Nothing left out of this book? The Manipulation of the Qur’an only Religion

And who is more unjust than one who invents about Allah a lie or denies His verses? Indeed, the wrongdoers will not succeed.” (Qur’an 6:21)


Now one thing you will immediately notice when dealing with the Qur’an only religion is that most of them do not even speak Arabic. Most of them try and appeal to converts (who have very poor or weak Arabic). They have a reason for doing this, because they prey upon the fact that you do not understand the Arabic and thus, are able to manipulate what the text says.


A prime example is their manipulation of this verse:


We did not leave anything out of this book.” (Qur’an 6:38) Now as my website is directed primarily to an English speaking audience let me ask you this.

Is there a difference between saying:

We did not leave anything out of this book.” and

We did not leave anything out of the book.”


If I were to say ‘the book’ then this is vague. What book am I actually referring to? If I say ‘this book’ than I am referring to a book that is actually with me.

The Arabic word used here is l-kitabi. L-kitabi need not necessarily be a reference to the Qur’an at all.

It is the same word that is used in the following verses:


And there followed them successors who inherited the book taking the commodities of this lower life and saying, “It will be forgiven for us.” And if an offer like it comes to them, they will take it. Was not the covenant of the book taken from them that they would not say about Allah except the truth, and they studied what was in it? And the home of the Hereafter is better for those who fear Allah, so will you not use reason?” (Qur’an 7:169)


It is very obvious that l-kitabi Is not a reference to the Qur’an in the above text.


And We conveyed to the Children of Israel in the book that, “You will surely cause corruption on the earth twice, and you will surely reach haughtiness.” (Qur’an 17:4)

It is very obvious that l-kitabi is a not a reference to the Qur’an as it was sent down to the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw).

“And do not argue with the People of the book  except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, “We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our Allah and your Allah is one; and we are Muslims to Him.” (Qur’an 29:46)


It is very obvious that l-kitabi is not a reference to the Qur’an in the above verse.

Have you not considered those who practice hypocrisy, saying to their brothers who have disbelieved among the People of the Book, “If you are expelled, we will surely leave with you, and we will not obey, in regard to you, anyone – ever; and if you are fought, we will surely aid you.” But Allah testifies that they are liars.” (Qu’ran 59:11)


Can you imagine Allah (swt) calling (ahli Qur’an) people of the Qur’an liars? Obviously l-kitabi above is not a reference to the Qur’an.

Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the book  and the polytheist will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures.” (Qur’an 98:6)

Can you imagine Allah (swt) saying those who disbelieved among the (ahli Qur’an) will be with the polytheist in hell forever? It is obvious that l-kitabi above is not a reference to the Qur’an.


The logical contradiction.


We did not leave anything out of this book.” (Qur’an 6:38)

In order for this verse to be true in the way that those who follow the Qur’an only religion would have us to believe this verse would have to be the last verse revealed in the Qur’an. If any other verses came after it, this entails a logical and absolutely devastating blow to their position.


The Qur’an was not sent down all at once.


And those who disbelieve say: Why is not the Quran revealed to him all at once? Thus, that We may strengthen your heart thereby. And We have revealed it to you gradually, in stages.” (Qur’an 25:32) 


Also if they don’t know the last verse of the Qur’an to be revealed that also is a logical and devastating blow to the way they understand the verse. Because it means that what was revealed first and last has been left out of the Qur’an! This is important for their argument.


Allah (swt) has clearly told us that he has not included everything in the Qur’an.


And messengers We have mentioned unto you before and messengers We have not mentioned unto you; and Allah spoke directly to Moses.” (Qur’an 4:164)


So how exactly do we understand the verse that is consistent with not only logic but with the Qur’an itself?



And the book will be placed open, and you will see the criminals fearful of that within it, and they will say, “Oh, woe to us! What is this book that leaves nothing small or great except that it has enumerated it?” And they will find what they did present before them. And your Lord does injustice to no one.” (Qur’an 18:49)


Are we really to understand this to mean ,”So as for he who is given the Qur’an in his right hand, he will say, “Here, read my Qur’an!” No. That is ridiculous. It is very obvious that l-kitabi (this book) above is not a referee to the Qur’an at all. Rather it is a reference to the book that contains each and every single act that we have done. The Qur’an for example obviously does not contain each and every evil small or great that humans have done.


So as for he who is given his book in his right hand, he will say, “Here, read my book! (Qur’an 69:19)


But as for he who is given his book behind his back.” (Qur’an 84:10)


Are we really to understand this as “But as for he who is given his Qur’an behind his back?”   It is best if we understand (Qur’an 6:38) in light of a verse that will help bring clarity to the confusion of those who follow the Qur’an Only Religion.

If only they were guided to reflect upon the following verse:

There is no creature on earth whose sustenance is not undertaken by Allah. He knows where it lives and where it rests. Everything is in a Book that is clear.” (Qur’an 11:6)


It should be more than obvious that both the verses above refer to some celestial register where the minutia of all things are kept, and not tot he Qur’an. 



The verse (Qur’an 6:38) itself does not indicate if it is talking about the Qur’an or not. 


It is only through secondary sources that we know that.

The only way out from this air tight argument from an intra-Qura’n perspective is to accept the verses mentioned above that make one realize that it is talking about the book of deeds that is with Allah (swt).

The followers of the Qur’an Only Religion don’t want to accept this because it completely nukes one of their central talking points.


