A SHORT COMMENT ON
REFORMIST TRANSLATION OF THE QURAN
Kassim Ahmad
22 May, 2006
The Arab scholar Dr Rashad Khalifa’s brilliant discovery of the awesome mathematical miracle of the Quran in 1974 was a turning point in the history of God’s final scripture. One can say that the post-1974 period is a completely new period for the world’s understanding of the Quran. The Quran is scientifically proved and validated as God’s final message to the world, thereby also scientifically proving the existence of God.
Mr. Edip Yuksel and his two co-translators, Layth Saleh al-Shaiban and Marth Schulte-Nafeh of this translation, are among the many thousand, may be millions, of people throughout the world who have benefited from Dr. Khalifa’s discovery and excellent translation. Mr. Yuksel and this writer must number among the thousands who were and are admirers and students of the late Dr. Khalifa. Now that Mr. Yuksel and his two colleagues have expressed their profound appreciation for his milestone discovery by this “Reformist Translation” of theirs, I am extremely happy and welcome the translation.
That this translation is superior to all traditionalist translations goes without saying, as it breaks out of the Hadith and traditionalist tafsir’s shackles (including the gender bias) that have for a thousand years robbed the Muslim community of its freedom of thought. In several ways, it is an improvement on Dr. Khalifa’s own translation. Off hand, I can cite two crucial words as examples. The words “to acknowledge” for “to believe,” and “conscientious” for “God-fearing” or “righteous” that are normally used, are to my mind a definite improvement.
The translation’s Notes are excellent. As the translators have made many cross-references, they are a mine of useful information that is a scholar’s delight.
The translation is not perfect, of course, even in terms of language, not to say the interpretations of those profound Quranic metaphors, allegories and even apparently straight-forward verses. I am also referring to the two historical and universal or idealistic dimensions of the Quranic message, which, as far as my quick glance at it informs me, is not taken into account in this translation. This appears to me the reason why it cannot satisfactorily explain the apparent superiority of the male to the female, the existence of slavery, and the harsher punishments – the historical aspect of 7th Century Arab social reality that the message engaged in, and the idealism towards which the message continuously pushes the Arabs and mankind forward and upwards.
Every generation has to interpret the Quran anew, just as our knowledge of God, Man and the Universe advances.
I am convinced that the world’s, including and especially the West’s, understanding and appreciation of the God’s Final Scripture, after more than a thousand years of misunderstanding and even aversion, will progress fast from now on until the world accepts this new Quranic paradigm in its radical new phase of life on this planet.
Kassim Ahmad is a Malaysian free-lance writer, living in Penang. He can be contacted at kasmad172@yahoo.com.my. His website is: www.kassimahmad.blogspot.com
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Sunday, May 21, 2006
JAWAPAN PENUH KEPADA ENCIK NORDI ACHIE (1)
Oleh: Kassim Ahmad
19 Mei, 2006
Saya telah membaca dengan teliti komen En. Nordin Achie terhadap artikel saya dalam Al-Islam, keluaran April, 2006 (h. 76-79). Saya mengucap ribuan terima kasih kepada beliau kerana berusaha membuat komen yang rasional, ilmiah dan membina. Sepanjang yang saya ingat, inilah sebuah komen di antara yang paling baik terhadap tulisan-tulisan saya yang bersifat keagamaan.
Pada permulaan tulisan saya yang tersebut, saya meningatkan pembaca betapa kita kerap menjadi tidak rasional apabila membincang isu-isu agama. Ini kerana bagi kebanyakan orang, agama soal kepercyaan; tidak boleh dimasukkan perhitungan akal dalam perbincangan-perbincangan ini. Sebenarnya, ini satu anggapan yang silap. Saya gembira kerana nyatalah En. Nordi Achie tidak termasuk ke dalam golongan ini.
Ada lapan, sebenarnya tujuh, perkara yang telah dibangkitkan oleh penulis ini. Saya akan jawab semuanya dengan lengkap.
Pertama, perihal Imam Shafi’e meletakkan Hadith separas dengan Quran, kenyataan saya dalam tulisan itu, dipertikai oleh beliau. Dalam kaedah fikah yang pokoknya diasaskan oleh Imam Shafi’e, dua ajaran pokok dalam Islam dirumuskan sebagai Quran dan Hadis. Yang lain, Ijmak, Qias dan Ijtihad sebagai tambahan. Kedudukan dua ajaran pokok ini didakwa ditentukan dalam sebuah hadis, tetapi hadis ini dibantah oleh sebuah hadis lain yang membataskan ajaran pokok kepada Quran saja (2). Dalam pada itu, mengikut Prof. Ahmad Ibrahim, yang menentukan kesahihan tafsir dan kesahihan Hadis ialah Ijmak, yang ditafsirkan sebagai muafakat Ummah (3).
Oleh kerana kedua-duanya dianggap ajaran pokok dengan Hadis dikatakan memainkan peranan menerangkan Quran, Hadis mestilah tidak boleh bercanggah dengan Quran. Inilah pengertian masyarakat umum, tetapi sebenarnya banyak hadis yang didakwa sahih (khasnya dari Bukhari dan Muslim) bercanggah dengan ajaran Quran (4). Saya akan memberi dua contoh saja di sini, iaitu hukum rejam untuk penzina yang telah berkahwin, dan hukum bunuh untuk orang murtad.
Dalam kes yang kedua, kebebasan beragama itu mutlak dalam Quran; tidak ada hukuman di dunia ini. Hal ini sangat jelas. Oleh yang demikian, hukuman bunuh dalam hadis itu bercanggah dengan ajaran Quran. Mereka yang mendakwa kebebasan ini hanya terbatas kepada sesiapa yang hendak menganut agama Islam, tetapi apabila telah memeluk Islam mereka tertakluk kepada hukuman hadis ini, nyatalah ingin menterbalikkan logika. “Bebas boleh memeluk apa-apa agama, tetapi apabila telah memeluk Islam, tidak bebas keluar!”
Dalam kes pertama, hukuman terhadap pasangan penzina, sama ada telah berkahwin atau tidak, dalam Quran ialah seratus rotan. Hukuman dalam hadis, yang membezakan antara yang telah berkahwin dan yang tidak, ialah rejam hingga mati. Hukuman ini diambil dari Kitab Taurat (6). Hukuman ini nyatalah berbeza dari hukuman dalam Quran. Ia tidak boleh dikatakan sama sekali penjelasan terhadap hukuman Quran. Ini perubahan atau pindaan terhadap hukuman Quran! Di sini nyatalah Hadith telah mengatasi Quran!
Harus diperhatikan bahawa sebenarnya terdapat dua pilihan hukum di sini, kerana dalam Ayat 5 yang berikutnya, kita dibolehkan meringankan hukuman ini hingga menagmpuni mereka, jika mereka bertaubat selepas itu. Di sini saya ingin menyebutkan dua dimensi dalam Quran: iaitu, satu dimensi sejarah dan satu lagi dimensi universal. Tiap benda atau idea itu abstrak selagi ia hanya wujud dalam imaginasi atau khayalan manusia. Tetapi apabila ia dimanifestasikan dalam sesuatu konteks, katalah masyarakat Arab abad ketujuh, atau masyarakat Eropah abad kelapan-belas, barulah benda atau idea itu menjadi konkrit. Demikianlah agama Islam, pada mana-mana zaman pun, pada zaman Nabi Ibrahim, atau zaman Nabi Musa, atau zaman Nabi Musa (jangan lupa mereka semua mukmin dan muslim), atau zaman Nabi Muhamad, ajaran itu abstrak selagi ia tidak dipraktikkan. Apabila ia dipraktikkan, agama itu mesti menangani keadaan yang wujud, di samping ia mahu membawa perubahan. Jadi, undang-undang dan peraturan-peraturannya, kecuali kepada perkara yang pokok, iaitu konsep tauhid, harus mengambil-kira dua dimensi. Pertama, dimensi sejarah atau dimensi realiti yang maujud; kedua, dimensi universal atau idealistik.
Hukuman dalam zaman dulu dalam mana-mana tamadun pun memang keras. Di England dalam abad ke-18, umpamanya, salah satu hukuman terhadap pencuri ialah potong kepala (7), bukan potong tangan, seperti di Semenanjung Arab dalam abad ke-7 Di beberapa tempat, saya telah menyebut Islam telah memberi dua prinsip hukuman, iaitu prinsip-prinsip keadilan atau hukuman setimpal, dan ihsan atau hukuman rahim. Apabila sesuatu hukuman yang dijatuhkan itu memenuhi tuntutan keadilan dan/atau memenuhi kehendak ihsan, maka itulah hukuman Islam (8).
Kedua, perkara Nabi Muhammad contoh yang baik bagi kita dan beliau dikurniakan akhlak yang tinggi. Apakah makna “contoh yang baik” dan “akhlak yang tinggi”? Nordin Achie mahu saya menghuraikannya dengan lebih panjang. Adakah ia terbatas kepada perkara-perkara besar saja, atau termasuk juga perkara-perkara lain, seperti adat orang Arab dan kecenderungan peribadi? Sebelum saya menjawab soalan ini, ingin saya tegaskan sekali lagi bahawa apa yang diikut oleh Nabi Muhammad ialah perintah-perintah Tuhan dalam Quran. Itulah sebabnya, mengikut sebuah hadis yang diriwayat oleh A’isyah, akhlak Muhammad ialah Quran. Hadis-hadis yang kita terima hari ini sebagai sahih, khasnya oleh Bukhari dan Muslim, ialah berita tentang perktaan dan perbuatan Nabi. Kita harus membezakan antara berita dengan kejadian yang sebenar, kerana kedua-duanya mungkin tidak sama. Ukuran yang saya pakai ialah Quran; jika ia selaras dengan ajaran Quran, baru saya terima berita itu sebagai sebenarnya sahih. Penulis kita dan semua sarjana Islam akur dengan ukuran ini, sekurang-kurangnya pada teorinya. Saya telah merujuk kepada risalah saya, Dilema Umat Islam – Antara Hadis dan Quran yang menghuraikan perkara ini.
Umpamanya, adat orang Arab lelaki ialah memakai serban atau tutup kepala, kerana ini sesuai dengan iklim di sana. Tetapi di Malaysia, dengan hawanya yang panas, ia tidak begitu sesuai. Adakah ini sunnah Nabi yang sunat kita ikut? Saya tidak fikir begitu. Jika Nabi Muhammad seorang Melayu, beliau juga akan memekai pakaian mengikut adat Melayu.
Dalam pada itu, tiap insan mempunyai kesukaan dan kecenderungan sendiri, yang mungkin berebeza dari insan lain, seperti suka makan ketam. Jika Nabi Muhammad suka makan ketam, adakah kita juga sunat memakan ketam?
Tuhan menyuruh kita ikut teladan Nabi Muhammad, selain teladan Nabi Ibrahim, kerana kekuatan iman mereka dan keteguhan perjuangan mereka menegakkan tauhid, termasuklah komitmen mereka kepada keadilan, kebenaran dan perasaan kasih saying sesama manusia. Perekara-perkara inilah yang harus ditekan dan diutamakan, bukan yang lain-lain yang bersifat adat setempat dan sezaman dan kecenderungan individu.
Juga kita dilarang oleh Tuhan membezakan antara nabi-nabi dan rasul-rasul-Nya, yang mana yang lebih baik dan yang mana yang kurang baik (9). Tuhan Maha Kaya. Insan yang diciptakan-Nya yang baik itu banyak, bukan satu. Konsep “insan kamil” yang diajar oleh golongan sufi tidak terdapat dalam Quran, kerana sifat sempurna itu hanya milik Tuhan.
Ketiga, hadis-hadis yang didakwa sahih yang bercanggah dengan ajaran Quran, saya dapati banyak juga. Dalam kiraan kasar, saya letakkan 40 peratusan yang terang-terang bercanggah dengan ajaran Quran. Kita tidak harus lupa akan wujudnya musuh dalam selimut, yang wujud dalam semua masyarakat dalam semua zaman, yang bekerja siang malam, untuk menggagalkan sesuatu ajaran yang baik Ini sunatullah. Ini satu cara yang paling berkesan untuk membezakan antara yang palsu dan yang benar.
Apabila saya bertanya kepada seorang pakar Hadis di Universiti Sains Malaysia, Dr. Muhammad Radzi Hj. Othman, pada tahun 1990 tentang hadis mutawatir (hadis yang mempunyai ramai pelapor dan dengan itu yang benar-benar sahih), beliau menjawab satu saja (10). Oleh yang demikian, mengapa kita mengajar anak-cucu kita menerima beribu-ribu hadis yang sebenarnya tidak sahih dam yang bercanggah dengan ajaran Quran pula?
Keempat, perkara perubahan undang-undang mengikut perkembangan zaman. Memang suatu sunatullah bahawa manusia berubah dan undang-undangnya pun berubah. Dulu kita hidup dalam gua, bercawat dan memperoleh makanan daripada memburu. Selepas itu, kita bercucuk tanam tetapi terpaksa berpindah-randah kerana mencari tanah yang subur (pertanian rendah). Kemudian kita mengamalkan pertanian pertengahan, tidak perlu berpindah-randah lagi tetapi memakai teknologi rendah (kerbau tenggala). Sekarang kita mempraktikkan pertanian tinggi dengan menggunakan teknologi tinggi. Oleh itu, peraturan dan undang-undang masyarakat pun berubah.
Tetapi, dalam konsep perundangan Islam zaman Muhammad ini, paradigma kita ialah Quran, yakni falsafah hidup kita tidak terkeluar daripada paradigma ini. Dari segi ini kita berbeza dari perundangan Barat setelah Europah memisahkan agama dari kehidupan duniawi dari tarikh Perjanjian Westphalia (24 Oktober, 1648) yang menamatkan Perang Agama Eropah yang berlarutan selama tiga puluh tahun. Konsep perundang Islam tidak, atau tidak seharusnya, lari dari konsep undang-undang alamiah (natural law). Tetapi apa yang sebenarnya berlaku ialah sebagian besar dari Syariah dicipta oleh manusia Islam sendiri (kaum fukaha). Ini telah disedari oleh ramai sarjana yang mengkaji perkara ini. Oleh yang demikian, Syariah ini tidak berbeza dari konsep perundangan positif (positive law) Barat. Yang berbezanya kita mendakwa Syari’ah itu perintah Tuhan, sedangkan Eropah mengatakan undang-undang mereka ialah perintah Raja atau Parlimen.
Kelima, dalam hal ini, seperti yang telah saya sebutkan dalam artikel awal saya, kita mesti berbalik kepada konsep perundangan yang cantik yang diajar dalam Quran dalam Ayat 4, Surah 59. Ayat ini menyebut dua sumber undang-undang, iaitu undang-undang dasar (Quran) dan undang-undang tambahan yang dibuat oleh pihak yang berkuasa dalam sesuatu masyarakat untuk melaksanakan undang-undang dasar tadi. Dalam konsep ini, yang berdaulat ialah Tuhan (kerapkali disebut dengan rasulnya kerana Tuhan tidak datang kepada manusia kecuali melalui rasulnya), bukan kerajaan, yang hayamempunyai kedaulatan nisbi. Tetapi kerajaan (frasa yang digunakan di sini pihak yang berkuasa, kerana, dalam zaman Muhammad, belum ada konsep kerajaan sehingga beliau sendiri mendirikan kerajaan setelah beliau berhijrah ke Madinah), sumber perundangan kedua, boleh menggubal undang-undang tambahan denga syarat undang-undang itu tidak bercanggah dengan undang-undang dasar yang termaktub dalam Quran.
Harus kita perhatikan juga bahawa Nabi Muhammad memainkan dua peranan. Pertama, beliau seorang nabi lagi rasul. Tugas beliau ialah menerima dan menyampaikan wahyu Tuhan (Quran) kepada bangsa Arab, dan, melalui bangsa Arab, kepada dunia. Ini telah beliau lakukan dengan sempurna. Kedua, beliau ialah pihak berkuasa, atau pemimpin, kepada bangsa Arab yang akhirnya mengikut beliau. Sebagai pemimpin, beliau bertanggungjawab memimpin bangsanya melaksanakan falsafah hidup atau paradigma Quran. Dalam tugas ini, beliau berjaya besar, tetapi setelah kira-kira tiga ratus tahun, bangsa beliau kembali menyeleweng kepada adat lama (11).
Ayat yang padat dan ringkas ini memberikan suatu konsep perundangan yang sangat cantik. Kepada panduan inilah kita harus kembali untuk menyelesaikan dilema umat Islam, akibat doktrin yang salah yang telah dilakukan oleh nenek-moyang kita kira-kira 300 tahun setelah Nabi Muhammad wafat. Kita tidak perlu pesimistik kerana kesalahan mereka (Imam Shafi’e dan lain-lain). Kita pasti boleh bangkit balik dengan syarat kita tidak mendewakan mereka dan membetulkan diri kita dengan segera dengan berbalik kepada ajaran Quran. Inilah ajaran nabi Muhammad yang sebenar. Walaupun, seperti kata Nordi Achie, Quran itu kalimah Allah, kalimah itu disampaikan melalui kesedaran dan perkataan Muhammad (12). Tuhan sebenarnya tidak bercakap seperti manusia bercakap. Apabila Tuhan bercakap kepada Nabi Musa, adakah nabi Musa nampak Tuhan? Tidak. Beliau hanya dengar suatu suara bercakap dalam bahasa beliau yang menyatakan Dia Tuan Musa (13).
Keenam, perkara “ulama”(diletakkan di antara koma kerana perkataan ini sudah berubah maknanya) yang telah diterima oleh masyarakat Islam sebagai pihak berkuasa dalam urusan agama. Hal ini jelas, kecuali mungkin dalam masyarakat Turki sejak Mustafa Kamal Attaturk menolak mereka dalam Revolusi Kebangsaan Turki pada 1922-24. Dalam semua negara Islam sekarang, golongan “ulama” melaksanakan pernana dan kuasa mereka sebagai “penasihat” melalui institusi-institusi Majlis Agama, Majlis Fatwa dan sebagainya, kecuali di Iran setelah Revolusi Iran pada 1979 apabila kaum mullah mengambil-alih tampuk kerajaan.
Ketujuh dan akhir, perkara kejatuhan umat Islam, kerana terpenjara dalam penjara-istana yang mereka buat sendiri, iaitu apa yang didakwa sebagai Syari’ah atau undang-undang Tuhan. Perkara ini telah saya sentuh di banyak tepat di atas dan tidak perlu saya perpanjang lagi.
Saya tidak mahu menutup jawapan saya ini dalam nada kecewa. Mengikut ajaran Quran, tiada siapa yang patut putus asa, kerana Tuhan Maha Pengampun dan Maha Penyayang dan mengampun semua dosa (14). Oleh itu, kita jangan putus asa untuk mendapat pengampunan Tuhan. Kita boleh menebus semula kejatuhan kita dengan mudah. Ada dua syarat saja. Pertama, kita kena membebaskan diri kita dari semua berhala, kecuali Allah. Jika kita telah mendewakan mana-mana nabi, seperti yang telah dilakukan oleh umat Kristen terhadap Nabi Isa, atau kita telah mendewakan golongan ulama kita, seperti yang telah dilakukan oleh umat Yahudi, kita harus membetulkannya dengan segera. Kedua, kita harus kembali kepada ajaran Quran. Ini tidak bermakna kita perlu menolak Hadith atau Ijmak atau Qias, atau pun falsafah Barat, atau mana-mana ajaran lain, tetapi kita perlu meletakkan ajaran-ajaran ini di bawah kritikan Quran. Syarat-syarat ini boleh kita penuhi, kalau kita mahu. Kita hanya perlu sedar bahawa kita semua, termasuk pemimpin-pemimpin kita, dari kalangan sekular atau agama, dari mana bangsa pun, tidak sempurna. Tuhan saja yang sempurna. Terhadap diri kita dan terhadap pemimin kita, kita mesti sanggup, dalam frasa Quran, “menyerukan kebaikan dan melarang kejahatan”(15). Inilah saja jalan yang selamat, jalan kejayaan dan jalan kemenangan.
(1) En. Nordin Achie ialah pensyarah Pusat Penataran Ilmu dan Bahasa, Universiti Malaysia Sabah. Komen beliau dimuat dalam majalah Al-Islam keluaran Mei, 2006, h. 76-78.
(2) Lihat Kassim Ahmad, Hadis – Satu Penilaian Semula (HSPS), h. 88-89.
(3) Lihat Ahmad Ibrahim, Islamic Law in Malaya (1965), h. 25
(4) Pembaca yang ingin mengetahi lebih lanjut tentang perkara ini, sila lihat risalah-risalah penulis, Kontroversi Hukum Hudud(KHH) (Julai, 2002) dan Dilema Umat Islam – Antara Hadisdan Quran (DUI) (Ogos, 2002).
(5) Quran, 24: 2.
(6) Lihat Kassim Ahmad, DUI, h. 25.
(7) Lihat Christopher Hibbert, The Rootf of Evil (1966); h. 71.
(8) Lihat Kassim Ahmad, Hadis – Jawapan kepada Pengkritik(HJKP) (1992); h. 72-73. Lihat juga nota 31, h. 73.
(9) Lihat Quran, 2: 136.
(10)Lihat Kassim Ahmad, HJKP, h. 29, nota 12.
(11)Inilah makna ayat Quran yang dahsyat yang berbunyi, “Rasul berkata: ‘Wahai Tuanku, kaumku telah membelakangkan Quran ini.’” (25: 30)
(12) “Inilah perisytiharan seorang rasul yang mulia.” (Quran, 69: 40). Ayat ini diulang sekali lagi dalam 81: 19.
(13) Lihat Quran, 20: 11-44.
(14) Lihat Quran, 39: 53.
Kassim Ahmad seorang penulis bebas Malaysia yang tinggal di Pulau Pinang. Beliau boleh dihubungi di kasmad172@yahoo.com.my Sila lawat laman web: www.kassimahmad.blogspot.com
Oleh: Kassim Ahmad
19 Mei, 2006
Saya telah membaca dengan teliti komen En. Nordin Achie terhadap artikel saya dalam Al-Islam, keluaran April, 2006 (h. 76-79). Saya mengucap ribuan terima kasih kepada beliau kerana berusaha membuat komen yang rasional, ilmiah dan membina. Sepanjang yang saya ingat, inilah sebuah komen di antara yang paling baik terhadap tulisan-tulisan saya yang bersifat keagamaan.
Pada permulaan tulisan saya yang tersebut, saya meningatkan pembaca betapa kita kerap menjadi tidak rasional apabila membincang isu-isu agama. Ini kerana bagi kebanyakan orang, agama soal kepercyaan; tidak boleh dimasukkan perhitungan akal dalam perbincangan-perbincangan ini. Sebenarnya, ini satu anggapan yang silap. Saya gembira kerana nyatalah En. Nordi Achie tidak termasuk ke dalam golongan ini.
Ada lapan, sebenarnya tujuh, perkara yang telah dibangkitkan oleh penulis ini. Saya akan jawab semuanya dengan lengkap.
Pertama, perihal Imam Shafi’e meletakkan Hadith separas dengan Quran, kenyataan saya dalam tulisan itu, dipertikai oleh beliau. Dalam kaedah fikah yang pokoknya diasaskan oleh Imam Shafi’e, dua ajaran pokok dalam Islam dirumuskan sebagai Quran dan Hadis. Yang lain, Ijmak, Qias dan Ijtihad sebagai tambahan. Kedudukan dua ajaran pokok ini didakwa ditentukan dalam sebuah hadis, tetapi hadis ini dibantah oleh sebuah hadis lain yang membataskan ajaran pokok kepada Quran saja (2). Dalam pada itu, mengikut Prof. Ahmad Ibrahim, yang menentukan kesahihan tafsir dan kesahihan Hadis ialah Ijmak, yang ditafsirkan sebagai muafakat Ummah (3).
Oleh kerana kedua-duanya dianggap ajaran pokok dengan Hadis dikatakan memainkan peranan menerangkan Quran, Hadis mestilah tidak boleh bercanggah dengan Quran. Inilah pengertian masyarakat umum, tetapi sebenarnya banyak hadis yang didakwa sahih (khasnya dari Bukhari dan Muslim) bercanggah dengan ajaran Quran (4). Saya akan memberi dua contoh saja di sini, iaitu hukum rejam untuk penzina yang telah berkahwin, dan hukum bunuh untuk orang murtad.
Dalam kes yang kedua, kebebasan beragama itu mutlak dalam Quran; tidak ada hukuman di dunia ini. Hal ini sangat jelas. Oleh yang demikian, hukuman bunuh dalam hadis itu bercanggah dengan ajaran Quran. Mereka yang mendakwa kebebasan ini hanya terbatas kepada sesiapa yang hendak menganut agama Islam, tetapi apabila telah memeluk Islam mereka tertakluk kepada hukuman hadis ini, nyatalah ingin menterbalikkan logika. “Bebas boleh memeluk apa-apa agama, tetapi apabila telah memeluk Islam, tidak bebas keluar!”
Dalam kes pertama, hukuman terhadap pasangan penzina, sama ada telah berkahwin atau tidak, dalam Quran ialah seratus rotan. Hukuman dalam hadis, yang membezakan antara yang telah berkahwin dan yang tidak, ialah rejam hingga mati. Hukuman ini diambil dari Kitab Taurat (6). Hukuman ini nyatalah berbeza dari hukuman dalam Quran. Ia tidak boleh dikatakan sama sekali penjelasan terhadap hukuman Quran. Ini perubahan atau pindaan terhadap hukuman Quran! Di sini nyatalah Hadith telah mengatasi Quran!
Harus diperhatikan bahawa sebenarnya terdapat dua pilihan hukum di sini, kerana dalam Ayat 5 yang berikutnya, kita dibolehkan meringankan hukuman ini hingga menagmpuni mereka, jika mereka bertaubat selepas itu. Di sini saya ingin menyebutkan dua dimensi dalam Quran: iaitu, satu dimensi sejarah dan satu lagi dimensi universal. Tiap benda atau idea itu abstrak selagi ia hanya wujud dalam imaginasi atau khayalan manusia. Tetapi apabila ia dimanifestasikan dalam sesuatu konteks, katalah masyarakat Arab abad ketujuh, atau masyarakat Eropah abad kelapan-belas, barulah benda atau idea itu menjadi konkrit. Demikianlah agama Islam, pada mana-mana zaman pun, pada zaman Nabi Ibrahim, atau zaman Nabi Musa, atau zaman Nabi Musa (jangan lupa mereka semua mukmin dan muslim), atau zaman Nabi Muhamad, ajaran itu abstrak selagi ia tidak dipraktikkan. Apabila ia dipraktikkan, agama itu mesti menangani keadaan yang wujud, di samping ia mahu membawa perubahan. Jadi, undang-undang dan peraturan-peraturannya, kecuali kepada perkara yang pokok, iaitu konsep tauhid, harus mengambil-kira dua dimensi. Pertama, dimensi sejarah atau dimensi realiti yang maujud; kedua, dimensi universal atau idealistik.
Hukuman dalam zaman dulu dalam mana-mana tamadun pun memang keras. Di England dalam abad ke-18, umpamanya, salah satu hukuman terhadap pencuri ialah potong kepala (7), bukan potong tangan, seperti di Semenanjung Arab dalam abad ke-7 Di beberapa tempat, saya telah menyebut Islam telah memberi dua prinsip hukuman, iaitu prinsip-prinsip keadilan atau hukuman setimpal, dan ihsan atau hukuman rahim. Apabila sesuatu hukuman yang dijatuhkan itu memenuhi tuntutan keadilan dan/atau memenuhi kehendak ihsan, maka itulah hukuman Islam (8).
Kedua, perkara Nabi Muhammad contoh yang baik bagi kita dan beliau dikurniakan akhlak yang tinggi. Apakah makna “contoh yang baik” dan “akhlak yang tinggi”? Nordin Achie mahu saya menghuraikannya dengan lebih panjang. Adakah ia terbatas kepada perkara-perkara besar saja, atau termasuk juga perkara-perkara lain, seperti adat orang Arab dan kecenderungan peribadi? Sebelum saya menjawab soalan ini, ingin saya tegaskan sekali lagi bahawa apa yang diikut oleh Nabi Muhammad ialah perintah-perintah Tuhan dalam Quran. Itulah sebabnya, mengikut sebuah hadis yang diriwayat oleh A’isyah, akhlak Muhammad ialah Quran. Hadis-hadis yang kita terima hari ini sebagai sahih, khasnya oleh Bukhari dan Muslim, ialah berita tentang perktaan dan perbuatan Nabi. Kita harus membezakan antara berita dengan kejadian yang sebenar, kerana kedua-duanya mungkin tidak sama. Ukuran yang saya pakai ialah Quran; jika ia selaras dengan ajaran Quran, baru saya terima berita itu sebagai sebenarnya sahih. Penulis kita dan semua sarjana Islam akur dengan ukuran ini, sekurang-kurangnya pada teorinya. Saya telah merujuk kepada risalah saya, Dilema Umat Islam – Antara Hadis dan Quran yang menghuraikan perkara ini.
Umpamanya, adat orang Arab lelaki ialah memakai serban atau tutup kepala, kerana ini sesuai dengan iklim di sana. Tetapi di Malaysia, dengan hawanya yang panas, ia tidak begitu sesuai. Adakah ini sunnah Nabi yang sunat kita ikut? Saya tidak fikir begitu. Jika Nabi Muhammad seorang Melayu, beliau juga akan memekai pakaian mengikut adat Melayu.
Dalam pada itu, tiap insan mempunyai kesukaan dan kecenderungan sendiri, yang mungkin berebeza dari insan lain, seperti suka makan ketam. Jika Nabi Muhammad suka makan ketam, adakah kita juga sunat memakan ketam?
Tuhan menyuruh kita ikut teladan Nabi Muhammad, selain teladan Nabi Ibrahim, kerana kekuatan iman mereka dan keteguhan perjuangan mereka menegakkan tauhid, termasuklah komitmen mereka kepada keadilan, kebenaran dan perasaan kasih saying sesama manusia. Perekara-perkara inilah yang harus ditekan dan diutamakan, bukan yang lain-lain yang bersifat adat setempat dan sezaman dan kecenderungan individu.
Juga kita dilarang oleh Tuhan membezakan antara nabi-nabi dan rasul-rasul-Nya, yang mana yang lebih baik dan yang mana yang kurang baik (9). Tuhan Maha Kaya. Insan yang diciptakan-Nya yang baik itu banyak, bukan satu. Konsep “insan kamil” yang diajar oleh golongan sufi tidak terdapat dalam Quran, kerana sifat sempurna itu hanya milik Tuhan.
Ketiga, hadis-hadis yang didakwa sahih yang bercanggah dengan ajaran Quran, saya dapati banyak juga. Dalam kiraan kasar, saya letakkan 40 peratusan yang terang-terang bercanggah dengan ajaran Quran. Kita tidak harus lupa akan wujudnya musuh dalam selimut, yang wujud dalam semua masyarakat dalam semua zaman, yang bekerja siang malam, untuk menggagalkan sesuatu ajaran yang baik Ini sunatullah. Ini satu cara yang paling berkesan untuk membezakan antara yang palsu dan yang benar.
Apabila saya bertanya kepada seorang pakar Hadis di Universiti Sains Malaysia, Dr. Muhammad Radzi Hj. Othman, pada tahun 1990 tentang hadis mutawatir (hadis yang mempunyai ramai pelapor dan dengan itu yang benar-benar sahih), beliau menjawab satu saja (10). Oleh yang demikian, mengapa kita mengajar anak-cucu kita menerima beribu-ribu hadis yang sebenarnya tidak sahih dam yang bercanggah dengan ajaran Quran pula?
Keempat, perkara perubahan undang-undang mengikut perkembangan zaman. Memang suatu sunatullah bahawa manusia berubah dan undang-undangnya pun berubah. Dulu kita hidup dalam gua, bercawat dan memperoleh makanan daripada memburu. Selepas itu, kita bercucuk tanam tetapi terpaksa berpindah-randah kerana mencari tanah yang subur (pertanian rendah). Kemudian kita mengamalkan pertanian pertengahan, tidak perlu berpindah-randah lagi tetapi memakai teknologi rendah (kerbau tenggala). Sekarang kita mempraktikkan pertanian tinggi dengan menggunakan teknologi tinggi. Oleh itu, peraturan dan undang-undang masyarakat pun berubah.
Tetapi, dalam konsep perundangan Islam zaman Muhammad ini, paradigma kita ialah Quran, yakni falsafah hidup kita tidak terkeluar daripada paradigma ini. Dari segi ini kita berbeza dari perundangan Barat setelah Europah memisahkan agama dari kehidupan duniawi dari tarikh Perjanjian Westphalia (24 Oktober, 1648) yang menamatkan Perang Agama Eropah yang berlarutan selama tiga puluh tahun. Konsep perundang Islam tidak, atau tidak seharusnya, lari dari konsep undang-undang alamiah (natural law). Tetapi apa yang sebenarnya berlaku ialah sebagian besar dari Syariah dicipta oleh manusia Islam sendiri (kaum fukaha). Ini telah disedari oleh ramai sarjana yang mengkaji perkara ini. Oleh yang demikian, Syariah ini tidak berbeza dari konsep perundangan positif (positive law) Barat. Yang berbezanya kita mendakwa Syari’ah itu perintah Tuhan, sedangkan Eropah mengatakan undang-undang mereka ialah perintah Raja atau Parlimen.
Kelima, dalam hal ini, seperti yang telah saya sebutkan dalam artikel awal saya, kita mesti berbalik kepada konsep perundangan yang cantik yang diajar dalam Quran dalam Ayat 4, Surah 59. Ayat ini menyebut dua sumber undang-undang, iaitu undang-undang dasar (Quran) dan undang-undang tambahan yang dibuat oleh pihak yang berkuasa dalam sesuatu masyarakat untuk melaksanakan undang-undang dasar tadi. Dalam konsep ini, yang berdaulat ialah Tuhan (kerapkali disebut dengan rasulnya kerana Tuhan tidak datang kepada manusia kecuali melalui rasulnya), bukan kerajaan, yang hayamempunyai kedaulatan nisbi. Tetapi kerajaan (frasa yang digunakan di sini pihak yang berkuasa, kerana, dalam zaman Muhammad, belum ada konsep kerajaan sehingga beliau sendiri mendirikan kerajaan setelah beliau berhijrah ke Madinah), sumber perundangan kedua, boleh menggubal undang-undang tambahan denga syarat undang-undang itu tidak bercanggah dengan undang-undang dasar yang termaktub dalam Quran.
Harus kita perhatikan juga bahawa Nabi Muhammad memainkan dua peranan. Pertama, beliau seorang nabi lagi rasul. Tugas beliau ialah menerima dan menyampaikan wahyu Tuhan (Quran) kepada bangsa Arab, dan, melalui bangsa Arab, kepada dunia. Ini telah beliau lakukan dengan sempurna. Kedua, beliau ialah pihak berkuasa, atau pemimpin, kepada bangsa Arab yang akhirnya mengikut beliau. Sebagai pemimpin, beliau bertanggungjawab memimpin bangsanya melaksanakan falsafah hidup atau paradigma Quran. Dalam tugas ini, beliau berjaya besar, tetapi setelah kira-kira tiga ratus tahun, bangsa beliau kembali menyeleweng kepada adat lama (11).
Ayat yang padat dan ringkas ini memberikan suatu konsep perundangan yang sangat cantik. Kepada panduan inilah kita harus kembali untuk menyelesaikan dilema umat Islam, akibat doktrin yang salah yang telah dilakukan oleh nenek-moyang kita kira-kira 300 tahun setelah Nabi Muhammad wafat. Kita tidak perlu pesimistik kerana kesalahan mereka (Imam Shafi’e dan lain-lain). Kita pasti boleh bangkit balik dengan syarat kita tidak mendewakan mereka dan membetulkan diri kita dengan segera dengan berbalik kepada ajaran Quran. Inilah ajaran nabi Muhammad yang sebenar. Walaupun, seperti kata Nordi Achie, Quran itu kalimah Allah, kalimah itu disampaikan melalui kesedaran dan perkataan Muhammad (12). Tuhan sebenarnya tidak bercakap seperti manusia bercakap. Apabila Tuhan bercakap kepada Nabi Musa, adakah nabi Musa nampak Tuhan? Tidak. Beliau hanya dengar suatu suara bercakap dalam bahasa beliau yang menyatakan Dia Tuan Musa (13).
Keenam, perkara “ulama”(diletakkan di antara koma kerana perkataan ini sudah berubah maknanya) yang telah diterima oleh masyarakat Islam sebagai pihak berkuasa dalam urusan agama. Hal ini jelas, kecuali mungkin dalam masyarakat Turki sejak Mustafa Kamal Attaturk menolak mereka dalam Revolusi Kebangsaan Turki pada 1922-24. Dalam semua negara Islam sekarang, golongan “ulama” melaksanakan pernana dan kuasa mereka sebagai “penasihat” melalui institusi-institusi Majlis Agama, Majlis Fatwa dan sebagainya, kecuali di Iran setelah Revolusi Iran pada 1979 apabila kaum mullah mengambil-alih tampuk kerajaan.
Ketujuh dan akhir, perkara kejatuhan umat Islam, kerana terpenjara dalam penjara-istana yang mereka buat sendiri, iaitu apa yang didakwa sebagai Syari’ah atau undang-undang Tuhan. Perkara ini telah saya sentuh di banyak tepat di atas dan tidak perlu saya perpanjang lagi.
Saya tidak mahu menutup jawapan saya ini dalam nada kecewa. Mengikut ajaran Quran, tiada siapa yang patut putus asa, kerana Tuhan Maha Pengampun dan Maha Penyayang dan mengampun semua dosa (14). Oleh itu, kita jangan putus asa untuk mendapat pengampunan Tuhan. Kita boleh menebus semula kejatuhan kita dengan mudah. Ada dua syarat saja. Pertama, kita kena membebaskan diri kita dari semua berhala, kecuali Allah. Jika kita telah mendewakan mana-mana nabi, seperti yang telah dilakukan oleh umat Kristen terhadap Nabi Isa, atau kita telah mendewakan golongan ulama kita, seperti yang telah dilakukan oleh umat Yahudi, kita harus membetulkannya dengan segera. Kedua, kita harus kembali kepada ajaran Quran. Ini tidak bermakna kita perlu menolak Hadith atau Ijmak atau Qias, atau pun falsafah Barat, atau mana-mana ajaran lain, tetapi kita perlu meletakkan ajaran-ajaran ini di bawah kritikan Quran. Syarat-syarat ini boleh kita penuhi, kalau kita mahu. Kita hanya perlu sedar bahawa kita semua, termasuk pemimpin-pemimpin kita, dari kalangan sekular atau agama, dari mana bangsa pun, tidak sempurna. Tuhan saja yang sempurna. Terhadap diri kita dan terhadap pemimin kita, kita mesti sanggup, dalam frasa Quran, “menyerukan kebaikan dan melarang kejahatan”(15). Inilah saja jalan yang selamat, jalan kejayaan dan jalan kemenangan.
(1) En. Nordin Achie ialah pensyarah Pusat Penataran Ilmu dan Bahasa, Universiti Malaysia Sabah. Komen beliau dimuat dalam majalah Al-Islam keluaran Mei, 2006, h. 76-78.
(2) Lihat Kassim Ahmad, Hadis – Satu Penilaian Semula (HSPS), h. 88-89.
(3) Lihat Ahmad Ibrahim, Islamic Law in Malaya (1965), h. 25
(4) Pembaca yang ingin mengetahi lebih lanjut tentang perkara ini, sila lihat risalah-risalah penulis, Kontroversi Hukum Hudud(KHH) (Julai, 2002) dan Dilema Umat Islam – Antara Hadisdan Quran (DUI) (Ogos, 2002).
(5) Quran, 24: 2.
(6) Lihat Kassim Ahmad, DUI, h. 25.
(7) Lihat Christopher Hibbert, The Rootf of Evil (1966); h. 71.
(8) Lihat Kassim Ahmad, Hadis – Jawapan kepada Pengkritik(HJKP) (1992); h. 72-73. Lihat juga nota 31, h. 73.
(9) Lihat Quran, 2: 136.
(10)Lihat Kassim Ahmad, HJKP, h. 29, nota 12.
(11)Inilah makna ayat Quran yang dahsyat yang berbunyi, “Rasul berkata: ‘Wahai Tuanku, kaumku telah membelakangkan Quran ini.’” (25: 30)
(12) “Inilah perisytiharan seorang rasul yang mulia.” (Quran, 69: 40). Ayat ini diulang sekali lagi dalam 81: 19.
(13) Lihat Quran, 20: 11-44.
(14) Lihat Quran, 39: 53.
Kassim Ahmad seorang penulis bebas Malaysia yang tinggal di Pulau Pinang. Beliau boleh dihubungi di kasmad172@yahoo.com.my Sila lawat laman web: www.kassimahmad.blogspot.com
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Note: This is an extended version of Kassim Ahmad's interview with the Bosnian magazine. MBM
KASSIM AHMAD'S INTERVIEW WITH FARIS NANIC*
Penang, Malaysia
8th May, 2006
1. In the last decade you have been portrayed as an anti-hadith thinker in Malaysia due to your writings on certain aspects of fiqh and shari'a. What was the problem?
A. My book titled «Hadith – A Re-evaluation» (Malay original: Hadis – Satu Penilaian Semula) is self-explanatory. I am critical of the hadith both in terms of its content (Ar. matan) as well as its chain of narrators (Ar. isnad). I did not deny its existence, but I denied its pre-eminent place with the Quran, which is a new doctrine introduced by Imam Shafi'e (d. 820) two hundred years after the Prophet's death. That explains why the official corpus of Hadith (the so-called Six Books of Authentic Hadith of the Sunnis and three collections of the Shi'ah Hadith) did not come into existence until after Shafie introduced this doctrine that the Hadith/Sunnah is compulsory on the Muslims. This was done with his ingenious argument in his book, Al-Risalah, that obedience to the Messenger equals upholding of the Hadith and Sunnah. When we examine all usages of this phrase in the Quran, the meaning is clearly to obey God and to uphold the Quran.
Before this, there were personal notes and collections of hadith, but they were not official. They became official only after Imam Shafi'e introduced his new doctrine .
2. Bosniacs belong to the hanefi madhab and therefore have less problems with hadith role in jurisprudence. Do you think it is a universal muslim problem?
A. In principle, I think it is a universal Muslim problem. Everywhere the majority of Muslims consider the Hadith as on par or almost on par with the Quran. Muslims are taught to believe that without the Hadith, the Quran cannot be understood and without the Hadith the Prophet's role is somehow negated. All this is untrue and unreasonable. God Himself states that the Quran is complete and perfect. In some places in the Quran, the Quran is said to be the «words of an honourable messenger».(Quran, 69:40 & 81:19) Muhammad was entrusted with the Quran precisely because he was morally and intellectually fit to carry and deliver it to the Arabs and to mankind. This, we know, he did.
Of course, Muslims are taught that Prophet Muhammad was an illiterate man to deflect the Christian criticism that He copied the Quran from the Bible. But the Arabic word ummi means «gentile», not «illiterate».
3. You have presented a poetical metaphor describing muslims as those who have entered a shiny palace, lock themselves in and threw the keys out. What do you mean?
A. The teaching of the Quran is complete and perfect in the sense that it is the guidance for a spiritually adult human being, the last completed, perfected and up-dated Book of God. It is like the text for a University student. It does not teach you how to eat and dress or how to pray even, for that matter, because these things one has learnt at the primary level. All the rituals of prayer, fasting and so on were introduced during Prophet Abraham's time and passed on from generation to generation until the time of Prophet Muhammad and until today. (Quran, 2:128) So what we have learnt from the primary and secondary schools, as it were, are no longer taught in the Quran. The Quran is complete and perfect in the sense that all a spiritually adult human being needs to know he can know from a study of the Quran. The perfect system which the majority of Muslims mean is the minutely-regulated so-called Shariah law which regulates everything, even including on what day to cut your finger nails and what prayer to say while entering the toilet! This is their perfect system (the palace of my metaphor) of which they are extremely proud. Unfortunately, this is a prison! It is a prison, because it robs them of their freedom to think and to act.
4. Do you think there is a general lack of knowledge in the West on real muslim contribution to the human civilisation or there exists a deliberate manipulation and decrease of that contibution by the western science historians?
A. It is both. The enemity of the Jews and the Christians towards Islam is nothing new. It did not start with 9/11, as a great many people, including Muslims, tend to think. (Remeber the Crusades?)One form of this enmity is their conspiracy to deny Muslim contributions to many branches of modern knowledge. Read the books The Making Of Humanity by Robert Briffault and, Introduction to the History of Science, by George Sarton Vol. II to realise this. Many Westerners, as with others, simply take over their society's perjudices towards Islam without bothering to make their own investigations. But sooner or later, especially after 9/11 and with Huntington's thesis of the «Clash of Civilizations» between the West and Islam, the European and the American peoples will come to know the true Islam in the teachings of the Quran. The Muslims themselves, although still a minority, after Dr. Rashad Khalifa's brilliant discovery of the mathematical miracle of the Quran and criticism of the Hadith, have re-awakened to the truth of the Quran. Both these forces will combine to bring back the Quran to the Muslims and to the world, precisely at a time when both stand in great need of it.
5. If we agree that in approximately three centuries there has not been any muslim paticipation in revolutionary breakthroughs in scinece and philosophy, what is your opinion on the roots of such state of affairs?
A. The Muslim creative spirit, fired by the revolutionary teachings of the Quran, has been killed. That is the root cause. Note that the teachings of Muhammad (the Quran) came to free the then world of their burdens (of superstitions and false teachings). Who has killed this spirit? As usual, the enemies of truth and justice come in many garbs, including the Muslims. The Muslims themselves, like the Christians and the Jews, have created their own priesthood without realizing it. It is this priesthood that had created the Hadith and the so-called Sharia, both of which are not sactioned by the Quran.
6. In the light of actual unipolarism in the world and so far Malaysian principal stance for multipolarism and dialogue instead of conflict of civilisations, what do you think what should be general muslim position on dialogue amnog cultures and civilisations?
A. It is obligatory on Muslims everywhere to seek peace, but not peace at any price. It is obligatory on them to fight those who make war on them. The dialogue of cultures and civilizations is an important way to world peace, but not the only way. What do you do to a group that does not sincerely want a dialogue, but only wants to dominate you?
7. Some observers think that Malaysia, in the post-Mahathir era is not playing a significant role any more, outside regional considerations, namely ASEAN. Do you agree?
A. Yes, I do. Malaysia worships pragmatism and avoid philosophy like the plague. Even Tun Dr. Mahathir. So it is wise and good politics to be in the good books of Uncle Sam! But Tun Dr. Mahathir was slightly different. He was anti-colonial and anti-feudal from the very beginning.
8. Prime minister Badawi recently expressed dissatisfaction with certain tendencies in the Malaysian society and challenged civil servants to leave their posts if uncompetent to fulfill their tasks and duties. What is behind these statements?
A. The Malaysian bureaucracy is huge and costly, but productivity-wise it is declining. And people are complaining. That is the reason.
9. Energy and energy independence is one of the crucial factors of a country's independence and sovereignty. How do you envisage Malaysia's energy future and what do you think should be Malaysian standpoint on nuclear technology for energy production?
A. I think Malaysia, as all sovereign countries, should go to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Can we imagine what will happen to the deserts of Africa once we can turn them into gardens of green and feed the world population cheaply? That is what nuclear technology can do! Why don't we do it then? Because it does not benefit the oligarchy, which lives and prospers on peoples' miseries.
10. Malaysian government recently floated ringgit against major currencies. Is this because it feels the danger from 1998/99 Asian flu is over or because it has built enough measures to counter another speculative attack on its currency? What happened with other 1999 Mahathir's government mesures?
A. The entire world financial system is in danger of imminent collapse. It is usury-ridden and bankrupt. «The Great Disorder under Heaven» (Mao Tse-tung's phrase) that is now reigning in the world is due to this. The sooner we correct this, the better. But most leaders of the world belong to an elitist club that does not want to rock the boat. So they do almost nothing even though the Titanic is sinking! The real peoples' leaders are now few and far between. Where are the Sukarnos, the Chou En-lies, the Nehru's, the Nassers, the Ben Bellas and the Titos of today?
11. Proporodov Journal is a Croatian Bosniac Muslim minority magazine. Our readers are very interested in Malaysia's particular experience with various minority aspects. Therefore, two questions emerge. First, what is Malaysian goverment doing, bilaterally and multilaterally, to help Malay national minority in neighboring countries, especially Thailand? Second, what is the level of intregration of Chinese, Hindu, Tamil, Sikh and other minorities intoMalaysian society, especially in public sector like politics, military, diplomacy and alike?
A. Given the present situation of Anglo-American imperialist world hegemony and a divided Muslim world, nothing much can be done, although we should help the poor and the down-trodden in all countries. The answer to the second part of the question is that more can be done, because so far the integration of the various communities into a just Malaysian society is quite superficial. It can be upset by a major crisis. But I think such a policy would need a new humanist political philosophy. It cannot be achieved under a so-called liberal democratic system of the Western capitalist mould.
* Mr Faris Nanic is editor of Propordov Journal, a Croatian Bosniac Muslim magazine.
KASSIM AHMAD'S INTERVIEW WITH FARIS NANIC*
Penang, Malaysia
8th May, 2006
1. In the last decade you have been portrayed as an anti-hadith thinker in Malaysia due to your writings on certain aspects of fiqh and shari'a. What was the problem?
A. My book titled «Hadith – A Re-evaluation» (Malay original: Hadis – Satu Penilaian Semula) is self-explanatory. I am critical of the hadith both in terms of its content (Ar. matan) as well as its chain of narrators (Ar. isnad). I did not deny its existence, but I denied its pre-eminent place with the Quran, which is a new doctrine introduced by Imam Shafi'e (d. 820) two hundred years after the Prophet's death. That explains why the official corpus of Hadith (the so-called Six Books of Authentic Hadith of the Sunnis and three collections of the Shi'ah Hadith) did not come into existence until after Shafie introduced this doctrine that the Hadith/Sunnah is compulsory on the Muslims. This was done with his ingenious argument in his book, Al-Risalah, that obedience to the Messenger equals upholding of the Hadith and Sunnah. When we examine all usages of this phrase in the Quran, the meaning is clearly to obey God and to uphold the Quran.
Before this, there were personal notes and collections of hadith, but they were not official. They became official only after Imam Shafi'e introduced his new doctrine .
2. Bosniacs belong to the hanefi madhab and therefore have less problems with hadith role in jurisprudence. Do you think it is a universal muslim problem?
A. In principle, I think it is a universal Muslim problem. Everywhere the majority of Muslims consider the Hadith as on par or almost on par with the Quran. Muslims are taught to believe that without the Hadith, the Quran cannot be understood and without the Hadith the Prophet's role is somehow negated. All this is untrue and unreasonable. God Himself states that the Quran is complete and perfect. In some places in the Quran, the Quran is said to be the «words of an honourable messenger».(Quran, 69:40 & 81:19) Muhammad was entrusted with the Quran precisely because he was morally and intellectually fit to carry and deliver it to the Arabs and to mankind. This, we know, he did.
Of course, Muslims are taught that Prophet Muhammad was an illiterate man to deflect the Christian criticism that He copied the Quran from the Bible. But the Arabic word ummi means «gentile», not «illiterate».
3. You have presented a poetical metaphor describing muslims as those who have entered a shiny palace, lock themselves in and threw the keys out. What do you mean?
A. The teaching of the Quran is complete and perfect in the sense that it is the guidance for a spiritually adult human being, the last completed, perfected and up-dated Book of God. It is like the text for a University student. It does not teach you how to eat and dress or how to pray even, for that matter, because these things one has learnt at the primary level. All the rituals of prayer, fasting and so on were introduced during Prophet Abraham's time and passed on from generation to generation until the time of Prophet Muhammad and until today. (Quran, 2:128) So what we have learnt from the primary and secondary schools, as it were, are no longer taught in the Quran. The Quran is complete and perfect in the sense that all a spiritually adult human being needs to know he can know from a study of the Quran. The perfect system which the majority of Muslims mean is the minutely-regulated so-called Shariah law which regulates everything, even including on what day to cut your finger nails and what prayer to say while entering the toilet! This is their perfect system (the palace of my metaphor) of which they are extremely proud. Unfortunately, this is a prison! It is a prison, because it robs them of their freedom to think and to act.
4. Do you think there is a general lack of knowledge in the West on real muslim contribution to the human civilisation or there exists a deliberate manipulation and decrease of that contibution by the western science historians?
A. It is both. The enemity of the Jews and the Christians towards Islam is nothing new. It did not start with 9/11, as a great many people, including Muslims, tend to think. (Remeber the Crusades?)One form of this enmity is their conspiracy to deny Muslim contributions to many branches of modern knowledge. Read the books The Making Of Humanity by Robert Briffault and, Introduction to the History of Science, by George Sarton Vol. II to realise this. Many Westerners, as with others, simply take over their society's perjudices towards Islam without bothering to make their own investigations. But sooner or later, especially after 9/11 and with Huntington's thesis of the «Clash of Civilizations» between the West and Islam, the European and the American peoples will come to know the true Islam in the teachings of the Quran. The Muslims themselves, although still a minority, after Dr. Rashad Khalifa's brilliant discovery of the mathematical miracle of the Quran and criticism of the Hadith, have re-awakened to the truth of the Quran. Both these forces will combine to bring back the Quran to the Muslims and to the world, precisely at a time when both stand in great need of it.
5. If we agree that in approximately three centuries there has not been any muslim paticipation in revolutionary breakthroughs in scinece and philosophy, what is your opinion on the roots of such state of affairs?
A. The Muslim creative spirit, fired by the revolutionary teachings of the Quran, has been killed. That is the root cause. Note that the teachings of Muhammad (the Quran) came to free the then world of their burdens (of superstitions and false teachings). Who has killed this spirit? As usual, the enemies of truth and justice come in many garbs, including the Muslims. The Muslims themselves, like the Christians and the Jews, have created their own priesthood without realizing it. It is this priesthood that had created the Hadith and the so-called Sharia, both of which are not sactioned by the Quran.
6. In the light of actual unipolarism in the world and so far Malaysian principal stance for multipolarism and dialogue instead of conflict of civilisations, what do you think what should be general muslim position on dialogue amnog cultures and civilisations?
A. It is obligatory on Muslims everywhere to seek peace, but not peace at any price. It is obligatory on them to fight those who make war on them. The dialogue of cultures and civilizations is an important way to world peace, but not the only way. What do you do to a group that does not sincerely want a dialogue, but only wants to dominate you?
7. Some observers think that Malaysia, in the post-Mahathir era is not playing a significant role any more, outside regional considerations, namely ASEAN. Do you agree?
A. Yes, I do. Malaysia worships pragmatism and avoid philosophy like the plague. Even Tun Dr. Mahathir. So it is wise and good politics to be in the good books of Uncle Sam! But Tun Dr. Mahathir was slightly different. He was anti-colonial and anti-feudal from the very beginning.
8. Prime minister Badawi recently expressed dissatisfaction with certain tendencies in the Malaysian society and challenged civil servants to leave their posts if uncompetent to fulfill their tasks and duties. What is behind these statements?
A. The Malaysian bureaucracy is huge and costly, but productivity-wise it is declining. And people are complaining. That is the reason.
9. Energy and energy independence is one of the crucial factors of a country's independence and sovereignty. How do you envisage Malaysia's energy future and what do you think should be Malaysian standpoint on nuclear technology for energy production?
A. I think Malaysia, as all sovereign countries, should go to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Can we imagine what will happen to the deserts of Africa once we can turn them into gardens of green and feed the world population cheaply? That is what nuclear technology can do! Why don't we do it then? Because it does not benefit the oligarchy, which lives and prospers on peoples' miseries.
10. Malaysian government recently floated ringgit against major currencies. Is this because it feels the danger from 1998/99 Asian flu is over or because it has built enough measures to counter another speculative attack on its currency? What happened with other 1999 Mahathir's government mesures?
A. The entire world financial system is in danger of imminent collapse. It is usury-ridden and bankrupt. «The Great Disorder under Heaven» (Mao Tse-tung's phrase) that is now reigning in the world is due to this. The sooner we correct this, the better. But most leaders of the world belong to an elitist club that does not want to rock the boat. So they do almost nothing even though the Titanic is sinking! The real peoples' leaders are now few and far between. Where are the Sukarnos, the Chou En-lies, the Nehru's, the Nassers, the Ben Bellas and the Titos of today?
11. Proporodov Journal is a Croatian Bosniac Muslim minority magazine. Our readers are very interested in Malaysia's particular experience with various minority aspects. Therefore, two questions emerge. First, what is Malaysian goverment doing, bilaterally and multilaterally, to help Malay national minority in neighboring countries, especially Thailand? Second, what is the level of intregration of Chinese, Hindu, Tamil, Sikh and other minorities intoMalaysian society, especially in public sector like politics, military, diplomacy and alike?
A. Given the present situation of Anglo-American imperialist world hegemony and a divided Muslim world, nothing much can be done, although we should help the poor and the down-trodden in all countries. The answer to the second part of the question is that more can be done, because so far the integration of the various communities into a just Malaysian society is quite superficial. It can be upset by a major crisis. But I think such a policy would need a new humanist political philosophy. It cannot be achieved under a so-called liberal democratic system of the Western capitalist mould.
* Mr Faris Nanic is editor of Propordov Journal, a Croatian Bosniac Muslim magazine.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
[I interrupt the serialization of Hadith: A Re-Evaluation to bring this interview Kassim Ahmad had with a Croation Muslim magazine. MBM]
KASSIM AHMAD'S INTERVIEW
WITH FARIS NANIC*
Penang, Malaysia
8th May, 2006
1. In the last decade you have been portrayed as an anti-hadith thinker in Malaysia due to your writings on certain aspects of fiqh and shari'a. What was the problem?
A. My book titled «Hadith – A Re-evaluation» (Malay original: Hadis – Satu Penilaian Semula) is self-explanatory. I am critical of the hadith both in terms of its content (Ar. matan) as well as its chain of narrators (Ar. isnad). I did not deny its existence, but I denied its pre-eminent place with the Quran, which is a new doctrine introduced by Imam Shafi'e. That explains why the official corpus of Hadith did not come into exixtence until after Shafie introduced this doctrine that the Hadith/Sunnah is compulsory on the Muslims.
2. Bosniacs belong to the hanefi madhab and therefore have less problems with hadith role in jurisprudence. Do you think it is a universal Muslim problem?
A. In principle, I think it is a universal Muslim problem. Everywhere the majority of Muslims consider belief in the Hadith as obligatory on them.
3. You have presented a poetical metaphor describing Muslims as those who have entered a shiny palace, lock themselves in and threw the keys out. What do you mean?
A. The teaching of the Quran is complete and perfect in the sense that it is the text for a spiritually adult human being, for the university level of education. It does not teach you how to eat and dress or how to pray even, for that matter, because these things one has learnt at the primary level. But for the majority of Muslims, this perfect system means that everything, even including on what day to cut your finger nails and what prayer to say while entering the toilet, has been stipulated for them! This is their perfect system (the palace of my metaphor) of which they are extremely proud. Unfortunately, this is a prison!
4. Do you think there is a general lack of knowledge in the West on real Muslim contribution to the human civilisation or is there a deliberate manipulation and decrease of that contibution by the Western science historians?
A. It is both. Sooner or later the European and the American peoples will come to know the true Islam in the teachings of the Quran. They will not be burdened by the Hadith-bound theology of the so-called ulama. The Quran will free them and they will in turn free us. This is what is likely to happen in the next thirty to sixty years.
5. If we agree that in approximately three centuries there has not been any Muslim paticipation in revolutionary breakthroughs in science and philosophy, what is your opinion on the roots of such state of affairs?
A. The Muslim creative spirit, fired by the revolutionary teachings of the Quran, has been killed. That is the root cause. Note that the teachings of Muhammad (the Quran) came to free the then world of their burdens (of superstitions and false teachings).
6. In the light of actual unipolarism in the world and as far as the Malaysian principal stance for multipolarism and dialogue instead of conflict of civilisations, what do you think what should be the general Muslim position on dialogue among cultures and civilisations?
A. It is obligatory on Muslims everywhere to seek peace, but not peace at any price. It is obligatory on them to fight those who make war on them. The dialogue of cultures and civilizations is an important way to world peace, but not the only way. What do you do to a group that does not sincerely want a dialogue, but only wants to dominate you?
7. Some observers think that Malaysia in the post-Mahathir era is not playing a significant role any more, outside of regional considerations, namely ASEAN. Do you agree?
A. Yes, I do. Malaysia worships pragmatism and avoid philosophy like the plague. Even Tun Dr. Mahathir. So it is wise and good politics to be in the good books of Uncle Sam! But Tun Dr. Mahathir was slightly different. He was anti-colonial and anti-feudal from the very beginning.
8. Prime minister Badawi recently expressed dissatisfaction with certain tendencies in the Malaysian society and challenged civil servants to leave their posts if they are uncompetent to fulfill their tasks and duties. What is behind these statements?
A. The Malaysian bureaucracy is huge and costly, but productivity-wise it is declining. And people are complaining. That is the reason.
9. Energy and energy independence is one of the crucial factors of a country's independence and sovereignty. How do you envisage Malaysia's energy future and what do you think should be the Malaysian standpoint on nuclear technology for energy production?
A. I think Malaysia, as all sovereign countries, should develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Can we imagine what will happen to the deserts of Africa once we can turn them into gardens of green and feed the world population cheaply? That is what nuclear technology can do!
10. Malaysian government recently floated ringgit against major currencies. Is this because it feels the danger from 1998/99 Asian flu is over or because it has built enough measures to counter another speculative attack on its currency? What happened with other 1999 Mahathir's government mesures?
A. The entire world financial system is in danger of imminent collapse. It is usury-ridden and bankrupt. «The Great Disorder under Heaven» that is now reigning in the world is due to this. The sooner we correct this, the better. Most leaders of the world belong to an elitist club that does not want to rock the boat. But the Titanic is sinking! The real peoples' leaders are now few and far between. Where are the Sukarnos, the Chou En-lies, the Nehru's, the Nassers, the Ben Bellas and the Titos of today?
11. Proporodov Journal is a Croatian Bosniac Muslim minority magazine. Our readers are very interested in Malaysia's particular experience with various minority aspects. Therefore, two questions emerge. First, what is Malaysian goverment doing, bilaterally and multilaterally, to help Malay national minority in neighboring countries, especially Thailand? Second, what is the level of intregration of Chinese, Hindu, Tamil, Sikh and other minorities intoMalaysian society, especially in public sector like politics, military, diplomacy and alike?
A Given the present situation of Anglo-American imperialist world hegemony and a divided Muslim world, nothing much can be done, although we should help the poor and the down-trodden in all countries. The answer to the second part of the question is that more can be done, because so far the integration of the various communities into a just Malaysian society is quite superficial. It can be upset by a major crisis. But I think such a policy would need a new humanist political philosophy. It cannot be achieved under a so-called liberal democratic system of the capitalist Western mould.
* Mr Faris Nanic is editor of Propordov Journal, a Croatian Bosniac Muslim magazine.
KASSIM AHMAD'S INTERVIEW
WITH FARIS NANIC*
Penang, Malaysia
8th May, 2006
1. In the last decade you have been portrayed as an anti-hadith thinker in Malaysia due to your writings on certain aspects of fiqh and shari'a. What was the problem?
A. My book titled «Hadith – A Re-evaluation» (Malay original: Hadis – Satu Penilaian Semula) is self-explanatory. I am critical of the hadith both in terms of its content (Ar. matan) as well as its chain of narrators (Ar. isnad). I did not deny its existence, but I denied its pre-eminent place with the Quran, which is a new doctrine introduced by Imam Shafi'e. That explains why the official corpus of Hadith did not come into exixtence until after Shafie introduced this doctrine that the Hadith/Sunnah is compulsory on the Muslims.
