Talk:United Submitters International

{{ONE GOD ONE WORLD ONE MESSAGE THROUGHT INDIAN INTERNATIONAL SUBMISSION ORGANIZATION MODE 19 +×÷=♾ℹblisexist in 8th UNIVERSE., MY EXISTENCE TILL I THINK AND IMAGIE IF I AM BEING STOPPED THEN I EXIT and die voluntarily like John Carter of Mars.....}}

Peace and Blessings

What's with the repetitious "peace and blessings be upon him" statement whenever muhammad's name is mentioned? aside from the fact that each instance of that statement interrupts the flow of the article, it also introduces a sense of bias. I thought wikipedia was supposed to be above that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.82.11.163 (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the section re beliefs, carried over from the Rashad Khalifa article, was somewhat meandering and bloated. Edip Yuksel's prose? I edited it down severely, and added some comparative material re hadith and numerology. Khalifa was not as innovative as the earlier version of this article depicted him. Still need to add reference to possible schism in group. Zora 28 June 2005 09:02 (UTC)

I've removed the peace and blessings. Without wanting to disrespect anyone's personal religious requirements, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that does not pray to anybody. In general, this article needs hugely touching up. There are a lot of unsourced statements, and this talk page in particular is full of discussion of the subject matter, which has no place on Wikipedia. This is an encylopedia for sourced information, not a debating hall for original research. Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Pleass don't mind any religious tradition when you're studying some about it. Addyianson (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Zeno's deletion

Zeno deleted a section of new material re numerology in Christianity and Judaism, saying that it was not relevant to Islam. I think this material should be included, on two grounds:

1) Followers of Mr. Khalifa seem to think that he made a miraculous NEW discovery, whereas he seems to have been following in a well-trodden path.

2) The history of Islam cannot be understood without reference to Christianity and Judaism. Many Islamic doctrines were developed in the course of controversy with Christian and Jewish opponents. Muslims were in day to day contact with Christians and Jews in the early period of Islam, when most of present day Islamic doctrine/theology/law/history was developed. It's notable that Islam imitated so many Jewish institutions (the independent local congregation, the imam as a Muslim rabbi, laws re food and bodily purity) and rejected most of the Kabbalah.

The material puts Mr. Khalifa in a wider context. Zora 29 June 2005 02:24 (UTC)

It's true that most of Islamic numerology is borrowed from Christianity and Judaism (e.g. the Qur'ans emphasis on the number 7 is mirrored by similar emphasis in Judaeo-Christianity, like the 7 deadly sins, etc.) But then numerology in Christianity and Judaism can be traced back to even earlier religions such as Zorastrianism. In my new edit of the article, I mentioned that most cultures and religions have some form of numerology - I think this is suffucient. Discussing the details of related numerology in other religions would lead to article bloat, imo. --Zeno of Elea 29 June 2005 03:03 (UTC)

Zora's Deletion

Zora, please explain why you have decided to delete the background information on Islamic numerology. If you wish to include further background information about Christian and Judaic numerology, then I would not mind, though I did delete this addition of yours because I felt that it would cause the article to become bloated. For the record, I did like the discussion about numerology in Christianity and Judaism. At any rate, I payed you the courtesy of explaining why I was deleting your contribution, and I would expect the same from you. --Zeno of Elea 29 June 2005 07:35 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that you split the information into subsections, I thought you threw out the info. --Zeno of Elea 29 June 2005 08:08 (UTC)

Khalifa's Numerology can resolve authorship disputes of literature?

This is an incorrect assertion made in the article, and a rather curious one. Either the editor has a reason for wanting to make Khalifa's numerology seem more sophisticated than it actually was, or he is simply not famaliar with Khalifa's work.

I may not have phrased it well, but Khalifa's computer work started in the 1960s, when many academics had their first access to computers, and "quantitative historical literary analysis" (I couldn't think of the name, thanks) was trendy at the time. Using a computer to count word frequencies in a text was not a new idea, invented by Khalifa -- it was an adaptation of an idea in the air at the time. Khalifa just took it in strange directions. I think that should be pointed out. Again, it puts him in historical perspective. If there isn't an article on quantitative historical literary analysis, then there should be. Then we could link to it and reduce the reference to just a few words.

I'm female. Zora is my old computer RPG username <g>. Zora 29 June 2005 08:45 (UTC)

I dont know if anyone actually uses the phrase "quantitative historical literary analysis." I just made it up. But I think that determining the authorship of a piece of literature would have to involve a lot more than counting word frequencies and crunching numbers. I imagine that most authorships disputes are attempted to be resolved by making arguments based on what the literature is actually saying and not just the quantifiable aspects of literary style. --Zeno of Elea 29 June 2005 10:07 (UTC)

But the technique has actually been used in several literary controversies. I'm blanking on the details at the moment, but someone used this technique to argue that some otherwise unattributed poetry was by Shakespeare, I believe. There was also a controversy re "The Visit of St. Nicholas", which many scholars believe was plagiarized by the person who is usually credited with writing it. Zora 29 June 2005 11:01 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt from the Submitters' website, describing the "Mathematical Miracle of the Qur'an" involving the number 19 [1]:

----

"Though the code was initially discovered by examining the occurrences of Quranic initials in the initialed chapters of Quran, there is a large number of much less complex parameters to the code. Here is a brief listing of some of them:

1.There are 114 chapters in the Quran, or 19 x 6.

2.The total number of verses in the Quran is 6346, or 19 x 334.

3.Then you add the 30 different numbers which are mentioned in the Quran's text (i.e. one God, two brothers, etc.), the total is 162146 or 19 x 8534."

----

Now, this is a random pattern related to probability and number theory. Mathematics does not recognize miracles, there is no such thing as a "mathematical miracle." But leaving aside whether or not this really is a "mathematical miracle," Khalifa's work in numerology was not related to the method of quantitative historical literary analysis that involves using machine learning techniques to classify text by author, in order to resolve authorship disputes. --Zeno of Elea 29 June 2005 07:50 (UTC)

QA- This is nonsense. It all depends on how you define a miracle. A miracle is usually defined as something which is seemingly impossible to be immitated by humans at a particular time period i.e. it is relative. For example Moses parting the two seas was a miracle coz the people at his time could never do that. There's a challenge at [[2]] for anyone to produce something like the awesome numerical interlocks in Quran. Furthermore we are very angry that you insist on calling Khlifa's work as numerology since it was not. It was based on counts of words forming interlocks. The four words in the opening Bismillah in the Quran for example. The counts of all of them are multiples of 19. The last one 'raheem' occuring 114 times which is also the no of total suras n bismillshs, despite its absence on sura 9. Now if tht aint significant then i really dont know wht is.

