Answering Christianity Research Center

I've seen people nowadays deny hadith altogether and only accept the Quran,so I'll refute them one by one,and also their claims.
So first let me refute them from their roots,that Muhammad SAW is not needed for the Quran.
First of all Muhammad SAW is VERY important according to the Quran itself,infact he is the main model for the Muslims.
According to Surah al Sajda,verse 21
"There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day and [who] remembers Allah often."
This pattern that the Quran mentions is not to be found in the Quran,but in the hadith,then my argument of interpretation comes,which the Quranist can never escape,and it destroys the Quranist from his roots
"And We revealed to you [O Muhammad] the message [Qur’an] that you may make clear to the people what was sent down to them and that they might give thought."[Qur’an 16:44]
This says the Prophet SAW himself was COMMANDED to interpret the Quran,the Interpretation is not in the Quran,but the hadith,nowhere else will you find it,except in the hadith
Muhammad SAW also has been made for Muslims a Judge,as seen in this verse
"But no, by your Lord, they will not [truly] believe until they make you, [O Muhammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission." [Qur’an 4:65]
So nor is Muhammad SAWs judgement found in the Quran,but in the hadith,now to my other 3 arguments before I get to refuting claims.
My argument is that,the Quran never tells you you can't have sex with a five year old,only hadith forbids that,the Quran tells you beat your wife,but the Hadith explains and says not to beat your wife very harshly,but very lightly.
Infact the Quran supports the hadith,and says there was a revelation,a revelation NOT INSIDE the Quran,infact outside the Quran,this outside revelation is mentioned in Surah an najm
Your companion [Muhammad] has not strayed, nor has he erred,"(53:2)
"Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination."(53:3)
"It is not but a revelation revealed,"(53:4)
"Taught to him by one intense in strength -"(53:5)
"One of soundness. And he rose to [his] true form"(53:6)
This whole description of the revelation,fits with the hadith.
And my last one is that the Prophet SAWs commandments are important,and the commandments arent in the Quran,but the hadith
“And let those who oppose the Messenger's (Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)) commandment (i.e. his Sunnah— legal ways, orders, acts of worship, statements) (among the sects) beware, lest some Fitnah (disbelief, trials, afflictions, earthquakes, killing, overpowered by a tyrant) should befall them or a painful torment be inflicted on them”
[an-Noor 24:63].
Now to the verses the Hadith-rejector provides,and once this has been refuted,we can conclude.
This is the most quoted verse by Quranists,Quran 6:114-5.
This first of all,is an error by the Quranist
The verse says Anyone who does shirk,and seeks Judges other than Allah
"[Say], "Then is it other than Allah I should seek as judge while it is He who has revealed to you the Book explained in detail?" And those to whom We [previously] gave the Scripture know that it is sent down from your Lord in truth, so never be among the doubters."(6:114)
And the book explained in detail,who explained this book in detail,and where is this explanation found?
The Quran says the Messenger SAW explained it
":And We revealed to you [O Muhammad] the message [Qur’an] that you may make clear to the people what was sent down to them and that they might give thought. [Qur’an 16:44]"
So therefore it can only mean the hadith,and not the Quran only.
Now the second argument that they bring up,Is how do we know the hadith are true??
First of all,how do we know the Quran are true? through chain of narration,afcourse the Quran has a solid chain of narration and therefore due to that it is unchanged, and we have the earliest Quran aswell.
Same is with the hadith,The hadith was transmitted through solid chain of narration,we first look at,and then look at classical commentaries on these narrations,then decide which hadith is true or not, And we have As Sahifa Us Sadiqa,which was a hadith written by Sahabi Abdullah Bin Amr Al A'as. R.A
Now claiming these ways donot lead us to truth is an absurdity,thats like saying,Quran doesn't lead us to truth,we know these hadith are true due to their historical and narrative authenticity,not due to a presupposition a hadith rejector makes.
Therefore we can conclude.
That The hadith is indeed a authentic Islamic source and is indeed a outside-revelation that Muslims must follow in light of the Quran.

"Your companion [Muhammad] has not strayed, nor has he erred,"(53:2)
"Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination."(53:3)
"It is not but a revelation revealed,"(53:4)
"Taught to him by one intense in strength -"(53:5)
"One of soundness. And he rose to [his] true form"(53:6)

The Companions were the ones who narrated the hadith,and not only that The Quran is clear in its wording,The Companion has not erred or strayed,so therefore the Hadith must be true,as they are from the Companions.
And his revelation was specifically revealed to the Prophet SAW,and it never says the revelation is in the Quran. infact it says a Sahabi was taught this revelations,in which he made it into a narration.

So therefore this can only be the hadith,nothing else.

It's very likely since his work does seem to be authentic in its interpretation and proof-full Insha Allah someone more qualified will also look into this

There’s no proof of this anywhere,nor is there any example so we call this an assumption.

And Makoraba is mecca,now you may ask,Why is it off coordinates?
The solution is below.

If we suppose that Macoraba is Mecca, there is a slight problem with its coordinates. Ptolemy puts it southeast of Yathrib; Mecca is southwest. Even before 1800 Konrad Mannert noticed that Macoraba was too far from the coast and offered a solution: Ptolemy’s sources knew Mecca from the overland caravan route, and had never approached the town from the coast. Of course, we don’t know where Ptolemy’s information ultimately came from; but even this solution may be too elaborate, because in general it seems that Ptolemy had more trouble calculating longitude than latitude, meaning that his towns are more accurately positioned north-south than east-west.

This had decisive consequences for his geography of Arabia. Dūmat al-Jandal (Dumaitha) is indeed further north than Taymā’ (Thaima), which is further north than al-Ḥijr (Egra), Yathrib (Lathrippa), and Najrān (Nagara); but then Ptolemy puts Najrān way out east in the middle of the peninsula. The overall effect is to push towns away from the coast, crowding the heart of the peninsula and practically erasing the Empty Quarter of harsh desert in the southeast. Under these constraints, Macoraba’s location with respect to Mecca may be considered within a margin of error.

But we should be cautious. This margin of error is not itself evidence that Macoraba is Mecca; it merely opens the door for investigation. As this blog series will show, some of the ancient names that have been associated with Mecca are most likely in the region of the Sinai and the Gulf of Aqaba, or down by Oman and the Hadramawt. Macoraba has the virtue of at least being placed in the Hijaz, but imprecisely. We should heed Patricia Crone’s advice: “Naturally, Pliny’s longitudes and latitudes are inexact; but if they are inexact, one cannot identify places on the basis of them alone.”

Also

http://www.muslimheritage.com/article/from-petra-back-to-makka

They were given an expedient (anything between east and west in a southerly direction and with the technology of that time within 9 degrees when they tried. Quite good I say. I know Dan Gibson thinks they were super Arabs that had precise science that would allow them to exactly point to an area. Yeah sure and evidence?. So what is the problem?

This explanation fits the late antique context, the non Muslim testimony, the archaeological data and the collective memory of all the Muslims

So there is your explanation why mosques in this period didn’t precisely point to Mecca

Now here is your self defeating proposition. Please provide me with the coordinates from an academic source on the ground of one mosque that precisely points to Petra. Go for it! Significant number of data available (from academic sources) if you bothered.

“It demonstrates at the very least that Islam was EVOLVING”

Just love this . Nope in the words of Hoyland

“The issue then may not be so much what the Muslims were directing themselves towards, as how they established what that direction was. Here one must differentiate between the calculation of the direction for congregational mosques and its estimation for individuals, private prayer places and so on. The latter was always likely to be inaccurate whereas the former was likely to be depend on the current state of astronomical science and its correct application. From the late eighth century onwards we find Muslim astronomers busily devising trigonometric and geometric solutions to the problem of determining the Qibla for any given locality……The problem was that “the greater the distance involved, the greater the error in the qibla”

There you go and data on the ground has not changed since Hoyland mentioned this in the late 90’s

Islam isn’t evolving, its the technology. Get it ?

Do you ever bring a argument that can Quranically be suppored?