What are the rational problems facing the Sunnah rejectors?

There are several rational problems confronting the Sunnah rejectors, which reveal the absurdity of this doctrine and its incompatibility with the axioms of the Qurʾān and the rational, conclusive principles understood from Islam.

The first problem: how is it that the Prophet (PBUH) and his Companions prayed facing Bayt al-Maqdis (Jerusalem) for sixteen or seventeen months? Bayt al-Maqdis was the first qiblah toward which the Prophet (PBUH) and the early Muslims prayed, yet no Qurʾānic verse contains a command to face it in prayer. The Qurʾān only mentions the change of the qiblah from Bayt al-Maqdis to the Kaʿbah. This raises a decisive question for everyone who rejects the Sunnah, ignores the Prophetic traditions, or doubts the legislative authority of Ḥadīth: on what basis did the Prophet (PBUH) and his Companions pray toward Bayt al-Maqdis? There is no valid answer except one: they did so on the basis of a Prophetic command. No other explanation is tenable. All the Companions prayed toward Bayt al-Maqdis in obedience to the command of the Prophet (PBUH) and not by virtue of any explicit Qurʾānic command. The Qurʾān addresses only the transition from the former qiblah, Jerusalem, to the new qiblah, the Kaʿbah. It further records that the foolish among the idolaters, hypocrites, and Jews objected to this change. Allāh says: {The foolish among the people will ask, “Why did they turn away from the direction of prayer they used to face?”} (Qurʾān 2:142). Allāh explains the wisdom behind the change of the qiblah: {We assigned your former direction of prayer only to distinguish those who would remain faithful to the Messenger from those who would lose faith} (Qurʾān 2:143). Allāh thus states: Initially, We legislated for you, O Muḥammad, that the qiblah in prayer be Bayt al-Maqdis, and thereafter We changed it to the Kaʿbah so as to distinguish those who obey and follow you—and thus face whichever direction you face—from those who turn on their heels, that is, those who revert from their religion.¹ This verse serves as a stern warning from Allāh to those who reject the Sunnah and do not recognize it as divine revelation. In other words, anyone who rejects the Sunnah and denies the validity of the Prophetic traditions as an independent source of legislation has turned away from Islam. Furthermore, when the Prophet (PBUH) turned toward the Kaʿbah in prayer, the people asked, ‘Messenger of Allāh (PBUH), what will happen to those who died while praying facing Jerusalem?’ In response, Allāh, the Exalted, revealed: {Allāh would never discount your faith} (Qurʾān 2:143).² This verse affirms that the reward of Muslims’ prayers toward Bayt al-Maqdis, before the change of the qiblah, would not be lost with Allāh. Notably, the verse states that “Allāh would never discount your faith,” rather than “Allāh would never discount your prayers.” This is because following the Prophet (PBUH) by facing the first qiblah, Jerusalem, is itself an act of faith.

The second problem: One of the many Qurʾānic verses that clearly affirms the misguided nature of the doctrine of the Sunnah rejectors: {whatever palm trees you ˹believers˺ cut down or left standing intact, it was ˹all˺ by Allāh’s Will} (Qurʾān 59:5). This verse was revealed concerning the battle of Banū an-Naḍīr. It refers to the fact that the Muslims cut down many of the date trees in the oases surrounding the settlement of Banū an-Naḍīr to facilitate the siege, while leaving those trees that did not obstruct the siege intact. In fact, it was the Prophet (PBUH) who ordered the date trees of Banū an-Naḍīr to be cut down during the siege. The hypocrites of al-Madīnah and the Jews of Banū Qurayẓah and Banū an-Naḍīr objected, claiming that the Prophet (PBUH) used to outlaw mischief on the earth, yet he commanded the cutting of these trees. Subsequently, some Companions who participated in cutting down the trees doubted whether they were guilty of spreading mischief. In response, Allāh revealed this verse, clarifying that cutting down the trees or leaving them uncut was done by His Will to disgrace the enemy. In other words, Allāh reassured the Muslims that both actions—cutting some of the trees to facilitate the siege and leaving the others intact—were fully in accordance with Divine Law. This is particularly significant because neither action was explicitly commanded by Allāh in the Qurʾān. The clear lesson from this verse is that the Prophetic command during this battle was itself a divine command: whatever the Prophet (PBUH) commanded was undoubtedly the command of Allāh.

