I don't post very much here, but I do respect the originators of this forum.

Back in the middle 1990s, when in my mid-30s I was moving away from Christianity and was joyfully surprised by the Quran which I read in M. M. Pickthal's translation. So, I of course went to the nearest mosque, a Sunni Mosque, and began investigating Islam. I even read the Summarized Sahih Bukhari, which seem to be a very different book than the Quran. I rejected Sunnism, though I have many Sunni Muslim friends.

I soon met those who I would call "19ers" and a good sister sent me a copy of the Final Testament. I was again pleasantly surprised, at least at first. Soon, that group had a major split. I was concerned that Quran alone Islam would turn out to be lots of sects with many of them acting viciously toward others. I concluded that is one happens when one uses the Quran alone 1400 years after the fact. Everyone does what is right in his or her own eyes. I am NOT saying these people are not sincere. What I'm trying to say is that I believe God understands that we are finite creatures and just because I understand the Quran one way and another believer has lots of dispreements with me does not mean that only one of us is possibly right and that one only will be saved.

I even see a Sunni bias in the note of Khalifa's Final Testament. Surah Abasa in the Quran says "He frowned and turned away." Who frowned and turned away from the blind man? The most popular Sunni source says Prophet Muhammad did. Other Sunni sources say something else. Shia Muslims don't even have that tradition in their books. However, Khalifa leaned on a Sunni hadith to claim it was Muhammad who turned away. Why would someone investigating Islam even trust that someone who did that is a Prophet, anyway?

Nope, I'm not making a case for being a Sunni or Shia Muslim here. I'm pointing out bias on the part of those who are sincere believers. I don't doubt Khalifa was a true believer. He set forth three SUnni hadith in one of the appendices reporting what allegedly was said by Muhammad in his sermon. One hadith said he left behind the "Quran and Sunnah". One hadith said he left behind the "Quran and his family", and one says he left behind was the "Quran alone. Sunnis grade "Quran and my Family" as Sahih, and not the other two. However, Sunnis use "Quran and Sunnah" and ignore their own science. Shia Muslims in their books have the "Quran and Family" tradition. Quran alone is the weakest one, but that is the one Khalifa used. On what basis? His own understanding. Further, he never bothered to report which one the majority Sunnis graded as Sahih. I reject Sunni hadith science so that rating is not very important to me.

With Sam Gerrans, I like his methods and I believe he is a true believer also. But, because he differs from those in the past, he gets bashed. I personally don't agree with all his conclusions, either. I don't understand how he and others translate "rahman" as "mighty" or "almighty" when the word means the same thing traditionally in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic. It effects not just Arabic, but Aramaic and Hebrew, both in classic times and in modern times. It means that Semitic languages were compromised even before the New Testament was written, and even in the Second Temple period of Judaism. Yet, I still read Sam Gerrans' translation of the Quran. I read Edip Yuksel's translation. I still read a couple of Sunni translations and a couple of Shia translation.

Karaite Judaism makes more sense to me than Rabbinical Judaism. I wish it could be as cut and dry for me in Islam / Submission. I rejected the Sunni version 20 years ago. I couldn't find a home in Quran alone Islam 20 years ago. Personally, for me, the 12er Shia and Mutazilite paths made the most sense to me because historical I believe Ali ibn Talib lived by the Quran while the first 3 Caliphs changed things, and the Ummayads were an imperialistic Caliphate that fabricated traditions to justify their existence. That means I can only be 12er Shia or Mutazilte because Quran alone mostly ignores the historical records.

But, I don't even evangelize Quran alone Muslims. I believe that position is better than allowing Quran to be abrogated by the Six so-called Authentic Ahadith compilations. I believe one can be a true believer just reading the Quran alone. However, the viciousness I see between those in various camps really hurts me.

How can this problem between Muslim sects (I don't use the word "sects" as a perjorative) be remedied? That's the point of my post. At 58 years of age, I don't have the time to fight anymore. (smile)

Good thread! I have decided, God willing, to start taking Arabic classes this fall and learn Arabic well enough so that I can translate the Quran and hadith (both Sunni and Shia collections, since I do notice many Quranist - a term I do not consider pejorative - have a residual Sunni bias in their approach to the Quran while I tend to believe the Mutazilites (and therefore the Shia, also) are less likely to get things wrong perhaps because those sects don't believe in abrogation of Quranic what's, at least consciously, except for the Agha Khanites. It also seems that both the Sunni and Shias have added extra lines to the Adthan (in the Shia case, because Muhawiya the Caliph after the murder of Ali Ibn Talib, the 4th Caliph, had the family of Ali cursed from the Friday Pulpit). These are my conclusions based on reading Sunni and Shia hadith and histories, so if you disagree with my conclusions, it's fine.

I notice too that some Quran Alone don't pray Salat prayer, and in my opinion it saddens me because the Quran commands it, so they are losing out. At least make Salat as best as one's understanding leads according to Quran teaching.

My Kindle Fire makes spelling corrections and suggestions and every time I spell Ali Ibn Talib, it gets auto-corrected to Taliban, which is irritating! The Taliban would hate Ali, according to my reading of history.

Just a bit of trivia for others who may read this thread

I recently was reading Quran Surah 4 in the S. V. Mir Ahmed Ali translation of the Quran and in the commentary a 12er Shia Muslim hadith from the Prophet said that Muslims do not beat their wives, but should treat them with kindness. I know that Quran Alone and Quran First Muslims don't care much for traditions, with good reason, but I believe that, if asked, the Prophet would give a reply similar to this tradition.

The First post in this thread gave links to 2 youtube links. I didn't see them yet, but I wonder if they will be about the Collyridians, a Christian sect in ancient Syria that worshipped the Blessed Virgin Mary and even consecrated bread and wine to become her body and blood. Also, there were Gnostic Christian sects who considered the Blessed Virgin Mary to be the incarnation of the Holy Spirit. When ultra-fundamentalist Evangelical Christian want to attack the veracity of the Quran, I would just pull out the Book by Lutheran Christian scholars which has a catalog of these sects in early Christianity. That would put a stop to their argument.

One way some more learned Evangelical Christians try to convert Muslims is to point out the Muslim believe the Quran has always existed and is therefore Eternal, and they will say that all Muslims need to do is believe the Holy Spirit has always existed to believe the Trinity. When I was challenged with that argument, I pointed out that this theory that the Quran has always existed is a Sunni belief. The Classic Mutazilites believed and the Shia sects believe the Quran is a creation given by God, just as Unitarian Christians believe the Divine Logos/Word of God is a creature. If God did not create the Word, where did it come from?