Hearsay, hadith and history

 Hearsay, hadith and history: A critique of a  “Quranist” argument against hadith.

 

Adherents of the “Quran-only” movement take a dismissive role towards hadith. Different currents within the movement may outright reject all hadith, reject some of it or simply ignore hadith. The purpose here is to examine a specific argument among Quranists which rejects hadith because of it’s equivalence to hearsay information.  Can one reasonably reject the historical value of hadith because it is hearsay? Our enquiry sets about going through brief observations of the Quranist movement’s approach to hadith and the role of hearsay in legal history.

 What is hearsay? One popular definition floating around google “information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.” This definition of hearsay is found in a number of places including websites of attorneys. Interestingly enough, since I could not  locate the above definition to a specific source, this definition of hearsay may be “hearsay” itself.  The use of the word “rumor” for hearsay is also interesting here.  Often in colloquial English we will say “that is hearsay” when referring to information that is not verifiable.   A rumor is basically defined as any unverifiable account.  We can see why a rumor and hearsay are often used simultaneously. But hearsay and rumor are not always the same.  A statement that is attributed to a specific person could be hearsay  for example. That same statement could not be a “rumor” since we know the alleged source of the statement even without the ability to prove the statement occurred.

 

The Quranists claim that hadith is hearsay and I believe their assertion is correct.  The traditions that state the prophet made a statement or made an action are not based on direct eye witnesses accounts but on accounts of people who heard accounts from someone else.  The type of information in hadith collection is indirect.  Traditionalists defend the validity of collection but the Quranists may challenge it. But our only point is that no matter how valid (or invalid) the hadith methodology is, it is still “hearsay” according to any recognized definition of the term.  But  what follows from the act that hadith is hearsay?

 There may be similar if not competing definitions of hearsay but the most important use of the term “hearsay” has to do with the legal process. Hearsay is defined by legal platforms in many countries to mean any statement that was not made in court.  If person A serves as a witness and claims person B who is not present made a statement , that would be considered hearsay by definition and usually it would not be included as “evidence.”   With the legal definition in play we can provide a clearer understanding of what hearsay is.  Any statement or information that is attributed to someone not present in space or time  is by definition hearsay.

 The legal rules against using hearsay have good intent. If ALL hearsay was allowed in court than a defendant could have his or her case destroyed due to unverifiable evidence.  The rules against hearsay provide a certain amount of protection for people accused of crimes. Ideally cases should be proved with the best type of evidence possible and hearsay falls lower in the totem pole obviously compared to DNA evidence, video footage, and eye-witness accounts. An eye witness  can be questioned on the stand to verify if their statement is accurate. If someone made a statement outside of court than that information would not be available to be scrutinized for factual accuracy.

 The term “hearsay” got lucky and defamed at the same time in English.  Most Americans are not familiar with legal terminology but they would know “hearsay” from popular media, television and movies. These venues use the term “hearsay” frequently as it is the only term that the actors and producers are familiar with.  Unfortunately, The constant repetition of the mantra by lawyers “your honor that statement (of my opponent)  is hearsay” rings a familiar bell which autosuggests that hearsay is a) bad and b) automatically dismissed as evidence.  But this is far from the truth.

People wrongly assume that hearsay information is automatically thrown out of court. In fact there are several exceptions to the laws against hearsay.  In fact the U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence  has an eleven page discussion  devoted to these exemptions that are made all the time in court. ( See Article VIII, Rule 801 of the Federal Rules of Evidence .) Most countries incorporate legal system which eliminate hearsay as much as possible. But one would find that there are exemptions to the hearsay laws wherever they are to be found.

We can go over a few examples of hearsay exemptions here. What if a person’s statement is considered important but that individual could  not be present? A statement made by someone on their death bed and used in court is by definition “hearsay” but it is considered acceptable evidence  in the US court system. If a witness found an unfortunate  person about to pass away and told the doctor that “person A killed me” then this would be used in court.

What if someone made a statement incriminating themselves? One of the principles inhibiting hearsay is to protect someone against bias information. But if someone says something that is technically hearsay but provides information that does not work in their favor then this is deemed allowable evidence.  This person would not have wanted to say something bad about themselves but they did without realizing it. Courts use this type of hearsay all the time.

