What do you think about Quranists?

[stevecanuck]

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.

The Qur'an makes that exact assertion many hundreds of times. I know that because I "have actually read it".

 

[stevecanuck]

You saying the Quran is clear ........

You saying pointing out that the Qur'an says it's clear" ......

There. Fixed it for you.

 

[stevecanuck]

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.

Contradictions exist in the Qur'an because it was authored by a human being. If it's just a case of one verse contradicting another, then context is indeed needed to try to figure out where Mohamed was trying to land on the issue. However, In the case of your personal favorite (3:7), It's just one verse flying in the face of hundreds of others that say something completely different. See the difference? Didn't think so.

 

[stevecanuck]

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.

As I said in the previous post - "Contradictions exist in the Qur'an because it was authored by a human being. If it's just a case of one verse contradicting another, then context is indeed needed to try to figure out where Mohamed was trying to land on the issue".

The vast majority of the Qur'an is consistent (on the main points). Abrogation is needed in only a few cases where Mohamed couldn't keep his story straight.

 

[Augustus]

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.

No you don’t, see for example

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

In every thread you consistently refer to chronology, occasions of revelation and events that are only known from hadith and sirah. You just don’t seem to realise that these things are only known from these sources.

You basically do whatever you think makes Muhammad look the most evil.

You saying pointing out that the Qur'an says it's clear" ......

There. Fixed it for you.

It also says there are parts that only god understands, and it obviously isn't clear to the extent that we can see very clearly that early exegetes have no idea how to interpret many verses.

Contradictions exist in the Qur'an because it was authored by a human being. If it's just a case of one verse contradicting another, then context is indeed needed to try to figure out where Mohamed was trying to land on the issue. However, In the case of your personal favorite (3:7), It's just one verse flying in the face of hundreds of others that say something completely different. See the difference? Didn't think so.

The text says it is both clear and unclear.

If it is clear as you insist, we should be able to look back on the earliest Islamic scholarship and find scholars understood everything and agreed with each other.

If we look back though, we see that they were obviously guessing as to how to interpret passages, Tabari often notes 5 or more contradictory readings of the same verses.

The text is so unclear that early Muslims had to create entire fields of additional literature, much of it clearly fictitious, to have it make sense.

The fact remains much of the Quran is not clear regardless of whether it claims to be a few times or not.

Abrogation is needed in only a few cases where Mohamed couldn't keep his story straight.

The concept of abrogation is quite dubious based on Quran alone, and would rely on an accurate chronology that could not be created based on the Quran alone.

We don’t even know how complete a record the Quran is. it may just be a compendium of some of Muhammad’s sermons and utterances compiled by his followers and devoid of much of their original context rather than a complete text, let alone an instruction manual designed to be simply read as is.

 

[stevecanuck]

We don’t even know how complete a record the Quran is. it may just be a compendium of some of Muhammad’s sermons and utterances compiled by his followers and devoid of much of their original context rather than a complete text, let alone an instruction manual designed to be simply read as is.

Okay. So what? How does that change a single belief of today's Muslims?

 

[stevecanuck]

In every thread you consistently refer to chronology, occasions of revelation and events that are only known from hadith and sirah. You just don’t seem to realise that these things are only known from these sources.

Again, 1400 years of scholarly research has been poured into determining early Islamic history. I'm choose to accept the majority narrative rather than the odd person saying little more than "maybe not".

You have yet to provide an alternative that fits with both the Qur'an and realilty on the ground. An Islamic army emerged from Arabia and created a vast empire. How did it come to be?

 

[Augustus]

Okay. So what? How does that change a single belief of today's Muslims?

Earlier you said you have no interest in what Muslims believe and all that you care about is how you personally think people should interpret the Quran.

Funny how your approach changes to whatever suits you best at the time.

Again, 1400 years of scholarly research has been poured into determining early Islamic history. I'm choose to accept the majority narrative rather than the odd person saying little more than "maybe not".
You have yet to provide an alternative that fits with both the Qur'an and realilty on the ground. An Islamic army emerged from Arabia and created a vast empire. How did it come to be?

The alternative would be that, like all other religions in the Abrahamic traditions, you have a kernel of historical truth supplemented with all kinds of additional theological fabrications. This better fits with both the Quran and the reality on the ground which I will address later.

Also, earlier you said you interpreted the Quran using the Quran, here you accept you contextualise that using the hadith.

A correction though, there have been around 100 years of secular scholarly research, and really it's only in the last 50 years that it has been treated with the same rigour as other historical disciplines. The majority secular narrative is not what you claim either, so pretending it is just the 'odd person' is objectively wrong.

You don't seriously think early Muslims were conducting "scholarly research" to establish truth rather than writing theological narratives, do you? After orthodoxy had been established, you don't really think people were free to conduct critical independent scholarship to challenge the factual accuracy of Islamic doctrine either, do you? Not to mention the idea of aiming to write objective history was not much of a thing prior to the modern era,

So who was conducting these 1400 years of critical historical scholarship that you seem to think exists? It's 1300 years of theology, followed by the more recent emergence of a critical historical discipline.

Despite your wilful avoidance of any modern secular scholarship, the most common view is that the Islamic theological narrative is based around a kernel of truth but contains many legendary, theological, political and sectarian fabrications. A bit like the view of the Gospels - some truth, but also plenty of fabrication, and difficulty in establishing which is which.

The debate is not “is it accurate?”, it is “to what extent is it fabricated, and how many kernels of truth can we establish?”. Answers range from it's a bit fabricated, to it's almost entirely fabricated.

As to what better fits the Quran, the realities on the ground, and what we know about the study of history as a discipline, are there any of these that you disagree with:

• The sirah is a hagiography, and hagiographies are written for theological reasons, not to be factually accurate even if they do contains kernels of truth.
• It significantly relies on oral traditions being accurately preserved over a couple of centuries thousands of KM away from where the purported events happened in a rapidly changing political situation. As such, it would be near miraculous for it to have been preserved highly accurately.
• When we compare hadith to non-Islamic history, we find the latter isn't consistent with the former.
• The sirah contains many fantastical and miraculous events (moon splitting, flying donkeys, etc) that cannot possibly be true unless Muhammad really is a genuine prophet - as such you agree there are significant fabrications.
• You might argue that perhaps they invented miracles, but we should trust the mundane stuff - so is the mundane stuff reliable? No. For example, the Mecca of the traditions - a major trading hub, preeminent pilgrimage site and isolated pagan backwater free of Abrahamic influence - does not match the evidence and the fact it was completely to the historical record. There are many more examples like this.
• Did they remember the most important things though? No. We know the sirah contains all kinds of events and issues recorded in the minutest detail. We also know the earliest Muslim exegetes had no idea how to interpret many veses in the Quran. So, your position relies on the proto-Muslims accurately recording unimportant minutiae, yet forgeting to note down how Muhammad told them to interpret the Quran. Maybe you find that plausible, but I'm a little bit more sceptical
• Does the Quranic text match the purported environment it emerged from in tradition? No, the text obviously assumes familiarity with Abrahamic traditions, and we know montheism had been spreading throughout the peninsula for hundreds of years.
• The later the biographies are written, the more detailed they become, and the more fantastical. Like people started writing infancy gospels for Jesus centuries after the fact to fill in gaps, this suggests significant fabrication.
• Muslims grade the hadith for authenticity though, so perhaps we can trust the strongest grades of hadith? Unfortunately, moon splitting and flying donkeys are recorded in the highest grade of hadith - mutawatir, accepted by Orthodox Muslims as incontrovertible fact impossible to fabricate.

I could continue, but you generally find an excuse to avoid addressing modern secular scholarship so I doubt there is much point. Overall, you can see there is very good reason to be sceptical of the theological narrative you are suggesting we trust.

Back to the OP, the very reason Quranists exist is because they find the hadiths to be of dubious historicity, you would do well to apply a similar level of critical thinking about the accuracy of the theological narratives you put so much faith in.

Finally, whenever it suits you, you paint early Muslims as deviously trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes, as you noted earlier in the thread:

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.

So you believe they were manipulating the situation for their own benefits, lying about things like Muhammad splitting the moon, but also honest and accurate recorders of objective factual history. Hmmm...

(Also, Ockham’s razor might suggest they didn’t put it together chronologically because they didn’t know the chronological order, just as they didn't know how to interpret much of it and so the chronological order was, at least somewhat fabricated after the fact as evidence suggests)

 

[stevecanuck]

Earlier you said you have no interest in what Muslims believe and all that you care about is how you personally think people should interpret the Quran.

Nope. Never said that.

Care to answer the question? Didn't think so.

 

[Eddi]

What do I think about them?

I am completely indifferent about them, they have absolutely nothing at all to do with my life, they don't effect me in any way at all

I didn't even know they existed or what they were until a few seconds ago

 

[Augustus]

Nope. Never said that.

Sure you did, here you go...

This often requires a high degree of interpretation rather than a shallow, literalist reading of verses in isolation.

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 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...

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.

All major sects use hadith to interpret the text, and Quranists don't simply read it "as presented" based on "a shallow, literalist reading of verses in isolation", but contextualise it with reference to the entire text.

You noted that you didn't care about how Muslims interpreted it, as you interpreted it as being clear and that 'the entire point' is that it should be read literally as presented.

Care to answer the question? Didn't think so.

You didn't address my post, just quoted 1 sentence without the actual context, so what is the value of pointing out that Muslims have never interpreted the Quran the way you suggest as it requires significant contextualisation, that it wouldn't make sense to treat it the way you suggest, that early Muslims clearly didn't do as you suggest as they couldn't really understand much of it, and that insisting it is clear seems to go against the reality given entire genres of literature were created to help explain the Quran? Seems pretty self-evident to me: it addresses both the beliefs of Muslims and the historical reality.

I'm still waiting for you to answer what is the value of your line of argumentation given you make no attempt to address either the actual beliefs of Muslims, or the historical reality.

You just say "this is how I personally think Muslims should interpret the Quran, even though I can't name any sects that do this in reality".

So what is the value of your opinion regarding the real world, rather than your imagination?

 

[stevecanuck]

Also, earlier you said you interpreted the Quran using the Quran, here you accept you contextualise that using the hadith.

Nope. Do you really have nothing better to do than to put words in my mouth?

Historicial context is useful only in that it gives a back-drop for a verse, NOT that it changes the meaning of a verse.

"Allah is the enemy of unbelievers" means "Allah is the enemy of unbelievers" regardless of context.

 

[Augustus]

Nope. Do you really have nothing better to do than to put words in my mouth?

Historicial context is useful only in that it gives a back-drop for a verse, NOT that it changes the meaning of a verse.

"Allah is the enemy of unbelievers" means "Allah is the enemy of unbelievers" regardless of context.

Unfortunately, you don't really seem to understand your own arguments.

If the hadith didn't change the meaning of any verses, why do you think Quranists reject them as fabricated tales that corrupt Muhammad's message? Also, why do you think Sunni Muslims are called Sunni if the sunnah is of no real value to interpreting the Quran?

Now lets look at more verses to see if your argument carries weight.

Glory be to Him, who carried His servant by night from the Holy Mosque to the Further Mosque the precincts of which We have blessed, that We might show him some of Our signs. He is the All-hearing, the All-seeing. (1) And We gave Moses the Book, and made it a guidance to the Children of Israel: 'Take not unto yourselves any guardian apart from Me.' (2) The seed of those We bore with Noah; he was a thankful servant. (3) And We decreed for the Children of Israel in the Book: 'You shall do corruption in the earth twice, and you shall ascend exceeding high.'

Are you saying it is self-evident from the verse that Muhammad flew on a donkey to Jerusalem, and it is not only something invented in the hadith? (in the Quran it's probably even about Moses).

Hadiths obviously impact the meaning of the Quran, as almost all Muslims would agree (although they might say 'clarify'). Again, your personal opinion doesn't seem very connected to the real world outside your imagination.

 

[Starlight]

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?

Prophet Muhammads message was the Quran. Prophet Muhammad was the first Quranist.

Of course God could have sent the Quran from the sky BUT God decided not to do it that way. God decided to give the verses in the Quran to Muhammad through angel Gabriel

 

[Link]

Prophet Muhammads message was the Quran. Prophet Muhammad was the first Quranist.

Of course God could have sent the Quran from the sky BUT God decided not to do it that way. God decided to give the verses in the Quran to Muhammad through angel Gabriel

The Quran is infinite in knowledge. The Sunnah is explicit in many details that we otherwise would not know from Quran alone. Of course, the true Sunnah is found in the Quran and the true clear Quran is found in the Sunnah, but how to gain that knowledge?

 

[mangalavara]

Quranists is muslims who believe that only the Quran is from God. They do not believe in any hadiths. Sunnis and shias believe in hadiths

Other than Shi’ism and Sunnism, there is also Ibadism. Ibadism accepts much less ahadith than the other two traditions, and Ibadis give much primacy to the Qur’an. Ibadis have a large presence in Oman.

This is in general no different from Christians who read the Bible either as literal truth or as metaphor.

From what I’ve observed online, a lot of Qur’anists come from countries that are traditionally Protestant. It’s interesting to me that some individuals in Muslim majority societies become Qur’anist because it’s such a different way of approaching the text than the way it is approached in their families and communities.

To me these different interpretations are worth knowing about in general because they help us avoid assuming that there is only one agreed on way of reading sacred scriptures.

I agree.

 

[Starlight]

The Quran is infinite in knowledge. The Sunnah is explicit in many details that we otherwise would not know from Quran alone. Of course, the true Sunnah is found in the Quran and the true clear Quran is found in the Sunnah, but how to gain that knowledge?

Now I believe you go against the Quran

We did not leave anything out of the book. Quran 6:38

Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed? Those who received the scripture recognize that it has been revealed from your Lord, truthfully. You shall not harbor any doubt.[Quran 6:114]

The biggest problem with much hadiths is that hadiths contradict with the Quran ,and hadiths was written two hundred years after prophet Muhammads death

 

[Link]

Many hadiths do contradict Quran. I agree with that. But a lot of hadiths give a lot of insight and correct mistranslations of Quran.

 

[Starlight]

Many hadiths do contradict Quran. I agree with that. But a lot of hadiths give a lot of insight and correct mistranslations of Quran.

Hadiths that contradict the Quran should not be used at all. Even if the hadiths is sahih, because it is mistakes in sahih hadiths also. Only the Quran is without error and mistakes.

 

[Link]

We did not leave anything out of the book. Quran 6:38

This is true, but it's not that everyone sees everything everyone else sees in the Quran. The Ahlulbayt (a) have full knowledge of it and everyone else partial.

Istikhara of Quran for example asks God to show you a sign/proof in Quran for what you must do and guidance regarding the situation you are asking for. This itself shows how comprehensive the Quran is in terms of guidance, that for any particular issue, you will find guidance from Quran if you ask God for it sincerely.

However, the Quran is layered. Clarifications of signs open more doors that open more doors.

Mohammad (s) Sunnah compliments the Quran even though many things attributed to the Sunnah contradicts the Quran.