Quran only mistakes

[Maseehullaah]

it is late here but your dates seem a little confused.  Uthman died around 23 years after the prophet so where does 100 years come into it?

Pay close attention to my post, I said that the earliest complete Quraanic manuscript we have is not dated anytime before 100 years after the death of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. John Gilcrist, a scholar in this field has mentioned this fact.

True the Quraan was compiled by Uthmaan, but there are not surviving manuscripts from his time available to us.

There may have been hadith 138 narrations within the first 100 years of the prophets death but only 98 used by Bukhari, who was born 200 years after the prophets death, but then where did he find the other 599862 that he aparently sifted through to come up with less than 1% considered 'sound'?

you obviously under the false impression that Imam Bukhari picked and choose which hadeeth to compile. That is due to your ignorance. Every hadeeth is examined based on its SANAD (chain of narrators), and what the scholars of "Ilm-ul-Rijaal" have said about each and every single narrator, including biographical information, as well as testimony regarding the character, beliefs, and other information about each and every single narrator. There are literally volumes and volumes of books on "Ilm-ul-Rijaal" written by the experts of Hadeeth where you can access this rich amount of knowledge and history.

As I have proven, it has nothing to do with picking or choosing, but rather, it is based on examining the chain of narrators.

It is also interesting to note that many of the narrations in Bukhari and Muslim are "MUTAWAATIR", meaning, mass-narrated by so many narrators that it is impossible that they have been fabricated. No modern court of law would ever reject witness testimony that is mass-narrated by so many different witnesses, especially if they do not know eachother! Which is often the case in the hadeeth sciences.

So there are literally volumes of hadith books each corroborating narrations compiled by different Muhaditheen. Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud as-Sijistani, Ibn Majah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the Muwatta of Malik, Sahifah of Ibn Abi Shaybah, Daraqutuni, Ibn Hibbaan, Ibn Khuzaiymah, Darami, and so many others.

supposed 'evidence' from western historians and scholars means zilch here buddy. The prophet recited a profound message for those of understanding, immediately after the prophet died there were at least 12 sects all with new ideas, they obviously actually had very little understanding of the whole thing.  Inventions of 'Muhammed said, Muhammed did' started immediately after his death, and very few of them were fact.

One of those sects was the "Khawaarij" who rejected the Hadeeth and proclaimed to follow Quraan only. They were soundly defeated in the Battle of Nahrawan by the fourth khalifah of Islaam, the son-in-law and cousin of the Prophet, Ali ibn Abi Talib رضى الله عنه.

[Magnus]

So the exact same objection you raise against the Hadeeth can also be made about the Quraan. There is a saying, "Don't throw stones at someone's house if your own house is made of glass"

You keep making this argument, and I keep thinking it's wrong for a couple of reasons that I shall attempt to articulate, God willing:
1: God promises to protect the Qur'an. No such promise is made regarding hadith compilations.
2: There's a definite difference in quality. The Quranic language is oratory perfection, which hadith clearly lacks - there's simply no comparing the two. The Quran is clearly easy to memorize, as evidenced by the thousands upon thousands of people who knows the entire text by heart right now.  Interestingly enough, the Quran makes both these claims about itself - that it's superior to any other text, and that it is easy to remember.

I challenge you to find more than a handful of people who can recite hundreds of pages of hadith, perfect and error free to the letter. Contrast this to the Quran, which is memorized so well by so many that it's impossible to get even a syllable wrong in its recital without several brothers and sisters noticing it and correcting it, provided you have good-sized congregation.

Should you counter this argument by pointing out that few muslims bother to memorize hadith the way we memorize the Quran, I can only pose the questions why do you think that is? What implications would this have for the credibility of an oral transmission chain?

Supposing that you are right in your assertion of a lengthy oral transmission of the Quran before it was penned in its present (and I believe original and eternal) form, there's still no equivocating this transmission with hadith sources based on text quality alone if nothing else.

[Ayisha]

Pay close attention to my post, I said that the earliest complete Quraanic manuscript we have is not dated anytime before 100 years after the death of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. John Gilcrist, a scholar in this field has mentioned this fact.

True the Quraan was compiled by Uthmaan, but there are not surviving manuscripts from his time available to us.

How many Hafiz are there now? How many were there then? The Quran is the words of Allah Almighty, it was emblazed in the brian and remembered and recited. Muhammed never forgot a word and neither did those that did study it and learn it. There is no one now or then that has memorized the entire Bukhari, why? the wording used is a clue.

you obviously under the false impression that Imam Bukhari picked and choose which hadeeth to compile. That is due to your ignorance. Every hadeeth is examined based on its SANAD (chain of narrators), and what the scholars of "Ilm-ul-Rijaal" have said about each and every single narrator, including biographical information, as well as testimony regarding the character, beliefs, and other information about each and every single narrator. There are literally volumes and volumes of books on "Ilm-ul-Rijaal" written by the experts of Hadeeth where you can access this rich amount of knowledge and history.

Where did I say Bukhari picked and chose what hadith to compile?

No I am not ignorant of the work that supposedly went into sanad of veryfying people dead 200 years before, i am well aware of it and I have studied in thoroughly and read the jumbled contradictory mess known as hadith that are considered 'Sahih' and based on that is why I reject them. What some scholar made a lifetime writing about in his volumes of books which twist the words of Allah and atribute the weird contradictions to a prophet of Allah I have absolutely no interest in at all. My only interest is the words of Allah which was the only interest of the messenger of Allah.

As I have proven, it has nothing to do with picking or choosing, but rather, it is based on examining the chain of narrators.

You have proven nothing at all. Can you give me a detailed extract of saying verified from your relative who died over 200 years ago and verify every single narrator of the in between him and you? If not why not? and you are trying to get me to beleive this is what happened? wake up.

It is also interesting to note that many of the narrations in Bukhari and Muslim are "MUTAWAATIR", meaning, mass-narrated by so many narrators that it is impossible that they have been fabricated. No modern court of law would ever reject witness testimony that is mass-narrated by so many different witnesses, especially if they do not know eachother! Which is often the case in the hadeeth sciences.

every court of law would reject any mass narration if all the people were dead and buried 200 year before!

So there are literally volumes of hadith books each corroborating narrations compiled by different Muhaditheen. Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud as-Sijistani, Ibn Majah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the Muwatta of Malik, Sahifah of Ibn Abi Shaybah, Daraqutuni, Ibn Hibbaan, Ibn Khuzaiymah, Darami, and so many others.

of course there are! Its the same pile recycled and used by different 'scholar's' What Allah send the devil works ten times as hard to lead you astray!

One of those sects was the "Khawaarij" who rejected the Hadeeth and proclaimed to follow Quraan only. They were soundly defeated in the Battle of Nahrawan by the fourth khalifah of Islaam, the son-in-law and cousin of the Prophet, Ali ibn Abi Talib رضى الله عنه.

Wrong, they were one of the first sects to want to kill anyone going against the sunnah.

[Maseehullaah]

You keep making this argument, and I keep thinking it's wrong for a couple of reasons that I shall attempt to articulate, God willing:
1: God promises to protect the Qur'an. No such promise is made regarding hadith compilations.

There is no such promise in the Quraan to protect the Quraan.

Rather Allaah says:

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ

Verily, We have sent down the Reminder, and verily, We shall guard it. [15:9]

Adh-Dhikr (the Reminder) is both the Quraan and the Sunnah, whatever Allaah has sent down to the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم, and Allaah has promised to protect and guard it.

Now question is, if Allaah will only protect the Quraan from corruption, why He didn't mention QURAAN, instead He mentioned the DHIKR?

2: There's a definite difference in quality. The Quranic language is oratory perfection, which hadith clearly lacks - there's simply no comparing the two. The Quran is clearly easy to memorize, as evidenced by the thousands upon thousands of people who knows the entire text by heart right now.  Interestingly enough, the Quran makes both these claims about itself - that it's superior to any other text, and that it is easy to remember.

Is that a proof that only the Quraan is Allaah's Revelation? What about the Torah, the the Psalms of David, the Gospel or other scriptures? The Quraan is obviously the best of revelation, but that does not mean it is the only revelation.

I challenge you to find more than a handful of people who can recite hundreds of pages of hadith, perfect and error free to the letter. Contrast this to the Quran, which is memorized so well by so many that it's impossible to get even a syllable wrong in its recital without several brothers and sisters noticing it and correcting it, provided you have good-sized congregation.

I challenge you to find even one "Quraan-only" follower who has memorized the entire Quraan.

You claim to love and follow the Quraan, but none of your people have even memorized it from beginning to end! The only people who have memorized the Quraan are the People who believe in the Sunnah and Hadeeth.

Many scholars have memorized the Ahadeeth, in fact, there were scholars of Hadeeth who memorized hundreds of thousands of narrations including the chain of narrators!

[Maseehullaah]

How many Hafiz are there now? How many were there then? The Quran is the words of Allah Almighty, it was emblazed in the brian and remembered and recited. Muhammed never forgot a word and neither did those that did study it and learn it. There is no one now or then that has memorized the entire Bukhari, why? the wording used is a clue.

So you are saying that the Quraan is true, because, although it was written down many years after the Prophet died, compiled many decades later, and the earliest manuscripts we have today are dated not earlier than a 100 years after his death...you say we can trust the Quraan because it was memorized and transmitted orally from person to person.

Now if only you study how Hadeeth were transmitted, you will see it was the exact same way as Quraan! Every authentic hadeeth was orally transmitted by one companion, who himself heard the Prophet saying the words, and it was passed down orally, just like Quraan. The Hadeeths were memorized by the Companions, they not only taught people the Quraan orally, but they also taught people the Hadeeth orally.

At that time there were many Muhaditheen who memorized literally hundreds of thousands of Ahadeeth, in fact, they used to teach Hadeeth without reading from a book or manuscript, but all from their memory, passing it down orally, just like the Quraan was passed down!

Wrong, they [the Khawaarij] were one of the first sects to want to kill anyone going against the sunnah.

The Khawaarij rejected the Sunnah and Hadeeth, that's a historical fact. They killed other Muslims because they felt that other Muslims were not following the verse of the Quraan:

إِنِ الْحُكْمُ إِلاَّ لِلّهِ

Verily, there is no command except by Allaah [6:57]

In fact, this particular verse of the Quraan was their main slogan.

They were the spiritual progeny of Dhul Khuwaisirah, a hypocrite who accused the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم of being unjust and not fearful of Allaah.

[loxbox13]

I tell you the truth brother saudi flag, i know myself, if the uqran was transmitted the same ways as hadith, than all islam is a joke;  if i believe in the quran as transmitted through someone like bukhari and ibnkathir, than mohamed the messneger of allah is a big liar and all what they said about him in the hadith is true, brother, i believe you because you sound like an arab who knows the history about islam,  if it's the case, please bring more evidence, i will go free from ALLAH, from mohamed, because i honestly don't believe in pedophiles and in killers who cutoff the hands and feets from the who killed his sheperd after , takin out their eyes ith molten isron   Hell NO ,  mohamed is not a prophet after all, probably he got the quran from some syrians like they use to say,  because according to hadith, mohamed is sick, maybe they're no allah after all, like rashad khalfa fooled us, bukhari fooled us, now i realise that mohamed fooled us in the 1st place,  there's no jesus or mohamed, there's only one life, live and that's it, all mother.... religions are .... !!!!
thanl u Maseehullaah for opening our eyes,   I won't post no more messages message in this site

[loxbox13]

The earliest complete Quraan manuscripts are dated to not earlier than 100 years after the death of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم You have no choice but to accept this fact. I gave the evidence and quoted even the Western historians and scholars. My challenge to you is simple, show me a single manuscript of the Quraan (does not even have to be a complete manuscript, it can even be a fragment or portion of the text) which can be dated to the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم

ALLAH is making fun of us , wasting our time, hadith as authentic as the quran, than ISLAM is a big lie, i tried christianity, buddhism , islam,  all manmade ciaooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[Maseehullaah]

All I can say to loxbox13 is, May Allaah guide you (ameen)

[you gunna eat that]

What I'm saying is that Allaah preserved His Word through the effort of men. Did Allaah drop the Quraan with all its Surahs and Ayats arranged in the right order? did it come down from the clouds as a book between two covers?

Or was it revealed upon the tongue of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم? Was it not compiled during the caliphate of 'Uthmaan رضى الله عنه, some two or three decades after the passing away of the Prophet?

So the exact same objection you raise against the Hadeeth can also be made about the Quraan. There is a saying, "Don't throw stones at someone's house if your own house is made of glass"

The earliest complete manuscripts we have of the Quraan are in fact found to be compiled at least a century after the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم passed away:

John Gilchrist states: "The oldest manuscripts of the Quran still in existence date from not earlier than about one hundred years after Muhammad's death." [Gilchrist, "Jam' Al-Qur'an", p. 153]

Even the first hadith compilation we have, the Saheefah of Hammaam ibn Munnabih is dated to earlier than that, the mid-first century of the Islaamic calendar. It contains 138 narrations or Hadiths, 98 of which can be found in Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim!

Peace

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscripts

This looks like a personal copy and it's older than what the historians you have cited have said.  It could even be contemporary to the Prophet's time.  

Of the conclusion that we are throwing stones from a glass house, the Hadith are running about 250-300 years after the prophet's death in terms of actual written actualization.  That is far more than any estimate for the dating of the Quran and the written actualization I have offered, which clearly gives a solid edge in authenticity to the Quran if we are rating by age.  Key word here is "written actualization."  I do not know of manuscripts containing the safeehah of hammaam ibn munnabih actually being dated back to 100 years post prophet.  That is based on historical accounts.  If you relied on that same cocktail of historical accounts concerning the Quran (written down much later than they occurred), you would come to the conclusion that the Quran existed either during the prophets time or at the time of Umar, which is again much earlier than the same contemporary oral accounts of hadiths.

Further, the Quran is much smaller than the hadith so it is theoretically easier to maintain it.  

It would be silly to argue that the Quran didn't rely on man made transmission because all Muslims at least believe that the Quran came through the prophet.  Yet, the man made process of accumulation that the hadith went through are far more prone to suspicion due to lack of authenticity than the Quran.  I think the confusion here is that some think Quran only followers only discount the hadith because of historical uncertainty.  In fact, I believe that a nice yet uncertain general story can be made from the hadiths yet the uncertainty of the story we find in the Quran.  Hence the appeal to uncertainty as a way of pointing to Quranic superiority.

...I have memorized most of the Quran in Arabic Maseelulah and I'm a Quran only follower.  I can recite a lot of verses in English too.  

Independent of that though I am shocked at how illiterate concerning the Quran most traditional Muslims actually are.  Even people I know who have memorized the Quran do not actually know what it means.  This included my self back in the day when I was memorizing the book in Arabic.  Don't take this as a generalization because the most intelligent Muslim I know actually memorized the Quran in arabic, but still, we spend our time understanding the verses on this website instead of reciting something we don't understand (which does have its own beauty).


Peace

[loxbox13]

Brother Maseehullaah
I can't trust a pedophile, let's say you have a 9 years old sister, and a 51 years old wants to marry her, he tells you he get attracted to her when she was 6 , what would u say tothis person?

if someone tell you satan pissed in ones ear because he didn't wake up for fadjr, what do you say to that man ?

if someone marry to 12 wifes whyle the quran say polygamy only with the women with orphans, what do you say to someone who breaks his own rules?

Allah's name i learned from this persone who is a pedophile who wrote the quran , it's not even sure he wrote the quran because it was compiled 100 years after he died,  If there is a god and he says we have to use our brains,  then it is normel to reject a pedophile and a sick man, who needed to go to a hospital, not playing like a prophet, i read some bukhari and i thaught they were mohamed's enemies, to write about him such a disgusting caracter and life he had, he had no widom at all, i don't know who wrote the quran, but it was the quran that fooled me, it sounds too perfect, but than if it"s in the same level as hadith , than hell to all , if there is a god than he better choose his messengers, because caracter in important in the civilised world, this is 2010 , he better send another one or blame it on us because we don't believe in pedophile criminals, if he wants to send me hell, than he is just like mohamed, making jokes of us, honestly, at first I didn't like you , for I really wanted to follow islam through the quran since it made sense to me, but then why would i fall for another person after falling for the trick of the church with jesus, whom i don't even know he existed

The best people on earth are athists, they go only what makes sense,  but i'm disapointed a bit, because for a while i really believed in Allah and his  messenger , anywa,  don't worry about it