Gareth Bryant Writes

38 responses to “The Necessity to adhere to both The Qur’ān & the Sunnah/Prophetic-Tradition jointly and indivisibly”

1. 

   tajudeen yahya

   August 20, 2013 at 8:47 am

   from zéro to zéro, may HE guide us. ~

   Reply
2. 

   koranist

   September 11, 2013 at 9:14 am

   16:82 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message

   4:79-80 Say: ‘Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper.”

   17:53-54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner. Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe…. Hence, we have not sent you with power to determine their Faith

   24.54. Say: “Obey God, and obey the Messenger, but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger’s duty is only to preach the clear (Message).

   88:21 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.

   42:6 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach

   64:12 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message.

   28.55-56 And when they hear vain talk, they turn away there from and say: “To us our deeds, and to you yours; peace be to you: we seek not the ignorant,” It is true thou wilt not be able to guide whom thou lovest; but God guides those whom He will and He knows best those who receive guidance

   39:41 Assuredly, We have sent down the Book to you in right form for the good of man. Whoso guided himself by it does so to his own advantage, and whoso turns away from it does so at his own loss. You certainly are not their keeper.

   67:25 26 And they ask, “When shall the promise be fulfilled if you speak the Truth?” Say, “The knowledge of it is verily with God alone, and verily I am but a plain warner.”

   As we can clearly see, many of the verses that talks about obeying the prophet also emphasizes the prophet’s limited authority, something that the Islamic sects do not recognize. The ruler to them has the authority to punish people for what they consider sins like drinking alcohol, eating pork, not fasting Ramadan, watching pornos etc.

   The Koran meanwhile focuses on crimes against another like stealing, killing, slandering of women falsely and oppression. It gave the believers the right to fight against those who fight them but not to transgress. It also gave people the right to defend themselves against evictions from their lands. There is no talk about punishing people for something that does not concern somebody else’s right.

   Adultery is the only place where the Koran diverted from this due to the fact that a adultery affects another party. Here the Koran sees adultery as affecting the other partner in a marriage. It’s a betrayal and a breaking of oath. But even then it placed strict standards on that but was lenient when it came to punishing slanders of women. Adultery needs four witnesses but the slander can get punished just from opening his mouth without four witnesses. It’s clear that the verse made it very difficult to implement on adultery but very easy to implement on the slanderer. Further reading of the verse about the Zani and Zania shows us that the issue came up concerning slandering of one of the prophet’s wife presumably. But adultery still affects another party as its a breaking of an oath between a man and a woman and is an act of betrayal.

   The Koran cannot order the prophet to punish people for sins, that God’s job. The Koran gave people the right and freedom to disbelieve let alone sin. Plus how the Koran understands sins is very different than how the sects understand sins.

   In the end the sects had no choice but to abrogate many of these verses, usually invoking the “sword verse”. They claim that many of these verses that gave the prophet limited authority(over those who chose to disobey him) has been abrogated by verse 9-5 or verse 9-29.

   However these verses were about the wars with the pagans, and verse 9-13 and many other verses makes it clear who instigated these battles and why. The Jizya verse (9-29) also was claimed by the sects to be a tax to be paid by non Muslims in an Islamic state for protection. However Jizya never came concerning the Medina community where the prophet and his followers had a community. And only came upon the believers entering of Mecca. Jizya could have easily been compensation for the loss of property and homes that the believers suffered after being forced into exile. The Koran forbade prophets from seeking any form of reward. They can however accept charity on behalf of the believers.

   But the Sunnah claimed otherwise. In it the prophet was ordered to fight the people till they acknowledge monotheism and also in it the prophet ordered the execution of those who apostate. That’s why they abrogated many of the verses that limited his authority. Then they simply transferred that authority to the Muslim ruler by default. The Ridda war story about Abu Bakr is a case study of this. In that story Abu Bakr apparently fought people for not paying Zakat. Now the authority was transferred from God to the prophet to one of his companions. This made it very easy to then transfer that authority to the ruler. This is why you see places where Shariah law is implemented filled with such concepts like searching cars for alcohol or flogging people for watching pornos or not wearing proper attire. None of this should concern anyone but it has become a punishable sin. God only punishes those who did not get caught and punished in this world. The sects claimed that once punished the sin falls away and disappears. You will not find such a concept in the Koran. There God punishes in a million ways and does not need humans to punish for him. I think the sects introduced this conc3ept to make people more accepting of this by making them think its better for them since God’s punishment is more severe. They also introduced stoning the adulterer by claiming the Zina verse in the Koran is concerning fornification and not adultery. They claimed that the verse about stoning was lost and is not included in the Koran but the ruling remains.