Dear readers those people who follow the Qur’an only religion more often than not have very poor and weak knowledge of the Arabic language. Many of them can barely speak it, if at all. You do not see them offering to recite to you the Qur’an in Arabic, with proper recitation. The level of understanding of Arabic among them is quite atrocious. This is not to be mean; however, to be brutally honest. This is why they rely upon such very weak arguments to present their case.



Filed under Uncategorized

4 responses to “Nothing left out of this book? The Manipulation of the Qur’an only Religion

  1. Garrett Pomelow

    As-Salam ‘Alaykum,

    My first serious introduction to the Quranist perspective(s) was when I was researching Nizari Isma’ili theology. They believe that the word “kitab” has several meanings, not just “book”. As I was looking into the validity of their claim (as I’d never heard of anything like this before), I found a reference to a Quranist site. It contained several articles that shows that that many of the instances in which “kitab” is translated as “book” or “The Qur’an” are in fact inaccurate and misleading.

    You might find this one particularly interesting, as it mentions some of the points you’ve made here:

    You do make some convincing arguments against the weaker Quranist positions, but there is a danger in painting them with a broad brush. They often have different approaches to how to understand the text, which have little in common with each other. Some make basic assumptions based on spurious English translations (as you’ve noted), whereas others have done years of research on Qur’anic etymology.

    • Walakum salaam wr wb,

      Thank you for your comment. It is obvious that the word kitab has many different meanings. However, there is no “traditionalist problem” with the understanding of the word ‘kitab’ as pointed out in my article there is certainly a problem with those from the Qur’an Only Religion as they use that text as a definite proof that the Qur’an is enough for them.

      The problem with the quranite website is that Sam Gerrans who has not shown himself to be a speaker of the Arabic language nor proficient in it beyond the use of Arabic lexicons and dictionaries has come to believe that the Qur’an teaches us that the Earth is flat.

      Now if I had to believe in one of two conspiracy theories.
      1) That there is a massive conspiracy to lie to us about the true nature and shape of our Earth. OR
      2) That Sam Gerrans is a plant, part of psy-ops that ultimately makes the Qur’an to be a book of error by stating that the Earth is flat, I would go with option 2. It is absolutely ridiculous position.

      “You do make some convincing arguments against the weaker Quranist positions, but there is a danger in painting them with a broad brush.”

      What actually are their ‘strong arguments’? The article you are commenting on is one of their stronger arguments. The other is that the Qur’an is “fully detailed” -which needs to be addressed in another article.
      They have no where proven that the Qur’an says to take it as a source of guidance (alone).
      They have no where proven that the Qur’an says that we are to reject hadith in (total).

      I’m not curious to know about their arguments against hadiths. People who believe in hadith have arguments against hadith. I am curious to know what you think are their strong arguments (from the Qur’an)?

      As far as painting them with a broad brush I do not. I think anyone who has even a cursory reading of my website has shown that I have interacted with any number of this federation of sects, from Joseph Islam, to Qur’an Centric, to Edip Yurksel, Rashad Khilafa and more.

      I understand they don’t all believe the same things. All of them have very poor Arabic and it is doubtful any of them speak the language fluently. I have seen impressive and flashy websites and I have seen that they have made great use of classical Arabic lexicons and dictionaries, but nothing more.

      Have you come to the same conclusions as Gerrans that the Qur’an teaches the Earth is flat?

      • Garrett Pomelow

        As-Salam ‘Alaykum,

        My exposure to Quranist teachings is primarily restricted to Sam Gerrans’. I do find much of Joseph A. Islam’s work to be of interest, but he’s not Quranist per se. I can’t really comment on the positions of other Quranists, as haven’t researched them in depth, so you could very well be correct about their level of understanding.

        Sam Gerrans does have a noticeably conservative worldview, coupled with a strong predisposition to conspiracy theories, so it doesn’t surprise me that he believes the earth is flat. I don’t, however, believe that the Qur’an makes any definitive statement in that regard, so I think we’re in agreement on that point.

        I’m not a strict follower of any person or sect, so if someone (like Sam Gerrans) has a few strange positions, it doesn’t bother me and I don’t discount the totality of their work on that basis. For example, you’ve (rightly) pointed out a myriad of absurd rulings made by Imam Shafi’i, yet I believe at other times you’ve referenced him as a source to prove some of your points as well.

        Sam Gerrans is the only person I’m aware of who has systematically explained the meanings of the muqata’at in detail:

        To my knowledge, no mainstream Muslim scholar has accomplished that. as a matter of fact, most of them say it can’t be done at all. Do you believe that a construct with only a nominal understanding of Arabic could pull off something like this?

      • Walakum salaam wr wb, Yes, certainly Sam Gerrans could say some things that are true. Certainly anyone no matter how much we differ with them can say things that are true.

        “Do you believe that a construct with only a nominal understanding of Arabic could pull off something like this?” You would be surprised how people feign things. Especially when we haven’t heard them once converse in the language with a native speaker. I believe anyone with in the safety and confines of not being tested could make anyone believe any number of things about themselves.

        I have yet to watch the video to see if it does what you and others claim that it does. I have heard the Qur’an was encoded with the number 19 and it turns out that is not the case. Insh’Allah it will have to go on a backlog of my ‘to do’ list.

        He claims his translation is non-sectarian and yet unfortunately he approaches it with his own presuppositions, which we all have. Why can’t a person simply be honest for a change and say, “I have my presuppositions and this translation will reflect my presuppositions.”

        People can seemingly make the Qur’an say just about anything.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s