Masussuka

By Ibrahim Mukhtar

The Katsina State Government has formally invited the Quranist preacher, Yahaya Ibrahim Masussuka, who has recently become well-known, especially on Social Media, to appear before an Ulamas’ committee following complaints that his teachings allegedly breach “the general principles of Islamic law.”

The preacher debunks all prophetic sayings (Hadith) and calls the famous Hadith reporters liars. He later adjusted his stance, saying he agrees with three forms of Hadith and refutes all others. According to Masussuka’s new stand, he agrees with any Hadith on three conditions: 1) If the Hadith didn’t violate anything from the Qur’an; 2) If the Hadith didn’t say anything bad against the Holy Prophet, and or 3) If the Hadith preaches peace. However, some scholars have already labelled his current stance as clever bait to catch gullible, ignorant followers.

Masussuka has preached and discussed controversial issues and dismissed some fundamental issues of the Islamic religion as heresy and disowned all the revered Hadith books of Islam as mere concocted lies.

According to the Katsina State’s Secretary to the State Government, Alhaji Abdullahi Faskari, the government has received petitions from some scholars and concerned citizens regarding the nature and manner in which Masussuka’s preachings and sermons do not align with orthodox interpretations of Islamic jurisprudence.

At the same time, Masussuka himself has filed a complaint, claiming that some members of Jama’atu Izalatul Bid’ah (also known as Izala) have insulted and threatened him.

Although Masussuka has great backing and massive support from some Darika disciples, his heretic preaching still continues to stir controversy as many scholars, even among the Darika, see his teachings, which are based on debunking all prophetic sayings, as being completely un-Islamic.

In a bid to resolve the tension, the matter was referred to the Katsina Emirate Council, where both parties were invited to engage in dialogue. After the discussions, Emir Abdulmuminu Kabir Usman reportedly admonished that no one must preach in a way that offends fellow Muslims.

Following the Emir’s intervention, Governor Dikko Umaru Radda directed that Masussuka defend himself “before a Committee of Ulamas.” The SSG’s office also announced that standards and guidelines for preaching would be developed; anyone found to contravene them may face “appropriate action.”

Authorities have called on the public to remain calm, noting that the process will be handled “judiciously.”

The summoning has drawn mixed reactions from several groups, while many others, especially from the Dariqah and other rights and religious-freedom groups, vow to support the preacher. ICADAR (Impactive Centre for Accountability, Democracy, and Rights) warned that targeting Masussuka, whom they describe as “a preacher known for his peaceful teachings,” could undermine Nigerians’ religious expression.

Similarly, Amnesty International has raised concern over what it describes as a coordinated attempt to silence Masussuka. The group cautioned that shutting down his religious activities might violate his constitutional right to freedom of religion.

Another rights organisation, Ettrah: Voice for Freedom and Human Rights, called on both state and federal governments to protect Masussuka, arguing that calls to question his preaching risk “deepening misunderstanding” and threatening national unity.

On the other hand, some social analysts see the current development as worth pursuing, as many scholars were invited to defend their stands, which were deemed contrary to the general teachings of Islam. Some others view it as sectarian tensions, which, if not managed carefully, could inflame existing tensions between different Islamic groups in Katsina and beyond, particularly between Masussuka’s following and the Izala movement.

Sheikh Masussuka’s invitation by the Katsina State Government to defend his teachings marks a critical moment in northern Nigeria’s debate over religious freedom, state intervention, and sectarian balance. With vocal responses from rights groups and religious leaders alike, the outcome of this committee could resonate far beyond Katsina, touching on broader issues of governance, faith, and coexistence in Nigeria.

By Ibraheem A. Waziri

My essay, Against Shaykh Masussuka: A Qur’anic Case for the Reliability of Hadith, stirred more interest than I anticipated. While many readers agreed with my central thesis, a number of them raised a pointed concern: why did I not address what is often called the “Hadith problem”? By this, they meant those reports that, at first glance, appear to contradict the Qur’an, or else propose rulings not congruent with Islam’s basic principles. Some go further, suggesting that certain hadiths diminish the Prophet’s sanctity or undermine the very values the Qur’an upholds. Others, from the opposite direction, are said to elevate hadith to a position of near-supremacy over the Qur’an itself, much as common law sometimes treats judicial interpretation as weightier than the statute it interprets.

