answer: Presenting this type of evidence is also based on ignorance and a lack of knowledge. Later scholars used the word “tilawah” as a technical term exclusively for the recitation of the Noble Qur’an, on the basis of which the two technical expressions “recited revelation” and “non-recited revelation” became current. In the Qur’an, the word “tilawah” is used only in the sense of “reading”; as a technical term, it was not restricted exclusively to the recitation of Qur’anic verses. If there is even the slightest doubt about this, Surah al-Baqarah, verse 102, may be consulted: “And they followed what the devils recited during the reign of Solomon.”
40. The meaning of the revelation of the Book together with the Balance
Objection: “You said that the Noble Qur’an also mentions another thing that Allah Most High revealed along with the Book. It is al-Mizan, that is, the capacity for guidance. It is evident that this third thing is included neither among the words of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) nor among his actions. In other words, just as the words and actions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) were separate from the Qur’an, so too the words and actions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) were separate from that heavenly guidance expressed as al-Mizan. It is astonishing that you quoted only so much of verse 25 of Surah al-Hadid as mentions the Book and the Balance. Why did you omit the part of the verse, ‘And We sent down iron’? This verse proves that, along with the Book and the Balance, a fourth thing—al-Hadid (iron)—was likewise revealed by Allah.”
Answer: If this discussion had not been undertaken merely for the sake of argument, it would not have been at all difficult to understand that every intelligent person can see that the wisdom granted by Allah and the Balance of justice were present in the words and actions of the Messenger of Allah’s (peace and blessings be upon him) pure life and conduct; when this Balance was included in his words and actions, it is absurd to argue that it lay outside his words and actions. Creating such an argument is essentially an inferior example of sophistry. A person’s words and actions may simultaneously display intelligence and wisdom as well as balance. Is there any contradiction between these two things such that, when one is present, the other cannot also be present? From these statements one can gauge the extent to which hadith rejecters have descended into perverse reasoning and sophistry. It should also be made clear here that I did not use the word Balance merely to mean a general capacity for guidance; rather, I meant that capacity by which the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) established a just order in the individual, society, and state in accordance with the aims and purposes of Allah’s Book.
Regarding the objection concerning al-Hadid (Iron), readers are kindly requested to read Surah al-Hadid, verse 25, for themselves. There, the Book and the Balance are mentioned—“We sent down these two things with the prophets.” But regarding iron, only the expression “and We sent down iron” is used. Thus, this thing is specifically employed under the Book and the Balance given to the prophets. Now, the fact that iron was sent down by Allah is a strange matter for those who reject Hadith. Yet the clear statement of the Qur’an is: “We sent down iron.”
41. Another Perverse Argument
Objection:“Proceeding further, you have said that the Qur’an also gives information about a third thing that was sent down apart from the Book.” In support of this, you have cited the following three verses:
“Therefore believe in Allah, His Messenger, and the light that We have sent down” (Surah al-Taghabun: 8).
“Therefore those who believe in this Messenger, honor him, help him, and follow the light that has been sent down with him—it is they who will prosper” (Surah al-A’raf: 157).
“There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book. Through it Allah guides to the paths of peace every person who follows His pleasure” (Surah al-Ma’idah: 15–16).
The first verse commands belief in Allah, the Messenger, and the light. According to your view, was no command given to believe in anything besides Allah and the Messenger—not in the Book, not in wisdom, and not in the Balance—but only in a fourth thing that you have established as distinct from the Book, wisdom, and the Balance? The second verse mentions belief in the Messenger and commands following the light. In other words, the verse does not command following the Book and wisdom. According to your reasoning, if someone does not believe in the Qur’an but believes only in the light, and does not follow the Qur’an but follows only the light, then he will belong to the ranks of the believers and those who attain salvation. What is this light? In explaining it, you have said, “It may mean the intellectual insight, far-sightedness, and inner vision that Allah the Exalted granted the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him).” Thus one is freed from believing in and following the Qur’an, and even from obeying the words and deeds of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), for these verses mention only the light.”
Answer: This too is another striking example of a perverse argument. If the Hadith rejecters had ever read the Qur’an with understanding, they could have become familiar with the style of expression of the Holy Qur’an. The Noble Qur’an emphasizes different parts of its teachings at different stages, according to the circumstances, time, place, and audience. For example, in one place it gives the glad tidings of Paradise as a result of believing only in Allah. Elsewhere it describes belief or disbelief in the Hereafter alone as the principal cause of success or failure. Somewhere it states that belief in Allah and the Hereafter is the cause of success; elsewhere it points to belief in the Messenger alone as the means of salvation. Similarly, among deeds it sometimes mentions one particular deed as a means of salvation and at other times something else. Are all these verses now to be presented as conflicting with one another in the manner described above, and is it to be concluded from them that they contradict one another?
Yet even a little knowledge is sufficient to make one understand that, in all the places mentioned, the Noble Qur’an has presented different aspects of a great truth separately, in accordance with the circumstances, and none of these aspects negates the others. Whoever believes in the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and is prepared to follow the light he brought will naturally accept the Qur’an as well and will also try to benefit from the wisdom and sound understanding taught by the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). How can it be imagined of someone who denies the Qur’an that he follows the light of the Messengership?
42. Which Qiblah Is Referred to in the Verses Concerning the Change of the Qiblah??
Objection:You have given the verse concerning the change of the Qiblah and its translation as follows:
“And We appointed the Qiblah which you had previously followed only so that We might see who follows the Messenger and who turns back” (Surah al-Baqarah: 143).
Regarding this, you have written: “The Qur’an does not contain any command to make the Qiblah that the Muslims followed before the Masjid al-Haram the Qiblah. If it does, then cite it” (ibid., p. 449).
If any command concerning this had come in the Holy Qur’an, it would certainly have been mentioned there. But when no such command came, how can I cite a reference from the Qur’an? You first assumed that Allah the Exalted had appointed the first Qiblah, and then translated the verse according to that assumption. In this verse, the word “kunta” does not mean “you were”; it means “you are.” That is, “We appointed the Qiblah toward which you are facing so that We might see who follows the Messenger and who turns back.” Support for this meaning can be found in the Qur’an itself.
Answer:In the above verse, the word “kunta” has been taken to mean “you are” solely on the basis that in Arabic the word “kana” is sometimes used in the sense of “is” instead of “was.” But anyone who has ever read and understood the entire section of Surah al-Baqarah in which this verse occurs cannot give “kunta” the meaning “you are” here, because the preceding and following context prevents such an interpretation. The section begins with the following verse:
“The foolish will surely say, ‘What has turned them away from the Qiblah they used to follow?’”
Here, the word “kanu” can in no way mean “they are.” For the phrase “What has turned them away?” clearly indicates that the Muslims used to face another Qiblah. They were now going to abandon it and turn toward a different Qiblah, and for this reason the opponents had an opportunity to object: Why did they abandon their former Qiblah? Then Allah the Exalted stated what the answer to the opponents’ objection could be. In this context, among other things, the following was also said:
“We appointed the Qiblah which you used to follow for this very purpose.”
Here, “kunta alayha” refers precisely to the thing mentioned in the preceding verse as “kanu alayha.” It cannot in any way mean “you are.” The preceding verse definitively establishes its meaning as “you were.” Then, in the third verse, the command to change the Qiblah was given as follows:
“We have certainly seen you repeatedly turning your face toward the sky. So We will surely turn you toward a Qiblah that pleases you. Therefore turn your face toward the Masjid al-Haram.”
The clear picture that emerges from the above verses is that, initially, there was a command to pray facing a Qiblah other than the Masjid al-Haram. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) desired that this Qiblah now be changed. For this reason, he repeatedly raised his face toward the sky, waiting for the command to change the Qiblah. In this situation, the command came: “We are now turning you toward the Qiblah that you wish to make your Qiblah. Turn your face toward the Masjid al-Haram.” In light of this context, when the relevant verse is considered, it becomes clear that there is no opportunity here for the distorted interpretation presented by the Doctor. Allah the Exalted is clearly saying that the Qiblah which the Muslims followed before the Masjid al-Haram was also appointed by Allah, and that He appointed it so that He might see who follows the Messenger and who turns back.
43. How Did the Question of Obeying or Not Obeying the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) Arise Regarding the Qiblah??
Objection:If it is admitted that Allah the Exalted appointed the first Qiblah, then the following statement has no meaning: “We did this so that We might see who obeys the Messenger and who turns back.” This is because, when the first Qiblah was appointed, there was no question of anyone turning back. The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) faced one Qiblah. Whoever joined him also faced that same direction. The question of turning back arose only when this Qiblah was changed. It was then that there was an opportunity to test who felt greater attachment to the first Qiblah and who, as a sign of obedience to the Messenger (who made this change by Allah’s command), turned his face toward the new Qiblah.
Answer: This is merely the result of limited knowledge. The Hadith rejecters do not know that, in the Age of Ignorance, the Ka’bah held the status of the holiest sanctuary for the entire Arab nation. When, at the beginning of Islam, Bayt al-Muqaddas was made the Qiblah instead of the Ka’bah, this was a difficult test for the Arabs. It was not easy for them to abandon their central place of worship and make the Jews’ place of worship their Qiblah. Thus, the following portion of the verse under discussion says:
“Although that Qiblah was indeed difficult, it was not so for those whom Allah had guided, and Allah would never cause your faith to be lost.”
From the above statement, can it be understood that there was no question of turning back in connection with this Qiblah? Moreover, this verse further shows that the people’s faith was tested through a command that had not come in the Holy Qur’an but had been conveyed through the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). Regarding those who followed this command, Allah the Exalted says, “We would never cause your faith to be lost.” After this, can there still be any doubt that, apart from the Noble Qur’an, a command could come to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) through revelation, and that believing in it was also obligatory?
44. The Slander That the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) Appointed the Qiblah on His Own
Objection:The Qur’an made it clear, just two verses later, that it was the command for this new Qiblah that came from Allah, not the command for the first Qiblah, where it says:
“If, after knowledge has come to you, you follow their desires, then you will immediately be among the wrongdoers” (Surah al-Baqarah: 145).
It is clear from this that al-‘ilm (that is, revelation from Allah) came concerning the new Qiblah. If the first Qiblah had also been appointed on the basis of al-‘ilm, it could never have been said here: “After al-‘ilm has come to you, do not face the first Qiblah.”
Answer:My complaint was that the Hadith rejecters distort my statements and present them back to me in that form. But what complaint can now be made against those who are so audacious as to distort Allah the Exalted’s verses and assign them meanings of their own invention?
If the complete verse from whose ending the above meaning is being extracted is read together with the ending of the preceding verse, it becomes clear how the Hadith rejecters are treating the Noble Qur’an. When the Masjid al-Haram was made the Qiblah in place of Bayt al-Muqaddas, the Jews too gained an opportunity to reproach, slander, and raise objections, just as the Arabs had gained such an opportunity regarding the earlier Qiblah. In this context Allah the Exalted says:
“Those who were given the Book know very well that it is true and right from their Lord, and Allah is not unaware of what they do. No matter what sign you bring to those who were given the Book, they will not follow your Qiblah, nor will you follow their Qiblah; nor will any of them follow the Qiblah of another. Yet if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, you will surely be among the wrongdoers” (Surah al-Baqarah: 144–145).
How can the meaning ultimately be extracted from the statement made in the verse according to its preceding and following context that the first Qiblah was appointed on the basis of al-‘ilm? It says only that, when the command came to make the Masjid al-Haram the Qiblah instead of Bayt al-Muqaddas, then, after this al-‘ilm had come, facing the earlier Qiblah merely under the influence of the Jews’ propaganda amounted to wrongdoing. Not even under the shelter of dialectical reasoning can this be taken to mean that the Qiblah faced previously had been appointed by the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) on his own. This is especially so when the preceding verses contain the explanations cited in reply to objections 42 and 43. The slander that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) appointed the Qiblah on his own is an audacity of the vilest kind.
45. فقد صدق الله رسوله الرؤيا. The Significance of the Verse।
Objection: The second verse you cited is:
“And you translated it as: ‘Allah showed His Messenger a true dream…….’” (Surah al-Fath: 27).
First tell us, on what principle did you translate فقد صدق الله رسوله الرؤيا. as “Allah showed a true dream”? الرؤي…صدقIts meaning cannot possibly be “He showed a true dream.” Its meaning will be, “He demonstrated the truth of the dream,” just as one says, “Allah demonstrated the truth of His promise.” You did not translate it as, “Allah made a promise to you whose truth He demonstrated.”
Answer: …………………. The meaning “Allah demonstrated the truth of His Messenger’s dream” can in no way be correct. If this were what was intended, it would have said …………… ………….
It would not have been said. In this phrase, the word … has two objects. One is the Messenger—the person shown the dream. The other is the dream—which was true, or in which something true was stated. Therefore, its necessary meaning is: Allah showed His Messenger a true dream, or told him something true in a dream. It is exactly like someone saying in Arabic, whose meaning would be, “He spoke the truth to me.” It would not mean, “He demonstrated the truth of what he said to me.”
Moreover, if the meaning the Doctor wishes to give the above verse is accepted, the following part of the verse becomes meaningless, where Allah the Exalted says: “You will surely enter the Masjid al-Haram.” This latter statement clearly indicates that what had been shown in the dream had not yet been fulfilled. Before it was proven true, Allah assured those who had doubted the truth of the Messenger of Allah’s (peace be upon him) dream: We showed a true dream, and this dream will certainly be realized. If this dream had already been realized before this verse was revealed, Allah would have said, “You have surely entered,” instead of “You will surely enter.”
Nor is that all. The whole of Surah al-Fath, one verse of which is being discussed here, testifies that this surah was revealed after the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, when the Muslims had been prevented from performing Umrah and had not yet entered the Masjid al-Haram. Therefore, in light of this context, it cannot mean that the dream had already been realized at that time.
46. Does Revelation Also Come in the Form of a Dream??
Objection: According to your translation, you are trying to prove that this dream of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) was also part of revelation. Declaring a dream to be revelation is proof of ignorance concerning revelation itself.
Answer: Verses 103–105 of Surah al-Saffat completely refute the Doctor’s claim. Prophet Ibrahim (peace be upon him) said to his son:
“O my son! I have seen in a dream that I am slaughtering you.” The son replied, “O my father! Do what you have been commanded to do.” The clear meaning is that the son did not regard the dream of his prophetic father as merely a dream; rather, he regarded it as God’s command given through the dream. If the son had misunderstood this matter, God Almighty would have clearly explained to him that We do not give commands to prophets through dreams. On the contrary, God Almighty says:
“O Abraham! You have indeed fulfilled the dream. Thus do We reward those who do good.”
47. Meaningless Allegations and Slanders
Allegation:You have written: “The Messenger of God (peace be upon him) saw in a dream at Madinah that he had entered Makkah the Exalted and circumambulated the Sacred House. He informed the noble Companions of this and then set out to perform Umrah. The unbelievers of Makkah stopped him at a place called Hudaybiyyah, and as a result the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was concluded. Some Companions became doubtful, and Hazrat Umar (may God be pleased with him), acting as their representative, asked, ‘O Messenger of God! Did you not inform us that we would enter Makkah and perform the circumambulation?’ He replied, ‘Did I say that it would happen on this journey?’”
It may be objected to your above account that—God forbid—the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) himself had fallen into error in understanding the nature of his own revelation.
Answer: It is unclear where the allegation arose that the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) himself had fallen into error in understanding the significance of revelation. The sentence quoted above conveys only that, after hearing about the Prophet’s dream, the people assumed that Umrah would take place on that very journey; and when it could not take place then, they became doubtful.
Allegation:From the account you have written from beginning to end, it appears that: (1) the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) had been informed by God from the outset that he would be stopped this year and would enter Makkah the following year; (2) the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) did not inform any of the Companions of this, but instead misled them into believing that they would enter Makkah on that very journey. When the Companions became uncertain and an influential Companion such as Hazrat Umar (may God be pleased with him) was compelled to say, ‘You told us that we would enter Makkah and circumambulate the Sacred House,’ does this not amount to accusing the Prophet (peace be upon him) of deceiving his Companions?”
Answer: Where is it found that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had given them this impression? Some people had simply assumed on their own that Umrah would take place that year. In the very statement of mine quoted above by the Doctor, it is said that when the Prophet (peace be upon him) was asked, “Did you not tell us that we would enter Makkah and circumambulate the Sacred House?” the Prophet replied, “Did I say that it would happen on this very journey?” It is perfectly clear that if the Prophet (peace be upon him) had actually given the people the impression that Umrah would take place on that journey, how could he have given this answer to their complaint?
In this connection, readers should find and read the earlier discussion on this subject on pages 121–122 of this book in Urdu, and see what the actual statement was and what it is being twisted into. The Prophet (peace be upon him) saw in a dream that he had entered Makkah the Exalted and circumambulated the Sacred House. He described this dream to the Companions exactly as he had seen it and set out with them intending to perform Umrah. In this situation, he did not say that Umrah would take place that year, nor did he say that it would not take place that year. The question is: how can he be accused of giving a false impression or deceiving them in this matter? Suppose a government possessing supreme authority ordered a commander to set out with his army on an expedition. The commander knows that the expedition will not take place on this journey, but on some later journey, and that this expedition is being sent to clear the way for achieving the real objective. However, the commander does not disclose this to the soldiers and merely says that he has been ordered to conduct the expedition. Can the foregoing statement be construed to mean that the commander deceived his soldiers? Is it really necessary for a commander to disclose a plan when doing so could affect the soldiers’ morale? If the commander neither tells the soldiers that the intended expedition will succeed on this journey nor tells them that it will not be carried out on this journey, by what law can it ultimately be declared a lie?”
Allegation:When God Almighty had already told the Prophet (peace be upon him) what the final outcome would be, why did God then say, in response to the Companions’ question, “God has shown His Messenger the true dream; God willing, you will certainly enter the Sacred Mosque”? This suggests that—the refuge of God—the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself had become doubtful, wondering whether God had shown him a true dream or had merely told him to go to Makkah and that they would enter the Sacred Mosque. To remove this doubt, God Almighty had to reassure him again, saying that he should not be anxious: We have shown you a true dream, and you will certainly enter the Sacred Mosque.
Answer: In the excitement of making an allegation, the Doctor has become beside himself: the address “you will certainly enter the Sacred Mosque” is not directed to the Messenger of God (peace be upon him), but to the Muslims.لقد خلنIt is a plural verb. Those Companions who had come with the Prophet (peace be upon him) on the eve of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah were addressed: We showed Our Messenger a true dream; you will certainly enter the Sacred Mosque.
Allegation:“You are not surprised by the accusation of lying that your statement directs against the Prophet (peace be upon him). You have even gone so far in defending the legality of your own false statements as to say that, in such circumstances, the Prophet (peace be upon him) not only permitted lying but made it obligatory.”
Answer: What else is this but defending oneself by building on lies? Hadith deniers have now become so reckless in their false propaganda that they do not hesitate to address a person and make a blatant false accusation against him. Can they produce any statement of mine in support of their allegation saying, “In such circumstances, the Prophet (peace be upon him) not only permitted resorting to lies, but made it obligatory”? What I actually said in one of my articles was not that resorting to lies “in such circumstances” is permissible or obligatory. Rather, I said that when telling the truth could assist a terrible act of oppression, and there is no way to prevent that oppression except by making a statement contrary to what actually happened, then telling the truth would be a crime; and, up to the limits of genuine necessity, making a statement contrary to the facts may in some circumstances be permissible and in others become essential. I also gave an example in that article. Suppose a war is being fought between an unbelieving army and a Muslim army, and you are captured by the enemy. The enemy asks you where your army is stationed and questions you about other such military secrets. Now tell me: would you reveal all your army’s information by telling the truth? If the Doctor objects to this, let him answer this question clearly.
Allegation:You have been so arrogant and indecent that you felt no shame in saying that, so long as state power had not been acquired, the Prophet (peace be upon him) continued to preach the equality of human beings. Once state power had been acquired, he trampled this teaching underfoot and restricted political authority to his own family.
Answer:This is another example of a blatant false accusation. In the article whose form is being distorted and presented back to me, it was said that the principles of Islam cannot be implemented in practice through blind and uncertain methods. Rather, when applying any principle to any matter, it must be considered whether the circumstances are suitable for its implementation. If the circumstances are not suitable, efforts must first be made to make them suitable, and only then should the principle be implemented. As an example, it was mentioned that although the principle of Islamic equality demanded that, just as in the case of all other offices, only merit should be considered in selecting a caliph, without regard to the tribe to which the qualified person belonged, when the Prophet (peace be upon him) observed that conditions in Arabia were not yet suitable for applying this principle to the matter of the caliphate, and that appointing someone outside the Quraysh tribe as caliph risked causing the Islamic caliphate to fail at the very outset, he advised that the caliph should be chosen from the Quraysh tribe. Everyone can see the distorted meaning the Doctor has given to this statement.
48. The Meaning of the … Verse
Allegation: You have presented the verse of Surah al-Tahrim as follows: “The Prophet (peace be upon him) privately told one of his wives something. She disclosed it to the others. When the Prophet (peace be upon him) questioned her about it, she said, ‘How did you come to know that I had told the others?’ The Prophet (peace be upon him) replied, ‘The All-Knowing, the All-Aware informed me.’”
Then you asked: “Tell us, where is the verse in the Noble Quran through which God Almighty used to send revelation to the Prophet (peace be upon him)?”
First tell us: when the Prophet (peace be upon him) says, “The All-Knowing and the All-Aware informed me,” how does this prove that he said that God Almighty had informed him? Could it not mean that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was informed by the person who had learned this secret? Nevertheless, I concede that the All-Knowing, the All-Aware here refers to God Almighty. But how does this prove that God Almighty conveyed this information through revelation? It is not hidden from anyone who studies the Noble Quran with even a little depth that when God Almighty attributes someone’s knowledge to Himself, this does not necessarily mean that He imparted that knowledge through revelation. For example, in Surah al-Maidah it says:
“And train hunting animals using the knowledge that God has taught you” (verses 4–5).
(p. 103) Tell me, does this mean that God teaches trainers of hunting animals through revelation, telling them to teach these animals to hunt in this manner? Or does it mean that God teaches every person, through revelation and directly, whatever they do not know? Just as God’s giving knowledge and instruction in these verses does not mean distributing knowledge or issuing instructions through revelation, likewise “informing” does not mean informing through revelation. In such cases, the Prophet (peace be upon him) acquired knowledge of the foregoing information in the ordinary manner by which information is generally learned.
Answer:Look at it carefully. The complete verse of Surah al-Tahrim around which this discussion revolves has been quoted there. It clearly states, “God informed him about it.” Therefore, by “the All-Knowing, the All-Aware informed me,” only God Almighty can be meant; it cannot mean another informant. Moreover, the two words “the All-Knowing” and “the All-Aware” cannot be used for anyone other than God. If someone other than God had provided the information, the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) would have said, “This informant informed me.”
If the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) had learned this through ordinary human means of obtaining information—that one wife had disclosed her secret to someone else and an informant had told him about it—this minor matter would not have been mentioned in the Quran at all, nor would it have been described in the manner, “God Almighty informed the Prophet about it” and “the All-Knowing, the All-Aware informed me.” The purpose of describing the foregoing incident in the Noble Quran in this manner was to warn the people that their affairs were not connected with an ordinary human being, but with that Messenger behind whom the mighty power of God was active.
49. Was Hazrat Zaynab’s (may God be pleased with her) marriage conducted by God’s command??
Allegation:You have asked: Where is it mentioned in the Quran that God Almighty commanded the Prophet (peace be upon him) to marry Zayd’s wife? First note that you wrote that the Prophet (peace be upon him) contracted this marriage “by God’s command.” Yet the verse contains only the following, which you translated as, “We married this woman to you.” As I said earlier, the Quran’s manner of expression is that any matter carried out according to the rules and laws laid down by God Almighty is attributed by God to Himself, regardless of through whom it is expressed. For example, concerning those killed in battle, Surah al-Anfal says: “You did not kill them; rather, God killed them” (verse 17). Yet it is obvious that the killing was carried out by the believers. The meaning here is likewise that the Prophet (peace be upon him) contracted this marriage according to God’s law. That law stated that the wives of your biological sons were forbidden to you (Surah al-Nisa, 23). Since an adopted son cannot be a biological son, marrying his divorced wife cannot be forbidden; rather, it is permissible. The Prophet (peace be upon him) married the divorced wife of Hazrat Zayd (may God be pleased with him) in accordance with this command of God.
Answer:The sole aim of the Hadith rejecters, as far as the Quran is concerned, is to extract from it whatever serves their own purposes. But I appeal to those who wish to understand this matter fully: please study the first four verses of Surah al-Ahzab carefully, and then also examine the verses in the fifth section where the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) marriage to the divorced wife of Hazrat Zayd (may God be pleased with him) is mentioned. The first four verses say: O Prophet, do not yield to the unbelievers and hypocrites; rely on God and follow the revelation being sent down to you. An adopted son is never a biological son. This is merely something you say with your mouths. These words of God Almighty clearly indicate that the revelation mentioned in the second verse is connected with the matter of the adopted son. But that verse contains no explanation of whether the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself had been commanded to marry the divorced wife of his adopted son in order to abolish this practice. Now read verses 37–39:
(Arabic text)
“Then, when Zayd had ended his marital relationship with Zaynab, We married her to you, so that there would be no restriction upon the believers regarding the wives of their adopted sons when those sons have ended their marital relationships with them. God’s command is bound to be fulfilled. There is no restriction upon the Prophet concerning what God has made lawful for him. This was God’s practice with those prophets who passed before. God’s command is a decree determined. They conveyed God’s messages and feared Him, fearing no one except God. God is sufficient as a Reckoner.”
Reflect deeply on this entire statement. Does this statement and this manner of expression indicate that the Prophet (peace be upon him) performed an act according to God’s law, and that God therefore attributed the act to Himself? Or does it clearly indicate that God Almighty commanded this marriage through revelation, specifically for the purpose that the wives of adopted sons would not remain forbidden like the wives of biological sons? For ordinary people, marriage to the divorced wives of such sons was merely permissible, but for the Prophet (peace be upon him) it was made obligatory, and this obligation formed part of the responsibility of prophethood, which the Prophet (peace be upon him) was commanded to carry out. Now consider the Doctor’s statement and decide for yourself whether these people truly wish to follow the Quran, or whether they wish to make the Quran follow their self-invented doctrine.
50. Does (Arabic text) mean customary practice or God’s command?
Allegation:You have presented the fifth verse as saying that, while leading an army against Banu Nadir, the Prophet (peace be upon him) cut down many of the surrounding trees in order to clear the road for the attack. In this context, God Almighty says:
(Arabic text)
“Whatever palm trees you cut down, and whatever you left standing upon their trunks—both were by God’s permission” (Surah al-Hashr, 5).
In this connection you ask, “Can you say in which verse of the Noble Quran this permission was revealed?” The verse of Surah al-Hajj says: (Arabic text) “Permission to fight has been granted to those against whom war is waged, because they have been wronged” (Surah al-Hajj, 39).
