Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf al-Firabrī : The Unknown Man On Whose Shoulders Traditional Islam Stands On.

[عؔلی خان]

“Bowing and prostrating mean humble submission, not physical actions.”​

Then what do you make of verses like:

• “O you who believe, bow and prostrate and worship your Lord, and do good so that you may succeed.” (22:77)
• “And when you are among them and lead them in prayer, let a group of them stand with you…” (4:102)

These commands are not vague metaphors. They are specific ritual instructions being practiced by a physical group of people, led by the Prophet in real time.

Furthermore, 2:125 says:
“...take the standing place of Ibrahim as a place of prayer.”

So now even Ibrahim's standing place is just symbolic? You don’t get to reduce centuries of living, documented Islamic practice to metaphors because it fits your ideology.

“Why do you bow to a man-made cube? Isn’t that shirk?”​

Let’s be precise: No Muslim worships the Kaaba.

• Muslims face it as a unifying Qiblah — a direction for prayer, not an object of worship.
• The Qur’an itself commands us to face the Kaaba:
  
  “So turn your face toward Al-Masjid Al-Haram. And wherever you are, turn your faces toward it.” (2:144)

Calling this shirk is not only incorrect — it’s a dangerous accusation against Allah Himself, who issued the command.

“The Qur’an is detailed and complete — why look elsewhere?”​

It is detailed for its purpose: spiritual guidance, law, and principles. But it nowhere claims to be a step-by-step manual for every practice.

If “detailed” means every action is self-contained, then show from the Qur’an alone:

• The number of daily prayers
• The number of units (rak’ahs)
• The exact words of taslim, tashahhud, sujood, and du’a
• What breaks or invalidates the prayer

You can’t. And that’s the point.

The Qur’an tells you to establish prayer. The Prophet showed you how to do it. Rejecting that prophetic teaching means rejecting the very command to establish it.

---

Calling the Qiblah shirk, turning prostration into metaphor, and redefining centuries of ritual Islam into vague symbolism isn’t deep spirituality — it’s theological disfigurement.


You’re not defending the Qur’an. You’re using it selectively while discarding everything the Qur’an itself points to: the Messenger’s guidance.

• “Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah.” (Qur’an 4:80)
• “Say: If you love Allah, follow me. Allah will love you...” (3:31)

Islam is submission — not reinvention.​

 

[عؔلی خان]

You’ve made some passionate arguments, but they collapse under basic scrutiny. Much of your position is built on linguistic manipulation, historical revisionism, and personal reinterpretation of core Islamic principles.

Let’s walk through this, point by point — not with emotionalism, but with evidence and clarity.

“The Qur’an is complete — so no Hadith needed.”​

Yes, the Qur’an is complete — for its role as a divine book of guidance. But that does not mean it was meant to serve as a standalone manual of law and rituals.

• “And We have sent down to you the Reminder so that you may explain to the people what was revealed to them.”
  (Qur’an 16:44)
• “He teaches them the Book and the Wisdom (Hikmah)...”
  (Qur’an 2:129, 2:151)
• “He does not speak from desire. It is but a revelation revealed.”
  (Qur’an 53:3–4)

“Hikmah” is not secular wisdom. In every verse where it's paired with “the Book,” it refers to divinely authorized teachings — not general intellect. The Prophet didn’t just recite revelation; he modeled and explained it, as commanded by Allah.

“59:7 is about war booty, not Hadith.”​

Yes, the verse arises in a specific context — but the language is universal:

“Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatever he forbids you, abstain from it.”
(Qur’an 59:7)

This principle is timeless. Limiting commands only to the situation they were revealed in would dismantle nearly all Islamic rulings, including prayer, fasting, and inheritance. That’s not sound tafsir — that’s selective evasion.

“Where is the Prophet’s Tafsir?”​

The Prophet was the tafsir. He lived the Qur’an, as Aisha (RA) said:

“His character was the Qur’an.”
(Sahih Muslim)

His khutbahs, decisions, practices, and interactions are the practical tafsir of the Book. The Qur’an gave the principles, the Prophet gave them legs to walk on.

You ask,

“Why don’t we find a Hadith for every verse?”

Because not every verse requires explanation. The Qur’an is often self-evident in belief, but requires the Sunnah for law and practice.

“Firabrī is not vouched for — so Bukhari collapses.”​

This is a gross distortion of Islamic history and Hadith sciences.

• Firabrī was not majhūl. He had:
  
  • Known teachers and students,
  • Cross-verified narrations,
  • Biographical mentions in authoritative books like:
    
    • Tārīkh Baghdād (al-Khatīb)
    • Tadhkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ (al-Dhahabī)
    • Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb (Ibn Hajar)

You object:

“But these scholars came centuries later!”

And yet, the entire preservation of the Qur’an itself relies on the same chain-based historical transmission — memorization, documentation, and verification by those who came after. You accept that for the Qur’an, but reject it for Hadith — why the double standard?

“Why didn’t the Prophet write Hadith himself?”​

Because the Prophet's primary role was oral transmission in a predominantly oral society.

• He initially discouraged writing Hadith to prevent confusion with the Qur’an.
• He later allowed it when Qur’anic compilation stabilized.
• Companions did write Hadith:
  
  • Abdullah ibn Amr had the Sahifah al-Sadiqah
  • Ali ibn Abi Talib and others maintained their own records.

Your claim that Hadith only began “a century later” is false. The recording and preserving of Hadith began in the first generation. Formal compilation became widespread later — just like codified Fiqh, Arabic grammar, or even the Qur’anic mushaf itself.

“Most Hadith are Khabar Ahad — single chains”​

And yet Islamic law, theology, and even history are built on verified ahad reports — when the narrator is trustworthy, chain is connected, and content is sound.

If you reject Khabar Ahad in principle, then you reject how the Qur’an was preserved too, since not every verse comes with mass transmission of scribes' names and locations.

Be consistent: You can’t have a double standard for the Qur’an and Hadith.

“The verses that say ‘no hadith after this’ (e.g., 77:50) mean we can't follow Hadith”​

This is the most repeated — and most misunderstood — Quranist argument.

In these verses, “hadith” means:

• False legends (as in 31:6),
• Stories of prior nations (as in 12:111),
• Human conjecture and mockery (as in 45:6, 77:50)

It does not refer to the Prophet’s own speech and practice, which the Qur’an commands us to follow repeatedly.

The Qur’an distinguishes between:

• “Hadith” as vain speech
• And Hadith/Sunnah as the Prophet’s divinely guided instruction
  

“Salah doesn’t mean prayer, Saum isn’t fasting, Zakat isn’t charity”​

Now you’re openly rewriting the Arabic language.

• Salah in every Qur’anic occurrence involves Qiyam, Ruku, Sujood — not “general servitude.”
• Saum is defined explicitly in 2:183–187 — it means abstaining from eating, drinking, and intercourse from dawn till sunset.
• Zakat is monetary purification — given annually, not “general kindness.”

What you’re doing isn’t Qur’an-based Islam. It’s self-invented symbolism.

“Following Hadith is shirk”​

So, the Sahaba were mushriks? The Tabi’un were mushriks? The preservers of the Qur’an were also preserving shirk?

Be careful.

• “O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger.”
  (Qur’an 4:59)
• “Say: If you love Allah, follow me, and Allah will love you.”
  (Qur’an 3:31)
• “Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it.”
  (Qur’an 59:7)

Obeying the Prophet is obeying Allah — it is not shirk. Rejecting the Messenger’s role is rebellion, not monotheism.

---

You say Hadith corrupted Islam. But Hadith is:

• How the Qur’an was practiced
• How prayer was taught
• How fasting, zakat, and Hajj were performed
• How every ruling in Islamic jurisprudence was derived

Remove Hadith, and you have a book with no blueprint, a religion with no rituals, and a Prophet with no purpose.

You don’t want the Prophet's Islam.
You want your version of it — and that’s not submission. That’s ego.​

 

[Wake up Pak]

Then what do you make of verses like:

• “O you who believe, bow and prostrate and worship your Lord, and do good so that you may succeed.” (22:77)
• “And when you are among them and lead them in prayer, let a group of them stand with you…” (4:102)

These commands are not vague metaphors. They are specific ritual instructions being practiced by a physical group of people, led by the Prophet in real time.

Furthermore, 2:125 says:
“...take the standing place of Ibrahim as a place of prayer.”

So now even Ibrahim's standing place is just symbolic? You don’t get to reduce centuries of living, documented Islamic practice to metaphors because it fits your ideology.


Let’s be precise: No Muslim worships the Kaaba.

• Muslims face it as a unifying Qiblah — a direction for prayer, not an object of worship.
• The Qur’an itself commands us to face the Kaaba:
  
  “So turn your face toward Al-Masjid Al-Haram. And wherever you are, turn your faces toward it.” (2:144)

Calling this shirk is not only incorrect — it’s a dangerous accusation against Allah Himself, who issued the command.



It is detailed for its purpose: spiritual guidance, law, and principles. But it nowhere claims to be a step-by-step manual for every practice.

If “detailed” means every action is self-contained, then show from the Qur’an alone:

• The number of daily prayers
• The number of units (rak’ahs)
• The exact words of taslim, tashahhud, sujood, and du’a
• What breaks or invalidates the prayer

You can’t. And that’s the point.

The Qur’an tells you to establish prayer. The Prophet showed you how to do it. Rejecting that prophetic teaching means rejecting the very command to establish it.

---

Calling the Qiblah shirk, turning prostration into metaphor, and redefining centuries of ritual Islam into vague symbolism isn’t deep spirituality — it’s theological disfigurement.


You’re not defending the Qur’an. You’re using it selectively while discarding everything the Qur’an itself points to: the Messenger’s guidance.

• “Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah.” (Qur’an 4:80)
• “Say: If you love Allah, follow me. Allah will love you...” (3:31)

Islam is submission — not reinvention.​

As I mentioned earlier, for the sake of argument, I accept that the verses refer to physically bowing and prostrating. My question is: Why did Allah not provide details on how to perform Namaz in the Quran, even though the Quran confirms it is detailed and complete?

 

[عؔلی خان]

You ask:​

“Why didn’t Allah give the full Namaz details in the Qur’an if it’s complete?”

Let’s answer that with clarity.

“Complete” in what sense?​

The Qur’an is complete for what it was revealed to be — a book of divine guidance, not a detailed instruction manual.

It contains:

• Principles
• Laws
• Belief systems
• Moral and ethical commands

But it delegates explanation and implementation to the Prophet:

• “We sent down the Reminder to you, so that you may explain to the people what was revealed to them.” (Qur’an 16:44)
• “He teaches them the Book and Wisdom...” (2:129, 2:151)
• “Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah.” (4:80)

This is by design, not deficiency. The Qur’an’s completeness includes the command to follow the Prophet’s explanation — that is part of its completeness.

The Qur’an Is Complete — But Not a Step-by-Step Ritual Manual​

Why didn’t Allah give detailed rituals directly?​

Because Islam isn’t a religion of pages — it’s a living tradition.

Allah sent:

• A Book: Qur’an
• A Messenger: To explain, live, and model that Book

That’s why the Prophet said:

“Pray as you have seen me praying.” (Sahih Bukhari)

If everything were written out in the Qur’an — all rak’ah counts, tashahhud wording, sujood positioning, etc. — what purpose would the Messenger serve?

You don’t trust the Messenger to teach prayer — but you trust him to deliver a Book?
That’s an inconsistency the Qur’an doesn’t tolerate.​

Your real question isn’t about detail — it’s about authority.​

This isn’t really a question of why the Qur’an didn’t list everything. It’s about your rejection of the Messenger’s authority in matters of law and worship.

But the Qur’an is crystal clear:

• “Say: If you love Allah, follow me.” (3:31)
• “Take what the Messenger gives you.” (59:7)
• “Let those beware who oppose his command...” (24:63)

If you reject the Prophet’s role in teaching and guiding, you're not following the Qur’an — you’re fighting it.

---

The Qur’an doesn’t detail every ritual because it wasn’t meant to. That role belongs to the one whom Allah chose to explain and live it — the Messenger.

Rejecting that role in the name of “Qur’an purity” only leads to confusion, contradiction, and fragmentation — which is exactly what we see in every “Qur’an-only” circle today.


The Qur’an is complete.
The Messenger explained and lived it.
Together, they make Islam complete.​

 

[Wake up Pak]

But the Qur’an is crystal clear:

• “Say: If you love Allah, follow me.” (3:31)
• “Take what the Messenger gives you.” (59:7)
• “Let those beware who oppose his command...” (24:63)

[]If you reject the Prophet’s role in teaching and guiding, you're not following the Qur’an — you’re fighting it.
[/]

First of all, it does not say to follow me, but rather to obey.
Secondly, please quote the few verses that come before and complete the verse about taking what the Messenger gives you. This is referring to war booty, not ahadith.
Thirdly, what does the verse "Let those be aware who oppose his command" mean?
Here is a brief detail about obeying Allah and the Messenger.

When we tell people that 'we believe the Quran alone is all we need
They will respond by claiming we have denied the sunna of the messenger because God says "obey God and the messenger" in the Quran
And they claim that 'obey God' refers to the Quran, and 'obey the messenger' with the books of Hadith and Sunna
So they believe 'obey God and the messenger' is to follow two different sources.
So let's study the phrase 'obey God and the messenger' from a Quranic point of view
The first Observation: The Quran always says 'obey God and the messenger'.
Never does it say 'obey the prophet' or 'obey Muhammad'.
It is always 'obey God and the messenger'
So it is important to understand what the term 'messenger' (Rasool) means.
And why God did not say 'obey the prophet (nabi)'?
Muhammad had two statuses: The status of NUBUWA (prophethood) And the status of RASOOL (messenger)
The status of NUBUWA - the word NUBUWA means 'high or elevated place'.
This means that God has chosen Muhammad, out of all the humans, to communicate with him certain news, prophecies, etc.
So the status of NUBUWA (prophet) means that a human being is communicating with God.
The status of RASOOL - God tells us the status of RASOOL in the Quran:
(5:67) O messenger, deliver what was sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not delivered His message...
We see that God clearly tells us the duty of the messenger is to deliver the message of God
God also says: (24:54) ...there is nothing upon the messenger except the clear delivery...
This teaches us that the sole duty of the messenger is to deliver the message to the people
So if God did not give Muhammad the 'message', then he would not be called 'messenger' (Rasool).
So God calls him 'Rasool because Muhammad is carrying the 'message'.
What is this message that Muhammad carried? The messenger himself answers this in the Quran:
(6:19) ...this Quran has inspired me to deliver it to you and whoever it reaches...
All these verses teach us that the duty of a messenger is to deliver the message.
Muhammad - the messenger - is required to send us the Quran
So when God says "obey the messenger" we are essentially obeying the 'message' itself
Another observation: God says in the Quran (4:80) "Whoever obeys the messenger, has obeyed God..."
This means when we obey the messenger - the message - the Quran, we have in reality obeyed God

All these verses teach us that 'obey God and the messenger' is essentially obeying ONE source - the Quran
Let's assume that the Quran tells us "obey God" without mentioning obeying the messenger. How would we do that?
This would mean that God Himself would have to come to earth and give us the Quran directly
This of course is illogical
This is why we are to 'obey God and the messenger' - because God gave Muhammad 'the message' which makes him a messenger
And the messenger is required to deliver it to humanity.
So this is what 'obey God and the messenger' means from the Quran.
"Obey God and the messenger" is essentially ONE source - the Quran.
We obey the messenger because he has the 'message

 

[Wake up Pak]

“Say: If you love Allah, follow me.” (3:31)

This verse is about the Prophet Isa. How do you follow/obey him?
“I come to confirm what is with you from the Torah, and to permit you what was prohibited to you, and I come to you with signs from your Lord. Therefore, observe God and obey me. Indeed, God is my Lord and your Lord; therefore, serve Him. And this is the right path.” (3:50-51)

How about this verse?
Noah said, “O my people, I come to you as a Warner.. 26 You shall serve God and work righteousness and obey me.” (71:2-3)

 

[Citizen X]

But that does not mean it was meant to serve as a standalone manual of law and rituals.

So you are going against what the Quran says as quoted to previously. Allah has said he could have sent down many books if he would have wanted to and he is not short on words.

18.110 Say : "If only the sea were ink for the words of my LORD , the sea would run out before the words of my LORD runs out , even if We brought the like of it in supply ."

“Hikmah” is not secular wisdom.

Nobody said it was, and it definitely not hadith or "divinely authorized teachings" how was this conclusion even reached!!!! Like I said one has to make great mental leaps and do a lot of verbal gymnastics in order to somehow justify hadith.

In 5:3 is very clear when Allah says TODAY I have completed the deen for you, so anything that comes after this "day" is definetly not part of the deen. Because Allah says so. Be it hadith, tafsir etc etc. As I said earlier the Quran explains itself. Read 2:269, 31:12, 2:251, 3.48, 4.54 So hikmah in all these ayats means the hadith or sunnah of Muhammad? In fact the Quran is devoid of the phrase sunnat ur rasool or nabi, the only sunnah mentioned is the sunnah of Allah.

“59:7 is about war booty, not Hadith.”​

Yes, the verse arises in a specific context — but the language is universal

Traditionalists wish it was because it really strenghtens their case for hadith but it really isn't. It is talking about a very specific incident. Of Allah had wanted us to follow hadith he would give us such a command clearly

IMMAMAT

“Where is the Prophet’s Tafsir?”​

The Prophet was the tafsir. He lived the Qur’an, as Aisha (RA) said:

“His character was the Qur’an.”
(Sahih Muslim)

His khutbahs, decisions, practices, and interactions are the practical tafsir of the Book. The Qur’an gave the principles, the Prophet gave them legs to walk on.

So then why did the Prophet make sure the Quran was written down word for word and propagated within his lifetime and left the task of the Oh So important hadith to just random people hoping somebody somewhere sometime would preserve them for the entire ummah till the end of time. Does this make any logical sense? If at the very least he would entrust one of his most trusted companions with this project. Even that doesn't occur.

“Why don’t we find a Hadith for every verse?”

Because not every verse requires explanation. The Qur’an is often self-evident in belief, but requires the Sunnah for law and practice.

Oh so now the Quran is self evident when the traditionalist want it to be but it isn't when they have make justifications for their hadith. Although the Quran literally screams it is a clear and detailed book, explained very well. But no we will not take Allah's word for it, rather we will follow manmade books written centuries after he passed away.

Firabrī was not majhūl.

You can keep repeating this til the cows come home.

In hadith sciences, the term majhūl (مجهول) means “unknown”, and it refers to a narrator whose identity or reliability is unclear — which usually weakens the hadith.

---

Definition of Mahjul:
A majhūl narrator is one about whom the scholars of hadith have not given enough information to determine whether they are reliable (thiqqah) or weak (ḍaʿīf).

---

There are two main types of majhūl:​

There are two main types of majhūl:

Majhūl al-‘Ayn A narrator only mentioned by one scholar or has only one narrator who transmits from him.

Majhūl al-Ḥāl A narrator who is known by name and more than one person narrates from him, but no scholar has evaluated his reliability.

Firabri falls in the second category. No scholar evaluated his relibility while he was alive. Yes they came in many years later after he died even many centuries later to cover up this hole.

And yet, the entire preservation of the Qur’an itself relies on the same chain-based historical transmission

It absolutely doesn't, I am so fed up with the traditional saying this in a vain attempt trying to justify their hadith. First of all the Quran was mass transmitted ( tuwattar ) from the time it was revealed while less than 5% of hadith is tawattur which includes even if it had just 4 isnads. And if that is the case then lets see isnad for each and every verse going back to the Prophet or at the very least for every surah. No such thing exists.

We don't need isnads and tawattur for the Quran because

75:17 We shall make sure of its safe collection and recitation.

15:9)“Indeed, it is We who sent down the Reminder, and indeed, We will be its Guardian.”

Allah gurantees it, so such gurantee exists for the hadith.

And yet Islamic law, theology, and even history are built on verified ahad reports

That is actually NOT a good thing or something to be proud off. It fact this is one of the major problems with following hadiths. In fact you can do a quick search and find out from your own sources things which you have made part of your fiqh and law have issues in their chains, yet as always convinently swept under the carpet, more rules bent and criteria from sahih drops down to Ahsan i,e even acceptable graded hadith will do with which we will judge and rule over people. How does this NOT go against the concept of Adl in the Quran??

Now you’re openly rewriting the Arabic language.

Nope. I can post you links where everthing is explained it detail from the Quran as how salah is mistranslated a somekind of daily ritual prayer, saum as somekind of refrainment from food etc etc. Its very late here and I'm not going to sit and type out everything, unlike you I don't just cut and paste from chatgpt. So it takes real time and effort for a detailed reply.

So, the Sahaba were mushriks? The Tabi’un were mushriks? The preservers of the Qur’an were also preserving shirk?

They were not, thats why you have no hadith collections popping up in the their time, only when the first generations of the early Muslims passed away that hadith started to pop up, first there were 138, then their were 1700 then there were 7000 and as more time passed instead of people losing information the opposite happened, more hadith started to comeout of the woodworks. Where today if we included all hadith know to us the number could be anywhere from 600,000 to a million hadith. Now that is a miracle!!!!

Remove Hadith, and you have a book with no blueprint, a religion with no rituals, and a Prophet with no purpose.

If you really think that, then you truly really haven't read the Quran and understood it. But I know for traditionalist they need to have their rituals because for them there is no Islam without their rituals and no rituals can be found in the Quran. The traditionalist need a superhero cleberity a demigod to worship, someone who who can quench the thrist of an large contingent with water which flows out of his fingers, somewho who flys on winged horses through the skies, someone whose spit, blood and even urine is sacred and people drink and wash themselves in it because who ever did so hell fire couldn't touch them or they would never get sick again. A man of mans who could sleep with a dozen women and satify them all in a night so on and so forth. Someones name they can inscribe right next to Allah's in their masjids and bow down to it five times a day. Someone whose name is taken daily in prayers which are suppose to be exclusive to God.

Unfortunately the Prophet of the Quran was just a bashar from his people among his people for his people. And not a celebrity miraculous superhero like the Muhammad of the Hadith.

You don’t want the Prophet's Islam.
You want your version of it — and that’s not submission. That’s ego.

No we want Allah's Islam that was given to us in the Quran through the Messenger. Believing all the Islam exist in books written by defeated persians 200 years after the Prophet died is nothing but shirk!

25:30 "And the Messenger will say, 'O my Lord, indeed my people have taken this Qur’an as [a thing] abandoned.'"

 

[عؔلی خان]

Thanks for the detailed reply, but you’ve simply restated the core Qur’anist assumption without addressing the core Qur’anic evidence.

You claim:

“Obeying the Messenger just means obeying the Qur’an, because the Messenger’s only job was delivery.”

Let’s dismantle this logically and Qur’anically.

“Obey the Messenger” ≠ “Only Deliver the Qur’an”​

Let’s begin with your favorite verse:

“There is nothing upon the Messenger except clear delivery.” (24:54)

Yes, delivery is his duty — but delivery is not the end of his role.

Here’s what the Qur’an also says:

• “He teaches them the Book and the Wisdom…” (2:129, 2:151)
• “We sent down the Reminder to you so that you may explain to the people what was revealed to them.” (16:44)
• “Let those beware who oppose his command, lest a trial afflict them…” (24:63)

So the Prophet delivered, explained, taught, judged, commanded, and modeled. All these are Qur’anic functions. Reducing him to a courier is not Qur’anic theology — it’s revisionist ideology.​

If “obeying the Messenger” means “obeying the message only,” then 4:59 makes no sense​

“O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you…” (4:59)

If “obeying the Messenger” = “obeying the message,” then:

• Why the repetition of “obey”?
• Why separate “Allah” and “the Messenger” in wording?

And why does the verse say:

“If you disagree on anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger…”

Referring it back to the Qur’an (Allah) is clear. But how do you “refer back to the Messenger” after his death if he has no guidance outside the Qur’an?

Answer: Through his Sunnah, preserved by his companions.

---

You asked:

“Why doesn’t the Qur’an say obey the Prophet?”​

Actually, it does — in function, if not in exact title:

• “Say: If you love Allah, follow me...” (3:31)
• “Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it…” (59:7)
• “It is not for a believing man or woman to have any choice in a matter once Allah and His Messenger have decided.” (33:36)

These aren’t commands to obey a book. They are commands to submit to the Prophet’s authority as the walking, living embodiment of divine guidance.

“The Prophet only brought the message.” ​

Really?

Then explain this verse:

“...so that you (Muhammad) may judge between people by what Allah has shown you.” (4:105)

• Judging is not just reciting a verse.
• He was instructed to use insight, wisdom, and explanation to apply the Qur’an — and this application is the Sunnah.

“Obeying the Messenger = obeying the Qur’an” is your assumption, not the Qur’an’s claim​

You cited 4:80:

“Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah.”

That’s true — but that verse doesn’t limit obedience to the Qur’an. In fact, it's the opposite: it establishes the Messenger’s authority as binding.

So if the Prophet says:

“Pray as you see me praying” (Sahih Bukhari)

That’s an extension of Qur’anic command — not a contradiction.

Rejecting that statement while claiming to obey the Messenger is incoherent.

The Qur’an itself points to multiple sources:​

“And We revealed to you the Book and the Wisdom, and taught you what you did not know. Great indeed is the favor of Allah upon you.” (4:113)

So:

• The Book = Qur’an
• The Wisdom = Sunnah
• Both are revelation
• The Prophet taught both
• Obeying both = Obeying Allah

This is Qur’anic Islam — not your version of “message-only” obedience.

---

You’ve built your entire worldview on the idea that the Prophet brought the Qur’an and nothing more — and that “obeying the Messenger” just means reading the Qur’an.

But the Qur’an itself says:

• The Prophet teaches, judges, and explains
• His decisions are binding
• His commands are independent from the Qur’an’s text
• His Sunnah is part of revelation (53:3–4)

You don’t have a Qur’anic argument. You have a theological presupposition.


Obeying Allah and His Messenger means obeying both the revelation and the Messenger’s implementation of it.
That is Islam. Anything else is not submission — it’s redefinition.​

 

[عؔلی خان]

This verse is about the Prophet Isa. How do you follow/obey him?
“I come to confirm what is with you from the Torah, and to permit you what was prohibited to you, and I come to you with signs from your Lord. Therefore, observe God and obey me. Indeed, God is my Lord and your Lord; therefore, serve Him. And this is the right path.” (3:50-51)

How about this verse?
Noah said, “O my people, I come to you as a Warner.. 26 You shall serve God and work righteousness and obey me.” (71:2-3)

You claim that “Say: If you love Allah, follow me...” (3:31) refers to Prophet Isa, not Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

Let’s clear that up quickly — with context.

Read the full verse with the verse before it:​

3:30 – “On the Day every soul will find what it has done of good present before it… and Allah is Most Merciful.”

3:31 – “Say: If you love Allah, then follow me; Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. Allah is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.”


“Say…” is directed to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) — this is how the Qur’an speaks to him throughout.

Example:

• “Say: He is Allah, the One.” (112:1)
• “Say: O disbelievers...” (109:1)
• “Say: If the sea were ink...” (18:109)

In every case, the command “Say” (Qul) is addressed to Muhammad (PBUH) — not any other Prophet.

3:31 is no different.

Even your own quoted verses (like 3:50-51 for Isa, or 71:2-3 for Nuh) use direct speech from those prophets. They are not introduced with “Say...” (Qul) — because the speaker is clear from context.

Tafsir and scholarly consensus confirm it refers to Muhammad (PBUH)​

Every major tafsir — Ibn Kathir, Al-Tabari, Al-Qurtubi, Al-Baghawi — confirms:


3:31 is directed to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and is addressing the Christians of Najran, who claimed to love Allah.

The verse is saying:

“If you truly love Allah, then follow Muhammad (PBUH) — not just believe in previous prophets.”

So ironically, by claiming it refers to Isa, you’ve:

• Ignored grammar
• Ignored Qur’anic style
• Ignored tafsir
• And completely missed the point of the verse

You actually helped make my point​

You quoted:

• “O my people, serve God and obey me.” (71:2-3, Prophet Nuh)
• “Observe God and obey me.” (3:50-51, Prophet Isa)

Thank you.

This proves exactly what I am saying:

• Every messenger is obeyed not just for delivery, but for guidance, commands, and leadership
• "Obey me" = obey my words, my judgment, my example
• The Qur’an commands obedience to messengers — plural — and to Muhammad (PBUH) as the final one (33:40)

If we must obey Nuh and Isa when they say “obey me,” then why are you rejecting obedience to Muhammad (PBUH) who was sent as the seal of the prophets?

---

You’re attempting to divide the Messenger from his message, and now even dividing verses from their speakers.

But the Qur’an is clear:

• “Obey Allah and the Messenger” (over a dozen times)
• “Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it.” (59:7)
• “Follow me, and Allah will love you.” (3:31 — directed to Muhammad)

This is not complicated. This is not hidden. This is Islam 101 — preserved by the Qur’an itself.

You can’t obey Allah while rejecting His Messenger’s example. That’s not submission. That’s rebellion.​

 

[Wake up Pak]

You claim that “Say: If you love Allah, follow me...” (3:31) refers to Prophet Isa, not Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

3:50-51, not 3:31. So correct yourself, as this verse speaks about Prophet Isa.

 

[Wake up Pak]

You can’t obey Allah while rejecting His Messenger’s example. That’s not submission. That’s rebellion.

Even if I accept your interpretation of the verse, it does not instruct us to follow Ahadith books written some 200+ years after the demise of the Messenger Mohammad.

Once again, for your understanding:

Here is a brief detail about obeying Allah and the Messenger.

When we tell people that 'we believe the Quran alone is all we need
They will respond by claiming we have denied the sunna of the messenger because God says "obey God and the messenger" in the Quran
And they claim that 'obey God' refers to the Quran, and 'obey the messenger' with the books of Hadith and Sunna
So they believe 'obey God and the messenger' is to follow two different sources.
So let's study the phrase 'obey God and the messenger' from a Quranic point of view
The first Observation: The Quran always says 'obey God and the messenger'.
Never does it say 'obey the prophet' or 'obey Muhammad'.
It is always 'obey God and the messenger'
So it is important to understand what the term 'messenger' (Rasool) means.
And why God did not say 'obey the prophet (nabi)'?
Muhammad had two statuses: The status of NUBUWA (prophethood) And the status of RASOOL (messenger)
The status of NUBUWA - the word NUBUWA means 'high or elevated place'.
This means that God has chosen Muhammad, out of all the humans, to communicate with him certain news, prophecies, etc.
So the status of NUBUWA (prophet) means that a human being is communicating with God.
The status of RASOOL - God tells us the status of RASOOL in the Quran:
(5:67) O messenger, deliver what was sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not delivered His message...
We see that God clearly tells us the duty of the messenger is to deliver the message of God
God also says: (24:54) ...there is nothing upon the messenger except the clear delivery...
This teaches us that the sole duty of the messenger is to deliver the message to the people
So if God did not give Muhammad the 'message', then he would not be called 'messenger' (Rasool).
So God calls him 'Rasool because Muhammad is carrying the 'message'.
What is this message that Muhammad carried? The messenger himself answers this in the Quran:
(6:19) ...this Quran has inspired me to deliver it to you and whoever it reaches...
All these verses teach us that the duty of a messenger is to deliver the message.
Muhammad - the messenger - is required to send us the Quran
So when God says "obey the messenger" we are essentially obeying the 'message' itself
Another observation: God says in the Quran (4:80) "Whoever obeys the messenger, has obeyed God..."
This means when we obey the messenger - the message - the Quran, we have in reality obeyed God

All these verses teach us that 'obey God and the messenger' is essentially obeying ONE source - the Quran
Let's assume that the Quran tells us "obey God" without mentioning obeying the messenger. How would we do that?
This would mean that God Himself would have to come to earth and give us the Quran directly
This of course is illogical
This is why we are to 'obey God and the messenger' - because God gave Muhammad 'the message' which makes him a messenger
And the messenger is required to deliver it to humanity.
So this is what 'obey God and the messenger' means from the Quran.
"Obey God and the messenger" is essentially ONE source - the Quran.
We obey the messenger because he has the 'message

 

[عؔلی خان]

You’ve spent an impressive amount of time trying to bury clear Qur’anic truths under a pile of dismissive sarcasm, ad hominem attacks, and historical revisionism. But emotional outbursts don’t replace revelation — and the Qur’an isn’t on your side.

Let’s get through this one final time — clearly and with evidence.

“Why didn’t Allah include everything in the Qur’an if it’s complete?”

Because completeness of guidance does not mean totality of detail. Allah chose to send a Messenger — not just a book.

• “We have sent down to you the Reminder so that you may explain to the people what was revealed to them.” (16:44)
• “And He taught you [O Prophet] the Book and the Wisdom, and taught you what you did not know.” (4:113)

Allah intentionally left practical details to the Prophet’s teaching. That’s why the Qur’an says:


“Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatever he forbids, abstain from it.” (59:7)


Whether the verse refers to war booty or not is irrelevant — the command is universal in language. If you’re going to claim a verse has no application beyond the incident, then we might as well remove every verse revealed during any specific event. That’s not how Qur’anic law works.

“Hikmah isn’t Hadith!”​

Nobody said it’s synonymous. But let’s follow the Qur’an’s usage, not yours:

“He teaches them the Book and the Wisdom.” (2:129, 2:151, 62:2)

• “Book” = Qur’an
• “Wisdom” = Something other than the Book
• The Prophet taught both

That “Wisdom” was taught alongside the Qur’an — so either you accept there’s another stream of guidance coming from the Prophet, or you rewrite the ayah.

Calling this “verbal gymnastics” doesn’t change the fact that the Qur’an itself makes the distinction — not traditionalists.

“The Prophet didn’t preserve Hadith — so it must not matter.”

​

False premise.

The Prophet focused on living, teaching, and implementing revelation — not authoring books. Hadith were:

• Memorized by companions
• Written down (e.g., Sahifah al-Sadiqah of Abdullah ibn Amr)
• Taught systematically
• Compiled within 100–150 years — which is incredibly fast for ancient history

You say:

“Why didn’t he preserve Hadith like the Qur’an?”

— but that ignores historical context and purpose. The Qur’an had to be preserved with priority because:

• It’s the exact speech of Allah
• It would not be repeated or updated again
• It had to be safeguarded verbatim

The Sunnah was preserved differently: by action, teaching, transmission, and later, written compilation.

“The Qur’an is self-explanatory and needs no Hadith!”​

That claim collapses the moment you try to practice Islam:

• How do you know how to pray five times a day?
• How do you calculate zakat?
• What are the steps of Hajj?
• What breaks your fast?
• How do you execute inheritance laws?

You can’t find complete answers to any of these without the Sunnah.

The Qur’an says:

• “Establish prayer” — but doesn’t tell you the times, rak‘ahs, or method.
• “Fast the month of Ramadan” — but doesn’t tell you what breaks it.
• “Pay zakat” — but gives no percentage, threshold, or method.

You say the Qur’an “explains everything.” That’s a category error. It explains everything necessary — and tells you to go to the Prophet for the rest.

“Hadith isn’t preserved like the Qur’an.”​

True. But Hadith was never meant to be preserved like the Qur’an. That doesn’t make it unreliable.

The Qur’an was:

• Revealed word-for-word
• Meant to be recited in prayer
• Preserved through mass memorization

Hadith was:

• Preserved through isnad (chain of transmission)
• Scrutinized with biographical science
• Collected by methodical scholars

You claim “Firabri is majhool.” But:

• He is documented in multiple hadith evaluations
• His narrations align with other parallel isnads
• The accusation of him being “unknown” is based on ignorance of hadith classification, not reality

You keep repeating a claim that no reputable hadith scholar supports. That’s not a rebuttal. That’s denial.

“Tawatur only exists for the Qur’an, not Hadith.”​

Again — false.

• Large parts of the Sunnah are mutawatir in action, even if not in isnad.
  
  • Prayer
  • Hajj
  • Adhan
  • Eid
  • Fasting

Even if only a few isnads reach tawatur level in isnad structure, the content of Hadith — when consistent across chains — reaches strength through mass corroboration (shawahid).

Also, you cannot claim the Qur’an is preserved through tawatur without using the same tools hadith scholars used — names, chains, consistency, cross-narrator comparison. That’s hadith science in action.

You mocked Hadith using vulgar distortions — but that exposes your bias, not the truth.​

You sarcastically accused traditional Muslims of believing in:

• A miracle-working Prophet,
• A celebrity superhero,
• Someone with magical bodily fluids...

This is not intellectual discourse. This is a cheap emotional rant. Worse, it borders on blasphemy toward the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

You clearly aren’t interested in Qur’anic nuance — or even respectful dialogue. You're here to vent, not discover truth.

“We want Allah’s Islam, not the Hadith version.”​

Then follow the Qur’an’s own instructions:

• “Obey Allah and obey the Messenger.” (4:59)
• “If you love Allah, follow me.” (3:31)
• “Take what the Messenger gives you.” (59:7)
• “Whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has been made clear…
• We will leave him to what he has chosen.” (4:115)

The Messenger taught Islam through:

• His speech
• His actions
• His judgments
• His approvals

This was preserved. You reject it. So you're not following the Qur'an. You're rewriting it — and you’ve admitted it by saying

"Salat doesn’t mean prayer,"
"Sawm isn’t fasting,"
"Zakat isn’t financial purification."

You don’t believe in Hadith because you don’t want to believe in any authority other than your own. It’s not about evidence anymore — it’s about ego, deflection, and rebranding.


But Islam doesn’t bend to personal interpretation.

Islam = Submission. Not Reinvention.

Your arguments may impress a handful of keyboard followers — but history, scholarship, Qur’anic integrity, and the Sunnah are not going anywhere.


Remove Hadith, and you're left with a book with no blueprint, a religion with no rituals, and a Prophet with no purpose.


You’ve built a religion of fragments and slogans — but Islam remains whole.

Let others watching be the judge of which version of Islam the Qur’an actually supports.​

 

[عؔلی خان]

3:50-51, not 3:31. So correct yourself, as this verse speaks about Prophet Isa.

That is completely incorrect.

Let’s read the actual verse:

“Say: If you love Allah, then follow me; Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allah is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (3:31)

Now look at the next verse:

“Say: Obey Allah and the Messenger. But if they turn away — then Allah does not love the disbelievers.” (3:32)

This command — “Say (Qul)” — is directed to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), not Isa (AS). The Qur’an consistently uses “Qul” to address Muhammad (PBUH) — over 300 times.

Verse 3:31 was revealed in response to Christians of Najran, who claimed to love God. Allah answered them by telling Muhammad (PBUH) to say:

“If you love Allah, follow me.”

This is affirmed by all classical tafsir, including Ibn Kathir, Al-Tabari, and Al-Qurtubi — no serious scholar claims otherwise.

You're confusing 3:50–51, where Isa (AS) is directly speaking to Bani Israel. That is completely separate from 3:31.

So no, this is not a mix-up on my part — this is a factual correction to yours.

3:31 Refers to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) — Not Isa (AS)​

 

[Wake up Pak]

That is completely incorrect.

Let’s read the actual verse:

“Say: If you love Allah, then follow me; Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allah is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (3:31)

Now look at the next verse:

“Say: Obey Allah and the Messenger. But if they turn away — then Allah does not love the disbelievers.” (3:32)

This command — “Say (Qul)” — is directed to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), not Isa (AS). The Qur’an consistently uses “Qul” to address Muhammad (PBUH) — over 300 times.

Verse 3:31 was revealed in response to Christians of Najran, who claimed to love God. Allah answered them by telling Muhammad (PBUH) to say:

“If you love Allah, follow me.”

This is affirmed by all classical tafsir, including Ibn Kathir, Al-Tabari, and Al-Qurtubi — no serious scholar claims otherwise.

You're confusing 3:50–51, where Isa (AS) is directly speaking to Bani Israel. That is completely separate from 3:31.

So no, this is not a mix-up on my part — this is a factual correction to yours.

3:31 Refers to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) — Not Isa (AS)​

I've quoted Quranic verses 3:50 & 51, not 3:31. Why are you repeating the same thing over and over again?

 

[Wake up Pak]

That is completely incorrect.

Let’s read the actual verse:

“Say: If you love Allah, then follow me; Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allah is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (3:31)

Now look at the next verse:

“Say: Obey Allah and the Messenger. But if they turn away — then Allah does not love the disbelievers.” (3:32)

This command — “Say (Qul)” — is directed to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), not Isa (AS). The Qur’an consistently uses “Qul” to address Muhammad (PBUH) — over 300 times.

Verse 3:31 was revealed in response to Christians of Najran, who claimed to love God. Allah answered them by telling Muhammad (PBUH) to say:

“If you love Allah, follow me.”

This is affirmed by all classical tafsir, including Ibn Kathir, Al-Tabari, and Al-Qurtubi — no serious scholar claims otherwise.

You're confusing 3:50–51, where Isa (AS) is directly speaking to Bani Israel. That is completely separate from 3:31.

So no, this is not a mix-up on my part — this is a factual correction to yours.

3:31 Refers to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) — Not Isa (AS)​

(45:6) These are God’s verses which we recite unto you [O Muhammad] truthfully. Therefore, in which HADITH other than GOD and His verses do they believe in?

Are hadiths and Sunnah truly part of Islam, or are they baseless traditions which distort the message of peace described in the Holy Quran?
The term “hadith” refers to sayings attributed to the Prophet Mohammad. The word “Sunnah” refers to religious traditions allegedly established by Mohammad, and authenticated through a consensus of his companions. Even though the Quran proclaims it is fully detailed and contains the details of everything (7:52, 6:114, 10:37), an overwhelming majority of Muslims inherited the traditional belief that they need hadiths and sunnah to understand, clarify, or add more details to the Quran.

 

[Citizen X]

“He teaches them the Book and the Wisdom (Hikmah)

You don't read do you, there is not a single Quranic verse you have quoted in this entire thread that one can read and go, Oh yeah that clearly means follow and worship the hadith.

The Shia do the exact same thing, take words from the Quran, start doing verbal gymnastics with them to prove their concept of Immamt and Waliyat.

Lets clear out this false idea you have created that hikmah means your hadith.

=105

The Qur’an is complete for what it was revealed to be — a book of divine guidance, not a detailed instruction manual.

The Qur’an doesn’t detail every ritual because it wasn’t meant to.

This imaganiary concept that the Quran isn't detailed or needs explanation and the Prophet left 95% of the deen scattered in bits and pieces with 1000s of men in one to one meetings or small gatherings just hoping the message would somehow get across is noy only as preposterous as it sounds but in direct conflict with what the Quran says as mentioned several times in previous posts

Lets deep dive see what the Quran says about it being detailed and the singular source Muslims are suppose to follow.

Once again on the day of judgement the Messenger will not lament oh lord indeed my people they have abandoned the hadith. But rather abandoned the Quran and this is exactly what has happened. Mainstream Islam has abandaoned the Quran and replaced it with hadith.

 

[عؔلی خان]

3:50-51, not 3:31. So correct yourself, as this verse speaks about Prophet Isa.

Yes, you're absolutely right that 3:50–51 are the words of Prophet Isa (AS).

But no one ever said they weren’t.

What you incorrectly claimed earlier is that 3:31 —

“Say: If you love Allah, follow me...”
— also refers to Isa (AS).

That is completely false.

Let’s be clear:​

3:31 says:

“Say (Qul): If you love Allah, follow me, and Allah will love you...”

This verse is:

• In Surah Aal Imran
• Revealed to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)
• Part of a dialogue addressing the People of the Book
• Followed by:
  
  “Say: Obey Allah and the Messenger…” (3:32)

The command “Qul” (Say) appears over 300 times in the Qur’an — and always addressed to Muhammad (PBUH), never Isa (AS).

Conclusion:​

3:50–51 = Isa’s words
3:31 = Allah commanding Muhammad (PBUH) to speak

Your claim that 3:31 is about Isa was incorrect

 

[عؔلی خان]

You quoted:

“These are God’s verses which We recite to you in truth. So in what Hadith after Allah and His verses will they believe?” (45:6)

Let’s break this down:

The word “Hadith” in the Qur’an is not always about the Prophet’s sayings
​

In 45:6, “Hadith” means any speech, philosophy, or story that contradicts or distracts from God’s revelation — not authentic Hadith from the Prophet (PBUH).

Context matters. Just look at the verses before:

“Woe to every sinful liar — who hears the verses of Allah and then persists arrogantly…” (45:7–8)

This is about rejecting revelation in favor of false speech — not rejecting Sahih Bukhari 1,200 years later. That’s a dishonest leap.

The Qur’an uses the word “Hadith” positively too​

• “And who is better in speech (hadith) than the one who calls to Allah?” (41:33)
• “Has the story (hadith) of Moses reached you?” (79:15)
• “We relate to you the best of stories (ahsan al-qasas)…” (12:3)

So if “Hadith” always meant “forbidden speech,” these verses would make no sense.

The truth is: “Hadith” simply means speech, report, or narrative.

The context determines whether it's divine, historical, or false.​

The Qur’an commands the Muslims to follow the Prophet (PBUH) — not just the message​

• “He teaches them the Book and the Wisdom…” (2:129)
• “Take what the Messenger gives you and abstain from what he forbids.” (59:7)
• “Obey Allah and the Messenger...” (4:59, 8:20, 24:54, 64:12)

These are not allegories or metaphors. They are legal commands.

If you think “Obey the Messenger” just means “read the Qur’an,” then you’ve rendered dozens of verses meaningless. Why mention both separately?

The Prophet was sent to explain the Qur’an — not just recite it​

“We revealed to you the Reminder so you may explain to people what was revealed to them.” (16:44)

If the Qur’an explains everything in itself, why does Allah say He sent the Prophet to explain it?

This alone demolishes your claim that the Prophet brought nothing but the Book.​

“Islam doesn’t need Hadith” = Islam with no prayer, no Zakat rules, no Hajj, no implementation​

You say the Qur’an is “fully detailed.” Then please show from the Qur’an alone:

• How many rak‘ahs in each prayer?
• When is Asr or Isha?
• What breaks wudu or fasts?
• How is zakat calculated?
• What are the steps of Hajj?
• What is the punishment for theft, murder, slander?
• What do we say in sujood, tashahhud, and salam?

You can’t.
Because the Qur’an was never meant to be practiced without the Prophet’s Sunnah.

Even the Qur’an’s preservation and compilation came through the same Sahaba who narrated Hadith. You trust them to transmit the Qur’an but accuse them of fabricating Hadith? That’s hypocrisy, not theology.

---

Your logic is built on a false binary:

• “Either believe in the Qur’an, or believe in Hadith.”

But the Qur’an itself commands us to believe in and follow the Prophet’s commands, judgments, and example. That is the Sunnah. That is Hadith.

To follow the Qur’an is to follow the Sunnah.

Rejecting Hadith is not “pure Qur’an.”
It’s a new religion — self-invented, self-centered, and self-destructive.

The Prophet (PBUH) was not a delivery boy. He was the teacher, judge, and living example of the Qur’an.

You don’t want Allah’s Islam. You want to be your own Messenger.

And that’s not tawheed — that’s ego in disguise.​

 

[عؔلی خان]

You said:

"Let’s clear out this false idea you’ve created that hikmah means your hadith."

No problem. Let’s let the Qur’an and scholars do the talking — not YouTubers or slogans.

​

What is Hikmah in the Qur’an?​

You want one verse? Fine — let’s use four:

• “Our Lord, raise from among them a Messenger who will recite to them Your verses and teach them the Book and the Wisdom...” (2:129)
• “Just as We have sent among you a Messenger from yourselves, reciting Our verses to you, purifying you, and teaching you the Book and the Wisdom...” (2:151)
• “Allah has sent down the Book and Wisdom to you and taught you what you did not know...” (4:113)
• “He is the One who raised a Messenger among the unlettered... teaching them the Book and the Wisdom.” (62:2)

In every case, “Wisdom” is taught in addition to the Book.

So either you:

• Accept that there is divinely taught guidance besides the Qur’an, or
• Claim “wisdom” just means personal virtue — which contradicts the Prophet’s teaching role (16:44).

Let’s also quote Imam al-Shafi’i (rahimahullah):


“I do not know anyone from among the companions and tabi‘un who disputed that the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah is part of the Hikmah that Allah mentioned in the Qur’an.”

(Al-Risalah, 78–80)

You don’t get to redefine the Qur’an while claiming to follow only it.
​

---

The Qur’an is complete — for its purpose​

You keep repeating that the Qur’an is “detailed” and “fully explained.” It is — as guidance, not as a standalone ritual manual.

That’s why the Qur’an itself says:

“And We revealed to you the Reminder so you may explain to people what was revealed to them.” (16:44)

Explain what? If the Qur’an explains itself fully, why does Allah say the Prophet must explain it?

You said:

“If the Prophet left 95% of the deen scattered among men, that's illogical.”

What’s illogical is believing that:

• Allah sent a Messenger for 23 years
• He led the ummah in prayer, fasting, Hajj, battle, contracts, family law
• The companions lived with him, learned from him, implemented his rulings
• Then somehow… we’re supposed to ignore all of it?

That’s not logic. That’s stubbornness.​

---

Your contradiction:

You quote 45:6 to claim “hadith” is condemned, but ignore that the Qur’an itself is called hadith in many places:

• “Has there come to you the hadith (story) of Musa?” (79:15)
• “So in which hadith after this will they believe?” (77:50)

If “hadith” always means falsehood — then the Qur’an refutes itself.

But of course, it doesn’t. That’s why context matters — something Qur’anists consistently avoid.​

---

YouTube is not wahi

You’ve now posted videos instead of Qur’anic refutations. This isn’t a debate anymore — it’s a broadcast of frustration.

Instead of evidence, you’ve chosen:

• Mockery
• Deflection
• Repetition
• Misuse of verses
• Personal rants about “mainstream Islam abandoning the Qur’an”

Let’s be clear:

No one abandoned the Qur’an.
You abandoned the Messenger — and that is the real tragedy.
​

---

You don’t need to worship Hadith. You need to obey the Messenger — because Allah told you to.

Rejecting Hadith isn’t intellectual purity.

It’s the removal of Islam’s living example — and the Prophet himself warned us this would happen.

• “I was given the Qur’an and something like it along with it.” (Abu Dawud 4604)
• “Do not let me find one of you reclining on his couch saying, ‘We follow only what is in the Qur’an.’” (Abu Dawud, Musnad Ahmad)

Your entire religion now relies on denying what the Qur’an affirms:

• Obeying the Prophet (PBUH)
• Learning the Sunnah
• Preserving what the Prophet taught, judged, and lived

You claim to follow the Qur’an alone. But in reality — you’re following a rebranded self-interpretation with no authority, no sanad, and no substance.​

Let those reading decide.

​

 

[Wake up Pak]

3:31 says:

“Say (Qul): If you love Allah, follow me, and Allah will love you...”

This verse is:

• In Surah Aal Imran
• Revealed to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)
• Part of a dialogue addressing the People of the Book
• Followed by:
  
  “Say: Obey Allah and the Messenger…” (3:32)

Quit posting the same thing over and over again. I've asked you a simple question:
How does obeying God and His Messenger suggest that we have to follow the man-made Ahadith full of contradictions & many are outright insults to Prophet Mohammad and his companions, which were written some 200+ years after the Messenger's demise?