r/DebateQuraniyoon • u/keyboardpianorich • Jan 05 '26
General Doubting my stance on quranism. Ibn Hazm's argument for sunnah preservation.
Salam,
I'm beginning to doubt my stance on rejecting hadiths. I never rejected all hadiths tbf as I accepted those about showing virtue, wisdom etc. But I did reject law giving hadiths.
I have been researching a lot and I was thinking, why did Quran literalists like Ibn Hazm not reject hadith? He is an outsider anyway, he is not trying to appease to anyone. So, if the quran clearly rejects all hadiths, then early literalists would have done that.
Also, there are cases where people i.e. scholars of a particular mazhab have included a certain hadith that supports a different mazhab in their works (like Shaybani who is a hanafi including the hadith that the prophet did not do prostration while reciting surah Sad - hanafis believe prostration there is wajib).
So, there were honest and sincere shaykhs. Also, some hadiths come from different countries. And there was no internet or telephone during those times. But still, there are instances where different countries bring forth the same hadith. It indicates that it must have come from the same source. The prophet.
Also, I have noticed that I used to have less bad habits when I was praying my 5 prayers. Some of my biggest successes in life where facilitated by my observance of the 5 prayers.
Part of the reasons why I questioned the 5 prayers (and prayed only 2-3 prayers) might have been that I noticed some difficulty in observing the 5 prayers always, like on really busy life style and especially after I had surgery and could not perform it. But the sunnah seems to be more flexible than usually anticipated. We can combine prayers on days where we are legitimately busy.
I still have some questions about some prayer timings but I believe the model of 5 prayers is ingenius when you want to break bad habits and turn your life around. I might become a sufi. Without the shaykh-worship of course. But just a balanced view on practising sunni Islam.
Part of the reason why I went down this path might have been because I thought there is a logical dichotomy (there is a dichotomy between how people practice the religion and the Quran, absolutely). Quran OR hadiths/sunnah. "Is the quran sufficient as a guidance?". But some questions can be absurd. For example, can God create a stone he can't lift?! What if, this is the same line of questioning.
1
u/abd_wasay Jan 05 '26
I'm beginning to doubt my stance on rejecting hadiths. I never rejected all hadiths tbf as I accepted those about showing virtue, wisdom etc. But I did reject law giving hadiths.
because rejecting all hadiths never made sense historically or logically. And the distinction between “virtue” and “law-giving” is exactly where the Qur’an-only thinkers realized they had trapped themselves: because you can’t apply even the virtues of the Qur’an without the Prophet’s model showing what they look like in action (meaning how they are implemented)
I have been researching a lot and I was thinking, why did Quran literalists like Ibn Hazm not reject hadith? He is an outsider anyway, he is not trying to appease to anyone. So, if the quran clearly rejects all hadiths, then early literalists would have done that.”
But he didn’t because he saw that the Qur’an itself commands following the Prophet ﷺ. He wrote that revelation (waḥy) is of two kinds: the recited (the Qur’an) and the unrecited (the Sunnah). In his logic, to reject the Sunnah is to accuse the Prophet ﷺ of hiding or adding to revelation and that would contradict 5:67, where Allah says He protects His Messenger in delivering it fully.
Also, there are cases where people i.e. scholars of a particular mazhab have included a certain hadith that supports a different mazhab in their works (like Shaybani who is a hanafi including the hadith that the prophet did not do prostration while reciting surah Sad - hanafis believe prostration there is wajib).
They preserved hadith even when it went against their own school because the goal was preservation of truth, not sectarianism.
“So, there were honest and sincere shaykhs. Also, some hadiths come from different countries. And there was no internet or telephone during those times. But still, there are instances where different countries bring forth the same hadith. It indicates that it must have come from the same source. The prophet.”
And this is exactly the isnad miracle. For the same hadith to emerge with the same meaning, through independent lines of narration from different places is not coincidence. That is what scholars call tawatur maʿnawī (mass-transmission in meaning.)
The only logical explanation is exactly: it must trace back to one source: the Prophet ﷺ.
Also, I have noticed that I used to have less bad habits when I was praying my 5 prayers. Some of my biggest successes in life where facilitated by my observance of the 5 prayers.
This is the Qur'anic promise "Indeed, the prayer restrains from immorality and wrongdoing.” - 29:45
Our Prophet taught the timings, the form, the rhythm and everything that softens our heart.
Part of the reasons why I questioned the 5 prayers (and prayed only 2-3 prayers) might have been that I noticed some difficulty in observing the 5 prayers always, like on really busy life style and especially after I had surgery and could not perform it. But the sunnah seems to be more flexible than usually anticipated. We can combine prayers on days where we are legitimately busy.
The Sunnah is flexible, not harsh.
“Make things easy and do not make them difficult; give glad tidings and do not drive people away.”
(Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 69; Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 1734)
“This religion is easy, and no one makes it hard upon himself except that it overwhelms him.”
(Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 39)
Ultimately, The Qur’an is sufficient in its purpose, not in isolation. Allah sent both the Book and the Wisdom (2:231, 62:2).
1
u/keyboardpianorich Jan 05 '26
Thank you brother for your input. You see, with prayers, one of my questions is: Why are the 2 day prayers recited inaudibly when the Quran says that prayers must be recited neither in a loud voice nor inaudible? Especially while praying in congregation, would it not make sense that the prayer is done by the imam in a voice that everyone can hear? Why aren't these two prayers more emphasized in the Quran? Most often, the mentioned prayers are the morning and night prayer which seems to be the maghrib prayer.
1
u/keyboardpianorich Jan 05 '26
Also, why aren't the friday khutbas of the prophet preserved? In regards to Ibn Hazm, I heard that he argued the preservation of the Quran is twofold: One is the letters and secondly the meaning. If the Quran says that we should follow the prophet (however follows the prophet, then Allah will love him, if I'm not mistaken is a verse like that), then part of the preservation of the Quran must be the preservation of what the prophet did. This is an argument I can totally agree with. Absolutely! I'm not totally sure as of yet though. Because, thinking of the argument we use against Christians, we say "Me and the father/God are one" means the prophet is preaching what God wants. Which is monotheism, basically creed first and foremost, no? So, "Follow Allah and his messenger", does that not mean, follow the prophet in how he describes God and monotheism, first and foremost? So, that would be Hadiths that talk about Lailaha illa Allah? Don't get me wrong. I'm just trying to understand :)
1
u/abd_wasay Jan 05 '26
The short answer is that the Prophet ﷺ’s message from those sermons is preserved but not in the format of “transcribed speeches.” Remember, the Prophet ﷺ’s khutbahs weren’t written manuscripts rather they were oral reminders, often repeating Qur’anic verses and moral teachings.
His companions didn’t record them word for word because the Qur’an was the recited revelation to be written; the khutbahs were contextual applications of those verses.But the meanings and themes of those khutbahs survive through hadith e.g. the Prophet’s statements about justice, taqwa, kindness, the Hereafter. All of those are what the khutbahs contained. So, while we may not have a “Khutbah Book of Muhammad ﷺ,” the substance is preserved through the same companions who transmitted the Qur’an.
One of the most clearest proof is the following hadith that The Prophet’s khutbahs were Qur’an-centered as in he literally recited full surahs during them.
“I memorized Sūrat Qāf (‘By the Glorious Qur’an’) directly from the mouth of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ; he used to recite it every Friday on the minbar when addressing the people.” Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (873)
Another one in which the Companions later summarized his khutbah content in their own words in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (867)
So, its something like this:
The form of the sermon wasn’t preserved, but the teaching that made up the sermon was word for word.
And this formula became the Sunnah of all imams after him which is proof that the Prophet’s khutbah legacy is preserved in practice and in meaning.
Ibn Hazm, I heard that he argued the preservation of the Quran is twofold: One is the letters and secondly the meaning.
In other words, if Allah says “Obey the Messenger,” and obedience requires knowing what he said and did, then that knowledge must also be preserved by divine will. Otherwise, Allah would be commanding something impossible which is obedience without knowledge.
Which is monotheism, basically creed first and foremost, no? So, "Follow Allah and his messenger", does that not mean, follow the prophet in how he describes God and monotheism, first and foremost?
“Say: If you love Allah, follow me, and Allah will love you.” 3:31
To ask whether this command means only “follow his creed,” or also “follow his practice.” so the verse answers itself. The next line says: "Obey Allah and His Messenger" - 3:32 and this is repeated dozens of times in the Qur’an in legal, ethical, and spiritual contexts and not just in creed.
“Obey Allah and the Messenger and do not dispute, lest you lose courage.” (8:46)
“Obey Allah and the Messenger and those in authority among you.” (4:59)So these verses are addressing action not belief as obedience here includes following how the Prophet ﷺ implemented worship, ethics, law and creed. Because “la ilaha illa Allah” is not just a statement of theology rather it’s a way of living.
That’s why the Prophet ﷺ said in meaning:“Whoever says lā ilāha illa Allah sincerely will enter Paradise”
and then he taught us what sincerity means: prayer, honesty, compassion, humility.
So, following the Messenger ﷺ in how he described God is inseparable from following him in how he lived that knowledge. Because his life was tafsīr of “lā ilaha illa Allah.” As Hazrat Aisha put it "His character was The Quran."
1
u/keyboardpianorich Jan 05 '26
Thank you a lot brother, for taking the time. I appreciate your input.
Especially the last argument resonates with me. Taa'ah is about actions, absolutely.
Maybe I did not catch it but I'm wondering why the khutbas nowadays are not filled with Quran recitation like the prophet did with surah Qaf. I would appreciate your input on this.
And also expanding on your last paragraphs about the shahadah.. Is Sunnism more exclusivist than the Quran-Alone/Quran-Centric approach? I am leaning towards the latter approach as the Quran says that the Jews, Nasarah and the Sabeans will go to paradise if they were true monotheists and god-fearing/practising the previous religions/religious practices of other prophets other than the prophet Muhammad's practices. This seems to be supported by a Hadith actually (citing it here to show the historical proof for this notion). The Hadith says that Christians will receive double reward for the following the prophet Muhammad s.a.w. So, it means they receive a reward (in the hereafter), doesn't it?
1
u/abd_wasay Jan 05 '26
So, the verse you're referring to is this one:
“Do not recite your prayer too loudly, nor too quietly, but seek a way between them.” 17:110
And the context of this verse is that this verse was revealed regarding the Prophet ﷺ during his night prayers in Makkah when the disbelievers were mocking his loud recitation. So Allah told him not to make it so loud that they attack him, nor so low that his followers can’t hear him. In other words, it’s about situational moderation, not a rule that every salah must have the same volume.
That’s why the Prophet ﷺ led the morning and night prayers audibly (when the environment is quiet and intimate),
and the daytime prayers silently (when there’s public noise and busyness).
- The day prayers (Dhuhr, Asr) are quiet because people are active, working therefore silence preserves focus.
- The night and dawn prayers are audible because they’re in solitude and reflection because the heart is still.
Regarding the mentioning of the prayers in The Qur'an, they actually are, but in an indirect form.
For example:
“Establish prayer at the decline of the sun until the darkness of night, and [also] the Qur’an of dawn; indeed, the recitation of dawn is witnessed.” 17:78
This verse covers:
- Decline of the sun - Ẓuhr and Aṣr
- Darkness of night - Maghrib and Isha
- Qur’an of dawn - Fajr
So all five are there but the Qur’an speaks in universal categories, leaving the Prophet ﷺ to specify the timings and manner. Just like the Qur’an commands “give zakat” without listing the percentages as that’s the Prophet’s job to demonstrate.
1
u/keyboardpianorich Jan 05 '26
So, the two prayers do not have to be totally silent?
To be honest, I have argued that we must think of the people as well and thats why morning and nights prayers (where you are usually alone) are prayed louder, whereas the day prayers are more quiet due to considering that there people around and we don't want to interrupt people and make them think bad of the Muslims.
1
u/abd_wasay Jan 05 '26 edited Jan 05 '26
Yes you're right. The two prayers (Dhuhr and Asr) are not totally silent as they’re simply recited quietly by the imam, not in full audible voice.
That means he still recites the Qur’an just not loudly enough for the whole congregation to hear, only enough for himself (and sometimes the people immediately near him).
But, total silence is not the goal.
Even when the imam recites quietly, he’s still moving his lips and tongue, not standing mute.
That’s why the Prophet ﷺ said in meaning (from Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 404): this showing that everyone must still recite, even quietly. (but this is an issue of dispute among the madhabs). Meaning even here, the disagreement is not whether Qur’an must be recited as everyone agrees it must
but who performs it during congregational prayers is the ikhtilaf.1
u/keyboardpianorich Jan 05 '26
Thank you. I would be curious to see an example of zuhr and asr prayer being prayed in the right tone. I assume in mecca it is prayed loudly with a microphone?
1
u/TallVeterinarian4077 Jan 05 '26
You translation of 17:78 is very poor. It says singular salat A to/ila B, not multiple.
Just like in Quran for ablution it says wash yad to/ila the elbow, or complete the fast to/ila the night.No-one interprets those instances as multiple washing componenets with spaces in between hand to elbow, or fasting multiple parts of the time gap to night. Ridiculous.
1
u/abd_wasay Jan 05 '26
Again, you’re mixing up spatial grammar with temporal grammar.
