I want to take a moment to think about Qur'an-only perspectives...

The first time I saw this matter was by a former user who made these meta posts: SE Islam is not really Pluralistic and Why SE Islam is doomed to fail. As I see things, the user was grumpy that their Qur'an-only posts were perceived as Truthy and were consequently poorly received. The user reacted inappropriately, basically yelling at people.

A recent post by a new user was described as "anti-hadith polemic"; the new user also reacted inappropriately, possibly due to lack of familiarity with the site.

So basically: How can we accommodate Qur'an-only contributions?

My thoughts:

1. Qur'an-only perspectives are officially on topic as far as I can tell:

The first two paragraphs of the (current) on-topic page state:

Islam Stack Exchange is for experts in Islam, students of knowledge, and those interested in Islam on an academic level. For the purposes of this site, "Islam" includes all groups that identify themselves as Muslim; do expect to see answers from multiple points of view unless a certain perspective is explicitly requested in the question.

Respect other people's beliefs, and don't get into arguments about whether any particular group is "right" or "wrong"; we are all here to learn together.

And it's essential we play fair. In 2012, Aarthi wrote:

Islam.SE is not a game show. We are not here to play an elimination round of "Are these beliefs true in real Islam?" For the purpose of this site, assume that each sect's hadith are valid, and that each sect's accepted imams are reliable. This is the only way a group with such diverse cultures and beliefs can get along and do something productive. If you must, choose to focus on the fact that you all follow the teachings of your Prophet. You share that in common.

2. The standard of evidence in Qur'an-only Islam differs. As far as I can tell, Qur'an-only Islam has two sources of information:

  1. the Qur'an, and
  2. deductions using "God-given logical reasoning".

This is what constitutes evidence in Qur'an-only Islam. (Barring ignorance on my part.)

The impression I get is that if something is not in the Qur'an or deducible from the Qur'an, then God intended for it to be that way, and thus is not part of Islam. Consequently:

  • Clash 1: References, which are essential to a good answer at Islam.SE, are ill-suited to Qur'an-only Islam.

3. The flip side of the "anti-hadith polemic" coin is "pro-hadith polemic".

As far as I can tell, Islam.SE has a majority of people who take hadith seriously. What may be perceived as "anti-hadith polemic" by the majority of users, may be perceived as normal and unbiased to a practitioner of Qur'an-only Islam.

  • Clash 2: Qur'an-only perspectives may be interpreted as anti-hadith perspectives, and thus biased and Truthy to the majority of users.

  • Clash 3: Pro-hadith perspectives may be perceived as biased and Truthy to Qur'an-only users.

I guess this is how we ended up with the two grumpy meta posts above.

4. Qur'an-only Islam doesn't seem to have experts.

Throughout StackExchange, we seek expert answers. In practice, we don't really care who writes the answers if they're at the expert level, but ordinarily it takes an expert to write an expert-level answer. Qur'an-only Islam doesn't seem to have "experts" (I asked about it here: Which scholars are respected by Quranists?).

  • Clash 4: Islam.SE seeks expert answers, whereas Qur'an-only Islam respects "God-given logic" over "experts".
  • Quranists do not play by the traditional rules of Islam, they just borrow some of the material. If that's enough to include them as on-topic here, then Ahmadis, Bahai, perhaps universal Sufis, modernists and other (from an orthodox point of view, read: from the point of view of the vast majority of Muslims during the vast majority of Islamic history) heretical religious groups playing by different rules but with similar material would be on-topic here too. I really don't think that's what "For the purposes of this site, "Islam" includes all groups that identify themselves as Muslim" intends.
    – G. Bach
    Apr 5 '17 at 18:57
  • Related: islam.meta.stackexchange.com/a/380/22
    – goldPseudo Mod
    Apr 6 '17 at 4:02
  • @G.Bach I'm not sure what you mean by Baha'is are Muslims. Bahai's only accept the religion of Islam...then go on and say Islam is outdated and accept a NEW religion and rules. Actually accept 2 new religions (Babism, then after it Bahai'sm). They even translate the word خاتم in Al-Ahzab : 40 to gem (خاتم can also mean gem), believe in Prophet Bab and Baha'u'llah (coming after prophet Muhammad), and that The Mahdi has already risen...even though their Mahdi got killed and there's no justice in the world. Claiming the justice is coming, but we don't see it.
    – Thaqalain
    Apr 14 '17 at 19:29
  • @Honey I didn't say Bahais are Muslims, I said it would be going too far to consider them on-topic here.
    – G. Bach
    Apr 16 '17 at 0:49
  • @G.Bach It won't even be too far. Bahai'sm to Islam is what Islam is to Christianity. Is Islam discussed as Christian religion on CSE? I don't think so. Yet Ahmadis, Sufis are somewhat Islam. They don't accept a new religion. If they did then they would require their own community. They are fine for ISE. (It's not like we have too many questions. We could benefit from their presence.)
    – Thaqalain
    Apr 16 '17 at 1:56
  • @Honey Ahmadis also believe the Mahdi and the Massih have already come in the person of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who they believe was a prophet. They recognize vedic scriptures as being of divine origin and have a lot of other syncretistic ideas, I wouldn't consider them as any closer to Islam than the Bahais. Islamic sufis represent Islamic thought, but there's streams of sufism that are clearly outside Islam, in particular universal sufism.
    – G. Bach
    Apr 16 '17 at 2:39
  • @G.Bach Oops. I mistakened Ahmadis with Ismailis. Thanks for the correction. Their is something that makes Ahmadis different from Baha'is. Ahmadis still say we believe in Islam and read the Qur'an. Bahai's is based on Babism, which Babism is based on Shi'ism. Bab came 'as the Mahdi' with a new the religion & Book. (I mean he came as both the Mahdi and as a person with new religion...hard to understand) Then came Baha'u'llah with a religion and book. Baha'is don't read Qura'n They read Iqan and Aqdas. Ahmadis are an addon to Islam. Baha'is are a branch obliterating its Islamic root.
    – Thaqalain
    Apr 16 '17 at 17:32
  • (Since this tagged as a discussion I'm continuing the chat, otherwise I would have stopped) I'm not saying let's include Ahmadis, I have to study about them a bit more. Yet for Baha'is, they are definitely not Muslims. They don't read Quran. Don't fast during the time we fast. Don't have hijab nor non-Mahrams. Don't go Hajj. Don't have daily prayers. Believe in 'total' equality between men and women. Their Ahkam is totally different. Don't have a clear say on homosexuality. Believe in oneness of religions (consider Budism a valid religion like Judaism and Christianity) and faiths are good.
    – Thaqalain
    Apr 16 '17 at 17:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .