(December 4, 2014 at 1:16 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:(December 3, 2014 at 2:47 pm)Cato Wrote: Really? I guess that makes it okay then particularly since we know that the hadiths don't inform Islam in the slightest and have absolutely no influence over the behavior of Muslims.
They aren't given the same weight as the Qu'ran, and different Muslim sects accept or reject different ones. Qu'ranists throw them out entirely.
I'm not sure where to begin with this reply. Perhaps addressing Qu'ranists first is easiest.
Qu'ranists are such a small minority within the religion that I found their inclusion in your reply to be a bit bizarre. To my knowledge, Qu'ranists have no significant influence when it comes to the current practice of Islam and how that might translate to effects on culture and Muslim state practices. Personally, I would like to see Qu'ranists gain more influence as I think it would be a step in the right direction if the goal is a more liberal version of Islam.
Despite the primacy of the Qu'ran in the religion, Qu'ranists are severely outnumbered by Sunni, Shia, and Ibadi Muslims; all of which consider hadiths central to the practice of Islam despite the Qu'ran's primacy. The hadiths being weighted less than the Qu'ran is a trivial distinction as practiced by a vast majority of the world's Muslims. Your distinction on the matter is immaterial.
Let's look at this from a practical standpoint and consider KSA's (Sunni) execution of women for sorcery and Iran's (Shia) execution of citizens for "sowing the corruption of earth" (insulting the prophet). Does the Qu'ran support this? If so, Islam is fucked up simply because of the Qu'ran. If these executions are not supported by the Qu'ran, then the differing hadiths are both fucked up and we can conclude that the primacy of the Qu'ran is meaningless in this regard.