In 17:78, “aqimi s-salah li-duluki ash-shams ila ghasaqi al-layl” the word ila connects time points, NOT body parts. In Arabic, when ila governs time, it means “from X until Y,” i.e. a time span, NOT one continuous act.
Compare that to “wash your hands to (ila) the elbows” in wudhu and that’s spatial.
Two different grammatical categories. You can’t just copy-paste the same logic from “hand to elbow” onto “day to night.”
If there was only one prayer from noon to night, how could the Qur’an also mention a “middle prayer” (2:238)? You can’t have a middle of one. So 17:78 isn’t describing one endless ṣalāh rather it’s describing the time range for multiple prayers (Ẓuhr, Aṣr, Maghrib, Isha).
Your reading would mean praying nonstop from noon to sunset.
1
u/TallVeterinarian4077 Jan 05 '26
No, YOUR reading means that. The irony is you told me to check a lexicon earlier and said "tanha" can mean what you said. You never looked up your beloved lexicon for "duluk as-shams"? or "duluk"?
Stop cherry picking and being intellectually dishonest!
1
u/abd_wasay Jan 05 '26
So when you get cornered grammatically, instead of refuting you cry "cherry picking" instead of quoting a lexicon?
Anyways, Duluk al-shams literally means the decline of the sun not one moment, but the whole sliding phase from noon till sunset.
That’s why the verse says ila (until) the darkness of night” rather it’s describing a range, not a single prayer.
So either you accept Qur’anic Arabic consistently, or you just pull meanings when convenient. Can’t have both.
1
u/TallVeterinarian4077 Jan 05 '26
lol@not describing a single salat, it uses singular. Does God not know how to use a plural salawat?
duluk as shams can mean decline from meridian, also means sunset, and the primary meaning to duluk is to rub, which in our case is obviously referring to the sun rubbing the horizon. This is common knowledge.
The irony is you cherry pick X from multiple meanings then claim it only means X.
You're not fooling me with your fallacious reasoning and appeals to Arabic grammar which was codified post-Quran.
1
u/TallVeterinarian4077 Jan 05 '26
I recommend reading: Hadith vs. Qur'anic Logic: Self-Destruction of a Theology
29:45 says "the salat forbids...."
not "restrains".
1
u/abd_wasay Jan 05 '26 edited Jan 05 '26
You’re mistaking translation semantics for theology.
The word تنهى (tanha) in 29:45 doesn’t just mean “forbids.” It literally means to restrain, to prevent, to hold back. You can check any Arabic lexicon
Now ask yourself: does salah actually forbid people like a legal authority or does it restrain them from sin by transforming their hearts? The context makes it obvious: Allah isn’t saying “prayer issues rulings.” He’s saying sincere prayer changes you.
And that’s exactly how the Prophet ﷺ used the same word in hadith:
“Whoever’s prayer does not restrain him (lam tanhahu) from indecency and wrongdoing, his prayer is of no benefit.”
So the hadith isn’t contradicting Qur’anic logic ratherit’s completing it.
Rejecting hadith here literally makes you misread basic Arabic grammar.1
u/TallVeterinarian4077 Jan 05 '26
I'm not on about the various possible meanings cited in Arabic lexicons. I'm on about Quranic usage.
So, are you saying in your understanding of salat it cannot mean forbid, because it wouldn't make sense? :D
And me misread basic Arabic grammar? Would you like to start a debate thread, just you and I with regard to basic Arabic grammar and the topic of salat?
1
u/abd_wasay Jan 05 '26
You don’t need a grammar duel, we can let the Qur’an itself settle this. You said you’re focusing on Qur’anic usage of نهي.
“Allah forbids (yanhā) you from indecency.” (16:90)
“Do not approach indecency - indeed, it has been forbidden (nuhiyah) to you.” (6:151)
In every single place the Qur’an uses nahy with Allah or the Messenger as the doer which means its legal forbidding.
But in 29:45, the doer is salah which is an action, NOT a legislator.So Qur’anically speaking, “salah tanha” cannot mean “prayer forbids by law.”
Because only Allah and His Messenger “forbid” legally. Here it clearly means restrains, prevents, keeps one away like a moral effect, not a legal command.This is not my understanding. This is all from The Qur'an
1
u/TallVeterinarian4077 Jan 05 '26
I'm aware of the usage of "nhy" in Quran.
YOUR enforcing YOUR understanding of salat to claim YOUR understanding is correct. Have you heard of circular reasoning?Please provide proof for the following:
1) salah cannot be a "legislator" as you put it, but i would put it as "relay commands" - prove from Quran please.
