The Qur’an validates the Hadith

METHODOLOGY FOR STUDY OF THE QUR'AN 

by Sheikh Imran Nazar Hosein

www.imranhosein.org

The Qur’ān validates the Hadīth

Maulānā’s consequent methodology for the pursuit of knowledge was that all knowledge located outside of the Qur’ān had to be judged for validity based on conformity and compatibility with absolute ‘truth’ located in the Qur’ān. This included the Hadīth of Nabī Muhammad (s) which was the second most important source of knowledge of Islam. Maulānā was unambiguous in his forthright declaration that it was 

“the function of the Qur’ān to sit in judgment over the Hadīth and not vice versa” 

(QFSMS, Vol.1, Introductory Observations, p.xxiv, Published by World Federation of Islamic Missions, Malaysian edition,  2012). 

Thus, proper methodology for assessing the textual validity of a Hadīth required that the effort should commence with the Qur’ān, since it is with the Qur’ān that the textual validity of a Hadīth would be assessed. He rejected the other route of commencing the effort with the Hadīth, and then approaching the Qur’ān in order to assess the textual validity of the Hadīth.   

Indeed Maulānā may have been on the verge of making a very valuable contribution to the vexed subject of the critical textual evaluation of Āhadīth of Nabī Muhammad (s) subject that so many scholars of Islam have avoided for so long. He established the foundation in QFSMS for a follow-up book on Hadīth that he wanted to produce just before his death. The new contribution to the subject, to which we have already briefly referred above, would have argued that the Qur’ān be recognized as al-Furqān, and to thus have a priority role as the criterion with which one can evaluate the text of a Hadīth – hence his words that – “the Qur’ān must sit in judgment over the Hadīth and not vice-versa”. 

Instead of the research scholar proceeding from a particular Hadīth to look for verses of the Qur’ān which validate or invalidate it, Maulānā would have argued that the research scholar should commence his effort with the study of the subject from the Qur’ān, while using a methodology for the study of the Qur’ān that will be explained in my book on Methodology Insha’ Allah. Only after the scholar has completed the study of a particular subject in the Qur’ān, and has penetrated the system of meaning of that subject which brings all the data in the Qur’ān on that subject into a harmonious whole like pearls on a necklace, should he then embark on a study of all Āhadīth on that subject. This method would eventually allow him to add those Āhadīth which are harmonious with the Qur’ān to the pearls on the necklace, and then to identify a fabricated Āhadīth when it could not be added to the necklace of pearls.    

His major work on the Qur’ān, the QFSMS, was completed and published in September 1973, and he died about 8 months later. In the months prior to his death he had already engaged in preparatory work on his second major work which would have required him, among many other things, to make a textual assessment of the Hadīth literature to determine compatibility with the Qur’ān, and hence to identify fabricated Āhadīth. He made a reference to the subject of fabricated Āhadīth in QFSMS as follows:  

“… the Qur’ān is absolutely authentic, while even the best Hadīth literature is only relatively authentic – namely,  authentic only in a qualified manner. And, of course, every student of Islam knows all the mischief in the field of Hadīth perpetrated by the forces of counter-revolution in the very early period of Muslim history, – a mischief which emerged in the form of sects and schisms, and which forged the Traditions relating to certain aspects of Islamic life and history to an extent that the confusion created thereby has continued to plague the Muslim society up to the present day.  

(QFSMS, Vol ume One, ‘ Introductory Observations’, p. xxviii)  

Regrettably he died before he could write even a part of that new book, and this, perhaps, explains serious problems which now confront us.  

Now it was quite clear that Maulānā rejected at least part of a Hadīth recorded in Sahīh Bukhārī to the effect that Nabī Muhammad (s) married a six-year old child, and consummated the marriage when she was nine. Maulānā declared that Aisha (r) was 17 years of age when that marriage was consummated:  

“… a wife like Lady Ayesha, who was a virgin of seventeen at the time of the consummation of marriage …” 

(QFSMS, Vol ume One, ‘ Introductory Observations’, p. xxxviii.) 

It seems quite strange indeed that we do not know from the above statement whether he also rejected the even more dangerous part of the Hadīth which declared that the blessed Prophet married her before she reached the age of puberty (i.e., the Hadith says that she was just a six-year-old child). Also, surprisingly, and alarmingly so, Maulānā did not explain how he arrived at an age of consummation of the marriage which contradicted the text of the Hadīth in Sahīh Bukhārī.  

However, since he rejected the declaration of the Hadīth of Sahīh Bukhārī concerning the age of Aisha at the time of the consummation of her marriage with Nabī Muhammad (s), the entirely reasonable conclusion could follow that he considered at least that part of a Sahīh Hadīth to be false, and hence fabricated.  

The normal and time-tested method by which a Hadīth is recognized as ‘weak’ is through the examination of the Isnād, or chain of narrators. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever which even suggests that Isnād had anything to do with his rejection of a part of this Sahīh Hadīth. The other two possibilities are that he may have used the Qur’ān to judge the Hadīth, or that he calculated her age at the time of consummation of the marriage based on data located in other Āhadīth and in the Sīrah or life of Nabī Muhammad (s). 

It nevertheless remains a matter of profound regret that Maulānā simply made mention of her age at the time of consummation of the marriage to have been seventeen, without offering any evidence or argument to support his rejection of the age given in a Hadīth recorded in Sahīh Bukhārī.  

We have, ourselves, used Maulānā’s methodology of using the Qur’ān to sit in judgment over the Hadīth, to demonstrate that the Hadīth in Sahīh Bukhārī concerning the age of marriage with Aisha (r) is in manifest conflict with the Qur’ān, and based on that conflict we have no hesitation in recognizing it to be false and fabricated. (See Chapter Five in my book on Methodology for Study of the Qur’ān).

There was conflict with the Qur’ān in another Hadīth as well, recorded in Sahīh Bukhārī, which declared that the punishment of Rajm (i.e., stoning to death) for adultery committed by a married person, used to be in the Qur’ān once upon a time, but was now no longer in the Qur’ān. Maulānā declared this to be false (see section of Naskh below). However, when he dealt in QFSMS with the subject of punishment for adultery and fornication, he simply made mention of the punishment prescribed in Sūrah al-Nūr (verses 2-3) of the Qur’ān of ‘public flogging’ with one hundred stripes and, strangely so, chose to remain silent on the Hadīth of Sahīh Bukhārī which prescribed the punishment of Rajm for the married person who engages in adultery.   

Yet it is quite clear from another statement on the subject in QFSMS that he recognized a conflict between the Hadīth and the Qur’ān on the subject of punishment for adultery, and that he consequently rejected the Hadīth:  

“Viewing the Qur’anic punishments in the light of ethics, the punishments relating to fornication, adultery and homosexuality are reformative in the sense that they imply the spiritual purification of the offenders; the punishments prescribed for theft, robbery and treason are of deterrent character; and the punishment in respect of murder is based on retribution which is tempered with mercy (2:178).”   

(QFSMS, Vol. 1, p 336.)  

Flogging is reformatory punishment, while Rajm, or stoning to death, is clearly deterrent punishment. A person who has been ‘stoned to death’ cannot be reformed. Maulānā declared the punishment for adultery in Islam to be reformatory, hence it implies that he rejected Rajm as the punishment in Islam for adultery (in case the adulterer is married). 

While we must be eternally grateful to Maulānā for having provided this very important opinion of rejection of the Hadīth in Sahīh Bukhārī on the punishment of Rajm for adultery in Islam, while upholding the punishment established in the Qur’ān, we will forever regret that this very important opinion was strangely derived by implication, rather than through a direct statement on the subject from him.   

Source: Sheikh Imran Nazar Hosein

to be continued .....