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:

Multi-Meaning Verses

Straight Forward and Multiple Meaning or Allegorical Verses (3:7 – 3:9)

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

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.

---

Yes, You Need a Messenger

I used to be Sunni Muslim, then I became a Quranist, even to the point of praying 3 times a day, then I became a Quranist but did all the practices of Sunni Islam, went to their mosques, prayed with them. I did this because even though I was still skeptical of the authenticity of hadith, I thought that the practices of Sunni islam were mostly uncorrupted because they have been passed down throughout the entire community/ummah. So I continued being a Quranist yet Sunni at the same time. I still didn’t like the Shahada having Muhammad’s name in it, so I would reluctantly do it (sometimes while mentally sighing, basically saying “ugh, fine, I’ll do it”) because I thought it was required—it still felt weird as I said it. And when I go to the Friday congregational prayers of Sunnis, they would spend so much time talking about the prophet, and worse—the companions/caliphs and their righteousness’—and it continued to feel weird because I felt that it lacked much focus on God. So I would end up losing focus in those and just supplicate silently. I remember counting once how many times they said “Muhammad” or some companion/caliph vs how many times they mentioned “Allah”. And I found that they mentioned other than God way more often than God himself. I wanted the focus to be about God, but they kept focusing on the history and they kept rejoicing in Islamic history and how much better Islam is compared to other religions. Rarely was the focus on God alone. It was always human affairs, comparisons, history as the central focus. It did bother me, but I continued because I felt it was required for me. 

One of the worst aspects of my religion in the past (before I became a Submitter) is that there is too much wishful thinking. I’ve been told that if you just do your 5 prayers and all your practices and avoid sin, you’re basically guaranteed heaven—so don’t worry. If you are a believer, you will go to heaven; even if you go to hell for a little while for your sins—you’ll end up in heaven. 

Also, I would just minimize God’s words in the Quran. When God says that you have to remember him when you are standing, sitting and lying—I thought, “yeah cool, but also, those verses are in the context of people going to war, so it may be strengthening their faith as they are striving”. Every time the Quran says something that seemed contradictory to what I’ve been taught by the Muslims, I would just minimize it, and not worry about it. I would just suppress those thoughts and just continue living on with my day. These Quran commandments are not really focused on by Muslims I’ve been interacting with throughout all the different congregations and mosques I’ve visited for the last 10 years. 

I would live in peace, knowing that “I’m doing everything right”. I’m praying, avoiding much sin, asking for forgiveness and doing my requirements. That’s all I need. 

Additionally, I minimized the Quran when it talks about how subtle Idol worship is. Instead, I continued with the false belief that Idol worship is only when you are worshipping other deities. I continued on this belief because that is what I have been told, despite reading the Quran. It was almost as if I was prevented from taking God’s words in the Quran seriously. I minimized them consistently. 

I was constantly told this life test is easy; just pray 5 times, pay Zakat, do the other required practices, avoid sin and you are done. This was an easy life. Religion as a result took a back door; it is just something ‘extra’ I do in my life while focusing on my schooling and career and entertainment. All I gotta do is pray at these times, and that’s it. Easy. 

Then God rescued me and took me out of the darkness into the light. 

I was exposed to God’s teachings through Rashad Khalifa, the messenger of the covenant, and as a result, I learned that this life test is the hardest test I will ever have to pass. I learned not to minimize God’s words in the Quran and not believe they only apply in these limited contexts but not other contexts. I learned that you can do all of your religious practices perfectly, but commit the grave sin of Idol worship once, and all your works are nullified as if you had not done a single good deed. And if that was not freighting enough, I learned that idol worship is not as overt as I once thought, that it could be as subtle as thinking something other than God did something—if someone abuses you, and you think they did it and you get mad at them, you’ve committed idol worship and all your good works are nullified.  Indeed, when the Quran says that ALL bad things that happen to you is from God but as a consequence of your own sins, it is not wise to minimize God’s words. When God says “ALL”, He means “ALL”. Any bad thing that happens to you is a consequence of your own sins, full stop, and God is doing it because you sinned. Thus if you attribute anything God is doing to anyone else, you have committed the worst sin: Idol worship. This is just one example of how I used to minimize the Quran’s teachings and fall into the trap of wishful thinking that the Sunni’s and other Quranists have ingrained in me. 

The message God taught through Rashad is so pure, so fundamental, so perfect: seek God’s Kingship over you, put God at the center of your life and thoughts, your god is whatever occupies your mind the most so make God your god, see God in everything and recognize that God is doing everything, be firm and steadfast in religion because Satan will come to you from all directions and encourage you into ever-subtle forms of idol worship you won’t even recognize. To trust in God, and not yourself or your own abilities. To turn to God in times of weakness and strength and not to trust in yourself (that too is idol worship—any time you attribute an expression of power/ability/capability to anything other than God, you’ve fallen into idol worship). 

As a result of God’s guidance, and all thanks be to God alone for all of this: I see God in everything. I recognize that everything is an expression of God’s will. Every car that passes by is an expression of God’s will, every leaf that falls, every tree that gets planted, every tree that gets chopped down, every word someone says to you, all of it is an expression of God’s will. 

And it is such an honor to be an expression of God’s will. And it would such a honor to stand before God, a being who ‘embodies’ the absolute perfection, the absolute excellence, and hearing from Him “I approve”. 

The non-believers who come on our server accuse us of being arrogant, and God forbid us committing this major crime. But, they don’t understand that this is not arrogance; this is certainty! We’ve seen Jesus heal the blind! We’ve seen Moses split the sea! We’ve seen a table spread of all types of food fall from the sky right after Jesus prayed for it! We’ve witnessed a miracle! We’ve seen too much! The miracle of Code 19 and the external miracles from within the Quran proving Rashad’s messengership are too much to ignore for us. Thus we may be perceived as arrogant, but, just as Pharoah’s magicians may have been perceived as arrogant even when Pharaoh threatened to crucify them if they follow Moses, we aren’t being arrogant; we are certain; we have just witnessed a miracle! —Thus nothing phases us. If an atheist (or Sunni or Quranist) presents something that they think should challenge our belief, and it doesn’t, it is because we’ve seen the proof, and we know that there is a resolution from within the Quran or within the teachings of the messenger that resolves these alleged problems the atheists bring up to try to get us to challenge God’s existence or the alleged problems the Sunnis bring up to try to get us to reject the messenger. We’ve simply seen too much. All thanks be to God for this.

All praise and thanks be to God alone for guiding us to the right path, reminding us what is right and wrong, for taking us out of the darkness into the light and for all of the unknown/unrecognized blessings He has provided us that we have failed to encompass. 

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

“I Wish I Had Followed the Path With the Messenger”

[Quran 25:27] The day will come when the transgressor will bite his hands (in anguish) and say, “Alas, I wish I had followed the path with the messenger.

[Quran 25:28] “Alas, woe to me, I wish I did not take that person as a friend.

Note:
Following the path with the messenger = Good
Following the path of a non-messenger = Bad

All the indications from the Quran inform us we cannot go wrong by following the messenger. There is not a single case and not a single precedent where obeying the messenger’s teachings misguides you. But there are several cases and several precedents where following other people (who are not messengers) leads people astray and the people on the day of resurrection will recognize they have been misled:

[Quran 26:99] “Those who misled us were wicked.”

[Quran 37:32] “We misled you, only because we were astray.”

[Quran 38:60] The newcomers will respond, “Nor are you welcomed. You are the ones who preceded us and misled us. Therefore, suffer this miserable end.”

[Quran 20:79] Thus, Pharaoh misled his people; he did not guide them.

[Quran 20:85] He said, “We have put your people to the test after you left, but the Samarian misled them.”

[Quran 7:38] “Our Lord, these are the ones who misled us. Give them double the retribution of Hell.”

[Quran 5:77] Say, “O people of the scripture, do not transgress the limits of your religion beyond the truth, and do not follow the opinions of people who have gone astray, and have misled multitudes of people; they are far astray from the right path.”

[Quran 28:63] Those who incurred the judgment will say, “Our Lord, these are the ones we misled; we misled them only because we ourselves had gone astray. We now devote ourselves totally to You. They were not really worshiping us.”

[Quran 16:25] They will be held responsible for their sins on the Day of Resurrection, all of them, in addition to sins of all those whom they misled by their ignorance. What a miserable load!

[Quran 41:29] Those who disbelieved will say, “Our Lord, show us those among the two kinds—jinns and humans—who misled us, so we can trample them under our feet, and render them the lowliest.”

Conclusion: There is no case of any misleader being a messenger in the Quran and in fact we have clear verses reminding us those who were misled would wish they had followed the way with the messenger…

We cannot go wrong with following the messenger’s teachings.

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

Can’t Verify Hadith = Forbidden to Believe Them

1. P1: Quran says we must verify all the news that we get before believing it
2. P2: We can’t verify that any single hadith spreader didn’t fabricate the chain of narration in the first place
3. C: Quran commands that we reject that hadith.
   
   [Quran 17:36] You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them.
   
   [Quran 49:6] O you who believe, if a wicked person brings any news to you, you shall first investigate, lest you commit injustice towards some people, out of ignorance, then become sorry and remorseful for what you have done.
   
   So how do we know the hadith spreader was not someone with a strong political bias and uses that incentive to spread false hadith, and how do we know this hadith spreader was not a hypocrite? Not even the prophet himself knew the hypocrites:
   
   [Quran 9:101] Among the Arabs around you, there are hypocrites. Also, among the city dwellers, there are those who are accustomed to hypocrisy. You do not know them, but we know them. We will double the retribution for them, then they end up committed to a terrible retribution.
   
   The so called “science of hadith” still ultimately depends on the foundational assumption that those individuals who spread the hadith did not fabricate the chain of narration they claimed. The Sunnis say “these were righteous people” as the coping mechanism to accept them. However, how could they know these were righteous people if prophet Muhammad himself was not given the divine knowledge that distinguishes hypocrites from the believers/righteous-people? Thus, we cannot verify that those individuals that spread hadith did not fabricate the chain of narration itself, and per Quran, we are thus forbidden to believe them.
   

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