Debate btw quranist and hadithist
-
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/26FB8EHeFMcGosh, you guys still have time for hadith vs Quran alone debates? I have stopped that long ago. These debates do not lead anywhere and become an endless loop of repetitions. It is even worse if this debate is held verbally.
I've seen that video so many times on my YouTube recommended list, not for once did I click it. Rather than debating these hadithists, just create a blog examining and refuting their arguments. Invest your time on matters like salat, fasting, Hajj e.t.c according to Qur'an. -
Peace Neptin.
It is funny you say that debating is futile. Yes.I agree.
It is about time we realise GOD is debating the lot of us,every human,yet we have not grasped it yet?
Just look at what Qoran is doing to all that encounter it!!! Challenging their way of life and waking them up from the nightmare called "human nature , traditions/religions/systems...".You are quite right in saying one is wasting their time debating any other that holds a different view. There is simply no general agreement on many things yet!
However, Qoran has many surprises to come to all of us. Just you ,I and everyone else wait and see,GOD is patiently waiting too.
This comes to mind" We throw the truth at falsehood and it gives it a big headache"( Or something similar)
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
I see some people saying that how the Quran was preserved it's irrelevant.
However, I find the question from Adnan quite interesting.
How do we know the Quran was preserved?Imran you said that if the answer isn't in the Quran than look at history but why can't the Hadith be used as a history book?
Some of it might be wrong and some of it might be right but upon analysis they should clarify some matters.PS For those believing that knowing how the Quran was preserved it's irrelevant, what are your reasons for believing so?
-
Imran you said that if the answer isn't in the Quran than look at history but why can't the Hadith be used as a history book?
Some of it might be wrong and some of it might be right but upon analysis they should clarify some matters.i said if u did not find the answer in quran then look into history
with quran its not the case
quran is written by prophet himself evidence is in quranthe people who bring bukhari are not the same people who bring quran its illogical to compare both books on same pattern
-
i said if u did not find the answer in quran then look into history
with quran its not the case
quran is written by prophet himself evidence is in quranthe people who bring bukhari are not the same people who bring quran its illogical to compare both books on same pattern
I feel like you've just repeated what you said earlier and my question still stands.
You said if u did not find the answer in quran then look into history
What I am saying is, ok let's look at the history... the way we look at history is by gathering information about the events occurred in the past, cross referencing them eventually and making sure what is found is correct.
Now documents are a way to do this, Hadith is a document as well, so why not use the Hadith to check analyse history?No one is comparing both books, I am simply saying that if you agree that we can look into history should we not find the answer in the Quran, then why can't look into the history by analysing the Hadith?
-
ok make it easy this time
if u not find the answer in quran regarding the preservation of quran?
then go to step 2 for finding answer other wise step two is invalid.what is the use of looking something outside the house when the thing u r looking is in ur room?
-
so in regards to the preservation of the Quran, there's nothing in the Quran about it.
now people use the hadith to explain how the Quran was preserved, do you agree there's nothing wrong with that? -
so in regards to the preservation of the Quran, there's nothing in the Quran about it.
now people use the hadith to explain how the Quran was preserved, do you agree there's nothing wrong with that?Absolutely, we have revealed the reminder, and, absolutely, we will preserve it.
do you miss this ?
people also used hadith to kill the innocent in the name of God
people also used hadith to the sick desires of pedophelia like aisha age?
do u agree there is nothing wrong with that? -
you're asking questions but not answering mine.
However I will answer your question.
Yes it's wrong to use the Hadith for the reason you've mentioned.Does that mean we should not use the Hadith to understand topics that might not be explained in the Quran (ie the preservation of the Quran)?
-
you're asking questions but not answering mine.
However I will answer your question.
Yes it's wrong to use the Hadith for the reason you've mentioned.Does that mean we should not use the Hadith to understand topics that might not be explained in the Quran (ie the preservation of the Quran)?
i already did answer your question
look againyou asked about preservation
i gave referrence 159you did not notice that referrence and now you claim another thing that quran is not fully explained both of questions are already answered by verses of quran that quran is fully detailed and does not required anyoutside source for "explaination"
if you dnt believe in those answers its mean your are rejecting those verses.
-
i already did answer your question
look againyou asked about preservation
i gave referrence 159you did not notice that referrence and now you claim another thing that quran is not fully explained both of questions are already answered by verses of quran that quran is fully detailed and does not required anyoutside source for "explaination"
if you dnt believe in those answers its mean your are rejecting those verses.
