Talk:Rashad Khalifa

Untitled
The term Final Testament was in use in Islamic Dawa literature in early 1980s but may have been coined as early as the late 1970s

Bible Code
I think this page should be linked to the page on the Bible code since they both deal with finding messages in sacred texts based on numerical interpretations. &mdash; Hippietrail 23:45, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * If there was a page for Code 19 or whatever the best name for it is that should be linked to Bible code, but not the Khalifa main page. gren 6 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)

Bukhari
I have a question about this paragraph in the article:


 * The most famous collection of Hadiths, that of al-Bukhari, does indeed say that the verses were only present in one copy of the Sura existing at the time of the compilation of the Qu'ran.

What is the hadith number in Bukhari? I am aware of the following hadith in Bukhari vol. IV, no. 62


 * Zaid bin Thabit said, "When the Quran was compiled from various written manuscripts, one of the Verses of Surat Al-Ahzab was missing which I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting. I could not find it except with Khuzaima bin Thabjt Al-Ansari, whose witness Allah's Apostle regarded as equal to the witness of two men. And the Verse was:-- "Among the believers are men who have been true to what they covenanted with Allah." (33.23)

However, this hadith mentions the verse 33.23, not 9:128-129 that Rashad omitted. So what's the hadith number in Bukhari for 9:128-129?

By the way, regarding the above hadith in Bukhari, this was apparently before the Qur'an was compiled in one volume. Zaid was collecting the Qur'an in one volume. The hadith is not saying that only one person had written 33:23 but that Zaid only found it with one person in written form at that time. It's still possible that others wrote it but were away or Zaid didn't ask them. And how did Zaid even know that the verse was missing? Why was he looking for it? The hadith actually confirms that the verse was not "missing." He (and others) must have memorized it to look for it in written form. OneGuy 02:05, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are two hadiths. The first is the hadith regarding the collection of the Qur'an into a single volume by Zayd bin Thabit at the order of Abu Bakr. At that time, we have, (attributed to Zayd), "So I started locating the Qur'anic material and collecting it from parchments, scapula, leafstalks of date palms and from the memories of men. I found with Khuzayma two verses of Sura-at-Tawba which I had not found with anyone else," and then 9:128-129 are quoted. [Bukhari, VI, No. 201] The language of this hadith does not imply that Zayd was only looking for written materials. The second hadith is Bukhari, VI, No. 510, which is again attributed to Zayd, and the occasion was the compilation of the ^Uthmanic rescension some years later. My source is Dennfer, ^Ulum al-Qur'an," I have not confirmed the exact Bukhari references. [by Abd al-Rahman Lomax]

Major structural change to article
I have moved all "controversies" to the United Submitters International article. I feel that they belong there because they are controversies surrounding the beliefs of Submitters sect/cult/group, and not just Khalifa himself (though Khalifa was the founder of the group). --Zeno of Elea 28 June 2005 06:50 (UTC)

The word "sect" is inappropriate and is considered by us Quran Aloners to be an insult
Please refrain from using terms such as "sect" or "cult" in reference to Rashad or anyone of us. Thanku.

''Just thought I'd elaborate on this a bit. A good traslation in Arabic of "sect" would be "shi'a," and the Qur'an is, shall we say, rather negative about being "shi'a." Now, it could be argued that a group of people who hold a relatively uniform set of idiosyncratic ideas and who think those ideas superior to the ideas of others not members of the group is the very definition of "sect" -- it certainly is the Qur'anic usage. The above writer does identify with a group and clearly presumes a relatively uniform body of ideas held by it. But, yes, "sect" does imply a conclusion about this and is generally inappropriate in Wikipedia articles, unless the group accepts the term. And "Submitters" don't. "Group" is better. I'll note that instead of whining about someone else's mistakes on a wiki, it is appropriate to simply correct them. --Abd ulRahman Lomax''

Well, everything has been groupified. Days ago. Zora 5 July 2005 02:49 (UTC)

No, "shi'a" is not a bad word in the quran, its a great word:

''Verily Ibrahim was a Shia of Nuh” [Al-Quran Chapter 37 - Verse 83]

By the way, what does Quran say about rape? Or whait, forget rape, what about "manipulated the girl's breasts"?

--Striver 6 July 2005 02:41 (UTC)

Abd ulRahman Lomax: about "shi'a," it goes to show... words change meaning with context. Shi'a is indeed used in a negative sense in the book, referring to those who set themselves apart from others and consider themselves right and others wrong. But the word itself means "party," or "group of similar people," and that is how it is used, neutrally, at 37:83. Which could be better translated than what is above, the literal meaning is "and surely of his [Noah's]party [was] Abraham." To say that Abraham was a "shi'a" of Nuh would imply that Abraham was a partisan of Nuh, as distinct from other prophets or leaders, which was certainly not the case. Rather, God is telling us that Abraham and Nuh were of the same group, the group of the rightly guided. (end comment from ARL)

Khizar- These are all lies against Rashad Khalifa. This is an extract from Therefore these are false charges and they should be removed.
 * "Like Prophet Muhammed before him, who has been attacked on the Internet with all kinds of false accusations, Dr. Khalifa was also accused, by what seems to be a pre-arranged scheme, of sexual misconduct  with allegations that he adamantly denied. These allegations stemmed from the nature of a U. N. project he was conducting as a biochemist to study human body aura. His accusations, his denial and their insistence on repeating  it, were just more examples of how traditional Muslims fail to follow the Quran alone, as seen in their failure to follow  the commandments of God in the Quran in such circumstances.  This incident, however, did expose the hypocrites and their allies, who still sing the false accusations in their fading hope of diverting the people away from his  message of Quran ALONE, GOD ALONE. These accusations are no different from the accusations on the Internet of prophet Muhammed of sexual misconduct and abuse that can be seen on many  anti-Islamic sites. Such sites are all lies and meant to insult Islam (Submission) and the belief in ONE GOD and His book the Quran ALONE."


 * Look, if it was in the papers and he pleaded nolo, you can't just wish it away. It's a fact. I already added the bit that Striver left out, about Submitters claiming that this was religious persecution.

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax: Khalifa was charged with sexual offenses, and he pleaded no contest to at least one sexual offense. That's a fact. Interpretations of the fact are interpretations. What's the "false accusation?" My impression was that Khalifa pled no contest to a lesser offense; the original newspaper article presented a strong piece of evidence that an actual rape had not occurred. (end comment from ARL)


 * Do you have any proof re the existence of this UN project? Zora 6 July 2005 12:40 (UTC)

Khizar- This has all been well discussed at. Please go through that thread to see that these are false allegations. Edip Yuksel knew RK personally-- user:idmkhizar

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax: I also knew Khalifa personally, and a close friend became his devoted secretary. The incident is well-known among those who knew Khalifa, so I find it strange that Yuksel (see the URL) questions the newspaper clipping's authenticity. My information came, as I recall, from his secretary. Khalifa later pled, to my memory, no contest to charges lesser than rape. What actually happened? Was he actually guilty of some sexual impropriety? I don't know. But to attribute the incident to some kind of Sunni plot is nothing but sectarian fantasy, and reveals more about the mind-set of some of his "supporters" than about Khalifa or his enemies. I'll note that, if Khalifa was actually doing research on the human aura (weird as it may seem), he might have touched the woman's breast as part of this, so what he allegedly admitted to the police was not necessarily inconsistent with his story about the research. Khalifa *did* do research for the U.N., but about food chemistry, his specialty was the conversion of petroleum into food. My recollection is that the U.N. reprimanded him after this incident, but I don't recall specific details. Why did he plead no contest instead of not guilty, if he was not guilty? Well, Khalifa was what I would call, technically, paranoid. He may have believed that "they" were out to get him, and "they" were powerful, he could not get a fair trial. So he was offered a plea bargain, and he took it. As Yuksel correctly points out, had the prosecutor actually believed he was guilty of the rape of a minor, if there was evidence to prove this in U.S. court (where the 4-witness requirement is moot), Khalifa would not have been let off with a slap on the wrist. Khizar cries "false allegations," but the newspaper article was real, and there really were charges filed against Khalifa, and he really did plead no contest. What's the lie? What does this incident prove? Not much. It is pretty easy to derive from it that Khalifa was a human being and not perfect. But he did not claim otherwise. I think Khalifa was seriously mistaken about the significance of what he found, but the "rape" story is a great distraction from the facts about his "message." (end comment from ARL)

The Image
I think we need to find a better image or remove the 19.org information from it. Encyclopedias should not have "courtesy of 19.org" on the pages. I am also not sure what the courtesy is, meaning, how it was licensed to wikipedia and under what conditions, but I think the advertising (more or less) shouldn't be here. gren 6 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)

Relevance of the Tucson Citizen newspaper article?
Are the misdemeanors of people, especially where they are based on potentially BIASED newspaper articles really of relevance in an encyclopedia?

Would an entry on Bill Clinton say he smoked marijuana but did not inhale? Or that George Bush sniffed cocaine in his youth?

I think that the section on the newspaper article which has been used by Sunni sects as a slur on Rashad's character is inappropriate on this page and displays a lack of regard to neutral point of view.

Salam!

That is your pov. You could qoute other sources that explains why the newspaper is biased and wrong.

ma salam.

--Striver 7 July 2005 10:06 (UTC)

I did a little copyediting, to make the article flow better. I also re-added the bit re Rashad claiming to be a divine messenger. If Submitters are going to claim that the rape charges were religious persecution, readers should know why mainstream Muslims found him so outrageous. Zora 7 July 2005 10:25 (UTC)

Latest edits
An anon -- one of the Submitters, no doubt -- changed mosque to masjid, added verbose wording for Khalifa's claims, and added a claim that the attack on Khalifa was done by an Al-Qaeda-linked group and was an instance of terrorist action.

I trimmed the verbosity, changed masjid back to mosque in one instance (there is nothing wrong with using the word mosque! it's comprehensible, which masjid is not), and deleted the claim to be a victim of Al-Qaeda. Disgusting ploy, especially at THIS time. Zora 7 July 2005 12:15 (UTC)

Khizar- The term 'masjid' in Arabic means 'place of submission'. Mosque is a wetsern invented word. We Quran Alone Muslims dont like that term. If you want you can say 'place of submission' but not mosque since that would link us to sunnis and shais who are bent on named terminologies which we dont. -- user:idmkhizar

What is truly DISGUSTING Zora
Zora - the mosque reference is fine, just wanted to make it clear that the name of the mosque which is significant in this instance.

Also the wording is quite clear in that it says 'thought' to be linked. Surely a group "Al-Fuqra" that assassinates an individual for religious 'crime' is an instance of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism and belongs in the same grouping as Al_Qaeda.

