Gandalf, you must choose, either:

1) you're a Quranist. You believe solely in the Quran, and reject the Hadith in its entirety; or,

2) you believe in both the Quran and the Hadith.

If you are a Quranist, then you cannot cite Hadith verses to support your claims, nor can you cite any other sources.

If you support the Quran and the Hadith, then you cannot subscribe to a peaceful interpretation of Islam, because of the Sunnah completely doesn't support that.

Anything in between 1) and 2) and then you are adopting a 'anything-goes' approach, which you chided me for, and would make you a hypocrite.
--------
But, because I'm fair, if you publicly choose 1) or 2), then other members must likewise be confined to similar arguments. For example, if you choose 1) then we cannot also cite sources outside of the Quran to refute your claims. If you choose 2) then we can cite sources outside of the Quran to support our claims.

My suggestion is that you declare yourself a Quranist, which would then reduce the debate and argument to the Quran solely, which means that neither you nor Freediver can use external sources to support your claims.

freediver wrote on Feb 5^th, 2018 at 7:24pm:


Ok, but if Gandalf publicly claimed that he was a Quranist, would you be willing to argue with him on equal terms and not use external sources such as the Hadith and the histories to support your arguments???

You have to be fair.

freediver wrote on Feb 5^th, 2018 at 7:29pm:


But, to be fair you do acknowledge that he is 'limited' in how much he can interpret the Quran?? After all, it is the literal Word of God, and one cannot dispute God, can they?

Dnarever wrote on Feb 5^th, 2018 at 7:38pm:


No one.

freediver wrote on Feb 5^th, 2018 at 7:29pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 5^th, 2018 at 7:29pm:


No you didn't. You accused me of insisting something means the opposite of what you think it says. Thats called disagreeing with what you think, not lying.

If you are still confused about what lying is, I'll once again use the example from your wiki (which I assume is still there) - where you claim that "muslims" (plural) said a number of statements when you actually only know of one who said it. Thats what a lie is FD - deliberately changing one fact (you heard me, and only me, say something) into something completely different (claiming that multiple people said it).

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 6^th, 2018 at 9:36am:


So, you realise that the aha ditch are considered to be authoritative in the Sunni tradition. Therefore, you are picking and choosing verses in what is considered to be authoritative. You see the ‘anything goes’ approach here, don’t you?

That’s what I’ve argued in this thread: either you are a Quranist (sola quranica) or you accept the ahadith in its entirety. Anything in between is ‘anything goes’.

Second, how do you explain the glaring contradictions in the Quran, along with the change in style of speech? Surely, someone as omnipotent as God would be consistent in His speech???

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 6^th, 2018 at 9:36am:


You choose to interpret the opposite of what the Quran actually says. This nonsense about the whole of the Quran is just an excuse to tell a series of lies about what different parts of the Quran says.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 6^th, 2018 at 9:45am:


Thanks Gandalf. I knew I was far more polite than you were implying.

Quote:


Are you suggesting you are the only Muslim, out of 1.5 billion, telling those particular lies? That is a rather absurd position to take isn't it Gandalf? As I recall, you refused to state whether you had personally come across any other Muslim telling those lies.

How can you be an Islamic reformer if not one single other Muslim takes you seriously?