Traditional Sunni Challenge to Quranities

ramzi

As-salamu 'alaykum,

This is an enquiry from a truth seeking student of knowledge. I am traditional Shafi'i Sunni, in the sense that I have studied formally with traditional scholars. This site and forum is very interesting and informative. I have found some useful resources here. However I have some questions that I would like to be addressed

Salaam Isa,

Most of the questions you ask are addressed in the video below

http//search.4shared.com/q/1/%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%AC%D8%B2%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%89

If the link does not work then type into the search bar at www.4shared.com

Regards
Ramzi

antibhondo

Salam,

The Hadith followers attribute the writing of the Quran to "noble scribes" who jotted it all down (forgetting to jot down the verses on stoning which only Aysha had and which a goat later ate). The Quran tells us that Mohammed wrote the Quran down with his own hand (see 255 which acknowldges such).

The mastercopy was written by the prophet and any copies would have been under his supervision - this giving zero weight to any scribes who may have made copies as being in anyway a "source" of transmission.

Brother Layth
Assalamu Alaikum.

First of all, the word does not have only one meaning, and nor did every translator accept only that meaning. Look at Muhammad Asad's translation {{which he has caused to be written down}}

So, before any further discussion, let us look at Lane Arabic English Lexicon for

from this link http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume7/00000118.pdf

It mentions three possible meanings here

he hath written them for himself
he hath asked to write them for him
he hath asked to dictate them to him

How could you know that only the first meaning is appropriate here, sir?

255
Translated by Edip-Layth
They said, "Mythologies of the ancient people; he wrote them down while they were being dictated to him morning and evening.

In the end note, Edip-Layth wrote Contemporaries of Muhammad knew that Muhammad was a literate person.

and
Translated by Muhammad Asad
And they say, ?Fables of ancient times which he has caused to be written down, so that they might be read out to him at morn and evening!"

In the end note, Muhammad Asad wrote
Because his contemporaries knew it that he was unlettered (ummi) and could not read and write.

I wonder, how could these translators know whether Muhammad (sm) was lettered or unlettered???

If this ayat is your only reference, please allow me to say, this ayat does not prove your point that {{The Quran tells us that Mohammed wrote the Quran down with his own hand (see 255 which acknowldges such)}}

Quran's expression, only by this ayat, is not clear, in this regard.However, it may be, that together with some other ayats it may clear the point whether Muhammad (sm) was lettered or unletterd. But, Be sure, ONLY this ayat cannot clear the issue, because any of the three meanings is possible to be here in place of .

Do you know any ayat else that support your point?

If the answer is NO, then, your assumption is dubious, which cannot be the assumption for further processing of any argument.

Even if the answer is YES, or, anyhow, you are proved to be correct in that Muhammad (sm) wrote Quran by his own hand, my question is, how does Quran's being written down by the Prophet's own hand prove that those who transmitted the Quran are not the same people who transmitted the hadith Huh?

You wrote

The mastercopy was written by the prophet and any copies would have been under his supervision - this giving zero weight to any scribes who may have made copies as being in anyway a "source" of transmission.

Please tell me, who told you that? How do you know this piece of information?

Then tell me, how would Muhammad (sm) know if someone had copied the Quran not letting him know? If any copy was made, out of Muhammad (sm)'s knowledge, and if that copy borne alteration made by the copier, and if that copy became the main copy somehow later on, how would Muhammad (sm) prevent that? And who is ensuring that this actually did not happen, i.e., what we now read as a Quran was actually that false Quran?

Please do not tell me that Allah himself has preserved the Quran or anything like that.

It might have happened very possibly that the person who altered the Quran (supposing that someone really altered the Quran) had inserted the ayat of "preservation", and Allah actually did not tell anywhere that that he will really preserve Quran.

And then tell mewhere is the copy that was really wrote down by Muhammad (sm) himself? And why, I repeat WHY do we get a copy other than Muhammad (SM)'s as the earliest copy?

Do you have any satisfactory answer, brother?

antibhondo

The Hukum for Wudu indicates that the hukum for Salat is ritual in nature...How so?

Well, together with the time and times mentioned in different ayats, the hukum for wudu makes me think that if every time "Salat" requires wudu, then it could be a ritual one. Sajda, Ruku... all these strengthens the indication.

The hukum for assembly Salat indicates that you cannot have a different meaning of your own for "Salat".... How so?

