Many Muslims we come across on this site are anti hadiths, they prefer to rely solely on the Quran. Probably they're embarassed by all the misogyny, absurdity, violence & unpleasant acts committed by Muhammad described in the Hadiths. I found this link describing the fallacies of the anti hadith position. http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1846
The main thrust of this article, as I understand it is that, Muslims are supposed to not only follow the Quran but also Prophet Muhammad's conduct to the best of their ability & that is impossible without the hadiths. While I certainly consider Muhammad's character in the hadiths to be extremely unpleasant & consider him a poor role model, Muslims are advised many times in the Quran, supposedly by "Allah" to follow Muhammad as well as Allah.
You have indeed in the Messenger of God as good example for him who looks forward to God and the Last Day and remembers God much (33:21)
Obey Allah and obey the Prophet (5:92),
Whoever obeys the Prophet, he has obeyed Allah (4:80).
Notice the proximity with divinity that the Quran accords Muhammad! Since the Quran doesn't describe Muhammad's life, the only way for Muslims to learn about it & follow his example is through hadiths.
What other fallacies can you thin of in the anti hadith position? Or is the anti hadith position theologically grounded & sound?
One problem in the anti hadith position that I thought & that I posted on another thread is this, Muslims think that by restricting themselves to the Quran all the violence, absurdity & misogyny in their faith will simply disappear, just like Christians' think that by restricting themselves to the NT, or even just to Jesus' words, all the unsavoury elements will vanish.
Unfortunately Allah's words in the Quran isn't some great reservoir of gender equality or religious tolerance-& once Muslims decide to strictly restrict themselves strictly to the Quran, any unsavoury elements in the Quran will probably make themselves turn away from the faith in entirety.
We can ask them them to stop praying five times daily & going to Hajj-I doubt they'll want to abandon these practices. If they still stick to their Quran only position, then there's the verse about wife beating-4.34, if they say that the verse says to beat with a "miswak" then point out that miswak is there in the hadiths-the Quran simply says to "beat" & there is no lightly in the original verse, till Yusuf Ali added lightly in brackets in the 20th century. Allah never said lightly in the Quran, He simply said, "beat" in the Quran, as "lightly" or "harshly" as the husband pleased.
Then ask them why one half of the Quran consists of somewhat more tolerant verses like, "There is no compulsion in religion..." while the later verses are full of instructions to murder "unbelievers". Probably they'll start explaining that the later verses were revealed in a war situation(unless they're Osama fans, who wholeheratedly support the later verses! ) & you can then point out that its impossible to understand a "war situation" without reference to Hadiths & left only with the Quran we come across earlier verses preaching grudging tolerance, later verses preaching murderous intolerance & the way out of this contradiction in the Quran is the doctrine of "abrogation" which cancels out the peaceful verses & leaves only the violent ones
Ironically, this makes the "Quran only" position more intolerant than the Quran + hadiths + sira position, in the latter case Muslims can argue that Mo fought in self defence & the "Verses of the Sword" were revealed when Muslims were repeatedly attacked.