Chapter Three

 The Authenticity of the Holy Traditions  (Hadith)

    We intend to discuss in this section the authenticity of the Holy traditions that are included in  Sihah (the six collections of the Traditions that are proved to be  Sahih or authenticated).

 The Status of Oral Tradition in the Bible

         Oral tradition was held in high esteem by the People of the Book, both Jews and Christians, of all times. It was held by them to be as authentic and reliable as the written law. The Jews give even more reverence to oral tradition than they do to their written law. The Catholics hold both of them as equal in status while the Protestants disbelieve and deny oral tradition like the Sadducees, a Jewish sect. The Protestants deny it because they have to deny it, otherwise it would be quite difficult for them to prove their innovations in Christianity. In spite of this, the Protestants too find themselves in grave need of oral tradition on certain occasions, which is evident from the examples found in their sacred books, and which will shortly be made clear.

 The Talmud and the Mishnah

         Adam Clarke said in the introduction to the Book of Ezra in his commentary printed in 1751 that the Hebrew canon was of two kinds: the written canon which was called Torah and the other which was unwritten and called the oral tradition. This oral tradition was transmitted orally by the ancients to later generations. They claim that both of these canons were revealed by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. The Pentateuch reached them by means of writing while the other was handed down to them orally through the generations. The Jews believe that both of them are equal in status, preferring, in fact, oral tradition to the written law of Moses, the Torah. They think that written law is often more complicated than the oral tradition, and it cannot be made the basis of faith without the oral traditions. These traditions, in their opinion, are simpler and clearer and elucidate the written canon. This is why Jews disregard any commentary that is found to be in disagreement with the oral tradition. It is commonly believed by the Jews that the covenant, that the Children of Israel were made to enter into, was for the oral law and not for the Torah.[1]

            Through this claim they have disregarded the written law and the oral tradition was given the status of being the source of their faith. Similarly the Roman Catholics also chose the same path and defined and explained the word of God through oral traditions, with no consideration of its being against many verses of the word of God. In the time of Jesus, they had gone so far that. he rebuked them for distorting the word of God, saying:

         Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.[2]

         They also transgressed God’s covenant and made the oral tradition superior to the written law. It is stated in their books that the sayings of their elders are dearer to them than the words of the Pentateuch. Some words of the Torah are good hut some others are absurd and useless while all the sayings of their elders are desirable and praiseworthy, far better even than the sayings of the Prophets.

         The Jewish writings also say that the written law is like water, while the traditions contained by the Talmud and Mishnah are like aromatic herbs. Also their writings state that the written law is like salt while the Talmud and Mishnah are like pepper. There are many other similar expressions preferring the oral tradition to the written canon. The word of God is defined and understood by them through oral traditions. The written law is regarded by them as a dead body and the oral tradition to them is like the soul in the body.

        This oral tradition is supported by them with the argument, that at the time the Torah was revealed by God to Moses, God also elucidated the text of the Torah to Moses, and commanded him to write down  the Torah and to remember the explanation without putting it into writing. He was also commanded to convey this elucidation orally to the people, so that it could be transmitted orally from generation to generation. They use the term “written canon” for the Torah and “oral canon” for the tradition. The judgments and religious decrees which are in accordance with the oral tradition are termed as ”the canon of Moses”.

       They also claim that just as the Torah was revealed to Moses in forty days, being a direct dialogue between God and Moses, the oral tradition was also revealed to him in the same way. He brought both of them from Mount Sinai and conveyed them to the Israelites. It is stated that on his return from Mount Sinai, Moses first called Aaron to his tent and taught him the written canon then he taught him the oral tradition that was the elucidation of the Torah given to him by God. After acquiring the knowledge, Aaron came and sat at the right-hand side of Moses. Then came the two sons of Aaron, Eleazar and Ithamar. They were also taught the canons in the same way and after learning them they got up and one of them sat at the left hand of Moses and the other at the right hand of Aaron.

