Perfect Quran

[Link]

Why is there a need for Sunnah? If Allah can make his word perfectly, why bother including the fallible works of man?

As explained already, knowledge is layered. If we all had the same capacity for it, and there was no growing it, you might have a point. But a book of endless knowledge cannot need no commentary and complimentary works. Also, what is Quran reminding of? The Quran says the clear proof and reminder is the Messenger (s).

So it's reminding about something, a reality, a connection.

 

[Link]

You say its not posible for humans but are talking about Sunnah and philosophical writings of humans alongside the Quran.

Yes both are needed to dig into Quran. Otherwise if Quran could be understood by all humans at same capacity just reciting it first time, then you would have a point. But then it would not be a book of endless knowledge nor a clarification to all things as it claims.

 

[Zyzyx]

I have to wonder how much you would follow this logic elsewhere though. It says “establish prayer” about 40 times in the Quran. Why not pray 40 times? What else does the Quran say a number of times that you wouldn't do that many times? Why do you presume the five times is in one day and not week?

Why also ignore explicit verses that state the number of prayers and their times over “alluded to” numbers?

The overall point being, how hard would it be for Allah to state that there are 5 daily prayers in the Quran? But the Quran neglects that while telling Muslims to establish prayer scores of times. It doesn't seem to be a size of book or an easy to memorise issue.

 

[Zyzyx]

As explained already, knowledge is layered. If we all had the same capacity for it, and there was no growing it, you might have a point. But a book of endless knowledge cannot need no commentary and complimentary works. Also, what is Quran reminding of? The Quran says the clear proof and reminder is the Messenger (s).

So it's reminding about something, a reality, a connection.

Im not suggesting that you cannot have commentary but that you shouldn't need it as an essential part of your faith. Whatever, it is that humans have written in Hadith that is essential to the faith could easily have been said in a far better way by Allah and included in the Quran.

If not every single thing, then at least, the basics.

 

[Ebionite]

Would'nt it be better for a perfect god to perfectly explain in a perfect revelation what was required?

Perfect revelation implies knowledge. If you only read a text then all you have is belief, so there's more to it than that.

 

[Link]

I have to wonder how much you would follow this logic elsewhere though. It says “establish prayer” about 40 times in the Quran. Why not pray 40 times? What else does the Quran say a number of times that you wouldn't do that many times? Why do you presume the five times is in one day and not week?

Why also ignore explicit verses that state the number of prayers and their times over “alluded to” numbers?

The overall point being, how hard would it be for Allah to state that there are 5 daily prayers in the Quran? But the Quran neglects that while telling Muslims to establish prayer scores of times. It doesn't seem to be a size of book or an easy to memorise issue.

The non-explicit manner here is obvious to me. It's to get us use to the way the Quran and Sunnah compliment each other. Quran obviously could've easily said five. However, with knowing it's five from the Sunnah, it becomes too much of a coincidence that where I showed you to not be seen as verifying the Sunnah.

If you are to rigid with Quran, it won't be lead you to many doors opening many doors.

The repetition here would be over-kill - as in we are told to face the Qibla twice in two verses, and one between them, in succession, it's not dispersed. For the repetition to not be over-kill and purposeful, makes sense that it's alluding to the five times. Without that, it seems like over-kill in repetition.

God could've easily said things explicitly in many things. He could have said "Ali is the chosen leader after Mohammad (s)" in Quran. There is many layers to why he didn't.

If he was explicit in details of Salah - then people would have more of an argument as to why the names of the Twelve Imams (a) should be there in the Quran.

As God had reasons not to be explicit about Ali (a), Hassan (a) and Hussain (a) but suffice in clear signs regarding them in Quran and the concept of the chosen family and authority in a way there is room for twisting and turning, it makes sense, that he forms the Quran in a way you need to the Sunnah for details of other essential things like Salah.

However, just like the Imams (a) can be verified in the Quran, and the Sunnah is more explicit, the same is true of Salah.

So you got to keep this in mind as well.

And reasons why God was not explicit with Imams (a) include the need to safeguard the Quran in a natural way. It's also the reasons why the Imams (a) didn't reveal scripture, as opposition would put question the integrity of the Quran as their scripture which would have to be on par with it would be put into question.

Im not suggesting that you cannot have commentary but that you shouldn't need it as an essential part of your faith. Whatever, it is that humans have written in Hadith that is essential to the faith could easily have been said in a far better way by Allah and included in the Quran.

If not every single thing, then at least, the basics.

The most essential part of Quran is Welayat of Ali (a). See the above explanation as to why it's not explicit in that. However, most of the Quran is about Welayat Ali (a) albeit mostly indirectly.

 

[Zyzyx]

The non-explicit manner here is obvious to me. It's to get us use to the way the Quran and Sunnah compliment each other. Quran obviously could've easily said five. However, with knowing it's five from the Sunnah, it becomes too much of a coincidence that where I showed you to not be seen as verifying the Sunnah.

Obviously it up to you but it appears to me that you are coming from the position that you have to have Sunnah to start with but the need for this source is what I am questioning.

The repetition here would be over-kill - as in we are told to face the Qibla twice in two verses, and one between them, in succession, it's not dispersed. For the repetition to not be over-kill and purposeful, makes sense that it's alluding to the five times. Without that, it seems like over-kill in repetition.

I think the problem I have with what you are saying is that it feels like you have what you have and as such you have to justify it. It says “Turn your face towards al-Masjid al-Haram” five times. You know you are to pray five times a day so you see a sign there. However, it explicitly says pray at these three times a day but you ignore that because you know you have to pray five times a day. The Quran says to establish prayer about 40 times but you ignore that too or choose to not see that as a sign for the same reason. I'm not trying to be rude but it appears you are seeing what you want to see based on what are already know. I don't see a consistency in the thinking.

God could've easily said things explicitly in many things. He could have said "Ali is the chosen leader after Mohammad (s)" in Quran. There is many layers to why he didn't.

I think this is another huge issue that requires a thread of its own. How much harm has come from this one simple omission? I think you make my point by raising this issue.

 

[Link]

Obviously it up to you but it appears to me that you are coming from the position that you have to have Sunnah to start with but the need for this source is what I am questioning.


I think the problem I have with what you are saying is that it feels like you have what you have and as such you have to justify it. It says “Turn your face towards al-Masjid al-Haram” five times. You know you are to pray five times a day so you see a sign there. However, it explicitly says pray at these three times a day but you ignore that because you know you have to pray five times a day. The Quran says to establish prayer about 40 times but you ignore that too or choose to not see that as a sign for the same reason. I'm not trying to be rude but it appears you are seeing what you want to see based on what are already know. I don't see a consistency in the thinking.



I think this is another huge issue that requires a thread of its own. How much harm has come from this one simple omission? I think you make my point by raising this issue.

Obviously it up to you but it appears to me that you are coming from the position that you have to have Sunnah to start with but the need for this source is what I am questioning.


I think the problem I have with what you are saying is that it feels like you have what you have and as such you have to justify it. It says “Turn your face towards al-Masjid al-Haram” five times. You know you are to pray five times a day so you see a sign there. However, it explicitly says pray at these three times a day but you ignore that because you know you have to pray five times a day. The Quran says to establish prayer about 40 times but you ignore that too or choose to not see that as a sign for the same reason. I'm not trying to be rude but it appears you are seeing what you want to see based on what are already know. I don't see a consistency in the thinking.



I think this is another huge issue that requires a thread of its own. How much harm has come from this one simple omission? I think you make my point by raising this issue.

You so far have been quoting my replies (part of it) and re-asking the same question in your OP. The thing is you have to start actually replying to the content, not just ask the same questions.

Just take the verse "A peace be upon the family of Yaseen". Look at the various Qariats, and you will see that people tried to destroy the original recitation of that verse. They could not. Some of the recitations that we been passed down have it as that. The hadiths teach it as that. And the other recitations are grammar wise wrong.

At the end, some people argued Yaseen is Elyas (a) father, which is not true. Others, that it means plural Elyas' meaning such as Elias, but that is not true either. Some tried to argued it's okay to go El Yaseen as Elyaseen, but you can't do that either.

So imagine it said "A peace be upon the family of Mohammad", would the Quran remained believe in? Or would it face real changes not just to the Qariats, but that it gets completely erased or changed?

It doesn't require thread on it's own, because it's the answer. The Quran is a reminder of what? Mohammad (s) is said to be the reminder in Quran. His position continues through Ali (a) to the Mahdi (a).

It's designed to be a trial as well. With some love of the family of the reminder, it becomes clear.

The 40 times Salah mentioned can have to do with how important Salah is and relating it to different subjects to talk about it's wisdom. But the quick succession repetition of facing the Qibla right after each other, would seem over repetitive without a goal, if it doesn't allude to the five daily prayers.

 

[Zyzyx]

You so far have been quoting my replies (part of it) and re-asking the same question in your OP. The thing is you have to start actually replying to the content, not just ask the same questions.

I am trying to reply to the relevant bits of what you say. Some of it seems off-topic. I just see what you are saying sometimes as you seeing what you want to see.

Just take the verse "A peace be upon the family of Yaseen". Look at the various Qariats, and you will see that people tried to destroy the original recitation of that verse. They could not. Some of the recitations that we been passed down have it as that. The hadiths teach it as that. And the other recitations are grammar wise wrong.

At the end, some people argued Yaseen is Elyas (a) father, which is not true. Others, that it means plural Elyas' meaning such as Elias, but that is not true either. Some tried to argued it's okay to go El Yaseen as Elyaseen, but you can't do that either.

So imagine it said "A peace be upon the family of Mohammad", would the Quran remained believe in? Or would it face real changes not just to the Qariats, but that it gets completely erased or changed?

For instance, I dont know what this has to do with the topic. Arguing about meaning or interpretation seems a different topic. I bring it back to the OQ because I think its gone off track. I am just trying to understand what you are saying.

You say 40 mentions could mean it's important but 5 mentions close together means that is the number of times you have to do it. Your understanding seems somewhat arbitrary based on a readily established conclusion. Why would 5 times close together mean one thing and lots of mentions spread out mean something else? What if we find something else mentioned several times elsewhere close together?

 

[Link]

I am trying to reply to the relevant bits of what you say. Some of it seems off-topic. I just see what you are saying sometimes as you seeing what you want to see.



For instance, I dont know what this has to do with the topic. Arguing about meaning or interpretation seems a different topic. I bring it back to the OQ because I think its gone off track. I am just trying to understand what you are saying.

You say 40 mentions could mean it's important but 5 mentions close together means that is the number of times you have to do it. Your understanding seems somewhat arbitrary based on a readily established conclusion. Why would 5 times close together mean one thing and lots of mentions spread out mean something else? What if we find something else mentioned several times elsewhere close together?

This is not the only way to verify the five times in the Quran. I don't recall anything repeated same thing that quickly in short succession. If you have an example, than we can look at it.

It's not off-topic (Welayat Ali (a)) but it's the answer to the question.

 

[Link]

For instance, I dont know what this has to do with the topic. Arguing about meaning or interpretation seems a different topic.

Then perhaps re-read and try to connect it with your question. Just re stating question and seeing it have nothing to do with the topic, does not mean it's unrelated especially given I've been explaining how it has to do with the topic.

 

[stevecanuck]

@Link I think answers the question. To me it's perfectly within Islam to read hadith to determine how Islam is to be lived as illustrated by one who is worthy of complete respect and who himself lived Islam.

As previously stated by @Rival, the first Muslims went 200 years without compiled hadiths. If they are necessary to the understanding of Islam, then that means Islam was incomplete, and that Allah lifted not one finger to see his creation through to the end. Mere mortals had to finish the job for him. It also contradicts verse 9:5's contention that Islam was "completed" as well as the Qur'an's repeated assertion that it is easy to understand.

 

[stevecanuck]

Perfect revelation implies knowledge.

No it doesn't. It PROVIDES knowledge. And it gives instruction. That's the whole point of it.

If you only read a text then all you have is belief, so there's more to it than that.

Accepting any texts such as the Qur'an and/or ancillary works requires belief. Nothing changes the basic disconnect that Allah states in the Qur'an that it is 1) Perfect, 2) Complete, and 3) Easy to understand, yet supposedly additional explanation is needed to truly understand it. That's utterly contradictory and nonsensical.

 

[stevecanuck]

You so far have been quoting my replies (part of it) and re-asking the same question in your OP. The thing is you have to start actually replying to the content, not just ask the same questions.

Just take the verse "A peace be upon the family of Yaseen". Look at the various Qariats, and you will see that people tried to destroy the original recitation of that verse. They could not. Some of the recitations that we been passed down have it as that. The hadiths teach it as that. And the other recitations are grammar wise wrong.

At the end, some people argued Yaseen is Elyas (a) father, which is not true. Others, that it means plural Elyas' meaning such as Elias, but that is not true either. Some tried to argued it's okay to go El Yaseen as Elyaseen, but you can't do that either.

So imagine it said "A peace be upon the family of Mohammad", would the Quran remained believe in? Or would it face real changes not just to the Qariats, but that it gets completely erased or changed?

It doesn't require thread on it's own, because it's the answer. The Quran is a reminder of what? Mohammad (s) is said to be the reminder in Quran. His position continues through Ali (a) to the Mahdi (a).

It's designed to be a trial as well. With some love of the family of the reminder, it becomes clear.

The 40 times Salah mentioned can have to do with how important Salah is and relating it to different subjects to talk about it's wisdom. But the quick succession repetition of facing the Qibla right after each other, would seem over repetitive without a goal, if it doesn't allude to the five daily prayers.

It looks very clear to me that you're starting with the conclusions you want to reach, and then working backwards to shoehorn those beliefs into text while discarding everything that doesn't fit.

 

[Shaul]

So different sects of Islam can't agree on the import of the hadiths. Then they fight with each other about it. Sounds like something that gives non-Muslims a basis for rejecting Islam. I wonder why the author of the Quran didn't foresee this....

 

[stevecanuck]

I don't recall anything repeated same thing that quickly in short succession.

I do. Surah 54 repeatedly claims that the Qur'an is easy to understand. How does this in any way support the need for anything other than the Qur'an to understand Allah's message?

54:17 - We have made the Quran easy to understand.
54:22 - We have made the Quran easy to understand.
54:32 - We have made the Quran easy to understand.
54:40 - We have made the Quran easy to understand.

 

[Ebionite]

No it doesn't. It PROVIDES knowledge.

The difference isn't important.

 

[Ebionite]

So different sects of Islam can't agree on the import of the hadiths. Then they fight with each other about it. Sounds like something that gives non-Muslims a basis for rejecting Islam. I wonder why the author of the Quran didn't foresee this....

Attempts to own the interpretation are par for the course for any religious group. Perhaps it was seen to be unavoidable.

 

[Link]

I do. Surah 54 repeatedly claims that the Qur'an is easy to understand. How does this in any way support the need for anything other than the Qur'an to understand Allah's message?

54:17 - We have made the Quran easy to understand.
54:22 - We have made the Quran easy to understand.
54:32 - We have made the Quran easy to understand.
54:40 - We have made the Quran easy to understand.

It says the Quran has been made easy for the reminder, but that what does it say in the same verse?

"so is there anyone who take heed/comprehend?"

Again, what is Quran reminding of? A reality to connect to and get guided by. The Quran also says to soothsayers and the likes, "Do they have clear authority? So let them bring their book if they are truthful."

The Quran is a book that guides and gives all sorts of examples of what? What exactly?

Think about it. What is it calling to? This is what is supposed to be easy to remember, yet hardly anyone gets it.

 

[Link]

So different sects of Islam can't agree on the import of the hadiths. Then they fight with each other about it. Sounds like something that gives non-Muslims a basis for rejecting Islam. I wonder why the author of the Quran didn't foresee this....

It predicts the disputes and differences as a possibility. It even has prophecies by examples of the past as to how this would happen. The past examples are warnings so we avoid those steps, otherwise, it's clear we would be tested in a similar way.