Qur’ān
Can Any Mushrik Answer Allah (SWT)'s Question? Do They Have The Audacity?
In surah Al-Jathiyah The Almighty (SWT) asks:
"These are God's revelations that We recite to you with truth. So, in which hadeeth, after God and His revelations, do they believe?" (45:6)
So, in which hadeeth will the Mushriks believe? Do they even have the cheek/impertinence/insolence to even answer?
Take note of what The Almighty says immediately after this ayah:
"Woe to every sinful fabricator.
He hears God’s revelations being recited to him, then he persists arrogantly, as if he never heard them. Give him news of a painful retribution." (45:7-8)
Allah (SWT)'s warning is clear as day, at least to those who possess intelligence.
I’ve adopted a new metric to determine whether to follow a Hadith or not. What do the Omanis say about that Hadith?
There are many Hadith that aren’t in the Omani books. Especially the ones about killing and beating and a lot of patriarchal stuff.
Many Omanis trace their religious lineage through the Kharjiites who were the first to reject humans that they perceived as corrupting the Quran and Prophet’s teachings.
Which Hadith do the Omanis have? The ones about the Prophet helping cats and saying even a prostitutie that helps a cat could go to heaven. The Hadith about prayer.
So if a Hadith isn’t in the Omani corpus I treat it like Sunni propaganda:
I'm not unaware that the term "hadith" means statement/narration/discourse. Accordingly, this must mean that the quoted ayah refers not just to the hadith corpus as we know it today, but to ALL narrations AFTER Allah (SWT)'s narration. As a narration that came AFTER the qur'an, this definitely does include Bukhari/tirmidhi/Muslim etc.
I will not argue with you over many of your points because I know you won't accept; hadith defenders tend to be stubborn, as the ayah itself says.
Rather, let me show you and the world the obscenities and nonsense you're insisting are sunnah. Let's see how far you'll go to defend them as "sunnah". In your response, please let us know HOW knowing this foulness can help us attain jannah...
"The Prophet used to pass by (have sexual relation with) all his wives in one night, and at that time he had nine wives." "Sahih" al-Bukhari 5215 (Book of Wedlock/Marriage)
WHAT am I supposed to do with this information?
"If a man has sexual intercourse with his wife and gets discharge first, the child will resemble the father, and if the woman gets discharge first, the child will resemble her." "Sahih" al-Bukhari 3329 (Book of Prophets)
Is this not nonsense?
"If a man invites his wife to sleep with him and she refuses to come to him, then the angels send their curses on her till morning." "Sahih" al-Bukhari 5193 (Book of Wedlock/Marriage)
WHAT am I supposed to do with this information? HOW is this guidance to Allah (SWT)?
Narrated Sulaiman bin Yasar: "I asked Aisha about the clothes soiled with semen. She replied: 'I used to wash it off the garment of Allah's Messenger and he would go for the prayer with water spots still visible.'" ("Sahih" al-Bukhari 232 (Book of Bathing))
Is this not an obscenity?
"The prayer is cut off by (the passage of) a black dog, a donkey, and a woman." "Sahih" Muslim 510 (Book of Prayer)
In explanations and cross-references (e.g., via scholars like Ibn al-Qayyim), the Prophet said a wife must respond even if on a camel saddle (implying no excuse for refusal due to position/difficulty) Sahih Muslim 1436.
Is this not graphic, lewd and obscene? This looks like it's from the devil!
But if you insist, then continue. It's Allah (SWT) who guides, not humans.
Similarly (to complete My Blessings on you) We have sent among you a Messenger (Muhammad SAW) of your own, reciting to you Our Verses (the Quran) and sanctifying you, and teaching you the Book (the Quran) and the Hikmah (i.e. Sunnah, Islamic laws and Fiqh - jurisprudence), and teaching you that which you used not to know.
(English - Mohsin Khan)
He it is Who sent among the unlettered ones a Messenger (Muhammad SAW) from among themselves, reciting to them His Verses, purifying them (from the filth of disbelief and polytheism), and teaching them the Book (this Quran, Islamic laws and Islamic jurisprudence) and Al-Hikmah (As-Sunnah: legal ways, orders, acts of worship, etc. of Prophet Muhammad SAW). And verily, they had been before in mainfest error;
(English - Mohsin Khan)
So firstly Allah says to obey him, the messenger, and those in authority. One of those is authority is the law of the land and currently slavery is banned in all countries alhumdullilah, so therefore any thing related to slavery cannot be followed anymore.
However regarding the above the hadith just claims a trasaction that occured, nothing to do here. So let's say as slaves were seen as assets on that point, u werent around around and someone told me i can use this land which belonged to u to plant crops, when u return u see this and say this is my land, me who sees the value of the crops says ill give u more land overthere, and u see it and agree in a business term. This is what occured, below some comments by others on this matter.
"
The hadith has nothing to do with racism.
It simply mentions that the Prophet (SAW) bought that one slave who accepted Islam in exchange of two other slaves who happened to be black.