Humans are pattern-seeking animals and patterns can be found in anything, if you look hard enough. I'm sure that there's a psychological or social-psychological name for this tendency, but I don't know what it is. A trivial example is our proclivity for finding faces in all sorts of blotchy patterns (cheese sandwiches, tortillas, water stains, and Martian craters). Zora 29 June 2005 08:45 (UTC)

QA- The thing is that in the Quran you need not look hard enough. The Quran says in 74:30 'Over it 19' and as i said the counts of all four words in the Quran's opening statement occur in it a multiple of 19 times, the last word 'raheem' occuring 114 times which is the total no of chpters, so we see a clear interlock here. Also check out the following: Beyond Probability and study it carefully plz.

www.19.org

An anonymous editor inserted a link to the article titled Diamond vs Glass (hosted at www.19.org), but labeled the link as a "thorough statistical analysis" of Khalifa's "mathematical miracle of the Qur'an." The author of this article clearly states that he believes tin the "19 miracle" that was first conconcted by Rashad Khalifa. The article is NOT a "thorough statistical analysis." In fact it has nothing to do with statistics, the article (mis)uses probability (there is an important difference). There's also nothing thorough about it. To claim that something is a thorough statistical analysis it must be published in an academic journal. It took me a while to figure out what exactly the article is about. It turns out that the author is attempting to use probability to demonstrate that the number 19 is somehow miraculously related to the QUr'an and that the number 17 is not (the author claims that Satan and his followers are tryting to deceive Muslims into believing that there is a miraculously "17 code" in the Qur'an, similar to the "19 code"). Here is an excerpt [3]:

"... p = .0792 ... Wow! A miracle! But wait! Is it really? Remember the range of probabilities for the outcomes we found for the Qur’ânic initials? Aside from the number 19, the best finding was for the number 2 (p =.0537, or .0161 with the "nûn" correction). Was that a miracle? Of course not. Yet it was clearly better than the outcome we have here! And what was the outcome for the number 19? It was p = .0000142. Now that you know what real evidence for a miracle looks like, is there "miraculous" evidence for the number 17 in this contrived data set? Obviously not. The number 17 is not important in the least ..."

The author claims that the "19 code" is a "mathematical miracle" because the patterns occurs with a probability of 0.0000142, and that the number 17 is not miraculous because the "17 pattern" occurs with a probability of p = .0792.

A cursory understanding of probaility theory reveals that this reasoning is obviously flawed. There is nothing miraculous about an event occuring with probability 0.0000142. Events can theoretically occur even if they have 0 probability, and countless billions of events are constantly taking place in the universe with probabilities like 0.0000000000000000000000001. A simple example of this would be to randomly generate a random sequence of a billion digits (something that can easly be done with a home computer). The probability of that exact sequence of digitis would be 0.0000000001, which is much smaller than the "19 miracle" probability of 0.0000142 cited in the article. Clearly there is nothing miraculous in the occurance of low probability events since they can easily be caused at will and are in fact constantly occuring everywhere around us.

The point I'm trying to make is that this link is far from being a "thorough statistical analysis" of the alleged "19 miracle." --Zeno of Elea 30 June 2005 03:12 (UTC)

Khizar- Wer not just taking an event n staing its probability here. Thats y the COMPARISON is so important. U have to compare n weigh it against other things, thts wht makes it significant. Y does the no. 19 stand out so clearly as compared to others in Quran? Do u see the difference? Tht is the main pt. Without this comparison ur criticism wld have been valid. As for the scientific journal like all humans r biased in some way or the other scientific journals too are biased n they wld NEVER publish anything related to GOD Who created them n us coz tht wld bound them n their ego cant bear tht. I can assure u tht it doesnt matter wht evidence is brought up scientific journals will never write anything in their journals abt GOD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.130.89.24 (talk • contribs) July 6 2005

Just a comment, if you consider all scientific journals as biased "one way or other" and discredit scientific methods, then you can't really argue for statistical analysis here. And scientific journals are supposed to discuss and publish articles/papers on Science, and those articles are subject to very rigorous peer review process. The bias is likely to be less due to the process of anonymous reviews. Really!! --Ragib 6 July 2005 03:40 (UTC)

Khizar- No this is not true. Those people too have an agneda. Although for many people the signs from all around the universe lead them to conclude that there is an Intelligent Designer those journals would never admit to that. they deliberately wanna keep GOD out and this is the greatest bias of all. Remember that even Einstein said 'Religion without science is blind and science without religion is LAME'. I hope you got my point. As for the anonymous study again that is wrong. There are 100s of tricks to get only those people together who share the same agenda under the anonymous category. So they would always be biased as far as GOD related issues are concerned.

Well, I beg to differ on this. I don't see why a scientific journal would publish *any* article on a topic not related to that journal. The question raised by Zeno was about the validity of Statistical analyses claims, and a valid, rigorous analysis would have no problem being relevant to a journal devoted to Math/Statistics. But not an article on religion ..., unless that is mathematically sound. As for the "hidden agenda", that sounds like the black-helicopter-type conspiracy theories, doesn't it? And finally, having been related to the peer review process of journals and confefrences, I can definitely attest to the fact that the anonymous peer review process more or less works fine and is in most cases devoid of any bias. Of course, the ideas in a scientific journal paper need to be sound and based on logic/experiment/analysis. No question of guesswork/hand waving would survive a peer review process in case of mathematical/statistical papers, and that's probably what Zeno indicated in the comment. Thanks. --Ragib 6 July 2005 10:55 (UTC)

Khizar- u said "But not an article on religion ..., unless that is mathematically sound."

• This is exactly the point and no scientific journals never include articles on religion be they mathematically sound or not. Thts the basic prob. Most of those people dont want anything to do with GOD. N scientific journals r obviously controlled by the media, thts for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.130.67.151 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 6 July 2005 (UTC)

So, can you name a scientific journal controlled by media? I'm curious who controls ACM's journals or IEEE and other scientific journal. --Ragib 6 July 2005 20:13 (UTC)

Khizar- I dont know n cant tell u. Those big bosses r well hidden n they make a lot of money by fooling people. Ever wondered y such journals never mention GOD with +ve attitude although it's so obvious that He exists for so many people from the signs they see around the universe? Such people aint allowed to touch or edit scientific journals coz they dont want that. Now dont tell me all those GOD believers are dumb people. There are many scientists which believe in GOD. Einstein and Newton too believed in God. But these things r always suppressed by the media. So the thing is clear "they dont want GOD".

The Qur'an - Quran problem

I've been told that the Wiki software doesn't let us use apostrophes or special characters in article titles. Hence the Qur'an article is entitled Quran. However, there's no prohibition on using a more exact transliteration in the body of the article.

It's really a vexing problem. There are a great many languages that require special characters for an exact transliteration -- but many readers would know only the shortcut transliterations without special characters. So if we required them to type in the special characters, they wouldn't, and it would seem to them that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the subject.

My own thought is that we ought to be able to use the special characters in article titles, but that we should routinely have redirects for the shortcut versions. This would be a BIG project, however, both for the coding, fixing article titles, fixing all the links, and setting up redirects. So we just muddle along. Zora 21:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

it's all good. it's actually "Qur'aan" anyway, but no one cares. for this article i just made it all Quran so that the links would work (i.e. Quran Alone).

In my opinion, it's not important to transliterate commonplace words, they should be Anglicised properly. No single word in English has apostrophes in the middle, nor accents or anything like that. Again, it's only my opinion, but I think we should only ever use 'Quran' in plain English. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of beliefs

Daviadaitken, can you explain to me why you removed the beliefs listing at the bottom? I can entertain the idea that it could benefit from being trimmed and organised, but not removed entirely. Please discuss that sort of change here before you do it, if you would. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit of Beliefs

• The Quran was corrupted soon after Prophet Muhammad’s death. (p.viii, 669-671)

=false claim. The Quran was never corrupted, the addition of two verses at the end of the last sura revealed in Mina is a historical fact, even according to such Mohammedan sources as Sahih Bukhari. The world's oldest copies of the Quran do not include such injections, see the Tashkent for details.

• Their “authorized version” of the Quran is the first Quran in the original pure form in 1400 years. (p.viii, 670)

=false claim. The "authorized ENGLISH version" refers to the translation. The pure Quran as existed since it was placed into the soul of the final prophet - Muhammad - 1440 years ago (610 AD). It existed for approx. 19 years after his departure from this world into the next (you might know it as death). The pure Quran was never tampered with.

• All the hadith and Sunnah are satanic innovations. (p.664)

=repeat.

• Pig fat is permissible to eat. (p.663)

=out of context. The Mohammedans have fabicated myriad prohibitions in the name of God. God forbids the "meat of pigs" only. Any prohibition not specificially instituted in the Quran constitutes a law from another source besides God. This is shirk.

• Prophet Muhammad’s soul only went on the Isra wal Miraj (Journey and Ascension) not his body. (p.viii)

=out of context. This belief is held by various Islamic groups, it is not exclusive to the USI. See M. Pickthall's translation for details.

• The number 19 is the axis of the Quran and this is what proves its authenticity. (p.625)

=repeat. Axis? This word is not used once - cover to cover - in any of the works of Dr. Rashad Khalifa or any other USI publications.

• Everything “Muslims” do is wrong. (p.704)

=repeat & out of context.

• The world will end in the year 2280 CE. (p.xv, 691)

=out of context. This is not central to the USI beliefs, nor can it be elaborated on in such a summative article. Those interested can read APPENDIX 25 of the translation on any of the external links.

• All humans and jinns sent to the earth by God had rebelled against Him in heaven during the time of Adam, and thus were sent to the earth to redeem themselves because they sided with Satan. (p.xvi)

=flat-out incorrect.

• Prophet Muhammad’s mission was only to deliver the Quran, he was forbidden from explaining it. Thus, Rashad Khalifa was sent to explain it. (p.657)

=gross blasphemy, nowhere does it say that. total lie.

• Gog and Magog will appear in the year 2271 CE. (p.691)

=out of context. This is not central to the USI beliefs, nor can it be elaborated on in such a summative article. Those interested can read APPENDIX 25 of the translation on any of the external links.

• Hadith is a good source of history but forbidden from being used for religious teachings. (p.692)

=1st half is wrong, 2nd half is a repeat.

• Satan is a fallen angel and all jinns are fallen angels. (p.665)
• God appointed Satan a temporary god on the spaceship earth. (p.xvi)

=both of these are manipulated and taken out of context, the entire article on "why are we here" and the role of As-shaytan ir-rajeem (the rejected Satan) spans several pages, those interested in Submission can read it in the INTRODUCTION on any of the external links

• Prophet Jesus is dead and there is no second coming. (p.667)

=LIE. USI publicatins stress that the righteous who depart this world DO NOT DIE (appendix 17).

• Polygamy only permitted if three criteria are satisfied which Rashad Khalifa gave. It was only used during the time of the Prophet Muhammad because the world’s population was small. (p.701)

=total lie.

• The murderer is not to be killed, but needs to pay compensation only. (p.708)
• The adulterer is not to be stoned but only given a hundred lashes in public. (p.708)
• Ali ibn Abi Talib was fighting the distortors and fabricators of the Quran. This is also what led to the death of Hussein ibn Ali. (p.viii, 670)

=all 3 are SHAMELESSLY ripped out of context, the last one is erroneous.

• There is a lower heaven for those who die before they turn forty years of age and a higher heaven for the believers who led a righteous life. (p.650, 657)

=wrong.

• There are two lower heavens and two higher heavens, one for the humans and one for the jinns. (p.650, 657)
• Hell has not been created yet and will be created on the Day of Judgement. (p.650, 657)

= neither are central to USI beliefs, the details of heaven and hell are irrelevant. God informs us in the Quran that the Hereafter described therein is allegorical, using the Arabic word "mithhal"

• When God uses “We” in the Quran He is referring to the angels and Prophet Muhammad including Himself. (p.656)

=inaccurate description of a lengthy appendix

• They believe in purgatory – i.e. an extra place that is neither heaven nor hell. (p.657)

=wrong. absolute lie.

• Sign of the beast heralding the Day of Judgement is the computer which helped in calculating the number 19 as the axis of the Quran. (p.691)

=again with the "axis"? what gives? this is not central to USI beliefs and is ripped out of context.

• The three messengers of Islam according to the Quran are Abraham, Muhammad and Rashad Khalifa. (p.693, 642)
• Those who do not believe in the messenger of the covenant, Rashad Khalifa are disbelievers. (p.471)
• Rashad Khalifa went on his own Miraj and met all the prophets in December 1971 while on the hajj. (p.639)

=details of Rashad's messengership are given in appendix 2, it has already been stated that he was a messenger like those before him.

• The Umayyad caliph Marwan ibn al-Hakam destroyed the original Quran which was handwritten by Prophet Muhammad because “fearing the eruption of new disputes.” (p.viii, 670)

=this is taken from `ULUM AL-QURAN, by Ahmad von Denffer, Islamic Foundation, Leicester, United Kingdom, 1983, Page 56. is not central to USI beliefs, rather it is a historical fact.

• Taking interest (riba) is permissible provided it is not excessive (5-15%). (Footnote to Surah al-Imran 3:130, p.66)

=out of context, not central to USI beliefs.

Further on beliefs

I'm not qualified to offer much information on this page, as per my ignorance of the subject matter. Is anybody else here able to confirm or deny what User:Davidaitken has been stating? -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 00:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Assalamu alaikum

Peace be upon y'all,

Al-Qur'aan il-Majid (The Glorious Quran) garuntees maximum freedom for the people - freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom to travel, and freedom of economy (2:256, 10:99, 88:21-22).

The changes to the 'beliefs section' here were done by someone in obvious opposition to the USI and in adament defence of his idol, the final prophet Muhammad. Almost everything he/she added was ripped out of context. God willing, let's see how easy that can be:

All praise be to God and peace be upon ALL his messengers whom He chose to deliver His messages... for the purpose of this excercise I will be talking about Jesus - son of Mary - messenger of God, whom I love as I love all of God's messengers.

Almost any big size book can be discredited by the dishonest and deceitful methods used by the ill-intentioned editor of the 'beliefs section'; any book. By following the methods used by whatever ill-intentioned editor tampered with the 'beliefs sections,' I could easily depict Jesus, one of the messengers of peace and submission to God's will, as a divider and a trouble maker, rather than a peacemaker. Let's take one example from Bible:

"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." Lu 12:51-53

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34

By using such methods, I could claim that the disciples of Jesus were, in fact, a dangerous gang who were planning to shed blood in that peaceful region. They were savages who cut the ears of their opponents:

And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear. (Mt 26:51. Also see: Mark 14:47 ; Lu 22:50; John 18:10)

To depict Jesus as a rebel who planned a bloody revolution, I could cite Mt 21:12; Mr 11:15; Jo 2:19 and claim that he attacked the temple and destroyed its properties. I might have even continued the attack by quoting him:

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Lu 19:27).

"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22:36)

However, if I had done this it would be unfair to the teaching of Jesus, one of the messengers of submission (peace and submission to the will of God), delivered by the New Testament. It would be unfair because I would be taking them out of their context.

• Whoever edited the 'beliefs section' did exactly what I have exhibited above; he/she shamelessly ripped things out of context. Islamophobics have been doing the same with the verses of the Quran for centuries.

For the record, the Gospel (Injeel) was originally the word of God, and Jesus was His chosen Messiah, whom I love as I love all of God's messengers, I was merely showing you how easy it is to twist religious beliefs around if you an enemy of said religion.

Peace be upon y'all, take care (God willing).

Jesus looked up to heaven and said, "...Eternal life is this: to know You, the Only True GOD, and him whom you have sent, Jesus Christ." (John 17:1-3)

Jesus said, "I am a servant of God; who has decreed that I shall be given the scripture; He has appointed me a prophet; and bestowed His blessings upon me wherever I might be; and enjoined me to observe the contact prayers, and the giving of alms, for as long as I live, and to honor my mother. He made me not an evil tyrant. Peace is my lot the day I was born, the day I die, and the day I am resurrected." This is the truthful story of Jesus, the son of Mary, about whom they still conjecture. (Quran 19:30-34)

Changes by David Aitken

Peace be upon y’all,

I have made many changes to this article and the Rashad Khalifa article. I am a member of the USI, praise be to God, but I do not wish to proselytize.

The Holy Quran, God’s Final Testament, speaks for itself:

“There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way.” (2:256)

At Wikipedia we can only present the facts.

• The USI does not belong to Khalifa, nor did it ever. Khalifa was not the leader, founder, or teacher of the USI. He was a student of the Quran at Masjid Tucson, and obviously its most notable member.

If this is true, then the whole article is wrong. The USI do present themselves as followers of the teachings of Khalifa in their literature. [4] I'm not really arguing that your wrong, I'm just surprised that a Submitter would describe Khalifa as not even a teacher, USI and the 19 code thing are inseparable? [5] His teachings are USI's teachings? Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• This article was in horrible shape, since the USI was being dressed up as some “fringe Muslim” religious group. Submitters do not call themselves Muslims, they do not struggle to explain that they are Muslims who just follow the Quran, nor should Wiki be an apologetic. This article now states what the Submitters believe and has links to their websites. Anyone interested can peruse the links.

Given that Quranists, in the eyes of the world, are barely more than a fringe, Muslim, religious group, and Submitters are a minority, however significant, within that group, I think "fringe, Muslim, religious group" is pretty accurate compared to some of the nonsense I've seen on here. I wouldn't use the phrase, it's indelicate, but to 'dress up' USI as being what they are seems like the general objective here.

Furthermore, the article is not supposed to "state what the Submitters believe" and have "links to their websites". It's should be a little bit more than that. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• This article is not a Hadith vs. Quran debate, Rashad Khalifa, or “Code 19”. This article should briefly outline who the USI are and provide links for more info. If we include info on Hadiths, this would become a soapbox.

• The aim here should not be to explain the mathematical patterns observed in the Quran, but to outline who the USI are.

I agree. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• There’s nothing “alleged” about the numerical pattern, which can be verified online at these PDF locations: [6]. 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 [7] 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.

Sorry, but you are twisting your words here. It is not a 'numerical pattern' that USI claim Khalifa discovered, but a 'mathematical miracle', whatever that is? Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Further Reading: no need to include info on Hadiths and Sunnah, since this article is about the USI, not a debate between Quran-Aloners and Hadithists.

You should be ashamed of yourself. You deleted anything negative or objective. Wikipedia is not a site for promotional information. You deleted the mention of the submitter who became very critical of the organization and separated. Do you have anything to say about that? Cuñado - Talk 17:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Cunado's vandalism

Peace be upon everyone. This is Davidaitken again. Cunado fails to understand that USI are not Islamic, nor do they call themselves Muslim. Their Quran says (in the back): "Islam will be replaced by Submission."

I have provided evidence from their translation of the Quran and from the articles I referenced. Cunado has no proof, this is blatant vandalism.

If you want to contribute to the article, could you please add a section on "history". It's noticably missing. Currently it doesn't say when or where Khalifa claimed to be a messenger... what he did before claiming such... And if this is its own religion, then what is the holy book which is used? If you answer "The Qur'an" then I'm going to laugh at you. Khalifa must have written some books, since you consider him to be a messenger. All these details would be good additions to the article. Cuñado - Talk 23:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Cunado, follower of Baha'Shaytan:

Submitters don't follow any human beings. We follow only what was revealed: the Qur'an.

"Khalifa must have written some books, since you consider him to be a messenger."

[3:81] GOD took a covenant from the prophets, saying, "I will give you the *scripture* and wisdom."

[33:40] Muhammad was not the father of any man among you. He was a messenger of GOD and the *final prophet*. GOD is fully aware of all things.

