Who are Quranists?
Quranists or Muslim hadith-rejecters are a group of people who say the Sunnah of the Prophet (SAW) or Sahih hadith are not a source of guidance and law in Islam.
The Quranists are a diverse group of people with different levels of acceptance with regard to the Sunnah and hadith.
Some of them accept the Sunnah as a general concept, so they accept the practiced Sunnah of the Prophet (SAW) that was passed down generation to generation (like praying five times a day), but not Sahih hadith.
Some of them accept hadith as a source of historical information but not as a binding religious source. So, they would accept hadith to get general information about the life of the Prophet (SAW) but not obey commands in Sahih hadith in a binding way.
Some Quranists entirely reject the Sunnah and hadith as sources in Islam.
What motivates Quranism?
Before discussing the reasons Quranists give to reject hadith, it can be useful to consider possible motivations behind their rejection. It is important to distinguish reasons from motivations. Reasons are what they actually argue, while motivations are what I theorize are the reasons behind their view.
The following are some things that motivate Quranism:
- Ignorance of how hadith were collected and authenticated, so some think Bukhari and Muslim made up hadith 200 years after the Prophet (SAW)
- Thinking there are too many distasteful or immoral things in hadith as compared to the Quran, thus rejecting hadith allows for a more palatable Islam
- Thinking that Allah could not allow for any source of confusion in Islam, and distinguishing authentic and inauthentic hadith is a source of confusion
Reason 1: Arguments from the Quran
Some Quranists argue that the Quran itself prohibits the use of the Sunnah or any source outside the Quran itself.
For example, Allah says ⟪[This is] a Book whose verses are perfected and then presented in detail⟫ (11:1) and ⟪We brought the Book down to you providing explanations for all things⟫ (16:89) and ⟪We have not neglected in the Book a thing⟫ (6:38).
They say: These verses say the Quran is perfectly detailed, so why should we need hadith?
The answer is: These verses only mean the Quran is perfectly detailed in guiding people how to live their lives, and that includes guiding them towards the proper sources they need to refer to. This includes Allah guiding people to refer to the Prophet (SAW) and obey him. Allah says ⟪Obey Allah and obey the Messenger⟫ in numerous verses of the Quran.
They also quote Allah saying ⟪Shall I seek other than God as a lawmaker when it is He who has brought down to you the Book fully detailed?⟫ (6:114)
They say: These verses say we should not refer to anyone other than Allah and His verses.
The answer is: The guidance of the Prophet (SAW) only comes from Allah and is followed because Allah commanded us to obey him, so it is not taking a lawmaker other than Allah. It is only another source of guidance from Allah Himself.
They also quote Allah saying ⟪These are God’s verses that we recite to you truthfully. In which statement other than God and His verses do they believe?⟫ (45:6)
They say: In this verse, Allah prohibits believing in any statement other than God and His verses, so hadith would be included in that prohibition.
The answer is: The verse is speaking to disbelievers and only means “Why would you reject Allah’s verses and believe in false religions?” Otherwise, all of us believe statements outside the Quran. Don’t you believe that the Pacific Ocean is the largest ocean in the world? Isn’t that a statement outside the Quran?
Reason 2: Hadith Not Being Authentic
Some Quranists do not think the Quran necessarily prohibits following the Sunnah but say hadith are not proven authentic in the first place.
Some of them ask: Why should we trust books written 200 years after the Prophet (SAW)?
The answer is: After knowing the actual origin and history of hadith, it becomes clear that hadith did not originate 200 years after the Prophet (SAW) when Bukhari and Muslim wrote their Sahihs. They only classified already known hadith.
Some of them ask: The Quran is proven authentic without doubt but the hadith have doubt, so why should we follow hadith when we have the Quran?
The answer is: Hadith can give knowledge additional to the Quran. No one says we should follow hadith over the Quran, nor should we follow weak or baseless hadith. Rather, we should use Sahih hadith and the Sunnah of the Prophet (SAW) to elaborate on the guidance of the Quran. Knowledge is not limited to what has no doubt. Even if some knowledge has some doubt in it, it can still be extremely likely and strong and unjustified to reject. For example, if the weather forecast says it is going to rain, it would be foolish to ignore the possibility of rain when going outside just because it is not certain.
Reason 3: Hadith Being Immoral
Some Quranists say hadith contain immoral things which prove they are not authentic to the Prophet (SAW).
Some of them say: Hadith claim the Prophet (SAW) married Aisha (RA) when she was 9 years old. This is clearly immoral and impossible for the Prophet (SAW), who was the most moral person in history.
I ask them: Why do you believe it is immoral? Is it because of your mind or do you have evidence from Allah?
Some of them might say: This is inherent knowledge to every human. You don’t need evidence from Allah.
The answer is: If it was truly inherent knowledge, it would not be the case that no one criticized this marriage of the Prophet (SAW) in history until the modern day. Clearly, this aversion is a modern development, not inherent human knowledge.
Then, they might say: There is also evidence in the Quran from Allah because Allah says marriage is at the age of puberty.
I would ask: Is it possible or is it impossible to reach puberty at the age of 9?
They have to say: It is possible.
Some of them say: A hadith says apostates should be executed if they leave Islam. This violates freedom of religion.
I ask them: Do you know this freedom of religion from your mind or do you have evidence from Allah?
They might say: It is inherent human knowledge that it is immoral to execute someone just for their beliefs.
I would say: Aren’t there things in the Quran that you or others might say are inherently immoral in human knowledge? Doesn’t Allah prescribe the amputation of hands for thieves in the Quran? Doesn’t Allah say a fornicator should be lashed 100 times in public even though he did not harm anyone?
They would say: Yes, Allah did say all those things.
Some of the might reinterpret all those verses to the point of twisting the words of Allah to match their moral views
I would say: If you can reinterpret without rejecting in the Quran, then why do you have to reject the Sunnah? Just reinterpret hadith if you want.
Reason 4: Hadith Contradicting Quran
Some Quranists say hadith contain things that contradict the Quran and that is why they do not accept them as evidence in Islam.
Some of them say: A hadith says apostates are executed, but the Quran says ⟪There is no compulsion in religion⟫. This is a clear contradiction.
The answer is: When two verses seem to contradict each other or when a hadith and a verse seem to contradict, it is not proper methodology to reject one of them just because there is an apparent contradiction.
⟪There is no compulsion in religion⟫ refers to a fact that no one can be forced to believe. It is a statement and not a command: You cannot force anyone to believe even if you wanted, because they would still disbelieve in their hearts. Because there is no point forcing someone to believe, Christians and Jews and other religions are not forced to accept Islam.
As for apostates, they are punished for their crime of apostasy (leaving the religion after knowing it), not to force them to believe. In the same way, does not the Quran itself mandate punishments for things like adultery? Is that not forcing people to follow the religion?
I ask them: Do you believe the verse is clear without doubt in ruling out the punishment of apostasy or is it unclear?
They might say: It is clear. How can ⟪There is no compulsion in religion⟫ mean anything else?
I would say: If it is clear, it is a very unclear form of clear, because the vast majority of scholars in Muslim history agreed with the hadith of apostasy.
They might say: Majorities don’t mean anything and do not prove truth.
I would say: I agree majorities do not prove truth. But, if the majority of scholars who specialized in Arabic did not find any problem saying the punishment of apostasy is not affected by this verse, then it is difficult to argue the verse is “clear without doubt.”
In reality, most of the verses Quranists claim contradict hadith are unclear. What the hadith actually contradict are their interpretations of those verses. If they were fair, they would concede that it is possible those verses have reasonable alternate interpretations that do not contradict any hadith.
Quranists Who Rely on Academics
There is another group of Quranists, especially recently, who rely on academic arguments against hadith as their justification for doubting hadith.
They say: Academics agree with the overall integrity of the Quran, but they do not agree with the integrity of hadith. So, we follow the Quran but not hadith.
I would ask: Academics perhaps even a few decades ago used to doubt the integrity of the Quran. Would you have doubted the Quran if you lived a few decades ago?
Some of the might say: Yes, because academics are the only source of truth.
These people are not followers of Allah and His Messenger. They are followers of Dr. John Doe and Ivy League universities. We will further discuss the problems with academia later.
Others might say: No, we would never doubt the Quran even if academia doubted it.
Then, I would say: You have a double standard.
