What's the point of Islam if the objectively best way to practice it is to be a Quranist, but nearly every Muslim will hate you for rejecting their "authenticated" camelfucking hearsay collections?
>>18125145bump
Narrow is the path or something
>>18125145https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rbZYM63mv4Fuck you kaffir.
>>18125145maybe use takkiyya against them and just lie and say you believe it
>>18125145ZUTTZUTTINTHEBUTTZUT ALORS !!this is the besthttp://www.google.com/search?q=prophet+of+doom+craig+winn
>>18126119>How can we obey the Messenger if we don't know what he said? We know what he said. He said the Quran that was revealed to him. >No it's in HadithThere was no system of Hadiths for the first 200 years of Islam. The Quran doesn't mention Hadiths, nor does it mention a process for Hadithic science. So was every early Muslim a kaffir?>Using a Hadith to prove that Hadiths are validSo we're just being straight-up circular logic retards now, huh? There's also Hadiths that are anti-Hadith LOL. You're forced to read so much unsaid bullshit into these verses and take unjustified interpretive liberties in order to get the entire Hadith system out of it.
>>18125145I agree. There are still some issues in the quran itself but hadith is simply nonsense. It can't be relied upon just cause ONE guy decided it was a "good chain"
>>18127279I don't think it's possible to verify oral transmission chains like that whatsoever to the necessary degree of accuracy to be an article of faith, certainly not a chain that takes place over hundreds of years. I've never seen an "oral transmission" survive intact over 3 hops or a week in my lifetime, not even in a professional setting. There is always error, interpolation, bias, etc. How am I supposed to believe that this is different? It's ridiculous.
There are multiple reasons why Quranism is rejected.The most obvious and sensible one is that the Quran doesn't have complete instructions for essential obligations like praying, alms etc.Secondly, hadithism developed in competition with imamism; rejecting hadith is strongly identified with Shia and other sects.Interpreting the Quran itself (without a privileged interpreter) largely relies on the contexts of revelation, which have the same problems as hadith.
>>18127400>The most obvious and sensible one is that the Quran doesn't have complete instructions for essential obligations like praying, alms etc.Who says it doesn't have complete instructions? That presumes that the instructions were incomplete in the first place, e.g. you are arguing from circular logic influenced by the Hadiths that you need the Hadiths. I'm reminded of the story of the cow in the Quran where so many irrelevant details were asked to the point where it got in the way of actual obedience to Allah. >Secondly, hadithism developed in competition with imamism; rejecting hadith is strongly identified with Shia and other sects.Fair, but Shia also has Hadiths, and so do the Ibadi. >Interpreting the Quran itself (without a privileged interpreter) largely relies on the contexts of revelation, which have the same problems as hadith.The difference is that the content of the Quran, the mushaf, is better authenticated than the content of the Hadiths by a factor of 1000-fold. It is not even in the same ballpark. And this isn't even a question about interpretation, but rather about authenticity itself. Why would you outsource your interpretation, which is already a problem, to a source whose content in every sense can be reasonably doubted or even reasonably rejected?.And the Quran says it makes itself clear so here we are going against the Quran, and I don't know how you can be a Muslim but reject the Quran.
>>18127116>He said the Quran that was revealed to him.Where? You can't use the Quran to make this claim and believe it's the speech of God at the same time, unless you are appealing to circular reasoning. And if you're appealing to extra Quranic sources then you are in the same boat.>So was every early Muslim a kaffir?The people transmitted religious knowledge from the prophet amongst themselves, it's literally the reports we have recorded. Do you seriously believe the companions rejected news from the prophet because someone else reported it to them? The 2nd generation and so on did the same. The methodologies for determining what was authentic developed later because the former method was not going to be reliable for much longer as time went on.>There's also Hadiths that are anti-HadithYes and it's testament to the unbiased nature of the scholars that believe in hadith and yet still recorded them. And you can't use them to make your argument either by that logic. If you're invalidating the authenticity of the entire corpus then those hadith too are invalid, leaving you with zero arguments based on hadith against hadith. Now the reason we can do that is very simple, they are independent reports by nature. Which is the entire reason they can be graded like this in the first place. Just because they are placed in a collection together doesn't mean they have the same authors. It's like the bible only with many more authors and they aren't anonymous. And just like with the bible there are different canons, but unlike them our reason for rejecting or accepting a report isn't because we like or dislike the content>unjustified interpretive libertiesYou mean like the guys that came 1400 years later with interpretations they made up on the spot with no context and no training in classical Arabic? At the very least relying on the oldest interpretations we have we can rest assured that we aren't letting our whims and desires decide.
>>18127620>Where?In Hijaz, where tens of thousands of companions witnessed the Quran as it was spoken by the Prophet Muhammad and recognized it as the revelation of God. The Quran was what the Prophet Muhammad spoke. >Do you seriously believe the companions rejected news from the prophet because someone else reported it to them?Yes lol, people did that all the time, especially if it wasn't believable. There was one famous example of a companion, I think it was Umar, threatening to cut anybody in half with a sword if they told him that the Prophet had died. They didn't just believe anything they heard. They needed verification, especially for big claims. >The methodologies for determining what was authentic developed later because the former method was not going to be reliable for much longer as time went on.The former methodology went cold basically within a generation. The latter methodology couldn't rescue it because the information had been spoiled. You can't resuscitate dead people, neither can you resuscitate dead information. It's hearsay. >Yes and it's testament to the unbiased nature of the scholars that believe in hadith and yet still recorded them. And you can't use them to make your argument either by that logic.I can ignore the Hadiths by a different principle, which is the Quran is supreme. But if I choose to accept Hadiths, I also have to accept Hadiths that say to reject Hadiths. The contradiction is only for the Hadith followers. Think carefully. >You mean like the guys that came 1400 years later with interpretations they made up on the spot with no context and no training in classical Arabic? At the very least relying on the oldest interpretations we have we can rest assured that we aren't letting our whims and desires decide.And the original interpreters behind the tafsir had no whims nor desires because... they were angels or something? The Quran was written in Old Hijazi, not Classical Arabic, anyway.
>>18127661>In HijazI was obviously asking you for a textual source from the context. And you just gave me a location? One that soon was absolutely packed with people that accepted hadith too?>There was one famous example of a companionNot included in the Quran and therefore not reliable according to your logic>They didn't just believe anything they heard. They needed verification, especially for big claims. And that's exactly why we have developed our methodology. Anyway imagine actually believing the prophet had to give instructions in person to every single companion.>because the information had been spoiledThat's a nice claim, but even orientalist scholars don't agree. If you're so unsure about our methods why don't you use theirs to reconstruct the original information? They are doing it with Q for the gospels and the same principles can apply to hadith.>I can accept the Hadith by a different principle, which is the Quran is supreme. But if I choose to deny Hadiths, I also have to deny Hadiths that say to reject Hadiths. The contradiction is only for the Hadith rejectors. Think carefully. zero difference>And the original interpreters behind the tafsir had no whims nor desires because... they were angels or something?They were also far more educated on the language, they spoke it! And lived much closer to the time it was revealed to mankind. Meaning there was even more information available to them that isn't to us. You can't prove that after one generation everything just poofed out of existence. That's completely absurd, we don't even believe that about Christians. Now as for your main point, the motivations of a person that lived many hundreds of years ago like the hadith narrators which give interpretations the tafsir authors use, is much more detached from anyone living today. Let's say you made money from insurance, you'd be much more tempted to reinterpret the rules of riba in such a way that it would allow your business to exist
>>18127540Details of how to perform many rituals like Salah and the Hajj, that most Muslims accept,can't be traced to the Quran,but it can be argued that these are not obligatory.I don't see, for example, how performing wudu before touching a Quran book can be traced to Mohamed.Anyway, like that other anon said: reasonably you'll have to rely on contemporary reports for many aspects of Quran interpretation.Skepticism is warranted, but the Quran absolutely needs extraneous knowledge to be interpreted.I guess you already know this, so I'm interested in what you consider a good method for deciding what is accurate information and what not.
