❀ The Objection of Hadith Rejecters
The rejecters of Hadith claim that if the Muslim Ummah had accepted the Qur'an as the sole source of law and had not considered Hadith as authoritative, the Ummah would not have been divided into various sects. According to them, it is due to accepting Hadith as a source of religion that sects like Sunni and Shia came into existence—each possessing its own separate collection of Hadith, and each considering its Hadith authentic while declaring the others' Hadith to be false.
This objection has also been mentioned by Hafiz Aslam Jairajpuri in Maqam-e-Hadith, page 14:
"The result of accepting [Hadith] as religion was that hundreds of sects emerged in the Ummah and its unity shattered... Sectarianism, according to the Holy Qur’an, is Shirk."
The Core Question
But the question remains: If those who accept only the Qur'an as the sole source of law still ended up divided into sects, then what is the cause of that division? The rejecters of Hadith have failed to provide a satisfactory answer to this question.
◈ The Khawarij and Mu'tazilah: Division Despite Qur’an Alone
History bears witness that groups such as the Khawarij and Mu'tazilah did not consider Hadith and Sunnah as authoritative. They identified themselves as "People of the Qur’an" and derived rulings directly from it. Yet, despite this, they too fell into sectarianism. The Khawarij eventually splintered into 27 sub-sects, and the Mu'tazilah into 70 sub-sects.
Each of these sects refuted the others and considered themselves upon the truth, even though all of them accepted only the Qur’an as their source of law. This proves that merely accepting the Qur’an alone does not safeguard the Ummah from division.
✿ Modern-Era Denialist Groups
In the 19th century, several schools of thought rejecting Hadith came into existence. These included:
✔ Sir Syed Ahmad Khan
✔ Ahmad Deen Amritsari
✔ Khwaja Kamaluddin
✔ Abdullah Chakralwi
✔ Hafiz Aslam Jairajpuri
✔ Ghulam Ahmad Parwez
✔ Allama Mashriqi
✔ Dr. Ghulam Jilani Barq
All of these individuals acknowledged only the Qur’an as the sole source of law and rejected the authority of Hadith and Sunnah. In principle, there should have been complete agreement among them. But in reality, their ideologies and practices show severe contradictions—even between teacher and student, significant differences are found.
The Key Question Again
If the Qur’an alone ensures unity in the Ummah, then why are there contradictions and divisions among the rejecters of Hadith themselves?
✦ Nature of Contradictions Among Hadith Rejecters
① Differences in Philosophical Frameworks
Each Hadith rejecter presents a viewpoint different from their predecessor's philosophy, resulting in continual variations in practices and worship.
② Ever-Evolving Theories
A single individual changes their interpretation of the same verse at different times in their life. For instance, even Ghulam Ahmad Parwez and his close associates held conflicting views on core beliefs like belief in Allah, belief in the messengers, fasting, prayer, zakat, and sacrifice.
(Reference: Iftikhar Ahmad Balkhi, Fitna Inkar-e-Hadith Ka Manzar-o-Pasmanzar, Volume 3, pp. 307–360)
③ Contradictory Conclusions on the Same Issue
As per the principle of philosophy, no philosophical statement exists that cannot be refuted by another philosopher, sometimes even by the same philosopher.
Example cited from Colin Wilson:
"There is not a single statement by any philosopher since Descartes that cannot be immediately contradicted by another statement of another philosopher or sometime from the same one."
✦ Contradictions Just on the Issue of Salah (Prayer)
➊ Sir Syed Ahmad Khan & Abdullah Chakralwi
Both believed in five daily prayers, but Chakralwi considered saying “Allahu Akbar” in Salah as Shirk, and instead recited “Inna Allaha Kana Kabīrā”.
➋ Mistri Muhammad Ramzan
A follower of Chakralwi, he believed in three prayers a day, each with only two rak‘ahs and one prostration.
➌ Ahmad Deen Amritsari
He accepted only two daily prayers and considered Salah to be the Prophet’s personal judgment (ijtihad).
➍ Ghulam Ahmad Parwez
He regarded Salah as part of a “System of Lordship” (Nizam-e-Rububiyyat) and never formally performed Salah.
➎ Hafiz Aslam Jairajpuri
He believed Salah to be the Prophet’s Mutawatir Uswah Hasanah and equated its rejection with rejection of the Qur’an.
➏ Allama Mashriqi
He viewed Salah as military parade intended for physical fitness of Muslims.
➐ Dr. Taufiq Sidqi
The prominent Egyptian Hadith rejecter accepted only two daily prayers.
✦ Parwez’s Own Admission
Ghulam Ahmad Parwez blamed followers of Abdullah Chakralwi for the internal contradictions among the "People of the Qur’an." He stated that Chakralwi and his followers tried to extract details from the Qur’an which simply do not exist, leading to divisions among them.
(Reference: Tolu-e-Islam, April 1967, p. 34)
Another Critical Question
Parwez admitted that the Qur’an does not contain detailed rulings. If that is the case, from where should those details be derived?
Without Hadith and Sunnah, this becomes impossible—yet Parwez and his followers refuse to accept Hadith as authoritative.
❖ Consequences of Rejecting Hadith
✔ Severe contradictions emerged.
✔ Each new thinker refuted the views of their predecessor.
✔ Multiple conflicting opinions on the same issue were proposed.
✿ Status of the Prophet ﷺ
Had the Hadith rejecters accepted the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ as a legislator (Shāri‘) and acknowledged his interpretations, such deviations could have been avoided.
The Qur’an itself describes the Prophet ﷺ as a legislator:
يَأمُرُهُم بِالمَعرُوفِ وَيَنهىٰهُم عَنِ المُنكَرِ…
“He enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them from what is wrong…”
(Al-A‘raf: 157)
Conclusion
The contradictions among Hadith rejecters serve as clear evidence that it is not feasible in practice to consider the Qur’an as the sole source of law. The root of sectarianism is not Hadith, but rather the self-invented interpretations that arise from denying Hadith.
