Does Qur'anism have it right?

[LuisDantas]

My word, comprehension is a warm as the English weather.

I meant what is your problem. e.g. If you think Quran is not the word of God, why do you not think so. Give me scriptural reference and the issue you have with it.

I didnt mean "Problem" as in I have a problem with the Muslims because a bearded guy bombed a train in Timbuktu.

No offense brother. You are a very polite and patient gentleman.

TC

Peace.

Peace, Brother.

I must be polite and patient. I am dealing with Muslims, and their perception of gentleness is legendary. Few people have ever attained a comparable prowess with manners and consideration for others. I really admire you all for that, and I promise to strive to deserve that much consideration. It is a challenge, but a pleasant one.

Of course, it is in my best interest to cooperate to the best possible understanding as well. Misunderstandings, unease and mistrust will not benefit me in any way.

You ask me why I will not take the Quran as the Word of God.

I guess the best, most honest and truthful answer I can give is that my own perception of the Sacred does not involve the concept of God.

To the extent I can even imagine God as a real, existing entity, I am certain that he would not mind it at all if people simply did not learn of His existence, nor if they did and did not feel like believing in Him.

The Sacred is the lifeblood of religion, but I will not call it God, nor even the Divine, because it is clear to me that belief in a God is in fact unhelpful and often all-out poisonous for the religious practice of many people, among them myself.

God ends up being just a mystery, existing where there is not really a fair place for any. Attempts to care about its hypothetical existence cloud the perception of the sacred, at least for me. They create question that are neither possible to answer nor truly important.

Am I saying that I know for a fact that God does not exist? Not really. That can't fairly be said. I do, however, feel completely entitled and safe in saying that if God exists, he does not mind my disbelief. In fact, for all that I know God needs Atheists and would greatly disapprove attempts at stealing us from our proper place of disbelief.

There is belief in God. And there is a proper reverence, respect and dedication towards the Sacred. The two are by no means mutually exclusive, but neither are they compatible for everyone.

If you can tell me that the Quran does not particularly expect me to believe in God, then I will promise you to make a new attempt at reading it, as a little gesture of consideration and respect in exchange for your ample efforts at bearing with me despite my clumsiness.

Peace!

 

[firedragon]

Peace, Brother.

I must be polite and patient. I am dealing with Muslims, and their perception of gentleness is legendary. Few people have ever attained a comparable prowess with manners and consideration for others. I really admire you all for that, and I promise to strive to deserve that much consideration. It is a challenge, but a pleasant one.

Of course, it is in my best interest to cooperate to the best possible understanding as well. Misunderstandings, unease and mistrust will not benefit me in any way.

You ask me why I will not take the Quran as the Word of God.

I guess the best, most honest and truthful answer I can give is that my own perception of the Sacred does not involve the concept of God.

To the extent I can even imagine God as a real, existing entity, I am certain that he would not mind it at all if people simply did not learn of His existence, nor if they did and did not feel like believing in Him.

The Sacred is the lifeblood of religion, but I will not call it God, nor even the Divine, because it is clear to me that belief in a God is in fact unhelpful and often all-out poisonous for the religious practice of many people, among them myself.

God ends up being just a mystery, existing where there is not really a fair place for any. Attempts to care about its hypothetical existence cloud the perception of the sacred, at least for me. They create question that are neither possible to answer nor truly important.

Am I saying that I know for a fact that God does not exist? Not really. That can't fairly be said. I do, however, feel completely entitled and safe in saying that if God exists, he does not mind my disbelief. In fact, for all that I know God needs Atheists and would greatly disapprove attempts at stealing us from our proper place of disbelief.

There is belief in God. And there is a proper reverence, respect and dedication towards the Sacred. The two are by no means mutually exclusive, but neither are they compatible for everyone.

If you can tell me that the Quran does not particularly expect me to believe in God, then I will promise you to make a new attempt at reading it, as a little gesture of consideration and respect in exchange for your ample efforts at bearing with me despite my clumsiness.

Peace!

See brother, I like circular references. Compare the Quran with any other religious scripture. Quran is one book written by one man. Take the rest of the major religions. Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity. I dont mean to debate religions but simply on the face of it Quran is the only book of such volume, written at a particular time, one language, one period, one vernacular, one author. Before the Quran there were no proper Arabic compilations.

