A Response to the Hadith Controversy Through Proper Islamic Epistemology

Introduction

Recent comments by Dr. Yasir Qadhi regarding Islamic epistemology and the relationship between Islamic scholarship and Western academia have generated significant discussion within the Muslim community and warrant critical examination, particularly given their potential negative impact on ordinary believers. The discourse began with a segment from his podcast discussion of his book on Salafism, where he characterized Islamic approaches to hadith and other religious sources as being faith-based. Following considerable scholarly backlash, he defended and reaffirmed these positions in a subsequent Q&A session.

(For readers interested in an excellent scholarly response to Dr. Qadhi’s statements, I highly recommend watching Sheikh Salman bin Nasir’s detailed critique.)

Both videos have been reviewed in their entirety to ensure full contextual understanding of his position before proceeding with this critical analysis.

The language and conceptual frameworks he employs, particularly terms like “leap of faith” when describing Islamic methodology, create confusion among believers rather than providing clarity. When ordinary Muslims hear Islamic epistemology characterized as requiring “faith” (in the problematic sense), they may question the rational foundations of their beliefs. This outcome is concerning when such characterizations are unnecessary and, as this analysis demonstrates, fundamentally incorrect.

This analysis will be direct and substantive because the epistemological issues at stake are too important for vague discussions. Yet it proceeds from genuine concern both for the Muslims who may be affected by this confused discourse and for Islamic scholarship itself, which deserves more sophisticated representation. The directness comes from care for the community, respect for the tradition, and a sense of responsibility (amānah) for the deen.

This analysis proceeds from the rational sciences (al-ʿaqliyyāt) perspective, examining how we evaluate evidence and reach reliable conclusions. It demonstrates that Islamic epistemology operates through systematic evidence evaluation rather than the “leaps of faith” described in Dr. Qadhi’s presentations, and that this methodology is not only rationally sound but demonstrates clear advantages over Western academic approaches.

This analysis demonstrates that Dr. Qadhi’s use of “faith” terminology reflects insufficient epistemological training and fundamentally mischaracterizes Islamic methodology. His approach creates unnecessary confusion about the rational foundations of Islamic scholarship and weakens Muslim intellectual positions through imprecise language that concedes ground to flawed Western academic premises.

Let us proceed to examine these issues systematically by first establishing the proper epistemological foundations, then demonstrating the strength of Islamic methodology, before analyzing the specific problems in contemporary discourse.

Note on Terminology: Throughout this analysis, “empirical” is used in its broad academic sense, referring to knowledge derived from experience and observation, including testimony from reliable sources and institutional verification—the same broad usage that characterizes mainstream academic discourse and makes institutional knowledge possible.

PART I: Epistemological Foundations
PART II: Empirical Islam: The Evidence-Driven Framework
PART III: Analyzing Dr. Qadhi’s Confusing Statements
PART IV: The Western Academy’s Double Standard

PART I: Epistemological Foundations

To properly evaluate the claims and counterclaims in contemporary debates about Islamic scholarship, we must first establish clear epistemological categories. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for addressing the misuse of terms like “faith” (īmān) in contemporary discourse—particularly the wrong equation of probabilistic knowledge with “faith.” Confusion between these categories underlies much of the current controversy and can be resolved through clear definitions.

Two Types of Judgements and Certainty

Human beings acquire reliable knowledge through two fundamental types of mental evaluations, each using different methods but both capable of yielding definitive certainty.

Rational Judgements (al-aḥkām al-ʿaqliyyah)

These are mental evaluations we make through logical reasoning and analysis of concepts and their relationships. The knowledge derived from these judgements is accessible through pure logical reasoning, without requiring empirical observation:

Rationally Necessary (wājib ʿaqlan)
– Mathematical propositions (2 + 2 = 4)
– Definitional truths (all bachelors are unmarried men)
– Logical principles (the law of non-contradiction)

Rationally Impossible (mustaḥīl ʿaqlan)
– Logical contradictions (married bachelor)
– Mathematical impossibilities (square circles)
– Definitional contradictions (triangles with four sides)

Rationally Possible (mumkin ʿaqlan)
– Undetermined propositions that don’t contradict logic
– Mathematical possibilities not yet proven
– Theoretical scenarios without logical problems

Empirical Judgements (al-aḥkām al-ʿādiyyah)

These are mental evaluations we make by processing and analyzing evidence from the world around us. The knowledge derived from these judgements is established through observation, testimony, and accumulated evidence—by recognizing repeated patterns and regularities we experience in the world around us:

Empirically Necessary (wājib ʿādatan)
– Fire burns, water flows downhill
– Mass-transmitted historical facts (George Washington existed)
– Well-established geographical realities (China exists)

Empirically Impossible (mustaḥīl ʿādatan)
– Physical impossibilities under normal conditions (breathing underwater)
– Highly improbable events (needle landing upright when dropped)
– Contradicting established patterns (water flowing uphill naturally)

Empirically Possible (mumkin ʿādatan)
– Future uncertain events (rain tomorrow)
– Unverified but plausible claims
– Events within normal physical possibilities

The Complete Framework

Is Empirically Necessary Knowledge Speculative?

This is where many people get confused, and it’s crucial to understand the Islamic terminology properly.

Key Principle: Just because something is empirically necessary (wājib ʿādatan) and has a statistical probability doesn’t mean it’s not definitive (qatʿī).

Both rational and empirical knowledge can provide definitive certainty (qatʿ). Definitive knowledge (qatʿī) includes anything which is necessary—whether rationally necessary or empirically necessary. Both types provide certainty, just through different means.

Practical Examples

The Needle Example: Every empirically necessary thing (unless it’s also logically necessary) will have some abstract theoretical probability of not occurring. For example, there’s a statistical probability that you could throw three needles and have the first land perfectly upright on a tiled floor, the second land perfectly balanced on top of the first, and the third land perfectly balanced on top of the second—this isn’t logically impossible, just empirically impossible due to overwhelming improbability. Yet this theoretical possibility doesn’t make our empirical knowledge uncertain.

The China Example: If you’ve never been to China, your knowledge that China exists comes from billions of people’s testimony, maps, photos, products labeled “Made in China,” news reports, and Chinese people you’ve met. Is there a logical possibility that China doesn’t exist? Technically yes. But this logical possibility doesn’t make your knowledge doubtful because the empirical evidence is overwhelming.

Understanding Empirically Possible Knowledge: A Spectrum of Probability

Empirically possible knowledge exists on a wide spectrum—from highly improbable to highly probable. The entire world operates using empirically possible information despite it not being certain. Every functional institution—medical, legal, academic, governmental, commercial—routinely makes decisions based on probable rather than certain knowledge.

Examples of How the World Functions on Probability:
– Medical diagnoses based on symptoms and test results (doctors work with varying degrees of confidence)
– Legal verdicts based on “beyond reasonable doubt”—courts explicitly reject demands for absolute certainty
– Weather forecasts (meteorologists provide probability ranges, not certainty)
– Character assessments when hiring employees (based on interviews, references, and background checks)

The key insight: Rather than demanding impossible certainty, sophisticated institutions assess degrees of probability and respond appropriately. This is how the entire world actually operates—no one demands rational necessity for empirically possible knowledge.

The Application to Islam

Islamic epistemology operates within these same categories of empirical knowledge, recognizing that different types of evidence require different levels of confidence. Rather than demanding impossible certainty, Islamic scholarship employs sophisticated evidence evaluation that parallels how all functional institutions operate.

The Islamic approach mirrors these same principles: Just as functional institutions operate with different confidence levels rather than binary accept/reject decisions, Islamic scholarship evaluates evidence according to its epistemological weight. This graduated approach reflects how evidence-based institutions actually operate—they don’t treat all “probable” evidence as equally reliable, but assess degrees of confidence within the probable category.

The Skepticism Problem

Different levels of skepticism produce different types of dysfunction. Let’s see what happens when we demand increasingly unreasonable standards of certainty:

Level 1: Demanding Rational Necessity for Everything
If you only accept rationally necessary (wājib ʿaqlan) knowledge, you end up unable to function in daily life:
– You couldn’t trust that food nourishes you (only empirically established)
– You couldn’t believe your parents are your parents (only empirically established)
– You couldn’t trust that medicine works (only empirically established)
– You couldn’t even trust basic geographical facts like the existence of other countries (only empirically established)

Level 2: Demanding Empirical Necessity for Everything
Even if you accept empirically necessary (wājib ʿādatan) knowledge, you’d still be paralyzed:
– You couldn’t act on weather forecasts (only probabilistic)
– You couldn’t trust medical diagnoses (doctors work with probable, not certain, conclusions)
– You couldn’t make hiring decisions (character assessment is probabilistic)
– You couldn’t accept most historical facts (beyond what’s mass-transmitted)
– You couldn’t function in courts, which deliberately operate on “beyond reasonable doubt” rather than absolute certainty—recognizing that empirically probable knowledge is sufficient for even life-and-death decisions

Level 3: Accepting Empirically Probable Knowledge but Setting the Bar Unreasonably High
This creates dysfunction where you demand excessively rigorous standards within empirically probable knowledge that make practical decision-making impossible:
– Requiring three independent corroborating sources for any historical claim before accepting it (paralyzing historical research)
– Demanding extensive additional testing before accepting any medical diagnosis (making timely treatment impossible)
– Insisting on peer review from five different experts before trusting any archaeological interpretation (stalling all research)
– Requiring 90%+ replication rates before accepting any research findings (rejecting most useful knowledge)
– Demanding extensive background investigations and multiple character references before trusting any professional in routine interactions (making normal professional relationships impossible)

Western academics seem to operate at Level 2 or Level 3 when dealing with religious sources. Some appear to demand empirical necessity for religious claims (Level 2) while others accept empirically probable knowledge but set impossibly high bars for religious sources while accepting modest standards for secular claims (Level 3). Both approaches create the same problem: they accept reasonable empirically probable knowledge in secular contexts but apply unreasonable standards to religious sources:
– They’ll cite a single historian’s interpretation from a 1950s archival study (empirically probable)
– But reject multiply-attested Islamic narrations with detailed biographical verification (also empirically probable)
– They’ll accept peer-reviewed studies with 39% replication rates (empirically probable with documented problems)
– But demand perfect certainty from hadith transmission systems with superior verification methods

The Functional Alternative: Appropriate Standards
The rational approach is to evaluate each piece of evidence on its own merits. When evidence establishes something as empirically necessary, accept it as definitive. When evidence only supports empirical probability, accept it as probable—but recognize that empirically probable knowledge exists on a spectrum, from highly confident conclusions based on strong evidence to tentative possibilities based on weaker indicators, and treat each level accordingly. Most importantly, use these same criteria uniformly across all subjects—whether secular history, religious claims, scientific research, or personal decisions. This prevents both the dysfunction of impossible demands and the unfairness of discriminatory standards.

Having established the foundational epistemological framework, we can now examine how Islamic scholarship operates within these categories. Rather than requiring “leaps of faith,” Islamic epistemology demonstrates systematic evidence evaluation that meets and often exceeds the standards applied in other knowledge domains.

PART II: Empirical Islam: The Evidence-Driven Framework

The characterization of Islamic epistemology as requiring “faith” and “logical leaps” fundamentally misrepresents how Islamic conviction operates. Understanding the proper structure of Islamic epistemology demonstrates why Islamic scholarship operates through systematic evidence evaluation rather than dogmatic belief, making it a genuinely empirical methodology in the technical sense established in Part I.

1. The Foundation: Establishing Islam Through Empirical Evidence

Why Islam Itself is Empirically Established

The crucial point often missed in contemporary discourse: Islam itself is not accepted through “faith” in the dogmatic sense—it receives establishment through empirically necessary evidence. The prophethood of Muhammad ﷺ constitutes an empirically necessary conclusion based on overwhelming historical evidence that makes denial epistemically unreasonable.