   This of course violated not only the freedom aspect of the Koran but also an eye for an eye and a life for a life. In the Koran, any punishment must be reciprocal and proportionate to the crime and it also must be targeted towards the actual perpetrators of the crime and not someone else associated to the criminal as the case with tribal laws that simply targets anyone from that tribe. They broke this by lower the bar for executions. Some Sunni scholars also gave the authority to execute homosexuals and enslave female prisoners and execute male prisoners. Something the Koran forbade. The Koran gave two options for prisoners, either freedom or ransom of some sort. They gave this authority to the ruler. This is all very sad as the taking of someone’s life is no easy matter in the Koran. God should take life and not humans, but if a person takes a life then he lost his right to live, but even then the Koran gave exile from the community as another option for murder especially if the person shows repentance. So an eye for an eye and a tooth for tooth somehow ended up being an eye for an eye lash and a tooth for a jaw.

   To be fair the Sunni orthodoxy rarely practiced some of these laws. We know of no time in history where adulterers were stoned to death. Apostasy was rarely practiced, unlike the Christians in Europe that practiced these laws left and right. So the Sunni jurist knew that some of these laws could be controversial and therefore they tended to avoid them.

   Its very unfortunate the current Islamist in Iran and Sudan and the Salafis in generally never understood why these laws were controversial. But in doing so they exposed much aspect of the sects that people were not aware of. The Sufis provided a convenient cover as they shunned legalism. But even the clerics understood that these laws were controversial. Its not easy in Islam to execute outside of murder. But this wise tradition was broken. That’s very unfortunant as now we see the culture of death has spread among Muslims till Islam became synonymous with violence and killing. Once you lower the bar it spirals out of control.

   One thing is crystal clear from all this. The Koran’s take on human authority and freedom is RADICALLY different than how the Sunni/Shia sects understand it. Therefore the biggest difference between a Koranic state and a Sunni or Shia state will come in the form of the state’s authority over the masses. It is this, more than anything else, that separates the Koran from the Sunnah. That’s why the Abbasids championed the Sunnah over the Mutazilites. The Mutaziltes couldn’t find the ink inthe Koran to give them such draconian authority. The sects did that by first bringing the divine authority from God to prophet, then propet to Caliph (companions) and now that authority is in Omar Al Bashir, Khamenei, Mullah Omar and Al Saud. And that’s very sad.

   Reply
   1. 

      Gareth Bryant

      September 11, 2013 at 10:30 am

      I want you to take clear-notice as to what you’ve mentioned, within your own comment, which is actually a Hujjah/Indictment against your entire argument: You said that, “the Koran CANNOT…”. I”m gonna purposely focus on te word you used, “cannot”, for a minute: You made a blatant statement, about the Qur’an, that neither Allah, nor Muhammad (Peace be upon him), nor any member of the Salaf (as-Sahabah wat-Tabi`in), has ever said, about the Qur’an, that the Qur’an cannot do something. Now, what exactly do you mean by this?!!! Are you placing a limitation on the authorities of the Qur’an, itself? Because, if you are, this is outright Kufr/Blasphemy, because, the Qur’an is the Speech of Allah, uncreated, and to say that the Qur’an “CANNOT” do something is exactly like saying that Allah “CANNOT” do something, and in order for you to justify claiming that Allah “CANNOT” do something, you would have to have an exclusive-source of textual-evidence, to prove that, either from the Qur’an, itself, or from the Sunnah of Muhammad.

      Also, you mentioned, concerning the Companions (May Allah be pleased with them all-together), “…abrogated many of the verses (in the Qur’an) that limited his (Muhammad) authority.” So, it seems that you have a deeply-rooted mistrust for the Companions, whom were entrusted by Allah, via Muhammad, to document/preserve the Qur’an, in (Human) written-form, which is the Mushaf which have, today in our time. Now, if the Companions cannot be trusted to properly, unbiasedly, document/preserve the Quran, accurately, then, what guarantee do we even have that the Qur’an itself is authentically the Speech of Allah?!!! Oh…please, answer this question, intelligently…I dare you!!! I’ll wait.

      Reply
3. 

   koranist

   September 12, 2013 at 10:30 am

   “The Koran cannot order the prophet to punish people for sins, that God’s job”.

   Here I said the Koran can not order the prophet to do something that is ordained for God. As a believer of course I see the Quran as God’s words. So for me God can not order the prophet to do something that is not a human’s job. Can the Quran order us to worship idols or to kill humans without right? Or tell us to steal and lie? Maybe you mean cannot as a theological concept. Well the Quran says God can do anything but this is the deen he ordained for us in the Quran.The prophet has limitations to his authority. He can only preach and warn but not to coerec or force since faith coerced or forced is not faith but hypocrisy. God in the Quran does not hold accountable a person’s utterance of kufr if it was under duress so how can he accept faith if its under duress.

   I never said the sahabas themselves abrogated the Quranic commands. I said many of the hadiths did so or claimed the prophet and his companions did so. There is nothing wrong with following hadiths but not the ones that makes binding what the Quran never made binding and not the ones that violates clear and explicit Quranic commands. Many hadiths do not violate the Quran but there are many that do. These were planted by the enemies of Islam after failing to stop the prophet and the Quran (read verse 10.15). They saw in the Sunnah a door they can enter in. They decided to come up with another revelation themselves after the prophet refused to do so. Initially there was a debate in Islam about the relationship between the Sunnah and Quran. Al Shafi, who was an extremist hadith follower, actually claimed the Sunnah can abrogate the Quran and make binding what the Quran did not. This was not the case early in Islam but Al Shafi’s argument won favor with the Abbasid ruler and this became the state religion. The Mutaziltes who rejected this were persecuted and banned. This is what the Israelites did with the Talmud which they elevated above the Torah. Jesus in the Gospel confirmed the Torah and attacked the Talmud. Especially the aspects of it that abrogated the Torah. The Quran also confirmed the Torah and attacked many aspects of the Talmud. The Talmud made usury permissible on non Jews and also changed the law of proportionality (eye for an eye) to the law of Judiac supremacy (an Jewish eye for a thousand gentile eye). It also allowed Jews to cheat and lie to gentiles if need be. This has made Judaism unable to assimilate in many societies and Jews faced a lot of resentment in lands they lived in. Islamic authorities also changed the law of proportionality thereby giving the Muslim ruler absolute authority. So now we have the Omar Al Bashirs and the Mulla Omars and the Al Sauds. We have the sectarian violence and we have the marginilization of women and the curbing of individual freedoms.

   Quran confirms the Torah and Gospel and attacks the Talmud and Trinity

   http://able2know.org/topic/157270-1

   On Al Shafi versus the Mutaziltes (or the Ahlul Al Kalam as some call them) about the role of Sunnah

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uf-6OJg7krM

   On abrogation (naskh) and the conspiracy against the Quran

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir)

   Reply
   1. 

      Gareth Bryant

      September 12, 2013 at 1:22 pm

      Firstly, the adherence of ash-Shafi`i, to the Sunna/Hadith, was not at all extreme. In fact, his own personal-statement, regarding the superiority of the Qur’an, above any/all other types of Revelation, is evident, as he, himself, personally, said, “Had Surat-ul-`Asr had been the only Chapter (of the Qur’an) to be revealed, as a Hujjah/Indictment, for/against the Human being, it would be enough (to do so).”.(Kitab-ut-Tawhid) So, with this personal-statement, it is very plain & obvious that he properly viewed the Qur’an in the highest of esteem.

      Reply
4. 

   koranist

   September 13, 2013 at 12:56 pm

   He did as a theology but not as a book of command. What Shafi did was he opened the door for the enemies of Islam and the Quran to change the deen. Not only did Al Shafi initially claimed that two revelations came to Muhammad and not just the Quran, and not only did he say that the other revelation was in the hands of specialist and not available to the general public like the Quran is and therefore it has to be collected and compiled and authenticated by speacialist as he called them, and not only did he claim that this other revelation which he called the Sunnah was binding and can legislate Islamic law, he also paved the way for abrogation. It is this, more than anything, that the Mutaziltes rejected. Because abrogation means that the deen now can completely be changed. Abrogation has a beginning but no end. In the end nearly all of the Muhamedan verses of the Quran were abrogated. The Quran in Sunni/Shia Islam has no role in Shariah law.

   Abrogation once again. A good article about abrogation in Islam

   http://i-epistemology.net/religion-a-islamic-studies/347-arguments-for-abrogation-in-the-quran-a-critical-evaluation.html

   List of abrogated verses of the Quran

   wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Abrogations_in_the_Qur’an

   Reply
   1. 

      Gareth Bryant

      September 14, 2013 at 3:03 am

      It’s really interesting how you’ve just, randomly, decided to highlight the position of ash-Shafi`i, in regards to both the Qur’an & Sunnah being Revelation, when even Allah, himself, mentions both the Qur’an & Sunnah being revelation.() Also, Allah mentions the difference between Wahi & Tanzil: Clearly, based upon what has been mentioned in the Qur’an, both Wahi & Tanzil mean Revealtion; but, Wahi is sometng that Allah places upon the mind & heart of somone, whether they be a Prophet or Non-Prophet & there are many examples of persons whom were not even Prophets, being directly guided, by Allah, via Wahi.(Stories of the Prophets) And then, we have Tanzil, which is revealed textual-scripture, which details, regulations, commandments, prohibitions, etc. and only a Messenger would receive Tanzil (with the exception of the Prophet Ezra [Stories of the Prophets]). Then, Muhammad (Peace be upon him) made clear distinctions between Wahi & Tanzil, when he commanded certain Companions to only document the Qur’an & others to document Ahadith. Then, the Companions, themselves, whom were only taught Islam from Muhammad, were taught to understand the difference between Wahi & Tanzil.

