If Hadith had been the cornerstone of understanding Islam from the beginning, why did none of the early Caliphs—Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, or Ali—make any effort to systematically write down and preserve them? This absence of early documentation remains a fundamental challenge to Sunni claims that Hadith serves as a binding source of law in Islam. Not a single manuscript of Hadith exists from the first century Hijri. While there are scattered reports of individuals making personal notes, there is no historical record of any organized effort by the rulers or scholars to compile and preserve Hadith until a century after the Prophet’s death.
The first formal attempt to document Hadith occurred under Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik, the tenth Umayyad caliph (r. 724–743 CE). He tasked the scholar Zuhri (d. 742 CE/124 AH) with writing Hadith while he was educating some of the young Umayyad princes. Notably, Zuhri himself originally opposed this practice and is quoted as saying:
“We were averse to writing down knowledge until these rulers forced us to [accept] it, and therefore we thought it best not to forbid it to any Muslim.” 1
This raises an essential question: If Hadith were indispensable to the practice of Islam, why did it take over one hundred years before any formal effort to have them written down? Why did it take political intervention to compel scholars to begin writing it down? The fact that even a leading hadith scholar resisted this effort suggests that Hadith was not originally viewed as necessary for religious preservation.
The Sunni Justification for Oral Transmission
Sunni scholars argue that writing Hadith was unnecessary because oral transmission was a superior method for preserving the Prophet’s sayings and actions. They claim that 7th-century Arabs possessed an exceptionally strong oral tradition, where memorization was the primary means of safeguarding knowledge. Furthermore, they assert that Hadith scholars were rigorously trained in accurate memorization and that the system of isnad (chain of transmission) ensured the reliability of narrators. According to this reasoning, oral preservation was not only effective but superior to written documentation, as it allowed for the retention of meaning rather than rigid adherence to exact wording.
Is Oral Transmission Superior to Writing?
This argument is fundamentally flawed and contradicts the Quran itself. The longest verse in the Quran, 2:282, explicitly commands believers to write down financial transactions in precise detail. It instructs them to employ a scribe and emphasizes that they should not tire of writing the details. Additionally, it mandates the presence of two male witnesses (or one man and two women) to ensure accuracy and prevent disputes. If God places such a strong emphasis on the necessity of written contracts for financial matters, how can it be argued that oral transmission alone suffices for Hadith, which Sunni Muslims claim contains divine revelation?
2:282 O you who believe, when you transact a loan for any period, you shall write it down. An impartial scribe shall do the writing. No scribe shall refuse to perform this service, according to GOD’s teachings. He shall write, while the debtor dictates the terms. He shall observe GOD his Lord and never cheat. If the debtor is mentally incapable, or helpless, or cannot dictate, his guardian shall dictate equitably. Two men shall serve as witnesses; if not two men, then a man and two women whose testimony is acceptable to all. Thus, if one woman becomes biased, the other will remind her. It is the obligation of the witnesses to testify when called upon to do so. Do not tire of writing the details, no matter how long, including the time of repayment. This is equitable in the sight of GOD, assures better witnessing, and eliminates any doubts you may have. Business transactions that you execute on the spot, need not be recorded, but have them witnessed. No scribe or witness shall be harmed on account of his services. If you harm them, it would be wickedness on your part. You shall observe GOD, and GOD will teach you. GOD is Omniscient.
This contradiction exposes an attempt at revisionist history. Sunni scholars argue that oral tradition was superior because they claim that early Arabs were largely illiterate and relied on memory. However, the Quran itself refutes this notion. The existence of scribes during the Prophet’s time and the Quran’s own insistence on written documentation demonstrate that writing was both available and preferred for preserving critical information. The claim that Arabs valued oral transmission over written records is historically and scripturally false.
Perhaps the most decisive evidence against the necessity of Hadith lies in the actions of the early Caliphs. From the moment of the Prophet’s death, the state took extensive measures to collect, write, and safeguard the Quran in both oral and written form. If Hadith were considered equally or even partially essential, why did they not do the same for it? Their complete lack of effort to compile Hadith—despite the administrative power to do so—strongly suggests that they did not regard it as necessary for the religion. The fact that Hadith documentation only became a priority under political rulers over a century later raises serious doubts about its original role in Islamic practice.
The Issue with the Isnad System as a Guarantee of Authenticity
One of the primary arguments Sunni Muslims present in defense of Hadith is that the isnad (chain of transmission) system ensures the authenticity of the reports. However, historical evidence demonstrates that the use of isnad as a standard for verifying Hadith did not emerge until long after the Prophet’s death (632 CE/11 AH). In fact, it was not widely employed until after the Second Fitna (680–692 CE / 60–73 AH) as a reaction to the rebellion of al-Mukhtar (685–687 CE) in Kufa. Even then, it took until the mid-8th century for the practice to become the norm. Before this period, transmitters would pass on Hadith without formal isnads, and there was no established system for evaluating authenticity.
A clear example of this delay is found in Imam Malik’s Muwatta (d. 796 CE / 179 AH), one of the earliest Hadith compilations. It contains approximately 527 prophetic Hadith, yet many of these narrations lack a full isnad. This indicates that even well into the second century Hijri, the practice of including isnad was not yet fully standardized.
By the time the use of isnad became widespread, the Islamic world was deeply fragmented by political rivalries, sectarian disputes, and doctrinal conflicts. Competing factions sought religious legitimacy, and Hadith became a tool in these ideological battles. As a result, many transmitters fabricated chains of narration retroactively to enhance the credibility of their preferred teachings. This phenomenon is well-documented in the historical record.
The introduction to Sahih Muslim (Hadith 27) contains a statement attributed to Ibn Sirin (d. 729 CE / 110 AH) that highlights this shift:
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
This admission is significant. It acknowledges that before the Second Fitna, there was no concern about verifying the chain of transmission. Only after political and theological divisions emerged did scholars begin scrutinizing isnads. Even then, the selection process was influenced by sectarian biases, rather than objective historical accuracy.
Modern research confirms that the practice of inquiring about isnads did not develop immediately after the Prophet’s time but evolved gradually over the second century Hijri. According to Hadith scholar Harald Motzki, in his work Reconstruction of a Source, academic studies have demonstrated that:
“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
This further disproves the claim that the isnad system was a mechanism for ensuring authenticity from the very beginning. Instead, it was a later invention, shaped by historical and political circumstances.
To summarize, the Sunni claim that isnad guarantees the authenticity of Hadith is deeply problematic for several reasons. First, adding an isnad to a narration only emerged as a response to political and sectarian conflicts, suggesting that its primary function was not solely to preserve truth, but also to enforce ideological control. Even when isnad became more widespread, many early Hadith collections still lacked full chains of transmission, demonstrating that even respected scholars did not initially view them as essential. Furthermore, the method was highly vulnerable to fabrication and manipulation, as chains of narration were often constructed after the fact to lend credibility to particular teachings. Given these realities, the assertion that isnad serves as an infallible mechanism for verifying Hadith collapses under scrutiny. Rather than being a robust safeguard of authenticity, isnad developed too late and under too much ideological influence to be considered a reliable standard for religious truth.
If Oral Transmission is Superior, Why Abandon It?
Furthermore, the Sunni claim that oral transmission was the superior method for preserving Hadith is fundamentally flawed, as their own actions contradict this assertion. If oral transmission were truly the most effective and reliable means of preservation, then why did they ultimately abandon it in favor of written compilations?
If Sunnis genuinely believed that oral transmission was superior to writing, they should have continued to transmit Hadith exclusively through memorization, with scholars reciting Hadith along with their isnad traced directly back to the Prophet through an unbroken chain of living transmitters. Instead, what we see today is a complete reliance on written Hadith collections, such as Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawood, and the other books of the Kitab al-Sittah (The Six Canonical Books). Rather than referencing a memorized chain of transmission, Sunni scholars today simply refer to Hadith numbers in these books, treating them as the final authority. This shift proves that even Sunni scholars implicitly recognize that written documentation is more reliable than oral transmission.
Furthermore, if isnad were truly as robust as they claim, then scholars today should still be able to produce an unbroken chain of living narrators connecting any Hadith back to Muhammad. Yet, this is no longer the case. Instead of verifying narrations through a direct oral lineage, scholars cite books written centuries after the Prophet’s death. This means that, in practice, Sunnis have replaced the very system they claim was superior with written documentation, the very thing they initially resisted.
This contradiction raises a critical question: If writing Hadith was unnecessary in the early period because oral transmission was so reliable, why did later scholars codify, canonize, and rely entirely on written collections? The reality is that oral transmission alone was never sufficient, and the insistence on its superiority in the early period was an ideological stance, not a historical or practical one. The eventual shift to relying on written Hadith collections exposes the dishonesty of this claim and demonstrates that writing was always the more effective and accurate method of preservation.
Ultimately, the Sunni position on this matter is self-defeating. Their historical argument for the superiority of oral transmission collapses under the weight of their own reliance on written Hadith books. If oral transmission was truly superior, it should have remained the primary method of preserving Hadith. The fact that it did not, proves that the claim was never about historical accuracy but rather an attempt to justify why Hadith were not recorded for over a hundred years after the Prophet’s death—a fact that undermines the very foundation of their reliance on Hadith as a source of religious law.
Modern Hadith Studies, Continued Debates and New Approaches p. 9 & ʿAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, ed. Ḥabīb al-Raḥmān al-Aʿẓamī, 12 vols (Beirut: al- Maktab al-Islāmī, 1403/1983), 11:258. ↩︎