Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Debate WIth Anti Hadeeth in Malaysia-Today PArt 2

07/01: Anti Hadeeth From Another Persepctive – Part 2

Category: General
Posted by: Raja Petra

By Rahman Celcom (

Dear readers,

My earlier postings were replied in two parts by True Muslim (TM). I however feel that I have more to add to my earlier postings. Considering the poor quality of response by TM, I think I should just go on to add to my earlier article and reply to his reply in a separate article.

Readers should share my disappointment when I am forced to reply points like below:

1) TM says: “Also, note that Rahman has tabulated ONLY 17 occurrences of the word 'hadith'. Rahman surely you know that there are more than 17 occurrences of 'hadith' in the Quran.”

My response: So what if it occurs more than 17 times. I never said that it had occurred less than 17 times. My point is that the word Al Hadeeth carries more than one meaning throughout the entire Al Quran. This is something TM has failed to disapprove.

2) TM also says: “But Rahman forgets that the Quran was revealed in Arabic. In Arabic the word used is 'hadith' and 'hadith' only (in 39:23, 45:6 etc). It is Rahman's English translation which has used different English words like message, explanation, exposition, story, etc.”

My Response: Let’s apply TM’s definition of the word “Al Hadeeth” (TM translates it Revelations) to the other verses, say 23:44.

wajaalna hum ahadisa

Using TM’s definition: “we turn them into a Revelation/Quran????”
The right translation: “we turn them into a tale/story”

The question I ask TM is that why would God wants to turn the people who rejects His Prophets into REVELATIONS?

So the moment we adopt TM’s way of translation, the entire Quran goes haywire. In any case, the verse above proves beyond any doubt that the word Al Hadeeth carries many meanings in the Quran.

3) After that, TM comments on dream and the word hadeeth. He says:

“In 12:06 the word hadith does not mean 'dream'. The Arabic word for dream is 'rukya' which appears in the previous verse 12:5. In 12:6 Allah taught Joseph to understand the message (wayu - allimuka min ta' weeli al-hadeethi) of the rukya or dream that he had in 12:5. Please double check your Arabic..”

My Response: Since the word Hadeeth in 12:06 is connected with an alif-lam called “alif lam maa’rifah”, in the Arabic language, it then takes the meaning of the word “dream” as mentioned in 12:05. In short Alif Lam Maa’rifah makes it possible for it to take the meaning of the word “dream”.


Despite his all out effort to discredit me by picking on small mistakes that I make (due to hastiness since I was alone in writing this article), TM fail to deny the fact that the word Al Hadeeth in the Quran takes many meanings.

The question is now is the Al Hadeeth mentioned in the verses he quoted (45:06 and 39:23) can be referred to the “Al Hadeeth An Nabi” or not?

We know that the word Al Hadeeth in 45:06 takes on the meaning “exposition”. TM tries to argue that exposition and explanation has the same meaning. Yet, exposition can also take the meaning “the act of presenting to view; display” ( which is more accurate considering the context of the verse. It also explains why Yusuf Ali did not use the word “explanation”. Or does TM only knows one definition of the word exposition?

As for 39:23, the right translation for the word Al Hadeeth would be “the message”. (I mistakenly put it under “explanation”). However, the verse 39:23 only states that the Quran is “The Most Beautiful Message”. It did not say anything about the Quran being THE ONLY MESSAGE.

Therefore, none of the verse quoted by TM negates the “Al-Hadeeth-An-Nabi”. The anti hadeeth claim on hadeeth is baseless.

In addition, even the word Al Kitab has many meanings in the Quran:

02:02 : Al Quran, 18:49 : Book of Deeds, 11:110 : Torah


The verse I quoted (02:129, 02:151, 03: 164, 62: 02, 04: 113) Allah mentions that God has revealed two forms of Revelations through the Prophet, Al Kitab and Al Hikmah. The word 'Al Kitab' and 'Al Hikmah' is connected with a 'wau' (and) and in the Arabic language this signifies TWO DIFFERENT ARTICLES.

Since, Al Hadeeth is nothing more than the collections of the teachings of the Prophet other than the Quran it is therefore a Revelation from Allah SWT. In short, the Quran refers to the Hadeeth as Al Hikmah.

