Quran and Hadiths books, what is the difference ?

youssef4342

peace & greetings to you guys as well,
God has kind of put a promise to preserve the Quran 155 and cited that No falsehood could enter it 4142, and if it wasn't from him, it would have many contradictions 482....

many hadiths would be sayings attributed to the prophet.
consider what was said to be the Prophet Muhammad's Last Sermon, which was supposedly witnessed by thousands of Muslims (one of the most witnessed events in Hadiths), yet there are actually three versions of this sermon cited in the Hadith books

First version
"I left for you what if you hold up to, you will never be misguided The Book of God and my Family?.
(Al-Tirmidhi 6143; Muslim 44/4/2408; Ibn Hanbal 4/366; Darimi 23/1/3319)
Second version
"I left for you what if you hold up to, you will never be misguided The Book of God and my Sunnah".
(Muwatta Book 46.1.3)
Third version
"I left for you what if you hold up to, you will never be misguided, The Book of God"
(Sahih Muslim Book 7, Number 2803; Muslim 15/19/1218; Ibn Majah 25/84/3074; Abu Dawud 11/56/1905).

This is just an example of how "authentic" hadiths are.
nd Take a look at what the Quran says about HADITHS
?...which Hadith after God and His revelations Do they believe in?" (Quran 456)
?... Which Hadith beside this (Quran), do they believe in?? (Quran 7185)
?... Which Hadith beside this (Quran), do they believe in?? (Quran 7750)

SearchingGod

Note that AQ does not "make" anyone righteous or unrighteous--it is a guidance. Do hadith only (attempt to) guide?

Your argument here is that Quran is a guide. Let's assume that it is as you said.

First,

However, Quran as a book should not exist, theoretically, because you will find nowhere in the Quran itself a single verse ordering Muhammad or his Companions to write down the revealed verses so that it become a book, in a strict sense.

The Theory here, is that all verses talking about Quran as a "Book" is nothing more than a later addition to the original revelation. This addition is a man made fabrication mainly in response to the critics of Christians and Jews due to the fact they had already a book but Muslims not.

Explain this How is it possible that at the time of revelation Muhammad is supposedly talking about "Book" while he could never succeed to produce a book, mainly because his revelations were oral and not written one ?

Logical sense When you talk to someone about a book (here it's the Book of Muhammad), it is obvious that you have to produce something before whom you speak. Night and day, Muhammad was talking about book but he never presented his Book.

Conclusion Quran as you can see it today must be less bigger than the actual one in terms of its content.

As for the guidance through the Hadiths, yes of course there are a lot of Hadiths whose main purpose is to guide muslim (just check around).

Second,

AQ encourages us to use our mind and senses. Hadith are taken as being authoratative without question.

The reality is not as you have depicted.
Maybe it could be the case in Sunnism (even if todays progressive Sunni muslims challenge the same authoritarian Hadiths), but this is certainly not the case in Shiism and where you will find also Shia muslims challenging the same authoritarian Hadiths if they exist.

Third,

Hadith were first written down around 200 years after AQ was revealed.

How many years before having a full Quran as we have today ? 70 to 80 years !
And you can't ignore the fact that during the Umayyad caliphate there was political instability specially because of the Shiite counterparts (pretending that the name of Ali and other stuff were in the original Quran).
The actual Quran is nothing than "a state Quran" of the Umayyad caliphate and a response to the Christians, Jews and Shiites.

The manipulation in the actual Quran is beyond your imagination !

Hadith did not follow the same transmission as AQ.

So how the content of the Quran was transmitted according to you and what are your sources for what you claim ?

Fourth,

AQ has not been shown to have any contradiction. This is quite an accomplishment for a text that is over 1,000 year old. Hadith are rife with errors and contradictions.

1)There are no contradictions (hypothetical claim) in the Quran because there are no multiple versions of a same version (as you can find in Hadiths book).
2)The absence of grammatical errors in the Quran must support its supremacy but can you show me some grammatical errors in Sahih Bukhari for example, if there are no grammatical errors then it's not a big deal if the Quran is also free from grammatical errors ?

Fifth,

Contradiction in the Quran about multiple versions of a same version History of Lot (9 versions in the Quran) 7-11-15-26-27-29-37-51-54

How many version quote the wife of Lot as "his wife" 7-11-15-27-29

However, in 26 and 37, Quran speaks about an old woman (ajzan f l-ghbirna) and not the wife of Lot as you can see in 7 & 27 (im'ra-atahu knat mina l-ghbirna ; im'ra-atahu qaddarnh mina l-ghbirna). This a serious problem semantically because saying "an old woman" is not similar to saying "his wife". And in these versions (26 and 37) we see that Quran fails to indicate who this old woman is.