There are things like the word day cited exactly 365 times and month cited exactly 12 times while the words woman and man are cited exactly 24 times each. Many believe the Quran to have some 6666 verses but its actually 6,346 verses. To me, it seems impossible for a man to write such a large volume while sticking to odd things like that. That is only a trivial thing from the Quran. Also it amazes me why this so called author would mention other people more than himself in the book. e.g. Jesus = 25 times, Mary = 32 times, Muhammad 5 times. Also why he vehemently says in this book that he is not special, hes just a man, he is not to be distinguished from other prophets etc. It also amazes me why it should mention the Jews, Christians and the Sabians or/and the people of the book all can go to heaven. It does not say "You have to be this that and other only or you will go to hell". It is only egoistic rendition where a Muslim reads a part about heaven and hell and every-time a verse refers to hell he thinks, oh that's for the Christian rather than thinking its for all of us, including the reader.

Well, these are simply nothings.

But I cant tell you that the Quran does not expect you to believe in God. It does tell you to believe in God. I don't know what this Abrahamic monotheism is which is a common and ignorant wording people concoct like Islamist.

What I can tell you is that when you read a book, you should read without any prejudice or preconceived notion with an open mind. You should be righteous and honest. What generally happens is we are born into a system and we are molded already by it by the time we take a book in our hands. We sometimes are so blind that we do not see beyond our eye lids. This could apply to me.

This is the Book, where there is no doubt, a guidance for the righteous. - Quran

 

[LuisDantas]

Abrahamic Monotheism is the family of faiths that claim origin and inspiration from the tale of Ibrahim (Abraham) and his sons.

It is my understanding that Islam is one of those faiths, and that Ibrahim is one of its prophets, as is his son Ishmael.

I don't know why you would dislike that terminology. It is not meant to be disrespectful, at least from me.

 

[YmirGF]

This is the Book, where there is no doubt, a guidance for the righteous. - Quran

Personally, I find this line itself to be somewhat offensive. Don't worry, I'm not about to go on a bombing rampage over the sentence as it is only mildly offensive - to MY sensibilities - at least. The problem, if you will, that I have with the sentence is the idea that there is a group or so-called "righteous" people. I suppose that is news, but it sounds terribly self-serving. The idea is divisive and can hardly be described as unifying. I also have issues with the idea that there is no doubt and that the reader can have no doubt. I've thought about this a very long time and I am worried about people who have no doubt and embrace this kind certainty. I'm all for suspension of disbelief while reading a novel or watching a movie, but not so inclined when reading religious texts.

Certainty, in a religious sense, is part of the problem in this world. In the mind of the believer, certainty can lead to arrogance. It is arrogance because there is no doubt or any need to validate what is so obviously true... ...and if one disputes the idea promoted one is not being open-minded enough due to environmental conditioning. How convenient is that? Heaven forbid, pun intended, that it is the very message that is at fault and not the reader.

In regards to the OP, I think, due to Islamic tradition, the Qur'an-only group have it wrong. It is innovation flying in the face of long-standing tradition.

 

[firedragon]

Personally, I find this line itself to be somewhat offensive. Don't worry, I'm not about to go on a bombing rampage over the sentence as it is only mildly offensive - to MY sensibilities - at least. The problem, if you will, that I have with the sentence is the idea that there is a group or so-called "righteous" people. I suppose that is news, but it sounds terribly self-serving. The idea is divisive and can hardly be described as unifying. I also have issues with the idea that there is no doubt and that the reader can have no doubt. I've thought about this a very long time and I am worried about people who have no doubt and embrace this kind certainty. I'm all for suspension of disbelief while reading a novel or watching a movie, but not so inclined when reading religious texts.

Certainty, in a religious sense, is part of the problem in this world. In the mind of the believer, certainty can lead to arrogance. It is arrogance because there is no doubt or any need to validate what is so obviously true... ...and if one disputes the idea promoted one is not being open-minded enough due to environmental conditioning. How convenient is that? Heaven forbid, pun intended, that it is the very message that is at fault and not the reader.

In regards to the OP, I think, due to Islamic tradition, the Qur'an-only group have it wrong. It is innovation flying in the face of long-standing tradition.

I wonder why people has to either group themselves, group others or assume others are grouping them? A group called the righteous? Well, if you dont fall into that you are unrighteous. It is to me an ill-taught conception.

You call yourself "you are the guidance for the righteous"? Then you are not for me because I dont fall into the category of righteous. I dont and I wont. That position seems more self serving to me and state I it as a matter of fact, not offensively.