>>18127702>I was obviously asking you for a textual source from the context. And you just gave me a location? One that soon was absolutely packed with people that accepted hadith too?I don't think you understood my original statement. I said that the Quran was spoken by the Prophet Muhammad. The proof is in the fact that it exists, and that we have archaeological evidence of the Quran appearing suddenly across wide swathes of the Arabian peninsula at roughly the exact same time, with virtually no differences.>Not included in the Quran and therefore not reliable according to your logicOkay, so either we accept the Hadiths and it undermines Hadithic arguments, or we reject the Hadiths and we're back to Quranism. Heads I win, tails you lose. I don't know why you want to play this game lol. It's rigged in my favor. >And that's exactly why we have developed our methodology. The methodology is the equivalent of polishing a turd, epistemically-speaking. >Anyway imagine actually believing the prophet had to give instructions in person to every single companion.The Quran was delivered to the masses. If the instructions were so important, it would have been delivered to the masses too. Or even better, it would have been part of the Quran. >zero differenceMy stance is: if you accept Quran only, then you have no contradiction, and the Hadiths are wrong or irrelevant by default, without having to appeal to the Hadiths whatsoever. But if you accept Hadiths too, then you have to square the circle with Hadiths undermining other Hadiths. If you cannot tell the difference, you are not equipped with the logical faculties to have this conversation. (1/?)
>>18127702>That's a nice claim, but even orientalist scholars don't agree. If you're so unsure about our methods why don't you use theirs to reconstruct the original information? I'm not sure if there is even any original information to begin of any substance, let alone something that would resemble anything like the scope of the Hadiths. Whatever it is, it wouldn't contradict the Quran, and I don't need to make positive claims about what it was since I am not enforcing orthodoxy with it. Hence, Quran-first, and the burden of proof is on those who claim that the Hadiths are legitimate. >They were also far more educated on the language, they spoke it! And lived much closer to the time it was revealed to mankind. Meaning there was even more information available to them that isn't to us. The scholars who compiled the Hadiths were dealing with a language that was already becoming ancient to them, dealing with facts that were already in distant history. It would be like us trying to analyze what was exactly said during the French Revolution, except even that has letters, transcripts, testaments, documents, etc. They were working with oral transmission that had vague and unverified receipts of transmission, with no demonstration of authenticated content whatsoever. >That's completely absurd, we don't even believe that about Christians.You should! For example, who wrote the Gospels?>You can't prove that after one generation everything just poofed out of existence. It's less that it poofed out of existence but rather that corruption occurred due to natural human biases in psychology, language, communication, etc. As well as bad actors, politics, etc. >Let's say you made money from insurance, you'd be much more tempted to reinterpret the rules of riba in such a way that it would allow your business to existIn my opinion, you can't fool Allah. That is your first restriction. IMO, the Hadiths encourage legalistic tricks.
>>18127715>Skepticism is warranted, but the Quran absolutely needs extraneous knowledge to be interpreted.The problem is that so many of these claims are based off of the need to reconstruct Hadithic Islam from the Quran. So it is always a circular logic. >How am I supposed to pray 5 times a day if the Quran doesn't say so? Well, the Quran doesn't tell you to pray 5 times a day. It only tells you you need to pray 3 times a day: dawn, dusk, and night. There's your answer. >How am I supposed to prepare for the dua and conduct it in the exact way like the Hadiths say if the Quran only gives me a brief sketch? Well, maybe you don't have to do it exactly that way. Once you let go of those preconceptions, the problem magically disappears.
>>18127737I understood it, you made the claim that "He said the Quran that was revealed to him". None of your evidences prove that he ever said those words, and they are all still external to the Quran and are therefore in the same boat as us.>either we accept the Hadiths and it undermines Hadithic arguments, or we reject the Hadiths and we're back to QuranismFalse dichotomy, if we accept hadith we accept that the prophet himself criticized "quranists" and that in certain contexts that are all well known the other reports also could have been true. You do know it's possible to harmonize them anyway right? If you reject hadith you have no argument based on hadith anymore.>epistemically-speakingNo that's just your opinion, secular scholars who reject hadith still find it valuable in the sense that it reflects the general opinion of people a the time even if they don't think it goes back to the prophet per se. And that's ignoring those I mentioned before who do believe there are indeed examples of reliable transmission>it would have been delivered to the masses tooWe literally have those instructions with us right now, easily accessible on the internet for the entire planet.>if you accept Quran only, then you have no contradiction, and the Hadiths are wrong or irrelevant by default, without having to appeal to the Hadiths whatsoeverBut you ARE appealing to the hadith for your arguments and I pointed you can't do that if you think they are not authoritative. You're now changing your argument. If you check the video the other guy posted, he was using multiple Quranic verses and only one report from the hadith so the only one having to square the circle here is you.
>>18127755>I'm not sure if there is even any original information to begin of any substanceThere is according to secular scholars using ICMA and other methods.>it wouldn't contradict the QuranWe don't make the claim that authentic hadith can ever contradict the Quran too, that one of the criteria that actually disqualifies it. This is beside the point, if you can reconstruct the prophet's words of course they wouldn't contradict the message he was sent to deliver. The question is why don't you seek a means to do that? We did and we know we can defend it against the critics>The scholars who compiled the Hadiths were dealing with a language that was already becoming ancient to themAnd yet many times closer to their own tongue than the modern variants used today. Many of the texts you are now complaining are lost also existed in their time for example, we know this because they are referenced by authors we have the works of.>You should! For example, who wrote the Gospels?They are akin to weak hadith because of the disconnects and anonymity of the authors, certainly not the Injeel sent down to Jesus. And if you want to include the known later additions then those are automatically fabricated reports and thus rejected. Also you're really doing a disservice to yourself to just discredit them wholesale, in their reconstructed form especially. They are further evidence for our own religion.>but rather that corruption occurred It sure did, most hadith are rejected by us you know? But that's not what I was asking. I want to know how you have determined that absolutely nothing remains of the prophet's words after the first generation>In my opinion, you can't fool Allah.Obviously not, but what I am saying there is that people alive today are under unique pressures those in the past were not under. The reverse is rarely true because as time went on society only became more complicated and sins only increased
>>18127776>I understood itNo lol, you are misreading it completely. I meant that the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) spoke the Quran, that which was revealed to him by Allah. If you're going to put words in my mouth, then I'm going to accept your concession by default.>you reject hadith you have no argument based on hadith anymore.I don't need Hadiths when the principle begins and ends with the Quran.>No that's just your opinion,No, that's just common sense lol. If this were a court room, and we were trying to prove that the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said these things beyond reasonable doubt, the case would have been thrown out within minutes of conducting discovery. Why? Because it's hearsay to an insane degree with no method of confirming the source of said hearsay and authenticating what was said. And if it's not good enough for a court of law, I think it's not going to fly whatsover with the court of Allah. >it reflects the general opinion of people a the timeI don't care about what the common people thought. Following the ignorant crowd is a surefire way to damnation. >We literally have those instructions with us right now, easily accessible on the internet for the entire planet.You're changing the goalposts. Any misinformation can be amplified long after it was brought into existence. The Hadiths, if true, were delivered to a handful of people at best during the Prophet's time. We have no idea if it was true. The Quran, in contrast, was delivered to the masses. Its content was authenticated beyond reasonable doubt.>But you ARE appealing to the hadith for your arguments and I pointed you can't do that if you think they are not authoritative.If you want me to argue within the Hadiths, the Hadiths contradict themselves. But I can also argue outside of the Hadiths too, which I have been doing. Just because I can't use the Hadiths doesn't mean the contradictions magically go away when you rely upon the Hadiths. Quran first always wins. Hadiths always loses.
>>18127818>ICMAICMA is one speculative method among many. It doesn't magically recover authentication among each node of transmission. You brought up Biblical scholarship earlier, but even Biblical scholars don't pretend that they can construct the original text of the Q source verbatim, if it even existed. It is a conceptual model at best, because that's the only vague resolution that such methods can give you, and it relies upon a lot of preconceptions about what the Bible is and how it came to be. >This is beside the point, if you can reconstruct the prophet's words of course they wouldn't contradict the message he was sent to deliver. The question is why don't you seek a means to do that?It is question-begging. There is no need to reconstruct the Prophet's words if it was never spoken about authoritatively or universally, or if it was never spoken about period. As far as I'm concerned, Hadiths are worth as far as you can throw them, which is one transmitter back from when they were collected. Just like any other hearsay. And then the trail goes cold, and everything else is rank speculation at best. That's it. >They are akin to weak hadith because of the disconnects and anonymity of the authorsHere is something to consider. The strongest of Hadiths is like the weakest, most salacious and fake Hadiths in comparison to any verse from the Quran. They are orders of magnitude not the same in terms of authentication. Why would I treat them on the same level? >I want to know how you have determined that absolutely nothing remains of the prophet's words after the first generationWe have the Quran, which is what the Prophet spoke as revealed to him by Allah. A lot of you Hadithists forget that the Quran exists lol.