Giving an answer that it's not related to my question isn't answering and then making assumptions upon that isn't answering either.
One of the key point raised in this topic was "HOW" the Quran was preserved?, which is what was asked in the video, which is what has been discussed in here and you made a comment stating that "in an answer can't be found in the Quran, look at the history".Now when I questioned you, you kept either responding with questions and/or answering with subtle changes that don't have much to do with my question and the drawing your conclusions upon those (ie claiming that I said the Quran is not fully explained).
I am aware of the verses you mentioned but they are irrelevant as I am asking a question related to this topic and the video and your response to it, which is "HOW" was the Quran preserved?
and I have asked you a hypothetical question on that (in case you didn't realise it) in relation to your response about looking at history if the Quran doesn't explain something.
You said if the Quran doesn't explain something then look at the history
IF the Quran doesn't explain something (ie HOW the Quran was preserved) the according to you we should find answer by looking at the history and I said then Hadith can be used to answer those questions? and so far you have done nothing but circling around this question. -
peace newfreemind.
you asked "how"
and i told you thats how i.e 159do one thing request from God to tell you in dream how he preserved the scripture
he is over all things competantyou asked can we use hadith i said its illogical becoz hadith come in to existence after 150 years roughly so then you said quran need explainations i said no becoz quran is detailed.
well now if you asked how it preserved from parchments to adobe version
i can tell u atleast one link what i experience in my life i start reading it from book version now i have computerised versionin my childhood i used to see photos in albums now i m looking as a scanned copies
but if you have doubt about the version of quran then do u rememeber i already offered you to come in birmingham? then u can telly that words with todays words but u did not came at exibition
well
this time you invite me to see the oldest known copies of so called islamic history so that we know whats the truth behind the claimsyou are asking the same way how majority ask
example i.e hadith required to follow?
answer yes becoz its written in hadith to follow hadithnext question but its not written in quran to follow hadith?
answer becoz quran is not detailed so thats why hadith requiredits called a perfect logical fallacy
-
peace newfreemind.
you asked "how"
and i told you thats how i.e 159do one thing request from God to tell you in dream how he preserved the scripture
he is over all things competantyou asked can we use hadith i said its illogical becoz hadith come in to existence after 150 years roughly so then you said quran need explainations i said no becoz quran is detailed.
well now if you asked how it preserved from parchments to adobe version
i can tell u atleast one link what i experience in my life i start reading it from book version now i have computerised versionin my childhood i used to see photos in albums now i m looking as a scanned copies
but if you have doubt about the version of quran then do u rememeber i already offered you to come in birmingham? then u can telly that words with todays words but u did not came at exibition
well
this time you invite me to see the oldest known copies of so called islamic history so that we know whats the truth behind the claimsyou are asking the same way how majority ask
example i.e hadith required to follow?
answer yes becoz its written in hadith to follow hadithnext question but its not written in quran to follow hadith?
answer becoz quran is not detailed so thats why hadith requiredits called a perfect logical fallacy
RED WRONG this doesn't tell how, God tells he will preserve it, he doesn't tell how he will preserve it
ORANGEWRONG my response was directed to your comment where you said "if something isn't in the Quran the we should look at the history" and I simply asked you, IF something isn't in the Quran, we can look at the history, adding another question "can we use Hadith as history to explain things that might have not been explained in the Quran >> only in this post you have answered my question, clearly stating that in your view Hadith can't be used to explain things in the Quran.
BLUE I don't have any doubts about the Quran at the moment and I don't see why you think this is relevant.
PURPLE Wrong I never asked if hadith is required to follow, you keep missing the point here and go off topic. the solely purpose of my question was to understand if we are allowed to look at history (and therefore historical books,evidences etc) to explain things that are not in the Quran, such as How was the Quran preserved (there are different views about this depending on what historical evidences we look at) and my follow up question was simply, if we can look at history documents then why can't we use Hadith.
Your view is that Hadiths are unreliable but so can be other historical books and evidences, my view is treating Hadith as any other historical book, it might contain valuable information and not just simply reject it because it contained things that you don't like in it.
-
RED WRONG this doesn't tell how, God tells he will preserve it, he doesn't tell how he will preserve it
I agree with you that the question of how the Book was preserved is not irrelevant. But no worries. God actually did mention about it in the Quran but traditionalists changed the interpretations probably to make their hadiths look credible which unfortunately claim that the verses were scattered all over the place and that Quran was changed.
Check how the Book was preserved https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8055.0
And here are some outrageous hadiths sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly trying to tell us that Quran was changed
https//ancientmodernislam.blogspot.com/2016/10/some-lies-from-hadith-books.htmlIt will never be easy to get history from hadiths because their supporters burned lots of stuffs. Checkhttps//www.reddit.com/r/Quraniyoon/comments/6i34ka/scholarly_work_of_the_secular_muslims_was/?st=j4bek0t5&sh=a74453d0
When we read the collections it becomes apparent that they were meant for changing the true history of Islam. For instance, you will always hear that in the beginning, the Muslims practiced secularism, but historians give its credit to Pre Islamic times and later Greeks despite the fact that mainly the 2nd generation Mu?tazilites. There is no explanation of why the early rulers allowed freedom of speech and even the right to criticize Islam. They give its credit to "benevolent" nature of those people.
Getting history from hadiths about the first generation of Muslims is same as getting to know Islam from answeringislam.com and alt right. A group similar to kkk and white supremacists helped change the religion. So it is kinda waste of time to use hadiths for history and Quran.
-
RED WRONG this doesn't tell how, God tells he will preserve it, he doesn't tell how he will preserve it
just this color rest of ur colors are colorless but in the end i ll give them colors what you are looking
God told you he will preserve the body of firoon did he also told all these years what happened with his body how he preserved it?
is it relevant how he preserved the body of pharoah and the scripture what we talking about ? yes but we have evidence infront of uscoming back to history
lets do it once so that you know how they preserve quran
first event of history
10 chapter are eaten by goat and wife of prophet (aisha) was responsible for that loss
source bukahri the best historical source of muslim history
now the quran what we have is corrupted. no matter what does quran said just forget about it
its a little bit careless start of our history regarding qurannow i understand why God said that i will preserve it becoz so called historians are not that capable to save that ten chapters of quran in which an important command of death stonning is missing
in case if u r interested in more history i have more gifts for you
-
Debates are useless, they show no truth whatsoever. If it was Edip Yuksel that bearded Sunni guy and his friends would just either flee or curse him. It is just a matter of fact THERE ARE MORE, FAR MORE VERSES OF THE QURAN, in fact, more than ten verses, which clearly state that you people should only follow His guidence ALONE and not anything else http//submission.org/Qurans_view_on_HandS.html
And what do traditionalists have to back their aguments with? Just one 269 . Which of course is rational, because any prophet of God is there to follow the Scripture, the last revelation given to the mankind by God, and not to become a Sunni or Shia patriarchal monkeys that a lot of modern muslims, unfortunately, are. Even we, as followers of the Quran only and the believers, are there to explain others about wisdoms of the Quran, its message and the Last day.
Not to mention, the Quran alone guy in the video was clearly stressed given the atmosphere he was in. It's not that he was in the situation of an obvious danger, but the very situation he was in is clearly uncomfortable. Compare Edip Yuksels debates at Saudi airports. On his channel, Adnan Rashid has a lot of debate videos, and almost everywhere you can see he takes his friends with him. I wonder if the outcome of debates would be the same was it strictly one on one debate, why does he have to take his loud monkeys with him?
Afterall, I still have to see a traditionalist actually accept the popular challange, without starting long and tedious interpretation on
Narrated Sa?d The Prophet said, "If somebody takes some 'Ajwa dates every morning, he will not be effected by poison or magic on that day till night." (Another narrator said seven dates). (Sahih Bukhari)
I am extremely acknowledged about the way they 'reverse engineer' the meaning of 'poison' and say it means 'toxins', instead. It clearly says poison in arabic https//sunnah.com/bukhari/70/74
-
I wonder if "Marwan" is/was a member here.
Recently they debated again. I came across a new video.
Afterall, I still have to see a traditionalist actually accept the popular challange, without starting long and tedious interpretation on
Narrated Sa?d The Prophet said, "If somebody takes some 'Ajwa dates every morning, he will not be effected by poison or magic on that day till night." (Another narrator said seven dates). (Sahih Bukhari)
I am extremely acknowledged about the way they 'reverse engineer' the meaning of 'poison' and say it means 'toxins', instead. It clearly says poison in arabic https//sunnah.com/bukhari/70/74
The date hadith looks so much like an advertising for selling dates!
The Messenger (Sallallaahu ?layhi Wasallam) said, ?O Aisha! A house that has no dates in it their family is hungry. Oh Aisha! A house that has no dates in it their family is hungry.?
