| Summary: | The dating of the western research about the second primary source of Islam could trace back to the nineteenth century which was the beginning of a new era in the west that is known for the systematical research about ahādīth. However, as a result of western research, the Modern Muslim literates over the globe are highly inspired by the sceptical theories of Orientalists regarding the provenance, authorship and legislative position of Prophetic ahādīth. The Subcontinent was one of those regions that welcomed western theories about the second source of Islamic law. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan [d. 1316/1898] was considered the first Muslim scholar that followed the western approach and put in question the codification and the authenticity of ahādīth and stated, that we do not know whether it is related to the Prophet Muhammad or the narrators. Mūlawī Chirāgh Ali [d. 1313/1895] was his alleged student that developed his theories and supported his thoughts with new arguments and concluded that we do not need the principles of ahādīth that differentiate the authentic ahādīth from the week because ahādīth itself are not reliable.
Consequently, the theories of both teacher and student paved the way to Ahli Qurān movement due to their resemblance regarding the position of ahādīth, and finally Abdullāh Chakrālwī [d. 1333/1914] firmly founded the Jamāat Ahli Qurān and announced his position about ahādīth that only the Holy Qurān revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. Hence, he denied the legal and authoritative position of Prophetic ahādīth. The ideology of Abdullāh Chakrālwī had a significant impact on his fellow and follower scholars which introduced a bulk of scholars that were serving his thoughts in the Subcontinent such as; Mūlawī Ahmadu'd-Din Amritsarī [d. 1355/1936], Mawlānā Aslam J Rajpurī [d. 1375/1955], Allāma Mashriqī [d. 1384/1964], Niāz Fathapurī [d. 1386/1966], Dr. Ghulām Jilānī Barq [d. 1406/1985] and others. They developed their ancestor's theories related to ahādīth and explicitly stated that the Holy Qurān is enough for us.
Ghulām Ahmad Pervīz [d. 1406/1985] was a prominent scholar in the denial of hadith school of thought, who compiled more than sixty books and articles which quenched from Sir Syed and Abdullāh Chakrālwī ideology and denied the historical position of ahādīth. Therefore, he was considered the refounder of the denial of hadith movement after Abdullāh Chakrālwī in the Subcontinent. It is a well-known fact that these scholars used the local Journals and Newspapers as a tool of conveying their thoughts to the public and literate class of the society at that time. On the other hand, the traditionalist Muslim scholars followed the same platform and criticised their theories about ahādīth.
Syed Abūʾl-Aʿlā Mawdūdī [d. 1399/1979] was one of those scholars who assessed the theories of the deniers of ahādīth through their research articles and countered them with intellectual and traditional arguments. Syed Mawdūdī published a bulk of articles in his research journal Tarjamānu'l-Qurān about the provenance, authoritative and legislative position of Prophetic ahādīth. Most of Syed Mawdūdī's articles are published along with others in his different books. However, the most popular group of his articles is the Sunnat kī Ainī Haisīat which comprises of two parts; the first one is a debate through articles with the renowned advocate of the deniers of ahādīth Dr. Abdu'l-Wadūd which is started from his questionnaire about the legislative position of ahādīth in May 1962, while the second one is about the suspicions and objections of Justice Muhammad Shafi High Court of West Pakistan that he raised in a case about ahādīth in July 1960.
Syed Mawdūdī countered the famous theory of the deniers of hadith called Markazi Millat, which means that whenever Allah command to the Muslims to obey Allah and his beloved Prophet, it means the Islamic state. He concluded that it is an unreasonable interpretation of the Qurānic verses because if it accepted then, the Imān and Kufr would depend on the obeying of a government, which is antithetical with the real spirit of Islam. Furthermore, he highlighted that due to the nature of the present geographical division, Muslims could not have one governer and the same law. Therefore, how the Muslims over the globe will obey one Markazi Millat or might the command of obedience will consider suspended until the Muslims establish one Markazi Millat in the world, which is illogical.
Furthermore, Syed Mawdūdī criticised the theory about the fabrication of ahādīth. He concluded that it is a bassless argument that Muslim jurists agreed that fabricated ahādīth are the source of Islamic law because there is not any documented evidence or statement of an authoritative scholar regarding it, as well as, he argued that Umar bn. al-Khattāb did not ban the codification of ahādīth due to the fabrication, but he was worried that ahādīth would intermix with the Holy Qurān as Urwa bn. Zubair narrated. Besides, Syed Mawdūdī countered the theory about the schism of Ummah as the deniers of hadith believe that ahādīth could divide Muslims unity. He proved that it is the result of ahādīth that kept the Muslims from disrupting. Otherwise, they could be divided into unlimited sects. Similarly, Syed Mawdūdī assessed the theory regarding the Muhaddithūn and authentic ahādīth, that Muhaddithūn did not rely on the authenticity of ahādīth in their compilations. He concluded that it is against of common sense if they did not depend on it then why they graded it authentic.
|
|---|
