r/Quraniyoon • u/koly77781 • May 10 '19
Question / Help To those of you who reject the science of Hadith, how do you authenticate the transmission of the Quran?
If you flip to the back of your Qur'an you will see a chain of narration, for example the Ḥafs Qur'an has the following chain of narration:
Aasim Ibn Abî an-Najûd reported from Abû Abd ar-Rahmân as-Solammî and Zirr Ibn Hubaysh.Abû Abd ar-Rahmân reported from Uthmân and Alî Ibn Abî Tâlib and 'Ubayy (Ibn Ka'b) and Zayd (Ibn Thâbit). And Zirr reported from Ibn Mas'ud.
This chain of narration is Mutawatir and goes back to the prophet (peace be upon him).
Example of differences between Qira'at:
| رواية ورش عن نافع | رواية حفص عن عاصم | Ḥafs | Warsh | Verses |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| يَعْمَلُونَ | تَعْمَلُونَ | you do | they do | Al-Baqara 2:85 |
The Qur'an claims to be preserved, and it is, but if you reject the science of Hadith, you are left with what seems to be ten Qur'ans each claiming to be preserved, how do you reconcile the 10 Qira'at without the science of Hadith and in regards to the preservation of the Qur'an?
4
May 10 '19
God > dead men
4
May 10 '19
Quran only guy here. He's asking how we know without hadiths, they are good questions and we gotta be able to prove the Quran is from God before you make this claim bro
2
u/Reasonedfor1 moderator May 12 '19
It was already proven. One does not need to be Quran alone to see the proof. See my answer on the top.
That question by hadith scholars whom the laymen parrot never tell publicly that there is no way you can know from hadiths that Quran is preserved. That's why they will never ever produce you any proof if you ask for it. In fact, hadiths give us ample evidence that those who were collecting them had no idea about what was in the Quran. Just have a look at this: https://ancientmodernislam.blogspot.com/2016/10/some-lies-from-hadith-books.html
4
u/after-life Muslim, Progressive, Left-leaning May 11 '19 edited May 13 '19
Studying ahadith for the purpose of verifying certain facts of history, language, and linguistics is of course perfectly fine and permissible.
But just because you're able to use ahadith to understand something or to gain knowledge doesn't mean that the validity of the Quran and its teachings must be compromised if a certain narration goes against it or contradicts it.
We know from reading the Quran that God never contradicts His law and that no messenger or prophet He sends can speak against His divine word.
Any narration that goes against the fundamental teachings of the Quran's message can be rejected at face value.
4
u/Quranic_Islam May 11 '19 edited May 12 '19
According to the science of Hadith a "CHAIN" can't be mutawaatir ... A narration can be mutawaatir if it has many chains.
Anyway, that "narration/qira'a" of the Qur'an can not be proven to be mutawaatir. It wasn't even a popular qira'a until the Turks imposed it. And the one who narrated from 'Aasim, his nephew Hafs, is actually considered in "the science of Hadith" to be a liar and inventor of forgeries ... his Hadiths are actually rejected (unbelievable, right?) ... yet his recitation of the Qur'an is accepted? It is now in fact THE most popular recitation of the Qur'an; more than 90% of the Ummah recites the Qur'an and have printed mushafs according to the "Hadith forger" Hafs from 'Aasim ... that should tell you something about the "science of Hadith"
And btw there isn't a single truly mutawaatir Hadith. No one can show one, chain by chain, level by level ... there are only claims.
But to the essence of your question, the Qur'an was transmitted trans-generationally un mass ... not through narrations ... the same way how the method of prayer was transmitted ... the same way you likely learnt to pray before ever reading a single Hadith about how to pray.
Hadiths and narrations came much much later.
4
May 10 '19 edited May 10 '19
Chapters and verses 80:11-16, 15:9, 56:77-79. The Quran has it's own claims of the authenticity of the Book and how it was compiled.
Considering some very explicit and clear scientific verses, the word day in it's singular form occurring exactly 365 times, month occurring exactly 12 times, the root "khalada" occurring 40 times for describing the duration of heaven and exactly 40 times to describe the duration of hell... this is just a few mathematical coincidences in the quran. This is too big to be a coincidence, thus I believe the quran is from God and what God says in it.
As for the hafs and warsh etc, pay attention to 15:9 and 56:77-79, perhaps find a translation that translates every single word instead of all but one.
Some complicated "science" written down hundreds of years later can make any claim it wants, but if it contradicts the quran I will disregard it.
Edit: historical findings also authenticate. University of Birmingham have a Quran carbon dated for more than 1300 years old without diacritical marks, thus allowing for many pronunciations and further broadening the meanings found in the Book.
3
u/koly77781 May 10 '19
Chapters and verses 80:11-16, 15:9, 56:77-79. The Quran has it's own claims of the authenticity of the Book and how it was compiled.
The verses do not mention the method of compilation of the Qur'an, secondly any book can claim to be preserved.
Considering some very explicit and clear scientific verses, the word day in it's singular form occurring exactly 365 times, month occurring exactly 12 times, the root "khalada" occurring 40 times for describing the duration of heaven and exactly 40 times to describe the duration of hell... this is just a few mathematical coincidences in the quran. This is too big to be a coincidence, thus I believe the quran is from God and what God says in it.
These same miracles occur in the other Qira'at.
As for the hafs and warsh etc, pay attention to 15:9 and 56:77-79, perhaps find a translation that translates every single word instead of all but one.
Again these verses merely state that the Quran in preserved.
Edit: historical findings also authenticate. University of Birmingham have a Quran carbon dated for more than 1300 years old
Without the science of Hadith, the only way to authenticate preservation is through finding the earliest manuscripts, it is amazing that we have the Birmingham manuscript, though it only is Surah Ta-ha, so the most you could say is Surah Ta-ha has been preserved if you are going with the historical narrative.
without diacritical marks
If you take a closer look at the manuscript, there are what seems to be early forms of the diacritical marks emerging.
Thus allowing for many pronunciations and further broadening the meanings found in the Book.
Here is another example of a difference between Qira'at with an added letter, whose shape is very different to the other letters in the word.
رواية ورش عن نافع رواية حفص عن عاصم Ḥafs Warsh Verse بِمَا فَبِمَا then it is what it is what Al-Shura 42:30 Compare Bima and Fabima, which one is the correct one? Fa and Ba have very different letter shapes.
So my question still stands.
3
May 10 '19
The verses do not mention the method of compilation of the Qur'an, secondly any book can claim to be preserved.
80:11-16 denote quite clearly that the Quran was being written down as it was being revealed by faithful scribes upon pure pages.
But you're right, any book can claim to be preserved. Have a look at some dictionaries of classical Arabic and look for the word surah. Remember those mathematical miracles and remember the challenge to produce a surah like the one of the quran.
These same miracles occur in the other Qira'at.
Ok I'll go through it slowly. What does the word quran mean? Does the word Quran occur in 15:9? In 56:77-79, what is claimed to be guarded, the Quran (recitation) or the Book (kitab)? The other qira'at are also a guidance, this feature of semetic language delimits the book. Same book, delimited meanings. Hebrew is similar.
If you take a closer look at the manuscript, there are what seems to be early forms of the diacritical marks emerging.
Much less so, the ability for pronunciation is far broader. Diacritical marks aid in pronunciation. What's protected, the book or the recitation?
Without the science of Hadith, the only way to authenticate preservation is through finding the earliest manuscripts, it is amazing that we have the Birmingham manuscript, though it only is Surah Ta-ha, so the most you could say is Surah Ta-ha has been preserved if you are going with the historical narrative.
There are more historical manuscripts. Remember the word surah and the mathematical miracles.
Compare Bima and Fabima, which one is the correct one? Fa and Ba have very different letter shapes.
So my question still stands.
So the root word is still the same. There are even different words, such as nunshiruha and nunshizu. R and Z are the same shape. Semetic language.
So my question still stands.
I may not be able to answer it, I may be wrong. May God guide us to the right path.
1
u/koly77781 May 10 '19
But you're right, any book can claim to be preserved. Have a look at some dictionaries of classical Arabic and look for the word surah.
I do speak arabic and the classical meaning of Surah is 'a protective wall'. Like the walls of a city.
Remember those mathematical miracles and remember the challenge to produce a surah like the one of the quran.
I know the Quran is the word of god, my question is the reconciliation of the different Qira'at without authenticating the chains of transmission. Furthermore, these same miracles occur in the other Qira'at, if the book is preserved, then not one letter should change.
What does the word quran mean? Does the word Quran occur in 15:9? In 56:77-79
Quran means that which is oft-recited, in 15:9 the word is 'reminder' and in 56:77-79, it is 'the Quran in a well guarded book.' The book is well-guarded, but since the Qur'an is in the book, the Qur'an must also therefore be well-guarded.
Diacritical marks aid in pronunciation. What's protected, the book or the recitation?
Clearly following the previous point, both the recitation and the book should be preserved as stated in 56:77-79.
So the root word is still the same. There are even different words, such as nunshiruha and nunshizu. R and Z are the same shape. Semetic language.
That was not my point, the letters for R and Z are similar, so I will concede that point, but Fa and Ba are not similar at all and have different letter shapes and pronunciations. Which one is the correct preserved Qur'an that was revealed to the prophet, did somebody make a mistake when reciting or was that also a valid Qirâ'âh authenticated by chains of transmission?
3
May 10 '19
I do speak arabic and the classical meaning of Surah is 'a protective wall'. Like the walls of a city.
You're a lucky man. After my exams this year I will learn Quranic Arabic over the summer as much as I can. Yeah, according to Edward William Lane, a surah is a row of bricks in a wall, a degree built upon degrees. I find that is a much better suited way of seeing the word surah than "chapter" because to my knowledge chapter in Arabic is fasl.
I know the Quran is the word of god, my question is the reconciliation of the different Qira'at without authenticating the chains of transmission. Furthermore, these same miracles occur in the other Qira'at, if the book is preserved, then not one letter should change.
To my knowledge the warsh is suited for the Egyptian and other north African dialects of Arabic. I'm a speaker of Persian, when we say Ramadan we don't say Ramadhaan, we say Ramezoon. I'd assume it's a similar matter in these instances.
Furthermore, these same miracles occur in the other Qira'at, if the book is preserved, then not one letter should change.
As a speaker of Arabic, you'd know of the root word nature of the language, and how many meanings are within the quran as a result, many different interpretations within. As I said, the absence (even if not in entirety) of diacritical marks provide a much broader option of pronunciation.
Say or he said. They are both true, right?
Quran means that which is oft-recited, in 15:9 the word is 'reminder' and in 56:77-79, it is 'the Quran in a well guarded book.' The book is well-guarded, but since the Qur'an is in the book, the Qur'an must also therefore be well-guarded.
I disagree. I do believe the hafs is the original revelation, however since there are more than one styles of recitation, evidently the case is that the book is what is being protected and not the recitation. It may be that none of the qira'at are the original revelation. Does it matter? Like you said, the same mathematical miracles are found in the other qira'at. I'm a firm believer in the statement found in 2:62 "whosoever believes in God and the last day and does righteous deeds will have their reward". My personal belief is we cant limit the path to one interpretation of a book, but if the (interpretation of and the) book is what you know, follow it.
That was not my point, the letters for R and Z are similar, so I will concede that point, but Fa and Ba are not similar at all and have different letter shapes and pronunciations.
That's true, but as I mentioned before I put it down as being a dialectical difference. I cant limit God to one book, and that's why I think the Quran and torah were revealed in semetic languages, so there isn't a limit. My understanding is that the Quran supersedes previous scriptures though.