Are you claiming that Al-Fuqra's assassination was NOT DISGUSTING??

Are you saying it's OK to kill a man for his religious convictions/ideas? That my dear is DISGUSTING.


 * Use your username, or take one. Sign your communications and edits. Don't call me "my dear". I may be female, but I won't be patronized. No, I'm not saying that violence or murder is OK. I'm saying that trying to win sympathy for your group by playing on the "terrorism" motif is manipulative. Zora 7 July 2005 14:45 (UTC)

Latest
umm... Zora, i found the lates editin to be informative... cant it be included in some manner we all can enjoy?

--Striver 7 July 2005 13:30 (UTC)

I totally agree with you striver -- user:idmkhizar

This is unbelievable! Ragib's pov compared to Anon's edit will clearly prove that it is Ragib's edit that commits vandalism. Trying to create sensationalism and throwing "dirt" because of inability to confront new ideas is a legacy reformers have had to face since the days of Copernicus and Darwin. And what kind of mafia style anti-democratic "protection" is this in Wiki? Shocking. -- user:H.yahya


 * I hardly have any stake at the feud between the submitters and the anti-submitters. The removal of referenced information constitutes vandalism. And for dealing with vandalism, articles some times need protection. Please come up with information that shows Mr. Khalifa was acquitted. This report shows otherwise (i.e. he plead "no contest"), unless you provide something that shows the report as wrong, this report and the information should stay here. Thanks. --Ragib 09:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you have only referenced a tabloid allegation. A person pleading "no contest" is not necessarily guilty. If these charges were found to be a fact, why wasn't there any conviction? Can you provide actual legal testimony of the court hearings or are you just referencing tabloid journalism? Since YOU have referenced the allegation, and YOU claim to be "neutral", it is upto YOU to either also reference the court acquittal or not refernce the allegation alone. The press love to make sensational accusations but rarely publish the subsequent "boring" acquittals and court judgements. The burden of proof is on those who make sensational accusations-- user:H.yahya


 * But the article doesn't say that Rashid was guilty. It just says that he was charged, that he made certain admissions, he pled Nolo Contendere. The narrative is quite dry and not at all biased, IMHO. The reader can draw what conclusions he or she pleases. This is what Wikipedia should be doing, and we won't let interested parties suppress information. Zora 09:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * , Please clear up your logic, and read the article. It clearly states Mr. Khalifa plead "No contest". It does not state he is guilty. It would have been an accusation without proof had the article stated he was guilty, but I just re-read the text, and failed to find any such assertion. The text as it is there now, stated that Mr. Khalifa was accused of a crime, and that he plead no contest. The allegation is not an assertion of his guilt. The two facts are referenced, and thereby mentioned. Any assertion of his acquittal, backed by a reference are always welcome. Right now, the article states two items that are backed by a reference (and it does NOT imply his guilt, as you assert). So, read the article again, and add a link to any references showing his acquittal. Facts are always welcome in Wikipedia. Thanks. --Ragib 09:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

recent vandalism
Tucson Citizen is hardly a tabloid. Scanned copies of the news article are on the net. Also, the name of the terrorist group that allegedly killed Mr. Khalifa is Al-Fuqra. So, I'd suggest the anon editors (from 61.247.255.* ) to stop vandalizing the article. Thanks. --Ragib 09:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Scanned copies of Hugh Grant and Elizabeth Hurley articles are also available on the net. Doesn't make it "true". Tucson Citizen is indeed a tabloid if its printing sensationalist views without getting both ends of the story. I suggest you remove the anti-democratic "protectionism" and refrain from vandalism -- user:H.yahya


 * As I said, show us the proof that Mr. Khalifa was acquitted, because proofs to the contrary are presented. There is no problem in adding the "other side" with proper references. The protection is against vandalism. Thanks. --Ragib 09:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on those who make sensational accusations. -- user:H.yahya

USN website
Ahmad, the USN website seems to have no connection with information related to Rashad.

The longwinded connection seems to be: 1. Rashad is linked to Islam => 2. Islam linked to USN = 3. Therefore, USN linked to Rashad.

If this is how external links are supposed to be included, then, each and every website related to Islam should also be added to each and every Islam related Wiki page. I have removed the link. If you feel there is a clear reason to add the USN page please mention it. Regards-- user:H.yahya


 * Maybe our Ahmad is the same Ahmad Nishitoba who wrote those pages. He seems have a rather high opinion of himself . I agree the link is inappropriate.  --Zero 12:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

- Rashad Khalifa purified Submission by God's leave, to prepare the way for the advent of the kingdom of Heaven. Ahmad Nishitoba, the messenger of God, through the USN website introduces how exactly the great prophecy is going to materialize. Unless you have sufficient knowledge of the website (and not guesswork, i.e "seems to have"), do not remove the link. Ahmad

_ The website of Ahmad Nishitoba, USN, is an important resource for the sincere ones who eant to know more about the great prophecy and the Kingdom of God. The proof presented by Ahmad Nishitoba are incontrovertible and very clear. He advocates the worship of God Alone and invits everybody to worship only the Lord of the Universe. Do not remove the link, there are loads of beleivers around that will recognise the clear meassage by God's leave. Nivia

Tucson Citizen the only source?
You can't say that the Tucson Citizen is the only source, as you don't know that. Adding that sentence makes it seem as if they made up the whole episode. Did they? If they had, I should think that Khalifa would have been able to sue them for lots of money. In any case, the one online source is not the only possible source. Legal records held at the courthouse (or the municipal archives, or wherever) could possibly confirm this. Since neither you nor I know for a certainty that such records exist, or don't exist, it is factual to simply state in the article that one paper said such-and-such.

If you want to attack the paper for reporting this incident, you're going to have to come up with some reputable PUBLISHED sources, ones that you can cite, saying that the paper is a wretched rag that invents legal incidents out of thin air. I doubt that you'll find such sources, but you can try. Zora 01:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The Tucson Citizen is not the only source; using the newspaper search engine, newspapers.com, I have found 4 other articles that corroborate the Tucson Citizen's account of Khalifa's rape charges--please see the links below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paydog23 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Sex Allegations
I just scanned through this 'talk' section and saw some rather hateful comments by Striver, perpetuating the rape accusation against Dr. Khalifa.

Striver, do you read the Quran? Sura 24, among other examples, explicitly states that all sexual allegations must be confirmed by FOUR witnesses.

I attend a high school where I hear all sorts of things about young men and women and their rumoured sexual acts. I simply do as the Quran commands me, I disregard the igorant basis of rumours and backbiting and live my own life. God will judge us all in the end, or do you believe otherwise?

[104:1] Woe to every backbiter, slanderer.

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

Unless FOUR witnessess are produced, or physical evidence (which was not ascertained, since the girl was lying, according to the DOCTORS at the local HOSPITAL... but what would they know, they're only doctors, right?)

[24:16] When you heard it, you should have said, "We will not repeat this..."

Anyways, Striver and anyone else who insults Dr. Khalifa without fully studying his work, his message (worship God alone), and God's Miracle won't be able to say they weren't given a fair chance. I fear for y'all the retribution of an awesome day.

I cite the Mathematical Miracle of the Quran as proof of its divine origin, I cite 3:81=1] as proof of God's Messenger of the Covenant, and I cite 3:82-90 as the inevitable retrubtion (either in this life, or on the day of Judgment) for those who disbelief. God calls them "the evil ones".

[30:10] The consequences for those who committed evil had to be evil. That is because they rejected GOD's revelations, and ridiculed them.

[29:68] Who is more evil than one who fabricates lies and attributes them to GOD, or rejects the truth when it comes to him? Is Hell not a just retribution for the disbelievers?

Peace. May you remove your head from whatever orophice you've placed it in, perhaps God will guide you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David.ilyas (talk • contribs)

Where's the proof?
What's this about Khalifa working for the United Nations? Doing what? For how long? References? I will remove the claim if it can't be referenced. If confirmed, it needs to be exact. Right now, the way it's written makes him sound like some high UN official, which I do not think can be the case. Zora 05:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is detailed in the book of Haddad and Smith, which has a chapter on Khalifah. I'll bring some details next time I see the book.  From imperfect memory, he worked as a food chemist.  --Zerotalk 10:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Zora, maybe you should get a life. Just a suggestion. :) David.ilyas


 * what exactly is this supposed to mean? Zora asked a legitimate question, and providing a citation would be the appropriate reply to that. Thanks. --Ragib 19:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * According to the "Skeptical Inquirer" Sept-Oct article, 1997, Dr. Khalifa was a member of the "United Nations' Industrial Development Organization" based in Vienna, before he became the senior chemist at Arizona's State Office of Chemistry in 1980. Author "Martin Gardner" is a disbeliever, he has nothing to gain by reproducing these facts. He actually mocks Dr. Khalifa and God's Mathematical Miracle of the Quran in his article. The information is also included in one of the main sources of this Wiki article, by Smith and Haddad (who also get their jollies mocking Dr. Khalifa's research and conclusions).


 * One would assume that if Zora has enough time to scour over the minutia of this article -- time after time, week after week, month after month -- she might have time to look into these things for herself. Skepticism and doubt are to be expected from any rational human, whom God has blessed with intelligence, but baseless claims belong only to the ignorant. :) David.ilyas


 * No, Zora is absolutely right in asking for a citation. She didn't add that information, whoever did needed to provide the citation. Making personal attacks is not a good thing. Simply replying with whatever citation you had was what she asked. Thanks. --Ragib 00:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Good thing Zora has you, Ragib, to speak for her and hold her hand through the Wiki process. How sweet. :)


 * Zora: "Right now, the way it's written makes him sound like some high UN official, which I do not think can be the case."


