Are There Any Early Hadiths? 

A Historical Reality Check

Islamic apologists often argue that Hadith literature was preserved early and with meticulous care. They claim that sayings and actions of Muhammad were passed down reliably through an elaborate system of transmission called isnad (chain of narration). But how much of this narrative survives when scrutinized against actual evidence?

Let’s cut through the apologetics and examine the real state of Hadith origins, early manuscripts, and historical reliability.

---

🔹 The Standard Muslim Claim

Muslim scholars like Dr. M. Saifullah argue that Hadiths were compiled relatively early after Muhammad’s death—pointing to figures like Hammam ibn Munabbih, Malik ibn Anas, and Abd al-Razzaq al-Sanani. They often boast that Islamic tradition developed a “science” of Hadith to authenticate what was and wasn't true.

However, this traditional defense collapses under minimal scrutiny. Here's why.

---

🔸 Argument 1: The Chain of Transmission Doesn’t Guarantee Truth

Muslims often defend Hadith authenticity by pointing to isnad, the supposed unbroken chain of narrators stretching back to Muhammad. But the concept is deeply flawed.

🧩 Problems with Isnads:

• Forgery was rampant. Early Islamic sources openly admit that isnads were routinely fabricated to support theological or political agendas.

• Selective acceptance. Bukhari reportedly collected over 600,000 hadiths but accepted only about 7,000—a tacit admission that the overwhelming majority were unreliable.

• Contradictory content. Even among the “authentic” hadiths (Sahih), there are multiple conflicting reports about the same events (ikhtilaf al-hadith).

If the isnad system were so watertight, why did almost every early compiler reject the vast majority of hadiths they came across?

🧠 A chain of narration tells you who claimed to transmit a story—not whether that story is true or historically accurate.

---

🔸 Argument 2: There Is No Early Manuscript Evidence

Apologists love to bring up the Sahifa of Hammam ibn Munabbih (d. 110 AH) as a rare example of an early Hadith compilation. Hammam was a disciple of Abu Hurairah and is said to have written 138 hadiths from him.

The problem?

• There is no surviving original manuscript of Hammam’s work.

• The version we have was transmitted through later figures like ʿAbd al-Razzaq (d. 211 AH), who lived over a century after Hammam.

• The authenticity of the Sahifa is based solely on isnad and later reconstructions, not hard evidence.

This is not primary documentation. It’s retrospective storytelling.

---

🔸 Argument 3: Contradictory Versions of Early Texts Undermine Trust

The Muwatta of Malik ibn Anas (d. 179 AH) is often presented as an example of an early and reliable hadith compilation. But this too is plagued with problems:

• Dozens of versions of the Muwatta circulated in early Islam.

• One publication in the UK noted that 50 versions of the Muwatta existed, and only 16 were deemed “best transmitted.”

• Scholars and publishers must decide which version to trust, making authenticity subjective and fluid.

If God preserved the Hadiths as claimed, why are there so many versions of the same book?

---

🔸 Argument 4: Hadiths Were Tampered With Even After Collection

Bukhari himself wrote a book (al-Du‘afa’ al-Saghir) listing unreliable narrators. Ironically, his Sahih Bukhari—considered the most authentic hadith book by Sunnis—includes hadiths narrated by several of those very individuals.

This raises disturbing questions:

• Were these hadiths inserted posthumously into Bukhari’s book?

• Did Bukhari himself lack consistency in applying his criteria?

• Or was the compilation process corrupted from the start?

Either way, the myth of a “scientific” Hadith methodology collapses under its own contradictions.

---

🔸 The Scholarly Consensus: Early Hadiths Are Historically Unreliable

Even secular scholars who initially dismissed hadiths entirely (like Goldziher and Schacht) now admit that early collections may preserve echoes of first-century Islam. But that’s the best-case scenario: echoes, not records.

Many Hadiths were composed well after the events they describe and cannot be confirmed through independent sources. They’re filtered through theological agendas, political pressures, and oral transmission over multiple generations.

---

🧠 Conclusion: No, There Are No Verifiable Early Hadiths

When all the facts are considered, the claim that Hadiths were collected early and preserved reliably does not survive critical examination.

• 📜 No first-century AH manuscripts exist.

• 🔗 Isnad is prone to forgery and manipulation.

• 📚 Multiple versions of key hadith collections exist.

• 🤯 Even “authentic” collections contradict themselves and include narrators previously marked as unreliable.

The Hadith corpus is not a preserved treasure of prophetic wisdom. It's a retrospective reconstruction, shaped by memory, myth, and manipulation.

📢 If Islam depends on the Hadith for theology, law, and Muhammad’s life story, then its foundation is not just shaky—it’s unverifiable.

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------About the Author

Mauao Man is a blog created by a New Zealand writer who believes in following the evidence wherever it leads. From history and religion to culture and society, Mauao Man takes a clear, critical, and honest approach — challenging ideas without attacking people. Whether exploring the history of Islam in New Zealand, the complexities of faith, or the contradictions in belief systems, this blog is about asking the hard questions and uncovering the truth.