No doubt Quran is the mizan and Furqan. This is why it is counter argued that the right order of sources is Quran as foremost, then Hadith, Ijma and Qiyas. Hadith cannot ADD to the quran but can CLARIFY/ELABORATE on a verse of Quran.

So the question is how do we tell the difference when someone is clarifying/elaborating on a verse in Quran versus ADDING to the Quran

When scholars can use deductions to make conclusions then why cant hadith be used to draw deductions which can be argued are in light of Quran because it’s a clarification not an addition.

My point here is for audiences to understand that when a scholar reads a verse and it’s ambiguous what options he/she has to understand it further. Many people think that if you are not using Hadith as a source of deen then scholar is using his own opinion without a rational. And if that was indeed the case, I would argue that it’s better to use Hadith instead. However, this is NOT the case as scholar is not using his opinion, but a methodology to understand the verse in light of Quran which many people are ignorant of how that’s even possible and why scholars who use hadith as a source wouldn’t try to find an answer through Quran first.

I am listing the options that some scholars use to interpret verses at a very high level. There is Qiyas/Ijma as well but limiting to how hadith is/should be used to respect the topic at stake in this thread.

Option1: Refer to Hadith and see if there are any hadiths which can clarify the verse further. For best interpretation, apply Hadith sciences (assuming scholar is using all variants of the hadiths etc). Note: I have noticed many times hadith’s authenticity value is also not taken into account, like who narrates etc. making it even a more weaker case to use hadith as a source of deen. Here we are trying to understand Quran in light of Hadith.

Option 2:

To understand a verse, go back to the Quran and focus on the entire arrangement of the ayat: coherence/nazm,/topic/addressee/Classical Arabic gems to understand the verse further.

Note: I have learned that via the coherence method which is used not only by Frahi school but many other scholars like Nouman Ali Khan the verse becomes crystal clear of its meaning. It’s quite possible that scholars who understand the same verse in light of Quran still differ in their opinion. However, the beauty is that nevertheless, a verse is understood in light of the divine Book & not through a book that’s not divine and was written 200 plus years after passing away of the Prophet (saw)!

Those who opt for option 1, often exhaust the possibility of finding the truth via Quran itself! At worse they limit Quran from being reflected upon! If everything was on the surface and in Fiqh books/Hadith why did Allah ask us to CONTEMPLATE on the ayats?

We may as well, read Fiqh and Hadith books to understand Deen, and recite Quran for Ajr only – AND ISNT THAT WHAT WE HAVE DONE TO THE QURAN AND CONFINED IT TO OUR BOOKSHELVES?

This is why Quran should NOT be interpreted through Hadith.

Respect Quran. It’s complete. It’s divine. It’s preserved! 🙏

Qur’an is Furqan, hadees has to be in the footnote of the Qur’an. Some people even insist that the Qur’an has to be understood by hadees which is totally in correct. Hadees is very valuable but we cannot accept any hadees contradicting the Qur’an.

If that’s the case then there are many ahadith which are dubious and are beyond logic but they are mentioned as sahih in Hadith books. If you try to interpret Quran through Hadith then you will have to rewrite the whole ideology of Islam and Quran will unfortunately become just a secondary source of religious guidance. In fact some religious sects have already done that. They just jump to Hadith if they don’t find their narrative being supported by the Quran.