The Issue of Tolerance in Light of the Quran

ON BEING TOLERANT*

by Abdur Rab (e-mail: rab_abdur@yahoo.com)


The Issue of Tolerance in Light of the Quran

The question whether Islam encourages tolerance has been in focus since September 11. Many think that Islam is a religion of intolerance and violence. However, if one looks at what the Quran actually states in this regard, this misreading about tolerance in Islam becomes crystal clear. The Quran is far above the current spate of terrorist acts, and inter-religious and sectarian violence. Indeed the quality of being tolerant is part and parcel of the right iman (mindset) and righteousness of a Muslim.

The significance of tolerance should become evident if we perceive the essential role of religion for man. Religion is for creation of an enabling and conducive environment for all men and women to pursue spiritual development, including supportive material development. In such an environment, there is need for full respect for human dignity and for equal treatment of all human beings irrespective of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other similar status. Man needs to be freed from slavery, serfdom, and indignity, liberated from poverty, deprivation and ignorance, and guaranteed justice, security, peace, and equal and non-discriminatory treatment by others in society. In such a context, tolerance plays a very important role. It is various forms of prejudice and intolerance, religious or other, that lead to all kinds of discrimination ? racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance - in society, which in turn often manifests itself in, beside unjust discrimination, violent religious and ethnic conflicts, and inhuman and barbarous acts of oppression, murder and other atrocities.

Prejudice is a mean mentality. Prejudice is akin to, and leads to, intolerance. ?To hate a man because he was born in another country, because he speaks a different language, or that he takes a different view on this subject or that, is a great folly.?[1] Intolerance or prejudice based on race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other similar status does great harm to social harmony and development. Religion does not encourage prejudice. For example, it is wrong to say, as many seem to suggest, that Islam permits treating women as inferior to men. There is no basis for such thinking (See below for elaboration). Likewise, it can be concluded that there is no room for other kinds of prejudice in religion, since all that really matters for a man or a woman is righteousness (right or good deeds) [The Quran, Baqarah (2): 62; Maidah (5): 69]. Getting the iman right thus requires that one should get rid of all kinds of prejudice.

With the progress of human civilization and the end of the colonial era, man and society have made important advances towards tolerance. According to a recent United Nations report, the international community has made some notable progress in this direction in the recent past, including and starting from, the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since then national and international laws have been enacted and numerous international human rights instruments, including particularly a treaty to ban racial discrimination, have been adopted. Progress also includes the defeat of apartheid in South Africa.[2] Yet acts of intolerance, including acts of religious and ethnic violence, continue unabated, and slavery and slavery-like practices still exist in parts of the world. A further United Nations description of such problems is worth citing:

?Despite continuing efforts by the international community, racial discrimination, ethnic conflicts and widespread violence persist in various parts of the world. In recent years, the world has witnessed campaigns of ?ethnic cleansing?. Racial minorities, migrants, asylum seekers and indigenous peoples are persistent targets of intolerance. Millions of human beings continue to encounter discrimination solely due to the color of their skin or other factors that indicate the race to which they belong.?[3]

Since the nineteen thirties, the world remembers some of the darkest episodes of history marked by appalling and barbarous acts of oppression, genocide and massive human displacements such as the Holocaust, the genocides in Rwanda and Cambodia, ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, and the long-running human tragedies in the Darfur region of Sudan.[4] Also disconcertingly, religious intolerance manifesting itself in the emergence of hostile acts and violence against certain communities, notably against the Jewish, Muslim and Arab communities, because of their religious beliefs and their racial or ethnic origin ? outward expressions of what have now-a-days come to be known as ?anti-Semitism? and ?Islamophobia? ? is still continuing in various parts of the world, which in particular limit their right to freely practice their belief. ?Although the great civil rights battles of the 1960s ended segregation in the United States, the lot of black Americans is still a delicate and difficult issue.?[5] One American Muslim writer notes that though Christianity has similar universal claims as those of Islam, and though segregation in the form of existence of churches exclusively for whites or blacks has been formally ended in America, ?informal, habitual and perhaps ideological? segregation still persists, and ?racial discrimination and segregation? on the basis of the color of the skin still remains to be completely eliminated.[6] Also, there are hate sites on the Internet promoting intolerance and xenophobia. All this is despite the fact that in recent years great awareness has been created, and some action-oriented measures have been taken at international and national levels to stem the tide of intolerance worldwide.[7]

Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance and compassion. Unfortunately, it is because of the activities of some extremist groups that Islam is being viewed by many as an intolerant and violent creed. In fact, there is no room for human discrimination and intolerance in Islam on the basis of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other similar status. All men and women are equal in the eyes of God; only virtuousness determines who is nearer to Him [Imran (3): 195; Nisa (4): 124; Nahl (16): 97; Ahzab (33): 35]. All the children of Adam ? all men and women - deserve the same dignity:

?And verily We have bestowed honor on the children of Adam; provided them with transport on land and sea; given them for sustenance things good and pure; and conferred on them special favors, above a great part of Our creation.? [Bani Israel or Israa (17): 70]

While racial discrimination or that on the basis of color has existed in its stark form well into the twentieth century in some parts of the world ? notable examples: apartheid in South Africa and segregation in the United States, and though some vestiges of such discrimination are still to be found, Islam never approved such discrimination and banished it ever since its birth.

Although traditionally women have been treated as inferior to men among Muslims, Islam never approved such discrimination. The Quran clearly states that women have rights over men similar to those of men over women [Baqarah (2): 228]. In God?s sight, it is only righteousness that counts - not sex [Imran (3): 195; Hujurat (49): 13]; Nisa (4): 124; Nahl (16): 97]. Also, man and woman can excel each other in various qualities [Nisa (4): 32]. One of these verses reads as follows:

??Never do I cause the work of any to be lost, be ye male or female ? ye are one from another. ?? [Imran (3): 195]

The expression ?ye are one from another? meaning ?members of the same family? in this verse, which recurs in the Quran, is also usually taken as a reminder to men that women are of the same human status as themselves. Nor is there any rationale for discrimination on the basis of any religion in name [Baqarah (2): 62; Maidah (5): 69]. For that matter, no other reason, e.g., wealth or property, strength in manpower, or status or power in society, is of any value to God [Tauba or Baraat (9): 55, 69; Yunus (10): 58, 88-89; Qasas (28): 76-81; Rum (30): 39; Saba (34): 37; Zukhruf (43): 32-35; Lahab (111): 2]. Thus human rights abuses that are found to have been committed from time to time by governments or ethnic groups are objects that deserve strong condemnation from Islam. The Quran categorically forbids us to do any wrongs to others:

?And wrong not men of their things (or rights), and act not corruptly in the earth, making mischief.? [Shu?ara (26): 181-183]

The Quran strongly exhorts Muslims to uphold the cause of justice, if necessary by testifying against themselves, parents and relatives [Nisa (4): 135], and not to let the hatred (by implication, enmity or injustice) of others make them commit any injustice [Maidah (5): 8]. This call for upholding justice is essentially a call for tolerance as well.

One of the Quranic verses, which points out the futility of human discrimination on the basis of wealth or manpower, reads as follows:

?It is not your wealth, nor your sons, that will bring you nearer unto us in degree, but only those who believe and do good ? these are the ones for whom there is a two-fold reward for their deeds, and they will dwell secure in lofty places.? [Saba (34): 37]

Also the Quran unequivocally proclaims that there must be no coercion in religion. The following verses are well worth noting:

?There is no compulsion in religion.? [Baqarah (2): 256] ? ?And if thy Lord had willed, verily all who are in the earth would have believed together. Wouldst thou (O Muhammad) then force them till they become believers?? [Yunus (10): 99]

?Say: ?O disbelievers! I worship not that which ye worship; nor ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye worship; nor will ye worship that which I worship. Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.? [Kafirun (109): 1-6]

?We are best aware of what they say, and thou (O Muhammad) art in no way a compeller over them. But warn them by the Quran him who feareth My threat.? [Kahf (50): 45] ? ?Therefore do thou remind, for thou art only to remind. Thou art not at all a watchman over them.? [Gashiya (88): 21-22]

Verse [Yunus (10): 99] above and other related verses in the Quran such as those at [Hujurat (49): 13] that refer to the creation of mankind into diverse nations and tribes and at [Maidah (5): 48] that refers to different laws and ways being given by God to different peoples also explicitly recognize the diversity of people on earth and underscore the need for, and the importance of, inter-communal tolerance. These last two verses are worth reproducing below:

?O mankind! We created you of a male and a female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may come to know one another. Verily the most honored of you, in the sight of God, is the most righteous.? [Hujurat (49): 13]

?For each of you We have prescribed a law and a way. Had God willed He could have made you one community, but that he may try you by that which He hath given you. So vie ye one with another in good works.? [Maidah (5): 48]

The Prophet Muhammad was advised by God to strictly maintain cordiality in his preaching; and he was advised not to revile those to whom other religious people pray beside God lest they should revile God through ignorance, as eventually they might be able to know the truth:

?Invite unto the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation; and argue with them in the best possible manner. Thy Lord knoweth best who strayeth from His path, and He knoweth best who receiveth guidance.? [Nahl (16): 125] ? ?And argue not with the People of the Book except in a way that is best, unless it be with those of them who do wrong, but say: ?We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us and revealed unto you; our God and your God is One, and unto Him we submit.? [Ankabut (29): 46]

?And bear with (O Muhammad!) what they say, and part from them in a nice manner.? [Muzammil (73): 10]

?Revile not those unto whom they pray beside God lest they wrongfully revile God through ignorance. Thus unto every nation have We made their deed seem fair. Then unto their Lord is their return, and He will inform them what they used to do.? [An?am (6): 108]

As noted Islamic scholar Abou El Fadl aptly points out, some of the Quranic verses explicitly exhorting Muslims to turn way from those who are ignorant, disbelievers, or who engage in idle talks while wishing them ?salam? or peace at the same time in essence ?emphasize the need not just for interreligious tolerance, but for cooperative moral ventures that seek to achieve Godliness on earth.?[8] These verses are worth citing below:

?And the slaves of the Beneficent (God) are those who walk on the earth with modesty, and when the ignorant address them, they say: Salam (Peace).? [Furqan (25): 63]

?And when they hear idle talk, they turn away from it and say: ?Unto us our deeds, and unto you yours; salam (peace) be on you; we seek not the ignorant.?? [Qasas (28): 55] ? ?So turn away from them and say: ?Salam (Peace), for they will (soon) come to know.?? [Zukhruf (43): 89]

The Prophet was urged to hold on to forgiveness and ignore the ignorant and thus to be tolerant to others even if they did not listen to his call [A?raf (7): 198-199]. He was urged to grant refuge or protection to the Pagans, who were idolaters, if they sought such protection: ?If anyone amongst the Pagans asketh thee (O Muhammad) for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the Word of God, and then escort him to where he can be secure; that is because they are a folk who know not.? [Tauba or Baraat (9): 6] The Quran thus provides clear and unambiguous instructions to Muslims for tolerance of other faiths and views and advice to them to be helpful to non-Muslims in case they need help.

According to noted scholar on Islam John Esposito, ?Despite the recent example of the Taliban in Afghanistan and sporadic conflicts between Muslims and Christians in Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Indonesia, theologically and historically Islam has a long record of tolerance.? He further notes:

?Historically, while the early expansion and conquests spread Islamic rule, Muslims did not try to impose their religion on others or force them to convert. As "People of the Book," Jews and Christians were regarded as protected people (dhimmi), who were permitted to retain and practice their religions, be led by their own religious leaders, and be guided by their own religious laws and customs. For this protection, they paid a poll or head tax (jizya). While by modern standards this treatment amounted to second-class citizenship in premodern times, it was very advanced. No such tolerance existed in Christendom, where Jews, Muslims, and other Christians (those who did not accept the authority of the pope) were subjected to forced conversion, persecution, or expulsion. Although the Islamic ideal was not followed everywhere and at all times, it existed and flourished in many contexts.?[9]

Also worthy of note, as many writers of Islam point out, is the historical example of the Prophet Muhammad setting a precedent of peaceful and cooperative inter-religious relations in Medina among Muslims, Christians and Jews.

This is, of course, not to deny, exonerate or slight at all the regrettable history of internecine strife within the Muslim ummah (community) itself ever since Islam?s early history after the Prophet?s death, the multiple divisions that took place among Muslims despite the Quranic admonition against such divisions, and the continuing saga of intermittent clashes between Muslims on the one hand and Christians, Hindus and Jews on the other in various countries[10], and most importantly the heinous terrorist acts being conducted by extremist Muslim organizations such as the al Qaeda and other groups against innocent civilians in many countries. Esposito further notes that in recent years acts of intolerance among Muslim groups, and between Muslims and non-Muslim groups have rather increased due, in significant part, to a resurgence or revivalism of Islam [albeit in its orthodox form].[11] Minority religious groups in Muslim countries such as Christians in the Sudan, Pakistan and Nigeria, Christian Copts in Egypt, Hindus in Bangladesh, Bahais and Jews in Iran, Ahmadiyas (followers of Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani) in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and Quranists (who believe in the Quran alone and not in the traditions) in Egypt are particularly vulnerable and are being subjected to humiliation, harassment, torture and killing. Ahmed Mansour gives a graphic account of humiliation, imprisonment or torture of himself, his extended family members and his fellow Quranists in Egypt.[12] It is obvious the Quran strongly disapproves such acts.

Also worthy of note is the fact that the September 11, 2001 attacks and the subsequent terrorist acts of the extremist groups in several countries such as Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Morocco, Spain, the United Kingdom, Egypt and Jordan have put the minority Muslims living in Western societies in a very delicate situation, which not only requires Muslims to revisit the tolerance issue in a new light, but which also puts a special responsibility on the shoulders of the governments of those societies to avoid intolerance and discriminatory treatment against Muslims. In the aftermath of the 9/11, there has been considerable backlash against Muslims in the United States and Europe. Contemporary American Muslim writer Muqtedar Khan, who emphasizes the role of ijtihad (independent thinking or interpretation) in Islam and has written promoting compassionate understanding of religion and interfaith tolerance and understanding, notes that there have been ?many nasty episodes? and surfacing of ?large-scale anti-Muslim prejudice? in the United States, despite the call for tolerance by President George Bush and members of his staff.[13] Officially, Muslims, especially from the Arab and Muslim worlds, have been subjected to special scrutiny and discrimination at border crossings and airports. But such treatment may backfire. As one journalist writer has aptly commented, when members of a community are feeling they are being unfairly treated by the society they are part of, this has the inherent danger of engendering ?resentment, alienation and, possibly antisocial conduct?.[14]

The Quran permits avenging any wrong done to a person in the like manner, but at the same time encourages forgiveness in lieu of revenge, as forgiveness helps a person expiate his sin:

?And We prescribed for them (the Children of Israel) therein (in the Torah): Life for life, and the eye for the eye, and the nose for the nose, and the ear for the ear, and the tooth for the tooth, and (like) retaliation for wounds; but whoever forgoeth (forgiveth) it, it shall be expiation for him. Whoever judge not by that which God hath revealed are wrongdoers.? [Maidah (5): 45] ? ?The recompense of an ill-deed is an ill the like thereof. But whoever forgiveth and mendeth (his own conduct), his reward is (ensured) from God; verily (He) loveth not the wrongdoers.? [Shura (42): 40] ? ?If ye punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith ye were afflicted. But if ye endure patiently, that is indeed the best for those who are patient.? [Nahl (16): 126]

What could be a better appeal for tolerance? The Quran has urged similar generosity and forgiveness in several other verses [Baqarah (2): 263; Imran (3): 134; A?raf (7): 198-199; Shura (42): 43; Jathyia (45): 14]. It is a well-known historical fact that the Prophet Muhammad set a glorious precedent of tolerance when he and the Muslims accompanying him triumphantly marched into Mecca in 630 A.D. without any significant bloodshed or harm to the inhabitants who had earlier fought with the Muslims. According to the Historian Grunebaum, ?The resistance of a small group of Quraish was quickly dispelled ? the revolution was effected remarkably leniently ? even the most extremist leaders were shown mercy. Looting was forbidden.?[15] Such political and religious tolerance in treatment of who were archenemies before has no parallel in history. It is indeed a great irony that we still find Sunnis and Shiites fighting one another in countries inhabited by them, causing loss of many innocent lives and immense misery and suffering to many others due to their intolerant sectarian strife.[16]

God considers life as sacred and forbids taking any life except by way of justice [An?am (6): 151]. He characterizes the killing of a human being without any legitimate reason as like the killing of all mankind, and the saving of a human being as like the saving of all mankind:

?For that reason (because of the killing of one son of Adam by another for no good reason) We decreed for the Children of Israel that whoever slayeth a soul for other than manslaughter or mischief in the land, it is as though he slayeth all mankind; and whoever saveth the life of one, it is as though he saveth the life of all mankind.? [Maidah (5): 32]

There are some misgivings about Islam among some circles that it authorizes the killing of other religious people. A part of a Quranic verse is cited in support of this wrong contention, which is reproduced as follows:

?And slay them wherever ye find them ?? [Baqarah (2): 191]

Regrettably, however, this citing of a Quranic verse without citing the full context is a mischievous misrepresentation of the Quranic message! The full context makes it abundantly clear that such slaying is sensible only when the Muslims are at war with a non-Muslim group. The verses giving this full context are as follows:

?Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but initiate not aggression. Verily God loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places wherefrom they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Sacred Mosque until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there), then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. But if they desist, then verily God is Ever Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them until there is no more persecution, and religion is for God. But if they desist, let there be no hostility except against the wrongdoers.? [Baqarah (2): 190-193]

There are other verses in the Quran, which are often cited by critics to suggest that Islam is not so tolerant to other religions. These are verses at [Tauba or Baraat (9): 5 and 29]:

"When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush." [Tauba or Baraat (9): 5]

"Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor hold the religion of truth of the People of the Book," [Tauba or Baraat (9): 29]

Again, these are citations from the Quran without the full context in which they were revealed and they thus miss or distort the correct message of the Quran. The cited first verse at [Tauba or Baraat (9): 5] is followed by a statement in the same verse:

"But if they repent and establish worship and pay the zakah, then leave their way free, for God is Ever Forgiving and Most Merciful."

Notably, this is also followed by another verse, which exhorts the Prophet Muhammad to provide protection or asylum to idolaters who seek such protection [Tauba or Baraat (9): 6].

The second verse at [Tauba or Baraat (9): 29] cited above is also followed by a statement:

"Until they pay zijya (the poll tax) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Critics point out, however, that the idea of a special poll tax to be paid by disbelievers living in a Muslim territory to the Muslim rulers is in itself a form of religious discrimination and intolerance. However, as noted Muslim scholar Abou El Fadl points out, such a levy should be understood in a historical context when ?it was common inside and outside of Arabia to levy poll taxes against alien groups.? The tax was in return for protection of the disbelievers. He cites the example of a case of return of the poll tax by the second Caliph Omar to an Arab Christian tribe when it could not be protected from Byzantine aggression. During Omar?s time, he allowed the Christian tribes to pay zakah instead of the zijya that they regarded as degrading. Abou El Fadl further notes that the Prophet Muhammad did not collect the poll tax from all non-Muslim tribes, and that he in fact paid periodic sums of money or goods to many non-hostile non-Muslim tribes. ?In short,? he further notes, ?there are various indicators that the poll tax is not a theologically mandated practice, but a functional solution that was adopted as a response to a particular set of historical circumstances. Only an entirely ahistorical reading of the text could conclude that it is an essential element in a divinely sanctioned program of subordinating the nonbeliever.?[17]

Also importantly, the above-mentioned verses should be understood only in the context of a war situation where Muslims are urged to fight only for defensive purposes, i.e., to fight against only those who fight with the Muslims, and not to initiate aggression, as God does not love the aggressors [Baqarah (2): 190-193]. Indeed, as Karen Armstrong aptly notes,

?During the ten years between the hijra and his death in 632 Muhammad and his first Muslims were engaged in a desperate struggle for survival against his opponents in Medina and the Quraysh of Mecca, all of whom were ready to exterminate the ummah. In the West, Muhammad has often been presented as a warlord, who imposed Islam on a reluctant world by force of arms. The reality was quite different; Muhammad was fighting for his life, was evolving a theology of the just war in the Koran with which most Christians would agree, and never forced anybody to convert to religion. Indeed the Koran is clear that there is to be ?no compulsion in religion.? In the Koran war is held to be abhorrent; the only just war is a war of self-defense. Sometimes it is necessary to fight in order to preserve decent values, as Christians believed it necessary to fight against Hitler.?[18]

In some other verses, the Quran clearly advises the Muslims fighting non-Muslims to opt for peace when the enemies want peace, and not to worry about the possibility that the enemies may deceive them thereby:

?And if they (the enemies fighting you) incline to peace, then incline to it, and trust in God, for verily He is Hearing, Knowing. And if they intend to deceive you, then verily God is sufficient for you. He it is Who strengthened you with His help and with the believers.? [Anfal (8): 62-63]

How clear are these verses! God forbids us to begin aggression, and He does not love the aggressors. And He exhorts the fighting Muslims to desist from fighting with the disbelievers when they cease hostilities and persecution. He advises the fighting Muslims to seek peace when the enemies seek peace. And the Quran strongly condemns persecution, as it characterizes persecution as worse than slaughter [See also Baqarah (2): 217]. Also note that God authorizes us to attack others in the like manner as the others attack [Baqarah (2): 194; Hajj (22): 60]. As noted above, the Quran rather encourages us, where possible, to condone and forgive, which is considered still better [Maidah (5): 45; A?raf (7): 198-199; Shura (42): 40, 43; Jathyia (45): 14, Muzammil (73): 10]. Thus far from encouraging intolerance, the Qura?n clearly advocates peace, tolerance, peaceful and compassionate co-existence.

Also note that, citing some Quranic verse, some allege that Islam discourages Muslims to make friends with the people of other religions. Again, this is another classic example of misgivings based on citation of a Quranic verse out of context. The Quran does not discourage making friends with the people of other religions, unless such people can be identified as real foes. Note the following verses:

?It may be that God will ordain love between you and those of them with whom ye are at enmity. God is All-Powerful, and God is Ever Forgiving, Most Merciful. God forbiddeth you not those who fought not against you on account of your religion, and drove you not out from your homes, that ye show them kindness and deal justly with them. Verily God loveth the just dealers. God forbiddeth you only those who fought against you on account of your religion and have driven you out from your homes and helped to drive you out, that ye make friends of them. Whoever maketh friends of them are wrongdoers.? [Mumtahana (60): 7-9]

These verses make it amply clear that making friendship with people of other religions is not intolerable in Islam, unless such people have proved themselves to be enemies of Muslims.

