The Quran does not give religious authority to any other source other than itself when it comes to religious guidance of believers.
Yes, I agree.
However, what I meant was that there are Muslims who claim that denying hadith is denying the Qur'an because both were transmitted in the same way (I believe they weren't, simple). But then some bring forward the "Qur'an's isnad" because if we know how both were transmitted (through chains) then why would we take one and not the other? Is it as simple as "because the Qur'an says it is divine so we believe so"? I don't have a problem in believing that Qur'an is divine. I believe it to be so.
The thing is that I don't want to be confused or stuck about this issue anymore where it comes to explaining why hadith are not divine and not a part of Islam.
I also know about the matn/content points about the hadith but that's not really my point here.
And Joseph Islam used the "Qur'an's isnad" argument in one of his articles too which I thought was a good argument until I found out that the Qur'an apparently has isnad too. Verbal, apparently.
Even though I don't think this is necessary but to avoid someone being rude or something, I'd like to say that no, I don't belong to a sect. I'm a Muslim. So I made this post here because I wasn't sure how to respond to this "Qur'an's isnad" argument when it was brought to me.
Maybe I should research more about these "different recitations of the Qur'an."