Revelation or Inherited Tradition? Reason, Ancestral Authority, and Hadith in the Qur’an

1. When inheritance becomes the standard of truth

Much of what we know comes from other people. Our first language, practical skills, customs, and everyday habits pass between generations. Religious life is no exception. Long before a child can examine arguments independently, a religious household teaches that child about God, worship, permission, prohibition, wrongdoing, and reward. There is nothing inherently wrong with this transmission. We need teachers, families, and the experience of earlier generations in order to learn.

The problem begins when something we have learned stops being a claim open to examination and becomes a truth we are no longer allowed to question. The stakes rise when religious authority is involved: an individual opinion, a leader’s conduct, a historical recollection, or an inherited rule may be imposed on others as God’s command. At that point, asking whether the statement is correct is not enough. We must also ask whether it really comes from God, and what evidence establishes that attribution.

Al-Baqarah presents the issue in a brief but fundamental exchange. People are told to follow what God has sent down; they reply that they will follow what they found their ancestors practicing (Al-Baqarah 2:170). The Qur’an challenges that response by asking about reason and guidance. The decisive difference is therefore not between young and old, or between modern and ancient. It concerns whether a belief is supported by revealed guidance or accepted simply because it was inherited.

That question remains relevant. Could unquestioning reliance on transmitted reports, religious rulings, and inherited practices reproduce the behavior criticized in Al-Baqarah 2:170 when those authorities are placed above the Qur’an? Does repeating a statement in many books, or attributing it to many respected teachers, turn it into something God has revealed? If not, what place should teaching, tradition, history, and reports have in understanding religion? Here, hadith (reports attributed to Muhammad’s words, actions, or approval) form part of a wider inquiry into inherited religious authority.

This study addresses those questions. It does not set out to discredit everyone who lived before us or to reject historical inquiry. Its subject is the boundary between learning from human beings and assigning them final authority over what counts as God’s religion.

2. The questions at stake

First, what does “what God has sent down” mean in Al-Baqarah 2:170, and why is it set against “what we found our ancestors following”? Does the verse object to learning from ancestors as such, or to inherited practice taking the place of revealed guidance?

Second, why does the verse end with two descriptions: failing to reason and failing to find guidance? How does evaluating a belief through reason relate to finding the right path?

Third, what common pattern is criticized in related passages, especially Luqman 31:21, Al-Ma'idah 5:104, and Az-Zukhruf 43:22, Az-Zukhruf 43:23, Az-Zukhruf 43:24? Does the Qur’an also present an example in which following one’s ancestors is commendable?

Fourth, can reports attributed to the Prophet, or inherited legal opinions, become certain sources of divine legislation without establishing their attribution and divine authorization? How does obedience to the Messenger differ from acceptance of a report about him?

Finally, how does inherited authority relate to speaking about God without knowledge, inventing prohibitions, following conjecture, and personal accountability? Can these passages supply a coherent standard for examining religious claims?

3. Method and scope

The inquiry begins with the language and context of Al-Baqarah 2:170, then considers related passages. Their purpose is to establish the scope of the Qur’an’s argument, rather than to supply isolated phrases for a conclusion chosen in advance. The relevant evidence concerns ancestral allegiance in opposition to revelation, the responsibility to reason and reflect, obedience to the Messenger, and claims to make binding religious rules.

Four levels must remain distinct: what a verse expressly says; what can be inferred by considering passages together; historical or linguistic information that helps establish the subject; and an application of those principles to religious life today. Verse Al-Baqarah 2:170 does not name hadith collections compiled in later centuries. Applying it to reliance on those collections therefore requires an argument; that application cannot be inserted into the verse’s literal wording. Conversely, the historical development of a legal tradition does not exempt it from examination against Qur’anic principles.

Forqan has separate studies of obedience to the Messenger, explanation and clear delivery, wisdom, the transmission of the Qur’an and hadith, and rules supported by reports. This article uses the arguments needed for its own subject and directs readers to those studies for detail. Linguistic and historical sources can illuminate meaning and past events. Using them for research does not, by itself, confer on them authority to legislate in God’s name.

4. The central finding

Al-Baqarah Al-Baqarah 2:170 does not prohibit following earlier generations in every circumstance. It criticizes choosing an ancestral way in response to an invitation to follow revelation, simply because it is ancestral—even if it lacks reason and guidance. Joseph’s account of following his monotheistic forebears in Yusuf 12:38 is an important counterexample to an indiscriminate rejection of inheritance. Their path is worth following because it is true, not merely because it is old.

The same pattern can arise in reliance on reports, legal opinions, and traditions when inherited material is placed above revelation without sufficient evidence, or a human statement is treated as God’s certain command. Listening, learning, and researching historical accounts do not themselves constitute that error. The danger begins when “What has God revealed?” is replaced by “What did our authorities say?”—and the second answer remains decisive even when it conflicts with the first.

Several passages support this connection. Speaking about God without knowledge is included among Satan’s incitements in Al-Baqarah 2:169. Being satisfied with ancestral practice in response to revelation is challenged in Al-Ma'idah 5:104. The possibility of better guidance than the inherited path is raised in Az-Zukhruf 43:24. Questions of divine permission for religious rules appear in Yunus 10:59 and Ash-Shura 42:21. Together, these passages explain why a discussion of inherited allegiance leads into the authority to legislate in religion.

The argument requires reading those passages in their own settings. We begin with the direct meaning of Al-Baqarah 2:170, examine related passages, and then consider the application to contemporary reliance on reports and the objections that application raises.

5. The argument in detail

5.1. Revelation and ancestral practice: two grounds for following

The passage reads:

وَإِذا قيلَ لَهُمُ اتَّبِعوا ما أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ قالوا بَل نَتَّبِعُ ما أَلفَينا عَلَيهِ ءاباءَنا ۗ أَوَلَو كانَ ءاباؤُهُم لا يَعقِلونَ شَيـًٔا وَلا يَهتَدونَ

“When they are told, ‘Follow what God has sent down,’ they say, ‘Rather, we follow what we found our ancestors following.’ Even if their ancestors understood nothing and were not guided?” (Al-Baqarah 2:170)

The initial invitation is to follow revelation. Reading it, admiring it, or keeping it in a place of honor is not necessarily the same thing. A person may recite Scripture and speak respectfully of it while allowing another authority to settle every question of belief and conduct. The verse brings the issue into practical life: when revelation points out a path, what will a person actually follow?

The reply begins with bal (rather, marking a turn from the proposed course to another). The speakers do not offer an argument from revelation. They invoke what they found their ancestors doing. The verb alfayna (we found or encountered) describes encountering an existing situation. It tells us how they came to know the practice, not how they established that the practice was true. Transmission and justification are different matters.

“Ancestors” refers here to an actual family relationship. The pattern of inherited allegiance, however, can occur beyond a family: an individual may give a teacher, cleric, legal school, community, or educational institution the same unquestioned authority. This is an application of the verse’s pattern, not a claim that its word for ancestors literally names those later institutions. The common issue is reliance on a speaker’s standing or an inheritance’s age in place of evidence.

The expression “what God has sent down” also needs attention to its audience and setting. It should not be made the name of one book throughout all history. The Qur’an speaks of the revelation of the Torah and Gospel (Al-Imran 3:3; Al-Ma'idah 5:44; Al-Ma'idah 5:47). In Muhammad’s mission, the revealed Scripture presented to his audience is the Qur’an itself (Al-Ma'idah 5:48; Al-A'raf 7:3). Its authority is therefore directly relevant to this community’s claims about religion, without denying the expression’s wider uses in other settings.

5.2. Reason and guidance as standards of judgment

The verse’s closing challenge does not ask how numerous the ancestors’ followers were or how ancient their practice was. It asks about reason and guidance. This need not mean that the ancestors lacked competence in every ordinary matter. The context concerns choosing a religious path. The problem is appealing to an inheritance without establishing its truth or the guidance it offers.

Reasoning involves examining evidence, understanding relationships, and distinguishing warranted conclusions from conjecture. Reflection on the Qur’an is one field in which that responsibility operates. The invitation to consider its coherence in An-Nisa 4:82 and the connection between revelation, reflection, and understanding in Sad 38:29 are relevant here. A reader who decides in advance that Scripture must conform to an inherited legal system faces a corresponding question: has the system been tested against the Book, or has the Book been made answerable to the system?

Guidance is not identical to accumulated information or the ability to name respected authorities. Someone may know hundreds of opinions and still choose the wrong final standard for judging them. A beginner may be honestly searching for evidence without yet having answers to every question. Consequently, the language of lacking guidance should not become a license to condemn everyone who reaches another interpretation. The verse gives a standard for examining a method; it does not give us unqualified access to each person’s faith or inner life.

