Debate btw quranist and hadithist

[Wakas]

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 word

The 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 Muhammad

The 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 transmitted

The Quran = protected explicitly by God Himself as stated in The Quran
Ahadith = no such explicit protection stated

The Quran = no Muslim doubts its credibility
Ahadith = each sect has its own versions, weak & strong ones etc

The 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.

[Maha]

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.

[Noon_waalqalami]

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/MaVI165

Few 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.html

We clearly see initials 201 ta ha NOT counted and "nun" present
203 except reminder to who concerned

https//s22.postimg.org/ioputpm75/MA_VI_165_Quran_ch19v97-ch20v16.jpg

[imrankhawaja]

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...

[OnlyOneGod]

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.

[reel]

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?

[huruf]

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

[Neptin]

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/26FB8EHeFMc

Gosh, 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.

[good_logic]

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.

[NewFreeMind]

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?

[imrankhawaja]

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 quran

the people who bring bukhari are not the same people who bring quran its illogical to compare both books on same pattern

[NewFreeMind]

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 quran

the 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?

[imrankhawaja]

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?

[NewFreeMind]

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?

[imrankhawaja]

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?

[NewFreeMind]

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)?

[imrankhawaja]

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 again

you asked about preservation
i gave referrence 159

you 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.

[NewFreeMind]

i already did answer your question
look again

you asked about preservation
i gave referrence 159

you 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.

[imrankhawaja]

peace newfreemind.

you asked "how"
and i told you thats how i.e 159

do one thing request from God to tell you in dream how he preserved the scripture
he is over all things competant

you 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 version

in 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 claims

you are asking the same way how majority ask
example i.e hadith required to follow?
answer yes becoz its written in hadith to follow hadith

next question but its not written in quran to follow hadith?
answer becoz quran is not detailed so thats why hadith required

its called a perfect logical fallacy

[NewFreeMind]

peace newfreemind.

you asked "how"
and i told you thats how i.e 159

do one thing request from God to tell you in dream how he preserved the scripture
he is over all things competant

you 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 version

in 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 claims

you are asking the same way how majority ask
example i.e hadith required to follow?
answer yes becoz its written in hadith to follow hadith

next question but its not written in quran to follow hadith?
answer becoz quran is not detailed so thats why hadith required

its 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.