• Hadith: Misconception — Wife Stealing From Husband

You quoted a Hadith, which suggests that it is permissible for a wife to steal from her husband. Is it possible that the Prophet, peace be upon him, could have permitted theft? What sort of Islam are you propagating? Suppose that the husband has brought the money home to pay an outstanding debt only to discover in the morning that it is all gone, because the wife has stolen it to buy some luxuries. What would you say to that?

We only preach what we have learned from and through God’s messenger, Muhammad, peace be upon him, and we will say what we believe would please God Almighty. Therefore, we take whatever is authentically reported to us of Hadith. And then giving always the first priority to the Qur'an, we act on it. But also, when we read a Hadith, we try to understand it within its context. We cannot treat a text said on a particular occasion without first considering the occasion to determine whether the statement attributed to the Prophet, peace be upon him, has a general or special application.

In this particular case, the woman concerned was Hind bint Utbah wife of Abu Sufian. She complained to the Prophet, peace be upon him, that her husband was miserly and asked whether she could take some money from him without his knowledge. The Prophet, peace be upon him, told her: “Take what is sufficient for you and your child, in line with what is reasonable.”

This Hadith, then, speaks about the social case of a stingy husband who does not fulfil his duty of looking after his wife and children and does not provide for their living. The Prophet, peace be upon him, allowed her to redress this omission on her husband’s part by taking from him what is sufficient, and he added that it should remain within ‘what is reasonable’. So it is not a blank check for every wife.

Of course a wife whose husband provides her with a decent standard of living, according to his means, may not take his money without his knowledge, because there is no overriding necessity, as in the case of the woman who complained of her husband’s miserliness. If the husband does not bring the essentials for his wife and children, then he has no right to keep all his money. Islam considers that one’s wife and children to be one’s partners in his wealth and property. So, if a woman finds herself in a situation where her children’s essential requirements, including food and clothing are not provided, she may take from her husband’s money what redresses his omission.

[There is a main rule in Islamic law that a particular regulation, which is made for a particular reason, is enforced only when that ‘reason’ is clearly in evidence.] ~

• Hadith: On Music — Incidence or a Ruling

Is there a Hadith that the Prophet put his fingers in his ears when he heard music? Could this mean that music is forbidden?

Yes there is a Hadith, which says that. The Prophet was walking with his companion, Abdullah ibn Omar, when he heard some singing. He placed his fingers in his ears. A short while later, he asked his companion if he could still hear the singing, and Abdullah confirmed that he did. They walked on with the Prophet still putting his fingers in his ears. Again he asked his companion if he could still hear, and the answer was the same. They walked on before the Prophet asked the same question the third time. Abdullah said that he could not hear. The Prophet took his fingers out of his ears.

Some people cite this Hadith as indicating a prohibition of singing or music, but it does not signify that. Had it been so, the Prophet would have told his companion to follow his example. The Prophet could not delay explaining a ruling at all. The fact that he let his companion continue to hear indicates that what he heard was not forbidden. It is only a case of hearing what he disliked.

• Hadith: On Reports against Compiling of Hadiths

In recent discussion with friends, a written text from a book entitled Maqam-e-Hadith by Mr. Pervez was provided to me. It states that there is firm evidence to suggest that there should be no text to rival the Qur’an. He quotes three instances of the erasing of Hadith. The first is an order by the Prophet, peace be upon him, to his companions to erase any statement of his they might have written down. The second speaks of Abu Bakr asking his daughter to bring him any Hadith written down and then destroying it. The third speaks of Omar asking all Muslims to bring over all that they had of Hadith written down and when it was all collected, he ordered that it should all be burned. While this raises doubt about the very existence of Hadith, it is in clear conflict of what we have learned that Qur’an and the Hadith are the sources of the Islamic faith, its principles and details.

This is the gist of a letter that I received and my reader seems to be very disturbed by what he has read. Let me tell him that such writings are both numerous and frequent. They come up from time to time to question the position of the Hadith and the Sunnah, suggesting always that only the Qur’an is the text to be implemented, and that Muslims should pay no attention to anything else. However, such writers do not seem to understand the Qur’an, which they claim to revere. They do not know what they are talking about when they suggest that they do not want anything to detract from the sanctity of the Qur’an by being considered as complimentary or a rival to it.

The first thing to be said in answer to such writers is that no Muslim, not even the most articulate defenders of the position of Hadith, puts Hadith on the same level with the Qur’an. There is no such thing as a rivalry between the Qur’an and the Hadith in any sense whatsoever. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we are presented with a Hadith which is in clear disagreement with a clear text in the Qur’an, and we are told at the same time that all Hadith collections confirm it as authentic, what do we do with such a Hadith?

We simply disregard the Hadith without hesitation because of its being in conflict with the Qur’an. At no time did the Prophet, peace be upon him, say anything that may be considered to disagree with the Qur’an. In fact, all that he said or did provide us with guidance on how the Qur’an should be implemented in practical life. When we take the Prophet’s Sunnah, whether it is verbal or practical, we find nothing in it that does not serve the proper implementation of the Qur’an. Hence, we conclude that those who raise doubts as to the importance or the position of the Sunnah in Islamic life do not wish the Qur’an to be implemented.

