Make your own free website on Tripod.com

The Institute for a Just Socio-Economic Order

Ayman-Round 2 Reply

Home | Social Philosophy and Theory | Laws and Societal Behaviors | Social Justice | "Hadith" and "Bible" | Allegory, Symbolism, and "Miracles" | Philosophy | Science | The "5 Pillars"

by Ayman

Thank you for your response and for taking time out of your busy schedule to write this essay. I see that my article has had a positive effect on you and this is reflected in some of your translations that are significantly more truthful than Dr. Khalifa's distorted translations. Unfortunately, I can also see why your response is quite lengthy. It often digresses into lengthy nostalgic stories of the history of the discovery of the alleged mathematical miracle. Also, a lot of space in the article is dedicated to personal attacks and extensive and repetitive name calling perhaps thinking that if one repeats something long enough it will stick. Although I appreciate the personal attention that you are giving me (it shows that I am pushing the right buttons), your case would be better served by focusing on the issues.

To focus the discussion on the issues and in order not to waste the reader's time, I will organize my response to your criticism under ten short sections:

1. Mistranslation of the great reading

Edip perhaps you can help me answer this question. Why is it that when it comes to justifying their "miracle" based on the great reading, Code-19 promoters have to insert words that don't exist, twist meanings, and even invent new meanings? I know that you don't like this and you have personally criticized Aidid Safar for inventing meanings. But at least Aidid tried to present some argument (regardless of whether it is sound or not) as to why he departed from the Arabic dictionary meaning. On the other hand, 19ers insult the intelligence of the reader by silently inventing meanings without providing any justification.

Right off the bat, such forced mistranslations do not help your cause:

Edip Yuksel wrote:
"Indeed, the book of the righteous will be in 'Elleyyeen. Do you know what 'Elleyyeen is? A numerically structured book. To be witnessed by those close to me." (83:18-21)


A new meaning for "marqum" as "numerically structured" is invented without providing any argument as to why the clear Arabic meaning was not used. The meaning has no basis in classical Arabic dictionaries. Here is what the dictionaries say about the word:

Wasit:
مَرْقُومٌ، ةٌ - [ر ق م]. (مفع. مِنْ رَقَمَ). 1."ثَوْبٌ مَرْقُومٌ" : مُخَطَّطٌ أَوْ مُطَرَّزٌ. 2."كِتَابٌ مَرْقُومٌ" : كِتَابٌ مَسْطُورٌ بَيِّنُ الكِتَابَةِ. "مَا هُوَ مَرْقُومٌ يَدُومُ".

Lisan Al 3arab:

وكتاب مَرْقُوم أي قد بُيِّنتْ حروفه بعلاماتها من التنقيط

Clearly, Arabic dictionaries say that "marqum" means "written/recorded" or "whose letters are dotted". There is nothing in there about "numerically structured".

This type of silent invention of meanings insults the intelligence of the reader because it doesn’t even attempt to provide a justification and hence assumes that the reader is not intelligent enough to make up their own mind about whether the invented meaning is justified or not. It also assumes that the he or she will not verify the meaning against other translations or classical Arabic dictionaries and discover the distortion.

More mistranslation:

Edip Yuksel wrote:
"Say, 'What if it is from GOD and you disbelieved in it? A witness from the Children of Israel has borne witness to a similar phenomenon, and he has believed, while you have turned arrogant. Surely, GOD does not guide the wicked people.'" (46:10)


Of course, the reader can guess what Code-19 promoters claim this "phenomenon" is. Why do they always have to work so hard at twisting the meanings, adding words out of the blue and inventing meanings? The answer is always that they are trying hard to make the great reading fit their preconceived "Code 19 miracle".

On a positive note, Edip finally admits that the word "ayat" means "signs" and not "proofs" and hence indirectly admits that this meaning was invented by 19ers to distort 10:1, 12:1, 13:1, 15:1, 26:1-2, 27:1, 28:1-2, 31:1-2. Unfortunately, he fails to grasp the implication of such admission and instead resorts to strange arguments to continue to justify that "ayat" refers to so-called "initials". Here is an example:

Edip Yuksel wrote:
However, its plural form AYAAT is used for both signs/miracles the revelation contained in the scripture. Since, the singular form is never used to refer a verse in the scripture, we can infer that unless it is at least three verses, they do not count as a divine sign or miracle. For instance, the verse "Where are you going?" cannot be called AYAAT (signs) since it is one verse. This is very appropriate, since that expression was and is used by Arabic speaking people daily, even before the revelation of the Quran.


Edip gives up the invented meaning of "proofs" only to invent another new meaning of "verses". It is an indisputable fact that the word "verses" in Arabic means "abyat" NOT "ayat". Hence, we hear about "verses of poetry" as "abyat shi3r" NOT "ayat shi3r".

It can also be logically seen that verses and signs are not equivalent. The purpose of a sign/"aya(t)" is to provide GUIDANCE. Half a sentence or a "verse" that is meaningless without what came before it doesn't provide guidance and cannot logically be a sign/"aya(t)". For example, we hear at the end of the story of Moses in 26:10-67: "in this is an "ayat"/sign (singular)". Surely, The God doesn't mean that the "aya(t)" is described in just 26:67. Instead it is what is described in all the story from the beginning that provides guidance and hence is a sign/"aya(t)" (singular) despite encompassing several "verses". In fact, 26:67 is meaningless on its own and hence doesn't provide any guidance. On the other hand we have 2:164 that contains several "aya(t)"/signs despite it being a single so-called "verse".

Edip Yuksel wrote:
I concede that it is possible to understand the reference of the "these" to be the "following verses." However, I prefer the reference of "these" to be the "previous alphabet letters" for the following reasons:
- The expression "these are signs", which is repeated eight times, is used ONLY with conjunction of alphabet letters.
- If it refers to the verses of the Quran, it becomes a dull and redundant statement. A reader might ask, "Okay, I see that these are verses of the Quran. So what?" Or, if "Okay, these are signs/miracles of the Quran. How?"


I agree with Edip that it is dull and redundant to anyone who mistakenly thinks that "ayat/signs" means "verses". The fact is that right at the beginning of Chapter 24, 24:1 points to "ayat/signs" being in this chapter despite the chapter having no initials. Since 24:1 cannot possibly be pointing to anything other than what is coming AFTERWARDS, now Edip will claim that 24:1 is "dull and redundant".

Moreover, his other point about "these" only pointing to the so-called "initials" is completely negated by 2:1-2 where the same type of pointing device comes right after "Alm" and is pointing to the book. Clearly, the Alm is not the book.

Edip Yuksel wrote:
- The numerous examples of the code 19 and its evident presence in some Quranic initials are sufficient to reveal the function of these letters. Though we lack a reliable data regarding the number of Alifs, based on our knowledge of the mathematical structure of the Quran we can justifiably expect that when we learn the exact frequencies of these letters in the original text will participate in the 19-based structure.
- "On it is nineteen!" (74:30)


Of course, this is the only valid reason in Edip's mind. However, any logical person can see that what he has built is a circular argument. It goes something like this:

The word "ayat" must refer to Code 19 because there is a Code 19 miracle in the great reading and the proof that Code 19 is a miracle is that the word "ayat" refers to Code 19.

2. "Doctors who smoke" syndrome

I apologize in advance to the scientifically literate reader because in this section I have to waste his or her time to state the obvious on the way science works. Unfortunately, the obvious needs to be stated because of comments such as these:

Edip Yuksel wrote:
First, he claims that he has personally not heard of any mathematician or statistician who declared his belief in this system. I personally know some mathematicians and statisticians who have witnessed the extraordinary nature of this miracle, but I will not drop their names here, since I assume that they may not want to be disturbed by neither Ayman's idiots, nor fanatic terrorists who killed Rashad, the original discoverer of this miraculous code. Anyone who knows the risk of accepting this miracle, especially a public figure, such as a university professor, will understand the reason why many mathematicians are not sending their cards to brother Ayman. Not every believer may be as brave as the two magicians who declared their support of Moses despite Pharaoh's threat. Hiding one's belief to protect one's life is justified by God (3:27).
Besides, Ayman either does not know or has forgotten that the mathematical miracle of the Quran is not popular with the followers of Hadith and Sunnah. ....


At any rate, Edip goes into another lengthy discussion about how the world is not fair to the few closet 19ers scientists and mathematicians. Firstly, let me say that there may be a few "scientists and mathematicians" here and there that believed in Code 19 much as there are a few doctors who smoke. Yet, no doctor that smokes will ever publish a paper in a peer reviewed scientific journal claiming that "smoking is good for your health". Similarly, no scientist or mathematician will ever publish a paper in any peer reviewed scientific journal endorsing Code 19. This is not because the editors of scientific journals such as Nature are bearded Sunni fanatics or are apathetic to the great reading, but it is because they are apathetic to false science.

Code 19 promoters are free to call Code-19 a "miracle" all they want. However, until it meets the standards of modern scientific research, namely passing peer review in a scientific journal, then they cannot call it a "scientific miracle" or a "mathematical miracle".

The only person who may be close to a scientist that I know of who has wrote anything to promote Code 19 is Dr. Richard Voss. Here is what Edip writes about him:

Edip Yuksel wrote:
Richard Voss, one of the few Western mathematicians who studied the numerical structure of the Quran, is more positive than negative...


I am surprised that Edip is not terribly excited over Dr. Voss's study. As I pointed in the article, he achieved better results than even Dr. Khalifa. Of course, as I explained in the article those results are meaningless because they were achieved by trying until finding the best method and only presenting the best method. This is kind of like flipping a coin and only presenting the results were you got heads and then claim that the probability of 6 heads in a row is low therefore it must be a miracle.

Now Edip seems disappointed that Dr. Voss was "more positive than negative". What did he expect "all positive"? Herein is the problem. Edip like most Code-19 promoters has already formed a preconception about Code 19. From that point on anything that comes along can only "fully positively" confirm his preconception. He never even considers the possibility of studying without a preconception.

3. The Code-19 Archeologist

Edip Yuksel wrote:
I understand and respect Ayman's concern regarding the abuse of multiple manuscripts to concoct numerical coincidences. However, categorically rejecting the use of various manuscripts for a critical and comparative study to infer the accurate version or spelling of original Quranic verses is absurd.


I would like to know, as I am sure many readers, what critical and comparative study did Dr. Khalifa, Edip, or any Code-19 promoter conduct "to infer the accurate version or spelling of original Quranic verses" for words that have no bearing on their counts?

The silence is so deafening that you can hear a pin drop.

Of course 19ers only conduct "critical and comparative study to infer the accurate version or spelling of original Quranic verses... that fixes their counts". As for words that don't factor into their counts, they are not worthy of "critical and comparative study to infer the accurate version or spelling of original Quranic verses".

It is clear that the "Code-19 archeologist" objective is not to uncover the truth about what really happened. It is to fix a count so that it adds up to 19.

4. Evading the Standard Methodology Issue

Instead of addressing the issue, Edip evades it and again hides behind a lengthy nostalgic story recounting of the history of the discovery of the "miracle". He seems to be doing this in the hope that the reader will forget about the inconvenience of the requirement for a "standard methodology" because those two words demolish Code-19.

5. Appealing to "Nusemantics"

Again, instead of addressing the issues, Edip goes on a tangent that has nothing to do with Code-19. He gives a dozen or so instances where the count of words may add up to certain numbers. Of course, none of those counts add up to 19 so even assuming that the different forms of a word were counted objectively, this has nothing to do with proving that there is a Code-19 in the great reading.

6. Disregarding the rules of mathematics

Edip then tries to impress the reader by providing table after table of calculations while implicitly admitting that "just two letters" out of all the so-called initials give some kind of a pattern. However, even for just those two letters he does not provide the most basic info needed to evaluate the results in those tables:

1. An objective measure of the statistical significance of the results.
2. A clearly defined method of how he got the results and how that method was constantly applied.
3. A clear definition of the data set to which the method was applied.
4. A clear explanation of why this particular method was selected.
5. A clearly documented audit trail of BOTH successes and FAILURES. For example:
- Trials where this method did not give a 19-divisible number.
- Other methods that were tried and did not give a 19-divisible number.

Surely, Edip does a fine job of presentation but without the above information then one can make equally impressive presentations about any document. Similarly in his section entitled HOW CAN ONE DISTINGUISH, he didn't provide any of the above info.