When a person goes for an interview, he applies for a position trying to show that there is no doubt he is capable. Then he goes to prove that he is capable. If he does not prove the same, then you can make a judgement. Otherwise, its denial at the inception without inspection.

When the book says there is not doubt that this book is for the righteous it means it. If it says "I doubt this book is a guidance for the righteous" it makes no sense, and I can see that you have placed the book in a place where its either fail or fail.

The Quran is the only book that calls itself a book. No other scripture I studied does that. A righteous book can only be taken by honest people. The dishonest will not anyway. I believe you are honest, so I urge you not to think like that.

If the book said that this is a book guiding those who are Arabs or Asian then that's a problem. Your analysis to me is false.

And I wonder what this innovation you are talking about. There have been innovations since time immemorial. The Islamic contention or rather the Quranic contention is that Islam or peace and submission is the system that existed from creation. I think you believe Islam to have been born in Arabia, but the Quran says otherwise. So if there were any innovations in Islamic tradition it would have been going on for years I cant count. This idea of innovations and Islamic traditions that you talk of are very shallow in understanding.

Peace.

 

[Draupadi]

In regards to the OP, I think, due to Islamic tradition, the Qur'an-only group have it wrong. It is innovation flying in the face of long-standing tradition.

If you read the Quran and Hadith you will find they are very contradictory. Take for example the punishment for fornication. The Quran states that it is only flogging. But the Hadith added that for adultery it should be stoning to death. It also claims that the verse of stoning in the Quran was eaten by a goat, so it can't be added to it! Oh yeah, after the goat ate it it got erased from everyone's memories and there was only one source of it! How convenient. All Muslims, irrespective of their sect, believe that the Quran is flawless and well preserved. But most believe in that silly tale of the goat! There are many more. So tradition is not always the solution.

 

[Scimitar]

In the Name of Allah, the Most Compassionate the Most Merciful

We have, Without doubt, sent down the message: and we will assuredly guard it (from corruption) (Qur'an 15:9)

The promise made by Allah(SWT) in Qur'an 15:9 is obviously fulfilled in the undisputed purity of the Qur'anic text throughout the fourteen centuries since its revelation. However, what is often forgotten by many Muslims is that the divine promise also includes, by necessity, the Sunnah of the Prophet(P), because the Sunnah is the practical example of the implementation of the Qur'anic guidance, the wisdom taught to the Prophet(P) along with the scripture, and neither the Qur'an nor the Sunnah can be understood correctly without the other.

Allah(SWT) preserved the Sunnah by enabling the Companions and those after them to memorize, write down and pass on the statements of the Prophet(P), and the descriptions of his way, as well as to continue the blessings of practicing the Sunnah.

Later, as the purity of the knowledge of the Sunnah became threatened, Allah(SWT) caused the Muslim Ummah to produce individuals with exceptional memory skills and analytical expertise, who travelled tirelessly to collect thousands of narrations and distinguish the true words of prophetic wisdom from those corrupted by weak memories, from forgeries by unscrupulous liars, and from the statements of the large number of Ulama (scholars), the Companions and those who followed their way. All of this was achieved through precise attention to the words narrated, and detailed familiarity with the biographies of the thousands of reporters of hadith.

The methodology of the expert scholars of hadith in assessing the narrations and sorting out the genuine from the mistaken and fabricated, for ms the subject matter of the science of hadith. In this article a brief discussion is given of the terminology and classifications of hadith.

Components Of Hadith
A hadith is composed of three parts (see the figure [below]):

Matn (text), isnad (chain of reporters), and taraf (the part, or the beginning sentence, of the text which refers to the sayings, actions or characteristics of the Prophet(P), or his concurrence with others action). The authenticity of the hadith depends on the reliability of its reporters, and the linkage among them.

Classifications Of Hadith

A number of classifications of hadith have been made. Five of these classifications are shown in the figure [below], and are briefly described subsequently.

1. According to the reference to a particular authority
   Four types of hadith can be identified.
   • Qudsi - Divine; a revelation from Allah(SWT); relayed with the words of the Prophet(P).
     
     
     
   • Marfu` - elevated; a narration from the Prophet(P), e.g., I heard the Prophet(P) saying ...
     
     
     
   • Mauquf- stopped: a narration from a companion only, e.g., we were commanded to ...
     
     
     
   • Maqtu` - severed: a narration from a successor.
   
