Some Christians profess to have faith in God but not in religion, apparently because they see religion as a human activity and therefore fallible and corruptible, while faith in God they expect to be consistently trustworthy.
Perhaps for the same reasons, there are also Christians who talk about trusting the Bible over "the words of men".
As many Muslims no doubt noticed, that is also one significant difference between the Qur'an and the Bible (and most if not all other sacred scriptures): Muslim belief includes that of divine assurance that the (Arabic) text of the Qur'an can not and will not ever be corrupted.
I think it is fair to say that such assurance does not cover the Ahadith, nor the Sirat, and that such lack of absolute certainty is one of two major causes of conflict and inner division among Muslims; there is simply no agreement on which other texts, if any, to follow besides the Qur'an, nor on how they should be interpreted.
The other major cause is that, matters of assurance aside, the Qur'an is simply not enough and at least arguably could not ever be enough. No matter how sublime and pure its message might be, people live in a world where there is a need to make concrete actions and decisions.
For good or worse no matter how exalted its origin and contents may conceivably be, the Qur'an does require interpretation. Or, at the very least, it is not a magical book that may be opened to consistently find clear, unambiguous answers to whichever religious, ethical or behavioral doubts one might have. Nothing makes that fact more clear than the plain lack of agreement on all sorts of matters among Muslims.
It must be frustrating in the extreme for so many Muslims to sincerely seek honest guidance and assurance and find themselves trampling over each other's understandings. So frustrating, it seems to me, that it is very difficult to not at least feel the temptation of concluding that the most extreme disagreements are not the result of a lack of sincerity. There is a lot of evidence that most Muslims consider it very rude to put in doubt whether other people who claim to be Muslims truly are. Muslims seem to find it indelicate even to suggest that their converts were not originally Muslims from birth, going all the way to calling their converts "reverts" even if they had never once claimed to be Muslims before conversion.
Yet Muslims are humans and they feel all too human frustration when faced with the enormous challenges of dealing with disagreements among people. Wanting people to find consensus and cooperation is simply not enough to make it so. And while most Muslims find it natural to seek guidance from their leaders and submit to their decisions, sometimes it is reasonable to assume that sometimes that is simply not a very easy thing to do in good conscience. Humans, too, are fallible and may easily fail to cooperate with the will of God. Even if they are religious authorities. Hence the appeal of bypassing human authorities and taking refuge, so to speak, in the presumably inerrant, incorruptible Qur'an.
Yet the need for interpretation can not truly be bypassed, only over-ridden by a perhaps entirely sincere desire to avoid mistakes and an equally sincere hope that the Qur'an and the divine grace will show the way for the sincere believer.
To be honest, I don't think that can even possibly work, even as I sympathise with the need to find some reliable way of dealing with the uncertainties that motivate such a choice. At the end of the day, the need for interpretation remains and can't really be bypassed. And I would argue that if God created people with the ability to make judgements and interpretations, it can't very well be wrong to actually use it.
Then again, I happen to think that the value of a religion is in the good will and human effort of its adherents, not in its scriptures, so I suppose one can honestly say that I will never understand Islam. I may even agree.
Perhaps for the same reasons, there are also Christians who talk about trusting the Bible over "the words of men".
As many Muslims no doubt noticed, that is also one significant difference between the Qur'an and the Bible (and most if not all other sacred scriptures): Muslim belief includes that of divine assurance that the (Arabic) text of the Qur'an can not and will not ever be corrupted.
I think it is fair to say that such assurance does not cover the Ahadith, nor the Sirat, and that such lack of absolute certainty is one of two major causes of conflict and inner division among Muslims; there is simply no agreement on which other texts, if any, to follow besides the Qur'an, nor on how they should be interpreted.
The other major cause is that, matters of assurance aside, the Qur'an is simply not enough and at least arguably could not ever be enough. No matter how sublime and pure its message might be, people live in a world where there is a need to make concrete actions and decisions.
For good or worse no matter how exalted its origin and contents may conceivably be, the Qur'an does require interpretation. Or, at the very least, it is not a magical book that may be opened to consistently find clear, unambiguous answers to whichever religious, ethical or behavioral doubts one might have. Nothing makes that fact more clear than the plain lack of agreement on all sorts of matters among Muslims.
It must be frustrating in the extreme for so many Muslims to sincerely seek honest guidance and assurance and find themselves trampling over each other's understandings. So frustrating, it seems to me, that it is very difficult to not at least feel the temptation of concluding that the most extreme disagreements are not the result of a lack of sincerity. There is a lot of evidence that most Muslims consider it very rude to put in doubt whether other people who claim to be Muslims truly are. Muslims seem to find it indelicate even to suggest that their converts were not originally Muslims from birth, going all the way to calling their converts "reverts" even if they had never once claimed to be Muslims before conversion.
Yet Muslims are humans and they feel all too human frustration when faced with the enormous challenges of dealing with disagreements among people. Wanting people to find consensus and cooperation is simply not enough to make it so. And while most Muslims find it natural to seek guidance from their leaders and submit to their decisions, sometimes it is reasonable to assume that sometimes that is simply not a very easy thing to do in good conscience. Humans, too, are fallible and may easily fail to cooperate with the will of God. Even if they are religious authorities. Hence the appeal of bypassing human authorities and taking refuge, so to speak, in the presumably inerrant, incorruptible Qur'an.
Yet the need for interpretation can not truly be bypassed, only over-ridden by a perhaps entirely sincere desire to avoid mistakes and an equally sincere hope that the Qur'an and the divine grace will show the way for the sincere believer.
To be honest, I don't think that can even possibly work, even as I sympathise with the need to find some reliable way of dealing with the uncertainties that motivate such a choice. At the end of the day, the need for interpretation remains and can't really be bypassed. And I would argue that if God created people with the ability to make judgements and interpretations, it can't very well be wrong to actually use it.
Then again, I happen to think that the value of a religion is in the good will and human effort of its adherents, not in its scriptures, so I suppose one can honestly say that I will never understand Islam. I may even agree.