Being Submitters, however, they do not confuse their academic interests with their worship. We should be careful not to encourage an exaggerated fear of the oral traditions, just as the advocates of hadith and sunnah should have sense enough not to forment an irrational fear of the consequences of carrying on discussions without them. While his responses are clear and valid, they do not directly address the assumptions held by the questioner. It is my opinion that, if we are quick to entertain debate before we have considered the assumptions underlying the questions, we are bound to wind up with very lengthy responses that do very little to address the central issues. However, Submitters reject hadith first and foremost because the Quran specifically requires the faithful to make the Quran their only source of guidance.
Textual analysis has nothing to do with it.
Analysis of the content of hadith merely serves to corroborate the dictate, after the fact. As for the other point, Submitters do not deny the historical validity of much of hadith. However, Submitters do not bother to undertake the difficult task of sorting out truth from falsehood in them because the primacy of the Quran makes the oral traditions utterly irrelevant as far as guidance is concerned. Given the choice of flawless guidance from the Quran and dubious anecdotes from the hadith, only a fool would choose to study the latter in place of the former. The second question is really a restatement of the first.