Author Topic: rebuttal on Ahlul Quran's Claim?  (Read 17482 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline thaha

  • Jr. Member
  • **
    • View Profile
rebuttal on Ahlul Quran's Claim?
« on: August 17, 2012, 05:07:13 AM »
Alhamdulillah!!..Brother Osma's site giving a wonder full and completely truth full regarding to Islam.It will increase every muslims confidence and reflect it is from Allah almighty.May Allah bless him.

My Doubt wasn't regarding to comparaive religion, but confusion due to "Ahlul Quran" Sector.Anybody please share link regarding to rebuttal on Ahlul Quran's Claim?...I was studying about them and found their some argument's are senseless.But some cases like "Salamu alaikum or assalamu alaikum?" topics make little bit confusion.

Offline Final Overture

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • question mark
    • View Profile
Re: rebuttal on Ahlul Quran's Claim?
« Reply #1 on: August 17, 2012, 05:09:12 AM »
What is Ahlul Quran?
«We were the lowest of all people and then Allah gave us glory by Islam, and if we seek glory in anything other that what Allah has given us, Allah will disgrace us.» Umar ibn Khattab

Offline Egyptian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: rebuttal on Ahlul Quran's Claim?
« Reply #2 on: August 17, 2012, 10:00:45 AM »

This wiki article gives basic information about Ahlul Quran as Quranists ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quranism

Though ,I think, they have gone to he extreme ignoring the importance of Sunna, yet I found some of their critical insight into some of the traditions, to be taken seriously into consideration.

Offline mYucesan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
    • View Profile
Re: rebuttal on Ahlul Quran's Claim?
« Reply #3 on: August 17, 2012, 10:04:16 AM »
Assalaamun'Aleykum my dearest brothers/sisters.

I looked this up and it seems that Ahlul-Quran are the rejectors of Hadith, so, simply, Quran only.
Truth Sincerity seems to have some questions for them:
Quote
http://truth-sincerity.blogspot.nl/2011/01/ahlul-quran-rejectors-of-hadith.html

May Allah forgive them and Ramadan Mubarak to you all.

Assalaam'un Aleykum,

Offline Final Overture

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • question mark
    • View Profile
Re: rebuttal on Ahlul Quran's Claim?
« Reply #4 on: August 17, 2012, 04:39:57 PM »
Wa aleykum assalam
Well, what rebuttal can we give?
Quote
There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day and [who] remembers Allah often.
Qur'an 33:21
«We were the lowest of all people and then Allah gave us glory by Islam, and if we seek glory in anything other that what Allah has given us, Allah will disgrace us.» Umar ibn Khattab

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
    • View Profile
Re: rebuttal on Ahlul Quran's Claim?
« Reply #5 on: August 17, 2012, 05:35:48 PM »
As'salamu Alaikum dear brothers and sisters in Islam,

Please visit: http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac11.htm#links.  It's about the Islamic Cults out there.  I think it will be helpful for you regarding this topic, insha'Allah.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Offline thaha

  • Jr. Member
  • **
    • View Profile
Re: rebuttal on Ahlul Quran's Claim?
« Reply #6 on: August 18, 2012, 12:23:12 PM »
Jazhak allah brother Osama..thanks for your reply

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
    • View Profile
Re: rebuttal on Ahlul Quran's Claim?
« Reply #7 on: August 18, 2012, 03:00:03 PM »
Your welcome, akhi (brother) in Islam.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Offline RamziBinNabil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: rebuttal on Ahlul Quran's Claim?
« Reply #8 on: October 21, 2012, 12:35:21 PM »
"He who obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah; but those who turn away - We have not sent you over them as a guardian." [4:80]

Offline parsian22

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
    • View Profile
Re: rebuttal on Ahlul Quran's Claim?
« Reply #9 on: November 25, 2012, 11:46:39 AM »
It is an obligation upon us to follow the Sunnah:

"And obey Allah and the Messenger, that ye may obtain mercy." (Qur'ân 3:132)

Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and beware (of evil): if ye do turn back, know ye that it is Our Messenger’s duty to proclaim (the Message) in the clearest manner. (Qur'ân 5:92)

O ye who believe! obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: that is best, and most suitable for final determination. (Qur'ân 4:59)

Say: “Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger: but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance.(Qur'ân 24:54)
« Last Edit: November 25, 2012, 11:50:08 AM by parsian22 »

Offline Tanveer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Hello
    • View Profile
Re: rebuttal on Ahlul Quran's Claim?
« Reply #10 on: December 22, 2012, 02:48:12 PM »
Has anyone come across the quransist saying that the hadiths and sunnah are a satanic innovation because the quran says its already a detailed scripture (which i dont dispute)? But surely if the Quran addressed EVERY single problem then how big do you think the quran would be?

