The wrote: |
I think it is unreasonable to suppose that Muhammad never spoke anything apart from the Quranic verses.
What do you say about the possibility that he might have commented upon or explained some verses at one point or another? I certainly do think that is a possibility, and if that is the case, would it be wrong to refer to his words regarding a verse (assuming that his words were accessible at any point in time)? |
The wrote: |
Okay, buddy, let me try to clarify using an example. I am not sure how good an example this is, so if you find it not to your liking then let me know; I will try to come up with another.
Suppose a Muslim or a non-Muslim comes up to you and tells you that the Quran orders the killing of all non-Muslims. What will you do? |
The wrote: |
Suppose a non-Muslim posts the following on a forum:
The following are only some of the verses in the Qur'an that can and have been used in the history of Islam in support of violence in the name of God and the glories of martyrdom in a holy war. 2:190-193 "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you ... And slay them wherever ye catch them ... And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in God ..." How would you proceed? |
The wrote: |
That's fine, buddy, I went through the slam dunk thread. You reply to the "allegations" and "contradictions" with something or the other. And so would anybody else.
Why should we then suppose that whenever a non-Muslim twisted a verse, or a Muslim came seeking a sincere explanation, Muhammad himself would not have done some explaining? |
The wrote: |
I agree that fourteen hundred years later we cannot be certain of anything, and I am not talking about the ahadith books of today.
But Muhammad, in explaining the verses to Muslims or non-Muslims, and anybody who heard him and reproduced his words faithfully while engaging in an explanation/defense of the Quran, would not be in the wrong. That is what I am driving at. |
The wrote: |
I agree. The reason I brought this up is that I run across many who call themselves "Quran Aloners" and who write tomes to justify their position, yet argue that Muhammad himself could not have spoken anything other than the Quranic verses, and that if he did then he was wrong and whatever he said is wortheless. It is hypocritical to think that a so-called "Quan Aloner" is more qualified than Muhammad to say something in explanation/defense of the Quran.
I don't agree with you about the practical inheritance, but that is another issue. |
The wrote: |
I am aware that you don't call yourself a "Quran Aloner".
I believe in the accuracy of neither the ahadith books nor of "practical inheritance". |
The wrote: |
I don't see the reason for singling out salat as having been accurately handed down. |