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?

Recommended Posts

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.

Edited by Revert1963
added curtesy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

:salam:

 

Real quranists ponder more over the Qur'an, and that surely is a benefit for them. I myself benefitted from some of their lectures.

What becomes problematic is when they get too far from what we call the sunnah e.g. leaving canonical prayers, denying tawasul etc... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest YaBaqir

Qur'an is the clearest and easiest book to understand, what makes it difficult is the dark sorcery on the hearts and minds from Iblis and his forces. Without Ahlul Bayt help to clarify Qur'an, the Qur'an will lead to confusion and people will hold on what is unclear rather then it's clear bright signs.

Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) revealed Qur'an slowly, and so the Prophet complimented it as it was revealed. The words of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) like professors who keep in mind the text book, always keep in mind the Qur'an. 

Their words and actions and Qur'an go together. That, and that Qur'an came to establish obedience to the true Kings appointed by God.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

Because of Thaqalayn. 

Neither the Qur'an nor the Ahlul Bayt can be properly understood without one another. 

 

:salam:

Apart from the obvious verses about ahl el Beit (عليه السلام) I think they understand much better than many. 

Just by their study of semantics used throughout the Qur'an they can determine what really would mean such or such verb or noun, like 'strike' or 'pure', and reach another meaning that would be consistent over the whole book when 'traditionalists' as they call us would have interpretated them in different ways according to the surah. Not sure if I made myself clear.

Quote

Quranist do not understand the Qur'an

I would say they do not understand the shari`ah, or even do not believe in it as a juridical system.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam Historicaly first Quranist was second caliph & after him first group   were Khswarij  in time of umnsyids & second group were Abbasids that became Qursnists & all of them rejected order of Prophet Muhammad (pbu) about imamate of Imam Ali & 11 Imams(عليه السلام)  & know radical Quranists are trying to destroy any Islamic site like as Kaaba because they know it against their understand in from Qur'an

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, realizm said:

I would say they do not understand the shari`ah, or even do not believe in it as a juridical system.

Shari'ah is Shari'ah... It's hard to be a Muslim and not at least accept that Shari'ah is a valid system. But if Allah's law says to do x and y and a hadith says to do f and g, then there is no question about it, surely? 

This is what I mean, people see the word Qur'anist and think of these people who reject everything other than the Qur'an. Actually people who view Islam like this often are on a downward spiral and this is their last step before leaving the religion. Rather a Qur'anist worth giving time to is one who studies hadith, history and scripture and puts fact before falsehood, even when a majority follow such falsehood. Many Qur'anists are pro-Alid by the way and say that the Islam of man has been distorted certainly in the Ummayad caliphate but slightly later too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are aspects of validity in the sense of critical consideration to what constitutes valid and authoritative but the thing that Qur'anists fail to understand is how fallacious they end up being through the new self-contradictory dogmas they employ. Some things they bring up are useful but also require a wider and deeper exploration of Hadith collections to really actually determine the validity of their position. Basically the Qur'anist generally determines the conclusion before reaching it, than going through a process to determine the conclusion. 

Also they seem to fall for a false-comparison when it comes to things like Karaite Judasim and Solar Scriptora (in Christianity). The nature of the Judeo-Christian Bible in relation to the Talmud and Catholic Church is categorically not an applicable comparison (which they usually work under the impression of) by the very nature of the text of the Bible itself in comparison to the Qur'an. One (Qur'an) is a received revelation (even if non-Muslims deny that it is) that in the first context is speaking to Muhammad himself, the other (Bible) is a compilation of linear narratives that claim to be a historical account and also include hymns and letters. 

There is also another fallacy I see them pulling, which is the assertion that the nature of Hadith itself is there to mislead or distort the Qur'an by nature and that reading the Qur'an alone as it is somehow equates to the only true (or an objective) understanding of the Qur'an and the theology, metaphysics, morals/ethics and philosophy/ontology it reveals. This view can manifest within some people as the dogma of "Those who accept Hadith are going to Jahannam", it's entirely illogical by the Qur'an's own standards which asserts a deeper understanding of the afterlife and what this life's purpose is.

It's as if these people think that the Islamic position (whether Sunni or Shi'ite) is that all Hadith are infallible and non-debatable and that Hadith are more central to our Faith than the Qur'an, both of which are wrong and absurd views. 

Edited by HakimPtsid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 7ssein said:

The quranists are missing all tafasir and things around the verses, as well as any other rulings derived from ahadith. Also, they disobey Qur'an in and of itself. The Qur'an says obey the Prophet, so you must listen to the Prophet. This means taking ahadith.

I don't know what dogma the Quranist has com to and since they have existed since very early on I gather that they probably differ in their theology. It is clear to me that in order to understand the Qur'an you need knowledge of Classical Arabic, the culture and context in which that language was spoken so some form of tafasir is obviously needed. That is also why there is a need for scholars to study this. However the Hadiths is written 200 years after the Qur'an was revealed and in most cases far away from Mecca and Medina, so their value as evidence is at best circumstantial. 
I do not know if some Quranists disobey the Qur'an, though it sounds contradictory. There are however clear cases where the hadith's contradicts the Qur'an. One example is the punishment for Zina ( الزّاني Fornicator/Adulterer) which in the Qur'an carries a penalty of a 100 lashes (Sura al-Nur ayat 2). On the other hand there is a number of Hadith's from Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and others who proscribe the death penalty. These Hadith's clearly contradicts Sura al-Nur ayat 2 in the Qur'an. And it doesn't help only to apply the death penalty to Adulterer's as Zina means both fornication and adultery. (Fortunately Shias don't need to take these hadith's into account as they are Sunni hadith's.) But I think this is a good example of how Judaic theology has tried to corrupt the message through false hadith's. If Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ‎) wanted the death penalty it would have been in Sura al-Nur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...