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