This paper aims at responding a critical accusation of qital concept in the Qur’an and hadith and providing analyses by using historical and practical approach. It can be argued, then, that the purposes of qital can be explained correctly as directed by both sources. At the very practical of interpretative approach, this study employs the historical, eidetic, and practical criticism. The research argues that qital or war can be applied with some criterias and ethics based on the Qur’an and hadith instruction. These criteria are (1) The nature of qital should be directed into God (fi sabiillah); (2) The qital should be first caused by the war of the enemy, (3) The qital is not permitted in the sacred worship places, (4) It aims to relieve the slander, (5) It is not allowed to sacrifice of other Muslims. The ethics of qital are: (1) It is not permitted to overreach, (2) Moslems must end the war if the enemy are surrender, (3) it is obliged to do based on the regulations and the aggrement, (4) it is not permitted to destroy.

Muslims tend to have an adequate understanding of Islam through the Qur’an and Hadith. However, over the years, hadith has been a source of controversy in Islamic law, with the significant problem associated with understanding and determining the beginning of the hijri month. The difference is due to the various perspectives in understanding the observed crescent. This paper aims at discussing the prominent scholar, Yusuf al-Qaradawi> in understanding the h}adi>th in question. It argues that the impact of Yusuf al-Qaradawi’s understanding on the ru’yat al-hilal hadith was to unify the performance of fasting and ‘id al-fitr in Europe based on priority, not to unite all Moslems in the world.

Hadith ghadir khum is the culmination of a dispute between Sunni and Shi’ite. This article tries to analysis comprehensively the hadith by elaborating understanding in two perspectives: exploring the factors that cause these differences and re-understandinging the interpretation hadith. This study found that there were differences in understanding between the Sunni and Shi’ite schools in understanding the hadith. This difference is at least caused by two things, namely: the context of the hadith and the meaning of the word maul. According to the Sunnis, this hadith contains a warning from the Prophet to his people to love and help one another (having walâ’- muwalât) and not hating and opposing each other (mu’âdat). Meanwhile, according to Shi’ah, this hadith is considered a moment in which the Prophet directly named Ali as a successor and successor to the leadership after the Prophet. Reconstruction of understanding is done through two things, namely the historical reconstruction and reinterpretation of the meaning of the womb. Overall, the ghadir khum hadith is interpreted as a form of the Prophet’s love for the people and their families. The love of his people is proven by his will in the form of thaqalain, namely al-Kitab (Alquran) and love for his family with the intention to make Ali (representation of ahl al-bait) as maulâ (friend, lover) of Muslims.

After the dissolution of Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) by the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, sympathizers of HTI tried to appeal in various ways. One of them is to build the opinions through the dakwah media of HTI about the authenticity of al-Khilâfah al-Islâmîyah sources in the religious narratives. This propaganda means that the political system fought for by HTI is a part of the Islamic Shari‘a which have to be defended, rejecting it means kufr. However, the legality of khilâfah’s source is problematic. The Qur’an does not mention it, while the hadith that mentions the khilâfah is more problematic. The hadith of khilâfah only narrated by Ah}mad b. H{anbal on his book. This Ḥadîth arises due to the attitude of Ḥabîb b. Salîm who looked for face in front of ‘Umar b. Abd al-‘Azîz as the khalifah claimed by ‘alâ minhâj al-nubuwwah. The triumph at that time was dreamed by HTI to be re-realized. To realize that vision, HTI interprets the religious texts to the political platform that means has mixed religious functions and political functions become one.

The Islamic scholars seems to impose the “discriminative” standard over the exegesis sanad (chain of narrators), where they accepts it loosely without restricted requirements as applied in ḥadîth sanad. It is basically caused by the character of Qur’an itself as revealed in Arabic language, which is naturally resulting in the domination of reasoning (‘aql) in interpreting and explaining its meanings (rational exegesis). But the problem here is when some rationalists scholars easily refused the authentic ḥadîth just because it is in contrary to their reasoning or principles, even though the ḥadîth undoubtedly has a significant role in interpreting the Qur’an. This paper attempts to analyze the exegesis thought of Teungku Muhammad Hasbi as appeared in his book of tafsir named “Tafsir An-Nur” through his explanation of the first verses of surah al-Nisâ’; and to know to what extend his thought was influenced by rationalists. By using an analytical method, this research found that the thought of Teungku Muhammad Hasbi was influenced by rationalist scholars in interpreting the Qur’an because of deep relationship established between him and them

This study starts from the fact that the Qur’anic interpretation based on Ḥadîth could not be separated from the ideology of the exegetes. With the primary sources of Tafsîr al-Jalâlayn, by Jalâl al-Dîn al-Mah}allî and Jalâl al-Dîn al-Suyût}î, and by focusing on two main themes: theft and adultery, this study finds that the strategy they undertaken includes several processes, first: selection, that is by choosing the Ḥadîth of the Prophet around the law of hand cut in the case of theft, and the law of exile and stoning in the case of adultery, as a reference of interpretation, while there are many other options such as found in the Qur’an, the opinion of the Prophet Companions and tabi’in. Second, reproduction, that is, by actually choosing the sunna as a reference of interpretation. Third, conclusion, that is by providing generalization of the issue. Thus, it seems to argue that it is the only existing sunna and it is the only one that should be understood. Yet, there are many other sunna in its complexities, and even they are contradicting each other. Fourth, the local transformation, which displays the sunna in such a way.

Maḥmûd Abû Rayyah comes to the study of ḥadîth as a controversial scholar. His criticism has made a significant change in modern period in which his critics are directed towards some literatures and early ḥadîth scholars (râwî). One of the making polemic in his study is his critical study on the authenticity of ḥadîth in Bukhârî’s book, Ṣahîḥ Bukhârî. It is not only Bukhârî whom his critics are pointed out, but also Abû Hurayrah, a person who has narrated so many ḥadîth and become the most cited name in ḥadîth literatures. This paper would shed light on the epistemological view of Abû Rayyah in ḥadîth criticism. It highlights three branches of ḥadîth studies: authenticity, reliability and historical analysis. This study suggests that Abû Rayyah put al-sunnah al-hudâ (a living tradition of Muḥammad which is related to ‘aqîdah and sharî‘ah) as a main tool for validity to determine the authenticity of ḥadîth. In this case, every ḥadîth which contradicts to this value should be rejected. Further he said that ḥadîth codification did not take place in the period prior to al-Zuhrî. The political pressure is one of the reasons why al-Zuhrî and other Muslims are militant to write and collect Muḥammad traditions of ḥadîth.

To investigate wriggles of Qur’anic studies at Germany in the end of 20th Century, one should examine works of its influential figure, such as Rudi Paret who was broadly considered as the most intelligent student of Enno Littman, a veteran German orientalist. This article describes and discusses the contribution of Paret’s works along with its methodological strength and fragility based on reviews written by their observers. The results of the passage will be used to map Paret thought, both about Islam and the Qur’an. It is concluded that: first, Paret’s research on the Qur’an contributes a lot to the development of the Qur’anic interpretation methodology; and second, Der Koran: Kommentar und Konkordanz is a work of interpretation based on the translation methodology, in which the text of the Qur’an is understood and explained by something parallel. This method resulted in a ‘concordance’, Paret’s concrete offer to stand against the chronological reading of the Qur’an that developed rapidly in his days.

<p>Ten <em>qirâ’ah</em> belongs to the ten Imams of Qur’anic recitaters. It composes seven Imams who are remarkably recognized in Muslim traditions mainly introduced by Ibn Mujâhid (245- 324 H), with three additional Imams, Abû Ja‘far al-Qa‘qâ‘, Abû Ya‘qûb al-Haḍramî, and Khalaf bin Hishâm. Different from seven <em>qirâ’ah</em> that is officially approved (<em>mutawâtir</em>) by most of Muslim scholars, the existence of ten <em>qirâ’ah </em>is still debatable. Indeed, some of scholars classify it as poor <em>qirâ’ah</em> (<em>shâdh</em>). Five centuries later after Ibn Mujâhid’s introduction on seven <em>q</em><em>irâ’ah</em>, al-Jazarî (d. 833 H) argues some evidences on the validity of chain transmission (<em>sanad</em>) of the last three Imams. In the hand of al-Jazarî, the ten <em>qirâ’ah</em> is attested to be completely meeting a requirements of <em>qirâ’ah </em>such like, reliable chain’s transmission, compatible to <em>rasm ‘Uthmânî</em>, and convenient to Arabic rules. Therefore, there is no reason to leave and refuse the last three Imams (ten <em>qirâ’ah</em>) in the Islamic tradition of Qur’anic recitation. </p>