Talk:Rashad Khalifa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Bible Code 2 Bukhari 3 Major structural change to article 4 The word "sect" is inappropriate and is considered by us Quran Aloners to be an insult 5 The Image 6 Relevance of the Tucson Citizen newspaper article? 7 Latest edits 8 What is truly DISGUSTING Zora 9 Latest 10 recent vandalism 11 USN website 12 Tucson Citizen the only source? 13 Sex Allegations 14 Where's the proof? 15 Changes by David Aitken 15.1 Blocks for edit warring 16 Investigator: Cunado's edits 17 Khalifa's career 18 Article not intended as recruitment tool 19 Links 20 Recent Revert 21 Criticisms of Khalifa, also, wording changes 22 Refutation of Dr. Rashad Khalifa's mathematical calculations 23 External links 24 USN is not affiliated... whatsoever 25 USN: "logical reason" 26 Recent Vandalism - Nov. 9, 2006 27 USN + Ahmed Nishitoba 28 Web links 29 Rashad Khalifa's advocating

[edit] 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. — 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)

[edit] 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]

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [1]

• "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."

Therefore these are false charges and they should be removed.

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 [2]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

(Anon: I feel that blatant tabloid attacks make a mockery of Wiki.

And for the record, I am not a "submitter" and don't even believe in god, allah or this mumbojumbo.But certainly admire an American citizen's courage in trying to reform this medieval religion. This religion has become a serious plague on peaceful people. No freedom of speech. The moment someone criticizes Islam, these bearded mullahs kill them or put a fatwa on them.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.247.242.88 (talk • contribs).

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

H.yahya (talk • contribs), 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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 [3]. 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [4] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David.ilyas (talk • contribs).

[edit] 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. --Zero^talk 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

[edit] Changes by David Aitken

Peace be upon y’all,

I have made many changes to this article and the USI 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.

Below is a list of every change I made with an explanation:

• Khalifa cannot be called a Muslim, nor can the USI be called Islamic. The USI replaced the terms “Muslim” and “Islam” with “Submitter” and “Submission” in September 1989. Details of the name change can be viewed at [5]. Khalifa did not refer to himself as a Muslim, nor does the USI refer to itself as an “Islamic group.” Today’s Islam has nothing to do with the Quran – which most Muslims will admit, having abandoned it in favor of hadith (oral traditions attributed to Muhammad), sunnah (actions attributed to Muhammad), and the opinions of the ‘Ulema (Islamic scholars).

• Khalifa was not “the founder” of the USI. He was the editor of their newsletter [6] and they believe he was a human being messenger of God. Calling him “the founder” is wrong because he was not the leader of the USI movement. The USI will openly admit that their leader is the Quran (i.e. God, through His literal word).

• The term “imam” was used in early publications, but later abandoned along with “Muslim” and “Islam.” Since it has the connotation of a cleric – which Khalifa was not – and the “leader” or Masjid Tucson – which he was not, the term is completely inappropriate. Khalifa attended the house of worship and was a student of the Quran there, along with many others. He was not the teacher or the leader, which is documented in many videos shot at Masjid Tucson (available at submissiontv.com)

• The rejection of hadith and sunnah is absolutist. Khalifa and the USI refer to hadith and sunnah as “innovations” which have nothing to do with Muhammad [7].

• One of the greatest misconceptions circulating about Khalifa is that he was an agent of the Bahai religion. This stems from ignorance about the number 19. Wikipedia ought to be the foremost source of discrediting such obvious falsehood.

• There’s nothing “alleged” about the numerical pattern, which can be verified online at these PDF locations: [8]. 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 [9] 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.

• The controversy began long before Khalifa announced that he was one of God’s messengers. The announcement of his messengership came in the spring of 1988; Khalifa was the subject of character assassination across the Muslim world (propagated by the ‘Ulema) as early as 1978 – an entire decade prior. The real controversy is over practices such as not mentioning the name of any human being during worship, devoting prayers to God alone, following the Quran alone, and being led by the word of God, not the word of human beings. When Unitarians tells Trinitarians that Jesus was a human being messenger of God, they are similarly defamed and persecuted. This was the case from the late 1970s up until the announcement of spring 1988. It did, of course, worsen thereafter.

• “The vast majority of the Bible is God’s truth,” you can view the detailed claim in video format here [10].

• Tuscon Citizen: this topic has been discussed in the past, but any objective reader (and I expect Wikipedia to uphold the highest standards of objectivity) will find that the article is a sensational story. I refuse to post details of it, because we are talking about a man who was intentionally defamed, downplayed, and then killed by very rich extremists. For example, the famous Lebanese publisher Daar Al-`Ilm Lil-Malaayeen (Knowledge for the Millions) published the Arabic version of "The Miracle of the Quran" in March 1983. The Saudis bought all the copies and destroyed them. Does it surprise anyone that a man who shook the foundations of a corrupt religious establishment would be the center of false accusations?

Hi David. I reverted your changes because you obviously inserted major biases in your edits. You deleted/added information to fit how you want to present the USI group. I'm sure your intentions are great: you want to see only positive things about your religious beliefs. But that's not how wikipedia works. Just because you don't like what's written, doesn't mean that you can just delete it. Please learn how to add references and cite your sources.

As for the points you mentioned above... most of them are gibberish. Regardless of what you claim to call Khalifa, he believed in Muhammad and the Qur'an, and unless you are claiming that USI is a religion independent of Islam, then he is a Muslim. He is the founder of the USI, not the Qur'an, as you claim. And finally, where in the world are the accusations about the Baha'i connection? You are the person who added that he's not connected. Cuñado - Talk 22:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've already reported your vandalism. USI and Khalifa do not claim to be Muslim, I have presented solid evidence from Khalifa's translation and from one of his last publications in 1989.

You are hilarious. Try to insert into the article that USI was founded by the Qur'an. The article says that they use the word "Muslim" in the language that they speak, so they say the translation of Muslim (submitter) instead of Muslim. This is a bunch of nonsense to people who just want to read some basic facts. You will just confuse people. I'll try to add something to the article to avoid using the word Muslim while not speaking gibberish. Cuñado - Talk 22:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a game, this is a factual encyclopedia. I'm not trying to be funny. USI + Khalifa do not call themselves Muslim. They (we) want nothing to do with today's "Islam." THe group has been using the words Submitter and Submission for almost 18 years, unfortunately the Wikipedia article was written by Muslims or people under the impression that USI + Khalifa were an Islamic sect. I have reported your hasty decision to ignore the facts.

[edit] Blocks for edit warring

I have blocked both Cunado19 (talk • contribs) and Davidaitken (talk • contribs) for breaking 3RR in this article. If you have opposing viewpoints, it is better to discuss it here. Once your block is over, please refrain from further edit/revert warring. Thank you. --Ragib 19:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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

[edit] 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"

[edit] 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. --Zero^talk 12:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] External links

Someone added another Submitter website in a mangled format with bold lettering -- I fixed that. Someone else changed the label on the critics section to "Muslims" -- thus implying that the Submitters were not Muslims. That is a biased edit and cannot stand. We have to be fair, even to people and groups with whom we disagree. I changed back to critics. Zora 01:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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--

[edit] 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 --

[edit] 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 --

[edit] 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 --

[edit] 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 --

[edit] 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 --