What is the Sunna?

“Sunna” is the Arabic term for the prophet Muhammad’s way of life and legal precedent. It comes from the pre-Islamic Arab notion of Sunna as the way of life of a tribe, which is reflected in the Qur’an’s use of the word to mean “the ways of God” (Qur’an 33:37, 62) or “ways of life” of earlier peoples (Qur’an 3:137). The Sunna is an authoritative source in Islamic law because the Qur’an is understood as ordering Muslims to “obey God and obey the Messenger” (Qur’an 8:1) and to “take what the Messenger has ordained for you and desist from what he has prohibited” (Qur’an 59:7).

In the framework of Islamic law, the Sunna explains duties left unclear in the Qur’an, such as how to pray; replaces Qur’anic rulings; and adds new details of law and belief as well. Although the Qur’an is held by Muslims to be the literal word of God and the ultimate fount of all Islamic teachings, from the earliest period of Islam Muslim scholars recognized that the Sunna’s role as the lens through which the Qur’an was understood made it in effect more authoritative than the Qur’an. In providing the details for the general principles laid out in the Qur’an, the Sunna effectively defined what those principles were. The Sunna is not simply a list of Muhammad’s legal pronouncements about what is required or prohibited for Muslims. It denotes his behavior in general, from the details of his dress to his interaction with his wives. As a result many details of the Sunna are not black and white requirements or prohibitions; they are either behavior that is recommended but not required or behavior that is licit but not recommended.

Although Sunni Islam (the original Arabic term is ahl al-sunna wa’l-jamaʿa, “the people of the Sunna and the collective”) takes its name from the term “Sunna,” Shiʿite Muslims are equally committed to the ideal of imitating the prophet’s precedent. Shiʿite Islam simply has its own vision of the Sunna, namely the teachings of the prophet as transmitted by the twelve imams and elaborated by Shiʿite scholars.


Categories: Islam, Qur'an, Sharia


23 replies

  1. Interesting. Well researched

  2. “Although the Qur’an is held by Muslims to be the literal word of God and the ultimate fount of all Islamic teachings, from the earliest period of Islam Muslim scholars recognized that the Sunna’s role as the lens through which the Qur’an was understood made it in effect more authoritative than the Qur’an.”

    This understanding of some (not all) Muslim scholars has been disastrous for Muslims. It has not brought them closer to the Qur’an but in fact farther from it.

    I am not a Quranist. I take it as axiomatic that we should be interested to know the practice of the Prophet.

    However, it is also axiomatic that that knowledge is weaker than the Qur’an and not above the Qur’an.

    In over 6,200 verses, there is not one verse telling Muslims to follow any other book other than the Qur’an.

    Of course, we should take seriously the attempt by some Muslims to record scattered sayings of the Prophet that largely went through oral narration for more than 100 years before being adequately documented.

    However, we must use the lens that God not only told us to use but demanded us to use which is reason.

    We must use reason to see:

    1. Not what the Prophet allegedly said, did, or tacitly approved in the 6th century of in urban Western Arabia but what he (pbuh) would have said, did, or tacitly approved of if he was born in our generation and lived with us.

    2. Those verses do not fully establish the hadith. They do provide evidence for the Sunnah but the Sunnah is not the same as alleged scattered sayings of the Prophet through chains of people.

    The Sunnah is the established practice of the Prophet. The Sunnah has been transmitted through numerous people in every generation. The prayer is from the Sunnah because it has been practiced in every generation from imitation of the Prophet. This transmission has been through every generation.

    3. We need to see what in the hadith is in congruent not only with the letter of the entire Qur’an but the spirit of the entire Qur’an.

    The Prophet Muhammad is axiomatic the most ardent follower of the Qur’an. Thus, any hadith that is in any tension of the Qur’an cannot be fully accepted.

    4. Conclusions based on reason can be tested by people in not only the generation of someone exercising judgements and exegesis based on reason in his/her generation but in every succeeding generation. Thus, faulty conclusions can be identified and refuted or modified.

    But canonizing some other text other than the Qur’an does not provide this gift of accumulation of knowledge and of succeeding peer scrutiny.

    Canonizing “sahih or hasan” hadith has the effect of not only inserting into the understanding and behavior of affected Muslims true hadith but also of inserting hadith that are only partly true but distorted and also inserting hadith that are assumed to be “sahih” (likely authentic) by medieval scholars and scholars of today following medieval presuppositions but are actually fabrications.

    The body of hadith cannot be more authoritative than the Words of God.

    Regarding the sunnah, it is a category error to consider it even possible to be more authoritative than the Qur’an, since the Sunnah is not scattered sayings but a small number of practices such as prayer, Hajj, circumcision, possibly certain hygienic practices such as keeping nails trimmed, etc.

    The Sunnah is not a body of textual sayings. That is conflating it with hadith.

    Although the hadith can be often helpful in providing context (some of the times) and it can assist reason in knowing how to apply the Qur’an, It is wrong to subject the Qur’an through the lens of the hadith but the hadith should be evaluated through the lens of the Qur’an.

    Also, the notion in the post above that this was the understanding of the earliest Muslim scholars is too sweeping.

    Imam Shafi actually had to argue with scholars that preceded that did NOT hold to this view. The Muslim Mutazilite scholars found hadith to be quite problematic.

    Abu Bakr reportedly burned his 500 hadith.

    Umar Ibn Khattab asked all companions if he should make a collection of the hadith. The consensus of the companions that he spoke to (and it is unclear how many he spoke to) was reportedly to collect the hadith. However, after deliberation he told them to bring their collections of hadith and then created a bonfire out of it (per the ***authoritative*** book of Khatib Al-Baghdadi). Umar Ibn Al-Khattab reportedly said that the Jews became misguided when they left the Torah for other works (Talmud, etc). And he indicated he did not want the same catastrophe to befall the Muslims.

    Uthman ibn Affan did not collect the hadith.

    Ali ibn abi Talib reportedly spoke highly of hadith but also told people to be aware of hadiths distorted by mistake and hadiths that are fabricated. He did not circulate into the public any collection of hadith in a book form.

    The above are actions of “the four righteous caliphs.”

    Even the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) never collected his sayings nor did he commission any systematic effort of collection to be done after his death.

    In fact, there are a few sayings where he explicitly forbade the collection of his sayings in a book form.

    In conclusion, no one can practice the Qur’an better than the Prophet. We must desire to know the Prophet’s practice. However, we cannot assume that the practice of the Prophet back then in that time and place would be the same if he lived with us instead of mostly illiterate and uneducated people of western Arabia in the 6th century. And there was no good systematic collection of his sayings until over 100 years had passed of mostly oral narration.

    It is quite telling that that in many verses, the Qur’an tells us to follow the messenger (of God)….it never tells us to follow the Prophet.

    Of course, we must follow the Prophet too but don’t have access to a fully reliable body knowledge of the Prophet. We have access to a good effort at uncovering the Prophet but we need to evaluate that through the lens of the Qur’an using what God demanded us to use…our faculty of reason.

    Following the messenger most literally would refer to the Qur’an since that is the only message that was sent to the Prophet in a concrete fully reliable way that was totally attributed to God Almighty.

    The Qur’an says in numerous places that God has sent the Qur’an as a message but not in one message is there a mention of a second revelation.

    Of course, we can assume that the interpretation of the Prophet would be the interpretation par excellence but it was God’s decision to not preserve every interpretation of the Prophet in a reliable way. And even, if it was fully reliably preserved (which it wasn’t, at least not fully), it would still not mean the Prophet would have interpreted it the same had he lived with us in our time and place.


    • 1. The Sunnah is not more authoritative, it complements and explains the context. There is NO TIME where God sent Scripture to the people with no explanation of it.

      2. The Sunnah is not so much his actions as a man living in the 7th century and NO scholar believes this as it is religious understanding. For example, there’s a hadith where the Prophet(saw) bought red sandals and wore them. Wearing red sandals doesn’t just become a Sunnah. You’re entire argument is ironically influenced from the Mu’tazila. They were arguing the Quran was created to confine it to a specific time and place. Their issue with hadith was similar (and also not really believing in the Ghayb). The whole purpose of throwing doubt on hadith is to be able to twist Quranic text.

      3. “In over 6,200 verses, there is not one verse telling Muslims to follow any other book other than the Qur’an.”

      This is a lie from the Quranist:

      First common sense regarding the Qur’an not saying follow Sahih Bukhari. The Prophet is standing right there. We see multiple times in the Qur’an where Allah has placed rulings inside other than the Quran.

      It’s been made permissible for you to be intimate with your wives on the night of the fast. They are your cover and you are theirs. Allah knows that you used to deceive yourselves. He has accepted your repentance and forgave you. Now you may enjoy their company… (2:187)

      The words ‘accepted your repentance and forgave you’ show that prior to this ayat being intimate with your wife during the nights of Ramadan was a sin. And the words”NOW you may enjoy their company” shows that this ayat is what made it allowed. Nowhere in the Qur’an does Allah say that we can’t be intimate with our wives during the nights of Ramadan.

      I have made you a middle nation, so that you can be a witnesses against humanity, and so that the Messenger can be a witness against you. I made the Qiblah which you used to face, only to test, those who would FOLLOW the Messenger from those who would turn on their heels and run away. It was difficult except for those whom God guided. And God would never make your faith go to waste because God’s full of kindness and Forever Merciful to mankind. (2:143)

      The point of interest for us here is that the Allah says He appointed the previous Qibla even though it’s not mentioned in the Qur’an. Obviously, it was Prophet (saw) who used to teach the people to face Jerusalem yet Allah says He appointed this. Also notice what Allah says in the ayat:

      “I made the Qiblah which you used to face …” and not,

      “The Prophet made the Qiblah which you used to face …”

      So these (especially the last one) are evidence that the Prophet(saw) spoke on authority regarding the religion not found in the Qur’an.

      4. Moving on yes the Prophet(saw) DID authorize sayings from him to be written so this is another lie from the Quranist:

      Narrated `Abdullah bin `Amr:

      The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Convey (my teachings) to the people even if it were a single verse…

      Narrated Abu Hurairah:
      When Mecca was conquered, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) got up and said: If a relative of anyone is killed, he will have a choice between two : he (the slayer) will either pay the blood-wit or he will be killed. A man of the Yemen called Abu Shah stood up and said: Write for me, Messenger of Allah. The narrator al-‘Abbas (b. al-Walid) said: Write to me, (you people). The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: Write (you people), for Abu Shah. These are the wordings of the tradition of Ahmad.
      Abu Dawud said: Write (you people), for me, that is, the address of the Prophet (ﷺ).
      Ibn Hajar said: “What may be understood from the story of Abu Shaah (“Write it for Abu Shaah”) is that the Prophet gave permission for hadeeth to be written down from him.

      He (saw) forbade it temporarily and then authorized it because he didn’t want people to get his speech confused with the Qur’an.

      5. I would kindly ask you to provide references to these alleged quotes of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali.

      (Also as a p.s. Your Talmud argument shoots yourself in the foot as the Qur’an affirms things in the Talmud which are not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible)

      6. Prophet and Messenger are almost synonyms and this entire argument is a fallacy.

      7. As I always suggest but people are so averse go and actually FORMALLY study Islam and hadith compilation etc. and you won’t have any doubts. To begin hadith were not floating around for 100 years as oral traditions (you might also here in ignorance 200 years). MASS hadith compilation started during Umar bin Abdul Aziz’s reign which is 85 years after the Prophet’s(saw) death but there were earlier attempts (please see IOU University’s Usool al Hadith Class for details).

      And again for emphasis not because Umar 2 was ignorant and wanted to learn it, he himself was one of the leading scholars and his jurist used the Qur’an and hadith long beforehe ordered colection. Just like the compilation of Quran by Uthman added nothing new to the regions which copies were sent to as the Muslims there, already knew the Quran and memorized it, this same compilation by Umar bin Abdul Aziz didn‘t bring or provide anything new.

  3. Salam Stewjo2004,

    Thanks for your good and instructive points.

    There is no source for Uthman ibn Affan…it is just a conclusion from reading a good amount of material.

    For Ali, if I come across it, I will send it.

    The whole issue of Mutazilites being created is irrelevant. Yes, the Ummayad caliphs may have wanted the theory of created Qur’an for their purposes but the Mutazilites just were coming to a conclusion that it becomes problematic to make stand apart as eternal other than God. By that idea, one can make every creation eternal since God eternally wanted to create such and such. He did not get an urge all of sudden (astaghfirullah). God is not subjected to time and place and thus the whole argument is moot.

    Back to the issue.

    I agree…Sunnah is to complement.

    There is no univocal proof that Qur’an is not understandable on its own. On the contrary, God says the Qur’an is clear.

    Yes, I am aware of the references to orders outside of the Qur’an.

    The Prophet was sent to a specific community in a specific time and place.

    He had to make decisions and judgements in order for the community to function like what direction to pray–just common sense.

    The Prophet late in his prophetic career thought that he was supposed to do the umrah in the regular way. That was a true dream but God indicated in the Qur’an that the Prophet interpretation went further than what was to be. The Prophet revealed two of his wives something in Surah Tahrim….the wifes asked him how does he know….they would not have asked that if they thought he was getting a second revelation in a constant form.

    Yes, he was not an ordinary person…as the verse later says he was told to tell them that he was informed by God.

    So the point is not that the Prophet received nothing at all other than the Qur’an but this notion that the thousands of hadiths was all a second revelation is unfounded. The onus for making such a massive claim is on the claimant, not the other way around.

    I never disputed the importance of the prayer in the form of the Prophet and I indicated that it is a good example of sunnah….I would say the prime example.

    So yes, it is very important for us to pray like the Prophet in the canonical prayers.

    But that was mostly transmitted from being taught by father to son.

    There was no books of hadith in masaajid in the Muslim world for the first 1000 years.

    Many people knew the Qur’an by heart. There were people who knew hadith but that was not the main vehicle for prayer details…..the main vehicle was from father to son.

    ***What is your main contention with what I comment?***

    I agree with you that hadith (sometimes) provides context. Sometimes, it distracts from the Qur’an and causes confusion, not clarification.

    I still hold that we must treasure and seek guidance from the hadith but not in the way as described in the post.

    We must use what God demanded us to use….reason.

    We must test hadith by the Qur’an….not shackle the Qur’an to the hadith.