Verse 3:81, among many other verses, provides the definitions of "Nabi" (Prophet) and "Rasoul" (Messenger). Thus, "Nabi" is a messenger of God who delivers a new scripture, while "Rasoul" is a messenger commissioned by God to confirm existing scripture; he does not bring a new scripture.

Thus - since Muhammad was the final prophet - the Qur'an is the final scripture. Your Baha literature has no basis.

So called prophecies

There should at least be a disclaimer regarding these so called prophecies, which is why I added the term 'alleged'.

Mallachi 3:1-2 is being taken out of context:

Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:

This has got to be the most absurd "interpretation" of the Biblical verse I've heard in my life. Refiner as it's being used here is from the Hebrew term 'tsaraf'or צרף This is far from a a 'refiner' as is attributed to Khalifa, a 'tsaraf' is a 'goldsmith.' So this takes away the definition of this prophecised messenger being necessarily a 'refiner' of a religous work. Furthermore, who is this messenger going to come to 'refine'? The Quran? See Malachi 3:3

And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.

So now what do we know? That this verse isn't talking about a refiner of the Quran, it's talking of a man sent to purify the sons of Levi! And finally, the last ignored part of the Biblical book I will point to, Malachi 4:5-6

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

The Messenger, the Malik(Hebrew for prophet), it speaks of is ELIJAH (as), NOT Khalifa.

Malachi chapter 4 is a disputed text, many Biblical scholars don't think it to be part of the Old Testament. The refining is obviously not literal (like much of the Bible). And as for the sons of Levi... is it not a typical occurence that Hebrew chauvanism creeps into the past scriptures? For example:

By Myself have I sworn, declared the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son (Ishmael), I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore… and through your progeny all nations on earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed Me.

(Genesis 22, verses 16-18)

This translation is from the Jewish Publication Society, 1955. Note that the son in question is stated to be the only son of Abraham. Recent translations have changed this to "favored son" of Abraham. However, the Hebrew text says yehideka, which is a noun form of yahid; "sole, single, only one." The reference thus must be to Ishmael, not Isaac, since Isaac was never the sole or only son of Abraham. However, some commentators - while admitting that yehideka means "only son" - twist the meaning by saying that Ishmael was illegitimate. But nowhere does the Torah say this. Rather it says, "And Sarah Abraham's wife took Hagar her maid, the Egyptian, and gave her to her husband Abraham to be his wife" (Genesis 16:3). A man does not bear illegitimate children from his wife. Further, God says of Ishmael, "I have blessed him… and will make him a great nation" (Genesis 17:20). In Genesis 17:23, 25 and 26, we read: "And Abraham took Ishmael his son… and Ishmael his son was thirteen years old… and it was done in the same day as his son." And finally, when Abraham has passed away, the Torah says: "And his sons Isaac AND Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah" (Genesis 25:9). The Torah is explicit that Ishmael was fully the son of Abraham and by no means illegitimate.

[Quran 61:8] They wish to put out GOD's light with their mouths. But GOD insists upon perfecting His light, in spite of the disbelievers.

-DAVID AITKEN

Prophecy; Qur'an 3:81

Salaam,

Mithaq-e-Nabiyyin -- The Covenant of the Prophets. I'll use Yusuf Ali's translation:

BEHOLD! God took the covenant of the prophets, saying: "I give you a Book and Wisdom; then comes to you an apostle, confirming what is with you; do ye believe in him and render him help." God said: "Do ye agree, and take this my Covenant as binding on you?" They said: "We agree." He said: "Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses." (Sura Al-i-Imran : Verse 81 - Qur'an)

Wa-ith akhatha Allahu meetha qa alnnabiyyeena lama ataytukum... (God be glorified)

So, Verse 81 proclaims the advent of an "apostle" (Rasool) who will confirm all the "prophets" (Nabiyyeen). The prophet Muhammad certainly was a prophet (Nabi), the final prophet (Muhammad Khaatum Al-Nabiyyeen), and must be included in "the prophets" (Nabiyyeen) of 3:81. Verse 81 talks about "the prophets" without any exclusions. It does not say "the previous prophets," or "the prophets prior to Muhammad," or any such exceptions.

And remember We took from the prophets their covenant: As (We did) from thee; from Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus the son of Mary: We took from them a solemn covenant. (Sura Al-Ahzãb : Verse 7 - Qur'an)

Wa-ith akhathna mina alnnabiyyeena meeth aqahum waminka wamin noohin wa-ibraheema wamoosa waAAeesa ibni maryama waakhathna minhum meethaqan ghalee than

So, Verse 7 mentions the same covenant; Mithaq-e-Nabiyyin -- The Covenant of the Prophets. Muhammad is addressed as "thee" -- Old English "you" -- which explains Mohammed Pickthall's translation below:

And when We exacted a covenant from the prophets, and from thee (O Muhammad) and from Noah and Abraham and Moses and Jesus son of Mary. We took from them a solemn covenant.

Muhammad is specifically shown to have been one of those prophets who pledged to support the "apostle of the covenant".

We know that there is a Rasoolun Mithaq, a Messenger/Apostle of the Covenant. This messenger cannot be Muhammad, since he was one of the prophets. 3:81 talks about " the prophets" without any exclusions. It does not say "the previous prophets," or "the prophets prior to Muhammad," or any such exceptions.

Anyone who truly believes in the Quran loves to see God's messenger of the covenant, who is not Muhammad. So, while the Bible isn't as clear, the Quran is indeed crystal clear on the matter.

Peace. - DAVID AITKEN

1) Interesting take on 3:81, now the verse in context. What is established from verse 3:81? That Allah(swt) took a covenent with the prophets, and the people than said "we agree". Brother David is saying that the verse is talking of a single apostle who will confirm ALL of the prophets, this is not the case. Allah said, ""I give you a Book and Wisdom; then comes to you a messenger". A messenger comes EVERY time a book of wisdom is given. Or is it every time? Brother David says, "It does not say "the previous prophets," or "the prophets prior to Muhammad," or any such exceptions."

That's what happens when we read out of context and forget to read 3 verses down:

Say: "We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam)." (3:84)

So where is Muhemmed's name? If Rashad was a prophet, than why is it that God simply chose not to include the name of Muhemmed in verse 3:84?

2) Next, you tell us that the covenent that Allah speaks of to Muhemmed is the SAME covenent being talked about in 3:81. But is it? Well, let's see what the Quran says the covenent (this time) is:

That (Allah) may question the (custodians) of Truth concerning the Truth they (were charged with): And He has prepared for the Unbelievers a grievous Penalty. (33:8)

Uh oh, it seems brother David has got it all wrong, the covenent that IS actually directed at Muhemmed as well is a covenent saying that Allah(swt) would question the Custodians of Truth. This covenent, which mentions Muhemmed by name isn't the same as the other covenent (whereby messengers come to confirm what was beleived in before). Instead, this covenent is entirely different. It appears brother David is unaware that there can be more than one covenenent. And that his saying that this covenent is the same one as that covenent is like saying This small tree is the same as that big tree. We ask, "But they look different, why are you saying this tree is the same as that one?" And brother David will have us know, "They have to be the same becuase they're BOTH TREES, silly!"

3) You're right, the Quran is crystal clear on the matter. You want us to beleive that Muhemmed was not the last prophet, but you forget the verse, 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.

4) Is a messenger even required anymore?

This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. (5:3)

5) Why Rashad, supposing hypotheticlly that this verse DOES mean a messenger or messengers will come after the prophet. Than why Khalifa? Why not Baha'ullah OR Mirza Ghulam? Both of their followers use this same verse to show that their messengers are real, and both of them came BEFORE Rashad, so if anything, Rashad simply stole their use of the verse that they attributed to themselves.

Or why not an angel after Muhemmed? He was the grand finale of Anbiya, so why not? See 35:1

Praise be to Allah, Who created (out of nothing) the heavens and the earth, Who made the angels, messengers with wings,- two, or three, or four (pairs): He adds to Creation as He pleases: for Allah has power over all things.

They are messengers, Rasuls according to the Quran, I don't see what makes Rashad so special.

6) Why isn't Rashad mentioned in the Quran? It is the way of Allah(swt) to mention his messengers before they come:

"Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the law and the Gospel;- for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil..."(7:157)

Well what about Muhemmed, we don't find him in the Bible. If a messenger has to be predicted before he comes, why wasn't Muhemmed. IN the Quran it says he was:

And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "this is evident sorcery!" (61:6)

So to conclude:

• a) Why Rashad, why not Mirza Ghulam Ahmed, or an angel?
• b) Covenent 1 =/= Covenent 2
• c) Where's Rashad, I have an actual Arabic Quran open, I see him nowhere
• d) Do we even need a messenger?
• e) Why isn't Muhemmed mentioned by name for Covenent 1, like the Others who were Anbiya?
• con) Evidence of prophecy from the Quran is just as vague as that from the Bible which was also taken out of context.

--xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 21:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The only "argument" worth refuting is the angel nonsense:

[6:8-9] They also said, "If only an angel could come down with him!" Had we sent an angel, the whole matter would have been terminated, and they would no longer be respited. Had we sent an angel, we would have sent him in the form of a man, and we would have kept them just as confused as they are confused now.

[17:94-95] What prevented the people from believing when the guidance came to them, is their saying, "Did GOD send a human being as a messenger?" Say, "If the earth were inhabited by angels, we would have sent down to them from the sky an angel messenger."

[42:51] No human being can communicate with GOD except through inspiration, or from behind a barrier, or by sending a messenger through whom He reveals what He wills. He is the Most High, Most Wise.

To you I say: If the earth were inhabited by angels, Allah subhanu wa'ta'aala would have sent down to us an angel from the sky. Angels are messengers, no doubt about that, but God communicates with the whole of mankind through (1) inspiration, (2) from behind a barrier (like Moses and the burning bush), and (3) a human being messenger.

Rejecting God's messengers without studying the proofs is a tragic human tendency:

[27:83-84] The day will come when we summon from every community some of those who did not believe in our proofs, forcibly. When they arrive, He will say, "You have rejected My revelations, before acquiring knowledge about them. Is this not what you did?" Davidaitken 19:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Sects

Peace,

The USI are under "Related Faiths," the Rashad Khalifa talk page has established that we are not a sect, nor do we like being called that. If you revert the page again, God willing, I'll be forced to seek investigation into this matter.

Please sign your comments with four tildes, like this... ~~~~.

Actually I thought we established quite clear that USI is Islamic, but due to a play on words they prefer not to be called Islamic. Khalifa was a revivalist and tried to return to the "pure" form of Islam, and you use the translation of "submission" instead of the Arabic "Islam". All this is a game you're playing, and for all intents and purposes, the USI are under the umbrella of Islam. Regardless of what you want to be called, anybody would categorize you as a sect of Islam. Cuñado - Talk 19:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a game at all. I leave the judgment of this matter to God, to whom we are all accountable, to whom we will all return. Davidaitken 20:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait Cunado, is it you who establish whether the USI is Islamic or not?? Really, by what standards do you judge? List me your invented requirements which makes a belief system Islamic or not. Is it because the USI believe in Muhammad as a messenger of GOD? Because the Bahais also believe in him, but they don't call themselves Muslims. Is it because the USI uses the Koran as its holy scripture as Muslims do? Well, the Druze also refer to the Koran as their holy scripture, but they don't call themselves Muslims. Is it because the USI pray similarly to Muslims? Well, the Samaritan prayer is almost identical to the way Muslims pray, but the Samaritans don't call themselves Muslims. So please, enlighten me about this standard requirement that you've invented, I want to hear it. Go and try to tell the Montenegrins that they're actually Serbs, because their language and culture are almost identical to the Serbian culture. Or tell the Messianics that they're not Jewish, because they believe in Jesus as their Messiah. Can't you surpress your ego a little bit and let the people classify themselves the way they want to be classified? Or do you think your opinion is more worthy than the opinion of those people who actually have chosen 'Submission' as their path in life. FYI, most Muslims think that their religion is a name which has no meaning and submit to their desires rather than GOD. On the other hand, the way of life of submitting oneself to GOD (called Islam in the Arabic Koran) is what the prophets and messengers of GOD preached and the way they themselves lived their lives (including Rashad Khalifa). In this way, Islam has two meanings. The first one is a very popular meaning, which is a religious community which makes up 1/5 of the world's population. While the second meaning is to take GOD as the sole diety in one's life and denounce all other dieties other than HIM. However, unfortunately the latter meaning is unheard off and unthought off by most other Muslims. Rashad Khalifa clearly expressed these two meanings of the word in his book of translation of the Koran: "Henceforth, there is only one religion acceptable to God - Submission. Anyone who submits to God and devotes the worship to God ALONE is a "Submitter." Thus, one may be a Jewish Submitter, a Christian Submitter, a Buddhist Submitter, a Hindu Submitter, or a Muslim Submitter." (In the introduction of his translation, source: http://rashadkhalifa.org/proclamation.html) "Islam is NOT a name; it is a description of one's total submission and devotion to God ALONE, without idolizing Jesus, Mary, Muhammad, or the saints. Anyone who meets this criterion is a "Muslim" (Submitter). Therefore, one may be a Muslim Jew, a Muslim Christian, a Muslim Hindu, a Muslim Buddhist, or Muslim Muslim." (In the second appendix of his translation of the Koran, source: http://www.submission.org/quran/app2.html) So as you can see, there are two meanings of the word 'Islam'. You, Conado, are referring to the first meaning of this word. However, Rashad Khalifa was teaching and preaching the second unpopular meaning of the word. So while you can assert that Rashad Khalifa and his followers are only playing a game with words, we can also assert that you are ignorant of the word islam/submission.114.125.100.116 (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

A Time to Reflect

Peace be with you all,

Even the most ardent opponents who have an ounce of sincerity should reflect upon this.

