Book Review of
Jonathan Brown’s book “Misquoting Muhammed” (
)
”
By Abd al-Nur ibn
Ahmed
“Misquoting Muhammed” (
) is a book by the Western
academic Jonathan Brown that follows on from a series of books by him on
aspects relating to hadith and the Noble Prophet (
). Brown has done a great service
to Muslims and non-Muslims by highlighting in an academic and easily
understandable way, the importance of hadith to understand Islam and Muslims,
given some explanations about what hadith science is, the various contributions
made by hadith scholars, and presented some of the traditionalist and classical
epistemological views in relation to hadith and hadith interpretation.
In this book, Brown has done a good job in refuting the
interpretations of the violent extremists in regards to hadiths and rightly
encourages Muslims to ensure that they’re not quoting forged hadiths.
He has also devoted a few pages to provide good refutations
to the “Qur’an only” movement by arguing that the same methodology they use to
reject hadiths, can be applied to reject the other Islamic sciences such as
tafsir, linguistics (through which one knows what the Qur’anic words mean)
because generally the Islamic sciences rely on the tradition of isnad. This
would mean that the Qur’an could not be understood, and in fact would be liable
to even more misinterpretations, if we abandon hadiths as a whole. He also
discussed that hadiths and scholars actually provide crucial explanations to
the Qur’an, such as limiting the cutting of hands when conditions of a minimum
amount are fulfilled, or about how to actually pray.
Despite the above benefits of the books, there are a number
of other major errors, some of which are highlighted below. If one is sincere
and unafraid of the truth, then the following read is of benefit:
1)
Attack on the Sahaba
Brown has not applied academic rigour on his references on Sayyidina Mu’awiya, the one who was
appointed by the Prophet (
) as the writer of revelation. He
said “Mu'awiya himself encouraged his followers to forge Hadiths” (p 22). When the book reviewer spoke to Brown directly on this (in his SOAS talk on 29/02/2016), he said
that he had “no doubt about it, that Bukhari or Muslim mention that Muawiya
encouraged cursing Ali and that it mentioned that Muawiya was a liar, which
shows he was a dishonest man”. However
none of these evidences are found in Bukhari or Muslim
.
As for his references in the “Misquoting” book about forgery, they are from
Kitab al-Ahdath attributed to al-Mada’ini (d 235 AH) and al-Risala by Ahmad
al-Miswari, the latter is definitely an extreme Shia source (a sect that believes in cursing and hating Mu’awiya). Al-Mada’ini died over 150 years after Mu’awiya and al-Miswari lived over 500 years after. Nevertheless no sound chain is known for their
reports and Brown actually quoted from al-Miswari who apparently quotes from
al-Mada’ini. Since al-Mada’ini’s work is extinct, Brown has completely relied
on an extremely biased Shia source for the citation and there is no way to
determine what al-Mada’ini actually said (Shias often misquote Sunni
sources even when the works exist
). Even if al-Miswari actually quoted from Kitab
al-Ahdath, we don’t know if the copy was the authentic copy of al-Mada’ini or
was fabricated or tampered. It is also known that al-Mada'ini often cited reports without isnad. A report without isnad cannot be accepted in hadith science.
Considering that it is well known that many reports against
Mu’awiya were forged by Shias and Shias ritualistically curse him, appropriate scepticism by Brown should have been applied.
On the other hand the report about Mu’awiya cursing Ali is
actually without a sound chain
and is circulated amongst the Shia (in fact they generally have no chain/isnad).
Shaykh Dr Gibril Haddad rightly mentioned “As for whatever
transgression is attributed to Mu`awiya, Allah be well-pleased with him, the
Prophet himself (upon him blessings and peace) declared that it is does not
matter at all, since he said that those who fought at Badr and Hunayn are in
Paradise, and Mu`awiya fought at Hunayn.”
On the other hand, various sahaba specifically praised Mu’awiya, such as Ibn
Abbas calling him a faqih
whilst Bukhari, Muslim, Malik and many other leading Hadith masters included
Mu’awiya as a narrator in their collections. There is even an authentic report in the Sunan of Abu Dawud that Mu'awiya was not a suspect in fabricating hadiths.
The Prophet (
) said: “None of you should come to
me with anything (negative) about any of my Companions for I do not want to go
out to you except with a clear heart.”