To my mind, the reason I did not write directly about this so-called “Hadith problem”, but instead focused on why we must agree primarily on the existence of hadith as a legitimate vehicle for obtaining the correct principles of the deen, is simple: the problem is not new. No community, secular or religious, has documented and curated its tradition more carefully, rationally, and continuously than Muslims have with hadith. As such, Muslim scholarship has wrestled with these questions beautifully and intellectually more than a millennium ago. Much of what trends today on social media is only an echo of debates settled centuries earlier. My earlier essay, The Eternal Quartet: Understanding the Hadith Debate in Northern Nigeria, already sketched how the primary Sunni schools, both juridical and theological, addressed questions of hadith authenticity and authority. The framework they produced is so robust that it continues to guide our practice today.

The Method, Not the Myth

When a hadith seems to contradict the Qur’an, the real issue is not substance but method. Classical scholars approached every report through layers of scrutiny. First came the isnād: if a report’s chain of transmission was weak or fabricated, the discussion ended there. Second was Qur’anic alignment: no solitary report could overturn what the Qur’an had decisively established. Third was the Prophet’s sanctity: any report that appeared to impugn his character was re-read against the sīrah and the Qur’an’s testimony to his moral standing. Fourth came the tools of uṣūl al-fiqh: harmonising general and particular, weighing abrogation only with proof, and applying great maxims such as no harm and no reciprocating harm. Finally, scholars asked about context: to whom did the Prophet speak, in what situation, with what effective cause?

Regarding the sanctity of the Prophet of Islam, a deeper interpretation even suggests that each authentic hadith that seems to cross the Prophet’s moral standing should be understood as teaching something different, excluding the Prophet himself, even if he appears as the reference point. For example, the authentic hadith that says the Prophet’s parents are in Hell should not be read as condemning them personally, but as teaching that whoever dies in disbelief faces that fate. Likewise, the hadith of Umm Haram is not to be taken as evidence of inappropriate closeness but as a lesson on boundaries with one’s mahrams.

This is why many supposed contradictions dissolve under discipline. A hadith regulating a temporary abuse does not become a timeless principle. A narration that seems to permit harm is reined in by the Prophet’s own maxim forbidding it. The method resolves what appears chaotic.

Qur’an First, Sunnah Beside

Another anxiety is the claim that the hadith has been placed above the Qur’an. But this is more perception than reality. The Qur’an is always first in rank. The Sunnah explains and operationalises it. The Qur’an itself gives the Prophet that mandate: “We revealed to you the Reminder so that you may explain to people what was sent down to them” (16:44). It calls him “an excellent example” (33:21), insists that “whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah” (4:80), and commands: “Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it; whatever he forbids you, abstain” (59:7). These verses do not set up rivalry between Qur’an and Sunnah but complementarity. To say the Sunnah explains the Qur’an is no more than to rank it higher than to say a manual outranks the constitution. Both are necessary, each in its domain.

The Eternal Quartet

Why, then, do sincere scholars differ? Because difference is built into the system. Sunni Islam produced four major theological orientations — Muʿtazilī, Ashʿarī, Māturīdī, and Atharī — and paired them with four juridical schools — Ḥanafī, Mālikī, Shāfiʿī, and Ḥanbalī. This “eternal quartet” explains why equally devout scholars may reach different conclusions about solitary reports, analogy, or custom. Some demand mutawātir reports for theology, others accept sound solitary ones. Some lean on the practice of Madina, others on text alone. Yet all remain within the same qibla.

This plurality is not a weakness but a civilisational strength. No other intellectual tradition has institutionalised difference in this way while maintaining unity. Where others splintered, Islam built a square strong enough to hold its four corners together.

Empires on the Quartet

These paradigms sustained real societies. The early ʿAbbāsid caliphate ran on a Ḥanafī–Muʿtazilī synthesis during the miḥna era. The Seljuks, Timurids, Mughals, and Ottomans all thrived on Ḥanafī–Māturīdī orthodoxy, the Ottomans for nearly seven centuries. Across the Maghrib and the Sahel, Mālikī fiqh and Ashʿarī creed underpinned the Almoravids, the Marīnids, the Songhay under Askia Muhammad, and the Sokoto Caliphate. The Shāfiʿī–Ashʿarī pairing defined the Ayyūbids and Mamlūks in Egypt, spread to Yemen and the Horn of Africa, and later carried Islam to Aceh and Malacca. Meanwhile, Atharī–Ḥanbalī frameworks underpinned the First and Second Saudi states and continue to inform the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia today.

No other religious-intellectual system has produced such enduring political architectures across continents and centuries.

Survival Through Shock

Even more impressive is how these paradigms survived colonial disruption. Islamic institutions such as awqāf, market regulation, and family law provided continuity, enabling Muslim societies to withstand conquest and modern upheaval. The frameworks built centuries ago still help communities navigate modernity.

Take finance: much of today’s Islamic banking rests on Ḥanafī tools such as istiḥsān (juristic preference), ḥiyal (legal stratagems), and the use of custom. Mālikī reliance on maṣlaḥa (public good) grounds policy and governance contributions. What looks like accommodation is, in truth, tradition applying timeless principles to new realities.

Nigeria’s Sahelian Inheritance

Closer to home, Nigeria’s Muslim communities have drawn heavily on this inheritance. The Sahelian empires were governed through Mālikī fiqh and Ashʿarī creed. These frameworks enabled our communities to transition into the modern Nigerian state without collapse. Resident colonial and post-colonial scholars such as Shaykh Abubakar Mahmud Gumi, drawing on Mālikī usūl, issued fatwas that justified the abolition of slavery, the acceptance of modern banking, the embrace of Western education, and participation in political, military, and democratic institutions. His rulings were not departures but faithful applications of classical principles to new circumstances.

What To Do With a Troubling Hadith

Still, an ordinary believer may encounter a hadith that feels alien or offensive. The tradition offers a compass:

1. Verify authenticity, for many reports are weak or fabricated.

2. Read it alongside the Qur’an’s universals of justice, mercy, and tawḥīd.

3. Ask which domain it addresses: creed, law, or character, each with its own thresholds.

4. Probe its context: was it aimed at a specific abuse?

5. If two sound readings remain, prefer the one that safeguards the Prophet’s dignity and the Qur’an’s objectives.

That preference is not modern softness but classical orthodoxy.

 Continuity, Not Collapse

The so-called “Hadith problem” is not an unsolved crisis but a well-worked conversation. Classical Islam built methods strong enough to filter and contextualise reports, intellectual diversity broad enough to hold multiple paradigms, and social institutions durable enough to withstand colonial dislocation. Today, as Muslim societies grapple with modern institutions, these frameworks continue to guide us.

To imagine that the hadith undermines the Qur’an is to misread the tradition. To treat hadith as above the Qur’an is equally mistaken. The truth lies in the system: Qur’an as charter, Sunnah as manual, and juristic tools as governance.

The Messenger is trustworthy. The methods used to preserve his words are reliable. Our task is not to discard them under modern doubt, nor to exalt them beyond their station, but to apply them with the seriousness that once gave our civilisations their strength.

Ibraheem A. Waziri wrote from Zaria. He can be reached via iawaziri@gmail.com.

By Shamsuddeen bn Abd al-Hamid al-Kanawy

(i)Background

Alhamdu Lil Lah, was Salatu was Salamu alaa Rasulil Lah, wa ala Alihi wa Sahbihi wa man Walah.In the recent years, the radical ‘Qala-Kato’ trends of rejecting the canonization of Sunnah (the Prophetic traditions), as the second primary source of Islamic Shariah (al-Baihaqi 73-77, Ibn Hazm 96-104, Ibn Qutlubugha 38-39, al-Shanghiti 86), which Northern Nigeria had for decades been largely forced underground – thanks to their Maitashine progenitor’s blood-soaked rebellion against the authorities in the region’s several urban centers (Gari 21-24), have managed to spring back to life, although, chiefly clothed in a desperately selective anti-Salafi rhetoric, or more precisely, paired with an agitation to -at least, keep the Salafis at bay.

It is no surprise that, the reawakened ‘Qala-Kato’ storm in North Nigeria takes aim at the Salafis. For one reason, the Salafis, otherwise known as the ‘Ahl al-Hadith wa as-Sunnah’ (the Adherents of the Hadith and Sunnah), are relentless and vigilant defenders of the realm of the Islamic scriptures, whereby vehemently protesting all sort of attempts to distort, twist or manipulate their codes, in addition to their absolute commitment to the pristine methodology of the Salaf (Righteous Predecessors) (Hussein 31, Thurston 5, Gari 14), for another, almost all advocates of disguised and undisguised anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim sentiments, regardless of their agnostic, atheist, polytheist, Judeo-Christian, liberal, secular, modernist, nationalistic, racial or ethnicist backgrounds, as well as the al-Batiniyyah (esoteric cults) and zanadiqah (the plural of the Arabic zindiq: any individual clandestinely committed to extreme infidelity to Islam), heretic Muslim sects and affiliations who grossly deviate from the teachings of the Quran and Sunnah, not only loathe the Salafis, but also consider them a genuine threat to their respective missions, quests and convictions. In the Nigerian North and elsewhere, the Salafi scholars and students of knowledge, could be distinguished from the rest of the Muslim clerical elites, by their staunch dedication to resisting intellectual war against Islam and its original sources.

As expected, a confederation of presumed critical thinkers of the North and their allies has thrown its weight behind the ‘Qala-Kato’ controversialists. However, the pro-Qala-Kato arguments and assessments of the supposed thinkers, are neither aligned to academic and intellectual basis of any sort, nor do they appear to reflect the reality about the ‘Qala-Kato’ contentions and the scholarly responses to them, the theologies/thoughts, history and sociology of the Islamic affiliations and modes of practice in Northern Nigeria. Hence, their glorification, or rather idolization of the ‘Qala-Kato’ are obviously not warranted by intellectual competence or critical thinking, but -perhaps, dictated by their desperation to bend the truth, twist the reality, mislead, brainwash and rewrite history.

I fear that, the purported Luminants of the North and their allies, might have considered it their professional -and perhaps, moral obligation, as the chosen ones -privileged for their competence in Western sciences and European languages, as well as their familiarity –with particularly, the Anglo-American norms and thoughts, to lead discussions on Islam and its theology, whereby, validating, invalidating constructing, deconstructing and reconstructing the Muslim discourses at will, in a demonstration of utter disregard for academic basis and intellectuality.

Interestingly, none of their Western and West-centric inspirers; the Orientalists, their heirs and puppets within the Islamic world -who had to sacrifice everything for their embattled cause, did a good job of redefining Islam, just as Edward Said testifies that “One ought never to assume that the structure of Orientalism is nothing more than the structure of lies or of myths which, were the truth about them to be told, will simply blow away” and ultimately rules that ‘’I myself believe that Orientalism is more particularly valuable as a sign of European Atlantic power over the Orient, than it is a veridic discourse about the Orient.(which is what, in its academic or scholarly form it claims to be)” (Said 6).

Given the above, this essay intends to explore, assess and deal with misconceptions, fallacies and misinformation about the Salafi-Izala mode of Islamic da’wah and practice in Northern Nigeria that are championed by the West-centric detractors of the as-Salaffiyah, and whose censure and condemnation of it ripens into misrepresentation and distortion of its doctrine and methodology, mischaracterization and dehumanization of the key figures within its intellectual and da’wah constituencies, fabrication and/or promotion of false or erroneous facts about it and its adherents, as well as glorification of the flawed discourses and arguments of its opponents.

Thematically, this essay will focus on issues closely associated with the concept, doctrine, methodology and identity of as-Salafiyyah, its advent in Northern Nigeria, the making of the Izala society; Northern Nigeria’s largest and most well-organized Salafi da.wah platform, the nexus between the Izala and sister local and international Salafi affiliations and platforms, the interrelations between the Sufi Brotherhoods, and between them and the Salafis in the 20th and 21st centuries C.E, the Salafi stands and attitudes towards non-Salafi Muslim individuals, affiliations and sects, allegations of literalism, inconformity, intolerance, conservatism, extremism, and terrorism against the as-Salafiyyah and its prominent figures, international inspirers and benefactors. The Salafi attitudes towards temporal disciplines (Western education) modernity, political and civil participation and -of course, analysis and assessment of their responses to the current Qala-Kato and esoteric Faira Sufi controversies.

The essay will engage the gross anti-Salafi sentiments associated with the following West-centric submissions:

Usman Isyaku’s Oct 18, 2005 Facebook piece on North’s religious landscape, Abdulrazak’s “Masussuka and the Mirror of the Changing North’’ (and through him the analyses of Ibrahim Musa, Ahmad Sadiq and Dr. Musa, among others), sampled contents of Nuru Khalid (the digital Imam’s) moments of anti-Salafi agitation and rhetoric, including his weirdest claim that Wahhabism (as-Salafiyyah) is a British creation, Shehu Sani’s “Political Assassination in Nigeria”; and the last but not the least, Sunusi Lamido Sunusi’s “Identity Politics, Ethnics and Parochialism: My Engagement with Ja’far Adam”, his “In Defense of Reverend Father Kukah” and “If Poverty Continues in the North, Islam Will Disappear”.

It is worth noting that, in the course of its treatment of the issues highlighted above, the essay will – in sha Allah, engage as many profiles within the orbit of the sampled intellectuals as possible.

To be continued…

Shamsuddeen bn Abd al-Hamid al-Kanawy

shamsuddeenabounafeesa@gmail.comJalingo, Taraba State, Nigeria.

By Habibu Bawa

Abdulrazak Ibrahim’s “Masussuka and the Mirror of a Changing North” is an elegant work of prose — articulate, persuasive and vividly composed. Yet beneath its rhetorical beauty lies a fragility that becomes clear the moment one asks: where does persuasion end and proof begin? Ibrahim writes as a fan attracted by eloquence but not convincing evidence. His essay, probably well-meaning, reveals more of the writer’s admiration than the scholar’s discipline or scriptural sophistication.

Ibrahim’s defense of Sheikh Yahya Ibrahim Masussuka as a courageous reformer is animated by conviction but deprived of verification. It celebrates the Sheikh’s defiance of orthodoxy without subjecting that defiance to the tests of fiqh, tafsir, sirah or any theological rigor. Masussuka is praised not for the soundness of his arguments, but for the smoothness of his speech. His eloquence, like a “polished mirror”, is obviously what dazzles the writer — yet the mirror reflects more light than truth.

This is not the first time eloquence has worn the robe of enlightenment. History recalls Muhammad Yusuf, the founder of Boko Haram, who was initially non-voiolent and probably more articulate, logical, and philosophical. He too questioned clerical authority and captivated Borno and neighbouring youth with the music of reason. But unanchored intellect is a dangerous instrument that not only ruins a generation but even the very text the proponents of logic pretend to defend. Eloquence is a virtue, yes, but when it becomes the measure of theology, chaos often hides behind charm.

Ibrahim dived deeper in philosophical error: believing that deviating from orthodoxy or traditional methods confers authenticity yet failed to tell us the very things that Masussuka intends to establish or how incredible what Masussuka antagonises are. But neither Ibrahim nor Masussuka was there when the Qur’an was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The Qur’an is not a book for speculative artistry; IT IS A DIVINE MESSAGE TO MANKIND THROUGH A CHAIN OF TRANSMITTERS. To disregard the accumulated wisdom of scholars like Tabari, Ibn Kathir, and Qurtubi not even prophetic exegesis in the name of “renewal” is not logic— it is scriptural anemia masquerading as intellectualism.

The writer’s romantic portrayal of Masussuka as a philosopher of faith also rests on a mistaken premise. Islam welcomes reason but never enthrones it above revelation. Philosophy may question, but revelation commands. The Qur’an in several places encourages one to “think”, “reason” and “seek clarification” but discouraged blind assumptions(Q17:36). True intellectual reform, therefore, is not rebellion against tradition but refinement within it — guided by ilm, hilm, adab and hikmah.

The author extols critical thought yet exempts his subject from it. He does not interrogate Masussuka’s methods, his interpretive foundations, or his striking disregard for centuries of Islamic hermeneutical tradition. Instead, he presents dissent as a moral victory and orthodoxy as mere inertia.

What is most disappointing is that Ibrahim never understands the Masussuka he defends. The essay paraphrases his rhetoric but never engages his exegesis. There is not a single serious comparison with earlier Qur’anic commentators, jurists, or theologians.

Masussuka’s avoidance of personal attacks, which Ibrahim glorifies as restraint, is no proof of truthfulness. The devil too is courteous when it suits his purpose. Refinement of language is not equivalent to correctness of doctrine. A graceful heresy remains a heresy.

Like many of Masussuka’s fans, Ibrahim also confuses criticism with persecution. The fact that scholars question Masussuka’s unorthodox views does not mean they fear truth; rather, they guard it. The duty of the learned is to preserve orthodoxy from distortion, not to applaud every rhetorical deviation as enlightenment. To dismiss their caution as insecurity is to misunderstand the sacred function of ijma’, mash-hur or jamhur — the scholarly consensus that safeguard the unity of Muslim belief.

Worse still, Ibrahim’s chosen “sources” — a cluster of Facebook commentators and social media analysts — are not authorities in Islamic jurisprudence, a lot have proven not to understand simple Islamic concepts like the very Masussuka they sought to defend. Their arguments, filtered through a postmodern lens of individualism and linguistic play, betray an orientalist infatuation with iconoclasm. To treat online pundits as epistemic equals to trained fuqaha is to confuse noise with knowledge. The result is a text that celebrates rebellion while ignoring the rigors of scholarship.

If Masussuka is, as Ibrahim suggests, “a mirror of a changing North,” then we must ask what that mirror truly reflects. Is it the light of renewal or the glare of confusion? A mirror does not purify; it only reproduces what stands before it. Without the filter of scholarship, even reflection can become distortion.

The North indeed needs thinkers — but thinkers who build on knowledge, not merely perform it. Intellectual reform is not achieved through viral rhetoric or fashionable dissent. It begins with reverence for learning, continues with critical humility, and ends with total submission to absolute truths.

Abdulrazak Ibrahim writes beautifully, but beauty without balance misleads. The test of thought is not how finely it is expressed, but how firmly it stands before reason and revelation. Masussuka’s brilliance may illuminate for a moment, but without the anchor of scholarship, it risks becoming the kind of light that blinds before it guides.

In defending the mirror, Ibrahim has mistaken reflection for revelation — and in doing so, has turned philosophy into performance. The North deserves better than eloquent confusion; it deserves wisdom.

There’s more to scholarship than eloquence or writing prowess. Anyone who accepts the Quran must accept the exegesis of it’s transmitter, receiver, compilers and custodians.

Habibu Bawa

20/10/25

By Ibraheem A. Waziri

About three decades ago, at the beginning of my youthful years, around Bakinruwa, Sabongari, Kaduna, I first encountered the idea of “Qur’an-only” Islam. Shaykh Uthman Dangungu, who had passed through the Izala movement, began to promote it in our neighbourhood mosque near Kasuwan Gwari. He was not the first—Muhammadu Marwa Maitatsine had pushed something similar in Kano State in the 1980s, though in a harsher, less workable form. Since then, my philosophical self has wrestled with such currents—Wahhabism, Shi‘ism, Sufism, Boko Haramism, and more. Each encounter has been a struggle for clarity and stability, for faith, and for cultural continuity in our fragile postcolonial Nigerian modernity.

Now, with Shaykh Yahya Ibrahim Masussuka—my generational peer—reviving the Qur’an-only argument, it seems fitting to reflect again. This time, however, I do not begin from theology alone. I lean on the wear and tear of intellectual toil, and on the reflective gifts of experience—what philosophy, logic, and science have taught me about human beings and the trustworthiness of transmission.

