This is a scholarly expository passage, likely from an academic introduction to Islamic studies, explaining the nature and authority of Hadith — the collected sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad — as the second most important body of Islamic textual material after the Qur'ān. The author uses W.C. Smith's analogy to frame Hadith's role: if the Qur'ān is to Islam what Christ is to Christianity, then Hadith functions roughly as the New Testament does. A central argument is that the Hadith corpus is inherently contested — Muslim scholars themselves have long acknowledged that large numbers of hadiths are spurious, partly because each tradition depends on a chain of named transmitters (isnād) that could be fabricated, and no universally accepted canon was ever established. Distinctively, the author argues that even demonstrably false hadiths retain historical and doctrinal value, because their acceptance by early pious scholars reflects the "Consensus" that shaped Islamic law and theology — meaning they encode what early authorities considered Islamic, regardless of factual accuracy. The passage thus steers against both uncritical acceptance and wholesale modernist rejection of Hadith, positioning the corpus as irreplaceable despite its authenticity problems. It closes by calling for a new, rigorous school of Hadith criticism, contingent on broad scholarly agreement that such reform is needed.