The
historical epistemology of Rashad Khalifa
Rashad
Khalifa considered hadith forbidden as a source of information pertaining to
religious doctrine. But what precisely was Dr. Khalifa’s views on the
historicity of hadith? The “messenger of the covenant” often denied the sayings
attributed to the prophet. Dr. Khalifa also rewrote the historical narrative to
a degree but he did not deny hadith completely. In fact the existence of
certain hadith helped bolster his Qur’an “only” ideology and mathematical
miracle claim. We will examine Dr. Khalifa’s writings to attempt an
understanding at a his general opinions on the historicity of hadith. It will
be shown that Dr. Khalifa’s views on hadith historicity are closer to
traditional conservative and scholarship views as opposed to revisionists
that are entertained by some Qur’an only adherents and a small number of
academic scholars.
It is
undeniable that there exist a number of hadiths that have been accepted as
“truth” according to Orthodoxy despite their problematic nature. Certain
hadith have been questioned for their authenticity for many reasons.
Traditional scholarship had developed critical methods of evaluation long
before Western academia came around. The methods of Islamic scholars often
questioned the historicity of accounts based on not having a reliable link to
the sourced companion of the Prophet. There were also questions about the
evidence bias towards competing dynasties, sects that plagued the early Islamic
period which had scholars determine the authenticity of such traditions.
Dr. Jonathan Brown has pointed out that there was also some criticism developed
towards the content of hadith themselves. The early scholars of hadith
actively played a role in analyzing a number of traditions but by the time of
the middle ages, hadith criticism, as an active academic enterprise, stagnated
and gave way to an Orthodoxy which canonized the very folks who kept the study
of hadith alive. There have been small exceptions to this with certain scholars
such as Shaykh Nasr al din Albani but his work has mostly been ostracized by
traditional scholars due to sectarian bias.
Early
Islamic development in the historical sciences such as hadith criticism was
certainly admirable but it did not save it from the critique placed on it by
Orientalist scholars in the west. The western academics were successful
enough at questioning the historicity of most hadith that their influenced
managed to influence some Muslim intellectuals. However, the questioning of
hadith was not just academic. People with general knowledge of the Qur’an have
long disputed certain hadiths for many reasons. Many Islamic intellectuals were
aware that certain punitive legislation was not found in the Qur’an and other
things often contradicted the Holy writ. Moreover many traditions appeared to
be unreasonable in themselves. Muslim intellectuals often found allies
with academic scholars who provided the tools they needed to help them
understand their faith. The Orientalists criticism of hadith provided
fresh air to those thinkers who wanted to reform islam. The popular biographies
on the Prophet Muhammad and early history of islam were produced by western
academics but were based on early material such as Tabari, ibn Ishaq and
other items from the traditional sirat. Academics often consult different
accounts to come up with their own understanding of events. Historians
would often doubt certain accounts in the face of information found to be more
reliable.
In more
recent times there has been the advent of so called “revisionist” scholarship
in islam. What made the revisionist unique from the mainstream academic studies
was the fact that the revisionists were willing to question the whole narrative
and the sources in general. While moderate scholarship often disputed a certain
event, revisionists historians would be willing to throw out the whole account
as unreliable and even dismiss the traditional siras altogether. The
revisionist has not became widespread in Islamic studies but they have managed
to make a mark and there are also revisionist scholars who are more/less
radical than each other. The point here is not to criticize revisionists or
other scholars but to show how they differ.
Hadith
studies entered the western academic world more than 100 years before
revisionist scholarship crystallized. Revisionist scholarship of islam
certainly shared the doubts of hadith’s reliability but they went further in
their critique. But not all western scholars have come to the same conclusions
that the early hadith critiques like Shacht and Goldhizer shared. For
these gentlemen and their students, hadiths were often doubted for their
historicity based on the time span between the life of the prophet and the
written account. Some scholars however have found reason to believe evidence for
written hadith accounts earlier than that thought of by the first generation of
Oriental scholars. Harold Motzki and Nabil are among those who shared
these views. This is pointed out to show the discussions that exist in the
contemporary world.
Most
Quran-only adherents who feel ideological compelled for their views often
naively view modern scholarship as justifying their positions. Dr. Edip
Yuksel demonstrated his liking towards revisionist camp during his debate with
Dr. Alin Sina. To make it short, Sina would reference a piece of history
attributed to the Prophet Muhamad that had a negative connotation. Yuksel’s
response was to deny the historicity of each event Sina mentioned. The strategy
of Yuskel was to deny the general authenticity of each event by comparing it
with hearsay for example. Edip Yuksel’s denial of all the historical
sources (outside of the Qur’an.) places him in the revisionist camp. Many
Qur’an-only adherents take up this mantle by doing the same.
A
revisionist perspective may be double edged sword for the believer. Some Qur’an
only adherents found it useful in refuting the allegations made against the
Prophet Muhammad. Unfortunately, following revisionism to it’s conclusions
means doubting the existence of the Prophet Muhammad totally and not all
believers would feel comfortable with that methodology. Also as we
pointed out, not all scholars share the method of doubting all the sources.
Often Quran-only adherents think they have academic scholarship on their side
when they really do not. The other problem with the revisionist
perspective that Quran-only adherents seem unaware of, is that it unconvincing
in inter-religious dialogue. Ali Sina seemed unphased by Yuksel’s
questioning of all the sources. I have witnessed a number of debates between
Christians and Qur’an-only adherents on the character of the Prophet Muhammad
with those types of arguments. I could not help but feel the Qur’an only
adherent had the appearance of hiding their head in the sand like an
ostrich. Most rational people would not be willing to deny a full source
of information unless there was real simple explanation to convince them as
such.
When it
comes to history the only alternative to the revisionist approach is to take
information one bit at a time. Some people adhering to the revisionist trend
may prefer to just dismiss everything so they do not have to take the time to
engage in long rigorous processes of authentication. They can and and do argue
that the alternative is to “pick and choose.” Well, the revisionist are right
in this assertion but this is what any academic scholar does as well. If we
want to sound convincing by questioning something in the narrative then we can
do so by providing a general account and showing how this specific account
conflicts with the rest. The method may not always be convincing but the
revisionist trend by other Qur’an only adherents has only convinced their
opponents that they refuse to seriously engage with history.
At one
point on the historical line between traditional scholarship and revisionism
does Dr. Rashad Khalifa stand? It would be presumptuous to conclude to
conclude Dr. Khalifa had a complete revisionist view of history simply because
his adherents and other qur’an only folks take that position. Dr. Khalifa
certainly had revisionist leanings. Dr. Khalifa over through the
mythology of an illiterate prophet to create a narrative where the prophet of
islam “wrote the quran with his own hand.” The Messenger of the covenant
would certainly be considered guilty of revisionism for his historical
assertions about the two “false” verses in Appendix 24 of his “Final
Testament.” In this document Dr. Khalifa spins around well known
historical events to make them center around a conspiracy to add 9:128-129
to the holy writ collection. At other times in his newsletters he
dismissed the historicity of the age of Ayesha at her marriage or the
established view that Surah Noor 11-21 was revealed because of the accusations
made against her. Dr. Khalifa also changed around key elements of the
prophet’s biography by combining the events of the first revelation at Hira
with the miraj (this may have been unintentional confusion.) His take that
hadith and sunnah were “satanic” innovations may have people who did not read
Dr. Khalifa think that he was an all-out revisionist thinker.
But
really how far did Dr. Khalifa’s revisionism go? Dr. Khalifa was certainly
guilty of spin-doctoring history to create his false conspiracy regarding the
last 2 verses of Taubah (Appendix 24.) But the thing is that Dr. Khalifa did
not make his conspiracy out of thin air. To create his story Dr. Khalifa needed
a Zayd bin Thabit, Khuzama, Ali, Uthman, Marwan ibn Hikam and other characers
to take part. The events of the collection of the Qur’an under Uthman (Dr.
