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

Example of Abraham: Messengers Giving False Teachings (and Then Repenting)

It is very interesting that those who idolize the concept of a messenger have taken up a Shia-style understanding of infallibility. That the messenger himself cannot make mistakes, cannot make mistakes when it comes to religious teachings, and that a messenger cannot make a mistake when it comes to religious teachings, and then repent and reform, and correct their mistakes.

You see, I do not trust the messenger(s) because they are infallible. I trust the messenger(s) teachings because God’s providence is infallible. God promises us that he causes the truth to prevail even despite messengers going astray:

[Quran 34:48] Say, “My Lord causes the truth to prevail. He is the Knower of all secrets.”
[Quran 34:49] Say “The truth has come while falsehood can neither initiate anything, nor repeat it.
[Quran 34:50] Say [Oh Rashad], “If I go astray, I go astray because of my own shortcomings. And if I am guided, it is because of my Lord’s inspiration. He is Hearer, Near.”
[Quran 34:51] If you could only see them when the great terror strikes them; they cannot escape then, and they will be taken away forcibly.
[Quran 34:52] They will then say, “We now believe in it,” but it will be far too late.
[Quran 34:53] They have rejected it in the past; they have decided instead to uphold conjecture and guesswork.

Notice the interesting associations in these group of verses. In verse 48, God says He causes the truth to prevail, and then in verse 50, God commands the messenger to acknowledge that he can go astray when it comes to his delivery of the message, and then the next verses say these people will be shocked when the great terror strikes them and it will be too late for them, and then it says they harbored too many conjectures. Very interesting because this is exactly the problem people have with Rashad. They make conjectures on what qualifies or disqualifies a messenger, and use that to disqualify Rashad Khalifa. What is interesting is (even if we give them the benefit of the doubt Rashad made a mistake), based on their own conjecture, they would disqualify Abraham from being a messenger based on his mistake discussed in the Quran.

Abraham’s false teaching to his father:

[Quran 19:46] He said, “Have you forsaken my gods, O Abraham? Unless you stop, I will stone you. Leave me alone.”

[Quran 19:47] He (Abraham) said, “Peace be upon you. I will implore my Lord to forgive you; He has been Most Kind to me.

Here, Abraham was acting in his messenger role as he has been preaching to his father to abandon his idols. After his father refused to believe, Abraham said he will implore God to forgive his father and then he said God has been most kind to him, so he is further implying that God will be similarly most kind in dealing with Abraham’s father (or implying that God will be most kind to Abraham by also forgiving his idol worshiping father–a lie/falsehood attributed to God). Abraham said this directly to his father–he gave his father this false teaching that it is appropriate to implore God to forgive an idol worshipper and that God will be most kind in dealing with the idol worshippers (his father) just as he has been to Abraham. Wrong teachings, lies/falsehoods attributed to God, and we will see later God acknowledges Abraham’s mistake as a messenger in the Quran.

Abraham also says it again, even after he had his children in old age (read the context of this verse especially verse 14:39):

[Quran 14:41] “My Lord, forgive me and my parents, and the believers, on the day when the reckoning takes place.”

Abraham then repented and reformed:

[Quran 9:114] The only reason Abraham asked forgiveness for his father was that he had promised him to do so. But as soon as he realized that he was an enemy of GOD, he disowned him. Abraham was extremely kind, clement.

(Side note: 9:114 is talking about the actual action of Abraham asking for forgiveness, therefore, it is referencing verse 14:41. Below, we will see that in verse 60:4, God tells us Abraham made a mistake in promising his father he would pray for his forgiveness in the first place–just as we wrote above about verse 19:47–this was the actual mistake of Abraham, not 14:41. This is not really relevant for the purposes of this blog, but I just noted it here for future reference, God Willing).

God informs us that Abraham made a mistake by even telling his father that he will ask God to forgive him:

[Quran 60:4] A good example has been set for you by Abraham and those with him. They said to their people, “We disown you and the idols that you worship besides GOD. We denounce you, and you will see nothing from us except animosity and hatred until you believe in God alone.” However, a mistake was committed by Abraham when he said to his father, “I will pray for your forgiveness, but I possess no power to protect you from GOD.” “Our Lord, we trust in You, and submit to You; to You is the final destiny.

Conclusion:

The infallibility of messengers is grossly misunderstood. They assume infallibility is a quality of the messengers themselves, rather than a product of God’s divine providence over what they do and God’s corrective action for messengers when they commit mistakes. I don’t trust the messenger’s teachings because the messenger is infallible–I would even go as far to say that this is idol worship–I trust the messenger’s teachings because God’s Providence is infallible and God’s control over what the messengers ultimately produce is infallible. God is doing everything. I put my trust in God, and nothing and no one else.

Related article: Example of Jonah: Messengers Committing Gross Sins

Indeed, those who cling on this conjecture provide no evidence for it (they just hold it with strong conviction, and whenever I press them for proof/evidence, they do not provide anything from the Quran that demonstrates a messenger can never make a mistake and then repent and reform to correct his actions), and worse their own doctrines of messenger infallibility when it comes to religious teachings is refuted in the Quran by the God himself. Indeed, the Quran is fully detailed and has all the information we need to be guided. The conjectures of the nonbelievers, regardless of how strongly they hold them, will never avail them nor us. All praise be to God, Lord of the Universe.

A classical scholar affirms messengers are not infallible:
We have a user on the discord server, who defends the false hadiths and problematic positions within Sunni Islam, by quoting a minority of classical scholars who saw things differently from the norm, and this user would argue that “there is precedent” to believe in this thing he holds that many sunnis reject. And I thought it would be worth mentioning that we can use his own methodology to show that “there is precedent to believe in this in Sunni Islam”.

The Syrian Hanbali scholar Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328), accept the validity of these [Satanic verses] reports:

Ibn Taymiyya agreed with the majority that all prophets are infallible; however, he understood this infallibility not as preventing prophets from ever committing errors but as preventing them from persisting in them once committed. The commission of such errors is part of God’s wisdom to allow them an opportunity to repent and perfect their character. (Ingrid Mattson, The Story of the Qur’an: Its History and Place in Muslim Life [Wiley-Blackwell, Second edition 2013], pp. 54-55).

Note this is in the context of Satanic verses. For context, in very early Sunni traditions, it has been widely believed by the overwhelming majority of the earliest islamic scholars that Prophet Muhammad received idol worshipping verses from Satan and recited/preached those verses to the people, and consequently, the idol worshippers prostrated for that moment and were happy to hear the Prophet finally preaching idol worship. Subsequently, these Satanic verses have been retracted after the Angel Gabriel told the Prophet that it was Satan who gave him those verses. This scholar here, Ibn Taymiyya, is acknowledging this event and stating that prophets are not infallible in the sense they cannot commit errors, but instead he believed they are infallible in the sense they ultimately correct their errors and repent and reform.

Of note, the religion of Submission does not accept hadith reports as reliable, including the Satanic verses narrative discussed above. Those are a stain on the sunni tradition, and we dissociate completely from hadith reports as part of our religion since we believe they are Satanic fabrications attributed to the Prophet.

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



Even Rashad Considered his Prophecies as Conditional

Beating a dead horse over and over again is unfortunately the most irritating aspect of the server. Especially when it is done by insecure people who have rejected the messenger trying to find something to cling on to in order to keep themselves comfortable with their disbelief. They start with assumptions regarding what qualities or disqualifies a messenger–when you ask them for proof that justifies their assumptions, they provide nothing other than reaffirmations/repeating their own conjectures that they hold with strong conviction despite no evidence.

[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.

I have seen this verse come to light on myself. I indeed am with God in abhorring those who argue with God’s revelations without any basis–all from preconceived notions/conjectures they hold with strong conviction and provide no proof that justifies this strong conviction. They only conjecture and they double and triple down on it because they hold it with strong conviction despite having no basis or proof for their conjecture.

In this blog, we’ll just discuss only one small aspect and in future blogs we will go into further detail, God Willing.

In the March 1988 Submitter’s perspective, Rashad wrote:

In the August 1988 Submitter’s perspective, Rashad wrote:

Within a period of months, what we see here is Rashad had stated the Arab world would die in a certain time-frame, and then months later he said that the Arab world can be saved if they have a positive response to this most important message. In fact, the Quran and the Bible even say that if there is one believer in a country, God won’t destroy them (and it is very interesting Rashad said the Arabs are cursed, it seems them not believing, and us not finding a single believing Arab, is just another evidence that they will indeed be destroyed for their rejection of the messenger).

But I digress, what we see here is Rashad acknowledging the conditionality of what he said in March 1988 just a few months later. IF the Arabs respond positively to his message, they won’t be destroyed as he prophesied earlier. Conditional prophecy, just as we talked about before. Done. End. Resolved.

