Witnesses Among the People

The following verses is often used to justify accepting the hadith:

[Quran 2:143] We thus made you an impartial community (ummatan), that you may serve as witnesses among the people (l-nāsi), and the messenger serves as a witness among you.

[Quran 16:89] The day will come when we will raise from every community (ummatin) a witness from among them, and bring you as the witness of these people (hāulāi). We have revealed to you this book to provide explanations for everything, and guidance, and mercy, and good news for the submitters.

[Quran 22:78]…Thus, the messenger shall serve as a witness among you, and you shall serve as witnesses among the people (l-nāsi). Therefore, you shall observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), and hold fast to GOD; He is your Lord, the best Lord and the best Supporter.

However, the Quran, which provides examples of everything (30:58, 16:89), provides an example of what this witnessing will look like on the day of judgement. God can ask Muhammad for example, “Did you fulfill your role? Did you deliver the Quran? Did you appropriately transmit the religious practices to the people?”–Thus, Muhammad will serve as a witness on the day of judgement. And God can ask Muhammad’s community, “Did you witness Muhammad delivering the Quran and giving you these instructions? Did you witness those who fought against you and against the messenger? Did you witness that the religious practices were appropriately transmitted for the next generation?”–thus, they will serve as a witness. The community of Muhammad can provide witness that they did indeed transmit the Quran and the religious practices faithfully for the following generations of humanity (al-nas), thus when the disbelievers among the future generations of humans are put to trial, they have witnesses brought up against them that indeed they inherited the Quran and the religious practices from the community (ummah) of Muhammad.

The Quran provides an example of what this witnessing will look like: the witness of Jesus. Note the types of questions God asks Jesus, and this is Jesus’ witness testimony:

[Quran 5:116] GOD will say, “O Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to the people (lilnnāsi), ‘Make me and my mother idols beside GOD’?” He will say, “Be You glorified. I could not utter what was not right. Had I said it, You already would have known it. You know my thoughts, and I do not know Your thoughts. You know all the secrets.

[Quran 5:117] “I told them only what You commanded me to say, that: ‘You shall worship GOD, my Lord and your Lord.’ I was a witness among them for as long as I lived with them. When You terminated my life on earth, You became the Watcher over them. You witness all things.

So here is the messenger’s (Jesus’) witness testimony against his own people. So the Quran provides us examples of how the messenger will witness over the people. These verses they often cite do not actually refer to the Hadith and Sunnah–later fabrications attributed to the prophet–the prophet himself did not witness nor did he authorize the collection of these statements attributed to him. And the generation closest to Muhammad actually made zero effort to preserve the hadith as they did to preserve the Quran (otherwise, we would have extensive hadith manuscripts like we do of the Quran dating back to that time), so on the contrary, their witness against their own people is that they did not collect Muhammad’s statements into a book to be studied beside the Quran…

[Quran 4:41] Thus, when the day (of judgment) comes, we will call upon a witness from each community (ummatin), and you (the messenger) will serve as a witness among these people (hāulāi).

Additionally, there is this point to be made: verse 4:41 mentions Muhammad being a witness over a specific group of people and this verse also says that each community will have a witness. So it is not clear that humans in modern time count as Muhammad’s community (ummah) in the first place.

In fact, the statement of Muhammad on the day of judgement when he is informed of what his people have innovated after him (Hadith & Sunnah) is not that his community (ummah) has deserted the Quran, but rather his people (qawmi) have deserted the Quran:

[Quran 25:30] The messenger* said, “My Lord, my people (qawmī) have deserted this Quran.”

All praise be to God alone.


Disclaimer: These blogs are not meant to be authoritative for Submission, but instead, informal documentation of my evolving thoughts. I do not claim ‘truth’ to anything I say or write, even if I currently feel like it is likely true based on my current reasoning and knowledge–anything and everything I say is subject to revision or complete abandonment of the theories/concepts/thoughts discussed in any of these blogs. See the about this blog section. Join our discord server, where you can chat with us or ask any questions (there is frequent activity in the voice channels): Https://Discord.gg/Submission

Does the Quran deny Muhammad performing miracles?

An interesting Reddit thread on Academic Quran posted this question:

And, the most upvoted answers, affirm the Submitter position, that yes, Muhammad did not have any physical miracle:

They ended up quoting 17:59 which said that God has stopped sending these types of Miracles. In fact, Rashad Khalifa, subtitled this verse with “Old Kind of Miracles Made Obsolete“.

So now one may ask what if Muhammad later on (after the revelation of that verse) performed miracles? There are of course problems with this, including how verse 17:59 specifically has God denying sending these kinds of miracles anymore. And when this question was asked, the answer from this user remained on point:

Since they said the Quran is his only miracle, the follow-up question is then addressed:

Continued:

It is amazing how on point this answer is to Rashad’s teachings. Muhammad did not have any physical miracles: the types they asked him for. Yet the traditional Islamic narrative is Muhammad split the moon, water gushed out of his fingers etc etc.–riddled with these types of physical miracles that the Quran specifically denied.

Another answer also correctly addresses this question:

Compare this to Rashad’s teachings:

God’s messengers delivered the good news of our God-given chance to redeem ourselves, and they were supported by formidable signs. When Moses went to Pharaoh, he was supported by such miracles as the turning of his staff into a serpent. Jesus created live birds from clay by God’s leave, healed the leprous and the blind by God’s leave, and revived the dead by God’s leave. The prophet Muhammad, God’s messenger who delivered this Final Testament, did not exhibit such miracles (10:20). The Quran itself was the miracle supporting Muhammad’s mission (29:50-51)

[Quran 29:50] They said, “If only miracles* could come down to him from his Lord!” Say, “All miracles come only from GOD; I am no more than a manifest warner.”

[Quran 29:51] Is it not enough of a miracle* that we sent down to you this book, being recited to them? This is indeed a mercy and a reminder for people who believe.

At the same time, the way the Quran is written and lots of details are scattered all throughout the book–this allows those who have a disease in their hearts to think the Quran is contradictory and be misled. Such as the case with this person:


And Praise God, he was appropriately shut down.


What makes this even more impressive is this guy is not even a Muslim nor a Submitter:


Yet, he was almost giving the Submitter argument verbatim. It just goes to show how wrong the traditionalists (Sunni/Shia) are in their assessment. Don’t they read the Quran? Why haven’t they focused on the Quran to reach conclusions even non-Muslims can easily reach from reading the Quran alone? They’ve been poisoned by Satanic fabrications known as Hadith and Sunnah. They have abandoned the Quran–and this will be the Prophet’s testimony against them on the day of judgement (see verse 25:30).


Disclaimer: These blogs are not meant to be authoritative for Submission, but instead, informal documentation of my evolving thoughts. I do not claim ‘truth’ to anything I say or write, even if I currently feel like it is likely true based on my current reasoning and knowledge–anything and everything I say is subject to revision or complete abandonment of the theories/concepts/thoughts discussed in any of these blogs. See the about this blog section. Join our discord server, where you can chat with us or ask any questions (there is frequent activity in the voice channels): Https://Discord.gg/Submission

Quran Affirms Key Premise of The Ontological Argument For God’s Existence

Excerpt: God, as described in the Quran, is referred to by the best names and attributes. The concept of a Maximally Great Being, as discussed in the Ontological Argument, is supported by these verses. Additionally, the Quran emphasizes God’s mercy and forgiveness, highlighting His character as the Absolute Perfection and the Greatest Good.

[17:110] Say, “Call Him GOD, or call Him Most Gracious (Al-Rahman); whichever name you use, to Him belongs the best names.”

This verse alone speaks volumes. To God belongs the best names. Names are also characteristics, descriptions, attributes. A similar verse emphasizes this:

[59:24] He is the One GOD; the Creator, the Initiator, the Designer. To Him belong the most beautiful names. Glorifying Him is everything in the heavens and the earth. He is the Almighty, Most Wise.

God being the One, the Initiator, the Designer, the Creator—all of these are characteristics/attributes/descriptions of God, and they are names of God, and the best of names belong to God.

These verses speak volumes and actually confirm the Ontological Argument for God’s existence. The Ontological argument is as follows:

  1. It is possible that a Maximally Great Being exists.
  2. If it is possible that a Maximally Great Being exists, then a Maximally Great Being exists in some possible world.
  3. If a Maximally Great Being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
  4. If a Maximally Great Being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
  5. If a Maximally Great Being exists in the actual world, then a Maximally Great Being exists.
  6. Therefore, a Maximally Great Being exists.

Notice that this is modal logic. The whole thing follows necessarily from the first premise. In other words, IF the first premise is true, then the other premises follow logically and necessarily. This is because a Maximally Excellent Being, as defined, is the Greatest Conceivable Being, and the Greatest Conceivable Being is one who is necessary and thus necessarily exists in every possible world. In other words, there is no possible world that could exist that doesn’t have the Greatest Conceivable Being because that being has the attribute of being necessary–the Greatest Conceivable Being by definition has the attribute/property of existing in every possible world that could ever exist. If it didn’t have this attribute, then it is less, and not the Greatest Conceivable Being and not the Greatest Possible Being. A being who exists in all possible worlds is greater than one who exists in only some possible worlds.

As per the Quran: to God belongs the best names and the best characteristics, and thus “Maximally Excellent Being”, “Greatest Possible Being” and “Greatest Conceivable Being” are among the best names, and the Quran affirms the best names/descriptions belong to God.

Thus, God is one who exists in all possible worlds. There is no world you can imagine where God doesn’t exist as the supreme authority, the necessary being to which the world depends on.

This gets even more impressive. God is so great, that even if we were to imagine the impossible scenario of Him not existing, He is still the one most worthy of worship. No, I’m not kidding. Suppose we exist in a world where God doesn’t exist (which is impossible as per the Quran, which says God belongs the best names, and one of the best names is Him being “the Greatest Conceivable Being” or “Greatest Conceivable Being” which entails Him existing in all possible worlds since that is an inherent quality of a “Maximally Excellent Being”), even in this impossible world where God doesn’t exist, suppose you were to worship someone. Imagine a celebrity. People worship them by being amazed by “how great they are, how ‘just perfect’ they are and how they are just so admirable, have exceptional qualities and are just amazing in so many ways”. But what is greater to worship than that celebrity? We can also worship concepts and ideas. In fact, the celebrity is necessarily a concept/idea in your mind and you are worshiping that—there is no escape from your introspection—everything you think of, whether it exists or not, is necessarily a concept in your mind. What is greater than that concept/idea in your mind of that celebrity? A Maximally Excellent Being that is perfect and greater in every possible way. Even if it doesn’t exist, the mere concept of that being is far greater than anything that any possible entity can conceive of worshiping. And so still, there is nothing more worthy of worship other than God, even if He doesn’t exist (an impossible premise). The concept/idea of God being the Maximally Excellent Being, the Absolute Perfection, the necessary, the one whom which all worlds depend on to even exist is still a greater concept than that celebrity concept you are worshiping. And so, the thing most worthy of worship remains God, even in this thought experiment of an impossible world where He doesn’t exist. Can you think of anything greater to worship? This is the level of greatness of God. You can’t even escape from God, even when you make an absurd thought experiment like this one. He is the Absolute Perfection, the maximal excellence, the Lord of existence, the owner of reality, the owner of all possible realities—even when you imagine the absurd position that He doesn’t exist, He is still the concept that is most worthy of worship! This is the greatness of God. You have no idea what you are dealing with. The inescapable. The world itself thanks and glorifies God to even exist. Any concept or idea you can have, the concept of God is greater and it is most worthy of your reverence and awe. What concept is greater than the greatest conceivable one? You’re stuck worshiping inferior thoughts/concepts if you worship anything else. In reality of course, this is an impossible world since God must exist for a world to even be possible, but this thought experiment works to affirm an absurd impossibility just to show that even if we were to do that, God still remains the thing most worthy of worship. In reality, removing these absurdities of this thought experiment, when we actually touch grass, the atheist can’t just only concede that God as a concept is most worthy of worship, no, they must also recognize that God, being defined as the Greatest Conceivable Being, must exist in reality because if God existed only in the mind, then a greater being—that which exists both in the mind and in reality—could be conceived, which would contradict the definition of God as the Greatest Conceivable Being.