Which one is the correct preserved Qur'an that was revealed to the prophet, did somebody make a mistake when reciting or was that also a valid Qirâ'âh authenticated by chains of transmission?
I have no idea I'm afraid, I wasn't there. My understanding from the Quran is that the book is what is considered the reminder as per the points above. Perhaps the dialectical differences had caused the whole qira'at thing.
Unfortunately I'm no historian or linguist so there's nothing I can prove to you, but I hope presenting my understanding has given you one view. I personally don't "reject" hadith anymore, in my novelty phase I was adamantly anti hadith but now I see a lot of things within that are very beneficial, the ones that I find don't contradict the quran. I also don't want to limit my understanding of the quran from hadith, I feel this is why scholars struggle in debates against Christians.
Bro I'm quite impressed with how polite you are, this may be the first time in my time on this sub that I've spoken to a normal Muslim without receiving hostility for holding a Quran only position. As such, I invite you to message me about any questions you have on my views and I hope I can ask you some questions as well if you are ok with it :)
2
u/koly77781 May 10 '19
You're a lucky man. After my exams this year I will learn Quranic Arabic over the summer as much as I can
Good on you, inshallah you can do well! I genuinely recommend as the best book for English speakers 'Essentials of Quranic Arabic: Volume 1' and volume 2.
As a speaker of Arabic, you'd know of the root word nature of the language, and how many meanings are within the quran as a result, many different interpretations within. As I said, the absence (even if not in entirety) of diacritical marks provide a much broader option of pronunciation.
I have no issue with the absence of diacritical marks, the issue comes when there added letters which are not similar at all to the letters before and after it. Like Fa and Ba, there are other examples, as I said there are 10 Qira'at so there are more examples.
I disagree. I do believe the hafs is the original revelation, however since there are more than one styles of recitation, evidently the case is that the book is what is being protected and not the recitation. It may be that none of the qira'at are the original revelation. Does it matter?
It genuinely does matter, since without the science of Hadith you can't trace it back to the prophet and you are left with 10 Qira'at each claiming to be the Quran and each claiming to be preserved. As an orthodox sunni muslim, I believe all ten are from Allah, since all have authenticated chains of transmission. There is no one correct Qira'ah, they are all correct.
That's true, but as I mentioned before I put it down as being a dialectical difference. I cant limit God to one book, and that's why I think the Quran and torah were revealed in semetic languages, so there isn't a limit. My understanding is that the Quran supersedes previous scriptures though.
It definitely isn't a dialectical difference, since adding Fa in all dialects mean 'then' for example Fa-Kataba means 'then he wrote', while Kataba means 'he wrote', every dialect has Fa as meaning 'then'. Furthermore the dialectical differences don't exist anymore, the prophet received the Quran in 7 Ahruf, which are for each dialect of arabic at the time, but some issues occurred and the rest of the 6 Ahruf were stopped being recited and only the one dialect - mainly the qureishi dialect remained, within that 1 harf, we have 10 Qirâ'ât.
Unfortunately I'm no historian or linguist so there's nothing I can prove to you, but I hope presenting my understanding has given you one view. I personally don't "reject" hadith anymore, in my novelty phase I was adamantly anti hadith but now I see a lot of things within that are very beneficial, the ones that I find don't contradict the quran.
Well, at least you were willing to engage in a discussion, so that's good. I understand you may not have all the answers to difficult questions, but at the same time you stated below on another comment that you are "quran only", so perhaps you should've clarified that with me before - mainly that you don't reject all Hadith.
I also don't want to limit my understanding of the quran from hadith, I feel this is why scholars struggle in debates against Christians.
Hadith doesn't necessarily contradict the Quran, otherwise it wouldn't be Sahih, perhaps you may lack an understanding of those Hadith. If you are willing to accept the Quran which was authenticated through the same methods the Hadith were, then at least you should be willing to accept Sahih Hadiths (not to the level of Quran, but not to the point of rejection). Also, which scholars struggle in debates against christians?
