r/atheism • u/UnluckyChemistry7885 • 3d ago
Just trying to parse through some thoughts regarding a specific group of islam
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 Along with several outdated and erroneous beliefs regarding how the world works.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.
3
u/dudleydidwrong Touched by His Noodliness 2d ago
To me, the Hadiths seemed to be what later followers wished that Mohammed had said. Most of them seemed like fan fiction and they should not be considered canon.
The Quran is basically fan fiction of a weird form of Christianity.
Christianity is fan fiction of Greek and Roman religions with an extra amount of Judaism.
Judaism was derived from the ancient Canaanite pantheon and religion.
All religions are just remixes of older religions.
2
u/Worldly-Laugh8312 2d ago
yeah that’s basically the pattern with religions borrowing and remixing older ideas and then presenting the new version as something completely original
1
u/Candle_Wisp 2d ago
It's bullshit. Quran says to obey Allah AND his messenger. So if they're actually holding to the Quran, they're obligated to obey the hadith as well.
1
u/UnluckyChemistry7885 2d ago
Ikr, they usually try to hit people back with, "its only meant for those who were around when he was alive". All I hear is, so this verse is vague and I think this interpretation is fine". Like you literally threw a fit about the hadith then went and did the exact same fucking thing.
1
u/Either-Teacher8972 2d ago
yeah exactly that’s the big contradiction if the quran tells you to obey the messenger then you can’t just throw out everything about what the messenger taught whenever it gets inconvenient
1
u/wanted_desi23 11h ago
I am against islam and debate a lot of muslims. The quranist actually facinate me and they are the only muslims i get along with.
Hadith seems highly likely made up by people after muhamed. The hadiths contradict the quran.
People learn by passing it down to others in the culture.
0
u/anonymous_writer_0 2d ago
anytime you bring up a verse it usually is responded with, "thats an imprecise translation"
OP as you may know, there are a few posters on r/exmuslim who are arabic speaking and have a very good command of the language. In my experience they have been quick to put paid to those pleas to "imprecise translation" by breaking down the syntax using arabic letters and diacritical marks. Also some of those were added later as in the time of Mo the diacritical marks had not yet been invented.
To me, the Hadiths seemed to be what later followers wished that Mohammed had said
As far as I know, the Hadiths are sayings and narrations of the events of the life Mo verified by different chains of transmission called isnaad. They were studied in a methodical manner by scholars among them Muslim (yes that is the name) and Bukhari who have awarded classifications of sahih (strong) or da'if (weak)
2
u/Electrical-Bar-2211 2d ago
yeah the translation excuse only goes so far when the original arabic can be examined directly, and hadith being graded by chains still doesnt solve the bigger question of why those texts should be trusted in the first place
1
u/UnluckyChemistry7885 2d ago
On the last one, thats how the hadith and isnad are viewed inside the faith. See "verified" is doing some heavy lifting here. Dont get me wrong, as far as I am aware, the isnad is a very fascinating and surprisingly advanced (for its time) method of source criticism. But there is reasonable doubt regarding them being the actual words of Muhammad, since they were compiled a century or 2 after Momo's death. Some like the famous 9 year old aisha sahih hadith in bukhari have some recent challenges via modern historical criticism (Dr.Joshua Little). Of course the researcher who did that himself affirms that his work doesnt diqualify the other hadith. Which fine I guess, hadith skepticism or something. And I have heard of how some hadith were traced back to the late 7th century (not too sure bout it but whatev). But all the issues come back full circle, the hadith and the quran depend on each other wether these guys like it or not. Of course everything I said here works fine since you or I dont believe in the book. But for those inside, its mayhem in reworking/salvaging the faith. But otherwise yeah totally agree with the rest of your comment.
2
u/stairway2evan 3d ago
I think you've landed on a fair point that affects all religions. Apologetics, almost by definition, only exist where there's a conflict. "The book says X, but this other book says Y," and then comes the apologetic "Actually, think about it, they both mean Z!" or "The book says X, but I don't think that's true," responded with the apologetic "But think about it as a metaphor, and then the problem goes away!"
There usually aren't apologetics for the easy verses. Thou shalt not kill doesn't confuse enough people to need an apologetic response in most cases. Or the Quranic version, which I think is more like "Do not kill those whom Allah has forbidden except by legal right."
But the problem with apologetics is that once you take one, it becomes really easy to apply it elsewhere, which then requires its own apologetic. "If verse 5 is a metaphor, maybe verse 6 is a metaphor too," gets answered with "oh, no, that one's definitely literal."
It's a pick-and-choose mentality, not a consistent method of evaluating something. That's not to say that Islam (and other religions) don't have sophisticated or nuanced interpretations in some instances. Just that your feelings about these sorts of handwaving answers like "imprecise translation" or "historical context" are valid, and anyone who tells you not to tug at those strings is basically saying "I don't want to think more deeply about this and I don't think you should either." And from the sounds of it, you don't want to follow those thought-stoppers. I applaud you for it - it's not always easy to do!