Intelligent People's Guide to 19 (Second Round)
And they said: "No matter what you bring us of a sign to bewitch us with, we will never believe in you." (7:132)
will turn away from My signs/revelations those who are arrogant on Earth without right, and if they see every sign they do
not believe in it, and if they see the path of guidance they do not take it as a path; and if they see the path of mischief,
they take it as a path. That is because they have denied Our revelations and were heedless of them." (7:146)
Connecting the dots of the "letters that are dotted"
© Edip Yuksel (YŁksel), 19.org
In his quick answer, Ayman ignored many points made in my defense of the mathematical structure of the Quran. Those who
read my article will notice that Ayman have ignored numerous crucial points made against his position. Now let's deal
with his second round attack. If Ayman does not produce new arguments, then his criticism soon would dwindle to a few trivial
knit-picking or face-saving gobbledygook. Let's see.
1. Mistranslation of the great reading
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: ….
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.
Ayman, the author of "Idiot's Guide…" has somehow become too defensive regarding his intellect. If I explained
why I did not repeat the errors of traditional translations for every correct translation I presented, my lengthy response
would be much longer. (However, we will discuss the difference in our translations in the upcoming Reformist Translation
of the Quran, God willing). It does not take much intelligence to expect that Ayman or another zealot opponent of the mathematical
miracle would notice our translation if it differed from traditional one. However, I expected that inquisitive people would
learn the reason for our differing from the traditional translations on their own; it seems Ayman is not one of them.
The Arabic word KiTaB (book) comes from the verb KaTaBa (write). So, the word KiTaB means "writing, letter, book" Another
form, MaKTuB means "written thing, letter." If Ayman wants to collapse the meaning of MaRQuM to of MaKTuB, then, the phrase
in the verse, "Kitabun Marqum" means "a written writing." This superfluous expression is what Ayman suggests to fit "the great
reading" in his mind! I argue that the correct translation is "a numbered writing," or "numerically-structured writing."
In the forum of 19.org, Ayman states, "Although 'raqam' means 'number' in modern Arabic, it doesn't mean 'number' in
Classical Arabic." What an interesting coincidence! By mere chance, modern Arabic has turned the Quran to a numerical book!
Ayman should save his "great reading" from the pollution of the numbers! Well, had he little reflected on the dictionaries
he is quoting he would know that the modern Arabic use of the word comes from ancient times.
Ayman is able to use some classic reference books. That is a great plus. However, he is not able to connect the dots,
to make sound inferences, or think out of his math-phobic religious box. That is a greater minus. I do not think that Ayman
is incapable of making sound inferences; but his dogmatic, arrogant and reflexive reaction to the code 19, unfortunately deprives
him from using his intellectual skills properly. Ayman should reflect on his innermost intentions. The following verse describes
a dogmatic and ignorant believer who would not be satisfied with any miracle despite his claim of being objective:
"And they swore by God using their strongest oaths; that if a sign/miracle came to them they would believe in it. Say,
'The signs are from God; and how do you know that once it comes, that they would not disbelieve?'
"And We divert their hearts and eyesight, as they did not believe in it the first time; and We leave them wandering in
"And if We had sent down to them the Angels, and the dead spoke to them, and We had gathered before them everything, they
still would not believe except if God wills. But most of them are ignorant." (6.109-11)
Ayman, with his dogmatic and fanatic reaction to the manifest examples of mathematical pattern in the Quran, fits the
profile described above. Here are the dots that Ayman failed to connect: in his claim that "marqum means whose letters are
dotted." Had Ayman educated himself regarding the history of mathematics, and especially Abjad and Arabic numerals,
he could easily connect the dots in that definition. In old manuscripts belonging to the 7th and 8th
centuries, we see that dots are rarely used. There are extensive scholarly studies about the emergence of dots in Arabic letters,
and archeological evidences show that dots were in use centuries before the revelation of the Quran. Though, Arabic alphabet
had 28 letters, and words differed from each other based on those 28 letters, many early scribes did not bother to put dots
on letters; they could differentiate letters and words within their immediate and proximate context. They preferred simplicity
and economy in writing.
