We have read time and time again in this forum the word Arabism mentioned and linked to Islam and Islamists. Those responsible for mentioning it keep repeating this line over and over again. Yet, rarely do we see any form of evidence or even credible opinions from respected researchers to support such thesis.
Historically, such accusation is not new. Back in the late 1800’s orientalists like Goldzeiher and J Satch had tried to forward such theories. But, unfortunately, their attempt failed miserably due to the fact, they lack any evidence for such claim.
I’ve also decided to accept MarinaMeir’s advice and refrain from my “he is an idiot” course. Suffice to say that my coming postings will prove detractors of Islam to be just that. This posting is about those who repeatedly float the nauseating beliefs that Islam is derived from Arabism
GO AHEAD AND REJECT THE QURAN, THEN
Now it seems the accusation has re-appeared. Sadly, it is being uttered by those who claim to profess faith in Islam. They do not realize what they’re doing contradicts their own faith.
One notable reason for this is the fact that the Quran is sent down by God in the ARABIC LANGUAGE. The Quran itself testifies to this in at least 10 verses. To quote one:
12:02. We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an, in order that ye may learn wisdom.
Clearly, those who are not comfortable with influence of Arabs in Islam should opt to discard the Quran altogether. This is due to the fact that the Quran itself UNEQUIVOCALLY state that it is in the Arabic language. Moreover, it’s stated 10 times, at least, in the Quran.
The correct understanding of the Quran must be made from its original language standpoint, not from it’s translation. Otherwise, the gist of its meaning will be lost.
POSSIBLE REASONS FOR SUCH ACCUSATIONS
Farouk and his likes decides to adopt this outrageous accusations for reasons that still evades most of us. To date, we have seen no evident whatsoever.
One possible theory is that Islamists adopts a clear methodology when interpreting the Quran. A methodology that is steeped into the Arabic language discipline. In other words, when the Quran is understood in it’s original language, it results in beliefs and teachings that contradicts the prevalent secular liberal reality.
For instance, the acceptance of Al Hadeeth An Nabawi is a product of clear understanding of the Quran from an Arabic language standpoint. In other words, when the Quran is understood in it’s original language, it makes acceptance of Al Hadeeth An Nabawi as automatic.
Muslim modernists do not want to accept hadeeth. Such refusal is motivated by a myriad of reasons, which I will expose later in my later postings. On the other hand, they must extract their justification from the Quran itself to gain legitimacy (on their ideas).
The best way of doing so is by reinterpreting the Quran from its translations rather from it’s original text and language.
And to cover their tracks, they harp on issues like Arabism creeping into Islam, making funny and defective terms like pace-ism, calling true muslims as kufr and rejector of the Quran.
These are, in truth, strategies adopted by “modernist muslims” to cover their own deficiencies in understanding the Quran: understanding the Quran NOT IN THE QURAN’s LANGUAGE.
In truth, the rejection of Islamists view of things is simply because of the Islamist’s insistence of understanding the Quran in the way the Quran has prescribed. And not the way the liberal secularists have expected Muslims to understand their religion, a’la agnostics.
We can also safely conclude that M Bakri Musa, Farouk Peru and the rest represent the agnostic elements in the muslim world.
SHIP OF OXYMORONS
From a cultural standpoint, it is highly difficult to swallow such theory as well. This is because Islam was severely resisted by the Arabs when it first came to them.
The main reason behind such resistance is the fact that Arab culture and norms at the time was in sharp contrast to Islam. The Islamic teachings brought by the Prophet pbuh contradicts most of what the Arabs had believed in for so long.
For instance, the Arabs were steeped in:
h. Infanticide (now they call it abortion but it’s basically the same thing)
i. Idol worshipping
l. Practice in meaningless wars
and many more.
When Islam came, Islam came and changed all this. Islam went through difficulties in changing the Arab ways like above, but eventually Islam prevailed.
In actual fact, Arabism is closer to the Liberal West rather than Islam. That explains Syed Qutb’s view on creeping westernization into Islam. He views them as “Jahilliya” and with Muslims accepting westernization, they are actually going back to ways of the “Jahilliya”.
It’s not true that Islam is influenced by Arab cultures and norms. But, the truth is actually the reverse. Arabs were changed and adopted Islam as their dominant culture. The Arabs were transformed beyond recognition from their former self making their former Jahilliyya self vanished and what is prevalent in them is Islam.
That is, until they started to adopt Westernization.
Therefore, to claim that Islam is influenced by Arabism is an OXYMORON, by definition. Those responsible for such accusation deserves the named as “morons”
SILLY TERMS AND NAMES MADE OUT OF NOTHING.
We know the likes of Farouk came out with terms such as “pace-ism” which only make himself look like a fool for doing so. Personally, I think sit sounds more like a broken medical apparatus. My wife thinks that it sounds more like a disease.
One will see that the likes of Farouk, M Bakri Musa and the rest fail to provide any evidence to support their claim or their terminology. They float such term with hope that the mass will accept them without question.
But, now I hope readers will not adopt their ways for you will only book yourself for a permanent cruise on the ship of oxymorons.
REPLY TO FAROUK’S LATEST RANTINGS
I shall quote a number of his statement but not all. I believe the article above is enough to destroy his whole reason for existence considering he is bent on cleaning Islam from fictitious elements or Arabism, to which until today he hasn’t been able to provide any evidence for.
Also, please remember that in spite of what Farouk says about the previous Caliphates, Muslims have fared better in the worst of the Caliphates as compared to the present. That is living under secular leaders ruling nation states created by the West in line with their Neo Colonialism policies.
No matter what Farouk says, this is something Farouk can never disapprove.
“I forgot you are Rahman al-Muadheen as well, the guy who reads the Quran in shreds. 24/55 ends by saying ‘waman kafara baAAda thalika faola-ika humu alfasiqoona’.
My Reply: So are u saying that the failure of Prophet Nuh to convice his people is because he went back to being a “Fasiqeen”? Is that why? Can we say the same about Prophet Ibrahim, Ismail, Ishaq, Yaacub, Yusuf, Ayub etc?
Anyways, the phrase above is not even close to a timeline. Anyone who reads it will tell u that it’s far from being a timeline, it’s just an indicator.
Also, maybe Farouk would like to curse Prophet Isa (Jesus) AS for “failing” in his duties since Isa AS didn’t get any “inheritance of power” from God? Is Isa AS also not adhering to the teachings of Allah? IS that why he didn’t get any inheritance of power from Allah SWT?
I don’t know where you got that information but Isaa and his people achieved victory over their enemies. See 61/14 please. Maybe now you’ll stop calling other people ‘idiots’.
My Reply: Tell me what part of 04:157 do you not understand? How do u explain Jesus being raised up to Allah as equal to “inheriting power” in 22:54??
Also, tell me what part of 61:06 do you not understand?. What part of “qalu haza sihrun mubeen” in 61:06 didn’t u understand, Farouk. ( 61:06 : ….they say ( the Bani Israel , the people of Isa) this is evident sorcery!"
Farouk took 61:14 but he didn’t take 61:06. And he calls me “taking the Quran in shreds”.
Farouk takes the Quran in pieces. Therefore, your’re a bona fide “mukassar”?
And he has a very bad mouth too, calling people what he is completely guilty of.
Quote # 3: Good question. If you analyse the developments which went on during Umayyad and Abbasid periods, you will find that the national and academic developments happened in a certain period. This was the period where the rationalism of the Mutazilah held sway over the empire.
Then, u do admit that the pre-islam arab has no similarities to the Chaliphates political and administration structure? At last you’re admitting your past mistakes. That’s a good progress.
And u say Muktazilah held sway? Can u show me when and where did this happened? When was the last time the Abbasid or the Ummayid or the Ottoman has ever been a Muktazili?
Or do u have any evidence to show that the Muktazili is behind all of the greatness of the Islamic empire? Because I am hard pressed to find any.
The Muktazili, historically, broke into so many divisions and groups. This is a historical fact. In short, their belief structure was so fragile and unfounded, that they were unable to maintain unity within their ideology. The muktazili were calling each other’s faction as heretics and “unbelievers”.
How can a weak and decadent belief structure like the Muktazili be able to generate strength and greatness when they are rotten to the core?
As usual, no proof but mere empty rhetoric much like your pace-ism terminology.
Quote #4: Again, it existed in NAME ONLY. Just like ‘the Muslim ummah’ is an ummah in NAME ONLY. There are plenty of people named ‘Salih’ in Malaysia. Are they saliheen, Rahman? I hope your answer is ‘no’.
In name? How do u explain the real life government which existence has been confirmed by NUMEROUS sources? What are u trying to do, denying something that has actually existed?.
Farouk you are trying to deny the existence of an entity that has touched the lives of MILLION of people. It’s your word against the MILLION OF PEOPLE.
I think you’re the first individual that has actually dare to come out with such ridiculous claim. No wonder you’re a minority.
In any village, idiots are always a minority.
Quote #5 : What a great judiciary it must have been that gave the fatwa to Yazid not to attack Hussain at Karbala, huh?
My Reply: I thought the order was given by Yazid? The army is under the control of the King not the Judiciary?. Err do you know what a Judiciary mean, Farouk?.
Recent non-shia sources unearthed have shown that Yazid did not give the order, instead it was the Shia of Kuffah who is responsible for the death of Saidina Hussin.
Most of the story of Saidina Hussin incident is taken from At Tabari which rely most on a Shia source. His Shia source did not even witness the incident and reported based on what they received from other Shia sources.
Quote #6 : These systems which Rahman mentioned only expressed themselves at certain times in the Islamic empire. Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz’s period was one of them, Harun al-Rashid was another. At other times, it was as good as Pak Lah’s administration. Absolute power.
Really, that’s news to me because the judiciary institution existed all the way until the “Tanzeemat” of the Ottoman which is in the mid-1800s.
I think Farouk is again taking crap information from sources only he himself knows. Everybody knows that courts under the Chaliphate existed and operated all over the empire throughout the course of the empire.
Farouk will be hard pressed to provide evidence Caliphates do not have a fully functional independent judiciary.
Civil war? Ah yes, so whats the penalty for intentionally killing believers, Rahman? Have a look at 4/93 and you can see for yourself where these ‘civil war’ people will be going.
How many people died in the battle of the camel rahman? This oh-so-perfect Islamic empire of yours, in its EARLIEST days, 30, 000 people were killed and the umm al-mumineen was sentenced to house arrest by the caliph himself. Come on laaa, stop all this fakery. You need to rely on Arab perfection has brought you to this.
Again Farouk gets his source from the Shia. And please Farouk, I’ve pointed out your mistakes in understanding Islam SO MANY TIMES.
Please don’t let do it again with 04:93. You should go back and correct your understanding on 02:02 which u have fouled up big time.
I mean you can’t even tell the difference between “Al Kitab” and “Kitab”, how do u expect me to believe that you will be correct on 04:93.
And it was a civil war which led to the toppling of a Caliphate which has lost his qualification based on the fatwa of scholars of the time.
Read Al Mawardi, “Al Ahkam Al Sultan”.
I think I’ll stop here for now. Enough point above to show how weak Farouk’s argument is. Enough evidence above to prove my earlier thesis that Farouk and his likes are “idiots”.
Anyways, dah malam and I am tired cause satu hari melayan orang datang ke rumah. Al maklumlah, kita Ahlus Sunnah boleh merayakan Aidil Fitri sebab kita terima Al Hadeeth An Nabawi.
For Anti Hadeeth to celebrate Aidil Fitri, it will be an act of hypocrisy.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
We have read time and time again in this forum the word Arabism mentioned and linked to Islam and Islamists. Those responsible for mentioning it keep repeating this line over and over again. Yet, rarely do we see any form of evidence or even credible opinions from respected researchers to support such thesis.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
NOTE: This article was published in the New York Times Entitled "Why Syariah" by Noah Feldman, a contributing writer for the magazine, is a law professor at Harvard University and an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. This essay is adapted from his book “The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State,” which will be published later.
WHY SHARIAH by Noah Feldman
Last month, Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, gave a nuanced, scholarly lecture in London about whether the British legal system should allow non-Christian courts to decide certain matters of family law. Britain has no constitutional separation of church and state. The archbishop noted that “the law of the Church of England is the law of the land” there; indeed, ecclesiastical courts that once handled marriage and divorce are still integrated into the British legal system, deciding matters of church property and doctrine. His tentative suggestion was that, subject to the agreement of all parties and the strict requirement of protecting equal rights for women, it might be a good idea to consider allowing Islamic and Orthodox Jewish courts to handle marriage and divorce.
Then all hell broke loose. From politicians across the spectrum to senior church figures and the ubiquitous British tabloids came calls for the leader of the world’s second largest Christian denomination to issue a retraction or even resign. Williams has spent the last couple of years trying to hold together the global Anglican Communion in the face of continuing controversies about ordaining gay priests and recognizing same-sex marriages. Yet little in that contentious battle subjected him to the kind of outcry that his reference to religious courts unleashed. Needless to say, the outrage was not occasioned by Williams’s mention of Orthodox Jewish law. For the purposes of public discussion, it was the word “Shariah” that was radioactive.
In some sense, the outrage about according a degree of official status to Shariah in a Western country should come as no surprise. No legal system has ever had worse press. To many, the word “Shariah” conjures horrors of hands cut off, adulterers stoned and women oppressed. By contrast, who today remembers that the much-loved English common law called for execution as punishment for hundreds of crimes, including theft of any object worth five shillings or more? How many know that until the 18th century, the laws of most European countries authorized torture as an official component of the criminal-justice system? As for sexism, the common law long denied married women any property rights or indeed legal personality apart from their husbands. When the British applied their law to Muslims in place of Shariah, as they did in some colonies, the result was to strip married women of the property that Islamic law had always granted them — hardly progress toward equality of the sexes.
In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation. Before an adultery conviction can typically be obtained, for example, the accused must confess four times or four adult male witnesses of good character must testify that they directly observed the sex act. The extremes of our own legal system — like life sentences for relatively minor drug crimes, in some cases — are routinely ignored. We neglect to mention the recent vintage of our tentative improvements in family law. It sometimes seems as if we need Shariah as Westerners have long needed Islam: as a canvas on which to project our ideas of the horrible, and as a foil to make us look good.
In the Muslim world, on the other hand, the reputation of Shariah has undergone an extraordinary revival in recent years. A century ago, forward-looking Muslims thought of Shariah as outdated, in need of reform or maybe abandonment. Today, 66 percent of Egyptians, 60 percent of Pakistanis and 54 percent of Jordanians say that Shariah should be the only source of legislation in their countries. Islamist political parties, like those associated with the transnational Muslim Brotherhood, make the adoption of Shariah the most prominent plank in their political platforms. And the message resonates. Wherever Islamists have been allowed to run for office in Arabic-speaking countries, they have tended to win almost as many seats as the governments have let them contest. The Islamist movement in its various incarnations — from moderate to radical — is easily the fastest growing and most vital in the Muslim world; the return to Shariah is its calling card.
How is it that what so many Westerners see as the most unappealing and premodern aspect of Islam is, to many Muslims, the vibrant, attractive core of a global movement of Islamic revival? The explanation surely must go beyond the oversimplified assumption that Muslims want to use Shariah to reverse feminism and control women — especially since large numbers of women support the Islamists in general and the ideal of Shariah in particular.
Is Shariah the Rule of Law?
One reason for the divergence between Western and Muslim views of Shariah is that we are not all using the word to mean the same thing. Although it is commonplace to use the word “Shariah” and the phrase “Islamic law” interchangeably, this prosaic English translation does not capture the full set of associations that the term “Shariah” conjures for the believer. Shariah, properly understood, is not just a set of legal rules. To believing Muslims, it is something deeper and higher, infused with moral and metaphysical purpose. At its core, Shariah represents the idea that all human beings — and all human governments — are subject to justice under the law.
In fact, “Shariah” is not the word traditionally used in Arabic to refer to the processes of Islamic legal reasoning or the rulings produced through it: that word is fiqh, meaning something like Islamic jurisprudence. The word “Shariah” connotes a connection to the divine, a set of unchanging beliefs and principles that order life in accordance with God’s will. Westerners typically imagine that Shariah advocates simply want to use the Koran as their legal code. But the reality is much more complicated. Islamist politicians tend to be very vague about exactly what it would mean for Shariah to be the source for the law of the land — and with good reason, because just adopting such a principle would not determine how the legal system would actually operate.
Shariah is best understood as a kind of higher law, albeit one that includes some specific, worldly commands. All Muslims would agree, for example, that it prohibits lending money at interest — though not investments in which risks and returns are shared; and the ban on Muslims drinking alcohol is an example of an unequivocal ritual prohibition, even for liberal interpreters of the faith. Some rules associated with Shariah are undoubtedly old-fashioned and harsh. Men and women are treated unequally, for example, by making it hard for women to initiate divorce without forfeiting alimony. The prohibition on sodomy, though historically often unenforced, makes recognition of same-sex relationships difficult to contemplate. But Shariah also prohibits bribery or special favors in court. It demands equal treatment for rich and poor. It condemns the vigilante-style honor killings that still occur in some Middle Eastern countries. And it protects everyone’s property — including women’s — from being taken from them. Unlike in Iran, where wearing a head scarf is legally mandated and enforced by special religious police, the Islamist view in most other Muslim countries is that the head scarf is one way of implementing the religious duty to dress modestly — a desirable social norm, not an enforceable legal rule. And mandating capital punishment for apostasy is not on the agenda of most elected Islamists. For many Muslims today, living in corrupt autocracies, the call for Shariah is not a call for sexism, obscurantism or savage punishment but for an Islamic version of what the West considers its most prized principle of political justice: the rule of law.
The Sway of the Scholars
To understand Shariah’s deep appeal, we need to ask a crucial question that is rarely addressed in the West: What, in fact, is the system of Islamic law? In his lifetime, the Prophet Muhammad was both the religious and the political leader of the community of Muslim believers. His revelation, the Koran, contained some laws, pertaining especially to ritual matters and inheritance; but it was not primarily a legal book and did not include a lengthy legal code of the kind that can be found in parts of the Hebrew Bible. When the first generation of believers needed guidance on a subject that was not addressed by revelation, they went directly to Muhammad. He either answered of his own accord or, if he was unsure, awaited divine guidance in the form of a new revelation.
With the death of Muhammad, divine revelation to the Muslim community stopped. The role of the political-religious leader passed to a series of caliphs (Arabic for “substitute”) who stood in the prophet’s stead. That left the caliph in a tricky position when it came to resolving difficult legal matters. The caliph possessed Muhammad’s authority but not his access to revelation. It also left the community in something of a bind. If the Koran did not speak clearly to a particular question, how was the law to be determined?
The answer that developed over the first couple of centuries of Islam was that the Koran could be supplemented by reference to the prophet’s life — his sunna, his path. (The word “sunna” is the source of the designation Sunni — one who follows the prophet’s path.) His actions and words were captured in an oral tradition, beginning presumably with a person who witnessed the action or statement firsthand. Accurate reports had to be distinguished from false ones. But of course even a trustworthy report on a particular situation could not directly resolve most new legal problems that arose later. To address such problems, it was necessary to reason by analogy from one situation to another. There was also the possibility that a communal consensus existed on what to do under particular circumstances, and that, too, was thought to have substantial weight.
This fourfold combination — the Koran, the path of the prophet as captured in the collections of reports, analogical reasoning and consensus — amounted to a basis for a legal system. But who would be able to say how these four factors fit together? Indeed, who had the authority to say that these factors and not others formed the sources of the law? The first four caliphs, who knew the prophet personally, might have been able to make this claim for themselves. But after them, the caliphs were faced with a growing group of specialists who asserted that they, collectively, could ascertain the law from the available sources. This self-appointed group came to be known as the scholars — and over the course of a few generations, they got the caliphs to acknowledge them as the guardians of the law. By interpreting a law that originated with God, they gained control over the legal system as it actually existed. That made them, and not the caliphs, into “the heirs of the prophets.”
