A different perspective of Al Q'uran

[Axhmed]

Salam alaikum,

I found this book online, which talks about many different topics of Islam and Islamic rituals in a different perspective. The writer explains the meanings of many Q’uranic words from the Quran itself with logical explanations and examples. Though it make sense to me much of what he/she has written, it is fascinating that I haven’t heard those from a Muslim scholar. Though, I am not religious, I like the way he has used his analytical skills. Please have a read. I like to hear your opinions.

[link removed]


Thank you.

 

[Muhammad]

wa alaykum assalam,

I had a quick look at the book. There is a reason you haven't heard these things from a Muslim scholar, because this work is not based on knowledge. It is a work of someone who doesn't have a proper understanding of Islam. He is misinterpreting verses of the Qur'an to give his own wrong opinions. For example, he calls Salah an 'invented ritual worship' when it is a foundational aspect of our religion, the evidences for which are explicit with no room for doubt. He interprets 'malaikah' as meaning natural forces around us, when it is a pillar of the belief of a Muslim to believe in the existence of the Angels. He also interprets 'satan' as negative forces... these explanations don't make sense if you actually read the Qur'an. Moreover, it seems the author doesn't believe in the Hadith, which is a major reason for his gross errors. I would advise you to learn about the Qur'an from scholars of Islam - refer to the classical commentaries such as Ibn Kathir, Al-Qurtubi, as-Sa'di and numerous others.

 

[Axhmed]

Thank you for the reply. Yes, looks like he strongly opposes Hadiths, and he has given his reason from the Q'uran. For instance, in Chapter 5, he talks about the history of Hadiths and the Q'uranic verses which talk about Hadiths. When I read Q'uran 31:6-7 and 45:6-7, which he has stated in that Chapter, I got goosebumps. I didn't know earlier that the Q'uran talks about the false nature of Hadiths. And when I studied the history of Hadiths, how they were collected, recorded, and disseminated and the contradictions it has, I was blown away by the accuracy of its mention in the Q'uran. Don't you think? He also makes a comparison of the Hadiths to Gemra and Mishna of the Jews. I looked it up and his comparison was accurate. It makes me so afraid as to whether we are making the same errors that the Jews made after the Tora. I am lost. The Muslim scholars are not much of a help to me. That's why, I joined this blog.

 

[Muhammad]

Assalamu Alaykum,

Thank you for the reply. Yes, looks like he strongly opposes Hadiths, and he has given his reason from the Q'uran. For instance, in Chapter 5, he talks about the history of Hadiths and the Q'uranic verses which talk about Hadiths. When I read Q'uran 31:6-7 and 45:6-7, which he has stated in that Chapter, I got goosebumps. I didn't know earlier that the Q'uran talks about the false nature of Hadiths.

What the author is doing is merely playing with words and making up interpretations. Anyone who rejects the authority of the Hadith is not following the Qur'an.

Hadith literally means an item of news, conversation, a tale, a story or a report. In both the Qur'an and the teachings of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, the word Hadith has been used in this literal sense to refer to a religious communication, a story of a general nature, a historical story and a current story or conversation. Let's look at some examples:

(a) Usage of the word Hadith to mean religious communication/message/the Qur'an:

So leave Me with [the matter of] whoever denies this Hadith [i.e. the Qur’ān]. We will progressively lead them [to punishment] from where they do not know. [Qur'an 68:44]

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, 'the best Hadith is the Book of Allah...' [Muslim]


(b) Usage of the word Hadith to mean a general story/conversation:

And when you come across those who ridicule Our revelations, do not sit with them unless they engage in a different Hadith. Should Satan make you forget, then once you remember, do not ˹continue to˺ sit with the wrongdoing people. [Qur'an 6:68]

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, 'One who tries to eavesdrop on the Hadith (conversation) of the people when they dislike his doing so and want to keep away from him, in the Hereafter hot copper would be poured in his ear.' [Al-Bukhari]


(c) Usage of the word Hadith to mean a historical story:

And has the Hadith of Moses reached you? [Qur'an 20:9]

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, 'Convey (my teachings) to the people even if it were a single sentence, and tell others the Hadith of Bani Israel (which have been taught to you), for it is not sinful to do so. And whoever tells a lie on me intentionally, will surely take his place in the (Hell) Fire.' [Al-Bukhari]​

However, like other Arabic words, the word Hadith developed a more specific meaning. From the time of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, his stories and communications dominated all other kinds of communications. Consequently, the word Hadith began to be used almost exclusively for the narration about or from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.

We can now understand that verses like 31:6-7 and 45:6-7, as quoted by Hadith rejectors, actually have nothing to do with what they claim. All such people are doing is exposing their ignorance of basic Arabic and how terminology is used in different contexts. Moreover, misinterpreting these verses to negate the authority and importance of the Hadith is rejecting the many verses of the Qur'an where Allah سبحانه وتعالى has instructed us to accept what the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم brought, to refrain from that which he forbade, to obey him and to accept his rulings:

And whatsoever the Messenger gives you, take it, and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain (from it) , and fear Allah. Verily, Allah is Severe in punishment [59:7]

Say, "Obey Allāh and obey the Messenger; but if you turn away - then upon him is only that [duty] with which he has been charged, and upon you is that with which you have been charged. And if you obey him, you will be [rightly] guided. And there is not upon the Messenger except the [responsibility for] clear notification." [24:54]​

​

But no, by your Lord (O Muhammad), they have no Faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction. [Qur'an 4:65]​

There are yet other verses of the Qur'an which show us that the role of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was not only to teach us the Qur'an but also the Sunnah (which is recorded and preserved in the Hadith), referred to as 'wisdom':

Certainly did Allah confer [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. (3:164)
​

The following verse shows how the role of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was to explain the Qur'an to the people:

˹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. [16:44]​

This implies that Revelation needs a guide to show people what it means. The Qur'an cannot be read in any way that you want. This clearly means that the explanations are themselves divinely ordained by Allah سبحانه وتعالى. And that explanation of the Qur'an by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is recorded in the Hadith.

Let me quote an important example to illustrate the above:

Originally Posted by Insaanah​

...the Qur'an makes it clear that the Prophet :saws: received another type of inspiration from Allah, one that was binding on him :saws: and his followers.

...And We did not make the qiblah which you used to face except that We might make evident who would follow the Messenger from who would turn back on his heels. And indeed, it is difficult except for those whom Allah has guided. (2:143, part)
We have certainly seen the turning of your face, [O Muhammad], toward the heaven, and We will surely turn you to a qiblah with which you will be pleased. So turn your face toward al-Masjid al-Haram. And wherever you [believers] are, turn your faces toward it [in prayer]. Indeed, those who have been given the Scripture well know that it is the truth from their Lord. And Allah is not unaware of what they do.(2:144)

These verses are in reference to the Muslims facing Jerusalem before the direction of the prayer was changed to Makkah. Allah explicitly states that it was He that appointed that original direction of prayer. However this inspiration and command to the Prophet :saws: to face Jerusalem never formed part of the Qur'an. Hence this shows that the Prophet :saws: received another type of inspiration/command from Allah, that was binding on him and his followers.

And do not pray [the funeral prayer, O Muhammad], over any of them who has died - ever - or stand at his grave. Indeed, they disbelieved in Allah and His Messenger and died while they were defiantly disobedient. (9:84)

This verse shows us that funeral prayers had already begun to be performed and that the Prophet :saws: used to offer prayers at the burial of the dead before this verse was revealed. Yet there is no verse in the Qur'an that orders the Prophet :saws: and the Muslims to pray specific funeral prayers over the dead. It must be conceded, that the command for the funeral prayer was given to the Prophet :saws: through the sunnah, and that command was binding on him and his followers.

These verses also show, that what the Prophet :saws: established as part of the religion, is approved by Allah...
​

For a more detailed discussion, please see:
Why do we follow hadeeths? (islamicboard.com)

And when I studied the history of Hadiths, how they were collected, recorded, and disseminated and the contradictions it has, I was blown away by the accuracy of its mention in the Q'uran. Don't you think? He also makes a comparison of the Hadiths to Gemra and Mishna of the Jews. I looked it up and his comparison was accurate.

There is no comparison. By mentioning the Mishnah and Gemara which were compiled centuries later, the author is once again exposing his unfamiliarity with the science of Hadith and even what Hadith means; Hadith is not commentaries provided by scholars, rather it refers to whatever is transmitted from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم of his actions, sayings, tacit approvals, or physical characteristics or mannerisms. Since the lifetime of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, Muslims started memorising and writing down Hadith which were then transmitted through chains of narrators that can be traced back all the way to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. The subsequent generations witnessed the development of formal ḥadīth criticism and authentication. No ḥadīth would be accepted without its narrators being extensively scrutinized, with their integrity and retention inspected and evaluated alongside other narrators. Moreover, every ḥadīth would be cross-referenced to ensure that it was free from defects or anomalies. The astounding effort that went into the preservation of the ḥadīth corpus leaves us with the utmost certainty that the ḥadīth were accurately preserved.

Dr Jonathan Brown, one of the leading Western Scholars on Hadith literature (who also reverted to Islam after studying hadiths) is reported to have said in a lecture;

“I have never been more impressed with anybody in history in my life than with Muslim ḥadīth scholars. I mean, when I first started studying ḥadīth I was very skeptical, I thought it was all made-up and bogus but the more you study it the more you just appreciate the intense brain power of these people. I mean they memorized thousands and thousands of books and then they were able to recall all the different versions of ḥadīth from these books, and then they were able to analyze them and put them all together and figure-out where they all connect and make judgments about the authenticity of these ḥadīth. I mean even nowadays with electronic databases, and computers and word processing, I have hard time following even their discussions of the ḥadīth - let alone their original mastering that they were drawing on. It's almost unbelievable... It's almost unbelievable, and if you didn't have the books in front of you that they wrote, I wouldn't believe it personally....”

It makes me so afraid as to whether we are making the same errors that the Jews made after the Tora. I am lost. The Muslim scholars are not much of a help to me. That's why, I joined this blog.

The authority of the Prophet ﷺ and the obligation to follow him were not invented by Muslim scholars. Rather, the Qur'ān makes it unequivocally clear that there were two forms of revelation: the Qur'ān and the Sunnah. As mentioned above, it also establishes the role of the Prophet ﷺ as a teacher, legislator and expounder on the Qur'ān.

It was not until the nineteenth century that a movement emerged that rejected the entire corpus of Hadīth and the authority of the Prophet ﷺ. It is inconceivable to think that the whole Ummah got it wrong for numerous centuries until these people emerged. The truth is that the reason why certain people want to reject Hadīth is that they want to free themselves from acting upon the laws of Islam. They do not want to pray, fast, and give charity in the way that Islam has prescribed, and so they attack the authority of Hadīth. Their aim for doing this is obvious. They understand that if the Hadīth corpus is removed from the picture, they can live their lives exactly like the modern secular society. Since they have left Hadīth, they have separated into many sub-sects among themselves, and are extremely confused about how the teachings of Islām should be carried out.

I advise you not to read the works of such people. Instead, find a teacher whom you trust in his knowledge and religion and learn the foundations of Islam from him. Don't allow yourself to be deceived by people pretending to be scholars whilst contradicting and disrespecting the Qur'an itself.

There are numerous threads you can refer to for further information:

Ahadeeth Myths (islamicboard.com)
[General Article] The Status of the Sunnah in Islam
Introduction to the Sunnah
Rules Governing the Criticism of Hadeeth
The Legal Status of the Sunnah in Islam
Understanding the Hadith
Hadeeth Rejectors - Refutations.
The Fallacies Of Anti-Hadith Arguments
[Sectarian Article] The Quranites
Hadeeth Collections from the First Century of Hijra

See also the book by Mustafa al A'zami: Studies in Hadith Methodology and Literature

 

[Axhmed]

Thank you for your detailed message. The author has answered most of your concerns with proofs from the Q’uran. I had to re-visit his book to answer your reply. I strongly suggest you to read his book. I think it is unfair to comment on someone’s writing without reading his work. Here is the link: [link removed]


You claimed that the author is playing with the word Hadiths. You have mentioned in your response (a) - [Qur'an 68:44], (b) - [Qur'an 6:68] and (c) - [Qur'an 20:9] that the Q’uran calls itself Hadith, which I agree. However, you have not mentioned any Q’uranic verse that instructs us to obey the Hadiths of the prophet. If there is any, please guide me to it as I am unaware. What I have read in Chapter 5 of ’The Quran the Untold truths' however, is just the opposite:



Taken from the Author’s book:
(A) In Q'uran 31:6-7: But there are, among men, those who purchase idle tales (= Hadith), without knowledge (or meaning), to mislead (men) from the Path of Allah and throw ridicule (on the Path): for such there will be a Humiliating Penalty.
When Our Signs are rehearsed to such a one (the purchaser of idle tales), he turns away in arrogance, as if he heard them not, as if there were deafness in both his ears: announce to him a grievous Penalty.



and


(B) Q'uran 45:6-7 - These are the verses of God We convey to you with truth. Then, in what Hadith, if not in God and His verses, will they believe? Woe to every fabricating impostor (of Hadith)!
These verses clearly tell not to follow any Hadith other than the Q’uran. Honestly, I couldn’t find any Q’uranic verse which tells us to follow the Hadith of the Prophet (unless I missed it). So, what do you think these verses in (A) & (B) would mean?


I looked it up and found that the Quranic verse that you have mentioned to justify your answer to follow Hadith is only part of the whole verse in 59:7, as it is related to spoils of war, not Hadith. The author of The Quran The Untold Truth also talks about the verses 24:54 & 4:65 that you have mentioned (ie: Obey Allah and obey the prophet), in detail, in Chapter 14 of his book.


You have used Q 3:164 & Q 16:44 to justify the Hadith of the Prophet. Again, those verses are related to explaining the Q’uran to people. “What has been revealed” in Q16:44, is the Q’uran, not Hadith. As per my understanding, the Q’uran doesn’t mention that Hadith or Sunnah are revealed to the prophet other than the Q’uran, and it states that the Q’uran is the best Hadith.


You have quoted Q2:143 & Q2:144 from Insaanah. These 2 verses are also explained in his book somewhere, where it talks about Qibla. I think it is in the Chapter on Hajj.


I am familiar with Dr Jonathan Browns work and I have read his books. However, when I read The Quran The Untold Truths, I question the authenticity and accuracy of these Hadiths if they were transmitted orally and collected over hundreds of years after the demise of the prophet. How can the accuracy of such work be guaranteed when the speakers were not present. It’s like Chinese whispers or gossip.

With regards to the Sunnah, you have mentioned "Rather, the Qur'ān makes it unequivocally clear that there were two forms of revelation: the Qur'ān and the Sunnah”. However, you have not mentioned any Quranic verses. Do you have any Quranic verse that says to follow the Sunnah of the prophet?


You have mentioned "It was not until the nineteenth century that a movement emerged that rejected the entire corpus of Hadīth and the authority of the Prophet ﷺ. It is inconceivable to think that the whole Ummah got it wrong for numerous centuries until these people emerged. The truth is that the reason why certain people want to reject Hadīth is that they want to free themselves from acting upon the laws of Islam. They do not want to pray, fast, and give charity in the way that Islam has prescribed, and so they attack the authority of Hadīth.” The Q’uranic teachings are not about consensus of the scholars. In fact, the Quran mention the majority of the people are wrong (6:116 & 10:35-36). There are no guarantees that the scholars are absolutely right or rightly guided. Nowhere in the Quran, as to my knowledge, instructs us to seek guidance or learn the Quran from the scholars. Dr Shabbir Ahmed has explained in his Quran Translation that the Quran as its best explanatory (A good read).


You have concluded by saying: "I advise you not to read the works of such people. Instead, find a teacher whom you trust in his knowledge and religion and learn the foundations of Islam from him. Don't allow yourself to be deceived by people pretending to be scholars whilst contradicting and disrespecting the Qur'an itself.”. This is contrary to the Q’uran. I think the Q’uran says to read / listen everything and follow the best advice / path. I read works of many writers, read opposing views, compare them with the Q’uran. The work of the author of ’The Quran the untold truths’ definitely shook me to the core. Please read it and give me your opinion.


Salaam.

 

[Muhammad]

wa alaykum assalam,

Before we proceed, I want to check, do you know what Tawheed is? Do you believe in the Tawheed of Allah سبحانه وتعالى?

 

[Marwan-Maroc]

God is the Most Great, Ashhadu ana la illaha ila Allah wa ashhadu ana Muhammadon rasul o Allah, I testifiy that there is no god but God and that Mohammad (peace and blessings be upn him and his family) is the Messenger of God, God is the King and Lord and Protector and Saviour and Father and Creator and Ruler and Light of the heavens and the earth and everything in them.
------------
When the Quran, which rightfully commands us to believe in spirits and demons, basically supernatural spiritual entities, it then means exactly that, these things are entities who really do exists and are alive right now, just like you, going around doing stuff and so so on. They exists, by direct experience, by Truth.

To believe otherwise, that they don't exist, then you are ignorant and wrong.

God witnesses that they exists.

And ritual prayer is inspired by God. Prayer is sacred.

 

[Axhmed]

Yes, I do believe in tawheed.

 

[Axhmed]

Br Marwan, I am confused. Where in the Q'uran does it mention to believe in Spirits and Demons? Are you talking about something like this written in that book that I am talking about?

 

[Axhmed]

I am sorry. I don't know why my post above jumbled up like that. Please see it below. Apologies for re-posting.

Br Muhammad,

I assume that you still haven’t finished reading the book or haven’t got time to reply. Your input is greatly appreciated.



In the meantime, I read the links that you have forwarded earlier and I am familiar with those talking points. I used to use those points before. However, after studying the Q'uran and reading the book ‘The Quran The Untold Truths’, I am not sure whether those talking points are really valid. This is why I need to hear your opinion, as a person of knowledge.


For instance, the Q’uran denounces any Hadith as ‘idle talk’, except the Q’uran (Q 45:6-7). It also says in clear terms that following any other Hadiths are wrong (Q 31:6-7) - (You can find these Quranic verses in my previous post). As to my knowledge, the Q’uran has never qualified the Hadith of the Prophet, anywhere. If it has, then we do not need to have this discussion. However, the people who strongly support Hadiths (ex: the links that you posted) have not given any Q’uranic verse supporting the Hadiths of the Prophet. Instead, they use Hadiths and the Q'uranic statements ‘Obey Allah and obey the Prophet’ along with Q 59:7, to justify following Hadiths. In that process, they have introduced complicated theories, terms, rules, and hard-to-believe isnads without any real evidence to further complicate and confuse the public. There is no evidence of it from the Q'uran, but people just submit to it because they are written eloquently, and also because of its complexity, the general public just doesn’t make an effort to understand, and therefore leaning towards trusting the authority, as in the case of blind faith. Not even 1% of the total Muslim population in the world understands or learned the complexities of Hadiths (or the Q'uran for that matter) and therefore they are blind followers. As a result of the complex nature of these Hadiths with all the contradictions contained in it, people simply do not make an effort to learn the Q’uran. I hope you understand my point.



Similarly, as to my knowledge, there are no verses in the Q’uran that state to follow the Sunnah of the Prophet either. The words Hadith and Sunnah are mentioned in the Q’uran only in relation to Allah. I don’t think Allah forgot to mention in the Q’uran to follow the Hadith, the Sunnah and Sharia Laws of the Prophet if that is so important.



If what is pointed out in the book ‘The Q’uran The Untold Truths’ is true, then the whole Hadith corpus becomes invalid and we are only left with the Q'uran. He has removed all the complexities of understanding the Q'uran and explained most of the Q'uranic terms with logical explanations. When I read one of the articles that you forwarded which defines Hadith as something given to the Prophet from Allah as oral laws, Mishnah of the Jews comes to my mind. The Jews believe Mishnah as the same thing that the Muslims believe as Hadiths. This is my fear. Are we making the same mistakes as the Jews did?



The author of ’The Quran the Untold Truths' talks about the Q'uranic meaning of the statement ‘Obey Allah and obey the Messenger’, and it kind of makes sense to me. He also talks about how the rituals and dogmas were introduced as Hadiths and Sunnah to create a Religion that was not intended by Allah in the Q’uran. He talks about the rituals of Salaa, zakaa, siyam, Shahaada, Hajj and Umra as invented rituals. He has used many Q’uranic verses to explain the Q'uranic meanings of these terms with simple logical analysis to explain and prove his points. Is he right? Where has he made the mistakes? Can you find any Q’uranic verse to prove him wrong? I really need to know, please.



