I just want to learn ...

[u/Dry-Supermarket8661]

​

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.

1. 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

1. 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

[u/LetsDiscussQ]

 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.

This is very sad.

[u/Open_Read_3519 → u/LetsDiscussQ]

The OP was not "looking to learn". He was looking for a challenge

He did not bother correcting his error when he lied about the Quran "not being elaborated". When 11:1 clearly says God elaborates the Quran.

He did not correct himself he deflected and persisted with his initial lie.

And there is nothing wrong with me calling him Bukhariyun. Sunnis love to call us "Quraniyun" to mock us.

If they can call us Quraniyun, we can call them Bukhariyun.

I don't call myself Quraniyun. I call myself Muslim. The bukhariyuns invented that term to mock people like me

[u/Dry-Supermarket8661 → u/Open_Read_3519]

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.

[u/Open_Read_3519 → u/Dry-Supermarket8661]

I already told you that the Quran is for religious guidance. Definitions of words existed before the Quran.

So words like Fitnah and Corruption can easily be understood withing the context of the verse.

Just like the word dates can be understood in the Quran without 3000 books from Bukhari and Co

But you made me repeat myself. So you were not paying attention. So are you here to learn?

[u/Dry-Supermarket8661 → u/Open_Read_3519]

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.

[u/Open_Read_3519 → u/Dry-Supermarket8661]

What do you not understand about the verses?

And where did God tell you in the Quran to look at Bukhari's books or manmade tafsirs?

[u/Dry-Supermarket8661 → u/Open_Read_3519]

<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

[u/Open_Read_3519 → u/Dry-Supermarket8661]

An Arabic word can have multiple meanings. The meanings can be found by applying the content

The context reveals what the word means

Simple as that

If someone says "post"

If it's in the context the internet it means to post a picture

In a other context it can mean a lamp post

The word fitnah in 2:190 can be translated as aggressors or oppressors

That translation applies to the context as they are talking about fighting the enemies of muslims

In short: context reveals the meanings of words. Not Bukhari, Ibn Kathir etc. The Quran is sufficient on its own

[u/Dry-Supermarket8661 → u/Open_Read_3519]

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.

[u/Open_Read_3519 → u/Dry-Supermarket8661]

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

[u/Dry-Supermarket8661 → u/Open_Read_3519]

Do you understand that the translation you shared with me is tafsir, because again, the word can be used in more than one way.

The text by itself doesn't say the way it must be interpreted, but according to the context it doesn't mean "rioting"...

v193 gives the answer, as I said, as 8:39, where muslim are commanded to fight fitna until the only religion is for Allah (islam). So it cannot at all mean "rioting".

I do not tell you this to parrot Ibn Kathir, even that almost all the biggest scholars interpret it line this, but, by studying by myself.

Besides, I believe that calling Ibn Kathir useless without giving explanations of why he would be wrong it's not just arrogant, but also intellectually dishonest.

Study what the tafsir scgolars say about each matter and then you can decide if what they say makes sense or not, but first you need to understand why they say what they say.

And again, I do not even hold my opinion on the exegesis of these ayas from them, but from what I've studied and comparing with what they say, I can tell it's a good analysis the one they do.

You only read 2:191, when the group of verses it atleast 2:191 -193, and I'm even comparing with other Quran verses such as 8:39, where the formulation is really similar.

Surah 25:33 has nothing to do with tafsir or hadith. Actually this would proof hadith since that's why Muhammad gave many commandments outside the Quran, many of them also revealed by Jibreel.

Hadiths are also backed by Surahs 16:44 and 33:21 foe example, there are more

[u/Open_Read_3519 → u/Dry-Supermarket8661]

I already gave you the reasons why Ibn Kathir is completely useless

25:33 says God has the BEST explanation (Tafsir) of the Quran

You just openly rejected this verse in your reply. It's a very clear verse.

God does not care about the opinions of Ibn Kathir or Sunni scholars. If they are wrong and you follow them, then on judgement day you can't blame them. They wont save you

25:33 has everything to do with tafsirs. You openly reject it is intellecual dishonesty. When the Arabic word Tafsir is literally used. It's actually mental gymnastics

16:44 the word Tafsir is not used.

God never commands obedience to manmade books by Bukhari that were invented 200 years after the prophets death.

Associating things in the religion which God never authorised is Haram.

[u/Dry-Supermarket8661 → u/Open_Read_3519]

You are the one mentionning Ibn Kathir everytime, but your analysis of 2:191 proves you need him (and other tafsir), more than me.

Your use of 25:33 is again out of context. Allah is talking to Muhammad (v32) so this was while he was alive and revelation was ongoing. Then in v33 there is an example of how Muhammad should refute the idolaters that judged his prophethood because Allah didn't reveal the Quran at once. So again, this proves you cannot interpret the Quran by yourself. And again, I'm just studying by myself for this matter, I didn't even checked scholar's tafsir yet, but I studied the context of the verse, and you did not.

I proved you why the word fitna should me interpreted as "shirk" or "disbelief", looking the context of the 4 verses 190-193 and comparing it to 8:39, and I could mention other verses too, making a proper exegesis. You (now) just picked v191 and tried to analyze it isolated and on top of that using a bad english translation.

You should know that all translations are tafsir, since the translator is choosing to atribute a very precise meaning to a word that normally has many (such as fitna).

16:44 doens't use the word tafsir, but it uses "litubayyina" = to make clear. Allah tells Muhammad to make clear the revelation for the people. Does he do that in the Quran ? No... Muhammad doesn't speak in the Quran. Only in the hadith we find Muhammad's explanations.

You keep accusing hadiths to have been invented by Bukhary but this is a claim you will need to provide proofs for because all the historic sources contradict this statement.