Hey BB
nicely and succinctly put. it did seem to me that the problem might be something of this nature. it is interesting that we had this argument actually out in the open and, as it were, directly with G!D, over the "oven of achnai" incident which i think i cite in the thread. i guess what i need to know is:
a) when the Qur'an and hadith disagree, or appear to, how is this resolved?
b) is the source of the *resolution methodology itself* found in the Qur'an? if so where?
c) is there a similar Qur'anic source which establishes the ability of scholastic opinions, or the consensus thereof, to challenge either hadith or the literal sense of the Qur'an itself?
Islam is made up of two sources:
#1: The Quran
#2: The Sunnah (the way of the Prophet)
The Problem is that most of the Sunnah is contained in the Hadith.
However, some of the earliest and most well respected
Islamic Scholars (Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik) drew a distinction
between the Sunnah and the Hadith. I also think that it is necessary
to draw this distinction, however others might disagree.
a) when the Qur'an and hadith disagree, or appear to, how is this resolved?
There is no contest between the Quran and any other source of religious
literature or scholastic opinion. However, this is just a technicality and
many scholars can use their logic and reasoning to get around this by
saying that the verses of the Quran need to be explained by those who
"know" and can not just be simply interpreted by the layman. Now
sometimes this is very true, as in the case of someone who is taking
a verse out of context.... but this is, as you can imagine, a
double edged sword... and a very sharp one, at that.
b) is the source of the *resolution methodology itself* found in the Qur'an? if so where?
Scholars differ about this. I will post the methodology of Imam Ahmed Hanbali who was one of the earliest authorities in Islamic jurisprudence. This is from wikipedia.
Ahmad’s Five Basic Juristic Principles
1) Divine text (the Quran and the Sunnah) was the first point of reference for all scholars of jurisprudence, and in this, Ahmad was not an exception. Whenever he noticed a divine textual evidence for an issue, he never referred to other sources, opinions of the Companions, scholars or resorted to analogical deduction (Qiyas).
3) Verdicts issued by the companions were resorted to when no textual evidence was found in the Quran or the Sunnah. The reasons for ranking the verdicts of the Companions after the Quran and the Sunnah are obvious: The Companions witnessed the revelation of the Quran, and its implementation by Muhammad, who advised the Ummah to adhere to the rightly-guided caliphs, hence, the companions ought to have a better understanding than the latter generations.
Imam Ahmad, would likewise, never give precedence to a scholarly opinion or analogical deduction (Qiyas) over that of the Companions’, to the extent that if they were divided into two camps over an issue, two different narrations would similarly be documented from Imam Ahmad.
3) In a case where the companions differed, he preferred the opinion supported by the divine texts (the Quran and the Sunnah).
4) In instances where none of the above was applicable, Ahmad would resort to the mursal Hadith (with a link missing between the Successor and Muhammad or a weak hadith. However, the type of weak Hadith that Ahmad relied on was such that it may be regarded as fair hadith due to other evidences (Hasan li Ghairihi), not the type that is deemed very weak and thus unsuitable as an evidence for Law. This was due to the fact that, during his time, the Hadith was only categorised into ‘sound’ (sahih) and ‘weak’ (da’if). It was only after Ahmad, that al-Tirmidhi introduced a third category of ‘fair’ (hasan).
5) Only after having exhausted the aforementioned sources would Imam Ahmad employ analogical deduction (Qiyas) due to necessity, and with utmost care.
c) is there a similar Qur'anic source which establishes the ability of scholastic opinions, or the consensus thereof, to challenge either hadith or the literal sense of the Qur'an itself?
The hadith, yes... But the Quran... No. There is a need for scholastic analysis, for sure, but I do not think that any scholastic opinion or consensus can be recognized as a
divine decree.
