My Lord, my people have deserted this Quran

For several years now years there seem to be some disputes among submitters. I’d like to start by asking you, “Are there major differences among submitters?”

Yes, today’s submitters do have differences of belief. Some are minor and some are major. Minor differences are to be expected, since we are all human. We will focus on the cause for the major differences.

Usually differences originate because of a simple reason.  Among submitters the differences originated because of the meaning of two words: Quran and Hadith. We agree that we should follow the Quran; but we disagree on what the Quran is or what constitutes the Quran. We agree that we should disregard Hadith; but we disagree on what Hadith is or what constitutes Hadith.

We are commanded to utilize the Quran alone. What does Quran alone mean to you?

Verses 6:114 -115 among numerous other verses provide us the foundation.

[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.

[6:115] The word of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice. Nothing shall abrogate His words. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.

The verses make it clear that the source of law for our religion is God, Who has given us a fully detailed scripture, the Quran, which is His word and as 6:115 points out, God’s words are complete.

Thus, when we express a point of view about our religion, we should support that point of view, from the words of the Quran. Quran alone means supporting a point of view based on God’s words in the Quran. When we express a point of view, we are essentially saying, “this is the law according to the Quran”.

Can you give me an example of what you mean?

The age of 40 is a good example. We simply point to verse 46:15 when telling someone of the law, that anyone who dies before the age of 40 goes to Heaven. The source of law being the Quran.

You do acknowledge that information came through Dr. Rashad Khalifa, right? If it were not through him, we would not have known about it?

Yes, absolutely. We thank God for sending His messenger to bring forth embedded information from within the Quran which included, besides the age of 40, when to pay the zakat, the reminder to worship God alone as well as the mathematical miracle of the Quran.

Dr. Khalifa’s source was the Quran, a book of law, a Statute Book.  For Statutory Law, explanations and teachings can never become the source of law. Even though the information came from Dr. Khalifa, the source of law always remains the Quran. For the age of 40, Dr. Khalifa referred to the source 46:15 and so should we. Similarly, for zakat, we should refer to 6:141.

So, what do you see as the essential differences between Quran as the Word of God and other information coming through and from Dr. Khalifa?

The Quran is the source of law. We have information from Dr. Khalifa, but his words, his teachings, his explanations cannot become a source of law. No other words can be a source of law. Dr. Khalifa, the messenger of God, made it clear that we should not go by what he says but go by the Quran.

The differences among submitters originates because of disagreement on the meaning of the word Hadith and specifically the meaning of the word Quran. As you know, definition is one of the first items tackled in the study of any subject.

Yes, so let’s start with Hadith. How would you define Hadith? What is the meaning of Hadith?

The Quran provides the definition and meaning of the Arabic word Hadith.

…Which Hadith, besides this do they believe in? 7:185, 77:50

Let them produce a Hadith like this if they are truthful. 52:34

Therefore, let Me deal with those who reject this Hadith; we will lead them on whence they never perceive. 68:44

This is an honorable Quran. In a protected book. None can grasp it except the sincere. A revelation from the Lord of the universe.  Are you disregarding this narration (Hadith)? 56:77-81

When we look at these verses, there are two obvious conclusions – first, the Quran itself is a hadith and secondly, we cannot accept any other hadith other than the Quran itself. These two conclusions are within the confines of the Quran since God’s words are complete and are the only source of law. The definition and meaning of the word Hadith in the Quran is much broader than some submitter’s and traditional Muslim’s belief that Hadith is only the sayings of Prophet Muhammad. The key is that no other words or no other hadith other than the Quran is acceptable as a source of law. The only acceptable hadith is God’s words in the Quran.

As Dr. Khalifa used to point out, BELIEF in God dictates that we BELIEVE God.

Good, now Let’s get to the Quran. How will you define the Quran?

We all agree that the Quran, the final scripture was given to Prophet Muhammad 1400 years ago, in Arabic language. Per verse 13:37, God “revealed these laws in Arabic.”

Dr. Khalifa, who brought to our attention, the Quran as The Final Testament, had this to say about the Quran in the Introduction in his translation:

“The prophet Muhammad, God’s messenger … delivered this Final Testament”.

When Dr. Khalifa introduced the newly published translation in 1989 in Masjid Tucson, he said:

“Remember it is the message, not the messenger. The message came and will be with us till the end of the world, this, the Quran. And the Prophet Muhammad was the one who received and delivered it”.

That seems clear enough. So, what seems to be causing the problems among Submitters on this understanding of what the Quran is?

