Rashad Khalifa Fact Check

This demonstrates that Dr. Khalifa's math knowledge on chronological events. If we cannot trust him for basic math here then how can we trust him with the "math" of his "miraculous" claims?

Part three Tampering with word of God: The case of Marwan ibn Hakam

Marwan was no angel but his role in the "conspiracy" is baseless.

Part Four: Tampering with the word of God Ali and the “False verse” conspiracy

A look at the Ali and the other characters in Dr. Khalifa's silly conspiracy to add verses to the Qur'an.

Part Five The role of Zayd ibn Thahbit and Rashad's conspiracy

The alleged conspiracy to add the 2 "false" verses to Qur'an center on the character of Zayd.

Part Six: Hussain’s martyrdom according to Dr. Khalifa

Rashad’s plan to dominate the world

Rashad’s plan to dominate the world:

The United Islamic Nation of Dr. Rashad Khalifa.

Did you know that at one time Dr. Rashad Khalifa, Ph.D, had a plan to take over the world? (Yes, you heard me.) Before Dr. Khalifa was “Messenger of the Covenant” he was a self-proclaimed world leader. Dr. Rashad Khalifa announced the creation of the United Islamic Nation in September 1985 in his Muslim Perspective newsletter. This paper will give some historical perspective to Rashad’s now all but forgotten diabolical plans.

Dr. Rashad Khalifa announced the creation of the "United Islamic Nation" (UIN) on the front page of his September 1985 newsletter in big letters. The Arabic translation of UIN was written under the English to show how important he considered this proclamation. There are two issues of MP devoted to the UIN claims and we will go through each publication.

What sort of "islamic nation" was the UIN supposed to be? Did Dr. Khalifa want to model his country after the Islamic Republic of Iran? The subtitle reads "not sunni, not shia, only Muslim." We assume that by "only Muslim" Dr. Khalifa has in mind "Quran only" rejectors of tradition.

What would be the benefit of the UIN to Dr. Khalifa's readers? The second subtitle "Peace ** Love ** Freedom ** Prosperity ** Justice" Who would not want to live in such a country? How will these ideals be established?

Where will this "nation" be established? "***** From Morocco to Indonesia ***** From Nigeria to Turkey*****" reads the third subtitle. Does Dr. Khalifa have in mind "united nations" in a federal system? Or does he believe in a one world government? He repeats the claim on the second page that the government would extend from Morocco to Indonesia. Here we learn that it will be a federal government. But where would this federal government be based? ( We are sure the reader knows the answer already.)

What big promises from a rather miniscule individual. Dr. Khalifa is however confident in the establishment of the UIN for he writes in the subtitle of the first subsection: FUTURE GENERATIONS SHALL RECOGNIZE THIS AS: “THE TUCSON DECLARATION OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1985 (MUHARRAM 1, 1406)” Why does Dr. Khalifa say the Declaration was signed in Tucson Arizona? What declaration is he even talking about? Does he mean the September newsletter? ( Yes he does.) Dr. Khalifa does not say. But we know he holds Tucson important because that is where he happens to live. We can thus surmise Dr. Khalifa himself has something to do with the one world government!

"Only those who are blessed by Almighty God through reading and understanding the Qur’an’s mathematical miracle will appreciate the enormous significance of this historic announcement. All others will surely mock and scoff, and will surely suffer grave consequence as decreed in Qur’an:"

So how are we supposed to understand the creation of the so-called United Islamic Nation? Dr. Khalifa claims that only people who understand the "math miracle" can appreciate his government. Rashad rightly predicts that other people would mock him. But what does the math miracle have to do with the world government? Dr. Khalifa does not say.

But the faithful should not fear scorn: "The inevitable events will stun the scoffers as these Qur’anic projections unfold during the coming years. The truth is destined to prevail, while falsehood will vanish:" Dr. Khalifa wrote those words 35 years ago from our time of writing and so we wonder what inevitable events he has in mind. The rest of the front page of the UIN proclamation gives a "lesson" on the number 19 mathematical manipulations and numerology. Dr. Khalifa then reiterates on the second page that only people who understand the "miracle" would appreciate his government.

How do we know such a global Islamic government will come into being? A reader unfamiliar with Dr. Khalifa's claims may be baffled by reading the September 85 issue. By talking about the creation of a global Islamic state with such boldness, is Dr. Khalifa not proclaiming himself implicitly to being a prophet? Nay. " It is NOT we who foretelling the future. This declaration has been mathematically inscribed within the letters, words and verses of Qur’an." Dr. Khalifa says that the "proof" of his claims are in the Qur'an itself. But through the mathematical hermeneutics (manipulations) we can know it is true.

Here is a list of “facts” pertaining to the creation of the UIN according to Dr. Khalfia:

*** The UIN constitution is already in existence; it is the Qur’an, the whole Qur’an and nothing but the Qur’an.

Since when we can use the Qur’an as a state implemented “constitution”? Saudi Arabia claims the Qur’an to be their constitution but it is in name only. The Qur’an is a book of religious guidance. We believe the Qur’an does have guidance in government matters but it cannot suffice as a constitution for a viable state. The common phrase Dr. Khalifa says “the quran, whole quran and nothing but the Quran “ is a silly notion that is not based on the Qur’an itself.