Lets take the issue of the return of Jesus PBUH for example. There is almost complete consensus in the Islamic scholastic circles that he will return. Now some (like myself) and even a scholar or two do not feel that this is true, yet many Muslims feel that because the scholars all agree, that it becomes sort of a divine decree (of a sort), and that for someone to challenge that he is challenging Islam itself (in a way), when all I would be challenging some hadiths. After all, there are hadiths even in the most trusted compilations which state that there used to be a time when men who were 20 feet tall used to walk the earth (or some insane height) and crazy stuff like that.... So if that hadith is obviously wrong, why cant these other hadiths about the return of the Prophet Jesus Peace Be Upon Him, be wrong?
One other misconception that non-Muslims as well as Muslims have about scholastic opinions is that they think that fatwas issued by mullahs are anything more then just
opinion. Because in Islam, there is no established authority at all. Every one has the right to read the Quran and understand it, and follow it according to his or her own understanding. Yet, people think that a fatwa issued by a scholar is something which
must be obeyed as if it were some divine commandment.
so i am interested to know whether the Qur'an itself actually also allows the possibility for scholars to overrule what it itself (and, therefore G!D) appears to be saying, particularly in the case of an apparent contradiction. this is a crucial point, because whilst it allows for the scholarly consensus to create a dictatorship, it also allows for the scholarly consensus to overthrow its own decisions WITHOUT falling foul of the puzzling (at least to me) stricture against bid'a.
To resolve an apparent contradiction in the Quran is actually simple. A person just uses the index and compiles all the verses on a given subject. And then reads each verse in the proper context. So the need for scholarly opinion is not really that neccessary in such cases. At most, what you need is someone to provide the historical background.
Where scholars tend to be required more is the need to fix the contradictions between the Quran, and the Hadith. This is the real area where problems come about.
the reason i ask that is that the significance of the oven of achnai is that it was a Torah source itself (which trumps all other sources of authority or interpretation) that was used to establish the authority of scholars to, in this case, obey G!D by showing how G!D has actually commanded us to try and make a case for change which may involve contradicting a prior authoritative opinion.
hmmm, I do not really know anything about this oven of achnai...
seems interesting though.
the trouble is that accusation rests upon either the ignorance of or the misunderstanding of the significance of the source of authority for human authority to interpret scripture in order to override it. and, in any case, depending upon how you applied the accusation, it might be a significant, valid and mordant criticism - i can think of a number of sects where i think that veneration of certain scholars crosses the line. it may be that this was a valid criticism of the *arabian jewish tribes of the C6th* - but it doesn't stand up as a valid criticism of the whole system of judaism and the decision of how it is applied is a scholarly one which i know is very far from clear.
Well, that criticism is very obvious to prove against Christianity, (with the council of Niceae etc.) but you are right, it may only be directed against some sects of the Arabian Jews. In any case, I do not know enough about Jewish history to comment on the issue. I will also have to revisit the Quran in order to study those verses again.
can you point me to that again?
I think it was near the end of his first post on the first page of the thread.
i don't think you have to. i just think you need to argue the line without making the accusation and see what people make of it themselves. what you may have here, however, is the seeds of an islamic reformation or enlightenment, or even a case for re-opening the gates of ijtihad, although it is to be hoped that this can be achieved without the bloodshed and schisms of the christian equivalents.
I used to hope/pray/wish that such a reformation was possible.
But now... well...
lol
in that case, you either have to revisit what is meant by innovation (and, again, here i cannot help but think that a fundamental mistake has been made by somebody and it by definition can't be G!D) or establish the Qur'anic case for opening up the discussion rather than letting it be arrogated to the scholars alone; if this cannot be done gradually, it will end by being done violently. a good case to start with might be that of the toothbrush. is using a toothbrush bid'a or should you stick with the good ol' miswak? if not, why not? and if so, what about the printing press? guns? the internet? nobody seems to object to these. i'd be very interested to see such a discussion. have you come across ali eteraz? over on his blog they seem to be quite interested in such things.
The Wahabi/Salafi movement is very happy to level the charge of
heresy/innovation against anyone who doesnt apply their system of
thought... Unfortunately, this trend has been increasing...
but then again, I think the secularization of the Islamic lands has
been inreasing as well... Personally, I think they are just two different
sides of the same coin (again, the illusion of dialectics...).
