Debater Slayer vs. Badran: Rejection of Scholarly-Verified Hadiths

[Debater Slayer]

As we promised, the debate will be divided into three main points of discussion:

a) The grounds on which you choose to reject specific hadiths, especially ones that are considered authentic by most prominent scholars.

b) Why you think that contradictions arise between the aforementioned hadiths and the message of the Qur'an.

c) Discussing whether the rejection arises from scholarly/historical issues or a method of coping with what would otherwise be faith-breaking concepts on a personal level.

Let's start with issue #1. The process of verifying the accuracy and veracity of hadiths involves Islamic, cultural, and historical studies about the prophet (PBUH) and the surrounding milieu of the time. As such, it is very hard to interpolate hadiths because they would have to pass the various criteria for authentication, including the credibility of the narrator(s) of the hadiths.

Furthermore, even if some of the hadiths in Buhkari and Muslim (the two most prominent and trusted scholars of hadith) are indeed not authentic, they can't all be so. There are many hadiths clarifying issues such as punishments for adultery, thievery, apostasy, and murder which, in previous discussions, you stated that you reject at least some of.

With that in mind -- and as per the OP -- on what grounds do you reject the hadiths in question and what do you think ensures that they are inauthentic despite the majority scholarly view saying otherwise?

 

[Badran]

Let's start with issue #1. The process of verifying the accuracy and veracity of hadiths involves Islamic, cultural, and historical studies about the prophet (PBUH) and the surrounding milieu of the time. As such, it is very hard to interpolate hadiths because they would have to pass the various criteria for authentication, including the credibility of the narrator(s) of the hadiths.

My position only suggests the imperfection of the process, or the possibility of error. In other words, i agree with this. Its not my view, or proposal that the process doesn't at all, or poorly protects against such things. Only that it doesn't render such thing happening impossible.

Furthermore, even if some of the hadiths in Buhkari and Muslim (the two most prominent and trusted scholars of hadith) are indeed not authentic, they can't all be so. There are many hadiths clarifying issues such as punishments for adultery, thievery, apostasy, and murder which, in previous discussions, you stated that you reject at least some of.

Its not my position that all hadiths in those two books are not authentic. I only have problems with certain parts, not the entire books. Regardless of whether or not it's possible, it's just not what i actually propose. I do agree that they're not all, or even mostly inauthentic.

In regards to the examples you mentioned, i do reject some of those, but thats because i have particular problems with those cases, not with the books in general.

With that in mind -- and as per the OP -- on what grounds do you reject the hadiths in question and what do you think ensures that they are inauthentic despite the majority scholarly view saying otherwise?

It's not as much that i'm sure that they're inauthentic (because in order to be able to be sure i would need to actually make certain extensive studies first, and even then its most likely not possible to actually prove that they are false) as it is recognizing a logical problem that leads to one of the following in my view (those are not necessarily the only possibilities, but they are the relevant ones):

1) These hadiths being inauthentic and properly understood.

2) Being authentic but misunderstood or misinterpreted.

3) Being authentic and properly understood, which results in Islam being a contradictory religion, one that also teaches things i view as unfair based on certain grounds which i will clarify.

The second option is out for me at least in regards to some of those cases in question. Reason being that i didn't see anything based on which i could say that the hadiths are not properly understood or interpreted. So, to focus on the issue at hand, lets address the cases where i think it comes down to the first and third option, and why i think so.

Take the example of stoning which i addressed in a recent thread. We have some hadiths that propose this. This is a problem because:

1) The Quran addresses the issue this punishment is supposedly prescribed for, and never prescribes this punishment. It actually prescribes a different punishment. Not only that, but it doesn't even imply or hint in anyway that there is any other punishment than the one mentioned, or make any distinctions of different cases of different punishments.

2) The problem i explained with this punishment being worse than that of a murderer for example. Which means (or at the very least strongly suggests) that an adulterer is worse than a murderer. Since his punishment is worse. Even if we become generous and say that it's on the same level, it's still a problem in my view since it equates the two. The murderer and the adulterer that is, as deserving of the same punishment.

3) Regardless of number two, generally, the punishment in itself raises concerns in that it's not appropriate, or fitting to the act in question. Not only is it a death penalty but one in a horrific fashion. This is something i can't justify or understand in anyway.

Basically at one point it hit me that something doesn't seem, or even feel right about this punishment and others. I looked into the matter, and realized the above points. I concluded that:

- Either the hadiths are inauthentic, and properly understood, in which case they're probably fabricated or copied from other religions etc (as is the case with other hadiths in other collections).

- Either they are authentic but misunderstood (which didn't work here as i see nothing that indicates so)

- Either they are authentic and properly understood, in which case i'd have to stop labeling myself a Muslim, since i would never agree with such teachings or embrace a religion that i view as contradictory. Embrace it at least as most Muslims do. It would be that i only identify with most of its teachings and agree with them. If a religion proposes that its god is good, and at the same time that god prescribes punishments, that feel unfair, do not make sense and raise such logical problems, then thats not a religion i would follow. Neither would i if the messenger of said religion prescribed such things, opposing god for example. IOW, if these hadiths are actually authentic, then i'd have to accept what i just mentioned, or things along those lines (i'll expound on this if needed, i'm just assuming for now that its obvious). Which is something i can't do. Neither do i see any compelling reason to do so, based on what i'll clarify next.

Since i don't see any reason to assume perfection on the part of the people who made those books in question, neither is their process as such (perfect), and there being such strong problems with these hadiths (which is something that weakens their position), i believe (until i can verify it further if possible) that the hadiths in question are inauthentic, and possibly in some cases misunderstood (but not all cases as i clarified). For example i once read here a theory by Dr. Jamal Badawi that the hadiths regarding apostasy are misunderstood. It made sense, and i think it's possible that they are misunderstood, and that the punishment is only prescribed for effectively people who literally turn on the community and fight it, not just people who stop believing in Islam or convert (which is something i don't accept based on either grounds, the hadiths being inauthentic or being misunderstood).

But since there are no such explanations for all cases in question, neither can i come up with any, i'm forced to pick between the other two possibilities. I made my pick based on what i explained above. Nothing indicates in the first place that the books are perfect, so i have no reason to just dismiss the religion entirely or stop labeling my self as a Muslim because something completely normal happened, that i found some hadiths that seem problematic in the most trusted collections.

Add to all this, that when looking for answers by scholars to address such logical problems (since i can't find any answer myself. As far as i see it, it's a lock, there doesn't seem to be any way out), not only were the answers unsatisfactory and failed to address the logical issues, but they were for the most part to be generous pathetic. Mere attempts at exaggerating the acts in question in order for me to feel 'okay' about the punishment being as such.
To put it briefly, at one point I realized that there's only one thing left in defense of those hadiths, and that is that they are found in Bukhari and Muslim. That wasn't enough for me to accept them, since I recognize that there's no reason to assume that either Bukhari or Muslim were perfect, neither were their process as such.

 

[Debater Slayer]

My position only suggests the imperfection of the process, or the possibility of error. In other words, i agree with this. Its not my view, or proposal that the process doesn't at all, or poorly protects against such things. Only that it doesn't render such thing happening impossible.

The error is determined by scholars of hadith who constantly review the work of their peers. I agree that the process doesn't ensure an error-free authentication, but constant review and validation can overcome this.

There is nothing that is 100% certain, though. I agree with you on that.

Its not my position that all hadiths in those two books are not authentic. I only have problems with certain parts, not the entire books. Regardless of whether or not it's possible, it's just not what i actually propose. I do agree that they're not all, or even mostly inauthentic.

In regards to the examples you mentioned, i do reject some of those, but thats because i have particular problems with those cases, not with the books in general.

The hadiths about the punishments in question can't all be inauthentic is what I was proposing, or at the very least it is improbable that they all are.

But since you clarified that you have problems with certain ones, I'll address this below.

It's not as much that i'm sure that they're inauthentic (because in order to be able to be sure i would need to actually make certain extensive studies first, and even then its most likely not possible to actually prove that they are false) as it is recognizing a logical problem that leads to one of the following in my view (those are not necessarily the only possibilities, but they are the relevant ones):

1) These hadiths being inauthentic and properly understood.

2) Being authentic but misunderstood or misinterpreted.

3) Being authentic and properly understood, which results in Islam being a contradictory religion, one that also teaches things i view as unfair based on certain grounds which i will clarify.

The second option is out for me at least in regards to some of those cases in question. Reason being that i didn't see anything based on which i could say that the hadiths are not properly understood or interpreted. So, to focus on the issue at hand, lets address the cases where i think it comes down to the first and third option, and why i think so.

Misinterpretation can arise from universalizing a certain context of a hadith to all situations. That's not to say that the hadiths aren't well-understood, but the context can be critical in specific cases.

Take the example of stoning which i addressed in a recent thread. We have some hadiths that propose this. This is a problem because:

1) The Quran addresses the issue this punishment is supposedly prescribed for, and never prescribes this punishment. It actually prescribes a different punishment. Not only that, but it doesn't even imply or hint in anyway that there is any other punishment than the one mentioned, or make any distinctions of different cases of different punishments.

The 100 lashes are (as viewed by many scholars) said to be for two unmarried people. For a married person who commits adultery, the punishment is stoning, as prescribed in one of the hadiths in question.

However, as I'm not an expert by any means, I don't know what they base this view on, or what the rationale behind it is other than the text of the hadith itself.

2) The problem i explained with this punishment being worse than that of a murderer for example. Which means (or at the very least strongly suggests) that an adulterer is worse than a murderer. Since his punishment is worse. Even if we become generous and say that it's on the same level, it's still a problem in my view since it equates the two. The murderer and the adulterer that is, as deserving of the same punishment.

3) Regardless of number two, generally, the punishment in itself raises concerns in that it's not appropriate, or fitting to the act in question. Not only is it a death penalty but one in a horrific fashion. This is something i can't justify or understand in anyway.

Agreed. I also want to understand how - or why - the punishment for adultery has to be equal to or worse than that of murder.

Basically at one point it hit me that something doesn't seem, or even feel right about this punishment and others. I looked into the matter, and realized the above points. I concluded that:

- Either the hadiths are inauthentic, and properly understood, in which case they're probably fabricated or copied from other religions etc (as is the case with other hadiths in other collections).

- Either they are authentic but misunderstood (which didn't work here as i see nothing that indicates so)

- Either they are authentic and properly understood, in which case i'd have to stop labeling myself a Muslim, since i would never agree with such teachings or embrace a religion that i view as contradictory. Embrace it at least as most Muslims do. It would be that i only identify with most of its teachings and agree with them. If a religion proposes that its god is good, and at the same time that god prescribes punishments, that feel unfair, do not make sense and raise such logical problems, then thats not a religion i would follow. Neither would i if the messenger of said religion prescribed such things, opposing god for example. IOW, if these hadiths are actually authentic, then i'd have to accept what i just mentioned, or things along those lines (i'll expound on this if needed, i'm just assuming for now that its obvious). Which is something i can't do. Neither do i see any compelling reason to do so, based on what i'll clarify next.

Since i don't see any reason to assume perfection on the part of the people who made those books in question, neither is their process as such (perfect), and there being such strong problems with these hadiths (which is something that weakens their position), i believe (until i can verify it further if possible) that the hadiths in question are inauthentic, and possibly in some cases misunderstood (but not all cases as i clarified). For example i once read here a theory by Dr. Jamal Badawi that the hadiths regarding apostasy are misunderstood. It made sense, and i think it's possible that they are misunderstood, and that the punishment is only prescribed for effectively people who literally turn on the community and fight it, not just people who stop believing in Islam or convert (which is something i don't accept based on either grounds, the hadiths being inauthentic or being misunderstood).

But since there are no such explanations for all cases in question, neither can i come up with any, i'm forced to pick between the other two possibilities. I made my pick based on what i explained above. Nothing indicates in the first place that the books are perfect, so i have no reason to just dismiss the religion entirely or stop labeling my self as a Muslim because something completely normal happened, that i found some hadiths that seem problematic in the most trusted collections.

Add to all this, that when looking for answers by scholars to address such logical problems (since i can't find any answer myself. As far as i see it, it's a lock, there doesn't seem to be any way out), not only were the answers unsatisfactory and failed to address the logical issues, but they were for the most part to be generous pathetic. Mere attempts at exaggerating the acts in question in order for me to feel 'okay' about the punishment being as such.
To put it briefly, at one point I realized that there's only one thing left in defense of those hadiths, and that is that they are found in Bukhari and Muslim. That wasn't enough for me to accept them, since I recognize that there's no reason to assume that either Bukhari or Muslim were perfect, neither were their process as such.

I think that this is the appropriate context to discuss issue #2 of the OP. As far as I can see, there are four possible ways out of this problem:

a) Accept the hadiths as authentic and completely agree with the punishments they set forth.

b) Regard them as inauthentic due to what is perceived as logical problems coupled with an inability to reconcile them with the concept of God in Islam.

c) Regard them as authentic, but at the same time not agree with them -- in which case a catch-22 arises and one has to suspend any further pondering or thinking about the subject to avoid more perplexity.

d) Accept the hadith as authentic, but reject their teachings and the religion altogether.

I would say that (d) would be the most extreme and radical mechanism to cope with the problem at hand, and can only be a result of going through at least one of the other three "failsafes" in futile attempts to preserve belief. The reason I'm saying this is because if one truly feels the need to maintain
their faith hard enough to go through at least one of the other three processes, then (d) can't follow unless said process has failed to achieve its goal of protecting a certain thought(s).

 

[Badran]

The error is determined by scholars of hadith who constantly review the work of their peers. I agree that the process doesn't ensure an error-free authentication, but constant review and validation can overcome this.

There is nothing that is 100% certain, though. I agree with you on that.

By agreeing on the uncertainty you have managed to see my point of view, and that is good enough for me in this regard (even if you think its extremely unlikely). As to me the problem only arises when someone is unable to even imagine such possibility, in which case they would have to accept anything in said books without question. To add some thoughts in regards to your input, if you're interested in any, review and validation do of course help, but i don't think they totally deal with the issues.

The process is dealing with things that by default leave room for error (inescapably) in my opinion. Reevaluating it on the same basis, doesn't actually deal with that, it only attempts to minimize its effect by repeating the process (which is a good thing). In other words, in regards to narration for example, you can keep judging again and again the narrators but in the end what you're doing is not only trying to determine extremely difficult attributes to judge such as the trustworthiness, strength of memory and the like of certain people, but you're actually also trying to do so with people who lived many centuries ago. That is something that would always leave room for error. Not to mention that even if the person passes these criteria, it wouldn't actually insure that he/she didn't make an error in one particular instance. And in regards to the other criteria in judging the contents of the hadiths, the issue here is that its a matter of interpretations and opinions, reasonings which always leave room for error and multiple possibilities. The issue is no where near a lock or a bullet proof system as most people would like to believe. It is however a reliable method to judge with, one that we have many reasons to trust. And like you said, constant review would minimize such errors even more.

Misinterpretation can arise from universalizing a certain context of a hadith to all situations. That's not to say that the hadiths aren't well-understood, but the context can be critical in specific cases.

I agree that this can be the case in many instances.

The 100 lashes are (as viewed by many scholars) said to be for two unmarried people. For a married person who commits adultery, the punishment is stoning, as prescribed in one of the hadiths in question.

However, as I'm not an expert by any means, I don't know what they base this view on, or what the rationale behind it is other than the text of the hadith itself.