Fact No.1

God's Messenger of the Covenant

The Quran prophesies the advent of God's Messenger of the Covenant.

According to Pickthall's translation:

When Allah made (His) covenant with the prophets (He said): Behold that which I have given you of the Scripture and knowledge. And afterward there will come unto you a messenger, confirming that which ye possess. Ye shall believe in him and ye shall help him. He said, Do ye agree, and will ye take up My burden in this? They answered: We agree. He said: Then bear witness. I will bear witness with you [3:81]

Fact No.2

Anyone who rejects this Quranic fact is no longer a Muslim [3:82-85].

Fact No.3

Muhammad One of the Prophets

Recall that we made the covenant with the prophets, including you (Muhammad), and Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus son of Mary. We made a solemn covenant with them. [33:7]

Obviously, God's Messenger of the Covenant is not Muhammad; he comes after all the prophets, including Muhammad.

Who is this Messenger?

If you can accept a messenger after Muhammad - as you must, if you believe the Quran - who could he be? The Quran states in 3:81 that this messenger will confirm the Scripture. Confirmation does not mean acknowledgement since anybody can acknowledge that the Quran is from God. Confirmation therefore means proving. And the only possible scientific proof is the perfect and unchallengeable Mathematical code revealed through Rashad Khalifa [8], [9].

Fact No.4

The Insincere Divinely Forbidden

Verses 17:45, 18:57 & 56:79 unequivocally state that insincere researchers are forbidden access to the Quran; they cannot understand it. Only the sincere seekers are permitted access to the Quran (41:44). Rashad Khalifa has confirmed the Quran for the first time in history with physical mathematical evidence. According to the Quran, he could not possibly be an imposter who revealed the Quran's greatest secret against God's will.

Fact No.5

Rashad Khalifa Meets All Criteria

(1) He has provided a plethora of irrefutable proofs [10] [11], (2) he advocates the worship of God alone [12] [13] [14] [15] , and (3) he never made any money from this, not a single dollar or dinar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Davidaitken (talk • contribs)

David, Wikipedia is not a message board, discussion booth, or theological research arena. If you aren't discussing the content of an article, then you will be ignored. I only read your comments to see if you had anything relevant to the article. I think your logic is sloppy and needs work. But neither you or I will change our minds arguing on a talk page, so please give up your preaching. Cuñado - Talk 06:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there not a policy on deleting these messy, half-backed, theology lectures? Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Submitters and the "Islamic" World

Peace be with you all,

Submitters are people from all over the world with different backgrounds, educational levels, different origins and races who follow the religion of Abraham as decreed by God for them in the Quran:

[2:135] They said, "You have to be Jewish or Christian, to be guided." Say, "We follow the religion of Abraham - monotheism - he never was an idol worshiper."

[42:13] He decreed for you the same religion decreed for Noah, and what we inspired to you, and what we decreed for Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: "You shall uphold this one religion, and do not divide it." The idol worshipers will greatly resent what you invite them to do. GOD redeems to Himself whomever He wills; He guides to Himself only those who totally submit.

Submitters believe, recognize and uphold God’s words in the Quran when He points out that it doesn't matter what people call their religion, as long as they fulfill the following three criteria:

[2:62] Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the converts; anyone who (1) believes in GOD, and (2) believes in the Last Day, and (3) leads a righteous life, will receive their recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.

Submitters uphold the true teachings of Submission (Islam in Arabic). They strive to peacefully spread the truth about the Quranic message. Their hope is to bring believers and worshippers of God alone closer together, regardless of what they call their faiths.

Submitters are against oppression (2:217), and for the freedom of religion and peace (2:256).

The "Islamic" World

The so-called Islamic word DOES NOT follow the true Islam as decreed by God in the Quran. They follow man-made rules and books containing falsehood, contradictions and a lot of nonsense.

It is in these fabrications, which have been falsely attributed to the Prophet Muhammad, that evil people and terrorists who hijacked the beautiful religion of Islam find support for their tyrannical and unjust laws. Because people insist upon disregarding God’s word and following blindly their scholars and religious leaders, the so-called Islamic world will remain in its sad state where they can't get along with one another; they are the worst in oppression and the least in development, etc.

Some Muslims are very quick with condemning the Christians and the Jews to Hell for not accepting the Quran as the word of God. What they need to think about first however, is how many "Muslims" are there who truly believe in and abide by the Quran after reading it for themselves, as God commands (17:36)? What percent of those who say "I'm a Muslim" have actually read the Quran for themselves (from cover to cover) in a language they understand? How many are simply quoting their parents, their imams, or their friends, without having any real knowledge from the Quran? How many are actually quoting Quran at all, and not other sources?

Should we actually be surprised that some people choose to shun Islam when there are "Muslims" killing innocent people while shouting Allahu Akbar (God is Greatest) on our TV screens? Can we blame them for not running to the library in excitement to pick up a Quran – the book these "people of God" claim to uphold and represent?

Should we really be surprised at how some people view Islam when there are so-called Islamic governments in this world, claiming to represent the Quran while shooting journalists to death because they don't print the "right" things, and punishing or killing people for having the "wrong" opinions and/or life-styles?

As it turns out, the majority of those who call themselves Muslim today are completely ignorant when it comes to the Quranic message. Instead they follow traditions passed on to them from their parents, friends, their imams, or all their books and pamphlets besides the Quran. Their information is based on Hadith and Sunna, which are innovations attributed to the Prophet Muhammad. They consist of stories about the prophet gathered over eight generations, and written down some 200 years after his death. What is astounding is that these stories directly contradict most of the Quranic teachings. This explains why many traditionalists become very upset when someone cites the Quran to them, since it contradicts what they were taught to believe.

One God, One Religion

God teaches us in the Quran that being a Muslim is not something we become by referring to ourselves as such, or by even accepting Islam as it is known to the world today. This sounds confusing at first, and it needs further explanation. God teaches us in the Quran that we are Muslims (Submitters) in His eyes when we believe in Him, believe in the Last Day, and lead a righteous life. This is regardless of what we call ourselves.