Believe it or not, submitters have different definitions and different understandings of the word Quran. When it is proclaimed, ‘Quran, the whole Quran, and nothing but the Quran’ what constitutes the Quran is either limited or wide open for some.

That seems strange. What about traditional Muslims? Do they have different understandings of the word Quran?

The traditional Muslims have no doubt about what the Quran is. They accept the Quran as received and delivered by Prophet Muhammad and accept it as God’s word and the Final Scripture. However, they don’t accept that it is the only source of law nor as the only acceptable Hadith.

The traditional Muslims have no doubt what the Quran is. They simply opt either not to study it or not to obey God’s words in the Quran.

OK, let’s get back to submitters and their understanding of the word Quran. How does it differ from the traditional understanding of the word?

There are different definitions or understandings of the word Quran held by various submitters. Even though some uphold these definitions or understandings by what they say and write, they will not explicitly acknowledge so. When asked, quite a few are not even willing to define what they mean when they say, the Quran.

And what are those definitions and understandings?

Definition one:   Quran given to Prophet Muhammad, which consists of 6346 and is in the Arabic language. This was the clear understanding or definition upheld by the messenger as we just saw and as the world has known for 1400 years.

Definition two: The Quran includes the 6346 numbered and translated verses in Dr. Khalifa’s translation of the Quran, separate and distinct from subheadings, footnotes, appendices, etc. I uphold Dr. Khalifa’s translation of the verses. When I give a point of view about our religion, I point to the contents of the translated verses.

Definition three: This is where it becomes interesting. According to this definition, the Quran is the Authorized English Version, translated from the Original or known by the acronym AEVQ for submitters. Any word in this translation from cover to cover is considered ‘the Quran’. Dr. Khalifa’s translation contains the English Translation of the verses of the Quran with each verse numbered and separated. In addition to the translated verses, Dr. Khalifa has sub-titles, footnotes, appendices, an Introduction, an index, etc.

I must acknowledge, that it did not occur to me that every word of the AEVQ could possibly be considered the Quran, or word of God or a source of law. Here is an example.

In 2015, in a public discussion, the following was written by a member of a group discussion.

>>However, he was instructed by God to clarify the laws that were corrupted 14:44, 5:19, 24:47, 28:50<<

I’m confused, what does that mean?

God Sends His Commands Through His Messengers
[14:44] You shall warn the people of the day when the retribution comes to them. Those who transgressed will say, “Our Lord, give us one more respite. We will then respond to Your call and follow the messengers.” Did you not swear in the past that you will last forever?

God Sends Instructions Through His Messenger
[24:47] They say, “We believe in GOD and in the messenger, and we obey,” but then some of them slide back afterwards. These are not believers.

God Sends His Teachings to Us Through His Messengers
[28:50] If they fail to respond to you, then know that they follow only their own opinions. Who is farther astray than those who follow their own opinions, without guidance from GOD? GOD does not guide such wicked people.

The key here is that this person, in order to support a point of view, referred to four verses. However, the point he is making is not directly supported by the verses he lists, but rather by the subheadings immediately preceding them.

When we look at those verses, it becomes clear that the apparent support for the point being made is not by the words of the translated verses, but by the sub-headings. In this case the words of the sub-headings are considered the source of law.

To remove any doubt that the words of the subheadings and the words of verses are considered one and the same as the source of law, the person wrote the following in the same note.

>>Therefore, the Quran Alone and the messenger of Covenant confirm each other. <<

And that brings the next question. So, what about Quran being all we need?

Several people have added to the Quran or what constitutes the Quran. For example, this person claims to follow the Quran and nothing but the Quran. The truth of the matter is that the individual has made the subheadings and footnotes as part of the Quran. Thus, the crucial commandment in 6:115 that the “The word of your Lord is complete” and “Nothing will abrogate His words” is discarded.

We have one more definition of the Quran.

Definition Four:  This definition of the Quran will include the AEVQ (cover to cover) plus audios, videos, newsletter and books by Rashad Khalifa with one exception. Ironically, Rashad Khalifa’s book, “Quran, Hadith & Islam” is not included in this definition. If it were, it would expose their pretense.

As you might notice, this definition has several components. And unfortunately, I must point out that quite a few uphold this definition in one form or another and readily support a point of view by one of the components in this definition rather than exclusively by God’s words in the Quran.

When a question is asked, some quote Rashad Khalifa or explanations by Rashad Khalifa, rather than referring to Quran verses. And if I might add, this is contrary to our experience with the messenger who always pointed to verses of the Quran for the answer.

Yikes, I catch myself doing this at times, so thanks for the reminder! So, you are saying that some among submitters proclaim that they uphold the ‘Quran, the whole Quran, and nothing but the Quran’, but what they uphold is different from the Arabic Quran that the world has known for 1400+ years?

Yes, that is correct. They do not uphold the Arabic Quran nor the translated verses of the Arabic Quran. And the irony here is that they have chosen not to uphold right after God’s revelation of the miracle of the Quran providing proof that each word of Arabic Quran is a Proven Word of God.

The source for the messenger was always the Quran. One only needs to look at the verses reproduced in the last few Submitters Perspectives in the messenger’s lifetime, to notice that they were translated directly from the Arabic rather than reproduced or copied from the AEVQ.

If we alter the basics of a religion, we alter the religion. If we consider the Quran anything other than the mathematically structured Quran revealed in Arabic language, then our source of law is no longer the Quran alone.

The fundamental difference in beliefs among people in our community originates because some have chosen to modify the very basic meaning of what the Quran is. They have chosen to add-on to the Quran and in so doing their claim of upholding the Quran alone is bogus. As mentioned before, they are unwilling to even give their definition of the word Quran.

Also, it should be pointed out, that by choosing to add-on to the Quran they have crossed a line which no traditional Muslim has crossed. The traditional Muslims consider the Quran as sacred, as it is, and do not consider any words outside the Quran as part of the Quran.

It took only 19 years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad for the corruption of religion by adding false verses in the Quran. Their first step of corruption was to alter or add-on to the Quran.

I’d like to add to your statement that Dr. Khalifa translated verses differently in the translation and the SP. He also translated them differently in the appendices.
What do you think is the cause for these add-ons to the Quran?

The belief that the messenger was infallible and that his words are infallible. Thus, when there appears to be an inconsistency between the Quran and the messenger’s words, the precedence is given to the messenger’s words as a source of law. This has led some to proclaim that they do not verify IF the messenger is correct but THAT he is correct, even though the messenger consistently reminded us to go by the Quran and not by what he said.

I can see how some might conclude that you are making Rashad Khalifa unimportant or inconsequential

On the contrary, I encourage everyone to study Dr. Khalifa’s work. They should study it in light of the Quran rather than studying the Quran in light of what they think Dr. Khalifa meant to say. All that is being asked is, please provide reference to God’s words in the Quran when giving a point of view. The submitters who have redefined the Quran cannot support their point of view solely by God’s words in the Quran. They cannot abide by verses 6:114-115 and per 17:46, “when you preach your Lord, using the Quran alone, they run away in aversion.”

By God’s grace I made a decision to only support a point of view by God’s words in the Quran and it has served me well. As we go from stage to stage, this is a decision a submitter should make at some point.

Very good points. Let’s briefly now talk about Quranists? Who are the Quranists? Are they submitters?

“Quranists” refers to those who claim to follow only the Quran, except that they don’t do so. The calling card of a Quranists is doing three Salats instead of five in a day. They base it on distorting verse 11:114. No translation supports their distortion of 11:114, which is based on setting aside Arabic language meaning, grammar and rules. Instead of sticking to the truth in the Quran, they draw conclusions to match their opinions. They thus abuse the Quran in the same way by using it to confirm THAT they are correct, not IF they are correct.

Any concluding comments?

Submitters should examine their own definition of the Quran and seek to give a point of view from only the words of the Quran.

I will conclude with two verses. Verse 6:19 that proclaims God’s testimony is the greatest and anyone else’s testimony is idolatry.

Say, “Whose testimony is the greatest?” Say, “GOD’s. He is the witness between me and you that this Quran has been inspired to me, to preach it to you and whomever it reaches. Indeed, you bear witness that there are other gods beside GOD.” Say, “I do not testify as you do; there is only one god, and I disown your idolatry.” 6:19

And verse 25:30, a phenomenon we are witnessing of the desertion of the Quran.

The messenger said, “My Lord, my people have deserted this Quran.”


None of the above, in any way, means that any of Dr. Khalifa’s work should be cast aside nor does it mean that a thorough study of his should not be done nor does it mean that anyone should be discouraged from study of his works/ videos, etc.

It simply means, that when a point of view is advocated, can support from the words of the Quran be provided. The source remains the Quran (Statute Book). Explanation does not become a source.


Admission Test Q&A
Idolatry Q&A
Obey God and His Messenger
Rashad Khalifa on Quran alone
Reversion to Idolatry
Supporting a point of view from the Quran
Quran Text
Appendices in Rashad Khalifa Translation

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.