Philosophy has long asked: Can knowledge survive without tradition? Plato, in The Republic, warned that truth severed from the teacher–student chain becomes mere opinion. Aristotle, more grounded, argued that reason itself grows from custom, habit, and inherited practice. If Plato guarded against instability, Aristotle reminded us that even rationality needs a body —a living community —to give it shape.

Modern science adds its own perspective. Research in psychology shows that while humans are prone to bias or fatigue, under structures of accountability and community, they are remarkably capable of fairness and truth-telling. Integrity, in fact, often comes naturally. In other words, people can be trusted, though they must be guided.

The Qur’an itself affirms this. It does not portray humanity as unfit to bear the truth. Instead, it honours our moral agency while calling for systems of verification. “And thus We have made you a just community that you may be witnesses over mankind, and the Messenger a witness over you” (2:143). To be a witness requires the ability to observe, remember, and transmit faithfully. Surah Al-Tawbah (9:122) goes further, encouraging some believers to remain behind, study religion deeply, and teach others. That is nothing less than a Qur’anic endorsement of scholarship—the very task Hadith scholars later undertook.

The Qur’an also acknowledges our dual moral compass— “By the soul and He who proportioned it, and inspired it with its wickedness and righteousness” (91:7–10). Hence, the command in Surah Al-Hujurat (49:6) to verify reports before acting. That balance between trust and scrutiny is the same principle that shaped the science of Hadith.

Even in worldly matters, the Qur’an demonstrates confidence in structured testimony. The long verse of debts in Surah Al-Baqarah (2:282) lays out detailed rules for recording contracts with witnesses. If humans can be entrusted with preserving financial records, surely they can also be tasked with documenting the Prophet’s words—so long as there is a system of accuracy and verification.

This brings us to the heart of the matter. The Qur’an-only stance insists that Hadith is unnecessary. Yet the Qur’an itself says otherwise: “We revealed to you the Reminder so that you may explain to people what was sent down to them” (16:44). The Prophet’s explanatory role is not contained in the Qur’an’s text—it lives in his sayings, actions, and approvals. Surah Al-Ahzab (33:21) refers to him as “an excellent example” for believers. But how would later generations know his example without the Hadith?

Other verses go further: “Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah” (4:80); “Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatever he forbids you, abstain from it” (59:7). These are not time-bound commands. They apply to all Muslims across generations. And they assume access to the Prophet’s guidance—something only Hadith provides.

Seen this way, Hadith is not an intrusion upon the Qur’an but its necessary partner. The Prophet was sent not only to recite but to teach and model. His companions and the generations after them, through discipline and painstaking verification, preserved that model. The Hadith tradition is not perfect—no human endeavour is—but it was forged as a check from within Islamic culture, not imposed from outside. It is part of the Qur’an’s own vision of a community of witnesses.

At its core, then, the debate is not only about scripture but also about how we see human beings. If we assume people are too weak or biased to preserve truth, the Hadith collapses. But if we recognise—as both the Qur’an and science do—that humans, when guided and structured, can be reliable witnesses, Hadith stands on solid ground. The Qur’an-only position misses this deeper point. It mistrusts human agency in a way the Qur’an itself never does.

In Nigeria, where cultural streams converge and clash—Sahelian traditions meeting global influences—the Qur’an-only approach risks severing us from the rich heritage that has sustained Muslim communities through colonialism, civil strife, and modern pressures. My own journey—from that mosque in Kaduna to today—has taught me that certainty lies not in subtraction but in integration: the Qur’an as foundation, illuminated by the Prophet’s Hadith, upheld by our God-given moral agency.

As this debate resurfaces in our time, we would do well to remember: the Qur’an trusts us, commands us, and makes our testimony central to its unfolding. To follow the Qur’an, then, is to follow the Prophet. And to follow the Prophet is impossible without Hadith.

Ultimately, as Surah Al-Baqarah reminds us, we are called to be witnesses. Let us honour that calling by trusting the mechanisms Allah has provided—including Hadith, which brings the Prophet’s example to life for every generation