No Hadiths or Sunna, only Quran is canon

Commissar

Banned
One thing that always struck me as odd is that the Hadiths and Sunna are accepted as canon when the Quran is very specific that it alone is canon.

Looking at the histories and who wrote the Hadiths and Sunna it becomes clear that they like much early christian writing was politically motivated.

The end result is all the controversy wracking the Islamic Faith today.

So what if the Hadiths and Sunna are rejected by the mainstream religious establishment of Islam from the start.

One effect is that the Abbassids lose a lot of legitimacy as their claim to rule relied on Aisha having sex with Muhammad at age nine... WTF!!! That I was never able to get as the Prophet was clear there must be consent in marriage and a nine year old can not give consent and understand it.
 
Hadiths and sunna are highly likely to arise regardless, much like biblical commentary and theological writings arose in the early Christian church (or, for that matter, like the Talmud). They are also, just like the Talmud or biblical commentary, likely to end up being more important in day-to-day life than the Qu'ran itself, for the simple reason that they are more straightforward.

OTOH, you could probably avoid them becoming quite so prominent as they are, and that would have some impacts. Islamic jurisprudence is quite shaken up, as are a number of other historically important Islamic disciplines. It might also have some effects on science, since there was a strong scientific current which was partially suppressed due to certain jurists. But I'm not a Muslim and don't know all that much about this, so I will defer to experts.
 
Maybe have a sect of Islam that denies all canon but the Quran proper? There are Christian and Jewish sects that do this (and are incredibly unpopular with more mainstream denominations)
 
Hadiths and sunna are highly likely to arise regardless, much like biblical commentary and theological writings arose in the early Christian church (or, for that matter, like the Talmud). They are also, just like the Talmud or biblical commentary, likely to end up being more important in day-to-day life than the Qu'ran itself, for the simple reason that they are more straightforward.
Hadiths are the words of Mohamed that didn't happen to make it into the Qu'ran. How are they anything even remotely like commentary or theological writings.

I could see them being treated like the Anglican church treats the Deuterocanonical bits of the Bible (those are the bits that the RC's have and the Protestants don't), namely that they are worth of study, but not full-fledged, infallible Scripture.
 
One effect is that the Abbassids lose a lot of legitimacy as their claim to rule relied on Aisha having sex with Muhammad at age nine... WTF!!! That I was never able to get as the Prophet was clear there must be consent in marriage and a nine year old can not give consent and understand it.

Well I am kinda hazy on that, but secular historical research suggests that she could not actually have been younger than 14 at the time of the marriage. Just a brief incidental.
 
Hadiths are the words of Mohamed that didn't happen to make it into the Qu'ran. How are they anything even remotely like commentary or theological writings.

Well, there is that thing with verbal inspiration. The Quran is supposed to have come to the Prophet from God, but the Hadith was just a man speaking his mind. He's still in a unique position to interpret, of course, but the comparison is somewhat valid.
 
Well I am kinda hazy on that, but secular historical research suggests that she could not actually have been younger than 14 at the time of the marriage. Just a brief incidental.
Wait, isn't there some suggestion that there was a marriage but it wasn't consummated until she got older? Maybe 14, I don't know. And in any-case, Byzantine girls were sometimes married at that age too so I'm not sure how much legitimacy the Abbasids would need. Muhammad was more closely related to 'Abbas than Muawiyah's people for instance.

An interesting variation would be that the Sunnah is taken to be purely contextual examples of how to act.
 
Last edited:
Hadiths and Sunna aren't accepted as canon by Muslims. Basically (or at least, this is how the professor of my Islamic theology class explained it) Muslims believe the Quran is the direct word of God, spoken through Mohammad (note that Muslims do not believe that Mohammad actually wrote the Quran-they believe God did, and Mohammad transmitted it). Hadiths are sayings of Mohammad, either direct commentary on the Quran or general advice about day to day life. Muslims believe that, since God chose Mohammad as a prophet, he was an ideal human being and should be used as a role model by Muslims. The Sunna is just traditions or modes of living of Muhammad or his early followers (who are seen as the best Muslims, since they knew the prophet personally). Hadith and Sunna are considered aids to interpreting the Quran, but aren't equal to it.
 
