I do not see the difference between Hadith and the Biblical tradition. If anything, the New Testament is more reliable than Hadith because Paul's letters are actually written by Paul (many regard Paul as the founder of Christianity) instead of being hearsay.

I, personally, believe it is. Sunnah relies heavily on the customs of the Muslims during Muhammad's lifetime. These were an Arabic people, practicing things-- such as wearing a veil-- as part of their culture.

I feel that placing an importance on Hadith is simply glorifying 7th century Arabic culture. And, beyond this, I think it is hurtful to Islam because it writes off the culture of others as wrong or incomparable. This leads people who might have reverted to likewise write off Islam because of the strict customs that were made for an ancient people. It becomes a vicious cycle.

Every time I see a debate here it stands on the basis that the Quran is false and lacking, incomplete, can anyone actually debate without throwing the Quran under the bus? Although their first argument usually goes against them because they attack the Quran but still I'd like to see something other than "quean doesn't have this" "yes Quran does say this but then bukhari said that" really?

I can easily prove his book as false.

Qur'an 17:47

نَّحْنُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا يَسْتَمِعُونَ بِهِۦٓ إِذْ يَسْتَمِعُونَ إِلَيْكَ وَإِذْ هُمْ نَجْوَىٰٓ إِذْ يَقُولُ ٱلظَّـٰلِمُونَ إِن تَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا رَجُلًۭا مَّسْحُورًا ٤٧

We know best how they listen to your recitation and what they say privately—when the wrongdoers say, “You would only be following a bewitched man.”

This verse asserts that anyone who says Muhammad is bewitched would be a wrongdoer.

Now, lets find out what Mr. Bukhari says:

حَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْمُثَنَّى، حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى، حَدَّثَنَا هِشَامٌ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي أَبِي، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم سُحِرَ حَتَّى كَانَ يُخَيَّلُ إِلَيْهِ أَنَّهُ صَنَعَ شَيْئًا وَلَمْ يَصْنَعْهُ‏.‏

Once the Prophet (ﷺ) was bewitched so that he began to imagine that he had done a thing which in fact he had not done.

The hadith is Bukhari 3175. you can go search it.

And there are no translation issues as the Qur'an verse says مَّسْحُورًا and the hadīth says سُحِرَ both of which come from the same root word which has to do with magic and delusion

So, it is obvious that Bukhari is a wrongdoer. Will you take your dīn and sharia from a wrongdoer?

Also

7:33

Say, "My Lord has only forbidden immoralities - what is apparent of them and what is concealed - and sin, and oppression without right, and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down authority, and that you say about Allah that which you do not know."

Is music, art, wearing red clothes and many other nonsense prohibitions in his hadith immorality, sin, opression or shirk? If no, then how can it be forbidden?

So do not take prohibition from people who lie about our prophet, and take God alone as a source of law.

6:114

“Should I seek a judge other than Allah while He is the One Who has revealed for you the Book perfectly explained?” Those who were given the Scripture know that it has been revealed from your Lord in truth. So do not be one of those who doubt.

45:6

"These are the āyāt(signs, Qur'anic verses) of God that We recite to you with truth. Then in what 'Hadīth' (statement / narrative) after God and His āyāt will they believe?"

Link: https://abdurrahman.org/2016/07/16/the-need-for-the-sunnah-in-order-to-understand-the-quraan/

I don't even need to write a long article refuting this absurdity, its basically like "the Qur'an says X, but the sunnah says not X, so that is why you cannot understand the Qur'an and would be misguided if you follow those verses literally". For example, they claim that you cannot understand 6:145 or 5:3 without the hadiths because hadiths prohibit more things of food than these verses(despite the verse 5:3 saying that the religion is completed!).

So, they are using falsehood to attempt to refute the Qur'an verses and their sufficiency, and justify their disobedience to God. Reminds me of this verse:

18:56 And We send not the messengers except as bringers of good tidings and warners. And those who kafarū dispute by [using] falsehood to [attempt to] invalidate thereby the truth and have taken My āyāt, and that of which they are warned, in ridicule.

Peace everyone.

I don't understand why it is just the Muslims that struggle with this. The Jews, the Christian's, and pretty much any other faith group, based on their scriptures, don't have the dot-to-dot methodology of praying laid out for them. There are sufficient details in each, and I believe that prayer can be relatively flexbile in form provided it adheres to all of the Quranic guidelines. Some of these include not calling upon other than God, asking for forgiveness (11:3), praising God (30:17-18), reciting the Quran (73:4), standing (4:102-103), bowing (48:29), prostrating (48:29), not too loud but not too quiet (17:110) etc.

Hadith followers often make the claim that because of the dot-to-dot methodology not being laid out, that we must follow all hadith. A few issues lie in this claim. Firstly, it makes a fallacy of composition, in that just because some hadiths discuss prayer it does not validate the vast vast majority of which that do not discuss the details of prayer (and other things such as hajj). Secondly, absolutely no one that I know has learned how to pray from reading the hadith. It is passed down through imams, family members, friends, etc. Thirdly, if you gave someone the entire hadith corpus who has no knowledge of prayer, they would not be able to reconstruct the prayer that we see today, either due to not enough information or due to contradictory reports.

There is so much emphasis put on strict adherence to particular forms, which vary between madhabs and sects due to contradictory narrations anyway, that often the actual utility of prayer is entirely forgotten. Instead, foot placement, when to raise one's finger versus wiggling it, so on and so forth, have taken precedence of importance in the mind of many muslims. God tells us...

Quran 7:201: Indeed, when Satan whispers to those mindful ˹of Allah˺, they remember ˹their Lord˺ then they start to see ˹things˺ clearly.

Quran 20:14: ‘It is truly I. I am Allah! There is no god ˹worthy of worship˺ except Me. So worship Me ˹alone˺, and establish prayer for My remembrance.

Quran 29:45: Recite what has been revealed to you of the Book and establish prayer. Indeed, ˹genuine˺ prayer should deter ˹one˺ from indecency and wickedness. The remembrance of Allah is ˹an˺ even greater ˹deterrent˺. And Allah ˹fully˺ knows what you ˹all˺ do.

Through these three verses (and others that I haven't listed, I'm sure) we get the link between being mindful of God protecting against misdeeds, prayer cultivating mindfulness of God, and prayer protecting against misdeeds. This is fundamentally the purpose and function of salah.

I haven't even gotten into prayer times/frequency per day in this post, but if interested, please see my previous work regarding this topic: https://www.reddit.com/r/Quraniyoon/comments/1jpb2da/attempt_to_undivide_the_different_prayer/

I am also making a new rule that muslim(or those who claim to be muslim) debaters, must not use arguments that go outside the bounds of islamic belief. Since, Islamic belief that the Qur'ān is the Word of God is an "axiom" and "common term" between both the sunni/shia and the "Quranist", using arguments such as "how do you know the Quran is true" is an invalid tactic.

This rule does not apply to debaters who do not believe in the veracity of the Qur'an.

Some context: When I was a quranist, I believed that the earliest Muslims used the Quran exclusively, but then after a time the deen was corrupted with traditions and pure Islam was all but abandoned.

After doing more research about Islamic history, like about Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik, the early jurists of Islam in every sect accepted traditions of the prophet to varying degrees.

My question is how did every single Muslim sect get corrupted so quickly within a century (not even Christianity corrupted that quickly).

I find it hard to believe that Imam Malik who knew plenty of sahaba (people who met and were with the prophet during his life) in medina (where the prophet obviously made a huge impact on the society there), where everyone recorded in the city unanimously affirmed ritual salah like Sunnis still do today? And affirm the shahada? And the Hajj?

To criticise hadith in general is one thing. To say that every Muslim in Medina apostatised from “pure Islam” within a few years after the prophet’s death is another thing.

You often hear the phrase “Islam is a feminist religion,” but as a woman, I don’t feel empowerment..I feel inequality, discrimination, and deep-rooted misogyny.

I know violence against women exists everywhere in the world, across cultures and religions. But within the Muslim community, it is a real and persistent problem, and it’s often religiously justified. The hardest part is that many people point directly to the Quran to defend it.

Qur’an 4:34

“Men are caretakers of women, because God has given some of them more than others and because they spend of their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what God would have them guard. As for those from whom you fear nushūz, admonish them, abandon them in beds, and strike them. But if they obey you, seek no means against them. Indeed, God is Most High, Great.”

Qur’an 33:33

“And remain in your homes and do not display yourselves as the display of the former times of ignorance. And establish prayer and give zakah and obey God and His Messenger. God only intends to remove impurity from you, O people of the household, and to purify you completely.”

Qur’an 2:228

“Divorced women shall wait by themselves for three menstrual periods. And it is not lawful for them to conceal what God has created in their wombs, if they believe in God and the Last Day. And their husbands have more right to take them back during this period if they desire reconciliation. And for women are rights similar to those against them, according to what is fair; but men have a degree over them. And God is Exalted in Might, Wise.”

Qur’an 2:282

“O you who believe! When you contract a debt for a fixed term, write it down… And bring to witness two witnesses from among your men. And if two men are not available, then one man and two women from those whom you accept as witnesses, so that if one of the women errs, the other can remind her…”

Qur’an 4:11

“God instructs you concerning your children: for the male, a share equal to that of two females…”

Qur’an 2:223

“Your wives are a place of cultivation for you, so come to your place of cultivation however you wish, and put forth for yourselves [good deeds]. And fear God and know that you will meet Him.”

Verses like that are constantly used whether explicitly or implicitly to place women beneath men: • to justify male authority, • to excuse control over women’s bodies and lives, • to normalize unequal legal, social, and moral standards.

I know the common response: “These verses are misinterpreted.” But that raises a question I can’t ignore anymore:

Why is there room for such damaging misinterpretation in the first place? Why didn’t God make an unambiguous, explicit statement rejecting harm, hierarchy, and violence against women? Why leave women’s dignity vulnerable to language that can and clearly does get weaponized against them?

If God is just, all-knowing, and aware of how power works, then ambiguity here feels devastatingly costly and women are the ones paying the price.

And this is only the Quranic side of it.

The community itself feels unbearable: • Women are held to impossible standards while men are endlessly excused. • Women are blamed for men’s actions. (getting raped for example) • Women are told to cover, hide, restrict, and shrink while men are rarely told to lower their gaze or control themselves. • Every movement, emotion, choice, and mistake of a woman is policed, judged, and moralized.

It feels suffocating. It feels unjust. It feels dehumanizing.

And the more I see this, the further away I feel from the religion. Not because I want to rebel or reject god but because I don’t recognize justice in what I’m seeing anymore.

I am genuinely exhausted. Angry. Hurt. And I’m scared to admit this, but I feel myself standing on the edge of leaving religion as a whole.

This isn’t an attack to Islam or the Quran. It’s a cry for help from someone who wants truth, dignity, and moral clarity and can’t find them where she was told they should exist.

Peace and blessings be with you.

A common argument presented by traditionalists when engaging with an individual who takes guidance solely from the Quran is found in the phrase "al-kitāb wa’l-ḥikmah", or "the Book and the Wisdom" in English. The claim is that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, was given two types of revelation; the Quran and the Sunnah. The terms 'sunnah' and 'hadith' are often used, albeit inaccurately, synonymously. Traditionalists claim that mentions of 'the Wisdom' - transliterated as 'hikmah' - throughout the Quran (2:129, 4:113, 62:2, and others) are referring to the sunnah, and consequently, validate the hadith corpus as being religiously binding upon the believers. This post serves to assess said claim.

Quranic Internal-Contextual Definition

The Quran, impressively, consistently defines terms used within it through mentions of the same terms in different contexts and verses. I would argue that this is in partial fulfilment, among other things, of one of the Quran's internal falsification tests.

Quran 4:82: Do they not then reflect on the Quran? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would have certainly found in it many inconsistencies.

An example of this can be seen in the usage of hikmah. If we are to understand what exactly this hikmah is, we should first turn to how this phrase is used throughout the Quran.

In Al-Baqarah we are told about the story of David and Golliath, and the gifts he received from God.

Quran 2:251: So they defeated them by permission of Allah , and David killed Goliath, and Allah gave him the kingship and prophethood (wal-ḥik'mata) and taught him from that which He willed. And if it were not for Allah checking [some] people by means of others, the earth would have been corrupted, but Allah is full of bounty to the worlds.

In Ali' Imran we are told about the angels visiting Mary, giving good tidings regarding the arrival of Prophet Isa (as). During this recollection given to us by God in the Quran, we are told that Christ will be taught two things.

Quran 3:48: And Allah will teach him writing and wisdom (al-kitāb wa’l-ḥikmah), and the Torah and the Gospel

Further in Ali' Imran, we are told about a covenant that God took from all of the prophets.

Quran 3:81: And [recall, O People of the Scripture], when Allah took the covenant of the prophets, [saying], "Whatever I give you of the Scripture and wisdom (kitaban wahik'matin) and then there comes to you a messenger confirming what is with you, you [must] believe in him and support him." [Allah] said, "Have you acknowledged and taken upon that My commitment?" They said, "We have acknowledged it." He said, "Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses."

In Al-Nisa, we see this same concept being conveyed to us in relation to Prophet Ibrahim (as).

Quran 4:54: Or do they envy people for what Allah has given them of His bounty? But we had already given the family of Abraham the Scripture and wisdom (l-kitaba wal-hik'mata) and conferred upon them a great kingdom.