Offline There is only one God

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: rebuttal on Ahlul Quran's Claim?
« Reply #11 on: December 24, 2012, 01:10:34 AM »
It is an obligation upon us to follow the Sunnah:

"And obey Allah and the Messenger, that ye may obtain mercy." (Qur'ân 3:132)

Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and beware (of evil): if ye do turn back, know ye that it is Our Messenger’s duty to proclaim (the Message) in the clearest manner. (Qur'ân 5:92)

O ye who believe! obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: that is best, and most suitable for final determination. (Qur'ân 4:59)

Say: “Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger: but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance.(Qur'ân 24:54)


Ok. Those quotes never said to follow Satanic Jew corrupted Hadith. What the prophet's teachings were, are all in the Qur'an.


"Has anyone come across the quransist saying that the hadiths and sunnah are a satanic innovation because the quran says its already a detailed scripture (which i dont dispute)? But surely if the Quran addressed EVERY single problem then how big do you think the quran would be?"

How could a book that says Prophet Musa (pbuh) slapped the angel of death to prevent death ever be useful? If the Qur'an addressed every single problem - It already does.

Offline Tanveer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Hello
    • View Profile
Re: rebuttal on Ahlul Quran's Claim?
« Reply #12 on: December 24, 2012, 03:42:17 AM »
'As for the story of Prophet Musa with the Angel of death, it is a sound story reported by Al Bukhari, Muslim, Ahmad and Al Nasai: from Abu Huraira that the Prophet said: "The Angel of Death was sent to Moses when he came to Moses. Moses SLAPPED him on the eye. The angel returned to his Lord and said, "You have sent me to a Slave who does not want to die". Allah said, "Return to him and tell him to put his hand on the back of an ox and for every hair that will come under it, he will be granted one year of life". Moses said, "O Lord! What will happen after that?" Allah replied, "Then death". Moses said, "Let it come now". Moses then requested Allah to let him die close to the Sacred Land so much so that he would be at a distance of a stone's throw from it". Abu Huraira added, "Allah's Apostle said, 'If I were there, I would show you his grave below the red sand hill on the side of the road".
Al Nawawi said: "It is also possible that Allah did not send the angel of death when he wanted to terminate his life. It might have been only a test. Prophet Musa might have slapped the man because he was a stranger who got into his house without his consent, ignoring that he was in fact the angel of death. It is lawful in Sharia to take out the eye of the person who looks inside your house without your consent. It is known that the angels came in the form of men to Prophets Ibrahim and Lut (Peace and blessing be upon them) and they did not recognize them. Prophet Ibrahim presented them something to eat before they told him who they were. Prophet Musa also might not have recognized the Angel. But when he come the second time with his eye in its place Prophet Musa recognized him and submitted himself to Allah's Will.
To conclude, we say that the Muslim should believe in these Ahadith and the like, as revelation from Allah The Almighty. If the person's mind and reasoning are short of making him understand the revealed message, he should know that the defect is not in the Sharia it is in his own mind and reasoning as Sharia could include some facts that could not be perceived and fully understood by the human mind.
We ask Allah to guide you to the right path.
Allah knows best.' Did you even bother to check what scholars had to say? Or did you think 'Oh look! Something to bash sunnis with?'


Why did Allah bother to send the Prophet PBUH to teach us the Quran? Why do we need school teachers to teach us something? The Quran is fully detailed. What are you trying to put across? Just because something is fully detailed doesnt mean that everyone will be able to fully understand it. Thats why we refer to the Prophet's PBUH sunnah. I could go to waterstones today and get some random book on genetics. Most of it i wouldnt understand. Id need my teacher to help me understand. Just because i consulted a secondary source (the teacher) on a primary source (the book) doesnt mean the usefullness or the amount of detail in the book has suffered. Same with us and the actions of the Prophet PBUH. Just because we turn to his actions to help us interpret the Quran doesnt mean that we have made the Quran useless and divineless.


'And indeed, you are of great moral character' 68:4
'There has certainly been for you in the messenger of Allah an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last DAy and [who] remembers Allah often.' 33:21
These two verses say the Prophet has an excellent pattern and great moral character. Dont you want to be of great moral character and give an excellent pattern (example)?
« Last Edit: December 24, 2012, 03:45:31 AM by Tanveer »

Offline Din Yaqin

  • Full Member
  • ***
    • View Profile
Re: rebuttal on Ahlul Quran's Claim?
« Reply #13 on: May 20, 2016, 06:06:55 PM »
I consider myself to be closes to the Ahlul-Quran. I was a Quranist for over 10 years and did my best to answer all angles, all questions and all criticisms of Quranists themselves and those who do not find the Quranist position to be valid.  The only reason I am not a Hadeeth rejector in full is because of this following quote of Imam Al-Bazdawi which coincides with most of the Sunnies position on Aaahad hadeeth. 

Imam al Bazdawi (RH) said: “The Wahid provides necessity in actions but not with ‘ilm (certain knowledge), and we explained that mashoor doesn’t provide ‘ilm, so āhād or Wahid certainly does not. The Wahid does, however, have possibility and he who denies this has misguided his mind and himself.”

Please check out the following forum link and related topics for further clarification.

Read more: http://quranists.proboards.com/thread/44/proof-saheeh-hadeeth-conjecture#ixzz49EpleNJP

With that said, NO hadeeth should have extra-quranic religious authority. Mutawaatir hadeeth MUST apparently coincide with the mutawaatir Qur'an. And NO Ahaad hadeeth or practice (saheeh or otherwise) should be declared obligatory upon any Muslim because of the possiblity that it could be false. The gravity of making such claims of certainty and obligation when it comes to even saheeh hadeeth and mash-hood pratices is the follow mutawaatir hadeeth:

“Whoever tells a lie against me deliberately, let him take his place in Hell.”

Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 107; Muslim, 3; Abu Dawood, 3651; al-Tirmidhi, 2661; Ibn Maajah, 30, 37; and Ahmad, 2/159.

This hadeeth was narrated by more than seventy-two Sahaabah, and was narrated from them by a huge number of narrators whom it is impossible to list.

6:112 affirms this. The Quran also speaks about false testimony and adhering to conjecture in our religion.

We CANNOT obligate any non-mutawaatir hadeeth upon ANY Muslim because if we do so, it is possible that we are obligating people to follow falsehood and not true. And we are obligating them to follow doubt and conjecture and not certainty and knowledge.

With that said let's continue to talk about whether these non-mutawaatir hadeeth really represent the prophet Muhammad (saas) and his true companions? Let's talk about the books and sayings attributed to scholars that were passed down in an non-mutawaatir fashion and whether we should really be claiming that these scholar said these things.

Ahaad hadeeth can ONLY be optional and should only be accepted when they enhance and improve our adherence to the Quran, plain and simple. And even when accepted by some, they CANNOT be made obligatory upon any Muslims as has been happening in the Muslims world for a millenia.

Offline Din Yaqin

  • Full Member
  • ***
    • View Profile
Re: rebuttal on Ahlul Quran's Claim?
« Reply #14 on: May 20, 2016, 06:10:35 PM »
To clarify I agree with the majority orthodox, shia and ibadhi opinon that Ahaad hadeeth can be true. Howevever, I disagree that they are obligatory upon the Muslim IN ANY FASHION, because it is almost unanimously recognized that these hadeeth can be false and that they are conjectural and only convey doubt.


Offline AhmadFarooq

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: rebuttal on Ahlul Quran's Claim?
« Reply #15 on: May 21, 2016, 02:52:11 AM »
Asslam-o-Alaikum,

I doubt you are aware of him, but there is also a prominent Pakistani scholar who, although using a different reasoning/methodology, practically reaches a somewhat similar conclusion. He differentiates between Sunnah of the Prophet and the Hadiths.

He argues that because it was the responsibility of the Prophet to teach to the people, the Deen of Allah that will remain in effect until the day of Judgement, it is not possible that he would have taught those things to just a few people. When it comes to matters of Deen or Sunnah the Prophet clarified those by addressing large gatherings, because of which such commandments we obtain through Muttawatir, Khabr-e-Mustafid traditions or Ijma (Consensus) of the generations of Muslims. These are the matters on which there is very little, if any, difference of opinion. For example, the basic skeleton of prayers, the essential parts of Hajj etc.

On the other hand, when it came to matters that were supposed to be primarily for the time of the Prophet, or something that he wanted to explain, or advise for or against something, to someone; the Prophet told such things to a few people. Such narrations we obtain from traditions classified as Khabr-e-Ahad. These are the matters on which there is usually huge and wide-ranging difference of opinion among scholars. It can be more pious for Muslims to follow these advices of the Prophet but it does not hold the status of obligations or Deen.

