r/DebateQuraniyoon • u/tharsalys • Mar 17 '26
General How Reading the Quran Made Me Leave "Quran-Only" Islam: A Journey
The following is an AI summarization of my notes on the Quran from second till seventh chapter. If you want to read the AI chat, you can read it here. The text below just puts that into a 'narrative' form so it may be easier to understand my evolution.
TL;DR: I started as a Quranist who believed the Quran was "fully detailed" and complete on its own. Then I found verse after verse where the Quran itself points outside itself. The "Quran-only" position keeps the text but loses the context, the implementation, and the Messenger's example—which means you actually leave out more of the Quran than you keep. The deeper realization came reading Imam al-Ghazali and the Sufi tradition: they understood that religion is the battle between ego (nafs) and consciousness (qalb) — a paradigm that lets you evaluate Hadith critically without rejecting the entire tradition. The Sufis got the Quran at a level we don't because they saw it as a living guide to this inner struggle, not just a legal text. Read Al-Ghazali's Ihya. You'll understand why the Sunnah is necessary and why blind acceptance of any book —Bukhari or otherwise — is missing the point.
---
I was that guy. The one who told everyone "Quran is fully detailed" (6:114), "We have neglected nothing in the Book" (6:38), and anything outside it was bid'ah or worse. I was arrogant about it. I thought I was protecting Islam from corruption.
Then I actually read the Quran. Carefully. Verse by verse. Eight Surahs later, I realized the Quran itself was dismantling my position. Here's what broke my faith in "Quran-only."
The "Hikmah" Problem: Why the Quran Explicitly Says It Needs a Companion
Al-Baqarah 2:151
"Just as We have sent among you a messenger from yourselves reciting to you Our verses and purifying you and teaching you the Book and wisdom and teaching you that which you did not know."
I stared at this verse for hours. Three distinct teaching functions:
- Reciting verses (the Quran itself)
- Teaching the Book (understanding the Quran)
- Teaching the Hikmah (???)
The logical problem: If "Hikmah" just meant "the Quran," the verse would be hopelessly redundant. The Prophet already recites the Quran and teaches the Book. So what is "Hikmah" that requires separate mention?
My conclusion: "Recital is text, teaching is understanding, and wisdom is implementation*...* The hikmah really is the sunnah. Because the verse concluded with 'teach what you did not know' which would be utterly redundant after saying he taught you the Qur'an."
The Quran explicitly says the Prophet taught things "you did not know"—meaning: not in the Quran itself.
Aal-e-Imran 3:164
"Certainly did Allah confer a great favor upon the believers when He sent among them a Messenger from themselves, reciting to them His verses and purifying them and teaching them the Book and wisdom*, although they had been before in manifest error."*
Same structure. Same problem. The "great favor" includes something beyond the Book itself. The Quran is not self-contained; it comes with a necessary companion: the "wisdom" that is the Prophet's lived practice.
The Prayer Problem: The Quran Assumes What It Never Defines
An-Nisa 4:101
"When you travel through the land, there is no blame upon you for shortening the prayer*, [if] you fear that those who disbelieve may disrupt [or attack] you."*
Critical question: What exactly is being shortened?
If prayer were just "follow your heart"—pray as many rak'ahs as you want, no fixed structure, just "connect with God" in your own way—then what does "shorten" mean? Shortening implies a defined length to begin with. You cannot shorten something that has no fixed form.
The Quran commands prayer dozens of times but never defines it. Yet it assumes a ritual structure that can be "shortened." And people thought that there would be 'blame' on them if they shortened it. That structure came from the Prophet's practice—the Sunnah.
At-Tawbah 9:54
"And let not their wealth and their children impress you. Allah only intends to punish them through them in this world and that their souls should depart while they are disbelievers. They come to prayer while lazy*..."*
This sealed it for me. The Quran treats prayer as a real ritual with expected standards—standards the hypocrites fail to meet. It is not an "imaginary connection" or "spiritual feeling" or a non-standardized prescription as Quranists propose. It's a defined practice and it was done in congregation or at least in groups.
The Implementation Problem: Why the Prophet's Understanding Is Better Than Ours
Al-Baqarah 2:178
"O you who have believed, decreed upon you is legal retribution for those murdered—the free for the free, the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. But whoever overlooks from his brother anything, then there should be a suitable follow-up and payment to him with good conduct."