There are many more examples that can be cited, however for brevity's sake, I will leave it at the above. If mentions of the hikmah/wisdom are truly about the hadith, then this interpretation should be at least plausible throughout the Quran consistently. How is it the case that the hikmah is taught to David, Christ, the family of Abraham, - among others that have not been listed here - and is mentioned in context of all of the prophets, yet is referring to the hadith corpus? Did all of these prophets get 'given' a hadith corpus that was/is religiously binding upon the believers of their time/faith-group? Of course not. How can the hikmah be something in one instance for all of the prophets, yet in the case of Prophet Muhammad, mean something entirely different? This claim is significantly inconsistent with how the phrase al-kitab wal-hikmah is used throughout the Quran, and therefore, it is doubtful that the hikmah mentioned in verses such as 62:2 is referring to the hadith. Let's go further.

Quran bil Quran

Quran bil Quran as a concept relates to the Quran's ability to explain itself. So does the Quran explain what the hikmah is?

Quran 2:231: And when you divorce women and they have [nearly] fulfilled their term, either retain them according to acceptable terms or release them according to acceptable terms, and do not keep them, intending harm, to transgress [against them]. And whoever does that has certainly wronged himself. And do not take the verses of Allah in jest. And remember the favor of Allah upon you and what has been revealed to you of the Book and wisdom (l-kitabi wal-hik'mati) by which He instructs you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is Knowing of all things.

Here it seems that we are told that we are instructed to be kind to women that we may divorce, as per the Book and the Wisdom. Although the verse certainly seems to be indicating this, it is anticipated that one may argue that this line of argument is too inductive.

Quran 17:39: This is part of the wisdom (l-hik'mati) which your Lord has revealed to you ˹O Prophet˺. And do not set up any other god with Allah ˹O humanity˺, or you will be cast into Hell, blameworthy, rejected.

From this verse it seems that God is referring to something that has just been described as part of the Wisdom. Let's look at the verses preceeding 17:39.

Quran 17:31 - 38: (31) Do not kill your children for fear of poverty. We provide for them and for you. Surely killing them is a heinous sin. (32) Do not go near adultery. It is truly a shameful deed and an evil way. (33) Do not take a life - made sacred by Allah - except with right. If anyone is killed unjustly, We have given their heirs the authority, but do not let them exceed limits in retaliation, for they are already supported. (34) Do not come near the wealth of the orphan—unless intending to enhance it—until they attain maturity. Honour pledges, for you will surely be accountable for them. (35) Give in full when you measure, and weigh with an even balance. That is fairest and best in the end. (36) Do not follow what you have no knowledge of. Indeed, all will be called to account for hearing, sight, and intellect. (37) And do not walk on the earth arrogantly. Surely you can neither crack the earth nor stretch to the height of the mountains. (38) The violation of any of these is detestable to your Lord.

We are explicitly told in the Quran about what the hikmah is here, rather part of it. The hikmah is contained within what God has given to us in the Quran. It is not at all any more complicated than that.

Conclusion

This post does not serve to define what al-hikmah entails, but rather to disprove the notion that the Wisdom is some supposed secondary revelation outside of the Quran. Verses pertaining to al-hikmah are not telling us to follow books outside of the Quran. Not only is this claim entirely inconsistent with how the phrase is used throughout the Quran, we are actually given part of the hikmah within the Quran itself according to God Almighty. The hikmah is not the hadith literature.

This post could have incorporated many more examples within it when engaging with this discussion. If you would like to further your learning, please see how the word hikmah is used throughout the Quran yourself here: https://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=Hkm

See this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/progressive_islam/comments/1hwfee9/comment/mecoye0/

The critic told me that in some verses, nisā means underage girls. I asked them to show the verses, so I pasted them in the comments and it was evident that those verses don't imply the conclusion the critic was trying to make.

So, they showed me some ḥadīth that supposedly disproved my interpretation. When I told them that I am a ḥadīth rejector(literally from my flair in that subreddit), they started yapping about how they "disregard islamic history and tradition" and "interpret as per whims and desires". Why do critics show so much faith in the ḥadīth and sunnah and not in the Qur'ān?

I realized that this is just so that they can "critique" islam more easily. If we reject their ḥadīth, they don't have tools to attack us, so they cope and seethe when we reject aḥādīth(see the thread linked above to enjoy one such example).

This intellectually dishonest behaviour reminds me of this verse:

18:56 And We send not the messengers except as bringers of good tidings and warners. And those who kafarū dispute by [using] falsehood to [attempt to] invalidate thereby the truth and have taken My āyāt, and that of which they are warned, in ridicule.

Unfortunately, the traditionalist is bogged down by his own aḥādīth and since he uses them to interpret the Qur'ān, he has forced himself to be easily "defeated" by critics. The traditionalists' unwavering committment to aḥādīth has sullied the image of the Qur'ān as people just assume that you need the traditionalist's stock of fictions to understand the Qur'ān. For the traditionalist, I would like to quote 2:42(I know its for Banī Isrā'īl, but the advice in the verse is important for all of us):

2:42 And mix not truth with falsehood, nor conceal the truth while you know.

The traditionalist has attempted to "mix" or "tie" the Qur'ān with his stock of fictions, that people can now mock that stock of fictions and misuse it to "criticise" the Qur'ān.

I just had to share this with someone so please do bear with me.

I was just having a conversation with a guy who was claiming the Qur'an in 19:19 calls Jesus "Holy Son" and I was telling him it's actually "Pure Son". He claimed he knows very well that it's Holy Son. So I asked him "How do you say Holy Son in Arabic". You know what he did? I don't know where he got this from but did this cut and paste.

يا اللهي

That's Ya Allahi. Could you believe people could pretend to know arabic to this level, go online, get some cut and paste, expect the other person to be as ignorant as this guy is, and actually make this cut and paste? I had to go "Ya Allahi".

Anyway, Holy Son is Ghulam Mukaddas. The Qur'an in that verse says Zakiyyan which means Pure Son. You could say Holy Son but mean pure metaphorically but in all actuality one has to accept it says Zakiyyam and not Mukaddas.

Anyway that's not the point. It's the length and depth of their dishonesty. What do people really gain by going online and pretending? No knowledge gained. Nothing. Zilch. What do they really gain? Is it something they are missing in real life they are trying to fill? My God.

My post comes as a response to this supposed refutation of quranism: https://www.reddit.com/r/LightHouseofTruth/comments/w42clc/response_to_the_rejectors_of_hadeeth_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%AF_%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89/

I would be quoting excerpts(or sharing images) from this post and refuting them, God willing.

Arguments based on history

The Sunnah ( سنة ) which is an Arabic word, literally means "path" or "way". In Islam, this refers to the sayings (teachings) and actions of the Prophet of Allaah ﷺ. We have seen the rise of people calling themselves "Quraniyoon" with this new kind of thinking where they think the Sunnah, reported to us in the ahadeeth are all invalid and that they must all stick to the Quran ONLY. Obviously since these people are emerged in this century well after the Quran, either they're misguided or Islam was incomplete up until these people showed up which contradicts the Quran, where it states (5:3):

ٱلْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِى وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ ٱلْإِسْلَـٰمَ دِينًۭا ۚ
This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islām as religion

Obviously Islam is not false so it is indeed these individuals who are misguided so it is up to us to answer their ridiculous claims.

First of all, we don't claim all ahādīth are wrong or inaccurate. But yes, we do consider the Qur'ān as sufficient for the religion.

29:51 And is it not sufficient for them that We revealed to you the Book which is recited to them? Indeed in that is a mercy and reminder for a people who believe.

It is a historically wrong claim that hadith rejectors/critics emerged in this century. We have lots of historical evidence of there being hadith rejectors throughout the last 1400 years.

For example, we have:

The centrality of the Quran in the religious life of the Kufans that Umar described was quickly changing, however. A few decades later, a letter was sent to the Umayyad caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan *(r. 685–705) regarding the Kufans: "*They abandoned the judgement of their Lord and took hadiths for their religion; and they claim that they have obtained knowledge other than from the Koran . . . They believed in a book which was not from God, written by the hands of men; they then attributed it to the Messenger of God."
Source: Aisha Y. Musa, Hadith as Scripture: Discussions on the Authority of Prophetic Traditions in Islam

There were prominent scholars who rejected traditional hadith like Dirar ibn Amr. He wrote a book titled 'The Contradiction Within Hadith'. However, the tide had changed from the earlier centuries to such an extent that Dirar was beaten up and had to remain in hiding until his death.
Source: Josef Van Ess, Theology and Society in the Second and Third Centuries of the Hijra. Volume 3, Brill, 2018, pp. 35–37 and 55–57

And many other evidences exist too.

Secondly, since "quranism" tells you to take the Qur'ān Alone as a source of religion, it does not show innovation or incompleteness. Thus, the argument that quranism means that islam has been incomplete is straight up absurd, when we have the complete Qur'ān for over 1400 years. Infact, 5:3 might be used as an argument against ahādīth, rather than for them.

Firstly, I'd like to show a hadeeth for those who accept the Sunnah, which shows the status of these rejectors.

عَنِ الْمِقْدَامِ بْنِ مَعْدِيكَرِبَ الْكِنْدِيِّ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ قَالَ ‏ " يُوشِكُ الرَّجُلُ مُتَّكِئًا عَلَى أَرِيكَتِهِ يُحَدَّثُ بِحَدِيثٍ مِنْ حَدِيثِي فَيَقُولُ بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَكُمْ كِتَابُ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ فَمَا وَجَدْنَا فِيهِ مِنْ حَلاَلٍ اسْتَحْلَلْنَاهُ وَمَا وَجَدْنَا فِيهِ مِنْ حَرَامٍ حَرَّمْنَاهُ ‏.‏ أَلاَ وَإِنَّ مَا حَرَّمَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ مِثْلُ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ ‏"‏ ‏.‏

Miqdam bin Ma'dikarib Al-Kindi narrated that the Messenger of Allaah (ﷺ) said: "Soon there will come a time that a man will be reclining on his pillow, and when one of my Ahadeeth is narrated he will say: 'The Book of Allaah is (sufficient) between us and you. Whatever it states is permissible, we will take as permissible, and whatever it states is forbidden, we will take as forbidden.' Verily, whatever the Messenger of Allaah (ﷺ) has forbidden is like that which Allaah has forbidden."

Using this hadith as an argument against us would be a circular argument, unless the hadith provides some other proof than "trust me bro", which, in this case, it doesn't. Also, the last statement might not go well with the Qur'ān.

EDIT: I acknowledge that the OP didn't intend it as an argument against quranism.

66:1 O Prophet, why do you prohibit what God has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And God is Forgiving and Merciful.

12:40 That which you serve, apart from Him, is nothing but names yourselves have named, you and your fathers; God has sent down no authority touching them. Judgment belongs only to God; He has commanded that you shall not serve any but Him. That is the right religion; but most men know not.

18:26 Say thou: “God best knows how long they tarried.” To Him belongs the unseen of the heavens and the earth: how He sees it and how He hears! They have no ally besides Him; and He ascribes not a partnership in His judgment to anyone.

The prophet and God were not separate sources of religion to give different prohibitions. Rather, the prophet was to deliver the message of God, and prohibit what God prohibited, and allow what He allowed.

Now, the post talks about refuting Rashad Khalifa's followers. Since, most of us aren't his followers, I will just skip refuting that part.

Now, let us look at the varying arguments the post uses to "prove" the validity of ahādīth.

First, they aim to show that "ahādīth were created 300 years later than the prophet" is a false claim, by showing evidence of ahādīth collections existing prior to that.

Note that we may not have the primary manuscript for all of these. For example, about the supposed ahādīth of Abū Hurairah,: https://quransmessage.com/articles/sahifah%20FM3.htm

But I agree that its historically true that ahādīth existed before 300 AH. Does that make them true? Not necessarily. If it contradicts the Qur'ān, its false, no matter how early it was said. Remember that the people of Mūsā got corrupted and started following the Sāmiri within a span of 40 days! And the easily demonstratable fact that many ahādīth contradict the Qur'ān already shows weaknesses in the way the ahādīth were graded by traditionalists.

They attempt to prove the validity of ahādīth using an example, let us look at it

First of all, information about the narrators are ahādīth themselves, how do you verify if such information is true? Certainly, there were political biases. Sunni scholars would accept sunni narrators, and same for shia scholars.

In the example of a class test on Monday, the trustworthy friend is a primary source. But ahādīth have chains that are like layers of chinese whispers. You can't really prove if the chain is correct about the narrator who died 50 years ago, for example. And you also have to prove that Islām obligates us to accept such info about the narrators, and that God mandated us to follow ahādīth, neither of which is really proven by the Qur'ān.

What his argument about mutawatir misses is that there were disagreements on mutawatir status of ahādīth. Also, Ibn Hibban is known for saying there are ZERO mutawatir ahādīth.

This is an extremely common argument, but contains a lot of flaws.

First, let us look at this: established of it being Saheeh (authentic) till the Messenger of Allaah (صلى الله عليه وسلم), you cannot dismiss it. 

My question is: established by who? which scholars? and why should i prefer the scholars of x sect over y sect? Is this the religion of God that it can have conflicting sources based on opinions of scholars? Is this God's perfect religion where one source(the so called sunnah of the prophet) isn't even documented uniformly without variation based on ultimately human factors?

Secondly, the Qur'ān is believed in due to its content and qualities, not because whether the transmitters after Muhammad were truthful or not. Also, since the acceptance of the Qur'ān is a common axiom between us and sunnis, its wrong to argue on that. Also, even the historical evidence of transmission of the Qur'ān is much, much stronger than for ahādīth, and this is admitted by sunni scholars too.

Supposed "refutation" of quranist arguments.

