Home | About Us | FAQs | Search

Islam - The Basics
- God
- Quran
- Prophets & Messengers
- Religious Duties
- The Proof     
- Satan
Islam - Myths & Misconceptions
- Women in Islam    
- Jihad and Terrorism 
- Idolatry 
- Animals, Music & the Arts 
- Hadith and Sunnah
- Other Topics
Islam Around the World
- News Feeds
- Web Blog
- Book Reviews
- What price a great nation?
- Website Updates
Resources & Links
- Catalog
- Submitter's Perspective
- God's Mosque
- Alphabetical List of Topics
- More links

You are here: Home > islam-myths > idolatry >quran-and-hadith

"My Lord, My People Have Deserted The Quran" - BUT HOW?

Since the Messenger's passing the definitions of the 'Quran' and 'hadith' have evolved. They no longer reflect the original meaning God has defined in the miracle-containing Quran. The meaning of the 'Quran' has been EXPANDED to include material outside the 114 suras - namely Dr. Khalifa's words. Whereas, the definition of 'hadith' has been REDUCED, limited exclusively to the sayings falsely attributed to Prophet Muhammad. In other words, 'hadith' exclusively means 'lies against GOD.' These two definition changes have set the stage for an exacting trial at the very heart of Submission - the Quran, the whole Quran and nothing but the Quran. A trial that has the ability to fulfill the Quranic prophecy of 25:30 whereby Submitters desert the Quran as the only source of law.

A very large percentage of Submitters, if not all, are unaware they have been upholding the wrong definition of 'hadith' and/or 'Quran' which has caused great confusion with regards to the Messenger's words. There is a wide range of views. Some go to the extreme claiming you cannot even read the footnotes, subheadings etc., because we follow the Quran alone. Essentially, throwing the baby out with the bath water. Whereas some go to the other extreme and say you must uphold the footnotes, subheadings etc., as a source of law because Dr. Khalifa was incapable of errors (a.k.a. infallible) on all religious topics. Both extremes are the direct result of applying the wrong definition of 'Quran' and 'Hadith.' Consequently, both extremes are incorrect. When the correct definitions are recognized and applied the solution, by GOD's grace, becomes remarkably clear.


These two definition changes serve a very specific function. By redefining ‘hadith’ to mean specifically and exclusively the sayings falsely attributed to Prophet Muhammad [aka lies against GOD], then Dr. Khalifa’s words can no longer be classified as 'hadith' [because they are not lies against GOD]. However, this change was not enough to set the satanic trap - more was needed. Why? Because GOD refers to the Quran alone as "the BEST hadith" and 'best' means nothing equal or better. So if the Messenger's non-prophet words were classified as 'hadith', instantly they become demoted from being equivalent to the Quran. They become demoted as a source of law. So it was essential to expand the definition of the 'Quran' beyond the 114 suras to include the Messenger's non-prophet words. This allows his words to be upgraded as a source of law, but under the guise of following the ‘Quran, the whole Quran and nothing but the Quran.’ They have Dr. Khalifa’s words and GOD’s words as one and the same; equivalent. They cannot separate them. They have made the Messenger infallible which, unbeknownst to them, has transformed his words into scripture and therefore, him into a prophet. Hence, their common justifications to equate them below:

Authorized Explanations
Correct Understanding
Quran was his source
God was his source
His teachings are in the Quran
Point one mistake by the messenger
Right of interpretation
Obey & Trust the messenger
He did not speak on his own
His job was to explain the Quran

This is why whenever someone says the messenger’s words cannot be used as a source of law, some think his words are being called ‘hadith’, albeit the CHANGED, exclusive definition of 'lies attributed to GOD'. They think they are being prohibited from listening/reading the Messenger’s teachings; an all-or-nothing situation. Yet, this could not be further from the truth. Again, the key to understanding how to correctly use the messenger’s teachings AND maintaining the Quran alone as the only source of law is to submit to GOD's definition of 'Quran' and ‘Hadith’ from the Quran itself.


There are 4 different applied definitions of the 'Quran' which Azhar Khan had addressed exceptionally well in his 2019 ICS Conference speech, which I highly recommend watching. The written version can be found here.  However, GOD's definition of the 'Quran' is the 114 miracle-containing Arabic revelations revealed through Prophet Muhammad in 610 A.D., which can be translated into other languages.

[41:3] A SCRIPTURE whose VERSES provide the complete details, in an ARABIC QURAN, for people who know.
[76:23] We have revealed to you THIS QURAN; a special revelation from us. GOD'S


The Arabic word 'Hadith' as a noun is used 28 times in miracle-protected Arabic Quran but was left untranslated 9 times in the AEVQ whenever the context was about upholding other sources of law [to alert Traditional Muslims]. The Messenger did not do this to change the definition of 'hadith', but rather to point out how traditional Muslims went astray. Please click on the following link and scroll to the bottom to see all 28 times ‘Hadith’ is used

'Hadith' simply means 'narration, conversation, story, event'. It is a neutral and expansive word. There are good hadith, bad hadith, factual hadith, fabricated hadith, kind hadith, rude hadith, comedy hadith, your hadith, my hadith, CNN's hadith, scientific hadith, historical hadith and, of course, "the best hadith", the Quran (39:23, 52:34). ALL NARRATIONS ARE 'HADITH' and therefore, Dr. Khalifa's words are a 'hadith', IF WE BELIEVE GOD. This is absolutely crucial to understand because it means that all hadith are not automatically 'satanic', all hadith are not automatically 'lies against GOD.' We can listen, read and study anyone's hadith. The only time other narrations, other hadith, become prohibited is when they are adopted as a source of law beside the Quran (6:114, 7:185, 52:34, 77:50). This is why Dr. Khalifa himself used the Hadith & Sunnah books attributed to Prophet Muhammad for historical research (i.e. the two false verses) but NEVER as a source of law.

[6:114]Shall I seek other than GOD as a ***SOURCE OF LAW,*** when He has revealed to you *** THIS BOOK *** fully detailed?* Those who received the scripture recognize that it has been revealed from your Lord, truthfully. You shall not harbor any doubt.

[77:50]WHICH HADITH, OTHER THAN THIS, do they uphold?

In fact, in 9:122, GOD has commanded some Believers to study the scripture and pass on the knowledge they learn to others. That acquired knowledge will be passed on using the words of the person who learned it, using their hadith, but it cannot be used as a source of law.

[9:122] When the believers mobilize, NOT ALL OF THEM shall do so. A few from each group shall mobilize by devoting their time to ***STUDYING THE RELIGION. THUS, THEY CAN PASS THE KNOWLEDGE ON TO THEIR PEOPLE,*** THAT THEY MAY REMAIN RELIGIOUSLY INFORMED

A great example of this 'passage of knowledge' would be the Friday sermon or a speech at the ICS Conference whereby a Submitter studies the scripture and shares what he/she has learned using his own words, his hadith. However, the listener is commanded to verify all information with the Quran (17:36) because that is the criterion of truth, that is our statute book, our source of law. Since Dr. Khalifa was a Messenger we cannot disregard his teachings like we might our fellow Submitter doing a sermon. He was a Messenger of GOD so we take what he says very seriously. We don't get up and leave, so to speak, and throw the baby out with the bathwater. Although, he was not a prophet, he did not bring anything new. Therefore, the same Quranic commandment to verify all information applies to his words/hadith too. We eagerly listen attentively, verify with the Quran, then accept or not accept the information. This is the simple, fundamental rule that he lived and died for, yet this can only be applied if we acknowledge the truth that he was not infallible [something exclusive to GOD alone].

" The criterion of obeying the messenger is that whatever he says must be in the Quran and be backed up by what God is saying. If it is not in the Quran, it is your obligation to disobey him. Actually, in the same Sura it says that. So, the reason when God says ‘Obey God and His messenger is because the messenger conveys the word of God." - Rashad Khalifa, Dec 28, 1989, Q-study #39

"You know that if I tell you tell you anything that is not Quranic, you can tell me to get out of here and I will be the first to denounce that. This is the final message. Everything is here. And we do not do ANYTHING that is NOT HERE." - Rashad Khalifa, 1988 conference.

**** for a complete list of over 20 quotes by Dr. Khalifa emphasizing the above points.

If you really follow the messenger, you will verify IF his teachings are correct, not THAT they are correct. To verify THAT he was correct assumes he was infallible, incapable of human error. Those with this belief will always find him 'correct' because they already been decided he WILL be, NO MATTER WHAT. An excellent example of this was the ‘Leaves of Paradise’ issue. Whereas, to verify IF he was correct assumes he was a fallible human being capable of errors [like he always said] thereby ensuring impartial inquiry. Consequently, he/she will readily discard anything that is not confirmed in the Quran and thereby, maintaining the Quran as their only source of law.


So what is a source of law? Your source of law is the authority you defer to for answers on any given topic. There can be multiple sources that say the same thing in slightly different words but the source you defer to and preach from is your source of law.

If a person does not verify the information given to them from another person with the Quran, blindly follow it and preach that person's words/hadith to others, then the Quran is not their only source of law. Even worse, if the person DOES verify it and discovers the information contradicts the Quran but still chooses to uphold it anyway. "They have set up their religious leaders and scholars as lords, instead of GOD [9:31]" by deserting the Quran for another source of law. The following examples will help make things clear.


There are 3 different sources for the interpretation of a Jinn companion: Dr. Khalifa's teachings, Hadith & Sunnah attributed to Prophet Muhammad, and various verses from the Qur'an. I'm sure many are surprised by this, but yes, the identical concept of a Jinn companion can also be found in Sahih Muslim hadiths. Here it is.

[Sahih Muslim 2814] - Abdullah ibn Mas’ud reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Each one of you has over himself a companion from the jinn.” They said, “Even you, O Messenger of Allah?” The Prophet said, “Even me, but Allah has helped me against him until he embraced Islam. He does not order me to do anything but goodness.

Again, a source of law is the authority you defer to and/or preach from. The 'thing' you use to judge. Whatever your source states is what is accepted as 'the truth'.

The Sunni says, "we have a Jinn companion with us from birth to death because the Prophet said so in Sahih Muslim #2814", but is unable to reference the Quran. Their source of law is NOT the Quran.

One Submitter says, "we have a Jinn companion with us from birth to death because Dr. Khalifa said so in Appendix 7 and the King of Chaos video", but is unable to reference the Quran. Their source of law is NOT the Quran.

Another Submitter says, "The messenger was right. In light of 15:26-27, 7:27, 18:50, 50:23 we can conclude a Jinn companion is with us from birth to death."Their source of law IS the Quran.

All three people are saying the exact same thing, but only one has the Quran alone as their source of law. The other two deserted the Quran.

Your 'source of law' is what you use to determine the truth of something. Some disobey the messenger and use his words to determine what the truth is. Whereas those who truly follow the messenger will eagerly listen to his teachings [because he was a messenger] but will readily discard anything that does not conform to the Quran.


Two Submitters watch a video sermon of Dr. Khalifa explaining various prohibitions. Both Submitters enjoyed it and decided to do a sermon on the same topic for their respective communities. One Submitter's sermon is essentially quoting all of Dr. Khalifa's explanations from various sermons, videos footnotes, subheadings, Submitter's perspective and some AEVQ appendices. When asked questions after the sermon, he could not provide a single verse to support his beliefs. The other Submitter's sermon is quoting the verses in the Quran with some insights they had gleaned in the process. Both Submitters came to the same conclusions, but they used different sources of law. One used the Quran, the other deserted it.

The Messenger preached from the Quran. The Believers who were with him preached from the Quran. The Believers today preach from the Quran. Due to the wrong definitions of 'hadith' and 'Quran', some Submitters THINK they are upholding the Quran alone by proxy of upholding the Messenger's words as a source of law. However, if they applied GOD's definitions of 'Quran' and 'Hadith' it becomes very clear that they cannot uphold the Quran alone as a source of law by proxy of any other words.


In Quran study #13 (Dec 24, 1989) a few weeks before the Messenger died, it was discovered that 7:22-24 directly contradicted his interpretation of Adam's 'soulless body' being on Earth while his soul was in Heaven. Below are relevant excerpts from the AEVQ and 7:22-24.

"...while the empty (soulless) bodies of Adam and Eve remained here on earth, their souls, the real persons, resided in Heaven. Adam and Eve remained in Heaven for as long as they upheld God's commandments." - Rashad Khalifa, AEVQ Introduction "While Adam's body remained on earth, the real person, the soul, was admitted into Heaven in the outermost universe." - Rashad Khalifa, AEVQ Appendix 7

[7:22] He thus duped them with lies. As soon as they tasted the tree, THEIR BODIES BECAME VISIBLE TO THEM, AND THEY TRIED TO COVER THEMSELVES WITH THE LEAVES OF PARADISE. Their Lord called upon them: "Did I not enjoin you from that tree, and warn you that the devil is your most ardent enemy?"
[7:23] They said, "Our Lord, we have wronged our souls, and unless You forgive us and have mercy on us, we will be losers."
[7:24] He said, "GO DOWN as enemies of one another. On earth shall be your habitation and provision for awhile."

How did the Messenger respond to this person? Did he say, "you are opposing GOD and His messenger"...No. He looked at verses, recognized and acknowledged the contradiction. A 20-30 minute discussion ensued to determine how to reinterpret the Great Feud story in light of 7:22-24. However, the AEVQ does not reflect this change as he died a few weeks later.

The problem today is many Submitters are refusing to accept the truth of 7:22-24 like the Messenger did. Instead, they chose to uphold the already-proven-wrong interpretation as the 'truth'. They claim GOD did not permit the Messenger to change the AEVQ Introduction and Appendix 7 and therefore, the Great Feud story is correct, Adam did NOT have his body in Paradise. Whenever 7:22-24 is presented to them, they say you are 'taking the verses out of context', then proceed to conjecture strange interpretations of the verses to MAKE the outdated, incorrect interpretation 'correct.' This is what deserting the Quran looks like.


Hadith is an expansive word. All narrations are hadith. There are good hadith, bad hadith, factual hadith, fabricated hadith, kind hadith, unkind hadith, scientific hadith, historical hadith and "the best hadith" (the Quran). We can listen, read, study and accept hadith if factual, but when it comes to sources of religious law the Quran is only hadith allowed because it is GOD's hadith, the best hadith. We are allowed to listen and accept information from Friday prayer hadith, speech hadith, and religious hadith by the Messenger as long as we verify the information with the Quran. If it is not in the Quran, we do not accept it as proven, or as infallible no matter who it is no matter who it is. If you do this, you are following the messenger. However, a satanic trap has been set. By expanding the definition of 'Quran' and shrinking of the definition of 'hadith' people have merged Dr. Khalifa's non-prophet words with GOD's miracle-protected words to the point of no distinction. The trap is that they THINK they are following the Quran alone as their only source of law. As one Submitter put it, "the Quran Alone and the messenger of Covenant confirm each other" and "if we cannot verify, it means we have not grasped the Quran."

It is absolutely crucial to uphold the true definition, GOD's definition, of 'hadith' and 'Quran'. Otherwise, we risk adopting another source of law and thereby fulfilling the prophecy of 25:30, “my Lord, my people have deserted this Quran.” Mike Jackson

***Please Note: For a real-life confirmation that what I've shared is accurate, please watch this unedited 15-minute speech from the 2019 Submitter's Conference at the following link below. If you pay attention you will see the entire speech is based on the wrong definitions of 'hadith' and 'Quran'.


[ back to the top of this page ]