    • @ Follower of the Prophet

      Walakum, down the line:

      Regarding creation of the Quran admittedly this is complex if you don’t do hardcore study of aqeedah and what the Mu’tazilah were trying to do. They were very sneaky this was really a way to give more religious authority to the Caliph. But anyways, maybe I’m misunderstanding you (and this is very possible) but to my understanding of what you’re saying your premise, in essence, seems to limit the Prophet’s commands to a specific time and place and that we would understand revelation from God through our logic (just like the Mu’tazilah?). As you and I both know he(saw) was sent to all peoples and nations so I’m slightly confused what you mean here if you could please cite an example of a command to be limited to 7th century Arabia so I can fully comprehend what you’re saying that would be helpful.

      I agree a lot of the Quran is clear but not for everyone as this is a gift from Allah. (Like seriously I have seen people completely left field reading what was a clear verse to me.) Even then as I said before Allah has never sent a book without someone to explain it. Multiple Sahaba taught hadith in their schools to their students. Also, the argument of father teaching son is erroneous. I personally know many people born Muslim who pray incorrectly and this claim has no evidence to support it. Furthermore, the onus shifts when a newcomer comes claiming something that is well established as fact across all scholarship.

      It’s not that hadith filter the Quran or vice versa, they compliment. If a hadith is authentic it all has to be reconciled together. Just because you personally don’t understand hadith doesn’t mean everyone else doesn’t. Its again like understanding the Quran it’s a gift of wisdom. If a hadith passes through all levels of verification it can’t just be discarded because one doesn’t understand it.

      Our reasoning is to understand God is One and that Islam is true. Once this is established through logic we wholeheartedly accept the revelation regardless of if we understand.

  4. It seems it’s a phenomenon that most people who speak against hadiths happen to be the most ignorant people about hadith and its science. I don’t think it’s a coincidence.

  5. @stewjo004

    I agree that Qur’an and hadith complement each other to some extent and that is why hadith should not be discarded.

    But there are at least a few times when hadith and Qur’an conflict explicitly and often when they conflict implicitly.

    And even worse than that, there are certain mindsets that can potentially be induced from the hadith, mindsets that are at odds with the spirit of the Qur’an.

    In theory, scholars say Qur’an should take precedence but what happens in practice is that the Qur’an is shaped and at times distorted in order to make it fit with some hadith.

    We even have the absurd idea of a hadith with creating one “Qur’anic” verse that was supposedly abrogated and removed but with the ruling existing.

    The Qur’an tells us how to interpret it….in terms of interpreting the allegorical verses in light of the clear verses (3:7), taking the best reading of the Qur’an (surah 39), don’t cut Qur’an into fragments (surah 15), interpret Qur’an with the Qur’an (verses about taking the whole book and not parts of it), do not take Qur’an out of context (verses criticizing some of the Children of Israel on that), in how the Qur’an does not have many contradictions which would be case if it wasn’t from God—which is another verse that is indicating that Qur’an should be interpreted with itself.

    And there are many, many, many verses that enjoin us and command us to use our faculty of reason.

    But there is not one verse, not even one verse out of the six thousand, two hundred plus verses that tell us to interpret the Qur’an through hadith books.

    ***stewjo004, can you mention even one verse that tells us to univocally to interpret the Qur’an through the hadith?****

    Yes, you are right, the hadith can complement the Qur’an but too many scholars use it to filter.

    In short, the tradition of tafsir Qur’an bil mathur has been in some ways disastrous. We need to strengthen Qur’an bil Qur’an and we need to stop underestimating the power of Qur’an being able to interpret itself.

    Of course, we need to take the Prophet theoretically as the interpreter par excellence and thus we should try to complement the Qur’an with the hadith but we must use reason for that and keeping the Qur’an as the Furqan and holding onto to the fitrat and ma’ruf on which we were created. We cannot let the hadith overturn the Qur’an, overturn the fitrat, overturn the ma’ruf.

    The issue is not …oh, I can’t understand this hadith so it must be wrong.

    There are hadith that no one has been able to fix for over a thousand years. There are even books written to deal with contradictions in the hadith…..let that sink in….actually books….not a page or so…but actually books had to be written to ***try*** to address this issue.

    Let us reflect on 4(82) about how that proves that the body of sahih and hasan hadith are NOT (as a whole) from God.

    The issue is also that the hadith does not satisfy God’s requirements for reliable evidence (2:282)…the hadith fails miserably on that standard.

    Ok, should it be discarded? Of course, not since at least some of the sahih hadith are from the Prophet, who is the interpreter par excellence…and thus we should prefer the Prophet’s interpretation over our interpretation.

    But the reliability is not as high as medieval scholars thought it was…it is not as bad in relibablity as some Western scholars make it out to be…but it is somewhere in the middle as the research in the last few decades has demonstrated.

    But after all that, it again must not be taken out of our mind that we must contemplate on what the Prophet would have interpreted if he lived with us, rather than the interpretations he gave to illiterate, uneducated western Arabians, most of whom were ignorant idolators before becoming Muslims.

    God is perfect.

    The Qur’an is flawless but not perfect in that God can improve it if He wants and He can add to it, etc.

    However, it is flawless.

    On the contrary, the “sahih or hasan” hadith has many flaws. The hadith is still useful but we need to use our reason which we have used quite poorly over the last thousand years and more since we have lowered the value of reason which is contrary to the Qur’an.

    ***It is wrong and sinful to discard the hadith.***

    ***I don’t want to offend those who have been mistaken in effectively putting the hadith at the same level of the Qur’an…..may God reward you for the sincerity in the efforts of those who are sincerely wrong. But It is wrong and sinful to put the hadith effectively at the level of the Qur’an when we are brought to awareness of how this is wrong.***

    The issue is not that reason is infallible. Indeed, it is not.

    But reason can be challenged the reason of others and we can improve.

    But fixating the Qur’an through hadith…shackling it….has proven in some ways to be disastrous since it perpetuates the errors in thinking, conclusions, practices….for as long as the earth revolves….for thousands of years or more.

    May God forgive me for any mistakes and misunderstanding and errors I may have made above.

    I cannot in conscience keep quite….after knowledge, it is sinful for me to see the Qur’an disparaged in this way.

    Of course, God knows best.

    • If you want to simply go Quran for Quran I can say you twisted every ayat you quoted:

      Surah 39 has nothing to do with taking the “best reading of the Quran” (I’m sorry I don’t even know what that means)

      Surah 15 means taking the Quran and believing in parts of it and rejecting others. This has nothing to do with interpretation.

      Bani Israel “twisted” readings not just take a verse from it’s context like how you’re thinking. For example they would say As SAMU alakum (Death be upon you) as opposed to As SALAM u alakum (peace be upon you). I don’t know anybody who does this.

      Everyone interprets Quran with Quran that is standard tafsir. Please list me one scholar who says we shouldn’t?

      Again the “no book besides the Quran” argument makes no sense. The ayat say to follow the Prophet, listen to his commands etc. Is the Prophet standing right? Any accusation against hadith can be leveled at the Quran as well (especially seeing as it’s a hadith itself) which is why this discussion makes no sense. The Sahaba wrote hadith collections which is the knockout punch. The Quran literally comes to us the same channel hadith did. This ALL stems from aqeedah issues, lack of iman and not wanting to submit to the Prophet’s commands.

      I’ve asked for you to give an example of the Prophet’s commands and you skipped it so I’ll ask for that again.

      As for the last part having differences of opinion on a narrator does not negate hadith it’s basically how strict do you want to be. With that being said this gentlemen’s argument is weird.

      As he admitted himself regardless of if the narrator was a khawarij or not makes no difference on his truthfulness. A rule of thumb is a narrator can be a deviant as long as it does not affirm where he’s deviated. This gentleman appears to have forgotten a big thing about the khawarij sect (which he casually glanced over with “Oh wa! Wa! Why can’t the other sects get the same treatment?) and that is they believed lying was kufr.

      Next 2 weak ahadith do not necessarily make collaboration so again he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Also, we are in a draw regarding Ikrimah and Yahya. Both of their criticisms are ambiguous. I have to look over my class notes in regards to this situation and an ambiguous criticism though (as I don’t trust him because he only mentioned the Hanafi position and again glossed over other opinions on this. For example, he will say Hanafi and “others”. Also as a p.s. note he leans heavily on the Hanafi and they are generally considered the least knowledgeable of the four common ones so this further shows the weakness of his argument.)

      Finally, in ignorance, he’s made a serious claim that if true there is a good possibility that Ibn Hajar would no longer classified as a Muslim. Let’s say for argument’s sake that Ibn Hajar made a mistake that doesn’t negate Ibn Hajar’s entire scholarship like this no name claimed.

      This man definitely has aqeedah issues and upon further study (because I wondered at his knowledge level when he claimed two weak ahadith always form a collab) he is not learned in hadith and should be quiet on the matter as he’s speaking out of his field.

      Further proof of his deviance can be seen is in this lecture. (4:00 min)


      He doesn’t give a real narration (I looked it up) just a bunch of philosophical mumbo jumbo. All he did was twist an ayat and talk out from where his back pocket lies. Using his methodology for Ibn Hajar (who at least had evidence) he has “twisted God’s religion”.

      Allah did NOT promise to just protect the Quran (as Quranist claim). He said he would protect the Reminder so that includes the Sunnah and proper understanding as per the ayat

      …I have revealed the Reminder to you so that you can explain to people what was sent down to them, and so that they can reflect. (16:44)

  6. He did a good job in the video above…it is not meant to be comprehensive…i think it is only 4 minutes long!

    You have misunderstood me on multiple aspects and you are wrong on so many other aspects, that I don’t know where to even start.

    “I’ve asked for you to give an example of the Prophet’s commands and you skipped it so I’ll ask for that again.”

    I don’t understand what you mean by the above request….explain further.

    Here is a question that is to some extent pertinent to an aspect of the discussion above.

    There are many Quranist responses…

    Take a look at them for a different perspective that may make things clearer for you ****if you are seeking clarity or at least open to different perspectives that provide more understanding.




    It is too much to long to respond to in detail (in fact, below is just an excerpt of his point)….after reading the while article and taking notes on it, just give me your response to 3 or 4 of the strongest points he makes in your honest opinion….

    David Namuh
    David Namuh, A life long student and researcher
    Updated Feb 11, 2019
    A DETAILED EXPLAINER why Quran and not Hadith

    The objective of the write-up is neither to insult the companions of the Prophet of God nor to question what was said by the Messenger. This is a fact-based analysis of the claims made in the name of the Prophet of God.

    Primary document Quran

    Islam as detailed in the obsequious primary document Quran, has no central religious authority, no rite of passage and no official clergy, no official calendar, no official symbol and no official dress. Just one 100% internally verifiable look-up book the Quran.

    Let us start with the premises that are rooted in the Quran, our Al Furqan, “The Criterion”.

    Quran is the undisputed primary source of our Deen. Quran itself is the explanation and above all, God’s preemptive use of the very same terms the sectarians use for their sources as a warning. God describes the Quran as the “Best Hadith” Quran 39:23 and the “Best Tafsir” Quran 25:33 Let us not settle for less than the best that God has to offer.

    This whole sectarian mess can be traced to the curse of “different interpretations” notion. Quran cannot be interpreted differently if one were to stick to the Quranic guidelines of how to interpret the verses of the Quran found in the Quran itself.

    Islam is the ultimate do it yourself religion both on an individual level and community level. Islam is definitely not based on “reviews” of others, it is all about research and understanding of God’s words directly, using the God-given faculties of observation, reason, and logic. Failing to do so opens the possibility of being declared less than cattle by God Himself.

    Unlike the third parties review methodology, the reason and logic methodology have a huge advantage; besides the only methodology sanctioned in the Quran itself (in fact, detailed foolproof guidelines of interpretation of the Quran are embedded in the Quran as one would expect from a Divine message) anybody, Muslim or non-Muslim who uses these embedded guidelines will arrive at the same conclusion unless one breaks the established rules of logic, sound research, and rational thought.

    Since man has a forgetful nature, a few reminders. Let us start out by reminding ourselves how God in His own words describes the basis of knowledge;

    7:52 “For We had certainly sent to them a Book based on knowledge, which We explained in detail (Arabic: fasalnahu), a guide and a mercy to all who believe”

    Now let us remind ourselves what is it that will stand abandoned when all is said and done

    25:30 “And the Messenger will say: O my Lord! my people deserted this Quran.” Notice only the Quran is mentioned here.

    God’s most powerful Declaration

    Before enforcing and/or accepting other than the Quran as a source of our Deen let us see the manner in which God affixes His stamp on the Quran in the most powerful manner;

    ” …”What thing is greatest in testimony?” Say, ” Allah is witness between me and you. And this Qur’an was revealed to me that I may warn you thereby …” Quran 6:19

    And since Quran is our Furqan, hence, any claim of additional Wahi (revelation) will have to match this level of endorsement in clear terms before it can be accepted as Wahi. Needless to say, nothing comes even close.

    The sectarian claims that the messenger of God was given wisdom (separate) and additional revelations other than the Quran doesn’t solve their issue. Once God declared that Quran is the Best Hadith 39:23, is the Best Tafsir 25:33, is fully detailed 6:114, is complete 6:115 and that the verses of the Quran are already in an explained state 17:12. Hence, it stands to reason that the claimed God-given wisdom of the messenger and/or additional revelations will mirror and fortify all these God’s declaration and not weaken them.

    Real sayings of the Messenger of God

    And let us refresh our memories a bit more and review what God instructs the Prophet of God to say repeatedly in the Quran;

    The real authorized sayings of the Prophet of God.

    1. “ …….. I only follow what is revealed to me (إن أتبع إلا ما يوحى إلي)…… “ Quran 10:15

    2. “ …….. I only follow what is revealed to me (إن أتبع إلا ما يوحى إلي)…… “ Quran 46:9

    3. “ …….. I only follow what is revealed to me (إن أتبع إلا ما يوحى إلي)…… “ Quran 6:50

    4. “ …….. Only I follow what is revealed to me (إنما أتبع ما يوحى إلي) ……” Quran 7:203

    The repeated use of (إنما) and (إلا) in the above verses leaves no room for anything other than what is Revealed in the Quran is to be followed, “doing more” than what is revealed is not an option. God perfected the Deen. Adding to or subtracting from perfection renders it imperfect. Besides Quran 7:203-204 only restrict the listening to the Quran, so, if there were additional revelations then these verses would be either expanded to include other than the Quran or not necessary, to begin with.

    Additional Revelations issue

    Allow me to address the additional Revelations issue in greater detail since it is related. The changing of the Qaba, the incident of the honey, the cutting of the palm tree and few others are all routinely used out of context, along with the bit about the Hikma, to try and prove that the Prophet of God received Revelations in addition to the “official” Revelations in the form of the Quran.

    Needless to say, we need to exclusively follow these very same revelations for which the messenger of God is on record to have publicly declared them as revelations. Let us also take in the severity of failure to deliver the complete message. If the messenger of God had failed to deliver the message as per God’s very strict instructions, verbatim and publicly announcing them, God would have killed him by severing his aorta.

    This obviously excludes any additional claims of revelations by third parties, even if the claims are ascribing them to any messenger of God. Especially single third party narrators paraphrasing such claims as opposed to a public declaration where a large number of witnesses would have been present and they too would have been on record testifying to the very same claim, preferably in a verbatim manner.

    Additionally, it is clear from several verses that the revelations were in defined Surahs (chapters) and not loosely scattered reports. Quran 47:20 for one.

    Furthermore, the messenger of God was made to say that his recitation of the Quran was for guidance and nothing else was mentioned. Continuing from the previous verse:

    And to recite the Qur’an.” And whoever is guided is only guided for himself; and whoever strays – say, “I am only of the warners.” Quran 27:92

    Similarly, using selective Quranic verses to try and justify the indefensible position that whatever the Messenger said were all revelations doesn’t add up. If that was so then in those instances where God corrected the messenger was God actually correcting Himself? An absurd notion to begin with. ref. Quran 9:43, 80:1-10, 66:1. But that is the beauty of the Quran, whenever attempts are made to sneak falsehood into it, this invariably results in easily spotted contradictions, a touchstone we cannot thank God enough for.

    The.following two verses are a clear case in point yet again. There is no difference between the obedience of God and the obedience of His messenger;

    1. “O you who believe! obey Allah and His Messenger and do not turn back from Him while you hear” 8:20 2. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger and transgresses His limits – He will put him into the Fire to abide eternally therein, and he will have a humiliating punishment. Quran 4:14

    In both the above verses, it is clear that the words to be heard and the limits both belong to God, the clear use of the singular (عَنْهُ) in 8:20 and (حُدُودَهُ) in 4:14 leaves no doubt whatsoever. If there were more than one disobedience by turning away or more than one limits then here is where God would have separated them for our understanding.

    Hence, the easiest way to obey the messenger is to exclusively follow what the messenger exclusively followed, nothing more nothing less. Because what he followed and what was revealed to him to recite as a guidance were all in Surah form and God collectively labeled these publicly proclaimed revelations as the Quran and declared Himself as the witness over it.

    In light of the clear arguments from the Quran, our Furqan, it is time that all Muslims should fire their respective sect leaders and then follow it up with denouncing all sects. Islam is what the Quran says it is and pointing out this all-important fact does not make anybody a Quranist or Ahl al-Kalam or a Hadith rejector, whatever that means.

    Just to be clear this is not something new as the sectarians would want you to believe. This issue can be traced back to the exact same era when Hadith were illegitimately elevated from mere historical records to religious scriptures.

    Imam Shafi is on record to debate with Muslims who objected to other than the Quran as a source of Deen in the eighth century. This is recorded by Imam Shafi in his Jima`al-`Ilm. In fact, both Al-Shafi’i and Ibn Qutayba refer to those Muslim opponents of the Hadith as Ahl al-Kalam. Al-Shafii’s work responded to this group that rejected all claims in the Hadith literature. The argument of those Muslims was based on the same Quranic facts that Muslims today use that God declares the Quran as an explanation of everything (16:89). Rejecting Ahad (based on third-party single narrators) in no way is an insult to the Prophet of God, in fact rejecting impossible to verify claims in the name of the Prophet of God is a duty of every faithful.

    By the way, over 99% of all Ahadith are Ahad.

    To cut to the chase, the logic is simple and clearly laid out in the official message of God in no uncertain terms; the sects want to impose their own laws on people, God on the other hand categorically forbid believers from Judging (يحكم) by anything other than what was Revealed (أنزل). To ensure that whatever was Revealed was actually delivered publicly, God instructs the messenger to do exactly that (بلغ) announce/convey/proclaim/deliver the Revealed (أنزل) message. Whatever was not publicly conveyed and declared as a Revelations by the messenger should not be taken as a basis for judging because doing so will render one as a disbeliever (كافر).

    Please read that last sentence again.

    Hence, there may or may not have been communication between God and His Prophets other than the official message like the Quran but our focus must be what was explicitly declared by the Prophet of God to be the revelation. God communicates with His Prophets or for that matter with ordinary human beings as is indicated in the Quran. In fact, Quran is clear that God communicates with all His creations even innate objects like heavenly bodies, the Earth and the Moon are mentioned among others.

    But here is the thing, the Wahi that is intended as a guide or injunctions for us as human beings and Jinn etc is in fact clearly defined in the Quran and was delivered publicly by the messenger and declared as Wahi and God stamped it by announcing that God Himself is the witness to the revelation of the Quran.

    In short, if it is not in the Quran, please don’t call it Islam.

    Here are the relevant verses;

    Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted [to Allah] judged by it for the Jews, as did the rabbis and scholars by that with which they were entrusted of the Scripture of Allah, and they were witnesses thereto. So do not fear the people but fear Me, and do not exchange My verses for a small price. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed then it is those who are the disbelievers. Quran 5:44


    O Messenger, announce (بَلِّغْ) that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message. And Allah will protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the disbelieving people. Quran 5:67

    To further elaborate on this all-important issue, in order for it to be classified as a Revelation, it is necessary for it to be announced, a public act by definition as demonstrated by the use of the word (بَلِّغْ) and the context elsewhere in the Quran. Quran 7:61-62. and 7:67-68 and 46:23. And this announcement must be done by the messenger himself and declare it to be a Wahi for it to become part and parcel of the official message. Certainly not left to any third party(s) to deduce from his actions or inactions.

    In order to settle the matter of a public announcement in the above verse, God comforts the messenger of God that not to worry about public declarations of the Revelation to the people because God will protect you from the people. The mention of the people here and all the related verses buries assigning any value to a single narrator, which will be 99.9% of Hadith literature as previously mentioned is an actual number. It especially negates claims of where it was supposedly communicated in private.

    In addition, a single narrator’s claim that it was made in Public is by definition problematic. Interestingly, 100% of the so-called Qudsi Ahadith falls into this latter category. Furthermore, there is no provision for implied or deduced Revelation on the basis of not able to come up with an “explanation” for a particular verse. Nor declaring something other than the officially revealed as “additional Revelations” under the disguise of “explanations” has any merit. The “best” explanation of God is just that, the best.

    Why is this extremely important? Because if one were to use anything other than the Revealed word of God, as defined in the Quran, to judge others then in God’s own words as pointed out in the above verse and worth repeating here;

    ” …….. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed then it is those who are the disbelievers”. Quran 5:44

    Imagine that !!!

    That automatically takes care of what Obey the messenger means yet again. In fact not making the Revelation as the sole basis of Sharia is an option that cannot be ignored, If one were to venture out and actually judge others on anything other than the Revealed message then that will turn one into a disbeliever, as the verse above declares. The seriousness of the issue is further cemented in the subsequent verses by adding wrongdoers and defiantly disobedient to the mix. This was true of those who received Revelations before us and it is the same for us.

    Please read and reflect on the verses from Quran 5:44 till 5:69 to fully understand the fundamental principles of Revelations.

    Of course, there are many more relevant verses but the above is a very quick way of settling the counterclaims of the sect scene.

    No Muslim in their right mind rejects Hadith if by the new and un-Quranic meaning of Hadith one means saying of the Prophet of God. But any claim in the name of the Prophet of God must be evaluated in light of the message of God he delivered himself. As per the Quran, we will be labeled as liars if we fail to back our claims with four upright witnesses even for a social claim let alone those claims that have a direct bearing on the message of God.

    The sect games, of course, quote verses devoid of context to promote the indefensible notion that every word that came out of the messenger’s mouth was a revelation/inspiration. Except, the seriously wanting claim falls apart when it is pointed out to them that if that was so then when God corrected and even admonishes the messenger for what he said and did would mean God was actually correcting Himself. Case in point Quran 80:1-12 Quran 66:1 and others.

    Keeping the above, verses in mind and yet pushing people towards crude perfectionism in terms of how they should dress or look, what they should eat, how should they pray or indeed what should they say is the hallmark of oppressors, especially when threats of physical harm is added to the equation.

    True perfectionism is the province of God alone and only God can match one’s abilities to a way of life focused on love, empathy, mercy and forgiveness, a guaranteed path leading to the freedom of the soul.

    We have often seen the message of God diluted and distorted through the various secondary sources courted by these illegal and for-profit sect leaders. Most impartial observers saw through the sophistry of the “scholars” and figured that they were always in on it when it came to distortion of God’s words. The reasons for doing so were also very straightforward, in one word “subjugation”. From the perspective of these fake scholars, it was always about, peer pressure, fear of losing status, fear of losing position and of course the fear of the emperor were all routine motivations. God specifically warns us about this in clear terms;

    CAN YOU, then, hope that they will believe in what you are preaching – seeing that a good many of them were wont to listen to the word of God and then, after having understood it, to pervert it knowingly? Quran 2:75

    That brings us to the perverted verses

    The practice of quoting truncated verses with the explicit objective to deceive is quite rampant in the sectarian circles. The most widely misquoted verse has to be Quran 59:7 (……” And whatsoever the Messenger (Muhammad SAW) gives you, take it, and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain (from it)……”. While there is really no need to go into a lengthy analysis of this obvious deception, the verse is often quoted to justify the unwarranted status given to the Hadith literature. Needless to say, the verse has to do with something completely different, the distribution of war booty.

    The verse that needs analysis is one of the other favorites of the Kafirs, Quran 16:44. Here too the verse is not only quoted in part but when pointed out, lame attempts are made to try and dilute an important aspect of the message.

    The part that is quoted is:

    ” …… that you may explain clearly to men what is sent down to them, …… ) Quran 16:44

    The above translation is from Muhsin Khan. The rendering ” explain clearly” is a misdirection. First of all, the word form used is (لِتُبَيِّنَ ), the or bayyinah from the root Ba-Ya-Nun. The sense of the word is to make clear in a way one would do when distinguishing something from another. Where God mentions explaining the Quran God invariably does so by referring to the verses of the Quran: “We explain the verses” ( نُصَرِّفُ الْآيَاتِ ). Furthermore, as we can see the word often used for “explaining” is from the root Sad-Ra-Fa, in the mood ( مرفوع ). And finally, the fact that God ends the verse with ( لَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ ) ” that they may reflect/give thought is significant. Giving thought or to reflect is often downgraded to “consider” aka George Sale.

    The verse is not referring to explaining that which was revealed but the reference to making clear/or showing (لتبين), the process and significance of revelations themselves. Hence, the Prophet of God was to point out the significance of this revelation as a whole and the people were then supposed to reflect on the message. This makes even more sense given the mention of earlier scriptures at the beginning of the verses.

    And then there is the verse about the prophet of God being an excellent example. Once again the verse is quoted in part:

    “Certainly, you have in the Apostle of Allah an excellent example ……) Quran 33:21

    But they never mention Quran 60:4, where an Identical term is used for Prophet Abraham. The conduct in all the three related verses mentioned in Quran 33:21, 60:6 and 60:4 revolves around the belief in God and the Last Day. That is the core value of the example to be followed and not how high your trousers need to be. Or the left foot right foot nonsense.

    Besides the above, verses where God reminds us to Obey Him and his messenger, are so far removed from obeying what Bukkhari and co. claims that it is not worth pursuing the argument in any meaningful way. It is mind-boggling that Quran 4:59 is also used to support Hadith literature. If anything the mention of people in authority along with God and the messenger points to the fact that all three means exactly the same thing, God’s message is to be obeyed and followed irrespective of who implements it.

    Evidence from the Hadith on “worship” of the Prophet

    But it is ironic to note that the rank and file always had enough material in their respective sect’s literature to give them a wake-up call. And yet we see that almost all the members remain hypnotized by the so-called Sheiks and Imams of these sects. Here is something interesting to share;

    Allah says:

    – ٱتَّخَذُوٓاْ أَحۡبَارَهُمۡ وَرُهۡبَـٰنَهُمۡ أَرۡبَابً۬ا مِّن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ

    “They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks as lords besides Allah…….” [At-Taubah, verse 31]

    When Adee Ibn Hatim (radi Allahu ‘anhu), who used to be a Christian, heard this verse, he said, ‘O Messenger of Allah. We didn’t worship them.’ The Messenger of Allah (sallalalhu alaihi wa-sallam) said, ‘Did they not make Haraam what Allah made Halaal and you listened to them; and they made Halaal what Allah made Haraam and you followed them? He replied, ‘Certainly.’

    The Prophet of Allah (sallalalhu alaihi wa-sallam) said, ‘THAT was your worship to them.’ [At-Tirmidhee (3/247)]

    I am not going to endorse the above report as authentic simply because it also fails the criteria of truth as detailed in the Quran, as the case with over 99% of all Ahadith but it should not pose any problems for those who eat up anything labeled as “Hadith” or “Sunnah”. So the question is why can’t they connect the dots screaming at them that they should be connected?

    The issue of Ahadith

    This commentary is in no way questioning the legitimate sayings of the Messenger of God but merely pointing out gaps in the claims of those who are ascribing words to the messenger of God. Let us first clarify how God mentions Sunnah in the Quran.

    (1) Sunnatu-lawalina (of the former people) (2) Sunnata-llahi (of God)

    That is it, there is no third Sunnah type mentioned in the Quran.

    Now, let us have a quick insight into the Ahadith reports, on which the popular Sunnah is based or partly based. The details in the Hadith literature should further clarify matters.

    Since the Hadith promoters inexplicably ignored to first classify the Ahadith as Mutawatir (reported a mass) and Ahad (single narrator) before giving them labels as Sahih and Hasan and Daef, a lot of people are unaware of the fact that a full 99.9% of Ahadith, actual number as already mentioned, are basically third-party single narrations and when you add to it the fact that out of the top seven narrators with almost 17,000 reports, (Sunni version) five were teenagers, three out of those five barely making the teen cut and the other two were in their mid-twenties in 632 AD, just this piece of info should raise alarm bells in any reasonable person’s mind.

    Add to it the strange omission of the Friday Sermons and we are left with gaps that no God-fearing thinking person can ignore. While the Friday sermon is ubiquitous in the Muslim world today, it may come as a shock to many that out of an estimated thousand or so sermons reportedly delivered by the messenger of God, not a single sermon was committed to memory by any of the thousands of attendees and passed on. Given the scale and reach of these supposedly regular sermons, it is more than strange that the famed memory champions of the time could not manage a single complete sermon so that it could make it into any of the popular collections.

    These Friday sermons were the perfect opportunities for the recording of mutawatir reports, as the Quran demands. So if we ere to go with the famed memory champions narrative then it is not at all unreasonable to imagine that they were systematically pruned from all collections. The question is why?

    To further understand the sophistry under the slogan of “the Prophet said” Let us quickly point out what is generally agreed regarding the most revered collection.

    So Bukhari’s Ahadith collection was never in a single book form during his lifetime, the present Askalani’s collection is based on the commentary of Khushaymani, which in turn is based on the commentary or collection of Firabri who based his collection on some part of Bukhari’s collection.

    It seems that we should abandon our exclusivity of belief in one God and surrender to a final edit done in the fifteenth century, yes fifteenth not eighth and start believing in Askalani’s collection and then believe that he did his job by choosing, out of 70 odd collections on offer at the time, Khushaymani to be the one and then we must believe that Firabri a student of Bukhari, did his job and of course, we must continue to believe blindly that Bukhari did his bit and ignore another “great” Muslim, who had trashed a big chunk of Bukhari’s collection and and and all this before we get into the Isnad chain, with hundreds of years passing between collections, commentaries, and Isnads, is this a joke at our expense?

    Since we can make perfect sense of the 28 Surahs that Bukhari “explains” with these words “No Hadith were mentioned here” I am sure we will manage with the rest as well.

    Here is the complete list of Surah Bukhari washed his hands off, some explanation; 23, 27, 29, 35, 51, 57, 58, 64, 67, 69, 70, 73, 76, 81, 82, 86, 88, 89, 90, 94, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, and 109

    Those who promote the seriously flawed Hadith literature insist that they (or their sect leaders) have verified that “all” of Bukhari and Muslim compilation is beyond reproach (similar claims by other sects). Here we have to raise a relevant question: If the messenger of God himself could not tell the hypocrites from the genuine Sahaba then how did Bukhari and co. managed this impossible feat?

    And from among those who are round about you of the dwellers of the desert there are hypocrites, and from among the people of Medina (also); they are stubborn in hypocrisy; you do not know them; We know them; We will chastise them twice then shall they be turned back to a grievous chastisement Quran [9:101]

    So unless Bukhari and co. had access to voice recordings of the reporters and they were all experts at detecting lies through the tone of their speech, Quran 47:30 says (لحن القول) which is not just speech but the tone of the speech, then there is zero percent chance that they knew. If they were and they knew then all the compilations would have been identical.

    Ironically Bukhari’s own report clearly points to this fact especially after the demise of the Messenger of God:

    Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, “Some of my companions will come to me at my Lake Fount, and after I recognize them, they will then be taken away from me, whereupon I will say, ‘My companions!’ Then it will be said, ‘You do not know what they innovated (new things) in the religion after you.”

    Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Hadith 584

    Lastly, let’s talk numbers.

    Even if we lack expertise in a particular domain, one can rationally test the premises upon which a particular discipline is based.

    One of the most basic tools available to us is a simple time and motion study. If someone were to claim that he or she just ran around the world unaided in 24 hours one can very easily calculate and prove that it is an impossibility, given the length of distance traveled and the speed a human being can generate while running unaided. Similarly, if the “science of Hadith” is so thorough as claimed then why is it that the claims don’t match the ground reality. Hence when science is applied to the claim of 600,000 Ahadith vetting in a mere 16 years period by Bukhari, the results are at best comical. Not to mention the fact that earlier another important compiler, Muslim, disputes the authenticity of hundreds of Ahadith declared authentic by Bukhari and refuse to declare them authentic and the other way around. Where is the science in it?

    But we are going to focus on the claim of the 600,000 Ghusls and the two rakat that Bukhari performed before embarking on every new Hadith evaluation. The question we are going to ask is; how do you fit 600,000 Ghusls and an equal number of Istikhara prayers into a 16 years time frame? We are not even counting the countless interviews he supposedly did with the narrators and their family and friends, not to mention the traveling. Do the math as they say, please.

    Just to help with the math here are the details extracted from Bukhari’s compilation for a Ghusl;

    1. Start by making niyyah (intention) to perform Ghusl and cleanse thy self of impurities.

    2. Wash the right hand up to and including the wrist (and between the fingers) three times, then similarly for the left hand.

    3. Wash the private parts and remove dirt or filth from the body.

    4. Perform Wudu.

    · Reciting bismillah.

    · Intention of performing wudu.

    · Washing both the hands up to the wrists.

    · Rinsing the inner mouth.

    · Sniffing water and blowing it out

    · Passing of wet fingers between the fingers of the hand and feet.

    · Passing of wet fingers into the beard.

    · Brushing the teeth, preferably with a miswak.

    · Wudu is done systematically.

    · Washing of each part one after the other without pause, so no part dries up before wudu is completed.

    · Washing each limb thrice.

    · Performing wudu towards the Qiblah

    5. Water should be poured over the head three times so that it flows all over the body.

    6. Pour water over both the shoulders three times each. Hands should be passed all over the body when water is poured so that no part of the body is left dry.

    7. Move to a clean spot and wash the feet if not washed during Wudu

    I don’t know about you but if I were to do a thorough job I will need at least 20 minutes to get it done and when you add taking clothes off and putting them back on then perhaps 25 minutes. I guess it will vary from individual to individual but I think this would be a reasonable average. When you add to it the Istikhara prayer itself, say another five minutes, the total bumps up to 30 minutes. So we now have a grand total of 30×600000=18000000 minutes, which translates into a shade over 34 years. Twice as much as the claim of 16 years famously associated with Bukhari. Of course if you were paying attention, let’s say our estimates are off by a full 15 minutes because Bukhari happened to be a Speedy Gonzales and he managed to do, the above Ghusl with embedded Wudu, undressing, dressing and the Istikhara prayer all in a mere 15 minutes, even then he would have used up every minute of the available 16 years. Hence no time left for the Istikhara dream let alone eating, sleeping, traveling or conduct interviews.

    Realistically if we were to take him up on his word, it would have taken him hundreds of years.

    Mind you I kept the argument to easily verifiable numbers, I did not question the integrity of the narrators, did not analyze the matn of the reports, did not question the methodology employed because all of them can be buried by subjective calls however illogical as is done by the traditionalist. Anybody who can count can verify these numbers for themselves and they don’t add up.

    Note: Some of his followers also did the math and amateurishly tried to push a new claim that he only performed the Ghusl and Istikhara for the ones that he had already vetted but then he would have lost the claimed Divine hand in rejecting the remaining 593,000 reports hence losing the premise of the claim on which this obvious falsehood is based.

    Sira of the Prophet of God

    The actual sira of the messenger of God is even more problematic. Well over ninety percent of the popular sira in circulation is based on the work of a single individual who is supposed to have compiled the information some 80 years after the death of the Prophet of God. Needless to say, he never met any of the companions to verify the claims directly. The disturbing thing is that the original work of Ibn Ishaq, the gentleman, is nowhere to be found. In fact what we have is the work of Ibn Hisham and Tabari. Who in turn have based their work on two students of Ibn Ishaq, al-Bakka, and ibn Fadl al-Ansari. To add insult to injury the original work of these two gentlemen also perished. Most of the work of Tabari is also lost and bits that survived points to the fact that he just passed on whatever was in circulation.

    So, we are left with an account of the Prophet of God that was compiled almost a century after his death and that original is lost and then next two originals are also lost and we are left with Ibn Hisham who was repeatedly labeled as a liar by his contemporaries and Tabari who has confessed that his work is nothing but unverified stories.

    We are Muslims, the very word of God is in between our hands, how can we be expected to fall for this?

    So what does God has to say?

    Quran 45:6 These are God’s verses; we recite them for you truthfully. In which “Hadith”, after God and His verses, do they believe in?

    Quran 45:7 Woe to every sinful fabricator

    Quran 45:8 He hears God’s verses, then insists arrogantly on his way, as if he never heard them; promise him painful retribution.

    And yet “they” insist. Why?

    God’s clear warnings are systematically ignored.

    So woe to those who write the book with their (own) hands then, they say, “This (is) from Allah,” to barter with it (for) a price little. So woe to them for what have written their hands and woe to them for what they earn. Quran 2:79

    A reasonable question will be, who took it upon themselves to accept the claim of single narrators as something of value? When God in the Quran, our Furqan, and our Mizan, label those who cannot back their claims with four witnesses as liars. Yes, that is right, God calling them liars and this too in a mere social setting. Are we to believe that claims in the name of God and His messengers are to be accepted several notches below the standard laid out for mere social claims?

    It is clear that over 90% of Mullahs exist and behaves as a group, they take their orders from religious cabals. The individual Mullah is dependent for their salaries on the personality-centric core of various sects. He is working for a boss and not you. His loyalties force him to work against the Ummah. In fact, the neighborhood Mosque Mullah is a plant and an instrument of manipulation. Why should we allow it to continue?

    Before running to the mosques to collect the clearly made up contradictory extra points (Ibn Umar says it is 27, Abu Huraira says it is 25), please keep the below two verses in mind and note the use of the word “ever”;

    And those who take a masjid (for causing) harm and (for) disbelief, and (for) division among the believers, and (as) a station for whoever warred (against) Allah and His Messenger before. And surely they will swear, “Not we wish except the good.” But Allah bears witness indeed, they (are) surely liars. (Do) not stand in it ever. A masjid founded on the righteousness from (the) first day (is) more worthy that you stand in it. Within it (are) men who love to purify themselves, and Allah loves the ones who purify themselves. Quran 9:107-108

    It is a very sad reality that almost every single mosque standing today is built on sectarian lines (divisions) and God has forbidden us to never set foot in them since they are a source of divisions. No matter how you look at it going to mosques is not an option anymore till everything changes.

    The issue of “Quran was given by the same people who gave us the Ahadith”

    .As far as the argument that the same people who gave us the Hadith also gave us the Quran goes, let us do a quick reality check; not to mention Quran 9:101 and true to God’s warning, three out the next four Muslim leaders were murdered. Which gives one a good sense of the kind of environment ensued. Now let us see what really happened with respect to the Quran reaching us.

    Instead of taking a measured approach in the face of Quran 9:101, “their” solution is to declare all the companions infallible under the “who gave us the Quran” slogan and when you challenge them that even if we were to assume God used them to pass down the Quran to us, it is interesting to note that although they were able to transmit every single verse of the Quran in a Mutawatir, Bil lafz (verbatim) manner but when they sat down to transmit the “sayings” of the Prophet of God, suddenly they all had terrible bouts of memory leaks and 99.9% of the time conveniently there was nobody else around to hear what the Profit of God had to say.

    In my humble opinion, this whole issue can be reduced to how the Quran deals with claims. On one level, easily over 99% of all Ahadith are claims made by third-party single narrators hence not even worth bringing them up for debate, they must be systematically put aside. On another level, all claims related to “Obey the Messenger” cannot be corroborated through the Quran. The Quran does not say that “obey the messenger” means follow the Hadith. Similarly, the Quran does not say that Hadith can explain the Quran. All the noise about this or that missing from the Quran in order to justify Hadith is a ploy to distract the objectors from the fact that the claims by themselves on both levels have zero value in Islam.

    In practice, the issue is further complicated. The report usually says one thing but the “scholars” step in to say something very different and this is precisely the problem with these so-called “explanations”. The first issue is the claim that they “explain” the verses of the Quran except that the Quranic verses are revealed in an already explained state. God testifies to that. The second issue is that these “explanations” of the already explained verses need to be explained and you guessed it, by “scholars” and not just any old scholar but a sect specific “scholar” tied to a specific sect or school of thought.

    Hence, the main objective of this crude sophistry is to corner the market of “interpretations” and it is a big marketplace where millions change hands. Welcome to the ritual heavy, the illegal and for-profit world of organized religion.

    On the other hand, the number of Hadith that qualifies as mutawatir (Quranic standard) range from less than a dozen to three hundred, in fact, the presence of a range by itself is troubling. No surprise then that the agreed upon number hovers around 10 in all and when you add the all-important bif lafz (verbatim) to it the number dips to half a dozen.

    All these points strengthen the argument that the so-called “scholars” were in on it as mentioned already. The reason it is clear that the “scholars” are in on it is that the arguments for and against the Hadith literature are black and white to the point that even a child can easily figure it out. Speaking of children, a good number of Hadith narrators were just that kids as mentioned above.

    The myth of the Consensus of the scholars

    When everything else fails out comes the so-called consensus of the “scholars”. Reality check again, the scholars have not even agreed upon what constitutes consensus let alone form one about anything for that matter.

    A quick reminder to how the five schools view consensus;

    1. Hanafi: Through public agreement of Islamic jurists

    2. Shafi: Through agreement of the entire community and public at large,

    3. Maliki: Through agreement amongst the residents of Medina only

    4. Hanbali: Through agreement and practice of Muhammad’s Companions only (there is still no consensus on what constitute a sahaba)

    5. Usuli: Only the consensus of the ulama while the messenger of God was alive or Shia Imams

    Don’t you think they should first sort this core issue before claiming consensus? No less than the death for blasphemy is based on not the Quran and not even the Hadith but this mythical consensus. In essence, they have illegally awarded themselves the right to kill another human being. Imagine that!

    The Abrogation falsehood

    The last trick up their sleeve is a late addition, abrogation. A notion so thoroughly refuted that it is not worth wasting time on. Let us just say that straightforward verse of the Quran are stripped of context and twisted to mean that some verse and in extreme cases some Hadith actually abrogates some other verse of the Quran. In typical fashion, the estimates of abrogated verse range from seven to several hundred. This one fact is enough to put this mischievous notion to one side.

    The nonsense of abrogation was exposed by upright scholars throughout the history and one of the earliest opposition can be traced back to Abu Muslim Al-Asfahani, followed by Ibn Rushd and the Ibn Khaldun and many more. Among the modern scholars Mohammad Asad, Ahmed Subhy Mansour, Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq and Shabbir Ahmed are often cited.

    Shahada (شَهِدَ ) of the Hypocrites

    Before moving to the positive, allow me to touch on something that will surely disturb a lot of you but it is necessary because it is a perfect illustration of how far we have deviated from the message of God.

    The question is: How did the non-Quranic but popular Shahada found its way into Islam?