Reason and guidance matter together. Reason enables examination; guidance also concerns the direction and purpose of the chosen path. When religion becomes unquestioning allegiance to inheritance, both thoughtful responsibility and attention to revelation may be diminished. This danger can be considered when someone declares the Qur’an insufficient or makes its understanding dependent on another source without establishing the need. That remains a contemporary application requiring evidence, rather than a literal translation of the verse.

5.3. The surrounding passage: leadership, food, and claims about God

Verse Al-Baqarah 2:170 belongs to a larger sequence. In Al-Baqarah 2:166 and Al-Baqarah 2:167, the bonds between followers and those they followed collapse in the face of punishment. The leaders disown their followers, who wish they could return and break that allegiance themselves. Reliance on a leader has not removed responsibility for choosing whom to follow. The leader’s name and standing cannot supply the follower’s missing justification.

The sequence then addresses all people, calling them to eat what is halal (permitted) and tayyib (good or wholesome) on earth and warning against Satan’s footsteps (Al-Baqarah 2:168). Speaking about God without knowledge appears in the next verse (Al-Baqarah 2:169). Ancestral allegiance then confronts the invitation to revelation (Al-Baqarah 2:170), followed by an image of hearing sound without understanding (Al-Baqarah 2:171). The discussion returns to good provision, gratitude, food prohibitions, and the allowance for necessity in Al-Baqarah 2:172 and Al-Baqarah 2:173.

This sequence connects food with authority. Avoiding a food because of culture or habit is a personal choice. Attributing that dislike to God without evidence, and forbidding others to eat in His name, makes a different claim. The Qur’an itself discusses inherited restrictions involving food and livestock in Al-An'am 6:136, Al-An'am 6:138, Al-An'am 6:143, Al-An'am 6:144, and Al-An'am 6:150. The relationship between customary food rules and asserted divine authority is therefore part of its own argument, not merely a modern concern projected onto it.

That relationship does not establish that every contemporary leader and follower belongs to the condemned group. Yet the connection among allegiance, uncertain claims, speech about God without knowledge, and invented prohibitions should not be overlooked. When we call something God’s command, have we established it through revelation, or accepted it through reputation and inherited repetition?

5.4. The pattern across other chapters

In Luqman 31:21, the invitation to follow revelation again receives an appeal to the ancestors’ path. The warning about Satan’s invitation to punishment shows why family and religious continuity cannot guarantee that a course is right. The next verse describes someone who commits themselves to God while doing good (Luqman 31:22). It associates that commitment with al-‘urwah al-wuthqa (the firmest handhold). The same expression appears alongside rejecting false objects of allegiance and believing in God in Al-Baqarah 2:256. In these settings, the handhold is connected with faith, commitment, and orientation toward God; revelation guides our understanding of that orientation. There is no need to assign the expression exclusively to a particular object or later historical title without adequate textual support.

The response in Al-Ma'idah 5:104 goes further: the inherited way is said to be enough. It is not simply cherished; it is treated as sufficient in answer to the invitation to revelation. The appeal to ancestors recurs in Az-Zukhruf 43:22 and Az-Zukhruf 43:23. Then Az-Zukhruf 43:24 asks what happens when better guidance is offered than the inherited path. Would ancestry still prevail? Guidance, rather than the age of a practice or the status of its transmitters, supplies the standard.

In Al-A'raf 7:28, inherited conduct becomes a claim about divine command. People justify a shameful act by saying both that their ancestors practiced it and that God ordered it. The reply denies that God commands shameful conduct and challenges their speech about Him without knowledge. In Al-An'am 6:148 and An-Nahl 16:35, appeals to God’s will are also used to justify assigning partners to Him and imposing prohibitions. The danger is thus more than retaining a mistaken custom. It includes giving the custom an unsupported divine warrant.

Joseph’s statement in Yusuf 12:38 supplies a decisive contrast. He follows the religious way of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, identifying that way with devotion to God alone. Criticism of unexamined ancestry should therefore not become hostility toward every religious inheritance. The question is whether the received path is supported by truth and guidance, rather than respected solely because it comes from the past.

