باب 44: The Difference Between Sunnah and Hadith

The body of religious knowledge that we have received from the sayings, actions, tacit approvals, and validations of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), in addition to the Qur’an, is commonly referred to using the terms Sunnah and Hadith. These terms are generally used as synonyms, meaning that the concept and reference of Sunnah is considered to be similar to that of Hadith. Contrary to this general usage, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi makes a clear distinction between these two terms. He believes there is a difference in their origin, evidence, and in their meaning and reference as well. Some scholars consider his stance as incorrect from an academic perspective and view it as contrary to the opinions of jurists and hadith scholars. Accordingly, the well-known scholar of the Ahl-e-Hadith school, Maulana Salahuddin Yousuf, writes in his article titled “Is the Ghamidi Thought and Methodology in Accordance with the Thought and Methodology of the Early Scholars (Salaf)?”:

… The reality is that the Imams of the Salaf and the hadith scholars did not distinguish between the concepts of Sunnah and Hadith. They considered Sunnah and Hadith as synonymous and equivalent in meaning. … The distinction between Hadith and Sunnah is entirely artificial. No Imam, hadith scholar, or jurist has stated such a difference. In their view, Hadith and Sunnah are synonymous and have the same meaning. Anything proven by the sayings, actions, and approvals of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) is an authority in religion. Whether it is called Hadith or Sunnah, it is the same thing.¹

According to Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, what is the nature of the difference between these two terms? Before understanding this, it is appropriate to present some brief background of this discussion.

In this context, regarding the linguistic meaning, all scholars attribute different meanings to these two terms. According to them, the meaning of Hadith is ‘new’, and this term is also used in the sense of speech, conversation, and information. Sunnah refers to the way or path that is adopted or followed. Based on this linguistic difference, the idea of a terminological distinction between them is not improbable. Hence, despite the general perception that these two terms carry synonymous meanings, differences in their definitions and their scope of application among the scholars are well-known and established. Furthermore, certain terminologies used by the Usuliyyun (scholars of Islamic legal theory), jurists, and hadith scholars, such as Sunnat-e-Ma’looma (known Sunnah), Sunnat-e-Mashhoora (well-established Sunnah), Sunnat-e-Muakkadah (emphasized Sunnah), Naql al-Kafa‘ an al-Kafa‘ (transmission from one competent authority to another), along with other similar terms and certain methodologies adopted by the scholars, further highlight the conceptual distinction between Sunnah and Hadith.

Imam Shafi’i, in certain parts of Al-Risala, has employed the terms Hadith and Sunnah in such a context that it becomes clear that he considers these two terms to have distinct meanings. In the discussion of differing hadith, he has written:

Hadiths can also be conflicting, so (in such a case) I prefer some of them by reasoning through the Qur’an, Sunnah, consensus, or analogy.²

Khateeb al-Baghdadi has also taken this distinction into account while stating the principles of acceptance and rejection of Hadith.

A hadith will not be accepted if it is contrary to reason, the Qur’an, well-known Sunnah, any practice established as Sunnah, or any definitive evidence.³

In this context, if we undertake a general review of the definitions of the aforementioned terms and the scope of application according to the opinions of the scholars, three general types of opinions emerge:

One perspective is that Hadith and Sunnah are synonymous terms, and by these is meant the narration of the sayings, actions, tacit approvals, and validations of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The sayings and actions of the Companions of the Prophet also fall within the scope of this definition. This is the preferred view among the general scholars of Hadith.

Dr. Baqar Khan Khakwani writes in reference to Al-Hasami and Al-Tawdih Ma’ Al-Talwih:

The hadith scholars consider the term ‘Hadith’ as synonymous with ‘sunnah’ and ‘Khabar,’ and in their view, these three terms apply to the words, actions, and tacit approvals (silence) of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), as well as to the words, actions, and tacit approvals, i.e., silence of the Companions and the Followers.⁴

The second opinion is that there is a subtle distinction between the terms Sunnah and Hadith. The distinction is that the term Sunnah is more general compared to the term Hadith. Sunnah applies to the words, actions, tacit approvals, and validations of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), as well as to the words and actions of the Companions. In contrast, Hadith is specific to the sayings of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). This opinion is prevalent among jurists and scholars of Islamic legal theory.

