Friday, 10 March 2017

Some Rebuttals of Views Held by Disbelievers of Hadith (Munkareen e hadith) (4)

‘Munkareen e Hadith’ say the matter of ‘haque and batil’ is to be decided through daleel/logic; but decision of a dispute/ ‘fasl e nazaa’ is to be done on the basis of majority. They mean subjects of ‘haque and batil’ are relating to ‘Eman and Deen’; and subjects of ‘nazaa’/ disputes are not related to ‘Eman and Deen’. Let us analyze this view in the light of Quran. The Quran says:  
“Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light…………… So do not fear the people but fear Me, and do not exchange My verses for a small price. And whoever does not judge/ ‘yahkum’ by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the disbelievers” (al-maidah-44).

This verse says the people who do not decide a dispute on the basis of what has been revealed are disbelievers. In other words, this verse is saying if dispute is not decided on the basis of principles, contained in wahi, such decision of dispute is ‘kufr’ and the people making such decision are disbelievers/ ‘kafir’. It means the way in which a dispute is resolved determines such decision is haque or batil.  If decision of dispute is made on the basis of principles as contained in wahi, such decision is called as based on haque; otherwise the decision is called as based on ‘batil’.  It may be appreciated that decisions of disputes are not in themselves  part of Deen (Quran and Hadith). Deen is what gives us principles to decide what is haque and what is batil. (It may be appreciated Quran and Hadith are al-haque, not haque; haque and batil are related to human deeds whereas al-haque is Allah's deeds). In other words, decisions of disputes cannot be part of Deen/Eman but they are surely ‘haque or batil’.  In other words, the differentiation made by munkareen e hadith between ‘haque and batil’ and ‘fasl e nazaa’ is not correct, as fasl e nazaa is also a matter of ‘haque and batil’, in the light of verse mentioned above. It may also be appreciated that in the verse al-maidah-44, word 'kaferoun' has been used for the people who have defective/ lesser Eman in wahi; this word has not been used here for the people who do not have Eman in Deen i.e. Quran and Hadith. In other words, word 'kaferoun' has been used for people doing something 'batil'/sin by not deciding their matters on the basis of principles contained in wahi i.e. Quran and Hadith; this words has not been used here for people denying al-haque i.e. Quran and Hadith.
From the foregoing we can conclude that the way in which matters related to ‘fasl e nazaa’ are to be decided is also to be used to decide the matters of ‘haque and batil’. In both cases- i.e. ‘fasl e nazaa’ and ‘haque and batil’- matters are to be decided on the basis of majority, as we have already seen in previous parts of this article that matters of ‘haque and batil’ are to be decided on the basis of majority among the Muslims. If there is difference of opinion among the Muslims as to what is 'haque' and what is 'batil', and if difference of opinion pertains to what principles of 'wahi' are to be applied and what principles are not to be applied to a certain case, in both these cases matter is to be decided on the basis of principles contained in wahi, and the majority would decide what principles contained in wahi are to be applied to a certain case because sanctity is attached to opinion of  ma;jority Muslims (people or scholars, as the case may be) in Islam. If a person gives different connotation of principles of wahi (i.e. Quran and Hadith), again the matter would be decided on basis of majority among Muslims (people or scholars, as the matter may be).

Munkareen e Hadith also maintain that ‘ahadith’ are not ‘Qoul e Rasool’ ﷺ ; they are kalam e ravis/ narrators. This understanding of munkareen e Hadith about Hadith is quite baseless because everybody knows it is kalam e Nabi which is described/copied in ahadith, in substance or words. It is not narrators’ kalam which we find in ‘ahadith’. Munkareen e Hadith need to differentiate between ‘kalam’ and ‘naql e kalam’; it is ‘naql’/ copy of Nabi’s kalam which we find in ahadith; it is not narrators’ kalam.
The disbelievers of Hadith say that ahadith conveyed to us through narrators is not acceptable. This approach of disbelievers of Hadith runs counter to normal and universal practice adopted by people to accept and rely on messages received from someone else. It is normal and universal practice of people that they receive messages from someone else and accept such messages after due verification, if necessary. In the same manner, Muslims accept  our Nabi’s sayings conveyed to us through narrators, after verifying that sayings have been rightly attributed to our Nabi ﷺ .
The disbelievers of Hadith object there are so many contradictions among ahadith; such contradictions make ahadith unacceptable to the people. This objection is also superficial. As for contradictions, apparently contradictions are found in Quran as well. These are apparently contradictions, not factual contradictions. These contradictions are not defect of Quran; rather they are result of defective human understanding of Quran. The more intellectual exertions are made to understand Quran, the more these contradictions are resolved. If intellectual exertions are not made by people in respect of Quran, Quran would mislead such people. The more the people make intellectual exertions regarding Quran, the greater they become able to resolve apparently contradictions and avail true guidance of Quran. In the same way, the contradictions found in ‘ahadith’ need to be resolved through intellectual exertions made by the people. Without due intellectual exertions thereof, ahadith would not divulge the guidance contained in them for the people (continued).

No comments:

Post a Comment