The people who have written in support of Hadiths, Sunnah and Sharia Laws have not supported their claims from the Q’uran, except they have used mainly Hadiths, and the statements ‘Obey Allah and obey the Messenger’ to justify their claim and the verse Q 59:7, which talks about ‘spoils of war’. You seem to be very knowledgeable about the Q’uran. This is why I like to hear your opinion. I hope you understand.



A few other critical question that bothers me is: Which Hadith collection is right - Shias' or Sunnis’? How could we be certain? If both are right, then why the Shia Aqeeda and fundamentals of belief and practices are completely different from Sunnis? Has the Q’uran explicitly mentioned anything about Sharia Laws with the name ‘Sharia Law’?



Thank you kindly

 

[Muhammad]

wa alaykum assalam,

I apologise for the very late reply. I was quite busy around the time of your reply and had to postpone, then this post became quite long. Whilst writing this, I noticed you made a second post -most of the points are similar to your previous post and for the few additional points I have added a response within this post.

Thank you for your detailed message. The author has answered most of your concerns with proofs from the Q’uran. I had to re-visit his book to answer your reply. I strongly suggest you to read his book. I think it is unfair to comment on someone’s writing without reading his work. Here is the link: [link removed]

I did skim through the book initially and I have also re-visited it in writing this reply. It is clear from reading just a part of the book that the author is not bringing any proof or evidence. What he is doing is misinterpreting the Qur'an and trying to invent a new religion. Yet, the very same Qur'an that he claims to be bringing proof from, corrects him. So I am astonished that anyone with even a bit of knowledge about Islam can take him seriously.

For example, the author claims that there is no such thing as angels and that the word Mala'ikah means 'forces of nature', even though angels are referred to by name in the Qur'an and with specific duties such as bringing down the Revelation. Moreover, it is explicitly mentioned in verse 4:136 that, 'Indeed, whoever denies Allah, His angels, His Books, His messengers, and the Last Day has clearly gone far astray.'

To justify his claim, he misquotes verse 53:27 as, 'those who believe the malaaika as flying female beings (eg: fairies), do not believe in the Hereafter'. This is actually an incorrect translation; by changing the meaning we see how the author has directly gone against the verse we have just seen (4:136). The translation more accurately reads, 'Indeed, those who do not believe in the Hereafter name the angels female names'. The disbelievers had a wrong belief that the angels were the daughters of Allah and they gave them female names. See verse 43:19: 'And they described the angels, who are servants of the Most Merciful, as females. Did they witness their creation? Their testimony will be recorded, and they will be questioned.' These verses are not negating the existence of angels but are rather admonishing the disbelievers for their incorrect beliefs. Allah explains that the angels are devout servants and do not have divinity (21:26). So these verses are actually a proof against the author because they show how the Arabs generally understood the word Mala'ikah as referring to a specific creation of Allah and not just mere 'forces of nature'.

What the author must have realised is that if you distort the meaning of one word, it won't fit into other verses where the same word is used. So when he came to the story of Prophet Adam عليه السلام mentioned in the Quran, where it is clearly mentioned that the angels were commanded to prostrate to Adam عليه السلام and that Iblis refused, the author could not find a way out other than to carry on changing the meanings such that he claims that not only does 'angels' not refer to angels, but that 'devil' does not refer to the devil and even 'prostration' does not refer to prostration! So instead of believing in the apparent meanings of what Allah has revealed, the author wants us to believe the exact opposite of what the verses clearly state. This is despite the fact that the Qur'an refers to itself as having been revealed in a 'clear Arabic tongue' (16:103) and one of the reasons that it has been revealed in Arabic is 'so that you may understand' (12:2). It also follows logically that we should try to understand the usage of that language by the people to whom it was revealed.

There is also another important point to highlight here, which is the need for the Sunnah to correctly understand the Qur'an and how the Sunnah provides the necessary context to the Qur'an and limits the boundaries of interpretation. Otherwise people like the author can start claiming whatever they want until there is no Religion left for them to follow.

He talks about the rituals of Salaa, zakaa, siyam, Shahaada, Hajj and Umra as invented rituals. He has used many Q’uranic verses to explain the Q'uranic meanings of these terms with simple logical analysis to explain and prove his points. Is he right?

Following on from the previous point, all the rituals of Islam like salah, zakat, siyam and Hajj are mentioned in the Qur'an and the Sunnah provides further clarity as to their meaning. These actions are not new to our shariah, rather they are common to all the shariahs of the different Prophets عليهم السلام. For example, the act of prayer is so well known throughout the generations that even the Bible and Torah mention how Prophets and the righteous 'fell upon their faces' in worship (for example in Matthew 26:36-39, it says regarding Prophet Isa عليه السلام, 'And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed'). The author does not use any logical analysis at all, he is just denying the obvious meaning of these words.

You claimed that the author is playing with the word Hadiths. You have mentioned in your response (a) - [Qur'an 68:44], (b) - [Qur'an 6:68] and (c) - [Qur'an 20:9] that the Q’uran calls itself Hadith, which I agree.

It should be clearer now that the author is simply continuing the same display of disingenuity when it comes to the matter of Hadith. Although you did not comment on the fact that the word Hadith is used to refer to other things like a historical story or a conversation, we can at least agree that it is used to refer to different things. The author says that in some places the word Hadith refers to the Qur'an and in other places he claims it refers to the Hadith of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. This means he accepts the fact that this word has different usages. What this establishes is that the mere fact that the word 'Hadith' is used in a verse does not automatically mean it is referring to the Hadith of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. So the question is, on what basis do you decide what the meaning is in a particular verse? For example, why do you claim verse 31:6 refers to Hadith of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم if the same word was interpreted as referring to the Qur'an in verse 68:44?

Taken from the Author’s book:
(A) In Q'uran 31:6-7: But there are, among men, those who purchase idle tales (= Hadith), without knowledge (or meaning), to mislead (men) from the Path of Allah and throw ridicule (on the Path): for such there will be a Humiliating Penalty.
When Our Signs are rehearsed to such a one (the purchaser of idle tales), he turns away in arrogance, as if he heard them not, as if there were deafness in both his ears: announce to him a grievous Penalty.

and

(B) Q'uran 45:6-7 - These are the verses of God We convey to you with truth. Then, in what Hadith, if not in God and His verses, will they believe? Woe to every fabricating impostor (of Hadith)!
These verses clearly tell not to follow any Hadith other than the Q’uran. Honestly, I couldn’t find any Q’uranic verse which tells us to follow the Hadith of the Prophet (unless I missed it). So, what do you think these verses in (A) & (B) would mean?

Again, it is a wrong assumption that just because the word 'Hadith' has been used that it automatically refers to the teachings of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم (as per the technical definition). In fact, the context of the verses shows that they are referring to something completely different.

Regarding the context of verse 31:6, after Allah mentions those who are guided by the Qur'an and who dedicate themselves to it, He mentions those who turn away from it and do not show respect to it. Instead of listening to the Qur'an they prefer all kinds of nonsense and falsehood. Note that this verse uses the term لَهْوَ الْحَدِيثِ ('Lahw al-Hadith', rather than simply 'Hadith'); Lahw has a meaning of distraction and the word Hadith is there in the sense of tales told and things said and done, i.e. 'frivolous talk'. So this phrase applies generally to everything which makes one fall into a state of heedlessness as to the remembrance and worship of Allah. This includes any forbidden talk as well as any drivel, or any ineffective talk like singing and music, as well as anything that does not bring benefit in religion or worldly affairs. Such people deal in diversions and bad distractions instead of good speech. Their aim, as stated in the verse, is to 'lead people astray from the way of Allah, without sound knowledge'; after they themselves went astray and lead the people astray. The verse goes on to mention that they make fun of the truth and mock at it and that such people will have a humiliating punishment. It is said this verse was revealed concerning an-Nadr ibn al-Harith, a staunch disbeliever, who bought some ancient Persian stories to distract the people of Quraysh from listening to the Qur’an. Look at the verse which comes next, 'And when Our verses are recited to him, he turns away arrogantly as if he had not heard them, as if there was in his ears deafness. So give him tidings of a painful punishment.' Obviously, no Muslim would treat the Qur'an in such a manner, let alone a Muslim acting in accordance to the teachings of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. So it makes no sense to claim the verse is referring to the Hadith of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, especially considering that if these verses refer to the disbelievers, we know that disbelievers neither follow the Qur'an nor the Hadith.


The context of verse 45:6 also suggests it is directed at the disbelievers of Makkah. The surah starts with an implicit command to venerate the Qur'an and pay attention to it, for it is Revelation from Allah. Then Allah mentions various signs around us which are evidences of Allah's Oneness and Power, such as the creation of the heavens and the earth, what Allah has scattered in them of creatures, what He has placed in them of benefits, and what Allah sends down of water by means of which He gives life to the land and the people. In all these verses a concluding statement is made, 'there are signs for those who have faith'; in another place it concludes: 'there are signs for those who believe' and in a third place it concludes: 'there are signs for those who understand'. It is in this vein that the question is posed in verse 6, 'These are God’s signs that We recount to you [Prophet, to show] the Truth. If they deny God and His revelations, what message will they believe in?' It is clear from the context that it is not talking about the Hadith of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. The very next verses go on to mention, 'Woe to every sinful liar. They hear Allah’s revelations recited to them, then persist ˹in denial˺ arrogantly as if they did not hear them. So give them good news of a painful punishment.' The two categories of people mentioned in these verses are according to whether or not they benefit from Allah's signs: the first category are the believers who learn from Allah's signs, reflect upon them and benefit from them. The other category are those who hear the signs and revelations of Allah being recounted in such a way that proof is established against them, but then they turn away from them in arrogance, as if they did not hear them. Such people, if they do come to know anything of the signs and revelations of Allah, make a mockery of them. Allah warns such people of a painful punishment. Again, these latter verses are said to refer to the likes of An-Nadr ibn al-Harith or Abu Jahl, who were disbelievers.

There are similar verses elsewhere in the Qur'an and the context clearly shows that they are not directed at Muslims. For example, the following passage: 'Eat and enjoy yourselves for a little while, evildoers that you are! Woe that day to the deniers! When it is said to them: Bow [in prayer], they do not bow. Woe that day to the deniers! In what Hadith [message] after this [Qur’an] will they then believe?' [77:46-50] Meaning that if they reject this Qur’an, which is of the highest level of credibility and certainty, then, 'In what message after this [Qur’an] will they then believe?' Will they believe in falsehood on which no specious argument can be based, let alone any sound evidence? Or will they believe in the words of every lying polytheist and blatant sinner?

The reason the author has ignored the context of these verses is because he wants the Revelation to conform to his preconceived ideas. He has made up his mind beforehand that he doesn't want to follow the Hadith and then he is looking for ways to justify this. This is the opposite to what a believer is supposed to do, which is to submit to the Revelation and be guided by its true meanings, regardless of what one personally desires.

Honestly, I couldn’t find any Q’uranic verse which tells us to follow the Hadith of the Prophet (unless I missed it).

In over forty different places, the Qur'an instructs Muslims to obey both Allah and the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم. There is not a single instance where “obey Allah” appears by itself; it is always coupled with “and obey the Messenger.” There are several cases where “obey the Messenger” appears alone without “obey God” before it. The fact that you don't see the word 'Hadith' is irrelevant, because what is important is the intended meaning of these verses. You told me that you believe in Tawheed, but did you know that the word Tawheed does not appear anywhere in the Qur'an? Does that mean that the concept of Tawheed doesn't exist? Of course not. The concept of Tawheed is very obvious to anyone who reads the Qur'an and it does not matter what name we give to the concept. It is the same with the concept of Hadith - whether you call it Hadith, Sunnah or obedience to the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم, the command is there in the Qur'an and the only way to respond to this command is by following the Hadith. It is the same with the issue of 'shariah law'; Shari'ah refers to the entire religion of Islam and includes believing in the Oneness of Allah, enjoining the good and forbidding the evil as well as performing the obligatory religious acts. These are clearly mentioned in the Qur'an.

The author tries to argue that 'Messenger' refers to the Qur'an and quotes a number of verses to try and justify this. Again we see the same desperate strategy. Has he not read the verse, 'Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allah...' [48:29] Also, verse 4:61: 'And when it is said to them ‘Come to what Allah has revealed and to the Messenger’, you see the hypocrites turning away from you with aversion'. It is important to highlight that the verse does not say 'come to what Allah revealed to the Messenger', but rather 'come to what Allah revealed and come to the Messenger.' This makes it evident that the Qur'ān and the Messenger are two separate things, each of which is authoritative in and of itself.

The author claims, 'Nowhere in the quran has it mentioned that prophet Mohamed makes things clear or he is a light'. He should read verses 16:43-44: '[Prophet], all the messengers We sent before you were simply men to whom We had given the Revelation: you [people] can ask those who have knowledge if you do not know. We sent them with clear signs and scriptures. We have sent down the message to you too [Prophet], so that you can explain to people what was sent for them, so that they may reflect.'

The Qur'ān explains that the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم role is to teach the Qur'ān: 'Verily Allah has bestowed grace on the believers by sending to them a Messenger from among themselves who recites to them His revelations, and purifies them, and teaches them the book and wisdom; although before they were in manifest error' (3:164). If the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم authority was limited to delivering the Qur'ān, the Qur'ān would have made that explicit.

I looked it up and found that the Quranic verse that you have mentioned to justify your answer to follow Hadith is only part of the whole verse in 59:7, as it is related to spoils of war, not Hadith.

There are many verses in the Qur'an like this which were revealed regarding specific circumstances yet they can be applied generally. Although this verse is within the context of war booty or distribution of wealth, by extension it refers to whatever the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم gives you, even knowledge and guidance. See the following narration:


It was narrated that ‘Abdullah said: May Allah curse those who do tattoos and those who have tattoos done, those who pluck their eyebrows, and those who file teeth for the purpose of beautification, changing the creation of Allah. News of that reached a woman of Banu Asad who was called Umm Ya‘qoob, and she came to him and said: I have heard that you cursed such and such, and such and such. He said: Why should I not curse those whom the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) cursed, and those who are cursed in the Book of Allah? The woman said: I have read the Mus-haf from cover to cover and I did not find in it what you say. He said: If you had read it you would have found it. Have you not read the verse: ‘And whatsoever the Messenger (Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)) gives you, take it; and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain (from it)’ [al-Hashr 59:7]? She said: Yes. He said: And he did indeed forbid that. She said: I think your family do that. He said: Go and look. So she went and looked, and she did not see anything of what she expected to see. He said: If that were the case, she would not live with us. Narrated by al-Bukhaari (4604) and Muslim (2125)

You have used Q 3:164 & Q 16:44 to justify the Hadith of the Prophet. Again, those verses are related to explaining the Q’uran to people.

The fact that the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم explanation is needed in order to understand the Qur'ān shows it is necessary that this explanation be preserved and followed, hence we have the Hadith which provide the necessary context to verses of the Qur'an. Verses such as 3:164 highlight that the Prophet ﷺ is to teach the Qur'ān and “the wisdom.” Since one teaches by word and example, there must be a source along with the Qur’an that tells us about the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم actions. Imām al-Shāfiʿī explains that “the wisdom” must mean the Sunnah. The term “wisdom” cannot refer to the Qur'ān itself, because it is being taught alongside the Qur'ān.

“What has been revealed” in Q16:44, is the Q’uran, not Hadith.

The point here is how the verse mentions the role of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in explaining the Qur'an and shows the necessity of the Sunnah in understanding the Qur'an properly.

As per my understanding, the Q’uran doesn’t mention that Hadith or Sunnah are revealed to the prophet other than the Q’uran,

The Qur'ān makes it evident that Revelation is not limited to the scriptural Revelation of books, but includes the Sunnah as well. The Qur'ān itself makes this evident by highlighting that Allah 'revealed' to certain Prophets who did not have books: “Indeed, We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], as We revealed to Noah and the prophets after him. And we revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, the Descendants, Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to David We gave the book of Psalms” (Qur'ān 4:163). Because the vast majority of these Prophets did not have books, there must have been a non-scriptural form of Revelation. Despite these Prophets not having scriptures, people were still required to obey them.

Moreover, Allah says (interpretation of the meaning), 'Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination. It is not but a revelation revealed. [53:3-4] This verse indicates that the Sunnah is also Revelation from Allah to His Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم, as He says (interpretation of the meaning), '...For Allah has sent down to you the Book and wisdom...' (4:113) He صلى الله عليه وسلم is protected and infallible with regard to what he says about Allah and about religious rulings, because these words do not stem from his own whims and desires; rather they are based on divine inspiration.

You have quoted Q2:143 & Q2:144 from Insaanah. These 2 verses are also explained in his book somewhere, where it talks about Qibla. I think it is in the Chapter on Hajj.

Once again, the author resorts to a pitiful attempt to change the meaning of verses. He claims that al-Masjid al-Ḥarām means 'consented sanctions' (?!) and that 'Masjid' does not refer to a physical structure. He also makes the ridiculous claim that, 'at the time the Quran was revealed there was no physical Mosque anywhere around the world – not even in Jerusalem'! The same surah, only a small number of verses prior, describes how Prophets Ibrahim and Ismail عليهما السلام built the Ka'bah, 'And ˹remember˺ when Abraham raised the foundation of the House with Ishmael...' [2:127] Surah 105 also makes reference to the story of the 'People of the Elephants' who came with an army of elephants for the purpose of destroying the House of Allah, an event which occurred in the very year in which the Prophet ﷺ was born at Makkah, according to the popular view among historians. This is highlighting the existence of the Masjid at that time. Another pertinent verse is the beginning of surah 17, 'Exalted is He who took His Servant [i.e. Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ] by night from al-Masjid al-Ḥarām to al-Masjid al-Aqṣā, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing.' This verse is clearly highlighting the existence of both physical structures, al-Masjid al-Haram in Makkah and al-Masjid al-Aqsa in Jerusalem. See also the verse 48:27: 'Certainly has Allāh showed to His Messenger the vision [i.e., dream] in truth. You will surely enter al-Masjid al-Ḥarām, if Allāh wills, in safety, with your heads shaved and [hair] shortened...' And we can continue quoting more verses to prove this point but I think it is already clear that the author has no idea of what he is talking about.

I am familiar with Dr Jonathan Browns work and I have read his books. However, when I read The Quran The Untold Truths, I question the authenticity and accuracy of these Hadiths if they were transmitted orally and collected over hundreds of years after the demise of the prophet. How can the accuracy of such work be guaranteed when the speakers were not present. It’s like Chinese whispers or gossip.

The false notion that the Hadith were collected 'hundreds' of years later has been addressed in the following thread: Ahadeeth Myths (islamicboard.com)

It is also worth noting that the process of preserving hadith is very similar to the process of preserving the Qur'an itself. If we accept the Qur'an as being preserved, then there is no reason we should deny the same for the Hadith. The same people who preserved the Qur'an preserved the Hadith; the Qur'an was memorised and written down and so were the Hadith. Moreover, doubting the authenticity of the entire Hadīth corpus involves contending that Allah made it mandatory to obey the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم but made it impossible to do so. It does not befit Allah that He would command Muslims to follow something that is not accurately preserved; otherwise Allah would be requiring us to follow something that does not exist or to follow a falsified report about the religion.

With regards to the Sunnah, you have mentioned "Rather, the Qur'ān makes it unequivocally clear that there were two forms of revelation: the Qur'ān and the Sunnah”. However, you have not mentioned any Quranic verses. Do you have any Quranic verse that says to follow the Sunnah of the prophet?

This point has been addressed above.

In that process, they have introduced complicated theories, terms, rules, and hard-to-believe isnads without any real evidence to further complicate and confuse the public. There is no evidence of it from the Q'uran, but people just submit to it because they are written eloquently, and also because of its complexity, the general public just doesn’t make an effort to understand, and therefore leaning towards trusting the authority, as in the case of blind faith. Not even 1% of the total Muslim population in the world understands or learned the complexities of Hadiths (or the Q'uran for that matter) and therefore they are blind followers. As a result of the complex nature of these Hadiths with all the contradictions contained in it, people simply do not make an effort to learn the Q’uran. I hope you understand my point.

As stated above, the process for preserving the Hadith is similar to that of the Qur'an. The concept of Isnad exists for both of them. Do the general public examine the Isnad for the Qur'an and understand the complexities thereof? They are not required to do that. Likewise for any science of Islam, the whole point of having scholars is that the task of researching and analysing in-depth is left for those who are qualified and able to do so. However, the concept of following the teachings of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is a very simple and logical one and evidenced in the Qur'an.

As for the claim about contradictions in Hadith, people make such claims because they misunderstand or lack the knowledge to contextualize the Hadīth. Scholars have provided the necessary understanding to reconcile between Hadith that might apparently seem to conflict at first glance. Your last point about people not making an effort to learn the Qur'an is untrue. Memorisation of the Qur'an is extremely common in all Muslim communities and it is usually the basis of any Islamic education.

You have mentioned "It was not until the nineteenth century that a movement emerged that rejected the entire corpus of Hadīth and the authority of the Prophet ﷺ. It is inconceivable to think that the whole Ummah got it wrong for numerous centuries until these people emerged. The truth is that the reason why certain people want to reject Hadīth is that they want to free themselves from acting upon the laws of Islam. They do not want to pray, fast, and give charity in the way that Islam has prescribed, and so they attack the authority of Hadīth.” The Q’uranic teachings are not about consensus of the scholars. In fact, the Quran mention the majority of the people are wrong (6:116 & 10:35-36). There are no guarantees that the scholars are absolutely right or rightly guided. Nowhere in the Quran, as to my knowledge, instructs us to seek guidance or learn the Quran from the scholars. Dr Shabbir Ahmed has explained in his Quran Translation that the Quran as its best explanatory (A good read).

The verses you referenced do not disprove the validity of consensus of the scholars of Islam. This is because if you look at the context, you will see they occur in the context of responding to the statements and beliefs of the disbelievers and are understood to be in reference to them. Verse 10:36 is mentioning how the disbelievers did not follow their religion out of evidence but rather they did so out of mere conjecture. It is highlighting that, in contrast, our Religion is based on rational and rigorous evidence, not whims and desires. The phrase, 'most of those upon the earth' in verse 6:116 is understood to be in reference to the disbelievers. Imam At-Tabari explains that it is because most of the people on earth were disbelievers, so if one were to obey the disbelievers he would be lead astray.

On the other hand, there are verses which do prove that the consensus of the scholars constitutes binding evidence, such as: 'And whoever defies the Messenger after guidance has become clear to them and follows a path other than that of the believers, We will let them pursue what they have chosen, then burn them in Hell—what an evil end!' [4:115] This verse is warning against both contending against the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم as well as going against the mainstream view of the believers.

Another verse that scholars have used as supporting evidence is: '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.' [2:143] Imam As-Sa'di explains, 'This verse also indicates that the consensus of this Ummah constitutes definitive proof, and that they are protected from error, because Allah describes them as {justly balanced}. If we were to assume that they agreed upon error, they could not have been described as justly balanced, except in a few issues. Because Allah says {that you might be witnesses over humankind}, this implies that if they testify on a particular matter that Allah has permitted it, forbidden it or made it obligatory, then they cannot be wrong.

There are also a number of verses in the Qur'an praising the people of knowledge, showing they have a special virtue. We are also instructed to ask them: 'And We sent not before you, [O Muḥammad], except men to whom We revealed [the message], so ask the people of the message if you do not know.' [21:7] One of the lessons we learn from this verse is that when we don't know something, we should ask the people of knowledge.

From a logical point of view, it only makes sense to refer to the scholars. If a person becomes sick, does he go to a medical expert or does he try to treat himself? If he treats himself, he may use the wrong medicine that causes more harm because he does not have the necessary knowledge of medicine. Moreover, to study medicine you have to go to university and learn the basic sciences and gradually progress your studies before you can learn more detailed aspects of medicine and treat patients. Similarly, for religious knowledge, it is not something you learn overnight or use guesswork to give verdicts. It needs years of study and deep understanding. The lay Muslim does not have knowledge of the Arabic language on a scholarly level, knowledge of the cause behind revelation of specific verses, or knowledge of abrogation, or knowledge of the Hadith and statements of the Companions, alongside all the other branches of knowledge. The only way to learn your religion is by asking a qualified teacher, and from the beginning of Islam this is how knowledge was passed on.

You have concluded by saying: "I advise you not to read the works of such people. Instead, find a teacher whom you trust in his knowledge and religion and learn the foundations of Islam from him. Don't allow yourself to be deceived by people pretending to be scholars whilst contradicting and disrespecting the Qur'an itself.”. This is contrary to the Q’uran. I think the Q’uran says to read / listen everything and follow the best advice / path. I read works of many writers, read opposing views, compare them with the Q’uran. The work of the author of ’The Quran the untold truths’ definitely shook me to the core. Please read it and give me your opinion.

As I mentioned above, the Qur'an teaches us to learn from the people of knowledge, not to follow conjecture. And it is clear from the examples above how this author is not basing his views upon knowledge or evidence. He hasn't even put his name on the book and has simply written 'anonymous Abdullah'; you wouldn't learn worldly knowledge from anonymous people so why are you entrusting your Religion to an unknown person?

A few other critical question that bothers me is: Which Hadith collection is right - Shias' or Sunnis’? How could we be certain? If both are right, then why the Shia Aqeeda and fundamentals of belief and practices are completely different from Sunnis?

You have answered your own question here. If the Shi'a have completely different fundamentals that oppose the clear teachings of Islam (including their belief that the Qur'an has been altered) then obviously their Hadith collection is not reliable.

 

[Axhmed]

Br Muhammad, Thank you very much for your detailed explanations. It will help me in understanding from a different perspective to make a better decision. You have written your response from the standpoint of Hadith and the formal translation of the Quran believing all rituals and its definitions. The author, on the other hand, has completely abandoned the Hadith views and given his explanations from the Quran alone, denying all rituals. I have to study your response with the Author's book a bit deeper to understand better. I will update you if I find any discrepancies or need further clarification from you. I thank you once again for taking the time to write your long response.

 

[Axhmed]

Dear Br Muhammad,

I reviewed your long explanations and what the Author says in his book with an open and critical mind. Since your article is very long, I will post my comments on the first half of your article here for now. Then, I will, insha Allah, post my comments on the second half of your article on a later date.

Please note that I, at times, was very critical in certain areas where I found mis-quote from you, where I had to call it out. My intention was not to offend you. I kindly ask you to excuse me.

I did skim through the book initially and I have also re-visited it in writing this reply. It is clear from reading just a part of the book that the author is not bringing any proof or evidence. What he is doing is misinterpreting the Qur'an and trying to invent a new religion. Yet, the very same Qur'an that he claims to be bringing proof from, corrects him. So I am astonished that anyone with even a bit of knowledge about Islam can take him seriously.

For example, the author claims that there is no such thing as angels and that the word Mala'ikah means 'forces of nature', even though angels are referred to by name in the Qur'an and with specific duties such as bringing down the Revelation. Moreover, it is explicitly mentioned in verse 4:136 that, 'Indeed, whoever denies Allah, His angels, His Books, His messengers, and the Last Day has clearly gone far astray.'

To justify his claim, he misquotes verse 53:27 as, 'those who believe the malaaika as flying female beings (eg: fairies), do not believe in the Hereafter'. This is actually an incorrect translation; by changing the meaning we see how the author has directly gone against the verse we have just seen (4:136). The translation more accurately reads, 'Indeed, those who do not believe in the Hereafter name the angels female names'. The disbelievers had a wrong belief that the angels were the daughters of Allah and they gave them female names. See verse 43:19: 'And they described the angels, who are servants of the Most Merciful, as females. Did they witness their creation? Their testimony will be recorded, and they will be questioned.' These verses are not negating the existence of angels but are rather admonishing the disbelievers for their incorrect beliefs. Allah explains that the angels are devout servants and do not have divinity (21:26). So these verses are actually a proof against the author because they show how the Arabs generally understood the word Mala'ikah as referring to a specific creation of Allah and not just mere 'forces of nature'.

What the author must have realised is that if you distort the meaning of one word, it won't fit into other verses where the same word is used. So when he came to the story of Prophet Adam عليه السلام mentioned in the Quran, where it is clearly mentioned that the angels were commanded to prostrate to Adam عليه السلام and that Iblis refused, the author could not find a way out other than to carry on changing the meanings such that he claims that not only does 'angels' not refer to angels, but that 'devil' does not refer to the devil and even 'prostration' does not refer to prostration! So instead of believing in the apparent meanings of what Allah has revealed, the author wants us to believe the exact opposite of what the verses clearly state. This is despite the fact that the Qur'an refers to itself as having been revealed in a 'clear Arabic tongue' (16:103) and one of the reasons that it has been revealed in Arabic is 'so that you may understand' (12:2). It also follows logically that we should try to understand the usage of that language by the people to whom it was revealed.

There is also another important point to highlight here, which is the need for the Sunnah to correctly understand the Qur'an and how the Sunnah provides the necessary context to the Qur'an and limits the boundaries of interpretation. Otherwise people like the author can start claiming whatever they want until there is no Religion left for them to follow.

It is incorrect to state that the Author is trying to create a 'new religion’. In fact, he disapproves of all religion as Idolization. He points out in Chapter 3 and 4 that Moses, Esa and Muhammed didn’t bring any religion, and the religions were attached to the scriptures, by the enemies of Allah, many years after the respective prophets were passed on. He points out that ‘islam’ is not a religion, but a ‘path’ or ‘a way of life’. This coincide with the Gospel as well. When I think of the verses where Allah talks about Satan and his enmity towards mankind, I can only imagine that the author may be right in his understanding that the religions could be the inventions of the Satan.

I also do not agree with your statement that “the author is not bringing any proof”. He has also not misinterpreted the Quran as you claimed. He has given ample proof from the Quran and has mostly taken his interpretations from the popular translators.

It is also inaccurate to state that he doesn’t believe in ‘Malaaika’. He believes in ‘Malaaika’, but it is not the same definition as we are familiar with, as ‘Angels’ - flying creatures. He has quoted the verse 53:27 from QXP translation. QXP translation also call ‘Malaaikas’ as universal forces. Please see what Dr Shabbir has mentioned under this verse in QXP: Only those who do not believe in the Hereafter consider the forces in Nature as flying female beings and name them with female names. [Even many Muslims, under the influence of fabricated Hadith, think of angels as beautiful physical beings flying on wings here and there. Moreover they imagine that these beings pray for them, prompt them to do good as opposed to 'Satan', the selfish desires, and that they will intercede on their behalf. Such people have practically denied the Hereafter since people's outcome depends on their actions. See 2:30]

Before reading this book, I used to believe that the ‘Angels’ were ‘flying female beings’, because that is what I was taught. But, this is not true. The author says, ‘Malaaikas’ are ‘energies' with assigned tasks. To make it clear, the Author doesn’t disapprove of ‘Malaaika’. He only disapproves the formal definition for ‘Malaaiks’ as ‘Angels’. I hope you will correct your error.

As per the author, the satan is part of universal energy, but he disobeyed God. He explains how these negative universal energies that we called Satan, whisper to our hearts. He uses the Quranic verses where Satan’s whispers are mentioned, like Sura an-nas. He says Satan is not a physical being, but an energy. This make sense. We don’t have to disagree with him just because it is a new concept for us, as long as he provided evidence from the Quran to prove his points.

You claimed that the author distort the meaning of one word and it doesn’t fit-in other verses. I see this kind of errors mostly in the common Quran translators, as pointed out by the author. For example, the Quran translators have given contradicting meanings to the words solaa, zakaa, hajj and umra, which he has talked about in his book. With regards to malaaika, satan and Sajada his interpretations are consistent. He has not changed his definitions anywhere as to my knowledge. Please correct me if I am wrong. He says ‘Sajada’ means ‘to consent’ and not ‘prostration’ or ‘submission’. He explains in Chapter 3 why ‘Sajada’ is ‘consent’. It make so much sense. Again, this is not what the traditional belief is, but it doesn’t make him wrong. He says Allah hasn’t demanded our submission anywhere in the Quran, but wants us to consent to His messages, WILLINGLY. Don’t you find this interpretation align with the Quran? He also points out, if Sajada is ‘prostration’, did God tell ‘Malaaika’ to prostrate to Adam, whereas prostration indicate idle-worship? Don’t you agree? So, maybe that traditional translators could have made the mistake.

Following on from the previous point, all the rituals of Islam like salah, zakat, siyam and Hajj are mentioned in the Qur'an and the Sunnah provides further clarity as to their meaning. These actions are not new to our shariah, rather they are common to all the shariahs of the different Prophets عليهم السلام. For example, the act of prayer is so well known throughout the generations that even the Bible and Torah mention how Prophets and the righteous 'fell upon their faces' in worship (for example in Matthew 26:36-39, it says regarding Prophet Isa عليه السلام, 'And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed'). The author does not use any logical analysis at all, he is just denying the obvious meaning of these words.

I don’t dispute that the Salaa, zaka, siam and Hajj are mentioned in the Q’uran. However, if you take the traditional meanings of these words, many of the verses don’t make any sense. The author has clearly demonstrated the probable/correct meaning of these words with many examples from the Quran, without the help of Sunnah, which make complete sense. What is the purpose of the Quran as a book, if you require Hadith or Sunnah to explain it? According to him, Shariah is a manmade concept for which there is no mention in the Quran.

Please read Chapter 17, 18, 24 & 28 of his book. For example, in Chapter 18, the author introduce the word ‘solaa’ as ‘commitment’. As per the Quran, the God has talked about ‘solaa’ with the other prophets before Muhammed. So, it is not a new concept for Muhammed, where as we were told that Muhammed made a special journey to meet God, to receive this ‘solaa’. First of all, the whole story of ‘physical ascension’ in that made-up carriage is worse than a Greek mythical story. Second of all, the story that we were taught in verse 17:1 of the Quran is clearly not related to Muhammed, but Musa. If you continue to read verse 17:2, which begins with the word ‘and’ indicates that verse 17:1 and 17:2 are related, and it is with regards to Musa, and not Muhammed. Since non of these hard to believe myths are mentioned in the Quran, there was definitely a need to invent these stories to aid their supposition. So Hadith played a crucial role in mending this gap. It is conjecture and conjecture cannot take the place of truth. (Q 10:36)

It looks like someone has purposely given new meanings to these words to misguide people. When those meaning didn’t fit-in in certain verses, they have twisted the meaning to something else, so there is no consistency in the tradition translations. The author of the book has clarified these errors and is consistent with the meaning of these words. Who ever invented false meaning of these words have introduced a new doctrine (a religion), which is not intended or explicit in the Quran.

You have mention that the Torah mentioned about ‘fell on the faces’ as in prayers. The author talks about this term, also erroneously translated by the traditional Quran translators, in Chapter 12. And we know very well, that the Christians and Jews have attributed 2 different religions to their scriptures. Whereas the Quran indicates that they were told to follow ‘islam’ as the deen. Do you agree?

It should be clearer now that the author is simply continuing the same display of disingenuity when it comes to the matter of Hadith. Although you did not comment on the fact that the word Hadith is used to refer to other things like a historical story or a conversation, we can at least agree that it is used to refer to different things. The author says that in some places the word Hadith refers to the Qur'an and in other places he claims it refers to the Hadith of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. This means he accepts the fact that this word has different usages. What this establishes is that the mere fact that the word 'Hadith' is used in a verse does not automatically mean it is referring to the Hadith of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. So the question is, on what basis do you decide what the meaning is in a particular verse? For example, why do you claim verse 31:6 refers to Hadith of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم if the same word was interpreted as referring to the Qur'an in verse 68:44?

I have agreed to the fact that the Quran uses the word Hadith to mean conversation, message, story (Q 68:44, 6:68, 20:9), including historical story. It is also true that the author claims that Allah says in the Quran that it is the best Hadith and the others as conjecture. But he has never claimed that it refers to the Hadith of the prophet. According to him, prophet Muhammed never left any Hadith, and Hadith are made up stories attributed to the Prophet.

I also did not claim (as you have mentioned) anywhere that the verse 31:6 talks about the Hadith of the prophet. It talks about people who use Hadith (= speech/story/gossip), which are attributed to the prophet, as pass time. The verse 31:6 also says: “those will have a painful punishment” - A warning from Allah to the Hadith believers. The next verse 31:7 says “When Our Signs are rehearsed to such a one (ie: the purchaser of idle tales = hadith), he turns away in arrogance, as if he heard them not, as if there were deafness in both his ears: announce to him a grievous Penalty.” I don’t know about you. When I read that verse I get goosebumps. Who do you think that verse referring to? This verse indicate any Hadith (other than the Quran) are fabricated. Isn’t it ironic that the inventors of these stories, unwittingly named their fabrications as ‘Hadith’? The verse 68:44 says “Then leave Me alone with such as reject this Message (= Quran): by degrees shall We punish them from directions they perceive not.” - Another strong warning from Allah for the rejectors of the Quran.

Again, it is a wrong assumption that just because the word 'Hadith' has been used that it automatically refers to the teachings of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم (as per the technical definition). In fact, the context of the verses shows that they are referring to something completely different.

Let me be clear. Nowhere did I or the author claimed the word ‘Hadith’ in the Quran refers to the Hadith of the Prophet. Hadith in the Quran refers to speech/conversation/story. The Quran refers to it as the best Hadith, and everything else as fabricated conjecture - that includes the Hadith of the Muslims that are attributed to prophet Muhammed.

Regarding the context of verse 31:6, after Allah mentions those who are guided by the Qur'an and who dedicate themselves to it, He mentions those who turn away from it and do not show respect to it. Instead of listening to the Qur'an they prefer all kinds of nonsense and falsehood. Note that this verse uses the term لَهْوَ الْحَدِيثِ ('Lahw al-Hadith', rather than simply 'Hadith'); Lahw has a meaning of distraction and the word Hadith is there in the sense of tales told and things said and done, i.e. 'frivolous talk'. So this phrase applies generally to everything which makes one fall into a state of heedlessness as to the remembrance and worship of Allah. This includes any forbidden talk as well as any drivel, or any ineffective talk like singing and music, as well as anything that does not bring benefit in religion or worldly affairs. Such people deal in diversions and bad distractions instead of good speech. Their aim, as stated in the verse, is to 'lead people astray from the way of Allah, without sound knowledge'; after they themselves went astray and lead the people astray. The verse goes on to mention that they make fun of the truth and mock at it and that such people will have a humiliating punishment. It is said this verse was revealed concerning an-Nadr ibn al-Harith, a staunch disbeliever, who bought some ancient Persian stories to distract the people of Quraysh from listening to the Qur’an. Look at the verse which comes next, 'And when Our verses are recited to him, he turns away arrogantly as if he had not heard them, as if there was in his ears deafness. So give him tidings of a painful punishment.' Obviously, no Muslim would treat the Qur'an in such a manner, let alone a Muslim acting in accordance to the teachings of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. So it makes no sense to claim the verse is referring to the Hadith of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, especially considering that if these verses refer to the disbelievers, we know that disbelievers neither follow the Qur'an nor the Hadith.

I have discussed about verse 31:6 & 31:7 in the previous post. Here it is again: “But there are, among men, those who purchase idle tales (= Hadith), without knowledge (or meaning), to mislead (men) from the Path of Allah and throw ridicule (on the Path): for such there will be a Humiliating Penalty. When Our Signs are rehearsed to such a one (the purchaser of idle tales), he turns away in arrogance, as if he heard them not, as if there were deafness in both his ears: announce to him a grievous Penalty.”

These 2 verse unequivocally talk about the “believers of fabricated Hadith" and the rejectors of the Quran. They are the same. Yes, instead of learning from the Quran, they prefer all kinds of nonsense and fabrications. At least you finally agreed to what these verses indicate. The word ‘Lahw’ has a meaning of distraction - distraction from the Quran. Doesn’t the Hadith do the same thing - distraction from the Quran? Don’t the Muslims mostly follow and stress on following Hadiths than the Quran? So you finally agreed to your own argument. By the way, Hadith does not mean singing and music.

The weakness in your argument is that you have to bring Hadith, in this case, the story of ibn-al-Harith, to explain the Quranic verse. However, you don’t see it as a distraction, fabrication of the truth or conjecture on your part. This is where the problem. These verses talk about the Hadith believers - The Muslims. Christians, Jews, Buddhists or Hindus don’t believe in Hadith. So it doesn’t refer them. It refers the Muslims - the Muslims are the Hadith believers. So, your argument proves the point that you are desperately trying to hide.

The context of verse 45:6 also suggests it is directed at the disbelievers of Makkah. The surah starts with an implicit command to venerate the Qur'an and pay attention to it, for it is Revelation from Allah. Then Allah mentions various signs around us which are evidences of Allah's Oneness and Power, such as the creation of the heavens and the earth, what Allah has scattered in them of creatures, what He has placed in them of benefits, and what Allah sends down of water by means of which He gives life to the land and the people. In all these verses a concluding statement is made, 'there are signs for those who have faith'; in another place it concludes: 'there are signs for those who believe' and in a third place it concludes: 'there are signs for those who understand'. It is in this vein that the question is posed in verse 6, 'These are God’s signs that We recount to you [Prophet, to show] the Truth. If they deny God and His revelations, what message will they believe in?' It is clear from the context that it is not talking about the Hadith of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. The very next verses go on to mention, 'Woe to every sinful liar. They hear Allah’s revelations recited to them, then persist ˹in denial˺ arrogantly as if they did not hear them. So give them good news of a painful punishment.' The two categories of people mentioned in these verses are according to whether or not they benefit from Allah's signs: the first category are the believers who learn from Allah's signs, reflect upon them and benefit from them. The other category are those who hear the signs and revelations of Allah being recounted in such a way that proof is established against them, but then they turn away from them in arrogance, as if they did not hear them. Such people, if they do come to know anything of the signs and revelations of Allah, make a mockery of them. Allah warns such people of a painful punishment. Again, these latter verses are said to refer to the likes of An-Nadr ibn al-Harith or Abu Jahl, who were disbelievers.

The verses 45:5, 6 & 7 does not indicate anywhere that it is meant for disbelievers of Makkah. That is your assumption and conjecture, and the Hadith believers had to attach a Hadith to it to confuse people. It not only apply to the disbelievers of Makkah, it is equally apply to the disbelievers of today. The Quran is for all eras - previous, future and the present. If it apply mostly to the past events, then we wouldn’t require it for the present. I see that you have even tried to twist the meaning of the translation of 45:6 in order to save the Hadith. Let’s review the verses 45:6-7 - These are the verses of God We convey to you with truth. Then, in what Hadith, if not in God and His verses, will they believe? Woe to every fabricating impostor (of Hadith)!

However much you try to put the blame on Makkans’ or ibn-al-Harith as these verses refer to, it doesn’t work. It talk about the Hadith believers. You realize that Makkans’ or Ibn-Harith are not mentioned in these verses. It talk about the Hadith believers. It is only the Hadith believers blame it on someone else, to continue their disbelief in the Quran. These verses clearly and unequivocally state the fabricated nature of Hadith as oppose to the truth in the Quran. We don’t have to look beyond ourselves to see who Allah may be referring there. We have to look in ourselves. Isn’t it scary?

There are similar verses elsewhere in the Qur'an and the context clearly shows that they are not directed at Muslims. For example, the following passage: 'Eat and enjoy yourselves for a little while, evildoers that you are! Woe that day to the deniers! When it is said to them: Bow [in prayer], they do not bow. Woe that day to the deniers! In what Hadith [message] after this [Qur’an] will they then believe?' [77:46-50] Meaning that if they reject this Qur’an, which is of the highest level of credibility and certainty, then, 'In what message after this [Qur’an] will they then believe?' Will they believe in falsehood on which no specious argument can be based, let alone any sound evidence? Or will they believe in the words of every lying polytheist and blatant sinner?

If these verses are not directed at Muslims, whom are these verses directing at. Who else believe the Hadiths other than Muslims? The verses 77:46-50 address the ‘deniers’, which include Muslims as well. Aren’t the Muslims who believe and follow fabricated Hadith, while rejecting the Quran, as if they have never heard such verses (see 45:5-7 and 31:6-7 above)? You have described the Hadith believers above, I quote: “in what message (= Hadith) after this (Quran) will then then believe?. Will they believe in falsehood on which no specious argument can be based, let alone any sound evidence? Or will they believe in the words of every lying polytheist and blatant sinner?”

It is even hard for you not to talk the Quranic truth sometimes without exposing yourself. You clearly described the Hadith believers as “lying polytheist and blatant sinner”.

The reason the author has ignored the context of these verses is because he wants the Revelation to conform to his preconceived ideas. He has made up his mind beforehand that he doesn't want to follow the Hadith and then he is looking for ways to justify this. This is the opposite to what a believer is supposed to do, which is to submit to the Revelation and be guided by its true meanings, regardless of what one personally desires.

I have to disagree with you that the author has ignored the context of these verses. I can clearly see the author is talking to the point, straight forward in his explanation with no preconceived ideas throughout his book. On the other hand, I can see you trying in vain to hold on to your preconceived ideas of Hadith without any bases or Quranic evidence. The author is in full support of the Quran as the revelation, whereas you are against it.

Peace.

 

[Muhammad]

In writing this post I have realised that this discussion is going nowhere. You have not provided a single piece of evidence to disprove what I have said and instead have ignored many points and twisted some of the meanings of things I said. This is usually the tactic of people who can’t find a way to support their claims and are not interested in truth. As a result, this thread will end here. I have written a quick response to the first half of the discussion and then I decided not to waste time with the second half after I saw your true colours.

It is incorrect to state that the Author is trying to create a 'new religion’. In fact, he disapproves of all religion as Idolization. He points out in Chapter 3 and 4 that Moses, Esa and Muhammed didn’t bring any religion, and the religions were attached to the scriptures, by the enemies of Allah, many years after the respective prophets were passed on. He points out that ‘islam’ is not a religion, but a ‘path’ or ‘a way of life’. This coincide with the Gospel as well. When I think of the verses where Allah talks about Satan and his enmity towards mankind, I can only imagine that the author may be right in his understanding that the religions could be the inventions of the Satan.

Whether you say Islam is a way of life or a religion is a separate discussion. The point here is that Islam comprises of whatever is brought by the Qur'an and whatever the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم has taught us. What the author has brought is from neither of these two sources.

I also do not agree with your statement that “the author is not bringing any proof”. He has also not misinterpreted the Quran as you claimed. He has given ample proof from the Quran and has mostly taken his interpretations from the popular translators.

This is not true. All the author does is make claims, which anyone can do. And I have pointed out how these claims are untenable just by reading the Qur'an itself. He tries to change the meaning but it simply doesn't work. The only reference he makes is to the likes of a 'Shabbir Ahmed', but we are not told who this Shabbir Ahmed is. What makes his opinion outweigh the understanding of all the Muslim scholars? Show me one classical Arabic dictionary which supports the meanings that he is suggesting, or show me one line of classical Arabic poetry which shows that the Arabs understood those words in the ways being claimed. Simply quoting 'Shabbir Ahmed' is not a proof for anything. If he next suggests that the word 'Allah' does not refer to God, will you become an atheist?

It is also inaccurate to state that he doesn’t believe in ‘Malaaika’.

You are misquoting me. I didn't say he didn't believe in Mala'ikah. I said, 'the author claims that there is no such thing as angels'. On pages 89-90 he states very clearly, 'As per the quran, the ‘malaaika’ are the ‘universal forces of nature... Therefore the ‘malaaika’ are not ‘angels’ in its literal meaning...'

He has quoted the verse 53:27 from QXP translation. QXP translation also call ‘Malaaikas’ as universal forces.

I am aware of this. But you have not commented on my response to this, showing how the understanding that Mala'ikah are mere 'forces of nature' doesn't make sense just by reading the various verses of the Qur'an in which this verse is used.

Before reading this book, I used to believe that the ‘Angels’ were ‘flying female beings’, because that is what I was taught. But, this is not true.

I am not aware of any Muslim who believes or teaches that angels are flying female beings. Perhaps you are confusing Islam with Christianity here.

As per the author, the satan is part of universal energy, but he disobeyed God. He explains how these negative universal energies that we called Satan, whisper to our hearts. He uses the Quranic verses where Satan’s whispers are mentioned, like Sura an-nas. He says Satan is not a physical being, but an energy. This make sense. We don’t have to disagree with him just because it is a new concept for us, as long as he provided evidence from the Quran to prove his points.

Verse 7:12 tells us the reply of satan: Allah asked, “What prevented you from prostrating when I commanded you?” He replied, “I am better than he is: You created me from fire and him from clay.” See also verse 18:50: 'And ˹remember˺ when We said to the angels, “Prostrate before Adam,” so they all did—but not Iblîs, who was one of the jinn, but he rebelled against the command of his Lord...'

Does it make sense to you that a 'universal energy' argued with Allah and deemed itself better than Adam because it was created from fire? Which energy do you know of that is created from fire? And why does verse 18:50 say this so-called universal energy was 'one of the jinn'? Even the author did not give a complete explanation of how he understands these verses because he has practically changed all the key words such that they have become devoid of meaning. Reading his ideas about negative energy etc, one would think he is talking about yin and yang theory.

You claimed that the author distort the meaning of one word and it doesn’t fit-in other verses. I see this kind of errors mostly in the common Quran translators, as pointed out by the author. For example, the Quran translators have given contradicting meanings to the words solaa, zakaa, hajj and umra, which he has talked about in his book.

And yet you haven't mentioned a single example as evidence.

He says ‘Sajada’ means ‘to consent’ and not ‘prostration’ or ‘submission’. He explains in Chapter 3 why ‘Sajada’ is ‘consent’. It make so much sense.

So putting all of this together, you believe that 'universal forces of nature' were commanded by Allah to 'consent' to Adam but a 'negative universal energy' refused. Does that really make so much sense to you?

He says Allah hasn’t demanded our submission anywhere in the Quran, but wants us to consent to His messages, WILLINGLY.

What is the difference between submitting willingly and consenting willingly? I don't actually understand what consent even means in this context - why would our consent be needed and how do we consent?

He also points out, if Sajada is ‘prostration’, did God tell ‘Malaaika’ to prostrate to Adam, whereas prostration indicate idle-worship? Don’t you agree?

This has been discussed in the books of Tafsir. Prostration is not necessarily performed for worship; it can be out of respect.

What is the purpose of the Quran as a book, if you require Hadith or Sunnah to explain it?

Both are to be taken hand-in-hand. What is the purpose of sending the Qur'an via a Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم if his role is not to explain it? The Qur'an could have been revealed to each person individually or it could have been discovered etc.

According to him, Shariah is a manmade concept for which there is no mention in the Quran.

I am not interested in the author's opinion. I am interested in what the Qur'an says. As per my previous post, which you seem to have largely ignored, I said, 'Shari'ah refers to the entire religion of Islam and includes believing in the Oneness of Allah, enjoining the good and forbidding the evil as well as performing the obligatory religious acts. These are clearly mentioned in the Qur'an.' Even the author agrees that Islam involves believing in Allah and doing good deeds and staying away from bad. So he is actually affirming the existence of at least part of Shariah even though he doesn't use that term.

For example, in Chapter 18, the author introduce the word ‘solaa’ as ‘commitment’. As per the Quran, the God has talked about ‘solaa’ with the other prophets before Muhammed. So, it is not a new concept for Muhammed, where as we were told that Muhammed made a special journey to meet God, to receive this ‘solaa’.

It is not a new concept but the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم still needed to be taught the details of the prayer by Allah سبحانه وتعالى, as with other aspects of the religion.

First of all, the whole story of ‘physical ascension’ in that made-up carriage is worse than a Greek mythical story.

Such was the attitude of the disbelievers who viewed all miracles given to our beloved Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم with skepticism and ridicule. For Muslims, however, we have no problem is believing something that has been referred to in more than one place in the Qur'an and reported in numerous Hadith. Al-Hafiz Abul-Khattab `Umar ibn Dihyah said in his book At-Tanwir fi Mawlid as-Siraj Al-Munir: “There are Mutawatir reports about the Hadith of the Isra’ narrated from `Umar ibn Al-Khattab, `Ali, Ibn Mas`ud, Abu Dharr, Malik ibn Sa`sa`ah, Abu Hurayrah, Abu Sa`id, Ibn `Abbas, Shaddad ibn Aws, Ubayy ibn Ka`b, `Abd ar-Rahman ibn Qart, Abu Habbah Al-Ansari, Abu Layla Al-Ansari, `Abdullah ibn `Amr, Jabir, Hudhayfah, Buraydah, Abu Ayyub, Abu Umamah, Samurah ibn Jundub, Abu’l-Hamra’, Suhayb Ar-Rumi, Umm Hani’, and `Aishah and Asma’ the daughters of Abu Bakr As-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with them all). Some of them reported it at length and others reported it more briefly..."

Second of all, the story that we were taught in verse 17:1 of the Quran is clearly not related to Muhammed, but Musa. If you continue to read verse 17:2, which begins with the word ‘and’ indicates that verse 17:1 and 17:2 are related, and it is with regards to Musa, and not Muhammed.

These two verses are indeed connected but that doesn't prove that the first verse is not regarding the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم. It is common in the Qur'an to find these two Prophets or their Scriptures mentioned together. At the end of this very same surah, after mentioning the obstinate attitude of the disbelieving Arab pagans, Allah سبحانه وتعالى again mentions Prophet Musa عليه السلام in verse 17:101.

It looks like someone has purposely given new meanings to these words to misguide people. When those meaning didn’t fit-in in certain verses, they have twisted the meaning to something else, so there is no consistency in the tradition translations.

My point exactly about this 'anonymous Abdullah'. As for traditional translations, you haven't brought a single example of lack of consistency.

You have mention that the Torah mentioned about ‘fell on the faces’ as in prayers. The author talks about this term, also erroneously translated by the traditional Quran translators, in Chapter 12. And we know very well, that the Christians and Jews have attributed 2 different religions to their scriptures.

The point is that it's not a coincidence that we find this phrase in other books, even if they are not fully preserved.

I have agreed to the fact that the Quran uses the word Hadith to mean conversation, message, story (Q 68:44, 6:68, 20:9), including historical story. It is also true that the author claims that Allah says in the Quran that it is the best Hadith and the others as conjecture. But he has never claimed that it refers to the Hadith of the prophet. According to him, prophet Muhammed never left any Hadith, and Hadith are made up stories attributed to the Prophet.

We have seen in verse 3:164: 'Verily Allah has bestowed grace on the believers by sending to them a Messenger from among themselves who recites to them His revelations, and purifies them, and teaches them the book and wisdom; although before they were in manifest error' The Qur'an is clearly telling us that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم explained the Qur'an to the people. See also 16:44. These explanations are what the Hadith comprise of, amongst other things. So how is it possible to claim that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم never left any Hadith? To suggest such a thing is going against the clear meanings of these verses of the Qur'an.

I also did not claim (as you have mentioned) anywhere that the verse 31:6 talks about the Hadith of the prophet. It talks about people who use Hadith (= speech/story/gossip), which are attributed to the prophet, as pass time.

Thank you for clarifying that. We can agree that the verse only uses the words Lahw (distraction) and Hadith (tales). So what is your evidence that this verse is talking about Hadith attributed to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم? That is not mentioned anywhere in the verse.

The verse 31:6 also says: “those will have a painful punishment” - A warning from Allah to the Hadith believers. The next verse 31:7 says “When Our Signs are rehearsed to such a one (ie: the purchaser of idle tales = hadith), he turns away in arrogance, as if he heard them not, as if there were deafness in both his ears: announce to him a grievous Penalty.” I don’t know about you. When I read that verse I get goosebumps. Who do you think that verse referring to?

As I said in my previous reply, it doesn't make sense to apply this to Muslims who follow Hadith. Can you show me one Hadith that encourages people to turn away from the Qur'an? No Muslim would treat the Qur'an in such a manner. It is the disbelievers who turn away in arrogance. If the verse is about disbelievers, obviously they follow neither the Qur'an nor the Hadith.

Isn’t it ironic that the inventors of these stories, unwittingly named their fabrications as ‘Hadith’?

As per your own admission, the word Hadith simply means 'speech/story' and we have seen how it can be used in different contexts, even to refer to the Qur'an. So this statement of the author's is quite meaningless really.

The verse 68:44 says “Then leave Me alone with such as reject this Message (= Quran): by degrees shall We punish them from directions they perceive not.” - Another strong warning from Allah for the rejectors of the Quran.

Anyone who rejects the Qur'an is obviously not a Muslim and wouldn't be following Hadith.

The Quran refers to it as the best Hadith, and everything else as fabricated conjecture - that includes the Hadith of the Muslims that are attributed to prophet Muhammed.

All Muslims agree that the Qur'an refers to itself as the best Hadith. As for the rest of your statement, that is not mentioned in the Qur'an so we will simply ignore it.

The word ‘Lahw’ has a meaning of distraction - distraction from the Quran. Doesn’t the Hadith do the same thing - distraction from the Quran? Don’t the Muslims mostly follow and stress on following Hadiths than the Quran? So you finally agreed to your own argument.

You are so eager to twist meanings and yet you simply make yourself look even more silly. Please open up a Hadith collection to see how many Hadith have been narrated with regards to the virtue, status and importance of the Qur'an. As for this verse, the context has already been discussed above so there is no need to repeat it.

By the way, Hadith does not mean singing and music.

Nobody said it did. We are talking about the phrase 'lahw al-Hadith' here.

The weakness in your argument is that you have to bring Hadith, in this case, the story of ibn-al-Harith, to explain the Quranic verse.

Being able to understand the Qur'an in the way that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and his Companions understood it is a huge blessing. I feel sorry for Hadith rejectors who are completely lost when they try to understand the Qur'an.

The verses 45:5, 6 & 7 does not indicate anywhere that it is meant for disbelievers of Makkah. That is your assumption and conjecture, and the Hadith believers had to attach a Hadith to it to confuse people.

I have already given the explanation from the context of these verses to show this point. I am not sure what is so confusing about mentioning the name of the people whom it may be referring to. What is difficult to understand there?

I see that you have even tried to twist the meaning of the translation of 45:6 in order to save the Hadith. Let’s review the verses 45:6-7 - These are the verses of God We convey to you with truth. Then, in what Hadith, if not in God and His verses, will they believe? Woe to every fabricating impostor (of Hadith)!

I have not twisted the meaning; in fact, if you look closely at the two translations you will see they are quite similar in meaning. I see you have added the word 'Hadith' to the following verse though, which is not there in the Arabic. From where did you get that interpretation I wonder?

However much you try to put the blame on Makkans’ or ibn-al-Harith as these verses refer to, it doesn’t work. It talk about the Hadith believers. You realize that Makkans’ or Ibn-Harith are not mentioned in these verses. It talk about the Hadith believers. It is only the Hadith believers blame it on someone else, to continue their disbelief in the Quran. These verses clearly and unequivocally state the fabricated nature of Hadith as oppose to the truth in the Quran. We don’t have to look beyond ourselves to see who Allah may be referring there. We have to look in ourselves. Isn’t it scary?

I provided an explanation for why the context of the verse points towards disbelievers. Where is your explanation of why the verses 'unequivocally state the fabricated nature of Hadith'? All you are doing is repeating empty claims and providing no logical argument whatsoever.

The verses 77:46-50 address the ‘deniers’, which include Muslims as well.

How can a person deny the truth and be a Muslim at the same time?

Aren’t the Muslims who believe and follow fabricated Hadith, while rejecting the Quran, as if they have never heard such verses (see 45:5-7 and 31:6-7 above)?

A person who rejects the Qur'an cannot be a Muslim, and I think you'll struggle to find anyone who follows Hadith whilst rejecting the Qur'an.

It is even hard for you not to talk the Quranic truth sometimes without exposing yourself. You clearly described the Hadith believers as “lying polytheist and blatant sinner”.

You started your post talking about misquoting. And here you are writing outright lies. What a shame, I thought you were here with sincere intentions. But thank you for making it clear to me that I should stop wasting my time.

I have to disagree with you that the author has ignored the context of these verses. I can clearly see the author is talking to the point, straight forward in his explanation with no preconceived ideas throughout his book. On the other hand, I can see you trying in vain to hold on to your preconceived ideas of Hadith without any bases or Quranic evidence. The author is in full support of the Quran as the revelation, whereas you are against it.

Perhaps that's because you are the author himself, hence you are blindly supporting whatever is in the book. It doesn’t matter; the truth is clear to any objective person with a sincere heart. There is no need to waste time here.