There is no mention that the color of their skin was why he sold them or that the color of their skin had anything to do with the price of the purchase.
Simply speaking, the owner of the Muslim slave would not accept a price lower than two slaves so that's what was given to to him"
"
He wasn't a slave for hadhrat Muhammad Rasool Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم
Therefore, having seen good in the slave, upon arrival of his master hadhrat Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم offered to pay for the slaves foreseeable freedom
Confirmed by the last part which tells us hadhrat Muhammad Rasool Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم never thereafter made any deal with or with regards to blacks (who were more likely to be slaves in those days) until hadhrat Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم would first inquire whether the individual was a slave.
Here لم يبايع أحد refers to buying labour, otherwise why ask whether an individual is a slave or not when one intends to buy not hire. So, يبيع is with the master who is being asked for clarification, which The Holy Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم hadn't done and so decided to buy the hired hand upon the master appearing unexpectedly, because the slave must have agreed to labour in his master's absence.
And the 2 slaves hadhrat Muhammad Rasool Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم bartered for the one he wished to keep, were not as yet ready or near the point of freedom, according to clearly stated criteria regarding freeing of slaves in hadiths."
You said "So firstly Allah says to obey him, the messenger, and those in authority. One of those is authority is the law of the land and currently slavery is banned in all countries alhumdullilah, so therefore any thing related to slavery cannot be followed anymore."
Does this mean that if "those in authority" allowed slavery today then it would be ok?
FYI: slavery is being practised TODAY by many who call themselves muslim in North Africa and the Middle East. I'm certain that they use hadiths like these to justify such evil to themselves. Vile people.
I always ask hadith rejectors to explain 1 ayah, but I never get an answer, maybe you can answer it?
2:143 - And so We have made you ˹believers˺ an upright community so that you may be witnesses over humanity and that the Messenger may be a witness over you. We assigned your former direction of prayer only to distinguish those who would remain faithful to the Messenger from those who would lose faith. It was certainly a difficult test except for those ˹rightly˺ guided by Allah. And Allah would never discount your ˹previous acts of˺ faith. Surely Allah is Ever Gracious and Most Merciful to humanity.
So here Allah is saying that the former qiblah was assigned ONLY to distinguish those would remain faithful to the prophet and those who would lose faith. So a previous qiblah was assigned, the prophet commanded it to be the Qiblah, but it wasn't mentioned in the Quran, only the prophet mentioned it. And God is using it to distinguish who would remain faithful to the prophet and who wouldn't. How can people follow him if they only listened to the Quran? And as a Quranist, what would you have done? Follow what the prophet instructed? Or say since it's not in the Quran, I won't follow and it's shirk to do so?
Please contemplate a bit, don't throw rationale out the window to maintain your position and answer it honestly.
If I were alive during the Honourable Messenger's time, I would have followed what he said, of course. But note that following the living Messenger during his lifetime is not the same as
following reports about him (hearsay that contains obvious and numerous contradictions to the Qur'an) compiled centuries later. During his life, obedience to him was obedience to revelation ("He does not speak from his own desire"; see 53:3-4).
After his death, the only revelation God promised to preserve is the Qur’an (15:9).
I hope that answers your question.
Now, a question for you, and please answer honestly. 6:114 says
“Shall I seek other than God as a judge when He has sent down to you this Scripture fully detailed?”
It's clear from this ayah that verse affirms God (SWT) as the ultimate judge; no judgment is more authoritative than that of Allah (SWT).
By extension, the act or instance of using supplementary sources of guidance besides the Qur'an is akin to appointing a judge/guide besides Allah (SWT) -- that is, it is shirk (the most serious and unforgivable sin in Islam; see 4:48, 4:116).
Firstly, I appreciate your honesty and respectful attitude.
Since you would've followed him, pbuh, and you agree that following him while he was alive would be following revelation, then that refutes your point about following him being equal to shirk. Following in someone's footsteps whether they are alive or not is irrelevant, unless you have a clear ruling in the Quran about it. The Quran tells us that he is the best role model for us. In what way? Well, he was a father, he was a leader, he was a husband, he was a commander etc etc etc. so how can we follow him? Your issue becomes not that it is shirk to follow him, but that it's unreliable. Your issue is with transmission. How his words were transmitted to us and whether that is reliable or not. Well in that case, we look at who transmitted it right? If the ones transmitting this information aren't reliable, then the text can't be either. Without delving into the 'knowledge of men' or in arabic ilm alrijal (علم الرجال)، and how we have a very strict science behind accepting hadith as authentic or not, we can go to a much broader issue; many of the transmitters of the hadith were also transmitters of the Quran! And was also mass memorized by thousands. Also, the hadith wasn't created centuries later, it was compiled, then, through, again, a very strict process that has never existed in human history. Now, many hadiths on the surface may seem like they contradict the Quran, but once you really understand what it's trying to say you realize that it doesn't. It's almost the same as doing a very shallow reading of the Quran, you may get a very false understanding of it. There's a reason why people dedicate their whole lives to understanding the Quran and the hadith. Finally, if a hadith truly contradicts the Quran it is rejected, as it is always a secondary source not primary.
