The roots of Quran Alone Movement
-
Hadith as Scripture by prof. Aisha Y. Musa
Written by Bookreviews
28-1-2009 1721"Hadith as Scripture is the only book that covers both the earliest and most recent discussions on the authority of the Hadith. The authority of Hadith is a concern to Muslims in their daily lives, as well as a question of academic interest. Hadith as Scripture contains the first-ever Western language translation of the earliest extant text on the subject. This work explores the earliest extant discussions on the authority of the Hadith in Islam and compares them with contemporary debates."
In modern Islamic movements, a new trend has emerged, created because of the need to reform the Muslim society to make it progressive and 'to keep up with the times'. Famous reformers, Muhammad Abduh and Sayyid Qutb for example, were more focussed on the Qur'an and its message, than the Hadith and other historical materials deemed important as a basis for Islam. Their reason was that only the Qur'an could be seen as timeless and flexible in its usage and meaning so as to be applicable for modern society and knowledge. This trend was taken further, and eventually many reformers and groups became to renounce all historical material next to the Qur'an as unusable or even as false teachings, and have come to accept only the Qur'an as the major or only source for their ideas of what Islam is about.
These reform ideas have been seen as heretical by the majority of traditional schools in Islam and attacked and labelled as dangerous and blasphemous. As the majority of Muslims are still being deeply controlled by the traditional schools, these reform movements have always stayed a minority among the majority, and have been successful only in certain countries and social classes. But these 'Qur'an alone' reformers and followers kept popping up over the decades in all Muslim countries, and now in the age of the Internet have grown into a large community and are thus being taken more seriously, and are gaining attention and interest among the general Muslim public.
The 'Qur'an alone' or 'mostly focused on the Qur'an' movements are mostly labelled by the traditional Islamic schools as results of Western Orientalist research, who from the beginning of the 19th century have written many books critical of the reliability of the Hadith and other historical materials. Thus the 'Qur'an alone' movements are labelled as apologetic or caused by Western attacks on Islam, and thus are not based on Qur'anic teachings itself, but simply on Western beliefs and methods of viewing Islam. It is labelled as a 'Western caused' movement.
This tactic is similar to the treatment of the Medieval schools of Kalam and Mu'tazilah, who used Reason (aql) to interpret the Qur'an and its doctrines (tafsir bi'l-Ra'y). Most of these schools only accepted Mutawwir Hadith, historical reports that had multiple chain-sources. These were themselves miniscule in number compared to the accepted majority of Hadith based on simpler and more easily falsified transmission chains. And even the Mutawwir Hadith were approached with caution by these schools of Kalam. Many of the rational methods of the Kalam were taken to a certain degree into the later formed traditional schools, but their major beliefs on the Qur'anic message and their approach to the Hadith were rejected and deemed false, and thus non-Islamic (Western) teachings, created through the influence of the Greek philosophy.
When Muhammad Abduh, Sayyid Ahmad Khan, GA Parwez, Muhammad Iqbal and other reformers in the 19th and 20th century came to use the same arguments and conclusions as the Mu'tazilah, while most of the time not ever referring to them, they were labelled as neo-Mu'tazilah, conforming to the Western (and colonial ruler) judgment on Islam and its history.
They were accused of blindly believing Orientalists such as Goldziher, Schacht, Muir and others who attacked Islamic history as unreliable and many Qur'an interpretations as illogical and superstitious. Scholar Daniel Brown in his book "Rethinking Tradition in Modern Islamic Thought" (http//free-minds.org/rethink) began to research these reformers and their methods and came to very different conclusions. According to him, many of these reformers based their ideas on the Qur'an itself and their personal research into the historical reliability of Islamic records, and believed to have found contradictions and falsified records. Thus these reformers came to the same conclusions as several Orientalists, but were not influenced by them. The traditional schools still outlawed their works or ordered rulings their work must not be read, and so many of the reformist ideas never gained firm ground in the Muslim mind.In the late 20th and beginning 21st century, new 'Qur'an alone' reformers and groups have emerged and now have the power of the internet to spread their ideas. Although these were also branded as heretic by the traditional schools, the Internet has created a platform which could be reached easily by the Muslim majority, and thus has more impact. Also the works of Parwez for example (http//www.tolueislam.com/Parwez/BA_Parwez.htm) , who belonged to the pre-Internet reform movement, have been rediscovered by many Muslims, as they are freely available on the web and translated into English and other languages, which was not possible before. And so the 'Qur'an alone' movement is gaining ground by the anarchistic and almost unbannable word-wide web.
But the same arguments are still used against them; they are Western creations or apologetic movements. Just as Brown, Professor Aisha Musa asked herself Is this true, is it a Western creation, or is there some truth in their arguments? Having been herself part of the reform movements for a long time, she had seen the many accusations laid against the movement. As a professor having a degree in Islam, and thus having the education and knowledge to perform a professional inquiry, she focused on two areas which were not discussed by Brown in his book. One is a research into the question If the idea of the Qur'an alone is based on arguments found within the Qur'an itself, shouldn't the idea of the Qur'an alone be the orthodox movement, instead of the traditional pro-Hadith schools? The second question concerned researching the movement of the late 20th and present 21st century movements- the modern day Internet-based groups, which were not covered by Brown. Are they a product of Western society?
The difference from Brown's book is that Musa searched for traces of evidence of similar discussions between the 'Qur'an alone' and 'Hadith accepting' schools and groups in the first centuries of Islam. If the 'Qur'an alone' arguments are sound, these must have been part of almost every age in Islam from day one, and indeed they were she shows.
Caliph Umar, the second ruler of Islam, was known for his rejection of the recording of Hadith. The reformers use this as a proof for their rejection of Hadith, while the Hadith-accepting groups that now form the traditional schools say he only did this because Umar didn't want the Qur'an to be recorded wrongfully, so he only allowed oral transmittal of Hadith. This prohibition of recording Hadith came from the Prophet itself it was said, and was upheld till as late as 70 years after the Prophet. The then ruling Caliph ordered scholars to write Hadith down, but they did this reluctantly. And as much time had passed and much strife had occurred among the Muslim societies, false Hadith were abundant in such a degree that most Hadith scholars in the second Islamic century rejected at least 90% of the Hadith they collected. But these were the historical question-of-reliability arguments which were already discussed by Brown. And so Musa goes on and searches for Qur'an-based arguments against Hadith or outside sources.
She found none, no documents written by a person that could be labeled as 'Qur'an alone' in the first centuries could be found. But the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence; and so Musa used a different tactic by reviewing the earliest pro-Hadith documents, as then we could deduce what arguments the Qur'an-aloners used. This tactic had also been used to deduce the doctrines of early Christian sects, and also for the Mu'tazilah by early 19-20th century scholars as almost no Mu'tazilah documents survived in common main Muslim libraries, and so by reviewing the opponents of the Mu'tazilah it could be understood what the Mu'tazilah believed by seeing what their opponents accused them of or argued against. In the middle of the 20th century, old copies of Mu'tazilah books were found in some libraries in Yemen, and so finally the works themselves could be read. Many of the deduced conclusions of what Mu'tazilah believed turned out to be correct.
Musa uses two main pro-Hadith texts written by two famous scholars of orthodox Islam. Shafi, founder of the Shafi school and labelled as the first scholar who made both Hadith and Sunnah as divine sources in Islam. And the later follower Ibn Qutayba. Both scholars have written books against the Qur'an alone ideology and thus showed that the Qur'an alone movements were present in their lifetimes and even important and known enough to write books for to attack them. She has found the proof she was looking for. Musa breaks their texts down and discusses how the pro-Hadith groups won their arguments over the majority and also which Qur'an verses were used by both sides. Her analysis is thorough and well explained. Shafi's text is not considered as simple, but Musa shows step by step Shafi's method in a very clear way. Next to reviewing their work and arguments, she also delivers the immense work of translating Shafi's Kitab Jima'al-Ilm, the Book of Amalgamation of Knowledge, for the first time into English, which must have been an extremely difficult task since the text's style and Classic Arabic form is not easy to read and understand.
