Counter Rebuttal to a Rebuttal to "Questions that the Quranites Have No Good Logical Responses To"


Bassam Zawadi

Today, I received an email from someone who informed me that a person named Arnold Yasin has responded to my article Questions that the Quranites Have No Good Logical Responses To. The article of the person who responded to me can be found here. Interestingly, shortly after I posted this article, the author had his article removed. Thankfully, I was able to retract it using Google's cache system. This individual has mostly introduced arguments that I have already refuted in my anti hadeeth rejecters section and was probably unaware of my articles, or he ignored my refutations to the responses he gave in my original article, which he attempted to refute. 

This article was only written in a couple of hours because the arguments the author posed are of no challenge. 

In order to attempt to refute my first argument...

Why don't we have any record of early Muslims completely rejecting hadith? 

The author resorts to providing narrations that speak about how Muslims were ordered to burn hadith and not have it written down. If one reads the author's narrations, he or she would notice that the author did not meet the challenge. It is as if someone is arguing that the early Muslims rejected the Qur'an simply because Uthman ordered Qur'anic copies to be burnt. 

Anyways, this argument has been dealt with already in my article Refuting The Argument From Hadith In Which The Prophet Says, "Do Not Write Down Anything From Me Except Qur'an" If this author who selectively chooses narrations that seem to help him wishes to be consistent, he would realize that his argument will be shred to pieces. Again, I ask everyone to refer to the article I just posted. 

The author posts a hadith from Ibn Abbas, saying that the Prophet (peace be upon him) left the Muslims with nothing except the Qur'an. Well, we have no problem with this. Since the Qur'an teaches that the Prophet (peace be upon him) is a source of religious authority, the Qur'an truly is enough assuming we obey everything it says properly. I urge the readers to read the following articles...

- Refuting The Argument That The Only Duty Of The Messenger Is To Simply Deliver The Qur'an

- Refuting The Argument That The Quran Is Complete And Therefore We Don't Need Hadith

- Refuting The Argument That The Qur'an Was The Only Revelation That The Prophet Received From Allah

In order to attempt to refute my second argument...

How do you know how to pray using the Quran alone?

The author tries to escape this argument by arguing that the concept of Salah in the hadith is contradictory. He then argues that the concept of Salah has been preserved by tradition, for it was widely practiced. The author does not get the point. The point is that we do not know how to pray the way Muslims around the world pray by using the Quran alone. This would require going to another source that refutes the Quran-only position. Even if someone were to admit that going to another source (i.e., the widely practiced traditions of the Muslims) other than the hadith to find an answer to this problem will still refute the Quran-only position.

The author then cites several verses from the Qur'an regarding what to do during prayer. However, in my original article I already stated:

Don't show me verses where the Qur'an says that we should bow down and prostrate. No, show me where the Quran says WHEN we should prostrate and bow (the order) and what we should say in each position...

You can also challenge the Quranites to show where the Qur'an says how many raka's we must pray for each prayer. They won't be able to.

I saw no response to this. 

As for the so-called contradictory hadith that the author has cited, it can easily be resolved. However, I will not entertain these arguments since they are red herrings and do not address the arguments that I am putting forth. 

To attempt to refute my third argument..

How do you know how much Zakah to pay using the Quran alone?  

The author responds by quoting Surah 2:219. 

First, Muslims have historically understood this verse to refer to charity in the general sense, not Zakah. The verse itself does not indicate that it is about Zakah. 

Secondly, it is illogical for us to give all our surplus money to charity. Also, it would be irrational for it to be left up to someone as to how much of the surplus cash one should give, for someone could decide to provide only 0.000000000000001% (or even less) of their surplus wealth. So, even logically, Islam must set a standard. 

Thirdly, the author has to explain how Muslims from the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) until now have concluded that the Zakah rate is 2.5%. This is not something that can easily be brushed aside. If we can't trust these people regarding religion, then how on earth could we trust them with the preservation of the Qur'an? If the author replies, "well, the Qur'an promises to protect it," then he uses circular reasoning. Someone could then equally argue back, "how do you know that these corrupted Muslims in the past didn't add that verse for you not to be suspicious of the other verses that they added or removed?" How can we objectively believe that all of these Muslims of the past were incorrect about this issue, and at the same time, they were passing down the Qur'an to us correctly? The answer is that we can't and thus lose pride in our religion, for then we would require blind faith in this case.

In order to attempt to refute my fourth argument...

The Quran says that men can beat their wives. But we know according to the hadith that this is meant to be a light beating that inflicts a spiritual punishment and not a harmful physical one. What is to stop a man from misinterpreting the Quran and beating his wife severely?