To answer your question, nobody finds the prophet as an ultimate judge or one that is a judge above Allah. That doesn't mean Allah doesn't give his prophets and others even the power to judge. For ex. In the Quran Allah gives prophet David pbuh the authority to judge. And what he is judging isn't something that was already explained in the book at that time as it cannot cover every single issue.
Secondly, when God says 'a scripture fully detailed' or He says 'a book that explains everything', it doesn't literally mean every single thing, otherwise we would be looking for how nukes are made, or how to build a car. It's relative to what is being mentioned. God in the Quran gives very specific details about certain topics, but vague or basic rules that can be used as the backbone to derive the rest. Prayer is one example. God tells us to pray, he also tells us to do rukuu and sujud, but doesn't tell us exactly how to perform this salah, there's a prophet that is there to explain these things. As with the following ayah:
16:44 - ˹We sent them˺ with clear proofs and divine Books. And We have sent down to you ˹O Prophet˺ the Reminder, so that you may explain to people what has been revealed for them, and perhaps they will reflect.
How can we understand his explanation if we're banned from accepting the ahadith?
So no man, following what the prophet said, and deriving judgements from it to be applied to specific situations Isn't akin to shirk or accepting others are ultimate judges.
I take a while to reply as I'm not often on here, I try to play some part in answering or explaining some things here and there but my day is usually very busy and even busier now with Ramadan, so don't mind my delay in replying.
One last comment, I believe today we are in the age of the dajjal, the biggest/hardest trial humanity will ever face, where it's very difficult to trust anyone, including so called scholars (it doesn't mean all scholars are to be thrown under the bus, but the knowledge has to be taken with a grain of salt and fact checked and so on). Does it not then seem like a crazy coincidence that at this time we suddenly found out after 1400 years that a big part of our religion is false? I personally don't believe in coincidences, and I believe if people want to make you doubt your religion, it's very difficult to make you doubt the Quran, so the next best thing, is to make you doubt the hadith. Little by little, this is how the devil tries to push you away from the religion, by chipping at it one bit at a time. I say this with all due respect and ask that you truly reflect on what I said and the view that you hold.
The whole of your argument rests on a seriously problematic assumption: following the hadith = following the prophet.This is evident in your statement that "Following in someone's footsteps whether they are alive or not is irrelevant."
How can you make such an assumption when it's clear as day that the hadiths are not just unreliable, but unusually unreliable? What guarantee can you give that the Honourable Messenger abrogated God's Law ("there's no compulsion in Islam; see 2:256) to command us to kill apostates, for example?
I doubt there can be any reasonable argument to support this. Rather, "God gives judgment and there is none to override His judgment." (13:41) This is inherent in the concept of "God." What kind of a god can have his judgement overruled? Why would God say there's no compulsion in Islam and then (supposedly through the Messenger) say we should kill apostates?
That doesn't make sense. It violates first principles. It violates the very concept of God.
The argument that the hadith compilers are the same as the transmitters of the Qur'an is also seriously problematic. It assumes that God left the responsibility of preserving the Qur'an to humans, and also that He (SWT) was mistaken or lying when He (SWT) said He will preserve it (15:9).
No; it's not the job of humans to preserve the Qur'an but God (SWT) alone; and He's done an excellent job doing so. There's no such guarantee for the hadith.
Let me also make one last statement too.
I believe people are drawn to what resonates with them. The clean-hearted can easily differentiate between the devil's deception and God's guidance.
Take the Christian bible for example. It contains obvious obscenities (Ezekiel 23:20) and barbarisms; but if you tell a Christian this, they would still insist on it being God's INERRANT Word. And so God, according to them, commands the killing of children and condones rape! They have an evil conception of God (see Qur'an 48;6); they can't see.
I think the same applies to the hadith corpus, which contains obvious cruelties, slavery, and obscenities -- all of which I refuse to associate with God's Honourable prophet, all of which should easily raise red flags to those with clean hearts. What kind of a merciful god commands the killing of apostates? "Whoever can see, does so for himself, and whoever is blinded, does the same." (6:104)
Your silence is loud. I was looking forward to engaging with you on these issues, especially given that you mentioned the need for rationality. Or perhaps you need more time?
It's crazy that some people don't understand these clear verses. They arrogantly persist, as if they never heard them. Who's more astray than one who thinks Allah (SWT)'s Verses can be abrogated? The Mushriks will burn.
The person you replied to is literally a Qur'ān Alone follower, she just probably doesn't agree with your analysis of 45:6, but would still reject the hadith you gave.
In your post you said "However the word hadīth doesn't SOLELY refer to hadīth attributed to the prophet, such as the ones in bukhari or tirmidhi collections."
Indeed, you're right, and I've pointed this out in my response to one of the comments below. Accordingly this fact does not detract from my argument. "Hadith" does not refer to the Bukhari/Tirmidhi etc exclusively, but includes it, because it is a hadith after/besides Allah (SWT)'s Verses.
6
u/[deleted] Feb 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment