Muhammad Forbidden from Issuing Any Religious Teachings?

 

        Muhammad Forbidden from Issuing Any Religious Teachings

An enquiry into Dr. Khalifa’s translation of 69:44

 

Dr. Rashad Khalifa and the Qur’an-only movement is well known to promote anti-hadith claims. What may be less known is that Dr. Khalifa and his followers went beyond simply alleging the falsity of hadith. They argue that anything outside of the Qur’an is false. From their point of view the Prophet Muhammad only received the Qur’an and the only purpose of the prophet’s mission was to deliver the holy writ.  One of the arguments constructed against hadith was to argue the Prophet was forbidden from “issuing any religious teachings” based on a unique reading of Surah Haqq 69:44.  Our purpose is to analyze Dr. Khalifa’s interpretation of the said verse.

 

The Final Testament, the translation of the Qur’an according to Dr. Khalifa has  a number of unique claims. One of these claims is found in Surah Al Haqqah.  The subtitle to 69:44-52 reads “Muhammad Forbidden from Issuing Any Religious Teachings.” Dr. Khalifa writes this above the verse in arabic Wa law taqawwala ʿalaynā baʿḍa l-aqāwīl which he translates to mean “ Had he uttered any other teachings.”  The notion that the Prophet Muhammad was forbidden from teaching would sound puzzling to people unfamiliar with Dr. Khalifa’s claims. As early as 1985 Dr. Khalifa used the said verses in Surah Haqqah to proclaim “Qur’an is the only utterance by Muhammad to be upheld as THE ONLY SOURCE OF RELIGIOUS TEACHING” (Muslim Perspective May 1985, pg 3) Dr. Khalifa repeats this assertion in the appendix to the Qur’an entitled ‘Hadith and Sunnah: Satanic innovations’ where he states “The prophet Muhammad was enjoined, in very strong words, from issuing any religious teachings besides the Quran”(Appendix 19.)  The translation of Dr. Khalifa is below:

 

[69:44] Had he uttered any other teachings.

[69:45] We would have punished him.

[69:46] We would have stopped the revelations to him.

 

The subtitle to the above verses is “Muhammad Forbidden from Issuing Any Religious Teachings.”  Dr. Khalifa obviously wants us to understand the four verses above according to the subtitle.  We are to understand that God is reassuring believers about limitations to the Prophet’s mission. If the Prophet stated “any other teachings” then God will punish him. God will also stop revelation to the Prophet because he uttered any other teachings, outside the Qur’an.   So the only things the Prophet ever taught was the “Qur’an.”  We can thus disregard any hadith that contradicts the Qur’an. (Dr. Khalifa tells us to dismiss all of the hadith anyways.)

 

What does it mean when Dr. Khalifa writes, per subtitle “Muhammad Forbidden from Issuing Any Religious Teachings”?  Does he meant that the Prophet cannot teach anything, including Qur’an? Maybe Dr. Khalifa meant “any other teachings” as he translated 69:44. But in that case even a traditional Sunni-Shia would argue that all their hadiths are in line with the Qur’an and not “other teachings.”  We will give Dr. Khalifa some leeway and assume the editor did not fix his poorly written English. Instead, we will take the subtitle to imply what he stated in appendix 19 and the May 1985 issue of his newsletter; that “only the Qur’an is a source of religious teaching.”

 

A comparative translation process will help us critique the Final Testament. “Had he uttered any other teachings” is how Dr. Khalifa translates the above verses.  I  will limit our analysis to three translations which include a popular modernist,  a traditional and an orientalist. Here is Muhamad Asad :

 

69:44  Now if he [whom We have entrusted with it] had dared to attribute some [of his own] sayings unto Us

69:45  We would indeed have seized him by his right hand

69:46  and would indeed have cut his life-vein

 

Yusuf Ali:

69:44  And if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name

69:45  We should certainly seize him by his right hand

69:46  And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart

 

N.J Dawood:

69:44  Had he invented lies concerning Us

69:45  We would have seized him by the right hand

69:46  and severed his heart‘s vein

 

As we see above Dr. Khalifa has serious competition.  The traditionalist, modernist and orientalist appear to be saying the same thing. Yet, they are saying something somewhat different from Dr. Khalifa.  Let us summarize what we read. If the prophet lied against God then the prophet would have a consequence. The consequence would be a punishment in which the prophet is seized by the right hand and a life giving vain is cut.  The punishment is more harsh than Dr. Khalifa’s translation. But more importantly the reason for the punishment is completely different.  The majority of translations render the passage of 69:44 so that the reader is reassured by God that the prophet cannot lie.  But Dr. Khalifa renders the passage so that the Prophet could not teach or apparently say anything outside of the Qur’an! Who is more correct?

 

At this point we need to look at each individual verse, starting with 69:44. “Teaching” is Rashad’s rendering of the word “taqawwala.” The arabic Taqawwala implies a verbal rendering of “words” in English. It would be like saying “ I am wording this document correctly.” Word-for-word Qur’an translations write “fabricate”  which although correct in context( as we will see) is not the literal meaning of taqawwala. A literal word for word meaning of the verse  69:44 would be: “If he uttered anything against us..” The  understanding of this passage that the Prophet is forbidding from making a lie against God is universally understood. Classic Tafsirs of Tafsir Ibn Abbas, Tafsir Jalalayn, Tafsir Qummi all have 69:44 taqawwala as meaning fabricate. Modern tafsirs including reformist and non-muslims also share view.  I was unable to find an exception to this, outside of Dr. Khalifa. Even Edip Yuksel renders the passage, “Had he attributed anything falsely to Us.”(Reformist translation.)  Moreover, the term “teaching” is found throughout the Qur’an but not in 69:44! So a layman who comes across this verse for the first time would conclude at the least that Dr. Khalifa was being very non-literal with his usage of terms. We will have more to say on “taqawalla” and “teaching” momentarily.

 

69:45 is rendered by Dr. Khalifa as “We would have punished him.” The other translations do not use the term punishment, a word that occurs many times in the Qur’an.  Dr. Shenaz’s word for word translation (available on islam awakened.com) renders the passage “Certainly We (would) have seized him by the right hand.”  There is no word for punishment in the literal translation, although it is certainly implied.  To say that the Prophet would be punished is a fair assertion of what the verse is conveying. But  why does Dr. Khalifa not translate the plain meaning of the passage ,that the prophet “would be sized by his right hand”?  Is Dr. Khalifa worried about  upsetting his followers with the actual quranic language? We will explore this question momentarily.

 

The next verse 69:46 is also rendered in an interesting way by Dr. Khalifa, “We would have stopped the revelations to him.” But our orientalist, modernist, traditionalist contingent stated something much more vivid, that the Prophet would have his life cut from him! Dr. Shenaz’s literal translation reads, “Then certainly We (would) have cut off from him the aorta.”  To say that “revelation would stop” as Dr. Khalifa interprets is not  completely wrong. But at the same time it is not a bad take of the verse!

 

 If the prophet is killed by Allah s.w.t. then of course the divine revelations would stop!  But the verse says NOTHING about divine revelations.  The cessation of revelations would be a natural outflow of the prophet’s demise. Is this the point of the Qur’ans teaching that the prophet would be punished?(and for teaching?)  If the prophet died, not only would revelation stop, but the prophet would not be able perform any worldly activity.  So why did Dr. Khalfia write “revelations would stop” when he could have more correctly wrote the prophet’s life would end? Again, why did Dr. Khalifa choose to not give the plain meaning of the verse again? Was he also worried about his followers reaction here as well?

 

We can test how accurate Dr. Khalifa’s translation by examining it’s self-consistency.   How does Dr. Khalifa render the verb “taqawwala” elsewhere?  If Dr. Khalifa is correct in redarning “taqawwala” as “teaching” then we would expect it to be translated as such consistently, provided of course that it fits the appropriate the context.  We find the verb taqawwala in one other place of the Qur’an;Surah Tur. This is Dr. Khalifa’s translation of 52:33 “Do they say, "He made it all up?" Instead, they are simply disbelievers.”   So we see that Dr. Khalifa translates taqawalla as “made it all up.” This implies that the prophet would not lie. Translating surah Tur 52:33 to imply fabrication is consistent with what the other translators said on 69:44 but inconsistent with that Dr. Khalifa said on the same verse!   Why did Dr. Khalifa choose to translate taqawalla in surah Tur as implying fabrication but translate the same word as “teaching” in surah al Haqqah? One would be hard-pressed to find a translation of Surah Tur:33 implying “teaching.”  

 

Dr. Khalifa translates taqawalla as “teaching” in Surah Haqqah but as fabrication in Surah Tur. Why the inconsistency? Do we have any contextual reasons for the discrepancy in translating two verses? Let us briefly summarize the purport of each of the respective passages. The prophet Muhamamd faced many allegations during his 23 year career as a messenger of God. The idolaters denied his prophethood in the strongest terms.  Surah 52:29 has the Prophet remind people that he is "neither a soothsayer, nor crazy." The Qur'an was responding to allegations that the prophet was not of sound mind and that he was performing some sort of magic on people. The disbelievers also accused him of being no more than a poet due to the beauty of the Qur'an recitation.( 52:30.)  The Qur'an also mentions that the disbelievers advised each other to wait for the prophet's death (and the prophet challenged them to wait with him! 52:31.) As a respons to the idolaters  allegations, the Qur'an asks them " Do they say, "He made it all up?"(52:33) The Qur'anic arabic uses the term "taqawlla" which Rashad translates as "made it all up. One could literally render the passage perhaps as "or do they say he said words.." but the literal wording here would not be correct to the context. Taqawalla has been understood here as fabricating something, or attribute words falsely to something just as it has for Surah Haqqah 44.  The point is that Dr. Khalifa decided to translate "taqawwala" as fabricate in response to the allegations made against the prophet.

What is context of the passages in Surah Haqqah that we have been discussing?  69:40 has the quran tell us that Muhammad is an "honorable messenger."  The next verses  then tells us allegations made against the prophet, that he was a poet(69:41) and a soothsayer (69:42)  The Qur'an counters these allegations by stating  that it is a "revelation from the Lord of the universe"(69:43.)  The Qur'an challenges the disbelievers assertions though in the next verse,   If the prophet fabricated something against God (or merely taught outside re:Rashad) then would be punished (69:44-45.) Whatever the meaning of the next 3 verses (44-46) both Dr. Khalifa and the other translators see the verses in a response manner.

 

The context of for the usage of the arabic “taqawalla” in Surah Tur and in Surah Haqqah is similar. The Qur’an uses the term as part of a response to the allegations of the disbelievers. In both surahs the disbelievers allege that the prophet is poet or magician of sorts. The Qur’an responds to the allegations in Surah Tur by asking a question “Has he made it all up?” and in Surah Haqqah by issuing a challenge that if the prophet “made up” the revelations then the Prophet would be punished. So there is no contextual reason why Dr. Khalifa would provide two different translations of the same word.  Dr. Khalifa’s translation is thus inconsistent and wrong.

 

Returning to 69:45-46, why did Dr. Khalifa refuse a translation with the plain meaning of the text? Let us summarize the verses. In response to the prophet engaging in the inappropriate action of 69:44( teach-Rashad, Fabricate-everyone else) the prophet would be sized by the right hand(69:45.) and have his life cut off (69:46.) But Dr. Khalifa only translates the two verses to say the Prophet would be punished (69:45) and revelation would be cut off(69:46) not his life!  Why did Dr. Khalifa not want the readers to know serious consequences for the prophet should he  complete the  inappropriate action of ‘taqawalla’?    

 

Most people would not have a problem with the Qur’an’s assertion that the Prophet would be killed if he attributes lies to God. In fact this challenge creates faith for believers because we can be assured that other claimants of divine authority would meet the same fate. ( We hold back from mention their names:) ) But if the threat was not fabrication but merely teaching something outside the Qur’an (which Rashad claims) then what do we make out of the meaning? Suppose the  Qur’an said;” If the Prophet teaches something else( as Rashad claims per his translation) then We would seize him by the right hand and kill him.”   Does it not seem harsh that God would kill a prophet so violently for merely teaching something outside the Qur’an?  Dr. Khalifa knew that his own followers would cry injustice against God so in order to support his horrible translation of 69:44 he had to translate the next two verses in an equally horrible way. To create one crime, Dr. Khalifa had to commit two other crimes.

 

The claim that the Qur’an per 69:44 is forbidding the Prophet from “uttering any other teachings” is not completely incorrect against the actual Arabic. But this holds true only if this passage is read out of context. The notion that any other teachings are forbidden can be a valid implication from the plain meaning of 69:44. But the prohibition against other teachings would not be the actual meaning of the passage itself. In several of our other studies we pointed out how Dr. Khalifa uses language so loosely tied to the actual Arabic that it is difficult to even call it even “non-literal” or “correct.” Often, Dr. Khalifa would provide a translation based on a possible conclusion one could surmise from a verse but lacking in complete alignment with the plain meaning.  In the context of the immediate passages of the Qur’an as well as other verses throughout the Qur’an, the notion that  69:44 prohibits “any other teaching” is problematic due to the inconsistency of translation and other divine assertions concerning the role of the Prophet.

 

 

 

Leaving aside the poorly written subtitle, we assume Dr. Khalifa has 69:44 imply the Qur’an is the “only source of religious teachings” (per what he said elsewhere.)  We wonder the Prophet was able to teach and not able to teach according to Dr. Khalifa. Rashad could argue that Prophet was not allowed to teach anything because even in his translation the Prophet was ordered to “teach scripture” (2:151) meaning the Qur’an. Dr. Khalifa may argue that the Prophet was forbidden from teaching religious doctrines outside the Qur’an. But what does that mean? Would the prophet be prohibited from teaching basic ethics?  A Qur’an only person may argue that the Prophet could teach anything that was “consistent” with the Qur’an. But how are we to define what is acceptable terms of consistency for Dr. Khalifa’s adherents? (Not even their translation is consistent!)  If we say 69:44 implies such teachings forbidden that are outside of quranic notions such as reincarnation, blood atonement  then that may solve the problem of Dr. Khalifa’s meaning temporarily at least.

 

So Dr. Khalifa may argue that the Prophet is only to teach Qur’an (not teach outside it.)  But how according to Dr. Khalifa did the prophet “teach scripture”?  The prophet was forbidden from being able to explain the Qur’an based on Dr. Khalifa’s own teachings and translation such as Surah 75:16-19.  If Dr. Khalifa’s translation of the passages of Surah 75:16-19 and Surah 69:44-46 are both correct then we must conclude the following: The Prophet is forbidden from explaining the Qur’an and teaching anything outside the Qur’an.  If the prophet was forbidden from teaching anything outside the Qur’an and explaining the Qur’an then what in the world was God ordered the prophet to teach?

 

Perhaps a student of Dr. Khalifa would argue that the Prophet was ordered to teach the Qur’an by  recitation. In other words, the Prophet Muhammad was ordered to teach Qur’an recitation to people in the same way that the Qur’an was preserved by Muslims across the globe via oral tradition over 1400 years. A traditional rendering of  Surah 75:16-19 implies that the Prophet received the Quranic revelation and the act of verbal recitation was paramount to the revelatory process.  It would follow naturally then that the Prophet taught the Qur’an in the same way to the companions and so on. History records this.  But Dr. Khalifa would not be able to make this argument either. In the first case  Dr. Khalifa implicitly dismisses the Qur’ans verbal recitation as a means of preservation because it contradicts his FABRICATED notion that the Prophet wrote the Qur’an. ( We explained this in bulk in other places.) More importantly, there is no place in Dr. Khalifa’s own translation for the notion that the Prophet taught the Qur’an verbally.  Dr. Khalifa rendered Surah 75:16-19 to imply that the Prophet was forbidden from explaining the Qur’an. Thus, there is nothing in Dr. Khalifa’s rendering of the 3 passages imply the possibility of Dr. Khalifa teaching the Qur’an even by recitation. Thus there is no Quranic basis for the Prophet to teach the Qur’an by recitation.

 

If the Prophet is unable to A) explain the Qur’an B) teach anything outside the Quran and C) teach recitation of the Qur’an, then what exactly was the prophet ordered to teach? Would Dr. Khalifa believe the Prophet “taught” the Qur’an by mere repetition of Quranic ayats?  The mere repetition of words is not “teaching” by anyone’s definition. To end the discussion, Dr. Khalifa and his adherents assertion; that the Prophet is not able to explain the Qur’an; is incoherent.

 As we saw, Dr. Khalifa's rendering of 69:44-47 is at odds with traditional tafsirs, liberal modern commentators and even some Qur'an only adherents who follow his mantle in one way or another. Dr. Khalifa's translation is up against giants and no we don't consider the  Islamic clergy put on the turbaned pedestal  to be beyond re-approach.  It only takes a David to slay Goliath, provided it is done correctly.  But  Rashad bartered the sling-shot for the rubber band. Dr. Khalifa owed it to his readers why he diverged from the traditional interpretation here as well as elsewhere. Unfortunately, Rashad never provided an explanation as to how his rendering of taqawwal was better than the mainstream understanding. Perhaps, Dr. Khalifa's animosity towards the notion that the Prophet gave explanations of the Qur'an hindered Dr. Khalifa from giving his own. 

 

 

 

 

 

Do not move your tongue to hasten it 75:16

 

 “Do not move your tongue to hasten it.”

 

That “Muhammad Forbidden From Explaining the Quran” is the subtitle to verse 75:16 of Dr. Rashad Khalifa’s translation “The Final Testament.” Dr. Rashad Khalifa developed a couple of arguments to support his Qur’an only thesis. One of the arguments goes that the Prophet was forbidden from explaining the Qur’an.  The argument was derived from Dr. Khalifa’s reading of verses 16-19 of Surah Qiyamah and some other passages as well.  We will analyze Dr. Khalifa’s unique take of the passage from surah Qiyamah and compare it to traditional commentaries.

 

Tradition has often hindered the masses from reading the Qur’an.  Scholars have long argued that  the only interpretation  acceptable is the one they themselves offered. Reformists of various stripes have long challenged this view by noting the fact that the Qur’an is a book for the masses and should not be limited to a small elite.  People who subscribe to the Quran-alone movement developed unique arguments  to try to defend the egalitarian nature of the Qur’anic understanding. One argument that was developed by Dr. Rashad Khalifa (and continues to be used by adherents and non-followers) is the notion that God forbid the Prophet from explaining the message of the Qur’an. If the traditionalist theologians argued that one could only understand the Qur’an by reading a hadith book then the counter-argument goes that the Qur’an prohibits using any sources to explain itself. Dr. Khalifa developed a couple of arguments along these lines. One of his arguments is based on Surah Qiyamah ,verses 16-19.  Dr. Khalifa argued that the four verses make it clear that the Prophet was forbidden from explaining the Qur’an. A Dr. Khalifa student writes "He was commanded NOT to explain the Quran, and he followed that divine command." (Why should we follow Quran Alone? https://submission.org/Why_Quran_Alone.html)

 

[75:16] Do not move your tongue to hasten it. [75:17] It is we who will collect it into Quran. [75:18] Once we recite it, you shall follow such a Quran. [75:19] Then it is we who will explain it. (Rashad Khalifa trans.)

