Shaykh Hamza Yusuf


Categories: Islam, Wisdom

26 replies

  1. When did mohammed give this sermon? And what is the earliest manuscript evidence for sermon? I suspect that there are no early manuscripts supporting the historicity of this sermon.


    • I don’t know. Some homework for you..

      Liked by 1 person

    • My mistake. Your blog seems committed to academic rigour, manuscript credibility, and authenticity of historicity.

      I suspect that there are no mansucripts supporting the historicity of this sermon and that it is purely man-made tradition that assigns it to mohammed.


    • you “suspect”?

      Like I said, time for you to move beyond suspicions and do some homework to find out the actual facts. Let me know your findings


    • You’ve made the claim that mohammed gave this sermon – I’m under no obligation to disprove a claim that you have made, let alone a claim that has not been supported.

      We have practically zero fragments or manuscripts from mohammed’s lifetime – so reasonably, we can presume that this “sermon” has very little historical credibility. Likely, it is a forgery – i.e. a sermon written by an anonymous guy decades or even centuries after mohammed died and then falsely attributed to him to give it credibility.


    • I didn’t make any claims at all. I copied and pasted the article from the Shaykh’s Facebook page.

      ‘We have practically zero fragments or manuscripts from mohammed’s lifetime.’

      I thought we now had manuscripts of the Quran quite possibly from his time, eg the recently dated Birmingham manuscript.

      “we can presume that this “sermon” has very little historical credibility.”

      Again you presume – I want to see your homework on this. Tell me of the manuscript evidence for this sermon that you are so hyper-sceptical about.


      David Thomas, professor of Christianity and Islam at the University of Birmingham is quoted as saying:

      The tests carried out on the parchment of the Birmingham folios yield the strong probability that the animal from which it was taken was alive during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad or shortly afterwards. This means that the parts of the Qur’an that are written on this parchment can, with a degree of confidence, be dated to less than two decades after Muhammad’s death. These portions must have been in a form that is very close to the form of the Qur’an read today, supporting the view that the text has undergone little or no alteration and that it can be dated to a point very close to the time it was believed to be revealed.


    • Paul

      Games, games, games – more bait and switch. LOL.

      The quran says next to nothing about mohammed’s life, that’s why muslims have to revere the man-made sunnah to give them a religious practice.

      The quran is practically irrelevant to manner of muslim religious reverence of mohammed – so my point stands. There are no manuscripts supporting the claim that mohammed actually said these words.

      I didn’t make any claims at all. I copied and pasted the article from the Shaykh’s Facebook page.”

      So you agree that this sermon may not have been given by mohammed at all?


    • What is this bait and switch?


    • What is the manuscript evidence that makes you so doubtful Muhammad said these words?


    • Paul Williams

      “What is the manuscript evidence that makes you so doubtful Muhammad said these words?”

      Wrong approach.

      What is the manuscript evidence that makes you so sure that mohammed said these words?

      You have to prove the affirmative before expecting people to prove you wrong.


    • But you don’t know why…..

      Liked by 1 person

    • Hi Graham, just read through your points. You are right to query the source of this hadith (report). And br Paul, I would perhaps drop a line on Hamza Yusuf’s facebook page asking for the exact source (but, of course – that’s your choice.)

      However, Graham, in terms of your general point that seems to be one of dismissing the entire Sunnah as contained within the hadith tradition because it’s ‘man-made’- needs some careful reflection. See

      For example, if we applied the hadith criticism method on the New Testament (i.e. the religious book itself), all the works of St Paul would be – must be! – thrown out for starters simply because his words are not factually the words of Jesus (peace be upon him) – AND because he never met the prophet in his lifetime.

      The point is, the man-made science of hadith criticism is pretty robust in identifying which words were the authentic words of the Prophet Muhammad himself (peace be upon him). And given the scale of the authentic reports left intact with us now, this is no mean feat – especially as it dwarfs the reports from all the other religious traditions who cannot boast such a genius accomplishment. All Praise be to Allah, the Most Exalted.


    • *dwarfs the reports from the respective prophets of all the other religious traditions.


    • MWM

      There are no early hadith manuscripts dating to the life of mohammed. The oldest complete manuscript of bukhari dates to the 10th century (maybe 11th, off the top of my head), so you have a gap of a few hundred years between the time of the supposed eye-witness accounts and the physical recording of them.

      So, some hadiths go like this: someone overheard someone else talking to another person, saying that he heard someone else saying that his pal heard mohammed tell some other dude something important. That’s known as hearsay.

