Monday, 27 April 2009

Ahadiths: Uncorrupted? Uncreated? Unfabricated? Non-Contradictory? Part III

”The Qur’an alone is useless or” or “how the Sunnah was created”

From Part II

 ‘The Sunnah’ But "No One Else Got It"?

But, some places possessed Ahadith which no place else got! Again we read:

"Ibn Maja used to point out the area as well where a particular Hadith was well-known. For example he says after recording a Hadith under the heading of ‘Forgiving the Murderer’: This is the Hadith of the people of Ramlah. Noone else got it. Under the heading ‘Every Intoxicant is Haram he remarks after the Hadith of `Abdullah b Mas’ud: "This is the Hadith of the people of Raqqa." And after the Hadith of Mu’awiya: "This is the Hadith of the people of Raqqa." By locating the area where a certain hadith gained popularity, it becomes easier to explore fabrication if the same Hadith happens to appear from any other quarter with a different version."
(Criticism..., Abdul Gaffar, p. 143)

But, lets face it, there is every difference between what is here referred to as what became ‘popular’ in one place, and what is supposed to be a ‘part of a divine revelation embodied in a Sunnah’ - which would surely have been known by everyone in Islam from the beginning! The very fact that such are only found in one place certifies them as spurious, but in Islam, where nothing is certain, even these ‘may be the Sunnah’ - just as the various ‘almost Arabic... almost `Uthmanic’ readings ‘might be Qur’an’!!

"The Superiority That Islam And The Muslims Enjoy... Destroyed"

While Maududi made the assertion that "The entire account of his life - his sayings, instructions and actions - is preserved with complete accuracy. It is as though it all happened yesterday rather than thirteen centuries ago." (Towards..., p. 58), anyone who is well read within Islam knows that this is made WITHOUT ANY ‘PROOF’!

Furthermore, this applies not only to the Sunnah in the Ahadith collections but to all of Islam’s "historical" records. One need only examine the claims about the Ka`ba and al-Aqsa ‘Mosque’ (Temple of Solomon) to see that a wide array of ‘versions’9, not ‘a history’, is transmitted. The following conflicting remarks are made concerning Hadith #1056 in Sahih Muslim where it is stated that there was 40 years between the building of the Ka`ba and the Temple of Jerusalem:

"This part of the hadith is often made a target of criticism by the hostile critics of the Hadith. They contend that Ka`ba was built by Hadrat Ibrahim and the Temple of Jerusalem was built by Hadrat Sulaiman and there is span of one thousand years between these two Messengers of Allah, whereas the hadith asserts that there is a difference of only forty years between the setting up of these two Houses of Worship. The fact is that it is wrong to suppose that Ka`ba was built by Ibrahim and the Temple of Aqsa was built by Hadrat Sulaiman. Both these houses of worship were built by Adam and there was a difference of forty years between the two. Hadrat Ibrahim rebuilt it on the old foundations. The second view is that the Temple of Jerusalem was built not by Sulaiman but by Yaqub b. Ishaq b. Ibrahim who laid its foundation forty years after the rebuilding of the Ka’ba by Hadrat Ibrahim (Fath-ul-Mulhim, Vol. II, p.114) This point has been stressed by Hafiz Ibn Qayyim. He says: This hadith creates doubt in the mind of one who does not know its correct implications. It is said that it was Sulaiman b. Dawud who built the masjid Aqsa, whereas there yawns a space of time more than one thousand years between the two. The fact is that Sulaiman rebuilt the Aqsa Mosque and he was not the first to build it for the first time. It was built by Ya`qub b. Ishaq (peace be upon him) after the building of the Ka`ba by Ibrahim equal to so much space of time (Zad al-Ma`ad, vol. I, p. 11)"
(Sahih Muslim, English version, Vo. I, p. 264, footnote #723)

Yet, from the same commentator we also read:

"It was not for the first time that the Ka`ba was being reconstructed. According to Suhayli, it was first built by Shith son of Adam during his lifetime. Later on it was reconstructed by Hadrat Ibrahim." (Sahih Muslim, English, Vol. I, p. 193, footnote #560) It is evident that between these ‘histories’ is a great deal of disagreement!! Adam, Shith (Seth), or Ibrahim are all said to ‘perhaps’ have built the Ka`ba! And ‘perhaps’ Adam, Sulaiman (Solomon), or Jacob built the al-Aqsa Mosque!!

It is no wonder a follower of Islam after looking at a true historical record at a national library, bent over double at the waist, grabbed his head in his hands and in desperation moaned, "We Muslims cannot accept the history of the world because it conflicts with Islam!"10

A simple perusal of Islam’s attempts to rebut the issue over which it has become so incensed in recent years, makes it evident that the sira, tarikh, etc., the things cited by Maududi as ‘immaculately’ preserving Islam’s past, do not even agree as to whether or not Satan put words in Muhammad’s mouth! Rather they record that false verses had to be expunged from the Qur’an and replaced with other verses! Which version of the biography is "like it only happened yesterday"? Not only so, but Islam continues to publish and sell the very materials transmitting this sort of thing!! [See Appendix B for the Islamic ‘attempt’ to rebut its own ‘sources’ on this matter. Not here in this article]11

But, this is precisely what pervades the ‘sources’ of Islam which Maududi would declare presents Islam’s history and details "as if it happened yesterday"!! It just isn’t so!

One can understand now why maulana Azami expressed himself so clearly when he pleaded that a realisation that this was the true state of the sources would mean:

"the superiority that Islam and the Muslims enjoy over all other faiths and religious communities would also be destroyed. For it would necessarily mean that the Muslims had no history, no intellectual achievements to their credit, since there is no dependable way of knowing about those achievements."

All this is fully realised in more ways than one. It is, then, also no wonder that Islam tries so hard to convince its people that this is the plight of Christianity’s history, Book, and its major doctrines, and not that of Islam!12


1/ This Hadith is declared ‘rejected’ in another quotation, and its obvious absence from Sahih al-Bukhari must mean that those scholars’ have removed it! There is no ‘protection’ of Sunnah here.
2/ Yet how many know that the last two collections named, contain Ahadith about the collection of the Qur’an different from the one which al-Bukhari recorded which places Caliph `Uthman in the centre? For examples see The Collection of the Qur’an, Burton.
3/ Al-Khams meaning ‘the 5’.
4/ Of course, if you believe the theology of ‘Divine Protection’ then you must believe it is all part of ‘Divine Protection’ no matter how late they are collected.
5/ The word sunnan means Sunnahs (plural), and so indicates the principle use of the collection - being to find Muhammad’s Sunnah.
6/ A disciple of ibn Taymiyya, d. 748 A.H.; see p. 106f, Al-Albani Unveiled.
7/ Acknowledging that the ‘new meanings’ given by the ‘new readings’ already corrupted Islam’s claimed pure ‘Word of Allah’ we look to see how pure the rest is.
8/ Azami is not someone who is appealing to his readers on the basis of "Allah promised to preserve the thikr", but simply appealing for the general reliability of the sources.
9/ This is upheld in that when one reads the text of, for example, Sahih Muslim, one repeatedly finds the wording "in another version...", and inevitably something is different, and they aren’t always ‘minor’ matters, as we can see here. The same applies time and again to the earliest Sirah, that of ibn Ishaq. There is nothing in Islam but a general tale which has become embellished with a wide array of ‘facts’ [exactly what it accuses others of].
10/ Not only do the followers of Islam disagree among themselves, but what they hold as ‘history’ directly disagrees with all those records previous to Muhammad. Yet, to accuse others of being guilty of such flagrant disregard for God, for truth, and so of forging their Books in order to change history is beyond belief.
11/ And not only that, but the followers of Islam who are Shafi’ites and say "We only accept what as-Suyuti says." have to contend with the fact that the aforementioned article relates: "Somehow Suyuti accepted the authenticity of it." On top of this our Shi’ah scholars relates: "In the commentary of the Qur’anic verse: Satan would try to tamper with the desires of every Prophet or Messenger whom We sent. Then Allah would remove Satan’s temptation and strengthen His revelation (Surah al-Hajj) as given in Commentary of Ad-Durrul Manthur by Suyuti vol. IV, pp. 366, 368 fourteen narrations purporting to deal with this topic have been narrated by some distinguished companions." (A Probe..., p. 71f). Our Shi’ah writer maintains that even Sayyid Kutb, was he not the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood (?!), included this in his commentary.
12/ Some have attributed the numbers who follow Ahmad Deedat to this very state of Islam’s sources:
"Ahmad Deedat stated in his lectures and books that Jesus was placed on the cross but he did not die on it:... It is a known fact that because of the untiring efforts of Ahmad Deedat, millions of Muslims have changed their traditional views as to what happened to Jesus. This instantaneous change in the view of millions of Muslims is a phenomenon that deserves closer investigation. It is either that Ahmad Deedat possesses a stronger logic and appeal than the Islamic tradition that says that someone else was crucified instead of Jesus and that Jesus was lifted up alive to heaven, or that this Islamic tradition is so flimsy, in spite of its antiquity, that it was neither well established nor deeply rooted in the minds of Muslims. This tradition was simply an unsatisfactory explanation on to which they clung. The minute these millions were offered another explanation, they quickly accepted it without much reflection
(Deedat in The Balance, Internet,



No comments:

Post a Comment