This follows the same methodological framework used in legal systems for evaluating witness credibility—systematic examination of character, consistency, corroboration, motivation analysis, and track record reliability.

Comparative Methodology: Islamic Hadith Science vs. Legal Systems

The following comparison demonstrates how Islamic hadith methodology employs identical evidential standards to modern legal systems, often with superior verification methods:

Key Insight: Islamic hadith science often employs higher standards than legal systems—knowing more about Imam Malik’s character, methodology, and reliability than most legal systems know about their key witnesses. Yet no one characterizes legal verdicts as “faith-based” despite their reliance on probabilistic evidence evaluation.

The Comprehensive Evidence Base

First, the Reliability of Our Sources:
As demonstrated throughout this article, our narrators and transmission system meet and exceed the verification standards of legal systems and academic institutions. This established critical methodology ensures that the body of narrations we use to evaluate proofs of prophethood meets rigorous empirical standards.

Now, the Historical Evidence for Prophethood:

Character Evidence over Extended Period:
– Forty years of documented impeccable reputation before his prophethood claims
– Recognition as “The Trustworthy” (Al-Amīn) even among eventual enemies
– No documented history of deception, even regarding trivial matters

Textual and Linguistic Evidence:
– Unmatched literary excellence that defeated Arabia’s most accomplished poets
– Open challenge to produce comparable material—never successfully met despite strong cultural motivation
– Perfect preservation across 1400+ years without textual corruption

Predictive Evidence:
– Roman victory over Persian Empire (against all contemporary expectations)
– Specific accurate predictions regarding individual companions’ futures
– Detailed descriptions of events occurring after prophetic death
– Accurate characterizations of future civilizational developments

Physical Demonstrations:
– Splitting of the moon (witnessed by multiple independent observers)
– Water production from finger joints during scarcity
– Food multiplication during times of shortage
– Medical healing of injured and diseased individuals

Civilizational Transformation Evidence:
– Rapid transformation of Arabian tribal society into unified ethical community
– Extraordinary expansion across diverse cultural and linguistic groups
– Establishment of sophisticated legal and educational institutions
– Recognition and acceptance by adherents of previous scriptural traditions

Note for readers interested in detailed analysis: Those who want to explore the proofs of prophethood in comprehensive detail can watch my intensive lecture series on this topic: Proofs of Prophethood Playlist. The videos are currently unlisted and will eventually be edited and reuploaded, but readers can benefit from them in this format for now.

The Logical Progression from Evidence to Conviction

Once prophethood receives establishment through empirical necessity, subsequent Islamic beliefs follow through logical derivation rather than additional “faith” requirements:

1. Historical evidence establishes Muhammad’s ﷺ prophethood (empirically necessary)
2. Logical conclusion: If Muhammad ﷺ is Allah’s messenger, then his teachings are true and the Quran is divine revelation (deductive reasoning)
3. Quranic testimony: The Quran provides divine testimony regarding various matters including Companion righteousness (textual evidence)
4. Historical confirmation: Companion actions and sacrifices independently confirm their character (empirical evidence)
5. Rational conviction: All subsequent Islamic beliefs receive empirical establishment through this converging evidence chain

This represents systematic logical progression based on empirical evidence evaluation—not “leaps of faith.”

2. Internal Islamic Epistemology: Using Established Sources

Our Right to Use Internal Proofs

Once Islam receives establishment through the empirically necessary evidence outlined above, Muslims are fully justified in using internal Islamic sources for further knowledge acquisition:

Divine Testimony as Supreme Evidence:
– The Quran receives establishment as divine revelation through proven prophethood
– When Allah declares something in the Quran, this constitutes the highest possible form of evidence within any epistemological system that acknowledges divine revelation
– Divine testimony about matters like Companion righteousness (ʿadālat al-ṣaḥābah) represents definitive evidence within our framework

Prophetic Testimony as Reliable Transmission:
– Authentic hadith represent reliable transmission of prophetic teachings
– The Prophet’s ﷺ established credibility makes his testimony about companions, legal matters, and theological issues highly reliable
– This operates through the same evidential logic that establishes any reliable narrator

The Internal Coherence

This approach demonstrates complete epistemological soundness:
– The foundation (prophethood) receives establishment through historical evidence accessible to any serious investigator
– Quranic divine origin follows logically from prophetic authenticity
– Divine and prophetic testimony about subsequent matters follows logically from established divine origin
– Each logical step builds upon the previous step, creating coherent evidential chains

No circularity exists because the major premise (prophethood) receives independent historical establishment before internal sources are utilized for derivative conclusions.

3. The Sophistication of Islamic Hadith Methodology

Why Islamic Hadith Science Represents Superior Scholarship

The formative period of Islamic hadith science (roughly 2nd-3rd centuries AH) demonstrates methodological sophistication that modern academic institutions have yet to match:

Systematic Skepticism Where It Matters:
The relevant skepticism occurred during the formative period when hadith collectors like Bukhārī, Muslim, and Tirmidhī systematically evaluated narrations and biographical critics like Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn developed rigorous narrator reliability methodologies. Once these scholars applied their skeptical methodology and established the hadith corpus with embedded verification infrastructure—collections with graded narrations, complete chains (asānīd), biographical literature (kutub al-rijāl), and systematic criticism (jarḥ wa-taʿdīl)—the system was “etched in stone.”

Reproducible Verification System:
This created a reproducible system where any competent hadith critic could re-evaluate narrations by examining chains against established biographical records. When one critic disagreed with another’s grading, they could use the same internal system to provide their own assessment.

Superior Cultural Incentives:
– Social consequences for fabrication in early Islamic society were more severe than contemporary academic sanctions
– Greater immunity from political interference: classical Islamic hadith science developed independently of state control, unlike contemporary research that can be defunded or suppressed when politically inconvenient

Having demonstrated the strength and sophistication of Islamic methodology, we can now examine specific problems that arise when this robust system is mischaracterized through confused terminology and flawed logical reasoning.

