NationStates Jolt Archive

I was reading this site (http://www.submission.org) and it brought up some interesting arguments against the Hadith. Just type in "Hadith" in the search bar.

As you probably know, the Hadith mentions many things that Muhammad supposedly said, even though it goes directly against the Qur'an at some points (and not to mention was written by men).

My questions to Muslims is this: Do you think we should follow the Hadith? Why? Don't you think that the Qur'an is perfect enough as it states that it is the "...complete word of Allah"?

My question to non-Muslims is this: How much do you think the religion of Islam would change if Muslims listened only to the Qur'an and not the Hadith?

My thoughts are that we (Muslims) should only read the Qur'an and reject the Hadith. Allah does say that the Qur'an is the complete word of Allah and also says that Muhammad wasn't to interpret the Qur'an, but that Allah alone is to do so (thus rejecting the Hadith). Sure, you may bring up that Allah said in the Qur'an that we should follow Muhammad, but Muhammad was following the Qur'an, thus agreeing with my argument.

This is a good debatable topic, so please no perversion of it.

It would be the same as Christians not taking the Bible so literally.

It would be the same as Christians not taking the Bible so literally.

But what is literal and not literal is subject to debate in the Christian world (and won't change the religion to much). Completely ignoring the Hadith (which suggests that we "kill all non-believers" even though the Qur'an says that we should kill no man) will change the religion of Islam.

But what is literal and not literal is subject to debate in the Christian world (and won't change the religion to much). Completely ignoring the Hadith (which suggests that we "kill all non-believers" even though the Qur'an says that we should kill no man) will change the religion of Islam.
Only for fundamentalists and not moderates who likely follow just the Qu'ran.

I was reading this site (http://www.submission.org) and it brought up some interesting arguments against the Hadith. Just type in "Hadith" in the search bar.

As you probably know, the Hadith mentions many things that Muhammad supposedly said, even though it goes directly against the Qur'an at some points (and not to mention was written by men).

My questions to Muslims is this: Do you think we should follow the Hadith? Why? Don't you think that the Qur'an is perfect enough as it states that it is the "...complete word of Allah"?

My question to non-Muslims is this: How much do you think the religion of Islam would change if Muslims listened only to the Qur'an and not the Hadith?

My thoughts are that we (Muslims) should only read the Qur'an and reject the Hadith. Allah does say that the Qur'an is the complete word of Allah and also says that Muhammad wasn't to interpret the Qur'an, but that Allah alone is to do so (thus rejecting the Hadith). Sure, you may bring up that Allah said in the Qur'an that we should follow Muhammad, but Muhammad was following the Qur'an, thus agreeing with my argument.

This is a good debatable topic, so please no perversion of it.

Actually, Kryozerkia, it would really be more like people ignoring the various papal rulings, as far as I can tell.

Only for fundamentalists and not moderates who likely follow just the Qu'ran.

But, unfortunatly, the Sunnis and Shi'ites (who follow Hadiths also) make up a large majority of Muslims. I would say out of the 1.5 billion Muslims, only (this is an estimate) 1 million follow just the Qur'an.

It would be the same as Christians not taking the Bible so literally.

Not necessarily. It's more comparable to Christians trying to follow christian teachings before they were codified (i.e. rewritten) several hundred years after the death of Christ. Or you could say, it would be like only following the Old Testament, and ignoring the new Testament?

I've heard about this before, and it's a strong argument amongst the more liberal of muslims.

I think if so-called "fundamentalists" genuinely did go back to the fundamental tenets of their religion, life would be much better for everyone.

I've heard about this before, and it's a strong argument amongst the more liberal of muslims.

This is the first time I've heard this argument since I began studying Islam.

Actually, Kryozerkia, it would really be more like people ignoring the various papal rulings, as far as I can tell.
Don't people do that already?

I agree. Its like how some christians started believing things other than the bible, and then you get mormonism, which I don't count as a christian church, but thats IMO. I think that if the Muslims would read the Qur'an and stray away from the Hadith, we'd see a drop of radicalism in the ME

I agree. Its like how some christians started believing things other than the bible, and then you get mormonism, which I don't count as a christian church, but thats IMO. I think that if the Muslims would read the Qur'an and stray away from the Hadith, we'd see a drop of radicalism in the ME

Ya, I've found Islam to be the easiest religion after I started to just follow the Qur'an and not the Hadith. And also, the Hadith talks about "killing infidels" and that "killing pleases Allah". But, how can this be true when the Hadith was written 200 years after the death of Muhammad and the Qur'an was written during the life of Muhammad?

Wasn't Islam(according to Islamic theology) created by god and first revealed to Abraham? If so, then why would so much importance be on what Muhammed said or did? Isn't the Qur'an the literal word of god, and Muhammed, god's medium?

This is the first time I've heard this argument since I began studying Islam.

Actually, in all fairness the first time I read about it was in a work of fiction; The Years of Rice and Salt, by Kim Stanley Robinson. There's a large bit in there from a Muslim Femenist point of view that deals with it. I'm assuming the author grabbed the idea from someone else.

Don't people do that already?

Well, yeah. That's kind of my point.

Wasn't Islam(according to Islamic theology) created by god and first revealed to Abraham? If so, then why would so much important be on what Muhammed said or did? Isn't the Qur'an the literal word of god, and Muhammed, god's medium?

Yes, it was. And then, the words of the prophets were corrupted and perverted and Allah kept sending more prophets until He got fed up and took Muhammad to become the last prophet (and messenger). And now, He states clearly in the Qur'an about the Hadith and it's attempted corruption of Islam (amazingly seeing as the Hadith was written 200 years after the Qur'an was revealed).

As you probably know, the Hadith mentions many things that Muhammad supposedly said, even though it goes directly against the Qur'an at some points (and not to mention was written by men).


The koran was written by men also.

Ya, I've found Islam to be the easiest religion after I started to just follow the Qur'an and not the Hadith. And also, the Hadith talks about "killing infidels" and that "killing pleases Allah". But, how can this be true when the Hadith was written 200 years after the death of Muhammad and the Qur'an was written during the life of Muhammad?

I was under the impression that the Qur'an was compiled AFTER the death of Mohammed?

The koran was written by men also.

Probably was. But the Qur'an wasn't.

Probably was. But the Qur'an wasn't.

If you believe that sort of thing.

I was under the impression that the Qur'an was compiled AFTER the death of Mohammed?

No. The Qur'an was finished I think a couple of years before Muhammad's death.

I was under the impression that the Qur'an was compiled AFTER the death of Mohammed?

Very shortly after, and they had a stringent rule about compilation, I believe you had to have two guys who knew Muhammed personally and had heard him say the verse that you have submitted for cannonization. The first converts to Islam actually memorized the whole Qur'an, IIRC.

Actually, in all fairness the first time I read about it was in a work of fiction; The Years of Rice and Salt, by Kim Stanley Robinson.

I was going to mention that novel. Damn good read.

If you believe that sort of thing.

But the point of this thread isn't whether Islam is true; the point of this thread is asking non-believers and Muslims alike whether or not you think Islam will be better if people followed only the Qur'an. It is also asking believers only why do they follow Hadith even though the Qur'an rejects it.

But the point of this thread isn't whether Islam is true; the point of this thread is asking non-believers and Muslims alike whether or not you think Islam will be better if people followed only the Qur'an. It is also asking believers only why do they follow Hadith even though the Qur'an rejects it.

Better? Better's a loaded word when you're talking about religion.

This (http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Fisher/Topical/ch01.htm)is what I have heard about The Qur'an origin

The Qur'an Becomes a Book

Shortly after Mohammed’s death, his verses remained written on stones, bones, leather, and hidden in the memories of his followers. Years passed and most of those, who claimed to remember all of the Qur'an by heart, were killed in battle. Some of the items on which verses were written were damaged or lost. So with great urgency experts shared what they remembered and gathered the verses recorded by others to produce the first Qur'ans. They were copied and distributed throughout the Islamic communities.

Muslims today are committed to the idea that there was one original Qur'an which was compiled without any mistakes, omissions or additions. Yet, Islamic history shows that perhaps four to seven different versions of the Qur'an emerged. One of Mohammed’s successors, Caliph Uthman, was shocked by this fact. He assigned a committee of three people to construct a standardized version of the Qur'an. Then Muslim leaders tried to burn all other versions of the Qur'an (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 479).

Better? Better's a loaded word when you're talking about religion.

Well, I'm not going to say "if religion is true". What I am going to say is whether or not the followers of Islam would act better if they followed only the Qur'an, as they should.

This (http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Fisher/Topical/ch01.htm)is what I have heard about The Qur'an origin

Answering Islam? You can do better than that. That site was crushed by so many sites it's not even funny.

The main author, Sam Shamoun, lies so much about Islam it's not even funny. Don't trust him, trust history.

Well, I'm not going to say "if religion is true". What I am going to say is whether or not the followers of Islam would act better if they followed only the Qur'an, as they should.

Objection! Ask and answer. Would they act better if they acted as they should?

Probably was. But the Qur'an wasn't.

Koran = Qur'an.

Both are tranliterations.

No doubt one is blasphemy or something however.

Would they act better if they acted as they should?
In the eyes of Allah, yes, they would.

In the eyes of Allah, yes, they would.

Whoah. Rhyming.

Whoah. Rhyming.
Just a case of excellent timing.

Just a case of excellent timing.

*Head explodes*

Koran = Qur'an.

Both are tranliterations.

No doubt one is blasphemy or something however.

I know. I was just showing my hate towards the transliteration of "Koran" as people pronounce it "Co-Ran" (with an emphasis on the "a").

*Head explodes*

LOL! That was scary...

But back on topic, I figure any movement within a religion to follow the original texts, which tend not to be written by anyone with a malevolent agenda, has got to be a good movement.

Answering Islam? You can do better than that. That site was crushed by so many sites it's not even funny.

The main author, Sam Shamoun, lies so much about Islam it's not even funny. Don't trust him, trust history.

Fine then (http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ISLAM/QURAN.HTM):

The Qur'an was an oral text throughout the lifetime of Muhammad; it was also a fluid text. The complete text resided only in the memories of Muahmmad and his followers. As he added verses and reorganized the text, his followers would rememorize the text in the light of the additions or edits. This means that the Qur'an was a living text during the lifetime of Muhammad. Certain verses revealed to Muhammad were later repudiated by him as "satanic" verses revealed not by Gabriel but by Satan. These verses were expunged from the text that so many had memorized.

After the death of Muhammad, the text of the Qur'an was written down in the caliphate of Abu Bakr. Until 'Uthman, one and only one written text existed. For over a decade after the death of Muhammad, the Qur'an remained primarily an oral text in the memories of the faithful. In Islamic accounts of the history of the Qur'an , this oral text was entirely faithful to the original verses—this is entirely possible, but Western historians generally agree that some corruptions must have produced slight variations throughout the Islamic world. Nevertheless, the military expansion of Islam led to two direct consequences concerning the integrity of the Quranic text. First, large numbers of the faithful were dying out in the various military expeditions. Each time someone died who had the Quranic text memorized, that meant that one copy of the Qur'an disappeared forever. Second, the expansion of Islam swelled the ranks of the faithful. Many of these new converts spoke other langagues and the original Arabic of the Qur'an began to corrupt. Faced with these two threats to the integrity of the Qur'an , 'Uthman orderd a rescension of the text to be made and to serve as the definitive written version of the text. A rescension is a version of a text that is assembled from all the variant versions of that text. 'Uthman, however, relied on two sources: the written text that had been ordered by Abu Bakr and that still existed, and the various oral texts of Muslims who memorized it during the lifetime of Muhammad. In Islamic history, there is no variation between these two sources, so the Uthmanic "rescension" is largely a codifying of a single version of a text. This version, the 'Uthmanic rescension, is the version of the Qur'an that has remained, unchanged, the central holy text of Islam.

Fine then (http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ISLAM/QURAN.HTM):

Better :D

Anyways, as you can see, you might as well said it was written down during Muhammad's time. Abu Bakr, Muhammad's uncle-in-law, was a stern follower of Islam (the first adult male convert) and he, himself, probably had the Qur'an memorized. But, now back to the subject.

All organized religions would be vastly improved with the removal of any obvious hate speech from their dogma. Christians would be a lot nicer if they would just go ahead and ignore all the old laws put down in Leviticus and other OT sources.

All organized religions would be vastly improved with the removal of any obvious hate speech from their dogma. Christians would be a lot nicer if they would just go ahead and ignore all the old laws put down in Leviticus and other OT sources.

They do, actually.

You ever see a Christian eat pork? I have, even though Leviticus clearly states that God doesn't want His people to eat pork.

They do, actually.

You ever see a Christian eat pork? I have, even though Leviticus clearly states that God doesn't want His people to eat pork.

They ignore the ones they want to. I'd rather they ignore the whole lot.

They do, actually.

You ever see a Christian eat pork? I have, even though Leviticus clearly states that God doesn't want His people to eat pork.

I was accully eating pork when I read that :)

I was accully eating pork when I read that :)

lol, but I thought you said you were an Atheist (and therefore not contradicting your "religion" by doing so (even though Atheism isn't a religion)).

Cyrian: So true; they do ignore the ones they want to.

lol, but I thought you said you were an Atheist (and therefore not contradicting your "religion" by doing so (even though Atheism isn't a religion)).

Cyrian: So true; they do ignore the ones they want to.

When did I say that? I'm quite religious. In fact, my signature is from the Greek Orthodox Easter Resserection service.

I was reading this site (http://www.submission.org) and it brought up some interesting arguments against the Hadith. Just type in "Hadith" in the search bar.

As you probably know, the Hadith mentions many things that Muhammad supposedly said, even though it goes directly against the Qur'an at some points (and not to mention was written by men).

My questions to Muslims is this: Do you think we should follow the Hadith? Why? Don't you think that the Qur'an is perfect enough as it states that it is the "...complete word of Allah"?

My question to non-Muslims is this: How much do you think the religion of Islam would change if Muslims listened only to the Qur'an and not the Hadith?

My thoughts are that we (Muslims) should only read the Qur'an and reject the Hadith. Allah does say that the Qur'an is the complete word of Allah and also says that Muhammad wasn't to interpret the Qur'an, but that Allah alone is to do so (thus rejecting the Hadith). Sure, you may bring up that Allah said in the Qur'an that we should follow Muhammad, but Muhammad was following the Qur'an, thus agreeing with my argument.

This is a good debatable topic, so please no perversion of it.

well i tend to see well the Quraan as the Quraan and the Hadith as the idiots (and we are the idiots) guide to it. anyways u cant simply say hadith as a single entity... there are many grades and hafith all varying in credibility. and again like the Quraan the hadith is not meant to be taken iterally. it is the sayings and the actions of the prophet.. so.. you got to take it in the correct context cuz not all are applicable for every sitaution

I was reading this site (http://www.submission.org) and it brought up some interesting arguments against the Hadith. Just type in "Hadith" in the search bar.

As you probably know, the Hadith mentions many things that Muhammad supposedly said, even though it goes directly against the Qur'an at some points (and not to mention was written by men).

My questions to Muslims is this: Do you think we should follow the Hadith? Why? Don't you think that the Qur'an is perfect enough as it states that it is the "...complete word of Allah"?

My question to non-Muslims is this: How much do you think the religion of Islam would change if Muslims listened only to the Qur'an and not the Hadith?

My thoughts are that we (Muslims) should only read the Qur'an and reject the Hadith. Allah does say that the Qur'an is the complete word of Allah and also says that Muhammad wasn't to interpret the Qur'an, but that Allah alone is to do so (thus rejecting the Hadith). Sure, you may bring up that Allah said in the Qur'an that we should follow Muhammad, but Muhammad was following the Qur'an, thus agreeing with my argument.

This is a good debatable topic, so please no perversion of it.

Of course we need to follow the Hadith, they are the words of the Prophet. Does following both make Islam more complicated? Maybe. But it also makes us better Muslims. The Qur'an teaches us we most follow it, as it is the word of Allah, and also the words and actions of Muhammed(pbuh). Also remember, they aren't contradictions, its simply that we aren't inturpting it correctly. As a new Muslim myself I know following both can be confusing but the Qur'an is the word Allah, the Hadith shows how we should apply it. Btw, if you don't follow the Hadith, how do you pray? If you still need help, go to your local Mosque and speak with the Imam. I'm going to PM you a link to Forum for Muslims that would be good to check out.