Why I Reject Hadith & Islam?

What is the Hadith Literature?

The Arabic word ḥadīth (plural: aḥadīth. Anglicised: ha-deeth) means narration; report; narrative; story; tale. In the narrower sense of the word it refers to the ḥadīth literature; a body of literature comprised of multiple volumes which together constitute tens of thousands of narrations, reports, stories, and tales. These aḥadīth derive in the form of teachings, sayings, and practices; teachings, sayings, and practices that are ascribed to a man, alleged to be the messenger of the Qur’an. The nature and constitution of the ḥadīth literature is tradition-based dogma, rite and custom. The ḥadīth literature constitutes the major source of guidance for followers of the organised religion known today as Islam.

It has been 1,200 years since the inception of the ḥadīth literature, and 1,400 years since Qur’anic revelation. The bitesize historical narrative of the ḥadīth literature rests upon the shoulders of the assumption that it is a secondary source of divine guidance beside the Qur’an. The Traditionalist believes that the prophet Muhammad imparted teachings, sayings, and practices beside the Qur’an which he was chosen by God to deliver.

In swift succession to the prophet’s death in 632 CE, the Traditionalist propagates that these aḥadīth were preserved via oral memorisation which predisposed them to corruption. And that between the 7th to 9th century, the aḥadīth became wearied, polluted, and compromised. He then claims a fear permeated throughout the “Islamic world”; a fear that primed the elected priesthood to exert their influence over their purview of the general masses, subsuming them by this ever-increasing fear mongering stemming from above.

Suffices to say the least, public outcries and demands arose for the revival of the alleged long-lost tradition of the prophet; a tradition that was documented via millions of narrations and reports. It was at this stage of the development when sectarianism, tribalism, and religious fanaticism became rife, infesting both contemporary sociocultural and religiopolitical spheres. This coincided with a renowned schismatic divide between two prominent ideological and political groups during the Abbasid Caliphate. The first of the two sects are Sunni Islam; the second of the two are Shiite Islam.

Schismatic dissent claimed to have begun over succession to the prophet Muhammad wrought civil unrest, war, and corruption which are just some of many ramifications. The Sunni believed that the prophet’s successor should have been Abu Bakr and Omar; the Shia believed that the prophet’s successor should have been Ali.

The relevance of the aforesaid where it concerns the ḥadīth literature, resides in both sects having been founded upon a unique set of ḥadīth doctrines, devised by a separate set of religious scholars.

The Hadith of Sunni Islam

Regarding Sunni Islam, it is founded upon several volumes of ḥadīth books devised by 6 Persian scholars.

The first of these six was Imam Muhammad Ismail Bukhari. According to the opinion of mainstream historians, Bukhari was born some 160 years after the death of prophet Muhammad. Bukhari was a resident of Bukhara located in present-day Uzbekistan. Bukhari is reported to have collected over 600,000 narrations, stories and tales that would eventually be narrowed down to a couple thousand, and these would later be attributed to prophet Muhammad.

The second of these six was Imam Abu Dawood. According to the opinion of mainstream historians, Dawood was born some 170 years after the death of prophet Muhammad. Dawood was a resident of Sistan located in present-day eastern Iran. Dawood is reported to have collected over 500,000 narrations, stories, and tales which that would eventually be narrowed down to a few thousand, and these would later be attributed to prophet Muhammad.

The third of these six was Imam Muslim Bin Hajjaj, according to the opinion of mainstream historians, Hajjaj was born some 160 years after the death of prophet Muhammad. Hajjaj was a resident of Nishapur located in present-day north-eastern Iran. Hajjaj is reported to have collected over 300,000 narrations, stories and tales that would eventually be narrowed down to a few thousand, and these would later be attributed to prophet Muhammad.

The fourth of these six was Imam Abu Isa Muhammad Tirmidhi, according to the opinion of mainstream historians, Tirmidhi was born some 180 years after the death of prophet Muhammad. Tirmidhi was a resident of Termez located in the southernmost region of present-day Uzbekistan near a border crossing with Afghanistan. It is reported that Tirmidhi collected over 300,000 narrations, stories and tales that would eventually be narrowed down to a few thousand, and these would later be attributed to prophet Muhammad.

The fifth of these six was Imam Abdullah Ibn Maja, according to the opinion of mainstream historians, Maja was born some 170 years after the death of prophet Muhammad. Maja was a resident of Qazvin located northwest of the capital of present-day Iran. It is reported that Maja collected over 400,000 narrations, stories and tales that eventually would be narrowed down to a few thousand, and these would later be attributed to prophet Muhammad.

The sixth and final of these six was Imam Ahmad Ibn Al-Nisai, according to the opinion of mainstream historians, Al-Nisai was born some 200 years after the death of prophet Muhammad. Nisai was a resident of Khorasan (dissolved in 2004) but which located in the northeast region of present-day Iran. It is reported that Nisai collected over 200,000 narrations, stories and tales that would eventually be narrowed down to a few thousand, and these would later be attributed to prophet Muhammad.

The Hadith of Shia Islam

Regarding the Shia sect, it is founded upon three main ḥadīth doctrines.

The first of the three was Muhammad Ibn Al-Kulayni, according to the opinion of mainstream historians, Al-Kulayni was born some 150 years after the death of prophet Muhammad. Kulayni was a resident of Tehran Province located in present-day Iran. Kulayni is the author of al-kafi, a Twelver Shia ḥadīth book consisting of over 15,000 narrations, stories and tales that are attributed to prophet Muhammad.

The second of the three was Muhammad Ibn Babuyah, according to the opinion of mainstream historians, Babuyah was born some 300 years after the death of prophet Muhammad. Babuyah was a resident of Qom province located southwest of the present-day capital of Iran. Babuyah is the author of Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih, a twelver Shia ḥadīth book consisting of over 9000 narrations, stories and tales that are attributed to prophet Muhammad.

The third of final of the three was Shaykh Tusi or Shaykh al-Taʾifah, according to the opinion of mainstream historians, al-Taʾifah was born some 500 years after the death of prophet Muhammad. Tusi was a resident of Tus located in the Khorasan province of present-day Iran. Tusi is the author of Tahdhib al-Ahkam and Al-Istibsar consisting of over 18,000 narrations, stories and tales that are attributed to prophet Muhammad.

