On January 28, 2022, Dr. Javad Hashmi interviewed Oxford Scholar Dr. Joshua Little on his YouTube channel, The Impactful Scholar. In the interview, Dr. Little presented 21 reasons historians are skeptical of Hadith. In the interview, Dr. Little mentioned that all these points will be in his upcoming book, but below are the 21 points that were made with some of my own personal commentaries.
#1. Prior Probability (42 min)
It is a general consensus among historians that people of all faith have been known to falsely attribute works. This has been the case for historical material from pagans, Jews, and Christians. Therefore, one should not assume that the material from Islam should be any different. Historians must assume that people are dishonest and then try to prove their honesty. Since historically, the situations were the same for other religious groups, it would be naive to think that Muslims are different in this regard. For perspective, the people of the faith at that time were not a single monolith. There were numerous factions, tribes, theological understandings, competing theories, skirmishes, battles, and even civil wars. All this creates an environment where individuals will have strong incentives to fabricate sources to strengthen their stance. Additionally, at the time, there was no rigorous scholarship and institutions for collecting and transmitting material or a consistent approach for validating its authenticity. All this opens the opportunity for much sloppy work to enter the Hadith corpus.
# 2. Lateness of the Sources (47 Min)
Most Hadith literature compiled into collections first occurred in the 8th century. Some of the earliest writing that historians are aware of comes from Ibn Ishaq (Kitab al-Maghazi), who died around the year 767 CE, nearly 135 years after the death of the prophet. But historians don’t even have his direct material, but instead only references to his material in the 9th century by his student and their students. The earliest written compilation of Hadith was the Muwatta by Imam Malik which was written ~150 years after the death of Muhammad. So the source material is quite distant from the actual source, and time causes errors, distortions, fabrications, contamination, and interpolation.
# 3. Full of Contradictions (56 min)
The Hadith corpus is full of contradictions. As Dr. Hashmi stated, for every Hadith, there is an equivalently valid opposite Hadith. Even the simplest facts are inconsistent. For example, how old was the prophet when he died, and how many years did he live in Mecca and Medina? Reports from just Bukhari and Muslim state that he was 60, 63, or 65. Some of these conflicting ages are also attributed to the same individual. This also carries to the ages of Abu Bakr and Uthman, which state that they all died when they were 63 years old, which was not the case. Other contradictions are regarding which was the first or last revelations of the Quran. If the Hadith that are deemed “authentic (sahih)” fails on these most basic facts, how reliable should they be considered for all the multitude of other topics they cover.
At the 1hr and 1min mark of the interview, Dr. Javad Hashmi says that he has done extensive research on the exegetical Hadith that attempts to contextualize the verses of the Quran ( Asbab al-Nuzul) and has concluded that these Hadith are all pure speculation.
“It is not uncommon for Ibn ‘Abbas hadiths to present three or even four contradictory interpretations of the same verse.”
– Herbert Berg
#4. Propagandistic Reports (1HR 3Min)
Many of the Hadith are political propaganda of its time. This is on par with trying to understand history by listening by means of political ad campaigns. Each claim tries to justify why one person or group was closer and more beloved to the prophet than another. Some examples are that ‘Aisha was the best believer among the women, that she was Muhammad’s favorite wife, that Ali was to Muhammad, as Aaron was to Moses, that the Caliph must be from the Quraish, that it is justified to kill certain groups for their belief.
“I am not suggesting that hadith critics like al-Bukhari or Ibn Hanbal were forerunners of the Historical Critical Method. As generations of Western scholars have demonstrated, even the revered Sahihayn are replete with anachronistic reports that grew out of political, legal, and sectarian feuds of the first two centuries of Islam.”
– Jonathan Brown (How We Know Early Hadith Critics Did Matn Criticism and Why It’s So Hard to Find)
#5. Historical Anachronisms (1HR 7Min)
Prophecies specified in Hadith can be lumped into two groupings, either precise or ambiguous. It just happens that the prophecies that were very precise in nature discuss events that occurred before the 9th century, just as Hadith criticism became more prevalent and methods for detecting clear fabrications became established. So just as the populace became more suspicious and scrutinizing of the Hadith, the prophetic Hadith also became more open to interpretation and less precise. This indicates that, most likely, the very detailed prophecies in the Hadith literature were created post-facto from the event it foretold. Otherwise, it doesn’t make sense why precise prophecies after the time of Hadith criticism would all of a sudden just stop.
