Citizen X
You’ve quoted me multiple times, often twisting my words or responding with sarcasm, which sadly shuts down any meaningful exchange. You insist that Hadith is nothing more than unreliable hearsay compiled by "Irani mullahs" centuries later. That narrative is both historically inaccurate and dismissive of over
1400 years of Islamic scholarly tradition.
Yes, Hadith were compiled after the Prophet ﷺ's death — just like the Quran was compiled into book form later. But that doesn't mean they were invented. The
companions of the Prophet ﷺ memorized and transmitted his sayings and actions long before collections like Bukhari and Muslim existed. The Hadith sciences (Isnad, Rijal, Matn criticism) were developed specifically to
prevent fabrication, not promote it.
Also, your repeated analogy of “Bablu heard from Dabbu” mocks the chain of transmission, yet you fail to acknowledge how
secular historians also rely on eyewitness chains — and no other civilization developed anything as rigorous as Islamic isnad methodology.
And yes, Hadith is not on the same level as the Quran. That’s something I
already said: the Quran is
divine revelation and
fully protected; Hadith is
secondary and
subject to scrutiny. But “secondary” doesn’t mean “scrap it entirely.”
Your tone, unfortunately, often turned insulting (“pooja paat,” “emotional mushrik,” etc.). This is precisely why meaningful discussions are nearly impossible in such
charged and aggressive mindsets. Ironically, this behavior contradicts the
very Quran you claim to uphold, which commands dialogue with “hikmah and beautiful preaching” (Quran 16:125).
Bro I have never been disrespectful to you or mocked you maybe in the flurry of back and forth something might have slipped through. So for that I appologize.
But in this post you have basically just repeated yourself without giving any evidence or reference. You hae not provided a single logical counter argument to any of my argument. I say insist that Hadith is nothing more than unreliable hearsay compiled by "Irani mullahs" centuries later because thats exactly what it is but you insist that narrative is both historically inaccurate and dismissive of over 1400 years of Islamic scholarly tradition.
But where is the evidence or any sort of reference to any evidence to back up your claim? You talked about Imam Malik, yes he was from Medina but also century later and he had hardly 4 to 700 hadith that went back directly to the Prophet in his isnad. And even he himself said not every hadith is to be acted upon even if it is authentic. If you say something the burden of proof is on you.
And lets say for arguments sake all the hadith are 100% authentic, even then why are we suppose to follow them, when the Quran explicity says not to follow anything other than the Quran and not to bring any laws other than the law of God AND that is is a complete and fully detailed book sent down in a clear language. Also that if Allah had willed he would have sent down many more books for Allah is not short for words. So where is this need to to follow the hadith and immitate the prophet in his daily life routine as a earthly man. Quran when ever he says to follow or anything similar its never the prophet but always the messenger.
He is referred to as nabi 13 times in the Quran. And all those verses are talking directly to the Prophet, giving him instructions on how to do something in his personal, situation or give him hope. Like 33.1, 66.1 or 8.64
And he is reffered as the rasool as 30 times, giving him instructions from Allah to convey the message like in 5.67 or telling the people he is the messenger of Allah like in 33.40 or 48.29.
No where does the Quran say we have to follow the nabi and immitate what he did and live like he lived so on and so forth.
Also, your repeated analogy of “Bablu heard from Dabbu” mocks the chain of transmission, yet you fail to acknowledge how secular historians also rely on eyewitness chains — and no other civilization developed anything as rigorous as Islamic isnad methodology.
First of all historians rely on first hand eyewitness accounts, not hearsay which is what hadith is. And hearsay to the Nth degree. And again no one bases their religion on history,
Some hadith has more than 40 narrators in the isnad. And even for most of the hadith we don't know who these Abu fulan and Ibn Dhimkan are? And this was the questions raised by people early on, so later on they got to gether and literally made up a book Ilm al rijal in which they verify and vouch for every narrator in hadith. People who had been dead for centuries but they calssified them as good, of sound mind and good memory so people wont question these bablus and dabbus anymore and apparently it worked.
Hadith is secondary and subject to scrutiny. But “secondary” doesn’t mean “scrap it entirely.”
Yes that's exactly what the Quran says to do. Scrap it entirely
77:50 So in
which hadith after it will they believe ?
6:114 Shall I seek
other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed?
45:6 These are God's revelations that we recite to you truthfully.
In which Hadith other than God and His revelations do they believe?
31:6
Among the people there are those who uphold baseless hadith, and this diverts others For such people there is a disgraceful punishment.
Your tone, unfortunately, often turned insulting (“pooja paat,” “emotional mushrik,” etc.). This is precisely why meaningful discussions are nearly impossible in such charged and aggressive mindsets.
That is solely directed at your companion here Mr X and if you got caught in the crossfire by mistake, have already apologized for that, because as I said you are going to get treated exactly the same way as you are going to treat me. You will start name calling, basless labels, false allegations and outright lies then expect to know what time it is. Its hammer time!
Act like a calm and respect adult and you will be treated the same.
Hope to hear from you soon, with some proof, evidence and references to back up you claims
. I have an alternate word for it - unreasonable.
