| YUKSEL.ORG
|
This book contains a debate between Mr. Edip Yuksel, a proponent of the Quran's numerical structure based on the number 19, and its detractor and skeptic "par-excellence" Mr. Daniel (Abdulrahman) Lomax. The actual polemic took place on an Internet computer bulletin board, where Mr. Lomax has for the past several years posted his refutations of the Quran's mathematical structure. The original work of decoding the Quran's mathematical pattern based on the number 19 (found in sura 74 verse 30, a chapter entitled "The Hidden") was done by the late Dr. Rashad Khalifa in the seventies and eighties. His work was initially welcomed in the Muslim world, until he arrived at the unavoidable conclusion that Muslims should follow the Quran, and the Quran alone, as a source of religious guidance. This was too hard for the power that be in traditional Islam (the religious scholars) to swallow. Dr. Khalifa's works were eventually banned in the Muslim countries (he was murdered in 1990), and ideas similar to his were either suppressed or hotly refuted. In a sense, then, the debate contained in this book is an ongoing struggle between people who follow the Quran alone and those who follow hadith, sunna and consensus of the religious scholars and clerics. A debate between those who are satisfied with God's revelation and those who uphold religious traditions based on man-made dogmas. A polemic between the supporters of the true message of Muhammad and the supporters of the man-made sayings attributed to the man. In the end, the tone of the argument is not unlike the classic exchange of arguments between ahl al-Quran and ahl al-Hadith in early Islam. In spite of the advances in the methodology of scientific investigation that our generation is blessed with, the heart of the main argument remains the same. True, one needs to be skeptical and to verify everything. At the same time, one must also be open minded, listen to all views and follow the best idea. There is a limit to skepticism beyond which lays a danger of closing of the mind from accepting any truth because of the contentiousness nature in us (Quran 41:45, 4:155; 18:54) When it comes to understanding God's signs in the scripture, in the universe around us or within ourselves, we need to shift our paradigm, our way of looking at things, accordingly. In this case, the paradigm is given by this rhetorical question from the Quran: "Is God not sufficient for His servant?"(39:36) For those who answer affirmatively, God will manifest His signs accordingly. "We will show them our signs in the horizons, and within themselves, until they realize that this is the truth. Is your Lord not sufficient as a witness of all things?" (41:53) Gatut S. Adisoma,
Ph.D. Tucson, Arizona, August 14, 1995
CLAIM 1 There is a whole Sura about the secret numerical code entitled "The Hidden Secret," namely Sura 74. In this Sura, God informs us that if anyone claims that the Quran is man-made (verse 25), God will prove him wrong by the number 19 (verse 30). God says that this number serves five functions: a) to disturb the disbelievers, b) to convince the Christians and Jews that this is a divine scripture, c) to strengthen the faith of the faithful, d) to remove all traces of doubts from the hearts of Christians, Jews, as well as the believers, e) to expose those who harbor doubt in their hearts and the disbelievers. They will say, "what did God mean by this allegory?" LOMAX: The message of the passage in question has been distorted by this description, which is perhaps 90% accurate. What is not at all clear from that passage is that the Nineteen is an argument against the human creation of the Qur'an. It is clear that the number has these five purposes, but the last purpose could certainly be read as applying to those who attempt to find the hidden meaning of the Nineteen. This interpretation is very much in harmony with 3:7: "He it is who has sent down to thee the book; in it are verses basic or fundamental; they are the foundation of the book: others are not of well-established meaning. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is not of well-established meaning, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its true meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say 'We believe in the book; the whole of it is from our Lord:' and none will grasp the message except [those] of understanding." (Translation following Yusuf Ali.) YUKSEL: The description does not distort the message of the verse 74:31. Claiming that "perhaps 90% accurate" without clarifying which part of the description is inaccurate is a dubious tactic, intended to put doubts on the entire description. I expect Lomax to unveil the 10% inaccuracy in our translation or understanding of the verse. If I try to be nit-picking, I can see only one problem: the translation of the Chapter's title which is "The Hidden Secret." It is a redundant title. A more accurate translation should have been "The Hidden One" which still carries an implication to the nature of the mathematical code. The title can be also translated as "The Enfolded One." A statement in his objection puts doubt in my mind about either Lomax's literal capability or his honesty: "What is not all clear from the passage is that the Nineteen is an argument against the human creation of the Quran." This is an incredible statement made by a person who is highly educated and reads the translation of the Quran in his mother tongue. How can a person doubt about the context of Nineteen after reading until the 31st verse of Chapter 74? How can a person blind himself to the obvious connection between verse 25 and 30? I cannot believe that his attention span is less than five short verses. I bet with my life, that over 90% of middle school children will be able to see the purpose of Nineteen CLEARLY after reading the translation of those verses. Obviously, I am not suggesting the archaic language of Yusuf Ali, who mimics the style of King James Version and is very good in complicating simple statements. Probably, it would be a good advice for Lomax not to "follow Yusuf Ali" alone. He can find many other translations written with much simpler English. However, a clear relation between the claim in verse 25 and the following verses is clear for an objective reader even from Yusuf Ali's translation Here are the translation of verses which according to Lomax are NOT CLEAR to indicate that "the Nineteen is an argument against the human creation of the Quran." In the Name of God,
Gracious, Merciful
Now, just ask yourself these two questions: "Who is subjected to Saqar retribution and number Nineteen?" Obviously, the answer is the disbeliever. Then, "Why?" Obviously, he did not believe that the Quran was authored by God; he claimed that the Quran was man-made. Therefore, he is immediately challenged by Saqar and Nineteen. I don't understand why this simple and obvious fact became difficult and ambiguous for Lomax. Furthermore, the following verse lists the objectives of the number Nineteen. According to that verse (74:31), it will increase the faith of believers, and remove doubts in the heart of Christians and Jews, etc. How can you disconnect this objective from previous argument regarding the doubt or rejection the divine nature of the Quran? Finally, Lomax uses a mistranslation of 3:7 to make his erroneous point, that the verses about the number 19 are "mutashabih" and only hypocrites try to understand their meaning. First, I want to present my translation, and then explain why I think this is the correct translation, and why Yusuf Ali's translation is both wrong and dangerous. Please compare the important difference in punctation of the last two statements: "He revealed to you this scripture, consisting of straightforward verses, which are the essence of the scripture, as well as multiple-meaning verses (mutashabihat). Those who harbor doubt in their hearts will pursue the multiple-meaning verses to create confusion, and to seek their meanings. No one knows their meaning except God and those who are deeply rooted in knowledge. They say, 'We believe in this; it all comes from our Lord.' Only those who possess intelligence will take heed." (3:7) First, we should try to understand the meaning of "mutashabih." The word "mutashabih" comes from "shabaha" (became similar), and its usage in other verses clarifies its meaning as "similar." It describes the things or words that can be confusing for a novice because of the similarities. (see: 2:118; 2:70; 4:157; 6:99; 6:141; 2:25) Verse 39:23 uses "mutashabihat" for the entire Quran, referring to the overall similarity, in other words, its consistency. In its narrow meaning, "mutashabih" refers to all verses which can be understood in more than one ways. This includes all kind of allegories. The various meaning or implication of the same words require some qualities in the audience: attentive mind, positive attitude, contextual perspective, and patience for research. Now, let's come to the crucial part. It is one of the intriguing feature of the Quran that the verse about "mutashabih" verses of the Quran is itself mutashabih, that is, has multiple meanings. Indeed, the verses about understanding the Quran themselves are not understood by those who betray the Quran by trading it with volumes of hadith books which are full of fabricated stories falsely attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (See our book "19 Questions For Muslim Scholars," and other literature published by ICS/Montheist Publication, P.O. Box 43476 Tucson, AZ 85733-3476, Telephone/Fax (520) 323-7636) Thus, those verses become an empirical proof for their own claim. For instance, see 17:46; 41:44; 56:79). The last part of the verse 3:7 can be understood in two different ways by merely a punctuation change. If you stop after the word God, then you will (mis)understand like many Sunni scholars did. According to your punctuation, even those who possess knowledge will not be able to understand "mutashabih" verses. However, if you don't stop there its meaning will change to the opposite: Those who possess knowledge will be able to understand their meaning. Let's list our reason for preferring this later understanding: 1. The intention of those who try to understand the multiple-meaning verses is important. With the disease in their harts, they try to confuse others by focusing on multiple meaning verses. Since only sincere believers possess the quality to understand the Quran (17:46; 18:57; 54:17), hypocrites will not be able to find the true meaning of multiple-meaning words. They either try to take them out of context or disregard other verses that bring explanation to them. For instance: ". . . And we sent down to you this message, to proclaim (litubayyena) for the people everything that is sent down to them, perhaps they will reflect (16:44). The word "'lituBaYyeNa" is a derivative of "BYN", which is a multiple-meaning word. It means: 1) To reveal what is concealed. 2) To explain what is vague. The first meaning is the antonym of "hide", the second is the antonym of "make vague". God orders Muhammad to proclaim the revelation which is revealed to him personally. Indeed, this is the whole mission of the messengers." (16:35) Prophets sometimes experience difficulty in proclaiming the revelation (33:37; 20:25). If the Quran is a profound Arabic book, if it is explained by God, and if it is simple to understand (5:15; 26:195; 11:1; 54:17; 55:1-2), then the prophet does not have an extra mission to explain it. Furthermore, the verse 75:19 does not leave any room for an extra human explanation. Thus, the word "litubayyena" of 16:44 is similar to the one in 3:187. Verse 3:187 tells us that the people who received the revelation should "proclaim the scripture to the people, and never conceal it." The Quran broadcasts a very clear message. However, the problem is with our receivers. If our receiver does not hear the broadcast or cannot understand it well, then something is wrong with our receiver and we have to check it. If the signal is weak, we need to recharge our batteries, or reset our antennas. If we do not receive a clear message, we need to tune into the station, to the station of Quran alone, in order to get rid of the noises and interference from other sources. We may ask some help from knowledgeable people or experts for this task. If the receiver does not work at all, then we have to make a sincere effort to fix the broken parts. However, if we believe that the problem is in the broadcast, then nobody can help us. The divine broadcast can be heard in detail only by those who sincerely tune in, i.e., those who take it seriously and act accordingly. The condition of our receiver and the antenna, the power of the battery, and the precision level of our tuning are very important in getting the divine message properly. "None can grasp it except the sincere." (56:79) The Quran is simple to understand (54:11). Whoever opens his/her mind and heart as a monotheist and takes the time to study it, will understand it. This understanding will be enough for salvation. Beyond this, to understand the multi-meaning verses or allegorical descriptions you do not need to be a messenger of God. If you have a good mind and have studied the Quran as a believer, that is, if you have a deep knowledge, then you will be able to understand the true meanings of multiple-meaning verses. The verse 3:7, which is about the multiple-meaning verses, points this fact in a multiple-meaning way: ". . . No one knows their true meaning except God and those who possess knowledge. . " Obviously, those who are confused by contradictory teaching of clergymen (ulama) do not possess knowledge and unable to understand this verse. 2. In order to believe in all the verses of the Quran, one does not need to be deeply rooted in knowledge. To be a "believer" is a sufficient condition to beleive all the verses. However, one needs to have deep knowledge of the Quran in order to understand "mutashabih" (multiple meaning) verses accurately. Therefore, 3:7 mentions a narrow category (those who deeply rooted in knowledge) in relation with those multiple meaning verses. 3. God, the teacher of the Quran, encourages believers to study the Quran with patience. A portion of the Quran requires intensive analytical study. It advises us not to rush into understandin without sufficient knowledge (20:114). Nevertheless, the Quran, in general, is easy to understand (54:17...). By mistranslating 3:7, you try to discourage and scare believers, including those who are deeply rooted in knowledge, from understanding the "mutashabih" verses, without a clear definition and identification of "mutashabih". 4. If we follow your translation of 3:7, then, we must have a clear definition of "mutashabih" verses in order to avoid trying to understand them. According to your translation, if one tries to understand a verse and that verse happens to be a mutashabih, then that person is in danger to become a hypocrite. Therefore, you must be able to identify ALL the mutashabih verses. Can you provide us with a list of mutashabih verses? Can you justify your criteria for your selection? How can your lack of understanding be criteria for others? Someone's lack of understanding of one verse cannot make a verse "taboo" for all other people. Otherwise, the lowest degree of understanding will be the common denominator in understanding of the Quran. The more verse you don't understand the more you will be safe, and the more verse you understand the more you will be a subject for accusation to be a hypocrite. 5. There are some Sunni commentators who support our understanding. For instance, the classic commentary of al-Baydawi prefers this understanding. Please note that Yusuf Ali also acknowledges this fact in the footnote of 3:7: "One reading, rejected by the majority of Commentators, but accepted by Mujahid and others, would not make a break at the point marked Waqfa Lazim, but would run the two sentences together. In that case the construction would run: 'No one knows its hidden meanings except God and those who are firm in knowledge. They say', etc." If you are not determining the truth by the number of votes (majority), then, I suggest you reflect on the reasons I have listed here. 6. It appears that you agree with us regarding the first four function or objectives of the number Nineteen. (1) to disturb the disbelievers, (2) to convince the Christians and Jews, (3) to strengthen the faith of the faithful, (4) to remove all traces of doubt from the hearts of Christians, Jews, as well as the believers. How can you explain these statements? How can this Quranic description or prophecy occur without understanding the meaning or implication of the number Nineteen? How many "believers" increased their faith without understanding the meaning of the number? How many Christians or Jews accepted the Quran because of this number, without understanding its meaning? How many people's doubt were removed by your version of Nineteen, that is, a Nineteen devoid of meaning for humans? The way of understanding the implication of number Nineteen, on the other hand, entirely fits these Quranic description. It is an incredible prophecy of the Quran that the message of number 19 mentioned in Chapter 74 was unveiled in 1974, exactly 1406 (19x74) lunar years after the revelation of the Quran. God Almighty has increased the faith of believers (thank God I am one of them), some Christians and Jews have accepted the message of the Quran and the fanatic disbelievers and hypocrites who do not really care about divine revelation have been disturbed by this number; they get furious and nervous when they hear or see the number 19. This reaction is well described in the last verses of the same chapter, especially 74:49-51. 7. The question asked by disbelievers and hypocrites in 74:31 "What does God mean with this?" is not a question that expresses their curiosity for the meaning of God's word, but it is a question of ignorance and avoidance. They cannot or will not understand allegories, in other words, "mutashabih" verses. Please read verses 2:26 and 47:15-16, and note that after allegorical description of "heaven" disbelievers ask similar question. In the context, it is obvious that they don't want to understand the implied meanings of those allegories. Their arrogance and ignorance lead them to read those verses literally which brings nothing but ignorance, disbelief and confusion for them (17:60 and 37:62-66; 17:82). Lomax' response is quoted after LOMAX. I have interrupted his response in order to make our argument easier to follow. You should consider Lomax' part as a continuos objection interspersed with my defence. LOMAX: Mr Yuksel objects to my statement, which was not intended to be precise, that the presentation of the meaning of Sura 74 is "perhaps 90% accurate," and he questions my motives in not stating exactly what was 10% inaccurate. However, he goes on to acknowledge that the title "The Hidden Secret" is redundant (I would say misleading: Hidden is reasonably accurate, Secret is not), and he also objects to my specific statement that "What is not at all clear from that passage is that the Nineteen is an argument against the human creation of the Qur'an." This was the point. The sura, it must be acknowledged, threatens those who reject the divine source of the Qur'an with Hell. Then it says that "over it (Hell, presumably) are nineteen." This is a description of Hell, not necessarily an argument against human creation. YUKSEL: For a person who is not a nitpicker there is no big difference between the meaning of "The Hidden One" and "The Secret." They entail each other. Random House Webster's College Dictionary defines "secret" as "hidden from sight; concealed." Accepting the "The Hidden One" as the accurate translation of "Al-Muddassir" won't enable Muhammedans to re-hide the code which was unveiled after 14 centuries through a monotheist biochemist Dr. Rashad Khalifa. The same dictionary describes the attitude of Muhammedans regarding the mathematical code of the Quran under the entry "hide": 1. to conceal from sight; prevent from being seen or discovered. 2. to obstruct the view of; cover up. 3. to conceal from knowledge or exposure; keep secret, etc. The Quran repeatedly uses three words for hell: Jahannam, Jaheem, and Naar (fire). The word Saqar is the only time used here (74:26). It is obvious that the word Saqar did not have any conventional meaning related to hell, since the following verse defines or describes its meaning (74:27-29). Previous commentators who did not know about the mathematical structure of the Quran had the excuse to understand it as Hell. They even forced the meaning of "Lawwahatun lil-bashar" (Obvious, successive screens for humans) (74:29). They translated the verse as "scorching the skin," despite the fact that the usage of the Quran did not justify such a meaning. For instance the word "bashar" is always used for "human" being. Quran also uses the word "jild" for "skin." It is noteworthy that Muhammad Asad in his translation "The Message of The Quran" does not follow the traditional bandwagon. Though he died before the discovery of the code, he demonstrates a good intuition. His translation of 74:29: "making (all truth) visible to mortal man." In the footnote he defends this translation: "Most of the commentators interpret the above elliptic phrase in the sense of 'changing the appearance of man' or 'scorching the skin of man'. The rendering adopted by me, on the other hand, is based on the primary significance of the verb laha- 'it appeared', 'it shone forth' or 'it became visible'. Hence, the primary meaning of the intensive participial noun lawwah is "that which makes (something) visible'. . . " Finally, even if those verses are understood as the description of Hell, still the Quran treats Nineteen as a number. The number Nineteen is isolated from Hell both in verse 74:30 and 74:31. No matter how hard you try, you cannot hide the number Nineteen in your imaginary Hell. It is a short but good step for Lomax that finally he acknowledges the theme of the chapter as a "threat" to those who claim human origin for the Qur'an. However, he is not able to see the "intellectual challenge." What he can see is a "threat with Hell." Well, some prefer Hell. LOMAX: Then the Sura goes on to state the reasons for the setting of this number. This