Then she goes on discussing the modern Qur'an-alone movements, their founders and their arguments. She has found that these founders-Rashad Khalifa, Subhy Mansour, Edip Yuksel, Kassim Ahmad and several groups, are not persons coming from the West, but from traditional Muslim backgrounds, and were all brought up in Islam. All of them were highly knowledgeable in the Qur'an and Hadith, as for example, Mansour was a professor in history at the famous Al-Azhar University of Cairo. Also these reformers did not use Orientalist conclusions as proof for their beliefs, but came to their 'Qur'an alone' ideas based on Qur'anic verses. Only after reviewing these verses did they research the history of Hadith to further strengthen their belief that only the Qur'an can be used to understand what Islam is.
So her book is unique in its approach and its conclusions. Not only is the Qur'an-alone a historical and orthodox movement, Musa showed that throughout the centuries, the same Qur'an verses were used as arguments for only accepting the Qur'an as divine and only source for Islam. It is not a Western movement, nor even an Western Orientalist caused movement, but an authentic Islamic movement based on its core text, the Qur'an. Just as the Mu'tazilah writings have been systematically wiped out from the general Muslim libraries when they fell out of favor, the same has occurred with the Qur'an-alone writings over the centuries. Which in my eyes not only shows political influence in the debate (the rulers clearly wanted no traces remained, so the pro-Hadith gave them more wealth and power it seemed), but also that the arguments supporting Hadith were not as strong as the majority believes. Why eliminate a weak threat? The following of Hadith became dominant as there was no literature remaining that attacked this view. Maybe the future will produce some hidden treasures somewhere. But the modern Qur'an-alone writings can not be lost to history because of the Internet and modern printing, and so more and more Muslims will and are reading them and are being influenced by them. The movement is growing, not only because the Qur'an-alone movement has sound arguments from the Qur'an itself and historical proof of false Hadith, but also because the Qur'an is accepted by all sects and movements in Islam, while there are many disputes on what and which Hadith and tradition is accepted. And as mentioned above , the Qur'an is the only timeless, flexible and very open-source text that can withstand the criteria of modern human knowledge and thought.
It is viewed as more gender-neutral, more universal, very humanistic and scientific than the Hadith which reflects mostly 7-9th century mythology and cultural beliefs. Thus the Qur'an alone can not only be the vehicle to modernize and reform the Muslim world, but even start a new revolution of a socio-humanistic scientific faith which is demanded by modern-day scepticism and rationalism. The Medieval scientists of Islam who were the founders of the Renaissance and modern science, were scientific because of the Qur'an. Muslim society was so tolerant and progressive mostly because of the universality of the Qur'an, while the rest of the world was oppressive and backward, stooped in the dark ages. The increasing acceptance of the Hadith as divine source in Islam from the 9th century on, has slowly demolished the revolutionary system of the Qur'an and caused the majority Muslim world to fall into its deplorable state it is in now. The Qur'an alone is not a heresy, it is a revival.
Professor Musa's book is a groundbreaking study into a very important and growing, or as her study shows, a re-vitalized movement within Islam that can positively change the world. This book is superbly written and a must read.
"The role they (the Hadith) have played has been so influential for so long that both Muslims and non-Muslims alike generally assume they have always uncontested authority. However, a survey of Islamic history shows that the Hadith did not always enjoy such widespread acceptance and authority. Ignorance of these early disputes has contributed to the common misconception that opposition to the Hadith as an authoritative scriptural source of law and guidance is a modern-day, Western, Orientalist-influenced heresy,"
Available at Amazon
Hadith as Scripture by prof. Aisha Y. Musa
http//www.amazon.com/Hadith-Scripture-Discussions-Authority-Traditions/dp/0230605354/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1233192239&sr=1-1 -
Sounds like a great book to have. I just checked my uni library has it, I think I'll borrow it. I wish I knew more about the contested nature of the acceptance of ahadith from early muslims. this book might useful in that aspect, will see.
Thanks for sharing
salam
-
Indulge in propaganda? They?re sharing their views, opinions based on their research and understanding (not necessarily all right, but available for those to critique.)
Just because muslims existed without hadith before doesn?t mean today because there is confusion, lack of knowledge or understanding at large that we?re/they?re right or wrong.
Everyone?s an individual and every community/generation is diff. I don?t think such people should be ?endorsed? but you can learn from them at least. I don?t know of all their works. It?s not about endorsing the people anyway it?s the ?idea? to be endorsed; Quran only, not those people. However their work can be used as a tool of understanding concepts. Parwez writes some good things and I?ll support whatever is logical and in sync with Quran.
-
I hope a caveat of the sort is included in the book, else some will start putting the efforts of the likes of Parwez (http//www.tolueislam.org/Parwez/parwez.htm) in the same bracket as the likes of "Safar" (www.aididsafar.com).
-
Nice review!
And so the 'Qur'an alone' movement is gaining ground by the anarchistic and almost unbannable word-wide web.
first thing first there is a massive difference between "word"-wide and "world"-wide -- the former being four letters-wide and the latter five.
P now a bit more seriously
If the idea of the Qur'an alone is based on arguments found within the Qur'an itself, shouldn't the idea of the Qur'an alone be the orthodox movement, instead of the traditional pro-Hadith schools?
hmm... orthodox. brought us to the paradox of orthodoxy
...throughout the centuries, the same Qur'an verses were used as arguments for only accepting the Qur'an as divine and only source for Islam.
and similar reaction throughout the centuries it seems cough eradication
Just as the Mu'tazilah writings have been systematically wiped out from the general Muslim libraries when they fell out of favor, the same has occurred with the Qur'an-alone writings over the centuries.
and most recently, "Just Been Banned", a personal tale.
The Medieval scientists of Islam who were the founders of the Renaissance and modern science, were scientific because of the Qur'an. Muslim society was so tolerant and progressive mostly because of the universality of the Qur'an, while the rest of the world was oppressive and backward, stooped in the dark ages.
Yet today's stooped-in-the-dark-ages highly praise the Medieval scientists... nope
However, a survey of Islamic history shows that the Hadith did not always enjoy such widespread acceptance and authority.
"Spread by the sword?"
...because the Qur'an is accepted by all sects and movements in Islam, while there are many disputes on what and which Hadith and tradition is accepted.
the thought came to my mind years before i took it seriously or participated in this forum, i bet many have similar memories?
...the Qur'an is the only timeless, flexible and very open-source text...
beaten Richard Stallman to it.
Thus the Qur'an alone can not only be the vehicle to modernize and reform the Muslim world, but even start a new revolution of a socio-humanistic scientific faith...
i like where this is heading to )
summary Gotta have this book!
P.S.
Oh...
224 pages
List Price $75.00
Price $50.62
Only 3 left in stock--order soon (more on the way).Lucky Sarah and her uni lib
Any chance it be online? or at least cheaper in PDF?
-
Peace all,
I finally finished reading the book.
Initially it was slow.. kinda felt like I was reading an essay or rather report which is good I guess because it had all the references. But I was eager to read about the ?Quranic? side of things. I felt the Quranic argument could have been a lil better. I mean she mentioned it all but let me explain
Coming from a sunni background when I finished the book I thought well by the end of it Shafi would have cured my concerns.. anyway Initially I thought it was interesting how she mentioned
- The first to reject the recording of hadith is Umar. One would think wow Umar?
