Lv 5
? asked in Society & CultureHolidaysRamadan · 1 decade ago

Submitters: Is there a contradiction in the Quran?

Well, after asking several times regarding the issue of how the contact prayers (Salaat) are performed, I finally got an answer: Pray anyway you like, however many rak'as you like, so long as you end with a prostration (fair enough, that's an answer even if I disagree to it). Now, I still didn't get many more questions answers, so here I go again (copy & paste from my question before):

I've been reading, quite a lot about this sect. Not from the websites that label them "deviant" sects, but actual websites for the Submitters. I am aware that Reformist Sumbitters are slightly different, but only in two major aspects. I've had several questions in which to this day has still not been answered, even after reading the website (submission.org).

I hope one of the few Submitters here can answer my questions without referring me to the website (as I have already gone through it) or veering off topic. These are my questions:

- Submitters claim that they follow the "Quran Only". Rashad Khalifa had come to the conclusion that two verses were "Satanic". Now, the two Satanic verses are as follows:

"There has certainly come to you a Messenger from among yourselves. Grievous to him is what you suffer; [he is] concerned over you and to the believers is kind and merciful. But if they turn away, [O Muhammad], say, "Sufficient for me is Allah; there is no deity except Him. On Him I have relied, and He is the Lord of the Great Throne." - 9:128-129

Since these two verses are the only two verses that are considered "Satanic" by Khalifa Rashad, what about the verses that state the Quran is protected?

"Falsehood cannot approach it from before it or from behind it; [it is] a revelation from a [Lord who is] Wise and Praiseworthy." - 41:42

"Indeed, it is We who sent down the Reminder (the Quran) and indeed, We will be its guardian." - 15:9

Now, before you tell me that "Thikr" does not refer to the Quran, you may look at Khalifa Rashad's translation for verse 41:41. He himself refers to the "Thikr" as the Quran:

"Those who have rejected the Quran's proof when it came to them, have also rejected an Honorable book" - 41:41

That being said, why is it that if Allah (swt) promises to protect the Quran and that nothing can approach it from the past or the future, that two verse could slip in? How can Allah (swt), the Greatest who promised that he will protect the Quran, allow these two "Satanic" verses to enter the Quran?

There are only a few possibilities (hardly):

- Allah (swt) did not keep His promise that He will protect the Quran (Astaghfirullah).

- Allah (swt) is not powerful enough to have prevented this from happening (Astaghfirullah).

- The verses that state that the Quran will be protected and nothing can enter it are also Satanic, since they contradict the entire belief that there are in fact Satanic verses (Astaghfirullah).

- The Quran does not contain Satanic verses. Nothing has entered it and it is protected by Allah (swt) as promised. The Quran is the Quran, nothing extra, nothing missing. And certainly, no Satanic verses.

Again, may I please remind you not to veer off topic. I have read through the website and this issue has not been addressed. And this also is not one of the "miracles" of the number 19. So please, stick to the topic.

Keep in mind that Khalifa translates things, and transliterates them as well. I have been told that the word "Thikr" does not mean the Quran, you may check this in your own translation.

The word "Thikr" means 'Reminder' and it refers to the Quran, as do several other terms. Thank you and peace be upon you all.

P.S. I can't stress enough to respectfully ask you not to veer off topic. Thanks.



Strange that him being a messenger (supposedly) that Allah (swt) would allow him to make mistakes in the message he is supposed to preach. And, not quite. Reformist Submitters will at time reject (many) of Khalifa Rashad's translation. But, let's have a look see at Edip Yuskel's translation with the word "Thikr":

"Surely, those who have rejected the Reminder when it came to them; and it is an Honorable book. No falsehood could enter it, presently or afterwords; a revelation from a Most Wise, Praiseworthy. What is being said to you is the same that was said to the messengers before you. Your Lord has forgiveness, and a painful retribution. Had We made it a non-Arabic compilation, they would have said, "If only its signs were made clear!" - 41:41-44

The "Reminder" is an:

- Honorable Book

- A revelation from the most Wise

- Revealed in Arabic

What else would the "Reminder" be?

Update 2:


To be honest, I just want to show them that what they say is hypocrisy. I want to understand why they keep claiming they are the only ones who follow the Quran but ignore everything it says. It's a pick and choose. There really isn't a point, I want to understand their logic behind it. I just can't see why they choose to ignore these things, hopefully someone will decide to admit it's wrong. Islamically, I shouldn't be ignoring this and letting their message get across others who are less educated about there religion. If that makes any sense. So this really is for the sake of Islam, I don't know how else to explain it.

Update 3:


I was wondering if you could explain to me the role of Gog and Magog according to the Torah and Bible? I'm still confused on that topic. It's been bugging me :\

Update 4:


No problem, thanks =)

I answered the question by the way, though I'm not sure what she meant exactly...

Update 5:


My dear, I am surprised that you are still considering Khalifa as a possibility of being a messenger. I've read that website, over and over. Yet, it will not matter as this verse refutes everything he says:

"Falsehood cannot approach it from before it or from behind it; [it is] a revelation from a [Lord who is] Wise and Praiseworthy." - 41:42

How can anything be injected in the Quran as he claims? The answer is simple, the Quran is dependent on his theory. His theory decides what is Satanic or not in the Quran? It's a clear cut contradiction. I don't think you would have considered him whatsoever, it's your hate of the Hadiths that drives you to that conclusion. I say, stick to the Quran alone as you claim, and it is clear there are no Satanic verses. Only someone's effort into editing the Quran to fit his theory.

Update 6:

Iranian Princess:

I invite you to find "one" contradiction in the Quran. As much as I find your questions and many of your answers disturbing and offensive, I do believe you aren't one of those who are blind. If it clicks and makes sense, it's logical. You wouldn't just ignore it.

Update 7:


No contradiction there whatsoever. Read the entire Surah Attoubah and then come back and give me a real contradiction.

Update 8:

Muhammad K:

Oh brother, this is hopeless. Where in that link you provided shows any answer to my question? It's full of unrelated questions from you and rude remarks. Perhaps you can try being nicer next time so that I don't get fed up with you.

And yet again, you reply (in repetition) by veering off topic. In reply to your questions, you can read my answers on the following links:



In addition to the link for 3:18, read Abul Haarith's answer. I already answered you before but the question was deleted.


Now, you need to actually "answer" my questions. Not be rude and call me deaf dumb and blind.

Update 9:

Muhammad K:

It's simple. And both you and Shah answered none of my questions, so don't be a hypocrite and tell me to not veer off yours, as always, until now you haven't provided an answer. And I'm sure all the users here are are aware of that. To answer your questions (again):

1. Yes. It is a mistake that those Hadiths (Sunnah) were recorded, and yes it is wrong for people to direct themselves to that before the Quran. But, it is quite apparent that the closest Sunnah to that of the prophet is that which has been recorded. We rely on Tawattor Sunnah which only conforms with that in the Hadith (since that is the oldest and by far least corrupt source). When new things are innovated, it's quite apparent it contradicts the Quran, and Hadiths as well. The Hadiths are there only to make sure we haven't veered of Sunnah. We do NOT make it a priority unless elaboration is needed.

2. Allah (swt) Himself witnesses that Muhammad (PBUH) is His messenger, like He witnesses He is the only God.

Update 10:

Muhammad K:

Keep in mind you haven't answered any part of my question. Avoiding it are you? Quite expected though.

I do not obey those. The Tawattor that was passed down generation after generation still complies with the Sunnah of the prophet. Tell me, why do you follow Tawattor? Another source besides the Quran?

What's there to explain Muhammad? I would assume you already know how to read. There is no God but Allah (swt), we know that and we agree. And there is no idolatry in our belief either. You also skipped my point about the verse where Allah bear witnesses that Muhammad (PBUH) is His messenger. Just like the verse you quoted earlier where Allah (swt) bear witnesses there are no Gods besides Him. Your turn to answer my original questions and stop avoiding them. So far I have answered all your questions despite the fact you veered off topic.

Update 11:


I figured you'd still say that "Thikr" does not mean Quran, even though both Khalifa and Yuskel's translations point out it is. So, let me agree with you (for the sake of understanding) that "Thikr" does not mean Quran.

Edip Yuskel:

"Surely, those who have rejected the Reminder when it came to them; and it is an Honorable book. No falsehood could enter it, presently or afterwords; a revelation from a Most Wise, Praiseworthy. What is being said to you is the same that was said to the messengers before you. Your Lord has forgiveness, and a painful retribution. Had We made it a non-Arabic compilation, they would have said, "If only its signs were made clear!" - 41:41-44

The "Reminder" is an:

- Honorable Book

- A revelation from the most Wise

- Revealed in Arabic

What else would the "Reminder" be? Since you are saying that it, being the Quran, is out of the question. It, also cannot be code-19 since it doesn't conform to the three characteristics listed above.

Update 12:


Your explanation is going against the actual list of what the "Reminder" is. How can numbers be reminders? How is it a book? Those numbers weren't revealed in Arabic. First you say that "glorification" does not and cannot be referring to "prayers" but now you want "Thikr" to mean "Code 19"? Where in the entire Quran does it mention the exact words of "Code 19"?

13 Answers

  • Shah
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    God has his ways of testing allegiance and faithfulness of the ones who TRULY LOVE Him.

    He tested the believers by altering their Qibla (focal point).

    Similarly God has tested us by allowing the injection of these two verses 9:128 and 129.

    These verses were NEVER abused, like the verses of 33:56, 21:107 and 17:79. Nor did these verses carry any instructions or orders or laws. So it is really upto you.

    As for us, we have FIRM conviction in Code-19. And the code-19 along with the allegorical indications does indicate these two verses.

    Also, the word "Zikr", does NOT mean the Quran. Read the translation of Khalifa and he has translated it as :

    1- Quran's proof.

    2- Reminder.

    I believe that the "Loh-e-Mahfooz" is Code-19 and the protection and guard is the code-19. And we know that it is a UNIQUE code, which is far beyond the capability of humans and Jinns.

    The code-19, leaves no doubts that these two verses do not belong to the Quran. And besides code-19, there is sufficient literal evidence through the rules of the Quran i.e.

    1- The absence of "Bissmillah" from the begining of the chapter 9.

    2- The whole surah is a late Madnih surah and ONLY the two verses 9:128 and 129, are the Meccan verses. A clear cut indication of something very grossly wrong and suspicious.

    3- The usage of attribute "Raheem" in 9:128 for Mohammad, which is refuted in other verses of Quran.

    4- The non-confirmance of counts of both "Raheem" and "Allah" by inclusion of these two verses.

    5- And MANY MANY more VERY strong and prominent evidences.


    Rumaitha, the code-19 is a DECISIVE test between a believer and a non-believer, among the 4 decisive tests i.e.

    1- 3:81 - 85

    2- 17:45, 46, 56:75 to 79

    3- 39:45

    4- 74:30 - 35

    If you are a disbeliever and destined and stamped for Hell, I will NEVER ever be able to change your fate, through any amount of argument.

    So if you are not convinced, you may opt to take your route and continue to believe that we are misguided and illogical. I am not here to convince you. You should convince YOURSELF.

    I am only presenting the evidence and proof.


    You may ask Rumaitha to download that page and save and then zip it up and send it to you through email. I know a huge number of websites are not accessible in Saudi Arabia. They are very scared of them.


    I don't wish to get into discussion of Zikr. To me Zikr should be the code-19. The code-19, formation in the arabic text of Quran, is a guarantee that nothing can enter it and nothing can leave from it. Not thru some physical FORCE !!!, but thru the rules of the tight code. You inject one word or alter a word or delete it, and the code will show a disruption. From the details that r available to us, it already seems an impossibility to inject or delete anything from the code-19 and yet keep it intact in all its details.

    I am quite sure as more and more things will surface, it will prove to be an even greater impossibility.

    Your topic was about "Contradiction" in the Quran. I don't see it the way u do. I believe there are NO physical forces to guard against such attempts. Had there been such physical forces, then God would definitely, have saved the Quran from the American who shot the bullets in the Quran and then urinated on it and then flushed it in the toilet. God definitely would have saved his word from such a brutal and humiliating treatment.

    On the contrary I believe the guard itself is a physical mathematical code. Easy to understand and IMPOSSIBLE to imitate. And God has advanced the human knowledge to the point that we can witness it and appreciate its dimension and capability. Just 200 years from now, the human knowledge was much toooo primitive to even understand such a thing.

    The link that "Fajr" has provided is a great link, for those who wish to understand and believe. For the disbelievers there is no medicine on Earth to make them believe.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    There is another possibility sis! Our Submitter pals often say that Rashid Khalifa made mistakes, which God never bothered to correct. So he probably forgot that according to himself, "Thikr" doesn't refer to the Quran, thus making the mistake of calling it Quran...

    EDIT: Time to wait for Shah or Muhammad K! Hope they'll come along soon.

    EDIT 2: @Fajr---I'm really sorry, I can't check out that link. It has been blocked in this country...do u have any other?

  • Anonymous
    5 years ago

    There are MANY contradictions in the Quran. What is this nonsense I am reading here? Mohammed had nothing whatsoever to do with the Quran anyway. Rather, Abdul Malik, in 691 originated Islam - before him there is no mention of Mohammed, Islam or Muslims. The earliest surviving Qurans dates back to the 8th century and they all differ substantially from one another. The earliest Hadith dates to the 9th century. Watch this to prove my point -> youtu.be/Zd9lIuUjPs0

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Rumaitha: What is the point?

    You already know there belief is a cult, so do I and so do most of the users in this section.

    I have yet to see any logical response form "submitter" to any one of your questions.

    Also could you answer this question. I am not too sure of your of it.

    Rumaitha- I haven't got much time now. I'll put up a question today or tomorrow relating to that topic.