The third problem: The Prophet (PBUH) issued numerous rulings on matters not explicitly mentioned in the Qurʾān. This demonstrates that his rulings are binding on Muslims and that those who oppose them will incur punishment. Accordingly, the Qurʾān establishes in a clear and unequivocal manner the Prophet (PBUH)’s absolute authority as a lawgiver and commands believers to obey his decisions wholeheartedly and without hesitation: {But no! By your Lord, they will never be ˹true˺ believers until they accept you ˹O Prophet˺ as the judge in their disputes, and find no resistance within themselves against your decision and submit wholeheartedly} (Qurʾān 4:65). The decision of the Prophet (PBUH) referred to in this verse concerns a case for which no legal ruling is stated in the Qurʾān. As mentioned earlier, the verse was revealed when a man from the ʾAnṣār had a dispute with az-Zubayr in the presence of the Prophet (PBUH) over a water channel used by both for irrigation. The Prophet (PBUH) ruled in az-Zubayr’s favor, saying, “O az-Zubayr, irrigate your garden first, and then let the water flow to your neighbor.” The man from the ʾAnṣār became angry and asked, “O Allāh’s Messenger, is it because he is your cousin?” In response, Allāh revealed that no one attains true faith until they adhere to the judgment of the Prophet (PBUH) and submit fully to it without objection, dispute, or hesitation. The point is that the Prophet (PBUH) issued judgments not explicitly stated in the Qurʾān. Therefore, to be a true believer, one must willingly and fully accept Prophetic traditionsand be content with all Prophetic commands. Accordingly, the rejection of the Sunnah is a deviant stance that has no basis in the Qurʾān or in Islam as a whole.

The fourth problem: The Qurʾān contains an absolute command for Muslims to follow the example of the Prophet (PBUH), without any exceptions, specifications, or restrictions. It enjoins complete, absolute, unconditional, and unrestricted obedience to the Prophet (PBUH) and adherence to his Sunnah. Allāh warns against disobeying him (PBUH). If obedience to Allāh alone were sufficient, the command to follow the Prophet (PBUH) would have been limited to what is stated in the Qurʾān only. The Sunnah rejectors hold that the Qurʾān is the sole revelation from Allāh and the only source of Islamic law. Thus, they argue that obedience to the Prophet (PBUH) should be confined to what is in the Qurʾān. However, the Qurʾān enjoins the exact opposite. Muslims who claim not to follow the Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH), who deny the binding authority of Prophetic traditions, and who assert that they follow only the Qurʾān are addressed directly by the Qurʾān itself, which commands: “Obey Allāh and the Messenger.” This command, repeated in numerous Qurʾānic verses, is among the most important and decisive directives in the Qurʾān. Allāh says:

{Indeed, in the Messenger of Allāh you have an excellent example for whoever has hope in Allāh and the Last Day} (Qurʾān 33:21).

{Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “If you ˹sincerely˺ love Allāh, then follow me; Allāh will love you} (Qurʾān 3:31).

{Whoever obeys the Messenger has truly obeyed Allāh} (Qurʾān 4:80).

This Qurʾānic command to obey the Messenger (PBUH) establishes the legitimacy of following Sunnah as a binding source of religious authority, for obedience to Allāh is realized through adherence to the Qurʾān, whereas obedience to the Messenger (PBUH) is realized through adherence to his traditions and practices. Indeed, the Qurʾān explicitly equates obedience to the Messenger (PBUH) with obedience to Allāh. Had obedience to the Messenger (PBUH) been identical to obedience to the Qurʾān alone, Allāh would have sufficed by saying, “Obey Allāh.” The deliberate inclusion of the command “and obey the Messenger” necessarily indicates that the Messenger (PBUH) conveyed religious teachings and rulings that are binding independently of the Qurʾān. Put differently, if every aspect of Islam were fully detailed in the Qurʾān, the command to obey the Messenger (PBUH) would be redundant and without purpose.

The fifth problem: It is known with certainty that Allāh did not lay down every detail of the Sharīʿah in the Qurʾān. Rather, the Qurʾān sets forth the foundational principles of legislation, leaving their detailed explanation and practical application to the Messenger (PBUH). Yet Allāh says: {and We have sent down to you ˹O Prophet˺ the Reminder, so that you may explain to people what has been revealed for them} (Qurʾān 16:44). For example, the Qurʾān does not include the pillars of prayer, its obligatory and supererogatory parts, its times, the number of rakʿahs, or the manner of performing it. Likewise, it does not include the formula for the aḏān (Islamic call to prayer), the zakāt niṣābs (sing. niṣāb: the minimum amount of wealth at which a Muslim must pay alms), or the detailed rituals of pilgrimage. In fact, there are thousands of rulings concerning beliefs, acts of worship, transactions, and morals that are not elaborated in the Book of Allāh. This is precisely why the Sunnah is both necessary and indispensable for understanding and implementing the Qurʾānic teachings and rulings: {and We have sent down to you ˹O Prophet˺ the Reminder, so that you may explain to people what has been revealed for them} (Qurʾān 16:44). Allāh revealed the Reminder (the Qurʾān) to the Prophet (PBUH) and entrusted him with explaining in detail what is stated in brief in it and clarifying what is ambiguous in it. Accordingly, the Sunnah constitutes the living interpretation and practical application of the Qurʾān by the Prophet (PBUH). In sum, the Qurʾān and the Sunnah are inseparable.