part of the Sura is consistent with there being some kind of phenomenon involving 19 in the Qur'an. However, it is quite clear that this phenomenon is a trial for the disbelievers, and it also consistent with the passage to understand that those who seek the meaning of the 19 are the people "in whose hearts is a disease and the disbelievers." (74:31) YUKSEL: Yes, this phenomenon is a trial for disbelievers and hypocrites. But Lomax is craftily trying to hide the rest of the verse. He knows well that the rest of the verse cannot be explained with his "meaningless, incoherent, anecdotal and coincidental" nineteen. Again, he repeats himself without answering my criticism regarding his interpretation of the question asked by disbelievers and hypocrites. I gave him verses 2:26 and 47:15-16 as a reference for similar questions. Lomax should go back and read the last paragraph of my first round defense for Claim 1. LOMAX: Mr. Yuksel wonders what my problem is that I cannot see what he sees in this verse. The "problem" is that I saw what he describes years ago, and now I see more, not less. YUKSEL: Evidently, he never saw the miracle, since this miracle requires independent research and good state of mind, not blind acceptance. He probably pretended to see the miracle by his "faith." When he saw some problems with Rashad's work he became a disbeliever of it. He became paranoid and an extreme skeptic, resorting to every possible excuse to reject or cast doubt on this mathematical pattern. I understand this psychology. There is a proverb: "a scalded man fears cold water." He has volumes of stories and scholastic confusion at his disposal to take his revenge. He is upset since he feels fooled years ago. Instead of blaming Rashad, I think he should blame his early ignorance. I agree that he can "see more" now. Samaritan too saw more, centuries ago (20:96). LOMAX: It should also be made clear that I read the Qur'an in Arabic. I do not depend on Yusuf Ali. The translation which I use, personally, more than any other, is Muhammad Ali; I use Yusuf Ali when I want to present a standard, widely accepted translation. But there are obvious problems with Yusuf Ali, as there are with any translation. The translation given by Yuksel is highly interpretive; it reflects the conclusions of the translator, not the literal Arabic. I do not have time to exhaustively describe this. If Mr. Yuksel wants to start a topic on this translation, he is welcome. In the meantime, just look in a number of Qur'ans and see how far Yuksel's translation is from the rest. What is seen by everyone else as a description of Hell (which is multiply confirmed in the passage) is transformed into a description of the "miracle" of the 19 by a very loose translation. YUKSEL: The claim that "everyone else" saw the verses as a description of Hell is false. This shows that Lomax still needs to see more! I have just quoted from Muhammad Asad's translation. If he wants to see more, I urge him to go to a library and do some research. For instance, he can see the commentary of famous scholar Fahreddin ar-Razi. LOMAX: For example, 74:28. Yuksel has "It is exact and precise." M. Ali has "It leaves naught, and spares naught." (this is quite literal). Y. Ali has "Naught does it permit to endure, and naught does it leave alone." Arberry has "It spares not, neither leaves alone." Sale has "It leaveth not (anything unconsumed), neither doth it suffer (anything) to escape)." YUKSEL: Well, I am ready to accept M. Ali's translation. After the discovery of the code it makes more sense. The literal translation of 74:28 is a description of exact and precise. We can translate the verse as "Neither does it leave, nor does it bear (no less, no more)." Mr. Lomax has entirely
ignored my lengthy criticism to his interpretation of verse 3:7 on "mutashabih"
(multiple meaning) verses. When I questioned him by e-mail, he said that
his answer would have been redundant. "Actually, the whole discussion is
somewhat beside the point. The central issues are raised in the Draft FAQ:
19, Study Problems." In our previous e-mail conversation he invited me
to answer his paper titled "On Dr. Khalifa's Theory of the Nineteen in
the Quran." This paper is being posted over and over on Internet, Compuserve,
America Online, etc. When he is pressed on concrete and specific examples,
he is showing me another paper, which is an abstract argument expressing
his confusion and acute skepticism. I will deal with the Draft FAQ later,
God willing.
CLAIM 1a The feminine pronoun "ha" (it or her) in the verse "Over it is Nineteen" (74:30) refers to Lawwaha (screen, plate, visually obvious) or to Saqar (challenge, difficult task, retribution). As for the feminine "heya" (it or she) in the last phrase of verse 74:31, "It is a reminder (zikra) for people" refers to the number Nineteen. LOMAX: On the pronoun in verse 30. I noted that it is in the feminine (and therefore could refer to the blaze but not to the man). The "it" (feminine) at the end of 31 is unclear in reference to me. 'Ad+ (number) is masculine, as are "tis'a+ ashar" (19), "kitaab" (book), and "masal" (symbol). Feminine are "naar" (fire) and "saqar "(blaze), or perhaps just the general topic. YUKSEL: It is obvious that the pronoun "ha" (it or her) cannot refer to the man, since man is masculine. It refers either to "lawwaha" or "saqar". These two words, however, are being mistranslated by many as "the thing that scorches" and "blaze," respectively. Many linguists claim that the word "saqar" is a foreign word. Here, we really do not need to find out the conventional meaning of the "word" saqar. Whenever the Quran uses a word followed by the question "do you know what that means?" then, the Quran adds or attaches a new meaning to that word in question. Please see 69:3; 77:14; 82:17-19; 83:8, 19; 86:2; 90:12; 101:3,10; 104:5. Therefore, it is better not to rush into the translation of "saqar" since God Almighty is going to describe or define it. If you notice, in my translation I left the word "saqar" as it is. You can derive its meaning from its context and description. Besides, there can be another candidate (sure, a remote one) for the reference of verse 30: "ayaat" (our signs and/or revelation) mentioned in verse 16. None of the possible references refute the mathematical implication of the number Nineteen. Unlike Lomax, I am very clear regarding the reference of feminine "it" at the end of verse 74:31. Verse 31, in its beginning phrase, switches the subject from "Naar" (fire) to the number 19. Obviously, some people misunderstood the implication of 74:30. Later, verse 31 clarifies such misunderstanding. The number "tis'ata ashar" (Nineteen) in verse 30 can be also considered feminine. The word "eddatahum" (their number) in verse 31 is feminine too, and both words can be references for the pronoun "heya" (it or she) in the last phrase: "it is a 'zikra' (reminder) for the people." Referring to "eddatahum" (their number) is more meaningful because of the context and proximity of the word. We can easily disqualify the feminine words "naar" (fire) and "saqar," since they are not "zikra" (reminder) in themselves. You can scan all the verses where various forms of this word is mentioned. It is noteworthy that in verse 49 of the same chapter we see a slightly different form of the same word, "tazkira" (reminder). It is used for something good, not bad: "Why are they so averse to this 'tazkira' (reminder)?" (74:49). Obviously, hell is something to be disliked. Therefore, the word "zikra" (reminder) in the end of verse 31 cannot refer to hell. LOMAX: This "claim" was written AFTER the "objection" which follows. My original writing was investigative, not argumentative. Thus Yuksel can make my comments look dim-witted. Here is my actual response, written now: >From the context, it is clear that the "it" in 74:30 refers to saqar (Hell-fire), or, less likely, to lawwAHa (a darkening of color). This word "saqar", according to Penrice, is "supposed to be of foreign origin," though he gives the meaning of the root as "to injure by heat." "lawwAHa" is a verbal adjective of intensity, used with li of . The root lAH means to appear (a star); Yuksel is apparently following modern meanings or possibly speculating to come up with his translation. YUKSEL: My purpose was not to make your comments look dim-witted, but clarify the issue. I apologize if I caused such an impression. A person who is a little bit familiar with the Quran does not really need to learn the meaning of saqar from Penrice, or someone else who is merely endorsing one of the many speculations. There is no need to speculate on the meaning of this "supposedly foreign" word, since the Quranic verses re-defines the word "saqar" in 74:26-29. As for "lawwaHa," Lomax has finally discovered one of its meaning, "to appear with intensity or frequency." It is not clear why Lomax tries to undermine my translation, since I agree with this meaning. Is there a contradiction or a big difference between "to appear intensely" and "visually obvious?" LOMAX: The "it" at the end of 74:31, it appears, would refer either to the "number" at the beginning of the verse (which, by the way, establishes that nineteen is the number of the companions of the Fire [!], which confirms that Saqar is the Fire), or to the verse as a whole. YUKSEL: Another good step! Now you disagree with the commentary of the majority of orthodox scholars who try to skip the number 19 and refer the pronoun "it" at the end of 74:31 to Hell. I will not argue further on this issue, since you are determined not to see the clear statements in 74: 30 and 74:31 that isolate the number Nineteen from the Fire. A fire that you are so eager to see everywhere. Indeed, the number 19 is an intellectual punishment for disbelievers and hypocrites in this world, and it is also the eternal punishment as the number of the angels guarding the Hell. Disbelievers and hypocrites can never escape from this number! "Why are they so averse to this reminder? Running like zebras. Who are fleeing from the lion!" (74:49-51). LOMAX: I have never denied that 74:30-31 may be read as referring to the topic of "nineteen" and the reactions of mankind to this "miracle." Rather, I point out aspects of this reference which are overlooked by Khalifites. One of the great dangers in reading the Qur'an is to assume that references to kafiruwn (unbelievers) are to "those people." It is essential, to be among those reminded, that we apply these words to ourselves, that we may be purified from kufr. To do otherwise is arrogance and pride, the opposite of taqwa. This passage is a warning to all of us, not just to people who do not accept the "miracle of the nineteen." YUKSEL: Trying to confuse the issue among the so called other aspects, and fighting against one of the greatest divine evidence is not righteousness. Lomax should follow his own advice since he prefers the so-called consensus of his scholars to the Quran. LOMAX: By the way, Yuksel has edited my material somewhat, changing the transliteration scheme I had used. In a few places, this may be signifigant. YUKSEL: I did for
two reasons. First, I wanted to keep our reference of the same words consistent.
