Answering Christianity Research Center

As'salamu Alaikum dear brother Farhan,

Jazaka Allah Khayr for the pictures and the increase in awareness of what's going on from atrocities in Syria, dear brother.  Please don't hesitate to post more dear brother.  Feel free to post and open new threads as you see best.  I will create a new section for Syria and add the links to it, insha'Allah.  I will also link it on the main page.  The shias are committing countless war crimes against the Sunnis.

May Allah Almighty greatly bless you, dear brother Farhan.  Ameen.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Asalamu Aliakum!

Pardon my ignorance on this topic, but why are Shias attacking Sunnis?

May Allah bless you for your work brother!!

Your work is extremely powerful and your website is very popular on search engines! You've done great work, may Allah give you the strength to continue this fantastic work!

Asalamu Alaikum everyone!

I have written up a new article: http://www.answeringislamicskeptics.com/allah-and-science.html

Please take a look and provide some suggestions or how to improve upon it.

Oh and by the way, I own the domain now! I hope this site gets its attention and I hope to provide useful information to the public.

Thanks!

  I apologize to mclinkin if he was offended by what I wrote.

I'm not offended by what you wrote, so no reason to worry. 

But, even though I am not offended by the insults, I think it doesn't make a discussion valuable. The more insults, the less constructive criticism, the more-likely the discussion will go nowhere.

I think you know that it is not as simple as 2+2. I don't want to repeat myself because I think I have proved that using only logic to interpret the Quran is wrong.

No I didn't say it was as simple as 2+2=4, I was saying that there is a right and wrong. It is not subjective as you said.

Secondly, you have not proved that only using logic to interpret the Quran is wrong. This is a self defeating statement! Didn't you just use logic to say that using logic to interpret the Quran is wrong?

Denying logic is using logic to deny logic. Denying logic would be devastating to philosophy, science, and even the Quran.

Secondly, the Quran as you know, in many places has said to use your intellect to interpret the Quran

If anyone interprets the Quran using his logic, there won't be consensus in any matter of belief. And without consensus, Islam will be destroyed.

No, there would be a consensus. As I said before logic is either right or wrong.

If someone goes by a 2+2=5 translation of the Quran, it is wrong. There is an objectively right translation and an objectively wrong translation. To figure this out you adhere to reasoned logic.

For example: Quran 1:5 It is You we worship and You we ask for help.

If someone says "you" in this verse refers to Muhammad they are wrong. Their logic is wrong. The ones who say "You" refers to Allah are right.

Brother, it is not circular. I'm not using hadiths, I'm using history. You are being so unsfientific now by rejecting the history. Then, let's exclude early scholars. We know for sure that, for example, four or five centuries all the scholars accepted the hadiths. Are you going to deny that?

History based on hadiths!

I know that scholars accepted hadiths, they do so now! Allah will judge them as they are. Many Muslims sin and many Muslim commit crimes. Having a majority of Muslims committing crimes does not mean that the crime is legal!

I didn't misunderstand you. I know that you want to say that what Quran explains, that's all the details and that's all we need. What I want to say is that using only the Quran creates a lot of problems for Muslims. Just stop and think for some minutes what huge problems would have existed today if Muslims followed only the Quran. There woulnd't have been consensus on anything and I said that consensus is what keeps the Islamic law alive.

My argument was, hadiths are false irrespective of the problems it creates.

2+2=5 is wrong irrespective of the problems it creates if you believe it is 4. Let's assume someone would shoot you if you believe 2+2=4 and you must testify that it equals 5. Irrespective of the problems it creates, 2+2 will always equal 4.

Premise 2 is what you think, it is not true and you haven't defended it. My points remain.

Premise 2 is my entire argument, it reads "Our 'sahih' hadiths are baseless stories/amusements in speech that do divert others from the path of God".

Are hadiths generally baseless stories: Yes, they don't have much historical credibility once you observe the blasphemous ones, the fact that the Quran does not at all even hint that the prophet had a second set of laws to give us, the fact they contradict the Quran and established science.