5.5. Hearing, transmitting, and knowing are different activities

Reports are indispensable to learning about history, language, and earlier lives. The Qur’an connects attentive listening with following the best of what is said (Az-Zumar 39:18). Hearing a statement is not yet accepting it. Hearing begins an inquiry; evaluating the statement is a further responsibility; following it is a choice requiring justification.

Chapter 26 distinguishes the revelation of the Qur’an from the descent of devils upon fabricators. Verses Ash-Shu'ara 26:210, Ash-Shu'ara 26:211, and Ash-Shu'ara 26:212 deny a demonic source for revelation; Ash-Shu'ara 26:221, Ash-Shu'ara 26:222, and Ash-Shu'ara 26:223 address sinful fabricators and hearing mixed with falsehood. Those passages do not name later hadith collections or their chains of transmission. They cannot establish that every historical report is demonic. They do support an important methodological warning: a statement’s having been heard does not guarantee its truth or its divine origin.

A report may be transmitted accurately. It may be altered, misunderstood, or attributed to someone who never said it. These possibilities do not make all reports worthless. They require the confidence placed in each report to correspond to its evidence. The assertion that God has imposed a rule on every human being is a much larger claim than an account of a past event. Divine authorization and the scope of the alleged command need to be established as well.

The incorporation of narrative material associated with earlier Jewish and Christian traditions into some Qur’anic interpretation illustrates this need for care. Such material is often called Isra’iliyyat (reports associated with those earlier traditions). A story initially offered to fill a gap may become so familiar that readers mistake it for part of the verse or its certain meaning. Forqan’s study of narrative additions examines this problem. But an account of how a story entered interpretation is itself a historical claim requiring evidence. It does not justify accusing every transmitter or an entire tradition of deliberate fabrication.

5.6. Obeying the Messenger and accepting a report about him

An objection arises immediately: the Qur’an commands obedience to the Messenger, so must not the transmitted teaching bind believers? This brings together two distinct questions. The first concerns the Messenger’s authority; the Qur’an recognizes his roles in teaching, judgment, and leadership (An-Nisa 4:80; An-Nisa 4:105; An-Nur 24:54). The second concerns the evidence that a later report accurately conveys his instruction and establishes a permanent requirement for subsequent generations. Accepting the first does not automatically settle the second.

Merely repeating the report cannot establish the point under dispute—its credibility. Even where strong evidence supports attribution, we must distinguish a divine command from an explanation, a judgment in a particular case, or a personal choice. Those distinctions do not dismiss the Messenger. They guard against attributing a rule to him, and through him to God, without sufficient grounds.

The Qur’an relates the Messenger’s judgment to divine guidance. He is to judge by what God has shown him (An-Nisa 4:105) and by what God has revealed (Al-Ma'idah 5:48, Al-Ma'idah 5:49); he cannot change the Qur’an on his own initiative (Yunus 10:15). A claim to make additional divine law therefore requires an account of authorization. A defender of prophetic teaching may argue that God delegated authority to issue binding instructions beyond the recited text. That claim needs to be examined directly, together with the evidence that the particular report conveys such an instruction. Calling a later report “the Messenger’s teaching” cannot supply those proofs by itself.

The duty to explain revelation in An-Nahl 16:44 is also relevant. Explanation and teaching are real responsibilities. Yet they do not themselves authenticate a particular later collection or make it immune to error. The pairing of “the Book and wisdom” likewise needs more than the observation that two nouns occur together before it can establish a second revealed body of rules. In Al-Isra 17:39, teachings within the Qur’anic revelation are themselves described as wisdom. Forqan’s studies of obedience to the Messenger and of Al-Mubin (clear and clarifying) discuss these arguments in detail. Whether the claim concerns a whole collection or selected reports, their authority still requires evidence.

The instruction in Al-Hashr 59:7 belongs to a passage about distributing fay’ (property acquired from an opposing community without the usual battle division). The Messenger’s actual authority in that setting should be acknowledged. Even if a broader rule of obedience is drawn from it, the authenticity and binding scope of later reports still need to be demonstrated. Similarly, a practice passed down through communal instruction does not automatically make every detail obligatory or establish the legislative authority of all written hadith.

The response to “Has God not commanded obedience to the Messenger?” is therefore to accept that command while examining claims made in its name. An unsupported equivalence between the Messenger and everything later attributed to him should not be allowed to replace that inquiry. Practical questions about prayer, charitable responsibility, and pilgrimage are addressed in the separate study, “Is the Qur’an Incomplete Without Hadith?” Repeating all of those discussions here would obscure the particular problem raised by Al-Baqarah 2:170.

5.7. When inherited practice becomes unauthorized religious law

The critique of ancestry becomes a question about divine authority when someone presents inherited words or conduct as God’s rule without evidence. In Yunus 10:59, people who divide God’s provision into permitted and forbidden categories are asked whether He authorized them or whether they invent claims about Him. Verse An-Nahl 16:116 also condemns attributing invented permissions and prohibitions to God. Verse Ash-Shura 42:21 challenges partners who establish religious requirements without His permission. These claims concern more than taste or expertise: they purport to speak with God’s authority.

In At-Tawbah 9:31, religious scholars and monks are described as having been taken as lords. This cannot reasonably make every consultation with a scholar, every lesson, or every informed acceptance of instruction an act of worshipping another being. The issue concerns final authority: is a leader’s ruling beyond examination, with no requirement to establish its divine warrant? “Associating partners in legislation” can serve as an analytical description of assigning God’s authority to an unauthorized source. It is not a phrase used in Al-Baqarah 2:170 itself, nor does using it establish the faith or intentions of every individual involved.

Societies also need contracts, public-health rules, judicial decisions, and administrative arrangements. Their human origin does not automatically make them unauthorized religious legislation. The distinction becomes clear when an administrative choice, personal preference, or customary precaution is imposed on everyone as something God has forbidden forever. The Qur’anic question about authorization then applies. Recognizing that distinction preserves social responsibility and practical reason while challenging misuse of God’s name.

5.8. How inherited authority can control the reading of Scripture

Imagine a rule repeated for generations, taught to children, and reproduced in respected books. A reader encounters a Qur’anic passage that appears to conflict with it. One response is to examine both claims carefully: the verse’s language, context, and scope; the source of the reported rule; and whether the conflict is genuine or only apparent. Another response assumes the inherited rule is unquestionably correct and requires the verse to accommodate it at any cost.

The second method can reproduce the reversal criticized in Al-Baqarah 2:170. Instead of testing the inheritance against revelation, it puts revelation on trial before the inheritance. A person may still say that the Qur’an is the standard while allowing something else to settle the outcome in practice. Challenging that reversal is compatible with respect for earlier scholars and fair examination of reports. It separates the authority of evidence from the authority of reputation.

The controversy over stoning illustrates the stakes. The Qur’an states a punishment for illicit sexual intercourse in An-Nur 24:2 and addresses a spouse’s accusation, sworn testimony, and the averting of punishment in An-Nur 24:6, An-Nur 24:7, An-Nur 24:8, An-Nur 24:9. It also describes half a punishment in specified circumstances in An-Nisa 4:25. The case for stoning relies on reports and additional legal reasoning. A judgment must examine the passages together, their scope, and the opposing arguments. Familiarity with a rule cannot substitute for that work, particularly when a person’s life is at stake. Forqan’s dedicated study of stoning develops the comparison.

The problem is not confined to punishment. The food passages discuss prohibitions, necessity, and claims made without divine authorization (Al-An'am 6:145; An-Nahl 16:115; An-Nahl 16:116). A person may avoid food for reasons of taste or health. Making that preference God’s rule for others requires a further justification. The study of halal and haram (permission and prohibition) examines that boundary in detail. Across these examples, the principle is consistent: inherited teaching must answer to revelation, rather than predetermine what revelation may say.

5.9. Neglecting the Qur’an while continuing to recite it

The Messenger’s complaint that his people have abandoned the Qur’an appears in Al-Furqan 25:30. It invites reflection on the difference between honoring a book outwardly and following it. A community may recite Scripture, display it, celebrate it, and begin public occasions with its passages while allowing predetermined rules to drown out its voice in actual judgment. Recitation can remain even as the Book’s practical authority weakens.

This application does not mean that anyone who learns from a religious scholar has abandoned the Qur’an. A more useful test is what happens when a human claim seems to conflict with clear revelation. Do we work to understand the passage and examine the inheritance, or have we already decided that the inheritance cannot be questioned? The danger described here concerns that prior refusal to examine it.

Listening and following the best of what is said are associated with guidance and understanding in Az-Zumar 39:18. In Az-Zumar 39:23, the revealed Book is called ahsan al-hadith (the best discourse). Here, the ordinary sense of hadith as discourse must not be confused with the later technical label for collections of prophetic reports. The passage identifies the revealed Book. Together, these passages encourage responsible hearing and judgment guided by truth, rather than unquestioning acceptance of whatever has become familiar.

The positive alternative is also present in chapter 31. Following the critique of ancestral allegiance in Luqman 31:21, the next verse describes commitment to God accompanied by doing good (Luqman 31:22). Submission is not merely a claim to belong to a religious group; it is joined to conduct. Returning to revelation should therefore not become another justification for factional arrogance, contempt, or cruelty. Someone who closes off dialogue and fairness in the name of truth must examine that method by the same standards.

5.10. Responsibility without pretending to know people’s intentions

People do not follow mistaken paths with identical knowledge or opportunities. Someone raised with only one religious interpretation may lack access to other evidence or the ability to undertake extensive research. A trained scholar may have broad access to sources and arguments. Those circumstances cannot simply be equated. Passages about followers and leaders in Al-Baqarah 2:166, Al-Baqarah 2:167, and Al-Ahzab 33:67 recall personal responsibility, but they do not reveal every individual’s knowledge, intention, or final judgment.

The limited knowledge of some followers, however, must not become permanent immunity from criticism for influential authorities. Anyone issuing binding judgments about life, property, family, freedom of belief, or worship in God’s name should provide evidence and answer for the consequences. The practical and intellectual responsibilities of that position grow with its influence. The object of criticism is the justification and exercise of authority, not a claim to read hidden motives.

Respect for parents, teachers, and scholars is healthiest when it includes intellectual honesty. Repeating everything a teacher said is not necessarily the best service to that teacher. Recognizing sound insights, admitting the possibility of error, and placing truth above personal reputation are forms of fidelity too. The recurring problem in the critique of inherited allegiance is the failure to distinguish truth from historical prestige.

6. Questions and answers

7. Being faithful to both revelation and the past

The question in Al-Baqarah 2:170 does not become obsolete as generations change. When inherited teaching and revelation appear to conflict, which supplies the final standard? The verse turns to reason and guidance rather than antiquity, numbers, or ancestral standing. Related passages criticize appeals to ancestry that resist revelation. Joseph’s example, in contrast, shows why receiving an inheritance is not the error. The error is exempting it from examination against truth.

Reliance on inherited religious authority can reproduce that danger when human statements are placed above the Qur’an without adequate evidence or assigned divine legislative power without demonstrated authorization. Merely transmitting information, studying history, learning from scholars, or disagreeing honestly in interpretation does not establish the same fault. Maintaining that boundary enables serious criticism without turning it into indiscriminate accusations against earlier generations and their followers.

Fidelity to revelation therefore requires a sound standard for assessing the past, rather than rejecting the past as a whole. Truth preserved by earlier generations deserves to be followed. Their errors need not be continued out of respect for them. Revelation should guide our understanding of inheritance; inheritance should not determine in advance what God’s Book is allowed to say. A person remains responsible for claims attributed to God. A scholar’s name, a school’s reputation, or a chain of transmitters cannot simply remove that responsibility.

The final question is the one posed by the passage itself: will we follow what God has revealed, or what we found our ancestors following? Reasoned attention to guidance begins by recognizing that these are distinguishable claims. Where a real and clear conflict is established, God’s command takes priority over human preference and inherited opinion.

8. Related studies at Forqan

Al-Baqarah 2:170

Al-Baqarah 2:169

Confusing Obedience to the Messenger with Obedience to Scattered Hadith and Reports; Creating Parallel Religions and Sects Beside the Way of the Qur’an

Al-Mubin (clear and clarifying): the Qur’an and the Messenger’s delivery

Is the Qur’an Incomplete Without Hadith? 67 Questions About Scripture, the Messenger, and Religious Practice

Responsibility Before Following Reports and Memories Whose Truth We Do Not Know with Certainty

Refuting the Claim That the Transmitters of the Qur’an and Hadith Are Equal

When Qur’anic Silence Is Filled with Reports: Isra’iliyyat, Hadith, and the Inability to Say “We Do Not Know”

Halal and Haram (Permitted and Forbidden) in the Qur’an: God’s Authority to Legislate and the Danger of Assigning Partners in Religion

Stoning: A Qur’anic Ruling or a Rule Derived from Reports?

Religious commitment, submission to God, and revealed ways of life