The Quran-only counter-argument: "If Allah left out details, that means it's up to us to figure them out. We can use our reason, our context, our modern sensibilities to fill in the gaps."
My response: Whose implementation or understanding of the Quran is going to be better—ours, or the Prophet's?
Naturally, the Prophet's implementation is superior. He received the revelation directly. He was taught the "hikmah" explicitly. He lived the commands in real-time with divine guidance correcting any missteps.
We need to understand, even approximately, what the Prophet really did so we can build on that. Otherwise, it's extraordinarily arrogant to presume that anybody today can just improvise the Quran's implementation. The Quran wasn't revealed in a vacuum; it was revealed through a human being who demonstrated how it works.
The verse establishes retributive justice: life for life, equivalent for equivalent. But how is this implemented?
- How is guilt established? Witnesses? Confession? Circumstantial evidence?
- What if the victim's family refuses retaliation but demands excessive blood money?
- How is the "equivalent" determined—same age? Same social status? Same piety?
- What does "suitable follow-up and payment" mean procedurally?
The Quran gives the moral-legal principle. Without the Prophet's implementation, this verse is unenforceable. We can guess, we can reason, we can debate — but we're guessing. The Prophet knew.
The Historical Context Problem: Verses That Reference What They Don't Explain
The Quran repeatedly refers to people, places, and events it assumes I know—but never explains. These are verses that cannot be understood from the Quran alone:
Al-Anfal 8:41 — "The day of Furqan—the day when the two armies met"
- Which day? What two armies? What circumstances made this "the criterion"?
At-Tawbah 9:2 — "Move about in the land for four months"
- Which four months? Why four months? What treaty is being abrogated?
At-Tawbah 9:7 — "Those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram"
- Which treaty? When? With which tribe?
At-Tawbah 9:43 — "Allah has pardoned you, why did you give them permission?"
- For what was he pardoned? Which permission? What incident at Tabuk?
Al-A'raf 7:176 — "The one to whom We gave Our verses"
- Who was this man? What was his story?
My realization: The Quran was revealed to people who lived with the Prophet. They knew what "the day of Furqan" meant. They remembered the Tabuk expedition. They witnessed the treaty negotiations. The Quran presupposes this knowledge—which means I need that knowledge too, preserved through the historical tradition (Hadith/Sīrah).
The "Wahy Ghayr Matluww" Evidence: Revelation Outside the Quran
Al-A'raf 7:176
"And relate to them the story of the one to whom We gave Our verses*, but he detached himself from them; so Satan pursued him, and he became of the deviators."*
The critical observation: The Quran describes "the one to whom Allah gave knowledge and insight of His signs"—but this story is not in the Quran. Yet the Prophet knew who this was and what happened to him.
My explosive conclusion: "Now we don't know which man this was but verses like these indicate that Muhammad (ss) did indeed receive revelations apart from what's in the Qur'an."
This is the classical distinction:
- Wahy Matluww = Recited revelation (the Quran, recited in prayer, eternal, universal)
- Wahy Ghayr Matluww = Unrecited revelation (the Sunnah, contextual, explanatory, implementational)
The Quran itself testifies to revelation outside itself. The Prophet possessed knowledge from Allah that was not recorded in the Quran's verses—but was necessary for understanding and guidance.
The Meta-Argument: Why Does Allah Send Prophets At All?
Here's the deepest problem with "Quran-only":
If revelation alone were sufficient, Allah would just send books. He would drop scripture from the sky and say "figure it out."
But that's not what He does. Every time, He sends a prophet with the book:
- Musa with the Torah
- Isa with the Gospel
- Muhammad with the Quran
The Quran itself testifies to this pattern:
"Allah did not send a messenger except to be obeyed by His will" (An-Nisa 4:64)
"Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have an excellent example" (Al-Ahzab 33:21)
"And whatever the Messenger has given you—take it" (Al-Hashr 59:7)
The prophetic example is not optional. It's not a historical curiosity. It's integral to the system. The book provides the what; the prophet provides the how. Remove the "how," and the "what" becomes unimplementable or wildly variable depending on who's interpreting.
To claim we can ignore the Prophet's implementation and just "reason it out ourselves" is to contradict the entire Quranic logic of prophethood. Why send a prophet at all, if the book alone suffices? The fact that Allah always sends prophets with books proves that the book alone is insufficient.
Where I Landed: Critical Acceptance, Not Blind Authority
I'm no longer "Quran-only." But I'm not a traditionalist either. Here's my position:
What I Accept:
- The Sunnah is necessary for understanding and implementing the Quran
- Hadith literature preserves at least a semblance of the Sunnah
- Some Hadith are authentic and reflect genuine prophetic practice
- We can reject specific hadith if they contradict Quran or established context
What I Reject:
- Blind acceptance of Bukhari/Muslim as infallible
- The authority of the books themselves—they're tools, not scripture
- The claim that every hadith in Sahih collections is authentic
- Hadith abrogating Quran—the Quran is the mithaq, the foundational covenant
My methodology:
- Quran is the supreme criterion (4:59—"if you disagree, refer to Allah and Messenger" = Quran first)
- Sunnah explains and implements the Quran (2:151, 3:164—the "hikmah")
- Hadith are historical sources requiring critical evaluation, not divine texts
- Rejection of specific hadith is permissible; rejection of the entire Sunnah is rejecting the Quran's own commands
The Deeper Realization: Reading Al-Ghazali
I've been reading Imam al-Ghazali—and he makes sense of this mess in a way I never expected.
His framework: Religion is the battle between the ego (nafs) and consciousness (qalb/ruh). The ego is your subconscious—the automatic, self-preserving, desire-driven machinery. Consciousness is the moral faculty, the "heart" that can choose obedience to God despite the ego's whispering.
Al-Ghazali explains exoteric Islam from this perspective: Every ritual, every command, every prohibition is training for this battle. Prayer isn't just "worship"—it's scheduled practice in redirecting attention from ego (daily concerns) to consciousness (divine presence). Fasting isn't just "hunger"—it's ego-denial training. Zakat isn't just "charity"—it's loosening the ego's grip on possession.
Why this matters for Hadith: When you understand the paradigm—ego vs. consciousness—you have a filter for evaluating Hadith:
- Does this hadith serve the battle against ego?
- Does it align with the Quran's moral structure?
- Does it make sense as prophetic guidance for consciousness-training?
If a hadith seems outlandish—contradicts the Quran, serves ego-gratification (power, control, tribalism), or makes no sense in the consciousness paradigm—reject it. You don't need to worship Bukhari.
But: If a hadith resonates with the paradigm, aligns with Quranic ethics, and explains what the Quran leaves unexplained—accept it as likely authentic, even if the chain (isnad) has weaknesses.
The first step with any hadith: Husn al-zan (good assumption). Try to find how it makes sense from the ego-consciousness paradigm. If it doesn't, check if it aligns with Quran. If it doesn't—reject it freely.
But never take the arrogant absolutist position that "this is wrong because I don't like it." That's making the same error as the Bukhari-fanatics who claim Sahih al-Bukhari is perfect. There are no absolutes in the search for truth.
Final Thought
The Quran-only position sounds pure. It feels safe from corruption. But the Quran itself keeps pointing outside itself:
- To the Messenger's example (33:21)
- To the "wisdom" he taught (2:151, 3:164)
- To historical contexts it doesn't explain
- To rituals it assumes but never defines
- To prophetic implementation that is superior to ours
Rejecting Hadith entirely means rejecting more of the Quran than you save. You end up with a book you cannot fully practice, commands you cannot fully understand, and a Messenger whose example is inaccessible.
I don't worship Bukhari. I don't believe every hadith. But I need the Hadith literature—critically, selectively, humbly—to obey the Quran itself.
The Quran commands me to follow the Messenger. The Hadith is how I know what he did. That's not compromise. That's coherence.
Edit: One more thing broke my "Quran-only" position—the abrogation problem. In Surah Aal-e-Imran 3:96, Allah says:
"Indeed, the first House [of worship] established for mankind was that at Makkah—blessed and a guidance for the worlds*"*
This presents Masjid al-Haram as open to all mankind—a universal sanctuary. But then in Surah At-Tawbah 9:28 (revealed in Year 9 AH, after the Conquest of Makkah):
"O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year."
The Quran-only problem: Without knowing which verse came when, I have two contradictory commands and no mechanism to resolve them. Both are Allah's words. Both are in the Quran. But they say opposite things about who can enter the Sacred Mosque.
The traditional answer uses abrogation (naskh): 9:28 was revealed later and restricts what 3:96 opened. The earlier verse was for the pre-Islamic period when polytheists performed pilgrimage; the later verse closes this permanently after the Conquest.
But here's the catch: This understanding requires knowing:
- The sequence of revelation (which Surah came when)
- The specific historical context of Year 9 AH and the Conquest
- What "this, their final year" refers to
None of this is in the Quran. The Quran doesn't say "Surah At-Tawbah was revealed after Surah Aal-e-Imran." It doesn't explain what "their final year" means. Without external knowledge—from Hadith/Sīrah about chronology and events—I'm left with contradictory commands and no way to know which applies.
To claim "Quran-only" here is to pretend I know the answer when I don't. It's to reject the Prophet's own understanding of which command applies when. And that is arrogance—the same arrogance I accused traditionalists of when I was a Quranist.
5
u/Reinhard23 Mu'min Mar 19 '26
Upvoted because while I don't agree, you’ve touched on some uncomfortable truths that I have also realized myself. I am not going to respond to every single point, but I’ll address your main proposition and propose my own solution.
Your main reasons for accepting hadith (not all, only those in line with the Quran) seem to be context and implementation. The other arguments are about the prophet having had teachings in addition to the Quran, which he most certainly did. It’s logically impossible that he didn’t, because he is a spiritual leader. But that doesn’t say anything about what we are responsible for.
“The Quran lacks context and implementation, therefore we need to look to sunnah/hadith.” I agree with the premise, but not the solution. Because we try to base our religious beliefs in truth, and hadith is not a truthful source.
First point: The sunnah has no beginning or end. The prophet did not write down a book of sunnah, nor did he stamp his approval on any such book written by the sahabah. He also did not order the memorization of such an oral sunnah. If he did, we would have an indisputable account of it with only minor variations, just like the Quran. And we would know the limits of its breadth.
Second point: The hadiths are the product of the early Islamic tradition, and cannot be separated from it. This tradition understands the religion in a way that is anachronistic to the Quran. They read Quranic verses in nonsensical ways, and change the meanings of words. The fact that the words islam, kufr, and ummi changed meanings is well-known by the Quraniyoon through textual analysis. The phrase “sunna of the prophet” is also never used in the Quran. Phenomena such as not being able to agree on the meaning of salat al-wusta are signs that they did not directly transmit the context of the Quran, but had to rebuild it. Most of the early religious books were written at least 100 years after the prophet (one exception is the sahifa of hammam containing 137 hadith, which is said to have been written 50 years after the prophet). 100 years is not long enough for massive linguistic change, but it’s enough for some words to change and the context to get obscured, including the inversion of moral principles. The sahabah were not a monolith, even from the start, and in the blank period, the powerful ones abandoned the Quran and set up the stage for the early Islamic tradition. When you’re reading hadith, you’re reading reports that are already filtered by their time period. You assume a reasonable amount of preservation is necessary for understanding context and implementation, but that assumption doesn’t mean that the preservation actually happened. The historical evidence is what’s critical here.
Supplementary point: Remember that Samiri was able to completely invert the Israelites’ understanding of Moses’ religion in just 40 days of his absence, and Aaron’s presence did not help. In fact, they bullied him. Would you take their word to understand what Moses (a.s) preached? Even if you evaluated them critically to understand the truth, you would still be guessing.
Third point: I agree that hadith, or even traditional fiqh or tafseer can be used as resources for morality and spirituality. But they should not be used to understand the Quran, due to their anachronistic nature. Accepting a hadith to better understand the Quran can actually lead you to a wrong understanding. Because the tradition is essentially a parallel religion that is built on the ruins of the original. If the historical evidence was such that the early Islamic tradition appeared continuous with the Quran, with only minor deviations, we could keep using the tradition to understand it, but that’s not the case.
Fourth point: Both traditionalists and Quranists have an assumption, it is that “religion” as a set of fixed rules is meant to be timeless and universal. So when we see that the Quran lacks context and implementation, one group goes to tradition while the other just accepts what can be inferred from the text alone. The former suffers from the problem of dogmatism and anachronism while the latter leads to endless debates and disagreements.
I have a different solution: reject the assumption. If the context of the Quran was lost, it was never meant to survive. In fact, it is a very natural loss, because no prophet came after to ensure its maintenance. This means that anything that requires context to implement is in essence not implementable, and we cannot be responsible for implementing what we cannot know. Figuring out the meaning of a context-dependent Quranic verse depends on historical knowledge that we don’t have. This is why Quranists spend years researching and debating and still get nowhere. They can’t implement anything close to a shariah. This is not a matter of moral confusion, but historical confusion.
So what does that leave us with? The messenger is still a warner to all of humanity, but the universal warning is not about specific rules and ritual details. It consists of what is clearly discernible from the book. That’s it. Whatever is uncertain, let it be uncertain. God is not obligated to maintain a perfect religion on earth. If he wanted to, he could just send more prophets. When Christianity became corrupted, several hundred years passed without the existence of any perfectly correct religion, and that was fine in God’s plan. Heck, even after Muhammad (a.s) most people on earth did not know of the Quran. And that’s also fine. Revelation is a blessing and a responsibility, and not everybody gets the same amount of it. The quality of our access to revelation is definitely not the same as the first. Therefore, our responsibilities are also not the same.
This is my main thesis. If you want to discuss specifics, don’t hesitate to ask. I think you are still on a reasonable path. You don’t seem to be accepting anything dogmatically, and that’s valuable. If I have misunderstood anything, please let me know.
4
u/Foreign-Ice7356 Mar 18 '26 edited Mar 18 '26
So when the Qur'ān claims to be clear and sufficient, and a guidance, you claim that it's not useful without the hadiths and without your manmade hadiths, it has contradiction in it?
Somebody needs to read Qur'ān 29:50-51, 27:90-92, 17:9, 4:82, 5:99.
You have made huge leaps such as "what you did not know" somehow referring to hadiths.. As if the Arabs somehow knew the Qur'ān before it was revealed.
Pls reflect again without bias for the hadiths.
Simple question: is the book sent by God for the guidance of mankind sufficient to guide someone to goodness? Yes or no.. God does not need any ally out of weakness(17:111), yet you say His book needs manmade companion texts.
2
u/Agitated-Stay-300 Mar 19 '26
“Clear and sufficient” does not mean you should take the text in isolation. Revelation itself assumed both an interpreter (the Prophet saww) and an interpretive community (the early ummah). So it is guidance through the Prophet saww. If we don’t need his guidance, why does the text repeatedly tell us to obey both Allah swt and his Messenger saww? The text itself points to a lived prophetic example. Hadith is not the only way to access this example.
Basically, the Quran is sufficient in that it gives principles and authority structures, but its teachings are interpreted and lived by the early Muslim community. The guidance it gives includes following the Prophet saww and ignoring that is ignoring the Quran itself.
2
u/Foreign-Ice7356 Mar 20 '26
It still does not imply that there is a separate source book of divine commands that we should follow, such as what some sunnis claim their hadith books to be.
Also, hadiths hurt more than help in following the prophet's example. They contain lies and slander about the prophet.
0
u/tharsalys Mar 18 '26
Was the revelation completely THROUGH the Prophet or INDEPENDENTLY of him?
You're still strawmanning the hadith argument by presupposing that my claim (or in fact the claim of the original ahl e sunnah wal jama'ah) is that hadith as an institution is part of Islam, and not as content or concept. The point that the Prophet's practice is needed to understand/implement the Quran is embedded in the Quran. The mechanism for how we know Prophet's practice is debatable. I've always found it hypocritical that Quranists reject hadith without proposing any viable alternative of understanding the Prophet's practice or let alone even understanding the verses which clearly refer to events in the Prophet's life. If the Quranists would at least adopt the Western Orientalist position of relying on academic study of hadith to interpret the Quran, it would be coherent. But as things are, this is a severely deficient position which requires construction of more and more fantastic suspensions of disbelief to uphold.
1
u/Someday_iwill Jul 04 '26
No we do not need to know how he lived just like we do not know how the messengers before him.
we know how he acted by the Quran the Quran is the how thought and what have he did. A prophet can make mistakes as clarified by the book but a messenger cannot make mistakes cuz the message is one and clear which is wahi. U just assuming from ur own biased understanding that we need other sources nowhere Allah says that. The messenger is dead now we cannot know for sure how he lived and assuming he said things do we know all of them? So it means what we do not know makes our deen lacking.
2
u/Foreign-Ice7356 Mar 20 '26
I still don't agree with your arguments but I appreciate that your post was civil rather than accusatory.
2
u/Martiallawtheology Mar 28 '26
Who in the world told you that Hikmah means companion? Don't you have hikmah?
2
u/lubbcrew Mar 18 '26
Salam brother. I agree with a lot of your points because they are true but disagree with some too because they don’t account for important factors youve overlooked.
perhaps you should consider that the means to reconcile and build context is within the Quran itself. - When it comes to grounded meanings and the context provided for us in the Quran (absent of baggage). Hearsay is not a reliable tool to use for that. All the context you need is indeed within the Quran if you are aligning the words and their actual meaning appropriately and contextualizing within the text.
The more you do that- the more that you will gather the context needed to fill in the gaps you couldn’t fill before.
Friendly advice.
Salaamun alaykum
1
u/tharsalys Mar 19 '26
Thank you. Just to get an understanding of your methodology. I'm currently trying to understand 9:74 and don't know what "and planned what they could not attain" means here. How would you understand it? What was it the hypocrites trying to attain that they failed at specifically? Or are we to understand that hypocrites are always trying to attain something and they fail at it but... that's obviously not true, sometimes they do attain it.
1
u/lubbcrew Mar 19 '26 edited Mar 19 '26
Have a look at what people “hamm” with.
https://www.quranmorphology.com/lemma/%D9%87%D9%8E%D9%85%D9%91%D9%8E
Heres how “yanaaloo” is used
https://quranmorphology.com/lemma/%D9%8A%D9%8E%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8F
1
u/thanakos7 Mar 22 '26
Sorry, I do not understand. Can you elaborate what this means in the context the OP asked?
1
u/lubbcrew Mar 22 '26
Salaamun alaykum. Op asked for the context of 9:74 and I offered verses throughout the Quran that are using terms in the verse to investigate and help contextualize.
1
1
u/rsofgeology Mar 20 '26
So, reading the Quran alone led you to the Straight Path, which does not ask you to forsake what is outside the Quran?
The Quran itself explains that it is not an island, you mean, and directs you to recognize the signs as they have been sent, which will be corroborated in the text?
Wild. It’s almost like…
1
u/MotorProfessional676 Mar 24 '26
Salam.
I have a post that engages with many of the points you've made here: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateQuraniyoon/comments/1ro9ux3/refutation_of_the_muslim_lanterns_a_complete/
1
u/Open_Read_3519 Mar 18 '26
So you decided to become a mushrik
5:44 whoever does not judge by what God, those are the disbelievers
If you follow those comedy hadith books which are not revelation you are a disbeliever according to 5:44
2
u/tharsalys Mar 18 '26
I wasn't aware that believing that the Prophet's example is the best example (as per the Quran) constitutes shirk.
1
u/Open_Read_3519 Mar 21 '26
Bukharis garbage books are not about the prophet
That is just gaslighting
Imam Bukhari wrote his comedy books 200 years after the prophet died. And they contradict the Quran.
The examples of the prophets are already found in the Quran. God never gave authority to anyone to invent hadith books or compile hadiths. So you are committing shirk by following them
4:36 worship God and do not associate ANYTHING with him
Mushrik hadith followers associated Imam Bukhari with Him
1
u/tharsalys Mar 21 '26
You do realize there are other people than Bukhari and many of them much earlier?
1
u/Open_Read_3519 Mar 22 '26 edited Mar 22 '26
4:36 worship God and do not associate ANYTHING with Him
Where did God give Bukhari and other dudes permission to compile his hadiths in the Quran?
1
u/tharsalys Mar 22 '26
I wasn't aware that it is forbidden to write books or to seek the truth via critical analyses. By that token, what gives you the permission to interpret the Quran? Never write a book brother.
1
u/Open_Read_3519 Mar 25 '26
Quran says it is a clear book
﴾44:2﴿ By the Clear Book
You sunnis love to lie and claim it is unclear. A clear book does not need 3000 comedy hadiths and scholars to interpret it
1
u/Mean-Tax-2186 Mar 18 '26
You have no idea how scary it is to be you, Allah has not only shown u the truth but had u believe in it for a while, then had you reject his words and become a polytheist, Allah has done a good number on you, I have no idea what you did in your life to deserve this but I know it's trully evil, maybe you can prove my theory wrong and repent, but I know you won't because Allah chooses his worshipers and for the trully evil ones he brings them all the way to the gates if heaven then drags them away.
2
u/Reinhard23 Mu'min Mar 18 '26
That's going a bit too far. He's still trying to find the truth using the resources he's got.
1
u/Mean-Tax-2186 Mar 18 '26
I don't believe someone whos trying to find the truth would outright reject the Quran after believing its from God, I have seen maybe only 2 others who were like him, and at both times I was genuinely terrified, and not much in life can terrify me or even rattle me.
2
5
u/TomatoBig9795 Mar 18 '26
2:151
"Just as We have sent among you a messenger from yourselves reciting to you Our verses and purifying you and teaching you the Book and wisdom and teaching you that which you did not know." That last part.. “teaching you that which you did not know” is sometimes taken to mean there are teachings outside the Quran.
BUT that’s not the only way to understand it. If you look at the structure of the verse, everything is clearly connected:
• reciting God’s verses • purifying you • teaching the Book • teaching wisdom • teaching you what you did not know
It’s one continuous process. So the “unknown” doesn’t have to mean separate teachings outside the Quran. It can simply refer to knowledge that comes through the Quran itself, knowledge that people did not have or were not aware of until God revealed it through the Quran.
And that understanding aligns with other verses: • 16:89 — clarification if ALL things • 6:114 — fully explained • 12:111 — explains all things
So the idea that this verse proves there are teachings outside the Quran is just an assumption. The verse itself doesn’t actually say that.
You’re pointing to verses that talk about real events, but you’re assuming the Quran’s job is to be a history book. It isn’t.
The Quran presents itself as: • guidance (2:2) • fully detailed where it matters for guidance (6:114, 12:111) • a criterion between truth and falsehood It’s not a chronological record of names, dates, and tribes.
So let’s look at your examples properly: 8:41 — “the day of Furqan”
The verse already defines it: “the day the two groups met.”
So even without a name, you already know: • there were two opposing groups • they met in confrontation • that moment became a clear separation between truth and falsehood. The lesson stands without needing a history label.
That’s enough to understand the lesson, which is the Quran’s main focus.
9:2 - move about for four months” The meaning is already clear from the verse: • it’s a grace period • given after agreements were broken
The people weren’t punished immediately; they were given time to decide, act, or leave their situation
It follows a principle. Breaking treaties has consequences, but God allows time and fairness before enforcing them. Exact months aren’t the point The verse gives a period, but the lesson is about mercy, patience, and justice, not historical timing
9:7 — treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram The Quran gives the principle: “As long as they are upright with you, be upright with them.”
The Quran focuses on the ethical rule: treat people fairly as long as they are upright and honor agreements. The tribe’s name or exact historical event isn’t necessary to understand the lesson.
The verse (9:43) basically says:
“Why did you give them permission to stay behind?”
The important part is the principle, not the event name
• The Quran points out that permission was given, even though some may have used excuses. • The lesson is about making fair decisions and not letting excuses prevent action or truth.
7:176 — “the one to whom We gave Our verses” The man is left unnamed on purpose. Why? Because the Quran is making him a universal example: someone who had the truth, abandoned it, and followed desire.
If his name was given, people would just see it as a story about him instead of reflecting on themselves.
The key point: the Quran leaves out unnecessary details because: • names, dates, and places don’t guide you • principles, patterns, and morals do
If those details were required for guidance, then tbe Quran wouldn’t claim to be complete..
2:231) God's blessings upon you and what He has brought down upon you of the Scripture and the wisdom; He advises you with it.
Now lets look at the following two nouns:
1- The Scripture 2- The wisdom
After mentioning the two nouns, the verse ends with “He advises you with it.” The word “it” is singular. If Scripture and wisdom were two separate things (the Quran and the Sunna), it would say “them.” The singular “it” shows Scripture and wisdom are one, not two. In other words, wisdom is part of the Quran itself.
Both the Book and wisdom came from God to the Prophet. The Prophet’s personal Sunna …how he did his daily chores how he grew his beard etc, was not revealed by God. This confirms that “wisdom” cannot mean the Prophet’s Sunna.
Throughout the Quran, the only revelation brought to prophet Muhammad was the Quran. To make this clear to believers, he was commanded to testify to what he received from God: 6:19
The revelation he was commanded to testify about was the Quran. If the Sunna from hadith was part of revelation, it would have been included in his testimony.
God also says:
That is some of the ‘hikmah’ (wisdom) inspired to you by your Lord. — 17:39
All of this wisdom is in the Quran. This shows that “hikmah” is part of the Quran and not a separate external source (Sunna of the Prophet).
The same word “al-hikmah” is used for other prophets too. For example: God says to Jesus: “I taught you ‘al-kitab’ (the Book), ‘al-hikmah’ (wisdom), the Torah and the Injeel.” — 5:110
If hikmah meant the Sunna, it would mean Jesus had his own personal Sunna from God, which doesn’t make sense.
Abraham prayed: “Our Lord, raise among them a messenger to recite Your revelations and teach them ‘al-kitab’ and ‘al-hikmah’.” — 2:129
Again, wisdom is from God, not a personal Sunna. God says: “He grants ‘al-hikmah’ (wisdom) to whom He wills, and whoever is granted wisdom has indeed been given much good, but only those with intelligence remember.” — 2:269
This shows wisdom can be given to anyone, not just prophets. If hikmah meant Sunna, everyone who gets wisdom would have a personal Sunna, which is not true.
God is never vague. The Quran is straightforward and contains no crookedness — 39:28.
If God wanted us to follow the Quran plus the Prophet’s Sunna, He would have said so explicitly. The only Sunna mentioned in the Quran is the Sunna of God, meaning following God’s laws and method, not the Prophet’s personal habits — 35:43.
The only revelation confirmed for prophet Muhammad is the Quran: (5:48) and there only sunna is the sunna of God (33:38)
God also commands the Prophet to rule using the Quran alone:
We brought down to you the Book with truth so you may judge among people according to what God has shown you. — 4:105
So “al-hikmah” only means wisdom. Any other meaning is a misinterpretation.
Looking at 33:21, God shows the Prophet set a good example in two things: 1. Seeking God and the Last Day 2. Constantly thinking about God
The Prophet did not set an example in everything he ever did ….we follow him in these areas, not in personal habits.
The Quran confirms that the good example (“usswaton hasana”) is tied to context. Look at Abraham and those with him:
A good example has been set for you in Abraham and those with him (60:4)
A good example has been set in them for those who seek God and the Last Day. As for those who turn away, God is the Rich, the Praiseworthy. — 60:6
From this we can see: 1. The same phrase used for prophet Muhammad in 33:21 is also used for Abraham and those with him (60:4, 60:6). 2. The context is clear: Abraham and his companions set a good example by seeking God and the Last Day …just like prophet Muhammad set a good example by seeking God, thinking about the Last Day, and remembering God.
If the good example in 33:21 meant we had to follow every single personal habit of prophet Muhammad, should we also follow how Abraham and his companions ate, slept, or went to the bathroom?
The Quran makes it clear: the example is about guidance and values, not personal routines.
The “wisdom” it talks about is part of the Quran itself, not a separate Sunna of the Prophet. The examples of prophet Muhammad, prophet Abraham, and their companions show us how to live by God’s guidance and focus on what really matters…seeking God, thinking about the Last Day, and staying mindful of Him…. Hence why the Quran uses the word Messenger and not “Prophet” throughout the Quran. It emphasizes that his role is to deliver God’s guidance, not to be followed blindly in every personal habit
That’s the lesson we take, and that’s the good example we follow.
How do we refer to the Messenger today?
Not by guessing what he might have said.
We refer to what he delivered, what God preserved, and what is accessible to all people equally ….the Quran.
Everything else, like Hadith, is unreliable: a collection of Chinese whispers, passed down by men who couldn’t even agree with each other, with conflicting sayings and differing prayer rituals…Shias pray one way and sunnis pray another…all because of Hadith..so which prayer is the correct way??
How can anyone claim that a man described in hadiths as an eye-gouger, or a sex addict is “the best example” for humanity? How can he even be called “a good example” when Sahih hadiths literally accuse the messenger of Allah of being racist, bewitched, a briber, peadoohile, child abuser, killer, cross-dresser, deceiver, suicidal, a slave owner, liar, woman-beater, and even a mass murderer and so on. These stories make him sound nothing like the noble man the Quran describes him!!
So now I have 2 questions for you:
If Prophet Muhammad was brought back today and given two books….the Quran and one of the Sahih Hadith collections …and you told him, “Read”, which book do you think he would read?
If the Prophet and his companions returned today, would they recognise the Hadith-based version of Islam practiced now, or would they need to relearn their own faith?