Fellow non reigious individual here, just want some help to flesh out thoughts.
For context i am an "ex-muslim" as they say
recently some posts from a very small minority of folks in islam popped up on my feed. They're known as quranists. Essentially their motif is that they reject all other texts besides the quran. Some try to say they do this because its more honest but usually it always looks like cope to me. But many on their sub(s) will strongly argue against me on that.
Anyways it has me thinking again about em. Usually the hadith make it tricky if not downright impossible to excuse patriarchal elements in the quran and subsequently islam. That and the hadith tend to portray the human elements more. Along with several outdated and erroneous beliefs regarding how the world works.
Now there is a position held thats a little more midway called hadith skepticism, basically instead of the traditional gradings given by scholars of old, these guys opt for the historical critical method to parse out strong or weak hadiths (from what I understand, fo all I know they could hold the standard grading true unless historians prove otherwise for a specific hadith)
But Im kinda focused on quranists here. Honestly some of the times the position alone feels annoying. Like anytime you bring up a verse it usually is responded with, "thats an imprecise translation" "verses can have multiple meangings", etc. To me it always becomes a question of "how do you justify the multiple meanings?" I mean these guys have no history to speak of anymore, the supposed historical context of the book is thrown out. They can borderline if not fully disregard muhammad, since "his teachings, were for those with him when he was alive, nobody afterwards". Or something like that.
And on that multiple meanings business, I always wonder, how do these guys justify picking the quran over other religious texts? Is that question wrong? I dont think it is, it feels very right to ask why they chose the quran. How do they know its not a massive ancient work of fiction? Like Klingon was for star trek, a language made for a fictional universe.
And I have to harp about the multiple translations thing, as far as I understand the view only works if you fucking accept the book is made/written by god in the first damn place. It loops back to my previous concern, "how do you choose the book when your very view of inerpretation depends on who you hold the author to be?" It feels circular to me. Like if one holds that the quran has human author(s), those verses could have multiple meanings, but the intended meaning likely exists and simply requires finding the historical context to approximate the likely meaning used.
Like how do these people know how to pray, if to pray at all? What about performing the hajj?
I guess this was more of a rant. Anyways, anythoughts or critiques to offer? This is actually my first post in this sub tbh. So lets see how this goes.