Is Hijab Mandatory in Islam: Part I

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their cover over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment except to their own husbands ... (Quran 24:31). 

MEANING OF KHIMAR

There are many who are led to believe that khimar means head cover, and not simply cover. I find it very odd that some translate khimar as head cover, even when the word head or hair is not present; even though Allah, the All-Knowing is explicitly telling women to cover their bosoms and body parts.

Furthermore, you will notice that the word khimar is also used throughout the Qur'an in reference to wine and alcohol. Try asking an imam if crystal meth is not haram because it is not explicitly forbidden in the Quran, and he will most likely point you towards the root word of khimar being used for alcohol:

The imam will tell you that Allah chose to use the word khimar for alcohol, because it is anything that "covers" the intellect and leads one to other sins. If khimar truly meant head cover, can you imagine how odd these verses would sound if they were telling the believers to abstain from head covers? That wouldn't make much sense, would it? What's interesting is that Allah uses this same word for covering of the bosom. Therefore, the word  khimar, even according to some mistaken scholars, does in fact mean "to cover".


If one was to translate khimar as "veil", as other translators (or niqabists) have done, one must ask the question, "What is a veil?" Is a veil not a "cover", and its purpose being "to cover"? A face veil covers the face, and a bosom veil covers the bosom. Also, a further point is that in the same chapter (24), and verse 60 of the Qur'an, Allah has allowed elderly women to be less careful in covering. However, the word used here was thiyaab, and not khimar. So why has the head cover become part of the 10 Muslim Commandments, taking its place as an Islamic norm? 

MISINTERPRETING THE QUR'AN

What one may find rather frightening is that the male-dominated scholars who originally translated khimar as head cover are the same ones who translated the "beat" your wife verse, the killing of disbelievers to spread the word of Islam, the polygamy verse, killing apostates, stoning to death, and much more of what has been labelled Islamic today. Although some more modern scholars may not agree with all of these fanatical teachings, they still base their knowledge on these same interpreters of the Qur'an.

Why do most of today's dogmatic imams and translators keep insisting that ḍarabū in 4:34 means "to strike" your wife, when this same word is used for travelling, departing, leaving, breaking apart, going forth, presenting, etc. Why can't these translators simply teach Muslim men to "leave" their harsh wives if all else failed. Why do so many Islamic sources and so-called scholars keep insisting that the Qur'an states Jesus will be a sign of the Hour (43:61), when the word ayah is not used. The word knowledge ('ilm) is used to suggest that "He [or it] is knowledge of the Hour", yet this dogmatic belief of Christianity is still preached. The list of misinterpretations and mistranslations can go on forever.

THE QUR'AN IS COMPLETE

"And We have revealed the Book to you which has clear explanation of everything, and a guidance, mercy and good news for those who submit." (Qur'an 16:89)

In the same khimar verse (24:31), after Allah lists in detail those kindred who are allowed to see the woman not fully-covered, it even gives such fine details as to tell women not to strike their feet as a means of attracting men:

And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment (Qur'an 24:31)

At the time of the Prophet, some women used to wear ankle bracelets and bells. Women in India and Pakistan still do, and some would stamp their feet in order to seduce men or to get their attention. Out of all the verses in the Qur'an, He clearly tells us not to eat the flesh of swine, blood, and even several different animals that are killed improperly. We are told to avoid strong drink/gambling, avoid usury, abstain from backbiting, to cover the bosom, to lower our gaze, when and how to pray, and steps in performing wudu.

Allah even explicitly tells us to wet our heads before we pray. If the hijab was truly mandatory, why wouldn't He simply order women to cover their heads, just as all the other verses of Divine Instruction? Why do we have to dig out so much ahadith interpretation in order to prove the head cover, which is still left unproven in the end? If the hijab was such an important practice, as are the many other teachings in the Qur'an, wouldn't Allah have cared to explicitly order women to cover their heads. Instead, they are told to cover their bosoms and body parts, as in 24:31.