>>18127818>Obviously not, but what I am saying there is that people alive today are under unique pressures those in the past were not under. The reverse is rarely true because as time went on society only became more complicated and sins only increasedYou don't think there was religious, political, and economic pressure back then? Finance isn't a modern invention. The Caliphate ripped itself apart within a generation of the Prophet Muhammad's death. Every sect of Islam has developed its own collection of Hadiths, some trump card of dubious origin that they think they could use to justify their claim to authority over the rest. It doesn't take much common sense to realize that the whole project is nonsense. And again, we also have access to information that the scholars back then didn't have. Do you think Biblical scholars are better informed now or back in 150 AD?
Just do the thing were you keep the Quran and follow the general traditions that have survived but ignore the specific details of the hadith
Quranism makes infinitely more sense than whatever clownery Sunnis and Shias offer
Shi'ism is muh magic bloodSunnism is Talmudry for south semites/you aren't calling my most holy brown ancestor a LIAR and HADITH FABRICATOR are you?????Quran says you don't need hadiths after the Quran
somewhere in the middle east or pakistan a sunni dad is hitting his child with a shoe for becoming a quranist by browsing tiktok
>Quran says don't just follow what you find your fathers doing>brown people spend centuries doing what they found their fathers doingDidn't Allah give us reason?
>>18127116>There was no system of Hadiths for the first 200 years of Islam. The Quran doesn't mention Hadiths, nor does it mention a process for Hadithic science. So was every early Muslim a kaffir?Casual spotted. This is how every quranist is made. A piss poor understanding of the seerah>>18127661>And the original interpreters behind the tafsir had no whims nor desires because... they were angels or something? The Quran was written in Old Hijazi, not Classical Arabic, anyway.This is a weird point because Quran expands on arabic using new phrases, new vocabulary, using phrases and terms in new ways. Thats why "classical arabic" (which is did exist at the time of the decentralized tribal systems of the 7th cent) was built from the Quran. Not "hijazi". Anyways, Arabic speakers instantly know a Quran from hadith due to the vocabulary and the meter. This shows that they are not the same linguistic standard. Arabic speakers know the Quran is just on another level and reads like the most satisfying meter>Hadith rejectionI used to be big into this and I'll say it rescued me from a time of weakness in faith. But the two verses that got me to snap out of it was>Follow Allah follow the rasool and those in charge of you.>What was forbidden for the children of Israel was what Israel forbade for himself. This showed me that the whole "prophet is merely the mailman and Quran is the only authority" well Quran shows that not only was the prophet and given authority over his community but so was Yakub and Yakub could even make haram to his community based on what he forbade for himself
>>18127116>200 years later>Ocams RazorBy 200 after the death of the prophet which is 210 years after the Hijri, the muslim empire spanned 3 continents. In able for Bukhari to "create" hadith tradition he would have to go against an apparently Quran alone global community of muslims all speaking different languages and deploy his book of foreign concepts worldwide and have nobody notice and leave no trace.OR the hadith tradition was ubiquotous although oral (much like the how the Quran at the time) then merely written down and critically examined.>Hadith are authoritative>No fiqh rulings and fatawa can be authoritative, based on their evidence.>He who strives sincerely for knowledge and is right will be rewarded twice>He who strives sincerely for knowledge and is wrong may he be rewarded onceAll Muslims who believe in Allah and the last day have been promised paradise.
>>18128108>Casual spottedNo argument spotted. There's simply no way that your average Muslim during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and the time immediately following his death had access to the full, codified body of the so-called teachings. It would take centuries for such teachings to be written down, rated, codified, distributed, and then institutionalized to take on the form it has today. So basically, for the first hundred years, even if the hadiths were true, pretty much every Muslim must have been a bad Muslim or was a kaffir, even if they followed the Quran and obeyed the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to their best of their ability.>Thats why "classical arabic" (which is did exist at the time of the decentralized tribal systems of the 7th cent) was built from the Quran. Yes, built from Old Hijazi as the literary language stabilized over the next two centuries. But the Quran was not originally written in Classical Arabic. The language itself emerged to fulfill religious, but also the political, commercial, and academic needs of the Caliphate and the Middle East at large. >Arabic speakers instantly know a Quran from hadith due to the vocabulary and the meter. Yes, because the Quran's origins are from God, and the hadith's origins are from man. Pretty simple stuff.
