This intellectual movement, which has roots in the statement of the second caliph and the groups that denied the Sunnah in the late second century AH, is pursued in the contemporary era by figures such as Ahmad Parwez, Abdullah Chakralawi, and Ahmed Subhy Mansour in the Indian subcontinent and Egypt. The Qur'anists believe that the Qur'an alone is sufficient to express all propositions, rulings, general principles, and details of the religion, and therefore, there is no need for the Sunnah as an independent or complementary source alongside the Qur'an.
The present study was conducted with the aim of evaluating and critiquing the perspective of the Qur'anists (extreme Qur'anic sufficers) regarding the relationship between the Book (the Qur'an) and the Sunnah. This intellectual movement, which has roots in the statement of the second caliph and the groups that denied the Sunnah in the late second century AH, is pursued in the contemporary era by figures such as Ahmad Parwez, Abdullah Chakralawi, and Ahmed Subhy Mansour in the Indian subcontinent and Egypt. The Qur'anists believe that the Qur'an alone is sufficient to express all propositions, rulings, general principles, and details of the religion, and therefore, there is no need for the Sunnah as an independent or complementary source alongside the Qur'an.
Employing a descriptive analytical method and a critical approach, this paper first addresses the historical genealogy and the factors underlying the formation of this thought, and then categorizes and presents its proponents' most important arguments into eight main axes. These arguments include: relying on the comprehensiveness of the Qur'an, viewing the Sunnah as non revelatory and human, limiting the Sunnah to the Prophet's era, the non legislative nature of the Sunnah, the lack of authenticity due to its criticizability, its divisive nature, the delay in codification, and sufficiency with the practical Sunnah. In critiquing these arguments, the authors by adhering to Qur'anic verses such as the Verse of Clarification (Qur'an 16:44) which positions the Prophet as the clarifier of the Qur'an, verses commanding obedience to the Messenger, and verses denying speech out of personal whim (Qur'an 53:3 4), as well as relying on mutawatir (successively narrated) and definitively issued (qati' al sudur) hadiths and the rational method (sirat al uqa'la) of accepting the reports of trustworthy narrators explore the pathology of each of these arguments. They demonstrate that the claim of Qur'anic sufficiency is plagued by confusion and error regarding its theological, historical, and hadith foundations.
The research findings indicate that arguing for the comprehensiveness of the Qur'an to negate the Sunnah overlooks the explanatory role of the Messenger of Allah, and the claim that the Sunnah is non revelatory contradicts the verses concerning the oral infallibility of the Prophet. Furthermore, historical arguments, such as the prohibition of writing hadith, lack sufficient validity and pertained to specific conditions. The final results of the article emphasize that the Sunnah is complementary to and a clarifier of the Qur'an, and abandoning it leaves Muslims confused and subject to subjective differences of taste in understanding the objectives of Sharia. More clearly, adherence to the Sunnah is not a factor of division; rather, under a correct understanding of it, a harmonious and coherent interpretation of the Qur'an can be achieved, preventing the fragmentation of opinions that is the natural outcome of extreme Qur'anic sufficiency.