New article: Quran Vs Hadith : compilation, preservation and transmission

[Fusion]

What you highlighted from early external records is significant even if details may be debated. The point is that this early behavior whether conquest-driven or not ended up shaping how Islam was remembered and later formalized. That directly affects the topic of transmission.

When we talk about preservation we should not limit it to text alone. There is also preservation of narrative  what people did, how those actions were explained, and how they got absorbed into hadith and tradition over time. Political decisions and military campaigns became part of the "Sunna" through reporting and reinforcement, even if those actions were not grounded in the Quranic model.

The Quran itself does not present a message of offensive expansion. The early Prophet led campaigns were defensive or reactionary. The return to Makkah was peaceful. That should have set the tone a return to belief, not domination. But later history added layers, and those layers were carried forward as if they were part of the original revelation.

This is where the difference in transmission between Quran and hadith becomes visible. The Quran was preserved through memorization, public recitation, and fixed wording. Hadith, on the other hand, preserved evolving interpretations, behaviors, and justifications many of which were tied to changing political realities.

But more importantly, we are not living in the 7th century we are here now. And today we see the result of all of this: religion being used as a dividing tool, people being manipulated based on old narratives, and nations stuck in cycles of mistrust, fear, and conflict. Whether  Muslims, Jews, or Hindus ; countries are at odds, and ordinary people suffer. Hate crimes, communal violence, online division all rooted in distorted versions of identity and belief.

Add to this the mix of conspiracy, propaganda, and those who intentionally fuel division for their own power. In the end, it is the same old game: power and control, dressed in religious language.

So when we talk about what was transmitted and preserved, we should also ask: what are we transmitting now? Are we repeating the same pattern, or trying to return to something simpler and clearer?

[Layth]

Option 3: perhaps the most disturbing one, we are actually mistaken in believing that those Arabs, including their rulers, knew Qur'an and were following it, be with hadiths or without.

I would think that is the most probable option - since clearly the early converts were fighting the prophet tooth and nail on every aspect (just like the Jews did with Moses) - to the point where he says "I can't change it for you!" (10:15)

It seems the minute he died they drifted back to their psudo religion of idolatry+culture+Islam which gave us the first glimpse of the evil that would become "Sunni Islam".

In-fact, it seems that God diliberatly confused them since He already threatened to destroy them had the prophet not been amongst them (8:33).

[Fusion]

I would be cautious about concluding that the entire early community right after the Prophet drifted into falsehood. That would mean the very people who helped preserve the Quran also lost its meaning entirely.

Even if leadership became political, it's difficult to say the message itself was lost that quickly without some trace of clarity remaining.

More likely, the Quran was preserved in wording but its application was shaped by human behavior, power dynamics, and cultural defaults. That is how transmission split: one part fixed (the Quran), the other flexible and evolving (the hadith and memory of behavior).

[Layth]

Oh please! Look what a mess they made of a simple "copy" job (we have +15 versions floating around and no one can tell which is the real Quran  )

If we go by their own history, they messed up the minute the Prophet died by appointing a King (I know they called him Khalifha, but his powers were of a King) - so there goes the whole "and their matters are done by consultation" out the window)...You start from there and end up here to 2025 where their religion is now openly seen as "evil" and "not from God".

[Layth]

They are so confused, they don't even know if the Basmallah is part of the Quran or not (which is why its unnumbered in 112 suras) nor do they know if the Quran is 113 chapters or 114 chapters (they have a problem with Sura 9 as they think it maybe a continuation of Sura 8 )...What a train wreck!

[Anoushirvan]

It seems there is a blind spot that almost everybody fails to perceive.
When Qur'an calls those opposing to its message "alladhina kafaru", do you really think those ones called themselves "alladhina kafaru" too ?

Of course, not !
They surely called themselves believers too.

Same for those called munafiq in Qur'an.
They certainly didn't call themselves like this, but more surely "believers" too.

Now, ponder this: don't you find strange that nowhere did those called "alladhina kafaru" or "munafiq" leave a trace to explain their position, except maybe only through Islamic tradition ?
I mean, did they really disappear from history without having had the opportunity to explain why they rejected ?

Imagine two opposing parties, let's say around 630 CE, both calling themselves believers. Then seven decades later, scholars trying to collect testimonies and memories from their descents.
Those scholars would likely face conflicting narratives, whereas in their context, the word believers was now exclusively used for followers of Qur'an.

Another point is that the word qur'an was initially a common name in Arabic, likely designating a lectionary for a preaching.
There were likely other qur'ans besides Qur'an.
When scholars in the 8th CE and beyond collected narratives involving "qur'an", wasn't there a confusion between this Qur'an and those qur'ans ?


Therefore, it sounds not unlikely that among first companions presented like that, Muslims or Believers, in the Islamic tradition, some of them might have actually been people called "alladhina kafaru" or "munafiq" in Qur'an.

[Fusion]

Lets be real most of the frustration here sounds less about the Quran itself and more about the early community that came after the Prophet. And fair enough there were political moves, disagreements, and decisions that clearly went off course from the original message. No one can or should deny that.

But that is exactly why the difference between the Quran and hadith matters. One was preserved publicly, word for word across generations whilte the other grew through memory, influence, and power dynamics and justifications layered on top of each other and goes on and on.

The issue was never that the Quran changed. The issue is that people did  and many wrapped their own ambitions mistake or cultural defaults around the message.

And sure, its easy for us to sit here centuries later and say, "What a mess!" as if we would have done better under that kind of pressure. These were real people dealing with a power vacuum, tribal loyalties, internal tensions it wasn't some neat textbook transition. Not all of them were corrupt or clueless some were just overwhelmed.

In fact the very fact that the Quran survived intact despite all that chaos says a lot.

So yeah one was protected by design. The other was shaped by history.

[Layth]

I think you missed the point Fusion. There is this trend (started by the sectarians) who claim that if you accept their ability to preserve the Quran, then you should also accept their ability to preserve the Hadith. This is a big statemement they are making as they are willing to attack the Quran in-order to save the Hadith.

The Submitters have the best answer - which is that you did not preserve it, you messed it up, and God revealed in the Book itself code-19 to fix the mistakes you made. Now, the problem with the Submitters is that they had to remove 2 verses (mainly by using Hadith) which caused the whole world to turn upside down and reject code-19 as being "false".

However, imagine for a moment that this tool was applied more objectively. We would have to strip all 112 Basmallahs as being later additions, all sura names, plus you have some different spellings that need to be corrected (the only problem you are left with is some dialectical marks which can't be fixed that way and would need to reply on context and other verses if possible). You can have one codified Quran and destroy all other versions that are floating around out there right now.

[good logic]

Peace All.

If GOD guides, then all issues about His Deen will unravel to the sincere along the journey of total loyalty
 and submission to GOD S system/way- Sirat Al Mustaqeem-

It does not matter which Qoran version one comes across with , GOD will guide/teach the sincere the truth and the way to lead life as a devotee to GOD Alone.

This is the crunch of the debate about GOD s system V Men s systems:

"Yahdi Bihi Allah Mani Ittabaa Ridwanahu Subula Al SalamYahdi, Wa Yukhrijahum Mina Al Thulumati Ila Al Nuri Bi- Idhnihi..."
GOD guides with "it"- Qoran- those who follow His ways/systems/laws/version of events...
GOD bless you all.
Peace.

[Fusion]

Lets be direct the Quran was preserved through mass memorization, public recitation, and consistent wording across generations. Hadith never had that level of transmission. Comparing the two doesnot hold.

As for Code-19, I don't accept the idea that the Quran needs to be corrected or restructured through mathematical filters. That turns preservation into speculation. The Book stands on its own, as it was transmitted.

The problem was never the text it was people's behavior around it. That's what created hadith dependence and political narratives, not a flaw in the Book.

Lets stay grounded in what was actually preserved, not theories that rewrite it.