The foregoing verse grants the believing community permission to fight against the wrongdoers. It is clear that this principled permission to fight includes every matter necessary for warfare, in accordance with principle and law. Anything that occurs in accordance with the principles determined by God and the provisions of the law is explained in the Quran as (Arabic text). For example: (Arabic text)
“Whatever misfortune befell you on the day the two armies met in battle was by God’s permission” (Surah Al Imran, 165). This applies even if that law is not operative beyond the universe.
Answer: This entire discussion has been conducted by deviating from the central point of my argument. I had written that when the Muslims did this, their opponents launched propaganda alleging that, by cutting down the vines and fruit-bearing trees of the garden, they had created disorder on earth (see p. 124 of this book, Urdu). This was the main basis of my argument, which the Doctor deliberately removed in an attempt to clear the way for his own debate. My argument was that the Jews and hypocrites levelled a specific accusation against the Muslims. They said that these people had appeared as reformers and claimed, “We are uprooters of corruption from the face of the earth,” but now see what corruption they are creating on earth. When the answer was given from Allah Almighty that the Muslims had done this with My permission, it could necessarily constitute a reply to their accusation only on the condition that special permission for this act had come from Allah. The general principle of warfare prevailing in the world could not have served as the basis of the reply. For in that age military practices were, for the most part, barbaric and based on oppression, and the Muslims themselves regarded them as another name for disorder on earth. How could this be invoked in reply to the accusers? As for the laws of nature, referring to them here would plainly have been ridiculous. No intelligent person could ever have imagined that, when the opponents at this place regarded the Muslims as creators of corruption on earth, Allah Almighty would reply, “My dear fellow, that is simply the law of nature.” Whatever becomes evident from the few examples the Doctor has presented here from the Noble Qur’an is that those who reject the Sunnah are completely incapable of understanding the Qur’an. They close their eyes to the interrelationship, context, setting and circumstances of Qur’anic verses and arbitrarily determine the meaning of a verse in one place entirely by a verse from another place.
51. Another Fabricated Interpretation
Objection: The sixth verse you have cited is:
(Arabic*****************************************)
“And when Allah promised you that one of the two groups—that is, the merchant caravan and the Quraysh army—would be yours, and you wished that the weaker group—the merchant caravan—would fall into your hands. Yet Allah desired to establish the truth as true through His words and to cut off the strength of the disbelievers” (Surah al-Anfal: 7).
Then you ask, “Can you show a verse anywhere in the entire Noble Qur’an in which this promise of Allah Almighty was expressed: ‘O you who are travelling from Medina toward Badr, We will bring one of the two groups under your control’?”
In principle, this was the comprehensive promise on the basis of which Allah Almighty had told the community of believers that they would be installed in the position of caliphate on earth, that Allah and His Messenger would be victorious, that victory and domination would favor the party of Allah, and that the believers would remain exalted. Allah would never grant the disbelievers victory over the believers. The mujahidin would become owners of the wealth and property of their opponents, and so on. And in this particular incident, this “promise” was brought face to face with the natural circumstances—which the Noble Qur’an explained as follows:
(Arabic******************************) —that is, one of them was unarmed, and victory over them appeared certain.
I have already explained in detail that Allah Almighty also attributes to Himself matters consistent with the laws of nature. The two promises mentioned above belonged to this category. In other words, the circumstances indicated that gaining control over one of the two groups in question was certain.
Answer: Here too, an attempt has been made to display ingenuity by disregarding context and the circumstances of time and place. A particular situation is under discussion. On one side, the army of disbelievers was setting out from Mecca equipped with weapons and provisions, and its military strength was far greater than that of the Muslims. On the other side, a Quraysh merchant caravan was returning from Syria, carrying abundant goods and possessing only negligible military strength. Allah Almighty says that here We promised the Muslims that they would certainly triumph over either of the two groups. This was a clear and explicit promise, made concerning either one of two specific things. But the Doctor offers two interpretations of it. The first is that this promise referred to the natural promise of installing them as rulers on earth and granting them complete authority. But if that had been intended, the promise would have been victory over both groups, not over one of them. His second interpretation is that the circumstances at the time indicated that gaining control over one of the two groups was certain, and Allah Almighty made this indication of the circumstances His own promise. Yet the circumstances prevailing before the victory at the Battle of Badr indicate that control over the merchant caravan was certain, whereas establishing control over the Quraysh army was extremely difficult. Allah Almighty Himself says in the preceding verse to the one under discussion that the condition of the Muslims as they were about to confront the Quraysh army was this: (Arabic**************************) “as though they were being driven toward visible death” (Surah al-Anfal: 6).
Was this the situation that indicated that establishing control over the Quraysh army was just as certain as gaining control over the caravan? Such ingenuity reveals that this group, which rejects Hadith, does not derive its doctrine from the Qur’an; rather, it tries to impose its preconceived doctrine upon the Qur’an, no matter how strongly the Qur’anic words reject that doctrine.
52. An Absurd Answer
Objection: The last verse you have cited is this:
(Arabic*************************************************)
“When you were seeking help from your Lord, He answered your prayer by saying, ‘I will continuously send a thousand angels to assist you’” (Surah al-Anfal: 9).
Then you asked, “Can you say in which verse of the Qur’an this answer to the Muslims’ prayer for help was revealed?”
May I ask you: when Allah Almighty said—(Arabic***********) (“I answer the supplication of every supplicant when he calls upon Me” (Surah al-Baqarah: 186)—through what written proof is the answer to the supplicant’s prayer from Allah obtained? The community of believers received the answer to their prayer in exactly the manner in which every supplicant receives the answer to his prayer from Allah. But how will the answer to prayer become apparent to those who want every word of Allah to be printed on paper?
Answer: What kind of question is that, and what kind of answer! My question was: in which verse of the Qur’an was the clear and definitive promise mentioned in this verse—that Allah Almighty would send one thousand angels in response to the Muslims’ prayer—revealed? In answer to the above question, the Doctor says that the Muslims on the field of Badr received the answer to their prayer in exactly the manner in which every supplicant receives an answer to his prayer from Allah. Now my question is: does every supplicant receive such a clear answer from Allah that so many thousands of angels are being arranged to be sent to assist you? Is this answer, with a specific number stated in clear language, also found written in the Book of Allah?
It is also worth noting here an additional strange and striking point: the accusation that we “want every word of Allah to be written on paper” is being levelled against us by people who stubbornly insist that we will accept only those revelations that exist in written form.
53. The Nature and Characteristics of Wordless Revelation
Objection: You went on to write, “Revelation does not necessarily take the form of a collection of words; it may also take the form of an idea infused into the heart.” Your claim is that you know everything, yet you do not even know that the emergence of an idea in someone’s heart without language serving as its vehicle is entirely impossible. No idea can arise without language, nor can any language exist without an idea. Ask the learned scholars what is meant by “wordless revelation” and “meaningless report.”
Answer: Those who reject Hadith do not know that the formation of an idea and its expression in words are distinct in their respective characteristics and do not occur simultaneously. No matter if the human intellect takes only one-thousandth of a second to give an idea linguistic form, there is nevertheless a temporal sequence between the idea arising in the mind and the mind giving it linguistic form. If someone claims that an idea necessarily arises in the human mind in linguistic form, how will he explain why the same idea arises in an Englishman’s mind in English, in an Arab’s mind in Arabic, and in our minds in our own language? It therefore becomes perfectly clear that an idea first arises in the human mind independently, after which the intellect expresses it in its own language. This occurs very quickly, but those who have ever had the opportunity to speak or write after thinking know that sometimes an idea keeps revolving in the mind, and the intellect must make considerable effort to express it in words. Thus only an inexperienced person can say that an idea arises in the form of a sentence, or that an idea and language necessarily appear together. One category of revelation is that in which only an idea comes from Allah Almighty to the Prophet. It is considered non-recited revelation because its language is neither provided by Allah nor is the Prophet instructed to convey it to the people through a specific set of words.
54. The Difference Between Recited Revelation and Non-Recited Revelation
Objection: You said, “In Arabic, the meaning of the word wahy is a subtle indication.” There is no question concerning the lexical meaning of revelation; the question concerns its technical meaning, which the prophets, peace be upon them, used to receive from Allah. Was only the “subtle indication” of this revelation from Allah, or were its words also revealed by Allah? If it consisted only of an indication, that would mean that the language of the Qur’an was the Prophet’s own.
Answer: The answer is found in Discussion No. 35, from one or two parts of which the Doctor has initiated this debate. Both the wording and the subject matter of the Noble Qur’an belong to Allah Almighty, and it was revealed to the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) so that he would convey it to the people in the language in which it was revealed. That is why it is called recited revelation. The second category of revelation, namely non-recited revelation, is entirely distinct from the aforementioned revelation in its nature, characteristics, condition and purpose. It came to guide the Messenger of Allah, and it reached the people not in Allah Almighty’s language, but in the form of the Holy Prophet’s decisions, statements and actions. If a person accepts that the first category of revelation could come to the Holy Prophet, what prevents him from ultimately accepting that the second category of revelation could also come to that Prophet? If the miraculous wording of the Qur’an is sufficient to assure us that it can only be the speech of Allah Almighty, then do the miraculous life of the Messenger of Allah and his miraculous actions not assure us that this too is the result of Allah Almighty’s guidance?
55. Denying the Established Sunnah Amounts to Denying Obedience to the Messenger of Allah
Objection: You said, “The Sunnahs whose evidence is found in the existing corpus of Hadith fall into two broad categories. One kind consists of Sunnahs concerning which the Ummah has expressed consensus from the beginning until the present. In other words, these are mutawatir Sunnahs. The consensus of the Ummah has been established upon them. If anyone refuses to accept any one of them as a Sunnah, he leaves the bounds of Islam in exactly the same way as someone who denies a verse of the Qur’an falls outside the bounds of Islam.
The second kind consists of Sunnahs whose authenticity is disputed or may be disputed. If, regarding one of these Sunnahs, someone says that, on the basis of his investigation and examination, such-and-such Sunnah is not authentic and therefore he is not obliged to follow it, this statement will not harm his faith.”
Can you say where Allah Almighty has stated that a person who refuses to accept this mutawatir Sunnah, upon which the consensus of the Ummah has been established, will become a disbeliever? And that denying a disputed Sunnah will not cause any harm to a person’s faith?
Answer: Allah Almighty has made obedience to and following the Messenger of Allah the boundary between Islam and disbelief. Therefore, wherever it is known with certainty that the Holy Prophet ordered a certain act, prohibited a certain act, or gave such-and-such guidance concerning a matter, withdrawing obedience will necessarily constitute disbelief. But where no certain proof is found in support of one of the Holy Prophet’s instructions, there may be disagreement over whether to accept or reject evidence of the lowest degree. If someone, upon finding weak evidence, says that no proof for this ruling is available from the Holy Prophet, and therefore I do not follow it, then there is no reason for him to fall into disbelief, whether his conclusion is correct or mistaken. Conversely, if someone says, “Even though this is the instruction of the Messenger of Allah, I am not obliged to obey it,” or “It is not evidence for me,” there is not the slightest doubt that this person is a disbeliever. This is an entirely straightforward and clear matter, in understanding which no one should experience any difficulty.
West Pakistan High Court’s Important Judgment
[Most of the judgment of Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi of the West Pakistan High Court is translated below. [The original judgment was in English. Mr. Malik Ghulam Ali translated it into Urdu. Since a copy of the judgment in English was not readily available, its Urdu translation has been translated into Bengali here.] It is essentially a judgment in an appeal case. Its central issue was whether, if a widow with minor children marries a man who is not mahram to her children, she continues to retain guardianship of those children. In delivering judgment on this disputed issue, the learned judge also expressed his views in detail on a fundamental matter: what are the concept and outline of law in Islam, what is the method of legislation, can Hadith along with the Qur’an be accepted as a source of law for Muslims, and, in particular, to what extent may the majority of Pakistan’s Muslims be regarded as followers of the principles of Hanafi fiqh? In this connection, the judgment in the case brings fundamental and important aspects of Islamic law within the scope of its reasoning and discussion.]
[The portions of this judgment related to the original case have been omitted; only translations of its fundamental arguments are presented here. In some places, the Qur’anic verses quoted are given only by the surah and verse numbers, together with their translations. The Urdu translation of the English text printed by P.L.D., 1960, Lahore (pp. 1142–1179), is reproduced here. The original and complete discussion may be consulted in the aforementioned printed book. —Malik Ghulam Ali.]
4. Suppose it is accepted that the appointment of a guardian was essential and that Section 17 of the Guardianship and Wards Act applied to this case. The major question of decision that then arises before us is: what is the law or rule that a minor is bound to follow? It is entirely correct that the minors and their parents are Muslims and are subject to Muslim law. But the answer is not easy to the question of which law must be followed concerning the guardianship of a minor. Law and principles encompassing almost all the books, concerning the guardianship of the persons and property of minors, have long been followed in India and Pakistan. All the judicial courts, including the Supreme Court of India, have strictly followed these laws from the pre-Partition British period to the present. It may also be that the qazis and jurists before British rule followed these principles, and that their observance continued thereafter. This was because Muslim jurists did not wish the English or any other non-Muslim nation to interpret the Holy Qur’an and formulate laws according to its own purposes and objectives. The importance of the book Fatawa Alamgiri in all matters related to Muslim law points to this fact. But the situation has now changed completely. The principles mentioned here are summarized below.
[In the remaining portion of Section 4 and in Sections 5 and 6, the learned judge presents a detailed account of the Hanafi, Shafi‘i and Shi‘a schools of fiqh concerning guardianship.]
7. As I have already said, the real question requiring a satisfactory resolution is whether these rules and regulations can, with any certainty, be called binding laws of the kind that possess the status of a codified law. Put differently, is this the law whose observance is mandatory for a Muslim minor under Section 17 of the Guardianship and Wards Act, in accordance with its purpose and objective?
8. According to the beliefs of Muslims, regardless of which sect they belong to, the law that ought to be enforced in every sphere of their lives—whether religious, political, social, or economic—is solely the law of Allah. Almighty Allah is the Supreme Lawgiver, All-Knowing, Just, and the possessor of absolute authority. In Islam, the relationship between Allah and His servants is simple, direct, and straightforward. No leader, imam, pir, or any other person—whether alive or dead, in the grave or outside it—can obstruct this relationship by posing as an intermediary. We have no institution of professional leaders or religious clerics that can impose its own ideas upon us in a royal manner. Within the limits prescribed by the Qur’an, Muslims have complete freedom to think and act. Islam provides an environment of intellectual and spiritual freedom. Since law is a force that imposes obligations upon human freedom, Allah Ta’ala has retained the power to legislate entirely in His own hands. In Islam, no individual has the right to act as though he is above accountability to others. The Qur’an seeks to abolish personality worship and dictatorship. By teaching universal brotherhood and complete equality, Islam has entirely abolished, under its moral system, human dominance and superiority over other human beings, whether in the intellectual sphere or in any other branch of life. It is essential that the Muslims of at least one country, if not of the entire world, be bound together on a single thread. It is impossible for an Islamic state to have anyone who can claim dictatorial or monarchical authority. In the true sense, the function of the head of an Islamic state is to implement Allah’s laws and commands. The Qur’an, and Islam as a whole, is entirely unfamiliar with the idea of one person making laws for all Muslims. The Holy Qur’an repeatedly declares that Allah—and Allah Ta’ala alone—is the Sovereign of this world and the Hereafter, and that His law is final and conclusive. Verses 6:7, 12:40, and 67 state that the right to rule belongs solely to Allah. Likewise, verse 40:12 states: (Arabic*******************) “The authority to decide belongs to Allah, the Exalted, the Great.”
This is clearly stated in verse 59:23: sovereignty belongs to the Being of Allah Ta’ala.
(Arabic******************************************)
“He is Allah; there is no deity except Him. He is the Sovereign, the Holy, the Source of Peace, the Giver of Security, the Guardian, the Almighty, the Compeller, the Exalted in Might. Glory be to Allah above what they associate with Him. He is Allah, the Creator, the Originator, the Fashioner; to Him belong the Most Beautiful Names. Whatever is in the heavens and the earth glorifies Him. He is the Almighty, the Wise”—(Surah al-Hashr: 23–24).
9. The conduct of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) and his four caliphs clearly bears witness that monarchy is completely opposed to Islam; otherwise, nothing could have been easier for them than to declare themselves kings of the Muslim nation. Had they done so, their claim would have been immediately endorsed, for their competence, trustworthiness, and firmness were beyond doubt. It can also be said with certainty that they neither conceived of themselves as dictators and sovereign rulers of the Islamic world nor declared themselves to be so. Whatever they did, they did only on the basis of consultation with other Muslims. All Muslims were bound by a bond of brotherhood, which was an essential demand of their faith, or, in other words, of Islamic belief. The natural spirit of this belief was that human dominance had come to an end. There was neither king nor subject, nor was there any priest or pir. Every person could become a leader, but at the same time he had to follow those who were superior to him in taqwa or in some other qualification. Amir Muawiya was the first person to strike a blow against Islam’s bond of brotherhood. By declaring his son the heir to the state, he gathered the entire nation under his own tribe. Immediately after the death of our democracy-loving Messenger (peace be upon him), the democracy brought by Islam was transformed into imperialism. Amir Muawiya struck at the very roots of Islam by initiating hereditary caliphate. Although Muhammadur Rasulullah (peace be upon him) deeply loved some of his close relatives, he did not appoint any of them as ruler of the Muslim ummah after him. His outlook was always clearly democratic. After Amir Muawiya’s death, his son established usurpation over the caliphate, and the grandson of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) sacrificed even his own life and the lives of his beloved ones. It was Umayyad propaganda that Imam Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) gave his life in order to reserve the caliphate for the Ahl al-Bayt. This propaganda was entirely based on falsehood. It is surprising that the Shi’a community continues to propagate it. Unfortunately, Imam Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) did not succeed. The result was that monarchy and dictatorship assumed the status of an accepted method among Muslims. Thereafter, Muslims had no right to choose their rulers and no control over their own affairs. The work initiated by Amir Muawiya may not have produced any adverse reaction immediately, but ultimately it inevitably affected the healthy and proper development and flourishing of Muslim society, and today its standing in the sphere of international brotherhood remains secondary.
10. In the light of the Holy Qur’an, the amir of the Muslims can be only one who is considered qualified for this position intellectually and physically. This completely rejects the hereditary basis of state authority. In this connection, it is appropriate to cite the following verse:
(Arabic********************************************)
“And their prophet said to them, ‘Indeed, Allah has appointed Talut as your king.’ They said, ‘How can he have authority over us when we are more entitled to authority than he, and he has not been given abundant wealth?’ He said, ‘Indeed, Allah has chosen him over you and has increased him abundantly in knowledge and stature. Allah gives His authority to whom He wills. Allah is All-Encompassing, All-Knowing’”—(Surah al-Baqarah: 247).
11. As stated above, the right to formulate laws fully consistent with Islamic law belongs exclusively to Allah. From Adam (peace be upon him) until today, Allah Ta’ala has implemented His laws through the prophets and messengers. Then a turning point in history arrived when, in accordance with the will of the perfect wisdom of Almighty Allah, the final Shari’ah for humanity was given. This revelation was recorded or committed to memory, and later given the form of a book known as the Qur’an. From then on, matters relating to all the men, women, and children of humanity were resolved and settled according to the Qur’an revealed by Allah Ta’ala. This law determines what is right and wrong, desirable and undesirable, lawful and unlawful, mustahabb and makruh. In short, the Holy Qur’an is an indispensable foundation of Muslim society. It is the center around which Islamic law revolves.
11 (a). It is an established fact that a society composed of human beings is an extremely complex thing. Although nature is the expression of an eternal and everlasting will and is subject to a permanent law, human conditions and tastes are not the same in every age and every place. The combination of personality and material circumstances leaves no pattern for future events. Human affairs are of thousands of kinds, and they encounter thousands of kinds of conditions and circumstances. It is Allah’s will that every child enters the world carrying with him a new world of imagination. New and unimaginable changes are constantly taking place. Since the human environment and human problems continually assume new forms in this world, no permanent and unchangeable law can operate in this ever-changing world. The Holy Qur’an is no exception to this natural rule. For this reason, the Holy Qur’an has laid down certain broad and general principles in various matters to guide humanity. It has given us a more complete system of unified principles and a moral system founded upon welfare and benefit. In certain specific matters, such as inheritance, it is more explicit and detailed. There are some matters that it mentions by way of examples and indications. There are also matters about which the Holy Qur’an remains completely silent, so that people may determine a course of action regarding them in accordance with changing circumstances over the course of time. The Holy Qur’an repeatedly emphasizes that it was revealed in very simple language so that everyone can understand it. It would be useful to quote here the verses that emphasize this point. [The learned judge then presents the following verses and their translations].
25:242, 65:99, 106, 127, 11:1, 12:2, 15:1, 17:89, 106, 39:28, 54:17, 22, 57:9, 17, 25, 30:58, 41:44.
Therefore, it is entirely clear that reading the Qur’an and understanding it is not the exclusive right of one or two persons. The Qur’an was revealed in simple, straightforward language so that every individual—and, if they wish, all Muslims—can understand it and act accordingly. This is a right granted to every Muslim, and no person—however high his position—can deprive Muslims of the right to read and understand the Qur’an. To understand the message of the Holy Qur’an, a person may receive valuable assistance from the commentaries of reliable exegetes of the past. But the matter should remain limited to this. These commentaries cannot be regarded as the final word on their respective subjects. Reading and understanding the Holy Qur’an itself requires the reader to analyze its interpretation and, when explaining it, apply it to contemporary conditions and the changing needs of the world. The interpretations of this sacred Book made by past commentators such as Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik, and Imam al-Shafi’i—which all Muslims, and I myself, respect—cannot be followed literally in the present age. Many other learned scholars, including their own disciples, did not essentially support their interpretations and analyses. Their profound study of the various verses of the Holy Qur’an shows that it was extensively influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by contemporary conditions and surrounding events. They reached particular conclusions regarding the problems that arose in their age or country. If the statements of exegetes from twelve or thirteen centuries ago are accepted as the final and ultimate interpretation, Islamic society will remain imprisoned in an iron cage and will have no opportunity for progressive development over time. It will then no longer be able to survive as an eternal and universal way of life; rather, it will remain confined to the age and place in which it was revealed. As stated above, if the Qur’an has not laid down any unchangeable principles, then it cannot be accepted that the commentaries of Imam Abu Hanifa and others should become the cause of such an outcome. Unfortunately, the path of interpreting and analyzing the Holy Qur’an in the light of contemporary conditions has been completely closed for several centuries. The result was that Muslims fell victim to religious stagnation, cultural barrenness, political emptiness, and economic disaster. The scientific research and advancement in which Muslims once had an exclusive contribution passed into the hands of others, and it seems that Muslims have fallen into eternal sleep. This situation must certainly come to an end. Muslims must awaken and keep pace with the age. They must escape the unawareness and inefficiency that have surrounded them socially, economically, and politically. The general principles of the Holy Qur’an must be interpreted rationally and intellectually and applied to the changing needs of society, so that people can shape their destiny, thought, and moral structure accordingly and act in their own countries in ways suited to the age. Like other people, Muslims possess knowledge and reason, and these faculties were given to be used, not wasted needlessly. People in different regions of the world have the freedom to think and investigate what the verses of the Qur’an demand and signify before Allah and how they may be applied to their particular circumstances. Therefore, all Muslims must read the Qur’an, understand it, and interpret and analyze it.
(Arabic***************************************)
“Some of them listen to you, then, when they leave your presence, say to those who have been given knowledge, ‘What did he just say?’ They are those whose hearts Allah has sealed, and they follow their own desires”—(Muhammad: 16).
(Arabic******************************************)
“It is He who sent among the unlettered a messenger from among themselves, reciting to them His verses, purifying them, and teaching them the Book and wisdom, although before that they had been in clear error” (Surah al-Jumu’ah: 2).
It is the people’s duty to ponder deeply over the Qur’an and not place locks upon their hearts.
(Arabic*****************************************)
“A blessed Book which We have revealed to you, so that people may contemplate its verses and those endowed with understanding may take heed”—(Sad: 29).
It is the people’s duty to ponder over the Qur’an and strive to understand it. Just as one must strive and struggle intensely in this world to attain other objectives, the name for making strenuous effort to understand the Qur’an and reach its purposes and aims is ijtihad.
(Arabic*********************************************)
“Whoever strives, strives only for his own benefit. Surely Allah is independent of the worlds”—(Al-‘Ankabut: 6).
It has been emphasized once again that people should strive to acquire correct and complete knowledge of the Holy Qur’an.
(Arabic**********************************************)
“When they all arrive, Allah will say to them, ‘Did you reject My signs even though you could not comprehend them with your knowledge? Or what were you doing?’”—(Surah al-Naml: 84).
(Arabic**************************************************)
“And strive hard for Allah as is His due. He has chosen you and has not placed upon you any hardship in religion—the way of your forefather Ibrahim. He named you Muslims before and in this, so that the Messenger may be a witness over you and you may be witnesses over humanity. So establish prayer, give zakat, and hold fast to Allah. He is your Protector—what an excellent Protector and what an excellent Helper”—(Surah al-Hajj: 78).
(Arabic***********************************************)
“Exalted is Allah, the True Sovereign. Do not hasten with the Qur’an before its revelation to you has been completed, and say, ‘My Lord, increase me in knowledge’”—(Surah Ta-Ha: 114).
All the verses cited above show that it is expected of all Muslims—not merely those of a particular rank—that they acquire knowledge of the Qur’an, understand it properly, and interpret and analyze it. In interpreting and analyzing it, following certain accepted principles is absolutely essential. Some of these principles may be as follows:
1. Some injunctions of the Holy Qur’an are important and fundamental. They must never be disobeyed or opposed; rather, they must be followed to the letter.
2. Some verses are guidance in nature, and following them to a greater or lesser extent is essential.
3. Where the statement is entirely straightforward and clear and conveys a definite and clear meaning, that meaning must be accepted which is correct and acceptable in the light of the dictionary and grammar. In other words, the words of this sacred Book must not be twisted in any way.
4. It should be acknowledged that no part of the Holy Qur’an is meaningless, incomplete, or superfluous.
5. No meaning should be derived by severing it from its preceding and succeeding context.
6. The interpretation of the Qur’an should be rational. This means that it must be consistent with human customs shaped by their surroundings. It should be kept in view that new and unexpected conditions are constantly emerging. The list of society’s needs is growing day by day, and the Qur’an must be interpreted in the light of these circumstances and needs.
11 (b). Similarities and differences among the various conditions that arise because of differences in time and place should be compared with one another. In making this comparison, we must take into account the circumstances and prevailing customs, and, while examining truths both distant and near, proceed from the past toward the present in such a way that imagined matters, conjectures, unusual beliefs, and beliefs that must be rejected all remain before our eyes.
