Debunking more claims justifying hadith
The advocates of hadith, in their persistent attempts to justify its legality, claim that it is not possible to practice Islam by using the Quran alone. To justify their case, they refer to a number of Quranic incidents which are not fully detailed in the Quran but whose details were given by God to Muhammad. For us, to know the full details of these matters, it is necessary to seek the guidance of the hadith.
Before addressing the Quranic incidents and the claims of the hadith advocates it is necessary first to ascertain the correct context of the “fully detailed” attribute which God gives the Quran.
When God assures the believers that the Quran contains all the details (6:114), this completeness must be understood in the correct context of the words in 6:114:
Shall I seek other than God as a source of law when He has brought down to you this book fully detailed? 6:114
The connection between the underlined words in 6:114 cannot be ignored. The assurance that God is the only lawmaker is closely connected to the Quran being fully detailed.
What this means is that The Quran contains the full details of God’s law. The Quran contains everything we need to practice Islam. Consequently, the Quran does not need to contain details which we do not need to practice our religion. The omission of all such details does not affect the message of the Book.
The following is a presentation of some of the Quranic incidents which they refer to, together with an analysis of their claims.
CLAIM 1:
The mention of a previous Qiblah is found in 2:143. However, there is no verse in the Quran which gives details about this previous Qiblah. Therefore, the prophet must have received inspiration from God outside the Quran. This knowledge is passed on to us through the hadith of the prophet. We would not know this information if we follow the Quran alone; we need the Quran and also the hadith.
When we read 2:143, we read about a previous Qiblah set by God.
We did not appoint the Qiblah that you were on except to distinguish those who follow the messenger from those who turn back on their heels. 2:143
The exact details of the previous Qiblah are not given in the Quran. However, God describes the Quran as "fully detailed" (6:114), and in 6:38 we are given an assurance from God "We did not leave anything out of the Book". It is therefore important to understand the correct context of these assurances.
The completeness and fully detailed nature of the Quran means that the Quran contains everything we need to practice our religion. It does not mean that the Quran contains every piece of historic detail.
With regards to the Qiblah, we need to know the Qiblah that we should face when we observe the Salat. This was set by God to be the Masjid Al-Haram with the revelation of these verses in Sura 2.
The location of any previous Qiblah is not required by us to practice our religion. Therefore, to claim that the Quran alone is insufficient and that we need the hadith to know and practice our religion is an unfounded claim.
As for the subject of prophet Muhammad receiving inspiration from God other than the Quran, that is correct and none can deny this matter. God indeed inspired to Muhammad various pieces of information that are not part of the Quran, the following is one example:
When the prophet confided some words to one of his wives, then when she informed others of it, and God disclosed that to him, he made some of it known and withheld part of it. When he informed her of it, she said, "Who informed you of this?" He said, "The Knowledgeable, the All-Aware informed me." 66:3
Prophet Muhammad found out, through inspiration from God, that one of his wives told others what he confided to her. This inspiration to Muhammad was regarding a personal matter between him and one of his wives. This information does not constitute part of the religion that we have to follow. It was indeed an inspiration from God but not a revelation. Thus, we are not told what Muhammad confided to his wife, nor what she disclosed to others.
We have Quranic evidence that the only revelation Muhammad received from God was the Quran. In the following verse, God instructed Muhammad to make the following testimony:
Say, "What thing is the greatest testimony?" Say, "God is Witness between me and you, and this Quran has been revealed to me to warn you with it and whomever it reaches. 6:19
Note that the words testify the Quran was revealed to Muhammad. The words do not say the Quran and the hadith.
In addition, God inspires various pieces of information to all people and not just to His messengers. In the following verse we read how God inspired the mother of Moses:
We have indeed bestowed favour upon you one more time when We inspired to your mother what was to be inspired: 'Cast him into the basket, then throw it into the river. 20:37-39
The case of the mother of Moses, tells us that not every inspiration is a revelation. Equally, Muhammad received various inspiration from God that were not part of the revelation. Those pieces of inspiration do not constitute part of the religion that we should follow.
While the above defines the general rule, let us now analyse the verses in Sura 2 which are subject to the claim above. In verses 2:144 to 2:149, we have a number of keywords:
1- We have seen your face turning about the sky. 2:144
These words indicate that Muhammad was turning his face about the sky unsure of which direction (Qibla) to face. Some translations of the same sentence above read:
"We see the turning of your face to heaven"
There are 2 errors in this translation. These errors change the meaning of the verse:
1- The Arabic word "al-samaa" means the sky. It does not mean heaven or heavens.
2- The Arabic word "fi" means 'in' and not 'to'.
These may appear to be trivial variations, but not so. When we use the correct translation, it tells us that Muhammad was not turning to heaven, he was actually turning his face around the sky, which is an act of indecision. The context of the verse is the Qibla, and so Muhammad was turning his face in different directions not knowing which Qibla to follow.
It is important to remember that Sura 2, in which the Masjid Al-Haram was set as the Qibla, was revealed in Medina and was number 87 in the chronological order of revelation. And so, there were a number of years during which Muhammad and his followers were observing the Salat without having a Qibla set for them by God.
In addition, if God had appointed for Muhammad a previous Qiblah (through inspiration) as the claim above states, then why would Muhammad be turning his face around the sky in search of a Qiblah to follow? He would already know the direction to face.
The state of Muhammad being unsure which Qiblah to follow is evidence that he never received inspiration from God (prior to the revelation of 2:144) about a specific Qiblah to face. It follows that all the Qiblahs which were appointed by God previously were appointed before the time of Muhammad.
2- We will direct you towards a Qiblah that you are content with. 2:144
These words are also of great significance, for they indicate that Muhammad was not content with the previous Qiblahs, which is understandable since the previous Qiblahs were decreed for the previous people and not in the Quran.
Now if we assume that God had set a previous Qibla for Muhammad, would Muhammad, the faithful servant of God, not be content with the Qiblah God had set?
Once again, these words confirm that the previous Qiblahs spoken of, and which were previous to the appointment of the Masjid Al-Haram, were not appointed specifically for Muhammad but were appointed at a previous time and for previous people.
3- The fact that there were previous Qiblahs for different people, and the prophet was undecided between which one to follow is also confirmed in the following words:
- Nor do they follow each other's Qiblahs. 2:145
- For everyone, there is a direction that he faces. 2:148
To conclude, none of the previous Qiblahs apply to us, nor are we accountable in any way to those. To observe the Salat, we need to know the Qiblah which God assigned to us and not to previous people.
The previous Qiblas do not form part of the religion which we must follow. The religion which we must follow is complete and fully detailed in the Quran as per the words of God:
- Today, I have completed your religion for you. 5:3
- Shall I seek other than God as a lawmaker when it is He who has brought down to you the Book fully detailed? 6:114
The case for "Quran alone is not enough, we need the hadith as well" is invalid. Those who promote such a claim are better advised to believe the words of God which prohibit all hadith other than the Quran:
These are God's revelations (Quran) that We recite to you with truth, so in which hadith other than God and His revelations do they believe? 45:6
CLAIM 2:
In verse 66:3 we are told that God made some information known to the prophet about his wives. The question is, how did God make this information known to the prophet? Certainly not via the Quran since there is no mention of it anywhere in the Quran. The prophet must have received personal inspiration from God which is not part of the Quran. If we follow the Quran alone we would not know about this information.
First: Here we must clarify the difference between Revelation and Inspiration. A revelation is a Scripture which God gives a prophet to deliver to the people. Moses received a revelation from God (Torah), Jesus received a revelation from God (Injeel) and Muhammad received a revelation from God (Quran).
However, an inspiration is not a Scripture, it is simply a personal piece of information which God inspires to a single person, and for the benefit of that person alone.
In addition, God inspires all people and not only the messengers. For example, we read in the Quran how God inspired the mother of Moses (who was not a messenger) to throw her baby in the river (28:7).
God in fact inspires all creatures and not just humans. In 16:68 we read how God inspired the bee.
Second: The information Muhammad received about some of his wives (66:3) was an inspiration and not a revelation. This information was exclusive to Muhammad and for his benefit alone. It is totally irrelevant for us to know about this information in order to practice Islam.
This information, if contained in the hadith, with many question marks of its credibility, may be of interest to historians but is not in any way a requirement for the practice of Islam.
So once again, this claim does not justify in any way the need for hadith to practice Islam.