    Below are the verses where the word (شَهِدَ ) is used in the context of testifying and in twelve out of thirteen it had nothing to do with the Shahada of the sectarians and in the thirteenth, this is what God has to say about it:

    When the hypocrites come to you, [O Muhammad], they say, “We testify that you are the Messenger of Allah.” And Allah knows that you are His Messenger, and Allah testifies that the hypocrites are liars. Quran 63:01

    Here are the verses where it is used in context:

    (4:15:11) shahidū they testify فَإِنْ شَهِدُوا فَأَمْسِكُوهُنَّ فِي الْبُيُوتِ حَتَّىٰ يَتَوَفَّاهُنَّ الْمَوْتُ

    (6:19:20) latashhadūna testify أَئِنَّكُمْ لَتَشْهَدُونَ أَنَّ مَعَ اللَّهِ آلِهَةً أُخْرَىٰ قُلْ لَا أَشْهَدُ

    (6:19:28) ashhadu (do) I testify أَئِنَّكُمْ لَتَشْهَدُونَ أَنَّ مَعَ اللَّهِ آلِهَةً أُخْرَىٰ قُلْ لَا أَشْهَدُ

    (6:150:5) yashhadūna testify قُلْ هَلُمَّ شُهَدَاءَكُمُ الَّذِينَ يَشْهَدُونَ أَنَّ اللَّهَ حَرَّمَ هَٰذَا

    (6:150:11) shahidū they testify فَإِنْ شَهِدُوا فَلَا تَشْهَدْ مَعَهُمْ

    (6:150:13) tashhad testify فَإِنْ شَهِدُوا فَلَا تَشْهَدْ مَعَهُمْ

    (7:37:32) washahidū and they (will) testify قَالُوا ضَلُّوا عَنَّا وَشَهِدُوا عَلَىٰ أَنْفُسِهِمْ أَنَّهُمْ كَانُوا كَافِرِينَ

    (7:172:10) wa-ashhadahum and made them testify وَأَشْهَدَهُمْ عَلَىٰ أَنْفُسِهِمْ أَلَسْتُ بِرَبِّكُمْ قَالُوا بَلَىٰ

    (12:81:10) shahid’nā we testify فَقُولُوا يَا أَبَانَا إِنَّ ابْنَكَ سَرَقَ وَمَا شَهِدْنَا إِلَّا بِمَا عَلِمْنَا

    (41:20:5) shahida (will) testify حَتَّىٰ إِذَا مَا جَاءُوهَا شَهِدَ عَلَيْهِمْ سَمْعُهُمْ وَأَبْصَارُهُمْ وَجُلُودُهُمْ

    (41:21:4) shahidttum you testify وَقَالُوا لِجُلُودِهِمْ لِمَ شَهِدْتُمْ عَلَيْنَا

    (41:22:5) yashhada testify وَمَا كُنْتُمْ تَسْتَتِرُونَ أَنْ يَشْهَدَ عَلَيْكُمْ سَمْعُكُمْ وَلَا أَبْصَارُكُمْ

    (63:1:5) nashhadu We testify إِذَا جَاءَكَ الْمُنَافِقُونَ قَالُوا نَشْهَدُ إِنَّكَ لَرَسُولُ اللَّهِ

    Quran 7:158 is sometimes used by the sectarians to justify the Shahada of the hypocrites. The only problem is that the word (شَهِدَ ) is missing from the entire verse. In fact, the word “say” (قُلْ) is used by God in order to make the issue even more clear to us. Furthermore, the actual Shahada is also present in the same verse and is once again distinctly repeated without the “and Mohammad is his messenger” to remove all doubts.

    Note: The total number of times the word from the root “shīn hā dāl” is used in different contexts is 160, mostly in terms of a witness(s)

    Besides, there are numerous Ahadith where the true Shahada is detailed

    How to interpret the Quran?

    Let us move towards the positive. Just a quick mention of how to interpret the Quran.

    When we interpret Islam wrong it is not Islam anymore, it is as simple as that. Similarly, when we succeed in interpreting some verses correctly and others incorrectly then it is just that, partly right and partly wrong. There are no blends, it is all black and white as one would expect from a Divine guide.

    God is not in the business of maybes.

    It is reasonable to assume that before wanting to discuss Islam unless we can agree on the methodology of interpreting Islam, we won’t be able to agree on anything. So let us keep the questions on hold for a bit and talk methodologies because whoever is able to convince the other side on the best methodology then one can just apply it and get all the answers all by themselves.

    In my humble opinion, this is how I see it and millions have come to more or less the same conclusions;

    Trust your God-given faculties of observation, logic and rational thought as reminded by scores of verses of the Quran. Yes, the thing to note and emphasize is that the methodology of how to interpret the Quranic verses is embedded in the Quran itself.

    In contrast, a reference to those who may know more than an average person is mentioned only a few times and that too not in the popular “ask those who know” manner. Those who keep harping on “Ask a Shaikh” need to be told that the number of times “use your brain” is emphasized runs into hundreds and ask others none. There is no “ask those who know” in the Arabic version of the Quran. Please use your brain and observe, research and draw valid logical conclusions. Remember God is the teacher of the Quran. (Quran 55:02) The actual guidelines of the Quran are not about “asking” but some in the community should be entrusted with researching and making their findings public and open to debate.

    For the record and with all due respect to those who have a different opinion, the thing about the Quran is, as one would expect from a Divine message, that it is fully Self-Referenced and the Checksums are also all embedded in the body of the message. The core message needed for salvation is easily understood by even a twelve-year-old. The Quran, of course, is much much more and is there for all of the humanity, and for all times to come. The message is designed once again to be relevant to people with varying degree of access to knowledge bases and brain power and happen to be living at different times and in different space.

    When one decides to leverage the full potential of the book, Quran once again comes to the rescue to address the issues associated with serious research and truly demonstrates its timelessness so to speak. For starters, the use of particular words is demonstrated by its use in a priori manner within the Quran and hence protected from the natural evolution of the language. One must research this aspect first. Similarly, the methodology of non-contradiction (there are none in the Quran) not only protects the content and its interpretation but does it in a manner whereby and large the domain knowledge constraints are taken out of the equation. In simple terms, if your interpretation of a verse contradicts another verse then there are only three possibilities.

    1. Your interpretation of the first verse is wrong

    2. Or your interpretation of the second verse is wrong

    3. Or your interpretation of both the verses is wrong, hence, seek another interpretation

    God is not in the business of maybes as I said. Let’s put it this way, every verse in the Quran has a potential veto over a wrongly interpreted verse. We cannot thank God enough for this particular aspect of understanding the message of God. God in His infinite mercy has gifted us a touchstone and if people still insist on “different interpretations” then there is very little one can add to the argument.

    Quran’s framework is based on a self-correcting mechanism that needs no outside input. The answer to the question; is it even possible to interpret the verses of the Quran in such a manner that it eliminates verses contradicting each other? The answer is not only an emphatic yes but yes on several levels. The non-contradiction claim of the Quran serves two purposes; one to point out that for mere humans to put together over 77,000 words, covering a full spectrum of domains, is not easy without some elements contradicting others and the second is to facilitate our understanding as mentioned above.

    Mustansir Mir, Professor of Islamic Studies at Youngstown State University, eloquently argues for a multi-layered approach. He writes,

    “From a linguistic standpoint, it is quite possible for a word, phrase or statement to have more than one layer of meaning, such that one layer would make sense to one audience in one age and another layer of meaning would, without negating the first, be meaningful to another audience in a subsequent age.”

    So yes one is free to use different meanings associated with certain words but must do so only in a manner that it does not contradict a chosen meaning in another verse.

    Add to it a simple rule of restricting the meaning of words to the Arabic language even when they appear to be resembling words of a different language and be alive to the obvious allegorical references and you are done.

    To seek the best of meaning is an additional and general guideline in order to understand the truth within the verses and hence take out hiding the truth from the equation.

    Who in their right mind would refuse to follow the instructions of how to understand the intended message of a guide, found in the guide itself that is if the intention is to understand the message?

    Indeed, there is no doubt.

    A word of caution. Some in the Quran focused approach have taken a reactionary stance to the traditional Islam. Where even legitimate practices of the traditionalists are challenged for the sake of challenging them. One stark example is the issue of Salah. The notion that standing bowing prostration doesn’t mean all those things because their use in some verses points to a different context is strange. If we were to reverse this logic and make those different contexts as the baseline then standing should not mean standing anywhere in the Quran. Similarly if we were to change the definition of a Mosque to mean other than a physical structure then we have to do the same with monasteries and churches and synagogues. Quran 22:40. Here once again the non-contradiction aspect of the Quran guides us in the right direction.

    The impossibility of different interpretations

    Why is it that there is only one correct way to interpret the Quran?

    First of all, let me qualify that. It is possible to extract more than one meaning from a given verse (s) of the Quran as long as each subsequent interpretation (s) does not negate the previous one.

    Regardless of the number of extracted interpretations, each interpretation will have to pass the test of non-contradiction independently.

    let us layout the two elements of non-contradiction. It is hoped that the issue of the language of understanding can also be easily settled through it.

    Assuming one has already verified the Quran to be the very word of God, the logic is pretty straightforward.

    1. The first rule is that there are no contradictions in the Quran

    2. The second rule is that if the Quran was produced by other than God then one would find contradictions in that version of the Quran.

    When we apply these two rules simultaneously to any interpretation of the Quran, either in its original Arabic or a translated version, we can make the following conclusion.

    If one were to interpret the Quran in a way that was not intended by God then we are likely to introduce contradictions in the Quran because man is not capable of producing a different version of the Quran without any contradictions. Hence there can only be one correct way to interpret the Quran irrespective of the language of understanding.

    One is free to claim that their interpreted version is the correct one but it is not possible to claim that there are more than one correct versions of the Quran. Of course, when they make such a claim they also take on the burden to defend it to be free of contradictions.

    The choice dilemma

    BTW which of the following must one follow and why?

    Just to help the readers out of course you always have the option to throw a dart in the direction of the following collections and see where it lands and take that as the one “true” Sunnah and be prepared to be declared a “Kafir” by the followers of all the rest. Mind you, all of them are claimed to be vetted through the same magical “Science” of Hadith. Needless to say, each and every one of them ignores the all-important public delivery uncompromising condition of the official message and hopes nobody will notice that 99.9% of them are single third party narrations, the opposite of public.

    1. Kutub Al-Sittah – (The six books of Sunnis )

    Sahih Al-Bukhari ( صحيح البخاري ) Sahih Muslim ( صحيح مسلم ) Al-Sunan Al-Sughra ( السنن الصغرى ) Sunan Abi Dawood ( سنن أبي داود ) Sunan Al-Tirmidhi ( جامع الترمذي ) Sunan Ibn Maja ( سُنن ابن ماجه )

    2. Al-Kutub Al-Arb’ah – (The four books of Shias)

    Kitab Al-Kafi ( الكتاب الكافي ) Man La Yahduruhu Al-Faqih ( من لا يحضره الفقيه ) Tahdhib Al-Ahkam ( تهذیب الاحکام ) Al-Istibsar ( الاستبصار )

    3. The Ibadi one Jami Sahih Tartib Al-Musnad

    4. The Mu’tazila collection Comments on the Peak of Eloquence

    Now comes the fun part, with the possible exception of the Ibadi collection, each and every collection has an interesting thread running through it. All the collectors were Persians and almost all of them appeared out of nowhere right after the defeat of the Persians. You just need two functioning brain cells to figure out the rest.

    Now throw in the following to highlight the difficulty of choosing the correct version; Muwatta Imam Malik Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal Sunan Al-Darimi Shama’il Muhammadiyah often referred to as Shamaail Tirmidhi Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān Al-Mustadrak Alaa Al-Ṣaḥīḥaīn Al-Mawdū’āt Al-Kubrā Rīaḍ As-Ṣāliḥīn Mishkat Al-Masabih Talkhis Al-Mustadrak Majma Al-Zawa’id Bulugh Al-Maram Kanz al-Ummal Zujajat al-Masabih Minhaj us Sawi Muntakhab Ahadith The Book of Sulaym Ibn Qays Al-Sahifa Al-Sajjadiyya Uyun al Akhbar ar Reda Sharh Usul al-Kafi Nahj Al-Balagha Wasā’il Al-Shīʿa Bihar Al-Anwar Haqq al-Yaqeen Ain Al-Hayat (17th century) Qalam-e-Mowla Daim al-Islam ETC

    I wish it was as simple as choosing a version or two and you were done. Not so fast as the saying goes, even after settling for a particular version you are still totally dependent on the “scholars” associated with that particular version. In essence, they have the final say in what you ought to believe and often their explanations are not only at odds with the word of God but the wordings in a given Hadith as well.

    No matter where the dart lands, in essence, it will still be no more than a game of “my scholars are better than yours”.

    I for one refuse to assign my eternity to this crapshoot.

    Narrated Anas:

    The fact which stops me from narrating a great number of Hadiths to you is that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: “Whoever tells a lie against me intentionally, then (surely) let him occupy his seat in Hell-fire.”

    حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مَعْمَرٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْوَارِثِ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ، قَالَ أَنَسٌ إِنَّهُ لَيَمْنَعُنِي أَنْ أُحَدِّثَكُمْ حَدِيثًا كَثِيرًا أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ” مَنْ تَعَمَّدَ عَلَىَّ كَذِبًا فَلْيَتَبَوَّأْ مَقْعَدَهُ مِنَ النَّارِ “.

    Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 108 In-book reference: Book 3, Hadith 5

    Some important verses

    Perhaps these verses may help

    80:11 Nay! Indeed, it (is) a reminder,

    80:12 So whosoever wills may remember it.

    80:13 In sheets honored,

    80:14 Exalted, purified,

    80:15 In (the) hands (of) scribes.

    80:16 Noble, dutiful.

    Surah Al-Qamar :

    17. We made the Quran easy to learn. Is there anyone who would learn?

    22. We made the Quran easy to remember. Is there anyone who would remember?

    32. We made the Quran easy to understand. Is there anyone who would understand?

    40. We made the Quran easy to memorize. Is there anyone who would memorize?

    If you really are interested in the truth please read the following verses very carefully;

    Indeed, those who came with falsehood are a group among you. Do not think it bad for you; rather it is good for you. For every person among them is what [punishment] he has earned from the sin, and he who took upon himself the greater portion thereof – for him is a great punishment. (11) Why, when you heard it, did not the believing men and believing women think good of one another and say, “This is an obvious falsehood”? (12) Why did they not produce for it, four witnesses? And when they do not produce the witnesses, then it is they, in the sight of Allah, who are the liars. (13) And if it had not been for the favour of Allah upon you and His mercy in this world and the Hereafter, you would have been touched for that [lie] in which you were involved by a great punishment (14) When you received it with your tongues and said with your mouths that of which you had no knowledge and thought it was insignificant while it was, in the sight of Allah, tremendous. (15) And why, when you heard it, did you not say, “It is not for us to speak of this. Exalted are You, [O Allah]; this is a great slander”? (16) Allah warns you against returning to the likes of this [conduct], ever, if you should be believers. (17) And Allah makes clear to you the verses, and Allah is Knowing and Wise. (18) Quran 24:11-18

  7. I did not know it would become all bunched up like that…well do the best you can.

    • @ Follower

      It’s a 20 min video… and I am criticising his blatant lying about a hadith while he criticized ibn Hajar for making an alleged mistake (even though this is common and I can show examples from other muhaddith) So using his “methodology” for “consistency” he has “twisted Allah’s religion” like he said about Ibn Hajar.

      As for my question I’ll quote from you:

      “Not what the Prophet allegedly said, did, or tacitly approved in the 6th century of in urban Western Arabia but what he (pbuh) would have said, did, or tacitly approved of if he was born in our generation and lived with us.”

      Please give an example of a hadith where this alleged problem occurs.

      Moving on, Quranist are by all intents and purpose kuffar. I don’t need kuffar’s understanding of the religion, I mean while we’re at it let’s go ask missionaries to interpret the Quran for us as well. My refutation of random idiot on Quora is as follows:

      1. Blatant twisting of ayat and “semantic fallacy”
      “God’s preemptive use of the very same terms the sectarians use for their sources as a warning. God describes the Quran as the “Best Hadith” Quran 39:23 and the “Best Tafsir” Quran 25:33”

      Just because words are used in one context doesn’t negate another. If he wants to play this game:
      “The man from Egypt who had bought him said to his wife: “Make his stay generous, perhaps he will benefit us or we may take him as a son.” And it was thus that We established Joseph in the land and to teach him the interpretation of HADITH…” (12:21)

      Ohhh but now magically the context is different now. Yeah same thing with the ayat quoted on his part. And just like that there goes about a quarter of his paper.

      2. Clear stumbling and verbal gymnastics
      Long story short he could not refute the Qiblah, honey incident, etc. Also his quote of 47:20 was weird and irrelevant to his point. He offered no substantial rebuttal whatsoever. Alhamdulillah Allah has made the ruling clear.

      He alo quotes 8:20 which is obviously talking about Uhud and them disobeying the Prophet’s(saw) (the him in the ayat) and by extension Allah’s commands. So again no substantial refutation and more word gymnastics.

      3. No claim for data and “witnesses argument”
      I’m challenging him to provide evidence that “99% hadith are ahad”. Besides being untrue it makes no difference. This would be like saying if the Prophet(saw) sent Abu Bakr(ra) to talk to a people and tell him what he said they should reject it because he is only one man. His four or two witness argument is regarding certain things such as finance or accussing a chaste women of forniction and is irrelevant. Coincidently ALL deviants try to use this argument. (The Mu’tazilah argued for 10 being needed) hmmm…

      4. Judging by what was revealed
      I agree. And the Sunnah is revealed and classified as a form of revelation. (Hence things such as prophecies). Also playing the Quranist game of methodology the context of this ayat is for the Jews and Christians and not the Muslims. Yawn next.

      5. Scholars and “subjugation” blah, blah, blah
      Another proof of this person’s deviancy. Because these people never have people of knowledge with them they have to slander them to build up their position. This is what the Khawarij did to Ali(ra) and also the people who denied Allah’s Qadr did. This is all the same cycle. Also he twisted 2:75as it has nothing to do with scholars period.

      6. 59:7,33:21
      So he can take verses from context to prove a point (pretty much this entire article) but the other side can’t. Okay… Also it doesn’t matter that the same word is used for Ibrahim. Islam is also called the religion of Ibrahim as it says in the Qur’an. So again pure nonsense. Also 4:59 is again a knock out but. Allah says “Obey Allah, Obey the Messenger, and those in authority.” Those in authority did not receive an obey because it is conditional. The ENTIRE passage of 4: 59- 70 is about obey the Messenger period. Highlights from the section:

      4:64. I didn’t send any Messenger except for them to be obeyed by God’s permission.
      4:65. If only they had come to you when they wronged themselves and begged for God’s forgiveness. And the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would’ve found that God accepts repentance and is Forever Merciful.
      4:66. But no! I swear on your Lord, they have no faith until they make you, the judge in any matters that will sprout up. And find no resistance even in their souls to your decisions.

      Boom khlas it’s over…Next.
      7. Usage of hadith in his argument:
      Either we bring ALL hadith into play or none at all. If that’s the case my response:
      Narrated ‘Ubaidullah bin Abu Rafi:
      from Abu Rafi’ and others, from the Prophet (ﷺ) who said: “Let me not find one of you reclining on his couch when a command I ordered, or a prohibition from me comes to him, and he says: ‘I do not know. What we find in the Book of Allah, we follow it.'”

      8. Friday khutbahs
      Irrelevant argument most hadith are not long. Also using his same argument tell me what you remembered at the last Friday khutbah. Even among the khalifah rashidun we don’t have many of their khutbas.

      9. Bukhari’s collection
      Again Bukhari did not collect hadith he codified so his entire point on manuscript condition is irrelevant. Also Islam never had a huge manuscript condition period. Using his argument only part of Surah Kahf should be used as the Quran because it is the only manuscript we have from the Prophet’s(saw) time. Finally his argument regarding narrators is retarded. There were earlier collections absorbed into Bukhari’s work. These collections were composed by students of Sahaba. So he has to say that the Tabieen are in fact the forgers of all ahadith.

      10. How did the Quran reach us?

      THIS was the one I was waiting for. Lol he said nothing at all. He just 3 leaders were killed and walked off whistling. Gtfo here. So I looked up more from this person and his real answer… simple “mathematical miracles”:

      So if ALL these peole forged hadith what is to make the Quran free from such. He literally says nothing lmao.

      11. Ijmaa
      Ijmaa was debated. Proper Ijmaa is consensus of the Sahaba not the scholars. (rolls eyes) also blasphemy is based on hadith.

      12. Abrogation
      He claims is a “late addition” like all Quranist they know nothing about the Quran so wait for it:
      2:106. Whenever I abrogate any verse or cause it to be forgotten, I bring one better than it, or similar to it, don’t you know that God is able to do all things?

      87:6. Soon I will make you recite, and you will never forget,
      87:7. except for what God has decided. Indeed, He knows what’s spoken out loud and what secrets are hidden.

      I’m sorry it was a what again? Finally regardinf the “hundreds of abrogations” that was from one scholar who did not attempt to reconcile anything. Moron.

      13. Shahada of the hypocrites argument
      If he wasn’t stupid he would realize that this is proof of the shahada (rolls eyes) What happened to his argument: “It was passed from father to son”? Also if you read the Arabic they OVERDID IT there is a noon AND inna so in Arabic it’s like: You are REALLY no doubt about it God’s Messenger.” So now we’ve established they can’t speak Arabic and see the difference.

      14. Contradictory methodology
      He quotes:
      “From a linguistic standpoint, it is quite possible for a word, phrase or statement to have more than one layer of meaning, such that one layer would make sense to one audience in one age and another layer of meaning would, without negating the first, be meaningful to another audience in a subsequent age.”

      He says this is valid. Cool. So his entire “refutation” of scholars twisting to obey the Prophet goes out the window. His methodology is essentially “do whatever makes you feel good”

      15. 200 emotional based arguments and some are wrong
      All emotion based. And some like touching the Quran for Wudu aren’t even in hadith. Also no references.

      16. The majority argument
      This is referring to the disbelievers contextually again twisting an ayat. All deviants use this to justify their deviancy.

      • Oh and lol my wife just reminded me because I was telling about this paper’s stupidity. We got to the “ahad hadith (aka 1 narrator) so let’s reject all hadith” and she said if that’s the case Prophet Muhammad(saw) is only 1 narrator and Jibreel (as)was only 1 narrator so let’s throw out the entire Quran then lol.

  8. @stewjo004,

    My eyes are glazing over but inshallah in some time I will understand and try to learn what you are saying in your response points.

    Really quick though your comment about the same people transmitting the Qur’an and the hadith is wrong on several levels.

    1. It is wrong on the relevance of it….it does not matter if the Qur’an was found today in some old library and we had no idea it came from.

    It says it is from God and it is in one distinct volume.

    To accept it or to reject it is primarily a function of its contents.

    Your perception of the Qur’an if fundamentally wrong.

    You see, it is not like there is some entity called Islam which then later in time says…hey look at this other material called the Qur’an.

    Islam arose through the Qur’an. Islam is essential with the Qur’an.

    All the core teachings that the Muhammad ibn Abdullah is a prophet of God, that there is a hereafter, that we will be judged, etc. came to the Prophet through the Qur’an. You can see the Qur’an itself console the Prophet and assure him that this revelation is from God.

    Of course, as a human being and even more so as a pure human being, he was in connection with special inspiration at times and like all human beings, also endowed with reason, intuition, 6th sense, etc.

    But the core teachings to him and us all is through the Qur’an.

    2. If the main transmitters of the hadith are eliminated, would the Qur’an not exist? Of course, not.

    3. You cannot claim that the same people who transmitted the recitation of Asim by way of Hafs were all the main hadith narrators…that they were members of Ahl of Hadith.

    4. Various sects claim the Qur’an and they transmitted it down their generations but they differ with other sects largely on other literature such as hadith, history, seerah, etc.

    But since they transmitted the Qur’an down their generations, should we assume that the differences between various sects and schools of thought are negligible. You appear to be quite sectarian so I don’t think you would agree that all teachings of the Mutazilites should be accepted just because they transmitted the Qur’an down the generations.

    5. The transmission of the Qur’an is entirely different. The whole text is made as Allah said easy to remember due to various qualities of it in terms of rhythm, rhyme, assonance, etc.

    6. Everyone knew they could not fake some Quranic verse because they knew it was known in the community and thus they would be exposed and refuted.

    The same was not true at all with the hadith.

    And I think it is everyone’s understanding that there were much more false hadith than possibly true hadith.

    Please let me know what you think of each of these points.

    Thank you.

    • The first thing is it’s a fallacious argument when discussing this subject to say “well the Thikr has been protected” that is the definition of a circular argument. Logically they can’t really be separated from each other because the Quran IS classified as a hadith in and of itself (it has an isnad and narrators etc.) That’s why the entire “Quranist” movement makes no sense. It is literally the equivalent of saying I only accept this hadith:
      Narrated ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab:

      I heard Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) saying, “The reward of deeds depends upon the intentions and every person will get the reward according to what he has intended. So whoever emigrated for worldly benefits or for a woman to marry, his emigration was for what he emigrated for.”

      As the ONLY revelation of the Prophet(saw) and every other hadith and Quran verse is false. It’s illogical because this hadith comes from the channels of how the rest got to us over a thousand years later. Quranist live in a fantasy land that this is how the Quran got here (@ 10 sec):


      But it’s simply not true and that’s why they crumble trying to explain this.

      Even if we want to take this purely from the theological perspective yes Islamic civilization was built around the Quran AND hadith. Idk why they keep thinking early Muslims we’re just following the Quran until the Mongolians or something. I would also like to quote a Quran verse I read today to further solidify Islam has more than the Quran in it. Allah, when talking to Musa(as) and explaining to him the coming of Muhammad(saw), says some important stuff if you pay attention (emphasis mine):

      “Who follow the Messenger, the illiterate prophet they find described in the Torah that is with them, and in the Gospel. HE WILL ORDER them to what is good and FORBID to them what is evil. And MAKE ALLOWED for them things that are pure, forbid to them all the things that are filthy and HE WILL take off from them the chains and burdens around their necks that used to be on them. Those who will believe in him, obey him out of respect and help him, following the light sent down WITH him and they are the successful ones…” (7:157)

      Allah says the Prophet(saw) himself will make some halal and haram things and that we follow the light (aka the Quran) sent with him. Allah has separated the light and the laws he will set up.

      No one is not arguing the Quran is unimportant or not a revelation however the Prophet (saw) had multiple forms of it. I was writing a blog post for QB but it seems relevant to quote here:

      “let’s define what is revelation and Scripture. There are multiple versions of revelation a prophet can receive:

      1. A Scripture where God transmits His words verbatim (either through direct speech or through an intermediary such as an angel)
      2. An angel relaying a message from God but not necessarily a Scripture or God’s direct speech (ex. “Your Lord has ordered you to go here…”
      3. Dreams
      4. A Prophet’s inspired action or speech regarding a religious matter.
      5. A Prophet’s rulings
      6. Prophecies

      Now, 2-6 are important and can be religiously binding on believers but they are not what is being discussed at this time. The Torah, Gospel and Quran would all be classified as number 1.”

      Finally, I think you made a little slip, there is NO SECT other than ahlul Sunna (aka ahlul hadith) that can claim a complete Quranic chain (if so please give it to me). This fact pains Shia and that’s why some of them claim tahreef of the Quran. The best they can get is like a few narrators in a chain.

      • Also I forgot to mention, yes the Quran is easy to remember but again a lot of people don’t know this (as it’s nearly not as popular) but hadith are memorized as well (this includes content and chain).

        Narrated ‘Urwah:
        that ‘Aishah said: “The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) did not speak quickly like you do now, rather he would speak so clearly, unmistakably, that those who sat with him would memorize it.”

        It was narrated from Ibn Tawus that his father said:
        “I heard Ibn ‘Abbas saying: ‘We used to memorize Ahadith, and Ahadith were memorized from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)…

        Narrated Al-Walid bin ‘Abdur-Rahman:
        that Ibn ‘Umar said to Abu Hurairah: “You used to stick to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) most out of all of us, and you used to best memorize his Ahadith out of us.”

        I”m blanking right now but in Medina University you are supposed to have like 1,000 your first year of hardcore study.

        And just so you know that I didn’t make this up here is some links of people talking about it:


        Now you are righjt that many people forged ahadith PURPOSELY:
        “Al-Haafiz al-Dhahabi mentioned that Haaroon al-Rasheed was about to execute a zindeeq (heretic), and the zindeeq said: What are you going to do about the one thousand ahaadeeth I have fabricated? Al-Rasheed said: What are you going to do, O enemy of Allaah, about Abu Ishaaq al-Fazaari and Abd-Allaah ibn al-Mubaarak, who will sift through those ahaadeeth and examine them letter by letter?”



        Yahyā bin Yahyā narrated to us, Umar bin Alī bin Muqaddam informed us, on authority of Sufyān bin Husayn, he said:
        ‘Iyās bin Mu’āwiyah asked me saying: ‘Indeed I see that you love knowledge of the Qur’ān, so recite for me a Sūrah and explain it until I can reflect on what you know’. [Sufyān] said, so I did that, and [Iyās] said to me: ‘Memorize from me what I am about to say to you- Beware of abominations in Ḥadīth for indeed rarely does anyone convey them except he lowers himself and his Ḥadīth are denied’.’