I'm not an expert by any means neither, but to share what i know, those hadiths are the very basis of that interpretation of the verse. IOW, the judgement of the verse to be talking about unmarried people, is based on those hadiths. None of that is clarified in the Quran's wording, it only comes in after we include the hadiths. Which is fine, that is the case in many other instances. And in many instances it gives needed context to the verse in question. However, since it also plays such a crucial role in interpreting the Quran, one should be careful and considering of the possibility of the hadiths being used to manipulate the meaning of a verse of the quran for example, by certain people.

This is something that happens with every religion. It happens actually with almost literally everything. Almost every single thing is misused somehow. And no process or system is perfect, neither are the people using it so. As such, one should always, in my view take care of not letting the system or process, although well intentioned, be the very reason that leads you astray. Or causes you to make the very errors you were trying to avoid. What we have here is a verse that says something and proposed hadiths that say that this verse is addressing one thing and that the other thing's punishment is stoning.

Now, none of that actually addresses the problem raised. Problem being what i shared about how does the Quran mentions this, addresses the matter, prescribes a punishment and yet Allah decides for some reason to not mention the other much, much more important issue that we are supposed to stone people to death. Its already dealing with it, why on earth would it leave out this other disaster? The attempted answers to this question, only raises my suspicion higher and only helps me to put more confidence in my position. For instance, it is suggested by some that a verse used to be in the Quran prescribing stoning, but that it was removed. And to seal the deal, it is reported that this was said by Umar.

Okay, lets consider this:

1) Such proposition of verses of the Quran being completely removed is not agreed upon in the first placed nor is evidenced.

2) Lets be generous and assume that this is the case. Well, if it was removed, then that means that it no longer applies.

3) There are even problems with that proposed supposed verse itself and its wording in that it doesn't clearly say that married people should be stoned.

All in all, seems like a very weak proposition to me to be honest (to put it lightly), one that is merely attempting to address the problem of the Quran not mentioning this punishment, especially under the circumstances i described of it already addressing the matter and so forth.

I think that this is the appropriate context to discuss issue #2 of the OP. As far as I can see, there are four possible ways out of this problem:

a) Accept the hadiths as authentic and completely agree with the punishments they set forth.

b) Regard them as inauthentic due to what is perceived as logical problems coupled with an inability to reconcile them with the concept of God in Islam.

c) Regard them as authentic, but at the same time not agree with them -- in which case a catch-22 arises and one has to suspend any further pondering or thinking about the subject to avoid more perplexity.

d) Accept the hadith as authentic, but reject their teachings and the religion altogether.

I would say that (d) would be the most extreme and radical mechanism to cope with the problem at hand, and can only be a result of going through at least one of the other three "failsafes" in futile attempts to preserve belief. The reason I'm saying this is because if one truly feels the need to maintain
their faith hard enough to go through at least one of the other three processes, then (d) can't follow unless said process has failed to achieve its goal of protecting a certain thought(s).

If i understand what you're saying properly, then i pretty much agree with your analysis, at least in most cases.

If you're interested in my personal case, i was always between (b) and (d). The other two options never came up. As this problem wasn't occurring alone in my personal experience. I came to realize that i have a huge problem, in regards to how i feel and think about the issue, in regards to both stoning and killing apostates. Both of which where strong issues along side others that were basically causing me to know that i'm not dealing with concepts that i can address by just leaving them for now, or even dream of accepting after i realized the strong logical problems they caused. I basically was literally forced to make it come down either there being a decent explanation that can address this (and i strongly felt that there can't possibly be any), or coming to the conclusion (based on certain things i was hoping for) that these concepts are possible to be inserted into the religion somehow as is the case in many other religions, or that basically i'll have to stop calling myself a Muslim. Based on the points i explained, and this actually indeed happening with other collections of hadiths, i decided to go with (b).

 

[Debater Slayer]

By agreeing on the uncertainty you have managed to see my point of view, and that is good enough for me in this regard (even if you think its extremely unlikely). As to me the problem only arises when someone is unable to even imagine such possibility, in which case they would have to accept anything in said books without question. To add some thoughts in regards to your input, if you're interested in any, review and validation do of course help, but i don't think they totally deal with the issues.