 * 1) No, it doesn't look sound that way at all. It simply states that he worked "for the United Nations in the 1980s." What kind of twisted perception do you have to assume that stating that the man worked for the UN is some kind of exaltation.
 * 2) You don't think it can be the case? I see, so your opinions reign around here? Plenty of people work the UN. Big deal. Get over it. Get... a life? Again, it's just a suggestion. :) David.ilyas

rashad khalifa, usn, 19 based mathematical coding, these all without any doubt have something important in common. the book itself i hold in my hand, it would be impossible for me (a human) to check most of these claims for accuracy as i know only english and have the english translated version, ( my point being that for a worldwide source of information, almost pointless). Rashad khalifa has provided quotable point by point evidence for his 'claim' those that deny the validity of the claim have not disputed it point by point, for the purposes of a unbiased fact based article in regards to all three of these articles we should be referencing the same or an even more well renowned source. SO given the fact that the research done in the publishing of the book in question, by the author in question, with the mathematical proof in question all have sound and logical points ( which i believe in proper terms would be at the least equivalent to "circumstancial" evidence) I think the matter has to be put to rest until those opposed can deny it with names/numbers/dates/times and facts.

in response to (SEE BELOW : i took out the relevant article i think deserves particular consideration and science method bound reference and rebuttal)

Schulte123 (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Changes by David Aitken

 * There’s nothing “alleged” about the numerical pattern, which can be verified online at these PDF locations: . It is a physical fact, not an opinion, that a numerical pattern exists based on the number 19. Whether you choose to see it as a miracle or not is a matter of opinion. The pattern has been spoon-fed to the world. For example, if you view you can see that there are 57 (19x3) Q’s (Qaafs) in Sura 50, which is initialed with a Q (Qaaf). If you view  Each one is marked with a star. This is repeated for all the initialed suras, and other physical facts are explored. The pattern is not “alleged,” rather the interpretation (coincidence or miracle) is a matter of interpretation.

Investigator: Cunado's edits
Peace be upon whatever investigator is forced to view this page.

First, I apologize for brining you into this. Submitters do not call themsleves Muslim, they do not claim to be a part (or sect) of Islam. Submission is a new religion, which uses the Qur'an as its sole liturgy of guidance and constitution of living. Khalifa was *one* of the members to found this movement, and as early as 1989 they stopped claiming to belong to Islam and stopped using the word "Muslim."

Their Qur'an reads: Islam will be replaced by Submission.

Whether Cunado agrees with this or not, it is a matter of *fact* that USI is not Islamic.

Muslims don't consider USI to be Islam, and USI does not call itself Islam.

Khalifa's career
The info cited about Khalifa's career is incomplete, leading only up to 1980 (he didn't pass on until 1990 after all). This article is about Khalifa's position with the Muslim world and his role with the USI. This is in the "religion" section of Wikipedia.

Since the history is lengthy and distracts from the point of this article, I'm removing it. Not only that: but it's incomplete and inaccurate.

Inaccurate? In Martin Gardner's article he claims that he has a 60-page booklet published in *1972* about the number 19. However, there was no publication of *anything* to do with the number 19 until 1974 (January).


 * Miracle of the Quran:
 * Significance of the Mysterious Alphabets
 * Rashad Khalifa, Ph D, 1973, Islamic Productions International, Inc., St. Louis, MO.

In the beginning of the book, there is a note where Rashad thanks to four people for their useful suggestions before the publication. They are:

Virgil I. Moss Ahmed H. Sakr Sulayman Shahid Mufasir Mujahid Al-Sawwaf

The following pages contain a two-and-half page biography of Khalifa and a note of dedication: to his father Abdul Halim Khalifa, the leader of al-Rashad al-Shaziliyya order in Egypt... (Years later when Rashad gave up from Hadith and Sunnah entirely, his father would reject him and 38 leading scholars met in Saudi Arabia under the leadership of Saudi cleric Bin Baz would issue a fatwa in 1989). The biography is followed by a two-page introduction. The date under the introduction is *October 1973*.

In brief, the book, published after October 1973, presented his statistical research on the frequency of the initial letters in the Quran, which he started in 1968. It does not contain a single reference to the number 19.

Gardner's article is inaccurate, and it's proven by published material (as cited above), and it only goes up to 1980. Since when does Wikipedia specialize in broken and half-truths?

I'm removing the history, it's irrelevant and inaccurate. Peace.

1) It's not lengthy, you're possible inability to read:

"He worked as a science advisor for the Libyan government for about one year, after which he worked as a chemist for the United Nations' Industrial Development Organization, then became a senior chemist in Arizona's State Office of Chemistry in 1980."

does not qualify it as lengthy.

2) You had no problems with the information there whatsoever until recently when I added the little fact, from the article that was being cited for quite a while, about his work for the Libyan Government. What, don't like Ghaddhafi?

3) Incompleteness doesn't constitute a need for removal, that simply means it should be expanded not deleted

4) It's not innacurate, it's called a typo. See Edip Yüksel's article regarding a typo. Would you like for it to be added that Rashad Khalifa's work is innacurate for the typos found in his book? At the most you can add in the footnotes that the article makes this typo.

5)"This article is about Khalifa's position with the Muslim world and his role with the USI. This is in the "religion" section of Wikipedia."

The page itself is about Rashad Khalifa, not necessarily his works, that's subsections of the page, there is no reason why his carrear should be considered as irrelevent. Why don't you vandalize the Jesus page, I'm sure theirs no reason to mention his work as an alleged carpenter, after all this is the religon section of Wikipedia!

Con) I'm readding it, you're causes for removal, a) A typo B) You don't like Libya and C) It's supposedly "irrelevent" are not justifiable causes for removal.

Article not intended as recruitment tool
One of the Submitters has been working over the article -- removing a hostile reference, from Martin Gardner, and replacing it with a church publication, inflating Khalifa's credentials, and trying to discredit the woman who accused him in the molestation case. As I recall the article, she claimed that he had fondled her breasts. I don't think that rape was mentioned. By saying that she had charged him with rape and then adding a caveat that no evidence was found, the Submitter is trying to give the impression that she lied.

If she did, why did he plead Nolo Contendere?

This article has to be neutral, not a recruitment tool for the Submitters. Zora 04:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing against Martin Gardner's comments as far as I'm concerned:


 * It’s an ingenious study of the Quran, but it could have been more impressive if Khalifa had consulted me before he wrote it. Nineteen is an unusual prime. For example, it’s the sum of the first powers of 9 and 10 and the difference between the second powers of 9 and 10. (Scientific American, Sept. 1980, p. 22)


 * As for the sex allegations, it's all a bunch of nonsense. Submitters (incl. Rashad) know that God is the ONLY judge. Why waste time on combating Satanic allegations that don't cost us anything in the eyes of our Creator:


 * The System


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


 * Throughout this worldly test, Satan is allowed to present his point of view (we are born with a representative of Satan in our bodies). This allows the people to make a choice between God's evidence and Satan's evidence. Satan's evidence is invariably based on lies. This system explains the fact that the devil's agents continuously come up with the most absurd lies, insults and accusations against every messenger (see 6:33-34, 8:30, 17:76-77, 27:70).


 * The same sex allegations were made against the Prophet Muhammad; it is alleged that he married a 6 year old girl. God be glorified, far above blasphemies that will cost you dearly. Davidaitken 03:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a very awful argument. Under thie same logic, not even the worst criminal would be hold liable for criminal actions, and can claim innocence. --Ragib 03:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

@David, the "allegations" against Muhammad aren't stated as such, you don't see people having taken him to court over it. Aisha moved in at the age of nine and not six, and there is no "allegations" of rape. You'll have a hard time finding any "allegations", which is your term for 'ahadith' in this case, of Muhemmed having raped or had sex with Aisha let alone fondeling her breasts. And last I checked, Wikipedia wasn't censoring these "allegations" so why remove the allegations against Khalifa? --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 07:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Tabloids are an unreliable source (We've all seen them when we walk through the supermarket talking about the lady next door who was kidnapped by aliens), and no serious report (be it a legal document or a book report in grade school) would accept one as a citation. Why should Wikipedia? We all had lectures in school about proper citing, and making sure all our sources are reliable. --User:Fnader

Links

 * 1) Let's keep it balanced and brief, 3 for 3.
 * 2) You can't call the link "Facts about The "Submitters" Group" - look at the website! LOL! "Zionest," "Liers," it's a joke.
 * 3) You can't call the link "Fact of Fiction" - look at the website! "Rashad's cult"

Recent Revert
Peace everyone,

By now, most "watchers" of this page know that I check in on it and that I am a Submitter to GOD alone.

I believe that Rashad was a messenger like those before him, and I also believe that GOD's religion is without compulsion.

The recent changes are - as Zora put it - extraneous. If you spend the time to read up on the Fuqra heresay, not much of it can be substantiated. The articles agree that the details are sketchy because of absent witnesses and other such "weird" occurences.

I'm not trying to be sly - the edit by IP Address 67... something was the last objective and factual edit.

May GOD guide us all,

DavidDavidaitken 00:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You are not allowed to remove sourced material. If you have equally good sources for different information, you can add those too.  --Zerotalk 12:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of Khalifa, also, wording changes
Someone introduced a long section claiming that Khalifa didn't play by his own rules in discovering patterns. This may be true, but it's unreferenced, and shouldn't stand as accepted truth. If the anon who introduced it can find a reference for it, it can be included as criticism.

I also changed some wording that had been tweaked to magnify Khalifa's claims and downplay the sexual assault charge.

Fair is fair, both for Submitters and critics. Zora 05:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The following statement is written as though it is a fact when it certainly is not: "The removal of these verses is in direct contradiction to the Qur'an itself..." The truth is that the ink and paper of Quran has been tampered with by people throughout the past 1400 years. This is why today you see in Qurans that have been printed in the last 100 years the name of Sura 17 has been changed from "Banî Israel" to "AL-ISRA" and the name of Sura 9 from "Barã´ah" to "AL-TAWBA". If someone were to remove these additions or to change them back, would this also be a "direct contradiction"? I think not... At the very least the wording of this statement needs to be changed to reflect the FACT that this is the opinion of some people. The 2 false verses are a glaring addition, but that is another story. Alijaza 00:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Refutation of Dr. Rashad Khalifa's mathematical calculations
A detailed refutation of Dr. Rashad Khalifa's mathematical calculations can be found in The Quran’s Numerical Miracle: Hoax and Heresy by Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips

Zora, why don't you check the link given below yourself ?

http://www.bilalphilips.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=183&Itemid=26


 * Anon, if you want the criticism included, please find the necessary quotes yourself and add a paragraph to the article. I don't think I'm under any obligation to read the link, pull out the right quotes, and write the section. I'll probably end up editing it, but I don't particularly want toi write it. It's nearly midnight here and I've rewritten six articles tonight.


 * You can sign your posts by adding four tildes, at the end, like this ~ and the wiki software will turn them into your signature. Zora 09:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

that atricle makes alot of claims about innacuracies in the count numbers but i have a copy of mr rashads 'final testament' in my hand right now, i would like to see anywhere that a point by point refutement has been made, obviously i myself do not have the time to tackle such a staggering project but from the few easily discernible gematrical 19 based miracles you can easily reference I think the evidence is clearly in his favor, this is not bias it is simple scientific evidence. Mr. khalifa has listed the specific details of his discovery while this article makes generalized claims. lets see the numbers.

Schulte123 (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

USN is not affiliated... whatsoever
786

Salaam everyone,

I quote post 11 here: "Ahmad, the USN website seems to have no connection with information related to Rashad.

The longwinded connection seems to be: 1. Rashad is linked to Islam => 2. Islam linked to USN = 3. Therefore, USN linked to Rashad.

If this is how external links are supposed to be included, then, each and every website related to Islam should also be added to each and every Islam related Wiki page. I have removed the link. If you feel there is a clear reason to add the USN page please mention it. Regards-- user:H.yahya

Maybe our Ahmad is the same Ahmad Nishitoba who wrote those pages. He seems have a rather high opinion of himself [3]. I agree the link is inappropriate. --Zero 12:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)"

USN has nothing to do with Submission, we've been over this. Please put a stop to this vandalism!

Thanks,

A-SUBMITTER

How dare you say USN has nothing to do with Submission ? can you even cite one example from the website ?

Your argument is empty. Yes! stop the vandalism, and let the readers decide.

-- User: Ahmad, 22 January 2007--

USN: "logical reason"
786

Salaam everyone,

Ahmed wants a "logical reason" why his link cannot be here.

OK. I can't go onto the Islam article and slap a Bahai link at the bottom and say, "Well, Bahai is the continuation of Islam."

There is an Islam article and a Bahai article. They are seperate. If you want (Mr. Ahmed Nitshoba), you can take the time to make your very own USN article. But do not pretend link USN has anything to do with Submission. You're not fooling anyone.

We have been over this with you; give it up. For the record, most of you know about gematrical values. Alef is one, in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic. This is never disputed. Our Mr. Nitshoba asserts that Alef is 3. As the objective and sincere reader will readily conclude, we are dealing with someone whose perception of reality is grossly skewed.

Thanks,

A-SUBMITTER-to-GOD-ALONE -- Well, and you are not fooling anyone either, at least not me. The USN website has nothing to do with the Bahaii faith, but has everything to do with Rashad's message. Rashad delivered a very important piece of information about the Great prophecy, declaring that Submission (and not 'islam') will dominate the whole world gradually starting from the states. There are no sites that continue with this idea except for the usn2161.net website.

Don't fool those who don't know with your wrong explanation of the numerical values. The TGv (Total Gematrical Value) is based on the Gv (Gematrical value) which Rashad used. God is omnipotent, if He replaces one sign with another, it is either equal or better than the one before it.

It is your perception of reality that is grossly skewed, you give it up.

--User: Ahmad, 22 January 2007 --

Recent Vandalism - Nov. 9, 2006
Ahmad Nishitoba is continually vandalising this article, under different IP adresses. I have been forced to revert the article more than once now. I do not want to risk breaking the 3 revert rule.

I feel that this may lead to an article lockdown if this is not put to a stop. Administrators will be contacted - God willing - if this continues.

-A Submitter to God alone, Nov. 9, 2006

Yes, i would like to take that to an adminstrator, your continous removal of the usn link breaks the rules, specialy that you haven't cited a specific reason for it. And by a reason i mean definite examples from the website showing how it CONTRADICTS with Rashad's message.

-- User:Ahmad, 22 January 2007 --

USN + Ahmed Nishitoba
Peace be upon the entire community of Wikipedia,

I check up on this article frequently to remove the links to Ahmed Nishitoba's "USN" website. In case you don't know who he is, Mr. Nishitoba recently predicted that San Francisco would be completely destroyed on November 9th, 2006. November 9th came, and San Francisco still stands. Mr. Nishitoba claimed that this would proove to the world that he was a very special person, and that his link belongs here.

God willing, you can verify this for yourself @ http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8714697610007846296&q=nishitoba

I don't tire of removing the link he always sneaks in here, but if you take a look at numerous posts across this "dicussion" page, I hope you will see that his link has nothing to do with Rashad Khalifa or the Submitters.

If someone wakes up tomorrow and claims to have some relation to Jesus or Muhammad, will he be allowed to put his personal website as an "eternal link" on those Wikipedia articles? No. God willing, I pray that we will remain objective and apply consistent logic when contributing, monitoring, and editing articles.

My personal IP address (I think it begins in a 70...) was temporarily blocked for removing Mr. Nishitoba's link. Could someone please fix this? Is there any way that we can lock the "external links" part of this article? Is there any way that we can hav a bot handle removing his constant interference?

This is just some food for thought to the community of Wikipedia.

Peace and may God bless anyone who is devoted to Him alone, absent of ego and idols,

--Davidaitken 04:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Mr.David, you have written a lot of words, but still haven't offered us any SPECIFIC reasons for removing the USN link !. I think this amounts to Vandalism, it is you who are sneaking and not us.

-- User: Ahmad, 22 January 2007 --

Web links
Ahmed Nishtoba's site should not be listed here. He does not follow the same religion of the Submitter's,

The two links that I restored, United Submitters International -Masjid Tucson, and God's Mosque have no relation to Ahmed Nishtoba. The removal of these sites would not be done by a practicing Submitter, as they would not want to hinder the representation of true Submission to God alone. I assume that Ahmad, you may be removing these two sites which belong under the title of Submitters, since your link came up in place of them. Sorry if I'm wrong and it's not you, but it seems logical that is what is happening - so please stop it now!

Peace, -- User: ISubmit786, 22 January  2007 --

Well, wrong again !. This is your own opinion when you say Mr.Nishitoba does not follow the same religion of the Submitter's. Are you gonna force your opinion on the rest of us ?. what is the criteria you have based this opinion on ?

-- User: Ahmad, 23 January 2007 --

I see Ahmad Nishitoba and few followers keep reverting the links to include the United Submitters Nation against general consensus. You can review some logical reasons given already by other editors above as to why your link is not appropriate for this page, but I will add a few here:

You use a different geometrical value system than what Rashad Khalifa and the Submitters use, you don't advocate the same system as the person that this Wikipage is about. And it is a different system than what the world uses. Remember what the geometrical value is based on? It is based in commerce as a counting system- that's not something that the value can change, it would cause chaotic and unfair trading practices to take place.

Rashad Khalifa and the Submitters were/are not in the business of predicting earthquakes. You don't see that anywhere in his history. It has nothing to do with him. You have now predicted somewhere around half a dozen or more earthquakes which were supposed to destroy a whole community and start a new world order. But you have disguised any link to your past predictions, and quickly change the date of the predicted devestation every single time. The submitters are not in the business of beating around the bush like that, nor is it remotely representing anything on this Wikipage.

You have no message different than Rashad Khalifa's message, you add nothing new to increase the knowledge about Rashad Khalifa, rather you divert and reduce the quality with your link, because you change the values of geometrical value system (which is a challenge to God's system), continually predict earthquakes that never materialize (I would think you should consider stopping and checking yourself if you haven't experienced the support from God yet), and you have no miracle. This is one of the things that Rashad Khalifa preached: not to listen to someone who has no substantial message beyond "follow me and my opinion", provides no miracle, and does not demonstrate support for their claims. Your link would not fall under the category of what he preached.

This is not the page where you should be advertising your claims, the only reason that I can see that you are battling to have your link placed here is because you are not interested in the message, but in the idol. You are battling for the "idol" page. How about making your own page where you can edit it to your liking. I'm sorry that it just does not belong here, and you have ignored the other page editors and consensus.

Peace

-- User: ISubmit786, 24 January 2007 --

"I see Ahmad Nishitoba and few followers keep reverting the links to include the United Submitters Nation against general consensus."

-If it's about the number of comments, i can get you more numbers!, you can never reach consensus on wikipedia, because it's built on difference of opinions.

"You can review some logical reasons given already by other editors above as to why your link is not appropriate for this page"

-Haven't seen any !

"You use a different geometrical value system than what Rashad Khalifa and the Submitters use, you don't advocate the same system as the person that this Wikipage is about."

-Wrong, the TGv. is not the Gv. but is built upon it. Same like when you add a link to Einstein's article, that advocates a new discovery proving the theory of relativity of Einstein. The TGv proves and confirms the Gv system of Rashad, same like Quran confirms previous scriptures.

"And it is a different system than what the world uses. Remember what the geometrical value is based on? It is based in commerce as a counting system- that's not something that the value can change, it would cause chaotic and unfair trading practices to take place."

-To my knowledge, nobody in the world of commerce today uses the Gv. as a counting system !, if you read carefully you will find that the TGv. system is based on three universal systems (Gv. GSv. and ASv.), and it is not intended to be used for commerce ! .

"Rashad Khalifa and the Submitters were/are not in the business of predicting earthquakes. You don't see that anywhere in his history. It has nothing to do with him. You have now predicted somewhere around half a dozen or more earthquakes which were supposed to destroy a whole community and start a new world order. But you have disguised any link to your past predictions, and quickly change the date of the predicted devestation every single time. The submitters are not in the business of beating around the bush like that, nor is it remotely representing anything on this Wikipage."

-I believe Rashad predicted a similar catastrophic event, of an asteroid hitting the Arabian peninsula. Secondly we never denied past predictions on usn2161.net, we removed them only because of their nature being time-dependent tests of faith, the dates build upon each other, and the prophecy has been constantly about 119, so there is no need to freeze the scene at a specific age of the same prophecy.

"You have no message different than Rashad Khalifa's message, you add nothing new to increase the knowledge about Rashad Khalifa, rather you divert and reduce the quality with your link, because you change the values of geometrical value system (which is a challenge to God's system),"

-This is only your opinion and everbody is entitled to his own opinion, but this opinion is not shared by all submitters, so don't force it upon them. God sends new signs as He wills, you are the one who is challenging this system,

[16:101] When we substitute a sign in place of another, and GOD is fully aware of what He reveals, they say, "You made this up!" Indeed, most of them do not know.

"continually predict earthquakes that never materialize (I would think you should consider stopping and checking yourself if you haven't experienced the support from God yet), and you have no miracle. This is one of the things that Rashad Khalifa preached: not to listen to someone who has no substantial message beyond "follow me and my opinion", provides no miracle, and does not demonstrate support for their claims"

-The Quake is coming soon by God's leave. The miracle is already there on the website www.usn2161.net. Ahmad Nishitoba's name is coded withing the 14 initials of Quran, and he has presented sufficient proofs from Quran, but only those who have eyes that can see, can recognize them.

-Conclusion: Submission started with Abraham, and has always been one religion from God, yet people failed to see how the message keeps building up and how enlightment and knowledge comes gradually from God. If you fail to see the link between usn and Rashad Khalifa, then unfortunately for you, you are no better than those who were stuck in judaism and failed to move on with Jesus, or like those who were stuck in Jesus and failed to move with islam, or those who were muslims but failed to embrace Rashad's message. Stop idolizing Rashad and move on with the message of absolute devotion to God alone.