PART III: Analyzing Dr. Qadhi’s Confusing Statements

Before analyzing specific problems in contemporary Islamic academic discourse, we should acknowledge areas of agreement: (1) Islamic hadith methodology and the Historical Critical Method operate from genuinely different epistemological frameworks, (2) these paradigms employ different standards and approaches, and (3) academic participation requires working within established institutional parameters. These observations are factually accurate and uncontroversial.

However, several deeper conceptual issues emerge in how these differences are characterized and addressed, creating unnecessary epistemological problems and potentially weakening Islamic scholarly positions through confused terminology and logical inconsistencies.

1. The Problem of Equivocating on “Faith”

The most significant problem in his statements involves the repeated use of “faith” terminology without clear definitions, creating dangerous ambiguity about the epistemological character of Islamic scholarship.

The Central Confusion: What Does “Faith” Mean?

Consider these representative statements from contemporary Islamic academic discourse:

“Now, is this a faith-based or an empirical-based claim? Which of the two is it? I’m asking you. It’s faith-based. It’s faith-based.”

View on Youtube

“But yes there are some aspects that require faith and those aspects are logical and rational. I mean Abu Bakr after all that he’s done he’s not going to lie about the prophet it’s illogical to say this but admit that this is a point it’s a logical leap of faith.”

View on Youtube

“okay I admit there’s an element of faith let’s just admit that let’s be fair here”

View on Youtube

The fundamental question requiring clarification: What specific meaning does “faith” carry in these contexts? This is not merely a semantic issue—it addresses the core characterization of Islamic epistemological methodology. Only two interpretive possibilities exist:

Option 1: “Faith” as Empirical Probability

If “faith” refers to accepting empirical probability rather than demanding mathematical certainty, then this describes a characteristic present in ALL functional knowledge systems. Every instance of historians accepting manuscript traditions, physicians prescribing medications based on clinical research, or courts reaching verdicts based on “beyond reasonable doubt” involves empirical probability rather than logical necessity.

The critical inconsistency: If this interpretation is correct, then identical “faith” characterizes the Historical Critical Method and Western academic epistemology generally. Yet contemporary discourse exclusively applies “faith-based” terminology to Islamic methodology while describing Western academic approaches through neutral, analytical language.

Option 2: “Faith” as Dogmatic Belief

If “faith” signifies dogmatic belief maintained despite insufficient evidence, then this fundamentally mischaracterizes Islamic epistemological methodology. As demonstrated in Part II, Islamic belief (īmān) constitutes conviction because of overwhelming evidence rather than belief despite insufficient evidence.

The Terminological Confusion Problem

The English term “faith” carries significantly different connotations from the Arabic concept of belief (īmān):

When contemporary discourse employs phrases like “logical leap of faith,” dangerous ambiguity results. The phrase approaches oxymoronic status in English usage: if something is genuinely logical, why characterize it as requiring “faith”? If something constitutes a “leap of faith,” why claim it’s “logical”? Unlike Christianity, which requires belief despite logical contradictions (Trinity), Islamic īmān operates through logical analysis rather than against it.

The False Binary About ʿAdālat al-Ṣaḥābah

Contemporary discourse sometimes creates artificial either/or choices regarding fundamental Islamic concepts:

“I mean another issue is we have in Islam something called the status of the companions being ʿudūl, meaning companions of the prophet ﷺ will never lie about the prophet ﷺ. Now, is this a faith-based or an empirical-based claim? Which of the two is it? I’m asking you. It’s faith-based. It’s faith-based.”

View on Youtube

This forced choice between “faith-based” and “empirical-based” implies mutual exclusivity between these categories. However, uprightness of the Companions (ʿadālat al-ṣaḥābah) receives support through multiple, converging evidential streams:

Historical Evidence:
– Documented sacrifices of material wealth, social status, personal safety, and family relationships for Islamic commitment
– Behavioral consistency under severe persecution and in private circumstances
– Practical impossibility of coordinated mass deception among individuals who abandoned all material advantages
– Transformational social impact and civilizational achievements of subsequent generations

Divine Testimony:
– Explicit divine confirmation of Companion righteousness in multiple Quranic passages
– Specific divine promises of Paradise for individual Companions
– General divine praise for emigrants (muhājirūn) and helpers (anṣār)

Methodological insight: Establishing Companion righteousness (ʿadālah) doesn’t require independence from Quranic testimony for internal Islamic purposes—but historical analysis provides additional confirmatory evidence accessible to non-Muslim scholars.

2. The Flawed “If Not Quran, Then Not Hadith” Argument

Moving beyond terminological problems, contemporary discourse shows several logical errors that undermine argumentative coherence and create unnecessary conceptual difficulties.

The Logical Error

Dr. Qadhi makes this sweeping argument:

“And it’s pretty obvious to me. I mean it again when they’re not going to accept the Quran to be from Allah, why would they accept hadith to be from the prophet? It’s like it’s obvious to me.”

View on Youtube

This statement conflates two fundamentally different epistemological questions:

The Critical Distinction: Attribution vs. Acceptance

Attribution: Did this text actually originate from the claimed historical source?
Acceptance: Is the content true, divine, or normatively binding?

Western academic institutions already accept Quranic attribution to Prophet Muhammad ﷺ based on manuscript evidence, historical attestation, and textual analysis. They reject divine origin claims—which constitutes a separate theological rather than historical question.

For hadith evaluation, identical standards apply: Historical methodology can evaluate whether specific narrations can be reliably attributed to the Prophet ﷺ. Whether scholars subsequently choose to believe or follow those narrations represents an entirely separate question.

The Fundamental Flaw in Dr. Qadhi’s Logic

Dr. Qadhi makes a basic logical error here. He’s using a fortiori reasoning—the “if this, then obviously that” type of argument. His logic goes: “If they won’t accept the Quran as divine, then obviously they won’t accept hadith as authentic.”