#6. Supernatural Elements (1HR 26MIN)
Many Hadith make supernatural claims attributed to the prophet. Some examples are the following:
He split the moon in half
From his finger, a fountain of water flowed for over a thousand people to perform ablution
His food would glorify God when he ate
Trees walked and shaded him while he relieved himself
A tree wept loudly because he stopped using it during his sermons
Trees and stones talked to the prophet
That he was able to stop the sun
He was able to command the rain
He was able to pray for the manifestation of food and water for the masses
The historical reason to be doubtful of these claims is because they are supernatural, but as a believer who does believe in miracles, a simple reason to doubt these claims is because it contradicts what is clearly stated in the Quran, that Muhammad did not receive any physical miracles. Muhammad’s miracle was the Quran alone.
10:20 They say, “How come no miracle came down to him from his Lord?” Say, “The future belongs to GOD; so wait, and I am waiting along with you.”
13:7 Those who disbelieved say, “ If only a miracle could come down to him from his Lord (we will then believe).” You are simply a warner—every community receives a guiding teacher.
13:27 Those who disbelieve would say, “ If only a miracle could come down to him from his Lord (we would believe).” Say, “GOD sends astray whomever He wills, and guides to Him only those who obey.”
29:50 They said, “ If only miracles could come down to him from his Lord!” Say, “All miracles come only from GOD; I am no more than a manifest warner.”
29:51 Is it not enough of a miracle* that we sent down to you this book, being recited to them? This is indeed a mercy and a reminder for people who believe.
17:59 What stopped us from sending the miracles is that the previous generations have rejected them. For example, we showed Thamûd the camel, a profound (miracle), but they transgressed against it. We sent the miracles only to instill reverence.
Additionally, for someone who accepts the Quran as the word of God, if a miracle is specified in the Quran, it should be reason enough to believe it but to believe a miracle that is not specified in the Quran would require much more proof. For instance, if Muhammad split the moon in half or caused the sun to momentarily cease, then we would expect there to be additional accounts regarding this in the historical record outside of Hadith, but no such account has ever been produced. Secondly, if miracles occurred as frequently as specified in the Hadith literature, then one would expect there to have been many more testimonies of the event instead of the limited number of testimonies that exists in the Hadith corpus.
#7. Reports of Mass Fabrication (1HR 28MIN)
It is well established that there was a fabrication crisis of epic proportions, predominately during the Ummayad rule. It was such a large problem that to counter the claim of the unreliability of Hadith the entire field of Hadith Sciences had to be formed. As a personal note, any field that inserts “science” into its name is typically far from an actual science.
“Verily, you can barely find anyone [before me] scrutinizing these Hadith [whose investigation was comparable to] my investigation, nor [anyone] whose search [for Hadith was comparable to] my search. I have examined it [i.e., Hadith in general] and discovered that not [even] a third thereof is sound.”
“I do not know of anyone who scrutinized Hadith [whose investigation was] comparable to my investigation. I discovered that three quarters thereof are false.”
– Su’bah b. al-Hajjaj (d. 777 CE)
“A heretic (rajul min ‘ahl al-‘aha’) who had repented of his [false] doctrines spoke to me – he said: ‘Examine carefully from whom you have taken these Hadith, for verily, whenever we reasoned our way to a doctrine, we would turn it into a hadith.’”
– Abd Allah b. Lahi’ah (d. 789-791)
“I have not seen the pious (ma ra’aytu al-salihin), in any regard (fi-say’), [being] more dishonest than they [are] in regards to Hadith (‘akdab min-hum fi al-hadit).”
– Yahya b. Sa’id al-Qattan (d. 813)
It is even documented that Bukhari himself went through 600,000 Hadith, of which he considered only less than 1% as reliable enough to be deemed authentic (sahih). The introduction of Sahih Muslim mentions large compilations of Hadith deemed unreliable and how Hadith should not be accepted by certain prolific narrators because they were found unreliable. So since Hadith are swimming in a sea of fabrications, this makes the entire corpus suspect.
#8. Late Isnāds (1HR 33Min)
The requirements for utilizing a chain of transmitters (isnad) as a determining factor to the credibility of Hadith didn’t arise until during the Second Fitna as a reaction to the rebellion of al-Mukhtar (685-687 CE) in Kufa. This practice did not become commonplace till the mid-8th century. By this time, there were many competing interests, much contention, in-fighting, and overall less unity and more arguing factions looking for support for their understandings. This pressure for authenticity pushed a lot of transmitters to create isnad’s post-facto to increase the perceived validity of their narration.