THE WORD HIJAB IN THE QUR'AN

It is very interesting that the Qur'an does use the word hijab, but nowhere is it used in reference to a women's head cover. The word hijab is used to mean a barrier, veil, or screen:

Did Allah know in His infinite wisdom that Muslims would later make hijab as part of the religion, and deliberately chose to use this word in the Qur'an? Some imams will point towards the oral ahadith literature to prove the ordinance of the hijab, even though these ahadith were not authorized by the Prophet himself, and were put into writing 300 years after him. Yet amongst the countless poorly-compiled ahadith narrations, filled with fabrications, one will still not find a direct order where the Prophet is reported (through so and so ...) to have ordered women to cover their hair.


WHAT ABOUT MOTHER MARY?

In being unable to provide tangible proof from the Qur'an to support the notion of hijab, some may even resort to Christian teachings: 

"But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off" [1 Corinthians 11:5-6]

If it was up to the Saudi mullahs, this rule would probably be made shariah! Even though Jesus did not direct his followers to cover their heads, with all due respect, some Christians do practice it. Some may even equate Mary's head covering with being righteous or chaste (modest), even though Mary may not have covered her hair fully. However, the Qur'an refutes this claim, teaching us that true chastity (modesty) is abstaining from lust:

She said: "How can I have a son when no man has touched me, neither have I been unchaste? (Qur'an 19:20)

And she who was chaste, therefore We breathed into her of Our Spirit and made her and her son a sign for (all) peoples. (Quran 21:91)

It is also interesting to note that many Jews and Christians who later converted to Islam during the Prophet's time and onwards brought with them much cultural/religious baggage. Some of these beliefs and teachings even made their way into the ahadith literature, seeping their way into Islamic beliefs and practices. Although they have no basis in the Qur'an, they were still adapted by later generations only to become today's Muslim or Islamic norm. The head covering is not the only Judeo-Christian teaching that has made its way into our faith, but others such as the return of Christ, the impure menstruating woman, original sin, intercession of sins, and various others have nothing to stand on when viewed in the Light of the Qur'an.


FOLLOWING THE SHARIAH LAW

The Qur'an tells believing men and women to lower their gaze (24:30-31), and so does the Gospel (Injeel). During the time of Jesus, many Jews actually followed the commandments and outwardly teachings (or shariah) just as we Muslims do. One such example was not committing adultery, or the notion of "look but don't touch". Some hearts had become corrupt, and Jesus taught them:

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:28)

Many Jewish followers even believed that they could divorce their wives anytime they liked, and all they needed was a certificate (a statement), since this Law (shariah) was given to them by their Messenger, Moses. But Jesus tells them:

“Moses allowed you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:8-9)

Some Muslim men think the same way of divorce (similar to the Jews), as it is allowed in the Qur'an, yet it should really only be for valid reasons. You can't simply throw away a woman when you're done with her. I have seen some instances in a community where an imam would actually encourage a woman who is having marital problems to divorce her husband, and quickly marry her in order to get into her pants. One must ask the question, how is this different from adultery? Is he really following the shariah? Yet this is the kind of hypocrisy we deal with--the same hypocrisy and lawful shariah misunderstood even during the time of Jesus (Isa).

CULTURE VS RELIGION

Many religious followers can mistake cultural norms for religious or spiritual practices. For example, it is a known fact that most women during the Prophet's time in the Arabian Peninsula did cover their head--but so did men! And so did Mother Mary of Jerusalem. If this is the basis for our belief, how come men aren't required to cover their heads? The reality is, had they not covered their heads in the heat of the sun, they would be asking for trouble (i.e. heat stroke)! And who is to say that these were not worn as a loose head cover rather than a complete hair suffocation.

Also, men's and women's dress were very loose and open, in order to allow air circulation. Although it is fair to say that women (and men) should not wear tight bodily revealing clothes, the abayah should not be considered an Islamic dress either! Can you imagine a Muslima Eskimo freezing and tripping over the snow in her abayah, while trying to hunt a seal? Whilst not following unnecessary trends, who is to say that we cannot wear ordinary clothing, such as loose-fitted shirts and jeans? Allah reminds us in the Qur'an the purpose of clothing:

O Children of Adam! We have revealed unto you garments to cover your shame, and splendid vesture; but the garment of righteousness--that is best. This is of the revelations of Allah, that they may remember. (7:26)

PURPOSE OF HIJAB?