        However this allowed Muhaddith to get VERY good at what they do. If you would like to see some of the principles and their basis here you go:

  9. @stewjo004, thanks for sharing your opinions…..interesting….at times I have to strain to try to understand your point and separate it from your ad hominem statements but helpful.

    To all Muslim readers,

    An important point to Muslims is that when the hadith are shown to be quite different and diverse set of statements that is at surprisingly at odds with the Qur’an sometimes, it should not bother them.

    It is unheard of for a person to speak one way for over 20 years and then a completely different way 20 years if he was making something up.

    There can be a general difference but for the difference to be there consistently for over 20 years is remarkable.

    Of course, this is remarkable for the difference in rhythm, rhyme, and many other features between the Qur’an and the hadith but it is also remarkable for their to be other differences as well.

    This heightens the evidence for the Qur’an to be outside of Prophet Muhammad.

    And it underscores that all the “sahih” hadith cannot be from him since he would be the best in practicing the Qur’an and no differences would be seen between him (pbuh) and the Qur’an.

    This is all that we expect when consult with those who do PhDs in oral narrations and also when we analyze the Prophet’s life for he never commissioned any of his many companions to set out to collect his scattered sayings, especially any potential one-off sayings in a single volume.

    The Prophet had a long ministry with many followers and a functioning state that was quite large in the last year or so of his life. So he could have easily did that and he chose not to do that but was the same as usual in his focus on ensuring the Qur’an to be transmitted to all. And THAT massive difference in approach speaks volumes to us.

    Hadith is useful but as the Qur’an says numerous times needs to be avetted with reason.

    • @ Follower

      I only ad hominem when someone is making stupid and contradictory statements. Also, my rebuttal was not that hard to dissect. The person’s paper was illogical, incorrect and quite frankly a chore to read.

      Moving on, AGAIN we can apply the exact same thing to the Quran. The Prophet(saw) did not have the Quran compiled into one book during his lifetime so I guess that “speaks volumes” as well. Quranist are inconsistent with their methodology and this will forever be the stumbling block of their kufr.

      Finally, because you keep making this filtering revelation through reason argument please show all the statements where Allah says to use reason. They are NEVER in regards to Allah’s laws and orders they are almost all in regards to proving Allah’s existence or contemplating on Allah’s creation.

    • ” thanks for sharing your opinions…..interesting….at times I have to strain to try to understand your point and separate it from your ad hominem statements but helpful”

      Translation: “I don’t know how to respond to your arguments, so I will just repeat my baseless opinions.”

  10. A relevant post to this thread….



    New Historicism: A Manifesto for Writing the History of the Qur’an

    Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) – In borrowing the term “the New Historicism” from literary studies, I do not mean to take over all its theses. Rather, I am making an analogy. Just as Stephen Greenblatt came to require a historical context for studies of Shakespeare, rebelling against the contextless New Criticism at Yale in the 1950s, so Qur’anic studies desperately needs academic history along with the philology.

    The planks below are intended to provoke historians of very early Islam to rethink how our discipline can be applied to the origins of the religion preached by Muhammad. I apologize for presenting them here as simple assertions, but it is after all a manifesto. I can make strong arguments for each of them, but will leave that sort of footnoting to later postings. In the meantime, I’m glad to argue them through. Many of these theses are not original with me, but represent what I believe to be current best practice. I think many of them are evident in the work of Angelika Neuwirth, Fred Donner, Nicolai Sinai, Glen Bowersock, Aziz al-Azmeh, and others now working in the field. Admittedly, some of these theses are in fact original with me, and may take some time to become accepted.

    The reason that a New Historicist Manifesto is necessary is that the school known as Revisionism has, I think, discouraged the search for the historical Muhammad and has even discouraged the academic study of the Qur’an. By displacing the origins of Islam from western Arabia, by projecting the development of the Qur’an decades and even centuries after the death of Muhammad in 632, by mysteriously rejecting the entirety of the later Muslim tradition about the religion as undifferentiated and unusable, Revisionism paralyzed the field. Worse, all of these theses are incorrect. However, it is important to underline that New Historicist approaches do not condemn Revisionism across the board and in fact benefit from the breakthroughs of scholars working in that paradigm, especially querying the fallacy of authority when it comes to the late Umayyad and Abbasid authors.

    So here is the manifesto

    1. Historians in their analyses should attend to context, change over time, causality, and comparison to explore primary sources (eyewitness accounts– documents, memoirs, chronicles, sermons, collected oral accounts) while avoiding the fallacies of anachronism and appeal to authority. Those trained in philology or theology may find these methodologies troubling, and may perceive them to produce arbitrary choices, since a concentration on primary sources shapes how secondary sources are used and disallows the over-all authority of the latter. Nevertheless, sound historical methodology can resolve some of the conundrums that have beset Qur’anic Studies since the 1970s. This emphasis on historical methodology is not meant to be positivist or to suggest that textual and historical ambiguities can easily be overcome. Phenomenology, ethnography, thick description and other non-positivist approaches are compatible with the tools mentioned above.

    2. The traditional Muslim dates for the Qur’an of 610-632 are largely correct. Neither the Syriac tradition seeing Muhammad as alive after 632 nor the Iranian regal tradition that has him die in 628 are convincing. The text of the Qur’an has no reference to hostilities with Byzantines or Christians and so, with some small possible exceptions, pre-634.

    3. Muhammad ibn Abdullah was a historical person and a long-distance merchant as well as belonging to the Banu Hashim clan of the shrine city of Mecca, which gave hospitality to pilgrims and kept the peace in the sanctuary city. The religion of Muhammad grew up in western Arabia, though with a wrinkle mentioned below.

    4. The Qur’an can be studied for the intellectual biography of the Prophet Muhammad just as the authentic epistles of Paul can be studied for his. Academic scholarship is agnostic, and there is for scholarly purposes no difference between an inspired or revealed text and any other sort of text, since even believers would have to admit that inspiration works through human beings and has a human audience and context. Stylometic studies of the Qur’an tell against seeing it as having more than one “author;” we may conclude that Muhammad was the vehicle for it.

    Note: My new book is a demonstration project for this New Historicism:

    Muhammad: Prophet of Peace amid the Clash of Empires, published October 9, 2018
    Now available at Barnes and Noble

    And Nicola’s Books in Ann Arbor

    And Hachette

    And Amazon

    5. Historians should read connected passages of the Qur’an (e.g. 9:1-29 or 48) as a continuous unit and as revealing a historical narrative, in contrast to the Abbasid tendency to atomize exegesis and attach tendentious meanings to verses out of context.

    6. A key context for the Qur’an is the 603-629 war between the eastern Roman Empire and the Iranian Sasanian Empire, to some of the major events of which it refers, and the politics of which informed struggles in the Hejaz. The Qur’an sides heavily with the Roman Empire in this struggle and evinces positive views of Christians throughout, while criticizing some aspects of Christian theology (the harshest criticisms likely come in 630-32 and concern a Collyridian heresy rather than the mainstream).

    7. Despite the silence on this matter of later Muslim sources, Muhammad continued to travel after 610 when he believed God began conferring the Qur’an on him. He journeyed regularly to Yemen and up to Roman Arabia and the three Palestines all through his life. A corollary of this thesis is that Muhammad knew Aramaic, and likely knew the koine Greek spoken as the urban standard in Roman Petra, Bostra and Damascus. A further corollary is that the Qur’an is sometimes addressing audiences in the Sasanian-ruled Near East or Yemen. The work of Paula Fredriksen and Laura Nasrallah on the acknowledged epistles of the equally peripatetic Paul thus offers methodological insights for studying Muhammad and the Qur’an.

    8. The Qur’an has commonalities with Neoplatonic texts of Late Antiquity, though it departs in some instances from Neoplatonic precepts. The technical terms for “Word” (milla, kalima) are used in the sense of the Greek Logos.

    9. Illumination can be thrown on passages of the Qur’an by comparing and contrasting them to other works of Late Antiquity, especially sixth- and seventh-century works. These include John Moschus’s The Spiritual Meadow, the History of Theophylact Simocatta, the History of Agathias, the Easter Chronicle, the poetry of George of Pisidia, and the sermon of Theodore Syncellus, among others. Comparison and contrast do not imply influence, only an exploration of late Antique ‘mentalities’ and intertextuality.

    10. The later Muslim biographical and chronicle tradition of the 760s through the 800s and 900s is often anachronistic and of varying degrees of reliability, developing after “a hundred years of silence” during which tales about the Prophet and his community circulated only in fluid and shifting oral folk accounts. These authors lost touch with the Greek and Aramaic context of the Qur’an and tendentiously represent it as a purely inner-Arabian tradition.

    11. Because the Qur’an is early, it is our only primary source for the life of the Prophet. Where it does not mention a major incident narrated by the later sources, we should be suspicious of that alleged event. Where its attitudes and values starkly contradict a later tale, we should firmly reject the latter. In particular, the later Imperial tradition is much more martial and militant than the Qur’an itself.

    12. Elements of the later tradition occasionally can be recovered for use as historical sources. Gregor Schoeler and Andreas Gorke have shown that 8 episodes in the Prophet’s life narrated by `Urwa b. al-Zubayr came down to us through very thick chains of transmission. While these eight texts show some signs of anachronism, they generally accord with the Qur’an and provide some historical context. They are useful if controlled by the Qur’an as a primary source.

    13. Using some late texts is ordinary historical practice, especially in Medieval history. Using a text embedded in a work because it seems to accord with the Qur’an does not entail an obligation to use everything in the work and is not a form of “cherry-picking”, as long as a primary text continues to be the controlling one. Abbasid narratives were often somewhat atomistic, sweeping up accounts from various previous sources, many of them oral. Nuggets of gold subsist amid mounds of dross.

    14. The Qur’an has several civilizational backgrounds. A key such background is Greco-Nabataean, which stretched from the Transjordan into the northern Hejaz. The Arabic script evolved from the Nabataean. The Qur’an mentions sites of Nabataean culture such as southern Transjordan and the Hejazi city of Hijr (Hegra). The goddesses denounced in the Qur’an were worshiped in Nabataea. After 106, the Roman Empire ruled Transjordan and Greek became the urban standard. Local deities were identified with Olympian gods. After Constantine’s conversion in 312, Christianity made rapid strides in Transjordan. This mix of Hellenism, North Arabian religious themes, Nabataean traditions, and Roman Christianity gives context to the Qur’an. Yemen is another such context.

    15. The theological vocabulary of the Qur’an is underlain on the one hand by the indigenous monotheistic tradition of post 380 CE Himyar in Yemen and on the other by the Eastern Roman and, later, Christian Arabic spoken in Syria, Transjordan and Palestine. Some Sasanian terms are also evident. Loanshifts and calques on terminology in Greek, Aramaic and Middle Persian are a feature of Qur’anic theological vocabulary.

    16. Syriac Christian accounts of the seventh century after 636 that mention Islam may be primary for the year of their composition but are not reliable as primary sources for the life of the prophet except where what they report accords with the Qur’an. They are outsider accounts showing no familiarity with the internalities of the tradition and are not primary for 610-632. Used judiciously, however, and where they do not contradict the Qur’an, they can sometimes be useful.

    17. The “Muslim Conquests” of the Near East after Muhammad’s death in 632 are a Foucauldian historical rupture, not a continuation of the life and teachings of the Prophet. It is anachronistic to project back into the period 610-632 principles, practices and attitudes of the later seventh century, more especially as presented in eighth- and ninth-century texts.

    • @ Follower:

      “I apologize for presenting them here as simple assertions, but it is after all a manifesto.”

      Aka I’m about to talk from my back pocket but assert it as fact.

      “1. Historians in their analyses should attend to context, change over time, causality, and comparison to explore primary sources (eyewitness accounts– documents, memoirs, chronicles, sermons, collected oral accounts) while avoiding the fallacies of anachronism and appeal to authority.”

      Aka they should try to look for any reason to doubt Islam and make it easier to twist. This is difficult for us because unlike the Christians and Jews, Muslims document where they get information from. The only reason such studies exist for the Bible is due to the lack of a chain of transmission and hadith scholars saying their reasons for grading a hadith.

      “2. The traditional Muslim dates for the Qur’an of 610-632 are largely correct. Neither the Syriac tradition seeing Muhammad as alive after 632 nor the Iranian regal tradition that has him die in 628 are convincing. The text of the Qur’an has no reference to hostilities with Byzantines or Christians and so, with some small possible exceptions, pre-634.

      3. Muhammad ibn Abdullah was a historical person and a long-distance merchant as well as belonging to the Banu Hashim clan of the shrine city of Mecca, which gave hospitality to pilgrims and kept the peace in the sanctuary city. The religion of Muhammad grew up in western Arabia, though with a wrinkle mentioned below.”

      Aka there’s no reason to doubt the Muslim description of events because it’s neutral but let’s do so anyways so we can again twist the Qur’an because we’re destined for Hell.

      “4…Stylometic studies of the Qur’an tell against seeing it as having more than one “author;” we may conclude that Muhammad was the vehicle for it…Note: My new book is a demonstration project for this New Historicism:”

      Please see my point above. Also aka I am desperate to make a name for myself and please buy my book so I can make money off you idiots.”

      “5. Historians should read connected passages of the Qur’an (e.g. 9:1-29 or 48) as a continuous unit and as revealing a historical narrative..”

      Aka we should read the Quran like when Muslims do when they make this magical thing called “the Seerah”

      “6…The Qur’an sides heavily with the Roman Empire in this struggle and evinces positive views of Christians throughout, while criticizing some aspects of Christian theology (the harshest criticisms likely come in 630-32 and concern a Collyridian heresy rather than the mainstream).”

      Aka I have no idea what I’m talking about and am not qualified to talk on the subject. And like all non Muslim Academia can’t even get the basics of Islam correct. Yes collyridians are condemned but so are catholics. Also I guess the Quran doesn’t condemn mainstream Christianity if you don’t count things like Jesus(as) being the son of God, the trinity or the crucifixion. Or if you ignore the fact that the Surah Rum is only to serve as a sign of Islam.

      “7…Despite the silence on this matter of later Muslim sources, Muhammad continued to travel after 610 when he believed God began conferring the Qur’an on him. He journeyed regularly to Yemen and up to Roman Arabia and the three Palestines all through his life.”

      Aka I have provided no sources for these claims and please see the point above about my lack of qualifications to speak on Islam. We have only 2 refrences of the Prophet traveling after revelation. One is the Hijrah the second is to Taif which was two years before the hijrah.