The sixth problem: Throughout its history, the Muslim nation has been in unanimous agreement that the Sunnah is a form of divine revelation. The Prophet (PBUH) addressed people regarding the Sunnah as revelation. The Companions likewise unanimously affirmed its revelatory nature, and this understanding remained the consistent view of the Muslim nation across generations. Indeed, the Prophet (PBUH) explicitly commanded Muslims to convey his Sunnah, saying: “May Allāh brighten the face of a person who hears a ḥadīth (Prophetic tradition) from us and memorizes it until he conveys it to others, for perhaps the one to whom it is conveyed may remember it better than the one who [first] heard it.”³ Why did the Prophet (PBUH) command people to convey his Sunnah, and why did he say, “perhaps the one to whom it is conveyed may remember it better than the one who [first] heard it”? Is this not clear evidence that the Sunnah contains jurisprudence to be understood, derived, and applied—something that is possible only if the Sunnah itself is a ḥujjah, that is, a binding and authoritative source of Islamic law and jurisprudence? This, in turn, raises further questions: why did the Prophet (PBUH) speak distinctly and clearly, in a manner that ensured full comprehension by his audience? ʿĀʾishah [may Allāh be pleased with her] narrated: “The speech of the Messenger of Allāh (PBUH) was clear and distinct such that everyone who heard it could understand it,”⁴ and in another narration she said, “The Messenger of Allāh (PBUH) did not speak rapidly in succession as you do.”⁵ Why did he (PBUH) speak deliberately and at a measured pace, rather than uttering words in rapid succession, to the extent that one could count his words if desired? Why did he (PBUH) repeat important statements three times during his speech? Anas ibn Mālik [may Allāh be pleased with him] narrated: “Whenever the Prophet (PBUH) spoke a sentence, he would repeat it three times until it was [clearly] understood.”⁶ Why did he (PBUH) employ such diverse teaching methods to clarify the meanings of his words and firmly instill them in the minds of the Companions? He (PBUH) used illustrative drawings and environmental aids (such as drawing lines in the sand with sticks), visual demonstrations (such as showing silk and gold when teaching that they are forbidden for the males of the Muslim nation), gestures (including pointing with the fore and middle fingers, holding his tongue, interlacing or joining his fingers, pointing to his chest three times, and indicating with his finger), as well as figures of speech—especially parables—along with questions and answers, repetition, and storytelling, all in order to ensure understanding, retention, and correct application of his teachings.⁷ Without a doubt, the Prophet (PBUH) employed all these educational methods to enable the Companions to understand his Ḥadīth (Prophetic traditions)accurately and to memorize it precisely, word for word. This raises an unavoidable question: if Ḥadīth carried no legislative authority, why was the Prophet (PBUH) so meticulous in clarifying the sharʿī (Islamic legal) meanings embedded in his statements through such deliberate teaching methods? Moreover, why did the Companions commit his Ḥadīth to memory during his lifetime? This is illustrated by the statement of Anas ibn Mālik [may Allāh be pleased with him], who said: “We used to sit with the Prophet (PBUH) and hear Ḥadīth from him, and when we left, we would study it among ourselves in order to memorize it.”⁸ Abū Hurayrah devoted a third of each night to memorizing the Ḥadīth of the Prophet (PBUH). Why did the Companions show such exceptional diligence and commitment in memorizing Ḥadīth? Furthermore, the Prophet (PBUH) issued a severe warning against attributing false statements to him. This clearly indicates that Ḥadīth was treated as a binding and authoritative source, the distortion of which constitutes a grave offense, for it conveyed religious guidance upon which belief and practice depend. The Prophet (PBUH) said: “Whoever deliberately lies about me, let him take his seat in the Hellfire”?⁹ This warning was transmitted from the Prophet (PBUH) by around two hundred Companions, making it a mutawātir (mass-transmitted) ḥadīth (Prophetic tradition). Why, then, did the Prophet (PBUH) warn his nation so sternly against fabricating ḥadīths and falsely attributing them to him? If Ḥadīth were not an authoritative source of Islamic law, why would he (PBUH) warn the Companions so sternly against fabricating ḥadīths and falsely attributing them to him? More importantly, why do many ḥadīths address matters of the Unseen? The very presence of matters of the Unseen in Ḥadīth is decisive evidence that it is a form of revelation, for the Prophet (PBUH) had no access to the Unseen except through divine revelation.