TM tries, in vain, to bring forward an alternative explanation by quoting 36:02, 'wal quranilhakeem'. Yet, one can easily see that the word Al Quran and Al Hakeem is not connected with any “huruf atf” (connector). So, 36:02 is not the right explanation for all the verses I quoted above.

And in his answers TM repeatedly exhibits his ignorance of the Arabic language. For instance, when he questions the verse 16:44 he says:

“TM: Ah yes, Rahman, your famous 16:44: We provided them with the proofs and the scriptures. And we sent down to you this message, to explain for the people everything that is sent down to them, perhaps they will reflect. So you say ‘to explain’ (li tubayyi linnas) is referring to the al hadith. Rahman, as I said the word Al Hadeeth is not found anywhere in these verses.”

My Response: How can one compare the word 'Li Tubayyin' with the word 'Al Hadeeth' when the former is “verb” (Al Feel) and the latter is a noun (Al Ism)? To answer him, the word Al Hadeeth is not mentioned because it does not fit the sentence.


By now I’m sure that readers can tell that all my arguments supporting Al Hadeeth is solely based upon the Quran. In short, I have quoted nothing more than the Quran

At the same time, TM and the Anti Hadeeth sect argues from the Quran standpoint.

The sole differentiating factor would be that my argument is based upon the Arabic language (among all) while the Anti Hadeeth sect relies on whimsical and free-hand interpretation of the translation of the Quran.

The fact that TM is unaware of the many meanings of the word Al Hadeeth in the Quran is a fine example of clear deficiency in the Arabic language.

He tries to cover his weakness by attacking small typo mistakes here and there. But the typo mistakes only prove that the article is the work of one man, that is myself and not that of a committee. In fact, it took me less than two days to write.


TM’s explanation on this issue is wishy-washy at best. Here’s why:

a. First he confirms that the Bible is not Injeel that was revealed to Isa AS.
b. Then he quotes 02:97 which states that the Quran confirms previous scriptures.

Since the Bible is not Injeel, therefore, 02:97 DOES NOT CONFIRM the Bible as previous scriptures. The Injeel, however, is Revelations from Allah SWT.

Yet, the prohibition of swine example that I quoted was from THE BIBLE and not INJEEL. And the same prohibition can be found in the Quran. Since the Bible is NOT INJEEL as TM has stated so eloquently. Therefore, by TM’s logic, the Quran also speaks in the language of the Bible.

At this point anyone can see how confused and dazed TM is. His entire theory is blown to smithereens.

Also, the verse 03:71 is too general anyways. It could mean anything.


In spite of all the words uttered, TM still has not furnished us with one proof of his claim on Imam Bukhari. He claimed that Imam Bukhari had declared other than the 7000 hadeeth he puts in As Sahih is unauthentic.

Those learned in Ulum Al Hadeeth would know that Imam Bukhari had never declared other than the 7000 hadeeth to be unauthentic.

My only comment is for those who accuses Imam Bukhari of something and fail to provide proof, he/she is an outright liar.

As for the question of who wrote Sahih Bukhari, let me remind all of us that the works of Imam Bukhari have been studied by all scholars, muslims and non. Yet, not a single one of them ever doubted that the Sahih was written by Imam Bukhari.


Here we see clearly how the Anti Hadeeth sect uses their whims and fancies to fit the Quran with the western liberal ideology.

'anfusakum' is plural to the word 'nafs' which means “oneself”. 'Anfusakum' means “yourselves”. I am perplexed where how TM managed to turn the original meaning of the word into something totally far from its real meaning? What is his basis for doing so?

Also, at the start of the verse, Moses is said to be addressing His People and he said “O my People”. 'Qala Musa Liqaumihi, Ya Qaumoihi'. If we go by TM’s interpretation, then Moses would have been addressing his people’s EGO instead.

And it would have been silly for Moses to ask his people to “kill their ego”? How can one kill their ego? The only possible way of doing that is by killing oneself.

What’s clear is that Anti Hadeeth sect refuse to consider any verses in the Quran that contradicts their liberal ideology. Instead of accepting the verse as it is, they try to reinterpret 02:54 in accordance to their whims and fancies.

Also, please bear in mind that if the punishment for apostasy has been abrogated, then 02:54 need not have been mentioned.

(Incidentally, the same penalty is mentioned in Exodus 28-29 which by TM’s logic would indicate that the Quran also speaks in the language of the Bible).

As for 02:55, the verse refers to a totally different incident and certainly not the incident in 02:54. For one, it was referring to the time when the Bani Israel was demanding to see God and God struck them with lightning bolt. Notice the word 'wa iz' at the start of the verse. It’s a clear indication that it is referring to a totally different incident.


After 1,400 years of scholarly work by generations of Islamic scholars, one is forced to find writings of anti-hadeeth nature not is Islamic literatures of the past 1400 but in Orientalist writings back in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. Examples are as follows:

I. I. Goldzeiher - Muhammedenishe studien
II. J. Sacth - The Origins Of Muhammaden Jurisprudence
III. A.Guillaume - The Traditions Of Islam
IV. S.Mackensen Ruth - “Arabic Books and Libraries In The Umayyad Period” American Journal Of Semantic Journal and Literature.

The trouble with orientalists is that none of their criticism holds water. For one, they tend to contradict themselves. For instance, the strong criticism of the Isnad system in hadeeth by orientalist was rebutted by other orientalist like J. Robson and W.W. Watt. J. Robson wrote in The Isnad Of Muslim Tradition that the Isnad system has already existed in the middle of First Hijrah Century.

In any case, countless work from Islamic scholars, namely Yusuf Al Qardhawi and specifically in Al Hadeeth, Muhammad Mustafa Al Azami, has effectively put to rest various criticism made by orientalists on the Hadeeth and the Isnad system.

Unfortunately, the Anti Hadeeth sect had refused to read counter arguments made against the Orientalist and adopted the Orientalist view wholesale.


One fact the Anti Hadeeth sect refuses to consider is that the Quran and Hadeeth was brought down to us over generations via the same channel.

In short, the same people that handed down the Quran are the same individuals that transmit the Hadeeth. For anyone to reject the hadeeth, it’s only a matter of time before he/she rejects the Quran.


The version I sent to Raja Petra contained tables and cannot be published on the blog, this particular part of the article was not presented properly.

1) Confusion No. 1: Punishment For theft and fornication as stated in the Quran (05:38 and 05:02)
Anti Hadeeth Way: Punishment can be carried out without due process because the Quran does not prescribe due process resulting in chaos and absolute anarchy in the society.
The Truth: The way punishment is carried out as stated in 05:38 and 05:02 is shown by the Prophet SAW. In the hadeeth, due process was clearly demonstrated to us.

2) Confusion No. 2: Inheritance to children who had murdered their parents (04:11 states on inheritance)
Anti Hadeeth way: The murdering children are allowed to receive their inheritance. Hurrah for the Menendez brothers.
The Truth: There is a hadeeth stating exceptions to children who murder their parents.

3) Confusion No. 3: Consuming the carcass of dead animals (The Quran prescribe to it’s followers that animals which are to be consumed must be properly slaughtered - 05:03)
Anti Hadeeth Way: It will cover all types of animals including sea animals. In short, the next time the Anti Hadeeth open their can of sardines, they will have to ensure that the sardines are slaughtered properly.
The Truth: There is a hadeeth making -exceptions to sea-living animals i.e. fish, squid

4) Confusion No. 4: In 05:38, there is no mention of minimum limits for a thief to be qualified for amputation
Anti Hadeeth Way: Even if a man steal a clove of garlic, he will be amputated.
The Truth: There is a hadeeth stating that only is the value of loot is more than ¼ of a deenar will a thief have his hands amputated.

5) Confusion No. 5: The Quran states many times about Az Zakah
Anti Hadeeth Way: There is simply no methodology at all for the anti hadeeth to follow.
The truth: The methods are clearly mentioned in the sunnah, ijma and qiyas.

6) Confusion No. 6: Various ibadah clearly mentioned in the Quran, i.e fasting, solat, al hajj, jihad, sadaqah, inheritance, marriage, divorce, commerce etc
Anti Hadeeth Way: AN ABSOLUTE MESS. There is absolutely no methodology shown in the Quran, so the anti hadeeth will be practicing such ibadah at best by guessing.
The Truth: The method to carry out all the ibadah above is as shown to us by the Prophet as recorded in the Al Hadeeth.


