Are Quran-aloners being arrogant?
-
I'm simply exposing the fallacy of those advocating complete rejection of hadith. If you reject hadith, you have to do the same with quran
Thats not accurate. What is happening is you are trying to define what a Quranist should be rather than who they actually are. This happens because its still in its infancy. The dust has still not settled and things are still evolving. Quranist persuasion is like a journey where you go through a process where you see yourself continously evolving. In the end it will come down to this
Quranist who only accept Quran as a source
Quranist who accept Quran and the Islamic rituals
Quranist who accept Quran, Islamic rituals and hadiths that do not contradict the Quran.
Quranist who accept Quran and the previous scriptures
Quranist who fall in any one of the above category depending on the specific issue.All reject abrogation and anything that contradict an explicit verse of the Quran.
All believe only an explicit verse of the Quran as binding.
The bolded part is the reason why you are not able to get along with some here. You can not make binding what the Quran did not do so in an explicit verse. This criteria seems to be the hardest part as some Quranist want to push their criteria on the others. Thats not possible without an explicit verse. An explicit verse is what the overwhelming majority interpret equally. You don't classify an explicit verse, the over whelming majority classify what is explicit what is not. This is how the journey will end. What is implicit can not be mad ebinding because the over whelming majority can not agree on its interpretation.
That is why the 19ers are not able to convonce many Quranist because they are not relying on an explicit verse. Also those who accept the Islamic rituals and believe its binding are not able to convince many Quranist because they have no explict verse to give.
How the Quran was compiled or came to us is irrelevant. We deal with what we have possession of. Its not relevant how it came to be. God only hold us accountable to what we have possesion of. For a believer scriptures are evidence by itself. Its based on faith and not anything else.
To summarize
Nothing that contradict an explict verse is accepted. Only what is an explict verse is binding. Any interpretation that the over whelming majority ( like 80% or above) agree upon is an explicit verse.
That is what the Quranist persuasion is all about and if you divert from any of this you will find yourself going in circles. Many Quranist won't buy your argument no matter how hard you try.
Abrogation of even a single verse destroys the whole Quranist persuasion and therefor no Quranist accepts abrogation of any of the verses of the Quran.
Without abrogation the Sunni and Shia and Zaydi and Ismaeli and all the other sects of Islam will collapse.
-
While it may not be a validation, it does disprove your literal understanding of the term "quran aloner". Even quran aloners can be hadith-accepting.
I see you're not getting it. If they accept and uphold the ahaadith of Bukhair and Co. then THEY ARE NOT Quran Only Muslims In Spite Of what they claim. I can claim to be a Chrisitan, but if I reject The Bible in Toto, do not believe Jesus ever existed and do not believe that a person died for my sins then I am NOT what I claim to be. At best I would be doing what you are doing now which is hijack the description and give it a new connotation.
People were obviously following ORAL traditions before the hadith. Again, as I said previously, Bukhari's role was NO MORE than DOCUMENTATION of these oral traditions. If Bukhari didn't do it, somebody else would inevitably later on.
I would love to see your evidence that people were obviously following ORAL traditions before the hadith. You made the statement now please produce evidence to substantiate that statement.
He had to travel far and wide to ensure only trustworthy individuals are selected for Hadiths.
He didn't really travel far and wide...he didn't have to because he made all of them up himself.
Something I really want you to consider is Quran 24/11-24/17. These 7 verses explain RUMORS and WHAT we are supposed to do in the case of RUMORS. ALL AHAADITH ARE RUMORS!!! 24/13 suggests that we have AT LEAST 4 Witnesses to validate or invalidate a rumor. Notice how there isn't a single hadith in existence which provides this. Not One!! And please do not try to cite the Isnaad because the people involved in the isnaad ARE NOT simultaneous witnesses to any given rumor. They are MERELY PASSED from One Person to Another One Person just like a typical rumor....."I heard this from so and so who heard it from so and so who heard it from so and so, etc."
BUT......... all of this might be meaningless to discuss with you anyway being as that you are Proud Zionist and all. What purpose do you serve being here in an obviously non zionist forum?????
-
Something I really want you to consider is Quran 24/11-24/17. These 7 verses explain RUMORS and WHAT we are supposed to do in the case of RUMORS. ALL AHAADITH ARE RUMORS!!! 24/13 suggests that we have AT LEAST 4 Witnesses to validate or invalidate a rumor. Notice how there isn't a single hadith in existence which provides this. Not One!! And please do not try to cite the Isnaad because the people involved in the isnaad ARE NOT simultaneous witnesses to any given rumor. They are MERELY PASSED from One Person to Another One Person just like a typical rumor....."I heard this from so and so who heard it from so and so who heard it from so and so, etc."