12. Unfortunately, at least since the Khilafat-e-Rashidah, no proper Islamic state has been established in this world where people could undertake the interpretation and analysis of the Holy Qur’an on the basis of full awareness, interest, and mutual cooperation. The principles laid down by the Holy Qur’an are eternal, but their application is not eternal, because application is the result of facts and purposes that continually change. Now, if more than one interpretation of a particular verse of the Holy Qur’an is possible, and every Muslim is given the right to interpret it according to his own understanding and taste, innumerable interpretations will arise and cause disorder. Likewise, if every individual is given the right to formulate a principle according to his own view concerning matters about which the Holy Qur’an is silent, a disordered and incoherent society will also arise in that case. Like other societies, Islamic society also assures the greatest possible number of people of peace and happiness, even if with difficulty. Therefore, the view of the majority will prevail.
13. One person or several persons are naturally incomplete in intellect and strength. No matter how powerful or intelligent a person may be, he cannot be expected to be perfect. Even a highly aware person with profound insight cannot correctly assess the importance of everything that comes within the scope of his observation. Millions and billions of people living under an orderly social system and structure collectively possess greater knowledge and strength than an individual. Their powers of observation and comprehension are comparatively better and more developed. In the light of the Holy Qur’an, the task of interpreting the Book of Allah and applying its general principles to circumstances cannot be entrusted to one person or a few persons; rather, it should be carried out on the basis of mutual consultation among Muslims.
(Arabic******************************************)
“Those who respond to the call of their Lord, establish prayer, conduct their affairs through mutual consultation, and spend from what We have provided them”—(Surah al-Shura: 38).
(Arabic**********************************************)
“And hold firmly, all together, to the rope of Allah and do not become divided. Remember Allah’s favor upon you when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together, so by His grace you became brothers. You were on the brink of a pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus Allah makes His signs clear to you so that you may be guided”—(Surah Al ‘Imran: 103).
Many other verses also instruct Muslims to strive to understand the Holy Qur’an and ponder deeply over its verses. This means that the task must be performed collectively, not individually.
14. Within the context of this discussion, it is necessary to try to understand the meaning of the word ‘qanun’ (law). In my view, ‘qanun’ means that system of rules and customs regarding which the majority of people hold that all their affairs ought to be conducted accordingly.
15. In the early period, the human population was very small and people lived scattered apart. Each individual could act according to his own wishes. Later, when the human population increased, the need arose for people to live divided into various groups and communities. For example, a murder was committed in a group of fifty people. According to the majority’s view, it was not [acceptable]. Since power lay in the hands of the majority, they forcibly imposed their will upon the minority, and that came to acquire the status of law, even though perhaps none of those fifty people was the murderer. This reasoning is also correct from the perspective of the present age. In a country with several tens of millions of inhabitants, the majority should present, regarding verses of the Qur’an that permit multiple interpretations, an interpretation more compatible with their surrounding circumstances. Likewise, the general principles of the Qur’an should be applied to present circumstances so that unity may be created between thought and action. Similarly, in matters and problems about which the Qur’an is silent, the majority must undertake the responsibility of making laws.
The question that now demands discussion is this: how will millions of people exercise the right to interpret the Qur’an, apply it, and enact laws concerning matters about which the Qur’an is silent? By observing the circumstances of a country, one may reach a decision as to the best method for its inhabitants to choose representatives to whom they can faithfully entrust their authority and their right to express their opinions. They may also choose one person as their representative. But history tells us that making one person the possessor of absolute authority has invariably had destructive consequences. The intoxication of power becomes a cause of obstruction and disaster for individuals, organizations, and the rule of law, while unlimited power and authority reach their ultimate limit with triple disaster. A country’s history may also reach a point at which, in order to change the circumstances and save the country from destruction, it becomes necessary for one person to take all power into his own hands. But this is an abnormal condition. To maintain democracy and transfer the trust of power to the people, the distribution of power is of the utmost importance, so that each may serve as a check on the others and hold them accountable, and so that all may together formulate laws and policies to guide the entire nation. The natural demand of the circumstances is that these persons entrusted with authority must remain accountable to the ordinary people. Only under this condition can a program be brought to success through an orderly course of action. In Islam, all Muslims possess power equally, and above them is only the sovereignty of Allah. Their decisions are accepted collectively and generally as free citizens. This is called “ijma” (consensus).
“Ijtihad” is a recognized source of law. It means applying one’s intellectual ability to the fullest in order to find a solution to a doubtful or difficult legal problem. Imam Abu Hanifa made extensive use of ijtihad. The fields of ijtihad in which Imam Abu Hanifa and the other jurists worked were qiyas, istihsan, istislah, and istidlal. Muslim jurists considered the ijtihad of one person or of a few persons dangerous. Therefore, in particular legal matters, they regarded it as preferable to decide according to the ijma of the jurists or mujtahids, or according to the opinion of the majority. In the past, it may have been correct to restrict ijtihad to a few jurists, because knowledge was not freely and widely disseminated among the people. But in the modern age this responsibility should be undertaken by the people’s representatives. For, as I have explained earlier, reading and understanding the Qur’an and applying its general principles to existing circumstances is not the special right of one or two persons; rather, it is the right and duty of all Muslims, and this task should be performed by those whom the Muslims have elected for this purpose. It therefore becomes self-evident that, in matters where the command of the Qur’an is clear, it has the status of law for Muslims; and where the interpretation of the Qur’an and the application of its general principles to subsidiary matters are concerned, whatever decisions the representatives elected by the general public make will also acquire the status of law.
16. The view described above can be clarified with the help of several examples. I shall first present the third verse of Surah al-Nisa of the Qur’an, which has been misapplied in most cases.
(Arabic********************************************)
“If you fear that you will not deal fairly with orphan girls, then marry whichever women you like—two, three, or four. But if you fear that you will not deal justly, then marry only one, or those whom your right hands possess. That is more likely to prevent you from committing injustice.”
As I explained in the initial part of my judgment, no part of any command of the Qur’an should be considered meaningless. It is the task of the people’s elected representatives to enact legislation on whether one person may marry more than one woman and, if so, under what circumstances and subject to which conditions. By analogy, such marriages should be for the benefit of orphans.
17. In any case, this verse establishes permissibility only; it does not make it obligatory, and in my view the government may restrict this permission. If the majority of a group consisting of fifty persons can enact a law that none of them shall commit murder, then, by analogy with this example, it may be said that if an individual Muslim can say, “I will not marry more than one woman because I do not have the means,” then the majority of eighty million Muslims (the population of Pakistan at that time) may enact a provision for the entire nation that the country’s economic, cultural, or political circumstances do not permit anyone to marry more than one woman. This verse should be read together with two other verses of the Qur’an. The first is verse 24:33, which says that a person who lacks the means to marry should not marry. If a person may be prevented from marrying once because of inadequate means, then for the same or similar reasons he should also be prevented from marrying more than once. Marriage guarantees the existence of wives and children. If marriage may be prohibited for a person because he lacks the means to support a family, then he may be compelled to have only as many children as he is capable of supporting. If he cannot exercise control himself, the government must do so for him. Applying this principle broadly, if, for example, a country’s food situation is poor and birth control is necessary, it would be entirely lawful for the government to enact a law that no person may have more than one wife, and may keep even one wife only when he can meet the needs of his wife’s maintenance, while also limiting the number of children to a specified number. Moreover, the verse cited above specifically instructs that if a Muslim fears he will be unable to establish justice among his wives, he should marry only one woman. In verse 129 of Surah al-Nisa, Allah has clearly stated that it is impossible for human beings to establish equal justice among their wives.
(Arabic************************)
“You will never be able to treat your wives equally, no matter how eagerly you desire it. So do not incline completely toward one of them, leaving the other suspended. If you reconcile yourselves and remain mindful of Allah, surely Allah is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.”
It is the government’s responsibility to enact legislation and impose restrictions on polygamy in order to reconcile these two verses.
18. The government may say that, since experience over the years has shown that, in the case of marrying two wives, and since the Qur’an itself acknowledges that equal treatment of two wives is impossible, this practice is hereby permanently prohibited. These three verses state general principles. The government must apply these three principles under its own supervision. The government may save people from destroying themselves and their children by marrying more than one woman. National and state interests demand that restrictions be imposed on marriage whenever the need is felt.
19. Regarding theft, Surah 5:38 commands that the hands of both the male thief and the female thief may be cut off. This is an exemplary punishment for their crime from Allah. Verse 39 of the same surah says: “Whoever repents after committing wrongdoing and reforms himself, surely Allah will accept his repentance.” Therefore, the general principle is that the maximum punishment for theft is amputation of the hand. But it is the government’s responsibility to decide what constitutes theft and what punishment applies to each type of theft. The conclusion to be drawn from this is that the government has the authority to formulate laws and regulations. The scope of this authority is very broad, and it should be exercised freely in order to implement an orderly practical program.
20. Among the books regarded as legally authoritative in India and Pakistan, the principles stated concerning minor children are not based on the Qur’an. Here are several of the provisions concerning minor children contained in this holy book:
(Arabic***************************)
“Mothers shall breastfeed their children for two complete years, for those who wish to complete the nursing period. The father is responsible for their food and clothing on a reasonable basis. No soul should be burdened beyond its capacity. No mother should be harmed because of her child, nor any father because of his child. The heirs have a similar responsibility. If both parents decide, by mutual consent and consultation, to wean the child, there is no blame on either of them. If you decide to have your children nursed by another woman, there is no blame on you, provided you pay what you have agreed to pay in a fair manner. Fear Allah and know that Allah is All-Seeing of what you do.” (Surah al-Baqarah: 233).
“Let them live where you live, according to your means, and do not harass them so as to make their lives difficult. If they are pregnant, maintain them until they give birth. If they breastfeed your children, then pay them their due, and consult together in a reasonable manner concerning the child’s welfare. But if you both insist on your own demands, then another woman may breastfeed the child on behalf of the father.” (Surah al-Talaq: 6).
In light of the above verses, mothers must breastfeed children for the full two years. The father must bear all expenses, which evidently include expenditure for both the child and the mother. This supports the Shi‘a law under which the mother’s right of guardianship over the child is limited to two years. But I find no valid reason in the Qur’an to support the distinction made between boys and girls regarding guardianship. The Qur’an places upon each of the parents the responsibility of raising and caring for the child. Neither the father nor the mother may be deprived of the child. In any case, the Qur’an contains no directive that, if a divorced woman remarries, the first husband may take the child away from her. If a child may be taken away merely because she has remarried, then I can find no reason why a husband should not be deprived of the child when he remarries. A stepmother is certainly no less troublesome and dangerous than a stepfather, even if she is not more so.
In any case, it is the government’s responsibility to legislate concerning minors, because the Qur’an is completely silent on this matter.
It may be assumed that matters concerning minors fall under the Guardianship and Wards Act. After the Islamic state of Pakistan came into existence, the country’s elected representatives approved this law. But even this law contains no clear and specific principle concerning who will have the right of guardianship over minor children after the mother’s remarriage. Under both the Qur’an and this law, the only consideration is the child’s welfare and comfort. If the child’s welfare and comfort require that the child remain with the mother, then the child should remain in her care despite her remarriage. Each case must be decided with regard to its particular circumstances, nature, and conditions.
21. In addition to the Qur’an, Hadith or Sunnah has been accepted by a significant portion of Muslims as an extremely important source of Islamic law. In the specific sense, Hadith means the sayings of Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). In general, however, Hadith refers to the words and actions of the Messenger, including what he approved or disapproved of, or did not disapprove of. To fully understand the value and status of Hadith as a source of Islamic law, we must know what the status and importance of the Holy Messenger (peace be upon him) are in the Islamic world. I stated in the initial part of this judgment that Islam is a religion granted by Allah. It derives its authority from Allah, and from Allah alone. If this is the correct conception of Islam, it necessarily follows that the Prophet’s words, actions, and conduct cannot be accorded a status equal to that of revelation from Allah. At most, they may be used to learn how the Qur’an was interpreted in particular circumstances, or how the general principles of the Qur’an were applied to particular events. No one can deny that Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, was a complete human being. No person can claim to possess the power and ability to express all the honor and dignity to which Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, was entitled, or all the honor and dignity we wish to express for him. But, like the other Messengers, he too was a human being. [The learned judge then quoted the following verses with translations: 12:109, 14:10–11, 3:143, 7:188, 41:6, and 51:51. These verses mention the personal status of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). The learned judge then said:]
He too had to obey Allah’s commands just as we have to do, and perhaps his responsibility, in light of the Qur’an, was even greater than ours. He could not give Muslims anything beyond what was revealed to him.
(Arabic**********************************************************)
“O Messenger! Convey to the people what has been revealed to you from your Lord. If you do not, then you have not conveyed His message. Allah will protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the disbelieving people.” —(Surah al-Ma’idah: 67).
22. To emphasize that Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, was a man of very high rank, but could be given only the second place after Allah, it is unnecessary for me to quote verses from the Qur’an. In addition to the revelation that came to him from Allah, as a human being he himself possessed thoughts and acted under the influence of those thoughts. It is true that Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, committed no sin. But he could make mistakes, and this fact itself has been acknowledged in the Qur’an.
(Arabic*************************************************************)
“So that Allah may forgive you your past and future sins, complete His favor upon you, and guide you to a straight path.” —(Surah al-Fath: 2).
The Qur’an states in several places that Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, is an excellent model for the world. But this means only that a person should be faithful, truthful, active, God-fearing, and pious like him. It does not mean that we should think and act exactly as he did, because that would be contrary to human nature and impossible for people. If we tried to do so, life itself would become unbearable.
23. It is also true that the Qur’an emphasizes obedience to Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). But this means only that where he instructed us to perform a particular act in a particular manner, we should perform it in that manner. Obedience can be owed only to an instruction. Where there is no instruction, there is neither obedience nor disobedience. It is extremely difficult to derive from the Qur’anic verses the meaning that we should do exactly whatever the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) did. The clear point is that the experiences of one individual’s lifetime cannot provide an example for more than a limited number of people, even if that individual is a prophet. It should be emphatically stated that Islam did not regard even the Prophet as God. It is clear that there is a fundamental and practical difference between the Qur’an and Hadith. What the moral rule should be for a nation in particular matters, and how judgment should be given in a specific case, must be decided according to justice and the demands of contemporary circumstances.
(Arabic***************************************************)
“Indeed, Allah commands you to return trusts to their rightful owners. When you judge between people, judge with justice. Excellent indeed is the instruction Allah gives you. Surely Allah is All-Hearing, All-Seeing.” —(Surah al-Nisa: 58).
(Arabic****************************************************************************)
“They eagerly listen to falsehood and consume unlawful gain. If they come to you, either judge between them or turn them away. If you turn them away, they cannot harm you in the least. But if you judge, then judge fairly. Surely Allah loves those who uphold justice.” —(Surah al-Ma’idah: 42).
(Arabic*****************************************************************)
“So call people to this faith and remain steadfast as you have been commanded, and do not follow their desires. Say, ‘I believe in whatever Book Allah has revealed, and I have been commanded to judge fairly between you. Allah is our Lord and your Lord. We are accountable for our deeds and you are accountable for your deeds. There is no dispute between us and you. Allah will gather us all together, and to Him is the final return.’” —(Surah al-Shura: 15).
In presenting solutions to personal and national matters, we cannot disregard differences of time and place.
24. There is no reliable evidence by which we can know how much importance the four Caliphs gave to the words, actions, and conduct of Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). But even if, for the sake of argument, it is accepted that they made extensive use of Hadith to provide solutions to people’s problems and matters of national importance, they did the right thing, because in terms of time and place they were closer to Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, than we are. But Abu Hanifa, who was born in 80 AH and died seventy years later, used only seventeen or eighteen Hadith in solving all the legal questions presented to him. The reason was probably that he was not as close to the era of the Messenger of Allah as the four Caliphs were. He based all his decisions on the written directives of the Qur’an and tried to discover, behind the words of the Qur’anic text, the active factors that were the causes of those directives. He possessed sufficient power to reason and find solutions. In light of actual conditions, he formulated the principles and rules of law on the basis of qiyas. If Imam Abu Hanifa had the right to interpret the Qur’an in light of contemporary circumstances without the help of Hadith, then the right of other Muslims to do so cannot be denied. Abu Hanifa’s opinions were not regarded as final by his students and followers in interpreting the Qur’an and deciding cases. In any event, he was a human being and could fall into error. Therefore, it is not correct to remain restricted to the opinion of a single individual. For a nation, only the decisions adopted and laws enacted collectively by its elected representatives can be binding. Abu Hanifa believed that not all the laws and principles needed by society were present in the Qur’an, but only some of them. On the other hand, some later scholars held the view that they had brought these matters before the public. We do not wish to express an opinion here on the extensive disagreement that exists on this subject. At present, when we are living in an organized and orderly world and every kind of intellectual inquiry has become easier for us, this is precisely the right time for us to review the status of Hadith as a source of law.
Moreover, it is necessary to consider whether following the opinions of Imam Abu Hanifa or other highly eminent jurists like him is obligatory for us, or whether, in light of present realities, the right of qiyas and istinbat may also be retained for us.
25. All the jurists of Islam unanimously acknowledge that, over the course of time, a mass of fabricated and forged Hadith has come to be regarded as a valid and recognized source of Islamic law. False Hadith began to appear during the lifetime of Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). The number of false and erroneous Hadith had increased so greatly that during his caliphate Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) imposed restrictions on the narration of Hadith, and indeed prohibited its narration. Imam Bukhari selected only nine thousand Hadith as authentic from among six hundred thousand. I cannot understand how anyone can deny that, just as the Qur’an was preserved, no similar effort was made to preserve Hadith during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). On the contrary, the evidence presently available indicates that Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, strictly prohibited the preservation of Hadith. If the narration in Sahih Muslim is authentic, he prohibited it most emphatically. He instructed that anyone who had preserved his Hadith should destroy it immediately.
(Arabic***********************************************)
Maulana Muhammad Ali translated this Hadith, or one similar to it, in the following way on page 62 of the 1926 edition of his book Din Islam: “It is narrated that Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) came to us while we were writing Hadith. He asked, ‘What are you writing?’ We replied, ‘Hadith that we hear from you.’ He said, ‘What is this? Another book besides the Book of Allah?’
There is no evidence that Hadith was preserved or compiled during the era of the four Caliphs immediately after the death of Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). What can this actual circumstance mean? It deserves deep consideration. Can it be said that Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), and the four Caliphs who came after him did not attempt to preserve Hadith because these Hadith were not intended for general application? A considerable number of Muslims had memorized the Qur’an. Whenever revelation came, it was written immediately on whatever writing materials were available, and for this purpose the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) appointed several well-educated Companions. Regarding Hadith, however, it can be said that they were neither memorized nor preserved. They remained hidden in the minds of people who, by coincidence, died soon after narrating them to others. They were not collected and compiled until several hundred years after the Messenger’s death. In my view, the time has now come for a complete and systematic study to determine whether, despite the Arabs’ remarkable powers of memory and extraordinary ability to retain information, Hadith can be accepted as reliable and authentic in their present form. It is acknowledged that Hadith were first collected approximately one hundred years after the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), but that record is now difficult to obtain. After that, they were collected by the following persons: Imam Bukhari (d. 265 AH), Imam Muslim
(d. 261 AH) Abu Dawud (d. 275 AH), Jami‘ al-Tirmidhi (d. 279 AH), Sunan al-Nasa’i (d. 303 AH), Sunan Ibn Majah (d. 283 AH), Sunan al-Darimi (d. 181 AH), al-Bayhaqi (b. 384 AH), Imam Ahmad (b. 164 AH). The compilations of Hadith that the Shi‘a community considers reliable are those of Abu Ja‘far (329 AH), Shaykh ‘Ali (381 AH), Shaykh Abu Ja‘far Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Husayn (466 AH), and Sayyid al-Radi (406 AH). Apparently, these compilations were produced considerably later than the compilations of Imam al-Bukhari and others. There are very few Hadiths about which these compilers of Hadith were able to agree. If this disagreement is entrusted with the task of investigating the Hadiths, they must certainly bear in mind that thousands of fabricated Hadiths have been circulated so that Islam and Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, may be defamed. They must also bear in mind that, however powerful the Arabs’ memories may be, can accounts copied solely from memory be regarded as reliable? Ultimately, the memory of present-day Arabs has remained the same as the memory their ancestors possessed thirteen hundred years ago. Whatever memory the Arabs possess today can serve as an important guide in helping us decide whether the reports that have reached us are reliable in their accuracy and authenticity. The exaggerations of the Arabs, as well as the personal views and fanaticism of the narrators through whom these reports reached us, must also have distorted them considerably while transmitting them on a large scale. Changes arise in vocabulary as a result of the distinctive mold of each mind. Each mind rearranges it in its own manner, and when vocabulary has passed through many minds, anyone can imagine how enormous the changes produced within it may be. We cannot disregard the truth that human nature is the same everywhere. Allah has created human beings imperfect, and human observation is extremely immature and weak.
26. If someone studies the Hadith corpus, he will find at least some Hadiths in it whose authenticity is difficult to accept on the basis of internal evidence. The Hadith previously cited by the learned judge, together with its translation, was taken from Mr. Fazlul Karim’s English translation of Mishkat Sharif (1938 edition), in which it was copied incorrectly. We have corrected the error by comparing it with the original Mishkat.—(Ghulam Ali)
“It is narrated from ‘Ata’. He said: I went to ‘A’ishah and said to her, ‘Tell me about the most pleasing and wondrous thing you saw in the Noble Prophet.’ ‘A’ishah began to weep and said, ‘Which of the Noble Prophet’s states was not wondrous and delightful?’
1. This phrase was translated in the original text of the judgment as follows: ‘What could be more wondrous and pleasing than this?’ This translation is incorrect.
One night he came and entered my bed or blanket with me, until my body touched his body. Then he said, ‘O daughter of Abu Bakr! Let me worship my Lord.’
2. In the original text of the judgment, this portion was translated as follows: ‘Leave me; you will worship your Lord?’ This translation is incorrect.
I said, ‘Your nearness is dear to me, but I consider your desire more deserving of preference. So I gave you permission.’ He went to a water-filled pitcher, performed ablution, and did not use an excessive amount of water. Then he stood and began to pray, weeping so profusely that his tears flowed down onto his chest. He bowed, prostrated, and raised his head while weeping. He continued to weep in this manner. At last, Bilal came and informed him that it was time for prayer. I said, ‘O Messenger of Allah! Why do you weep when Allah has forgiven all your past and future sins?’ The Noble Prophet said, ‘Should I not be a grateful servant?’
(Arabic*************************)
It is narrated from ‘A’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her). She said: The Noble Prophet would kiss one of his wives and then pray without performing ablution.
(Arabic****************************)
“It is narrated from Umm Salamah (may Allah be pleased with her). She said: Umm Sulaym (may Allah be pleased with her) said, ‘O Messenger of Allah! Allah Most High is not shy of expressing the truth. Must a woman perform ghusl if she has a wet dream?’ He said, ‘Yes, when she sees the sign of emission.’ Umm Salamah covered her face out of modesty and said, ‘Yes, may your right hand be covered in dust. How does the child resemble its mother?’ (Bukhari, Muslim).
In Muslim, in the narration of Umm Sulaym, it says: The semen of men is thick and white, while the semen of women is thin and yellow. Whichever of them has the stronger influence, the child resembles that one.”
(Arabic********************************)
“It is narrated from Mu‘adhah. She said: ‘A’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) said, ‘The Messenger of Allah and I would bathe using water from the same vessel. The vessel would be placed between us both. He would bathe more quickly than I, so much so that I would say, “Leave some water for me.”’ Mu‘adhah said: They would both perform the bath of major impurity at that time.”
(Arabic************************)
It is narrated from ‘A’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her). She said: “A ruling was sought from the Messenger of Allah concerning a man who finds his garment wet but cannot remember whether he had a wet dream. He said: ‘He must perform ghusl.’ And a ruling was sought concerning another man who remembers having a wet dream but finds no wetness. He said: ‘Ghusl is not obligatory upon him.’ Umm Sulaym (may Allah be pleased with her) said, ‘If women experience that, must they perform ghusl?’ He said: ‘Yes, women are the counterparts of men.’
(Arabic****************)
It is narrated from ‘A’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her). She said: The Messenger of Allah said: “When the two circumcised parts meet, ghusl becomes obligatory. The Messenger of Allah and I did this, and we performed ghusl.”
(Arabic***********************)
It is narrated from ‘A’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her). She said: After performing the bath of major impurity, the Messenger of Allah would become intimate with me to warm his body before I performed my bath, in order to have intercourse again.
(Arabic************************)
“It is narrated from ‘A’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her). She said: The Noble Prophet and I would draw water from the same vessel and bathe while we were both in a state of major impurity. During my menstruation, he would instruct me to wear a tightly fastened garment and would embrace me. While he was in i‘tikaf, he would extend his head outside the mosque, and I would wash it while I was menstruating.”
(Arabic**************************************************************)
“It is narrated from ‘A’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her). She said: While I was menstruating, I would drink from a vessel and then hand it to the Noble Prophet. He would place his mouth precisely where my mouth had touched. Then I would hand it to the Noble Prophet, and he would drink from the place where my mouth had touched.”
(Arabic************************************************************)
“It is narrated from ‘A’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her). She said: When I was menstruating, I would leave the bed and take refuge on a mat. Thereafter, I would not approach the Messenger of Allah until I had become pure.”—[In the original text of the judgment, some of the words of this Hadith had been copied and translated incorrectly, causing its meaning to be distorted. Those errors have been corrected here.—(Ghulam Ali).]
(Arabic********************************************************************)
“Narrated by ‘A’ishah (RA). She said: The Noble Prophet (SA) said to me, ‘Lift the mat from the mosque and bring it to me.’ I said, ‘I am menstruating.’ He said, ‘There is no trace of menstruation on your hand (that is, you may extend your hand and take the mat from the mosque).’”
27. The subject matter described in many of the foregoing Hadiths concerns matters that occurred between the Noble Prophet Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (SA), and his wives, ‘A’ishah Siddiqah (RA) and Umm Salamah (RA). They, who were complete in every respect, could not have exposed such private matters so crudely.
28. I cannot bring myself to believe that Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (SA), could have said that most of the inhabitants of Hell would be women and most of the inhabitants of Paradise would be poor.
(Arabic********************************************************************)
“Narrated by Usamah ibn Zayd (RA). He said: The Messenger of Allah (SA) said: I stood at the gate of Paradise and saw that most of those entering it were poor and needy, while the wealthy were held back. Furthermore, those who were destined for Hell were ordered to be cast into it. I stood at the gate of Hell and saw that most of those entering it were women.”
[In the original text of the judgment, the translation of (Arabic******) is given as “In anahion to.” This translation is incorrect—(Ghulam Ali).]
(Arabic*********************************************************************)
“Narrated by Ibn ‘Abbas (RA). He said: The Messenger of Allah (SA) said: I looked into Paradise and saw that most of its inhabitants were poor. I looked toward Hell and saw that most of its inhabitants were women.”
29. Does this mean that Muslims have been forbidden to acquire wealth by any means? For if they acquire wealth, their chances of entering Paradise will be reduced. What will happen to all Muslims if they become poor? Will they not be completely ruined? Will their progress in every sphere of life not thereby be hindered? Moreover, is it credible that Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (SA), could have said, as narrated through ‘Abdullah ibn Qays in Bukhari, p. 852, narration no. 74/602, that “Muslims will have intercourse with women seated in different places in a tent in Paradise”? The Hadiths and the early commentaries on the Qur’an have narrowed the boundaries of Islam and restricted its breadth. Should we allow this situation to continue?
