Koran, sunnah and hadith

Koran, sunnah and hadith

In reference to the letter of Mr. Richard Manson (The Jakarta
Post, April 20, 2000, On concept of 'syura'), I fully agree with
him that the sentence for the Indonesian maid in U.A.E. is not in
accordance with the Holy Koran. But that does not mean that in
Islamic jurisprudence sunnah and hadith do not have any
importance at all (as Mr. Manson tried to give impression by
quoting Koranic verses).

In Islamic jurisprudence, where priority is concerned, the
Koran is first -- the actual meaning of the verses mentioned by
Mr. Manson. But there are cases where we do not find clear
solutions in the Koran so we have to turn to the second choice,
sunnah and hadith, then ijmaa and qias respectively. For example
it is very clear in the Koran that solat is compulsory for all
Muslims. But the details how many solat in a day and how many
rakaat in each solat are not explained in the Koran.

In all such cases a Muslim will seek guidance from sunnah and
hadith. As Allah say: "O ye who believe! obey Allah and obey His
Messenger and those in Authority among you. And if you differ in
anything among yourselves refer it to Allah and His messenger if
you are believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best and
most commendable in the end" 4:60.

Here, referring to Allah means the Koran and what is the
meaning of "His Messenger"?

It is true that sunnah and hadith are used by the powerful for
their own purposes. But verses of the Koran can also be used for
someone's own purposes. In that case, Koran, sunnah or hadith are
not to blame but the misusers.

Actually Mr. Manson seems to be confused by a number of
"hadith" that are contrary to Koran, they are not the words of
Prophet Muhammad at all, as he himself agrees. But still there is
a large number of true hadiths that explain matters not clear in
the Koran. So, such sunnah and hadith can never be negated in
Islamic jurisprudence.

FAZAL-E-MUJEEB

Jakarta