Şu da emredildi: Yüzünü dine bir Hanif olarak çevir. Sakın müşriklerden olma.
Yunus Suresi 105
Ben bir Hanif olarak yüzümü gökleri ve yeri yaratana döndürdüm. Müşriklerden değilim ben.
Enam Suresi 79
İbrahim ne bir Yahudi idi, ne de bir Hıristiyan. O sadece hanif bir müslümandı. O müşriklerden değildi.
Ali İmran Suresi 67
Şu da kuşkusuz ki, İbrahim başlıbaşına bir ümmetti; bir Hanif olarak Allah'ın önünde eğiliyordu. Müşriklerden değildi.
Nahl Suresi 123
De ki Allah doğrusunu söylemiştir / vaadinde sadıktır.Haydi artık Hanif olarak İbrahim'in Milleti'ne uyun! Müşriklerden değildi o.
Ali İmran Suresi 95
Allah'a ortak koşmadan, Hanifler olarak... Allah'a ortak koşan kişi, gökten düşmüş de kendisini kuşlar kapışıyor veya rüzgar onu uzak bir yere fırlatıp atıyor gibidir.
In Chapter 2 of this book we saw that the Quran was a self-sufficient
source for Islam and that there was no need for any additional source.
In this chapter we shall be studying the way the hadiths were collected
and assembled. The hadiths were not dictated by the Prophet and were
not intended to be shaped into book form. Consequently, it cannot
constitute a companion volume to the Quran. With reference to their
self-contradictory and illogical character, and their inconsistency
with the Quran, we shall refer you to Chapters 6, 7 and 8.
The literal meaning of hadith is ‘word.’ It means primarily a
communication or narrative in general whether religious or not, and it
has the particular meaning of a record of actions or sayings of the
Prophet and his companions; while the word Sunna means ‘path followed,
trodden path, custom.’ According to the usual explanation, Muhammad’s
sunna comprises his deeds and sayings as well as his unspoken approval.
(For the use of the concept of sunna, see Chapter 16.) The sunna that
the Quran refers to will also be examined in this chapter. The words
hadith and sunna are often used interchangeably in nearly all
publications since patterns of behavior are expressed in words. For
instance, Dr. Subbi es Salih, from the University of Lebanon, explains
this in the following manner: “The experts on traditions have
acknowledged that hadith and sunna have been interchangeably used in
books. Both concepts refer to a word, an act, a statement or an
attribute of the Prophet.” This is also applicable to the present book.
We propose to go back to the days of the Prophet before starting to
examine the hadiths and return to our own day. The hadith scholars
themselves admit that the Prophet did not allow scribes to take down
his sayings. Two authoritative books on hadiths, Muslim and Musnad by
İbni Hanbal, founder of the Hanbali religious sect, make the following
comment: “Take down nothing other than the verses revealed. Anyone that
may have written any of my sayings, let him destroy it” (Muslim,
Sahih-i Muslim Kitab-ı Zühd, Hanbal, Musnad). The hadith quoted by
Darimi is as follows: “The companions of the Prophet asked him
permission to take down his sayings. They were refused” (Darimi,
es-Sunen). The hadith transmitted by Alm Hatib is as follows: “While we
were engrossed copying the hadiths, the Prophet came and asked what we
were doing. We are copying your sayings, we replied. Is your intention
to create a book other than God’s Book? People that preceded you
swerved from the straight path because they dared write books other
than God’s Book” (Al Hatib, Takyid). And Tirmizi had this to say: “We
asked permission to copy the sayings of God’s messenger, but he refused
to give it” (Tirmizi, es-Sünen, K. Ilm).
In books on hadiths and in books claiming to be the source of the
established religion, it is explicitly acknowledged that the Prophet
had prohibited the copying of his sayings, and the reason was to
prevent the mixing up of the verses of the Quran with his own sayings.
