Debate btw quranist and hadithist
-
Oh I did come across this video. Couldn't watch the whole thing. But yeah, you are right, the Quran follower didn't have much knowledge on the topic. I also feel we should always and always avoid this specific kind of debate. It is merely verbal. It would be better to talk by keeping the "questionable" materials (evidence) in front. Majority of the sectarians have never seen the stuffs from early traditionalists anyways.
Would any want to counter the hadithist.
I am a bit busy. Otherwise, I would have started it now.
-
A debate btw quranist and hadithist in speakers corner London.
Would any want to counter the hadithist. I think the quranist was not more knowledgeable in Quran itself.
https//youtu.be/26FB8EHeFMcI have commented on this on the Youtube channel.
In my view he did a great job under the circumstances that he was being pushed and prodded by the Hadithists.
That whole corner is a theater of verbal street-fighting.... to win souls and make a club even bigger. The biggest groups there are the Hadithists, Evangelicals and Zionists and a weird guy who worships himself or his ancestors depending on this convoluted argument. Surprise surprise about the Hadithists, Evangelicals and Zionists though... hey. (irony intended about those groups).
I did a search on Youtube for Quranist and it came up and I have to say I did watch some other videos of "conversions" and they made me laugh....
-
may b its a fixed... lot of times people do it..
or i advise to everybody never touch a subject of any kind if you dnt have grip on it.. and u have poor memory of remembring things..
everyone not born as a debater
same like memories of individual vary from mind to mind.. like zakir naik memory of recalling things is excellentas far i m concern i come across with lot of traditionalists in the end they run away like zeberas (trust me on this) even some qualified scholars who hold a degrees..
in the start my own friends when found themselves answerless one try to assualt me.. after that i never debate them in open as the emotions deluded them and their brain is covered under tradition
but a simple formula i see truth shall prevail
i dnt recall the debate here in uk happend between god alone people and traditional in the end traditional muslim never come on the second round of debate and by default the judges give the decision in the favor of quran alone..
i jst did not find that reference.. -
Peace.
This has been discussed here
http//www.quransmessage.com/forum/forum.htmGOD bless.
Peace. -
I left a comment under Mike Bowers. I do think that these debates are pointless as both parties are more interested in delivering zingers instead of actually trying to understand others' point of view. I try to avoid arguments with these fanatics themselves. If they want to go circle a black stone 7 times then God has chosen to misguide them and "Can you save one who is in the fire?". The arrogant and sheep will soon know.
-
I left a comment under Mike Bowers. I do think that these debates are pointless as both parties are more interested in delivering zingers instead of actually trying to understand others' point of view. I try to avoid arguments with these fanatics themselves. If they want to go circle a black stone 7 times then God has chosen to misguide them and "Can you save one who is in the fire?". The arrogant and sheep will soon know.
Salam,
I think it is a nice idea to try and keep the discussion about the Quranic evidence in relation to how one should follow Islam - as far as possible - whether on this forum or at Hyde Park Corner if one wants to.
I have always found that to say someone will burn in hell is a sectarian attitude of hate. I am not saying that you are hateful but would kindly ask if fellow Quran-only Muslims would avoid using the language of hate.
In the past I have been told so many times that I will burn in hell for not turning up my trousers in a mosque. I don't like this language at all even if we try to use the Quran to justify what we say as imperfect humans.I assume that most of us Quranists have ended up where we have because we are sincerely seeking a true path - so I cannot see where in the true path it would suggest that we tell others they will burn.
I think that good behaviuor is part of Islam - and not so much to show others how well behaved we are so they join our "club" but to just behave in an upright manner if we are sincere to finding the true path.It is God's decision only who will burn.
I don't mean to lecture you but there is a lot of hateful talk on this website by some extremist posters and it is even tolerated - but I have come to the conclusion that it is a good idea to challenge it where possible - even if the poster is not a hater but there are signs of that same hateful and sectarian language.
Salam
Ed -
Salaam Ed,
Thanks for the reminder. We should not be high and mighty against the sectarians as we were once like them and God guided us. I was in the wrong. Sometimes it gets very frustrating when I see these Sheikhs speaking as they know all there is to know about Islam and misguiding the weak. May God grants us paradise and save us from the fire. We do not have any authority to judge. -
Salaam Ed,
Thanks for the reminder. We should not be high and mighty against the sectarians as we were once like them and God guided us. I was in the wrong. Sometimes it gets very frustrating when I see these Sheikhs speaking as they know all there is to know about Islam and misguiding the weak. May God grants us paradise and save us from the fire. We do not have any authority to judge.God bless you brother.
Salam
Ed -
This time I have decided to support the hadithist. I won't be doing it in one post. The video is long. So I will have take breaks. As I said earlier, avoid this kind of debate because it doesn't let the depth of the problem surface. Marwan said that hadiths are enemy of Muslims. Before he could finish his line, "uncle" Adnan went, "no, it doesn't". He doesn't answer why. This way he is burying the problem Marwan wants to talk about.
Anyways, here we go
I am glad uncle Adnan made it clear that he will call you people QURANIST. In support of this, we will add whimsical details of this term and claim that you people are creating a sect. Hopefully, many Quranists will also fall for it just like.....before!
Uncle Adnan "How was the Quran preserved"?
I am glad once again he asked this question. You will never find the answer anywhere in the Quran. rotfl
That's because it came to us 250 years after the Book was revealed. Checkmate!
Too bad, you QURANISTS will never know about the holy goat who ate the stoning verse....and <a href="https//ancientmodernislam.blogspot.com/2016/10/some-lies-from-hadith-books.html">the rest nowhere to be found in the Quran</a>. Hence, any argument of yours about how the Book was preserved is invalid.
Uncle Adnan "I need evidence that Prophet Muhammad taught it"
Yeah, we need to be told by men that Quran is taught by the Prophet. Deep down inside you know we are atheists. We just pretend to believe in God. We don't trust his Book. That's why, our sunni religion is driven by hadiths you know?
-
interesting thing about this debate..
uncle adnan ask him again and again... throw all the hadith in the sea. we have quran how do you know its from God.. ?
i m angry on this person "marwan" who cant have a grip of debate to give this answer in more logical way ..
when you throw the hadith in the sea then both of you are agree on quran by default ..
if quran is silent on its preservation then its mean go to the history..but on the other hand , Quran is detalied, complete and revealed through (gabi) under direct supervision..
after that first copy
different publishing from time to time happened..
started from parchments till adobe version..its silly to ask how come quran is in adobe photoshop whereas 7th century people used to preserve it by animal skin..
in any case if they booth agree on "quran" the answer is lies within quran..
MOREOVER
the so called history of usman copy of compiling is nothing more than a modern printing press who already have a master copy from which they create more copies ..
some copies add numbers, some of them later added vocal marks as so on...its same like i create a cd and then i destroy my floppy
they did same as soon they transferred the copy in to papers they no longer need to preserve the animal skin parchments..thats why i advise people we mst need to have knowledge about history too for more in depth about their baseless claims..
so grip on everything before taking a public debate..i feel it was a fixed.. becoz secterians are so much afraid from last couple of years from God alone movement..
-
As I marwan is not experience in debating like adnan. We should not blame him. The guy adnan has been doing it for long
adnan himself need to understand the difference between history and hadith..
it doesnt matter how long hes been doing this..
-
Oh no, the debate here is with Adnan Rashid who is extremely dishonest, provocative, annoying and disrespectful. I heard some of his discussions with Christians and he has a nasty habit of resorting to personal attacks once he can't refute their arguments.