With respect to Egypt (who are not considered Arabs per Rashad’s explanation), something interesting happened. An Al-Azhar scholar (Ahmed Subhy Mansour) from Egypt denied hadith and became Quranist ( he wrote: “The Quran: the Only Source of Islam and Islamic Jurisprudence”, and weirdly enough, he published it in 1990!!–, so it is no longer true when Rashad said (in the 3rd sentence of the above screenshot): “This message has been vehemently rejected by Al-Azhar and it’s followers” (this was the condition of his prophecy!) and so the “Egypt dying” won’t happen unless this is true, and we have shown it is no longer true–an Al Azhar scholar and alma mater accepted part of the message partially and so the condition of this prophecy is no longer being met.

Also take a look at the ‘coincidental’ timing of this Al-Azhar scholar (1990 is when he published and thus he believed before that publication date). What an interesting ‘coincidence’. It came right on time; right on Rashad’s timing. How does Rashad keep getting away with this? Could he be a messenger? Indeed, this only further adds more evidence that he is indeed a messenger. Add it is to growing list. SubhanAllah. All praise be to God alone.

Related Blogs:
The failed UIN is actually evidence Rashad is a Messenger
Example of Jonah: Messengers committing gross sins
Covenant With the Arabs Nullified; the UIN Prophecies no Longer Apply

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

Another Proof of Rashad: Surah 72

Rashad Khalifa (God’s messenger of the covenant) had put special emphasis on chapter 72 (Surah Al Jinn) and stating that this Surah is speaking about him as a messenger. Bear with me in this article, the main miracle I want to point out (God Willing) is towards the end of the article. Here are the relevant verses.

[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.

Rashad’s footnote:
*72:1-28 The messenger here is named, mathematically, as “Rashad Khalifa,” to whom God revealed the end of the world (Appendix 25).
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
(3) The digits of Sura 72 and its number of verses (28) add up to 7+2+2+8=19.
(4) Also, the crucial expression, “only to a messenger that He chooses” has a value of 1919, 19×101.

So as we see, Rashad had identified many numerical foci that demonstrate these verses are speaking about him. Critically, I want to emphasize “only to a messenger that He chooses” has a gematrical value of 1919. And Rashad happened to have been the one who discovered God’s mathematical miracle of the Quran, Code 19.

But there is an additional miracle, something very interesting. If we look at the Arabic and transliteration of that verse 72:27:

[72:27] Only to a messenger that He chooses,* does He reveal from the past and the future, specific news.*
[٢٧:٧٢] إِلَّا مَنِ ٱرْتَضَىٰ مِن رَّسُولٍ فَإِنَّهُۥ يَسْلُكُ مِنۢ بَيْنِ يَدَيْهِ وَمِنْ خَلْفِهِۦ رَصَدًا
illā mani ir’taḍā min rasūlin fa-innahu yasluku min bayni yadayhi wamin khalfihi raṣada

Take note at how similar “Khalfihi rasada” is to Khalifa Rashad!!! This cannot be emphasized enough. Not only do we have all of these numerical confirmations above and “only to a messenger that He chooses” had a gematrical value of 1919, but we are given a linguistic hint that this is about Rashad Khalifa, God’s messenger of the covenant. And even more so, these verses (72:26-28) talk about God giving the messenger information, and then the next verse (28) says that God is fully aware of what they have and that He has counted the NUMBER of all things–putting another emphasis on the numbers of things, in relation to a messenger that discovered a numerical miracle, and God also used an interesting rare unique usage of a phrase that sounds similarly to Rashad Khalifa all in this highly significant and relevant context. The usage of the phrase “khalfihi rasada” is yet another *wink wink* sign from God to us that demonstrates that Rashad Khalifa is a messenger. SubhanAllah!

Take note that 3 things are going on in this very significant context:
1. God revealing new information to messengers
2. Association with what the messengers got and God knowing the numbers of all things
3. Words that sound like “Rashad Khalifa”

And this is all in the same context of God sending new information to messengers and God aware of what the messengers have and He has counted the numbers of all things (and it just so happens Rashad Khalifa received and presented a mathematical miracle from God, Code 19). SubhanAllah!

And not to mention the already impressive mathematics of this chapter all pointing to Rashad Khalifa as a messenger: 72:1-28 The messenger here is named, mathematically, as “Rashad Khalifa,” to whom God revealed the end of the world. 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. 😳

Now those who argue with God’s revelations of course would love to nitpick. Such is the case all throughout the Quran-the people rejected the messenger, argued with God’s revelations (which God even says this trait is most abhorred by Him in verse 40:35). Those who reject this point out that the words khalfihi rasada doesn’t have the same root or meaning as Khalifa Rashad. However, no such claim was made. All that is required to take the hint and to witness God’s miracle is to notice the phonetic similarity between that phrase and “Khalifa Rashad” and recognize this unusual/unique choice of words in this very significant context. I am a witness to this–all that matters is it simply sounds the same to get the hint/sign/miracle God is presenting. And then there are those who like to play divine psychology and say things like “God would never do this”. Very interesting that they can make such a claim with such confidence and conviction and certainty. Did God take an oath with them that He would not do this? That He would not reveal his signs in whatever way He chooses? There are lots of things that God has done and allowed that we would not have been able to predict, including the propagation of idolatry within Christianity for all of those years. And we even have precedent in the Quran for God giving miracles, and confirmation from God himself in the Quran that He will manifest the miracles/signs for those who believe. Yet those who argue with God’s clear signs/miracles here, know these words sound similarly to Khalifa Rashad, and this phrase is placed in a highly significant context–this isn’t just a random phrase that sounds like “Khalifa Rashad”, but this is one that occurs in a highly significant context of revealing new information to messengers in a significant context of God knowing the numbers of what these messengers have and God giving us several numerical indications that this is referencing Rashad Khalifa. 😳😳😳

What an interesting “coincidence“.
In fact, this is how I felt when I first encountered this miracle:

This *wink wink* hint is a figure of speech that is commonly used in our language, especially in giving jokes or hints. An example is the following:

A student is taking a physics exam and the correct answer is “light”. The teacher is trying to be nice and give him hints, so the teacher says things like:

– “Physics is enlightening”
– “No, I’m not gaslighting you”
– “You need to lighten up”, wink wink 😉

A prayer: All praise be to God alone, the Lord of the universe, author of existence, owner of reality. Thank you so much oh God for guiding me to the right path and opening my heart to accept your signs/miracles. And thank you so much for letting me witness this profound miracle/sign from you and adding on to the list of signs you have generously revealed to me. Please provide me with more oh God, if and when it is good for me. Thank you so much oh God for your guidance and protection oh God. Please keep me under your guidance and protection and please provide for me from you a powerful support.

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

Zero Right to Feel Proud (Boxing, MMA, BJJ)

The more we study the reality of physics and chemistry, the more we learn the truth of who we are and what we are. We learn that we are actively getting help from the environment (specifically Earth) to do anything. I’m not talking just about food/energy/provisions—I’m talking about even the basic mechanics of movement.

When it comes to combat sports, there seems to be a toxic culture of feeling superior just because you can beat someone up, whether that is due to your muscle strength, size/weight or the amount of training/time you put into the work. When they beat someone up in a fight or in a combat sport, the ego is activated—the sense of supremacy and superiority is activated. Yet, when we study physics and chemistry, and when we consider our core inherent property: that all of our strength qualities are simply just things given to us by God—through this, God has given us knoweldge that we really do not posses any right to feel even an atom’s weight of superiority over anything or anyone when it comes to our inherent qualities. We will see that no bragging rights are due whatsoever when we actually evaluate what is going on.

Guns and weapons: not much different than using only your body to win a fight:

There seems to be an understanding that being able to hurt someone with guns/weapons in a fight does not give you as much bragging rights as being able to beat someone up using only your body with no weapons. I will explain here God willing that it is actually identical in that neither gives you any bragging rights whatsoever.

Consider the gun—the force that propels the bullet that comes from the gun is the gun powder: God’s chemical energy. It does not come from your muscles. And this is one of the reasons many feel that shooting someone is not a bragging right. The force that propels the bullet does not come from your body, but from a source external to your body that propels the bullet at these speeds. Now, let’s consider some physics:

Gravity:

“Size and strength”. That’s what matters a lot in fights and combat sports. This is why we have weight classes. Weighing more and being fat gives one an advantage over their opponent, even if both are of equal muscle strength. This is because it takes the heavier person less force to overcome the force of gravity acting on the body of the lighter person; and it takes the lighter person more force to overcome the greater force of gravity acting on the heavier person’s body.

Gravity…a literal external force external to your body from the earth that acts directly on your body to help you against your opponent. It is not your mass that produces the significant force of gravity that benefits you in a fight, rather it is Earth’s mass and the resultant gravitational forces that provide you with the force of gravity acting on your body.

Again, there is an external force, that is not your body, that is actively fighting against your enemy. And in grappling sports specifically, where you need to be able to move your opponent, even pick them up, you are not really fighting just your opponent’s muscular resistance, but also a literal environmental force that is fighting against you and providing that additional resistance you must overcome. And the heavier person doesn’t have to do anything or apply any force to benefit from the gravitational aid—and neither do you. The point of this is to show it is not ‘only your body’ that is being used in a fight, and that it is similar to both of you having and using weapons like guns, and we will explain what this entails later on below.

Another thing worth mentioning is the center of gravity. In grappling sports, they tend to lower their bodies, to lower their center of gravity, to have the forces of earth’s gravity applied at certain angles making it harder for the opponent to move your body. You are basically using literal forces from the environment (not from your body) applied on your body

Consider when a fat person sits on you, or just applies some of their body weight on top of you. What wrath of force are you experiencing—their force or that of the earth’s gravity and its interaction with their body? In wrestling, BJJ and other grappling sports, use of one’s weight and putting it on top of the other person is absolutely critical and that is what can allow smaller people to sometimes defeat larger people in fights: the help from gravity, an external force not provided by you, but from the earth that actively helps the fat person. Consider if there was zero gravity and how easy it would be to move the fat person off of you—in fact, recall that weight is entirely a function of gravity—without gravity, there is no weight—there is no gravitational force for you to have to work against to lift the fat person off of you. This is why fat people can win fights against much thinner people even if the thinner person is stronger: because of earth’s gravity. But if there was no gravity, or very little gravity, the stronger yet lighter person would be more able to win this fight because there are less external forces from the environment to fight against, and fat person is weaker and can’t apply as much muscular forces on you (below, we will even shoot down this idea of muscle strength too as ‘using only your body’ when we discuss God’s 3rd law of motion).

Conclusion: gravity is a literal force provided to you from the environment and not your body, and this force is actively being used against your opponent. You are getting help from the environment. Literal actual help and forces applied on you that work against your opponent. It’s almost like you are wearing an electronic exoskeleton that provides you with additional forces beyond what your body can do to fight against your opponent.

God’s third law of motion:

God has created for us and given us yet another understanding that humbles us. We think that being in a tiny speck in the middle of a vast universe is humbling enough, but God even provides us with laws of physics and their understandings to show how dependent we are on literally everything—and that should be a source of humility for the reverent.

God’s third law of motion, who God has endowed Newton with its discovery (often called “Newton’s third law”) is one such example. Whenever you throw a punch, it is not your body that propels your arm/fist, it is the earth itself. You have to press on the ground with your feet, and then the ground ends up applying an equal and opposite force, and that is what propels your fist forward. If there was no help from the earth, you’d be able to swing your arms, but you wouldn’t be able to swing it with as much force as we can when the earth pushes against us. Imagine throwing a punch while you are floating in outer space, weightless and nothing to push off of—such a punch would be flimsy and nothing like the punch force that comes from the earth pushing against us, in accordance with God’s creation/will.

Thus it is not ‘only your body’ that you are using when throwing a punch, but you are using the environment. Similar to how it is not only your body you are using when you are swinging a sword at someone, it is the sword too (environment), even if your muscles can apply a lot of force on the sword, you are still using an environmental object (not ‘only your body’) to make that effective attack. Same is true with punching, it is the earth that is providing that force, not your body. If you applied your forces in the outer vacuum of space, you would not be able to punch someone with such force at all compared to when we get help from earth in providing us that force that propels us forward in accordance with God’s third law of motion. Consider if the floor was made of a soft substance like pudding or water and whether you would be able to throw a good punch–you need a hard environment/ground to throw a good punch just as you need a hard weapon rather than a soft one to be effective.

Using a sword of knife means you depended on something from the environment (sword/knife) to get this job done. Throwing a punch similarly means you depended on something from the environment (earth applying a force back at you to propel you) and so using a sword/knife is not much different than using ‘only your body’, because in reality, you don’t really ‘use only your body’—you use Earth’s gravity and Earth pushing back at you—or pushing off of something (the ground) in order to lift someone up or punch someone: whether you are pushing off the environment (hard/solid ground) to propel you or whether you are pushing against a tool/weapon to propel it, you are literally using something from the environment to win the fight—similar and analogous to the use of weapons. God has created the laws of physics such that you are dependent on something to even throw a punch–to even walk, to even breathe-in the required molecules to stay alive. That is a blessing from God that should be humbling to anyone who really considers what is going on: you are completely dependent and always using the provisions from God–down to the molecules in the air, the chemical energy in food, down to how much we use of the environment and how we need an external object to push off of to even walk or stand or throw a punch–all of it should remind us of what we are.

Side note: consider what it was like before oxygen was discovered/understood. The people thought breathing was what exactly?–some kind of required activity; the ancient Greeks thought the breath itself was the soul–and that is kind of the origin of the ancient idiom of “we saw the breath taken away from them” when talking about someone dying. They thought the breath was tied to the soul, just an activity that indicates the soul is present–completely oblivious to the fact that the breath is literally taking God’s provisions in the environment that we need to stay alive. God has blessed us with creating us this way and giving us this knowledge so that we should be humble and thankful.

Gravity is the analogy of the gun, God’s 3rd law of motion is the analogy of using hand-to-hand combat weapons

In the above analogies, the help from Gravity is more similar to the gun example (in that an external force is literally providing forces to aid you), and God’s third law of motion is similar to using a handheld weapon like a sword/knife (in that you required the use of the environment and not just “only your body” to win a fight).

The point of this is just to show that no one truly wins a fight by using “just their bodies”. And this should be a reminder that humbles us. There are ‘Sith’ forces in the environment that literally propel our bodies and active ‘Sith’ forces that provide resistance to movement (gravity). It’s like using a gun—forces external to your body propelling something forward. Now of course, some may say, but those in a gunfight who can shoot better are just more capable and superior at this. And this is when we learn that all of our qualities, are simply things given to us by God which we will also discuss later on below.

Now, some may protest that ‘using only your body’ in a fight is using less of the environment, you are only using Earth and its gravity whereas using weapons require more use of the environment. Sure, but in both cases, there is no ‘using only your body’. And worse, this is a moot point since a heavier person uses more gravitational forces from the environment to help them in the fight, a stronger person uses more of a force pushed back at them from the ground to propel them. Moreover, consider a combat fight between and elephant and an ant. The elephant require more use of the environment, more oxygen to inhale, more food, but it still wins the fight—are we gonna say the ant is superior because it uses less from the environment? It doesn’t matter how much of the environment you use, all that matters is how much of the environment your body can use compared to your opponent when it comes to capability of winning a fight–and even this is something just given to you from God–you were just given this quality, you didn’t earn it. Even you being motivated and dedicated, you were just given these motivations/dedications from your genes and environment and the people God made you associate with–you were just given these qualities, you didn’t earn it.

Every dimension humbles you:

Through God’s grace and God’s teachings to us: Literally every dimension we view human physical power/strength, we see there is no right to boast about anything. That all power is with God alone. And the most important dimension is the recognition that your qualities are literally dependent on God entirely and literally given to you by God.

Imagine this analogy: in your mind, you create 2 beings. You decide to make the one on the left larger & stronger, and you decide to make the person on the right smaller and weaker—and as a result, the person on the left boasts that they can beat up the person on the right. What right does the person on the left have to feel proud of themself, you just gave them that quality and if you had willed, you could have made them weaker than the person on the right. All of its strength–its literally something you just gave them, and you could have easily given it properties making it weaker than the person on the right. And it literally depends on you constantly in order to even exist or have/maintain it’s properties/qualities (you have to keep thinking of these 2 beings, creating them in your mind (in reality, they are even dependent on God since you depend on God to even be able to think, but the analogy is meant to show that they “depend on you” just as we depend on God to even exist and to maintain our qualities and we depend on His decision as to what qualities He gives us).

Another analogy: suppose one person who takes anabolic steroids, boasts about being able to beat his identical twin brother who did don’t take steroids despite both of them lifting weights the same amount. But he took anabolic steroids, how can he boast about that? He was given something that made him stronger than the other person—and the other person could have simply taken steroids too. Well, that is exactly how it is with God. Any stronger person simply was given that strength (and the genetic determinants to strength) from God, and God could have easily given that strength (and the genes that make them strong) to the other person. What right do you have to boast about things that were simply given to you?

Third analogy: You give someone $1 and the other person $1 billion dollars. The billionaire then boasts at their wealth, at their resultant social class, and forces the poorer person to work for them humiliating jobs. What right does the billionaire have to boast about their wealth? It was just given to them. The same is exactly the case when it comes to your qualities-your muscle strength, power, speed—all of it are literally just things given to you. You may win combat competitions against other people, but only because God has simply given you more than them. Zero right to boast or feel proud about any of your qualities. And it even gets worse, even if you have worked hard for something—the dedication, motivation, the amount of time you put in practicing the sport—all of them are given entirely to you by God. It is God that gave you the genetic qualities that make you predisposed to being motivated/dedicated in this sport; it is God that put you in an environment and exposed you to people and situations that foster you and make you motivated, dedicated to practice the sport in the first place. And so even your working hard is something God gave entirely to you—whether through your genetics or through your environment or the interaction of both, regardless, it is something God has given to you.

Consider stepping on an ant, or abusing an infant—does that make you feel strong, in control? Does that give you any sense of superiority or power? Of course not, and it shouldn’t. God simply gave you your qualities, gave the ant & infant their qualities. How can you boast about something God simply gave you? Something you didn’t earn? And as we saw in the third analogy below, even what you earn and work hard for, is something God has given you by giving you the genes that predispose you to working this hard, the environment that made you interested in this sport and it is God that fostered your motivation and dedication through it. All things are simply given to you by God.

What about God, isn’t He boasting all the time in the Quran?

Wrong. Not at all. God simply is the perfect, the greatest, the most high. Saying the objective truth so that you (humans) recognize who He is, is not boasting. It’s like saying the sun is bright, space is vast, the earth is wide—all are simply fact statements. God is the greatest is similarly a fact statement—an objective reality. But you, you are a contingent being, completely and fully dependent entirely on God, every little detail of your life is controlled by God, your qualities are entirely given to you by God, your relational qualities to other people is given to you and to them entirely from God, you did not create yourself, you are basically a protozoa and even infinitely less when it comes to what you are compared to what God is. And that is the fact statement about you—that you are contingent on God, all your qualities are simply given to you by God, You have zero right to be proud about anything about yourself.

Your identity; The truth of who you are:

God’s identity is that of a Necessary Being whom which all reality is contingent on and comes from. God is objectively the Maximally Great Being, the One who ‘embodies’ the Absolute Perfection, the One who ‘embodies’ the Absolute Excellence. And since nothing is greater or can even come close to The Infinite—there is nothing that can possibly be worthy of worship other than God alone. All things you witness—every impressive thing you witness, all of it reflects God’s glory—and so all praise is due to God alone. When God simply tells you who He is, He is not boasting at all—He is simply giving you the facts; He is simply telling you who He is as a mercy from Him so you appraise Him a just appraisal because this is the only way you can be close to Him.

Your identity, the key component of your inherent quality, is that your power entirely comes from God’s power and is actually God’s power (the weird phraseology here and above because of some limitations in our language to explain this concept). The same with your qualities and your achievements—all of them are given to you by God through the interaction of your genes that God gave you and the environment God put you in and the people God created and made you surround yourself with. You are an entirely contingent being, dependent entirely on God and you were simply given those things from God and thus you have no right to boast about any of this. Your core inherent identity is you are a being that has zero right to boast or feel proud of your qualities or achievements—all of them are simply things given to you by God: this is simply the truth of who you are—the truth of what you are.

The cause of Satan’s fall:

This is such a critical point that I would be remiss in not mentioning it here.

Imagine on the day of resurrection: being in the presence of God. Seeing a maximally excellent being, the most perfect being who ‘embodies’ the absolute perfection and excellence—who is the perfection and excellence. Imagine being in the presence of such a perfect being, knowing that you don’t have His approval. Imagine how critical the approval of your parents, spouses, children, co-workers are or people who are really important to you—imagine losing them and their approval, to the point they completely reject you and won’t even speak to you or look at you. Now, imagine the same with someone who just embodies the absolute perfection and ‘beauty’ and being in His presence and wanting to please Him and have His approval—and caring most about His Approval much more than you care about the approval of people you most care about in this world (all souls inherently are joyed to be with God, all souls intrinsically want God), and imagine feeling shy and guilty for what you had done against Him to the point that you can’t handle His presence and so you run away because you can’t bear the shame. Imagine committing such a heinous crime, the worst possible crime you can think of and having to face your parents, spouse, family and close friends—and the guilt, shame and shyness in speaking to them while being in their presence—and imagine their complete rejection of you. We can’t even imagine how much worse this would feel. God’s approval and love of me is all that I care about, and knowing that He does not approve and does not love me and abandons me on the day of resurrection would by itself be hell. I can’t imagine how bad it would really be when we witness a being who is literally the absolute perfection, such an amazing and perfect being, and not having that being’s approval. It’s a complete loss; there is no greater loss.

God’s approval is something to strive for. And it starts with humbleness and humility; killing the ego. The lack of humility is what caused Satan to be banished from God’s kingdom:

[7:12] He said, “What prevented you from prostrating when I ordered you?” He said, “I am better than he; You created me from fire, and created him from mud.”

[١٢:٧] قَالَ مَا مَنَعَكَ أَلَّا تَسْجُدَ إِذْ أَمَرْتُكَ قَالَ أَنَا۠ خَيْرٌ مِّنْهُ خَلَقْتَنِى مِن نَّارٍ وَخَلَقْتَهُۥ مِن طِينٍ

[7:13] He said, “Therefore, you must go down, for you are not to be arrogant here. Get out; you are debased.”

[١٣:٧] قَالَ فَٱهْبِطْ مِنْهَا فَمَا يَكُونُ لَكَ أَن تَتَكَبَّرَ فِيهَا فَٱخْرُجْ إِنَّكَ مِنَ ٱلصَّٰغِرِينَ

Any boasting or feeling proud is an injustice against God; you did not give God the due credit; you failed to recognize that all of your qualities are simply given to you from God; you failed to recognize that you deserve no praise or recognition for your qualities—that all praise is due to God alone; and you failed to credit and praise God for your qualities—instead you felt superior, worshiped yourself for your qualities, lost sight of the fact that the praise for the impressiveness of the qualities God created you with goes to God alone and not you. Did you create yourself? You were just given those qualities from God. So what right do you have to boast about things given to you? And who does all credit actually belong to? You always need to make sure you are appraising God a just appraisal. You need to value God as much as He deserves, and all praise is to He. Read it again: “ALL praise”. If you praise anything other than God, you’ve ‘created’ a partner with God who also deserves praise (لقد ‘خلق’ شريكًا مع الله يستحق أيضًا الحمد ).

And this one slip up by Satan was enough to get him banished from God’s Kingdom. And God even says “you cannot be arrogant here”. Consider the weight of the crime of being arrogant, and how that would exclude you from God’s Kingdom. Arrogance of the self is a direct injustice to God—credit given to yourself rather than to God alone = idol worship of the self rather than of God alone.

God even calls Satan a disbeliever for doing this:

[2:34] When we said to the angels, “Fall prostrate before Adam,” they fell prostrate, except Satan; he refused, was too arrogant, and a disbeliever.

[٣٤:٢] وَإِذْ قُلْنَا لِلْمَلَٰٓئِكَةِ ٱسْجُدُوا۟ لِءَادَمَ فَسَجَدُوٓا۟ إِلَّآ إِبْلِيسَ أَبَىٰ وَٱسْتَكْبَرَ وَكَانَ مِنَ ٱلْكَٰفِرِينَ

Satan is a disbeliever for doing this because Satan had disbelieved in who God really is and to whom all praise/credit belongs to, even of your own qualities. He is a disbeliever even though he believed in God and believed in God’s system–he disbelieved in one aspect of who God is, and that is enough to make someone a “disbeliever”. Here God warns us in the Quran that arrogance is a form of disbelief (kufr)—you have disbelieved in who God is—whenever you are arrogant, you have disbelieved in something about God—you have disbelieved that all power, all praise, all glory belongs to God alone and you as a completely contingent dependent being on God has absolutely no right to even an atom’s worth of praise or glory for the qualities you were simply given by God, and to God belongs all the praise even for the qualities He created and gave you and others. Full stop.

All praise be to God alone, the lord of the universe, the author of existence, the owner of reality.

Relevant Quran verses:

[Quran 28:70] He is the one GOD; there is no other god beside Him. To Him belongs all praise in this first life, and in the Hereafter. All judgment belongs with Him, and to Him you will be returned.

[٧٠:٢٨] وَهُوَ ٱللَّهُ لَآ إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ لَهُ ٱلْحَمْدُ فِى ٱلْأُولَىٰ وَٱلْءَاخِرَةِ وَلَهُ ٱلْحُكْمُ وَإِلَيْهِ تُرْجَعُونَ

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

[١٦٥:٢] … ٱلْقُوَّةَ لِلَّهِ جَمِيعًا

[Quran 3:154] …Thus, they said, “Is anything up to us?” Say, “Everything is up to GOD.”

[١٥٤:٣]… يَقُولُونَ هَل لَّنَا مِنَ ٱلْأَمْرِ مِن شَىْءٍ قُلْ إِنَّ ٱلْأَمْرَ كُلَّهُۥ لِلَّهِ

[Quran 4:78] …Say, “Everything comes from GOD.” Why do these people misunderstand almost everything.

[٧٨:٤] … قُلْ كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ ٱللَّهِ فَمَالِ هَٰٓؤُلَآءِ ٱلْقَوْمِ لَا يَكَادُونَ يَفْقَهُونَ حَدِيثًا

[Quran 31:18-19] “You shall not treat the people with arrogance, nor shall you roam the earth proudly. GOD does not like the arrogant showoffs. Walk humbly and lower your voice—the ugliest voice is the donkey’s voice.”

[١٨:٣١] وَلَا تُصَعِّرْ خَدَّكَ لِلنَّاسِ وَلَا تَمْشِ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ مَرَحًا إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ كُلَّ مُخْتَالٍ فَخُورٍ وَٱقْصِدْ فِى مَشْيِكَ وَٱغْضُضْ مِن صَوْتِكَ إِنَّ أَنكَرَ ٱلْأَصْوَٰتِ لَصَوْتُ ٱلْحَمِيرِ

[Quran 25:63] …the worshipers of the Most Gracious are those who tread the earth gently, and when the ignorant speak to them, they only utter peace.

[٦٣:٢٥] وَعِبَادُ ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ ٱلَّذِينَ يَمْشُونَ عَلَى ٱلْأَرْضِ هَوْنًا وَإِذَا خَاطَبَهُمُ ٱلْجَٰهِلُونَ قَالُوا۟ سَلَٰمًا

[Quran 8:17] …It was not you who threw when you threw; GOD is the One who threw. But He thus gives the believers a chance to earn a lot of credit. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient.

[١٧:٨] وَمَا رَمَيْتَ إِذْ رَمَيْتَ وَلَٰكِنَّ ٱللَّهَ رَمَىٰ وَلِيُبْلِىَ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ مِنْهُ بَلَآءً حَسَنًا إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ

[God’s footnote 8:17 (explained through Rashad)]: Believing in God necessitates believing in His qualities, one of which is that He is doing everything. Without knowing God, there is no belief (23:84-90).

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

Differences in practices between Sunni Islam and Submission

This blog is more for Sunnis–the ones who hesitate to becoming Submitters. It is also more of a reflective piece; some thoughts I had of what Submission really is and what the purpose of Submission really is. All that really matters to me is the worship/remembrance/supplication to God alone. All that Submission has really done is remove the idolatrous practices from Sunni Islam. By this fact alone, I was drawn to Submission (among other things like literal proof of the divine origin of the Quran lol and literal proof of the divine decree that assigned a new messenger).

To prove to Sunnis and some Quranists how much we have in common: If Submitters were to become Sunnis now, here is what they would have to change:

(1) Add Muhammad to the Shahada

– I personally do not even think this is required in Sunni Islam, despite the protest of Sunnis. Many Sunnis hold the position the first part of the Shahada (the one without Muhammad) is all that you need and some hadiths include the Shahada without Muhammad too. And the Quran already tell us the proper Shahada, and there is no ‘Muhammad’ mentioned there, so there is no need for us to deviate from God’s literal words:

[3:18] GOD bears witness that there is no god except He, and so do the angels and those who possess knowledge.

[47:19] You shall know that: “There is no other god beside GOD,”

(2) Recite Quran during the Salat (contact prayers)

– Actually, this is not even required in Sunni Islam. Many Sunnis believe you don’t have to read anything in the prayers except Al-Fatiha (which Submitters already do).

Sources:

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/6422/reciting-a-soorah-after-al-faatihah-is-not-obligatory

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/97484/the-minimum-that-is-acceptable-to-recite-after-al-faatihah

(3) Recite the “Attahiyat” (Tashahhud) during my Salat (contact prayers)

All submitters do is say the Shahada during this phase of the Salat. What’s interesting is many schools of thought in Islam have different variations of what one should say during the Tashahhud.

The first tashahhud is considered obligatory. The remaining schools consider it mustahabb and not obligatory. The second tashahhud is considered obligatory by the Shafi’is, Imamis and Hanbalis, and mustahabb by the Malikis and Hanafis (Bidayat al-mujtahid, v1, p125).

(4) Accept Hadith

You might think this is a big deal, but in my opinion, hadith don’t really change much in our personal life and practices–most of it is historical context and all that stuff I don’t care about anyway–those companions and those people have a judgement with God, and I don’t care about the politics and disagreements they had.

(5) Accept 9:128-129

What’s interesting is 9:128-129 doesn’t really add anything the Quran doesn’t already state. I already accept the message of these false verses: they are just copy paste verses from other themes and concepts of the Quran and they’re not really saying anything new–other verses of the Quran say the same thing. There’s a verse about Muhammad grieving over the disbelivers (Quran 26:3)–so I’m sure he cares about and feels for the believers, I’m sure he was very kind and loving to the believers. So as far as the message of 9:128-129, nothing is rejected, I just reject these 2 verses were sent from God in the first place. Throughout the Quran, what God really cares about is accepting and believing the message He sends. 9:128-129 doesn’t offer anything new or any new information–with or without them, no new beliefs or understandings are made–the message of the Quran with or without these verses is the same.

It is however interesting that many of the words that occur in 9:128-129 are “coincidentally” up by 1 from being a multiple of 19 (thus deviating from the expectations of Code 19), the fact they are reported to be Meccan verses in a Medinan chapter, the fact that there are hadith reports putting them into question, the fact there is a double naming scheme in these verses of God’s names that are used to refer to Muhammad when all other occurrence of them in the Quran reference only God, the fact this chapter (9) lacks the Bismillah is yet another red flag. It’s interesting to think God would give us all this evidence these verses are false and demand that we accept those verses. But regardless, those verses don’t add anything new–the message of those verses is not really rejected by Submitters–its only the authorship of those specific verses in their form are rejected by Submitters.

(6) Reject Code 19 and the Math miracle of 19 including those pointing to Rashad as a messenger


I almost laughed as I was typing this up. I don’t think Sunnis have to reject Code 19, some of them accept it, but I was trying to imagine myself reject them and I laughed (praise God). I don’t think I can imagine rejecting Code 19 even while I was trying to imagine myself as a Sunni, so forget about that lol. I can’t even see it happening, I’d have to be really good at lying to myself to make that happen somehow. All praise and thanks to God for the firm guidance he has bestowed upon us.

Conclusion:
It’s just so weird how little we disagree with Sunnis and many Quranists. It’s just so wild.

Something about it though makes me wonder–does God care that much about the nitty gritty practices? It seems like God just wants us to avoid idol worship and disbelief, and to just mention him alone in our worship practices, and put Him at the center of our life. That seems to be the root of the whole point of Submission–all submission did was remove the idolatry and falsehood of Islam as it was practiced. God created Submission because he just wants us to worship God alone. All of these above differences, all of these changes Submission imposed on our practices stems from that one principle: God just wants us to worship Him alone. That’s the whole point of Submission. The Sunnis and many Quranists are doing idol worship, they don’t recognize how subtle idolatry is and most are not dedicating their entire life and worship practices to God alone. That is why Submission exists. The whole reason it exists and the whole reason for these differences is God just wants us to worship Him alone.

Nitty gritty differences in practices are not as significant:

[2:177] Righteousness is not turning your faces towards the east or the west. Righteous are those who believe in GOD, the Last Day, the angels, the scripture, and the prophets; and they give the money, cheerfully, to the relatives, the orphans, the needy, the traveling alien, the beggars, and to free the slaves; and they observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat); and they keep their word whenever they make a promise; and they steadfastly persevere in the face of persecution, hardship, and war. These are the truthful; these are the righteous.

[١٧٧:٢] لَّيْسَ ٱلْبِرَّ أَن تُوَلُّوا۟ وُجُوهَكُمْ قِبَلَ ٱلْمَشْرِقِ وَٱلْمَغْرِبِ وَلَٰكِنَّ ٱلْبِرَّ مَنْ ءَامَنَ بِٱللَّهِ وَٱلْيَوْمِ ٱلْءَاخِرِ وَٱلْمَلَٰٓئِكَةِ وَٱلْكِتَٰبِ وَٱلنَّبِيِّۦنَ وَءَاتَى ٱلْمَالَ عَلَىٰ حُبِّهِۦ ذَوِى ٱلْقُرْبَىٰ وَٱلْيَتَٰمَىٰ وَٱلْمَسَٰكِينَ وَٱبْنَ ٱلسَّبِيلِ وَٱلسَّآئِلِينَ وَفِى ٱلرِّقَابِ وَأَقَامَ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ وَءَاتَى ٱلزَّكَوٰةَ وَٱلْمُوفُونَ بِعَهْدِهِمْ إِذَا عَٰهَدُوا۟ وَٱلصَّٰبِرِينَ فِى ٱلْبَأْسَآءِ وَٱلضَّرَّآءِ وَحِينَ ٱلْبَأْسِ أُو۟لَٰٓئِكَ ٱلَّذِينَ صَدَقُوا۟ وَأُو۟لَٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلْمُتَّقُونَ

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

One minus One equals Zero (1-1=0)

“Can God create a rock so heavy, even He can’t lift?

This is probably the dumbest question anyone can ask. Yet, how in the world is it still being discussed on forums? Has this not been sufficiently addressed by theists time and time again? And yet, it keeps coming up–and it comes from people who pretend to be intellectual and scientifically informed.

They use this argument to argue that an all powerful God is impossible and thus cannot exist. “If God can do everything, but He cannot create a rock he even can’t lift, then he can’t do everything. If God can create a rock that even He can’t lift, then there is something God cannot do! Checkmate, theists!”

This is called the “Omnipotence Paradox” for anyone who is interested in searching for this online.

One Minus One equals Zero:

Let’s discuss a difficult concept, that if you subtract something from something, you no longer have that something. In other words, 1-1=0.

The format we are going to use to discuss this particularly controversial topic is the following:

[1] – [1] = [0]

Anyone with simple math knowledge knows this can also be reformulated this way:

[1] + [-1] = [0]

We are going to (God Willing) apply these to concepts. A concept minus another concept equals zero–that means you are not describing a concept anymore, you are describing nothing (zero). In the (1-1=0) format we are going to use, it is going to look like this:

[Concept X] – [Concept X] = [0]
or
[Concept X] + [not Concept X] = [0]

Let’s go through some examples:

Can God create a Square Circle?

A square has 4 corners; a circle has 0 corners. So asking “can God create a square circle” is asking “can God create something with 4 corners that also doesn’t have 4 corners”

Can God create something that [has 4 corners] and [doesn’t have 4 corners]?

[4 corners] – [4 corners] = [0]
or
[4 corners] + [not 4 corners] = [0]

What exactly are you asking? What concept are you stating God cannot do? They’ve negated the same concept they allege to be describing. They are not describing anything at all. Mind as well say “Can God do asdlfkjasdoifdjsa?”, “Well, can he?”. You are not describing anything. God is capable of all things, but what is the thing are you describing that you are claiming God cannot do? You subtracted the concept you are describing with itself and are left with nothing, zero–no concept at all. Zero concept is described in that sentence of a “square circle”–there is nothing being described here. 1-1=0.

A pain medication that does not relieve pain:

Imagine a patient asking you “can you please give me a pain medication that doesn’t relieve pain?”–this is not a description of anything. They negated the same thing they are describing. 1-1=0. This is a non concept. They are not describing anything at all:

[Medication that reduces pain] – [Medication that reduces pain] = 0
or
[Medication that reduces pain] + [Medication that does not reduce pain] = 0

This idea of a medication that reduces pain and doesn’t reduce pain is a negation of the concept you were describing. 1-1=0 and thus, you have no concept that is being described here. This is not a coherent statement, it is a meaningless statement. Words put together, and ultimately, they fail to describe anything because they negate the thing they are describing.

Can God increase in knowledge?

Increasing in knowledge entails there is something that God does not know–so you are negating the fact that God knows everything by stating “God can increase in knowledge”. “God increasing in knowledge” = “There is more knowledge for God to know” = “God does not know everything”. So, in essence, you asked the question, “Can a God who knows everything, not know everything”?–what kind of question is that? You are negating the same concept you are describing, and thus you are not describing anything at all:

(God who knows everything) + (God increasing in knowledge)
However: (God increasing in knowledge) = (God does not know everything)
Therefore,

[God who knows everything] – [God who knows everything] = [0]
or
[God who knows everything] + [God who does not know everything] = [0]

Therefore, “God increasing in knowledge” is not even a concept. It is a sentence made up of words that make sense, but put together, they do not describe anything and are complete nonsense. 1-1=0. It is the same as saying “a being who knows everything and also doesn’t know everything at the same time”–that is a non-concept. It doesn’t describe anything. You are negating the thing you are describing. 1-1=0, you have no concept that you are discussing. You’ve got 0 concept to accuse God of not being able to do? 1-1 = 0. So what exactly are you accusing God of not being able to do?

Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?

Their argument is essentially:
P1: If God can create everything, then there is nothing God cannot create
P2: God cannot create a rock that he cannot lift
C1: Therefore, God cannot create everything (God is not Omnipotent).

So let’s discuss whether such a “rock that God cannot lift”, is even a concept. Is it even a thing that God cannot do, or does it negate itself like the other examples above and thus is not describing anything at all? In other words, Is this phrase (“A rock that God cannot lift”) describing a real concept, or is it negating the same thing it is describing?

Let’s ask the question: What is a rock? A rock is a contingent thing that God created. God by definition is capable of everything and is powerful over everything. All possible creations of God are contingent and subject to God’s power. So before we ask whether God can create this rock, we ask, is this rock (with the property of not being able to be lifted by God) a real concept?

To repeat: God by definition is all powerful, thus he has power over all things that exist. Thus all things have a relational property to God of being able to be overcome by God. So by describing “a rock that He cannot lift”, you are describing something God does not have power over, and thus, you are not describing anything, since all things God necessarily has power over: so your argument is essentially:

[All things are things God has power over] – [All things are things that God has power over] = [0]
or
[All things are things God has power over] + [not All things are things that God has power over] = [0]

This is similar to a patient asking for a “pain medication that does not relieve pain”? What even is that sentence describing? It negated the same thing it is describing. The same applies to this “rock God cannot lift”? So what thing are they claiming God cannot have power over? Such a thing is not even a concept. It is a negation of the concept, since by definition–all things relate to God in such a way that God can overpower them…So where exactly is the paradox? Where is the dilemma? What conceptual entity are they claiming God cannot overpower? It is a description of things, that put together does not mean anything and does not describe anything. It is like the square circle example above. All things necessarily are under God’s complete power, and thus no thing is not under God’s complete power. So what exactly is the thing that God is supposed to create that He does not have power over, if all things necessarily by definition are under the power of God? You have negated the same concept that is being described. It’s a nonsense statement, with no meaning. It’s not even a concept. It is like the square circle–a contradiction of terms; a negation of terms. 1-1=0.

Thus, the understanding of God–and His Omnipotence is perfectly valid and perfectly consistent with itself. There is no contradiction of terms; there is no dilemma; there is no paradox.

So can God do it or not? Well, that’s the wrong question to ask. There is a modality that you can answer that question and we understand what you are saying. For example, if you ask a physician “can you give me a pain medication that is also not a pain medication?”–the physician can reply “no, I cannot”. Even though that whole statement was nonsense, saying “I cannot do this” does not mean the physician is limited in prescribing medication, but that the statement itself is complete nonsense so he cannot fulfill the nonsense/meaningless request.


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

Collection of Classical Tafsirs on 3:81

Many assert that Rashad Khalifa’s translation of 3:81 is incorrect and this verse does not speak of a covenant God took with the prophets themselves. They cite the Arabic and attempt to use the Arabic as evidence for their position. However, upon examining the highly regarded classical tafsirs on this verse, it is clear that they all assert that this verse refers to a covenant God took with the prophets themselves (that they are required to accept a messenger that comes after them) as the primary interpretation–the first one they consistently cited among the other possible interpretations. Thus, the Arabic is not a viable escape to reject this understanding. The primary understanding as shown in the below collection of tafsirs, is that the covenant God took is with the prophets themselves.

The justifications some of these tafsirs use to argue for the secondary translation of this verse (that the covenant is with the people of those prophets and not the prophets themselves) don’t use the Arabic itself to argue this, but instead use various modes of reasoning and extrapolation, including that a prophet can never turn away from this–so this verse must, in effect, be referring to the prophets’ followers. However, even if it is referring to the prophets’ followers, then that includes the Jews, the Christians , and the Muslims since they all follow prophets who have been given scripture and whom which a later messenger will come to confirm the scriptures with them. Jesus confirmed the Torah. Muhammad confirmed the Gospels. So who confirmed the Quran? Rashad Khalifa. Note, the Quran is a scripture that has been given to the Jews and Christians and they have specifically been commanded to believe the Quran–in fact, the Quran specifically calls them and God speaks directly to them–Example: “Oh, Children of Israel” and “Oh, People of the book”. The Quran being their scripture too, means that this scripture (Quran) will also get a future messenger to confirm the Quran, even if we accept the alternate translation that 3:81 is a covenant with the followers of the prophets and not the prophets themselves. Here are the Tafsirs:

The Study Quran by Seyyed Hossein Nasr

(This book provides an English summary of various classical scholar interpretations):

“The particle lamā, rendered here as by that which and as should (in should a messenger), gives rise to different possible translations that are nonetheless substantively similar. It can be interpreted to mean that the Book and Wisdom are invoked in a covenant that binds a prophet, and by extension his followers, to follow a later, true messenger, should he come confirming that which is with you. Here by that which I have given is understood to be an oath (Ṭ). Some commentators see this as a direct command to the various prophets to affirm Muhammad, should he appear during their own lifetime. The verse may actually be referring to the followers of the prophets, since prophets would never turn away or become iniquitous, though their followers might (Q, R); that is, since belief in the Prophet Muhammad or any true prophet is incumbent upon prophets themselves, it is also incumbent upon their followers (R).

Do you agree and take on My burden can be understood to be spoken by God to the prophets or to be spoken by the prophets to their followers (R), though the commentators seem to agree that Bear witness, for I am with you is spoken by God (Q, R, Ṭ). Commentators typically emphasize that it is the Prophet Muhammad to whom reference is made here, and they mention the foretelling of the coming of Muhammad, whom they find inscribed in the Torah and the Gospel that is with them (7:157), though al-Rāzī, for example, acknowledges that the covenant pertains to any prophet who fulfills the criteria in the verse.

تفسير جامع البيان في تفسير القرآن/ الطبري (ت 310 هـ) مصنف و مدقق

https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=1&tSoraNo=3&tAyahNo=81&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1


Translated via ChatGPT:

“This means his great praise: “And remember, O people of the Book, when Allah took the covenant of the prophets,” meaning when Allah took the covenant of the prophets and their covenant: what they confirmed on themselves of obeying Allah in what He commanded them and forbade them. We have explained the origin of the covenant, and the different interpretations of it, including the sufficiency of it. “When I gave you the Book and the wisdom,” the readers differed in reading this, as most of the readers in the Hijaz and Iraq read it with a fatha on the “la” of “lamā.” However, they differed in reading “ātaytukum,” some of them reading it with a shaddah on the “tā,” indicating tawhid, and others reading it as “ātinakum,” indicating plural. Then, the Arab linguists differed when it was read as such. Some of the Basra grammarians said that the “laam” in the beginning of the speech with “mā” is the laam of initiation, like saying, “Zayd is better than you,” because “mā” is a noun and what follows it is a connection to it, and the “laam” in “lato’minunn bihi walatanşurunnahu” is the laam of division, as if he said, “By Allah, you will surely believe in him,” confirming it in the beginning and end of the speech, as is said, “By Allah, if you had come to me, it would have been like this and that,” and he may dispense with it, confirming it with the “laam” in the end of the speech, “lato’minunn bihi,” and he may dispense with it, making the news of “what I gave you of the Book and the wisdom,” “lato’minunn bihi,” like saying, “By Allah, I will not give Abdullah,” and if you want, you can make the news of “mā” “from the Book” mean, “When I gave you a book and wisdom,” and “mā” is surplus. Some of the Kufan grammarians made mistakes in all of this, and said that the “laam” that comes at the beginning of the parts is not answered with “mā” or “lā,” so it cannot be said to the one who stands up, “Do not follow him,” or to the one who stands up, “How beautiful.” When “mā” or “lā” occurs in its answer, it is known that the “laam” is not for emphasis, because it is placed in the position of “mā” and “lā,” so it is like the first one, and it is an answer to the first one.”

* تفسير الكشاف/ الزمخشري (ت 538 هـ) مصنف و مدقق

https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=2&tSoraNo=3&tAyahNo=81&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

Translated via ChatGPT:

“The Covenant of the Prophets” has more than one interpretation. The first is that the covenant was taken by the prophets themselves. The second is that the covenant was added to the prophets, meaning that the covenant was added to the one making it, not to the one receiving it, as in the case of the Covenant of God and the Covenant of God’s Promise. This implies that God took the covenant that the prophets had given to their people. The third interpretation is that the covenant refers to the children of the prophets, who are the Israelites, and that the appositive is removed. The fourth interpretation is that the covenant refers to the People of the Book and is intended to refute their claim that they are more deserving of prophecy than Muhammad, on the grounds that they are the People of the Book and some of them were prophets. This is indicated by the reading of Abu and Ibn Mas’ud, “And when Allah took the covenant of those who were given the Scripture.” The lam in “when I gave you” is a preposition indicating the meaning of the covenant as a pledge. In “so that you may believe,” the lam is a response to the oath. The word “ma” (what) could be taken as an implied condition, meaning that you will believe in him, and the response to the oath and condition is that you will believe in him. The word “ma” could also be interpreted as a noun, with the verbs “I gave you” and “he came to you” meaning the same thing as the nouns, and the lam serves to explain the meaning of Allah taking their covenant to believe in the Messenger and support him. This is because I gave you wisdom and the Messenger who commanded you to believe in him and support him is not in conflict with you. It is also possible to interpret “ma” as a conjunction, in which case it would be connected to the previous sentence. If you ask how this is possible, and how the phrase “then came to you” could be connected to the attribute, because you do not say to the one who came to you, “the Messenger who is faithful to what you have with you?” I would answer that this is because what you have with you is equivalent to what I gave you. Thus, it is as if it were said to the one who came to you, and to the Messenger who is faithful to him. Said ibn Jubayr read “when” with emphasis, meaning, “When I gave you some of the Book and Wisdom, and then the Messenger who is faithful to it came to you, you were obliged to believe in him and support him.” Some have said that the original is “from what,” and that they are burdened with the convergence of three mim letters, which are the mim and nun and…”

* تفسير مفاتيح الغيب ، التفسير الكبير/ الرازي (ت 606 هـ) مصنف و مدقق مرحلة اولى

https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=4&tSoraNo=3&tAyahNo=81&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

Translated via ChatGPT:

“I know that the purpose of these verses is to enumerate the known things among the people of the book, which indicates the prophethood of Muhammad, peace be upon him, and is a clear refutation of their excuses and stubbornness. Among these things is what Allah mentioned in this verse, which is that He took a covenant from the prophets to whom He gave the book and wisdom, that whenever a truthful messenger came to them, they would believe in him and support him. He informed that they accepted this and that Allah judged that whoever renounced this was among the corrupt. This is the meaning of the verse, and it can be concluded that Allah obliged all the prophets to believe in every messenger who came to them, confirming what they had, except that this one premise is not sufficient to prove the prophethood of Muhammad, peace be upon him, unless it is included with another premise, which is that Muhammad, peace be upon him, is the Messenger of Allah who came confirming what they had. Therefore, the speaker may say: “This is proof of the thing itself because it is proof that he is a messenger.” The answer is that the meaning of his being a messenger is the appearance of miracles on him, and then this question falls, and Allah knows best. Let us return to the interpretation of the words: as for His saying, “And when Allah took the covenant,” Ibn Jarir al-Tabari said that it means “O People of the Book, remember when Allah took the covenant of the prophets,” and al-Zajjaj said: “O Muhammad, remember in the Qur’an when Allah took the covenant of the prophets.” As for His saying, “the covenant of the prophets,” know that the source can be added to the subject and to the object. It is possible that the covenant was taken from them, and it is possible that it was taken for them from others. Therefore, they differed in interpreting this verse in these two ways. The first possibility is that Allah took the covenant from them that they would confirm each other, and this is the opinion of Said ibn Jubayr, al-Hasan, and Tawus, may Allah have mercy on them. It is also said that this covenant is specific to Muhammad, peace be upon him, and this is narrated from Ali, Ibn Abbas, Qatadah, and al-Suddi, may Allah be pleased with them. Those who hold this opinion have cited evidence for its validity from the following: the saying of Allah, “And when Allah took the covenant of the prophets,” which indicates that the one who took the covenant is Allah Almighty, and the subject of the verb is “prophets,” so it is possible that it was taken from them.”

* تفسير الجامع لاحكام القرآن/ القرطبي (ت 671 هـ) مصنف و مدقق

https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=5&tSoraNo=3&tAyahNo=81&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

Translated via ChatGPT:

“It is said: Allah took a covenant with the prophets that they would believe in each other and command some of them to have faith in others. This is the meaning of support through belief. This is the statement of Sa’id bin Jubayr, Qatadah, Tawus, Suddi and Hasan, and it is apparent in the verse. Tawus said: Allah took a covenant with the first of the prophets that they would believe in what the later ones brought. Ibn Masud recited: “And [recall] when Allah took the covenant of those who were given the Scripture.” Al-Kisa’i said: “It is possible that ‘And [recall] when Allah took the covenant of the prophets’ means ‘And [recall] when Allah took the covenant of those who were with the prophets.’ The Basris said: When Allah took the covenant of the prophets, He took the covenant of those who followed and believed in them. “Ma” in the phrase “Lama ataytukum” means “which”. Sibawayh said: I asked Khalil bin Ahmad about the saying of Allah: “And [recall] when Allah took the covenant of the prophets, [saying], “Whatever I give you of the Scripture and wisdom and then there comes to you a messenger confirming what is with you” and he said: “Lama” means “which”. An-Nahhas said: The meaning is according to the saying of Khalil, which is, “which I have given to you,” then the pronoun was omitted due to the length of the name. “Which” is in the nominative case, and its predicate is “of the scripture and wisdom”. “Min” is used to indicate the kind. This is like saying, “Zaid is better than you,” which is the saying of al-Akhfash that “lam” is a marker of the beginning. Al-Mahdawi said: “Then there came to you” and what follows it is a dependent clause, the subject of which is omitted and the meaning is “Then a messenger came to you, confirming what is with you, so that you would believe in him and support him.” The messenger here is Muhammad, peace be upon him, according to the statement of Ali and Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them. And even though the wording is indefinite, it refers to a particular person, like Allah’s saying: “And Allah presents an example of a city [i.e., Makkah], which was safe and secure” to His saying: “And there certainly came to them a messenger from among themselves, but they denied him.” [Surah An-Nahl 16:113]. So Allah took a covenant with all the prophets to believe in Muhammad.”

* تفسير تفسير القرآن العظيم/ ابن كثير (ت 774 هـ) مصنف و مدقق

https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=7&tSoraNo=3&tAyahNo=81&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

Translated via ChatGPT:

“The Most High informs that He took a covenant from every prophet that He sent, from Adam (peace be upon him) to Jesus (peace be upon him), that whoever among them receives any scripture or wisdom from God and reaches a certain level, and then a messenger comes to him after that to believe in him, support him, and not be prevented by the knowledge and prophethood of those who followed him. That is why the Almighty says, “And [recall, O People of the Scripture], when Allah took the covenant of the prophets, [saying], ‘Whatever I give you of the Scripture and wisdom and then there comes to you a messenger confirming what is with you, you [must] believe in him and support him.’ [Allah] said, ‘Have you acknowledged and taken upon that My commitment?’ They said, ‘We have acknowledged it.’ He said, ‘Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses'” (Quran 3:81). Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, Ar-Rabi’ bin Anas, Qatada, and As-Suddi said that this refers to the covenant. Muhammad ibn Ishaq said that the “commitment” here means the weight of the covenant, i.e., my strong and certain covenant. They said, “We have acknowledged it.” He said, “Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses.” Whoever turns away after that, they are the defiantly disobedient. Ali ibn Abi Talib, Ibn Abbas, Tawus, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, and Qatada said that Allah did not send a prophet of the prophets without taking a covenant from him that if Allah sends Muhammad while he is alive, he will believe in him, support him, and take a covenant with his nation that if Muhammad is sent while they are alive, they will believe in him and support him. Tawus, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, and Qatada said that Allah took a covenant from the prophets to believe in one another, and this does not contradict what Ali and Ibn Abbas said, nor does it deny it, but rather implies it. For this reason, Abdul-Razzaq narrated from Ma’mar, from Ibn Tawus, from his father, a saying similar to that of Ali and Ibn Abbas. Imam Ahmad said that Abdul-Razzaq informed us that Sufyan reported from Jabir, from Ash-Sha’bi, from Abdullah ibn Thabit, who said that Omar came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and said, “O Messenger of Allah, I passed by a Jewish brother of mine from Quraizah, so he wrote to me…”

* تفسير انوار التنزيل واسرار التأويل/ البيضاوي (ت 685 هـ) مصنف و مدقق

https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=6&tSoraNo=3&tAyahNo=81&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

Translated via ChatGPT:

“It is said that this verse means that the covenant was taken literally with the prophets, and if this is the case, then the nations should have been included. It is also said that it means that Allah took the covenant with the prophets and their nations, and mentioned them specifically rather than mentioning the nations. It is also said that the addition of the covenant to the prophets is an addition to the doer, and the meaning is that Allah took the covenant that the prophets had given to their nations. It is also said that the intended meaning is the children of the prophets, and they are the Children of Israel, or they were called prophets mockingly because they used to say, “We are more worthy of prophethood than Muhammad because we are the people of the Book and the prophets were from among us.” The “lam” in “Lama” is used to swear because taking the covenant is equivalent to an oath. “Lutuminu bihi” means “so that you may believe in him” and “LatanSurnuhu” means “so that you may support him”. Hamza recited “Lama” with a kasra, meaning that it is a verbal noun that means “for the purpose of giving you some of the book”, then a messenger came confirming what was with you, Allah took the covenant so that you may believe in him and support him. It is also recited with the meaning of “when I gave you”, or “for what I gave you”, and the original meaning is “for what”, which was assimilated by deleting one of the three mim letters to make it easier to pronounce. Nafi recited “Ataynakum” with a noon and an alef. “Akhadhna ala thalikum isri” means “We have taken upon ourselves the covenant”, and it is called that because it tightens, meaning that it binds. It is recited with a damma, and this is either a dialect like kibar and kubar, or it is the plural of isar, which means what is used to bind. They said, “We have acknowledged it.” He said, “Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses.” This means that some of you should bear witness to each other’s acknowledgment. It is also said that the address is to the angels. “And I am with you among the witnesses” means that I am also witnessing your acknowledgment and will testify.”

* تفسير فتح القدير/ الشوكاني (ت 1250 هـ) مصنف و مدقق

https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=9&tSoraNo=3&tAyahNo=81&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

Translated via ChatGPT:

“There have been different interpretations of the verse in which Allah says, “And [recall] when Allah took the covenant of the prophets.” Sa’id bin Jubayr, Qatadah, Tawus, Al-Hasan, and As-Suddi said that Allah took a covenant from the prophets that they would believe in what each other brought of faith and command each other with the scripture in that regard. This is the meaning of supporting and believing in each other, and it is apparent in the verse. Therefore, the conclusion is that Allah took the first covenant of the prophets to believe in what the other prophets brought and to support them. Al-Kisa’i said that the meaning of “And [recall] when Allah took the covenant of the prophets” could be understood as “And [recall] when Allah took the covenant of those who were with the prophets,” supported by Ibn Mas’ud’s reading, “And [recall] when Allah took the covenant of those who were given the scripture.” Some argued that this was a deletion in speech. The meaning would then be, “And [recall] when Allah took the covenant of the prophets so that you may teach people what has come to you of the Book and wisdom and so that you may compel people to believe.” This deletion is supported by Allah’s saying, “And you took, upon yourselves, My covenant” and “ma” in “what I gave you,” meaning “that which.” Seebawayh asked Al-Khalil about his saying, “And [recall] when Allah took the covenant of the prophets for what I gave you,” and Al-Khalil answered that “ma” means “that which.” An-Nahhas said that Al-Khalil’s statement means “that which I gave you,” and the “ha” was deleted because of the length of the name, and “lam” is the letter of the beginning. Al-Akhfash said that “ma” is in the nominative position and its predicate is from the Book and wisdom. Allah’s saying, “Then there came to you” and what follows is a clause related to the covenant, and the return is omitted, meaning that it is confirmed. Al-Mubarrad, Az-Zajjaj, and Al-Kisa’i said that “ma” is a conditional particle with “lam” meaning “let them believe in it,” the answer to the oath, which is taking the covenant, as it is a commission, as in saying “I took your covenant to do this and that.” It is the predicate and the consequence. Al-Kisa’i also said that the consequence is “whoever turns away.” In Al-Kashaf, “lam” in “what I gave you” is for preemption, and “lam” in “let them believe” is the answer to the oath. “Ma” may imply a conditional meaning. “Let them believe” is the predicate and consequence. The condition is complete.”

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