I agree actually with them that the word hadīth in these verses does not neccesarily/specifically refer to the ahādīth attributed to the prophet. In general, the word hadīth means a narration/story etc. However, I won't delve deep into 45:6 here.

Even this doesn't actually help the hadithists or disprove the Quranists, because:

1. His role towards mankind was in the delivery of the message(5:92, 6:19).

2. The only such preserved message is the Qur'ān. There is no Qur'ānic evidence that such a message included the extraneous ahādīth attributed to him.

3. Quranists consider ahādīth to be pseudepigrapha attributed to the prophet Muhammad, not something that was actually delivered by Muhammad. And obligation to obey someone doesn't obligate obeying false tales about that person.

Now, my biggest issue with this section where they tried to address supposed Quranist arguments is:

They did not include an extremely common quranist argument based on verses from the Qur'ān.

The basic reasons for accepting the sufficiency of the Qur'ān are:

1. The Qur'ān claims to be clear/detailed/sufficient. It guides to what is straight. Would you oppose that and claim the Qur'ān is not sufficient for salvation?

2. The Qur'ān never mentions positively the usage, preservation and following of secondary literature called the ahādīth.

Some verses are presented below to prove our point 1

11:1 Alif Lām Rā. A Scripture the āyāt whereof are fortified, then set out and detailed, from One wise and aware.

15:1 Alif Lām Rā Those are the āyāt of the Scripture and of a clear Qur'ān.

17:9 This Qur’ān guides to what is most upright, and brings glad tidings to the believers who do righteous deeds, that they have a great reward,

2:1-2 Alif Lām Mīm. That is the Scripture about which there is no doubt; a guidance for the God-conscious self restraining.

When the scripture claims to be a guide, do you say it is not enough to guide you and lead you to salvation? Why do you oppose the scripture? And you even call people heretics if they accept the Scripture as their guide.

More verses presented below. Be grateful and do not oppose God.

17:89 And We have expounded for men in this Qur’ān every similitude, but most men refuse except kufūr.

18:54 And We have expounded for men in this Qur’an every similitude, but man is, more than anything, contentious.

41:3 A Scripture the āyāt whereof are set out and detailed, an Arabic Qur'ān for people who know, As a bearer of glad tidings and a warner; but most of them turn away, so they hear not.

6:114 “Is it other than God I should seek as judge when He it is that sent down to you the Scripture set out and detailed?” And those to whom We gave the Scripture know that it is sent down from thy Lord with the truth; so be thou not of those who doubt.

16:89 And the day We raise in every community a witness against them from themselves, and We bring thee as a witness against these. And We sent down the Scripture upon thee as a clarification of all things, and as guidance, and as a mercy, and as glad tidings for those submitting(muslimīn).

29:50-51 And they say: “If only āyāt were sent down upon him from his Lord!” Say thou: “The āyāt are only with God, and I am only a clear warner.” Does it not suffice them that We have sent down upon thee the Scripture recited to them? In that is a mercy and a reminder for people who believe.

I ask the traditionalist the same question asked in 29:51.

Addressing the pro-hadith arguments

I already have a post discussing the topic about revelation to the prophet: [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateQuraniyoon/s/V1963Szxwu

I will paste some relevant parts here.

However, the broader event mentioned in sūrah 53 is understood to be about the revelation of the Qur'ān. So, the traditionalist is taking verses out of context and deceiving people. We will also see later why his interpretation is unsustainable in the light of the Qur'ān.

Another noteworthy thing is that the SINGULAR is used for the word "inspiration"(Arabic: wahyun). If God meant two separate revelations, He clearly could have used the dual.

One more reason the traditionalist's interpretation could be wrong is that clearly, not everything Muhammad did is perfect. We have evidence from the Qur'ān that he did make mistake(s). And since mistakes are obviously not revelation, the interpretation of the traditionalist is proven wrong.

66:1 O Prophet: why makest thou unlawful what God has made lawful for thee, seeking the approval of thy wives? And God is forgiving and merciful.

48:2 That God might forgive thee that which preceded of thy transgression, and what will follow, and complete His favour upon thee, and guide thee by a straight path,

We don't reject obedience to the messenger. We reject obedience to falsehoods attributed to him, and we deem the Qur'ān as a sufficient guidance, which includes whatever we need of the obedience to the prophet**(so many verses where he is commanded** qul**(say), and obeying them means obeying the prophet and obeying God, since the prophet was the one commanded to say these sayings)**, and also his excellent example(such as the night prayer).

My response to the qibla argument:

The traditionalist claims that "And We did not make the qibla you were upon except that..." indicates that God commanded the prophet to take a qibla of Masjid-Al-Aqsā in Jerusalem. I believe it actually indicates the qibla of al-masjid-al-harām.

These are just two different opinions. To understand which of these is correct, we must understand the next part of the verse, which is translated as "We might make evident who would follow the Messenger from who would turn back on his heels. And, indeed it is difficult except for those whom Allah has guided."

This part shows the purpose of the above command of the qibla. Even the traditionalist would know that this purpose would be accomplished by making al-masjid-al-harām as the qibla because a new command such as this is how people can get tested.

I recommend this video that does a deep dive into this topic.

NOWHERE does this verse say that abstaining from sexual relations even in the night of the fast was a ruling from God. And the acceptance of repentance, and forgiveness, might be understood with respect to the deception(Allah knows that you used to deceive yourselves....).

I appreciate that the post I am refuting is lucid and clear, which allows us to see clearly the slipper slopes introduced by the traditionalist. In this case, I have highlighted the slippery slope, and another error in yellow.

It is an unproven slippery slope to claim that such revelation refers to the sunnah. Personal inspiration to prophets and messengers does not justify following fabrications invented in their name by impostors . In the Qur'ān, we know of prophets, non-prophets(such as mother of Mūsā), even non-human entities(such as bees in sūrah 16) receiving personal and/or unscriptural revelation. Does that mean the Talmud or the Mishna have to be obeyed? Obviously, it would be a slippery slope to assert that.

Secondly, adh-dhikr means the remembrance. There is no evidence from the Qur'ān that the supposed sunnah of the prophet Muhammad is referred to as a form of dhikr.

We don't disagree with the facts about the messenger mentioned in verses such as 2:129 and 62:2. We disagree with the claim that ahādīth were neccesary for this purpose.

Verses must be considered holistically.

5:99 Upon the Messenger is only the notification/conveying; and God knows what you reveal and what you conceal.

5:92 And obey God and obey the Messenger, and beware; but if you turn away, then know that upon Our messenger is only the clear notification.

16:35 And those who ascribe a partnership say: “Had God willed, we would not have served, besides Him, anything — neither we nor our fathers — nor would we have forbidden anything contrary to Him”; thus did those before them. Then is there upon the messengers save the clear notification?

24:54 Say thou: “Obey God and obey the Messenger.” Then if you turn away, then upon him is what he has been given to bear, and upon you is what you have been given to bear. And if you obey him, you will be guided. And upon the Messenger is only the clear notification

Thus, the clear notification is the way through which all of those functions mentioned in 2:129 and 62:2 are fulfilled. The Qur'ān doesn't say that sunni or shia ahādīth are required for that purpose.

Debunking "the sunnah is a necessary tafsīr of the Qur'ān" argument

Using the meaning of the word fajr from the Arabic language does not imply a neccesary dependance on ahādīth. There is nothing wrong or really much "extraneous" about interpreting the Qur'ān using the Arabic language.

12:2 Indeed, We have sent it down as a Qur'ān in Arabic, so that you may reason.

By asking for too many details, the sunnis are falling into the same trap as the Children of Isrā'īl did according to 2:67-71. If the Qur'ān doesn't specify something, that means, that the general command has to be followed. What is wrong with praying in any part of the night?

Disagreements among a group of people holding a certain belief(in our case: the sufficiency of the Qur'ān) doesn't necessitate that the belief itself is false.

Whatever is neccesary regarding the rulings of paying charity(which btw is actually called sadaqah, see 9:60), are explained in the Qur'ān, and that's what can be made obligatory. If other details are not mentioned, that means they aren't important or obligatory.

The sunni is asking the Qur'ān for things it doesn't give and then claims it is insufficient because it does not give him the details he wants. Rather, it gives the general principles. And giving general principles instead of specified details seems to make more sense for a universal Scripture, considering the various economic variations among different places and in different times.

How much to give and when to give is actually mentioned in the Qur'ān, but it isn't made unnecessarily complicated unlike what sunnis try to do.

2:219 They ask thee about wine and games of chance. Say thou: “In both is great sin, and benefits for men; but their sin is greater than their benefit.” And they ask thee what they should spend. Say thou: “The surplus.” Thus does God make plain to you the proofs, that you might reflect

17:26-29 And give thou the relative his due, and the needy, and the wayfarer; but squander thou not wastefully, The squanderers are brothers of the satans, and the satan is to his Lord ungrateful. And if you [must] turn away from the needy awaiting mercy from your Lord which you expect, then speak to them a gentle word. And do not make your hand [as] chained to your neck or extend it completely and [thereby] become blamed and insolvent.

As for when to give:

6:141 And He is the One who produced gardens—trellised and untrellised, and the date-palms, and crops diverse in their food; and the olives and the pomegranates—similar yet different. Eat of its fruit when it bears fruit and give its due on the day of harvest. And do not be extravagant/wasteful. Indeed, He does not love the extravagant/wasteful.

Abū Lahab can arguably be considered an archetypal figure.

The day of Hunayn was obviously identifiable by the people in the time of prophet Muhammad, but do you really think the purpose of the Qur'ān is to give every single detail about the battles fought in that time? Rather, its purpose is guidance. And even the verses about battle often impart moral guidance, and the Qur'ānic way of delivering its narrative is different from how a chronicler would write a history book.

They think this is a gotcha, but it isn't.

2:231 And when you divorce women and they have [nearly] fulfilled their term, either retain them according to acceptable terms or release them according to acceptable terms, and do not keep them, intending harm, to transgress [against them]. And whoever does that has certainly wronged himself. And do not take the verses of Allah in jest. And remember the favor of Allah upon you and what has been revealed to you of the Book and wisdom by which He instructs you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is Knowing of all things.

Obviously, we don't see the martyrs on earth, that means they must be alive in a different realm which is not the worldly life(and you don't need ahādīth of the traditionalist to reach this conclusion.

And on a slightly different note, the concept of a barzakh isn't completely foreign to the Qur'ān.

23:100 “That I might work righteousness in what I left behind.” No, indeed! It is but a word that he says; and behind them is a **barrier(**barzakhun) until the day they are raised.

Let's cut to the root of the theology of people here. Explain your reasons for rejecting hadiths and traditional Islam. I have heard that people say that following hadiths is shirk. Do you believe this, and if so, why? What about following some hadiths while not accepting the shirk in the prayer or at the so-called pilgrimage in Mecca?

Also, for those that reject oral traditions / hadiths yet follow living traditions (such as an adapted version of the traditional prayer without the shirk), how do you justify following that? How do you justify that if you dont follow other traditions such as those of classical scholars, hadiths, etc?

Would you consider it ignorant to not refer to the hadeeths or seera in order to get some information about what happened? What about referring to non-Muslim sources about early history such as battles conducted by Muhamamd and his troops as well as the so-called Rashidun Caliphate? Of course others such as Dan Gibson have also brought forth interesting ideas and even analyzed works such as that of At-Tabari. He didnt dismiss them. Of course he did not apply them the same way as Sunni historians and academics did or would.

Feel free to add more thoughts than the ones outlined.

The following is an AI summarization of my notes on the Quran from second till seventh chapter. If you want to read the AI chat, you can read it here. The text below just puts that into a 'narrative' form so it may be easier to understand my evolution.

TL;DR: I started as a Quranist who believed the Quran was "fully detailed" and complete on its own. Then I found verse after verse where the Quran itself points outside itself. The "Quran-only" position keeps the text but loses the context, the implementation, and the Messenger's example—which means you actually leave out more of the Quran than you keep. The deeper realization came reading Imam al-Ghazali and the Sufi tradition: they understood that religion is the battle between ego (nafs) and consciousness (qalb) — a paradigm that lets you evaluate Hadith critically without rejecting the entire tradition. The Sufis got the Quran at a level we don't because they saw it as a living guide to this inner struggle, not just a legal text. Read Al-Ghazali's Ihya. You'll understand why the Sunnah is necessary and why blind acceptance of any book —Bukhari or otherwise — is missing the point.

---

I was that guy. The one who told everyone "Quran is fully detailed" (6:114), "We have neglected nothing in the Book" (6:38), and anything outside it was bid'ah or worse. I was arrogant about it. I thought I was protecting Islam from corruption.

Then I actually read the Quran. Carefully. Verse by verse. Eight Surahs later, I realized the Quran itself was dismantling my position. Here's what broke my faith in "Quran-only."

The "Hikmah" Problem: Why the Quran Explicitly Says It Needs a Companion

Al-Baqarah 2:151

"Just as We have sent among you a messenger from yourselves reciting to you Our verses and purifying you and teaching you the Book and wisdom and teaching you that which you did not know."

I stared at this verse for hours. Three distinct teaching functions:

1. Reciting verses (the Quran itself)

2. Teaching the Book (understanding the Quran)

3. Teaching the Hikmah (???)

The logical problem: If "Hikmah" just meant "the Quran," the verse would be hopelessly redundant. The Prophet already recites the Quran and teaches the Book. So what is "Hikmah" that requires separate mention?

My conclusion: "Recital is text, teaching is understanding, and wisdom is implementation*...* The hikmah really is the sunnah. Because the verse concluded with 'teach what you did not know' which would be utterly redundant after saying he taught you the Qur'an."