If you listen to what he says in this video carefully, you will see that all his criticism are more suited for his beliefs in hadiths rather then the quran... e.g. he asks in 320 ''What's the evidence that Muhammad taught this? Maybe someone made it up??'' rotfl Yeah that's exactly what we as quranists criticise hadiths for! rotfl And in 421 he said ''Someone stated something to Muhammad why should I believe it why???'' rotfl rotfl But funny enough he doesn't ask himself why he believe in someone-stating-something-to-muhammad in hadiths rotfl
But Adnan's approach was to try to trap the quranists into 'admitting' that the ''same people who preserved the hadiths were the people who also preserved the quran''.
Adnan is hopeless to have a discussion with...
Peace
-
thats why i said he dnt even have a grip on history and hadith..
according to history "copies of quran were in circulation" soon after death of prophet
according to history " copies of hadith were come in circulation" after 200 years of prophet deathbut as per quran muhammad write the master copy by his own hand ...
what the chains were doing for 200 years .. adnan is the dumbest debater i have ever encounter ..
and i m more angry on this person who represent himself as quranist or whatever , he dnt even have a grip of debate..
years ago i watch a video in which it was fixed and they ask the same questions and pretender quranist did not answer it due to a reason.. i understand it was fixed ...
or other way round the people may b have 300 years age then we can think logically they are same people who bring the quran.. rotfl rotfl
maha look at the adnan he drinks a lot in the debate ... sun
-
A debate btw quranist and hadithist in speakers corner London.
Would any want to counter the hadithist. I think the quranist was not more knowledgeable in Quran itself.
https//youtu.be/26FB8EHeFMc3119 and be moderate in pace yours and lower from voice yours indeed harshest the voices surely voice l-amri/the donkeys (i.e. those ranting out load mindlessly)
unlike hearsay collections which did not exist until after 100+ years after revelation;
page one of oldest manuscripts MA VI 165 probability 95.4% between 649-675 CE
http//idb.ub.uni-tuebingen.de/diglit/MaVI165https//s23.postimg.org/ctao1qle3/ch31v16-23.jpg
-
Uncle Adnan "How was the Quran preserved"?
I am glad once again he asked this question. You will never find the answer anywhere in the Quran. rotfl
That's because it came to us 250 years after the Book was revealed. Checkmate!
Too bad, you QURANISTS will never know about the holy goat who ate the stoning verse....and <a href="https//ancientmodernislam.blogspot.com/2016/10/some-lies-from-hadith-books.html">the rest nowhere to be found in the Quran</a>. Hence, any argument of yours about how the Book was preserved is invalid.
Salaam everyone, I haven't been active for many years, just decided to come back. Anyway, about the question posed to the brother in the video, Why does he have to prove how the Quran was preserved? I find that to be a strange question because, you either believe in the Quran based on the writing you find within the Quran or you reject it. If your faith depends on the fact that the hadeeth proves to you that this is a historically preserved document, then we have many other historically preserved documents as well. Will these same people believe in Ghulam Mirza as a prophet because his sayings are also preserved (Actually much more preserved than the Prophet Muhammed PBUH). This whole question makes no sense to me.
-
Salaam everyone, I haven't been active for many years, just decided to come back. Anyway, about the question posed to the brother in the video, Why does he have to prove how the Quran was preserved? I find that to be a strange question because, you either believe in the Quran based on the writing you find within the Quran or you reject it. If your faith depends on the fact that the hadeeth proves to you that this is a historically preserved document, then we have many other historically preserved documents as well. Will these same people believe in Ghulam Mirza as a prophet because his sayings are also preserved (Actually much more preserved than the Prophet Muhammed PBUH). This whole question makes no sense to me.
Welcome back. I wasn't active for many years either and decided to come back a week ago or so.
Hadither Adnan's approach was to try to trap the quranists into 'admitting' that the ''same people who preserved the hadiths were the people who also preserved the quran''. Hence, if you deny the hadiths you are also denying that Quran has been preserved in its original form, making it as 'useless' as hadiths. That is why he kept ordering him to prove how the Quran was preserved.
-
Actually the hadithist are using this same line argument everytime that same people who preserved the hadiths were the people who also preserved the quran''. Hence, if you deny the hadiths you are also denying that Quran has been preserved in its original form.