The UNRELIABILITY of Hadith and Ilm-ul-Hadith

When Muhammad claimed to receive revelations about the unseen, no one could confirm or deny it since people never saw Gabriel. However, when any historical incident happened during the life of Muhammad, then many people became DIRECT eye-witnesses to that historical event, and they also narrated that incident further. However, the problem for Muslims was that many of those incidents were exposing Muhammad and Islam and proving them to be false.

Subsequent generations of Islamic apologists took two approaches to control the damage:

Firstly, they fabricated hundreds of thousands of false Ahadith to counter genuine incidents.
Secondly, they created Ilm-ul-Hadith (Science of Hadith), which should serve as a TOOL to declare any incident as WEAK and UNRELIABLE which exposed Muhammad/Islam.

It is impossible to prove these Ahadith as a fabrication as all hadith transmitters were Muslims. However, we are fortunate that contradictions in these fabrications sometimes expose them as lies.

The following article detail historical incidents where fabricated Hadith and Ilm-ul-Hadith were fortunately exposed due to CONTRADICTIONS within them.

Introduction

Muslims often present Hadith as the second most important source of Islamic guidance after the Quran. These collections claim to preserve the sayings, actions, and approvals of Prophet Muhammad from over 1,400 years ago. But when we examine the historical evidence, a troubling picture emerges: the Hadith corpus is fundamentally unreliable, built on a foundation of mass fabrication and selective authentication that served political and religious agendas rather than historical truth.

The Scale of Fabrication

The numbers alone tell a damning story. In the first few centuries after Muhammad's death, hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of Hadith circulated throughout the Islamic world. Yet when scholars like Bukhari and Muslim compiled their collections in the 9th century, they accepted only a tiny fraction as authentic. Bukhari reportedly examined over 600,000 Hadith but included fewer than 3,000 in his final collection. What happened to the rest? They were rejected as fabrications, lies, and inventions.

This wasn't a matter of innocent mistakes or poor memory. The evidence shows deliberate, systematic fabrication on a massive scale. Early Islamic scholars themselves openly acknowledged this crisis. Imam Ibn al-Jawzi documented thousands of fabricated Hadith in his book, while others like Al-Dhahabi and Ibn Hajar spent their careers trying to separate truth from fiction. This was a task they ultimately could not complete with any certainty.

Why Were So Many Hadith Fabricated?

The motivations behind this epidemic of fabrication were neither mysterious nor noble. Hadith were invented to solve specific problems that threatened Islam's credibility and coherence:

Quranic Silence vs. Later Fabrications. When critics pointed out that Muhammad performed no miracles despite claiming prophethood, fabricators created elaborate Hadith describing supernatural feats: splitting the moon, speaking trees, healing the sick. These inventions were designed to make Muhammad comparable to biblical prophets like Moses and Jesus. Notably, these miracles are nowhere mentioned in the Quran itself.

Justifying pre-Islamic pagan practices. The early Muslims inherited rituals from Arabian paganism: circling the Kaaba, kissing the black stone, animal sacrifices at Mina. To make these acceptable in a monotheistic framework, Hadith were fabricated linking them to Abraham and earlier prophets. This provided a veneer of divine sanction for what were originally pagan customs.

Filling the Quran's gaps. The Quran provides almost no details about how to pray, perform ablution, calculate inheritance, or conduct many other religious duties. Hadith filled these critical gaps, but different communities produced conflicting versions. Each community claimed authenticity for their particular interpretation.

Advancing political agendas. Ruling dynasties like the Umayyads and Abbasids sponsored Hadith that legitimized their power. Opposition groups created competing Hadith supporting their own claims. The Sunni-Shia split produced entirely different Hadith collections, with each side inventing chains of transmission to validate their theological positions.

Defending against criticism. As Islam spread and encountered educated Christians, Jews, and philosophers, embarrassing questions arose about borrowed stories, historical inaccuracies, and logical contradictions. Hadith were crafted to provide answers, often incorporating material from Jewish and Christian sources while simultaneously claiming pure Islamic origin.

Enter ILM al-Hadith: The Illusion of Scientific Verification

Faced with this crisis of credibility, Islamic scholars developed what they called "Ilm al-Hadith" (the science of Hadith authentication). On the surface, this appears rigorous and scholarly. Hadith scholars examined chains of transmission, investigating each narrator's memory, character, and reliability. They created elaborate systems of grading narrators as trustworthy, truthful, weak, or abandoned. They developed technical terminology and wrote thousands of biographical dictionaries documenting the lives of transmitters.

But this impressive scholarly apparatus conceals a fundamental problem: Ilm al-Hadith is not an objective science but a tool of religious control. It doesn't eliminate bias. Instead, it institutionalizes it.

The Fatal Flaws of Hadith Authentication

The system breaks down when we look at how it actually functions in practice:

Massive disagreement among experts. The same narrator might be praised as completely trustworthy by one scholar and condemned as a liar by another. Bukhari accepted narrators that Muslim rejected. Imam Ahmad trusted people that Imam Abu Hanifa dismissed. Even the most famous collections (Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim) contain Hadith that other respected scholars declared weak or fabricated.

No external verification. Unlike historical sciences that can check claims against archaeological evidence, contemporary documents, or independent sources, Hadith authentication is entirely self-referential. Scholars judge narrators based on what other Muslim scholars said about them, with no way to verify the actual historical accuracy of the content. A Hadith with a "perfect" chain of transmission might still describe an event that never happened.

Sectarian bias built into the system. Each Islamic school of thought developed its own standards for authentication, conveniently accepting Hadith that supported their positions while rejecting those that contradicted them. The result is that Sunnis and Shias have almost entirely different Hadith collections, despite claiming to use the same "scientific" methodology.

Focus on chains rather than content. Ilm al-Hadith primarily examines the chain of narrators rather than the plausibility of the content itself. This means that a Hadith describing an impossible miracle can be graded "authentic" if the chain looks good on paper. Meanwhile, a historically plausible narration might be rejected because one narrator in the chain was politically unpopular.

The Real Purpose of Ilm al-Hadith

When we step back and look at the historical evidence, a clear pattern emerges: Ilm al-Hadith functioned less as a tool for discovering truth and more as a weapon for controlling the narrative. Traditions that embarrassed Islam (stories about Muhammad's failures, contradictions in early Islamic history, or practices that seemed too similar to Christianity and Judaism) were systematically weakened or rejected by declaring their narrators unreliable.

Meanwhile, Hadith that defended Islam, promoted miracles, explained away difficulties, or supported the theological positions of powerful groups were authenticated and preserved. The "science" of Hadith became a way to filter Islamic history through an ideological lens, keeping what supported the faith while discarding what challenged it.

The scholars who practiced Ilm al-Hadith were not necessarily dishonest. Many sincerely believed they were preserving truth. But they worked within a system designed to produce predetermined outcomes, where "authenticity" meant conformity to Islamic orthodoxy rather than historical accuracy.

What This Means

The implications are profound. If the Hadith corpus is built on mass fabrication, and if the authentication system is fundamentally biased, then we cannot trust Hadith as reliable historical sources about early Islam or about Muhammad's actual teachings. Every Hadith must be viewed with suspicion, regardless of its grade or the reputation of its collectors.

This doesn't mean that all Hadith are necessarily false. Some may contain genuine historical memories. But it does mean we have no reliable method to determine which ones, if any, actually represent what Muhammad said or did. The entire edifice of Hadith literature, despite its scholarly appearance, rests on a foundation of sand.

The following case studies will demonstrate these problems in action, showing how fabricated Hadith and biased authentication have been used to defend Islam's vulnerabilities and create a false historical narrative that Muslims are taught to accept without question.

Table of Contents:

Case Study 1: The Fabricated Miracle of Moon Splitting

Introduction to This Case Study

The moon splitting incident provides one of the clearest examples of how Hadith fabrication and biased authentication work together to create false narratives that defend Islam against legitimate criticism. This case study is particularly valuable because it demonstrates the pattern we identified earlier: when historical reality exposed Muhammad's failures, later Muslims fabricated Hadith to cover those embarrassments, then used Ilm al-Hadith to authenticate their inventions.

Here's what makes this case so revealing:

The Historical Problem. Muhammad faced a serious credibility crisis during his time in Mecca. The pagans and Jews repeatedly challenged him to perform miracles as proof of his prophethood, just as earlier prophets had done. Muhammad failed to produce any miracles. This failure is extensively documented in the Quran itself, which records Muhammad's various excuses for why he couldn't demonstrate supernatural powers. The Quran even admits that Allah "refrained" from sending signs to Muhammad's generation. This was a major weakness in Muhammad's claims that needed to be addressed.

The Fabricated Solution. Generations after Muhammad's death, Muslim transmitters invented elaborate Hadith describing how Muhammad split the moon in two before the entire population of Mecca. According to these fabrications, the moon divided into two halves with Mount Hira visible between them, providing undeniable proof of Muhammad's prophethood. This invented miracle directly contradicted the Quran's own admission that no signs were given, but it served the important purpose of making Muhammad comparable to biblical prophets who performed miracles.

The Authentication Weapon. Despite the clear contradiction with the Quran, Ilm al-Hadith scholars authenticated these fabricated traditions. They didn't just call them "authentic" (Sahih). They went further, classifying them as "Mutawatir" (mass transmitted), supposedly one of the most reliable categories of Hadith. Multiple versions appear in the most respected collections, including Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, with scholars praising their chains of transmission.

The Smoking Gun. What exposes this entire enterprise as fraudulent is a simple logical question: If the people of Mecca actually witnessed Muhammad splitting the moon, why did they continue demanding that he show them a miracle? The Quran records their persistent requests for signs throughout Muhammad's Meccan period. It records Muhammad's repeated excuses for not providing miracles. But nowhere in the Quran or authentic historical sources does Muhammad ever refer back to this alleged moon splitting as proof of his prophethood. This silence is deafening.

This case study will examine the evidence in detail, showing:

How the Quran itself documents Muhammad's inability to perform miracles
The multiple contradictory excuses Muhammad offered for his failure
How these failures created a credibility problem that later Muslims needed to solve
The fabrication of moon splitting Hadith to address this problem
How Ilm al-Hadith authenticated these obvious fabrications
Why the evidence proves these Hadith are lies

What emerges is a clear picture of a system designed not to preserve historical truth but to protect Islamic doctrine from embarrassing realities. The moon splitting incident isn't an isolated example of authentication failure. It represents how the entire Hadith system functions: fabricate traditions that defend Islam, authenticate them through biased evaluation, and present them as historical fact despite obvious contradictions.

Let's examine the evidence.

The Hadith Claims

Numerous authentic and widely transmitted (Mutawatir) Ahadith assert the occurrence of the moon-splitting incident.

The incident is as under:

The people of Mecca asked Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) to show them a miracle. So he showed them the moon split in two halves between which they saw the Hira' mountain.

References:

Ibn Kathir writes in the commentary of verse 54:1 (link):

قد كان هذا في زمان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، كما ورد ذلك في الأحاديث المتواترة بالأسانيد الصحيحة

The incident of the splitting of the moon occurred during the time of Allah's Messenger, according to Mutawatir traditions which have Sahih (authentic) chains of transmission.

So, Muslim scholars have not merely authenticated these reports as "Sahih" (authentic) but have elevated them to an even higher status of "Mutawatir". The term "Mutawatir" represents the highest category of reliability in Islamic Ilm al-Hadith classification, supposedly indicating mass transmission through so many independent chains that fabrication would be impossible.

The story is presented with remarkable confidence by Islamic scholars and apologists as incontrovertible proof of Muhammad's prophethood. The moon splitting incident, authenticated through the supposedly rigorous science of Ilm al-Hadith, has been taught to millions of Muslims as historical fact. But when we examine the Quran itself, a very different picture emerges.