         Then came seventy elders. They also learnt the canons and then they took their seats in the tent. They were followed by some other people who were intent upon leaming the canons. The Moses stood up and Aaron recited what had been imparted to him and then got up, then Eleazer and Ithamar also recited the canops and so did the others who had learnt them. In this way every one who was present heard it four times and remembered it well.

         On their return people communicated the written iaw through writing and its elucidation was conveyed orally to the Israelites. In this way the canons were handed down to other generations. The number of the written commandments in the Torah was six hundred and thirteen which were later divided into parts.

           They also claim that Moses gathered them into a great assembly in the eleventh month of the fortieth year after their exodus from Egypt, in which he also informed them of his death, and commanded them to learn any part of the Law they had forgotten. He also invited people to satisfy their doubts, if any, with regard to any commandment or statements of the Law. Thereafter he remained busy teaching the Torah until his death (that is, from the first day of the eleventh month up to the sixth day of the twelfth month). He taught both of them, the written and the unwritten canon. He also prepared thirteen copies of the written law in his own hand and gave one copy to each tribe so that it might remain safe through the generations. One copy of this law was also given to the children of Levi for preservation in the temple. The verbal traditions were conveyed to Joshua. Then on the seventh day of this month he climbed up Mount Nebo where he died.

             After his death Joshua communicated the verbal traditions to the elders of the Israelites, they, in turn passed them to the Prophets. Every Prophet conveyed it to his people, until Jeremiah handed it down to Baruch who passed it to Ezra, and Ezra communicated it to the scholars of whom Simon the just was last. Simon handed it down to Antigonus who gave it to Jose, the son of Johanan. He passed it to Jose, the son of Joezer. He conveyed it to Nathan the Aurelite and Joshua, the son of Berechiah. These two passed it to Joshua’s son Judah and Simon son of Shetah. They passed it to Shemaiah and Abtalion, these two to Hillel, and he to his son Simon. This Simon is supposed to be the one who took Jesus in his arms when Mary had brought him to the temple after her confinement. This Simon then passed it to his son Gamaliel. He is the one from whom Paul leamt it. Then he passed it to Simon, who in turn passed it to Rabbi Judah haNasi. This Judah then collected them into a book which he called the Mishnah.

      Adam Clarke has observed that the Jews hold this book in great reverence and believe that its contents are divine and a revelation from God, revealed to Moses along with the Torah. It is also established that the teaching of this book has been a common practice among the Jews right from the time it came into existence. Scholars and great theologians have written commentaries on this book, two of which occupy pride of place with them. The first exegetical work was written in Jerusalem in the third century AD, while the second commentary was written in Babylon around the beginning of the sixth  century AD. Both of them are named  “Gemara” i.e. the Perfection.

       They believe that the two commentaries have fully elucidated the text of the Mishnah. These two commentaries and the text of the Mishnah together are called the Talmud. To distinguish between the two commentaries, one is called the Palestinian or Jerusalem Talmud and the other the Babylonian Talmud. The complete teachings and instructions of modern Judaism are contained by these two books, which are separate and distinct from the books of the Prophets. Since the Jerusalem Talmud is comparatively more complicated, the Babylonian Talmud is more commonly read and followed.

       Horne said in chapter 7 of the second volume of his commentary printed in 1822 that the Mishnah is a book comprising the Jewish traditions and commentary on the texts of the sacred books. They believe that these traditions were also given by God to Moses along with the Torah. Moses passed them down to Aaron. From Aaron they were communicated to Joshua and Eleazer and other elders and then they were handed down from generation to generation until they found their way to Simon. This Simon was the same who took Jesus in his arms. He gave it to Gamaliel who passed them to Juda haNasi. With great pain and labour he took about forty years to collect them in the form of a book in the second century. Since that time it has been in vogue among the Jews. This book is very often more venerated than the written Law itself.

          He further added that there are two commqntaries on the Mishnah both of which are known as  Gemara, one of them being the Jerusalem Gemara, supposed by some scholars to have been written in Jerusalem in the third century, and according to Father Insoue in the fifth century, while the other is known as the Babylonian Gemara written in Babylon in the sixth century. This  Gemara is full of fabulous legends and stories, but it is more respected by the Jews than the other. It is more emphatically taught and followed by them. They turn to it with great certitude to seek guidance when they find themselves in trouble. The name  ’Gemara’ signifies Perfection. They think that this book is the perfection of the Torah, and that it is not possible for any other  commentary to be better than this, and it satisfies all possible demands of the faith. When the Jerusalem Gemara is added to the text together they are called the Jerusalem Talmud.[3]

            The above sufficiently proves the following four points:

                    (1)                   Verbal tradition is venerated among the Jews as much as the Pentateuch; rather they sometimes prefer the oral tradition to the Torah. They believe that the oral tradition is like the spirit while the written law is like the body. This being the status of the Pentateuch, one can guess the status of other books among them.

                    (2)                   Secondly, we understand from the above that the oral tradition was first collected and written by Judah ha-Nasi in the second century, implying that for 1700 years it was conveyed through human memory. During this period the Jews had to undergo the great calamities of their history. That is to say, the invasions of Nebuchadnezzar, Antiochus and Titus all belong to this period. It is already known historically that the sacred books were destroyed and the continuity of the traditions was badly affected as we discussed earlier in this book. Despite all that, they are still held in more veneration than the Pentateuch.

                    (3)                   Thirdly these oral traditions have been reported from generation to generation by single reporters. For example Gamaliel I and II and Simon I, II and III. They were not even Prophets according to the Jews, and were the worst kind of infidels and deniers of Christ as claimed by the Christians. These traditions, though transmitted through single reporters, are supposed to be the basis of their faith, while according to the Islamic science of traditions, any tradition transmitted through a single reporter termed as  Khabar al-Wahid is not allowed to be used as a source of any article of faith.

                      (4)                 Fourthly, we understand that the Babylonian Gemara was written in the sixth century, and according to Home “this collection of absurd legends and stories” remained purely in the form of oral tradition for two thousand years, being transmitted through the generations purely by memory.

            Eusebius, whose historical work is considered authentic equally by the Catholics and the Protestants, said in chapter 9 of the second volume of his book printed in 1848 under the description of Jacob:

            In writing about Jacob, Clement cited an anecdote in book seven that is worth remembering. Clement reported this from the oral tradition that was transmitted to him from his forefathers.

       He also cited a statement of Irenaeus on page 123 of the third chapter of his third book:

       The council of Ephesus, erected by Paul and in which the apostle John stayed until the rule of Trajan, is a strong wit- ness to the traditions of the apostles.

      He cited the following statement of Clement on the same page:

        Attend to the tradition of the disciple John which is beyond doubt and true and has been preserved orally throughout 

       He again said on page 124 of chapter 24 of the third book:

         The number of Christ’s disciples, like his apostles, is twelve, then there are seventy Prophets, and many others who were not ignorant of the events referred to (that is, the events recorded by the evangelists), but out of them only John and Matthew have included them. It is known through oral traditions that their inclusion of these events was out of necessity.

            On page 132 of chapter 28 of his third book he again says:  

            Irenaeus has included a story in his third book which is worth recording. He received this story from Polycarp through oral tradition.

            Again he says on page 147, chapter 5 of the fourth book:

            I have not read about the bishops of Jerusalem in any book but it is established through oral tradition that they stayed there for some time.

            He also says on page 138 of chapter 36 of the third book:

        We came to know through oral tradition that Ignatius, being a Christian, was carried to Greece to be offered to carnivorous animals. He was conveyed under army protcction. The people of all the churches that were on his way sought strength through his sermons and admonishments. He preached to them against the heresy that was common in that time and told them to hold firmly to the oral tradition. He wrote down the oral tradition for preservation and stamped it with his name.

            Again he says on page 142, chapter 39 of his third book:

       Papias said in the introduction to his work, “I write for your benefit all the things that I received from the elders which I preserved after thorough inquiry into their authenticity, so that my testimony may be an additional proof of their truth. Usually I do not like to accept the tradition from those who frequently relate absurd stories. I have received the tradition only from those who know nothing except what has been reported truthfully from our Lord. Whenever I met any of the disciples of the elders, I necessarily asked them what had been said by Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, Jacob, Matthew or any other disciple of our Lord because I was benefited more by oral tradition than by the sacred books.

Further he said in chapter 8 of his fourth book on page 151:

            Hegesippus is a renowned name among Church historians. I have cited many passages from his books that he reported from the disciples through oral tradition. This author collected, in five books, laws of the disciples transmitted to him through oral tradition.

         In chapter 14, page 158 of the same book he reported a statement of Irenaeus about Polycarp:

            Polycarp has always preached the doctrines that he received orally from the disciples or from the Church.

        Again on page 201, chapter 6 of book 5 he said, listing the bishops of Rome:  

            This chain of bishops extends up to Bishop Antherus, who is nineteenth in this sequence. We received it through reliable and true sources from the disciples, transmitted to us through oral tradition.  

            He again cites the statement of Clement on page 206, chapter 8 of the fifth book:

          I have not written these books to project myself or to show off my knowledge, rather, it is in consideration of my old age and to correct my shortcomings. I have collected them as elaboration of the texts. They may be considered as commentary on the inspired books. Among those who raised me to this high position and greatness and placed me among the truthful and the blessed was Janicus of Greece and another was in Magna Graecia. Some others were from the East, while one was from Syria, one was a Hebrew from Palestine, and the master that I reached last was in Egypt living an ascetic life. He was superior to all the other teachers. I did not feel like seeing other masters after him, as no teacher better than him existed on earth. These elders had preserved the traditions orally communicated from Paul, James, and John through the generations.

             He also reports the following statement of Irenaeus on page 219, chapter 20, of the fifth book:

         By the grace of God I have listened to those traditions attentively and imprinted them on my memory instead of writing them on paper. For a long period it has been my practice to recite them faithfully for the sake of preserving them.

Again on page 222, chapter 24 of the fifth book he said:

         Bishop Polycrates wrote an oral tradition in his epistle to the church of Rome and to Victor. This tradition was transmitted to him orally.

            He also said on page 226, chapter 25 of the fifth book:

          The Bishops of Palestine like Narcotius, Theophilius and Cassius, and bishops Ptolemy and Clarus and other bishops that accompanied them presented many things with regard to the tradition related to the Passover, transmitted to them orally from the disciples through generations. All of them wrote at the end of the book that the copies of this book be sent to all churches, so that the book might help the churches save the renegades.

            He again said on page 246, chapter 13 of the sixth book under the account of Clement of Alexandria, who was the follower of the disciples of Christ:

            Africanus wrote a booklet which still exists in which he tried to explain away the inconsistencies found in the genealogical descriptions given by Matthew and Luke through the oral traditions received by him from his forefathers.  

           The above seventeen statements sufficiently prove that the ancient Christians had great trust in oral tradition. John Milner, who was a Catholic, said in the tenth letter of his book printed in Derby:

             I have already said that the basis of the Catholic faith is not only the written word of God. The word of God is general, written or not written. That is to say, the sacred books and the oral tradition as interpreted by Catholic Church.

          Further in the same letter he says: 

            Irenaeus observed in part three and chapter five of his book that simplest way for the seekers of the truth is to search for the oral traditions of the apostles and preach them in the world.

           Again in the same letter he says:

            Irenaeus said in part one chapter three of his book that in spite of the difference of people’s languages, the essence and reality of the traditions is always the same at all places. The teachings and doctrines of the Church of Germany are not different from the teachings of the Churches of France, Spain, the East, Egypt and Libya

 Further he said in the same letter:

           Irenaeus observed in chapter two of part three of his book, “Prolixity does not allow me to give a detailed account of all the Churches. Catholicism, however, will be considered as the standard faith which is the oldest of all and the most popular, and was founded by Peter and Paul. All the other Churches also follow it, because all the oral traditions reported by the disciples through generations are preserved in Catholic Church.  

  The same letter also contains the following:  

            Even if we take it as granted for a moment that the disciples left no writing after them, we are bound to follow the doctrines transmitted to us through oral traditions of the disciples who handed them down to the people to be conveyed to the Church. There are the traditions that are followed by the illiterate people who believed in Christ without the help of ink and letters.

Again he said in the same letter:

       Tertullian said on pages 36 and 37 of his book written by him against the heretics: it is usual for heretics to derive their arguments only from the sacred books, and claim that nothing else other than the sacred books can provide the basis for faith. They deceive people through this approach. We, therefore, insist that they should not be allowed to seek their arguments from the sacred books. Because through this kind of approach we cannot expect any good other than racking our brains. It is therefore wrong to rely on the sacred books, as no definite conclusion can be achieved through them, anything derived from them will be defective. Besides, the correct approach demands that first it should be decided to whom these books should be attributed? We must know about the books that decide our being Christians as to who transmitted them to whom and when? Because the truth of the evangels and the doctrines of Christianity are found only in the form of oral traditions.

Again in the same letter he said:

         Origen said that it was not proper to rely on the people who cite from the sacred books and say that the word of God is before you to read and probe into, or that we should believe in something else other than communicated to us by the Church through consistent oral tradition.

Further in the same letter he said:

       Basilides said that there are many Christian doctrines preserved by the Church and often presented in sermons. Some of them have been borrowed from the sacred books, while others are based on oral tradition. Both of them are equal in value. There can be no objection against this from any one having a little knowledge of Christian faith.

Further he said in the same letter:

        Epiphanius said in his book written against the heretics that it was necessary to rely on the oral tradition as the sacred books do not contain everything.

            He also said in the same letter:

          Under his comments on II Thessalonians 2:14, John Chrysostom said, “This proves that the disciples did not convey to us everything through writing, but they had transmitted to us many things orally. Both are of equal value. It is therefore our opinion that the tradition of the Church is only the basis of faith. When we find anything proved by oral tradition, we need not seek anything else to prove it.

            Further he says in the same letter:

         Augustine, favouring a man baptised by heretics, said that although no written authority could be presented in its favour, it should be noted that this custom was started through oral tradition. Because there are many things that are acknowledged by the Church as being suggested by the disciples, though they are not in writing.

            He also said in the same letter:

        The bishop Vincentius observed that heretics should explain the sacred books according to the general tradition of the Church.

            The above statements sufficiently prove that the oral traditions are considered to be the basis of faith by the Catholics as well as by the ancients. We find the following statement on page 63 of volume 3 of the  Catholic Herald:

          Rabbi Dosi cited many observations to prove that the text of the sacred books cannot be comprehended without the help  of oral tradition. The elders of the Catholics have followed it in all times. Tertullian said that it was necessary to follow the Churches founded by the disciples for understanding the teachings of Christ. They transmit.ted them to the Churches through oral tradition.

          The above statements are enough to establish that the traditions are more respected by the Jews than the Torah. Similarly it is confirmed that all the ancient Christians like Clement, Irenaeus, Hegesippus, Polycarp, Polycrates, Arksius, Theophilus, Cassius, Clarus, Alexandrius, Africanus, Tertullian, Origen, Basilides, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Augustine and bishop Vincentius attached great respect to the oral traditions. Ignatius insisted before his death on holding fast to the oral traditions. Similarly Clement wrote in his history of the elders:

            They memorised the true traditions that were transmitted through generations from Peter, James, John and Paul.

                Epiphanius observed that he benefitted more from the oral traditions than the sacred books.

            We have already cited the opinions of Irenaeus, Origen and Tertullian etc. to establish that the oral traditions and the sacred books are held by them to be equal in value. Basilides declared that the doctrines derived by oral tradition have a value equal to that derived by the sacred books. He said that the oral tradition was the basis of Christian faith.

                Augustine also confirms that there are many doctrines that are acknowledged by the Church as being ordained by the disciples while they are not found in any texts. It is therefore not justified to reject all the traditions. The Gospels themselves uphold oral tradition.

The Gospels and Oral Tradition

       The Gospel of Mark 4:34 contains the follo’wing:

            But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples 

         It is unthinkable that none of these were transmitted by them to the people. It is all the more impossible to suggest that the disciples should depend on those traditions while the people of our time should not.

      The Gospel of John 21:25  says:

            And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.

            Though the above statement is an exaggeration, there is no doubt that there must be many things that Jesus did in his life, be they miracles or other acts that might have not been written down by the disciples.

            We read in II Thessalonians 2:15:

            Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or by our epistle. 

            The last sentence is clear in implying that part of Christ’s teachings were communicated orally and another in writing, both of them equally valuable according to Chrysostom.  

            I Corinthians 11:34 (Arabic version 1844) has:  

                        And the rest will I set in order when I come.

             It is obvious that, since the commands promised by Paul in the above statement are not found in writing, they must have been communicated orally

            II Timothy 1:13 says:

            Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hadst heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

            The phrase, “Which thou hadst heard of me, ”clearly indicates that some teachings were communicated orally by him. The same letter contains the following in 2:2:

           And the things that thou hadst heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

            II John also says at the end:

             Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy be full.[4]

             And at the end of the Third Epistle of John we find:

            I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee: But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face.[5] 

            The above two verses give us to understand that John taught many things orally as he promised. Now those things can only have been passed on orally.

             In view of the above, it is clearly sheer ignorance for any Protestant to deny the status and value of the oral tradition. Any such claim would be a claim against the sacred books and the decisions of the ancient Christians, and according to some of them such a claimant should be considered a heretic. Besides, Protestants owe many doctrines invented by their elders to oral tradition, for example their belief that the Son is equal to the Father in his essence; that the Holy Ghost’s existence is through the Son and the Father; that Christ is one person possessing two natures at the same time; that he has two wills, human and divine; and that he entered hell after his death. In fact none of these absurdities can be found in the New Testament. The inclusion of all such concepts in their faith comes only through oral  tradition.

            This denial of oral tradition also entails the denial of some parts of the sacred books. For example, the Gospels of Mark and Luke and nineteen chapters of the book of Acts were written through oral tradition. They were not written through revelation or through vision, as we have discussed in an earlier volume. Similarly five chapters (5 to 9) of the Book of Proverbs would also be denied because they were collected through those oral traditions that were current in the time of Hezekiah. The compilation of these chapters are separated by two hundred and seventy years from the death of the Prophet Solomon. We read in the Book of Proverbs 25:1:

            These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah, King of Judah copied out.

            The following are the comments of Adam Clarke on the above verse as found in his commentary printed in 1801:

             It seems that the Proverbs referred to above were collected under the orders of Hezekiah from the oral traditions that were current among them from the time of Solomon. Afterwards they were added as a supplement to this book. Probably Hezekiah’s friends were Isaiah and Sophanias who were among the Prophets of those times. In that case this supplement would also acquire the status of the other books, otherwise it would have not been included in the sacred books.

            The above provides sufficient proof that oral traditions were collected under the orders of the King Hezekiah. His presumption that those copiers were also Prophets cannot be accepted unless it is sup- ported by some reliable authority or convincing arguments which the author has not provided. Again his premise that their inclusion in the sacred books should be a proof that the copiers were Prophets is obviously a wrong conclusion because the oral traditions are held in respect by the Jews than the Torah itself. The present Torah was collected nearly 1700 years after the collection of the oral tradition, which is acknowledged by the Jews as the word of God. Similarly they accept the Babylonian Gemara as an authentic book, though the traditions it contains were collected 200 years later. There was nothing to stop them from including these five chapters in the sacred books.

 What Protestant Scholars Say

          Some Protestant scholars have honestly admitted that the oral traditions are as authentic as the sacred books. The  Catholic Herald vol. 2 page 63 has:

          Dr. Bright, a distinguished Protestant scholar, said on page 63 of his book that it is evident from the sacred book that the Christian faith was transmitted to the followers of the disciples and the early bishops through oral tradition, and they were asked to preserve it and convey it to the succeeding generations. We do not find any evidence in the books, be it from Paul or any other disciple, that they had individually or collectively written all the things related to our salvation. There is no indication that every essential doctrine necessary for salvation is confined only to the written law. On pages 32 and 33, he tells you that you already know that Paul and other disciples have transmitted the tradition to us not only in writing but also as verbal statements. So those are lost who do not preserve both of them. The oral tradition concerning the Christian faith is equally trustworthy and acceptable. The Bishop Munich.[6] said that the oral traditions of the disciples are as acceptable as are their epistles and other writings. No Protestant can deny the fact that the oral traditions of the disciples are superior to their writings. Chilingworth has said that the dispute about which Gospel is canon and which is not, can be decided through oral tradition which is a reasonable source to resolve any dispute.

            The bishop Thomas Inglis in his book  Miraatu-Sidq printed in 1851 said on pages 180 and 181:

           Bishop Maniseek, a Protestant scholar, observed that there are six hundred precepts, ordained by God and followed by the Church that are not stated in the sacred books.

           This proves that six hundred precepts are based on oral tradition and they are followed by the Protestants.

           It is human nature that an extraordinary or unusual event leaves a lasting impression on human mind while usual and routine events are not permanently stored in memory. For example a rare event like the appearance of a comet will be remembered by those who saw it. On the other hand they would not be able to say exactly what food they had eaten three or four days ago.

            Since the memorization of the Holy Qur’an has been a matter of the greatest significance in every age for the Muslims, there has always been a large number of people who have learnt the whole of the Qur’anic text by heart. They are called  hafiz. More than one hundred thousand such  hafiz are present in our time in the Muslim countries, in spite of the fact that Islam does not rule over those countries. There are always more than one thousand  hafiz in the University of Al-Azhar, Egypt alone, not to speak of Egyptian villages, where even cart drivers and loaders are frequently fully qualified  hafiz who have memorised the whole of the Qur’anic text.[7] These ordinary men are certainly superior in this respect to the bishops of the Christian world. We are sure that even ten such  hafiz of the Bible cannot be found throughout the Christian world.

        It is a fact that anything important and of significance is imprinted and preserved easily in a way which is not affected by the passage of time. The Holy Qur’an alone fulfils the requirement of being completely unaltered and miraculously genuine. Throughout these twelve hundred and eighty years,[8] the Holy Qur’an was not only preserved in writing but also in human hearts. Besides, the recitation of the Qur’anic text is in itself a part of Islamic worship and a usual practice of the Muslims, while the recitation of the Bible is not a ritual practice among Christians.

            One of the Protestant scholars, Michael Mechaka, observed on page 316 of his book, Kitab-ad-Dalil of 1849:

            One day I asked a Catholic priest to tell me honestly how many times he had read the sacred book in full in his life. He said that in his early age he had read it many times in full but for the last twelve years he could not spare any time for reading it as he was busy serving the Christian brethren.

A Historical View of the Hadith Collections

            The traditions  (Hadiths) are held to be authentic and acceptable by Muslims if they are found to be in accordance with the laws and regulations that we shall soon discuss.

            The following is a standing commandment of the Holy Prophet:    

            Be careful in reporting a hadith from me unless you have learnt (from me) abstain from reporting other things. Anyone reporting a falsehood in my name knowingly shall have his abode in fire 

             The above tradition is  mutawatir (having a large number of reporters in every period right from the time of the Holy Prophet) having been reported by not less than sixty-two Companions of the Holy Prophet. The above warning coming from the Holy Prophet was enough for the companions to be extremely careful in reporting traditions from the Holy Prophet. History has recorded unique examples of the extreme scrupulousness of the Muslims and their being highly prudent in maintaining the highest standard of accuracy in reporting the traditions, something that is certainly not present in case of Christian tradition. For certain positive reasons the Companions of the Holy Prophet did not collect the traditions in the form of books. One of the reasons was that the revelation of the Holy Qu’ran was in progress and being written down by the Companions. To avoid any possible mixing of the Qur’anic text with the tradition they did not collect the traditions in book form.[9]

           However, they were collected later by the disciples of the Companions like Imam Zuhri, Rabi‘ ibn Sabih and Sa’id etc. Still they did not arrange their collections according to the standard arrangement of the jurisprudents. Later, all the subsequent scholars adopted a standard arrangement in their great works. In Madina, the great Imam Malik compiled his collection known as  Muwatta’. Imam Malik was born in 95 AH. In Makka a collection was compiled by Abu Muhammad ‘Abdul-Malik ibn ‘Abdul-‘Aziz Ibn Jurayj. In Kufa, Sufyan ath-Thawri compiled his work while in Basra, Hammad ibn Salma also compiled his collection.

            Then Bukhari and Muslim made their collections for their books, including only sahih hadiths of the Prophet and did not allow any tradition that was not qualified as sahih. Muslim  hadith scholars invested great labour and took great pains in maintaining the accuracy of the prophetic traditions. A new branch of knowledge was initiated known as  Asma’ ur-Rijal, that is the biographies of each and every reporter of  hadith right from the Companion to the present time. It helped them know everything about a particular reporter in the chain of reporters of any single tradition. All the collections known as Sihah (the books containing only sahih hadiths) were so compiled by their authors that each and every statement is prefixed with complete chain of reporters starting from the author to the Holy Prophet himself. There are some  hadiths reported by Bukhari that have only three names between him and the Holy Prophet.

Three Kinds of Hadith  

 The  sahih hadiths are further divided into three kinds  

(1)   Mutawatir:

             A mutawatir hadith is a hadith that is reported by such a large number of people at every stage of transmission so that their agreement on a false statement is denied by human reason. Examples of these are the  hadith describing the number of  rak’ats (genuflexion) in  salat or specifying the amount to be paid in  zakat.

(2)   Mash-hur:

         This kind of tradition is the one that was reported by a single Companion of the Holy Prophet but at later stages, that is, in the time of the followers of the Companions or in the time of their disciples, it became famous and was generally accepted by the  Ummah. Now from this stage onward it was reported by a large number of people, so attaining the status of  mutawatir. For example, the injunction describing the punishment of fomication through stoning to death.

(3)   Khabar al-wahid:

          This kind of  hadith is the one that is reported by a single reporter to an individual or to a group of people, or a group of people reported it to an individual.

          Now the knowledge imparted through a  mutawatir hadith is always undeniable and certain. Denial of this kind of  hadith constitutes unbelief. The  mashhur hadith satisfies all the doubts and creates satisfaction. Anyone denying this kind of  hadith is not an unbeliever but a heretic and a sinner.

          Khabar al-wahid does not impart knowledge as certain as in the above two examples. Though it cannot be a source of beliefs and basic doctrines it is acceptable in practical injunctions. If it happens to run counter to a stronger source, effort must be made to reconcile the two. If this effort fails then this kind of  hadith should be abandoned.

Distinction between Qur’an and Hadith

                There are three kinds of distinctions between the Holy Qur’an and  hadith:

      Firstly, the whole of the Qur’anic text is a  mutawatir report. It has been reported verbatim and exactly as it was revealed to the Holy Prophet, without the alteration of a single word or replacing any word by a synonym. Whereas the  sahih hadith was allowed to be reported by an expert and qualified reporter in his own words. [10]

               Secondly, since the whole of the Qur’anic text is mutawatir, the denial of a single sentence of the Qur’an is an act of infidelity while the denial of hadith, mutawatir excepted, is not an act of infidelity.[11]

           Thirdly, there are many injunctions that are directly related to the words of the Qur’anic text, like  salat or the miraculous nature of the Qur’anic words, whereas the words of the  hadith are not directly related to any injunctions they might contain.

            In view of the above, it should be sufficiently clear that it is in no way against logic or human reason to rely upon the traditions, specially when they are reported through a constant chain of reliable reporter