Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf al-Firabrī : The Unknown Man On Whose Shoulders Traditional Islam Stands On.

[عؔلی خان]

You said:

"How does obeying God and His Messenger mean we must follow man-made Hadith..."

Let’s be precise.

You keep dodging the actual Qur’an

Here’s what the Qur’an says:

• “Obey Allah and obey the Messenger...” (4:59)
• “Take what the Messenger gives you and abstain from what he forbids.” (59:7)
• “We sent down the Book to you so that you may explain to people what was revealed...” (16:44)
• “He teaches them the Book and the Wisdom...” (2:151, 62:2)
• “Whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has been made clear… We will leave him to what he has chosen.” (4:115)

You haven’t answered a single one of these.

You keep demanding a “clear verse.” I’ve now given you at least five.

Your response?

Deflect with Hadith preservation history — not Qur’anic refutation.

You’re Avoiding the Qur’an Because It Doesn’t Support You​

Your claim: “Hadith are man-made and full of contradictions.”
Then show me:

• Name three authentic (Sahih) Hadith with proven isnad that contradict the Qur’an.
• Name three that are “insults” — and prove they’re fabricated using hadith methodology.

You won’t — because you’re not interested in filtering authentic from weak Hadith.
You’re throwing out the entire Sunnah, which the Qur’an commands us to obey.

That’s like rejecting math because some people got wrong answers once.​

You said,

“Hadith was written 200 years later”

False.

• Hadith were memorized, taught, and written during the Prophet’s time.
  
  • The Sahifah of Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As is one of many early written collections.
  • Imam Malik’s Muwatta was compiled in the 100s AH, less than a century after the Prophet’s passing.
• The formal compilations (like Bukhari, Muslim) came after generations of transmission and vetting.

If writing date = invalidity, then the Qur’an itself would be questionable — because the compiled mushaf was finalized under Uthman (RA), not in the Prophet’s lifetime.

Yet you accept it.

Why? Because of chain-based transmission — the same science used in Hadith.

You can’t have it both ways.
​

---

You claim to obey the Qur’an. But when the Qur’an tells you:

• Obey the Messenger
• Follow his judgment
• Take what he gives
• Avoid what he forbids

…you say: “That doesn’t mean Hadith!”

So let me ask you this:

• If not through Hadith and Sunnah — how do we obey the Prophet?
• How do we “take what he gives” if we’re not allowed to preserve what he gave?

You can’t answer, because your entire model collapses the moment Prophetic guidance is treated as meaningful.

You don’t have a Qur’anic Islam.

You have a Messengerless Qur’an — and that’s a contradiction of the very Book you claim to follow.​

 

[عؔلی خان]

You said:

“There is absolutely no verse where Allah commands us to follow something outside the Qur’an.”

You’ve already been shown these:

• “Obey Allah and obey the Messenger...” (4:59, 8:20, 24:54, 64:12)
• “Take what the Messenger gives you, and abstain from what he forbids.” (59:7)
• “Let those beware who go against his command...” (24:63)
• “We sent down the Reminder so you may explain to the people what was revealed to them.” (16:44)
• “Whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has been made clear to him...” (4:115)

All of these are commands from Allah.

If the Prophet’s only job was to “deliver the Qur’an,” these verses would be redundant.

You don’t get to call yourself a Qur’an follower and then ignore half a dozen verses from the Qur’an.

The Qur’an Commands Obedience to the Messenger — And You’re Running from It​

---

​

Hikmah = Guidance alongside the Book​

Your entire objection to “Hikmah” boils down to:

“Allah gives Hikmah to whom He wills.” (2:269)

Yes, exactly — and He gave it to His Messenger, and commanded him to teach it alongside the Book:

• “...reciting to them Your verses and teaching them the Book and the Wisdom.” (2:129, 2:151, 62:2)

This is a pairing, not poetic repetition. Tafsir from Ibn Kathir, Al-Shafi‘i, Al-Qurtubi, and others affirms:

Hikmah = the Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH)

You haven’t quoted a single reputable mufassir. Instead, you keep asserting, “The Qur’an explains itself!” while ignoring when it says:


“The Messenger explains it.” (16:44)​

---

77:50 and 45:6: “Hadith” doesn’t mean what you think it means

You keep repeating:

“So in what Hadith after it will they believe?” (77:50, 45:6)

Let’s explain this for the last time:

• “Hadith” means speech, report, narrative — depending on context.
• In 45:6 and 77:50, Allah is condemning those who reject divine revelation and instead chase after idle talk, false tales, and mythology.

You’re trying to use that word to throw out the Prophet’s own teachings — but that backfires.

Because the Qur’an itself says:

• “Has there come to you the hadith (narration) of Musa?” (79:15)
• “We relate to you the best of hadith (stories).” (12:3)

If “hadith” always meant evil or false, the Qur’an would be condemning its own verses.

Your "logic" collapses on its own weight.​

---

You said:

“The Prophet's job was to deliver the Qur’an — not leave behind a deen scattered in bits and pieces.”

But the Prophet (PBUH):

• Taught prayer through action
• Judged disputes
• Led battles
• Commanded zakat
• Explained ayat (see Ibn Abbas)
• Was obeyed by the companions in ways not written in the Qur’an

And you want us to believe that none of this mattered? That the people who:

• Memorized the Qur’an
• Transmitted it to us
• Defended it in battle

...somehow became innovators and liars when it came to the Prophet’s teachings?

That’s not just flawed. It’s an insult to the very people Allah says:

• “The first and foremost from the Muhajirun and Ansar... Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him.” (9:100)

You trust their Qur’an, but reject their Sunnah?

That’s not Qur’an-only Islam. That’s ego-only Islam.

You’re not following the Prophet’s example — and you know it​

---

You’ve now:

• Ignored the Qur’an’s commands to obey the Messenger
• Denied what Hikmah means in classical tafsir
• Misused “Hadith” verses out of context
• Refused to engage with scholarly tradition
• Reduced Islam to a slogan: “Just the Qur’an”

But you still haven’t answered the core question:

How do you obey the Prophet — without preserving what he said, did, or taught?

You can’t.

Because the Qur’an doesn’t support your model — it destroys it.​

Let the readers decide who is actually submitting to the Qur’an.

 

[2kamatka]

You guys have so much time on your hands, it seems almost like that you are getting paid for it. Always fighting about some unreal issues

 

[عؔلی خان]

2kamatka ,

You said:

“You guys have so much time on your hands... always fighting about some unreal issues.”

Let’s be crystal clear:

These are not “unreal issues.”

• When someone tells Muslims they don’t have to pray,
• That Sawm doesn’t mean fasting,
• That Zakat isn’t a command,
• That the Prophet’s (PBUH) example is irrelevant,
• And that Islam has no rituals at all...

…that’s not a side-topic.

That’s an attack on the very definition of being Muslim.​

---​

​

Why this matters:​

No Prophet ever came without a message AND a method.

And what these Quranists are doing is:

• Undermining the method
• Questioning the Prophet
• Redefining Islam while calling it “pure Qur’an”

That’s not reform — that’s religious disfigurement.​

---

And yes, I'm responding seriously — because the youth are watching.​

You may treat this like some casual “philosophical idea,”
but young Muslims are reading these Quranist propaganda posts — and they’re being confused.

These individuals intentionally post this content under “Islamic Corner” sections on Muslim forums to create doubt from within. Just look at how many such posts the OP — along with his like-minded group — has made under “Islamic Corner” on this forum alone. And this is just one platform.

Now imagine how many more they’re spreading on other forums, every single day.

Teenagers are reading this and wondering:

• “Do I really have to pray five times?”
• “Is fasting just metaphorical?”
• “Maybe Hadith is unreliable…”

And from that seed of doubt, rituals drop, then beliefs drop, and finally Islam drops altogether.​

---

So no — I am not “wasting time."​

I am doing what the Prophet (PBUH) said would happen:

• “There will come a time when a man reclining on his couch will say: ‘We have the Qur’an, and that is enough for us.’”
  (Abu Dawud 4604, Sahih by al-Albani)

• We were told this ideology would appear.
• We were warned it would sound intellectual.
• But we were also told to hold firmly to the Sunnah when it happens.

I am not “fighting over nothing.” I am contributing to the defense of the legacy of the Messenger (PBUH) of Allah —something every Muslim is obligated to do. And that’s never a waste of time.​

 

[Citizen X]

You’ve already been shown these:

• “Obey Allah and obey the Messenger...” (4:59, 8:20, 24:54, 64:12)
• “Take what the Messenger gives you, and abstain from what he forbids.” (59:7)
• “Let those beware who go against his command...” (24:63)
• “We sent down the Reminder so you may explain to the people what was revealed to them.” (16:44)
• “Whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has been made clear to him...” (4:115)

All of these are commands from Allah.

How can any of this even remotely mean follow any thing or any other scripture outside of the Quran. JUST HOW? You are just re[eating yourself and refuse to read and understand the Quran with an unbiased mind. AGAIN conflating messenger with prophet AGAIN Traditionalist trickery of partial Quotes. Not going to dismantle these verses which have been done more than once in this thread already.

Hikmah = Guidance alongside the Book

This is the only the way I can express how I truly feel after I spent an entire post shooting down wildly absurd argument that hikmah some how means guidance which then somehow means hadith. Its like we're going round in circles.

This is a pairing, not poetic repetition. Tafsir from Ibn Kathir, Al-Shafi‘i, Al-Qurtubi, and others affirms:

IF you haven't noticed, I really don't care what your Abu Fulans and Al Dhumkans have to say about this. We are supposed to follow the Quran not these Abu Fulans and Abu Dhumkans opinions.

“So in what Hadith after it will they believe?” (77:50, 45:6)

Let’s explain this for the last time:

• “Hadith” means speech, report, narrative — depending on context.
• In 45:6 and 77:50, Allah is condemning those who reject divine revelation and instead chase after idle talk, false tales, and mythology.

You’re trying to use that word to throw out the Prophet’s own teachings — but that backfires.

Because the Qur’an itself says:

• “Has there come to you the hadith (narration) of Musa?” (79:15)
• “We relate to you the best of hadith (stories).” (12:3)

If “hadith” always meant evil or false, the Qur’an would be condemning its own verses.

Your "logic" collapses on its own weight.

ABSOLUTE CLEAR PROOF YOU DO NOT READ WHAT THE OTHER PERSON RESPONDS WITH. This is the second time you have come up with this strawman fallacy which I had responded to in my previous post.

You don't read the replies much do you? Just in too much of a hurry to get your reply out. One of the first verses I qouted to you was.

77:50 So in which hadith after it will they believe ?

Read post #12 in this thread

From post #40 in this thread

No wonder you just keep repeating yourself because you don't bother to even read what the other person has said.

You said:

“The Prophet's job was to deliver the Qur’an — not leave behind a deen scattered in bits and pieces.”
But the Prophet (PBUH):

• Taught prayer through action
• Judged disputes
• Led battles
• Commanded zakat
• Explained ayat (see Ibn Abbas)
• Was obeyed by the companions in ways not written in the Qur’an

Yes that was the Prophet's job while he was alive and among his people, so he could give Islam a proper base and flourish?

So how does this refute my argument of of leaving behind 95% of the deen scattered in bits and pieces among 1000s of men hoping centuries from now someo one would come and compile it for the Muslim ummah.

And you want us to believe that none of this mattered? That the people who:

• Memorized the Qur’an
• Transmitted it to us
• Defended it in battle

...somehow became innovators and liars when it came to the Prophet’s teachings?

Sigh! You already tried this failed traditionalist trickery of trying to equate the mass transmission of the Quran with your hadith which according to your own sources 95% of is khabar wahid. I would call this a FAIL!


AND even if lets say for the sake of argument this was true. You sahih hadith is not sahih as proven to you multiple times from you own hadith sciences. Of course like all traditional hadith apologists you have also tried AND failed miserably to close that gaping hole by bending your own rules to accommodate Frabri. Because without your beloved Sahih Bukhari your religion crumbles down into a pile of dust.

AND FINALLY IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BOTHER TO EVEN READ THE ENTIRE POST BEFORE RUNNING OF AND SHOOTING OFF A REPLY PLEASE DON'T BOTHER REPLYING AT ALL.

 

[عؔلی خان]

You said:

"How can any of this mean to follow anything other than the Qur’an?"