629
Translated by Edip-Layth
O you who acknowledge, if the contact prayer is called to on the day of assembly, then you shall hasten towards the remembrance of God, and cease all selling. This is better for you, if you only knew.
6210
Then, once the contact prayer is complete, you shall disperse through the land and seek God's provisions, and remember God frequently, so that you may succeed.

If you were allowed to have a different meaning of Salat, Allah would not make a system to DO "Salat" in Assembly.

Even if the Salat was practiced by Muhammad (sa) that way, does it mean that when the Qur'an instructs people for Salat that it is instructing them and limiting them to only do how Muhammad (sa) performed his Salah? Isn't true that Muhammad (sa) according to your Ahadith used to make different hand and arm gestures at different times, thus changing the way he did his Salah? Isn't there a 'sahih' Hadith that says someone from the jama'ah or congregation during the Salah once said something random in Arabic, yaani, hamdan katheeran thoiyaban mubarakan feeh, and after the Salah, Rasul Allah (sa) said that thousands of angels descended on that person? So who is to say the Salah is limited to what Muhammad (sa) did?

Did Quran say that everyone is allowed to obey Allah's command however he/she wishes? No, you don't. But you have commands to follow the messenger.

.....instructing them and limiting them to only do how Muhammad (sa) performed his Salah?

Yes sir, But the better wording is the method of Salah is limited to HOW MUHAMMAD (SM) OBEYED ALLAH's COMMAND REGARDING SALAT.Remeber, Muhammad (sm) was guided by the WAHY. and He was not allowed to follow anything other than WAHY. So, whatever he did to obey Allah's command, must have been divinely directed.If we were not follow him in the case of Salat, then don't you think that Allah should definitely and clearly state in the Quran that for this command and this command, you are not to follow messenger, and for the rest, you are?

About the differences....
I understand from this differences that these are really not very important issues for Salat. Those could be practiced according to any authentic (Shia/Sunni) Hadiths.

However, please visit the following link. When you want to reject something, know more about that to reject more strongly. It will help in the sense that if that is wrong, then by knowing more you will be more sure that it is wrong. And if it is right then more knowing will help change your viewpoint.

http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/

May Allah guide us all to be in the right path.

Thank you brother, and Pray for me. I need that very much.

antibhondo

Peace,
So how is calling the righteous man who maybe DID see that woman fornicating or commiting an adultery a liar with God any different? You are proposing that this person being considered a liar is more just than the person who brought news which had to to with an accusation and/or a past event but was the only witness. Both of them can be telling the truth and NOT be liars, but their information is so unconfirmable that God says that their information is not to be taken as truth. I'll have to look up that word in that verse and see if it means 'liar' (I'm doing multiple things at this moment), but the result is still the same. Even if they are telling the truth and are of impeccable character if their information is not to be taken as true. Investigating is a process of gathering witnesses. I need to check that word 'wicked' too. However, no story should be left to run wild with only ONE source. All stories must be investigated. And the best way to do that is to gather or create multiple witnesses. It seems you have a very narrow way of looking at things. You arbitrarily separate investigating/seeking out the truth of a matter from gathering witnesses, in this case 4. In many, many cases investigating involves just that; gathering multiple witnesses.

Brother Anwar
Assalamu Alaikum.

Please take your time. You need not to be so quick. You can reply later. Just don't rush. I am not replying to your quick points. Just start waiting for your some cool reply.

It seems you have a very narrow way of looking at things.

One thing only, please don't use this kind of tone with me. Please. I request you.

Thank you.

mmkhan

Salaam antibhondo,

The Hukum for Wudu indicates that the hukum for Salat is ritual in nature

bravo

Very nice point MashaAllah

Thank you brother, and Pray for me. I need that very much.

You are in my prayers, inshaAllah

May Allah guide us all towards the right path. pr
Mohammed M. Khan

progod

Antibhondo,
I said

It seems you have a very narrow way of looking at things.

You said

One thing only, please don't use this kind of tone with me. Please. I request you
.

That's a tone? I didn't know that was a tone. I'm just calling it as I see it and hoping you can expand your thought on the issue a little better. Rather than pigeon-holing or making very constrained opinions on the issue. Believe me it wasn't a tone. But anyway, I made my points and I hope you understand them.

Godbless,
Anwar

antibhondo

Peace,
So how is calling the righteous man who maybe DID see that woman fornicating or commiting an adultery a liar with God any different? You are proposing that this person being considered a liar is more just than the person who brought news which had to to with an accusation and/or a past event but was the only witness. Both of them can be telling the truth and NOT be liars, but their information is so unconfirmable that God says that their information is not to be taken as truth. I'll have to look up that word in that verse and see if it means 'liar' (I'm doing multiple things at this moment), but the result is still the same. Even if they are telling the truth and are of impeccable character if their information is not to be taken as true. Investigating is a process of gathering witnesses. I need to check that word 'wicked' too. However, no story should be left to run wild with only ONE source. All stories must be investigated. And the best way to do that is to gather or create multiple witnesses. It seems you have a very narrow way of looking at things. You arbitrarily separate investigating/seeking out the truth of a matter from gathering witnesses, in this case 4. In many, many cases investigating involves just that; gathering multiple witnesses.

Brother Anwar
Assalamu Alaikum.

Your last comment indicates that you are done with your comment so far. Ok, then lat us talk.

Probably I could not make myself clear. Let me try again. I said that if a fasiq man comes with any news , the news has to be investigated, and in this case investigation is a Quranic requirement.

This ayat does not speak anything about investigation of any news brought by a non-fasiq person.

You have to admit this first. Only then can the discussion proceed!

Now about the question, what if a non-fasiq person brings an accusatory news?
According to 244 & 2413, he (fasiq or non-fasiq) is also required to bring four witness, otherwise he will be punished by eighty lashes and will be treated as liar with God.

So, combining these ayats together, for a non-fasiq person, we can say that if a non-fasiq person brings any news other than accusatory ones, investigation is not a Quranic requirement. However, It does not mean that you are bound to accept the news. It does not mean either that you cannot do any investigation of the news. You can impose any condition that makes you sure that the news accepted through those condition are fault-free and without any doubt.

Just you cannot say that this was said by the Quran. You cannot say that this is a Quranic requirement, or according to this ayat or that ayat Mutawatir hadith should be.......What you think about the "should be" of any news from any person is completely your own speech. Please do not say something in the name of Quran, when it did not say it at all.

Muhamamd (sm) himself was not allowed to do so (6944-47).

Thank you. Pray for me.

antibhondo

Brother Layth, and Brother Anwar
Assalamu Alaikum.

I am still awaiting your answers.

Thank you.

Layth

Salam Antibhondo,

My apologies, I have a bad habit of skipping over lengthy posts just because there is too many topics mixed in.

First of all, the word does not have only one meaning, and nor did every translator accept only that meaning. Look at Muhammad Asad's translation {{which he has caused to be written down}}

So, before any further discussion, let us look at Lane Arabic English Lexicon for

from this link http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume7/00000118.pdf

It mentions three possible meanings here

he hath written them for himself
he hath asked to write them for him
he hath asked to dictate them to him

How could you know that only the first meaning is appropriate here, sir?

Because I am not infected with the subjectivity of the Sunnis/Shia who have made it as gospel that the prophet was a man who could neither read nor write.

My reading with all the other verses that speak of the revelation is that this accusation that was made is regarding the prophet's writing of the text. Also, from verse 8522, I would also argue that there is a "master copy" of the Quran somewhere on earth which is written on a tablet/stone.

If this ayat is your only reference, please allow me to say, this ayat does not prove your point that {{The Quran tells us that Mohammed wrote the Quran down with his own hand (see 255 which acknowldges such)}}

Quran's expression, only by this ayat, is not clear, in this regard.However, it may be, that together with some other ayats it may clear the point whether Muhammad (sm) was lettered or unletterd. But, Be sure, ONLY this ayat cannot clear the issue, because any of the three meanings is possible to be here in place of .

Do you know any ayat else that support your point?

If the answer is NO, then, your assumption is dubious, which cannot be the assumption for further processing of any argument.

Actually, there is no need to support any point since you are staring off with the "false premise" that "Mohammed was illiterate" and then proceeding to prove or disprove such false premise. The Quran has never told us Mohammed was illiterate (the Sunnis/Shia with their wrong understanding of "ummy" came-up with such conclusion). So the burden of proof to prove he was illiterate falls on you for making such claim.

Even if the answer is YES, or, anyhow, you are proved to be correct in that Muhammad (sm) wrote Quran by his own hand, my question is, how does Quran's being written down by the Prophet's own hand prove that those who transmitted the Quran are not the same people who transmitted the hadith Huh?

It takes away from the value that the hadith lovers are trying to associate to them. The argument that "the people who wrote the hadith are the same who wrote the Quran" is a false statement. The Quran was penned/written by the prophet, therefore anyone who came would only be copying what is already existing, not authoring something that did not exist in the written world. To bring a modern example the government of Saudi Arabia (American allies) have the biggest printing set-up of the Quran - does that act of copying give them any special authority or status? the answer is "no" because you know it is a simple copy job.

The mastercopy was written by the prophet and any copies would have been under his supervision - this giving zero weight to any scribes who may have made copies as being in anyway a "source" of transmission.

Please tell me, who told you that? How do you know this piece of information?

I know this from 8522.

Then tell me, how would Muhammad (sm) know if someone had copied the Quran not letting him know? If any copy was made, out of Muhammad (sm)'s knowledge, and if that copy borne alteration made by the copier, and if that copy became the main copy somehow later on, how would Muhammad (sm) prevent that? And who is ensuring that this actually did not happen, i.e., what we now read as a Quran was actually that false Quran?

Mohammed would not know nor could he have stopped this from happening. The only way to counter this is by finding the "master copy" which is written on tablet/stone.

Please do not tell me that Allah himself has preserved the Quran or anything like that.

It might have happened very possibly that the person who altered the Quran (supposing that someone really altered the Quran) had inserted the ayat of "preservation", and Allah actually did not tell anywhere that that he will really preserve Quran.

Your argument is correct. In-fact, you do not need to suppose this since the Quran(s) we have all have slight deviations (verse stops, rendition of certain words, etc.) and none of us are able to state with certainty which is the more correct Quran.

And then tell me where is the copy that was really wrote down by Muhammad (sm) himself? And why, I repeat WHY do we get a copy other than Muhammad (SM)'s as the earliest copy?

Do you have any satisfactory answer, brother?

It is waiting for you or me or any other truth seeker to find it...

Bigmo

Salam Antibhondo,

My apologies, I have a bad habit of skipping over lengthy posts just because there is too many topics mixed in.

Because I am not infected with the subjectivity of the Sunnis/Shia who have made it as gospel that the prophet was a man who could neither read nor write.

My reading with all the other verses that speak of the revelation is that this accusation that was made is regarding the prophet's writing of the text. Also, from verse 8522, I would also argue that there is a "master copy" of the Quran somewhere on earth which is written on a tablet/stone.

Actually, there is no need to support any point since you are staring off with the "false premise" that "Mohammed was illiterate" and then proceeding to prove or disprove such false premise. The Quran has never told us Mohammed was illiterate (the Sunnis/Shia with their wrong understanding of "ummy" came-up with such conclusion). So the burden of proof to prove he was illiterate falls on you for making such claim.

It takes away from the value that the hadith lovers are trying to associate to them. The argument that "the people who wrote the hadith are the same who wrote the Quran" is a false statement. The Quran was penned/written by the prophet, therefore anyone who came would only be copying what is already existing, not authoring something that did not exist in the written world. To bring a modern example the government of Saudi Arabia (American allies) have the biggest printing set-up of the Quran - does that act of copying give them any special authority or status? the answer is "no" because you know it is a simple copy job.

I know this from 8522.

Mohammed would not know nor could he have stopped this from happening. The only way to counter this is by finding the "master copy" which is written on tablet/stone.

Your argument is correct. In-fact, you do not need to suppose this since the Quran(s) we have all have slight deviations (verse stops, rendition of certain words, etc.) and none of us are able to state with certainty which is the more correct Quran.

It is waiting for you or me or any other truth seeker to find it...

Actually there are hadiths that says that the prophet only left behind after him a copy of the Quran and the compnaions never had any text except the Quran and few lines of general orders like freeing prisoners etc. Ahmed Rifai spoke about that yesterday on Egyptian TV on the Dream 2 Channel. There are many hadiths that contradict each other and most of all contradict what Sunni scholars say. If you speak Arabic you can look at the link I gave concerning Ahmed Rifai videos.

I agree with you that Ummi does not mean illiterate in the way we commonaly understand it. It can also mean gentile or lack of knowledge of the scriptures.

ramzi

Actually there are hadiths that says that the prophet only left behind after him a copy of the Quran and the compnaions never had any text except the Quran and few lines of general orders like freeing prisoners etc. Ahmed Rifai spoke about that yesterday on Egyptian TV on the Dream 2 Channel. There are many hadiths that contradict each other and most of all contradict what Sunni scholars say. If you speak Arabic you can look at the link I gave concerning Ahmed Rifai videos.

I agree with you that Ummi does not mean illiterate in the way we commonaly understand it. It can also mean gentile or lack of knowledge of the scriptures.

Salaam,

It's ADNAN Al-Rifai lol, not Ahmed

His first program can be found here, http//www.thekr.net/index.php/video

I don't agree with everything he says, but his main idea is correct.

Regards
Ramzi

antibhondo

Salam Antibhondo,

Because I am not infected with the subjectivity of the Sunnis/Shia who have made it as gospel that the prophet was a man who could neither read nor write.

My reading with all the other verses that speak of the revelation is that this accusation that was made is regarding the prophet's writing of the text. Also, from verse 8522, I would also argue that there is a "master copy" of the Quran somewhere on earth which is written on a tablet/stone.

First of all, please tell the authority of "quranix.net" that all the Transliterations of the ayats after 8517 are misplaced in the website. Please tell them to fix it.

So, you do not have any ayat that directly and clearly expresses whether Muhammad (sm) could write or could not. Basically, this ayat (255) itself is not sufficient to prove whether Muhammad (sm) was able to write. What you assume depends completely upon you. This ayat, however, does not negate the possibility that Muhammad (sm) could have wrote. But as long as you call yourself a Quran-only, you have to present definite proof from Quran ONLY. And, please, as long as Quran does not negate the possibility that Muhammad (sm) could not write, do not accuse anyone negatively for holding the concept that Muhammad (sm) could not write.

Actually, there is no need to support any point since you are staring off with the "false premise" that "Mohammed was illiterate" and then proceeding to prove or disprove such false premise. The Quran has never told us Mohammed was illiterate (the Sunnis/Shia with their wrong understanding of "ummy" came-up with such conclusion). So the burden of proof to prove he was illiterate falls on you for making such claim.

Let us look at the following ayat that tell us something else
2948
Translated by Edip-Layth
You were not reciting any book before this, nor were you writing one down by your hand. In that case, the doubters would have had reason.

This ayat confirms us about the literacy status of Muhammad (sm) before the revelation. It says that Muhammad (sm) never wrote anything by his own hand.

So, according to this ayat, your translation of 255 is definitely WRONG. The people who rejected of-course knew that Muhammad (sm) could not write anything. So, they could not have said that Muhammad (sm) wrote the fables. They had no reason to say that Muhammad (sm) wrote the mythologies himself.

So, it has also been proved that it is not "false premise" that "Mohammed was illiterate".

Now I ask you again,
Do you know any ayat else that support your point?

If the answer is NO, then, your assumption is dubious (that has already failed against 294, which cannot be the assumption for further processing of any argument.

I bet you will revise your previous answer now. So I am not going to go for the next points of your response.

Thank you.

(Please pray for me. I need that very much.)

progod

Peace,

Antibhondo,

I find it ridiculous that you think that not investigating news which one chooses to believe is acceptable and some how Quranic. That is why I did not respond to your post. Any news you believe in you should investigate. Do I really need to provide a Quranic verse for that? The Quran provides a template for the basis upon which we should accept without a doubt any serious news that comes to us, especially as it concerns as accusation.

Godbless,
Anwar

antibhondo

Peace,

Antibhondo,

I find it ridiculous that you think that not investigating news which one chooses to believe is acceptable and some how Quranic. That is why I did not respond to your post. Any news you believe in you should investigate. Do I really need to provide a Quranic verse for that? The Quran provides a template for the basis upon which we should accept without a doubt any serious news that comes to us, especially as it concerns as accusation.

Godbless,
Anwar

Brother Anwar
Assalamu Alaikum.

I could not make myself clear.

Please carefully read my following para

combining these ayats together, for a non-fasiq person, we can say that if a non-fasiq person brings any news other than accusatory ones, investigation is not a Quranic requirement. However, It does not mean that you are bound to accept the news. It does not mean either that you cannot do any investigation of the news. You can impose any condition that makes you sure that the news accepted through those condition are fault-free and without any doubt.

