I see these three different terms used and I wonder what's the difference between them.
I for one consider myself to be one of the God Alone muslims.
One reason is because I believe in the articles of faith:
Messengers of God
The Holy Books
The Angels of God
The Day of Judgment
The Ultimate Plan
The Holy Books are included in the articles of faith, therefore can you be
a Quranist or Quran alone muslim and adhere to the belief in the other
Help me understand
Quranist are either one of those parties
1. They only accept the Quran as a religious source.
2. They accept the Quran and previous scriptures.
3. They accept the Quran and Islamic rituals but not hadiths.
4. They accept the Quran and Islamic rituals and hadiths that does not contradict the Quran.
5. Not necessarily among any but switch according to specific issues. Most Quranist tend to be in this category, at least the ones here are.
None believe in abrogation. None believe in accepting what contradicts an explicit verse from the Quran.
Now there should be another criteria but this is still a work in progress and that is nothing should be made binding that is not supported by an explicit verse from the Quran. Some Quranist still have a problem with this. This usually are the ones who still follow the Islamic rituals and hadiths that do not contradict the Quran. They still do not want to acknowledge Quranist who don't want to follow the Islamic rituals since they are not stated as such in the Quran. They want to make those rituals binding as they are (like the 5 salat). Without an explicit verse from the Quran they will not able to since many Quranist will demand that evidence from the Quran.
Also the ones who only accept the Quran have a hard time accepting those who follow other sources as well since they see that as an attack on the Quran's self sufficiency. However they have to come up with an answer about the previous scriptures the Quran talks about abundantly. They usually claim these scriptures we have today are not the ones the Quran is talking about. But this is not supported by any Quranic or historic evidence. Because the verses in the Quran about the previous scriptures are explicit, they find that the only argument to go with is questioning whether these scriptures still exist today. We have to understand that there is a difference between following something and following something that contradicts the Quran.
If you believe in abrogation and believe that the sunnah as it is in Islamic sources can add legislation that is binding, than you will not get far with Quranist. Even with the ones who accept hadiths since those ones still will not accept what contradicts the Quran. This is what seperates a Quranist from a Sunni/Shia follower. Abrogation and binding authority. These sects can accept what contradicts the Quran and can make binding what the Quran never did.
Code 19 is another good example where some have tried to make binding what the Quran was not explicit about. They rely on implicit verses. Implicit verses will not get you far. There is nothing wrong with following code 19 or any other mathematical code, as long as you don't contradict the Quran. But you can't make binding what is not explicit in the Quran. It is wrong for the 19ers to attack those who don't wish to follow it, but its also wrong to attack them for following it. If they don't contradict the Quran than there is no reason not to follow it. The Quranist persuasion is for the whole of mankind. We have different backgrounds and different personalities and different ways of thinking, The Quran however shall unite us.
Like I said, this is still a work in progress. But this is how the Quranist persuasion will develop.
So what is explicit? Its what the vast majority of Quranist can agree with. Not what some agree with.No abrogation and only an explicit verse of the Quran is binding and under no circumstance should anything that contradicts an explicit verse of the Quran be accepted.