The Traditions of Hadith
- Paigham Mustafa
- Jun 9
- 5 min read
By Paigham Mustafa
Among the majority of professed Muslims, belief in the Quran is accompanied by belief in another body of texts known as the hadith. In this context, hadith means a narration: sayings and actions attributed to the messenger Muhammad. Yet the Quran uses the word hadith repeatedly—around 28 times—without ever attaching it to the messenger, and in fact warns against “profane hadith” (Verse 31.6). The hadith corpus, then, is an addition that the Quran neither endorses nor requires.
Traditionalists divide hadith into two types. Hadith Qudsi are considered sacred—additional divine revelations outside the Quran. Hadith Sharif are presented as Muhammad’s own words and deeds. Few realise that the most authoritative rituals, laws and precedents in their religion, Sunnism or Shiaism, stem not from the Quran, nor from Muhammad, but from hadith compilers such as Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, Nasa’i and Ibn Majah— religious imams who lived two centuries after Muhammad and assembled vast collections of narrations attributed to him.
Among Shia scholars, hadith are called khabar—news. For them, authority does not come through the companions (sahaba) but through Ali and the line of imams. Shia collections, produced during the Buyid period, are far larger and contain material unknown to Sunni works. In effect, two separate systems of hadith developed, each claiming authenticity but contradicting one another in content and authority.
The main pillar on which hadith authenticity rests is the isnad—the chain of transmitters linking a narration back to the messenger. By the third century, scholars added another measure: whether a narration appeared plausible to a pious but largely uneducated audience. This produced a vast collection of sayings, many historically impossible yet treated as unquestionably true because they carried a sense of religious “rightness”. Silence became acceptance; acceptance became orthodoxy.
Orientalist scholars, examining hadith to reconstruct early Islamic history, have repeatedly found that while some second- and third-century history can be extracted, almost nothing reliably reflects the first century. The implication is stark: chains spread over eight generations could not have been reconstructed with accuracy. The so-called “science of isnad” is riddled with structural flaws.
This raises an obvious question: how can a compiler living two centuries after Muhammad accurately document the biographies, memory, piety and reliability of hundreds of transmitters when no written records existed? The claim requires a suspension of disbelief.
Take Abu Huraira, often the final link in countless narrations. Even Bukhari’s own criteria concede that his memory was poor. Yet Bukhari offers an extraordinary explanation: that Muhammad miraculously improved Abu Huraira’s memory by making a symbolic gesture over a piece of cloth he held out. Such explanations were accepted not because they were credible, but because they preserved the authority of the hadith system.
Another criterion was internal consistency: if multiple narrations told a similar story, they were assumed to validate one another. Yet any careful reading of even the “authentic” collections reveals contradictions on virtually every topic. Clerical responses to these inconsistencies often boil down to this: only the learned can understand hadith; contradictions appear only to the uneducated. It is an argument that silences rather than illuminates.
Unlike the Quran—which uses precise legal terms—the hadith can and do contradict Quranic rulings. The most notorious example is the punishment for adultery (zina). The Quran makes no distinction between adultery and fornication: zina covers both, and the prescribed penalty is 100 lashes, with strict rules of evidence requiring four witnesses (Verses 24.2–9). Where witnesses are lacking, accusers risk punishment for false allegations. Yet “Islamic” states have executed people by stoning, based not on the Quran but on hadith—largely derived from Old Testament laws and echoed in all six major Sunni collections. These narrations not only contradict Quranic justice but cast the messenger in a barbaric light.
This dynamic repeats across the hadith canon. Narratives emerged to support political factions, justify legal schools or elevate particular figures. Others contain nothing objectionable in themselves but cannot plausibly be traced to the messenger. Still others are simply indecent. Many were absorbed into Islamic law by the prestige of compilers such as Bukhari and Muslim, not through any Quranic mandate.
Some hadiths have done profound reputational harm. Among the most damaging is the claim—found in Sahih Bukhari—that Muhammad married Aisha at six and consummated the marriage when she was nine years old. The Quran emphasises his moral excellence, yet the hadith literature depicts him in ways irreconcilable with Quranic values. Defenders insist that early puberty was common, or that girls of nine were considered mature. Such arguments attempt to salvage the hadith rather than uphold the ethical standard the Quran demands. Crucially, in an era without birth records, it is impossible for compilers writing two centuries later to know Aisha’s exact age. Given the contradictions within the hadith themselves, the most reasonable conclusion is that she was older and the reports are simply unreliable.
The deeper problem is structural. Once an additional body of texts—claimed to be sacred, yet produced by human hands centuries after the messenger—became authoritative, it overtook the book it was meant to support. Historical figures such as Tabari built vast commentaries and histories on the foundation of hadith, treating them as an unquestionable lens through which the Quran must be understood. As a result, generations of Muslims have inherited a worldview shaped more by hadith than by the Quran itself.
Some scholars, such as Dr Abdul Wadud, have argued that political actors—especially from the Persian elite—exploited their sophistication in bureaucracy and intrigue to redirect Islam from within. Whether or not this is accepted, the effect is clear: a secondary literature was elevated to the level of revelation, and in some cases above it. For many, invoking Muhammad’s name is enough to silence doubt, even when the narration contradicts Quranic teaching. As the Quran itself observes, people often cling to inherited traditions even when those traditions are neither knowledgeable nor guided (Verses 2.170–171).
The Quran was revealed to free people from ignorance, not bind them to unexamined customs. Muhammad followed only the Quranic guidance, and he never asked that his sayings be recorded. In fact, some early reports explicitly prohibit writing down anything beyond the Quran. That alone should give pause to those who insist that hadith are indispensable.
The truth is simpler and more radical: the hadith literature is an unnecessary appendage. It is a vast post-Quranic tradition layered with contradictions, embellishments and political interests. The Quran is complete. It is detailed. It is self-sufficient. And it is the only guidance the messenger was commanded to deliver.
To place another book beside it, let alone above it, is to undo the very clarity the Quran provides.
© 2026 Paigham Mustafa
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Paigham Mustafa has been engaged in the study and research of the Quran since 1988 and has contributed to the print media for over 37 years. His first major work, The Quran: God’s Message to Mankind, was published in 2016, followed by The Divine Blueprint in 2022. He is also the author of How To Be Human, published in 2025. His exegesis of the Quran often challenges traditional readings, offering instead a reasoned and objective analysis of the original text. His works provide essential guidance, helping readers gain a clearer, more informed understanding of Islam. This helps address many of the issues that stem from misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and misconceptions
The Quran NME
This is a rendition that is Accurate, Authoritative,
and Accessible in a way that others are not.
Comments