      Reply
5. 

   koranist

   September 15, 2013 at 4:58 pm

   That is true. Also “ataina” meaning given such as the case with David and the Zabur (Psalms). But Shafi did not seperate between the Quran and Sunnah. Jesus as we know was the word of God since he was given the holy spirit. He spoke in the cradle and preached when he was a child, something that Moses and Muhammad couldn’t do. Moses meanwhile talked directly to God while neither Jesus and Muhammad did.

   Now as far as how this relates to Quran and hadith, my problem is not how they understand hadith but how it relates with the Quran. In Sunni Islam if you ask the question what place does the Sunnah have in Islam (especially shariah law since this is in the end what matters) you will get:

   “The Sunnah comes in agreement with the Quran. It explains the meanings of what is unclear in the text, provides details for what is depicted in general terms, specifies what is general, and explains its injunctions and objectives. The Sunnah also comes with injunctions that are not provided by the Quran, but these are always in harmony with its principles, and they always advance the objectives that are outlined in the Quran.”

   http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/655/

   “The Sunnah comes in agreement with the Quran”. Then I would have no problem but because of abrogation this can not really happen.

   ” The Sunnah also comes with injunctions that are not provided by the Quran but these are always in harmony with its principles, and they always advance the objectives that are outlined in the Quran” Then again I would have no problem but once again because of abrogation this also is not true.

   What Sunnis end up doing is abrogating any Quranic commands that goes against their hadith since they hate to reject any of their hadiths. But the fact that the author of this explanation went out of his way to explain how the Sunnah is in agreement with the Quran shows the concern Sunni authorities have about being accused of marginializing the Quran. The problem here is that this ended up being a door the enemies of Islam and the Quran can now enter. All they need to do now is establish an isnad that traces to Muhammad. There is nothing that can stop them because abrogation renders the Quran irrelevant. Sunni clerics generally avoid the topic of abrogation often claiming that a Quranic verse can abrogate anothet Quranic verse. They usually rely on verse 9.5 for most of their abrogation.

   Notice the author also said the Sunnah can specify what is general in the Quran. Jizya verse is an example. In the Quran it came upon the entering of Mecca where many of the believers were exiled from and were at war with the Meccans. Jizya later because a general command on all non Muslims living in Muslim countries regardless of whether they did right or wrong as the Meccans who exiled the believers and the believers lost property and land and their livelihood. Jizya in the Quran is directed towards an oppressive party to be paid to the oppressed. It somehow became a tax paid by non Muslims to the rulers. Many times the Muslim Sultan is one who attacked and invaded (ghazu) a territory and then used Jizya as an Islamic tax. The Quran as we know only allowed defensive war and never allowed conquest. That prohibition was abrogated.

   Like the Mutazilites, my main concern here is how all this relates to the Quran and its commands. If the Sunnah as they claim simply elaborates on what the Quran says and gives us examples of that, then there is no problem. But it being in a position to legislate and at the same time to abrogate, well I will let you do the math.

   So semantics aside, its what this all means to the Quran and its commands that I am interested in.

   “The contemporary Islamic al-Azhar influential scholar, Muhammad Sa`id Ramadan al-Buti, says in his well-known research: “The verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that holy war which is demanded in Islamic law is not a defensive war, because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all Holy wars. Its goal is the exaltation of the word of Allah and the construction of Islamic society and the establishment of Allah’s kingdom on Earth regardless the means. It is legal to carry on an offensive Holy War.” ”

   “Al-Suyuti does not see 2:256 abrogated by 9:73, but a case of delaying or postponing the command to fight the infidels until the Muslims become strong. When they were weak, they were commanded to endure and be patient. The first verse that was revealed in the Qur’an about fighting in Medina is Surah 2 verse 190, until Surah 9 was revealed, and it was cancelled by Surah 9 verse 5. ”

   Of course the enemies of Islam today use abrogation to attack Muhammad and the Quran claiming once he became stronger he started cancelling the defensive war verses and replaced it with offensive war. I think that Sunnism and Shiasm reflect the Meccan dynasties and their interest.

