The hadiths were the most embarrassing thing to happen to Islam. Should've just went quranist from the beginning.
Quranism doesn't work because1) The quran contradict itself, you need naskh and ordering of surahs to know which verse abrogate which2) The quran doesn't explain itself. Quranists have different views about who Abu Lahab is, see surah 1113) Major parts of mohammedianism aren't in the quran. How to pray? What are the five pillars of islam? How does one do the hajj? What is the shahada? If I recall correctly, none of them are in the quran4) Without the hadiths, one doesn't know about the sunnah of muhammed and the sahaba
>>18103064Quran is utterly indecipherable without them as said >>18103075
>>18103064Most of the Quran is a collection of fanfiction adventures of Abraham, Jesus and other prophets, often recycled. Its scarse of actually rules for the faithfull. So they needed to come up with something else to integrate it
>>18103075Seems like the best solution is not having a prophet who's a politically commited rambling autist
>>18103064Because Allah the merciful forgot to put minor details like how to pray in his perfect book
>>18103075I'm not dunking on the necessity of tradition. I'm literally just dunking on the hadiths. Like Muslims will try to compare the hadiths to the gospels but I don't remember anywhere in the gospels where it has Jesus getting zutted... The hadiths have the wildest most embarrassing and savage shit in them that outdoes even the meatiest parts of the Bible times a billion. Like the entire west rejects Islam on the basis of a Sunni hadith where Muhammad is implied to have had sex with Aisha when she was 9.
>>18103075> If I recall correctly, none of them are in the quranYeah because none of those things actually matter, they were devised by authorities to control people
>>18103064Yes, they are embarrassing, but Quranism doesn’t work. Just watch videos of Quran-only Muslims debating normal one, normal Muslims will ask them a series of questions which they can answer readily, and then they ask them a series of follow-up questions that are basically “okay, where do you find that in the Quran? Is there any way you could deduce this information by compiling readings from the Quran?” they never have an answer
>>18103702>Everything necessary to be a practicing Muslim isn’t necessary, they’re just trying to control the massesDude get real
>>18103064ZUT ALORS!!this is the besthttp://www.google.com/search?q=prophet+of+doom+craig+winn
>>18103075What is the quran for if it doesnt contain important info like that? You would think something as fundamental as how to pray and the 5 pillars of a religion would be in their main book
>>18103075You don't need Hadiths for that. Apostolic Christians don't need their sayings in oder to keep tradition.
>>18103414Because its irrelevant how you pray, God will hear you if he will hear you, and not hear you if you will not hear you. Mortal rituals are completely irrelevant to this. The correct way to pray is a pagan thing.
>>18103075Sunnis are fallacious because they predetermine that these questions need to be answered in the first place. Its this a priori thinking that made Islam cruel, backwards and ignorant.
>>18103075also the quran isn't like the bible because the bible was written by people who wanted their words to be understood by people reading them hundreds of years later, whereas the quran consists of a bunch of speeches and remarks muhammad made to people standing directly in front of him often about things that just happened and so instead of explaining what's going on in full he just says "those people" since the people he's preaching to in person know what he's talking about , which means that it's often impossible to know who or what muhammad is talking about when you're reading it hundreds of years later unless you go to a book of circumstances of revelation which are books of traditions (aka hadith) about what a verse is referring to or talking about .This shows that muhammad wasn't really thinking about whether the quran would be self-contained and easily understood by people reading it later when he made it up.
>>18103099>Most of the Quran is a collection of fanfiction adventures of Abraham, Jesus and other prophets, often recycledIt's almost like.... It's an Abrahamic religion.... It's like the Qur'an was very clear about this from page 1...>If le Islam was le trve why aren't they making up new stories???
>>18103075maybe just get rid of both the hadiths and the quran then>but then I wouldn't muslim! that would just leave the prophet abraham, moses and isa! I'd basically be a heckin' christianarino!well, yeah
Dawah bros if the quran is incomplete and the hadith is faulty what else is left?
>>18104568>Dawah bros if the quran is incompleteSpecifically Shiite dawah bros??
The Great Zuttening has really done a number on muzziechan
>>18104620The zutt discovery has to be the funniest thing to happen in the world of e-religion.
>>18104427Not really surprising. Catholic Mass rituals are entirely extra-biblical.Calvinist TULIP doctrine was codified in extra-biblical sources. Etc.
>>18103064The only reason Christianity and Judaism don't have an equally ridiculous set of funny ahadith is because Jesus acted as an itinerant prophet for 3 years in the boonies of occupied Judaea and got killed immediately he went to an actually important city. Everyone he met before that couldn't write. And as far as we know they remained illiterate; there's no evidence that Jesus was ever popular amongst the Jewish elite at the time who would have possibly had the resources to bother collecting tons of sayings from him in the ahadith system.With Judaism, it's because Moses straight up didn't exist. If he did then he's like David in the sense that the distance between the book and the actual events is so fucking massive that there's little historicity in the narrative by the time it actually gets written.Islam, unlike Christianity, was found by Muhammad who was both a preacher and actually heralded both the start of an empire and the establishment of a pan-Arabic state in like less than 100 years. Usually there's a large gap between those two. Muhammad had already gotten the big players into the fold of Islam (Muhammad himself was Banu Hashim, Abu Sufyan was Banu Abd Shams, already two strong clans) in his lifetime. Anyway you now had a massive new class of intellectuals who are funded by the state and needed stuff to do with their hands. More to the point, the splits that happened immediately the Prophet died meant that everyone was scrambling to make shit up for their own personal ideological battles. The detail is probably both just an ideological result of the Prophet's own attention to detail and the desperation from the Sunni's to assert the authority of the Sahaba. It took a while before it started being forwarded as critical to understanding the Qur'an but as long as the Imams existed it was basically inevitable.
>>181030751) The Bible contradicts itself a lot and Christians just make up convoluted exegesis to mask it that are increasingly detached from reality. This is because contradictions are properties of thoughts, not reality, which is a consistent process. As long as you take the first step to pretend that reality doesn't fucking matter, the sky is your limit. Just as an example, the Trinity. On the basic philosophical level, this is just Christians being evasive with what is being equivocated. If the point is that the three are equivalent in one sense and not in another sense, then that's not a mystery at all since if I had three rubber balls of different colors in my hand, they are equivalent in that whatever can be expected of a rubber ball can be expected of them, but inequivalent in the sense that whatever can be expected of a red thing can only be expected of the red ball. In truth, there is nothing that is wholly "equivalent" and "inequivalent"; it just depends on the framing. Equivalence is a property of thoughts and not reality. So the concept is stupid and banal and only seems mystical because the church fathers were also Aristotelians who believe that items can be equivalent/inequivalent in an absolute sense.The whole reason this was necessary was because they were trying to escape the explicit charge of polytheism. The exaltation of Jesus to the realm of God was politically necessary to distinguish themselves from the Jews who they were about to massacre and expel. The Holy Spirit thing was necessary to be able to take the apostles, Paul, and the church fathers seriously. That's really it. Even your Sunnah needs to be interpreted by schools of thought, no? And those schools of thoughts usually have their ideas from whatever political issue was happening at the time. It's not a big deal since the logic is really enforced by social pressure anyway.
>>18103075As for the other three points:2) No text explains itself. You always have to read and interpret the text. Even the Shi'a who have the infallible Imams to guide them have to interpret the Imam's words at the end. That is not something that can be avoided. Though much of the religious fantasy is in avoiding it.3) Again that's not an issue for religions to adapt to. Catholics just say "this pope said so." Protestants still follow the Trinity even though it's not explicitly in the book and the entire argument was founded by the Church fathers, who they're supposed to be against. They just pretend that Aquinas didn't exist or whatever. I'm sure Qur'anists can come up with something.4) Then they could just say it doesn't matter or that it can be extrapolated from the Qur'an and that any detail not in the Qur'an was obviously not deemed important enough by Allah/Muhammad. You're not very creative.
>>18104939Jesus was a follower/companion of John the Baptist, who was a from the priestly caste and would have been literate and educated and likely taught his followers the same. Jesus also had wealthy followers who would have been literate and educated. As a Rabbi, Jesus in the synoptic Gospels demonstrates clear familiarity with Jewish religious writings. So he was almost certainly literate himself. There is no reason to think that the Jesus movement was made of uneducated riff-raff.
ZUTTED.COM
>>18105263> Jesus was a follower/companion of John the Baptist, who was a from the priestly caste and would have been literate and educated and likely taught his followers the same.I was exaggerating when I said "everyone he met." Even the poorest people went to the temple and would have seen an educated person there, so that wouldn't literally be possible. But the mass base of Jesus' movement was not the literati or the upper class at all, as can be gleamed from the reaction of the Sanhedrin to him. Even without knowing this, knowledge of what was happening at the time, where there was active unrest but the vassal-like ruling class in Judaea were not totally on board yet and Herod was still there groveling to Rome like a pig, is enough to know that Jesus had not captured a significant number of them in his base. If he did, the events would have played out way differently.> Jesus also had wealthy followers who would have been literate and educated.If they existed, they were evidently irrelevant enough to not be incorporated in the narrative except as parts of parables. Their money did not help him seize any political power. Muhammad captured virtually the entire peninsula in his lifetime and all that was left when he died was the inevitable power struggle among the clans to decide who gets to be on top. Muhammad obviously didn't do enough to assert Ali's succession since he got fucked over while Muhammad's corpse was still warm, but the major internal political goals for the Caliphate to start had been completed.
>>18104939>The only reason Christianity and Judaism don't have an equally ridiculous set of funny ahadith is because Jesus acted as an itinerant prophet for 3 years in the boonies of occupied Judaea and got killed immediately he went to an actually important city.The reason Christianity doesn't have retarded hadiths is that the church defined a strict canon before this shit could become a problem.It's why barely anyone uses the gospel of Thomas as an argument against Christianity unless it's part of a larger argument about the authorship and reliability of the gospels.
>>18104939> The only reason Christianity and Judaism don't have an equally ridiculous set of funny ahadith is because Jesus acted as an itinerant prophet for 3 years in the boonies of occupied Judaea and got killed immediately he went to an actually important city. Everyone he met before that couldn't write. And as far as we know they remained illiterate; there's no evidence that Jesus was ever popular amongst the Jewish elite at the time who would have possibly had the resources to bother collecting tons of sayings from him in the ahadith system.Or maybe it's because Jesus is a significantly better moral exemplar than Muhammad?
>>18105375>The reason Christianity doesn't have retarded hadiths is that the church defined a strict canon before this shit could become a problem.Separate gospels are not the same thing as ahadith. Unlike Muhammad's ahadith, which are mostly based on reality and are useful for fiqhiyy rulings (another relevant point, the equivalent of "fiqh" in Christianity is almost entirely derived from Pauline shit and the opinions of the church fathers), the separate Gospels for Jesus are all fabricated or exaggerated nonsense about shit Jesus did as a child, and so is 70% of the shit in the actual gospels. The natural process of word-of-mouth proliferation filtered out the mundane and embarrassing stuff and amplified the politically friendly stuff. The Gospel of Thomas was excised because the sect that was to become dominant deemed it heretical, not because they had some foresight into the "problems" it would make for future exegetes (most modern Muslims do not care about debates like this since it does not stop them from doing their salah everyday). The funny ahadith is because they were being compiled from just about everywhere for political reasons at the time, and there was simply no strong pull to burn them all since, by the time this would have been possible, they were already part of typical exegetical practice. Historical circumstance.>>18105383> Or maybe it's because Jesus is a significantly better moral exemplar than Muhammad?For your information, I'm completely disinterested in what a "moral exemplar" is and how that's relevant. Even if Jesus would have been repulsive to your modern standards, the general evolution of apologia for the Gospels as your local Christianity transitioned to modernity would have accommodated for it in every step of the way. It's an irrelevant point. But, since you have a grossly incorrect approach to the relationship between religion and history, my words are sort of wasted on you.
Did Prophet Muhammed really get canonically buckbroken??
>>18103064haha OP I love froggo XD