I have studied Quranic manuscripts written without dots, though I am not a native Arabic speaker, I can read those un-dotted
text. The reading speed increases with more practice. For some words, one needs to solve an intricate literary puzzle. Imagine
that the letters B, T, TH, Y, N are all written the same, with no dots! To read an un-dotted book, one need to be proficient
in Arabic, understand the text, remember the context, and be intelligent enough to solve the puzzles quickly. In other words,
the early manuscripts were automatically eliminating the illiterate, the context-ignorant, and the idiot from the pool of
potential readers. Thus, reading the early manuscripts of the Quran implied its comprehension, its contextual integrity and
the intelligence of the reader. With the use of dots and diatrical marks, now even the parrots and idiots pretend to read
the Book; albeit, with no or little understanding.
Let's turn back to the definition of maRQuM, "whose letters are dotted." Why? Archeological evidence shows that the letters
of the early manuscripts were mostly un-dotted. Then, why the Quran should describe itself with dotted letters? The answer
is in Abjad, or Gematria. We know that during the revelation of the Quran, like their contemporary Romans, Arabs were using
Arabic alphabet letters in sequence of ABJD to represent numbers. When they used letters text they usually did not need to
dot the letters since the peculiar combination and the context would narrow down the alternatives dramatically. But to represent
numbers they HAD TO DOT THE LETTERS. Otherwise, none could differentiate the number 2 from 10, 50, 400, or 500. None could
differentiate 8 from 600, 70 from 1000, etc. Thus, dotting the letters was not essential for prose or poetry, but essential
for representing numbers. Thus, the word RaQaM means digits, and maRQuM means DIGITIZED, NUMBERED, or NUMERICALLY STRUCTURED.
There is another verse where a derivative of the word RaQaMa is used. Verse 18:9 is about the young monotheists who escaped
from he oppression of their people and were put in sleep in a cave for 300+9 years. The verse describes them with expression,
"ashab ul-kahfi wal-raqym" (people of the cave and numbers.) The following verses inform us about a debate regarding numbers.
The allegorical language is similar to of those in chapter 74 and it implies a wondrous mathematical sign yet to be discovered.
I quote from Progressive Muslims translation and highlighted some words relevant to our discussion.
"Did you perceive that the dwellers of the cave and the digits/numbers (RaQyM) related were of Our wondrous
"They will Say: 'Three
, the fourth
is their dog.' And they Say: 'Five
, the sixth
dog,' guessing at what they do not know. And they Say: 'Seven
, and the eighth
is their dog.' Say: 'My Lord is
fully aware of their number
(Eddah), none know them except for a few.' So do not debate in them except with evidence,
and do not seek information regarding them from anyone. And do not say of anything: 'I will do this tomorrow.'
'Except if God wills.' And remember your Lord if you forget and Say: 'Perhaps my Lord will guide me to what is nearer to
this in wisdom.'
And they remained in their cave for three hundred
years, and increased by nine
Say: 'God is fully aware how long they remained, to Him is the unseen of heavens and Earth, He sees and hears. They do not
have besides Him any ally, nor does He share in His judgment with anyone.'
And recite what has been inspired to you from your Lord's Scripture, there is no changing His words
, and you will
not find besides Him any refuge." (18:22-27).
Under the subtitle "More mistranslation," Ayman reacts to the neutral word PHENOMENON in our translation of 46:10. He
does not suggest any other word as reference of "similar."
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".
Phenomenon does not mean numerical sign or code 19. However, in the context it could refer to it. Ayman has problem with
any implication of divine sign, that is extraordinary, that is great, that is phenomenal. He wants to reduce the Quran to
another reading book, with an empty word "great" attached to it. A mere lip-service. Whenever, a great feature of that book
is mentioned Ayman will be there to fight against it; by hook or crook. Let me present the verse in discussion without the
word PHENOMENON. The following argument is prophetic, since it happened in the past, present, and will happen in the future.
I am quoting from the Progressive Muslims translation. I added the word SIGN in verse 46:7 since the word AYAAT is the plural
of AYAT (sign/miracle) and in the context the plural form refers to the divine signs in revelation.
"And when Our clear signs/revelations are recited to them, those who rejected said of the truth that came to them:
'This is evidently magic!'
"Or do they Say: 'He fabricated this!' Say: 'If I fabricated this, then you cannot protect me at all from God. He is
fully aware of what you say. He suffices as a witness between me and you. He is the Forgiver, the Merciful.'
"Say: 'I am no different from the other messengers, nor do I know what will happen to me or to you. I only follow what is
inspired to me. I am no more than a clear warner'
"Say: 'Do you see that if it were from God, and you rejected it, and a witness from the Children of Israel testified to its
similarity, and he has believed, while you have turned arrogant? Surely, God does not guide the wicked people.'
"And those who had rejected said regarding those who had believed: 'If it were any good, they would not have beaten us to
it.' And when they are not able to be guided by it, they will Say: 'This is an old fabrication!'
"And before this was the Scripture of Moses, as a role model and a mercy. And this is an authenticating Scripture, in an Arabic
tongue, to warn those who transgressed, and to give good news to the righteous." (46:7-12)
He is the one who is trying hard to distance the Quran from its prophecy of "On it is Nineteen." Since he
cannot accuse Rabbi Judah of conspiring with us, he prefers to stay silent regarding the discovery of code 19 in the Bible
by someone from Children of Israel. Like all the extraordinary evidences, he perhaps considers this another coincidence. (Here
is an idea for Ayman and his target audience: you can always accuse us for conspiring with the Jewish Rabbi. Sunnis and Shiites
would jump on to this allegation with joy!)
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:
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."
can usually learn how desperate is the critic by looking how many times he or she is dancing on splits of hair. Here, Ayman
is harping on an inexact choice of a word that is very closely related to the original one. Signs, in the context of the Quran
are intellectual, numerical, natural, and spiritual evidences that guide a person to recognize God's message and reform his
mind and action accordingly. Thus, Quranic signs prove the authenticity of the divine message. Since, the verses of the Quran
contain intellectual, numerical, natural, and spiritual evidence they prove themselves; they are unique, they are self-testifying
evidences. That's why the verses of the Quran are referred by the Quran with the plural AYAAT. The Quran never uses the word
ABYAT for the verses or numbered sentences of the Quran. It is interesting to see Ayman trying so hard not to use the word
AYAAT or VERSE in his references to the verses or Ayaat of the Quran. He just uses numbers to refer to the NAMELESS UNITS
of the Quran. Though, this idiosyncratic treatment emanates from Ayman's imaginary linguistic theories, I like it. Numbers
are delicious! Hopefully, Ayman one day will appreciate the numerically designed message.
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".
Ayman, as it seems, have not read my response carefully. I argued that since the singular word AYAT (sign/miracle)
was never used as a reference to the literal statements of the Quran, one verse or statement cannot be considered a sign or
miraculous. I even provided an example for this claim. Ayman, repeats my position for an unrelated argument. He conveniently
collapses two different words, sign and guidance, into one, while a little study of the Quran will inform the reader that
AYAT is used consistently to denote miracles. Yes, miracles are obviously different then guidance, since not all those who
are given miracles are guided by those miracles.
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".
Ayman hides the difference in sentence structure of 24:1 with those that come with initials. Let's read the translation
of both verses.
"A.L.R., these are the AYAAT (signs/miracles) of the Scripture of wisdom." (10:1)
"A chapter which We have sent down and decreed as law, and We have sent down in it clear AYAAT (signs, revelations) that
you may remember." (24:1)
The 24:1 is not just a mere reference, but a descriptive reference. There is a difference between saying "these are statements"
and "these are unambiguous statements so that you take heed." The first one is dull and redundant, but the second one is fine
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
Another distortion or misrepresentation! In my previous response, I did not argue for "these" but for "these are signs."
Yes, let me repeat again so that Ayman will not try to distort the facts and my words in order to keep himself and his audience
blind to the mathematical miracle: The expression "Tilka ayaat" (these are signs) occurs in 8 verses, and in all of them with
conjunction of initial letters. The irony is, from his first attack on, Ayman accused us of employing tricks and twisting
the meaning of words, while in reality it is him who have made it as his method of rejection of God's signs.
Blinded by the Smoke of Hell in Chapter 74
2. "Doctors who smoke" syndrome
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.
I already listed the reasons why at this time mathematicians do not show interest in dealing with code 19. Without refuting
my reasons, Ayman repeats his demand, this time with more elaboration. He pretends to engage in debate, yet he is entertaining
himself with his monologues.
Would Ayman believe in code 19 if it was published in a peer-reviewed journal? Which journal would be satisfactory? How
many journals? Without providing these specifics, whatever happens, Ayman will find another excuse to reject one of the greatest
divine signs. If someone finds so many excuses to reject the prophecy of chapter 74, the Hidden, and its amazing fulfillment,
that person is able to blind himself to journal articles, to angles coming down from the sky.
Furthermore, Ayman confuses undesired addiction to intellectual conviction. How in the world, one can liken a mathematician
who is intellectually convinced about the existence of a mathematical pattern in a book to the doctor who smokes? It can only
be possible if one is blinded by the smoke of hell, a hell that is guarded by 19 angels!
To my response against his criticism regarding the letter SAD, Ayman retorts with the following:
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.
My statement quoted above was a response to Ayman's accusation that we change the spelling of the Quran to fit the count.
Ayman was giving the example of letter SAD. When Ayman learned my refutation regarding his claims about the letter SAD, instead
of showing the courage and wisdom by accepting the falsity of his accusation, now he is repeating the same accusation with
a twist. Instead of talking on specifics, now he wants us to show him the results of our other studies! Ayman has lost
the specific argument that he started and now without even referring to it, he is switching to general accusation. He is smart
enough to know that general and unsubstantiated accusations do not take many calories nor evidence to come up with. My silence
on his new general accusation might be deafening, but his silence on my refutation of his specific accusation is screaming!
Almost his target audience can hear.
The Standard Methodology Mantra
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.
I gave numerous examples in my response and they speak up the methodology. If Ayman found any inconsistency then he should
be able to point at them. But, now again he is escaping from specifics to find refuge behind esoteric and abstract demands.
Similar trick was tried by Lomax, his Sunni ditto-head in our internet debate Running Like Zebras. He cried repeatedly
about METHODOLOGY and DEFINITONS. Knowing that all was part of his trick to avoid discussing specifics, I did not respond
that demand initially. Finally, I provided him with our standard of counting words and letters. Nevertheless, he continued
his demand for more and more definitions and methodology. Below is my final answer to Lomax and his ilk:
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.
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.
The examples I provided was to demonstrate that the Quran indeed have an extraordinary mathematical structure. Thinking
that Ayman might have deep phobia against the number 19, I hoped that sharing with him the examples of nusemantics would allow
him to see that the Quran is not just a literary book. Instead of acknowledging and appreciating those examples, he now complains
that they were not multiple of 19. (In fact, some demonstrated interesting connection with 19). As for those examples that
were directly related to code 19, Ayman just ignored them.
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.
Ayman belittles the pattern in H.M. by "just two letters out of the so-called initials." First, these two letters
separately are 2 out of 14 alphabet letters used in initials; they are one seventh of all the letters. The combination of
H.M., on the other hand, initializes SEVEN chapters. In other words, 7 out of 29 chapters. It involves approximately,
one fourth of all chapters with initials. Besides, there is only one more initial that could possibly show a similar pattern:
A.L.M. I expect that we should see a similar pattern in the subgroups of ALM-initialed chapters when we obtain the exact frequency
of the letter A in this initial.
Though Ayman was presented with the clear and interlocking examples regarding the frequencies of H.M letters and
the mathematical relationship between the digits of those frequencies, he wants us to provide him with extensive report. Imagine
a skeptic who challenges you that the green hose on the floor is not connected to running water. You turn the faucet on and
water the flowers, but the skeptic is still not convinced. He asks you to prove it by providing a document from the Water
Company. Well, to prove him the existence of running water you turn the hose towards him and soak him with water. He is now
wet from head to toe, yet he still insists that there is no water and challenges you to bring the official proof or scientific
explanation how the water runs throw the hose!
I present Ayman with an extraordinary mathematically example from the Quran. Instead of looking at it and appreciating
its great design, he is asking for bureaucratic mumbo jumbo. Ayman is soaked with the extraordinary pattern in the H.M
initials. Instead of cleaning himself with it, he asks about elaborate reports of his situation! Here is my challenge to him:
take it to mathematicians and ask their opinion, sure without telling them the source of the pattern. Or, to pull their attention,
tell them that you found it one of books of Babbage, Euler, Leibniz, Pascal, Newton, or Charles Dickens.
Ayman, can always reject each of God's signs by shrugging his shoulder "this is just one example!" He has already received
dozens of "just one examples" of extraordinary numerical system. Like the jury of the Rodney King, he will watch one bat at
a time, and ignore the magnitude of individual bats. Since we are still discussing initials of the Quran, I would like to
share with you a new discovery just posted at 19.org/forum by brother Asad. I did not yet verify or falsify it; but if it
is correct it perfectly fits the 19-based system.
The Quran contains 14 initial letters without repetition: A.L.R.H.M.K.H.Y.A.S.T.S.Q.N There
are only 114 verses in Total Quran that all initial letters exists in them:
[2:140] [2:187] [2:19] [2:213] [2:217] [2:220]
[2:228] [2:237] [2:260] [2:275] [2:282] [2:285]
[2:61] [3:120] [3:154] [3:93] [4:102]
[4:129] [4:34] [4:4] [4:43] [4:46] [4:47]
[4:69] [4:90] [4:92] [5:110] [5:13]
[5:3] [5:33] [5:5] [5:53] [5:6] [5:75]
[5:89] [5:95] [5:96] [6:119] [6:139] [6:151]
[6:152] [6:71] [7:131]
[7:160] [7:168] [8:1]
[9:121] [9:29] [9:34] [9:42] [9:71] [10:24]
[10:27] [10:4] [10:93] [11:81] [11:88] [12:101]
[12:51] [12:80] [12:9] [13:31] [13:4]
[13:41] [14:22] [16:76] [17:33] [18:18] [18:28]
[18:45] [18:63] [20:130] [20:132]
[22:11] [22:19] [22:54] [23:27] [24:31] [24:41]
[24:56] [24:58] [24:61] [26:49] [27:59] [28:10]
[28:82] [28:23] [28:38] [30:48] [33:71]
[35:11] [38:22] [38:24] [39:6] [40:64] [40:78]
[42:52] [46:30] [47:15] [47:32]
[57:25] [58:4] [61:14] [65:1] [72:28] [73:20]
As we know that 114 is not only 6 times 19, it
is also the number of chapters of the Quran, the frequency of Bismillah, and the number of attributes of God, and much more.
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.
This has nothing to do with the example I presented to be sufficient. The reason is obvious: the example I presented
contained several mathematically intertwined remarkable patterns. Besides, Ayman later corrected his count from 114 to 118.
Nevertheless, it is nice to see him to connect the dots between a number representing the frequency of his name and its implication.
It seems one example was enough for him to notice the implication. This shows that he has no excuse regarding his intellectual
capacity to witness numerous extraordinary patterns in the Quran. He needs to check his intentions and get over his math-phobia
in relation to the Quran.
They insist to see smoke and fire rather than a miracle!
7. Ignoring the difference between "3ida(t)/count" and "3adad/number"
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.
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:
Ayman is exaggerating the difference between the word "count" and "number" so much so that novice people might think
that it is a crucial point in our discussion. Ayman hopes to "demolish" the patterns of 19 by dancing on a split-of-hair.
Even if we replace the word COUNT with the word NUMBER in the translation of 74:31, NOTHING will change regarding the prophetic
function of 19 and its emergence in the number of letters, words, verses, their sequences and gematrical values. Ayman is
over-exaggerating a trivial word choice, since he has no substantial argument left against code 19. Both in Arabic and English,
the words are very close to each other. To translate this issue to English let's look at the Webster's dictionary regarding
the word "Count" as a noun:
Count-n. the act of counting; enumeration; reckoning; calculation. The number obtained by counting; the total.
An accounting. …
It is a fact that the number 19 in the Quran, or the act of counting up to 19 in the Quran, has become a fitna/test for
Ayman. He is tormented by it and it will only grow with time. Just see a guy named Zlatan, who is now suffering from what
I call "chronic ninteen syndrome."
My faith has increased by the number or by the act of counting. Some Christians and Jews who have witnessed the mathematical
system based on this number or the result of the counting became convinced regarding the authenticity of the Quran. Hypocrites
and unappreciative disbelievers are still confused regarding the implication of this number or count. All these support the
miraculous nature of the number 19 in 74:31.
Patently Confused about the number of months
I did not know that Ayman had specialty in distinguishing the Count from Numbers. He seems to have dedicated a considerable
time to support his thesis.
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
Ayman is patently confused. Let's look at The American Heritage Dictionary of Science:
Lunar month, Astronomy. The period of one complete revolution of the moon around the earth; the interval between
one new moon and the next: The proper lunar month, which is called they synodical month, is the period between one new moon
and the next, an average of 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, and 2.8 seconds.
Lunar year, Astronomy. A period of 12 lunar months, about 354 1/3 days: The Greeks had begun to compensate for
the defect of the lunar year, by the occasional addition of an intercalary month.
The Quran informs us that the count/number of months is twelve. Period. That means, after 12 months (12 is a number
by the way), we have to start counting from the beginning. Well, that makes it a lunar year! Ayman is not able to comprehend
such a simple idea.
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.
Of course it does; since the meaning of the word COUNT includes the word NUMBER. Just, look at any good size English
dictionary. Thus, depending on the context, the word count could be more precisely translated as NUMBER. There is no inconsistency,
ambiguity, or confusion there.
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
Now that Edip largely corrected Dr. Khalifa's mistranslation, he should take the next step and see
the clear implication of his correction.
That is a wrong reading of my translation. However, there is a reason why some people like Ayman are allowed to read
it such away that they will be blocked to witness the visible miracle of the Quran.
"Visible evidences have come to you from your Lord; so whoever can see, does so for self; and whoever is blinded, does
for self. I am not a watcher over you." (6:104).
Wrong reading, again
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.
Ayman either does not read carefully the statements he is criticizing or has problem in comprehension. Though I typed
the key word in capital letters, he still missed my point. As for his likening Code 19 to the calf shows his ignorance. What
is analogous to calf is not one of the greatest miracles, but it is Ayman's ego that arrogates him against God's will.
"See how they lied to themselves; and that which they invented deserted them.
"And from them are those who listen to you; and We have made covers over their hearts to prevent them from understanding
it, and a deafness in their ears; and if they see every sign they will not believe; even when they come to you they argue,
those who reject Say: 'This is nothing but the tales from the past!'
"And they are deterring others from it, and keeping away themselves; but they will only destroy themselves, yet they
do not notice.
"And if you could see when they are standing over the Fire, they Say: 'If only we could be sent back, we would not deny
the signs/revelations of our Lord, and we would be believers!' (6:24-27)
It is no coincidence that among all the 114 attributes of God, only one attribute has numerical value of 19: WAHeD
(6+1+8+4=19), which means ONE. Oneness of God is main theme of the Quran. It is also no coincidence that among all the 57
attributes of the Quran only one has a numerical value of 19: HuDaY (5+4+10=19), that is GUIDE. The main purpose of the Quran
is to guide us to the straight path. (I will inshallah document these and many more numerical facts in the English version
of On it 19.)
9. The misunderstanding of 3:7
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.
Ayman ignores all my criticism regarding his mistranslation of 3:7 and repeats himself by associating some verses together.
The verses tied together has nothing to do with point of argument, since the only verse talking about the nature of Mutashabih
(multi-meaning) verses is 3:7 and there the reading must give possibility of understanding those verses, otherwise, the problems
I listed would emerge.
Ayman wants us to accept the traditional theory of "holy ignorance" regarding the "allegorical sequence leading to and
including 74:30" His ignorance leads him to Hellfire in those verses, while our knowledge leads us to witnessing a great miracle.
Triple inverse imagination
Though I refuted his fabricated suggestions for initials, Ayman continues his sales-pitch without a blink. To his silly
W example, he is now adding another one:
10. The myth of initials
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.
None other Ayman has considered the first word AMma (contraction of An and Ma, meaning "from what?"), as
initial. I have not seen any commentator of the Quran suggesting or even hinting at that. However, Ayman lives in a fantasy
world. He is so desperate to come up with a meaning, any meaning, but a numerical one! Therefore, he imagines that people
could accept the first word of chapter 78 to be an initial. Then, he imagines that he would come up with the meaning "from
what?" Then he imagines again that I would claim it to be ungrammatical! I have never seen a fictional scenario this short
with so many complications. It is a triple imagination that inverses the facts thrice to reject many more facts!
"'And that I recite the Quran.' He who is guided is guided for himself, and to he who is misguided, Say: 'I am but one
of the warners.'
"Say: 'Praise be to God, He will show you His signs and you will know them. And your Lord is not unaware of what
you do.'" (27:92-93).
"On it is Nineteen!" (74:30).