It is stated in Noor-ul-Anwar:

Sunnah applies to the sayings of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), his actions, and his silence, as well as to the sayings and actions of the noble Companions, whereas Hadith specifically refers to the sayings of the Messenger (PBUH).⁵

The third opinion is that Sunnah and Hadith are two different terminologies with distinct meanings and applications. Scholars have described the nature of this difference from various perspectives. According to most scholars, the nature of this difference is that Sunnah is a religious practice or method that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) established among his companions through his actions and which has been transferred to the Muslim community through continuous practice. In contrast, Hadith is the narration of the sayings and actions of the Prophet (PBUH) that has reached us through the method of solitary reports.

Syed Sulaiman Nadvi states:

Nowadays, people generally do not differentiate between Hadith and Sunnah, which leads to significant misunderstandings. Hadith refers to any narration related to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), whether it is an incident reported only once or narrated by a single person. However, Sunnah actually refers to the practice that has been transmitted through continuous consensus, meaning the Prophet(PBUH) himself performed it, then it was practiced by the Companions, and subsequently by the Successors. Even if it has been orally narrated in different ways, and thus may not be considered continuous as a narration, its practice is continuously observed. This continuous practice is termed as Sunnah.

No one can claim that the determination of the five times and the manner of prayer were established and popularized among Muslims due to Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Hanifa, or Shafi’i, may Allah have mercy on them. This is the practice that would have been established in the same way even if Bukhari or Muslim had not existed in the world. …Even if, hypothetically, not even a page of hadith existed in the world, it would have continued in the same way. The writing and compilation of hadiths have established the undeniable historical status of this practice. …Thus, there is a significant distinction between Sunnah and Hadith. Hadith merely holds the status of narration, and Sunnah is the name given to its practical continuity. …The practical representation of the words of the Holy Qur’an presented by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is the Sunnah, and this is essentially the practical interpretation of the Holy Qur’an, whose status is far superior to the literal narrations of the hadiths.⁶

Maulana Maududi writes in Tafheem-ul-Qur’an:

The term Hadith refers to those narrations concerning the sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) that have been transmitted with a chain of narration from earlier generations to later ones. The term Sunnah refers to the method that, through the verbal and practical teachings of the Prophet, became prevalent in the individual and collective life of the Muslim society. The details of this method were also passed down from one generation to the next through reliable narrations, and subsequent generations observed its implementation in the previous ones.⁷

In his book Fuqaha ke Usool-e-Hadith, Dr. Baqar Khan Khakwani references Ali Hasan Abdul Qadir’s work Nazariyyah Aamah fi Tareekh al-Fiqh al-Islami (A General Theory in the History of Islamic Jurisprudence) and Dr. Subhi Saleh’s compilation Uloom al-Hadith (The Sciences of Hadith) and writes:

Contrary to the opinion of the hadith scholars, if we study these two words further, there appears to be a considerable difference between them. The meaning of the word ‘hadith’ is “that which has been issued by the Messenger of Allah (PBUH),” whereas ‘sunnah’, regardless of whether there is a hadith concerning a specific injunction or not, refers to the religious conventions and practices that have been present among Muslims since early times. Furthermore, a rule that is present in a hadith is also called sunnah, just as Ahmad ibn Hanbal stated: “There are five sunnahs in this hadith.” Therefore, the Prophet’s noble words and the rules derived from them will be called sunnah. Consequently, it is not necessarily the case that sunnah agrees with hadith; rather, sunnah can also be in opposition to hadith. In light of this distinction in meaning between these two words, some hadith scholars sometimes express themselves by saying, “This hadith is against qiyas (analogical reasoning), sunnah, and ijma (consensus).” This manner of distinction clarifies that hadith is a theoretical and intellectual matter, whereas sunnah is a practical matter. However, the method for acquiring knowledge about both is the transmission of reports.⁸

Some scholars explain the difference between Hadith and Sunnah from the perspective of the source of Shariah. According to them, Sunnah holds the status of being a source of Shariah, whereas Hadith does not hold this status. Dr. Muhammad Baqir Khan Khakwani has cited this perspective with reference to the scholars of Islamic legal theory and jurists.

