Hadith Rejectors...

[inqilab]

The most easiest way to refute such bigots. Is as follows,

If you reject the hadith or any other knowledge, beside the Quran. You CANNOT read the Quran. If you accept only the Quran. The Quran cannot be read - literally - at all. The alif, ba, ta etc. and their consonants and the vocalization, the stops of the ayahs, surahs... All this is hadith-wise narrated and PUT into the Quran, based upon the sunan of reading.

In fact, even the writing in the time of Allahs Messenger [s], the companions [r] and early followers were READ based upon the narrations. So if you are truly a Quran-only. You should look at a first century Quran-manuscript and see this: __|_/__|\__ only. Without having any clue what the Quran says. In fact, you CANNOT read the Quran which you claim to follow so dearly.

[شمله ور خراساني]

[Dukemina]

Totalleh agree!

And what about Asbaab un Nuzool? Certain area's of the Quran are meant for only certain situations and are based on certain situations. How would someone who does not believe in hadiths explain these situations? How does one justify that certain Ayah's were taken out of the Quran by Allah (swt) at one point in time? How does one who does not believe in hadith, pray salah? How does one who does not believe hadith understand that some commands in the Quran are meant only for some, or in only certain situations?

Yeah, the kufic script is not even the whole word for word and without all the signs. The companions used to write in symbolic terms because most of them had it memorized in their heads, they only used the words to remind them of the whole. Interesting, huh, people tend to think the Quran was sent in a binder word for word, fatha for fatha, kesra for kesra...

[شمله ور خراساني]

Totalleh agree!

And what about Asbaab un Nuzool? Certain area's of the Quran are meant for only certain situations and are based on certain situations. How would someone who does not believe in hadiths explain these situations? How does one justify that certain Ayah's were taken out of the Quran by Allah (swt) at one point in time? How does one who does not believe in hadith, pray salah? How does one who does not believe hadith understand that some commands in the Quran are meant only for some, or in only certain situations?

Yeah, the kufic script is not even the whole word for word and without all the signs. The companions used to write in symbolic terms because most of them had it memorized in their heads, they only used the words to remind them of the whole. Interesting, huh, people tend to think the Quran was sent in a binder word for word, fatha for fatha, kesra for kesra...

There are many people who reject hadith in different ways. There are some who reject hadith to justify their indiscriminate killing of women children like Al Qaida.

It's amazing how rejection of hadith for different kinds of people.

The claims of these people usually is some verse of Qur'an withouth its context from hadith.

[Roshina]

The most easiest way to refute such bigots. Is as follows,

If you reject the hadith or any other knowledge, beside the Quran. You CANNOT read the Quran. If you accept only the Quran. The Quran cannot be read - literally - at all. The alif, ba, ta etc. and their consonants and the vocalization, the stops of the ayahs, surahs... All this is hadith-wise narrated and PUT into the Quran, based upon the sunan of reading.

In fact, even the writing in the time of Allahs Messenger [s], the companions [r] and early followers were READ based upon the narrations. So if you are truly a Quran-only. You should look at a first century Quran-manuscript and see this: __|_/__|\__ only. Without having any clue what the Quran says. In fact, you CANNOT read the Quran which you claim to follow so dearly.

OMG! I'm SO GLAD to see that Muslims are finally learning that the Quran they're reading today is not what was the original script. Bless your heart for telling your sisters and brothers this, man! Most Muslims would much rather beleive that the Quran came in a book form with the exact same letters/words/etc. that they read today, which, as Dukes mentioned, was not the case.

However, is that supposed to mean that hadith-rejecters are wrong? 'Cause you don't explain that at all in the post.

Hadith rejectors have one good argument: What we read in hadiths are interpretations of the interpretations of people's observations and hearings of the Prophet. E.g., "Person A said that Person B said that Person C said that Person D heard the Prophet say ...." umm... yes, sure. And what are the chances that it was passed down exactly like that?

The only argument hadith-supporters have is: How would we pray if hadiths weren't there? And the Quran-supporters say, "but but but the Quran constantly tells us that it's compleeeeeeeete and perfect and from God."

And the hadith-supporters go, "Yes, yes, but only WITH the hadiths. Besides, the Quran tells us to follow God AND the Prophet, so how can you reject the hadiths then?"

And the Quran-supporters go, "Umm... yeah, because that's supposed to mean the same thing. The Prophet was supposed to do exactly what the Quran told him to do, nothing out of his own choice, so if you follow God, you're automatically following the Prophet."

The hadith-supporters say, "No, no, no, how do you KNOW how the Prophet practiced Islam?"

And the Quran-supporters say, "Are you implying that hadiths are equal to the Quran and are eternal and universal just like the Quran?"

And the hadith-supporters go, "Yep. Of course!"

And the Quran-supporters go, "ALL of it? Because the Prophet married Aisha when she was 6 years old and consummated the marriage at the age of 9, and he was several decades older than she was. Considering that her consent was not taken in the marriage, since she was way too young and her own accounts in Bukhari and Muslim tell us that her mother took her from her friends when they were playing dolls and got her dressed up ... which means she didn't even know her marriage was taking place. So can we universalize this practice as well? If not, HOW do we decide which hadiths are to be universalized and eternalized and which ones not?"

And the hadith-supporters then try to explain why the Prophet married Aisha and how marriage to young girls was perfectly acceptable at that time, and the Quran-supporters are like that's not the point. The point isn't that she was too young -- oh wait, it CAN be a point, though, their claim that "it was okay in his time" proves that not all of the Prophet's Sunnah was meant to remain eternal. But, alas, who can explain that to them.

Also, I'm wondering ... are you implying that, since the original Quranic script was NOTHING like what we read today (and that's true), hadiths tell us what each word in the Quran is? That, my dear brother, is not true: Hadiths don't tell us what the original Quranic script looked like.

People read the Quran, pondered over it for centuries, and finally decided to add the zabar/fatha, etc. to it; it is they who decided where each dot goes and added other necessary dialectical marks.

I'm sooooo grateful you posted this, MilitantMullah! Thank you, thank you too much!

[Khushal Khan Khattak]

Quran and the Sahih Hadith (only the Sahih hadith) are a complete package.

You cannot separate the two.

Quran is literally the word of Allah (The One True God) himself.

The Sahih Ahadith are the words of the Last Messenger PBUH. Scholars say since the Ayah that "what the Prophet says (regarding Islam) is not from himself but what God wants him to" (applying both to the Wahi which was transmitted exact word by word and also to Hadith), therefore in matters related to the religion the Sahih Hadith regarding these should be treated like the words of Allah trough the Messenger's tongue.

[Roshina]

Qrratugai I think you misunderstood Mullahs post.

He never said the Quran is altered.

Oh, I don't beleive the Quran is altered -- whatever that means :D. However, Mullah said:

The Quran cannot be read - literally - at all. The alif, ba, ta etc. and their consonants and the vocalization, the stops of the ayahs, surahs...

So if you are truly a Quran-only. You should look at a first century Quran-manuscript and see this: __|_/__|\__ only. Without having any clue what the Quran says. In fact, you CANNOT read the Quran which you claim to follow so dearly.

And I agree with him on this. However, I look forward to his answers to my question that ... is every single verse of the Quran explained in hadiths? If so, I'd like to get a reference to the hadiths that tell us how to read the Quran and what each verse means and so on.

However, if I misunderstood his message, I'd like to request him to please clarify my misconception or misunderstanding.

[Free Thinker]

There has been a study by Orientalists that a Moslem governor named Hajaj was responsible for changing some of the contents of the Koran. I've myself have not studied thoroughly about the subject, it would be interesting if any other member has and what they think.

[imb706]

^
You seem like one of the members here being a troll, comes off with the user name "Free Thinker" and citing anti-Semitic muslim fap material. At least that's how you come off as, if I'm wrong, I apologize.

[MazloomyarMaseed]

^
You seem like one of the members here being a troll, comes off with the user name "Free Thinker" and citing anti-Semitic muslim fap material. At least that's how you come off as, if I'm wrong, I apologize.

Dont even dare accuse me of being him. you can ask admin if our IP addresses match, and yes iam Anti semitic, i hate both arabs and khazar jews(if they are semites) haha. Both will cause this whole world to end in a nuclear bloodbath.

[Dukemina]

There has been a study by Orientalists that a Moslem governor named Hajaj was responsible for changing some of the contents of the Koran. I've myself have not studied thoroughly about the subject, it would be interesting if any other member has and what they think.

No, we believe that Hajaj added the kesra/dhummah/fatha and other symbols in the text to help those who couldn't read Arabic. He didn't change the content.

[inqilab]

There has been a study by Orientalists that a Moslem governor named Hajaj was responsible for changing some of the contents of the Koran. I've myself have not studied thoroughly about the subject, it would be interesting if any other member has and what they think.

Yeh i read about this. Here is the conclusion of the researcher who did look into this,

" the issue of al-Hajjaj and the changes he made in the Qur'an, it has been shown that the report in Kitab al-Masahif of Ibn Abi Dawud is false. This is because the reporter `Abbad Ibn Suhayb is the isnad has been declared abandoned in hadith and all his hadith are rejected. Analysis of matn of the hadith shows that the alleged changes that were made related to the Qira’at that are mutawatir. Muslims have accepted various Qira’at as authentic provided they satisfy certain conditions. Furthermore, the hadith in Kitab al-Masahifis only known to us through one chain. There exist no parallel chains to authenticate the matn or text of the report. It is clear that there was no new recension after `Uthman united Muslims on the basis of single text. Muslims have a complete agreement over it. Al-Hajjaj's role is rather well documented in the literature dealing with Sciences of the Qur'an.
Summarizing the Christian sources: We see that the Christian sources of Leo III and `Abd al-Masih al-Kindi have a purely polemical purpose and exaggerate the events that took place during al-Hajjaj's time. The sources lack factual basis and their historicity itself is doubtful. This view is solidified by modern scholarship. As pointed out earlier, how could al-Hajjaj, who was governor of Iraq, a small part of Muslim land, able to change the Qur'anic text completely. The complete change of Qur'an is not documented in the Islamic history at all. And above all how could he change what was commited in the memory of Muslims in the vast Islamic empire."

[inqilab]

Dont even dare accuse me of being him. you can ask admin if our IP addresses match, and yes iam Anti semitic, i hate both arabs and khazar jews(if they are semites) haha. Both will cause this whole world to end in a nuclear bloodbath.

lol! that is just hilarious

[inqilab]

What i meant was. The sunnas of recitations. Which ayah goes where. The places where to stop etc. Were all narrated through ahadith.

[inqilab]

Btw Qrratugai i am really lost. Can you try to re-explain what you are saying. Or just put your questions up...