Recap

9 versions talk about Lot's history
5 versions quote the wife of Lot using "his wife"
4 versions have f/mina l-ghbirna
2 versions quote "an old woman" <------ The problem is here. Why Quran didn't use "his wife" but "an old woman". What is the reason of this exception ?

The Theory is Maybe the person who wrote these verse was another one who was not aware of the 5 versions in which it was used "his wife".

Abdul-Hadi

Greetings and Peace, all group

My comments in red.

Your argument here is that Quran is a guide. Let's assume that it is as you said.

First,

However, Quran as a book should not exist, theoretically, because you will find nowhere in the Quran itself a single verse ordering Muhammad or his Companions to write down the revealed verses so that it become a book, in a strict sense.

There is nothing requiring an oral transmission of AQ either. Any transmission will suffice. AQ is about the message, not the medium. If one takes AQ to be true, then AQ states that it contains everything necessary for the Deen. It doesn't teach how to bake a pizza or drive a car and neither does it forbid these things. Moreover, there are evidences that AQ was written down during the lifetime of Muhammad (peace upon all Prophets).

255 And they said "Fictional tales of old! He wrote them down while they were being dictated to him morning and evening."

The Theory here, is that all verses talking about Quran as a "Book" is nothing more than a later addition to the original revelation. This addition is a man made fabrication mainly in response to the critics of Christians and Jews due to the fact they had already a book but Muslims not.

When would this purported fabrication have taken place, and by whom? If this is a claim that you support/theory you advance, provide your evidence. It takes more than a theory to convince others.

Explain this How is it possible that at the time of revelation Muhammad is supposedly talking about "Book" while he could never succeed to produce a book, mainly because his revelations were oral and not written one ?

Why could Muhammad (peace upon all Prophets) have not written down or directed the writing down of oral revelations? Writing existed, and is referenced throughout AQ.

8013 In scripts which are honorable.
8014 Raised and pure.
8015 By the hands of scribes.

Logical sense When you talk to someone about a book (here it's the Book of Muhammad), it is obvious that you have to produce something before whom you speak. Night and day, Muhammad was talking about book but he never presented his Book.

Given that much of the audience of the day was not able to read, an oral presentation was appropriate to its time and place.

Conclusion Quran as you can see it today must be less bigger than the actual one in terms of its content.

I don't find any evidence supporting this conclusion.

As for the guidance through the Hadiths, yes of course there are a lot of Hadiths whose main purpose is to guide muslim (just check around).

Hadith contain blatant contradictions with AQ, science, common sense, and common morality. There is no "severability clause" that comes with hadith. Take all, or take none--it is worse to be a hypocrite than to be a fool.

Second,

The reality is not as you have depicted.
Maybe it could be the case in Sunnism (even if todays progressive Sunni muslims challenge the same authoritarian Hadiths), but this is certainly not the case in Shiism and where you will find also Shia muslims challenging the same authoritarian Hadiths if they exist.

What other "schools of thought" do is up to persons subscribing to those systems. No "school of thought" claims that any hadith is more reputable than AQ. Well then, what does AQ say about hadith?
hmm Popularity and/or opinion play no legitimate role in deciding the Deen.

Third,

How many years before having a full Quran as we have today ? 70 to 80 years !

Please provide evidence and/or citations for what is presented--or is it "original research?"

And you can't ignore the fact that during the Umayyad caliphate there was political instability specially because of the Shiite counterparts (pretending that the name of Ali and other stuff were in the original Quran).
The actual Quran is nothing than "a state Quran" of the Umayyad caliphate and a response to the Christians, Jews and Shiites.

That's an interesting theory about a "state Quran"--but still surmise presented without evidence. Is there any evidence of a Quran with different content (not including translations or footnotes)?

The manipulation in the actual Quran is beyond your imagination !

It would have to be imagination, since there is no evidence supporting theories of manipulation!

So how the content of the Quran was transmitted according to you and what are your sources for what you claim ?

AQ was memorized by some of those hearing it AND written down immediately upon being recited to others. My source is AQ for the writing part.