   Reply
6. What if Muslim Sectarian-Groups were Diseases or Drugs?!!! | Gareth Bryant…

   May 15, 2014 at 7:01 pm

   […] a. It’s a known historical fact that both the Qur’an as well as Prophetic-Statements were in fact recorded during the lifetime of Muhammad, by many, countless of his Companions (May Allah be pleased with them altogether). So, how could it possibly be that they trust those who recorded the Qur’an, word-for-word, in the current form that has been preserved in, for the past 14-centuries, yet they distrust the recordings of Ahadith, which were in turn recorded by the same exact persons that recorded the Qur’an (for more info. about this: http://garethbryant.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/quranandsunnahjointly) […]

   Reply
7. 

   Dawn Dugger

   January 28, 2015 at 8:17 am

   Is there evidence in the Quran that muslims must adhere to Sahih Bukhari? If such evidence does not exist in the Quran then it is not necessary to adhere to Sahih Bukhari.

   Reply
   1. 

      Gareth Bryant

      January 31, 2015 at 11:43 pm

      Well, you’ve definitely no proof against adhering to Prophetic-Narrations. And, again: if you’re going to distrust Ahadith, in totality, then what’s the point of even claiming to believe on the Qur’an? The same Companions, Followers, etc., whom the entire Muslim-World, from their times to the Present-Day, who were deemed trustworthy enough to preserve the Human-Documentation of the Qur’an, were the exact same People who Humanly preserved the documentation of the Sun ah.

      Reply
      1. 

         Dawn Dugger

         February 2, 2015 at 2:07 am

         The proof for not needing to adhere to Sahih Bukhari is that the Quran does not command us to adhere to it. God does not authorize adherence to Sahih Bukhari. God says the Quran is guidance. He does not say Sahih Bukhari is guidance. So Sahih Bukhari has no connection to God’s guidance. Sahih Bukhari is not comparable to the Quran, nor claimed to be. The Quran is a book of no doubt (2:2). Sahih Bukhari is not, nor claimed to be. The Quran is protected by God (15:9). Sahih Bukhari is not, nor claimed to be. The Quran was dictated by the Prophet and documented by scribes in the presence of the Prophet (80:15, 25:5). Sahih Bukhari was not, nor claimed to be. The Prophet authenticated the Quran. The Prophet did not authenticate Sahih Bukhari. There is no evidence in the Quran that the Prophet dictated ahadith in Sahih Bukhari to scribes.

         Reply
         1. 

            Gareth Bryant

            February 3, 2015 at 10:37 pm

            Isn’t it ironic that you & People like you place your trust in the Salaf (as-Sahab ash wat-Tabi`in/the Companions & Followers [of the Companions]), to have documented/recorded the Qur’an, but distrust these same Righteous-Ancestors in their documentation/recording of the Sunnah.

            Reply
         2. 

            Gareth Bryant

            February 3, 2015 at 10:42 pm

            And, this statement proves that you have absolutely no knowledge of the History of the Human-Preservation of both the Qur’an & Sunnah. Muhammad had overseen the documentation of both the Qur’an and his Sunnah: there were Companions who were only authorized to document/record the Qur’an, only authorized to document/record the Sunnah, and authorized to document/record both the Qur’an & Sunnah.

            Reply
      2. 

         Dawn Dugger

         February 4, 2015 at 8:09 am

         There is no evidence in the Quran that the Prophet’s companions documented/recorded something other than the Quran. Where does the Quran indicate that the Prophet oversaw the documentation of something other than the Quran? In which verse of the Quran does God authorize the Prophet’s companions to document/record something other than the Quran? Why doesn’t the Quran need chains of transmission, but ahadith in Sahih Bukhari do? Why do ahadith in Sahih Bukhari have various grading but the verses of the Quran don’t need grading? The phrase “the Quran and Sunnah” is so heavily used by people, yet God never used this phrase in the Quran. There is no phrase in the Quran “Sunnah of the Messenger”, yet this phrase is so heavily used by people.

         Reply
         1. 

            Gareth Bryant

            February 6, 2015 at 4:47 am

            The Qur’an, itself, is a Hadith: it’s a recoding/documentation of Revelation. Muhammad (Peace be upon him) commanded Companions (May Allah be pleased with them altogether) to record/document the Qur’an, that’s why we have it in Human documented form till the Present-Day. So, then, how could it possibly be that Muhammad had oversaw the correct recoding/documentation of the Qur’an, yet nothing else, no other type of Revelation? And, yes, the Sunnah is Revelation, by virtue of the fact tat his Prophetic-Teachings are directly inspired by Allah, which Allah actually states within Surat-in-Najm/the Chapter of the Star.

            Reply
      3. 

         Dawn Dugger

         February 6, 2015 at 9:19 am

         “… how could it possibly be that Muhammad had oversaw the correct recoding/documentation of the Qur’an, yet nothing else …”
         First we need to ask, why would the Prophet oversee the documentation of something other than the Quran? Does the Quran state that something other than the Quran is required to be documented?