Many imams will tell us that the purpose of hijab is to hide a women's precious beauty, while using many other sugar-coated sayings. Although we can agree that hair is beautiful, but so are hands, nose, eyes, and mouth! In fact, the face is probably the most beautiful thing God has created on a human being! (This would be a great time for the niqabist to jump in). But let's ask ourselves the question of which is more attractive:

a) an image of a face with the hair covered or
b) an image of hair with the face covered

Almost anybody (especially the niqabist) can agree that the first option is the most-attractive. Most men may probably agree that they would rather see skin than filamentous biomaterial (i.e. hair). With this same notion of hiding her beauty, should the woman now cover her face?

Women are told that their hair should only be revealed to their husbands. They are told to hide their beauty (i.e. hair), yet they are freely able to beatify their faces with petrochemical makeup and lipstick, highlighting their eyes, brows, and lips. Also, does highlighting one's eyes with mascara, eyeliner, and eye shadow help men to "lower their gaze" (24:30) or raise their gaze to stare at those beautifully noticeable eyes? Wouldn't this directly help two eyes to meet and stare? We must be skeptical of the makeup imams and ask ourselves, why the double standards? Speaking of double standards, if hair is such a private part, should men not cover their hair as well? Picture that for a second.

While trying to sound equal, imams will also preach in the masjid that the man's hijab is lowering his gaze, whereas the woman's hijab is covering her hair. However, this doesn't agree with the Qur'an, since Allah orders both man and woman to lower their gazes. So why simply stress on the man? And it also creates a notion (which I have seen) that hijabis don't have to lower their gaze, staring at men as they walk by. This is the kind of hypocrisy we are dealing with when our imams preach fake outwardly teachings, forget about guarding one's heart from evil thoughts.


HIJAB CAN ATTRACT MEN

Here is one story worth sharing, from my non-hijab wearing aunt. She walked into a restaurant with her two friends, one who wore a hijab and one who let her hair out. Surprisingly, they noticed that her friend who wore the hijab got all the attention from the males. In trying to be realistic, don't you think a hijab can sometimes bring out a women's face, while hiding big ear's, old age, or unwanted features. Some men may even admit (I deem them not!) that a certain woman looks better with a hijab. But I don't think that was the case, unless all these men in the restaurant had a hijab obsession.

My aunt exclaimed how her friend actually looked far more beautiful than her non-hijab friends, with her decked out colorful hijab, cuffs, sleeves, and makeup! Worn with the right style, a hijab can actually increase a woman's attractiveness, and with men's curiosity, gain more stares than not-cares. Perhaps this is the reason why some women dye their hair pink or blue, in order to stand out and get more attention, yet this is not the righteous Muslima's intention. Nowadays, it appears as though hijab has become a fashion statement, and some non-Muslim women have even chosen to wear it for that very reason.


CONCLUSION

Whoever works any act of righteousness and has faith,- His/her endeavour will not be rejected: We shall record it in his/her favor. (21:94)

Not choosing to wear a hijab does not make a woman immodest nor unrighteous, as Allah will reward us for all our acts of goodness as mentioned in the verse above. I am not against wearing hijab, but nor am I against not wearing one. I am not against the idea of a hijab just as much as I am not against a baseball cap, a tuque, or a wig. A woman should have the right to choose if she would like to wear one or not. But Muslim women should not be discriminated against or judged for not wearing one. I know a precious girl who was righteous and modest, yet she did not wear hijab. Some of the hijab-wearing girls were out doing immodest things, and in the end, the modest non-hijabi was looked down upon by them for not wearing the hijab. How twisted and backwards have we become to think like this? Let's leave the judging to Al-Hakam, The Judge.

What has become of our Muslim society and values, as we preach outwardly things over inwardly things? We think we follow the shariah just as the Jews did, but do we? I truly have sympathy for these poor women who are commanded by their imams to cover their itchy scalps all day, suffocating their heads that long to breathe the fresh air. How sad is it for the nature-loving Muslima who cannot feel the breeze flow through her hair, since that would involve being seen in public. How unfortunate for the bird-watching Muslima whose ears are covered from hearing the distant chirps of the glorious meadowlarks. I express my sympathy for the water-loving Muslima who is unable to dip her bare head in the cool soothing sunlit waters, while running her fingers through her scalp as a way of healing.

When thinking about hijab, let us not forget the Judeo-Christian cultural influence that was rampant in Arabia. There surely was women who did not cover their hair during the Prophet's time, so why would there be no Qur'anic injunction ordering women to explicitly cover their hair? After all, they are advised to cover their bosom. We need to re-observe hijab in the Light of the Qur'an, and it should not be mandated as a fardh teaching of Islam by our imams, equated to taking off one's clothes. It should not be regarded as one of the ten commandments of Islam. Exposing one's hair should not be considered a religious taboo, and women who choose to wear it (or not) should be respected. Let's start preaching what it truly means to be modest and righteous. True chastity, as we learned from Mary in the Qur'an, comes from guarding your chastity. And true modesty comes from:

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their covers over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment ... (Quran 24:31)

Below is a more scholarly answer that may be of interest, written by Moiz Amjad:

It is true that "Khimar" is generally used for head covering. However, a close examination of the related verse of Surah Al-Noor shows that the directive entailed in it is for women to cover their bosoms. "Khimar" is only referred in this verse as a possible 'tool' for covering their bosoms. A woman who uses any other piece of cloth for this purpose would be said to have carried out the directive of the Shari`ah. This point is further substantiated by the fact that in verse 60 of Surah Al-Noor, where the Qur'an has allowed older women to be less careful in covering their bosoms, it has used the word "Thiyaab" - implying any piece of cloth that may have been used for the stated purpose.|

It is clear that had the Qur'an required women to cover their heads, it would then have given an express directive to the effect.

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that head-covering, even though it has always remained a part of the noble Muslim social traditions, is not a directive of the Shari`ah. [Source]

I hope this helps.

Regards,

Moiz Amjad

Related Articles:

Is Hijab Mandatory in Islam: Part II

Hijab & Niqab in the Qur'an

Does the Qur’an Support Gender Equality?

Abstract: How are we to understand those verses that most Muslims read as saying that men are women’s guardians and have a degree of superiority over women and that they can marry multiple wives and even beat a disobedient one, and inherit double a women’s share in property, and so on?

By Asma Barlas

Female and male equality in the Qur'an

How are we to understand those verses that most Muslims read as saying that men are women’s guardians and have a degree of superiority over women and that they can marry multiple wives and even beat a disobedient one, and inherit double a women’s share in property, and so on?

I struggled with these verses for many years until I discovered the literatures on hermeneutics, linguistic analysis, Qur’anic exegesis, and patriarchy, and these allowed me approach the Qur’an very differently than most Muslims do.

The “wife-beating” verse began to unravel once I realized that the word that is translated as “to beat” derives from the root daraba that has several meanings, including “to separate.”  So I have to ask: what sorts of hermeneutic and political choices went into rendering daraba as beating specially when the Qur’an counsels
love and mercy and liberality between spouses even if they hate one another?

Then, too, translations of nushuz as the wife’s disobedience became indefensible when I found references to a wife who fears nushuz on her husband’s part.

Similarly, the whole edifice of polygyny begins to collapse once we note that the Qur’an only speaks about it as a way to ensure justice for female orphans.  What sorts of elisions went into re-reading that injunction as giving all men the right to marry four women?

Moreover, doesn’t the verse on polygyny end by saying that it is better to marry only one wife so that the husband won’t be partial to another?

And, once I realized that the word qawwamun also denotes financial upkeep of a wife by a husband—which is how some medieval exegetes read it—I no longer felt obliged to accept its rendition as guardians, much less as rulers.

Doesn’t the Qur’an appoint women and men each other’s awliya, or guides, and charge them both to enjoin the right and forbid the wrong? As one scholar says, how can they be each other’s guides and in charge of one another if men are women’s guardians and have “absolute authority” over them?

And, why should we assume that men always inherit twice the share of a woman when the Qur’an says that mothers inherit twice as much as fathers?

And why should we read the Qur’an’s counsel to take two women as witnesses in place of one man as a two-for-one formula, as Amina Wadud calls it, when a wife’s testimony over-rules that of a husband’s if he accuses her of adultery?

And, if the references to the degree, or darajah, that men enjoy vis-à-vis women is only mentioned in the context of divorce and reconciliation, why should we take that as a universal statement about male ontology and sexual inequality?

Doesn’t the Qur’an teach that sexual equality is ontological in that humans were created from a single self (nafs)?  In fact, some scholars read this and other verses as saying that the Qur’an did not privilege the man by prioritizing his creation.

The Qur’an is also the only scripture that directly addresses women and in language that makes it clear that it does not view them as being less than men as is shown in verse 33:35.

Re-interpretation of the Qur'an

I am among those, however, who argue that the reason the Qur’an has been read as a patriarchal text has to do with who has read it, how, and in what contexts. To make it clear, historically only male scholars have read the Qur’an, mostly in a piecemeal and decontextualized way, and always within patriarchies.

That is why I call the dominant reading of Islam a mis-reading which implies, of course, that I believe there can be a correct reading of scripture.  And this brings me to a second set of tensions having to do with  interpretation.

There are those who continue to insist that the Qur’an can be read in only one way, but, as we know, every text is open to multiple readings.  However, once we accept the principle of textual polysemy, on what grounds can we argue against one reading and in favor of another?

This is one of the biggest conundrums for scriptural hermeneutics but, as I will argue, the Qur’an itself provides Muslims a way out of it.  If Muslims haven’t taken this way out, it is, I believe, because of political, not theological reasons.

And this brings me to the final set of tensions I want to consider here: between hermeneutics and history and I can state these in terms of the following paradox:

On the one hand, most Muslims treat not only the Qur’an, but, also dominant readings of it as timeless and beyond history.  On the other hand, however, they defend such readings in the name of tradition and communal history.

So, history is employed both to defend early Qur’anic exegesis, some of which is anti-women, and to discourage new readings of the text, specially by women. And this is what explains the discursive continuities in patriarchal readings of the Qur’an as well as on “women’s issues” for 1,400 years

Falsely interpreting the Qur'an with ahadith

These are some of the tensions that I try and negotiate in my own work, starting with the relationship between the Qur’an and its readings. While it is a fine line to draw, Muslim theology, and indeed the Qur’an itself, distinguishes between “the divine speech and its earthly realization.”

I believe that it is partly the failure to make this distinction that explains the long history of sexism and misogyny in Muslim societies.  Muslims didn’t invent sexism and misogyny, of course, but they have legitimized them by reading theories of female inferiority into the secondary texts and even into the Qur’an. 

By secondary texts I mean specifically the hadith, or narratives that purport to record the Prophet’s life and praxis and which contain the most infamous antiwomen strictures that many people mistakenly ascribe to the Qur’an.

Personally, I think it is not just unfortunate that Muslims have come to interpret the Qur’an by way of the hadith, but it is also theologically and methodologically problematic inasmuch as the best way to read the Qur’an is by the Qur’an. I will make this point by discussing the criteria the Qur’an gives us  to read it and
also to judge between the contextual legitimacy of competing readings.

Reading the Qur’an by the Qur’an

The first criteria is textual holism.  As the Qur’an says, the whole of it is from God and it criticizes those who read it piecemeal and selectively.  Referring to the law given to Moses, it accuses some people of making “it into (Separate) sheets for show, While ye conceal much (Of its contents)” (6:91; in Ali, 316).

It also censures “those who divided (Scripture into arbitrary parts), . . . and have made the Qur’an Into shreds (as they please),” and it warms that God will “Call them to account” for their misdeeds (15: 90-93; in Ali, 653).

The Qur’an also condemns those who “change the words from their (right) times And places” (5:44; in Ali, 255), and who dwell only on its allegorical verses while ignoring its clear ones as a means to sow discord among people.

Most importantly, the Qur’an asks us to read for its “best meanings.”  This injunction not only confirms that we can read the Qur’an in multiple ways but also that not all our readings may be equally good or acceptable.

Significantly, the Qur’an does not say that only some people can read it for its best meanings and nor does it define what it means by best but leaves it to us to decide.  To me, this opens up a textual democracy of meanings since it allows us to exercise our own agency and choices in constructing religious knowledge.

It also opens up possibilities for political democracy inasmuch as it allows us to argue that we cannot arrive at a shared notion of the best so long as women are excluded from the processes of knowledge construction, and so long as Muslims don’t enjoy the civil and political liberties necessary for engaging in an open
public dialogue or for expressing dissent without fear of persecution.

Lastly, and most importantly, the Qur’an provides some theological criteria for reading it through its description of God.  There are infinite divine attributes and at least ninety-nine divine names, but I can only consider the hermeneutic implications of two aspects of God’s self-disclosure for reading the Qur’an.

One is Tawhid, or God’s unity.  God is one and hence God is the only ruler and sovereign.  No one else—prophets or kings or fathers or husbands—can claim sovereignty over others.  Secondly, God is uncreated and unrepresentable. The fact that we tend to masculinize God linguistically doesn’t mean that God is “really” male and, in fact, the Qur’an even forbids using metaphors for God.

This conception of God who is sovereign and who is neither father, nor son, nor man, nor male, and nor even created, is one of the sites from which I read the Qur’an as an anti-patriarchal text because I believe this conception of God defines what I like to call Qur’anic epistemology.

The Qur’an and patriarchy

In order for me to make this point—and I finally come to the heart of my talk—I need to clarify what I mean by patriarchy since I haven’t defined the term so far.

I view patriarchy as a continuum at one end of which are representations of God as Father and of fathers as rulers over wives/ children, and at the other end, a politics of sexual differentiation that privilege males while Otherizing women.

The virtue of this definition is that it can be applied to different historical periods as well as to religious and secular forms of male privilege and it is broad-ranging enough to encompass a wide array of the Qur’an’s teachings.

If one applies this definition to read the Qur’an, one finds no support in it for either form of patriarchy and much that challenges patriarchal epistemology. First, as I just said, the Qur’an does not represent God as Father and in fact it explicitly forbids Muslims from sacralizing God as Father.

Nor does it sacralize fathers or fatherhood.  To the contrary, it warns that blindly “following the ways of the father” has kept people from God.  To me, this says that there is an inherent conflict between monotheism and traditional patriarchy for what else is traditional patriarchy if not “the ways of the father?”

Of course, the Qur’an does recognize that patriarchies exist and that men are the locus of authority within them, and it does also frequently address men.  But to recognize patriarchy or to speak to men is not to advocate patriarchy.

Second, the Qur’an also does not use biological sex to privilege males and to Otherize women.  Unlike Westernized misogyny, the Qur’an does not represent women and men as opposites, or women as lesser or defective men, or the two sexes as incompatible, incommensurable, or unequal.

Indeed, the Qur’an does not even associate sex with gender.  That is to say, it recognizes sexual (biological) differences but it does not assign them any gender symbolism.  There is thus no concept of gendered man or woman in the Qur’an.

Not a single verse links men and women to a specific division of labor or define their roles as a function of their biology, or say that biological differences make women and men unequal.

It is true that the Qur’an treats women and men differently with respect to some issues, but this doesn’t mean that it establishes them as being unequal.  Moreover, difference does not always imply inequality and the Qur’an does not tie its different treatment of women and men to any claims about biology or inequality.

For Muslim men and women,

For believing men and women,

For devout men and women,

For men and women who are

Patient and constant, for men

And women who humble themselves,

For men and women who give

In charity, for men and women

Who fast (and deny themselves).

For men and women who

Guard their chastity, and

For men and women who

Engage much in God's praise

For them has God prepared

Forgiveness and great reward. 

(Quran 33:35)

By: Asma Barlas
http://asmabarlas.com/PAPERS/Groningen_Keynote.pdf

Qur'an vs Hadith

Say: "Allah's guidance is the (only) guidance and we have been directed to submit ourselves to the Lord of the worlds." Q. 6:71 

The Science of Hadith

For a Muslim, the prophetic Hadith is the secondary document after the Qur’an. However, the majority of Muslims have little or no background knowledge of the historical facts behind the compilation of the corpus of Hadith and will be more inclined to focus on the matn (content of narrative). It is not an easy task even for learned scholars to establish how reliable were these chains of narrators and/or compilers.  

