No-one has done as much to break the Qur’an into parts as the Traditionalist; it is his stock-in-trade.
If one reads what he says the Qur’an means, one sees that the stories by means of which he ‘explains’ the Qur’an serve only to break it into disjointed parts and prevent the reader from engaging with it with any consistency or fluidity.
Added to this is his importation of a division of the chapters of the Qur’an into “Mekkan” and “Medinan””. Such a division has no basis in the Qur’an itself.
Like as we sent down upon those who make division
Those who make the Qur’an into parts
By thy lord, we will question them all together
About what they did.
So declare thou what thou art commanded
And turn thou away from the idolaters. (15:90-94)
No-one has done as much to break the Qur’an into parts as the Traditionalist; it is his stock-in-trade. If one reads what he says the Qur’an means, one sees that the stories by means of which he ‘explains’ the Qur’an serve only to break it into disjointed parts and prevent the reader from engaging with it with any consistency or fluidity.
And by ascribing values to Qur’anic terms on a piecemeal basis in order to achieve predetermined goals – which is another characteristic of the Traditionalist’s method – he is, likewise, effectively breaking the Qur’an into parts.
For example, if one takes his values for salat and for zakat one finds in the case of salat that his value shifts and twists depending on what his objective is for the local context. He can make it mean anything from prayer as and abstract concept, to Prayer as a proper noun (and with a capital P), to blessings, to Jewish temple.
What he does not do is employ a system of pan-textual analysis: because his religion would not survive it.
IN the case of zakat, he imports a value from outside the corpus of the Qur’an and which contradicts the Qur’anic statement on giving.
They ask thee what they should spend.
Say thou: Whatever you spend of good:
And close relatives
And the fatherless
And the needy
And the wayfarer[…]
And whatever you do of good:
God knows it.
Yet another means by which the Traditionalist divides the Qur’an is by importing his assumptions take again from another literature regarding the location of the revelation.
Look at the surah list in any Arabic Quran: it clearly labels each surah:
There is no basis for this division whatever in the Qur’an.
The Qur’an regards itself as one book; I treat it as one book. My processes of pan-textual analysis and the practice of looking to the Qur’an for its internal definitions as well as my presentation on the huroof muqatta’at (the mysterious letters – such as ALM which I will link to at the end of this) demonstrate this.
I refer to my own work only because that is what I know. But there are many other people out there doing diligent research on the basis of the Qur’an as a complete revelation.
Constantly, one is harangued with the retort: well how do you pray without the hadith.
Assumes that there is a “correct” way to pray; it also assumes that even within the highly spurious system of “isnad” there is a “sahiih” way of praying. That doesn’t exist – as honest Traditionalists will admit.
وَٱسْتَعِينُوا۟ بِٱلصَّبْرِ وَٱلصَّلَوٰةِ ۚ
Tell me exactly how to have patience, and I will think about how to tell you exactly how to perform what you call salat.
Original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6pfzyaD5z4