Leading a righteous life means obeying the information that God has given to each of us. Those who were given the Bible, and who have not familiarized themselves with the Quran are expected to uphold God's commandments accordingly. This is why we read in the Quran about the righteous Jews and Christians:

[5:44] We have sent down the Torah, containing guidance and light. Ruling in accordance with it were the Jewish prophets, as well as the rabbis and the priests, as dictated to them in GOD’s scripture, and as witnessed by them. Therefore, do not reverence human beings; you shall reverence Me instead. And do not trade away My revelations for a cheap price. Those who do not rule in accordance with GOD’s revelations are the disbelievers.

[7:159] Among the followers of Moses there are those who guide in accordance with the truth, and the truth renders them righteous.

[5:46] Subsequent to them, we sent Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the previous scripture, the Torah. We gave him the Gospel, containing guidance and light, and confirming the previous scriptures, the Torah, and augmenting its guidance and light, and to enlighten the righteous.

Most people who call themselves Muslim today are very confused about these Quranic facts, and actually harbor beliefs which contradict these verses. This is why many rush to harsh judgment and hate towards people of other faiths, instead of seeking all ways and means towards being kind and offering peace, as God commands us to in the Quran in so many verses (16:125, 4:90; 4:94; 114; 8:61; 9:6).

The religion of Islam (Submission) is not anywhere near what people have been taught. In fact it is a very easy religion to practice: One that decrees total religious freedom for all, one that brings ease after difficulty, not the other way around.

The truth is very simple to follow, has full support in the Quran, makes all the sense in the world, and makes people happy. The traditions and innovations on the other hand are difficult to follow, contradict the Quran, don't make any sense, and make people miserable (5:16; 10:64; 92:7).

God teaches us to seek the truth. He wants us to verify with our own God-given senses the practices we accept and attribute to God.

Most of us were often taught to follow our parents, and not question the religious clergy, but this is not at all the behavior that God wishes for His worshippers. His worshippers are intelligent, they research and study, and then they follow their sincere convictions (3:7; 39:18; 17:36).

[17:36] You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them.

[39:18] They are the ones who examine all words, then FOLLOW THE BEST. These are the ones whom GOD has guided; these are the ones who possess intelligence.

God teaches us that we can only be a Submitter if we worship Him alone. Worshipping Him alone means not associating anything with Him, devoting all of our worship to Him alone.

[7:181] Among our creations, there are those who guide with the truth, and the truth renders them righteous.

[12:108] Say, "This is my path: I invite to GOD, on the basis of a clear proof, and so do those who follow me. GOD be glorified. I am not an idol worshiper."

[16:125] You shall invite to the path of your Lord with wisdom and kind enlightenment, and debate with them in the best possible manner. Your Lord knows best who has strayed from His path, and He knows best who are the guided ones.

[3:104] Let there be a community of you who invite to what is good, advocate righteousness, and forbid evil. These are the winners.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Davidaitken (talk • contribs)

Once again David, please stop using the talk page as a promotional message board. Nobody reads this except editors who are discussing the page content. Cuñado - Talk 06:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

history/background

David, you seem very familiar with the subject. The article is missing any mention of history, or some kind of chronology of events on how the movement/religion began. What year did Khalifa declare himself publicly? How did the movement spread? who are some important individuals in its development? How are they organized today? These need to be referenced of course. If anybody has written a book about the Submitters, even if it is from a Submitter, then that would be a good place to start. Cuñado - Talk 06:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I had added some references to Martin Gardner and others but they seem to have been deleted, except for a disingenuous quote where Gardner calls the late Khalifa's numerical diddling "ingenious." That was pejorative, not praiseworthy. All the cult nonsense should probably be blanked from the talk pages, or at least moved to an archive so talk about the editing of the article can move forward. Шизомби (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Though it's offensive and should be handled properly, the USI are a bit of a cult. They follow a leader that they believe was appointed by God Almighty, the Messenger of the Covenant, who 'refined' a Scripture, who 'discovered' miracles, and who taught them numerology. David, you can't have your cake and eat it mate. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wahd

I removed the statement that the number 19 represents the oneness of God's signature or "wahd" which means 19. Perhaps someone would like to clarify it and repost it. "Wahd" in Arabic, means "1". The number 19 in Arabic (and my transliteration to English may be off) is "tisashara". Definately not wahd, and wahd definately does not mean 19.Mk5384 (talk) 03:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggest Title be Changed to Submitters

I suggest having a USI page that redirects here, but entitle this article Submitters. It would make a lot more sense to do it this way in my opinion. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarify Introduction

I recommend any of the main editors of this article to clarify the introduction. It needs to be clear in the first paragraph if United Submitters International is a community, religion, or organization. The category says it's an Islamic organization, the title is a name of an organization, the intro says it's a community, and the article talks about a religion!!! AdvertAdam ^talk 08:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Re scriptures / "First Commandment": I've modified to avoid a potentially confusing (non-NPOV) reference to "all" scriptures. What's being said is within the frame-of-reference of the Peoples of the Book - and perfectly legitimate as such, but the phrasing I've replaced could be baffling to, eg, a Buddhist. (Buddhist scriptures have no corresponding principle). So

This is the First Commandment common to all three scriptures: Old Testament, New Testament and Final Testament (The Quran). ]

This is the First Commandment in all the scriptures, including the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Final Testament (The Quran).

SquisherDa (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

References??!!

Is it just me, or is there something very odd about the Sources/References in this article? - ie there aren't any!! Literally, despite the little bracketted superscript numbers in the article text, there is no References section!

There are hypertext-links / pointers, to (? some of) the materials listed as Further Reading - but no sources cited as supporting the statements in the article.

The impression I've formed (from this talk-page + the article itself) is that a single contributor has laid out a fair spread of content, with specialised knowledge and insight - but has felt (rightly) that NPOV is not really his ting. (It's David Aitken I have in mind, of course.) Instead, he has left it to other contributors to (1) organise the materials he mentions into a proper source-base, and thus achieve an encyclopaedic perspective/NPOV - and then (2) to adjust and correct the content he has provided accordingly, and finally (3) set it up on that base. And we other contributors have chosen to (0?!) argue with him / his content instead. And kind of got nowhere by doing that!

I'm far too new a contributor to be able to straighten out Further-Reading materials into Sources and convert the hypertext pointers into References. For a start, I just know I'd get lost among all the >/'? haberdashery.

But I suspect that a systematic review of the hyperlinks by someone competent, checking out how far they're Source-References, would be a good, practical NPOV way of rescuing this article and its talk-page from all this soap- (and shadow-)boxing. Anyone fancy a go?

SquisherDa (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Been a few months without changes. This article really needs a cleanup so it's informative rather than persuasive. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Broken references

The submissions site seems to have changed their website pages address, so I have removed most of the obsolete links. Addyianson (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)