If such an understanding is true, it does reconcile nicely and provides a better explanation for the fact of why the Deen of Allah which has to remain in effect until the last Day has so much difference of opinion among its adherents. However, the problem with this interpretation is that it puts into question the obligatory nature of a lot of beloved Muslim traditions which have taken deep-roots in Muslim cultures and societies of today. For example, the "obligation" of keeping beards etc.

On the matter of "...NO hadeeth should have extra-quranic religious authority", that Pakistani scholar also has similar conclusions (albeit different reasoning) but he also argues that there are a lot of Hadiths which apparently look like to be adding to or restricting Qur'anic commands are in reality going along with the actual Arabic wording of the Qur'an verse. For example, there is a Qur'an verse which enumerates the conditions for the things that are Halal for Muslims to eat (animals whose blood has been spilt, Allah's name has been pronounced on them etc.) But there are other traditions of the Prophet which tell us that the Prophet prohibited some additional things too. The scholar argues that these additional prohibitions are based on other Qur'an verses which tell the Muslims that pure things have been made allowable for them and impure things prohibited. If I remember correctly the Arabic words for these were Tahura't and Najais. He gives a similar explanation to the tradition regarding Caliph Umar (or Usman) when he, at a time of famine, did not implement the Qur'anic punishment of thievery on some people.

Regards,

Offline Din Yaqin

  • Full Member
  • ***
    • View Profile
Re: rebuttal on Ahlul Quran's Claim?
« Reply #16 on: May 21, 2016, 10:01:39 AM »
Wa Alaykumu-salaam,

Thank you for responding to me with courtesy and intelligence. I would go a bit further and question the tawaatur of even the number of prayers (5 being based on hadeeth Aahaad associated with the mi'raaj). It is very true that the skeleton of the salaat could be tawaatur, however as far as I have seen it has only been shown to be mash-hoor. Lisanul-Arab has a portion that defines a rak'ah, in its meaning of unit of post-Quranic Salaat it states that the bowing of rukoo' does not have to be made, although most consider it makrooh. I am looking for further evidence/proof of the tawaatur of the formula of the rak'ah for Salaah as we know it. The 5 prayers seem to be mash-hoor (as with most practices assumed to be sunnah 3amaliyyah) but both the Quran and Ibn Katheer conform more with 2 prayers a day before the Ahaad hadeeth associated with Salaat after the Mi'raaj. I also watched a Hanafi scholar on youtube talk about how some commands attributed to the last prophet in hadeeth are interpreted as recommendations (like where he is recorded to have said in a saheeh narration 'Wear white clothes') and others are taken as commands that must be followed. This approach seems highly hypocritical and disingenuous where scholars arbitrarily determine what is a command and what is a recommendation using very flimsy logic. Not to mention that each scholars or group of scholars studies of jarh wa ta'deel can change the status of a hadeeth in any given book of "saheeh" traditions. For instance I have heard that Bukhari did not leave a jarh and ta'deel study or methodology for the hadeeth he declared a saheeh. Other scholars did this for him later.

What is the name of the Pakistani scholar?  I have no problem with scrapping "beloved traditions" as long as we do not make obligations where Allah has not made them, and the true religion of the Qur'an is not distorted. At this point is seems TOO many distortions have been made in the name of acquiring and adhering to our last prophet's sunnah using hadeeth which are generally agreed upon as possibly being false, and assuming that such hadeeth are so representative of the last prophet that they are equal to or superior to what the Quran seems to be saying to us through its words and wordings.

Salaam,
Din Yaqin

Offline AhmadFarooq

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: rebuttal on Ahlul Quran's Claim?
« Reply #17 on: May 21, 2016, 11:17:39 AM »
What I have personally seen is that, although average Muslims have throughout the centuries, usually believed in the concept of blind belief in Hadiths, this, however, has not been the attitude of notable Muslim scholars. Muslim scholars have gone critically through all the traditions and based on their differing reasoning and understandings given different conclusions. When it came to traditions that were ambiguous, either due to content or reliability, there was difference of opinion, giving us with a range of conclusions, which in most cases has been recorded in our books. For example, in the case of keeping beards, while there have been scholars who have termed it obligatory, there also have been others who have termed it as preferred but not obligatory.

For traditions whose evidence was pretty much unequivocal, there wasn't much difference of opinion and the conclusions were pretty much the same. This, I believe, is the case for Salat.

