ZethaPonderer

Hi ZethaPonderer,
Quote: The Trinity Theology is one of the most confusing theologies to grace Christianity. There is a reason why I consider Christianity to be The Black Sheep of The Abrahamic Religions despite their strong affinity in their undying love for Prophet Jesus/Isa (عليه السلام). The Trinity Theology simply put does not make sense given this famous model.
Response: --- From the time I saw this ‘famous model’ some years ago I questioned it and then began to question the trinity doctrine. To begin with, I want to give the diagram that I gave in a post on page 4, as ALMIGHTY GOD is above all, and cannot be understood as being part of those below Him.
--- To understand the names and positions, we can make a diagram that explains the relationship.
--- Cut a piece of stiff paper three or four inches square. --- With a ruler and pencil mark across the center both ways. --- Fold the paper over and crease it both ways on the lines across the center. Take a scissors and cut from one corner to the center. --- Overlap two sides and glue or paste. --- You will now have a three cornered shape with the center raised.
--- On the raised center you can write or initial ALMIGHTY GOD (Yachid).
 This is what Muslims believe, is it not, that there is ONE GOD? --- And this is the right understanding, but ALMIGHTY GOD is remote from us, we can\t attain unto Him.
--- And the three corners are identified in 1 John 5:7 “For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.”
ALMIGHTY GOD is Sovereign, Transcendent, Omnipotent (all powerful), Omniscient (all knowing), Omnipresent (ever present through His Holy Spirit), Self existent, and Self sufficient.
 ALMIGHTY GOD has attributes and abilities to create and sustain His creation by populating it with 'orders of angels' and those He commissions to representing Himself as ‘God’ in His creation.
--- The figure of “The Father” is a personable God we know as Jehovah, a heavenly Father, who can relate to mankind with names in the Scriptures like Jehovah-Jireh (Jehovah will provide); Jehovah-Shalom (Jehovah is peace);  Jehovah –Tsidkenu (Jehovah is our righteousness).
--- “The Word” (Logos) 'through whom all things were made' --- that pertain to our world. John 1:1-3.
Also in John 1:1 it says “The Word was God” (which I will explain later.)
--- And “The Holy Spirit,” the Spirit of God, --- but then, as God multiplied His creation, He also multiplied angels, they became the 'servants of God' as the ‘eyes and ears’ who monitored God’s creation as it expanded, even down to us, as it says in Hebrews 1:13   But to which of the angels has He ever said: “Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool”?
--- So we have a diagram to look at and consider, to see if this does not identify ALMIGHTY GOD as above all. --- And His organization on earth, under His angels and those He has chosen and commissioned.

Isn't the whole point of God, is that He doesn't depend on His creations on anything. But, we as His Creations depend on Him for everything even if it doesn't seem like it. Besides defining Allah through attributes is simply Humanity's limited understanding of truly perceiving Him wholly, given the belief that God is beyond Humanity's understanding according to the teachings of our 12 Imams. Imam Ali (AS)'s take on teaching What God IS within Nahjul Balagha is truly mystifying. It definitely makes me understand that I as His creation can never truly understand Him. That's what makes Him so Great. But just because I don't understand God wholly doesn't mean I should view Him as Evil per say when He is the Creator of All that is Good while Evil is the absence of Good (Similar to a Light and Darkness Motif). Evil is just as much of a creation of God alongside Good. So, God surpasses Good and Evil. He is beyond the realm of Good and Evil.
He is Great. He can do whatever He Want and Will.

The Trinity Theology is one of the most confusing theologies to grace Christianity. There is a reason why I consider Christianity to be The Black Sheep of The Abrahamic Religions despite their strong affinity in their undying love for Prophet Jesus/Isa (عليه السلام).
The Trinity Theology simply put does not make sense given this famous model,

Let's go through this model if this can be deduced logically
 
So to break it down even simpler
 
Let's assume if the Trinity theology, Prophet Jesus/Isa (AS)'s alleged crucifixion in order to die for Humanity's Sins, and we Muslims shall not be saved if we don't accept Prophet Jesus/Isa (عليه السلام) as our Lord and Savior are ALL TRUE. Here are my 3 questions and doubts which shows glaring ramifications from a spiritual perspective,
1. If Prophet Jesus/Isa (عليه السلام) truly died for Humanity's Sins then ALL of Humanity shouldn't Sin regardless of their beliefs. Period. Yet the vast majority of Humanity, including Christians who genuinely practice and preach the teachings of Jesus/Isa (عليه السلام) through the Bible, Sin regardless. Spiritually speaking, if you acknowledge and put your faith in Prophet Jesus/Isa (عليه السلام) as your Lord and Savior, you're virtually 100% guaranteed Sinless, similar to achieving salvation, in the eyes of God despite your tendencies and capabilities of Sinning afterwards. Do you have any idea how broken, illogical, and borderline unfair this spiritual perspective sounds in theory? You could be the most evil and despicable person that ever lived in the History of Mankind and still be considered 100% Sinless as long as you genuinely acknowledge and put your faith in Prophet Jesus/Isa (عليه السلام) as your Lord and Savior. This makes the whole point of taking responsibility for your actions based on your sins on top of begging God for Forgiveness completely pointless, null, superfluous, and void which is unfair because you genuinely accepted Prophet Jesus/Isa (عليه السلام) as your Lord and Savior which is the true Ultimatum of what it really means to be Christian. Christians therefore, cannot get away making such excuses for a Christian brethren not being a Christian via committing heinous crimes and sins against the Lord and amongst Mankind, if they are 100% Sinless in The Lord's Eyes and genuinely practice and preach the teachings of Prophet Jesus/Isa (عليه السلام) regardless of their sinful, wicked nature. If I sinned and never repented throughout my Life towards God committing heinous crimes and spreading evil, I should be punished and brought to justice in Hell for all eternity due to my stubborn and rigid nature.
2. If Jesus should be considered as a Son of God (which is a debated term in all 3 aspects: literal, symbolic, and metaphorical) then why can't Adam, The First Human Being Ever, be considered the Son of God regardless of the Original Sin? God created Adam directly without the need of a virgin mother. For God to not consider Prophet Adam (عليه السلام) as The Son of God is truly unfair, ungrateful, and unjust of Him within Judeo-Christian scriptures. Who cares if Adam sinned, he's still the first Human Being and makes more logical and emotionally touching sense to be considered as The True Son of God compared to Prophet Jesus/Isa (عليه السلام). The concept of the Original Sin doesn't make sense given that Christians hold a model to believe that Prophets make mistakes and sins, Adam's "Original Sin" shouldn't be considered a Sin based on the Abrahamic Religious Fact that he is The First Human Being Ever alongside Eve. It should be considered "The Original Mistake" or "The Original Misunderstanding". He didn't know he was being deceived by Satan when he ate the Forbidden Fruit nor did he had the knowledge or even experienced the concept of what Evil is unlike the Free Will Angels in Judeo-Christian scriptures who obviously came into creation way before Adam and already have experience and knowledge with the concept of Evil. He had the first experience of a Human Being. So why be so hard on Adam Christians? No respect and just borderline unfair.
3. Finally for my last question on top of my doubts, is the fact that if it is established in the Old Testament that The God of Abraham is One and Only, then why would He in the NT feel the need to split Himself into 3 entities? Many Christians would justify that because God is All Powerful, there is an emotional sentiment that God wants to understand How His Creations truly live their lives in such a Temporal State of Being. Hence, he brought Himself down into a state of 3 entities where He can truly feel and interact with Humanity through Prophet Jesus/Isa (عليه السلام) given the model that The One and Only God is also The Son. By doing something like this, this would be a way for Him to understand and empathize How different He is compared to His creations. The problem with this emotional sentiment when understanding the Trinity Theology is that God already knows the suffering, the pain, the joy, the sorrow, the determination, and the potential of what Humanity is capable of. He didn't need to bring Himself down into the realm of existence similar to an Avatar like state based on Hinduism/Sanathan Dharma in order for Humanity to understand the concept of the existence of God. God is Omnipotent and Omnipresent. He's beyond everything in this temporary state of existence. A creator always knows how His creations go throughout their trials and tribulations. It doesn't make logical sense for a Creator to step down and join alongside His creations to go through the same trials and tribulations He himself designed if He already knows and understands what they go through.

Isn't the whole point of God, is that He doesn't depend on His creations on anything. But, we as His Creations depend on Him for everything even if it doesn't seem like it. Besides defining Allah through attributes is simply Humanity's limited understanding of truly perceiving Him wholly, given the belief that God is beyond Humanity's understanding according to the teachings of our 12 Imams. Imam Ali (AS)'s take on teaching What God IS within Nahjul Balagha is truly mystifying. It definitely makes me understand that I as His creation can never truly understand Him. That's what makes Him so Great. But just because I don't understand God wholly doesn't mean I should view Him as Evil per say when He is the Creator of All that is Good while Evil is the absence of Good (Similar to a Light and Darkness Motif). Evil is just as much of a creation of God alongside Good. So, God surpasses Good and Evil. He is beyond the realm of Good and Evil.
He is Great. He can do whatever He Want and Will.

Isn't the whole point of God, is that He doesn't depend on His creations on anything. But, we as His Creations depend on Him for everything even if it doesn't seem like it. Besides defining Allah through attributes is simply Humanity's limited understanding of truly perceiving Him wholly, given the belief that God is beyond Humanity's understanding according to the teachings of our 12 Imams. Imam Ali (AS)'s take on teaching What God IS within Nahjul Balagha is truly mystifying. It definitely makes me understand that I as His creation can never truly understand Him. That's what makes Him so Great. But just because I don't understand God wholly doesn't mean I should view Him as Evil per say when He is the Creator of All that is Good while Evil is the absence of Good (Similar to a Light and Darkness Motif). Evil is just as much of a creation of God alongside Good. So, God surpasses Good and Evil. He is beyond the realm of Good and Evil.
He is Great. He can do whatever He Want and Will.

Here's another poignant, but very empathetic video about the horrific ramifications of time traveling into the past.
 
Anyway, my vote is that Time Traveling into the Future in a sense where you slow down or speed up time is real due to Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Time Dilation.
But, Time Traveling into the Past is simply impossible given such time paradoxes like the Grandfather's Paradox and the Bootstrap Paradox.
Now why did I make this topic in an Off-Topic discussion. Because a part of me wishes I could undo my sins, and shortcomings (be they intentional or not) by going back in time and preventing myself from committing acts of sins (both intentional and unintentional) and overcoming my faults/shortcomings given that I'm fallible and all like any other Human Being.
But there's also another part of me that says how will I grow as a person by doing something like that and just accept my fate in Hell. I am not worthy deserving Heaven, but I also don't want to go to Hell deep down due to my own sins and shortcomings (intentional or not). But, if I must go to Hell, then so be it if it will please the God of Abraham. I'll still worship Him in Hell regardless.

What do Muslims think of such a concept to travel back in time?
Last time I checked (no pun intended), time moves forward. Not backwards. If it's possible to move back in time, imagine the number of time paradoxes that would ensue. Imagine just how much devastation it would cause when Non-Muslims would use such a means to travel back not only in the time period of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), but also in the time period of Jesus/Isa (عليه السلام), Ibrahim/Abraham (عليه السلام), and any of the previous prophet's timelines to simply kill them all given their nature of disbelief, discrediting the Religion of The One and Only God which would cause a radical change in the present and future timelines.
Personally I'm just glad and grateful to Allah that this time travel is just a theory. Theories are subject to change over time and can't necessarily prove something to be true at face value as long as there's scrutiny.

This is an interesting debacle from a sociological perspective where what matters in a social setting is your Actions and not what your Intentions were. Actions are outwardly displayed and are open to interpretation while Intentions are inwardly displayed and are nearly impossible to tell.
Take a Non-Muslim who clearly is having strong intentions living up to their selective and confirmation biases against Islam by relying upon bad interpretations and translations of the Quran and the Hadiths on top of being a cherry picker and disrespecting Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) to justify his biases against Islam being an evil religion brought by Satan.
In Action he/she/they want to be portrayed and displayed openly as pretty nice people all around to everyone including Muslims despite their intentions which is hidden and they make sure to keep it that way to confuse people.
Soo where do we draw the line exactly? Are Human Beings as a whole all being hypocritical when having different intentions but acting completely different to their intentions which is contrary.
Steadfastness and being in sync with your Intentions and Actions are important. Sure it makes you a very predictable and boring person, but its better than (God Forbid) a Hypocrite.
I do have a hard time understanding this topic, but what I do wish to be in sync with having Good Intentions and Acting Good all around to people. Sometimes, Human Beings are just not in sync. I wonder why? Going through miserable times, and being confused? Probably.

This is an interesting debacle from a sociological perspective where what matters in a social setting is your Actions and not what your Intentions were. Actions are outwardly displayed and are open to interpretation while Intentions are inwardly displayed and are nearly impossible to tell.
Take a Non-Muslim who clearly is having strong intentions living up to their selective and confirmation biases against Islam by relying upon bad interpretations and translations of the Quran and the Hadiths on top of being a cherry picker and disrespecting Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) to justify his biases against Islam being an evil religion brought by Satan.
In Action he/she/they want to be portrayed and displayed openly as pretty nice people all around to everyone including Muslims despite their intentions which is hidden and they make sure to keep it that way to confuse people.
Soo where do we draw the line exactly? Are Human Beings as a whole all being hypocritical when having different intentions but acting completely different to their intentions which is contrary.
Steadfastness and being in sync with your Intentions and Actions are important. Sure it makes you a very predictable and boring person, but its better than (God Forbid) a Hypocrite.
I do have a hard time understanding this topic, but what I do wish to be in sync with having Good Intentions and Acting Good all around to people. Sometimes, Human Beings are just not in sync. I wonder why? Going through miserable times, and being confused? Probably.

I've stumbled upon this particular ideal that some Western people hold on to on top of these articles that elaborates somewhat on the subject matter.
https://www.hudson.org/research/7498-anti-anti-islamism
https://caugustelliott.com/2016/03/21/anti-anti-islam/
Most of the people from the West are typically Anti-Islamists e.g. David Wood, Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali regurgitating the same rhetoric through their own confirmation, selective, and genetically fallacious biases against Islam. Such people most likely rely upon using the Bad Translations of the Quran, the Hadiths, along with their lack of understanding (AKA being willfully ignorant) the Arabic Language to justify their stance on Islam being an evil Religion brought by Satan.
Anti Anti-Islamism is something different. It basically can be considered an ideal at best or a conspiracy theory at worst where people who subscribe to Anti-Islamism are just exaggerating how evil Islam is and how this religion is hell bent on world domination just like the Anti-Communists as I quote given the websites I've listed in question,
This sounds interesting. What do you all think of this?

Kumail is not a sahabi
AL ashtar was a muslim at time of prophet but did not see him so not a sahabi 
@ZethaPonderer
your idea is worthy of praise i.e let's find the common sahaba we both respect and build on that but in practical purposes the average 12er imami shia are only interested in the "faithful" sahaba  so long as it makes the supporters of abu bakr / umar look bad 
Classic example is Malik b nuwaira if he was such a faithful subject of Ali then why is that the most recorded opposition on his death is by his brother, umar and Abu qatada ?
 
For 12er shias almost all sahaba good or bad are largely irrelevant because
1 very few of their hadith depend on them unlike sunnis , most shia hadith rely on companions of later imams 
2 the concept of companionship is made largely irrelevant by imamate in their eyes , like who needs a old landline phone in age of smart phones 
That being said 12er imami scholars have compiled excellent biographies of these sahaba but they draw upon a lot of proto shia works and serve largely an academic purpose.
 

Btw, I forgot to add furthermore quotes of what other statements this Sunni Muslim has made against me which I quote him the following,
Basically this is his rebuttal for why he won’t accept Ghadir Khum as not just a Mutawattir graded Hadith, but a Hadith deserving of being studied at all under Sunni Islam Theology to see if this Hadith lives up to the Quranic Exegesis.
And this last quote of his is just being stubborn and determined to live up to his expectations against Shia Muslims as the filthy Majoosi Mushrikeen Raafidas they are in their eyes.
There is a lesson I’ve learned from this Sunni Muslim, “Takfiri is far worse for the Muslim Ummah than Taqqiya”. The practice of Takfiri defeats the concept of Unity that Islam emphasizes throughout the Quran. And while I may not be among those Shias who curse the likes of the 3 Caliphs who usurped Imam Ali (عليه السلام) leadership position on top of Aisha; I do criticize such people amongst the Sahaabas that have displayed such disrespectful, disloyal actions against the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and his family given the Hadith Al-Kisa (The Cloak). Why? BECAUSE it is irrational and against Human Nature to presume 100% of the Sahaabas of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) were Faithful and Loyal to him. Some had to be Faithless.
Criticism =/= Disrespect, Slandering, or Cursing.
Not all Sahaabas of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) WERE Sahaabas of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

I cannot count how many times those questions came around in so called debates with sunnis. 
 

Innama waliyyukumu Allahuwarasooluhu wallatheena amanoo allatheenayuqeemoona assalata wayu/toona azzakatawahum rakiAAoon
“Certainly your guardian(Wali) is Allah and His Messenger and those who believe who establish prayer and give charity while they bow.” Quran chapter 5 verse 55
 
O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as guardians. They are [in fact] gurdians of one another. And whoever takes them as an guardian to them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people. Surah 5:51
 
Surah 5:51 is about guardianship telling Muslims not to take the Jews and Christians as guardians and if they do they become one of them. If you translate it to friends then the prophet is in trouble and many Muslims are in trouble.  in surah 5:5 Muslims are allowed to go to the further extent on marrying from the non-believers (I.e people of the book) so being friends with the people of the book is allowed and we can see that also in the prophets lifestyle an example is the king in abbasinia who gave Muslims protection.  We can see that surah 5:51 is about guardianship in surah 5:55 Allah tells us who take as guardians and verse 56 tells us this those who take Allah and the prophet and those who believe( reference to Ali) will be triumphant.
Surah 5:56
“And whosoever takes Allah, His Messenger, and those who have believe, as guardians, indeed the party of Allah will be triumphant.”
Allah used the term “believe” as reference to imam Ali ((عليه السلام)) infact everytime the Quran mentions “O you who believe” “claimed to be believe” the first foremost and he cheif of them is imam Ali ((عليه السلام)).
 
Sunni documents agree that at least 300 verses of Qur’an directly revealed on the honor of Imam ‘Ali. (reported by Ibn Asakir, al-Suyuti, Ibn Hajar, etc.) Beside that that, Ibn Abbas said:
"There is no verse in Qur’an in which the term ‘Believers’, unless ‘Ali is at the top of them and the chief of them and the more virtuous one among them. Surely Allah has admonished the companions of Muhammad (S) in Qur’an, but He did not refer to ‘Ali except with honor."
Sunni references:
- Fadha’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p654, tradition #1114
- al-Riyadh al-Nadhirah, by Muhibbuddin al-Tabari, v3, p229
- Tarikh al-Khulafaa, by al-Hafidh Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, p171
- Dhakha’ir al-Uqba, by Muhibbuddin al-Tabari, p89
- al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami, Ch. 9, section 3, p196
- Others such as Tabarani and Ibn Abi Hatam
So it is definitely a reference to Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)). If it otherwise then these are the issues.
Allah is passing his guardianship to the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) then Allah’s guardianship is passed on to another category, now if that category was referring to the Muslims then every Muslim would be saying to each other they are masters over each other and this will lead to chaos and massive disputes, obviously that is irrational and illogical. 
Now the part where it says “those who believe who establish prayer and give charity while they bow” in this part the verse is speaking in plural form but then it says “establish prayer and give charity while they bow”  no Muslim gives Zakat while they are bowing in prayer, this verse is obviously talking about someone. The word “those” and  “they” in the verse is used in a plural of respect/royalty this was used to honour imam Ali and elevate his status on being the guardian of the believers after the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)).
Here sunni reference showing surah 5:55 was revealed about imam Ali ((عليه السلام))
Sunni tasfir on Quran 5:55
1-Tafsir al-Kabir, by Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Al-Tha’labi, under verse 5:55 
2-Tafsir al-Kabir, by Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, v6, pp186,288-289
3-Tafsir jamiul Hukam al-Qur’an, by Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Qurtubi, v6, p219
4-Tafsir al-Khazin, v2, p68
5-Tafsir al-Durr al-manthoor, by al-Suyuti, v2, pp293-294
6-Tafsir al-Kashshaf, by al-Zamakhshari, (Egypt 1373), v1,pp505,649
7-Asbab al-Nuzool, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, (Egypt 1382), v1, p73, on the authority of Ibn Abbas 
8-Asbab al-Nuzool, by al-wahidi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas 
9-Sharh al-Tjrid,by Allama Qushji
10-Ahkam al-Qur’an, al-Jassas, v2, p542-543
11-Musnad Ahmad Ibn hanbal, v5, p38
12-Kanzul ummal, by al-Muttaqi, al-Hindi, v6, p391, tradition 5991
13-Al-Awaat, by Tabarani, narrated from Ammar Yassir 
14-Ibn mardawayh, on the authority of Ibn Abbas
 
Where in the Quran doesn’t it say to Abu baker is deserving of Caliphate??
where in the quran do any of the prophets leave their community to vote for a successor? 
Show me where Quran says Fajr is 2, Thuhurr is 4, asr is 4, mighrib is 3, Isha is 4???
We’re not beating ourselves the way you are implying (desperate accusation), matam is completely different to beating I’m sure you know what you mean by beating.... bashing. You haven’t understood the philosophy of it.
its a way for showing grief which dates back all the way to the time of Musa and is Isa (pbut). It is very common in the Middle East. Here’s an example 
Luke 18:
9To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector.12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
13“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
14“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
also Aisha did matam on the prophets death.
 
“The messanger of Allah died on my lap. Then I got up and beat my chest.....”
Sunni references:
Al-Tabari, volume 9, page 183
 
why do you Sunnis believe killing shia is good?
Ibn Abbas said that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “O Ali, there will emerge a group from my nation who are extreme in love for the Ahlulbayt, their name is insulting, they are called the Rafidah. Fight them, for they are polytheists”. 
Sunni references: 
Majam al-Zawa’id, volume 10, page 22 with a Hassan(reliable) chain, as Ibn Hajar al-haithami and so does Albani confirm.

Hey listen. One thing came to my mind about the question that if wilayah was that important, then it should be written clearly in Quran that Ali is Imam after Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)
Wouldn't that question be valid, if Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) left only Quran as source of guidance for Muslims? ( which indeed, he did not ). 
He (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) told us to adhere to Book of Allah and Ahlebait (عليه السلام) 
That almost invalidates the Question. 

People like this just make me even more certain that the Shia path is right

" I don't think it's the fact that Muslims can't accept criticisms against Islam, but it's more about following a strict decorum for how you're supposed to address your criticisms against the Islamic religion without pissing off the un-scholarly majority"
This sounds a bit like saying, it's not that Muslims can't accept criticisms against Islam, but it's a question of how to critique Islam without pissing people off, which is to suggest that the un-scholarly majority (or majority of Muslims) get upset easily and therefore the criticisms are largely absent ( Muslims can't accept criticisms). 
Which sounds largely like an acceptance of what is being said. That there are walls around the faith and there is crushing of dissent.
And often, the scholars themselves don't necessarily want to allow open discussion. It isn't the un-scholarly majority that makes laws regarding apostasy, scholars have influence over the majority, so if there is some form of silencing of information transfer, it in large part falls on them. 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youcef_Nadarkhani
https://egyptindependent.com/pope-and-muslim-brothers-angry-bishops-remarks-quran/
Ayatollah Khomeineis fatwa against rushdie
Every so often a Shia scholar is executed in Saudi Arabia.
The intolerance is widespread and permeates both scholarly and un-scholarly bodies alike.
But even if we tried to grant your idea that it were the un-scholarly that cant take criticisms, and that the scholarly could,
I think the issue is still here. The intolerance is still there. 
The original question of this topic was, can rules for assessing Hadith, be applied to the NT?
But the question gives the impression that the level of critique of Hadith (via rules of assessment) are in some ways comparable or perhaps even superior to rules of assessment of the NT. 
And some might think, well no, the NT cannot stand up to rules of critique that Hadith undergo. Indeed this is how some answered.
But in reality, the real critique of Hadith via their assessment, is largely absent to begin with. I would say that there is an assessment of Hadith which is fine in its own way, but this assessment is more of an internal assessment, conducted by those same figures who are largely intolerant of external thought.
Which is to say that perhaps we can apply rules of assessment of Hadith to the NT, but we can't necessarily do the reverse, to apply rules of assessment of the NT to Hadith. 
And someone said earlier that sunnis and Shia can cross check one anothers Hadith and can keep each other honest. But this misses the understanding that both Shia and Sunni stand on similar fundamental perceptions about Hadith at large. Indeed they both depend on Hadith, so there is a limit to the extent they will cross check one another before the intolerance kicks in.
The lack of external examination, removes that extended investigation that is otherwise conducted within and of the NT elsewhere in the world.
So, while the OP may not have intended to post a loaded question, actually it could be perceived as a sincere question, but the answers to the question, rest upon what I would say is an uneasy foundation.
 

You could make the same argument from the likes of Acts17Apologetics (David Wood).
Religious YouTube Channels seems like a bad idea and execution all in all given the superficial entertainment the Internet as a whole promotes far more so on a global scale.
The internet is a safe haven for the likes of Atheists, and Agnostics mostly so misinformation is the bread and butter throughout. And don’t you dare express your religious beliefs on the internet. It shall be viewed as a joke throughout.
Channels like these on top of the bigotry and discrimination Non-Muslims have against Muslims are not only tests from Allah, but signs from Allah Himself.
1) Non-Muslims have the upperhand and reign supreme nowadays in this world. Muslims don’t and have become their own worst enemies. Sunnis killing Shias and vice versa due to their disagreements.
2) Non-Muslims have the advantage of discrediting ALL Religions as pointless and fruitless endeavors that won’t lead Humanity to self-satisfaction through their misinformations. They thrive and depend on misinformation in order to be firm and certain with their beliefs.
3) Non-Muslims have become strong and united while Muslims have become weak and divided.
All these 3 factors contribute to the closeness of Judgement Day. Focus on strengthening up your Beliefs based on the school of thought in Islam you wish to abide by and leave your fate up to Allah. Because as a Human Being you can only sway back and forth on top of comprehending so much out of anything in Life. We have limitations placed upon us. Surely Allah should be All-Merciful and All-Forgiving during Judgement Day.

Plus as a further note, the Hadith Qudsi tend to usually be very mystical in nature, so I tend to think that they serve a role like with the Imamah itself of concealing the Batin aspects of Iman, ilm, and basically metaphysics in general - as with devotion, prayer, Dhikr especially. 
Hadith Qudsi in general do quite clearly serve a kind of devotional role rather than a legislative one (unlike the Qur'an which covers literally everything, as a totality, as THE Revelation of God). 
 

If anything the existence of Hadith Qudsi is conclusive evidence against what Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said. 
The Qur'an is direct revelation from God and is, in itself, a totality. The Qur'an is uniquely the Qur'an.
Hadith Qudsi, which report to also be the speech of God, is not part of the Qur'an for a reason. 
What this indicates to us is that there are different levels of divine utterance. The Qur'an is as Surah 2:1-2 states, and how elsewhere like Surah 6:38 for instance it states "We have not neglected anything in the Book". 
So like the Sunnah, and like the Imamah, the Hadith Qudsi play a different role than the Qur'an and are not the Qur'an. 
 

Ameen! May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) hasten the Mahdi's ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) reappearance! 

Ok after reading through the sources that you provided about The Hadith of Golden Chain also known as Hadith of Silsilat Al-Dhahab @Ashvazdanghe is that there exists another level of Science when studying Hadith Literature where you study the narrative/report/account in reference to a particular authority.
I've been reading furthermore from a website that simply is titled, Different "Types" of Hadith and Their Meanings.
http://www.quranreading.com/blog/types-of-hadith/
So what you're implying is that I'm being a bit too generalized and intellectually dishonest when trying to understand the relationship between The Quran and Hadiths.
So, The Quran is considered a "Hadith Qudsi"?
If that's the case then the vast majority of Hadith Literature from the likes of Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Bihar Al-Anwar while Fallible MIGHT contain Qudsi Hadiths that don't contradict the Quran.
An example is the 5 prayers in the Quran, The following Surahs:Ayats = (24:58, 17:78, 2:238, and 11:114) it tells you that there are 5 prayers you must perform, but doesn't detail how many Rak'aats you're supposed to do for each of them. That's where the Hadith Books come to explain that detail provided that the reference to the narration is graded Qudsi which won't contradict the Quran.
It's not like I'm trying to say don't bother with the Hadiths, and follow the Quran alone. As long as the Hadiths don't contradict the Quran and people don't conflate that Hadith Books such as Bukhari, Tirmidhi, Muslim, Bihar Al-Anwar = The Quran I don't have a problem with that given the Science of Hadith Literature.
If the narrator was one of the 12 Imams (عليه السلام) narrating a narrative within the Hadith Books after Prophet Muhammad (SAW)'s passing then it would make sense to qualify that Hadith as an "Hadith Qudsi" given that they are the walking embodiment of The Quran.
So what's truly important throughout all this is to study who's narrating the narrative? It could be one of the 12 Imams (عليه السلام) being the narrator within those Hadith Books.
Still even with this explanation Most Hadiths are not Revelations of Allah compared to the Quran where 100% of the Verses are Preserved as they originally were Orally Recited.
But from what I'm beginning to understand throughout this is that while The Quran IS Infallible and being The Word of Allah, has content and meanings in its 6236 verses that are too generalized and broad in terms of conveyance.
So is the answer I'm receiving through this is The Quran is NOT a detailed book compared to the Hadith Books despite being Infallible? Should I conflate with the fact that Hadith Books = The Quran since Hadith Books with their Hadiths provide the details The Quran doesn't such as how many Raka'aats in your 5 prayers each or what percentage should the payment of Zakaat be (5%, 10%, 2.5%)?
Hmm... this is confusing. Logic would dictate not to conflate between Hadith Books and The Quran given the Divine Nature of The Quran and its origin story.

