What Is Criticism of Hadith?

The criticism of Hadith refers to the critique directed towards collections of ahadith, i.e. the collections of reports of the words, actions, and the silent approval of the Islamic prophet Muhammad on any matter. The criticism revolves primarily around the authenticity of hadith reports and whether they are attributable to Muhammad, as well as theological and philosophical grounds as to whether the hadith can provide rulings on legal and religious matters when the Quran has already declared itself “complete”, “clear”, “fully detailed” and “perfected”.

Because of Quranic injunctions to Muslims to follow the instructions of and to imitate the behavior of Muhammad, in Muslim political or religious disputes (especially during the early era of Islam) temptation was strong to fabricate hadith as a “polemical ideological tool” in favor of the fabricator’s political/religious position.

Muslim critics of ahadith and classical hadith studies include Islamic revivalists who strongly believe ahadith are part of Islam but wish to reexamine ahadith by their matn (content) in preparation for revising sharia law to make it more practical so that it may be enforced in Muslim society;[1] those who believe only the small number of mutawatir ahadith are reliable enough to be followed; and “deniers” of hadith who contend that Muslims should follow the Quran alone as Muslims still can not be certain of the authenticity of even the most highly rated (sahih or “sound”) ahadith notwithstanding the great efforts by scholars of the science of hadith studies to validate ahadith.

Allah (cc)


Among the scholars who believe that even sahih ahadith suffer from corruption or who proposed limitations on usage of ahadith include early Muslims Al-Nawawi, Wāṣil b. ʿAṭāʾ, Ibrahim an-Nazzam, later reformers Syed Ahmed Khan, Muhammad Iqbal; and scholars from the West such as Ignác Goldziher and Joseph Schacht. According to Bernard Lewis, “in the early Islamic centuries there could be no better way of promoting a cause, an opinion, or a faction than to cite an appropriate action or utterance of the Prophet.” This gave strong incentive to fabricate hadith.[2]

According to Daniel Brown, the major causes of corruption of Hadith literature are:

  1. political conflicts,[3]
  2. sectarian prejudice,[3] and
  3. the desire to translate the underlying meaning, rather than the original words verbatim.[4]

Other criticism made of ahadith include

  • that the primary tool of orthodox ʻilm al-ḥadīth (Hadith studies) to verify the authenticity of ahadith is the hadith isnad (chain) of transmitters. But in the oldest collections of ahadith (which have had less opportunity to be corrupted by faulty memory or manipulation) isnad are “rudimentary”, while the isnads found in later “classical” collections of ahadith are usually “perfect”.[5]
  • that whatever the motive, there are indisputable contradictions in ahadith, meaning some sahih ahadith must be wrong.
  • That ahadith are a major source of Islamic law that involve the honor, property and lives of Muslims, and that although sahih ahadith are defined as “authentic”—rated above hasan (good) and daif (weak) ahadith—this class of ahadith do not provide “certainty of knowledge” needed for law making. Mutawatir ahadith (meaning reports from “a large number of narrators whose agreement upon a lie is inconceivable”) do meet that criteria, but their extreme scarcity limits their use in development of Islamic law.

Criticism of argument

Orthodox Muslims do not deny the existence of false hadith, but believe that through the work of hadith scholars, these false hadith have been largely eliminated.[6] al-Shafi’i himself, the founder of the proposition that “sunna” should be made up exclusively of specific precedents set by Muhammad passed down as ahadith, argued that “having commanded believers to obey the Prophet”, (in Quranic verse Al-Ahzab 33: 21: “In God’s messenger you have indeed a good example for everyone who looks forward with hope to God and the Last Day, and remembers God unceasingly.”)[7] “God must certainly have provided the means to do so.”[8]

One defense of orthodox hadith studies, The Evolution of a Hadith: Transmission, Growth, and the Science of Rijal in a Hadith of Sa’d b. Abi Waqqas by Shaykh Dr. Iftikhar Zaman, according to one supporter (Bilal Ali) proves that “the method of hadith criticism that has been implemented by the muhaddithin [orthodox ahadith evaluators] for the past thousand years, … is far more scientific and exact than modern orientalist approaches.”[9] Traditional Islamic scholars who have endeavored to refute the Western criticism of hadith include Mustafa al-Siba’i and Muhammad Mustafa Al-A’zami.

