By Dr Wasim Ahmad,
There are some discrepancies in the standpoint of those who reject Ahaadeeth. Their selective hesitation in accepting Ahaadeeth and willing acceptance of many less authentic works raises some questions. And these questions need to be satisfactorily answered. I would like to know which are the other works of historical relevance (and which work doesn’t have that relevance?) which they reject for the same reasons as they reject the Ahaadeeth for. I would request for furnishing a complete list of all such works so that many more people could be more careful and do not fall in any trap. It will especially be enlightening to know their position on A Short History Of The World by H G Wells, A Study Of History by Arnold J Toynbee and The Glimpses Of World History by Jawaharlal Nehru, as an example. I would like to know why do they accept or reject any of these books and why or why not – especially with reference to the comparative authenticity.
A respectable gentleman who seems to be rejecting the Ahaadeeth once observed the following while addressing me in response to one or some of my previous emails: “Carry on, Doctor! You seem to be on the right track. If I am arrogant, you have to tell me so and you have to tell me why. Yes, I am going to be hurt, but that is a small price you have to pay for performing the duty of ta’muroona bilma‘rroofi wa tanhawna ‘anil munkar imposed on members of the best Ummah by the Creator.” While I sincerely thank him for this encouragement I would like to ask why should I carry on? I shouldn’t, actually. And even if I do, why should anyone read or listen? Nobody should, in fact. Why should the gentleman himself carry on with his own work? Why there is anything left to carry on? Why should ANYONE on earth carry on with ANYTHING? If the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is not allowed to carry on? (What does the rejection of all that which he ‘carried out’ signify, otherwise?)
A position against the entire literature of Hadeeth seems to be untenable. To me there is no reason why anyone who rejects the Hadeeth literature should write or read any emails on any of the Networks, as an example. Every word which he writes – irrespective of what it means – goes against the idea of rejection of Hadeeth. Why should anyone listen to them or read what they write? What is the justification behind all their work? Why there is a need for their saying or writing anything in the first place? To me the person rejecting Ahaadeeth is a proof against himself. It is like using technology (and there is no other way) to denounce technology itself. Obviously every word uttered in negating technology will only reaffirm it. To prove the incoherence of that person we don’t need to look anywhere else. We only need to look at him silently.
Why should we most respectfully listen to the arguments of our friends who reject Ahaadeeth today but should squarely reject all the arguments of Muhammad al-Bukhari, Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, Ahmad ibn Hambal, Nasa’i and Az-Zuhri and others? We are ready to do so but we need very convincing arguments for this readiness. Also, civilizationally speaking, we have to find out who among these is moving ahead and who is asking to reinvent the same wheel again and again. We have to find out who is not allowing us to move to the second stage and who is keeping us in an unending cycle.
There is a need to see the motive and the inspiration which the compilers of Ahaadeeth had for their painstaking efforts – the parallels of which we do not find today. They certainly considered the entire legacy of the Prophet (pbuh) as a treasure and did their utmost to preserve it for the posterity (unmindful of the possibility that the posterity will ungratefully reject it!). They, too, knew that the Qur’an was complete (or have we recently discovered it?) but carried out the hard work. The desire for knowledge, for truth and for guidance must be their main concerns. How come their work which signifies all of the above became the antithesis of all of these? There is something amiss here.
When Qur’an is ‘complete’ (as understood by those among us who reject Ahaadeeth) why should they write anything about it? Why should we still read their writings and try to figure out something? Why will they again hold a pen in their hand to refute these submissions? Why are they reading these submissions in the first place? Why there are still some arguments left – especially on their side – if the Qur’an is ‘complete’? The next write-up from anyone who rejects Ahaadeeth will be its own emphatic and incontrovertible refutation – irrespective of its content.
What if the electronic communication and technology becomes so advanced tomorrow that we are able to trace and record the voice of the Prophet (pbuh) and get to know for sure what he said? Will we still reject his words because we have nothing to do with Hadeeth? Why saying those things was fine (was it?) but doing one’s utmost to record them isn’t? Isn’t everything being recorded whether we ‘record’ it or we don’t – in any case? Doesn’t Qur’an vouch for this recording? Isn’t the advancement in technology proving it at the exponential speed?
Let us not forget that our calling on earth is to discover truth to the best of our capacities. Also, let us not forget that it will NEVER be an easy job. Just as finding the pearls and diamonds isn’t (and shouldn’t be!). It will be a painful process – always. Otherwise we will not realize its worth and our capacities will also remain grossly underutilized. Hence, we will always have to creatively reach out to the truth by all means possible and utilizing all the resources available. There is no way that we can take to the shortest route when it comes to searching for truth. When, however, we reject the Ahaadeeth we give an impression that we are not ready for the toughest job and that we are falling prey to the short-cut.
(The author is Head of the Dept of Islamic Studies, Preston University, Ajman, UAE. He can be contacted at [email protected])