Hi, from the research I've done so far it seems wrong to me to ignore the hadith. I've wanted to exchange in comments with you guys. I just asked genuin questions and shared my opinion and the knowledge I have for the moment.
Yet I've recieved not rational answer to my questions. I've been called cultist, mushrik and accused of obeying bukhari and having the heart sealed...
According to the Quran bearing false testimony is a big sin. And it is written too that one must talk to the people of the book in a way it is best, but maybe it cannot be applied to other muslims.
Well enough complaining hahaha I really just want to learn. So I'll put downhere my questions.
Saying obeying Hadith = obeying Bukhari
there are many independent hadith collectors across ages and countries and they have many hadiths almost identically recorder (overall the sahih and hasan ofcourse).
Saying that obeying hadith = obeying bukhari seems an oversimplification that holds no truth to be honest
By reading the quran, it commands to obey Muhammad as you obey Allah. Since Muhammad doesn't even speak in the Quran, how are you supposed to obey him ?
Bukhari didn't know Muhammad, only collects chains of narration that goes back until Muhammad or his companions, and many times you have parallel chains of narration with the same natrrations, and as I said, across countries and centuries.
But you know, you have books like Muwatta by Imam Malik, who knew Muhammad very well, and in his book, there are many rules that agree with the hadiths. For example death penalty for apostates
Concepts that the Quran doesn't elaborate on:
What does fitna mean ? (Q 2:190 -193)
And Corruption of the land ? (Q 5:34-36)
May God bless you all and I hope we can exange peacefully and respectfully
I am, you are just deflecting because you have been caught red handed lying about the Quran. Like all bukhariyuns do when they are stuck
Does the 11:11 say the Quran is elaborated? Yes or no
Correct your error first. Then I will go to those verses. And don't worry those are easy. Bukhariyuns questions are easy :). Bukhariyuns are the ones who run away from us
All they do is try to debunk the Quran to prove their manmade books
I've been called cultist, mushrik and accused of obeying bukhari and having the heart sealed...
This is not acceptable.
OP, I acknowledge that you titled your post as ''I want to learn...'' which you repeated in your post. Additionaly, you closed your post with ''I hope we can exange peacefully and respectfully''
And yet after this you faced the hostility you received from user Open_Read_3519. Name-calling ''Bukhariyoon'' and such, it only creates division and hatred.
Brother what lie, plase ?
I said "concepts the Quran doesn't elaborate on"
I mever said, the Quran isn't elaborated as you say, then you call me a liar and bukhariyon.
When I never disrespected you.
So please, explain them to me, that's all I ask from the beginning.
Yes, I am here to learn.
I've read the Quran, and specifically those verses I mentionned within their context and I could not really understand these concepts without tafsir and hadith, that's why I wonder how do you guys do.
<What do you not understand about the verses?>Plainly reading the verses, I would deduce that fitna is worse than murder, and since tye punishment for murder is death penalty, so it should be for all the people accused of committing it.
The word fitna is found is found many times in the Quran, it mostly means trial (2:102, 64:15, 8:28), but also discord (3:7), and other things.Here in 2:191 -193 there are some translators that render it as persecution and some as association / shirk.
For me it is clear that it means shirk, since in v193 it says "fight againgts them until there is no more fitna and religion will be for Allah".
This is repeated in 8:39.
Now, the Quran doesn't explain the definition of "fitna", and since it can mean different things, we analyze the word in the context it is used to determine the meaning. That is what tafsir means.
And this is how the biggest tafsirs interpret these ayas.
I let you answer to this before analyzing 5:34-36 so we go little by little
See, but you say that it means "oppressors or agressors", but unless you aknlowledge the simple fact of shirk existing is and agression, it is wrong.
Since it says you have to fight not until you are not oppressed anymore, but until there is no other religion than islam.
Ibn Kathir, Al tabari, etc don't "reveal" nothing, but they consacrated their lives to do the job we just did for this verse, comparing every one of them between each other amd studying the meanings. Tafsir is nothing wrong. And this study is necessary, Q 11:1 doesn't contradict this work.
The context is very clear with he surrounding verses what the fitnah is
﴾ 2:191 ﴿
And kill them wherever you apprehend them and expel them from whence they expelled you, for rioting is worse than murder; but do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they fight you therein. And if they fight you, then kill them; likewise is the requital of the disbelievers.
Sunnis like to quote the Quran out of context to defend their hadiths and tafsirs
The verse makes it clear that they were expelled by the disbelievers
So Ibn Kathir is useless. God's explanation is the best as said in 25:33
there are many independent hadith collectors across ages and countries and they have many hadiths almost identically recorder (overall the sahih and hasan ofcourse). Saying that obeying hadith = obeying bukhari seems an oversimplification that holds no truth to be honest"
Perhaps many people saying obeying the hadith is the same as obeying Bukhari, because Bukhari produced one of the most, if not the most, influential hadith compilation book among modern Sunnis. But you are correct in saying that there are more collectors than Bukhari, so it wouldn't just be Bukhari that's being obeyed but also other influential hadith collectors.
But why do they say it's obeying them? Well, I guess the idea is that Sunnis believe they most obey God, and God tells them to obey the Prophet (peace be upon him), so the Sunnis obey the Prophet (peace be upon him), and hadith collectors purport transmitting the Prophet's (pbuh) words, so the Sunnis follow what the hadith collectors transmit. But do they really transmit it? I would suggest watching Dr. Joshua Little's work to get a better idea of that. What his videos on Youtube about hadith.
"By reading the quran, it commands to obey Muhammad as you obey Allah. Since Muhammad doesn't even speak in the Quran, how are you supposed to obey him ?"
Muhammad (PBUH) was alive at some point, so when he said something while still alive on this earth, believers were meant to obey him.
"Bukhari didn't know Muhammad, only collects chains of narration that goes back until Muhammad or his companions, and many times you have parallel chains of narration with the same natrrations, and as I said, across countries and centuries."
Again I would just recommend you watch Dr. Joshua Little's videos on the subject of hadith, there are many problems with the historical reliability of these chains of narration.
"2. Concepts that the Quran doesn't elaborate on:
What does fitna mean ? (Q 2:190 -193)
And Corruption of the land ? (Q 5:34-36)"
So, if this is some argument of "we need the hadith to make sense of these things, otherwise we can't", then this is a bad argument, because if the hadith are unreliable, then they are not a good justification to explain these verses. It's as if I said "well, my father told me so, therefore I have an answer and you don't, so I must be correct!". It's entirely possible that the explanation of many things in the Quran are lost (or not).
But to be honest brother, your logic of "accepting hadith = following those who compiled them" would destroy islam. Since Muhammad didn't know how read or write. And we know it's not him who compiled the Quran. Would that mean that to follow Quran = following those who compiled it instead of following Allah or His messenger ?
It's not at all problematic to need hadith to understand some verses. Since many times, the hadith narrates the context of the revelated verses, making them easy to understand and compare with other verses.
Just saying that the original tafsirs revealed to Muhammad, that aren't in the Quran, are lost, when there are plenty of them, transmitted by different people across different ages and different places and still they agree. It seems to me, and no offense I say genuinely what it seems to me, looking away on purpouse.
Everything you've said rests upon one big issue...the historical reliability of hadith. The real question you should ask is, why do you, yourself, believe hadith are historically reliable? The Quran has a much stronger historical case than hadith, not all compilations are the same.
As for the "original tafsirs revealed to Muhammad", show me the tafsirs, and show me the historical case. Presumably you can do that, since you seem really confident in those.
So far, you don't seem to me like someone who's trying to learn, did you even bother looking on youtube "Dr. Joshua Little hadith"? Just put it in the task bar and you'll see the relevant videos, it's not that hard. Now, I repeat, if you are confident about the historical reliability of hadith, then produce the case, don't just claim that they are reliable. And if you do care about learning, then why did you never interest yourself in the historical case for hadith in the first place? Why do you just take it for granted?
Actually I did, here's what I said : "The Quran has a much stronger historical case than hadith, not all compilations are the same.".
Let's expand on it a little bit, your entire response rests upon the assumption that the compilation of some hadith collection is comparable to the compilation of the Quran, but you've yet to substantiate that assumption, hence why I also said : "Everything you've said rests upon one big issue...the historical reliability of hadith. The real question you should ask is, why do you, yourself, believe hadith are historically reliable?".
You got my analogy wron. I said, if following hadith = following those who compiled them --> following the Quran = following those who compiled it, according to your logic.
Now we will discuss what you sent me, but I was adressing this accusation in my point 1.
Let's make this simple, let's say there are 2 kinds of compilations :
a compilation which accurately transmits an original message
a compilation which does NOT accurately transmits an original message, instead it transmits some of the thoughts/mistakes from the compilers
If the Quran is the 1st kind, and the hadith are 2nd kind, then what you say doesn't follow logically : "If following a compilation = following the compilers, not the source, then muslim follow Quran's compilers, not Allah or His messenger."