Among the Sunnis, this model took effect very early and persisted until modern times. For the Shiites, who believe that the succession of power followed the prophet’s lineage, the prophet had several successors who claimed extraordinary divine authority. Once they were gone, however, the Shiite scholars came to occupy a role not unlike that of their Sunni counterparts.
Under the constitutional theory that the scholars developed to explain the division of labor in the Islamic state, the caliph had paramount responsibility to fulfill the divine injunction to “command the right and prohibit the wrong.” But this was not a task he could accomplish on his own. It required him to delegate responsibility to scholarly judges, who would apply God’s law as they interpreted it. The caliph could promote or fire them as he wished, but he could not dictate legal results: judicial authority came from the caliph, but the law came from the scholars.
The caliphs — and eventually the sultans who came to rule once the caliphate lost most of its worldly influence — still had plenty of power. They handled foreign affairs more or less at their discretion. And they could also issue what were effectively administrative regulations — provided these regulations did not contradict what the scholars said Shariah required. The regulations addressed areas where Shariah was silent. They also enabled the state to regulate social conduct without having to put every case before the courts, where convictions would often be impossible to obtain because of the strict standards of proof required for punishment. As a result of these regulations, many legal matters (perhaps most) fell outside the rules given specifically by Shariah.
The upshot is that the system of Islamic law as it came to exist allowed a great deal of leeway. That is why today’s advocates of Shariah as the source of law are not actually recommending the adoption of a comprehensive legal code derived from or dictated by Shariah — because nothing so comprehensive has ever existed in Islamic history. To the Islamist politicians who advocate it or for the public that supports it, Shariah generally means something else. It means establishing a legal system in which God’s law sets the ground rules, authorizing and validating everyday laws passed by an elected legislature. In other words, for them, Shariah is expected to function as something like a modern constitution.
The Rights of Humans and the Rights of God
So in contemporary Islamic politics, the call for Shariah does not only or primarily mean mandating the veiling of women or the use of corporal punishment — it has an essential constitutional dimension as well. But what is the particular appeal of placing Shariah above ordinary law?
The answer lies in a little-remarked feature of traditional Islamic government: that a state under Shariah was, for more than a thousand years, subject to a version of the rule of law. And as a rule-of-law government, the traditional Islamic state had an advantage that has been lost in the dictatorships and autocratic monarchies that have governed so much of the Muslim world for the last century. Islamic government was legitimate, in the dual sense that it generally respected the individual legal rights of its subjects and was seen by them as doing so. These individual legal rights, known as “the rights of humans” (in contrast to “the rights of God” to such things as ritual obedience), included basic entitlements to life, property and legal process — the protections from arbitrary government oppression sought by people all over the world for centuries.
Of course, merely declaring the ruler subject to the law was not enough on its own; the ruler actually had to follow the law. For that, he needed incentives. And as it happened, the system of government gave him a big one, in the form of a balance of power with the scholars. The ruler might be able to use pressure once in a while to get the results he wanted in particular cases. But because the scholars were in charge of the law, and he was not, the ruler could pervert the course of justice only at the high cost of being seen to violate God’s law — thereby undermining the very basis of his rule.
In practice, the scholars’ leverage to demand respect for the law came from the fact that the caliphate was not hereditary as of right. That afforded the scholars major influence at the transitional moments when a caliph was being chosen or challenged. On taking office, a new ruler — even one designated by his dead predecessor — had to fend off competing claimants. The first thing he would need was affirmation of the legitimacy of his assumption of power. The scholars were prepared to offer just that, in exchange for the ruler’s promise to follow the law.
Once in office, rulers faced the inevitable threat of invasion or a palace coup. The caliph would need the scholars to declare a religious obligation to protect the state in a defensive jihad. Having the scholars on his side in times of crisis was a tremendous asset for the ruler who could be said to follow the law. Even if the ruler was not law-abiding, the scholars still did not spontaneously declare a sitting caliph disqualified. This would have been foolish, especially in view of the fact that the scholars had no armies at their disposal and the sitting caliph did. But their silence could easily be interpreted as an invitation for a challenger to step forward and be validated.
The scholars’ insistence that the ruler obey Shariah was motivated largely by their belief that it was God’s will. But it was God’s will as they interpreted it. As a confident, self-defined elite that controlled and administered the law according to well-settled rules, the scholars were agents of stability and predictability — crucial in societies where the transition from one ruler to the next could be disorderly and even violent. And by controlling the law, the scholars could limit the ability of the executive to expropriate the property of private citizens. This, in turn, induced the executive to rely on lawful taxation to raise revenues, which itself forced the rulers to be responsive to their subjects’ concerns. The scholars and their law were thus absolutely essential to the tremendous success that Islamic society enjoyed from its inception into the 19th century. Without Shariah, there would have been no Haroun al-Rashid in Baghdad, no golden age of Muslim Spain, no reign of Suleiman the Magnificent in Istanbul.
For generations, Western students of the traditional Islamic constitution have assumed that the scholars could offer no meaningful check on the ruler. As one historian has recently put it, although Shariah functioned as a constitution, “the constitution was not enforceable,” because neither scholars nor subjects could “compel their ruler to observe the law in the exercise of government.” But almost no constitution anywhere in the world enables judges or nongovernmental actors to “compel” the obedience of an executive who controls the means of force. The Supreme Court of the United States has no army behind it. Institutions that lack the power of the sword must use more subtle means to constrain executives. Like the American constitutional balance of powers, the traditional Islamic balance was maintained by words and ideas, and not just by forcible compulsion.
So today’s Muslims are not being completely fanciful when they act and speak as though Shariah can structure a constitutional state subject to the rule of law. One big reason that Islamist political parties do so well running on a Shariah platform is that their constituents recognize that Shariah once augured a balanced state in which legal rights were respected.
From Shariah to Despotism
But if Shariah is popular among many Muslims in large part because of its historical association with the rule of law, can it actually do the same work today? Here there is reason for caution and skepticism. The problem is that the traditional Islamic constitution rested on a balance of powers between a ruler subject to law and a class of scholars who interpreted and administered that law. The governments of most contemporary majority-Muslim states, however, have lost these features. Rulers govern as if they were above the law, not subject to it, and the scholars who once wielded so much influence are much reduced in status. If they have judicial posts at all, it is usually as judges in the family-law courts.
In only two important instances do scholars today exercise real power, and in both cases we can see a deviation from their traditional role. The first is Iran, where Ayatollah Khomeini, himself a distinguished scholar, assumed executive power and became supreme leader after the 1979 revolution. The result of this configuration, unique in the history of the Islamic world, is that the scholarly ruler had no counterbalance and so became as unjust as any secular ruler with no check on his authority. The other is Saudi Arabia, where the scholars retain a certain degree of power. The unfortunate outcome is that they can slow any government initiative for reform, however minor, but cannot do much to keep the government responsive to its citizens. The oil-rich state does not need to obtain tax revenues from its citizens to operate — and thus has little reason to keep their interests in mind.
How the scholars lost their exalted status as keepers of the law is a complex story, but it can be summed up in the adage that partial reforms are sometimes worse than none at all. In the early 19th century, the Ottoman empire responded to military setbacks with an internal reform movement. The most important reform was the attempt to codify Shariah. This Westernizing process, foreign to the Islamic legal tradition, sought to transform Shariah from a body of doctrines and principles to be discovered by the human efforts of the scholars into a set of rules that could be looked up in a book.
Once the law existed in codified form, however, the law itself was able to replace the scholars as the source of authority. Codification took from the scholars their all-important claim to have the final say over the content of the law and transferred that power to the state. To placate the scholars, the government kept the Shariah courts running but restricted them to handling family-law matters. This strategy paralleled the British colonial approach of allowing religious courts to handle matters of personal status. Today, in countries as far apart as Kenya and Pakistan, Shariah courts still administer family law — a small subset of their original historical jurisdiction.
Codification signaled the death knell for the scholarly class, but it did not destroy the balance of powers on its own. Promulgated in 1876, the Ottoman constitution created a legislature composed of two lawmaking bodies — one elected, one appointed by the sultan. This amounted to the first democratic institution in the Muslim world; had it established itself, it might have popularized the notion that the people represent the ultimate source of legal authority. Then the legislature could have replaced the scholars as the institutional balance to the executive.
But that was not to be. Less than a year after the legislature first met, Sultan Abdulhamid II suspended its operation — and for good measure, he suspended the constitution the following year. Yet the sultan did not restore the scholars to the position they once occupied. With the scholars out of the way and no legislature to replace them, the sultan found himself in the position of near-absolute ruler. This arrangement set the pattern for government in the Muslim world after the Ottoman empire fell. Law became a tool of the ruler, not an authority over him. What followed, perhaps unsurprisingly, was dictatorship and other forms of executive dominance — the state of affairs confronted by the Islamists who seek to restore Shariah.
A Democratic Shariah?
The Islamists today, partly out of realism, partly because they are rarely scholars themselves, seem to have little interest in restoring the scholars to their old role as the constitutional balance to the executive. The Islamist movement, like other modern ideologies, seeks to capture the existing state and then transform society through the tools of modern government. Its vision for bringing Shariah to bear therefore incorporates two common features of modern government: the legislature and the constitution.
The mainstream Sunni Islamist position, found, for example, in the electoral platforms of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Justice and Development Party in Morocco, is that an elected legislature should draft and pass laws that are consistent with the spirit of Islamic law. On questions where Islamic law does not provide clear direction, the democratically chosen legislature is supposed to use its discretion to adopt laws infused by Islamic values.
The result is a profound change in the theoretical structure underlying Islamic law: Shariah is democratized in that its care is given to a popularly elected legislature. In Iraq, for example, where the constitution declares Shariah to be “the source of law,” it is in principle up to the National Assembly to pass laws that reflect its spirit.
In case the assembly gets it wrong, however, the Islamists often recommend the judicial review of legislative actions to guarantee that they do not violate Islamic law or values. What is sometimes called a “repugnancy clause,” mandating that a judicial body overturn laws repugnant to Islam, has made its way into several recent constitutions that seek to reconcile Islam and democracy. It may be found, for example, in the Afghan Constitution of 2004 and the Iraqi Constitution of 2005. (I had a small role advising the Iraqi drafters.) Islamic judicial review transforms the highest judicial body of the state into a guarantor of conformity with Islamic law. The high court can then use this power to push for a conservative vision of Islamic law, as in Afghanistan, or for a more moderate version, as in Pakistan.
Islamic judicial review puts the court in a position resembling the one that scholars once occupied. Like the scholars, the judges of the reviewing court present their actions as interpretations of Islamic law. But of course the judges engaged in Islamic judicial review are not the scholars but ordinary judges (as in Iraq) or a mix of judges and scholars (as in Afghanistan). In contrast to the traditional arrangement, the judges’ authority comes not from Shariah itself but from a written constitution that gives them the power of judicial review.
The modern incarnation of Shariah is nostalgic in its invocation of the rule of law but forward-looking in how it seeks to bring this result about. What the Islamists generally do not acknowledge, though, is that such institutions on their own cannot deliver the rule of law. The executive authority also has to develop a commitment to obeying legal and constitutional judgments. That will take real-world incentives, not just a warm feeling for the values associated with Shariah.
How that happens — how an executive administration accustomed to overweening power can be given incentives to subordinate itself to the rule of law — is one of the great mysteries of constitutional development worldwide. Total revolution has an extremely bad track record in recent decades, at least in majority-Muslim states. The revolution that replaced the shah in Iran created an oppressively top-heavy constitutional structure. And the equally revolutionary dreams some entertained for Iraq — dreams of a liberal secular state or of a functioning Islamic democracy — still seem far from fruition.
Gradual change therefore increasingly looks like the best of some bad options. And most of today’s political Islamists — the ones running for office in Morocco or Jordan or Egypt and even Iraq — are gradualists. They wish to adapt existing political institutions by infusing them with Islamic values and some modicum of Islamic law. Of course, such parties are also generally hostile to the United States, at least where we have worked against their interests. (Iraq is an obvious exception — many Shiite Islamists there are our close allies.) But this is a separate question from whether they can become a force for promoting the rule of law. It is possible to imagine the electoral success of Islamist parties putting pressure on executives to satisfy the demand for law-based government embodied in Koranic law. This might bring about a transformation of the judiciary, in which judges would come to think of themselves as agents of the law rather than as agents of the state.
Something of the sort may slowly be happening in Turkey. The Islamists there are much more liberal than anywhere else in the Muslim world; they do not even advocate the adoption of Shariah (a position that would get their government closed down by the staunchly secular military). Yet their central focus is the rule of law and the expansion of basic rights against the Turkish tradition of state-centered secularism. The courts are under increasing pressure to go along with that vision.
Can Shariah provide the necessary resources for such a rethinking of the judicial role? In its essence, Shariah aspires to be a law that applies equally to every human, great or small, ruler or ruled. No one is above it, and everyone at all times is bound by it. But the history of Shariah also shows that the ideals of the rule of law cannot be implemented in a vacuum. For that, a state needs actually effective institutions, which must be reinforced by regular practice and by the recognition of actors within the system that they have more to gain by remaining faithful to its dictates than by deviating from them.
The odds of success in the endeavor to deliver the rule of law are never high. Nothing is harder than creating new institutions with the capacity to balance executive dominance — except perhaps avoiding the temptation to overreach once in power. In Iran, the Islamists have discredited their faith among many ordinary people, and a similar process may be under way in Iraq. Still, with all its risks and dangers, the Islamists’ aspiration to renew old ideas of the rule of law while coming to terms with contemporary circumstances is bold and noble — and may represent a path to just and legitimate government in much of the Muslim world.
SInce Saidina Musa AS ordered the killings of apostates of his time, i dare the Anti Hadeeth sect to RENOUNCE Saidina Musa openly.
Anti Hadeeth MUST call him (Saidina Musa) names and call him anti Quran for punishing apostates as he did below:
YUSUFALI: And remember Moses said to his people: "O my people! Ye have indeed wronged yourselves by your worship of the calf: So turn (in repentance) to your Maker, and slay yourselves (the wrong-doers); that will be better for you in the sight of your Maker." Then He turned towards you (in forgiveness): For He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: And when Moses said unto his people: O my people! Ye have wronged yourselves by your choosing of the calf (for worship) so turn in penitence to your Creator, and kill (the guilty) yourselves. That will be best for you with your Creator and He will relent toward you. Lo! He is the Relenting, the Merciful.
SHAKIR: And when Musa said to his people: O my people! you have surely been unjust to yourselves by taking the calf (for a god), therefore turn to your Creator (penitently), so kill your people, that is best for you with your Creator: so He turned to you (mercifully), for surely He is the Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.
I challange Anti Hadeeth sect around the world to renounce Saidina Musa AS for his actions mentioned in 02:54.
And here is the rest of it. Read more!
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Akbarally made a very stupid claim about Imam Bukhari. He claims that
"Imam Bukhari declined to propagate the falsehood in the name of the Prophet (s.a.s.). In the process he "REJECTED" hundreds of thousand Hadeeths... Can anyone call Imam Bukhari a 'Munkar-e-Hadeeth' - a rejecter of Hadeeths? The issue before us is very similar. It is the time for a second revision.Read to know why and how to do it... ".
His claim can be read at www.mostmerciful.com/bukhari--munkar-e-hadeeth.htm. This article will produce a link that will refute Akbarally stupid and libelous claim 1000%. The links is www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/bukhari.html The article is reprinted as follows:
Over the years, Christian missionaries have solidified their reputation for embracing zealous new recruits. One fresh addition to this delegation of holy servicemen is the neophyte, Andrew Vargo. More often than not, the missionaries have overlooked the academic backgrounds of these fresh recruits, apparently intoxicated by their impassioned hatred for Islam. Mr. Vargo has recently tried his hand as a student of comparative religion, introducing some of the most fantastic ideas yet to the discourse. Among these ideas is a rather boastful claim concerning the collection of ahadith by the great Muslim scholar, Imam al-Bukhari (d. 256 AH). The highlight of Vargo's claim lies in the following:
In fact, it is difficult, in spite of the Muslim "science" of Hadith to know which traditions are strong or weak! For example, Bukhari collected over 600,000 reports, but kept only 7,397 as true!
This is one of the most popular claims concerning the vast collection of ahadith of al-Bukhari in the Christian missionary literature and comes with fanciful explanations. For example, Anis Shorrosh, a well-known Arab missionary, says:
... Bukhari, collected twenty thousand of them, of which he rejected ten thousand, accounting them untrue. Of the remaining ten thousand he accepted only 7,275, declaring the rest to be untrustworthy. Abu Da'ud accepted as authentic only 4,800 rules out 50,000.
Similarly we find Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb claiming that:
...Bukhari, considered to be the most reliable collector, admitted that of the 300,000 hadith he collected, he considered only 100,000 might be true. He then narrowed this number down to 7,275, many of which are repetitions so that the total number is in fact near 3,000. That means that even he admitted there were errors in over 295,000 of them!
Nearly a similar statement is repeated by Geisler in his Baker Encyclopedia Of Christian Apologetics to cast doubts on the miracles performed by the Prophet Muhammad. Abdiyah Akbar Abdul-Haqq, on the other hand, labels what al-Bukhari did not include in his collection as "apocryphal".
As to the abundance of the apocryphal traditions, we learn that the famous authority al-Bukhari choose only 7,000 out of a host of 600,000 traditions that were current in his on time.
Similar statements were made by John Ankerberg and John Weldon, who quoted a "Muslim scholar".
Not surprising is the case of Rand Corporation, who have published an interesting report on Islam entitled "Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, Resources, and Strategies". The report has two fold agenda: firstly, to try to create a version of Islam that suits the post-9/11 Western agenda and secondly encouraging creation of divisions in the Muslim society at home and abroad. The Rand Report's recipe to achieve this aim is to encourage and promote the so-called modernist Muslims and play one section of the society against another to split the Muslim society. A small example of it can be seen when the report uses the material from the hadith-rejectors (not surprisingly!) to claim "objectively" that:
Even if that were not the case, objectively speaking, there is little doubt that hadith is at best a dubious, flawed instrument. Consider that Al-Bukhari is the compiler of what is generally considered to be the most authoritative and reliable collections of hadith. He collected 600,000 hadith, examined them for their authenticity, eliminated all but 7,600 of them, deleted some for redundancy, and was left with a collection of about 4,000.
As we shall see, feisty statements such as the above only prove to be self-defeating in the end. This article intends to examine missionaries' thesis in light of the scholarship of Imam al-Bukhari, and thereby ascertain the actual worth of their claim.
To appreciate the broader perspective, we will also include a discussion of Imam Muslim's ahadith collection, insha'allah.
2. Imam Bukhari & The Nature Of His Collection
Vargo, Shorrosh, Geisler, Abdul Saleeb, Abdul-Haqq and Benard have practically begged the question for us already - where exactly did Imam al-Bukhari mention that among the 600,000 ahadith in his collection, only 7,397 are to be accepted as 'true'? They maintains the missionary tradition of conveniently omitting any references that would not support their thesis; the mark of a true academicians, indeed! Once again, it is left to the Muslims to enlighten the ill-informed missionaries on this matter.
Imam al-Bukhari's actual words have been reproduced below:
* The two sahih collections did not gather the totality of the authentic ahadith as proved by al-Bukhari's testimony: "I have not included in my book al-Jami` but what is authentic, and I left out among the authentic for fear of [excessive] length.(Footnote 2)"
Footnote 2 says:
He [al-Bukhari] meant that he did not mention all the turuq [parallel chains of transmission] for each and every hadith.
To reiterate this in elementary English, Imam al-Bukhari selected only a few authentic ahadith from his vast collection. However, he left out certain traditions, despite their authenticity, simply to avoid excessive length and repetition in his Al-Jami` (a discussion about which is given below). If anything, the privilege to make such a gesture is highly complimentary to the authenticity of the Islamic traditions. In another tradition, Imam al-Bukhari is also reported to have said:
He said, I heard as-Sa`dani say, I heard some of our companions say, Muhammad Ibn Isma`il said: I selected/published [the content of] this book - meaning the Sahih book - from about 600,000 hadiths/reports. Abu Sa`d al-Malini informed us that `Abdullah Ibn `Udayy informed us: I heard al-Hasan Ibn al-Husayn al-Bukhari say: "I have not included in my book al-Jami` but what is authentic, and I left out among the authentic what I could not get hold of."
The above quotation reflects Imam al-Bukhari's gallant honesty to admit that he was not able to collect each and every authentic tradition that existed in his day. Rather, his Al-Jami` is only a partial collection of authentic traditions, despite its massive volume. Furthermore, it should be clarified for the missionaries that the notion of a partial collection of authentic material is quite different from the notion of a partially authentic collection of material. However, it is not our aim to offer a course on propositional reasoning. Thus, we leave the point with the hope that they will eventually comprehend this piece of preschool logic.
Professor Mustafa al-Azami, who offered a devastating critique of Joseph Schacht's work, again clarifies the misunderstanding of many orientalists on this issue:
Al-Bukhari did not claim that what he left out were the spurious, nor that there were no authentic traditions outside his collection. On the contrary he said, "I only included in my book al-Jami` those that were authentic, and I left out many more authentic traditions than this to avoid unnecessary length." He had no intention of collecting all the authentic traditions. He only wanted to compile a manual of hadith, according to the wishes of his Shaikh Ishaq b. Rahwaih, and his function is quite clear from the title of his book al-Jami` al-Musnad al-Sahih al-Mukhtasar min umur Rasul Allah wa Sunanhi wa ayyamih. The word al-Mukhtasar, 'epitome', itself explains that al-Bukhari did not make any attempt at a comprehensive collection.
Yet, the missionaries seem to be living under the delusion that the 600,000 ahadith of Imam al-Bukhari's collection somehow means 600,000 separate narrations or bodies of text. His sloppy study of this issue becomes clear when one learns that a hadith is comprised of both a text (matn) and a chain of transmission (isnad). In the science of hadith, the same text with ten chains of transmission is regarded not as one hadith but rather as ten hadiths, despite the fact that the text attached to each chain is the same in every case.
Professor Mustafa al-Azami adds:
Now it is clear that when traditionalists give enormous numbers for the traditions, they mean channels and sources of their transmission, and do not mean real numbers of hadith.
Nabia Abbott, a prominent orientalist who conducted an extensive study on hadith literature, observed that the phenomenal growth of the corpus of this literature is not due to growth in content but due to progressive increase in the parallel and multiple chains of transmission, i.e., isnads:
... the traditions of Muhammad as transmitted by his Companions and their Successors were, as a rule, scrupulously scrutinised at each step of the transmission, and that the so called phenomenal growth of Tradition in the second and third centuries of Islam was not primarily growth of content, so far as the hadith of Muhammad and the hadith of the Companions are concerned, but represents largely the progressive increase in parallel and multiple chains of transmission.
Take a highly simplified example of one Companion narrating a single hadith from the Prophet to two students: these students themselves teaching that narration again to two pupils each and so on until we reach the time of al-Bukhari and his contemporaries. We will find that in al-Bukhari's generation at least 16 individuals will be hearing the hadith from their respective teachers. Because each individual chain of transmission counts as a separate hadith, what started out as a single narration transmitted by one Companion only, has evolved within a short period of time to 16 ahadith; an increase of 1600%. The true nature of affairs, however, being far greater, with a far greater number of Companions transmitting a far greater number of narrations to a far greater number of students. This then is the form in which proliferation took place, the dispersion of narrators and chains of transmission. Using the mathematical application of geometric progression, Nabia Abbott concludes:
... using geometric progression, we find that one to two thousand Companions and senior Successors transmitting two to five traditions each would bring us well within the range of the total number of traditions credited to the exhaustive collections of the third century. Once it is realised that the isnad did, indeed, initiate a chain reaction that resulted in an explosive increase in the number of traditions, the huge numbers that are credited to Ibn Hanbal, Muslim and Bukhari seem not so fantastic after all.
The implications of explosive increase in of the isnad is dealt with here.
3. Imam Muslim & The Nature Of His Collection
Imam Muslim along the similar lines to that of Imam al-Bukhari , is reported to have said:
The translation of which is:
[...]. Imam Muslim said: "I have not included in my present book any thing but with proof [regarding authenticity] , and I have not left out anything but with proof". He also said: I did not include everything that I judge authentic/Sahih, I only included what received a unanimous agreement, i.e., what fulfilled all the criteria of authenticity agreed upon [by the scholars].
And Muslim has presented [his collection] to the scholars of his time, like Imam Abu Zar`ah, and retained what was void of defect, and left out what had some defect.
From the above quotation, it is clear that Imam Muslim's collection is also a partial collection of authentic material and not a partially authentic collection of material. He followed a certain set of criteria that demanded a proof for the inclusion of each and every hadith in his collection.
Imam al-Bukhari's collection of ahadith was maintained to be authentic on account of his authority, and it has been maintained as authentic ever since. The missionaries' assertion, that Imam al-Bukhari regarded almost 99% of his own collection as spurious, is among the most rash and foolhardy statements ever dared by Christian missionaries. On the contrary, the 7,397 refers to the number of hadiths that Imam al-Bukhari chose to include in his Al-Jami` and left out many authentic narrations from his vast collection for the fear of excessive length.
Again, according to the Vargo:
In fact, it is difficult, in spite of the Muslim "science" of Hadith to know which traditions are strong or weak!
We should wonder whether the neophyte is as quick to demonstrate the same puerile enthusiasm over the question of his own religious texts. Regardless, we will quote the famous trial of Imam al-Bukhari to show how maqlub (changed, reversed) ahadith can be identified with ease by a scholar of hadith:
The famous trial of al-Bukhari by the scholars of Baghdad provides a good example of a Maqlub isnad. The traditionists, in order to test their visitor, al-Bukhari, appointed ten men, each with ten ahadith. Now, each hadith (text) of these ten people was prefixed with the isnad of another. Imam al-Bukhari listened to each of the ten men as they narrated their ahadith and denied the correctness of every hadith. When they had finished narrating these ahadith, he addressed each person in turn and recounted to him each of his ahadith with its correct isnad. This trial earned him great honour among the scholars of Baghdad.
Finally, it is worth citing a significant trend in modern Western scholarship of the Prophetic traditions of Islam. For the past several decades, criticism of these traditions has been the Orientalist's whipping post, an opportunity to invalidate the traditions of Islam, which culminated in the work of Joseph Schacht, mentioned earlier. However, this position has practically been reversed in recent times, with the advent of academic honesty on the part of Western scholars. Professor John Esposito of Georgetown University has made the following counter-criticism of Schacht's traditional position:
Accepting Schacht's conclusion regarding the many traditions he did examine does not warrant its automatic extension to all the traditions. To consider all Prophetic traditions apocryphal until proven otherwise is to reverse the burden of proof. Moreover, even where differences of opinion exist regarding the authenticity of the chain of narrators, they need not detract from the authenticity of a tradition's content and common acceptance of the importance of tradition literature as a record of the early history and development of Islamic belief and practice.
The position of Esposito perhaps reflects the growing attitude among Western educational institutions that entertain any study of Islam and its traditions. This is simply evidenced by the fact that Professor Esposito has become one of the reigning authorities on Islam in the West, whose textbooks are considered university standards for courses on Islam.
Considering the missionaries' abuse of hadiths to denigrate the Prophet(P) of Islam, it would be too generous to assume that Vargo, Shorrosh, Geisler and Abdul Saleeb "misunderstood" the nature of the collection of Imam al-Bukhari. As for the Rand Corporation's report, their "objectivity" lies in the unverified use of source material. An honest misunderstanding entails at least some understanding of the issue, which doesn't even seem to be their case. Perhaps the Christian missionaries might consider beginning a genuine study of the science of hadith before they embarrasses themselves further.
We would like to thank Abu Hudhayfah for providing us necessary help and allowing us to use his material.
And Allah knows best!
 Dr. A. A. Shorrosh, Islam Revealed: A Christian Arab's View Of Islam, 1988, Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville, p. 22.
 N. L. Geisler & A. Saleeb, Answering Islam: The Crescent In The Light Of The Cross, 1993, Baker Books: Grand Rapids (MI), p. 165.
 "Muhammad, Alleged Miracles Of", in N. L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia Of Christian Apologetics, 2002, Baker Books: Grand Rapids (MI), p. 512.
 A. A. Abdul-Haqq, Sharing Your Faith With A Muslim, 1980, Bethany House Publications: Minneapolis, p. 45.
 J. Ankerberg & J. Weldon, Fast Facts On Islam, 2001, Harvest House Publishers: Eugene (OR), pp. 50-51.
 C. Benard, "Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, Resources, and Strategies", 2003, Rand Corporation, p. 67.
 Muhammad Ajaj al-Khatib, Al-Mukhtasar al-Wajiz fi `Ulum al-Hadith, 1991, Mu'assasat al-Risalah, p. 135.
 Abi Bakr Ahmad Ibn `Ali al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Tarikh Baghdad Aw Madinah as-Salam, 1931 (1349 AH), Volume II, Maktabat al-Khanji, Cairo & Al-Maktabah al-`Arabiyyah, Baghdad and Matba'at as-S'adah near the State Department, Cairo, pp. 8-9.
 M. M. al-Azami, Studies In Early Hadith Literature, 1992, American Trust Publications: Indianapolis (USA), pp. 305-306.
 ibid., p. 306.
 N. Abbott, Studies In Arabic Literary Papyri, Volume II [Qur'anic Commentary & Tradition], 1967, University Of Chicago Press: Chicago (USA), p. 2.
 ibid., p. 72.
 Al-Imam Muhyee ad-Din Abi Zakariyya Yahya bin Sharaf al-Nawawi, Sahih Muslim Bi Sharh al-Imam al-Nawawi, Volume I, 1994/1414, Dar al-Khair, p. 1.