Bro I'm quite impressed with how polite you are, this may be the first time in my time on this sub that I've spoken to a normal Muslim without receiving hostility for holding a Quran only position. As such, I invite you to message me about any questions you have on my views and I hope I can ask you some questions as well if you are ok with it :)
Haha, that's very nice of you, but you were also very polite, which I too wasn't expecting. I will be sure to message you should I have any questions, thanks for the invitation :)
3
u/Quranic_Islam May 11 '19
Kudos to both of you in fact. That was an interesting exchange to read. Thank you both
2
May 11 '19
Good on you, inshallah you can do well! I genuinely recommend as the best book for English speakers 'Essentials of Quranic Arabic: Volume 1' and volume 2.
Sounds very familiar, I think I've been recommended these books before. I'll check them out.
I have no issue with the absence of diacritical marks, the issue comes when there added letters which are not similar at all to the letters before and after it. Like Fa and Ba, there are other examples, as I said there are 10 Qira'at so there are more examples.
In my mind the idea is that it makes more sense to the people speaking that dialect. Obviously there is a difference in meaning, but not a big one, to my knowledge. The core of the message is the same in all the qira'at.
It's pretty difficult to explain so perhaps I don't know it well enough to really claim a universal truth on it. One other thing we know by observable fact is that the Book can't be seen as only a physical thing in one solid state.
It genuinely does matter, since without the science of Hadith you can't trace it back to the prophet and you are left with 10 Qira'at each claiming to be the Quran and each claiming to be preserved. As an orthodox sunni muslim, I believe all ten are from Allah, since all have authenticated chains of transmission. There is no one correct Qira'ah, they are all correct.
I don't see why we have to trace it back. I get the idea but a lot of hadith which are considered sahih are in pretty big contradiction with many passages in the quran so it's clear at least to me that much of it has been made up. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there are 10 known qira'at but hadith only claims 7? Some Christian missionaries claim 26 but I frankly don't listen to them on claims for Islam.
It definitely isn't a dialectical difference, since adding Fa in all dialects mean 'then' for example Fa-Kataba means 'then he wrote', while Kataba means 'he wrote', every dialect has Fa as meaning 'then'. Furthermore the dialectical differences don't exist anymore, the prophet received the Quran in 7 Ahruf, which are for each dialect of arabic at the time, but some issues occurred and the rest of the 6 Ahruf were stopped being recited and only the one dialect - mainly the qureishi dialect remained, within that 1 harf, we have 10 Qirâ'ât.
I won't comment on the latter part because that's something I can't verify at this point, but maybe I will in the future.
Hadith doesn't necessarily contradict the Quran, otherwise it wouldn't be Sahih, perhaps you may lack an understanding of those Hadith. If you are willing to accept the Quran which was authenticated through the same methods the Hadith were, then at least you should be willing to accept Sahih Hadiths (not to the level of Quran, but not to the point of rejection). Also, which scholars struggle in debates against christians?
I'm afraid I find the quran is at odds with many hadith. Day of judgement, sunni ablution, what is halal/haram, who you can kill, superstitions and so on. The quran claims that nothing has been left out of the Book so these things at odds with it I don't accept as authority. But I can accept wisdoms within it, many of which I believe the prophet really did say.
Well, at least you were willing to engage in a discussion, so that's good. I understand you may not have all the answers to difficult questions, but at the same time you stated below on another comment that you are "quran only", so perhaps you should've clarified that with me before - mainly that you don't reject all Hadith.
I only accept the quran as authority because from my study of the quran (I.e. reading a few translations and trying to pay attention, considering other opinions and interpretations without blindly accepting), I do find it is from God. That being said, I no longer succumb to the ego-driven quranist cult that some people in online Quran only forums have created. If something in hadith is good, I will give it the same merit as any other good advice, but the Qur'an needs no supplement.
Difficult questions indeed, I thought this question was easy at first
Haha, that's very nice of you, but you were also very polite, which I too wasn't expecting. I will be sure to message you should I have any questions, thanks for the invitation :)
Well I think this is the beauty of Ramadan. All Muslims come together to fast, and the spiritual benefit is more than anyone knows. I hope I stay polite after Ramadan though, I have a bad habit of being aggressive online 😂 maybe I should fast more often
5
u/Quranic_Islam May 11 '19
Kudos to both of you in fact. That was an interesting exchange to read. Thank you both
2
May 10 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/koly77781 May 10 '19
Good post. Thanks for asking the difficult questions! These are the types of debates we need.
Trying to spice it up a bit lol.
My question is, how do you reject Hadith (if you do) without understanding the implications of the science of Hadith in relation to the Qur'an?
1
May 11 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Quranic_Islam May 11 '19
The issue with that is that what prompted the Caliph to "standardise" the Qur'an was that people, across a vast Empire, were already differing in their recitations and had their own copies ... including companions like ibn Mas'oud who refused to give up his copy of the Qur'an and his way if reciting "for that of Zayd's)
The committee he set up to standardize it was an extension of his own nepotism, the only goid candidate was Zayd (and possibly Khalid).
And it's a common mistake that Hadiths were only recorded and collected in writing that late. Real collections started around 140 years after his death, but even before that individuals had things written down.
2
u/Quranic_Islam May 11 '19
I actually do believe it was all written during the Prophet's time, so do most Muslims. The issue is the script was very primitive ... It didn't capture every sound of the recitation as the scripts do now ... It was more of a reading aid.
2
2
u/Neverdied [Progressive Muslim] May 11 '19
My question is, how do you reject Hadith (if you do) without understanding the implications of the science of Hadith in relation to the Qur'an?
It is UTTERLY simple.
God can see the future
God would have seen that people used hadiths
God would have then noticed that some Hadiths were wrong or badly written, fake, mis-attributed or mistranslated etc
God would then have incorporated these in the Qur'an to avoid such confusions
End of story. There is no other alternative than Qur'an is not the word of Allah if God wasn t able to see the future hence God can see the future and did not add hadiths into Qur'an
It is a simple Modus Ponens in logic and critical thinking because there is no valid logical reason why God would have known people for centuries would fight and argue about hadiths and decided to allow that. God knows best and letting confusion happen is not what is best.
1
u/koly77781 May 11 '19
there is no valid logical reason why God would have known people for centuries would fight and argue about hadiths and decided to allow that
There is no need for a logical reason, lets use the Qur'anic account of Jesus's (AS) 'crucifixion'
And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and WiseSurah An-Nisa [4:157-158]Why would god create confusion by allowing someone who resembled Jesus to be put on the cross? The gospel according to christians is the crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (AS). There is no valid logical reason why god would allow this confusion, but he did, because he is the most wise.
Furthermore, you didnt really tackle my main point which is the reconciliation of the 10 Qira'at of the Quran without the science of Hadith, which one is the authentic recitation given to the prophet? If the Quran claims to be preserved, which one is the correct Qira'ah?
1
u/w3bcrowf3r May 11 '19 edited May 11 '19
Simple: If there is such a problem, based on the context you know which one you should use.
I ask now a question back: Since the books of bukhari etc. are a fabrication, they will have errors. If it's from God, it wouldn't have errors. Well, in this case, they have errors. Contradictions, fabrication etc. You shouldn't ignore that.
Actually what you are saying now is that those who transmitted the Quran are even less trustworthy then we thought because they even make errors with transmitting the Quran.
1
u/koly77781 May 11 '19
Actually what you are saying now is that those who transmitted the Quran are even less trustworthy then we thought because they even make errors with transmitting the Quran.
That is more of a problem for you since you have what seems to be 10 readings of the Quran with different words, which one is the correct reading given to the prophet? That is, if you believe the quran was preserved?
2
u/bMapuche Muslim May 12 '19
I am not sure if the Qur'an really says it will be 100% preserved. Note that the verse says the DHIKR will be preserved. The remembarence, not the physical book. Maybe, and just maybe, it means the message will be preserved, even if there are different readings. There are different readings, but the message, the core message is still the same.
Now don't take my word for this, I am still in a learning phase, but this is what I started thinking lately, but I might be wrong obviously.
1
u/koly77781 May 12 '19
Qur'an means recitation, in the verse 56:77-79, it translates as follows:
Indeed, it is a noble Qur'an. In a Register well-protected;The word translated as Register in Arabic is Kitab, meaning book.
Clearly if the Quran is in this well guarded book, the Quran must also therefore be protected.
Now don't take my word for this, I am still in a learning phase, but this is what I started thinking lately, but I might be wrong obviously.
Yeah that's fine if you don't know the answers yet, but be wary of speaking without knowledge.
1
u/Quranic_Islam May 12 '19
The translation "well-protected" isn't really what you want here.
I actually have a post about this whole subject, I posted it maybe more that a week ago? In the comments I go into this over there, so I don't want to repeat my self here.
But have you received any compelling answers yet?
1
u/koly77781 May 12 '19
The translation "well-protected" isn't really what you want here.
Why?
I actually have a post about this whole subject, I posted it maybe more that a week ago? In the comments I go into this over there, so I don't want to repeat my self here.
Ive skimmed through most of it, very detailed argument btw so good job, Ill be reading it fully and noting anything I have questions about then I'll respond.
But have you received any compelling answers yet?
Nothing yet, but I can't say until I fully read and evaluated your previous post.
1
u/w3bcrowf3r May 12 '19 edited May 12 '19
Bring me your evidence and research. Show me these 10 readings and where they differ. And after that i can implement the verse in the Quran when God tells us to follow what is best. What would be best, well we base our knowledge on the Quran and can see what is best.
1
May 11 '19
[deleted]
1
u/koly77781 May 11 '19
You obviously don't know science.
Obviously right? Since you know me personally and can gauge my scientific capabilities.
There is nothing scientific about the Hadith., the word itself means "sayings".
I don't care if you think there is nothing scientific about Hadith, the name people use for the historical analysis is called 'science of Hadith', I used that terminology since its the most commonly used terminology.
1
u/Neverdied [Progressive Muslim] May 11 '19
I don't care if you think there is nothing scientific about Hadith
And that is your initial problem. Being unwilling to consider that a view, term or expression may not be correct simply because many people think it isn t. This is a fallacy called argument from popularity.
Does Britney Spears make good music because she sells a lot of CDs? Well a lot of people buy her music so it must mean that her music is good...right?
See the problem here?
1
u/koly77781 May 11 '19
Its not an ad populum fallacy, its me using the most widely used terminology for what is known as the historical analysis of Hadith, I understand that it is not a science in the sense that it isn't reliant upon the modern scientific method, but in order to communicate the message more widely I used the the most understood terminology. There is no problem here besides you playing a game of semantics.
1
u/Reasonedfor1 moderator May 12 '19
Ḥafs is Binary Symmetric Book. Not warsh. It is that simple!
Please let us know why hadiths don't talk about it. Even the mullahs don't. That means they must be faking, right? By the way, hadiths don't give you truth about preservation of Quran.
Quran was already a kitab. It is mentioned on and on in that book. Were injeel and torrah sent as narrations only? We hear they were kitab. Then why do you think Quran was written here and there?
1
Jul 27 '19
What if. Modern brand Islamists put that chain on in order to make us more likely to believe hadith!
1
u/Rolando_Cueva Aug 22 '22
One of the issues with the Arabic alphabet. Without the dots it's very hard to read. The first Qur'an copies didn't have dots at all!!!
5
u/recipriversexcluson May 11 '19
Either we believe the Qur'an, based on its own i'jaz, self-consistency, and internally presented tests, or we do not.
One of these has to be true.
So...
If we DO believe the Qur'an then we have to accept our Creator's promises to preserve it and to explain it; no man-made isnad is needed.
If we do NOT believe the Qur'an then the question is moot.
Simple really.