Min käre vän Ali Baker, har besvarat några av Koranisternas åsikter. Han har själv varit en fiende till hadither, men har gått tillbaka till ursprungsislam. Koranisterna började sin fitna några årtionden sedan, då de menar man ska enbart följa Koranen och inte ta haditherna till hjälp.
Här kommer hans anteckningar från fb
I thought others may find it useful if I share with them some words on the group of Hadeeth Rejecters, who are also called the “quranists”. The followers of this group are often fresh converts or “born”-Muslims who have suddenly gained an interest in Islam. The main ways that people join this group, in my experience, are:
Sometimes they stumble across quranist websites and, without any knowledge of `ilm al-hadeeth, fall prey to the quranist ideology that hadeeths are effectively a conspiracy theory, untrustworthy, and unauthorised. Some other times, the new convert or newly-awakened Muslim may go through “convertitis” (google it). Some other times, the new Muslim realises that Islam is not a wishy-washy, hippie religion, but rather a religion requiring self-discipline, such as praying five times a day, etc. and so reject these “strict” practices by rejecting the main basis for them, which is the Sunnah.
Is the Prophet just a postman?
As far as I can see it, the group base their ideology partly on verses which seem to be saying that the Quran is fully-detailed. This is merely their interpretation of that verse. In contrast to their interpretation of that verse, the Quran also tells us to obey the Messenger.All mainstream Muslim sects throughout history have been in agreement that Islam has two primary sources: the Quran and the Sunnah (i.e. the examples set by, and the teachings of,) of the Prophet. If we have an authentic hadeeth (narration) in which the Prophet tells us how to pray, should we not follow the Prophet’s advice? Isn’t it likely that he knew the scripture best? Or would he and the Muslims in his time have been bickering with each other over how to perform prayer, without he having any authority in this regard?
When the Quran told people to pray, or to draw their head-scarves over their bosoms, or to do anything else, don’t you think the companions and the family of the Prophet wondered what this all meant? And don’t you think they would have wondered – because the Quran can be, for us, vague or lacking in detail – how to perform these actions? Now when they were confused, don’t you think the Prophet would have had an opinion? Wouldn’t it be quite possible that the man chosen by the almighty and knowing God to deliver a message – an entire religion to a group of desert folk – might understand how to perform and obey these commands and instructions better than everyone else?
An example: the Quran tells us to perform fajr salat; yet the Quran does not have a manual for salat. At most, quranists resort to selectively taking parts of verses from different places in the Quran, and placing them in any order, so as to construct a ritual prayer. But there is very little information to work with and few clues as to know how to construct it. Ironically some draw from the ritual prayer performed by Muslims today in order to construct a quranist ritual prayer. Others realise the futility of this entire attempt and end up arguing, against the consensus of all mainstream sects since Islam’s inception, against there being any ritual prayer and they effectively advocate praying however one sees fit. (I say mainstream because there were some minor heretical groups that popped up and claimed that the Shari`ah and laws had been abrogated in order to justify fornication, sodomy, injustice, and other acts. However if we think about it, even these heretical groups tended to say that there was a ritual form of salat even if it had been abrogated).
There is a consensus by Muslims that salat, in the Islamic context, means a ritual form of prayer. How can it be that all Muslim scholars and groups for 1400 years, since the time of the companions of the Prophet and since the time of the Family of the Prophet, were all mistaken but a group that originated in the last century or two know better? How does the quranist group know better than all Muslim scholars and better than all mainstream Muslim sects for 1400 years? Are to we say that Allah let the Muslims, with the last religion to be revealed until the end of time, remain in misguidance for so long – centuries – from the Prophet’s time until the quranist group’s inceptions?
Is the Quran sufficient?
They assert that the Quran is fully detailed that Muhammed (s) had no role except as a postman. Yet the Quran tells us to follow the Messenger. Here’s a question for them to consider if the Quran is fully-detailed: what is the punishment for rape in the Quran? Certainly the Quran is not “fully detailed”. This is a mistaken interpretation. And a simple example is the absence of a punishment for rape. If the Quran were enough for a complete religion to be constructed, then one would to expect the Quran to lay down a punishment for rape that could be implemented by believers, just as it lays down a punishment for adultery. However since we cannot find a punishment for rape, we are forced to turn to the Sunnah and so the Quran is not fully detailed. Any excuse of the quranists should be met with, “really, so inheritance laws had to be laid out in full detail but rape laws should be up to us?” or something similar. The Quran is only complete and detailed for the Prophet and Imams who have total understanding of the Book. For example, see http://www.revivingalislam.com/2012/06/companions-of-rass.html
If you actually read our hadeeths, you will realise how frequently the Imams quoted the Quran, how well they understood it, how they were able to explain and simplify what others struggled to interpret, etc. Compare that to this silly “study” of Surat al-Fatiha by a quranist:
Heck, forget the Imams, even any significant scholar of the Shia or the Sunnis could have, and did, come up with a better tafseer than that.
