Continue reading »]]> Site News / Notices / Updates (last updated 1st Dec 2011)

Quranists Network Conference Announcement

Quranists Network Conference Winter 2011

Saturday 17th December 2011
Abrar House (45 Crawford Place, Off Edgeware Rd, London, W1H 4LP)
3.30-7.30 pm
Full details including Conference Schedule <– click here

Please confirm your attendance (as places are limited) or ask any questions by emailing to asfora@quranists.net or simply click and fill in the form which will send Asfora an email for you!

Enquiries: Call 07833 526 953

Continue reading »]]> A point put forward by a keen contributor to our discussions said ” By definition, a sect, *is* in point of fact “a group regarded as heretical or as deviating from a generally accepted religious tradition. ” It IS what it is. But, of course, the intention is to return to the truth, the word, as revealed in the Quran, which is why you deny the formation of a sect. But, the moment you “branch off” or “break with tradition”, you do, like it or not, form a sect. Of course, the “tradition” perceived by people who want to rely on Quran as the sole moral and spiritual guidance is not the original tradition. But the “tradition” that people identify most with TODAY is what you seek to separate from (not criticizing, just pointing out what seems very obvious  ”

I am grateful for these comments as it is an opportunity for me to hopefully put forward my contribution to clearing up the  misconceptions about Quranism being a sect once and for all.

Just another sect? Just a second!

The sect argument is quite flabbergasting to me really. I realise this came from a fellow quranist and it was not meant as criticism, rather voicing a real and valid concern, that Quranism appears as first glace to be just another sect… and therefore automatically is here to divide the “deen” and make its own dogma and articles of faith and have exclusive membership. I thought the same myself once upon a time just from hearing that a word could be used to describe the term – the belief that the Quran is the sole divine source of islam! This name game and the pointing of fingers as to who is a sectarian is one of those mindsets that is not easy to change. I was a quranist by definition before I knew the term even existed, and I was also very stubborn and insistent that I was not to be labelled anything – “I’m not a Sunni I’m not a shia I’m not Quranyoon or a Sufi – Just a Muslim Alhamdulillah.”

It’s ok….as long as you don’t admit it!

To my mind, looking back, it was almost like I was saying it’s okay to believe that the Quran is the sole divine source of islam as long as we don’t admit it! It’s like accepting that the popular traditions, superstitions and culturally inherited beliefs may take precedence to God’s Word and we bow to their presence on centre stage, just so we can avoid accusations of being a sect for actually trying to do what the Quran is telling us.

It’s like the school bully syndrome –

- if you don’t do as the bully says, the bully will make things difficult for you. The thing about bullies is once they are exposed, the bullying tactics can no longer work. No one asked the school bully to become a bully, and when you signed your kid up to enrol in the school, you didn’t agree to allowing a bully to take your kid’s dinner money and give him wedgies. Question! If you complain to the school about the bully, are you “rejecting” part of the “school’s benefits and services” or simply acknowledging that the bully is not even part of the “School’s benefits and services”? You didn’t ask for the bully to be there in the first place! If you complain to the School, there is no way the school can say that you are breaking terms and conditions of the school agreement just because you want to fix a situation that should never have happened in the first place as the bully is not mentioned in the “School Benefits and Services” small print, in fact when you do look at the small print it says bullying will not be tolerated!

Do you have any analogies that we should be aware of?

I like to think about things by way of analogy. try this:

Imagine you buy a house. You have signed the contract, you think you know what you bought, because you inspected the house and saw the legal documents. When you move in to the house however, the basement is full of someone else’s junk, old books, household waste etc.  It was not there when you looked at the house when you agreed to buy it. The previous owners are long gone. You agreed to buy the house. You did NOT agree to buy the the trash. You do not legally own the trash. Here’s the dilemma:  Do you accept ownership of the trash and then find a way to get rid of it? Or do you acknowledge that it is not your property to reject because you cannot reject something you do not own and never agreed to take responsibility for?

You still have to live in the house. You can just ignore the festering pit down there but time is ticking by and it’s starting to become a health hazard. If you decide to do something about the mess in the basement, does that mean the contract you signed to start with changes in any way? Does that mean you are going back on what you agreed to? Where is the fairness? In reality you can’t do right for doing wrong because if you leave the trash where it is and refuse to do anything about it, then the whole neighbourhood will suffer from the stench and the pollution and the pest infestation. If you take the bull by the horns and decide to take on responsibility to put things to rights by removing the offending items, then you could be accused of destroying someone else’s property. Either way something has to be done. You could just bury your head in the sand and hope it magically disappears but you have to accept the reality that a decision needs to be made one way or the other.

