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

Since the advent of the 'return to the Quran' movement and the demise of Dr. Rashad Khalifa the definition of the Arabic words 'Quran' and 'hadith' have evolved for Submitters. These words no longer reflect the original meaning God has defined in the miracle-containing Arabic Quran. The definition of ‘Quran' has been EXPANDED to include material outside the 114 suras - namely Dr. Khalifa's teachings. Whereas, the definition of 'hadith' has been REDUCED, limited exclusively to the sayings falsely attributed to Prophet Muhammad. In other words, 'hadith' has the exclusive meaning of 'lies against GOD.'1 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 uphold this new definition of 'hadith' and/or 'Quran' which has caused great confusion with regards to the Messenger's teachings. There is a wide range of views. Some go to one extreme claiming you cannot even read the footnotes, subheadings etc., of Dr. Khalifa's translation ‘because we follow the Quran alone'. 2 Whereas some go to the other extreme and say you must uphold all footnotes, subheadings, audios, videos etc., as a source of law believing Dr. Khalifa was incapable of errors (a.k.a. infallible) with regard to 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.

THE NEW, WRONG DEFINITIONS

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 of 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 for Satan to expand the definition of the 'Quran' beyond the 114 suras to include the Messenger's non-prophet words. This allows his religious teachings to be upgraded as a source of law, yet under the guise of following the ‘Quran, the whole Quran and nothing but the Quran.’ Therefore, 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 him into a prophet by virtue of their application of his teachings. 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, many Submitters think his teachings are being called ‘hadith’, but the CHANGED, exclusive definition of 'lies attributed to GOD'. They think they are being prohibited from listening/reading/accepting the Messenger’s teachings; an all-or-nothing situation. They assume you are implying he was wrong about EVERYTHING. Yet, this could not be further from the truth. Personally, the vast majority of what the messenger has said one can see it in the Quran. This entire article is not about whether errors occurred or not. This article is about a mindset to ensure the Quran is safeguarded as a Submitters only source of law. The key is to correctly use the messenger’s teachings AND maintain the Quran alone as the only source of law by accepting GOD's definition of the Arabic words 'Quran' and ‘Hadith’.

CORRECT DEFINITION OF 'QURAN'

Submitters have 4 different applied definitions of the 'Quran' which Azhar Khan had addressed exceptionally well in his 2019 ICS Conference speech. 3 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 DEFINITION OF 'HADITH'

The Arabic word 'Hadith' as a noun is used 28 times in miracleprotected 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.

As you can see from above, '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 must not disregard his teachings as we might for a 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. Nevertheless, he was not a prophet and did not bring anything new making the Quran the determiner of what was from GOD and what was from him. He even stated there were mistakes in his works and therefore, the same Quranic commandment to verify all information applies to his narration, to his hadith too. However, unlike many Quranists/Reformists, Submitters eagerly listen attentively, yet verify with the Quran under the assumption he is probably correct [to ensure a thorough, deep study] and 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 incapable of errors as indicated by the messenger himself on numerous occasions. Here are just a couple.

" 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 https://youtu.be/5qA4JdfvzRs?t=4139

"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. 4

*** for a complete list of over 19 quotes by Dr. Khalifa emphasizing the above points go to https://www.islamunraveled.org/wp/2018/06/rashad-khalifa-on-quran-alone/

For Submitters, it is important to incorporate ALL his religious teachings which include the above 19-plus religious teachings. We cannot claim to ‘hear, trust and obey’ the messenger while simultaneously rejecting teachings that safeguard the very foundation of our faith - the Quran alone as the only source of law. Teachings that function as a ‘notwithstanding clause’, a religious 'checks and balances' whereby the Quran takes precedence if his words and GOD’s words were ever to come into conflict. Therefore, if we accept ALL his teachings we will verify IF he is correct, not THAT he is correct. To verify THAT he was correct assumes he was infallible, incapable of human error on all religious matters [contrary to his aforementioned religious teachings in the link above]. Those exercising this paradigm will ALWAYS find him 'correct' because they have already decided he WILL BE, no matter what. 4 A unique and excellent example of this is the ‘Leave of Paradise’ issue. Although, not because he was wrong, but because he was right. Yet few would accept his updated understanding due to the tremendous implications on the AEVQ introduction and Appendix 7. Many treat the AEVQ as a divine equivalent of the math-miracle-protected Arabic Quran and his revised understanding on this topic would directly undermine this belief. It is quite an irony that a Submitter [in the audio Quran study] presented verses to a messenger who verified IF he was correct only to discover that he was not. He submitted to GOD’s words about the ‘leaves of paradise’ accordingly, as the Quran alone was his source of law.

SOURCE OF LAW

So, what is a source of law? Your source of law is the authority to which one defers to for definitive 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 they have been given 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.



EXAMPLE 1: THE JINN COMPANION

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. 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 says 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 that we have a Jinn companion." 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 only source of law. Only one is Submitting to GOD alone. The one who could explain his belief from the Quran. The others deserted the Quran.

Your 'source of law' is what you use to determine the absolute truth of something. Some disobey the messenger and use his words to determine the truth. Whereas those who truly follow the messenger will eagerly listen to his teachings [because he was a messenger] under the assumption he is correct but will discard anything that does not conform to the Quran [as preached by the messenger] after due diligence. This is how the Quran alone is maintained as our only source of religious law. At the end of the day, the numerous verses that say ‘obey GOD and his messenger’ applied to Prophet Muhammad as well as any subsequent messenger. Thus, we cannot have one distinct meaning for Prophet Muhammad and another exclusively for Dr. Khalifa. Sura 81:19-28 is a good example of this definition dichotomy being applied. For Prophet Muhammad, 'THIS' utterance means the Quran alone, for messenger Rashad, 'THIS' utterance means all his teachings about the Qur’an.

[81:19] ***THIS*** is the utterance of an honorable messenger. *
[81:20] Authorized by the Possessor of the Throne, fully supported.
[81:21] He shall be obeyed and trusted.
[81:22] Your friend (Rashad) is not crazy.
[81:23] He saw him at the high horizon. *
[81:24] He is not holding back any news.
[81:25] ***IT*** is not the talk of a rejected devil.
[81:26] Now then, where will you go? 6
[81:27] ***THIS*** IS A MESSAGE to all the people.
[81:28] For those who wish to go straight.

Sura 5:18-19 is another example of this dichotomy as 5:18 addresses Jews and Christians only and therefore, 5:19 applied to Prophet Muhammad as well as Dr. Khalifa. Again, for Muhammad it is the words of the Quran that 'explains thing to you', whereas for Dr. Khalifa it is his teachings about the Quran that 'explains things to you'.

God's Messenger to the Jews, Christians and Muslims

[5:18] The Jews (l-yahūdu) and the Christians (wal-naṣārā) said, "We are GOD's children and His beloved." Say, "Why then does He punish you for your sins? You are just humans like the other humans He created." He forgives whomever He wills and punishes whomever He wills. To GOD belongs the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth, and everything between them, and to Him is the final destiny.

God's Messenger of the Covenant

[5:19] O people of the scripture, our messenger has come to you, to explain things to you, after a period of time without messengers, lest you say, "We did not receive any preacher or warner." A preacher and warner has now come to you. GOD is Omnipotent.*

I don't want to segue to far from the original topic so I'll continue with the next example regarding a religious source of law.

EXAMPLE 2: PREACHING FROM A PREACHING OF 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 position. The other Submitter's sermon is quoting the verses from 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. You need to be able to explain your beliefs using the Quran.

EXAMPLE 3: VERIFYING THAT HE IS CORRECT, NOT IF HE IS CORRECT

In Quran study #13 (Dec 24, 1989) https://youtu.be/s8viw4RJlM4?t=1673 a few weeks before the Messenger was assassinated, 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. 7

"...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-to-30- minute discussion ensued to determine how to correctly interpret the Great Feud story in light of 7:22-24 indicating their bodies were not soulless on earth but rather in in paradise where they tried to ‘cover themselves with the leaves of paradise’ before the fall to earth. However, the AEVQ does not reflect this final interpretation as he died a few weeks later. The issue today is that many Submitters are unwilling to accept the truth of 7:22-24 as the Messenger did. The verses caused the Messenger to shift his understanding in that Quran study and yet, many Submitters have chosen to uphold the already-provenwrong-by-the-messenger-himself interpretation as true. 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. Ironically, this position presupposes his most recent clarification was wrong, something they vehemently deny could ever happen. A glaring double-standard, indeed. Whenever 7:22-24 or his change of stance is presented, many say ‘you are taking the verses out of context', then proceed to conjecture strange interpretations of the verses to impose the outdated, interpretation onto the verses. The messenger adhered to the Quran alone as the determiner of truth while many of his followers have not. This is what deserting the Quran looks like.

CONCLUSION:

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 the 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 don't accept it no matter who it is. If you do this, you are following the messenger. Nevertheless, the 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."

8 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.” Remember, just like Prophet Muhammad, Dr. Khalifa will make this same statement on the day of judgment about his people, Submitters. Thus, it WILL happen so it is important to understand how a ‘Quran alone’ faith could abandon the Quran alone if one is to avoid it.

At the end of the day, the numerous verses that say ‘obey GOD and his messenger’ applied to both, Prophet Muhammad as well as any subsequent messenger. So, we cannot have one distinct, polar opposite meaning for Prophet Muhammad and another exclusively for Dr. Khalifa, using the exact same verses. If Dr. Khalifa did not bring anything new then the Quran is the determiner of truth. The Quran is the determiner of which clarification is from ’Rashad the messenger’ and which is from ‘Rashad the man.’ If Prophet Muhammad can make a religious mistake that is corrected by the Quran, then so can Dr. Khalifa. If Prophet Muhammad was STILL a messenger for making a mistake, then so is Dr. Khalifa. If Prophet Muhammad was not ‘attributing lies to GOD’, then neither is Dr. Khalifa. Mike J. Submitter to GOD alone

***Please Note: For a real-life confirmation and verification that what I've state above is accurate, please watch this unedited 15-minute speech from another 2019 Submitter's Conference at the following link below. If you pay close attention, you will see the entire speech is based on incorrect definitions of both 'hadith' and 'Quran'. https://youtu.be/IKB9raWBB5g?t=3766

1 Submitters consider everything 'hadith', everything 'lies against God' with the exception Dr. Khalifa's content, his translation and the Arabic Quran. However, if a person looks at the Arabic Quran and comes to a different interpretation than Dr. Khalifa that too, is considered 'hadith', lies against God.
2 Quran alone groups other than 'Submitters' (Quranists, Reformists etc.) have the correct definition of 'Quran' - the Arabic Quran given to Prophet Muhammad. However, many have the same definition of 'hadith' as Submitters but they include content from Dr. Khalifa into the classification of 'lies against God', 'hadith'. 2
3 Azhar Khan's speech (written form): http://www.islamunraveled.org/wp/2019/08/my-lord-my-people-have-deserted-this-quran/ 3
4 Click here for a visual depiction of the 3 approaches after accepting/verifying Rashad Khalifa as a messenger 5

[ back to the top of this page ]