Isn’t it more likely that they are misinterpreting verses like 16:89: What does it even mean that the Quran is a tibyaan “clarification” for every thing? Surely it cannot be literal considering it hasn’t clarified alot of things in my daily life, not has it clarified the ahkaam (laws) such as how rape should be punished, etc.The exact same thing applies to 6:114; “kitab mufassila” really is quite vague. They might translate it as “fully detailed” if they wish, but what it actually means cannot be inferred from the verse alone. It cannot be literal since it is not literally true.And as for:Shall I seek other than GOD as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed? Those who received the scripture recognize that it has been revealed from your Lord, truthfully. You shall not harbor any doubt.-(6:114)Yes, God is the only source of Law. Where do think the Prophet Muhammed (S) was getting the information for the Hikmah and Teachings of the Book that he was giving to the people? himself? God gave him that knowledge.Isn’t it more likely that they are misinterpreting those verses when the Quran has verses such as:
The authority of the Sunnah
3:164 Certainly did Allah confer [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 (hikmah), although they had been before in manifest error.
Teaching the book…Notice the distinction between reciting verses and teaching the book in 3:164 and the hikmah. So the Messenger, i.e. Muhammed (S), recites the verses of the Quran, teaches us the Book (notice how it is listed separately to reciting the veses), and teaches us the Hikmah (translated here as wisdom though this meaning clearly falls short). Thus the verse says that the Messenger was sent to recite verses and teach us the Book (it’s not a stretch to say that probably means explaining what the Book says) and teach us “Hikmah”. Thus, the Quran says the Prophet was more than just a postman.
Here is another verse:59:7 […]And whatever the Messenger has given you – take; and what he has forbidden you – refrain from[…]
Here the Quran records the command of God to take what he gives us (i.e. commands and perhaps also advice) and refrain from what he has forbidden.Perhaps we might take the verse of wudhu as an example. The verse lists the wajib (obligatory) rituals in wudhu. But the Prophet told of us some extra rituals in wudhu which are mustahhab (desirable but not obligatory).
And another verse:8:20-21 O you who have believed, obey Allah and His Messenger and do not turn from him while you hear [his order]. And do not be like those who say, “We have heard,” while they do not hear.
We are told to obey Muhammed (s) repeatedly in the Quran. If he only had the role of a postman and not also a role of explaining Islam to us, then it would arbitrary for God to say that we should obey the Messenger. Notice the verses go on to mention those who ignore the commands of the Messenger.
I don’t think it necessarily matters to this discussion what the correct interpretation of the verses, such as 6:114 and 16:89, which the quranists use, as long as we rule out the wrong interpretation used by quranists to justify going against the practice of the companions and family of the Prophet as well as all mainstream sects.The point is the Quran says the Messenger has a role other than being a postman.
Did the Prophet forbid the people from hadeeths?As for the claim that the Prophet himself prohibited the writing of hadeeths, it is a rather ironic argument to be making considering this is only reported in the hadeeths and not in the Quran. Furthermore, such hadeeths have been mostly identified as forgeries. The remainder were reportedly issued by the Prophet when the Quran was being recorded, as he was anxious that the hadeeths and Quran not become mixed up.
Did hadeeths appear 200 hundred years after the Prophet? Did Bukhari say that 95+% of hadeeths are fabricated?
This is dishonest. Bukhari compiled his selection of some authentic hadeeths 200 years after the death of the Prophet. However as I’ve pointed out to already, there were compilations before Bukhari as well as plentiful oral transmission. Some of these still survive. For example, there is a surviving compilation attributed to a student of a companion of the Prophet. See http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/hadith.html . That’s certainly not 200 years later.Bukhari’s has become the most popular because he was the first amongst proto-Sunni circles to collect a “saheeh-only” collection that was comprehensive in its topics. It has remained the most popular for Sunnis oartly because he also used the strictest conditions in testing each hadeeth.