 

How do traditionalists understand these verses?  Ibn Kathir, a popular 13^th century Tafsir writes the following: This is Allah teaching His Messenger how to receive the revelation from the angel. For verily, he (the Prophet ) was rushing in his attempts to grasp the revelation and he would be reciting the revelation with the angel while he was reciting it. Therefore, Allah commanded him that when the angel brings some revelation to him he should just listen. Allah would make sure to collect it in his chest, and He would make it easy for him to recite it in the same way that it was revealed to him. Allah would explain it, interpret it and clarify it for him. So the first phase was gathering it in his chest, the second phase was recitation and the third phase was its explanation and clarification of its meaning.” (https://www.alim.org/quran/tafsir/ibn-kathir/surah/75/16/)

 

Ibn Kathir understood the verses under discussion to be a description of how the Prophet received Quranic revelation. The tasfir surmised that when the Prophet initially received the Qur’anic verses from the Angel Jibrael that the prophet was tempted to rush to repeat the verses. The prophet believed that once he listened to Jibreal recite the Qur’an than he needed to repeat the verses right away lest he forget them.  The Qur’an countered the Prophet’s assumption by telling him to listen to the Angel Jibrael, as opposed to rush to repeat the recitation (75:16) God assures the Prophet that God Himself is responsible for preserving it 75:17.)  Ibn Kathir writes that this will be “collected” in the prophet’s “chest” meaning that God will enable the prophet to memorize the Qur’an. T  Afterwards God would explain the Qur’an  (75:19)

 

Ibn Kathir quotes a narration from Ibn Abas (from Ahmad’s musnad) concerning 75:19, “that the Messenger of Allah used to struggle very hard to grasp the revelation and he used to move his lips (rapidly with the recitation). The narrator, Sa`id, then said, "Ibn `Abbas said to me, `I will move my lips like the Messenger of Allah used to move his lips (in order to show you).''' Then, the subnarrator said, "And Sa`id said to me, `I will move my lips like I saw Ibn `Abbas moving his lips (in order to show you).” The traditions record that the Prophet would rush to recite the Qur’an  and God via’ quranic revelation ordered the Prophet to cease that habit.  Ibn Kathir also records that according to Bukhari and Muslim ,” "So whenever Jibril would come to him he would be silent, and when Jibril had left he would recite it just as Allah, the Mighty and Sublime had promised him.'' The Prophet learned to listen to the recitation from Jibrael and only after the angel left would he recite.

 

Dr. Rashad Khalifa has a very different understanding of the 4 verses from the traditional narrative we posed. When the Qur’an said “Do not move your tongue to hasten it” this was evidently referring to the Prophet’s desire to explain the Qur’an. In Dr. Khalifa’s view, when a verse was brought to the Prophet, he was tempted to explain the meaning right away.  But this was prohibited to the prophet, according to Dr. Khalifa and his followers. They would perhaps argue that “It is we who collect it into the Qur’an” refers to a promise to the Prophet to answer the questions the prophet and the community had. (We are not trying to strawman Dr. Khalifa but simply ascertain what he would argue based on other assertions he made.)Dr. Khalifa would definitely however  argue the verse “ Then it is we who will explain it” refers to a promise by God to explain the Qur’an.  In this way there would be no need to rush to explain the Qur’an. That God ordered the prophet to not rush to speak the Qur’an and promised to explain the Qur’an, according to Dr. Khalifa , means that the Prophet is forbidden from explaining the Qur’an himself.

 

I tried to different commentaries on the above verses but most of them give an explanation along the lines of Ibn Kathir.  I welcome Dr. Khalifa’’s attempts to provide a new understanding of the Qur’an. I do not consider it intellectually great to merely repeat traditional explanations of old.  I am writing this so the reader will not get the impression that my goal is to defend “tradition” against the onslaught of radicals Qur’an only folks. We should follow the arguments where they lead. The question is who is more in line with what the Qur’an is saying?

 

Traditionalists and Dr. Khalifa both argue that the Surah Qiyamah in verses 16-19 are talking about the process of revelation.  Traditionalists however say that the Prophet is being informed not to rush to repeat the Qur’an as quickly as it is revealed to him. Dr. Khalifa argues that the verses inform the Prophet to not explain the Qur’an.  Traditionalists and Dr. Khalifa offer a very different understanding of the four verses in question. A traditionalist may argue that their understanding is better because they have the testimony of hadith, historical accounts of the Prophet’s experience and the agreement of the popular tafsirs.  A quranists may argue that none of those items matter for understanding he Qur’an and we should just read the Qur’an alone.

 

Dr. Khalifa made a bold assertion on the meaning of the above verses from surah Qiyamah.  But what does Dr. Khalifa have to say to counter the traditional narrative? Absolutely nothing. All Dr. Khalifa is offer a new interpretation he limits to a subtitle “Muhammad forbidden from explaining the Qur’an.”  Why did not Dr. Khalifa try to offer a more comprehensive explanation? Does not Dr. Khalifa owe it to his followers? The weight of tradition is heavy.  Because Dr. Khalifa hardly says anything we felt compelled to “strawman” by tying to see how he would argue things.  The fact that Dr. Khalifa didn’t give a comprehensive answer is typical of his style as we have discussed in our other articles.

 

76:17“It is We who will collect the Qur’an” is a response to the command “Do not hasten your tongue” of 75:16.  A traditionalist would argue that the meaning is the Prophet is ordered not to quickly repeat the Quranic revelation given to him because God has promised to protect it.  Dr. Khalifa  argues that 75:16 is not about repeating the Qur’an at all. For him, 75:16 orders the Prophet to not explain the Qur’an. A Quranist may offer 75:19 as proof of their assertion but how would Dr. Khalifa or any of his students argue the meaning of 75:16 in their line of thinking? If you are told; “do not explain the Qur’an, it is  We who will preserve it” then how is our promise to preserve the Qur’an a response to our order not to explain it? Dr. Khalifa’s assertion does not make sense.

 

75:18 tells the Prophet “Once we recite it, you shall follow such a Quran.” The verse is understood by traditionalists and most people to mean that the Prophet listen to the angel recite the qur’an and then the prophet was to follow it by repeating the recitation.  How does Dr. Khalifa understand this verse?  His translation “follow such a quran” is somewhat puzzling. The arabic only says to follow the Qur’an. There is understood to be only one Qur’an we do not know why the word “such” was used by Dr. Khalifa. In any case, we cannot be sure how Dr. Khalifa understood the meaning. Did he understood it to mean to repeat the recitation (the way traditionalists held?) It is doubtful because it would not follow where he is leading. If Dr. Khalifa understood the verse to mean “obey the Quran” then that may bolster his case.  We would however argue that this is not a good interpretation as it does not follow from the previous two verses.