         66:1 proves that not everything uttered by the Prophet is Revelation. So it is inaccurate for anyone to suggest that 53:3-5 shows that everything uttered by Muhammad is Revelation, because the Quran does not contradict itself. 66:1 concerns an Islamic matter because the Prophet prohibited what God had made lawful. When the Prophet did this, how could this be regarded as Revelation or as being inspired by God, in light of 53:3-5?

         Reply
         1. 

            Gareth Bryant

            February 7, 2015 at 10:01 pm

            Firstly: Allah doesn’t even mention that the Qur’an must be documented. In fact, the Human-Preservation/Documentation of the Qur’an was an endeavor commanded & supervised by Muhammad (Peace be upon him), personally, during his lifetime.

            Secondly: You obviously didn’t pay attention to what I mentioned. I had mentioned very clearly that everything related to Revelation, that Muhammad (Peace be upon him) had spoken/done, were direct instructions from Allah. Don’t try to make it seem otherwise. And, this is what People like you try to use as justifications to abandon the Sunnah/Prophetic-Tradition.

            Reply
      4. 

         Dawn Dugger

         February 8, 2015 at 12:43 am

         With regards to your first point, we know that the Quran is a Book, as stated in 2:2. So it is documented. The Quran was dictated by the Prophet and documented by scribes in the presence of the Prophet (see 80:15, 25:5). The Quran provides evidence to support these facts. But does the Quran provide similar evidence for the unmentioned “Sunnah of the Messenger”? Obviously not. The “Sunnah of the Messenger” never existed and has not been authorized by God in the Quran.

         Sorry, but your second point isn’t making any sense to me. When considering 66:1, are you suggesting that God instructed the Prophet (through Revelation) to prohibit what God has made lawful? If so, then this is totally absurd! Why would God instruct the Prophet through Revelation to prohibit what God has made lawful, AND THEN reveal 66:1 and criticize the Prophet for having prohibited what God has made lawful?

         Reply
         1. 

            Gareth Bryant

            February 8, 2015 at 4:17 pm

            Yes, because there were many things which were mentioned within the Qur’an (like the Islamic allowance to beat Wives), which were changed via Abrogation, by the Sunnah. Also, there were things (like the Islamic disallowance of Muslim-Men marrying marrying certain types of Women), which were expanded upon, by the Sunnah. So, yes, both the Qur’an & Sunnah are Revelation: they both defie one another expand upon one another, abrogate one another. And, going back t what you’ve originally mentioned: how is it even possible for Muhammad (Peace be upon him) to have oversaw the documentation of the Qur’an & not oversee the documentation of the Sunnah?

            Reply
      5. 

         Dawn Dugger

         February 8, 2015 at 6:44 pm

         It has nothing to do with abrogation! God is openly and clearly criticizing the Prophet in 66:1 for something the Prophet did wrong, and then God ends the verse by saying that God is Forgiving and Merciful. So when the Prophet did something wrong, it obviously cannot be Revelation from God!

         I didn’t say it isn’t possible for the Prophet to oversee the documentation of something in addition to the Quran. But where is the evidence in the Quran that he did? Does the Quran state that something other than the Quran is required to be documented? There is no evidence in the Quran that the Prophet’s companions documented/recorded something other than the Quran. Where does the Quran indicate that the Prophet oversaw the documentation of something other than the Quran? In which verse of the Quran does God authorize the Prophet’s companions to document/record something other than the Quran? Sahih Bukhari has not been authorized by God in the Quran. God does not say it is Revelation.

         For arguments sake, let’s say the Prophet did oversee the documentation of, what you call, “the Sunnah”. There are serious problems with this claim. Why doesn’t the Quran need chains of transmission, but ahadith in Sahih Bukhari do? Why do ahadith in Sahih Bukhari have various grading but the verses of the Quran don’t need grading?

         Reply
         1. 

            Gareth Bryant

            February 9, 2015 at 1:30 pm

            Well, it’s blatantly obvious that the Qur’an doesn’t mention the Human-Documentation of the Qur’an. That is a scapegoat-argument: you’re trying to use something that you know isn’t there, doesn’t exist to justify a position. The fact that it’s not mentioned within the Qur’an to document the Qur’an umanly doesn’t make the Human-Documentation of the Qur’an any less a necessity, valuable, valid, historically proven. And, agan, the same exact People who’ve documented the Qur’an Humanly, have also documented te Sunnah/Prophetic-Tradition Humnly. S, again, how is it that no one questions the validity & reliability of the Salaf (as-Sahabah wat-Tabi`in) to Humanly document the Qur’an, yet with the same breath question, ridicule, mock, their Human-Documentation of the Sunnah. I mean, seriously think aout ths, how do we know the Pillars of Islam, Iman, how do we know the Pillar of Ihsan, how do we know how to commit Islamic-Hygiene, to Pray, to Fast, to pay az-Zakah, to make Hajj, to make Jihad, to slaughter Animals, to get married, to get divorced, to bury the Muslim-Dead, to induct someone into Islam via ash-Shahadah, etc.?

