An-nuur Na. 164

AN-NUUR
Na.164 Jamada Awal 1419, Agosti 28 - Septemba 3, 1998

Somo: Qur’an Form IV

Uthibitisho kuwa Qur’an ni neno la Mwenyezi Mungu

Katika kuthibitisha kuwa Qur’an ni kitabu cha Mwenyezi Mungu (s.w.), tuna vigezo viwili:

(a) Uthibitisho wa Qur’an yenyewe, na

(b) Uthibitisho kutokana na Historia ya kushuka kwake.

(a) Uthibitisho wa Qur’an yenyewe

Vipengele vinavyothibitisha kuwa Qur’an ni kitabu cha Mwenyezi Mungu (s.w.) kutokana na Qur’an yenyewe ni hivi vifuatavyo:

i) Kutojua kusoma na kuandika kwa Mtume Muhammad (s.a.w.)

ii) Qur’an yenyewe inajieleza kuwa ni Kitabu cha Mwenyezi Mungu (s.w.).

iii) Hali aliyokuwa nayo Mtume katika kupokea wahyi

iv) Qur’an kushushwa kidogo kidogo kwa kipindi cha miaka ishirini na tatu (23).

v) Kukosolewa kwa Mtume katika Qur’an

vi) Kutokea kweli yale yaliyotabiriwa katika Qur’an

vii) Mpangilio wa Qur’an

viii) Maudhui ya Qur’an na mvuto wa ujumbe wake

ix) Wanaadamu kushindwa kuandika kitabu mithili ya Qur’an.

Hebu tuangalie jinsi kila kipengele kinavyothibitisha kuwa Qur’an ni neno la Mwenyezi Mungu (s.w.).

(i) Mtume Muhammad (s.a.w.) kutojua kusoma na kuandika

Iwazi mno katika historia yake kuwa Mtume (s.a.w.) hakujua kusoma wala kuandika. Ukweli huu wa historia unathibitishwa na aya za Qur’an zifuatazo:

"Sema (Wewe Nabii Muhammad): Enyi Watu! Hakika Mimi ni Mtume wa Mwenyezi Mungu kwenu nyinyi nyote, (Mwenyezi Mungu) ambaye ana ufalme wa mbingu na ardhi, hapana aabudiwaye (kwa haki) ila Yeye, Ndiye ahuishaye na ndiye afishaye. Basi mwaminini Mwenyezi Mungu na Mtume wake, aliye Nabii Ummy, (asiyejua kusoma wala kuandika), ambaye humwamini Mwenyezi Mungu na maneno yake na mfuateni yeye ili mpate kuongoka". (7:158).

"Na hukuwa mwenye kusoma kitabu chochote kabla ya hiki, wala hukukiandika kwa mkono wako wa kuume, ingekuwa hivyo wangefanya shaka wale wanaotaka kubadilisha (haki)." (29:48).

Sababu ya Mtume (s.a.w.) kutojua kusoma wala kuandika imebainishwa wazi katika aya hii ya (29:48) kuwa angelijua kusoma na kuandika watu wakaidi wasio tayari kumwamini Mtume wa kuiamini Qur’an wangelisingizia kuwa hawaamini Qur’an kwa sababu si maneno ya Mwenyezi Mungu bali ni maneno aliyoyatunga Mtume (s.a.w.) au ni maneno aliyoyanakili kutoka kwenye vitabu vya kale au ni maneno aliyofundishwa na watunga mashairi mashuhuri na kuyanukuu kwenye kitabu. Mtume (s.a.w.) angalijua kusoma na kuandika ingalikuwa vigumu sana kuonyesha udhaifu wa madai haya. Lakini kutojua kusoma wala kuandika kwa Mtume Muhammad (s.a.w.) kumewafanya wapinzani wengi wakose hoja ya uwazi ya kukataa kuwa Qur’an si Kitabu cha Mwenyezi Mungu (s.w.). Hata hivyo, pamoja na ukweli wa historia kuwa Mtume (s.a.w.) hakuwa ni mwenye kujua kusoma wala kuandika, walitokea watu waliojitia upofu na kudai kuwa Qur’an ni maneno ya Muhammad (s.a.w.). Ili kuwahuzunisha na kuwaonyesha kuwa ni waongo katika madai yao hayo, Mwenyezi Mungu (s.w.) aliwawekea watu hao na walimwengu kwa ujumla changa moto ambayo tutaiona katika kipengele cha (vi).

Kwa hiyo Mtume Muhammad (s.a.w.) kutojua kwake kusoma wala kuandika na bado akawakilisha kwa watu ujumbe mzito wenye hekima kubwa na wenye kumuongoza mwanaadamu kwa usahihi katika kila kipengele cha maisha yake, ujumbe ambao hapana yeyote anayeweza kuleta mfano wake ni ushahidi mkubwa kuwa Qur’an yote kama ilivyo ni maneno ya Mwenyezi Mungu (s.w.).

