1 2 3

On the Search for Divine Revelation Outside of It
By Rashid Shaz

[continued...]

Among the first generation of Muslims, the differing notions of history and Divine Revelation were so clear and strong that any information coming through history, even if it was presented as the Prophet’s utterance was not acceptable to them merely because it was attributed to the Prophet. It is said that when Mahmood Ansari narrated the tradition that whoever said “لا اله الا الله” would never be sent to hell, Ayyub Ansari responded immediately by saying, “I do not think that the Prophet ever said any such thing.”[1]  Similarly, the report by Fatima, daughter of Qais, that the responsibility for providing accommodation and maintenance for a divorced wife does not fall on the husband, was not acceptable to Omar as this statement, attributed to the Prophet, could not be corroborated by any evidence from the Qur'an. Omar’s view was, “How can accept the report of a woman for which there is no justification in the Qur'an? One does not know whether she has remembered it rightly or not.” Ayesha’s strong criticism and comments on the reports by the Prophet's Companions regarding the Prophet’s utterances also point to the fact that the first generation of Muslims were aware of the constructive principles of history and adhered to them. Rather, in view of the extraordinary importance of the Prophet’s age, they displayed utmost caution and circumspection in their critique of history. It has been recorded in Sahih that once Abdullah bin Abbas was copying down the text of a decision taken by Ali. He would omit words at places and say, “By Allah, Ali must not have taken such a decision.” Similarly, Abu Huraira’s report that one loses purity acquired through ablution (wazu) if he comes in contact with something touched by fire was not acceptable to him. Likewise, when the report… Badr through Ibn Omar that the dead can hear reached Ayesha she exclaimed, “May Allah have mercy on Ibn Omar!” It said clearly in the Qur'an – إنك لا تسمع الموتى و ما انت بسمع من في القبورIt is said that Ayesha had immediately rejected the report that the dead are subjected to punishment if the members of the family mourn them volubly. She offered the following verse of the Qur'an in support of her view: لا تزر وازرة وزر اخرى Similarly, when some people began to narrate exaggerated reports relating to the Prophet’s meeting with or sighting of Allah, she rejected all of them with reference to the following Quranic verse: لا يدركه الأبصار The Prophet's Companions were aware of the fact that the realisation of the Divine Revelation on the basis of which the foundation of the future Muslim society was to be laid had already been preserved in the form of the Book within covers, and that history, despite all its positive ramifications, is but mere history. To regard it as the key to understanding and interpreting an absolute and definitive entity like the Divine Revelation would open the doors to many other complications. Because of their deep sense of responsibility, the Companions of the Prophet would often tremble while reporting the Prophet’s utterances or narrating his sayings or practices. It is said that when Abdur rahman bin Abi laila had requested Zaid bin Arqam to narrate some tradition of the Prophet, Zaid response was: “I have grown old and do not remember correctly. It is such an onerous task to narrate the traditions of the Prophet.” Those who narrated any utterances attributed to the Prophet or any interpretation of them did not find themselves capable of the historical responsibility of such an act. It is said that on the request of Emir Muaviah, Zaid bin Sabit narrated to him a tradition of the Prophet, but when he saw that Muaviah was making arrangement to have it written down, Zaid took it from him and wiped out the text. He reprimanded Muaviah by saying that it was Prophet’s instruction that his traditions should not be written down.[2]  It is said that when the disciples of Abu Sai’d Khadri had requested him to have some traditions written down, he responded as follows: “The way we had heard and internalised the traditions from the Prophet orally, you should also do the same.” Abu huraira also held the same view.[3]

In matters of historiography, the first generation of Muslims were fully aware of the fact that even if some misreporting took place in the process of oral narration of the Prophet’s sayings and practices, it would soon vanish. But if the sayings and practices were recorded in the written form, such misreporting of history regarding the sayings of the Prophet would perpetuate forever. That is why, firstly, they took extraordinary care in the narration of the Prophet’s sayings, and secondly, they tried their best that no compilation of his sayings and practices should take the form of a written document.[4] 

History vs. Divine Revelation

AS long as the collective identity of the community of Muslims was protected, the dividing line between history and Divine Revelation was very clear in the mind of the common people. However, after the martyrdom of Othman, the Muslim world faced a crisis of momentous proportion, and the unity of Muslim was seriously threatened. Under the circumstances, it became difficult to maintain the fine distinction between history and Divine Revelation.  One more reason why this delicate balance could not be maintained was the fact that for safeguarding Divine Revelation, the Muslims had never negated history, nor they were in favour of rejecting it altogether. People were permitted to narrate the sayings and practices of the Prophet but were expected to exercise great caution in doing it, so that it should not distract people’s attention from Allah’s Book, or allow the growth of another framework based on the Prophet’s traditions. Prohibition of excessive narration of the Prophet’s traditions, avoidance of writing down the traditions according to the Prophet’s own instruction, and the deep sense of responsibility in the transmission of the Prophet’s utterances and maintain a strict scrutiny on them through the administrative machinery of the time are the acts that helped to keep history within its limits. However, with the crisis in the Caliphate, this surveillance on history could not be maintained any longer. As a result, it became possible for history not only to wear the cloak of holiness and transcend its limits, but also to take the help of reports and traditions that could not be corroborated by historical bases themselves.