Alternative ending?

I think if we were supposed to leave traditions unbroken, the story in the Quran about Ibrahim smashing the idols would have to be edited out. And Musa’s job just got a whole lot easier. He could have just left Pharaoh to his tradition of murdering the men and shaming the women and had an easy life. Astaghfirullah.  But the stories in the Quran teach us the Prophetic Examples which show that they were not afraid to break away from the accepted norms, customs and traditions, DESPITE being called “kafireen” themselves (see 26:19) If “breaking away from Tradition” is the definition of a sect then essentially we are calling our prophets “sectarians” . Aoodoobillah.

Were the prophets in “sects”? Musa had “sheeAAatihi” in 28:15. Noah had “sheeAAatihi” in 37:79-83 see http://blog.quranaddict.co.uk/2011/03/justifying-quranist-quranism-labels.html for more. Maybe our understanding of what a sect is needs to be defined from the quranic perspective, without forgetting there are other names too for parties, groups and factions.

Questions to ponder…

Would you mind being in a “Fariqa”?34:20 Satan has been successful in his suggestions to them, for they followed him, except for a group farīqan of those who acknowledge.

8:5 As your Lord made you go out from your home with the truth, but a party farīqan from among those who acknowledge opposed this.

Which Fariqa do you want to be in?
7:30 A group Fareeqan He has guided and a group wafarīqan has deserved misguidance; that is because they have taken the devils as allies besides God; and they think they are guided!

Is it ok to be in a “fi’atun”? 3:13 There was a sign for you in the two groups “fi-atayni” that met. One “fi-atun” was fighting in the cause of God, and the other was ingrate. They thus saw them as twice their number with their eyes. God supports with His victory whomever He wills. In this is a lesson for those with vision.

2:249 So when Saul set out with the soldiers, he said, “God will test you with a river, whoever drinks from it is not with me, and whoever does not taste from it except one scoop with his hand is with me.” They all drank from it, except a few of them. So when he and those who acknowledged with him crossed it, they said, “We have no power today against Goliath and his soldiers!” But the ones who understood that they would meet God said, “How many a time has a small group fi-atin qalīlatin beaten a large group fi-atan kathīratan by God’s leave, and God is with the patient ones!”⁷²

Would you be more comfortable being in a “Hizba”?
5:56 Whoever allies God, His messenger and those who acknowledge; then the ḥiz’ba of God is the ones who will be victorious.

58:22 You will not find any people who acknowledge God and the Last day befriending those who oppose God and His messenger, even if they were their parents, or their children, or their siblings, or their tribe. For these, He decrees trust into their hearts, and supports them with a Spirit from Him, and He admits them into paradises with rivers flowing beneath, wherein they will abide. God is pleased with them, and they are pleased with Him. These are the ḥiz’bu of God . Most assuredly, the party ḥiz’ba of God are the winners.

Which Hizba do you want to be in? The Hizba of God (58:22) or the Hizba of the devil? (58:19)

58:19 The devil has overtaken them, and has caused them to forget the remembrance of God. These are the ḥiz’bu of the devil. Absolutely, the ḥiz’ba of the devil are the losers.

Was Abraham in a “Sh’ia”?
37:83 From among his shīʿatihi was Abraham.

Was Musa in a Sh’ia?

28:15 He entered the city unexpectedly, without being noticed by the people. He found in it two men who were fighting, one was from his own shīʿatihi, and the other was from his enemy’s. So the one who was from his own shīʿatihicalled on him for help against his enemy, whereby Moses punched him, killing him. He said, “This is from the work of the devil; he is an enemy that clearly misleads.”

Did Nuh have Sh’ia? (Read from verse 37:79)

37:83 From among his shīʿatihi was Abraham.