    Rumaitha- I guess I understand then.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    the French researcher, historian, scientist Dr. Maurice Bucaille writes:

    "Thanks to its undisputed authenticity, the text of the Qur’an holds a UNIQUE Place among the books of Revelation, shared neither by the Old nor the New Testament. In the first two sections of this work (meaning his book), a review was made of the alterations undergone by the Old Testament and the Gospels before they were handed down to us in the form we know today. The same is not true for the Qur’an for the simple reason it was written down at the time of the Prophet; we shall see how it came to be written, i.e. the process involved . . .. As the Revelation progressed, the Prophet and the believers following him recited the text by heart, and it was written down by the scribes in his following. It therefore starts off with two elements of authenticity that the Gospels do not possess."

    Professor Hitte also writes: "Biblical text has been subjected to editorial and amendatory treatment, but not the Qur’anic ... In its phonetic and graphic reproduction, as well as in its linguistic form, the Qur’anic text is identical with its celestial original. "

    The Qur’an is unique in consistency, harmony, intelligence and rationality:

    The Qur’an is unique in consistency, harmony, intelligence and rationality:

    The Qur’an is the book without inconsistencies; one part of its text, (or doctrine) does not clash with the other. In fact, it sets the absence of contradiction, irrationality, and incoherence, as one of the criteria for checking the authenticity of any divine revelation. It states "Do they not ponder the Qur’an (with care)? Had this book been from anybody but Allah, you would have found much inconsistencies.” (Surat An-Nisa:82).

    Because contradictions and inconsistencies call for the negation of one part, which is in conflict with the other and this automatically invalidates portions of the book. In turn that makes it difficult for a man to remain true to any one value, thereby creating mental conflict, emotional and spiritual instability. "Skip some, follow some," “pick and choose" and "no absolutes" become the pattern. And these exercise an extremely damaging influence upon a truth-conscious, rational man with regard to belief in Allah and with regard to the credibility of the book itself. And it leads to dilemmas where sincere minds become "disjointed" and "disenchanted," eventually steering them away from the book or turn them into hypocrites.

    Dr. Maurice Bucaille, who had absolutely no reason to favor one book, especially that of Islam, over the others (if anything, as human nature is, he would only favor the books of his own religion, but not the Qur’an) attests to the Qura’nic claim in his book. "The Quran ... is not only free from contradictions in its narrations, the sign of various human manipulations to be found in the Gospels, but provides a quality of its own for those who examine it objectively and in the light of science i.e. its complete agreement with modern scientific data.”

    The Book may be great but what is its impact on the people, you might ask. If no impact it has any significance. How true! The Qur’an is unique in terms of its Blitzing Impact, also.


  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    There is no cotradiction in Quran. It is an open proclamation of quran itself. It has been said in Quran . Had Quran not the book of God, you may find many contradictios in it. It is safe since its revealation and will remain so as it is the promise of God . God has proclaimed himself as its protecter.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I want to save your time and my time and I will put one link here so you can read the opinion of Dr Rashad Khalifa about the 2 deleted verses . It is better to read in details and not just rely on few words from me or other submitter members . Do take the time to read it carefully and it is up to you to agree with RK about it or not but I want to tell you that I didn't become Quranist because of RK I didn't know much about him that time , so whether he is a messenger or not it doesn't make any difference to me , but I lean to believe that he could be a messenger of Allah even with deletion of those 2 verses , I've read again about his reasons after you posted that same Q before and I think his reasons can be somehow acceptable , I'm still researching and I didn't come to a final decision to accept him as a messenger or not .




    I understand that it is hard for all of us to delete anything from the Quran .

    I believe RK is an honest person and he didn't delete the 2 verses just to fit his theory , this will be dishonesty and will blow any trust in him and in his discovered miracle which the whole Islamic nation raised him up for this discovery .He wouldn't dare to delete it knowing the grave consequences of this act unless he is greatly believe this is the truth even if he had to jeopardize his own life for it .

    He said those 2 verses were always suspected in history .

    I don't believe much in history but when you show me a strong evidence that history in correct in one point then I will accept this history and this is what he proved .

    The same one who proved with a strong physical evidence that the Quran is persevered is the same one who deleted the 2 verses.

    I will again have to refer you to an article about the preservation of the Quran which our discussion is all about , it is a long one but worth reading , it perfectly answers your Q .

    I've already read it and if you're interested to discuss anything in it please just let me know if I didn't get the chance to see your Q .

    Peace .


  • 1 decade ago

    Salam for you my dear friend. Yes there is no controversy in the Qur'an

    and its genuity is manitained by Allah.Rashad khalifa was wrong.There is no stanic verses inthe Qur'an.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    the quran says there is no compulsion in religion. latter allah sent down 9:5 9:123 kill the non-believers until only allah is worshiped and mohammad is his prophet. sounds like a contradiction to me.

  • 1 decade ago

    None. No contradiction at all.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.