Fourth,

1)There are no contradictions (hypothetical claim) in the Quran because there are no multiple versions of a same version (as you can find in Hadiths book).

There are no claims that the earth is flat or that camel urine cures cancer or other bad science in AQ. If a person or people had fabricated AQ, it would have errors of this type. Also, don't you refute this claim later with your "nine versions of Quran" discussion?

2)The absence of grammatical errors in the Quran must support its supremacy but can you show me some grammatical errors in Sahih Bukhari for example, if there are no grammatical errors then it's not a big deal if the Quran is also free from grammatical errors ?

This is a red herring. I'm talking about scientific facts, not grammar.

Fifth,

Contradiction in the Quran about multiple versions of a same version History of Lot (9 versions in the Quran) 7-11-15-26-27-29-37-51-54

How many version quote the wife of Lot as "his wife" 7-11-15-27-29

However, in 26 and 37, Quran speaks about an old woman (ajzan f l-ghbirna) and not the wife of Lot as you can see in 7 & 27 (im'ra-atahu knat mina l-ghbirna ; im'ra-atahu qaddarnh mina l-ghbirna). This a serious problem semantically because saying "an old woman" is not similar to saying "his wife". And in these versions (26 and 37) we see that Quran fails to indicate who this old woman is.

Recap

9 versions talk about Lot's history
5 versions quote the wife of Lot using "his wife"
4 versions have f/mina l-ghbirna
2 versions quote "an old woman" <------ The problem is here. Why Quran didn't use "his wife" but "an old woman". What is the reason of this exception ?

The Theory is Maybe the person who wrote these verse was another one who was not aware of the 5 versions in which it was used "his wife".

I'm unfamiliar with what you write about. There have been multiple translations throughout history. Some translations are better than others. Does one choice of words somehow dramatically change the core meaning?

For the sake of argument, suppose your argument was sound. What guidance do you think should be followed? hmm What is a proposed solution for what is claimed to be a problem?

ALLAH knows best

peace

~Abdul-Hadi

SearchingGod

First,

However, Quran as a book should not exist, theoretically, because you will find nowhere in the Quran itself a single verse ordering Muhammad or his Companions to write down the revealed verses so that it become a book, in a strict sense.

There is nothing requiring an oral transmission of AQ either. Any transmission will suffice. AQ is about the message, not the medium. If one takes AQ to be true, then AQ states that it contains everything necessary for the Deen. It doesn't teach how to bake a pizza or drive a car and neither does it forbid these things. Moreover, there are evidences that AQ was written down during the lifetime of Muhammad (peace upon all Prophets).

255 And they said "Fictional tales of old! He wrote them down while they were being dictated to him morning and evening."

This is not an evidence but a false accusation against Muhammad from the Disbelievers.

254 And those who rejected said "This is but a falsehood that he invented and other people have helped him with it." Certainly, they have come with what is unjust and fabricated.
255 And they said "Fictional tales of old! He wrote them down while they were being dictated to him morning and evening."

So your first argument to my observation is void.

The Theory here, is that all verses talking about Quran as a "Book" is nothing more than a later addition to the original revelation. This addition is a man made fabrication mainly in response to the critics of Christians and Jews due to the fact they had already a book but Muslims not.

When would this purported fabrication have taken place, and by whom? If this is a claim that you support/theory you advance, provide your evidence. It takes more than a theory to convince others.

I agree with you ! But as I said this is a Theory so it's hypothetical. And what convince me for this theory is these facts that

-Muhammad never wrote down the revelations
-Muhammad never presented his book, in a strict sense to the polytheist, the disbelievers, the Nazarenes and the Jews
-Logic says that when you talk about something, specially if it's a book, your book, you don't simply talk about it, but you have to present it to your interlocutors
-The absence of any "Book" called Quran at the time of Muhammad

Explain this How is it possible that at the time of revelation Muhammad is supposedly talking about "Book" while he could never succeed to produce a book, mainly because his revelations were oral and not written one ?

Why could Muhammad (peace upon all Prophets) have not written down or directed the writing down of oral revelations? Writing existed, and is referenced throughout AQ.

8013 In scripts which are honorable.
8014 Raised and pure.
8015 By the hands of scribes.

It's impossible to say that these scripts (scribes=Angels?) are related to the complete Quran because it's a Meccan Surah. So the Quran was still not in it's complete form.

Logical sense When you talk to someone about a book (here it's the Book of Muhammad), it is obvious that you have to produce something before whom you speak. Night and day, Muhammad was talking about book but he never presented his Book.

Given that much of the audience of the day was not able to read, an oral presentation was appropriate to its time and place.

Conclusion Quran as you can see it today must be less bigger than the actual one in terms of its content.

I don't find any evidence supporting this conclusion.

You gave yourself a solid evidence to my arguments ! As you said, an oral presentation was appropriate to its time and place, then why time and again Muhammad was talking about a fictitious book. Were people around him so stupid and unintelligent to even not dare to ask him to present his book, the book he was talking about night and days.

This is a serious challenge !

Third,

How many years before having a full Quran as we have today ? 70 to 80 years !

Please provide evidence and/or citations for what is presented--or is it "original research?"

And you can't ignore the fact that during the Umayyad caliphate there was political instability specially because of the Shiite counterparts (pretending that the name of Ali and other stuff were in the original Quran). The actual Quran is nothing than "a state Quran" of the Umayyad caliphate and a response to the Christians, Jews and Shiites.

That's an interesting theory about a "state Quran"--but still surmise presented without evidence. Is there any evidence of a Quran with different content (not including translations or footnotes)?

You have so many credible "academic" researches about these subjects. Just check it by your own means.

So how the content of the Quran was transmitted according to you and what are your sources for what you claim ?

AQ was memorized by some of those hearing it AND written down immediately upon being recited to others. My source is AQ for the writing part.

Your source (Quran itself) about the writing part says nothing as I showed you before. The Quran is clear about that and maybe this is in contradiction with Quran itself, supporting my idea of addition in the Quran.

1)If Muhammad claims that a book is revealed to him, then he has to present his book to the audience

IMPLIES-->

2)But if Muhammad presents his book or claims that a book is revealed to him, then audience will say he is the author in this case the defense is

IMPLIES-->

3)However, is a self contradiction argument because if Muhammad claims that a book is revealed to him, then he has to present his book to the audience

IMPLIES-->

2)But if Muhammad presents his book or claims that a book is revealed to him, then audience will say he is the author in this case the defense is

....

1-->2-->3 but if 2-->3 then again if 2-->3 ... (a series of infinite repetitions)

Conclusion no book was revealed to Muhammad only some divine guidance. The whole story of a "divine book" called "Quran" is a later addition.

Fourth,

1)There are no contradictions (hypothetical claim) in the Quran because there are no multiple versions of a same version (as you can find in Hadiths book).

There are no claims that the earth is flat or that camel urine cures cancer or other bad science in AQ. If a person or people had fabricated AQ, it would have errors of this type. Also, don't you refute this claim later with your "nine versions of Quran" discussion?

As I said it's a hypothetical claim that there are no contradictions in the Quran. And I showed later from the History of Lot that there are contradictions ! And therefore, Quran is in this way not superior to Hadiths.

2)The absence of grammatical errors in the Quran must support its supremacy but can you show me some grammatical errors in Sahih Bukhari for example, if there are no grammatical errors then it's not a big deal if the Quran is also free from grammatical errors ?

This is a red herring. I'm talking about scientific facts, not grammar.

So your criterion to judge if a "Book" is divine or not is Science. If it goes against Science then it's not a divine book. What do you say about the conception of Issa b. Mariyam. Is not this history a contradiction to what Science teaches us about procreation in the human species. You will say that it's a miracle that's why it's a contradiction. Let's assume that your answer is valid. Then, you can put contradictions in the Quran, and you just have to say, "O these are miracles that's why there are contradictions with Science".

I think your criterion of judging if it's divine or not is impotent.

Science never been a criterion to judge the divine origin of something.

Fifth,

Contradiction in the Quran about multiple versions of a same version History of Lot (9 versions in the Quran) 7-11-15-26-27-29-37-51-54

How many version quote the wife of Lot as "his wife" 7-11-15-27-29

However, in 26 and 37, Quran speaks about an old woman (ajzan f l-ghbirna) and not the wife of Lot as you can see in 7 & 27 (im'ra-atahu knat mina l-ghbirna ; im'ra-atahu qaddarnh mina l-ghbirna). This a serious problem semantically because saying "an old woman" is not similar to saying "his wife". And in these versions (26 and 37) we see that Quran fails to indicate who this old woman is.

Recap

9 versions talk about Lot's history
5 versions quote the wife of Lot using "his wife"
4 versions have f/mina l-ghbirna
2 versions quote "an old woman" <------ The problem is here. Why Quran didn't use "his wife" but "an old woman". What is the reason of this exception ?

The Theory is Maybe the person who wrote these verse was another one who was not aware of the 5 versions in which it was used "his wife".

I'm unfamiliar with what you write about. There have been multiple translations throughout history. Some translations are better than others. Does one choice of words somehow dramatically change the core meaning?

I am not talking about translation ! Read again.
The numbers above are Surah numbers, if it can help you to undersand the matter.

780-84
1169-83
1558-72
26160-174
2754-58
2928-35
37133-136
5131-37
5433-39

good_logic

Sorry Abul-Hadi

I am not answering on your part. I am giving SearchingGod another angle to look at.

The Creator of the universe said HE authored the " Koran". He has provided the proof

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7TfMQJuf0I

His signature is in all HIS creation , including his preserved "book"

Peace.

SearchingGod

Sorry Abul-Hadi

I am not answering on your part. I am giving SearchingGod another angle to look at.

The Creator of the universe said HE authored the " Koran". He has provided the proof

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7TfMQJuf0I

His signature is in all HIS creation , including his preserved "book"

Peace.

I already told you that the whole story of number 19 is a big trap ! Nothing serious but speculative. And you can find so many inconsistencies.

If you think that there is something miraculous in the number 19 then what do you do of verse 9128-129 ?
Will you say like Dr. Rashad Khalifa that they were added ?

You don't have many possibilities.

A) God protected his book then number 19 Miracle is nothing but a fraudulent theory
B) God didn't protect his book then number 19 Miracle is relevant

IMPLIES

A) ---> A&#039 There is no alteration in the book
B) ---> B&#039 There is alteration in the book

IMPLIES

A&#039 ----> A'&#039 God is able to protect his book as He claims in
B&#039 ---> B'&#039 Gos is not able to protect his book then the claim in is false

IMPLIES

B'&#039 ---> B''&#039 Not only is false, but also is false

Conclusion Quran is an altered book if I follow/believe in the number 19 Miracle !

Student_of_Allah

Shalom Aleikhem,

Why do you put all hadiths in the same batch ? Not all hadiths are absurd !

Not all hadiths are absurd, agreed. However, I put all hadiths with all other hearsay informations. The place where they belong.

Even if Quran forbids using other sources, how do you know if the sources used by the Quran are not absurd too ?

We can not have a sensible dialogue without coming to a agreement on a premise. I was speaking from the assumption that you wanted to know why hadiths are different than Qur'an. Not from the assumption that both are useless unreliable documents.

Seems illogical here, Quran forbidding us to use other sources but itself uses other souces.

When the author claims to be God, it is the obvious assumption that a God knows what is true/false better than us. Thus, the Qur'an can quote sources, talk about them, give lessons based on them. However, when the same author asks you to not follow other documents besides it as divine, it is rational for anyone who accepts the Qur'an to be divine to listen to it.

Put simply, the master of all knowledge telling you about an event in the past does not in any way shape or form warrant everyone else the eligibility to speak on the issue with equal worth. Thats one of the most absurd arguments I ever came across. Its like saying "Why can't I go around taking whatever drugs I like when my doctor can prescribe whatever drug he/she prefers"

This is why I was asking for the difference between Quran and Hadiths books (for me they are similar).

I still do not see your case.

Why do you blindly follow the Quran knowing that it came to you through the same process (transmission through "Companions&quot and you even can't d?termine which Quranic verse is added or which one is altered because of a lack of information, even if the content of the Quran sounds consistent to you .

You need to study a bit more about hadiths. The chain of transmitter thing is for hadiths, not Qur'an. I do not have any evidence to demonstrate that the Qur'an was collected the way people like Bukhari saw it fit. If you ask me, I would argue that this story was popularized to add to the credibility of hadiths as they themselves depend on such process. To further expose their lies, you will find hadiths about the writing of Qur'an by scribes infront of Muhammad too .

Your case for the recording of Qur'an is based on hadiths. Hearsay information collected by people like Bukhari in the form of public surveys.

Honestly, addition/deletion of verses can not be verified in any way. Lets take a hypothetical case where we had a Qur'an which is signed by Muhammad. How would I know if it really was Muhammad ?? This problem does not only occur in Muhammad/Islam case, but for many other cases. This is where HISTORY steps in. When we study History, the only way to make any sense of a document and its credibility is by testing it's contents against our rationality. And that is exactly where the consistency of the Qur'an is beautiful to it's admirers.