What do you have to say about hadiths which are reported from 4 or more isnads? (there are many) They satisfy the condition of 4 witness.
BUT......... all of this might be meaningless to discuss with you anyway being as that you are Proud Zionist and all. What purpose do you serve being here in an obviously non zionist forum?????
The administrator brother Layth had no problem with my Zionist views. The forum is called free-minds for a reason.
This is none of your business because you are not a moderator.
-
Thats not accurate. What is happening is you are trying to define what a Quranist should be rather than who they actually are. This happens because its still in its infancy. The dust has still not settled and things are still evolving. Quranist persuasion is like a journey where you go through a process where you see yourself continously evolving. In the end it will come down to this
Quranist who only accept Quran as a source
Quranist who accept Quran and the Islamic rituals
Quranist who accept Quran, Islamic rituals and hadiths that do not contradict the Quran.
Quranist who accept Quran and the previous scriptures
Quranist who fall in any one of the above category depending on the specific issue.All reject abrogation and anything that contradict an explicit verse of the Quran.
All believe only an explicit verse of the Quran as binding.
The bolded part is the reason why you are not able to get along with some here. You can not make binding what the Quran did not do so in an explicit verse. This criteria seems to be the hardest part as some Quranist want to push their criteria on the others. Thats not possible without an explicit verse. An explicit verse is what the overwhelming majority interpret equally. You don't classify an explicit verse, the over whelming majority classify what is explicit what is not. This is how the journey will end. What is implicit can not be mad ebinding because the over whelming majority can not agree on its interpretation.
That is why the 19ers are not able to convonce many Quranist because they are not relying on an explicit verse. Also those who accept the Islamic rituals and believe its binding are not able to convince many Quranist because they have no explict verse to give.
How the Quran was compiled or came to us is irrelevant. We deal with what we have possession of. Its not relevant how it came to be. God only hold us accountable to what we have possesion of. For a believer scriptures are evidence by itself. Its based on faith and not anything else.
To summarize
Nothing that contradict an explict verse is accepted. Only what is an explict verse is binding. Any interpretation that the over whelming majority ( like 80% or above) agree upon is an explicit verse.
That is what the Quranist persuasion is all about and if you divert from any of this you will find yourself going in circles. Many Quranist won't buy your argument no matter how hard you try.
Abrogation of even a single verse destroys the whole Quranist persuasion and therefor no Quranist accepts abrogation of any of the verses of the Quran.
Without abrogation the Sunni and Shia and Zaydi and Ismaeli and all the other sects of Islam will collapse.
Thank you Bigmo for the very nice post. I will give a thought to what you said and get back to this in some time.
-
Peace solomon.
I do not know what you are trying to get at?
I do not see how you deduce they were all idolworshipers?Am I saying to you ,you have to uphold only Qoran to be a believer?
What I am saying to you, is if you are aware of the message of the Qoran, read it, checked it , then uphold " hadiths" then you are not following its message.
Remember the past is irrelevant, the fact is we have Qoran now?
Yes I know a monotheist believer who uphold other scripture can be fine.
However once you are familiar with Qoran and its message, it remains either you believe God and His message or you do not!
Peace to you.
-
Yes, and I'm proud of it. Good attempt at diverting the discussion though.
I don't get a zionist championing hadith, so very odd. It would be like me champiohing the value
of the mishnah! While many jews reject it! Just so very very odd. But please continue.Peace
-
What do you have to say about hadiths which are reported from 4 or more isnads? (there are many) They satisfy the condition of 4 witness.
No such thing exists!!! Sorry!! I know where you're getting at with this and I am going to warn you ahead of time that it is NOT the same as Four SIMULTANEOUS Witnesses At the SAME TIME!!! Different screwed up reports by different compilers of the ahaadith is nowhere close to the same thing.
The administrator brother Layth had no problem with my Zionist views. The forum is called free-minds for a reason.
This is none of your business because you are not a moderator.
I also have no problem with your zionist views. I have a problem with TROLLS who masquerade as truth seekers when they really have an ulterior agenda. Hence, I am making it my business.