The author replies back by saying...

What a NONSENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dharaba means more then a 100 things, it depends on the object and the possibilities of the object, for example, you can HIT a rock, but also MOVE the rock.

You can HIT a Woman, but also MOVE away from her, you also admonish her with examples which is also a meaning of Dharaba.

The author has refuted himself and even strengthens my argument more. Notice what he said...

Dharaba means more then a 100 things, 

Then he says that the verse has various possible meanings...

You can HIT a Woman, but also MOVE away from her, you also admonish her with examples which is also a meaning of Dharaba.

Doesn't the author realize that he is strengthening my argument? What was my argument in the first place? Here it is...

What is to stop a man from misinterpreting the Quran and beating the his wife severely?

The author has not provided objective evidence to refute this possible interpretation of the Qur'an. Instead, he causes more damage to his position by stating that this verse has many possible meanings. However, we would not know which of these many possible meanings is correct with no objective standard for understanding the Qur'an. 

This is why we understand the Qur'an the way the Prophet (peace be upon him) was ordered to teach (3:164) and explain to us (16:44)

In order to attempt to refute my fifth argument...

It says in the Quran to shorten the prayer when you travel. How long do you have to travel in order to be eligible to have this privilege? How short do you cut the prayer?

The author offers no proper answer. I urge the readers to read his response and tell me if he offered a proper answer.

As I said in my original article...

We don't know by how much to shorten it. Does that mean I can shorten my prayer to five seconds? And travel could mean different things to different people. Traveling could mean a 30 km distance for someone and it could mean 50 km to someone else. Who is correct? Which standard to follow?

I saw no proper refutation to that direct argument.

In order to attempt to refute my sixth argument...

The Qur'an says to cut the hand of the thief.  Does the word 'cut' in the verse mean to cut off or to cut in the sense of making a mark, or could it be metaphorical and mean cutting off the resources of the thief?

The author replies arguing in favor of the position that it means to cut off the resources of the thief. 

He argues...

However, besides 'hand' the word yad also means 'strength of hands', 'power', 'property', 'wealth', 'blessings', 'obligation', and 'support'.

Clearly, the author is ignorant of the Arabic language. The word "yad" could only mean hand. He is confusing this with the word "Ayd, " which means either hand or power. Not yad, whose plural is "Aydi," which is used in the verse. The author cannot argue for this position from a linguistic sense. He would be forced only to take it metaphorically. 

The author then argues that the punishment must fit the crime. However, this is a subjective argument since there is no objective standard for what punishment fits what crime. People can subjectively argue back that flogging a fornicator is not just or that cutting the hand of the thief is indeed just. 

The author has not offered any OBJECTIVE evidence for his views. Plus, how silly would the author and Quranites look in front of people who ask them, "If the Qur'an is so crystal clear, then how and why did ALL of the Muslims until the past century believe that the Qur'an is calling for the cutting off of the hands of the thieves?"

The author then states...

On the other hand if verse 5:38 is translated literally to mean cutting off the physical hand, then verse 5:39 cannot be sustained logically. It would be ridiculous to suggest that Allah turns to a repentant thief who is now minus a hand!

 The author seems to forget that even though the punishment for the thief is to have his hand cut off, that would only be his punishment in this life. That doesn't mean that there is no punishment in the afterlife. Even after receiving the sentence, the thief must still repent to Allah, which is what verse 39 is speaking of. 

The author then says...

Further, the Qur'an states quite clearly that any such crime must be forgiven if there are mitigating circumstances i.e. poverty, hunger etc., as stated in the following verse 

Yes, we acknowledge this, and that is why the second caliph, Umar ibn Al Khattab, did not have the hands of the thieves cut off during a time of poverty and drought. But this does not change the fact that the early Muslims believed in the cutting of the hand of a thief and that the author still did not address my argument. He only provided his own subjective and biased opinions that didn't address the challenge objectively.

In order to attempt to refute my seventh argument...

The prophecies of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) came true from the hadith thus proving that there are divine revelations sent down to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) that are not recorded in the Quran. How do you explain this?

This must be the worst response yet from this author. It clearly shows that he doesn't know the Qur'an NOR and has not even thoroughly read my article. 

His first pathetic response is...

Show us 1 prophecy that came "true" and I will show you 100 Christian prophecies that came "true".