According to the traditionalists, the hadiths should have as much
authority as the Quran; they are suggested to be the source of religion
as much as the Quran. If this is so, in fact, how come then the Prophet
prohibited the copying of his sayings? Why did he tolerate gaps that
were likely to occur in the revealed religion, the adulteration of his
sayings during the process of their transcription, or the omission of
his words? The Quran speaks of copying with the use of pen, of
committing to paper one’s will and debts owed. This being the case, is
it possible that the Prophet should prohibit the transcription of his
sayings were they to be considered another source of Islam? Had he
forestalled the copying of a source of religion, wouldn’t he have been
instrumental in causing Islam to remain incomplete? As we shall be
seeing in the forthcoming pages, the number of contrived traditions is
considerable. Had the hadiths constituted another source of Islam, the
Prophet would certainly have dictated them and spared the interpolation
of an infinite number of sayings reported to have been uttered by him.
As far as the source of Islam is concerned, we well know that the Quran
is self-sufficient. The first person who was aware of this fact was the
Prophet himself. Committing traditions to paper was far from being his
wish. The Prophet, who was well advised in every respect, had banned
the copying of his sayings as he knew that the human character was
inclined to idolize prophets and was liable to sow dissension. Today,
we are in a position to appreciate once more the foresight of the
Prophet. The very fact that he had forbidden the transmission of his
sayings is enough to convince those who are wary.
Ahmed Emin draws the
following chart to represent the garbling of traditions transmitted:
“Were we to make an expository display of the hadiths, we would be
confronted with a pyramid, the summit illustrating the period of God’s
messenger. As we go down we observe the gradual expansion toward the
base. Yet, the ideal should have been the reverse; for, the companions
of the Prophet best knew what the Prophet uttered. As they were to pass
away, the number of those who knew the words uttered by the Prophet
would decrease and the pyramid would have changed its position and
turned upside down. Yet, we observe that the number of hadiths is even
greater under the Omayyads than during the lifetime of the Prophet”
(Ahmed Emin, Duhaul Islam). According to some scholars there are over
two million hadiths. Two of the most reliable books on hadiths are the
one of Bukhari and the one of Muslim. The hadiths contained in the
former are reported to have been selected from among 600,000 and in the
latter this number is 300,000. The one of Davud contains hadiths
selected from among 500,000, the one of Malik Muvatta, founder of a
religious sect, contains hadiths selected from among 100,000 and the
one of Musnad contains hadiths selected from among 750,000. Given the
fact that the prophethood of the Prophet lasted for about 23 years, the
number of days he would have acted as prophet would have been 23 x 365
= 8395. If two million is the number representing the totality of the
hadiths, the number of hadiths per day would be 200. The result to be
obtained after 200 years after the death of the Prophet would be
inconceivably misleading. It is alleged that the authors of hadiths
used to know them by heart and that they had selected from among them
those that had appeared the most reliable to them. In order to declare
the exact number of hadiths that someone had in store, he should have
written them somewhere and counted; whereas no one can possibly assert
that he has in his repertory 600,000 hadiths.
HAD THE HADITHS BEEN A SOURCE OF ISLAM, THE RELIGION WOULD HAVE BEEN INCOMPLETE
Supposing
for an instant that the claim was admitted, the situation would be even
more frightful. Muslim declares that he has not included in his book
every one of the hadiths alleged to be authentic (Muslim). According to
his argument the hadiths are a source of Islam; yet, he leaves out
some, though acknowledged to be genuine. According to this logic, Islam
would be riddled with loopholes. Given that we cannot be sure of the
fact that a hadith left out by Muslim is not omitted by another
compiler, this account of traditionalist logic declares itself to be
incomplete. Bukhari who announced that the hadiths are a source for
Islam, included in his book only 6000-7000 hadiths although he had in
his store 600,000, i.e. 1%. The rest, 99% of the whole, did not gain
admission, either because he deemed them not trustworthy or irrelevant.
Had the hadiths been a source of Islam, we would have been at the mercy
of Bukhari and his skill of selection. Had the hadiths been useful,
assuming that the 99% left out did not include what was essential, the
mentality of those who acknowledge the hadiths to be a source of Islam
would have to admit the fact the Islam would irretrievably be lacking
in many respects. Given the fact that Bukhari is no more and that there
is no one who claims that he has in store the said 99% of the hadiths
that Bukhari asserted to have in his repertory which he did not commit
to paper or transmit through other means, we should have been
considered members of a patchy religion.