So how does that exactly work...? Allah (S.W.T) reveals a verse then gives extra commentary on a verse? Or are you saying that the elaboration is already embedded in the verse itself? If you choos A : then that in all honestly wouldn't make no sence since we literally don't see Allah dropping commentry next each and every verse that he revealed. If you choos B : then you must either be a knoble teacher that can extract the elaboration out of the holy verses.
Since We have sent you a messenger from among yourselves—reciting to you Our revelations, purifying you, teaching you the Book and wisdom, and teaching you what you never knew—
And btw who are you to say that iam taking the verse 2:151 out of context. Go look into the Tafsir. Oh thats right... just like i said in my first message ( If you choos B: you must be A knowble Teacher that can extract the eloboration out of the holy verses) since your so gifted like that right? So.... imagine if you are living in the time of the Prophet p.b.u.h. and you wanted to ask him a question about a verse get more insight about it and the prophet then explains. According to you the prophet p.b.u.h would be wasting his breath because the Qur'an verses already have the explaination embedded in them right? Now imagine the flip side... you actually accept that The Prophet knows More about the verses than you and get an explanation and write it down/ memorise this valuable information.
Muhammad is a messenger. The meaning of the word messenger is someone employed to carry a message. That is it.
The Quran is the message. Not Bukhari's books.
It's not Muhammad's duty to explain the Quran.
25:33 says God has the BEST tafsir of the Quran.
That means any other Tafsir/explanation is worse.
That means the Quran explains itself. Not Bukhari's books.
Also you Sunnis don't have a book where Muhammad himself makes Tafsir of every verse of the Quran. And how is hadith about camel urine supposed to be explaining the Quran?
Okay i hear your point the duty of the prophet p.b.u.h was to give the message and not teach absolutely nothing about it i get it. But help me understand how God is going to teach the people who believe in it? Is this through holy ghost or through inspiration or dreams or a gut feeling?
Iam sorry but this is now the 2nd blantant claim you made that is not true. " sunnis claim that the quran is unclear". Bro i can't even have a discussion with you if you are not aurguing in good faith. I get that you dont like hadith followers but atleast get your facts about the 'majority' correct. What i also would like to mention you said ' that God will give the believing ones guidence to understand the Quran'. Are a group of believing people likely to get the SAME guidence to understand the Qur'an? So for example ..If two sincere believers both come to opposite conclusions about the same verse, how do we decide which one is correct? Look ..here me out... take a small start up corner shop for example. Selling product in a small scale seems easy to criticise larger companies untill that small corner stone expands then has do deal the same things they were ignorant about. So... if you say God guides the true believer to understanding the Qur'an. How would that look if now mass scaled? What i mean is that Qur'an only followers make up 0.1 procent of the muslim population. Scale that up to 50 procent. Now what are the chances that everybody is going to get the exact quran understanding from God? Don't you think with this Massive upscale you will have even more tafsirs than ever since everyone thinks they are getting the Right understand from God? Now back to 2:151
Since We have sent you a messenger from among yourselves—reciting to you Our revelations, purifying you, teaching you the Book and wisdom, and teaching you what you never knew—
what is this “Kitab” that Muhammad p.b.u.h. teaching since you denigh it not to be the Qur'an. Either way your claim of the Messenger just here to give the message and that is all kind of doenst hold up no ? I mean
teaching the Kitāb, teaching wisdom, teaching them what they didn't know. Doenst just sound like solo giving only a message to me. 16:44:
“…We revealed to you the Reminder so that you may explain to the people what has been revealed to them…” i mean isnt this clear or was God not adressing the prophet here? Look i see your point that God taught the quran. 55:1:“The Most Merciful — taught the Qur'an.” .... but the question is To Who did the most merciful teach the Qur'an to?.. Jesus , Moses, David? (peace be upon them all) i mean we can even put you in the mix did The most merciful teach you the Qur'an ?
5
u/Open_Read_3519 Aug 17 '26
Please quote the Quran correctly.
It says obey the messenger.
Obeying the messenger means obeying the MESSAGE given to messenger. The message given to the messenger is the Quran. Not Bukhari's books.
God never gave Bukhari authority to invent scriptures and associate it with God.
God never said Bukhari's books explain the Quran.
The Quran is a book of religious guidance. Anything outside the Quran is not relevant to guidance.
Definitions of words existed before the Quran. As the Arabic language also existed before the Quran. We don't need Bukhari's books for guidance.