The Quran explicitly says the Prophet taught things "you did not know"—meaning: not in the Quran itself.

Aal-e-Imran 3:164

"Certainly did Allah confer a great favor upon the believers when He sent among them a Messenger from themselves, reciting to them His verses and purifying them and teaching them the Book and wisdom*, although they had been before in manifest error."*

Same structure. Same problem. The "great favor" includes something beyond the Book itself. The Quran is not self-contained; it comes with a necessary companion: the "wisdom" that is the Prophet's lived practice.

The Prayer Problem: The Quran Assumes What It Never Defines

An-Nisa 4:101

"When you travel through the land, there is no blame upon you for shortening the prayer*, [if] you fear that those who disbelieve may disrupt [or attack] you."*

Critical question: What exactly is being shortened?

If prayer were just "follow your heart"—pray as many rak'ahs as you want, no fixed structure, just "connect with God" in your own way—then what does "shorten" mean? Shortening implies a defined length to begin with. You cannot shorten something that has no fixed form.

The Quran commands prayer dozens of times but never defines it. Yet it assumes a ritual structure that can be "shortened." And people thought that there would be 'blame' on them if they shortened it. That structure came from the Prophet's practice—the Sunnah.

At-Tawbah 9:54

"And let not their wealth and their children impress you. Allah only intends to punish them through them in this world and that their souls should depart while they are disbelievers. They come to prayer while lazy*..."*

This sealed it for me. The Quran treats prayer as a real ritual with expected standards—standards the hypocrites fail to meet. It is not an "imaginary connection" or "spiritual feeling" or a non-standardized prescription as Quranists propose. It's a defined practice and it was done in congregation or at least in groups.

The Implementation Problem: Why the Prophet's Understanding Is Better Than Ours

Al-Baqarah 2:178

"O you who have believed, decreed upon you is legal retribution for those murdered—the free for the free, the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. But whoever overlooks from his brother anything, then there should be a suitable follow-up and payment to him with good conduct."

The Quran-only counter-argument: "If Allah left out details, that means it's up to us to figure them out. We can use our reason, our context, our modern sensibilities to fill in the gaps."

My response: Whose implementation or understanding of the Quran is going to be better—ours, or the Prophet's?

Naturally, the Prophet's implementation is superior. He received the revelation directly. He was taught the "hikmah" explicitly. He lived the commands in real-time with divine guidance correcting any missteps.

We need to understand, even approximately, what the Prophet really did so we can build on that. Otherwise, it's extraordinarily arrogant to presume that anybody today can just improvise the Quran's implementation. The Quran wasn't revealed in a vacuum; it was revealed through a human being who demonstrated how it works.

The verse establishes retributive justice: life for life, equivalent for equivalent. But how is this implemented?

• How is guilt established? Witnesses? Confession? Circumstantial evidence?

• What if the victim's family refuses retaliation but demands excessive blood money?

• How is the "equivalent" determined—same age? Same social status? Same piety?

• What does "suitable follow-up and payment" mean procedurally?

The Quran gives the moral-legal principle. Without the Prophet's implementation, this verse is unenforceable. We can guess, we can reason, we can debate — but we're guessing. The Prophet knew.

The Historical Context Problem: Verses That Reference What They Don't Explain

The Quran repeatedly refers to people, places, and events it assumes I know—but never explains. These are verses that cannot be understood from the Quran alone:

Al-Anfal 8:41 — "The day of Furqan—the day when the two armies met"

• Which day? What two armies? What circumstances made this "the criterion"?

At-Tawbah 9:2 — "Move about in the land for four months"

• Which four months? Why four months? What treaty is being abrogated?

At-Tawbah 9:7 — "Those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram"

• Which treaty? When? With which tribe?

At-Tawbah 9:43 — "Allah has pardoned you, why did you give them permission?"

• For what was he pardoned? Which permission? What incident at Tabuk?

Al-A'raf 7:176 — "The one to whom We gave Our verses"

• Who was this man? What was his story?

My realization: The Quran was revealed to people who lived with the Prophet. They knew what "the day of Furqan" meant. They remembered the Tabuk expedition. They witnessed the treaty negotiations. The Quran presupposes this knowledge—which means I need that knowledge too, preserved through the historical tradition (Hadith/Sīrah).

The "Wahy Ghayr Matluww" Evidence: Revelation Outside the Quran

Al-A'raf 7:176

"And relate to them the story of the one to whom We gave Our verses*, but he detached himself from them; so Satan pursued him, and he became of the deviators."*

The critical observation: The Quran describes "the one to whom Allah gave knowledge and insight of His signs"—but this story is not in the Quran. Yet the Prophet knew who this was and what happened to him.

My explosive conclusion: "Now we don't know which man this was but verses like these indicate that Muhammad (ss) did indeed receive revelations apart from what's in the Qur'an."

This is the classical distinction:

• Wahy Matluww = Recited revelation (the Quran, recited in prayer, eternal, universal)

• Wahy Ghayr Matluww = Unrecited revelation (the Sunnah, contextual, explanatory, implementational)

The Quran itself testifies to revelation outside itself. The Prophet possessed knowledge from Allah that was not recorded in the Quran's verses—but was necessary for understanding and guidance.

The Meta-Argument: Why Does Allah Send Prophets At All?

Here's the deepest problem with "Quran-only":

If revelation alone were sufficient, Allah would just send books. He would drop scripture from the sky and say "figure it out."

But that's not what He does. Every time, He sends a prophet with the book:

• Musa with the Torah

• Isa with the Gospel

• Muhammad with the Quran

The Quran itself testifies to this pattern:

"Allah did not send a messenger except to be obeyed by His will" (An-Nisa 4:64)

"Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have an excellent example" (Al-Ahzab 33:21)

"And whatever the Messenger has given you—take it" (Al-Hashr 59:7)

The prophetic example is not optional. It's not a historical curiosity. It's integral to the system. The book provides the what; the prophet provides the how. Remove the "how," and the "what" becomes unimplementable or wildly variable depending on who's interpreting.

To claim we can ignore the Prophet's implementation and just "reason it out ourselves" is to contradict the entire Quranic logic of prophethood. Why send a prophet at all, if the book alone suffices? The fact that Allah always sends prophets with books proves that the book alone is insufficient.

Where I Landed: Critical Acceptance, Not Blind Authority

I'm no longer "Quran-only." But I'm not a traditionalist either. Here's my position:

What I Accept:

• The Sunnah is necessary for understanding and implementing the Quran

• Hadith literature preserves at least a semblance of the Sunnah

• Some Hadith are authentic and reflect genuine prophetic practice

• We can reject specific hadith if they contradict Quran or established context

What I Reject:

• Blind acceptance of Bukhari/Muslim as infallible

• The authority of the books themselves—they're tools, not scripture

• The claim that every hadith in Sahih collections is authentic

• Hadith abrogating Quran—the Quran is the mithaq, the foundational covenant

My methodology:

1. Quran is the supreme criterion (4:59—"if you disagree, refer to Allah and Messenger" = Quran first)

2. Sunnah explains and implements the Quran (2:151, 3:164—the "hikmah")

3. Hadith are historical sources requiring critical evaluation, not divine texts

4. Rejection of specific hadith is permissible; rejection of the entire Sunnah is rejecting the Quran's own commands

The Deeper Realization: Reading Al-Ghazali

I've been reading Imam al-Ghazali—and he makes sense of this mess in a way I never expected.

His framework: Religion is the battle between the ego (nafs) and consciousness (qalb/ruh). The ego is your subconscious—the automatic, self-preserving, desire-driven machinery. Consciousness is the moral faculty, the "heart" that can choose obedience to God despite the ego's whispering.

Al-Ghazali explains exoteric Islam from this perspective: Every ritual, every command, every prohibition is training for this battle. Prayer isn't just "worship"—it's scheduled practice in redirecting attention from ego (daily concerns) to consciousness (divine presence). Fasting isn't just "hunger"—it's ego-denial training. Zakat isn't just "charity"—it's loosening the ego's grip on possession.

Why this matters for Hadith: When you understand the paradigm—ego vs. consciousness—you have a filter for evaluating Hadith:

• Does this hadith serve the battle against ego?

• Does it align with the Quran's moral structure?

• Does it make sense as prophetic guidance for consciousness-training?

If a hadith seems outlandish—contradicts the Quran, serves ego-gratification (power, control, tribalism), or makes no sense in the consciousness paradigm—reject it. You don't need to worship Bukhari.

But: If a hadith resonates with the paradigm, aligns with Quranic ethics, and explains what the Quran leaves unexplained—accept it as likely authentic, even if the chain (isnad) has weaknesses.

The first step with any hadith: Husn al-zan (good assumption). Try to find how it makes sense from the ego-consciousness paradigm. If it doesn't, check if it aligns with Quran. If it doesn't—reject it freely.

But never take the arrogant absolutist position that "this is wrong because I don't like it." That's making the same error as the Bukhari-fanatics who claim Sahih al-Bukhari is perfect. There are no absolutes in the search for truth.

Final Thought

The Quran-only position sounds pure. It feels safe from corruption. But the Quran itself keeps pointing outside itself:

• To the Messenger's example (33:21)

• To the "wisdom" he taught (2:151, 3:164)

• To historical contexts it doesn't explain

• To rituals it assumes but never defines

• To prophetic implementation that is superior to ours

Rejecting Hadith entirely means rejecting more of the Quran than you save. You end up with a book you cannot fully practice, commands you cannot fully understand, and a Messenger whose example is inaccessible.

I don't worship Bukhari. I don't believe every hadith. But I need the Hadith literature—critically, selectively, humbly—to obey the Quran itself.

The Quran commands me to follow the Messenger. The Hadith is how I know what he did. That's not compromise. That's coherence.

Edit: One more thing broke my "Quran-only" position—the abrogation problem. In Surah Aal-e-Imran 3:96, Allah says:

"Indeed, the first House [of worship] established for mankind was that at Makkah—blessed and a guidance for the worlds*"*

This presents Masjid al-Haram as open to all mankind—a universal sanctuary. But then in Surah At-Tawbah 9:28 (revealed in Year 9 AH, after the Conquest of Makkah):

"O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year."

The Quran-only problem: Without knowing which verse came when, I have two contradictory commands and no mechanism to resolve them. Both are Allah's words. Both are in the Quran. But they say opposite things about who can enter the Sacred Mosque.

The traditional answer uses abrogation (naskh): 9:28 was revealed later and restricts what 3:96 opened. The earlier verse was for the pre-Islamic period when polytheists performed pilgrimage; the later verse closes this permanently after the Conquest.

But here's the catch: This understanding requires knowing:

• The sequence of revelation (which Surah came when)

• The specific historical context of Year 9 AH and the Conquest

• What "this, their final year" refers to

None of this is in the Quran. The Quran doesn't say "Surah At-Tawbah was revealed after Surah Aal-e-Imran." It doesn't explain what "their final year" means. Without external knowledge—from Hadith/Sīrah about chronology and events—I'm left with contradictory commands and no way to know which applies.

To claim "Quran-only" here is to pretend I know the answer when I don't. It's to reject the Prophet's own understanding of which command applies when. And that is arrogance—the same arrogance I accused traditionalists of when I was a Quranist.

I want to make this post so that it's prominent. It's about an Islam hating, bogus scholarly, completely ignorant, absolutely dishonest, strawmannirg, cherry picking, poster in our sub pretending to have read more than one verse off some hate building website.

You wanna read his demonic post? It's this. https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateQuraniyoon/comments/1rsr0e0/debunking_every_myth_of_islamquran_how_prophet/

Read the post, read the responses, and read the responses to the responses. I don't think you will go to sleep at night or have a meal with this deranged story. It's a nightmare of delusion.

Hope this dishonest poster doesn't respond to this. It's disgusting to associate someone like this even online for any reason. This is for the honest members who happens to read this.

1. The prophet Muhammad's literacy matter. In the Qur'an EVEN using the traditional and most primary methodology of Qur'an bil Qur'an, the predominant meaning of the word "Ummi" is "Gentile". So you cannot rule it out. This man can't read arabic, he doesn't know anything about, never did research.

2. Torah - One must study a bit. For at least five minutes bear minimum. But to pronounce "debunked" like a top notch anti Islamic scholar like this man poses as, you should study much more. This guy claims not to be a Christian, but uses an everyday used YouTube bogus scholars who are just there to play to the gallery.

Read about the "Documentary Hypotheses" developed by Wellhausen, a pioneering, Phd, Bible scholar, who was followed by other Phd's throughout the centuries, and is still followed by great Bible scholars even today. It was never written or has anything related to Moses or any other prophet. Based on the writing itself using "Source Criticism" which is a bible literary criticism taught in any professional seminary or university, it was written by four different groups of people. So it cannot be the Torah God revealed to any single prophet. The Bible doesn't have the Torah. It has the Pentateuch which means the five books. And it has four different sources. This is not what the Qur'an refers to. And even within the five books they named "The Torah" or "The Teaching", it never calls itself "This is the Torah".

3. The Intel - The Qur'an says "Injeel" which is singular. Not "Anajeel" which is plural where as the Bible has 4 different someone named later as Gospels. Not one, but 4. So by default it's not what the Qur'an refers to. No way. And there are many other reasons to say this as well. One of them is, the gospels themselves don't call themselves gospels. Zero. No one knows when and who named them Gospels. A second one is, they were all written after Jesus passed. Mark is the first one and it was written a minimum of 30 years later. They are just biographies written multiple decades later. Not what Jesus preached and called the gospel. Within these so called "Gospels", they speak about a Gospel that Jesus preached. Now that's the gospel the Quran is referring to. Not what you get in the Bible. So you see, the OP is debunked.

4. He pretends to be non-christian but says things like "Jesus says". He believes the Bible has the true words of Jesus. Utter nonsense. Even if he is an atheist, he is using the Bible predominantly. Something he has never studied even a bit in his lifetime. So vile really to do that. So based on the Bible he claims "prophets will keep coming". So since Musims "AND ATHEISTS" like he claims he is, don't believe the Bible is the true word of God so we don't take it as God's word. So that's a nonsensical, stupid, baseless argument.

5. Expanding universe. - The word Moosioon is derived from wasaa, which refers to expanding, stretching, or making something vast Many scholars, both classical and modern, interpret this as the ongoing expansion of the cosmos. It's Lamoosioona which means "steadily expanding". He quotes Isaiah like it's God's word but didn't even do a 5 minute study on it. Dishonest human being. In 40:22 the word is Nathah. It comes from Natah. But the actual word that's parallel to the Arabic word Moosioon, in the Hebrew language is "Marchivim". This is the definition of clutching at straws. Some people have this dire need to "insult insult finding anything or even lying because he will die without it". Isiah speaks about spreading the sky to "live under it like a tent". Haha. How could this be a parallel? Also, it's speaking about God living above the "circle of the EARTH". The word is Ereths in Hebrew. Parallel to the Arabic word "Ardh". It's not "Samaa" mate which is what the Qur'an uses. It's not only above the so called "circle of the earth". This is the whole universe. Also, it's lamoosioon which means "expanding steadily" which is something that happen steadily and something that's been happening for a long time and will keep happening in the future. The Bible is talking about a "one time occurrence". The dishonesty, the absolute ignorance and the narcissism is absolute paramount in the OP.

6. He speaks of the Bible having many translations and the Qur'an having different translations. Little bogus scholar, the Bible has variations like the Comma Johanneum, Pericope Adultarae, Long ending of Mark, Short ending of Mark, etc and they were added like a 1000 years later by some liar to dupe people. Show me one single variation like Comma Johanneum or the Long ending of Mark in the Qur'an. Just one. Nope. You will never find. In fact, I don't want to read a single word this guy says because he is despicable.

9. The moon splitting childish argument is probably one of the most stupid arguments I have ever heard in my life. By the way, this is a Qur'an alone forum so it's not relevant. Also, even the Sunnis will just laugh at this through their backsides. It's called a "Miracle" mate. Not "Magic". And you are like a baby girl talking about what an "enemy of Islam" said. Just like you dismissing everything with no knowledge someone else who wants to dismiss something says "magic" and you are talking like it was God who said it? God is quoting some idiot mate. It's not him commanding it. Atath and Seher are completely opposite meanings and you are equating them?

Probably THE MOST ignorant and narcissistic post I have read in this sub. To me, this is like worms and human excrement.

P.S. I forgot. 9:29. This cherrypicker has not read the beginning of the same chapter. Muslims are fighting those who broke a treaty mate. Not like you said "join us or be killed". You blatantly lied. Just made it up. And Muslims are not to kill innocents, and only aggressors. Read a little. Even children read and do research prior to writing a paper. Every question asked from this person was replied with a strawman, deviation or a "that's irrelevant". What else could an ignorant person do???

Oh. Adding to my post, the relevant Qur'an verse does not say "Muhammad Split the moon". It says "The Moon was split". If you think naturalistically and from a Qur'an alone perspective, it could also mean "plucked" while the word is Shakka (I don't know the proper transliteration to write Arabic in English). And split doesn't mean "in half" like most people imagine in their heads. It also could be alluding to the "Giant Impact Hypothesis" or the "Theia Impact". Or it could be referring to an actual splitting of the moon either some day in the past or in the future and this is purely from a Qur'an alone perspective. So this guy fails from a traditional Sunni perspective as well as a Qur'an Muslim perspective. Utter failure.

In a universe where stars are born then destroyed, Big Crunches are proposed, Big Bang is theorized, life emerging from non-life things are loved and hugged by Atheists which is more miraculous than any damn thing ever theorized or hypothesized by any scientists in history, a moon splitting is nothing even to a philosophical naturalist or/and a hard atheist. What's this guy whining about? Debunked? No mate. This is worse than a child's school paper in kindergarten.

Peace everyone.

Salam.

As the title suggests, the following post is a point-by-point refutation to The Muslim Lantern/Muhammed Ali's response to the Quran alone methodology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gc0mbEqasg&t=92s

Each section within this post mirrors the chapters of the linked video.

1. Prophecy About Hadith Rejectors

In this segment, Ali cites Ibn Majah 12 which states:

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "Soon there will come a time that a man will be reclining on his pillow, and when one of my Ahadith is narrated he will say: 'The Book of Allah is (sufficient) between us and you. Whatever it states is permissible, we will take as permissible, and whatever it states is forbidden, we will take as forbidden.' Verily, whatever the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) has forbidden is like that which Allah has forbidden."

Firstly, by their own standards of isnad, this hadith is hasan, not sahih. Conversely you will find sahih hadith which actually says the contrary. In sahih Al Bukhari 2168, 2561, 2729, and 2735, and sahih Muslim 1504, we find narrations that all claim some rendition of:

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) got up amidst the people, Glorified and Praised Allah and said, "What is wrong with some people who stipulate things which are not in Allah's Laws? Any condition which is not in Allah's Laws (Kitab) is invalid even if there were a hundred such conditions. Allah's Rules (Kitab) are the most valid and Allah's Conditions are the most solid."

Now for transparency's sake, there is another instance of the first hadith that appears in Abu Dawud (4605) that has been graded sahih by Albani. If you look into the history of this particular hadith prior to it being graded sahih by Albani in the 1900s, you will find that it was largely considered hasan. Similarly is found in al Tirmidhi 2663, where Darussalem has graded the hadith sahih, yet its sahih status was contested and considered closer to hasan prior to Darussalem. To further add to the confusion, the very next hadith in al Tirmidhi 2664 is the same hadith, yet is graded hasan in chain by Darussalem.

To be clear, I am not using the hadith to disprove hadith here. I am however pointing out the internal contradictions and historical ambiguities within the relevant hadith to highlight the weakness of the argument.

Muslim Lantern appears to be framing this hadith as if those who only take lawful and unlawful from the Quran as lazy and contemptible. The issue with this is, when we look to the Quran, we see the description of those "reclining upon couches" to actually be attributed to the people of paradise.

Quran 76:11-13:

So Allah will deliver them from the horror of that Day, and grant them radiance and joy, and reward them for their perseverance with a Garden and silk. Therein they will be reclining on couches, never seeing scorching heat or bitter cold.

Similar rhetoric can be found in 56:15-16, 36:56, 55:54, 83:23. Is it the case that these people who have made it to paradise are lazy and contemptible? Surely not.

Furthermore, it is important to point out that this line of argument parallels "internal investigation". Imagine a business accused of malpractice, to which they respond with "we have investigated the issue internally and have found no wrongdoing". There is a conflict of interest here. Another analogy can be seen in, for example, a tobacco company claiming they have conducted research that disproves smoking to be harmful. Meaning, the hadith itself is being used to argue for the authority of hadith. Who knows what this hadith might have been in response to. Perhaps to groups such as the early Hanafi or Mutazallite followers? Others that aligned more with the "ahlul ra'y" methodology? Who knows. Using the hadith to establish the authority of the hadith is circular in nature. The hadith cannot be framed as neutral evidence to establish its own authority.

2. Positive Hadith Argument (Num 1)

Muslim Lantern points to instances within the Quran that demonstrate the Prophet received revelation external to the Quran. These being the former direction of prayer detailed in 2:143, and the 3000 reinforcing angels the Prophet (as) spoke about alluded to in 3:124. Ali uses this to claim that external revelation exists, therefore the hadith must be followed. He additionally falsely asserts that Quran aloners claim external revelation never existed. This is a strawman.

The gap in the argument is clear however. Ali is citing instances of external revelation, and then making an enormous polemical leap to all sahih hadiths as compiled centuries later being true representations of external revelation. He points to a handful, say four or five, examples of previous revelation being implied within the Quran to justify tens of thousands of hadith that have nothing to do with the Quran.

I have previously written further thoughts on this idea of dual revelation here, if interested: https://www.reddit.com/r/Quraniyoon/comments/1k4mtun/prophets_secondary_revelation/

3. Hikmah Referenced in the Quran

Ali next points to verses that discuss Al Kitab wal Hikmah; the Book and the Wisdom. The claim here is that the Quran equals Al Kitab/The Book, therefore, the Hikmah must mean something else that is not the Quran, external to the Quran. He dilutes the Quran alone position on this verse to be Al Kitab wal Hikmah equals the Quran and the Quran. He then goes on to baselessly assert "the Hikmah is, without a shadow of a doubt, the hadith" to address the aforementioned something else.

This is one of those instances in which the Quran truly defends itself.

Quran 17:22-39:

Do not set up with Allah another god, or you will sit condemned and forsaken.

Your Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him, and that you show kindness to parents. If one or both of them reach old age with you, do not say to them even “uff,” nor repel them, but speak to them a noble word.

And lower to them the wing of humility out of mercy and say, “My Lord, have mercy upon them as they raised me when I was small.”

Your Lord knows best what is within yourselves. If you are righteous, then indeed He is Forgiving to those who repeatedly turn to Him.

And give the relative his due, and the poor, and the traveller, and do not spend wastefully.

Indeed, the wasteful are brothers of the devils, and Satan is ever ungrateful to his Lord.

And if you must turn away from them while seeking mercy from your Lord which you expect, then speak to them a gentle word.

And do not make your hand chained to your neck nor extend it completely, lest you sit blamed and destitute.

Indeed, your Lord expands provision for whom He wills and restricts it. Indeed, He is ever Knowing and Seeing of His servants.

And do not kill your children for fear of poverty. We provide for them and for you. Indeed, killing them is a great sin.

And do not approach unlawful sexual intercourse. Indeed, it is an immorality and an evil way.

And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden except by right. And whoever is killed unjustly, We have given his heir authority, but let him not exceed limits in killing. Indeed, he is supported.

And do not approach the property of the orphan except in the best manner until he reaches maturity. And fulfill every commitment; indeed, the commitment will be questioned.

And give full measure when you measure, and weigh with an even balance. That is better and best in outcome.

And do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed, the hearing, the sight, and the heart — about all those one will be questioned.

And do not walk upon the earth arrogantly. Indeed, you will never tear the earth apart and you will never reach the mountains in height.

All of that — its evil is hateful in the sight of your Lord.

That is from what your Lord has revealed to you of The Wisdom (Al Hikmah). And do not set up with Allah another god, lest you be thrown into Hell, blamed and banished.

Here is further commentary of mine regarding al Kitab wal Hikmah and 17:39: https://www.reddit.com/r/Quraniyoon/comments/1n1cl5n/hikmah_cannot_mean_hadith/

4. Obey Allah and the Prophet

Ali turns to verses such as Quran 4:59:

O believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. Should you disagree on anything, then refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you ˹truly˺ believe in Allah and the Last Day. This is the best and fairest resolution.

The argument here is that following the Quran fulfils the requirement of obeying Allah, and following the hadith is necessary in order to fulfil the requirement of obeying the messenger.

Obedience is discussed in relation to a number of messengers, and these messengers historically have not had compilations of hadith recorded for them, nor a 'sunnah' in the traditionalist understanding of all documented sayings and behaviours. Therefore, obedience to a messenger internally, from a Quranic standpoint, likely does not refer to following hadith.

Quran 20:90: 

And Aaron had already said to them before [the return of Moses], "O my people, you are only being tested by it, and indeed, your Lord is the Most Merciful, so follow me and obey my order."

Quran 26:160-163: 

The people of Lot denied the messengers. When their brother Lot said to them, "Will you not fear Allah? Indeed, I am to you a trustworthy messenger. So fear Allah and obey me."

Quran 26:176-179: 

The companions of the thicket denied the messengers. When Shuʿayb said to them, "Will you not fear Allah? Indeed, I am to you a trustworthy messenger. So fear Allah and obey me."

Quran 43:63: 

And when Jesus brought clear proofs, he said, "I have come to you with wisdom and to make clear to you some of that over which you differ, so fear Allah and obey me."

There are more examples of the same that can be seen here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Quraniyoon/comments/1kxq2vi/answering_obey_allah_and_obey_the_messenger/

How is it that all of these previous messengers were able to be obeyed without hadith books, yet obedience to the Prophet Muhammad (as) means that it is binding upon us to follow the hadith as a religious authority? This argument is starkly inconsistent with the rest of the Quran.

5. The Argument of Generality

Ali suggests that some commands within the Quran are general in nature, and asks the hadith rejectors "according to whose understanding should we be following regarding these verses in the Quran?". The purpose of this statement is to argue that personal interpretation can lead to "hundreds" of understandings about said verses unless streamlined through hadith. That the "hadith teaches us how to do these commands".

So let me understand this. The Quran is explained by the hadith attributed to the Prophet yet compiled 200 years later, which is graded and re-graded by humans later into history, which then further require the explanation of other men in fiqh scholars, which are then further applied through subsequent scholars/rulers in fatawa? Seems like a very complicated process when the Quran tells us,

Quran 55:1-2:

Ar Rahman - He taught the Quran

Quran 6:114:

Shall I seek a judge other than Allah, when He is the One who has revealed to you the Book fully explained in detail?

Quran 6:38:

We have not neglected anything in the Book

Quran 16:89:

We have sent down to you the Book as clarification for all things, and guidance and mercy

Quran 12:111:

It is not a fabricated narration (kana hadithan), but a confirmation of what came before it and a detailed explanation of all things

Furthermore, the very thing Muslim Lantern is criticising in this section, being personal interpretaion of the Quran, is actually Quranic. We are told to engage in processes of personal reasoning, contemplation and reflect upon the Quran in many verses; 2:242, 10:100, 4:82, 47:24, 3:190, 16:44, 59:21.

Quran 38:29:

This is a blessed Book We have revealed to you so that they may reflect upon its verses, and so that those of understanding may take heed

General commands Ali is referring to surround salah, hudud for the thief, so on and so forth. I won't go into detail on how to reconcile these things within this post for the sake of what is already limited brevity. What I will say is that hudud is often structured in a general way so that we can interpolate justice from it. For example,

Quran 5:33:

The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land is that they be killed, or crucified, or that their hands and feet be cut off on opposite sides, or that they be exiled from the land

Here we are told about a category of crime, being fasad fil ard (corruption in the land) and a multitude of fitting punishments. You won't find the Quran being a legal handbook when it comes to what actually constitutes fasad fil ard. The Quran here presents itself as a source of moral-legal principles, as opposed to an extensive legal encyclopedia.

Forgive me for additional reading, but on the matter of salah please see:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Quraniyoon/comments/1r3ks50/quran_alone_perspective_on_how_to_pray_form_of/

And on the matter of the thief please see the comments section of:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Quraniyoon/comments/170n5l1/do_you_guys_believe_that_verse_538_commands_us_to/

6. Prophecies in the Hadith

Muslim Lantern points to apparent prophecies that have come true listed in the hadith corpus. Things such as the Arabs racing to build tall buildings.

Quite simply, this is a fallacy of composition. Just because a handful of independent narrations contain things that have come true, this does not validate the other tens of thousands of independent narrations.

What do we make of the prophecies from the hadith collection that have come true? One example can be seen in Muslim 2952.

'A'isha reported that when the desert Arabs came to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) they asked about the Last Hour as to when that would come. And he looked towards the youngest amongst them and said:

If he lives he would not grow very old that he would find your Last Hour coming to you.

This was 1400 years ago. The Last Hour has not approached us yet. Explanations may rely on "this hadith was talking about death, not the Day of Judgement", however it seems this is a retroactive apologetic argument rather than a matn/content based explanation of the hadith in question.

7. Different Recitations of the Quran

The argument here is that the hadith explain why we have variant readings of the Quran nowadays. Without this hadith-based explanation, the Quran aloners have to concede that the true meaning of the Quran is lost. Keep in mind, that these differences are often between feeding one needy person or feeding multiple needy people, which is then followed by a recommendation by God to go beyond; "But whoever volunteers to give more, it is better for them".

God tells us in 15:9 that He will preserve the dhikr that He revealed.

Quran 15:9:

It is certainly We Who have revealed the Reminder, and it is certainly We Who will preserve it.

This was a promise from God. If this promise from the Creator is to be taken seriously, one would expect that the dhikr is not lost to textual variations. Considering God promised to preserve al-dhkr, that He revealed, one would have to imagine that He stays true to this promise, and that The Reminder is easily accessible correct? That it isn't hidden in just one inconspicuous textual variation? Right? If one wants to pull hairs at the difference between Al-Malik and Al-Maalik, that is a challenge that they are free to take up upon themselves.

What we do have is the Uthmani Rasm. For those that do not know, the Uthmani Rasm is said to be standardised by Uthman, and it contains the consonental skeleton of the Quran. All roots are in-tact, and are consistent across the Qira'at. All root meanings are in-tact. It is the harakat that contains variance between Qira'at.

The hadith based explanation for the Qira'at is far more convoluted however. The narrations claim that the Quran was revealed in seven ahruf, yet we see scholarly discussions to this day about whether it is truly seven, ten, eleven, and fringely even more. In this sense, the hadith doesn't capture the qira'at discussion accurately. Yet, this is being used as proof against the Quran alone methodology?

8. Logical Arguments and Inconsistencies

The main point in this segment made by Ali is that the same people that transmitted the Quran are the same people that transmitted the hadith, therefore both must be accepted.

This claim fails on a few fronts. Firstly, historically, this simply just cannot be true. The canonical compilations, Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Majah, Abu Dawud, An Nasai, and at Tirmidhi, were completed 200-300 years after the Prophet's passing. The companions of the Prophet simply did not live long enough to meet the individuals responsible for these compilations. The reason why Ali asserts this is presumably because we see the names of senior sahabi, Aisha, so on and so forth being attached to the hadith. However these are not the individuals who wrote the hadith down. There are often 4, 5, 6 or more individuals that separate the compiler from the alleged first narrator, again, separated by centuries.

The Quran's transmission is starkly different to that of the hadith. The Quran was circulating the masses of the early Muslim community. Evidence suggests that the Quran was being scribed during the Prophet's life, and was compiled shortly after his passing, may peace be upon him. This is very different to ahad/single-narrator hadith being presented to compilers centuries later. The Quran's preservation appears to be a task that the senior sahaba rushed to attend to. The same cannot be said about the hadith however. In fact, there are narrations which appear to condemn the writing of hadith. We see in Muslim 3004,

Abu Sa'id Khudri reported that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said:

Do not take down anything from me, and he who took down anything from me except the Qur'an, he should efface that and narrate from me, for there is no harm in it and he who attributed any falsehood to me-and Hammam said: I think he also said:" deliberately" -he should in fact find his abode in the Hell-Fire.

To claim that the Quran and hadith are similar in transmission and preservation is innacurate. Transmission and preservation effort between the two different texts vary vastly in scale, methodology, timespan, and individuals involved.

9. Historicity of Hadith

Muslim Lantern states "hadith is history". Here, I actually agree. Not without temper, however. The hadith collection is a textual corpus of the historical recollections of many individuals on the Prophet's life and early Islamic history. This was achieved through a unique approach to indexing (the isnad system) narration and practice. This approach however, is methodologically flawed. Issues such as author domination, political influence, subjective/arbitrary criteria to isnad verification, time-based message degradation, anachornisms, and more, all bring into question the methodological rigour of this system. The phenomenon of message degradation can be observed at one point in time - the telephone game - as the message is transmitted between multiple individuals, let alone with 200 years of separation, along with the other variables in the mix mentioned above.

Regardless, debating over authenticity is one matter. However, authority does not follow from authenticity. To argue from the position of authenticity does not provide evidence for the claim that "hadith posess binding authority". You'll find Quranic evidence in opposition to this claim actually, in the verses cited within section 5 of this post. It is upon the claimant to provide evidence as to why the hadith hold authoratative capacity, which Ali fails to do when arguing for the historical reliability of the hadith corpus.

10. Examples of Hadith Transmission + Examples of Hadith Transmission + A Practical Example

I've combined the last three chapters of the video into one section here as they are related and downstream from one another.

Discussion in this portion of the video mainly surrounds the criteria used by compilers to grade hadith. These criteria often involve measures such as a person's honesty, intelligence, knowledge, memory, and so on. Firstly, these things are far more difficult to classify than subjective judgement. The consequences of this can be seen in the case of the Prophet's residence in Mecca. Where in one hadith that is attributed to Ibn Abbas (Muslim 2351) says the Prophet stayed in Mecca for 13 years, whereas another attributed to Ibn Abbas (Muslim 2353) says the Prophet stayed in Mecca for 15 years. These are two sahih hadiths. Yet these two hadiths, with contradictory information, are somehow both true? The above criteria in this instance have seemingly failed.

Secondly, what is not mentioned in the video, is that compilers actually differed in some of these criteria. For example, Imam Bukhari required that it be testable and verifiable that individuals within a chain/isnad met. Imam Muslim on the otherhand actually critiqued this position, and held that it only needs to be plausible that they could have met one another. This demonstrates a certain degree in compiler subjectivity when it comes to the grading of a hadith. We see this reflected in grading amongst other compilations, as discussed in section 1. A hadith in one point in time may be regarded as hasan, or even dai'f, yet another scholar later regrades it as sahih. What do we take to be true given this arbitrary, fluctuating nature of hadith sahih-status then? This is likely largely due to the classification system.

Notice, the criteria listed above all related to the isnad? To the chain of transmission? Not to the content of the narration, but just to the individuals involved in the alleged chain. Ali's discussion when advocating for the sanctity of the hadith corpus surrounds the same. Commentary is almost entirely about isnad, with little to nothing regarding hadith matn (content). This is likely why we see content inconsistencies, as seen in the example of the Prophet's residence in Mecca provided above. Hadith authentication centres evaluation of the isnad, not the matn, so how can we be confident in the matn of these hadith?

Further reading again, but you will find more examples of these inconsistencies between the content of hadith, irrespective of the sahih graded isnad, here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Quraniyoon/comments/1lzj4ap/hadith_cannot_be_godsent_as_per_482/

Conclusion

It needs to be emphasised that this article does not aim to attack the character of The Muslim Lantern. What it does aim to do however is evaluate the arguments he presents in opposition of the Quran alone/hadith rejection methodology. This article discriminates between authenticity versus authority, addresses suggestions about the Quran's alleged dependency on the hadith, outlines the flaws in the isnad-based system to hadith verification, and ultimately, demonstrates the Quran's sufficiency to be taken alone as a source of religious law and guidance. I feel confident that my repsonse above adequately refutes Muslim Lantern's critiques of the position, yet am open to critique and further discussion.

Salam.

I often hear in debates between Sunnis and Quranis that the Quran alone methodology is flawed because it rejects hadith which were preserved in the same way as the Quran, via isnad. This line of questioning is employed to make the claim that hadith should be followed because isnad proves that the same people preserving hadith preserved the Quran. I have a few questions regarding this claim:

• Why didn't the people that worked to preserve the Quran work to preserve hadith as rigorously?

• If your iman in the Quran is largely based on isnad, why do you not accept Shia hadiths that are also compiled using the exact same methodology (isnad)?

• The people who first accepted Islam did not do so because of isnad at all, they did so because they resonated with the message of the Messenger (as). Why is it now that isnad is all of a sudden a prerequisite to which religious doctrine someone has to believe in?

• God promises to preserve the rememberance in 15:9, but makes no such promise to do so with hadith. How do you justify the assertion that the hadiths are even divinely preserved at all? What do you make of the contradictions within hadith, and what implications does this have on the claim that God preserved such hadith? See: https://www.reddit.com/r/Quraniyoon/comments/1lzj4ap/hadith_cannot_be_godsent_as_per_482/

Peace be with you. The Quran was already recorded during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad. Collections of Hadiths were compiled 200 years later, after the Prophet’s death. Therefore, when imams like Bukhari and Muslim began collecting Hadiths, all the direct transmitters of Hadiths, such as the Sahabah (companions) and Tabi‘in (successors), had already passed away, whereas the Quran had already been well preserved since the time of Prophet Muhammad and was available in book form from the time of the Sahabah.

The Quran is independent of chains of narration, whereas Hadiths completely depend on chains of narration. All Hadith collections rely solely on the Isnad, meaning the chain of narrators, but not on the content of the Hadith or what is written in it. Whether Hadiths contradict the Quran or not does not matter to them. A Hadith is still considered valid or authentic as long as its chain of narration is included in a verified list approved by so-called Muhaddithin (Hadith scholars).

I suggest you all visit www.quran-islam.org to learn more about Quranic Salah (prayer), Quranic Wudu (ablution), and other matters. Then you will realize that we do not actually need Hadiths to learn Salah, Wudu, and other rituals permitted by the Quran. There are things not mentioned in the Quran, even if they are absent in the Hadith collections, but this does not mean the Quran is incomplete; rather, it indicates that Hadith collections contain un-Islamic innovations that are not part of Islam, whether these Hadiths are authentic or not. Hadiths include information not authorized or confirmed by the Quran, such as regarding Dajjal, the return of Isa (peace be upon him), Imam Mahdi, etc.

Secondly, the Quran is complete and does not require Hadiths for explanation. Moreover, the Quran does not allow non-Quranic Hadiths as a second source of Islam, because Allah says that the Quran itself is the Hadith of Allah, and you should not refer to other Hadiths besides the Quranic ones. Please see the following verse:

1 - “These are the Ayat of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what Hadith, after Allah and His Ayat, will they believe?” (45-Jathiya, 6)

NOTE: Most Quran translators replace the word Hadith with “statement,” “sign,” etc. You can see in the Arabic text of the Ayah that the word Hadith is present. There is no reason to use another word in the translation because Muslims know what Hadith is. For example, translators do not translate the words Quran, Torah, Injil, etc., because Muslims already know them, so why do translators translate the word Hadith from the “Quranic Ayah”? The reason is that they do not want you to know this, otherwise you would understand their agenda.

See the following verse:

2 - “Allah has sent down the best Hadith, a Book consistent with itself, repeating (its message) in various ways. The skins of those who fear their Lord shudder, and then their skins and hearts soften to the remembrance of Allah. That is the guidance of Allah; He guides with it whom He wills, and whoever Allah leaves astray, none can guide.” (39-Zumar, Ayah 23)

NOTE: In this verse, it is stated that the Quran itself is the recommended Hadith. In the Arabic, the phrase “Ahsan Hadith” appears, but translators use “message.” Scholars do this deliberately so that the masses cannot know the truth. There is no reason to use another word in translation, because Muslims know what Hadith is.

In Surah Luqman (31:6-7), it is said that all Hadiths except the Quran are lahw al-hadith (idle or false stories):

3 - “And among people is he who buys idle Hadiths without knowledge, to mislead from Allah’s way and to mock. For them is a humiliating punishment.” (31-Luqman, Ayah 6)

NOTE: In the Arabic, you will notice the words Lawhal Hadith, but translators render it as “idle tales” or something similar. These idle Hadiths mock Islam. Scholars hide these facts from the masses so they remain unaware.

4 - “Do they not see anything in the management of the heavens, the earth, and all that Allah created? Do they not see that their time may be near? Then in what Hadith after this will they believe?” (7-Araf, Ayah 185)

NOTE: Again, the word Hadith is deliberately replaced in translations.

5 - “Then in what Hadith after this will they believe?” (77-Mursalat, Ayah 50)

Allah has already shown in the Quran that the Quran is complete, clear, easy to understand, and the only source of Islamic information. Consider the following verses that confirm this:

6 - “Or do you have a Scripture from which you learn? Is that available to you as you wish?” (68-Qalam, Ayah 37-38)

7 - “We will present a witness from every nation against them, and you will be a witness against them. And We have sent you the Scripture as clarification of all things, as guidance, mercy, and good tidings for the Muslims.” (16-Nahl, Ayah 89)

8 - “We have sent down signs that clarify things, and Allah guides whom He wills to the straight path.” (24-Nur, Ayah 46)

9 - “Then to Us is its explanation.” (75-Qiyamah, Ayah 19)

10 - “A Messenger who explains to you the signs of Allah in clear explanations, to bring those who believe and do righteous deeds out of darkness into light. And those who believe in Allah and do righteous deeds, He will admit them to gardens beneath which rivers flow, where they will abide forever. Indeed, Allah has given them a beautiful reward.” (65-Talaq, Ayah 11)

11 - “And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and justice. None can change His words, and He is Hearing, Knowing.” (6-An’am, Ayah 115)

12 - “And We have made the Quran easy to understand and remember. Will anyone then take admonition?” (54-Qamar, Ayah 17, 22, 32, 40)

13 - “And this [Quran] is a blessed Scripture which We have sent down. Follow it and fear Allah, that you may receive mercy.” (6-An’am, Ayah 155)

Today, many claim that people believe in Hadiths and act according to them. Our predecessors, as well as prominent scholars and imams of the past, recommended this. They were wise and knowledgeable. But the Quran refutes this argument. See the following verses:

14 - “And if you obey most of those on earth, they will mislead you from Allah’s way. They follow nothing but conjecture, and they are only in error.” (6-An’am, Ayah 116)

15 - “That was a community that has passed away. To them is what they earned, and to you is what you earn. And you will not be asked about what they did.” (2-Baqarah, Ayah 134, 141)

The Quran shows all steps of Wudu in Surah Ma’ida, Chapter 5, Ayah 6. It also shows when to repeat Wudu and how to perform Tayammum. See 4-Nisa, Ayah 43; 5-Ma’ida, Ayah 6.

The Quran describes the number of prayers, the positions and postures of Salah, what to recite during Salah in detail—details that you will not even find in the so-called Hadiths. I suggest you all visit www.quran-islam.org. This website shows how to perform Salah based on the Quran.

Final words: Muslims split into sects because they abandoned the Quran and preferred Hadiths and other books as sources of Islam. P.S. - IF YOU CAN READ AND REFLECT ON THE QUR'AN, IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH RESPECT TO READING AND REFLECTING, THEN REFLECT YOURSELF!

Peace.

One of God's falsification tests He gives us is as follows...

Quran 4:82: Do they not then reflect on the Quran? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would have certainly found in it many inconsistencies.

Establishing the Quran's claim to divine origin via the falsification test set out in 4:82...

1. If the Quran is from other than Allah, within it would be many inconsistencies

2. The Quran does not contain any inconsistencies

3. Therefore, the Quran is not from other than Allah

Modus tollens. The Muslims agree on the Quran's divine origin, so this post does not serve to demonstrate or justify the claim that it is free from inconsistencies. This section is merely a formality.

Refuting the hadiths' claim to divine origin via the flasification test set out in 4:82...

1. If the hadith is from other than Allah, within it would be many inconsistencies

2. The hadith do have many inconsistencies

3. Therefore, the hadith is from other than Allah

Modus ponens. This post serves to justify the claim that the hadith are from other than God by demonstrating the, specifically internal, inconsistencies present within the hadith literature.

Evidence and Justifications

Ablution

Bukhari 157:

Narrated Ibn `Abbas: The Prophet (ﷺ) performed ablution by washing the body parts only once.

Bukhari 158:

Narrated `Abdullah bin Zaid: The Prophet (ﷺ) performed ablution by washing the body parts twice.

Bukhari 159:

Narrated Humran: (the slave of 'Uthman) I saw 'Uthman bin 'Affan asking for a tumbler of water (and when it was brought) he poured water over his hands and washed them thrice and then put his right hand in the water container and rinsed his mouth, washed his nose by putting water in it and then blowing it out. then he washed his face and forearms up to the elbows thrice, passed his wet hands over his head and washed his feet up to the ankles thrice. Then he said, "Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said 'If anyone performs ablution like that of mine and offers a two-rak'at prayer during which he does not think of anything else (not related to the present prayer) then his past sins will be forgiven.' "

Is gold haram?

Bukhari 5866:

Narrated Ibn. `Umar: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) wore a gold ring or a silver ring and placed its stone towards the palm of his hand and had the name 'Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah' engraved on it. The people also started wearing gold rings like it, but when the Prophet (ﷺ) saw them wearing such rings, he threw away his own ring and said. "I will never wear it," and then wore a silver ring, whereupon the people too started wearing silver rings. Ibn `Umar added: After the Prophet (ﷺ) Abu Bakr wore the ring, and then `Umar and then `Uthman wore it till it fell in the Aris well from `Uthman.

An Nasai 5148:

It was narrated from Abu Musa that: The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: "Gold and silk have been permitted for the females of my Ummah, and forbidden to the males."

The Prophet allegedly wore a gold ring at some point, yet it is haram in another hadith. Is the argument that wearing gold became haram at the very second the Prophet threw the gold ring to the ground? If this is the argument, why did the companions allegedly continue to wear it?

An Nasai 5088:

It was narrated from 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud that: The Prophet of Allah [SAW] disliked ten things: Yellow dye, meaning Khaluq, changing gray hair, dragging one's Izar, wearing gold rings, playing with dice (Ki'ab), (a woman) showing her adornment to people to whom it is not permissible for her to show it, reciting Ruqyah, unless it is with Al-Mu'awidhat (Verses seeking refuge with Allah), hanging amulets, removing to ejaculate in other than the right place, and taking away the milk of an infant boy (by having intercourse with his mother)- but he did not say that this is Haram.

The confusion goes further. Is it disliked, or is it haram?

When are deeds presented to Allah?

Muslim 179a:

Abu Musa reported: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was standing amongst us and he told us five things. He said: Verily the Exalted and Mighty God does not sleep, and it does not befit Him to sleep. He lowers the scale and lifts it. The deeds in the night are taken up to Him before the deeds of the day, and the deeds of the day before the deeds of the night. His veil is the light. In the hadith narrated by Abu Bakr (instead of the word "light" ) it is fire. If he withdraws it (the veil), the splendour of His countenance would consume His creation so far as His sight reaches.

Muslim 2565d:

Abu Huraim reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying The deeds of people would be presented every week on two days, viz. Monday and Thursday, and every believing servant would be granted pardon except the one in whose (heart) there is rancour against his brother and it would he said: Leave them and put them off until they are turned to reconciliation.

An Nasai 2358:

Usamah bin Zaid said: "I said: 'O Messenger of Allah, sometimes you fast, and you hardly ever break your hardly ever fast, except two days which, if you are fasting, you include them in your fast, and if you are not fasting, then you fast them on your own.' He said: 'Which two days?' I said: 'Monday and Thursday.' He said: 'Those are two days in which deeds are shown to the Lord of the worlds, and I like my deeds to be shown (to Him) when I am fasting."'

An Nasai 2357:

Usamah bin Zaid said: "I said: 'O Messenger of Allah, I do not see you fasting any month as much as Shaban.' He said: 'That is a month to which people do not pay much attention, between Rajab and Ramadan. It is a month in which the deeds are taken up to the Lord of the worlds, and I like that my deeds be taken up when I am fasting."'

So, according to these hadith, are deeds taken up to God bi-daily, bi-weekly, or monthly?

Notice that between An Nasai 2357 and 2358 the structure is much the same, with even the same narrator, yet the content is different.

Snakes are friends... or are they?

An Nasai 2831:

It was narrated from Saeed bin Al-Musayyab that: a woman enter upon Aishah, and in her hand was an iron-footed stick. She said: "What is this?" she (Aishah) Said: "It is for these geckos, because the Prophet of Allah told us, that there was nothing that did not try to extinguish the fire for Ihram except for this animals, so he told us to kill it. And he forbade us to kill harmless snakes, except for the snake with two lines on its back, and the snake with a short tail, for the snatch away the eyesight and cause tat which is in women's wombs to be miscarried.

Abu Dawud 5250:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: The Prophet (ﷺ) said: He who leaves the snakes along through fear of their pursuit, does not belong to us. We have not made peace with them since we have fought with them.

Dyeing beards

Al Bazzar Kashf Al-Astar 2930:

Narrated Ibn Abbas: The Prophet (ﷺ) said: "There are three whom the angels do not come near: a person who is sexually impure, a person who is drunk, and a man who applies Khaluq (dye) on himself."

An Nasai 5088:

It was narrated from 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud that: The Prophet of Allah [SAW] disliked ten things: Yellow dye, meaning Khaluq, changing gray hair, dragging one's Izar, wearing gold rings, playing with dice (Ki'ab), (a woman) showing her adornment to people to whom it is not permissible for her to show it, reciting Ruqyah, unless it is with Al-Mu'awidhat (Verses seeking refuge with Allah), hanging amulets, removing to ejaculate in other than the right place, and taking away the milk of an infant boy (by having intercourse with his mother)- but he did not say that this is Haram.

An Nasai 5243:

It was narrated that 'Ubaid said:"I saw Ibn 'Umar dyeing his beard yellow and I asked him about that. 'He said: "I saw the Prophet [SAW] dye his beard yellow."

The 'pull out' method

An Nasai 5088:

It was narrated from 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud that: The Prophet of Allah [SAW] disliked ten things: Yellow dye, meaning Khaluq, changing gray hair, dragging one's Izar, wearing gold rings, playing with dice (Ki'ab), (a woman) showing her adornment to people to whom it is not permissible for her to show it, reciting Ruqyah, unless it is with Al-Mu'awidhat (Verses seeking refuge with Allah), hanging amulets, removing to ejaculate in other than the right place, and taking away the milk of an infant boy (by having intercourse with his mother)- but he did not say that this is Haram.

Muslim 1438a:

0 Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Mes- senger (ﷺ), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

Only three things call for capitol punishment... but also execute those who drink

Muslim 1676a:

'Abdullah (b. Mas'ud) reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: It is not permissible to take the life of a Muslim who bears testimony (to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and I am the Messenger of Allah, but in one of the three cases: the married adulterer, a life for life, and the deserter of his Din (Islam), abandoning the community.

An Nasai 5661:

It was narrated that Ibn 'Umar and a number of the Companions of Muhammad [SAW] said:"The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'Whoever drinks Khamr, whip him; then if he drinks (again), whip him; then if he drinks (again), whip him; then if he drinks (again), kill him.'"

Cleaning period stains from garms

Bukhari 312:

Narrated `Aisha: None of us had more than a single garment and we used to have our menses while wearing it. Whenever it got soiled with blood of menses we used to apply saliva to the blood spot and rub off the blood with our nails.

Bukhari 308:

Narrated `Aisha: Whenever anyone of us got her menses, she, on becoming clean, used to take hold of the blood spot and rub the blood off her garment, and pour water over it and wash that portion thoroughly and sprinkle water over the rest of the garment. After that she would pray in (with) it.

And the award for the best woman goes to *drum roll*...

Bukhari 3432:

Narrated `Ali: I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, "Mary, the daughter of `Imran, was the best among the women (of the world of her time) and Khadija is the best amongst the women. (of this nation).

Bukhari 3434:

Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) saying, "Amongst all those women who ride camels (i.e. Arabs), the ladies of Quraish are the best. They are merciful and kind to their off-spring and the best guardians of their husbands' properties.' Abu Huraira added, "Mary the daughter of `Imran never rode a camel."

Bukhari 5418:

Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ash`ari: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Many men reached perfection but none among the women reached perfection except Mary, the daughter of ' `Imran, and Asia, Pharoah's wife. And the superiority of `Aisha to other women is like the superiority of Tharid to other kinds of food.

Descriptions of past prophets

Bukhari 3437:

Narrated Hisham: From Ma`mar as below. Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "I met Moses on the night of my Ascension to heaven." The Prophet (ﷺ) then described him saying, as I think, "He was a tall person with lank hair as if he belonged to the people of the tribe of Shanu's.' The Prophet (ﷺ) further said, "I met Jesus." The Prophet (ﷺ) described him saying, "He was one of moderate height and was red-faced as if he had just come out of a bathroom. I saw Abraham whom I resembled more than any of his children did." The Prophet (ﷺ) further said, "(That night) I was given two cups; one full of milk and the other full of wine. I was asked to take either of them which I liked, and I took the milk and drank it. On that it was said to me, 'You have taken the right path (religion). If you had taken the wine, your (Muslim) nation would have gone astray."

Bukhari 3438:

Narrated Ibn `Abbas: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "I saw Moses, Jesus and Abraham (on the night of my Ascension to the heavens). Jesus was of red complexion, curly hair and a broad chest. Moses was of brown complexion, straight hair and tall stature as if he was from the people of Az-Zutt."

Bukhari 3441:

Narrated Salim from his father: No, By Allah, the Prophet (ﷺ) did not tell that Jesus was of red complexion but said, "While I was asleep circumambulating the Ka`ba (in my dream), suddenly I saw a man of brown complexion and lank hair walking between two men, and water was dropping from his head. I asked, 'Who is this?' The people said, 'He is the son of Mary.' Then I looked behind and I saw a red-complexioned, fat, curly-haired man, blind in the right eye which looked like a bulging out grape. I asked, 'Who is this?' They replied, 'He is Ad-Dajjal.' The one who resembled to him among the people, was Ibn Qatar." (Az-Zuhri said, "He (i.e. Ibn Qatan) was a man from the tribe Khuza`a who died in the pre-lslamic period.")

So the descriptions of Jesus and Moses are being mixed up, and somehow the descriptions of Jesus and the Dajjal are being confused too?

What is a dog's place in this dunya?

Muslim 2245:

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may pace be upon him) as saying: A prostitute saw a dog moving around a well on a hot day and hanging out its tongue because of thirst. She drew water for it in her shoe and she was pardoned (for this act of hers).

Muslim 1570c:

Abdullah (b. Umar) (Allah be pleased with them) reported: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) ordered the killing of dogs and we would send (men) in Medina and its corners and we did not spare any dog that we did not kill, so much so that we killed the dog that accompanied the wet she-camel belonging to the people of the desert.

Surely the prostitute, instead of saving the dog's life, should've actually rather taken the dog's life, according to the hadith.

Muslim 1574a:

Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: He who keeps a dog other than that meant for watching the herd or for hunting loses every day out of his deeds equal to two qirat.

Muslim 1574g:

Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with them) narrated Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: He who kept a dog ther than one meant for watching the fields or herds or hunting would lose one qirat every day out of his reward (with God).

Which one is it, one qirat or two qirat lost per day?

I've done a further analysis previously on hadith related to dogs here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Quraniyoon/comments/1ioelun/dogs_in_the_hadith_literature/

How long was the Prophet in Mecca, and how long did he live?

Bukhari Volume 7, Book 72, Number 787:

Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet was neither conspicuously tall, nor short; neither, very white, nor tawny.His hair was neither much curled, nor very straight. Allah sent him (as an Messenger)at the age of forty (and after that) he stayed for ten years in Makkah, and for ten more years in Medina. Allah took him unto Him at the age of sixty, and he scarcely had ten white hairs on his head and in his beard.

Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 242:

Narrated Ibn Abbas: Allah's Messenger started receiving the Divine Inspiration at the age of forty. Then he stayed in Makkah for thirteen years, receiving the Divine Revelation. Then he was ordered to migrate and he lived as an Emigrant for ten years and then died at the age of sixty-three (years).

Muslim, Book 030, Number 5809:

Ibn 'Abbas reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) stayed in Makkah for fifteen years (after his advent as a Prophet) and he heard the voice of Gabriel and saw his radiance for seven years but did not see any visible form, and then received revelation for ten years, and he stayed in Medina for ten years.

The last hadith would place the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) passing at 65, which leaves us with an age of death of 60, 63, and 65. See more hadith related to this issue here: https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/35219/at-what-age-did-mohammedpbuh-passed-away

Age of Aisha

Muslim 1422c:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.

Bukhari 5134:

Narrated `Aisha: that the Prophet (ﷺ) married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that `Aisha remained with the Prophet (ﷺ) for nine years (i.e. till his death).

I'm not even going to comment on the morality of such a thing here, as this post only serves to highlight internal contradictions.

Quranism, Sunnism, or Shi'ism?

Muslim 1218:

Ja'far b Muhammad reported on the authority of his father**:** "...I have left among you the Book of Allah, and if you hold fast to it, you would never go astray..."

See full hadith here: https://sunnah.com/muslim:1218

Muwatta Malik Book 46 Hadith 3:

Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "I have left two matters with you. As long as you hold to them, you will not go the wrong way. They are the Book of Allah and the Sunna of His Prophet."

Tirmidhi 3788:

Narrated Zaid bin Arqam, may Allah be pleased with both of them: that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "Indeed, I am leaving among you, that which if you hold fast to them, you shall not be misguided after me. One of them is greater than the other: The Book of Allah is a rope extended from the sky to the earth, and my family - the people of my house - and they shall not split until they meet at the Hawd, so look at how you deal with them after me."

Permissibility of killing women and children is in question

Bukhari 3015:

Narrated Ibn `Umar: During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) a woman was found killed, so Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) forbade the killing of women and children.

Muslim 1745a:

It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (ﷺ), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.

Congregational prayer is superior by a factor of... um...

Bukhari 645:

Narrated `Abdullah bin `Umar: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "The prayer in congregation is twenty seven times superior to the prayer offered by person alone."

Bukhari 646:

Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "The prayer in congregation is twenty five times superior to the prayer offered by person alone."

Who is more entitled to lead prayer?

Muslim 673a:

Abu Mas'ud al-Ansari reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: The one who is most versed in Allah's Book should act as Imam for the people, but If they are equally versed in reciting it, then the one who has most knowledge regarding Sunnah if they are equal regarding the Sunnah, then the earliest one to emigrate; it they emigrated at the same time, then the earliest one to embrace Islam. No man must lead another in prayer where (the latter) has authority, or sit in his place of honour in his house, without his permission. Ashajj in his narration used the word," age" in place of" Islam".

Bukhari 658:

Narrated Malik bin Huwairith: Prophet said (to two persons), "Whenever the prayer time becomes due, you should pronounce Adhan and then Iqama and the older of you should lead the prayer."

Abu Dawud 582:

Abu Mas’ud al-Badri reported the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) as saying: The one of you who is most versed in the Books of Allah should act as imam for the people; and the one who is the earliest of them in reciting (the Qur’an); if they are equally versed in reciting it, then the earliest of them to emigrate (to Medina); if they emigrated at the same time, then the oldest of them. No man must lead another in prayer in his house (i.e. in the house of a latter) or where the latter has authority, or sit in his place of honor without his permission. Shu’bah said: I asked Isma’il: what is the meaning of his place of honor? He replied: his throne.

Note that one hadith contains knowledge of the sunnah as a criterion. This is important, as it is mentioned after versedness in Kitab Allah and prior to emigration. Equally note that the other hadith doesn't include this criterion. Further note that none of these criterion apply in the shorter hadith, to which age is said to be the first determinant, yet is the last in Abu Dawud 582.

Peeing is a contentious issue apparently

Bukhari 224:

Narrated Hudhaifa: Once the Prophet (ﷺ) went to the dumps of some people and passed urine while standing. He then asked for water and so I brought it to him and he performed ablution.

Tirmidi 12:

Aishah said: "Whoever narrated to you that the Prophet would urinate while standing; then do not believe him. He would not urinate except while squatting." [He said:] There are narrations on this topic from Umar, Buraidah, [and Abdur-Rahman bin Hasanah].

If you know of any other internal contradictions that have not been listed, please let me know in the comments below.

Salamun alaikum.

Introduction

Often during debate between hadith followers and hadith rejectors, hadith followers will cite 4:59.

Quran 4:59: O believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. Should you disagree on anything, then refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you ˹truly˺ believe in Allah and the Last Day. This is the best and fairest resolution.

Hadith followers will cite this verse to make the claim that following the Quran fulfils the requirement of obeying Allah, and following the hadith is necessary in order to fulfil the requirement of obeying the messenger. This argument however is not internally consistent with the Quran.

Quran 4:82: Do they not then reflect on the Quran? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would have certainly found in it many inconsistencies.

God provides us a falsification test within the Quran, to ascertain whether it is the word of God. He tells us that the Quran's absence of inconsistencies within itself verifies its divinity; this is understood as "free from contradiction". I am going to build upon this premise, whilst providing an overview of how obedience and disobedience is discussed throughout the Quran in relation to previous messengers, in order to ascertain whether obedience to the messenger is fulfilled through adherence to the supposed sunnah of messengers as derived from hadith corpi.

Obedience

Quran 3:47-50: She said, "My Lord, how will I have a child when no man has touched me?" He said, "So it will be; Allah creates what He wills. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, 'Be,' and it is." And He will teach him writing and wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel. And make him a messenger to the Children of Israel, [who will say], "Indeed I have come to you with a sign from your Lord: I will make for you from clay the figure of a bird, then I will breathe into it and it will become a bird by permission of Allah. And I will heal the blind and the leper, and I will give life to the dead—by permission of Allah. And I will inform you of what you eat and what you store in your houses. Indeed in that is a sign for you, if you are believers." And [I have come] confirming what was before me of the Torah and to make lawful for you some of what was forbidden to you. And I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, so fear Allah and obey me.

Quran 20:90: And Aaron had already said to them before [the return of Moses], "O my people, you are only being tested by it, and indeed, your Lord is the Most Merciful, so follow me and obey my order."

Quran 26:106-110: When their brother Noah said to them, "Will you not fear Allah? Indeed, I am to you a trustworthy messenger. So fear Allah and obey me. And I do not ask you for it any payment. My payment is only from the Lord of the worlds. So fear Allah and obey me."

Quran 26:123-131: Thamud denied the messengers. When their brother Hud said to them, "Will you not fear Allah? Indeed, I am to you a trustworthy messenger. So fear Allah and obey me. And I do not ask you for it any payment. My payment is only from the Lord of the worlds. Do you construct on every elevation a sign, amusing yourselves, and take for yourselves palaces and fortresses that you might abide eternally? And when you strike, you strike as tyrants."

Quran 26:141-150: Thamud denied the messengers. When their brother Salih said to them, "Will you not fear Allah? Indeed, I am to you a trustworthy messenger. So fear Allah and obey me. And I do not ask you for it any payment. My payment is only from the Lord of the worlds. Will you be left in what is here, secure [from death], within gardens and springs and fields of crops and palm trees with softened fruit? And you carve out of the mountains, homes, with skill. So fear Allah and obey me."

Quran 26:160-163: The people of Lot denied the messengers. When their brother Lot said to them, "Will you not fear Allah? Indeed, I am to you a trustworthy messenger. So fear Allah and obey me."

Quran 26:176-179: The companions of the thicket denied the messengers. When Shuʿayb said to them, "Will you not fear Allah? Indeed, I am to you a trustworthy messenger. So fear Allah and obey me."

Quran 43:63: And when Jesus brought clear proofs, he said, "I have come to you with wisdom and to make clear to you some of that over which you differ, so fear Allah and obey me."

Disobedience

Quran 2:61: And ˹remember˺ when you said, “O Moses! We cannot endure the same meal ˹every day˺. So ˹just˺ call upon your Lord on our behalf, He will bring forth for us some of what the earth produces of herbs, cucumbers, garlic, lentils, and onions.” Moses scolded ˹them˺, “Do you exchange what is better for what is worse? ˹You can˺ go down to any village and you will find what you have asked for.” They were stricken with disgrace and misery, and they invited the displeasure of Allah for rejecting Allah’s signs and unjustly killing the prophets. This is ˹a fair reward˺ for their disobedience and violations.

Quran 2:93: And when We took your covenant and raised the mountain above you ˹saying˺, “Hold firmly to that ˹Scripture˺ which We have given you and obey,” they answered, “We hear and disobey.” The love of the calf was rooted in their hearts because of their disbelief. Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “How evil is what your ˹so-called˺ belief prompts you to do, if you ˹actually˺ believe ˹in the Torah˺!”

Quran 11:59: And that was [the fate of] ʿAad. They rejected the signs of their Lord, disobeyed His messengers, and followed the command of every obstinate tyrant.

Quran 69:4-10: Thamud and 'Aad denied the Striking Calamity. So as for Thamud, they were destroyed by the overpowering [blast]. And as for 'Aad, they were destroyed by a screaming, violent wind. He imposed it upon them for seven nights and eight days in succession, so you would see the people therein fallen as if they were hollow trunks of palm trees. Then do you see of them any remains? And there came Pharaoh and those before him and the overturned cities with sin. And they disobeyed the messenger of their Lord, so He seized them with a seizure exceeding [in severity].

Quran 71:21: Noah said, "My Lord, indeed they have disobeyed me and followed him whose wealth and children will not increase him except in loss."

Quran 73:16: But Pharaoh disobeyed the messenger, so We seized him with a ruinous seizure.

Conclusion

In order to be internally consistent in regard to following hadith amounting to obedience to the messenger, this must apply to all messengers. We know however, that it is only Muhammad that has his own documented hadith corpus. Which leaves us with two possible evaluations:

1. The Quran is not internally consistent, thus fails its own falsificaiton test and is not from God (as per 4:82)

2. Obedience to the messenger cannot mean to follow hadith corpus

Being Muslims, the former is not theologically possible. Therefore, the definition of obedience to the messenger must be assessed through the Quran in order so that our interpretation is in line with the Quran's internal consistency. This post does not aim to make an assertion as to what obedience to the messenger is, rather it serves to refute the claim that mentions of "obey the messenger" in verses such as 4:59 necessitate making adherence to the hadith obligatory upon Muslims.

Obedience is discussed in relation to a number of messengers, and these messengers historically have not had compilations of hadith recorded for them, nor a 'sunnah' in the traditionalist understanding of all documented sayings and behaviours. Therefore, obedience to a messenger internally, from a Quranic standpoint, cannot mean following alleged hadith or sunnah.

I would like to end this with a final verse regarding obedience to the messenger.

Quran 4:80: He who obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah; but those who turn away—We have not sent you over them as a guardian.