Refuting Quranism

Refutation:

1. Qur’an itself commands obedience to the Messenger ﷺ beyond the text of the Qur’an:

   “وَمَا آتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانْتَهُوا”
   “Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatever he forbids you, abstain from it” Qur’an 59:7.
   This verse establishes that binding revelation exists outside the Qur’an — the Sunnah. If you reject hadith because of probability, you reject the Qur’an’s command to obey the Prophet ﷺ in matters not detailed in the Qur’an.

2. Contradiction in their logic:
   They demand 100% certainty in hadith, but then select one Qur’anic qirā’ah (Ḥafṣ, Warsh, etc.) over another — even though that choice itself is based on probabilistic manuscript and isnād analysis. The same methodology they reject for hadith, they rely upon for Qur’an recitations.

3. Historical reality:
   No community of Muslims in the first centuries rejected hadith as religiously binding. Hadith criticism was born within Islam (e.g. Imam Malik, al-Shāfi‘ī, al-Bukhārī). If probabilistic knowledge were inherently unfit for religion, the entire science of rijāl and isnād would be meaningless — yet the Qur’anists themselves use Western probabilistic historiography when convenient.

Refutation:

1. The Qur’an defines itself as dhikr (remembrance) and describes the Prophet ﷺ as the living teacher of that dhikr:

   “وَأَنزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الذِّكْرَ لِتُبَيِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ مَا نُزِّلَ إِلَيْهِمْ”
   “We revealed to you the Reminder so that you may explain to the people what has been sent down to them” Qur’an 16:44.
   Without the Sunnah, there is no explanation.

2. Logical contradiction: They say “Qur’an is clear, self-sufficient.” Yet the Qur’an itself commands ṣalāh, zakāh, ḥajj — without giving procedure. How do they pray? The “clarity” they claim is borrowed from hadith praxis, otherwise they would invent rituals. This is hypocrisy.

3. Historical reality: The Prophet ﷺ himself instructed: “Pray as you see me pray” (Bukhari 631). The Qur’anists today still pray — but their method cannot be found in Qur’an alone. Thus, their lived religion contradicts their stated epistemology.

Refutation:

1. No verse or reliable report shows that Abu Bakr or ‘Umar rejected the concept of hadith. What they feared was unverified reports being mixed with Qur’an during compilation. This is why they demanded isnād scrutiny, not abandonment.
2. Logical fallacy: If Qur’anists trust those reports about Abu Bakr burning a hadith scroll, they are already relying on hadith. You cannot use hadith reports selectively against hadith.
3. Historical reality: The same early caliphs transmitted hadith themselves. ‘Umar famously said: “The Prophet forbade us from wearing silk…” (Bukhari 5829). Abu Bakr transmitted hadith on inheritance law. If they were anti-hadith, they would not narrate them.

Refutation:

1. Qur’an itself warns about fabrications and forgeries, but does not command abandoning transmission. Instead, Allah commands verification:

   “يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِن جَاءَكُمْ فَاسِقٌ بِنَبَإٍ فَتَبَيَّنُوا”
   “O you who believe, if a sinner comes to you with news, verify it” Qur’an 49:6.
   This is the very principle of hadith criticism.

2. Contradiction: Sectarian misuse of hadith does not negate authentic hadith — just as Christian misuse of the Bible does not negate the Qur’an. Using falsehood by some as a reason to reject all is a fallacy.

3. Historical reality: Fabrication was met with a rigorous isnād system. Sunnis did not deny fabrications existed; they built sciences to sift truth from lies. The Qur’anists, instead of sifting, burn the entire library.

Refutation:

1. Abrogation is part of Qur’anic revelation itself (Qur’an 2:106). A report about abrogated verses does not contradict the Qur’an — it confirms the principle of abrogation.

2. Logical point: The farewell sermon variations differ in wording, not in core meaning. Multiple mutawātir wordings exist, which is normal in oral cultures. Rejecting them is like rejecting all eyewitness testimony because two people phrase an event differently.

3. Historical reality: Qur’anists cite these hadith against Sunnis, but if hadith are unreliable by definition, why quote them at all? They saw the Prophet ﷺ using hadith to support Qur’an when convenient, yet deny its authority elsewhere. This is cherry-picking.

Refutation:

1. Qur’an makes no such distinction:

   “مَّن يُطِعِ الرَّسُولَ فَقَدْ أَطَاعَ اللَّهَ”
   “Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah” Qur’an 4:80.
   Historical obedience is identical to religious obedience.

2. Contradiction: They say they would obey ‘Umar if he conveyed the Prophet’s command. That is hadith transmission. By their own admission, hadith becomes binding in daily life — but they arbitrarily exclude law and worship. This is incoherent.

3. Historical reality: Companions did transmit law via hadith, not only battle orders. To sever one from the other is ahistorical.

Refutation:

1. Qur’an explicitly entrusts the Prophet ﷺ with explaining it (16:44). To claim otherwise is to contradict the Qur’an itself.

2. Contradiction: They rely on external tafsīr (grammar, manuscripts, “message as a whole”) — which are human constructs, not Qur’an. They already admit to needing external tools, yet they deny Sunnah which Allah Himself appointed.

3. Historical reality: No early Muslim community existed that practiced Islam solely on Qur’an without Sunnah. Qur’an-only Islam is a 20th-century invention.

Refutation:

1. Qur’an itself says it was revealed “bi-lisān ‘arabī mubīn” (clear Arabic tongue) 26:195. To reduce choice of qirā’āt to subjective taste in “message” is circular and purely human opinion.
2. Contradiction: They accuse Sunnis of subjectivity in hadith, yet their own method of picking Qur’an readings is purely subjective (“I like how God is approaching the subject”). No objective criterion given.
3. Historical reality: Canonization of qirā’āt was not a state invention but consensus of reciters across regions, transmitted mutawātir. Qur’anists’ dismissal of this is itself dependent on hadith-style isnād history — the very science they reject.

The Qur’anists’ entire framework collapses on three grounds:

1. The Qur’an itself commands obedience to the Prophet ﷺ beyond the written Qur’an.
2. Their epistemology is self-contradictory: they reject probabilism in hadith but accept it for Qur’anic recitation, history, and even Western scholarship.
3. Their historical claim is false: no Muslim generation practiced Qur’an-only Islam; this is a colonial-era innovation.

Thus, their position is not Qur’anic but a modern rationalist rebellion dressed in Qur’anic slogans.