I
But he didn't - Dunno why he didn't ! But extrapolating that to mean that the Messenger is anything more than just a 'Messenger' & that his deeds & words should give birth to a second set of messages is something that crosses into the realm of 'imagination'; especially if there is nothing to that effect, explicitly, mentioned in the Koran !
Its a little like the whole notion of Immamate - Can't find any explicit mention of it in the Koran but its there in the Muslim Theology !
So we mustn't be clutching at straws over here !
Why not instead understand the Koran through understanding the nuances of Koranic Arabic & thereby understanding a said 'word' or 'term' in the Koran in the context of the rest of the Chapter of the Koran & how that particular word is being used in other places in the Koran ?
As far as the rituals are concerned - Prayer & Hajj !
The absence of a methodology there points towards one of two things - God didn't think it through & forgot mentioning the methodology in the Koran !
This brings in two different things. First, based on your dissection of the Hadiath and other reports.. why do you consider the Hadiath as equivalent to the word of god? And try to dissect it as such?
A lot of the critique of the hadiath has to do with those that seem to contradict the Quran.. other critique makes the exception the case by using a "weak" hadiath that prohibits the usage of hadiath as case for not compiling it.
Hence, where you mention Caesars example.. as to strong historical evidence that he was definitely the ruler of rome. You corroborate any doubts in Hadiath with the Quran. Anything you arent sure of, or seems to contradict or go against the Quran.. you explore. And the hadiath are still fairly more accurate in being corroborated as compared to caesar's Thus.
Second, you are considering that God doesn't have a plan or thinks on the fly? Where in the Quran itself he speaks of his knowledge of all that there is and all there will be. Moreove,r, if we agree that God never makes mistakes... and all his actions are for a purpose that is beneficial in one way or the other(be it as an example). Then his plan of having a messenger is also sound by this logic? That there was always to be a man, something that
mankind could relate to as a
followable example to demonstrate his message? After all, if there was some twenty legged octopus that rose from the sea to teach you religion and then prayed like an octopus would..would you be able to follow it exactly?
Even if there was simply a message in the sky.. would there not be total disagreement on how to carry it out? Bloodshed even(as it is today?). In essence, the example of a human being is what kept Islam together during its golden age and not the opposite as suggested. After all, God repeatedly uses the world Rab-ul-Alameen(Lord of the Universes/Worlds) ..and for the Prophet he has used Rehmat-ull-il-alameen( Mercy for all the Realms).. why has he put an attribute which he reserves for himself(not rehmat.. but the world Alameen..for all worlds/Realms) for a messenger? Perhaps something to ponder upon?
Now, the problem is NOT that we are clinging to an example on our own extreme assumption that it is hearsay.. but that we have forgotten it.
Now, regarding the fact that the Hadiath were compiled after 200 years.. in that retrospect.. it was two generations.. so how much accuracy was lost? Well, had it been just one persons account of a hadiath I would agree.. but where collections were made from multiple accounts, dispersed over families and geographical locations and compiled over a lifetime in a research process that rivals any other.. and which has been corroborated by scholars on the subject(of various areas and schools) of that time through their own accounts.. and yet.. its authenticity is much more suspect to us than a news report compiled in 15 minutes?
Perhaps its how I am wired, but to me that is not suspect at all. Perhaps even after reading the critique I am able to give the benefit of the doubt to the collectors rather then the self appointed clergy. After all, at the end of the day.. there is subject matter and subject experts. Why is it that today you have people who wow themselves in awe at a Russian jet performing ballets while others point out that the showboating is useless in real combat. One could argue that Boyd was an idiot and in essence all you need to learn to fight in the air is just flying lessons and the rest is instinct and talent like art. Yet, we continue to respect and revere these people based on what? History? hearsay? Or results? or understanding that these people were right?
After all, we are content with accepting that Shakespearian English was classic English and hence must be understood differently, through the study of other contemporary literature and history.. yet shy away from accepting the same of the Quran?
Its Arabic is different is it not? Reflecting the metaphors and analogies used at the time
The problem as I can see, is that people are sick and tired of commandments and interpretations of these collections being used to create and pass draconian creeds and laws that seem to contradict the very nature of the religion as it is described in the Quran.
And that has to do with the fact that those of understanding, who looked for education.. who had education.. abandoned the study of the subject to those that had none(understanding/education)..or they kept it within themselves instead of spreading it about.
And finally, when they have returned to the religion they find it twisted and false. And in their disgust at the way it is, are thankfully trying to investigate where it all went wrong. But the answer is right in front of them, it is for critical thinking.. and every critical thought has to be corroborated with the Quran.
Take Music for e.g.
Many modern purists and theorists declare it Haram..
many cite two Hadiath for it.. which are then ammo for others who wish to continue listening to music that the Hadiath are wrong.
One is this account
Hadhrat Naafi' (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates: "Once when Hadhrat Abdullah Bin Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) heard the sound of a shepherd's flute, he placed his fingers in both ears (to block the sound of the music), and he diverted his mount from that path. (As they rode o*n), he would say: 'O Naafi', can you still hear (the sound)?' I would say: 'Yes.' He would then continue riding. o*nly when I said: 'I can no longer hear it', did he remove his fingers from his ears. Then he returned to the road. He then said: 'I saw Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) doing like this when he had heard the flute of a shepherd." (Ahmad and Abu Dawood)
Of which people declare that the Prophet would not bear the sound of Music... yet a simple question is to be asked.. if the Prophet found something Haram.. would he allow his companions to continue to do so? So either the Prophet was ok with him being saved and rest damned(Astaghfirullah).. or quite simply.. he did not like the sound of the melody. Nothing against music in its entirety.
The other is '
Aishah narrated that during the days of Mina, on the day of 'Eid al-Adha, two girls were with her, singing and playing on a hand drum. The Prophet (peacebe on him) was present, listening to them with his head under a shawl. Abu Bakr then entered and scolded the girls. The Prophet (peace be on him), uncovering his face, told him, "Let them be, Abu Bakr. These are the days of 'Eid." (Reported by al-Bukhari and Muslim.)
Now these are interpreted by certain gentlemen that their scolding is a sign that Music is forbidden..Sure, if you set your mind out to it you can figure. But perhaps .. like one does to many important personalities when they are within our midst.. especially one who is trying to get some rest.. we ensure that they are not disturbed... and not because we hate music.
There are other narrations of this event, some that include the word shaytaan with Music.. but then the next move is to corroborate that with the Quran. Which in essence has NOTHING that equates music specifically as the word for Music.. Various other arabic words are equated to or grouped together to somehow mean music by the apparent interpretation of Hadiath. Which is why I brought up this subject; to explain the status of the Hadiath..
The Quran is absolute, its status has been proclaimed by god himself to be guarded.. but the same cannot be said of the Hadiath..
Which is why, while each is useful in the interpretation of the other.. the final word rests with the Quran. Yet at the same time, just as a person is NOT a muslim by uttering La-illaha-Ilallah.. without saying Muhammad-ur-Rasool allah.. the complete understanding of the Quran in its all its knowledge was and is not possible without the example of the Prophet.
Why do I insist on this.. well for that I have to refer to a couplet of Iqbal..
خود گیری و خودداری و گلبانگ اناالحق
آزاد ہو سالک تو ہیں یہ اس کے مقامات
محکوم ہو سالک تو یہی اس کا ہمہ اوست
خود مردہ و خود مرقد و خود مرگ مفاجات