The word "hadith" literally means; "a saying", "a report", "an account". Within Islamic circles and literature, the term is used to identify a text that is related to a "re-narrated" saying or account of deeds or approval by the Prophet. However, if one was to review the physical process involved in the collection and compilation of these texts, one realizes that these "reported" texts have gone through a process of several "re-narrated" verbal transmissions involving a chain of narrators covering six or more generations. Some of these narrators were reliable and unfailing in their verbal reports and others were not. Often, if the narrator was known as "a man of faith", then it was believed that he could not utter a lie, and this was an essential criterion used by a compiler.

Often the revealed verses of the Qur'an and the reported versions of hadiths are quoted on the internet concurrently or simultaneously. Internet surfers are not necessarily educated to know that these two separate "texts" are independent of one another. To define "hadith" as "the literal or precise verbatim of the factual sayings, deeds or approvals of the Prophet of Islam (peace and blessings of Allah be upon all Prophets and their true companions)", could be technically inaccurate and in some instances fundamentally wrong. The numerous and complex classifications of hadiths organize them into categories ranging from authentic to deliberate falsehood.

Today the corpus of Hadith is to be found far from its original home and context. Hadiths were originally part of the oral tradition of Islam, but after two hundred years of transmission and circulation, they were crystallized into written form.

To understand the background to the development of Hadith literature one must sift through the history of Islam from about 250 years after the time of our Prophet… during the first century of the Prophet's era no hadiths were written down… Stories circulated by word of mouth but they were never written down because the view was well known that the Prophet and the companions did not want anything of the kind to be done, and so there was a very strong feeling against the writing of any sort of 'Hadith' literature.

The so-called 'Science of isnad' -- touchstone of a hadith's authenticity -- has tremendous flaws in it. How, then, can we go on giving credence to something that was not written down and yet which, some 250 years after the fact, Bukhari supposedly managed to trace back to its source (i.e. the Prophet) by establishing all the links in a chain which cannot possibly have been genuinely reconstructed! How he (Bukhari) managed to do this without written records, bridging a gap of about eight generations, and simultaneously establishing not only biographical data but also a compelling analysis of the mental faculties of his subjects defies belief! One can quote several hundred hadiths that not only contradict the Qur’an but also clearly do damage to the Prophet's good name.

Did Prophet commend the writing of his “sayings”?

There was a lapse of nearly two centuries from the year of the death of the Prophet to the time when most of the hadiths were compiled. This time factor alone is enough to make one question the accuracy of the written hadiths. But why were hadiths not written down during the Prophet's time, or by his followers? Perhaps it was due to the Prophet's command to efface the texts of his sayings, which was reaffirmed and reenacted by Caliph Mu'awiyah, some thirty years or so after the death of the Prophet. This was when his attention to the Prophet's command was directed by Zayd ibn Thabit - the Prophet's closet scribe and secretary.

Here is the text that has been recorded in the Sunan of Abu-Dawood under Hadith No. 1635 (3640): 

Al-Muttalib ibn Abdullah ibn Hantab said:
   "Zayd ibn Thabit entered upon Mu'awiyah and asked him about a tradition. He ordered a man to write it. Zayd said: The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) ordered us not to write any of his traditions. So he erased it."

And another :

Abu Saeed al-Khudri said,
   "We exerted our best to get the Messenger of Allah to allow us to write his hadith but he refused." (This was recorded by al-Baghdadi in Taqyid.)

 It is an accepted traditional norm to classify the narrators upon the basis of their direct and personal contact with the Prophet or upon the basis of their direct and personal contact with someone who had direct contact with the Prophet. Within the revealed verses of the Qur’an, 9:43-50, Allah has given us an eye-opening example from which we must learn two most important lessons:

1. The Prophet himself could not discern amongst his own people, amongst the people who were living in the same period in the history, or amongst those who had personally met and spoken with him, those who were sincere and those who were "the liars".
   
2. There were limitations to the knowledge of the Prophet. Events that took place around him and in his own time were unknown to him. So, the Prophet cannot necessarily speak of the past, let alone of the future, unless Allah revealed it to him.