The Qur’an says “Those are a people who have passed away.
Theirs is that which they earned, and yours is that which ye earn. And ye will
not be asked of what they used to do.” (2:134)
Based on the principles and sources that Brown uses to
attack Mu’awiya, many of the other leading sahaba would be attacked (such as
Sayyida A’isha, Sayyiduna Umar ibn al-Khattab), which suggests that Brown’s
approach is not consistent. Malik
and Ibn Taymiyya
deemed it a punishable crime to believe that Mu’awiya was misguided or to curse
him whilst Ahmed said that such people should be “abandoned”
,
which refutes Brown’s claim of following the Hanbali madhab (he also claimed to be "salafi" per an eye witness) .
2)
Women leading men in
prayer
Brown briefly gives the arguments of the Sunni scholars
against women leading men in prayer (for fardh salats in public) and then
provides detailed refutations of each of the Sunni arguments. Whilst he does
not give his personal opinion, the reader is left in no doubt about what is the
“correct opinion”.
He defends the Hadith of Umm Waraqa as authentic despite
many leading hadith scholars declaring it weak. Brown does not address the
major weaknesses of this hadith, including its numerous divergent and
contradictory versions, the unknown narrators, and the fact that the entire
hadith goes through only one narrator Walid ibn Abdillah ibn Jumay (thus it is
a purely solitary hadith which can’t stand against the weight of ijma of Sunnis and Shias and other
stronger evidences and hadiths).
Hakim said about this hadith “This is a strange practice. I
do not know of a connected hadith on the subject besides this” and “It would
have been better if Muslim did not transmit his (hadiths).”. Despite this, Brown
claims that Hakim deemed the report authentic (another example of serial misquoting).
Ibn Hibban further said about Walid “He was of those who
were isolated (in their reports) from firm reporters (in narrating) what does
not resemble the narration of trustworthy men. When that is excessive from him,
adducing evidence from him is nullified.” Whilst al-Uqayli said in his book on
weak narrators “There is inconsistency in his hadith.” Inconsistency is
objective evidence of a narrator’s weakness and is objectively shown by the
fact that this hadith has variant and divergent versions from Walid (such as
some not mentioning Imamate or an Azan, or mixing up narrators).
As for those from whom Walid narrates from, all of them are
either unknown (in person or reliability). The accepted and soundest position
in hadith scholarship is that the people who are unknown, are not deemed
reliable in hadith. This, as well as the detailed analysis by Shu’ayb Arna’ut,
concluded that the hadith of Umm Waraqa is weak and no evidence
.
If the hadith was authentic and some major scholars had
allowed women leading men, then such a practice would have been done or known
during the time of the Salaf, who were strict followers of the Prophet (
). The fact that Hakim found the
practice strange, indicates that he had never come across it. The non-existence of the practice is supported by the point that though Umm Waraqa lived in Medinah, yet none of the scholars of Madinah allowed
women leading men (from the time of Malik or before).
The hadith also gives no unambiguous indication that men
were led by a woman. In fact the only version that mentions gender, clearly states
women being led by Umm Waraqa.
Brown then tries to bolster his position by attributing the
permissibility of women leading men (in any condition) to Tabari, Abu Thawri,
Muzani and the Sufi Ibn Arabi. He further justified this by claiming that
Tabari had a flourishing madhab and giving his credentials. However this only shows the inconsistent methodology of Brown because he does not quote Tabari’s tafsir’s interpretation on hitting women (his view won’t please feminists but does Brown deem them as valid followable views now too?) nor Tabari’s other odd and isolated views which no Muslim would accept. Furthermore there
is no isnad for attributing the positions to Tabari or Abu Thawr, hence we
can’t declare that there is any reasonable proof that they held this position
or what their conditions were (e.g. that women can only lead in the home when
the men are unqualified). A hadith specialist and academic should not rely on isnadless reports.
As for Muzani, the latter said “The prayer of anyone praying
behind someone in a state of major ritual impurity, a woman, an insane person,
or a disbeliever is acceptably conveyed if he is unaware of his/her [the ’s]
state.”