Just you cannot say that this was said by the Quran. You cannot say that this is a Quranic requirement, or according to this ayat or that ayat Mutawatir hadith should be.......What you think about the "should be" of any news from any person is completely your own speech. Please do not say something in the name of Quran, when it did not say it at all.

Muhamamd (sm) himself was not allowed to do so (6944-47).

You said {{Any news you believe in you should investigate. Do I really need to provide a Quranic verse for that?}}

Did I negate that? I just said that whatever "should" you want to apply, feel free to apply as long as it is not anti-quranic. But do not say that this "should" is said by quran if quran does not say that.

Thank you.

progod

Peace,

I'll look up and post some pertinent passages since you seem to be incapable of doing your own homework, and only capable of arguing the contrary.

Godbless,
Anwar

antibhondo

Brother Anwar

Assalamu Alaikum.

Peace,

I'll look up and post some pertinent passages...

That would be very nice of you. I expect that will be a great help not only to yourself but also to me and all the members of this forum.

May Allah guide us all. pr

antibhondo

Brother Layth

Assalamu Alaikum.

Probably, you have missed this comment. The main point of the post is re-stated here

Actually, there is no need to support any point since you are staring off with the "false premise" that "Mohammed was illiterate" and then proceeding to prove or disprove such false premise. The Quran has never told us Mohammed was illiterate (the Sunnis/Shia with their wrong understanding of "ummy" came-up with such conclusion). So the burden of proof to prove he was illiterate falls on you for making such claim.

Let us look at the following ayat that tells us something else
2948
Translated by Edip-Layth
You were not reciting any book before this, nor were you writing one down by your hand. In that case, the doubters would have had reason.

This ayat confirms us about the literacy status of Muhammad (sm) before the revelation. It says that Muhammad (sm) never wrote anything by his own hand.

But the translation of 255 shows that
Translated by Edip-Layth
They said, "Mythologies of the ancient people; he wrote them down while they were being dictated to him morning and evening."

Translation of Muhammad Asad was right.
And they say, Fables of ancient times which he has caused to be written down, so that they might be read out to him at morn and evening!"

So, according to ayat 2948, your translation of 255 is definitely WRONG. The people who rejected of-course knew that Muhammad (sm) could not write anything. So, they could not have said that Muhammad (sm) wrote the fables. They had no reason to say that Muhammad (sm) wrote the mythologies himself.

So, it has also been proved by QURAN ONLY that it is not "false premise" that "Mohammed was illiterate".

Now I ask you,

Do you have any explanation for this? (Please tell something!)

I bet you will revise your previous answer now.

Thank you.

(Please pray for me. I need that very much.)

Tlepsh

2947 & 48 And similarly, We have sent down to you the Book. Thus, those whom We have given the Book will believe in it. Also, some of your people will believe in it. The only ones who mock Our revelations are the rejecters. You were not reciting any Book before this BOOK, nor were you writing IT (this BOOK) down by your seldf/by your power/by your own knoyledge. In that case, the doubters would have had reason.

Here the subject of the discussion is THE BOOK that is sent down by Allah which is not written by any humanbeing. The verse does not say that prophet did not know how to read and write.

progod

Peace,

The 'Al' in kitaab can be 'the', 'this' or even an indicator of collective, just meaning 'teachings, books, writing or scripture.'

Godbless,
Anwar

rahenijaat1

Salam and Peace on Isa and everyone!

Allah sent His Messenger(SAW) with "The Message".

And Allah ordered us to obey the Messenger.
---"O you who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger." (Al-Nisaa-59)---
---"He who obeys the Messenger, has indeed obeyed Allah." (Al-Nisa-80)---

What is "Obedience to Allah"?-----What is "Obedience to the Messenger"?
Are these two different things?---Or---Are they one thing?

The Question is
Can anyone obey the Messenger without following "The Message"?

Today, the Ummah answers
Yes, it is possible to obey the Messenger without following "The Message".---How???

They say "Obedience to the Messenger" is the ahadith (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Al-Muslim, etc.).
So, if you follow the ahadith, you obey the Messenger.
And if you have obeyed the Messenger by following the ahadith, you have obeyed Allah.

---"He who obeys the Messenger, has indeed obeyed Allah." (Al-Nisa-80)---

So, today the Ummah is obeying the Messenger by following the ahadith, which is equal to obeying Allah.

The Ummah have finally got rid of "The Message" that the Messenger brought.---So sad!