Atheists might say: How can Muslims use ḥadīths (Prophetic traditions) as arguments against us?

The issue of the reliability of the Prophet (PBUH)’s Sunnah, from a rational perspective, is of paramount importance, and will be discussed in depth in the third book of this series. In brief, if we accept that the methods by which historical events are transmitted to us—such as the occurrence of battles or the historicity of figures like Ramses II—are highly reliable, then the chains of narration through which the ḥadīths (traditions) of Prophet Muḥammad (PBUH) have reached us are, without doubt, far more reliable. In essence, ḥadīths have been faithfully preserved after their authenticity was rigorously verified. A systematic and critical methodology was employed by the muḥaddithūn (Ḥadīth scholars/traditionalists) from the time of the Companions [may Allāh be pleased with them] to ensure the reliability of transmitted ḥadīths. Indeed, the Arabs excelled in narration and transmission due to their exceptional memory and rigorous standards of taḥqīq (verification). Moreover, the ḥadīths of Prophet Muḥammad (PBUH) were transmitted by the most truthful, trustworthy, pious, noble, and God-fearing of people. Consequently, anyone who questions the reliability of the Prophet (PBUH)’s Sunnah must, by the same standard, question the reliability of all generally accepted historical knowledge.

The compilers of aṣ-Ṣiḥaḥ as-Sittah (the six authentic books of Ḥadīth) applied very strict criteria in selecting ḥadīths (Prophetic traditions) for their collections to ensure authenticity, and they did not include any ḥadīth that failed to meet these criteria. In general, every ḥadīth consists of two parts: the first is the isnād (chain of transmitters), and the second is the matn (text or content). The muḥaddithūn scrutinized both parts with great precision. They developed rigorous principles for evaluating the chains of transmitters, who were carefully assessed and graded according to varying levels of reliability. This grading was based on their religious commitment, moral integrity, scholarly reputation, and the strength and accuracy of their memory. They also critically examined the matn of each ḥadīth to ensure that it did not contradict the Qurʾān in any way, nor conflict with established authentic ḥadīths or scholarly consensus. Likewise, they ensured that it did not contradict established historical facts, sound reasoning, or common sense. In summary, anyone who impartially examines the nature of human knowledge transmission and considers the rigorous criteria used in the compilation and authentication of ḥadīths will inevitably conclude that authentic ḥadīths of the Prophet (PBUH) certainly originated from him. Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ [may Allāh have mercy on him] said: “The people of knowledge—jurists and others—are unanimously agreed that if a man were to swear that his wife would be divorced unless all that is in the book of al-Bukhārī, which has been transmitted from the Prophet (PBUH), is authentically reported from him and that the Messenger of Allāh (PBUH) unquestionably said it, then he would not be considered to have broken his oath, and the woman would remain in his marital bond.”¹

The Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH) is the second primary source of Sharīʿah (Islamic law). For this reason, jurists resort to it in deriving legal rulings when they do not find a relevant text in the Qurʾān for a case they must decide. In other words, it is an authoritative source of Sharīʿah, and its authoritativeness is established by both the Qurʾān and ijmāʿ (consensus). Undoubtedly, the Qurʾān affirms that whatever originates from the Prophet (PBUH) is a form of revelation and does not stem from his own desires. Hence, Muslims—from the Prophetic era to the present day—are unanimously agreed that the Sunnah is a source of Sharīʿah. Imām ash-Shawkānī stated that only those who have no share in Islam would deny this fact.² Hence, Muslims adhere to legal rulings derived from the Sunnah and do not distinguish between them and those established by the Qurʾān. Jurists maintain that legal rulings concerning people’s lives are derived from the authentic Sunnah—namely, ḥadīths transmitted through sound chains of narrators reaching back to the Prophet (PBUH)—because its reliability is indisputable. Without a doubt, Muslim jurists derive rulings only from definitive and well-established sources, for this nation does not follow whims and desires in matters of Sharīʿah.

Anyone who impartially examines history will be able to assess and judge the credibility—or lack thereof—of nations’ legacies of narration and transmission. As for the Muslim nation, history bears witness to the authenticity of the sound Sunnah of its Prophet (PBUH), such as the aforementioned authentic ḥadīth concerning the killing of ʿAmmār ibn Yāsir. The Prophet (PBUH) said: “Woe to ʿAmmār! He will be killed by the transgressing group.”³ It is noteworthy that the description of a group of the Companions [may Allāh be pleased with them] as “the transgressing group” does not imply disbelief, as their decision to engage in battle was based on their own ijtihād (independent reasoning), and not every act of ijtihād leads to a correct conclusion. Hence, it is necessary to distinguish between those who exert effort in interpretation but err, and those who intentionally spread discord and corruption. Following the assassination of Caliph ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān [may Allāh be pleased with him], the caliphate passed to ʿAlī ibn abī Ṭālib, who prioritized the unity of the Muslims over the immediate prosecution of those responsible for ʿUthmān’s murder. Meanwhile, Muʿāwiyah ibn abī Sufyān withheld recognition of his authority until the murderers were brought to justice. This led to the outbreak of the First Fitnah (the first civil war in the Muslim community). On the day of the Battle of Ṣiffīn, members of both armies were observing to see who would kill ʿAmmār ibn Yāsir. When he was killed by the supporters of Muʿāwiyah, both parties were deeply affected, including ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ, who rose abruptly from his seat.⁴ As a result, it became clear to some of the Companions that they had been mistaken in their judgment. In summary, both parties who engaged in the conflict—ʿAlī and his supporters and Muʿāwiyah and his supporters—believed themselves to be acting correctly. However, ʿAlī and his supporters were closer to the truth than Muʿāwiyah and his supporters, as indicated in the authentic ḥadīth reported by al-Bukhārī in his Ṣaḥīḥ.⁵ This is a rational proof for the authenticity of the Prophet (PBUH)’s ḥadīth, as the Companions were certain that ʿAmmār would be killed by the transgressing group. That is, they had full faith in the Prophet (PBUH)’s words and relied on his ḥadīth to determine which group was closer to the truth. Indeed, this ḥadīth alone constitutes, for those who reflect, practical evidence for the authenticity of the message of Islam.