Hadith as Scripture: Book Review

[AceOfHearts]

Book Review:

http://www.deenresearchcenter.com/Li...language=nl-NL


-

[Nawawi619]

AceOfHearts said

Book Review:

http://www.deenresearchcenter.com/Li...language=nl-NL


-

As Salamu Alaykum


So much for the claim that this work is original. Hadith Literature: Its Origin, Development, and Special Features by Dr Muhammad Zubayr Siddiqi along with its updated edition with Shaykh Abdul Hakim Murad of Cambridge has done not only a comprehensive study of the hadith literature but also dispels the attacks on the hadith literature by Orientalists. The Quran only cult basically just recycle orientalist arguments and use fringe "reformers" like rashid ridda, abduh, afghani and others of the "modernist" salafis to buttress their argument.

The following is a Book Review of Hadith Literature: It's Origin, Development and Special Features by Sunnipath.com instructor Shaykh Hamza Karamali SunniPath Blog - � Book Review: Hadith Literature: Its Origin, Development and Special Features

In the Name of Allah, Most Merciful and Compassionate

I recently finished reading Hadith Literature: Its Origin, Development and Special Features, by Muhammad Zubayr Siddiqi, the Late Professor of Islamic Culture at Calcutta University (may Allah have mercy on him). I loved this book so much that my wife got bored of hearing me sing its praises over dinner.

What delighted me most about this book was that it was pithy, to the point, and thoroughly documented—the mere 12.5 pages of Chapter 1 have no fewer than 96 “if-you-don’t-believe-me-then-look-here”-footnotes. For lack of their authors’ scholarship, most modern books are verbose and repetitive. Not this one. (The flip side is that you may have to read some passages more than once to really apprehend what’s being said.)

One of my dear friends guided me to this book and advised me to buy the Islamic Texts Society edition revised by Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad, not the original edition produced by the author. Curious about the differences between the two versions, I thought it would be worthwhile to procure both and do a comparison. The comparison turned out to be a lesson in ikhlas.

The front cover of the book reads,

Hadith Literature
Its Origin, Development & Special Features
by
Muhammad Zubayr Siddiqi

[ITS Logo]

The first page of the book is blank. The only words on the next page are, “Hadith Literature”. The third page initially appears to be a reproduction of the front cover. If you look closely, though, you may notice the obscure, small-print addition,

Edited and Revised by

Abdal Hakim Murad

I compared many pages of the original and new editions, and the book has been completely reworked by Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad, but— in his usual low-profile and unassuming manner—he seems to have concealed his labours, stepped aside, and given all credit to the original author.

Here are some of his changes that I noticed.

(1) The original Hindustani English of almost every sentence has been recast into the delightfully tight, scholarly, and elegant English of a native Englishman that makes you want to keep reading. A wonderful break from the Islamic literature in English that teems with language errors and poor style.




(2) The original author referred to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) by simply calling him “Muhammad”. The new edition recasts each reference into the respectful title, “the Prophet”. Tafsir al-Jalalayn says,

Make not the calling of the messenger among you as your calling one of another (by saying, ‘O Muhammad!’, but say, ‘O Prophet of God’, or, ‘O Messenger of God!’ gently, respectfully and in a low voice). (Tafsir al-Jalalayn on 24:63)

(3) The sometimes confrontational style of the original book (“the orientalist ABC says XYZ and I will now show you why he was wrong”) has been recast into a positive portrayal of the facts, and explicit mention of orientalist mistakes is often pushed out to the footnotes. Much of the Islamic literary scene, in contrast, is strewn with explicit and adversarial refutations of specific individuals. The point of writing books, though, is to convince readers, not to gratify one’s own ego by refuting them. If a reader is treated with respect, his ego will give way; if his ignorance is brazenly exposed, his ego will protest even if it knows that it is wrong.

(4) The new edition contains three invaluable appendices (there is no way, of course, to know that these are the fruits of the editor’s labour unless you return to the original book and discover their conspicuous absence).

The first appendix, called Women in Hadith Scholarship, brings to light the traditional role of women in the transmission of religious knowledge, a role that needs to be revived in our times.

The second appendix is a brief who’s who of orientalist scholarship, liberally sprinkled with incisive critiques of its most important mistakes.

The third appendix describes the orientalists’ hard work in producing a critical edition of the seminal Tabaqat of Ibn Sa`d. This highlights another key feature of the book as a whole: the authors are not ashamed to give credit where it is due. Although we disagree with many orientalist conclusions, we also acknowledge their valuable contributions, and perhaps their greatest contribution to the field of Islamic studies has been the publication of critical editions of rare and valuable classical works.

Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad writes in the Editor’s Preface,

It is to be hoped that in its new guise the work will continue to be of benefit in University courses on Islamic studies, and will, perhaps, serve to resolve a number of obstinate misunderstandings about the nature and provenance of this literature.

His hope deserves fulfillment: the next time I teach Introduction to Hadith Methodology, this book will—in sha Allah—be the required textbook.

As Salamu Alaykum


In other words Professor Aisha Musa's book is nothing more than poor attempt in trying to make "orthodox" the Quran only movement. The book I recommended in my previous post thoroughly refutes the "criticisms" of the Quran only cult and their parroting of orientalist critiques of the hadith literature.

[amuslim28]

Wa alaykum salaam,

>>The Quran only cult basically just recycle orientalist arguments and use fringe "reformers" like rashid ridda, abduh, afghani and others of the "modernist" salafis to buttress their argument.<<

Isn't that the issue examined in Hadith as Scripture: that opposition to the use and authority of Hadith goes back to the early centuries of Islam?

"Islamic literature from the third/ninth century onward records opposition to the transmitting and recording of Hadith among early Muslims. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, opposition to the Hadith has reemerged among Muslims, making this a question that has not been limited to one era only. Ignorance of these early disputes has contributed to the common misconception that opposition to the Hadith as an authoritative scriptural source of law and guidance is a modern-day, Western, Orientalist-influenced heresy." (Musa 1)

Jazaka Allah Khayr,

Abdullah

[bigmo]

Imam Al Shafi- The Risala

Excerpt: On Legal Knowledge

29. Someone asked me: What is [legal] knowledge and how much should men know of it?

30. Shafi’i replied: Legal knowledge is of two kinds: one is for the general public, and no sober and mature person should be ignorant of it.

31. He asked: For example?

32. [Shafi’i] replied: For example, that the daily prayers are five, that men owe it to God to fast the month of Ramadan, to make the pilgrimage to the [Sacred] House whenever they are able, and to [pay] the legal alms in their estate; that He [God] has prohibited usury, adultery, homicide, theft, [the drinking of] wine, and [everything] of that sort which He has obligated men to comprehend, to perform, to pay in their property, and to abstain from [because] He has forbidden it to them.

This kind of knowledge may be found textually in the Book of God, or may be found generally among the people of Islam. The public relates it from the preceding public and ascribes it to the Apostle of God, nobody ever questioning its ascription or its binding force upon them. It is the kind of knowledge which admits of error neither in its narrative nor in its interpretation; it is not permissible to question it.

33. He asked: What is the second kind?

34. Shafi’i replied: It consists of the detailed duties and rules obligatory on men, concerning which there exists neither a text in the Book of God, nor regarding most of them, a sunna. Whenever a sunna exists [in this case], it is of the kind related by few authorities, not by the public, and is subject to different interpretations arrived at by analogy.

35. He asked: Is [legal knowledge on this kind as obligatory as the other, or is it not obligatory so that he who acquires such knowledge performs a supererogatory act, and he who neglects it falls not into error? Or, is there a third kind, derived from a narrative (khabar) or analogy?

36. [Shafi’i] replied: There is a third kind [of knowledge].

37. He asked: Will you explain it, give its source, and state what [portion] of it is obligatory, and on whom it is binding and on whom it is not binding?

38. [Shafi’i] replied: The public is incapable of knowing this kind of knowledge, nor can all specialists obtain it. But those who do obtain it should not all neglect it. If some can obtain it, the others are relieved of the duty [of obtaining it]; but those who do obtain it will be rewarded.

This is Imam Al Shafi in his Risala. This was written about 150 years or more after the prophet passed away. Which begs the big question.

Why would Al Shafi have to explain something like this?

Because nobody has heard of this prior to this. therefore the concept of Sunnah is manufactured. Al Shafi said this knowledge(hadith) is not only a second revelation but is related and known by a few specialist and not the public. Hence the rise of a new class known as Ulema and Clerics and Hadith scholars. So who is Murad to talk about the Quranist being something new and unheard of before. Prior to Al Shafi nobody even heard of this Sunnah. All they knew was the Quran and the common rituals.

If someone was to ask a question like this today in most Sunni countries they will label him an apostate. Shafi then in his Risala goes on to lay the case for this second revelation from the Quran. He seperates God from the messenger in the Quran claiming the messenger is the Sunnah and God is the Quran. Shafi also seperates the Quran from hikma, claiming hikma which means wisdom is the Sunnah. So Shafi used the Quran to abrogate the Quran. How odd!

And if you want to know where Shafi and these so called Ahlul Sunnah got their fiqh and shariah from well take a look for yourself:

Islam and Judiasm - Influences Contrasts and Parallels

Enjoy the manufacturing. The nerve this guy Abdal Hakim Murad has!

[amuslim28]

Salaam alaykum,

bigmo said

This is Imam Al Shafi in his Risala. This was written about 150 years or more after the prophet passed away. Which begs the big question.

Why would Al Shafi have to explain something like this?

According to Musa, in Hadith as Scripture, "it is the arguments attributed to al-Shafi i that laid the foundations that eventually established the Hadith as the second revelatory source of law and guidance for the vast majority of Muslims" (31). I think on this you agree with Musa. However, Murad and others are showing the majority point of view, which accepted the arguments made by al-Shafi'i in Kitab Jima' al-'Ilm.

Musa also shows that in Kitab Jima' al-'Ilm, al-Shafi'i successfully convinces the opponents of Hadith that they are necessary (Musa 122).

Jazaka Allah khayr,
Abdullah

[bigmo]

amuslim28 said

Salaam alaykum,



According to Musa, in Hadith as Scripture, "it is the arguments attributed to al-Shafi i that laid the foundations that eventually established the Hadith as the second revelatory source of law and guidance for the vast majority of Muslims" (31). I think on this you agree with Musa. However, Murad and others are showing the majority point of view, which accepted the arguments made by al-Shafi'i in Kitab Jima' al-'Ilm.

Musa also shows that in Kitab Jima' al-'Ilm, al-Shafi'i successfully convinces the opponents of Hadith that they are necessary (Musa 122).

Jazaka Allah khayr,
Abdullah

How do we know that Shafi was able to convine anyone when the Mutawakkil supported Shafi point of view? Look what the Abbsids did to the Mu'tazilites. Plus many of those who people say were convined by Al Shafi went up to produce their own hadiths. Sunni scholars tell us that afetr Shafi an explosion of hadith took place and it was left for Bukhari and Muslim and others to "authenticate" these reports.

Its all messy. Anyways that does not change the fact that the Quran and Sunni/Shia teachings contradict one another in nearly all major issues. Rarely do we see any agreement between the Quran and Sunni/Shiasm. These sects agree with each other much more than either of them agree with Quran. Those who say we must follow the Quran and Sunnah really mean we should just follow the Sunnah and ignore what the Quran has to say. You can't follow both since they contradict each other in nearly every issue.

[Abu_Hind]

Man the juvenile contentions of this Hadith-rejecters are so outdated, I don't know how these people with their contradictions.

The fundamental flaw, with their argument, is that Rasul Allah (sal Allahu 'alayhi wassalam) was no more than a 'robotic' conveyer of 'information', nothing more. In other words, he just parroted out the 'wahy' that came to him, and that was about it. So, whatever came from himself, is not 'wahy', hence should be rejected. Really? Both Qur'an and Rasul Allah's 'explanation' of Qur'an came from his blessed mouth. So, the question arises how do these smart a$$es differentiate what is 'wahy' and what is not?! Because, if we go by their logic, we can just as easily reject the Word of Allah, by claiming these are words concocted by a man not God.

There is no historical way of proving that Qur'an is Word of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala, except through 'historical documentation'. And, the historical documentation that we have, which explicitly talks about Wahy descending upon Rasul Allah (sal Allahu 'alayhi wassalam), funny enough, are AHADITH.

Alhamdulilah, Qur'an validates hadith and hadith validates Qur'an. No matter how many arguments these juhala bring, they have all been thoroughly dealt with. Dr. Mustafa 'Azami's work "Studies in Early Hadith Literature" is one of the best in this regard.




The very basis of these Hadith rejecters, is so unbelievably illogical that we need not go any further.

[amuslim28]

alaam alaykum,

bigmo said

Its all messy. Anyways that does not change the fact that the Quran and Sunni/Shia teachings contradict one another in nearly all major issues. Rarely do we see any agreement between the Quran and Sunni/Shiasm. These sects agree with each other much more than either of them agree with Quran. Those who say we must follow the Quran and Sunnah really mean we should just follow the Sunnah and ignore what the Quran has to say. You can't follow both since they contradict each other in nearly every issue.

Yes, history shows it was very messy. But as Musa shows in Hadith as Scripture, the arguments of Imam al-Shafi'i are the arguments still used today to support the need for Hadith and and the arguments he attributed to the opponents of Hadith are the same used by the opponents of Hadith today. This shows that opposition to the Hadith is not based on modern Western Orientalist thinking. The debate is as old as Islam.

Jazaka Allah Khayr,
Abdullah

Salaam alaykum,

Abu_Hind said

So, the question arises how do these smart a$$es differentiate what is 'wahy' and what is not?! Because, if we go by their logic, we can just as easily reject the Word of Allah, by claiming these are words concocted by a man not God.

There is no historical way of proving that Qur'an is Word of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala, except through 'historical documentation'. And, the historical documentation that we have, which explicitly talks about Wahy descending upon Rasul Allah (sal Allahu 'alayhi wassalam), funny enough, are AHADITH.....

The very basis of these Hadith rejecters, is so unbelievably illogical that we need not go any further.

First, why do Muslims need historical proof that the Quran is the word of Allah (SWT)? Is that not a matter of faith? The Hadith come long after the Quran and all they prove is what Muslims believe about the Quran. Muslims have always believed that the Quran is from Allah (SWT) not because of Hadith but because the Quran says it is from Allah (SWT). The Quran declares itself to be wahy in 6:19, for example. Muslims did not wait for Hadith to validate this.

Second, I think it is clear that the rejecters of the Hadith differentiate what is wahy and what not very simply: the Quran is wahy, the Hadith are not. That is why Imam al-Shafi'i had to make the argument that Hadith are also wahy. Accepting Quran as wahy is a matter of faith for all Muslims, whether they reject or accept Hadith.

Jazaka Allah Khayr,

Abdullah