But Hadiths are NOT The Revelation of Allah. The Quran however IS.
Hadiths are Historical Narratives/Reports/Accounts made by People who attributed sayings and teachings of The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and His Family The Ahlul-Bayt. From the likes of one of the Prophet's (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) most trusted Sahaabas all the way to the likes of Abu Huraira narrating false sayings/actions of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).
To belittle the Divine Status of The Quran as a Hadith is a disservice given the Origin Story of HOW The Quran came to be.
The Quran was originally an Oral Recitation where Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) recited continuously all his (SAW)'s life from which His followers memorized the 6236 verses and compiled it under His (SAW)'s supervision on which order should the verses go in which order at each Chapter. Whereas, the Hadiths from the likes of Bukhari, Bihar Al-Anwar etc. all were recorded narrations of people who narrated sayings/actions of The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). The Hadith Scholars found people, recorded their narrations in writing and preserved them in their Hadith Books.
Perhaps it is my fault that I didn't explicitly state out the terminology contradictions highlighted so here I go,
The Arabic Terminology of "Quran" literally means "Continuous Recitation". Qira means "Recitation".
One of the synonyms of Recitation is Narrating which is where the conflation occurs between Hadiths and The Quran.
However, there are differences between Recitation and Narrative,
https://wikidiff.com/recitation/narrative
 
The Quran is more than just a Hadith. It is a code-book that uncovers Life itself, the struggles/nature of Man, and the simple message that The God of Abraham has always laid down upon generations of yore, "There is no god, except The God"

I've seen this particular argument that many Non-Muslims and even Muslims make this claim, "The Quran IS a Hadith".
This is a serious issue and IMHO WRONG on so many levels to claim such a blasphemous statement against The Quran being the Word of Allah through Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).
Why? Let's see what exactly does the term "Hadith" mean in terms of Arabic Terminology according to Al-Islam.org, Encyclopedia Britannica and what most dictionaries define as follows,
https://www.al-islam.org/articles/al-hadith-analysis-and-overview-hashim
 
Encyclopedia Britannica
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hadith
 
Dictionaries that define "Hadith",
Furthermore, let's also note down the fact that when it comes to the studying of Hadith Literature from the likes of Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi w/ respect to Sunni Hadiths and Bihar-Al-Anwar, Mafaatil Jinnah, and Wazaiful Abrar w/ respect to Shia Hadiths there is a Science of Studying Hadith Literature.
http://www.muslimtents.com/aminahsworld/Science_of_hadith.htm
 
Now that we've digested the meaning of what a Hadith is and the Science of Studying Hadith Literature, I want to question the legitimacy of this statement that I suspect is blasphemous
"The Quran IS a Hadith"
Are you telling me that IF The Quran IS a Hadith then is it just as Fallible as Hadiths from the likes of Bukhari, Tirmidhi, Bihar Al-Anwar, Wazaiful Abrar etc?
If The Quran IS a Hadith then why are the 6236 verses of The Quran not studied under the same level of Scientific Study as The Hadiths? The Origin Story of HOW The Quran came to be is radically different from the likes of Hadiths.
What does Quran mean to me? It means Revelation from Allah through Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as His Final Mouthpiece for Humanity. Therefore a Revelation from Allah constitutes as The Word of Allah Himself through the mouth of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as His Messenger. Since we know Allah is Divine and Infallible, His Words are ALSO Divine and Infallible.
How does The Words of Allah which is Divine and Infallible = Hadith?
If Quran IS a Hadith then it is just as similar as saying Quran = Hadith or Hadith = Quran. Both statements conflate with the fact that the Quran is no different from Hadiths and vice versa which is blasphemous and wrong on so many levels. There's a distinction between Hadiths and The Quran. The Quran is Infallible while Hadiths are Fallible.
The Quran is The Word of Allah through Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as His Last Messenger, while Hadiths are The Words of Man narrating/reporting/accounting sayings and actions of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).
To conflate with The Word of Allah and The Word of Man is tantamount to Blasphemy at Best and Shirk at Worst.

@ZethaPonderer Salam as I said that we still need an infallible  religious expert to explain whole of Quran to us also as you said 11 Imams before him just explained a part of it based understanding of of people of their time & our need until now so fallible religious experts like Marjas are adopting  current share of understanding from Quran & narrations  until reappearance of Imam Mahdi (aj) that he will bring full knowledge  & explanations  of holy Quran in degree that it will look like a new book even by religious  experts.