Quran-centrism creates an impossible theological choice: either falsely attribute unverified statements to the Prophet Muhammad (a serious religious offense), or admit you’re just collecting inspirational quotes while calling them “hadith.” Both options undermine the methodology’s credibility and intellectual honesty.

This analysis examines how Bukhari accepted Aisha’s detailed narration of Prophet Muhammad’s first revelation despite her not being born when it occurred, revealing critical inconsistencies in hadith authentication standards and challenging assumptions about Sahih al-Bukhari’s methodological rigor.

Ibn Taymiyah’s claims of inherent Arab racial superiority directly contradict the Quran’s clear emphasis on equality based on righteousness alone. This contradiction challenges Muslims to prioritize Quranic principles over even respected scholarly opinions that reflect historical biases rather than divine guidance.

The article argues that verses 9:128-129 were added to the Quran during Uthman’s compilation based on weak testimony, transmitted by al-Zuhri, whose political ties and manuscript destruction raise serious doubts about their authenticity.

Imam Malik critically viewed Ikrima as an unreliable hadith narrator, citing theological deviance and questionable scholarly integrity, despite Ikrima being celebrated by some as an “ocean of knowledge” in Islamic scholarly circles.

We explore how Al-A’mash fabricated an anti-mourning hadith to delegitimize Shi’a practices after Karbala. Analysis of transmission chains reveals his role as the true originator, with Sufyan creating false isnads to enhance the hadith’s perceived authenticity.

‘Ikrimah’s Kharijite leanings influenced his transmission of hadiths advocating immediate execution for apostates, shaping later Islamic jurisprudence. Imam Malik, however, adopted a more lenient stance based on a weakly transmitted narration from Umar, raising doubts about its authenticity and historical accuracy.