- The association of hadith with Mishna, Jewish hadiths. was a concern to muslims as they didn?t want to follow their footsteps. Plus in Quran we?re warned about the people ?before? us.
So it?ll get one thinking, well yeh this is some risky business.
So Shafi?s argument was basically hikma = prophets sunnah and that it?s impossible to have uniform practices without hadiths. So it wins people?s perception of unity but the ?Ahl al-kalam? ironically criticise ?Ahl hadith? by mentioning ?sects have multiplied? refer to p.64.
It seems info in history is limited about quranic debates over hadith ..the arguments the ahl kitab taken with Shafi seem weak. So I think because of that Aisha notes contemporary issues/ groups/ people even free-minds about their disagreement with hadith? but I could be wrong.
When reading that Rashad proclaimed himself as a messenger, I would have instantly been turned off by the idea of quran alone if I had not known better.
The problem with current quranic movement is there is a division, code 19ers and not. And even within those who believe the code some will disagree with Rashad?s messenger-ship.
I think the main point of the book was to contrast arguments of Shafi and others. Otherwise I wonder why she translated kitab jima
al alilm. Well apparently it?s the most important in dealing with the authority of hadith. But it?s Shafi?s word about others through his writing. Maybe it implicates this is the stronger opinion, well it is worldwide.. but it doesn?t leave his bias out. He could possibly have omitted many things.It was annoying to read actually (shafi?s book, part 3) because pretty much shafi was winning all the arguments, he could write it out however he perceived it. the ahl kalam in both respects the ones who totally rejecting hadith and rejecting some hadith (isolated reports) didn?t seem to hold arguments. For example the second group of ahl kalam?s arguments were weak contradictory even? Saying they refer back to principles (Quran) but would accept the stoning of an adulterer due to ?majority/consensus?.. the ahl kalam group that totally rejected hadith in the end submit to shafi?s conclusions. It was like what! that easily? We dunno the full scope because we dunno who talked to Shafi and if that person/people actually spread the message. I mean if they did we don?t hear about the uproar about it.
They have some arguments which are the same as today but I think, well i believe we would have different and stronger debates if the same situation was to come upon us today.
I like the book but when I got to the discussion of contemporary period .. I thought noway would I give this a copy to my bro last thing I want is them knowing I go to free-minds.. the contemporary views highlight quran alone through quranic verses but it also shows well some confusion for the traditional reader, why don?t they agree on salat? Who is rashad? A messenger? What tha! Why is Edip the first mentioned for internet resources P Rashad?s friend + follower
I guess Rashad was the popular figure in contemporary society against hadith and maybe it's a covert promotion of the movement or what he was for. BTW the end referred to verses mentioned within the book translated by Rashad, Yusuf Ali and an Arabic transliteration. Contrast for the reader i guess.
Overall I dunno what I?d rate it I was dissatisfied towards the end. But otherwise it?s a good tool to argue against hadith. By the end of it, it?s clear hadith did and still does play a vital role in muslim history however there is lots of dispute about it. People today say it?s not a dual revelation but they say they take it next after Quran but Shafi considered it a dual revelation. I wonder how many know that
And funnily some will say any hadith that isn?t isolated no matter what must be taken the same as the Quran (i.e. muttawatir hadith, no doubt must be true) so it?s like as if some recognise hadith have weakness yet uphold ones based on chain, which reflects half of the ahl kitab population of agreeing to some hadith.. sad how so much is considered about chain/ linkage but little on content. Probably because so much criticism is given to when the hadith was actually recorded.
What I?d like to know is did people call prophets traditions as sunnah before Shafi? Or was he to call it that? People passed down oral hadiths however their importance wasn?t as strong as Quran which makes sense. It?s just like your mother telling you a story her grandmother told her mother or so forth, you take what you like you leave what you dislike. And basically due to generational passing down, info it?s probably not as sound as it was firstly spoken.