TM says:

“Anyway, let us see 2:129 which you quoted above to justify ‘God has indicated the existence of two forms of revelations’. Here is 2;129.

[2:129] Our Lord! And raise up in their midst a messenger from among them who shall recite unto them 1. Thy revelations, and shall instruct them in the 2. Scripture and in 3. wisdom and shall 4. purify them.

You say two things but Rahman it looks like there are four things here. The Rasul will:

1. recite revelations (Quran?) yatloo alaihim ayatika
2. instruct in the Scripture (what is this?) yu allimuhu kitaaba
3. instruct in wisdom (you say al hadith?) wal hikmata
4. and purify them (what is this?) yuzakeehim

Rahman, you keep harping ‘two things, two things’, because that is what Syafie told you. But look at this verse you yourself quoted. There are four things man. 1. Ayatika, 2. kitaaba, 3. hikmata and 4. yuzakeehim. Using your logic (borrowed from Syafie) it looks like Rasul has four things to do and not two.

Using your borrowed logic, there are now FOUR types of divine revelations!”

My Response:

TM cannot tell the difference between “verb” (Al-Feel) and “noun” (Al Ism). When the issue of “Revelations” (Wahi) is mentioned, we are talking about “nouns” not “verbs”. Allah’s Revelations are nouns and not verbs.

Take means “recite revelation”. It is “feel Amr” and cannot be a “revelation” because it is not a noun (ism). It’s a verb (feel amr). The same goes to 'yuzakeehim'. The only noun in the entire verse is 'Al Kitab' (The Book) and 'Al Hikmah' (The Wisdom)

Therefore, since what Allah SWT has revealed are “nouns”, then they are none other than “Al Kitab” and “Al Hikmah”.


TM says:

“What do you mean by ‘Al Hadeeth’? This is an isme ma’rifah? We all know Rahman Celcom’s famous isme ma’rifah don’t we?”

My Response:

ROPE use to be Anti Hadeeth sect’s mailing list. After spending a few months actively participating, the Rope mailing list curators have decided to ban me for life. Each time I enter the mailing list, I kept getting kicked out. It seems that their effort to convert me had backfired badly. Instead, most of their lies were exposed throughout the entire mailing-list making it difficult to convert new members.

One thing I noticed is that there is a complete ignorance of the Arabic language by the members of the sect. Why I kept winning arguments (against a myriad of characters) is by referring to one of the most basic concept of the Arabic language, Al Ism Al Maarifah.

Many times I caught their mistakes in interpretation of the Quran simply because they have totally neglected the existence of Ism Maarifah in the verses they quoted. Their entire case is blown simply by highlighting this small mistake.

And it is not true that the Anti Hadeeth sect respects the freedom of expression. My forced expulsion is a clear testimony.


Anti Hadeeth has a weird belief that the Arabic language can be learnt from the Quran. It is as if the Quran is a self taught language book (A How-To book for learning the Arabic language).

But the truth of the matter is that one has to learn Arabic to understand the Quran. The Quran was not sent down by God to teach humans Arabic.

While it is true that the Quran revolutionized the Arabic language, it does not contain instructions in basic Arabic for beginners. One must learn Arabic first before one can understand the Quran.

That is why we see ridiculous statement like:

“In 12:06 the word hadith does not mean 'dream'. The Arabic word for dream is 'rukya' which appears in the previous verse 12:5”

TM doesn’t know that the word Al Hadeeth can represent the meaning of the word Ar Rukya in 12:06. But, those who know Arabic can tell you that it is allowable.

Check with Yusuf Ali’s translation and even he says that Al Hadeeth in 12:06 is the dream.


I hope that readers exposed to Anti Hadeeth ideology would take some time to carefully study their points and argument. There is more than meets the eye when it comes to Anti Hadeeth ideology. It is not as rosy as it looks.


1) Reply To Rahman Celcom - Part 2
2) Reply To Rahman Celcom - Part 1
3) Anti-Hadeeth from another perspective - Part 1
4) Pas’ Bible Link
5) Who’s anti-Hadith?


Anonymous said...

In my opinion you are not right. I am assured. I can defend the position. Write to me in PM, we will discuss.