By the way, you COMPLETELY ignored my request. I asked you to produce evidence to back up your claim that oral traditions were OBVIOUSLY the method of transferring information BEFORE the hadith.
-
Peace Shirley,
With all due respect, in the time of Abraham and other early messengers back then, the religious knowledge was probably "oral tradition", which was later written down. I will not attempt to delve into how the Torah was composed, because I simply have no clue, but it was during Moses era.
The world population was very tiny in this age and maybe not ready for a scripture.
May God enlighten us
-
Peace Shirley,
With all due respect, in the time of Abraham and other early messengers back then, the religious knowledge was probably "oral tradition", which was later written down. I will not attempt to delve into how the Torah was composed, because I simply have no clue, but it was during Moses era.
The world population was very tiny in this age and maybe not ready for a scripture.
May God enlighten us
Thank You Man of Faith, but I think saying probably let's us know that we are delving into a world of conjecture. If Solomon or anyone else here has solid evidence to substantiate this belief I would accept it.
-
No such thing exists!!! Sorry!! I know where you're getting at with this and I am going to warn you ahead of time that it is NOT the same as Four SIMULTANEOUS Witnesses At the SAME TIME!!! Different screwed up reports by different compilers of the ahaadith is nowhere close to the same thing.
Desperate denial of reality.
I also have no problem with your zionist views. I have a problem with TROLLS who masquerade as truth seekers when they really have an ulterior agenda. Hence, I am making it my business.
Your problem, you take care of it. Above all, you're not a moderator. Don't act like one. It is them who decide who is a troll and who is not. You're too insignificant to decide anything.
By the way, you COMPLETELY ignored my request. I asked you to produce evidence to back up your claim that oral traditions were OBVIOUSLY the method of transferring information BEFORE the hadith.
An idiotic request that defies common sense will "OBVIOUSLY" be ignored.
Salam.
-
Desperate denial of reality.
Okay, all you have to do is just produce ONE HADITH that has four SIMULTANEOUS witnesses in the isnaad who are reporting the hadith and I will happily concede.
Your problem, you take care of it. Above all, you're not a moderator. Don't act like one. It is them who decide who is a troll and who is not. You're too insignificant to decide anything.
When and where in my posts did I act like a moderator? And that's quite the tough guy act you're performing over the internet. Very easy to do from a keyboard. I am sure that I am no more insignificant than you are homie, I don't need to put on an internet tough guy facade to feel big.
An idiotic request that defies common sense will "OBVIOUSLY" be ignored.
Salam.
I'll take that as an admittance that you CANNOT produce evidence to support your claim. So it was an empty statement after all. laugh
-
Okay, all you have to do is just produce ONE HADITH that has four SIMULTANEOUS witnesses in the isnaad who are reporting the hadith and I will happily concede.
When and where in my posts did I act like a moderator? And that's quite the tough guy act you're performing over the internet. Very easy to do from a keyboard. I am sure that I am no more insignificant than you are homie, I don't need to put on an internet tough guy facade to feel big.
I'll take that as an admittance that you CANNOT produce evidence to support your claim. So it was an empty statement after all. laugh
Must've been hard to type so much, eh?
Typing won't increase your worth. Learn how to engage in decent discussions without name calling, then you might have a chance.
Salam
-
Peace Solomon,
Common criticism against you is not without basis. You act with a bitter taste of arrogance. Oppressive language disguised under a formal dismissal.
It is no pleasure of reading your input. You seem not to accept that someone else has a different view than you.
You practically attack people for their belief.
May God show the truth
-
Must've been hard to type so much, eh?
Typing won't increase your worth. Learn how to engage in decent discussions without name calling, then you might have a chance.
I'll take this to mean that you cannot produce a single hadith just like you cannot produce evidence for your other claim about Obvious Oral tradition. laugh
-
You act with a bitter taste of arrogance.
I'm all for a decent conversation provided there's no name calling or ridiculing by any party. Seems only few people can adhere to this online. Those who can't, such as this Shirley, are not worth having any discussion with and I don't mind being bitter with these creatures. I don't have the habit of beating around the bush. When I'm labeled a "troll" unjustly, I will react proportionately, and don't care what anyone else thinks.
-
Peace Solomon,
Ok, its you acting out. I just wanted to help you. Shirley is apparently not being acting in the way befitting a true believer either. May you calm down, God willing, and reach some friendly solution to the situation.
No one is without sins, so we all, including me, commit them and we all deserve forgiveness should we reform.
God bless you both