   
   
   
2. According to the links of isnad - interrupted or uninterrupted
   Six categories can be identified.
   
   
   • Musnad - supported: a hadith which is reported by a traditionalist, based on what he learned from his teacher at a time of life suitable for learning; similarly - in turn - for each teacher until theisnad reaches a well known companion, who in turn, reports from the Prophet(P).
     
     
     
   • Muttasil - continuous: a hadith with an uninterrupted isnad which goes back only to a companion or successor.
     
     
     
   • Mursal - hurried: if the link between the successor and the Prophet(P) is missing, e.g., when a successor says "The Prophet said...".
     
     
     
   • Munqati`- broken: is a hadith whose link anywhere before the successor (i.e., closer to the traditionalist recording the hadith) is missing.
     
     
     
   • Mu`adal - perplexing: is a hadith whose reporter omits two or more consecutive reporters in the isnad.
     
     
     
   • Mu`allaq - hanging: is a hadith whose reporter omits the whole isnad and quotes the Prophet(P) directly (i.e., the link is missing at the beginning).
     
3. According to the number of reporters involved in each stage of isnad
   Five categories of hadith can be identified:
   
   
   • Mutawatir - Consecutive: is a hadith which is reported by such a large number of people that they cannot be expected to agree upon a lie, all of them together.
     
     
     
   • Ahad - isolated: is a hadith which is narrated by people whose number does not reach that of the mutawatir.
     It is further classified into:
     
     
     • Mash'hur - famous: hadith reported by more than two reporters.
       
       
       
     • `Aziz - rare, strong: at any stage in the isnad, only two reporters are found to narrate the hadith.
       
       
       
     • Gharib - strange: At some stage of the isnad, only one reporter is found relating it.
       
4. According to the nature of the text and isnad
   
   • Munkar - denounced: is a hadith which is reported by a weak narrator, and whose narration goes against another authentic hadith.
     
     
     
   • Mudraj - interpolated: an addition by a reporter to the text of the hadith being narrated.
   
   
   
5. According to the reliability and memory of the reporters
   This provides the final verdict on a hadith - four categories can be identified:
   
   
   
   • Sahih - sound. Imam al-Shafi`i states the following requiremetts for a hadith, which is not Mutawatir, to be acceptable "each reporter should be trustworthy in his religion; he should be known to be truthtul in his narrating, to understand what he narrates, to know how a different expression can alter the meaning, and to report the wording of the hadith verbatim, not only its meaning".
     
     
     
   • Hasan - good: is the one where its source is known and its reporters are unambiguous.
     
     
     
   • Da`if - weak: a hadith which fails to reach the status of Hasan. Usually, the weakness is: a) one of discontinuity in the isnad, in which case the hadith could be - according to the nature of the discontinuity - Munqati (broken), Mu`allaq (hanging), Mu`adal (perplexing), or Mursal (hurried), or b) one of the reporters having a disparaged character, such as due to his telling lies, excessive mistakes, opposition to the narration of more reliable sources, involvement in innovation, or ambiguity surrounding his person.
     
     
     
   • Maudu`- fabricated or forged: is a hadith whose text goes against the established norms of the Prophet's sayings, or its reporters include a liar. Fabricated hadith are also recognized by external evidence related to a discrepancy found in the dates or times of a particular incident.

So you'd all be wrong to say that hadeeth are "chinese whispers" lol... even western scholars are in awe of the Science of Hadeeth.

Also, as a brother quite rightly pointed out to the ignorant sister - how does one learn how to worship God in the Quran? Allah tells you in the Quran that the example of the Prophet pbuh is the best one - but where is his example recorded in the Quran? It is not - it is recorded in ahadeeth - the sheer fact that she has not emplyed any logic to her bias but the very lame and unprovable claim of "chinese whispers" shows exactly how shallow a mind she has. Unfortunately for her, she calls herself a Muslim, wears a saree (hindu clothing) and doesn't even know how to fulfil her obligations as a Muslim.

Quranites are escapists - who are what I term as "lip service Muslims". Good for nothing.

Scimi

 

[Harikrish]

The Quran like any religious book cannot be the word of God. Like all religions God is made to appear as someone mainly concerned with moral conduct and obedience to his moral laws. 90% of what is contained in the Bible and Quran are just praising God and giving his all the possible godly titles.

But the world is more complicated than the primitive worldview held by religious zealots. God does not answer to people. There are no divine secrets in the holy scriptures to cure diseases or magic to feel the hungry billions or even deal with natural disasters of Gods making.
If the Sharia law was enforced in Muslim countries. The majority of Muslims would be running around with their hands, tongue and penises cut off. And selling rocks/stones for throwing at adulterers would be big business. Why can't the religious nuts get past this archaic form of repression and retribution is because it still has appeal to the masses who are uneducated, ignorant and illiterate.
There isn't enough science in the Bible or Quran to pass a grade 6 science test. If God has to speak to humans, one would expect him to get past the 6 graders math and science levels.

 

[Scimitar]

Despite all the BS you claim, Islam flourishes as the worlds fastest growing religion, whilst Hinduism remains stagnated - only spreading amongst hippy drug taking orange robe wearing hari krishnas - as is evident here in the west.

Good day to you

 

[Woodrow LI]

The problem is not the Ahadith, but that too many do not have sufficient knowledge of Hadith.

If a person does not have the basic understanding of the "Science of Hadith" it is best they do not try to use ahadith to verify anything and stick only to the fatwas of well educated Mufti.or pick a Madhab and follow it fully (Which we should do anyhow)

To understand Ahadith one must first fully understand the terminology and reasoning Scimitar gave a very good basic understanding in post 27.

But overall it is impossible to practice Islam without following the Ahadith, even if you do not know you are following it. All the basics of Islamic practice are from the Ahadith such as:
The 5 Pillars
How to do wudu
How to do Salat
How and when to perform Hajj
etc

The concept of being Qur'an only is an impossibility if one desires to perform Islam. Most Hadith rejectors I run into have no concept as to what is meant by the levels of Authenticity or Levels of Reliability. Never mind their knowing why Bukhari and Muslim are Sahih. or even what is meant by Sahih

 

[MD]

Despite all the BS you claim, Islam flourishes as the worlds fastest growing religion, whilst Hinduism remains stagnated - only spreading amongst hippy drug taking orange robe wearing hari krishnas - as is evident here in the west.

Good day to you

That's because of high birth rates and the fact that in most Muslim countries you cannot convert out. Heck in Pakistan they kill you if you even question the Quran. So your claim is utterly baseless.

I challenge you to prove that Islam is the truth, I've challenged you before and I do it again. Your arrogance is getting annoying.

 

[TG123456]

Salaam Alaikum. I am not a Muslim, but this is an interesting discussion and I would like to weigh in also.

As a Christian, I have a lot of respect for both the Quran and the hadiths. I agree that there is one God, and that He sent prophets. I admire the respect that Islam gives to Jesus, and it is true that no other non-Christian religion aside from Islam did this- although I believe Jesus was and is much more than a noble prophet, like Islam claims.

I agree strongly with some of the hadiths, especially those which teach compassion for the less fortunate. The hadith where Allah will tell people who neglected the poor that by doing so they neglected Him, is extremely similar to Matthew 25:31-49, which has always been one of my most favourite Bible passages. The hadith also in which a prostitute is spared hellfire because she gave water to a thirsty dog also really moves me.

Although I am a pacifist, I respect Muhammad's insistence that civilians be not killed during times of war, and the teaching of the Quran that it is only allowed to attack those who attack you. I do not agree with those teachings, unlike those on charity above, but I respect them and wish that Islamophobes would take them into account. Whenever I debate with people who claim Islam is a religion of terror, I make sure to bring these verses and hadiths up.

As a non-Muslim, I see a lot of good in both the Quran and hadiths.


However, I can understand why Quranist Muslims would reject the hadiths. While there are a lot of good and true things in the hadiths, there are also some not true things that if Muhammad actually did say, would prove he was not getting his inspiration from God.

I am not referring to killing apostates or his mass killings of POWs from the Banu Qurayzah tribe, whose leaders betrayed the Muslims. As a Christian, I believe that God's final revelation before the End Times comes to us through Jesus and the early Church- and killing people for any reason is not permissible.

I am instead referring to teachings that are obviously false scientifically and are not a matter of personal or religious views on morality.

The Quran has far less mistakes when it comes to such things, though there also are a few. They are however fewer than in the hadiths. I have also not been able to find contradictions in the Quran, but I have been able to find contradictions in the hadiths that are considered to be sahih- those of Bukhari and Muslim for example.

This is a very long post already so I will end it here. If Muslims or non-Muslims who are reading this would like to challenge me on what I have written and would like me to provide some specific examples on what I see as errors in the Quran and sahih hadiths, or the good things in these texts, let me know and I will do so.

Take care and masalaam,
TG123456

 

[Harikrish]

I am a Quranist Muslim. The main reason for me not to accept Ahadith is because it is not the saying of God. And we have all heard of Chinese Whispers, so how do I know that the prophet indeed said what was in the Ahadith? Yes, the Quran asks to obey and follow the messenger, but for the above reason I can't accept the Ahadith that contradicts the Quran. Even the latter book contains stuff that I personally dislike, but I am not wriggling out of it by being a Quranist.

The life of a Quranist Muslim is simple and logical. You don't have to enter the mosque with your right foot nor say supplications when you will go up or come down. To me that's OCDish.

Is that why muslim women are kept separate from the men in mosques, their differences are too wide to resolve?

 

[Woodrow LI]

Is that why muslim women are kept separate from the men in mosques, their differences are too wide to resolve?

There are several reasons for the seperation. First the seperation need not be in a seperate room However a man is not to gaze upon a woman while he is in prayer as it may cause his thoughts to wander.
This can be satisfied several ways The women can be behind the men or the room can be divided with a curtain,

Much will depend on the financial strength of the person or sometimes group building the Mosque.

There is no central agency that provides funds for the building of Mosques they are almost always built by the local Muslim community and in many cases by one family or even one person.

If you ever visit a predominately Muslim Nation you will find that most Muslims do not pray in a Mosque, they prefer to pray out in the street or where they happen to be working.

There is no requirement for Muslims to pray inside a Mosque. However, Muslims adult males are required to pray in congregation with other Muslim males once a week at Jummah Prayer. this can be satisfied by 3 or more friends praying together.

But overall the purpose of the separation is to avoid distraction. There usually is no sermon, it is simply prayers without socializing. although it is common for there to be socializing after the Friday Jummah Prayer

This is what goes on in most Mosques.

 

[Harikrish]

How is it less distracting to have men sticking their coccyx at the one behind them.

 

[Woodrow LI]

How is it less distracting to have men sticking their coccyx at the one behind them.

I believe most men pay very little attention to the tail-end of other males

 

[Sha'irullah]

I believe most men pay very little attention to the tail-end of other males

You say that but. . . .uh. . . .

 

[Storm]

Personally I greatly dislike Quranism mostly because it is quite contradictory to Islam itself. Throughout the Quran we are commanded by God to do many things, but many times we aren't told in which manner or how we are supposed to do them.

I would highly suggest looking at this.

Qur'an Only Islam: Why it is Not Possible - WikiIslam

So all in all, NO, Quransim has it WRONG.

Could it possibly be that you're supposed to think about it?

 

[Storm]

I am not really following what you are saying here.

But however, if you mean to say that text is not to be sources of religious wisdom, then what is?

How about God?

This is a good notion for those who do not believe in a God. Do you see. If you believe in God, especially if you believe in The God or One God then text is more important than anything

For Muslims, perhaps, and I respect that.

Not for "people who believe in God." Between neopaganism and the "indigenous" religions of North America alone, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of religions that see no need for texts at all.

because people are influenced by evil, they lye and mislead you. In a world that this happens with texts, imagine a world without them.

That seems like a much better argument for ignoring what people tell you (even if they do write it down) and going straight to the source, no?

Brother, if the world goes back to their texts, there will be nothing but harmony. Thats a promise.

Have you read the Bible? Slavery, genocide, virulent misogyny?

Texts have their place, but given how easily they're twisted to support evil, that's a promise you can't keep.

Imagine a world without no Scripture. Without a Qur'an to abuse, do you think ISIL or the Taliban would even exist as a serious threat?

I don't mean to say that as a statement on Islam itself or the Qur'an as it is for genuinely faithful Muslims, but current events do illustrate the point all too well. No text is so holy that it cannot be corrupted to the service of evil. Sadly, the very faith Muslims place in the Qur'an leaves it uniquely vulnerable to this abuse. It's a terrible sacrilege, but denying the reality of it does no good.

Peace.

Go with God.

 

[Storm]

If we do, we will lose explanations for things mentioned in the Quraan it self.

Overall, this seems an excellent approach. Supplementation, without granting a game of Telephone the authority of divine edict.

That said...

There are things like, for example only, the nature of the prayer (salat not duaa) and calling for it. The Quraan tells that we are suppose to perform prayer in so many verses, but does not tell how.

A point of clarity, please: you are instructed to pray 7 (random example number) verses, but not given the words?

My apologies, I don't mean to slight your English, but I have to translate too, and I'm having great difficulty with the syntax here.