Do they divert others from the path of God: You betcha, watch the video at the beginning of this thread as an example.

Figure out? If anyone prays how he thinks, how can we pray in congregation?

As I said before, the Quran allows you to adhere to common sense. If you don't have hands to watch, how will you wash your hands? Its common sense.

So what to do in a congregation. The leader would inform everyone and tell them how they are going to pray. It must abide by the Quranic Law. Currently, the way we pray now isn't bad at all, why not just keep it? I don't see a problem with it. Even if the Quran mentioned only 3 prayers, whats the harm in praying the other two? or praying a few more times? Can prayer really be that much of a difficult thing?

The main message was the Quran, because when it comes to nonbelievers, they wouldn't be bothered about details in faith, practical issues etc. that are found in hadiths. If we assume that it does not mention hadiths, that doesn't mean that hadiths do not exist. It also separates following the Prophet from following the Quran, and I have used this verse many times, and if you accept that the Quran is for all the times, this is enough to accept hadiths: O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result. (4:59)
If we go by your standard, it says o you who have believed, not o you companions of the Prophet. Also, "those in authority among you" shows clearly that Allah calls upon all Muslims, because if it was only for the Muslims who lived during the time of the Prophet, the highest authority was the Prophet himself.

If the Quran did not mention the prophet's hadiths and told us that the Quran is the only hadith to follow and that the sunnah of Allah (not Muhammad) is the only sunnah and that the Quran says the Quran is fully clarified in your laws!--Does that sound like Allah wanted you to follow Hadiths?

Quran 4:59 explained in detail:

This glorious ayat has been subject to deliberate manipulation by the Muslim Imams and scholars in many Muslim countries. They have used the words "those in charge among you" in order to claim that the religious guru's have a right according to the Quran to have authority over the people and that they should be obeyed without question.

In order to analyse this claim we must research the Quranic content with regards to this issue.

The first part of this ayat is straightforward, as in numerous other ayat we read the command to obey God and obey the messenger. It has been shown that obeying God and obeying the messenger are one and the same thing since the messenger's sole duty is to deliver God's message (5:92), hence we do not need to elaborate on this issue here. If we are to obey the messenger and the messenger's duty is to deliver the message, and the Quran makes it clear that message is only in the Quran, then by obeying the Quran, we are obeying the messenger and we are obeying God.

This leaves us with the task of understanding the words "those in charge among you". Do these words rightly give the religious guru's their claimed right to control the people and be entitled to receive the total obedience of the believers?

The term "those in charge among you" covers a wide variety of people. In order to determine who is actually entitled to have rightful authority over us, it would be quite logical to assert that this authority must be in accordance to God's law, in other words it must be a God given authority, and not an authority that is self claimed.

The following are some examples of rightful and righteous authority that is in harmony with the Quranic teachings:

1- For a young boy/girl they should obey their parents who have authority over them during their younge dependent years.

2- For a wife, she must obey her husband (in righteousness) as God decreed in the Quran.

3- For an employee, he/she must obey their boss who has authority over them, but only within the framework of the profession.

4- For citizens, they must obey the established authorities (e.g. the courts, the police, etc). They must obey the law of the land as long as it does not violate God's law.

Other cases may also be made that relate to authority in righteousness and in harmony with God's law.

Now we ask, do the clergy and the religious guru's have authority over the believers in accordance to 4:59?

It can be easily demonstrated with the aid of the Quran that the authority God speaks of in 4:59 does NOT cover the men of religion (e.g. Imam's, guru's .. etc). The religious figures (e.g. Imams, gurus, ... etc) have NO AUTHORITY over the believers.

First, the Quran stresses the fact that it is forbidden to follow any law other than the law of God, that being the Law of the Quran:

"Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book (the Quran) fully detailed ?" 6:114

Again, this does not mean that the Quran is the only revelation that the Prophet received.