To use Edip's words one could say: "I want to share with you, one single detail in the frequency of words in Edip's article. This alone should be sufficient to debunk all criticism regarding the probability. It is the unappreciative people who are hiding the facts. The total frequency of the word Ayman in Edip's article is actually 114 (6x19)!"

Yes folks, this is true. Is it a miracle? Perhaps some 19ers would think so. On the other hand, I would say that it is a sign that Edip was focusing too much on me as opposed to on the issue.

7. Ignoring the difference between "3ida(t)/count" and "3adad/number"

Again, Edip tries to divert the attention of the reader from the clear and consistent Arabic meaning as used in the great reading and instead focuses on me:

Edip Yuksel wrote:
First, Ayman forgets that he too could not escape from counting. To write this article, Ayman either spent hours and perhaps days counting units of the Quran, or he counted nothing. Either way, Ayman has shot himself in the foot, again.


Had Edip read carefully 74:31 then he would have seen that not just any "count" is the "fitna/trial/affliction" it is the count of the guardians of hell. When I count anything and I get the result as 19 or 19 divisible, I don't link what I am counting to the count of the guardians of hell in 74:30. On the other hand, 19ers do. That is the difference between obsessive and normal behavior.

Edip Yuksel wrote:
Not for Ayman's intellectually challenged audience, but for my intelligent audience, I am going to quote the verses that contain the eight occurrences of the very word ADDah, a word that Ayman is trying to hurl into abyss of ambiguity. I will also quote the verses where this word is attached to pronouns. I will highlight the translation of the words so that you will reflect on its meaning in their context.


There is nothing ambiguous about what I am saying. I am clearly saying that "ADDah (3ida(t))" consistently means "count". If I were "trying to hurl the word "ADDah" into the abyss of ambiguity then I would haphazardly interchange its meaning between "number" and "count" as Edip is doing below:

Edip Yuksel wrote:
"Numbered days. Whoever of you is ill or traveling, then the same NUMBER from different days; and as for those who can do so but with difficulty, they may redeem by feeding the needy. And whoever does good voluntarily, then it is better for him. And if you fast it is better for you if you knew. (2:184)

"The month of Ramazan, in which the Quran was sent down as a guide to the people and a clarification of the guidance and the criterion. Therefore, whoever of you can observe the month, let him fast therein. And whoever is ill or traveling, then the same NUMBER from different days. God wants to bring you ease and not to bring you hardship; and so that you may complete the COUNT, and glorify God for what He has guided you, that you may be thankful. (2:185)


Talk about ambiguity, notice how the same exact word "ADDah (3ida(t))" is sometimes translated as "number" while other times it is translated as "count". Of course, only the word "count" would perfectly fit in all the above occurrences since there is nothing inherently complete or incomplete about any particular number and hence "completing the number" is nonsense.

Edip Yuksel wrote:
"The NUMBER of the months with God is twelve months in God's record the day He created the heavens and the Earth; four of them are restricted. This is the correct system; so do not wrong yourselves in them; and fight those who set up partners collectively as they fight you collectively. And know that God is with the righteous." (9:37).

"Know that accelerating the intercalary is an addition in rejection, to misguide those who have rejected by it. They make it lawful one calendar year, and they forbid it one calendar year, so as to circumvent the COUNT that God has made restricted; thus they make lawful what God made forbidden! Their evil works have been adorned for them, and God does not guide the rejecting people." (9:3Cool


Notice once again how the same exact word "ADDah (3ida(t))" is one time translated as "number" while another time it is translated as "count". Once again, only the word "count" would perfectly fit in both of the above occurrences since "circumventing" is tied to the act of counting while "circumventing the number" is nonsense.

Moreover, saying that the number of months is twelve is patently false. If what is meant is the absolute number from the time of creation of the heavens and the earth, then this is in the billions and not twelve. If what is meant is the number of constant periods in a year then that is never twelve either in any calendar. It is 12.3 in the lunar calendar, solar calendars are forced to have inconsistent months, while luni-solar calendars are forced to have years with 13 months. Therefore what is meant is not the number but what we should count. For more information, please see: http://www.free-minds.org/articles/science/timing.htm

A count can be out of possible alternatives as we see below:

Edip Yuksel wrote:
"Some would say, 'They were three; their dog being the fourth,' while others would say, 'Five; the sixth being their dog,' as they guessed. Others said, 'Seven,' and the eighth was their dog. Say, 'My Lord is the best knower of their NUMBER.' Only a few know them. Therefore, do not argue with them; just go along with them. You need not consult anyone about this." (18:22)


A count can be a count out of a larger number. In this case out of the menstruations that a woman gets from the time of divorce:

Edip Yuksel wrote:
"O you who believe, if you marry the believing women, then divorced them before having intercourse with them, then there is no INTERIM required of them. You shall compensate them, and let them go in an amicable manner." (33:49)

"O you prophet, when you people divorce the women, you shall ensure that a divorce INTERIM is fulfilled. You shall count (aHSuW) such an INTERIM precisely." (65:1)


Here is what Edip says about 33:49:

Edip Yuksel wrote:
This argument shows how desperate Ayman is. Referring to verse 33:49, Ayman wants us to believe that a divorced woman has duty of "counting", instead of her duty to fulfill the number of specified days. Perhaps he thinks a divorced woman will count One, Two, Three, Four… Perhaps a bit louder so that her ex-husband could hear. Joke aside, the Arabic equivalent of counting is "Adda-Yauddu" or "ahsa-yahussu."


Clearly, 65:1 is telling us "to be precise with the count" not to be precise with the "number". Also, indeed a woman does have to count three menstruations before the divorce is final. She also indeed does have to loudly or somehow inform her ex-husband of the count because he can't precisely tell if she is having her period or not. Hiding an unborn child is no joking matter.

Again, talking about ambiguity and inconsistency, Edip fluctuates between "count", "number" and "interim" for no apparent reason when "count" would fit perfectly in all occurrences.

Now here is the whole reason for Edip's inconsistency and ambiguity:

Edip Yuksel wrote:
"On it is nineteen. We appointed angels to be guardians of Hell, and we made their NUMBER to be only a trial/punishment for the unappreciative, to convince those who received the book, to strengthen the faith of the faithful, to remove doubts from the hearts of those who received the book, as well as the believers, and to expose those who harbor doubt in their hearts, and the disbelievers; they will say, "What did GOD mean by this allegory?" GOD thus sends astray whoever wills, and guides whoever wills. None knows the soldiers of your Lord except He. This is a reminder for the people." (74:30-31)


I must give Edip credit because at least his above translation is a major improvement over Dr. Khalifa's translation:

KHALIFA:
74:31. We appointed angels to be guardians of Hell, and we assigned their number (19) (1) to disturb the disbelievers, (2) to convince the Christians and Jews (that this is a divine scripture), (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, and (5) to expose those who harbor doubt in their hearts, and the disbelievers; they will say, "What did GOD mean by this allegory?" GOD thus sends astray whomever He wills, and guides whomever He wills. None knows the soldiers of your Lord except He. This is a reminder for the people.

Here are the improvements:

1. Instead of the action "to disturb" which doesn't occur in the sentence, now the translation correctly describes the count of the guardians of hell as the "fitna"/trial/affliction.
2. Now "the number" is not the reason why "the faith of the faithful is strengthened". Instead, the reason why "the faith of the faithful is strengthened" is that they see that "their count is only a trial/punishment for the unappreciative".

Now that Edip largely corrected Dr. Khalifa's mistranslation, he should take the next step and see the clear implication of his correction.

8. Acknowledgement of the inconsistency in Code-19

As I said at the beginning, there are many positive developments in Edip's response. Here he implicitly acknowledges the inconsistencies in Code-19.

Edip Yuksel wrote:
A confused argument. With the same logic, we should trash ALL the translations of the Quran with their ENTIRETY, since we will find some inconsistencies within the same translation and between different translations.


Indeed, we should reject inconsistencies in translations. The whole premise of Code-19 is that it is a "precise mathematical miracle". Therefore, inconsistencies destroy that basic premise. It is no longer a "precise mathematical miracle" but is a "miracle in the eye of the beholder". Kind of like the golden calf that the descendents of Israel built. Remember, the calf didn't speak back to them or guide them much like Code-19 doesn't guide anyone.

9. The misunderstanding of 3:7

3:7 can be easily understood in light of 2:26. It also provides the link between 3:7 and 74:31. From 2:26 we can clearly see that "mutashabihat" means allegorical. There is nothing ambiguous about allegories. As for the word "taawil" in 3:7 it doesn't have the simple meaning of "meaning". It means the "original intended meaning/interpretation". Of course descriptions of heaven and hell are allegorical. No one knows for example why The God chose to use such allegories because we can't even imagine what hell and heaven are like. On the other hand, sectarians claim to know the original meaning of the allegory of the "straight path" (a high-wire act over hell) and the meaning of "on it is 19" (an esoteric Code). This despite the fact that NONE knows The God's soldiers except Him in the same way that in 3:7 NONE knows the original meaning except Him.

The parallel between 74:31 and 3:7 and how they are tied by 2:26 is very compelling. If anything people should be very careful about saying that they know the original meaning of the clearly allegorical sequence leading to and including 74:30.

10. The myth of initials

Edip Yuksel wrote:
Now, he wants us to believe his theory, just by one example! An example based on a fabricated hadith! If he is not a used car sales person, he should try that as his career. He has dug numerous hadith books and the footnotes of the dictionaries to come up with a meaning for the letters and he has failed.


Firstly, I gave meaning for 11 out of the 29 sets based on classical Arabic dictionaries not based on any Hadith. Moreover, all the meanings I gave fit in the context. So this is not just about giving one example.

Here is another example of a word that appears ONLY at the beginning of a chapter and NEVER appears elsewhere. Yet no Code-19 promoter takes this word as initials. For example, Chapter 78 starts with the two letters "3in" and "mim". This word "3m" never occurs in any other place in the great reading and it is written as a connected word exactly like "7m", "alm", "alr", etc. How come no one ever claims that the word "3m" at the beginning of Chapter 78 is actually initials?

We can even see that Chapter 78 can be read as they read the chapters with alleged initials:

3in Mim. They are asking one another about the great news...

Now if we take 3in Mim as a word and not initials:

3M they are asking one another about the great news...

Edip will claim that the above is ungrammatical.

However, seeing in the dictionary that 3m is an abbreviation for "3an matha" (about what), we can reconstruct the sentence grammatically as follows:

About what are they asking one another? About the great news...

The above is the same process that I went through in deciphering the 11 out of 29 words.

I believe that brother Truth actually counted the frequency of 3in and Mim in chapter 78 on another thread and found that they are both individually 19 divisible as well as when added together, which is more than we can say about "7a mim". However, the criterion of whether to consider letters as forming a word or a bunch of separate initials is not whether the count of the letters in the chapters where it occurs is divisible by 19 or not. The criteria are the following:

1. How the letters are written: This should be obvious to anyone who knows Arabic and Edip and Code-19 promoters clearly know this fact but choose to ignore it. In the Arabic alphabet separate initials take on a different form than letters that are connected to form a word. This is indisputable and by itself is complete and sufficient proof that we are looking at words and not initials. Saying that words such as "7m", "alm", and "alr" are initials is simply wishful thinking not supported by what everybody can empirically see with their own eyes. So this is enough and I really don't need to say anything more. However, let me continue so that there isn't even the slightest shadow of a doubt.

2. How the words fit in the context: The whole "initials" theory is like a house of cards. All we needed to prove is that just ONE has meaning and the meaning fits to destroy the entire "initials" theory. Even an average person like me with humble resources was able to easily find that out of the 29 sets, not one but at least 11 have meanings and the meanings fit in the context.

3. How the Arabic language works: As an informal common people language, the Arabic of the great reading is full of abbreviations and slang words. By Classical Arabic standards there are even words that are grammatically incorrect or misspelled in the great reading. Let's take the example I gave from Chapter 78. The word "3m" is a slang abbreviation of "3an matha" (about what). It is abbreviated and rendered in the beginning of Chapter 78 as "3m". By the same token, probably most of the other 18 words that we haven't discovered a meaning for yet are a similar types of abbreviations. The fact is that abbreviations that may seem like initials such as 3m for "3an matha" are normal in Arabic.

Enter supporting content here