      “8.The Qur’an has commonalities with Neoplatonic texts of Late Antiquity, though it departs in some instances from Neoplatonic precepts. The technical terms for “Word” (milla, kalima) are used in the sense of the Greek Logos.”

      Aka I am now making more baseless claims and assuming my conclusion of travel. Also I have clearly never read the Quran even in english as Logos is used a pre existent divine being in Greek (please see Plino) And have now proven I know nothing of the NT either.

      “9.Illumination can be thrown on passages of the Qur’an by comparing and contrasting them to other works of Late Antiquity…Comparison and contrast do not imply influence, only an exploration of late Antique ‘mentalities’ and intertextuality.”

      Aka I am trying to shed doubt on the Quran and even though these texts don’t allegedly influence the Qur’an I want to make you the gullible reader to think it does. And so we can make it easier to twist”

      “10. The later Muslim biographical and chronicle tradition of the 760s through the 800s and 900s is often anachronistic and of varying degrees of reliability, developing after “a hundred years of silence” during which tales about the Prophet and his community circulated only in fluid and shifting oral folk accounts. These authors lost touch with the Greek and Aramaic context of the Qur’an and tendentiously represent it as a purely inner-Arabian tradition.”

      Aka I have made more baseless claims with no evidence to them. I have also demonstrated that I know nothing about the compilation of the Seerah. From DR. Yasir Qadhi also starting from 25:00 he refutes all of this and why Mr. Coles’s stupid suggestion is stupid.

      3. Books written specifically for seerah – the first people who did this were the sons of sahaba. So many stories were told. Uruwa the son of Zubair wrote one of the greatest accounts. And Uruwa is the son of a sahabi, grandson, his father, mother, grandmother and brother is a sahabi. But he isn’t a sabahi. And his aunty is Aisha RA. So he is one of the primary narrators to fiqh, hadith and seerah because he had access to Aisha RA – he is a mahraam. So Uruwa is the primary narrator from Aisha RA. Also the Son of Uthman Ibn Affan whose name is Abaan. He died 105 hijra – he also wrote a booklet on seerah.

      Finally a great scholar came called Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri who dies 129 hijra who wrote one of the first early books of seerah. None of these books however is existent. And the reason is simply, when later books came the later writers absorbed these. Imagine someone comes and takes Urawa and Abban and puts both in a bigger book. And this is what happened – there was no need for Uruwa or Abbaan anymore. So we do have books in the very next generation which shows us seerah was compiled even before hadith because of its importance.

      And the greatest scholar of seerah is Ibn Ishaaq. His name is Muhammad ibn Ishaaq and he was born 85 Hijra which means he is living in Madina (where the prophet PBUH lived and died) and so he grew up around the sahaba, their children and grandchildren. So Ibn Ishaaq met the sons and maybe saw some of the sahaba and he wrote every thing he heard. He had a huge passion for seerah and began to compile events in chronological order unlike the eariler phanlets. So Ibn Ishaaq complied a very large book and just to be on the safe side he went to other cities and met i.e. Ibn Masood etc. His primary source was however Madina. And one of the best thing is that he compiled everything with isnaad (chain of narrations). Its a uniquely islamic miracle in that the chain tells us were the story comes from. Because in Islam we always verify authenticity. WE know every person in the chain – when he was born, how he died, was he a good person, did he have a good memory etc. And thus we can judge the isnaad. And so Ibn Ishaaq complied the life of the prophet PBUH and he wrote a massive book. So big that it was almost 15 volumes and was difficult to copy. Ibn Ishaaq died 150H. So from 85 to 150.

      Another student called Ibn Hishaam came along, his name is Abdul Malik Ibn Hishaam. Where does the seerah come from? These two people. So ibn hishaam realised that Ibn Ishaaq’s volumes were too big so he decided to summarise. He did not add anything but rather he subtracted. He deleted and made it into a book that is much more managable and now it’s available in 4 volumes. In those days there was no printing press so if you wanted a book you had to write it cover to cover – this is one of the reasons why he reduced. Also Ibn Ishaaq was one of the first people to write a history of humanity. From Adam AS to Nuh to Ibrahim to the prophet PBUH. So Ibn Hishaam deleted the entire section of earlier history and other information about the life of the prophet PBUH that he thought was not that useful. So now people just copied Ibn Hishaam and today you won’t find Ibn Hishaaq. Thus now to buy a copy of the book you will find ‘Seerat ibn hishaam’ – you won’t find ‘seerat ibn ishaaq’ as it’s now gone missing.

      However there was a very famous scholar called Dr Hamidhullah. And he became one of the greatest scholars/researchers and he discovered many manuscripts in France etc. And this is because the westerners came to islamic lands, purchased the mushaffs who just valued them as art and took them back to Germany, France etc. This is why the largest collection of mushaffs are found in Germany. So anyway Hamidhullah went through all these treasures in Paris, London etc. and he discovered a partial copy of Ibn Ishaaq. Around 1/4th! So he edited and published it, and when now we compare Ibn Ishaaq to Ibn Hishaam, we find its exactly as Ibn Hishaam said – that is the seerah is the same but only parts have been cut out. Which parts? Things like long poetry, lineage of the arabs etc (i.e. every time Ibn Ishaaq mentioned a name he would take it back to Nuh AS (!)). So yes, Ibn Hishaam was indeed accurate in what he did, so for sure when we read Ibn Hishaam we are truly reading something just 100 years after the prophet PBUH died. And this is amazing. So we have the whole seerah just 100 years after the prophet PBUH died.

      “11. Because the Qur’an is early, it is our only primary source for the life of the Prophet. Where it does not mention a major incident narrated by the later sources, we should be suspicious of that alleged event. Where its attitudes and values starkly contradict a later tale, we should firmly reject the latter.

      Aka I know nothing about the history of Islam period. Also please see why plan is stupid above.

      “..In particular, the later Imperial tradition is much more martial and militant than the Qur’an itself.”
      Especially if we ignore Surah 9 which is late or the Islamic opening of the Rashidun Caliphate.

      “12. Elements of the later tradition occasionally can be recovered for use as historical sources. Gregor Schoeler and Andreas Gorke have shown that 8 episodes in the Prophet’s life narrated by `Urwa b. al-Zubayr came down to us through very thick chains of transmission. While these eight texts show some signs of anachronism, they generally accord with the Qur’an and provide some historical context. They are useful if controlled by the Qur’an as a primary source.”

      Aka I will continue to speak from the side of my neck and ignore giving references. I will also fail to establish how this chain is more reliable than another and make further accusations of anarchism because I am a stupid and don’t even know how to wipe my a** properly.

      “13. Using some late texts is ordinary historical practice, especially in Medieval history. Using a text embedded in a work because it seems to accord with the Qur’an does not entail an obligation to use everything in the work and is not a form of “cherry-picking””

      Yes it is.
      Aka I am really cherry picking but trying to make you think I am not cherry picking.

      “14. …This mix of Hellenism, North Arabian religious themes, Nabataean traditions, and Roman Christianity gives context to the Qur’an. Yemen is another such context.”

      Aka we should give commentary of “tafseer” if you will like all Islamic Scholarship has done for the last +1,400 years in accrodance to the various culture existing at the time. If only we had some sort of eyewitness accounts to use… if only…

      “15…Loanshifts and calques on terminology in Greek, Aramaic and Middle Persian are a feature of Qur’anic theological vocabulary.”

      Aka like any language ever.

      “16. Syriac Christian accounts of the seventh century after 636 that mention Islam may be primary for the year of their composition but are not reliable as primary sources for the life of the prophet except where what they report accords with the Qur’an .They are outsider accounts showing no familiarity with the internalities of the tradition and are not primary for 610-632. Used judiciously, however, and where they do not contradict the Qur’an, they can sometimes be useful.”

      Aka they are not reliable and we have no idea about the source as long as we can use anything to twist Islam. Even if they do contradict many things like for example the Prophet(saw) conquering Jerusalem. (See Islam as others saw it).

      “17. The “Muslim Conquests” of the Near East after Muhammad’s death in 632 are a Foucauldian historical rupture, not a continuation of the life and teachings of the Prophet. It is anachronistic to project back into the period 610-632 principles, practices and attitudes of the later seventh century, more especially as presented in eighth- and ninth-century texts.”

      Before I go let me make a few more baseless accusations to really drive home the point I know nothing about Islam. And please remember again I do not know how to wipe my a** properly.

      All in all better paper than the last thing you brought. Thanks for sharing 😉

  11. Thanks @stewjo004 for responding and sharing your comments.

    I did not follow the logic of everything you wrote but I will try to read it again.

    I would appreciate if you can consider the following….

    I don’t agree with the intended implication of all below but I think it is a little jaw-dropping if some of the most prolific hadith narrators of the companions were not enthusiastic about hadith as many hadith zealots are.

    Taken from


    Earlier Muslims prohibited hadiths
    by Siraj Islam

    It is traditionally accepted that the earliest criticism of Hadith goes back to the Prophet himself as he allegedly prohibited recording of hadiths. Also, his immediate successors, the first four Caliphs, reportedly banned and burnt all hadith materials as they tried to prevent creation of secondary authorities next to the Quran.

    Then, along with these successors, many other prominent sahaba, including Ibn Abbas, Abdullah bin Masood, Abdullah bin Omar, Abu Saeed Khudri and Zaid bin Sabit, allegedly held this same vociferous opposition to the narration or writing of the Hadith. Here are a few examples:

    When Zaid bin Sabit the calligrapher, after he was called by Caliph Mur’waan, saw some people writing down hadiths, he said, “It is quite possible that the tradition may not have been explained to you in the same way as it has been written.” (Jama e Biyaan ul Ilm)

    When Zaid bin Sabit had to go to Amir Mua’wiyya, he asked him for a hadith which Zaid explained. The Amir asked a person to write it. Zaid took it from the person who had written the hadith and erased it. He said, it was Messenger’s order not to write anything about him. (Abu Dawood, kitabb ul Ilm)

    A collection was brought before Abdullah bin Masood, that contained some hadiths. He incinerated them and said, “I beg you for God’s sake, whoever has any knowledge of any person in possession of hadith, must let me know, so that I may reach him. Those before you with Divine Books have been annihilated because of this habit. They forgot about the Book of God”. (Jama e Biyaan ul Ilm)

    Ibn Abbas prevented others from writing of hadith. He warned them that previous nations were destroyed due to causes like this, as he used to say: “The communities before you swerved from the right path because of books they wrote like yours.” The same was the situation with Abdullah bin Omar. (Jama e Biyaan ul Ilm)

    When Shaddad asked Ibn Abbas whether the Prophet had left anything behind, he replied: “Only what are inscribed between the pages on the Quran.” (Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawood)

    Abu Nazra asked Abu Saeed Khudri if he could write the hadiths that he heard from his lips? He replied, “Do you intend to make manuscripts?” (Jama e Biyaan ul Ilm)

    After the sahaba, many tabieen, i.e., companions of the companions, such as Allqa, Musrooq, Qasim S’bee, Mansoor, Mugheera, Umsh and many others, as well as many tabe tabieen, reportedly considered recording and following of the Hadith as religiously illegitimate.

    As suggested by further reports, this same negative attitude towards hadiths continued to be a dominant force among earlier generations of Muslims in general. During this period, the strong opposition to hadiths was expressly maintained by many who adhered to groups like Ahl al-Kalam, Kharijite, Khazimiyya, Haruri and Mutazilites, as well as many academic scholars of the time, with strident examples like the Kharijite Abd Allah Ibn Ibad and the Mutaziltes al-Nazzam.

    Apparently by violating this strict prohibition by the Prophet and his closest companions and followers, hadiths gradually surfaced as the so-called second source of Islam, through the process of unreliable oral transmission and fabrication, and then endlessly mushroomed in an almost endless number over a period of many decades. Understandably, this tremendous volume of oral hearsays so much overwhelmed the then hadith scholars that, in order to judge and distinguish between the so-called ‘true’ and ‘false’ hadiths, they were left with no option other than desperately relying on some further hearsays accompanied by their own speculation. Cross-analysis of many historical sources including the Hadith demonstrates how – under the influence of various complex factors including the typical political foul play of the time – all the orthodox schools of Islamic thought were gradually swept over by the growing hadith-centric principles and, consequently, how Muslims of later centuries eventually became diverted from the original Quran-centric teachings of Islam due to their increasing reliance on hadith.

    On this issue, “Hadith as Scripture by prof. Aisha Y. Musa” is an invaluable research work, which Arnold Yasin Mol reviews as follows (part):

    “Without a doubt Prof. Musa shows that the proponents of Hadith as divine authority were the new kids on the block around 800CE as their writings show they were trying to convince the majority of Muslims to accept Hadith as divine. The famous Kitab Jima al-Ilm (The book of the amalgamation of Knowledge) and other works by Imam Shafi are written as a response to other writings which professed the Qur’an alone as divine source and authority. And thus show Qur’an alone was not only present in early Islam, but also dominant among Muslims. It is amazing also to know that no scrap of writing has remained of these Qur’an “alone” scholars. Which in my eyes not only show political influence in the debate (the rulers clearly wanted no traces remained), but also that the arguments supporting Hadith were not as strong as the majority believes. The following of Hadith became dominant as there was no literature remaining that attacked this view. … “The role they (the Hadith) have played has been so influential for so long that both Muslims and non-Muslims alike generally assume they have always uncontested authority. However, a survey of Islamic history shows that the Hadith did not always enjoy such widespread acceptance and authority. … Ignorance of these early disputes has contributed to the common misconception that opposition to the Hadith as an authoritative scriptural source of law and guidance is a modern-day, Western, Orientalist-influenced heresy.” (Introduction to the book)

    Some Islamic scholars have suggested that the original anti-hadith stance by the earlier generations of Muslims led to the ‘Golden Age of Islam’, as the Quran was able to stand up to critical thinking and questioning; and Muslims were thus schooled to be inquisitive and to seek answers to every quandary. Even Jim Al-Khalili, a secular British physicist, noticed:

    “Clearly, the scientific revolution of the Abbasids would not have taken place if not for Islam – in contrast to the spread of Christianity over the preceding centuries, which had nothing like the same effect in stimulating and encouraging original scientific thinking. The brand of Islam between the beginning of the ninth and the end of the 11th century was one that promoted a spirit of free thinking, tolerance and rationalism. The comfortable compatibility between science and religion in medieval Baghdad contrasts starkly with the contradictions and conflict between rational science and many religious faiths in the world today.”

Leave a Reply