 

“Then it is we who will explain it.” is taken as proof by Dr. Khalifa that only God explains the Qur’an.  Therefor the Prophet is forbidden from doing so. But the fact that the Qur’an promises God will explain it does not necessitate God forbidding the prophet from providing an explanation.  This claim by Quranists is not even logical. One cannot derive  “Prophet forbidden” from explanation by the mere fact “God explains it.” That is equivalent to arguing “I explain the book”, thus “you are forbidden from explaining.”  God explaining the Qur’an does not inhibit the Prophet, or anyone else from also explaining the Qur’an.  The qur’anists may see verse 75:19 as following 75:16; “Do not hasten to explain.. it is We who will explain.” But the problem with that understanding is that it has to disregard verses 17 and 18 to make it work, or try to spin doctor them away.

 

The other problem with Dr. Khalifa’s interpretation is that it doesn’t follow from a pan-textual analysis. Surah Taha also discusses the subject mater of the Prophet reciting the qur’an. If Dr. Khalifa is right in that the command by God to the Prophet to not rush recitation somehow means the prophet is forbidden from explaining the Qur’an then we would expect to see that “explanation” (of the prophet being forbidden from explain) in all cases that make mention of the command.  But when we turn to surah Taha we read ,” “[20:114] Most Exalted is GOD, the only true King. Do not rush into uttering the Quran before it is revealed to you, and say, "My Lord, increase my knowledge."  One can check the context of Surah 20:114 and not find any mention of God explaining the Qur’an as part of the prophetic process.  Surah Taha reassures the Prophet, just as Surah Qiyamah does; that the prophet should not rush recitation because God will protect the Qur’an.

 

Dr. Khalifa and his followers argue that the Qur’an is clear. They make the argument to avoid a need for explaining anything.  But Dr. Khalifa’s assertion that the Prophet is forbidden from explaining the Qur’an  does not appear to be clear from the Qur’an itself. The Qur’an says that the Prophet is assigned by God to teach the Quran (2:251) for example, and the Khalifa followers have the task to inform us how the Prophet is to teach the Qur’an without explaining it!  It is ironic that the Quranists need to explain something that pertains to the Prophet being forbidden from explaining!  If the Prophet is forbidden from explaining the Qur’an then why should the Quran-only followers even bother to try as well?   

 

Perhaps the Quransits would argue that the Prophet in his role as “teacher” of the Qur’an was not about explaining the Qur’an. They could argue that his role was limited to reciting the Qur’an and telling them how to recite it. Ironically, Dr. Khalifa would NOT be able to use this argument either. The main verses that discuss the Prophet reciting the Qur’an are based on 75:16-19, which happen to be the ayats we are discussing here. The verses were traditionally understood to indicate how the Prophet was to learn Quranic recitation. Dr. Khalifa could have used the traditional explanation in Surah 75:16 to make a claim that teaching the Qur’an did not involve “explaining” the holy writ. But because Dr. Khalifa twisted the meaning of Surah 75:16-21 to indicate the Prophet was forbidden from explaining the Qur’an, he thus could not make that argument!

 

Traditional explanations should all be viewed with some skeptical enquiry. Traditional explanations are sometimes correct however just as radical new explanations are sometimes wrong.  Dr. Khalifa may have been correct to challenge traditional interpretations in some ways but he was not infallible. No where does the Qur’an forbid the Prophet from explaining the Qur’an.  Dr. Khalifa never bothered to make an explanation to oppose the traditional answer. There is no reason to take Dr. Khalifa’s assertions seriously.  Traditional explanations should be critiqued when needed but Dr. Khalifa’s “challenge” can be disregarded here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edip Yuksel on Medina, A federal secular republic?

 

 Medina, A federal secular republic?

 

Edip Yuksel is politically progressive and vocal about it. We can even see his politics preach out to us from the pages of his work, which he calls the “Reformist translation of the Qur’an.”  A couple of times Edip Yuksel refers to the early state established by the Muslims as a “federal secular republic.” At other times Yuskel labels the early state of Medina as a “federal secular democracy.”  The words democracy, secular and federal come up time again throughout his translation. Is this best way to refer to the early state of Medianh? We will briefly examine Edip Yuksel’s claims on the nature state established by the Prophet Muhammad.

 

The treaty of Hudayybiyah is an important hallmark in Islamic history. Often referred to as the “constitution” of Medinah, the treaty is certainly a pioneer effort in establishing a just society along the lines of different communities living and thriving together.  The treaty was established by the Prophet Muhammad in an alliance with the non- believing tribes and Jews that inhabited the city of Medinah.  There is always a tendency to exaggerate the good aspects of history. The treaty of Hudayybiyah is in my view proof of the good intentions of the Prophet Muhammad and the nascent Muslim community.  But  how much more can we say about it?  Edip Yuksel believes the treaty is proof that the Prophet had modern concepts of government.  Yuksel uses the treaty and some verses of the Qur’an to attempt to prove his assertions that that Quran exhibits “progressive” notions. Commenting on 2:193 Yuksel writes in the footnote “ God's system is based on freedom of faith and expression. God's system recommends an egalitarian republic, and a federally secular system that allows multiple jurisdictions for different religious or non-religious groups..”   We will see Yukel use the terms “secular” “federal” and “republic” over and over again.

 

In what way would Yuksel argue that the Islamic system established by the Prophet Muhamad was a republic as he comments on 2:193?  Elsewhere, commenting on 4:140 Yuksel said that the early Medinian state  was a “federal secular democracy.” Democracy or republic? Which is it?  We assume that Yuskel would know the difference between the two terms: democracy and republic. We understood that often the terms “democracy” and republic” are used interchangeably.  But Yuksel has an obligation to describe the nature of this republic/democratic state.  What was the nature of participation of the masses of people in the state to make it a democracy? Were there elected representatives to govern Medina like a republic? If so, then who elected them?  We do not really get an answer to these questions in the commentary Edip provides.

 

One claim is made to prove the democratic nature of the state by using the pledge of women to the Prophet as an example. He refers to the pledge as the “right to vote.” Commenting on 60:12 Yuskel writes, “In this verse, the prophet acknowledges women's right to vote, by taking the pledge of believing women to peacefully surrender themselves to God alone and lead a righteous life. The word "BaYA'" used in the verse implies the political nature of the pledge; they accepted the leadership of the prophet individually, with their free choice. This verse is not about some pagan or mushrik women embracing islam, but is about a group of muslim women publicly announcing their allegiance to Muhammad, who became a founder of a federally secular constitutional government in central Arabia…”      According to Yuksel, the example of the women pledging their allegiance to the Prophet is an example of the “right to vote”   He tries to show the arabic baya as indicating a “political nature.”   We then see this as proof of a “federally secular constitutional government.”