Further reading

1. Quranists and the term ‘Quranists’ by Farouk A. Peru

2. An Analysis of Quranist Fundamentalism by Farouk A. Peru

3. Quranism: The Metaphor of the House by Farouk A. Peru

4. Quranists: Between Reading and Interpretation by Farouk A. Peru

5. Submitters and Quranists by Asfora

6. Quranism is not a Sect ! Here is Why by Farouk A. Peru

7. Justifying the Quranism / Quranist labels by Asfora

8. Quranism and Traditionalism: Not Mutually Exclusive! by Farouk A. Peru

9. Who are the Real Sectarians? by Farouk A. Peru

10. A Quranist’s Response to the term “Hadith Rejector” by Asfora

11. “Quran Alone-ism” and Quranism by Asfora

12. Multiple Paths to Salvation by Darcus

13. The Deceptive “Just Muslim” Label by Farouk A. Peru

14. Who is a Kaafir? by Kashif Shahzada

Continue reading »]]> The liberation afforded to us by virtue of this label ‘Quranist’ amazes me. By declaring myself a Quranist and having materials bearing the name there is simply no confusion anymore: I am NOT an orthodox Muslim and my non-acceptance of orthodox (read: Traditional) Islam is apparent to whoever sees this name. At worst, they will see the name, ignore it but my job is still done. I have entered my disclaimer. I do NOT represent orthodox Islam. The onus is on the reader to find out what a Quranist is.

As I said, the term is liberating.

I am very surprised at the insistence of some quranists (with a small ‘q’, that is people who believe in the Quran as a sole divine source but don’t necessarily adopt the term ‘Quranist’) to use the term ‘Muslim’. They insist there is only just one Islam (theirs obviously) and that any kind of deviation from that Islam is sectarianism. I term them as Quranic Fundamentalists (QF’ists) because while they are Quranic, despite the Quran’s spirit of openness and tolerance, they do not follow suit.

Having witnessed some of their activities recently, I’m afraid I have to say that I am rather disappointed in the lack of honesty being displayed in their activities. One such group, ‘Support for New Muslims’, is run by quranists who are ordinarily very critical of hadith. However, in this particular group, they have sublimated their criticisms presumably not to scare off their ‘customers’.

I admit, their actions may actually bring the Quran to many new Muslims but at what price? These new Muslims went to their group sincerely seeking what is likely to be Traditional Islam (due to its overwhelming prevalence). By hiding the fact that they are not representatives of Traditional Islam, they are selling the product that the customer did not seek. Of course, they are selling what they believe is a better product but isn’t it simply honesty to tell the New Muslim, at the very least, that their views are not just unorthodox but also outright heretical in some circles?

If I was the new Muslim in question, I would feel cheated and betrayed. I would expect these quranists to be open and honest. Tell people who you are. Let them make an informed decision rather than acting as if you are what you’re not.

This is what the Quranist term is for. To give the signal to people that we are not orthodox. If they wish to find out why, it is up to them.
At this present time, the group ‘Support for New Muslims’ is having posts by New Muslims who have found Islam through the hadith and sunnah. These New Muslims are discussing concepts of Traditional Islam without the awareness that the group itself does not accept such concepts. Of course, the quranists admin of the group are cheering on these posts as if they agree to what is being talked about. Why do they not inform the New Muslims that they disagree to such concepts?

Very disappointing indeed.

Names do not create sects. Attitudes create sects. Names create awareness of the spaces one enters. When one enters the Quranist space, one would know that the space does not recognise the authority of hadith, sunnah or the Traditional ulama and so one would act accordingly. These quranists who reject the term and call themselves ‘Just Muslim’ are denying the rights of others to differ from them. They are denying the numerous debates taking place in the Muslim world about the nature and teachings of Islam. It would be better for them to be honest and declare who they are and what they believe in. Honesty really is the best policy.

Continue reading »]]> by Darcus

I have recently come across some friction in regards to the use of the term Quranist as my label and Quranism as the methodology I employ to work the Deen.

So I thought the following must hold true:

Multiple paths to salvation:
[QXP] 5:16 Through this Book God guides to PATHS of Peace, those who seek His Approval. He brings them out of darkness into the light of His grace, and guides them to the straight path.
[TRANSLIT] 5:16 Yahdee bihi Allahu mani ittabaAAa ridwanahu SUBULA alssalami wayukhrijuhum mina alththulumati ila alnnoori bi-ithnihi wayahdeehim ila siratin mustaqeemin

[QXP] 14:12 “Why should we not put our trust in God? He has shown us the WAYS we follow. We shall certainly endure with uncompromising resolve whatever torment you inflict upon us. Let those who trust put their trust in God.” [Trusting in God is trusting the permanence of His laws]
[TRANSLIT] 14:12 Wama lana alla natawakkala AAala Allahi waqad hadana SUBULANA walanasbiranna AAala ma athaytumoona waAAala Allahi falyatawakkali almutawakkiloona

[QXP] 29:69 As for those who sincerely strive for Us, We surely guide them onto PATHS that lead to Us. (New channels keep opening for them leading them out of the spider’s web onto the straight path.) God is with
the benefactors of Humanity. [Muhsineen = Benefactors of humanity]
[TRANSLIT] 29:69 Waallatheena jahadoo feena lanahdiyannahum SUBULANA wa-inna Allaha lamaAAa almuhsineena

The word SUBUL is the plural form of SABIL as in ‘fi SABIL Allah’ literally ‘in the way of Allah/in the cause of Allah’
From these verse it can be deduced that:
1. Allah guides those who seek His Approval
2. There are MANY paths/ways to ‘alssalami’ peace/salvation…translate according to context.
3. If there are MANY paths, whats wrong with those paths having different names?

Please remember THIS verse:
[QXP] 2:112 Nay, WHOEVER submits his whole being to God,
and he is a doer of good to humanity,
his reward is with his Lord.
Then, no fear shall come upon them nor shall they grieve.

These type of debates that you set up and the way you antagonise people and call their beliefs into question sort of falls into line with the following:
2:113 Also,
the Jews assert that the Christians have no basis, and
the Christians assert that the Jews have no basis. Yet,
both groups read the scripture!
Such is the behavior of those who have no knowledge (or scripture).
God will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that wherein they differ.
[Qaul = Utterance = Thought = Assertion = Tenet = Attitude = Expression. Mankind holding divergent views will acknowledge the Divine truth in this world as well. 9:33-34, 11:118-119, 41:53, 48:28, 61:9]

Let’s look at this in a slightly different way:

[QXP] 5:48 (O Messenger!) We have sent to you this Divine writ, setting forth the truth.
It confirms the remaining truth in the earlier scriptures since it is a watcher over them.
So, judge between them by what God has revealed, and
do not follow their desires diverging from the truth that has come to you.
FOR EACH (COMMUNITY) AMONG YOU WE HAVE APPOINTED CERTAIN RITES AND A TRACED-OUT WAY.
IF GOD HAD WILLED, HE COULD HAVE MADE YOU ALL ONE SINGLE COMMUNITY.
But He decided to let you test yourselves by what (potentials) He has granted you.
So, outdo one another in doing good to the society. To God you will all return, and He will then make you understand wherein you differed.
[TRANSLIT] 5:48 Waanzalna ilayka alkitaba bialhaqqi musaddiqan lima bayna yadayhi mina alkitabi wamuhayminan AAalayhi faohkum baynahum bima anzala Allahu wala tattabiAA ahwaahum AAamma jaaka mina alhaqqi likullin jaAAalna minkum shirAAatan WAMINHAJAN walaw shaa Allahu lajaAAalakum ommatan wahidatan walakin liyabluwakum feema atakum faistabiqoo alkhayrati ila Allahi marjiAAukum jameeAAan fayunabbi-okum bima kuntum feehi takhtalifoona

The word you are looking for is MINHAJAN in the arabic. This can be roughly translated as “a well defined way, manifest, plainly defined, apparent and open road”. This word only has one occurence in the Quran. It says that Allah COULD HAVE made us all one community, but he didn’t. See how there can be many well-defined ways, so that we can test ourselves and so outdo one another in doing good Good.

The following verse is self-explanatory:
[QXP] 2:148 (Mere rituals carry no importance even though people pursue their self-appointed interests.) Each one has a goal toward which he turns.
Then strive together toward all that is good.
Whatever stand you take, God will bring you all together.
Indeed, God is Able to do all things.

So, to summarise:
1. There are many paths/ways to God.
2. Allah could have created ONE community, but he didn’t so that we could compete.
3. There is no need to define WHICH are the correct paths by name – allowing us to choose, because those that adhere to 2:112 have nothing to fear.

Continue reading »]]> I saw the cumbersome term “Quran-Alone-ism” used the other day, followed by “(for lack of a better term)”.

When I need to used the term “Quran Alone-ism” or “Quran Alone-ness”, I just use the term Quranism. It is essentially the same thing.

Quranism is the belief that the Quran is the sole divine source of islam. Quranists are muslims who follow Quranism.

I pondered though, due to my over-active, over-analytical mind-set, whether there is a difference between being a Quran Alone muslim and a Quranist muslim.

The term “Quran Alone” can be taken to varying degrees of pedantry.

Red Carpet example
If you take it to mean purely Quran Alone then what you will have is a belief system where ALL outside sources of information are rejected and taken to be untrue. For example if I tell you my carpet is red but you do not find it stated specifically in the Quran, then this could be rejected as untrue according to the belief that the only true information comes directly from the Quran.

Now of course this is a ridiculous example of taking the meaning of words to their extreme and absolute limit.

The following are some of the different types of Quran Alone-ness (Quranism)

A. Some who claim to follow the Quran Alone for their belief system tend to follow what is in fact “Translations of the Quran Alone”

This could be one particular translation by a preferred translator or a more un-biased approach where several Quran translations are compared side by side.

B. Some who claim to follow the Quran alone don’t “label” themselves as “Quran Alone muslims” or “Quranist muslims”, preferring to state that they are simply muslims. This may be either due to fears that giving a descriptive term to their belief that the Quran has the sole authority might imply they had become part of a sect OR due to present day Sunni Islam (usually referred to by those Muslims as “Mainstream” Islam*) disapproving of the Quranist view, leading usually to excommunication of those who go from the Mainstream view to the Quranist view. Some of these Quran Alone muslims do not claim to reject all Hadiths, only the ones that contradict the Quran. This can enable more integration into the “cultural” side of Islam, where some translations of Quranic verses can be used to justify some of the cultural or traditional interpretations of Islam. For a convert to Islam who does not have any experience of the cultural/traditional associations of Islam it can be a daunting task to try to make these associations using the Quran alone.

* Quranists refer to Mainstream muslims as “Traditionalists” due to “Mainstream” being defined as such only due to majority numbers. If Quranism (the belief that the Quran is the sole source of islam) became the belief held by the majority of Muslims then the term “Mainstream” would become ambiguous.

C. Some Quran Alone muslims – typically self proclaimed Quranists, (the ones who do embrace the use of the term as a practical aid to communication) tend to focus on trying to unearth the true meanings of the original Arabic with a view to understanding the Quran as a whole by not taking verses out of context. Some use a methodology of studying the Quran in depth, investigating the words used with the belief that the Quran explains the Quran. Their belief is that every single word in the original Arabic Quran is there to teach lessons, give examples and parables and make the Quran clear; THE Divine Guidance. Usually for this type of approach, a very open mind free of all previous pre-conceptions or projections from the Traditionalist view is required. Context, Arabic vocabulary and grammar all play a huge part in undertaking this kind of study which inevitably results in “evolving beliefs” as the student undertakes his personal journey of enlightenment with a deeply personal engagement with the text. This kind of study is undertaken by some Quranists using literally the Quran alone or with the assistance of study tools such as Classical Arabic dictionaries, Quran Concordances and online Quran databases. It is debateable whether these so-called tools are classed as Non-Quranic Sources (NQS) or simply tools or study aids.

Usually, all “Quran Aloners”, “Quran Alone muslims”, “Quranic muslims” and “Quranists” are labelled indiscriminately as “Hadith Rejectors” (see Quranist’s response to this term) by those who disagree with the premise that the Quran can be understood without the acceptance of the Sahih Hadith collections. Rejection of Hadith can mean rejecting the Authority of the Hadith or the Authenticity of it. In Quranist terms, to reject the Authority of a hadith means to acknowledge that the Quran has not mentioned this piece of information. To reject the Authenticity of it means a belief that the information is simply not true.

This can lead to a mix-match situation:

Hadiths (or any other NQS including translations) can be believed to be: either

Ex.1 Authentic AND Authorised,

Ex.2 Authentic BUT NOT Authorised,

Ex.3 NOT Authentic BUT Authorised

or

Ex.4 NOT Authentic AND NOT Authorised

Ex.1.Authentic and Authorised (because it fully agrees with Quran)

If a Hadith is in full agreement with what the Quran teaches, then some Quran Alone muslims may say that this makes the Hadith authentic and authorised. There is however a difference between “Full Agreement with what the Quran says” and “Non-contradiction” If the Hadith has its basis in the Qur’an with a seemingly reasonable explanation then it may still be considered Divine Guidance by some Quran Alone muslims, and therefore some Quran Alone muslims will consider the Hadith authentic and authorised, even though the interpretation of the hadith and Quran may be from an NQS.

Ex.2.Authentic but Not Authorised (verifiable truth, not from Quran)

Rejecting the Authority (simply acknowledging that the information does not have its basis in the Quran) but where the truth can be verified (authenticity) [as in the Red Carpet example from above] is a belief that although the Hadith or NQS is not mentioned in the Qur’an, if it does not contradict the Quran, it may still be wisdom or practical, reasonable, and sensible good advice, however is not considered Divine Guidance.

This type of Quran-Alone-ness (Quranism) primarily means that the “Sahih Hadiths” are not automatically believed to be Authentic and Authorised on the say-so of scholars and imams, rather they have to be re-investigated critically to establish their authenticity.  It also means that from a non-absolutist point of view most things are open to consideration with the Quran having the ultimate say on what is Divine Guidance with the freedom to use logic, reason and common sense, pondering and reflection.

Ex.3.Not Authentic but Authorised (does not exist)

Ex.4.Not Authentic Not Authorised (not verifiable, not from Quran)

Some Quran Alone muslims reject the authenticity and authority of all Hadiths if the words from the English translations of the Hadiths do not correspond to the English translations of the Quran. (Ex.4) and is more in line with the Red Carpet example which can lead to an extreme or fundamentalist absolutist view. This even goes as far as to say that because the term Quranism is not a word in the Quran, then there is no Authority to use the term. (This same logic is not usually applied to the use of a translation; neither the word “translation” nor the instruction to use one can be found in any Quranic verse.) Often verses from the Quran will be used to justify this approach such as Quran Chapter 5 verse 44 (see also Quranic Fundamentalism) There are some Quran Alone muslims who profess to rejecting all Hadiths and NQS which came AFTER the Quran and consider them unauthorised, however, they do not reject the authority and authenticity of previous Scriptures such as the Bible and Jewish texts which they use to aid interpretation of the Quran and/or to justify classical interpretations, which have their origins in Hadiths that did come after the Quran.

Mention should probably be made that sometimes it is not easy to establish a belief of whether an NQS is authentic or not without the proof. This makes it very difficult to 100% accept each NQS as true and authentic or 100% reject it as false / not authentic. Each piece of information in each situation would have to be judged accordingly without making sweeping judgements. Not everything is black and white not to mention that sometimes there may be truth within falsehood, and one would expect the Quranist muslim to investigate and seek the Truth, using the Quran as the deciding factor.

Quranism essentially comprises of all these different types of claims to “Quran Alone-ness” or “Quran Alone-ism.”

Quranism is an umbrella term that includes all approaches to islam from varying understandings, beliefs and interpretations where the Quran is believed to be the sole authority. Quranism is quite the opposite of a sect due to its inclusivity of all approaches to quranic islam and has no set commands of belief or requirements, no leader or authority-head and does not excommunicate anyone who disagrees or has a difference of opinion. Quranism does not profess to be the only way to salvation. Quranism, by its nature of this universal inclusivity does include by definition, in principle, even those who demonstrate sectarian attitudes with claims that their view is the only true belief, even though most Quranists do not endorse such views and even though the ones demonstrating the sectarian attitude do not generally accept the terms Quranist or Quranism. For more information about Quranists, please visit Quranists.net

This article contains a non-exhaustive list of some of the observed kinds of Quran Alone/Quranist/quranist muslims there are. Maybe you are a quranist muslim and have not been described here. If so we would love to hear your point of view on the Quranist Voices blog. Please do leave a comment or visit the quranists.net forum.

Continue reading »]]> What does it mean to “reject”?
[v. ri-jekt; n. ree-jekt] –verb (used with object)

1. to refuse to have, take, recognize, etc.: to reject the offer of a better job.
2. to refuse to grant (a request, demand, etc.).
3. to refuse to accept (someone or something); rebuff: The other children rejected him. The publisher rejected the author’s latest novel.

What does it mean to “Reject Hadith” or to be labelled as a “Hadith Rejector”?
Quranists are often labelled as “Rejectors of Hadith”. It has a derogatory connotation that to “Reject Hadith” is to be a “kafir” or a non-believer in God’s commands and to be non-supportive of the Messenger of God. Calling someone a “Hadith Rejector” seems to imply that they are somehow “disobedient” to the Messenger and to God. Sadly, quite often, the term “Hadith Rejector” is used as a synonym for non-muslim.

