Debate btw quranist and hadithist
-
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.
-
source
A commonly stated argument by those who wish to raise traditional heresay/ahadith to divine-status level is that its preservation and compilation was the same as The Quran.
Is that really true? Lets look at the simple and obvious facts...
The Quran = God's Word
Ahadith = man's wordThe Quran = 100% fact/truth/perfect
Ahadith = mix of truth and falsehood (hence weak and strong hadith)The Quran = recorded under the DIRECT supervision of prophet Muhammad
Ahadith = not recorded under the DIRECT supervision of prophet MuhammadThe Quran = written AND memorised word for word as soon as it was transmitted
Ahadith = no-one ever claimed to record and memorise ahadith word for word as soon as it was transmittedThe Quran = protected explicitly by God Himself as stated in The Quran
Ahadith = no such explicit protection statedThe Quran = no Muslim doubts its credibility
Ahadith = each sect has its own versions, weak & strong ones etcThe Quran = in-built verification mechanism, e.g. challenges others to find inconsistency, bring a chapter like it etc.
Ahadith = no such in-built mechanism, full of inconsistencies etc.And if that doesn't work, just ask an advocate of Hadith "what is the earliest extant dated hadith script?" and watch them squirm. Most will not have an answer. Some may cite the following problematic collection. Based on various studies into this, to my knowledge it seems the answer is somewhere between 80-150 years after the prophet. Note, we are not talking about collections of Bukhari, Muslim here, as they are much later.
-
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.
Exactly.
-
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.
Peace,
False! Hearsay are countless and contradictory cannot be collaborated until 150 - 250 years after revelation.
159 indeed we descended we of the reminder and indeed for it surely guardians being
There are enough old manuscripts (see my prior post) MA VI 165 probability 95.4% between 649-675 CE
Contains ~20% Qur'an from 1736 to 3655
http//idb.ub.uni-tuebingen.de/diglit/MaVI165Few more examples earlier Qur'an initials were NOT numbered.
False claim! "that ?original? 203 is without nun but the modern version includes it"
http//submission.org/verify_preserving_and_protecting_Quran.htmlWe clearly see initials 201 ta ha NOT counted and "nun" present
203 except reminder to who concernedhttps//s22.postimg.org/ioputpm75/MA_VI_165_Quran_ch19v97-ch20v16.jpg
-
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.
actually this is the HEIGHT of STUPIDITY by the claimaints
if it was that necessary then along with quran hadees must be preserved in some parchments or early caliphs recorded it as the law..
either they have shortage of papers for writting this important so called holy hadees
or
they were not taking it as an important task to get accomplished?
or
early caliphs were well aware about the fact that quran is detailed hence no need of any outside source?they can only select one..
as a gift hadees by bukhari ..
upon the death of prophet , before getting die prophet ask a paper and pen to write something for muslim nation but caliph omar refused to give paper and pen , and he said the book of God is enough for us..
although in this so called story there are errors of logic.. first mistake omar refused to obey command of prophet
second mistake the author of hadees copied this thing even after knowing it can fireback at his own worth...stupidity upon stupidity...
-
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.
Yes but my query is different. Why does it matter who it was who preserved the Quran? I think that people believe in the Quran based on the message they find within the Quran and not based on who it was that preserved it. This question presupposes that you believe Muhammed (PBUH) to be a messenger of God BEFORE believing in the message (i.e. Quran) that he taught. So you either read the Quran and accept that its divinely inspired or you only believe in it if you believe that it is the message that Muhammad (PBUH) received. I don't know if i've been able to convey my thoughts correctly, but I see no need to prove its link if the message itself is what is inspiring a person to follow Islam and the guidance within the Quran.
-
Uncle Adnan What is the definition of the Quran? (How would Marwan answer this to uncle if as inferior and skeptic, he has this question )
That's a great question from uncle Adnan. You won't come to know what science is by reading a book about it at first. You will actually get its definition from oral tradition of your parents if you ask them What's science?
Same with Quran. You will ask about its meaning from a Muslim who will then pretend to get the answer from the oral tradition of Bukhari and Co despite the fact it does not exist in the collections.
So how many skeptics, in other words, lower caste humans turn to hadiths to learn the definition and how many sectarian sites are actually providing them?
-
Yes but my query is different. Why does it matter who it was who preserved the Quran? I think that people believe in the Quran based on the message they find within the Quran and not based on who it was that preserved it. This question presupposes that you believe Muhammed (PBUH) to be a messenger of God BEFORE believing in the message (i.e. Quran) that he taught. So you either read the Quran and accept that its divinely inspired or you only believe in it if you believe that it is the message that Muhammad (PBUH) received. I don't know if i've been able to convey my thoughts correctly, but I see no need to prove its link if the message itself is what is inspiring a person to follow Islam and the guidance within the Quran.
Yes you do convey what you want to say and I have kept saying that for ages. It is the content that defines the Qur'an , not how it came to us or how it was prreseved. If it had the most absolute guranteed preservation and said nonsense and contradictions, how shuld that help the nonsense or the contradictions.
We believe the Qur'an because the Qur'an convinces us, not by hearsay or reocommendation.
Salaam