This is an incredibly desperate response. First of all, as Muslims, we believe that some parts of the Bible today are from God, and therefore, it wouldn't be surprising to find that there indeed are some prophecies that did come true. However, we can also show failed prophecies in the Christian scriptures. Consult the following articles:

- Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled: by Farrell Till 

- The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah: by Jim Lippard

- Newman on Prophecy as Miracle: by Richard Carrier

- The Problem of the Virgin Birth Prophecy: by Richard Carrier

- The Bible error about the end of times: by Karim

- The Suffering Servant of Isaiah: by Abdullah Smith

But then, how would the author explain prophecies from the hadith? I have no clue as to how.

The author then argues that the Qur'an says that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not know the unseen; therefore, he could not predict the future. The funny thing is that I addressed this very argument in my original article. It clearly shows that the author has not thoroughly read my article and was in a rush to write a response to my paper. Note what I said in my original article:

Some argue that the Prophet did not know the unseen; therefore we cannot appeal to these hadith that prophesize the future. They argue by quoting verses from the Qur'an such as Surah 7:188 and Surah 46:9. However, no one argued that the Prophet knew these things by HIMSELF. The verses quoted prove that the Prophet could not know the unseen on his own, but that does not mean that God cannot inform him...

Surah 72:24-28

"At length, when they see (with their own eyes) that which they are promised,- then will they know who it is that is weakest in (his) helper and least important in point of numbers.  Say: 'I know not whether the (Punishment) which ye are promised is near, or whether my Lord will appoint for it a distant term.  He (alone) knows the Unseen, nor does He make any one acquainted with His Mysteries,- Except an apostle whom He has chosen: and then He makes a band of watchers march before him and behind him, That He may know that they have (truly) brought and delivered the Messages of their Lord: and He surrounds (all the mysteries) that are with them, and takes account of every single thing.' 

The argument is still standing, how do you account for the prophecies in the hadith? And to add more spice to it, how do you account for the scientific miracles found the hadith...

- Treasures of the Sunnah part 1: by Zaghlul El-Naggar

- Treasures of the Sunnah part 2: by Zaghlul El-Naggar



In order to attempt to refute my eighth argument...


The Qur'an says that we obey Allah and the Messenger (Surah 3:31-32,132; Surah 4:13-14, 59, 61, 64, 69, 80; Surah 24:56). There are two separate commands here. One is to obey Allah and the other is to obey the Prophet. In order to obey someone, he would need to issue a command. So if we want to obey Allah we have to do so by reading the commands of Allah in the Quran and adhering to them. If we want to obey the Prophet then we have to do so by reading read the commands of the Prophet (peace be upon him) in the authentic hadith and adhere to them. Or is there any another way?


The author asks us to read his article 


Again, the author fails to read my arguments thoroughly. I already addressed his argument even in that article that he linked to. I urge the readers to read his article and then read my original article, to read what I said in point number 8 entirely, and then compare the quality of the answers given.  


In order to attempt to refute my ninth argument...


It says in the Qu'ran (Surah 33:21) that we have the Messenger as a good example to follow. How would we know his example without the traditions to turn to?


Again, the author gives a non-scholarly response. I urge the readers to read what I have said in the original article.

In order to attempt to refute my tenth argument...


We have different forms of reciting the Qur'an, which means that certain letters are taken away from the word or pronounced differently. Through authentic hadith, we know that these were accepted forms of reading approved by the Prophet (peace be upon him). But without hadith, how would we know this? Using the Qur'an alone, if I see that there are different forms of recitation then I would think that there is more than one Qur'an and I wouldn't know which one is correct. 


The author replies... 

There are detail differences, and these were  not accepted or created by the Prophet, they were created in the Middle Ages. How can you say the Prophet one letter and one there? What a nonsense. Now you are creating doubt about the Quran, not we. 

The author brushes aside the scientific and historical evidence regarding Mutawattir narrations going as far back as the companions of the Prophet's time who speak about different forms of reciting the Qur'an. How can you deal with this argument often raised by Orientalists who speak about how early Qur'anic manuscripts have variants in them? You don't have the hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him) to clarify the matter to them?

If you want to know more about what I am speaking about, refer to this section of my website.

In order to attempt to refute my eleventh argument...


In Surah 2:221, God forbids us to marry polytheist women. Yet in Surah 5:5, God says that we can marry the believing women and the chaste women from the People of the Book. This is a clear differentiation between believing women and People of the Book. You can't have a believing person today from the People of the Book who is not a Muslim. So if God were talking about the believing women from the People of the Book then He wouldn't have differentiated the "believing women" phrase from them. Furthermore, the believing people from the People of the Book were the ones who truly followed the teachings of Jesus and Moses, which are lost today. So by using the Quran alone, how do I know which verse was revealed first? Did Surah 2:221 come first and then God sent down Surah 5:5 making an exception or did God send down Surah 5:5 first and then send Surah 2:221 by completely prohibiting us from marrying the women from the People of the Book?