Some Western academics have also been critical of this “revisionist” approach as a whole, for instance Harald Motzki, (who according to Jonathan Brown demonstrates “convincingly” that studies of early hadith and law by Joseph Schacht and the late G. H. A. Juynboll “used only a small and selective body of sources”, “based on sceptical assumptions which, taken together, often asked the reader to believe a set of coincidences far more unlikely than the possibility that a hadith might actually date from the genesis of the Islamic community.”)[10]

One prominent conservative fatwa website, The Saudi site IslamQA, supervised by Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid, states that one who “persists in denying and rejecting” a hadith is exposing themselves to “grave danger” unless they

  • find a “complete contradiction” that is “clear and unambiguous in meaning and not abrogated” between substance of the hadith they reject and what is mentioned in a Qur’anic text,
  • see “a weakness in one of the links of the isnad” in the hadith “that could have led to the mistake mentioned in the text”,
  • and state that their rejection of the hadith is “a personal view … which may be right or wrong”.[11]


One of the earliest Muslim scholars to recount contradictory ḥadīth as an argument against their use was Mu’tazilite Ibrahim an-Nazzam (c. 775 – c. 845), (although this was probably before development of sahih ahadith).

Indian journalist, activist and Islamic scholar Maulana Mohammad Akram Khan (1868–1969) noted contradictions in sahih ahadith,[12] despite the fact that a requirement of this class of hadith—in addition to be transmitted by trustworthy transmitters with good memories, etc.—is supposed to be freedom from irregularity, i.e. not contradicting another hadith already accepted as reliable. Mohammed Amin and Mohammad Omar Farooq have cited Mohammad Akram Khan’s work, giving examples of these ahadith.[13]

One example is that according to two “sound” ahadith Muhammad must have been 60 years of age when he died. (Sahih al-Bukhari, i.e. ahadith collected and evaluated for accuracy by scholar Muhammad al-Bukhari 4:56:747 (Volume 4, Book 56, Number 747) and 4:56:748 state that Muhammad died at the age of 60 years of age (40+10+10).[14] But according to another “sound” ahadith he must have been 63 (Sahih al-Bukhari 5:58:242 and 5:59:742) and based on yet another sound hadith—this one from Sahih Muslim (hadith collected and evaluated for accuracy by scholar Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj) 030:5805—Muhammad age added up to 65 (40+15+10) when he died.)[15]

Sahih Hadith also differ over how long Muhammad stayed in Mecca after revelations to him commenced. Sahih al-Bukhari 4:56:747 and 4:56:748 state Muhammad stayed 10 years, while Sahih al-Bukhari 5:58:190 and 5:59:741 say he stayed for 13 years.[15]

Amin cites several ahadith describing the sale of a camel to Muhammad by a companion—one Jabir b. ‘Abdullah. Though five ahadith quoted by Amin each mention the same sale, each gives a different price for the camel.[15] Muslim 010:3886 – one uqiya (about 28.6 grams of silver);[16] Muslim 010:3891 – five uqiyas; Muslim 010:3893 – two uqiyas and a dirham (2.975 grams of silver)[17] or two dirhams; Muslim 010:3895 – five dinars.[15]

Farooq complains that if these ahadith can’t agree on basic facts such as numbers, what kinds of problems might arise in hadiths “conveying concepts and understanding, often not in exact words of the Prophet, but paraphrasing by the reporters?”[13]

Joseph Schacht argues that the very large number of contradictory ahadith are very likely the result of ahadith fabricated “polemically with a view to rebutting a contrary doctrine or practice” supported by another hadith.[18]

Hadith as source of Islamic law

While the age of the prophet at death may be of little relevance for Islamic law, other hadith have considerable relevance.

Ahadith form the basis of law for riba al-fadl, ruling whether gold may be legally be bartered for silver. Sahih al-Bukhari 3:34:344 states gold cannot be bartered for silver “except if it is from hand to hand and equal in amount,” while Sahih al-Bukhari 3:34:388[19] says the Islamic prophet Muhammad “allowed us to sell gold for silver and vice versa as we wished.”[15]

More relevant to Muslims everyday lives are ahadith calling for women to not pray in mosques (Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:12:828; Sunan Abu Dawood, Vol. I, #570), to not participate in leadership (Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:88:219), and Islamic fiqh based on hadith that put a mother 11th in seniority (behind male step-cousins) as guardian of a minor[Note 1]—(a hadith with no reference).[13] These which are contradicted by “numerous hadiths/reports that women used to participate in mosques regularly and in large numbers”; in the second case by the transmitter (Abu Bakra, not to be confused with Rashidun Abu Bakr), being known for receiving punishment for false testimony; and in the third the hadith was quoted without any reference.[20][13]