This piece will hopefully show InshaaAllah why the terms “Hadith Rejection” and “Hadith Rejector” need to be clarified. The terms do not necessarily have to imply negative connotations. It is however important to clarify what it is that Quranists DO reject.

Quranist Beliefs
Quranists believe that the Quran is the sole source of Divine Guidance. Quranists believe that upholding the Quran is the best way to obey the Messenger and obey God. Some people think that obeying God is adhering to the Quran whereas obeying the Messenger is following Ahadith collections. Upon closer inspection, 73:16 shows that fa’aṣā fir’’awnu l-rasūla – Firawn disobeyed the Messenger. It stands to reason that obeying the Messenger and obeying God are one in the same. It is clear that obeying/disobeying the Messenger is nothing to do with Ahadith collections which came centuries after the Quran. For a comprehensive understanding of the Quran as the Sole Authority, please see  The Authority of the Quran by Kashif Ahmed Shehzada and further reading on “Obeying the Messenger” in this article.

Anything other than the Quran – anything:  Ahadith collections, man’s own words, scholarly texts, books, essays, articles, opinions of other Quran students, hearsay, old wives tales, traditional understandings, cultural beliefs, societal norms and customs, manners and behaviour can be investigated, pondered and compared with what the Quran says, and we are encouraged by the Quran to use logic and reason to analyse anything and everything. What we might find is that some of these extra-Quranic sources DO correspond with our understanding of the Quran OR they might be good advice or good practices in general day to day life OR they may be detrimental; detrimental to society and our own spiritual growth.

To reject or not to reject?
It is not logical to say that if some good advice, wherever it is from – an Ahadith collection or teachers, friends, family or strangers – is to be automatically rejected, purely because it is not from the Quran. Its claim to have the authority of Divine Guidance is rejected of course by Quranists, as we believe only God’s Words in the Quran have such a status. BUT if there is merit in the good advice and it corresponds to achieving the goals of what we are trying to achieve in life in the way of God, then there is no reason or logic to reject purely for the sake of rejection.

The detrimental “advice” or customs and practices which have little to no benefit in society or for ones own soul or spiritual development, and which directly contradict the teachings of the Quran, then it is these that Quranists may be found scrutinising and wholeheartedly rejecting.

No extra-Quranic prohibition 
The Quran tells us what is forbidden. What is not specifically mentioned as forbidden is lawful. The Quran emphasises that we must not say things are forbidden if Allah has not forbidden them. Therefore if a “Hadith” says something is forbidden where the Qur’an does not back this up, then that is a good example of rejection of the authority of the prohibition. This in no way means that we reject the Messenger’s authority. It is the claim that the hadith has its origin with God that is rejected.

Suggestions
I think it is a noble gesture to urge fellow believers to the path of God. There are undoubtedly some “hadiths” which are very good advice and give us food for thought and suggestions on how to become better muslims, especially ones that have their basis in the Quran anyway. Suggestions of how to be kind to parents and family and to benefit one’s community, and to fight against injustice and oppression are welcomed as part of achieving the goals. The question is: do these suggestions of how to achieve the goals have any divine authority? No. Allah provides the best examples in the Quran through His prophets and messengers. See Prophetic Examples in the Quran.

What it boils down to
In light of all this this, “Hadith Rejector” as a synonym for Quranist does not really do justice to what it is that Quranists actually DO reject. We reject the concept of a second source of Divine Guidance. We reject the notion of any Religious Authority. Mullahs, Sheikhs, Scholars, Priests and Imams cannot act as “middle-men” between the reader of the Quran and God. The Qur’an says to judge by the Scripture. If people want to give advice, and there is wisdom in the advice…great! If it contradicts the Quran it’s not good advice.

Rejecting what’s right is wrong. Rejecting what’s wrong is right! There are many immoral practices we reject: dogma, oppression, injustice, inequality, unfairness, distorting the words of the Scripture, corruption, falsehood, lying about Allah, the Quran rejects these and so do we.