Some claim that Bukhari chose 6000 out of hundreds of thousands and so rejected all the others as fabricated. This is rubbish. If you look at the actual title of his book, it indicates that it is a selection. Bukhari only selected SOME of the authentic hadeeth out there. He himself says so.This idea that the hadeeths popped up out of nowhere 200 years afte the Prophet’s death is nonsense. The Quran and hadeeths were both transmitted orally and textually by the family and the companions of the Prophet to the next generation. Recording of the Quran and hadeeths was done by the companions themselves, and these were passed on along with their oral narrations. The succeeding generation also narrated hadeeths textually and orally. The number 200 has come because Muslim bin Ismail al-Bukhari compiled his book approximately 200 years after the Prophet. The book was compiled because no single collection survived as an authentic-only collection of narrations that were comprehensive in terms of the Islamic subjects addressed. There were books long before Bukhari and these still survive.
As for the Shia hadeeths, many of these were recorded from the Imams by the very companions of the Imams themselves and who passed on their books down the generations. That is not 200 years after the Imams. Many of these were then compiled into the Four Books of the Shia.
Are hadeeths reliable?
Some people compared hadeeths to Chinese whispers. As a someone put it, “How about a game of Chinese Whispers where you get to actually transmit information out loud, use pencils to write down what you’ve heard, transmit information in public in front of a large amount of students that consider it to be a religion, and include referees in the game that would kick you out if they find you screwing around?! Terrible analogy.”
It is interesting to hear the quranists say that the hadeeths are unreliable while the Quran is reliable. Do you know how the Quran has reached us? We get the Quran from books recording the text of the Quran and books recording the rules that explain how to recite the Quran AND the oral memory of those who, in every generation, have memorised part, or even the whole, Quran. Where do you think the authors of the books, and the reciters, got this information from? The previous generation of scholars and reciters. And they got it from the generation previous to them. Etc. All the way until it reached the generation of the companions and family of the Prophet who got it from the Prophet. There are thus chains of narrators who pass down the Quran. How do you think hadeeths are passed down? Through chains of narrators, i.e. pretty much the same way. Thus to reject all hadeeths in principle because of arguments regarding their tranmission is to reject the Quran since the transmission is the same: oral and textual narration.
There were versions of the Quran, and likewise hadeeths, that were rejected because the narrators were noted to be dishonest in narrating, or who were noted to be inaccurate in transmission, or even because there were not enough chains for that version.The quranists may say “but Allah has promised to protect the Quran!” Yes, but where does He say this? In the Quran. How did the Quran get to us? Through chains of narrations. The same people reporting the Quran down the generations via textual and oral transmission, were also reporting the hadeeths. Now, if we assert that the hadeeths are unreliable, the Quran must be too.Since the Quran is protected by Allah’s words, and it came through chains of transmission, wouldn’t it also make sense to accept hadeeths (though not all of them)?
Hadeeth scholars are very aware of the possibility of poor memory or dishonesty in narrating. That’s why they compiled books listing trustworthy and untrustworthy narrators. The hadeeth scholars would examine the accuracy, honesty, and beliefs of narrators. They would also compare the narrations of reporters, even the trustworthy reporters, against other narrations. In this way they were able to identify transmitters who were changing the hadeeths or who were narrating too many unknown hadeeths. Some of them went further and recorded the time period in which narrators lived so that they could identify any subtle disconnections in the chain. Some went further and recorded the teachers and students of narrators so that they could identify a fabricated chain because “narrator A has never been known to have narrated hadeeths to narrator B therefore a hadeeth reported by narrator B from narrator A is fabricated”.
Actually, lol, some people were kicked out from cities because even they narrated too much from “weak” narrators; (the famous case of Ahmed bin Muhammed bin Khalid al-Barqi comes to mind).
In addition to this, some scholars stipulated that only hadeeths that have reached us through sufficient routes of transmission are certain in authenticity. An application of this is that some say that points of aqeeda are only proven with widely-known and accepted narrations, whether amongst the Shia or amongst all Muslims.
I apologise for any mistakes. Anything correct and good has come from Allah, azza wa jalla, and anything incorrect or wrong has come from myself. May Allah guide us to the straight path.