Sunnah Hadith and Bid'ah

• The common argument put forth in the side of Hadith is that just as the Qur’an which is originally in oral form is brought to written form to protect it. Similarly, Sunnah is brought to written form in the form of Hadith to protect it. Is this argument correct?

• With your definition of Sunnah, it becomes extremely difficult to differentiate between Sunnah and Bidah. For instance, consider our society just 20 years ago (and even now to large extent), the common Muslim and scholar know nothing of the religious practices except their own society (even if they know, they hide it). It was the time (and still is) when Bidah was abundant and was considered as Sunnah. If your definition of Sunnah is taken to be correct, then a common Muslim will obviously practice Bidah as he finds consensus in his society for the particular practice. This would be very dangerous. But if Hadith is taken into account in determining Sunnah, we can easily identify the Bidah and avoid it.

1. The transmission of the Qur'an was arranged by the Prophet (pbuh) and later on by the collectivity of his companions. No such arrangement was made by the Prophet (pbuh) or the collectivity of his companions for Hadith;
2. The Prophet (pbuh) not only arranged for the accurate transmission of the Qur'an, but also directed all the Muslims to do so, to the best of their abilities. We do not find any such arrangement or persuasion in the case of Hadith;
3. Qur'an is a verbal transmission of the very words taught by the Prophet (pbuh). This transmission is not effected by any mistake in the understanding or perception of the transmitters, while the transmission of Hadith can be significantly effected by the understanding, perception and statement of any of the narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh);
4. The words of the Qur'an are transmitted on the authority of the whole Muslim community. On the contrary, a Hadith is transmitted on the authority of only one, two or a few individuals;
5. The canonization of the Qur'an was done by the Prophet (pbuh) himself and transmitted through the consensus of the companions of the Prophet and of the Muslim scholars of all subsequent generations and the verbal perpetuation of the Muslims. On the contrary, the canonization of any given corpus of Hadith is based on the scholarly works done by the Muhadditheen.

• The apparent consensus of a particular (limited) Muslim community is not an adequate evidence to declare something to be a Sunnah. On the contrary, it is the consensus of all the Muslim scholars (emanating from the consensus of the companions of the Prophet) and the practical perpetuation of the whole Muslim community;
• I do not refute the importance of Hadith (Books of Fiqh, Seerah, Books on Islamic History etc.) in determining whether a given act should be considered a Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh) or not. I also agree that narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) may be of significant help, besides other things, in distinguishing bid`ahs that may have found their way in a given Muslim community. My opinion is only that Hadith is not a source of Sunnah. This really implies that the transmission of Sunnah, like the Qur'an, is independent of the transmission of Hadith. For example, we know that circumcising a male child is a part of the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh). All the Muslim scholars at all times have agreed on this point and the practice has transmitted through the practical perpetuation of the Muslims. Even though this Sunnah is also mentioned in a few narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh), yet this reference to circumcision in narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) is not the source of circumcision. We know that even if there was no reference to circumcision in narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh), it would still have remained a Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh), on the authority of the consensus of the Muslim scholars and the practical perpetuation of the whole Muslim community.

Add comment