30. Even if, for the sake of argument, it is accepted that the Hadiths compiled by the Hadith scholars are authentic, there is nevertheless evidence that if these Hadiths were not related to the religion, the Messenger of Allah (SA) would not have intended to give them the status of “final word.” The following Hadith has been narrated in Sahih Muslim:
(Arabic*********************************************************************************)
“Narrated by Rafi‘ ibn Khadij (RA). He said: When the Noble Prophet (SA) came to Madinah, he found the people of Madinah cross-pollinating the flowers of male date palms with those of female date palms. He said, ‘What are you doing?’ They replied, ‘We have been doing this from before.’ He said, ‘It might have been better for you not to do so.’ When this was mentioned to him, he said: ‘I am a human being. When I give you an instruction concerning your religion, accept it. But when I say something based on my own opinion, then I am only a human being.’”
Furthermore, the fact that they were not certain about the authenticity of the Hadiths they had collected is evident from this one practical fact: They did not tell Muslims, “Accept the Hadiths we have compiled as authentic.” Rather, they said, “Test them against the standards we have devised for verifying the authenticity of Hadiths, and then be satisfied.” If they had been certain about the authenticity of these Hadiths, the question of verification would have been entirely meaningless and unnecessary.”
32. There are some Hadiths that turn people’s attention away from this world. Spirituality is a good thing, but Islam does not permit us to take it needlessly to an extreme. Fundamentally, Allah Almighty has made us human beings, and He wants us to live as human beings. Had He wished us to become spiritual beings or angels, there could have been nothing easier than making us so. According to genuine Islamic law, Muslims should employ their strength and wealth solely for the purpose of making life productive, better, and completely beautiful.
33. If we study the Hadiths, we learn that most of them are very brief and disconnected, narrated outside their preceding and succeeding context and separated from their proper setting. It is not possible to understand them correctly or determine their true significance and implications unless their context is kept in view and the circumstances in which the Noble Messenger said or did something are known. In any event, the science of Hadith requires a completely new process of scrutiny and investigation. It has been said, and rightly so, that Hadith cannot abrogate the injunctions of the Qur’an. Yet in at least one matter the Hadiths have in fact amended the Holy Qur’an, namely, the matter of bequests. After deep thought and consideration concerning the Hadiths, I am compelled to reach the conclusion that they should not, in their present form, be given equal status with the Qur’an, nor should their application be regarded as universal. I am not in favor of accepting the Hadiths collected by the Hadith scholars as one of the sources of Islamic law until they have been reexamined; and this examination should not be based on narrow-mindedness and bigotry. Rather, the principles and conditions laid down by Imam Bukhari and others for separating authentic Hadiths from the countless false, fabricated, and forged Hadiths must also be used in an entirely new way. In addition, the standards provided by actual circumstances and experience must be applied.
It is also my view that, in light of present realities, judges and elected representatives of the people must formulate interpretations of the Holy Qur’an by employing the delicate and subtle methods of qiyas and istidlal. The decisions expressed by Abu Hanifah and other similar jurists, and recorded in various books, may be accorded the status of precedents to the same extent as that given to judgments of ordinary courts. The injunctions mentioned in the Majid Qur’an are not static; they are dynamic and well ordered. The interpretation of the Majid Qur’an should be harmonious and consistent with those human courses of action that are influenced by present circumstances and determined by various factors. As Abu Hanifah did, knowledge and intellect must be employed in examining worldly matters. From this perspective, the laws governing the Muslims of the Indo-Pakistani subcontinent require extensive revision, and it is essential to restructure them so that they conform to the country’s present circumstances.
[From paragraph 34 through paragraph 41, the learned judge discussed the issue to be resolved in the appeal, namely, guardianship, and expressed the judgment that even if the narrations of the compilers of Hadith were accepted as authentic and obedience to them were acknowledged as obligatory, just as with the Qur’an, they still could not support the personal law concerning guardianship prevailing among Muslims. Although this part of the judgment also merits serious thought and attention, it is related to the subject matter of the main decision and is not intended to be brought within the scope of this discussion; therefore, its translation has not been provided here. This portion may be seen in the English section of the original judgment.]
Review of the Judgment
—Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi
For some time, the tendency has been steadily increasing in the statements, declarations, and writings of some judges of our courts to cast doubt on the authenticity of the Sunnah (Hadith) and to refuse to recognize it as a foundation of Islamic law. Such ideas have even begun to appear in some judicial judgments. For example, a judgment of the West Pakistan High Court, delivered three or four years ago, stated:
“The real problem is encountered in the case of Hadith, which informs us about the Sunnah or the practices and activities of the Messenger. First, it is a fact that the authenticity of a Hadith relating to any particular matter is rarely free from controversy. Moreover, in certain cases some of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, especially Hazrat ‘Umar (RA), departed even from the established Sunnah of the Noble Prophet. Various examples of this have been compiled in an excellent (?) Urdu booklet published by the Karachi-based Idara-e-Tulu-e-Islam under the title ‘Usul-e-Qanunsazi in Islam.’ I have made considerable use of this book. It is unnecessary for me to say here that the evidence for the Sunnah being based on revelation is not at all strong”—(PLD, November 1957, pp. 1012–13).
As this tendency has grown, it has now assumed an extremely clear and dangerous form in the judgment under review by Justice Muhammad Shafi, and the Hadith-deniers are taking full advantage of it. We therefore consider it our duty to undertake a detailed intellectual review of this judgment and to warn the judges and legal scholars of the country about the weakness of this line of thought. We have no dispute whatsoever concerning the facts of the case in which this judgment was delivered, nor do we wish to discuss the decision given by the learned judge. We wish to confine our discussion to the fundamental issue concerning the status of the Qur’an, Sunnah, and fiqh raised in this judgment.
Two Fundamental Questions
Before beginning our review of the original judgment in this connection, two fundamental questions arise before us. The first question concerns the jurisdiction of the courts. For fourteen hundred years, it has been recognized among the Muslims of the world that, after the Qur’an, the second source of Islamic law is the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (SA). Throughout the long course of these centuries, every significant author who has written on this law—whether Muslim or non-Muslim—has acknowledged this truth. No school of thought or jurist can be cited among the Muslims who was followed by a significant number of Muslims yet refused to recognize the Sunnah as a source of law. Nor, under the principles of the Anglo-Mohammedan law prevailing in undivided India, has any legislative council ever reached a decision effecting such a fundamental alteration in the principles of Islamic law. The question is whether, in these circumstances, any individual judge, any High Court, or even the Supreme Court itself has the right to make this fundamental change in the law. As far as we know, a court is not independently a law-making institution. Our courts are bound to act according to the laws enacted by the law-making bodies, in light of the principles on which the judicial system and laws of our country are based. They may certainly interpret the law, and their interpretations will undoubtedly have the status of law within the judicial system. But, to our knowledge, it has never been established that they have the right to alter the law itself or its recognized principles. We wish to know when and from where the courts acquired this right.
The second question is: who fundamentally possesses the right to make such a principled change in the law? To this day, Pakistan claims to have been established on the principles of democracy, and democracy can have no meaning if it does not mean a government desired by the majority of its citizens. Now, if a referendum were held to ascertain the general opinion of Pakistan’s Muslims, we can say with complete certainty that more than 9,999 out of every 10,000 would express the belief that, after the Qur’an, the Sunnah of the Messenger is an indispensable foundation of Islamic law. It is very unlikely that even one person in ten thousand would disagree. As long as this situation exists, does any judge of a court have the jurisdiction to exclude the Sunnah from the sources of Islamic law? Or can any government do so? An affirmative answer to these questions could be given if a dictatorship of a particular class had been established here. But on the basis of democratic principles, we cannot see how anyone could give an affirmative answer. Until democracy has completely died here, no person in power can exercise his jurisdiction according to his own whim. Rather, he is obliged to exercise his authority according to the law established on the basis of the majority’s view. Those among the judges who hold somewhat stronger opinions have the straightforward option of resigning from their judicial posts and devoting their full intellectual abilities to changing the beliefs of the Muslim public. But as long as he occupies a position of authority, he cannot use his power to bring about this change. This is an obvious logical demand of democracy. If anyone possesses arguments or evidence with which to refute it, we wish to know them.
If the view we have presented above concerning the two aforementioned fundamental questions is accepted as correct, then, while fully respecting the dignity of the judiciary, we would submit that it was not appropriate for the learned judge to state this particular line of thought of his own in one of his judicial decisions. Had he recorded it privately in the form of an article and published it as a pamphlet, there would have been no objection. In that case, it could have been discussed more freely, and there would have been no fear of harming the honour of the judiciary.
Hanafi fiqh —its true status
We shall now turn our attention to the discussion of principles in the original judgment. After reading it, readers will have understood that this is a judgment in a case concerning guardianship. In this connection, citing the principles of Hanafi fiqh concerning guardianship, the learned judge said that during British rule all courts, up to the Privy Council, fully followed these principles, and the reason given in his judgment was as follows:
“Muslim jurists did not approve of the English or any other non-Muslim nation interpreting and analysing the Holy Qur’an and enacting laws according to its own aims and objectives. The importance of the work entitled Fatawa Alamgiri in all matters related to Muslim law points to this fact. But the situation has now completely changed.” —(Paragraph 4).
Then, after giving a detailed account of Hanafi law concerning guardianship, he raised the question again:
“Can these rules and regulations at any stage finally be called Islamic law, capable of attaining the status of that essential provision which possesses the status of codified law?” (Paragraph 7).
In our view, when this judgment was published, the learned judge had not considered those factors on the basis of which Hanafi law has been recognised as Islamic law—not only during the English period and not only in our country, but in a large part of the Islamic world from the third Hijri century onward. He mentioned only a very slight and minor subsidiary reason, and for this reason his following statement also does not accurately represent the actual situation: “The situation has now completely changed.”
Those acquainted with the history of Islamic law know that the establishment of a monarchical system of government in place of the Rightly Guided Caliphate created a great vacuum in the legal system of Islam, which continued for more than a century. The shura (consultative council) of the Rightly Guided Caliphate performed precisely the function that a legislative council performs today. Whenever problems arose in the Muslim state requiring a legal provision, the caliph’s shura reached a definite decision on them through collective deliberation and ijtihad in the light of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), and that decision became effective throughout the state as law. Whenever a difference arose concerning the interpretation of a Qur’anic directive, the investigation of the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), or the application of the principles of the Shariah to a newly arising problem, each such difference was presented before the shura at any time, and whatever decision was reached by consensus (ijma) or by the majority became law. The status of that council of the Rightly Guided Caliphate was not achieved solely through political power; rather, the people’s confidence in the God-fearingness, trustworthiness, sincerity, and knowledge of the religion possessed by the caliph and the members of his shura was the fundamental reason for this status.
When this system no longer remained and a monarchical government took its place, although the head of state was Muslim and his officials and courtiers were also Muslim, none of them dared to issue opinions on various problems and matters as the Rightly Guided Caliphs had done. They themselves knew that they did not enjoy the confidence of the Muslim public and that their decisions could not become part of Islamic law. If they had formed a council composed of people trusted by the Muslim public, God-fearing, and knowledgeable, like the shura of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, and had granted it a similar status, their kingship would have become unworkable. If they had formed a shura from people of their own choosing and begun issuing decisions, Muslims would not have been prepared to accept those decisions as Shariah-based decisions. Such decisions could have been imposed by force, but as soon as the power that imposed them fell, they would have been thrown back in their faces. It was altogether impossible for them to survive as an independent part of the Shariah.
In this situation, a vacuum arose within the Islamic legal system. The decisions reached by consensus concerning various problems and matters during the period of the Rightly Guided Caliphate remained effective as law throughout the state; but thereafter there was no institution capable of making and issuing decisions on emerging problems and matters through interpretation of the Qur’an, examination of the Sunnah, and the exercise of ijtihad, so that such decisions could be recognised as the law of the country. During this period, the fatwas and decisions issued privately by various qadis (judges) and muftis (interpreters of the law) became effective in the areas under their influence and authority. These isolated fatwas and decisions created legal anarchy in the country. There was no single law that could operate uniformly in all courts and according to which the administrative department could conduct its affairs. During the reign of the Abbasid caliph Mansur, Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ seriously perceived this disorder and anarchy and advised the caliph to try to fill the vacuum. But the caliph was himself aware of his status and position. At least he was not guilty of the absurd error of which dictators today are guilty. He was conscious of how many Muslims would accept as a provision of the Shariah the laws formulated under his chairmanship and by people of his own choosing and made effective with his approval.
After nearly a century had passed in this condition, Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) came forward to fill this vacuum. Without possessing any political power or legal status, he established a private legislature from among the students he had personally trained. There, the interpretation and analysis of Qur’anic provisions, examination of the Sunnahs, investigation of the consensus-based decisions of earlier experts, verification and evaluation of the fatwas of the Companions, the Tabi‘un, and the Followers of the Tabi‘un, and the application of the principles of the Shariah to problems in various fields were carried out extensively; and within twenty-five or thirty years the entire body of Islamic law was compiled. This law was not compiled according to the wishes of any king. No power stood behind it through which it could be enforced. Yet before fifty years had passed, it became the law of the Abbasid kingdom. The sole reason was that it had been formulated by people concerning whom the Muslim public had firm confidence that they were learned scholars, God-fearing, possessed of sound Islamic thought, uninfluenced by anti-Islamic ideas and doctrines, and not the kind of people who would admit even the slightest consideration of their own or anyone else’s personal interests, inclinations, or desires into the formulation of Islamic laws. Muslims were completely certain that whatever provision of the Shariah these men stated after investigation, examination, and research might contain human error, but there was no fear in their case of unprincipled and unrestrained research or of mixing Islam with non-Islam. The effect of this pure moral force was that the Muslim public of the East first accepted it as Islamic law of its own accord and voluntarily began to follow it in all their affairs. Subsequently, they were compelled to accept it as the law of the Abbasid Sultanate and recognise it as the law of the country. Then, through that same moral force, this body of law became the law of the Turkish Sultanate in the Muslim West and of the Muslim rule in India in the East. After Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him), Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) carried out the work of formulating Islamic law. Through moral force alone, it likewise became the law of the Muslim states of Spain and North Africa. Thereafter Imam al-Shafi‘i (may Allah have mercy on him), and after him Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (may Allah have mercy on him), continued to develop Islamic law entirely at the private level, and it too gained recognition as the law of various Muslim states solely through the consent of the Muslim public. Similarly, various people compiled the Zaidi and Ja‘fari schools of fiqh through private initiative, and these too became the law of Shi‘a states solely through their own moral force. The fiqh provisions formulated according to the outlook of the Ahl al-Hadith were likewise accepted by millions of Muslims, without any political influence, as the rules governing their lives according to their own choice. In later centuries, these laws did not remain frozen at the point where Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) had left them. Rather, much reform took place in them in every century, and solutions to new problems continued to be incorporated. This can be demonstrated by comparing the works of Zahir al-Riwayah with the books of fatwas from later periods. But these later works too continued to be produced in educational and fatwa institutions entirely outside government influence. The reason was that the Muslim public had no confidence in the extent of the knowledge or God-fearingness of Muslim kings, their amirs and administrators; their confidence was placed in God-fearing scholars. Thus their fatwas continued to become part of this law, and Islamic law continued to develop through their efforts. With one or two exceptions, throughout all these centuries not even the worst king fell prey to the mistaken notion that he would formulate a body of law and Muslims would accept it without protest as a provision of the Shariah. Even a God-fearing ruler such as Aurangzeb gathered the distinguished scholars of his time, whom Muslims regarded as religiously reliable, and with their assistance compiled the fatwas of the Hanafi jurists and had them recognised as law. Three points become clearly evident from this discussion:
(1) Hanafi fiqh, which had been the law of the Muslim countries of the East for hundreds of years before the arrival of the English, and which the English, throughout their entire rule, continued to recognise as the law of the Muslims at least in the sphere of personal law, was fundamentally accepted as law by the governments because the majority of Muslims regarded it as such; the Muslims of these countries could not obey anything else with peace of conscience.
(2) Just as Muslims during the English period were not prepared to entrust their religion and Shariah to the English or any other non-Muslims, similarly, from the Umayyad period until today, they have never been, nor are they now, prepared to entrust their religion and Shariah to any Muslim whose religious knowledge, God-fearingness, and caution they do not trust.
(3) Far from the situation having now completely changed, it has not even changed partially. There is nothing inherently remarkable about Muslims merely taking the Englishmen’s place on the thrones. The disorder created after the Rightly Guided Caliphate has continued, up to the limits of the Muslim states, just as it was. This vacuum will continue to exist until our educational system produces such God-fearing jurists whose knowledge and piety Muslims can trust, and our political system appoints persons trusted in this way to the task of making laws. If we do not wish to create a conflict in our country between the conscience of our nation and the law, then until this vacuum is genuinely filled in the proper manner, no attempt should be made to fill it with something worthless.
The Learned Judge’s Fundamental Outlook
Thereafter, in paragraphs 8 through 16, the learned judge described some of his own views concerning Islamic law, which are set out successively below:
1. In the light of Islam, the only law that ought to govern a Muslim in every sphere of his life—whether the religious, political, social, or economic sphere—is the law of Allah.
2. Within the limits laid down by the Qur’an, Muslims possess complete freedom to think and act.
3. Since law is a force that imposes restrictions on human freedom, Allah has taken the entire authority to legislate completely into His own hands. In Islam, no person has the right to act in such a way as to suggest that he is superior to others.
4. The practice of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and the Rightly Guided Caliphs was that whatever they did, they did on the basis of consultation with the Muslims. The fundamental creed of Islam, by its very nature, rejects the superiority of any individual over others. It points the way toward collective thought and action.
5. Since human conditions and problems continue to change in this world, permanent and unchangeable laws cannot operate in this changing world. The Qur’an itself is no exception to this general principle. For this reason, the Qur’an has provided broad and general principles concerning various matters to guide humanity.
6. The Qur’an was revealed in simple, straightforward language so that every person can understand it! The right to read and comprehend it is not the exclusive preserve of one or two individuals. All Muslims can understand it if they wish and act accordingly. This right has been granted to all Muslims, and no one may take it away from them, regardless of whether he is a person of very high rank and learning.
7. The very act of reading and understanding the Holy Qur’an demands that the reader interpret and analyse it and, when presenting its interpretation, apply it to contemporary conditions and the changing needs of the world.
8. The interpretations of the Qur’an given by Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him), Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him), and other earlier exegetes cannot be followed verbatim in the present age. It must be interpreted intelligently so that its general principles may be applied to the changing circumstances of society, and it must be interpreted in such a way that people can shape their destinies, ideas, and moral outlook accordingly and act in ways suited to their own country and age. Muslims, like people of other nations, possess knowledge and reason, and they have been given these faculties precisely so that they may use them. All Muslims must read the Qur’an and interpret it.
9. The strenuous effort to understand the Qur’an and reach its purposes and objectives is called ijtihad. The Qur’an expects all Muslims—not merely a particular class among them—to acquire knowledge of it, understand it thoroughly, and interpret it.
10. If everyone interprets the Qur’an individually, countless interpretations will come into existence, resulting in a seriously chaotic situation. Similarly, if discretion were granted in matters about which the Qur’an is silent, a disordered and incoherent society would emerge. Therefore, the opinion of the largest number of people should prevail.
11. A single person or several people are naturally incomplete in intellect, knowledge, and power. However strong and intellectually gifted an individual may be, he cannot be expected to be perfect. The social life that millions and tens of millions of people conduct collectively through an organised system possesses, in its collective aspect, greater knowledge and power than an individual. Even in the light of the Holy Qur’an, the interpretation of the Book of Allah and the application of its general principles to circumstances cannot be entrusted to one person; rather, this work should be carried out on the basis of mutual consultation among Muslims.
12. Law means the rule and system concerning which the majority of people hold that all their affairs ought to be conducted accordingly. In a country inhabited by tens of millions, the majority of its residents should present such an interpretation of the verses of the Qur’an that permit more than one interpretation as is most compatible with their surrounding circumstances.
Criticism of the Above Outlook
Under the thirteen points above, we have tried our utmost to present a concise and accurate account of all the learned judge’s fundamental views. In both the language and the sequential arrangement, we have also kept in view the learned judge’s own language and logical arrangement, so that readers may gain an accurate picture of the idea on which he had previously based his judgment. Several aspects of these fundamental views deserve deep reflection and criticism.
1. In the learned judge’s view, the law of Allah means the law stated in the Qur’an. He does not count the laws and guidance provided by the Sunnah among the laws of Allah. This point is concealed in the statement above, but as he proceeds he explains it in his judgment. At the appropriate place, we shall point out the error in his view.
2. When he says that no individual has superiority over other people, and that understanding and interpreting the Qur’an is not the special right of a handful of people, he appears to include the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) among them. This too is not apparent in the statement above, but as he proceeds he himself explains it. Therefore, this principle of his also requires criticism.
3. He placed the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and the Rightly Guided Caliphs on the same footing and said, “Whatever they did, they did on the basis of consultation with the Muslims.” This is entirely contrary to reality. In his nature and distinguishing characteristics, the status of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) is fundamentally and wholly distinct from that of all Muslim rulers, including the Rightly Guided Caliphs. Placing the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) in their rank is itself contrary to the Qur’an, which the learned judge has acknowledged as the law of Allah. Furthermore, his claim that, like the Rightly Guided Caliphs, the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) also did everything on the basis of consultation with the Muslims is untrue. In matters concerning which the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) received guidance from Allah, his role was merely to issue the instruction, and the Muslims’ role was to follow it. In such matters, not only was there no question of consultation, no Muslim had any right even to say anything. Moreover, Allah’s law did not necessarily come to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) only in the form of Qur’anic verses; it also came in the form of unrecited revelation.
4. After emphasising the right of ordinary Muslims to perform ijtihad, the learned judge himself acknowledged that in a well-organised and disciplined society, individual or solitary ijtihad cannot operate; only the ijtihad of representatives elected by the majority can attain the status of law. The question is: what principled difference is there between granting the right of ijtihad to only a few persons elected by the majority and placing confidence in those few and accepting their ijtihad? If the overwhelming majority of the people of this country place their trust in Hanafi fiqh and accept their interpretations of the Qur’an and Sunnah and their ijtihads as Islamic law, what objection can the learned judge raise against this, and how can he raise it, in the light of the principles he himself has stated? The depth of the Muslims’ confidence in it is demonstrated by the fact that even when there was no ruling power capable of enforcing these provisions and a non-Muslim ruling group held power, Muslims continued to follow the laws formulated by them in their homes and in the spheres of their personal and social lives. This means that the Muslim public regards it as the correct law with sincere devotion and complete peace of mind and conscience, without facing any compulsion. Can one imagine any provision enacted by a parliament receiving such strong and extensive public support? In comparison with this, what value is there in the argument of any one individual—even if he is a learned judge—that the interpretations of these jurists cannot be followed in the present age? Justice Muhammad Shafi himself says that law means that which the majority of people follow. Thus the majority of people are following these provisions of fiqh. Finally, on what basis can his personal judgment repeal these provisions?
5. On the one hand, the learned judge himself acknowledges that enacting laws and amending them is the work of representatives elected by the majority, not the work of a few individuals, however powerful and intellectually gifted they may be. On the other hand, he himself has altered the principles of a law recognised by the majority and repealed the provision followed by the majority concerning guardianship. If this is not self-contradiction, we would be very pleased to learn how these two statements can be reconciled.
Some Examples of Ijtihad
Then, in paragraphs 16 to 20, the learned judge himself presented interpretations of several verses of the Holy Qur’an and offered some examples of his own ijtihad. Through this, he intended to explain how, in this age, rulings should be derived from the Qur’an by exercising the power of ijtihad.
The Learned Judge’s Ijtihad Concerning Plural Marriage
On this subject, he first cites the third verse of Surah al-Nisa:
(Arabic********************************************************************************)
Regarding the above verse, he says, “This verse has been used incorrectly in most cases.” Beginning his discussion of this verse, he first said: “No part of any command of the Holy Qur’an should be considered meaningless.” But immediately afterward he says: “It is the duty of the representatives elected by the people to enact a law on whether a Muslim may marry more than one wife, and, if he may, under what circumstances and subject to what conditions.”
The first error in this reasoning
It is astonishing how the learned judge failed to perceive the contradiction between these two statements of his! In light of the principle he himself stated in the first statement, not a single word of the verse under discussion is superfluous or meaningless. Observe here that the plain text of the verse clearly shows that the members of the Muslim community are being addressed. They are told: “If you fear that you will not deal fairly with the orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you—two, three, or four. But if you fear that you will not be able to deal justly, then marry only one….”
It is clear that selecting women for marriage, choosing them, marrying them, and treating or not treating one’s wives fairly are acts of individuals, not of an entire nation or society. Therefore, there is no alternative but to acknowledge that in all the remaining parts of the verse as well, where the address is made through plural verbs, individuals are necessarily being addressed. Thus, from beginning to end, the entire verse is essentially addressing each individual separately, leaving the matter to their discretion: if they are able to maintain balance, they may marry as many women as they wish, up to a maximum of four. If they fear that they will be unable to maintain justice or balance, they should be content with one wife. The question is: as long as [the Arabic wording] and [the Arabic wording] remain as they are, by what route can representatives of the nation enter within the framework of this verse? Which word in the verse opens the way for them to enter? And their intervention would extend so far that they themselves would decide whether a Muslim may marry a second wife, even though Allah Himself has granted him the right to marry more than one wife in explicit words. After deciding whether he may do so, they would also determine “under what circumstances and subject to what conditions” he may do so. Yet Allah Most High has left the matter to the individual’s own decision: if he possesses the ability to act justly, he may marry more than one wife; otherwise, he should remain content with one.
The second error
Second, he says, “From the standpoint of analogy, this type of marriage—taking more than one wife—should be for the benefit of orphans.” Here too, the common mistake made by some modern people in understanding the meaning of this verse has been repeated. In their view, since the verse mentions dealing fairly with orphans, the matter of orphans must necessarily, in one way or another, be attached as an indispensable condition to marrying more than one wife. Yet if this is turned into a principle—that whenever the Qur’an gives an injunction at a particular place or on a particular occasion, that injunction is restricted solely to that place or occasion—it will cause grave harm. For example, the people of Arabia used to compel their female slaves to engage in prostitution in order to earn money. The Qur’an prohibits this in the following words:
The Arabic text
“Do not compel your female slaves to engage in prostitution if they desire chastity”—Surah al-Nur, 33.
Can one resort to analogy here and conclude that this injunction relates only to female slaves, and that they may be made to earn money through prostitution only if the slave herself wishes to engage in it?
