any evidence?
-
This "Quran Only" movement is a very recent revolution, or rather uprising against traditional "Islam", so no there is no literature on this subject yet. However, I would imagine that people in Muhammad's time were listening to the "Quran Only" because that's all they had for a while before the ridiculous Hadith and Sunnah were fabricated.
Quite the opposite! It was a reaction to the "new" trend of copying, imitation and giving the mind an open leave. This new trend, which florished and is giving us the "traditional islam" was supported by the Abbasides rulers who wanted to rule a herd of obedient sheep who were unable to think and argue anymore.
Isn't this what we still see in the Middle East?Al Sahfi3i has mentioned in one of his books that he was acquainted with the existence of some muslims who rejected the "sunna". This proves that they were in existence before Al Sahfi3i himself. He migh have been alluding to the followers of the Mutazilites school.
It's worth mentioning that in modern times, at least three of the "Sheikhs" of Lazhar were qur'aan aloners Sheikhs Mustafa Abdul Raaziq (1945) and Mahmoud Shaltuut (195. Imaam, Muhammad Abdu, was the first the Mufti who was not a sheikh of Lazhar(1889); plus many other prominent scholars and writers.
-
This "Quran Only" movement is a very recent revolution, or rather uprising against traditional "Islam", so no there is no literature on this subject yet. However, I would imagine that people in Muhammad's time were listening to the "Quran Only" because that's all they had for a while before the ridiculous Hadith and Sunnah were fabricated.
Not recent whatsoever.
Two things -
1.) The common person's views are never written in history, or rarely - quranists tend to be commoners.
2.) There are a few groups labeled "deviant" by the ruling sunnis early on
3.) FOR THE COMMON PERSON, THERE IS NO WAY TO VERIFY ANYTHING PERTAINING TO THAT CENTURY.
So just because Al-Shafee said so and so, who the bloody hell is Al-Shafee? Textual historical sources, people's blogs of old, versus the book of God you have in front of you NOW - is there a comparison?
-
peace
are there any books, records, evidence that there were people in the last 1400 years followed only quran?
Peace
You have it very much 'inside out'. Do Hindus have any proof that they didn't follow the Quran 1400 years ago? Do you see my point?
However there seems to be growing evidence that the 'hadith' were a later development. For instance in Daniel Brown's book reviewed by Wakas he tells us of the first caliph who followed 'hadith' and the dubious circumstances in which this occured. Also in the book Seeing Islam as Others Saw It, there seems to evidence that the 'hadith' represented an attempt to shift religious power to the 'scholars' from the caliph.
Then there is common sense. If the 'hadith' were so important, why were they not written down before Muhammad died (as the Quran was). The common argument states so as not to confuse it with the Quran, but then why was, for example, the Treaty of Medina written down.
Don't forget that history is written by the victors. For whatever reason God allowed the sectarians to increase in number over the Muslims. They have made up lies which contradict the Quran to attempt to proove their cause (e.g. the Quran was not written down in Muhammad's time).
I am pleasantly surprised right now to see that history does in fact show that the early Muslims followed only the Quran as a source of religious law.
Roshan
-
peace
are there any books, records, evidence that there were people in the last 1400 years followed only quran?Salam,
Respectfully.There are several verses in The Quran where we are told that most men won't believe. I can't remember the verses now but i do remeber one in chapter 2.
Believers are always in a minority.
God knows best.Peace.
-
.
Quran itself is the evidence that says after the last Nabi there will be quran only followers who will testify and also stand testimony for the earlier revelations and the final revelation, the Al Quran; And Allah will choose from among them the prophets from all nations, towns, people of all languages.
-
peace
thank you all for replying,
i was always interested in this topic ever since i found out about this quran alone movement, i am surprised that there weren't more of people like this, i mean these hadith followers are in the majority, i've never heard of a group that follows only quran till last year.
i still wonder why were we always in minority, and how could people start following hadith if it's clear that they shouldn't? it seems that this 'obey the messenger' part is hard to interperet and understand, if it was easy there would be only quranaloners or hadith followers today. -
Peace Nazz,
However, I would imagine that people in Muhammad's time were listening to the "Quran Only" because that's all they had for a while before the ridiculous Hadith and Sunnah were fabricated.
I would think when the prophet Muhammad was alive, there would have been much in following his example aswell. I understand however that many here would argue that his example is straight from the Quran etc...
- And if all the trees on earth were pens and the ocean (were ink), with seven oceans behind it to add to its (supply), yet would not the words of Allah be exhausted (in the writing) for Allah is Exalted in Power, full of Wisdom.
peace
-
peace
are there any books, records, evidence that there were people in the last 1400 years followed only quran?
Peace
The emphasis, in my opinion, should be on following only God, not necessarily the Quran. In that case, there have been a few who have submitted themselves entirely unto God alone (without associating anything with Him) scattered throughout history & from many & various cultural settings.
Peace,
Dan
-
Salam,
Respectfully.There are several verses in The Quran where we are told that most men won't believe. I can't remember the verses now but i do remeber one in chapter 2.
Believers are always in a minority.
God knows best.Peace.
Peace
And most men will not believe though you desire it eagerly.
And most of them do not believe in Allah without associating others (with Him).
Peace,
Dan
-
So just because Al-Shafee said so and so, who the bloody hell is Al-Shafee? Textual historical sources, people's blogs of old, versus the book of God you have in front of you NOW - is there a comparison?
OPF, salaam
I am the one who said Al-Shafee said so and so, not Nazz. I was not referring to his thought, but to his book which is one of the early books by a sunni. Plus, he is the first to give the hadith a divine status. Isn't this in line with what you are saying here2.) There are a few groups labeled "deviant" by the ruling sunnis early on
-
peace
are there any books, records, evidence that there were people in the last 1400 years followed only quran?
The Ummah in the time of The Prophet (PBUH) followed only the Quran, will the Prophet (PBUH) follow other than the Quran?
They also follow their own judgment when the situation is not mentioned in the Quran, as long as it doesn't contradict it.
-
Peace
are there any books, records, evidence that there were people in the last 1400 years followed only quran?
Perhaps not, but the evidence to heed God's inspiration to attain to salvation in the high places is in the quran. Sometimes history is lost or omitted. Whether or not these things happened is beyond my comprehension.
Joe
-
OPF, salaam
I am the one who said Al-Shafee said so and so, not Nazz. I was not referring to his thought, but to his book which is one of the early books by a sunni. Plus, he is the first to give the hadith a divine status. Isn't this in line with what you are saying hereSorry if you thought that was hostile in any way, it wasn't intended to be. The point being that you can have a millenium's worth of blogs and it doesn't compare to the quran we have here and now. Plus, appealing to tradition is explicity singled out in the quran on several occasions - what previous people followed is 100% irrelevant.