Fortunately, the Quran itself documents the persistent demand of the Pagans/Jews, who repeatedly asked Muhammad/Allah to provide any sign or miracle as evidence of Muhammad's prophethood. However, Muhammad/Allah failed to produce a single sign or miracle. Instead of demonstrating any miraculous signs, the Quran offered various EXCUSES for Muhammad's inability to do so. These Quranic Excuses included:

Muhammad's inability to perform miracles while he is only a human (Quran 17:90-93).
Allah's decision not to send miracles to Muhammad at this time, as previous nations had rejected the miracles of earlier prophets (Quran 17:58-59).
Allah does not show any miracle to the pagans as He has already DECIDED that the pagans would not get guidance (Quran 6:35).
Muhammad's refusal to perform miracles for the Jews due to the sins of their forefathers (Quran 3:183).
The absence of the predicted miracle of the sky falling on the Meccans is attributed to Muhammad's presence among them and Allah didn't want Muhammad to be hurt due to any divine punishment (Quran 8:32).

Dear Reader, please contemplate these questions:

If the people of Mecca indeed saw the splitting of the moon, why then they were demanding Muhammad to bring a miracle as proof of his prophethood?
And why didn't Allah/Muhammad not simply refer to the incident of the splitting of the moon as proof of Muhammad's prophethood?"

However, the Quran consistently offered numerous explanations without ever using the alleged incident of the moon splitting to address the pagans' challenge to provide a miracle. Not only the Quran, but the entire Hadith literature is also devoid of any instance where Muhammad used this alleged miracle of splitting the moon in response to the pagans' demand for a miracle.

The 1st Quranic Excuse: Muhammad cannot show a Miracle while he is only a human

This incident occurred in Mecca. Muhammad used to threaten the Meccans, warning them to believe in his prophethood or face the consequences, claiming that his Allah would make the sky fall upon them in fragments.

Quran 17:92: And they (the polytheists of Quraish) say, "... Or you (O Muhammad) make the sky fall upon us in fragments AS YOU HAVE (previously) CLAIMED ...

Actually, the pagan Meccans not only accepted this challenge by Muhammad but also extended it and asked Muhammad to show any other miracles too (even a smaller one) and they would believe in his prophethood.

However, Muhammad/Allah failed to deliver on this promise.

Therefore, Muhammad was forced to come up with an EXCUSE for his failure to fulfil his promise. And he made the following excuse:

Quran 17:90-93:

And they (the polytheists of Quraish) say, "We will not believe you until you break open for us from the ground a spring. Or [until] you have a garden of palm trees and grapes and make rivers gush forth within them in force [and abundance] Or you make the sky fall upon us in fragments as you have (previously) claimed or you bring Allah and the angels before [us] Or you have a house of ornament [i.e., gold] or you ascend into the sky. And [even then], we will not believe in your ascension until you bring down to us a book we may read." Say: "Glory to my Lord. (I cannot do it while) I am only man and a messenger."

The writer of the Quran (i.e., Muhammad himself) attempted to justify his failure to perform miracles by claiming that he was merely a messenger and could not perform any miracle.

However:

The pagan Meccans had issued this challenge not only to Muhammad but also to Muhammad's god (i.e., Allah was already automatically included in this challenge). They believed that if Allah truly existed, He should have demonstrated a miracle to them.
Moreover, it was Muhammad/Allah who promised that the sky would fall upon them if they didn't believe in Muhammad's prophethood. Yet, both Muhammad and his Allah failed to fulfil their promise.

Furthermore, if Muhammad's lack of miracles was due to his role as a mere messenger and a human, why did then previous prophets demonstrate miracles to validate their prophethood? For instance:

Jesus spoke as an infant in the cradle, gave life to birds made of clay, Cured the blind and the leper and gave life to the dead by God’s permission (Quran 5:110 and 3:49).
Moses received nine miracles, including his staff transforming into a dragon, his hand becoming radiant, the plague of locusts/lice, the swarm of frogs, and the parting of the sea for the Children of Israel (Quran 17:101).
Solomon comprehended the language of animals and birds and controlled jinn and winds (Quran 27:16-17, 34:12-13),
while Joseph interpreted dreams and predicted future events (Quran 12:46-47, 40:51-52).

And the Meccans were correct in their demand. Even the Quran mentioned their argument:

Quran 21:5: So let him bring us a sign just as the previous [messengers] were sent [with miracles]."

So, if the earlier prophets were able to demonstrate miracles despite being humans, why then Muhammad could not?

And then the Quran claims that Allah does not change his PRACTICE (i.e. Sunnah):

Quran 17:77: This has been Our Way with the Messengers whom We sent before you. You will find no change in our Practice (i.e. the Sunnah of Allah).

Quran 48:23: [This is] the established practice of Allah which has occurred before. And never will you find in the Practice of Allah any change.

Quran 35:43: But you will never find in the practice of Allah any change, and you will never find in the practice of Allah any alteration.

The Quran presents a contradiction regarding the expectation of miracles from prophets. In one instance, it suggests that prophets are not required to display miracles as evidence of their prophethood, yet in another, it describes earlier prophets performing miracles to prove their legitimacy. This raises a question of why did earlier prophets show miracles to disbelievers, but Muhammad and his Allah refused to do so?

The answer lies in the fact that the Quran recounts fictional tales of earlier prophets' miracles, which cannot be verified since they took place in the distant past. Conversely, when it came to Muhammad and his Allah, they were expected to perform miracles in real-time, right before the very eyes of the Kuffar Meccans who challenged them. However, they failed to deliver on these expectations.

Second, Muhammad's response is telling. He doesn't say, "I already showed you the moon splitting in two, so why are you still asking me to show another miracle.

The 2nd Quranic Excuse: Allah would refrain from sending a miracle to Muhammad this time while nations of earlier prophets denied the miracles

This incident also happened in Mecca.

Quran 17:58-59:

وَإِن مِّن قَرْيَةٍ إِلَّا نَحْنُ مُهْلِكُوهَا قَبْلَ يَوْمِ ٱلْقِيَٰمَةِ أَوْ مُعَذِّبُوهَا عَذَابًا شَدِيدًا ۚ كَانَ ذَٰلِكَ فِى ٱلْكِتَٰبِ مَسْطُورًا وَمَا مَنَعَنَآ أَن نُّرْسِلَ بِٱلْءَايَٰتِ إِلَّآ أَن كَذَّبَ بِهَا ٱلْأَوَّلُونَ ۚ

There is not a population but We shall destroy it before the Day of Judgment or punish it with a dreadful Penalty: that is written in the (eternal) Record. And We REFRAIN from sending the signs (now in front of Kuffar Meccans), only because the men of former generations treated them as false.

This verse is explicit and unambiguous. Allah states directly that He has chosen not to send miraculous signs to Muhammad's contemporaries because earlier peoples rejected the miracles shown to previous prophets. This is presented as a deliberate decision, a change in divine policy. If Allah refrained from sending signs, then no moon splitting occurred. The Quran's own testimony contradicts the Hadith.

The excuse is revealing in itself. Muhammad had been repeatedly challenged by the Meccans to produce miracles comparable to those of earlier prophets. Unable to deliver, he needed an explanation for his failure. This verse provided it, not that he couldn't perform miracles, but that Allah had decided not to allow any miracles for this generation. It's a face-saving excuse, but it serves as documentary evidence that no miraculous signs were shown during Muhammad's time in Mecca.

The 3rd Quranic Excuse: Muhammad shouldn't ask Allah for a Miracle while Allah does not want Pagans to be guided

Furthermore, the previous two excuses naturally failed to satisfy people regarding Muhammad's/Allah's inability to show any miracle. They continued to ask Muhammad to bring a miracle as proof of his prophethood. To deflect their demand, Muhammad introduced another excuse:

He (Muhammad) cannot ask Allah for any miracle because Allah does not want the pagans to be guided.
And if he (Muhammad) persists in asking Allah for a miracle, then Allah will punish him, and he (Muhammad) will be among the ignorant.

Quran 6:35:

وَإِن كَانَ كَبُرَ عَلَيْكَ إِعْرَاضُهُمْ فَإِنِ ٱسْتَطَعْتَ أَن تَبْتَغِىَ نَفَقًا فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ أَوْ سُلَّمًا فِى ٱلسَّمَآءِ فَتَأْتِيَهُم بِـَٔايَةٍ ۚ وَلَوْ شَآءَ ٱللَّهُ لَجَمَعَهُمْ عَلَى ٱلْهُدَىٰ ۚ فَلَا تَكُونَنَّ مِنَ ٱلْجَٰهِلِينَ

If you (O Muhammad) find rejection by the unbelievers so unbearable, then seek a tunnel into the ground or a ladder into the sky in order to bring them a SIGN, but [remember that], had God willed it, He would have guided all of them. Do not be among the ignorant (by asking a SIGN from Allah).

Once more, this verse serves as evidence that no miracle was shown to the Meccan disbelievers by Muhammad/Allah.

The 4th Quranic Excuse: Muhammad will not show the miracle to the Jews while their forefathers sinned

This incident happened just after Muhammad's migration to Medina when he had to prove his prophethood to the Jews of Medina.

The Bible contains several passages that highlight the phenomenon of divine acceptance of a person's sacrificial offering through the appearance of a mysterious fire that consumes the offering. These instances can be found in verses such as Judges 6:20-21, 13:19-20, and 2 Chronicles 7:1-2.

Actually, Allah (i.e., Muhammad himself according to us) had already made a mistake, and he had also previously confirmed this method of the miracle of fire in the Quran 5:27, in the story of Adam and his sons, where a fire appeared and consumed the offering of one son who sacrificed a sheep.

Quran 5:27:

Recite to them the truth of the story of the two sons of Adam. Behold! they each presented a sacrifice (to Allah): It was accepted from one, but not from the other.

Tafsir Tabari, under verse 5:27 (link):

It was narrated from as-Suddi, in his narration from Abu Maalik and from Abu Saalih from Ibn ‘Abbaas, and from Murrah from Ibn Mas‘ood, and from some of the companions of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him): ... Habeel (Abel) offered a fat lamb as his offering, while Qabeel (Cain) presented a sheaf of corn but secretly took out and consumed a large portion of the corn. Subsequently, fire descended from the heavens and consumed Habeel's offering, while Qabeel's offering remained untouched and unaccepted. In response, Qabeel became enraged and threatened to kill Habeel, vowing that he would not allow him to marry his sister.

Grade: Sahih (Albani)

Consequently, when Muhammad asserted his prophethood, the Jews asked him to provide proof through the manifestation of a miracle, specifically the fire consuming his offering.

Muhammad found himself unable to dismiss this demand outright, as he already acknowledged it in the story of Adam in the Quran.

However, Muhammad resorted to a different approach, offering a new excuse. He accepted the validity of the miracle involving the fire accepting the offering, but he refused to showcase this miracle. He justified his inability to show this miracle by accusing the Jews of Medina that their forefathers sinned by killing previous prophets

Quran 3:183:

They (the Jews) said: "Allah took our promise not to believe in any messenger unless He showed us a sacrifice consumed by Fire (From heaven)." Say: "There came to you messengers before me, with clear Signs and even with what ye ask for: why then did ye slay them, if ye speak the truth?"

However, this excuse by the writer of the Quran does not hold up under scrutiny for several reasons.

Firstly, it is unjust to punish individuals for the sins of their ancestors. In this case, the writer of the Quran is essentially claiming to hold the Jews of his time accountable for the actions of their forefathers. This contradicts the concept of divine justice, which does not attribute guilt based on lineage.

Didn't the quran claim that no one is accountable for the action of others?

Quran 6:164:

Say, "Is it other than Allāh I should desire as a lord while He is the Lord of all things? And every soul earns not [blame] except against itself, and no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another.

Secondly, the Jews of Muhammad's era maintained a strong belief in their own holy scriptures, which also indicated that the proof of prophethood involved successfully passing the miracle test. It is understandable that they would request the same evidence from Muhammad and, upon his failure to provide it, reject his claims. This rejection cannot be seen as their fault, as they were simply following the principles outlined in their own religious texts.

Islamic Excuse: The incident of the splitting of the moon is also present in the Quran

Islamic preachers assert that the following verse of the Quran confirms that the miracle of moon splitting indeed happened.

The Quran confirms that the moon splitting incident indeed happened.
Quran 54:1
ٱقۡتَرَبَتِ ٱلسَّاعَةُ وَٱنشَقَّ ٱلۡقَمَرُ
Translation: The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder (Translation by Yusuf Ali)
The grammar that is used for وَٱنشَقَّ (cleft asunder) is "perfect verb فعل ماض" (See the CorpusQuran Website for grammar) which means this incident has already happened in the past.

And we respond to this claim as under:

The verse talks about the splitting of the moon in the FUTURE

The correct understanding of this verse is:

This verse does not tell about any 'past' incident where the moon has already been split.
But this verse is figuratively talking about the 'FUTURE', where the Hour WILL come.
And when the hour will come, only at that time the moon will also split.
And the moon will not split into TWO EQUAL parts (as it allegedly happened according to Ahadith), but it will split into MANY parts (i.e. in the sense of total destruction).

Muslim translator M. A. S. Abdel Haleem wrote in the footnote of this verse (link):

The Arabic uses the past tense, as if that Day were already here, to help the reader/listener imagine how it will be. Some traditional commentators hold the view that this describes an actual event at the time of the Prophet, but it clearly refers to the end of the world.

There are traditional Muslim Scholars, who also mentioned the same:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_of_the_Moon

Al-Raghib al-Isfahani, Al-Mawardi and Al-Zamakhshari in their commentaries, in addition to mentioning the miracle, also note that the second half of verse 54:1 can be read as "and the moon will be cleaved", referring to one of the signs of the Islamic end of times.

For example, look at this verse, where the same grammar of "perfect verb فعل ماض" is used (please see the same CorpusQuran Website for grammar):

Quran 55:37:

فَإِذَا ٱنشَقَّتِ ٱلسَّمَآءُ

When the sky is rent asunder (Translation by Yusuf Ali)

We can see that the sky has not been asunder in the past, but the Quran is telling about a future event in this verse.

Dear Reader, please contemplate these questions once again:

If this verse was really about moon splitting miracle, when then Muhammad never presented it to the Meccans?
Why then the people of Mecca kept on demanding a proof, and the Quran kept on making different different excuses?

Why Hadith Cannot Be Trusted: While it was FABRICATED for the sake of Religion

When we synthesize the internal evidence of Islamic scripture, the conclusion is inescapable that the Hadith and the Quran present two mutually exclusive versions of history.

Premise 1: Hadith literature claims Muhammad split the moon in the presence of the Meccans, providing an undeniable, cosmic proof of his prophethood.
Premise 2: The Quran consistently documents that the Meccans demanded physical miracles throughout the entirety of Muhammad’s career in Mecca.
Premise 3: The Quran records Muhammad repeatedly offering excuses for his inability to perform such miracles, stating he was "only a warner" and that Allah had "refrained from sending signs" because previous generations rejected them (e.g., Surah Al-Isra 17:59).
Premise 4: Neither Muhammad (in Hadith) nor Allah (ine the Quran) ever referenced a "split moon" when responding to these persistent demands, despite it being the ultimate, definitive rebuttal to any skeptic.
Premise 5: If a cosmic event like the moon splitting had occurred, it would have rendered all subsequent demands for miracles moot and would have been the centerpiece of Islamic polemics in the Quran.

Conclusion: The moon splitting never occurred. The Hadith describing it are retrospective fabrications created by later generations to compensate for the "miracle gap" found in the Quranic text. This is not mere speculation; it is a logical necessity. Since the Quran admits to a lack of miracles, any Hadith claiming otherwise must be false.

Ilm al-Hadith can also not be trusted? While its a tool to legitimize fabricated Ahadith

The moon splitting case demonstrates the fundamental problem with Ilm al-Hadith. Despite supposedly rigorous authentication methodology, the "science" of Hadith verification authenticated obvious fabrications and even elevated them to the highest reliability category (Mutawatir). How did this happen?

The answer lies in the purpose of Ilm al-Hadith. It was never designed to discover historical truth but to defend Islamic doctrine.

The authentication process didn't prevent this fabrication. Instead, it legitimized it.

Ilm al-Hadith authenticated the moon splitting Hadith not despite the Quranic contradiction but in defiance of it. The result is a system that produces religiously useful results rather than historically accurate ones.

If Ilm al-Hadith can authenticate fabrications this obvious, this clearly contradicted by Islam's own primary source, then it can authenticate anything. The moon splitting case alone is sufficient to prove that Hadith authentication is not a reliable method for determining historical truth. It is a tool for creating and defending Islamic narratives, regardless of whether those narratives correspond to reality.

Case Study 2: The Incident of Satanic Verses – When Ilm al-Hadith Becomes a Tool for Denial

Introduction

If the moon splitting case demonstrated how Ilm al-Hadith authenticates obvious fabrications, the Satanic Verses incident reveals the opposite: how the same "science" systematically rejects authentic historical events when they expose Islam's vulnerabilities. This case study shows that Ilm al-Hadith functions as a double-edged sword for narrative control, not truth-seeking.

The Historical Reality

In the realm of Islamic Studies, significant scholarly research on the incident of the Satanic Verses emerged in 2017 with the publication of Mr. Shahab Ahmed's book titled "Before Orthodoxy: The Satanic Verses in Early Islam." This groundbreaking work encompasses a collection of 50 traditions related to the incident.

For the first 200-300 years of Islamic history, every Muslim scholar, commentator, and historian accepted the Satanic Verses incident as genuine history. As Shahab Ahmed argued in his book Before Orthodoxy, the early community was often comfortable with historical complexity, but later 'Orthodoxy' used the machinery of Hadith to 'clean up' the narrative to fit a specific theological image.

More than 50 separate narrations describe how Muhammad, desiring reconciliation with Meccan pagans, praised their goddesses as "exalted cranes" whose intercession was accepted. When confronted with this contradiction, Muhammad claimed Satan had deceived him, leading to Quranic verses that attempted to excuse this failure as something that happened to all prophets.

The evidence was overwhelming. These reports came from the most respected early Muslims, including companions like Ibn Abbas and Abdullah ibn Masud. The accounts appeared in the earliest biographical and historical works. Even the Quran itself contains three separate passages (Surah al-Isra 17:73-75, Surah al-Hajj 22:52-53, and Surah an-Najm 53:19-26) that early Muslims universally understood as referring to this incident.

The Theological Problem

The incident created an insurmountable challenge for Islamic theology:

Muhammad could be deceived by Satan even while receiving revelation
The divine revelation contained human errors requiring correction
Muhammad's claim of prophetic infallibility was false
The Quran itself underwent editing and revision

If Muhammad couldn't distinguish between divine revelation and satanic deception, how could anyone trust any of his revelations? This wasn't a minor embarrassment—it struck at the foundation of Islamic claims.

The Reversal

Around 300 years after Muhammad's death, as prophetic infallibility became increasingly important to Islamic theology, Muslim scholars faced a choice: acknowledge the historical evidence and accept their prophet's fallibility, or make the evidence disappear. They chose the latter.

For the first time in Islamic history, scholars began denying the incident ever occurred. This wasn't based on new historical discoveries or better evidence. The same narrations earlier generations had accepted as authentic were now suddenly declared "weak" or "fabricated." The same chains meeting authenticity criteria were now found deficient. Quranic verses understood for 300 years as referring to this incident were now reinterpreted to mean something else entirely.

Background: The Incident in Context

In ancient Mecca, the pagan economy was intertwined with worship of their deities. The annual Hajj pilgrimage brought wealth and prosperity. When Muhammad challenged these gods as false, he threatened both religious and economic interests. The Meccans reacted violently, forcing many of his followers to flee to Abyssinia.

Realizing his error, Muhammad devised a plan to reconcile with the Meccans by praising their pagan gods. During a gathering of the Quraysh, he recited Surah an-Najm, including verses acknowledging the pagan goddesses:

The Satanic Verses:

"Have you pondered upon al-Lat and al-Uzza, the goddesses?"
"And Manat, the third goddess?"
"These (3 goddesses) are like high flying cranes (i.e. of high status);"
"Verily their intercession is accepted."

Upon completing the Surah, Muhammad prostrated, and the Quraysh followed suit, accepting their goddesses' elevated status. However, people observed clear contradictions—previous revelations had denounced pagan gods as false, while this new revelation affirmed their authenticity.

The Meccan pagans concluded that Muhammad himself was fabricating these revelations and ridiculed him even more. Faced with failure, Muhammad claimed a new narrative: Satan had led him astray, not Allah. He said Gabriel visited him that evening, and when Muhammad recited the verses, Gabriel informed him these were Satanic verses, not from Allah.

Muhammad's Defense: Three Revelations

To remove his shame, Muhammad claimed three separate sets of revelations defending Allah and his religion:

First Defense: Surah Al-Isra (17:73-75)

"And indeed, they were about to tempt you away from that which We revealed to you in order to make you INVENT about Us something else; and then they would have taken you as a friend. And if We had not strengthened you, you would have almost inclined to them a little. Then [if you had], We would have made you taste double [punishment in] life and double [after] death."

Muhammad shifted blame from Allah to himself, maintaining Satan had no power over Allah. To strengthen his position, he added that Allah threatened him with double punishment for this mistake.

Second Defense: Surah Al-Hajj (22:52-53)

"And We did not send from before you from a messenger, and nor a prophet, except when he 'desires' (tamannā), the devil threw (Satanic Verses) in his desire (um'niyyatihi), so God 'abrogates' what the devil throws in. Then Allah makes His verses precise again. And Allah is Knowing and Wise."

This verse served multiple purposes:

Explained that all prophets experienced similar temptations due to their desires
Established that Allah "abrogated" the Satanic Verses
Presented Satan's interference as a "test" for those with weak hearts

Third Defense: Surah An-Najm (21-26)

After addressing his "desire" and Allah's abrogation, one question remained: could the goddesses truly offer intercession? Muhammad claimed new verses denying their intercession, resulting in Surah an-Najm's current form with the Satanic Verses removed.

Suarh An-Najm	Verses	Commentary
19	Have you considered al-Lat and al-Uzza?
20	And Manat, the third one, the other?
Abrogated & Deleted Satanic Verses	~~These are the beautiful goddesses like high flying cranes;~~	These 2 verses are known as "Satanic Verses". Muhammad later abrogated and removed them from Surah An-Najm.
Abrogated & Deleted Satanic Verses	~~Verily their intercession is accepted~~
21	Are you to have the males, and He (Allah) the females?	Later Muhammad claimed the revelations of these verses, which were put in Surah an-Najm instead of the Satanic Verses. Their aim was to refute Satanic Verses (i.e. to deny that Pagan goddesses have any high Ranks with Allah and their intercession).
22	What a bizarre distribution.
23	These are nothing but names, which you have devised, you and your ancestors, for which God sent down no authority. They follow nothing but assumptions, and what the ego desires, even though guidance has come to them from their Lord.
24	Or shall man have whatever he 'desires' (Arabic: tamannā تمنی)	Muhammad introduced an additional verse to Surah an-Najm, aiming to provide him with protection regarding his previous 'DESIRE' where he expressed a wish for Allah to reveal something favorable about the pagan gods.
25	To God belong the Last and the First.	Muhammad included more new verses in Surah an-Najm to negate the 'INTERCESSION' of the exalted pagan goddesses he had acknowledged in the Satanic Verses. These new verses suggested that although angels also reside/fly high in the heavens near Allah (similar to the high-flying pagan goddesses), their intercession is not granted unless permitted by Allah.
26	How many an angel is there in the heavens whose intercession avails nothing, except after God gives permission to whomever He wills, and approves?

The Satanic Verses and Prophetic Infallibility

Muhammad began reciting Surah al-Najm by claiming prophetic infallibility:

"By the star when it descends—your companion has neither gone astray nor been deceived. Nor does he speak from his desire. This is nothing but revelation sent down to him..."

He insisted Satan could neither deceive nor mislead him. Yet regarding this same gathering, Muhammad later admitted Satan had indeed deceived him during the Satanic Verses incident. His excuse: although Satan generally had no power over him, when he experienced a strong "desire," Satan could temporarily overpower him and the revelation.

This doctrine of prophetic infallibility (`ismat al-anbiya') emerged from the mid-2nd/8th century onwards. Ibn Taymiyyah explains: "Whatever the Prophet informs about Allah cannot be false, neither intentionally nor unintentionally... This is the meaning of the statement: the prophets are infallible in conveying the message from Allah."

Critical Questions the Incident Raises

The following points address the inconsistencies and theological challenges that arise from the narrative of the Satanic Verses (or Waqi'a al-Gharaniq), which, according to the accounts, occurred five years into Muhammad's prophetic mission.

The incident occurred five years after Muhammad claimed prophethood. If he was truly a sincere Prophet, why did he not immediately recognize the error in the verses praising the pagan idols as "exalted cranes" that could intercede? This raises a fundamental question: Why did Muhammad not recognize the contradiction and reject this "revelation" himself? He didn't need Jibrael for doing that, as Satanic Verses were against the very BASICS of Islamic doctrine.

Secondly, the verses were allegedly recited during the direct descent of revelation (Wahy) in the presence of the Angel Gabriel. This leads to profound theological problems:

How could Satan overpower Muhammad at the exact moment Gabriel was present and delivering a message from Allah?
Is Satan more powerful than Gabriel?
Islamic theology holds that angels can see Satan, even if humans cannot. If Gabriel saw Satan influencing Muhammad and heard the false verses being recited, why did Gabriel not intervene immediately to correct Muhammad and stop him from reciting the verses to the public? Gabriel should have ensured Muhammad corrected the error before the assembly dispersed.

Thirdly, the narrative states that when Gabriel returned later to address the issue, he was completely unaware of the day's events, as he did not know Satan had interfered or that Muhammad had recited the false verses.

How is it possible that the messenger of God was ignorant of such a critical failure that corrupted the divine message?
According to the account, Gabriel only learned of the error after Muhammad repeated the verses to him.

Islamic belief holds that even a donkey perceives Satan's presence and signals this with braying (Sahih Bukhari). Yet both Prophet Muhammad and Angel Gabriel apparently failed to detect Satan's influence.

Sahih Bukhari, Beginning of Creation (Link):

The Prophet said, "When you hear the crowing of cocks, ask for Allah's Blessings for (their crowing indicates that) they have seen an angel. And when you hear the braying of donkeys, seek refuge with Allah from Satan for (their braying indicates) that they have seen a Satan."

In other narrations, Muhammad claims to have physically choked Satan to near-death during prayer, demonstrating clear dominance.

Sahih Bukhari, Beginning of Creation (Link):

The Prophet once offered the prayer and said, "Satan came in front of me and tried to interrupt my prayer, but Allah gave me an upper hand on him and I choked him. No doubt, I thought of tying him to one of the pillars of the mosque till you get up in the morning and see him."

These narratives contradict the vulnerability shown during the Satanic Verses incident.

Why Modern Scholars Deny the Incident

The early generations (i.e., companions, Tabi'un, and Tabi' al-Tabi'in) universally accepted the Satanic Verses incident. For 200-300 years, all Muslim scholars recognized the event; none denied it.

Around 300 years later, scholars split into two groups:

Reinterpretation group: Continued acknowledging the incident but tried softening its impact through ta'wil (reinterpretation)
Denial group: Concluded no reinterpretation could protect the Prophet's image, so they began outright denying the incident occurred

Over time, denial became widespread. Today, virtually all Muslim scholars reject the event completely, which is a total reversal from the early centuries.

Why? The incident exposed human error that early apologists couldn't hide. It challenged prophetic infallibility, a core Islamic belief. Unable to reconcile historical reports with theological needs, later scholars denied the incident altogether.

Analysis of the Reinterpretation Group

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, in Fath al-Bari, addresses this approach:

"When the chains of narration increase and vary, it indicates that the story has an original basis. Three of its chains meet the conditions of authenticity. Once established, it becomes necessary to interpret (Tawil) what appears objectionable... This cannot be taken at its apparent meaning because it is impossible for the Prophet to add to the Qur'an something that does not belong to it."

According to Ibn Hajar, multiple chains prove authenticity. Yet since the literal wording appears problematic, the solution is reinterpretation.

Four Reinterpretations Examined

Here are the four reinterpretations that Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani presented (link):

First Reinterpretation: The Prophet recited these Satanic verses to mock the disbelievers and ridicule their idols

Ibn Hajar Asqalani presents the "first reinterpretation" as follows (link):

وقد رد ذلك عياض فأجاد . وقيل لعله قالها توبيخا للكفار
Translation:
... Qadi ‘Iyad gave a fine rebuttal, saying: it is possible that the Prophet recited the Satanic verses merely to mock and ridicule the pagans and their gods.

Comment:

Reinterpretation, in essence, is just another name for "fabricating excuses".

If Muhammad had really recited those Satanic verses to mock the disbelievers and their deities, then the pagans would never have fallen in prostration along with him and the Muslims.

Moreover, if Muhammad was merely mocking the pagans, then why did Allah threaten him with "double punishment" in Surah Al-Isra (17:73–75)?

Second Reinterpretation: It was the disbelievers themselves who uttered these Satanic verses

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani then presents the second interpretation (link):

وقيل إنه لما وصل إلى قوله : ومناة الثالثة الأخرى خشي المشركون أن يأتي بعدها بشيء يذم آلهتهم به فبادروا إلى ذلك الكلام فخلطوه في تلاوة النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - على عادتهم في قولهم . لا تسمعوا لهذا القرآن والغوا فيه ونسب ذلك للشيطان لكونه الحامل لهم على ذلك ، أو المراد بالشيطان شيطان الإنس
Translation:
It is also said that when the Prophet reached the words (Have you seen al-Lat and al-‘Uzza, and the third one Manat?), the pagans feared that he might speak ill of their gods, so they hastily inserted those (Satanic) words into his recitation to mix it up. This act was attributed to Satan, as he was the one who incited them to do it, or it may mean that a human devil did so.

Comment:

If the disbelievers had recited those verses themselves, and Muhammad had no role in it, then why did Allah say that Satan deceived the Prophet because of his “desire”? That element of the Prophet’s desire cannot be explained away through this reinterpretation.
The Quran’s author also mentions the “desire” of all prophets as a cause of their being misled, which aligns with this same idea.
If the pagans had merely inserted those words, they wouldn’t have become part of the Quran, nor would the author of the Quran have claimed that Allah abrogated what Satan had cast and then cleared His own verses.
And if the pagans alone had done this, then why did Allah threaten Muhammad with “double punishment” in Surah Al-Isra (17:73–75)?

Third Reinterpretation: Satan himself uttered those words in the Prophet’s voice during a pause in his recitation

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani presents the third reinterpretation (link):

وقيل : كان النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - يرتل القرآن فارتصده الشيطان في سكتة من السكتات ونطق بتلك الكلمات محاكيا نغمته بحيث سمعه من دنا إليه فظنها من قوله وأشاعها . قال : وهذا أحسن الوجوه .
Translation:
It is said that the Prophet used to recite the Quran slowly and clearly, so Satan waited for a pause in his recitation and spoke those (Satanic) words in the Prophet’s tone. Those near him heard the words and thought the Prophet himself had said them, and they spread it. This, it is said, is the best interpretation.

Comment:

The same issue remains: if Satan merely uttered those words himself, then why does the Quran say that the Prophet’s desire played a role and that because of that desire, Satan succeeded in casting those verses?
Couldn’t the Quran’s author have made it simpler by saying directly that Satan spoke in the Prophet’s voice during a pause, instead of mentioning “desire” and then "double punishment" for the prophet, making the matter unnecessarily confusing?
The author of the Quran repeatedly claims that the Quran is easy to understand, but here he contradicts his own claim by making the matter so obscure that even early Muslims misunderstood it and believed the Prophet had been deceived by Satan due to his desire. A ten-year-old could have expressed the story more clearly than this.
If Satan had truly spoken those words independently, they would never have been included in the Quran, nor would Allah have said that He “abrogated” what Satan cast and “confirmed” His verses afterward.
And if Muslims, through this interpretation, are giving Satan such immense new power, i.e. the ability to perfectly imitate a prophet’s voice and deceive people, then why did Satan use this extraordinary power only once? Why did he not continue to deceive people in this way again and again? If Satan had such a gift, no Muslim or companion could ever be sure they were not being deceived by him.

Please differentiate between these two concepts:

Temptation: Satan tempts through whispering into the human mind. The person has the choice to reject or accept it, and is rewarded or punished accordingly.
Deception: Deception is not a whisper in the mind, and the person has no control over it. He is fooled into believing something false as true. This reinterpretation gives Satan not the power to tempt, but the power to deceive, an enormous new power indeed.

The question is: if Satan had such immense success once, why did he stop there? If he could speak directly into people’s ears in different voices and deceive them perfectly, he should have been doing it constantly, leaving no chance for anyone to escape his deception.

Fourth Reinterpretation: The word “Tamanna” here means “recitation,” not “desire”

Ibn Hajar also mentions another excuse that “Tamanna” does not only mean “desiring” but can also mean “reciting” (link):

قال : ومعنى قوله : في أمنيته أي في تلاوته ...
Translation:
In this verse (Surah al-Hajj 22:52), the word “Umniyyati” means “in his recitation.” Thus Allah stated that His way with all His messengers is that whenever they recite, Satan adds something of his own into it. This clearly indicates that Satan added to the Prophet’s (Muhammad’s) recitation, not that the Prophet himself said it out of his own desire.

Our Response:

Islamic apologists soon realized that as long as the word “Tamanna” (meaning the Prophet erred out of his own desire) remained in the Quran, they could not defend him through any interpretation.

So, in the next stage, they completely changed its meaning, turning it from “desire” into “recitation.”

After this change, their new translation became:

Surah al-Hajj 22:52	وَمَا أَرْ‌سَلْنَا مِن قَبْلِكَ مِن رَّ‌سُولٍ وَلَا نَبِيٍّ إِلَّا إِذَا تَمَنَّىٰ أَلْقَى الشَّيْطَانُ فِي أُمْنِيَّتِهِ فَيَنسَخُ اللَّـهُ مَا يُلْقِي الشَّيْطَانُ
Correct Translation	We did not send before you any messenger or prophet but when he desired (Arabic: Tamanna), Satan cast something into his desire (Arabic: Umniyyati), but Allah abrogates what Satan casts.
Altered Translation	We did not send before you any messenger or prophet but when he recited (Arabic: Tamanna), Satan cast something into his recitation (Arabic: Umniyyati), but Allah abrogates what Satan casts. [See the translations here]

Note: The word Tamanna is a verb, while Umniyyatihi is a noun, and both mean “to desire.” But apologists altered both to mean “recitation.”

Dear readers!

The correct meaning of “Tamanni” is indeed “desire.”
Translating it as “recitation” is false, an invention by later scholars to defend the Prophet against the Satanic Verses incident. Sadly, many scholars spread this falsehood.

Argument 1:

All 50 narrations about the Satanic Verses agree that the Prophet was misled due to his “desire.” How can one ignore all those narrations and change the meaning of Tamanna purely based on own fabricated reinterpretation?

The word “Tamanna” (and its variations) occurs 14 times in the Quran, and nowhere does it mean “recitation.” In every instance, it clearly means “desire” (link).

Argument 2:

Throughout the Arabic language literature, i.e. pre-Islamic, Quranic, Hadith and post-Islamic, the word “Tamanna” has never been used to mean “recitation.”

There is only one single weakly attributed example in old Arabic poetry, allegedly from Hassan ibn Thabit, where some people claim it might mean “recite.”

But first, even that report is weak.