This ontological argument, and the Quran that confirms it, is exceptional because it forces the atheist to take a stronger position. They no longer can say “God doesn’t exist”, now, they have to say “It is impossible for God to exist”. They have to adopt an even more absurd position. They have to reject even more of their fitrah (the instinctive knowledge of God we have been blessed with) and say God isn’t even possible. The intellectual cost of their beliefs has gotten pricier. Because of the Ontological argument, the cost of the theist’s beliefs is much less—all they have to say is that God is possible, and the premises of the ontological argument follow logically and necessarily without escape. If God is possible, then God exists because God has the attribute/name of being necessary and thus exists in all possible worlds, including the actual world. This follows logically and necessarily from the 1st premise.

God is the Greatest Good.

God, to whom belongs the best names, would also have the name “The Greatest Good”. Certainly, the greatest good is greater than any lesser good. And this best name thus also belongs to God.

God being the absolute good, means everything God does and God commands or likes is necessarily good. And everything God forbids or dislikes is necessarily not good (evil). The opinion of the Greatest Possible Good is necessarily good. God is the standard of goodness and all good comes from Him. The reason morality is objective is because God exists.

The weight of God’s approval:

Is there anybody in your life that you just love so much, you think they are so amazing, and you are impressed by them, and you really care what they think of you. Imagine being in their presence and having their approval and love. Now imagine this, you face literally a being that is the greatest possible of those qualities you love, the greatest good, the Absolute Perfection and excellence. You face God on the day of judgement. You are looking ahead at a being that is the Absolute Perfection, the Absolute Good and Excellence. Everything about it is literally perfect and Maximally Amazing and Maximally Impressive and Maximally Lovable. Imagine how much of that being’s approval you would want and how painful it would be if this being of just plain Absolute Perfection rejects you or dismisses you from its presence. This is why hell, where you are dismissed from God’s grace and presence, is the worst place and most humiliating place you can possibly end up. You were rejected by a being maximally good, excellent, perfect, and lovable whose approval is most coveted by everything that exists. Is there a greater loss? And is there a greater gain other than hearing from that Maximally Great being, the maximally valuable being, “I approve”. Whose approval carries more weight? Imagine some person who you really love, has amazing qualities, is highly valued by you, and they are approving & loving of you. Now imagine the maximally valuable being, the maximally lovable being, infinitely more valuable than that person you have in mind, and they approve of you. It’s a whole level of difference.

Injustice against God = infinite crime

Suppose you commit a crime against something good and innocent like a cute puppy, a child, or a good person. The severity of the crime is greater when the victim of the crime is greater in good. So, a crime carries more weight, the greater the victim is. Now imagine a Maximally Excellent Being, the Greatest Conceivable Being. This being is so great that a crime against it is far more severe than a crime against lesser beings–that’s why God is most merciful. When we defy God’s commandments, we don’’t just commit a crime against some lowly entity, we committed a crime against the Greatest Possible Good. You didn’t just transgress against a cute puppy, a child or a righteous/good person, you transgressed against the Greatest Possible Good. It takes a being of infinite grace and enormous mercy to forgive any infraction against such a being. That is how merciful God is.

Now suppose you commit idol worship. Idol worship is an injustice against God. In fact, it is a maximal injustice. You valued God less than He is. When you associate others with God, you are putting God as a colleague, a co-op, a collaborator, an associate with an infinitely inferior being. You discredit God and God’s oneness and God’s absolute Aseity and independence and necessity and you discredit God’s complete power and control over every aspect of reality tiny and great, and you discredit how all else comes to God as a servant, completely dependent on Him for absolutely every little detail of their existence. This is not a team effort. All power and all means and all action derives from God and God is the one who acts sometimes using different vessels (angels, humans) and these vessels themselves don’t possess any of their own power, nor do they do anything except that God directly wills it, and they are merely an expression of God’s own will and power (see: verse 8:17), and God doesn’t even need to express His will/power through them at all, He can just say “be” and “is” to produce the same and better outcomes. Making God a collaborator who shares some of the power or influence that exists in the world with anything else discredits God’s most central features: Oneness, Aseity, Necessity.

How many powers or influences are in the world? Does anyone else have a say in anything? Does anyone else get to influence anything? There is only one power and one influence over all things. Assigning partners with God who also have their influence in the world is a massive discreditment to the One who is running every detail of existence. You have appraised God unjustly; you have devalued just how great God is. You are thus not worshiping the Greatest Conceivable Being at all (because a being who has complete control and influence over everything is greater than a being who has control over most things). Making God be part of a team or a collaborative effort is a massive discreditment to His maximal greatness. You are essentially saying God is not maximally great anymore.

An analogy of this is imagine you have someone who is extremely credentialed, the highest degree, the highest honors, a Ph.D. in something extremely prestigious, and you tell them that their degree is fake, and they are actually just a quack who pretends to be an expert. The greater their degree/credentials, the more incorrect and unjust your appraisal is. When you appraise an infinite being with a finite appraisal by reducing His infinite power to a finite power shared with others: how much more incorrect are you in that appraisal vs. calling a highly credentialed person a quack? You are orders of magnitude more inaccurate and more unjust in your appraisal compared to your inaccuracy/injustice of your appraisal of the Ph.D. Similarly, suppose you discredit someone’s goodness and see them as a really bad person. The more good this person is, the more inaccurate and unjust your appraisal of them is. God being the Infinitely Good and you discredit His goodness to something not-infinite means your appraisal of Him is infinitely inaccurate and infinitely unjust. You’ve made God no longer a Maximally Excellent Being in your appraisal. This is the greatest injustice. By telling a Ph.D that they are not really a scholar, you are basically dismissing 8+ years of their scholarship. You’ve denigrated them from 8+ years of higher education to 0. By telling God He is no longer the Greatest Conceivable Being, you have gone from infinity to 0. It’s a much greater denigration. It’s on a whole other level. The greater the being, the more unjust your devaluation is. (Note there are so many different modalities and senses of the word “infinite”, I’m using ‘infinite’ as a qualitative superlative modality such as how most theologians speak of these qualities—this is similar to Rashad in the introduction when he writes “God’s creatures serve Him because they appreciate His infinite magnificence” or when he translates some verses to say “God possesses infinite Mercy” or “God possesses infinite Grace”.). If this is conceptually difficult, just imagine how great God is, and thus how much more significant undervaluing God’s greatness is compared to undervaluing a Ph.D’s intelligence or a really good person’s moral integrity–it’s not even a fathomable comparison–it’s a crime at a whole different level, exceedingly severe and beyond worse than those analogies: and that’s the main point to get out of this.

So before, you committed a crime against an infinitely good being, and God is so merciful that He offers you forgiveness for that. Now you have committed an infinite crime against an infinite being. This is the analogy to committing a crime of infinite severity against an infinite being (and no analogy can really encompass how severe idol worship is): you didn’t just physically abuse an innocent child, now, you also raped and murdered the child after—that’s a whole level worse…

So now, you have committed idol worship against God…surely this infinite crime against God (an infinitely good being) means suffering an infinite punishment (infinite in severity and infinite in time) can be your sentence now?

But it’s not. God is so Gracious, so Merciful that He even forgives idol worship if you repent for it before death. This is why God is Most Gracious Most Merciful. These are not regular crimes against regular entities—these are infinite crimes against an infinitely good being. A crime is more severe when it is against a greater being (and God is the infinitely great being) and a crime is even more severe when the quality of the crime itself is more unjust/severe (idol worship undervalues God infinitely, see above). Yet God is Most Gracious and Most Merciful because He forgives sins that are this exceeding in severity. This is objectively worse than torturing, raping and murdering a child, and yet if you repent, it is forgiven. There isn’t anyone I know that would forgive any child rapist-murderer. Yet imagine the level of mercy for God to forgive infinitely greater offenses than that finite offense. Indeed, this is why even the angels were ‘surprised’ that God would give us a second chance rather than banish us all to hell:

*Footnote: 21:51 …As it turns out, this whole world was created to redeem those among us who deserve redemption. When the angels suggested that all the rebels, humans and jinns, must be banished out of God’s kingdom, ‘I know what you do not know’ (2:30)….

So, God even remains infinitely graceful and merciful by forgiving our idolatry in this world if we repent for it. But now suppose something even worse, suppose someone unrepentantly and consistently continues to commit this infinite crime against the infinitely good being despite multiple reminders to desist? This one is irredeemable. This one insists on his crime and insists on serially committing this crime. And so, this is unforgivable, if they were to come back again to this world, they would keep on insisting to do this infinite crime against an infinitely good being repetitively (see verses 6:27-6:28, 23:99-100). It would have already been perfectly fair for this person to go to hell immediately after they committed their first exceedingly severe crime against the infinitely good being, but God’s exceedingly generous grace and mercy gave him a lifelong chance to redeem himself. If it were up to anyone else, you’d already be in hell for the sins you’ve already committed. But you enjoy this respite and chance to redeem yourself because our god is God: the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

Many don’t appreciate just how Merciful and Gracious God is. These attributes are so important for us, that God starts the chapters of the Quran with “In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most merciful”. Many don’t comprehend the severity of a crime against God. A crime is more severe when it is against a greater being, and a crime is more severe when the extent of its injustice is more egregious. God is the maximal good, and idol worship is a crime of maximal egregiousness/injustice. It takes someone who is Most Gracious and Most Merciful to forgive such offenses of exceedingly severe magnitude.

When God is informing you of His qualities, He is just stating the facts. This is a favor out of His mercy so you worship the correct entity. Imagine I tell you “I have brown eyes”. It’s just who I am. I’m not elevating myself; I’m telling you a quality of my body. So, when God tells you He alone possess all power and is doing everything—He is just telling you the facts. It’s very important that we are worshiping the right god. Imagine this: Imagine you never met your mother, but she sends you letters, and imagine you know her to be amazing, smart, beautiful, etc, but you think your mom is Beyoncè and when you meet her you are surprised she is not and does not look anything like Beyoncè. You were not really thinking of your actual Mom if you were thinking of the wrong person. You must worship God for who He truly is, not some other concept that is not God Himself. To God belongs the best names, the best qualities.

[Quran 2:165] …all power belongs to GOD alone…

[Quran 28:68] Your Lord is the One who creates whatever He wills, and chooses; no one else does any choosing. Glory be to GOD, the Most Exalted…


Disclaimer: These blogs are not meant to be authoritative for Submission, but instead, informal documentation of my evolving thoughts. I do not claim ‘truth’ to anything I say or write, even if I currently feel like it is likely true based on my current reasoning and knowledge–anything and everything I say is subject to revision or complete abandonment of the theories/concepts/thoughts discussed in any of these blogs. See the about this blog section. Join our discord server, where you can chat with us or ask any questions (there is frequent activity in the voice channels): Https://Discord.gg/Submission

Where to put the period in verse 3:7?

Verse 3:7 is an interesting verse in the Quran that talks about how some verses in the Quran are direct and the foundation of the book, but other verses of the Quran are allegorical or multi-meaning. Interestingly, verse 3:7 itself can be interpreted in two different ways depending on where you put the period–(ie. where do you pause full stop before continuing)

One place to put the period:

[Quran 3:7] He sent down to you this scripture, containing straightforward verses—which constitute the essence of the scripture—as well as multiple-meaning or allegorical verses. Those who harbor doubts in their hearts will pursue the multiple-meaning verses to create confusion, and to extricate a certain meaning. None knows the true meaning thereof except GOD and those well founded in knowledge. [Period]. They say, “We believe in this—all of it comes from our Lord.” Only those who possess intelligence will take heed.

The other place you can put the period:

[Quran 3:7] He sent down to you this scripture, containing straightforward verses—which constitute the essence of the scripture—as well as multiple-meaning or allegorical verses. Those who harbor doubts in their hearts will pursue the multiple-meaning verses to create confusion, and to extricate a certain meaning. None knows the true meaning thereof except GOD. [Period]. And those well founded in knowledge they say, “We believe in this—all of it comes from our Lord.” Only those who possess intelligence will take heed.

These two locations of placing the period change the meaning/understanding of that verse itself. Either “no one knows the true meaning except God”, or “no one knows the true meaning except God and those well founded in knowledge”.

The Study Quran by Seyyed Nasr et al. highlights this:

And none know its interpretation save God and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say, “We believe in it; all is from our Lord”: An alternate pause in the Arabic would yield the translation, “And none know its interpretation save God. And those firmly rooted in knowledge say, ‘We believe in it; all is from our Lord.’” This reading reserves all interpretation of the mutashābih to God; the firmly rooted (rāsikhūn) are then characterized merely by their faith in it. However, as the commentator al-Thaʿlabī points out, in practice all schools of thought interpret the entire Quran; despite declarations that only God knows the interpretation of mutashābih verses, they pass over no aspect of the Quran in silence, though degrees of uncertainty about their meanings remain. Some say this means, “We believe in the mutashābih, but only act by the muḥkam” (Ṭ).

However, I have recently encountered verses in the Quran that demonstrate that the correct understanding of 3:7 is the first one (none knows the true meaning except God and those with knowledge):

[Quran 29:41] The allegory (mathalu-مَثَلُ) of those who accept other masters beside GOD is that of the spider and her home; the flimsiest of all homes is the home of the spider, if they only knew.*

[Quran 29:42] GOD knows full well that whatever they worship besides Him are really nothing. He is the Almighty, the Most Wise.

[Quran 29:43] We cite these examples (al-mathalu-لۡأَمۡثَـٰلُ) for the people, and none appreciate them except the knowledgeable.*

Here, the Quran is citing an allegory of a spider at her home, saying it is flimsiest of all homes–and this is the allegory of those who take other masters beside God as a lord. But then, the Quran says the knowledgeable ones will understand this allegory! If we were to interpret 3:7 to mean “only God knows the correct interpretation of the allegorical verses”, then this directly contradicts verse 29:43 which says that God cites these allegories (mathalu) so that people with knowledge can understand them! Therefore those with knowledge can also understand those allegorical verses. Thus, the correct place to put the period in verse 3:7 is the first one: “none knows the true interpretation except God and those well founded in knowledge”.

* [Footnote on verse 29:43: It takes a knowledgeable person to know that the Black Widow spider kills her mate. The use of the feminine reference to the spider in 29:41 is thus significant. This is in addition to the fact that the spider web is physically very flimsy.]—-
in other words, the spider supports this home and mates, and in the end it gets eaten alive by the female– those who take up other lords beside God are also headed towards their destruction; their worship of idols will destroy their souls and their idols will abandon them (see verses 6:24, 6:94, 7:37, 28:75, 46:28) and their idols will disown them (see verses 11:21, 16:86, 16:87, 19:82, 29:25, 30:13, 35:14, 41:48), and their idols will even be their enemies/opponents (see 19:81-82), similar to what the female spider does to the male once she is mated.

Indeed, if there were verses whose true meaning were unascertainable by humans, then there would be no point for God to give them to us as a reminder.

Further Reading:

Disclaimer: These blogs are not meant to be authoritative for Submission, but instead, informal documentation of my evolving thoughts. I do not claim ‘truth’ to anything I say or write, even if I currently feel like it is likely true based on my current reasoning and knowledge–anything and everything I say is subject to revision or complete abandonment of the theories/concepts/thoughts discussed in any of these blogs. See the about this blog section. Join our discord server, where you can chat with us or ask any questions (there is frequent activity in the voice channels): Https://Discord.gg/Submission

Pre-Islamic Arabia was overwhelmingly monotheistic

The purpose of this blog is only to document transcripts of YouTube videos discussing this topic. There will be little commentary from me here, God willing. These transcripts were generated by AI and are not perfect–I’m simply using this blog for documentation, search, brief commentary, and future reference purposes.

My overall commentary: This all makes sense, it seems God was priming pre-Islamic Arabia with monotheism and developing its Arabic language to prepare them for the coming of the Quran. God is doing everything, indeed. Additionally, the traditional Islamic scholarship is wrong again and fabricated quite a bit of lies about what Arabia was like just before the advent of Islam. Rather than “Jahiliyya” polytheists, the pre-Islamic Arabs were overwhelmingly monotheists. This is in line with what the messenger of the covenant, Rashad Khalifa, had clarified: contrary to the modern Islamic corrupt traditions (that as we will see below are called “story land” by western scholars), pre-Islamic Arabs were monotheists and believed in one God (Allah) but many were committing acts of shirk (similar to modern day Sunni Muslims) involving reverence for lesser beings, and treating them as intercessors. Indeed, the Quran has been saying this all along. We see in the Quran verses that indicate the mushriks (idol worshipers) did acknowledge one God, but some also described having intercessors. And now we find archeological and epigraphical evidence that this was indeed the case. It remains Impressive how the messenger came to clarify these points, contrary to the satanic Islamic scholarship, and these points are being corroborated by archeological studies past his time. And this of course demonstrates that modern Muslims are almost identical to the pagan idol worshipers prior to Islam–The pagan pre-Islamic Arabs are basically the same type of Mushriks as modern Sunni Muslims.

How is it that Rashad is being found to be correct well past his time by western scholars? How did this one man get all this correct?

(Also see my additional commentary at the bottom of this blog).

Clip 1:
The classical Islamic scholarship’s conception of pre-Islamic Arabia is a bunch of ‘story land’

Link: https://youtu.be/_mN-pMJCKaQ?si=8G3qNMuHaUpLMLX2&t=3199 (Time-Stamp: 53:19)

TimeStamp: 53:19

Transcript:

The Jahiliyya and pre-Islamic Arabia are two different places. You can study the Jahiliyya you can read Islamic period sources like… you can read these kinds of guys who are talking about pre-Islamic Arabia they’re talking about the Jahiliya. There are obviously elements of reality in there, but in general that’s Story Land. That’s very different place than the pre-Islamic Arabia that you excavate and that you document on rocks and rock faces and things. That pre-Islamic Arabia is a very different place and there can be two disciplines, one that studies the literary pre-Islamic Arabia (the Jahiliyya) and one that engages with the documentary and archaeological evidence.


Clip 2:
Was Arabia Pagan at the Time of Muhammad? Pre-Islamic Arabian Monotheism w Dr Ahmad Al Jallad.

Link: https://youtu.be/DjGyhRAJwpc?si=9p5H0WVYoji7xFYj

Transcript:

We’ll try to sketch a timeline of Arabia’s religions based on the epigraphic evidence. So we know in ancient South Arabia before the 4th Century, you had a kind of traditional Arabian religion with many different gods in polytheism and then in the fourth Century you have a shift towards monotheism yes veneration of one God who’s called Rahman the merciful– so you have the shift in the fourth Century in South Arabia towards monotheism there’s a debate on the identity of these monotheists are they Jewish are they Judaizing monotheist that’s something that we don’t need to go into now though, but it’s clear that they are monotheist. The other gods disappear from official public inscriptions, and you only have the veneration of one God. Now if we look at the epigraphic record throughout the Arabian Peninsula we see a similar Trend– so in inscriptions before the fourth Century CE throughout the hijaj actually throughout all of Arabia you have invocations to many gods so you can see the Nabatinne inscription

There’s nabattine inscription that opens and invokes Ushara, and then it goes on to invoke Alat< Manat,– so you have all of the gods that are familiar from the Arabic Islamic tradition being mentioned in one inscription, and you could kind of characterize the primary God for the Nabatteans, their National God was Ushara- their main deity, but they had no problem calling upon the other gods in their inscriptions as well.

Now what happens is as we look at the naan and the Nabatean Arabic inscriptions from the hijaz mostly focusing on inscriptions from the northern hijaz because that’s where most of the surveying has taken place and we see a a sort of narrowing of the Gods so by the fourth and early fifth century you get three Primary deities that are mentioned and they’re not mentioned frequently they mainly occur in personal names which is difficult to assess

but the three gods are Al-Uzzah, Manat, and Alat. So these these are the ones we know from the Quran something else happen as you continue to move forward in time when you get to the end of the fifth century and the sixth century and by this time the Nabatinean Arabic script has fully evolved has fully evolved into the Arabic script and once you reach this period all the gods disappear and all you have is Devotion to one God which is and the time she wrote this article was Al-ilah!

Since this article was written, dozens of new paleo Arabic inscriptions have been discovered from the hijaz and what they continue to record around let’s say the area of tab between tabuk and Medina is the Devotion to one God but no longer spelled “Al-ilah” but spelled “Allah”. Now the question was what about the southern part of the hijaz what about the area around Mecca was this area a pagan reservation — there were no surveys nobody had explored the area so we simply had no inscriptions on this– so our fieldwork led to the discovery of more inscriptions now from the mecca area and these inscriptions only record Devotion to Allah. So, it continues this kind of monotheistic Trend.

So if we were to build an image based on the material evidence, the epigraphic record, we would say that the change that happened in South Arabia fourth century shift to monotheism seemed to actually be a peninsula wide phenomenon where you have this slow shift to monotheism in the hijaj as well from the where you have a transition period between the fourth and fifth centuries and then once you get to the end of the fifth and the sixth Century all you get in the inscriptions are are are records or invocations to Allah. Well that’s that’s a shocking result and what we need to do then is take that result and sort of bring it into conversation with what the Quran is attesting, because Quran speaks about opponents of the Prophet who acknowledge Allah but then in certain occasions or for certain reasons return to their gods or demons as their caricatured sometimes and we can’t we can’t use these sort of cheap explanations by saying oh pagans just didn’t know how to write only monotheists knew how to write because we see from the inscriptional record that pagans did know how to write yes they were producing they were mentioning all the gods and they they stopped doing that and we need to explain that that kind of change one you know I don’t have an answer I don’t think we have we have materials at this point to have an answer yet to to reconcile these two sources but one can imagine that and this would be following Patricia crona’s argumentation that these deity that these deities Alat, Manat, uzzah that these deities Were Somehow once monotheism had spread across the peninsula they were reimagined as Angels or some kind of subordinate beings and there was really devotion only to one God and that these being could be seen as intercessors that you could somehow make invocations to them um but ultimately you’re worshiping only Allah.

And of course the Quran says if you ask the pagans who created the heavens and the Earth they will say Allah. So that that that much is reflected in the inscriptional record one of the things that we see also in the inscriptional record despite the text being monotheistic only invoking God seeking the Forgiveness they use the root “ghafara”

So it’s the same root that’s used in the Islamic tradition as well seeking the Forgiveness of Allah in pre-Islamic times calling him “rub”, which is a part of this package of Hebrew Aramaic liturgical terms that come into Arabia with the Advent of monarchism — they urge the reader to obey God — all of these concepts are sort of alien to the let’s say polytheistic Arabian religion that we that that’s Apparent from the inscriptions that they produced centuries before that. These seem to be monotheistic Concepts yes, so some kind of religious Revolution seemed to have happened in the Hijaz, in the century in the two centuries preceding the rise of Islam that led to these new religious formulas these new ways of expressing piety and the relationship between you know individuals and their deity–but we can’t know at this moment what exactly it was we only see again it shadow in the inscriptions.

Clip 3:
Epigraphy and Religion and Language in pre-Islamic Arabia

Link: https://youtu.be/_mN-pMJCKaQ?si=ZTcrhhvEzy4cmmUI&t=5988 (Time-Stamp: 1:39:48)

TimeStamp: 1:39:48

Transcript:

Question: That leads us to the later Islamic tradition depicts Arabia on the eve of Islam and especially the hijaz as largely populated by polytheistic idolaters– people who believe in a Pantheon of gods and worship them as Idols Etc: does this depiction match the archaeological and epigraphic evidence that we find that we are finding for pre-Islamic Hijaz.

Answer: That’s Ground Zero that’s a huge debate academic debate on this subject where you have some example like Michael Leker would view the Quranic audience as being not very different from the Safaitic guys: same kind of people basically you know real Arabian pagans. Hawting on the other hand thinks they were all monotheists already– they were all just monotheistic, and then you’ve got middle grounds people will say okay well they are monotheistic influenced, but they have some kind of pagan, for example the ancient goddesses (Alat, AlUzzah, Manat) have been reimagined as Angels– they become Angels–it’s very possible there are many parallels you can point to that. And what’s fascinating about these discussions for me is how the Quranic text can be used to argue for any of these positions; it can be used to support all of these positions and people have done that by simply giving weight to certain verses over others so you kind of you have Alat, Manat, AlUzzah, “oh well you know that’s just one mention and maybe there’s something else”, and then you focus on the fact they only worship Allah–that they recognize Allah, and they say that these are only our intercessors, so there’s that.

Then you can also move to the fact that they’re you know obviously sacrificing animals and which is something that monotheists at this period weren’t doing and clearly worshiping something that or venerating some things that are the names of which are etymologically ancient Arabian goddesses–so whatever were in in the Quran um historically speaking these were goddesses. Pagan goddesses maybe they have been reimagined that’s very complicated argument they’re Pagan godesses

So The Quranic text can be used to argue any of these positions, and then you go to sources like… and you say well that shows that they’re all just pagans. You can of course look at that stuff a little bit more closely doubt its veracity it’s a sort of a dead end it’s hard to make a definitive argument supporting one position, there’s always other ways of viewing it, and it probably will always be that way but and I think it’s very interesting

So there’s a there’s a new approach which is let’s look at what the epigraphy tells us people are doing, let’s look at what the epigraphy is going to tell us. These texts are going to be produced by people in the time period we want to know about and not by people remembering that time period and not, and they’re not polemical in the way that let’s say the Quran is– the Quran is engaging with its enemies–with its opponents so maybe it’s you know it’s not giving us a completely balanced presentation of their views how they would present it themselves–like we’re not going to get that.

So right now we have more than 45 pre-Islamic Arabic script inscriptions dating from the late 5th Century AD to probably the early 7th. All of these texts are, and we use this word very carefully I’m going to use this word to describe the contents of the texts and not to describe the religious acts of the people who inscribe them– all of these texts are based on the contents of those inscriptions: monotheistic. What do we mean by that they are monotheistic, that they only invoke one God. There’s no invocations to Alat, AlUzzah, Manut–there’s no invocations to… whatever you want they’re not there. They only invoke one God which is in Syria Jordan these areas it is “al-ilah”–literally the god. And in the Hizaj, it is Allah (spelled in different way).

Now, surely, “Al-ilah” and “Allah” are surely the same thing. And you can explain this linguistically with the deletion of the ‘i’ vowel. Between “Al-ilah” then you get Allah and you delete the ‘i’ vowel. I have no idea why Allah is pronounced with a dark l no one can answer that question we come up with a million hypothesis we can’t answer it, but it’s very interesting.

So then only one God Appears to the inscriptions that’s interesting, that’s fascinating, and they are invoking that God using religious formulae that continue into the Islamic period. So they tell people to obey that God; they seek that God’s forgiveness. I have an inscription from … where this one God’s being called upon to forgive someone. Others which is to urge one to obey or be Pious towards the god so and all of these formulaic Expressions continue into the Islamic period.

So continuity in religious expression from pre-Islam to Islam–continuity in of course the veneration of one primary deity but these inscriptions are too low resolution. We don’t know their theology– what we do know is that they venerate one God but that’s exactly what the Quran tells us the Mushrikoon were doing– they had one primary God.

So what the inscription suggest is that they’re different than our Safaitic guys, and they’re different from the very ancient pagans because the very ancient pagans were invoking like you know some Safain scriptures you have 10 Gods being called upon– they invoked everybody [but] by this period they’re only invoking one God

So there is a religious change; something has happened we don’t know about their theology so we can say that these inscriptions are monotheistic and that they only invoke one God but did the people invoking these gods– did they believe in lesser beings that could act as intercessors and is that what the Quran is calling “shirk”– well that’s what the Quran is calling shirk– so did they believe in those things? We have no idea no clue– the inscriptions don’t tell us we can’t know– but what we can know is that the vocabulary the deity the religious sentiments everything expressed in these pre-Islamic texts continue into the Islamic period

There’s one big innovation that happens one big innovation this is very important the Bismillah “Bismillah Al Rahman Al Raheem” is not attested in the pre-Islamic Arabic script scriptures– they use “Bismika Rabanna”, “Bismika Allahuma”. And it’s in the Islamic period inscriptions that we get the Basmallah. That’s a difference and that’s a difference that’s attested in Islamic period sources when the prophet was drawing up a treaty with the Quraish. He wanted to put “Bismillah Al Rahman Al Raheem” and the Quraish said “no we don’t do that, we do ‘Bismika Allahuma'”.

And that’s what we get in the pre-islamic inscriptions, it’s nice when these things kind of fit together. It’s beautiful, amazing.

So what I would say is that the epigraphic results support our need to complicate the image of the Mushrikeen; they are not Safaitic pagans, they are a little bit more complicated they are in some sense monotheists but certainly they were doing things like Association and worshiping lesser beings that was causing them to be called Mushrikoon

Now, here’s a fun question– I was doing this in class the other day and I got a very nice response that illustrated my point well– “would the Mushrikeen have considered themselves monotheists; would they have considered themselves ‘no, but we are only worshiping one God and these other things that you’re calling worship these are just intercessors we’re just asking for their shafaa– for their help to reach this one God, but we believe there’s only one powerful God that created everything’ —in their minds they may have they may have viewed themselves as monotheists in some sense, and I said to the class I said well you know in many parts of the Muslim world, you can visit the shrine of a saint–a Muslim Saint and you can ask for shafaa, you can ask for intercession to intercede between you and God and to help you get good things and go to heaven”– and the kid in the class said “THAT’s SHIRK” and I said “PRECISELY”.

I’m not taking a position on what it is I’m saying that’s the attitude for them the people doing this they consider themselves Pious Muslims if you ask them are you a Mushrik, they would say “no way we’re only worshiping one God, we’re not worshiping these Saints we’re asking them for Shafaa”, but from the point of view of a let’s say if you have a different theological orientation and you’re a very strict monotheist that’s Shirk, that’s Mushrikeen,

So applying that idea to our pre-Islamic context we could very much imagine a situation where the prophet’s message is one of a puritanical monotheistic message– no other beings are doing Shafaa, none of this nonsense, you know there’s only one God and you communicate directly with him unless he allows you to have Shafaa– he can give you that permission but anyway and the other guys are saying no we still have these other magical beings and these angels, if you follow these let’s say supernatural beings, but they were created by God they’re subordinate to him. There’s still one God, and they just simply help us get to Him but we’re really just worshiping one God from the point of view if you’re following this new puritanical monotheistic religion– there’s only one thing to call that and it’s shirk

Question: it’s amazing how Islam didn’t totally rid this idea of delegating some kind of spiritual or Divine agency to lesser gods you kind of see this practice we talked about it the other day within the context of Muhammad ibn abd wahab but you see certain practices like this exist in Arabia all the way up into the 19th century, where they would use certain, they would use intercessors as agents for God but they didn’t see themselves as any less Muslim or monotheistic.

Answer: So yeah you can go back into the ancient period and if these people produced inscriptions if these people who are let’s say visiting the shrines of saints and seeking intercessors when they produce inscriptions, those inscriptions are going to use formula and they’re mostly likely going to read “O God please forgive that person”.

They’re going to only invoke Allah in the inscriptions. So if we looked at their incriptions now they would just be monotheists and we wouldn’t see that complex theology behind it, so I think that’s what we’re getting from our pre-Islamic inscriptions

So it’s wrong I’ve seen some people do this they say Oh look The pre-islamic inscriptions are all monotheists therefore there was no paganism. Well paganism is a difficult term–what does it even mean? you know well you can call anyone a pagan what does paganism mean we don’t know– the inscriptions are monotheist but it doesn’t mean that the people producing them aren’t invoking other kinds of beings which is what the Quran is telling us they’re doing anyway.

Additional Commentary on Clip 3:

Al-Jallad made an interesting point in the above clip that the Quran could be used to argue for all positions: that the pre-Islamic Arabs were monotheists or that they were polytheist, or that they were monotheists with idolatrous tendencies. There is one verse I want to shout out that some have used in our discord server to put heavy weight on and try to demonstrate that all the pre-Islamic Arabs were polytheist:

[Quran 38:5-7] “Did he make the gods into one god? This is really strange.” The leaders announced, “Go and steadfastly persevere in worshiping your gods. This is what is desired. “We never heard of this from the religion of our fathers. This is a lie.

And of course these verses are in contrast to the other Quran verses which state that these Arabs were monotheist (as Al-Jallad rightly pointed out above)–I need not list those verses here since we already know them. But what do we make of verses 38:5-7 above? Let’s stick to the common view that these verses refer to the pagan Arabs of Muhammad’s time:

As Al-Jallad stated in his other works and interviews, Arabia has undergone a shift in the 2 centuries before Islam from polytheism to monotheism overall, however, one is mistaken to interpret this as an “all or nothing statement” as if 100% of the Arabs were monotheistic and 0% maintained the old polytheistic traditions (including but not limited to the nomadic bedouin tribes who might have held high reverence for their ancient family traditions of polytheism and maintained these beliefs moreso than the other Arabs)–so even despite this overall change from polytheism to monotheism on the grand scale, there likely remained small cults among the Arabs who did actually maintain old polytheistic traditions. There seems to have been a gradual progression in pre-Islamic Arabia leading to the majority being monotheist, with some among them even being strong monotheists (as the epigraphic record seems to indicate), some being weak monotheists (ie. believing God has 3 daughters serving as intercessors who carry their prayers to God–this appears to be a majority position in the small group of Arabs in Mecca specifically), and of course, the minority of Arabs being blatant polytheists–and of course Muhammad and the Quran would be interacting and addressing all of them in different verses. The Quran addresses disbelievers of all types, even those who are strong monotheists but who disbelieved in the resurrection or the message of the Quran. That’s why as Al-Jallad stated, the Quran can be used to support the notion that pre-Islamic Arabs are either strong monotheists, weak monotheists, or polytheists: I think it is likely because pre-Islamic Arabia encompassed all three, and the Quran addresses each of them in different places.

Disclaimer: These blogs are not meant to be authoritative for Submission, but instead, informal documentation of my evolving thoughts. I do not claim ‘truth’ to anything I say or write, even if I currently feel like it is likely true based on my current reasoning and knowledge–anything and everything I say is subject to revision or complete abandonment of the theories/concepts/thoughts discussed in any of these blogs. See the about this blog section. Join our discord server, where you can chat with us or ask any questions (there is frequent activity in the voice channels): Https://Discord.gg/Submission

Don’t break up into Shia; Don’t follow hadith

Religious Sects Condemned

[Quran 6:159] Those who divide themselves into sects (Arabic = ‘Shia’) do not belong with you. Their judgment rests with GOD, then He will inform them of everything they had done.

It’s very interesting that Shia Islam was condemned by name in the above verse. Similarly, hadith were condemned by name in the following verses:

[Quran 45:6] These are GOD’s revelations that we recite to you truthfully. In which Hadith other than GOD and His revelations do they believe?

[Quran 77:50] Which Hadith, other than this, do they uphold?


At the same time, there is also good Hadith and good Shia:

Good Hadith:

[Quran 39:23] GOD has revealed herein the best Hadith (Quran)…


Good Shia:

[Quran 37:83] Among his followers (Arabic=’Shia’) was Abraham.
[Quran 15:10] We have sent (messengers) before you to the communities (Arabic=’Shia’) in the past.


So, per the Quran, the only Hadith we are to follow for religious guidance is the Quran. And the only Shia we are to follow is the Shia of Abraham and the Messengers. Other hadith beside the Quran, and other Shia beside Abraham/messengers are not to be followed.

So, similar to Hadith beside the Quran being condemned by name, Shia Islam is condemned by name in the Quran. In other words, a Shia (sect) among muslims is condemned in the Quran. And ironically, the name they give themselves is “Shia Islam”; And the name they give the sources outside the Quran is “Hadith”.

It’s ‘almost’ prophetic.

So when God rhetorically asks, “Do you have another book to uphold?” in verse 68:37, the Sunni response is “yeah, we have Sahih Al-Bukhari”.

Disclaimer: These blogs are not meant to be authoritative for Submission, but instead, informal documentation of my evolving thoughts. I do not claim ‘truth’ to anything I say or write, even if I currently feel like it is likely true based on my current reasoning and knowledge–anything and everything I say is subject to revision or complete abandonment of the theories/concepts/thoughts discussed in any of these blogs. See the about this blog section. Join our discord server, where you can chat with us or ask any questions (there is frequent activity in the voice channels): Https://Discord.gg/Submission

Contextual understanding of 3:81 and 33:7

3:81

It is very clear that a very simple reading of Quran verse 3:81 tells us that a covenant has been taken with the prophets themselves who will get the scripture and wisdom and then a messenger will come after them confirming what they have. And since Muhammad is a prophet, then that means a messenger will come after him to confirm the scripture Muhammad has been given.

The objectors have argued from linguistic reasoning that this cannot be what this verse is saying. However, this has been thoroughly debunked by the following blog showing multiple examples of other verses with the identical linguistic phrase of 3:81 referencing a covenant with the people mentioned themselves: 

Now that linguistic counterarguments have been thoroughly debunked, the objectors move on to make contextual arguments that verse 3:81 is not really a covenant with the prophets, but a covenant titled “the prophets” and the subjects of the covenant are the people of the book, not the prophets themselves (despite the clear reading of the verse). This blog will demonstrate, God Willing, that the contextual features of verses before and after 3:81 (including the thematic context of chapter 3 on a whole) do not exclude and in fact support the interpretation of 3:81 that this covenant is taken with the prophets themselves.  

[3:64] Say, “O followers of the scripture, let us come to a logical agreement between us and you: that we shall not worship except GOD; that we never set up any idols besides Him, nor set up any human beings as lords beside GOD.” If they turn away, say, “Bear witness that we are submitters.”

[3:65] O followers of the scripture, why do you argue about Abraham, when the Torah and the Gospel were not revealed until after him? Do you not understand?

[3:66] You have argued about things you knew; why do you argue about things you do not know? GOD knows, while you do not know.

[3:67] Abraham was neither Jewish, nor Christian; he was a monotheist submitter. He never was an idol worshiper.

[3:68] The people most worthy of Abraham are those who followed him, and this prophet, and those who believe. GOD is the Lord and Master of the believers.

[3:69] Some followers of the scripture wish to lead you astray, but they only lead themselves astray, without perceiving.

[3:70] O followers of the scripture, why do you reject these revelations of GOD though you bear witness (that this is the truth)?

[3:71] O followers of the scripture, why do you confound the truth with falsehood, and conceal the truth, knowingly?

[3:72] Some followers of the scripture say, “Believe in what was sent down to the believers in the morning, and reject it in the evening; maybe someday they will revert.

[3:73] “And do not believe except as those who follow your religion.” Say, “The true guidance is GOD’s guidance.” If they claim that they have the same guidance, or argue with you about your Lord, say, “All grace is in GOD’s hand; He bestows it upon whomever He wills.” GOD is Bounteous, Omniscient.

[3:74] He specifies His mercy for whomever He wills; GOD possesses unlimited grace.

[3:75] Some followers of the scripture can be trusted with a whole lot, and they will give it back to you. Others among them cannot be trusted with a single dinar; they will not repay you unless you keep after them. That is because they say, “We do not have to be honest when dealing with the gentiles!”* Thus, they attribute lies to GOD, knowingly.

[3:76] Indeed, those who fulfill their obligations and lead a righteous life, GOD loves the righteous.

[3:77] As for those who trade away GOD’s covenant, and their obligations, for a cheap price, they receive no share in the Hereafter. GOD will not speak to them, nor look at them, on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He purify them. They have incurred a painful retribution.

[3:78] Among them are those who twist their tongues to imitate the scripture, that you may think it is from the scripture, when it is not from the scripture, and they claim that it is from GOD, when it is not from GOD. Thus, they utter lies and attribute them to GOD, knowingly.

[3:79] Never would a human being whom GOD blessed with the scripture and prophethood say to the people, “Idolize me beside GOD.” Instead, (he would say), “Devote yourselves absolutely to your Lord alone,” according to the scripture you preach and the teachings you learn.

[3:80] Nor would he command you to idolize the angels and the prophets as lords. Would he exhort you to disbelieve after becoming submitters?

[3:81] GOD took a covenant from the prophets, saying, “I will give you the scripture and wisdom. Afterwards, a messenger will come to confirm all existing scriptures. You shall believe in him and support him.” He said, “Do you agree with this, and pledge to fulfill this covenant?” They said, “We agree.” He said, “You have thus borne witness, and I bear witness along with you.”

[3:82] Those who reject this (Quranic prophecy) are the evil ones.

[3:83] Are they seeking other than GOD’s religion, when everything in the heavens and the earth has submitted to Him, willingly and unwillingly, and to Him they will be returned?

[3:84] Say, “We believe in GOD, and in what was sent down to us, and in what was sent down to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, and the Patriarchs, and in what was given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction among any of them. To Him alone we are submitters.”

[3:85] Anyone who accepts other than Submission as his religion, it will not be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter, he will be with the losers.

[3:86] Why should GOD guide people who disbelieved after believing, and after witnessing that the messenger is truth, and after solid proofs* have been given to them? GOD does not guide the wicked.

[3:87] These have incurred condemnation by GOD, and the angels, and all the people.

[3:88] Eternally they abide therein; the retribution is never commuted for them, nor will they be reprieved.

[3:89] Exempted are those who repent thereafter, and reform. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

[3:90] Those who disbelieve after believing, then plunge deeper into disbelief, their repentance will not be accepted from them; they are the real strayers.

[3:91] Those who disbelieve and die as disbelievers, an earthful of gold will not be accepted from any of them, even if such a ransom were possible. They have incurred painful retribution; they will have no helpers.

[3:92] You cannot attain righteousness until you give to charity from the possessions you love. Whatever you give to charity, GOD is fully aware thereof.

[3:93] All food used to be lawful for the Children of Israel, until Israel imposed certain prohibitions on themselves before the Torah was sent down. Say, “Bring the Torah and read it, if you are truthful.”

[3:94] Those who fabricate false prohibitions after this, and attribute them to GOD, are truly wicked.

When we examine the context of the above verses, we see that verse 64 begins with addressing the people of the scripture. Verse 69 stops addressing the people of the scripture for a moment and beings addressing Muhammad/believers about the followers of the scripture wishing to divert us from the path of God. Then verse 70-71 begins addressing the people of the scripture again, and then afterwards goes back to addressing Muhammad and the believers. The discussion at this point all the way through verse 3:81 is no longer in first person. An example of this is how verse 3:75-78 is no longer addressing the people of the scripture and is instead talking to the believers about the people of the scripture. The next verses (3:79 to verse 3:80) talk about how a prophet would never encourage idol worship, and similar to the 2 verses before them, it is also not addressing the people of the scripture, instead, it is addressing the believers and informing them about prophets. The next verse, 3:81 continues to inform us about prophets. 

So we see that the immediate context of 3:81 is not even addressing the people of the scripture, but instead is talking about prophets and their obligations. Verse 3:81 adds to this topic of the prophets’ obligations and mentions a covenant they took. And the biggest indication of a shift in topics is the phrase in the beginning of 3:81, “wa-idh” ( وَإِذْ ), which means “recall”. This phrase oftentimes is used when a flashback or throwback is being referenced to as an annotation. 

Notice how this is all interweaved and how the topic shifts from related point to related point. Indeed, the Quran often does this: in the middle of a certain context, the Quran shifts from one concept to another, sometimes to draw parallels between 2 related but distinct points and sometimes to plug a related but distinct concept before shifting back to the previous discussion. 

What is the point of talking about the people of the scripture rejecting Muhammad and then shifting the topic to Rashad? 

Now an objector would say “what is the point of the Quran talking about the people of the scripture rejecting Muhammad and then shifting the topic to Rashad”?. This is like asking “What is the point of the Quran putting verse 4:176 (which is about inheritance) abruptly when the previous context is addressing the people of the scripture and the messiah?”. “Isn’t there a better place and context to put this verse”. That’s just how the Quran works: abrupt topic shifts that ebb and flow, related to the theme of the overall chapter, but different from the immediate context. Get used to it

Speaking of Chapter 4, it also has an abrupt shift in topic at verse 4:153. Before that verse it was talking about the believers, and the hypocrites and repentance and working righteousness–and then the topic shifts abruptly to the people of the scripture in 4:153-and the Quran continues in this tangent discussing different but related discussions related to the people of the scripture: mistakes of the Jews back in Moses’ time then mistakes of the Jews for disbelieving, then mistakes of the Christians who made up lies about Mary and Jesus, and then it goes on into extensive detail regarding Jesus–and then after this brief tangent, the Quran returns to the discussion of the previous topic. One notices the similarity of this with 3:81–starting at verse 3:79, the discussion shifts/merges to prophets and then it goes on to discuss different but related discussions about the prophets: it first discusses how prophets get the scripture and wisdom, then how prophets would never command idol worship or advocate disbelief, and then how prophets took a special covenant and then it goes into extensive detail regarding our requirements–and then after this brief tangent, the Quran returns and adds on to the discussion of the previous topic of the people of the people fabricating certain laws (3:93-94) and then back to the people of the scripture rejecting these revelations (3:98).

Another example happens in the next Surah (5) where it discusses the importance of honest testimony and then abruptly shifts the topic in verse 5:109 to the messengers’ speech during the day of judgement (especially Jesus) and then going deeper into this tangent on a different but related discussion (a tangent within a tangent) about Jesus asking God to send down a feast from the heaven to reassure the believers with him and how this greater miracle leads to greater responsibility/punishment (see verses 5:112-5:115)–and then shifting the topic back to what Jesus will say on the day of judgement (verse 5:116)–and then returning to the previous discussion, adding on to the importance of truthfulness and how the truthful will benefit (verse 5:119), further emphasizing the importance of honest testimony that was discussed before this tangent (before verse 5:109).

Since we know that this abrupt topic shift is indeed a feature of the Quran, why should we not take that into account when we are attempting to understand the Quran? Especially when there are clear indications that this verse is an abrupt change in topic including linguistic ( وَإِذْ ) and the immediate context referring to the prophets’ obligations rather than the people of the scripture. Why should we accept the hermeneutical approach of the traditionalists who must affirm the biased historical context and interpretations of the classical scholars who have been poisoned by the fabrications of Hadith & Sunnah (who even western scholars are skeptical of)—why should we accept their hermeneutical approach rather than an approach that has been authorized by God and His messenger? Why should we trust the words and approaches of unauthorized humans over the words of authorized messengers of God? Why should we not take into account the Quran oftentimes engages in abrupt changes in topic, especially since the clear words of 3:81 clearly refer to a covenant the prophets themselves have taken and especially since these clear words are mimicked identically by other verses referring to covenants taken by others (see verse 2:83, 3:187, and 5:12) word-for-word

Further evidence this is a covenant with the prophets themselves: 

It is also quite weird they argue that “never would a prophet command idol worship” mentioned in verses 3:79-80 includes Muhammad as also one of those prophets that would never command idol worship, but verse 3:81 which continues to talk about those prophets somehow excludes Muhammad. 

Further the verses that continue the discussion of 3:81 talk about those who reject what is mentioned in 3:81 and goes on to say they have “disbelieved after believing” (see verse 3:86 and 3:90). However, the earlier context informs us that the people of the book have never truly believed (verse 3:72-73), but they will act like they believed in the morning, but at night they will reject and they will follow the command “do not believe except as those who follow your religion”—so the Quran is informing us these people of the book were never believers—yet the verses after 3:81 talk about disbelieving after believing—so this cannot be in reference to the people of the book rejecting Muhammad after believing him. Even worse, when the word “believers” is used in the Quran, it refers to those who believed in the Quran & Muhammad—so the only ones who could have disbelieved after believed (‘amanu’: ‘īmānihim’ إِيمَانِهِمْ) are those who already believed in the Quran—thus this cannot refer to the people of the book previously mentioned and thus those who “believed after disbelieved” must be the Muslims who rejected this messenger coming after Muhammad whereby they once believed in the Quran & Muhammad (amanu) but then disbelieved…anyone claiming that all of these verses are addressing or referring to the people of the book have been nullified by the preceding and anteceding context of 3:81—the Quran is very clear the people of the scripture mentioned in this context never believed in the first place. This shuts down the idea that we should be understanding all of these verses as referring to the people of the scripture. 

33:7

Regarding 33:7, when read in context, it seems to come out of nowhere and just describe a covenant the prophet himself took, and then it returns back to the previous context of war and struggling in the cause of God. 

It is clear from 33:7 that this verse is presenting the “bottom line”, ie. the overall point/purpose of all of this hard work (war and striving in the cause of God) that Muhammad is doing. 

The point is that Muhammad had taken a covenant with God to deliver God’s scripture and part of this necessitates Muhammad and the believers be united to fight these people who are oppressing them and who are trying to eradicate the religion of Submission so that Muhammad delivers the scripture to the Arabs. 

Rashad is the consolidating messenger who most of the world will see in the future. He is the messenger of the victory where people will enter submission in throngs and the whole world will recognize the truth of the scriptures including the Quran and mathematical miracle. This is an extremely important messenger and so the covenant of the prophets, including Muhammad, is to support this messenger-to-come partly by delivering the scripture and winning the war in Mecca, rather than losing and letting the Meccans skirt the message of the Quran. Delivering the message necessitates Muhammad leading the believers to victory in this war. And it necessitates Muhammad being close to the believers.

This is the bottom line of Muhammad’s role and covenant: to deliver the Quran to the Arabs so that the future consolidating messenger, Rashad, delivers its message complete with the proofs of the Quran to the whole world. 

Muhammad had to deliver the Quran and win this war so that this bottom line is achieved. This is a vital component towards supporting the messenger-to-come. This is the big picture. This is the overall goal of all of this work and the war efforts discussed in the context of 33:7. 

In summary, 33:7 is clearly a verse that explains the bottom line and overall purpose of Muhammad’s efforts, and this verse is inserted within a context of the believers fighting in this war and striving in the cause of God. This verse gives the bottom line and overall point of Muhammad’s ministry and war efforts: to support the consolidating messenger-to-come by sufficiently delivering the Quran to Arabs in order to allow the messenger-to-come to deliver this message and the overwhelming mathematical miracle to the whole world and have the world enter the religion of Submission in throngs. This is why verse 33:7 is tied to 3:81—this is the only mention of a covenant taken with the prophets in this fully detailed Quran. 

They insist that prophet = messenger

Those who keep asserting that a [prophet = messenger] should know that this is directly contradicted in the Quran by verse 22:52

[22:52] We did not send before you any messenger, NOR a prophet, without having the devil interfere in his wishes. GOD then nullifies what the devil has done. GOD perfects His revelations. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise.

And the silence in 39:40 as to whether Muhammad was the last messenger or not, is LOUD. It’s a deafening silence. 

They can conjecture all they want and pretend to have the right understanding, they can stamp their belief that messenger = prophet as true all they want, they can shout at the top of all buildings that this point is axiomatic; that this point is well established: they should know that these are fabrications of lies against God to divert people from the path of God. This includes especially the fabrication that a messenger is necessarily a prophet—a conjecture that is explicitly disowned by the Quran in verse 22:52. 

Disclaimer: These blogs are not meant to be authoritative for Submission, but instead, informal documentation of my evolving thoughts. I do not claim ‘truth’ to anything I say or write, even if I currently feel like it is likely true based on my current reasoning and knowledge–anything and everything I say is subject to revision or complete abandonment of the theories/concepts/thoughts discussed in any of these blogs. See the about this blog section. Join our discord server, where you can chat with us or ask any questions (there is frequent activity in the voice channels): Https://Discord.gg/Submission

3:81 and 7:94

3:81

Some of the common complaints against Submission is verse 3:81 and if you recall, I wrote a blog that compiles classical interpretations of 3:81 showing that many classical scholars accepted our interpretation of the verse. So any native Arabic speaker who argues the Arabic does not lend our interpretation is thereby refuted by classical Arab speakers themselves.

Some say this only refers to a covenant with the people of the prophets, not the prophets themselves. What they don’t recognize is that even if we give them the benefit of the doubt that verse 3:81 is not a covenant with the prophets, but a covenant with the people of the prophets. What they don’t realize is that even if this verse refers to a covenant with the people of the prophets, Muhammad was a prophet, so his people are under the covenant to accept the messenger that comes after the prophet…Done. So there is a messenger after Muhammad even by this interpretation.

Now some, in an attempt to further avoid the implications of 3:81, force it to refer only to the people of the previous scripture (Christians and Jews). There are of course several problems with this including how the subject matter in the immediate context changed and now refers to prophets–but sure, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and pretend this covenant only refers to the people of the previous scriptures (Christians and Jews)–when the Christians and Jews accept Muhammad as a messenger who confirmed their scripture, Christians and Jews remain bound by that same covenant to also have to accept the messenger who comes after after Muhammad to confirm the scripture Muhammad received too. Even if you want to force this verse to refer to the people of the previous scripture, there is still a messenger after their prophet (Muhammad is their prophet too, since the Quran says Muhammad came for them as well) who will confirm the scripture their prophet (Muhammad) received. In fact, one of the major classical commentators, Al-Razi, acknowledged that this covenant applies to any coming messenger that fulfills the criteria in this verse (not just Muhammad)…and this is corroborated by the Quran: the Jews took a covenant to not only accept Jesus, but also accept any messenger that comes after Jesus (Muhammad) and potentially anyone who comes after Muhammad as well–so Al-Razi would be correct in his reasoning. Thus even if we take this verse to refer to a covenant with the people of the scripture, we note that the Jewish covenant would include at least 2 messengers (they would have to accept Jesus who confirmed their scripture, and Muhammad who confirmed Jesus’ scripture)–they would be in a covenant to accept these 2 future messengers as well as any other messenger that comes later who fulfills the criteria of this verse, as Al-Razi pointed out. Now the major scriptures (Torah, Gospel) were confirmed by later messengers…except for the Quran…So we can reason that a messenger is indeed coming after Muhammad to confirm the Quran (the one scripture that is not confirmed) and so the covenant with the Jews would require the Jews to accept that messenger too.  

Now when faced with the precedent in the Quran that a future messenger comes to confirm a previous scripture, and that both the Torah and Gospel were confirmed, but not the Quran–one can easily deduce we need another messenger to confirm the Quran too. Now one of the desperate objections to this is that the Quran is a book from God, so it doesn’t need confirmation. Yet the previous books are also from God and got confirmation from a later messenger. In fact, the Quran is not even unique in that regard: verse 28:48 likens the Quran to the Torah in that they are both impressive books and were both called works of magic (meaning the disbelievers observed the miracles in both books and determined those miracles were magic and not divine miracles, in fact they even thought the Torah was MORE impressive than the Quran), and yet the Torah was confirmed by Jesus and Muhammad–so this fact does not preclude the Quran from also needing confirmation:

[Quran 28:48-49] Now that the truth has come to them from us, they said, “If only we could be given what was given to Moses!” Did they not disbelieve in what was given to Moses in the past? They said, “Both (scriptures) are works of magic that copied one another.” They also said, “We are disbelievers in both of them.” Say, “Then produce a scripture from GOD with better guidance than the two, so I can follow it, if you are truthful.”

In fact, this is yet another indication that Muhammad is not the final messenger (because the Quran he brought needs to be confirmed by a future messenger like the other scriptures before it).  

[7:94]

The other argument that was presented to us today on this sever is that verse 7:94 proves that Shuhaib was a prophet and not just a messenger (and by extension they argue that therefore every prophet mentioned in the Quran is a messenger so there is no messenger after the final prophet messenger, Muhammad). Let’s post these verses God Willing:

[7:91] The quake annihilated them, leaving them dead in their homes.

[7:92] Those who rejected Shu’aib vanished, as if they never existed. Those who rejected Shu’aib were the losers.

[7:93] He turned away from them, saying, “O my people, I have delivered to you the messages of my Lord, and I have advised you. How can I grieve over disbelieving people.”

[7:94] Whenever we sent a prophet to any community, we afflicted its people with adversity and hardship, that they may implore.

[7:95] Then we substituted peace and prosperity in place of that hardship. But alas, they turned heedless and said, “It was our parents who experienced that hardship before prosperity.” Consequently, we punished them suddenly when they least expected.

Now, of course you can see verse 7:94 as starting a new but closely-related topic as the Quran often does or you can see verse 7:94 as a continuation of the previous topic when it is talking about Shu’aib and the other messengers. However, if you notice, verse 7:94 begins after the conclusion made at the previous verse. 7:94 is thus starting a new discussion after Shu’aib’s final conclusion in the previous verse. In fact, there is absolutely nothing about 7:94 that indicates the previous messengers that were spoken about were all prophets–such a claim is not even made, nor was it even hinted. After that discussion on the prophets ended, 7:94 moves on to prophets and the later verses go on to discuss Moses–all that verse is saying is “and whenever we sent a prophet to any community…”–there is nothing about this verse that makes any claims that all those previously mentioned messengers were also prophets. In fact, there is additional context in this same chapter that will indicate the opposite as we will soon see below, God Willing.

In fact, when you read 7:94 it says that whenever a prophet comes, its people get afflicted with adversity and hardship that they may implore and then it gets substituted with peace and prosperity in place of that hardship. If you notice, Shu’aib’s people were destroyed/annihilated; they did not get peace and prosperity after the hardship–so Shu’aib was not one of those prophets whose people got peace and prosperity after hardship and thus this verse is not talking about Shu’aib and is instead introducing a new but related topic and transitions it to the next discussion on Moses.

Indeed, there is no mention of the people of Shu’aib, Saleh or Hud being given adversity and hardship, imploring to God, and then peace and prosperity in place of that hardship. And the only retribution or hardship mentioned about them is the complete annihilation of their communities rather than adversity/hardship followed by peace and prosperity.

In fact, if you keep reading further into that chapter past verse 94, the Quran shifts the topic to Moses and explains how Moses’ constituents were given adversity and hardship that they may implore–the hardships of the 9 plagues including the droughts and shortage of crops (verse 7:130) and they did implore (verse 7:134), and then they got peace and prosperity (verse 7:135), but then they turned heedless (7:136) and suffered a severe retribution suddenly. And if you notice, this retribution did not annihilate an entire community like Shu’aib, Hud, Saleh. And to restate: there is no mention of adversity/hardship that was then substituted by peace and prosperity for the constituents of Shu’aib, Hud, and Salih who were spoken of before verse 7:94, and so it is more likely that 7:94 is not referring to them, but instead referring to prophets like Moses whose people were given adversity/hardship, substituted by peace and prosperity.

Looking at it from another angle makes this point very clear. The verse immediately before 7:94 is Shu’aib’s concluding remarks after the destruction–when reading this chapter and paying attention to the pattern in the context, it shifts to the next topic after such a concluding remark. After Noah, the discussion ended in verse 64, and the next verse goes on to discuss Hud (a different, but related topic). The concluding remark of Hud is at verse 72, and right after it begins the discussion on Saleh (a different but related topic). Saleh sends his concluding remark in verse 79, and then the Quran shifts to Lot, the Quran concludes the discussion on Lot in verse 84, and then moves on to Shu’aib. Shu’aib’s concluding remark is in verse 93, and then the Quran shifts to a different but related topic in verse 94. Verse 94 talks about the precedent with all prophets and then in later verses the Quran goes on to give an example of this precedent in action with the discussion on Moses (as we mentioned above). Thus, verse 94 begins a new, but related discussion. In fact, there is simply no claim here in the Quran (verse 94) that all the previous messengers mentioned were prophets themselves. This is simply not stated. Adding on to that, verse 94 comes after the previous topic was clearly concluded in verse 93, and the discussion that expounds on verse 94 happens later in the coming discussion of Moses, further indicating this is a new but related topic that is being introduced, rather than a retrospective claim on the previous messengers mentioned. Anyone who makes the claim that verse 94 is stating the previous messengers are also prophets, is forcing the verse to say something it simply is not–we don’t go by assumptions, we go by what the verses actually say. And thank God that He has given us at least 2 indications verse 94 is the start of a new but related topic: the concluding remark in verse 93, and the actual example of what is being spoken about in verse 94 happening in later verses rather than preceding verses.

It’s also worth noting that all messengers (who were not prophets) mentioned in the Quran, including Rashad, had an annihilating retribution that wiped out a whole community (see Rashad’s smoke prophecy), but most prophets who were mentioned in the Quran were largely accepted by their people and thus the whole community was not annihilated. It’s very possible that messengers who are not prophets are sent before an annihilating retribution, but prophets who are also messengers are sent to both types of communities. It is also worth pointing out that in the case of Rashad: his constituents did not get tested with adversity/hardship followed by prosperity and peace. Rashad thus fits the pattern of Shu’aib, Hud, Saleh better than the pattern of most prophets in the Quran–he was sent before an annihilating retribution that wipes out a whole community/people.

[34:46] Say, “I ask you to do one thing: Devote yourselves to GOD, in pairs or as individuals, then reflect. Your friend (Rashad) is not crazy. He is a manifest warner to you, just before the advent of a terrible retribution.”

They insist that prophet = messenger

Those who keep asserting that a [prophet = messenger] should know that this is directly contradicted in the Quran by verse 22:52

[22:52] We did not send before you any messenger, NOR a prophet, without having the devil interfere in his wishes. GOD then nullifies what the devil has done. GOD perfects His revelations. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise.

This verse explicitly makes a distinction between “prophet” and “messenger” by using the word “or” indicating a difference between the two concepts. If they were the same thing, this verse would not make sense. If all prophets are messengers and all messengers are prophets, then this verse wouldn’t make sense. That would be like me saying “I did not go to a medical doctor nor a physician”. It’s the same thing, that sentence doesn’t make sense if both of those words are interchangeable. Same with prophet and messenger–if both are interchangeable terms, this verse would not make sense. The way it can make sense is if one term encompasses the other term, such as if not all messengers are prophets, but all prophets are messengers. The analogy to this would be “I did not go to any physician nor a surgeon” This works because all surgeons are physicians, but not all physicians are surgeons. A surgeon is a specific type of physician, likewise, a prophet is a specific type of messenger.

And the silence in 39:40 as to whether Muhammad was the last messenger or not, is LOUD. It’s a deafening silence.

They can conjecture all they want and pretend to have the right understanding, they can stamp their belief that messenger = prophet as true all they want, they can shout at the top of all buildings that this point is axiomatic; that this point is well established: they should know that these are fabrications of lies against God to divert people from the path of God (see 6:112-114). This includes especially the fabrication that a messenger is equivalent to a prophet—a conjecture that is explicitly disowned by the Quran in verse 22:52.

Disclaimer: These blogs are not meant to be authoritative for Submission, but instead, informal documentation of my evolving thoughts. I do not claim ‘truth’ to anything I say or write, even if I currently feel like it is likely true based on my current reasoning and knowledge–anything and everything I say is subject to revision or complete abandonment of the theories/concepts/thoughts discussed in any of these blogs. See the about this blog section. Join our discord server, where you can chat with us or ask any questions (there is frequent activity in the voice channels): Https://Discord.gg/Submission



Deafening Silence: The Last Prophet (33:40)

One verse and only one verse is all that should be sufficient, God Willing, to demonstrate that Prophet Muhammad was not the final messenger.

[Quran 33:40] Muhammad was not the father of any man among you. He was a messenger of GOD and the final prophet. GOD is fully aware of all things.

[٤٠:٣٣] مَّا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَآ أَحَدٍ مِّن رِّجَالِكُمْ وَلَٰكِن رَّسُولَ ٱللَّهِ وَخَاتَمَ ٱلنَّبِيِّنَ وَكَانَ ٱللَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَىْءٍ عَلِيمًا

This verse says:

  1. He was a messenger of God
  2. He was the final prophet

Now, some insist that both are the same thing, that he was the final messenger and prophet. However, consider why was the word for “final” put in the second part of that phrase rather than the first? Had it been put on the first part, it would have given more credence to the fact that he was the last messenger, but instead, God chose this precise and deliberate wording. Also consider how easy it would have been for God to simply say..

“He was the final prophet and messenger of God”
“He was the final messenger and prophet of God”
“He was the final messenger and final prophet of God”

..instead of “he was a messenger of God, and the final prophet”

Any one of those alternate phrases would have given more credence to the fact he might have been the last messenger. And there’s many other options God could have used including completely different phrases entirely to give that message. But instead, God used this very specific and careful terminology and placement of these phrases. God chooses His words very carefully; very precisely. “He was a messenger of God and the final prophet”. Very clearly this verse establishes prophet Muhammad as the final prophet, but there is silence as to whether he is the last messenger. And to me, this silence is very loud. It is deafening.

This verse alone and completely by itself should establish that Muhammad was not the final messenger. This is also, in fact, Rashad’s subheading for that verse: “*not the final messenger”. God’s deliberate silence in that verse is indeed very loud, deafening.

God never said he was the “last messenger”. This speaks volumes, in and of itself.

Moreover, look at the second part of the verse, it says “God is fully aware of all things”–almost as if it is saying that God knows He specifically did not say Muhammad was the final messenger…Take the hint. This is a sign from God.

The only other time in God’s complete and fully detailed book that a mention of “final messenger” is alluded to is verse 40:34-35.

[Quran 40:34] Joseph had come to you before that with clear revelations, but you continued to doubt his message. Then, when he died you said, “GOD will not send any other messenger after him. (He was the last messenger)!”** GOD thus sends astray those who are transgressors, doubtful.

[Quran 40:35] They argue against GOD’s revelations, without any basis. This is a trait that is most abhorred by GOD and by those who believe. GOD thus seals the hearts of every arrogant tyrant.

And how did God respond to people claiming that “the previous messenger was the last messenger” in this verse? Did God respond positively? No! Instead, God says that He sends those people astray, and He says they argue with God’s revelations without any basis and that this is a trait that He most abhors and He seals their hearts because of their claim! Such strong and harsh language is used by God against those who made the claim that the previous messenger was the last messenger.

Take the hint


For a comprehensive guide regarding the difference between a prophet (nabi) and messenger (rasool), check out this blog: https://qurantalkblog.com/2022/07/15/a-comprehensive-guide-the-distinction-between-prophet-nabi-and-messenger-rasool/


Join our discord server where you can chat with us or ask any questions (there is frequent activity in the voice channels):

Https://Discord.gg/Submission

Disclaimer: These blogs are not meant to be authoritative for Submission, but instead, informal documentation of my evolving thoughts. I do not claim ‘truth’ to anything I say or write, even if I currently feel like it is likely true based on my current reasoning and knowledge–anything and everything I say is subject to revision or complete abandonment of the theories/concepts/thoughts discussed in any of these blogs. See the about this blog section. Join our discord server, where you can chat with us or ask any questions (there is frequent activity in the voice channels): Https://Discord.gg/Submission


All Praise is to God alone.


*Wink Wink* Signs in Nature (Scientific Miracles)

[Quran 45:3] The heavens and the earth are full of proofs for the believers.

[Quran 45:4] Also in your creation, and the creation of all the animals, there are proofs for people who are certain.

[Quran 45:5] Also, the alternation of the night and the day, and the provisions that GOD sends down from the sky to revive dead lands, and the manipulation of the winds; all these are proofs for people who understand.

The pagan Arabs who received Quran really struggled with accepting the resurrection/afterlife. They saw it as absurd that when they die, they can come back and be resurrected. God’s response is to show them signs in nature of how He revives dead lands (see above verses) through rainfall after it dies. These are supposed to be sufficient proofs for the believers.

But these are only ‘wink wink’ signs; these are just hints. These don’t really prove the resurrection to the disbelievers. Why should they believe in these wink wink signs in nature when it is clear based on their evidence and experiences that humans don’t come back after dying. Indeed, their retorts to these signs in nature of the resurrection is to say:

[Quran 44:36] “Bring back our forefathers, if you are truthful.”

The disbelievers wanted more. The wink wink signs in nature are not enough for them. They want to see a demonstration of the resurrection (“bring back our forefathers”) otherwise, the wink wink signs in nature God pointed to them in the Quran were not enough for them to believe in this thing (it’s only sufficient for the believers).

“Dead vegetation being revived after rainfall does not necessarily mean God can/will resurrect you. It can mean that God can create new humans from the Earth but not bring back the old ones—after all, our dead ancestors who died never come back. There is no evidence that humans who are long dead can come back. Why should we believe in this wink wink sign in nature if it is clear to us based on our observable evidence and experiences that humans don’t come back after dying. Am I supposed to believe in the resurrection based on a wink wink sign?”.

The answer: Yes. Yes, you do. 😡

Indeed, they are expected to believe based on these wink wink signs in nature. They can say things like “show us the retribution you promise. Revive the dead, Show us. Why aren’t you an angel, show us an angel! Show us!”. They can request more direct proofs and not these wink winks proofs—but their request is denied:

[Quran 6:8] They also said, “If only an angel could come down with him!” Had we sent an angel, the whole matter would have been terminated, and they would no longer be respited.

[Quran 6:9] Had we sent an angel, we would have sent him in the form of a man, and we would have kept them just as confused as they are confused now.

Indeed, showing them an Angel, giving them too much of a proof, nullifies the test. This life is indeed a test for us. A test of whether our hearts are open to God and would choose God based on wink wink signs, or whether our hearts are closed to God and would not choose God based on those signs, and only need a demonstration in order to be forced to believe in God. But God doesn’t want people to be forced to believe in Him. God wants people who choose God, even in the face of some uncertainty. Giving the disbelievers such massive demonstrations of showing them angels or reviving their forefathers in order to make them believe in the resurrection (when their test is to believe in the resurrection in the first place) would be like a teacher giving the answers to the exam questions. What’s the point of the exam? The exam would no longer be an examination of the student’s knowledge if the answers are just given to them. Instead the teacher could give hints as a kindness to the student.

Here is an example of this:

Suppose a student is taking a physics exam, and the answer to a question is “light”.

The teacher, wanting the student to pass, and exhibiting some kindness, may provide some hints:

  • “Physics is enlightening
  • “No, I’m not gas-lighting you”
  • “You need to lighten up” wink wink 😉😉

This should be a sufficient wink wink hint for the student to get the answer correct if they actually studied. A student who wouldn’t get the hint at all after all of this is likely one who hasn’t studied this well at all and is completely clueless on what the answer may be.

But, had the teacher given this student the answer of the question: “light”, the exam is really nullified; it did not test the student’s knowledge, the answer was given to them.

Likewise, just as stated in the above verses, if God gave them the ‘answers to the test’, and showed them an Angel, in its true physical form—it is basically giving them the answer and the whole matter would be terminated and they would no longer be respited. They are not to be given too much, they will only be given wink wink signs, and these signs should be sufficient proofs to the believers (just as the teachers wink wink hints above should be sufficient for those who studied well):

[Quran 30:21] Among His proofs is that He created for you spouses…In this, there are sufficient proofs for people who think.

[Quran 30:22] Among His proofs are the creation of the heavens and the earth…In these, there are signs for the knowledgeable.

[Quran 30:23] Among His proofs is your sleeping during the night or the day…In this, there are sufficient proofs for people who can hear.

[Quran 30:24] …then He sends down from the sky water to revive a land that has been dead. In these, there are sufficient proofs for people who understand.

Indeed, you are expected to believe in God and the resurrection by these wink wink signs in nature God placed and pointed out for you. God declines giving you more proof. If God just wanted everyone to believe, He’d just send a massive sign from the sky to force everyone to believe:

[Quran 26:3] You may blame yourself that they are not believers.

[Quran 26:4] If we will, we can send from the sky a sign that forces their necks to bow.

[Quran 26:5] Whenever a reminder from the Most Gracious comes to them, that is new, they turn away in aversion.

[Quran 26:6] Since they disbelieved, they have incurred the consequences of their heedlessness.

[Quran 26:7] Have they not seen the earth, and how many kinds of beautiful plants we have grown thereon?

[Quran 26:8] This should be a sufficient proof for them, but most of them are not believers.

[Quran 26:9] Most assuredly, your Lord is the Almighty, Most Merciful.

These verses are extremely powerful! They basically summarize this entire blog in just a few sentences! Here, God is consoling the messenger to stop blaming himself that the people are not believers—and then God tells him that if it was God’s will, He could have sent them such a massive sign that forces them to believe. And then, these verses point to wink wink signs in nature and says these should be sufficient proofs for them.

God again declines sending such a massive sign from the sky that makes everyone believe, instead, He points to these wink wink signs in nature and says these should be enough proofs for you if you are a believer.

It is not God’s intention that everyone believes. The whole point is to test and expose the believers—those who readily choose God based on the wink wink signs God provides for them and those who do not require to be forced in order to believe in God—the whole point is to bring out those who actually willingly choose and trust God, even in the face of some uncertainty. There is an initial leap of faith required for everyone. The disbelievers and those opposed to God, will turn away from the message and jump at the first sign of any potential refutation/ambiguity in order to disbelieve—and God gives them the excuses to disbelieve to lead them on because they have rejected God and His message for them in their hearts and thus they are not worthy of guidance.

Again, there is an initial leap of faith required for everyone. Certainty comes later—as you submit and worship God, God will give you the certainty:

[Quran 15:99] And worship your Lord, in order to attain certainty.

The signs/miracles of God must be sufficiently clear to convince those whose hearts are open to God and His message, but sufficiently vague so those whose hearts are closed to God have enough reason, and enough ambiguity to go by to choose to reject God and His message for them.

Wink Wink Signs of The Messenger:

God has similarly provided several wink wink signs that Rashad Khalifa, the messenger of the covenant, is God’’s messenger.

Some background for those who don’t know: Rashad Khalifa discovered that the Quran is at bottom mathematically structured, and he had shown an interesting miracle of the Quran further providing sufficient proofs of its divine origin: Code 19. Basically: there are mysterious initials in the Quran (eg. A.L.M in Chapter 2) that no one knew of their significance and part of what Rashad discovered is these initials come in multiples of 19 (hence ‘Code 19’). What we witness, is that this messenger who discovered Code 19 has wink wink signs of this messengership. I’m only going to focus on a few of them God Willing (if you are interested in the others, please watch this video where I go through them: https://youtu.be/hiZwre9ew5w):

  1. The root of his name (R-S-D) is in the Quran exactly 19 times (19 of all numbers!)
  2. He was a messenger for exactly 19 years before he was martyred (1971-1990)
  3. He was born on November 19
  4. He lived exactly 19,798 days—which not only is a multiple of 19, but it corresponds to the Code 19 initial count of chapter 19 (of all chapters) being 798 initials.

Let’s start with this sign: so the person who discovered Code 19, a massive mathematical miracle of the Quran and the person who claimed to be a messenger, has the root of his name in the Quran exactly 19 times? Huh. We know that God authored the Quran, so was this a coincidence? Was this done by accident? Are we really required to accept him as a messenger based on this wink wink sign?

Also, how did Rashad know he was going to be killed exactly 19 years after he said he became the messenger the covenant (in 1971)? And why are the number of days he lived exactly the same as the initial counts of chapter 19 of all chapters—doesn’t God control life and death?

[Quran 3:145] No one dies except by GOD’s leave, at a predetermined time.

Lots of wink wink signs directed at this one man, Rashad. God in verse 33:40 also just so happens to say that Muhammad was the last prophet, but God left out saying that Muhammad was the last messenger:

[Quran 33:40] Muhammad was not the father of any man among you. He was a messenger of GOD and the final prophet. GOD is fully aware of all things.

How interesting…and not only that, we said the root of Rashad’s name is in the Quran exactly 19 times, but the actual name “Rashad” is only in the Quran twice, and BOTH of them are in a very significant context. Verse 40:29 and verse 40:38 are the only 2 times the full name “Rashad” is written in the Quran. And BOTH of these verse are in a very significant context where right in the middle, God rebukes people for thinking the previous messenger was the last messenger (verse 40:34)—this is exactly the central problem people have with accepting Rashad is a messenger, they believe Muhammad was the last prophet and messenger (even in spite of verse 33:40 above!). What are the odds that the only two times “Rashad” is mentioned in the Quran is mentioned in the only context of people thinking the previous messenger was the last messenger!! Was this a coincidence? Was this an accident? Are we supposed to pretend God did this by accident and just pretend these wink wink signs that Rashad is a messenger don’t exist?

Let’s take a look at another one:

[Quran 72:26] He is the Knower of the future; He does not reveal the future to anyone.

[Quran 72:27] Only to a messenger that He chooses,* does He reveal from the past and the future, specific news.

[Quran 72:28] This is to ascertain that they have delivered their Lord’s messages. He is fully aware of what they have. He has counted the numbers of all things.

There are very interesting associations here. Notice how God is associating revealing information to messengers that He chooses, and the association with this messenger and numbers (God saying He knows and counts the numbers of what the messengers have). Interesting association given that Rashad Khalifa’s central miracle has to do with numbers and the Quran’s numerical miracle.

But there is more: The phrase “Only to a messenger He chooses” has a gematrical value in Arabic of 1919 (of all numbers! Indeed God has counted the numbers of all things including this one!).

And there is even more, when you look at the transliteration of 72:27 it ends with “Khalfihi Rasada”. Sound familiar? Sounds like Khalifa Rashad. Another wink wink hint from God!

This is actually quite similar to the physics teacher example we mentioned above. When the test question’s answer is “light” and the teacher wanted to give the student a wink wink hint, the teacher said “physics is enlightening”. Now the word “enlightening” of course doesn’t mean photons/light, but it sounds like it and provides a wink wink hint for the student. Similarly, several things occur in this context:

(1) God revealing new information to messengers

(2) An association with numbers

(3) Words that sound like “Rashad Khalifa

(4) “Only to a messenger He chooses” has a gematrical value of 1919 (of all numbers)

…all in the same context!

(In the appendix below, I will give other mathematical signs/miracles pertaining to this sign in chapter 72, God Willing).

What are we to do with all of these signs? Are we to pretend they don’t exist? Are we to pretend that God did this by accident? That this is all just a happy coincidence? The person who claimed to be a messenger, who discovered code 19, had lots of 19 based concordances happening in his life, and the root of of his name is in the Quran exactly 19 times, and the only 2 mentions of his full first name is in between a highly significant context of God rebuking people for thinking the previous messenger was the last, and then God talks about revealing new information to a messenger He chooses and associates this concept with numbers and having the gematrical value of that phrase 1919 (of all numbers!) and even putting a wink wink sign of a word that sounds similar to the name of Rashad Khalifa—all in the same context—all of this is just an accident or coincidence??

The disbelievers refuse to accept this, saying God would not resort to giving wink wink signs in the Quran (contrary to God saying the exact opposite as we read earlier: God in fact gives wink wink signs/proofs and told us that He refuses to give complete direct proofs!). What more can you want? God gave us so much, He laid out the carpets so much for us, yet many still disbelieve. Just as those who don’t want to accept God’s message of the resurrection would say “these wink wink signs in nature of God reviving the dead lands does not necessarily mean that the dead can be brought back to life—if God wanted to prove this to us: tell Him to bring back our forefathers if you are truthful”—those who don’t want to accept God’s message that Rashad Khalifa is a messenger to be followed would say “these wink wink signs in the Quran does not necessarily mean that Rashad Khalifa is a messenger—If God wanted to prove this to us, He’d given us more direct proof/signs”. The disbelievers always ask for more as we see in the Quran. They are not satisfied with the signs of God. Indeed, as we talked about above, God’s signs are sufficient proofs for those who believe. Those who disbelieve can never believe, they are sealed and blinded from accepting God’s message:

[Quran 2:6] As for those who disbelieve, it is the same for them; whether you warn them, or not warn them, they cannot believe.

[Quran 2:7] GOD seals their minds and their hearing, and their eyes are veiled. They have incurred severe retribution.

The message Rashad came down with should also be another indication:

And worst of all, they disbelieve in spite of the message that Rashad Khalifa came down with. It’s a pure message. Worship God alone. Only call upon God in your worship practices. Seek God’s Kingship over you. Devote your whole life and religion absolutely to God alone. Follow all the Quranic commandments wholeheartedly and do not minimize God’s warnings in the Quran thinking they only apply to others in the past and not your own situation in the present—that you are not exempt.

Some have even accused Rashad of trying to mislead us. This is quite a weird direction to be misled to. Is there any precedent in the Quran of God saying people were misled into devoting their whole life to God alone and stopping even subtle forms of idol worship and obeying the commandments of the Quran strictly to the best of their knowledge and ability? Is there any precedent in the Quran of God saying people were misled into a religious system or practice where God alone is the center of your life and these people were misled into absolute devotion to God?

Can you give any example or precedent from the Quran of God saying people were misled into accepting (rather than rejecting) God alone, God’s signs, God’s absolute authority? Has God ever talked about people being misled into **increasing their faith in God, increasing their belief in God, increasing the focus of their entire lives to God alone, increasing their devotion to God alone, seeking God’s kingship over them, remembering God all the time, being very careful to avoid the subtleties of idol worship and disbelief, and ensuring they see/recognize and credit God for everything, and devote their whole life to God alone. That’s a weird thing for God to mislead people to. What kind of misleading leads people to increase their ‘eeman’ (faith), certainty in God and be completely devoted to God alone. That sounds like a place I’d like everyone to be ‘misled’ to. If only.

All the instances of people being misled in the Quran refers to them being misled into rejecting God and God’s commandments to them. If anything, we are absolutely devoted to God alone. We are taught to be very cognizant and sensitive of idol worship and recognizing how subtle it is. We are taught that everything is an expression of God’s will; to see God in everything. God alone. The message itself testifies to its truth. It is a pure message; the purest message.

One of the central teachings of Rashad—and one that Sunnis continue to struggle with: is that you cannot say Muhammad in your shahada or your contact prayers (salat). That the Quran specifically commands against this:

[Quran 72:18] The places of worship belong to GOD; do not call on anyone else beside GOD.

[Quran 72:19] When GOD’s servant* advocated Him alone, almost all of them banded together to oppose him.

The Sunnis insist on calling upon Muhammad in their Salats, and including him in their Shahada. They even have a phrase they say in the middle of their prayers: “Assalamu ‘alayka ayyuhan nabiyyu wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh (O Prophet! Allah’s peace, blessings and grace be upon you!)”. Didn’t God just say in the Quran don’t call on anyone else beside God? Even if it is metaphorical or in 2nd person, even if it is God’s servant or messenger, the Quran said you cannot call upon anyone as part of your worship. But they minimize this message and disregard God’s reminder to them.

This is one of the most controversial things Rashad taught. Can you believe it? And the Quran then goes on to say when God’s servant advocating Him alone, almost all of them banded together to oppose him. Indeed, Rashad was ridiculed, opposed, and even killed by these people for his teachings.

(And a side note, as you can see above: the verse that talks about God’s servant advocating Him alone is in chapter 72—the chapter with the signs of Rashad Khalifa’s messenger-ship we mentioned above, AND it is also verse 19 😉😉).

They even deny scientific miracles of the Quran:

Worse than all of this, is that some of those I have talked to who have rejected the messenger, even Quranists, deny scientific miracles in the Quran altogether. (By scientific miracles, I mean things in the Quran that ended up supporting modern scientific discoveries–e.g. Big Bang is mentioned in 21:30, expansion of the universe mentioned in 51:47, revealed about 1400 years before we discovered these). Had they been born into an atheist family, would they believe in the Quran at all? Do they only believe because their parents raised them as Muslim and instilled in them the values of believing in God and following the religion of Islam? If they can’t even accept basic scientific miracles and hints in the Quran, would they accept the Quran if they were not born into a Muslim family? Indeed, God takes all of this into account. You being born into a Muslim family is not credit to you—it was something given to you, you didn’t earn it. You must be tested as the Quran says. And if you can’t even accept the wink wink signs of God in the Quran, God may have calculated/determined that if you had been born into an atheist family, you wouldn’t believe in the Quran at all. If you disbelieved in some of God’s miracles in the Quran even as a Muslim, what would you have done as an atheist? Indeed, God takes all of this into account—and just as we can normalize equations in statistics and Mathematics to account for variations in conditions—God also can make similar calculations/determinations and normalize what you would have done had you been put into different situations based on your actions/beliefs in your current situation. With God is the best calculations. And it seems to me, that those who accept Islam because their parents were raised into it yet rejected many of the Quran’s signs/miracles/proofs may be considered disbelievers completely by God—indeed, this reflects a deeper problem…a deeper opposition.

You accepting something just because you were born into it is not credit to you. It is something you were given, not something you earned. You need to be tested, and just following along with your parents teachings and just following along the values of worshiping God they gave you while rejecting some of the miracles of the Quran is not a good sign of your hearts openness to God. Only God knows best. I make no claims about this as I cannot make this determination–it is only up to God.

[Quran 72:17] We will surely test them all. As for him who disregards the message of his Lord, He will direct him to ever increasing retribution.

[Quran 7:175] Recite for them the news of one who was given our proofs, but chose to disregard them. Consequently, the devil pursued him, until he became a strayer.

[Appendix]:

Numerical features of Chapter 72:

72:1-28 The messenger here is named, mathematically, as “Rashad Khalifa,” to whom God revealed the end of the world (Appendix 25). The number of verses from 1:1 to 72:27, where the messenger is mentioned, is 5472, 19x72x4. The word “Rashada” occurs 4 times in Sura 72. The value of “Rashada” is 504, and 504+28 (verses of Sura 72) is 532, 19×28. The value of “Rashad Khalifa” (1230)+72+28=1330 =19×70. The digits of Sura 72 and its number of verses (28) add up to 7+2+2+8=19. Also, the crucial expression, “only to a messenger that He chooses” has a value of 1919, 19×101.

The letters of Rashada in that verse also occur 114 times in that chapter (114 = number of chapters in the Quran)

The middle verse of that chapter: verse 14 ends with “Rashada”

If you split the chapter in two halves, the letters of Rashada occurs 57 times in the first half (verse 1-14) and 57 in the next half (15-28).

There are 4 usages of the root “Rashada” in chapter 72. 3 of them are the same word. And between each of the 3 words, the number of letters of “Rashada” that show up in between those 3 words are all a multiple of 19.


Join our discord server where you can chat with us or ask any questions (there is frequent activity in the voice channels):

Https://Discord.gg/Submission


All Praise is to God.


Disclaimer: These blogs are not meant to be authoritative for Submission, but instead, informal documentation of my evolving thoughts. I do not claim ‘truth’ to anything I say or write, even if I currently feel like it is likely true based on my current reasoning and knowledge–anything and everything I say is subject to revision or complete abandonment of the theories/concepts/thoughts discussed in any of these blogs. See the about this blog section. Join our discord server, where you can chat with us or ask any questions (there is frequent activity in the voice channels): Https://Discord.gg/Submission