Even though the author is incorrect in his answer, it still seems to be the most reasonable one he has offered in his whole article (this just shows how poor his responses were). The author said this: 

Order has nothing to do with this. The Quran differs between 2 different Christians and 2 different Jews.

You have what we now call Uniterians, Christians who never accepted the Trinity, and are thus no Mushrikeen.

And Qaraim Jews, who only accept the Thora, and not the Rabbi explanations and their superstitions, and are thus also no Mushrikeen.

Is very simple when you study Christian and Jewish Theology and groups and how the Quran differs in explaining these groups. 

First of all, the author is ignoring the fact that ALL the early Muslims have understood this verse to be referring to actual Christians and Jews (who are mushriks) and even got married to them. Not a single Muslim in history (until these Quranites appeared) has understood this verse as the author proposed.

Secondly, the author is incorrect in assuming that the Qur'an differentiates between Trinitarian and Unitarian Christians. When the Qur'an talks about the People of the Book, it is also clearly speaking about the polytheist Christians and Jews. This verse from the Qur'an makes this point clear: 

Surah 3:64


"O people of the Scripture : Come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but God, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides God.  

What evidence has the author offered that the People of the Book in this context of the verse only refers to the Unitarians? I will admit that it is a possible interpretation; however, you also have to admit that this verse may be making an exception as to which polytheists you can marry. This is the position of the Muslims from the beginning, and it is correct. 

However, if we use the QURAN ONLY approach, we won't know which interpretation is true. 

In order to attempt to refute my twelfth argument...


Surah 24, verse 31 says "And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof" What exactly is this part that "appears thereof"?


The author throws off red herrings first. 

He argues that Hijab is not a part of Islam, and one argument he gave for this is that the Jews and Christians practiced it before Islam. 

It never crossed the mind of the author that perhaps the institution of the Hijab was a law set by God before the coming of Muhammad (peace be upon him), and that this law (just like the prohibition of alcohol) continued to persist in Islam.  

The author then says... 

Those blessed by God can see that the use of the word "Khimaar" in this verse is not for "Hijab" or for head cover.

How hilarious. According to this author, if someone understands the Qur'an the way he does, then that person is blessed, and if he doesn't, he is cursed by God. 


The weakness of the author's position is clearly evident. See his ridiculous answer... 

God knows that we will be living in different communities, times and cultures, so the minor details of the dress code are left for the people of every community to decide for themselves. Modesty for a woman who lives in New York may not be accepted by a woman who lives in Cairo. Modesty of a woman who lives in Cairo may not be accepted by a woman who lives in Saudi Arabia. Modesty of a woman who lives in Jeddah may not be accepted by a woman who lives in a desert oasis in the same country. This difference in the way we perceive modesty is well-known to God. He created us, and He put NO hardship on us in this great religion. He left it to us to decide what modesty would be. 

The stupidity of the author's response baffles me. How could the author utter such stupidity? Is it because he knows the weakness of his position? He is basically stating that a woman's modesty differs from place to place. I know that this is the whole argument in the first place. That is why we need an objective standard to tell us what modesty truly is. 

According to the author, the Qur'an only tells the woman to cover her bosom (which could mean that she can show her back, belly, legs and arms); thus, the author suggests that the rest of the details are left up to the woman.

Let's imagine the following scenario. A woman from New York who is used to wearing a miniskirt and showing parts of her back travels to Saudi Arabia, where men view this dress code as immoral. What happens? Disunity happens. Corruption happens to most men who become sexually tempted by seeing the woman's bare arms, back, belly, and legs exposed in front of them. How on earth can we tell people that Islam teaches women to dress modestly in this case? 

Notice the verse in the Qur'an that states:           

Surah 33:59

O Prophet! Tell your wives, your daughters, and the wives of the believers that they shall lengthen their garments. Thus, they will be recognized and avoid being insulted. God is Forgiver, Most Merciful." 

Notice that the dress code the women should wear permits them to be recognized and stand out. How can that happen when we don't have a dress code unique for women? How can you realize a Muslim woman then? 


The author then says: 

God, the Most Merciful, gave us three basic rules for the Dress Code for Women in Islam.

01). The best garment is the criterion of righteousness.

02). Whenever you dress, cover your chest (bosoms).