Famous Muslim scholar Ibn Ashur, in his book al-Tahrir wal-Tanweer, writes (link):

وقَدْ فَسَّرَ كَثِيرٌ مِنَ المُفَسِّرِينَ (تَمَنّى) بِمَعْنى قَرَأ. وتَبِعَهم أصْحابُ كُتُبِ اللُّغَةِ وذَكَرُوا بَيْتًا نَسَبُوهُ إلى حَسّانَ بْنِ ثابِتٍ وذَكَرُوا قِصَّةً بِرِواياتٍ ضَعِيفَةٍ سَنَذْكُرُها ... وعِنْدِي في صِحَّةِ إطْلاقِ لَفْظِ الأُمْنِيَّةِ عَلى القِراءَةِ شَكٌّ عَظِيمٌ، فَإنَّهُ وإنْ كانَ قَدْ ورَدَ تَمَنّى بِمَعْنى قَرَأ في بَيْتٍ نُسِبَ إلى حَسّانَ بْنِ ثابِتٍ إنْ صَحَّتْ رِوايَةُ البَيْتِ عَنْ حَسّانَ ... فَلا أظُنُّ أنَّ القِراءَةَ يُقالُ لَها أُمْنِيَّةٌ.

Many commentators interpreted “Tamanna” as “recitation.” Lexicographers followed them, citing a poem attributed to Hassan ibn Thabit with weak chains. ... In my view, applying the word Umniyyah to “recitation” is highly doubtful. Even if that poem truly belongs to Hassan ibn Thabit, I do not think that “recitation” can rightly be called “Umniyyah.”

And then Ibn Ashur further writes (link):

عَمُوا أنَّ (تَمَنّى) بِمَعْنى: قَرَأ، والأُمْنِيَّةُ: القِراءَةُ، وهو ادِّعاءٌ لا يُوثَقُ بِهِ ولا يُوجَدُ لَهُ شاهِدٌ صَرِيحٌ في كَلامِ العَرَبِ. وأنْشَدُوا بَيْتًا لِحَسّانَ بْنِ ثابِتٍ في رِثاءِ عُثْمانَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ:

تَمَنّى كِتابَ اللَّهِ أوَّلَ لَيْلِهِ ∗∗∗ وآخِرَهُ لاقى حِمامَ المَقادِرِ

They blindly claimed that (تَمَنّى) means ‘قَرَأ’ (to read or recite), and that ‘أُمْنِيَّة’ also means ‘recitation’. But this is a claim that cannot be trusted, nor does it have any clear proof or precedent in the Arabic language. And they cited a verse of poetry by Hassan ibn Thabit in his elegy for Uthman (as evidence):

تَمَنّى كِتابَ اللَّهِ أوَّلَ لَيْلِهِ ∗∗∗ وآخِرَهُ لاقى حِمامَ المَقادِرِ

(It means:) He wished to recite the Book of Allah at the beginning of the night, but by the end of the night he met the decree of death.

Then Ibn Ashur continues:

وهُوَ مُحْتَمَلٌ أنَّ مَعْناهُ تَمَنّى أنْ يَقْرَأ القُرْآنَ في أوَّلِ اللَّيْلِ عَلى عادَتِهِ فَلَمْ يَتَمَكَّنْ مِن ذَلِكَ بِتَشْغِيبِ أهْلِ الحِصارِ عَلَيْهِ وقَتَلُوهُ آخِرَ اللَّيْلِ. ولِهَذا جَعَلَهُ تَمَنِّيًا لِأنَّهُ أحَبَّ ذَلِكَ فَلَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ.

And it is possible that its meaning is that he wished to recite the Quran at the beginning of the night, as was his habit, but because of the uproar and disturbance caused by those besieging him, he could not do so, and he was killed by the end of the night. Therefore, it was called a wish because he desired it but was unable to fulfill it. (Thus, even in this poem, the meaning of "تمنى" is clearly 'wish,' not 'recitation.')

Can you see the double standards of Islamic apologists?

They rejected the entire Arabic tradition that unanimously defines “Tamanna” as “desire.”

They ignored 50 narrations unanimously confirming that the early Muslims i.e. companions, successors, and early scholars for 300 years, all understood “Tamanna” to mean “desire.”

And in exchange, they based their defense on one weak poem with no credible basis, fabricated only to protect a theological position.

Rejecting 50 authentic reports and inventing a new meaning through baseless interpretation is not scholarship.

Analysis of the Denial Group

This group denies the incident entirely. Let's examine their arguments:

Claim 1: The Qur'an Doesn't Mention This Incident

This directly contradicts early Muslim understanding. Even Ibn Taymiyyah wrote (link):

"The collective view of the early scholars (Salaf) was that these reports are consistent with the Qur'an... these accounts have been authentically transmitted and cannot be rejected, for the Qur'an itself provides evidence supporting them."

According to the Salaf:

Reports about the Satanic Verses are fully consistent with the Qur'an
Reports were authentically transmitted through reliable chains
The Qur'an itself serves as evidence confirming the incident

The Three Quranic Occasions

First Occasion: Surah al-Isra (17:73-75)

(Quran 17:73-75) And indeed, they were about to tempt you away from that which We revealed to you in order to [make] you INVENT about Us something else (i.e. the Satanic Verses); and then they would have taken you as a friend. And if We had not strengthened you, you would have almost inclined to them a little (i.e. Muhammad's DESIRE to reconciliate with them). Then [if you had], We would have made you taste double [punishment in] life and double [after] death.

These verses themselves bear clear testimony to an event in which:

Muhammad was nearly “tempted” or influenced away from what was being “revealed” to him.
As a result, he falsely attributed (i.e. INVENTED) something to Allah, namely, that the pagan goddesses were exalted and could intercede.
It is also significant that verses 73–75 have no connection to the verses before or after them; they describe an entirely separate event.

Hence, these verses align perfectly with the accounts describing their revelation in connection with the incident of the Satanic Verses.

Early reports directly connect these verses to the Satanic Verses. Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthur records (link):

"Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Muhammad ibn Ka'b al-Qurazi that when 'By the star when it descends' was revealed, Satan cast upon his tongue: 'These are the exalted cranes, whose intercession is to be hoped for.' Afterwards Allah revealed, 'And indeed they were about to tempt you away...' (al-Isra 17:73)."

Second Occasion: Surah Al-Hajj (22:52-53)

(Surah Hajj 22:52-53):

وَمَا أَرْ‌سَلْنَا مِن قَبْلِكَ مِن رَّ‌سُولٍ وَلَا نَبِيٍّ إِلَّا إِذَا تَمَنَّىٰ أَلْقَى الشَّيْطَانُ فِي أُمْنِيَّتِهِ فَيَنسَخُ اللَّـهُ مَا يُلْقِي الشَّيْطَانُ ثُمَّ يُحْكِمُ اللَّـهُ آيَاتِهِ ۗ وَاللَّـهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ۔ لِيَجْعَلَ مَا يُلْقِي الشَّيْطَانُ فِتْنَةً لِّلَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِم مَّرَضٌ وَالْقَاسِيَةِ قُلُوبُهُمْ وَإِنَّ الظَّالِمِينَ لَفِي شِقَاقٍ بَعِيدٍ

And We did not send from before you from a messenger, and nor a prophet, except when he 'desires' (Arabic: tamannā تمنی), the devil threw (Satanic Verses) in his desire (Arabic: um'niyyatihi أُمْنِيَّتِهِ), so God 'abrogates' what the devil throws in. Then Allah makes His verses precise again (by deleting the abrogated Satanic verses). And Allah is Knowing and Wise. He (Allah) makes, what is thrown in by Shaitan (Satan), a Test for those in whose hearts is a disease (of hypocrisy and disbelief) and whose hearts are hardened.

Key points:

The verses mention prophets having desires and Satan attempting to mislead them, but the surrounding context does not directly relate to this incident.
The preceding verses discuss the rulings of Hajj.
The following verses describe righteous deeds and the rewards of Paradise.
This suggests that these verses were inserted into the Quran separately, distinct from the main discussion of Hajj.

These verses indicate a major event where:

The Prophet had a personal desire, and Satan misled him by inserting words into that desire.
The incident was significant enough that Allah reassured Muhammad that all previous prophets had experienced similar interference by Satan.
The satanic words had to be nullified from the Quran to maintain the integrity of Allah’s message.
The event was also made a test for those with hypocritical or hardened hearts.

Modern Muslims, when asked which event these verses refer to if not the satanic verses, are totally unable to provide an explanation.

Third Occasion: Surah An-Najm (21-26)

{Surah An-Najm, verses 19–26}
أَفَرَأَيْتُمُ اللَّاتَ وَالْعُزَّىٰ ﴿١٩﴾ وَمَنَاةَ الثَّالِثَةَ الْأُخْرَىٰ فَإِنَّهُنَّ الْغَرَانِيقُ الْعُلَى وَإِنَّ شفاعتهن لَتُرْتَجَى﴿٢٠﴾ أَلَكُمُ الذَّكَرُ وَلَهُ الْأُنثَىٰ ﴿٢١﴾ تِلْكَ إِذًا قِسْمَةٌ ضِيزَىٰ ﴿٢٢﴾ إِنْ هِيَ إِلَّا أَسْمَاءٌ سَمَّيْتُمُوهَا أَنتُمْ وَآبَاؤُكُم مَّا أَنزَلَ اللَّـهُ بِهَا مِن سُلْطَانٍ ۚ إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا الظَّنَّ وَمَا تَهْوَى الْأَنفُسُ ۖ وَلَقَدْ جَاءَهُم مِّن رَّبِّهِمُ الْهُدَىٰ ﴿٢٣﴾ أَمْ لِلْإِنسَانِ مَا تَمَنَّىٰ ﴿٢٤﴾فَلِلَّـهِ الْآخِرَةُ وَالْأُولَىٰ ﴿٢٥﴾ وَكَم مِّن مَّلَكٍ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ لَا تُغْنِي شَفَاعَتُهُمْ شَيْئًا إِلَّا مِن بَعْدِ أَن يَأْذَنَ اللَّـهُ لِمَن يَشَاءُ وَيَرْضَىٰ ﴿٢٦﴾

Translation:
19 Have you considered al-Lāt and al-ʿUzzá, 20 And Manāt, the third, the other? ~~Indeed, they are the exalted cranes, and their intercession is certainly hoped for.~~ 21 Is the male for you and the female for Him? 22 That, then, is an unfair division. 23 They are but names you have named, you and your fathers, for which Allāh has sent down no authority. They follow nothing but conjecture and what the souls desire. And certainly, the guidance has come to them from their Lord. 24 Or shall man have what he desired for? 25 But to Allāh belongs the Last [life] and the First [life]. 26 And how many angels in the heavens are there whose intercession does not avail at all, except after Allāh permits for whom He wills and approves.

Focus on verse 24, which discusses desire. Its placement in the middle of criticism of the idols and the subsequent denial of intercession seems illogical unless it is part of the same incident as the satanic verses.

Likewise, verse 26 about intercession makes sense only when viewed as a corrective response to the false claims of intercession associated with the satanic verses. This context explains why early Muslims for 300 years accepted this incident, as the Quran itself alludes to it.

Claim 2: All Narrations Are Weak and False

This claim is refuted by the Salaf themselves, who not only accepted the narrations as "authentic" but regarded them as "consistent" with the Quran.

Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (link) states that Al-Bazzar, Al-Tabarani, and Ibn Mardawayh transmitted this incident from Ibn Abbas with an authentic chain.

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani writes in Fath al-Bari (link):

Ibn Abi Hatim, Al-Tabari, and Ibn Al-Mundhir narrated through multiple chains from Shu’bah from Abu Bishr that he said: "The Prophet recited Surah An-Najm in Mecca. When he reached the verse 'Have you seen Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and the other third?', Satan placed on his tongue: 'These are the exalted cranes, and their intercession is hoped for.' The polytheists said, 'He has never mentioned our gods in such praise before today.' Then the Prophet prostrated, and all the polytheists also prostrated. Subsequently, this verse was revealed." Al-Bazzar and Ibn Mardawayh also transmitted this via Umyah ibn Khalid from Shu’bah from Sa’id ibn Jubayr from Ibn Abbas. Al-Bazzar notes that only this chain is connected; other chains apart from Sa’id ibn Jubayr’s are weak or broken. However, the numerous routes indicate that the incident has a basis. Moreover, there are two other routes with narrators meeting the standards of Sahih (Bukhari and Muslim). One is reported by Al-Tabari via Yunus ibn Yazid from Ibn Shihab, and the other via Mu’tamir ibn Sulayman and Hammad ibn Salamah from Dawud ibn Abi Hind from Abu Aliah. When multiple routes exist and they vary in origin, it confirms that the incident indeed has a foundation. Three of these chains even meet the standard of authenticity.

Occurrence in Sahih Bukhari:

The incident is also recorded in Sahih Bukhari from the companion Ibn Abbas (link) with an authentic chain:

Ibn Abbas reported that when the Prophet prostrated during Surah An-Najm, Muslims, polytheists, and jinn alike all prostrated with him. This narration was also reported by Ibrahim ibn Tahman from Ayub.

In Sahih Bukhari, the incident is also narrated from Abdullah ibn Mas’ud (link):

Abdullah ibn Mas’ud reported that the Prophet recited Surah An-Najm and prostrated. At that time, no one, Muslim or non-Muslim, failed to prostrate except for one person, Umyah ibn Khalaf, who raised a pebble or dust to his face saying, “This is sufficient for me.” Abdullah ibn Mas’ud later noted that he was killed in a state of disbelief.

Apologists argue these narrations only mention polytheists prostrating, not Satan influencing the Prophet. However: If Surah An-Najm didn't praise the idols, why did the polytheists prostrate with Muhammad?

Apologists claim it was the Quran's beauty or fear of punishment. Yet:

Neither narration mentions beauty or fear as reasons
The Quran mentions prostration elsewhere. Does that mean the rest wasn't beautiful?
The Quran repeatedly mentions punishment elsewhere, yet no one prostrated there
Earlier verses show polytheists mocked the Quran; they didn't regard it as beautiful

Surah 53 (verses 59-62): "So do you wonder at this speech? And you laugh at it, when you should weep? And you play with it? So prostrate to Allah and worship Him."

The polytheists could only have prostrated if the verses praised their idols—precisely what happened in the Satanic Verses.

Note: Muhammad himself only prostrated during Surah An-Najm to ensure polytheists would also prostrate. Otherwise, he recited the Surah later without prostration. Sahih Bukhari confirms: "Zaid ibn Thabit reported that he recited Surah An-Najm before the Prophet, but the Prophet did not prostrate."

Today, millions of non-Muslims read Surah An-Najm without perceiving beauty or being compelled to prostrate. The apologists' argument is merely a fabricated excuse.

Conclusion: ILM al-Hadith is only a Tool of Denial

This case reveals Ilm al-Hadith's true purpose as a weapon of narrative control rather than historical investigation. The "science" that authenticated fabricated moon-splitting traditions now systematically rejected 50 historical traditions about the Satanic Verses.

Consider what happened:

Authentic narrations were rejected. Reports with chains meeting Sahih Bukhari and Muslim standards were declared weak. Even when scholars like Ibn Hajar admitted these reports had authentic chains and multiple corroborating paths, later scholars simply ignored this evidence.

The Quran was reinterpreted. Verses explicitly mentioning prophets' "desires," Satan casting something into those desires, and Allah abrogating what Satan cast were suddenly claimed to refer to nothing specific or to completely different events. When asked what these verses actually described, modern scholars have no coherent answer.

New linguistic interpretations were invented. The Arabic word "tamanna" (desire) had one consistent meaning throughout Arabic literature. But when this meaning exposed Muhammad's vulnerability, scholars claimed it could also mean "recitation," based on one weakly attributed poem. They rejected the unanimous understanding of early Muslims and invented a new meaning to avoid theological implications.

Character assassination replaced evidence. Unable to attack chain authenticity, later scholars attacked the character of early Muslims who transmitted these reports, essentially accusing companions and their successors of lying or being deceived—despite these same individuals being considered trustworthy for thousands of other Hadith.

The Double Standard

The contrast with the moon splitting case is instructive:

For fabrications that help Islam: Accept them despite Quranic contradictions, authenticate them despite suspicious chains, declare them Mutawatir despite limited sources.

For authentic reports that expose Islam: Reject them despite meeting authentication standards, deny them despite 50 corroborating narrations, reinterpret them despite 300 years of consistent Quranic understanding.

This reveals Ilm al-Hadith not as an objective historical methodology but as a theological defense mechanism. The "science" doesn't discover truth; it protects orthodoxy. It doesn't evaluate evidence fairly; it produces predetermined outcomes. Hadith that support Islamic doctrine get authenticated regardless of problems, while Hadith that challenge Islamic doctrine get rejected regardless of authenticity.

What This Case Study Demonstrates

The Satanic Verses incident shows that Ilm al-Hadith functions primarily to control the Islamic narrative by:

Suppressing embarrassing history. Authentic events exposing Muhammad's failures are systematically denied or explained away.
Rewriting the past. When evidence cannot be suppressed, it is reinterpreted until it supports rather than challenges Islamic doctrine.
Creating false certainty. Muslims are taught that modern scholarly consensus (denying the incident) represents historical truth, when in fact it represents a theological reversal that occurred centuries after the events.
Protecting infallibility at all costs. The entire exercise serves one purpose: maintaining the claim that Muhammad was protected from error, even when the historical record proves otherwise.

The Satanic Verses case demonstrates that Ilm al-Hadith is not a neutral tool for discovering historical truth, but a sophisticated mechanism for defending Islamic orthodoxy and accepting what helps the faith and rejecting what challenges it, regardless of the evidence.

Case Study 3: The Isaac vs. Ishmael Conflict — Which Son was Sacrificed?

Introduction

While our first case study examined how false traditions were fabricated and then authenticated, and our second case study analyzed how uncomfortable truths were suppressed by labeling them "weak," this third case demonstrates the perfect storm of these three tactics. It reveals the intersection of active fabrication, systematic authentication of those fabrications, and the total suppression of original historical memory.

In this case study, we will investigate the following:

The Statistical Contradiction: There are approximately 131 early traditions asserting that Isaac was the son intended for sacrifice. Conversely, there is a competing set of 133 traditions asserting that it was Ishmael. Logically, these two claims are mutually exclusive; one set is an undeniable fabrication.
The Failure of Authentication: Most strikingly, both sets of contradictory traditions contain reports graded as "Sahih" (authentic) according to the exact same criteria of Ilm al-Hadith.

This case proves that the "Science of Hadith" is not a tool for discovering truth, but a flexible mechanism that can validate two opposing "realities" simultaneously, provided they serve a theological purpose.

131 Traditions claim Isaac was the son who was sacrificed, while 133 Traditions claim Ishmael was the son

As mentioned above, there are two sets of contradictory Ahadith. The first one claims it was Isaac who was sacrificed, while the other one claims that it was Ishmael.

Wikipedia:
There are such persuasive arguments for both, in fact, it is estimated that 131 traditions say Isaac was the son, while 133 say Ismael.^[2]
^{[2: Firestone, Reuven (1990). Journeys in Holy Lands: The Evolution of the Abraham-Ismael Legends in Islamic Exegesis. Albany, NY: State University of NY Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-0331-0.]}

The Central Question

Muslims have slaughtered billions of animals over 1,400 years in commemoration of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son. This is one of Islam's most important rituals, observed annually during Eid al-Adha and as part of the Hajj pilgrimage. Yet Muslims cannot answer a fundamental question: Which son was Abraham commanded to sacrifice? Was it Isaac or Ishmael?

This is not a minor theological detail. The entire Islamic justification for performing animal sacrifice at Mina during Hajj depends on the answer. If Isaac was the intended sacrifice, and that event occurred in Jerusalem (as biblical and early Islamic sources indicate), then the Hajj sacrifice at Mina has no connection to Abraham's test. It would be exposed as nothing more than a continuation of pre-Islamic Arab pagan rituals that Muhammad adopted and tried to legitimize by falsely linking them to Abraham.

The Original Evidence: 131 Narrations for Isaac

Early Islamic sources overwhelmingly identified Isaac as the son who was to be sacrificed. There existed 131 separate narrations from companions of Muhammad and their successors clearly stating that Isaac was the intended sacrifice.

These narrations had authentic chains of transmission. Imam Qurtubi acknowledged that the evidence for Isaac was "stronger" and represented the "correct opinion" attributed to the companions and successors. He wrote in his tafsir under verse Quran 37:102, the following (link):

The scholars differed regarding who was commanded to be sacrificed. MOST of them said it was Isaac. Among those who said so were Abbas ibn Abdul Muttalib and his son Abdullah, and this is the CORRECT opinion attributed to them. Ath-Thawri and Ibn Jurayj narrated it from Ibn Abbas, who said, "The one to be sacrificed was Isaac." And this is also the CORRECT opinion attributed to Abdullah ibn Mas'ud ...

And this statement (i.e. Isaac was the son who was sacrificed) is more strongly narrated (than others) from the Prophet (peace be upon him), the Companions, and the Successors (Tabi'un).

And here are a few more "Sahih" traditions:

Musnad Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Hadith 2658:

Arabic Text: حدثنا ‏ ‏يونس ‏ ‏أخبرنا ‏ ‏حماد ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏عطاء بن السائب ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏سعيد بن جبير ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏ابن عباس ‏ ‏أن رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏قال ‏ ‏إن ‏ ‏جبريل ‏ ‏ذهب ‏ ‏بإبراهيم ‏ ‏إلى ‏ ‏جمرة العقبة ‏ ‏فعرض له الشيطان فرماه بسبع حصيات ‏ ‏فساخ ‏ ‏ثم أتى ‏ ‏الجمرة الوسطى ‏ ‏فعرض له الشيطان فرماه بسبع حصيات ‏ ‏فساخ ‏ ‏ثم أتى ‏ ‏الجمرة القصوى ‏ ‏فعرض له الشيطان فرماه بسبع حصيات ‏ ‏فساخ ‏ ‏فلما أراد ‏ ‏إبراهيم ‏ ‏أن يذبح ابنه ‏ ‏إسحاق ‏ ‏قال لأبيه يا ‏ ‏أبت أوثقني لا أضطرب فينتضح عليك ‏ ‏من دمي إذا ذبحتني فشده فلما أخذ ‏ ‏الشفرة ‏ ‏فأراد أن يذبحه نودي من خلفه ‏ ‏أن يا ‏ ‏إبراهيم ‏ ‏قد صدقت الرؤيا

English Translation: Yunus narrated to us, saying Hammad informed us, from Ata' ibn As-Sa'ib, from Sa'id ibn Jubayr, from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Jibreel (peace be upon him) took Ibrahim (peace be upon him) to Jamrat Al-Aqabah, and Satan appeared to him. Ibrahim (peace be upon him) threw seven pebbles at him, and he sank into the ground. Then he came to the middle Jamrah, and Satan appeared to him. Ibrahim (peace be upon him) threw seven pebbles at him, and he sank into the ground. Then he came to the last Jamrah, and Satan appeared to him. Ibrahim (peace be upon him) threw seven pebbles at him, and he sank into the ground." "Then, when Ibrahim (peace be upon him) was about to sacrifice his son Is-haq (peace be upon him), his son said to his father: 'O my father! Tie me so that I do not struggle and my blood does not splash on you when you slaughter me.' So he tied him. When Ibrahim (peace be upon him) took the knife and intended to slaughter him, a voice called from behind him: 'O Ibrahim! You have indeed fulfilled the vision.'"

Ruling: The chain of narration for this tradition is Sahih (authentic). (Link)

Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut narrated this tradition in Takhrij Mushkil al-Athar (Link):

Arabic Text: أنَّ أسماءَ بنَ خارجةَ سابَّ رَجُلًا، فقال: أنا ابنُ الأشياخِ الكرامِ، فقال عبدُ اللهِ: الأشياخُ الكرامُ يوسفُ بنُ يعقوبَ صفيِّ اللهِ ابنِ إسحاقَ ذبيحِ اللهِ ابنِ إبراهيمَ خليلِ اللهِ

English Translation: "Asma' ibn Kharijah insulted a man and said: 'I am the son of noble elders.' So the Companion Abdullah (Ibn Mas'ud) said: 'The noble elders are Yusuf son of Ya'qub, the chosen one of Allah, son of Is-haq, the sacrifice of Allah, son of Ibrahim, the Khalil (intimate friend) of Allah.'"