Abū Ja’far Muhammad bin us-Sabbāh narrated to us, Ismā’īl bin Zakariyyā’ narrated to us, on authority of Āsim il-Ahwal, on authority of Ibn Sīrīn that he said: ‘They would not ask about the chains of narration, and when the Fitnah occurred, they said: ‘Name for us your men’. So Ahl us-Sunnah would be regarded, and their Ḥadīth were then taken, and Ahl ul-Bi’dah would be regarded, and their Ḥadīth were not taken’.
Sahih Muslim Introduction 27
https://sunnah.com/muslim/introduction/26
“They did not use to ask for the isnad, but when the fitnah occurred, they said:’Name for us your tradents (al-rijal),’ then [whoever] was considered al-sunnah, their hadith would be taken, and [whoever] was considered ahl al-bida’ (the innovators), their hadith would not be taken.”
– Ibn Sirin (d. 729 CE)
“Studies have shown that the custom of asking one’s teachers about their informants arose at the end of the 1st century Hijra, and then slowly spread in the course of the 2nd century H. In Mecca, asking about an isnad didn’t begin until the start of the 2nd century, in Iraq even later.”
– Motzki, Reconstruction, 73
#9. The Early Usage of the Word “Sunna” Differs from the Classical Usage (1Hr 44Min)
The Quran should be the de facto standard for the religion, so one would expect that there would be consistency in how words are used in the Quran and the Hadith, yet many core terminology, as understood in the Hadith corpus, is different than how it is used in the Quran. This means that this terminology was a creation after the revelation of the Quran. Therefore, if we see these terms used in the Hadith corpus in these new ways, there is a strong indication that the narration should be dated to a later time period.
Some simple examples are the words: Sunnah ( سُنَّة), Hadith ( حَدِيث), Athar ( أَثَر), Ayat ( آيَة), and Khalifa ( خَلِيفَة).
For instance, in the framework of Hadith, Sunnah means the way of life and legal precedent of the prophet Muhammad. While in the Quran, it is in reference to God’s system or precedents, and usually in reference specifically to the system of God, not a human being.
33:62 This is GOD’s eternal system, and you will find that GOD’s system is unchangeable.
33:38 The prophet is not committing an error by doing anything that is made lawful by GOD. Such is GOD’s system (sunnata) since the early generations. GOD’s command is a sacred duty.
35:43 They resorted to arrogance on earth, and evil scheming, and the evil schemes only backfire on those who scheme them. Should they then expect anything but the fate of those who did the same things in the past? You will find that GOD’s system is never changeable; you will find that GOD’s system is immutable.
40:85 Their belief then could not help them in the least, once they saw our retribution. Such is GOD’s system that has been established to deal with His creatures; the disbelievers are always doomed.
The term Hadith ( حَدِيث) is used in its general sense in the Quran as narrations, but this term is meant to refer specifically to the narrations of the prophet. Such that during the revelation of the Quran, the people were not calling the corpus of what the prophet said Hadith ( حَدِيث), which shows that the Hadith that used this terminology in this way most likely would be a later construct of the time.
Athar ( أَثَر), which in the Hadith corpus means traditions, in the Quran, typically is in reference to footprints, impressions, or traces.
Ayat ( آيَة), which is predominately used to reference signs or miracles in the Quran, is used in reference to verses of the Quran.
Khalifa ( خَلِيفَة) in the Quran is used as a successor or inheritor, but in the Hadith literature is used as a ruler of the Muslim umma rather than the word Imam ( إِمَامًا).
#10. Rapid Numerical Growth in Hadith (1HR 52MIN)
For the first 150 years after the death of Muhammad, Hadith were deliberately not openly written, let alone compiled in books. In a previous article, we discussed how this practice was frowned upon by the prophet and the companions but later became part of the religious literature in the 9th century.
Abu Sa’id Khudri reported that Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said: Do not write anything about me. And whoever wrote about me other than the Quran then he should erase it. And narrate about me, for there is no harm in it and he who attributed any falsehood to me; and Hammam said: I think he also said:” deliberately” – he should in fact find his abode in the Hell-Fire.
Additionally, there are many Hadith that state that some of the supposed most cited narrators of Hadith actually only had a very small number of Hadith directly attributed to them.
For example, Ibn Umar is considered the second most prolific narrator of Hadith after Abu Hurayra, yet in the following Hadith, we see that this seems contradictory.
