Hadith as Scripture by prof. Aisha Y. Musa-book review by AY Mol
-
http//ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41g2MLb5%2BeL.SL160.jpg
"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 the modern Islamic movements, a new trend emerged created because of the need to reform Muslim society to make it progressive and 'keeping up with the times'. Famous reformers as Muhammad Abduh and Said Qutb for example, were more focussed on the Qur'an and its message, then the Hadith and other historical material deemed as important as a basis for Islam. Their reason was because only the Qur'an was seen as timeless and flexible in its usage and meaning to be applicable for modern society and knowledge. This trend was taken further and eventualy many reformers and groups became to renounce all historical material next to the Qur'an as unusable or even as false teachings, and only accepted the Qur'an the major or only source for their ideas of what Islam is about.
These reform concepts were seen as heretical by the majority of traditional schools in Islam and were attacked and labeled as dangerous and blasphemous. As the majority of Muslims were and are still deeply controlled by the traditional schools, these reform movements always stayed a minority among the majority and were only succesful in certain countries and social classes. But these 'Qur'an alone' reformers 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 taken more seriously and are gaining attention and interest among the general Muslim public.
The 'Qur'an alone' or 'mostly focussed on the Qur'an' movements were mostly labeled by the traditional Islamic schools as results of Western orientalist research, who from the beginning of the 19th century had written many books critical of the reliability of the Hadith and other historical material. Thus the 'Qur'an alone' movements were labeled as apologetic or caused by Western attacks on Islam, and thus were not based on Qur'anic teachings itself, but simply on Western beliefs and methods of viewing Islam. It was labeled as a 'Western caused' movement.
This tactic was similar to the treatment of the Medieval school of Kalam and Mu'tazilah, who used Reason (aql) to interpretate the Qur'an and its doctrines (tafsir bi'l-Ra'y). Most of these schools only accepted Mutawwir Hadith, historical reports that had multiple sources chains. These were itself minute 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 teachings created through the influence of Greek philosophy and thus non-Islamic (Western).
When Muhammad Abduh, Sayyed 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 labeled as neo-Mu'tazilah, conforming to the Western (and colonial ruler) judgement on Islam and its history.
They were accused of blindly believing orientalists 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" began to research these reformers and their methods and came to very different conclusions, 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 had 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 emerged and now had the power of the internet to spread their ideas. Although these were also branded as heretic by the traditional schools, the internet created a platform which could be reached easily by the Muslim majority, and thus has more impact. Also the works of Parwez for example, 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? Being herself part of the reform movements for a long time, she had seen the many accusations. As a professor having a degree in Islam, and thus having the education and knowledge to perform a professional inquery, she focussed on two areas which were not discussed by Brown in his book. One is a research into the question; if the idea of Qur'an alone is based on arguments found within the Qur'an itself, shouldn't the idea of Qur'an alone be the orthodox movement, instead of the traditional pro-Hadith schools? The second question was researching the movement of the late 20th and present 21st century movements which were not covered by Brown, the modern day internet-based groups; are they a product of Western society?
The difference with 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.
Khalif 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 Khalif ordered scholars to write Hadith down, but they did this reluctantly. And as much time had passed and many strife had occured 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 absence of evidence is not 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 had 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 accussed them of or argued against. In the middle of the 20th century, old copies of Mu'tazilah books were found in 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 labeled as the first scholar who made both Hadith and Sunnah as divine sources in Islam. And the later follower Ibn Qutayba. Both scholars had written books against Qur'an alone ideology and thus showed that Qur'an alone movements were present in their lifetimes and even important and known enough to write books for to attack them. She had 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 delivered 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 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. Rashad Khalifa, Subhy Mansour, Edip Yuksel, Kassim Ahmad and several groups, and found that all of these were not persons coming from the West, but from traditional Muslim backgrounds who were all brought up in Islam. All of them were highly knowledgable in the Qur'an and Hadith, as for example Mansour was the 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 be further strengthened in 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 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 source for Islam. It is not a Western based or even Western orientalist caused movement, but an authentic Islamic movement based on its core text, the Qur'an. Just as the Mu'tazilah writings had been systematically wiped out from the general Muslim libraries when they fell out of favor, the same had occured with the Qur'an alone writings over the centuries.Which in my eyes not only show 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 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, 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 then the Hadith which reflect 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 oppressed and backward, stooped in the dark ages. The increasing acceptance of Hadith as divine source of Islam from the 9th century on, had slowly demolished the revolutionary system of the Qur'an which caused the downfall of the majority Muslim world into its deplorable state it is in now. 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-vitalised movement within Islam that can positively change the world. This book is written superbly 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 authoritve 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
Original Blog Booksreviews
http//deenresearchusa-com.web26.winsvr.net/Blogs/tabid/73/EntryId/27/Hadith-as-Scripture-by-prof-Aisha-Y-Musa-book-review-by-AY-Mol.aspx
-
DEAR AY Mol
SALAM
Excellent review but a few points need to be clarified.Firstly she searched for Quran alone litereature and found none.If it looks like an apple it most likely is an apple.Why cant we take it this way that if there is no so called quran alone material found till date there may have been none.
