What do you think about Quranists?

[Muffled]

The Ahadith aren't uniformly trusted in the same way even inside each sect. It is very common to point out that certain Ahadith are "trusted" or that they are not.

I believe I would equate it to the Apocrypha, doubtful origins and sometime contrary concepts to the Qu'ran.

 

[Muffled]

This doesn't go against the need of the family of the reminder and possessors of the authority which Quran tells us we are in need of. Can you tell me what Quran says about how much of taxes should go to healthcare as opposed to military spending? And can you tell the amount of taxes different people should pay according to the Quran?

Can you tell me how many sujoods and rukus are in each of the prayers per Quran?

I believe that sounds like someone conjured up that stuff out of speculation.

 

[Link]

Yes, that's the issue for me as well. Especially with the Qur'an... I was really disappointed reading it. I thought it would be this beautiful, lyrical, intricate text - how else could millions of people take it for the direct, eternal word of a supreme god? But for me, it just sounded very chaotic and weird and deeply rooted in a specific historical context.

So how and why draw a line between Qur'an and Hadith??

Salam

Quran has not a single paragraph and doesn't flow like that, yet when you get use to it, it flows better then paragraphs. It also is not central in a title topic under a Surah with exception of the very small chapters. The bigger chapters, you can't real put a topic or title to it. The reason is because it has modes. If you are searching for what it says about economic issue or power/political theories or human rights or spiritual journey to God, it all has different modes. If you are searching for philosophy of how it proves Nubuwa of Mohammad (s) and Welayat of Ali (a), then that it a big mode in itself.

The hadiths - they flow more like normal language, yet when you get use to Quran, you will realize they compliment Quran in a miraculous way that other humans cannot. They compliment Quran in such calculated eloquent matter - but they are human speech, but exalted human speech, and their speech is above speech of others. The Quran is above their speech.

Now some speech attributed to Ahlulbayt (a), especially short sentences, we can't always know its from them.

The Quran is different then all speeches, take away eloquence and height, forget that majestic beauty side, and still, it doesn't flow like human speech. The repetition is calculated and never not purposeful. Surahs repeat same facts, but the paraphrasing of it differently along with other facts not mentioned in other Surahs, or the way it's phrased, and the emphasis, all make every Surah still have a special place.

Repetition is also used to interpret itself. Different paraphrasing of same story, for example, Musa's (a) prayer about Haroun (a), keeps them all to be interpreted corrected, while each one in isolation can have possible misinterpretation.

In fact the small Surahs are eloquent because of their summary of repeated verses and themes and having all saying eloquently summary of a lot of the Quran. The ending of Quran is eloquent due to that.

Quran is also made difficult because many of the clear signs are blocked by sorcery and the translations are reflected in that effect. So it's distorted severely in translation. Some entire words disappear.

 

[LuisDantas]

I believe I would equate it to the Apocrypha, doubtful origins and sometime contrary concepts to the Qu'ran.

Perhaps from a certain perspective that may well be frequent among Christians.

But I think not. In practice, the Ahadith seem to serve as something of a marker, a litmus test if you will, to distinguish among lines of thought between Muslims. It is contradictory for a Muslim to question the Qur'an, but Muslims can much more freely challenge specific Ahadith.

That is quite noteworthy in doctrines with such strong emphasis on submission and obedience as the Islamic schools of thought.

Besides, there is a lot of circunstantial evidence that Muslims feel some measure of responsibility for the Ahadith that they choose to accept or reject. That is always a good thing in religious practice, and I have to assume that it is a good thing in Islam as well.

 

[Link]

I believe they are correct.

The Quran was written during prophet Muhammads life. The Hadiths is written down 200 years after prophet Muhammads death. And as @Augustus wrote: Because the Quran is directly the word of God, and the hadiths is a collection of things other people claim Muhammad said and did

Quran is a claim of what Mohammad (s) claimed about what God taught to him.

I'm curious what is your epistemology to know Quran is from God? I would say if Quran can be known to be from God without the message of Mohammad (s), then it need not come with a Nabi. God could and would just send a book from the sky and keep doing that all the time for humans, and it would be as @Bird123 says, no need of middle men.

There is a reason why a Nabi is chosen and it's because truth has to be layered. The Sunnah is in stages extending understanding to humans. You can't just read Quran and arrive at all it's knowledge. Not even Mohammad (s) could, and was told to ask God to increase him in knowledge.

The problem in the past was interpretation. The problem is still interpretation. Imam Mahdi (a) will solve the interpretation problem, but it's not easy for him either.

You guys I putting an analogy:

Imagine Musa (a) being told there was a person with more knowledge (Khidr (a)) and says, okay cool God, I have no need of him though, you giving me a revelation from you that contains that knowledge and more, so why would I go to him?

Does it make sense? Don't you see how Quran doesn't acknowledge this?

 

[stevecanuck]

We all understand that you think Muslims should employ a shallow literalist reading of verses in isolation, unfortunately when people want to understand an issue it’s best to look at what happens in reality rather than what Sheik Steven thinks should be the case, even though it is not the case now, never has been and doesn’t really make much sense at all given the nature of the text and its historical context.

Thanks for sharing though.

You say this ^^

'Allah' says, "So have I made the Qur'an easy".

Hmmmmmm, who do you suppose has the inside track on that one?

 

[Tamino]

Salam

wa aleike salaam

Quran has not a single paragraph and doesn't flow like that, yet when you get use to it, it flows better then paragraphs. It also is not central in a title topic under a Surah with exception of the very small chapters. The bigger chapters, you can't real put a topic or title to it. The reason is because it has modes. If you are searching for what it says about economic issue or power/political theories or human rights or spiritual journey to God, it all has different modes. If you are searching for philosophy of how it proves Nubuwa of Mohammad (s) and Welayat of Ali (a), then that it a big mode in itself.

I have to admit that I don't quite follow... are you saying that depending on your question you can read different answers out of the same text? Now, that just sounds like the whole thing would be incredibly vulnerable to wild speculation and imposing your personal bias on the text.

The hadiths - they flow more like normal language, yet when you get use to Quran, you will realize they compliment Quran in a miraculous way that other humans cannot. They compliment Quran in such calculated eloquent matter - but they are human speech, but exalted human speech, and their speech is above speech of others. The Quran is above their speech.

Now some speech attributed to Ahlulbayt (a), especially short sentences, we can't always know its from them.

alright, I can follow this part... still don't see how the Qur'an is substantially different?

The Quran is different then all speeches, take away eloquence and height, forget that majestic beauty side, and still, it doesn't flow like human speech. The repetition is calculated and never not purposeful. Surahs repeat same facts, but the paraphrasing of it differently along with other facts not mentioned in other Surahs, or the way it's phrased, and the emphasis, all make every Surah still have a special place.

It's interesting that you find those repetitions meaningful... I just found them to be incredibly tedious. Gardens for the righteous, fire for the evil ones... over and over and over again.

Repetition is also used to interpret itself. Different paraphrasing of same story, for example, Musa's (a) prayer about Haroun (a), keeps them all to be interpreted corrected, while each one in isolation can have possible misinterpretation.

In fact the small Surahs are eloquent because of their summary of repeated verses and themes and having all saying eloquently summary of a lot of the Quran. The ending of Quran is eloquent due to that.

And well... again... that same thing that you find interesting and eloquent, just read really messy and jumbled to me. Interesting how the same text can have such different impressions on different people.

Quran is also made difficult because many of the clear signs are blocked by sorcery and the translations are reflected in that effect. So it's distorted severely in translation. Some entire words disappear.

That's why I read it in Arabic. I thought my first reading might have been distorted by the translation, so I did it again in an interlinear translation. My Arabic is not good enoug to read it fluently, but with a translation below I can sure compare and see how the original is structured in vocabulary and grammar.
what can I say... it did not change my impression.

 

[Augustus]

You say this ^^

'Allah' says, "So have I made the Qur'an easy".

Hmmmmmm, who do you suppose has the inside track on that one?

Again, your personal, subjective thoughts about how you personally believe Muslims should understand the Quran in your opinion make no difference to anything.

Muslims have never used your personal approach to Quranic hermeneutics, not 1400 years ago and not today. No sect promotes reading verses literally and in isolation and saying “that’s what it means and no one can deny it”.

It’s cute that you think Muslims should see things how you see things, but they don’t and never have done, so you are just shouting at clouds.

 

[stevecanuck]

Again, your personal, subjective thoughts about how you personally believe Muslims should understand the Quran in your opinion make no difference to anything.

Nope. I'm quoting the Qur'an. Get it? I'm giving you ALLAH'S explicit statement, not my "opinion".

Muslims have never used your personal approach to Quranic hermeneutics, not 1400 years ago and not today.

Again, the Qur'an says it is an easy to understand document. You can't change that no matter how much you want to.

No sect promotes reading verses literally and in isolation and saying “that’s what it means and no one can deny it”.

That was an utterly gratuitous assertion. You have no way of knowing that.

It’s cute that you think Muslims should see things how you see things, but they don’t and never have done, so you are just shouting at clouds.

The ad hom is the last refuge of the defeated.

 

[Augustus]

Nope. I'm quoting the Qur'an. Get it? I'm giving you ALLAH'S explicit statement, not my "opinion". You still aren't getting any better at this.

Steven, by now you really should understand the quoting a verse in isolation, asserting that it must be understood literally without any contextualisation and that there is only one way to interpret it is you asserting a particular methodology of interpretation.

You can then look at actual Muslims in the real world, and see if this is a common methodology applied by them.

You know fine well that it is not, therefore your opinion says nothing of value about Muslims or Islam as it actually exists.

The verse is not even internally consistent within the Quran, never mind the fact that even the earliest exegetes didn't understand many passages and features thus had to rationalise the statement in some way or another.

That was an utterly gratuitous assertion. You have no way of knowing that.

Name one then.

I'll wait...

Not Sunni, Shia, Quranist, Mu'tazilite or any other major school of thought that cover almost all Muslims that have ever lived.

And if your argument is "well maybe there is one that exists but it is so tiny and unknown that no one knows about it" that hardly supports the idea that your arguments have any value as to Islam as it actually exists outside your imagination.

The ad hom is the last refuge of the defeated.

What about hallucinating fallacies?

Explaining why you are wrong (Muslims don't interpret the Quran like you think they should thus your argument is of no real value to anyone) is is no way an ad hom. Might want to look up these terms before trying to use them in a conversation.

 

[stevecanuck]

It's interesting that you find those repetitions meaningful... I just found them to be incredibly tedious. Gardens for the righteous, fire for the evil ones... over and over and over again.

Amen, brother. That comment segues into a theory I have. I believe that the compilers of the Qur'an chose not to put it together chronologically for four reasons:

1. The mind-numbing repetition of the 86 Meccan surahs would induce a coma in anyone attempting to read them in the order of their 'revelation'.

2. They didn't want to highlight that those first surahs didn't really introduce much new, except of course that Mohamed was the next and last prophet.

3. They didn't want to draw attention to Mohamed's 12-year failure to attract more than a hand-full of followers.

4. They wanted it to appear as though fighting "fee sabil Allah" became a tenet much earlier than it did.

And well... again... that same thing that you find interesting and eloquent, just read really messy and jumbled to me.

And a petty and vindictive tantrum.

Interesting how the same text can have such different impressions on different people.

That's why I read it in Arabic. I thought my first reading might have been distorted by the translation, so I did it again in an interlinear translation. My Arabic is not good enoug to read it fluently, but with a translation below I can sure compare and see how the original is structured in vocabulary and grammar.
what can I say... it did not change my impression.

I used the same method to read the bits I thought to be particularly important. For example, when debating whether 'jihad' referred mostly to the lesser or greater struggle, I found it useful in demonstrating that conjugations and variations of 'qatl' and 'jihad' were used interchangeably in surah 9.

 

[stevecanuck]

Steven, by now you really should understand the quoting a verse in isolation, asserting that it must be understood literally without any contextualisation and that there is only one way to interpret it is you asserting a particular methodology of interpretation.

You can then look at actual Muslims in the real world, and see if this is a common methodology applied by them.

You know fine well that it is not, therefore your opinion says nothing of value about Muslims or Islam as it actually exists.

The verse is not even internally consistent within the Quran, never mind the fact that even the earliest exegetes didn't understand many passages and features thus had to rationalise the statement in some way or another.

You don't seem to understand that simply restating your original position rather than responding to a rebuttal is not how debating works (btw, it's Stephen).

Name one then.

I'll wait...

Not Sunni, Shia, Quranist, Mu'tazilite or any other major school of thought that cover almost all Muslims that have ever lived.

And if your argument is "well maybe there is one that exists but it is so tiny and unknown that no one knows about it" that hardly supports the idea that your arguments have any value as to Islam as it actually exists outside your imagination.

Again, you have no way of knowing on way or the other. Neither do I. Nor do I really care. What we both know is that the Qur'an presents itself as clear signs from Allah. It presents itself as being easy to understand.

... Muslims don't interpret the Quran like you think they should ...

And there it is again - a statement that no person in the world could possibly make with the certainty that you feign here.

 

[Augustus]

You don't seem to understand that simply restating your original position rather than responding to a rebuttal is not how debating works (btw, it's Stephen

Explaining why your “rebuttal” wasn’t a rebuttal is debating though.

Again, you have no way of knowing on way or the other. Neither do I. Nor do I really care. What we both know is that the Qur'an presents itself as clear signs from Allah. It presents itself as being easy to understand.

Cherry picking without context is problematic because we also know the Quran (3:7) says this “It is He who sent down upon thee the Book, wherein are verses clear that are the Essence of the Book, and others ambiguous. As for those in whose hearts is swerving, they follow the ambiguous part, desiring dissension, and desiring its interpretation; and none knows its interpretation, save only God.”

Unfortunately that kind of ruins your “methodology” of just taking any verse in isolation and demanding it is read literally and that yields its “objective” meaning.

It yields incompatible results so can’t be correct.

As for your other claim, you are really arguing we have no way of knowing what the teachings of any major school of Islamic thought
despite them telling us explicitly if we care to read even a little?

So, in short, your methodology of cherry picking verses in isolation is contradictory and makes no sense. You can’t name any Muslim sects that actually interpret it in the way you claim, and you don’t care that your arguments don’t reflect the beliefs of actual Muslims from any identifiable school of thought.?

Yet you consider it an ad hom to say you are shouting at clouds because you attack a position that, at very best, represents a negligible percentage of Muslims, and likely represents close to zero as you made it up yourself?

Great debating.

And there it is again - a statement that no person in the world could possibly make with the certainty that you feign here.

Of course we can know reasonably accurately.

I can’t prove there is no sect of Jews who think Chuck Norris was Moses, but the fact that no one is aware of any is evidence the number is none to negligible and when looking at what Jews, in general, believe we can safely ignore them as an irrelevance.

Again name a sect or even a single Muslim in history who applies your methodology to the Quran. You can’t.

None of the sects that make up 99% of Muslims uses anything remotely similar to your methodology. We know this.

It’s also very unlikely that a significant number of the remaining 1% do as they represent all the thousands of other minute sects.

So we can agree that neither of us is aware of a single Muslim who applies your method and that if they did it would be inherently contradictory and make no sense.

Given this, what exactly is the value of your argument for understanding any aspect of reality outside your imagination?

 

[Link]

wa aleike salaam

I have to admit that I don't quite follow... are you saying that depending on your question you can read different answers out of the same text? Now, that just sounds like the whole thing would be incredibly vulnerable to wild speculation and imposing your personal bias on the text.

Salam

I'm saying there is not one topic you can pin point to the big Surahs. They are proving multiple thesis at the same time.

alright, I can follow this part... still don't see how the Qur'an is substantially different?

Hadiths can have poet prose or paragraph like normal speech even though it's higher speech. Quran has no paragraphs and it's bigger Surahs cannot be pinpointed to poetry despite it's rhythm. In short, there are no words like it currently known.

And well... again... that same thing that you find interesting and eloquent, just read really messy and jumbled to me. Interesting how the same text can have such different impressions on different people.

It was messy for me at a certain point of my life. I disbelieved in Islam for five years. But when you take care to notice the details and nuances, it changes. When you reflect over it, it changes. And a reason why hell is repeated is so much can be because of how it has to be proven from multidimensions and many arguments layered for it.

That's why I read it in Arabic. I thought my first reading might have been distorted by the translation, so I did it again in an interlinear translation. My Arabic is not good enoug to read it fluently, but with a translation below I can sure compare and see how the original is structured in vocabulary and grammar.
what can I say... it did not change my impression.

You still probably don't know the degree it's mistranslated. This itself won't solve that.

 

[stevecanuck]

Cherry picking without context is problematic because we also know the Quran (3:7) says this “It is He who sent down upon thee the Book, wherein are verses clear that are the Essence of the Book, and others ambiguous. As for those in whose hearts is swerving, they follow the ambiguous part, desiring dissension, and desiring its interpretation; and none knows its interpretation, save only God.”

That was a perfect example, as you state, of cherry picking. You chose one verse that is in contradiction to hundreds of others - the very definition of cherry picking.

Do you have examples of me doing that?

 

[stevecanuck]

Unfortunately that kind of ruins your “methodology” of just taking any verse in isolation and demanding it is read literally and that yields its “objective” meaning.

No, you have to show that what I say is cherry picking for that to be true. Giving an individual example of a verse that is similar to others is NOT cherry picking. It has be in opposition to the norm.

 

[stevecanuck]

You still probably don't know the degree it's mistranslated. This itself won't solve that.

Again, he uses translations by internationally known scholars to guide him. Your "mistranslation" diversion doesn't fly.

 

[stevecanuck]

So, in short, your methodology of cherry picking verses in isolation is contradictory and makes no sense. You can’t name any Muslim sects that actually interpret it in the way you claim, and you don’t care that your arguments don’t reflect the beliefs of actual Muslims from any identifiable school of thought.?

Read the name of this thread.

We're talking about Qur'anists as a sub-set of Muslims. How many there are is not germane to the conversation. They exist.

 

[Augustus]

Read the name of this thread.
We're talking about Qur'anists as a sub-set of Muslims. How many there are is not germane to the conversation. They exist.

Quranists don’t advocate a literal reading of specific verses of the Quran in isolation. They advocate interpretation of the Quran with reference to the Quran as a whole.

As I said, we can agree that neither of us can name a single Muslim, let alone a sect that applies your methodology to interpreting the Quran.

Given this, what exactly is the value of your argument for understanding any aspect of reality outside your imagination?

That was the initial point you jumped in to critique as you insisted:

The underlined is a transparent attempt at negating the entire point of the Qur'an. Anyone who has read it objectively will see that it is meant to simply be read and obeyed as presented.

You can't read any literary text "objectively", especially works containing frequent usage of a wide range of rhetorical techniques. You apply a subjective method in interpreting it.

The idea that the Quran is a self-contained text that can be read literally like an instruction manual makes little sense if you have actually read it.

For example, the Quran assumes its audience have a knowledge of Abrahamic religious traditions, hence it refers to stories without narrating them. This, and many other allusions or references to people and events that are not explained shows it is not to be "read and obeyed as presented" it needs to be interpreted in one way or the other.

That was a perfect example, as you state, of cherry picking. You chose one verse that is in contradiction to hundreds of others - the very definition of cherry picking.

Do you have examples of me doing that?

You saying the Quran is clear and thus you can just take any verse in isolation and demand it is read literally and this yields its "objective" meaning is cherry-picking.

You forgot to post the other verse that explicitly says you can't do this, and that some bits are so unclear only God understands them.

Both can't be true, therefore you obviously need to interpret at least some parts of the Quran to resolve this contradiction. Then if you read the Quran it's obviously not clear in many parts, hence all major Muslim sects apply a high degree of interpretation to it.

To correct your misunderstanding, giving an example of a contradiction is not "cherry picking" when all it takes is one example to make the point. We know we can't simply read every verse literally in isolation. You are also well aware that there are numerous other contradictions, which is one of the reasons later scholars had to invent the concept of abrogation to rationalise this.

 

[stevecanuck]

Quranists don’t advocate a literal reading of specific verses of the Quran in isolation. They advocate interpretation of the Quran with reference to the Quran as a whole.

As do I. Only when you've digested the entire Qur'an you can determine if individual verses fit an established pattern or if they're an outlier.