Third: The main message of sura 66 and in particular 66:1 is that God is reminding all readers of the Quran, till the end of time, that the authority of law making is exclusive to God. When Muhammad made the error of prohibiting something which was made lawful by God, God immediately reprimanded him:
O you prophet, why do you prohibit what God has made lawful for you, seeking to please your wives? God is Forgiver, Merciful. 66:1
The information God gave Muhammad about some of his wives (66:3) was exclusive to Muhammad and has no bearing whatsoever on what is required to practice Islam.
As a result, God’s promise that the Quran contains all the details to practice Islam stands as truth; we do not need the Hadith and the Sunnah to practice Islam.
CLAIM 3:
In 2:187 we read that sexual intercourse between married couples during the nights of Ramadan was not lawful before. We are also told that the people who had sexual intercourse during the nights of Ramadan before this verse were described as “betraying themselves.”
The words “so now you can have sexual intercourse with them” denote that it is “only now” that the sexual act during the nights of Ramadan has been made lawful.
These indications confirm that the earlier prohibition of having sexual intercourse during the nights of Ramadan was decreed by God and that the Muslims were bound to abide by it. But there is no verse in the Quran to convey this prohibition. This could have only been through a revelation from God to the prophet and which is not contained in the Quran. Looked at from this angle, this verse proves that there is a revelation which does not form part of the Quran.
It can easily be shown that the above analysis of events and their true significance is totally contradictory to Quranic truth. It can be shown that the receivers of the Quran were never forbidden from having sex during the nights of Ramadan at any time as the above claim goes. To be able to expose this erroneous claim, we need to read 2:187, as well as the four verses which precede 2:187:
O you who believe, fasting is decreed upon you, as it was decreed upon those before you, so that you may be reverent. 2:183
A number of days, but whoever among you is ill or travelling, then an equal number of other days, and for those who can bear it, a concession of feeding a needy person. Then, whoever volunteers extra good work it is better for him, but if you fast it is better for you, if you only knew. 2:184
Ramadan is the month in which the Quran was brought down providing guidance for the people as well as clear proofs of the guidance and the Criterion. So for those of you who witness the month shall fast it, and for those who are ill or travelling, then an equal number of other days. God wants ease for you, and He does not want hardship for you, and for you to complete the count and magnify God for guiding you so that you may be thankful. 2:185
And if My servants ask you about Me, I am near. I answer the caller’s call if he calls upon Me. Therefore, they shall respond to Me and believe in Me so that they may be guided. 2:186
It has been made lawful for you to have sexual intercourse with your wives during the nights of the fast. They are a garment for you and you are a garment for them. God knows that you used to betray yourselves so He redeemed you and pardoned you. Hence you may now approach them and seek what God has decreed for you, and you may eat and drink until the white thread of dawn becomes distinguishable to you from the dark thread, then maintain the fast until the night, and do not approach them while you are in retreat at the masjids. These are God's limits so do not go near them. God thus clarifies His revelations for the people, so hopefully they may be reverent. 2:187
The above verses, which were revealed together, confirm that from the moment fasting was decreed on the receivers of the Quran, the rule of allowing sex during the nights of fasting was also decreed.
Sura 2, where these verses come from, was the 87th Sura in the order of revelation. It was revealed in Medina and it was revealed near the end of the Quranic revelation. All the Suras that were revealed after Sura 2 were short Suras.
The revelation of these verses in Medina marked the beginning of the fasting for Muslims. There was no decreed fasting upon the Muslims in the earlier Meccan period of the revelation. Verse 2:187, which allows sex during the nights of fasting is only 4 verses after 2:183 where fasting was decreed on the receivers of the Quran.
This confirms that there was no such “period” where the Muslims were forbidden from having sex during the nights as the writer claims. Fasting, together with the rules of fasting, were all decreed at the same time within the five verses (2:183 to 2:187). In addition, fasting as a ritual could not have been observed before the revelation of 2:187 since the exact time for fasting was not appointed except with the revelation of 2:187.
Thus all claims that the Muslims fasted before the revelation of 2:187 are false. How could they have been fasting since the time for fasting was not given till the revelation of 2:187.
Consequently, the reference to the allowance of no marital sex during the nights of fasting must have been a reference to the rules of fasting that were given to previous receivers of the Scripture.
It is also necessary to analyse the words “God knows that you used to betray yourselves” to arrive at their correct meaning.
As mentioned above, these words cannot mean that the Muslims used to break the previous laws of fasting simply because there were no previous laws for fasting given to the Muslims. Fasting itself was not possible before the revelation of 2:187 which gives the exact time for fasting. We also note that the words “God knows that you used to betray yourselves” do not speak of fasting nor contain the word “fasting”. Thus they must only be understood in a general sense, in other words, God is saying that He knew that the people used to betray themselves in many ways, when they failed to stick to God’s various laws.
Thus, God the Most Merciful made fasting easier for the Muslims than what it used to be (for previous people) by allowing sex between married couples during the nights of Ramadan.
Other examples:
The following Quranic persons have also been subject for claims to justify the hadith:
1- God speaks of Zhu Al-Qarnayn (18:83)? The literal translation is “the one with 2 horns”. In the Quran we learn that he was a great ruler who built the wall which kept Gog and Magog from attacking the people whom he met on his journey to the east.
Do we know for sure who this person was? We do not know for sure, there have been a number of interpretations.
Some interpreted Zhu Al-Qarnayn to be Alexander the Great and some have understood him to be Cyrus the Great while some others understood him to be the Byzantine emperor Heraclius who was thought of by his contemporaries as a “second Alexander”.
But this is not all, the word ‘Qarnayn’ literally means two Qarn, yet when we look at the use of the word ‘Qarn’ we find that it was never used in the Quran to mean “horn” but was used to mean a century, a long period of time, an age or generation.
Thus the title of "Zhu Al-Qarnayn" could mean the "two-horned one", or "the one who impacts upon two ages or generations".
Do we need the exact details of the man who is given this name in the Quran to practice Islam? The answer is no.
2- We also read about God’s servant who walked with Moses? Although the Quran details many of his words with Moses yet his name is not given. It is the message contained in this story that serves the message of the book and not the specific name of the servant. Do we need to know his name to attain the message of this Quranic incident? The answer is no.
Do we need this info to practice Islam? The answer is no.
3- God tells us about Gog and Magog in the Quran. Do we know exactly who they are? Are they persons? Tribes? Nations?
The answer is: We do not know for sure nor do we need to know to practice Islam.
The day Gog and Magog rise again, the people living then will know about them.
Do we need this info to practice Islam? The answer is no.
4- In 2:246 we read about a prophet who came after Moses, his name is not given in the Quran. The Old Testament speaks of him as Samuel.
Do we need to know the exact name of this prophet to practice Islam? The answer is no.
5- Sura 111 speaks of a man called Abu Lahab and his wife who deserved the wrath of God and who were promised a severe punishment. The Sura does not tell us exactly who this person is. The words Abu Lahab literally translates to “father of the flame”. As a result this title could be the name of a person or indeed a description in the same vein of the Quranic phrase “Ashaab Al-Nar” (companions of the fire).
The hadith advocates in their feeble attempts say:
- If we don't know who Abu lahab is, we would not know what he did wrong nor why God is angry with him. In addition we need to know what he did wrong so that in the future we would never repeat such a severe sin.
Needless to say, all the prohibitions are clearly detailed in the Quran. If we abide by these prohibitions and obey all of God’s law we would not need to know any further details about Abu Lahab.
-------------------------------
To conclude, as shown above and in the light of the glorious Quran, God did not leave anything out of the book (6:38) that we need in order to practice Islam and to attain God’s promised Paradise, God willing.
If we fall easy prey for Satan and be duped into thinking that we are missing vital information if we follow God’s word alone (Quran) then this would only be case of history repeating itself. Satan’s very first trick was to dupe Adam into believing that to stick only to what God decreed for him would deprive Adam from the blessing of eternal life (7:20) which (as Satan claimed) is contained in what God prohibited (the forbidden tree). Satan is also inspiring millions today that if they follow God’s word alone (Quran) they will be deprived of vital information and guidance not contained in God’s word (Quran), but which is contained in what God prohibited which is the hadith (45:6).
Related Subjects:
- History of hadith
- How authentic is the hadith
Related Subjects:
- History of hadith
- How authentic is the hadith