            All of these things are in fact mentioned within the Qur’an, yes, but not enough info is gicen to implement them to their fullest potential, the Qur’an just lays down the Skeleton of these things, while the Sunnah actually applies the Veins/Arteries, Flesh/Muscles, Tendons/Ligaments, Joints, Skin, Hair, Nails to make what we know as the Body of Islam. and a Skeleton alone doesn’t make a Body. Likewise, te Qur’an alone doesn’t paint the fullest picture of what Islam truly is. It’s just that the Qur’an is the most important element, by virtue of the fact that it’s the chief source of Revelation. However, everything that Muhammad (Peace)be upon him) has stated/done in relation to the Religion of Islam is, without a shadow of any doubt, Revelation.

            Reply
      6. 

         Dawn Dugger

         February 9, 2015 at 3:37 pm

         God indicates the Human-Documentation of the Qur’an in 80:15 and 25:5.

         God didn’t say that the so-called Sunnah is part of His Din. This is a good enough reason to reject the so-called Sunnah. God’s clear, explicit and unequivocal authorization of the so-called Sunnah is required for Muslims to include it as part of His Din. Please read 42:21. It isn’t even an option to accept the so-called Sunnah as part of God’s Din because He hasn’t authorized it in the Quran.

         It is false for anyone to claim that the so-called Sunnah was documented in the same way as the Quran. This is evident from the fact that ahadith have various gradings and have chains of transmission. Verses of the Quran do not have gradings or chains of transmission to prove their authenticity.

         It is also false for anyone to claim that certain things mentioned in the Quran cannot be implemented. The Quran is fully detailed guidance. Please read 16:89 and 6:114. Does the Quran say that it is only a “skeleton” of the Din?

         I have clearly shown with 66:1 that not everything that the Prophet stated/did in relation to God’s Din is Revelation.

         Reply
         1. 

            Gareth Bryant

            February 9, 2015 at 7:42 pm

            The documentation of te Qur’an was transmitted through the exact same channels & by the exact same individuals who documented the Qur’an.

            Reply
         2. 

            Gareth Bryant

            February 9, 2015 at 7:45 pm

            And, to your comment, in relation to Chpt. 66, V.1: the reason why Allah had corrected him was to grant him an alternative. And, what Muhammad (Peace be upon him) had done was based upon what Revelation that he was given. And, it wasn’t until after the Divine-Correction tat he had been obligated to change his religious-posture, concerning what that religious issue was.

            Reply
         3. 

            Gareth Bryant

            February 9, 2015 at 7:48 pm

            Chpt. 42, V.21 has absolutely nothing to do with what we’re talking about you’re basically (pathetically) to just quote various Ayat/Verses from the Qur’an, out of context, to attempt to promote your heretic egos/desires.

            Reply
         4. 

            Gareth Bryant

            February 10, 2015 at 4:08 pm

            You’ve still not even answered my questions: how do we do all of the things which Muslims are religiously required to do, which were never/are never mentioned within the Qur’an? We get these things from the Sunnah. And, as far as Divine-Correction: you know fully that you’re attempting to insenuate that I claim that Allah errors, which is a fallacy. Once again, you’re only rejecting an element of Revelation, which is the Sunnah/Prophetic-Tradition, to pursue your desires.

            Reply
      7. 

         Dawn Dugger

         February 9, 2015 at 10:35 pm

         It is simply false that the so-called Sunnah was transmitted through the exact same channels & by the exact same individuals who documented the Quran. This is evident from the fact that ahadith have various gradings and have chains of transmission for verifying their authenticity. Verses of the Quran do not have gradings or chains of transmission for verifying their authenticity.

         In no way does 66:1 indicate that God is granting the Prophet an alternative. You are making a false, absurd and baseless claim. I have clearly shown with 66:1 that not everything that the Prophet stated/did in relation to God’s Din is Revelation.

         Where did you get the notion of “Divine-Correction” from? Are you suggesting that God makes mistakes?

         42:21 has everything to do with what we’re talking about. You have no authority from God to incorporate the so-called Sunnah into God’s Din. You are incorporating the so-called Sunnah into your religion on the authority of people who you have made partners with God. As a result, you are not following God’s Din but are following a religion that God has not given permission for.

         Reply
      8. 

