John Esposito notes that "Modern Western scholarship has seriously questioned the historicity and authenticity of the hadith", maintaining that "the bulk of traditions attributed to the Prophet Muhammad were actually written much later." He mentions Joseph Schacht, as one scholar who argues this, claiming that Schacht "found no evidence of legal traditions before 722," from which Schacht concluded that "the Sunna of the Prophet is not the words and deeds of the Prophet, but apocryphal material" dating from later. Though other scholars, such as Wilferd Madelung, have argued that "wholesale rejection of hadith as late fiction is unjustified".
Some Muslims, such as Kassim Ahmad (declared an apostate by some scholars), have suggested that the original prohibition against Hadith led to the Golden Age of Islam, as the Quran was able to stand up to critical thinking and questioning; and Muslims were thus schooled to be inquisitive and seek answers to every quandary. They posit that the increased reliance on Hadith, which was allegedly illogical and required the suspension of disbelief, led to the eventual downfall of scholastic pursuits in the religion.
In 1878, Cyrus Hamlin wrote that "Tradition, rather than the Quran, has formed both law and religion for the Moslems". In the early 20th century, a book was written in defence of the Hadith stating "Anyone who denies the role of Abu Hurayra denies half of the canonical law, for half of the hadiths on which judgments were based had their origin in Abu Hurayra".