Ruling: Sahih (authentic) (Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut)

Imam Al-Qurtubi (link) mentions the Companions (Sahaba), Successors (Tabi'un), and scholars who held the view that Isaac (Is-haq) was the one intended for sacrifice (Dhabih Allah):

The 7 Companions (Sahaba) were:

Ibn Abbas
Ali ibn Abi Talib
Abdullah ibn Masud
Jabir
Umar ibn al-Khattab
Abu Hurairah
Abbas bin al-Muttalib

The Successors (Tabi'un) and scholars included:

Alqama
Ash-Sha'bi
Mujahid
Sa'id bin Jubayr
Ka'b al-Ahbar
Qatada
Masruq
Ikrimah
Qasim bin Abi Bazzah
Ata
Muqatil
Abdur-Rahman bin Sabit
Al-Zuhri
Al-Suddi
Abdullah bin Huzayl
Imam Malik bin Anas

The Theological Problem

This created a crisis for Islamic ritual practice. If Abraham's test with Isaac occurred in Jerusalem, how could Muslims justify their animal sacrifices at Mina in Mecca? The answer is simple: they couldn't. The practice of sacrificing animals at Mina was actually a pre-Islamic Arab pagan tradition that had nothing to do with Abraham. When Muhammad incorporated the existing rituals of the pagan Hajj into Islam, he needed to give them an Abrahamic origin to make them appear divinely ordained rather than pagan holdovers.

The Fabrication Campaign: 133 Counter-Narrations

To solve this problem, later Muslim transmitters launched a systematic campaign of fabrication. They manufactured 133 new narrations claiming that Ishmael, not Isaac, was the intended sacrifice. These fabricated reports conveniently placed the event at Mina in Mecca, thus providing the Islamic Hajj ritual with an Abrahamic backstory and covering up its pagan origins.

This wasn't a gradual evolution of understanding. It was a deliberate rewriting of history to defend Islamic practice. The fabricators even created reports falsely attributed to the same companions (like Ibn Abbas) who had originally identified Isaac, now claiming these same individuals said it was Ishmael.

The 133 Narrations for Ishmael

There are 133 narrations present which claim that it was Ishmael who was sacrificed.

Ibn Kathir (link) and Imam Qurtubi lists the four Companions (Sahaba) from whom it is narrated that the son intended for sacrifice was Ishmael:

Abu Hurairah
Abu Tufayl Amir bin Wathila
Umar ibn al-Khattab
Ibn Abbas

The Successors (Tabi'un) who identified the son as Ishmael, as cited by al-Qurtubi, include:

Sa'id bin al-Musayyib
Ash-Sha'bi
Yusuf bin Mahran
Mujahid
Rabi' bin Anas
Muhammad bin Ka'b al-Qurazi
Al-Kalbi
Alqama

Finally, Imam al-Qurtubi delivers his verdict, stating:

'The first view [that it was Isaac] is what is most abundantly narrated from the Prophet, from his Companions, and from the Successors.' (Link)"

While Imam al-Qurtubi acknowledged that the traditions identifying Isaac as the sacrifice were both more numerous and historically stronger, the later scholar Ibn Kathir took a radically different approach. To protect the emerging orthodox consensus, Ibn Kathir dismissed the entire mountain of early evidence, labeling all traditions favoring Isaac as "weak" and claiming they were nothing more than foreign "Isra’iliyyat" (Jewish fabrications).

In his commentary on verse 37:101, Ibn Kathir writes (link):

وقد ذهب جماعة من أهل العلم إلى أن الذبيح هو إسحاق ، وحكي ذلك عن طائفة من السلف ، حتى نقل عن بعض الصحابة أيضا ، وليس ذلك في كتاب ولا سنة ، وما أظن ذلك تلقي إلا عن أحبار أهل الكتاب ، وأخذ ذلك مسلما من غير حجة .

A group of scholars held the view that the one intended for sacrifice was Isaac, and this view has been reported from a number of the early generations, and it has even been attributed to some of the Companions as well. However, there is no basis for this in the Book (the Quran) or the Sunnah, and I do not think this view was received except from the rabbis of the People of the Book, and it was accepted uncritically without any proof.

The Mechanism of Suppression

Ibn Kathir’s dismissal is a classic example of "fabricating an excuse." He offers no empirical evidence to prove that the 131 narrations from the Companions and Successors were actually taken from Jewish sources; he relies entirely on his own conjecture.

In the system of Islamic Ilm al-Hadith, this mere suspicion from a later authority like Ibn Kathir is often enough to discard hundreds of "authentic" narrations. This reveals a fatal flaw in the science: a "Sahih" (authentic) chain of transmission from the Prophet's family or his closest Companions can be deleted from history simply because it doesn't fit a later theological agenda.

The 'Double Narrative' Anomaly

Here is a fascinating point to note regarding the inconsistency of these reports: Ibn Abbas and Umar ibn al-Khattab (the two of the most pivotal figures in early Islam) are recorded on both sides of the argument. In some narrations, they insist the son was Isaac; in others, they claim it was Ishmael.

This same confusion persists among the Tabi'un. Leading scholars like Sa'id bin al-Musayyib, Ash-Sha'bi, Mujahid, and Alqama are also found in both camps, with conflicting reports attributed to them."

This double-narrative pattern is mathematical proof of forgery. Later Muslim transmitters stole the names and reputations of early Islamic authorities to legitimize fabricated traditions

The Quran's Failure: Both Camps Deducing Opposite Conclusions from the Same Text

Muslims claim the Quran is "clear," "easy to understand," and "manifest guidance." Yet the Isaac vs. Ishmael debate exposes this claim as false. Two of Islam's most respected scholars, both experts in Quranic interpretation, analyzed the same verses and reached completely opposite conclusions.

Imam Tabari's Quranic Analysis: Isaac Was the Sacrifice:

Tabari examined the Quranic narrative systematically and concluded that the textual evidence definitively identifies Isaac (link):

"As for the above-mentioned proof from the Quran that it really was Isaac, it is God's word which informs us about the prayer of His friend Abraham when he left his people to migrate to Syria with Sarah. Abraham prayed, 'I am going to my Lord who will guide me. My Lord! Grant me a righteous child.' This was before he knew Hagar, who was to be the mother of Ishmael. After mentioning this prayer, God goes on to describe the prayer and mentions that he foretold to Abraham that he would have a gentle son. God also mentions Abraham's vision of himself sacrificing that son when he was old enough to walk with him. The Book does not mention any tidings of a male child given to Abraham except in the instance where it refers to Isaac, in which God said, 'And his wife, standing by laughed when we gave her tidings of Isaac, and after Isaac, Jacob', and 'Then he became fearful of them'. They said. 'Fear not!' and gave him tidings of a wise son. Then his wife approached, moaning, and smote her face, and cried, 'A barren old woman'. Thus, wherever the Quran mentions God giving tidings of the birth of a son to Abraham, it refers to Sarah (and thus to Isaac) and the same must be true of God's words 'So we gave him tidings of a gentle son', as it is true of all such references in the Quran."

Tabari's logic was straightforward: Every time the Quran mentions God giving Abraham glad tidings of a son, it refers to Sarah and Isaac. Therefore, when Surah 37 mentions the "gentle son" who would be sacrificed, it must refer to Isaac as well.

Ibn Kathir's Quranic Analysis: Ishmael Was the Sacrifice:

Yet Ibn Kathir, analyzing the exact same Quranic passages, reached the opposite conclusion (commentary on verse 37:101):

وهذا كتاب الله شاهد ومرشد إلى أنه إسماعيل ، فإنه ذكر البشارة بالغلام الحليم ، وذكر أنه الذبيح

And this is the Book of God, acting as a witness and a guide, indicating that it was Ishmael. For it mentions the glad tidings of a 'forbearing boy' (غلام الحليم) and identifies him as the one to be sacrificed.

Ibn Kathir argued that the Quran describes two different sons with different characteristics: the "forbearing boy" (Ishmael) who was to be sacrificed, and Isaac who was promised later. According to him, the Quranic text itself clearly distinguishes between them.

The Devastating Implication:

Here we have two towering Islamic scholars, both masters of Quranic interpretation, both analyzing the same divine text that claims to be "clear" and "easy to understand"—yet they reach diametrically opposed conclusions. One says the Quran clearly indicates Isaac. The other says the Quran clearly indicates Ishmael.

If the Quran were truly clear, such fundamental disagreement among Islam's greatest scholars would be impossible. This isn't a minor point of theological nuance—this concerns the identity of the son in one of the Quran's most important prophetic narratives, a story that justifies one of Islam's central rituals performed by millions annually.

The fact that expert scholars can read the same verses and reach opposite conclusions proves the Quran's vagueness, not its clarity. A truly clear divine book would not leave its most knowledgeable interpreters in contradictory confusion about basic narrative facts.

The Ilm al-Hadith Disaster

Here is where the bankruptcy of Ilm al-Hadith as a "science" becomes undeniable. When faced with these two contradictory sets of narrations, the authentication system completely failed:

1. Scholars reached opposite conclusions using the same methodology.

Imam Qurtubi, applying the principles of Ilm al-Hadith, concluded that the 131 narrations supporting Isaac were stronger and more authentic. Imam Ibn Kathir, using the exact same "scientific" principles, concluded that the 133 narrations supporting Ishmael were stronger and the Isaac narrations were weaker.

2. The same companions appear on both sides.

Ibn Abbas is reported in authentic chains saying it was Isaac. Ibn Abbas is also reported in authentic chains saying it was Ishmael. The same contradiction appears for Umar ibn al-Khattab and numerous other early authorities. How can the same person be a reliable witness for contradictory claims?

3. Both sides claim authenticity.

Proponents of the Isaac position cite authentic chains. Proponents of the Ishmael position cite authentic chains. Both use the technical terminology of Ilm al-Hadith. Both declare their narrators trustworthy. Yet they cannot both be right.

4. No objective criteria exist to resolve the contradiction.

When pressed, Muslim scholars resort to subjective preferences, sectarian loyalties, or theological convenience. Some say "the majority opinion" should win (but early Islam favored Isaac). Others say "stronger chains" should decide (but both sides claim stronger chains). Still others simply choose whichever position supports their pre-existing theological commitments.

The Logical Proof of Fabrication

This case provides mathematical certainty of mass fabrication:

Premise 1: The 131 narrations say Isaac was the intended sacrifice
Premise 2: The 133 narrations say Ishmael was the intended sacrifice
Premise 3: Both cannot be true (logical impossibility)
Conclusion: At least one set of narrations (totaling over 130 reports) must be fabricated

This isn't speculation. It's logical necessity. We can prove with certainty that Muslim transmitters fabricated at minimum 131 Hadith on this single topic. Yet Ilm al-Hadith cannot definitively identify which set is fabricated, exposing the entire authentication system as subjective opinion dressed up as science.

The Quran's Failure

Muslims claim the Quran is "clear," "easy to understand," and "manifest guidance." Yet despite these bold promises, the Quran fails to clearly identify which son was to be sacrificed. Muslim scholars use the same Quranic verses to argue for opposite conclusions. If the Quran were truly clear, such fundamental disagreement would be impossible. The vagueness of the Quran on this central story exposes its claims of clarity as false.

What This Case Study Proves

The Isaac vs. Ishmael contradiction demonstrates that:

At least 131 Hadith are proven fabrications (whichever set is false)
Ilm al-Hadith cannot reliably identify fabrications. The authentication system is subjective, not scientific. Different scholars using identical methodology reach opposite conclusions.
Theological convenience determines which Hadith are accepted. Scholars don't evaluate evidence neutrally and then form conclusions. They start with theological positions (Islam's rituals must be legitimate) and then authenticate whichever Hadith support those positions.
The same sources are cited for contradictions. When the same companions are quoted supporting opposite positions, it proves that later transmitters simply made up reports and attributed them to respected early Muslims. The system has no way to prevent or detect such false attributions.
Mass fabrication was systematic, not occasional. Over 130 Hadith were invented on a single issue. If fabricators could produce this many false reports about something so central to Islamic practice, how many fabrications exist about less important matters?
Muslim monopoly on transmission enabled fraud. Since only Muslims transmitted, compiled, and authenticated Hadith, they had every incentive to fabricate reports that defended Islam and every opportunity to do so without external oversight.

Conclusion

This case doesn't just show Ilm al-Hadith failing. It shows the system destroying itself through internal contradiction. When the "science" simultaneously authenticates mutually exclusive claims, it proves it isn't science at all.

Despite this overwhelming testimony in favor of Isaac, later Muslims ignored it. Instead, they followed the fabricated traditions to make Ishmael the sacrificial son, just to give their rituals credibility. This entire episode is a testament to the unreliability of Islamic hadith literature. The fact that 131 narrations had to be overpowered by inventing 133 opposing ones shows that hadith transmission was not divine truth but religious propaganda dressed up as sacred history.

The verdict is clear: Ilm al-Hadith is theological wishful thinking with footnotes, not a reliable method for determining historical truth.

Conclusion: The Systematic Failure of Hadith and Ilm al-Hadith

The three case studies examined in this article reveal a consistent and disturbing pattern: the Hadith corpus is fundamentally unreliable, and Ilm al-Hadith is not a science but a weapon designed to protect Islamic doctrine rather than discover historical truth.

What the Evidence Proves

The Moon Splitting case demonstrated how Ilm al-Hadith authenticates obvious fabrications when they serve Islam's interests. Despite clear contradictions with the Quran itself, which admits that Muhammad performed no miracles and that Allah "refrained" from sending signs, Muslim scholars declared the moon splitting Hadith not just authentic (Sahih) but even "mass transmitted" (Mutawatir). The logic is inescapable: if Muhammad had actually split the moon before the entire population of Mecca, he would have used this miracle to answer the pagans' constant demands for proof. Yet the Quran records only his excuses for failing to produce signs. This case proves that Ilm al-Hadith will authenticate fabrications when they compensate for Islam's weaknesses.

The Satanic Verses case revealed the opposite function of the same weapon: systematic rejection of authentic historical reports when they expose Islam's vulnerabilities. For 300 years, every Muslim scholar accepted this incident as genuine history, supported by 50+ narrations from companions and successors, confirmed by multiple Quranic passages, and transmitted through chains meeting the highest standards of authentication. Yet when the doctrine of prophetic infallibility became politically necessary, later scholars simply declared all this evidence "weak" or "fabricated." They invented new interpretations, changed the meanings of Arabic words, and accused early Muslims of lying, all to protect a theological position their predecessors never held. This case proves that Ilm al-Hadith will reject authentic history when it threatens Islamic doctrine.

The Isaac vs. Ishmael case exposed the complete bankruptcy of the authentication system through mathematical certainty. We have 131 narrations saying Isaac was the intended sacrifice and 133 saying it was Ishmael. Both cannot be true. Therefore, at minimum 131 Hadith are proven fabrications. Yet Ilm al-Hadith cannot definitively identify which set is false. Imam Qurtubi, using Hadith science, concluded the Isaac narrations were stronger. Imam Ibn Kathir, using the same science, concluded the Ishmael narrations were stronger. When the same methodology produces opposite conclusions about the same evidence, it proves the system is subjective opinion, not objective science. This case demonstrates that Ilm al-Hadith is fundamentally incapable of distinguishing truth from fabrication, even when we know with certainty that mass fabrication occurred.

The Pattern of Weaponization

These three cases reveal how Ilm al-Hadith functions as a tool of narrative control:

For fabrications that help Islam: Accept them regardless of contradictions, authenticate them despite suspicious origins, declare them reliable even when logic proves them false.

For authentic reports that harm Islam: Reject them regardless of strong chains, deny them despite multiple corroborating sources, reinterpret them until they support rather than challenge Islamic doctrine.

When faced with contradictions: Allow sectarian bias and theological convenience to determine which Hadith are accepted, producing a system where different scholars using the same "science" reach opposite conclusions.

The result is not a body of reliable historical information but a filtered narrative designed to present Islam in the best possible light, regardless of what actually happened.

Why This Matters

The implications extend far beyond academic debates about Islamic history:

Muslims base their lives on unreliable sources. Millions of Muslims structure their daily practices, moral judgments, and life decisions around Hadith that may well be fabrications. The prayer rituals, dietary laws, family regulations, and countless other aspects of Islamic life rest on a foundation of sand.

Islamic law is built on fabrications. Sharia law, which governs (or seeks to govern) the lives of over a billion people, derives much of its content from Hadith. If the Hadith corpus is unreliable, then Islamic law has no legitimate basis beyond the Quran, which itself provides insufficient detail for most legal questions.

Apologetics rest on false history. Muslim defenders of Islam constantly cite Hadith to prove Muhammad's moral perfection, Islam's scientific accuracy, or the religion's historical authenticity. But if the authentication system is fundamentally flawed, these apologetic arguments collapse.

The monopoly enabled fraud. Because only Muslims transmitted, compiled, and authenticated Hadith, they had every incentive to fabricate reports that defended their prophet and religion, and every opportunity to do so without external verification. The results confirm what we should expect from such a system: massive fabrication, biased authentication, and irresolvable contradictions.

The Inescapable Conclusion

We can state with confidence that the Hadith corpus cannot be trusted as a reliable source of historical information about early Islam or Muhammad's actual teachings and actions. This conclusion rests not on anti-Islamic bias but on the evidence provided by Islamic sources themselves:

The Quran contradicts the miracle Hadith, proving them false.

Early Muslims accepted the Satanic Verses for 300 years before theological necessity forced denial.

The Isaac vs. Ishmael contradiction provides mathematical proof that over 130 Hadith are fabrications, yet the authentication system cannot identify which ones.

Muslim scholars using Ilm al-Hadith reach opposite conclusions about the same evidence, proving the system is subjective.

The same companions are quoted supporting contradictory positions, proving false attribution was routine.

Every time theological convenience conflicts with historical evidence, Ilm al-Hadith chooses theology.

This is not science. It is not objective historical investigation. It is religious propaganda wrapped in scholarly terminology, a sophisticated system designed to produce predetermined outcomes while maintaining an appearance of rigorous methodology.

What Muslims Should Consider

For Muslims reading this article, the evidence demands honest reflection:

If Ilm al-Hadith authenticated the fabricated moon splitting miracle, how many other fabricated miracles have you been taught to accept?

If 300 years of scholarly consensus about the Satanic Verses could be reversed for theological convenience, what other authentic history has been suppressed or denied?

If at least 131 Hadith about the sacrifice are proven fabrications, how much of the Hadith corpus is similarly invented?

If prominent scholars using the same methodology reach opposite conclusions, how can you trust any authentication judgment?

The uncomfortable truth is that you cannot know which Hadith, if any, actually preserve Muhammad's words and actions. The system designed to authenticate them has been exposed as fundamentally unreliable, producing results determined by theological necessity rather than historical evidence.

For Those Seeking Truth

The failure of Hadith and Ilm al-Hadith does not necessarily disprove Islam entirely (the Quran presents its own problems, examined elsewhere on this website). But it does prove that Islam as practiced today, which depends heavily on Hadith for its rituals, laws, and understanding of Muhammad, rests on an unreliable foundation.

Truth seekers, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, must be willing to follow evidence wherever it leads, even when it contradicts cherished beliefs. The evidence presented in this article, drawn entirely from Islamic sources and Islamic scholarly tradition, demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that:

Mass fabrication of Hadith occurred on a scale involving hundreds of narrations
Ilm al-Hadith cannot reliably distinguish authentic reports from fabrications
Theological bias, not historical evidence, determines which Hadith are accepted
The same "scientific" methodology produces contradictory results depending on who applies it
Muslims have been misled for centuries about the reliability of their tradition

These are not comfortable conclusions. But they are unavoidable for anyone who honestly examines the evidence with an open mind and a commitment to truth over tradition.

The three case studies presented here represent only a small sample of the problems within the Hadith corpus. Countless other contradictions, fabrications, and authentication failures await those who investigate further. But these three cases alone suffice to prove the central thesis: Hadith and Ilm al-Hadith cannot be trusted as reliable sources of historical truth about Islam, Muhammad, or early Islamic history.

The question is not whether this conclusion is comfortable or acceptable to Islamic theology. The question is whether it is true. And the evidence, provided by Islam's own sources and scholars, gives a clear answer.

Details: Last Updated: 13 January 2026

Why Hadith and Ilm al-Hadith both are Biased and Cannot be Trusted

Introduction

The Scale of Fabrication

Why Were So Many Hadith Fabricated?

Enter ILM al-Hadith: The Illusion of Scientific Verification

The Fatal Flaws of Hadith Authentication

The Real Purpose of Ilm al-Hadith

What This Means

Case Study 1: The Fabricated Miracle of Moon Splitting

Introduction to This Case Study

The Hadith Claims

The 1st Quranic Excuse: Muhammad cannot show a Miracle while he is only a human

The 2nd Quranic Excuse: Allah would refrain from sending a miracle to Muhammad this time while nations of earlier prophets denied the miracles

The 3rd Quranic Excuse: Muhammad shouldn't ask Allah for a Miracle while Allah does not want Pagans to be guided

The 4th Quranic Excuse: Muhammad will not show the miracle to the Jews while their forefathers sinned

Islamic Excuse: The incident of the splitting of the moon is also present in the Quran

Why Hadith Cannot Be Trusted: While it was FABRICATED for the sake of Religion

Ilm al-Hadith can also not be trusted? While its a tool to legitimize fabricated Ahadith

Case Study 2: The Incident of Satanic Verses – When Ilm al-Hadith Becomes a Tool for Denial

Introduction

The Historical Reality

The Theological Problem

The Reversal

Background: The Incident in Context

Muhammad's Defense: Three Revelations

First Defense: Surah Al-Isra (17:73-75)

Second Defense: Surah Al-Hajj (22:52-53)

Third Defense: Surah An-Najm (21-26)

The Satanic Verses and Prophetic Infallibility

Critical Questions the Incident Raises

Why Modern Scholars Deny the Incident

Analysis of the Reinterpretation Group

Four Reinterpretations Examined

First Reinterpretation: The Prophet recited these Satanic verses to mock the disbelievers and ridicule their idols

Second Reinterpretation: It was the disbelievers themselves who uttered these Satanic verses

Third Reinterpretation: Satan himself uttered those words in the Prophet’s voice during a pause in his recitation

Fourth Reinterpretation: The word “Tamanna” here means “recitation,” not “desire”

Analysis of the Denial Group

Claim 1: The Qur'an Doesn't Mention This Incident

The Three Quranic Occasions

Claim 2: All Narrations Are Weak and False

Conclusion: ILM al-Hadith is only a Tool of Denial

The Double Standard

What This Case Study Demonstrates

Case Study 3: The Isaac vs. Ishmael Conflict — Which Son was Sacrificed?

Introduction

131 Traditions claim Isaac was the son who was sacrificed, while 133 Traditions claim Ishmael was the son

The Central Question

The Original Evidence: 131 Narrations for Isaac

The Theological Problem

The Fabrication Campaign: 133 Counter-Narrations

The 133 Narrations for Ishmael

The Mechanism of Suppression

The 'Double Narrative' Anomaly

The Quran's Failure: Both Camps Deducing Opposite Conclusions from the Same Text

The Ilm al-Hadith Disaster

The Logical Proof of Fabrication

The Quran's Failure

What This Case Study Proves

Conclusion

Conclusion: The Systematic Failure of Hadith and Ilm al-Hadith

What the Evidence Proves

The Pattern of Weaponization

Why This Matters

The Inescapable Conclusion

What Muslims Should Consider

For Those Seeking Truth

Latest Articles

Most Read Articles

Important Websites

Categories