Why do you reject hadiths

rameez

I don't know what is your goal here. Anyways Quran is about faith and not proof. Can you prove that God exist to an atheist? I am not sure what your are trying to achieve. As long as you believe in abrogation it won't work. No Quranist is going to accept abrogation.

He asked me to prove Hadith that it was said by Muhammad, I asked him to prove that the verses of Quran were revealed by Allah , given to Messenger by Jibraeel. Simple

Quranist are either one of those parties

They only accept the Quran as a religious source.
They accept the Quran and previous scriptures.
They accept the Quran and Islamic rituals but not hadiths.
They accept the Quran and Islamic rituals and hadiths that does not contradict the Quran.
Not necessarily among any but switch according to specific issues. Most Quranist tend to be in this category, at least the ones here are.

Now suddenly many things have changed.

Quran with Sunnah (Islamic Rituals) with Hadiths ? Where is Sunnah in Quran , when only Quran was revealed they are following conjecture and claiming that Sunnis are wrong , MashAllah ? Isn't it sunnah(Islamic Rituals) also hearsay and conjecture ?

None believe in abrogation. None believe in accepting what contradicts an explicit verse from the Quran.

Abrogation is right there in Quran , you want to remain blind that is your choice. So you mean "cherrypicking".

Now there should be another criteria but this is still a work in progress and that is nothing should be made binding that is not supported by an explicit verse from the Quran. Some Quranist still have a problem with this

Lol. Book that explains itself and has everything is unable to explain to Quranist for more than 1400 years ago. MashAllah .

Sunnah that brings new legislation. This part of the Sunnah is the one that brings new legislation, and new Shariah that is not in the holy Qur'an

In my questions asked before I have asked a question that "Where is the leave in Quran that allowed believers to cut down trees" ? If it is not in Quran why they followed some new legislation ?

Bigmo

He asked me to prove Hadith that it was said by Muhammad, I asked him to prove that the verses of Quran were revealed by Allah , given to Messenger by Jibraeel. Simple

Quranist are either one of those parties

Now suddenly many things have changed.

Quran with Sunnah (Islamic Rituals) with Hadiths ? Where is Sunnah in Quran , when only Quran was revealed they are following conjecture and claiming that Sunnis are wrong , MashAllah ? Isn't it sunnah(Islamic Rituals) also hearsay and conjecture ?

Abrogation is right there in Quran , you want to remain blind that is your choice. So you mean "cherrypicking".

Lol. Book that explains itself and has everything is unable to explain to Quranist for more than 1400 years ago. MashAllah .

In my questions asked before I have asked a question that "Where is the leave in Quran that allowed believers to cut down trees" ? If it is not in Quran why they followed some new legislation ?

"Quran with Sunnah (Islamic Rituals) with Hadiths ? Where is Sunnah in Quran , when only Quran was revealed they are following conjecture and claiming that Sunnis are wrong , MashAllah ? Isn't it sunnah(Islamic Rituals) also hearsay and conjecture ?"

I am not sure whther you don't understand or you don't want to understand. There is also a sarcastic tone to this. I see myself as someone who is here to learn. You obviously have prior convinctions you are trying desperately to prove to us its validity. The problem for you is you do not have explicit verses from the Quran to back you.

There is nothing wrong with following rituals of any sort so long as they do not contradict the Quran or goes aginst its commands. Many hadiths do not contradict the Quran but many do. So its a question of covenience for a Quranist. In the end all those three scriptures OT, NT and Quran are self sufficient for salvation but when it comes to practice its about convenience and preference. They are one deen.

Because you believe in abrogation you will not meet eye to eye with any Quranist, even those who accept many hadiths. There is no way around it. No Quranist will accept anyhing that contradict the Quran. They won't be Quranist if they did. This is something that is impossible and I have never seen. I have sen some Quranist who made things binding not in the Quran, but I have yet to meet a single one who believes in something that contradicts an explicit verse in it. Than he will be a Sunni or Shia and not a Quranist. That is why I asked you that question because no matter how many verses we will present to you it won't matter because you can always say those verses were abrogated.

You will run around in circles and get nowhere. That is why abrogation is s ucn a sensitive issues for Sunni clerics because they know that will mean the Quran has been violated. They won't even admit that to themselves, but this is what they ended up doing.