 A hadith is known as maqlub (changed, reversed) when its isnad is grafted to a different text or vice versa, or if a reporter happens to reverse the order of a sentence in the text.
 S. Hasan, An Introduction To The Science Of Hadith, 1995, Darussalam Publishers: Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) available online, quote taken from here.
 J. Esposito, Islam: The Straight Path, 1998, Oxford University Press, p. 81.
This is a refutation of an article written by Akbarally about Abu Hurairah at www.mostmerciful.com/abu-hurayrah.htm.
The funny thing is that Akbarally described this article as "A Hadeeth from "Sahih Muslim" that directly contradicts the Revealed Text of the Qur'an". Yet, after careful consideration, it turns out that such hadeeth DOES NOT contradict the Quran after all.AFirst, let me highlight the fact that all enemies of Islam attacks Abu Hurairah. This includes Orientalist, Anti Hadeeth, Shiaas, Modernists etc. The list has just got longer and the latest to join the list is Akbarralli Meherally.
For a good defence of Abu Hurairah, feel free to surf http://www.allaahuakbar.net/shiites/in_defense_of_abu_hurairah.htm.
Now, lets see the article below. The question now, is there really a contradiction between the hadeeth and the verses he quoted?
54. Your Guardian-Lord is God, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority): He draweth the night as a veil o'er the day, each seeking the other in rapid succession: He created the sun, t he moon, and the stars, (all) governed by laws under His command. Is it not His to create and to govern? Blessed be God, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds!
Then the hadeeth:
Narrated by Abu Hurayrah:
Allah's Messenger took hold of my hands and said: Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, created the clay on Saturday and He created the mountains on Sunday and He created the trees on Monday and He created the things entailing labour on Tuesday and created light on Wednesday and He caused the animals to spread on Thursday and created Adam (peace be upon him) after Asr on Friday; the last creation at the last hour of the hours of Friday, i.e. between afternoon and night.
MY QUESTION IS, WHERE IS THE CONTRADICTION???????????
The verse talks about the number of days Alllah created Heaven and Earth (“As Sama Wa Al Ard”).
The Hadeeth DOES NOT MENTION “As Sama Wa Al Ard” at all. So, how can the hadeeth contradicts the Quran?
MORE ISSUES THAT Akbaralli Did Not Address
Perhaps Akbaralli should not have been so one-track mind in understanding Al HAdeeth of the Prophet SAW. Perhaps he needs to widen his mind and consider other possible angle or issues that requires addressing before coming to his conclusion
a. The verses uses the word “Ayam” which means “days”. The question now is, does “days” in the verse the same as “days” known to us right now? For one, before the Creation, there was no day and night?
b. The hadeeth talks about Creations of God other then Heaven and Earth. So, where is the contradiction?
c. The other possible explanation is that God Created Heaven and Earth in Six Days but His ENTIRE CREATIONS took Him seven days?
d. Can we simply assume that when God says Heaven and Earth, he’s referring to His entire creations? I think that’s a faulty conclusion.
Akbarally is at it again. Claiming something which is never an issue. Making a mountain out of nothing.
It seems this is the trademark of all Anti Hadeeth. U depend on wrong accusations, half truth, misinterpretation and deception to advance your case.
What a bunch of losers u all are.
This is a refutation to Akbarally's article entitled at "ALLAH REVEALS
11 DIVINE TESTIMONIES THAT DO MAKE CRYSTAL CLEAR HIS COMMANDMENTS FOR
~THE DAILY ESTABLISHED PRAYERS~
at www.mostmerciful.com/message-of-quran-with-eleven-quranic-testimonies.htm. The refutation is taken from an article posted on Sangkancilnet some years ago, entitled "There are more than 3 salats in the Quran" at www.malaysia.net/lists/sangkancil/2000-11/frm00058.html
Maybe a lot of people are wondering why i am
saying this. The reason is due to the ARABIC UNDERSTANDING of verses
related to SALAT and NUMBER OF SALATS mentioned in the Quran.
" Guard your solats dan the solat al wusta..."
(prayers) as-solati (and prayer of) al-wusta ( the
1)The word used in this verse is AS SOLAWATI.
This word is the PLURAL or JAMAK form of the word
SOLAT. Jama' here indicates that number of salats is
THREE and ABOVE. Therefore the TOTAL NUMBER of salats
mentioned by ALLAH SWT is THREE AND ABOVE.
2) Then, the word AS SOLATUL WUSTA is attached to
AS SOLAWATI with a WAU ATFA. Since they both are ISM
MA'RIFAH, then AS SOLATUL WUSTA is NOT part of the
AS SOLAWAT mentioned.
Therefore, the number of SOLAT mentioned in 02:238 is
MINIMUM FOUR, thus far.
3) Since AL WUSTA means THE MIDDLE, then IF the
solat is four, the SOLAT AL WUSTA will not be IN THE
Therefore to make the SOLAT AL WUSTA to be WUSTA,
the number of solat would have to be MINIMUM FIVE
times. Read more!
A Refutation of the article entitles “'MYTHS AND REALITIES OF HADITH -- a critical study'” www.mostmerciful.com/hadith-book.pdf written by akbarally meherally
For one not suspecting the intention of this particular article, one might think that the writer is honest in his analysis. But, upon reading and analysis, one will find that the entire article contains nothing but an implicit attempt to smear the good name of Al Hadeeeth
One will see that the writer adopt a very simplistic method in determining the meaning of a hadeeth. For instance he claims that:
“Any hadith that disagrees or is opposed to what has been revealed in the Holy Qur'an
should be discarded, even if it is a Sahih hadith or a Qudsi hadith.”
But, what should be questioned is that has the writer actually proved the existence of contradiction at all?
His entire discussion revolves around attacking Imam Bukhari, the Isnad system (which have been proven to be credible even by western Orientalists), a few hadeeths out of thousands that is viewed by the writer to be “strange” and his countless unfounded accusations that a certain portion of Al Hadeeth contradicts the Quran.
Let me rebutt the entire by the categories shown above
THE ISNAD SYSTEM: IS IT CREDIBLE OR NOT?
The writer, Akbarally Meherally(from hereon will be known as AM), quoted a statement from an unknown character name Brother Malik. And, he says:
“To understand the background to the development of Hadith literature one must sift
through the history of Islam from about 250 years after the time of our Prophet… during
the first century of the Prophet's era no hadiths were written down… Stories circulated by
word of mouth but they were never written down because the view was well known that
the Prophet and the companions did not want anything of the kind to be done, and so
there was a very strong feeling against the writing of any sort of 'Hadith' literature. The
so-called 'Science of isnad' -- touchstone of a hadith's authenticity -- has tremendous
flaws in it. How, then, can we go on giving credence to something that was not written
down and yet which, some 250 years after the fact, Bukhari supposedly managed to trace
back to its source (i.e. the Prophet) by establishing all the links in a chain which cannot
possibly have been genuinely reconstructed! How he (Bukhari) managed to do this
without written records, bridging a gap of about eight generations, and simultaneously
establishing not only biographical data but also a compelling analysis of the mental
faculties of his subjects defies belief! One can quote several hundred hadiths that not only
contradict the Qur’an but also clearly do damage to the Prophet's good name.”
One can see that AM relies on sources which are lazy, unfounded and also ignorant of the subject at hands. How AM can rely on simplistic statement like this really baffles me.
For those whom actually studied the Isnad system in detail, it has been concluded that the Isnad system is a sound system for verification of a status of Hadeeth.
Abdul Malik is under the impression that Hadeeth is transmitted in secret and that between the time of Imam Bukhari and the Prophet, there is like a vacumm. What he doesn’t realize is that the Hadeeth of the Prophet SAW is popular and taught to millions of Muslims throughout the period between Imam Bukhari and the Prophet SAW.
The need for verification of hadeeth doesn’t arise except for the fact there exist attempts by enemies of Islam to introduce fabricated and false words attributed to the Prophet. The attempt by enemies of Islam was detected long before the time of Imam Bukhari but most “tashih” (verification) was done by “Fuqaha” before the time of Imam Bukhari.
What Imam Bukhari has done is that he introduced a standard that’s above everybody else’s and he analyzed all the Hadeeth that’s available or known to the Muslim world at his time.
He then recorded all the hadeeth he has managed to collect in his book “At Tarikh Al KAbeer” and from there he collected 7000+ and put it in his “Aj Jami As Sahih”.
That’s why we find western analysts like Nadia Abboott or J. Robson defending the reliability of the Isnad system.
AM, on the other hand, relied on an obscure character name Bro Abdul Malik.
WRITINGS OF AL HADEETH
AM argues that the Prophet had prohibited the writings of the hadeeth during his time. What AM didn’t write is that the hadeeth that he relied upon:
“Al-Muttalib ibn Abdullah ibn Hantab said:
"Zayd ibn Thabit entered upon Mu'awiyah and asked him about a
tradition. He ordered a man to write it. Zayd said: The Apostle of Allah
(peace be upon him) ordered us not to write any of his traditions. So he
is UNAUTHENTIC. He then wrote for several pages on the Prophet’s prohibition of writing the hadeeth.
AM also missed out a monumental book written by MM Azami which has extensive records of earlier writing of the Prophet’s words (entitled “Studies in early Hadith Literature)
It’s weird that for a Phd student like AM, he should be open enough to accept all literature with regards to the subject and not pick and choose the materials he likes and dislike.
Suffice to say, is entire case against the writing of the Prophet’s word is empty and baseless
FAILURE TO PROVE CONTRADICTION
Here shall show how AM had failed to prove existence of contradictions from the examples he provides
“Allah's Messenger said:
On the Day of Resurrection, my Ummah (nation) will be gathered into three groups, one sort will enter Paradise without rendering an account (of their deeds). Another sort will be reckoned on easy account and admitted into Paradise. Yet another sort will come bearing on their backs heaps of sins like great mountains. Allah will ask the angels though He knows best about them: Who are these people? They will reply: They are humble slaves of yours. slaves of yours. He will say: Unload the sins from them and put the same over the Jews and Christians; then let the humble slaves get into Paradise by virtue of My Mercy”.
7 From ‘110 Hadith Qudsi’. Hadith No. 8 on page 19/20. Translated by Syed Masood-ul-Hasan, Revision
and Commentaries by Ibrahim M. Kunna, published by Darussalam, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in 1996/1417H.
The commentary to this hadith reads:
This Hadith is sound and mentioned in Mustadrak of Hakim.
Below are verses of the Holy Qur’an that speak of the final just and fair judgment by
We shall set up scales of justice for the Day of Judgment so that not a soul will be
dealt with unjustly in the least. And if there be (no more than) the weight of a
mustard seed We will bring it (to account): and enough are We to take account.
AM then claims that the hadeeth contradicts the verse. My question is, HOW?
One: We see clearly that the Hadeeth is an indication of Mercy from Allah SWT to his humble servants.
Second: The verse of 21:47 talks about all souls will be accounted for all their deeds during their life. Incidently, the Hadeeth points to the accounting process as well.
Third: The hadeeth addresses Allah Mercy AFTER those people have been accounted for.
So, where is the contradiction? In short, the hadeeth addresses the mercy of Allah SWT AFTER the “accounting” process mentioned by Allah SWT in 21:47
As for the Jews and Christians, they are already condemned to hell for eternity. Putting sins upon them does not make any difference at all.
So we see AM interprets the Hadeeth in any way he wishes and immediately comes to the conclusion that it’s contradictory.
Yet, we see that it’s not.
CASE #2: AM tries to paint a negative picture of Sahih Bukhari. He then tried to quote MM Azami out of context. I quote:
“A prominent Muslim scholar of our times, Dr. Muhammad Mustafa Azami, M.A., Ph.D.
and Professor of Science of Hadith, University of Riyadh, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia writes:
Many scholars criticized Bukhari's work. The criticism concerns about 80 narrators and
some 110 ahadith. 13
The number of questionable narrators mentioned above is very high. Dr. Azami has in
the footnote given references of the following two prominent works of the fourteenth
century Muslim scholars, based upon which he has made the above statement:
1. 'Abdur Rahman b. Abu Bakr Suyuti's book ‘Tadrib ar-Rawi’, ed. by A.
R. Latif, Cairo, 1379, vol. I, page 134.
2. Ibn Hajar's book ‘Hadyal-Sari’, Cairo 1383, vol. II, page 106. (Unquote)
What AM deliberately left out is:
a. Both Ibnu Hajr and As Suyuti defended the “Sahih” status of Sahih Bukhari.
b. The scholar that doubts the “80 narrators andsome 110 ahadith” is Ad Daruquthni
c. AM fails to quote Ibnu Hajr’s book “An Nukat” which rebuts Ad Daruquthni on the 80 narrators and 110 hadeeth altogether
d. Even MM Azami openly admits that both SAhih Bukhari and Muslim is 100% authentic
At this point, one cannot but notice the evil nature of AM article. It’s nothing but half truth, misquotes, misinterpretations and half baked attempts to highlight the works of the great Imam of the past.
Case #3 : Misunderstanding of Al Hadeeth on Future Happenings
AM quotes this hadeeth”
“Below I have quoted a hadith narrated by Abu Hurayrah that is not Qudsi and can be
found on the internet at an Islamic website. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: The Jews were split up into seventy-one or seventy-two sects; and the Christians were split up into seventy one or seventy-two sects; and my community will be split up into seventy-three sects. (Sunan Abu-Da’ud, Book Number 40, Hadith Number 4579.”
It’s clear that AM doesn’t know the fact that in Arabic, whenever the word “seventy” is used, it refers to “many”. It shouldn’t be taken in literal form. But, then again, AM relies on many of the hadeeth in literal term to support his “contradiction” theory.
Case #4: Hadeeth on Fly.
There has been so many explanation on this hadeeth. Funny AM only takes the ones he is comfortable with.
Refer to Dr Yusuf Qardhawi in his book “Al Fatawa Al Muasirat” where he explained I detail why this hadeeth makes sense.
Plus, the hadeeth says that we are to dip “the other wing” is an indication of dipping the entire fly. It’s “Majaz” again and AM fail to understand that.
Case #5: He claims the hadeeth below is aganst the Quran plus he claims that this hadeeth is taken from Old Testemenat by Abu Hurairah.
Narrated by Abu Hurayrah in Sahih Al-Bukhari 19.
Allah's Apostle said,
(The Prophet) Solomon once said, 'Tonight I will sleep with ninety women, each of whom will bring forth a (would-be) cavalier who will fight in Allah's Cause.' On this, his companion said to him, 'Say: Allah willing!' But he did not say Allah willing. Solomon then slept with all the women, but none of them became pregnant but one woman who later delivered a half-man. By Him in Whose Hand Muhammad's soul is, if he (Solomon) had said, 'Allah willing' (all his wives would have brought forth boys) and they would have fought in Allah's Cause as cavaliers.
He then claims that the hadeeth above is contradictory to this verse:
“31: 6: But there are among men those who patronize ridiculous hadiths without knowledge (thereby) misleading (men) from the Path of Allah and throwing a butt of mockery (on the Path): for such there will be a humiliating Penalty."
MY REPLY: First of all, there is nothing wrong with the hadeeth. Prophet Solomon wanted to build an army that will fight for the sake of Allah and he bedded all his wives.
The hadeeth didn’t even say that Prophet Solomon did it in one night. The hadeeth does say that Prophet Solomon has 90 wives.
AM thinks that the hadeeth is ridiculous. AM thinks that the hadeeth should not be part of the Islamic reference.
Yet, AM doesn’t tell us why the hadeeth is ridiculous. Maybe if AM had thought thru the hadeeth, he will see the logic.
As for his reference to 31:06, unfortunately, the verse has nothing to do with the Al Hadeeth An NAbawiy.
Case #6: He claims that the Hadeeth on Camel Urine is against these verses from the Quran:
And thou [Muhammad] (standest) on an exalted standard of character. 68:4
Ye have indeed in the Apostle of Allah a beautiful pattern of (conduct) for anyone
whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day and who engages much in the praise of
We sent thee not but as a mercy for all creatures.Q.21:107
It is part of the Mercy of Allah that thou dost deal gently with them. Wert thou
severe or harsh-hearted they would have broken away from about thee; so pass over
(their faults) and ask for (Allah's) forgiveness for them; and consult them in affairs
(of moment). Then when thou hast taken a decision put thy trust in Allah. For Allah
loves those who put their trust (in Him).Q 3:159
MY REPLY: My question is how are they contradictory? Especially if the order is a sign of the Prophet’s miracle?
Can AM bring a verse from the Quran that drinking of the camel urine in Sahih Bukhari is NOT or CAN NEVER BE one of the Prophet’s miracle?
Or does AM denies the existence of the Prophet’s miracle altogether.
These dubious examples from AM really underline the real agenda of AM and his group. To undermine Islam and the scholars of Islam.
AM ACCUSES HADEETH OF CLAIMING THE QURAN TO BE INCOMPLETE
AM uses the hadeeth below:
“Hadith narrated by Ibn 'Abbas. Caliph 'Umar said,
I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, 'We do ot find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,' and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession." Sufyan added, "I have memorized this narration in this way." 'Umar added, "Surely Allah's Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.”
AM then says that the Hadeeth tries to paint a picture that the Quran is incomplete.
The problem with AM’s claim is numerous. Let me highlight a few big one:
a. AM is completely blank about the concept of “Aborogation” in the Quran. The Quran had clearly confirmed the existence of aborogation in the Quran. The hadeeth above supports the Quran’s notion of the existence of aborogation or “Nasikh wa Mansukh”.
b. In fact, Saidina Umar is referring to the period when the Quran is NOT COMPLETE. That’s because “NAsikh wa Mansukh” occurred when Al Quran was in the process of being sent down by God. It doesn’t occur now that the Quran is complete. Never did the hadeeth ever imply that the current Quran is incomplete now
c. AM is completely ignorant of the fact that the “rajm” is a punishment shown to us by the Prophet SAW.
I think in the 1400 years of Islam, AM is the first to make such claim.
AM then claims that the “rajm” hadeeth contradicts the Quran. Here lies more of his ignorance or selective memory or his bias stance that stopped him from studying deeper.
What he doesn’t know is that:
a. The rule of Rajm doesn’t depend on this hadeeth alone.
b. Hadeeth pointing to “Rajm” is of the level “Mutawateer Maknawi”
c. This proves that the order for “rajm” comes from the Prophet himself.
d. Is AM accusing the Prophet SAW of contradicting the Quran?
Also, all that we are able to see is that they are “Al Am Wal Khas” of the Arabic language in effect. Therefore, there exists no contradiction.
MORE FAULTY CLAIMS MADE BY AKBARALLY MEHERALLY
AM then went beserk again by accusing Sahih Bukhari contradicting the Quran in so many places. He listed them as follows:
a. Punishment for adultery:
b. Extremely adverse comments supposedly made by the Prophet against women:
c. To approach women during their menses, for sexual purposes:
d. Aspects of character ascribed to the Prophet:
e. The circumstances under which and when the parts of Qur'an were supposedly to have been revealed:
f. Celestial Science
g. The companions of the Prophet:
h. Can anyone intercede on our behalf:
BUT, we have seen how AM failed even to prove his first contention – Punishment for adultery- we can safely assume the rest of his example can be doubted.
I do not have time to comment on the rest of his example, but I shall do it in my next article.
However, it is incumbent upon AM to provide the details of his claim. For now, it’s just simple accusation and estimation only by AM.
HIS CONTEMPT AGAINST ABU HURAIRAH
AM, in the book, has made several accusation against Abu Hurairah, i.e. he takes from Jewish sources, he is forgetful etc.
All of the issues raised by AM on Abu Hurairah are based on lies and hearsay. One should refer to this url for more explanation on Abu Hurairah. http://www.allaahuakbar.net/shiites/in_defense_of_abu_hurairah.htm
Suffice to say that scholars who studies the classical texts in it’s original language have a completely good opinion of Abu Hurairah. Scholars such as:
(a) Dr. Mustafa al-Siba'i (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria), in his thesis, al-Sunna wa Makanatuha fi l-Tashri' al-Islami, (Cairo: 1380/1961);
(b) 'Abd al-Razzaq Hamza (the head of Dar al-Ahaadeeth in Makka and Imam of Masjid al-Haram),Zulumat Abi Raya amam Adwa' al-Sunna al-Muhammadiya, (Cairo: n.d.); and
(c) the definitive response by 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Yahya al-Mu'allami al-Yamani (the Librarian of Masjid al-Haram), al-Anwar al-Kashifa lima fi Kitab Adwa' 'ala al-Sunna min al-Zallal wa l-Tadlil wa l-Mujazafa, (Cairo: 1378) - may Allah have mercy with them all.
It’s weird that AM doesn’t refer to these sources when making his attack on Abu Hurairah.
QUOTING SEVERAL WRITERS ON THE ISSUE OF AL HADEETH
AM then went on to quote from a few “scholars” on the issue of Hadeeth. Before I start commenting on the figures, my question is, why quote people that has zero credibility in commenting on Al Hadeeth of the Prophet.
a. Dr. Sayed Abdul Wadud : He claims there is a Persian conspiracy against the Quran. He claims that the all of the writers of Sunnan Sittah are Persian. Yet, fact shows that only Imam Bukhari is not Arab.
i. Plus, what about the countless scholars of Hadeeth i.e. Ibnu Hazm, Al Hakeem, An Nawawi, Abdullah ibnu Mubarak, Fudail bin Iyadh and many more. They are all Arabs.
ii. Where is the Persian element here? One asks.
iii. Dr Wadud then made a very stupid observation:”[Hadiths} are supposed to be the collection of the sayings and deeds of the Rasool. But had the Rasool himself taken any step to make them a part of “Deen”? Did he try to preserve them as he did in the case of the Qur’an?”
iv. The answer is Yes. MM Azami actually wrote a book on this. So, here we see how shallow this Syed Abdul Wadud is.
b. Dr. Murad Willfried Hoffman
i. He asks this question: “Doubts are justified, because the six orthodox hadith collections were all assembled by the same criteria. In particular, out of sheer veneration of the Companions of the Prophet, isnad (chain of transmission) and matn (text) critique did not go as far as it would have if modern linguistic and sociohistorical analysis had been applied. Given the fact that tens of thousands of fabricated hadiths circulated within two centuries of the Prophet’s death, we simply have to admit that the Sunnah is not as reliable as we would all wish it to be. Let us be cruelly sober: Someone clever and ruthless enough to fabricate the matn of a hadith – be it for political or “pious” reasons – would he not be clever and ruthless enough to also fabricate its isnad?”
ii. Answer: I want to ask Dr Murad Willfried Hoffman, how does one fabricate a sanad? For, for each sanad, there are thousands of corroborations and support. Each “sanad” is a scholar or teacher well known in to their people. Each generation, millions heard and studied the Hadeeth of the Prophet. Imam Bukhari chose the “path” among the millions of each generation among the most renowed and accepted figures hence the term “sanad”.
iii. Such a question above indicates that Dr Willfried is himself not properly studied in the subject of Hadeeth.
c. Dr. Shabbir Ahmed, M. D.
i. One will notice that the Shabbir’s criticism is mostly from the “matn” perspective,
ii. He didn’t criticize the sanad or the isnad system altogether
iii. Yet, we all know how uncomfortable certain Muslims are with the “matn” contained in Sahih Bukhari considering they contradict many of the Western values and beliefs
iv. Dr Shabbir can easily be categorized as classic case of “Uncle Tom” because he says: Dr. Ahmed writes the following after quoting numerous passages from Al-Bukhari that are either “disturbing” or “grave insult to aesthetics and common sense”
v. We can tell that Dr Shabbir’s main “religion” is “logic and common sense” and not Islam.
vi. I will also be interested to know his comments on Dr Yusuf Qardhawi’s notice on the existence of “Majaz” in the hadeeth and also the Quran?
vii. Taking the hadeeth in it’s literal form alone is an example of stupidity in the Arabic language
viii. A reference to my website antiantihadeeth.blogspot.com will show many hadeeth misunderstood because of the stupidity of the reader in Arabic.
It’s clear that the book contains so much holes and inconsistency. All of Akbarally Meherally claim of contradiction is unsubstantiated. In other words, he doesn’t provide us unquestionable and undeniable evidence of the so call “contradictions”. In fact, many of his so call examples are refuted in this article. The fact remains that we are yet to see one major contradiction between the Al Hadeeth and Al Quran.
Furthermore, it is also very weird that Meherally fail to quote from scholars such as Al Qaradhawy in detail. It’s dangerous considering Meherally depends solely on secondary sources to when making his conclusion. Dr Yusuf had written extensively about hadeeth especially the ones which is considered as “strange”. Yet, Meherelly doesn’t refer to him at all.
Even when Meherally did refer, he is more comfortable in picking and choosing parts that he likes the most. For instance, he would quote As Suyuti and Ibnu HAjr with regards to the 80 sanad that is being questioned in “Sahih Bukhari” but he left out completely the fact that these two scholars both testifies to the “sahih” status of both books. In shot, nit-picking is the trademark of Meherally work.
So to conclude, Meherally should not question the future of Al Hadeeth. It is the future of those who doubts Sahih Bukhari and Muslim that needs to be questioned. For from now on, they are totally irrelevant to the Muslim Ummah. In short, all their effort are a big waste of time.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Below is an article that I had previously forwarded to
ROPE. The article explains to us CLEARLY why the Anti
Hadeeth THEORISTS like Ali Mohammed, Sulaiman Yahya,
KASSIM AHMAD etc EMBRACED THE ISA WITH OPEN ARMS.
It is becuase the ENGLISH QURAN that they believed in
DOES NOT show them examples or even mention about the
concept of DUE PROCESS. By their standard,DUE PROCESS
Since the Quran has specified to us a NUMBER of
punishment for a number of offences such as SARIQ(
Stealing), Zani (Fornication) and many more, we are
REQUIRED to carry put such punishment for such
offences stated in the Quran.
The Anti Hadeeth (GAH) theorist have always
accused the AHLUL HADEETH(AS) as introducing
and UNPROGRESSIVE ideas in the Muslims mind thus being
the reason for the Muslim ummah backwardness (despite
the fact that 1400 years of history proves them
Here I shall expose to you WHO's idea would actually
STOP the Muslims from progressing and who will not
GAH: There is NO VERSES in the Quran that specifies
DUE PROCESS for the OFFENCES and PUNISHMENT stipulated
in the Quran or otherwise. No orders for Due process
to be given to those SUSPECTED of STEALING,
FORNICATING etc or any offence for that matter.
Therefore, there is no such thing as DUE PROCESS in
the GAH understanding of ISLAMIC JURISPRUDENCE
Surah 17:73 - And their purpose was to tempt thee
away from that which We had revealed unto thee, to
substitude in Our name something quite different:
(in that case), behold! They would certainly have made
thee (their) friend!
AS: Due Process is DEMONSTRATED clearly by the
PROPHET SAW for ALL offences and their respective
The manner of due process by the Prophet SAW is being
practiced even until today in countries which
practices Roman Law.
Conclusion: If we go by the GAH way of ISLAMIC
JURISPRUDENCE then we shall only see
MASSIVE injustice and cruelty being comitted as there
is no such thing as DUE PROCESS being practiced by
AND, for 1400 years the MUSLIMS have enjoyed RULE OF
LAW by following the SUNNAH of the PROPHET derived
from his Sunnah.
AUTHORITY IN CARRYING OUT PUNISHMENT
GAH: No requirement for AN AUTHORITY to carry out
punishment as stipulated in the Quran. Meaning ANYONE
can carry out the punishment regardless of who.
AS: Only a RECOGNISED AUTHORITY has the right to TRIAL
and PUNISH an offender for the offences stated in the Quran.
Conclusion: The GAH way of JURISPRUDENCE will only
introduce ANARCHY and PUBLIC DISORDER not to mention
LAWLESNESS in a country as NO MENTION
of the need for an authority is mentioned in the Quran.
On the other hand, for AS it has been SHOWN by the
PROPHET via his SUNNAH that only a RECOGNISED
AUTHORITY is ALLOWED to conduct trial and execution of
punishment for the offences stipulated in the Quran
In addition, the SUNNAH of the PROPHET SAW taught of
us including the WEST of concepts such as DOCTIRNE OF
SEPERATION OF POWERS, RULE OF LAW, DUE PROCESS
and many more concept which lead the Westeners out of
their BARBARIC PERIOD into their RENNAISSANCE era.
Please refrain from interpreting the QUran with WHIMS
REFER SURAH 2:78&79
REFER SURAH 2:59
REFER SURAH 39:32
May Allah SWT protect us from the DEVIATIONS being
promoted by the GAH.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Anti Hadeeth makes a lot of noise about certain hadeeth which they think it's absurd i.e. monkey stoning adulteres, drinking camel urine, hadeeth on flies and many more. The question now, what about all the "absurd", logic resisting stories in the Quran. Read bro Bassam Zawadi on the issue Refuting The Argument That There Are "Absurd" Hadith
Many Quranites tend to point out hadith, which may seem strange or too supernatural in order to believe it. This is nothing more than an "appeal to emotion" fallacy. Here is the testimony of one Quranite who became an agnostic...
I was in the middle of laughing at the stories and silently mocking them, when suddenly it hit me that they are no more absurd than the belief that Jesus was born of a virgin, that Moses split the ocean and turned a stick into a snake, or that Solomon had conversations with animals.
So here we see a Quranite who left Islam because he found the virgin birth and Solomon's conversations with animals to be absurd. These are to be found in the Qur'an. Will the Quranites accept this as an argument? They will say that these stories are not absurd and that people must put faith in them. Well then why don't the Quranites do the same with the hadith that they find strange? Who draws the objective standard as to what is too absurd to be true?
This is nothing more than an "appeal to emotion fallacy" and it is to be ignored. Read more!