The term ‘sunnah’ is a comprehensive word according to scholars of Islamic legal theory and jurists. Therefore, they have considered it the second source in Islamic legal sources and have presented solutions to countless issues through it. According to them, any individual or group that does not consider the Sunnah as the second source of Islamic law is outside the fold of Islam. Moreover, a person who acknowledges this status but does not act upon the Sunnah is called a ‘Tark al-Sunnah,’ meaning someone who abandons the Sunnah. This has been a reason that from ancient times to the present, most scholars have used the term ‘Muhyi al-Sunnah’ as a title with their names, meaning the reviver of the Sunnah, to prevent the mischief of denying the Sunnah and similar issues. In contrast, the term ‘Hadith’ has never been used by Islamic scholars as a legal source of Islam, nor have titles like ‘Muhyi al-Hadith’ or ‘Muhyi al-Khabar’ been used for any scholar in Islamic history. Furthermore, individuals or groups that do not consider any one or a few Hadiths as the words of the Prophet (PBUH) or those who abandon them have never been declared infidel.⁹

A representative scholar of the Ahl-e-Hadith school of thought, Maulana Abdul Rehman Keelani, has established a chapter titled “The Difference Between Hadith and Sunnah“ in his famous book Aaina-e-Parveziyat. Under this title, he has explained that there is a distinct technical difference between these two terms. He has highlighted this difference from four different aspects: lexicon, scope, authenticity, and quantity. He writes:

Since the vast reservoir of Hadith serves as a major source for Sunnah, these two terms are often understood to have the same meaning. However, from a technical perspective, there is a clear distinction between them. This difference can be observed in the following four aspects:

1. In terms of meanings and technical definition: The literal meaning of ‘sunnah’ is any established method or practice, whether it is good or bad. … The literal meaning of ‘Hadith’ is ‘speech,’ as well as ‘new speech.’

2. In terms of the scope of meaning: Initially, the term Sunnah of the Messenger (PBUH), was generally applied to the sayings of the Messenger. Then, Sunnah came to include every action, deed, and silence of the Prophet. It further extended to everything that is in any aspect proven from the Messenger of Allah. Here, the scope of Sunna concludes. However, the scope of Hadith is broader than this. It includes the sayings and actions of the Companions and the Followers (Tabi’un) as well.

3. In Terms of Authenticity and Inaccuracy: Concerning the Sunnah of the Messenger (PBUH), only two statements can be made: either it is the Sunnah of the Messenger or it is not. Hadiths have mulitple classifications: some are Sahih (authentic), some Hasan (good), some Da‘if (weak), some Mawdu‘(fabricated), some Matrook (abandoned), and so on However, we cannot say about a Sunnah of the Messenger that it is authentic, good, weak, fabricated, etc. The Sunnah of the Messenger can only be called that which is proven correct through possible human means.

4. In Terms of Quantity: The fourth difference between Sunnah and Hadith in terms of quantity is that the Prophet’s words, Innama al-a’maalu bin-niyyaat (Indeed, actions are based on intentions) are his Sunnat-e-Qawli (verbal Sunnah). This verbal Sunnah has been transmitted through approximately 700 different chains. Therefore, while this is a single Sunnah, in terms of Hadith, it accounts for 700 hadiths. This is why the number of hadiths increases exponentially when counted through different chains of transmission (isnaad). When it is said that Imam Bukhari memorized 600,000 hadiths, this actually refers to different chains of transmission, while the actual number of reports (akhbar and athar) is significantly lower. Similarly, a single Hadith may mention multiple Sunnah.¹⁰

Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi also believes in a clear distinction between these two terms. His fundamental stance is the same as mentioned above with references to some other scholars. He asserts that Sunnah refers to those religious customs or practices instituted by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and conveyed to the community through practical continuity. In contrast, Hadith applies to the narration of the Prophet’s sayings, actions, silent approvals, and validations that have reached us through solitary reports. In Mabadi Tadabbur-e-Hadith, he writes:

People generally consider Hadith and Sunnah to be completely synonymous. This notion is incorrect. There is a vast difference between Hadith and Sunnah, akin to the difference between the heavens and the earth, and their status and position in religion are distinct. Considering them synonymous leads to significant complexities. To understand Hadith correctly, it is essential to clearly comprehend the difference between the two. Hadith refers to the report of any saying, action, or approval of the Prophet (PBUH), whether it is established or its authenticity is disputed. Sunnah is the method shown by the Prophet (PBUH), both as a teacher of Shariah and as the perfect example, for the performance of commands and rituals, and for molding life according to the format preferred by Allah Almighty.¹¹

Javed Ahmed Ghamidi believes in the clear distinction between the terms Hadith and Sunnah while remaining within the overall scope of their application. As far as our understanding goes, this distinction is based on three aspects:

1. From the aspect of origin, explanation, and derivation

2. From the aspect of propogation

3. From the aspect of authenticity

Difference from the aspect of origin, explanation, and derivation

According to Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, Sunnah is the collection of independent rulings of the religion. That is, the rulings which are original in nature, and not explanations, derivations, or clarifications. In contrast, Hadith is not a collection of independent religious rulings, but rather an explanation, derivation, or clarification of the independent rulings mentioned in the Qur’an or established in the Sunnah. He has stated:

The Prophet (PBUH) gave the Qur’an to the world. Apart from this, the things that he gave to the world in terms of religion are fundamentally three:

1. Independent rulings and guidance that did not originate from the Qur’an

2. Explanation and clarification of the independent rulings and guidance, whether they are in the Qur’an or outside the Qur’an

3. Practical Demonstration of the implementation of these rulings and guidance

These three things are part of the faith and every Muslim is obligated to acknowledge and act upon them. Once assured of their attribution to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), no believer can dare to deviate from them. It is only fitting for him that if he wishes to live and die as a Muslim, he should submit to them without any hesitation.

Our scholars use the same term ‘sunnah’ for all three. I do not find this appropriate. In my view, the term Sunnah should be used for the first, ‘tafheem wa tabyeen’ (understanding and explanation) for the second, and ‘Uswa-e-Hasana’ (excellent example) for the third. The purpose of this distinction is to eliminate the confusion that arises when both the original (Asl) and the derivative(Far‘a) are placed under the same title and

treated at the same level.¹²

The necessary consequence of this distinction is that the Qur’an and Sunnah are considered the primary sources of religion, while Hadith assumes the role of their explanation and subsidiary status. It is through the Qur’an and Sunnah that beliefs and practices are added to religion, but such an addition does not occur through Hadith.

There should be no feeling of strangeness or unfamiliarity with this distinction between the ‘original’ and the ‘explanation and derivative’, because accepting Hadith as an explanation and derivative is an established part of our scholarly tradition. Scholars from both the early and later generations have positioned Hadith and Sunnah collectively in the place of explanation of the Qur’an, meaning interpretation and derivation, as well as comprehension and clarification. Imam Shatibi, articulating this as a principle, writes:

“Sunnah, in its meaning, ultimately refers back to the Book (Qur’an). It serves as a clarification of the general statements in the Qur’an, an explanation of what is ambiguous, and a detailed elaboration of what is concise. This is because Sunnah is essentially the exposition of the Qur’an. Therefore, you will not find anything in the Sunnah whose meaning is not already indicated by the Qur’an—whether this indication is general (ijmali) or detailed (tafseeli).

Difference in the aspect of propogation and authencity

Javed Ahmed Ghamidi differentiates between Hadith and Sunnah from the perspectives of propagation and authenticity. According to him, Sunnah was established by the Prophet (PBUH) with great diligence and was actively implemented by him within the Ummah. It has been transmitted to us through Ijma (consensus) and Tawatur authenticity definitive, just like the Qur’an. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) did not give any particular emphasis to the propagation of Hadith, Instead, hadiths has reached us through solitary reports, making its authenticity probable rather than definitive. Based on this distinction, he holds the view that Sunnah constitutes the core of the religion, whereas Hadith does not contain the core of the religion but rather serves as its explanation and derivative. He writes:

Sunnah … it is absolutely certain that in terms of authenticity, there is no difference between it and the Qur’an. Just as the Qur’an is received through the consensus of the Companions and perpetual recitation, Sunnah is similarly received through their consensus and perpetual practice, and like the Qur’an, it is proven by the consensus of Muslims in every era. Therefore, there is no room for any debate or dispute regarding it. … The reports of the sayings, actions, and tacits approvals of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) which are generally known as ‘Hadith,’ the undeniable fact about them is that he never made any special arrangement for their propagation and preservation, but rather left it to those who heard and saw them to choose whether they pass them on or not. Therefore, they do not add any new doctrine or practice to the religion. The matters related to religion that appear in them are, in fact, the explanation and clarification of the very same religion confined within the Qur’an and Sunnah, and a demonstration of the excellent example of the Prophet (PBUH) for acting upon it. The scope of Hadith in this matter is precisely this. Consequently, no matter can be considered part of Islam if it lies outside this defined scope, nor can anything be accepted solely on the basis of Hadith if it does not align with this principle.¹³

It is an established principle in our scholarly tradition to differentiate between the contents of Hadith and Sunnah based on evidence and means of transmission, and to classify them into two categories. Imam Ibn Abdul Barr, while conveying the stance of the scholars of the Ummah on this matter, writes:

There are two types of Sunnah: One type is that which all people transmit from generation to generation. That which is transmitted in this manner, where there is no disagreement, holds the status of definitive proof. Therefore, a person who does not accept the consensus of these transmitters is denying one of Allah’s texts. It becomes obligatory upon such a person to repent, and if he does not repent, then his blood is permissible (i.e., they are liable for capital punishment). This is because he has deviated from the consensus position of the just Muslims and has chosen a path separate from their agreed-upon method. The second type of Sunnah is that which is transmitted by trustworthy, reliable individuals among the singular narrators, with uninterrupted transmission. According to the esteemed group of the eminent scholars of the Ummah, such a Sunnah makes practice obligatory, while some among them believe it obliges both knowledge and practice.

After this brief clarification of the difference between Hadith and Sunnah, the question now is: What is the reality of Sunnah from the perspective of historical authenticity?In Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s view, its essence lies in the tradition of Abrahamic religion, which the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) established as religion after renewing and reforming it, along with his additions. He writes:

Our reference to ‘sunnah’ is the tradition of the Abrahamic faith, which the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) established among his followers as part of the religion after its renewal and reform, and with certain additions. In the Qur’an, he is commanded to follow the Abrahamic way. This tradition is also a part of that.

In this regard, to understand Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s position, it is essential to reflect on the following two questions:

1. On what basis do the components of Sunnah attain the status of being part of the religion?

The answer, according to the scholars of the early generations is that the various components of Sunnah derive their religious status from the implementation and approval of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Javed Ahmed Ghamidi also holds exactly the same position.

He writes:

The religion that has been received through the Sunnah is largely composed of the renewal and reform of the Abrahamic religion. All scholars and researchers agree on this. However, this does not mean that the Prophet (PBUH) only made minor additions to it. Absolutely not. Rather, he also introduced independent rulings. Anyone who wishes can see examples of this in ‘Meezan.’ The same is true for the Qur’an. The details of the rulings in religion that originated from it are elaborated on in nearly three hundred pages of ‘Meezan.’ I consider accepting and acting on each of these injunctions a fundamental requirement of faith, and therefore, the allegation, according to me view, is utterly baseless that introducing any new ruling or adding something new to religion beyond what is already existing and recognized is not in the scope of the Prophet (PBUH) or the Holy Qur’an.

2. What is the background of religious practices such as prayer, fasting, Hajj, Zakah, sacrifice, marriage, circumcision, and funeral rites, and some other similar elements of faith? To whom are they historically attributed?

As for the scholars of the Ummah, they do not bring up this question at all in the context of the definition and interpretation of the Sunnah. However, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi links these elements to the divine command given to the Prophet (PBUH) which is stated in Surah An-Nahl in these words:

وَمَا كَانَ مِنَ الۡمُشۡرِكِيۡنَ‏. ثُمَّ اَوۡحَيۡنَاۤ اِلَيۡكَ اَنِ اتَّبِعۡ مِلَّةَ اِبۡرٰهِيۡمَ حَنِيۡفًا​

Then [it is precisely because of this that] We sent this revelation to you: Follow this way of Abraham who was fully devoted and was not among the polytheists. (16:123)

From the perspective of defining Sunnah, the difference between Javed Ahmed Ghamidi and the scholars of the Ummah is well acknowledged. However, if we abstract ourselves from the discussion of definitions and investigate the historical attribution of the Sunnahs, it becomes evident that the learned scholars accept the fact that many of the ordinances instituted by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) are based on the authentic traditions of the Abrahamic faith. The most significant reference in this matter is of Shah Waliullah. In his renowned book Hujjatullah al-Baligha, regarding the background of the Islamic faith, he has explained that there has always been one fundamental religion. All the prophets have fundamentally taught similar beliefs and similar practices. However, in terms of the ordinances of the Shariah and the methods of their observance, there have been differences owing to the necessities of circumstances. In the Arabian Peninsula, when the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was sent, the state of this religion was such that, as a result of centuries of practice, its ordinances had assumed the status of religious certainties and were fully recognized as the community of Abraham. Nonetheless, certain ordinances had been subject to distortions and innovations. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was instructed: Ittabi’ millata Ibrahima hanifan meaning, follow the community of Abraham in pure faith. He adhered to this guidance by upholding the well-known ordinances of this community, eradicating innovations, and restoring the distorted ordinances to their original form. Shah Waliullah writes:

The true religion is one, and all the prophets, peace be upon them, have preached it. Any differences, if they exist, are only in laws and methodologies… Therefore, you will see that in the Qur’an, these matters are presented as accepted truths of the audience, and their reasoning (justification and explanation) is not discussed. If there are differences among various religions, they pertain only to the details, particulars, and methods of performing these commandments.

He has expressed the same concept regarding the Millat-e-Ibrahimi at another place in these words:

Allah Almighty sent the Prophet (PBUH) to correct the deviations in the Hanifi Ismaili faith and to remove the alterations that had occurred within it, so as to restore it to its original form. Hence, the expressions: Millata abikum Ibrahima (and Ittabi’ millata Ibrahima hanifan) indicate this reality. Therefore, it was essential to preserve the principles of the Abrahamic faith, considering them as established truths. Similarly, if any changes had not occurred in the practices established by Prophet Abraham (PBUH), they were to be followed. When a prophet is sent to a nation, the righteous traditions of the previous prophet’s laws remain preserved to some extent. Altering these is not only unnecessary but meaningless. The proper course is to make them obligatory to follow because those people who already regard those righteous traditions with respect will more easily accept the obligation. If someone tries to deviate from them, they can be more easily convinced because those traditions are already part of their accepted beliefs.

It is also entirely acknowledged among scholars that the practices of Abrahamic faith were prevalent among the Arabs before Islam. Accordingly, Shah Waliullah has stated that the Arabs were following the commands of prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, almsgiving, retreat, sacrifice, circumcision, ablution, bathing, marriage, and burial as aspects of the Abrahamic tradition. For these commands, Shah Sahab has used the expressions ‘sunnah’ (tradition), ‘sunan Mu’akada’ (emphasized traditions), ‘sunnah al-Anbiya’ (traditions of the prophets), and ‘sha’air al-Millah al-Hanifiyyah’ (symbols of the Abrahamic community).

It was well known among all the Arabs that human perfection and bliss were achieved by completely entrusting both the outward and inward aspects of oneself to Allah Almighty and exerting utmost effort in His worship. They considered purity as an integral part of worship, and bathing due to impurity was their practice. Circumcision and other natural dispositions were adhered to by them. In the Torah, it is written that Allah Almighty established circumcision as a mark of identity for Abraham and his progeny. The practice of ablution was prevalent among Jews, Zoroastrians, and others, and the Arab sages also engaged in ablution and prayer. Three years before Abu Dharr al-Ghifari embraced Islam, when he had not yet had the opportunity to meet the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), he used to perform prayers. Similarly, it is narrated about Quss ibn Sa’idah al-Iyadi that he used to perform prayers. Regarding the manner in which the Jews, Zoroastrians, and the Arabs performed their prayers, it is known that their prayers consisted of acts of reverence, with prostration being the major component. Supplication and remembrance were also parts of the prayer. Besides the prayers, other religious ordinances were also in practice among them, such as Zakah, etc. From the break of dawn until sunset, abstaining from eating, drinking, and sexual relations was considered fasting. Thus, in the age of ignorance, the Quraysh were committed to fasting on the day of Ashura. They also regarded seclusion for worship as significant. The saying of Umar (RA) is recorded in the hadith books that during the time of ignorance, he had vowed to observe seclusion for a day and sought the Prophet’s guidance regarding its ruling. It is widely known that year after year, thousands of people from various tribes used to come from far and wide to perform the pilgrimage to the Kaaba. They also considered slaughtering and sacrificing animals as essential. They did not strangle or tear apart the animal. Similarly, the sanctity of the sacred months was established among them. …Certain emphatic traditions of the religion were prevalent, and those who neglected them were deemed deserving of reproach. These refer to the etiquettes and instructions related to eating and drinking, clothing, Eid and Walimah celebrations, marriage and divorce, waiting period and mourning, buying and selling, and the rites of preparing and shrouding the deceased, which have been transmitted from Abraham and were part of the Shariah brought by him. They adhered to all these practices. They regarded marriage to one’s mother, sister, and other prohibited relations as forbidden, as mentioned in the Qur’an. They acted upon the Abrahamic injunctions concerning retaliation, blood money, and oaths, and punishments were prescribed for adultery and theft.

The tradition of slaughtering and ritual sacrifice is a practice inherited from the prophets (peace be upon them)… Slaughtering and ritual sacrifice are among the symbols of the true religion and serve as a means to distinguish between those who follow the Hanif (monotheistic) way and those who do not. Therefore, this is also a tradition similar to circumcision and other natural customs. When the Messenger of God (PBUH) was graced with the mantle of prophethood and sent to the world for guidance, this Abrahamic tradition was preserved in his religion as a symbol of the Hanifi faith.

Regarding the Sunnah of circumcision, Imam Ibn Qayyim has written that its tradition continued uninterrupted from the time of Prophet Ibrahim (PBUH) to the time of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), and the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was sent to complete and confirm the religion of Ibrahim.

Those who consider circumcision obligatory state that it is a symbol of the Abrahamic faith, a hallmark of Islam, an original aspect of nature, and a defining feature of the community. … Those who follow the Abrahamic faith have consistently adhered to this practice from the era of their leader, Prophet Ibrahim (PBUH), to the time of the Seal of the Prophets, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was sent to perfect and confirm the Abrahamic faith, not to alter or change it.

In modern times, Dr. Jawad Ali, a researcher of pre-Islamic history, in his book Al-Mufassal fi Tarikh al-Arab Qabl al-Islam has documented almost all those practices as the religion of Abraham (PBUH) that Javed Ahmed Ghamidi has compiled in the list of traditions in his book Meezan. In this context, the author has clarified that practices such as prayer, fasting, I‘tikaf, Hajj and Umrah, sacrifice, the slaughtering of animals, circumcision, keeping the moustache trimmed, cutting the pubic hair, cleaning the armpit hair, cutting long nails, cleaning of the nose, mouth, and teeth, ritual purity, bathing of the dead, preparing for burial, and burial itself were prevalent as traditions of the Abrahamic religion, and the Arabs, especially the Quraysh, adhered to them.

From this explanation, it is clear that:

Firstly, the determination and classification of the components of religion have always been an ongoing process among the scholars, and within this domain, differences in terminology among them are well-known and well-established.

Secondly, the distinction between the terms Hadith and Sunnah from various perspectives is as clear as daylight within the disciplines of Hadith and Fiqh.

Thirdly, in essence, this is merely a difference in terminology, and as a result, it does not bring about any alteration, modification, or addition to the universally agreed-upon components of religion.

Fourthly, establishing a distinction in the meanings and connotations of the terms Hadith and Sunnah does not, in any way, cast doubt upon their authoritative nature.

[January 2018]