The Weakness of Quran Focused Groups

[Joseph Islam]

Direct Facebook Link:

https://www.facebook.com/joseph.a.islam/posts/1417319491738507


THE WEAKNESS OF QURAN FOCUSED GROUPS
 
Let there be no doubt, that there are interpretations within the Quran focused groups which are so polarised, that they could for all intent and purposes, be following different religions.

For example, if one believes in ritual salaat prescribed by the Quran, and the other does not, this is not a trifling difference of opinion. This is a fundamental difference in religion. If one believes in abstinence of food and drink during Ramadan and another does not, this is a fundamental difference in religion. If one believes in the angels as a separate creation of God with awareness, and another simply as natural forces, this is a fundamental difference in religion.

Let us not be fooled. At times the Quran movement is so disparate, disjointed and disunited - even on fundamentals, that it can become a focus of ridicule even by the genuine critic.

To make the Quran based approach a powerful alternative to the traditionalist approach, it will have to unite under the canopy of commonly held principles and beliefs. A movement spearheaded towards a focused goal underpinned by commonly agreed religious precepts.

The Quran was never intended to be a 'free for all' with interpretations so diverse that no community could reasonably be expected to base their social and legal frameworks on it. The Quran is not simply a personal textbook for the individual. It is a guidance intended to allow a community based religion to flourish.

I would strongly advise brothers and sisters to coalesce around stable interpretations with a view to become a cogent viable alternative to the traditional thought process.


REFERENCES:

[1] MY BELIEFS IN A NUTSHELL
https://m.facebook.com/joseph.a.islam/posts/499283410208791
[2] QURAN-CENTRISM
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=2622

[Reader Questions]

Question on Facebook:

Link:
https://www.facebook.com/joseph.a.islam/posts/1417319491738507?comment_id=1418947371575719&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D

Salaam.

I have a question. How far do you think these "commonly held principles and beliefs" need to go? By that, do you mean the basics such as salat, zakah, hajj, saum and punishments such as lashing etc? Or do you think everything in the Qur'an, including the differences of opinion in the understanding of "daraba", polygyny, dress code, "right-hand possessions" etc?

If the latter, then wouldn't that lead to the same problem that we have in traditional Islam today? Of everyone being told to follow the majority consensus?

I will appreciate a response.

[Joseph Islam]

Dear [Name Removed]

As-salamu alaykum

Please kindly see my responses to your comments in brown below:

"I have a question. How far do you think these "commonly held principles and beliefs" need to go? By that, do you mean the basics such as salat, zakah, hajj, saum and punishments such as lashing etc?"

In my humble view, they would need to go as far as to coalesce around an agreement of the basic tenets of the religion.  As only an example, this could be broadly divided into the following areas:

1. Fundamental beliefs / principles [Usuls]

Verse 2:285 would need to be defined and elaborated. For example, what does one mean by angels? The Quran lists this as a fundamental tenet of belief. In other words, there would be no point in asserting a belief in angels, whilst retaining very different perspectives of what the angels actually were. The same would apply to the 'Books' / Scriptures, messengers etc.

2. Basic Practices

As you suggest, this would include a common and defined understanding of 'Salaat', 'Zakaat', 'Hajj', 'Saum' etc. Again, it would be irreconcilable for one to assert that Saum referred to the abstinence of food and drink whilst another believed it simply meant following the Quran or one believed in ritual salaat and another did not. These would amount to irreconcilable fundamental differences of opinion in matters of religion.

3. Legal framework and Jurisprudence


"Or do you think everything in the Qur'an, including the differences of opinion in the understanding of "daraba", polygyny, dress code, "right-hand possessions" etc?"

These could be argued as secondary considerations. Here a difference of opinion would not necessarily be tantamount to a fundamental difference in religion.


"If the latter, then wouldn't that lead to the same problem that we have in traditional Islam today? Of everyone being told to follow the majority consensus?"

Not necessarily, as one would arguably be rid of the huge influence the tomes of secondary source literature places on Islamic thought. Admittedly, there will always be differences. However, a form of consensus should not always be seen in a negative light as the Quran does expect its adherents to come to common ground. How else could a Quran-centric / Quran-based community religion flourish?

Of course, the ability to critique should / will always remain open (outside the fundamentals) unlike much of the areas of traditional Islamic taught which doesn't appear to afford the same privilege or appears to create strong vehement opposition to even the finest of differences.

I hope this helps, God willing.

Regards,
Joseph