But this reasoning doesn’t work because he’s mixing up two completely different questions. Asking “Is this text from God?” is not the same as asking “Did this historical person actually say these words?” The proof is that Western academics already accept that the Quran comes from Muhammad ﷺ based on historical evidence—they just don’t accept it’s from God. So they can do the same for hadith: accept the attribution to him without believing in the truth of the contents. Academic historians can easily say “Muhammad said X” without believing “X is true” or “X is from God.” They do this with every historical figure—they’ll quote Napoleon or Julius Caesar without believing everything they said was correct.

Dr. Qadhi’s argument suggests that historical attribution somehow requires theological acceptance. But this creates an impossible standard that would make any academic engagement with Islamic sources meaningless. The flaw is assuming that religious doubt automatically creates historical doubt. But that’s not how evidence works. You can reject someone’s religious claims while still accepting that they historically made those claims.

3. The Professor Encounter and the Missed Opportunity

The Story

Dr. Qadhi recounts his classroom experience in detail:

“So we clearly found all of these books and all of these chains are going back to Imam Malik and then from Malik to Ibn Umar to the prophet ﷺ. So he began, you know, speaking like this that so the common link is Malik, the source is Malik, the origin is Malik… and I literally asked him point blank: are you insinuating that Malik ibn Anas just fabricated the hadith out of thin air?… And he just looks straight at me and he goes, you know, I never forget this: ‘Well, prima facie that cannot be ruled out.’ Meaning that is a logical possibility. Yes.”

View on Youtube

Dr. Qadhi’s Problematic Response

Instead of challenging the professor’s unreasonable epistemological standard, Dr. Qadhi appears to have been shaken by it. His response reveals the core problem—he wasn’t trained to answer this type of challenge and still hasn’t been able to resolve that gap in knowledge and understanding:

“And at that stage I literally said I need to do my PhD in hadith studies… because how—like I didn’t even know how to respond because the blasé attitude: ‘Yeah maybe Malik just fabricated, you know, a hadith about the prophet.'”

View on Youtube

The issue isn’t that Dr. Qadhi didn’t know how to respond in that moment—the issue is that he still hasn’t developed the epistemological tools to properly address such challenges, leaving him operating from a position of unresolved uncertainty about the relationship between Islamic and Western methodologies.

This isn’t uncommon for someone working in multiple fields. Just as being a skilled scientist doesn’t automatically make one competent in philosophy of science, being knowledgeable about hadith studies and Western academic methods doesn’t necessarily provide the philosophical sophistication needed to analyze and compare these epistemological frameworks. Dr. Qadhi appears to be a practitioner in both systems without having developed the meta-level understanding required to properly evaluate their relative strengths and weaknesses.

What Should Have Been Said

A more effective response would have exposed the professor’s double standard:

“Professor, you’re demanding rational necessity for historical claims, which is an impossible and inconsistent standard. Many things are logical possibilities that are empirically impossible. Is it a ‘logical possibility’ that you don’t exist and I’m talking to an illusion? Technically yes—there’s no logical contradiction in that scenario. Does this logical possibility affect my empirical certainty that you exist? Of course not.”

“Similarly, while Imam Malik fabricating hadith is a ‘logical possibility’ in the abstract sense, it’s empirically impossible given the historical context: the social accountability systems in early Islamic society, the severe consequences of fabrication in that cultural context, Malik’s documented character and methodology, and the practical impossibility of coordinated deception across multiple authorities.”

“More importantly, do you apply this same standard to secular historical sources? When you cite a 1950s archival study, do you consider it a ‘logical possibility’ that the researcher fabricated the documents? When you reference archaeological interpretations, do you demand rational certainty that the archaeologist didn’t plant evidence? The standards you’re applying to Islamic sources would make virtually all historical knowledge impossible.”

The Deeper Problem

Dr. Qadhi’s professor was demanding rationally necessary knowledge (wājib ʿaqlan) for what should be evaluated as empirically necessary or empirically probable knowledge (wājib or rājiḥ ʿādatan) (as categorized in Part I). This represents a category error that no serious historian could consistently apply.

The professor’s “blasé attitude” wasn’t sophisticated skepticism—it was methodological inconsistency that demonstrates the double standards we will examine in Part IV.

4. Islamic Scholarship Doesn’t Start From Skepticism?

The Misleading Claim

Dr. Qadhi characterizes the difference between Islamic and Western approaches as follows:

“See this is the fundamental difference. The historical critical method—it begins with the premise of skepticism. It doesn’t understand the reality of iman.”

View on Youtube

This is worded in such a way that any listener will think that Islam doesn’t have skepticism and just relies on iman, misrepresenting both Islamic methodology and the nature of proper skepticism. As demonstrated in Part II, Islamic hadith science employed systematic skepticism during its formative period, creating embedded verification systems that remain superior to many contemporary academic standards.

Why This Matters

Dr. Qadhi’s approach—evident both in his language and demeanor—appears to send the wrong message: that our epistemology is somehow deficient and needs external validation. His use of confusing terminology compounds the problem by making Islamic scholarship sound uncertain.

This seems to be an established pattern: rather than confidently articulating Islamic positions, Dr. Qadhi appears to consistently adopt a concessive tone toward Western academic standards, treating them as the measure of intellectual sophistication while characterizing Islamic approaches as requiring “leaps of faith.”

Having analyzed these conceptual problems, we can now examine the broader pattern of double standards that characterizes Western academic treatment of Islamic sources. Surprisingly, the very institutions that critique Islamic scholarship for relying on transmitted knowledge and institutional authority employ structurally identical epistemic methods—merely under different terminological frameworks.

PART IV: The Western Academy’s Double Standard

Now that we’ve demonstrated the strength of Islamic epistemological methodology and identified specific problems in its contemporary characterization, we can examine the broader context: how Western academic institutions apply inconsistent standards when evaluating religious versus secular knowledge claims. This double standard becomes particularly evident when we examine how academic institutions rely on the very same transmitted knowledge and institutional trust that they criticize in Islamic scholarship.

How Western Academia Relies on Transmitted Knowledge

The entire academic enterprise depends on transmitted knowledge and institutional trust—precisely what they criticize in Islamic scholarship when they characterize it as “faith-based.”

Examples of Academic “Faith”

Literature Dependency: No academic personally verifies every source cited. Historians reference 1950s archival studies, philosophers cite medieval manuscript translations—accepting transmitted knowledge through academic literature. They trust:
– peer review processes
– institutional credentials
– editorial standards
– translation accuracy (often unverified)
– archival claims and interpretations.

Medical Knowledge: Doctors prescribe medication relying on:
– drug trials they didn’t personally conduct
– anatomical knowledge transmitted through medical schools
– diagnostic procedures developed by previous generations
– pharmaceutical research conducted by others.

Historical Scholarship: Academic historians constantly rely on:
– ancient manuscript traditions they haven’t personally verified
– archaeological interpretations by previous scholars
– translation work done by others (often single translators)
– archival research conducted by earlier historians.

Legal/Political Scholarship: Law schools and political science departments accept:
– constitutional interpretations transmitted through case law
– historical legal precedents they haven’t personally researched
– legislative intent based on committee reports
– comparative law studies from other jurisdictions.

Could this be characterized as “faith” by the same terminology applied to Islamic knowledge? It involves identical institutional trust that receives criticism in religious contexts. Yet no academic would describe their reliance on probabilistic peer review and unverified archival claims as “faith-based methodology.”

The Academic Transmission Chain (Isnād)

The academic community has developed its own version of chain of transmission (isnād), yet refuses to acknowledge the parallel:

Consider what historians call “raw empirical data”: manuscripts, artifacts, and carbon dating results all depend fundamentally on systematic credibility verification before accepting testimony. A historian analyzing a medieval manuscript must first establish the reliability of the archaeologists who discovered it, the paleographers who dated it, the laboratories that tested it, and the institutions that preserved it through rational analysis of their credentials, methodology, and track record. Even seemingly objective techniques like carbon dating require complex interpretation of radioactive decay rates and calibration curves rather than direct observation. This systematic approach to establishing credibility before accepting testimony—using rational analysis, institutional verification, and empirical assessment of reliability—underlies all empirical research, not just Islamic hadith methodology.

This parallel exposes the fundamental hypocrisy: Academic historians routinely trust paleographers’ expertise through institutional credentials, rely on archaeologists’ professional reputation without re-excavating sites, and accept archival claims through editorial oversight—yet these identical processes of biographical verification, cross-referencing, character assessment, contemporary verification, and systematic reliability classification somehow become “faith-based” when employed through Islamic isnād methodology. The difference is purely terminological discrimination, with Islamic scholarship actually providing superior transparency through complete biographical records, publicly accessible chain documentation, and explicit reliability classifications, while academic equivalents often remain opaque through closed peer review and lack comprehensive biographical verification.

The Academic Reliability Crisis

The irony is striking: academic institutions demand higher standards from Islamic scholarship while their own transmission systems demonstrate serious reliability problems. Only 39% of psychology studies in premier journals successfully replicated when tested by the Open Science Collaboration. According to published literature, 94% of antidepressant trials appeared positive, but FDA data showed only 51% were actually positive (Turner et al., 2008). Papers that failed to replicate are cited 153 times more than those that successfully replicated (Serra-Garcia & Gneezy, 2021).

Meanwhile, historians routinely trust archival claims they haven’t personally verified, and translation errors in classical texts go undetected for decades.

The Double Standard Exposed

When Western academics trust sources they haven’t personally checked, this is called “rational scholarship.” When Muslims trust sources they haven’t personally checked, this becomes “faith-based belief.”

But look at the actual comparison: We know far more about Imam Malik’s character and reliability than most academics know about the historians they quote. We have detailed biographical records (tarājim) for thousands of narrators spanning multiple generations—information that includes their teachers, students, travel patterns, memory capacity, and moral character. The social penalties for lying in early Islamic society were harsher than academic consequences today—fabricators faced social ostracism and permanent scholarly rejection. Unlike modern research that can lose funding or get censored for political reasons, classical hadith scholarship developed free from government control.

Most importantly, our verification system was designed by people who lived alongside the original sources and could directly assess their credibility, unlike modern historians who must rely on manuscripts and archaeological fragments from centuries or millennia later. The early hadith critics had access to eyewitness testimony and could cross-examine narrators in person—a luxury modern scholarship cannot match.

So the real question isn’t whether our methods work—it’s whether theirs do.

The Fallacy of “Higher Standards”

This brings us to a critical issue worth examining: the common assumption that adopting Western academic premises automatically makes arguments more sophisticated.

The False Sophistication Problem

Contemporary discourse sometimes appears to suggest that accepting Western academic premises makes arguments more “robust” and “nuanced.” However, this approach may weaken arguments by accepting flawed starting assumptions.

Key Insight: High standards aren’t inherently better than appropriate standards.

The Restaurant Analogy: A restaurant requiring three forms of ID, a background check, and a credit report isn’t “more refined” than one simply requiring money. It’s dysfunctional.

Similarly, requiring “logical necessity” for all historical claims isn’t more rigorous—it’s impossible and counterproductive.

The real difference isn’t presence versus absence of skepticism. It’s the difference between reasonable skepticism that can be consistently applied versus unreasonable skepticism that creates impossible standards. Islamic methodology employs appropriate evidentiary standards that scholars can actually meet in their own secular work, while HCM as often applied demands impossibly high standards for religious sources that its proponents routinely ignore in their non-religious scholarship.

Addressing the “HCM starts with skepticism and Islam doesn’t” Claim

The Western Academic Argument:
A common Western academic argument suggests that Islamic hadith methodology fundamentally lacks systematic skepticism, citing anomalous incidents of individual hadith critics or standard Muslims from later periods who were insufficiently skeptical.

The Methodological Errors:
These arguments commit striking temporal and methodological errors by:
– Conflating different scholarly periods and functions
– Using isolated anomalous statements (aqwāl shādhdhah) as representative evidence
– Making sweeping generalizations about an entire methodological tradition based on insufficient data

The isolated incidents cited are inadequate even to establish that later hadith critics as a scholarly class lacked skepticism, much less to characterize the entire methodological tradition.

Where the Real Skepticism Occurred:
The relevant skepticism occurred during the formative period (roughly 2nd-3rd centuries AH) when:

• Hadith collectors like Bukhārī, Muslim, and Tirmidhī systematically evaluated narrations
• Biographical critics like Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn developed rigorous narrator reliability methodologies
• Systematic verification infrastructure was established and embedded in the corpus

The “Etched in Stone” System:
Once these scholars applied their skeptical methodology, they established the hadith corpus with comprehensive verification infrastructure:
– Collections with graded narrations
– Complete chains (asānīd)
– Biographical literature (kutub al-rijāl)
– Systematic criticism (jarḥ wa-taʿdīl)

The Reproducible Verification System:
This created a reproducible system where any competent hadith critic could:
– Re-evaluate narrations by examining chains against established biographical records
– Provide independent assessments using the same internal methodological framework
– Access the embedded skeptical methodology for ongoing verification

Why Later Skepticism Couldn’t Undermine the Foundation:
The formative skeptical work could only be done by contemporaries of the early transmitters. Individual cases of insufficient skepticism by later scholars couldn’t undermine this foundation because the skeptical methodology remained embedded and accessible within the established system.

External Verification: Engaging Non-Muslim Scholars

When dealing with non-Muslim academics who reject Islamic hadith methodology, we can employ two complementary approaches to demonstrate the reliability of our transmission system:

Approach 1: Demonstrating the Irrationality of Rejecting Islam

The primary approach should be convincing them of Islam itself by showing it’s irrational and unreasonable to reject the overwhelming proofs of prophethood. When Western academics dismiss the comprehensive historical evidence for Muhammad’s ﷺ prophethood while accepting far weaker evidence for secular claims, this reveals methodological inconsistency rather than superior scholarly rigor.

Key insight: The same academics who reject the empirically necessary evidence for Islamic prophethood routinely accept empirically probable knowledge in their secular work—historical reconstructions, archaeological interpretations, scientific conclusions based on peer review, and legal precedents based on judicial decisions. Their rejection of Islam demonstrates bias rather than rigorous skepticism.

Approach 2: Demonstrating Our Objective Internal System Can Be Used by Non-Muslims

Even for those who stubbornly refuse to accept Islam’s truth, we can demonstrate that our hadith science system is objective and standalone—capable of being used by non-Muslims to verify authenticity through empirical analysis rather than theological commitment.

Our methodology functions as a pure historical verification tool (refined over a melinnium) with:
– Comprehensive biographical verification (ʿilm al-rijāl)
– Cross-referencing multiple independent transmission chains
– Systematic reliability classifications with nuanced gradations
– Historical context analysis and temporal consistency checking

Superior Standards Compared to Western Academia:
– More rigorous biographical verification: We know more about Imam Malik’s character, methodology, and reliability than most academics know about scholars they cite
– Better cross-referencing: Multiple independent transmission chains provide stronger verification than typical academic replication rates
– More systematic reliability assessment: The authentic (ṣaḥīḥ), good (ḥasan), weak (ḍaʿīf) classification system demonstrates more nuance than binary “peer-reviewed/not peer-reviewed”
– Stronger cultural incentives for accuracy: Social consequences for fabrication in early Islamic society exceeded contemporary academic sanctions
– Greater immunity from political interference: Unlike contemporary research that can be defunded or suppressed when politically inconvenient, classical Islamic hadith science developed independently of state control

The Complete Framework: Internal and External Validation

Dual-Track Evidence for Key Concepts

Consider how Islamic epistemology establishes fundamental concepts like Companion righteousness (ʿadālat al-ṣaḥābah):

Internal Track (Fully Rational Within Islamic Framework):
– Divine testimony in multiple Quranic passages explicitly confirming Companion righteousness
– Specific divine promises of Paradise for individual Companions
– General divine praise for emigrants (muhājirūn) and helpers (anṣār)
– Prophetic testimony regarding Companion character and reliability

External Track (Accessible to Non-Muslim Investigators):
– Documented material sacrifices (wealth, status, safety, family relationships) for Islamic commitment
– Behavioral consistency under severe persecution and in private circumstances
– Transformational social impact and civilizational achievements of subsequent generations
– Practical impossibility of coordinated mass deception among individuals who abandoned all material advantages

Important clarification: The external track is not epistemologically necessary for Muslims. Once Islam is established through empirical evidence, divine testimony provides definitive proof within our framework. However, this external verification serves as additional confirmation—like a cherry on top—that supports and corroborates our internal evidence while providing a standalone track accessible to non-Muslim investigators.

Both tracks converge on the same conclusion through different evidentiary routes, demonstrating the internal coherence and external verifiability of Islamic epistemological claims.

Why This Resolves Dr. Qadhi’s Confusions

No “faith” in the problematic sense exists anywhere in this system:
– Islam receives establishment through empirically necessary evidence
– Internal sources derive authority from established divine origin
– External verification demonstrates superior methodological rigor
– All components operate through evidence evaluation and logical reasoning

No “logical leaps” are required:
– Each conclusion follows necessarily from established premises
– Deductive reasoning connects empirically established foundations to derivative beliefs
– Multiple independent verification systems confirm conclusions through diverse approaches

Regarding Dr. Qadhi’s terminology: As clarified in Part I’s “empirical” analysis, if probability equals “faith,” then intellectual honesty demands applying this same terminology to HCM, which also operates through probabilistic knowledge. However, if “faith” means dogmatic belief despite insufficient evidence, then this fundamentally mischaracterizes Islamic conviction, which operates through systematic evidence evaluation.

The Confidence This Framework Provides

For Muslim Scholars

Understanding this epistemological structure should provide complete confidence when engaging academic challenges. Islamic scholarship articulates sophisticated frameworks that withstand rigorous intellectual scrutiny without requiring apologetic defensiveness.

When critics characterize Islamic epistemology as “faith-based,” this misrepresents our methodology (as demonstrated in Parts I-III) and the nature of evidence itself. All historical knowledge operates through probability levels, but Islamic systems handle this reality more systematically than competing approaches.

For Academic Engagement

Islamic methodology demonstrates superiority to Western academic approaches (as detailed in Part III) in both methodological rigor and consistent application. When Western institutions demand impossible epistemic standards for Islamic sources while accepting modest standards for their own work, this inconsistency can be confidently identified.

The fundamental insight: Islamic scholarship requires neither apologetic defense nor external validation. It requires clear articulation and confident demonstration of methodological superiority to alternative epistemic systems.

Academic engagement should be approached as an opportunity to demonstrate the superiority of Islamic methods to people who might benefit from learning them, rather than seeking validation from institutions with demonstrably inferior track records.

A Final Note on Proving Hadith Through HCM

We don’t need to prove the reliability of hadith using the Historical Critical Method. Our epistemological framework is self-sufficient and methodologically superior. However, if some Muslim academics choose to work on demonstrating hadith authenticity through HCM standards and succeed—similar to how the Quran’s preservation has been established through historical-critical analysis—it would serve simply as additional vindication.

Think of it as a “rub in your face” demonstration: “We proved our sources reliable using even your unreasonable approach.” Such work would be academically valuable because it establishes hadith through a more difficult and unnecessarily high bar, which would convince those Muslims who suffer from inferiority complexes to accept hadith—albeit for the wrong reasons. It’s still a net benefit: they would finally accept authentic narrations, even if they’re doing so because of misguided deference to Western standards rather than appreciating the inherent superiority of Islamic methodology.

Conclusion: Reiterating Our Analysis

This analysis set out to demonstrate that Dr. Qadhi’s use of “faith” terminology reflects insufficient epistemological training and fundamentally mischaracterizes Islamic methodology. The core insight is straightforward: probabilistic reasoning characterizes all empirical knowledge, yet only Islamic conclusions receive the discriminatory “faith” label. Through systematic examination across four parts, we have established several key findings:

First, we clarified proper epistemological foundations. We demonstrated the crucial distinction between rational and empirical judgments, showing that both can provide definitive certainty. The mischaracterization of probabilistic knowledge as requiring “faith” stems from confusion about these fundamental categories.

Second, we established the empirical sophistication of Islamic scholarship. Islamic hadith science operates through systematic evaluation of testimony through rational analysis, credibility assessment, and institutional verification—the same methodology that characterizes all functional academic institutions.

Third, we analyzed Dr. Qadhi’s specific problematic statements: the equivocation on “faith,” the flawed logical arguments, missed opportunities to challenge unreasonable skepticism, and the misrepresentation of Islamic methodology as lacking appropriate skepticism.

Fourth, we revealed the Western Academy’s double standard. The very institutions that critique Islamic scholarship for relying on transmitted knowledge employ structurally identical methods, yet with documented reliability problems that exceed those found in Islamic transmission systems.

Islamic epistemology doesn’t have problems—it has solutions to problems that Western academia hasn’t figured out how to solve. The “faith versus reason” conflict represents a false dilemma created by terminological confusion rather than genuine methodological differences.

The Core Problem

Being knowledgeable in both Islamic sciences and Western academic methods doesn’t automatically provide the philosophical sophistication needed to properly evaluate their relative strengths. Just as being a skilled scientist doesn’t make one competent in philosophy of science, being a practitioner in multiple epistemological systems doesn’t guarantee the meta-level understanding required to analyze these frameworks effectively.

The solution isn’t more degrees—it’s developing deeper understanding of how knowledge works. Without this epistemological clarity, even accomplished scholars risk adopting apologetic stances and weakening Islamic positions through unnecessary concessions to methodologically inferior approaches.

A Respectful Suggestion

We respectfully suggest that deeper engagement with epistemological literature could provide significant benefits—particularly the classical Islamic works on knowledge theory (naẓariyyat al-ma’rifa) and contemporary philosophical discussions of testimony and institutional verification. This foundational work could provide the conceptual tools necessary to confidently articulate Islamic methodological superiority rather than inadvertently characterizing our sophisticated systems as requiring “leaps of faith.”

The evidence, logic, methodological rigor, and historical track record all support Islamic positions. With proper epistemological grounding, Muslim scholars can demonstrate this reality rather than unintentionally suggesting otherwise through confused terminology.

Islamic scholarship deserves representation that matches its sophistication. We hope this analysis contributes to that goal by providing some of the conceptual clarity needed for more confident and accurate presentations of our epistemological framework.

For readers interested in ongoing discussionsm you can follow Project Ihya on:

📱 Telegram: t.me/projectihya (for updates and ilmi fawāʾid)
📺 YouTube: youtube.projectihya.com (for detailed academic discussions)

We welcome engagement from the broader scholarly community on these critical methodological questions.

References:

• Evans, Richard J. (1997). In Defence of History. London: Granta Books. ISBN 978-1862070161.
• Baker, Monya. (2016). “Is there a reproducibility crisis in science?” Nature 533, 452-454.
• Open Science Collaboration. (2015). “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science.” Science 349(6251).
• Serra-Garcia, Marta & Gneezy, Uri. (2021). “Nonreplicable publications are cited more than replicable ones.” Science Advances 7(21).
• Turner, Erick H. et al. (2008). “Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy.” New England Journal of Medicine 358(3): 252-260.