The seventh problem: How is it that the ummah (Muslim nation), throughout its history, has been unanimous in recognizing the self-evident truth that the Sunnah is the second source of legislation, which is why the earliest generations of Muslims were so diligent in accurately transmitting everything that came from the lips of the Prophet (PBUH) down to the very letter? How is it that the ummah has always unanimously affirmed the authoritativeness of the Sunnah and the obligation to act upon it, without a single Companion, Successor, or Successor of the Successors ever dissenting from this consensus? How is it that the Companions—the best of all Muslim generations in piety and mindfulness of Allāh, praised by Him in His Book, the most insightful in understanding His religion, and the direct inheritors of the Prophet (PBUH)’s knowledge of the Sharīʿah—unanimously agreed that the Sunnah is the second primary source of legislation? This raises a pressing question: what distinguishes the Sunnah rejectors of today, who refuse to heed anything from the Prophet (PBUH) and claim, “The Qurʾān is sufficient; there is no need for the Sunnah,” from the hypocrites of the Prophet (PBUH)’s era? Indeed, today’s Qurʾānists share much in common with those hypocrites, for the latter too refused to listen to the Prophet (PBUH): {O Messenger! Do not grieve for those who race to disbelieve)—those who say, “We believe” with their tongues, but their hearts are in disbelief. Nor those among the Jews who eagerly listen to lies, attentive to those who are too arrogant to come to you} (Qurʾān 5:41). The hypocrites were too arrogant to approach the Prophet (PBUH), as they did not believe they needed him. This raises the question: what distinguishes the rejectors of the Sunnah from the hypocrites who refused to approach the Prophet (PBUH)? The hypocrites would profess faith with their tongues, yet their hearts were devoid of true faith. They also feigned obedience to Allāh and His Messenger, but Allāh makes clear that their obedience was merely verbal, unaccompanied by action, for whenever they swore an oath, they were liars: {they swear by Allāh their most solemn oaths that if you ˹O Prophet˺ were to command them, they would certainly march forth ˹in Allāh’s cause˺. Say, “˹You˺ do not ˹have to˺ swear; your obedience is well known!”} (Qurʾān 24:53). However, in fairness to those hypocrites, it must be acknowledged that they displayed more reverence for the Sunnah than the so-called Qurʾānists of today. They would solemnly swear by Allāh that if the Prophet (PBUH) commanded them, they would unquestionably go forth and fight in the cause of Allah. In stark contrast, modern Qurʾānists—who can rightly be called hypocrites in this sense—reject the Ḥadīth of the Prophet (PBUH), regarding it as neither authoritative nor binding upon them. Undoubtedly, rejecting Ḥadīth constitutes a clear rejection of the Prophet (PBUH) himself. Ironically, the hypocrites of the past showed greater respect for the Prophet (PBUH) and his Sunnah than Qurʾānists do today. When the aforementioned verse (Qurʾān 24:53) is studied attentively, one cannot fail to perceive the self-evident truth: it is the duty of every Muslim to follow the Sunnah, for how can one acknowledge the Prophet as a Messenger of Allāh and yet reject his statements, practices, and teachings?

The eighth problem: The greatest danger in rejecting the Sunnah is that it opens the door to deviation in religion. Suppose someone were to claim that prayer consists merely of connecting with Allāh by looking at the sky, without rukūʿ (bowing) or sujūd (prostration), and that there are no obligatory prayers such as ṣalāt aẓ-ẓuhr (midday prayer), ṣalāt al-ʿaṣr (afternoon prayer), or ṣalāt al-maġrib (sunset prayer). The Sunnah rejectors would have no grounds to criticize or refute this deviation, for the Qurʾān does not specify the five daily obligatory prayers, the method of performing them, or the countless rulings related to them. There is absolutely no way to refute such deviations without relying on Ḥadīth. In essence, rejecting Ḥadīth entails rejecting thousands of details of the Sharīʿah that are not mentioned in the Qurʾān but are established through the actions and statements of the Prophet (PBUH). Hence, Sunnah rejectors are in a state of deviation and hypocrisy, for rejecting the Sunnah is truly a gateway to both. May Allāh protect our youth from deviation and misguidance!