Calling it “repetitive” does not resolve the issue
Calling an argument “repetitive” does not resolve the issue. It usually means the core point has not been answered.
You say the problem is my use of terms like “outside revelation” or “independent revelation”.
But those terms are not rhetorical tricks. They are logically necessary distinctions.
The claim being asserted
You are asserting this:
“Prophetic guidance not explicitly in the Qur’an is still revelation from God.”
That is a theological claim.
Now the question is simple:
👉🏽 Where does the Qur’an say that?
Not “Islam says”.
Not “scholars say”.
Not “this is understood”.
How the Qur’an itself defines revelation
The Qur’an repeatedly defines revelation as what is revealed to him, not what is later remembered, transmitted, or attributed.
- 10:15 — “I only follow what is revealed to me.”
- 6:50 — “I only follow what is revealed to me.”
- 7:3 — “Follow what has been revealed from your Lord.”
If there exists an ongoing category of binding revelation not contained in what was revealed as the Qur’an, then the Qur’an itself never names it, never defines it, and never distinguishes it.
You are importing that category, not me.
“Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah” (4:80)
“Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah.”
Yes — and the Qur’an itself explains how that obedience operates.
- 50:45 — “So remind; you are only a reminder. Remind by the Qur’an whoever fears My warning.”
- 6:51 — “Warn by it those who fear that they will be gathered before their Lord…”
- 6:70 — “But remind by it, lest a soul be given up to destruction for what it earned…”
- 5:99 — “The Messenger’s duty is only to convey.”
- 6:50 — “I only follow what is revealed to me.”
The Messenger is commanded to:
- warn by the Qur’an
- convey
- follow what is revealed
There is no verse where he is told to warn by an additional, parallel body of revelation, nor where such a category is even named.
Equivalence, not expansion
So when 4:80 says:
“Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah”
it explains equivalence, not expansion.
It does not say:
“Whoever obeys the Messenger obeys Allah because the Messenger legislates independently.”
That reading would actually collapse tawḥīd.
Why independent legislation destroys tawḥīd
If obedience to the Messenger were obedience to Allah because the Messenger issues law from himself, then the authority would no longer be derivative. It would be identical in source.
That would imply a share in divine authority.
The Qur’an never allows that.
This is precisely why the Qur’an constantly reiterates that the Messenger:
- follows only what is revealed
- conveys but does not originate
- is corrected when he errs
This distinction is not technical. It is theological.
Without it, “obey the Messenger” would imply obedience to Allah and obedience to another autonomous authority.
That would be shirk, not submission.
Why this verse is often misread
This is also why some Christians misread such verses and claim that Muslims “worship Muhammad” — by ignoring Qur’anic context.
Yet the Qur’an itself prevents that misunderstanding.
Even Jesus uses the same language:
“Whoever listens to me listens to the One who sent me.”
But the context clarifies that he speaks only what he was commanded, not from himself.
The Qur’an uses the same model: obedience to the Messenger is obedience to Allah because the Messenger conveys Allah’s command, not because he shares Allah’s authority.
The logical consequence
If everything the Prophet said were revelation:
- correction verses make no sense
- warnings to him are incoherent
- “I only follow what is revealed” becomes meaningless
Final clarification
So no, I am not limiting obedience to the Qur’an by assumption.
I am following the Qur’an’s own definition of revelation, authority, and legislation.
If you believe in an additional category of binding revelation beyond the Qur’an:
👉🏽 Show me the Qur’anic verse that establishes it.
Without that, your position is not Qur’anic. It is post-Qur’anic theology.