Abdullah bin Zubair had reported the following comment of his father regarding the statement –  من كذب علي فليتبوأ مقعده من النار[5], attributed to the Prophet: “I see that people have added the word متعمدا, whereas I have never heard the Prophet uttering this word.” This reflects the changing attitude of the Muslims towards history. Those who, till the other day, trembled at the thought of transmitting the Prophet’s utterances lest they might be liable to error, however slight that error might be, and who were conscious of the fact that the slightest error in this regards, despite all their good intentions, might include them to the list of those for whom it was said – من كذب عليّ.The addition of the word متعمدا, through the error of the reporters and the lack of comprehension or miscomprehension of the listeners, provided a justification for the errors that would enter into the exegetical literature in the process of thematic and linguistic transmission. The scope provided by the addition of the word  متعمدا also paved the way for the justification of the notion in future that if anyone reads/ observes anything good anywhere, he should think that the Prophet might have said that.[6] Firstly, in the hands of simple-minded preachers, this notion of history got alienated from the critical principles of historiography. Secondly, now that it was considered possible to imaginatively recreate the Prophet’s traditions through history, it was not difficult for history to wear the cloak of sacredness. There were some basic reasons for this laxity in the attitude of Muslims towards history. First, the internal crisis of the caliphate; second, the impact of the earlier people of the Book and their attitude to history; third, political groupism; fourth, good-intentioned but simple-minded preachers; and fifth, the presence of hypocritical Muslims (munafiqeen) who were active at different places and who were bent on placing history on the same pedestal as the Divine Revelation, thus causing harm to Islam. The political turmoil paved the way for groupism, the supporters of Othman and those of Ali took the help of fabricated traditions in support of their stand. Later, the Umayyads and the Abbasids worked for their political consolidation on the basis of such traditions. This climate of mutual clash and rivalry provided a wide field for the scholars and fabricators belonging to the people of the Book to give currency to their own view of history. The participation of Abu Huraira in the assemblies of Ka’b Al-Ahbar, the curiosity of Muslims about the knowledge of Ka’b Al-Ahbar about the earlier religions, the general permission for the transmission and publication of the scholarly and narrative accounts by Tamim Dari and Ka’b Al-Ahbar opened the door for the interpretation of the utterances and practices of the Prophet that, to a great extent, owed its origin to the Jewish view of history[7]. In the prevailing climate of confusion and chaos, those potential hypocrites for whom the Qur'an had declared in unambiguous terms – ومن أهل المدينة مردوا على النفاق لا تعلمهم (Al Taubah: 101), and who had so long kept their motives concealed because of the strictness and alertness of the administrative machinery, saw their great opportunity.

Since I do not intend to record a detailed history of the Prophet’s traditions in these pages, but merely to point out the deviation in our thinking about the Divine Revelation that has crept in because of the change in the Quranic concept of history. That is why we will here limit our discussion to the factors that have contributed to the process of investing history and Prophetic practices with the mantle of sacredness, and if, like the Israelites, we, too, have begun to regard history as a reliable tool for the understanding and interpretation of Divine Revelation, then what are the reasons for such an error? The first generation of Muslims, in their effort to resist the emergence of a Mishnah, had delimited the bounds of history and kept them under strict surveillance. Why this surveillance could not be maintained in the later years? If common people began to entertain misconceptions in this regard, then what were the reasons for it? What were the reasons for the emergence of the notion that history is a genuine source of the Prophet’s sunnah, or the notion that sunnah is a collection of sayings and practices outside the Qur'an? And the most important of all – why the Prophetic model was equated with the sunnah for which people began to excavate the collections of the Prophet’s sayings and practices? At which turn of history the sunnah came to be regarded as synonymous with hadith? Our journey from the concept of the model to the sunnah, and from sunnah to hadith records such a profound transformation in our concept of history that without understanding the real nature of this transformation we cannot have a proper appreciation of the Prophetic model, nor can we point to its genuine sources. As it is not possible for us to advance a single step without the Prophetic model, similarly, the slightest mistake in our identification of the sources of this model can distance us from this source of guidance that we regard as the most authentic manifestation of the final Divine Revelation. It is not difficult, on principle, to make a choice between history and Divine Revelation in our quest for the Prophetic model, because there is consensus among all about the superiority of Divine Revelation. The problem really crops up when history is adduced as an additional source or an interpretive tool for the Divine Revelation. The crux of the problem is – history cannot be absolutely discarded, and accepting it as an interpretive tool is also fraught with pitfalls. If the Muslims of the first generation had tried to keep history within its specified bounds rather than rejecting it altogether, it was a well-considered decision. The truth is – without restoring the delicate balance between history and Divine Revelation, it will not be easy for us to reverse the cycle of misconceptions that has taken root among us regarding the Prophetic model.
 

1 2 3