Article on Qur'an-Only Muslims....

[antineoETC]

Are Qur'an-Only Muslims charlatans?

Just in case it isn't already posted at FFI main

[ringmaster]

Are Qur'an-Only Muslims charlatans?

Just in case it isn't already posted at FFI main

The article is a good read.

The answer is clearly "yes". Their unmistakable motive is deception.

[Fernando]

The article is a good read.

The answer is clearly "yes". Their unmistakable motive is deception.

Given that most - if not all - hadiths are false, it seems to make sense to abandon all of them. Hopefully, the Koran will eventually go the same way.
Meanwhile, what is the evidence that the Koran-only Muslims are hypocrites? (I'm not accusing the author, just curious.) Perhaps one of the posters here who are suspected of being Koran-only will comment.

[ringmaster]

The article is a good read.

The answer is clearly "yes". Their unmistakable motive is deception.

Given that most - if not all - hadiths are false, it seems to make sense to abandon all of them. Hopefully, the Koran will eventually go the same way.
Meanwhile, what is the evidence that the Koran-only Muslims are hypocrites? (I'm not accusing the author, just curious.) Perhaps one of the posters here who are suspected of being Koran-only will comment.

The author spells it out. There is no islam without the hadith.

The hadith, if anything, are more genuine than the koran because they are actual eyewitness accounts of what the manwhore prophet said and did. The koran is really nothing more than muhammad's poodle allah accommodating old Mo's perverted desires.

Koran only muslims try to disassociate themselves from the hadith because they clearly show that MoHAMhead was a disgustingly evil man. They are trying to make islam fit within modern-day sensibilities. The problem is, as the author explains very well, one cannot be muslim without following the hadith.

[Fernando]

The author spells it out. There is no islam without the hadith.

I'm sure that most Muslims see it that way but since all Muslims are wrong about the divine origin of the Koran, why strain at the gnat of rejecting a few hadiths when they swallow the Koran whole? I quite agree that Islam is whatever Muslims do, regardless of where they got their stories from. But couldn't this be a first phase in a climb-down?

The hadith, if anything, are more genuine than the koran because they are actual eyewitness accounts of what the manwhore prophet said and did. The koran is really nothing more than muhammad's poodle allah accommodating old Mo's perverted desires.

But surely early Muslims discarded hundreds of thousands of hadiths as frauds. Since then the rest of them have been seriously undermined by such as proving isnads to be false. Can any non-Muslim believe of word of them? I'd rather throw out the idea of Mohammed being the source of Islam than hang on to him just to prove his followers are keen on dirty stories. (I'm not, btw, suggesting at Allah is anything but a sockpuppet - just that it's for an imaginary - or at least vastly exaggerated (there go the hadiths again) - Mo.)

Koran only muslims try to disassociate themselves from the hadith because they clearly show that MoHAMhead was a disgustingly evil man. They are trying to make islam fit within modern-day sensibilities. The problem is, as the author explains very well, one cannot be muslim without following the hadith.

So if they give up their Sharia and their worst traditions and stop supporting terrorism - shouldn't we be glad if they all morph into Hari Krishna types?

[ringmaster]

I'm sure that most Muslims see it that way but since all Muslims are wrong about the divine origin of the Koran, why strain at the gnat of rejecting a few hadiths when they swallow the Koran whole? I quite agree that Islam is whatever Muslims do, regardless of where they got their stories from. But couldn't this be a first phase in a climb-down?

The first step down? Not at all.

The koran exhorts muslims to obey and follow the example of the prophet. The hadith is the only record of what the prophet said and did. A muslim cannot obey the prophet without knowing what he said. They need the hadith. There is nothing else.

Remember, the koran is not the prophet talking. It’s whoremaster allah talking….exclusively.

But surely early Muslims discarded hundreds of thousands of hadiths as frauds. Since then the rest of them have been seriously undermined by such as proving isnads to be false. Can any non-Muslim believe of word of them? I'd rather throw out the idea of Mohammed being the source of Islam than hang on to him just to prove his followers are keen on dirty stories. (I'm not, btw, suggesting at Allah is anything but a sockpuppet - just that it's for an imaginary - or at least vastly exaggerated (there go the hadiths again) - Mo.)

If anything, the hadith are more central to Islamic thought and practice than the koran. Four of the five pillars of islam come from the hadith. Muslims revere their prophet more than their pimp moon god.

Have you ever noticed that while muslims don’t like it if we insult their god, they really hyperventilate and foam at the mouth when we diss their prophet??

So if they give up their Sharia and their worst traditions and stop supporting terrorism - shouldn't we be glad if they all morph into Hari Krishna types?

Hari Krishna types are, to muslims, idolators.

Verse 9-5 of the koran commands muslims to slay the idolators.

[darth]

The article is good. But the author misses out one more point - The quran-only-muslims interpret "messenger" to be all messengers of allah including mo. Thus they try to circumvent the problem of quran asking that mo be followed.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that no other person has claimed to be "messenger" of "allah". So the messenger referred to in the quran can only mean mo.

[ringmaster]

The article is good. But the author misses out one more point - The quran-only-muslims interpret "messenger" to be all messengers of allah including mo. Thus they try to circumvent the problem of quran asking that mo be followed.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that no other person has claimed to be "messenger" of "allah". So the messenger referred to in the quran can only mean mo.

It doesn't really matter what messenger or messengers that the charlatans (aka koran-only muslims) are talking about. The basic islamic position is that the koran is only, and exclusively the word of allah. The words of no messenger or messengers are uttered in the koran.

So if muslims are to obey allah's command to obey the messenger or messengers, they must know what the messenger or messengers said. They cannot extract that from the koran. In the case of manwhore Mo, the only source for that is the hadith. If they want to obey other messengers, they cannot use the koran for them either, and for the same reason.

[MesMorial]

It has already been proved possible. This has been shown many times, and that article does not produce anything new.

Hadith-supporting interpretations (of verses) have been debunked so hard that they will not recover. They will merely exist in minds of those who want them to.

The only issue is whether people "like" it.


...

[ringmaster]

It has already been proved possible. This has been shown many times, and that article does not produce anything new.

Hadith-supporting interpretations (of verses) have been debunked so hard that they will not recover. They will merely exist in minds of those who want them to.

The only issue is whether people "like" it.


...

It has not been proved possible at all. The koran only asks for three prayers a day. You need the sunna to get your 5 prayers, just like you need the sunna for the terms of the Zakat.

[MesMorial]

20:130, 2:219.

[ringmaster]

20:130, 2:219.

More lies, spin, and wishful thinking.

Neither one of those verses say anything about the Zakat.....or about its terms.

The terms of the Zakat are 2.5% of capital...which is not mentioned anywhere in the koran.