Khalifa evidently forgot about the first collection under Umar), he needed a
The
revisionism of some Qur’an adherents was not shared by the messenger of
the covenant. Some among them as well as revisionist scholars have denied all
validity to hadith. But Dr. Khalifa never shared these views. In fact he is on
record of writing, “While Hadith is forbidden as a source of religious
teachings (Appendix 19), it can be a useful source of history…”(Appendix 25 End
of the World.) So Dr. Khalifa did in fact believe that hadith should be
treated like history even if it was not to be used for religious purposes. Dr.
Khalifa goes on to say, “it can be a useful source of history. We can derive a
lot of information about historical events and local customs and traditions
during the early centuries of Islam.”. But what did Dr. Khalifa believe
could be proven from history and what led to his beliefs that the history was
accurate?
The
appendix 25 to the “Final Testament” is where Dr. Khalifa made his well known
claim that hadith is a source of history. In the appendix there is a discussion
about the initial letters of the Surahs. Dr. Khalifa cites narrations
that indicate there was an early understanding that the initials had some
meaning. One narration found in Suyut’s Itqaan claims that the initials A.L.M.S.
has to do with the lifespan of the Prophet. (He also notes that another source
he didn’t bother to cite, Baydawi, shared a variant of this message.) Dr.
Khalifa could not dismiss the two sources as “satanic” innovations” because it
gave credence to his claim that there is a mathematical structure to the
Qur’an. Dr. Khalifa believed that the narrations concerning the initial
were so important that he had to tell the reader that hadith must be considered
reliable information. This was despite the fact Dr. Khalifa spent so much time
calling hadith evil and so forth.
Dr.
Khalifa’s concession to hadith’s historical validity did not stop him from
claiming hadith was satanic all together. Dr. Khalifa wanted to find any
reason to reject the authoritativeness of hadith even if it meant quoting a
hadith itself. Dr. Khalifa and his adherents are fond of citing the
following hadith “Do not write down anything of me except the Quran. Whoever
writes other than that should delete it.” The hadith is often used in
debate with traditionalists to prove that the books of hadith are
forbidden. Only the Qur’an is supposed to be written down according to
the explanation by Dr. khalifa and his followers. Dr. Khalifa felt the need to
convince his followers of the accuracy of the “do not write” hadith that he
mentioned it was found in two sources, that of Muslim and ibn Hanbal. Rashad
used the multiple sources of this hadith to provide it’s validity. (We will see
soon how Dr. Khalifa believes multiplicity of sources is important for
determining history.) We can ignore the fact for now that the
hadith “do write the hadith” being used as evidence against hadith creates a
logical problem for Rashad. Dr. Khalifa’s assertion about the “do not write”
hadith certainly helps bolster his case for the Qur’an only ideology however he
did not see how it hinder’s the historicity of his other assertions, namely
that the Prophet Muhammad wrote the Qur’an “with his own hand.”
So far we
saw that Dr. Khalifa not only validated history but even the sayings of the
Prophet Muhammad himself. The “do not write” hadith was not the only
narration he attributed to the Prophet. Elsewhere, Dr. Khalifa quotes the
following, ““God has cursed the Jews and Christians, because they turned the
tombs of their prophets into mosques”!!!Hadith from Bukhary's Volume 6, Page 14
(Al-Nawawy’s edition) (February 1989 Submitter’s Perspective.) Dr.
Khalifa used the hadith forbidding the building of masjids on the prophets’
graves to take a shot at the Muslim world for doing those things. Throughout
the Muslim there are elaborate structures built on the graves of saints and
people use them as intercession. The grave of the Prophet Muhammad himself has
a masjid built on top of it. The question about the validity of such things
certainly needs an explanation from traditional scholars. However, that is not
our concern here. Dr. Khalifa found this hadith useful in his accusation that
the whole Muslim world is engaged in idolatry. Dr. Khalifa accepted the
credibility of this hadith because it said something he wanted it to say.
The two
“false” verses assertion is essential for Dr. Khalifa’s ideology. Dr. Khalifa
realized that he could not simply convince some people by making an assertion
based on his computer math alone. So he tried to find historical “evidence” to
back his claim that there was a conspiracy to add two verses to the Quran
(9:128,129) for the purpose of glorifying the Prophet. Dr. Khalifa used a
historical narrative found in the hadith collection that has many variants
concerning a discussion between Zayb ibn Thabit and Khuzaima. According
to the narration Zayd ibn Thabit takes a written copy of the 2 verses despite
not having two witnesses. Zayd proclaims the testimony of Kuhzaima (the man who
brought the verses) as equal to two witnesses. Dr. Khalifa reads
suspicion into the account and for him it is “proof” historically speaking,
that the said verses do not belong to the compilation of the Qur’an.
Despite
the fact that the narration is a hadith, DR. Khalifa wants us to believe it is
historically verified: “All classic and modern references dealing with the
collection and recording of the original Qur’an have UNANIMOUSLY agreed that
these two verses ARE THE ONLY VERSES IN QUR’AN THAT FAILED TO MEET THE CRITERIA
SET BY ABU BAKR, OMAR AND ZEID IBN THABET (the original collectors of
Qur’an).”(Muslim Perspective March 1985) For Dr. Khalifa, the historical truth
of the narrative lies in the fact that there is an agreement which exists
“unanimously” on its veracity among the “Classical and modern”
references. Is there really a consensus among “all” these items?
What are
these "classical and modern references" that Dr. Khalifa believes
make the case for the credibility of the hadith? Dr. Khalifa lists 5 sources:
Al Bukhari, Al Mutakhab min al Sunnah, Ibn Kathir (afdal al Quran Kareem),
Muhammad Hussain Haykal's Abu Bakr Sadid, and Al Sayuuti's al Itiqan fi Uluum.
Al Bukhari, the first source listed, is considered the most authentic
collection of hadiths according to traditional Sunni scholarship.
Al mutakhab min al Sunnah is a modern hadith reference which has no status in
traditional scholarship but Dr. Khalifa cites it because it has two variants of
the above narration. Ibn Kathir is recognized for his quran tafsir but
this classical 13th century scholar lists the above hadith in one of his other
books (afdaal.) The fourth source used for the hadith is Muhammad Hussain
Haykal who wrote a popular biography of Abu Bakr. But Hakyal was a
popular Egyptian writer and not considered a scholar among traditionalists or
academics. Al Sayuti was the last person mentioned and he was considered
a great scholar of hadith. The Itiqan was a book devoted to the history of the
compilation of the Qur’an. But it needs to be said that traditional scholars do
not see every narration of the Itiqan as authentic despite the fact the
overall book’s primary status.
We are
not disputing the credibility of the narration and the evidence Dr. Khalifa’s
brings maybe deemed sufficient to prove his case. But Dr. Khalifa’s use of
language in making the case for the historicity of the hadith shows that
he is not capable to convince actual scholars, be they traditional or academic.
In the first place, Dr. Khalifa said that “all classical and modern” sources
are in agreement. Obviously Dr. Khalifa did not cite every modern scholar or
traditional reference on the said hadith. He only cited three classical
scholars and two modern references. One of the modern references, Haykal, is
not a scholar to begin with. The use of the word “all” can be dismissed as an
inappropriate exaggeration but cannot be considered helpful to even his own
audience. Furthermore, Dr. Khalifa uses the adjective to describe the
agreement of “all” these sources as “unanimous.” By using the term
“unanimous “ we are not sure if Dr. Khalifa understood basic English. To be
unanimous means everyone is in agreement. Is Khalifa referring to “all” the
“classical and modern references” when he describes them being “unanimous” or
just the references listed in his newsletter? If Dr. Khalifa is referring
to totality of references that he would be incorrect as other hadith
collections may not even mention that narration about Zayd. Perhaps he is
only referring to the five sources cited. In this case. Of course the five
sources cited by Dr. Khalifa agree “unanimously” but no one basic knowledge of
Islamic literature would make such a silly case. There are multiple hadith
collections, multiple numbers of classical scholars and multiple numbers of
academics. Dr. Khalifa did not make a case that “all scholar agree” and
certainly did not make a case that the agreement was “unanimous.”
Dr.
Khalifa’s makes a poor case based on the language he uses to describe the
actual sources he has. However, DR. Khalifa may present enough sources to
convince someone of the truth of his message. Dr.Khalifa’s methodology is based
on the notion that multiple sources can prove the historical veracity of a
source. From Dr. Khalifa’s metholology one can make a historic case by citing a
few traditional sources and giving a few modern opinions. Modern scholars
as well as traditional scholars also use similar but more careful constructions
of their methods to prove a historic case.
Dr.
Khalifa also believes that a multiple number of witnesses lends credibility to
a historical assertion. In one issue of the Submiter’s Perspective Dr. Khalifa
tries to make a case for the final sermon in which the words “I am leaving the
Quran” are attributed to the Prophet. Dr. Khalifa considers the account of the
sermon the “most authentic hadith.” (December 1989, SP) Dr. Khalifa notes that
“100,000” people witnessed the event. This is in comparison to other
hadiths where “only a few people.” There then entails a discussion about the
two weighty things (hadith al thaqalayeen) and it is evident that Dr. Khalifa
confuses the discussion of hadith thaqalayeen with the final sermon.
Rashad tried to argue which of the recorded accounts was more authentic
(with Rashad picking the one where the Prophet said he was only leaving the
Quran) but Dr. Khalifa must be unaware that all sunni scholars accept the
hadith Thaqalayeen (the prophet leaving the Kitab and ahul bayt) as authentic
(even if the meaning and time-space speech are in disagreement.) The point is
that Dr. Khalifa believes that there is a strong case for the hadith
because of the number of witnesses. Classical scholars of traditional islam
would share Dr. Khalifa’s belief. Ironically, Quran-only adherents would mostly
reject such an assertion.
If
we compare Rashad Khalifa's historical metholodogy with that of revisionist
scholars and the like, his thinking appears very conservative. He never
questioned the historical veracity of hadith as a whole. Indeed, those who
follow in Khalifa's shadow have kept his outlook alive. Dr. Adisma writes
concerning Ibn Ishaq, that this biography predates hadith and that both sources
are reliable sources of information. But
how do we distinguish factual history from that which is unreliable? Dr. Adisoma
answers, " we must apply a certain degree of judgment. Our primary
criterion is of course information from God’s revelation, i.e. the Quran."(Submission.org
Literacy of the prophet) We agree with Dr. Adisoma's assessment of history. An
academic will acknowledge that the Qur'an is the best source for understanding
early islamic history since it is the oldest source. We also agree that the Qur'an is the primary
criterion as Adisoma says.
For Adisoma the Qur'an is the criterion which
helps us discern historical truth from fiction.
But as a Qur'an only adherent where does he derive the idea that the Qur'an
is a Criterion for anything.. and why just history? If Dr. Adisoma relied only
on Dr. Khalifa's translation he would not know that when the Qur'an describes
itself as Furqan that this means "criterion." (RK says it means 'statute
book') For us the the Qur'an is not just the criterion for history but all
aspects of religious knowledge and guidance.
If a hadith has historical veracity it may also have veracity for
understanding how the Prophet implemented guidance from God. Dr. Khalfia would be opposed to such a
proposition but unfortunately he did not live long enough to tackle this point
or many others.
No comments:
Post a Comment