*** All the laws are already written down in Qur’an, the whole Qur’an, and nothing but Qur’an.

The late Dr. Khalifa and his followers are lovers of the American system of government. They do not tend to have the world views of people in other islamic countries. Therefor we would ask them how they would derive the system of “checks and balances” and any system of democracy by simply reading the Qur’an?

*** The economic system, a perfect system, is spelled out in detail in Qur’an

What economic system is Dr. Khalifa talking about in the Qur’an? I agree that the Qur’an does have information to offer on ethical practices and dispelling economic injustice such as usury. But can we really derive a whole economic system by reading “the quran alone”?

*** WE WILL NEVER SEEK, NOR ADVOCATE, THE OVERTHROW OF ANY GOVERNMENT.

Dr. Khalifa made the last point in bigger front. He must have had fear the authorities would arrest him for these bold claims. Indeed we know that the FBI did look into him at one time of his life but this was probably based on his short stay in Libya (where he tried to con the Libyan people into his fake scientific agricultural ideas.) Dr. Khalifa wants to re-assure people that he has no desire to overthrow a government himself at least: “This matter (of overthrowing governments) is entirely in God’s hand; His invisible and invincible soldiers will control this matter according to Qur’anic projections.” I do not think that a government would be alarmed by Dr. Khalifa’s claims. But Dr. Khalifa’s is no longer displays good citizenship by implicitly advocating the overthrow of the government, even if it is through angels.

After reminding us that the islamic government would be world wide we are told it would also be constituted as federal. Then *** All Muslim countries in the region will sooner or later join UIN. Any government that rejects the invitation to establish God’s truth and join UIN will fall. Only governments that join will survive..” What does Dr. Khalifa mean by “Sooner or later”? Is this not also a bold claim? After all it has been 35 years and Dr. Khalifa’s spiritual heirs are no sooner close to establishing this so called UIN. There are several governments in the islamic world, all be-it corrupt, yet they are soundly in existence.

*** Every Muslim, anywhere in the world, who upholds the original unaltered Islam as preached by God’s final prophet Muhammad by following Qur’an, the whole Qur’an, and nothing but Qur’an, is automatically a member of UIN.

Thereby 99.99 percent of the world is excluded from the so-called UIN. Would Dr. Khalifa be willing to admit as citizens those who upload the Qur’an as the primary source of information and the hadith as secondary? No, because he has dismissed even that category of persons as idolaters!

*** Almost all present governments in the region will reject and scoff at this offer. Consequently, there will be a change of government in that region at the rate of at least three government every two years, until a government comes with the specific objective of joining UIN.

At times Dr. Khalifa can appear to be realistic. He says that all present governments in the region will reject the “offer.” That may appear to be correct because his claims are so ludicrous but he is wrong. No government rejected the offer. That is because no government knew about it or cared to address the “offer.” What offer does Dr. Khalifa have in mind? The claims are too incoherent to even be refuted.

Dr. Khalifa’s second bold claim is that “the rate of at least three government every two years, until a government comes with the specific objective of joining UIN.” Well when did three governments fall every two years in according with his criteria? How would we measure the progress towards the UIN ideal? How would we define a government “fall”?

*** The Islam being practiced in the region today has been severely distorted by traditions, innovations, and superstitions; it has nothing to do with true Islam. Upon joining UIN, the people of the new member state will be re-educated. The original Islam, as preached by Muhammad, will be re-established.

Dr. Khalifa claimed that today’s islam is not “True islam.” Very well but how does he define true islam? Dr. Khalifa must have been to quick to bring this peace to the publisher. He should have provided a quick definition of true islam and explained how it differentiates from “false” islam.

We wonder how Dr. Khalifa will “re-educate” people to his ideology. Perhaps by providing a copy of the “Final testament?” Dr. Khalifa must have been inspired by re-education prison camps in the communis world. Perhaps he will force people to sit through long winded “mathematical ” miracle demonstrations of the Qur’an.

*** All present-day idolatry throughout the Muslim world will be abolished and all shrines and tombs of saints and so-called saints, including the Prophet’s tomb in Medina, will be demolished. All mosques will be re-dedicated to the worship of GOD ALONE:

Why would Dr. Khalifa want to destroy tombs of saints? Can we find evidence for this decision in the “quran alone”? If not, then we have no business disturbing the dead for Dr. Khalifa’s misguided puritanical fundamentalism which mascaraed to some people (wrongly) as a liberal form of islam. If Dr. Khalifa or his followers want to tear down the prophet’s tomb in Medina then money should be raised for a bulldozers and an invitation to Dr. Khalifa’s followers to drive the bulldozer in Medina should be made.

*** THE ADVISORY BOARD OF UIN has already sent an invitation to every government in the UIN region, along with a copy of this Declaration.

Who determines the methodology of the “advisory board” to the UIN? Are they elected officials or those selected by Dr. Khalifa himself? We have no reason to believe that Dr. Khalifa sent out the “invitation” as he does not even tell us what the invitation was for. Are we to believe that Dr. Khalifa sent a copy of the “September newsletter” to world governments? In that case we would expect lawmakers with the best of intentions to reject the “invitation” “declaration” because it seems to juvenile and incoherent.

*** Any government that expresses serious interest in studying the projected federation will be provided with all needed information, along with incontrovertible proof of authenticity and divine source of this Declaration.

We wander what the “projected federation” documents for study would look like. I have a feeling it would be a number salad of meaningless numbers that appear as a “mathematical code” such as his other previous publications for so-called math miracle of the Qur’an. The “incontrovertible” proof can only be his 19 miracle.

*** The governments involved are in the following states: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Morocco, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda and the United Arab Emirates.

A list of islamic nations are given to state their “involvement” with the UIN. Did Dr. Khalifa publish this to soon for the press? In what way are all these governments involved in Dr. Khalifa’s enterprise? But we should ignore are skepticism for “*** Victory of the UNITED ISLAMIC NATION is absolutely guaranteed *** “

*** Because UIN will set a perfect example for the rest of the world, additional countries will join. Two stubborn corners will refuse to join, namely, USA & USSR (GOG & MAGOG). Just before the end of the world (1710 AH/2280 AD), the USA & USSR will try to crush the Islamic giant. That is when the horn will be blown, and the Day of Judgment will come to pass.

Dr. Khalifa contradicts himself with this assertion. Here, he says that USA and USSR will reject the UIN. We assume that the world islamic government will be composed by the Muslims nations listed above. But in the November 1986 issue of Muslim Perspectives Dr. Khalifa writes on the front page title “ARABS DISMISSED FROM GOD’S GRACE.” Why does Dr. Khalifa not define Gog and Magog as the arab nations then? It seems that by November 1986, Dr. Khalifa already forgot about his UIN claims (he doesn’t mention them after 1985.) and the things he previously said. Earlier Dr. Khalifa claimed that the basic islamic world would accept the UIN but by November 1986 he rejected Muslim world as well as candidates for anything.

*** An annual convention will be held by the UIN Advisory Board to review the progress of these events, and to confirm the Qur’an’s most exciting prophesies. Attendance at the conventions will be by invitation only.

*** The conventions will be held, God willing, as follows:

Muharram 1407 (September 5,6,& 7, 1986) in San Francisco.

Muharram 1408 (August 21, 22, &23, 1987) in Monte Carlo (Monaco).

Muharram 1409 (August 12, 13 & 14, 1988) in Sydney, Australia.

Dr. Khalifa lived for four years after the September 1985 issue. What “progress” did the advisory board to the UIN document? We challenge the Submtiter’s to publish this progress. It seem these “Advisory” boards are no more than Dr. Khalifa’s own submitter’s conventions.

Dr. Khalifa mentioned the UIN very rarely after the September 1985 issue. Rashad begam to focus on his claim to be Imam Mahdi but later morphed that messianic claim for that of the ‘Messenger of the covenant.” Today the followers of Dr. Khalifa like the Submitters and Edip Yuksel conveniently forget Dr. Khalifa’s initial claims. Dr. Khalifa’s statements are indeed embarrassing to his students. Rashad Khalifa thought of himself as a caliph such as Abu Bakr or Umar. But in reality his diabolical schemes make him more out to be like such sinister characters in films as Dr. Evil of Austin Powers or perhaps Olympus from the Cat in Outer Space.

Thursday, February 23, 2023

Muhammad Forbidden from Issuing Any Religious Teachings?

Muhammad Forbidden from Issuing Any Religious Teachings

An enquiry into Dr. Khalifa’s translation of 69:44

Dr. Rashad Khalifa and the Qur’an-only movement is well known to promote anti-hadith claims. What may be less known is that Dr. Khalifa and his followers went beyond simply alleging the falsity of hadith. They argue that anything outside of the Qur’an is false. From their point of view the Prophet Muhammad only received the Qur’an and the only purpose of the prophet’s mission was to deliver the holy writ. One of the arguments constructed against hadith was to argue the Prophet was forbidden from “issuing any religious teachings” based on a unique reading of Surah Haqq 69:44. Our purpose is to analyze Dr. Khalifa’s interpretation of the said verse.

The Final Testament, the translation of the Qur’an according to Dr. Khalifa has a number of unique claims. One of these claims is found in Surah Al Haqqah. The subtitle to 69:44-52 reads “Muhammad Forbidden from Issuing Any Religious Teachings.” Dr. Khalifa writes this above the verse in arabic Wa law taqawwala ʿalaynā baʿḍa l-aqāwīl which he translates to mean “ Had he uttered any other teachings.” The notion that the Prophet Muhammad was forbidden from teaching would sound puzzling to people unfamiliar with Dr. Khalifa’s claims. As early as 1985 Dr. Khalifa used the said verses in Surah Haqqah to proclaim “Qur’an is the only utterance by Muhammad to be upheld as THE ONLY SOURCE OF RELIGIOUS TEACHING” (Muslim Perspective May 1985, pg 3) Dr. Khalifa repeats this assertion in the appendix to the Qur’an entitled ‘Hadith and Sunnah: Satanic innovations’ where he states “The prophet Muhammad was enjoined, in very strong words, from issuing any religious teachings besides the Quran”(Appendix 19.) The translation of Dr. Khalifa is below:

[69:44] Had he uttered any other teachings.

[69:45] We would have punished him.

[69:46] We would have stopped the revelations to him.

The subtitle to the above verses is “Muhammad Forbidden from Issuing Any Religious Teachings.” Dr. Khalifa obviously wants us to understand the four verses above according to the subtitle. We are to understand that God is reassuring believers about limitations to the Prophet’s mission. If the Prophet stated “any other teachings” then God will punish him. God will also stop revelation to the Prophet because he uttered any other teachings, outside the Qur’an. So the only things the Prophet ever taught was the “Qur’an.” We can thus disregard any hadith that contradicts the Qur’an. (Dr. Khalifa tells us to dismiss all of the hadith anyways.)

What does it mean when Dr. Khalifa writes, per subtitle “Muhammad Forbidden from Issuing Any Religious Teachings”? Does he meant that the Prophet cannot teach anything, including Qur’an? Maybe Dr. Khalifa meant “any other teachings” as he translated 69:44. But in that case even a traditional Sunni-Shia would argue that all their hadiths are in line with the Qur’an and not “other teachings.” We will give Dr. Khalifa some leeway and assume the editor did not fix his poorly written English. Instead, we will take the subtitle to imply what he stated in appendix 19 and the May 1985 issue of his newsletter; that “only the Qur’an is a source of religious teaching.”

A comparative translation process will help us critique the Final Testament. “Had he uttered any other teachings” is how Dr. Khalifa translates the above verses. I will limit our analysis to three translations which include a popular modernist, a traditional and an orientalist. Here is Muhamad Asad :

69:44 Now if he [whom We have entrusted with it] had dared to attribute some [of his own] sayings unto Us

69:45 We would indeed have seized him by his right hand

69:46 and would indeed have cut his life-vein

Yusuf Ali:

69:44 And if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name

69:45 We should certainly seize him by his right hand

69:46 And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart

N.J Dawood:

69:44 Had he invented lies concerning Us

69:45 We would have seized him by the right hand

69:46 and severed his heart‘s vein

As we see above Dr. Khalifa has serious competition. The traditionalist, modernist and orientalist appear to be saying the same thing. Yet, they are saying something somewhat different from Dr. Khalifa. Let us summarize what we read. If the prophet lied against God then the prophet would have a consequence. The consequence would be a punishment in which the prophet is seized by the right hand and a life giving vain is cut. The punishment is more harsh than Dr. Khalifa’s translation. But more importantly the reason for the punishment is completely different. The majority of translations render the passage of 69:44 so that the reader is reassured by God that the prophet cannot lie. But Dr. Khalifa renders the passage so that the Prophet could not teach or apparently say anything outside of the Qur’an! Who is more correct?

At this point we need to look at each individual verse, starting with 69:44. “Teaching” is Rashad’s rendering of the word “taqawwala.” The arabic Taqawwala implies a verbal rendering of “words” in English. It would be like saying “ I am wording this document correctly.” Word-for-word Qur’an translations write “fabricate” which although correct in context( as we will see) is not the literal meaning of taqawwala. A literal word for word meaning of the verse 69:44 would be: “If he uttered anything against us..” The understanding of this passage that the Prophet is forbidding from making a lie against God is universally understood. Classic Tafsirs of Tafsir Ibn Abbas, Tafsir Jalalayn, Tafsir Qummi all have 69:44 taqawwala as meaning fabricate. Modern tafsirs including reformist and non-muslims also share view. I was unable to find an exception to this, outside of Dr. Khalifa. Even Edip Yuksel renders the passage, “Had he attributed anything falsely to Us.”(Reformist translation.) Moreover, the term “teaching” is found throughout the Qur’an but not in 69:44! So a layman who comes across this verse for the first time would conclude at the least that Dr. Khalifa was being very non-literal with his usage of terms. We will have more to say on “taqawalla” and “teaching” momentarily.

69:45 is rendered by Dr. Khalifa as “We would have punished him.” The other translations do not use the term punishment, a word that occurs many times in the Qur’an. Dr. Shenaz’s word for word translation (available on islam awakened.com) renders the passage “Certainly We (would) have seized him by the right hand.” There is no word for punishment in the literal translation, although it is certainly implied. To say that the Prophet would be punished is a fair assertion of what the verse is conveying. But why does Dr. Khalifa not translate the plain meaning of the passage ,that the prophet “would be sized by his right hand”? Is Dr. Khalifa worried about upsetting his followers with the actual quranic language? We will explore this question momentarily.

The next verse 69:46 is also rendered in an interesting way by Dr. Khalifa, “We would have stopped the revelations to him.” But our orientalist, modernist, traditionalist contingent stated something much more vivid, that the Prophet would have his life cut from him! Dr. Shenaz’s literal translation reads, “Then certainly We (would) have cut off from him the aorta.” To say that “revelation would stop” as Dr. Khalifa interprets is not completely wrong. But at the same time it is not a bad take of the verse!

If the prophet is killed by Allah s.w.t. then of course the divine revelations would stop! But the verse says NOTHING about divine revelations. The cessation of revelations would be a natural outflow of the prophet’s demise. Is this the point of the Qur’ans teaching that the prophet would be punished?(and for teaching?) If the prophet died, not only would revelation stop, but the prophet would not be able perform any worldly activity. So why did Dr. Khalfia write “revelations would stop” when he could have more correctly wrote the prophet’s life would end? Again, why did Dr. Khalifa choose to not give the plain meaning of the verse again? Was he also worried about his followers reaction here as well?

We can test how accurate Dr. Khalifa’s translation by examining it’s self-consistency. How does Dr. Khalifa render the verb “taqawwala” elsewhere? If Dr. Khalifa is correct in redarning “taqawwala” as “teaching” then we would expect it to be translated as such consistently, provided of course that it fits the appropriate the context. We find the verb taqawwala in one other place of the Qur’an;Surah Tur. This is Dr. Khalifa’s translation of 52:33 “Do they say, "He made it all up?" Instead, they are simply disbelievers.” So we see that Dr. Khalifa translates taqawalla as “made it all up.” This implies that the prophet would not lie. Translating surah Tur 52:33 to imply fabrication is consistent with what the other translators said on 69:44 but inconsistent with that Dr. Khalifa said on the same verse! Why did Dr. Khalifa choose to translate taqawalla in surah Tur as implying fabrication but translate the same word as “teaching” in surah al Haqqah? One would be hard-pressed to find a translation of Surah Tur:33 implying “teaching.”

Dr. Khalifa translates taqawalla as “teaching” in Surah Haqqah but as fabrication in Surah Tur. Why the inconsistency? Do we have any contextual reasons for the discrepancy in translating two verses? Let us briefly summarize the purport of each of the respective passages. The prophet Muhamamd faced many allegations during his 23 year career as a messenger of God. The idolaters denied his prophethood in the strongest terms. Surah 52:29 has the Prophet remind people that he is "neither a soothsayer, nor crazy." The Qur'an was responding to allegations that the prophet was not of sound mind and that he was performing some sort of magic on people. The disbelievers also accused him of being no more than a poet due to the beauty of the Qur'an recitation.( 52:30.) The Qur'an also mentions that the disbelievers advised each other to wait for the prophet's death (and the prophet challenged them to wait with him! 52:31.) As a respons to the idolaters allegations, the Qur'an asks them " Do they say, "He made it all up?"(52:33) The Qur'anic arabic uses the term "taqawlla" which Rashad translates as "made it all up. One could literally render the passage perhaps as "or do they say he said words.." but the literal wording here would not be correct to the context. Taqawalla has been understood here as fabricating something, or attribute words falsely to something just as it has for Surah Haqqah 44. The point is that Dr. Khalifa decided to translate "taqawwala" as fabricate in response to the allegations made against the prophet.

What is context of the passages in Surah Haqqah that we have been discussing? 69:40 has the quran tell us that Muhammad is an "honorable messenger." The next verses then tells us allegations made against the prophet, that he was a poet(69:41) and a soothsayer (69:42) The Qur'an counters these allegations by stating that it is a "revelation from the Lord of the universe"(69:43.) The Qur'an challenges the disbelievers assertions though in the next verse, If the prophet fabricated something against God (or merely taught outside re:Rashad) then would be punished (69:44-45.) Whatever the meaning of the next 3 verses (44-46) both Dr. Khalifa and the other translators see the verses in a response manner.

The context of for the usage of the arabic “taqawalla” in Surah Tur and in Surah Haqqah is similar. The Qur’an uses the term as part of a response to the allegations of the disbelievers. In both surahs the disbelievers allege that the prophet is poet or magician of sorts. The Qur’an responds to the allegations in Surah Tur by asking a question “Has he made it all up?” and in Surah Haqqah by issuing a challenge that if the prophet “made up” the revelations then the Prophet would be punished. So there is no contextual reason why Dr. Khalifa would provide two different translations of the same word. Dr. Khalifa’s translation is thus inconsistent and wrong.

Returning to 69:45-46, why did Dr. Khalifa refuse a translation with the plain meaning of the text? Let us summarize the verses. In response to the prophet engaging in the inappropriate action of 69:44( teach-Rashad, Fabricate-everyone else) the prophet would be sized by the right hand(69:45.) and have his life cut off (69:46.) But Dr. Khalifa only translates the two verses to say the Prophet would be punished (69:45) and revelation would be cut off(69:46) not his life! Why did Dr. Khalifa not want the readers to know serious consequences for the prophet should he complete the inappropriate action of ‘taqawalla’?

Most people would not have a problem with the Qur’an’s assertion that the Prophet would be killed if he attributes lies to God. In fact this challenge creates faith for believers because we can be assured that other claimants of divine authority would meet the same fate. ( We hold back from mention their names:) ) But if the threat was not fabrication but merely teaching something outside the Qur’an (which Rashad claims) then what do we make out of the meaning? Suppose the Qur’an said;” If the Prophet teaches something else( as Rashad claims per his translation) then We would seize him by the right hand and kill him.” Does it not seem harsh that God would kill a prophet so violently for merely teaching something outside the Qur’an? Dr. Khalifa knew that his own followers would cry injustice against God so in order to support his horrible translation of 69:44 he had to translate the next two verses in an equally horrible way. To create one crime, Dr. Khalifa had to commit two other crimes.

The claim that the Qur’an per 69:44 is forbidding the Prophet from “uttering any other teachings” is not completely incorrect against the actual Arabic. But this holds true only if this passage is read out of context. The notion that any other teachings are forbidden can be a valid implication from the plain meaning of 69:44. But the prohibition against other teachings would not be the actual meaning of the passage itself. In several of our other studies we pointed out how Dr. Khalifa uses language so loosely tied to the actual Arabic that it is difficult to even call it even “non-literal” or “correct.” Often, Dr. Khalifa would provide a translation based on a possible conclusion one could surmise from a verse but lacking in complete alignment with the plain meaning. In the context of the immediate passages of the Qur’an as well as other verses throughout the Qur’an, the notion that 69:44 prohibits “any other teaching” is problematic due to the inconsistency of translation and other divine assertions concerning the role of the Prophet.

Leaving aside the poorly written subtitle, we assume Dr. Khalifa has 69:44 imply the Qur’an is the “only source of religious teachings” (per what he said elsewhere.) We wonder the Prophet was able to teach and not able to teach according to Dr. Khalifa. Rashad could argue that Prophet was not allowed to teach anything because even in his translation the Prophet was ordered to “teach scripture” (2:151) meaning the Qur’an. Dr. Khalifa may argue that the Prophet was forbidden from teaching religious doctrines outside the Qur’an. But what does that mean? Would the prophet be prohibited from teaching basic ethics? A Qur’an only person may argue that the Prophet could teach anything that was “consistent” with the Qur’an. But how are we to define what is acceptable terms of consistency for Dr. Khalifa’s adherents? (Not even their translation is consistent!) If we say 69:44 implies such teachings forbidden that are outside of quranic notions such as reincarnation, blood atonement then that may solve the problem of Dr. Khalifa’s meaning temporarily at least.

So Dr. Khalifa may argue that the Prophet is only to teach Qur’an (not teach outside it.) But how according to Dr. Khalifa did the prophet “teach scripture”? The prophet was forbidden from being able to explain the Qur’an based on Dr. Khalifa’s own teachings and translation such as Surah 75:16-19. If Dr. Khalifa’s translation of the passages of Surah 75:16-19 and Surah 69:44-46 are both correct then we must conclude the following: The Prophet is forbidden from explaining the Qur’an and teaching anything outside the Qur’an. If the prophet was forbidden from teaching anything outside the Qur’an and explaining the Qur’an then what in the world was God ordered the prophet to teach?

Perhaps a student of Dr. Khalifa would argue that the Prophet was ordered to teach the Qur’an by recitation. In other words, the Prophet Muhammad was ordered to teach Qur’an recitation to people in the same way that the Qur’an was preserved by Muslims across the globe via oral tradition over 1400 years. A traditional rendering of Surah 75:16-19 implies that the Prophet received the Quranic revelation and the act of verbal recitation was paramount to the revelatory process. It would follow naturally then that the Prophet taught the Qur’an in the same way to the companions and so on. History records this. But Dr. Khalifa would not be able to make this argument either. In the first case Dr. Khalifa implicitly dismisses the Qur’ans verbal recitation as a means of preservation because it contradicts his FABRICATED notion that the Prophet wrote the Qur’an. ( We explained this in bulk in other places.) More importantly, there is no place in Dr. Khalifa’s own translation for the notion that the Prophet taught the Qur’an verbally. Dr. Khalifa rendered Surah 75:16-19 to imply that the Prophet was forbidden from explaining the Qur’an. Thus, there is nothing in Dr. Khalifa’s rendering of the 3 passages imply the possibility of Dr. Khalifa teaching the Qur’an even by recitation. Thus there is no Quranic basis for the Prophet to teach the Qur’an by recitation.

If the Prophet is unable to A) explain the Qur’an B) teach anything outside the Quran and C) teach recitation of the Qur’an, then what exactly was the prophet ordered to teach? Would Dr. Khalifa believe the Prophet “taught” the Qur’an by mere repetition of Quranic ayats? The mere repetition of words is not “teaching” by anyone’s definition. To end the discussion, Dr. Khalifa and his adherents assertion; that the Prophet is not able to explain the Qur’an; is incoherent.

As we saw, Dr. Khalifa's rendering of 69:44-47 is at odds with traditional tafsirs, liberal modern commentators and even some Qur'an only adherents who follow his mantle in one way or another. Dr. Khalifa's translation is up against giants and no we don't consider the Islamic clergy put on the turbaned pedestal to be beyond re-approach. It only takes a David to slay Goliath, provided it is done correctly. But Rashad bartered the sling-shot for the rubber band. Dr. Khalifa owed it to his readers why he diverged from the traditional interpretation here as well as elsewhere. Unfortunately, Rashad never provided an explanation as to how his rendering of taqawwal was better than the mainstream understanding. Perhaps, Dr. Khalifa's animosity towards the notion that the Prophet gave explanations of the Qur'an hindered Dr. Khalifa from giving his own.

Wednesday, February 22, 2023

Do not move your tongue to hasten it 75:16

“Do not move your tongue to hasten it.”

That “Muhammad Forbidden From Explaining the Quran” is the subtitle to verse 75:16 of Dr. Rashad Khalifa’s translation “The Final Testament.” Dr. Rashad Khalifa developed a couple of arguments to support his Qur’an only thesis. One of the arguments goes that the Prophet was forbidden from explaining the Qur’an. The argument was derived from Dr. Khalifa’s reading of verses 16-19 of Surah Qiyamah and some other passages as well. We will analyze Dr. Khalifa’s unique take of the passage from surah Qiyamah and compare it to traditional commentaries.

Tradition has often hindered the masses from reading the Qur’an. Scholars have long argued that the only interpretation acceptable is the one they themselves offered. Reformists of various stripes have long challenged this view by noting the fact that the Qur’an is a book for the masses and should not be limited to a small elite. People who subscribe to the Quran-alone movement developed unique arguments to try to defend the egalitarian nature of the Qur’anic understanding. One argument that was developed by Dr. Rashad Khalifa (and continues to be used by adherents and non-followers) is the notion that God forbid the Prophet from explaining the message of the Qur’an. If the traditionalist theologians argued that one could only understand the Qur’an by reading a hadith book then the counter-argument goes that the Qur’an prohibits using any sources to explain itself. Dr. Khalifa developed a couple of arguments along these lines. One of his arguments is based on Surah Qiyamah ,verses 16-19. Dr. Khalifa argued that the four verses make it clear that the Prophet was forbidden from explaining the Qur’an. A Dr. Khalifa student writes "He was commanded NOT to explain the Quran, and he followed that divine command." (Why should we follow Quran Alone? https://submission.org/Why_Quran_Alone.html)

[75:16] Do not move your tongue to hasten it. [75:17] It is we who will collect it into Quran. [75:18] Once we recite it, you shall follow such a Quran. [75:19] Then it is we who will explain it. (Rashad Khalifa trans.)

How do traditionalists understand these verses? Ibn Kathir, a popular 13^th century Tafsir writes the following: This is Allah teaching His Messenger how to receive the revelation from the angel. For verily, he (the Prophet ) was rushing in his attempts to grasp the revelation and he would be reciting the revelation with the angel while he was reciting it. Therefore, Allah commanded him that when the angel brings some revelation to him he should just listen. Allah would make sure to collect it in his chest, and He would make it easy for him to recite it in the same way that it was revealed to him. Allah would explain it, interpret it and clarify it for him. So the first phase was gathering it in his chest, the second phase was recitation and the third phase was its explanation and clarification of its meaning.” (https://www.alim.org/quran/tafsir/ibn-kathir/surah/75/16/)

Ibn Kathir understood the verses under discussion to be a description of how the Prophet received Quranic revelation. The tasfir surmised that when the Prophet initially received the Qur’anic verses from the Angel Jibrael that the prophet was tempted to rush to repeat the verses. The prophet believed that once he listened to Jibreal recite the Qur’an than he needed to repeat the verses right away lest he forget them. The Qur’an countered the Prophet’s assumption by telling him to listen to the Angel Jibrael, as opposed to rush to repeat the recitation (75:16) God assures the Prophet that God Himself is responsible for preserving it 75:17.) Ibn Kathir writes that this will be “collected” in the prophet’s “chest” meaning that God will enable the prophet to memorize the Qur’an. T Afterwards God would explain the Qur’an (75:19)

Ibn Kathir quotes a narration from Ibn Abas (from Ahmad’s musnad) concerning 75:19, “that the Messenger of Allah used to struggle very hard to grasp the revelation and he used to move his lips (rapidly with the recitation). The narrator, Sa`id, then said, "Ibn `Abbas said to me, `I will move my lips like the Messenger of Allah used to move his lips (in order to show you).''' Then, the subnarrator said, "And Sa`id said to me, `I will move my lips like I saw Ibn `Abbas moving his lips (in order to show you).” The traditions record that the Prophet would rush to recite the Qur’an and God via’ quranic revelation ordered the Prophet to cease that habit. Ibn Kathir also records that according to Bukhari and Muslim ,” "So whenever Jibril would come to him he would be silent, and when Jibril had left he would recite it just as Allah, the Mighty and Sublime had promised him.'' The Prophet learned to listen to the recitation from Jibrael and only after the angel left would he recite.

Dr. Rashad Khalifa has a very different understanding of the 4 verses from the traditional narrative we posed. When the Qur’an said “Do not move your tongue to hasten it” this was evidently referring to the Prophet’s desire to explain the Qur’an. In Dr. Khalifa’s view, when a verse was brought to the Prophet, he was tempted to explain the meaning right away. But this was prohibited to the prophet, according to Dr. Khalifa and his followers. They would perhaps argue that “It is we who collect it into the Qur’an” refers to a promise to the Prophet to answer the questions the prophet and the community had. (We are not trying to strawman Dr. Khalifa but simply ascertain what he would argue based on other assertions he made.)Dr. Khalifa would definitely however argue the verse “ Then it is we who will explain it” refers to a promise by God to explain the Qur’an. In this way there would be no need to rush to explain the Qur’an. That God ordered the prophet to not rush to speak the Qur’an and promised to explain the Qur’an, according to Dr. Khalifa , means that the Prophet is forbidden from explaining the Qur’an himself.

I tried to different commentaries on the above verses but most of them give an explanation along the lines of Ibn Kathir. I welcome Dr. Khalifa’’s attempts to provide a new understanding of the Qur’an. I do not consider it intellectually great to merely repeat traditional explanations of old. I am writing this so the reader will not get the impression that my goal is to defend “tradition” against the onslaught of radicals Qur’an only folks. We should follow the arguments where they lead. The question is who is more in line with what the Qur’an is saying?

Traditionalists and Dr. Khalifa both argue that the Surah Qiyamah in verses 16-19 are talking about the process of revelation. Traditionalists however say that the Prophet is being informed not to rush to repeat the Qur’an as quickly as it is revealed to him. Dr. Khalifa argues that the verses inform the Prophet to not explain the Qur’an. Traditionalists and Dr. Khalifa offer a very different understanding of the four verses in question. A traditionalist may argue that their understanding is better because they have the testimony of hadith, historical accounts of the Prophet’s experience and the agreement of the popular tafsirs. A quranists may argue that none of those items matter for understanding he Qur’an and we should just read the Qur’an alone.

Dr. Khalifa made a bold assertion on the meaning of the above verses from surah Qiyamah. But what does Dr. Khalifa have to say to counter the traditional narrative? Absolutely nothing. All Dr. Khalifa is offer a new interpretation he limits to a subtitle “Muhammad forbidden from explaining the Qur’an.” Why did not Dr. Khalifa try to offer a more comprehensive explanation? Does not Dr. Khalifa owe it to his followers? The weight of tradition is heavy. Because Dr. Khalifa hardly says anything we felt compelled to “strawman” by tying to see how he would argue things. The fact that Dr. Khalifa didn’t give a comprehensive answer is typical of his style as we have discussed in our other articles.