Because hadith is “the basis for most” Islamic laws and codes “at the detailed level”,[13] which pertain “to people’s life, honour and property”,[21] and because many (especially revivalist and conservative Muslims) consider these not just inspirational or informational but laws “sacrosanct or immutable Shari’ah”[13] to be enforced, and because to others (especially modernist and liberal Muslims) the laws thus developed are “contrary to the intent and spirit of the Qur’an and Islam’s fundamental commitment to justice and fairness”, the “problem of the authenticity of the Sunnah” or hadith has become an issue for those (especially modernist and liberal Muslims) who believe there is a conflict between the “intent and spirit of the Qur’an” and “centuries-old” ahadith-based jurisprudence.[22]

A manuscript copy of al-Bukhari, Mamluk era, 13th century, Egypt. Adilnor Collection, Sweden.

Mutawatir vs. Sahih

According to M.O. Farooq, despite the widespread belief that sahih hadith are authentic hadith and thus provides “certainty of knowledge” of what Muhammad said, in fact it is only the much rarer subset of sahih — mutawatir hadith—that provide certain knowledge. Mutawatir means the report “of a large number of narrators whose agreement upon a lie is inconceivable. This condition must be met in the entire chain from the origin of the report to the very end.”[13]

However, according to Wael Hallaq, “the bulk of hadith with which the traditionists dealt, and on the basis of which the Jurists derived the law” were known as ahad—i.e. non-mutawatir hadith; Hadith without “textually identical channels of transmission which are sufficiently numerous as to preclude any possibility of collaboration on a forgery”[23] Jurists disagreed on how many channels of transmission there had to be for a hadith to be mutawatir. Since “the qadi in a court of law must deliberate on the testimony of four witnesses (as well as investigate their moral rectitude) before he renders his verdict,”[23] some thought at least five, but others set the number at “12, 20, 40, 70 or 313, each number being justified by a Qur’anic verse or some religious account”.[24][25][26][27]

Farooq quotes a number of sources speaking highly of Mutawatir:

  • In the view of Muslim scholars any hadith which has been transmitted by tawatur and whose reporters based their reports on direct, unambiguous, perception unmixed with rationalization would produce knowledge with certainty.[28]
  • A mutawatir tradition is one which has been transmitted throughout the first three generations of Muslims by such a large number of narrators that the possibility of fabrication must be entirely discarded.[29]
  • [T]he mutawatir hadith stands on the same footing as the Qur’an itself.” [30]
  • According to the majority of Ulama, the authority of a mutawatir hadith is equivalent to that of the Qur’an. Universal continuous testimony (tawatur) engenders certainty (yaqin) and the knowledge that it creates is equivalent to knowledge that is acquired through sense-perception.[31]
  • A great majority of Muslim legal theoreticians (usuuliyyun) espoused the view that the mutawatir yields necessary or immediate knowledge (daruri), whereas a minority thought that the information contained in such reports can be known through mediate or acquired knowledge (muktasab or nazari).[32]

However, orthodox hadith scholars find non-mutawatir hadith adequate. “According to the majority of the ulama of the four Sunni schools, acting upon ahad is obligatory even if ahad fails to engender positive knowledge. Thus, in practical legal matters,” but not in “matters of belief”, “a preferable zann [meaning, speculative] “is sufficient as a basis of obligation.”[33] Ibn al-Salah ( (d. 643/1245), “one of the most distinguished traditionists of the muta’akhkhirun”,[34]argues (according to Farooq), that because mutawatir type hadith is rare, “for much of Islamic praxis, certainty of knowledge is neither feasible nor required. Rather, probable or reasonable knowledge is adequate” for determining the gamut of Islamic practices.[13]


Criticism of the collection and/or the use of hadith in Islam are found both early and late in Islamic history. First by the ahl-i-kalam and Muʿtazila during the early years of the Abbasid Caliphate when the classical consensus of al-Shafi’iwas being developed and established. Later in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by Islamic reformists such as the ahl-i-Quran and thinkers such as Syed Ahmed Khan, Muhammad Iqbal.[35] In addition scholars from the West such as Ignác Goldziher and Joseph Schacht have criticized the science of hadith starting in the 19th century.

Early criticism

According to Daniel Brown questioning the authenticity of the Hadith goes back to the time of Al-Shafii when a group known as Ahl al-Kalam, who argued that “first and foremost” the Prophetic example “has to be found … in following the Qur’an”, rather than ahadith.[36][37] Later, a similar group, the Mu’tazilites, also viewed the transmission of the Prophetic sunnah as not sufficiently reliable. The Hadith, according to them, was mere guesswork and conjecture, while the Quran was complete and perfect, and did not require the Hadith or any other book to supplement or complement it.”[38]

According to Racha El Omari, early Mutazilites believed that hadith were susceptible to “abuse as a polemical ideological tool”; that the matn (content) of the hadith—not just the isnad—ought to be scrutinized for doctrine and clarity; that hadith “supported by some form of tawātur“, i.e. by a large number of isnād strands, each beginning with a different Companion, were valid.[39][40]

In writing about mutawatir (transmitted via numerous chains of narrators) and ahad (any ahadith that is not mutawatir) and its importance from the legal theoretician’s point of view, Wael Hallaq notes the medieval scholar Al-Nawawiargued that any non-mutawatir hadith is only probable and can not reach the level of certainty that a mutawatir hadith can. However scholars like Ibn al-Salah (d. 1245 CE), al-Ansari (d. 1707 CE), and Ibn ‘Abd al-Shakur (d. 1810 CE) found “no more than eight or nine” hadiths that fell into the mutawatir category.[41]

Wāṣil b. ʿAṭāʾ (700–748 CE, by many accounts a founder of the Mutazilite school of thought), held that there was evidence for the veracity of a report when it had four independent transmitters. His assumption was that there could be no agreement between all transmitters in fabricating a report. Wāṣil’s acceptance of tawātur seems to have been inspired by the juridical notion of witnesses as proof that an event did indeed take place. Hence, the existence of a certain number of witnesses precluded the possibility that they were able to agree on a lie, as opposed to the single report which was witnessed by one person only, its very name meaning the “report of one individual” (khabar al-wāḥid). Abū l-Hudhayl al-ʿAllāf (d. 227/841) continued this verification of reports through tawātur, but proposed that the number of witnesses required for veracity be twenty, with the additional requirement that at least one of the transmitters be a believer.[40]

A Mu’tazilite who expressed the strongest statement of skepticism of any source of knowledge outside of reason and the Qurʾān was Ibrahim an-Nazzam (c. 775 – c. 845). For him, both the single and the mutawātir reports could not be trusted to yield knowledge. He recounted contradictory ḥadīth and examined their divergent content (matn) to show why they should be rejected: they relied on both faulty human memory and bias, neither of which could be trusted to transmit what is true. Al-Naẓẓām bolstered his strong refutation of the trustworthiness of ḥadīth within the larger claim that ḥadīth circulated and thrived to support polemical causes of various theological sects and jurists, and that no single transmitter could by himself be held above suspicion of altering the content of a single report. Al-Naẓẓām’s skepticism involved far more than excluding the possible verification of a report, be it single or mutawātir. His stance also excluded the trustworthiness of consensus, which proved pivotal to classical Muʿtazilite criteria devised for verifying the single report (see below). Indeed, his shunning of both consensus and tawātur earned him a special mention for the depth and extent of his skepticism, even among fellow Muʿtazilites.[42]

Modern era

Later, in nineteenth century British Raj, Syed Ahmed Khan “questioned the historicity and authenticity of many, if not most, traditions, much as the noted scholars Ignaz Goldziher and Joseph Schacht would later do.”[43] His student, Chiragh Ali, went further, suggesting nearly all the Hadith were fabrications.[44] Although Muhammad Iqbal never rejected the hadith wholesale, he proposed limitations on its usage by arguing that it should be taken contextually and circumstantially.[45] Ghulam Ahmed Pervez, a disciple of Iqbal, also asks why, if ahadith were divine revelation (wahy), were they “neither written down, nor memorized, nor systematically collected or preserved”, as Muhammad and/or his immediate followers made sure the Quran was.[46][47]

Muhammad Tawfiq Sidqi (d. 1920) of Egypt “held that nothing of the Hadith was recorded until after enough time had elapsed to allow the infiltration of numerous absurd or corrupt traditions.”[48]

According to Jonathan A.C. Brown, “by far the most influential Modernist critique” of Sunni hadith tradition came from a disciple of Egyptian Rashid Rida named Mahmoud Abu Rayya. Abu Rayya wrote Lights on the Muhammadan Sunna (Adwa` `ala al-Sunna al-Muhammadiyya) which argued that the basis of Islam was intended to be only “the Quran, reason and unquestionably reliable mutawatir accounts of the Prophet’s legacy”.[49] In particular Abu Rayya undermined the credibility of “the single most prolific” transmitter of hadiths from among the Companions, one Abu Hurairah. Abu Rayya used reports of transmitter criticism to characterize Abu Hurayra as a “dishonest opportunist”. Having joined the Muslim community only three years before the Prophet’s death, it is highly unlikely he heard the thousands of hadiths he claimed to transmitted, nor did he learn the details of ritual and law to avoid mangling the meanings of hadiths on these issues he reported. Abu Hurayra was also known to be obsessed with isr’iliyyat, i.e. tales from Jewish lore about earlier prophets.[49]

According to author Israr Ahmed Khan, traditional methods used to establish authenticity of hadith rely almost entirely on the personal characters of the reported narrators, and fail to pay enough attention to the actual content of the hadith being evaluated.[50] Among the problems he sees in the traditional hadith analysis are: the inability of some narrators to maintain preciseness of the report, textual conflicts among reports, ignoring textual analysis when the hadith was reported by a narrator of good character, and probability of fabrication of hadith.[51]


Between 1890 and 1950 the era of “Orientalist” studies of hadith began with Ignatz Goldziher and Josef Schacht and their “two influential and founding works”, according to Mohammed Salem Al-Shehri.[52] Goldziher “inaugurated the critical study” of the hadith’s authenticity and concluded that the “great majority of the Prophetic hadith constitute evidence not of the Prophet’s time which they claim to belong, but rather of much later periods”, according to Wael B. Hallaq. Schacht later refined Goldziher’s critical study.[41]

John Esposito notes that “Modern Western scholarship has seriously questioned the historicity and authenticity of the hadith“, maintaining that “the bulk of traditions attributed to the Prophet Muhammad were actually written much later.” According to Esposito, Schacht “found no evidence of legal traditions before 722,” from which Schacht concluded that “the Sunna of the Prophet is not the words and deeds of the Prophet, but apocryphal material” dating from later.[53]

Henry Preserved Smith and Ignác Goldziher also challenged the reliability of the hadith, Smith stating that “forgery or invention of traditions began very early” and “many traditions, even if well authenticated to external appearance, bear internal evidence of forgery.”[Note 2] Goldziher writes that “European critics hold that only a very small part of the ḥadith can be regarded as an actual record of Islam during the time of Mohammed and his immediate followers.”[Note 3] In his Mohammedan Studies, Goldziher states: “it is not surprising that, among the hotly debated controversial issues of Islam, whether political or doctrinal, there is not one in which the champions of the various views are unable to cite a number of traditions, all equipped with imposing isnads“.[56]

Patricia Crone noted that early traditionalists were still developing conventions of examining the chain of narration (isnads) that by later standards were sketchy/deficient, even though they were closer to the historical material. Later though they possessed impeccable chains, but were more likely to be fabricated.[57] Reza Aslan quotes Schacht’s maxim: `the more perfect the isnad, the later the tradition`, which he (Aslan) calls “whimsical but accurate”.[58]

Bernard Lewis writes that “the creation of new hadiths designed to serve some political purpose has continued even to our own time.” In the buildup to the first Gulf War a “tradition” was published in the Palestinian daily newspaper Al-Nahar on December 15, 1990, “and described as `currently in wide circulation`” It “quotes the Prophet as predicting that “the Greeks and Franks will join with Egypt in the desert against a man named Sadim, and not one of them will return”.[2][59] [Note 4]

Influence of other religions

Another seminal Egyptian critique of the ahadith came from Mahmud Abu Rayya (d. 1970), a friend and fellow disciple of Rashid Rida,[60] who, in his 1958 book titled “Lights on Muhammad’s Sunna” (Adwa’ ‘al al-sunna al-muhammadiyya), “like Sidqi”, argued that “many supposedly authentic Hadiths were actually Jewish lore that had been attributed to Muhammad”.[61]

The earliest Western scholar to note a relation between the ahadith and Jewish influences was the French Orientalist Barthélemy d’Herbelot (d. 1695), who “claimed that most of the six books (the most important hadith books) and many parts of the hadith literature were appropriated from the Talmud”, and later many others, like Aloys Sprenger (d. 1893), Ignaz Goldziher (d. 1921), etc. continued in such direction.

A more elaborated study was “Al‐Bukhārī and the Aggadah” by W.R. Taylor, who “appropriated some of these hadiths from al‐Sahih of al‐Bukhārī and some haggadic texts from the Talmud and Midrash. Taylor compared these hadiths with the texts, and concluded that these hadiths were appropriated from the Talmud and Midrash. Afterwards, he also said that there were many narratives in the hadith literature in general, especially in al‐Bukhārī, that were taken from haggadic literature. He then studied the ways of and how these narrations were transmitted to hadith literature. According to Taylor’s opinion, a large amount of the oral information, narrations, stories, and folkloric information entered in Islamic literature in general, and hadith literature, in particular, during the transcription of the Talmud and Mishnah and after the formation of hadiths via the Jews living in the Arabian Peninsula, as well as the church fathers and Christian community.” Other scholars have different opinions on the same subject: Franz Buhl connects the ahadith with a more Iranian/Zoroastrian background, David Samuel Margoliouth with Biblical apocrypha and Alfred Guillaume puts more stress on a generic Christian influence.[62]

Theological or philosophical critiques

The Ahl al-Kalam of the time of Al-Shafii rejected the Hadith on theological grounds—although they also questioned its authenticity. Their basic argument was that the Quran was an explanation of everything (16:89). They contended that obedience to the Prophet was contained in obeying only the Qur’an that God has sent down to him, and that when the Qur’an mentioned the Book together with Wisdom, the Wisdom was the specific rulings of the Book.”[63] Daniel Brown notes that one of the arguments of Ahl al-Kalam was that “the corpus of Hadith is filled with contradictory, blasphemous, and absurd traditions.”[36]

At the turn of the twentieth century, Muhammad Tawfiq Sidqi (d. 1920) of Egypt wrote an article titled ‘al-Islam huwa ul-Qur’an Wahdahu’ (‘Islam is the Qur’an Alone) that appeared in the Egyptian journal al-Manar, which argues that the Quran is sufficient as guidance: “what is obligatory for man does not go beyond God’s Book. … If anything other than the Qur’an had been necessary for religion,” Sidqi notes, “the Prophet would have commanded its registration in writing, and God would have guaranteed its preservation.”[64]


  1.  Brown, Rethinking tradition in modern Islamic thought, 1996: p.109
  2.  Lewis, Bernard (2011). The End of Modern History in the Middle East. Hoover Institution Press. pp. 79–80. Retrieved 28 March 2018.
  3.  Brown, Rethinking tradition in modern Islamic thought, 1996: p.113
  4.  Brown, Rethinking tradition in modern Islamic thought, 1996: p.134
  5.  Schacht, Joseph (1959) [1950]. The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence. Oxford University Press. p. 163.
  6.  Nasr, Seyyed Vali Reza. “Shi’ism”, 1988. p. 35.
  7.  Hashmi, Tariq Mahmood (2 April 2015). “Role, Importance And Authenticity Of The Hadith”Mawrid.org. Retrieved 28 March 2018.
  8.  Brown, Rethinking tradition in modern Islamic thought, 1996: p.15
  9.  “The Evolution of a Hadith: Transmission, Growth, and the Science of Rijal in a Hadith of Sa’d b. Abi Waqqas by Shaykh Dr. Iftikhar Zaman”attahawi.com. Retrieved 10 May 2018.
  10.  Book review by Jonathan Brown of Analysing Muslim Traditions: Studies in Legal, Exegetical and Maghāzī Ḥadīth. Islamic History and Civilization, vol. 78 by Harald Motzki, Nicolet Boekhoff-van der Voort, Sean W. Anthony, Journal of the American Oriental Society Vol. 131, No. 3 (July–September 2011), p. 473
  11.  al-Munajjid, Muhammad Saalih (General Supervisor). “115125: Ruling on one who rejects a saheeh hadith”Islam Question and Answer. Retrieved 11 April 2018.
  12.  Khan, Mohammad Akram. “Excerpts from Maulana Mohammad Akram Khan’s Mostafa Charit (in Bangla)”scribd.com. Retrieved 31 March 2018.
  13.  Farooq, Mohammad Omar (June 2006). “Islamic Law and the Use and Abuse of Hadith”zaharuddin.net. Retrieved 29 March 2018.
  14.  al-Bukhari. “Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 56:”The Religion of Peace. Retrieved 10 May 2018.
  15.  Amin, Mohammed. “How reliable are Hadith? Some are contradictory”mohammedamin.com. Retrieved 29 March 2018.
  16.  Powell, Russell (2009). “Zakat: Drawing Insights for Legal Theory and Economic Policy from Islamic Jurisprudence”Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons. p. 51. Retrieved 31 March 2018.
  17.  “How much was 1 Gold Dinar worth in the time of the Sahaba (ra) ?”Ummah. 29 November 2011. Retrieved 2 April 2018.
  18.  Schacht, Joseph (1959) [1950]. The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence. Oxford University Press. p. 152.
  19.  Al-Bukhari. “Sales and trade, book 34”The Religion of Peace. Retrieved 10 May 2018.
  20.  Burhan al-Din al-Marghinani, Al-Hidāya (2nd ed.; London, 1870), translated by Charles Hamilton (Karachi, 1989), p.107
  21.  Farooq, Mohammad Omar (2009). “Riba, Interest and Six Hadiths: Do We Have a Definition or a Conundrum?”Review of Islamic Economics13 (1): 109. Retrieved 29 March 2018.
  22.  AbdulHamid A. AbuSulayman. The Islamic Theory of International Relations: New Directions for Islamic Methodology and Thought [Herndon, VA: The International Institute of Islamic Thought, 1987], p. 83
  23.  Hallaq, Wael (1999). “The Authenticity of Prophetic Ḥadîth: A Pseudo-Problem”(PDF)Studia Islamica89: 88. JSTOR1596086. Retrieved 30 March 2018(Registration required (help)).Cite uses deprecated parameter |registration= (help)
  24.  Hallaq, Wael (1999). “The Authenticity of Prophetic Ḥadîth: A Pseudo-Problem”(PDF)Studia Islamica89: 79. JSTOR1596086. Retrieved 30 March 2018(Registration required (help)).Cite uses deprecated parameter |registration= (help)
  25.  Amidi, Ihkam, I, 229
  26.  Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni, al-Burhan, ed. ‘Abd al-Azim Dib, 2 vols (Cairo: Dar al-Ansar, 1400/1979), I, 569-70
  27.  Farra, Udda, III, 856-7. (29)
  28.  M. M. Azami. Studies in Hadith Methodology and Literature [Indiana: American Trust Publications, 1977], p.43
  29.  Muhammad Zubayr Siddiqi. Hadith Literature: Its Origin, Development & Special Features [Cambridge, UK: Islamic Texts Society, 1993], p.110
  30.  Mohammad Hashim Kamali. Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence[Cambridge, UK: Islamic Texts Society, 2003], p.80
  31.  Mohammad Hashim Kamali. Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence[Cambridge, UK: Islamic Texts Society, 2003], p.94
  32.  (referring to al-Qarafi) Wael Hallaq. “The Authenticity of Prophetic Hadith: A Pseudo-problem,” Studia Islamica 99 (1999), p. 79
  33.  Mohammad Hashim Kamali. Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence [Cambridge, UK: Islamic Texts Society, 2003], p.98
  34.  Wael Hallaq. “The Authenticity of Prophetic Hadith: A Pseudo-problem,” Studia Islamica 99 (1999), p.84
  35.  Brown, Rethinking tradition in modern Islamic thought, 1996: p.6-42
  36.  Brown, Rethinking tradition in modern Islamic thought, 1996: p.15-16
  37.  excerpted from Abdur Rab, ibid, pp. 199–200.
  38.  Azami, M. A., Studies in Hadith Methodology and Literature, Islamic Book Trust, Kuala Lumpur, 92; cited in Akbarally Meherally, Myths and Realities of Hadith – A Critical Study, (published by Mostmerciful.com Publishers), Burnaby, BC, Canada, 6; available at http://www.mostmerciful.com/Hadithbook-sectionone.htm; excerpted from Abdur Rab, ibid, p. 200.
  39.  see: Ḍirār b. ʿAmr (d. 728/815) In his al-Taḥrīsh wa-l-irjāʾ
  40.  Ghani, Usman (2015). “3. Concept of Sunna in Mu’tazilite Thought.”. In Duderija, Adis (ed.). The Sunna and its Status in Islamic Law: The Search for a Sound Hadith. Springer. p. 65. Retrieved 29 March 2018.
  41.  Hallaq, Wael (1999). “The Authenticity of Prophetic Ḥadîth: A Pseudo-Problem”(PDF)Studia Islamica89: 75–90. JSTOR1596086. Retrieved 30 March 2018(Registration required (help)).Cite uses deprecated parameter |registration= (help)
  42.  Racha El-Omari, “Accommodation and Resistance: Classical Muʿtazilites on Ḥadīth” in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 71, No. 2 (October 2012), pp. 234-235
  43.  Esposito, John L, Islam – The Straight Path, Oxford University Press, 1991, p. 134.
  44.  Latif, Abu Ruqayyah Farasat (September 2006). The Quraniyun of the Twentieth Century. Masters Assertion(PDF). Retrieved 28 March 2018.
  45.  “IQBAL AND HADITH”. Retrieved 22 March 2015.
  46.  Parwez, Ghulam Ahmed, Salim ke nam khutut, Karachi, 1953, Vol. 1, 43; cited in Brown, Daniel W. (1996). Rethinking tradition in modern Islamic thought. Cambridge University Press. p. 54. ISBN0521570778. Retrieved 10 May 2018.
  47.  also cited in Abdur Rab, op.cit, p. 202.
  48.  Sidqi, Muhammad Tawfiq, “al-Islam huwa al-Qur’an wahdahu,” al-Manar 9 (1906), 515; cited in Brown, Daniel W. (1996). Rethinking tradition in modern Islamic thought. Cambridge University Press. pp. 88–89. ISBN0521570778. Retrieved 10 May 2018.
  49.  Brown, Jonathan A.C. (2009). Hadith: Muhammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World. OneWorld publications. Retrieved 16 June2018.
  50.  Khan. Authentication of Hadith: Redefining the Criteria. p. XVI.
  51.  Khan. Authentication of Hadith: Redefining the Criteria. p. 121.
  52.  ALSHEHRI, Mohammed Salem. “Western Works and Views On Hadith: Beginnings, Nature, and Impact”(PDF)doi:10.15370/muifd.41804ISSN1302-4973. Retrieved 29 March 2018.
  53.  Esposito, John (1998). Islam: The Straight Path. Oxford University Press. p. 67. ISBN0-19-511234-2.
  54.  Smith, H. P. (1897). The Bible and Islam, or, the Influence of the Old and New Testaments on the Religion of Mohammed: Being the Ely Lectures for 1897 (pp. 32–33). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
  55.  Ignác Goldziher, article on “ḤADITH”, in The Jewish Encyclopedia: A Descriptive Record of the History, Religion, Literature, and Customs of the Jewish People from the Earliest Times to the Present DaySinger, I. (Ed.). (1901–1906). 12 Volumes. New York; London: Funk & Wagnalls.
  56.  Ali, Ratib Mortuza. “Analysis of Credibility of Hadiths and Its Influence among the Bangladeshi Youth”(PDF). BRAC University. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
  57.  Patricia Crone, Roman, Provincial and Islamic Law (1987/2002 paperback) , pp. 23–34, paperback edition
  58.  No God But God : The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam by Reza Aslan, (Random House, 2005) p.163
  59.  Cook, David. “AMERICA, THE SECOND `AD: PROPHECIES ABOUT THE DOWNFALL OF THE UNITED STATES”mille.org. Retrieved 31 March2018.
  60.  Jonathan A.C. Brown, Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet’s LegacyOneworld Publications (2014), p. 69
  61.  Jeffrey T. Kenney, Islam in the Modern WorldRoutledge (2013), p. 21
  62.  Özcan Hıdır, “Discussions on the Influence of the Judeo‐Christian Culture on Hadiths” in The Journal of Rotterdam Islamic and Social Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2010, pp. 2-5
  63.  Musa, ibid, pp. 36–37; taken from Abdur Rab, ibid, p. 199.
  64.  Musa, Aisha Y., Hadith as Scripture: Discussions on the Authority of Prophetic Traditions in Islam, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2008, p.6.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia