If you're going to be a patronising fuck, then I'm not going to debate with you.
Now I ask you with your incredible Islamic knowledge to enlighten me on how the reliance upon the Ulema will be removed in matters of religion?
If you're going to be a patronising fuck, then I'm not going to debate with you.
That is the present state of Islam in our TL. Indeed, Quranists are in a minority and are rejected pretty much by anyone else, whether Shia or Sunni."Quranists" are considered Mu'Tazila or Kufr by all the Ulema regardless of nation and there are numerous Hukm on this.... The denial of the Sunnah in its entirety according to the Ulema is apostasy and takes the person out of the fold of Islam. Plus don't throw Wahabbi this or that at me, near all Ulema agree on this.
Nothing. The point of Quranism is precisely to not inquire about Muhammd as this is idolatry (Shirk) from their point of view. For a Quranist, all a believer has to know is the Word of God i.e. the Quran.Further I urge anyone to outline the full quality of Islam without the Sunnah, for instance what would a Quranist know about its prophet?
That is the present state of Islam in our TL. Indeed, Quranists are in a minority and are rejected pretty much by anyone else, whether Shia or Sunni.
But one could imagine another TL in which Quranists are in a majority. Think about this: The USA is terribly weakened and thus loses any influence in the Middle East. A large scale Shia-Sunni war ensues. China and Russia try to intervene and there is a terrorist backlash in those countries. As a result, the Chinese and Russians not being pussies like the Americans, nuke all large cities in the Middle-East: Mecca, Cairo, Riyadh, Baghdad, Tehran, Qom, Ray, etc. After the fallout settles, a joint Chinese-Russian force occupies the place. They persecute traditional Islam and promote modern Quranism. The message is of the same kind as what the allies had in occupied Germany after 1945: "You were led by a nasty ideology (Traditional Islam/Nazism) into self-destruction" After one or 2 generations, the majority of survivors are Quranists.
Nothing. The point of Quranism is precisely to not inquire about Muhammd as this is idolatry (Shirk) from their point of view. For a Quranist, all a believer has to know is the Word of God i.e. the Quran.
Every religion can be interpreted in different ways. The main interpretation of Zorosatrianism and Nestorianism could be very liberal or very conservative. Early Islam was one of the most liberal religions of it's time.
Evidence that the Khilafah was "liberal"? The earliest time that the Khilafah could be termed liberal and somewhat deviant would be the Abbasid Khilafah.
Basically, what they say is that adding "wa Muhammad rassul Allah" after saying "Lah illaha illa Allah" is associating another name to the Name of God and is therefore Shirk. It seems to me that some forms of early Kharijite movements might have adopted such a stance and that an historically Quranist-dominated Islam is therefore conceivable.Hmm, they call it Shirk? I had thought they considered the Sunnah Mustahabb opposed to Wajib. If they do believe it is Shirk, isn't it interesting that the supposedly liberal forms of Islam always make blanket takfir without knowledge of the types of kufr or having scholars amongst themselves.
First of all as said I am not a Muslim. If it helps I am a Buddhist, a different religion entirely.You don't really learn about Muhammad without reading the Sunnah or listening to one who has. Still, the Sunnah is the life of the prophet of your religion (as a Quranist) thus most of his deeds are to be taken, especially as it is narrated that Muhammad is the ideal man and all the Muslim are to follow his example. Why would an 8th century Muslim just neglect this and say Sunnah is not for me and what was said about my prophet not matter? Marxism to Islam or any religion is a non sequitur, completely different message and in different context.
You are going into doctrine where it is not neccesary.Either ways on the topic above it doesn't really matter as deviant sects were abundant in Islam, however none completely said the Sunnah is mustahabb (recommended) rather than Fardh (obligatory). In many ways these sects all committed Biddah from mainstream Sunni Islam. The Khawarij said that rebelling required no consensus and that one can make takfir based on sins only and that those who disagree are Kufr and that ruling by other than Allah is Kufr Akbar, the Murjia who said that one can only make takfir based on Aqeedah so a Christian might be a Muslim only Allah knows (according to the Murjia), the Shia (wide variety, I will roll them up in a short statement) who said that the Caliph can only be Ahl ul-Bayt and said that anyone who doesn't curse Aisha, Abu Bakr, Uthman and other Sahaba are Kufr thus making a blanket takfir, the Mu'Tazila who said ones own reason is above the Ulema and that the Quran was not the eternal word of Allah but a creation.