2. Bosniacs belong to the hanefi madhab and therefore have less problems with hadith role in jurisprudence. Do you think it is a universal Muslim problem?
A. In principle, I think it is a universal Muslim problem. Everywhere the majority of Muslims consider belief in the Hadith as obligatory on them.
3. You have presented a poetical metaphor describing Muslims as those who have entered a shiny palace, lock themselves in and threw the keys out. What do you mean?
A. The teaching of the Quran is complete and perfect in the sense that it is the text for a spiritually adult human being, for the university level of education. It does not teach you how to eat and dress or how to pray even, for that matter, because these things one has learnt at the primary level. But for the majority of Muslims, this perfect system means that everything, even including on what day to cut your finger nails and what prayer to say while entering the toilet, has been stipulated for them! This is their perfect system (the palace of my metaphor) of which they are extremely proud. Unfortunately, this is a prison!
4. Do you think there is a general lack of knowledge in the West on real Muslim contribution to the human civilisation or is there a deliberate manipulation and decrease of that contibution by the Western science historians?
A. It is both. Sooner or later the European and the American peoples will come to know the true Islam in the teachings of the Quran. They will not be burdened by the Hadith-bound theology of the so-called ulama. The Quran will free them and they will in turn free us. This is what is likely to happen in the next thirty to sixty years.
5. If we agree that in approximately three centuries there has not been any Muslim paticipation in revolutionary breakthroughs in science and philosophy, what is your opinion on the roots of such state of affairs?
A. The Muslim creative spirit, fired by the revolutionary teachings of the Quran, has been killed. That is the root cause. Note that the teachings of Muhammad (the Quran) came to free the then world of their burdens (of superstitions and false teachings).
6. In the light of actual unipolarism in the world and as far as the Malaysian principal stance for multipolarism and dialogue instead of conflict of civilisations, what do you think what should be the general Muslim position on dialogue among cultures and civilisations?
A. It is obligatory on Muslims everywhere to seek peace, but not peace at any price. It is obligatory on them to fight those who make war on them. The dialogue of cultures and civilizations is an important way to world peace, but not the only way. What do you do to a group that does not sincerely want a dialogue, but only wants to dominate you?
7. Some observers think that Malaysia in the post-Mahathir era is not playing a significant role any more, outside of regional considerations, namely ASEAN. Do you agree?
A. Yes, I do. Malaysia worships pragmatism and avoid philosophy like the plague. Even Tun Dr. Mahathir. So it is wise and good politics to be in the good books of Uncle Sam! But Tun Dr. Mahathir was slightly different. He was anti-colonial and anti-feudal from the very beginning.
8. Prime minister Badawi recently expressed dissatisfaction with certain tendencies in the Malaysian society and challenged civil servants to leave their posts if they are uncompetent to fulfill their tasks and duties. What is behind these statements?
A. The Malaysian bureaucracy is huge and costly, but productivity-wise it is declining. And people are complaining. That is the reason.
9. Energy and energy independence is one of the crucial factors of a country's independence and sovereignty. How do you envisage Malaysia's energy future and what do you think should be the Malaysian standpoint on nuclear technology for energy production?
A. I think Malaysia, as all sovereign countries, should develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Can we imagine what will happen to the deserts of Africa once we can turn them into gardens of green and feed the world population cheaply? That is what nuclear technology can do!
10. Malaysian government recently floated ringgit against major currencies. Is this because it feels the danger from 1998/99 Asian flu is over or because it has built enough measures to counter another speculative attack on its currency? What happened with other 1999 Mahathir's government mesures?
A. The entire world financial system is in danger of imminent collapse. It is usury-ridden and bankrupt. «The Great Disorder under Heaven» that is now reigning in the world is due to this. The sooner we correct this, the better. Most leaders of the world belong to an elitist club that does not want to rock the boat. But the Titanic is sinking! The real peoples' leaders are now few and far between. Where are the Sukarnos, the Chou En-lies, the Nehru's, the Nassers, the Ben Bellas and the Titos of today?
11. Proporodov Journal is a Croatian Bosniac Muslim minority magazine. Our readers are very interested in Malaysia's particular experience with various minority aspects. Therefore, two questions emerge. First, what is Malaysian goverment doing, bilaterally and multilaterally, to help Malay national minority in neighboring countries, especially Thailand? Second, what is the level of intregration of Chinese, Hindu, Tamil, Sikh and other minorities intoMalaysian society, especially in public sector like politics, military, diplomacy and alike?
A Given the present situation of Anglo-American imperialist world hegemony and a divided Muslim world, nothing much can be done, although we should help the poor and the down-trodden in all countries. The answer to the second part of the question is that more can be done, because so far the integration of the various communities into a just Malaysian society is quite superficial. It can be upset by a major crisis. But I think such a policy would need a new humanist political philosophy. It cannot be achieved under a so-called liberal democratic system of the capitalist Western mould.
* Mr Faris Nanic is editor of Propordov Journal, a Croatian Bosniac Muslim magazine.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Hadith: A Re-Evaluation
Where Have We Gone Wrong?
The time is ripe for Muslims and for mankind as a whole to undertake a fundamental study of this great human crisis. At some point, somewhere, we have gone wrong. Where have we gone wrong? It will be recalled that modern secular Europe emerged in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in rebellion against the Catholic Church in particular and against religion in general to embrace secular humanism of the liberal or Marxist variety. For the last one to three hundred years it experimented with these social philosophies and systems and the experiments have proved a failure. Today the two philosophies and systems are seeking a synthesis. Can the synthesis be achieved? Can it answer mankind's present quest for a new spiritual philosophy?
As for the Muslims, the new and young Muslim society and state set up by Muhammad and his compatriots in seventh century Arabia developed and expanded so rapidly that within a century it had become an empire to comprise also Persia and Byzantium, and within two to three hundred years it had created a great world civilization. But, as quickly as it had arisen, so quickly had it declined and fallen. Today, the Muslim polity, science and civilization, great though they were in their time, are glories and things of the past. There seems to be no bridge linking their great predecessors of the early centuries and present-day Muslims.
The great question mark hanging over the Muslims and the entire mankind today is: Why? The short answer to the question, which is the thesis of this book, is that mankind, including the Muslims, have deserted the true teachings of God. The true teachings of God in the era of Muhammad is contained in His final scripture to mankind, the Quran. The People of the Scripture, i.e. believers before Muhammad, especially the Jews and the Christians, rejected Muhammad because they had idolized their own prophets and religious leaders and refused to acknowledge Muhammad's divine message. Modern secular rebellious Europe not only turned against their religious priesthood, in which action it was right, but also against religion altogether, in which action it was wrong. This is the cause of the present Western impasse.
As regards the Muslims, Muhammad brought them the Quran, described by God Himself as an invincible book, but no sooner did Muhammad die and leave them, they contrived to make Muhammad bring two books and, after bitter quarrels, they legislated, two hundred and fifty years later, that Muslims must uphold not only the Quran but also the hadith. However, in truth, since then, they followed the hadith rather than the Quran. This explains God's warning in the Quran that we have quoted earlier. So it came about that while secular Europe embraced either liberalism or Marxism, the Muslim world embraced the hadith, with the philosophies of secular humanism infecting the elites of Muslim societies, thus justifying the Quranic warning.
Avoiding Misunderstanding
Raising such a fundamental issue as this, it is difficult to avoid misunderstanding from both sides. The secular side, being more open-minded and tolerant, will simply dismiss this call to the Quran as antiquated, outmoded and irrelevant. Many secularists will simply not consider it. On the other hand, the traditionalist side, being close-minded and intolerant of dissenting views on matters regarded as their preserves, will raise a hue and cry and throw slanderous accusations into the debate.
One cannot be discouraged by the prospect. It is part of the social struggle to expose falsehood and confirm the truth. The secularists will be worthy opponents since they will be prepared to fight it out in open battles. Open debate is part of their secular tradition. The traditionalists are a different breed. Open debate is not part of their tradition. In fact, they came into being in Muslim society by killing open debate. Authoritarianism is their culture. Thus, slander, threats and falsehood will be their methods.
It will be claimed that the writer is trying to cause confusion and further divide Muslim society. This is far from the truth. The Muslims cannot be further confused and divided than they already have been for a long time. What worse confusion and division can there be than when Muslims fight and kill one another?
My aim is to try to establish the truth. My personal history bears testimony to this tendency. Like other Malays, I was born and brought up in an ordinary orthodox Malay Muslim family. However, my early interest in social philosophy took me on a long spiritual quest, over a period of thirty years, spanning liberal nationalism, Islamic liberalism and socialism, every single one of which each time sat uneasily over traditional Islam. The failure became obvious to me when the coherent integrated social philosophy that I was seeking eluded me. It was in the Islam of the Quran, scientifically understood, that I discovered the framework of such a philosophy.
Looking back, this is only logical, since the Quran contains the sure truth from God, while most of human teachings, as the Quran points out, are mere conjecture. But at that time, the Quran was, so to speak, covered up for me by the fog of hadith.
It will be claimed that calling the people back to the Quran alone will create a new sect, in addition to the sects that already exist. This is standing the argument on its head. Since the Quran is, in the first place, anti-sectarian, not only will it not create a new sect, but it will, on the contrary, eliminate all existing sects and reunite all Muslims. This is precisely what we want to do. History proves that under Muhammad the young Muslim society was completely united and there was no sect whatever. It is ironic that the Ahl'ul-Hadith who talk so much about following the example of the Prophet have completely abandoned this finest of his examples!
It will also be claimed that in rejecting the hadith as a source of law, we shall be rejecting the role of the Prophet. It will further be claimed that this is the first step to the ultimate rejection of the Quran! As for the first part of the claim, it is obvious to anyone that it was only through Muhammad that mankind received the Quran from God Almighty. That was his primary role — God's messenger — indeed his only role, as the Quran stressed several times. Was not this role great enough for Prophet Muhammad? Surely, it was.
As for the second part, it is too ridiculous to even think of it. But since the die-hard traditionists would stop at nothing to slander their opponents, one would lose nothing to spend a few lines exposing them. How can anyone, after calling the people back to the Quran, then reject the Quran? Even if he does, and this means reverting to disbelief after belief, how can that benefit him? He would lose everything, while the people, on the contrary, would benefit greatly by going back to the Quran.
The Muslims must re-possess critical consciousness and discard prejudice and group fanaticism. We must avoid throwing slanderous accusations at what we may not like at first. God Himself has taught us to verify things before we accept or reject them. No less an intelligent man than Sayyed Hossein Nasr who has said the following about those who deny the authority of the hadith:
It is against this basic aspect of the whole structure of Islam that a severe attack has been made in recent years by an influential school of Western Orientalists. No more of a vicious and insidious attack could be made against Islam than this one, which undercuts its very foundations and whose effect is more dangerous than if a physical attack were made against Islam.
How can this scholar, who has quoted a blasphemous hadith in the same book, spout this slander? Why should we Muslims, in possession of an invincible scripture from God Almighty, be afraid of the criticisms and even attacks of Orientalists? Such fear, in fact, reflects our own weakness. It shows that we are not sure of our own selves. The Quranic methodology should be a lesson for us. The Quran incessantly reproduces the false arguments of idol-worshippers and hypocrites and rebuts them with proofs and with better arguments. We should do the same to expose falsehoods and confirm the truth. The methods of suppression and slander are alien to the methods of truth.
Rejecting the authority of the hadith does not mean denying its existence. Some true reports of what the Prophet said and did outside the Quran as leader of his community and as an ordinary man must have been preserved. Such reports deserve to be treated as any other historical account whose authenticity must be judged against other historical accounts, against the higher authority of the Quran, and against rational criteria. While Quranic pronouncements are divine and are eternally binding on believers, those of Muhammad in his capacity as leader must be treated in accordance with the Quranic injunction regarding politico-social authority, i.e. that they are only conditionally binding. The conditions are that they do not contradict the Quran, they are binding only for the community of that time, and that for other communities of other times they only constitute as precedents to be followed or bypassed as and when deemed useful.
It should also be well understood that this re-evaluation of the hadith is in no way a slur upon our classical scholars. They understood and reacted to their problems as best they could. We who come after them are not bound by their solutions. As Muhammad Abduh has well said, "They are human and we are human. We learn from them but we do not [blindly] follow them." No doubt our re-examination constitutes a criticism. But this is normal scientific procedure. It has been done by all our great philosophers and scholars from the beginning, by Ibn Sina, al-Ghazzali, Ibn Rush, Ibn Taimiya, Shah Waliyullah, Muhammad Abduh and scores of others. We owe it to them and to ourselves to constantly practice this method. For how else can knowledge develop and society progress unless they continually be purged of errors. This accounts for the very important Quranic directive, repeated many times, to believers:
Let there be a community among you who preach goodness, advocate righteousness and forbid evil. These are the winners.
