Rescuing Revelation from Tradition: Examining the Fabrication of Revelation

Revelation in Islam is the Quran: the verbatim word of God. Revelation presents itself as the truth from God, the "furqan" standard for differentiating truth from falsehood, right from wrong, that settles all disputes. "The month of Ramadan [is that] in which was revealed the Qur'an, a guidance for the people and clear proofs of guidance and criterion." Revelation established tradition in its wake. We may think of tradition as revelation in practice. Tradition was expected to follow and reflect revelation. However, tradition separated from revelation and became an "independent" root of legislation. Tradition would be treated as revelation and even as "equal" to revelation. The elevation of tradition did not stop there. It continued to rise and began to "judge," "abrogate" and even "replace" parts of revelation. In different words, tradition "eclipsed" revelation. It overshadowed that which gave rise to it in the first place, revelation. We could think of the eclipse of revelation by tradition as a "rebellion" of tradition against revelation. The "rebellion" had profound effects. It paved the way for the fall of the Muslim civilization. It paved the way for the fall of the Muslim empire because it replaced revealed knowledge with the narrations of persons known as the prophetic traditions or ahadith. The elevation of tradition first "eclipsed" reason, which was the first casualty in the rise of tradition. The next casualty was revelation itself. The ulema however asserted that the reports of the transmitters of traditions - the ahadith - were "equal" to revelation. They even insisted that without tradition there would be no Islam. They insisted that the traditions were "additional" revelation from Allah. This "revelation" was expected to "complete" and "explain" the revelation of the Quran. This explanation suggests that the revelation of the Quran was neither complete nor "clear." Both assertions are contradicted by the Quran. For the Quran presents itself as both "clear" and "perfect." They asserted that the traditions constitute a different form of revelation. They referred to the traditions as "hidden revelation" or wahy batin. It did not appear to trouble them that revelation by definition is "revealed" or disclosed and not "hidden." The elevation of tradition to revelation meant that the words of persons became "equal" to the words of God. The elevation of tradition to a rank of equality with revelation took place despite statements in revelation that Allah has no "equals." The designation of tradition as revelation represented a failure of jurisprudence to differentiate the words of God from the words of persons. In doing so it flouted a basic requirement of its procedure, which is to preserve the pre-eminence of God. The unwarranted association of tradition with revelation tainted all that followed. Jurisprudence could no longer draw credible inferences. For by making tradition equal to revelation, jurists corrupted the methodology of jurisprudence. They deified the reports of transmitters and defied the teaching of tauhid. The elevation of tradition to revelation transpired in defiance of the prohibition of "adding" to revelation, as specified in sura 69, verses 44 to 46. The amalgamation of the words of persons with the words of God "mixed" revelation with the words of persons. A few jurists asserted that traditions are a "part of" revelation. A few even asserted that "interpretations" of revelation become a "part of revelation." The elevation of tradition to a "partner" of revelation produced far-reaching effects on Muslims. How did this happen? What are the effects of the sacralization of tradition? The designation of tradition as revelation "added" to and diluted revelation. Tradition was designated as revelation on the basis of a tradition according to which the Messenger said: "I have been granted the Qur'an and along with it its equal (i.e., the Hadith)."