Traits shown to be disliked by Allah such as self-conceit, boastfulness, corruption, exultation, betrayal, ingratitude, treachery, transgression, evil and wickedness, aggression, bad manners: we reject all these (as I am sure most people including other Muslims do too) and the Quran specifically mentions them. The Quran references are listed on the post entitled Personality Traits disliked

The deeds and behaviour of the Firawn detailed in the Quran has shown what is not acceptable: Killing, shaming, corruption, murder, arrogance, criminal, wickedness, prejudice, dispicable behavior, rejecting / disbelieving the Prophets and Messengers, oppression, building Kingdoms, persecution, tyranny, misguiding others from the path, hatred, transgression, wrong-doings, false accusations, slander, defaming, calling the Prophet a liar, evil, scheming, bad treatment of family / wife, disobedience to Allah and His Prophets / Messengers   The Quran references are listed here on the Firawn study

Rejection is only negative if we are rejecting the good when we should be rejecting the bad.
InshaaAllah, We reject what the Quran tells us to reject. We uphold what the Quran tells us to uphold. And we urge others to do the same. InshaaAllah.

Please leave a comment below, or discuss on the FaceBook discussion group or on the forum.

Further reading: Who is a Kaafir? by Kashif Shehzada

Continue reading »]]> The Quranists, being at the beginning of our modern emergence, face the great opposition from Quranic Fundamentalists (QFists for short) about the very term. Many QFists (people who believe in the Quran as the sole source of islam yet oppose the term ‘Quranist’) believe we should only use the term ‘Muslim’. They accuse Quranists of being sectarians by the very act of taking the name!

Who is a sectarian? A sectarian is one who builds walls around themselves. They consider themselves to be the exclusive owners of salvation. The chosen ones of Allah. Some Sunnis and Shia have this view of themselves where they think that out of the ’73 sects’ (this is from a hadith), they belong to the the one which is saved.

QFists who have this view tend to call themselves ‘Muslim’ and attack those who call themselves ‘Quranists’. It is difficult to tell if they realise that by taking on this name with no qualifier beyond the word ‘Muslim’, they are making a serious insinuation. That other Muslims are not Muslims at all.

How does the Quran view this interpretation? The Quran never puts itself forward as the only source of truth. Anyone who practices the instructions of Allah is a muslim. That would mean that not only that muslims can be found among the Sunnis, Shia, Salafi and Sufis but also among people of other religions and ideologies. The Quran is simply an overseer of truth. It does not limit truth to itself.

As for the QFists who deem themselves only Muslims, one must ask them if they find uniformity in their views. The answer is an all too incriminating no. There isn’t anyone who can claim to have the absolutely correct interpretation and so the QFist who thinks he has all the answers is merely deluding himself. Their own debates bear witness to the fact that they are in the same boat as other Quranists.

We are Quranists, an association of individuals and associations whose point of unity is that we believe the only divine source of Islam is the Quran. We are open to work with anyone who will work with us to uphold Quranic values. We believe that islam is a shared trait, not exclusive to us. Compare this to people who say ‘WE are the Muslims’ and ask the Quranic Fundamentalist : WHO ARE THE REAL SECTARIANS?

Continue reading »]]> Question: I have been browsing the internet for Quranist websites and their views on salat (commonly understood to be the Muslim ritual prayer) is very worrying? Why do you modify the Salat which the Muslims agree on and why do some of you reject it totally?

The question of Salat is usually the first one asked by other Muslims to Quranists upon hearing that we reject Islamic Traditions. How else can we learn to pray, they ask?

Because Quranism is an association of individuals and groups, we do not have a single explanation for our views on salat. However, we are content to say that Salat as what the Traditional Muslims depict is not the ubiquitous institution they say it is.

For a start, the Quran doesn’t tell us:
1. How many times there are (as in with the phrase ‘X number of times’. See 24/58 for times of privacy which explicitly uses ‘three times’)
2. What to recite for any prayers.
3. What is the format of movement

If Salat was the institution that Traditional Muslims say it is, why is there so much variation?

Please note that this article isn’t saying ‘don’t perform any ritual’. If the ritual prayer works for you, by all means practise it. It is advisable to continue to increase your knowledge of The Quran, and apply as you learn.

Further reading about Salat from various Quranists’ perspectives:

1. Quranic Salat and its Role in Establishing Islam and Imaan
2. The Purpose of Salat
3. Defining Salat
4. Disproved once and for all: salat = prayer
5. Three or Five Prayers in the Quran?
6. An understanding of salat from Al Quran (The Reading)
7. Thoughts on Salat Timings
8. Compilation of the Salat Discussions
9. AStudyofQuran.org
10. Quran on Salat
    

Watch videos from the Quranists Network Salat Discussion on Quranists Network TV Channel!