It must also be pointed out that this criticism and re-evaluation of the hadith that we are making is nothing new. Imam Shafi`i who first stipulated that the hadith should be accepted as a source of law had opponents that he himself described in his book. In recent times there were such proponents in Egypt, India and Indonesia. It may be that our treatment, thanks to recent developments in Quranic and hadith studies, is more systematic than previous efforts.
In this study we have adopted what may be termed as Islamic scientific methodology. In is unfortunate that today we associate scientific methodology to the Western empirical and rational methods, when, in fact, it was Islam that introduced this methodology to the West. The words of the English historian Robert Briffault deserve to be quoted in full:
"... It was under their successors at the Oxford school that Roger Bacon learned Arabic and Arabic science. Neither Roger Bacon nor his later namesake has any title to be credited with having introduced the experimental method. Roger Bacon was no more than one of the apostles of Muslim science and method to Christian Europe; and he never wearied of declaring that knowledge of Arabic and Arabic science was for his contemporaries the only way to true knowledge. Discussions as to who was the originator of the experimental method ... are part of the colossal misrepresentation of the origins of European civilization. The experimental method of [the] Arabs was by Bacon's time widespread and eagerly cultivated throughout Europe..."
However, the scientific methodology of Europe sought to bar supra-rational and supra-sensory knowledge from science. It is now admitted that this is inadequate to conform to the truly Islamic scientific methodology of combining sensory, rational and supra-rational knowledge to produce true integrated knowledge. Using this methodology, we take the Quran as our basis and starting point and subject all the evidence of the hadith, i.e. the hadith itself, the major classical writings on them and modern European and Muslim criticisms, to Quranic and rational judgements. We may, of course, take ten years to do this and produce five volumes that few will have the time and the stamina to read. Our purpose is different. Ours is to write a readable book for the general reader with enough matter for him to think and draw conclusions.
It is hardly necessary to state that this is a view offered to the reader for his consideration. God Almighty Himself has ordered us to read in His name, for doing that we cannot fail to develop our mind and increase our knowledge. A good book will do that positively; a bad one, negatively. Reading in His name, therefore, cannot but produce good results. Yet, the Muslims today are very bad readers. Centuries of subservience to bigoted religious authorities have shackled their minds. This subservience plus their deplorable ignorance of the contents of the Quran combine to make what they are today — a weak, backward and humiliated people. The time has come for us to break out of this prison. It is for this purpose that this study is undertaken.
Next: CHAPTER II REFUTATION OF THE TRADITIONISTS' THEORY
Where Have We Gone Wrong?
The time is ripe for Muslims and for mankind as a whole to undertake a fundamental study of this great human crisis. At some point, somewhere, we have gone wrong. Where have we gone wrong? It will be recalled that modern secular Europe emerged in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in rebellion against the Catholic Church in particular and against religion in general to embrace secular humanism of the liberal or Marxist variety. For the last one to three hundred years it experimented with these social philosophies and systems and the experiments have proved a failure. Today the two philosophies and systems are seeking a synthesis. Can the synthesis be achieved? Can it answer mankind's present quest for a new spiritual philosophy?
As for the Muslims, the new and young Muslim society and state set up by Muhammad and his compatriots in seventh century Arabia developed and expanded so rapidly that within a century it had become an empire to comprise also Persia and Byzantium, and within two to three hundred years it had created a great world civilization. But, as quickly as it had arisen, so quickly had it declined and fallen. Today, the Muslim polity, science and civilization, great though they were in their time, are glories and things of the past. There seems to be no bridge linking their great predecessors of the early centuries and present-day Muslims.
The great question mark hanging over the Muslims and the entire mankind today is: Why? The short answer to the question, which is the thesis of this book, is that mankind, including the Muslims, have deserted the true teachings of God. The true teachings of God in the era of Muhammad is contained in His final scripture to mankind, the Quran. The People of the Scripture, i.e. believers before Muhammad, especially the Jews and the Christians, rejected Muhammad because they had idolized their own prophets and religious leaders and refused to acknowledge Muhammad's divine message. Modern secular rebellious Europe not only turned against their religious priesthood, in which action it was right, but also against religion altogether, in which action it was wrong. This is the cause of the present Western impasse.
As regards the Muslims, Muhammad brought them the Quran, described by God Himself as an invincible book, but no sooner did Muhammad die and leave them, they contrived to make Muhammad bring two books and, after bitter quarrels, they legislated, two hundred and fifty years later, that Muslims must uphold not only the Quran but also the hadith. However, in truth, since then, they followed the hadith rather than the Quran. This explains God's warning in the Quran that we have quoted earlier. So it came about that while secular Europe embraced either liberalism or Marxism, the Muslim world embraced the hadith, with the philosophies of secular humanism infecting the elites of Muslim societies, thus justifying the Quranic warning.
Avoiding Misunderstanding
Raising such a fundamental issue as this, it is difficult to avoid misunderstanding from both sides. The secular side, being more open-minded and tolerant, will simply dismiss this call to the Quran as antiquated, outmoded and irrelevant. Many secularists will simply not consider it. On the other hand, the traditionalist side, being close-minded and intolerant of dissenting views on matters regarded as their preserves, will raise a hue and cry and throw slanderous accusations into the debate.
One cannot be discouraged by the prospect. It is part of the social struggle to expose falsehood and confirm the truth. The secularists will be worthy opponents since they will be prepared to fight it out in open battles. Open debate is part of their secular tradition. The traditionalists are a different breed. Open debate is not part of their tradition. In fact, they came into being in Muslim society by killing open debate. Authoritarianism is their culture. Thus, slander, threats and falsehood will be their methods.
It will be claimed that the writer is trying to cause confusion and further divide Muslim society. This is far from the truth. The Muslims cannot be further confused and divided than they already have been for a long time. What worse confusion and division can there be than when Muslims fight and kill one another?
My aim is to try to establish the truth. My personal history bears testimony to this tendency. Like other Malays, I was born and brought up in an ordinary orthodox Malay Muslim family. However, my early interest in social philosophy took me on a long spiritual quest, over a period of thirty years, spanning liberal nationalism, Islamic liberalism and socialism, every single one of which each time sat uneasily over traditional Islam. The failure became obvious to me when the coherent integrated social philosophy that I was seeking eluded me. It was in the Islam of the Quran, scientifically understood, that I discovered the framework of such a philosophy.
Looking back, this is only logical, since the Quran contains the sure truth from God, while most of human teachings, as the Quran points out, are mere conjecture. But at that time, the Quran was, so to speak, covered up for me by the fog of hadith.
It will be claimed that calling the people back to the Quran alone will create a new sect, in addition to the sects that already exist. This is standing the argument on its head. Since the Quran is, in the first place, anti-sectarian, not only will it not create a new sect, but it will, on the contrary, eliminate all existing sects and reunite all Muslims. This is precisely what we want to do. History proves that under Muhammad the young Muslim society was completely united and there was no sect whatever. It is ironic that the Ahl'ul-Hadith who talk so much about following the example of the Prophet have completely abandoned this finest of his examples!
It will also be claimed that in rejecting the hadith as a source of law, we shall be rejecting the role of the Prophet. It will further be claimed that this is the first step to the ultimate rejection of the Quran! As for the first part of the claim, it is obvious to anyone that it was only through Muhammad that mankind received the Quran from God Almighty. That was his primary role — God's messenger — indeed his only role, as the Quran stressed several times. Was not this role great enough for Prophet Muhammad? Surely, it was.
As for the second part, it is too ridiculous to even think of it. But since the die-hard traditionists would stop at nothing to slander their opponents, one would lose nothing to spend a few lines exposing them. How can anyone, after calling the people back to the Quran, then reject the Quran? Even if he does, and this means reverting to disbelief after belief, how can that benefit him? He would lose everything, while the people, on the contrary, would benefit greatly by going back to the Quran.
The Muslims must re-possess critical consciousness and discard prejudice and group fanaticism. We must avoid throwing slanderous accusations at what we may not like at first. God Himself has taught us to verify things before we accept or reject them. No less an intelligent man than Sayyed Hossein Nasr who has said the following about those who deny the authority of the hadith:
It is against this basic aspect of the whole structure of Islam that a severe attack has been made in recent years by an influential school of Western Orientalists. No more of a vicious and insidious attack could be made against Islam than this one, which undercuts its very foundations and whose effect is more dangerous than if a physical attack were made against Islam.
How can this scholar, who has quoted a blasphemous hadith in the same book, spout this slander? Why should we Muslims, in possession of an invincible scripture from God Almighty, be afraid of the criticisms and even attacks of Orientalists? Such fear, in fact, reflects our own weakness. It shows that we are not sure of our own selves. The Quranic methodology should be a lesson for us. The Quran incessantly reproduces the false arguments of idol-worshippers and hypocrites and rebuts them with proofs and with better arguments. We should do the same to expose falsehoods and confirm the truth. The methods of suppression and slander are alien to the methods of truth.
Rejecting the authority of the hadith does not mean denying its existence. Some true reports of what the Prophet said and did outside the Quran as leader of his community and as an ordinary man must have been preserved. Such reports deserve to be treated as any other historical account whose authenticity must be judged against other historical accounts, against the higher authority of the Quran, and against rational criteria. While Quranic pronouncements are divine and are eternally binding on believers, those of Muhammad in his capacity as leader must be treated in accordance with the Quranic injunction regarding politico-social authority, i.e. that they are only conditionally binding. The conditions are that they do not contradict the Quran, they are binding only for the community of that time, and that for other communities of other times they only constitute as precedents to be followed or bypassed as and when deemed useful.
It should also be well understood that this re-evaluation of the hadith is in no way a slur upon our classical scholars. They understood and reacted to their problems as best they could. We who come after them are not bound by their solutions. As Muhammad Abduh has well said, "They are human and we are human. We learn from them but we do not [blindly] follow them." No doubt our re-examination constitutes a criticism. But this is normal scientific procedure. It has been done by all our great philosophers and scholars from the beginning, by Ibn Sina, al-Ghazzali, Ibn Rush, Ibn Taimiya, Shah Waliyullah, Muhammad Abduh and scores of others. We owe it to them and to ourselves to constantly practice this method. For how else can knowledge develop and society progress unless they continually be purged of errors. This accounts for the very important Quranic directive, repeated many times, to believers:
Let there be a community among you who preach goodness, advocate righteousness and forbid evil. These are the winners.
It must also be pointed out that this criticism and re-evaluation of the hadith that we are making is nothing new. Imam Shafi`i who first stipulated that the hadith should be accepted as a source of law had opponents that he himself described in his book. In recent times there were such proponents in Egypt, India and Indonesia. It may be that our treatment, thanks to recent developments in Quranic and hadith studies, is more systematic than previous efforts.
In this study we have adopted what may be termed as Islamic scientific methodology. In is unfortunate that today we associate scientific methodology to the Western empirical and rational methods, when, in fact, it was Islam that introduced this methodology to the West. The words of the English historian Robert Briffault deserve to be quoted in full:
"... It was under their successors at the Oxford school that Roger Bacon learned Arabic and Arabic science. Neither Roger Bacon nor his later namesake has any title to be credited with having introduced the experimental method. Roger Bacon was no more than one of the apostles of Muslim science and method to Christian Europe; and he never wearied of declaring that knowledge of Arabic and Arabic science was for his contemporaries the only way to true knowledge. Discussions as to who was the originator of the experimental method ... are part of the colossal misrepresentation of the origins of European civilization. The experimental method of [the] Arabs was by Bacon's time widespread and eagerly cultivated throughout Europe..."
However, the scientific methodology of Europe sought to bar supra-rational and supra-sensory knowledge from science. It is now admitted that this is inadequate to conform to the truly Islamic scientific methodology of combining sensory, rational and supra-rational knowledge to produce true integrated knowledge. Using this methodology, we take the Quran as our basis and starting point and subject all the evidence of the hadith, i.e. the hadith itself, the major classical writings on them and modern European and Muslim criticisms, to Quranic and rational judgements. We may, of course, take ten years to do this and produce five volumes that few will have the time and the stamina to read. Our purpose is different. Ours is to write a readable book for the general reader with enough matter for him to think and draw conclusions.
It is hardly necessary to state that this is a view offered to the reader for his consideration. God Almighty Himself has ordered us to read in His name, for doing that we cannot fail to develop our mind and increase our knowledge. A good book will do that positively; a bad one, negatively. Reading in His name, therefore, cannot but produce good results. Yet, the Muslims today are very bad readers. Centuries of subservience to bigoted religious authorities have shackled their minds. This subservience plus their deplorable ignorance of the contents of the Quran combine to make what they are today — a weak, backward and humiliated people. The time has come for us to break out of this prison. It is for this purpose that this study is undertaken.
Next: CHAPTER II REFUTATION OF THE TRADITIONISTS' THEORY
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Hadith: A Re-Evaluation
Basing ourselves on this premise, we can make the following hypothesis. The rapid rise of the Arab nation from its dark period of paganism prior to Muhammad to become the most powerful and civilized nation in the world then, within a short period of time, is due to the new, inspiring, powerful and dynamic Islamic ideology of monotheism brought by Muhammad. The Arabs, under his and his immediate successors' leadership, discarded their erstwhile polytheism and super-stitions. They united to fight and struggle under the guidance of the Quran and set up a just social order. Because this struggle was based on divine truth and justice as contained in the Quran, it was invincible. It also gave rise to a great social movement, bringing forth with it outstanding political, military and intellectual leaders who helped to create the first scientific-spiritual culture in history.
This hypothesis, in contrast to the modernist or the traditionalist theses, appears to be the most helpful in our effort to understand the history and the decline of the Muslims. The modernist thesis, in brief, states that the Muslims declined because they have remained traditional and have not modernized themselves according to Western secular values. The traditionalist thesis, on the other hand, blame the secularization of Muslim societies and the neglect of orthodox Muslim teachings as the major cause of Muslim decline.
It is obvious that the modernist and the traditionalist theses cancelled each other. Furthermore, the modernists have to explain why the Turkish experiment with Westernized modernization failed. They also have to explain why developed Western societies such as the United States and Europe have been undergoing a multi-faceted crisis since the First World War, and why a new philosophical trend of thought critical of Western-type modernization has developed in Europe and America.
The traditionalists, on the other hand, must explain the failure of their system from the beginning when it was first formulated around the third, fourth and fifth centuries of Islam. Some Arab countries have hardly modernized and had been practicing the traditional system for centuries – why have these not progressed? If they have not progressed, it is idle to expect Muslim countries to progress if they implement the traditional system.
The answer lies in our hypothesis. The early Muslims rose to the pinnacles of success precisely because they were in possession of and practiced the powerful and dynamic Islamic ideology as preached in the Quran. They subjected other knowledge, local and foreign, to the discriminative teachings of the Quran. As long as they did this, they progressed. A time came when other teachings, local and foreign, gained the upper hand and submerged the Quran, as witnessed by the following Quranic prophecy:
The messenger will say, "My Lord, my people have deserted this Quran." We thus appointed for every prophet enemies from among the criminals, and God suffices as Guide and Protector.
After about three hundred years, extraneous harmful teachings not taught by Prophet Muhammad but skillfully attributed to him gradually gained a foothold in the Muslim community and turned them away from the dynamic invincible ideology that initially brought them success. This ideology, as we shall show, is precisely the hadith. This is the main cause of their downfall. It therefore follows that the purging of this harmful ideology, and with it other foreign modern ideologies, from the Muslim community, and their return to the original ideology brought by Muhammad in the Quran is the sine qua non for the regeneration of the Muslim community and for a new Muslim Renaissance.
Age of "Great Disorder"
The time has now arrived for the Muslims to examine their situation more critically and boldly. Actually, this perilous situation is not confined to the Muslims alone; it covers the entire mankind. A number of twentieth century philosophers, historians and social critics have unanimously stated that this century is the most critical century in human history. The late Chinese leader, Mao Zedong, described the century as "Great Disorder under Heaven." The American historical philosopher, P.A. Sorokin, has detailed the crisis of the twentieth century in his able book, The Crisis of Our Age, published in 1941. It is in this century that two terrible world wars occurred, and a third more horrible one might still occur, in spite of the end of the Cold War, to destroy the present civilization.
It is in this century also that an array of philosophies, ideologies, theories, systems that includes liberalism, Marxism, pragmatism, logical positivism, existentialism, Nazism, Fascism, Stalinism, Ghandhism, Maoism and religious traditionalism collapsed. When dominant existing philosophies and systems cannot solve the problems of human security and welfare, it is a sure sign that a very serious crisis is upon us.
A number of modern writers and poets, such as Dostoyevsky, Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre, Y.B. Yeats and T.S. Eliot, had expressed this atmosphere and sense of great crisis in their works. Listen to the loneliness and poignant sorrow of Eliot:
I said to my soul, be still, and wait without hope
For hope would be hope for the wrong thing; wait without love
For love would be love of the wrong thing;
there is yet faith
But the faith and the love and the hope are all in the waiting.
and the deep despair and earnest prayer of Yeats:
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world;
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
This literature of pessimism and absurdity of life beginning in the twenties and thirties and continuing after the Second World War is, of course, a reflection of the great disorder currently existing in the world. This great disorder is evidenced by the great ideological cleavage, the continuous raging of the fires of war, the massive starvation and poverty in the Third World, the steep decline in public morality, world-wide financial and economic crisis and the inability of the United Nations to function effectively.
The Muslims had long lost their intellectual and political leadership of the world. The break-up of their empire in 1258 AD gave way to independent dynasties which continued until they were colonized by European powers beginning in the sixteenth right up to the early twentieth centuries. Then, with the rise of nationalism in Asia and Africa, nearly all of them regained their independence and set up sovereign nation-states.
However, the Muslims had ceased to be creative around the fourteenth century. Their period of intense creativity lasted three centuries from the ninth through to the eleventh. Their last great philosopher was the Arab Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406). Since that time Muslim intellect stagnated and even degenerated and Europe took over to develop dominant philosophies and disciplines along materialist and hedonistic lines.
After more than a century of modern reformism efforts initiated by Jamaluddin al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh, the Muslim world, a world as disunited as any other, have not progressed much. They have not been able to fight off the ideological influence and domination of the world power-blocs. They are not united in their Muslim purpose. Their economies are dependent and backward. Their sciences and technologies are non-existent. Militarily, they are weak and dependent on the big powers.
However, there has been much talk, since the early seventies, of implementing the Shari`a or medieval Muslim law and the setting up of an Islamic state. This is the slogan of the traditionalists who have taken over the reform movement of Muhammad Abduh. The examples of mullah rule in Iran since the great popular anti-Shah revolution and the Islamization programmes in some countries do not give support to the traditionalist alternative.
The main weakness of the Muslims is their disunity. This disunity takes the form in their inability to cooperate for the good of Muslims in individual countries and the whole Muslim world. It also surfaces in the form of conflicts and wars between Muslims, as typified by the Iran-Iraq war and the civil wars in Lebanon.
What is the cause of this disunity? The Muslims claim that they worship one God and follow His one religion. They also declare their religious brotherhood. How then are they so disunited? This is the mystery that we have to unravel. This is the reason for our re-evaluation of the hadith. Our hypothesis is that the hadith — in principle, a false teaching attributed to Prophet Muhammad — is a major factor causing disunity and backwardness among Muslims. Our study is to prove this hypothesis.
Basing ourselves on this premise, we can make the following hypothesis. The rapid rise of the Arab nation from its dark period of paganism prior to Muhammad to become the most powerful and civilized nation in the world then, within a short period of time, is due to the new, inspiring, powerful and dynamic Islamic ideology of monotheism brought by Muhammad. The Arabs, under his and his immediate successors' leadership, discarded their erstwhile polytheism and super-stitions. They united to fight and struggle under the guidance of the Quran and set up a just social order. Because this struggle was based on divine truth and justice as contained in the Quran, it was invincible. It also gave rise to a great social movement, bringing forth with it outstanding political, military and intellectual leaders who helped to create the first scientific-spiritual culture in history.
This hypothesis, in contrast to the modernist or the traditionalist theses, appears to be the most helpful in our effort to understand the history and the decline of the Muslims. The modernist thesis, in brief, states that the Muslims declined because they have remained traditional and have not modernized themselves according to Western secular values. The traditionalist thesis, on the other hand, blame the secularization of Muslim societies and the neglect of orthodox Muslim teachings as the major cause of Muslim decline.
It is obvious that the modernist and the traditionalist theses cancelled each other. Furthermore, the modernists have to explain why the Turkish experiment with Westernized modernization failed. They also have to explain why developed Western societies such as the United States and Europe have been undergoing a multi-faceted crisis since the First World War, and why a new philosophical trend of thought critical of Western-type modernization has developed in Europe and America.
The traditionalists, on the other hand, must explain the failure of their system from the beginning when it was first formulated around the third, fourth and fifth centuries of Islam. Some Arab countries have hardly modernized and had been practicing the traditional system for centuries – why have these not progressed? If they have not progressed, it is idle to expect Muslim countries to progress if they implement the traditional system.
The answer lies in our hypothesis. The early Muslims rose to the pinnacles of success precisely because they were in possession of and practiced the powerful and dynamic Islamic ideology as preached in the Quran. They subjected other knowledge, local and foreign, to the discriminative teachings of the Quran. As long as they did this, they progressed. A time came when other teachings, local and foreign, gained the upper hand and submerged the Quran, as witnessed by the following Quranic prophecy:
The messenger will say, "My Lord, my people have deserted this Quran." We thus appointed for every prophet enemies from among the criminals, and God suffices as Guide and Protector.
After about three hundred years, extraneous harmful teachings not taught by Prophet Muhammad but skillfully attributed to him gradually gained a foothold in the Muslim community and turned them away from the dynamic invincible ideology that initially brought them success. This ideology, as we shall show, is precisely the hadith. This is the main cause of their downfall. It therefore follows that the purging of this harmful ideology, and with it other foreign modern ideologies, from the Muslim community, and their return to the original ideology brought by Muhammad in the Quran is the sine qua non for the regeneration of the Muslim community and for a new Muslim Renaissance.
Age of "Great Disorder"
The time has now arrived for the Muslims to examine their situation more critically and boldly. Actually, this perilous situation is not confined to the Muslims alone; it covers the entire mankind. A number of twentieth century philosophers, historians and social critics have unanimously stated that this century is the most critical century in human history. The late Chinese leader, Mao Zedong, described the century as "Great Disorder under Heaven." The American historical philosopher, P.A. Sorokin, has detailed the crisis of the twentieth century in his able book, The Crisis of Our Age, published in 1941. It is in this century that two terrible world wars occurred, and a third more horrible one might still occur, in spite of the end of the Cold War, to destroy the present civilization.
It is in this century also that an array of philosophies, ideologies, theories, systems that includes liberalism, Marxism, pragmatism, logical positivism, existentialism, Nazism, Fascism, Stalinism, Ghandhism, Maoism and religious traditionalism collapsed. When dominant existing philosophies and systems cannot solve the problems of human security and welfare, it is a sure sign that a very serious crisis is upon us.
A number of modern writers and poets, such as Dostoyevsky, Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre, Y.B. Yeats and T.S. Eliot, had expressed this atmosphere and sense of great crisis in their works. Listen to the loneliness and poignant sorrow of Eliot:
I said to my soul, be still, and wait without hope
For hope would be hope for the wrong thing; wait without love
For love would be love of the wrong thing;
there is yet faith
But the faith and the love and the hope are all in the waiting.
and the deep despair and earnest prayer of Yeats:
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world;
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
This literature of pessimism and absurdity of life beginning in the twenties and thirties and continuing after the Second World War is, of course, a reflection of the great disorder currently existing in the world. This great disorder is evidenced by the great ideological cleavage, the continuous raging of the fires of war, the massive starvation and poverty in the Third World, the steep decline in public morality, world-wide financial and economic crisis and the inability of the United Nations to function effectively.
The Muslims had long lost their intellectual and political leadership of the world. The break-up of their empire in 1258 AD gave way to independent dynasties which continued until they were colonized by European powers beginning in the sixteenth right up to the early twentieth centuries. Then, with the rise of nationalism in Asia and Africa, nearly all of them regained their independence and set up sovereign nation-states.
However, the Muslims had ceased to be creative around the fourteenth century. Their period of intense creativity lasted three centuries from the ninth through to the eleventh. Their last great philosopher was the Arab Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406). Since that time Muslim intellect stagnated and even degenerated and Europe took over to develop dominant philosophies and disciplines along materialist and hedonistic lines.
After more than a century of modern reformism efforts initiated by Jamaluddin al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh, the Muslim world, a world as disunited as any other, have not progressed much. They have not been able to fight off the ideological influence and domination of the world power-blocs. They are not united in their Muslim purpose. Their economies are dependent and backward. Their sciences and technologies are non-existent. Militarily, they are weak and dependent on the big powers.
However, there has been much talk, since the early seventies, of implementing the Shari`a or medieval Muslim law and the setting up of an Islamic state. This is the slogan of the traditionalists who have taken over the reform movement of Muhammad Abduh. The examples of mullah rule in Iran since the great popular anti-Shah revolution and the Islamization programmes in some countries do not give support to the traditionalist alternative.
The main weakness of the Muslims is their disunity. This disunity takes the form in their inability to cooperate for the good of Muslims in individual countries and the whole Muslim world. It also surfaces in the form of conflicts and wars between Muslims, as typified by the Iran-Iraq war and the civil wars in Lebanon.
What is the cause of this disunity? The Muslims claim that they worship one God and follow His one religion. They also declare their religious brotherhood. How then are they so disunited? This is the mystery that we have to unravel. This is the reason for our re-evaluation of the hadith. Our hypothesis is that the hadith — in principle, a false teaching attributed to Prophet Muhammad — is a major factor causing disunity and backwardness among Muslims. Our study is to prove this hypothesis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)