         Dawn Dugger

         February 11, 2015 at 7:04 pm

         The Quran is fully detailed guidance. Please read 16:89 and 6:114. So everything we need to know about the Din is in the Quran.

         Can you show in the Quran the notion of Divine-Correction?

         You still have not substantiated your claim from the Quran that 66:1 indicates that God is granting the Prophet an alternative. If you cannot substantiate your claim then you cannot truthfully claim that everything that the Prophet stated/did in relation to God’s Din is Revelation in light of 66:1.

         The Quran doesn’t say Sunnah/Prophetic-Tradition is Revelation. God never authorized it.

         Reply
         1. 

            Gareth Bryant

            February 15, 2015 at 11:09 pm

            Allah authorizes the religious actions of Muhammad (Peace be upon him), when Allah states within the Qur’an, “Say: If you love Allah, then follow me. Allah in turn, Allah will love you, and forgive your Sins for you.”. This Ayah/Verse proves that we, as Muslims are religiously required to adhere to what the Messenger of has brought us. I mean realistically, how did we receive the Qur’an, in Human-Documented form? From as-Sahabah/the Companions (May Allah be pleased with them altogether). Where did they get the Qur’an from? From Muhammad. Now, how is it even intelligent to trust what’s within the Qur’an, when you mistrust & refuse to adhere to the Sunnah/Prophetic-Tradition of Muhammad & the Minhaj/Methodology of as-Salaf?!!!

            Reply
      9. 

         Dawn Dugger

         February 16, 2015 at 12:02 am

         I have already dealt with this issue above. It is simply false that the so-called Sunnah was transmitted through the exact same channels & by the exact same individuals who documented the Quran. This is evident from the fact that ahadith have various gradings and have chains of transmission for verifying their authenticity. Verses of the Quran do not have gradings or chains of transmission for verifying their authenticity.

         Reply
8. Dissecting & Disproving the Kalām/Rhetoric of al-Qur’āniyyah/Qur’ānism | Gareth Bryant…

   December 1, 2020 at 3:04 pm

   […] This, sadly, is becoming a more Popular-Phenomenon: Persons ponfiticating/claiming that al-Qur’ān/The Qur’ān is the Only-Text necessary for one to be a Muslim & to function properly Islāmically. This Pathological-Madhab/Religio-Posture, which has evolved into a Hizb/Religio-Sectarian Grouping, known as al-Qur’āniyyah/Qur’ānism. This Hizb deems to encourage Muslims to abandon the Sunnah/Prophetic-Tradition, not only as per following it. But, this goes much deeper down the Rabbit-Hole…their Religio-Posture more sinisterly pontificates/claims that the Sunnah itself isn’t even at-Tanzīl/Revelation, just as The Qur’ān is. Now, for Obvious-Reasons, this Type/Kind of Religio-Posture is not only Theologically-Problematic, but equally Theologically-Dangerous.(https://gbwrites.com/2013/08/17/quranandsunnahjointly) […]

   Reply
9. Qur’ān-Recitation History | Gareth Bryant…

   July 26, 2023 at 11:32 pm

   […] The Necessity to adhere to both The Qur’ān & the Sunnah/Prophetic-Tradition jointly and&n… […]

   Reply
10. Muslim&Non-Muslim Islāmophobes aren’t Islāmic-Authorities | Gareth Bryant

    May 22, 2024 at 6:43 pm

    […] The Necessity to adhere to both The Qur’ān & the Sunnah/Prophetic-Tradition jointly and&n… […]

    Reply
11. Theological-Slander (Shurūh/Commentaries of my Anti-Takfīr Writings) | Gareth Bryant

    November 28, 2024 at 9:28 am

    […] The Necessity to adhere to both The Qur’ān & the Sunnah/Prophetic-Tradition jointly and&n… […]

    Reply
12. The Important-Difference between Prophetic-Mandate and Prophetic-Privilage | Gareth Bryant

    August 22, 2025 at 10:07 pm

    […] The Necessity to adhere to both The Qur’ān & the Sunnah/Prophetic-Tradition jointly and&n… […]

    Reply
13. The Theological-Arguments for & against “2 Right-Hands of Allah” explained in detail by Gareth Bryant | Gareth Bryant

    September 9, 2025 at 5:20 am

    […] The Necessity to adhere to both The Qur’ān & the Sunnah/Prophetic-Tradition jointly and&n… […]

    Reply
14. Atharī Corleone’s Most Wanted: Frankie Lipscomb (Abū-Usāmah ath-Thu`bānī) the Notorious-Slanderer of Abī-Bakr as-Siddīq | Gareth Bryant

    September 20, 2025 at 8:50 pm

    […] The Necessity to adhere to both The Qur’ān & the Sunnah/Prophetic-Tradition jointly and&n… […]

    Reply