76:17“It is We who will collect the Qur’an” is a response to the command “Do not hasten your tongue” of 75:16. A traditionalist would argue that the meaning is the Prophet is ordered not to quickly repeat the Quranic revelation given to him because God has promised to protect it. Dr. Khalifa argues that 75:16 is not about repeating the Qur’an at all. For him, 75:16 orders the Prophet to not explain the Qur’an. A Quranist may offer 75:19 as proof of their assertion but how would Dr. Khalifa or any of his students argue the meaning of 75:16 in their line of thinking? If you are told; “do not explain the Qur’an, it is We who will preserve it” then how is our promise to preserve the Qur’an a response to our order not to explain it? Dr. Khalifa’s assertion does not make sense.

75:18 tells the Prophet “Once we recite it, you shall follow such a Quran.” The verse is understood by traditionalists and most people to mean that the Prophet listen to the angel recite the qur’an and then the prophet was to follow it by repeating the recitation. How does Dr. Khalifa understand this verse? His translation “follow such a quran” is somewhat puzzling. The arabic only says to follow the Qur’an. There is understood to be only one Qur’an we do not know why the word “such” was used by Dr. Khalifa. In any case, we cannot be sure how Dr. Khalifa understood the meaning. Did he understood it to mean to repeat the recitation (the way traditionalists held?) It is doubtful because it would not follow where he is leading. If Dr. Khalifa understood the verse to mean “obey the Quran” then that may bolster his case. We would however argue that this is not a good interpretation as it does not follow from the previous two verses.

“Then it is we who will explain it.” is taken as proof by Dr. Khalifa that only God explains the Qur’an. Therefor the Prophet is forbidden from doing so. But the fact that the Qur’an promises God will explain it does not necessitate God forbidding the prophet from providing an explanation. This claim by Quranists is not even logical. One cannot derive “Prophet forbidden” from explanation by the mere fact “God explains it.” That is equivalent to arguing “I explain the book”, thus “you are forbidden from explaining.” God explaining the Qur’an does not inhibit the Prophet, or anyone else from also explaining the Qur’an. The qur’anists may see verse 75:19 as following 75:16; “Do not hasten to explain.. it is We who will explain.” But the problem with that understanding is that it has to disregard verses 17 and 18 to make it work, or try to spin doctor them away.

The other problem with Dr. Khalifa’s interpretation is that it doesn’t follow from a pan-textual analysis. Surah Taha also discusses the subject mater of the Prophet reciting the qur’an. If Dr. Khalifa is right in that the command by God to the Prophet to not rush recitation somehow means the prophet is forbidden from explaining the Qur’an then we would expect to see that “explanation” (of the prophet being forbidden from explain) in all cases that make mention of the command. But when we turn to surah Taha we read ,” “[20:114] Most Exalted is GOD, the only true King. Do not rush into uttering the Quran before it is revealed to you, and say, "My Lord, increase my knowledge." One can check the context of Surah 20:114 and not find any mention of God explaining the Qur’an as part of the prophetic process. Surah Taha reassures the Prophet, just as Surah Qiyamah does; that the prophet should not rush recitation because God will protect the Qur’an.

Dr. Khalifa and his followers argue that the Qur’an is clear. They make the argument to avoid a need for explaining anything. But Dr. Khalifa’s assertion that the Prophet is forbidden from explaining the Qur’an does not appear to be clear from the Qur’an itself. The Qur’an says that the Prophet is assigned by God to teach the Quran (2:251) for example, and the Khalifa followers have the task to inform us how the Prophet is to teach the Qur’an without explaining it! It is ironic that the Quranists need to explain something that pertains to the Prophet being forbidden from explaining! If the Prophet is forbidden from explaining the Qur’an then why should the Quran-only followers even bother to try as well?

Perhaps the Quransits would argue that the Prophet in his role as “teacher” of the Qur’an was not about explaining the Qur’an. They could argue that his role was limited to reciting the Qur’an and telling them how to recite it. Ironically, Dr. Khalifa would NOT be able to use this argument either. The main verses that discuss the Prophet reciting the Qur’an are based on 75:16-19, which happen to be the ayats we are discussing here. The verses were traditionally understood to indicate how the Prophet was to learn Quranic recitation. Dr. Khalifa could have used the traditional explanation in Surah 75:16 to make a claim that teaching the Qur’an did not involve “explaining” the holy writ. But because Dr. Khalifa twisted the meaning of Surah 75:16-21 to indicate the Prophet was forbidden from explaining the Qur’an, he thus could not make that argument!

Traditional explanations should all be viewed with some skeptical enquiry. Traditional explanations are sometimes correct however just as radical new explanations are sometimes wrong. Dr. Khalifa may have been correct to challenge traditional interpretations in some ways but he was not infallible. No where does the Qur’an forbid the Prophet from explaining the Qur’an. Dr. Khalifa never bothered to make an explanation to oppose the traditional answer. There is no reason to take Dr. Khalifa’s assertions seriously. Traditional explanations should be critiqued when needed but Dr. Khalifa’s “challenge” can be disregarded here.