Again, think about it this way, if Allah wanted us to follow Hadiths as a scriptural authority, why would he make the Quran clear that it is the only authority and not at all even hint that the prophet received another set of laws.

Let's assume he hided it, it does not mean anything. A better question would be: would God let Muslims for 1400 years (or for some centuries, or for a century if you reject history, even if it is stupid to believe that Muslims followed only the Quran for some centuries, then suddenly all those only-Quran Muslims disappeared and Muslims started to follow the hadiths. You can see small sects surviving for centuries.) follow something for which He will punish them?
I said what I had to say and I think my points remain, the main of them being: Muslims following hadiths for centuries, and I showed that it is not a circular argument and that believing that Muslims once followed only the Quran is historically absurd, which means that your true Islam was never among the Muslims. I don't want to run away, but I think that if we continue to debate, this will escalate to an ineffective polemic. However, please reply and answer the points I brought if you want. I'm going to read them but I won't reply. If you disagree with me, then we have to agree to disagree. All I can do is pray to Allah so you will become a true Muslim, a true follower of Prophet Muhammed, peace be upon him. Brother, I call you to be sincere and just think about the main point I brought, and may Allah guide you and all of us!

Well again, you are assuming that the earliest Muslims were following Hadiths in spite of the Quran. But even assuming they did, they are still accountable for their deeds.

Why would Allah allow it? Allah has allowed a lot of things. He has allowed Christianity and Judiasm to get corrupted. He has allowed earlier prophets to die.

Life is a test as the Quran states. If you don't have a choice to follow the wrong answer to the test, then it defeats the purpose of the test. If you are writing a multiple choice test, you have to make sure to give people a choice between the wrong and right answers. Asking this question would be like asking why the professor lets his students fail the exam.

The reality is, if people met the 3 conditions in Quran 31:6-7, they will be punished.

Now for your claim that the true-Islam has never been among Muslims, how do you know this? By adhering and believing in Hadiths. So my argument of circular reasoning remains.

I have replied to the points you made, I hope you find them reasonable and I hope Allah guides you to the true path of the Quran.

I believe that by adhering the Quran, that you are adhering to the prophet's commands given by Allah and you are a true follower of the Quran as the prophet's only duty is to give the message of the Quran.

Please do not assume that I am insincere, this is what the Quran wants as I believe I have proved.

Given that the Quran:

• Makes no reference to another source of law given to the prophet besides it (no where in the Quran is there any indication that Muhammad received anything from God other than the Quran.)
• Specifically tells you that it is the only source of law
• Tells us to obey the messenger and his duty is only to give the Quran thereby making the Quran the only source of law
• says that the Sunnah of Allah is the only sunnah (why would Allah say this if we are to follow Muhammad's Sunnah all Allah would have had to do is say "And Muhammad's Sunnah")
• makes it clear that there is no other hadith than the one of Allah in the Quran (recited revelations) that we are to follow (45:6)
•   The Quran confirms that for every prophet there will be enemies of human and jinn devils who will fabricate fancy sayings (hadith) and attribute them to the Prophet to deceive the people: 6:112[/b]
• Or do you have some book in which you are studying?" 68:37 In 68:37 God is mocking those who have other books than the Quran which they follow.
• "So in which Hadith, other than this, do they believe" 77:50, In 77:50 is yet another clear mockery at all who follow other than the Quran. Does that sound like Allah wanted us to follow anything besides the Quran?

You have every right to deny our Hadith collection. The Quran could not be any more clear.

I hope you think this through


 

You came to this conclusion by using logic, but I have told you that by using logic everyone can come to different conclusions. For me, using my logic, these verses do not even talk about apostates, as I will explain. What's the solution? Referring to the hadiths and the consensus of scholars.

I don't think denouncing logic and saying that it is subjective is right. 2+2 is logically 4 irrespective of whether someone else thinks it is 5. 

Quote

Let there be no compulsion in religion.. [2:256]

You cannot force anyone to accept Islam.

This carries a broader implication, that you are not to force religion onto anyone. If anyone wants to leave Islam and you will punish them because they left, you are forcing them to stay a Muslim. This is the definition of religious compulsion.

Quote

15:2-3 "Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to God's will) in Islam.   Leave them alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them)."

You have to call the disbelievers. If they don't believe, you are not required to do something else.

Doesn't that contradict the apostasy hadith?

Quran says you are not required to do something else when they disbelieve, but hadiths say if they disbelieve you are to kill them.

Quote

18:29 "Say, 'The truth is from your Lord': Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it)

It is talking about those disbelievers that reject Islam.

So you cannot reject Islam after you become a Muslim?

Quote

A section of the People of the Book say: "Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers, but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) Turn back. [3:72]

It has nothing to do with apostasy.

It has everything to do with apostasy! The Quran states there were those who believed part of the time, then disbelieved part of the time in order to confuse and sow discord amongst the believers of the time. If death for apostasy existed, they wouldn't have survived for publicly rejecting Islam.

Notice, I don't think this is the correct explanation for these verses. I just want to show you that, if you want, by using your "intellect", you won't find anywhere that the Quran is against the killing of apostates.

No. Using the objective truth, there is no killing of apostates in the Quran.

I think this is the issue with Islam, I don't think it is reasonable to force hadith interpretations in the Quran. If Allah wanted death for apostates, what would he say? He sure wouldn't say the verses I pointed out.

Now if Allah did not want death for apostates what would he say? Should he be any clearer, should he say "leave those who disbelieve alone, And I'm not kidding, "?

Quote

What is so wrong with drawing in the prophet?

You cannot determine what is wrong and what is not; we have the scholars.

Yes the same scholars that believe death to apostates and their double standards. I think the appeal to authority is too strong in Islam and it also stems from hadiths. The Quran wants you to use intellect to see Allah's signs as it says many times, NOT other people's flawed opinions.

I'm not interested on whether you have dealt with that subject. What I wanted to show to you is that just because people find something that they think is evil in Quran or hadiths, we won't reject them automatically.

Absolutely fair point! :D But, the issue is, people are saying it is evil and it is not Quranic and is questionable! It is a misrepresentation. 

Quote

No, those who followed the actual sayings of the prophet and experienced it themselves will not have a humiliating punishment because they weren't following 'hadiths' and their hadiths most likely did not contradict the Quran. That is a different problem.

I was not talking about the companions. What about all the scholars, startig from 1400 years ago until today? All of them are going to be punished?

Yes, they will be punished if 3 conditions are met:

1.) They upholded baseless hadiths/talks/sayings
2.) They upholded them and diverted others from Islam
3.) They read the Quran and arrogantly rejected it in favor of the Hadiths (like those who believed in death for apostates)

Quran 31:6-7 And of the people is he who buys the amusement of speech to mislead [others] from the way of Allah without knowledge and who takes it in ridicule. Those will have a humiliating punishment. And when our verses are recited to him, he turns away arrogantly as if he had not heard them, as if there was in his ears deafness. So give him tidings of a painful punishment.

Quote

Secondly, you are assuming that scholars in the past have been following Hadiths in place of the Quran. That assumption itself comes from Hadiths! This information you got comes from hadiths. So this is circular reasoning on your part.

Circular? How many times do I need to repeat it? Not only early scholars, but all the scholars, for 1400 years. Are you going to reject the history now?

How do you know that the scholars 1400 years ago upholded hadiths? Oh, yes, through hadiths! The most probably corrupted ones we have today! So yes, it is entirely circular.

"Hadiths are true because they said that people in the past have upholded them. And then you say People in the past upholded hadiths because they are true"

Quote

Allah has put this verse in their for a reason and the word that refers to the corrupted sayings of the prophet in modern types is hadith. You don't think we called them hadiths for a reason?

The word used is  lahv al-hadith-amusement of speech, not only hadith. And do you know that Allah uses the word hadith several times in the Quran, but not for amusement of speech?

Yes. The Quran is referring to our hadiths, I have presented 3 premises to prove this argument. This is a deductive argument, that means that if the premises are true, then the conclusion MUST logically follow whether we like it or not.

Premise 1: The Quran speaks of people who uphold baseless stories/amusement in speech to divert others from the path of God
Premise 2: Our 'sahih' hadiths are baseless stories/amusements in speech that do divert others from the path of God
Premise 3: Therefore this Quranic verse is referring to our hadiths

I have defended premise 2. It is more true than it is false. Our hadiths are baseless stories and amusements and do divert people from the path of God.

Who they? You are saying that only those who lived with the Prophet followed the real teachings. So, starting from the second or third century, we all are following something we shouldn't have followed, and we know that these books of hadiths were written many hundred years ago, if you don't reject history of course.

How could we possibly know? WE hope people who lived back then followed the real teachings and we hope those who came later also did. The modern version of hadiths today are questionable so we don't know.

As for the Quran being a book that explains things in details, I just took the example of prayer. There are many many examples where you can see that Quran does not explain things in details.

The Quran does give all the details when it comes to the Laws that Allah wants. You misunderstood me again. It is necessary here to explain exactly what is meant by saying that the Quran contains all the details. The followers of hadith claim that the hadith contains many details that are not to be found in the Quran. This is quite true, however the absence of these details from the Quran is not because the Quran is not fully detailed, but because these details were never decreed by God.

BTW, because we are talking about the prayer, the Quran commands us to pray Jumuah in congregation. How will people pray in congregation if they don't know the details of prayer?

The Quran commands us to wash our hands, how could some people wash their hands if they don't have hands?
The Quran commands us to fast sunrise to sunset, how could we fast if sunrise to sunset lasts 6 months?

The answer is, you figure it out. Remember why Allah got displeased when the Jews in Surat Al baqarah were procrastinating on the slaugher of the cow and asking for specific details? The same thing goes on here.

Allah gave us a mind capable of common sense.

4: 59- O you who believe! Obey Allâh and obey the Messenger (Muhammad SAW), and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority. (And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allâh and His Messenger (SAW), if you believe in Allâh and in the Last Day. That is better and more suitable for final determination.

Indeed the Quran tells us to obey the messenger. But what is the messenger's SOLE duty:

"And obey God and obey the messenger and be cautious; but if you turn back, then know that the sole duty of the messenger is the deliverance (of the message)" 5:92

"And obey God and obey the messenger, but if you turn back, then upon Our messenger is the sole duty of the clear delivery (of the message)" 64:12

..to deliver the message.

Here is the logic:

Premise 1: We must obey the messenger
Premise 2: The messenger's sole duty is the deliver the message (the message is in verses of the Quran as the Quran also states, the Quran does not say the message is also the oral hadiths)
Premise 3: Therefore we must only obey the message (Quran) in which the messenger has came with.

"Say (O Muhammad), "What is the greatest testimony?" Say, "God is witness between me and you that this Quran has been inspired to me to warn you with it and whomever it reaches." 6:19

This testimony which God describes as "Akbar Shahada" (the Greatest Testimony) commands Muhammad to testify that He received the Quran from God. This testimony speaks of only one revelation received by Muhammad from God which is the Quran. If Muhammad truly received other revelations from God (other than the Quran), would we not find any mention of it in the Quran? Would God hide the fact that He gave Muhammad a revelation independent of the Quran and then command us to obey it?

2: 151- Similarly (to complete My Blessings on you) We have sent among you a Messenger (Muhammad SAW) of your own, reciting to you Our Verses (the Qur'ân) and sanctifying you, and teaching you the Book (the Qur'ân) and the Hikmah (i.e. Sunnah, Islâmic laws and Fiqh - jurisprudence), and teaching you that which you used not to know.

As in 2:151, the word 'Hikmah' means wisdom. The corrupt scholars know that very well but in order to establish a reference in the Quran for the Hadith and Sunna of prophet Muhammad, when there is none, they claim that the word 'Hikmah' refers to the Hadith of Muhammad.