(ii) Qur’an Yenyewe inajieleza kuwa ni ufunuo kutoka kwa Mwenyezi Mungu (s.w.)

Ukiisoma Qur’an kwa makini utakuta kuna aya nyingi zinazojieleza kuwa Qur’an imeshushwa kutoka kwa Mwenyezi Mungu, kama inavyodhihirika katika aya chache zifuatazo:

Lakini Mwenyezi Mungu anayashuhudia kuwa aliyokuteremshia (kuwa ni haki) ameyateremsha kwa ilimu yake, na Malaika (pia) wana shuhudia. Na Mwenyezi Mungu anatosha kuwa shahidi. (4:166).

"Uteremsho wa Kitabu hiki hauna shaka kuwa umetoka kwa Muumba wa ulimwengu. Je, wanasema: "Amekitunga mwenyewe." (Sivyo hivyo). Bali hicho ni haki itokayo kwa Mola wako ili uwaonye watu wasiojua na muonyaji kabla yako. Huenda wakaongoka". (32:2-3).

Na Kitabu tulichokuletea kwa wahyi ndicho cha haki, kinachosadikisha (vitabu) vilivyokuwa kabla yake. Bila shaka Mwenyezi Mungu kwa waja wake ni mwenye kuwajua vyema na kuwaona vizuri." (35:31).

Ni mwenye kuleta baraka (kweli kweli) yule Aliyeteremsha Qur’an kwa mja wake, ili awe muonyaji kwa walimwengu wote. (25:1).

Islamic Knowledge for "A" Level

Hadith and Sunnah- Form V

Hadith: Its meaning, concept and classification

The word Hadith in its real sense means speech, chat, conversation or communication. Used as an adjective it means new, modern and recent. However, in Islamic context the term of Hadith means all the sayings, deeds, decisions of Rasulullah, his silent approval of the behaviour of his Sahabah and descriptions of his personality.

The word Sunnah means a practice, a way or course, a rule, a mode or manner of life,a precedent, a custom. In its technical sense, it implies the doings and practices of Rasulullah.

Main Division of the Hadith

The scholars of the Hadith literature have divided the Traditions into three categories according to the degree of their reliability. These categories were based on.

(1) The perfection or imperfaction of the chain of their transmitters.

(2) The freedom of the texts from any defects.

(3) Acceptance of any Hadith by the Sahabah, their followers (At-Tabi un) and their successors (At-Tab ba at-Tabi in).

1) As-Sahih- The Authentic Hadith

This name is giv en to the absolutely correct Hadith in which there is no weakness. Both its chain of transmission (Al-Isnad) and the text (Al-Matn)are sound, and its text does not contradict any established belief of Islam. Thus, there are four characteristics of Al-Hadith As-Sahih.

i) Its chain of transmitters is continuous i.e., there is no missing person anywhere in the chain.

ii) Every transmitter possessed the qualities of Adl (righteous conduct) and Dabt (strong memory)

iii) It should not be an isolated one.

iv) It has no hidden defect.

2) Al-Hasan-The Good.

It is like As-Sahih Tradition, except for the fact that some of its narrators have been found to have a weaker memory in comparision to the narrators of Sahih Ahadith.

3) Ad-Dhaif -The Weak.

This refers to that Tradition in which there is some problem in either the chain of transmision, in the proper understanding of the transmitter or in its contents, which may be in disagreement with Islamic beliefs and practices.

Ad-Dhaif Traditions are further divided according to the degree of problems with their reporters (ruwat) or in the text (Al-Matn) of the reports.

A few of these divisions are as follows:

i) Al-Mursal:

A Hadith in which a Tabi i transmits from Prophet (s.a.w) directly, dropping the Sahabi from the Isnad.

ii) Al-Munqati’:

A Hadith going back to the Tabi’i only.

iii) Al-Mu’dhal:

A Hadith in which two continuous narrators are missing in one or more places in the Isnad.

vi) Al-Mu’allaq:

A Hadith in which one or two transmitters are ommitted in the beginning of the Isnad.

Ahadith were also divided according to Al-Asnad,the numbers of its narrators.

a) Al-Mutawatir: The Continuous

A Hadith reported by a large number of poeple at different times, that makes it impossible for any falsehood to enter it. This would make agreement upon a lie unthinkable. This condition must be met in the entire chain from its source to its end.

b) Al-Mashhu’r: Popular

These are the Ahadth which were originally narrated in the first generation by two to four narrators. Later, on their authority, these were narrated by several narrators.

c) Al-Ahad: One Chain of Isnad

A Hadith which is narrated in the first three generations by one to four narrators.

Al-Mawdhu’: The Fabricated.

A false Hadith made up by some misguided people. This class of Ahadith have been carefully uncovered by our learned Islamic scholars in the past. They have no place in true and authentic Ahadith collections.

Tawhiid Form V

Misconceptualization of religion

It goes without saying that, Religion as a concept, has been misconstrued. The first and serious Misconception is rooted on the definition of religion.

There are so many definitions of religion, but none of them encompasses the entire phenomenon or commands universal acceptance. Infact every investigator in this field has given his own definition and some have offered more than one. Surprisingly enough, some of them are even self-contradictory.

Some scholars hold that a set of doctrines is essential to religion; while others believe that religion may exist as a purely emotional attitude without any beliefs. Again, for some, belief in God is the life-blood of religion - but other reject this view.

However, let us examine a few representative definitions of religion, hoping to find some element common to them all which serves as the clue to a comprehensive definition:

"Religion is (subjectively regarded) the recognition of all duties as divine commands"(Kant).

"Religion is to take everything individual as a part of the whole, everything limited as a representation of the infinite" (Schleiermacher).

That which expresses the innermost tendency of all religions is the axiom of the conservation of values (Hoffding).

William James holds religion to be "the feelings, acts and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine."

Calverton takes a different view of religion. "Magic and religion", he affirms, "evolved as (a) means whereby (man) believed he was able to acquire power (over his environment) and make the universe bend to his wishes."

Professor Whitehead speaks of religion as "what the individual does with his own solitariness," ( E.S. Brightman, A Philosophy of Religion), and in another place defines it as a "force of belief cleansing the inward parts" (J. Huxley, Religion without Revelation, p.40).

"Religion is the vision of something which stands beyond, behind, and within, the passing flux of immediate things; something which is real, and yet waiting to be realised; something which is a remote possibility, and yet the greatest of present facts; something that gives meaning to all that passes, and yet eludes apprehension; something whose possession is the final good, and yet is beyond all reach; something which is the ultimate ideal and the hopeless quest(A.N. Whitehead, Science and the Modern World, p. 222).

Commenting on various definitions of religion, Professor G. Galloway says, "When we keep in mind the psychological factors of the religious consciousness and the way in which they work, some definitions of religion strike us by their inadequacy and one-sidedness. We find, perhaps, that they are applicable to certain stages of religion but not to others, or that they leave out what is important." However, undeterred by the lack of success which had attended the efforts of so many great scholars, Galloway has advanced his own definition. He defines religion as "Man’s faith in a power beyond himself whereby he seeks to satisfy emotional needs and gain stability of life, and which he expresses in acts of worship and service."

A.C. Campbell, in his illuminating work On Selfhood and Godhood, has devoted to the discussion of the problem of a definition for religion. He too has put forward a definition of his own:

Religion may be defined as a state of mind comprising belief in the reality of a supernatural being or beings endowed with transcendent power and worth, together with the complex emotive attitude of worship intrinsically appropriate thereto (A.C. Campbell, On Selfhood and Godhood, p. 248).

Leuba, in his book, A Psychological Study of Religion, has listed no less than forty-eight different definitions of religion, each offered by a scholar of repute. Even this is far from being an exhaustive list as Ducasse in his book, A Philosophical Scrutiny of Religion, has quoted twenty seven other definitions ((A.C. Campbell, On Selfhood and Godhood, 234). To add to the confusion, as has been observed before, many definitions contradict one another. As Professor H.J. Paton has pointed out, "For any serious view of religion, it is always possible to find another, equally serious, which seems to be its precise opposite (H.J. Patron, The Modern Predicament, p. 59).

Ouspensky, looking at the formidable array of conflicting definitions, was led to accept the relativistic theory of religion. According to him, "Religion corresponds to the level of a man’s being; and one man’s religion might not be at all suitable for another man (P.D. Ouspensky, In Search of the Miraculous, p. 299).

His definition is clearly inadequate and unsatisfactory inasmuch as it completely ignores the Reality to which religion refers and denies it any form of objectivity.

We have been trying to seek an element which is common to all the important definitions. That element, if found, would constitute the core of religion and as such can be expected to occupy the central place in every religion.

The element, which we find common to most of the definitions, though not to all, is the belief in the exitence of a transcendent cosmic power to which the term "Divine" is ussually applied.

Therefore, Religion, as such, is nothing more than a kind of private relationship between man and his creator as Oxford English Dictionary put it:

" Belief in the existence of supernatural ruling power, the creator and controller of the universe, who has given man a spiritual nature which continue to exist after the death of body".