>>18128108>This showed me that the whole "prophet is merely the mailman and Quran is the only authority" well Quran shows that not only was the prophet and given authority over his community but so was Yakub and Yakub could even make haram to his community based on what he forbade for himselfLook, there are two "thrusts" of the argument, which is 1) principle; and 2) epistemic. The Yakub argument would be a principle argument. And desu, I am not necessarily against it, except that you would have to wonder what would the Prophet do that was not sanctioned by Allah, and whether it falls under some universal law or if it was prudence for those specific circumstances. But, it's something that I think has a lot of good philosophical arguments for or against, and I don't claim to know the answer to that. My main thrust comes from the epistemic element. The epistemic validity is simply way too weak, no matter how many glosses of "sahih" you place on it. Relative to the authenticity of virtually any other document we have, Hadiths are like specks of dust.
>>18128134>By 200 after the death of the prophet which is 210 years after the Hijri, the muslim empire spanned 3 continents. That is more argument for the idea that whatever this Hadithic tradition had become was the equivalent of noise rather than signal, wherever it may be. I shudder to think about the poor state the Quran would have been if the Caliphate hadn't taken the time to consolidate, record, and standardize the Quran so soon. >In able for Bukhari to "create" hadith tradition he would have to go against an apparently Quran alone global community of muslims all speaking different languages and deploy his book of foreign concepts worldwide and have nobody notice and leave no trace.And many people did go against Bukhari. You forgot that there are entire sects with their own Hadithic traditions that do not necessarily accept Bukhari and others. And the way you framed it seems like you're interpreting me to have ascribed some poor intent into Bukhari. No, I admire his intentions and his work, but I think he was simply in over his head, trying to squeeze blood out of an epistemic stone. There is no rescuing what was lost to the sands of time. >(much like the how the Quran at the time)The Quran was oral for like 15 years tops (meaning time to a full transcription of a mushaf, probably earlier than that desu), and the level of authentication is not even close, considering we have thousands of companions for each verse compared maybe a handful of companions here and there for even the strongest hadiths. And again, the amount of time that elapsed before it was committed to writing... the Quran didn't spoil. The hadiths clearly did.
>>18128174>And again, the amount of time that elapsed before it was committed to writing... the Quran didn't spoil. The hadiths clearly didwell if your point is that the hadith corpus isnt divinely perserved, thats not the Sunni possition>And many people did go against Bukhari. You forgot that there are entire sects with their own Hadithic traditions that do not necessarily accept Bukhari and others.That "necessarliy" is doing some heavy lifting in this sentence knowing that shia and even ahmaddiyya accept bukhari.Anyways bukhari is merely a compilation. All sects accept the prophets final sermon and that was kept within hadith tradition
>>18128174>Lazer focused on BukhariBukhari was like, the guy who saw things were expanding and thought to formalize it. Theres Muwatta Malik known as "the golden chain" from Ibn Umar, to Nafi, to Malik. That's 3 students before committed to writing
>>18128225To what extent are we qualified to say that certain claims which defy all logic, science, psychology, etc., are miracles and that we should follow them? I don't know. It makes Allah look like a bad planner in my opinion. You can say that about anything that is improbable or that likely has the hands of man interfering with it. It is not a good explanation and can easily be used for explain away anything or even be abused. I keep my miracles simple. Allah's revelation was spoken through the Prophet to tens of thousands of people, and it was written down almost immediately after. Anything else after that, you have to use a discerning eye. >>18128236>brings up Bukhari>gets refuted>why are you "lazer" focused on Bukhari?My man, you brought him up.
>>18128236>Theres Muwatta Malik known as "the golden chain" from Ibn Umar, to Nafi, to MalikHow would the authenticity of the hadiths passed along this chain compare to, let's say, any verse from the Quran?
>>18125145Doesn’t the Zutt slut shit come from those collections too?
>>18128277It isn't against anything in the Quran so it's okay. SAHIH
>>18127400>but how we know how pray?Jesus taught us how to pray and the Quran confirms the Gospel so there’s the answer to that
>>18127400how do you know how to breathe? how do you know how to take a shit? how do you know how to do your laundry?
>>18128108>A piss poor understanding of the seeraharen't the sirahs even more poorly substantiated than the hadiths?
>>18125145The al-Zutt brought me to Islam. Learning that the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) was mounted and rode by desert rogues but still protected his friend and went on to do great things gives me the inspiration I need to get through hard times.
>>18127400>The most obvious and sensible one is that the Quran doesn't have complete instructions for essential obligations like praying, alms etc.The Quran is complete and clear. Are you brown and retarded?
>>18125145Can I do this but keep the Zutt Hadiath?
