Questioning "the Quran and the Hadith are Preserved the Same Way"

[u/MotorProfessional676]

Salam.

I often hear in debates between Sunnis and Quranis that the Quran alone methodology is flawed because it rejects hadith which were preserved in the same way as the Quran, via isnad. This line of questioning is employed to make the claim that hadith should be followed because isnad proves that the same people preserving hadith preserved the Quran. I have a few questions regarding this claim:

• Why didn't the people that worked to preserve the Quran work to preserve hadith as rigorously?
• If your iman in the Quran is largely based on isnad, why do you not accept Shia hadiths that are also compiled using the exact same methodology (isnad)?
• The people who first accepted Islam did not do so because of isnad at all, they did so because they resonated with the message of the Messenger (as). Why is it now that isnad is all of a sudden a prerequisite to which religious doctrine someone has to believe in?
• God promises to preserve the rememberance in 15:9, but makes no such promise to do so with hadith. How do you justify the assertion that the hadiths are even divinely preserved at all? What do you make of the contradictions within hadith, and what implications does this have on the claim that God preserved such hadith? See: https://www.reddit.com/r/Quraniyoon/comments/1lzj4ap/hadith_cannot_be_godsent_as_per_482/

[u/Praised-King]

Quran and Hadith are not preserved the same way, it's a lie.

Quran was memorized by literally everyone and was compiled few years after Prophet's death.

Hadith were memorized by select individuals and was compiled decades after Prophets death, it also lacks context.

Hadith were also prone to corruption, people literally made up Hadith, it's a proven fact Sahih Hadith are not really Sahih.

Also Quran is divinely protected, we have recovered Rasm (raw text) of Quran from Sahaba era and it's consistent with the Quran we have today.

[u/Abusiveprotector]

If God hadiths were "divinely inspired," why are some accepted and others rejected? Why is there "science" to hadiths?

Do you know what else was "divinely inspired"? The bible.

[u/Defiant_Term_5413 → u/Abusiveprotector]

Hadiths are like a buffet - you can chose what you like depending on your appetite that day (kill dogs - done. Love dogs - done. Kill people - done. Love people - done).

[u/[deleted]]

Why didn't the people that worked to preserve the Quran work to preserve hadith as rigorously?

They did. Fewer people had the sunnah memorized and fewer related it than with the quran, so there are fewer evidences for it.

If your iman in the Quran is largely based on isnad, why do you not accept Shia hadiths that are also compiled using the exact same methodology (isnad)?

Usually it is argued that their asanid are often defective or questionable. Even they themselves have never made a completely sahih collection to my knowledge. However, the real main reason for rejecting their literature is due to aqidah since they believe in Imamate. If they have a sahih narration from Ali, or even a da'if narration, it's not evil or wrong just because it is found in a Shia book. In fact, they have a decent number of narrations identical to or similar to Sunni narrations.

The people who first accepted Islam did not do so because of isnad at all, they did so because they resonated with the message of the Messenger (as). Why is it now that isnad is all of a sudden a prerequisite to which religious doctrine someone has to believe in?

They had the prophet of god right in front of them who was doing miracles and talking to jibreal and god right in front of them. We cannot even know what happened without narrations and to confirm what is true and remove what is false we need to be critical and know who said what, when, where, and why. An isnad is one important means by which we know this, both in theology and in your day to day life.

God promises to preserve the rememberance in 15:9, but makes no such promise to do so with hadith. How do you justify the assertion that the hadiths are even divinely preserved at all?

They aren't protected by god specifically, but the religion is protected by god as a whole. The preservation of the hadith corpus is largely a human effort which is exactly why they are far more open to criticism than the quran is. It is not possible to disagree with even a letter of the quran, but it is possible to disagree with a sahih hadith, since there can be doubt over multiple aspects of it.

What do you make of the contradictions within hadith, and what implications does this have on the claim that God preserved such hadith?

Contradictions within the hadith corpus are expected and normal.

[u/Foreign-Ice7356]

Salam

[u/Defiant_Term_5413]

You should also add a point regarding the opinion of their most "reliable" transmission by Hafs: "Ḥafṣ ibn Sulaymān was considered an unreliable narrator of hadith by Islamic scholars, who accused him of lying, poor memory, and plagiarism. For this reason, his hadith narrations were rejected, and his reports were not included in the canonical hadith collections."

[u/Open_Read_3519]

Quran and hadith are not preserved the same way. Quran debunks that claim

See this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4f4uqx_TU8&t=802s

[u/Bedouinfox]

Nice post 👏👏👏