“Dans cet ensemble gigantesque constitué par les Ḥadīths, chaque ecole a puise ce qui paraissait venir à l'appui de sa propre doctrine, et a repoussé ce qui la gênait.” This statement represents a fair summary of the current view of Western scholarship on the role played by Ḥadīth in the development of Islamic legal doctrine. According to traditional Islamic jurisprudence the Ḥadīth, particularly those recorded in the six “canonical” collections of the third/ninth century, constitute an authentic record of the legal precedents, or sunnah, set by the Prophet Muhammad, and as such were regarded as a primary source of law, providing both an interpretation of, and a supplement to, the legal provisions of the Qur'ān itself. European scepticism over this view, however, stemming largely from the fact that the Ḥadīth embody considerable conflict and contradiction of substance, has eventually led to the conclusion that the ascription of legal doctrines to the Prophet was largely apocryphal and that the great mass of Ḥadīth originated in the second/eighth century, thus representing very much a secondary stage in the growth of legal doctrine.

Muslim scholars themselves were, of course, intensely conscious of the possibility of fabrication of Ḥadīth, But their test for authenticity was confined to an investigation of the chain of transmitters (isnād) who narrated the report. Provided the chain was uninterrupted and its individual links deemed trustworthy persons, the Ḥadīth was accepted as binding law.