It was narrated that ‘Abdullah bin Abu Safar said: “I heard Ash-Sha’bi saying: ‘ I sat with Ibn ‘Umar for a year and I did not hear him narrate anything from the Messenger of Allah ( ﷺ)”
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ نُمَيْرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو النَّضْرِ، عَنْ شُعْبَةَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ أَبِي السَّفَرِ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ الشَّعْبِيَّ، يَقُولُ جَالَسْتُ ابْنَ عُمَرَ سَنَةً فَمَا سَمِعْتُهُ يُحَدِّثُ، عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ شَيْئًا .
Sunan Ibn Majah 26
https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:26
“I never heard Jabir (meaning ibn Zayd) say’the messenger of God said,’ yet the young men around here are saying’the Messenger of God said’ twenty times an hour; and I never knew of Jabir having narrated from the messenger of God more than fifteen or sixteen hadith, or thereabouts.”
– Fasawi, ed. al-‘Umari, Ma’rifah, II, p. 15
Historian Patricia Crone states the following regarding Ibn Abbass, who was another major source attributed to a great number of Hadith.
Bukhari [d.870] is said to have examined a total of 600,000 traditions attributed to the Prophet; he preserved some 7000 (including repetitions), or in other words dismissed some 593,000 as inauthentic. If Ibn Hanbal [d.855] examined a similar number of traditions, he must have rejected about 570,000, his collection containing some 30,000 (again including repetitions). Of Ibn Hanbal’s traditions 1,710 (including repetitions) are transmitted by the companion Ibn Abbas [d.687]. Yet less than fifty years earlier one scholar had estimated that Ibn Abbas had only heard nine traditions from the Prophet, while another thought that the correct figure might be ten. If Ibn Abbas had heard ten traditions from the Prophet in the years around 800, but over a thousand by about 850 CE, how many had he heard in 700 or 632? Even if we accept that ten of Ibn Abbas’ traditions are authentic, how do we identify them in the pool of 1,710?
This trend shows that as time went on, more and more Hadith were being created. If the Hadith were coming from legitimate earlier sources, we would expect that this would be reversed, with more Hadith being cited on earlier dates and less Hadith being cited on later dates.
#11. Absence of Hadith in Early Sources (1HR 57Min)
“Hadith are largely or even completely absent in the earliest Islamic epistles and other such compositions, which have been variously dated from the beginning to the middle of the 8th Century CE (on the basis of their archaic or otherwise non-anachronistic content); and even when Hadith begin to be cited in such works (from around the middle of the 8th Century CE onward), Prophetical Hadith in particular are largely or even completely absent.”
– Crone and Hinds
#12. Retrojecting or Raising of Hadith (1HR 59MIN)
The Hadith corpus is riddled with the identical Hadith narrated to a follower ( tabi’un), companion ( ṣaḥābah), and prophet. So we see a progression of a Hadith being a general narration among later generations to slowly being repurposed to associate the narration to the prophet until it eventually becomes labeled as a prophetic Hadith. As sated in the interview, “All of this is consistent with a general process of progressive retroaction over the course of the 2nd and 3rd Islamic Centuries, as religious authority increasingly shifted from later to earlier figures.” This is consistent in that as the criticism and scrutiny of Hadith increased, the propagators of Hadith began to fill in the chain to take the narration back to the prophet.
Some individuals claim that the earlier propagators of a given narration didn’t initially feel the need to cite Prophetic versions and precedents. But this is a tough pill to swallow because it is hard to accept the idea that thousands — tens of thousands — of reports were recorded for no reason, unmentioned, but in a parallel secret universe were also the Prophetic Hadiths that were not attributed until a later date? As if they were hidden in a basement somewhere and later on discovered, “Oh, this Hadith that we were attributing to a person who lived generations after the prophet was actually from the prophet the whole time.” Not only that but this was discovered right when Hadith criticism became more prevalent. These Hadith aren’t being cited in earlier sources, they aren’t being used in ritual, then suddenly, they start appearing en masse. In short, it doesn’t make sense.
It is not like they couldn’t have had access to the prophetic Hadith, had they existed, as the people who narrated this Hadith for compilations were the same people all along. Did they just forget when they first narrated the Hadith? This also shows that historically it was not about citing the prophet because if that held as much merit, they would have cited him from the start. This reinforces a number of the previous points mentioned that not until a later date in history did individuals start to put more weight on the word of the prophet and retroactively tweaked the Hadiths to accommodate this new innovation.
#13. Peculiar Patterns Inconsistent with Genuine History (2Hr 8Min)