In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
This booklet exposes the conflict existing in Muslim society today, between belief and unbelief of the Holy Qur’an, between what is “Qur’anic” and what is claimed to be “Islamic”, and above all, between Truth and Falsehood. The debate presented in this booklet is not an intellectual game but has a serious purpose.
This booklet is divided into three parts. In Part One, the report, “Pro-Quran group at centre of controversy” which was published in a local newspaper is reproduced as an introduction to the debate found in Parts Two and Three of this publication. The centre of controversy, as may be found later, is not the group but the Holy Qur’an itself.
This booklet should be a document one must read, and it also, if possible, must offer a reason for the unending reading (with understanding) and the continous research of the Qur’an. To this goal, the writers in this book are now thanked. It is indeed an incumbent duty of every Muslim, man or woman, to read the Qur’an and understand it according to his own capacity.
It is also hoped that this maiden venture will lead us on into the glorious fifteenth century of Qur’an and of Qur’anic Muslims, the true Muslims, which is now laden upon us. “Our Lord, do not let our hearts falter once You have guided us: grant us mercy from Your presence, for You are the Bountiful!” (Qur’an 3:8)
When the New Straits Times published the report, which is now presented on the following pages, it was the first of its naturein exposing the beliefs of the pro-Qur’an group in any newspaper or publication in the country. Prior to this and even till today reports about the group have been misleading and prejudiced. There were, however, numerous articles on the Qur’an written by various writers published in various publications but none like this on the pro-Qur’an group.
New Straits Times
19 RAMADAN 1408/6 MEI 1988
Pro-Quran group at
centre of controversy
The pro-Quran group claims that the Quran and only the Quran should be the source of all Islamic laws. They maintain that everything is stated clearly in the Holy Book and completely reject all the extra-Quranic legacy of the Prophet. They also refuse to recognise the four schools of thought in Sunni Islam, the Syariah system and the role and influence of the Malaysian ulamak.
ROSE ISMAIL discusses this controversy. She cites a historian who says the ulamak should not react hysterically but, instead, engage in intellectual discussion with the group and persuade them that there is more to the Quran than meets the eye.
THEY call themselves the pro-Quran group. They claim, quite openly, that the Quran and only the Quran, should be the source of all Islamic laws.
Everything, they say, is stated clearly in the Holy Book There are no hidden meanings in the Quran, no information in it that is incomplete.
“Quran is complete, detailed and perfect. There is no necessity to seek out other sources to help explain the word of God,” says one member of the group.
Because of their complete rejection of the extra-Quranic legacy of the Prophet, the pro-Quran group also refuses to recognise the four schools of thought in Sunni lslam, the Syariah system and the role and influence of the Malaysian ulamak.
Such views, indeed, are radical. Groups rejecting the Hadith have surfaced in other countries in the past but in Malaysia where Islamic practices are almost never questioned and religious matters are left entirely in the hands of the ulamak, the existence of “anti-Hadith elements” is causing a stir in conservative religious circles.
The anxieties of the ulamak are real. The claims made by the pro-Quran group have considerable appeal to the young and Western-educated. Their arguments sound rational and logical. It is believed that a number of non-Muslims are also attracted to the pro-Quran approach to Islam.
“I think their (the pro-Quran) approach is sensible because for years I never understood what I was saying in my prayers. My religious teachers never bothered to teach me,” says a pro-Quran sympathiser.
But many more Muslims feel that the pro-Quran message is being spread by pseudo-intellectuals and youngsters who have no idea what the religion is all about. They say the pro-Quran approach is “picking up translated verses here and there and piecing them together to justify certain arguments”.
“Quran contains a vast plethora of knowledge and information. Anyone can read anything and everything into it. We should study it properly before jumping to conclusions,” says an ulamak.
Without the Hadith and Sunna to explain and expand on the Quran, many Muslims are convinced that Islam would not be the living force that it is today.
“How would we know how to pray if not for the Hadith?” some Muslims ask when told about the pro-Quran group’s total rejection of the Hadith. “Without the Hadith, we wouldn’t know how to perform the zakat or the Haj,” others insist.
But pro-Quran members have answers to all these questions in the Quran, of course. They each have up to five or six translations of the Quran which they check and double-check when they discuss verses with each other.
To make their study of the Quran easier, they have purchased expensive computer hardware to compare eight or more different translations of the Quran at the same time.
When they were criticised for using Rashad Khalifa’s controversial translation of the Quran more often than others, they purposely avoided it and used others to show how comfortable they were with all translations of the Quran.
There appears to be no leader in the pro-Quran group. They emphatically deny that Encik Kassim Ahmad, former PSRM president and writer of the now banned book “Hadith: A Re-evaluation” is their unofficial spokesman.
Unlike Encik Kassim who declares that hadiths that do not contradict the Quran are acceptable, the pro-Quran group say they reject all hadiths. To accept the Hadith as a source of law is to admit to flagrant idolworshipping which is an unforgivable sin in the eyes of God, they say.
But members of the group confess that it was not easy in the beginning to discard the Hadith and just look to the Quran. One member says he was “very frightened, at first” but he persevered.
Another member says he was with the Tabliq movement for five years, sleeping in mosques, wearing long robes and sharing meals dished out in large trays with other members of the movement when he suddenly realised the foolishness of it all.
Another member, after reading Dr Maurice Bucaille’s books, realised he had to read the Quran himself. But when he began studying it and the Hadith, he found that many hadiths contradicted statements in the Quran. “I found a lot of the Hadith ridiculous. Some of the teachings were childish. I told myself this is not Islam, this is not my religion,” he says.
That was 10 years ago. His family has ostracised him completely. He says he and his wife practise different religions. Yet, doggedly, he has studied the Quran in all different translations and has kept a solemn promise to God that he would read the Quran everyday in Arabic until he dies.
“I don’t understand it but a promise is a promise. I only hope God will guide me,” he says.
It is believed that pro-Quran members run into the hundreds and that many live in Kuala Lumpur and in the south. Many are Western educated, professionals with independent minds, avid readers and thinkers.
As Encik Kassim Ahmad says: “These people have had the benefit of an education which trained them to think rationally.”
The pro-Quran members do not sport beards or wear long robes or turbans. If anything, their dressing is yuppie.
Despite this and their non-partisan stand in politics, they are viewed as a threat. They have been labelled “orientalists,” “Bahais” and “antiHadith”. A number of them have received summons from State Religious Affairs Departments and two were recently banished from the State for “deviationist teachings”.
The pro-Quran members are aware of the risks they face. Some of them have made statutory declarations that they belong to no sect or school of thought and that they renounce all Syariah laws from sources other than the Quran.
In rejecting the religious methodology that was painstakingly created by Muslims after the death of the Prophet, the pro-Quran group has also restructured prayer and fasting according to what they believe is expected of them in the Quran.
Many of them no longer pray in Arabic. Instead, they “talk” to God in Bahasa Malaysia or English. To communicate with God, they say, one has to understand what one is saying. “Many of us have completed several readings of the Quran but do we understand it?” asks one member.
To support this new method of praying, they recite the following verse:
“Ye who believe! Approach not prayers with a mind befogged, until ye can understand all that ye say.” (Sura 4:43)
Fasting, for pro-Quran members, begins at dawn and not earlier as practised by the rest of the Muslim community. They break their fast long after Maghrib because of the following verse:
“And seek what God hath ordained for you and eat and drink, until the white thread of dawn appears to you distinct from its black thread; then complete your fast till the night appears.” (Sura 2:187)
They do not pray at the mosque because of the verse:
“And there are those who put up mosque by way of mischief and infidelity to disunite the Believers and in preparation for one who warred against God and His Apostle aforetime, they will indeed swear that their intention is nothing but good; but God both declare that they are certainly liars. Never stand thou forth therein.” (Sura 9:107-108)
Pro-Quran members do not utter the Kalimah Shahadah in prayer because in Sura: 4:150, it states that: “Those who deny God and His apostles, and those who wish to separate God from his apostles saying: ‘We believe in some but reject others’: and those who wish to take a course midway, they are in truth equally unbelievers; and we have prepared for unbelievers a humiliating punishment.”
In Sura 4:79: ‘Whatever good, (O man!) happens to thee, is from God; But whatever evil happens to thee, is from thy (own soul), and we have sent thee as an Apostle to instruct mankind and enough is God for a witness.”
This, they say, is a clear enough message stating that Muslims need not bear witness that Prophet Muhammad is the Messenger of God. God knows this and that is sufficient.
Prayer should not be a ritual, says one of them. “God wants us to use our brains, to apply common sense to all things around us. Some of the verses that religious teachers have encouraged us to read are simply not suitable for prayer.”
Says another member, ‘We must choose different verses for different situations. On days when we feel oppressed, we recite verses seeking help, protection and guidance from God.”
In retaliation to the report which you have just read, Tan Sri Professor Dr. Muhammad Abdul-Rauf, Rector of International Islamic University, championed the ulamaks by writing a booklet entitled “IRRATIONALITY OF THE ANTI-HADITH HERETICS” which we now reproduced in its *original state through a photocopying process. Even the page numbers are original.
This is of course not the first publication by the ulamaks in their attempt to suppress the belief spread by the pro-Qur’an group. They have the privilege to use all the medias and thus, numerous publications, talks and propagations on the indoctrinated belief of the Hadith are present in the lives of the Muslims in this country. The climax, as one can guess, is this writing of the Rector of the International Islamic University.
*the originality, however, is lost in this format – sorry!
THE ANTI-HADITH VIEWS
PUBLICITY GIVEN TO ERRONEOUS ARGUMENTS
The New Straits Times has recently, published a series of articles which advocate the misleading views of an anti-Hadith group centered in Arizona, U.S.A., with a few sympathisers in Malaysia.
