Fundamentalism of Sunnah (hadith) and Mr. Ghamdi’s Views (3)

Mr. Ghamdi says Quran and Sunnah are only sources of Deen; the rational given by him is Deen has to be widely known to the people. The Quran and Sunnah (which are, in his view, practices/traditions coming from the previous prophets) being widely known to the people are Deen whereas ‘ahadith’ being ‘akhbar e ehad’ are not widely known to the people and as such cannot be termed as Deen. 

Before analyzing this above mentioned view of Ghamdi, we need to understand that all provisions of Deen are not required to be implemented all the time; it is the situation and a problem faced in that situation which determines which provision of Deen is to be implemented in that situation. When we are student we do not need to implement provisions which are related to a teacher; when we are disable, we do not need to implement provisions which are related to an able body; when we are faced with war, we do not need to implement provisions which are related to peace. What I mean to say is a person needs to implement a provision of Deen when he is facing a situation relating to that provision.

Even if hadith is ‘khabr e wahid’, it was not meant to remain ‘khabr e wahid’ forever. It is our common observation  whenever a person is faced with a situation regarding which he does not know what was provision of Deen, another person knowing that provision could come forward to guide the ignorant person. In this way many solutions and legislations were made by the Muslims during period of four caliphs and after them on the basis of such ‘ahadith’ which were ‘akhabr e ehad’ in the beginning but did not remain ‘akhbar e ehad’, when such ‘ahadith’ were adopted for required solutions and legislations. In this way ‘khabr e wahid’ which is a  ‘hadith’ stated by our Nabi (ﷺ) to one or a few companions became widely known to the people, with the arising of situations in which  implementation of such hadith was required. Therefore we can safely say that ‘khabr e wahid’  was not meant to be remained as ‘khabr e wahid’ for ever; rather our Nabi (ﷺ) could imagine very well that ‘khabr e wahid’ will be widely known to the people when  implementation of such ‘khabr e wahid’ would be required.

Furthermore, if original narrator of a hadith is one or a few persons, it does not mean that only those few persons were knowing that hadith; it only means that secondary narrator(s) has/have taken that hadith from those few persons but  that hadith may be known to a large number of people. Therefore Ghamdi's view that 'akhbar e ehad' were not widely known enough to be declared as Deen cannot be taken as true.

Mr. Ghamdi’s views about time specific and person specific hadith have been already dealt with in part (1).

From the foregoing we can conclude that Mr. Ghamdi’s concept of Deen is not valid/authentic form of Deen. Now we would see Ghamdi’s concept of Deen is not comprehensive as well.

We have already seen in the article  http://secondriseofislam.blogspot.com/2012/12/concept-of-meezan-and-essentiality-of.html that Sunnah (which includes Hadith) and Quran both provide for whole system of justice in Islam through ‘qist’ and ‘adl’. ‘Qist’ is dispensation of justice essentially through legal means; whereas ‘adl’ is dispensation of justice through legal as well as non-legal means. Another difference between ‘qist’ and ‘adl’ is that ‘qist’ involves crimes and penalty; whereas ‘adl’ does not involve crimes and penalty. In other words, Sunnah including ‘hadith’ provide for social justice in all spheres of social life (legal and non-legal ones). In this way Sunnah (hadith) along-with Quran provide comprehensive guidance for human beings in all spheres of social life. If hadith is not to be treated as a part of Deen, as Mr. Ghamdi views, Deen does not remain comprehensive guidance for humanity. In other words, Ghamdi’s concept of Deen provides for only a few traditions/beliefs/  practices which are negligible as compared to whole life span in which a person is free to live his life without any divine guidance. 
  The correct understanding of Quran is not possible without taking guidance from Hadith. Since 1400 years back so many understandings of Quran have come on the surface; no one is complete to provide guidance for all ages to come. Ghulam Ahmad Pervaiz's and Ghamdi's (so called) understanding of Quran has not come on the surface before them , and are different from previous understandings; similarly latter understandings would be different from that of Pervaiz's and Ghamdi's. We are forced to believe that complete understanding of Quran is not possible through a single person or through a single generation. Actually Quran keeps on divulging its meanings in each generation/period according to problems to be faced by human beings in that period. Hadith provides us a framework to seek solutions of every period's problems through the Quran, as Quran provides us a framework to understand 'Hadith'. No 'Hadith' is to be accepted, if it contradicts Quran; similarly out of many possible interpretations of Quranic verse, only such interpretations would be accepted which are in line with 'Hadith'- if relevant sahih hadith is available.

Therefore we can conclude that Mr. Ghamdi’s concept of Deen is neither valid/authentic nor comprehensive enough to provide guidance to people in all fields of life.