The process is dealing with things that by default leave room for error (inescapably) in my opinion. Reevaluating it on the same basis, doesn't actually deal with that, it only attempts to minimize its effect by repeating the process (which is a good thing). In other words, in regards to narration for example, you can keep judging again and again the narrators but in the end what you're doing is not only trying to determine extremely difficult attributes to judge such as the trustworthiness, strength of memory and the like of certain people, but you're actually also trying to do so with people who lived many centuries ago. That is something that would always leave room for error. Not to mention that even if the person passes these criteria, it wouldn't actually insure that he/she didn't make an error in one particular instance. And in regards to the other criteria in judging the contents of the hadiths, the issue here is that its a matter of interpretations and opinions, reasonings which always leave room for error and multiple possibilities. The issue is no where near a lock or a bullet proof system as most people would like to believe. It is however a reliable method to judge with, one that we have many reasons to trust. And like you said, constant review would minimize such errors even more.

I think we agree that one can't be certain, but only try to minimize the error(s). Conversely, however, I think we can also say that one can't reject a scholarly-verified hadith and be certain that it is wrong, even if it goes against one's intuition; counter-intuitiveness doesn't equal illogical, incorrect, or false.

I'm not an expert by any means neither, but to share what i know, those hadiths are the very basis of that interpretation of the verse. IOW, the judgement of the verse to be talking about unmarried people, is based on those hadiths. None of that is clarified in the Quran's wording, it only comes in after we include the hadiths. Which is fine, that is the case in many other instances. And in many instances it gives needed context to the verse in question. However, since it also plays such a crucial role in interpreting the Quran, one should be careful and considering of the possibility of the hadiths being used to manipulate the meaning of a verse of the quran for example, by certain people.

This is something that happens with every religion. It happens actually with almost literally everything. Almost every single thing is misused somehow. And no process or system is perfect, neither are the people using it so. As such, one should always, in my view take care of not letting the system or process, although well intentioned, be the very reason that leads you astray. Or causes you to make the very errors you were trying to avoid. What we have here is a verse that says something and proposed hadiths that say that this verse is addressing one thing and that the other thing's punishment is stoning.

Now, none of that actually addresses the problem raised. Problem being what i shared about how does the Quran mentions this, addresses the matter, prescribes a punishment and yet Allah decides for some reason to not mention the other much, much more important issue that we are supposed to stone people to death. Its already dealing with it, why on earth would it leave out this other disaster? The attempted answers to this question, only raises my suspicion higher and only helps me to put more confidence in my position. For instance, it is suggested by some that a verse used to be in the Quran prescribing stoning, but that it was removed. And to seal the deal, it is reported that this was said by Umar.

Okay, lets consider this:

1) Such proposition of verses of the Quran being completely removed is not agreed upon in the first placed nor is evidenced.

2) Lets be generous and assume that this is the case. Well, if it was removed, then that means that it no longer applies.

3) There are even problems with that proposed supposed verse itself and its wording in that it doesn't clearly say that married people should be stoned.

All in all, seems like a very weak proposition to me to be honest (to put it lightly), one that is merely attempting to address the problem of the Quran not mentioning this punishment, especially under the circumstances i described of it already addressing the matter and so forth.

There are other factors involved in the scholars' interpretations of texts than what the texts merely say on the surface. As both of us aren't experts -- or familiar with how such interpretations are conducted, for that matter -- there might be a lot that we are missing or not taking into account when trying
to understand the different scholarly positions.

From what I know, though, hadiths are usually tied in with interpretations of the Qur'an, and the two are usually intertwined. One has to be familiar with hadiths before trying to interpret the Qur'an.

If i understand what you're saying properly, then i pretty much agree with your analysis, at least in most cases.

If you're interested in my personal case, i was always between (b) and (d). The other two options never came up. As this problem wasn't occurring alone in my personal experience. I came to realize that i have a huge problem, in regards to how i feel and think about the issue, in regards to both stoning and killing apostates. Both of which where strong issues along side others that were basically causing me to know that i'm not dealing with concepts that i can address by just leaving them for now, or even dream of accepting after i realized the strong logical problems they caused. I basically was literally forced to make it come down either there being a decent explanation that can address this (and i strongly felt that there can't possibly be any), or coming to the conclusion (based on certain things i was hoping for) that these concepts are possible to be inserted into the religion somehow as is the case in many other religions, or that basically i'll have to stop calling myself a Muslim. Based on the points i explained, and this actually indeed happening with other collections of hadiths, i decided to go with (b).

In my opinion, this is the main crux of the issue at hand.

Even though the authenticity (or lack thereof) of the reported hadiths matter, as do interpretations of the Qur'an, if S has problems accepting them, then S will look for a way around the issue. Between (b) and (d), (b) is definitely the 'milder' option to go with (not that it is that much of a choice, though), so some ad hocs might follow from there.

If S has two options X and Y, and one of them is already ruled out (say Y, for example), then S might try to produce ad hocs to justify X being the 'right' choice as to assuage any feelings of dissatisfaction that may arise from the choice-but-not-much-of-a-choice afterwards.

I'm not saying that this is true in all cases, but only for some -- the dilemma of choosing between (b) and (d) possibly being one where it applies (emphasis on possibly, though).

 

[Badran]

I think we agree that one can't be certain, but only try to minimize the error(s). Conversely, however, I think we can also say that one can't reject a scholarly-verified hadith and be certain that it is wrong,

Yup, like i said earlier, certainty would require proof, which is neither available to me or likely to be found anyway in such matters.

even if it goes against one's intuition; counter-intuitiveness doesn't equal illogical, incorrect, or false.

Yes, however i didn't share my intuition about this. I shared pretty clear cut reasoning and logical problems, and clarified that this whole thing also didn't feel right for me. That is, on top of the reasoning i shared.

There are other factors involved in the scholars' interpretations of texts than what the texts merely say on the surface.

Of course, i'm aware of that.

As both of us aren't experts -- or familiar with how such interpretations are conducted, for that matter -- there might be a lot that we are missing or not taking into account when trying
to understand the different scholarly positions.

I'm not making an assumption about the reason that this verse is interpreted that way, i'm sharing those very interpretations and the explanations given with them, based on my understanding.

I'm assuming scholars don't try to hide their work, i've looked, and i assume you've looked, yet we never found any other explanations. We've never heard any other explanation either, or known anybody aware of such. Is it possible that there is one? Yes, but i wasn't saying that there aren't any for sure, what i was doing is sharing my reasoning in the light of absence of such, and based on whats available.

And i honestly think that its extremely unlikely that there's a lot we're missing in this case, since as i think we'd both agree, the wording of the verse is not one of those complicated instances or requiring some extra knowledge to understand. There might be something we're missing for sure, but i don't think it would be a lot in anyway.

That last part doesn't make a lot of difference in regards to your point (sinec the existence of the possibility that we're missing something is enough), but i thought i'd share it anyway.

In my opinion, this is the main crux of the issue at hand.

Even though the authenticity (or lack thereof) of the reported hadiths matter, as do interpretations of the Qur'an, if S has problems accepting them, then S will look for a way around the issue. Between (b) and (d), (b) is definitely the 'milder' option to go with (not that it is that much of a choice, though), so some ad hocs might follow from there.

If S has two options X and Y, and one of them is already ruled out (say Y, for example), then S might try to produce ad hocs to justify X being the 'right' choice as to assuage any feelings of dissatisfaction that may arise from the choice-but-not-much-of-a-choice afterwards.

I'm not saying that this is true in all cases, but only for some -- the dilemma of choosing between (b) and (d) possibly being one where it applies (emphasis on possibly, though).

I agree.

In my personal case, i can't say for sure whether or not i did that, but i think i was fine with either solutions (despite having a preference). Since i didn't find enough to go with (d), and there being what i perceived a reasonable explanation for why such thing can happen, i decided to stay, at least until something more definite shows me why i should not.