Also, as mentioned above, the Quran unequivocally forbids and denounces any acts of mischief, violence or terrorism. Some of the relevant verses may be noted as follows:

?Help ye one another in righteousness and piety, and help not one another in sin and transgression; and be careful (of your duty) to God. Verily God is stern in punishment.? [Maidah (5): 2] ? ?And do not make mischief in the earth, after it hath been set in order?? [A?raf (7): 56] ? ?So remember the bounties of God and do no evil, making mischief in the earth.? [A?raf (7): 74]

?And those who violate the covenant of God after ratifying it, and sever that which God hath commanded to be joined, and who make mischief in the earth, for them is the curse, and for them is the terrible abode.? [Ra?d (13): 25]

?And wrong not mankind of their right things (of rights), and do no evil, making mischief in the earth.? [Shura (26): 183] ? ?Then, is it to be expected of you, if ye were put in authority, that ye will do corruption in the land, and sever your ties of kinship? Such are the men whom God hath cursed, for He hath made them deaf and blinded their eyes.? [Muhammad (47): 22-23]

From the foregoing discussion it is quite clear that, far from encouraging violence and terrorism, Islam advocates peace, tolerance and peaceful co-existence with other religious communities. Hence nurturing a tolerant attitude to others is an important part of righteousness. However as noted below, it is the Hadith literature that contains many texts, which misguide Muslims and lead them to commit violent and other acts of intolerance against other religious groups. However, a proper understanding of Islam must rule out such hadith texts as not representing Islam or its Prophet.[19]

The Hadith Encourages Religious Intolerance, Violence and Terror

Despite the clear Quranic advice to the contrary, the Hadith encourages offensive wars, intolerance, violence and terror. References to some of the hadith texts that illustrate this point are provided below.

There are several hadith texts originating from Abdullah bin Abi Aufa that show Paradise as under the shades of swords (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 52, # 73, 210, 266l). Such a statement may not be particularly objectionable, if it is specifically meant for and addressed to fighters fighting a just war, but as a general statement it sounds rather belligerent, a sentiment which apparently has played and is still playing a role in encouraging aggressive campaigns by Muslims against other communities. Some hadith texts preach particularly anti-Semitic sentiment, where Muslims are urged to fight and kill the Jews wherever they are. The hadith below is worth citing:

Narrated Abu Huraira: "Allah's Apostle said, ?You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' " (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176)

A similar hadith at Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 52, # 177 says that the Hour (the eventual hour of Qiamat) will not be established until Muslims fight with Jews and they kill the Jew hiding behind a stone. There is a similar hadith also against the Turks (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 52, # 179).

Still other hadith texts show that the Prophet ordered acts of atrocities and violence against the enemies. The hadith text narrated by Ibn Umar at Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 52, # 263 states that the Prophet burned the date-palms of Bani an-Nadir. Another hadith narrated by Al-Bara bin Azib states that the Prophet sent a group of men to kill Abu-Rafi, a merchant of Hijaj; Abdullah bin Atik entered his house at night and killed him while he was sleeping (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 52, # 264, 265). Look at another venomous hadith text:

Narrated 'Ikrima: Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'" (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, # 57; a similar text also at Vol. 4, Book 52, # 260)

Is it believable that a highly pious companion and son-in-law of the Prophet such as Ali could burn some people? How is it believable that the Prophet said that if a Muslim discards his religion, he could be killed? Such hadith texts must be utter lies attributed to the good names of the Prophet and his close associates. The Quran nowhere speaks of punishing the renegades or apostates in such a manner; it clearly proclaims that there is no coercion in religion.

A narration attributed to Ali states that he heard the Prophet saying, "In the last days (of the world) there will appear young people with foolish thoughts and ideas. They will give good talks, but they will go out of Islam as an arrow goes out of its game, their faith will not exceed their throats. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for there will be a reward for their killers on the Day of Resurrection." (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 6, Book 61, # 577; repeated at Vol. 9, Book 84, # 64) Needless to say, this is a horrible provocative statement falsely attributed to the good name of Ali that goes against the Quran.

Still another narration from Abu Burda recounts the story of a Jew being killed, because he converted to Islam and then reverted to Judaism (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, # 58). Still another hadith suggests that Ali killed some people among those to whom the Prophet was distributing alms, but who were accusing the Prophet as unjust (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, # 67)

Such hadith texts could not be those of the Prophet. They clearly encourage religious intolerance, violence and terror. Not surprisingly, it is from such hadith texts that the extremist groups among Muslims get their inspiration for committing intolerant, violent and terrorist acts against other communities in various parts of the world.



[1] Einstein, Albert, The Human Side, 1979, op. cit., p. 70-71.

[2] United Nations (United Nations Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)), Report of the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, (held in Durban, during 31 August - 8 September 2001), January 25, 2002.

[3] The UN report cited at the preceding endnote.

[4] Some of the worst human tragedies and crimes against humanity of the last century include the Holocaust during the nineteen thirties and forties, the world?s largest and most gruesome genocide, which involved, in addition to torture, killing of more than 6 million people, mostly Jews ? extermination of some two thirds of the Jews of Europe - by the Nazis; the Cambodian genocide of 1975-1979, in which approximately 1.7 million people lost their lives (21% of the country's population); mass killings in Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) in 1971 by the Pakistan army; and those in East Timor in 1979-80 involving killing of over one fifth of its population; the Rwanda genocide in 1994 involving killing of nearly I million, mainly of the Tutsis by the Hutus; Hindu Muslim communal riots in undivided British India just prior to its independence and partition in 1947 involving arson, mass human slaughter and massive human displacements; ethnic cleansing in Bosnia; and the long-running civil war and ethnic cleansing in the Darfur region of Sudan involving genocide, torture and massive human displacements. As reported by the Wall Street Journal Online Edition (dated April 21, 2005), since 2003, government-backed militias have waged a campaign against rebels (Christians and non-Arab Muslims) in the Darfur region of Sudan, resulting in at least 180,000 deaths and leaving more than two million people homeless. In the course of their counter-insurgency, they have been accused of committing all manner of atrocities, including murder, rape and the destruction of villages. Despite recent peace efforts with ceasefire, atrocities against displaced persons put in camps and against aid workers are still continuing.

[5] Statement of Rev. Jesse Jackson at Durban Racism Conference on August 30, 2001, the day before the start of a U.N. conference against racism.

[6] Khan, M.A. Muqtedar, American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom, Amana Publications, 2002, pp. 67-68.

[7] Reference may be made of the United Nations Report cited in Endnote 2, which mentions the actions that were taken before, and the follow-up actions that are being taken afterward.

[8] Fadl, Khaled Abou El, The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists, HarperSan Francisco, A Division of Harper Collins Publishers, New York , 2005, p. 209.

[9] Esposito, John L., What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam, Oxford University Press, 2002, pp. 70-71. A summarized version is available in the Internet under the title ?Ten Things Everyone Needs to Know about Islam.?

[10] Where, as Esposito rightly notes, the blame for such clashes cannot always be pinned down or put on Muslims. See Esposito in the previous endnote.

[11] Esposito, John L., Islam ? The Straight Path, Oxford University oppress, 1992, p. 192, the expression in parentheses is mine. He writes: ?In recent years, tensions and clashes between Muslim and non-Muslim communities have increased: the Copts in Egypt, Bahai and Jews in Iran, Chinese in Malaysia, and Christians in the Sudan, Pakistan, and Nigeria. The creation of more Islamically oriented societies, especially the introduction of Islamic laws, has resulted in varying degrees of tension, conflict, violence, and killing in the name of religion. For militant Muslims, Christian minorities are often seen as those who cooperated with colonial powers, benefited from their protection, and were the fruit of Christian missions. The Bahai of Iran and the Ahmadiyya of Pakistan, on the other hand, are regarded as apostates or heretics who rejected and broke away from Islam.? Ibid, p. 192.

[12] Ahmed Subhy Mansour, ?Islamic Tolerance: a Comparison Between Egypt and America,? website: www.islamicpluralism.org/texts/2005t/islamictolerance.htm. Also see his ?Outline of twenty five years of persecution in Egypt?, website: http://free-minds.org/ahmad_mansour/main.htm.
[13] Khan, M.A. Muqtedar, 2002, op. cit., p. 38.

[14] Taken from American writer George Melloan, ?Making Muslims Part of the Solution?, the Wall Street Journal, issue of March 29, 2005.

[15] Only a handful of people were executed due to breach of law. A few rich men were persuaded to make a contribution to compensate the poorer followers who were deprived of the booty. See G.E. von Grunebaum, Classical Islam: A History 600-1258, (Translation by Katherine Watson), Barnes and Noble Books, 1996, originally published in 1970 by Aldine Publishing Company 1970, op. cit., p. 44.

[16] Incidents of such sectarian strife, violence and killing have been recurrent notably in Pakistan, and more recently and markedly in Iraq.

[17] Fadl, Khaled Abou El et. el, The Place of Tolerance in Islam, Beacon Press, Boston, 2002, pp. 21-22.

[18] Armstrong, Karen, A History of God, Gramercy Books, New York, 1993, pp. 155-156.

[19] One hadith text refers to a killing of a sleeping man in his house by a group of Muslims sent by the Prophet (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 52, # 264, 265), and another text encourages Muslims to kill youths with foolish thoughts and ideas (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 6, Book 61, # 577; repeated at Vol. 9, Book 84, # 64). There are also texts that are clearly anti-semitic. The Hadith also prescribes that apostates should be punished with killing. Examples of these hadith texts are provided in the section following. All these hadiths are contradictory to what the Quran states.

DOES THE HADITH HAVE A SOLID HISTORICAL BASIS?

DOES THE HADITH HAVE A SOLID HISTORICAL BASIS?*
by Abdur Rab (e-mail: rab_abdur@yahoo.com)

*Excerpted mostly from a book under preparation by the author.

-------------

...And among men are those who purchase idle HADITH (tales) without knowledge to mislead (men) from the Path of God, and make a mockery of it (God?s Path)? [Quran, Luqman (31): 6]

Introduction

The Holy Quran is unquestionably the Divine Book of Islam. However, Muslims with some exceptions regard the Hadith as Islam?s second essential source. The Hadith and related literature[1] has greatly influenced Muslim beliefs and practices. However, all Muslims should dispassionately ask themselves this critically important question: Is the Hadith reliable enough as religious guidance? It is time this question was settled decisively for all of us, for if there is some doubt about the authenticity and credibility of the Hadith, the influence it exerts on Muslim beliefs and practices cannot be regarded as wholly welcome, if not totally unwelcome. Indeed many Muslim and non-Muslim scholars have questioned, and in contemporary times, are questioning, the historicity and authenticity of the Hadith. All Muslims should pay attention to what they have said or are saying. No doubt they represent the minority voice, most often due to the suppression of their views in the existing politico-religious conditions in Muslim countries. But the opinion of the majority is not always true. In fact, our Prophet was exhorted not to follow those who have no knowledge [Jathiya (45): 18], and he was specifically urged not to follow the majority, as they follow nothing but conjecture without any knowledge, and do nothing but lie:

?If thou (O Muhammad) followedst the most of those on earth, they would have led thee far astray from the path of God. They follow naught but conjecture; and they do naught but lie.? [An?am (6): 116]

The reader may ask a Muslim: Exactly when and how did the Hadith come? The usual answer is most likely to be: ?I do not know.? The time when the Hadith compilations surfaced ? particularly those in which Muslims have come to believe - is an important factor to be reckoned with, as it should have important implications for its religious significance for Muslims. It is striking that the compilations Muslims believe in appeared with a long time gap after the demise of the Prophet Muhammad ? mostly during the ninth and tenth centuries A.D. (third and fourth centuries Hijrah or A.H.), i.e., between 220 and 270 years after the Prophet's death. The long time gap and other factors (see below) inevitably give rise to the question whether the Hadith literature is reliable enough. All Muslims, even including those who champion the Hadith, accept the fact that after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, false hadith reports about or attributed to the Prophet Muhammad ?mushroomed? into hundreds of thousands. The compilations that were made more than two centuries after the Prophet?s death were done after sorting through mountainous piles of individual hadith reports. Bukhari, for example, made a selection of some seven thousand traditions (including repeated ones) out of reportedly six hundred thousand he found in circulation ? roughly one out of every one hundred. That means that he discarded all but a tiny fraction of the hadith in circulation as false. This factor alone leaves open the question whether his selection has been foolproof. A similar question is true of the other compilers, too. It is time the true character or status of the Hadith in terms of its trustworthiness got properly reevaluated by every Muslim, for it is important for every Muslim that he relies on what is really fully reliable, and not on something that has a fragile basis.


The authenticity and veracity of the Hadith can be critically appraised along different lines ? from a perspective as to whether there is any theological sanction for the Hadith, according to whether there is a solid or sound historical basis, and according to whether the hadith texts meet certain objective criteria such as whether they are consistent with the Quran, basic reason and historical and scientific truths. The author has attempted to cover all these issues in a book under preparation. Here only the historical basis of the Hadith is critically examined.

The Historical Basis of the Hadith
The historical basis of the Hadith is at best tenuous. Some of the historical points such as (1) the prohibition of the Prophet himself on hadith writing, and honoring of the same position by his immediate followers, (2) the long time gap between the Quran and the Hadith, and the accompanying lack of proper records of the deeds and sayings of the Prophet, and (3) flawed oral transmission due to weakness of the human sources, including their imperfect memories add well to effectively dismiss the Hadith altogether. To this list one may add (4) the influence of the ruling regimes, of people with wealth and power of the time, and of the disputing theologians on hadith collection, recording, selection and compilation, and finally (5) the weakness of the criteria used to judge authenticity of individual hadith texts.


The Position of the Prophet and His Immediate Followers

Historical evidence, if there is any, appears to be that the Prophet himself was against the reporting of his own sayings and practices, and his four close companions who became Caliphs after him upheld the same position. Kassim Ahmad notes: ?Notwithstanding the conflicting versions of hadith that say otherwise, historical facts ? prove beyond any shadow of doubt that there were no hadith collections existing at the time of the Prophet's death. History also proves that the early caliphs prevented the dissemination or recording of hadith.?[2]
The ulama take it for granted that the Prophet gave his blessing to the collection and writing of his hadith. Mazhar Kazi reports that in his farewell address the Prophet declared, ?Convey to others even if it is a single verse from me.?[3] This is taken as a go-ahead for hadith dissemination. However, the statement here more meaningfully appears rather to point to the revealed Quranic verses, not his own words, since he was the messenger of God?s message and mercy for the whole universe [Qalam (68): 52; Anbiya (21): 107], and his message, which was nothing but the Quran, needed to be conveyed to all mankind.

The available evidence is rather compelling that the Prophet forbade collection and writing of his own words except the Quran and left clear direction that if anyone has collected and recorded such statements, these should be erased. This is evident from one hadith narration included in Muslim that reads as follows:

Abu Sa'id Khudri reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Do not take down anything from me, and he who took down anything from me except the Quran, he should erase that and narrate from me, for there is no harm in it and he who attributed any falsehood to me-and Hammam said: I think he also said:" deliberately" -he should in fact find his abode in the Hell-Fire (Sahih Muslim, Book 042, Chapter 17, Number 7147).[4]

There are other similar hadith reports, e.g., one from Abu Dawud, and another from Taqyid by al-Baghdadi confirming the Prophet?s prohibition on hadith writing and direction for erasure of any hadith.[5] The ulama recognize and accept the Prophet?s prohibition on hadith recording, but brush aside this prohibition by expressing the view that it was applicable for an initial period when the Quran was being revealed to avoid a possible mix-up of the Quranic verses with the Hadith. However, this sort of reasoning is unconvincing, since the Prophet did not explicitly mention this and since there is no evidence that the Prophet ever withdrew or cancelled his earlier discouragement of any hadith recording. Evidently, the Prophet was aware of the dangers of writing down Prophetic traditions beside the words of God and, as Guillaume reports, the Prophet did caution against hadith writing as such writings led people astray before.[6] Some may point out that taking recourse to the Hadith to prove that the Prophet gave no authority for the Hadith and that he rather discouraged it could be considered fallacious. Yet it does give the message that if the hadith about the Prophet?s prohibition on hadith writing is true, as it seemingly was, there remains no genuine basis for the rest of the Hadith literature to stand validated.

Whatever historical reports we seem to have about the position of the Khulafai-Rashidun (the Righteous Caliphs) on the Hadith suggest that they also discouraged its compilation. According to one report, the first Caliph Abu Bakr burned his own notes of hadith (said to be some 500), after being very uneasy about these notes.[7] ?According to Jayrajpuri, because the Companions (of the Prophet) so often disagreed with one another Abu Bakr forbade the collection of hadith.?[8] Caliph Umar cancelled his initial plan to compile hadith, apprehending its possible adverse impact in the form of neglect of the Book of God ? the Quran.[9] During his caliphate, ?the problem of hadith forgery was so serious that he prohibited hadith transmission altogether.?[10] Umar reportedly also arranged for burning of all available hadith. The position of Uthman and Ali also appears to have been lack of any overt effort to collect any hadith for dissemination purposes.

Hazy or conflicting historical reports about developments in the early period of Islam notwithstanding, the fact remains that there were no written records of hadith during the Prophet?s lifetime and during the rule of the four Caliphs. This is despite the fact that ?several documents of the Prophet, such as the Medina Charter or Constitution, his treaties and letters, had been written on his orders.?[11] This amply proves the point that if the Prophet had wished, he could have made arrangements for recording of his Hadith as a separate religious document, just as he did in the case of the Quran. The stark fact is that he did not wish such recording, and his discouragement of hadith recording was honored by the four Caliphs, and remained in force apparently for some thirty years after the Prophet?s death, but was ignored later. According to one report, a hadith in Abu Dawud, the Ummayad ruler Mu'awiya wanted a hadith to be written in the presence of one of the Prophet?s most noted scribes Zayd ibn Thabit, but when Zayd ibn Thabit reminded him of the Prophet?s prohibition on hadith writing, he (Mu'awiya) erased it.

As Iqbal notes in his seminal work The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, even Abu Hanifah, regarded as ?one of the greatest exponents of Muhammedan Law in Sunni Islam ? made practically no use of ? traditions?, even though there were collections available at that time made by other people no less than thirty years before his death. Nor did he collect any hadith for his use, unlike his peers Malik and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal. Thus, according to Iqbal, ?if modern Liberalism considers it safer not to make any indiscriminate use of them [traditions] as a source of law, it will be only following [the example of Abu Hanifah].?[12] ?In reaction to a situation [where huge numbers of forged hadith reports were in circulation] that was virtually out of control, Abu Hanifa approached hadith with the assumption that very few could be proved sahih [authentic].?[13]

The Long Time Gap and the Lack of Proper Records of the Prophet?s Sayings and Deeds
We already noted that the Hadith surfaced more than two centuries after the Prophet?s death, which ifso facto means a long time gap between the Quran and the Hadith. This long time gap raises questions of reliability for the Hadith that can never be satisfactorily resolved. Muslim and non-Muslim historians and scholars all point out that there were no written records of the Prophet?s sayings and deeds during the first century after his death, and not much hadith writing ? and not any hadith book that gained respectability later on by the Muslim community at large during the long two centuries after the Prophet?s death.[14] The Hadith literature that gained recognition such as that collected and compiled by Bukhari, Muslim, etc., came more than two hundred years after the Prophet?s death, and they were all based on oral transmission from generation to generation through chains of transmitters (isnads) numbering seven to even one hundred in the chain. A Herculean feat! Isn?t it? But hold your breath. Even written records of the past traditions were not good enough. As the historian MacDonald notes that one danger in written records ?was evidently real ? the unhappy character of the Arabic script, especially when written without diacritical points, often made it hard if not practically impossible, to understand such short, contextless texts as the traditions.?[15] ?There was fierce opposition to the written records of traditions for a long time also on the theological ground that this would lead to too much honoring of the traditions and neglect of the Quran, a fear that was justified to a certain extent by the event.?[16]

The compilers of hadith (the muhaddithun), ?no matter how dedicated, were simply too distant from the time of the Prophet, and forgery had become too rampant for authentic hadith to be recovered.?[17] Some anecdotes of the muhaddithun suggest that they could not prevent forged hadith from being circulated even in their own names.[18] Since the Hadith is known among Muslims as the words of the Prophet Muhammad and accounts of his deeds, it is quite natural that it would have a special sentimental value and appeal to them, especially to those who are unwary and unsuspecting believers. Unfortunately, however, the enemies of Islam and pseudo-Muslims who deliberately wanted to mislead Muslim believers and wanted to sabotage the propagation of true Islam have abused this sentimental value by attributing false statements or reports either to God or to His Prophet right from the Prophet?s lifetime. Evidence that there were such people who directed their efforts to diverting attention from the mainstream Islam and to causing dissension and divisions in the Muslim ummah even during the Prophet?s lifetime is provided by the Quran itself in the following verses:

?And there are those who put up a mosque by way of mischief and disbelief, and in order to cause dissension among the believers, and as an outpost for those who fought against God and His messenger before. They will indeed swear: ?Our intention is nothing but good?; but God beareth witness that they are certainly liars. Never stand there (to pray). A mosque whose foundation was laid from the first day on piety is more worthy of your standing therein, wherein are men who love to purify themselves. God loveth those who purify themselves.? [Tauba or Baraat (9): 106-107]

Here it refers to some people who put up a mosque to cause dissension among Muslims. Such people were evidently not well-meaning Muslims. Thus forgers had been active even during the Prophet?s lifetime. Forgery had been rampant during the caliphate of the Prophet?s immediate successors, and it ?only increased under the Umayyads, who considered hadith a means of propping up their rule and actively circulated traditions against Ali and in favor of Mu'awiya. The Abbasids followed the same pattern, circulating Prophetic hadith which predicted the reign of each successive ruler. Moreover, religious and ethnic conflicts further contributed to the forgery of hadith.?[19]



It was during the rule of the Abbasids that Hadith compilation making a mark for the later Muslims was done in earnest. The first such compilation in the third century Hijrah was by al-Bukhari, who died in 257 A.H., whose book contains, as already mentioned, a selection of some seven thousand traditions (including repeated ones) out of reportedly six hundred thousand he found in circulation. Another contemporary compilation was by Muslim (d. 261 A.H.), which contains some four thousand selections out of some three hundred thousand. Other four compilations included in the so-called authentic six and written more or less towards the end of the third century Hijrah are by Abu Dawud as-Sijistani (d. 275 A.H), Ibn Maja (d. 303 A.H), at-Tirmidhi (d. 279 A.H) and an-Nasa'i (d. 303 A.H), which ?deal almost entirely with legal traditions, those that tell what is permitted and what is forbidden, and do not convey information on religious and theological subjects.?[20] The compilations accepted by the Shiites came even later.



The big question is why did the compilations come after such an inordinately long lapse of historical time after the Prophet?s death? Kassim Ahmad legitimately asks: "Why was the official compilation not made earlier, especially during the time of the righteous caliphs when the first reporters, i.e., the eye witnesses, were still alive and could be examined?"[21] Because of the long time gap, one can hardly be sure beyond any shadow of doubt that the accounts are genuinely those of the Prophet Muhammad. How can one be so certain that the chain of narrators through the oral transmission has been successful in transmitting the same message ad verbatim from generation to generation, when even in the same generation, or say, even in the same year or month or day, people are often found unable to exactly reproduce one?s utterances? Even in the current electronic age, news reporters often find it hard, without proper recording, to reproduce the exact texts of what speakers say in their speeches. Even today, sometimes there are conflicting news reports of the same event, which may not be intentional lies on the part of the reporters. Note also that noticeable differences can be found in the compilations done by the different compilers ? a factor that can also raise a question of credibility of the compilations.



Flawed Oral Transmission Due to Weakness of the Human Sources, Including Their Imperfect Memories


Thus the manner in which hadith was preserved and transmitted raises a lot of questions. Since hadith was preserved and transmitted primarily orally, both by default and design, the transmission process was as good as the human sources involved in the process. (The oral transmission was preferred to written records by the hadith scholars, because written records to be credible required to be directly attested to by living transmitters of hadith who could vouch for their credibility.) The question is: was this transmission process reliable enough to give assurance that what we get as words or reports of deeds of the Prophet are genuinely those of the Prophet?



According to the nineteenth century great Indian Muslim thinker-reformer Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, the transmitters of hadith (rawis) often engaged in transmitting hadith according to the sense rather than the exact words of the Prophet. This widespread practice resulted in textual variations among traditions on the same subject, ?differences that go well beyond the wording and affect the meaning. As a result, he contends, one can be sure in very few instances that traditions accurately portray the Prophet?s words and actions, even if they can be shown to have originated during his lifetime.?[22]



Also note that hadith reports originating from all narrators do not command the same credibility. Hadith reports that are reported to have originated from two of the companions of the Prophet, Anas b. Malik and Abu Huraira are especially suspect. Anas lived long (about hundred years), because of which it was convenient for hadith forgers to list him as an originator.[23] ?Aisha criticized Anas for transmitting traditions although he was only a child during the life of the Prophet.?[24] Aisha was reported to have criticized also Abu Huraira, and she was joined in this criticism by Ibn Abbas.[25] Abu Huraira was originator of a very large number of hadith texts (more than 5000), even though he converted to Islam in less than three years before the Prophet?s death. According to some reports, the second Caliph ?Umar called Abu Huraira a lier,?[26] and reprimanded him for his questionable conduct. During Mu'awiya?s rule, he reportedly lived in his palace in Syria.[27] His memory was poor, but the Bukhari compilation provides reference to his poor memory being miraculously cured by the Prophet (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 1, Book 3, # 119, also repeated at Vol. 4, Book 56, Number 841, also repeated by another narrator with a somewhat different text at Vol. 1, Book 3, # 120), a claim that looks rather suspicious. And legitimately, a question also arises: how sure can one be that the later transmitters (who are known as Rawis, some of whom were Tabiun, i.e., companions of the companions of the Prophet or Tabi-Tabiun, i.e., companions of the Tabiun) in the chain of narrators (isnad) attributed hadith texts to the original companion of the Prophet accurately without any mistake, even with full good intentions? Any mistake made by anyone of the narrators of any hadith in the chain (isnad) involved would necessarily make its transmission flawed, and its accurate attribution to the Prophet difficult.



There are even some hadith texts in Bukhari that suggest that even the Prophet used to forget things (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 5, Number 274, also Vol. 1, Book 8, # 394)! Surely the less reliable human agents involved in hadith transmission were more likely to forget and make mistakes. Is not the hadith transmission a reflection of too much dependence on human memory and that also covering several generations? There was undoubtedly too much dependence on human memory, and the authenticity of hadith breaks down on this count alone. The Hadith definitely relies on too many unproven assumptions, and thus can hardly claim authority.

The Influence of Power Struggles and Theological Rivalries on Hadith Writing

Hadith writing was actively promoted by the Umayyad and Abbasid rulers. According to a historical tradition, Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri (d. 742 A.D.) was the first individual to record (in writing) the hadith, but under duress ? under orders from Caliph Hisham, ?who became the first traditionist to violate the Prophet?s prohibition on recording hadith in writing. Al-Zuhri is reported to have said: ?We disapproved of recording knowledge [meaning hadith] until these rulers forced us to do so. After that we saw no reason to forbid Muslims to do so.??[28]

About the power struggles and theological rivalries that led to forging of hadith in circulation, MacDonald notes:

?[T]he Umayyads, who reigned from A.H. 41 to A.H. 132 [and who cared little for religion], for reasons of state, ? encouraged and spread?also freely forged and encouraged others to forge?such traditions as were favorable to their plans and to their rule generally. This was necessary if they were to carry the body of the people with them. But they regarded themselves as kings and not as the heads of the Muslim people. This same device has been used after them by all the contending factions of Islam. Each party has sought sanction for its views by representing them in traditions from the Prophet, and the thing has gone so far that on almost every disputed point there are absolutely conflicting prophetic utterances in circulation. It has even been held, and with some justification, that the entire body of normative tradition at present in existence was forged for a purpose.?[29]

One example of hadith fabrication given by Goldhizer is that by Ummayad caliph Abd al-Malik also known as Malik b. Anas[30], who was an important collector of hadith is as follows:

?When the Umayyad caliph 'Abd al-Malik wished to stop the pilgrimages to Mecca because he was worried lest his rival 'Abd Allah b. Zubayr should force the Syrians journeying to the holy places in Hijaz to pay him homage, he had recourse to the expedient of the doctrine of the vicarious hajj to the Qubbat al-Sakhra in Jerusalem. He decreed that obligatory circumambulation (tawaf) could take place at the sacred place in Jerusalem with the same validity as that around the Ka'ba ordained in Islamic law. The pious theologian al-Zuhri was given the task of justifying this politically motivated reform of religious life by making up and spreading a saying traced back to the Prophet, according to which there are three mosques to which people may take pilgrimages: those in Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem. .. An addition which, apparently, belonged to its original form but was later neglected by leveling orthodoxy in this and related sayings: 'and a prayer in the Bayt al-Maqdis of Jerusalem is better than a thousand prayers in other holy places,' i.e. even Mecca or Medina. Later, too, 'Abd al-Malik is quoted when the pilgrimage to Jerusalem is to be equated with that to Mecca.?[31]

About questionable hadith authentication, modern Iranian-American scholar Reza Aslan comments in his newly published book as follows:

?By the ninth century, when the Islamic law was being fashioned, there were so many false hadith circulating through the community that Muslim legal scholars somewhat whimsically classified them into two categories: lies told for material gain and lies told for theological advantage. In the ninth and tenth centuries, a concerted effort was made to sift through the massive accumulation in order to separate the reliable from the rest. Nevertheless, for hundreds of years, anyone who had the power and wealth necessary to influence public opinion on a particular issue ? and who wanted to justify about, say, the role of women in society ? had only to refer to a hadith which he had heard from someone, who had heard it from someone else, who had heard from a Companion, who had heard it from the Prophet.?[32]

Thus according to Aslan, one basic reason behind the distorted Prophetic traditions was that those who took upon themselves the task of projecting Islam ? ?men who were, coincidentally, among the most powerful and wealthy members of the ummah ? were not nearly as concerned with the accuracy of their reports or the objectivity of their exegesis as they were in regaining the financial and social dominance that the Prophet?s reforms had taken from them.?[33]

The Novel Criteria Used to Judge Authenticity of the Hadith


The Hadith believers boast of certain criteria that were used by the compilers to screen out fake hadith and select authentic hadith. Euphemistically, they have labeled such criteria as ?the science of the hadith? (ilm al-hadith or, Ilm al-Jarh wa al-Ta'dil - the science of accepting and rejecting narrations). Unfortunately however, on close scrutiny, the criteria used could never prove to be foolproof to establish undisputed authenticity of the hadith texts. This is evident from the very fact that even after such screening, numerous false hadith texts still remain in so-called Sahih Bukhari and other Sahih Hadith books - texts that are ?vulgar, absurd, theologically objectionable, or morally repugnant.?[34] These criteria, as an anonymous writer aptly remarks, are:

?a system of guidelines which numerous scholars, both Muslim and non-Muslim alike, have clearly shown to be seriously inadequate - if not a complete farce, as these standards are broken on numerous occasions in even the 'best' collections of hadith. This of course makes the authenticity of the hadith dubious at best - a situation with serious ramifications for the Islamic sharia, and the religion of Islam as a whole? [when, of course, understood in terms of the Quran and the Hadith together].[35]

The criteria relate to isnad or chain of hadith narrators and matn or hadith text. However good such criteria look on paper, they are grossly inadequate for the following reasons:



Presence of subjective elements involved, most obviously, subjective judgments by the individual hadith compilers about the character of the numerous narrators, which cannot be vouched as infallible;

The multiplicity of narrators involved and the huge number of hadith texts involved running into hundreds of thousands, which raise the feasibility question of how it was possible to undertake such a massive exercise of meticulously flawless screening for both the narrators of the contemporary period (contemporary with the hadith compilers) and narrators of past several generations, and for the hadith texts;

Possibility of human error committed by the narrators involved due to memory or other problems;

Observed biases of the compilers in their choice of narrators and choice of texts; and

Flaws in the criteria themselves.



The basic question that needs to be judged first is that it is the compiler like Bukhari, Muslim, etc., who is judging the character and qualifications of the narrators, and his judgment could easily go wrong. It is beyond anybody?s comprehension how it was possible for one to ascertain with one hundred percent accuracy that a narrator had not lied or not made any unintentional mistake in stating things, even if he was known to be pious or virtuous by some traditional standards. As Jayrajpuri aptly notes, ?Honesty and dishonesty are internal qualities which cannot be known with any certainty by observers. As a result, ilm al-rijal [the science of men] is only an approximate qiyasi (science), and one can never be absolutely certain that one?s judgment about a transmitter is correct.?[36] Also, as Sayyid Ahmad Khan appropriately notes, ?it is difficult enough to judge the character of living people, let alone long dead. The muhaddithun [hadith compilers] did the best they could, but their task was almost impossible?[37], especially when the transmitters involved were so numerous and the period covered was so large.



The criteria of classical hadith judgment are subject also to criticism that there was always the possibility of forging of the chain of transmitters, and such forging, according to some reports, took place on just as large a scale as the forging of contents. For forgers, there was always a great incentive to attribute reports to most trustworthy authorities.[38]



And how could one be fully certain that the narrator fully remembered what he had heard from another narrator and that any of the narrators involved in the chain had not made even the slightest mistake in communication, and there was absolutely no communication gap between the narrator who narrated a certain story and the narrator who heard the story? There was almost always the possibility for human error, even assuming that the narrators had all the good qualifications and good intentions? It is a proven fact that we find most people not able to exactly reproduce statements made by others. We also know that the compilers had biases in their choice of narrators and both the compilers and the narrators had biases in their choice of hadith texts, motivated by political and theological grounds. One critic cites that a hadith originating from Abdullah bin Omar was rejected by Bukhari, although the basically same hadith narrated by Abu Huraira was accepted, and although many other Hadith texts from Abdullah bin Omar were accepted by Bukhari.[39] In a nutshell, there were too many unknowns and uncertainties as well as biases involved in the selection process of so-called authentic hadith, which it could not be humanly possible to resolve fully satisfactorily by people like Bukhari. As Kassim Ahmad appropriately notes:



?However accurate the methodology of the isnad, the scholars first started talking about it and started writing it down only about 150 - 200 years after the deaths of the very last tabi`i tabi`in. This means that when the research to establish the isnad got started, none of the Companions, the succeeding generation or the generation coming after them were available to provide any kind of guidance, confirmation or rebuttal. Therefore, the authenticity of the statements cannot be vouched for at all.

?It is not our intention to say that Bukhari, Muslim and others were fabricators. However, even students of elementary psychology or communication will testify that a simple message of, say, 15 words will get distorted after passing through only about five messengers. (Our readers are welcome to try out this experiment). Keep in mind that the hadith contains thousands of detailed and complex narrations ? everything from ablution to jurisprudence. These narrations passed through hundreds of narrators who were spread out over thousands of miles of desert, and spanned over two to three hundred years of history. All this at a time when news traveled at the speed of a camel gait, recorded on pieces of leather or bone or scrolls in a land that had neither paper nor the abundance of scribes to write anything down!?[40]



Kassim Ahmad further notes: ?It stands to reason that the hadith writers depended on much story-telling to fill in the blanks. Many `authentic' narrators whom the hadith writers allude to in their chains of isnad were wholly fabricated names.?[41] Ahmad also notes that it was ?preposterous and impossible? for Bukhari to have meticulously considered over six hundred thousand hadith texts to pick his authentic 7,275 hadith texts in his lifetime in an age when the camel journey was the only available means to cover long desert distances.[42]



Some of the matn criteria that were used are flawed or too weak on grounds as follows:



1. One criterion is that a text should not be inconsistent with other texts of hadith. This criterion is weak as even if a text is not inconsistent with other hadith texts, all such texts could be simultaneously wrong.

2. Texts prescribing heavy punishments for minor sins or exceptionally large rewards for small virtues were rejected. But this involves value judgments of what are too heavy and what are too large. And it is the compiler?s judgment! There are serious instances of violation of this criterion (one glaring example is Hadith-suggested punishment for apostasy by killing, though the Quran allows full religious freedom).

3. Texts referring to actions that should have been commonly known and practiced by others but were not known and practiced were rejected. This criterion is flawed; it does not guarantee the veracity of the text about the Prophet.

4. Most importantly, the criterion such as that the hadith texts should not be contrary to the Quran, and reason or logic is found to have been flagrantly flouted in numerous cases. Many scholars have demonstrated that numerous hadith texts do in fact contradict the Quran, or do not stand to reason or logic, or scientific truths.



As hadith critics have legitimately pointed out, the hadith collectors were mostly concerned with the isnad criteria, and in the process they neglected most the matn criteria. Otherwise, how could they compile traditions that were clearly absurd or simply unacceptable according to the point of view of the Quran. Thus the so-called criteria used to authenticate hadith are flawed and simply inadequate to the massive task. They rather mask or camouflage the real character of the Hadith and thus mislead unsuspecting Muslims.

Conclusion

It can be reasonably concluded from the foregoing analysis that the Hadith literature does not have a sure and solid historical foundation. The Hadith stands on no sound ground to claim authenticity and authority, and as such it loses significance as any reliable religious guidance. As historians think, the Quran provides a more accurate account of what the Prophet Muhammad said and did. Sir William Muir[43] and Alois Sprenger[44] were the first Western scholars to question the reliability of the Hadith literature as a historical source.[45] As Muir rightly contended, ?the Qur?an alone represents a reliable source for Muhammad?s biography?, and it accurately portrays ?his own thought?:

?The Coran [Quran] becomes the groundwork and the test of all inquiries into the origin of Islam and the character of its founder. Here we have a store-house of Mahomet?s own words recorded during his life, extending over the whole course of his public career, and illustrating his religious views, his public acts, and his domestic character.?[46]

Indeed the Quran itself bears witness that the Prophet said nothing of religion out of his own desire [Najm (53): 3], and that all that he said for religious guidance was Divine revelation contained in the Quran itself:

?It is the SAYING of an Honored Messenger.

It is not the saying of a poet; little it is that ye believe.

Nor is it the saying of a soothsayer; little it is that ye heed.

It is a Message revealed from the Lord of the Universe.? [Haqqa (69): 40-43]

If we are to discover an Islam of justice, compassion and mercy and progress, we need to understand it solely in terms of the Quran. Any attempt to understand it both in terms of the Quran and the Hadith is bound to result in a distorted message, which confounds rather than guides. Ideas that encourage fatalism and discourage individual initiative and enterprise, corrupt religious practices, block progress and modernization, encourage intolerance, violence and terror, extol the virtues of aggressive jihad against other communities, and demonize and weaken women?s position in society - all come from the Hadith.[47] The conventional interpretation of Islam, which depends much on the Hadith, dominates and guides most Muslims, which is, unfortunately, to put it quite appropriately in the words of a contemporary writer, ?not far different from that of the terrorists but without the justification of violence? - an interpretation that ?serves to suppress individual creativity and innovation? and risks Muslims becoming ?a permanent global underclass.?[48]



[1] Other alleged sources of Islam are the Qiyas and the Ijma. Qiyas refers to comparative or analogical deduction in a particular case derived from the analogy of similar cases. Qiyas is used to provide parallels between similar situations or principles when no clear text is found in the Quran or Sunnah. Ijma, regarded as the fourth source of law, originated from Muhammad's reported saying, "My community will never agree on an error." This came to mean that a consensus among religious scholars could determine permissibility of an action. The Fiqh literature is an anthology of Islamic law or jurisprudence derived from the Hadith sources. The reader should note that this author does not believe that Islam should