Let’s answer clearly:

When Allah says: “Obey the Messenger” (طَاعَةُ الرَّسُولِ)​

If the Messenger’s only job was to transmit the Qur’an:

• Why does Allah say:
  
  “Take what the Messenger gives you and abstain from what he forbids.” (59:7)
  
  
• Why does Allah threaten punishment for going against the Prophet’s personal judgment:
  
  “Let those beware who go against his command...” (24:63)
  
  
• Why does He say the Prophet is to explain the Qur’an to the people?
  
  “...so that you may explain to mankind what has been sent down to them.” (16:44)

That is guidance outside the text — endorsed by the Qur’an itself.

You haven’t answered this. You’ve shouted over it.

Screaming Doesn’t Change Revelation

​

---


Your claim: “Hikmah doesn’t mean Hadith.”

No one said Hikmah = Hadith in every case.

But in every place where Allah pairs "Book and Hikmah", He is referring to divinely guided teachings alongside revelation:


“Reciting to them Your signs and teaching them the Book and the Wisdom.” (2:129, 2:151, 62:2)

Ask any Arabic linguist: This is not ta’keed (emphasis) or badal (repetition).

This is conjunction — meaning two distinct things.

And your own argument defeats you: If "Hikmah" was already included in "Book" — the verse becomes pointless repetition.

You’ve responded with emojis, but not grammar. That’s not a counterargument.​

---

​

On Hadith science — you keep yelling “khabar wahid” as if that ends the conversation.​

That’s like yelling "single narrator = invalid" — ignoring that:

• Sahih Bukhari includes hundreds of mutawatir (mass-transmitted) reports.
• No ruling in Islam is taken from weak narration alone.
• Even khabar wahid is accepted in aqidah and law — if the narrator is trustworthy.

That’s your ignorance of Hadith science, not my inconsistency.

​

---

​

You rely on mocking and repetition. I rely on Qur’anic verses.​

I’ve cited:

• 4:59
• 59:7
• 24:63
• 16:44
• 33:21
• 9:33
• 48:28

You’ve replied with:

• Strawmen
• Sarcasm
• “I already explained it” (but never did)
• Rejection of scholars you never studied

At this point, it’s clear:

You’re not trying to understand.
You’re trying to dismantle — and disguise it as "pure Qur'an."


​

---

What I'm witnessing isn’t sincere inquiry. It’s ideological vandalism.


You, Quranists, want an Islam:

• With no prayer method
• No Prophet’s example
• No Zakat calculations
• No spiritual structure

And when called out, you scream

“Sunnah is man-made!”

The Qur’an warns about exactly this kind of arrogance:


“When it is said to them: Follow what Allah has revealed, they say, 'Rather, we follow what we found our forefathers upon.'” (2:170)


In this case,

they follow what fits their ego — and reject the Messenger who embodied the Qur’an.

​

---

You mock scholars as "Abu Fulan" — yet quote no serious tafsir yourself, while hiding behind an alias like "Citizen X."

You won’t even use your real name — yet you take aim at giants of Islamic scholarship.

Ibn Kathir. Al-Qurtubi. Al-Shafi‘i. Al-Tabari.

These are not just “opinions” — they are the very people whose understanding of Qur’anic Arabic, tafsir, and fiqh has been relied upon for over 1,000 years. Their work isn’t followed blindly — it’s studied, preserved, and taught in every corner of the Muslim world.


And you?

You quote memes, YouTube videos, anonymous bloggers, and random reinterpretations — while claiming you alone have the Qur’an figured out?

Let’s be honest:

What are your credentials?

What authority do you have to claim “hikmah doesn’t mean this” or “the verse doesn’t mean that”?

You’re hiding behind an internet handle, dismissing centuries of scholarship, and yet you demand to be taken seriously?

That’s not intellectual integrity — that’s evasion dressed as revolution.​

 

[Citizen X]

You said:



Let’s answer clearly:

When Allah says: “Obey the Messenger” (طَاعَةُ الرَّسُولِ)​

If the Messenger’s only job was to transmit the Qur’an:

• Why does Allah say:
  
  “Take what the Messenger gives you and abstain from what he forbids.” (59:7)

And for the Nth time that verse is about distribution of war booty among the people has absolutely nothing to do with hadith. I know hadith apologist just love to partially quote this verse because that is the closet they have to something that could somewhat justify their hadith. And if they print the entire verse then people can see through the ruse.

