Hadith–Hadith Contradictions
From the earliest centuries, scholars themselves admitted that many reports about the Prophet clash with each other. They created whole sciences to label, rank and try to “solve” these conflicts. This page summarises what they did, what names they gave these hadith, and shows clear examples of hadith–hadith contradiction.
We cannot go back in time to see what really happened. The only thing we can do today is what Allah told us in Qur'an 17:36 – do not follow what we have no real knowledge of, and do not speak about Allah and His Messenger without clear proof.
1. Summary – when reports about the Prophet clash with each other
Even within the famous hadith books, there are many narrations that report opposite rulings or descriptions about the same issue: one narration allows something, another forbids it; one says the Prophet did an action, another says he never did it.
The scholars of hadith did not deny this. They gave these situations names like ikhtilāf al-hadīth (difference between hadith) and mukhtalif al-hadith (hadith that appear to contradict). Later, they also used terms such as mudtarib – a hadith with many conflicting versions that cannot be reconciled.
Because they could not return to the time of the Prophet to check what he really said, they tried to build a system to repair the problem from the outside:
- By preferring one hadith over another using chains and narrator criticism.
- By “reconciling” opposites through interpretation.
- By claiming that one hadith abrogated (cancelled) another.
On this page we show how they did that, and we list some clear examples so that the reader can see with his own eyes that the hadith collections themselves are full of internal conflict. This is one of the reasons we keep the Qur'an as the only certain word of Allah, and treat all hadith as human reports that must be tested.
2. What names did the scholars give to these contradictions?
2.1 Ikhtilāf / Mukhtalif al-Hadith
These terms mean “difference between hadith” or “hadith that appear to contradict”. Early scholars such as al-Shāfiʿī wrote books with this title, trying to explain away conflicts between narrations.
2.2 Mudtarib (shaky, disturbed hadith)
A hadith is called mudtarib when it is narrated in many different and incompatible ways – different wording, different chains, different rulings – and there is no clear way to prefer one version over the other. The contradiction is inside the hadith itself.
2.3 Shādhdh (irregular) and munkar
When one narration goes against many stronger narrations, or against what is well-known, scholars sometimes called it shādhdh (irregular) or munkar (denounced). Again, this is an admission that reports differ and cannot all be accepted.
All these technical names are simply a human attempt to manage the contradictions. They do not remove the basic problem: if all these reports were truly protected revelation from Allah, there would be no need for such categories. The Qur'an already gave the principle in 4:82 – if it were from other than Allah, you would find much contradiction.
3. How did the scholars try to “solve” hadith–hadith contradictions?
Since the narrations already existed and could not be erased from the books, the scholars developed a three-step strategy:
- 1. Jamʿ (combining / reconciling): They tried to explain the texts in a way that both could be true – for example by saying one applied to a special case, or to a different time, or a different person.
- 2. Tarjīh (preference): If reconciling failed, they preferred one hadith over another, using the strength of the chain, the reputation of narrators, or how many people narrated it.
- 3. Nasikh–mansūkh (abrogation): If both narrations were strong and could not be reconciled, some scholars claimed that one hadith cancelled the other, even though there was usually no clear statement from the Prophet saying “this hadith abrogates that one”.
These methods show that they themselves saw the contradictions. Their solution was not to throw away the entire system, but to build a complex science around it and ask people to trust their choices.
From a Qur'an-first point of view, our duty is different: we are not forced to carry this burden. We can simply treat hadith as historical material and keep final guidance with the clear, preserved Qur'an alone.
4. Examples of hadith–hadith contradictions
There are many examples; here we mention a few well-known ones in simple form. The purpose is not to attack anyone, but to show honestly that the books contain internal conflict that no one can completely remove.
Hadith A:
Some narrations say that the Prophet commanded to make wudūʼ after eating camel meat.
Hadith B:
Other narrations say that he was asked about wudūʼ after eating meat and answered that wudūʼ is only necessary when something comes out of the body (like urine or stool), not just from eating.
Scholars tried to reconcile this by saying “camel meat is different from other meat” or by preferring one hadith over the other. But the texts themselves are clearly pulling in opposite directions.
Hadith A:
One group of narrations strongly forbid drinking while standing, and some even mention a threat for the person who does so.
Hadith B:
Another set of narrations say that the Prophet drank Zamzam water while standing, and that he saw people drink standing and did not criticise them.
Some scholars claimed that the prohibition was “discouragement, not haram”. Others said one set of narrations came later and abrogated the other. The conflict remains obvious for any honest reader.
Hadith A:
One famous narration says: there is “no contagion”, and mentions other things that seem to deny cause-and-effect.
Hadith B:
Other narrations say: “Run from the leper as you would run from a lion”, and instruct people not to mix sick animals with healthy ones.
Scholars tried many explanations: some said “no contagion” means “no contagion without Allah’s permission”, others said the first narration was only to remove superstition. But again we see the basic opposite message inside the hadith collections themselves.
Hadith A:
Some narrations report that the Prophet said four takbīrs in the janāzah prayer.
Hadith B and C:
Other narrations report five, and others report more than five. Different companions narrate different counts.
Some scholars allowed all of them and said “this shows flexibility”. Others preferred four only. But again, the narrations about the same worship are not consistent.
Hadith A:
Some narrations claim that the Prophet saw his Lord during the heavenly ascent.
Hadith B:
Other narrations from ʿĀʼishah and others strongly state that he did not see Him, denying the first claim.
Here the scholars used all three methods – reconciliation, preference and abrogation – but the fact remains that the reports themselves pull in opposite directions on a very serious topic.
These are only a few examples. Books of hadith science contain many more cases where the scholars openly say: “These narrations conflict, and we solved it in such-and-such way.” For a Qur'an-first Muslim, this is enough to understand that hadith are not protected like the Qur'an and can never have the same authority.