Talk:Rashad Khalifa

message: 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)
thread_title: Bukhari

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: , 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)
thread_title:  Latest 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  recent vandalism 

message: Ahmad, the USN website seems to have no connection with information related to Rashad.  
The longwinded connection seems to be: 
1. Rashad is linked to Islam => 2. Islam linked to USN = 3. Therefore, USN linked to Rashad.
If this is how external links are supposed to be included, then, each and every website related to Islam should also be added to each and every Islam related Wiki page. I have removed the link.
If you feel there is a clear reason to add the USN page please mention it. 
Regards-- user:H.yahya
: Maybe our Ahmad is the same Ahmad Nishitoba who wrote those pages.  He seems have a rather high opinion of himself . I agree the link is inappropriate.  --Zero 12:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  USN website 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tucson Citizen the only source? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticisms of Khalifa, also, wording changes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Refutation of Dr. Rashad Khalifa's mathematical calculations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  USN is not affiliated... whatsoever 

message: 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)
thread_title:  USN + Ahmed Nishitoba 

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

message: There has been effort in the past to remove, from this article, which is a biographical entry on Rashad Khalifa, material which is really not about Khalifa and hislife but about the movement which he began, which has a separate article, United_Submitters_International. Further, there is another article on the overall class of movements which includes USI, Quran Alone. Much of the material which has been inserted into this article on Khalifa belongs there or elsewhere, if it belongs at all on Wikipedia, which would not normally include, for example, information on isolated movements not considered notable, no matter how strongly the originator or protagonists of that movement consider it crucial.
If a movement can be seen as a splintering off from USI, or, in the view of its members, the continuation of the "true" USI, then it is reasonable that, if notable, it could be included in the USI article, properly handled. I'm not addressing that issue here, just what should be and should not be in this article.
I am answering the request of another editor who posted here an appeal for an editor "passionate about Islam and Wikipedia." That's me. My goal in what I will be doing here is, however, mostly about Wikipedia, which is related to Islam for me only in that Islam requires us to be fair, to seek consensus on what is true and what is not, and not to say about God -- or anything, really -- that which we do not know. All this is completely consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia is not, however an "Islamic" institution, and it has no obligation to consider notable, and thus appropriate for inclusion, every idea asserted as important to Islam
Rashad Khalifa is notable, and thus his life and work are notable. Controversy over his work, except as it impacts his biography, however, doesn't belong here. Rather, as an example, see the biography of Robert Atkins and Atkins Nutritional Approach. Not that these have perfectly realized the ideal! The biography, for example, could go into more detail about how his ideas were received (or rejected) during his lifetime. But most detail about his actual work properly belongs in an article on that, i.e., the other article.
My own opinion is that his work with letter counts (initially) and then with patterns of 19, in the Qur'an, deserves a separate article, which could include subsequent work by others on that topic, if notable. There are people who have worked on this particular problem who had no connection with United Submitters International. For example, myself! (I'm widely quoted by believers in the "miracle," in attempts to refute my objections to the claims made by Khalifa and others, but what may not be easily visible is that I began, fully accepting Khalifa's work, with some sympathy for his strict Qur'an Alone position, though not complete agreement, and I originally attempted, after his untimely and violent death, to confirm his work, something I had been meaning to do for years.)
I cannot give full attention to this article, I have other projects of importance to me, but, because I have been watching this article for quite some time, I intend to use reverts to keep the article free of inappropriate material inserted by anonymous editors without discussion, or to prevent vandalism of the article. I do not intend to impose my views on the article, merely to defend Wikipedia against abuse. I may also act to remove POV material, but often such material can be edited, properly, to allow its inclusion. It's often enough to attribute it. But much of what is in this article really belongs elsewhere, and there is some material that might belong here which has been removed even though it was biographically relevant and sourced.
Abd 18:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice of intention to remove material from this article contrary to Wikipedia guidelines 

message: I overlooked that there was a 'criticism' section that was redundant to the next 'beliefs' section. Don't have time to fix it now. But the 'criticism' section is in an incorrect place as a subsection of the "History of Mathematical Research.' If there is going to be criticism in that section, it should be confined to criticism of his research, specifically the "mathematical" research; criticism of his Qur'anic exegesis and other beliefs shouldn't be under that head.
I also see that the material about the sexualy-related charges has been removed. That's relevant, folks, it has played a role in Khalifa's reputation around the world. He *did* plead, at the very least, no contest to at least one charge. (Very misleading to call the charges "rape." There were no allegations of "rape," unless, as prosecutors sometimes do, a charge of "statutory rape" was initially filed. The reports do not support a charge of anything forcible, nor do they support even statutory rape. There was no explicitly sexual contact, as far as what I've seen from the reports.) I will look for sourced material to put back.
Some writers have totally confused the issue by referring to Islamic law on charges of sexual misconduct. If I were to accuse Khalifa of sexual misconduct, this law would apply to me. I'm not accusing him of anything, but I do intend to report known facts. I wasn't a witness, to be sure, so I'm not going to "testify" that he did such and such a thing. Rather, I'm going to report that,"according to" so-and-so, he did such and such. It is not for me to establish the truth of such a claim, and it is enough here that it is notable and relevant and sourced. I first learned about the charges, as I recall, from his *secretary,* a devoted supporter of his. My message to "Submitters" who want to deny the truth is that God does not like any kind of denial. Read the Book! The most informed of Khalifa's followers acknowledge that Khalifa was a human being, and that he was not perfect. Indeed, would it not be perverse to "accept" his Qur'an Alone message and then to worship him as perfect? Would this not be the hypocrisy that earns the lowest pit in the fire? The great danger in interpreting the Qur'an is that we take the promises of paradise for ourselves and reserve the warnings for others. Those who know take heed.
By all means, if you have evidence that Khalifa was innocent of the ultimate charge, present it, and if it is sourced, it can be included. It's even possible to include a comment that "submitters" do not accept such and such, but that should be sourced and should not be simply the opinion of some outraged submitter writing here. Indeed, because there is such schism in the "submitter" community, it should be sourced more closely than a general comment about "submitters."
Abd 14:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisn/Beliefs redundant / re sexual charges 

message: A series of edits were made by User:Zakaria_A. to the article. This is a user who registered back in January, made a couple of edits to the article or Talk, then nothing until a slew of edits were made yesterday; it would be a kindness to the rest of us if the Preview button were used instead of saving every stumble. The edits replaced inappropriate material which has been removed many times by many editors. Another editor took that out, but the Citizen article was not replaced, User:Zakaria_A. had taken it out, with the explanation, "Legal difficulties - already in discussion page)." Perhaps this user thinks that Talk is part of the article? I have a copy of the Citizen report, I should edit the reference to make it more exact (i.e., day of publication). There is an inaccuracy in the current comment, I think. It appears that Khalifa pled no contest, not to any of the sexual charges, but to a single count of fraud, related to the claim he made in obtaining the office he was using for the "aura research." But I have seen no specific report on that that could be used as a source. The Citizen article is about the charges and the first court appearance, not about the final disposition. It would be useful for someone with access to Arizona records to see what they can find. My goal here is simply accuracy; the charges are well-known as a scandal, the truth may be less scandalous. Or not.
As to the other edits, controversial web sites are not generally acceptable as sources for information in articles; they can sometimes be relevant as to arguments raised or the positions being taken by some on issues, and the like, but not for fact. This article is biography, about the man, not about "submission" or "submitters" in general, and even less about movements arising after Khalifa. As it is, it needs citations for the claims made about what Khalifa believed and wrote. If I can manage to unbury my library, I could supply some of this, and there are archives of Submitters' Perspective on-line and other writings of his. References from other publications about him are needed.... --Abd 01:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 83.249.88.91, removed the reference which is perfectly valid. Please discuss any issues here and do not revert. → AA (talk) — 18:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putting the Citizen article reference back 

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

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

message: It would be useful if someone in Tucson could check court records on the disposition of the rape case reported. I knew Khalifa and the people who carried on after him, particularly his secretary, and that he had pled no contest to at least one charge was common knowledge. http://www.submission.org/khalifa.html, a biography of Khalifa by a supporter, contains this as I look today:
:Like Prophet Muhammed before him, who has been attacked on the Internet with all kinds of  false accusations, Dr. Khalifa was also accused, by what seems to be a pre-arranged scheme, of sexual misconduct  with allegations that he adamantly denied. These allegations stemmed from the nature of a U. N. project he was conducting as a biochemist to study human body aura. His accusations, his denial and their insistence on repeating  it, were just more examples of how traditional Muslims fail to follow the Quran alone, as seen in their failure to follow  the commandments of God in the Quran in such circumstances.  This incident, however, did expose the hypocrites and their allies, who still sing the false accusations in their fading hope of diverting the people away from his  message of Quran ALONE, GOD ALONE. These accusations are no different from the accusations on the Internet of prophet Muhammed of sexual misconduct and abuse that can be seen on many  anti-Islamic sites. Such sites are all lies and meant to insult Islam (Submission) and the belief in ONE GOD and His book the Quran ALONE.
Note what is acknowledged: That he was conducting work purported to study the human body aura. He was indeed a biochemist and did indeed have some relationship with the U.N.
I'm not aware of any evidence that those who opposed Khalifa's work had any involvement with the sexual misconduct charges. Nor have I heard any evidence that what Khalifa did was more than "questionable," the claim was that he inappropriately touched the girl involved. There may be court records of the charges. Technically, a "no contest" plea, which is what was common knowledge, is an admission of "guilt," but only for the purpose of determining legal consequence in the particular case. With such a case, the court does not determine if the facts of the case as presented by the prosecution are true. Arguments exist on the internet that the plea was an admission of guilt, which isn't correct. In fact, it leaves the question open; it indicates that Khalifa might have thought that he would lose if it went to trial. If it was a plea on a lesser charge, it indicates that the prosecutor felt that there might be difficulty proving the more serious charge. There is no question but that this incident casts a shadow on Khalifa's reputation, and it should be reported as accurately as possible without bias toward besmirching him or clearing him or whitewashing by excluding the whole topic.
But the disposition is a gaping gap in the article right now. I'm not going to edit the article based on my personal knowledge, but my personal knowledge may affect my judgment of the sources, and I might use a weaker source than otherwise I'd allow. Hopefully, someone will do the Tucson research and come up with citations, exact primary source text or, just as good in some ways and better in others, newspaper report, and hopefully photocopies (they can be faxed to me, email me if anyone has something to contribute). For the lead to the case, see . --Abd (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The rules (WP:OR and WP:RS) do not allow us to include information that is only available in unpublished sources like court records.  Of course I would like to know what is there, but we probably can't use it.  Actually all we need to complete this story well enough is a newspaper report of the no-contest plea.  Maybe the Tuscon Citizen can help.  Zerotalk 14:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Innocent until proven guilty. See Quran 49:6.Signed, ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~Contact 22:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disposition of the "sexual misconduct" case. 

message: I consulted the September 1980 issue of Scientific American to check the claim that Martin Gardner had called Khalifa's work "ingenious".  What it has (page 18) is:
: "It's an ingenious study of the Koran," said Dr. Matrix, "but it would have been more impressive if Khalifa had consulted me before he wrote it."
Dr. Matrix was an imaginary friend, called "the worlds greatest numerologist", that Gardner used as a literary device.  Words put into the mouth of Dr. Matrix are not necessarily the opinion of Gardner, but can be just entertaining assertions used to introduce a subject. Zerotalk 01:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Gardner later wrote a deeper article for Skeptical Inquirer. That later article mentions my work, by the way, I'm known as a critic of Khalifa's work. I'd say that Gardner did call the work "ingenious," but that doesn't mean that he supported it. Even a nefarious scheme could be called "ingenious." The Scientific American article shows notice of Khalifa's work, and the present text, which omits "ingenious," is probably more balanced. --Abd (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific American 

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

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

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

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

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

message: Various Muslim organisations however have criticised Dr. Rashad's studies,[citation needed] accusing him of spreading heresy and ignorance through his proclamation of himself as a prophet Dr. Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips. (2002). "Book: The Qur'an's Numerical Miracle"Dr. Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips. (2006). "The Hoax of the Numerical Miracle of the Quraan" 22 April 2007. (accessed 1 April 2012).
*Doesn't need two tags, and it's WP:WEASEL. Definitely, we need specifics. I'll yank one tag. --Abd (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Many Muslim organizations

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

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Rashad Khalifa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121228235110/http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Calgarian+faces+life+sentence+1990+murder+controversial/7743101/story.html to http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Calgarian+faces+life+sentence+1990+murder+controversial/7743101/story.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160414205239/http://submission.ws/index.php/quran-the-final-testament.html to http://submission.ws/index.php/quran-the-final-testament.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Rashad Khalifa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5ZmxTU8Vt?url=http://submission.org/messenger/ to http://submission.org/messenger/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vancouversun.com/Life/Fugitive+held+slaying+American+imam+denied+bail/1621967/story.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Rashad Khalifa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://submission.org/messenger/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100304031242/http://www.rashadkhalifa.org/covenant.html to http://www.rashadkhalifa.org/covenant.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224194748/http://www.submission.ws/index.php/submission-radio-quran-mp3/quran-studies.html to http://www.submission.ws/index.php/submission-radio-quran-mp3/quran-studies.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The FBI has recently declassified documents relating to Rashad Khalifa (https://archive.org/details/RashadKhalifa/page/n21), which contain useful information about him and would benefit the "Life" section of the article.
Additionally, we should consider renaming the "Doctrine" section to "United Submitters International", seeing as he is the main figure of the group, and only this group adheres to his doctrine.
27.99.32.150 (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New links 

message: I reverted the recent dubious edit by IP 27.99.4.196. Instead of a short edit summary, I wanted to give a more detailed explanation on the talk page. IP 27.99.4.196 added a section about a rape allegation against Rashad Khalifa, supposedly per WP:BALASP. However, per WP:FALSEBALANCE, Wikipedia guidelines suggest that this type of speculative history should be omitted:
"We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world."
Moreover, the website cited as a source, quranresearch.com, does not meet Wikipedia standards per WP:QUESTIONABLE:
"Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities."
Someone is intentionally trying to mislead people by creating a dummy website with an innocent sounding name in order to hide the polemical nature of the source and the allegation itself. If you go to the address in the cited source, quranresearch.com, or click the link hidden at the bottom of the page, you're redirected to the polemical website answering-christianity.com. I don't think it's a coincidence that the only places on the internet you can find this rape allegation against Rashad Khalifa is on polemical websites like:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/rk_rape_case.htm
http://answeringsubmission.wordpress.com/2007/11/30/rashad-khalifa-rape-case/
Perhaps IP 27.99.4.196 wants to lend credibility to the rape allegation by making Wikipedia the lone exception.
I also don't think it's a coincidence that IP 27.99.4.196 first and only contribution to this article, and Wikipedia in general, was this speculative rape allegation against Rashad Khalifa. This allegation was started by Arlo Hale Smith Jr. (the dude calling himself Abdul Haleem in the aforementioned links). Ironically, Arlo Hale Smith Jr's ex-wife made a rape allegation against him, so he should know better than to engage in these types of polemics against someone else. 2601:241:8305:1220:4154:199C:8A66:1C2F (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is Wikipedia not the National Enquirer