Why does Allah threaten punishment for going against the Prophet’s personal judgment:

Again mixing things up. In context while reading the preceding and following verses clearly showing people how to behave in the presence of the prophet, the proper etiquette and respect to be shown - While he was alive and with his people Does the prophet call to you every now and then? And if he does please tell me how someone who has passed away 1400yrs ago talks to you today? There are passages of the Quran that are time bound. Like 55.53, can you enter the prophets house unless he gives you permission for a meal today? And leave once you are done having your leave because that is annoying to the prophet but he is too shy to say so himself? Can that happen today.

AND don't say thats a general command which teaches us good manners. I have friends who don't need permission to come into my house, and I would rather they stay around for "casual talk" afterwards rather than leave. In fact today it is considered bad manners to show up for an invitation, the just eat quickly and then immediately leave afterwards.

• “...so that you may explain to mankind what has been sent down to them.” (16:44)

That is guidance outside the text — endorsed by the Qur’an itself.

Yes explained. If I tell you something, you don't get it the first time or don't fully get it I'll explain it to you, so you can understand and reflect. HOW does that even remotely by the farthest stretch of the imagination means we need to follow the hadith? Just how!?!?

But in every place where Allah pairs "Book and Hikmah", He is referring to divinely guided teachings alongside revelation:

Is Allah short on words? Does he not have the vocabulary? When Allah wanted it to mean guidance he used the word guidance. Huda or Hudan. The Quran explains itself but you hadith apologists refuse to believe it because then it will make your hadith i.e religion redundant.

Lets see how the Quran explains what is hikmah.

Taking the main points from the following verses
Do not associate partners with Allah (17:22)

Be kind to parents (17:23)

Give to the needy (17:26)

Do not be arrogant (17:37)

Walk humbly and speak moderately (17:37)

And finally Verse 17:39

That is from what your Lord has revealed to you, [O Muḥammad], of Hikmah. And, [O mankind], do not make [as equal] with Allāh another deity, lest you be thrown into Hell, blamed and banished.

So the Quran has clearly explained what the hikmah that was revealed to the Prophet was. Not some manmade books

Now to your The Book and the Hikmah when mentioned together mean hadith. Verse 3:48 And Allah will teach him (Prophet Isa) the book and the wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel. Does this mean Allah gave Isa the torah AND Injeel and what Kitab and what wisdom or as you claim divine knowledge is he talking about? Is Prophet Isa is also getting the Quran (Al Kitab) and Prophet Muhammads hadith ( Hikmah )too along with the Torah and injeel? So obviously hikmah in no way can mean your hadith in any usage.

And your own argument defeats you: If "Hikmah" was already included in "Book" — the verse becomes pointless repetition.

Allah repeats so many things over and over again are they all also pointless repetition?

Sahih Bukhari includes hundreds of mutawatir (mass-transmitted) reports.

ABSOLUTE WHITE BLANTANT LIES

Just goes to show, like every other hadith apologist on this forum you don't have the foggiest idea about your own hadith or even have ever read much of them at all and all your "knowledge" is from chatgpt and whatever result comes top in google. The most generous number given by your own scholars like Suyuti is between 10 to 20 mutawattir hadith in the entire Sahih Bukhari and if you want to go with the strict standards by the likes of Al Asqalani one of the more famous narrators of Bukhari only 2 or 3 hadith can be said to be mutawattir

And this might come as a surprise to you. In the entire hadith corpus the most generous figure given by once again Suyuti is around 113 hadith to be mutawattir and by his own admission that number is reached by only counting hadith that are similar in meaning but not similar in wording and transmission i.e less than 1% of hadith in the entire hadith corpus can be classified as muttawatir and that too by stretching the definition of mutawatir.

That’s your ignorance of Hadith science

I'm gonna try to hold in my laughter here

Even khabar wahid is accepted in aqidah and law — if the narrator is trustworthy.

Like I said earlier this is NOT a good thing but a real dangerous thing. And one of the biggest problem with following hadith. Scholars come along and change classification of hadith all the time. Like the ruling that cupping does not break the fast later changed that it does. And then later again they found that hadith to be weak and went back to the original.

Before some jurists ruled that a maternal grandmother doesn’t inherit, based on a khabar wāḥid that excluded her. Later, the ruling was revised, and maternal grandmothers were included in inheritance law.

So imagine how many Grandmothers either benefited wrongly or were wronged badly ( depending on how you look at it ) because of law based on khabar wahd and since 95% of hadith is khabar wahid and traditional Islam majority of which is based on hadith has a 95% chance that any crucial part of it can change. As deemed fit by Abu Fulanas and Ibn Dhumkanas.

• 4:59
• 59:7
• 24:63
• 16:44
• 33:21
• 9:33
• 48:28

Have explained it and proved these have absolutely nothing to do with hadith at all, more than once and by more than one person

You mock scholars as "Abu Fulan" — yet quote no serious tafsir yourself

Comprehension problems much, when I don't care about Abu Fulanas and Dhimkanas why would I care about their tafisirs serious or not.

The Only Tafsir I care about is Allah's tafsir

25:33 وَلَا يَأْتُونَكَ بِمَثَلٍ إِلَّا جِئْنَـٰكَ بِٱلْحَقِّ وَأَحْسَنَ تَفْسِيرًا

These are not just “opinions” — they are the very people whose understanding of Qur’anic Arabic, tafsir, and fiqh has been relied upon for over 1,000 years. Their work isn’t followed blindly — it’s studied, preserved, and taught in every corner of the Muslim world.

Who cares? Does Allah tell me to follow them or follow Allah and the Quran? And I don't follow their version of mushrik Islam so they mean absolutely nothing to me. I only use them to prove a point to their people. Like using examples from the bible to show christians how corrupted it is.
Pundits, monks and rabbis have done the same but much harder and for more centuries than these Abu fulanas so shall we now follow them?
Time and numbers is a slippery slope if you start providing them as evidence for your hadith.

You, Quranists, want an Islam:
With no prayer method

• No Prophet’s example
• No Zakat calculations
• No spiritual structure

Oh look more lies and false allegations.

What authority do you have to claim “hikmah doesn’t mean this” or “the verse doesn’t mean that”?

Allah gave that authority, Allah gave me Aqal and common sense and instructed me to use those to understand and ponder the deen of Allah. So I will follow the it according to my Aqal and god given commonsense not yours and not Abu Fulanas and not Abu Dhimkanas and not blindly follow this mullah and that imam.

Surah Al-Anfal (8:22) “Indeed, the worst of creatures in the sight of Allah are the deaf and dumb — those who do not use reason.”
—
Surah Al-Furqan (25:73): “And those who, when reminded of the verses of their Lord, do not fall upon them deaf and blind.”

 

[عؔلی خان]

You mock scholars as "Abu Fulans" — yet you quote no serious tafsir, present no credible methodology, and hide behind a pseudonym. Not even your real name.

Ibn Kathir. Al-Qurtubi. Al-Shafi‘i. Al-Tabari.

These are names every serious student of the Qur’an engages with — not because we follow them blindly, but because they knew the language, context, fiqh, and usul better than you or I ever could.

You, on the other hand, rely on memes, anonymous YouTube preachers, and cherry-picked mistranslations.

And yet you claim intellectual credibility?

What credentials do you hold to confidently override 1,400 years of preserved Islamic tradition?

What authority do you have to claim “hikmah doesn’t mean this” or “the verse doesn’t mean that”?

You’re hiding behind an internet handle, dismissing centuries of scholarship, and yet you demand to be taken seriously?​

If Allah gave you ‘aql and common sense, He gave it to them too — except they dedicated their lives to mastering Arabic grammar, Qur’anic sciences, and the Prophetic legacy. Not posting under fake usernames mocking those before them.


You keep calling their legacy "man-made religion." But let’s be clear:

You are not bringing people back to the Qur’an — you are trying to erase the Messenger from it.​

There is nothing new in what you're pushing. Every sect that deviated from the jama‘ah started by rejecting authority, mocking scholarship, and appealing to “just the Qur’an.” That road doesn't lead to divine guidance — it leads to personal opinions elevated as religion.


Let the readers ask themselves:


Whose Islam is this?

A nameless account quoting no classical scholar, denying consensus, ritual, and Prophetic example…

Or

a tradition taught, preserved, and practiced generation after generation — from the Prophet’s time till ours?