Secondly if you r taking a stance that the practices and beliefs of the vast majority of people who call themselves muslim is no longer a reflection of divine will as practiced by the prophet the onus is on you to prove who ,where,when and how the digression or deviation has taken place and the proof should be objective and be capable of standing up in a court of law.Naturally, in such AN IMPORTANT ISSUE just theories and postulates will not be acceptable.
In continuation of the above point i would like to invite your attention and the attention of all at freeminds to Imam Abu Hanifa.He was born around 80 hijra much much before other imams like imam shafei and ibn Hanbal. AND WE ALL KNOW HE WAS NOT FOLLOWING HADIS. If we look at the beliefs and practices of Hanafis they r exactly the same as the practices of majority of muslims today and differing from quran aloners like1institutionalised 5 times prayer unlike most of quran aloners who deduce 3 or 2 salats(some even dont believe in physical salat).This 2 or 3 prayers r also random and without any format.2The institution of Azaan which is same in time of Abu hanifa till the present day because ther r so many fiqh issues of azan mentioned by Imam abu hanifa.3practices during haj r continous and same till present day.FASTING times ,dates ,months r similar unlike so called quran aloners.
So it can be proved in a court of law that Imam Abu Hanifas instuctions and practices around 100 hijri were unlike those who r trying to follow quran alone in 1425 hijri.There can only be 3 reasons for this. Which is more scientifically possible
1What the prophet preached was similar to the understanding of quran aloners in 2009 but It was corrupted till it reached Imam Abu Hanifa.To prove this we have to provide evidence as to who or how the corruption took place.
2The prophet explained and has shown by example the injunctions in the quran which reached Abu Hanifa correctly,who has transmitted them correctly, but cannot be deduced by so called quran aloners.
3The teachings and practices of the last Prophet ,Imam Hanifa and present day Quran aloners r at variance with each other.
Kindly ponder seriously and respond.
Peace
Javed -
DEAR AY Mol
SALAM
Excellent review but a few points need to be clarified.Firstly she searched for Quran alone litereature and found none.If it looks like an apple it most likely is an apple.Why cant we take it this way that if there is no so called quran alone material found till date there may have been none.
Secondly if you r taking a stance that the practices and beliefs of the vast majority of people who call themselves muslim is no longer a reflection of divine will as practiced by the prophet the onus is on you to prove who ,where,when and how the digression or deviation has taken place and the proof should be objective and be capable of standing up in a court of law.Naturally, in such AN IMPORTANT ISSUE just theories and postulates will not be acceptable.
In continuation of the above point i would like to invite your attention and the attention of all at freeminds to Imam Abu Hanifa.He was born around 80 hijra much much before other imams like imam shafei and ibn Hanbal. AND WE ALL KNOW HE WAS NOT FOLLOWING HADIS. If we look at the beliefs and practices of Hanafis they r exactly the same as the practices of majority of muslims today and differing from quran aloners like1institutionalised 5 times prayer unlike most of quran aloners who deduce 3 or 2 salats(some even dont believe in physical salat).This 2 or 3 prayers r also random and without any format.2The institution of Azaan which is same in time of Abu hanifa till the present day because ther r so many fiqh issues of azan mentioned by Imam abu hanifa.3practices during haj r continous and same till present day.FASTING times ,dates ,months r similar unlike so called quran aloners.
So it can be proved in a court of law that Imam Abu Hanifas instuctions and practices around 100 hijri were unlike those who r trying to follow quran alone in 1425 hijri.There can only be 3 reasons for this. Which is more scientifically possible
1What the prophet preached was similar to the understanding of quran aloners in 2009 but It was corrupted till it reached Imam Abu Hanifa.To prove this we have to provide evidence as to who or how the corruption took place.
2The prophet explained and has shown by example the injunctions in the quran which reached Abu Hanifa correctly,who has transmitted them correctly, but cannot be deduced by so called quran aloners.
3The teachings and practices of the last Prophet ,Imam Hanifa and present day Quran aloners r at variance with each other.
Kindly ponder seriously and respond.
Peace
JavedBut she did say that even though there wasn't material she could find about Mu'atazilites we know they were there. And she said that later in the Yemen they found some materials by them and it was exactly as the Sunni critics said about them. Its also clear that Al Shafi was countering the Koranist in his risala as he had to explain why there are other sources of religious law other than Koran. Yes Shafi did talk about the rituals as if they are accepted by everybody but he said that 160 years after the prophet. So I don't see this as solving anything.
However the Western influence is often invoked only because people like Rashad Khalifa and Subhi Mansour seem to try to equate Koranism with secularism of some sort and ally themselves with liberals and secularists of the Muslim world. They also portray themsleves as reformists rather than revivalists. They also still refer to themselves as Muslims and refuse to accept the authority of the Gospel and the Torah. No doubt useful for those like the secularist who are not interested about anything but doing away with Shariah law. We all know without hadith there is no Shariah law. Anything else they want to keep as the same with Sunnism, this will do away with any headaches. But it will fail because whats not in the Koran is not in the Koran.
Also your argument that those who say deviations have occurred have the duty to bring forth the evidence is not logical. Because if its not in the Koran than the Sunnis will have to bring forth their reasons as to where it came from. The Koranist can just say well its not in the Koran so where did you get it from? Meanwhile whatever the Koranist bring forth they just have to quote the verses of the Koran about that subject.
-
DEAR AY Mol
SALAM
Excellent review but a few points need to be clarified.Firstly she searched for Quran alone litereature and found none.If it looks like an apple it most likely is an apple.Why cant we take it this way that if there is no so called quran alone material found till date there may have been none.
Secondly if you r taking a stance that the practices and beliefs of the vast majority of people who call themselves muslim is no longer a reflection of divine will as practiced by the prophet the onus is on you to prove who ,where,when and how the digression or deviation has taken place and the proof should be objective and be capable of standing up in a court of law.Naturally, in such AN IMPORTANT ISSUE just theories and postulates will not be acceptable.
In continuation of the above point i would like to invite your attention and the attention of all at freeminds to Imam Abu Hanifa.He was born around 80 hijra much much before other imams like imam shafei and ibn Hanbal. AND WE ALL KNOW HE WAS NOT FOLLOWING HADIS. If we look at the beliefs and practices of Hanafis they r exactly the same as the practices of majority of muslims today and differing from quran aloners like1institutionalised 5 times prayer unlike most of quran aloners who deduce 3 or 2 salats(some even dont believe in physical salat).This 2 or 3 prayers r also random and without any format.2The institution of Azaan which is same in time of Abu hanifa till the present day because ther r so many fiqh issues of azan mentioned by Imam abu hanifa.3practices during haj r continous and same till present day.FASTING times ,dates ,months r similar unlike so called quran aloners.
So it can be proved in a court of law that Imam Abu Hanifas instuctions and practices around 100 hijri were unlike those who r trying to follow quran alone in 1425 hijri.There can only be 3 reasons for this. Which is more scientifically possible
1What the prophet preached was similar to the understanding of quran aloners in 2009 but It was corrupted till it reached Imam Abu Hanifa.To prove this we have to provide evidence as to who or how the corruption took place.
2The prophet explained and has shown by example the injunctions in the quran which reached Abu Hanifa correctly,who has transmitted them correctly, but cannot be deduced by so called quran aloners.
3The teachings and practices of the last Prophet ,Imam Hanifa and present day Quran aloners r at variance with each other.
Kindly ponder seriously and respond.
Peace
JavedPeace,
First of all, there are no known Qur'an alone documents, but they still can be found since in the Cairo and Istanbul library 60-70% of all classic documents have not been classified and many of them are kept behind closed doors and no one may review them. But the Risalla of Imam Shafi is a reply to Qur'an alone arguments, and so it is clear there were Qur'an alone documents in his time for him to reply too.
Your second argument about Hanifa already has a contradictions. Like you said, Imam Hanifa didn't follow Hadith, but his followers do. So how can you use Hanafi followers as an example? See the contradiction? The Hanifa school does not reflect Imam Hanifa's teachings, only in its use of aql (reason) to a certain degree. Also we must use the Arabic language to understand the Qur'an as this is what the Qur'an refers too everytime. It warns us not to follow tradition or forefathers. Thus interpretation must be based on language and context and reason, and cannot be directly fixed by human traditions.
-
Al Shafi- the Risala
Excerpt On Legal Knowledge
-
Someone asked me What is knowledge and how much should men know of it?
-
Shafi?i replied Legal knowledge is of two kinds one is for the general public, and no sober and mature person should be ignorant of it.
-
He asked For example?
-
replied For example, that the daily prayers are five, that men owe it to God to fast the month of Ramadan, to make the pilgrimage to the House whenever they are able, and to the legal alms in their estate; that He has prohibited usury, adultery, homicide, theft, wine, and of that sort which He has obligated men to comprehend, to perform, to pay in their property, and to abstain from He has forbidden it to them.
This kind of knowledge may be found textually in the Book of God, or may be found generally among the people of Islam. The public relates it from the preceding public and ascribes it to the Apostle of God, nobody ever questioning its ascription or its binding force upon them. It is the kind of knowledge which admits of error neither in its narrative nor in its interpretation; it is not permissible to question it.
-
He asked What is the second kind?
-
Shafi?i replied It consists of the detailed duties and rules obligatory on men, concerning which there exists neither a text in the Book of God, nor regarding most of them, a sunna. Whenever a sunna exists , it is of the kind related by few authorities, not by the public, and is subject to different interpretations arrived at by analogy.
-
He asked Is replied There is a third kind .
-
He asked Will you explain it, give its source, and state what of it is obligatory, and on whom it is binding and on whom it is not binding?
-
replied The public is incapable of knowing this kind of knowledge, nor can all specialists obtain it. But those who do obtain it should not all neglect it. If some can obtain it, the others are relieved of the duty ; but those who do obtain it will be rewarded.
And He said
And call to mind the signs of God and the Wisdom which are recited in your houses; verily God is gentle, well-informed .
So God mentioned His Book?which is the Qur?an?and Wisdom, and I have heard that those who are learned in the Quran?whom I approve?hold that Wisdom is the sunna of the Apostle of God. This is like what said; but God knows best! For the Quran is mentioned , followed by Wisdom; God mentioned His favor to mankind by teaching them the Qur?an and Wisdom. So it is not permissible for Wisdom to be called here save the sunna of the Apostle of God. For is closely linked to the Book of God, and God has imposed the duty of obedience to His Apostle, and imposed on men the obligation to obey his orders. So it is not permissible to regard anything as a duty save that set forth in the Quran and the sunna of His Apostle. For , as we have stated, prescribed that the belief in His Apostle shall be associated with the belief in Him.
The sunna of the Apostle makes evident what God meant , indicating His general and particular . He associated the Wisdom in the sunna with his Book, but made it subordinate . Never has God done this for any of His creatures save His Apostle.
Sounds like Shafi innovated. Why was this knowledge hidden and only acquired by a few authority? Why did it take Al Shafi to claim another source existed? If it was understood by everybody why was Al Shafi talking like it was something nobody knew and heard of before? Why should this knowledge wait 170 years to emerge? And if this knowledge was spread by the prophet and his companions why is it only with a few authorities? And who exactly are these authorities? The six or seven "companions" that Sunnis rely on? Something fishy here. It sounds very much like this
Talmud Mishnah and Gemara
In some ways the Jewish Talmud is considered even more important to the present Jewish faith than the Hebrew Scriptures.
Jewish tradition holds that Moses received two Torahs on Mount Sinai. One was a written Torah (contained in the Five Books of Moses known as the Pentateuch). The second was an oral Torah, which according to Jewish tradition was passed from Moses to religious leaders (such as rabbis) from century to century.
At the end of the second century of the Common Era (AD) this oral tradition was codified and written down. It was called the Mishnah (Hebrew for "instruction".
A discussion of the Mishnah took place in the academies of Babylonia between the years 200 and 600 CE. The edited and redacted transcript of those discussions and dissertations on the Mishnah is called the Gemara (Aramaic for "completion". Together, Mishnah and Gemara comprise the Talmud (the written record of what Jews believe is Moses' oral Torah, its meaning, and application).1
About the Mishnah
As Israel encountered the cultures of the west, primarily Hellenism and the Roman Empire, and as the population grew and became increasingly urbanized, new situations arose which the agriculturally-oriented Torah did not address. New legislation, and even more, new approaches to applying the Torah to contemporary life, were needed, and the Pharisees responded with the traditions that eventually were incorporated in the Mishnah, a work that is both legalistic (codifying the practice current at the end of the second century, CE) as well as descriptive (preserving descriptions of how Jewish life and ritual were lived in the Second Temple Period)."You see, many Jewish people today are told that Judaism alone is the real religion of the Bible, and that 'Christianity' is a much later, predominantly gentile religion. And yet statements such as these, intimidating as they may sound, are simply not true.
"Here are the facts traditional Judaism as we know it today is absolutely not the religion of Moses and the prophets. It is the religion of the rabbis who lived and taught in some cases over 1500 years later. Instead of being the religion of Temple and sacrifice as prescribed by the Torah, it is the religion of no Temple and no sacrifice, in spite of the Torah. It may shock you to know this, but some of Judaism's most sacred books did not even exist before the late Middle Ages. Christopher Columbus had already discovered America before the Code of Jewish Law used by Orthodox Jews today had ever been compiled!
"As for Messianic Judaism, the Judaism that believes in Yeshua the Messiah, the facts are as follows the sole authority for faith and practice is the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Covenants. Rather than the New Covenant being a late gentile book, all its authors, except one, were Jews - Jews who lived in the days before the second Temple was destroyed in 70 C.E."
Seems very simlar to this
A hadith was originally an oral tradition about the actions and customs and opinions of the Muhammad. Starting with the turmoil of the 7th century, those receiving the hadith started to question the sources of the saying. This resulted in a list of transmitters, for example "A told me that B told him that Muhammad said". This list of the chain of testimony by which a hadith was transmitted is called an Isnad. The text itself came to be known as Matn.
The hadith were eventually recorded in written form, had their Isnad evaluated and were gathered into large collections mostly during the reign of Umar II (bin Abdul Aziz, grandson of Umar bin Khattab(RAA)2nd Caliph) during 8th century, something that solidified in the 9th century. These works are still today referred to in matters of Islamic law and History.
Traditions regarding the life of Prophet Muhammad and the early history of Islam were passed down orally for more than a hundred years after his death in 632.
hmm
-
-
Has anyone read Mustafa Azmi in "Studies in Early Hadith Litreature''where he has given names of around 500 people from 30 A.H till 150 A.H all of them much before Shafei and all of them supposedly transmitting the knowledge of Hadith with perhaps scores of references to written Sahifas,Nuskhas and books apart from the oral transmission.Each entry has footnotes giving the source of information and a cursory glance would show that he has culled this information from the most notable scholarly sources from 2 century onwards.Can we ignore such a large corpus of litreature or will it be at our own peril. Peace
Javed -
Has anyone read Mustafa Azmi in "Studies in Early Hadith Litreature''where he has given names of around 500 people from 30 A.H till 150 A.H all of them much before Shafei and all of them supposedly transmitting the knowledge of Hadith with perhaps scores of references to written Sahifas,Nuskhas and books apart from the oral transmission.Each entry has footnotes giving the source of information and a cursory glance would show that he has culled this information from the most notable scholarly sources from 2 century onwards.Can we ignore such a large corpus of litreature or will it be at our own peril. Peace
JavedThe Shias can do the same and yet each of these sects accuse the other of lies and fabrication. So which do you trust and why? And if one was a con why can't the other also be a con? One is Aisha and co. the other is Hussein and co. and both got their support from Mecca's Quereishi community but were divided between Bani Umayya and Banu Hashim. When the Abbasid came to power and toppled the Ummayads, it was the Shias who identified with them. But Banu Hashim turned to Sunni Islam perhaps because being in opposition Shiasm developed aless friendly outlook towards dictators than Shiasm. Once in power the Abbasid didn't want the opposition mentality and incorporated Sunnism to themselves now that they are the ones in power.
Azzami's biggest problem is he tries to prove hadiths but relying on hadiths. His book is made for a Sunni audience who ALREADY accept the validity of these hadiths and then he tries to show how these hadiths indicate that there were earlier written records. Of course Sunnis will say the records were there but they were not made public and their opponents will say they are saying that to hide why they were invisible from everybody. Shafi speaks with the knowledge that these hadiths were NOT known to the public 160 years after Muhammad and they are in the hands of a "few authorities". These few authorities go back to Aisha, Abu Hurriera, Ibn Umar, Anas Ibn Malik and Ibn Abbas none of whom are close companions of the prophet. A case can be made regarding Aisha but given her role in the fighting of Ali and her alliance with her family, Bani Umayya, she is an exception among the prophet's wives rather than a rule.
