Yahoo Answers – Following the Prophet = Following Hadith?

Interesting question in Yahoo Answers today:

I’m facing an internal stuggle about the concept of Quranist and I was wondering if someone could help me.

The quranist argument: My interest in the quranist theory is not to somehow “find a loophole to the strict rules of islam” or to find a way to “westernize islam.” My interest in the concept is to find the true and straight path. Growing up, I tended to ignore the hadith for two reasons, one because my language barrier made reading the hadith difficult and two, because I always felt inherently not attracted to the hadith. I always stuck to the Quran and whenever someone would argue or discuss something with me, I always found myself saying, show me the proof from the quran, but don’t cite the hadith. After a conversation the other day with someone about hadith, I decided that I would stick to the quran for religious guidance alone and I was surprised recently to discover there was a movement of people who felt the same thing– the “quranist movement”. My decision was based on the fact that I felt that hadith and tafsir could be corrupted and that God guaranteed the quran and the quran alone, not to mention that there is the paradox of the prophet (SWT) saying not to record hadith. If it would have been important to record the hadith, then wouldn’t the best of all people (the prophet and the companions) be the ones to record the hadith and not leave it up to people centuries later to try and compile the hadith. If the companions didn’t record the hadith, I feel like this is definitely a sign that hadith was not meant to be recorded. Besides, I feel like Allah (st) ordered muslims to think and that if you do think about the hadith some of it seems so unlogical and requires suspension of logic to follow it and worse, may even take you away from the straight path.

The traditional sunni islam argument: I do agree that in the quran allah instructed muslims to follow the prophet if they wanted guidance. How should we do that if not through the hadith?

Thank you so much for your help ahead of time. I’m not going to start following a certain movement, (because I feel that following a certain group/movement ends up leading people astray by narrowing your choices by forcing you to accept all the beliefs/thoughts of the group). I am intrigued by the concept of the quranist movement, using the quran alone to find spirtual guidance, and may decide to follow that path

My answer was: Does following the Prophet entail following hadith? Have a look at 10/15, the Prophet was commanded to have to said he follows only the Quran. So why don’t we just do the same thing?

Maaz’s question on Contradiction of 4/78-79

Our new member in QRAC, Maaz asked this question: Aren’t these verses contradicting?
”Good and bad everything comes from allah.” (4:78)…
”Good comes from allah and bad is from our own soul.” (4:79)

To me, it’s not because we’re dealing two different realities. Allah’s reality which is the objective reality and the delusion or false reality of the soul (tahwa an-nafs, see 53/32).

related thread on Free Minds

Mushu’s Back Blowing Our Minds

in Quranology Discussions ! This time, it’s about the inheritance laws. Granted, it’s in its embroynic stage, but I think our consideration of 2/280-282 will finally be justified. He said:

For the male [dhakari] is (the) likeness to [mithlu] (the) opulence/satisfaction/free from need [hazzi] of the two females [unthayayni]. 4/11 and 4/176

A few things worthy of note:

The word hazz (opulence/fortune/without need) is used instead of naseeb (share/portion) like in 4/7 and 4/33.

I believe this is important because the majority of us will never inherit a fortune from our parents, or anything that will satiate our needs/desires, which is what the word denotes. So why is this word used instead of naseeb?

The word mithlu (likeness/similar) is used instead of sawaan (equal/equivalent) as in 22/25.

When examining all the other ratios/shares in the rest of the verse, no word like mithlu is used anywhere except in this phrase. It could have said, “for the male is the hazz/naseeb of the two females”. There doesn’t seem to be any reason for the word mithlu to be there if the phrase was actually about a ratio.

Hence, why I question whether this phrase is a ratio at all. It may be suggesting that males are inclined to want more before they are satisfied or feel they are in good circumstance – like as much as the two females. Are we being reminded to keep this in mind when dividing the estate?

3/36 […] And not is the male [l-dhakaru] like the female [kal-unthā]. […]

The phrase in question also appears in 4/176, after the mentioning of “ikhwatun” (brothers, or possibly siblings). Again, the way every other fraction/ratio is worded in the verse, this phrase seems a bit odd.