Second, I found Lomax' transliteration bizarre and meaningless, since it
contained some symbols which did not correspond to any sound nor letter.
I found it confusing and difficult to follow. I wanted the audience to
follow the argument without getting tired from ostentatious transliteration
schemes. I believe that the changes were not significant. Besides, Lomax
should not complain about this "itsy-bitsy" things. He has answered my
"19 Questions For Muslim Scholars" without presenting my argument. His
answer, which is downloaded on several network libraries, is an unfair
presentation.
CLAIM 2 The first verse in the Quran, known as the "Basmalah" consists of 19 Arabic letters. LOMAX: Arguably true, but anecdotal. Of course, there are other ways to count the letters, but the method used by Dr. Khalifa here is reasonable. YUKSEL: The number of letters in Basmalah is certainly true and significant. Though Lomax accepts this fact, he is trying to do his best in order to undermine this obvious physical fact. First, there is no reasonable argument about the number of letters in Basmalah. If he is referring to the absurd arguments raised by modern Sunni scholars who hallucinate by counting non-existing letters in order to blind people to the mathematical miracle of the Quran, then, he must know that everything can be arguable. With the same logic we can claim that the existence of the external world, including the Quran, is "arguably true", since some skeptical philosophers entertain doubts about it. I challenge him to show me "other ways of counting the letters" of Basmalah. Our counting is not merely reasonable, but the ONLY reasonable way of counting the Arabic letters in Basmalah. It is the simplest thing to do. Nineteen letters of Basmalah is a well known fact, since the well known formula of 786 which is used for centuries to represent Basmalah is the gematrical value of exactly 19 letters. In fact, there was no argument on the number of its letters until the discovery of the 19-based mathematical system. Nevertheless, I congratulate him for not following those Sunni scholars who pontificate that the number of letters in Basmalah are either 18, or 20, or 21; but never 19. Second, how did he decide that this fact is anecdotal? Isn't Basmalah the FIRST, THE MOST REPEATED verse of the Quran, and CROWNS every chapter except Chapter 9? How can the number of its letters be considered anecdotal if there is possibility of a numerically structured system in the Quran? We should not forget that the importance and extraordinary nature of this system does not come merely from individual examples, but from the combination and interlocking nature of those examples. Remember that the Quran does not challenge disbelievers to bring one or several verses similar to its verses, rather it challenges them with more; in at least three verses. For the same reason, the word "ayat," in its singular form, is never used for the Quranic verses. On the other hand, its plural form, "ayaat," is used for both Quranic verses and miracles, signs etc. Please check the 84 occurrences of the singular form "ayat" and witness this unique Quranic semantic for yourself. Quran has a unique way of inserting details in conventional language. Besides, you will notice the grave mistranslation of the word "ayat" (singular form) in verse 2:106, and the ignorance of those who claim the existence of abrogation in the Quran. In summary, the number of letters in Basmalah is certainly true and significant. LOMAX: From an overall examination of the techniques of counting used to generate the "miracle," we can see that what may be obvious in one example is undermined in another. Khalifa (and Yuksel, following him), would claim, again and again, that this count of 19 was completely obvious and that the assertions of scholars that there were additional letters were simply ridiculous. But when, in the next fact, the counts of the individual words in the Bismillah are given, what is counted for BSM is actually ASM. Where did this "A" come from? All I have stated is that there are other ways of counting letters than the one used by Khalifa, Yuksel, and others. Arabic orthography is, to a certain extent, arbitrary, and variations exist. We will come back to this issue: Is the Qur'an the written text, or is it the recitation? Since the word "Qur'an" means "The Recitation," I find the answer fairly obvious. YUKSEL: Again, Lomax is confusing the matters. The first word of Basmalah, that is, BSM has three letters. However, without any prefix attached, the word is ISM. There is no other way of counting the letters in Basmalah, since it has a unique spelling. None so far succeeded or even suggested to change this famous spelling. It is different to count the letters of a statement and counting the frequency of its words, since in the later case, you can isolate the word from attached propositions or contextual format. The Quran means "The Recitation" or "The Book of Recitation." The Quran is both the written text and recitation. There are many other names (attributes) mentioned for the Quran: Al-Kitab (Book), Suhuf (Scripture), etc. Obviously, Lomax has not read the Quran carefully enough to see this simple fact. Here are few verses as reminder: 80:11-16; 56:78. Nevertheless, the Quran, ultimately, is neither a recitation nor a book. It is a revelation in the heart of those who possess knowledge (29:49). LOMAX: There are, and have always been, variations in the written text, as well as in recitation. If one is going to count alif as a letter (some say that it is not properly a letter), then we must face the fact that it is written in various ways, and, for example, Hafs and Warsh differ in the use of alif. YUKSEL: We are here discussing the number of letters in Basmalah, nothing else. So far, there is no variations in its spelling. Hafs, Warsh and even Marsh versions do not differ regarding the spelling of the Basmalah. Muhammedan scholars who are masters of disagreement could not succeed to disagree on the spelling of Basmalah (or Bismillah). Again, Lomax is trying to confuse the issue by using a subtle implication. LOMAX: Yuksel wrote: "If he is referring to the absurd arguments raised by modern Sunni scholars who hallucinate by counting non-existing letters in order to blind people to the mathematical miracle of the Quran..." The comment that alif was not a letter is taken from a non-Muslim scholar of Arabic. Yuksel exceeds bounds in argument, and imputes motives with little evidence. If it is a hallucination, how then can it be claimed that "ASM" is a word in the Bismillah? YUKSEL: The statement, "You're hallucinating my friend" has 26 letters and it contains the word "are." Nevertheless, whoever claims that the statement has 27 letters is hallucinating. This is especially true, if the statement has been deliberately and consistently repeated that way, as in the case of the Bismillah. LOMAX: Yuksel has not bothered yet to respond to my much shorter document, the draft FAQ: 19, Study Problems, which explains why the existence of various ways of counting things is significant. I would have preferred to discuss that first, since it establishes principles of analysis that might avoid many useless words of argument. YUKSEL: Well, I will deal with it later, God willing. I hope then you will not complain that it was a "draft," not a finished work. LOMAX: Yuksel wrote: "I challenge him to show me "other ways of counting the letters" of Basmalah." This is truly bizarre. One would presume that Yuksel has read Philips on this subject, and further that he, himself, is capable of such an analysis. But, here goes. This is a transliteration of the bismillah without haraka (vowel marks): BSM ALLH ALRHMN ALRHYM As can be seen, this is nineteen letters. Here is a translation with all the haraka (Hafs, Egyptian script): bis.mi all:hi alr:H.mAni alr:Hiymi (Sukun is written with a period, shadda with a colon.) If I neglect the sukuns, and some would write additional sukuns, I come up with 29 letters. The point is that to state how many letters there are requires a definition of "letter." It would seem an obvious precondition, but the Khalifites depend on such lack of definitions, because it allows them to shift definitions as needed to come up with "amazing" counts. One may argue that the short vowels are not letters. Okay, here it is without short vowels (and without sukun): bsm all:h alr:HmAn alr:hym. 23 letters. The shaddas (:) double letters. But perhaps we can eliminate them. bsm allh alrHmAn alrHym. 20 letters. Some of these letters are not pronounced. We can eliminate them. bsmllh lrHmAn lrHym 17 letters. The A in al-rahmAn is pronounced but not written (by convention). We can eliminate that too, for 16 letters. One could also assert all these variations with an additional one, the elided alif in bism. This is a word which has been written in a special way; elsewhere in the Qur'an it does occur with the alif: bi Asm. YUKSEL: Thank you Lomax for your exposition. You have proved that you are able to do anything and everything. An elementary level knowledge of Arabic alphabet is enough to notice the absurdity in your counting. It is one of the simplest and well known fact that Arabic has 28 (Twenty Eight) LETTERS in its alphabet. All Arabic dictionaries uses this 28 letters. Kindergarten children in Arabic speaking countries memorizes these 28 LETTERS. We are again discussing the number of LETTERS in Bismillah. I have challenged you regarding the LETTERS, not sounds, not shaddas, not harakas, not comas, not mumbles and bumbles. This example is enough to demonstrate how Muhammedans are twisting the simplest facts in order to cast doubt on the mathematical miracle of the Quran. It is noteworthy that not a single Muslim scholar had a different count for the letters of Basmalah before the discovery of the code. Whoever mentioned the numbers of its letters acknowledged the simple fact: Basmalah consists of 19 letters. For instance, Molla Jami starts his Persian Divan by referring to the 19 letters of Basmalah. Fahreddin Ar-Razi, in his 30 volume commentary, et-Tafsir-ul Kabir, links the 19 letters of Basmalah with 19 guardians of Hell. Furthermore, the Abjad (Gematrical) value of Basmalah is well known as 786 for centuries, which is the numerical value of its 19 letters. Many a Muslim still use this number on top of their letters, instead of Bismillah... LOMAX: Nevertheless, it does stand that one of the most simple and obvious ways of counting, that of counting the unvowelled and unmarked traditional Arabic letters, as written in the earliest manuscripts, comes up with nineteen letters. But to assert that this is the only reasonable way to count is mere polemic. It would be more honest and courageous for Yuksel to put his energy into making explicit the definition of "letter" that produces the count. YUKSEL: Lomax and those Muhammedans who cannot digest the message of the mathematical code of the Quran are wondering the "explicit definition of letter!" I cannot imagine a more ridiculous question than this one. Lomax has an obsession with "definition." Should I ask him to define himself, or to define "definition"? In order to show him the sun you need to define the sun. He will not see the sun if you take him out and show him. Thousands of elementary Arabic books, thousands of Arabic dictionaries and encyclopedias, and millions of Arabs know their alphabet. Even my Random House Webster's College Dictionary lists the 28 Arabic Letters in a table in the entry of "alphabet." My 5 year old son, Yahya, discovered a word-game that amuses and sometimes frustrates me. For instance, if I tell him "You are cute," he asks, "What does 'cute' mean?" If I say, "It means 'charming,'" he asks "what does 'charming' mean?" In the end, I give up, "I don't know." He continues, "What does 'I don't know' mean?" Instead of defining what is letter, I believe it is shorter, practical and more meaningful to list the Arabic letters. This way, I will try to deprive Lomax from nitpicking on the definition. Here they are: alif, ba, ta, tha, jim, Ha, kha, dal, dhal, ra, za, sin, shin, Sad, Dad, Ta, Za, 'Ayn, ghain, fa, qaf, kaf, lam, mim, nun, ha, waw, ya. That's all I can do. If someone has planted his feet in the concrete, what can you do? LOMAX: Yuksel quarrels with my use of the term "anecdotal" in reference to this fact. He has not quoted the parts of my paper which establish the meaning of this term in context. This means that it is a single measure. It refers to the problem of attempting to prove a hypothesis by referring to isolated events. For example, my wife went to the doctor, and she did not get better. Therefore medicine does not work. This is anecdotal evidence. In order to really confirm such a hypothesis, one needs to examine all occurrences of the same class of event. A relevant way of doing that would be to examine the letter counts in all distinct verses of the Qur'an (that is, all verses which differ from each other in some way.) How are the letter counts distributed? Is there some preference for divisibility by 19 that is outside the normal distribution? Such a finding would be very significant. But that a single verse, even a verse which is repeated so many times, is divisible by nineteen is not evidence of a pattern. There are "facts" asserted which are not anecdotal. But they are not verifiable. I am referring to the counts involving alif. Others seem to represent multiple occurrences of a pattern, but, if one looks closely, no pattern produces more than a few hits without there being some change in the method of analysis. I have never seen any of these phenomena that are outside normal statistical variation. YUKSEL: Lomax will never be able to see a miraculous pattern with this attitude. He has just demonstrated his method of evaluation regarding the numbers of letters in Basmalah. As for those who can see, they do so for their own good, and those who turn blind, do so to their own detriment. I am not your guardian (6:104). Indeed, they have rejected this without studying and examining it, and before understanding it. Thus did those before them desbelieve. Therefore, note the consequences for the transgressors. (10:39). LOMAX: "Anecdotal" is not a counter-argument to significance, by itself. It merely cautions against generalizing without actually analyzing the whole population of statistics of a particular kind. (And if there is only one member of the population, any fact is inherently anecdotal: If I know only one red-haired person, and he is very intelligent, I can still make no generalization about red-haired persons.) YUKSEL: The number
of letters in Basmalah, the frequency of the four words that it contains,
and many other related features cannot be explained with probability. But,
it is always possible to cover the truth with fabricated excuses, or extreme
skepticism. What was the excuse of those who disbelieved Moses, or Jesus
after they were provided with supernatural physical miracles? Contemporary
disbelievers are no different than medieval ones.
CLAIM 3 Every word in this verse is mentioned in the Quran in multiples of 19. a) The first word (Ism) is mentioned in the Quran 19 times, 19x1. b) The second word (Allah=God) is mentioned in the Quran 2698 times, or 19x142. c) The third word (Al-Rahman=Most Gracious) is mentioned in the Quran 57 times, or 19x3. d) The fourth word (Al-Raheem=Most Merciful) is mentioned in the Quran 114 times, or 19x6. LOMAX: The counting of words in the Qur'an, to be simple, requires a clear definition of what words are to be included and what are to be excluded. To arrive at the counts reported by Dr. Khalifa requires arbitrary and inconsistent judgments, at best, and, at worst, errors or alteration of the text. a) The count of Ism, as given, excludes the invocation itself. It also arbitrarily selects and rejects various forms of the word. There are many ways the words are written. For instance the word "ism" is written in many different forms adding to a total of 38 or 2x19. But, you eliminate half of it by arbitrary selection. The problems is obvious. "Word" is an undefined term. Later, we will see that, by the practices Dr. Khalifa follows with other word counts, the first word of the invocation is "BISM," not "ISM." ... He excludes the BSM in the invocation itself, whether found at the beginning of a chapter or elsewhere as well as the plural, which is formed by adding "A" (Alif) at the end. b) The count of 2698 for Allah, as reported by Dr. Khalifa in VP does not include occurrences at 9:15, 25:68, 40:74, and 46:33. (The first three of these omissions involves reporting two occurrences as a single one.) He has counted an extra Allah at 22:60. The net result is a count of 2701. This count and the remaining two also involve the arbitrary exclusion of the other 112 initial invocations. Furthermore, he includes the word "Allah" with prepositions, such as, "Lillah" and "Billah." This is inconsistent with his counting method for the first word of Basmalah, that is, "Bism." c) The count of 57 for Al-RaHman is accepted and verified. d) The count of 114 for Al-Rahim involves the arbitrary inclusion or exclusion of various forms of the word, and completely omits the occurrence (which is a form otherwise included) at 9:128. The question of the exclusion of 9:128-9 from the Qur'an, as proposed in Dr. Khalifa's later publications, is definitely not simple. Dr. Khalifa did not even mention that this was necessary in VP. I certainly suspect that this was simply a reaction to his embarrassing and fairly easily discovered error. Further, we must note that we included in the count for al-Rahim the forms without the article, Rahim, and the forms with an additional alive at the end, Rahiman. The word al-Rahim occurs 116 times. However, it seems easy to exclude the one in verse 48:29, since the plural of "Ism" also were excluded. This leaves us with 115 occurrences. This is a different method of counting than was used for Ism where Ism was counted and Isman was not. Only one out of four counts ðs correct, and even that count requires an arbitrary decision (the exclusion of 112 invocations). YUKSEL: Yes, there is a peculiarity regarding the counting of the word Bism. However, I strongly believe that there is still a consistent method of counting words. The word Allah, Rahman and Rahim are counted according to the same method. I will discuss two reasons for the peculiarity in the counting of the word Bism: 1) Leaving a perceived loophole for arrogant disbelievers and hypocrites to find an excuse to reject the great mathematical system of the Quran; they don't deserve to see the miracle. 2) To teach us a linguistic lesson regarding the difference between the first letter of "Ism" (name) and "Allah" (God). Now, let's explain. a) I believe this is a fair objection. However, this apparent problem can blind a person to impressive and extraordinary examples of the mathematical system by its priming effect. Our exposure to a certain information in advance can change our perception and cognition dramatically. If you start closing one of your eyes while watching a stereogram, you will not be able to see the three dimensional picture hidden among arbitrary-looking dots. Not only you need to keep both of your eyes open, but also you need to focus on the picture with a positive attitude. Otherwise, you will reject the existence of a three dimensional picture and make fun of those who claim to see it. You may even write a book trying to prove how those colorful dots do not have any pattern. Similarly, if you make up your mind based on a questionable criteria regarding the system of the Quran, you may disqualify yourself to see the extraordinary picture. If you don't see the picture you will not be able to understand the reason for that apparent problem. I will not speculate further on this point, but I leave it to your own choice. It is God's system to show His miracles to believers (2:118), not to fanatic disbelievers or hypocrites. I know the philosophical problem (circularity) with this argument. Too bad, since miracles are not presented as proof for disbelievers. Therefore, I am not arguing this topic in order to convince someone who has already made up his mind; but to help those who have an open mind. I am not judging you. I think you are sincere and honest in your search. God knows, you may tomorrow witness this great miracle of the Quran yourself. I hope that your personal feelings towards Rashad is not creating a psychological mountain between you and the truth. I will divert from My revelations/miracles those who are arrogant on earth, without justification. Consequently, when they see every kind of miracle/evidence they will not believe. And when they see the path of guidance they will not adopt it as their path, but when they see the path of straying they will adopt it as their path. This is the consequence of their rejecting our revelations/miracles, and being totally heedless thereof (7:146). Therefore, I believe that if you want to reject this mathematical system, you will be provided with some deliberately arranged "loopholes" (3:7; 17:82). God distinguishes sincere believers and hypocrites in various ways (3:179; 74:31). We will find out the ultimate truth in the Day of Judgment. However, I would like to remind us that we should not gullibly accept the claims regarding a "miracle," since attributing our speculation or wishful thinking to God Almighty is a very serious sin. This forces us to be extremely careful in accepting or rejecting ideas regarding the Quran: 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 just retribution for the disbelievers? (29:68). Curiously, Fuad Abdulbaqy too, in his famous Concordance of the Quran, Al-Mu'jamul Mufahras, follow the same method of counting. While categorizing the words, he consistently distinguishes the form of a word attached to a conjunction from the one without or separate from a conjunction. He also consistently distinguishes the regular form of a word from the contracted form, for instance, when a preposition is attached to a word starting with Alif, as it is the case with "Bism". However, he is not consistent with this method of classification in the counting of the word God. This inconsistency is curious, since this is the only method of classification that we can obtain 2698 (19x142) for the frequency of the word God, if we exclude 9:128-129 and un-numbered Basmalahs. (If you study this concordance you will find that the author separates the word Allah in three parts according to their last vowel points as an exceptional treatment. However, this is not because he considered them as different forms of the word. This exceptional treatment is to make it more convenient for us to find a verse containing the most repeated word in the Book.) Here is how Abdulbaqy's concordance classifies the different forms of Ism. Ism or BIsm (Name, in the Name. The three original letters of the word remains unaltered): No
Sura
Verse
Bsm (In the name. The first letter is dropped): 1
1 1
Ismuhu (His name. A pronoun is attached to the original form): 1
2 114
Asma' (Names. The original form is changed): 1
2 31
Asmaihi (his names) 1 7 180 Asmaihim (their names) 1
2 33
Totaling to 39 words. No one can claim that Fuad Abdulbaqy cooperated with us by putting the number 19 under the word "Ism" as its frequency, since he completed his concordance in 1938 and died before the code was discovered. The exceptional method applied to the counting of the word Bism might be due to its first letter, that is "A" (Alif). When this letter is omitted it changes its basic form, that is, ISM becomes SM. If we accept this fact as one of the reasons for a different method of counting, then, we have to accept that the first letter of "Allah," that is "A" (Alif) does not belong to its root. In other words, the first letter of "Allah" is "A" of the definite article "Al" (The). Some linguists have claimed that the word "Allah" is the Arabic word for "the god," which we write as God, with a capital G. According to this understanding, omission in the first letter of "Allah" cannot be considered a change in the basic form of the word. Again, we observe according to our current knowledge and sometimes learn new facts from our observation. Our observation in science occasionally forces us to modify our theories. Likewise, we study the mathematical structure of the Quran with our current knowledge; however, sometimes we may be forced to correct some of our preconceived ideas. An outsider may accuse the scientist of being inconsistent or cheating, but an insider will see it as a sincere search for a better understanding and explanation. b) There were typing errors in the list published in VP (Visual Presentation of the Miracle). I really don't know how they occurred. However, the errors can be corrected by a careful comparison. As I have stated, I do not argue my position with the authority of Rashad, but with verifiable and falsifiable physical facts. Therefore, speculating on his errors is not relevant here. So far, you have found few errors. I will give you the complete list of typing errors. My or your errors cannot change the number of the frequency of the word "Allah" (God) in the Quran. Independent researchers can find the real results. Here is the complete list of errors in VP with their correction. (The first number on the left is the index number, the second is Chapter, and the third is verse number, and the parenthesis contain corrections): 565
4 69
(64)
As you see above, we have 4 additions and 3 subtractions. That means, we have one extra word to add to the claimed result, that is, 2698 + 1 = 2699. This result includes the word "Allah" in 9:129. Now, please tell me what is the result of your own counting? If you agree with 2699, then we can continue this argument. (You can use Visual Presentation of the Miracle or Fuad Abdulbaqi's Al-Mu'jamul Mufahrasa Li-elfazil Quranil Karim to check this number). By the way, it is becoming evident to me that your concordance is not accurate. You should not reject our counts based on your poorly edited concordance. I advice you to obtain Fuad Abdulbaqy's concordance, which is a well known work in Islamic circles, and compare it with yours. Our counting excludes the 112 unnumbered Basmalahs. Had we include them, you would object again by labeling it as an "arbitrary inclusion of 112 unnumbered initial invocations which are merely repetition." Our exclusion is not arbitrary, since the other 112 Basmalahs are not numbered. You can see this fact in your own version of the Quran. Our method follows and justifies the well known difference between the other two Basmalahs and these 112 Basmalahs. It is a discovery which brings an explanation for this curious distinction. Though in the early manuscripts the verses were not numbered, they were ordered and separated from each other by dots which I believe justifies our numbering them. In fact, if there is a beginning and order of items of the same category, there is an implicit numbering in the structure. Therefore, early scholars were not wrong when they decided to number the verses as we know and use today. c) The frequency of the word Rahman being 57, or 19x3, is obviously a significant fact regarding the numerical code. d) As for the counting of "Rahiman," the form without the article, I believe that your objection is very weak since we do not apply a different method of counting for the other three words in Basmalah. I agree that you can count a word in several different ways. The number of reasonable methods of counting this word is much less than nineteen ways. Thus, according to probability, it is still interesting to find one of them being a multiple of 19. I believe that the method of counting which leads to a miraculous system is the most reasonable one, and we use it consistently. Furthermore, if we follow the same method of counting words, we find the word "shahr" (month) occurs exactly 12 times, and the word "yawm" (day) occurs 365 times. These two examples with their empirical implication, I believe, gives us two important clues: 1) There is big possibility that the author of the Quran has attached meanings to the frequency of words. 2) While counting the words, the general method of counting should follow the same system that we discover in the frequency of these two words. True, there are 115 occurrences of Rahim in current versions. But, we have always excluded the one mentioned in 9:128. Before we came to the conclusion that 9:128-129 is not from the original Quran, we had already and easily excluded it, since it is used for Prophet Muhammad. Therefore, the frequency of God's name Rahim is 114 (19x6) in the Quran. LOMAX: Edip Yuksel wrote: "Yes, there is a peculiarity regarding the counting of the word Bism. However, I strongly believe that there is still a consistent method of counting words. The word Allah, Rahman and Rahim are counted according to the same method." There is not just one peculiarity, there are at least two. However, Yuksel is reduced to saying "I strongly believe" because he is unable to state what the method is. I don't like to shout, but: WHAT IS THE METHOD OF COUNTING WORDS? As will be noted from Yuksel's word counts from AbdulBaqi, 19 is the frequency of one particular form of ASM, and this is not the form found in the Bismillah. Other forms have other frequencies. Once again, I will note my amazement that Yuksel casually allows that there is an alif in BSM, so soon after he has called this a "hallucination" when it is asserted by "Sunni scholars." YUKSEL: Again, Lomax is trying to confuse things. I have explained it before. The BSM of Basmalah does not have "A" (alif) in it. However, when we count individual words we can strip them off from attached propositions which are only relevant when they are in a sentence. I have briefly expressed the method of counting the words, and brought an explanation regarding the difference in the count of the first word, Bism. LOMAX: I could infer from some of these facts a method of counting words. But it is a lot of work, which I am not going to exert right now. It is up to those who claim the miracle to state the experimental conditions. I have tried to do it in the past, and always found inconsistencies. But, by varying the definition of "word" one can certainly increase the occurrence of any desired modulo 19 remainder. It is not difficult to do this with just four words, and this has been done with the Bismillah. YUKSEL: Lomax was asking us the definition of "letter" too. He was confused on that simplest and most obvious linguistic fact. Knowing his great talent in confusing matters, I avoid to waste my time to bring a definition for "word." It seems that nothing can clear his fuzzy eyesight. LOMAX: Yuksel wrote: "b) There were typing errors in the list published in VP (Visual Presentation of the Miracle). I really don't know how they occurred." Especially since these lists were supposedly produced by computer. Khalifa allowed people to assume that his counts were generated by analyzing a computer text of the Qur'an. It is likely that he did keypunch (yes, keypunch!) part, or perhaps all, of the Qur'an in the early 1970s. But his database was full of errors, and it is likely that his later work was done without the benefit of a computer-readable Arabic text. So his "computer" proof was actually just a manually- compiled spreadsheet. How did he come up with 2698? YUKSEL: It really does not matter. I do not care how he came up with this number. I know for myself that there are exactly 2698 occurrences of the word "Allah" (God) in the numbered verses of the Quran, excluding the 9:127. Lomax might again marshal his Hafs and Warsh! By repeatedly referring to his versions of the Quran he reminds me his ancestors mentioned in verse 10:15. LOMAX: He followed AbdulBaqi, who did not count 1:1 as part of the Qur'an, and who, I am told, reports 2698 occurrences of "Allah." Then he made his spreadsheet, and kept looking for errors until he had the same total as AbdulBaqi. It has been said that this was an error in AbdulBaqi, but perhaps he was following the Warsh reading, which does not number the initial Bismillah. YUKSEL: AbdulBaqi DID count verse 1:1 as part of the Quran. His claim shows how shallow is his "research." If he has just checked his concordance for the other three words of Basmalah (Bism, Rahman, and Rahim) he would have realized that the omission of the word "Allah" in 1:1 is a typographical or a human error. The numbers indicating the frequency of the word "Allah" (God) is one less than the actual list. Therefore, he lists 2699 occurrences, including 9:127. Again Lomax' obsession with Warsh forces him to a wrong conclusion. AbdulBaqi did not care about Warsh version. LOMAX: Yuksel could have saved me a great deal of trouble by sending me the list of errors in VP two years ago, when I first mailed him a copy of my paper. It met with complete silence then. I had to find those errors myself. At this point, I consider it unlikely that there are more errors, and tentatively accept that there are 2698 occurrences of "Allah" in the accepted Qur'an, plus 113 occurrences in the initial Bismillahs. I add the qualification "accepted," because I have a copy of the Tashkent muSHaf, and I have found, on a fairly cursory examination, that there is a verse in it which does not have an "Allah" which is present in modern versions. Because it is "innallaha" and the subject of the following verb is obviously Allah, it does not change meaning. I would not be surprised to find other occurrences like this. YUKSEL: Individual manuscripts might contain certain unintentional errors or omissions because of the human factor. If there was a "deliberate" omission of the word "Allah" in Tashkent copy it would not have escaped from public attention and hot debate among early scholars. There is no such a debate on that missing word, even in the books which argue the tiniest variations among different versions. Lomax may hope to equate his "discovery" with ours. In the case of the spelling of "BasTatan" we had clues and evidences to suspect the spelling of that word. Furthermore, we did not rely on Tashkent copy alone, we checked some other early manuscripts too. LOMAX: Again, it would be useful if Yuksel would address the point mentioned in the draft FAQ: 19, Study Problems, "What is the Qur'an?" YUKSEL: Here, I will briefly attempt to define the "Quran." Lomax may not like this unconventional definition. The Quran is a unique book and it has a unique (he may call it bizarre!) definition: The Quran is a revelation of God to Prophet Muhammad in Arabic language containing 114 chapters, a number which equals the Gematrical value of God's attribute Jami' (The Editor). (Lomax may wonder: "what does 'chapter' mean? I will define it for him if he explain what does "mean" mean!) Its chapters, except the Chapter 9, start with a 19-lettered verse, Bismillahirrahmanirrahim. It is a numerically coded book, detailed and explained by its author, easy to understand for believers, impossible to understand for hypocrites and disbelievers. With its 6346 verses (including unnumbered Basmalahs), it is complete and the only source of guidance. Disbelievers seek other sources besides it. Its a book of recitation which its preservation is guaranteed by God. It does not belong to Hafs, Warsh, neither East, nor West; it is God's light. Where can we find this Quran? It is in the heart of those who possess knowledge. Who are those who possess knowledge? They are those who know the Quran and accept its self-definition without doubt. How do they know the Quran? God teaches them. How can we know that God teaches them? If God teaches you too! How do I know that God teaches me? You will not trade God's word with medieval fabrications and consensus of clergymen. LOMAX: Yuksel writes: "Though in the early manuscripts the verses were not numbered, they were ordered and separated from each other by dots which I believe justifies our numbering them." The Tashkent muSHaf is not numbered, nor is it dotted in any way. Dots were added later, and some of them were used to indicate pause. Yuksel ignores the fact that different readings of the Qur'an divide verses differently. If he really is interested in authenticity, he should probably be studying Warsh instead of Hafs, since it is likely that Warsh is closer to the Qur'an as recited by the Prophet (SAS). YUKSEL: Lomax again is advertising his Warsh version. However, he has lost his credibility since he is the same guy who strongly advises people to accept the authenticity of hadith books which are collection of primitive stories. As for the Tashkent copy, I can see clear marks separating verses, even without my eyeglasses. Lomax probably has a newly discovered Warsh version of Tashkent manuscript ;-) LOMAX: As to the remaining counts, since al-Rahman is used in only one form, I can state that it occurs, in Hafs according to modern numbering, 57 times in numbered verses. Since Yuksel has not stated the rules for counting words, I will refrain from confirming the Rahiym counts. It is also a bad sign that the necessary qualification "Hafs" and "numbered verses" needs to be stated by me. It should be part of the original claim, as should be the necessary definitions. Without those definitions, counting is impossible. YUKSEL: Lomax appears to have a short memory. He had confirmed the frequency of Rahiym in his previous work. He could count 115 Rahiym (including 9:128) without trouble (see: Lomax' first round objection to Claim 3). With the exclusion of 9:128, the frequency of Rahiym comes to 114 which is a ZMN of 19. Lomax is learning so much that he has lost his ability for counting clear words ;-) LOMAX: It is easy to define "word" in English, because we separate words with spaces. Arabic is not like that. Even so, in English we could run into problems if we try to count words. If I count the occurrences of the word "truck," should I also count "trucking" and "trucks?" YUKSEL: Lomax should just count the word "truck," if he is counting only the "car" the "bicycle" and the "bus!" This is exactly what we did in the count of the words in Basmalah. LOMAX: Yuksel is actually proposing that we should use the definitions which produce the multiples of 19. There is nothing wrong with doing this, as long as one recognizes the possibility that one is thereby creating the "miracle." Such a hypothesis (that the "miracle" is man-made) could later be disproven by showing that the results were of far higher significance than could have been created by such manipulation. For example, I can decode the cryptogram in the newspaper by trying out certain letter conversions. If some of these conversions seem to produce a real word, I then look at all the occurrences of the translated letter, and see if other words appear as well. Because of the nature and complexity and redundancy of a genuine message, I can generally be very sure if I have found the correct code, because it produces a message with much greater coherency than can be explained by the relatively simply process of choosing letter conversions. YUKSEL: Good job! Sometimes I wonder how can Lomax be among those who are blind to the mathematical miracle of the Quran. LOMAX: But if I am allowed to do more than just substitute one letter for another, and if the spaces are considered part of the code as well, and if I can add positional coding (in other words, the translation varies with the position), then, if I am not limited in the complexity of the translation, I can convert any message into any other message of the same length. But the code will approximately as complex as the message decoded. I find, on examining the claims of the Khalifites, that the decoding they do is as complex as the message it produces. They shift analytical methods as needed to produce multiples of nineteen. But to demonstrate this requires an overview. YUKSEL: Lomax consistently tries to stigmatize us by labeling us as Khalifites. He is appealing to orthodox masses who excommunicate people by labeling them with names, ironically, in the similar way of how they call themselves: Hanefites, Shafiites, Malikites, Hanbelites, Wahhabites, etc. After receiving my answer rejecting the claims that do not follow a consistent method of calculations, Lomax still insist to repeat his original criticism. He enjoys to punch a straw-man. It is a tactic that works for politicians who appeal to the emotions of the masses. LOMAX: Yuksel wrote: "True, there are 115 occurrences of Rahim in current versions. But, we have always excluded the one mentioned in 9:128. Before we came to the conclusion that 9:128-129 is not from the original Quran, we had already and easily excluded it, since it is used for Prophet Muhammad. Therefore, the frequency of God's name Rahim is 114 (19x6) in the Quran." Yuksel here shows how slippery all this is. Apparently, it is meaning that is being counted, not words. But this is not stated in the original "fact." True, Muhammad (SAS) is "raHiyma", merciful, but the word in the Bismillah is al-raHiym (The Merciful), so I would agree that it is a reasonable choice not to count this, but on the basis that it is an adjective, not a name or title. Al-rahiym, the title or name, occurs 34 times in the Qur'an. All Yuksel has demonstrated is that there is a way to count that produces a multiple of 19. YUKSEL: In the Quran, all the attributes of God are adjectives. It is entirely arbitrary and baseless to divide them into groups of names and adjectives. Again, Lomax contradicts his previous count of Rahiym. All Lomax has demonstrated is that there is a way to distort and manipulate the facts that produces a result lacking a mathematical pattern. LOMAX: Yuksel wrote: "I agree that you can count a word in several different ways. The number of reasonable methods of counting this word is much less than nineteen ways. Thus, according to probability, it is still interesting to find one of them being a multiple of 19." Yuksel's knowledge of math is, well, deficient. Each possible method of counting reduces the significance of the result. Because it is possible to combine the results of various counts (particularly in this case, where words exist in many different forms), and also because of probability theory, one does not need nineteen different ways to make it likely that one of them is divisible by nineteen. In fact, with thirteen different ways, there is a fifty percent probability that one or more of them is divisible by nineteen, even without allowing combinations. It is more complex to determine the odds with combinations, but a rough estimate would be that, if one may combine forms (as Khalifa did), four different forms is sufficient to make it likely (more than 50% probability) that one combination exists which is divisible by 19. There are about seven forms of ASM, at least two forms of ALLH (Allah and Lillah), one form of ALRHMN, and four forms of ALRHYM. From this, one might expect more than one way to combine forms for ASM to produce a multiple of 19, and, in fact, there is: The total of all forms of ASM is, in fact, 38, or 19x2, in the numbered verses in Hafs. YUKSEL: Lomax generalizes my statement for the word ISM to the other three words in order to claim deficiency in my math. We have counted the word ALLAH, al-RAHMAN, and ALRAHIYM according to the clearest and most obvious method in a consistent fashion. The same method was employed by many independent researchers who did not have motivation to reject nor defend the mathematical code of the Quran. It is amusing to see many new methods of counting is being discovered by today's Muhammedans who are terrorized by the number 19. After their new discoveries they complain from confusion. In this endeavor, no wonder they end up losing the most common knowledge. They seriously ask what is letter? What is the Quran? Below is one out of many examples from previous works that do not demonstrate any problem in counting particular words. Though their count may not be exact, it will show that they have employed the same way of counting. Prof. Dr. Suad Yildirim, in his comprehensive book on the attributes of God in the Quran, "Deity in the Quran" (Kuran'da Uluhiyet, Kayihan Yayinevi, Istanbul, 1987) gives the frequency of the word Allah 2697 (p.101), the word Rahman 57 (p.115), the word Rahiym 114 (p. 124). Though Dr. Suad Yildirim is not interested in the mathematical code of the Quran (most likely he rejects it) he came up with the same counting method and with the same results, except he was one short for the count of "Allah." LOMAX: Yuksel wrote: "I believe that the method of counting which leads to a miraculous system is the most reasonable one, and we use it consistently." This should be printed with every piece of Khalifite literature. It is an open acknowledgment that the methods of counting are selected to produce the "miraculous system." Now, if such a method is found, and it then produces consistent results applied to new data, it would truly be miraculous. But the Khalifites keep modifying the system as new data is presented, and, in fact, as will be seen, they do not use and system "consistently." Now, their inconsistency is not a guarantee that there is no pattern. It merely means that they have not demonstrated one. The Khalifites are apparently not aware that the human mind is very, very capable of projecting pattern. It is a very useful capacity, but it has its limits. Perhaps our older readers will remember the "canals of Mars." Many astronomers drew them from observing Mars, but somehow they never showed up in photographs. No one draws them anymore, now that excellent photographs from close up fail to show them. Gamblers believe that they can detect patterns in random variations, and they bet everything they have on this. YUKSEL: Again Lomax is not dealing with my position. He can always find someone who will introduce some inconsistent or false counting. Instead of dealing with my argument, he is still looking for straw-men among what he calls "Khalifites". This attitude is irritating. As the readers have noticed I have occasionally lost my patience with Lomax. Lomax obviously distorts my statement for his cause. Here I will re-word it to make it clearer: I believe that our method of counting is the most reasonable one, and we use it consistently. This method leads to a miraculous system. LOMAX: I have challenged the Khalifites (and other students of "numerical miracle" in the Qur'an) to come up with a coherent statement of exactly what the miracle is, so that we could then determine if it exists in other books. So far, no takers. Until such a statement exists, it is really impossible to prove that the miracle does not exist, for exactly the same reason that an honest atheist would admit the general impossibility of proving the non-existence of "God." In order to disprove a proposition, the proposition must first be stated in a way that can be tested. YUKSEL: An impressive
and eloquent statement with no substance. I do not have any motivation
to come up with a coherent statement of exactly what the miracle is for
someone who is not able to see the simplest facts. You cannot help someone
who stubbornly closes his eyes to the light and complain of not being able
to see it. What if that person demands a coherent statement of exactly
what the light is? Personally, I would not bother to bring a technical
and comprehensive definition of the light for someone who hates the light
and demonstrates all kind of blindness in the past.
CLAIM 4 The Quran consists of 114 chapters (Suras) which is 19x6. LOMAX:True, but anecdotal. The number of chapters is not part of a pattern. I will make this "anecdotal" comment many times; I should explain it. Suppose I have a telephone book. I can generate a large number of counts from that book. In fact, the number of counts, the number of ways that the data can be analyzed, which can be generated from such a large collection far exceeds the number of atoms in the known universe. Approximately one out of 19 of those counts will be divisible by 19. By selecting and presenting only those counts, especially if I worked at it for fifteen years or so, I could show an amazing collection of facts, all of which would be undeniably true. I do not intend to do this; I consider it a recipe for insanity. On the other hand, if I could show an extensive pattern, appearing with the application of a few simple rules, I would have found something truly interesting. Dr. Khalifa's early claims of the letter frequencies showed exactly such a pattern, which is why they interested me so much. Out of 14 initial letters, 8 showed total counts divisible by 19. There is substantially less than one chance in a million of that happening simply by coincidence. Unfortunately, even those counts already included what can only be considered deliberate modification of the data to create divisible counts. (To consider this kindly, Dr. Khalifa probably thought that he was discovering the "correct" way of counting or the "correct" text.) YUKSEL: It is true, and it is very important. Why should the number of chapters should not be a part of the pattern? The number of the Chapters being multiple of 19 is surely an important support for the importance of number 19 as the code of mathematical structure of the Quran. Yes, it is not difficult to compose a book with a certain number of chapters. However, if we have many examples of a mathematical pattern in a book and the number of chapters (the biggest element in a book) also supports that pattern, then, it becomes important. I am sure if the number of chapters were not multiple of 19, skeptics would repeatedly raise this question: "How can you claim that this book is constructed on a numerical code, and its chapters, the most obvious element is not a multiple of that code?" There is no alternative counting for the number of chapters. For instance, if someone claim that the number of statements in a book which starts with letters B, C, E, M, R, T are each multiple of 7, then, I could object him by saying "It is just a coincidence. What about other 22 letters? You have one out of 7 chance to have such a case. Approximately 4 out 28 initial letters will be multiple of 7. It is not significant to have 6 of them being multiple of the same number." But, I cannot object to the number of chapters by accusation or allegation of selective counting. The number of chapters has a unique importance in the numerical composition of a book. Let me modify my example in order to get some insight regarding the mathematical structure of the Quran: If someone claims that the number of statements in a book which starts with letters Y, U, K, S, E, L are multiple of 6, then, I would not rush in rejecting it as coincidence, if I knew that the author of that book is Edip Yuksel. I would raise some cautious questions: "How did you put these letters in this order? Why not K, L, Y, U, S, E or other pattern? " If I am provided with a reason for that order, then, I may consider the example intentional. For instance, "they are ordered according their first occurrence" or "they are ordered according to their frequencies, that is, Y occurs 6x50 times, U occurs 6x43 times, K occurs 6x12 times, so on so forth." Some other examples, for instance, the number of chapters and sentences may convince me regarding the intention of the author on using the number 6 as a code. In this case, in order to be convinced, I may need three times more examples than I need for a 19-based pattern, since 7 is smaller. In order to claim a unique and extraordinary mathematical design in the Quran, we should first be convinced regarding the intention of the author. The number of chapters, I believe, is a crucial element regarding this conviction. Though the discovery of "intention" is important, it is not sufficient for to claim that the mathematical composition is authored by God. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your example of a telephone book is deceptive for at least three reasons. First, a typical telephone book contains much more characters than the Quran which contains approximately 300,000 letters. The white pages of Tucson's phone directory, excluding suburbs, contains approximately 8,500 characters in one page totaling 5,200,000 characters. This includes approximately 200,000 different phone numbers with approximately 1,400,000 digits. (Quran, on the other hand contains 30 different numbers and 8 fractions, and they are repeated less than 300 times). This volume is obviously more than 17 times of the Quran. Therefore, in order to believe in a mathematical structure for a typical phone book, we need much more examples than we need for the Quran. Besides, th |