Between sources

Abrogation is applicable to both sources of Islamic law the Qur'n and the Prophetic Sunna. A Qur'nic verse may abrogate another Qur'nic verse, and a Prophetic Sunna may likewise abrogate another Prophetic Sunna. The possibility of abrogation between these two sources, though, was a more contentious issue precipitated by the absence within a source of the appropriate abrogating (nsikh) or abrogated (manskh) material necessary to bring concordance between it and the Fiqh.

In Shfi''s source theory the possibility of abrogation between the Sunna and the Qur'n was vehemently denied

Arguing determinedly that any verbal discrepancies between the Qur'n and the reported sayings or reports of the practices of Muhammed- the Sunna of the Prophet- were merely illusory and could always be removed on the basis of a satisfactory understanding of the mechanism of revelation and the function of the prophet-figure, Shfi' set his face decidedly against any acceptance of the idea then current that in all such cases the Qur'n had abrogated the Sunna, or the Sunna the Qur'n.

This stance was a reaction to larger developments within Islamic jurisprudence, particularly the reformulation of the Fiqh away from early foreign or regional influences and toward more eminently Islamic bases such as the Qur'n. This assertion of Qur'nic primacy was accompanied by calls for an abandonment of the Sunna. Shfi''s insistence upon the impossibility of contradiction between Sunna and Qur'n can thus be seen as one component in this larger effort of rescuing the Sunna

He campaigned tirelessly to justify use of the Sunna as the second primary source alongside the Kur'n against those who would accord the hadth no role in the derivation of the shar'a on the argument that the degree of conflict in the hadth, the inadequacies of the guarantee against corruption, fraud or error afforded by the isnds rendered the hadth unfit for the sacred role of declaring the divine intent underlying the Kur'n's declarations.

Asked point-blank whether the Sunna could ever be abrogated by the Qur'n, Shfi' had bluntly replied that that could never happen. Were the Sunna to be abrogated by the Qur'n, the Prophet would immediately introduce a second sunna to indicate that his first sunna had been abrogated by his second sunna- in order to demonstrate that a thing can be abrogated only by its like (mithlihi) .

Later scholars, writing when the juridicial legitimacy of the Sunna could be taken for granted (thanks largely to Shfi''s efforts!), were less inclined to adopt his inflexible stance. To their minds the reality of this sort of inter-source abrogation was proven by several "indisputable" instances the changing of the qibla towards Mecca and away from Jerusalem, and the introduction of the penalty of stoning for adultery. The following passage from Qurtub (al-Jmi' li ahkm al-Qur'n) is representative in this regard

...the Qur'n may be naskhed by the Qur'n and the Sunna by the Sunna. The Qur'n may, in addition, be naskhed by the Sunna, as has occurred in the case of Q.2180, which was replaced by the Sunna ruling no wasiya in favor of an heir. Mlik admitted this principle, but Shfi' denied it, although the fuqah all admit, in the instance of the penalty for adultery, that the flogging element of Q.242 has been allowed to lapse in the case of those offenders who are condemned to death by stoning. There is no explanation for the abandonment of the flogging element other than that the penalty all now acknowledge is based on the Sunna, i.e. the practice of the Prophet.

In the instance of the change of qibla, a Sunna ruling was set aside in favor of a Qur'n ruling- there is no reference in the Qur'n to the Jerusalem direction of prayer.

Al-Ghazl employs the same three examples in his Mustasf.

One outcome of these disputations was the proposal of a mode of naskh known as naskh al-tilwa dna al-hukm ("abrogation of the wording but not ruling&quot in order to provide a Qur'nic nsikh, or abrogator, for Q.242 (see below).

Modes

Three modes of naskh were proposed by the classical exegetes
naskh al-hukm dna al-tilwa abrogation of the ruling but not the wording, or supersession. A regulation- embodied within either a Qur'nic verse or a hadith report- is replaced but its wording remains- in the former case, as text within the mushaf.
naskh al-hukm wa-'l-tilwa abrogation of both ruling and wording, or suppression/erasure. Applicable only to the Qur'n. A ruling is voided and its text omitted from the mushaf. Evidence that the verse ever existed is preserved only within tradition.
naskh al-tilwa dna al-hukm abrogation of the wording but not the ruling. Again, applicable only to the Qur'n. The text of a still-functional ruling is omitted from the mushaf. Proof of the verse's existence is preserved within tradition (i.e through a hadith report) as well as in the Fiqh.

Of these three modes of naskh, it was the first ? naskh al-hukm dna al-tilwa ? which received widespread recognition. The second mode, naskh al-hukmwa-'l-tilwa, was also generally acknowledged, in part due to the many alleged instances of revelatory erasure

Of special importance were allegations of actual omissions from the revelation such as those recording the "loss" of a verse in praise of the Bi'r Ma'na martyrs, the Ibn dam "verse" and reports on the alleged originally longer versions of sras IX or XXXIII, said to have once been as long as sra II and to have been the locus of the stoning "verse" . Lists were compiled of revelations verifiably received by Muhammad and publicly recited during his lifetime until subsequently withdrawn (raf&#039, with the result that when the divine revelations were finally brought together into book-form, there was collected into the mushaf only what could still be recovered following the death of the Prophet. The mushaf has from the outset been incomplete relative to the revelation, but complete in that we have all that God intended us to have.

In all, 564 verses were alleged to have been expunged from the mushaf, or 1/11th of its total content.

The third mode, naskh al-tilwa dna al-hukm, was accepted by only a minority of scholars. The most prominent alleged instance of this sort of abrogation is the naskh of the so-called yat al-rajm, or stoning verse. Adduced to exist from a tradition derived from the caliph 'Umar, the verse provided Qur'nic sanction for the penalty for adultery found within the Fiqh (i.e. stoning) in contravention to the penalty prescribed by Q.242 ? flogging.

The postulation of this mode stems (indirectly, however) from Shfi''s source theory which rejected abrogation between sources

However strictly Shfi' had approached the question of the feasibility or otherwise of the naskh of the Qur'n by the Sunna, the fact cannot be disguised that he had admitted the stoning penalty for adultery into his Fiqh. It is nowhere mentioned in the Qur'n (Q.242) and has no other source than the Sunna. As Schacht observed, on this point, Shfi''s theoretical structure collapses. Shfi''s failure to explain the presence of stoning in the Fiqh which he had inherited exposed his usl theory to the criticism of follower and opponent alike, leading to its partial abandonment. Ironically, the attempt to ameliorate the usl position by reconciling the explanation of stoning to the obvious- that the stoning penalty had derived from a stoning-'verse'- led, in turn, to the adoption by followers of non-Shfi' usl of the rationalizing tag, naskh al-tilwa dna al-hukm. They needed no such principle, since they sanguinely accepted the feasibility of the naskh of the Qur'n by the Sunna.

Though Shfi' thus never in fact postulated the existence of a "stoning verse", in one particular instance he did acknowledge the probability of "abrogation of wording but not ruling"

Shfi' shows no interest in the type of theoretical question leading to the postulation of the existence of a hypothetical "proto-Qur'n" to account for the presence at one time in the Qur'n of verses no longer surviving. He was none the less forced on one question- the much debated definition of the minimum number of sucklings required to set up a bar to marriage - to posit the revelation to Muhammed of a verse on this topic, which, however, was not to be found in the Qur'n texts of his day.

His normal assiduity to ascertain the Prophet's views on disputed legal matters led him to accept a hadth which, however, comes not from the Prophet, but from his widow. ''isha declared that God had revealed a Kur'n verse stating that the minimum number was ten; subsequently a second verse was revealed, declaring that the minimum was five and that this second verse was still being publicly recited when the Prophet died. Mlik had drily rejected this report as not being in conformity with the "practice". Al-Shfi' embraced it and made it the basis of his Fikh.

Implicit in the latter two modes of naskh is the distinction between the Qur'n as temporally contingent document-i.e. the mushaf- and the Qur'n as the unity of all revelation ever sent down to Muhammed. According to some exegetes this latter conception is not a wholly abstract one, but in fact corresponds to a heavenly reality, with the Qur'n existing as a celestial archetype within the Mother of the Book (umm al-kitb) (Q.434) or upon the Preserved Tablet (Q.8521). Thus those verses omitted from the terrestrial mushaf may yet be said to still endure in Heaven.

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir)

Shafi is a hypocrite and a liar. He did violate the Quran. He is only trying to fool himself.

good_logic

Peace rameez.

I was conversing with you on the false assumption that you believed Qoran was from GOD.

Now it becomes a different debate.

Quote .You are proving Quran from Quran itself. Please prove that these verses were given to Jibraeel and he conveyed to Messenger.

I believe , without a doubt that Qoran is from GOD.

I am not willing to enter into a debate of "believer against disbeliever"." If you show them every kind of miracle they would not believe" as far as I am concerned.
I am out. You have your Deen and I have mine.

Good luck and Peace.

Bigmo

Peace rameez.

I was conversing with you on the false assumption that you believed Qoran was from GOD.

Now it becomes a different debate.

Quote .You are proving Quran from Quran itself. Please prove that these verses were given to Jibraeel and he conveyed to Messenger.

I believe , without a doubt that Qoran is from GOD.

I am not willing to enter into a debate of "believer against disbeliever"." If you show them every kind of miracle they would not believe" as far as I am concerned.
I am out. You have your Deen and I have mine.

Good luck and Peace.

What did you really expect? The minute he saod he believes in abrogation and believes that legislation can be added inspite of the Quran I knew it will go in circles. He should have came here to learn. He is learning but he is giving us a very bad example. Many here will now try to avoid dealing with Sunnis. It is not really his fault as many aspects of Sunni fiqh are not told to the public. Especially that the Sunnah was very controversial and a few people like Al Shafi came with the idea almost two centuries after Muhammad. He probably thought that this is how Muslims always understood their deen. In the end it was the Caliph Mutawakkil who championed the Sunnah and made Sunni islam the official state religion of the Abbasid Empire. The Sunnah was like a gift from the skies to the ruler. Finally they can become tyrants with all the religious cover they can have.

noshirk

Salam Rameez

I will respond to your other questions after .

You are not my first Hadeether. You will not do that

Now let me ask you to quote a verse and PROVE THAT IT WAS REVEALED TO MESSENGER VIA GIBREEL AND IN TURN WAS REVEALED BY ALLAH.

There is no such verse. What is the problem ?
I had never seen or met God. I believe he exists. I can't witness of that. I can't even witness that there is only one GOD.
I find a book called Quran. I have read it. I recognized words of my God. I believe in it all. I can't witness that it is book of GOD
I Had never seen Muhammad. I can't witness he even existed. In the book i believed was from my GOD, it is told to me that he is the rassool to whom was given the book. So i blieved in That.

You can consider All Quran as a Gossip. But it is only one Gossip of 600 pages and i believed in it. Show me one human able to produce a Gossip like that. I put my faith in only one source. Whats the problem ?
Your books of Hadiths are compilation of millions of gossips. Bukhari's book alone came from 600 000 gossips (as he said). You and your scholars admitted that that gossips can be lies produced by humans. You are spending time in a huge garbage of lies hoping to find another Quran there. Books of yours gossips can't even agree for what gossips are true gossips.

Now that i explained what believer mean, i hope that you can also recognize words of your God without "certification" of people of "knowledge and authority".
If you can't do so, then you believe in GOD through other divinities. You would not be a believer of GOD but a believer in "people of knowledge and authority" you have choosen.

I will count now lies in the sentence below

Hadiths are not gossips or conjecture. People of knowledge and authority have studied them extensively and have separated/pointed out fabrications. People have spent their lives in studying this thing.

Lie 1 Hadiths are not Gossips and conjecture. What are they then ? How you get them if not by a gossip process of "authentification of Gossips" by people you heard "by Gossip" that they were truthfull .
Lie 2 People of knowledge. What is their knowledge ?. What did they discovered other than doctrines for dividing muslims? How do you measure their knowledge ?
Lie 3 and authority. Who gave them authority ?. They are not even agree between them. Please give us the names of the people you think are of authority end tell us why you think that they have more authority than the others. How can you choose the good ones if you admit that they have more authority than yourself and have spent more time than you in studying?
Lie 4have studied them extensively and have separated/pointed out fabrications. Well, i can deduce from that that we can find now an update for books of Bukhari and other Hadiths compilors where fabrications have been separated. Where can i find these authentificated books and who are the authentificators ?. You know than such books don't exists but you are believing that the work has been done.
Lie 5People have spent their lives in studying this thing. Please give me names. How can you know that they spent their live in such a study ? Please, give me one Hadith and one example of "scientist" who managed to proove that that a hadith was not fabrication. Show me one demonstration. Only one. The best one.

622 And the Day We gather them all, then We say to the Mushrikins "Where are your partners whom you used to claim?"
623 Then, their only excuse was to say "By God, our Lord, we were not Mushrikins!"
624 See how they lied to themselves; and that which they invented abandoned them.

I sincerely hope that you will discover one day that you were lying to yourself and that yours partners will not be with you in the day of judgment.
I sincerely hope that one day, you will read words of God through words of God and not throught tafassirs and hearsays.
I sincerely hope that one day, you will discover that science and Hikma of your GOD is in his words and in his universe and not in other books.
I sincerely hope that you will not return on your heels after you have met, in this forum, believers in GOD and words of GOD who are humbly triyng to understand what GOD said and asking GOD for his purification. Hope you will not return on your heels as you came, with false books of God between your hands.

Peace

Shirin

Quran with Sunnah (Islamic Rituals) with Hadiths ? Where is Sunnah in Quran , when only Quran was revealed they are following conjecture and claiming that Sunnis are wrong , MashAllah ? Isn't it sunnah(Islamic Rituals) also hearsay and conjecture ?

Salaams,

I consider myself Qur'an-aloner, but I still pray the "oldfashion" way. While I don't consider hadith as a religious authority, I think salat is something that we didn't learn from hadith it's rather tradition which is passed down on us from Muhammad and the Muslims around him. If Bukhari collected hadith two centuries after death of the Prophet, does that mean that Muslims didn't know how to pray in that period?

I learned salat from my mom, my mom learned it form her mom, my grandma learned it from her mom and I'm sure that mother of my grandmother didn't have Sahih Bukhari collection available but still she managed to pray five times a day.
Of course, Qur'an tells us we should stand in prayer, bow and fall prostrate and recite Qur'an and glorify Allah s.w.t., that's exactly what I do praying the "oldfashion" way.

unknownuser

Salaams,

I consider myself Qur'an-aloner, but I still pray the "oldfashion" way. While I don't consider hadith as a religious authority, I think salat is something that we didn't learn from hadith it's rather tradition which is passed down on us from Muhammad and the Muslims around him. If Bukhari collected hadith two centuries after death of the Prophet, does that mean that Muslims didn't know how to pray in that period?

I learned salat from my mom, my mom learned it form her mom, my grandma learned it from her mom and I'm sure that mother of my grandmother didn't have Sahih Bukhari collection available but still she managed to pray five times a day.
Of course, Qur'an tells us we should stand in prayer, bow and fall prostrate and recite Qur'an and glorify Allah s.w.t., that's exactly what I do praying the "oldfashion" way.

Yes, but you are doing it that way because you made a conscientious decision based on teachings from the Qu'ran. I think that is what is important...you are not doing it ritualistically or out of ignorance.

aabdul

www.resurgentislam.com

Indelwyn

Thanks for the link, looks interesting.

I just find it disturbing, one would come here and feel offended because others do not believe in stories and fables, then get defensive and annoyed. Then still calling themselves a Muslim, goes and questions the Holy Quran, the words of God.Which he knows to be true. Are you not scared Allah will question you on this? & But you have no fear in following what those who are far less than Allah tell you.

How can you compare the Qu'ran (protected and persisting unaltered truth throughout time) with hadith (unprotected, man-made fabrications alluded to being the words, actions and sometimes appalling behavior of a man of God)?

noshirk

Salaam Shirin

I think salat is something that we didn't learn from hadith it's rather tradition which is passed down on us from Muhammad and the Muslims around him. If Bukhari collected hadith two centuries after death of the Prophet, does that mean that Muslims didn't know how to pray in that period?

I learned salat from my mom, my mom learned it form her mom, my grandma learned it from her mom and I'm sure that mother of my grandmother didn't have Sahih Bukhari collection available but still she managed to pray five times a day.

I also thought that during a long period.
I hope that following traditionnal practices you don't know from were they came will not divert you from studying Quran.

Peace

Shirin

Yes, but you are doing it that way because you made a conscientious decision based on teachings from the Qu'ran. I think that is what is important...you are not doing it ritualistically or out of ignorance.

Yes, of course.

Salaam ShirinI also thought that during a long period.
I hope that following traditionnal practices you don't know from were they came will not divert you from studying Quran.

Peace

Wa Salaam,

Why would it divert me? I still recite Qur'an, bow to our Creator, and fall on sajjda and pray for guidance.

To all others, I don't think rameez is questioning Qur'an, it's more like he is asking hypothetical questions. So people, don't be too harsh.

God bless you all.

noshirk

Salaam

Why would it divert me? I still recite Qur'an, bow to our Creator, and fall on sajjda and pray for guidance. )

Because reciting while bowing and prostrating in not studying and thinking.

do you know that in this forum, there is strange people who believe that Salat is not prayer, that Soujoud is not prostating , that roukou is not bowing and that salat in only 3 times in the day ?

Peace

Shirin

Salaam
Because reciting while bowing and prostrating in not studying and thinking.

do you know that in this forum, there is strange people who believe that Salat is not prayer, that Soujoud is not prostating , that roukou is not bowing and that salat in only 3 times in the day ?

Peace

That's correct. ) I'll try my best to stay on that track as well, inshaAllah.

I noticed those people too, I hear what they say but it doesn't affect me much.

unknownuser

Salaam
Because reciting while bowing and prostrating in not studying and thinking.

do you know that in this forum, there is strange people who believe that Salat is not prayer, that Soujoud is not prostating , that roukou is not bowing and that salat in only 3 times in the day ?

Peace

Uhhh...hello...some of us "strange" people just read that...thanks.

Maha

Salaam ShirinI also thought that during a long period.
I hope that following traditionnal practices you don't know from were they came will not divert you from studying Quran.

Peace

Quran 1736 and do not follow that which you have no knowledge of.

So I don't follow any traditional ritual or practice which I can't find any quranic support of.

Maha

That's correct. I'll try my best to stay on that track as well, inshaAllah.

I noticed those people too, I hear what they say but it doesn't affect me much.

1736 and follow Not which you have not knowledge of

So If they aren't sure that prayer is a ritual like you believe, than they are quranically entitled to not follow it as they have no knowledge about it. I hope you understand my point.

Peace

Shirin

1736 and follow Not which you have not knowledge of

So If they aren't sure that prayer is a ritual like you believe, than they are quranically entitled to not follow it as they have no knowledge about it. I hope you understand my point.

Peace

When I read in Qur'an (what I mentioned before) that it is prescribed to stand, bow and fall prostrate and recite Qur'an and glorify God, then I saw that there is nothing wrong with praying in traditional way. Hope you understand what I'm saying, as well.

Peace

noshirk

Salaam shirin

That's correct. I'll try my best to stay on that track as well, inshaAllah.

I noticed those people too, I hear what they say but it doesn't affect me much.

Oups! i forgot to tell you that i am one of those strange people

i no more make the double false testimony of shahada
i don't believe that salat is prayer but a simple connexion to God by meditating and thinking about his words and creations
i don't believe that ootoo zakat is giving sadaqa but getting mind purification by study of words of god
i don't believe also that hajj is pilgrimage but debate with candidates to islam during feast
i dont believe that siyamm is fasting but spiritual retreat

i believe in quran, in God and all his messengers.
I put all my faith in GOD and his words and in anything else

what a strange religion i am following.
It is based only on quran
i wonder what is its name ?
Can you help me shirin ?

Peace

Maha

When I read in Qur'an (what I mentioned before) that it is prescribed to stand, bow and fall prostrate and recite Qur'an and glorify God, then I saw that there is nothing wrong with praying in traditional way. Hope you understand what I'm saying, as well.

Peace

Yes but Jewish prayers also include that. So you don't have to pray in ""traditional way"" . And beside, some have different understanding of prayers, which they are entitled to quranically. I haven't studied the issue of prayer yet, so I cannot talk on behalf of myself yet. I will god willingly study it soon and make up my mind.

Peace

Shirin

Salaam shirin
Oups! i forgot to tell you that i am one of those strange people

i no more make the double false testimony of shahada
i don't believe that salat is prayer but a simple connexion to God by meditating and thinking about his words and creations
i don't believe that ootoo zakat is giving sadaqa but getting mind purification by study of words of god
i don't believe also that hajj is pilgrimage but debate with candidates to islam during feast
i dont believe that siyamm is fasting but spiritual retreat

i believe in quran, in God and all his messengers.
I put all my faith in GOD and his words and in anything else

what a strange religion i am following.
It is based only on quran
i wonder what is its name ?
Can you help me shirin ?

Peace

Hehe, good for you. You believe in your own interpretation of Qur'an, I have my own. Your interpretation allows you to play with people, mine doesn't.

Peace