Zaid Shakir said “From this we can infer that the prayer of the follower in all
of these scenarios is unacceptable if he knows of the ’s state. This would
include his prayer behind a woman. As for the opinion that al-Muzani actually endorsed female prayer
leadership, it has not reached us in any extant document.”
As for Ibn Arabi, he doesn’t quote the latter’s statement in
the futuhat that women are deficient in the intellect and religion (see the section on
whether it is obligatory for women to pray in congregation). Again this shows Brown
being inconsistent in quoting and methodology. It is also
known that many of Ibn Arabi’s works have been tampered with so we are not sure
that Ibn Arabi actually held this position. In fact suggestions of tamperings
are found on this issue because it is against Ibn Arabi’s methodology and the
reasoning he gave for his position contradicts his other reasoning elsewhere in
the text (where he is explicit that matters relating to the prayer have to be
proven from the Prophet, otherwise they're not allowed)
.
The other point is that Ibn Arabi does not state that women can lead in any situation (as shown by the contextual analysis of the Arabic) . Due to the lack of transmission of his fiqh through living scholars
and detailed manuals on fiqh, we don’t know what his conditions were for women
leading.
Based on the Prophet’s (
) command to pray as he prayed, the
hadiths on bid’a, other hadiths and the understanding of the Salaf, the actions of
Salah have to be taken from the Prophet (
). Since the permissibility of
women’s Imamate of men is not proven, women’s Imamate is not allowed. Otherwise
A’isha would not have prayed behind a male slave who had not memorised the
Qur’an yet he prayed with a mushaf and she would have communicated the practice
to the Ummah.
This discussion shows the wisdom of al-Awza’i who said: “The
one who takes the odd opinions of the scholars leaves Islam.” Muslims should
follow a principled and consistent approach when picking opinions from Muslim
scholars.
3)
Scholarship
The authentic hadith says “Scholars are the inheritors of
the prophets.”
What
is interesting to note is that it doesn’t call laymen inheritors nor the academics
inheritors. Instead it is the qualified Islamic scholars that are meant. In the
Hadith of Bukhari, the Prophet (
) said "Allah does not take
away knowledge by plucking it out of the hearts of people, but he takes it away
by taking the souls of the `ulama until, when he doesn't leave a single `alim,
people take ignorant people as their leaders (ittakhadha al-nasa ru'usan
juhhalan), who give fatwa and lead people astray without knowledge."
When a non-alim (scholar) writes on complex Islamic matters, attacking
scholars, scholarship and giving his own agendas and views, he is opposing
the above hadiths and affectively telling people “follow me, a non-scholar,
instead of the scholars”. To benefit the community, Brown should train under qualified scholars until they certify him as qualified.
Interestingly Brown quotes (page 223) the maxim “we have
been commanded to speak to people according to their minds’ abilities” and a
related hadith.
However he doesn’t apply the above rule or hadith to his
writings, which will confuse many laymen who aren’t trained in the Islamic
sciences and can’t detect his various misquotes. This is because he quotes the
oddest opinions from various sects (with their detailed proofs) inside and outside Islam (such as Amina
Wadud, Sidqi, Qutb, Abu Rayya, the Mu’tazila, the Shia) without consistently
giving a fair or proper refutation.
Neither did the Prophet (
) nor the sahaba teach people odd/misguided
opinions without refuting them. By opposing them in this, Brown has and will
lead to the misguidance of other lay Muslims who don’t all have the skills to
research the topic, critically analyse various claims and to distinguish
between truth and falsehood. Muslims may also get the impression that this is
not a divinely protected religion due to the many significant differences and sects, or
that any opinion can be followed.
By seeing the amount of variant views (with their detailed proofs) and sects that Brown
mentions, one questions what is the intention of writing the book which is for
the laymen (Muslims and non-Muslims) and sold in major bookstores? Ahmed ibn Hanbal prohibited kalam because it
would lead to laymen being exposed to the arguments of the misguided
.
