In addition to the Quran and Hadith, Sunnah became a source for Sharia law.

According to Goldhizer, the

classical definition of sunnah is the prophet and his companions' actions. The sunnah is directly derived
from Hadith. The hadith are the prophet's recorded words. Although these names are frequently used
interchangeably, they have distinct meanings. The Sunnah was recorded two centuries after the death
of the Prophet (Khaled Abou). Even while it was a source of law during the prophet's time, Shafi
explained that it was a source of divine will to be evaluated alongside the Quran itself, based on
obedience to the Quran and hikmah (wisdom of the prophet). Those that align with the Quran are
regarded as "binding law." Kamali divided sunnah into three categories: those that prescribe the like of
what God revealed in the Quran, those that illustrate what is in the Quran, and those that provide a
ruling on which the Quran is mute. In the event of a dispute regarding sunnah, the one with the greater
chain of authority would triumph. Sunnah can stand alone as a source of law where the Quran is silent,
and it gives clarification where the Quran is ambiguous.

Hadith

Hadith are second only to the Quran in terms of importance, thus it is not surprise that they are a
subject of disagreement. Western academics contend that Muslim scholars determined the veracity of
tales attributed to the Prophet based primarily on their chain of transmission (isnad) and overlooked the
most important aspect of modern historical inquiry: the content of the reports themselves (mat'n)
(subject matter). This paper will attempt to evaluate this issue and determine whether western scholars'
conclusion is valid.

The hadith have become synonymous with a distinct body of work within Islamic literature as narratives
that depict the prophet's words and actions. A hadith is a prophetic narration that serves as the vehicle
for sunnah, an example of law drawn from it. Hadith are utilised to supplement the passages of the
Quran. Shafi, an early Islamic jurist, asserted that the chain of transmission (isnad) alone could
determine the truth of a hadith, and that no other criteria could be used. Each hadith consists of two
sections:

First, the chain of transmission of the prophet's sayings from the first to the last informant, with the
authenticity of the hadith dependent on the status and veracity of the informants, which have been the
subject of several attacks. Second, the formal content or the actual words of the prophet (the subject
matter - mat'n of the hadith), which is the primary focus of the discussion. Despite the relatively
extensive falsification that took place during the early period, early and mediaeval Muslim scholars
believed the hadith to be substantially authentic. Six collections of literature have been successfully
recovered and authenticated. The epistemic yardstick used to evaluate the veracity of this literature
consists of continuous and discontinuous hadith, with the order of hadith types ranging from dubious
(ahad) to certain (mutawatir). In Mutawatir hadith, there is no disagreement between the hadith and
the Quran, a significant number of people in each generation support the hadith, so excluding the
possibility of fabrication, and it is combined with the credibility of the reporters, which is essential for
achieving certainty. Consequently, the hadith acquires the same weight as the Quran. The personal
features of the reporters are, thus, of the utmost importance. The hadith must be recounted by an
unspecified number of individuals unaffiliated with any sectarian organisation. Mashhur (well-known)
hadith are regarded as having a lower degree of certainty than mutawatir. Initially reported by one or
two companions, they are then broadcast indefinitely. Hanafis claim that following such hadith is
compulsory, but that disobedience does not constitute unbelief. Due to the fact that these hadith
originated as ahad but later acquired additional channels of transmitters, they generate only probable
knowledge. In contrast to Muttawatir hadith, which consists of a "plurality of reporters," Ahad hadith do
not provide positive knowledge on their own unless they are corroborated by circumstantial evidence
because they originate from a single person or a few individuals. It is regarded as authoritative unless
there is evidence to the contrary, which rests on the narrators, who must be knowledgeable, muslim,
upright, error-free, have a good memory, and have heard it straight from a reliable source. Hanafis
argue that the subject matter must be such that the majority does not need to know it, whilst others
view it as only a source of theoretical knowledge and advocate acting upon them. Some Muslim jurists
acknowledge that ahad hadith are fallible and susceptible to forgery. In discontinuous hadith, the chain
of transmission is interrupted or insufficient. It is further subdivided as follows: Mursal hadith lack a
companion or successor of the prophet; Mudal hadith have two consecutive missing links; Munqati
hadith have a single missing link in the middle and are not accepted if confirmed by another hadith.
Hanafi and Malikis tolerate mursal, however it is not required. As evidences, the conditions for admitting
hadith depend on the individual characteristics of the reporter. There must be continuity of transmitters
(no unbroken chain), the integrity and soundness of the transmitters' memories are reviewed, and the
hadith's compatibility with the Quran and other hadith must be flawless.

There exists an additional classification of hadith based on the category of the narrators. Sahih hadith
have a continuous isnad till the prophet and narrators meet the aforementioned requirements. Hassan
hadith are those in which the individual's character is neither just nor evil. Despite their possible flaws,
they can be acted upon, but they are nothing more than a probability. The authenticity of the
transmission of Daif hadith is in question. The transmitters are organised based on their generation and
location. Schacht's thesis was expanded upon by Juynboll (1985) in his "common link theory." The
historical significance of a hadith is established by whether or not it was transmitted via a common link
with two or more disciples, who then taught it to others. Based on this idea, the hadith narrator has a
stronger historic claim the more narrative channels encounter the narrator (toward and away from him).
The hadith are approved based on the quality of the narrator, but primarily on the quantity. Under this
conclusion, all hadith with a nafi chain in the six books (Kutub Sittah) amount to 1088 hadith that he
deems not authentic. This indicates that hadith do not have fixed forms and are not conveyed
consistently through isnads. The preceding appraisal of the isnad demonstrates that Ignaz Goldziher's
conclusion that early Muslim scholars studied reports primarily "in terms of their outward form" was
valid, as the value of the contents of the hadith depended on the evaluation of the isnad's accuracy.
Where the isnad is robust, a mat'n based on logical contradiction or historical absurdity does not prevail
in the court of law. Alfred Guillaume concurred with this critique. This debate persists due to the lack of
documentary evidence of how Companions approached hadith criticism; the only source is Aisha, the
Prophet's wife, who was said to have criticised many statements, such as Umar's warning against
excessive mourning leading to punishment for the dead, to which she replied, "no burden-bearer bears
another's burdens." (Nabia Abott 1967). Criticism of the transmission chain dates back to the third/ninth
centuries. Al-Kitab al Baghdadi (392 AH – 463 AH) was a Sunni Muslim philosopher and historian who
presented a rationalist classification of accounts. The mechanism for identifying forgery begins with an
evaluation of whether the text contradicts reason, then whether it contradicts the Quran, a precedent
set by the prophet, or ijma, and finally, whether it contains reports about an unmistakable event that
would have been widely reported by transmitters. This process opposed sources that Ithna Ashari
schools deemed to be epistemologically certain and that sunni legal academics deemed to be
persuasive. The approach of Al-Bukhari did not reflect this technique. Ibn Aban (221/836) went even
further and argued that reason (ijtihad) and not isnad should be used to determine the veracity of a
narrative. When the isnad of a hadith is rejected as daif, according to Muslim scholars, there is no need
to analyse the matn. In cases where matn is authentic but the isnad is not, the hadith is not regarded as
authentic. In the process of identification, the weight exerted on transmitters creates a vacuum. Schacht
continues to claim that legal hadith must be assumed to be fake until the contrary is demonstrated.
Although Coulson agrees, he believes that the classical hadith contains substantive law that can be
traced back to the time of the Prophet. To demonstrate the falsity of a single chain does not
demonstrate the falsity of the entire corpus of hadith. He is aware of the risk of fabrication, but
connects the requirements for transmitters to the rules governing the admissibility of court-
administered evidence, as dependability is formally evaluated by these criteria.

However, this comparison is superficial, as this level of screening could not be applied to transmitters
and would not be regarded as a credible witness because the subject matter could not be questioned.
Overlooking the 'back projection' of the doctrine and the emergence of fictional isnads, it would appear
that the subject matter of the report provides the all-important criterion. The presumption of falsity
emerges when a legal rule represents an advancement in the development of doctrine or when it
addresses challenges that Muslim society could not have confronted until well after the Prophet's death.
However, if the rule is consistent with the conditions of the time, it should be tentatively acknowledged
as authentic unless contradictory evidence is presented. This is unrelated to the matter of the Isnad's
legitimacy. This may be "spurious" and typically is. (Coulson)

Brown (2009) observes that hadith serve Muslims more than the Quran, despite the former's
questionable historicity. Hadith have a significant role in defining modern Islam, despite the fact that its
validity has been a fundamental concern and issue for Muslim academics since the early classical period
and has continued to command the keen attention of western scholars since the middle of the 20th
century. If rationalist scholars are correct in their assumptions and the majority of legal dicta attributed
to the prophet are indeed fictitious, a void will develop in Islam, and the remedy would be to consider
the matn as the "ultimate criterion," as Al-Kitab al Baghdadi suggests (and Ibn Aban expanded upon),
rather than the isnad.