It is surprising that this misguided group should have such an echo in Malaysia: whereas it has failed to make an impact anywhere else even on their neighbouring American Muslim communities. Very few know this group and its leader, and those who know of him dismiss him, I am afraid to say, as a deceptive heretic.
We would have preferred not to indulge ourselves in refuting the unworthy views of these persons who are obstinately meddling in areas for which none of them is qualified to do so. Yet, for the sake of some innocent readers who may get confused, we have decided to expose the fallacy and irrationality of their arguments. Now that the self-imposed ”imam” leading this movement has revealed his personal ambition and declared himself “Messenger of Allah”, we pray that those lured by his deceptive, illogical views, will come round and reflect soberly and objectively, and finally realise that he is merely an opportunist.
A most serious error is the unscholarly claim repeatedly made by the Malaysian leader of the anti-Hadith trend and is blindly echoed by his supporters, saying:
“at the time of Prophet Muhammad’s death only the Quran existed.”
And makes the deceptive statement that:
”As history testifies, the so-called Six Sahih collections of the Hadith, among which is the revered Bukhari collection, did not exist until 200 years later.”
The intention of making these audacious remarks is obviously, to create the following impressions:
(1) that no Hadith existed, written or orally circulating, until Imam Bukhari, who was born in 193 A.H., began to record his collection about 200 years after the death of the Prophet:
(2) that Imam Bukhari and the compilers of the other five collections who followed him, as well as any one else who wrote up other compilations, fabricated these Hadiths:
(3) that, according to this writer’s categorical assertion: ”great early Muslims such as Abu Bakr, Khadijah, Omar Ibn Khattab, Uthman and Ali and thousands of others who knew nothing of the Hadith, much less followed them, should be outside the pale of Islam.”
All these are capricious falsehoods. The Hadith had certainly and historically existed since the time of the Prophet, circulating among his Companions and the succeeding generations – at first mainly orally. Yet, some scribes from the early generations left behind written records of the Hadith, as we shall see presently.
EARLY HADITH WRITING
I suggest that readers unfamiliar with the study of the history, of Islamic literature go to any Islamic library and look for the following Hadith collections compiled earlier than the Six Collections mentioned by these self-proclaimed ”authorities”, and are well known to any modest scholar of Islam:
– The Sahifah collection compiled by the Prophet’s young Companion: ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Amr Ibn Al-‘As, which is now included in the major Hadith compilations. (‘Abd Allah died circa 70 A.H.)
– The Sahifah collection compiled by Hamman Ibn Munabbih, a second Muslim generation scholar, born in 40 A.H.
– Al-Majmuc compilation of Imam Zayd Ibn Ali, d. 121 A.H.
– Al-Musnad of Imam Abu Hanifah, died 150 A.H.
– Al-Muwatta’ of Imam Malik who flourished in the second century A.H. in Madina, d. 179 A.H.
– Al-Musnad of Imam Shafi’i, d. 204 A.H.
– Al-Musannaf of Imam Abd Al-Razzaq Al-Sa n ani, d. 211 A. H. (11 large volumes).
– Al-Musnad of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, a teacher of Imam Bukhari, (d. 241 A.H.),
So, in every age, since the time of the Prophet, there were Hadith compilations in writing, although at the beginning, most of the Prophet’s Companions were reluctant to record the Hadith in writing because of their concern for the integrity of the Holy Quran. However, when the text of the Holy Quran became very distinctively identified and there was no more fear over its integrity, Muslims’ reluctance gradually dissipated and the Hadith compilations commensurately grew in size and in number – committing to writing what had been lying in memory. The Hadiths were preserved in the breasts of the Prophet’s Companions who heard them and saw the actions of the Prophet at first hand. They handed them over, mainly orally, to the succeeding generations both for application and inspiration.
Is it fair, after all, that this writer should repeat over and over again the false claim that the Hadith compilations were started 200 or more years after the Prophet’s death at the hands of the writers of what he calls the “Six Hadith Collections”? He himself, in his own book on the Hadith, acknowledges the contribution of Imam Shafi’i in defending the authority of the Hadith. This contribution by Imam Shafi’i was made many years before Bukhari started compiling his work. If the Hadith was begun by Bukhari, how could Imam Shafi’i who died when Bukhari was a boy know about the Hadith so well?
THE PROPHET’S COMPANIONS KNEW OF HADITH AND USED IT
The writer should learn that Abu Bakr and all those he mentioned, knew the Hadith even better than we do and respected its authority. He may be reminded of the well-known argument between Abu Bakr and Omar when the former, as Caliph and Head of State, decided to put down the rebellion of the tribes who refused to pay the zakat on the pretext that its payment was only to be made to the Prophet who had just died. Omar quoted to Abu Bakr the Prophet’s following words:
“I am commanded to fight people till they submit to the word of shahadah. If they do, they protect their blood and property.”
To which, Abu Bakr retorted: “Do you not recall that the Prophet added: ”Except for the duties and obligations arising from the commitment to it?” (footnote 1)
Omar then yielded to the Caliph’s decision, and the rebellion known as the Riddah Movement was put down.
The argument between Abu Bakr and Omar was based on some of the Prophet’s words, which is an instance of the Hadith. The writer and his supporters are also reminded of Omar, the Second Caliph when he once travelled to Syria. On the way he heard that an epidemic was spreading at the point of his destination, and Abu ‘Ubaidah, a senior Companion, a very early convert to Islam in Mecca, and one of the Noble Ten given the good tiding of being among the People of Paradise, told him, “I have some knowledge in this regard. I once heard the Prophet say:
‘Should an epidemic break out in a land where you happen to be, stay where you are and leave it not, If you are not there, enter it not (for the timebeing)’. (footnote 2)
Accordingly, Omar returned to Al-Madina, the capital!
Many similar instances demonstrating the use of the Hadith by each Caliph and by other Companions could be cited. Let the writer in question read – not only the Hadith compilations which he for no good reason rejects the early Shari’a literature and the annals of Islam, the huge compilations recording the early history Islam year by year. He will see how the Hadith was resorted to by every Muslim generation in settling questions for which no direct Quranic answer could be found.
Let me also recall here an interesting relevant story, about Imam Muhammad Ibn ldris al-Shafi’i when he turned 14 years old. On his return to Al-Madina he went to the Prophet’s Mosque and sat with the crowd surrounding Imam Malik who was giving a public lecture. A member of the audience put a question to the Imam saying:
I sell qimri (a singing bird). In an argument with a customer. I swore by talaq (divorce) that the bird never stops singing.”
Imam Malik told him: “Your wife is divorced and you should have nothing to do with her any more.”
Young Shafi’i who was sitting close to this small trader, asked him: ”Which is more with your bird: singing or silence?” He said, ”It is more often singing.” Al-Shafi’i told him: “Your wife is not divorced.” Imam Malik, when he was told of this, asked Shafi’i why he held that different view? Young Shafi’i responded, saying:
Because you taught me on the authority of al-Zuhri, who related on the authority of Abu Salamah Ibn Abd-al-Rahman, who, in turn, related on the authority of Umm Salamah (a widow of the Prophet), who told the story that:
Fatimah Bint Qays came up to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and told him: O you the Messenger of Allah! Abu Jahm and Mu’awiyah have proposed to me (in marriage). The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, advised her, saying:
‘As for Mu’awiyah, he is su’luk, (living on charity). As for Abu Jahm, he never lays down his stick from his shoulder.’
Yet, the Prophet, peace be upon him, knew that Abu Jahm could not have kept raising his stick when he slept, ate and rested. So, it is only a style with the Arabs to emphasise the frequency of an action in this way.”
Imam Malik consented to young Shafi’i’s verdict, and hence authorised him to exercise ijtihad and give fatwas. (footnote 3)
ORAL TRANSMISSION THE MAIN METHOD OF PRESERVING RELIGIOUS TEXTS
The NST writer approvingly repeats the audacious claim that “the Hadith was put together only 200 years after the death of the Prophet.”
To deny the existence of the Hadith at the time of the death of the Prophet, on the ground that there was then no written compilation of the Hadith in circulation, even if we concede this was so, is to deny the existence of the Quran itself, because until the death of the Prophet, there was no single copy of the Quran put together at hand. It was only during the reign of the third Caliph that such copies began to circulate. Up until then, Muslims depended on their memories, and the text of the Holy Quran, like those of the Hadith, was kept in the breasts of men and circulated and taught by parents and teachers through the oral tradition. Even until quite recently, transmission of these sacred texts had to be authenticated orally in spite of the widespread copies of the Holy Quran and the huge compilations of the Hadith already in existence.
To mislead their readers, the anti-Hadith group includes in its argument some widely accepted truths, thus mixing truths with untruths so that simple readers may think that all they say is equally agreeable. So, the chief spokesman of the anti-Hadith band in Malaysia writes:
”The Quran clearly indicates the Prophet Muhammad completed his mission before his death with the famous verse: ‘Today I have perfected the religion for you and completed My favour upon you, and I decree Islam as the religion for you.’”
He thus urges the reader, having stated that there was no hadith at the time of the Prophet, to believe that the Hadith was a later invention. But the verse quoted here states that Allah by that time had completed the religion, the total religion of Islam, – not only through the revelation of the Quran. The Islamic religion was completed by the revelation of the total text of the Quran and the delivery of its explanation, namely, the Hadith. Moreover, no one in his sound mind could imagine that the Prophet had lived and died without saying a word or doing anything except reciting the Quran.
DECLARATION OF THE PROPHET AS THE PERFECT MODEL AT ONCE IMPLIES THE VALIDITY AND AUTHORITY OF HADITH
The Holy Quran teaches:
“You have indeed in the (behaviour of the) Messenger of Allah a perfect model – for those who anticipate (success with) Allah and on the Last Day, those who often remember Allah and mention His name repeatedly.” 33:21.
The fact that we are so emphatically urged to emulate the example of the behaviour of the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, definitely assumes that there must be records of his action and words, the total of which makes up the Hadith. It also means that his actions and words of wisdom have the authority and power to be enforced. If he was only to deliver the Holy Quran and nothing else, how could he be a model for the ummah? Denial of the Hadith and rejection of its authority is tantamount to the rejection of the Quranic teaching which urges us to take him as a model to be followed.
Those who dare to reject the Hadith may cite the Quranic text 60:3 which urges also to take Prophet Ibrahim as a model. However, taking Prophet Muhammad as a model does not deny extending the same to Ibrahim, nor vice versa. However, in the case of the Prophet Muhammad, the Quranic command covers all situations since it is not limited to any situation or to any type of behaviour. In the case of Prophet Ibrahim, the Prophet Muhammad and his Companions who were struggling against the polytheists, were encouraged and sustained in their struggle by citing the case of Ibrahim and those who were on his side specifically in the rejection of the idols which were adored and worshipped at their time. So, in the case of emulating Ibrahim, it is limited and specified, whereas in the case of Prophet Muhammad it is generalised and comprehensive.
Of course, it would have been very hard for us to strive to follow the example of Ibrahim beyond the area which the Quran specifies. Records of the details of his actions and words could not be accessible to us in view of the exceedingly long period separating him from us, unlike the records of the words and the deeds of Prophet Muhammad. His contemporaries, in view of the Quranic commands to follow him and emulate his example, meticulously observed his actions and attentively and carefully listened to his words, and kept them well preserved in their memory. They equally, carefully and precisely transmitted their knowledge to the succeeding generation, then from the second to the third generation, then to the fourth, and so on.
When the scholars began to write these records, they were careful to cite the chain of persons (narrators), through whom the words were traced back to the Prophet. The number of narrators between the author and the Companion who first related a hadith depended on the generation to which the author belonged. The fewer the better, since errors were less likely to occur. However, in the classical compilations, the number of narrators between the author and the Companion are one, two, three, four, five or six at the most. Compilations authored by Companions were directly attributed to the Prophet, and compilations by members of the second generation were directly attributed to Companions. The Hadith compilers were also careful to narrate only on behalf of persons well known for their piety and accuracy. All this led to the development of vast literature on the biographies of the Muslim scholars of each of the early generations, and the assessment of the degree of the reliability of each of the Hadith narrators.
WERE RITUAL DETAILS HANDED OVER FROM IBRAHIM?
All the above arguments are historical truths. Yet, some may wish to arbitrarily create their own imaginary fictions like our Malaysian writer who, following his mentor’s childish attempt to escape from the trap when asked where in the Quran we could find the details of the shari’ah including those of prayers, fasting, zakat, hajj, etc., if we did away with the Hadith said,
“…… this was a practice handed down since the time of Ibrahim, according to the evidence of the Quran itself!”
A sympathetic article published in the NST dated 6th May 1988 dramatizes this unworthy fiction saying:
”All religious practices in Islam came to Muslims from Ibrahim. Anyone who does not know this, reveals total ignorance of the Quran.”
Does the Anti-Hadith author and his supporters really know the Quran? Or rather, has either of them bothered to check the Quran to find where the Quran says so? In fact, the Quran is totally free from this accusation.
They may quote the Quranic verses 22:78 and 60:4 as the source of their fiction. But verse 22:78 merely states that:
He (Allah) has chosen you, (Muhammad’s nation) and has laid upon you in religion no hardship. The faith of your father Ibrahim (is yours). He (Allah) has named you Muslims in old times and in this (Scripture).”
The verse speaks of the faith only; that is, “the monotheistic creed.”
Sharing the basic monotheistic faith with Ibrahim does not at all include the details of the shari’ah which, as the Quran states, was given differently to the various nations; whereas the faith revealed to all Prophets was the same. The Holy Quran reads:
“We have indeed revealed unto you as We had revealed unto Noah and the Prophets after him, as We had revealed unto Ibrahim, and Isma’il and Ishaq and Ya’qub and the tribes, and ‘Isa and Ayyub. and Sulaiman.” 4:163.
The Quran also states:
“For each of you, We have designed a divine law (shari’ah) and a traced-out way.” 5:47
As for verse 60:4, it merely teaches that Ibrahim should be taken as a model in our obligation to dissociate ourselves from the unbelieving polytheists and their idols. This is also obviously limited to the area of the monotheistic creed.
So, neither verse 22:78 nor 60:4 supports their claim of the Anti-Hadith group even if their interpretation of the verse 22:78 is conceded to. They claim that the subject pronoun of the verb: “He named you Muslims” in this verse refers to Ibrahim, but it really refers to Allah. Otherwise how could Noah, who came much earlier than Ibrahim, say that he was commanded to be a Muslim? (footnote 4)
If the details of the shari’a were handed over from Ibrahim, we wonder how the complex details of prayers, hajj, etc., which by comparison are not by any means more important than the elements of the monotheistic creed, could survive intact and remain practised by Abu Jahl and the polytheists of Mecca, as the anti-Hadith proponents claim, whereas the more basic teachings of the creed were so completely lost and replaced by rampant idolatry!
After all, who was the medium through which the teachings of Ibrahim were handed over to us? Of course, it could not be Abu Jahl or a similar polytheist. If the author of this absurd fiction and his company concede it was Muhammad, then they must acknowledge the validity of the Hadith. In short, the claim that the details of prayer, zakat, hajj, etc., were handed down from Ibrahim is not only ficticious and absurd, but is also in conflict with the meaning of the Quran itself.
We do acknowledge the fact that some inauthentic hadiths were fabricated early by the enemies of Islam, not by the Ulama, as the NST article crudely puts it. Yet the existence of such fabricated material does not by any means affect the validity of the vast number of authentic hadiths. The false hadiths were gathered and put together long ago in large volumes in order to protect the authentic hadiths from confusion. No reasonable thinker would take the existence of such material as a pretext to generalise and condemn the Hadith as a whole. The presence of a few rotten apples in an orchard does not mean that all the sound healthy fruit should be dumped.
IRRATIONALITY OF THE ANTI-HADITH DOGMA
To deny the validity of the Hadith and claim that the Prophet Muhammad’s mission was only to deliver the Quran “and nothing but the Quran”, as the phrase goes, is to assume that Muhammad was a dumb person, that he was merely a parrot, or just a machine programmed to recite the text of the Quran! The expression “and nothing but the Quran” is, as Imam Ali said in a dif ferent context, “a word of truth misused to promote falsehood!” (footnote 5)
Members of that Anti-Hadith band think of themselves as rational intellectual creatures, and condemn the rest of the Muslim world who uphold the authencity and authority of the Hadith, especially the Islamic specialists known in Malaysia as Ulama who expose their fallacy, as conservative, outmoded and irrational! They describe themselves as pro-Quran, as if the rest of the Muslim world are not so.
Which party really deserves to be condemned as irrational, and even insensible? Those who portray the Prophet as a dumb, dull person, or those who uphold Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, as the “model of behaviour” for the ummah, and recognise the historical realities that the Prophet, a most eloquent person, talked, walked, delivered his message to mankind, argued with his opponents, reacted, to his contemporaries, preached to his Companions, answered their questions, settled their disputes, led them in prayers and delivered the Friday and Hari Raya (‘Id) sermons?
Certainly, the Prophet communicated with members of his household, and reacted in action and in words to their attitudes. He concluded treaties with various tribes; he organised the defence of his faith and led the armies, gave instructions to his men and made serious decisions. He sent messages inviting world leaders to Islam and gave advice to those he appointed as governors of provinces when Islam expanded. He fasted, made pilgrimage and paid charity. He instructed his Companions, and through them, the succeeding generations in the right way to perform the rituals and uphold moral virtues.
The reports of all these truths, as well as the events in the life of the Prophet, such as the persecution he sustained at the hands of his enemies in Mecca, the moving story of his emigration from Mecca to Medina, the construction of his mosque, and his marriages, his death and his burial where he now rests in peace, constitute what we call Al-Hadith or the Hadith. We seek inspiration from these records in obedience to a command from the Holy Quran itself, and we eagerly learn them and enjoy repeating them not only because of our unlimited love and respect for the Prophet, may all peace and blessings be upon him, but also because of their value as an inexhaustible source of wisdom and knowledge.
THOSE WHO REJECT THE HADITH ARE ANTI-QURAN
Those who deny the Hadith and reject its authority do thereby reject the Quran, as they in fact challenge the authority of the Holy Quran which emphatically commands obedience of the Prophet. It reads:
– ”Whatsoever the Messenger gives you, take it (and follow it), and whatsoever he forbids you (to do), abstain (from it). And you must fear Allah, for Allah’s punishment is very painful.” 59:7.
– ”Whoso obeys the Messenger obeys Allah: and whoso turns away. (do not grieve over his disobedience) for We have not sent you as a warden over them.” 4:80.
– ”And establish the prayer, and pay the zakat. and obey the Messenger in order that Allah’s mercy may be showered upon you.” 24:56.
– ”Say: Obey Allah and obey the Messenger…. If you obey him, (the Messenger), you will go aright.” 24:54.
– ”O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those of you who are in authority.” 4:59, See also: 4:13, 19, and 80. Also: 24:52. 33:71, 48:17, 9:71, 3:31 and 132, 5:92, 8:1, 20 and 46, 20:90, 47:32, 49:14, 58:13 and 64:12.
– “O you wives of the Prophet! You are not like any other women. If you keep your duty (to Allah), then be not soft of speech …. and obey Allah and His Messenger.” 33:32 and 33.
– “….If they had referred it (the matter) to the Messenger and to such of them as are in authority – those of them who are able to think out the matter, would have known it.” 4:83.
PART OF THE PROPHET’S TASK WAS TO EXPLAIN AND GIVE DETAILS
Can all these powerfully emphasised commands of obeying the Prophet be sensibly limited to merely receiving the Quran and accepting it? That would be very insensible. The texts just quoted above reject this limitation, and show that obedience to the Messenger to obey his teaching of explanation and details consistent with the Quran and within the framework of its total guidance. Giving these details by the Prophet and his explanation of the Quranic text is part of the Prophet’s mission, as indicated in the following Quranic quotations:
– ”And We have revealed unto you the Reminder so that you may explain to the people that which has been revealed for them.” 16:44.
– ”And My mercy embraces all things. I shall ordain it for those who ward off (evil) and pay, the poor-due, and those who believe Our revelations…. Those who follow the Messenger the Prophet who can neither read nor write …. be enjoins on them al-ma’ruf (that which is right) and forbids them al-munkar (that which is wrong), and makes lawful for them all good things and prohibits for them only that which is foul.” 7:156-157.
Obviously the explanation of a thing is not the same thing.
DOES THE QURAN EXPLAIN ALL MATTERS?
The responsibility of Prophet Muhammad to explain the Quran is not in any way inconsistent with the Quranic statement:
”And We have revealed unto you the Scripture as an exposition of all things.” 16:89.
The meaning here is ‘all relevant things’ of special concern to the monotheistic creed, and is often given in a condensed way to be expanded by the Prophet. We cannot extend the meaning of the phrase “all things” in this verse so as to include all other things, as the anti-Hadith band wishes to do. Otherwise, there are many things which obviously are not given or explained in the Quran, such as the ritual details of the prayer, zakat, fasting and hajj and the prescribed procedure of financial transactions, marriages and law courts. Absent from the Quran are also the stories of many Messengers of Allah, as acknowledged in the Quran itself. It reads:
“Verily We sent Messengers before you, among them those of whom We have told you, and some of whom We have not told you.” 40:78. cf. 4:164.
The Holy Quran also does not give the details of nuclear energy or of the recent scientific discoveries including those which have led to space conquest, or the cause of the fatal disease called AIDS!
Science and time have unfolded some Quranic hints. Similarly the Hadith expounded and gave details to some legal, religious and moral issues. This does not mean by any means that the Quran is incomplete. It has provided all it should. Its fullness lies in its command to accept and follow the guidance given through the Prophet.
ALLUSION IN THE QURAN TO THE HADITH AS WISDOM
This additional part of the Islamic guidance delivered by the Prophet in the Hadith is alluded to in the Quran, and is even mentioned categorically in such Quranic passages as the following:
– He it is (Allah) Who has sent among the unlettered (community) a Messenger of their own (race) to recite unto them His revelations, and to purify them, and to teach them the Book and Wisdom, ” 62:2, CF 3:164.
According to this Quranic text, Prophet Muhammad was sent to deliver two things: The Book and Wisdom. Wisdom here, according to Imam Shafi’i, is the guidance contained in the Hadith.
Let us also read the following Quranic statements which similarly speak of the Holy Quran and the Hadith as two sources to be followed and respected:
– “O our Lord and Nourisher! We believe in that which you have revealed, and we follow the Messenger. So, enroll us among those who witness (to the truth).” 3:53
– “And when it is said unto them: Come unto that which Allah has revealed and (come) unto the Messenger, you see the hypocrites turn away from you with aversion.” 4:61, CF 5:104.
– “He it is Who sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of Truth.” 9:33 and 61:9.
– “So, believe in Allah and in His Messenger and in the Light which We have revealed.” 64:8.
TO JUDGE BETWEEN PEOPLE WAS AMONG THE PROPHET’S RESPONSIBILITIES, AND HIS JUDGMENTS WERE TO BE WHOLEHEARTEDLY ACCEPTED
Moreover, the Holy Quran commanded the Prophet to judge between people in the light of the Quran, and condemned resistance to the Prophet’s judgments in such verses as:
– “So, judge between them in accordance to that which Allah has revealed unto you, and follow not their desires,” 5:49, Cf. 3:48.
– “But by your Lord, they will not truly believe until they let you judge in the disputes that may arise between them, then find within themselves no grudges against your decisions, but submit full submission.” 4:63.
– And We have indeed revealed the Scripture unto you with the truth so that you may judge between people in the light of that which Allah has taught you.” 4:105.
– And it becomes not a believing mann or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have judged over an affair (for them), that they should (after that) claim any say in this matter. And whoso disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he indeed goes astray in manifest error,” 33:36.
– “True believers, when they are invited to bring up their cases of disputes to Allah and His Messenger for judgment, only say: We hear and we obey.” 24:51.
The Prophet, so appointed as a judge by Allah to decide any cases that were to go up to him, must have done so. We have records of countless cases settled and decided by the Prophet which are a great source of guidance and inspiration. Yet, the Prophet’s judgments in the various disputes which came up to him for a trial could not merely be by reciting the Holy Quran, but by giving fresh decisions based on the guidance of the Quran and on his own wisdom. They could, in some cases, be based on separate revelations from heaven. (footnote 6) The cases the Prophet decided on the basis of his wisdom or on his understanding of the Quran, have the value of those based on actual revelations, because should the Prophet have made a disagreeable decision – a fatwa or a ruling or otherwise – a revelation would have come down explaining what should have been done. This happened when the Prophet gave more attention to the delegation of the leaders of the polytheists of Mecca when they called to argue with him – than he gave to a blind man, a Muslim who came to seek some guidance, and as also happened regarding his approval to release the war prisoners on the Day of Badr, on payment of ransoms. In both cases, the Prophet’s attention was drawn to the right course of action.
The Prophet’s judgments and fatwas constituted, of course, a component of the Hadith. Let us cite some examples of the Prophet’s judgments.
A woman embraced Islam, and thereby her marriage to an unbeliever was automatically annulled. After the expiry of her ‘Iddah she was married to a Muslim. Yet, it happened that her original husband had meanwhile embraced Islam. So, he went to the Prophet and claimed his wife. The Prophet ruled that she should return to her first husband as the second marriage was invalid since the original husband became a Muslim prior to it. (footnote 7)
Another woman went to the Prophet and claimed that her husband had divorced her although he denied it. She brought with her a trustworthy witness in her favour. Of course, one witness was not enough. At least two trustworthy witnesses would he read ed to make a full testimony. So when the husband was brought up before the Prophet and insisted on his denial, the Prophet ruled that he must substantiate his denial with an oath. If he did, the woman was to be considered his undivorced wife in view of insufficient witnesses: but if the husband was to decline to make an oath, the Prophet ruled that his hesitation was to stand as a second trustworthy witness and the woman was to be considered as divorced. (footnote 8)
Two men went to the Prophet disputing the owner of a piece of land in Yemen. One of them said. ”It is my land, O you Messenger of Allah. His father extorted it from me by coercive means.” The other said. “O you Messenger of Allah! I have inherited it from my father.” The Prophet asked the plaintiff. “Do you have witnesses?” He said. ”No, but he knows that his father extorted it from me.” The Prophet asked the defendant to swear an oath that he does not know of this claimed extortion, warning:
“No person takes over the property of someone else through a false oath; except that he shall find Allah angry with him when he will meet Him on the Day of Judgement,”
The defendant, having heard this warning. said, ”O you Messenger of Allah! The land is his!” (footnote 9)
To reject the Hadith is to deny fulfilment by the Prophet of Allah’s command to judge between people and to decide their cases, and to unreasonably deny firmly established historical facts.
If we reject the Hadith, how could we identify the blind person mentioned in the Quranic verse 80:2 as ‘Abd Allah Ibn Umm Maktum? Or how could we know that ‘Amr Ibn Hisham, (Abu Jahl) was the person referred to in the verses 96:9-19? These verses begin as follows:
“Have you seen him who strives to dissuade, a servant (of Allah) when he prays?” 96:9-10.
Or how could we learn that the background of the verses 8:66-70 was the freeing of the Badr war prisoners on the payment of ransom? Without the Hadith as explanatory notes, these and many other Quranic passages would have become mere riddles.
Without the Hadith, how could we know that the ”Prophet’s friend in the cave” mentioned in the verse 9:40 was Abu Bakr whom the Prophet reassured when he panicked, having seen the feet of the enemies chasing the Prophet: “Abu Bakr! The enemies are so many and so dangerous; but what do you think of two isolated, unarmed persons with Allah on their side?”
Without the Hadith, how could we know that the spouse of Zaid mentioned in 33:37 was Zainab Bint Jahsh who was later divorced and then married to the Prophet?
Without the Hadith, how could we know that Prophet Muhammad was born in Mecca on 12 Rabi’ al-Awwal? That his father was ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib Ibn Hashim, and his mother was Aminah Bint Wahb? And his wet nurse was Halimah of the desert Beduoin tribe Banu Sa’d?
Without the Hadith, how could we know that the Prophet was first married to Khadijah prior to his Prophetic mission? That he received the first revelation in the Cave of Hira’? That it was Khadijah who reassured him and was the first person to accept his religion? And that it was her unrelenting influential support and that of his uncle Abu Talib that sustained him in the face of the vigorous persecution at the hands of the polytheists of Mecca?
Without the Hadith, how could we know that on his death bed the Prophet appointed Abu Bakr to lead the prayers in the Mosque on his behalf, which tipped the balance in favour of Abu Bakr in his election as the First Caliph?
Without the Hadith, how could we know that the Prophet died in the room of his young wife A’ishah, in her lap and resting his noble head on her breast? That on his order, he was washed and shrouded by a team from his family headed by Imam ‘Ali, and was buried in the same room where he now rests in peace?
All these and many other truths upheld by the ummah of Islam are not found in the Holy Quran which is fondly described by the leader of the anti-Hadith circus as “fully detailed.”
The Hadith may emphasise what exists in the Quran, may expand it, may explain it, and may add to it. (footnote 10)
PREJUDICED MODERNISM MAY VEIL THE TRUTH
It must have become abundantly clear from all the above that it is blasphemous, anti-Quranic and insensible to deny the Hadith or reject its authority. Those who do so are actually rejecting the Quranic authority and teachings, and are in fact Anti-Qura, not Pro-Quran as the NST article innocently but mistakenly propounds. It is not surprising that the fallacy of this misguided party, as the article claims, should appeal to certain intellectual, Western educated scholars! Doesn’t this mean that those so-called “rational”, “intellectual”, “Western-educated” persons are so shallow and vulnerable as to be easily misled by the rhetoric of the anti-Hadith writers, none of whom can claim any proper training in the intricate rules and literature of the language of the Quran or in Quranic studies?
The NST article, while it quotes those so-called ”Islamic scholars” with respect, brands the ulama who know the Quran in its totality by heart, as “conservative”, and describes their sober defence of the truth about the Hadith as hysterical, as if the ulama as Islamic scholars are two different factions! But the term ulama means ”Islamic scholars” with deep specialisation and legitimate claim to Islamic scholarship – as distinct from those who sought to study Islam through second-hand material written by shallow scholars in non-Quranic languages. We must also bear in mind that there is only one pattern of Islam – not a division of conservative Islam and a new brand of modern Islam!
LEADER OF THE SO-CALLED “PRO-QURAN PARTY” PROCLAIMS HIMSELF ALLAH’S MESSENGER
In a recent issue of his Bulletin (May 1988 – Ramadan 1408), the shaikh of the anti-Hadith band, and author of the slogans: ”The Quran is fully detailed,” and “nothing but the Quran” has proclaimed himself the Messenger of Allah to the New World. He defiantly denies the finality of the mission of the Prophet Muhammad, and arrogantly states that:
“According to the Quran he (Muhammad) was not the last messenger.”
He then inserts the Qurance verse 33:40 to deceive the readers and support his lie!
So, the deceived “imam” of the anti-Hadith propaganda has unveiled his real intention behind his destructive divisive mischiefs. He now pretends that he is the messenger of Allah and that Muhammad was not the last messenger, adroitly giving the reference 33:40 as a Quranic support for his daring statement! Does this verse really state that Muhammad was not the final messenger of Allah as he claims? Of course not. The verse reads:
“Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets.”
So, this verse does not at all deny that Muhammad was the final Messenger of Allah. On the contrary it means that he was so as will be explained presently. This is the cunning deceptive method of this pretender and his associates! They fabricate some falsehood, feed it to uninformed readers, attributing it to the Quran by giving a Quranic reference without the actual text, thus deliberately misleading readers who are not familiar with the actual words of the Holy Quran into believing what they pretend!
Allah Ta’ala revealed His guidance with the true faith to two categories of people. One category received the divine revelations for themselves only to follow. They are called NABIS (Sing. Nabi.) The other category received the revelations not only for themselves alone to apply, but also to convey them to their society to uphold and to follow. Each of this second category is called RASUL “Messenger,” because he was a conveyor of a message, the divine message. Yet, since revelation was given to him, he must also be a nabi, ”a Prophet”.
The Holy Quran does not specify those who were, only nabis (Prophets), not even all those who were Allah’s Rasuls, ”Messengers”, as stated earlier. It only tells of twenty-five Rasuls, started with Adam and ended with Muhammad, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all. (footnote 11)
So, every Messenger was also a nabi, Prophet, but there were nabis who were not Messengers. Since Prophet Muhammad was declared the last nabi it must follow that he also was the last Messenger of Allah.
The pretender prepared for his false claim by another deceptive falsehood. He began his proclamation by the words:
“Muhammad was the final Prophet because he delivered the final Scripture.”
Some readers may be impressed by the statement, but by virtue of conveying the final Scripture, Prophet Muhammad was the final Messenger of Allah, and was at the same time the final Nabi by Allah’s decree. A Messenger is the one who delivers a message.
The pretender uses his dogma about the figure 19 which he describes as a “physical irrefutable evidence, as a miracle for himself. Even if we should concede that it is a legitimate, correct and consistent discovery, which it is not, (footnote 12) it has to be accredited as a miracle to Prophet Muhammad and the Quran, not to whoever has discovered it. In recent years, a number of sober researchers have discovered miraculous scientific hints in the Quran, (footnote 13) but none ascribed the miracle to himself.
In his argument, the pretender repeats the claim that the earliest revealed passage of the Quran, 96:1-5, consists of 19 words. Apart from the fact that the passage indeed consists of more than 19 words, (footnote 14) as seen physically, using his own style, one wonders how did he know that the passage was the first part of the Quran to be revealed? There is nothing in the Quran that says so. We know that only through the Hadith which he denies. This is just one aspect of. his inconsistencies.
Counting on the credulity of his few gullible followers, the pretender sought to fascinate them by his fantasies and childish Quranic misinterpretations. (footnote 15) Who would not wish to have been in his company when Allah gathered all past Prophets to greet him when he was in Mecca some years back! (footnote 16) Can any person with an atom of wisdom still believe this hallucinating fellow? He pretends that the Quran foretold his name, but the co-incidence of the existence in the Quran of adjectival or abstract words corresponding to the name of a person means nothing. There are many people with his name, and many others whose names are in the Quran. What counts is foretelling of the mission itself as happened in the case of our Prophet whose mission was foretold in the earlier Scriptures. The pretender dares to apply verses speaking of Prophet Muhammad’s mission as speaking of his own! This reminds me of another American pretender who used to employ the same blatent means!
Now that the arch-enemy of the Hadith in modern time has proclaimed himself “Messenger of Allah” and categorically denied the finality of the mission of the Prophet Muhammad, one wonders whether intelligent sober thinkers, like his deluded supporters in Malaysia, will still continue to hold him in esteem! This man who obstinately and wrongly rejected all attempts to advise him sincerely to desist from his heresies out of concern for his destiny has now broken away – far away indeed – from the orbit of Islam. He rejected the Hadith and thereby rejected the Quran. He demeaned the Prophet Muhammad and denied the finality of his mission. He rejected the last two verses of the Quranic Chapter 9. And now he has declared himself Messenger of Allah. Any one of these violations is sufficient to drive a person out from the orbit of iman.
The gate of Allah’s mercy is, and will always be open for those who return to Allah and repent, no matter how gross their sins might be.
“Say: O My servants who have been prodigal to their own hurt. Despair not of the mercy of Allah. Verily Allah forgives all sins. Allah is indeed the Forgiving, the Merciful.” 39:53.
We still hope that this pretender will give up all his false and destructive claims, repent to Allah and use his talents constructively to serve Islam as he once did.
6. For example: Muhammad Ibn Farai Al-Maliki who died in 497 A. H., relates in his work called, Aqdiyat Rasul Allah, “The Judgments of the Messenger of Allah, ” (Dar al-Kitab, Lebanon 1982,) in p. 338, that the Prophet ruled that the father’s sister and the mother’s brother of a deceased person have no right to a share in his estate, adding: “Jabriel, the Archangel, peace be on him, told me that they have no inheritance right.”
11. Eighteen of them are mentioned by name in Chapter 6, verses 83-86. They are: Nuh Ibrahim, Lut, Ismail, Ishaq, Ya’cub, Dawud, Sulaiman, Ayyub, Yusuf, Musa, Harun, Zakariyya, Yahya, ‘Isa, Ilyas, Al Yasa’, Yunus.
The other seven are mentioned elsewhere in the Quran; namely, Adam, Idris, Hud, Shu’aib, Salih, Zu’l-kifl and Muhammad.
12. This is because it is based on inaccuracies and inconsistencies. Some of his counts to be 19 or a multiple of 19 are not true; and the counted phenomenon is not the same thing. He counts words; and when it suits him he counts the letters or the verses or chapters. He even counts arbitrary letters numberical values which he calls gematrical values.
14. He, for example, wrongly counts as 19 the words occurring in the first five verses of Chapter 96, believed to be the first revealed Quranic passage. He counts the two words: ma, “that which”, and lam, “did not,” as one word. He also counts as one word, each combined words like, bismi, “with the name”. rabbika, “your Lord”, and similar other combinations.
15. Unfortunately, he always twists the meaning of the Quranic words in his own favour to support his argument, whether in rejecting the Hadith or promoting his fabricated dogmas. One of these fabrications and lies against the Quran is his Quranic definition of the term nabi as “a messenger commissioned by God to deliver a new message.” (See P. I of his Bulletin dated June 1982). Any Arabic school pupil can detect the deception here. Nabi or rather Nabiyy, is derived from a root meaning simply: “to inform” not to convey, and nabiyy is “one who shows the way.” See: Lisan Al-‘Arab, (Beirut, copied from a 1300 A.H. Edition,) Vol. 15, p. 303. But Rasul is a term derived from a root meaning “a message”. Hence, Rasul means “one who carries a message from a party to convey it to another party. Even the word rasul itself is also used in the sense of “a message” and therefore naming Allah’s Messenger as such is because he carries a message to convey to mankind. (See: Ibid, Vol. 11, p.p. 284-285).
But the pretender wishes to arbitrarily strip the term rasul from its basic connotation and to impose on it a new meaning; i.e., a confirmer. It is true Prophet Muhammad confirmed the original teachings of earlier Messengers of Allah, but he was not called Conveyer. He also reformed human society, but was not named the Reformer. He is basically the Rasul of Allah with the commission to deliver the teachings of Islam to humanity. And as such he made numerous great achievements. It will be much too long to pursue this point further to demonstrate the unjustified twists of the Quranic texts and gross misinterpretations by the pretender to suit his personal ends.
“God has shown me literally hundreds profound signs that led me to announce my messengership. The most prominent among these signs was a vision, while I was awake in Mecca where I was introduced to all the Prophets and told that I am to confirm them and correct their Scriptures by God’s leave.”
In replying to the “HERETICS”, a pro-Qur’an member wrote a ten-page letter which was never replied by the Muslim scholar. Instead, he terminated his term as the Rector of the International Islamic University one and a half months later. This kind of silence is also practised by other ulamaks whenever pro-Qur’an members write to them.
The typesetting of the ten-page letter for the purpose of this publication has changed its number of pages and thus, in this booklet, it has become nineteen. Certain statements, like the following, may be confusing to the reader because the letter has been reproduced without changing any of its contents:
i) “… verses 75:16-19 mentioned at the top of this page”
ii) “… mentioned on page 5 of this letter” (fifth line from the bottom of page 40 of this booklet) has become page 36.
iii) “Please turn to page 7 of this letter” (paragraph numbered 13g, on page 44) has become the first half of page 41.
iv) “… please turn to page 4 of this letter and see paragraph numbered 6”. This paragraph is on page 33 of this booklet.
The inconvenience is regretted.
13th October 1988
Tan Sri Prof Dr. Muhammad Abdul-Rauf,
Rector, International Islamic University,
46400 Petaling Jaya.
“Peace be on you.”(6:54)
I would like to congratulate you on your writings entitled ‘IRRATIONALITY OF THE ANTI-HADITH HERETICS’ which was widely publicised and circulated. You have indeed done a great favour to the so-called pro-Qur’an ‘group’ by correcting their error when you wrote, on page 10, ‘They claim that the subject pronoun of the verb: “He named you Muslims” in this verve (22:78) refers to Ibrahim, but it really refers to Allah’. This effort of yours, Professor, should be applauded especially by those who love and reverence the Book.
2. My interest in your scholarly writings began when I first read your thesis, ‘Al-Yakin: Authenticity of Al-Hadith’, published by the Islamic Affairs Division, Prime Minister’s Department in 1986. Your first translation of a verse from the Holy Qur’an, on page 2 of the booklet, had kept me thinking for it was written as follows:
“And whatever the Messenger gives you, you must uphold and follow; and whatever he forbids you to do, you should avoid it completely. ” (59:7)
Your translation of this verse was found to be in slight disagreement with the various translations of the Qur’an by various scholars which are in my collection. Here are five of them:
“So take what the Apostle assigns to you, and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you.”
– Abdullah Yusuf Ali
“Hence, accept (willingly) whatever the Apostle gives you (thereon, and refrain from (demanding) anything that he withholds from you.”
– Muhammad Asad
“And whatsoever the messenger giveth you, take it. And whatsoever he forbiddeth, abstain (from it).”
– Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall
“Whatever the Apostle gives you, accept it; and whatever he forbids you, forbear from it.”
– Dar al-Choura
“… and whatever the Apostle gives you, accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back,”
– M. H. Shakir
We were clearly taught by God that we have to listen to all views and follow the best, as in the following verse, and since your translation of the verse above, has evidence of interpolation, your thesis has become suspect.
“Who hear advice and follow the best thereof. Such are those whom Allah guideth, and such are men of understanding.” (39:18)
Why should one interpolate the verses of the Qur’an? What does one hope to achieve? The answer, in your case, is on page 2 of the thesis, ‘Authenticity of Al-Hadith’ in which you stated the verse in question authorised Al-Hadith. The verse was adulterated in order to legitimise the much controversial Hadith! This is, of course, not the only reason why your translation of the verse had kept me thinking and had made your thesis to become suspect. Also, by revealing only those words to the public, you were premeditatedly concealing the majority of the words and of the real message of the verse. Here is the full verse:
“That which Allah giveth as spoil unto His messenger from the people of the townships, it is for Allah and His messenger and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, that it become not a commodity between the rich among you. And whatsoever the messenger giveth you, take it. And whatsoever he forbiddeth, abstain (from it). And keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is stern in reprisal.” (59:7)
And, allow me to continue to the next verse to confirm the context, that is, the division of the spoils of war:
“And (it is ) for the poor fugitives who have been driven out from their homes and their belongings, who seek bounty from Allah and help Allah and His messenger. They are loyal.”(59:8)
One could clearly see that what the Prophet was giving and what he was forbidding was NOT Al-Hadith as you claimed. How could one go wrong with the non-allegorical verse like this? Why can’t one see the truth? These questions are answered on page one of the booklet mentioned in the first paragraph of this letter (‘Irrationality of the anti-Hadith Heretics’ – from here onwards in this letter all arguments and references are referred to this abusively worded booklet) where you, Professor, considered yourself as ‘qualified’ in religious matters when you wrote, ‘none of them is qualified to do so.’ (3rd line of the 3rd paragraph.)
3. The question of qualifications to deliver God’s message are clearly stated in the Holy Queen and here is one of them:
“Follow those who ask of you no fee, and who are rightly guided.” (36:21)
A person who receives no fee or wage is rightly guided! A person who receives a fee or wage is not only unguided by God but also not to be followed! So, one of the most important qualifications to preach God’s religion is by not getting paid for it!
4. The ‘case of the verse 59:7’ is not the only reason why I began to suspect your perception and submission to the Holy Qur’an. Here are four verses and we will see how you submit to these verses of Allah:
“For We had certainly sent unto them a Book, based on knowledge, which We explained in detail, – a guide and a mercy to all who believe.” (7:52)
“Say: ‘Shall I seek for judge other than Allah? – when He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail.'” (6:114)
“It is no invented story but a confirmation of the existing (Scripture) and a detailed explanation of everything, and a guidance and a mercy for folk who believe.” (12:111)
“We have neglected nothing in the Book.” (6:38)
Verily God has spoken the truth. How did you, Professor, react to these verses of Allah? You had not only rejected them but also sarcastically worded your rejection as follows:
“… the Holy Qur’an which is fondly described … as “fully detailed”‘
(page 20, lines 2, 3, 4th paragraph)
There is of course the freedom, Mr. Rector, sir, to believe or disbelieve as in this verse:
“Say: (It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve.” (18:29)
Furthermore, only to those who want to believe in it, only then, the Qur’an will become a guide and a mercy. Please see 7:52 and 12:111 above.
5. Prior to that sarcastic remark you made about the Qur’an you posed a few questions to justify the indoctrination of Al-Hadith being an article of faith in Islam (on page 19 of that pathetic booklet).
Your question: If we reject the Hadith, how could we identify the blind person mentioned in the Quranic verse 80:2 as ‘Abd Allah Ibn Umm Maktum?
My answer: Here is the full story:
“He (Muhammad) frowned and turned away when the blind man came towards him. How can you (Muhammad) tell? He might purify himself. He might be mindful and the Reminder might profit him.
But to him who is wealthy you do attend: although the fault would not be yours if he remained uncleansed. Yet to him who came to you with zeal and awe, you gave no heed. ” (80:1-10)
There are many lessons here:
– that we should not frown and turn away (like what Prophet Muhammad did) from a man whose eyes may be blind but his heart is not, and pay attention to a man whose eyes may not be blind but his heart is.
“Truly it is not their eyes that are blind but their hearts which are in their breasts.” (22-46)
– that we should not frown and turn away from a poor man and give attention to a rich man.
– that we should not frown and turn away from someone who seemingly may look blind or ‘stupid’ – and so on!
– that Prophet Muhammad was not a ‘maksum’ or,’one without fault’ as preached by the ancient cum pious Muslim scholars who are passionately followed by today’s learned men of Islam.
– that the name of the blind man will not be questioned later:
“Then shall We question those to whom Our Message was sent and those by whom We sent it.” (7:6)
Your question: Or how could we know that ‘Amr Ibn Hisham, (Abu Jahl) was the person referred to in the verses 96:9-19?
“Have you seen him who strives to dissuade, a servant (of Allah) when he prays?” 96:9-10
My answer: I refrain myself from any form of gossip unless mentioned by name as in Sura 111.
– Can’t that verse apply to anybody?
“And verily we have displayed for mankind in this Qur’an all kinds of similitudes …” (17:89)
Your question: Without the Hadith, how could we know that the Prophet died in the room of his young wife Aishah, in her lapher breast? and resting his noble head on
My answer: How is that position possible unless Aishah was much taller than the Prophet! Is this the position Muslims should die? If we don’t die in this manner, are we going to hell?
The rest of the stories in your Hadith on pages 19 and 20 are food for the Hadith addicts, bed-time stories for some, hearsay or conjecture for a few. Other than the Qur’an, one may find many contradictions:
“Will they not then ponder on the Qur’an? If it had been from other than Allah they would have found therein much incongruity.” (4:82)
6. In the midst of your colourful Hadith parade, a sorrowful cry was heard: ‘… these and many other Quranic passages would have become mere riddles.’ (page 19, line 15) But the Qur’an says otherwise:
“And We have indeed made the Qur’an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?” (54:17, 22, 32,40)
As stated in the brackets, this verse is repeated, word for word, FOUR times in a sura of fifty-five verses. Why can’t we take heed? And, Mr. Rector of the Islamic University International, sir, the Qur’an is NOT a book of riddles but a book of Wisdom!
“A.L.R. These are the Ayats of the Book of Wisdom. ” (10:1)
7. The samples of Hadith that you produce as exhibits to defend the indoctrination that Al-Hadith is an article of faith in Islam must have come from the elites’ arsenal of choiced works by the ancient cum pious scribes on the so-called Hadith Nabi. You cited, on page 18, this sacred Hadith:
‘A woman embraced Islam, and thereby her marriage to an unbeliever was automatically, annulled. After the expiry of her ‘Iddah’ she was married to a Muslim. Yet, it happened that her original husband had, meanwhile embraced Islam. So, he went to the Prophet and claimed his wife. The Prophet ruled that she should return to her first husband as the second marriage was invalid since the original husband became a Muslim prior to it.’
Let us now put this Hadith to an acid test. Let me now produce a verse from the Qur’an concerning the matter:
“They (believing women) are not lawful (wives) for the Unbelievers, nor are the (Unbelievers) lawful (husbands) for them. But pay the Unbelievers what they have spent (on their dower). And there will be no blame on you if ye marry them on payment of their dower to them.” (60:10)
Had the dowry been paid, the poor woman would have been spared from the agony of separating with her second husband with whom she might have some deep feelings. In the first place, is the Hadith authentic? Did the Prophet or his Companions forget about the returning of the dowry? No, he didn’t. Yes, the Hadith (from the so-called pious scribes) failed the test.
“We have sent down to thee the Book in truth, that thou mightest judge between men as guided by Allah.” (4:105)
As for the other two cases for judgement in the Hadith you produced on page 18, one has to refer only to the Qur’an (like what Prophet Muhammad did) to give the verdict instead of the massive volumes of Hadith which according to verse 4:82 mentioned earlier are full of contradictions.
Though I agree with you when you stated that ‘the Holy Quran commanded the Prophet to judge between people in the light of the Quran’ (page 16, 12th line from bottom), I consider it despicable when you again interpolate a verse by adding the phrase, as follows:
“And we have indeed revealed the Scripture unto you with the truth so that you may judge between people in the light of that which Allah has taught you.” (4:105, page 16, last line)
Please see the common translation of the verse above. Please see whether the Hadith regarding the woman who embraced Islam is in the light of the Qur’an.
8. On page 15, you quoted a verse and it was followed by a brief explanation. They are as follows:
‘”He it is (Allah) Who has sent among the unlettered (community) a Messenger of their own (race) to recite unto them His revelations, and to purify them, and to teach them the Book and Wisdom. ” 62:2
According to this Quranic text, Prophet Muhammad was sent to deliver two things: The Book and Wisdom. Wisdom here according to Iman Shafi’i is the guidance contained in the Hadith.’
The Book and Wisdom here are not two things but one. If I were to say, “My letter and the questions”, does it mean two things? No, Professor! Let us study these verses:
“These are the Ayats of the Book of Wisdom.” (10:1)
“By the Qur’an, full of Wisdom.” (36:2)
“Your Lord has enjoined you to worship none but Him, and to show kindness to your parents. If either or both of them attain old age with you, show them no sign of impatience, nor rebuke them; but speak to them kind words. Treat them with humility and tenderness and say: ‘Lord, be merciful to them. They nursed me when I was an infant.’
Your Lord best knows what is in your hearts. If you are good, He will forgive those that turn to Him.
Give to the near of kin their due, and also to the destitute and to the wayfarers. Do not squander (your substance) wastefully, for the wasteful are the devil’s brothers; and the devil is ever ungrateful to his Lord. But if you turn away from them to seek your Lord’s mercy, hoping to attain it, then say kind words to them.
Be neither miserly nor prodigal, for then you should either be reproached or reduced to penury.
Your Lord gives abundantly to whom He will and sparingly to whom He pleases. He knows and observes His servants.
You shall not kill your children for fear of want. We will provide for them and for you. To kill them is a great sin.
You shall not draw near to adultery, for it is foul and its way is evil.
You shall not kill any man whom Allah has forbidden (you to kill) except for a just cause. If a man is slain unjustly, we have given his heir the power (to demand satisfaction). But let him not exceed the limit in slaying, for he (the victim) will be helped.
Do not draw near the property of orphans except in a nice way, until they reach maturity. And keep your promise. Surely it will be inquired into.
Give full measure, when you measure, and weigh with even scales. That is fair, and better in the end.
Do not follow what you do not know. Surely the hearing, sight and heart – about all these (you) shall be questioned.
Do not walk proudly in the earth. You cannot cleave the earth, nor can you rival the mountains in stature. The evil of all this is odious in the sight of your Lord.
These injunctions are but a part of the wisdom which your Lord has revealed to you.” (17:23-39)
Even if what you or Shafi’i said were true, one does not see much or any wisdom at all in the Hadiths that you packed in the booklet. Even my daughter will know what to do should an epidemic break out without knowing the Hadith below – or, she might make a better decision because of modern medicine! Here is the ‘wise’ Hadith:
‘Should an epidermic break out in a land where you happen to be, stay where you are and leave it not. If you are not there, enter it not (for the time-being).’ (on page 4, at the bottom)
9. The Qur’an tells us that it is God Who explains the Qur’an:
“Do not move your tongue (with the revelation) so that you may hasten (committing) it (to memory). We Ourself shall see to its collection and recital. When We read it, follow its words attentively; We shall Ourself explain its meaning.” (75:16-19 )
But you in your effort to impose the believe in Al-Hadith wrote emphatically in bold capital letters, ‘Part of the Prophet’s task was to explain and give detail’ (on page 14) and you produced three verses to support this claim. One of them is this:
‘”And We have revealed unto you the Reminder so that you may explain to the people that which has been revealed for them.” 16.44′
One should be very careful or be very academic with the verses of the Qur’an when one wants to make a conclusion. Let us examine the context.
“And (even) before thy time, (O Muhammad) We never sent (as Our apostles) any but (mortal) men, whom We inspired*: and if you have not (yet) realized this, ask the followers of (earlier) revelation, (and they will tell you that their prophets, too, were but mortal men whom We had endowed) with all evidence of the truth and with books of divine wisdom.
And upon thee (too) have We bestowed from on high this reminder so that thou might make clear unto mankind all that was ever been thus bestowed upon them, and that they might take thought.” (16:43, 44)
*(The following is an explanation by Muhammad Asad in ‘The Message of the Qur’an : Translation & Explanation’)
‘This passage has a double purport: firstly, it connects with the statement enunciated in verse 36 to the effect that God’s apostles have appeared, at one time or another, within every civilization, and that, consequently, no substantial human groupment has ever been left without divine guidance; secondly it answers the objection frequently raised by unbelievers that Muhammad could not be God’s message-bearer since he was “a mere mortal man”.’
Going back to verses 16:43, 44 just quoted above, do they tell you that the Prophet had explained and given details as you had propagated? No. The Prophet ‘used’ the Qur’an to make clear to the people what had been revealed to them because the Qur’an was revealed through him. Even if the Prophet had explained the Qur’an, how do you think he would explain the verses 75:16-19 mentioned at the top of this page?
You may disagree with me at this point, Professor. How does God explain the Holy Qur’an? One of the ways is, when one faces a problem with a verse like what we are facing now, one should continue reading the Qur’an and the problem will be answered. In this case, Prof., you don’t have to go very far – just twenty verses ahead lies the answer:
“And We sent down the Book to thee for the express purpose, that thou shouldst make clear to them those things in which they differ, and that it should be a guide and a mercy to those who believe.” (16:64)
If you are still not convinced, please continue to verse 89:
“… and We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things, a Guide, a Mercy, and Glad Tidings to Muslims.” (16:89)
In fact, Professor, you did quote this verse and it was followed by a heretic explanation, on pages 14 and 15 of your ‘Heretics’:
“And we have revealed unto you the Scripture as an exposition of all things.” 16:89. The meaning here is ‘all relevant things’ of special concern to the monotheistic creed.
Why did you stop quoting the verse there? Is it because of the hallucination that the Qur’an deals only with the ‘monotheistic creed’? What do you mean by saying ‘all relevant things of special concern to the monotheistic creed’?
You have in your explanation above exposed the common stunt made by the so-called ‘religious authorities’ – if you see them walking on a tight-rope, they will insist on saying that they are flying on the magic carpet! Whenever God says something, they will say it means something else! Here, all the translations, including yours (!), say “all things” BUT (always this big ‘but’) you say “all relevant things to monotheistic creed”. When those who uphold the Qur’an produce verses from the Qur’an which God calls the Truth, you call them heretics. What kind of an indoctrination is this? When God mentions four parts of the body in ablution, you and the indoctrination add a few more! When God mentions of middle-toned voice in salat, you and your faith will say only at certain parts of certain salat – and so on. What is worse, according to the indoctrination, all these additions and subtractions are attributed to the Prophet to whom you all claimed to have given your ‘unlimited love and respect’! (page 13, second line)
“I (Muhammad) follow only that which is revealed to me. Say: ‘Are the blind and the seeing alike? Will you not think?” (6:50)
10. Another verse, or part of a verse to be exact, that you produced to legalise the illegitimate Hadith (those written and compiled by ‘pious’ men; the earliest of them was born in 40 A.H. – by the time he compiled them, it was about 50 to 60 years after the death of the Prophet. See page 3, 4th line. The lawful Hadith of the Prophet is, of course, the Qur’an) is “OBEY ALLAH AND OBEY THE MESSENGER”. It is, to borrow the expression on page 12 of your ‘HERETICS’, “a word of truth misused to promote falsehood”.
To obey the messenger means (to you) to believe in the Hadith. What do you really mean? Let us put the situation during Prophet Muhammad’s days. Do you mean to say that when he frowned and turned away from the blind man, everybody frowned and turned away from ‘Abd Allah Ibn Umm Maktum? Or, when he lost a tooth, everybody started pulling his or her tooth? Or, when he moved his right leg, everybody followed him? Or, when he got married for the fourth time, everybody started hunting for the fourth time? Or, when he ate the ribs of lamb, everybody rushed for the lamb’s ribs? From the Hadiths, we know that the Prophet was constantly watched – even what he did in the toilet and in the bedroom were witnessed, witnessed by pious and reliable people.
To support your claim, about twenty verse numbers were stated. In all those verses there is not one which states clearly that obeying the messenger means believing in the so-called Hadith. There is not one phrase or half the phrase of ‘believe in the Prophet’s Hadith’ to be found in the whole Qur’an.
If the believe in the Prophet’s Hadith is an article of faith in Islam, God would have mentioned it clearly, as clear as those commandments mentioned on page 5 of this letter.
“It is He who has revealed to you the Book. Some of its verses are precise in meaning – they are the foundation of the Book – and others allegorical. Those whose hearts are infected with disbelief follow the allegorical part, so as to create dissension and to interpret it.” (3:7)
In fact, the word ‘Hadith’ appeared about 35 times in the Qur’an and none of them has any hint at all on the so-called Prophet’s Hadith. Here are a few examples of the word found in the Qur’an:
“In what HADITH after this (Qur’an) will they believe?” (77:50)
“These are God’s revelations that we recite for you with the truth: which HADITH, besides the revelations of God, do they believe?” (45:6)
“Some people uphold vain HADITH in order to divert others from the path of God without knowledge, and to create a mockery out of it.” (31:6)
Among the verse numbers with ‘Obey Allah and Obey the Messenger’ that you mentioned on page 13, these two should have caught your eyes and made you to think twice before jumping into that conclusion:
“And obey Allah and obey the apostle and be cautious; but if you turn back, then know that only a clear deliverance of the message is (incumbent) on Our apostle.” (5:92)
“And obey Allah and obey the Apostle, but if you turn back, then upon Our Apostle devolves only the clear delivery (of the message)” (64:12)
There is another evidence to prove that you are concealing the truth to spread falsehood on the same page, i.e. page 13, where in the midst of your various quotations from the Qur’an to convince the people of the believe in the Hadith, you premeditatedly commit the heinous act I accused you of. Here is the half truth that you exhibit:
‘”Say: Obey Allah and obey the messenger … If you obey him, (the Messenger), you will go aright.” 24:54′
Why did you stop there? Here is the truth:
“Say: Obey Allah and obey the Apostle; but if you turn back, then on him rests that which is imposed on him and on you rests that which is imposed on you; and if you obey him, you are on the right way; and nothing rests on the Apostle but clear delivering (of the message)” (24:54)
11. Another verse that you pulled out from under your sleeve in your illusionist act is:
‘”…… If they had referred it (the matter) to the Messenger and to such of them as are in authority – those of them who are able to think out the matter would have known it. ” 4:83′ (last line of page 13 and continued on the next page)
And here is the full verse:
“And when there comes to them news of security or fear, they spread it abroad; and if they had referred it to the Apostle and to those in authority among them, those among them who can search out the knowledge of it would have known it, and were it not for the grace of Allah upon you and His mercy, you would have certainly followed the Shaitan save a few.” (4:83)
Does one see one or two Hadiths here? One sees two Hadiths – from the Messenger and from the knowledgeable (or the expert). But the stress here is on the expert, “those among them who can search out the knowledge of it would have known it”. This verse is about security matter – leave it to the expert. Even if the Messenger had given his opinions on such matters, would it apply today? Are the security problems faced by us here in Malaysia in 1988 the same as those faced by the Messenger in Medina or Mecca 1,400 years ago?
12. You have no basis for the believe in the Hadith. You have no right to impose such a believe to the innocent people of Malaysia. You are committing a crime in God’s Law by slandering those who uphold the Qur’an.
Do you remember, Professor, the retributions that God afflicted the people of Egypt when they denied the Message as told is Sura 7 of the Holy Qur’an. They were afflicted with famine, loss of crops, plague, flood, locusts, lice, frogs and blood. Do you see any of these afflicting the ‘Muslim’ countries?
I love my country. I fear that what you and the others are doing in suppressing those who try to uphold the Qur’an, my country would face the same fate.
“You shall uphold the honourable revelations from your Lord, before the retribution comes to you suddenly …” (39:55)
13. Let us now examine, in brief, the rest of the ‘scholarly’ remarks or statements you made in the booklet.
a. “… at the beginning, most of the Prophet’s Companions were reluctant to record the Hadith in writing because of their concern for the integrity of the Holy Quran.” (page 3)
– They were men of foresight. Why don’t you all follow them.
b. “… Muslims’ reluctance (to write the Hadith) gradually dissipated and the Hadith compilations commensurately grew in size and in number – committing to writing what had been lying in memory.” (page 3)
– The growth in size and number was cancerous.
– ‘Lying in memory’ amounts to hearsay and conjecture.
c. “The fewer (narrators) the better, since errors were less likely to occur. ” (page 9)
– An admission of guilt.
d. “Abu Ubaidah … one of the Noble Ten given the good tiding of being among the People of Paradise.” (page 4)
– A favourite dosage for the Hadith addicts to hallucinate of a reserved seat in Paradise.
– Even Prophet Muhammed whom we know will be in Paradise was ordered by God to say, “I have no idea what will happen to me or you.” (46:9) You are not following the good example of the Prophet.
e. “Imam Malik … authorised him to exercise ijtihad and give fatwas. ” (pg. 6)
– A Mafia-like set up!
– Do you still remember the verse 39:18? To listen to all views and follow the best?
f. “Because you taught me (on the authority of you) on the authority of al-Zuhri, who related on the authority of Abu Salamah Ibn ‘Abd-al-Rahman, who, in turn, related on the authority of Umm Salamah, (a widow of the Prophet), who told the story that … ” (page 5) (The words ‘on the authority’ in the brackets are mine, an interpolation to explain the meaning.)
– Story-telling authorities?
g. “Those who reject the Hadith are anti-Quran.” (page 13)
– The Qur’an is anti-Hadith. Please refer to page 7 of this letter for the verses to support my statement. They are at the bottom of the page.
– “Say: Show me a book from God that provides more guidance than them (Qur’an and Torah).” (28:49)
h. “… there are many things which obviously are not given or explained in the Qur’an such as the ritual details of the prayer zakat, fasting and hajj.. ” (page 15)
– The words of a man deprived of guidance (36:21)
– “We did not leave anything out of this scripture.” (6:38)
– Of course there is a lot of difference between the Quranic rituals and those of the Sunni or the Christians or the Jews or the Buddhists or the Hindus.
i. “The Holy Qur’an also does not give details of nuclear energy or of the recent scientific discoveries including those which have led to space conquest, or the cause of the fatal disease called AIDS!” (page 15)
“What is wrong with you? How do you judge? Do you have another book that you apply? One that gives you anything you want?” (68:36-38)
j. “Declaration of the Prophet as the perfect model at once implies the validity and authority of Hadith” (page 7).
– Before jumping into snappy conclusions, let’s hop and step first. Let’s do the hop, step and jump, for the distance covered will be longer. You are talking about verse 33:21. As for the context, look at verses 20, 21, and 22. In what context was God talking about Muhammad being a perfect model? Even if you take verse 21 separately, you will find, in the Qur’an, all the examples you need. Look at 13 (d) above, to cite an example. Or, do you frown and turn away from the blind man?
k. “If he (Muhammad) was only to deliver the Holy Qur’an and nothing else, how could he be a model for the ummah? (page 8)”
– He not only delivered but submitted to the Qur’an.
– Here again you are saying that God is not perfect.
1. “… those so-called ‘rational’, ‘intellectual’, ‘western-educated’ persons are so shallow and vulnerable.. ” (page 20)
– “What about the one who idolises his own ego? Can you do anything for him? Do you suppose many of them hear or understand? Indeed, they are just like animals; nay, they are even worse.” (25:43-44)
– This ‘ego’ epidemic has caught the majority of ‘Islam’s’ soldiers of fortune.
m. “.. the intricate rules and literature of the language of the Qur’an (page 20)
– Those rules were created by man and imposed in the indoctrination. So difficult they are that their victims failed to see the plain truth!
– But Allah says otherwise. “We made this Qur’an easy to understand through your tongue, that they may take heed.” (44:58)
– Please turn to page 4 of this letter and see paragraph numbered 6. Thanks.
n. “.. second-hand material written by shallow scholars in non-Quranic languages.” (page 21)
– The epidemic in (1) above has really got into you.
– Turn to page one of this letter and compare the honesty between you and the ‘shallow’ scholars.
– To God, language is not the issue. How many millions of Arab-speaking creatures who are disbelieving in the Qur’an? Have you seen one? I have. “Whether it is non-Arabic or Arabic (Qur’an), say: ‘For those who believe it is a beacon and a healing. As for those who do not believe, they will be deaf and blind to it; as if they are being called from afar.” (41:44)
14. In your scheming against those who uphold the Qur’an, you came across numerous verses used by them but you remained to be silent and thus, you may be guilty of concealing (I have proven this in this letter), disregarding, discarding, neglecting and rejecting the Truth.
One could see that you have thoroughly read the NST article but you insisted a connection between the pro-Qur’an members and those personalities that you condemned. You are nothing better than them. Why are you so against those who want to uphold the Qur’an?
“However, it is not you that they reject; it is God’s revelations that the wicked disregard.” (6:33)
Othman bin Ali
cc: The President, IIU.
Other Muslim brothers.