3 major issues:

1.) This verse also exists in 2:231 The word ‘bihee’ (with it) that appears at the end of 2:231, is in the singular mode. It describes one thing and not two. For that reason the words ‘Al-Hikmah’ and ‘Al-Kitab’ must denote one thing and not two, unless of course God is making grammatical mistakes!

If the words ‘Al-Hikmah’ and ‘Al-Kitab’ really referred to the Quran and the Sunna, then the verse should grammatically end with the word ‘bihima’ (with them), which is the plural mode of ‘bihee’.

2.)  The word ‘Al-Hikmah’ is used throughout the Quran as an adjective of the ‘Al-Kitab’ (the Quran). This is made evident in the following verses:

"Y.S., and the Quran Al-Hakim" 36:1-2

"A.L.R., these are the signs of the ‘Kitab Al-Hakim" 10:1 also 31:2

3.) Finally God commands the prophet to rule and arbitrate between the people with Quran and nothing but the Quran:

"We have sent down to you this Kitab, truthfully, in order to arbitrate between the people." 4:105

If the Quran says that we should follow the Prophet, that means that it is fully detailed. If the book A is not detailed but it says that other details that are not here can be found in the book B, then this makes the book A fully detailed because it is giving you the instructions on how to learn thing on details.
Please read those articles written by Bassam Zawadi. They completely destory the belief of those who reject the hadiths. It is impossible to counter the strong arguments he gives.

No. If the Quran says to obey the prophet and says the prophet's duty is ONLY to deliver the Quran, then by obeying ONLY the Quran, we obey the prophet.

As I have demonstrated earlier Book A does not say the details can be found in book B therefore rendering the argument invalid. In fact, book A says the details will only be found in book A.  6:114

There are a lot of books (not short videos) that use those types of hadiths to attack Islam, but that does not mean that we will hide behind the Quran and reject the hadiths.

Unfortunately, their attacks on hadiths are reasonable.

Yes, the death penalty for apostates is in the hadiths (http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/of_course_apostates_should_be_killed). What we should do now is to defend the islamic law, the way it is and not to try to change it or to reject it in order to escape attacks from nonmuslims. There are many reasons why the penalty for apostasy is death.

NO! It is against the Quran to kill apostates

Let there be no compulsion in religion.. [2:256]

And if your Lord had pleased, surely all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them; will you then force men till they become believers? [10:99]

15:2-3 "Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to God's will) in Islam.   Leave them alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them)."

18:29 "Say, 'The truth is from your Lord': Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it)

A section of the People of the Book say: "Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers, but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) Turn back. [3:72]

Read up on this topic.

The same with violence against those people who draw the Prophet.

I know that, that's why I said it. What is so wrong with drawing in the prophet? Did the Quran say not to? It nothing more than a cultural nonsense. Allah is beyond this nonsense.

I understand that it is some kind of emotional issue, but to attack them for it? That is just wrong. Let's use our reason.

The Prophet being a pedophile does not stem from hadiths. Yes, he was married to a nine yeas old

I doubt Aisha reached puberty at 9 years old. This problem definately stems from hadtihs as the Quran says no such thing.

As for the allegation that the Quran supports pedophilia, I dealt with this very subject and so did AnsweringChristianity.com. There is no such thing in the Quran.

http://answeringislamicskeptics.weebly.com/age-of-marriage-in-islam.html

I said earlier that no country today follows the Shariah, ask any islamic scholar if you want.

I agree no country follows Shariah to the fullest extent, but they follow some parts of Shariah in hadiths like death for apostates.

The translation of Sahih International is:
And of the people is he who buys the amusement of speech to mislead [others] from the way of Allah without knowledge and who takes it in ridicule. Those will have a humiliating punishment. (31:6)
So, it is quite important to read the entire verse. The word hadith is used there, but do you know that hadith can also mean a story etc. and not only sayings of our Prophet? And you can see clearly that it has nothing to do with the hadiths that we follow by reading the last sentence (Those will have a humiliating punishment.). So all the scholars, for 1400 years, all of them will have a humiliating punishment?

I am baffled that you would go to such lengths...

Why do you think we refer to hadiths as Hadiths? Because they are hadiths (Amusement of speech). Secondly this verse is exactly warning us about those who uphold these baseless saying to mislead others from the way of Allah. That is exactly what the 'sahih' hadiths do and are.

No, those who followed the actual sayings of the prophet and experienced it themselves will not have a humiliating punishment because they weren't following 'hadiths' and their hadiths most likely did not contradict the Quran. That is a different problem. 

Secondly, you are assuming that scholars in the past have been following Hadiths in place of the Quran. That assumption itself comes from Hadiths! This information you got comes from hadiths. So this is circular reasoning on your part.

Allah has put this verse in their for a reason and the word that refers to the corrupted sayings of the prophet in modern types is hadith. You don't think we called them hadiths for a reason?

The argument can go like this if you didn't understand what I meant:

Premise 1: The Quran speaks of people who uphold baseless stories/amusement in speech to divert others from the path of God
Premise 2: Our 'sahih' hadiths are baseless stories/amusements in speech that do divert others from the path of God
Premise 3: Therefore this Quranic verse is referring to our hadiths

The only controversial premise is premise 2. In defense of premise 2, you have seen contradictions and corruptions in the sahih hadiths--you have seen them go against the Quranic teaching (in the example I showed in apostasy). So the conclusion follows from the premises.

Your issue is circular reasoning. The tafsirs use hadiths to interpret the Quran and you use that to say that I am wrong. That is the biggest no-no. I simply follow what that verse is saying through lexicons, word for word translations, and the context. Speaking of the context, look at the verse that comes right AFTER it.

Quran 31:7 And when our verses are recited to him, he turns away arrogantly as if he had not heard them, as if there was in his ears deafness. So give him tidings of a painful punishment.

I'm seeing a strong mirror to how the Quran says there is no punishment for apostasy and you rejecting those verses in favor of hadiths.

I also wanted to stress the absurdity of using hadiths or the past people's opinions to translate the Quran.

Quran 6:67 For every announcement there is a term, and you will come to know.
Quran 38:88 And you will surely know [the truth of] its information after a time."

If there is a term for every tiding and a period of time in which the Quranic definition will be understood, then how could 7th century people know exactly what the verses are saying if they didn't live in the future times where the verses will be understood?

With no intent to insult, what you said here is absolutely foolish. Are you saying to me that for 1400 years the Muslims were following something they shouldn't have followed?

Nope, I say they followed the real teachings and you follow the corrupted version of those teachings.

This means that Allah could not save the teachings that He revealed.

The teaching Allah revealed is in the Quran. 

Note the words "all things" in 16:89 means all matters, big and small alike. The words "fully detailed" in 6:114 simply means that the Quran contains all the details. It is necessary here to explain exactly what is meant by saying that the Quran contains all the details. The followers of hadith claim that the hadith contains many details that are not to be found in the Quran. This is quite true, however the absence of these details from the Quran is not because the Quran is not fully detailed, but because these details were never decreed by God. The Quran contains all the details that are sanctioned by God and for which we will be held accountable to. The followers of hadith have a wide collection of books which they highly cherish and which contain all sorts of ridiculous details to say the least. The following verse includes a mockery and a warning against such acts of idolatry:

"Or do you have some book in which you are studying? Do you have in it whatever you choose?" 68:37-38

Consequently, and in accordance with 6:114 and other similar verses, all guidance will be derived from the Quran and nothing else.

Do you know that by rejecting the hadiths, you are creating more problems?

The problems created by rejecting hadiths exist, sure, that does not in any way validate the acceptance of Hadiths. It is what it is. For example, if the evidence shows that a scientific theory is wrong, we are to reject it irrespective of the problems it creates.

