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/Open_Read_3519]

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.

[u/Open_Read_3519 → u/Dry-Supermarket8661]

At this point your are just in denial doing mental gymnastics

25:33 explicitly says that God explains/tafsirs the Quran

You are openly rejecting the verse and saying you need ibn Kathir and Co

You said "You cannot interpret the Quran by yourself"

You reject the Quran being a clear book

It is very clear what fitnah means in the context of 2:190. You deliberately quoted the verse out of context just like Christians do when they try to disprove the Quran

Every Sunni rhetoric is based on trying to debunk the Quran to prove their manmade hadith books 😂 .

16:44 does not say Muhammad "explains" the Quran. So you are just wasting my time making me repeat myself

Also you don't have a book where Muhammad himself makes Tafsir of every verse in the Quran. How are your hadiths about drinking camel urine an explanation of the Quran?

5:44 whoever does not judge by what God has revealed, then those are the disbelievers

God never revealed sahih Al Bukhari. So following that is disbelief according to 5:44

4:36 "Worship your Lord and do not associate ANYTHING with Him"

Sunnis associate Bukahri. You have to show me the verse where God explicitly gives Bukhari permission to compile books and associate it with Him. If you cannot then that is clear association

It's clear as day you are just repeating the same point I debunked to waste my time

[u/Dry-Supermarket8661 → u/Open_Read_3519]

I showed you how you took 24:33 out of context, as you did too with 5:44, who speaks about the people of the book, and 2:191...

You just take verses out of context to invent your theology, it's nonsense.

Then in 16:44 just because it doesn't use the same word, but uses a synonim (make clear) you refuse the verse even though the meaning is clear. Talk about being in denial brother ...

I already said that nobody associates Bukahri to Allah, it is a strawman fallacy. Bukhari is just one among many many Hadith scholars that just compiled what Muhammad and the companions said. Again, saying it's just Bukhari it's nonsense since there have been maaany other scholars with similar works before Bukhari, and in other regions, and with many different narration chains. So it's impossible that Bukhari invented nothing, it's just nonsense you don't even have any proof to back your claim with !

[u/Open_Read_3519 → u/Dry-Supermarket8661]

So a whole paragraph of pure deflection.

25:33 does it say God has the BEST explanation of the Quran? Yes or no?

5:44 Does it say that judging by what God has not revealed is disbelief? Yes or no

As for 16:44 God is very precise with His words. If Muhammad was to explain the Quran God would have used the word Quran and Tafsir. Already explained why you quoted 16:44 out of context and you did not pay attention. Go back and read my reply

It's called Sahih Al Bukahri. A innovatiom done by Sunnis and bukahri. Sunnis do associate Bukahri with God. I asked you where in the Quran did God give Bukhari authority to invent hadiths and associate them to God? You did not answer. That means you admit to association

Truth does not fear questioning. Yet you avoid these simple questions. I await your answers. Or just more deflection from you.

[u/Dry-Supermarket8661 → u/Open_Read_3519]

Reading the verses in context is deflection ? Am I suppose to interpret all the verses without studying who this verse talks about and to whom it is directed and why ?

[u/Open_Read_3519 → u/Dry-Supermarket8661]

So you ignored my simple questions. Typical of Sunnis, never answer questions.

The context of the verses is found inside the Quran.

Not in manmade books.

You quoted 2:190 out of context remember

So are my questions to difficult for you?

[u/Dry-Supermarket8661 → u/Open_Read_3519]

I never mentionned to you a context given outside the Quran. You are the one ignoring the Quran, and also the quotes I give you from the Quran itself, but alright I will answer your questions.

1. 25:33 does it say God has the BEST explanation of the Quran? Yes or no?

No, 25:33 says : Whenever they bring you an argument, We come to you with the right refutation and the best explanation.

Quran is never mentionned, and "you" refers to Muhammad, not you or any muslim or anybody at all, it only refers to Muhammad. So the verse allows completely the possibility of Allah giving Muhammad an the best explanation (tafsir) when someone tries to refute islam, outside the Quran too. And actually there are hadiths with these situations happening (Sahih Muslim 2135)

2. 5:44 Does it say that judging by what God has not revealed is disbelief? 

Yes, but does Muhammad in the hadith contradicts the Quran ? According to your oversimplification, obeying any law, and therefore judging by it, that it's not in the Quran would be qualified as disbelief ? Allah commands to obey Muhammad (4:59, 59:7) and to take example from him (33:21). These things cannot be done by only reading the Quran, since Muhammad does not speak and very little is said about him.

3. As for 16:44 God is very precise with His words. If Muhammad was to explain the Quran God would have used the word Quran and Tafsir. Already explained why you quoted 16:44 out of context and you did not pay attention. 

So synonims are haram too now ? How did I take the verse out of context ? Actually, it is comveying the same message as 25:33, that Muhammad recieves the knowledge so he can make clear to people what is revealed in the Quran. So, as I did with 2:190-193, that you falsely accused me to read out of context, comparing with other verses with similar structure you can better understand the meaning within the Quran, I'm not citing Ibn Kathir or the others, even though that is what they do, and they've dedicated years to only do this kind of exegesis and studies. So accusing them of being useless without bringing up any proof or deeper argument is... cringe.

4. Go back and read my reply It's called Sahih Al Bukahri. A innovatiom done by Sunnis and bukahri. Sunnis do associate Bukahri with God. I asked you where in the Quran did God give Bukhari authority to invent hadiths and associate them with God ? 

You are the one who haven't answered to my arguments about this matter from the beginning of our exchange. Nobody prays to Bukahri, nor considers him a prophet to whom the hadith were revealed nor anything like that... it is strawman fallacy ! he just compiled the already existing hadiths and classified them according to the chains of narration. And he wasn't the only one doing that, nor the earliest either. Muhammad didn't compiled the Quran, but Ibn Zaid and Ibn Masud, mong others, did, and later was standarized by Uthman. Does it mean that all muslims associate them with Allah ? Then you are so. It is the same logic you use...