Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Revert1963

Why do people hate the Quranist stand?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Revert1963 said:

While I would not call my self a distinct Quranist, (I simply has to little knowledge to choose either), I do think the Quranists has a good argument. The message given to Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وسلم وعائلته) is what is written in the Qur'an. And that must be the foremost authority to Muslims. The Hadith is hear say. As far as I understand the word "hadith" means something that people has said about the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم وعائلته). That means that the hadith is not divine revelation. Even scholars admit that many hadith's are fake, invented by people trying to forward their own agenda. In the first centuries AH a lot of Christian's, Jew's, Zoroastrian's, Manichean's and polytheist's converted to Islam out of convenience. Many of them brought with them their own theology which must have produced a number of hadith's. So in the worst case scenario the hadith's is letting the mistakes in the back door that these other religions made, and that the Qur'an has been send to correct.
I am not saying that all hadith's are fake, but why do people shun the word Quranist and speak of the Quranist stand in derogatory terms.

The Quranist argument, from what I understand it, is that, 'We should only use Qur'an and throw out hadith'. This argument sounds nice and clean and elegant on the surface, but when you probe a little deeper into this issue, you quickly realize that there is no way you could practice the Deen of Islam using Qur'an only. For example, How do you do Salat ? Do you pray with your hands folded or at your side ? How do you do wudu ? Do you wash your feet or wipe them ? Do you break your fast at Sunset exactly or 7 to 17 minutes after ? 

While the obligation to do Salat, Wudu, and Saum(fasting) is mentioned in the Holy Qur'an, the details are in hadith. If you say, as some do, that 'Oh, the details don't matter, do it whatever way you want, then what is to stop someone from, for example praying 6 Rakats for Fajr and 2 for Dhuhr, or breaking the fast 2 hours after Sunset, or making wudu using rose water instead of Mutlaq(pure) water, etc. The Qur'an itself, because it is not specific in the details, does not exclude any of these things. At the same time, if you did these, you would be making up your own religion and calling it 'Islam' which is unfortunately very, very common these days. 

So the Qur'an asks us to follow what was done by Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h), as the Holy Qur'an says 'In Rasoulallah, you have an excellent example', and 'Whatever the Prophet gives you take it, and whatever he forbids you from, avoid it', etc. So how do we follow what Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) did. His entire life was not recorded on film, and what he did every moment was not written down. So we must rely on hadith in order to fulfill this order that is in the Holy Qur'an. Because that is all we have. 

As for their being fake hadith, that is agreed on by all Muslims, although they differ about which hadith were fake and which are real. That is why, as followers of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)), we are asked to emulate a scholar who is capable of deriving the meaning of verses of Holy Qur'an using other verses of the Holy Qur'an as well as hadith which they consider to be reliable. This is called Ijtihad and someone who is well versed in the science is called a Mujtahid, unless we can do Ijtihad ourselves. This solves the 'fake hadith' problem because if you have a scholar who is trustworthy and sincere and has spent many years studying hadith and is intelligent, they will be able to tell with a high degree of accuracy which hadith are fake and which are real. So that they only follow the real ones and not the fake. If you emulated them (do taqleed), then you will get the benefit of this knowledge and will be able to fulfill the order of the Holy Qur'an which states 'In Rasoulallah You have a excellent example...'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2019 at 12:40 AM, Revert1963 said:

While I would not call my self a distinct Quranist, (I simply has to little knowledge to choose either), I do think the Quranists has a good argument. The message given to Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وسلم وعائلته) is what is written in the Qur'an. And that must be the foremost authority to Muslims. The Hadith is hear say. As far as I understand the word "hadith" means something that people has said about the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم وعائلته). That means that the hadith is not divine revelation. Even scholars admit that many hadith's are fake, invented by people trying to forward their own agenda. In the first centuries AH a lot of Christian's, Jew's, Zoroastrian's, Manichean's and polytheist's converted to Islam out of convenience. Many of them brought with them their own theology which must have produced a number of hadith's. So in the worst case scenario the hadith's is letting the mistakes in the back door that these other religions made, and that the Qur'an has been send to correct.
I am not saying that all hadith's are fake, but why do people shun the word Quranist and speak of the Quranist stand in derogatory terms.

If there be two twins one is Kafir and another is Momin, so would you deny Momin because his appearance looks to you like Kafir ? 

There can be two Hadith, one fake and other correct, it would be disaster if you try to learn Qur'an by rejecting 2nd Hadith because 1st Hadith looked to you false. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Flying_Eagle said:

If there be two twins one is Kafir and another is Momin, so would you deny Momin because his appearance looks to you like Kafir ? 

I am not to judge who is Kafir and who is Momin. I have to little knowledge to know what is inside other peoples heads. Only one has that knowledge.

Just now, Flying_Eagle said:

There can be two Hadith, one fake and other correct, it would be disaster if you try to learn Qur'an by rejecting 2nd Hadith because 1st Hadith looked to you false.  

Unlike a persons mind you can actually read what is inside a hadith. Does it contradict the Qur'an or doesn't it? In my mind no hadith can overrule the Qur'an, no matter how authentic a narration chain it has. So I would say that the Qur'an has much higher authority that any hadith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Revert1963 said:

I am not to judge who is Kafir and who is Momin. I have to little knowledge to know what is inside other peoples heads. Only one has that knowledge.

Unlike a persons mind you can actually read what is inside a hadith. Does it contradict the Qur'an or doesn't it? In my mind no hadith can overrule the Qur'an, no matter how authentic a narration chain it has. So I would say that the Qur'an has much higher authority that any hadith.

Qur'an says about Hadith: "What Prophet says is but a revelation revealed". 

I do not consider Qur'an and Hadith to be separate but I think both are part and parcel of each other. The explanation of Qur'an is known from Hadith and Hadith 's authenticity is known through Qur'an. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Flying_Eagle said:

I do not consider Qur'an and Hadith to be separate but I think both are part and parcel of each other.

But we know that many hadith's has been fabricated and in any case not written down until 200 years later. That is why many hadith's is rejected by scholars (though they differ in opinion on which hadith's to ditch and which to keep.) I am not saying that all hadith's are wrong. Only that there should be a clear hierarchy where Gods revelation has higher authority that what people said about the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وسلم وعائلته) many years after his death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Revert1963 said:

But we know that many hadith's has been fabricated and in any case not written down until 200 years later. That is why many hadith's is rejected by scholars (though they differ in opinion on which hadith's to ditch and which to keep.) I am not saying that all hadith's are wrong. Only that there should be a clear hierarchy where Gods revelation has higher authority that what people said about the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وسلم وعائلته) many years after his death.

Brother, Allah (عزّ وجلّ) has taken responsibility of preserving Islamic knowledge. The volumes of Hadith were compiled after 200 years but whose says that there weren't small books containing hadiths. Muhaditheen collected those small books and put into a large book. The science of Hadith did not evolved after 200 years, hadith were being discussed then and there were books around which were famous for being credible. Hence, it is a wrong notion that hadith came after 200 years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...