Also what happened after these debates, did people dispute. we know there was some uproar but little is said.. i guess i don't have the resources so i can't say much
sorry for the long post!
peace )
-
I guess Rashad was the popular figure in contemporary society against hadith and maybe it's a covert promotion of the movement or what he was for. BTW the end referred to verses mentioned within the book translated by Rashad, Yusuf Ali and an Arabic transliteration. Contrast for the reader i guess.
Dear Sarah;
I think, directly or indirectly Rashad has the greatest influence on modern reform movement towards Quran alone. His book, Quran, Hadith and Islam is a landmark book and that alone is enough to put him on top of the list.
Peace,
Edip -
Salaam all,
I'm glad you all like the bookreview I made. Although it is expensive, it is an important book. I will ask prof.Musa if she allows important excerpts to be scanned and put on the DRC website.
As for the Qur'an alone movement, it depends from which continent you're coming, as for example Pakistan has and had scores of Qur'an reformers that inspire modern thinkers there without them ever knowing about RK.
You can download the bookreview in PDF here
http//www.deenresearchcenter.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=ckQPwrqmPEI%3d&tabid=75&mid=555&language=nl-NL
-
Arnold, of course I know about other Quran alone or Mainly Quran movements in other countries independent of Rashad. But, Rashad's Quran-based argument was much stronger, clearer and consistent, and especially the fulfillment of prophecy in chapter 74 helped us to refute the main of objection/doubt directed to us by the followers of hadith and sunna.
A Quran Alone movement would be intellectually and philosophically defective without the support of the numerical structure of the Quran based on the number 19. Remember the ultimate objection of those who associate partners to God and His word "The same people that reported hadith also reported the Quran to us. How can we be sure that they did not also tamper with the Quran?" You may also include the agnostic and skeptic objection to the Quran's claim of divine source. Without code 19 none of these objections could be satisfactorily rebuffed. Those who have blinded themselves to the code by their prejudice and other problems, should think and ponder on my assertion before jumping into reacting to them.
As I had debated this with Ayman here in writing, and once behind the screen in a chat room, I would like to invite him to a face-to-face debate on this issue. If he makes up an excuse regarding the cost of attending to such a debate, I will pay it myself. If he also wish to hide his identity, I will provide him with a mask for free. (He could later deny his participation if he lost the argument or he could face himself, QaBuLi NaFSiHi, by opening his mask after witnessing the miracle). The reason for this face-to-face invitation is simple. I have learned that the immediacy of Socratic Dialogues is the best way to expose false ideas and inconsistencies. One example It took me about a month-long debate and pages and pages of writing with Lomax, another "runner like a zebra", to show his errors in counting the word DAY. If it was via a face-to-face debate it would not take more than two minutes.
No wonder the Turkish Sunni scholars and authors who comfortably writing refutations against my work were destroyed when they encountered the student of Socrates, face to face. After a few tries, they gave up accepting my challenge for live debate.
Peace,
Edip -
Peace All,
Edip
I think, directly or indirectly Rashad has the greatest influence on modern reform movement towards Quran alone. His book, Quran, Hadith and Islam is a landmark book and that alone is enough to put him on top of the list.
TBH I haven?t read much of his work. Yes he openly had a public influence however many people came to accept Quran alone without even knowing his existence or any other Quran alone movement.
BTW it's not necessarily true that in face to face you can convince someone quicker. it's possible though just read the ahl kitab's arguments with Shafi, he spoke much more articulately, he had sound conviction and a way of giving examples to deter a direction. it seemed like the ahl kitab didn't know how to hold an argument. they had good ideas (also some faulty) but they didn't know how to debate them well by the end they looked like fools.
Aisha's book didn't appeal to me about the movements but rather the issues of hadith, their acceptance and peoples rebellion. Little is talked about this (in regards to traditionalists) thanks Wakas for the 2 book references.
If anyone knows of other books in relation to hadith dispute and acceptance do share
peace
-
peace Edip,
Are there any plans to publish a paper on 'code 19' in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal?
laugh
