The roots of Quran Alone Movement
-
I hope a caveat of the sort is included in the book, else some will start putting the efforts of the likes of Parwez (http//www.tolueislam.org/Parwez/parwez.htm) in the same bracket as the likes of "Safar" (www.aididsafar.com).
-
Nice review!
And so the 'Qur'an alone' movement is gaining ground by the anarchistic and almost unbannable word-wide web.
first thing first there is a massive difference between "word"-wide and "world"-wide -- the former being four letters-wide and the latter five.
P now a bit more seriously
If the idea of the Qur'an alone is based on arguments found within the Qur'an itself, shouldn't the idea of the Qur'an alone be the orthodox movement, instead of the traditional pro-Hadith schools?
hmm... orthodox. brought us to the paradox of orthodoxy
...throughout the centuries, the same Qur'an verses were used as arguments for only accepting the Qur'an as divine and only source for Islam.
and similar reaction throughout the centuries it seems cough eradication
Just as the Mu'tazilah writings have been systematically wiped out from the general Muslim libraries when they fell out of favor, the same has occurred with the Qur'an-alone writings over the centuries.
and most recently, "Just Been Banned", a personal tale.
The Medieval scientists of Islam who were the founders of the Renaissance and modern science, were scientific because of the Qur'an. Muslim society was so tolerant and progressive mostly because of the universality of the Qur'an, while the rest of the world was oppressive and backward, stooped in the dark ages.
Yet today's stooped-in-the-dark-ages highly praise the Medieval scientists... nope
However, a survey of Islamic history shows that the Hadith did not always enjoy such widespread acceptance and authority.
"Spread by the sword?"
...because the Qur'an is accepted by all sects and movements in Islam, while there are many disputes on what and which Hadith and tradition is accepted.
the thought came to my mind years before i took it seriously or participated in this forum, i bet many have similar memories?
...the Qur'an is the only timeless, flexible and very open-source text...
beaten Richard Stallman to it.
Thus the Qur'an alone can not only be the vehicle to modernize and reform the Muslim world, but even start a new revolution of a socio-humanistic scientific faith...
i like where this is heading to )
summary Gotta have this book!
P.S.
Oh...
224 pages
List Price $75.00
Price $50.62
Only 3 left in stock--order soon (more on the way).Lucky Sarah and her uni lib
Any chance it be online? or at least cheaper in PDF?
-
Peace all,
I finally finished reading the book.
Initially it was slow.. kinda felt like I was reading an essay or rather report which is good I guess because it had all the references. But I was eager to read about the ?Quranic? side of things. I felt the Quranic argument could have been a lil better. I mean she mentioned it all but let me explain
Coming from a sunni background when I finished the book I thought well by the end of it Shafi would have cured my concerns.. anyway Initially I thought it was interesting how she mentioned
- The first to reject the recording of hadith is Umar. One would think wow Umar?
- The association of hadith with Mishna, Jewish hadiths. was a concern to muslims as they didn?t want to follow their footsteps. Plus in Quran we?re warned about the people ?before? us.
So it?ll get one thinking, well yeh this is some risky business.
So Shafi?s argument was basically hikma = prophets sunnah and that it?s impossible to have uniform practices without hadiths. So it wins people?s perception of unity but the ?Ahl al-kalam? ironically criticise ?Ahl hadith? by mentioning ?sects have multiplied? refer to p.64.
It seems info in history is limited about quranic debates over hadith ..the arguments the ahl kitab taken with Shafi seem weak. So I think because of that Aisha notes contemporary issues/ groups/ people even free-minds about their disagreement with hadith? but I could be wrong.
When reading that Rashad proclaimed himself as a messenger, I would have instantly been turned off by the idea of quran alone if I had not known better.
The problem with current quranic movement is there is a division, code 19ers and not. And even within those who believe the code some will disagree with Rashad?s messenger-ship.
I think the main point of the book was to contrast arguments of Shafi and others. Otherwise I wonder why she translated kitab jima
al alilm. Well apparently it?s the most important in dealing with the authority of hadith. But it?s Shafi?s word about others through his writing. Maybe it implicates this is the stronger opinion, well it is worldwide.. but it doesn?t leave his bias out. He could possibly have omitted many things.It was annoying to read actually (shafi?s book, part 3) because pretty much shafi was winning all the arguments, he could write it out however he perceived it. the ahl kalam in both respects the ones who totally rejecting hadith and rejecting some hadith (isolated reports) didn?t seem to hold arguments. For example the second group of ahl kalam?s arguments were weak contradictory even? Saying they refer back to principles (Quran) but would accept the stoning of an adulterer due to ?majority/consensus?.. the ahl kalam group that totally rejected hadith in the end submit to shafi?s conclusions. It was like what! that easily? We dunno the full scope because we dunno who talked to Shafi and if that person/people actually spread the message. I mean if they did we don?t hear about the uproar about it.
They have some arguments which are the same as today but I think, well i believe we would have different and stronger debates if the same situation was to come upon us today.
I like the book but when I got to the discussion of contemporary period .. I thought noway would I give this a copy to my bro last thing I want is them knowing I go to free-minds.. the contemporary views highlight quran alone through quranic verses but it also shows well some confusion for the traditional reader, why don?t they agree on salat? Who is rashad? A messenger? What tha! Why is Edip the first mentioned for internet resources P Rashad?s friend + follower
I guess Rashad was the popular figure in contemporary society against hadith and maybe it's a covert promotion of the movement or what he was for. BTW the end referred to verses mentioned within the book translated by Rashad, Yusuf Ali and an Arabic transliteration. Contrast for the reader i guess.
Overall I dunno what I?d rate it I was dissatisfied towards the end. But otherwise it?s a good tool to argue against hadith. By the end of it, it?s clear hadith did and still does play a vital role in muslim history however there is lots of dispute about it. People today say it?s not a dual revelation but they say they take it next after Quran but Shafi considered it a dual revelation. I wonder how many know that
And funnily some will say any hadith that isn?t isolated no matter what must be taken the same as the Quran (i.e. muttawatir hadith, no doubt must be true) so it?s like as if some recognise hadith have weakness yet uphold ones based on chain, which reflects half of the ahl kitab population of agreeing to some hadith.. sad how so much is considered about chain/ linkage but little on content. Probably because so much criticism is given to when the hadith was actually recorded.
What I?d like to know is did people call prophets traditions as sunnah before Shafi? Or was he to call it that? People passed down oral hadiths however their importance wasn?t as strong as Quran which makes sense. It?s just like your mother telling you a story her grandmother told her mother or so forth, you take what you like you leave what you dislike. And basically due to generational passing down, info it?s probably not as sound as it was firstly spoken.
Also what happened after these debates, did people dispute. we know there was some uproar but little is said.. i guess i don't have the resources so i can't say much
sorry for the long post!
peace )
-
I guess Rashad was the popular figure in contemporary society against hadith and maybe it's a covert promotion of the movement or what he was for. BTW the end referred to verses mentioned within the book translated by Rashad, Yusuf Ali and an Arabic transliteration. Contrast for the reader i guess.
Dear Sarah;
I think, directly or indirectly Rashad has the greatest influence on modern reform movement towards Quran alone. His book, Quran, Hadith and Islam is a landmark book and that alone is enough to put him on top of the list.
Peace,
Edip -
Salaam all,
I'm glad you all like the bookreview I made. Although it is expensive, it is an important book. I will ask prof.Musa if she allows important excerpts to be scanned and put on the DRC website.
As for the Qur'an alone movement, it depends from which continent you're coming, as for example Pakistan has and had scores of Qur'an reformers that inspire modern thinkers there without them ever knowing about RK.
You can download the bookreview in PDF here
http//www.deenresearchcenter.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=ckQPwrqmPEI%3d&tabid=75&mid=555&language=nl-NL
-
Arnold, of course I know about other Quran alone or Mainly Quran movements in other countries independent of Rashad. But, Rashad's Quran-based argument was much stronger, clearer and consistent, and especially the fulfillment of prophecy in chapter 74 helped us to refute the main of objection/doubt directed to us by the followers of hadith and sunna.
A Quran Alone movement would be intellectually and philosophically defective without the support of the numerical structure of the Quran based on the number 19. Remember the ultimate objection of those who associate partners to God and His word "The same people that reported hadith also reported the Quran to us. How can we be sure that they did not also tamper with the Quran?" You may also include the agnostic and skeptic objection to the Quran's claim of divine source. Without code 19 none of these objections could be satisfactorily rebuffed. Those who have blinded themselves to the code by their prejudice and other problems, should think and ponder on my assertion before jumping into reacting to them.
As I had debated this with Ayman here in writing, and once behind the screen in a chat room, I would like to invite him to a face-to-face debate on this issue. If he makes up an excuse regarding the cost of attending to such a debate, I will pay it myself. If he also wish to hide his identity, I will provide him with a mask for free. (He could later deny his participation if he lost the argument or he could face himself, QaBuLi NaFSiHi, by opening his mask after witnessing the miracle). The reason for this face-to-face invitation is simple. I have learned that the immediacy of Socratic Dialogues is the best way to expose false ideas and inconsistencies. One example It took me about a month-long debate and pages and pages of writing with Lomax, another "runner like a zebra", to show his errors in counting the word DAY. If it was via a face-to-face debate it would not take more than two minutes.
No wonder the Turkish Sunni scholars and authors who comfortably writing refutations against my work were destroyed when they encountered the student of Socrates, face to face. After a few tries, they gave up accepting my challenge for live debate.
Peace,
Edip -
Peace All,
Edip
I think, directly or indirectly Rashad has the greatest influence on modern reform movement towards Quran alone. His book, Quran, Hadith and Islam is a landmark book and that alone is enough to put him on top of the list.
TBH I haven?t read much of his work. Yes he openly had a public influence however many people came to accept Quran alone without even knowing his existence or any other Quran alone movement.
BTW it's not necessarily true that in face to face you can convince someone quicker. it's possible though just read the ahl kitab's arguments with Shafi, he spoke much more articulately, he had sound conviction and a way of giving examples to deter a direction. it seemed like the ahl kitab didn't know how to hold an argument. they had good ideas (also some faulty) but they didn't know how to debate them well by the end they looked like fools.
Aisha's book didn't appeal to me about the movements but rather the issues of hadith, their acceptance and peoples rebellion. Little is talked about this (in regards to traditionalists) thanks Wakas for the 2 book references.
If anyone knows of other books in relation to hadith dispute and acceptance do share
peace
-
peace Edip,
Are there any plans to publish a paper on 'code 19' in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal?
laugh