The saying of the Salaf is “Indeed this knowledge is
religion, so look from whom you take your religion.” One should thus take
knowledge from the qualified scholars who have the relevant ijazahs going to
the Prophet in an unbroken chain, on that subject. The authentic hadith of the
Holy Prophet (
)
states: "From every succeeding generation its upright folk shall
carry this knowledge in turn. They shall repeal from it the distortions of the
extremists (tahrif al-ghalin), the (mis)interpretations of the ignorant (ta'wil
al-jahilin), and the pretenses of the liars (intihal al-mubtilin)."
and another mass-transmitted (mutawatir) hadith states “There shall not cease
to be a group in my Community who shall overcome and stand for truth until the
end of time.” This shows that the true Islam will be present in every
generation (i.e. unbroken chain/isnad) and victorious. This condition only applies to the four Sunni
madhabs, who are the rightly guided,
which means that odd opinions found amongst other sects (whether new or
those extinct) are to be rejected.
Thus Ibn Rajab said “We have already alerted you to the
reason for preventing this, which is that the schools of other than these
[four] were not widely diffused, nor fully codified. At times views are
ascribed to them which they never said, or their pronouncements are understood
in ways they never intended. There is no [expert in] these schools to defend
them or point out where such slips and errors lie – contrary to the case of the
well-known madhhabs.”
By ignoring the wisdom of following scholars and
non-scholars not speaking about complex Islamic matters to the public, the
errors and consequences of this "Misquoting" book become apparent. This is also shown by its use of offensive language when describing Islamic sciences such as
referring to hadith science with the words “cult of authenticity” (p 224).
The distinguishing mark between a true Hadith scholar and an
academic is that for the former, the Prophet (
) is a living example to be
followed in terms of his teachings and actions. This is why they are careful not to be stingy in regards to the Prophet (
) and don’t neglect to send
salutations (salawat) upon him, when his name is written. However the common academic act is to neglect this salawat in the name of materialism
(whether it is the costs of pages or the blatantly false argument that attaching “
” will distract the flow) and to
address the Prophet (
) as if the Prophet (
) is the academic’s student.
One will see the modern academics address their professors with greater respect and
titles. This book mentions the name of the Prophet (
) more than 450 times, yet salawat
were only written twice. 100s of times it mentions the Prophet (
) solely with his name, in
contradiction to the Qur’an “Make not the calling of the messenger among you as
your calling one of another…” (24:63), about which Sayyiduna Ibn `Abbas said:
"They used to say, `O Muhammed(
),' or `O Abu Al-Qasim,' but Allah
forbade them to do that, as a sign of respect towards His Prophet , and told
them to say, `O Prophet of Allah,' `O Messenger of Allah.'''
4)
Authenticity of
hadiths
Brown declares that mutawatir are only “at most a few dozen
massively transmitted” (p 232) despite there being over 300 as compiled by the
hadith master Ja’far al-Kattani
.
On sahih ahad (i.e. non-mutawatir) hadiths, Brown said they
were “only 'most probably' the words of the Prophet” (p 232). The Ahlus Sunnah
however believe that it is obligatory to believe
in sahih hadiths (especially those not clearly contradicting other sahih hadiths, irreconcilably) and al-Qari narrated the consensus of the sahaba on this (as
also known by the fact that often the Prophet would only send one or a few
sahaba to transmit the Qur’an to other tribes, who would be obligated to
believe in it).
Brown has wrongly conveyed the views of scholars about ahad
hadiths and epistemology. The scholars either hold them to give absolute
certain knowledge (yaqin, as was the view of Ibn Qayyim) or the compelling
assumption of truth (al-dhann al-ghalib, as was the view of most Ash’aris). The
latter is of various degrees and Ibn Hajar labelled the highest form of it as
“iron-clad inductive knowledge”.
The crucial point to bear in mind is that Islam requires
four witnesses (i.e. ahad reports) for the hadd of zina. Thus sahih ahad
reports give enough knowledge that they can be used in criminal law and capital
punishments.
5)
Rants against karamat
The belief in the possibility of karamat is a belief of the
Ahlus Sunnah as stated in the Aqidah Tahawiyya and even by Ibn Taymiyya
,
who mentioned that they will continue until the Day of Judgement.
Brown compares the miracles related to the Awliya (karamat)
to myths mentioned amongst other religions (p 71-72, 229-230. He discusses the stories of karamat under the section and context of “Noble Lying”). The absurdity of such a
comparison is known by the fact that karamat should be verified through proper
isnads whereas the previous religions did not do that.
He compares the stories of karamat to “noble lies”, quotes
Buti’s mention of fabricated karamat stories about his father (p 261), rants
against kashf authentication of hadiths and waking visions of the Prophet
(p
226-227). This is despite the fact the Qur’an mentions karamat stories (e.g.
Maryam, the man with the throne of Bilqis etc) and various authentic karamat
are narrated from the sahaba and Salaf. That, combined with the people
converting to Islam due to karamat, the need to disprove materialism and to
strengthen the Iman of Muslims, are sufficient benefits in narrating authentic
karamat stories.
Whilst it is true that many karamat stories are forged, many
are also authentic when looked through the eye of isnad. That is one reason why
Tahawi mentioned “We believe in what we know of Karamat, the marvels of the
awliya' and in authentic stories about them from trustworthy sources. “ Such is
the case with many karamat reported by Ibn Ata Illah about his teacher
and by al-Lamati about his teacher
.
No less a scholar than the hadith master al-Suyuti (who
memorised over 200,000 hadiths) deduces the permissibility of waking visions of
the Prophet based on the authentic hadith “Whoever saw me in his dream shall
see me with his waking eyes and the devil cannot impersonate me”
.
The hadith mentions no qualifications or restrictions about it being in the
hereafter and the like. Suyuti also narrates an actual story of hadith
authentication via kashf while Abd al-Aziz al-Dabbagh authenticated many
hadiths through his kashf (despite him being Ummi, his gradings were
confirmed by various hadith masters when analysing the isnad
)
and Shah Waliullah Dihlawi discussed his father seeing the Prophet in a waking
state
.
6)
Attack on Syed
Naquib al-Attas
Brown accuses the famous Muslim philosopher al-Attas of
“noble lying” (like the Buddhists and Greeks (p 218 – 221)) against the Prophet
(
) when he quoted a saying attributed to the
Prophet (
) from a book that “People are
asleep, and when they die they awaken”. It is correct that this saying was
actually said by Sayyiduna Ali (RA) and when a questioner challenged al-Attas,
the latter said “Why should we not use this, when it is an important principle
(asl) in our religion?”. Brown misinterpreted this to mean that al-Attas
believed it is correct to attribute the hadith to the Prophet and thereby
engage in a noble lie.
However what al-Attas meant is that “the statement is true,
regardless of who said it” and not that the questioner was wrong. In fact, Ibn
Arabi, about whom Brown said “was no lackluster jurist and Hadith scholar” (p
190) and “declared him-self able to verify Hadiths that had no chains of
transmission whatsoever on the basis of 'unveiling (kashf)'” (p 226) attributed
this hadith to the Prophet (
)
The hadith on respecting elders is pertinent here. Despite
the above accusations, Brown includes a picture of himself with al-Attas in the
book.
7)
Weak hadiths
In his chapter on “Lying about the Prophet of God”, Brown
attacks the scholarly use of weak hadiths for admonitions and likens it to the
Greek use of noble lies and Hollywood, even if the likes of Ahmad, Shawkani, Ibn Hajar, Bukhari and Ibn
Taymiyya allowed it and the conditions were met (such as not being a forgery or
very weak, using uncertain phrasing e.g. “It is said”, not being for law or
aqidah, and falling under an established principle). Even Ibn Jawzi who Brown quotes a lot to support the idea of not using weak hadiths (p 261), uses weak hadiths in his hadith works to encourage good deeds.
Since isnad was not the methodology of the Greeks but even
weak hadiths quoted by scholars have isnads, the analogy is false. As weak
hadiths should not have a liar in its chain and aren’t clearly false, it cannot
be said that the Prophet (
) didn’t say them. They could be
true (it has a 50% chance per Hamza Yusuf) and can be used to encourage good
actions if there is no harm. Respect for the Prophet (
) means that we should consider
things that he might have plausibly said.
As Dr Gibril Haddad mentioned “The difference is clear between saying we
are not forced to use weak narrators and saying that one cannot transmit
anything from them”
Despite his rant against weak hadiths, he accepts the weak
hadith of Umm Waraqah for law.
8)
Hadiths and reason
Brown devotes 4 paragraphs (pages 69-70) for the view that
deems the authentic hadith about a fly to be scientifically impossible and
against reason. He then devotes a few lines in the middle of another paragraph
(page 70) with a counter argument from Sunni scholars. This gives laymen
readers the impression that "this authentic hadith is against reason and
can be rejected".
This theme of how much space is given to both sides of the
argument is either an indication of bias or recklessness. He also did not quote
the many scientific studies done (by Muslims and non-Muslims) that prove that
the hadith is true
although he briefly mentioned that flies had antibodies.
9)
Translating the
Qur’an
Brown translates the Qur’an in strange ways such as by
saying “The power [yad] of Abu Lahab will perish” (p 91). However I couldn’t
find yad meaning power in any of the linguistic tafsirs so it appears to be a
ta’wil without any basis.
10) Interest/usury (riba)
Brown puts a fog over the ijma/consensus (per both the
Sunnis and Shias) on the prohibition of riba by stating that the Qur’an forbids
“excessive usury” (pages 30 and 111). Nowhere in the Qur’an is the word
“excessive” mentioned in addition to riba e.g it says “Allah has permitted trade
and has forbidden riba” (2:275). Although Brown earlier stated that the Qur’an
forbids riba (“any kind of interest-bearing transaction”), by adding the
mention of “excessive” later on, obscures the clear cut Qur’anic prohibition.
Brown makes a mockery of the scholars that quote the hadith
comparing riba to interest as clearly false because apparently incest is worse
than riba. However this reasoning is clearly disproved because Allah Most High
says “O those who believe, fear Allah and give up what still remains of the
riba if you are believers. But if you do not, then listen to the declaration of
war from Allah and His Messenger. And if you repent, yours is your principal.
Neither you wrong, nor be wronged.” (2:278-279)”. Riba is thus such a grave sin
that Allah declares war against it, whilst I am not aware that He says the same
about incest in the Qur’an.
As is known to those qualified in finance, riba is a method of
economic oppression and enslavement that has caused large populations to be
economically enslaved, led to financial crises, lost homes etc.
Brown also claims about the hadith that it is “widely
considered unreliable or even a blatant forgery by Muslim Hadith scholars”. However
this has been narrated by 7 different sahaba with their collectivity giving it
strength and making forgery implausible. Certain scholars also declared some of
the chains authentic, leading to the overall hadith being authentic in meaning.
Brown later quotes strange opinions from colonial and
post-colonial scholars permitting interest, such as on the reasoning that fiat
money has no value. This opinion contradicts economics and finance and is an
embarrassment to the people. It also contradicts the well known hadith “A time
will certainly come to mankind when no one will remain except the consumer of
riba (usury/interest), and if he does not consume it, some of its vapour will
reach him”. Ibn Isa said: Some of its dust will reach him” (Abu Dawud). How can
there be riba affecting everyone if the bank interest and modern financial transactions do not include interest? It is however
interesting to note that the fatwas on the permissibility of interest primarily
started during the colonial times.
In conclusion, it is not wise to give academics an infallible status as they are much more likely to make serious errors. Although I have not
highlighted the many other major errors in the book, this review highlights some of
the major and basic errors in the work and the need for only qualified Muslim
scholars to write about such complex and important Islam topics, rather than
unqualified academics. For good scholarship by hadith scholars in
English, one is recommended to read the works of Mustafa A’zami and Gibril
Haddad (unless one is classically
trained in the Islamic sciences).
“وَمِنْ أُصًولِ أَهْلِ السُّنَّةِ: التَّصْدِيقُ بِكَرَامَاتَ
الأَوْلِيَاءِ وَمَا يُجْرِي اللهُ عَلَى أَيْدِيهِم مِّنْ خَوَارِقِ الْعَادَاتِ
فِي أَنْوَاعِ الْعُلُومِ وَالْمُكَاشَفَاتِ وَأَنْوَاعِ الْقُدْرَةِ
وَالتَّأْثِيرَات ، وَالمَاثُور عَنْ سَالِفِ الأُمَمِ فِي سُورَةِ الْكَهْفِ
وَغَيْرِهَا، وَعَنْ صَدْرِ هَذِهِ الأُمَّةِ مِنَ الصَّحَابَةِ وَالتَّابِعِينَ
وَسَائِرِ فِرق الأُمَّةِ، وَهِيَ مَوْجُودَةٌ فِيهَا إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ ۔
