[Quran 46:15] We enjoined the human being to honor his parents. His mother bore him arduously, gave birth to him arduously, and took intimate care of him for thirty months. When he reaches maturity, and reaches the age of forty,* he should say, “My Lord, direct me to appreciate the blessings You have bestowed upon me and upon my parents, and to do the righteous works that please You. Let my children be righteous as well. I have repented to You; I am a submitter.”

[Quran 46:16] It is from these that we accept the righteous works, and overlook their sins. They have deserved Paradise. This is the truthful promise that is promised to them.

Footnote: *46:15 God knows full well who deserves to go to Heaven and who deserves to go to Hell. It is His law that whomever He puts to death before the age of 40 shall go to Heaven. God’s immense mercy is reflected in the fact that most people have difficulty accepting this divine mercy; they argue: “Put them in Hell!” See Appendix 32.

Many have contested Rashad Khalifa’s interpretation of the above verses that anyone who dies under 40 is forgiven. They argue it is not based on the Quran alone and is instead forcing this interpretation.

In this blog, we will show, God Willing, that there is sufficient Quranic indication within these verses that the age of 40 is indeed the age of decision whereby everyone who dies under 40 will be exempted from Hell.

Here are the indications in this verse:

Towards the end of 46:15, we notice the Arabic word “inni” (indeed), which is used as a summarizing emphasis. This verse ends with “Indeed, I have repented to you, I am a submitter”. This means, at the very least, Rashad accurately tied the age of 40 to the exceptional importance of repentance at that age compared to the younger ages. Any interpretation or extraction of information from this verse needs to account for why God *specifically* emphasized the age of 40 to asking for repentance.

When we dissect these two verses, we see in the 2nd verse that God accepts the righteous works and forgives those who when they reach the age of 40, they make a firm repentance to God and decisively Submit to God. So God is clearly assigning 40 as the age at which God expects a decisive spiritual declaration. Prior to this age, no such expectation is stated or even implied anywhere in the Quran. Anyone who claims to be Quran alone should recognize this. Where does the Quran say anyone under 40 is expected to decisively submit and repent? Literally nowhere. It is simply not stated anywhere, and the only verse that gives any age expectation is this one here. So, shall we pretend like this isn’t the case? How can anyone claiming to be Quran alone casually overlook this important fact? They clearly do not use the Quran as their judge and instead use their personal opinions/intuitions that God even expects a decisive declaration of submission and repentance under the age of 40 when no such verse declares this.

Therefore, those who reject this interpretation while claiming to be Quran-alone are not actually upholding the Quran as the judge but rather smuggling in their own intuitions to override the text. To imply that people under 40 are equally accountable despite the absence of any Quranic indication to that effect is to impose personal speculation onto God’s verses—ironically, the very accusation often made against Rashad.

This is also a testament that Rashad Khalifa was divinely inspired with knowledge to extract information contained within the Quran and gave the correct teachings. We were able to extract his conclusions on this verse purely from a Quran alone basis. The more we study the Quran, the more we find that God is indeed truthful when He promises that if we obey the messenger, we will be guided (24:54). All of Rashad’s teachings can be extracted from the Quran alone, and thus the only true Quran alone based religion is Submission. We see how non-submitters who claim to be “Quran alone” do not judge by the Quran alone as above and instead insert their own opinions/intuitions on the Quran to derive their conclusions and interpretations.

Based on the foregoing, the information we can reasonably extract from this verse is the following:

1. It identifies 40 as the age God expects you to decisively submit.
2. If the human being has not already submitted to God, then God expects him to do so when he reaches the age of 40.
3. A person who is younger than 40 and has submitted to God would do good, but the expectation on him to submit would not come into effect until he reaches 40.

School Tie Analogy:
(This analogy was adapted from a Quran-Islam blog)

Consider the example of a military school where all students in the school are required to wear a tie. However, this rule does not become compulsory until the students reach the 10th grade. All students in the 10th grade and above who do not wear a tie in school daily will be dishonorably discharged.

Let us now pause the following questions:

1- Will a student in the 8th or 9th grade, who does not wear a tie, be expelled? The answer is no.

2- Now let us consider the case of a student in the 8th grade who was taken out of school for health reasons and is not able to continue his education. Will this student be dishonorably discharged for not wearing a tie during the time he attended school? The answer again is no. This is because he never reached the 10th grade at which wearing a tie becomes an expectation.

The example of the school is not any different than the case in 46:15. The following are the facts in the school example and the corresponding facts in the case of 46:15

Reaching the 10th grade = the age of 40
Wearing a tie = submitting to God
Obligation to wear a tie = obligation to submit to God
Obligation effective from 10th grade = obligation effective from 40 years
Removed from school for health reasons = leaving this life because of death
Leaving school before the 10th grade is not punishable = leaving the world before 40 is not punishable.

All Praise be to God, Lord of the Universe.

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. And not all revisions, updates and/or complete abandonment of my views will necessarily be disclosed. Sometimes, I may even forget the specifics of what I wrote in earlier blogs–especially since I have written many private and public documentations of my thoughts–I do not always keep track of where I put these writings. Do not take this as another source or religious authority, but only a documentation of someone’s evolving thoughts. See the about this blog section. May God be pleased with my work and efforts. 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/SubmissionServer

[Quran 6:136] They even set aside a share of God’s provisions of crops and livestock, saying, “This share belongs to God,” according to their claims, “and this share belongs to our idols.” However, what was set aside for their idols never reached God, while the share they set aside for God invariably went to their idols. Miserable indeed is their judgment.

What is the wisdom behind the above verse? They dedicated a portion of their religious practice to other than God, but they also dedicated a portion of that religious practice to God. By doing this, nothing reached God–what they set aside to other than God never reached God, and what they set aside for God as well never reached God. This indicates dedicating a portion of your religious practice to other than God nullifies the whole practice.

This is why later on in the same chapter it reads:

[Quran 6:162] Say, “My Contact Prayers (Salat), my worship practices, my life and my death, are all devoted absolutely to God alone, the Lord of the universe.

Despite these clear Quranic warnings, the Sunnis and Shias have abandoned the Quran (25:30), and instead dedicated a portion of their Contact Prayers (Salat) to Muhammad and the believers. They begin the prayer speaking only to God with the Fatiha, they continue speaking to God and glorifying God throughout, until they get to the end of the second prostration, where they dedicate this portion to other than God. They call it the Tashahhud:

Transliteration: At-tahiyyatu Lillahi was-salawatu wat-tayyibat, As-salamu alayka ayyuhan-Nabiyyu wa rahmat-Allahi wa barakatuhu. As-salamualayna wa alaibadillah As-salihin. Ash-hadu allaa ilaha illallah wa ash-hadu anna Muhammadan `abduhu wa rasuluhu.

Translation: All greetings, prayers, and pure words are for God. Peace be upon you, O Prophet, and the mercy of God and His blessings. Peace be upon us and upon the righteous servants of God. I bear witness that there is no god except God, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and messenger

Source: https://islamqa.info/en/answers/98031/what-to-say-in-tashahhud

Right in the middle of their prayer, they decide to dedicate this portion of the prayer to talk to prophet Muhammad (“Peace be upon you, O Prophet) and then they dedicate a portion of the prayer to themselves and the servants of God (“Peace be upon us and upon the righteous servants of God). If you are not familiar with the Arabic, note, this is an unbiased translation by ChatGPT, and notice in the source link above, they translated it the same way. They speak to the prophet, and to themselves, right in the middle of the Salat that is supposed to be dedicated completely to God alone (6:162)!

Then in their final prostration, they recite the above statement, and add a second statement dedicating it to other than God by sending blessings to the Prophet, the Prophet’s family, Abraham and Abraham’s family.

The Shia prayer is even worse. They dedicate additional portions of their prayer to Ali, Hussein and Fatima, and send curses upon some of the companions they regard as hypocrites–right in the middle of their prayer that is supposed to be dedicated completely to God alone:

If you notice, his prayer has the same skeleton as the Sunni prayer, but he dedicates greater portions of this prayer to other than God. It should be noted that Sunnis too believe there is a degree of flexibility in what can be said during Salat–in the link I provided above, Sunnis have different versions of the Tashahud and they permit saying personal supplications in the prostration phase–you may send curses to others in this phase of your prayer according to Sunni Islam. In this Shia prayer, we notice at timestamp 3:23 he formally begins his prayer, recites Al-Fatiha, then he recites a chapter of the Quran, and when he bows (timestamp 4:17), he glorifies God, then he sends blessings to Muhammad and Muhammad’s family! He does it again when he prostrates (timestamp 4:32). Then after standing and reciting fatiha an Quran again, just before bowing he goes ahead and dedicates another portion of his Salat to other than God (timestamp 5:47)–this time to Muhammad, Fatima and her family, and then sends blessings to Hujjat ibn al-Hassan, and then glorifies God some more, prays for God’s curse upon some of the companions he considers evil, and glorifies God some more. And then in his Tashahud, he recites a different version of the Sunni one quoted above (timestamp 7:43), where he also speaks to the prophet directly and to the believers, and sends blessings upon them.

Is this prayer dedicated to God alone? What if he shortened his prayer, and only talked to Muhammad and sent blessings to Muhammad in only one part of his prayer–is it all of a sudden dedicated to God alone? Of course not. Sunnis obviously dedicate less of their prayer to other than God than Shias do–however, when you read the verse (6:136), it doesn’t matter how much is dedicated to God. Any portion of your religious practice, even if 1% dedicated to other than God, nullifies the entire practice. None of it reaches God.

And Notice how long and elaborate his prayer is. All of this to draw attention to himself, to appear more righteous–“Look at how reverent and righteous he is. His prayer is longer and displays great reverence and great glorifications of God–he loves the Prophet and his family; he loves God”. When in reality, he’s clowning around and repelling people from the Quran. Highly recommend you watch this video. This whole prayer is a mockery and it inadvertently repels people from the Quran (Christians, Jews, and those seeking pure monotheism who witness this would not consider anything related to the Quran a purely monotheistic religion given the dedication of the Sunni/Shia Salat to other than God). This is similar to what prophet Muhammad had to deal with during his time–the innovations the pagans have added to Abraham’s passed down practice (Salat) turned it into a Mockery and a means of repelling people:

[Quran 8:35] Their Contact Prayers (Salat) at the shrine (Ka’bah) were no more than a mockery and a means of repelling the people (by crowding them out). Therefore, suffer the retribution for your disbelief.

Notice how this verse informs us that the pagan Meccans who were at war with Muhammad had a Contact Prayer (Salat) at the Ka’bah. While the Arabic says “whistling and clapping”, this is an idiom to indicate their prayers are a mockery; a joke. Similar to saying they were “clowning around” in the modern English. It doesn’t mean they were literally dressed up as clowns dancing around. They have innovated in their prayers additions, new statements, and possibly dedications to other than God, effectively turning their prayers into a mockery.

We see the same thing happening with the Sunnis/Shias–they have abandoned the Quran as prophesied (25:30) by not having their religious practices dedicated to God alone despite the clear warnings and instructions in the Quran.

As a response to the corruptions that have entered the religion, God sent us a messenger after Muhammad to restore the religion, and confirm the Quran (3:81). This messenger removed all of this idolatry in the Salat, and purified it, so that it is completely dedicated to God alone. Never do we speak to other than God during our Salat, and never do we mention any other name than God’s in our Salat, and our Shahada is only about God, and nothing else. It is purified and completely dedicated to God alone. What is wrong with this message? If you are not satisfied with God alone religious practices–if you find this objectionable in any way, even if because it goes against your inherited practices–then your behavior is no different than those who disbelieved as documented in the Quran–they cannot get past their inherited practices to accept a new messenger of God, consequently, they continue to engage in their shirk (in your case, your shirk is dedicating a portion of your prayer to other than God). This is not at all acceptable. You are taking these Quranic warnings in vain, as if you never heard them, as if they are only tales from the past, not relevant to you.

All Praise be to God, Lord of the Universe.

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. And not all revisions, updates and/or complete abandonment of my views will necessarily be disclosed. Sometimes, I may even forget the specifics of what I wrote in earlier blogs–especially since I have written many private and public documentations of my thoughts–I do not always keep track of where I put these writings. Do not take this as another source or religious authority, but only a documentation of someone’s evolving thoughts. See the about this blog section. May God be pleased with my work and efforts. 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/SubmissionServer

I had recently encountered a series of posts on Reddit (AcademicQuran Subreddit) where they are trying to argue the Quran is stating mountains were placed as pegs from above the Earth. They used the following verses to support their conclusion:

[Quran 16:15] (word for word) And He has cast (alqa) in the earth firmly set mountains
[Quran 41:10] (word for word) And He placed therein mountains as anchors from above it (min fawqiha)

So they claim that the Quran is stating that the Earth is flat, and mountains were sent from the heavens to the earth to hold it down as pegs. In the same way you place pegs on a carpet from above the carpet itself. Ultimately, they argue that this reflects a flat-earth cosmology where mountains were sent down from the sky consistent with pre-modern beliefs.

However, when we look at verse 84:4, it uses the same word (alqa) as is used in verse 16:15.

[Quran 84:1-4] (word for word) When the sky is split asunder and has listened to its Lord and was obligated, and when the earth is spread and has cast out (alqa) what is in it and becomes empty.

Here this verse is talking about the end of the world, and describes the earth casting out (alqa) its contents. This indicates that this word alqa as used in verse 16:15 is referring to the mountains being formed from below, where the earth is casting its land upwards as we see with fold mountains, block mountains and volcanic mountains. In all cases, the earth’s crust is moved upwards from below. The usage of alqa here thus shows the specificity and carefulness of the Quran’s word usage. If the Quran meant to say that mountains were sent down from the heaven to the earth, it would have worded it similarly as it did with water just a few verses earlier:

[Quran 16:10] (word for word) He is the one who sends (anzalna) down from the heaven (sama) water for you

The fact that the Quran uses a different phrase when referring to mountains, specifically a word that is used in a different verse (84:4) to refer to earth casting out contents from below, is in and of itself a testament to the divine origin of the Quran. It is a scientific miracle. Mountains were indeed formed from below the earth rather than being sent down from above the earth. The specific terminology used to indicate this (alqa) and how it is made distinct from other objects actually sent down from the sky (anzalna) is a testament to the carefulness and specificity of the Quranic terms. If the Quran was truly written by 7th century people from the backwaters of Arabia who believed mountains came from the sky to be placed on earth, we would expect the same terminology as other places in the Quran which refers to things actually being sent down from the heaven (e.g water).

Furthermore, verse 41:10 by saying min fawqiha does not mean the source of the mountains are from above it. It just means the mountains are above the surface. In Classical Arabic, “min” is a versatile preposition with multiple uses beyond indicating source or origin. In many instances, “min” establishes the position or relation of one entity concerning another without denoting causation or source. Also grammatically, it wouldn’t make sense to say fawqiha without having a min before it in this phrase.

This just reflects another desperate attempt to prove the lack of divine authenticity of the Quran, and within this desperate attempt, we discover a new scientific miracle of the Quran. Of course, the Quran is definitely written in a way where it can be misused and easily misinterpreted–and this is by design as we have discussed in earlier blogs. The test of this life necessitate things to be this way in order to truly expose people’s inner convictions. Those who choose to disbelieve and reject God in their hearts will find exactly what they are looking for in the Quran. And those who choose to believe and accept God in their hearts will find exactly what they are looking for in the Quran.

All praise be to God.

Disclaimer: These blogs are not meant to be authoritative for Submission, but instead, informal documentation of my evolving thoughts. I do not claim ‘truth’ to anything I say or write, even if I currently feel like it is likely true based on my current reasoning and knowledge–anything and everything I say is subject to revision or complete abandonment of the theories/concepts/thoughts discussed in any of these blogs. And not all revisions, updates and/or complete abandonment of my views will necessarily be disclosed. Sometimes, I may even forget the specifics of what I wrote in earlier blogs–especially since I have written many private and public documentations of my thoughts–I do not always keep track of where I put these writings. Do not take this as another source or religious authority, but only a documentation of someone’s evolving thoughts. See the about this blog section. May God be pleased with my work and efforts. 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/SubmissionServer

[Quran 63:1] When the hypocrites come to you they say, “We bear witness that you are the messenger of God”. God  knows that you are His messenger, and God bears witness that the hypocrites are liars.

There are a few signs in this verse that God is using it as a sign to not include Muhammad in the Shahada. 

Sign 1: The only occurrence of this phrase:

It is no coincidence that the shahada (“La illaha Illa Allah”) is found many times in the Quran, repeated over and over again about 50 times, however, the one time and the only time, Muhammad is found in the shahada is the above verse and it is said by the hypocrites. What an interesting ‘coincidence’.

Indeed everything God does in the Quran is deliberate, and these serve as signs for the believers. Think of the wisdom of God’s decision to place the correct shahada (“La illaha illa Allah”) over 50 times throughout the Quran, but never once state (“muhammad rasulullah”) except in reference to the hypocrites. This is not a mere oversight–It is an intentional omission, indicating deliberate intent. Similarly, think of God’s wisdom in stating over and over again throughout the Quran that “God is sufficient as a witness” in reference to messengership?

Indeed, God, who knows the future, anticipated that the Muslims would fabricate this statement–and in response, He embedded these deliberate signs within the Quran to guide the sincere believers and to make clear that the inclusion of Muhammad’s name in the Shahada is not divinely sanctioned.

Sign 2: God will expose the hypocrites through the twist of their speech

God will expose the hypocrites to Muhammad: 

[Quran 29:11] God will most certainly distinguish those who believe, and He will most certainly expose the hypocrites.

God will expose the hypocrites through the way  of their speech: 

[Quran 47:30] If we will, we can expose them for you, so that you can recognize them just by looking at them. However, you can recognize them by the way (lahn لَحْنِ) they talk. God is fully aware of all your works.

This verse informs us that Muhammad cannot recognize hypocrites by the way they look, but he can recognize them through the way they talk. 

A deeper analysis of the Arabic term لَحْنِ (lahn) reveals that it means:  a distortion, incorrect words, deviation in speech, and/or obliqueness in speech that exposes one’s inner/true beliefs.

The term لَحْنِ (lahn) signifies subtleties in how people speak that expose their true nature. The verse suggests that while hypocrites may attempt to conceal their duplicity, their speech contains clues that expose them.

Further insights from Lane’s lexicon reveals lahn encompasses “a barbarism, an incorrect word”  thus the term describes a form of linguistic deviation such as using a word inappropriately. Another meaning of this word is a modulated sound–something distorted/deviated from the standardized norm. In other words, it means using words/phrases incorrectly from the way they are meant to be used, hence “bear witness that Muhammad is a messenger” is not an appropriate use of “bearing witness”.  

Stated more simply, God informs Muhammad that he can recognize the hypocrites by the twist of their speech. And verse 63:1 is one in which God exposed them as hypocrites to Muhammad by informing him that the hypocrite twist/lahn of their speech encompasses saying “we bear witness that you are God’s messenger”–this deviation in the manner of their speech (lahn), this twist of their speech beyond what is appropriate to say–this is the lahn of their speech that exposed them as hypocrites. 

Sign 3: God’s rebuttal

As a rebuttal to this twist of their speech, God replies “God knows you are His messenger”. This is a significant retort, and it is a sign that the statement they made was inappropriate and unnecessary. 

The rhetorical function of this response mirrors a familiar social dynamic. Imagine an individual with an inflated sense of self-importance—let’s say a pompous military officer—who declares, “I am Major Thompson, commander of the 3rd battalion.” A simple, “I know who you are,” would immediately deflate the overblown introduction, signaling that the speaker’s attempt to elevate themselves was inappropriate and unnecessary.

This retort from God serves to shut down the ones making the claim and inform them that their words are inappropriate and unnecessary. Why are you coming to the prophet offering him this lip service when you should be devoting yourselves to God alone and supporting the messenger with your actions instead of this lip service? God here is informing us that making such a statement is at least unnecessary, thus how can one assert that adding Muhammad to the Shahada is something God requires as one of the pillars of faith? This retort alone serves as further evidence that God is against integration of this phrase into the Shahada — which the Quran consistently upholds the Shahada to be a pure declaration of God’s oneness, without any additional names or qualifiers (e.g., Quran 3:18, 6:106, 7:158, 11:14, 13:30, 16:2, 20:14, 21:25, 37:35, 38:65, 39:45, 40:62, 47:19).

Ultimately, it is very clear that this retort “God knows” here indicates that bearing witness to Muhammad’s messengership is in fact unnecessary, related to hypocrisy and is not part of the divinely authorized shahada. The Quran asks the followers of Muhammad to know the veracity of his messages (47:2), but nowhere does it ask them, not even once, to publicly bear witness to his messengership, because God is enough of a witness that Muhammad is a messenger (e.g Quran 4:79, 6:19).” This phrase—that God is sufficient of a witness regarding prophethood— is similarly repeated over and over again throughout the Quran, serving as yet another sign that we are not supposed to be bearing witness to Muhammad’s messengership. 

Sign 4: God calls them liars

The Traditional Muslim interpretation: 

The traditional Muslim interpretation of the above verse is that God calls the hypocrites liars because they do not truly believe Muhammad is a messenger despite their verbal declaration. Indeed, one traditional Muslim relays the common argument they make: 

“Allah is condemning the hypocrites who claim that they believe Muhammed is Allah’s messenger but inwardly they didn’t believe so.”

However, “belief” is not what is stated here. If God meant ‘belie’f in verse 63:1, and meant to call them liars because they are claiming they believe something when they don’t, then the verse would have read “When the hypocrites come to you they say, “We believe that you are the messenger of God”, but this is not what was said–the verse instead quoted them saying “we bear witness that you are a messenger of God”, indicating God’s deliberate intent in associating the Muhammadean shahada with hypocrites. 

But, what is it about bearing witness (‘ashadu’) that the prophet is a messenger where God calls them liars? More on this below. 

You cannot bear witness to something you have not observed/witnessed:

The Quran informs us that Muhammad himself was not able to bear witness to a past event:

[Quran 28:44] You were not present on the slope of the western mount, when we issued the command to Moses; you were not a witness.*

That means, according to this verse, if Muhammad were to say “I bear witness to God issuing the command to Moses”, Muhammad would be a liar, this verse explicitly informs him “you were not a witness”. So how could he bear witness to this event? That would be in direct violation to that verse and a gross sin if he were to say “I bear witness” to this event. If God explicitly tells you that “you were not a witness”, how can you say “I bear witness” to it? Thus, this verse informs us directly that Muhammad cannot bear witness to these past events even though he obviously believes them. 

Similar to how Muhammad could not bear witness to a past event, even though he obviously believed it, we cannot bear witness to a past event even though we obviously believe it. 

Conclusion: Not being present to witness the event = you cannot bear witness to it. 

Each one of us bears the witness of  God’s existence 

All of us bear the witness of God’s existence as the supreme ruler of existence, with no partners. This is proven by the following verse: 

[Quran 7:172] Recall that your Lord summoned all the descendants of Adam, and had them bear witness for themselves: “Am I not your Lord?” They all said, “Yes. We bear witness.” Thus, you cannot say on the Day of Resurrection, “We were not aware of this.”

Notice how this verse explicitly informs us that we bear the witness that God is our Lord. In fact, even if you forget, it would still be a true statement for you to say “I bear witness that there is no God except God”–more on this below. 

Why is God calling them liars? 

This section will expose that the traditional Islamic understanding (of why God is calling them liars) cannot be true.  

Firstly, the correct understanding of why God is calling them liars is because they do not bear witness to Muhammad’s messengership–and they can’t even bear witness to Muhammad’s messengership even if they firmly believe Muhammad is a messenger. This is similar to how you cannot say that you witnessed a murder if you weren’t there to see it–even if you are certain the murder happened, you can’t say you witnessed it.  

Traditional Muslims claim that God called them liars because they bear witness to something, even though deep down, they don’t believe they witness Muhammad’s messengership. This can’t be true and here is a thought experiment explaining why: 

Suppose someone with Schizophrenia witnessed a murder, but they convinced themselves that they did not witness anything, and it was a hallucination. If they say “I witnessed the murder” in an attempt to lie, even if they didn’t believe they witnessed the murder, and believed it was only a dream or a fake experience–the fact is they witnessed the murder and it is caught on camera that they were a witness. So if they say in a court of law that “I witnessed the murder” even if they think they are lying, a court can’t call them a liar–the objective fact that is caught on camera is that they witnessed the murder exactly as they describe it. Belief is irrelevant. Did they witness the event? Yes. Did they claim to have witnessed the event? Yes. Then their claim is true and they did not lie even if they tried to lie–they failed at lying.

So if it is true (as Traditional Muslims claim) that the righteous contemporaries of the prophet were able to actually witness him as a messenger of God, saw him deliver God’s messages, and could actually bear witness to Muhammad being a messenger (ie. if bearing witness to Muhammad as a messenger of God is actually possible and a legitimate statement), then those hypocrites who witnessed Muhammad being a messenger of God but didn’t believe it would not be lying if they say they witness Muhammad is a messenger…Their disbelief does not negate the objective reality of their experiences, just as the schizophrenia example above demonstrate. Did they witness Muhammad being a messenger of God? Yes (given the above stipulations). Did they claim to have witnessed the event? Yes. Then in that case, EVEN IF they didn’t believe they witnessed Muhammad being a messenger, they objectively witnessed it – so they said what was true (they didn’t lie). They tried to lie, but they failed at lying. 

Similarly, even if disbelievers believe they didn’t see signs of God, they objectively saw signs of God, but they denied it. Look at verse 15:14-15, they would have objectively witnessed a sign from God, but instead they deny what they witnessed (“our eyes have been deceived”) like the schizophrenia example above.  That’s why the Quran says “they saw signs of God, but rejected it” (54:2), they objectively witnessed signs of God regardless of whether they believed these were signs or not. If they say “we saw signs of God” even though they reject those signs, it is still a true statement–they objectively saw the signs…Their denial of the signs does not change the fact that they objectively observed them.

So if witnessing divine signs of Muhammad’s messengership, and witnessing him acting as a messenger  is what it means to witness Muhammad being a messenger of God, then even disbelievers witnessed signs of God and witnessed Muhammad’s messengership–they just don’t believe they did. So if they say they witnessed these events, even if they don’t believe they did, they wouldn’t be lying because they objectively witnessed those events and said something that is true. Thus God (who is accurate in speech), would not say that they lied. 

Now, some traditional Muslims resort to redefining “bear witness” to mean “testimony”. Here is why even this doesn’t work logically: 

If you attempt to lie, but you accidentally tell the truth, then you cannot be said to have lied or been a liar in this instance…that just means you failed at lying. Suppose you thought David stole a wallet, but because you are David’s friend, you don’t want to snitch on him. When they ask you who stole the wallet, you say “I testify that Jack stole the wallet based on the evidence he has been scheming to steal the wallet”. Suppose it was found out later that indeed it was Jack who stole the wallet and Jack has been scheming to steal the wallet. You tried to lie, you thought David stole the wallet, and in trying to falsely accuse Jack, you actually correctly accused him, and you accidentally told the truth. Did you lie? Can we call you a liar in this instance? No. We can say you failed at lying–you tried, but you failed. Similarly, even if hypocrites were trying to lie and be dishonest when they testified to Muhammad being a messenger–you cannot say that they lied since Muhammad actually is a messenger. They testified to the truth, even if they tried to lie–they failed at it. God is accurate in His speech, and God would not utter something that is incorrect, thus God would say they have lied.

We’ve closed every loop. There’s no way for the traditional Muslims to be correct in their understanding of this matter. They cannot bear witness to Muhammad’s messengership–that is why God called them liars. A Shahada that includes Muhammad being a messenger is illegitimate. Humans do not have the capacity to witness divine appointments of messengership, we can only believe in it based on the evidence (we can witness to the evidence/truth, but not to the actual thing–similarly we can witness the evidence/truth that a murder happened, but we can’t say that we witnessed the actual murder). 

All Praise Be To God.

Disclaimer: These blogs are not meant to be authoritative for Submission, but instead, informal documentation of my evolving thoughts. I do not claim ‘truth’ to anything I say or write, even if I currently feel like it is likely true based on my current reasoning and knowledge–anything and everything I say is subject to revision or complete abandonment of the theories/concepts/thoughts discussed in any of these blogs. And not all revisions, updates and/or complete abandonment of my views will necessarily be disclosed. Sometimes, I may even forget the specifics of what I wrote in earlier blogs–especially since I have written many private and public documentations of my thoughts–I do not always keep track of where I put these writings. Do not take this as another source or religious authority, but only a documentation of someone’s evolving thoughts. See the about this blog section. May God be pleased with my work and efforts. 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/SubmissionServer

I’m only going to cite other things than what we already know and has been taught through Rashad. We already know the Quran informs us that Abraham is the one who received the contact prayers (not Muhammad), and the Quran informs us that Abraham received the rites (munasiq) of the religion. In fact, there is ZERO reference in the Quran to Muhammad that he has ever received the rites (munasiq) of the religion despite that term occurring 6 times in the Quran. And the Quran informs Muhammad to follow the religion of Abraham (which thus means Muhammad was commanded to follow the rites (munasiq) that were established at the time of Abraham (2:128).

However, there is another proof in the Quran that has been starting us in the face that prove to us that the contact prayers, the monotheistic one, existed prior to Muhammad.

In the order of revelation, it is widely attested in the tradition that the first chapter revealed to Muhammad is Surah 96 (Al-Alaq). Rashad verified that this is indeed true. It just so happens that Chapter 96 affirms a pre-existing monotheistic prayer:

[Quran 96:9] Have you seen the one who enjoins.
[Quran 96:10] Others from praying?

Here, God is rebuking those who prevent others from praying. Now this is the very first chapter revealed to Muhammad, and this verse is saying “have you seen” a group of people who discourage others from praying. Now, if this prayer was to Alat, Manat, Al-Uzzah (idols), it does not make sense for God to rebuke those who discourage others from praying to these idols. So this prayer must be a monotheistic prayer.

A minority position in the Islamic tradition is that the first revelation from God to Muhammad was chapter 74. As it turns out, this chapter has the same thing:

[Quran 74:40] While in Paradise, they will ask.
[Quran 74:41] About the guilty.
[Quran 74:42] “What brought you to this retribution?”
[Quran 74:43] They will say, “We did not observe the contact prayers (Salat).

This serves as additional evidence that the contact prayers was already a known thing, even if we accept the minority position that chapter 74 was the first revelation of God given to Muhammad.

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. And not all revisions, updates and/or complete abandonment of my views will necessarily be disclosed. Sometimes, I may even forget the specifics of what I wrote in earlier blogs–especially since I have written many private and public documentations of my thoughts–I do not always keep track of where I put these writings. Do not take this as another source or religious authority, but only a documentation of someone’s evolving thoughts. See the about this blog section. May God be pleased with my work and efforts. 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/SubmissionServer

Background Information:
As we know, ‘Hadith’ outside the Quran are condemned by name in verse 45:6 and 77:50. 45:6 specifically starts with “these are the verses of God we recite to you, then in what hadith after God and His verses do you accept”–rephrased, it is telling you ‘these are the verses of God, so which hadith after the verses of God will you accept”–basically telling you not to accept any other hadith than the revelations/verses of God! It unmistakably urges believers not to accept any hadith beyond the divine revelations. If it is only referring to the specific statements that came before verse 45:6, then it could have simply stated “then what after this do you accept?”, instead God specifically chose the word ‘hadith’ here, rather than a more neutral term, in a broad general statement, indicating a specific intent by God. Additionally, right after 45:6, the Quran reads “woe to every guilty fabricator”: a very interesting association with hadith, ‘almost’ as if God knew that Islam would be riddled with fabricated hadith and in anticipating this, embedded signs in the Quran for believers to recognize and be guided out of the corrupted form of Islam. This blog will examine additional signs regarding the usage of the word ‘hadith’ in the Quran.

The Quran is full of signs for the believers. Critically, when one recognizes that everything God does in the Quran is intentional and on purpose to serve as guidance for the believers, one picks up on several signs in the Quran that God has embedded. 

For example, the root of Rashad’s name (RSD) is in the Quran exactly 19 times. The full first name, “Rashad”, occurs in the Quran only twice (40:28, 40:38) and right in the middle of this (verse 40:34) is the ONLY time God discusses people assuming the previous messenger was the final messenger and God rebuking them severely and informing them that He abhors this and seals their heart as a consequence. This cannot be an accident from God–everything God puts in the Quran, including juxtapositions, is perfectly intentional and serves important purposes. The man who discovered Code 19, the root of his name is placed in the Quran by God exactly 19 times, and the one central issue people have with him (his declaration of messengership) is addressed right in the middle of the only 2 mentions of his first full name “Rashad”. God has clearly embedded signs in the Quran for the believers to pick up on and arrive at the right conclusion. Clearly just based on the 2 above signs, God is suggesting Rashad Khalifa is indeed a messenger as he claimed. 

Another example is the Shahada. Throughout the entire Quran, the Shahada is always “la illaha illa Allah” and nothing else. This is the shahada of the angels and the believers. Over and over again. However, one time, the hypocrites state their Shahada as “la illaha illa Allah, Muhammad rasool Allah” –this is the only time in the whole Quran where Muhammad is added to the shahada and it is stated by the hypocrites. Of all the times the Shahada is in the Quran, the ONLY time the false dual shahada occurs (with Muhammad added next to God’s name) is in the Quran only once and it is stated by the hypocrites–a sign for us that we should not be saying the dual shahada, and this sign was deliberately planted by God to confirm and serve as guidance for the believers. Again, everything God does in the Quran is intentional and purposeful. This is informing us that the Shahada of the believers is “la illaha illa Allah” (3:18) and we should not adopt the way of the hypocrites (adding “Muhammad rasool Allah” to it). 

Similarly, there is another huge sign that God has embedded in the Quran that is staring us in the face and this cannot be coincidental: The Quran is mentioned as the best hadith (39:23) and whenever ‘hadith’ is mentioned referring to the Quran, it is always in a context of religious legitimacy, however, whenever the word ‘hadith’ appears in the Quran to denote anything besides the Quran it is always used in a negative sense/connotation, a tone of strong disapproval and within a context of religious illegitimacy*.

*Notice the precision of my language–I’m not saying all occurrences of the good ‘hadith’ of God always occur in a positive context, I’m saying they are always associated with religious legitimacy (they are sometimes mentioned in a negative context when referring to those who reject God’s hadith-obviously). I am saying, however, that all occurrences of ‘hadith’ that refer to anything beside God’s hadith (Quran) are always used in a negative sense, in a tone of strong disapproval and in the context of religious illegitimacy. The connotative message sent here is clear: God’s hadith (Quran) is always associated with legitimacy, accepting God’s hadith is always associated with a positive undertone, rejecting God’s hadith (Quran) is always associated with a negative undertone, and any reference to ‘hadith’ beside the Quran is always associated with illegitimacy and with a negative undertone/context (with very crucial and significant exceptions that further advance the argument, as will be discussed below, God Willing).

Hadith (noun):

Good Hadiths:
Whenever the noun ‘hadith’ appears in the Quran in reference to God’s hadith (the Quran)–it is always within a context of religious legitimacy:

(4:78:36) ḥadīthan فَمَالِ هَٰؤُلَاءِ الْقَوْمِ لَا يَكَادُونَ يَفْقَهُونَ حَدِيثًا
(4:87:17) ḥadīthan وَمَنْ أَصْدَقُ مِنَ اللَّهِ حَدِيثًا
(18:6:10) l-ḥadīthi فَلَعَلَّكَ بَاخِعٌ نَفْسَكَ عَلَىٰ آثَارِهِمْ إِنْ لَمْ يُؤْمِنُوا بِهَٰذَا الْحَدِيثِ أَسَفًا
(23:44:15) aḥādītha فَأَتْبَعْنَا بَعْضَهُمْ بَعْضًا وَجَعَلْنَاهُمْ أَحَادِيثَ
(34:19:9) aḥādītha فَجَعَلْنَاهُمْ أَحَادِيثَ وَمَزَّقْنَاهُمْ كُلَّ مُمَزَّقٍ
(39:23:4) l-ḥadīthi اللَّهُ نَزَّلَ أَحْسَنَ الْحَدِيثِ كِتَابًا مُتَشَابِهًا مَثَانِيَ
(53:59:3) l-ḥadīthi أَفَمِنْ هَٰذَا الْحَدِيثِ تَعْجَبُونَ
(56:81:2) l-ḥadīthi أَفَبِهَٰذَا الْحَدِيثِ أَنْتُمْ مُدْهِنُونَ
(68:44:5) l-ḥadīthi فَذَرْنِي وَمَنْ يُكَذِّبُ بِهَٰذَا الْحَدِيثِ

**In Quran verse 4:78, the word ‘hadith’ is explicitly in reference to God’s hadith that was mentioned in the earlier context. Notice that these ‘hadith’ of God in the Quran cited in this verse is discussed in a religiously legitimate manner. Quran 23:44 and 34:19 refer to civilizations that were wiped out/forgotten and says that God made them ‘hadith’ (ie. God made them history, or narrations). This can be seen in either way – if these hadiths that God turned these nations into are God’s hadith that God is reciting in the Quran (ie God made them hadiths by wiping them out and then mentioning them in the Quran), then these hadiths are hadiths of God and religiously legitimate. If God made them hadiths or narrations of other people, then this is negative context of that word not only because those civilizations were destroyed and made into mere hadith, but also because these other people would invariably mix falsehood with truth when discussing the hadiths of these destroyed ancient civilizations. In either case, the argument here is unaffected: hadith narrated by God in the Quran is always associated with religious legitimacy, while hadith narrated beside the Quran is always associated with negative undertones and religious illegitimacy.

Also, the nominative noun ‘hadithu’, which means story, appears in five verses, all in form of questions–but these are still God’s hadiths that He is narrating in the Quran:

(20:9:3) ḥadīthu وَهَلْ أَتَاكَ حَدِيثُ مُوسَىٰ
(51:24:3) ḥadīthu هَلْ أَتَاكَ حَدِيثُ ضَيْفِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ الْمُكْرَمِينَ
(79:15:3) ḥadīthu هَلْ أَتَاكَ حَدِيثُ مُوسَىٰ
(85:17:3) ḥadīthu هَلْ أَتَاكَ حَدِيثُ الْجُنُودِ
(88:1:3) ḥadīthu هَلْ أَتَاكَ حَدِيثُ الْغَاشِيَةِ

Additionally, the word used here is ataka (أَتَاكَ) which means “[has there] come to you” but in the singular form–so it is speaking to stories that were given to Muhammad by God in the Quran, and it is clearly a rhetorical question. Critically, the immediate verses narrate those stories. Just to emphasize the previous point, it is only hadith outside of the Quran that is always in a negative context.

Bad Hadith:
Whenever the word ‘hadith’ appears in the Quran to denote anything besides the Quran – it is always used in a negative sense and in a tone of strong disapproval and in a context of religious illegitimacy.

(4:42:14) ḥadīthan يَوْمَئِذٍ يَوَدُّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا وَعَصَوُا الرَّسُولَ لَوْ تُسَوَّىٰ بِهِمُ الْأَرْضُ وَلَا يَكْتُمُونَ اللَّهَ حَدِيثًا
(4:140:21) ḥadīthin فَلَا تَقْعُدُوا مَعَهُمْ حَتَّىٰ يَخُوضُوا فِي حَدِيثٍ غَيْرِهِ
(6:68:12) ḥadīthin فَأَعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ حَتَّىٰ يَخُوضُوا فِي حَدِيثٍ غَيْرِهِ
(7:185:20) ḥadīthin فَبِأَيِّ حَدِيثٍ بَعْدَهُ يُؤْمِنُونَ
(12:111:10) ḥadīthan مَا كَانَ حَدِيثًا يُفْتَرَىٰ وَلَٰكِنْ تَصْدِيقَ الَّذِي بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ
(31:6:6) l-ḥadīthi وَمِنَ النَّاسِ مَنْ يَشْتَرِي لَهْوَ الْحَدِيثِ لِيُضِلَّ عَنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ
(33:53:26) liḥadīthin فَإِذَا طَعِمْتُمْ فَانْتَشِرُوا وَلَا مُسْتَأْنِسِينَ لِحَدِيثٍ
(45:6:8) ḥadīthin فَبِأَيِّ حَدِيثٍ بَعْدَ اللَّهِ وَآيَاتِهِ يُؤْمِنُونَ
(52:34:2) biḥadīthin فَلْيَأْتُوا بِحَدِيثٍ مِثْلِهِ إِنْ كَانُوا صَادِقِينَ
(66:3:7) ḥadīthan وَإِذْ أَسَرَّ النَّبِيُّ إِلَىٰ بَعْضِ أَزْوَاجِهِ حَدِيثًا
(77:50:2) ḥadīthin فَبِأَيِّ حَدِيثٍ بَعْدَهُ يُؤْمِنُونَ

**In Quran 4:140 and 6:68, the term Hadith is explicitly associated with those who mock and deride the religion (i.e. disbelievers, evil people). These verses instruct believers to distance themselves from these individuals until they engage in another hadith than this mocking hadith they were engaged in. In other words, this verse referred to their previous mocking/derisive speech as “hadith” and tells us to avoid these people until they switch to another hadith that isn’t mocking.  Additionally, this other hadith still carries a negative connotation because it is hadith that will be spoken by wicked people who were just mocking God. Even if they stop mocking, while it is permissible to continue speaking to them, their hadith still carries a negative connotation (in other words, a hadith from Hitler, even if he stopped the mocking, still carries a negative connotation). The term ‘hadith’ here is unmistakably framed within a negative context and is being tied directly to disbelievers and mockers, underscoring its association with those who reject faith and engage in destructive discourse (negative association). This further amplifies the negative connotation and association of Hadith in these verses.

The Arabic language is rich with connotations, and the choice of hadith in these verses indicate a specific intent. In many instances within the Quran, when discourse involves a theme of misleading or dishonest interactions, especially in a context of religious illegitimacy, the language used tends to carry a negative charge, and the root word for hadith was used to convey that negative charge. And never do we find the word hadith referring to something beyond the Quran used in a positive context or in a context of religious legitimacy (with some critical exceptions that further advance the argument, as discussed below). This is extremely telling, indicating a deliberate intent by God, and even more significant is the only two mentions of Muhammad’s hadiths specifically just so happen to be in the context of not seeking the hadith of Muhammad and not spreading the hadith of Muhammad respectively (33:53, 66:3). What an interesting coincidence? If this does not indicate a specific intent from God, then I don’t know what would.

The only two mentions of Muhammad’s Hadith:

Critically, there are only 2 mentions of ‘Hadith’ in the context of Muhammad and both of them are negative. In verse 33:53, the believers are told to not engage the prophet in Hadiths (paraphrased, “after you eat, leave immediately without waiting for hadith from Muhammad”) and 66:3 reports a case of God criticizing someone for transmitting Muhammad’s Hadith to others. Think about it: the ONLY (repeat: only) two mentions of extra-quranic hadith in the context of Muhammad are direct warnings—first, not to seek out hadith from Muhammad, and second, not to spread it! What an interesting “coincidence.” These warnings aren’t arbitrary; they are deliberate signs from God, embedded within the Quran for believers who reflect. God, in His infinite wisdom, strategically placed these signals to forewarn us of a future issue—the collection and exaltation of sayings in Muhammad’s name that would rival the pure, divine message of the Quran. By recognizing this pattern, one can see that the absence of any positive mention of Muhammad’s hadith, combined with the strict admonitions against seeking or spreading it, sends a clear message. This is not a coincidence. 

Why doesn’t God directly just say people will attribute hadith to Muhammad in the future and not to follow it? The answer is simple and echoed all throughout the Quran: God wants those who don’t deserve salvation (the wicked) to remain astray and misguided. Life is of course a test, and the test must be sufficiently difficult for the disbelievers to recognize God’s guidance while being sufficiently easy for the believers to recognize God’s guidance and signs within the Quran. This is echoed over and over again in the Quran (see verse 6:8-9, which in response to the disbelievers asking for a great sign such as sending Angels, God essentially tells them if He were to send angels the test would be nullified and they would not be respited, and if God were to send angels, He would send them in the form of a human and they would be just as confused as they are now!). This is God’s system–get used to it. God will present signs that are sufficient for believers to recognize, yet insufficient for disbelievers to accept. The Quran itself tells you this (also see verse 26:3-8 where God tells Muhammad that God can send a sign to the disbelievers that would force them all to believe, but He clearly doesn’t do this and instead cites a sign in nature in the Quran being a sufficient proof). The wicked must remain in opposition and remain misled, and they will witness God’s signs and not see them as signs–they would just dismiss them as coincidence, including the clear signs mentioned in this blog that simply cannot be a coincidence–all of it is placed there deliberately and intentionally by God. God never overlooks anything; God never makes mistakes; God never does anything unintentionally.

Crucial Exceptions: 

There is however, one exception…where a noun form of ‘hadith’ that is not the Quran is mentioned in a positive context. The genitive plural noun ‘al-ahadithi’, is the plural form of الْحَدِيثُ (al-Ḥadīth), which means “speech”, “narration” or “narrative.” This occurs in three instances, all in the chapter ‘Joseph’:

(12:6:7) l-aḥādīthi وَكَذَٰلِكَ يَجْتَبِيكَ رَبُّكَ وَيُعَلِّمُكَ مِنْ تَأْوِيلِ الْأَحَادِيثِ
(12:21:23) l-aḥādīthi وَكَذَٰلِكَ مَكَّنَّا لِيُوسُفَ فِي الْأَرْضِ وَلِنُعَلِّمَهُ مِنْ تَأْوِيلِ الْأَحَادِيثِ
(12:101:9) l-aḥādīthi رَبِّ قَدْ آتَيْتَنِي مِنَ الْمُلْكِ وَعَلَّمْتَنِي مِنْ تَأْوِيلِ الْأَحَادِيثِ

…however, it has to do with the interpretation of God’s hadiths (taweel ahadithi), particularly dreams inspired by God (wahi), which are subsequently interpreted by the messenger Joseph. These hadiths (when you read that chapter in context) are inspirations/dreams from God to select individuals. So Joseph is interpreting the hadiths of God. So even this one exception mentions a hadith directly from God, and the direct interpretation of these hadiths by a messenger of God. Joseph is an example of a messenger assigned with the role to explain and interpret the hadiths of God, mirroring Rashad Khalifa’s role of interpreting God’s hadith (interpreting the Quran).

This illustrates that a messenger’s interpretation of God’s hadith, such as the Quran, is indeed a legitimate aspect of his function. To summarize, the only instance where a noun form of ‘hadith’ is employed positively referring to something beside the Quran is in the context of Joseph’s authentic interpretation of God’s hadith/revelations. In stark contrast, all other mentions of hadith outside the Quran are framed within various negative contexts that suggest religious illegitimacy.

Other root forms of Hadith

What I found shocking is that the above phenomenon can be extended beyond just the noun forms of hadith, but even the other root forms of hadith display this phenomenon where ‘hadiths’ outside the Quran are mentioned in a negative connotation, the hadiths of God in the Quran in a religiously legitimate connotation, and exceptions to the rule pointing out other crucial functions of Rashad Khalifa. 

Verb (form II) – to report, to narrate:
(2:76:13) atuḥaddithūnahum أَتُحَدِّثُونَهُمْ بِمَا فَتَحَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْكُمْ لِيُحَاجُّوكُمْ بِهِ عِنْدَ رَبِّكُمْ
(93:11:4) faḥaddith وَأَمَّا بِنِعْمَةِ رَبِّكَ فَحَدِّثْ
(99:4:2) tuḥaddithuيَوْمَئِذٍ تُحَدِّثُ أَخْبَارَهَا

*Verse 2:76 – This still refers to God’s hadiths in the Quran. The word atuḥaddithūnahum is referring to the people of the scripture enjoining others narrating God’s hadiths from their scripture that is confirmed by the Quran. And of course, if these hadiths they are talking about are confirmed by the Quran–then those hadiths are mentioned in the Quran itself and thus this context refers to narrating parts of God’s hadiths (Quran and what the Quran confirms). Hence why this is used in a context of religious legitimacy. It is legitimate to narrate God’s hadiths of the previous scriptures that the Quran confirms in its own hadith. Rashad has done that, and so do many of the believers.

*Verse 93:11 refers to God’s Hadith and commands Muhammad to tell others of God’s favor upon him (by reciting the earlier verses which explicitly list God’s favors and guidance bestowed upon him–verse 93:6-8).

*Verse 99:4 mentions narrating news (akhbar) not narrating hadith by the Earth and the next verse emphasizes this news (akhbar) as being God’s direct revelation to the Earth. Also notice the word akhbar (news) is not given a negative connotation in the Quran like hadith, even when it is not referring to direct revelations from God (e.g. 27:7). So a messenger narrating news from the past as revealed by God is not given a negative connotation, and this is also what Rashad did. He narrated news from the past (see first part of Rashad’s appendix 24) to put into context the corruption that happened in the religion that he was sent to purify and restore. 

Verb (form IV) – to cause, to bring about:
(18:70:9) uḥ’ditha  فَلَا تَسْأَلْنِي عَنْ شَيْءٍ حَتَّىٰ أُحْدِثَ لَكَ مِنْهُ ذِكْرًا
(20:113:12) yuḥ’dithu  وَصَرَّفْنَا فِيهِ مِنَ الْوَعِيدِ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَّقُونَ أَوْ يُحْدِثُ لَهُمْ ذِكْرًا
(65:1:38) yuḥ’dithu  لَا تَدْرِي لَعَلَّ اللَّهَ يُحْدِثُ بَعْدَ ذَٰلِكَ أَمْرًا

*Verse 18:70 refers to an agent authorized by God (Al-Khidr, who is presumably an angel messenger of God) to bring about/present hidden knowledge (read this verse in context, keep reading until verse 82), specifically hidden divine knowledge known only to God and the Angels. As we know, Rashad discovered and revealed hidden knowledge of the Quran: Code 19, an embedded miracle in the Quran, and the year date of the end of the world which was hidden in the Quran that he brought out and presented.

*Verse 20:113 refer to God bringing something about

*Verse 65:1 refers to God bringing something about 

Passive participle (form IV) – anew, new
(21:2:7) muḥ’dathin مَا يَأْتِيهِمْ مِنْ ذِكْرٍ مِنْ رَبِّهِمْ مُحْدَثٍ إِلَّا اسْتَمَعُوهُ وَهُمْ يَلْعَبُونَ
(26:5:7) muḥ’dathin وَمَا يَأْتِيهِمْ مِنْ ذِكْرٍ مِنَ الرَّحْمَٰنِ مُحْدَثٍ إِلَّا كَانُوا عَنْهُ مُعْرِضِينَ

*This is a completely different word although it shares the same root/etymology. It does not have to do with hadith, narrating hadith or hadith outside of the Quran. No relevance to this blog. Regardless, in both of these cases, it is God who is performing this action. 

All the Exceptions support Rashad’s Role as a Messenger! 

As we’ve observed, the Quran consistently frames any reference to “hadith” outside of itself in a negative light—except for a few highly specific instances that directly align with the core functions of God’s Messenger of the Covenant. These exceptions include:

1. The interpretation of God’s hadith by a messenger (12:6, 12:21, 12:101)
2. The narration of past events by an agent/messenger of God (99:4)
3. The unveiling of hidden knowledge by a messenger of God (18:70).

Rashad Khalifa fulfilled all of these roles. He provided an interpretation of the Quran through a divinely authorized translation. He narrated past events, inspired to him by God, revealing the corruption of Islam over time to give us important historical context (see Rashad’s Appendix 24) and reaffirm the importance of purifying the religion back to a pure monotheism. Furthermore, he unveiled hidden knowledge, embedded deep in the Quran, in the form of Code 19, a mathematical miracle confirming the Quran and unveiled hidden knowledge from the Quran regarding the end of the world. 

It’s striking that the only exceptions are highly specific to ALL the core functions of God’s messenger of the covenant. This cannot be easily dismissed. These are not random occurrences; they are God’s tactically placed signs, intended for those who believe. This deliberate pattern serves as yet another clear sign that Rashad’s role was divinely ordained. They confirm the truth of the Submission and affirm the legitimacy of Rashad Khalifa’s mission and role. 

What about the hadith of the prophet (Muhammad)? 

There is no such thing of hadith that we can access directly from him outside of the Quran. Recall that the only root usage of the word hadith denoting information beside the Quran that is in a positive connotation refer to messengers of God directly interpreting God’s hadith, reciting God’s verses, directly narrating news from the past as revealed to them by God and directly unveiling hidden/secret knowledge. We have no direct information from the prophet beside the Quran itself. 

We have no direct information from the prophet. We have hadith of other people attributing statements to the prophet, but none are from the prophet himself. These are hadiths of other people about the prophet, and not from the prophet himself. And many western scholars are coming to the realization that these so-called Sahih Hadith are ‘unusually unreliable’ and more unreliable than other kinds of historical sources. Critically, the Quran only authorizes (as we have seen above) hadith directly from agents/messengers of God–directly from their mouth. God has deliberately chosen to not even once place a single positive connotation to even any root of ‘hadith’ that refers to an unauthorized transmitter of information. This is extremely telling. 

Even more damning is that with respect to Muhammad specifically, the only 2 mentions of ‘hadith’ of Muhammad beside the Quran itself is not only used in a negative context, but both of them are deliberately made by God to be a warning to (1) not seek the prophet’s hadith and (2) not spread the hadith of the prophet…God definitely knew what was going to happen, and even embedded these signs for us to recognize the truth of Submission and for us to know that our Lord is fully aware of the corruptions that will happen to Islam, anticipated them, and embedded signs for the believers to wake up and recognize.  

All praise be to God. 

Is it a coincidence? 

Is it a coincidence that the Quran consistently aligns its terminology, patterns, and numerical occurrences with divine precision? As we’ve observed, nothing in the Quran is arbitrary. The mathematical structure underpinning the revelation, the placement of specific names, and even the frequency of certain roots—such as the root of Rashad Khalifa’s name (19)—demonstrates that every detail serves a purpose. God deliberately does this to confirm these types of signs for us. This deliberate design leaves no room for random chance, especially when examining the Quran’s use of the word “hadith. Across the Quran, whenever the term “hadith” refers to sources outside the divine revelation, it is surrounded by a negative tone of condemnation or disapproval. The noun form specifically appears twenty times in negative contexts, emphasizing that extraneous narratives or teachings, particularly those presented as religious doctrines, are inherently flawed or misleading.

Indeed, God who knew that in the future the Muslims would defile their religion by upholding “Sahih Hadiths”, had condemned hadith by name in the Quran (45:6), informed us the Quran is the best hadith (39:23), not to uphold other hadith besides it (77:50), the Quran is fully detailed (6:114), Muhammad will say on the day of judgment that his followers have abandoned the Quran (25:30) and made it so that every mention of hadith beside the Quran, even the root forms, is always mentioned in a negative context with a tone of strong disapproval, with key exceptions, all of which support Rashad’s roles as a messenger. And as a cherry on top, the only 2 mentions of hadith of Muhammad beside the Quran are warnings against (1) seeking hadith from Muhammad and (2) spreading hadith of Muhammad.

If you seriously think all of this is a coincidence, do you even believe in God? If you believe this is God’s book, what exactly is your claim? That God just unintentionally had things work out like that. That it was something that God overlooked and it just so happened this way? It’s time to stop running away from the signs of God and pretending they don’t exist. Turn to God Alone and follow the only religion acceptable to Him: Submission.  

Addendum: shocking correlates!

This was noted by brother Shiki from the Discord server and I had not made these connections at the time of writing this blog above. Shiki noted something that just added a whole level of jaw drop when it comes to this ‘hadith’ finding of this blog. They add an entirely new layer of astonishment to the ‘hadith’ findings in this blog, and I am left in utter shock!

Let’s quickly revisit the three identified exceptions to the rule:

1. The interpretation of God’s hadith by a messenger (12:6, 12:21, 12:101), specifically Joseph
2. The unveiling of hidden knowledge by a messenger of God (18:70), specifically Al-Khidr
3. The narration of past events by an agent/messenger of God (99:4), specifically the planet Earth

• For (1), it was by Joseph who interpreted hadith, which explains why 40:34** mentions Joseph (in the context of Moses, who is also significant, see below)
• For (2), Al-Khidr was an angel. Moses discovered the angel Khidr and Rashad discovered the 19 angels
• For (3), its crazy because the Earth unveiling its news is a correlate to 27:82 , the creature made from the Earth unveiling its news from God

These correlates are shocking in and of themselves given these are the only exceptions to the rule above that have been identified. This adds another layer of evidence that God has indeed deliberately intended on these 3 cases being the only exceptions! By observing the thematic unity across these exceptions, we see a pattern that further validates the argument that God deliberately intended for these three cases specifically to be the only exceptions to the rule. The fact that they are so intricately tied to Rashad’s roles as a messenger leaves little room for doubt that these three were specifically chosen by God to stand apart!

**For those who are not aware, verse 40:34 is in between the only mentions of “Rashad” in the Quran, and this verse discusses God rebuking people for thinking the previous messenger to Moses (Joseph) was the final messenger–a perfect correlate for the biggest problem people have with Rashad (they think the previous messenger, Muhammad, was the final messenger). Regarding the 19 angels, verse 74:30-31 mentions 19 angels and Rashad discovered that their number served as a major indicator of the Quran’s numerical miracle, Code 19. Regarding 27:82, Rashad explained that this creature from the Earth that is prophesied to come in the future is the computer, which unveiled Code 19. Also the digits of this verse also sum up to 19 (2+7+8+2 = 19) verifying that this creature is indeed the computer and its function in unveiling Code 19.

This just adds layers upon layers of complexity and coding in God’s Quran to what we have already seen throughout the years. The same being who puts trillions of information in a compact microscopic cell in the DNA is the only one who can do the same to a book he’s authored.

All Praise be to God alone, the Lord of the universe!

Related Article:

God also condemns Shia Islam by name in the same way He condemned Hadith by name:

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. And not all revisions, updates and/or complete abandonment of my views will necessarily be disclosed. Sometimes, I may even forget the specifics of what I wrote in earlier blogs–especially since I have written many private and public documentations of my thoughts–I do not always keep track of where I put these writings. Do not take this as another source or religious authority, but only a documentation of someone’s evolving thoughts. See the about this blog section. May God be pleased with my work and efforts. 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/SubmissionServer

May God bless Shiki (from the Submission server) for these findings and bless us with more to whatever degree is good for us:

The root of Rashad is R-Sh-D
The root of Khalifah is Kh-L-F

In the 29 initialed chapters, these 6 letters occur 19x19x91
If you include ALL 9 letters, R-Sh-A-D-Kh-L-Y-F-H, you’ll get 19x77905

Verse 3:81 is the verse that prophecies the messenger of the covenant (Rashad Khalifa), a messenger coming after Muhammad to confirm the scriptures that the prophets received (including the Quran). Verse 72:27-28 is also a verse that when read in context informs us that Muhammad is commanded to say he does not know when the retribution will happen (read verse 72:25), then Muhammad is commanded to say that only God knows this and God does not reveal this information to anyone except to a messenger that He chooses. Thus, this messenger that He chooses cannot be Muhammad who was just commanded to say “I don’t know”, so it is discussing a messenger after Muhammad who God will reveal this information. The following are math miracles showing the critical relationship between these 2 verses that prophecy a messenger after Muhammad:

3:81 to 72:27-28 there are 19x292 verses.
The 9 letters R-Sh-A-D-Kh-L-Y-F-H occurs in these 3 verses 19x6 times (114)
And in the entire 19×292 range these 9 letters occur 19x7491
In chapter 72 alone, these 9 letters occur 19x32 times

One of the most heavily coded surahs when it comes to Rashad’s messengership is chapter 72. The most occurrences of the root word of Rashad (R-Sh-D) which occurs 19 times throughout the Quran occur in that chapter compared to the others. The crucial expression in verse 27 “only to a messenger that He chooses” has a value of 1919. And hugely, that same verse that mentions ‘only to a messenger that He chooses ends’ with “khalfihi rasada” as another sign/pointer to Rashad’s messengership, and the very next verse mentions that “God has counted the numbers of all things”, and the sum of digits of that in verse (72:28), which is also the final verse in that chapter is also (7+2+2+8 =19).

Even more astonishing is the deeper significance of this verse (72:27). The words of that verse when read literally mean: “Except for a messenger He chooses and He appoints reinforcements from the front and the back (min bayni yadayhi wamin khalfihi raṣada), and that phrase including “reinforcements from the back” (khalfihi rasada) is unmistakably the backwards resemblance of “Rashad Khalifa”. The phrase “reinforcements from the back” (khalfihi raṣada) itself serves as a direct literal reinforcement of Rashad Khalifa’s messengership using a backward linguistic resemblance. This deliberate and miraculous alignment is further emphasized by the numerical structure: the chapter number (72) is the backward reflection of the verse number (27), reinforcing the idea that this is no coincidence but a divinely orchestrated sign. Additionally, these signs (along with many others) were discovered after his passing (from the back of Rashad).

Put more simply, just as you have the order of 72 and 27 reversed in the verse and chapter number you have the order of the resemblance of Rashad Khalifa reversed in that exact verse.

While the root of Rashad (R-Sh-D) occurs 19 times in the Quran, the full first name “Rashad” occurs in only 2 verses, verse 40:29 and verse 40:38. The two “Rashad” mentions in the Quran in 40:29 and 40:38 are 19 multiples from the back and front of the chapter respectively. 19×3 verse from the back is 40:29 and 19×2 verse from the front is 40:38. One of the reasons why this pattern is significant is because if you recall in 72:27 what God says when read literally: “Except for an appointed messenger and he appoints reinforcements from the front and back”–in other words, from the front and the back of the “Rashads” (min bayni yadayhi wamin khalfihi raṣada) there is a math miracle 😉

(Another observation: there are 2 Rashads in the entire Quran, and in the front and the back of the 2, there is a math miracle. Take a look at the chapter and verse number of that verse 72:27. There is a 7 in front and the back (behind) the 2.)

There is even a back and front pattern when it comes to verse 72:28, which mentions that “God has counted the numbers of all things”. It was prophesied in verse 27:82 that in the future God will produce a creature from the Earth for humans to inform them they were not certain about God’s miracles/signs/revelations. That creature made from the Earth is the computer that was used to discover Code 19. Additionally, the sum of the digits of both verses add up to 19. Indeed, God has counted the numbers of all things including the digit sum of both of these verses.

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. And not all revisions, updates and/or complete abandonment of my views will necessarily be disclosed. Sometimes, I may even forget the specifics of what I wrote in earlier blogs–especially since I have written many private and public documentations of my thoughts–I do not always keep track of where I put these writings. Do not take this as another source or religious authority, but only a documentation of someone’s evolving thoughts. See the about this blog section. May God be pleased with my work and efforts. 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/SubmissionServer