Invention of the Hadith Literature

While we leave aside those two sects, regarding the ḥadīth literature, there were three primary stages of ḥadīth collection and canonization that took place after the revelation of the Qur’an. The first was completed by Mālik ibn Anas who died in 795 CE. The second was completed by Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal who died in 855 CE. The third was completed by al Bukhārī, the prominent Sunni scholar who died in 870 CE.

In and between the first and second aḥadīth collection and canonization, the Islamic priesthood claimed to have seen an increase in the circulation of false aḥadīth, to which the response was the commissioning of an official project entailing a devised a ‘methodology’ to tackle that alleged issue by tracing chains of narrations of any ḥadīth back to their acclaimed origins.

Having collected each individual aḥadīth, the original sum of Sunni aḥadīth reported to us is an approximate 6,000,000 (6 million).

Next came the process of assessing each individual narration, story, report, and tale vis-à-vis the developed ‘methodology’, devised for the purposes of determining both their veracity and validity.

This ‘methodology’ can be broken down into the following 3 components.

  1. Chain of transmission (Arabic: isnād اسناد)
  2. Main body of text of the ḥadīth (Arabic: mutn متن)
  3. Scholarly commentary, exposition, or explication.

The isnad or chain of transmission dealt with measuring the reliability of the transmitter of a report. This can be seen when reading a ḥadīth: “the companion of the prophet heard such and such, and he told so and so, who told so and so, who told so and so, who told so and so, who told so and so…”.

The mutn (متن) is the main body of text of the ḥadīth, which is subject to subjective opinions and theories of the Islamic scholars.

The conclusion of Sunni ḥadīth scholars tells us the initial starting figure of 6,000,000 aḥadīth was reduced to just under 20,000; the majority of which being deemed fabricated or untrustworthy.

So What Function Does the Hadith Literature Serve?

Around the year 910 CE (or 310AH), one of the first major exegesis was performed on the Qur’an. This was followed by a more renowned exegesis in the year 1396 CE (or 774AH). These were key Islamic religiopolitical developments that saw through the assimilation of ḥadīth doctrines with the Qur’an.

As of March 2021, what we have before us are a series of interpretations and translations of the Qur’an that have been produced by scholars who have imported ideas from an entire different literature, namely the ḥadīth literature; who on an ad hoc and piecemeal basis have applied those ideas to the Qur’an, namely key Qur’anic concepts and words, in order to achieve what in their eyes is the revival of this so-called long-lost tradition of their most beloved historical figure, the prophet Muhammad. This is a fact that all Traditionalist seldom reject the reality of.

Since this is the reality, the ḥadīth literature unequivocally stands as a major source of divine guidance for adherents to the organised religion of Islam ‒ a primary fundamental source of Islamic law and theology. Concisely, the ḥadīth literature is used as a benchmark whereby its tradition-based dogma, rite, and custom is assimilated with the Qur’an in a sort of concoction.

This is a formality for the “Islamic world”, and precipitates conducive soil for Traditionalist Islamic scholars to both reinterpret and reinvent the Qur’an and its doctrines in accordance with the assumed conclusions of the ḥadīth literature and other latterly invented theological doctrines.

Preliminary Criticisms of Hadith Literature

Critics of the ḥadīth literature date as far back as the very inception of the ḥadīth literature. This period predates the four traditional Sunni maḏhab’s (مذهب‎) or schools of thought (this is according to a letter from the Kharijite Abd Allah Ibn Ibad to Caliph Abd al-Malik in 695 CE.

The evidence of both earlier and continuing opposition to Hadith as a competing source of religious authority suggests that the opposition to which al-Shafi is responding in Kitab Jimaal-Ilm was much as he has portrayed it. Earlier evidence of opposition to the use of Hadith as a source of scriptural authority is found in a text that Muslim tradition holds to be a letter from the Kharijite Abd Allah Ibn Ibad to the Caliph Abd al-Malik in 76/695. Cook disagrees with the dating and authorship of the letter, arguing for unknown authorship sometime in the mid-second/eighth century. The uncertain dating and authorship of the letter does not minimize its import for the early debates over the authority of the Hadith, however. Whether it dates from the late first/seventh century or the mid-second/eight century, it predates al-Shafi; and although the criticism of the use of Hadith here is presented as part of an overall attack against Shiite beliefs and practices, rather than against their Sunni counterparts, those criticisms demonstrate a clear objection to the general use and authority of the Hadith.

Hadith As Scripture by Aisha Y. Musa (page 38-39)

Other historical records report to us that further groups such as the Muʿtazila; a rationalist school of Islamic theology of 8-9CE, were critical of the ḥadīth literature regarding its reliability. There even exists a ḥadīth, narrated by Muslim (al-Zuhd wa’l-Raqaa’iq, 5326) which alleges the prophet Muhammad to have said: “do not write anything from me; whoever has written anything from me other than the Qur’an, let him erase it and narrate from me, for there is nothing wrong with that.”

Irregardless of whether the prophet did or did not say this, the salient point of interest resides in the fact that outright rejection or general scrutiny and criticism of the ḥadīth literature regarding both its validity and authenticity, has been an ever-pressing issue amongst other things for the “Islamic world”.

Many argue that the ḥadīth literature and latterly invented Islamic theological doctrines are subversive, aiding a subtle yet fundamental usurpation of the Qur’an, and that these latterly invented doctrines, to the unawares of the majority, preside over the Qur’an as a more prominent authoritative source.

That is just one of many arguments.There are an array of premises that are set forth in order to prove this as fact. The first premise entails the hermeneutical principles and determinants that are employed by Traditionalist scholars to translate and interpret the Qur’anic text, are predominantly principles and determinants obtained from the assumed conclusions of the ḥadīth literature and latterly invented Islamic theological doctrines.

For example, the Arabic word ṣalāẗ (صلاة) which occurs in the Qur’an a total of 83 times, is translated by the Traditionalist to mean this specific, rigid, ritual prayer; a ritual prayer which he claims is to be performed 5 times per day, at specific times of the day, entailing specific movements, utterances, and facing towards a specific location. Yet no where in the Qur’an do any of the aforementioned details for this ritual exist. Furthermore, neither do the values ascribed by the Traditionalist to ṣalāẗ (صلاة) exist in the Qur’an. We know the latter to be true because the Traditionalist bobs and weaves with regard to ṣalāẗ (صلاة) in specific verses of it in the Qur’an. For instance, in verses where he is unable to sustain such claims made for it, he translates it to mean something other than this specific ritual prayer. The topic of ṣalāẗ (صلاة) is just one of many that have been covered by Sam Gerrans. Regarding ṣalāẗ (صلاة) and for more insight, please visit Article III located in the Appendix Section of The Qur’an: A Complete Revelation, authored by Sam Gerrans.

In actuality, it is from ḥadīth literature where such values and details originate. The Traditionalist admits this himself. He argues that no “Muslim” can correctly adhere to this sacred pillar of ritual prayer, without the ḥadīth literature and latterly invented Traditionalist Islamic theological doctrines. Subsequently, this demonstrates to us that by swallowing whole and not digesting the predetermined outcomes and assumed conclusions of ṣalāẗ (صلاة) as dictated by the Traditionalist Islamic priesthood, no such notions of ṣalāẗ (صلاة) are conceivably ascertainable to the reader who reads the Qur’an without viewing it through the prism of the organised religion of Islam and its latterly invented doctrines.

Perhaps the Traditionalist is correct or incorrect in regard to his claims made for ṣalāẗ (صلاة) ‒ it is not within my remit today to discuss ṣalāẗ (صلاة)— yet what we have demonstrated by this example, is one of almost an enumerable set of examples where the ḥadīth literature is the major source of divine guidance beside the Qur’an.

This preliminary observation continues. These two literatures, already with an almost opposing and irreconcilable nature, are functionally tantamount to the relationship between both the latterly invented Talmud and Tanakh for Rabbinical Judaism, or the latterly invented Canonical Bible and Gospel for Christendom. The Traditionalist believes, as does the orthodox Jew, that the revelation from God Almighty cannot be understood without their latterly invented and arguably usurping doctrines.

Consequently, a preponderance of adherents to both organised religions now render those who reject these latterly invented usurping doctrines as heretics and hell-bound, since in their view there is no feasible way in which a person may observe religious obligations, or uphold the tradition-based dogma, rites, and customs.

This perfectly encapsulates the Traditionalist Islamic notion of the Qur’an requiring the aḥadīth to explain and interpret it. Nonetheless it is true, you cannot observe religious obligations and uphold the tradition-based dogma, rites, and customs, except through the dictates and directives espoused by these extraneous doctrines. The reason for this is because the majority of dogma, rite, and custom of any particular organised religion originates from the latterly invented and extraneous doctrines.

In other words, organised religion, notably the Islamic religion, unless viewed through the prism of ḥadīth doctrines and Islamic theology, then suffice to say you are a heretic.

Lastly, here is how it works. If an ‘authentic’ ḥadīth reported the prophet to have taught his followers a ritual, if the necessary details for it or ritual itself does not exist in the Qur’an, the Traditionalist Islamic scholars retranslate and reinterpret passages of the Qur’an so as to accommodate this tenet; despite there being no valid nor substantiative evidence for it to exist in the Qur’an.

This is demonstrable for anybody visiting the footnotes of the typical ‘Traditionalist’ or ‘Orientalist’ translation of the Qur’an. Translator(s) will dictate to the reader their interpretation of any particular passage ‒ as if to speak for the Creator, Most High. Or translators persist in prompting the reader with historical context contained in the footnotes, which disjoints and fragments the readers psyche, diverting him away from the word of God and back onto those narrations, stories, and tales which provide a sort of antidote for the confusion and brain fog the aforesaid footnotes and commentary induce. Or translators will inconsistently retranslate and interpret a word in the Qur’an on a piecemeal basis where possible and claim particular values and meanings for the word, creating presenting the reader with this superficial impression that this rite or custom exists, when actually originating from the ḥadīth literature.

This is nothing that you cannot verify for yourself. Without the ḥadīth literature there would be no organised religion of Islam.

The question then arises, what if the ḥadīth literature and Islamic theological doctrines are both erroneous and extraneous from the perspective of the Qur’an, a phenomenon which the Traditionalist himself is known to ridicule Judaism and Christendom for? Such questions require answers, not highly emotive and dogmatic responses, or lazy and fallacious counterarguments.

Below I highlight are 7 primary criticisms of the ḥadīth literature.

Criticism 1

The ḥadīth literature is tradition-based dogma. This is an issue of subjectivity, becoming further impounded when factoring in blatant disparities and divergences between both the nature and constitution of the Qur’an opposed to the ḥadīth literature. Critics argue that the Qur’an is of a similar nature and constitution to the Torah, whereas the ḥadīth literature is of a similar nature and constitution to the Talmud and Canonical Bible. This raises doubt and suspicion upon both the origins and validity of the ḥadīth literature.

Criticism 2

This criticism concerns fallacious arguments made in favour of the ḥadīth by the Traditionalist Muslim. The issue here revolves around the Traditionalists inability to provide objective proof that the aḥadīth are of divine origin and valid sources of divine guidance, namely evidence obtained from the Qur’an.

Fallacies that the Traditionalist Muslims utilises are, but not limited to:

  1. Divine fallacy: a form of argument whereby a person argues that a thing is true because he cannot imagine it not to be so. For instance, the Traditionalist is unable to provide objective proof and evidence beyond the dictates of his religious overlords therefore claims it to be of divine origin out sheer desperation to avoid having to deal with the challenge.
  2. An appeal to authority: a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority is used as evidence to support an argument. For instance, the citation of Traditionalist Islamic scholars, who themselves are devoid of any objective proof and evidence beyond their very own dogmatic dictates.
  3. An appeal to popularity: a form of argument that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it to be true. For instance: “because many believe so, it is so”. As Voltaire put it: “anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
  4. An appeal to tradition: an argument in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it is correlated with some past or present tradition. For instance: “this is right because it has always done it this way.”

