Hadith: A Critical Look at Authenticity and Authority

[Citizen X]

The reliability of hadith is a subject of heated debate among academic historians. While hadith collections such as Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are revered in traditional Islam, critics raise significant concerns regarding their authenticity.

One major point of contention is the historical gap between the Prophet’s lifetime and the compilation of these texts. The most trusted hadith collections were compiled some 200 to 250 years after the Prophet’s death, a span which allowed for substantial distortion. Unlike the Quran, which was both written and memorized during Muhammad’s life, hadiths remained oral traditions for generations, increasing the error, exaggeration, and fabrication.

Political and sectarian factors further complicate the picture. The early centuries of Islam were marked by intense civil conflict from the Umayyads to the Abbasids and many hadiths were allegedly created to serve political or ideological goals. Competing factions even issued contradictory hadiths to bolster their claims. Legal schools such as the Hanafi and Shafi’i often cited different hadiths to justify opposing rulings. Even Bukhari and Muslim dismissed hundreds of thousands of narrations as weak or fabricated. As the renowned Islamicist Ignaz Goldziher observed, “The bulk of the hadith is not the word of the Prophet but the expression of the religious, legal, and political thought of the first two centuries of Islam.”

The isnād system, is extremely flawed. A flawless chain does not guarantee the truth of the content. Narrators may have invented or borrowed isnāds to legitimize circulating reports. Some may have falsely claimed to hear hadiths from earlier authorities to gain scholarly prestige or sway legal decisions.

Hadiths conflict with the Qur’an, contradict one another, or contain scientifically inaccurate or ethically troubling content. If all ṣaḥīḥ (authentic) hadiths truly reflect the Prophet’s teachings, how do such inconsistencies persist?

Another issue lies in the nature of oral transmission. Although Arabs of the time had remarkable memory skills, modern cognitive science shows memory is inherently fallible. With hundreds of thousands of narrations in circulation, perfect recall becomes implausible, especially across generations of oral repetition.

Furthermore, early hadith scholars themselves often rejected each other’s narrations. Differences in standards, regional biases, and theological leanings led to disagreements over what constituted a trustworthy source. For example, a narrator accepted in Medina might be rejected in Kufa. Hadith critics like Yahya ibn Ma‘in and Ibn Hibban frequently labeled narrators as da‘if (weak), munkar (unacceptable), or even kadhdhāb (liar). Narrators once respected were later blacklisted.

These divergences till today play out across legal schools as well. Hanafis were cautious of hadiths with solitary chains, while Malikis prioritized the lived practice of the people of Medina over some textual reports. The result was that one scholar’s authentic hadith could be another’s rejected claim. From a critical standpoint, this undermines the notion of a universally agreed-upon and infallibly preserved hadith canon. On the other hand, traditionalists argue that such rigorous scrutiny proves the intellectual integrity of the hadith tradition.

At the heart of this debate lies a deeper theological question: does the Quran command Muslims to follow hadiths?

Traditionalists argue yes, citing verses such as:
“O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you...” (Surah An-Nisa 4:59)

“Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatever he forbids you, abstain from it...” (Surah Al-Hashr 59:7) I am only providing the end of the entire verse as this is the partially quoted verse the traditionalists like to give most, not fully posting the verse as it would make it clear that the verse has nothing to do with hadith.

They contend that since the Prophet is no longer alive, obeying him means following the hadiths that record his teachings.

However, these verses refer specifically to the Prophet's living authority and not to posthumously compiled narrations. The Qur’an itself never directs Muslims to follow any “hadith” in the sense of external reports. On the contrary, the Qur’an often uses the word “hadith” in ways that appear to warn against relying on alternative sources of religious guidance:

“These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what ḥadīth after Allah and His verses will they believe?” (Surah Al-Jathiyah 45:6)

“...Then in what ḥadīth after this will they believe?” (Surah Al-A‘raf 7:185)

“Allah has sent down the best ḥadīth: a Book...” (Surah Al-Zumar 39:23)

The Qur’an’s repeated self-description as fully detailed and complete:

“Shall I seek a judge other than Allah while it is He who has sent down to you the Book explained in detail?” (Surah Al-An‘am 6:114)

“...And We have sent down to you the Book as clarification for all things...” (Surah Al-Nahl 16:89)

“We have not neglected in the Book a thing...” (Surah Al-An‘am 6:38)

Reliance on hadiths contradicts the Quran’s claim to be the sole, comprehensive source of guidance.

In sum, the hadith literature is a complex and contested body of texts. At best it offers insight into early Islamic thought and history, its authenticity and authority remain the subject of serious academic and theological debate. Taking all of this into consideration, hadith is nothing but a flawed and un unreliable supplement to the Quran

 

[observer-x]

The reliability of hadith is a subject of heated debate among academic historians. While hadith collections such as Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are revered in traditional Islam, critics raise significant concerns regarding their authenticity.

One major point of contention is the historical gap between the Prophet’s lifetime and the compilation of these texts. The most trusted hadith collections were compiled some 200 to 250 years after the Prophet’s death, a span which allowed for substantial distortion. Unlike the Quran, which was both written and memorized during Muhammad’s life, hadiths remained oral traditions for generations, increasing the error, exaggeration, and fabrication.

Political and sectarian factors further complicate the picture. The early centuries of Islam were marked by intense civil conflict from the Umayyads to the Abbasids and many hadiths were allegedly created to serve political or ideological goals. Competing factions even issued contradictory hadiths to bolster their claims. Legal schools such as the Hanafi and Shafi’i often cited different hadiths to justify opposing rulings. Even Bukhari and Muslim dismissed hundreds of thousands of narrations as weak or fabricated. As the renowned Islamicist Ignaz Goldziher observed, “The bulk of the hadith is not the word of the Prophet but the expression of the religious, legal, and political thought of the first two centuries of Islam.”

The isnād system, is extremely flawed. A flawless chain does not guarantee the truth of the content. Narrators may have invented or borrowed isnāds to legitimize circulating reports. Some may have falsely claimed to hear hadiths from earlier authorities to gain scholarly prestige or sway legal decisions.

Hadiths conflict with the Qur’an, contradict one another, or contain scientifically inaccurate or ethically troubling content. If all ṣaḥīḥ (authentic) hadiths truly reflect the Prophet’s teachings, how do such inconsistencies persist?

Another issue lies in the nature of oral transmission. Although Arabs of the time had remarkable memory skills, modern cognitive science shows memory is inherently fallible. With hundreds of thousands of narrations in circulation, perfect recall becomes implausible, especially across generations of oral repetition.

Furthermore, early hadith scholars themselves often rejected each other’s narrations. Differences in standards, regional biases, and theological leanings led to disagreements over what constituted a trustworthy source. For example, a narrator accepted in Medina might be rejected in Kufa. Hadith critics like Yahya ibn Ma‘in and Ibn Hibban frequently labeled narrators as da‘if (weak), munkar (unacceptable), or even kadhdhāb (liar). Narrators once respected were later blacklisted.

These divergences till today play out across legal schools as well. Hanafis were cautious of hadiths with solitary chains, while Malikis prioritized the lived practice of the people of Medina over some textual reports. The result was that one scholar’s authentic hadith could be another’s rejected claim. From a critical standpoint, this undermines the notion of a universally agreed-upon and infallibly preserved hadith canon. On the other hand, traditionalists argue that such rigorous scrutiny proves the intellectual integrity of the hadith tradition.

At the heart of this debate lies a deeper theological question: does the Quran command Muslims to follow hadiths?

Traditionalists argue yes, citing verses such as:
“O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you...” (Surah An-Nisa 4:59)

“Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatever he forbids you, abstain from it...” (Surah Al-Hashr 59:7) I am only providing the end of the entire verse as this is the partially quoted verse the traditionalists like to give most, not fully posting the verse as it would make it clear that the verse has nothing to do with hadith.

They contend that since the Prophet is no longer alive, obeying him means following the hadiths that record his teachings.

However, these verses refer specifically to the Prophet's living authority and not to posthumously compiled narrations. The Qur’an itself never directs Muslims to follow any “hadith” in the sense of external reports. On the contrary, the Qur’an often uses the word “hadith” in ways that appear to warn against relying on alternative sources of religious guidance:

“These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what ḥadīth after Allah and His verses will they believe?” (Surah Al-Jathiyah 45:6)

“...Then in what ḥadīth after this will they believe?” (Surah Al-A‘raf 7:185)

“Allah has sent down the best ḥadīth: a Book...” (Surah Al-Zumar 39:23)

The Qur’an’s repeated self-description as fully detailed and complete:

“Shall I seek a judge other than Allah while it is He who has sent down to you the Book explained in detail?” (Surah Al-An‘am 6:114)

“...And We have sent down to you the Book as clarification for all things...” (Surah Al-Nahl 16:89)

“We have not neglected in the Book a thing...” (Surah Al-An‘am 6:38)

Reliance on hadiths contradicts the Quran’s claim to be the sole, comprehensive source of guidance.