One last thing. Why Allah says that the Quran is in details, when it doesn't even explain to us how to pray?

Yes Allah Did. What you are implying is that Allah was contradicting himself in the Quran? No.

The Quran says that in the Prayers, it must involve a phase of standing, bowing and prostrating:

Standing:
You shall maintain the Salawaat and the Salat Al-Wusta, and stand devoutly before God." 2:238

Bowing and Prostrating:

"Muhammad-the messenger of God, and those with him are harsh and stern against the disbelievers, but kind and compassionate amongst themselves. You see them bowing and prostrating, as they seek God's blessings and approval" 48:29

" ...... Then once they have prostrated let them be positioned behind you and let another group, who have not yet observed the Salat, observe the Salat with you while remaining cautious and while holding on to their weapons." 4:102

That is it. The Quran is simple on what you have to do. Now to ask for the details on exactly what to do in praying, would be like the Jews asking God exactly how to slaugher the cow. Remember why Chapter 2 of the Quran is called the Baqarah? The story is that Allah comanded the Jews to sacrifice a cow to show their faith in Allah swt. However, rather than complying they kept delaying and procrastinating and asking more and more and more questions until finally Allah swt commanded them to sacrifice a specific strong, beautiful cow, where as before any cow would have sufficed.

Allah just wants you to recite the Quran, stand,bow and prostrate. The specifics don't matter, just do it!

By rejecting the hadiths, this is enough for a nonmuslim to destroy Islam entirely. But, look what a beautiful response comes when you accept the hadiths: http://muslim-responses.com/Is_the_Quran_Incomplete/Is_the_Quran_Incomplete_
And please take from your time to read these articles written by Bassam Zawadi (http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/hadeeth_rejecters). I hope it will help you to understand how illogical it is to reject the hadiths.

To destroy Sunni/Shia/Sufi/other nonsense Islam. Yes. Exactly. Again, irrespective of what hadiths do to please your version of Islam, hadiths stand un-authorative and corrupted. IT doesn't matter what will happen we reject them, you must reasonably conclude that the rejection of hadiths is best.

Watch this video, this is probably the most accurate mainstream representation of the public perception of Islam.

Warning: it has swears and she is a very emotional person, so do not let your children or anyone sensitive to this watch or hear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eI3S_UoCJE&feature=c4-overview&list=UUravYcv6C0CopL2ukVzhzNw

Topics Discussed:

• Death for apostates (not a Quranic concept, stems from hadiths)
• Violence against those people who draw the prophet (not a Quranic concept, stems from Hadiths)
• The prophet being a pedophile (not a Quranic concept, stems from hadiths)
• The prophet being 'evil' (notice how the Quran does not make the prophet look bad like Hadiths)
• Muslim countries following Shariah based on Hadiths (Like Saudi Arabia)"

The problem with Islam is Muslims NOT following the Quran.

The Quran has predicted this and warned us of this:

[Quran 31:6] Among the people, there are those who uphold baseless HADITH, and  divert others from the path of God without knowledge


For those particularly interested in the purely Quranic standing of Jihad and Apostasy please visit:

Jihad:
http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/part_3/the_concept_of_jihad_(P1360).html
http://www.answering-christianity.com/jihad.htm (brother Osama has done great on this one! Used the Quran to demolish baseless Hadiths)

Apostasy:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/apostates.htm
http://answeringislamicskeptics.weebly.com/death-for-apostasy.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_oKXh2oy8E

Contrast this to 'sahih' hadiths that say death to apostates, don't draw pictures of people, kill all non-Muslims, and the ones the demean the prophet.

The Quran calls the prophet a Noble Messenger. Unfortunately, the overall descriptions of him in hadiths don't seem to say the same.

I call for an Islamic revival. Right now the mainstream Islam is wrong and it is not the way of the Quran. The so called Muslim countries are not good examples of the Quranic Islam. Its time to revive Islam. So I encourage you to get out there, write blogs and papers and bring out the true Islam.