      None of these people wrote down what they supposedly heard several times removed – at least we have no record of anyone writing it down – and all were dead by the time Bukhari was born, so he had no way of verifying that the hearsay he had recorded was actually witnessed by the person named.

      It is called hadith “science” but there is nothing objective about it.


    • Graham.

      We do have early Hadith manuscripts way before Bukhari.

      1. Sahifa Hamman B. Munabbih

      2. ‘Musanaf of Abdul Razzaq’ to be a source of Authentic Hadith from the 1st Century’*

      3. Muwatta Imam Malik’ compiled Mid-second century AH

      Graham, Could you give us any early New Testament that comes close to even Musanaf of Abdul Razzaq for your NT? Which manuscripts have you got that is dated to the first century, not parchments, but ACTUAL book?

      Liked by 1 person

    • FP

      Bukhari’s hadith number in the thousands, these early collections number barely in the hundreds. Hadith inflation is an indication of later additions to the hadith falsely attributed to mohammed.

      Hammam’s work consists of just over 100 examples of hearsay, and he was considered to have personally known at least one companion. Think about that – this guy who might have been personaly acquainted with some of the men and women who knew mohammed, could only come up with just over 100 sayings. Bukhari, after a few hundred years somehow manages to produce 7000. Sounds suspicious. LOL.

      Abd ar-Razzaq as-San‘ani was not acquainted with any companions, so whatever information he received must have come to him via some anonymous sources – hardly rigourous.

      Muwatta is a sad butt-wiped fragment with huge chunks missing from it.

      Either way, your comment is a red herring.

      What is the earliest manuscript evidence for the sermon posted by Paul?

      There are none.


  2. “The point is, the man-made science of hadith criticism is pretty robust in identifying which words were the authentic words of the Prophet Muhammad himself (peace be upon him).”

    It is a great endeavor, no doubt, for that time period.

    Professor Jonathan Brown says that some of the methods used by the great muhadithoon were like what journalists do in terms of corroborating narrations.

    Definitely, some are the Prophet’s words or at some traditions are paraphrased in his statements.

    But it does not meet today’s standards.

    No journalist anywhere in the would use a chain of 5 or 6 narrators to say what someone said.

    No, it’s not robust. It does not meet God’s criteria for claims (Qur’an, Surah Al Baqara, verse 282).

    Muslims should use the hadith…very important to do so. The hadith is a secondary source of guidance for Muslims…secondary, not primary….but unfortunately, it is in practical terms, taken to be primary…while the Qur’an is relegated to chanting and for blessings…what a shame.

    The hadith have to be verified under the light of the Furqan (Criteria) which the Qur’an says is the Qur’an.

    Unfortunately, many Muslims have been misled to do it in reverse…to interpret the Qur’an wearing spectacles of hadith…and that has been a great, great disservice to the words of God….God tells us to use our reason.

    But we have not listened to God’s commandments in the longest verse of the Qur’an (2, 282).

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Also, the hadith is not identical to Sunnah…..this is another error Muslims have fell into.

    The Sunnah is regular behavior of the Prophet which is documented in the hadith but it’s transmission is not solely in the hadith.

    Most Muslims do not learn prayer from the hadith…but from what their parents teach them and their parents learned from their parents and so on.

    For the first few centuries, Muslims did not learn these practices from the hadith…but from the perpetual transmission of actions that the Muslims did in the rituals such as prayer and Hajj.

    The hadith are important and I stick to them…keeping a beard, trimming my nails, way to eat and cleaning yourself at call of nature, etc.

    But let’s not eclipse the final words of God Almighty which are protected from any error or distortion or exaggeration or fabrication…and let’s not minimize the faculty that God commands us to use…our powers of reason.

    God’s peace and blessings be upon you and may His peace and blessings be upon the final messenger and all the messengers and prophets.


  4. Yes I agree. Muslims living in the US “prepare for an imminet journey…and FLEE”


  5. Abdullah,

    I believe I am doing as the Prophet would want me to do.

    The Prophet would not have wanted him to have been misrepresented.

    I am not saying that most or even half of sahih hadith are not some rendition of his statements but a substantially large portion of sahih hadiths are not reliably from him (peace be upon him).

    We will just have to disagree.

    Wasalam alaykum wa rahmatullah wa barakatuhu


    • You’ve accused the prophet’s compnions. From this point I can see how liar you are. The prophet didn’t want you to dismiss his teachings becuse your ” open mind” cannot accept them.



  1. The Hadith Critical Method and its Criticisms [Hadith 2 of 4] | ModWestMuse

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: