Are Quran-aloners being arrogant?
-
Peace solomon.
5 or 6 copies? Are these assumptions?
Do you not believe God when He says His book is fully detailed?
What about before that? When Qoran was still being inspired to the prophet?
The fact remains you have Qoran now, and either you believe God, or you do not?
That is the choice we have.
Peace.
-
Peace,
The Quran is not conjecture, it is an infallible revelation from God, no guesswork or wishful thinking.
Separate man-made hadith from the Quran please. Hadith is alleged observations, not revelation.
May God show us the light.
Nope, even the Quran is a conjecture. No use denying reality.
If you notice, not even the Quran is the saying of the Prophet. When you are reading the Quran, one verse is "compiled by Uthman, collected by Ziad, collected from Umm Kaab's writing in a tree leaf, heard the Prophet saying .......". Skip to another verse and it is "compiled by Uthman, collected by A who collected from B, who heard the Prophet saying.........".
What you have today is the Quran according to Uthman. Each verse had a distinct chain of transmission that traced back to the Prophet (much like hadiths, only a shorter time period).
There were qurans according to Ali, Ayesha, Ubayy Kaab, Ibn Masud. All those qurans were burnt to avoid dissident. And you're saying Quran isn't conjecture? Get real.
-
Nope, even the Quran is a conjecture. No use denying reality.
What you have today is the Quran according to Uthman. Each verse had a distinct chain of transmission that traced back to the Prophet (much like hadiths, only a shorter time period).
There were qurans according to Ali, Ayesha, Ubayy Kaab, Ibn Masud. All those qurans were burnt to avoid dissident. And you're saying Quran isn't conjecture? Get real.
Can you back up your claims with evidence?
-
Nothing wrong in reading and following the best of ......... Bukhari, Muslim, Plato, Homer, Hesiod, Aristotle, Patience Strong or your uncle Jack, just don't take it as 'part of religion or Islam'
Concerning stoning in OT, or Torah, yes for certain things, one of which was 'abrogated' or changed to lashing in Quran.
Follow the religion of Abraham...........who was before Moses and any of the books we know of.
peace
I agree we should follow the religion of Abraham, monotheism. Rest are non essentials.
-
@soloman
You started out saying that hadiths are the sayings of the prophet then you admitted that hadiths are not the narrations of the prophet. Now you are saying that the Quran is also conjecture just like hadiths.
So let's get this straight. You are a Quran alone Muslim who believes that Quran and hadiths are all conjectures.
I think you have made yourself clear to me.
-
Peace,
Then I understand you standing, and I do not share it.
In my world the Quran remained intact through the years and a verse even says the scripture is infallible.
I hope you know what you are doing.
Do you mean Quran alone people are arrogant?
May God forgive us.
-
Peace solomon.
5 or 6 copies? Is this an assumption?
What about the time when Qoran was still being sent through the prophet?
The fact remains we have Qoran today. Do you believe God when He says His book is fully detailed?
Peace.
-
I didn't mean to use the term "quran aloner" in a literal sense. Many Quran alone scholars such as Kassim (from Malaysia), Joseph Islam advocates the following of hadiths which do not contradict the Quran.
Each one of us follow everything according to our own understanding. You understand and follow the Quran according to your understanding too. So, I don't see any problem with subjectivity.
Quoting names of others who follow the same practice as you is not a validation of the practice. And yes I do follow the Quran according to my understanding BUT I DO NOT partake in the ahaadith outside of The Quran.
Quick question for you...
If the ahaadith that Bukhari and Co. collected were Orally passed down from generation to generation (as you had put it) WHY did Bukhari have to travel FAR and WIDE to TRACK DOWN those very few handful of people to hear hadith from? If they were widespread oral traditions passed from generation to generation, Bukhair should have been able to approach anyone and get his ahaadith from them. But by his own admittance he did not do this. So WHAT were the people following and upholding BEFORE Bukhari and Co. concocted these phony ahaadith???
Something I am recommending that everyone here read if/when they can The TRUTH About Hadith
-
I used to be the typical naive Muslim who hates israel and supports the Palestinians. Then was persuaded to do more research about the matter by a Zionist. After my research of history and present, I realized the crap that I've been fed all along.
Now I'm a Zionist and firmly support Israel in the conflict and consider Israel to be the only shining beacon of the middle east.
Let's all be sure of who you are. A Zionist.
-
@soloman
You started out saying that hadiths are the sayings of the prophet then you admitted that hadiths are not the narrations of the prophet. Now you are saying that the Quran is also conjecture just like hadiths.
So let's get this straight. You are a Quran alone Muslim who believes that Quran and hadiths are all conjectures.
I think you have made yourself clear to me.
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
-
Peace,
Then I understand you standing, and I do not share it.
In my world the Quran remained intact through the years and a verse even says the scripture is infallible.
I hope you know what you are doing.
Do you mean Quran alone people are arrogant?
May God forgive us.
What if that verse was inserted later on?
-
Peace solomon.
5 or 6 copies? Is this an assumption?
What about the time when Qoran was still being sent through the prophet?
The fact remains we have Qoran today. Do you believe God when He says His book is fully detailed?
Peace.
No, this is not an assumption. This is the opinion of historians and archaeologists. This is due to the fact that most people were illiterate and papyrus was expensive.
So, by your Rashadist logic from your previous post, all early muslims were idol worshippers. Explain this first then I'll answer if quan is fully detailed or not.
-
Quoting names of others who follow the same practice as you is not a validation of the practice. And yes I do follow the Quran according to my understanding BUT I DO NOT partake in the ahaadith outside of The Quran.
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.
If the ahaadith that Bukhari and Co. collected were Orally passed down from generation to generation (as you had put it) WHY did Bukhari have to travel FAR and WIDE to TRACK DOWN those very few handful of people to hear hadith from? If they were widespread oral traditions passed from generation to generation, Bukhair should have been able to approach anyone and get his ahaadith from them. But by his own admittance he did not do this. So WHAT were the people following and upholding BEFORE Bukhari and Co. concocted these phony ahaadith???
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.
He had to travel far and wide to ensure only trustworthy individuals are selected for Hadiths.
-
Peace,
Like I said, in my world the scripture is intact like it was when the prophet wrote it, so no verses were inserted later on. The Quran is the precise words of God, compared to Hadith which is man-made conjecture.
This is my what I believe and I will let you believe what you believe, there is no compulsion in religion. I am not responsible for you and you are not responsible for me.
Still is this arrogance?
Is it arrogance to claim that the Quran is complete and fully detailed, while the Hadith is unreliable man-made conjecture? Quran is revelation, Hadith is not.
We have different opinion about it, but does it make me arrogant?
May God have mercy upon us
-
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.