In reality, unless these conditions are viewed within their historical context, no one can properly understand those verses of the Glorious Qur’an in which a particular circumstance is mentioned while stating a ruling. The historical context of the verse is that polygamy had generally been lawful in Arabia and in all societies in ancient times for hundreds of years. Therefore, there was no need to grant any new permission. For the Qur’an not to prohibit an established practice was tantamount to approving that practice. Thus, the above verse was not revealed primarily to grant permission for polygamy; rather, it was revealed to solve the problem of the women who were widowed with several children after the Battle of Uhud. In this verse, Muslims’ attention was drawn to the fact that if they could not otherwise deal justly with the orphaned children of those martyred at Uhud, then the path to marrying more than one wife had already been open to them from the outset. They were told to marry whichever of their widows they preferred, so that they would themselves develop an inclination to protect their interests. No argument can establish from this that polygamy is permissible only when the problem of caring for orphaned children arises. If this verse introduced any new ruling, it was not the granting of permission for polygamy, because that permission had existed from the beginning and had been practiced in society for thousands of years. Rather, the new ruling primarily given in this verse was that the number of wives was limited to four, which had not previously been the case.
The third error
The learned judge makes a third statement: “If an individual Muslim can say, ‘I will not marry more than one wife because I lack the means to do so,’ then the majority of the eighty million Muslims may enact a rule for the entire nation that the nation’s economic, social, or political circumstances do not permit any individual to marry more than one wife.”
Our response concerning this strange method of reasoning is that when a Muslim says he will not marry more than one wife, he is exercising the freedom Allah has granted him regarding his family life. He may use this freedom not to marry at all, to remain content with one wife, to remarry or not to remarry after his wife dies, and, if he later changes his mind, to marry more than one wife. But if the nation enacts a separate rule for everyone, that amounts to nothing other than taking away the freedom Allah has granted the individual. The question is whether, on the basis of this analogy, the nation could ever decide that half its inhabitants must marry while the other half must remain unmarried. Or that anyone whose wife or husband dies may not remarry. Granting the nation the right to deprive its members of a freedom granted to each individual, by making that individual freedom the basis of an argument, may indeed be a logical fallacy; but we do not know since when this method of accepting an argument has been recognized in matters of law. Nevertheless, let us temporarily concede that the majority of the eighty million Muslims—for example, forty million and one persons assembled together—has the right to make such a decision. But what validity would it have, in light of the learned judge’s stated principles, if only a few thousand of the eighty million Muslims joined together, proposed such a law according to their personal views, and imposed it on the others against the majority’s opinion? Among the eighty million Muslim inhabitants, the view of one hundred thousand, or even fifty thousand, is not that the nation’s economic, social, and political circumstances demand that it be legally forbidden for a Muslim to have more than one wife, while it remains legally permissible for him to associate freely with his “girlfriend,” maintain relations with prostitutes, or keep a mistress separately. Even among the women for whom the very thought of a co-wife is unbearable, it would be difficult to find many who believe that if their husband married another woman, their life would become worse than death by self-immolation, but that if their husband had an illicit relationship with that same woman, their life would become a model of heavenly bliss.
The fourth error
The learned judge says again: “This verse must be read together with two other verses of the Qur’an. The first is verse 33 of Surah al-Nur, which says that a person who lacks the means to marry should not marry. If a person may be prevented from marrying even once because of a lack of means, then for these or similar reasons he should also be prevented from marrying more than one wife.”
The learned judge has himself violated here as well the principle he stated. The plain text of the verse is:
The Arabic text
“Let those who do not find the means to marry remain chaste until Allah enriches them from His bounty.”
Where in this statement can one find the meaning that such people may not marry? If it is not permissible to regard the wording of any Qur’anic verse as “superfluous and meaningless,” then the notion of prohibiting marriage cannot in any way be introduced into this verse. It says only that, until Allah provides the means for marriage, unmarried people should live a pure life with restraint and should not become involved in evil acts in pursuit of self-gratification. Even if the meaning of refraining from marriage is somehow inserted into these words, this injunction is addressed to the individual, not to the nation or the government. The question of when a person considers himself fit to marry and when he does not has been left to his sound judgment, and he has been guided—if indeed this is the guidance given here—to refrain from marriage until he obtains the means to marry. Does this mean that the government may prevent a person from marrying until he proves before a court that he is capable of supporting one wife and a few children, the right to determine whose number the learned judge’s ruling also grants to the government through this verse? If the wording of the verse is not “superfluous and meaningless,” then we must be told how, proceeding further on the basis of the verse, the government can be granted the right to legislate regarding more than one wife and a number of children exceeding a specified limit.
The fifth error
The second verse which the learned judge tried to read together with verse 3 of Surah al-Nisa and derive the same ruling from is verse 129 of this surah. He did not merely cite the verse; he also copied its original text himself. It is as follows:
The Arabic text
“You will never be able to deal equally between women, even if you strive earnestly. So do not incline completely toward one, leaving the other suspended. If you set your course aright and remain mindful of Allah, surely Allah is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.”
On the basis of these words, the learned judge first says, “Allah Most High has made it entirely clear that establishing justice among wives is beyond human capacity.” He then reaches the conclusion: “To reconcile these two verses, it is the government’s task to legislate and impose restrictions on marrying more than one wife. The government may say that, since long experience has established—and the Qur’an has also acknowledged—that equal treatment of two wives is impossible, this practice should be abolished forever.”
One is utterly astonished: how, and from where, did such a major proposition emerge from the verse? In this verse, Allah Most High certainly says that even if a man wishes to treat two or more wives with perfect justice, he will not be able to do so. But for this reason, has Allah Most High Himself withdrawn the permission He granted in verse 3 of Surah al-Nisa to marry more than one wife, subject to the condition of justice? The wording of the verse clearly shows that, after stating this natural truth in plain language, Allah Most High demands of a husband with two or more wives only that he must not incline so completely toward one wife that he leaves the other wife or wives hanging. In other words, in the Qur’an’s view, the inability to achieve perfect justice does not essentially mean that the permission for marrying more than one wife has been abrogated. Rather, its essential meaning is that, for the sake of the marital relationship, the husband must refrain from giving special preference to one wife and must maintain relations with all his wives, even if his heart is drawn toward one of them. Justice will be undermined only if the husband leaves his other wife or wives in a suspended state, and in such circumstances he cannot take advantage of the permission to marry more than one wife. But on what basis can the wording, arrangement, and meaning of this verse be used to derive a prohibition against one person marrying more than one wife, provided that he does not leave them hanging? And where does such an enormous proposition emerge from it—that the government may permanently prohibit all people from having more than one wife? Let people read together as many verses of the Qur’an as they wish, but within the Qur’anic sentences they must read only the Qur’an’s own statement. To borrow some other statement from elsewhere, insert it into the Qur’an, and then claim that this statement is found in the Qur’an is in no way the correct method of reading the Qur’an, let alone accepting it as the ijtihad of a correct method!
Before proceeding further, we invite the learned judge, and those who think like him, to consider a question. Fourteen hundred years have passed since the verse of the Glorious Qur’an on which he is commenting was revealed. Throughout this entire period, Muslim communities have continued to live across a vast part of the world. Can any economic, political, or cultural condition be identified today that had not previously arisen at some time in Muslim society and that would necessitate preventing polygamy or imposing severe restrictions on it? What other reasonable explanation can there be, except that this idea has arisen among us today because of the dominance of those Western nations that regard having more than one wife as a reprehensible act, while considering relations, without marriage, with a female friend—provided both parties consent—to be lawful, respectable, or at least something to be viewed liberally, and in whose societies keeping a mistress has become almost acceptable; indeed, marrying that mistress is regarded as the offence? If, in all honesty, no other real reason can be identified behind the emergence of this idea, then our question is: can interpreting and analyzing Qur’anic verses under the influence of outside forces in this manner be a correct method of ijtihad? Can the conscience of the Muslim people be reassured by this kind of ijtihad?
The Second Ijtihad—Concerning the Punishment for Theft
The learned judge then cited verses 37–39 of Surah al-Ma’idah and, conducting ijtihad (research) on them, said, “Here the Qur’an has declared amputation of the hand to be the maximum punishment for theft.” Yet the Qur’an has established amputation of the hand not as the maximum punishment (Maximum Punishment) for this offence, but as its only punishment (Only Punishment). The original Qur’anic text is given below:
(Arabic***************************************)
“As for the male thief and the female thief, cut off their hands. It is a deterrent punishment for what they have earned, prescribed by Allah.” If the Qur’an has not used unnecessary or meaningless words, everyone can see in this sentence that the same punishment has plainly been described for both the male thief and the female thief, namely amputation of the hand. By what route, then, can the notion of a ‘final or ultimate punishment’ enter into it?
The Third Ijtihad—Concerning the Guardianship of Children
The learned judge presented his latest example of ijtihad on the subject of the guardianship of children whose mothers have separated from their respective husbands. On this subject, he cited verse 233 of Surah al-Baqarah and verse 6 of Surah al-Talaq and stated the following two points, both of which clearly go beyond the limits of the Qur’an’s statement. First, he said, “In light of these verses, mothers must breastfeed their children for the full two years.”
Yet in light of the verses he cited, not only is breastfeeding for a full two years not made obligatory, breastfeeding itself is not made obligatory. The verse in Surah al-Baqarah says:
(Arabic****************************************)
“Mothers shall breastfeed their children for two complete years, for whoever wishes to complete the nursing period.”
(Arabic****************************************)
“So if they breastfeed the children for you, then pay them their wages
He made his second point as follows: “There is no injunction in the Qur’an that, if a woman can be deprived of her child merely because she has taken a second husband after being divorced, then I cannot understand why a man would not be deprived of a child when he contracts a second marriage.”
In making the above statement, the learned judge apparently failed to notice that the verses he himself cited a few lines earlier establish the father as the owner of the child, and that from beginning to end all the rulings in these verses are based on the premise that the father is the child’s owner.
(Arabic************) “The one who owns the child must provide food and clothing for the breastfeeding mother.” (Arabic*********************************************************) “If you wish to have your children breastfed by another woman, there is no blame upon you for that.”
““So if they breastfeed the children for you, then pay them their wages.” It cannot remain hidden from a learned High Court judge what difference these words of the Qur’an indicate between the status of the father and that of the mother with regard to the child.
The Fundamental Error
In discussing the three matters mentioned above, the learned judge adopted a manner that makes it seem as though the Qur’an had wandered through a void and arrived directly before us. It is as though Muslim society has no past in which anyone ever undertook the work of understanding and explaining the injunctions of this Book and acting upon them, from which we might find some precedent somewhere. It is as though no one had ever explained the significance of any injunction or demonstrated how to act upon it. It is as though we have become an ummah in which no judge ever had to ask what regulations should be formulated concerning this Qur’an, which permits marrying more than one wife, prescribes amputation of the hand as the punishment for theft, and gives certain instructions concerning the guardianship of children. In all such matters, it is as though Islamic society over the past thirteen or fourteen centuries has left nothing for us. We must build everything anew, Qur’an in hand, and precisely in the manner illustrated by the few examples that have already appeared before us.
The Learned Judge’s View of the Sunnah
This kind of discussion was not begun suddenly. If one reads the discussion that began in paragraph 21, one understands that it is the result of a judgment produced by the learned judge’s own thinking. Since it forms an important part of his judgment, we will present a critique of each point under sequential numbers, reproducing it along with the critique, so that the discussion of each matter can be understood clearly.
The Ummah’s View of the Sunnah
The learned judge says, “A particularly significant section of Muslims has accepted the Hadith, that is, the Sunnah, in addition to the Glorious Qur’an, as an exceedingly important source of Islamic law” (paragraph 21).
No one who has studied even a little of Islamic law and its history can accept that the foregoing statement gives an accurate account of the facts. The true state of affairs is that, from the age of Risalah until today, the entire Ummah throughout the Islamic world has recognized, and continues to recognize, the Sunnah of the Messenger (peace be upon him) as the fundamental source of law after the Quran, and Hadith as the means of learning about the Sunnah. As we stated in the preface to this book, the first time in Islamic history that a small group emerged denying the Sunnah was in the second Hijri century. Even if their number among Muslims is greatly exaggerated, there was no more than one such person in ten thousand. By the end of the third Hijri century, this group had disappeared. This was because such strong and effective evidence existed in support of the Sunnah being a source of law that this erroneous idea could not survive for long. Thereafter, until the ninth Hijri century, no such group existed anywhere in the Islamic world. Indeed, not even a single person in Islamic history can be identified as having expressed such an erroneous belief. In the last century, however, people holding this erroneous idea began to reappear in an entirely new form. But if we examine how many followers of such people there are in the Islamic world, their number will not be found to exceed one in a hundred thousand. Is it an accurate representation of the actual facts to describe them in the following words: “A particularly significant portion of Muslims has accepted the Sunnah as a source of law”? On the contrary, it would be more accurate to say: “A completely insignificant number of Muslims have begun to deny that the Sunnah is a source of law.”
The Status of the Prophet in Islam in the Judge’s View
The learned judge then raised the question: What is the status of the Prophet in Islam? In discussing this question, he says:
“In order to fully understand the value and status of Hadith as a source of Islamic law, we must know what the status and position of the Holy Messenger is in the Islamic world. I stated in the initial part of this judgment that Islam is a religion given by Allah. It derives its authority from Allah, and from Allah alone. If this is the correct understanding of Islam, it necessarily follows that the words, deeds and conduct of the Prophet cannot possess the same status as the revelation coming from Allah. At most, they may be used to learn how the Quran was interpreted in particular circumstances, or how the general principles of the Quran were applied to a particular case. No one can deny that Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, was entitled to the honor and status he received, or that he possessed the power and ability to manifest the honor and status we wish to express for him. Nevertheless, he was neither God nor considered to be God. Like all other Messengers, he was also a human being.” —(Paragraph 21).
‘He was mortal, just like us—he was an example, but certainly not God—he too had to obey Allah’s law exactly as we do; indeed, in the light of the Noble Quran, his responsibility was perhaps much greater than ours. He could not give Muslims more than what was revealed to him.’ (Paragraph 21).
After presenting several verses of the Noble Quran as evidence in support of these statements, he says again:
“Although Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, was a man of very high status, he may be assigned second place after Allah. In addition to the revelation that came to him from Allah, he possessed certain ideas as a human being and acted under the influence of those ideas. It is true that Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, committed no sin, but he could make mistakes, and this fact has itself been acknowledged in the Quran:
(Arabic********************************************************)
The Quran states in several places that Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, is an exceptionally excellent model for the world. But this means only that a person should be a believer, truthful, active, God-fearing and pious like him. It does not mean that we should think and act exactly as he did. That would be contrary to human nature, and it is impossible for people to do so. If we tried to do this, life itself would become unbearable.” —(Paragraph 22).
“It is also true that the Noble Quran has emphasized obedience to Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, but this means only that wherever he has instructed us to perform a particular act in a particular manner, we should perform that act in that manner. Obedience can only relate to an instruction. Where there is no instruction, there can be neither obedience nor disobedience. It is extremely difficult to derive from the verses of the Quran the meaning that whatever the Messenger of Allah did, we too must do exactly the same. The plain fact is that the experiences of a single person’s lifetime cannot provide an example for more than a limited number of people, even if that individual is a prophet. It must be emphatically stated that there is a fundamental and real difference between the Quran and Hadith.” —(Paragraph 23).
The Prophet’s True Status in the Light of the Quran
With the greatest courtesy, we would submit that the foregoing entire statement contains more irrelevant discussion than anything else and has very little connection with the main subject under discussion. The real matter that ought to have been examined here was not whether Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him—God forbid—was God, whether he was a human being or something else, or what the ruling of Islamic Shariah is. Rather, what needed to be examined was this: For what task did Allah appoint the Holy Messenger? What are his status and authorities in the religion of Islam? And are only the rulings mentioned in the Quranic verses Allah’s rulings, or are the rulings that the Messenger of Allah gave us in addition to the Holy Quran also so? These questions cannot be examined through the verses cited by the learned judge, because those verses do not in fact answer the questions mentioned above. The answers to these questions are found in the following verses, to which the learned judge paid no attention at all:
(Arabic*************************************************)
1. “Allah has surely done the believers a great favor by sending them a messenger from among themselves, who recites to them His verses, purifies them, and teaches them the Book and wisdom.” —(Surah Al-Imran: 164).
(Arabic****************************************************************)
2. “And We have sent down to you the Reminder (the Quran) so that you may make clear to people what has been revealed to them.” —(Surah An-Nahl: 44).
(Arabic*******************************************************************)
3. “He enjoins upon them what is right, forbids them what is wrong, makes lawful for them what is pure, and prohibits for them what is impure.” —(Surah Al-A‘raf: 157).
(Arabic*************************************************************************)
4. “Whatever the Messenger gives you, accept it, and whatever he forbids you, abstain from it.” —(Surah Al-Hashr: 7).
(Arabic*******************************************************)
5. “We sent no messenger except that he be obeyed by Allah’s command.” —(Surah An-Nisa: 64).
(Arabic*****************************************************)
6. “Whoever obeys the Messenger has truly obeyed Allah.” —(Surah An-Nisa: 80).
(Arabic*****************************************************************)
7. “If you obey the Messenger, you will be rightly guided.” —(Surah An-Nur: 54).
(Arabic******************************************************************)
8. “Indeed, in the person of the Messenger you have an excellent example.” —(Surah Al-Ahzab: 21).
(Arabic**************************************************************)
9. “But no, by your Lord! They will never be believers until they make you judge concerning their disputes, then find no hesitation in their hearts concerning your decision and accept it wholeheartedly.” —(Surah An-Nisa: 65).
(Arabic***********************************************************************)
10. “O believers! Obey Allah, obey the Messenger, and those in authority among you. If you differ over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day.” —(Surah An-Nisa: 59).
(Arabic*************************************************)
11. “(O Prophet!) Tell them: If you love Allah, follow me; Allah will love you.” —(Surah Al-Imran: 31).
When the eleven verses cited above are read together, the true status of the Holy Messenger in the religion of Islam becomes manifest before us in an incontrovertible and clear manner. Without doubt, he was not God; he was a human being. But he was a human being whom Allah sent as His authoritative representative. Allah’s law did not come to us directly; rather, it came through him. He was not appointed merely to recite to us the verses of Allah’s Book revealed to him. Rather, he was appointed to explain the verses of the Book in detail, to purify our individuals and society as a guardian—[“Purification” (tazkiyah) means “cleansing from sin and impurity and fostering the gradual growth of virtue and goodness.” The word itself also implies that the purifier will identify the impurities from which individuals and society must be cleansed, and will identify the virtues and forms of goodness whose gradual growth must be cultivated in individuals and society.]—and to train us in the Book of Allah, knowledge and wisdom.
Verse 3 clearly states that Allah Most High also entrusted him with legislative power, and places no condition limiting his authority solely to explaining and interpreting Quranic rulings. Verse 4 gives the general instruction to accept whatever he gives and abstain from whatever he prohibits. This verse too contains no condition from which it could be concluded that we should accept only what he gives in the form of Quranic verses. Verse 8 establishes his way of life, conduct and actions as an example for us to follow. Here too no condition is imposed that we should take as our model only those of his words and deeds that can be supported from the Quran. On the contrary, he is presented to us generally as the standard of truth.
Verses 5, 6 and 7 command us to obey him, and here too there is absolutely no indication that we must obey only those instructions he gives us in the form of Quranic verses. Verse 9 establishes him as a judge, referring disputes to whom for settlement and accepting whose decision not merely outwardly but sincerely are included among the conditions of faith. It is a rank that has been granted to no court or judge in the world. Verse 10 distinguishes his status from that of all persons possessing authority over Muslims. Those possessing authority, or ulil-amr (including the head of state, head of government, ministers, members of parliament, government officials and judicial officers), rank third in terms of receiving obedience, while obedience to Allah ranks first. Between these two stands the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), and his status in this position is such that Muslims may differ with the ulil-amr, but they may not differ with the Messenger. Rather, whenever a disagreement arises, it must be referred to Allah and His Messenger for settlement. Acknowledging this status has also been made a condition of faith, as is clearly evident from the concluding portion of the verse (Arabic***********************************). Finally, the last verse states that the only claim to Allah’s love, and the only way to attain His love, is that a person obey Allah’s Messenger.
This is the Messenger’s true status in the religion of Islam, which the Noble Quran has presented so clearly. Having studied it, will the learned judge reconsider the judgment stated in Paragraph 21? When the two pictures are placed side by side, is it not clearly apparent that he has depicted the status of the Holy Messenger as much lower than his actual status, indeed as fundamentally different from it?
Is Revelation Limited to the Quran Alone?
The learned judge’s statement is, literally, entirely correct: Did only the revelation contained in the Quran come to the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him), or did he also receive guidance through revelation apart from it? If the first is meant, it cannot be accepted as correct. Nowhere in the Quran is it said that, besides the verses of Allah’s Book, the Noble Prophet received no other guidance from Allah. If the second is meant, then there is no alternative but to accept the Sunnah, along with the Quran, as a source of law, because it too was received from the same God from whom the Quran was revealed.
Was the Noble Prophet Free to Follow His Own Thoughts?
Moreover, the learned judge’s following statement requires serious reconsideration: The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) “possessed certain thoughts of his own in addition to the revelation that came from Allah, and acted under the influence of those thoughts.”
This statement is compatible neither with the Quran nor with sound reason. The Noble Quran has repeatedly made it clear that, in carrying out the duties and responsibilities entrusted to the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) as a Messenger, he was not left free to act according to his personal whims and desires; rather, he was obliged to follow revelation. (Arabic*********************************)
“I follow only what is revealed to me.” —(Surah Al-An‘am: 50).
(Arabic**************************************************)
“Say, ‘I only follow what is revealed to me from my Lord.’” —(Al-A‘raf: 203).
(Arabic*****************************************************************)
“Your companion is neither astray nor misguided, nor does he speak out of his own desire. It is nothing but revelation revealed to him.” —(Surah An-Najm: 2–4).
From the standpoint of reason, it may now be said that reason is in no way prepared to accept that a person would be appointed a Messenger by Allah and then be left free, in carrying out the responsibility of Messengership, to act according to his own desires, inclinations and personal opinions. Even an ordinary government, if it appoints someone as its representative or governor in a region, or as its ambassador in a country, does not leave him free to devise a course of action according to his own will in carrying out his official responsibility, or to speak and act according to his personal whims. After assigning him such a responsible post, it obliges him to follow the policies and instructions of the higher authority. Strict supervision is placed over him so that he cannot act contrary to government policy and instructions. In matters left to his discretion, careful attention is paid to whether he is using his discretion correctly or incorrectly. Guidance is not given to him merely so that he may convey it to the public or to the people of the nation to which he is being sent as ambassador; rather, he is also advised privately for his own guidance. If he does anything contrary to the intentions of the higher authority, he is immediately corrected or recalled. The world holds the government he represents responsible for his words and actions, and it is necessarily assumed regarding his words and actions that they have the approval of the authority that appointed him, or at least that the government does not disapprove of them. Even the good and bad aspects of his personal or family life affect the reputation of the government that appointed him.
Can it then be supposed that Allah would be so careless as to appoint a person as His Messenger, call upon the people of the world to believe in him, appoint him as an ideal human being on His behalf, repeatedly and emphatically command them to obey and follow him without question, and then leave him to carry out the responsibility of Messengership in whatever manner he wished according to his personal whims?
Is the Sunnah of the Noble Prophet—Free from Errors?
The learned judge says, “It is correct that Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, committed no sin, but he could make mistakes, and this fact has itself been acknowledged in the Quran.”
If we follow the Noble Quran in this matter, we learn that Allah Most High warned the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) about errors in only five places: verses 67–68 of Surah Al-Anfal, verse 43 of Surah At-Tawbah, verse 37 of Surah Al-Ahzab, verse 1 of Surah At-Tahrim, and verses 1–10 of Surah Abasa. A sixth place, where it may be supposed that he was also warned about an error, is verse 84 of Surah At-Tawbah. Throughout the entire twenty-three-year period of his prophetic life, apart from these five or six places, the Noble Quran mentions neither any mistake or error of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) nor its correction.
What this proves is that throughout this entire period Allah Most High kept a direct watch so that His authorized representative would neither misrepresent Him anywhere nor lead people astray. Whenever the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) made a slight error or deviation at any of those five or six places, he was immediately restrained and corrected. If he had made any further error apart from these instances, it too would have been corrected immediately, just as the errors in the places mentioned above were corrected. Thus, instead of causing us to withdraw our trust and certainty in the guidance of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), this fact strengthens them further. We can now state with certainty that all the memorable actions of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) throughout his twenty-three-year prophetic life were entirely free from error, deviation and lapses, and had Allah’s approval.
The True Meaning of Obedience to the Messenger
The learned judge understands the command to obey the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) given in the Noble Quran to mean: “We too must become believers, upright and active, religious and God-fearing in the same way as the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) was.” In his view, the Quranic meaning of obedience is “contrary to human nature and unrealistic: that we too must think and act exactly as the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) thought and acted.” He says that accepting this meaning would make life itself unbearable.
Our submission on this matter is that such a fundamental issue has been treated very lightly. Obedience does not merely mean conforming in outward appearance; rather, obedience to the method of thought, standards of values, principles and outlook, character, morality and conduct, way of life and activities—all of these is necessarily included in it. The most important point is that whenever the Noble Prophet, as a teacher, instructed people to act according to a command of the faith, it is obligatory for us to follow him in that action as students would. This does not at all mean that we must wear the same style of clothing he wore, eat the same kinds of food he ate, travel in vehicles like those he used, or use no weapons other than the weapons he used. If obedience were understood in this way, life would undoubtedly become unbearable. Yet, to this day, no knowledgeable person among the Ummah has ever understood obedience in the foregoing sense. From the beginning until today, Muslims have understood obedience to mean that we follow the Noble Prophet in the explanation he provided, through his words and deeds, of the Islamic way of thinking and the fundamental principles and commands of the faith.
For example, one may consider the issue of plural marriage, on which the learned judge has already expressed his views in detail. In this matter, the words and deeds of the Noble Prophet conclusively reveal that plural marriage is not, in itself, something evil requiring restrictions, nor is monogamy, in itself, a desirable value that must be kept before us as a standard when making laws. Therefore, obedience to the Noble Prophet requires that our way of thinking on this matter should likewise be the same. Moreover, the manner in which the Qur’anic guidance on this subject was implemented during the Noble Prophet’s own rule is the true interpretation of that guidance, which we must follow. During his time, the people’s economic condition was many times worse than our present condition. Yet he did not even hint at imposing restrictions on plural marriage for this reason. He did not tell anyone interested in a second marriage: First prove that you genuinely need a second marriage and that you are capable of supporting two or more wives. He did not ask anyone: Do you wish to marry a second time in order to raise an orphan child? Nor did he tell anyone: First obtain your present wife’s consent. During his rule, every man was clearly permitted to voluntarily take up to four wives. If any intervention ever occurred in his time, it was only when a man failed to deal justly with his wives. Now, if we are followers of the Messenger of Allah, our task should not be to sit down and perform our own ijtihad on the basis of two or three verses. Rather, we must see what purpose the Messenger upon whom these verses were revealed understood in them and how he implemented them.
Was the Noble Prophet’s guidance confined only to his own era?
The learned judge’s statement is that the greatest possible use that can be made of the Noble Prophet’s words, deeds, and conduct is merely to use them “to help determine how the Qur’an was interpreted in particular circumstances, or how the Qur’an’s general principles were applied in a particular matter.”
The reaction that the foregoing statement produces in its readers is that, according to the learned judge, the Noble Prophet’s guidance was neither intended for the entire world nor for all time; rather, it was intended for a particular society of his era. The following sentence of his produces the same reaction: ‘The experience of the events in the lifetime of a single individual cannot provide an example for more than a limited number of people.’
Since he has not expressed his viewpoint on this matter in detail, it is not possible to discuss it at length. However, we consider it necessary to submit a few brief observations about the reaction produced by his statement.
The Noble Qur’an bears witness that, although it itself addressed a particular nation in a particular age, it is likewise a universal and everlasting charter of guidance; similarly, its Messenger, although he discharged the responsibility of prophethood for several years in one society, is a guide for the entire human race to this day and until the end of time. As has been said about the Qur’an:
(Arabic*****************************************************************)
“This Qur’an has been revealed to me so that, through it, I may warn you and whoever it reaches.” —(Surah al-An‘am: 19).
In exactly the same way, it has been said about the Messenger who brought the Qur’an:
(Arabic********************************************************************)
“(O Muhammad!) Say: O mankind, indeed I am the Messenger of Allah to you all.” —(Surah al-A‘raf: 158).
(Arabic************************************************************************)
“We have sent you only as a bearer of good news and a warner to all mankind.” —(Surah Saba: 28).
(Arabic**************************************************************)
“Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the seal of the prophets.” —(Surah al-Ahzab: 40).
In this respect, there is no difference between the guidance of “the Qur’an and Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah.” If the guidance of one is temporary and limited, then both will be so; if it is universal and everlasting, then both will be so. Who does not know that the Qur’an began to be revealed in 610 CE and that its revelation was completed in 632 CE? Who does not know that those addressed by this Qur’an were the Arabs of that time, and that guidance was given in it with their circumstances in view? The question is: On what basis do we acknowledge this guidance as a source of guidance for all time and for the entire human race, present and future? Whatever answer may be given to this question will be exactly the same answer to the following question: How can the experience of the prophethood of one man, whose prophetic life continued for only twenty-two solar years in the seventh century, serve as a means of guidance for all time and for the entire human race? There is no opportunity here to discuss in detail how these two sources or means of guidance, despite being confined to a particular time and place, can provide guidance for all time and throughout the world. Here we only wish to know this: On what basis do those who advocate the Qur’an’s being universal and everlasting distinguish between the Book of Allah and the Messenger of Allah? Ultimately, by what argument is the guidance of one—the Qur’an—general or comprehensive, while the guidance of the other—the Messenger—is limited and specific?
Why the Rightly Guided Caliphs followed the Sunnah
After this discussion of principles, in paragraph 24 the learned judge raises the question: Although the Rightly Guided Caliphs followed the Sunnah in their respective eras, what was the reason? On this subject he says:
“There is no reliable evidence by which it can be known how much importance the four Caliphs attached to the words, deeds, and conduct of Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah. But even if, for the sake of argument, it is accepted that they made extensive use of hadith to resolve people’s problems and matters of national importance, they did the right thing. For, in terms of time and place, they were closer to Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, than we are.”
Our submission is that, regarding an event of the past, evidence as reliable as it is possible for evidence to be exists on the following matter: all four of the Rightly Guided Caliphs followed the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah with utmost strictness. The reason was not that the circumstances of their era resembled those of the Messenger of Allah’s era; rather, it was that, in their view, the Sunnah was the source of law immediately after the Qur’an. They did not consider it permissible for themselves to go beyond it. We have quoted their own clear statements on this subject in this book, from pages 111 to 118, in the section entitled “The Slander against the Rightly Guided Caliphs.” The greatest proof of this, moreover, is that the fiqh literature of every century, continuously and without interruption, from the second to the fourteenth Hijri century, has described this very view and practice of the Rightly Guided Caliphs. Not one of the examples presented today by some people as evidence that they violated the Sunnah is actually evidence that any Rightly Guided Caliph in practice violated the Sunnah. We have explained the significance of some of these examples on pages 192–196 of this book (see the response to allegations 26–28).
Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him)—his knowledge of hadith and adherence to the Sunnah
Then the learned judge attempts to substantiate the viewpoint of Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him)
“But Abu Hanifah, who was born in 80 AH and died seventy years later, used only seventeen or eighteen hadith to resolve the matters presented to him. It is very possible that the reason was that he was not as close to the era of the Messenger of Allah as the four Caliphs were. He based all his decisions on the written guidance of the Qur’an and tried to seek, behind the words of the Qur’an’s original text, those operative factors that were the cause of that guidance. He possessed sufficient ability to reason and arrive at solutions. In light of actual circumstances, he formulated the principles and rules of law on the basis of analogy. If Imam Abu Hanifah had the right to interpret the Qur’an in light of contemporary circumstances without the help of hadith, then the denial of this right to other Muslims cannot be justified.” —(Paragraph 24).
The foregoing statement is based entirely on false information and an imaginary claim. Concerning Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him), Ibn Khaldun, based—who knows on what chain of transmission—wrote that “Imam Abu Hanifah was so strict regarding the acceptance of hadith that, in his view, no more than seventeen hadith were authentic.”
As the foregoing statement continued to circulate, it became famous among people that Imam Abu Hanifah knew only seventeen hadith, or that he derived rulings from seventeen hadith. Yet this is a fictional tale wholly contrary to the facts. Today, the book Kitab al-Athar, compiled by Imam Abu Yusuf (may Allah have mercy on him), the greatest student of Imam Abu Hanifah, is available in print; in it he collected one thousand hadith narrated by his teacher. In addition, Imam Muhammad (may Allah have mercy on him), Imam Hasan ibn Ziyad al-Lu’lu’i (may Allah have mercy on him), and the Imam’s son, Hammad ibn Abu Hanifah, also compiled the hadith narrated by him. Subsequently, for several centuries, numerous scholars continued to collect his narrated hadith under the title Musnad Abi Hanifah [in the terminology of hadith scholarship, a book in which the hadith narrated by a single person are collected is called a musnad]. Of these, the chief judge Muhammad ibn Mahmud al-Khwarizmi compiled an extensive collection of fifteen musnads under the title Jami‘ Masanid al-Imam al-A‘zam, which the Dairatul Ma’arif publishing house of Hyderabad published in two volumes. These books categorically refute the claim that Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him) knew only seventeen hadith or used only seventeen hadith in formulating fiqh rulings. The number of the Imam’s teachers in hadith scholarship—those whose narrations he accepted—reached four thousand. He was counted among the senior masters of hadith. Among those who collected hadith transmitted through him were renowned hadith scholars such as Imam al-Daraqutni, Ibn Shahin, and Ibn ‘Uqdah. Anyone who examines, among the reliable books of Hanafi fiqh, only Imam Tahawi’s (may Allah have mercy on him) Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar, Abu Bakr al-Jassas’s (may Allah have mercy on him) Ahkam al-Qur’an, and Imam al-Sarakhsi’s al-Mabsut will never fall prey to the misconception that Imam Abu Hanifah ignored hadith and based his fiqh solely on analogy and the Qur’an.
Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him) himself described his approach to deriving arguments from hadith in the following words:
“Whenever I find a ruling in the Book of Allah, I hold fast to it firmly. If I do not find it there, I accept the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah and those of his hadith that have become well known through reliable people to reliable people. Then, when no guidance is found in the Book of Allah or in the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah, I follow the statements of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah—that is, their consensus—and when they differ, I do not abandon one Companion’s statement to accept another’s. Regarding others, my position is that just as they have the right to exercise ijtihad, so do I.” —(Tarikh Baghdad, by al-Khatib, vol. 13, p. 368; al-Muwaffaq al-Makki, Manaqib al-Imam al-A‘zam, vol. 1, p. 79; al-Dhahabi, Manaqib Imam Abu Hanifah wa Sahibayn, p. 20).
Once, in the presence of Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him), he was accused of giving analogy precedence over the Qur’an. In reply he said: “By Allah! That man has lied and falsely accused us by saying that I give analogy precedence over the Qur’an. When proof exists in the Book of Allah, what need is there for analogy?” —(al-Sha‘rani, Kitab al-Mizan, vol. 1, p. 61).
The Abbasid caliph Mansur once wrote to the Imam: It has reached my ears that you give analogy precedence over hadith. In reply, he wrote: “Commander of the Believers! What has reached your ears is not correct. I first act according to the Book of Allah, then according to the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah, then according to the judgments of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali, and thereafter according to the judgments of the remaining Companions. However, when the Companions differ, I resort to analogy.” —(al-Sha‘rani, Kitab al-Mizan, vol. 1, p. 62).
Allamah Ibn Hazm even wrote: “All the companions of Abu Hanifah agree that the madhhab of Abu Hanifah was this: when even a weak hadith is found, it must be accepted and analogy and personal opinion must be abandoned.” —(al-Dhahabi, Manaqib Imam Abu Hanifah wa Sahibayn, p. 21). It should be noted that a weak hadith does not mean a fabricated hadith. Here, a weak hadith means a hadith whose chain of transmission is not strong, but which gives rise to a strong presumption that it is indeed a statement of the Noble Prophet.
The reason for not relying on hadith, according to the judge
The learned judge then describes, in paragraph 25, the reasons why, in his view, hadith are unreliable and do not constitute evidence. His points in this discussion are set out below:
“All the jurists of Islam unanimously acknowledge that, over the course of time, a vast heap of fabricated hadith has been accepted as a valid and recognized source of Islamic law. False hadith began to appear during the very era of Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah. The number of false and erroneous hadith increased so greatly that Hazrat Umar, during his caliphate, imposed restrictions on the narration of hadith and even prohibited their narration. Imam Bukhari selected only nine thousand as authentic from six hundred thousand hadith.” 2. “I cannot understand how anyone can deny that, just as the Qur’an was preserved, no comparable effort was made to preserve hadith during the Messenger of Allah’s own era. On the contrary, the evidence available is that Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, emphatically forbade people to record his words and deeds. He instructed that anyone who had preserved his hadith should immediately destroy them.”
(Arabic*****************************)
This hadith, or one similar to it, was written down from him by Maulana Muhammad Ali
and for this purpose the Noble Messenger appointed several well-educated Companions. But concerning hadith, it may be said that they were neither memorized nor preserved. They remained hidden in the minds of people who, by coincidence, died immediately after narrating them before others. They were not collected and compiled until several centuries after the Messenger’s death.”
5. “It is acknowledged that, at a later time, the hadith were collected for the first time approximately one hundred years after the Messenger of Allah. But that record is now difficult to obtain. Thereafter they were collected by the following individuals:
Imam Bukhari (d. 256 AH), Imam Muslim (d. 261 AH), Abu Dawud (d. 275 AH), Jami‘ al-Tirmidhi—the learned judge has written the name in this form, although Jami‘ al-Tirmidhi is not the compiler’s name but the name of the compilation; the compiler is known as Imam Tirmidhi—(d. 279 AH), Sunan al-Nasa’i (d. 303 AH), Sunan Ibn Majah—this too is not the compiler’s name but the name of the compilation; nor have Sunan al-Nasa’i and Sunan Ibn Majah died, since both are books—(d. 383 AH), Sunan al-Daribi—we know of no compiler by this name, nor of any such book—(d. 181 AH), and Bayhaqi (born 164 AH).” The learned judge then mentioned the hadith scholars of the Shi‘a community. We have not mentioned them because it is the responsibility of Shi‘a scholars to say something about them.
6. “There are very few hadith about which these compilers of hadith have been able to agree. Does this fact—the disagreement—not make reliance on hadith extremely doubtful?”
7. “Those entrusted with the task of investigating the facts must bear in mind that thousands of fabricated hadith have been spread so that Islam and Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, may be defamed.”
8. “They must also bear in mind that, no matter how strong the Arabs’ memories may be, can accounts copied solely from memory be considered reliable? After all, the memories of present-day Arabs have presumably remained as they were, just as the memories of their forebears were thirteen hundred years ago. Whatever memory Arabs possess today may serve as an important guide in helping us reach a decision about how much confidence can be placed in the correctness and accuracy of the narrations that have reached us.”
9. “Our exaggerations, and the personal ideas and fanaticism of the narrators through whom these narrations have reached us, must also have disfigured them extensively in the course of transmitting the narrations. When words pass from one mind to another—whether those minds belong to Arabs or to others—changes inevitably occur in the vocabulary as a result of the individual mold of each mind. When it passes through each mind, anyone can imagine how extensive the alteration becomes.”
Critique of the stated reasons
We have quoted these nine points in the learned judge’s own words and in his own sequence. We shall now assess them intellectually to determine how correct they are and to what extent they can be accepted as arguments for not relying on hadith and for not recognizing the Sunnah as evidence.
Have fabricated hadith become a source of Islamic law?
First, I shall shed light on his points 1 and 7. His claim that all the jurists of Islam unanimously accepted the entry of a vast heap of fabricated hadith into the sources of Islamic law is completely contrary to the facts. The jurists of Islam undoubtedly acknowledge that many fabricated hadith have become part of the sources of Islamic law; but let them name even one jurist, hadith scholar, or reliable religious scholar who accepted this. The fact is that, from the moment fabricated hadith began to appear, the hadith scholars, mujtahid Imams, and jurists devoted all their efforts to preventing this foul sewer from flowing into the sources of Islamic law. Most of their effort and labor was spent examining and investigating the hadith by which a ruling of the Shariah was established. The judges of Islamic courts were also always vigilant that merely
hearing “the Messenger of Allah said” would not lead them to issue a judgment in a criminal or civil case; rather, they would subject it to complete verification, on the basis of which an offender might be acquitted or deprived of acquittal. The judges of the courts in Islam’s early period were no less careful in administering justice than our learned judges and their colleagues. In the end, could it really have been possible for them to issue judgments by treating something as a legal ruling without the necessary investigation? And how could both parties to a case calmly accept a judgment against them on the basis of an uncertain narration? Therefore, it is also not factually true that fabricated hadith entered the sources of Islamic law and that the jurists of Islam unanimously accepted this intrusion.
Did the circulation of fabricated hadiths begin during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him)??
The learned judge’s further assertion that fabricated hadiths began to appear during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) is extremely misleading. The reality is that, during the Age of Ignorance, a man wished to marry the daughter of a tribe in Madinah. However, the girl’s family rejected him. Shortly after the Hijrah, the man went to that tribe wearing a jubba and told the girl’s family that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) himself had dressed him in that jubba and appointed him administrator of the tribe. The tribespeople brought him down from his mount and secretly informed the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “This enemy of Allah has lied.” He then instructed a man: “Go; if you find him alive, kill him, and if you find him dead, burn his body.” When the man arrived there, he found that the impostor had been bitten by a snake and had died. Thus, in accordance with the instruction, his body was burned. Thereafter, the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) began publicly proclaiming that whoever attributed a false statement to him should prepare to enter Hell.¹ The result of this stern warning and action was that for approximately thirty to forty years no incident of spreading fabricated hadiths occurred.
Why did Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) prohibit the narration of many hadiths??
The judge’s claim that, by the time of Umar’s (may Allah be pleased with him) era, the number of fabricated hadiths had increased so greatly that Umar had to impose restrictions on narrating hadiths, or even stop it altogether, is also an unsubstantiated assertion.
If any historical evidence exists in support of the above statement, its source should kindly be cited. In fact, no turmoil involving fabricated hadiths had arisen in that era; history contains no mention of it. The fundamental reason Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) did not favor the narration of many hadiths was that, apart from a small area in southern Arabia, the Qur’an had not yet been widely disseminated throughout the Arab lands. Most regions of Arabia had come under Islam only toward the latter part of the Holy Prophet’s (peace be upon him) life, and an educational system for ordinary citizens had not yet been fully established in Arabia. In this situation, the death of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), followed by the disorder caused by apostates during the caliphate of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), disrupted this work. It was during Umar’s (may Allah be pleased with him) era that Muslims gained the opportunity to spread the light of education among the general population without anxiety. At that time, it was more urgent first to acquaint the entire nation with knowledge of the Qur’an, and it was necessary to suspend anything that might risk confusing the Qur’an with another source. If the Companions who were conveying the Qur’an from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) to the people had simultaneously continued narrating the Prophet’s statements, there was a danger that a large portion of the Bedouins might memorize hadiths mixed with Qur’anic verses. Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) himself described this comprehensive precautionary measure on one occasion.
Urwah ibn al-Zubayr (may Allah have mercy on him) said, “Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) once expressed the desire to record the Sunnahs of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). He consulted the Companions about this, and all of them expressed the view that it should certainly be done. However, Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) continued to hesitate about beginning the writing for a month, and kept praying to Allah to guide him toward that in which there was goodness. Finally, after a month, he said one day, ‘I had resolved to record the Sunnahs, but I thought of a people who lived before you: they wrote other books but abandoned the Book of Allah. By Allah, I will not allow anything else to be included alongside the Book of Allah.’” (Tadrib al-Rawi, p. 151, citing al-Bayhaqi’s al-Madkhal).
The renowned hadith scholar Abdullah ibn Adi narrated this incident in his book Al-Kamil fi Ma‘rifat al-Du‘afa wa al-Matrukin.
The Fiction of Imam Bukhari’s Six Hundred Thousand Hadiths
Another statement by the learned judge that may create serious confusion is this: “Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) selected nine thousand hadiths as authentic from among six hundred thousand hadiths.”
Someone influenced by the above statement might say that, among six hundred thousand hadiths, there were only nine thousand authentic hadiths, which Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) accepted, while the remaining 591,000 fabricated hadiths had spread among the Ummah. The actual situation, however, is entirely the opposite. In the terminology of hadith scholars, if one event is narrated through a continuous chain of transmission, it is counted as one hadith; yet that one hadith may, for example, be counted as ten, twenty, or fifty hadiths. By the time of Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him), each statement of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) and each event of his life was narrated by numerous narrators through many chains of transmission. In this way, several thousand hadiths came to constitute several hundred thousand hadiths. Imam Bukhari’s (may Allah have mercy on him) method was to examine all the chains through which he knew an event, according to his own criteria for verification—namely, the reliability of the chain of narration, not the authenticity of the original event—and to select the chain, or chains, that he considered most reliable. But he never claimed that only the hadiths he selected were authentic and that all the remaining narrations were inauthentic.¹ His own statement was: “I have not included in my book any hadith that is not authentic, but I omitted many authentic hadiths for fear that the book would become too large” [Tarikh Baghdad, vol. 2, pp. 8–9; Tahdhib al-Nawawi, vol. 1, p. 74; Tabaqat al-Subki, vol. 2, p. 71]. Rather, explaining this elsewhere, he said: “The authentic hadiths I omitted are greater in number than those I selected.” He also said: “I have memorized one hundred thousand authentic hadiths” (Shurut al-A’immat al-Sittah, p. 49). Imam Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him) made nearly the same statement. He said: “I claim that the hadiths I have compiled in my book are sound. But I never say that the hadiths I did not include are weak or unsound” (Tawjih al-Nazar, p. 91).
Why Were Fabricated Hadiths Composed?
The learned judge emphatically asserted that thousands of fabricated hadiths were composed, and he also stressed that investigative reviewers should think particularly deeply about this matter.
Our submission, however, is that investigative reviewers must also think deeply about this question: why, ultimately, were these thousands of fabricated hadiths composed in that era? The reason was precisely that the words and actions of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) were authoritative proof, and liars sought to achieve some interest or another by attributing an invented statement to him. If the words and actions of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) had not been authoritative proof, why would anyone have taken the trouble to fabricate a statement in support of a claim? A fabricator in this world produces a counterfeit object, such as counterfeit currency, only if it can be circulated in the market. Who, in the end, would counterfeit a currency that had no status or value? Suppose that at some point a gang of counterfeiters produced thousands of imitations of the currency in circulation. On that basis, would it be correct to argue that all the currency in circulation should be withdrawn and discarded because, in the presence of counterfeit currency, no currency can be trusted? Every well-wishing citizen of the country would instead immediately begin thinking about arresting these counterfeiters and protecting the nation’s currency from this danger.
As soon as the fitnah of fabricated hadiths emerged in the early period of Islam, the well-wishers of Islam took exactly the same steps. They immediately became active, investigated every fabricator of hadiths, and recorded his name in books under the heading Asma al-Rijal. They investigated each fabricated hadith and compiled collections of such mawdu‘ (invented) hadiths; established extremely strict principles for examining the authenticity and defects of hadiths; trained people to distinguish between authentic and fabricated hadiths; and closed every avenue through which fabricated hadiths might ever enter the sources of Islamic law. Even in that era, however, the thinking of those who rejected hadiths was that, because defective hadiths had entered the sources of law, the entire hadith corpus had become suspect and therefore all hadiths should be discarded. They did not consider at all how devastatingly abandoning the Sunnahs of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) would affect Islamic law, or how seriously the very structure of Islam would remain distorted.
Three Fallacious Foundations of the Argument
We shall now shed light on points 2, 3, and 4 of the learned judge. The entire basis of his argument on these three matters rests on three propositions that are themselves false or far removed from the truth. (1) The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) prohibited the recording of hadiths. (2) During the era of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), and afterward during the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, importance was given to preserving the Noble Qur’an, but no importance was given to preserving the hadiths. (3) The hadiths remained hidden in the minds of the Companions and the Tabi‘in; they would occasionally mention them to others by chance, and the work of compiling these narrations was undertaken several hundred years after the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him).
On the basis of these three propositions, which contradict the actual facts, the learned judge leads us, in the form of a question, toward the conclusion that hadiths were treated in this manner because they were essentially of temporary importance and were not intended to become a source of law for the whole world or for all time. In the discussion that follows, we shall assess how much truth these three propositions contain and how correct the conclusion drawn from them actually is.
The Initial Prohibition on Recording Hadiths and Its Reasons
The two hadiths cited by the learned judge from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) prohibited only the recording of hadiths; they did not prohibit narrating them orally. Indeed, in one of these hadiths the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) explicitly said: (Arabic text)
“Narrate my words orally; there is no objection to that.”
But accepting only these two hadiths, drawing a conclusion from them, and ignoring other related events in the same context is fundamentally a flawed method. The first thing that must be understood in this connection is that, when the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) was sent, the entire Arab nation was uneducated and conducted all its affairs through memorization and oral transmission. According to the account of the historian al-Baladhuri, even among the advanced tribe of Quraysh only seventeen people knew how to read and write. According to al-Baladhuri’s own statement, no more than eleven people in Madinah were literate. Paper was scarce for writing. Statements were recorded on thin leather, bones, and date-palm leaves. In these circumstances, when the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) was sent, his first task was to preserve the Noble Qur’an in such a way that nothing else could become mixed with it. There were only a handful of scribes, so he feared that if those recording the vocabulary and verses of revelation also wrote down other things they heard from him and attributed them to him, the Qur’an would not remain safe from mixture. Even if no actual mixture occurred, it could at least create doubt as to whether a statement was a Qur’anic verse or a hadith of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). For this reason, the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) prohibited the recording of hadiths in the early period.
General Permission to Record Hadiths
But this situation did not last long. Shortly after reaching Madinah Tayyibah, he himself arranged for his Companions and their children to learn reading and writing. When a significant number of people had learned to read and write, he permitted the recording of hadiths. Reliable narrations on this subject are presented below.
1. Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As (may Allah be pleased with him) said, “I used to record everything I heard from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). People prohibited me from writing and said, ‘The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) is a human being: sometimes he speaks while calm and sometimes while angry. Are you writing down everything?’ Then I decided that I would not write down any of his statements until I asked the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). When I asked the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), he pointed to his lips and said: (Arabic text)
2. Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) said that a man from the Ansar appealed, “I hear many words from you, but I cannot remember them.”
The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) said: (Arabic text)
“Seek the help of your hand.” Then, gesturing with his right hand, he said, “Write it down.” (Tirmidhi)
3. It is narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) delivered a sermon. Afterwards, Abu Shah, a resident of Yemen, requested, “Write the sermon down for me.” The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) instructed: (Arabic text) “Write it down for Abu Shah.” (Bukhari, Musnad Ahmad, Tirmidhi) Abu Hurayrah’s (may Allah be pleased with him) other narration gives a detailed account of this incident. After the conquest of Makkah, the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) delivered a sermon in which he stated several rulings concerning the sanctuary of Makkah and homicide. A man from Yemen, Abu Shah, stood up and requested, “Have the sermon written down for me.” The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) instructed, “Write the sermon down for him.” (Bukhari)
4. It is narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him). He said, “Among the Companions, no one possessed more hadiths than I did, except Abdullah ibn Amr (may Allah be pleased with him), because he used to write down hadiths, whereas I did not.” (Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, Nasa’i)
5. Various people asked Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), and on one occasion, while he was on the pulpit, he was asked, “Do you possess any knowledge that the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) gave specifically to you?” He replied, “No. I possess only the Book of Allah and these few rulings that I heard from the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) and wrote down.” He then brought out the written material and showed it. It contained rulings concerning zakat, exemplary punishment (Arabic text), the sanctuary of Madinah, and several similar matters. (Bukhari, Muslim, Ahmad, and Nasa’i have narrated various reports on this subject through different chains of transmission.)
In addition, the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) would at various times send written instructions to his administrators in different regions concerning criminal and civil laws, and rulings related to zakat and inheritance. Works that may be consulted on these matters include Abu Dawud, Nasa’i, al-Daraqutni, al-Darimi, Tabaqat Ibn Sa‘d, Abu Ubayd’s Kitab al-Amwal, Abu Yusuf’s Kitab al-Kharaj, and Ibn Hazm’s al-Muhalla, among others.
Encouragement—Indeed, Emphasis—on Narrating Hadiths Orally
This is the actual state of the recording of hadiths. But, as we have already stated, for thousands of years the Arab nation had been accustomed to conducting its affairs through memory, continuous narration, and oral speech rather than in writing, and this practice remained unchanged for several years even in the early period of Islam. In these circumstances, the necessity of writing down the Noble Qur’an for its preservation was understood, because the aim was to preserve every word, verse, and surah according to the sequence determined by Allah the Exalted. This necessity was not felt in the case of hadiths, because they did not claim to possess fixed wording or the particular sequence of revealed scripture, nor was such an idea held. Rather, the objective was simply to remember and convey to others the rulings, teachings, and guidance mentioned in them, which the Companions had received from the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). In this matter, there was not merely open permission to narrate orally; numerous hadiths prove that the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) repeatedly and emphatically urged people to narrate them orally. A few hadiths are cited below as examples.
1. Zayd ibn Thabit, Abdullah ibn Masud, Jubayr ibn Mut‘im, and Abu al-Darda (may Allah be pleased with them) quoted the following statement of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him):
(Arabic text)
“May Allah keep fresh and radiant the person who hears one of my hadiths and conveys it to others. It may be that someone conveys a statement of knowledge to one who possesses more knowledge than he does. And it may be that someone is a carrier of jurisprudence without being a jurist himself, or a carrier of knowledge without being learned himself.” (Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, Musnad Ahmad, Ibn Majah, al-Darimi)
2. Abu Bakrah (may Allah be pleased with him) said that the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
(Arabic text)
“Let those who are present convey it to those who are absent. Perhaps they will convey it to someone who remembers it better than they do.” (Bukhari, Muslim)
3. Abu Shurayh (may Allah be pleased with him) said that on the second day after the conquest of Makkah, the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) delivered a sermon, which I heard with my own ears and memorized perfectly; the scene is still captured in my eyes. At the end of the sermon, the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
(Arabic text)
“Let those who are present convey it to those who are absent.” (Bukhari)
4. During the Farewell Hajj as well, the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) delivered a sermon containing essentially the same statement mentioned in the two hadiths above. (Bukhari)
5. A delegation from the Abd al-Qays tribe came from Bahrain and met the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). At the time of their departure, they requested, “We live very far away, and settlements of unbelievers lie between us and you. We have the opportunity to come to you only during the sacred months. Therefore, give us some instructions that we may convey to the people of our tribe when we return, so that they may become deserving of Paradise.” The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) taught them several rulings of the religion of Islam and said:
(Arabic text)
“Remember these things and convey them to the people in your region.” (Bukhari, Muslim)
Do these instructions and emphatic injunctions above prove that the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) did not wish to encourage the narration of hadiths? Or that he regarded them as temporary rulings and did not want them to spread among the people and continue to be applied to general circumstances?
Stern Warning Regarding the Narration of Fabricated Hadiths
The matter is not merely that the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) urged the dissemination and propagation of his hadiths; at the same time, he emphatically urged their complete preservation and strict avoidance of mixing falsehood with them. Several hadiths on this subject are mentioned below:
Abdullah ibn Amr, Abu Hurayrah, al-Zubayr ibn al-Awwam, and Anas (may Allah be pleased with them) said that the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
(Arabic text)
“Whoever deliberately fabricates a statement in my name has made Hell his dwelling.” (Bukhari, Tirmidhi)
Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
(Arabic text)
“Narrate my hadiths; there is no objection to that. But whoever deliberately fabricates a statement in my name has made Hell his abode.” (Muslim)
Ibn Abbas, Ibn Masud, and Jabir ibn Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with them) say that the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
(Arabic***************************************************************)
“Refrain from narrating anything from me until you know that I said it. For whoever attributes a lie to me has made Hell his abode” (Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah).
Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) says that the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
(Arabic*********************************************************)
“Do not tell lies in my name. For whoever tells a lie in my name will enter Hell” —(Bukhari).
Hazrat Salama ibn al-Akwa (may Allah be pleased with him) says:
(Arabic****************************************************************)
“I heard the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) say: Whoever says in my name something that I did not say has made his abode in Hell” —(Bukhari).
What is proved by these repeated warnings? That the sayings of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) had no importance whatsoever in the religion of Islam? If his sayings had no legal status in Islam, and if there had been no fear that the religious rulings would be affected by them, then what need was there to restrain people from fabricating false hadiths by warning them of Hell? Many erroneous statements become associated in history with kings, rulers, and leaders. What effect do they ultimately have on the religion? If the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) had a similar status, why would anyone be punished in Hell for distorting his history?
The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) —conclusive proof that his Sunnah is a source of law
The most important point in this regard is that when an explicit statement of Allah and His Messenger exists concerning a matter, there remains no need to derive a conclusion from irrelevant considerations. Allah Most High clearly granted His Messenger both the authority to interpret the Book of Allah and the authority to legislate. The previously mentioned verse 44 of Surah al-Nahl, verse 157 of Surah al-A’raf, and verse 7 of Surah al-Hashr provide entirely clear statements on this subject. Moreover, the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) himself clearly described these authorities of his. Abu Rafi (may Allah be pleased with him) says that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said:
(Arabic***************************************************************)
“No, I shall certainly find among you someone reclining on his couch to whom one of my commands will be conveyed—through which I have instructed that something be done or not done—and he will hear it and say, ‘I do not know; I will follow only whatever I find in the Book of Allah’” —(Musnad Ahmad, al-Shafi‘i, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah, Bayhaqi’s Dala’il al-Nubuwwah).
It is narrated from Miqdam ibn Ma‘dikarib (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
(Arabic**************************************************************)
“Beware! I have been given the Qur’an and something similar to it along with it. Beware! Let it not be that a person, carried along by the flood of abundance, reclines on his couch and says, ‘Follow only the Qur’an; whatever you find lawful in it, regard as lawful, and whatever you find forbidden in it, regard as forbidden.’ Yet whatever the Messenger of Allah has declared forbidden is indeed equal to what Allah has forbidden. Beware! Domesticated donkeys are not lawful for you, nor are predatory animals with fangs—[The final statement indicates that some people must have tried to prove donkeys, dogs, and other predatory animals lawful on the argument that the Qur’an contains no ruling explicitly declaring them forbidden. This is why the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) must have made the foregoing statement.] —(Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah, Darimi, Hakim).
It is narrated from Irbad ibn Sariyah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) stood to deliver a sermon and said:
(Arabic************************************************************)
“Has any one of you, reclining on his couch, come to think that Allah has forbidden nothing except what has been forbidden in the Qur’an? Beware! By Allah, whatever commands I have given, whatever advice I have offered, and whatever I have prohibited is also like the Qur’an, or even more. Allah has forbidden you to enter the homes of the People of the Book without their permission, to beat their women, and to eat the fruit of their trees even after they have paid the tax imposed upon them—[This final part of the hadith clearly indicates that some hypocrites must have interfered with the dhimmis and, taking refuge in the Qur’an, said: ‘Show us where it is written in the Qur’an that permission is required to enter the homes of the People of the Book. And where in the Qur’an is it forbidden to abuse their women and eat the fruits of their orchards?’ It was in this context that the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) must have delivered the foregoing sermon.] —(Abu Dawud).
(Arabic*******************************************************************************)
“Whoever turns away from my Sunnah has no connection with me” —(Bukhari, Muslim).
After such clear statements from Allah and His Messenger, what weight can possibly remain in the argument that, since the hadiths were not written down, they were not meant for general application?
Is only something that has been written down reliable?
The learned judge repeatedly places great emphasis on the matter of writing. It seems that, in his view, writing down and preserving something are not synonymous. The greatest foundation of his argument is the notion that the Qur’an is reliable and acceptable as evidence because it was written down, whereas the hadiths are unreliable and unacceptable as evidence because they were not written down during the time of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) or during the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphate.
First, it must be understood in this regard that the reason the Noble Qur’an was written down was that both its wording and its meaning came from Allah. Not only the arrangement of its words, but also the arrangement of its verses and the arrangement of its surahs came from Allah. It was not permissible to replace any of its words with another word. It was revealed so that people would recite it with its revealed wording while preserving its arrangement.
The matter of the Sunnah, on the other hand, was entirely different. It was not merely verbal but also practical. Its wording was not revealed through revelation in the same manner as the wording of the Qur’an; rather, the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) expressed it in his own words. Moreover, a large part of it consisted of matters described in their own words by people who were contemporaries of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him): for example, that his character and morals were such, that his way of life was such, and that he did such-and-such at such-and-such a place. There was no obligation, even in transmitting the sayings and speeches of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), that the listeners reproduce them word for word. Rather, listeners speaking the same language were permitted—and were capable—to hear one of his statements and express it in their own language without changing its meaning. The purpose was not to recite the words of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), but to follow the teachings he gave. Unlike the arrangement of the Qur’an’s verses and surahs, it was not essential to preserve which hadith came first and which came later. Therefore, in the case of hadiths, it was sufficient that people remember them and faithfully convey them to others. Writing was not as important in this regard as it was in the case of the Qur’an.
The second point that must be understood very well is that it is by no means essential for something to be written down in order to serve as evidence. The fundamental basis of reliability is the reliability of the person or persons through whom a statement reaches others—whether it is written or unwritten. The Qur’an, too, was not sent down in written form; rather, Allah conveyed it to His servants through the tongue of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). Allah Most High relied entirely on the fact that whoever accepted His Prophet as truthful would, on the basis of the Prophet’s trustworthiness, accept the Qur’an as His word. The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) also conveyed and disseminated the entire Qur’an orally. The Companions who went to various regions to preach the religion did not take written copies of the surahs of the Qur’an with them. The written verses and surahs remained in the bag into which he had them written through the Companions who served as revelation scribes. The remaining work of conveying and preaching was done orally, and the person who accepted faith relied on the trustworthiness of that one Companion and accepted that whatever he heard was the Word of Allah, or that the instruction conveyed by the Companion from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was indeed his instruction.
The third important point in this regard is that a written item cannot be reliable in itself unless living and trustworthy people testify in its support. If we merely obtain a written item and are unfamiliar with the original writer’s handwriting, or the person who wrote it does not himself say that it is in his handwriting, or no witness can be found to testify that it is that person’s handwriting, then, far from being conclusive proof for us, the written item cannot even constitute presumptive evidence. This is a principled truth supported by the law of evidence in the present age, and the learned judge himself applies this principle in court.
Now the question is: Is the basis of our certain belief that the Noble Qur’an has been preserved the fact that it was written down? The Qur’an written in the own hands of the revelation scribes, whose wording the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) dictated to them, does not exist anywhere in the world today. Even if it did exist, who today would testify to its authenticity and say that this is the manuscript of the Qur’an that the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) himself had written down, and that he himself had this Qur’an written immediately after revelation descended? We can know this only through oral transmission; otherwise, there was no second means by which we could know it.
Therefore, the real reason for our certain belief in the perfect preservation of the Qur’an is not that it was written down. Rather, the real reason is that living people have continuously heard it from living people and have conveyed it word for word to those who came after them. Thus, the mistaken notion that the only way something can be preserved is for it to remain in written form must be removed from our minds.
If the respected judge and people who think like him reflect deeply on these matters, then, God willing, they will have no difficulty acknowledging that anything obtained through reliable channels fully qualifies to serve as evidence, even if it has not been preserved in written form.
Did the hadiths lie in unknown chambers for two and a half centuries?
Again, toward the end of his fourth point, the respected judge says: “The hadiths were neither memorized nor preserved; rather, they remained hidden in the minds of people who happened to narrate them to others from time to time and then died. They were collected and compiled only several hundred years after their deaths.” This is not merely contrary to the facts; it is essentially an extreme denigration of the personality of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) and of the early Muslims’ faith in him. Even if one turns away from the actual facts and tries to understand the true situation using only his intellectual faculties, he can never believe that the people whom such a sublime personality had raised from the utmost backwardness of the Arab nation in character and morality, civilization and culture, creed and belief, and conduct, elevating them to a higher level, would consider his statements and actions so unworthy of attention that they made no effort to remember anything he said, did not go beyond occasional narration to others to study them, and that later generations made not the slightest effort to learn about him from those who had met him. If someone manages to enjoy close companionship even with an ordinary leader, he remembers every incident of his meetings with that leader and goes to others so that future generations may learn about his contributions. In the end, what level of person did Judge Muhammad Shafi Sahib consider Muhammadur Rasulullah (peace be upon him) to be, that he thought his contemporaries and the people of later generations did not even consider him worthy of attention?
Let us now examine the actual situation to some extent. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was such a great leader for the noble Companions that they learned from him at every moment about creed and belief, faith and practice, worship and devotion, principles and morality, civilization and culture, conduct and manners, and courtesy and etiquette. By following each aspect of his life, they learned to live like pure and upright people. They knew what they had been before his advent as a prophet and to what level he had elevated them. In every matter that arose before them, he was their giver of fatwas and their judge. Under his leadership they fought battles and made peace. They had experienced where they began their journey by following his leadership and where they ultimately arrived. For this reason, they remembered every word he said. Those who lived near him necessarily spent time in his company. Those who were occasionally absent from his presence would ask others what he had done and what he had said that day.
People who came from distant places considered whatever time they had the opportunity to spend in the company of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) the capital of their entire lives and remembered it throughout their lives. Those who had no opportunity to be in his company would gather around everyone who had enjoyed his companionship and learn every detail from them. Those who had ever had the opportunity to see him from a distance, or had merely heard his speech at a large gathering, never forgot that memory throughout their lives. They proudly described their good fortune, saying that these eyes of ours had seen Muhammadur Rasulullah (peace be upon him) and our ears had heard his speech. Thereafter, for those born in the period after the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), if anything in the world was important, it was the Sirah of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), whose miraculous achievement of leadership awakened the camel drivers of Arabia and raised them to the status of rulers of lands extending from Sindh to Spain. They would seek out anyone who had enjoyed the company of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), had seen him, or had heard one of his speeches. As the Companions gradually departed from this world, their desire to gain their companionship increased ever more. Indeed, the Tabi‘un extracted every bit of knowledge about the noble Sirah that they could find with the Companions.
The Companions’ Narration of Hadiths
Intellect testifies that this must indeed have happened, and history testifies that it actually did. The body of hadith knowledge existing in the world today has been received through the authority of approximately ten thousand Companions. The Tabi‘un not only accepted the hadiths narrated by them; they also recorded biographies of these Companions. They related how long each Companion had enjoyed the company of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), where and when he had seen him, and on which occasions he had appeared before him. The learned judge had said that the hadiths lay buried in the minds of the early Muslims and that, two or two and a half centuries later, Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) and scholars of his time excavated and recovered them. But the picture history presents to us is completely contrary to his statement. A list of the names of those among the noble Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, who narrated the greatest number of hadiths, together with the hadiths they narrated, is given below.
Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him) (d. 57 AH), number of hadiths narrated: 5,374 (and the number of his students exceeded 800. Most of his students had written down the hadiths he narrated).
Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) (d. 46 AH), number of hadiths: 1,170.
Jabir ibn Abdullah (d. 74 AH), hadiths: 1,540.
Anas ibn Malik (d. 93 AH), hadiths: 1,286.
The Mother of the Believers, Aishah Siddiqah (d. 59 AH), hadiths: 2,210.
Abdullah ibn Abbas (d. 67 AH), hadiths: 1,660.
Abdullah ibn Umar (d. 70 AH), hadiths: 1,630.
Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As (d. 63 AH), hadiths: 700.
Abdullah ibn Masud (d. 32 AH), hadiths: 848.
Do the foregoing facts prove that the noble Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) buried the narrations concerning every aspect of the life of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) in their breasts and thereby carried them from this world into the next?
The Continuous History of Hadith Scholarship from the Era of the Companions to the Era of Imam Bukhari
Next, consider those Tabi‘un who acquired knowledge of the life and practice of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) from the noble Companions and transmitted it to succeeding generations. Their number can be estimated from the biographies of the Tabi‘un of several major cities given in the book Ibn Tabaqat. For example: 484 in Madinah, 131 in Makkah, 413 in Kufah, and 164 in Basrah.
A list is given below of those senior scholars among them who made the greatest contributions to acquiring knowledge of hadith, preserving it, and conveying it to later generations.
Said ibn al-Musayyab (born 41 AH, died 93 AH), Hasan al-Basri (21–110), Ibn Sirin (33–110), Urwah ibn al-Zubayr (22–94), who was the first to write a book on the life of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him); Ali ibn al-Husayn (Imam Zayn al-Abidin, 38–94), Mujahid (21–104), Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr (37–106), Shurayh, who was a judge during the caliphate of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) (d. 78 AH); Masruq, who came to Madinah during the time of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) (d. 63 AH); Aswad ibn Haywat (d. 75 AH), Makhul (d. 63 AH), Raja ibn Haywat (d. 103 AH), Hammam ibn Munabbih (40–131), who compiled a collection of hadiths that still exists and has been published under the name Sahifah of Ibn Hammam; Salim ibn Abdullah ibn Umar (d. 106 AH), Nafi, the freedman of Ibn Umar (d. 117 AH), Said ibn Jubayr (45–95), Sulayman al-Amash (61–148), Ayyub al-Sakhtiyani (66–131), Muhammad ibn al-Munkadir (54–130), Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri (58–124), who left behind a vast written manuscript of hadiths; Sulayman ibn Yasar (34–107), Ikrimah, the freedman of Ibn Abbas (22–105), Ata ibn Abi Rabah (27–115), Qatadah ibn Di‘amah (61–117), Amir al-Sha‘bi (17–104), Alqamah (d. 62 AH), who was a young man during the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) but did not meet him; Ibrahim al-Nakhai (46–96), and Yazid ibn Abi Habib (53–128).
A glance at the historical dates of birth and death of these great scholars makes it known that they were blessed with the companionship of the Companions. Many of them were born in the homes of the Companions and raised in the laps of female Companions. Some of them spent their entire lives in the company of one Companion or another. Their biographies show that each of them met numerous Companions, acquired knowledge of the life and works of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), and transmitted to those after them, together, the hadiths concerning his sayings and decisions. This would be otherwise only if someone were to imagine that all the people of the first Hijri century fabricated hadiths at home according to their own fancies, and that the entire ummah nevertheless made them its leaders and counted them among its senior scholars.
Then we come to the history of the younger Tabi‘un and the Taba al-Tabi‘un, who numbered in the thousands and were spread throughout the world. They extensively studied hadith with the Tabi‘un and traveled to distant places, gathering in each region the repositories of knowledge of the Companions and the Tabi‘un. The names of some of their notable figures are given below.
Jafar ibn Muhammad ibn Ali (born 80 AH, died 148 AH), better known as Imam Jafar al-Sadiq. Imam Azam Abu Hanifah al-Numan (80–150), Shu‘bah ibn al-Hajjaj (83–160), who was the teacher of al-Layth (may Allah have mercy on him); Said ibn Arubah (d. 156), Misar ibn Qidam (d. 152), Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr (d. 126), Sufyan al-Thawri (97–161), and Hammad ibn Zayd (97–179).
Compilers of Hadith in the Second Hijri Century
It was during this period that the work of compiling Hadith properly began. The names of the eminent hadith scholars who collected and compiled Hadith during this period are given below.
Rabi ibn Sabih (d. 160 AH) composed separate booklets on each subject of fiqh. Sa’id ibn Abi Arubah (d. 156 AH) also wrote an individual booklet on each subject of fiqh. Musa ibn Uqbah (d. 141 AH) compiled a history of the battles of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Imam Malik (93–179) collected Hadiths and reports relating to the rules and regulations of Islamic Shariah. Ibn Jurayj (80–150), Imam Awza’i (88–189), Sufyan al-Thawri (97–161), Hammad ibn Salamah ibn Dinar (97–176), Imam Abu Yusuf (113–182), and Imam Muhammad (131–189) all performed work similar to that of Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him). Muhammad ibn Ishaq (d. 181 AH) wrote a biography of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). Ibn Sa’d (168–220) gathered reports concerning the Prophet’s biography and the lives of the Companions and the Followers. Ubaydullah ibn Musa al-Absi (d. 213 AH), Musaddad ibn Musarhad al-Basri (d. 218 AH), Asad ibn Musa (d. 212 AH), Musaddad ibn Musarhad al-Basri (d. 218 AH), Asad ibn Musa (d. 212 AH), Nu’aym ibn Muhammad al-Khuza’i (d. 228 AH), Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (168–241), Ishaq ibn Rahwayh (161–238), and Uthman ibn Abi Shaybah (156–239) all compiled separately the Hadiths narrated by each Companion. Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah (159–235) compiled Hadith according to the order of the chapters of fiqh, while taking into consideration the individual transmissions of each Companion.
Among them, the works of Imam Malik, Imam Abu Yusuf, Imam Muhammad, Muhammad ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa’d, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah still exist and have been published. In addition, part of Musa ibn Uqbah’s al-Maghazi has also been published in book form. Moreover, the manuscripts of those whose works are no longer available have not actually vanished; rather, later scholars incorporated them into their own books. Therefore, people no longer need to depend on these rare manuscripts.
After studying the continuous history of the science of Hadith up to the era of Imam Bukhari, can anyone attach any value to the learned judge’s following statement: “The Hadiths were neither memorized nor preserved; rather, they remained hidden in the minds of people who happened to mention them before others and then died, after which they were collected and compiled several hundred years after their deaths”? And to his statement: “Later, for the first time, the Hadiths were collected approximately one hundred years after the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), but their documents have not been preserved”? Here we must submit that judges need to possess scholarship that is even more cautious and profound before expressing opinions on Islam, and particularly on matters based on the Qur’an and Sunnah.
The Significance of Differences among the Hadiths
Proceeding further, the honorable judge, in his sixth point, has described one reason for the Hadiths being “extremely doubtful” and “unreliable” as follows: “There are very few Hadiths about which the collectors of Hadith have been able to agree.”
This is a claim that may indeed be made by taking a superficial look at a few conflicting Hadiths. However, a detailed comparative study of the Hadith books shows that there is far more agreement among those Hadiths and very little disagreement. Furthermore, when the cases in which disagreement is found are evaluated, most of them fall under one of the following four categories:
(1) Different narrators have related the same statement or event with differences in wording, but without any significant difference in meaning; or different narrators have related the same event or different portions of a speech.
(2) The Prophet (peace be upon him) himself expressed the same matter in different words.
(3) The Prophet (peace be upon him) performed an act in different ways under different circumstances, in different settings, or in different places.
(4) One Hadith is earlier and another later, and the latter abrogated the former.
Apart from Hadiths falling within these four categories, the number of Hadiths throughout the entire science of Hadith in which it is genuinely difficult to reconcile contradictions among the narrators is far less than one percent. Is the existence of such flaws in only a few Hadiths sufficient to conclude that the entire corpus of Hadith is doubtful and unreliable? A riwayah (or Hadith) is not an indivisible unit incapable of classification, such that if any part of it is defective or rejected, the whole must be rejected. Every riwayah (Hadith) possesses its own distinct characteristics and is narrated with its own separate chain of transmission. Accordingly, even if not one or two but two, four, or a hundred riwayahs are rejected, it does not follow that the remaining riwayahs must also be rejected. Any riwayah that fully passes the standards of scholarly, rational, and logical criticism must certainly be accepted.
Another aspect of disagreement among hadith scholars is that one scholar considers the chain of a riwayah sound according to his own critical assessment, while another declares it weak. This is a difference of judgment and investigation, and there is no reason for it to cause unease or anxiety. Do courts never differ over which testimony to accept and which to reject?
Are Riwayahs Transmitted from Memory Unreliable?
We shall now shed light on the learned judge’s final two points. He says, “The memory of Arabs today will remain as strong as the memory of the Arabs of the first Hijri century, however strong it may be. Nevertheless, however strong it is acknowledged to be, can a statement transmitted solely from memory be regarded as reliable?” He further says, “As a statement passes from one person’s memory to another’s, some change inevitably occurs in it, and the individual ideas and perspectives of each memory keep twisting and distorting it.”
On the basis of these two additional reasons, he does not regard the Hadiths as reliable or acceptable as evidence and proof.
Regarding his first statement, it may be said that it is contrary to experience and observation. Experience has shown that the faculty through which a person performs more work continues to improve, while the faculty he uses less gradually becomes weaker. This is true of all human faculties, and it is likewise true of memory. For thousands of years before the Prophet (peace be upon him), the Arabs had been accustomed to conducting their affairs through memory rather than writing. Their merchants conducted transactions worth millions of dinars without knowing how to read or write. They kept exact accounts and remembered the dealings of countless customers orally. In their tribal life, genealogical and blood relationships were extremely important. All these things were preserved in memory and passed from one generation to the next through oral transmission. Their entire literary heritage was not printed on paper but on the pages of their hearts. This practice remained unchanged for nearly a hundred years even after writing became common, because national habits change gradually. Rather than recording things on paper, they relied more heavily on their memories. This was a matter of pride for them. If someone was asked about something and, instead of answering from memory, went home and brought a written book to provide the answer, he would be rejected in their eyes. Even after writing had long been practiced, they continued to memorize things; they regarded reciting something from memory, rather than reading out a written account, not merely as a matter of honor, but as the very means by which a person’s learning was established in their view.
There is no reason for this condition of memory to remain intact among today’s Arabs. After relying on writing for hundreds of years and making less use of memory, it is in no way possible for their memories now to remain as keen as those of the ancient Arabs. Nevertheless, among both Arabs and non-Arabs, observation is still sharper today among educated and sighted people. Among ignorant merchants, there are countless people who can remember fully and in detail transactions worth thousands of units of currency conducted with their customers. There are also countless blind people whose memories astonish others. This conclusively proves that after relying on writing, no nation can retain the same condition of memory that it possessed during the age of ignorance.
The Real Reason for the Preservation of the Hadiths
That is one aspect of the matter mentioned above. The second aspect is that, particularly for the noble Companions, several other factors were also operative behind remembering the Hadiths of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and transmitting them accurately—factors that cannot in any way be ignored.
First:They wholeheartedly believed the Prophet (peace be upon him) to be Allah’s Messenger and the greatest human being in the world. His magnificent personality had a profound impact on their hearts. To them, the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) statements and the events and circumstances of his life were not like ordinary human events that they could simply entrust to their memories and leave at that. Every moment they spent in the Prophet’s company was the most valuable thing in their lives, and they regarded preserving it in their memories as their greatest treasure.
Second:From every sermon of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), every statement of his, and every act of his life, they learned lessons that they had never previously been able to acquire. They themselves knew that they had formerly been profoundly ignorant, foolish, and astray, and that this purest of men was now granting them true knowledge and teaching them to live like civilized people. Therefore, they listened to every word of his with full attention and observed every action of his. They had to shape their practical lives accordingly, imitate him precisely, and act according to his guidance. It is clear that, when people see and hear things with this awareness and feeling, they cannot be equally casual about remembering them as they might be about remembering something heard or seen at a fair or in a marketplace.
Third:They knew from the light of the Qur’an, and because the Prophet (peace be upon him) repeatedly emphasized it, that falsely attributing something to Allah’s Prophet was an extremely serious crime, whose punishment was eternal residence in Hell. For this reason, they were extremely cautious about attributing any statement to the Prophet (peace be upon him). Not a single example can be found among the noble Companions of any Companion unlawfully using the Prophet’s name for a personal purpose or to secure a personal interest. Even when disagreements began among them and two groups came into conflict, they did not fabricate a Hadith and use it against the opposing side. People who were dishonest and had no fear of Allah in later times certainly fabricated such false Hadiths, but not a single example of this can be found in the accounts of the noble Companions.
Fourth:The noble Companions regarded it as their most important duty to convey the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) life, guidance, and teachings to later generations in a completely accurate form, without any exaggeration or admixture. For them, this was the religion of Allah, and altering it on one’s own authority was not a minor offense; rather, it was a grave deception and betrayal. Thus, numerous incidents are recorded from the lives of the Companions in which they trembled while narrating a Hadith. The color of their faces would change. Whenever there was the slightest doubt that the words used by the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) might have been different, they would say the phrase “aw kama qala” (“or he said something similar”) immediately after transmitting the statement, so that listeners would not take the words they used to be precisely the words used by the Prophet (peace be upon him).
Fifth:The senior Companions particularly continued advising the ordinary Companions to exercise caution when narrating Hadiths. They sternly opposed even the slightest negligence in this matter, and sometimes, when they heard a Hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him) from someone, they demanded testimony supporting it, so that they could be certain that others had also heard the Hadith in question. To gain this certainty, the Companions also tested one another’s memories. For example, once, during the Hajj season, a Hadith narrated by Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As (may Allah be pleased with him) reached Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her). During the Hajj of the following year, the Mother of the Believers, Aishah, sent someone to him to ask again about the same Hadith. Despite the one-year interval, there was not even a single-word difference between Abdullah’s two narrations. Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) then remarked, “Indeed, Abdullah remembers the correct wording” (Bukhari, Muslim).
