A shocking early Sunni tafsīr claimed the Prophet Muhammad would sit beside God on His Throne. Defended by literalists and condemned by others, this “Throne narration” blurred divine-human boundaries, echoing Christian errors and undermining Islam’s central doctrine of God’s absolute transcendence.
If God declared the religion complete in 5:3, later inventions like hadith compilations, rijāl criticism, naskh, tafsīr, madhhabs, and fatwas are unnecessary. Either God’s word is true, or centuries-later human constructs falsely claim divine authority.
The “Judge’s Reward” hadith appears only after Malik’s death, suggesting late fabrication. Its Medinan transmitters were judges who benefited from its message, likely creating it to justify ijtihad and shield juristic errors with divine approval.
This article critiques the doctrine of naskh (abrogation) in Sunni Islam, highlighting contradictory lists of abrogated verses, exposing scholarly disagreement, and showing how this undermines certainty, coherence, and Quranic guidance.
This blog applies Wittgenstein’s “beetle in the box” critique to hadith science, exposing how assessments of honesty, memory, precision, and piety rely on unverifiable private states.
Hadith sciences rest on inductive leaps. which is simply assuming past reliability guarantees future truth. But as Hume showed, this logic collapses. Chains of narration aren’t math equations; they’re fragile human memories, easily distorted by context, politics, and bias.
Jewish rabbis and Muslim scholars have both expanded simple scriptural commands into overly complex systems, turning specific prohibitions like “don’t cook a goat in its mother’s milk” and straightforward four-step ablution into elaborate rituals with unnecessary additions beyond divine instruction.
Sunni tradition idealizes al-Zuhri to protect vast hadith chains dependent on him, downplaying his decades of Umayyad service. Historical evidence and early Muslim critics reveal his political entanglements, notably promoting Jerusalem’s sanctity for state interests during ʿAbd al-Malik’s reign.
The article applies isnād criticism to 1 Corinthians 15:6, showing Paul’s “500 witnesses” claim is a single-source, unverifiable report. It exposes the evidential weakness, highlighting a double standard in Christian critiques of Islamic hadith methodology.
Al-Shāfiʿī argues that accepting solitary hadith is justified by analogy to Quranic cases requiring ijtihād. The article refutes this, showing that applying divine law differs fundamentally from adding new, extra-Quranic legislation.