-- User: Ahmad, 24 January 2007 --

Rashad Khalifa's advocating
Almighty God sent Rashad Khalifa to teach us how to worship Him alone and abolish all forms of idol worship. This does not mean that the praise is to Rashad, but to God (Quran 1:2). If we understand Rashad's teachings, we won't idolize him, or his message (by making a new sect out of it), instead we would uphold his teachings, that he brought from God. The teachings of Ahmad Nishitoba are a follow-up. The focus is on the message and its righteous meaning, NOT on the human delivering the message. This very basic knowledge was Rashad's words about the idol worshipers. If we understand the message of Rashad, we will understand the message of Ahmad.

-- User: Zakaria A., 23 January  2007 --

NPOV And Unrefernced
I'd ask the NPOV and Unreferenced tags remain in place until a substantial amount of his beliefs and criticisms are cited with one or more example of him professing the belief, and others professing the criticism. This has been brought up before on talk, and the article some how evaded being tagged. These criticism seem sound, but they do not adhere to WP:ATTRIBUTION and a good portion of the article still has content that slants Rashad Khalifa as a cult leader, which is not established by the article. The world cult is not necessarily something you must shy away from but you must establish that the leader sought to ostracize the community from society. Sect is also not a word that you need to stray away from, it doesn't matter how the word translates in other languages or who it offends, it sounds like the it is the best word at the time to describe his offshoot of Islam. Also x = y as a means to defining a term is not proper prose for an encyclopedia. EvanCarroll 17:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This article really needs someone passionate about Islam and Wikipedia. No more propaganda, using a term like Satanic to describe someone's actions only makes clear the author was not of the same religion. No more WP:BOLLOCKS please. EvanCarroll 17:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism and Response
His writings were banned in many Muslim countries. Muslim scholars likened his numerology to Jewish and Christian gematria.. The Muslim Digest, published in South Africa, attacked Khalifa as a heretic.

1. He removed two verses from the Qur'an, the last two of the ninth chapter in order to get his calculations to work. He claimed that they were added nineteen years after the death of Muhammad. Some have claimed that the removal of these verses is in contradiction to the Qur'an itself, including the following verse:


 * [15:9] We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).

2. Many also believe that his claim to be a messenger was against the Qur'an. This arises from their differing belief as to the definition of messenger ("rasool") vs. prophet ("nabi"). The following verse from the Qur'an is frequently cited:


 * [33:40] Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things.

Submitters' Response to Criticism
1. The two last verses of Sura 9 are satanic injections

Rashad Khalifa was sent to purify the religion from all fabrications and injections; to restore the message to its original, by God's leave. The removal of the satanic verses 9:128 & 9:129 is among many other corrections in the religion.


 * [15:9] Absolutely, we have revealed the reminder, and, absolutely, we will preserve it.

In this verse God promises us to preserve Quran, the quranic built-in code 19 is the proof that God kept this promise. The miracle of 19 that God mentions in Quran (Sura 74) is the first physical evidence that every letter in Quran is from God. Therefore, any injection (addition) into God's Final Testament is noticed. This means that the correct Quran is all over the world, if one just marks the mistakes. Let's bear in mind that some countries like Iran, have changed the original arabic spelling .[citation needed]  of some words in Quran, does this mean that God failed to keep His promise in preserving the Quran? On top of that, Bukhari himself says that all verses in Quran where witnessed by at least two people, except these two verses, they where witness by one, Khozayma Ibno Thaabet Al-ansaari .[citation needed].

Al-ansaari = Supporter

The believers who supported prophet Muhammad where Medinan (Muhammad emigrated/Hijra from Mecca to Medina). Thus, the first revelations of Quran were revealed to Muhammad in Mecca, then After Hijra, the following revelations were revealed in Medina. Now, if we study the revelation of Sura 9, we will see that it's Medinan, except the two last verses, they are Meccan! How can a Medinan Sura have Meccan verses when all revelations after Mecca where in Medina? And how can a Medinan guy witness Meccan verses? This is a brief History about the doubts of these two verses. The mircale confirms that these two verses are nothing but satanic injections into Quran.

The mircale of 19 is not limited to the removal of these two verses. It's coded all over the Quran, thus saying that Rashad Khalifa removed the verses in order to make the mircale work is due to lack of knowledge of the miracle. If one is familiar with the miracle of 19 in Quran, he/she will see that it's coded all over the Quran.

2. Quran teaches the difference between a messenger and a prophet


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

Nor indicates that a messenger and a prophet are not the same, let's have a closer look on this.

a) when one is sent from God, he is a messenger (rasol), this messenger can be angel or human.

GOD chooses from among the angels messengers, as well as from among the people. GOD is Hearer, Seer.

b) Notice, the precise order of the words


 * Say, "If the earth were inhabited by angels, we would have sent down to them from the sky an angel messenger."


 * "Or unless you own a luxurious mansion, or unless you climb into the sky. Even if you do climb, we will not believe unless you bring a book that we can read." Say, "Glory be to my Lord. Am I any more than a human messenger?"

(angel --> messenger) i.e. not all angels are messengers, but all messengers are angels

(human --> messenger) i.e. not all humans are messengers, but all messengers are human

c) messenger prophet (rasolan nabiya)

Now, some of the human messengers are prophets (nabi):


 * Mention in the scripture Moses. He was devoted, and he was a messenger prophet.


 * And mention in the scripture Ismail. He was truthful when he made a promise, and he was a messenger prophet.

The precise order of the words above (messenger --> prophet) is a sign from God; not all messengers are prophets, but all prophets are messengers.

So what is a prophet? He is a messenger prophet who delivers a new scripture from God. On the other hand, a messenger upholds and confirms an existing scripture, he does not bring a new scripture.


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

Muhammad is the final prophet = Quran is the final scripture:


 * Muhammad was not the father of any man among you. He was a messenger of GOD and the final prophet. GOD is fully aware of all things.

God did not say "...final messenger and final prophet". Not a single verse in Quran says Muhammad is the final messenger.

RESPONSE:
1.Dear Reader. Yóu have to be very carefull, because these people are trying to fool you:

1) A Sura does not have to be completly Meccan or Medinan it can have verses from Medina and from Mecca. 2) There is no indicaion that the last two verses of sura 9 are Meccan. 3) Why should we believe that the verse:


 * [15:9] Absolutely, we have revealed the reminder, and, absolutely, we will preserve it.

means that he would save it not now but 1400 years after this aya was revealed. This and all things the so called "Submitters" say does not make any sense.

2. This argumentation is so weak: Why do you take the order of words in the sura 19 verse 51 and not the order in the following: sura: *We did not send before you any messenger, nor a prophet, without having the devil interfere in his wishes. GOD then nullifies what the devil has done. GOD perfects His revelations. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise.

It would make much more sense to take the order of words from this aya, because if someone is not a messenger (rasul) he can still be a prophet (naby): The Submitters have themselves given us the evidence that every Messenger is a Prophet, and not the other way around: If the Submitters opinion is right than god the almighty would repeat himself. It would be enough to say that "We did not send before you any messenger". Because in your opinion all prophets are messengers. Why should he then still mention "nor a prophet". You say that the word messenger includes Prophets. Why then the extra addition? Allah (st) does not make mistakes and EVERY word in his book is chosen carefully. There is only one way to understand this verse: The word prophet includes the word messenger. This means that not every Prophet can be a messenger. To understand the falshood these people are tryng to propagate please visit: http://mostmerciful.com/deceit-one.htm http://www.answering-christianity.com/rk_cult_exposed.htm

Notice of intention to remove material from this article contrary to Wikipedia guidelines
There has been effort in the past to remove, from this article, which is a biographical entry on Rashad Khalifa, material which is really not about Khalifa and hislife but about the movement which he began, which has a separate article, United_Submitters_International. Further, there is another article on the overall class of movements which includes USI, Quran Alone. Much of the material which has been inserted into this article on Khalifa belongs there or elsewhere, if it belongs at all on Wikipedia, which would not normally include, for example, information on isolated movements not considered notable, no matter how strongly the originator or protagonists of that movement consider it crucial.

If a movement can be seen as a splintering off from USI, or, in the view of its members, the continuation of the "true" USI, then it is reasonable that, if notable, it could be included in the USI article, properly handled. I'm not addressing that issue here, just what should be and should not be in this article.

I am answering the request of another editor who posted here an appeal for an editor "passionate about Islam and Wikipedia." That's me. My goal in what I will be doing here is, however, mostly about Wikipedia, which is related to Islam for me only in that Islam requires us to be fair, to seek consensus on what is true and what is not, and not to say about God -- or anything, really -- that which we do not know. All this is completely consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia is not, however an "Islamic" institution, and it has no obligation to consider notable, and thus appropriate for inclusion, every idea asserted as important to Islam

Rashad Khalifa is notable, and thus his life and work are notable. Controversy over his work, except as it impacts his biography, however, doesn't belong here. Rather, as an example, see the biography of Robert Atkins and Atkins Nutritional Approach. Not that these have perfectly realized the ideal! The biography, for example, could go into more detail about how his ideas were received (or rejected) during his lifetime. But most detail about his actual work properly belongs in an article on that, i.e., the other article.

My own opinion is that his work with letter counts (initially) and then with patterns of 19, in the Qur'an, deserves a separate article, which could include subsequent work by others on that topic, if notable. There are people who have worked on this particular problem who had no connection with United Submitters International. For example, myself! (I'm widely quoted by believers in the "miracle," in attempts to refute my objections to the claims made by Khalifa and others, but what may not be easily visible is that I began, fully accepting Khalifa's work, with some sympathy for his strict Qur'an Alone position, though not complete agreement, and I originally attempted, after his untimely and violent death, to confirm his work, something I had been meaning to do for years.)

I cannot give full attention to this article, I have other projects of importance to me, but, because I have been watching this article for quite some time, I intend to use reverts to keep the article free of inappropriate material inserted by anonymous editors without discussion, or to prevent vandalism of the article. I do not intend to impose my views on the article, merely to defend Wikipedia against abuse. I may also act to remove POV material, but often such material can be edited, properly, to allow its inclusion. It's often enough to attribute it. But much of what is in this article really belongs elsewhere, and there is some material that might belong here which has been removed even though it was biographically relevant and sourced.

Abd 18:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Today I rewrote the "Beliefs" section. A detailed examination of Khalifa's beliefs, as he expressed them, belongs in the article on United Submitters International, or in Qur'an Alone. In the biography, it could be appropriate to cover how his beliefs developed over time, but the "Beliefs" section should not be argumentative; and the way this was framed was as an explanation of what aspects of his beliefs engendered criticism. All this should be sourced; I'm writing off the top of my head as an expert on the subject, and my library of Khalifa's work, while extensive, is boxed and not available at the moment. However, anyone familiar with Khalifa's work should be able to confirm any of the factual claims here.

Khalifa's beliefs were often based on his idiosyncratic interpretations of words in the Qur'an. There is an example in this section: the word "hadith" has many meanings in Arabic, but prominent among them is "story." The collection of hadith of the Prophet did not take place until after his passing, and there are some indications that he disliked that stories be collected about him; the word "hadith" is used in the Qur'an quite consistently with its ordinary meaning. Note, however, that later meanings of words, such as the technical use of "hadith" to refer to stories about Muhammad and his companions and followers, are often considered prophetic by some when projected back onto the Qur'an, and, further, one *could* easily read the verses as a general comment about following "stories." The concept of "Qur'an Alone" did not originate with Khalifa, and, according to the scholars I know, the only hadith which are obligatory to accept are those which are so solidly transmitted by multiple transmitters that to deny them becomes a simple avoidance of truth, and the most prominent example of such traditions or stories is the Qur'an itself, which was accurately preserved (in almost every tiny detail) by massive multiple transmission. Khalifa originally claimed that his work proved that the Qur'an had been exactly preserved, but he was forced to continually revise his counting methods as errors were discovered, and he was ultimately led to declare that two verses were inauthentic in order to maintain his counts, and this was, indeed, considered heretical (far more than an "Qur'an Alone" claims).

Was he correct? Well, I set out years ago to confirm Khalifa's work, which I had been familiar with from my personal acquaintance with him, when I learned that he had been assassinated. Unfortunately, it did not hold up to close examination. Frankly, I was disappointed! The problem is that "word" is not a clearly defined concept in Arabic. See Martin Gardner's article in the Skeptical Inquirer,, where he reports my analysis of the topic. None of this belongs in the biography, except possibly as part of some future description of the evolution of his concepts and findings. What is important for now is that his claims not be presented in a misleading way, by incorporating "evidence" that is controversial and POV if not framed.

Abd 13:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticisn/Beliefs redundant / re sexual charges
I overlooked that there was a 'criticism' section that was redundant to the next 'beliefs' section. Don't have time to fix it now. But the 'criticism' section is in an incorrect place as a subsection of the "History of Mathematical Research.' If there is going to be criticism in that section, it should be confined to criticism of his research, specifically the "mathematical" research; criticism of his Qur'anic exegesis and other beliefs shouldn't be under that head.

I also see that the material about the sexualy-related charges has been removed. That's relevant, folks, it has played a role in Khalifa's reputation around the world. He *did* plead, at the very least, no contest to at least one charge. (Very misleading to call the charges "rape." There were no allegations of "rape," unless, as prosecutors sometimes do, a charge of "statutory rape" was initially filed. The reports do not support a charge of anything forcible, nor do they support even statutory rape. There was no explicitly sexual contact, as far as what I've seen from the reports.) I will look for sourced material to put back.

Some writers have totally confused the issue by referring to Islamic law on charges of sexual misconduct. If I were to accuse Khalifa of sexual misconduct, this law would apply to me. I'm not accusing him of anything, but I do intend to report known facts. I wasn't a witness, to be sure, so I'm not going to "testify" that he did such and such a thing. Rather, I'm going to report that,"according to" so-and-so, he did such and such. It is not for me to establish the truth of such a claim, and it is enough here that it is notable and relevant and sourced. I first learned about the charges, as I recall, from his *secretary,* a devoted supporter of his. My message to "Submitters" who want to deny the truth is that God does not like any kind of denial. Read the Book! The most informed of Khalifa's followers acknowledge that Khalifa was a human being, and that he was not perfect. Indeed, would it not be perverse to "accept" his Qur'an Alone message and then to worship him as perfect? Would this not be the hypocrisy that earns the lowest pit in the fire? The great danger in interpreting the Qur'an is that we take the promises of paradise for ourselves and reserve the warnings for others. Those who know take heed.

By all means, if you have evidence that Khalifa was innocent of the ultimate charge, present it, and if it is sourced, it can be included. It's even possible to include a comment that "submitters" do not accept such and such, but that should be sourced and should not be simply the opinion of some outraged submitter writing here. Indeed, because there is such schism in the "submitter" community, it should be sourced more closely than a general comment about "submitters."

Abd 14:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I went back and found the last language from the Citizen article on the sexual misconduct charges, and put it in under "Legal Difficulties." Perhaps "Sexual Misconduct Charges" might be more accurate. It had disappeared with no comment through an anonymous edit. This article has had more anonymous edits than I've seen with other articles on controversial subjects.... we might consider requesting protection again. I have no problem discussing what is in the article about the misconduct charges, or anything related, here, but I'm not interesting in discussing it with anonymous editors and possible sock puppets, nor do I have much patience for controversial edits not discussed here. I've read the Citizen article and probably have a copy of it somewhere. I'm going to look for some on-line copy of it, such did exist at one time. Argument about this case, such as speculation or defense of Khalifa, or offensive remarks, for that matter, such as "If he wasn't guilty, why didn't he plead not guilty," are out of place in the article. Facts are appropriate. I'm not sure of every detail of the report in the article, but it's consistent with what I remember; in particular, my own conclusion was that there was no evidence of sexual assault, and my impression was that Khalifa had not pled nolo contendere to "all charges," but to a lesser charge.

Abd 22:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Putting the Citizen article reference back
A series of edits were made by User:Zakaria_A. to the article. This is a user who registered back in January, made a couple of edits to the article or Talk, then nothing until a slew of edits were made yesterday; it would be a kindness to the rest of us if the Preview button were used instead of saving every stumble. The edits replaced inappropriate material which has been removed many times by many editors. Another editor took that out, but the Citizen article was not replaced, User:Zakaria_A. had taken it out, with the explanation, "Legal difficulties - already in discussion page)." Perhaps this user thinks that Talk is part of the article? I have a copy of the Citizen report, I should edit the reference to make it more exact (i.e., day of publication). There is an inaccuracy in the current comment, I think. It appears that Khalifa pled no contest, not to any of the sexual charges, but to a single count of fraud, related to the claim he made in obtaining the office he was using for the "aura research." But I have seen no specific report on that that could be used as a source. The Citizen article is about the charges and the first court appearance, not about the final disposition. It would be useful for someone with access to Arizona records to see what they can find. My goal here is simply accuracy; the charges are well-known as a scandal, the truth may be less scandalous. Or not.

As to the other edits, controversial web sites are not generally acceptable as sources for information in articles; they can sometimes be relevant as to arguments raised or the positions being taken by some on issues, and the like, but not for fact. This article is biography, about the man, not about "submission" or "submitters" in general, and even less about movements arising after Khalifa. As it is, it needs citations for the claims made about what Khalifa believed and wrote. If I can manage to unbury my library, I could supply some of this, and there are archives of Submitters' Perspective on-line and other writings of his. References from other publications about him are needed.... --Abd 01:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC) --Abd 01:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 83.249.88.91, removed the reference which is perfectly valid. Please discuss any issues here and do not revert. → AA (talk) — 18:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that reference is inappropriate as it is. While the article is genuine, and can be directly referenced, the web page showing it is polemic and not acceptable for linking from Wikipeida. I'm removing the link and the newspper article will be cited directly as a source. The last sentence is unsourced at this time (other than my own testimony which is generally not adequate if challenged, and I'm not certain what the charge pled to was, exactly. What I recall is one charge, and not a serious one, compared to the RAPE which is screamed at us on the web site that was linked. I've removed it until something usable as a source can be found. Unfortunately, this leaves dangling the question of the disposition of the charges....

Meanwhile, it may be necessary to start some action against the user who keeps putting the USN material in without establishing relevance here. I'd prefer to see if we can negotiate something. For example, it is not impossible to have a list of links to organizations which claim to be successors to Khalifa's organization. However, I do think this would be more appropriate on the article dedicated to United Submitters International, or possibly some other article. Now, if the USN people can provide references showing that Khalifa had something *directly* to do with USN, the matter would be different. It is not enough that they claim to be receiving the same message or continuing Khalifa's work, just as we would not put some modern organization of physicists in an article on Isaac Newton, or material about, say, the various later sects and groupings of Muslims in the article on Muhammad, though there might be some reference in the article to where one would look for later developments. The immediate aftermath of Khalifa's assassination is relevant, however. What happened, for example, to Masjid Tucson (the current Masjid Tucson is not at the same address). What happened to the newsletter, Submitter's Perspective, which ceased publication shortly after the assassination, and did not resume until some years later?

This article is a *biography*, not a battleground over doctrine. We may disagree on doctrine and interpretation, but, for those of us who are sincere, it should not be terribly difficult to come to agreement on encyclopedic facts. For those having difficulty with this, I suggest reading the article guidelines at About and linked from there. Massive and repeated editing outside those guidelines, after proper warnings have been given, can result in banning of an offending user and, sometimes, IP blocking. Editors who are helping to maintain and improve this article should specially be aware of WP:3RR. Unless you *know* what you are doing, do not revert the same page three times in a 24 hour period, it can result in a quick ban. There are exceptions, but sometimes administrators will shoot first and ask questions later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 23:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Khalifa's work, external links.
One reason that this article still deserves a POV warning is that there are links to sites arguing for Khalifa's "miracle," but not to those criticizing it. A link was just added by an anonymous editor to a site with criticism; however, this site was polemic and not suitable for linking from Wikipedia, so it was properly removed. *Some* of the information on that site could be linked from this article, possibly, but not what was put in. There are standards for external links, see WP:EL. I'm adding this note here to make it clear that the article *does* need links to critical material in order to be balanced. If we couldn't put material here under any circumstances, we should not link to sites with that material. In my view, the standards for external links are a little looser than for what can be directly put in the article, but polemic as a fundamental part of the linked site is not acceptable. So if readers can find such material on-line (an example would be the Martin Gardner article which is referenced, but which does not go into great detail), by all means, add it. As always, discussion here on the Talk page is welcome and if an editor is going to do something likely to be controversial, it should always be explained here. --Abd 16:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree, I've been trying to find independant scientific verification of this 'miracle' and its either a pro-khalifa or anti 'khalifa' site, some of the claims are obviouse and easily verified but obviously on some of the more complex representations of the 19 based miracle as presented in the appendix, i dont have the free time, a criticism section with well documented links should be added, considering the subject matter i'd find it hard to believe this was verified by a neutral third party at SOME point

69.137.185.1 (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes 2007-12-05
Alright, I clarified lack of references and citations because obviously an editor had a problem with the more subtle notice at the top. I also fixed WP:LEAD to adhere to WP:WEIGHT, the fact that Rashad had anything to do with anything other than his implementation of a Islam, is almost totally inconsequental to the current state of the article and does not belong in the opening sentence. I saw post-editing someone had a problem with the term sect, not to come off as confrontational but we can take this up with the admins -- and we might have to. Provide a word that means the same thing in English and I'll go for it. But, WP:NOT applies, and sect adaquately describes his off-shoot of Islam, in the official language of the English Wikipedia. Quite frankly, I'm convinced you can't write an encyclopedic article about a religion and keep it informative without offending the deluded on the inside. EvanCarroll (talk) 08:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This editor made a series of edits, introducing language likely to offend a substantial number of readers. Some of this could be alleged to be true, but truth is not the only standard. The word "sect," as an example, may be technically correct, but technical usage is not the only usage. Were it necessary to use that term, it could possibly be justified, But it is not necessary. If any of the perjorative connotations of sect are intended, and if they are true, then the truth can be directly asserted by sourced facts. To paraphrase what a Christian ministoer once wisely told me, introducing a class that he was teaching on Islam, when we are done, Khalifa's followers will say, "Yes, this is what we believe, or, in some cases, these facts, as stated, are true and they have been sourced and attributed and are balanced by other facts the reader might need to make a judgment. I will, in reviewing these edits, attempt to keep or restate what I see as contributing to the article, while removing what will only serve to re-ignite useless edit wars. Please discuss further changes in Talk.


 * I should note that I'm a critic of Khalifa, but I'm also dedicated to Wikipedia and true NPOV. The latter, in fact, is a fundamental principle of faith in Islam. We trust the truth and know the difference between truth and opinion when it's pointed out to us. That's my POV!
 * --Abd (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm leaving the references needed tags because they are needed. However, I'm not aware of specific POV imbalance in the article, except where balancing information has not been found, if it exists. A POV tag should not be placed without at least some indication of the nature of the POV imbalance. Hence I'm taking that tag out. As to soliciting help from theologians, that is not the kind of expert needed; there are few experts on Khalifa; among those who are not followers of his, I'm probably the world's foremost expert on his work, and I knew him personally. But this article is a biography, not an article on his theories, which are only mentioned in brief, and you won't find my research on his theories here. (But it's all over the internet. My family name is Lomax.) Please, if POV aspects are noticed, fix them or at least describe the problem in Talk. Missing citations are not POV issues, if the facts aren't controversial or are at least reasonable and not prejudicial. The appropriate response to a missing citation is a citation tag, unless the text creates POV imbalance without encyclopedic necessity.

--Abd (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Waste of time :)
Arguing with cult members, I mean. To me the only thing interesting about Rashad Khalifa is whether or not his assassin was Wadih el-Hage, who later became famous as a member of al-Qa'ida. LDH (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

as far as i can tell from the public access case lookup it isnt available, would i maybe have better luck going right to the court building? , (http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/publicaccess/caselookup.aspx), note the disclaimer on the bottom : The following are excluded from search results: Sealed Cases, Non-served Domestic Violence Cases, Mental Health Cases, Juvenile Incorrigible/Delinquency Cases, Probate Cases, Victim Data, Witness Data. Juvenile Incorrigible/Delinquency case data is excluded and does not display; other types of cases in which juveniles are parties may display. Other functions that are carried out by the clerk's office such as passport applications, power of attorney and process servers are also not reflected here.

Schulte123 (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Disposition of the "sexual misconduct" case.
It would be useful if someone in Tucson could check court records on the disposition of the rape case reported. I knew Khalifa and the people who carried on after him, particularly his secretary, and that he had pled no contest to at least one charge was common knowledge. http://www.submission.org/khalifa.html, a biography of Khalifa by a supporter, contains this as I look today:


 * Like Prophet Muhammed before him, who has been attacked on the Internet with all kinds of false accusations, Dr. Khalifa was also accused, by what seems to be a pre-arranged scheme, of sexual misconduct  with allegations that he adamantly denied. These allegations stemmed from the nature of a U. N. project he was conducting as a biochemist to study human body aura. His accusations, his denial and their insistence on repeating  it, were just more examples of how traditional Muslims fail to follow the Quran alone, as seen in their failure to follow  the commandments of God in the Quran in such circumstances.  This incident, however, did expose the hypocrites and their allies, who still sing the false accusations in their fading hope of diverting the people away from his  message of Quran ALONE, GOD ALONE. These accusations are no different from the accusations on the Internet of prophet Muhammed of sexual misconduct and abuse that can be seen on many  anti-Islamic sites. Such sites are all lies and meant to insult Islam (Submission) and the belief in ONE GOD and His book the Quran ALONE.

Note what is acknowledged: That he was conducting work purported to study the human body aura. He was indeed a biochemist and did indeed have some relationship with the U.N.

I'm not aware of any evidence that those who opposed Khalifa's work had any involvement with the sexual misconduct charges. Nor have I heard any evidence that what Khalifa did was more than "questionable," the claim was that he inappropriately touched the girl involved. There may be court records of the charges. Technically, a "no contest" plea, which is what was common knowledge, is an admission of "guilt," but only for the purpose of determining legal consequence in the particular case. With such a case, the court does not determine if the facts of the case as presented by the prosecution are true. Arguments exist on the internet that the plea was an admission of guilt, which isn't correct. In fact, it leaves the question open; it indicates that Khalifa might have thought that he would lose if it went to trial. If it was a plea on a lesser charge, it indicates that the prosecutor felt that there might be difficulty proving the more serious charge. There is no question but that this incident casts a shadow on Khalifa's reputation, and it should be reported as accurately as possible without bias toward besmirching him or clearing him or whitewashing by excluding the whole topic.

But the disposition is a gaping gap in the article right now. I'm not going to edit the article based on my personal knowledge, but my personal knowledge may affect my judgment of the sources, and I might use a weaker source than otherwise I'd allow. Hopefully, someone will do the Tucson research and come up with citations, exact primary source text or, just as good in some ways and better in others, newspaper report, and hopefully photocopies (they can be faxed to me, email me if anyone has something to contribute). For the lead to the case, see. --Abd (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The rules (WP:OR and WP:RS) do not allow us to include information that is only available in unpublished sources like court records. Of course I would like to know what is there, but we probably can't use it.  Actually all we need to complete this story well enough is a newspaper report of the no-contest plea.  Maybe the Tuscon Citizen can help.  Zerotalk 14:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Innocent until proven guilty. See Quran 49:6. Signed, ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~ Contact 22:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Scientific American
I consulted the September 1980 issue of Scientific American to check the claim that Martin Gardner had called Khalifa's work "ingenious". What it has (page 18) is:
 * "It's an ingenious study of the Koran," said Dr. Matrix, "but it would have been more impressive if Khalifa had consulted me before he wrote it."

Dr. Matrix was an imaginary friend, called "the worlds greatest numerologist", that Gardner used as a literary device. Words put into the mouth of Dr. Matrix are not necessarily the opinion of Gardner, but can be just entertaining assertions used to introduce a subject. Zerotalk 01:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Gardner later wrote a deeper article for Skeptical Inquirer. That later article mentions my work, by the way, I'm known as a critic of Khalifa's work. I'd say that Gardner did call the work "ingenious," but that doesn't mean that he supported it. Even a nefarious scheme could be called "ingenious." The Scientific American article shows notice of Khalifa's work, and the present text, which omits "ingenious," is probably more balanced. --Abd (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

pile of cn tags on the article.
An editor added a pile of cn tags to the article. As far as I've noticed, the facts tagged are well-known and can be supported by references in time. Some of the facts should indeed have attribution, such as "According to Khalifa," and I have the books buried somewhere in this apartment. Let's look at the current tagged text, I'll start a subsection for each. --Abd (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

using computers in 1968
Starting in 1968, Khalifa used computers to analyze the frequency of letters and words in the Qur'an.

1974 claim of numerical pattern
In 1974 he claimed that he discovered an intricate numerical pattern in the text of the Qur'an involving the number 19 mentioned in verse 30 of chapter 74 of the Qur'an.
 * This may be inaccurate, his original work on numeric pattern did not connect pattern to 30:74, but I'll check. What we may be seeing here is later synthesis. --Abd (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Details of claim
The details of this analysis including tables are available in the back of his book, Quran, the Final Testament.[2] This was not tagged, but needs attention anyway
 * The details shifted over the years, and what was published in the Final Testament is quite different from the earlier publications. So it is not "this analysis," i.e., the 1974 analysis. --Abd (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Many popular magazines and newspapers
Many popular magazines and newspapers[which?] in the Muslim world reported his discoveries.
 * This doesn't need two tags. I'll pull the first.--Abd (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Other magazine and newspaper articles
Many other magazines and newspaper articles by and about Khalifa appeared throughout the world in many languages.
 * This is redundant, I'll yank it. --Abd (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Many Muslim organizations
Various Muslim organisations however have criticised Dr. Rashad's studies,[citation needed] accusing him of spreading heresy and ignorance through his proclamation of himself as a prophet
 * Doesn't need two tags, and it's WP:WEASEL. Definitely, we need specifics. I'll yank one tag. --Abd (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

cn tag
OK I don't mind for this changes. In Bengali wikipedia there have been running on going discussion regarding stand alone article of Dr. Rashad's Mathematical analysis of Qur'anic text. In discussion the supporters of this article pointed out this link, but I fill this have to be clarify here. I tagged Afd for this article for notability issue. If this section of this article varified by WP:RS, this is help for me in our wiki and here. Thanks - Jayanta Nath (Talk 16:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll give you my opinion. There exist many sources which are not reported here in this article. I have no personal doubt over the notability of Dr. Khalifa's theories, they had a significant impact before his assassination, there are many followers of his work to this day, and there have been many publications covering them. Make no mistake: I have done extensive work and writing on that work, including reporting (most intensively on usenet, years ago) on other publications, I'll see what I can find here. Dr. Khalifa made some major mistakes, but I've avoided trying to point that out in the article, because it would be, largely, original research, even though it's been picked up by others. (For example, see the Skeptical Inquirer article by Martin Gardner, if you can find it -- not long ago it was still available on-line, it mentions my work.) Whether or not the theories deserve a special article is a separate question, your wiki will have to decide for itself. There are, however, others who have carried on the kind of study that Rashad Khalifa did, but there is less independent review of this. The general topic, then, would not be "Rashad's Mathematical Analysis" but "Mathematical analysis of Qur'anic text," and Rashad's analysis is only one of a number of approaches. For example, there was the work of Milan Sulc, but I don't know if there are any independent sources for that. This by Edip Yuksel refers to much other work, but this would not be considered reliable source.
 * Ahmad_Deedat's work, The Ultimate Miracle, later withdrawn, on this topic might be considered mentionable. It was entirely derivative of Khalifa's work, and had uncritically accepted it.
 * This is an interview of Edip Yuksel that might be usable. I'd hesitate to consider frontpagemag.com magazine neutral, but at least it's independent.... --Abd (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Pic
Shall we put a pic of him up?--88.111.116.242 (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Messenger of Covenant
Hi

I try and still cannot understand how verses 3.81 and 33.7 are supporting his claim to be the Messenger of Covenant (image - his claim). Verse (33:40) clearly stated that Muhammad is the Messenger of God (covenant), and Verse 3.81 (image) speaks about the coming of Muhammad and the Quran to confirm all previous revelations. It is the Covenant by followers of previous revelations to accept Muhammad and his confirmation through a new Book from Allah, ie. the Quran. However they rejected Muhammad and the Quran after finding out he is an Arab, from the Jahilliyah and among the worst nation during that time. They refused and proud by their non Arab Prophets. On the other hand, Verse 33.7 (image) speaks about the Covenant between Allah and the Believers/Disbelievers and that were made through every Prophets with the objective that the Disbelievers shall not turn around against the Believers and flee during war. This is so since the Believers/Disbelievers cannot see, spoke or receive revelations from Allah and thus need to enter covenant with Allah "through" their Prophets. Someone needs to explain it logically before many are able to understand the facts that Allah sent a Messenger and it is Rashad Khalifa. I hardly believe that this claim can pass any honest debate, or perhaps someone here can explain verse 3:81-87, and verse 33:7-15.

(click here to see the comparision)

Verse 33.7-15
As we can see, verse 33:7 is about covenant from the believers/disbelievers not to turn around against the Believers and flee during war and verse 3.81 is about confirming previous revelations with new Book from Allah, ie. the Quran. Therefore, the RK's declaration to be the Messenger of Covenant through verses 3.81 and 33.7 is a fallacy. It is clear that He is not the Messenger of Covenant and these verses is referring to Muhammad and confirmation through the Quran.

 Muhammad is  not the father of any man among you but he is  the Messenger of God (Covenant)  (33:40)

These were my views and perhaps someone can explain it.

http://rashadkhalifa.blogspot.com/

Code 19 & Declaring the Quran is FALSE
Rashad Khalifa declared the Quran is FALSE and delete two verses (9:128-129) from the Quran based on the Code 19. He also declared the Muslim Ummah as the Kuffar or Disbelivers. Therefore, I was wondering whether anything related to the 19 is intended as a test by Allah to the Disbelievers. This question is based on the reading the actual context of Code 19 Theory, ie. verse (74:1-39) and based on the translation of: Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar Ali Ünal Sher Ali Ahmed Ali Others

Please refer to the 4th Premise for reading the contextual analysis of Code 19 Theory.

The discussion is divided into four parts. Part 1, 2 and 3 is the authority for the logical methodology in the Quran. Part 4 is the actual analysis of the Code 19 theory. Last part is some primary question that are relevant to the issue of deleting two verses from the Quran. 1st Premise: All True Premises 2nd Premise: Entirely Clear Verses 3rd Premise: Do not ask 4th Premise: Contextual Analysis of Code 19 Submitters or Deniers?

1st Premise: All True Premises
Do not mix the Truth with Falsehood, below is the authority: And do not mix the Truth with Falsehood (2:42) If one or more premises from the Qu'ran is FALSE, then the conclusion cannot be TRUE. All premises must be TRUE for us to have a TRUE conclusion. This is the main rule of Islam from the Qu'ran. Therefore, IF the conclusion from all true premises THEN follow the rule ELSE do not follow the rule

Other authorities

O People of the Scripture why do you confuse the Truth with Falsehood (3:71)

And the example of a bad word is like a bad tree uprooted from the surface of the earth not having any stability (14:26)

Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from other than Allah they would have found within it much contradiction (4:82)

What is [wrong] with you? How do you make judgement? Then will you not be reminded? Or do you have a clear authority? (37:154-156)

These, our people, have taken besides Him deities Why do they not bring for them a clear authority And who is more unjust than one who invents about Allah a lie?"                (18:15)

Or do they say "He has made it up"? (ie. the Quran) Rather, they do not believe Then let them produce a statement like it                if they should be truthful Or were they created by nothing or were they the creators [of themselves]? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain Or have they the depositories [containing the provision] of your Lord? Or are they the controllers [of them]? Or have they a stairway [into the heaven] upon which they listen? Then let their listener produce a clear authority (52:33-38)

2nd Premise: Entirely Clear Verses
Follow the entirely clear verses and no one know it interpretation. Not entirely clear verses must be explained by the entirely clear verses from the Quran so that the words become entirely clear verses. Therefore.. IF verse is entirely clear THEN follow that verse ELSE no one knows its interpretation (ignore the verse) Below is the authority: It is He who has sent this Scripture down to you Some of its verses are definite in meaning these are the cornerstone of the Scripture and others are ambiguous The perverse at heart eagerly pursue the ambiguities in their attempt to make trouble and to pin down a specific meaning of their own only God knows the true meaning Those firmly grounded in knowledge say ‘We believe in it: it is all from our Lord’ only those with real perception will take heed (3:7)

3rd Premise: Do not ask
Do not ask matter that is not clearly mentioned or explained in the Quran. It is intended as a test for the Disbelievers. O you who have believed DO NOT ASK about things which if they are shown to you will distress you But if you ask about them while the Qur'an is being revealed they will be shown to you Allah has pardoned that which is past and Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing A people asked such [questions] before you then they became thereby disbelievers (5:101-102)

regarding matter that no interpretation has come from Allah

Rather, they have denied that which they encompass not in knowledge and whose interpretation has not yet come to them Thus did those before them deny Then observe how was the end of the wrongdoers (10:39)

regarding mathematical assumptions

And they have thereof no knowledge They follow not except assumption and indeed, assumption avails not against the truth at all (53:28)

4th Premise: Contextual Analysis of Code 19
Verses (74:1-39)

Conclusion Declaring the Quran is FALSE = Over it are Saqar (hell) = Over (it) Saqar are 19 = Over (it) 19 are the test to the disbelievers

Submitters or Deniers?
Other primary question Do you "dispute and deny" verses 9:128 and 9:129 ? (for whatever reason, Messenger or else. It is not relevant to the question) Simple question. Yes, or No

According to the following verses, those who dispute the Quran are automatically becoming the Deniers.

No one disputes concerning the signs of Allah except those who disbelieve (40:4)

The Quran have been perfected.

This day I have perfected for you your deen and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as deen (5:3)

The Quran has been protected by Allah since Muhammad.It is not relevant to us to find out how Allah protects the Quran.

Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur'an             and indeed We will be its guardian (15:9)

Religion is Submission not "United Submitters International"
Have changed the Religion from "United Submitters International" to "Submission" as it is an ambiguous phrase, a group cannot be a religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaOmega19 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Rashad Khalifa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121228235110/http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Calgarian+faces+life+sentence+1990+murder+controversial/7743101/story.html to http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Calgarian+faces+life+sentence+1990+murder+controversial/7743101/story.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160414205239/http://submission.ws/index.php/quran-the-final-testament.html to http://submission.ws/index.php/quran-the-final-testament.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rashad Khalifa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5ZmxTU8Vt?url=http://submission.org/messenger/ to http://submission.org/messenger/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vancouversun.com/Life/Fugitive+held+slaying+American+imam+denied+bail/1621967/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rashad Khalifa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://submission.org/messenger/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100304031242/http://www.rashadkhalifa.org/covenant.html to http://www.rashadkhalifa.org/covenant.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224194748/http://www.submission.ws/index.php/submission-radio-quran-mp3/quran-studies.html to http://www.submission.ws/index.php/submission-radio-quran-mp3/quran-studies.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

New links
The FBI has recently declassified documents relating to Rashad Khalifa (https://archive.org/details/RashadKhalifa/page/n21), which contain useful information about him and would benefit the "Life" section of the article.

Additionally, we should consider renaming the "Doctrine" section to "United Submitters International", seeing as he is the main figure of the group, and only this group adheres to his doctrine.

27.99.32.150 (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)CM

Death
There are some categories that indicate he was stabbed to death by a terrorist in 1990, but the article says nothing about that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * That's because the article was recently vandalised. Please feel free to adjust the categories again if thy are suboptimal. Zerotalk 08:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But I have no idea what the categories should be - if somebody deleted the death part from the article or added the death categories. I don't know the first thing about this person.
 * I am just somebody who is at the moment changing all Category:Apocalypticists to Category:20th-century apocalypticists or whatever is appropriate. I cannot remedy all the ills of all the articles I edit, or I will get nowhere with that task. I just noticed something wrong and notified those who are at home here. Somebody else should do it, somebody who does know the first thing about this person, and if possible without pinging me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia not the National Enquirer
I reverted the recent dubious edit by IP 27.99.4.196. Instead of a short edit summary, I wanted to give a more detailed explanation on the talk page. IP 27.99.4.196 added a section about a rape allegation against Rashad Khalifa, supposedly per WP:BALASP. However, per WP:FALSEBALANCE, Wikipedia guidelines suggest that this type of speculative history should be omitted:

"We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world."

Moreover, the website cited as a source, quranresearch.com, does not meet Wikipedia standards per WP:QUESTIONABLE:

"Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities."

Someone is intentionally trying to mislead people by creating a dummy website with an innocent sounding name in order to hide the polemical nature of the source and the allegation itself. If you go to the address in the cited source, quranresearch.com, or click the link hidden at the bottom of the page, you're redirected to the polemical website answering-christianity.com. I don't think it's a coincidence that the only places on the internet you can find this rape allegation against Rashad Khalifa is on polemical websites like:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/rk_rape_case.htm

http://answeringsubmission.wordpress.com/2007/11/30/rashad-khalifa-rape-case/

Perhaps IP 27.99.4.196 wants to lend credibility to the rape allegation by making Wikipedia the lone exception.

I also don't think it's a coincidence that IP 27.99.4.196 first and only contribution to this article, and Wikipedia in general, was this speculative rape allegation against Rashad Khalifa. This allegation was started by Arlo Hale Smith Jr. (the dude calling himself Abdul Haleem in the aforementioned links). Ironically, Arlo Hale Smith Jr's ex-wife made a rape allegation against him, so he should know better than to engage in these types of polemics against someone else. 2601:241:8305:1220:4154:199C:8A66:1C2F (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)