Sixth:A considerable and important part of the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) teachings and guidance was not merely transmitted orally; it was fully implemented in the society of the Companions, in their personal lives, families, economy, government administration, and courts, and people could see its effects and manifestations everywhere in daily life. How could someone bring forward an isolated statement about such a matter on the basis of a lapse of memory or his own personal ideas and inclinations and have it accepted? Therefore, even when an unfamiliar and isolated Hadith came to light, its narrator was precisely identified, and the hadith scholars stated that no one besides that particular narrator had transmitted it, or that there was no existing precedent for acting according to it.
One Proof of the Authenticity of the Hadiths
In addition to all this, there is another extremely important point, understood only by those who know Arabic and who have not occasionally studied a few isolated Hadiths superficially, but have read deeply through all the Hadith books, or at least one complete book such as Bukhari or Muslim. It is not hidden from them that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) has his own language and a distinctive manner of expression and speech, which appears completely uniform and consistent in all the authentic Hadiths. Like the Qur’an, his literature and style possess such distinctiveness that no one else can imitate them. His personality is vividly felt throughout. His elevated rank and position are brilliantly evident. As one reads, the heart continues to testify that no one other than Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), could have said this. Those who read a large number of Hadiths and have properly understood the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) language and mode of expression can, without examining the chains of transmission, read only the main text and determine whether a Hadith is authentic or fabricated. The language of a fabricated Hadith itself reveals that it is not the language of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). Even within authentic Hadiths, a clear distinction can be sensed between word-for-word transmission and transmission of meaning. When a narrator has expressed the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) statement in his own words, a person familiar with his language and style can perceive that the thought and account are indeed the Prophet’s, though the wording differs. This distinctive characteristic could never be found among the Hadiths if countless weak memorizers had shattered them according to their own ideas and inclinations. Is it conceivable that numerous minds could unite to create literature with one identical character and a single style?
This matter is not confined merely to language and literature. If we proceed further and observe carefully, we find that, from bodily and clothing purity and cleanliness to peace, war, and international affairs, and from faith, creed, and ethics to the signs of the Day of Resurrection, the authentic Hadiths present a system of thought and action that possesses a single, distinctive structure from beginning to end, with complete logical harmony among all its parts and branches. Such a well-arranged, organized, coherent, complete, and indivisible system must necessarily have arisen from a single mode of thought; minds possessing different ways of thinking could not unite to construct such a system. This is another important means by which not only fabricated Hadiths but even doubtful Hadiths can be identified. Before examining the chain of transmission, a discerning hadith scholar can recognize that a particular content does not properly fit within the system of thought and way of life that these Hadiths, together with the Qur’an, have formed as Islam. Its character and nature appear contrary to the entire system of life.
In light of the above information and discussion, the honorable judge’s ruling appears to be nothing more than the result of a superficial study and extremely inadequate thought and analysis: that the mistakes of the memorizers and the activity of minds of differing types have distorted the Hadith. Only from the mouth of an ignoramus could such a comment about Hadith emerge.
The Learned Judge’s Objections to Certain Hadiths
Proceeding further, the honorable judge says that the Hadith collection contains Hadiths that are “very difficult to accept as authentic.” As evidence, he quoted thirteen Hadiths from the English translation of Mishkat al-Masabih by Alhaj Maulvi Fazlul Karim, M.A., B.L. This translation was published in Calcutta in 1938. Before making a few submissions concerning the honorable judge’s objections to these Hadiths, we must say, with great regret, that the translator made such terrible errors in this translation of Mishkat Sharif that they demonstrate his ignorance not only of the science of Hadith but also of the Arabic language. Unfortunately, the honorable judge reproduced the original text together with all these errors. Although the translator’s errors have no connection with the subject under discussion, we mention the matter here only to draw attention to the fact that Pakistan is currently the world’s largest Muslim state, and that in a judgment of one of its High Courts such far-reaching discussion and debate concerning the legal status of Hadith should be raised while such superficial—indeed, extremely defective—knowledge of the science of Hadith is simultaneously displayed. This is truly a deeply regrettable and shameful matter. What effect will this ultimately have on the knowledgeable people of the world, and how much will it enhance the honor and dignity of our courts?
“Let us examine, by way of example, two phrases from the first Hadith he quoted. …………….. was translated as, “And what could be more astonishing than this?” whereas its correct translation is: “What statement of his was not astonishing?” …………………. was read by the translator as ……………….. and translated: “Leave me alone. Will you worship my Lord?” Not only is this translation unclear and meaningless, but in reading the original text the translator made an error that even a person with elementary knowledge of Arabic grammar could not make. (Ta’budu) is a masculine verb, whereas the context of the sentence makes clear that the person being addressed is a woman. When addressing a woman, one must say … (ta’budina), not (ta’budu). The correct translation of the above phrase is: “Leave me alone; I shall worship my Lord.” In view of such errors, will any sensible person ultimately believe that the honorable judge possesses even as much understanding of the science of Hadith as is essential for delivering a learned judgment on any subject?”
Why Do Some Hadiths Contain Indecent Subject Matter??
We shall now return to the main discussion. In paragraph 26, the learned judge quoted nine hadiths one after another, yet nowhere did he say what objection he had to the contents of any of them. In paragraph 27, however, he briefly expressed the view that, on the basis of the “indecency” observed in these hadiths, it was impossible to believe that they could actually be authentic. It is very likely that he wondered how such frank conversations could ultimately have taken place between the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) and women, and between the Noble Prophet’s (peace be upon him) pure wives and their students. Before separately discussing the hadiths presented by the learned judge in this connection, it is necessary to state a few fundamental points. For, because people generally fail to understand these matters, the “educated people” of the present age often fall into doubt and confusion regarding hadiths of this kind.
(1) There are certain aspects of a person’s strictly confidential private life concerning which an unnecessary sense of shame often obstructs the provision of essential education, training, guidance, and advice. As a result, even people in advanced countries have remained unaware of the basic principles of purity and cleanliness in these matters. It is a favor of the Shariah given by Allah that it has guided us in these aspects as well, laid down rules and principles concerning these inner matters, and protected us from error. Thoughtful and talented people among other nations appreciate the value and importance of these things, because members of their nations have remained deprived of education and training in this particular branch of life. But Muslims, who have received these principles at home, are today devaluing this instruction. The astonishing irony is that even those who favor introducing sex education into educational institutions in imitation of Western nations have joined in expressing this devaluation.
(2) Whichever prophet Allah the Exalted sent to educate us was also entrusted with the responsibility of providing education and training concerning this private branch of life. The Arab nation was not even acquainted with the basic rules in this regard. The Noble Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not merely explain orally to them the rules governing purity, urination and defecation, bathing, and other such matters for both men and women; rather, he also permitted his wives to present before the general public the various aspects of the Noble Prophet’s (peace be upon him) intimate family life and to explain the principles on which he himself acted.
(3) For this purpose, Allah the Exalted granted the Noble Prophet’s (peace be upon him) pure wives the status of mothers of the believing Muslims, so that Muslims could go to them for guidance concerning these aspects and departments of life, without fear that any impure emotions would be expressed during such discussions between the two sides. For this reason, throughout the entire corpus of hadith there is not a single example of a question asked of the Mothers of the Believers, who held the status of mothers to believing Muslims, also being asked of the wives of the Rightly Guided Caliphs or other Companions, or of those women engaging in such conversations with men.
(4) People could not be reassured merely by hearing that the Shariah had made lawful for them certain things which, in their own view or under the influence of Jews and Christians, they had come to regard as forbidden, reprehensible, or disagreeable. Even though there was a ruling establishing their permissibility, they still wondered whether they might not at least be free from reprehensibility. Therefore, for peace of mind, they felt it necessary to learn what the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) himself had done in this regard. When they learned that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) had himself done a certain act, the notion that the act was at least disagreeable disappeared from their minds. For they regarded the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) as the model to be followed and firmly believed that an act he had performed could not be reprehensible or below the level of purity. This is an important reason why the Noble Prophet’s (peace be upon him) pure wives had to speak about certain matters of married and family life which no other woman could or would have described.
(5) This portion of the hadiths deserves to be counted among the most important evidence of Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) greatness and of the truth of his prophethood. Apart from Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), who else in the entire world could have had the audacity, throughout every moment of the nights and days of twenty-three years, to place himself before the eyes of the general public, expose even his private life, and permit his own wives to describe clearly before people the circumstances of his family life? And who in the whole history of humanity has been able to display such honest courage?
Detailed Evaluation of the Allegations
With the foregoing matters in view, let us examine separately each hadith presented by the learned judge.
In the first hadith, Hazrat Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) essentially intends to say that although the Noble Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was completely free from asceticism and maintained with his wives the same kind of relationship that people in the world maintain with their own wives, he nevertheless had such a profound relationship with Allah the Exalted that even after lying down in bed with his wife, the desire to worship would sometimes suddenly become overwhelming. He would then abandon worldly pleasures and comforts and rise in such a manner that it seemed he had no attraction to anything except the worship of Allah. The question is: who besides his wives could have spoken about this secluded aspect of the Noble Prophet’s (peace be upon him) pure life? If this information had not come to light, how could the world have known the true state of his devotion to Allah? Who does not display love and fear of Allah in gatherings of preaching and admonition? Only when one becomes aware of the hidden conditions and actions of a person’s private life does the state of deep and genuine love of Allah and God-consciousness become manifest.
The purpose of the second hadith is essentially to state that kissing does not itself invalidate ablution, unless seminal fluid is emitted because of sexual arousal. People generally thought that even if kissing itself did not invalidate ablution, it must at least cause some defect or impairment in one’s state of purity. To remove this doubt, Hazrat Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) had to state that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) himself prayed without renewing his ablution after kissing. Whether or not this matter is important to others, those who must perform prayer absolutely need to accept that it is essential to know under what circumstances they remain fit to pray and under what circumstances they do not.
In the third hadith, a woman needed to know what she should do if, like adult men, women also experienced a nocturnal emission. Since this occurs less frequently in women, they were unaware of the Shariah ruling concerning it. When the woman appeared before the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and asked about the matter, he told her that she too must bathe, just as men do; indeed, any woman must bathe if this occurs. In this way, through one woman he imparted an essential instruction to all women. If anyone objects to this, does he want women not to ask anyone about the necessary rulings of their lives, but instead, overcome by shyness, to continue doing whatever occurs to them by their own reasoning? In the second part of the hadith, in response to a woman’s astonishment, the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) explained a fact concerning physiology: just as adult men, adult women also emit a substance (semen) from their bodies. A child is produced through the union of the two, and the characteristics of whichever partner’s semen predominates appear more strongly in the child. Compare the detailed accounts of this hadith found in various sections of Bukhari and Muslim. In one narration, the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) said as follows:
“Is resemblance in the child caused by anything other than this? When the woman’s semen prevails over the man’s semen, the child resembles the maternal relatives; and when the man’s semen prevails over the woman’s semen, the child bears the characteristics of the paternal relatives.”
Through ignorance or hypocrisy, hadith deniers have interpreted these hadiths to mean that if, during intercourse, the man ejaculates before the woman, the child receives the influence of the paternal family; otherwise, the child resembles the mother. We are deeply concerned about the state of affairs in this country: ignorant, foolish, and base-natured people are publicly perpetrating this kind of deception in the name of knowledge of hadith, and even highly educated people, without investigation, have been influenced by it and fallen prey to the misconception that hadiths are filled with statements unworthy of belief.
In the fourth hadith, Hazrat Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) states that husband and wife may bathe together and that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) himself did so. It was principally couples who regularly performed prayer who needed to know this ruling. At dawn they repeatedly faced situations in which, because of the limited time, if one bathed after the other, one of them would miss the congregational prayer. In such circumstances, it was necessary to tell them that bathing together was not only permissible for husband and wife, but involved no wrong at all. It should also be understood in this connection that at that time the bathhouses in Madinah had no electric lighting, the dawn congregation was held at its earliest time, and women too went to the mosque to perform the dawn and night prayers in congregation. In view of all these facts, let someone tell us what in this hadith is unacceptable.
In the fifth hadith, Hazrat Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) states under what circumstances bathing becomes obligatory after a bad dream and under what circumstances it does not. In the sixth hadith, she states when bathing becomes obligatory while one is awake. No one can properly understand these two hadiths until he knows that, at that time, a disagreement had arisen among the Companions and the Followers concerning when bathing became obligatory.
Some Companions and their students had fallen into the misunderstanding that bathing becomes obligatory only when ejaculation occurs during intercourse. To remove this misunderstanding, Hazrat Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) had to state that this ruling applies only to a nocturnal emission, whereas in intercourse bathing becomes obligatory as soon as the two sexual organs meet, and that this was also the practice of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). It is clear that this ruling was extremely important for those who performed prayer. Those who believed that bathing became obligatory only upon ejaculation might have made the mistake of praying without bathing when ejaculation did not occur during intercourse with their wives. By making known the Noble Prophet’s (peace be upon him) own practice in this matter, the final decision was thereby established.
To understand hadiths numbered 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 correctly, it is necessary to know that the concept of a person being impure in a state requiring obligatory bathing or during menstruation existed in the earlier religious laws as well and was also presented in the Shariah of Muhammad. But the excessive extremism of Jewish and Christian religious leaders in the earlier religious laws made this concept so unbalanced that they came to regard the very existence of a person in this condition as impure. Under their influence, the people of the Hijaz, and especially menstruating women, became completely excluded from society.
The first hadith in the section entitled “Menstruation” of the Mishkat, the book from which the learned judge quoted these hadiths, states: “When women became menstruant, the Jews would abandon eating and drinking together with them, sleeping with them, and normal social interaction with them. The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) told the people that in this condition only intercourse was prohibited; all remaining forms of interaction would continue normally as before.” Even so, ancient notions remained among the people for a considerable period, and they continued to think that a woman’s existence during menstruation was at least somewhat impure, and that anything she touched in this condition necessarily became at least somewhat impure. To correct this notion and restore balance, Hazrat Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) had to state that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) himself did not avoid her during this condition. In his view, neither the water, nor the bedding, nor the prayer mat became impure. He further made clear that a menstruating woman could interact and associate with him normally. Had Hazrat Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) and the other wives of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) not eradicated this superstition by describing his practice, one can imagine the restrictions and difficulties we would face today in our family activities. Yet instead of expressing gratitude to those who showed us this favor, we now sit and wonder: could the wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him) really have uttered such things?
Objections Concerning Two More Hadiths
Then, in paragraph 28, the judge quoted two more hadiths in which the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) said that he had seen the gardens of Paradise and that most of their inhabitants were poor and needy. He had also seen Hell, and most of its inhabitants were women.
Regarding this hadith, he did not merely express the opinion, “I cannot bring myself to believe that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) could have said such a thing”; rather, concerning the first part of the hadith he gave the verdict: “Does this mean that Muslims have been forbidden to earn wealth and property?”
If someone views a hadith of this kind superficially, he will fall into the error mentioned by the learned judge above. But those who have studied hadith broadly and deeply, and before whom many such hadiths have been presented, know that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) did not relate this observation merely for the sake of telling a story; rather, he related it to reform people belonging to different groups. He certainly did not say that the wealthy are more deserving of Hell than the poor. Rather, he also told the wealthy what faults or sins they possess that bring about their destruction in the Hereafter, and what course of action they should adopt so that, as in their worldly life, they may enjoy happiness and comfort in the Hereafter as well. Similarly, in various addresses he told women what kinds of faults could cast them into the peril of Hell, from which they should refrain, and what good deeds could make them deserving of Paradise. Why should people who have no opportunity to study and investigate all the relevant aspects of a subject express an opinion based on their meager knowledge of it?
An Objection Against Another Hadith
Then, in paragraph 29, the learned judge said: “Furthermore, is it credible that Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, could have said what is reported on page 825 of Bukhari, narration no. 602/74, on the authority of Abdullah ibn Qais: that Muslims will have intercourse in Paradise with women seated in different compartments of a tent?”
We were extremely perplexed as to which book entitled Bukhari was ultimately meant by the reference to page 852. At last the doubt was removed: perhaps the work was the Urdu translation of Tajrid al-Bukhari published by Malik Muhammad and Sons. When the translation was brought out and examined, it was found that this was indeed the work being cited. Now consider, to some extent, this injustice and oppression: the learned judge expressed an ostensibly scholarly opinion in a judicial decision concerning the science of hadith, while citing an inaccurate translation whose translator’s name was not even mentioned in the book. Even more unjust and unfair is that, instead of reading the original language of the hadith, he read the language of the translation and issued his verdict without even realizing what errors the translation contained. The original text of the hadith and its correct translation are given below:
“In Paradise there is a tent constructed of ornamented pearls. Its breadth is sixty miles. The people in one compartment cannot see those in another compartment. The believers will go to them.”
(That is, they will keep visiting the inhabitants of each compartment in turn.)1
The translator rendered the underlined phrase “yatufuna alayhim” as “they will have intercourse with them,” and the learned judge based his verdict on this. Yet “tafa alayhi” means “to visit someone from time to time”; it does not mean “to have intercourse.” Regarding Paradise, the Noble Qur’an says:
يَطُوفُ عَلَيْهِمْ وِلْدَانٌ مُّخَلَّدُونَ
“There will go around among them young boys who will remain eternally young” (Surah al-Waqi‘ah 56:17; al-Dahr 76:19). Does this mean that these boys will have intercourse with them? In Surah al-Nur, concerning slaves and underage boys, it is commanded in verse 58 that they must not enter the private chambers of the master of the house without permission at three times. At other times they may enter without permission, and the reason given for this instruction is thatطوافون عليكم“they have to go around among you.” Here too, will the word tawaf mean intercourse? Even if the word “ahl” in the hadith under discussion means the wives of a believing man, who will live in different compartments of this sixty-mile-wide tent, is a man’s “visiting” the rooms of his own wives necessarily synonymous with “intercourse”? Does a decent man feel no attraction toward his wife except for this one purpose? This interpretation of the word tawaf can be offered only by someone whose mind and intellect have been basely overpowered by sexual impulse.
Two More Proofs, According to the Judge, That the Prophetic Sunnah Is Not a Source of Law
In paragraph 30, the learned judge presented two more proofs. (1) In the hadith narrated from Rafi ibn Khadij (may Allah be pleased with him), which he cited, the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) himself said that, in matters unrelated to the religion of Islam, his statements should not be regarded as final. (2) The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) himself emphasized this point—though here he cited no reference—that the Qur’an alone is the only book that ought to guide Muslims in all aspects and departments of life.
The first proof is demolished by the very hadith he presented. That hadith relates that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) gave the people of Madinah advice concerning date-palm cultivation. When they acted according to this advice, date production declined. On this basis he said: “When I give you an instruction concerning your religion, follow it; but when I say something according to my personal opinion, then I am only a human being.”
The foregoing hadith makes it clear that obedience to the Noble Prophet’s (peace be upon him) words is essential in matters that Islam has brought within the scope of its guidance. Of course, in matters that the religion of Islam has not brought within its scope, obedience to the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) personal opinion is not essential. Everyone can now see for himself which matters the religion has brought within its scope and which it has not. Clearly, Islam has not made it its responsibility to teach people gardening, tailoring, or cooking. But the Noble Qur’an itself testifies that Islam has included within its sphere of responsibility the task of laying down laws and regulations concerning civil and criminal law, family law, economic regulations, and all related matters of social life. How, then, can the above hadith be presented as evidence for rejecting the Noble Prophet’s (peace be upon him) guidance and direction concerning these matters?
Regarding his second proof, our request is this: kindly tell us in which hadith of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) it is stated that Muslims should turn only to the Qur’an to obtain guidance.
تركت فيكم امرين لن تضلوا ما تمسكتم بهما كتاب الله وسنة رسوله
“I have left among you two things. As long as you hold fast to them, you will never go astray: (1) the Book of Allah and (2) the Sunnah of His Messenger.” —(Muwatta of Imam Malik).
1. Bukhari, Bengali translation, vol. 4, Hadith no. 452; English translation by Dr. Muhsin Khan, vol. 6, Hadith no. 402; Muslim (Jannah), Tirmidhi (Jannah), Darimi (Riqaq), Musnad Ahmad, vols. 3 and 4 (translations).
Did the hadith scholars themselves have no confidence in the hadiths??
In paragraph 31, the respected judge has presented another argument. He says, “The fact that the hadith scholars themselves were not certain about the authenticity of the hadiths they collected is evident from this one point alone: they did not tell Muslims, ‘Accept the hadiths we have collected as authentic.’ Rather, they said, ‘Verify them according to the standards we have established for testing the authenticity of hadiths, and then satisfy yourselves.’ If they had been certain about the authenticity of these hadiths, the question of examination and scrutiny would have been entirely meaningless and unnecessary.”
Indeed, this is a strange argument. No talented and discerning person in the world calls anything correct until he himself can become assured of its authenticity. But one cannot expect a believing, talented person to demand worldwide that people believe in the results of his own investigation and research, and deceitfully tell them, ‘I consider this correct; therefore, you too ought to accept it as correct.’ He will say only that he will place before people all the information that comes before him in the course of his investigation and research, and will tell them, ‘On the basis of this information, I have reached this conclusion; verify it yourselves. If you become satisfied with the evidence I have presented, accept it; otherwise, the material is before you, so examine and scrutinize it yourselves.’ This is what the hadith scholars did. They recorded the complete chains of transmission for the reports of the words and deeds of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) that reached them. They separately described the condition of every narrator whose name appeared in each chain of transmission. They also clearly explained every factor found in the reports received through the various chains that could render them weak or strong in any respect. Regarding each hadith, they expressed their own assessment, saying, ‘On the basis of such-and-such evidence and arguments, we assign this hadith the status of authentic, or this degree of weakness.’
It is now clear that the hadiths which the hadith scholars call authentic through this reasoned method were regarded by them as authentic. If they had been unable to become certain of their authenticity and soundness, and had not developed such a conviction, why would they ultimately have called them authentic? Even then, was it necessary for them to make an appeal such as this: ‘O Muslims! You too should believe in the authenticity and soundness of these hadiths, because we have established them as authentic and sound’?
The allegation that hadiths are abridged and disconnected
In paragraph 33, the learned judge has made two statements, with which his argument comes to an end. The first is this: “The statements of a great many hadiths are very brief, disjointed, and unrelated. When they are read, it is clearly felt that they have been narrated after being detached from their preceding and succeeding context and from their proper place. It is not possible to understand them correctly or determine their true implications and significance until their context is brought into view and it is known under what circumstances and in what situation the Messenger of Allah made the relevant statement or performed the relevant act.”
His second statement is this: “It has been said, and said correctly, that a hadith cannot abrogate a Qur’anic ruling. But at least in one case, the hadiths have amended the Qur’an—and that concerns the matter of bequests.”
We shall conclude this criticism by offering a few sentences concerning the two statements mentioned above.
The first statement is essentially a reaction that may arise in a reader after reading one of the brief and small collections of hadiths with a completely superficial outlook. But after studying the vast and extensive treasury of hadiths in detail, the reader learns that the very hadiths narrated briefly and without connection in one place correspond fully, in another place, with their preceding and succeeding context and with all the related events. Even regarding hadiths for which no detailed account is available, reflection will show that the text itself points toward its context. However, only those people can properly comprehend that context who, after extensively studying the works of hadith and Sirah, have gained a sound understanding of the age of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and of the conditions, character, and nature of the society contemporary with him. They can determine what was suddenly said in a brief hadith, under what circumstances, where, and in what context it was said, and in the sequence of which events it occurred. We have already presented several examples of this at an earlier stage of this criticism while explaining a number of hadiths.
Does hadith alter or amend the Qur’an??
Regarding the second statement, we submit that if the hadiths concerning bequests, which the learned judge regards as equivalent to altering or amending the Qur’an, are read together with the inheritance rulings stated in Surah al-Nisa, it becomes unmistakably clear that those hadiths did not alter or amend the instruction of the Qur’an; rather, they explained it. In the second section of this surah, after specifying the shares of certain close relatives, it is stated that these shares are to be distributed after the deceased’s bequest has been carried out and his debts have been paid. Suppose a person makes a bequest that one of his heirs should receive less than the share specified by the Qur’an, another should receive more, and another should receive nothing. In that case, through this bequest he would essentially be deemed to have altered or amended the instruction of the Qur’an. For this reason, the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
لاوصية بوارث
“There is no bequest for an heir.” That is, the share specified for an heir in the Qur’an may not be eliminated, reduced, or increased through a bequest; rather, the deceased’s estate must be distributed among the heirs according to the Qur’an. Of course, anyone may make a bequest in favor of those who are not heirs, for social interests, or to spend in the way of Allah. But even under this permission, there was a danger that someone might, for some reason, bequeath all or most of his property to those who were not heirs and thereby deprive the heirs. Therefore, the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) imposed a further restriction on the property owner’s powers: he could make a bequest of only one-third of his property, while the remaining two-thirds had to be left for those entitled to it, whom the Qur’an has recognized as closer relatives and concerning whom it has advised that:
لَا تَدْرُونَ أَيُّهُمْ أَقْرَبُ لَكُمْ نَفْعًا
“You do not know which of them is nearer to you in benefit.” —(Surah al-Nisa, 4:11).
After properly understanding the principles and laws formulated by the Messenger (peace be upon him), the bearer and conveyor of the Qur’an, for acting according to the Qur’anic injunctions, let us be told on what reasonable evidence and argument this can ultimately be included within the definition of “alteration or amendment.” Before making such a statement, one ought to reflect: if the bearer and conveyor of the Qur’an himself does not explain and interpret the Holy Qur’an, then who will? And if this explanation had not been provided at that time, how would people, while exercising their rights of bequest, have distorted the substance of the Qur’anic law of inheritance? Even more astonishing is that the learned judge has deemed this correct explanation an “alteration or amendment,” yet he does not recognize that the learned, ijtihad-like explanations he himself has offered, as examples of his aforementioned conclusion, regarding three Qur’anic rulings actually fall within the definition of “alteration and amendment.”
Final submission
This is the complete body of arguments that the learned judge has presented in support of his judgment concerning hadith and Sunnah. After studying the discussion we have presented, evaluating each of his arguments in detail, every knowledgeable person can decide for himself how much weight these arguments carry and how strong are the proofs and evidence we have presented in support of the Sunnah as a source of law and the hadiths as reliable sources, in opposition to them. We appeal especially to the learned judge himself and to his friends to study this criticism with deep reflection. If, according to their impartial judgment—as the judgment of learned judges of a high court ought to be impartial—this criticism is truly based on strong arguments and evidence, then let them take such action under the law that the said judgment cannot become a precedent for the future. The dignity and prestige of the courts are the soul of the judicial system and justice of every country, and the stability of any country depends to a great extent upon them. If the judgments of a country’s higher courts are delivered on the basis of intellectually weak arguments and contain inadequate experience and inaccurate information, nothing is more damaging to their standing and dignity. Therefore, whenever such an error is identified through sincere, faith-inspired criticism, it is absolutely necessary that the judges of the courts themselves take steps to remedy it at the earliest opportunity.
(End)