In sum, the hadith literature is a complex and contested body of texts. At best it offers insight into early Islamic thought and history, its authenticity and authority remain the subject of serious academic and theological debate. Taking all of this into consideration, hadith is nothing but a flawed and un unreliable supplement to the Quran

Yet another Parwezi Qadiyani fitna post.

 

[observer-x]

The reliability of hadith is a subject of heated debate among academic historians. While hadith collections such as Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are revered in traditional Islam, critics raise significant concerns regarding their authenticity.

One major point of contention is the historical gap between the Prophet’s lifetime and the compilation of these texts. The most trusted hadith collections were compiled some 200 to 250 years after the Prophet’s death, a span which allowed for substantial distortion. Unlike the Quran, which was both written and memorized during Muhammad’s life, hadiths remained oral traditions for generations, increasing the error, exaggeration, and fabrication.

Political and sectarian factors further complicate the picture. The early centuries of Islam were marked by intense civil conflict from the Umayyads to the Abbasids and many hadiths were allegedly created to serve political or ideological goals. Competing factions even issued contradictory hadiths to bolster their claims. Legal schools such as the Hanafi and Shafi’i often cited different hadiths to justify opposing rulings. Even Bukhari and Muslim dismissed hundreds of thousands of narrations as weak or fabricated. As the renowned Islamicist Ignaz Goldziher observed, “The bulk of the hadith is not the word of the Prophet but the expression of the religious, legal, and political thought of the first two centuries of Islam.”

The isnād system, is extremely flawed. A flawless chain does not guarantee the truth of the content. Narrators may have invented or borrowed isnāds to legitimize circulating reports. Some may have falsely claimed to hear hadiths from earlier authorities to gain scholarly prestige or sway legal decisions.

Hadiths conflict with the Qur’an, contradict one another, or contain scientifically inaccurate or ethically troubling content. If all ṣaḥīḥ (authentic) hadiths truly reflect the Prophet’s teachings, how do such inconsistencies persist?

Another issue lies in the nature of oral transmission. Although Arabs of the time had remarkable memory skills, modern cognitive science shows memory is inherently fallible. With hundreds of thousands of narrations in circulation, perfect recall becomes implausible, especially across generations of oral repetition.

Furthermore, early hadith scholars themselves often rejected each other’s narrations. Differences in standards, regional biases, and theological leanings led to disagreements over what constituted a trustworthy source. For example, a narrator accepted in Medina might be rejected in Kufa. Hadith critics like Yahya ibn Ma‘in and Ibn Hibban frequently labeled narrators as da‘if (weak), munkar (unacceptable), or even kadhdhāb (liar). Narrators once respected were later blacklisted.

These divergences till today play out across legal schools as well. Hanafis were cautious of hadiths with solitary chains, while Malikis prioritized the lived practice of the people of Medina over some textual reports. The result was that one scholar’s authentic hadith could be another’s rejected claim. From a critical standpoint, this undermines the notion of a universally agreed-upon and infallibly preserved hadith canon. On the other hand, traditionalists argue that such rigorous scrutiny proves the intellectual integrity of the hadith tradition.

At the heart of this debate lies a deeper theological question: does the Quran command Muslims to follow hadiths?

Traditionalists argue yes, citing verses such as:
“O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you...” (Surah An-Nisa 4:59)

“Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatever he forbids you, abstain from it...” (Surah Al-Hashr 59:7) I am only providing the end of the entire verse as this is the partially quoted verse the traditionalists like to give most, not fully posting the verse as it would make it clear that the verse has nothing to do with hadith.

They contend that since the Prophet is no longer alive, obeying him means following the hadiths that record his teachings.

However, these verses refer specifically to the Prophet's living authority and not to posthumously compiled narrations. The Qur’an itself never directs Muslims to follow any “hadith” in the sense of external reports. On the contrary, the Qur’an often uses the word “hadith” in ways that appear to warn against relying on alternative sources of religious guidance:

“These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what ḥadīth after Allah and His verses will they believe?” (Surah Al-Jathiyah 45:6)

“...Then in what ḥadīth after this will they believe?” (Surah Al-A‘raf 7:185)

“Allah has sent down the best ḥadīth: a Book...” (Surah Al-Zumar 39:23)

The Qur’an’s repeated self-description as fully detailed and complete:

“Shall I seek a judge other than Allah while it is He who has sent down to you the Book explained in detail?” (Surah Al-An‘am 6:114)

“...And We have sent down to you the Book as clarification for all things...” (Surah Al-Nahl 16:89)

“We have not neglected in the Book a thing...” (Surah Al-An‘am 6:38)

Reliance on hadiths contradicts the Quran’s claim to be the sole, comprehensive source of guidance.

In sum, the hadith literature is a complex and contested body of texts. At best it offers insight into early Islamic thought and history, its authenticity and authority remain the subject of serious academic and theological debate. Taking all of this into consideration, hadith is nothing but a flawed and un unreliable supplement to the Quran

In other words this Pervaizi Qadiyanis is saying:

1. Don't worship Allah
2. There is no such thing as salah
3. There is no fast or sawm
4. There is no hajj
5. There's no zakah
6. There is no nikah for marriage
7. There's no prayers or rituals for the dead ones
8. Rasool SAW is not خاتم النبيين
9. Don't try to understand Quran via Arabic language
10. Don't follow traditional scholars of Islam

In other words live your life like atheists.

 

[jigrot]

The reliability of hadith is a subject of heated debate among academic historians. While hadith collections such as Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are revered in traditional Islam, critics raise significant concerns regarding their authenticity.

One major point of contention is the historical gap between the Prophet’s lifetime and the compilation of these texts. The most trusted hadith collections were compiled some 200 to 250 years after the Prophet’s death, a span which allowed for substantial distortion. Unlike the Quran, which was both written and memorized during Muhammad’s life, hadiths remained oral traditions for generations, increasing the error, exaggeration, and fabrication.

Political and sectarian factors further complicate the picture. The early centuries of Islam were marked by intense civil conflict from the Umayyads to the Abbasids and many hadiths were allegedly created to serve political or ideological goals. Competing factions even issued contradictory hadiths to bolster their claims. Legal schools such as the Hanafi and Shafi’i often cited different hadiths to justify opposing rulings. Even Bukhari and Muslim dismissed hundreds of thousands of narrations as weak or fabricated. As the renowned Islamicist Ignaz Goldziher observed, “The bulk of the hadith is not the word of the Prophet but the expression of the religious, legal, and political thought of the first two centuries of Islam.”

The isnād system, is extremely flawed. A flawless chain does not guarantee the truth of the content. Narrators may have invented or borrowed isnāds to legitimize circulating reports. Some may have falsely claimed to hear hadiths from earlier authorities to gain scholarly prestige or sway legal decisions.

Hadiths conflict with the Qur’an, contradict one another, or contain scientifically inaccurate or ethically troubling content. If all ṣaḥīḥ (authentic) hadiths truly reflect the Prophet’s teachings, how do such inconsistencies persist?

Another issue lies in the nature of oral transmission. Although Arabs of the time had remarkable memory skills, modern cognitive science shows memory is inherently fallible. With hundreds of thousands of narrations in circulation, perfect recall becomes implausible, especially across generations of oral repetition.

Furthermore, early hadith scholars themselves often rejected each other’s narrations. Differences in standards, regional biases, and theological leanings led to disagreements over what constituted a trustworthy source. For example, a narrator accepted in Medina might be rejected in Kufa. Hadith critics like Yahya ibn Ma‘in and Ibn Hibban frequently labeled narrators as da‘if (weak), munkar (unacceptable), or even kadhdhāb (liar). Narrators once respected were later blacklisted.

These divergences till today play out across legal schools as well. Hanafis were cautious of hadiths with solitary chains, while Malikis prioritized the lived practice of the people of Medina over some textual reports. The result was that one scholar’s authentic hadith could be another’s rejected claim. From a critical standpoint, this undermines the notion of a universally agreed-upon and infallibly preserved hadith canon. On the other hand, traditionalists argue that such rigorous scrutiny proves the intellectual integrity of the hadith tradition.

At the heart of this debate lies a deeper theological question: does the Quran command Muslims to follow hadiths?

Traditionalists argue yes, citing verses such as:
“O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you...” (Surah An-Nisa 4:59)

“Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatever he forbids you, abstain from it...” (Surah Al-Hashr 59:7) I am only providing the end of the entire verse as this is the partially quoted verse the traditionalists like to give most, not fully posting the verse as it would make it clear that the verse has nothing to do with hadith.

They contend that since the Prophet is no longer alive, obeying him means following the hadiths that record his teachings.

However, these verses refer specifically to the Prophet's living authority and not to posthumously compiled narrations. The Qur’an itself never directs Muslims to follow any “hadith” in the sense of external reports. On the contrary, the Qur’an often uses the word “hadith” in ways that appear to warn against relying on alternative sources of religious guidance:

“These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what ḥadīth after Allah and His verses will they believe?” (Surah Al-Jathiyah 45:6)

“...Then in what ḥadīth after this will they believe?” (Surah Al-A‘raf 7:185)

“Allah has sent down the best ḥadīth: a Book...” (Surah Al-Zumar 39:23)

The Qur’an’s repeated self-description as fully detailed and complete:

“Shall I seek a judge other than Allah while it is He who has sent down to you the Book explained in detail?” (Surah Al-An‘am 6:114)

“...And We have sent down to you the Book as clarification for all things...” (Surah Al-Nahl 16:89)

“We have not neglected in the Book a thing...” (Surah Al-An‘am 6:38)

Reliance on hadiths contradicts the Quran’s claim to be the sole, comprehensive source of guidance.

In sum, the hadith literature is a complex and contested body of texts. At best it offers insight into early Islamic thought and history, its authenticity and authority remain the subject of serious academic and theological debate. Taking all of this into consideration, hadith is nothing but a flawed and un unreliable supplement to the Quran

Your argument misunderstands both the Quraan and the role of Hadith. The Quraan commands:

"Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it; whatever he forbids you, abstain."
Surah Al-Hashr 59:7

"He who obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah."
Surah An-Nisa 4:80

Hadith is how we follow the Prophet (pbuh) after his death, without it, you lose the method of prayer, zakat rules, and Hajj rituals, none of which are detailed in the Quraan alone.

Yes, fabrications existed but scholars like Bukhari rejected hundreds of thousands of weak narrations, proving the integrity of Islamic scholarship, not its failure.

The word “ḥadith” in verses like 45:6 refers to idle talk, not Prophetic sayings. The Quraan never tells us to reject the Prophet’s guidance, it tells us to follow him.

To deny Hadith is to deny the Messenger, and that is not Islam. Follow Islam completely, not selectively

"But no, by your Lord, they will not truly believe until they make you (O Prophet) judge..."
Surah An-Nisa 4:65

 

[Citizen X]

"Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it; whatever he forbids you, abstain."
Surah Al-Hashr 59:7

"He who obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah."
Surah An-Nisa 4:80

Pretty obvious from these two quotes that you did not read my post, since I addressed both of them, so pretty disingenuous commenting on the post without even reading it. At least have that much honesty.

Hadith is how we follow the Prophet (pbuh) after his death

We are not suppose to follow a dead prophet but rather an ever living God through the book he revealed to use via the messenger.

you lose the method of prayer, zakat rules, and Hajj rituals, none of which are detailed in the Quraan alone.

Quran 5:3 Today I have perfected your faith for you, completed My favour upon you, and chosen Islam as your way.

Quran 6:114 Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed?

Quran 6:38 “We have not neglected in the Book a thing...”

So you think Allah was kidding around when he revealed these verses saying he has completed the deen and the Quran which is a fully detailed book which has not neglected anything regards to your deen. So if you let go of your biased and indoctrinated thinking for just one moment and reflect on these verses you will realize that anything which came after the Quran or is not mentioned in the Quran is NOT part of the deen, no matter how much you want it to be or no matter how many people tell you it is.

Yes, fabrications existed but scholars like Bukhari rejected hundreds of thousands of weak narrations, proving the integrity of Islamic scholarship, not its failure.

To be exact according to the stories he rejected over 99% of the hadith. Would you buy tires for your child's bike if the factory that produced them had a rejection rate of 99% or from a factory that had a 0% rejection rate. And I wont go into detail because this facet has been discussed many times here that how it is humanly impossible to do what Bukhari has said to have done or that Bukhari itself does not fit the grade of sahih ( you can check out my previous thread on how I unravel Bukharis "authenticity" using your own classical sources)

The Quraan never tells us to reject the Prophet’s guidance, The Quraan never tells us to reject the Prophet’s guidance, it tells us to follow him.

Again if you would have read my post you would have read this part as well

However, these verses refer specifically to the Prophet's living authority and not to posthumously compiled narrations. The Qur’an itself never directs Muslims to follow any “hadith” in the sense of external reports. On the contrary, the Qur’an often uses the word “hadith” in ways that appear to warn against relying on alternative sources of religious guidance:

To deny Hadith is to deny the Messenger,

WRONG! And you cannot prove it either, no matter how hard you try. In fact by not following these hadith you are following the prophet more closely because what did the follow alone? Did he follow Prophet Ibrahim's hadith since he was asked to follow Prophet Ibrahim millat and where is Ibrahim's hadith? Or did he follow Prophets Musa's hadith. What does the Quran mean when it says Suhufu Ibrahima wa Musa? Why can't we find any hadith from any other prophets? Were their people not told to follow them? And we are told to follow all prophets

"Say: We believe in Allah, and what was revealed to us, and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and what was given to Moses and Jesus, and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we submit."
— Surah Al-Baqarah (2:136)

Where are all their hadiths so we can believe in them!

Follow Islam completely, not selectively

Which includes not doing shirk even after explicitly warns against it by adding external manmade sources as scriptures and following it rather than the Quran

I appreciate the time you took the time to respond to my post. Should have taken a little more and read it too.

 

[Wake up Pak]

Surah Al-Hashr 59:7 Read the few verses before this verse, the verse about taking what the Messenger gives you, refers to war booty, not ahadith.
Surah An-Nisa 4:80. There are several verses about obeying the messenger & Allah, which do not imply that we have to follow ahadith.
The Messenger was to deliver the Quran alone. If he uttered any other teachings. God would have punished him.
[69:40] This (Quran) is the utterance of an honorable messenger. [69:41] Not the utterance of a poet; rarely do you believe. [69:42] Nor the utterance of a soothsayer; rarely do you take heed. [69:43] A revelation from the Lord of the universe. [69:44] Had he uttered any other teachings? [69:45] We would have punished him. [69:46] We would have stopped the revelations to him. [69:47] None of you could have helped him.

Obeying the Messenger means obeying the Quran.
In all the verses where obey the Messenger is used, Allah never addresses obeying Mohammad or Nabi. The reason is that the message (The Quran) is connected with the Messenger.
jigrot observer-x

 

[Wake up Pak]

Citizen X

 

[observer-x]

Obeying the Messenger means obeying the Quran.
In all the verses where obey the Messenger is used, Allah never addresses obeying Mohammad or Nabi. The reason is that the message (The Quran) is connected with the Messenger.

Its incorrect at so many levels. Only shows ignorance of Pervaizi Qadiyanis.

Why would Allah repeat the same thing twice if they'd mean the same. Following Quran and following Messenger SAW has two different meanings, one is following Word of Allah and second one is the practical implementation of Quran that Messenger SAW showed with his actions.

All their arguments are flawed at the core.

 

[Wake up Pak]

I do not know why am I seeing moron observer-x posts.
Ignorants like observer-x with zero intellect don't even know that the verse says" Obey", not "Follow".
Undoubtedly, the command to "obey God and the messenger," which appears in several Quranic verses, such as 3:32, is one of the most important Quranic commands! Hadith scholars use this command to advocate the legality of following the hadith as a source of religious jurisdiction. They claim that obeying God is achieved by obeying the Quran, while obeying the messenger is achieved by obeying his hadith.
Obeying the Messenger means obeying the Quran.
In all the verses where obey the Messenger is used, Allah never addresses obeying Mohammad or Nabi. The reason is that the message (The Quran) is connected with the Messenger.
The Messenger is not alive, so we cannot obey him, but if we were living during his lifetime, we would have obeyed his commands as the supreme leader of the Quran.

 

[observer-x]

I do not know why am I seeing moron observer-x posts.

So that you keep getting thrashed every time for your falsehood you follower of shaytan.

Ignorants like observer-x with zero intellect don't even know that the verse says" Obey", not "Follow".

Only for your tiny brain, replace obey and follow Allah the reasoning still applies. Keep going around semantics it'd not change the fact that you hackel and jackel are misguided followers of shaytan.

 

[Citizen X]

Citizen X

Not much of a fan of poetry but wah Bulleh shah ne baat to bohat dhadi ki hai. I

 

[Wake up Pak]