These are both valid and justified criticisms to which the relevant Traditionalist is unable to circumvent and refute. Subsequently subtracting viability and credibility from himself.

Criticism 3

This criticism concerns the ‘methodology’ devised to deal with the validity and authenticity of the aḥadīth. It revolves around the fact that this methodology exclusively dealt with anecdotes that were orally transmitted throughout several generations after the Qur’anic revelation or some 200-250 years.

Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes: evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony. The term is sometimes used in a legal context to describe certain kinds of testimony which are uncorroborated by objective, independent evidence such as notarized documentation, photographs, audio-visual recordings, etc.


Anecdotal evidence is collected in a non-scientific manner and supported by isolated, specific instances of an event. It relies on personal testimonies rather than on scientific evidence and is considered as the weakest type of evidence.

The criticism is that anecdotal evidence does not constitute as proof, subsequently rendering claims made in favour of the ḥadīth literature weak and deficient to deal with ascertaining their veracity.

Criticism 4

This criticism weighs in on the fact that the ḥadīth scholars were not elected messengers nor prophets by the Creator, Most High. The Qur’an declares the prophet to be the “seal of the prophets”, implying that there are to be no further revelations to succeed the Qur’an in latter generations to come.

The Qur’an is the oldest extant of literature in the classical Arabic tongue, predating the ḥadīth literature by an approximate 200-250 years. Because this is so it and is upheld as a source of law and divine guidance, it qualifies as a secondary revelation because the ḥadīth literature is attributed to the Creator, Most High vis-à-vis third-party prophet Muhammad.

The criticism is that the ḥadīth literature is both an extraneous and erroneous later invention by mankind since both it and the inventors of it are nowhere explicitly validated by the primary source being the Qur’an.

Moreover, the criticism continues with the truism that the ḥadīth scholars were fallible, mortal beings, prone to confabulation, outright fabrication, and mistakes.

Criticism 5

This criticism often accompanies the previous one. Critics of the ḥadīth literature take aim at the improbability of-and almost miraculous version of events propagated by the Traditionalist that concern the compilation and publication of the ḥadīth literature. They see it as a parallelism with the children’s game called Chinese whispers or otherwise known as telephone – person A tells person B who tells person C, and so on. Statistically speaking, the results show that the original message tends to become distorted with person Z receiving an entirely different message than was originally conveyed by person A.

There appears to be a crisis of credulity amongst Traditionalists here. They believe the ḥadīth scholars travelled via foot and horse, in and around all of Arabia to visit random men and women whom they had no prior trust relationship with, during periods of history which report vast cases of civil unrest, sectarianism, and tribalism. The men and women in question of course being several generations removed from the prophet Muhammad and were themselves unequivocally fallible, mortal beings capable of confabulation, outright fabrication, deceit, bribery, and falsehood.

Criticism 6

Many aḥadīth considered ‘authentic’ both conflict and contradict with the Qur’anic corpus; fact that should be well known to any serious student of the Qur’an.

The criticism is that these contradictions reflect the ineffectiveness and inadequacy of the ‘methodology’ employed to invent the ḥadīth literature.

Criticism 7

Next, we turn toward the subject of history, and the fact any information relayed to us concerning the Islamic religion and ḥadīth literature is documented and recorded via the hands of men ‒ history.

History is Written by Victors

Winston Churchill.

History is a set of lies agreed upon

Napoleon Bonaparte

The criticism is that history, or his-story, is just that; a story or narrative composed by men. For instance, I can prove to you that 1 plus 1 is equal to 2, but I cannot prove the accuracy or veracity of narrations, stories and tales which were passed down through several generations in Arabia, before falling into the hands of Persian scholars some 200-250 years after the Qur’anic revelation.

So when dealing with history or anecdotes, we are not dealing with facts and truth. To accept wholesale any historical report or anecdote dictated to you as true, is a dangerous precedent to set for not only ourselves, but for our fellow man, especially the young who look to us as role models and who follow our example.

History today is rewritten daily basis vis-à-vis media outlets, educational establishments, and institutions, to name a few. Dissent is quashed, information is controlled, which places further scrutiny upon both the validity and authenticity of the ḥadīth literature as it is not exempt from this reoccurring phenomenon. Nothing is new under the sun as it is said in the Book of Ecclesiastes; history repeats itself.

Final Thoughts on Initial Criticisms

If you do not think for yourself, somebody else most certainly will think for you, subordinating you to ideas that will influence and guide your very thought, deed, and belief. Actions are a direct function of what any man believes, and belief is the DNA of the soul. There is no thing any man does which does not stem from his belief system. It does not matter what anyone may “think” or “feel” about the ḥadīth literature, theories and feelings are irrelevant. What matters is what you can prove, and in this case, it is about what you can prove is valid, authentic, and true from the perspective of the Creator, Most High’s word.

I do not claim that all aḥadīth are false, nor do I claim that all aḥadīth are true. I am simply stating the fact that there is no possible way to verify what is and what is not a total and utter distortion or outright fabrication, irrespective of what the so-called specialists would have you believe.

The ḥadīth doctrines were invented some 200-250 years after Qur’anic revelation; the Biblical doctrines of Christendom were invented centuries after the death of prophet ‘Īsā son of Maryam, and they too have drastically evolved over the millennia. The same holds true for the Mishnah and Gemara (Talmud), these doctrines were written down a millennia after prophet Moses. Has the Traditionalist forgotten himself while puffed up on his self-righteous activities by targeting the Christian and Jew for upholding latterly invented doctrines?


Up until this point we have broken down what the ḥadīth literature is, the function it serves, and some preliminary criticisms. Now it is time to place the ḥadīth literature under scrutiny to establish whether it is or not a valid and authentic source of divine guidance from the perspective of Qur’an.

The Qur’an is the body of literature that I have selected to be the sole arbiter in today’s subject of study. It will be the sole source from which I will be deriving literature-based truths that will in turn deliver us its verdict upon the origins of the Islamic religion and ḥadīth literature.

Why the Qur’an alone? Because it predates the ḥadīth literature by an approximate 200-250 years; it is what we shall call the primary source. Primary sources are to be distinguished from secondary sources because secondary sources cite, comment, and build upon primary sources. Consequently, any secondary source attributed to the primary source must be validated and authenticated by the primary source, because if not then any later invention by mankind attributed to this primary source, from the perspective of the primary source, is axiomatically no more than an extraneous attempt to subvert and corrupt the primary source.

The burden of proof is upon the Traditionalist Muslim; he has advanced many arguments, but only arguments sourced from the Qur’an are valid insofar as the Qur’an itself is concerned. It is he who must prove that his secondary sources are both validated and authenticated from the Qur’an. Therefore the central objectives will be focused on the 10 primary arguments that all Traditionalist Muslims advance for the ḥadīth literature.

If the Traditionalist cannot prove from the Qur’an that the ḥadīth literature and latterly invented theological and religious doctrines are valid sources of law and guidance, then the verdict is that both the ḥadīth literature and Islamic religion is an extraneous and erroneous later invention by mankind.

Let’s begin.

Section 1: Obey God and Obey the Messenger

In the first section I begin by examining an argument advanced by the Traditionalist Muslim where he argues that an imperative which occurs 8 times in the Qur’an alludes to teachings, sayings, and practices, alleged to have been imparted by the prophet.

That imperative is: ‘obey God and obey the messenger’.

The two propositions are:

  1. By ‘obey the messenger’, he means follow those alleged teachings, sayings, and practices ascribed to the prophet via the ḥadīth literature.
  2. By ‘obey God’ he means accept the Qur’an.

Proposition 1 and 2 are only valid if he can meet the following criteria:

• He can demonstrate from the Qur’an (and not latterly invented sources that are themselves under investigation) the values which he claims for these imperatives exist – if he cannot do so;
• We then must look to the Qur’an to define the imperatives for us.

Proposition 1 & 2

Occurrences of the imperative can be found in verses 3:32, 4:13, 4:59, 5:92, 24:54, 24:56, 33:71, 64:12. Nowhere is there any direct, explicit identification of the values the Traditionalist claims for it.

Logic and reason do not permit us to assume the conclusion, and to avoid circular reasoning, we cannot resort to the citation of unqualified and dubious sources which are themselves are under investigation.

Consequently, the Traditionalist is unable to meet the above criteria required to validate the premise for his proposition. Proposition 1 finds no supporting evidence whatsoever, therefore we now must look to the Qur’an to establish the Qur’anic value for these imperatives.

Qur’anic Definitions of the Imperatives

In the Qur’an, the exact same imperative occurs in relation to Īsā, Noah, and Hūd.

“And confirming what is before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was forbidden to you. I have come to you with a proof from your Lord, so cognise the God and obey me.”

‘Īsā: 3:50

“Indeed, I am a trustworthy messenger to you, so cognise God and obey me. And I ask of you no payment for this, my reward is from the Lord of All Mankind so cognise the God and obey me.”

Nūh: 26:107-110

When their brother Hūd said to them: “will you not cognise? I am a trustworthy messenger to you so cognise the God and obey me.

Hūd: 26:124-126

The imperatives concerning Īsā, Noah, Hūd, and Muhammad are of the same sum and substance. The tense is different, but that point is self-explanatory. All 4 messengers commanded their respective people to obey them, and nowhere is there any mention of teachings, sayings, and practices.

With the Traditionalist unable to demonstrate his acclaimed values for, ‘obey the messenger’, we can hold his feet to the fire and do more damage by using his own illogical supposition against him.

If the imperative ‘obey the messenger’ did in fact mean what the Traditionalist claims for it, when we reapply the exact same value to those imperatives concerning ‘Īsā, Noah, and Hūd; the implication is that those messengers commanded their respective peoples to accept narrations, stories and tales attributed to them. This is a self-defeating supposition to which the Traditionalist will concede to. The only way in which the Traditionalist may attempt to circumvent this corner which he’s been backed into, is by committing the fallacy of cherry picking to hold special reservations for the imperative, ‘obey the messenger’, and claim a different value for the imperatives concerning ‘Īsā, Noah, and Hūd. If it is a fallacy it cannot be true nor from the Creator, Most High, therefore we can safely ignore any such response.

The Traditionalist will concede here, and rightly so because we know the organised religion of Christendom to be founded upon latterly invented doctrines attributed to ‘Īsā, which are located today in the Canonical Bible.

The Traditionalist therefore has no choice but to admit defeat and accept that the imperative, ‘obey the messenger’, finds no purchase from the perspective of the Qur’an.

So what does ‘obey God and obey the messenger’ mean? It literally just that; to obey the messenger who delivered them a message from God, irregardless of whether ‘Īsā, Noah, Hūd, or Muhammad are concerned.

To explicate this a little further, the messenger of the Qur’an was sent to deliver a message to the children of Israel. Some of the “Jews” and Nazarenes’, obeyed God as it were; they were privy to the Divine Law and Guidance. Others were averse to the Divine Law and Guidance they had with them. Henceforth it was told to them collectively to obey God; God whom brought forth for them a messenger relaying to them a final Message. The messenger was elected by God to deliver a Message; thus it was told to them, ‘obey the messenger’.

This is not a complicated matter, unless of course we ignorantly marginalise the Qur’an and adhere to these latterly invented usurping doctrines.

To Conclude

The values for the imperatives are substantiated by the Qur’an itself and all instances of it covered in this section. Proposition 2 has been established as having been erected from the following valid premises and supporting evidence:

  1. It is impossible to obey a man nobody alive in this realm of existence (i.e. dead).
  2. The imperative was directed toward the contemporaries of prophet Muhammad, not those who came after.
  3. In all instances the imperative, the name of the messenger, nor the Arabic word for prophet was used; a key indicator which accentuates the two terms ‘messenger’ and ‘message’.
  4. 3 other messengers are identified by name as to have commanded their people to obey them.
  5. In account to point 4, the value for those imperatives is to obey the message of the messenger.
  6. There is no evidence from the Qur’an to suggest that the imperative, ‘obey God and obey the messenger’, necessarily infers two separate revelations, but an imperative directed to the children of Israel, “Jews”, and Nazarenes’ (as explained above).

Section 2: Whatever the Messenger Gives You, Take It

In this section I examine an argument put forth by the Traditionalist regarding a portion of verse 59:7, which he claims alludes to the teachings, sayings, and practices of the prophet Muhammad.

…and what the messenger gives you take it, and from what he forbids you refrain…

The Traditionalist Quotes: 59:7

What the God restored upon His messenger from the people of the towns belongs to the God and his messenger, and to relatives, and the orphans, and the needy, and the traveller that it might become not a distribution between the rich among you. And whatever the messenger gives you take it, and from what he forbids you refrain from it. And cognise God, God is severe in retribution.

Verse in Its Entirety: 59:7

When reading this verse in its entirety, the context regards war booty. Nowhere within this entire narrative is there any shred of evidence that alludes to the teachings, sayings, or practices of the prophet Muhammad. The Traditionalist here, knowingly or unknowingly, commits the fallacy of quoting out of context.

To Conclude

This argument has successfully been refuted and is no longer valid.

Section 3: Sunnah Of Prophet Muhammad

Sunnah is the body of traditional social and legal custom and practice of the Islamic community, based on the verbally transmitted record of the teachings, deeds and sayings, silent permissions of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, as well as various reports about Muhammad’s companions. The Quran and the sunnah make up the two primary sources of Islamic theology and law. The sunnah is also defined as “a path, a way, a manner of life”; “all the traditions and practices” of the Islamic prophet that “have become models to be followed” by Muslims.

Wikipedia 2020 Entry on Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad

The Arabic word sunnah derives from the trilateral root word: Sīn Nūn Nūn. And this word occurs a total of 16 times in the Qur’an, appearing in the form of a noun. The Arabic word sunnah means way (of doing or living); practice; method.

Verses of the Qur’an where the Arabic word sunnah occurs are: 3:137, 4:26, 8:38, 15:13, 17:77:1, 17:77:10, 18:55, 33:38, 33:62:1, 33:62:10, 35:43:19, 35:43:24, 40:85, 48:23:1, 48:21:10.

The Traditionalist assumes that a sunnah of prophet Muhmmad exists. He resorts to the citation of unqualified, bias sources with dubious credentials which themselves are under investigation, yet to be proven as legitimate and valid from the perspective of the Qur’an. This is what we call, circular reasoning. The Traditionalist cannot claim that the sunnah of prophet Muhammad exists, because it is not mentioned at all within the Qur’an.

To Conclude

Nowhere within the Qur’an does the sunnah of prophet Muhammad exist, the only the sunnah that is mentioned in the Qur’an is the sunnah of God.

This argument has successfully been refuted and is no longer valid.

Section 4: If Hadith Is Hearsay, How Can We Trust the Qur’an If Both the Qur’an and Hadith Were Compiled and Transmitted in The Exact Same Manner?

In this section I tackle a loaded question used by the Traditionalist, a question which you will soon see backfires on him.

The first part of the question implies that the Qur’an was recorded, compiled, and transmitted in a similar fashion to the ḥadīth doctrines.

The second part of the question is contingent upon the whether his initial assumption is true.

According to the Qur’an it was not exclusively preserved through oral memorisation.

No, indeed! It is a reminder so whoso wills might remember it in honoured writings: exalted, purified by the hands of scribes: noble, virtuous.


The Qur’an was written down during the lifetime of the prophet, thus the Qur’an was not written nor compiled in the exact same manner as the ḥadīth literature.

According to the Qur’an, it is guarded (i.e. from corruption).

We sent down the remembrance and indeed we are its guardians/custodians.


Custodian means somebody that is responsible for taking care of or protecting something. This command does extend to the ḥadīth literature.

According to the Qur’an, vanity cannot reach it from before it or from after it.

Those who reject the remembrance when it comes to them (and it is a mighty decree) vanity cannot reach it from before it or from after it. A successive revelation from One Wise, Praiseworthy.


In these verses it is stated that vanity cannot come at the Qur’an from before it or from after it. Unless the ḥadīth doctrines are proven as both legitimate and authentic sources of divine guidance by the Qur’an, the ḥadīth doctrines will most certainly fall into that category of vanity – if the shoe fits then wear it.

According to the Qur’an, it declares itself as a body of literature.


By the glorious Qur’an …


This fact dispels any hearsay and speculation that the Qur’an was only written down and compiled after the death of the prophet.

To Conclude

The Qur’an was not recorded, compiled, and transmitted similarly to the ḥadīth literature.

This argument has successfully been refuted and is no longer valid.

Section 5: The Qur’an Is Incomplete & In Need of The Hadith Literature to Explain & Complete It?

The Traditionalist claims the Qur’an is incomplete or in need of ḥadīth literature and religious scholars to explain it; the Qur’an refutes such notions.

A law sent down to you, so do not let there be any distress in your breasts from it that you warn with it, and a reminder for the believers. Follow what has been revealed to you from your Lord and do not follow besides him any allies, little do you remember.


In this verse, the directive I would like to focus on is: ‘…follow what has been revealed to you from your Lord and do not follow besides him any allies.

What has been revealed to us from the Creator, Most High? It is the Qur’an, Torah, Tanakh, Gospel. To follow God is to follow these revelations. By way of contrast, to follow anything or anyone else whose information does not owe origin to the Divine Law and System would be to follow besides the Creator, Most High; an act of idolatry.

The ḥadīth literature are doctrines which are, until are proven valid and authentic sources of divine guidance, no more than extraneous and erroneous inventions by mankind. To follow them is to associate partners with the God; those partners being the inventors and proponents of the ḥadīth literature. The same principle applied to the Talmud, Canonical Bible, or any other doctrine and ism for that matter, since they do not originate from the Truth itself.

To explicate this further, it is vital to understand the very nature and constitution of revelation to understand the domain and sphere of the Divine Law and System.

The nature and constitution of God’s law essentially comprises morality, ethics and a philosophy or theology. Natural science is the study of God’s natural laws, or what many disingenuously refer to as the laws of nature.

What this understanding does is equip us with tools to discern between information and their respective sources for the purposes of rectifying what following God entails, and also what following besides him entails.

We have already established what constitutes following God and following partners besides Him. Subsequently, due to the ḥadīth literature and work by religious scholars having the aforesaid disposition and nature, it is declared falsehood and idolatrous by these established principles. Whereas if the ḥadīth literature were a cookbook there would be no issue in following it.

The Qur’an cannot be incomplete nor need of explaining according to these principles.

For more proof, please see following verses of the Qur’an.

Say: “is there among your partners that guides to the truth?” Say: “the God guides to the truth. Does then He who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed or he who does not guide not except that he be guided? Then what ails you? How judge you?”


Or have they partners who have ordained for them of the system that which the God has not given permission? And had it not been for a decisive word, certainly it would have been judged between them. And indeed: for them is a painful punishment.


As we can see, beyond the smoke and mirrors, sophistry, and doublespeak; Traditionalist Islamic scholars and overlords whether past or present invent guidance. So according to both the aforesaid verses and principles, those who endeavour to invent and advocate such, are to receive a painful punishment, and we are not to follow them.

The sole arbiter and judge in Divine Law is the Creator, Most High. Please see the following verses.

Then is it other than the God I seek as a judge while He is the One who has revealed down to you the law explained in detail? And those to whom We gave the law know that it is revealed from your Lord in truth. So do not be among the ones who doubt. And fulfilled is the word of your Lord in truth and justice. No one can change His words is none to change his words, and He is the Hearer, the Knower.


I translate the Arabic word kitāb as law, kutāb as decree and al-kitāb as the law for similar reasons as does Sam Gerrans in article 11 of the appendix section of his book The Qur’an: A Complete Revelation (although in Sam Gerrans’ final edition of his work, I expect him to shift positions courtesy of his work on the muqaṭṭaʿāt).

In verse 114, it is stated that the God is the sole judge and arbiter; the sole judge and arbiter in the Divine Law and System. This renders judgements and discernments made by the Traditionalist on Divine Law erroneous since his judgements and discernments involve extraneous sources that do not originate from the Truth. Furthermore to that, the God is the Law-Giver. A law that is not founded upon the transcendent law of the God qualifies as falsehood.

In verse 115, it is stated that none can change the words of the God. As the saying goes, what is in the dark shall come to light; the truth from the God as delivered to prophet Muhammad will always be discoverable.

Alif, lam, ra, a decree the proofs whereof are fortified then set out and detailed from One Wise, Aware.


A successive revelation from the Almighty, the Merciful: a decree the proofs whereof are set out and detailed, an Arabic recitation for people who know, a bearer of glad tidings and a warner but most of them turn away so they hear not.


In these verses, the proofs/signs of the law (of God) are stated to be set out and detailed; leaving leeway for anyone to assume the Qur’an is incomplete and in need of explaining.

To Conclude

This argument has successfully been refuted, and is no longer valid. The ḥadīth doctrines are not legitimate or valid sources of law or theology from the perspective of the Qur’an.

What the Traditionalist has done is assume his conclusion. His pre-existing allegiance to doctrines invented some 200-250 years after the Qur’an, has caused him to adopt false notions and ideas. By following the precepts and beliefs inculcated into him by his religious masters, he interweaves such ideas and notions with the Qur’an, causing him to develop a set of extraneously derived preconceived ideas and notions which forms part of this lens or prism through which he interprets the Qur’anic text. When he arrives at the Qur’anic text and finds any particular rite or custom absent therein, he turns to the ḥadīth literature, Islamic translations and interpretations of the Qur’an, that in actuality are the fountainhead of these rites and customs. This is why the Qur’an is subjected to retranslation and reinterpretation, namely where it concerns key Qur’anic words and passages, and this is doe to accommodate that dogma, rite, and custom which have no origin in the Truth.

Whatever the case maybe, the law of the Qur’an is set out and detailed, not incomplete and in dire need of explaining; the Creator, Most High is the sole judge and arbiter in the Divine Law and System; according to scripture we are not to follow anything that does not originate in the Truth.

Section 6: If Prophet Muhammad Were to Have Invented Any Hadith

In this section I will be looking at the Qur’an to establish what it says would happen if prophet Muhammad if he were to have imparted any teachings, sayings, or practices beside the Qur’an.

And they would seduce thee away from that wherewith we have instructed thee, that thou invent about us other than it and then would they take thee as a friend. And were it not that we had made thee firm thou wouldst have inclined towards them a little, then would we make thee taste double in life and double in death. Then hadst thou found no helper against us. And they would draw thee out of the land, to turn thee out therefrom. And then would they not stay after thee save a short while.


A successive revelation from the Lord of All Mankind (and had he ascribed some sayings to us. We would have taken him with our right hand. Then we would have cut from him the aorta. And not one among you could have prevented it).


Verses 17:73-75 and 69:43-48 treat as axiomatic, that prophet Muhammad were to have suffered a painful death, eternal damnation in hell and a punishment in the life of this world if he had invented and attributed any ‘aḥadīth‘ to the One and Absolute. The ḥadīth doctrines contain alleged teachings, sayings, and practices of prophet Muhammad; this discrepancy is impossible to circumvent.

To Conclude

The ḥadīth literature and other Islamic doctrines are false, erroneous and extraneous inventions. The Islamic religion(s) are founded upon these doctrines. These doctrines serve as the fundamental underpinnings of the framework to the Islamic religion. The fair minded reader will know thereby that the Islamic religion(s) is rejected by the Qur’an, being rendered a later invented by mankind.

Section 7: In Which Hadith After It Will They Believe?

Have they not reflected? There is no madness in their companion, he is only a clear warner. Have they not considered the dominion of the heavens and earth and what things God has created and that it may be that their term has drawn nigh? And in what narration (hadith) after this will they believe?


Those are the proofs of God, we recite them to thee aright. Then in what narration (hadith) after God and His proofs will they believe?


Then in what narration after it will you believe?


In these verses the rhetorical question is posed: in which narration (ḥadīth) after it (i.e. the Qur’an) will they believe?

In verse 39:23 it states that the Qur’an is ‘the best of narrations‘. With the Qur’an being the best of narrations, the question really is: ‘in what narration after the Qur’an will they believe?’ 

These 3 verses do not bear an exclusive correlation to the ḥadīth literature, but it is true that the ḥadīth literature is itself a narration.

To Conclude

Conclusively, for the duration of this article, the ḥadīth literature has consistently proven to be rejected by the Qur’an itself.

Section 8: Muhammad Judged by God’s Revelation

We have sent down to thee the law aright that thou judge between men by what God has shown thee. And be thou not an advocate for the treacherous.


And we sent down to thee the law alright confirming what is within its scope of the law and as a control over it. So judge thou between them by what God sent down, and follow not their vain desires away from what has come to thee of the truth. For each among you we appointed an ordinance and procedure and had God willed he could have made you one community, but that he might try you in what he gave you. (So vie in good deeds, unto God will you return all together, and he will judge between you in that wherein you differ.) And that thou judge between them by what God has sent down. And follow thou not their vain desires and beware thou of them lest they seduce thee away from some of what God has sent down to thee. And if they turn away: Know thou that God but intends to afflict them for some of their transgressions. And many among men are wantonly perfidious. Is it the judgment of ignorance they seek? And who is better than God in judgement for people who would be certain?


I recall to you verse 6:114 that i had cited in section 5 where it declared that God is the sole judge and arbiter. Despite this pertinent fact, the entire organised religion of Islam is built upon a hierarchal structure of religio-political figures who are delegated responsibility for instituting, managing, and governing people via a law and system that is not in strict accordance with the Divine Law and System of the Creator, Most High.

In verses 4:105 and 5:48-49, it is stated that both prophet Muhammad and those who heeded warning (the believers in the Qur’an) judged according to what God sent down in the form of revelation. This fact further reinforces the imperative to take God as our sole judge and arbiter – Muhammad did not judge according to his own volition, whim or desire as is depicted in the Traditionalist Islamic doctrines. In the modern day, Islamic leaders invent policies, laws, judgements, rules, guidelines, or fatwas. Most of which originate in these false and latterly invented doctrines. These are idolatrous according to the clear-cut principles established thus far in today’s article.

Section 9: Prophet Muhammad’s Duty

O messenger: convey thou what was sent down to thee from thy lord. And if thou do it not then thou wilt not have conveyed his message. And God will protect thee from men. God guides not the people who spurn guidance while claiming virtue.


And obey God and the messenger and beware. But if you turn away: Know that but upon our messenger is the clear communication.


And when thou bringest them a proof they say: Oh that thou hadst but chosen one! Say thou: I but follow what I am instructed of my Lord. This is a means of insight from your Lord and a guidance and mercy for a people who believe.


And I say not to you: I have the treasuries of God. Nor: I have knowledge of the unseen. Nor do I say I am an angel. Nor say I to those whom your eyes disdain: God will not give them good. (God knows best what is in their souls.) then I should be of the wrongdoers.


Say thou: I am no new thing among the messengers, and I know not what will be done with me or with you. I follow only what I am instructed, and I am only a clear warner.


We know best what they say: And thou art not a tyrant over them: Remind thou him with the Qur’an him who fears my warnings.


The prophet judged according to the Qur’an; warned using the Qur’an; and that he did not speak from his own accord or volition.

The ḥadīth literature contains alleged teachings, sayings and practices attributed to the prophet; they could not be from the prophet due to this discrepancy.

This fact refutes and rejects every narration, story and tale that the Islamic religion(s) uphold, rendering them later inventions by mankind.

Furthermore, these verses state that the prophet was no new thing among the messengers; his duty was only communication of the Qur’an; he did not know what would be done with himself or anybody else (contrary to aḥadīth which claim otherwise).

Section 10: Division & Distinction Amongst the Prophets

Say: We believe in God and what is sent down to us and what was sent down to Ibrāhim and Ismā’īl, and Ya’qūb and the grandsons and what was given to Mūsā and ‘Īsā and the prophets from their lord. And we make no distinction between any of them, and to him we are submitted.


It is not for any mortal that God should give him the law and judgment and prophethood then he should say to men: Be servants to me rather than God. But: Be men of God in that you do teach the law and in that you do study. And nor would he command you to take the angels and the prophets as lords. Would he command you to denial after you are submitted?


Say thou: We believe in God and what is sent down upon us and what was sent down upon Ibrāhim and Ismā’īl and Ishāq, and Ya’qūb and the grandsons and what was given Mūsā and ‘Īsā and the prophets from their lord. We make no division between any of them and to him we are submitted.


Muhammad is not the father of any one of your men but the messenger of God and the seal of the prophets. And God knows all things.


To hit the nail on the coffin, the Traditionalist Muslim is eager to attack and condemn Christians for their worship of ‘Īsā, but in his almost intoxicated rush of emotion, fails to acknowledge his very own worship of a man called Muhammad (a man which the Qur’an barely speaks about), seeking to emulate ideals and superlatives set out vis-à-vis the ḥadīth literature and other Islamic doctrines.

If it walks, looks, feels, and sounds like a duck, chances are that it is. There are numerous ways in which a person may idolise and worship a person, and both the Muslim’s and Christians do it, elevating men above other prophets and messengers.

To Conclude

The Qur’an rejects the organised religion of Islam, rendering it a later invention by mankind. Islamic doctrines have no credibility, validity, or basis in truth, therefore can safely be rejected.

And the messenger will say: O my lord: my people took this Qur’an as a thing abandoned. And thus we appoint to every prophet an enemy from among the evildoers. But God suffices as guide and helper.


And among men is he who purchases the diversion of narration (ḥadīth) that he might lead away from the path of God without knowledge and make mockery of it. These have a humiliating punishment.


And thus we appoint for every prophet an enemy: shaytāns of men and jinn instructing one another in the decoration of speech by deception. (And had thy Lord willed they would not do it so leave thou them and what they fabricate). And that the hearts of those who believe not in the hereafter might incline thereto and be pleased therewith. And that they might gain what they will gain.


I hope this article has been insightful, I hope it was worth your time and has benefitted you.

For more content you can head to the menu contact us by selecting the option on menu.

Like, share and subscribe.

Peace and may God bless you,

Alex Matityahu

Rating: 5 out of 5.