03). Lengthen your garment. 

So basically the woman can show her back, belly, arms and most of her legs? 


The author contradicts his position and then says... 


Face, hands and forearms, heads, feet and ankles.

5:6 O You who have chosen to be graced with belief! When you congregate for Salat, wash your faces and your forearms, hands to the elbows. Lightly rub your heads and your feet to the ankles."

Ibn Umar said that during the times of Rasulullah (S) men and women used to do Wudhu together." (Bukhari published by Madina Publishing Company, Karachi, 1982, Printer Hamid & Co, vol 1, pg 169 Kitabil Wudhu. The translator is "Maulana" Abdul Hakim Khan Shahjahan Puri)


The hypocrisy and double standards of the author are pretty amazing. He would selectively cite hadith that he likes. His saying that only Face, hands and forearms, heads, feet, and ankles contradict his first position... 

God, the Most Merciful, gave us three basic rules for the Dress Code for Women in Islam.

01). The best garment is the criterion of righteousness.

02). Whenever you dress, cover your chest (bosoms).

03). Lengthen your garment. 

The first position indicates that a woman can also show her back, legs, and belly, while the second position doesn't. So which one is it?

My argument still stands. The Quran ALONE by itself, in the sense the Quranites understand, does not make clear what is modest and what is immodest for a woman to wear. The Qur'an says, "except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof." The Prophet clarifies this statement (peace be upon him) and not by the Qur'an alone. The Quranite, when clearly trapped, resorts to uttering stupidity, as we have seen above. The weakness of the Quranite position should be clear to the reader by now.

In order to attempt to refute my thirteenth argument...


If the Quran is so easy to understand on our own, then why did Allah have some Muslims staying behind in Madinah in order to become very well versed in religion, while the others go out to the battlefield so that they can then come back to be taught (Surah 9:122)?


The author fails to focus on what the verse is actually saying and what my argument is.

The verse says that Muslims stayed behind not so they could teach the new converts, as asserted by the author, but so that they could become better versed in religion. 

If the Qur'an and only the Qur'an in the literal sense is the only source of religion and is absolutely cut clear in the sense that Quranites think that it is, then this injunction by God does not make much sense. The Muslims, wherever they are, can easily read the Qur'an, and all become equally well versed in it, for it is absolutely clear, as asserted by the Quranites.

Basically, the argument is that this shows that to gain a deep and sound understanding of Islam, he would not have time to do so if he went out for battle. If only reading the Quran would give you sound knowledge, anyone could do that, even if he was going out during battles. They could do it in their tents or at any other time.

You also have Surah 29:43 and others, which indicate that people can excel in understanding some things that God says that others don't. If the Qur'an is so clear to understand in the way the Qur'anite thinks it is, then everyone should understand everything God says without the help of a teacher or interpreter

In order to attempt to refute my fourteenth argument...


Allah says in the Qur'an (Surah 75:19) that the Qur'an will be recited. But then in the verse right after (verse 20) it is also said that the Qur'an will be explained. If the Qur'an is self-explanatory then the only thing that needs to be done is reciting it out. However, in verse 19 the function of reciting is done and then in the verse right after, the function of explaining is done. Clearly these are two different tasks, which mean that reading the Qur'an alone would not give you the full explanation required. It has to be explained through some other source. What is that other source?


The author hasn't properly addressed the question.

He replies by citing verses about how Allah explained everything in detail in the Qur'an. I ask the reader to refer to my article Refuting The Argument That The Quran Is Complete And Therefore We Don't Need Hadith.

Showing a verse from the Qur'an that shows that Allah is the one explaining does not refute my argument.

One has to ask how Allah is explaining and teaching. The answer is through the agency of his Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) (3:164, 16:44), just as Allah takes the souls of those at night (39:42) through the agency of the angels (32:11).

My argument is still standing. If the Quran is self-explanatory in the sense that the Quranites believe, then its recitation is enough. For more on this issue, refer to my article Refuting The Argument That The Only Duty Of The Messenger Is To Simply Deliver The Qur'an, which discusses the duties of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and how the recitation of the Qur'an and its explanation are different tasks.


Challenge to the Author


I challenge you to offer scholarly point-by-point refutations to the following articles...


- Refuting The Argument That The Only Duty Of The Messenger Is To Simply Deliver The Qur'an

- Refuting The Argument That The Qur'an Was The Only Revelation That The Prophet Received From Allah





Return to Hadeeth Rejecters Section 


Return to Homepage


HomeWhat's new?ChristianityRefutations Contact Me