Hadith Re-defined

1. Understanding the Quranic Meaning of Hadith

Within the Submitter community, the Arabic word ḥadīth is frequently associated with fabricated religious teachings falsely attributed to Prophet Muhammad. Dr. Rashad Khalifa appropriately challenged these traditional collections when they were treated as religious authorities alongside the Quran.

However, an important distinction must be made between the general meaning of the Arabic word ḥadīth and its narrower usage when referring to traditional religious narrations.

The Quran itself uses the word ḥadīth in various contexts, both positive and negative. Dr. Khalifa's own translation reflects this diversity.

For example, his translation renders ḥadīth in several ways:

•  Utterance (4:42) — A statement or expression.

•  Narration (4:87, 18:6, 56:81) — A narrative or communication.

•  Subject (4:140, 6:68) — Something being discussed.

•  Dreams (12:6, 12:21, 12:101) — In the context of Joseph interpreting dreams.

•  History (20:9, 23:44, 34:19, 51:24, 79:15, 85:17) — Accounts of earlier events.

•  Conversation (33:53) — Communication between people.

•  Matter (53:59) — A particular subject.

•  Statement (66:3) — Words communicated by Prophet Muhammad.

Consider Quran 66:3:

"The prophet had trusted some of his wives with a certain statement (ḥadīth)..."

Here, the Quran uses ḥadīth to describe a statement communicated by Prophet Muhammad. The word itself does not indicate that the statement was false, fabricated, or satanic.

An even more significant example appears in 39:23:

"GOD has revealed the best ḥadīth: a book that is consistent..."

This verse establishes something fundamental: the Quran itself is called the best ḥadīth.

Consequently, the Arabic word ḥadīth cannot inherently mean lies against God. Its basic meaning encompasses statements, narratives, discourse, and communication. Whether a particular statement is true, false, beneficial, or misleading depends on its content and context—not simply on the fact that it is called ḥadīth.

This distinction is essential to understanding the Quran's language accurately.

2. How Does This Apply to Dr. Rashad Khalifa?

Recognizing the correct meaning of ḥadīth raises an important question: How should we understand the writings, explanations, lectures, and other teachings of Dr. Rashad Khalifa?

First, let us establish what this discussion is not suggesting.

It does not reject Dr. Khalifa as God's Messenger of the Covenant. It does not dismiss his contributions, question the importance of his mission, or suggest that his teachings should be disregarded.

On the contrary, his work has played an important role in directing people toward the Quran, emphasizing worship of God alone, and drawing attention to the Quran's completeness and mathematical structure.

His writings and explanations remain valuable resources for studying and understanding the Quran.

However, describing those writings and explanations as human ḥadīth simply recognizes that they are communications expressed by a human being, even one entrusted with a divine mission.

Being a messenger does not make every statement, explanation, interpretation, or personal observation equivalent to the revealed scripture itself.

The distinction is between the divine message and the messenger's own explanations of that message.

Recognizing this distinction does not diminish the messenger. It preserves the proper relationship between the messenger, his mission, and the revelation he was sent to proclaim.

3. The Quran Is the Furqan—The Ultimate Criterion

The central issue is not whether Dr. Khalifa's teachings are valuable. They certainly can be.

The question is which authority should ultimately determine the correctness of a religious interpretation.

The Quran identifies itself as the Furqan—the criterion that distinguishes right from wrong (25:1). It also describes God's revelation as fully detailed (6:114) and identifies itself as the best ḥadīth (39:23).

These descriptions establish a clear hierarchy of authority.

The Quran is the standard by which religious teachings are evaluated. No human commentary, regardless of its source, replaces that standard.

Therefore, when examining any explanation offered by Dr. Khalifa, the appropriate question is whether that explanation is supported by the Quran.

If it is consistent with the Quran, it can be accepted and appreciated.

If there appears to be a discrepancy, the appropriate response is to return to the Quran, examine the relevant verses, and investigate the matter carefully.

This is not a rejection of Dr. Khalifa's mission. Rather, it is an application of the very principle that his mission emphasized: the Quran's authority as God's complete and fully detailed revelation.

The correct relationship can be expressed simply:

We understand and evaluate Rashad Khalifa's explanations through the Quran. We do not make Rashad Khalifa's explanations the ultimate standard through which the Quran must be interpreted.

The distinction matters because the Quran must always remain the final authority.

4. When Respect for a Messenger Can Become Religious Idolatry

Dr. Rashad Khalifa taught that idolatry is not limited to worshipping statues or physical objects. It also includes assigning religious authority to someone or something alongside God.

Consider the traditional Shahada. The statement that Muhammad is God's messenger is factually true and confirmed by the Quran (48:29). Yet Rashad condemned adding Muhammad's name to the declaration of faith that he grounded in 3:18, because doing so elevates the messenger into a position that God did not authorize within that declaration. He explains this argument in Appendix 13, The First Pillar of Islam.

The problem is not whether the statement about Muhammad is true. The problem is the religious authority and position assigned to that statement.

The same principle must apply consistently to Rashad Khalifa himself.

His writings, explanations, and discoveries may contain valuable truths. However, if we elevate his human explanations into an independent, unquestionable source of religious authority alongside the Quran, how is that fundamentally different from the very practice he condemned?

Indeed, in Appendix 19, Hadith and Sunna: Satanic Innovations, Rashad argued that even accepting traditional Hadith because it agrees with the Quran does not justify establishing it as another source of religious guidance.

Therefore, the distinction is not simply between true and false statements. It is between recognizing the truth in someone's words and granting those words the authority reserved for God's revelation.

If elevating Muhammad's statements alongside the Quran as an independent source of religious authority constitutes idolatry, the same standard must apply to Rashad Khalifa's statements. The identity of the messenger cannot change the principle.

This does not mean that studying, respecting, referencing, or utilizing Rashad's material constitutes idolatry. The problem arises when his interpretations are treated as binding divine authority in their own right, rather than being examined according to the Quran.

This is a distinction about religious practice and authority, not a claim to know another person's intentions or the condition of their heart.

A messenger is honored by recognizing the divine message he delivers—not by elevating his personal explanations to the rank of God's revelation.

The Quran remains the best ḥadīth (39:23) and the Furqan (25:1). No messenger's independent commentary can replace that authority.

5. Clarifying a Common Misunderstanding

Some Submitters understandably associate the word ḥadīth almost exclusively with the traditional collections attributed to Prophet Muhammad.

This association is understandable because rejecting unauthorized religious traditions has been a central part of the Submitter movement.

However, the specific meaning of ḥadīth as a traditional collection must not be confused with the broader meaning of the Arabic word as used in the Quran.

These are two different questions:

What does the word ḥadīth mean?

It can mean speech, narration, statement, conversation, or communication, depending on context.

Does calling something ḥadīth mean it is false or religiously unauthorized?

No. Quran 39:23 and 66:3 demonstrate that the word itself carries no such automatic judgment.

Accordingly, describing Dr. Khalifa's statements as ḥadīth does not mean accusing him of fabricating lies against God.

It simply places his statements within the ordinary linguistic meaning of the word.

The reliability, correctness, and religious significance of those statements are separate questions to be examined through the Quran.

This clarification should not create division among Submitters. It should encourage more careful use of Quranic terminology and greater precision when discussing religious authority.

People may initially understand the word differently because of how it has been used in religious discussions. Such misunderstandings can be resolved through respectful examination of the relevant verses.

6. Honoring the Messenger Without Confusing the Message With Its Explanation

Respecting Dr. Khalifa as God's Messenger of the Covenant and recognizing the Quran as the supreme religious authority are not competing positions.

They are entirely compatible.

A messenger's responsibility is to deliver and proclaim God's message. The authority of that message comes from God, not from the independent authority of the person delivering it.

Therefore, affirming the Quran's final authority should never be interpreted as hostility toward the messenger.

Dr. Khalifa's material can be studied, referenced, appreciated, and utilized without treating every statement he made as though it carries the same authority as the Quran itself.

Indeed, distinguishing between divine revelation and human explanation protects both the integrity of the Quran and the proper understanding of the messenger's role.

It also allows Submitters to examine interpretations openly, compare evidence, and correct misunderstandings without the discussion becoming a question of personal loyalty.

Disagreement with a particular explanation does not automatically constitute rejection of the person who offered it.

The central question should always be: What does the Quran actually say?

Conclusion: The Quran Remains the Final Authority

The purpose of this clarification is not to undermine Dr. Rashad Khalifa or diminish the importance of his mission.

It is to establish the Quranic meaning of ḥadīth and maintain the proper distinction between God's revelation and human explanations of that revelation.

The Quran calls itself the best ḥadīth (39:23), demonstrating that the word does not inherently mean satanic lies or fabrications.

Consequently, recognizing Dr. Khalifa's writings and statements as human ḥadīth is not an accusation against him. It is a linguistic distinction, not a judgment that his teachings are false.

His material can continue to serve as an important resource for Quranic study while remaining subject to the authority of God's revealed words.

We honor the messenger by respecting his mission. We honor the message by preserving the Quran as the Furqan—the ultimate criterion by which every religious teaching is examined.

These principles are not contradictory. They complement one another.

The warning about idolatry is therefore about allowing human interpretation to acquire an authority reserved for God. It is not an invitation to condemn individuals or dismiss the contributions of a messenger.

The goal should not be to defend personalities or win disagreements, but to seek a more accurate understanding of God's revelations.

The Quran is the best ḥadīth. The Quran is the Furqan. And the Quran remains our final authority.