Q. In
light of recent events in Paris, debates have popped up pretty much everywhere
about the obligation of Muslims to love our Prophet Muhammad more than our own
mothers, fathers, and even our own selves. Non-Muslims cannot understand why
this is the case and to be honest with you, neither can I.
I have read the various hadith
mentioning that our Prophet stated that one of the companions was a true
believer because he claimed that he loved the Prophet more than his own life.
The problem I have is that all of these hadith
make him sound egotistical. I don't believe that our Prophet was so insecure
and emotionally weak that he demanded the undying devotion of all his
followers. Whilst I love the Prophet for the message he brought and for all the
hardships he endured, I do not love him more than my mother or father or my own
life. Does that make me an unbeliever or bad Muslim? I really have problems
accepting some of these hadith narrated by Bukhari
and Muslim.
Allah put the Prophet
Muhammad on another level to the other prophets which is indicated in the
Qur'an. I have no problem accepting that but it does not tell us to give our
lives for the Prophet Muhammad. Why are our lives less worthy than his? He
worshipped and we worship, he lived and we live. We were given life by our
Creator to worship Him. Is it bad that I don't love the Prophet the way that
the hadith claim that we should? I
just can't find the Qur’anic evidence for it. As usual I look forward to your
thoughts on this matter.
A.
This is the problem with hadith: they
fill a void in explanation and many people don't see that. Did the companions
actually say that, or did the Prophet actually say that? I have a problem with
it, as do you. But I see it as explanation of a verse in the Quran: "If
you love God, then follow me." A rational thinker sees that as stating
that since I have brought God's message to you, then follow that which I bring.
But others see it in terms of the Prophet's persona, and so we have many hadith that speak of the world being
created for the Prophet, etc. While some of these traditions are obviously
manufactured, others are more subtly phrased. For this reason we stick to the
traditional definition of hadith as
"that which is attributed to the Prophet in terms of word, deed, or tacit
approval." The use of the passive voice, known as sighat al tamrid to hadith specialists, tells us that a hadith is ab initio
deemed as untrue. The rankings attributed by Bukhari
and Muslim have to do with the idea that the narrators are above board. The
problem is that such narrations, while purportedly going back to the Prophet's
time, are only collected and written at the earliest, about a century after his
death, and that earliest generations did not accept them. For this reason Al Shafi (d. 205/820) is supposed to have come to some method
of making hadith acceptable. The
question is why at this late stage? We do not, as a matter of principle,
advocate the eschewal of all hadith
-- for the definition of tawatur
would make such eschewal illogical. But we have found no tawatur lafzi, i.e., by verbatim any consensual text
of agreement. That should cause people to think. For more information on this
subject, read this synopsis for Fazlur Rahman's view on the
hadith.
Posted
January 16, 2015