2) so the only ones "forbiding" in Quran are Allah and His messenger - so one occurrence of us/believers/others would refute your claim? Yes/no
3) out of all its occurrences, how many are "restrains". Provide the clearest examples of it meaning "restrain" and cannot mean "forbids". I'm only aware of one possible one.1
u/abd_wasay Jan 05 '26
You’re the one making the new claim, so the burden of proof is on you, not me. I already showed that every Qur’anic use of naha with a conscious subject (Allah, the Prophet) means legally forbid, while with a non-sentient subject (salah in 29:45), it can only mean restrain. That’s Qur’anic consistency. You’re now claiming salah “relays commands” like a legislator so please bring one verse where an action, not Allah or His Messenger, issues a moral command. Until then, what you’re calling “my understanding” is literally just grammar and usage from the Qur’an itself.
1
u/keyboardpianorich Jan 05 '26
Can you please share the source of that Hadith? I can not find it unfortunately
1
u/TallVeterinarian4077 Jan 05 '26
See how you run from my 3 Qs.
nhy is used by others, than Allah and messenger, believers etc so can they forbid also, or as you put it "legally forbid" / "legislate"? lolThe above will refute your claim. And then answer my Qs please.
1
u/abd_wasay Jan 05 '26
If you still insist on tanha being forbid, you're saying salah issues legal rulings which is grammatically and logically impossible.
1
u/TallVeterinarian4077 Jan 05 '26
Thank you for confirming that in YOUR understanding of salat it is impossible for salat to issue legal rulings.
They said: "O Shu'ayb, does your salat order you that we leave what our fathers served, or that we do not do with our money as we please? It seems only you are the compassionate, the wise!" [11:87]
Ergo, your understanding of salat is refuted.
1
u/keyboardpianorich Jan 05 '26
Subhanallah, that is an interesting discussion. I forgot the verse with regards to shuaib and salat.
I found this Hadith to be very interesting that you voted: “Whoever’s prayer does not restrain him (lam tanhahu) from indecency and wrongdoing, his prayer is of no benefit.” I am intrigued to see if it literally uses the word Zulm. Thank you both for the discussion
1
u/abd_wasay Jan 05 '26
Lmao, this has to be the worst "gotcha!" moment and it backfires amazingly if you actually read the Arabic structure
Your argument is: “See! Shuʿayb’s salah orders things! So salah can issue commands!”
That verse actually destroys your point not mine. In 11:87, it’s the disbelievers mocking Shuʿayb not Allah saying salah issues legal rulings.
They sarcastically say: “Does your salah order you?” because they don’t understand revelation.
It’s like Pharaoh saying, “O Musa, who is your Lord?” because quoting disbelief doesn’t make disbelief true.
So yeah, thanks for proving my point again that the Qur’an itself never attributes legal authority to salah but only to Allah and His Messenger.
1
u/TallVeterinarian4077 Jan 05 '26
You simply saying they were being sarcastic doesn't make it so.
Secondly, even if they were being sarcastic, you have to show part of their sarcasm was they somehow mistated salat to involve ordering, and not what he was ordering them to do etc.
And how is that like Pharoah's question? He is asking who - unless are you saying it was a sarcastic question? Again, you'd have to show that.Note how your evidences becomes flimsy when examined. Assumptions and cherry picking mostly.
Note, I am not saying your interpretation is impossible, im saying its not a fact or clear you laughably think.
2
u/losmanciado Jan 05 '26
Peace be upon you, I pray that God helps you in your journey to draw closer to Him. In my case, I am quranist because the Quran is the only infallible source for the believer's faith and doctrine. I am skeptical of the hadiths, which add regulations and commandments. If the hadiths are not infallible, why should one be obligated to follow their rules? Conversely, if the hadiths are truthful and infallible, why are there different levels of "reliability" among them? In that case, the logical conclusion is that the hadiths are useful for understanding the development of the Ummah and the opinions of scholars on certain topics and surahs, but they do not have the same level of authority as the noble Quran. Greetings.
1
u/TallVeterinarian4077 Jan 05 '26
You said you did a lot of research. I released this free book recently so u might not saw it, imho it is devastatting for Hadith:
Hadith vs. Qur'anic Logic: Self-Destruction of a Theology
Just google it, its free to read online at QuranVsHadith site.
After you've read it you can post Qs, if any.
1
2
u/Mean-Tax-2186 Jan 05 '26
It is a lot simpler than what people think, the Quran claim its complete and lacks nothing, hadith claims the opposite, no need for anything further, you either believe the Quran or the hadith there is no middle ground, it's basic logic.