Could a court put a child on the stand? All states allow for children to provide testimony out of court so they do not have to go through the trauma of being on the witness stand. In cases of sexual abuse crimes the victims will provide information to a forensic interviewer and the recorded evidence would be used in court.   The testimony of the children will influence and effect the custodial placement and inhibit the alleged perpetrators from hurting the child. In practice though when it comes to criminal prosecution, sex crimes require higher standards of evidence but the non-participant testimony of children does effect decisions made on the family law circuit.  Custody battles are very fierce and criminal type allegations are made frequently  and the courts have to do with unhindered allegations frequently.

 What about the level of someone’s excitement? A 911 call made by someone not in court is technically hearsay. But if 911 caller made a statement in excitement this would possibly prove the person’s truthfulness of the event. A person who deliberately plans to call 911 with a bad motive may not be able to show a certain degree of excitement necessary for truthfulness.

 There is also the question of prior inconsistent statements. Person A may give testimony that appears to be truthful. But the legal opponent may be aware that Person A lied before such as during a deposition and has an untrustworthy character.    Witnesses are grilled on the stand all the time for these discrepancies.

What about evidence  in a car accident case?   I could be in a car accident and accuse Johnny of running me over. However if Johnny summons the EMT to court and the latter claims I told EMT “I ran over myself” then that would be acceptable hearsay.  Johnny could use a statement I told the EMT in court against me. The reason is because federal law allows statements made for medical diagnosis.

Are not records hearsay? Medical records are used all the time in court cases ranging from lawsuits to criminal cases.  This holds true with business records as well.  An attorney could not cross examine a record but they could summon someone to court that created the records. Documentation from hospitals and commercial entities are used frequently in legal settings.

Eleven pages of exceptions is not a small number and some people will claim that with so many exceptions to the rule that perhaps the “rule” does not exist. Scientists define laws of nature such as gravity, and etc as unbreakable (even this is questioned!) If a discovery was made to contradict that law then future scientists may reframe our understanding of the observations in nature.  Sometimes professionals in both religious and secular law like to consider their methodologies as “fool proof” if not scientific.  Incorrect assumptions exist that a Judge merely looks at a “statute book”(excuse my Rashadian terminology) and repeats it.  Politicians repeats these myths so they could claim they were only following the law and making incorrect judgements themselves. However, scholars of legal philosophy point out that decision making and one’s own opinion does enter the judicial process even in cases where analogous reasoning is minimized. This is also why some writers on law (both religious and secular) have talked about their field as an “art” more so than a science. The point here is that the boundary between “hard” facts and other types of knowledge is bigger than what it actually is.

 Because of shows like “law and order” one could be excused for believing that all hearsay is thrown out of court. Unfortunately these fictionalized legal dramas also give people false impressions about broader questions such as the role of circumstantial evidence verse that of direct evidence. Many people think that “circumstantial evidence” is thrown out just as they wrongly assume all hearsay is dismissed.  When “objection, hearsay” for example is said repeatedly, a person will assume that all hearsay is unacceptable. People get this impression both on television and in actual court rooms. But a subtle truth is being missed.  The very fact that the objection to hearsay is used shows that hearsay is a regular part of the judicial process. 

 A brief illustration about circumstantial evidence is warranted to show the difference between direct and indirect evidence. If a lawyers ask a witness about an event and the witness saw the event for themselves that would be direct evidence. If a witness however did not see an event but met other people that did, this would be considered indirect evidence (or circumstantial evidence.) Yesterday I saw it was raining outside because I walked on the porch or saw the rain through the window. But today I was inside typing and only heard it was raining from my co-workers. If the court asked me if it rained today I could only provide circumstantial evidence. The reality though is that circumstantial evidence like this is often used in court.