By the way, what just happened in this thread...its filled with so much back and forth of words...lol.

In any case, let us assume there is no God, the history of Islam and Qur'an has been hijacked by public surveys carried out by morons. And that is sad, even if there is no God, a historian would surely share my problem with that.

I hope you get some time to study hadiths before you compare it to Qur'an again. For there is an inherent and obvious difference between a document and random public surveys.

Peace
---------- Student of Allah

good_logic

I have already said

Here is the difference
GOD will only protect HIS word. The introduction before sura 1 and the index after sura 114 do not matter. It is the same with 128- 129 . They do not prove your point. On the contrary, the code is proof of this.

Prove that 19 is not part of the initial surahs?, That will make your case credible.
Peace

SearchingGod

I have already said

Here is the difference
GOD will only protect HIS word. The introduction before sura 1 and the index after sura 114 do not matter. It is the same with 128- 129 . They do not prove your point. On the contrary, the code is proof of this.

Prove that 19 is not part of the initial surahs?, That will make your case credible.
Peace

I gave you a logical procedure to dismiss the so called "number 19 Miracle", just follow it and don't be dazzled by some proof with no pertinent methodology and hazardous applying.

Find a failure to this logical procedure, if you can otherwise "number 19 Miracle" is nothing more than a fallacy.

By the way, you didn't answer to my questions

If you think that there is something miraculous in the number 19 then what do you do of verse 9128-129 ?
Will you say like Dr. Rashad Khalifa that they were added ?

good_logic

Peace Searching God.

Please answer the question I asked you, then I will answer you.

Prove that 19 is not part of the " initialed surahs"

This will help to change my mind.
Peace

SearchingGod

Shalom Aleikhem,

Not all hadiths are absurd, agreed. However, I put all hadiths with all other hearsay informations. The place where they belong.

We can not have a sensible dialogue without coming to a agreement on a premise. I was speaking from the assumption that you wanted to know why hadiths are different than Qur'an. Not from the assumption that both are useless unreliable documents.

When the author claims to be God, it is the obvious assumption that a God knows what is true/false better than us. Thus, the Qur'an can quote sources, talk about them, give lessons based on them. However, when the same author asks you to not follow other documents besides it as divine, it is rational for anyone who accepts the Qur'an to be divine to listen to it.

Put simply, the master of all knowledge telling you about an event in the past does not in any way shape or form warrant everyone else the eligibility to speak on the issue with equal worth. Thats one of the most absurd arguments I ever came across. Its like saying "Why can't I go around taking whatever drugs I like when my doctor can prescribe whatever drug he/she prefers"

I still do not see your case.

You need to study a bit more about hadiths. The chain of transmitter thing is for hadiths, not Qur'an.

Only because in the Quran, you don't see the chain of transmission and the name of transmitters.

I do not have any evidence to demonstrate that the Qur'an was collected the way people like Bukhari saw it fit. If you ask me, I would argue that this story was popularized to add to the credibility of hadiths as they themselves depend on such process. To further expose their lies, you will find hadiths about the writing of Qur'an by scribes infront of Muhammad too .

So you follow a book that you even don't know from where it came ? Who wrote it ? (That's blind following for sure !)

Your case for the recording of Qur'an is based on hadiths. Hearsay information collected by people like Bukhari in the form of public surveys.

Honestly, addition/deletion of verses can not be verified in any way. Lets take a hypothetical case where we had a Qur'an which is signed by Muhammad. How would I know if it really was Muhammad ?? This problem does not only occur in Muhammad/Islam case, but for many other cases. This is where HISTORY steps in. When we study History, the only way to make any sense of a document and its credibility is by testing it's contents against our rationality. And that is exactly where the consistency of the Qur'an is beautiful to it's admirers.

This is none but a subjective opinion. And subjectivity is not compatible with rationality.

By the way, what just happened in this thread...its filled with so much back and forth of words...lol.

In any case, let us assume there is no God, the history of Islam and Qur'an has been hijacked by public surveys carried out by morons. And that is sad, even if there is no God, a historian would surely share my problem with that.

I hope you get some time to study hadiths before you compare it to Qur'an again. For there is an inherent and obvious difference between a document and random public surveys.

Peace
---------- Student of Allah

In my ? Reply #18 on Today at 084940 AM ? there are many unanswered questions and challenges of very basic level. If you can, give an answer to them.