 

Yuksel is right that 60:12 is not referring to idolaters who just embraced islam.  Giving baya is not just limited to embracing islam. A pledge is given to reigning caliphs as well as Sufi murshids by people who have long accepted islam.  In both these cases one proclaims loyalty to a respective person. But how exactly the pledge an example of the “right to vote?”  Was there anyone else to give the pledge to?  Sure, the women had the choice not to pledge that alone does not  qualify the situation as a “right to vote.”

 

What is the nature of the pledge to the prophet?  One of the first pledges was at Aqaba when the Prophet traveled to Medinah at the beginning of Hijra.  A hadith attributed to ibn Jarir in Bukhari gives a similar list of duties prescribed to the companions on their pledge to the prophet.  The point of the pledge is to give obedience to the messenger of God. Obedience is not the same as democracy because you cannot un-elect the messenger of God. The verses that discuss obedience to the messenger are well known and elaborated upon in Surah Nisa and elsewhere.  To claim that giving bay3 has anything to do with the right to vote is misleading.

Edip Yuksel describes the system of government as “federal secularism” when commenting on 2:193. What does that term even mean? We need to break these terms down. Yuksel continues about Medinah, that the prophet, “established a successful example of a federal secular system by dividing the territory into independent legal jurisdictions to accommodate the diverse religious, social, and political preferences of its communities.” The treaty of Hudaybiyah established a system in which the various tribes and societies that composed Median had their own respective laws. The Muslims had their courts to use for various affairs and the Jews had their own courts to use which were independent of Muslim jurisdiction.  Yuksel gives the example in Surah 5:83 where the Prophet asks a group of Jews why they take legislation from him when they have the Torah. A federal system of government has a strong central authority but allows for internal affairs.  The system at Medinah could be described as federal in this sense but it was one based on tribal societies and not based on the modern notions of a state that came into being after the treaty of Westphalia on modern times.

 

Where does the “secularism” come into the Medina society?  Yuksel finds it apparently in the non-coercive religious authority that existed in Medina. But a lack of religious of coercion need not imply secularism. When the debate about secularism comes up we often bring up the subject the separation of church and state.  Could we really describe early Islam as being subservient to such notions? Yuksel believes the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah  manifested secularism due to non-coercive character of the constitution which is true. But did the treaty advocate a “secular” environment like the one we talk about where there is a separation of church and state?  That would be a weak argument. It is well known that in the original draft of the Treaty the Jews told Hazrat Ali to remove the words “messenger of God” by the Prophet’s name. “O Ali! Delete it and write ‘Muhammad b. Abdullah’.” (Sahih Muslim; Ahmad.)  Ali did not want to remove the term but Muhammad consented to it eventually.  No one would call a document “secular” that had the word “messenger of God attached.”  Of course the term “messenger of God” was not in the ratified agreement but the intention of the founders was well known.  The society of Medinah was not one in which one group coerced the others to have another faith. But to argue that the society was “secular” is problematic. 

 

The terms “secular” and “federal” have to do with modern notions of the state that did not exist at the time of the Qur’an reception.  I agree with Edip Yuksel that the society created by the Prophet manifested some values that modern egalitarian thinkers can look upon as being noteworthy for contemporary political issues. However to label the early Medina society as a “democracy” or “secular” creates anachronistic problems. When we read the Qur’an the believer had the double task of not sacrificing their own values (the way fundamentalists do)  but also the other task of not trying to push their own values into the Qur’an itself.

 

 

 

Does Quran forbid hadith?

 

        Does Quran forbid hadith?

 

Many people who consider themselves  Qu’an only followers (or Quranists) disregard hadith for any theological purpose. The people who constitute Quransits have a wide variety of beliefs and man do not have a clear ideological agenda. There are a small group of Quranists group that take a stronger stance against hadith however. They aregue that not only should hadith be disregarded but that hadith is forbidden by the Qur’an Dr. Rashad Khalifa and his students argued that hadith is a satanic innovation.  To make their point Dr. Khalifa and his followers argued that the Qur’an explicitly forbids hadith from use. Furthermore, they argue that the use of hadith constitutes idolatry. Does the Qur’an forbid the use of hadith?  We will explore the arguments of the Quranists.

 

The start of our enquiry demands it appropriate we define out terms. What is a hadith? A hadith is considered for a narration that records the words and actions attributed to the Prophet Muhammad.  This is the definition of hadith that is widespread for colloquial in Arabic and other languages. A hadith in this context may have a broader meaning to include sayings and actions of companions, without reference to the Prophet. There are many such hadiths included in the popular “sahih” books that are considered hadith despite not having the Prophet mentioned as a source.  In any case this definition of hadith as a narration that refers to the Prophet is the one subject of debate between Quranists and everyone else.  This definition of hadith however as information that refers in some way to the Prophet Muhammad is a limited definition that developed at some time in history.  Before there was a Bukhari or Muwatta collection, the word hadith had a more expansive definition.  Therefore, we are obligated to seek a more expansive understanding of hadith that won’t get trapped in  anachronistic reasoning. Would the Prophet and his companions understand our use of the word hadith in the same way? No.

 

What is the definition of hadith according to the Qur’an?How the Qur’an and people contemporary to the Qur’an’s revelation are vital to understand the meaning of hadith. The Qur’an provides a number  of examples for us. We should review them and then come up with a general idea on how we can understand hadith based on the Qur’an alone.

The way that Rashad Khalifa and his followers understand hadith is what most of us are concerned with. There are verses in the Qur’an that refer to information outside the Quran as hadith. These references appear to be negative. We will cite verses that Dr. Khalifa used for arguments against hadith.  “ [7:185] Have they not looked at the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all the things GOD has created? Does it ever occur to them that the end of their life may be near? Which Hadith, beside this, do they believe in?”, “[77:50] Which Hadith, other than this, do they uphold?” [31:6] The previous two verses require more comment but just need to be told for now. Another verse speaks about “baseless” hadith. 31:6 “Among the people, there are those who uphold baseless Hadith, and thus divert others from the path of GOD without knowledge, and take it in vain. These have incurred a shameful retribution. “        Surely, if a hadith is baseless it could not have much value. The above verses are listed in Quranists polemics.

 

But the Qur’an does not limit the definition of hadith to this outside information.  In fact, the  Qur’an refers to itself as hadith:”[39:23] GOD has revealed herein the best Hadith; a book that is consistent, and points out both ways (to Heaven and Hell). The skins of those who reverence their Lord cringe therefrom, then their skins and their hearts soften up for GOD's message. Such is GOD's guidance; He bestows it upon whomever He wills. As for those sent astray by GOD, nothing can guide them.” The Qur’an is called the best hadith. The Quranists are aware of verses like this and cite them as evidence against hadith they do not like (Bukhari, sunan hadith,etc.) The Qur’an tells us how bad it is to reject a hadith such as the holy writ : 68:44] Therefore, let Me deal with those who reject this Hadith; we will lead them on whence they never perceive.”   If the Qur’an is hadith then obviously not all hadith is bad. The Qur’an is included in the definition of hadith and therefore a more expansive definition of hadith is required.

 

The references to the past prophets are found throughout the Qur’an. “51:24] Have you noted the history of Abraham's honorable guests?” The story about Abraham and his guests is found in the book of Genesis, the first book of the Torah. Elsewhere the Qur’an makes mention of Moses “[20:9] Have you noted the history of Moses?” This verse also references the Torah. Both of the cited verses use the word “hadth” in arabic to refer to the narration of those stories which are found in the bible. The use of the word “hadith” is positive in these cases. The Qur’an is making reference to the stories from previous scriptures to teach a lesson to the readers.  The use of the term hadith may not be known to followers of Dr. Khalifa because he  did not choose to leave the word “hadith” untranslated in these cases. However, students of the Qur’an even with minimal knowledge would be aware that references to biblical stories are marked by the term hadith. It is therefor evident that a type of hadith exists outside of the Qur’an which has a positive nature.  The Qur’an is referencing the Torah and other books of the bible like the Gospels or Zubor to prove a point. But for the Qur’an to use these stories the reader is expected to accept the validity of the stories to the degree that the Qur’an deems necessarily.  If all hadith, other than Qur’an, were deemed false than the Qur’an would not use the term “hadith” to refer to previous revelatory dispensations.

 

References to the bible are not the only information that the Qur’an refers to as hadith.  “[12:6] "Your Lord has thus blessed you, and has given you good news through your dream. He has perfected His blessings upon you and upon the family of Jacob, as He did for your ancestors Abraham and Isaac before that. Your Lord is Omniscient, Most Wise." There is a whole Surah in the Qur’an entitled Joseph. The prophet Joseph was recognized as an interpreter of dreams. The verse in the original arabic uses the word hadith to refer to dreams in fact.  Again in the same chapter we read “[12:21] The one who bought him in Egypt said to his wife, "Take good care of him. Maybe he can help us, or maybe we can adopt him." We thus established Joseph on earth, and we taught him the interpretation of dreams. GOD's command is always done, but most people do not know.” The word hadith is used in the arabic to refer to dreams that must be interpreted.  Dreams share a rank in the information sources similar to that of biblical narrations in the view of the Qur’an.  Both these information sources are considered valid paths for knowledge. Both also serve to elucidate the passages in the Qur’an.   Dreams, like biblical narrations, are a source of information outside the Qur’an which are seen in a positive light and are thus referred to as “hadith.” We also should note that Dr. khalifa did not choose to interpret the word “hadith” to refer to dreams here.

 

One last example of the word “Hadith” in the Qur’an comes from Surah 66.” [66:3] The prophet had trusted some of his wives with a certain statement, then one of them spread it, and GOD let him know about it. He then informed his wife of part of the issue, and disregarded part. She asked him, "Who informed you of this?" He said, "I was informed by the Omniscient, Most Cognizant."   In this case the Prophet learned information directly from God concerning a matter with one of his wives.  The word hadith is use here in this verse. Pay attention to the words “He then informed his wife of part of the issue, and disregarded part.” The literal translation would be "he made known a part of it and avoided a part." Dr. Khalifa’s use of the word “issue” although not incorrect, does not reflect the plain meaning of the text.  The arabic word “part of it (badahu)” is referring to the arabic “hadith” in the same verse. Thus God gave the Prophet information (hadith) about something related to his wives. In that process of revelation some of the information (hadith) was invalidated but other parts of the information was deemed truthful. Thus we see that the Qur’an did not totally invalidate the “hadith” in question. Instead, the Qur’an affirmed part of the hadith and denied the other part. If al hadith was condemned by the Qur’an we would not expect to see such a statement like that of 66:3.

 

No where in the Qur’an does it explicitly reject hadith in general. There is no verse that says all hadith are bad. Dr. Khalifa and his followers constructed such claims by ignoring the way the Qur’an actually discusses hadith. There are times when hadith is accepted and other times when hadith is rejected. Ultimately, one could construct an argument against hadith independent of what the Qur’an says. But the claim of some Quranists, that all “hadith” is denied by Qur’an does not hold up to scrutiny.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which hadith besides the Qur’an do they believe in?

 

Which hadith besides the Qur’an do they believe in?

 

Does the Qu’ran contain instructions to deny all information outside of the qur’an? The disciples of the Qur’an only movement argue that the holy writ does people explicitly to disregard hadith. They often quote Dr. Rashad Khalifa’s translation wherein it is asked “in which hadith do they believe in other than the Qur’an?” This question appears in multiple forms in the following verses: 7:185, 45:6, 52:34 and 77:50.  Is the Qur’an making this statement to deny any hadith besides the Qur’an? Our discussion of the four verses will seek to understand if the common Qur’anist interpretations line up with a contextual analysis.

 

[7:185] Have they not looked at the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all the things GOD has created? Does it ever occur to them that the end of their life may be near? Which Hadith, beside this, do they believe in?

 

We first encounter the question “Which hadith do they believe in?” with Surah Araf. We are encountered in 7:185 with a question about divine providence in the universe that a believer should note when the world is contemplated.  With the vastness of the heavens and the short life span of human beings we should note that there must be something more to the world than what the foolish attribute to it. It is obvious when it is asked, “Which Hadith, beside this, do they believe in?” that “besides this” refers only to the Qur’an. What does the Qur’an have in mind that it is juxtaposing itself to a hadith? The context makes this clear. “[7:182] As for those who reject our revelations, we lead them on without them ever realizing it.” We are told that the Qur’an has something to say about the rejectors and their claim that the Prophet was crazy (ibid 184.)  It is the context of encountering rejectors of divine revelation that 7:185 seeks to elucidate.  The verse is essentially asking us to complete the universe for God’s signs.  The Qur’an is our guide to understand the world and our purpose in it. By asking the disbelievers “which hadith” do they believe in besides the Qur’an, they are being asked if they have a better explanation for the world. What information do they have to counter the message of the Qur’an?

 

45:6] These are GOD's revelations that we recite to you truthfully. In which Hadith other than GOD and His revelations do they believe?

Dr. Rashad Khalifa believes Surah jathiyah 45:6 is antagonistic to hadith when it is asked “in which hadith other than God and His revelations do they believe?”  Dr. Khalifa writes in the footnote to the verse, “God condemns "Hadith" by name, and informs us that it is a blasphemous fabrication.” But the context to the discussion appears just as we saw in Surah araf. “[45:5] Also, the alternation of the night and the day, and the provisions that GOD sends down from the sky to revive dead lands, and the manipulation of the winds; all these are proofs for people who understand.” The verse right before Surah 45:6 asks us to reflect on the world at large. Earlier we noted the vase expanse of the universe but here in surah 45 we are talking about the movement in time. Just as we see a change from the night till day in a continuous cycle and we see the change of seasons as reflected by the earth’s vegetation, we should understand our place in the cycle of things.  In 45:3 the Qur’an says that the world is “full proof” for believers.  Yet the disbelievers do not listen and must be warned of a painful retribution 45:8.

 

If the disbelievers deny God’s signs in the universe than what else do they have to offer as an explanation? Which other hadith do they believe in?  Obviously, a hadith talking about the Prophet’s interactions with people has nothing to do with what type of “hadith” the Qur’an has in mind. The Qur’an is asking the unbeliever for an alternative explanation. Perhaps one can be sought in a popular atheist publication. The challenge is there just as we saw in surah Araf.

 

What about Dr. Khalifa’s footnote where he alleges “God condemns hadith by name.”  Dr. Khalifa must have read the Qur’an in the most superficial or deceptive manner to come up with this conclusion. We have discussed earlier how hadith has a range in meanings. The Qur’an is called the best hadith. Dreams are called hadith and accepted as valid information.  The Qur’an condemns “vain hadith.” The previous scriptures has stories referred to as hadith.  We see that hadith has a vast amount of meaning that all deal with information of one sort or another. The highest level of hadith is the qur’an itself which is highly praised. Lower levels of hadith include other types of revelation such as dreams, intuition but any information such as a book or a book of hadiths would be included in category of hadith.  The Qur’an obviously does not condemn all these categories of hadith but only the lowest categories.  That every “ hadith is condemned by name” is false. Nor is the Qur’an even discussing the type of hadiths that are attributed to the prophet and the companions, as we discussed above.

[52:34] Let them produce a Hadith like this, if they are truthful.

 

Surah Tour presents us with a challenge to produce a hadith like the Qur’an in 52:34.  Dr. Khalifa writes in the subtitle on top of the verse ,” "Mohammedans" Challenge God and Produce Hadith.” He evidently thinks the “hadiths” mentioned here are the same hadiths of the writings of the narration collections attributed to the prophet and early personalities. Is this really so?

 

The context for 52:34 provides us with the frame for the discussion.  On the allegations made against the Prophet ,” you are neither a soothsayer, nor crazy” (52:29.) The allegation that the Prophet was mentally unsound is mentioned a couple of times in the Qur’an. The disbelievers call the Prophet a “poet.” (ibid 30) The disbelievers doubt the prophet’s mission so strongly they advise each other to wait for his death. The Qur’an tells the prophet to respond that he will wait with them.  52:31.  The Qur’an asks the disbelievers furthermore if they allege the prophet forged the revelation.  The disbelievers are asked if the universe was created from nothing or if they themselves contributed to their creation(ibid 35)

 

The question, “which hadith” do they believe, is a challenge to the disbelievers just as the previous verses were. We are asked to contemplate the creation of the universe and this time the prophet’s mission specifically.  When the Qur’an asks if people really believe it is a forgery we are asked to contemplate the verses themselves so we can ascertain the truth for ourselves.

 

The question “which hadith.. like the Qur”an” is similar to another question we see mentioned several times in the holy writ. [2:23] If you have any doubt regarding what we revealed to our servant,* then produce one sura like these, and call upon your own witnesses against GOD, if you are truthful.” The challenge to produce a work like the Qur’an is well known. The challenges to produce a work of information are one and the same.  There is no reason to believe the vast amount of orthodox Muslims are being challenged with any of these verses.

 

And of Dr. Khalifa’s subtitle to 52:31 “Mohammedans" Challenge God and Produce Hadith” ? Obviously,52:31 is not a challenge to the believers in hadith. The verse is a challenge to the disbelievers in the Qur’an’s revelation.  The disbelievers deny the divine origins of the planet and the existence of revelation. The so-called Mohammedans deny neither.  The subject matter of the hadith books hardly deal with matters of creation and revelation. The hadith books are mostly records about worship, ethical dealings, applied jurisprudence, etc.

 

[77:50] Which Hadith, other than this, do they uphold?

 

The last verse of Surah Musalaat asks “Which hadith” other than this(quran) do they uphold.  We ask who is the Qur’an talking to? The previous verse 77:49 warns the rejectors of truth and those that refuse to bow down (ibid 48.) The refusal to bow before God is a trademark of Satan.  The question posed to the disbelievers is the same question posed as the other verses  proclaim.  It is not a question for people who believe in the Qur’an and also hadiths.

 

As we saw in our analysis of the above verses, the challenge to the disbelievers does not have anything to do with juxtaposing Qur’an with “hadiths” of the canonical type in the way Dr. Khalfia wants us to believe.  To claim that the “hadith” being attacked in the Qur’an refers to the modern hadith collections (Which didn’t exist at the time of the Prophet) is anachronistic as we learned. Hadith has an expansive meaning in the Qur’an and not all hadiths are condemned.  The hadith referred to in these challenges are specific information juxtaposed to what the Qur’an is saying. In other words, if the Qur’an is saying that the world was crate by God then what information do disbelievers have to counter the divine claim?  Aside from contradictory hadith, the vast majority of hadith are congruent with the information in the Qur’an or have nothing to do with the subject matter. Obviously the claim of being congruent has nothing to do with the authenticity of hadith.  But there is no reason to conclude that the canonical hadiths are being challenged here.  Although any work that contradicts the Qur’an should be disputed.

 

If one wants to ask the question, “which hadith do they believe in?” outside of the context of the Quranic discussion then that is their right.  I would agree with the Quranists that the above verses could be used to argue against hadith and any other information that contradicts the Qur’an. But to juxtapose those Quranic questions to any and all information outside of the Qur’an is out of place and incoherent. If the Qur’an denied all outside information there would be more proof of this throughout the Qur’an. But the Qur’an never denies every source of information. The Qur’an as the Furqan is the means of discernment between good and bad information. Therefor if the Quranists ask “which hadith do you believe in” other than Qur’an then the response is any information is believed which is congruent with the Qur’an.