Very few cases are determined based on direct evidence. The role of circumstantial evidence is known by all legal scholars and  recognized as  evidence determining an outcome of the trial. Yet most people are not aware of these facts due to the overuse of “circumstantial evidence” and “hearsay” in every day speak. The different participants in court cases decide all the time what is acceptable evidence and the Judges have the ultimate decision and authority in deciding what to accept in each individual court case.  Courts decide what is acceptable evidence based on the time of case that is heard. Earlier we gave the example of child sexual abuse cases and how courts would make different determinations based on the type of jurisdiction the court belongs to. A layman would be familiar with murder cases with the abundance of stories in which persons are declared innocent due to lack of DNA evidence. Theoretically it is more difficult to try murder cases than it would be to try someone for “manslaughter” in a criminal court and both cases are more difficult to try someone along those lines in a civil court. We witness this all the time in celebrity trials. OJ Simpsons was able to get free of a murder conviction (although there was DNA evidence, the defense was able to critique it according to the jury) but he still lost the civil law suit.  Sometimes innocent people were freed from prison after DNA exempted them. This shows that circumstantial evidence is often used to make determinations but unfortunately DNA cannot always be present. While no one wants innocent people to go to prison (or  death row)  a reasonable society wants to have a level of circumstantial evidence to incarcerate a guilty party.

 It is often observed during modern debate that Quranists use the term “hearsay” to refer to hadith when they preach their doctrines or argue with traditional muslims. The Quranists intend to deny  the historical validity of hadiths when they call the narrations “hearsay.”  How true is it that hadiths can be referred to as hearsay? If hadiths are equivocally hearsay than what does that mean about their validity for persons of Islamic faith?

What do Quranists believe about hearsay and why do they refer to traditions as such? I conducted a research of a few Quranist websites to see how the term “hearsay” was used historically by these groups. I was curious to know if their assertions matched that of legal scholars. But I also wanted to see if the Quranists developed an epistemology which enabled one to dismiss hadith altogether.

I stared my research with the writings of Dr. Rashad Khalifa, Ph.D.  I understand that many Quranists do not subscribe to all of Dr. Khalaifa’s claims (him being the Messenger, the math ‘miracle’ of the Quran, the removal of 2 “false” verses.) Yet many non-Khalifa partisans among the Quranists still recycle the same arguments against hadith that they borrowed directly or indirectly from Rashad Khalifa. Dr. Khalifa is the only one in the West that tried to create an ideology that rejected hadith that I am aware of.  To conduct this research I simply went through Dr. Khalifa’s  old writings such as his Qur’an translation, appendixes, newsletters. ( I also tried to listen to audio recorded lectures, Quran-studies but Shaykh Sleepistani had too much baraka over me.)

Dr. Rashad Khalifa translates Surah Baqarah 2:78 as follows: “Among them are gentiles who do not know the scripture, except through hearsay, then assume that they know it.” The arabic amaniyya is used to mean “hearsay” in the verse. Amaniyya literally means wishful thinking and translating it as “hearsay” is shared by Maulana Muhammad Ali and only few other non-popular translations.  The point is not to critique Dr. Khalifa’s translations but show it is not a literal interpretation (even if it is considered good.) Wishful thinking may be hearsay in some circumstances but not all.

 I could not find Dr. Rashad Khalifa using the term “hearsay” anywhere in his writings.  Dr. Khalifa however allowed Kasim Ahmad, the late Malaysian partisan and Islamic intellectual, to write a piece in the May 1988 newsletter of “Muslims Perspective. In an article entitled “Rationalism vs Irrationalism” Kasim Ahmad writes ,” "Even the traditionalists admit that the bulk of the report is hearsay."(page 3 MP, May 1988.) Kasim Ahmad  explained that all hadith was “hearsay” because of the number of years it took to write hadith and the number of people in the chain of transmission.  Dr. Khalifa evidently approved of Kasim Ahmad’s explanation but did he subscribe to it completely? (More on this momentarily.)

Edip Yuksel took “hearsay” to a new level by using it the term a number of times. I have witnessed this in active conversation on the internet.  Yuksel criticizes regular translations of the Qur’an (other than those of the ‘Quranists’) for example because they “heavily rely on hearsay reports such as hadith, sunna, and sectarian jurisprudence.” The total collections of hadith are called “medieval hearsay reports.” Yuksel also argues that the traditional translations are rendered in such as way to justify the need for “hearsay” reports (hadith.  This is disputable but off topic.)  The early commentators relied heavily on the “hearsay” reports. Reformist Translation vs Sectarian Translations. Yuksel 19.org)

As a student of Dr. Rashad Khalifa, Edip Yuksel is the most vocal expounder of the 19 “math miraculous” theory of the Qur’an.  Yuksel is so convinced by the 19 theory he believes it offers a paradigm shift away from  “blindly believing a holy story or hearsay” of the past. For him the code 19 ,” distinguishes rational monotheists from the blind followers of manmade hearsay collections and sectarian teachings..”( Contextual Facts on Code 19, Yuksel 19.org)

Edip Yuksel also produced a Qur’an translation like his mentor. In one article Yuksel attacks the value of hearsay and uses the term by referencing sura najm 53:28. (Eternal Hell and Merciful God?, Yuksel 19.org) Yuksel’s translation reads ,” While they had no knowledge about this; they only followed conjecture. Conjecture is no substitute for the truth.”(53:28 Yuksel translation.)  Here, the arabic Zanna is translated correctly as conjecture. Sometimes  the words conjecture and hearsay are used to mean the same thing in every speak but the attributed definitional equivalence is incorrect.  An assumption is not the same thing as hearsay.  Edip Yuksel has a degree in law and would assume he knows better. The article above was written in haste.  Yuksel uses the term “hearsay” at least 69 times in his Qur’an commentary in which hadith is equivocated as such. (Yuksel also copies and pastes RK’s translations of 2:78 without changing it. He evidently thinks it is not plagiarism to copy his mentor’s writings.)

 How the Qur’anists understand history is what interests us here. The attacks against Islam are often directed at the character of Muhammad, pbuh. Anti-islam opponents often use the books of Sirah and hadith collections to make their case. The Quranist response is to deny the credibility of those collections as accurate historical sources.  Edip Yuksel does this a copy of times in his “reformist translation” commentary. Years ago, Yuksel debated a then known anti-islamist named Ali Sina, a man who tried to use hadiths to tarnish the character of the Prophet Muhammad. (Edip Yuksel v. Ali Sina, 19.org) Yuksel’s response was to deny credibility of those accounts by explaining the sources were essentially hearsay.   The method of rejecting the sources in total has drawbacks for serious historians though. Where does one draw the line?  During this debate Ali Sina asked Yuksel to clarify his position ,” which documents are admissible in our discussion and which ones are not and whether your rejection of hadith and Sira is categorical or you are open to accept them with a healthy dose of suspicion.”(ibid) Sina also argued that if Yuksel was prepared to dismiss all the hadith books then why should one even accept the Prophet Muhammad existed in first place?  Yuksel’s response may be interpreted as a concession by stating Muhammad’s existence was periphery.  Yuksel’s argument is not convincing here. Yuksel did have a point though that dismissing the traditions does not mean dismissing the Qur’an flows from it.(an argument we want to touch upon later.) 

The highlight of the Yuksel-Sina debate was Yuksel’s assertion that no court would use the hadith literature as evidence because it was based on hearsay.  If  books of Sira were provided to the court then the Judge and opposing attorneys would automatically dismiss it as hearsay. The point was convincing apparently based on Yuksel’s account.  I would agree that in the case of a person who lived 1400 years ago Judge would throw out the hadith books as well. Ali Sina was not deterred by Yuksel’s court argument nor am I.

Yuksel’s point that a modern court would throw out a hadith book is valid but has two problems. Yuksel wants his readers and debaters to assume that all hearsay is automatically dismissed from court.  Yuksel uses the word “hadith” next to “hearsay” dozens of times throughout the debate to hammer the point both in his “reformist” translation of the Qur’an. But as we discussed earlier, courts use hearsay as evidence all the time.  Although courts generally dismiss hearsay in most countries, there are plenty of exceptions to the rule. Calling hadith or anything else “hearsay” does not mean something is dismissed automatically. Someone only vaguely familiar with the law may not know this point. As someone who has a legal degree, Yuksel has not excuse to not know this point. Moreover, Yuksel should have mentioned this, at least briefly, to his listeners since he loves the throw the word “hearsay” around so much. 

The bigger problem with Yuksel’s legal argument is that courts generally do not engage in the practice of historical enquiries.  There are some  examples of courts using documents to overturn convictions of people long deceased. But even these judicial hearings do not use the same methodologies that historians would use. Determining the truth of the matter for historians and courts are two different types of knowledge. A legal case against a defendant may be severely limited by the type of evidence allowed into the court room.  There is also a limit to the speculation a court would allow concerning the evidence. These limitations may be a double edge sword because on the one hand they could protect a defendant against lies or unwarranted speculation. On the other hand the limitations enjoyed buy a court may hinder information that may be called “evidence” reasonably so.  To make matters worse courts could throw out evidence that would be in a defendant’s favor. There is an ongoing activity and political factors that happen in the court room which determine the outcome.  The rules governing the judicial process  have ethical principles behind them that are necessary for justice but may not always work well.

There is no need to assume that historians are more objective than judges. Historians  are not free from bias or political factors either.  But historians do not have the limitations on them that a court would impose. There are no ethical barriers to examining evidence for example. In fact historians are generally free the speculate with the evidence they have and are even encouraged to do so in the academic world. The historians could do a bad job by mocking someone but their assertions could not legally compromise someone. The ethical guidelines for Judges do not exist for researchers.  Making a judicial case and making history are two different things.

But how valid can hadiths as hearsay possibly be even if the court is not a barrier? With legal questions out of the way we can ask if historians are bound by the specific rules regarding hearsay.  The consensus is that modern historians prefer eye witness accounts to hearsay. There is sufficient evidence that even ancient historians such as Josephus, Plutarch and Polybus also  preferred the value of eye witness testimony. Plutarch called hearsay a “last resort.”  Herodotus was critical of accounts he heard that did not have eye witnesses.  Lucian wrote that whenever possible it was better to have eye witness accounts. ((Did Greco-Roman historiographers often lambast the use of hearsay (especially when witnesses were available) https://beliefmap.org/greco-romans/histories/say/witness-testimony-only ) Ancient historians did not employ the academic analysis used by contemporary scholars but they share common sense assumptions; mainly that our own testimony, or at least of someone we know is more credible than that of someone heard another person mention.

But the ancient historians that I came across did not write out hearsay accounts either. They simply preferred eye witness testimony to indirect testimony.  When the ancient historians were writing accounts of people that lived years before their time they had no choice but to rely on hearsay. Someone could write a book about President Lincoln based on accounts which were notarized over 150 years ago and claim the work was based on eye witness accounts.  But even modern historians are not free of the need to employ hearsay accounts when they conduct research.

The Quranist approach of identifying hadith as hearsay and dismissing it is innovative to Yuksel and other folks. The interesting thing is that Dr. Rashad Khalifa did not dismiss hadith all-together. There is no written account of Khalifa  questioning the whole historical narrative (although he certainly questioned specific points.)  There is no record of him stating that all the historical accounts  are baseless that I could find at least. (We will address Dr. Khalifa’s own approach elsewhere.)  It is possible that  Yuksel developed his hearsay argument based on what he read from Kassim Ahmad, who was considered an intellectual but not a legal scholar. Yuksel certainly learned about hearsay in law school but his employment of the term for historical arguments does not appear to be well thought out.

Judges and historians both agree that eye witness testimony and physical evidence is preferrable to hearsay and circumstantial evidence but neither field dismisses these secondary sources as evidence altogether.  The testimony of eye witnesses certainly ranks higher on the  history and law totem poles than then that of hearsay. But being higher does not negate the lower in all cases.  Judges have to make decisions about what is acceptable evidence all the time and wisdom is the key to acceptance or rejection. Historians also have to provide reasonable explanations for their acceptance or rejection of evidence.  When it comes to hadith, historians may reject some or all of it dependent on their methods and opinions. The Quranist approach of rejecting hadith all-together is not shared by all scholars (but more on this later.) Regardless of the historical validity of hadith, classifying  hadith as hearsay is not a reason why serious scholars  would reject hadith as evidence.