A Gettier Problem in Hadith Justification
Some truths in Submission (Islam) are so foundational that they require no debate. Two such truths are the obligation to give Zakat and to perform Salat — both core pillars of faith, emphasized clearly and repeatedly in the Quran. For most believers, these are established facts. Yet a curious shift happens when a Hadith is discovered that appears to confirm certain details about these obligations: suddenly, that Hadith is held up as proof that the Hadith corpus is not only reliable but necessary for understanding the religion.
This is a mistake — not because the conclusion is wrong, but because the justification is backward. When the truth is already known, the Hadith’s agreement with that truth does not validate the Hadith; it merely coincides with what is already common knowledge. And yet, many use such overlap to argue that Hadith must be a trustworthy source of religious knowledge.
This is where philosophy offers a helpful lens — particularly the Gettier problem in epistemology. It illustrates how a belief can be both true and justified, yet still not qualify as knowledge if the justification is flawed. Hadith-based justifications often fall into this category: they may affirm what we already know, but they do so in ways that are epistemically hollow. And when people treat this coincidence as validation, they give Hadith an undeserved epistemic promotion.
What Is the Gettier Problem?
The Gettier problem is one of the most famous challenges in epistemology — the study of knowledge. Traditionally, philosophers defined knowledge as a belief that is both true and justified. In other words, if someone believes something, has good reasons for believing it, and that belief turns out to be true, then it qualifies as knowledge. But in 1963, philosopher Edmund Gettier published a short paper that disrupted this assumption. He presented a series of thought experiments showing that even when a belief is true and justified, it might still not count as knowledge if the justification is flawed in the right way.
One of the classic examples involves a broken clock. Suppose you glance at a clock on the wall and see that it says 2:00 PM. You believe it is 2:00 PM, and it just so happens that it actually is 2:00 PM. However, the clock is broken and has been stuck at that time for hours — you just happened to look at it at the one moment it was telling the correct time. Your belief is true, and your justification (looking at the clock) seems valid, but your conclusion was right only by accident. Because the justification was unreliable, this scenario exposes a flaw in the traditional definition of knowledge.
Gettier’s insight was that truth and justification are not enough — the justification must be tied to the truth in a meaningful, non-coincidental way. Otherwise, what we think is knowledge might just be a lucky guess dressed up as certainty. This insight has profound implications not only in philosophy but also in religious epistemology — especially when we examine how believers treat the reliability of Hadith.
How Hadith Justification Mirrors Gettier Problems
The Gettier problem becomes especially relevant when we examine how Sunnis treat Hadith as a source of religious knowledge. Take the example of Zakat and Salat — foundational practices firmly established in the Quran and accepted across all Islamic traditions. When a Hadith is discovered that appears to confirm details of these practices, such as the 2.5% Zakat rate or the four units of the Noon Salat, Sunnis take it as evidence that the Hadith corpus must be a necessary and reliable source of truth. But this confidence is misplaced. These facts were already grounded in common religious knowledge. The Hadith doesn’t inform the belief — it simply echoes what was already universally known.
The mistake arises when people take this overlap — the Hadith’s agreement with known truths — as proof of Hadith’s general reliability. In epistemological terms, this is a textbook Gettier problem. The belief that “Hadith are reliable” is treated as justified because it happens to match a known truth. But that justification is coincidental, not causally linked to the truth itself. The Hadith didn’t lead the believer to these facts about Zakat or Salat; it merely stumbled into alignment, like a broken clock that just happens to show the correct time. The correctness of the practice isn’t in question — what’s flawed is the reasoning used to infer that the Hadith is therefore trustworthy.
In this case, the believer ends up holding two beliefs: one, that Zakat and Salat have specific correct details — a belief that is true and well-established; and two, that Hadith are reliable — a belief that only appears justified because of a lucky overlap. But as Gettier cases demonstrate, when the justification is coincidental rather than causally sound, what seems like knowledge turns out to be nothing more than a well-dressed guess. And when that kind of faulty reasoning becomes widespread, it creates a false sense of certainty around a deeply unstable foundation.
Quranic Epistemology: Anchoring Knowledge in Certainty
The Quran repeatedly emphasizes the importance of certainty (yaqīn), and warns against following conjecture (ẓann). In contrast to the Hadith model — which relies on chains of narration, human memory, and subjective grading systems — the Quran presents itself as direct, preserved, and self-validating revelation. It does not ask for belief based on hearsay, but on signs, reason, and inner reflection. Its verses call on readers to verify, to question, and to avoid following what they do not truly know:
“Do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge. The hearing, the sight, and the heart — all will be questioned about it.” (Quran 17:36)
This verse captures the Quranic standard of epistemology: belief must be based on direct knowledge, not on what is merely passed down or assumed. The Quran does not depend on external validation through Hadith; in fact, it never instructs the believer to verify its message through historical reports or secondhand traditions. Instead, it points to internal coherence, numerical structure, natural phenomena, and moral intuition as signs of its authenticity.
Where Hadith relies on probabilistic chains of narration (ahādīth ẓannīyah), the Quran declares itself to be certain (Qaṭ'ī). It is the most memorized and mass-transmitted text in human history, preserved through both oral and written transmission across generations since its initial revelation to the prophet. In addition to this, the Quran is structured with mathematical precision — a unique feature that sets it apart from any other religious text. This level of preservation and internal consistency establishes an unparalleled epistemic authority — one that does not require external props to validate it. When the Quran and Hadith happen to agree, the authority remains with the Quran — not because the Hadith confirms it, but because the truth was already independently and divinely established.
Conclusion: Certainty Can’t Be Borrowed
The mistake of using Hadith to validate what is already known — whether from the Quran or through universal practice — is more than a theological misstep; it is an epistemological failure. It mirrors the Gettier problem: a case where a belief appears both true and justified, yet the justification is merely accidental, not causally linked to the truth itself. When believers use Hadith to confirm details like the amount of Zakat or the number of units in Salat — facts already established through Quranic revelation and communal consensus — they confuse correlation with confirmation. The Hadith is treated as proof, when in reality it merely echoes a truth that precedes it.
This leads to a deeper and more systemic problem: the elevation of Hadith as a reliable source of knowledge, not because it independently establishes truth, but because it occasionally agrees with what is already known. This kind of reasoning builds a fragile intellectual foundation — one in which reliability is inferred from accidental alignment rather than robust epistemic principles.
In contrast, the Quran anchors knowledge in certainty. It warns against blind imitation and urges believers not to follow what they do not truly know. It does not rely on Hadith for validation, nor does it delegate its authority. The Quran is not a house of mirrors reflecting light from other sources; it is the lamp itself. Giving Hadith credit for what the Quran has already made clear is not just redundant — it undermines the clarity, sufficiency, and epistemic integrity of God’s final revelation.
Hadith & Sunna: Fabrications by the Prophet’s Enemies
[6:112] We have permitted the enemies of every prophet—human and jinn devils—to inspire in each other fancy words, in order to deceive. Had your Lord willed, they would not have done it. You shall disregard them and their fabrications.
[6:113] This is to let the minds of those who do not believe in the Hereafter listen to such fabrications, and accept them, and thus expose their real convictions.Quran: Only Source of Authorized Religious Law
[6:114] Shall I seek other than GOD as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed? Those who received the scripture recognize that it has been revealed from your Lord, truthfully. You shall not harbor any doubt.
[6:115] The word of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice. Nothing shall abrogate His words. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.
Caution About Following Conjecture
[6:116] If you obey the majority of people on earth, they will divert you from the path of GOD. They follow only conjecture; they only guess.