There are Muslims who reject the hadiths and sunna, and believe in the Quran alone. Not sure when the movement began but all you have to do is make it more widespread.
 
Furthermore, there are several different hadiths, each of which is considered valid by different sects. Furthermore, Islamic scholars can sometimes actually trace the roots of particular Hadiths, and thus diminish their credibility. For example, one particularly misogynistic hadith was traced back to one of Muhammed's (PBUH) cousins, who was noted as being a jerk towards women, even by the standards of the time.
 
Hadiths are the words of Mohamed that didn't happen to make it into the Qu'ran. How are they anything even remotely like commentary or theological writings.

I could see them being treated like the Anglican church treats the Deuterocanonical bits of the Bible (those are the bits that the RC's have and the Protestants don't), namely that they are worth of study, but not full-fledged, infallible Scripture.

Well, I misspoke there. What I meant was that sort of thing, yes, but I wasn't properly remembering what hadith and sunna are. A better comparison would be to the non-canonical New Testament books, the ones that got rejected. Perhaps if one particularly prominent early hadith was discredited, people would be much less likely to trust others--records can be spotty, or altered--so their influence is much reduced. Or if you have a different structure to Islam from the start, so Muhammed is 'just' a prophet and otherwise a normal human being; what he says is not very important, you need to pay attention to what's in the Qu'ran. There are some passages which act like that...
 
Well, I misspoke there. What I meant was that sort of thing, yes, but I wasn't properly remembering what hadith and sunna are. A better comparison would be to the non-canonical New Testament books, the ones that got rejected. Perhaps if one particularly prominent early hadith was discredited, people would be much less likely to trust others--records can be spotty, or altered--so their influence is much reduced. Or if you have a different structure to Islam from the start, so Muhammed is 'just' a prophet and otherwise a normal human being; what he says is not very important, you need to pay attention to what's in the Qu'ran. There are some passages which act like that...

Mohammad IS just a Prophet. Many times he and in the quraan, it is said that he is just a man, and just a Prophet. He has no magical powers and any miracles he performed came through God.

The hadith and Sunaa are only sayings and actions of the Prophet. The Quraan is the main source, but anything that is not clarified in the Quran, Muslims look to what Muhammad might have said about it, or if any of his actions suggested something.

Caliph Umar told his Qaadis, (judges) that make decisions based on what is in the Quraan, if there is nothing, then look to the Hadith, then the actions of the Prophet, then the actions of the Sahabbi (companions of the Prophet), and if not, then make the decision on how you feel is the best solution
 
Mohammad IS just a Prophet. Many times he and in the quraan, it is said that he is just a man, and just a Prophet. He has no magical powers and any miracles he performed came through God.

The hadith and Sunaa are only sayings and actions of the Prophet. The Quraan is the main source, but anything that is not clarified in the Quran, Muslims look to what Muhammad might have said about it, or if any of his actions suggested something.

Caliph Umar told his Qaadis, (judges) that make decisions based on what is in the Quraan, if there is nothing, then look to the Hadith, then the actions of the Prophet, then the actions of the Sahabbi (companions of the Prophet), and if not, then make the decision on how you feel is the best solution

Yes, well I meant that Muhammed is not particularly looked upon as a source of good behavior and ideas (aside from preaching the Qu'ran, of course). What I'm trying to get across is that no one even thinks of recording the hadith and sunaa, except possibly for particularly noteworthy things, because Muhammed outside of what God specifically spoke to him is not viewed as an exceptionally good source for morals or behavior or anything. Much the same way that the only stuff we know about Jesus was what other people thought was especially exceptional and noteworthy (except for what other people made up, of course), or how saints are often regarded as exceptional for a few specific things, not their entire lives and behavior.

I think it would be unrecognizable, but it would be interesting nevertheless.

EDIT: Obviously, I did a bad job of getting across my point, and I apologize. But now I think I've managed to make it much more clear what I'm talking about.
 
Last edited:
Top