It's a question of authorisation (6:81-82)
-
Salams,
I may be totally wrong in what I say below so let me know...
I was reading the following two verses the other day (681-82)
"And how should I fear what you have set up (with Him), while you do not fear that you have set up with Allah that for which He has not sent down to you any authority; which then of the two parties is surer of security, if you know? "
"Those who believe and do not mix up their faith with iniquity, those are they who shall have the security and they are those who go aright. "
These two verses, where Abraham is speaking to his polytheistic people, made me think the following
-
The people were doing something that was not authorised by God worshipping other 'gods'. Abraham says that he essentially fears unauthorised actions more than anything anyone other than God could ever do to him.
-
He then asks who is in a safer position the people who do something unauthorised by God, or those who believe and do not mix up their faith with 'iniquity'? The word here in Arabic is 'Dhulm', literally meaning oppression. His opinion as to who is safer is obvious in the second verse.
-
Now, I think it's reasonable to say that that which was considered to be 'oppression' in the second verse was that which was unauthorised by God in the first verse. Specifically it relates in this case to worshipping other than God (shirk).
-
And I believe that it is reasonable to argue that in general these two verses are telling us that we are 'safer and more worthy of security' and more rightly guided if we just stick to that which God has authorised and not mix up our faith with that which has not been authorised.
-
When discussing the hadith issue we can apply the same logic of these two verses. When and where did God authorise the use of hadith? If it is no authorised, then using them is tantamount to what Abraham's people were doing.
I may be way off, but...
Just a thought,
HR
-