It is an undisputed fact that the compilers of the Hadith did reject a large majority of narrations (the figure runs in hundreds of thousands) as being invented, fabricated, faulty or too weak to be recorded. There are many reasons or circumstances for these superfluities.


The Recording of the Qur’an – a Striking Contrast
 
In contrast to the uncertainty surrounding the recording of hadiths, the Prophet not only permitted the recording of the revealed verses of the Qur'an but also personally dictated the revealed texts to scribes who were good in the art of calligraphy. The "pre-recorded" verses of the Revealed Texts (the Qur'an) were collected by the first Caliph of Islam - Abu Bakr, who died within two years of the death of the Prophet. The final compilation of these pre-recorded verses and the making of a definitive canon was undertaken by a commission appointed by the third Caliph Uthman ibn 'Affan. A well-known scribe named Zayd ibn Thabit headed this formal commission. Within twenty-three years of the death of the Prophet, copies made from the definitive canon established by the Commission and approved by the Caliph were distributed to various Islamic centers. One such is preserved in the former Soviet Union. Allah Himself has undertaken to safeguard the revealed verses of the Glorious Qur'an:

Is this not what the Prophet practiced and preached?

“Verily, We, it is We who have sent down the Qur’an and assuredly, We will guard it (from corruption).” Q. 15:9

Conclusion

The verses of hadiths have no such assurance, neither from Allah nor from the Prophet. In fact the Collection of Hadith has not been safeguarded. Perhaps the Muslims, with their different sects and factions, could be better united by upholding the Qur'an first and foremost:

And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allah, and be not divided among yourselves. And remember with gratitude Allah's favour on you; for you were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that you become as brothers by His grace... Q. 3:103 

Sahih Al-Bukhari -- Why was it chosen?

Watch this YouTube Video. Read the Note by publisher of Sahih Al-Bukhari Arabic-English Version. The translator gets a duly stamped letter from the Prophet in his dream and that motivates the translation and compilation. Also read the Revealed Word of Allah to mankind and the commentary by Yusuf Ali.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIsqozIvW5c

One may wonder why some so-called scholars uphold Sahih Al-Bukhari, a book of compiled ahadith. Inside Sahih Al-Bukhari english translation, signed and authorized by Abdul Malik Mujahid from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, one can read a peculiar story of a man named Dr. Muhammad Muhsin.

Dr. Muhammad Muhsin was a physician who worked in England and later moved to Al-Madina. He had a dream in which he was drinking the Prophet Muhammad's sweat until his thirst was quenched, and the Prophet stamped papers in his hand. He asked some religious scholars the meaning of the dream, and they told him he would narrate ahadith. Interestingly, he chose the book of Al-Bukhari, and began translating it into English.

My comment: If this is the basis on why we uphold and follow Bukhari, don't you think it sounds just a little ludicrous?

On what basis did he choose Al-Bukhari's work?

Imam Bukhari was born nearly 200 years after the Prophet, at a time when the Muslims upheld only one religious document, the Qur'an. Everything else was heresay. Imam Bukhari is said to have collected and memorized over 300,000 ahadith from the lips of others, in which some 200,000 were unreliable. One may wonder if he had first and foremost memorized the Quran. Sahih Al-Bukhari goes on to say, "He was born at a time when Hadith was being forged either to please rulers or kings or to corrupt the religion of Islam." Out of those ahadith, he chose 7,275 with repetion, and about 2,230 without repetition. It also claims that many religious scholars of Islam tried to find fault in his collection, Sahih Al-Bukhari, but failed. One may wonder who these scholars are, and what their arguments were. All of this was said by Dr.Muhammad Muhsin, who apparently studied at the Islamic University at Al-Madina in Saudi Arabia.

Perhaps this is why Sahih Al-Bukhari is put on such a pedestal. One may wonder if today's modern scholars know of this, or do they blindly follow a dogma that has simply been passed down from generations? Dogma is defined as "a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof." Does this not sound like the propagation of Sahih Al-Bukhari, or the story of Muhammad Muhsin?

Should our scholars not study this document with more scrutiny?