Hard to argue one way or the other really. In terms of direct ideas in the Sunnah sure, but in the greater commentary of the Jewish tradition, it is arguably on par in the realm of theory, just without much in the way of a practical history due to the history of the Judaic faith.No where in the Torah is the law on rulership so complex. Yes, Judaiism possess it, but be honest that Islam has a more complex version with more debate than the law and politics from the Torah.
But that is why it can't fully be answered, because no religion (Islam included) is historically bound politically in a tight leash, and they go under numerous iterations. If anything, the history of politics and economics have shown to utterly dominate religious practice beyond the theoretical level everywhere, including and especially in the middle east with the rise of modern radicalism.That may be true in essence. However from my understanding the posters question was along the lines of: Would Nestrorianism and Zoroastrianism be as conservative as traditional Sunni Islam as practiced by the Umayyad Khilafah or any other firmly Islamic nation who instituted the Sharia on the state level. Not trying to create some sort of alternate Islam to give a non answer.
First of all as said I am not a Muslim. If it helps I am a Buddhist, a different religion entirely.
You keep pulling out strawmen where they are not needed.
A quranist doesn't HAVE to neglect the Sunnah, but they just don't have to apply it.
For instance, few modern jews will argue that the behaviour of the wandering jews when they assailed other cities is something to be emulated today. It is quite common to take a nuanced view in every religion (and indeed every muslim I have ever met shares this) that the behaviour of their founders were actions appropriate for the time, not neccesarily the present, or adapt it for the present. E.g. taken literally christians should only pay taxes if it is to a Roman emperor, and yet the doctrine of giving unto secular law what it is owed and to religious authority what it is owed is the modern given from the bible.
You are going into doctrine where it is not neccesary.
Hard to argue one way or the other really. In terms of direct ideas in the Sunnah sure, but in the greater commentary of the Jewish tradition, it is arguably on par in the realm of theory, just without much in the way of a practical history due to the history of the Judaic faith.
But that is why it can't fully be answered, because no religion (Islam included) is historically bound politically in a tight leash, and they go under numerous iterations. If anything, the history of politics and economics have shown to utterly dominate religious practice beyond the theoretical level everywhere, including and especially in the middle east with the rise of modern radicalism.
So if we are to evaluate how conservative Zoroastiranism would be compared to Islam, not only does it not make sense for the time periods they existed alongside eachother (depending on where you went, individual interpretation etc) but it makes even less sense in the greater scheme of things and is unknowable because we know not what economic trials an extended persian history (for insstance) would develop.
Basically, what they say is that adding "wa Muhammad rassul Allah" after saying "Lah illaha illa Allah" is associating another name to the Name of God and is therefore Shirk. It seems to me that some forms of early Kharijite movements might have adopted such a stance and that an historically Quranist-dominated Islam is therefore conceivable.
Would it have been more "liberal" ? Probably so. It is the Sunnah which contains all the rules that stifle change in traditional Islam, not the Quran. In other words, a Quranist-style Islam would be less pharisaic than the one we know IOTL and therefore probably more adaptable.
It is very strange. This is precisely one of the verses that Quranists use most often to support their position. They interpret "what Allah has sent down" as being the Quran (which can hardly be disputed IMHO) and "what we found our fathers following" as referring to the Sunnah or any other "tradition", past or present. It is hard to deny that the Sunnah is based on the testimony of "fathers". The Hadith, for example, explicitly state that their authority relies on a chain of transmisson fom generation to generation (the "isnad"). I am curious to see how this verse can be made to support the traditional position."Follow what Allah hath sent down, they say Nay! We follow what we found our fathers following. Even though their fathers did not understand anything and nor were they guided" Quran 2:170
This guy, along with a number of others, has developped a form of "soft Quranism" (not 100% rejection of Hadith but very strong emphasis on the Quran). It is indeed a sign that there is a strong undercurrent in that direction. On a very fundamental level, Quranism is a form of "sola scriptura" Islam and has therefore a number of similarities with protestantism. And maybe it is useful to remember that some have argued that modernity is based on the values of protestantism.Its a subtitled youtube interview where controversial Saudi Scholar, presents a very liberal islamic point of view by emphasising the superiority of the quran over hadith. He arrives to this view by rejecting any hadith that contradicts the quran as fabrication, and uses the quran as a test to see the validity of the hadith. He claims that todays muslim worship the hadith and pay lip service to the quran, ignoring the legacy of the quran.
This is basically the doctrine of salvation by grace alone ("sola gratia"), another protestant tennet.He even makes the controversial claim that according to the quran non muslims and even athiests could end up in heaven.
Wouldnt the level of conservatism depend on the culture at the time.
The entire middle east was very liberal and westernized culturally as late as the 70's.
To interject myself into the 2 sided debate between john7755 and others.
may i add this link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xhrIUVQNpQ
Its a subtitled youtube interview where controversial Saudi Scholar,
presents a very liberal islamic point of view by emphasising the superiority of the quran over hadith.
He arrives to this view by rejecting any hadith that contradicts the quran as fabrication, and uses the quran as a test to see the validity of the hadith.
He claims that todays muslim worship the hadith and pay lip service to the quran, ignoring the legacy of the quran.
He even makes the controversial claim that according to the quran
non muslims and even athiests could end up in heaven.
It is very strange. This is precisely one of the verses that Quranists use most often to support their position. They interpret "what Allah has sent down" as being the Quran (which can hardly be disputed IMHO) and "what we found our fathers following" as referring to the Sunnah or any other "tradition", past or present. It is hard to deny that the Sunnah is based on the testimony of "fathers". The Hadith, for example, explicitly state that their authority relies on a chain of transmisson fom generation to generation (the "isnad"). I am curious to see how this verse can be made to support the traditional position.
This guy, along with a number of others, has developped a form of "soft Quranism" (not 100% rejection of Hadith but very strong emphasis on the Quran). It is indeed a sign that there is a strong undercurrent in that direction. On a very fundamental level, Quranism is a form of "sola scriptura" Islam and has therefore a number of similarities with protestantism. And maybe it is useful to remember that some have argued that modernity is based on the values of protestantism.
This is basically the doctrine of salvation by grace alone ("sola gratia"), another protestant tennet.
The Quanist position is that the Quran is a timeless text. At the time of the Salaf, "what the fathers followed" indeed refered to the polytheistic pagan Arab practices of pre-islamic times (Jahiliyya). But today, this verse refers to the Sunnah and all the traditions accumulated around it. The idea is that men repeat the same sins under different forms. In the past they worshipped Baal or Allat based on the tradition of their time. Today, they worship Muhammad based on the Sunnah. The names of the idols and of the traditions have changed but the sin is the same. This is like saying that at the time of the Prophet, most murders were committed with knives while today they are committed with pistols. Yet they are stil murders. Association is still association regardless of the name of the idol.The Quranists position is essentially a modernist reaction to Islam, because only a modern person would take the position that "fathers following" would mean the Sunnah, any Arab amongst the Salaf during the Hijra would've known easily that it meant Jahiliyya not the Sunnah that they were narrating at that very moment lol. So I don't really understand the Quranists position in this matter when put to the times of the Salaf.
Protestantism was also a minority movement in 16th and 17th century Europe. Yet it is from this movement that modernity was born and then spread to the rest of Europe and then to the world.Yet there can also be a case made that Takfiri sentiment is on the rise and one can make a case that the Shia are gaining strength in Iran, Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq and one can say that traditional Sunni Islam is on the rise (look at how many mosques have financial aid from Saudi in the West).
Protestantism was also a minority movement in 16th and 17th century Europe. Yet it is from this movement that modernity was born and then spread to the rest of Europe and then to the world.