Let us try to make an assessment of the 600,000 hadiths in
Bukhari’s bundle. Let us assume that Bukhari had nothing else to do in
life except deal with hadiths; that he did not sleep, that every one of
the hadiths was authentic and that he spared two hours to check whether
a particular hadith was authentic or not, testing the dependability of
the transmitters chain. The space of time in question would be 130
years. If we consider that there were instances of checking the
authenticity of a given hadith by setting off on a journey that
sometimes took days, Bukhari’s carrying out this test would take
thousands of years. In brief, we can safely assert that Bukhari’s
testing the authenticity of the hadiths and his sorting them out is
illogical.
The Quran is an established text. We cannot say the same thing for
the hadiths. There is no end to unconfirmed reports. As no established
text existed, the compilation of hadiths was liable to be mixed with
alien elements. We must be grateful to God Who has not put us in a
condition in which we would be in need of a source another than the
Quran. And thanks to Him we are now the members of a perfect religion.
We must divest ourselves from every element alien to Islam, getting rid
of hadiths that sow dissension and of hadiths unjustifiably attributed
to the Prophet, claiming predominance over the Quran and be illumined
by the dazzling light of the Quran, the perfect finished work.
HOW DID THE HADITHS WHOSE COPYING WAS PROHIBITED BY THE PROPHET TAKE THE SHAPE OF BOOKS?
The
attitude of the Prophet toward the copying of his sayings was also
adopted by the Four Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Omar, Osman and Ali) who
succeeded him. We shall see in Chapter 11 how the caliphs put a ban on
the copying of hadiths and had those committed to paper burned. At
first sight, there is nothing surprising in the fact that those who had
witnessed events during the lifetime of Muhammad narrated what they had
heard and seen to each other. The fact that the companions of the
Prophet cross-examined people who claimed to have heard the Prophet say
this and that, requiring them to produce a witness, their prohibition
to commit to paper the sayings of the Prophet during conversations held
in which he was a part, are evidences that show the Prophet’s caution
was also maintained by his followers. The four caliphs also had
followed suit and prohibited the writing of hadiths despite the fact
that they knew many of the sayings of the Prophet, in the wake of his
demise. If there is anyone to say the contrary, why not ask him to
produce a compilation dating from that date?
Harevi said: “Neither the companions of the Prophet, nor those
followers in point of time, the ones that lived after Muhammad was
dead, but had conversed with at least one of his companions wrote any
of his sayings. They just transmitted them by word of mouth. There is
no exception of this outside of one or two instances. Being afraid of
their sinking into oblivion, Omar bin Abdulaziz, in a letter addressed
to Abu Bakr al-Hazm, wanted him to try to research traditions and have
them copied.” The Caliph Yazid bin Abdulmalik who succeeded him after
the latter’s decease dismissed Abu Bakr al-Hazim and his collaborators
from this job after the death of Omar bin Abdulaziz. Afterward, Caliph
Hisham is accepted to have been the first compiler of hadiths of
Ez-Zurhi. Mahmud Abu Rayye, who tells these developments in detail,
mentions the pressure exerted. “The tabiyyun (those who lived after
Muhammad was dead but had conversed with at least one his companions)
who were given the task of collecting the hadiths assumed the duty
under coercion. The fact that the companions of the Prophet had not
undertaken such a task daunted them. ’We felt uneasy as we committed
the traditions to paper, but the administrators forced us to this’”
said Az Zuhri (Mahmut Abu Rayye, Clarification of Sunna). Ghazzali said
that the second generation after Muhammad looked askance at the copying
of hadiths, merely advising their memorization (Ghazzali, Iha-yı
Ulum-iddin). The first period in which the hadiths were studied
individually was the time of the Abbasids. This study, Muvatta, made
available toward the end of the second century after the Hijrah belongs
to Maliki, the founder of the religious sect Maliki. Ibn Ferhun, on his
book entitled Ed dibae al Muzahhab, says that Malik had collected some
10,000 hadiths, revising them on a yearly basis, that very few had been
left at the end, and that had he lived a few years more he would have
dismissed them altogether. Musnad comes next, the work of Ibn Hanbal,
founder of the religious sect ‘Hanbal.’ In the work of Hanbal who died
in 241 after the Hijrah, we observe the inclusion of many sayings
without a serious approach, and without differentiating between the
authentic traditions and the inauthentic ones, based on the ongoing
rumors at the time.
Up until the arrival of Bukhari, no effort was spent to sift the
traditions classifying them according to their degrees of authenticity.
It was Bukhari first who initiated the classification of hadiths
according to their degrees of authenticity. However, this study failed
to bring it to fruition. The dates of decease of the prominent
researchers on hadiths are as follows: Bukhari, 256 A.H.; Muslim, 261
A.H.; Ibn Mace, 273 A.H.; Abu Davud, 275 A.H.; Tirmizi, 279 A.H.;
Nesei, 303 A.H. The Shiites have a different collection. The Sunnis and
the Shiites refute each other’s compilation. The formation into book
form of the collected sayings of Muhammad according to the Shiites is
of a later date. The dates of decease of the prominent researchers on
the hadiths are as follows: Kulani, 329 A.H.; Babuvay, 381 A.H.; Jafar
Muhammad Tusi, 411 A.H.; Al Murtaza, 436 A.H.
If a given statement of Mahmud II, Ottoman Sultan, had not been
recorded in a history book and had come down to us by hearsay, how far
could we rely on its authenticity? Who would have relied on it to be
the authentic utterance of the Sultan, claiming that his words had come
down following the direct line in a chain? The time that elapsed since
the death of Mahmut II who died in 1839 AD up to now is much shorter
than the space of time that separates the death of the Prophet from the
date when the first compilation of the hadiths in the form of a book
appeared. The time that elapsed between the date of the passing away of
the Prophet and some famous books of hadiths was twice as long as this
interval of time. For reasons we shall be stating in Chapter 5, at the
time of the prominent transmitters of hadiths tens of thousands of
hadiths had already been concocted in a way that a sifting was
impossible. The fact that these compilations contain innumerable
traditions contradictory and conflicting with the Quran, logic and
other hadiths, was the method they used show once again the disastrous
results of the quest for sources other than the Quran. The simile of
the pyramid we mentioned above had been inflated by pseudo-hadiths
already. Instead of following the path of the Prophet and of the
caliphs and raising objections to the copying of the hadiths, they
committed to paper an infinite number of hadiths whose authorship they
falsely attributed to the Prophet, giving great harm to the world of
Islam along with uttered slandering and abusive statements on behalf
and for the love of the Prophet. The pretext of the Christians who
deified Christ has been the love they had for him. However, neither the
convincing arguments of the transmitters of the hadiths, nor the
alleged reasons of Christians could justify their ends.
The
word sahaba is used for all Muslim individuals who had the privilege of
seeing the Prophet, even from a distance. This definition of Bukhari
has received general acceptance. In the well-known hadith compilations,
the honesty, the reliability of the memory, and the faith of persons
who claim to have heard a certain saying of Muhammad reported were
questioned to check the veracity of the allegation or for rejection of
testimony. Yet, no one’s lifetime would suffice for the examination as
to honesty, reliability of memory and checking of other qualifications
of reporters up until the third century AH.
Abu Shame said: “Views on transmitters of hadiths present great
diversity; while a particular transmitter is the most reliable one
among others for some, for others he happens to be the most
accomplished liar.” For instance, he may be a trustworthy transmitter
according to Ikrim and Bukhari, but a perjurer for Muslim. This
instance may be multiplied. Among these the most striking example may
be Bukhari’s refusal to include in his compilation any of the
traditions transmitted by Abu Hanifa as he declared him to be one of
the most unreliable of transmitters. The founder of the foremost
representative and revered figure of traditional Islam happens to be
unreliable according to the most prominent compiler of hadiths. The
contradictory accounts encountered about hadiths, subject of
controversy, among members of the board of examiners, abounds, and are
as many as those existing between the hadiths themselves. We refrain
from going into detail, as it is useless and may be tiresome.
All these hadiths were first attributed to the companions of the
Prophet as the last link in the chain of information, to be eventually
traced back to the Prophet. Persons, who came after the companions,
also became a bone of contention even though they were ultimately
questioned. Nowhere in the Quran do we encounter a passage where it is
said that every person who saw the Prophet is a reliable person. Quite
the reverse is the case, many of those who confessed to be confirmed
Muslims were censured. The Quran states also that the hypocrites had
infiltrated the community of true believers. It is said that not even
the Prophet knew all of the double-dealers (9 Repentance, 101). One
cannot imagine how the hadith imams may have distinguished them, given
the fact that not even the Prophet could tell them apart. How can they
assert that what they accepted as reliable was, in fact, not worthy of
confidence? Can one claim that these people knew what the Prophet did
not know, 200 hundred years after his death? The clashes and
accusations of infidelity among some of the companions are evidence
that the self-styled companions also may not have been trustworthy
after all. The mentality that hypothesizes the fact that a companion
should be considered ipso facto a reliable source is liable to err. As
G.H.A. Juynboll has pointed out, if the assumption that the companions
are trustworthy people is challenged, the logic behind the structure of
hadiths would go on the rocks. We shall be dealing with this issue when
we take up the case of contrivers of hadiths.
The
unreliability of hadiths transmitted may be illustrated with a game
played among children. Suppose a sentence of ten words is to be
transmitted from one ear to the next along a chain of ten students and
try to evaluate the result by checking if the initial word spoken in
the first ear is exactly the same as the one announced by the tenth in
the chain. The transmission of hadiths took place in the course of a
space of time of 200 years. And the communication was made over hill
and dale by hearsay. Even though we were blindfolded to the reasons for
the concoction of hadiths and to assume the chain to have been perfect,
and acknowledging the good will of the transmitters, the end results
should still be considered doubtful.
A large majority of the public, uninformed of the true state of
affairs, believes that the hadiths are the unadulterated sayings of
Muhammad as uttered by him. Even the transmitters of hadiths are
uncertain of this. A great number of the compilers and Bukhari himself
are of the opinion that it is enough to keep the meaning of a
transmitted hadith rather than literally committing it to one’s memory.
This led to the interpolation of individual opinions into the
transmitted sayings of Muhammad; the opinions of those unwilling to
confess to themselves their inability to understand them. Given the
fact that not every transmitter had an infallible memory capable to
implant in his mind all that had been transmitted, he had to rest
satisfied with what remained in store, resulting in variant semantic
points of view. In spite of this, Bukhari as well as Abu Hanifa and
Shafi, heads of the two leading religious sects, have deemed the
semantic consideration and hearsay evidence sufficient in their
assessment of the true meaning of a hadith.
It is generally accepted by transmitters of the hadiths that the
largest congregation the Prophet had addressed in his lifetime was when
he delivered his farewell sermon, and it is estimated that more than
one hundred thousand people attended it. Yet the sermon, to which more
than one hundred thousand people bore testimony, appeared different in
written texts according to the reporters; this may demonstrate the
production of multiple conflicting interpretations and variants in the
hadiths each alleged to have directly originated from the Prophet.
It was said that not the literal rendering of a hadith but its
meaning could be transmitted; yet, when there was something omitted in
the sentence claimed to have been uttered by the Prophet, the
interpretations had been liable to variations. When Aisha, the
Prophet’s wife, heard from Abu Hurayra, who had attributed to the
Prophet the words: “House, woman and horse may bring bad luck,” she
said: “I swear by Almighty God that the Prophet uttered no such thing.”
This conviction was widespread during the time of pre-Islamic Arabian
paganism but had a different wording: “If there is bad luck, one must
look for it in one’s woman, horse or house.” As one can see, this
saying attributed to Aisha may be interpreted differently according its
wording and context.
All these considerations played a role in the controversies
provoked among the transmitters of the hadiths. Many hadiths reported
by Muslim were unfounded according to Bukhari and vice-versa. Whereas,
among the hadiths transmitted by the founders of the four orthodox
religious sects, no distinction was made about their degree of
authenticity. The four imams founded their sects disregarding the
criteria of the authors of Kutub-ı Sitte (6 renowned hadith books). Of
these, Abu Hanifa, the founder of the most prominent of the four sects,
blind to his poor knowledge of hadiths, and dodging the hadiths, gave
preeminence to his own views for which he was censured by the Imams and
was declared an unreliable person by Bukhari.
We saw that
the companions of the Prophet were considered infallible, and that
without distinction they were judged to be honest people, worthy to be
taken at their word. When the books of hadiths began to be committed to
paper, neither a companion of the Prophet nor anyone who had seen any
of his companions was alive. From the time of the Prophet to the
copying of the hadiths six or seven generations had gone by, so that
when one transmitted the hadiths he had to go six or seven generations
back. Bukhari was the first person who took up this task systematically
and the hadiths began to be transmitted without tracing their origin to
a particular person. Given the fact that Bukhari lived in the 200s AH,
keeping in mind the chain of transmitters of the traditions without any
preset system is illogical. Kasım Ahmad, who criticized the
transmission of the hadiths, quotes in his book Hadiths and Islam the
following names:
1- The Prophet
2- Omar Ibn Hattab
3- Ibn Vakkas
4- Ibn Ibrahim at Taimi
5- Yahya Ibn- Said al Ansari
6- Sufyan
7- Abdullah Ibn Zubeyr
8- Bukhari
1- The Prophet
2- Aisha
3- Urvan Ibn Zubayr
4- Ibn Shiab
5- Ukail
6- Al Baith
7- Yahya Ibn Bukhair
8- Bukhari
When the hadiths began to be transmitted, even the link that
succeeded the link that had followed the generation after Muhammad had
passed away. In other words, persons who could check the reliability of
transmitters had already died. Assuming, though illogically, that all
the companions were indeed truthful, considering that a good many
people of the generation that followed the companions’ age had died
when the copying of the hadiths began, the checking of their
reliability would still be impossible. Therefore, the criteria that the
transmitters had adopted are unfounded and in vain.
On the other hand, it is also impossible to control the reliability
of those who were living at the time. For, during the copying of the
hadiths, Muslims were scattered over a vast geography. It was not
practical for the copiers to reach the last links of transmitters by
camel. Moreover, one could never be certain that those who might have
reached them were reliable. A short visit and interview would not
suffice to reveal the character of a man. How can a phenomenon like
religion, which must be based on sound principles, be founded on such
subjective criteria?
We see in the hadith ,iImams the sectarian mentality in superman’s
garb. This hero is supposed to have in his memory hundreds of thousands
of hadiths and be able to conjure them up at any given moment deciding
on their veracity. There are people whom he had never set eyes on,
persons who had already died when he came into the world; yet, he was
confidant that they must have been honest and reliable. He had also the
power to establish contact with people on camel back and cover
distances that not with a helicopter at his command could he have
covered such territory. He also had the genius to distinguish the
honest and reliable from the unreliable and dishonest. Yet, these were
the qualities attributed to the Imams, transmitters of hadiths. We pass
over in silence the legend of spiritual supremacy.
WE ARE NOT THE FIRST TO ADD WEIGHT TO THESE ARGUMENTS
The
transmitter of a hadith who rests content with the assumption that all
reporters in the chain of transmitters were honest people, without
feeling the need to question them, accepts it as correctly transmitted.
Such hadiths are called ahad. The most reliable hadiths that comprise
these ahad hadiths belong in particular to Bukhari and Muslim and the
six books called Kutub-ı sitte. The traditionalist Islamist holds onto
his weapon of excommunication in order to have his convictions accepted
and declares that anybody who questions the truth of a hadith is
declared an outcast. One should bear in mind that both Bukhari and
Muslim had repudiated each other’s arguments in the compilation of
their respective books. However, traditionalists consider a divine
grace the disagreement between learned men on tenuous arguments, while
our different opinions will likely send us to hell. The Shiites do not
accept any hadith book compiled by the Sunnis. The objections, raised
by Al-Mu’tazila, and the Kharidjites, members of the earliest of the
religious orders of Islam, to the copying of hadiths and their
acceptance as a religious source, the announcement of some theologians
(Kelamcılar) that the hadiths are but suppositions, the controversies
of Shafi in Basra because of his recourse to sources other than the
Quran, and the quotations of the responses of Al- Murdjia, extreme
opponent of Kharidjites, in books on hadiths are examples for the
objections raised against the compilation of the hadiths. Those who
question the defenders of Islam as put forward in the Quran and
challenge the argument that the hadiths should not be considered as a
source of Islam, by asking: “Do you consider yourselves pioneers in
disseminating such a message, since up until now no one has come up
with such a claim?” are ignorant of the events we have mentioned. Ever
since their dawn, the hadiths have been an object of strong
reservations as to their validity as a source of Islam. However, the
central authority hushed up the counter arguments. We are neither the
pioneers in this, nor is the claim new. The Islam of the Quran existed
from the very beginning without the addition of hadiths. The hadiths
were a late attachment and served as something equal to the Quran.
As we saw in Chapter 3, the Quran is
a self-sufficient, detailed, explicit book that contains everything
that a Muslim should know. The Quran has no need for hadiths. When we
are faced with a question that puzzles us, we must look for it in all
the verses of the Quran related to the issue and learn all about it. To
assess the Quran within the framework of adulterated hadiths is to
mystify and pervert it. In order to hear the voice of the Quran without
interferences, we must turn our ears solely to the Quran.
33 – There is not an example they advance to which We do not give you the truth and the best commentary. 25 The Distinguisher, 33
God declares that He provides the best commentary. God’s
revelations are complete in themselves without the need for recourse to
other commentaries.
The hadiths related to the occasion in which a particular
revelation had come down (esbabı nuzul) seem to be even more numerous
than other hadiths. The commentaries on the Quran in circulation are
replete with hadiths – which have not been subjected to any sifting
process as to their authenticity – and interspersed with old Jewish
legends. The fact that the reasons given for the revelation in
connection with a particular occasion vary considerably among various
commentaries and are adulterated with irrelevant stories demonstrates
the extent of distortions involved. Ibn Hanbal, a traditionalist and
founder of a sect himself said: “There is not a single hadith related
to the occasion (esbabı nuzul) on which a particular hadith was
revealed.”
The main problem is the confinement of intellects by established
religious sects. This is still more relevant when we think about the
variety of irrational interpolations. Interpreters of the Quran based
on sectarian approaches tried not to deviate from the path indicated by
their sects and consequently made false constructions. The infinite
variety of contradictory hadiths on the occasions in which revelations
were made has been a rich source of exploitation by sectarian
commentators. As a matter of fact, several transmitters, to suit their
own ends, had coined the majority of these hadiths during their
compilation.
In the ‘Introduction’ of Elmalı Hamdi Yazır’s commentary, there is
a private understanding of his with the official authority. In Chapter
5 of this ‘understanding’ it is said that the commentary is in
conformity with the body of creeds of the madhab (sect) Hanafiya and of
the Sunnis. The ‘ideological commentary,’ according to Mehmet Aydın, or
the ‘sectarian commentary’ we prefer to use, is apparent from the very
start of Elmalılı’s work. No matter how wide his knowledge may be, how
far can a commentary produced by those whose intellects are hinged on a
sect not sanctioned by God, be dependable? The efforts of those who
have tried to interpret the Quran in the light of the hadiths served no
purpose other than to lead the seekers of truth down a blind alley; the
seekers may have been imams or sheikhs, and the causative agents,
hadiths or the occasions when the revelations were made.
SALMAN RUSHDI’S SATANIC VERSES ARE ACTUALLY SATANIC HADITHS
The
greatest trouble caused to the commentaries on the Quran based on the
hadiths related to the occasions on which the revelations were made has
been their use by the impious to equate them with Islam. The book of
Salman Rushdi’s is an example of this. According to contrived hadiths
it is alleged that one day, as the Prophet was engrossed in the
recitation of the Quran, Satan penetrated his soul and caused him to
praise the divinities Lat, Menat and Uzza and made him utter
complimentary words about them; and persuaded Muhammad to recognize
these divinities as intercessors with God. Ibn-i Kutayba also confirms
this in his hadith book entitled Tevilu Muhtelifi’l Hadis.
According to the hadiths, however, the Prophet declared what he had
uttered did not originate from him but were the words of Satan. We have
witnessed the public censure leveled at Salman Rushdi and Homeini’s
anathema that paved the way to diplomatic crises. Nevertheless, no one
put the blame on those who had reserved a place for these hadiths, the
real culprit.
Sizin yetkiniz yok foruma yeni mesaj ekleme Sizin yetkiniz yok forumdaki mesajlara cevap verme Sizin yetkiniz yok forumda konu silme Sizin yetkiniz yok forumda konu düzenleme Sizin yetkiniz yok forumda anket açma Sizin yetkiniz yok forumda ankete cevap yazma
HABERLER
Etkin Konular
Kullanıcı Listesi
Yardım
Kayıt
Giriş
Hanif Dostlar Ana Sayfa -> İngilizce Makaleler
Konu: HADITHS AND SUNNA