God tells us in the Qur’an: “Whatever the Prophet bids you take it: and whatever he forbids you, refrain from it.” [59: 7] He also says in more than one Surah: “Obey God and obey the messenger.” [24: 54] And He says: “Whoever obeys the messenger obeys God.” [4: 81] There are many examples of clear Divine orders instructing us to obey God’s messenger, Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. They confirm that by so doing we obey God Himself. If we were to disregard the Hadith and claim that it has no position in Islamic legislation, how are we to implement God’s orders? If we claim that the Hadith was destroyed and no longer exists, how are we to explain these repeated orders by God to obey the Prophet, peace be upon him, when there is no statement by the Prophet, peace be upon him, to obey?

In fact, this effects every aspect of our faith. For example, God commands us clearly to offer our prayers. He does not tell us in the Qur’an how or when to pray, or the number of prayers we should offer each day. The Prophet, peace be upon him, has given to us all this in statements he said and in action he did. He says: “Pray in the manner you have seen me pray.”

If we were to say that the Hadith has no validity, or no position in Islamic legislation, or that it was destroyed and no longer exists, then it does not matter whether we pray once a day or once a week. Or we perform our prayers in the way Christians, Jews or Buddhists offer theirs, because the order we have in the Qur’an tells us only to offer prayers without indicating any details. It is the Sunnah that provides all these details. But some people want to do away with it. In fact, they want to change the whole religion of Islam, and make it a skeleton without flesh. But God foils their attempts and preserves His religion intact.

Moreover, God tells us clearly in the Qur’an that the Prophet, peace be upon him, does not say anything of his own accord. It is all revealed to him. “He does not say anything based on his own desire. It is all but revelation that has been revealed to him.” [53: 3–4] This applies to everything that the Prophet, peace be upon him, said that is relevant to the Islamic faith. Scholars divide revelations into three types:

1 – The Qur’an, which is revealed by text and meaning. Every word in the Qur’an is the word of God, and it has been revealed as it is. It does not admit any change at any time. Its recitation is a form of worship. It is recited in prayer which is unacceptable unless it contains some portions of the Qur’an.

2 – The Hadith, which is an expression in the Prophet’s own words of meanings that are revealed to him from on high.

3 – The sacred or “Qudsi Hadith”, in which the Prophet, peace be upon him, quotes a statement attributing it to God.

The last two types are not read in prayer, and their recitation is not a form of worship. Besides, God has not guaranteed their preservation in their original forms like He preserves the Qur’an. He left this task to the Muslim community, and its scholars like Al-Bukhari, Muslim and others have certainly done a good job of it.

Let us now consider the instances Mr. Pervez mentions in his book. The first is a statement by the Prophet, peace be upon him, requiring those who had written down Hadith to erase it. Every statement must be taken within its context. This, the Prophet, peace be upon him, said in the early days of Islam, when the Arabs, mostly unlettered people, were receiving the message directly from him, and the Qur’an was in the process of revelation.

The Prophet, peace be upon him, feared that in the situation that prevailed at that time the Hadith might be confused with the Qur’an. Therefore, he wanted to ensure that what was written down was only the Qur’an. The Hadith was meant to be learned and reported verbally. He was available to correct any mistakes that might have occurred. Later on, when Muslims were better aware of the text of the Qur’an, and the number of people who could read and write increased, the Prophet, peace be upon him, allowed his companions to write down the Hadith. Many of them did. None of them said to him that they would not do so because he had earlier told them not to write the Hadith. Why do people nowadays say something to that effect? Why would they obey the first order, but not the second?

Besides, who says that writing down the Hadith is the only form of preserving it. In fact, committing it to memory, particularly in the early days of Islam, was far more important. When we rely on written text only, and do not support that with good memory, we run the risk of distortion. The Qur’an itself was memorized more than it was written down. When Osman sent copies of the Qur’an to the main centers of the Islamic state, he wanted these to be a sort of reference to confirm what people memorized. There were far more people who learned the Qur’an by heart than copies of it. Yet no one suggests that the Qur’an is not valid because it was not written on paper in sufficient number of copies.

The scholars of Hadith have done a marvelous job in ensuring that every statement attributed to the Prophet, peace be upon him, is verified, and only when it has been proved as authentic it is implemented. By doing so, they have facilitated for all Muslims generations to follow the Divine instructions to obey God’s messenger. Yet writers, like Mr. Pervez, want us to disregard all this heritage of unrivaled scholarship, although it means in practice a willful negligence of God’s order to obey His messenger. We, as Muslims, know that their argument has no sound basis. We continue to obey God’s Messenger, because by doing so we obey God Himself, as He says: “Whoever obeys the messenger is obedient to God.” [4: 80]

As for the other two incidents the writer mentions, we say that even if they were correct, they are actions by the Prophet’s companions. Their actions or view represent their own discretion. They are not binding on other generations of Muslims. All the Prophet’s companions reported Hadiths and considered them as basis for actions they did. When they were asked why they did certain matters in a certain fashion, they answered that they either saw the Prophet, peace be upon him, doing it in that fashion, or heard him recommending or ordering it. This applies to Abu Bakr and Omar as well as all the companions of the Prophet, peace be upon him.

When we declare that we are Muslims, we state that we believe that there is only one God, and that Muhammad is God’s messenger. What does the second half of this statement mean? It simply means that we take from Muhammad, peace be upon him, whatever he taught, as he is the person through whom God has conveyed His message to us. How can we decline that and say at the same time that we believe in him as God’s messenger? To reject his Hadith is to reject him as a Messenger. That takes any person outside the fold of Islam altogether.