In recent discussion with friends, I was provided with a written text from a book entitled Maqam-e-Hadith by Mr. Pervez stating that there is firm evidence suggesting that there should be no written text to rival the Qur’an. He quotes three instances of the erasing of Hadith. The first is an order by the Prophet to his companions to erase any statement of his they might have written down. The second speaks of Abu Bakr asking his daughter to bring him any Hadith written down and then destroying it. The third speaks of Omar asking all Muslims to bring over all that they had of Hadith written down and when it was all collected, he ordered that it should all be burned. While this raises doubt about the very existence of Hadith, it is in clear conflict with what we have learned that the Qur’an and the Hadith are the sources of the Islamic faith, its principles and details.
This is the gist of a letter which I received from Mr. Islam Khan who seems to be very disturbed by what he has read. Let me tell him that such writings are both numerous and frequent. They come up from time to time to question the position of the Hadith and the Sunnah, suggesting always that only the Qur’an is the text to be implemented, and that Muslims should pay no attention to anything else. However, such writers do not seem to understand the Qur’an which they claim to revere. They do not know what they are talking about when they suggest that they do not want anything to detract from the sanctity of the Qur’an, by being considered as complementary or a rival to it.
The first thing to be said in answer to such writers is that no Muslim, not even the most articulate defender of the position of Hadith, puts Hadith on the same level with the Qur’an. There is no such thing as a rivalry between the Qur’an and the Hadith in any sense whatsoever. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we are presented with a Hadith which is in clear disagreement with a clear text in the Qur’an, and we are told at the same time that all Hadith collections confirm it as authentic. What do we do with such a Hadith?
We simply disregard it without hesitation because of its being in conflict with the Qur’an. At no time did the Prophet say anything that may be considered to disagree with the Qur’an. In fact, all that he said or did provide us with guidance on how the Qur’an should be implemented in practical life. When we take the Prophet’s Sunnah, whether it is verbal or practical, we find nothing in it that does not serve the proper implementation of the Qur’an. Hence, we conclude that those who raise doubts as to the importance or the position of the Sunnah in Islamic life do not wish the Qur’an to be implemented.
God tells us in the Qur’an: “Whatever the Prophet bids you, take it; and whatever he forbids you, refrain from it.” (59: 7). He also says in more than one Surah: “Obey God and obey the messenger.” (24: 54). And He says: “Whoever obeys the messenger obeys God.” (4: 80). There are many other examples of clear Divine orders instructing us to obey God’s messenger, Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him). They confirm that by so doing we obey God Himself. If we were to disregard the Hadith and claim that it has no position in Islamic legislation, how are we to implement God’s orders? If we claim that the Hadith was destroyed and no longer exists, how are we to explain these repeated orders by God to obey the Prophet, when there is no statement by the Prophet to obey?
In fact, this affects every aspect of our faith. For example, God commands us clearly to offer our prayers. He does not tell us in the Qur’an how or when to pray, or the number of prayers we should offer each day. All this has been given to us by the Prophet in statements he said and in action he did. He says: “Pray in the manner you have seen me pray.”
If we were to say that the Hadith has no validity, or no position in Islamic legislation, or that it was destroyed and no longer exists, then it does not matter whether we pray once a day or once a week, or we perform our prayers in the way Christians, Jews or Buddhists offer theirs, because the order we have in the Qur’an only tells us to offer prayers without indicating any details. It is the Sunnah which provides all these details. But some people want to do away with it. In fact, they want to change the whole religion of Islam, and to make it a skeleton without flesh. But God foils their attempts and preserves His religion intact.
Moreover, God tells us clearly in the Qur’an that the Prophet does not say anything of his own accord. It is all revealed to him. “He does not say anything based on his own desire. It is all but revelation that has been revealed to him.” (53: 3-4). This applies to everything that the Prophet said that is relevant to the Islamic faith. Scholars divide revelations into three types: 1) the Qur’an which is revealed by text and meaning. Every word in the Qur’an is the word of God, and it has been revealed as it is. It does not admit any change at any time. Its recitation is a form of worship. It is recited in prayer, which is unacceptable unless it contains some portions of the Qur’an. 2) The Hadith, which is an expression in the Prophet’s own words of meanings that are revealed to him from on high. 3) The sacred, or qudsi Hadith, in which the Prophet quotes a statement attributing it to God. The last two types are not read in prayer, and their recitation is not a form of worship.
Besides, God has not guaranteed their preservation in their original forms like He preserves the Qur’an. He left this task to the Muslim community, and its scholars like Al-Bukhari, Muslim and others have certainly done a good job of it.
Let us now consider the instances Mr. Pervez mentions in his book. The first is a statement by the Prophet requiring those who had written down Hadith to erase it. Every statement must be taken within its context. This the Prophet said in the early days of Islam, when the Arabs, mostly unlettered people, were receiving the message directly from him, and the Qur’an was in the process of revelation.
The Prophet feared that in the situation that applied at the time that the Hadith might have been confused with the Qur’an. Therefore, he wanted to ensure that what was written was only the Qur’an. The Hadith was meant to be learned and reported verbally. He was available to correct any mistakes that might have occurred. Later on, when Muslims were better aware of the text of the Qur’an, and the number of people who could read and write increased, the Prophet allowed his companions to write down the Hadith. Many of them did. None of them said to him that they would not do so because he had earlier told them not to write the Hadith. Why do people nowadays say something to that effect? Why would they obey the first order, but not the second?
Besides, who says that writing down the Hadith is the only form of preserving it. In fact, committing it to memory, particularly in the early days of Islam, is far more important. When we rely on written text only, and do not support that with good memory, we run the risk of distortion. The Qur’an itself is memorized more than it is written down. When Othman sent copies of the Qur’an to the main centers of the Islamic state, he wanted these to be a sort of reference to confirm what people memorized. There were far more people who learned the Qur’an by heart than copies of it. Yet no one suggests that the Qur’an is not valid because it was not written on paper in sufficient numbers of copies.
The scholars of Hadith have done a marvelous job in ensuring that every statement attributed to the Prophet is verified, and only when it has been proved as authentic it is implemented. By doing so, they have facilitated for all Muslim generations to follow the Divine instruction to obey God’s messenger. Yet writers like Mr. Pervez want us to disregard all this heritage of unrivaled scholarship, although it means in practice a willful negligence of God’s order to obey His messenger. We, as Muslims, know that their argument has no sound basis. We continue to obey God’s messenger, because by doing so we obey God Himself, as He says: “Whoever obeys the messenger is obedient to God.” (4; 80)
As for the other two incidents the writer mentions, we say that even if they were correct, they are actions by the Prophet’s companions. Their actions or views represent their own discretion. They are not binding on other generations of Muslims. All the Prophet’s companions reported Hadiths and considered them as basis for actions they did. When they were asked why they did certain matters in a certain fashion, they answered that they either saw the Prophet doing it in that fashion, or heard him recommending or ordering it. This applies to Abu Bakr and Omar as well as all the Prophet’s companions.
When we declare that we are Muslims, we state that we believe that there is only one God, and that Muhammad is God’s messenger. What does the second half of this statement mean? It simply means that we take from Muhammad (peace be on him) whatever he taught, as he is the person through whom God has conveyed His message to us. How can we decline that and say at the same time that we believe in him as God’s messenger? To reject his Hadith is to reject him as a messenger. That takes any person outside the fold of Islam altogether.