One thing that you have to understand is that, the kind of work that was done by the early Muhaddithin is extremely extraordinary. From what I have read, any logical method of historical criticism that can be thought of, was used by these scholars to criticise the narrations of the Prophet that reached them. Additionally, A'ima Rajal (scholars who studied the characters of the narrators) also provided us with an invaluable service. Javed Ahmad Ghamidi (the Pakistani scholar) in one of his talks said that he, for years studied the methods of the Muhaddithin and did it with the objective to find some fault in their methodology, but he was unable to do so. Therefore, he, although reaches different conclusions, uses the same methods of historical criticism used by the Muhaddithin.

For example, from a video I once saw (I think it was Sheikh Hamza) the ruling in the matter of raising hands after Rukuh is based on Muttawatir Hadith (or some other strong evidence) but Imam Malik and Imam Abu Hanifa did not accept it. Imam Abu Hanifa gave the reason that the person from whom the tradition was narrated, himself was not known to do it. Imam Malik gave the reasoning that, thousands of people of Madina did not use to do it.

Apparently, while average Muslims might have accepted completely the Kitab-e-Sittah (or the Shia' Hadith books) notable Muslim scholars, even today keep on critically analysing the traditions. On the matter of "... scholars arbitrarily determine what is a command and what is a recommendation...", I really don't think that happens. Even if some group of scholars does this, there would be another group of scholars who will oppose them. Because of the presence of different Islamic schools of law, such callous handling of Islamic law does not appear to be possible.

On the matter of Bukhari, I doubt your assertion. One thing that you have to keep in mind is that unlike today, when these books were being written, the scholars didn't just accept them without any criticism. The scholars of those times had no (at-least for the most part) conflict of interest, that they wanted to promote a particular interpretation of Islam. These famous books became so popular because they held against criticism, and were comparatively extraordinary works. Now, I am not saying that there cannot be anything wrong in them, but what I am saying is that, huge extraordinary efforts have been made on determining the reliability of these traditions.

The Pakistani scholar's name is Javed Ahmad Ghamidi. Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javed_Ahmad_Ghamidi
Most (if not all) of his work is in Urdu, although some has been translated into English.

Offline Din Yaqin

  • Full Member
  • ***
    • View Profile
Re: rebuttal on Ahlul Quran's Claim?
« Reply #18 on: May 21, 2016, 12:39:16 PM »
Peace,

I have yet to see tawaatur being proven in these methods. Imam Malik saw that the people of Medina did certain things in their majority, but it seems that he did not get further than mash-hoor in what he put forward. If you read about him you will learn about MANY scholars in Medina during his time who held many different opinions.

I have also seen a lot of inconsistency in what is considered tawaatur. Sometimes Ahaad hadeeth that can be attributed to a number of sahaabah is considered mutawaatir, even if there are common narrators in the chains that coincide or could have colluded. These hadeeth are often not really mutawaatir. The concept of mutawaatir is flawless and the hadeeth that all scholars agree upon as being mutawaatir are only a handful. Much of what is mash-hoor or seemingly widespread is wrongly called mutawaatir. Some may assume that because all Muslims or schools of thought agree upon something that that thing is mutawaatir. That is mistaken. The thing is mash-hoor but not mutawaatir. Mutawaatir has to be clearly demonstrated and that is where the scholars lack. I have not seen them clearly demonstrated tawaatur, but rather settling for mash-hoor or other "acceptable" aahaad hadeeth that conform what seem to be preconceptions or alread established practices or beliefs.

In a way you have highlighted the problem...too many methodologies, and too may concepts of what is obligatory and what is not based on hadeeth. Much is said about these scholars but none of their methodologies are made fully clear. Ijmaa' is not mutawaatir, and neither is mash-hoor. When that is taken into consideration it seems that much of the consistency of the methodologies fade away. 

Offline Din Yaqin

  • Full Member
  • ***
    • View Profile
Re: rebuttal on Ahlul Quran's Claim?
« Reply #19 on: May 21, 2016, 12:48:17 PM »
I recognize the efforts that many of these scholars put forth to try to discern the truth from the many sayings and practices that developed after the prophet Muhammad passed (saas). However, the problem is that they made obligatory what should not have been made obligatory. As I said, mash-hoor is not mutawaatir. And sound Ahaad are not either. Practices and sayings that are not demonstrably mutawaatir and Quranic simultaneously cannot be made obligatory upon any Muslim. And I cannot just trust the scholars blindly. It's funny that it's hard to determine if the work of Imam Abu Haneefah and Imam Malik were given correctly recorded from them, as they did not actually author their own works. So it is difficult to tell if what we have inherited from them is mutawaatir and true or fabricated by their self-proclaimed students.