Make your own free website on

The Institute for a Just Socio-Economic Order

Ayman-Round 3 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

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.

Edip, it is clear to those who read your article that nostalgic stories about the history of the "precise mathematical (sigh) miracle" have sentimental value to you and hence you spent a lot of space on them. However, as an author you should keep your audience in mind when writing an article. You should not expect the reader to share your fondness for such "crucial" stories. I did you a favor by focusing the discussion on ten issues instead of "crucial" nostalgia and personal attacks. This is evident in that your response to the ten issues was prompt, more to the point, and with less name calling (you can thank me later). In this response, I will also keep to the ten points.

1. Mistranslation of the great reading

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.

Where did I compare your translation to a traditional translation such as that of Yusuf Ali? I never did. I only pointed out the invention of words to make the great reading fit a preconception of Code 19.

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!

Here Edip is building a strawman. I gave the clear dictionary meaning. Classical Arabic dictionaries give the meaning of "marqum" as "recorded/inscribed", "lined" and "dotted" and "raqim" as "record/inscription". All those meanings fit in the context and fit with what we can observe about the great reading. Now Edip might say that a manuscript described as a "written record" is a "superfluous expression" because "record" and "write" can have the same meaning. However, he can't change the simple fact that such expressions are normal in all languages.

I argue that the correct translation is "a numbered writing," or "numerically-structured writing." 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.

I don't think that "rarely" is an accurate description. There are even examples of very early dotting dating to the 4th century and earlier on mundane inscriptions. Please see:

Moreover, if "dotting" was used on such mundane average everyday documents as business letters early in the 7th century (for example see: )
then we can be certain that it was widely used:

More importantly, as Edip himself pointed out there are early manuscripts of the great reading that are fully dotted.

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.

Yes I agree. However, Edip conveniently forgets to mention that in none of those archeological evidences the dotted Arabic letters are used to denote numerals as he will claim later.

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.

There are examples of very early quranic manuscripts that are fully dotted. So Edip's "mostly" is meaningless because his argument is completely demolished by even one early manuscript that is dotted. Also, the great reading itself tells us that it is dotted as he admits below.

Then, why the Quran should describe itself with dotted letters?

As a translator, Edip should try to put the closest meaning from Classical Arabic dictionaries, which he admits is "dotted" and let the reader reach his own conclusion about why "dotted" is used based on the evidence instead of answering the question with his own wild speculations based on preconceptions. A translator should not be "advertising" a so-called miracle and instead should be closely reporting what is being said.

The answer to Edip's question is because we do have examples of early manuscripts that are fully dotted. Also, as I showed above, even mundane everyday texts such as business letters were fully dotted to reduce ambiguity.

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.

The Hebrew Abjad (Aleph, Bet, Gimmel, Dalet) was used to represent numerals but there is zero evidence that Arabic was used in this manner. Hence, what Edip are saying is nothing more than baseless speculation. In fact, the proper name "Gematria" that he uses is the name for Hebrew Numerology which Jewish Rabbis practiced extensively. They too considered the number 19 sacred. As truly stated in 74:31, the count of 19 has ONLY been a "fitna"/trial/affliction. This is true not just for modern followers of Dr. Khalifa but throughout history. For example, the Babis were obsessed with the number 19 long before Edip was born and so were the Hebrew Rabbis. Even Christians are obsessed with it and they prove through similar Gematria numerology as the one Edip uses that 19 symbolizes their idol Virgin Mary!

Moreover, Edip is demonstrating his ignorance of the fact that the Roman numerals do not use an Alphabetic numeral system like the Hebrew inspired Code-19 system. The Roman numerals use mixed tallies and alphabets. An example of a tally system is: I for one, II for two, and III for three.

The fact is that we never see pre-quranic inscriptions that use Arabic alphabets as numerals. On the other hand, we see plenty of pre-quranic inscriptions that show that pre-quranic Arabs used a type of tally system. Their system was clearly a base-10 system because one can see that while the symbols for 1 to 9 are mostly simple vertical tally lines, the one for ten changes to a curve or a horizontal line with a dot. This is significant in light of the fact that we see a same base-10 system in the great reading where "completing the count" can be clearly seen as counting ten.

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.

The above is pure speculation for which Edip has zero evidence. There are no pre-quranic inscriptions showing dotted letters used as numbers. On the contrary, as Edip admitted earlier and as the evidence I provided shows, we can see mundane pre-quranic inscriptions where dots are used. Moreover, we see that pre-quranic inscriptions use a base-10 tally system for numbers and not a letter-based system like that of Hebrew.

In fact, the Classical Arabic dictionary meanings match with both the archeological evidence and modern Arabic much better than Edip's speculation. As presented earlier, archeological evidence shows that pre-quranic Arabs used base-10 tallies that consisted mostly of inscribed parallel vertical lines or horizontal lines with dots. Thus, the meanings of "marqum" as "recorded/inscribed", "lined" and "dotted" converge and explain how in modern Arabic the word evolved from the three older meanings to have something to do with numbers. On the other hand, Edip's forced meaning doesn't explain how the other meanings relate and is only based on speculation about "dotted".

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 signs?" (18:9)
"They will Say: 'Three, the fourth is their dog.' And they Say: 'Five, the sixth is their 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).

Edip, firstly the statement "dwellers of the cave and the digits/numbers" is pure nonsense. How can one dwell in the digits/numbers? You are obviously rushing to link 18:9 to your Code 19 without properly thinking about whether things make sense or not.

Moreover, if one reads the sign in 18:9-26, one can clearly see that OTHER PEOPLE at the time of the prophet were discussing the matter and speculating about the story. How did those other people find out about those "companions of the cave"? They must have known about it from a record that tells their story. We also hear in 18:21 that there was some kind of shrine built to commemorate them. As usual for this kind of shrine, in all likelihood it had an inscription talking about the story. So here "raqim" talks about a neatly lined inscription. "The people of the cave and the inscription" makes a lot more sense than "the people of the cave and the numbers", fits in the context and is consistent with the clear Classical Arabic meaning. The only reason why anyone would need to doubt the Classical Arabic dictionary meaning is if something doesn't make sense or doesn't fit in the context.

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."

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.

My objection was to Code-19 promoters using 46:10 as proof of their "precise mathematical miracle". It is another one of their endless circular arguments. 46:10 talks about the "phenomenon" of Code-19 because there is a Code-19 miracle in the great reading and the proof that Code-19 is a miracle is that 46:10 talks about it.

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!'

I am not sure what you mean here. The word "ayat"/signs is ALREADY in 46:7. You didn't do us any favors and "add" anything.

"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)

OK. I give you credit. This is a better translation than what you previously provided.

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!)

Actually, even the Christians discovered a Code 19 in the Bible that justifies taking the Virgin Mary as a sacred idol. The fact is that the Bible that Edip has is as false as the book of Hadiths. Moreover, Edip doesn't tell you how much guidance and extra understanding Jewish Rabbis and Christians got as a result of their "extraordinary evidences". Why doesn't he? Because they got exactly the same guidance and extra understanding that 19ers got as a result of their extraordinary "evidences" (or should we say "claims"): A big extraordinary ZERO.

You 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.

What splitting hairs? The words "ayat"/signs and "abyat"/verses are two completely different words. Firstly, unlike poetry the great reading is not in "verse" form. This is indisputable. As for "numbered sentences", since you looked as early quranic manuscript you should know very well that those numbers were not part of the original text but were added long after the fact for the purpose of ease of reference. So this is also indisputable.

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.

Yes, the numbers refer to arbitrary "nameless units" of the great reading. You can't say that they refer to "abyat/verses" because the great reading is not poetry. You also can't say that they refer to "numbered sentences" because the numbering is a modern device and many are not even sentences but can be several sentences or can even be meaningless half sentences. This is in line with the fact that the number schema was done purely for ease of reference and took mainly aesthetic reasons into account.

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.

Had Edip "studied a little" of the great reading, he would not have made such clearly false statements. For example, 16:12 talks about the night, the day, the sun, the moon, and the stars as being "AYAT" (plural). Of course all those cosmic phenomena are signs NOT miracles. The problem is that Edip is trying to force the meaning of miracles (in Arabic: "mu3jizat") on the word signs/"ayat". The fact that "mu3jizat" and not "ayat" is the Arabic term that closely means "miracles" is indisputable.

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 and necessary.

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.

Edip should try to get the correct meaning by considering all the occurrences in the great reading and not just a few of them. He complains about evil trickster me hiding the structure so let's look together at the structure of 10:1:

Alr - pointing device - "ayat" - of the book - description of book

Let's also look at the structure of 2:1-2:

Alm - pointing device - the book - description of the book

Finally, let's look at the structure of 11:1:

Alr - "ayat" of the book - action that affects the description of the book

It is pretty clear from the structure that the main subject in all of the above is the book. Now let's look beyond structure and try to consider the meaning by considering all of the information together. When we look at 10:1 and 11:1, we see that 11:1 actually explains 10:1. In 10:1 we are told about the signs of the book of wisdom/judgment. In 11:1 we are told that the book's signs were made wise/judging and detailed by the Wise/Judicial and Expert. That is how it became the "book of wisdom/judgment" in 10:1. Clearly, when taking this approach of considering all the relevant information, then the word "ayat" in 10:1 cannot be pointing to "alr" but is pointing to the book in our possession.

2. "Doctors who smoke" syndrome

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?

Yes, if it is published in a scientific journal, then I would believe your labeling of Code 19 as "scientific/mathematical" and not as mere "numerology" tricks.

Which journal would be satisfactory? How many journals?

Any distinguished scientific journal, preferably dealing with the subjects of mathematics and statistics. Here are some examples:

Advances in Applied Mathematics
Advances in Mathematics
Annals of Mathematical Logic
Applied Mathematical Modeling
Applied Mathematics and Computation
Applied Mathematics Letters
Applied Numerical Mathematics
Bulletin des Sciences Mathématiques (Sister Marie would like this one)
Computers & Mathematics with Applications
Discrete Applied Mathematics
European Journal of Combinatorics

I am sometimes called upon to referee papers for a few journals in the area of mathematics (not the ones that I listed though). If I get a paper on Code 19 I will ask the same questions about methodology that I asked you here and I am sure most of my peers will. So it is better that you answer here and save yourself a polite rejection letter from the editorial staff.

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.

I provided the specifics. I will be happy to dig out the correspondence address of the journals if you want.

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!

The common "pattern" of both types of obsession is their indefensibility when subjected to scientific scrutiny.

3. The Code-19 Archeologist

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!

Edip, you claimed to use various manuscripts "for a critical and comparative study to infer the accurate version or spelling of original Quranic verses", when in fact it is clear that you are only using them to "fix your counts so that they add up to a 19 divisible". Hence, I am not surprised that you still haven't answered my question. Perhaps you are buying some time so that you can conduct some real unbiased 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.

Edip, do you seriously think that asking you about "critical and comparative studies Code 19 promoters conducted to infer the accurate version or spelling of original Quranic verses... that have no bearing on your counts" is an accusation? What is it an accusation of? I really want to know.

4. Evading the Standard Methodology Issue

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.

How is it that METHODOLOGY and DEFINITION is avoiding discussion of specifics? Aren't METHODOLOGY and DEFINITION specifics? I really would like to know how you rationalize this.

How do you expect to ever get your work published in a scientific journal without being specific on METHODOLOGY and DEFINITION?

I apologize if I bored you with dull and mundane concepts such as METHODOLOGY and DEFINITION that are not as exciting and flashy as MIRACLE, but they are a necessary part of scientific validation.

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.

I think I speak for everyone at Free-minds on both sides of the debate when I say that they are not impressed by this sort of answer. Coherent statements are all that we can go on. I am sure that you are a very nice person and if we met we would get along just fine. This debate is not about how nice or charismatic each person is but it is about seeking the truth. The truth can only be served with "coherent statements". Also, please don't compare anyone at Free-minds with Mr. Lomax. He was inhibited in his debate by his illogical sectarian Sunni baggage. I have no "holy" prophets to idolize, "holy" stones to spin around, or "holy" books to extract an esoteric code from. I only holy The God.

5. Appealing to "Nusemantics"

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.

What meaning or message is there in those Nusemantics? Is the message that "dunya" and "akhira" are equivalent or that "qist" and "zulm" are equivalent because they occur the same number of times? Clearly not. If "shams" and "noor" occur the same exact number of times, does that mean that the "shams"/sun is the only source of light. We hear in the great reading about The God's light/"noor", so should we idolize the sun because it is equivalent to "noor" according to your Nusemantics? What is the message in "ayyam" occurring 27 times? We can empirically verify that the number of days is not 27 in any month (lunar is 29.5 days and the sidereal month is 27.3 days). Moreover, the frequency of the different words is more or less subjective because sometimes people count the different forms in Arabic haphazardly to get at the result. Nusemantics is largely based on selective counting and then speculation about a meaning for the result. I prefer to focus on reading and understanding.

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.

For the Hm, please give the following and then we can see if it is "little" or not. This is not just for me but the information that you provide will help you to present your findings to the scientific community:

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.

By the way, you could obtain the exact frequency of the letter A needed to achieve a similar result very easily using a computer program that tries to solve the Hm formula for the Alm through some simple bounded trial and error or more efficient algorithms. I am surprised that you or other 19 counters haven't tried it yet. This will at least tell you if there is a possible combination or not. However, I guarantee that you will NEVER be able to obtain a frequency of the letter A that adds up to 19 and is true because the counting of 19 that you are doing is nothing more than a "fitna". If there was a true 19 pattern that is part of the great reading then The God would have prevented it from getting corrupted.

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 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]
[2:286] [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] [5:2]
[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]
[12:36] [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] [20:135] [20:71]
[22:11] [22:19] [22:54] [23:27] [24:31] [24:41]
[24:56] [24:58] [24:61] [26:49] [27:59] [28:10]
[28:19] [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] [48:29] [49:7]
[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.

Had Mr. Asad provided you with the info that I requested above you would have been able to verify it much more effectively. Also, before you add a section to your first response with 4 Ayman Sad , the frequency of my name in your article was 114 so as you can see there is nothing special about this number.

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.

If someone had as much time as Code 19 miracle hunters, they would be able to produce a remarkable intertwined pattern from your article as well as hidden messages about the end of the world.

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

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.

Isn't understanding 74:31 crucial to this discussion and to you? Isn't the word "count" in 74:31?

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.

If you think that nothing will change, then in your translation replace "3idat" with the more correct "count".

The so-called Code 19 was born from mistranslations of 74:31 and not surprisingly, it dies with the proper translation of 74:31. How come suddenly a central word in the most important "verse" for 19ers is so trivial?

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. …

Yes, unlike number, count involves an act of counting.

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.

I am not the one counting 19 everywhere.

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."

Zlatan is not counting 19 everywhere either.

My faith has increased by the number or by the act of counting.

This is not a function described in 74:31.

According to your corrected translation of 74:31, "the act of counting" is ONLY a "fitna" for the rejecters. It 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 "the count of the guardians of hell is ONLY a trial/punishment for the unappreciative".

I am afraid that the way to increased faith is not that easy. The God has surrounded people and they will certainly fill hell. Read 17:60 carefully and see an example of "fitna".

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.

This is not a function of the count. It is clear from your corrected translation that "the count of the guardians of hell is ONLY a trial/punishment for the unappreciative". Everything else results from this function.

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.

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.

Edip, you clearly ignore the fact that according to 17:12 the year in the great reading is clearly solar not lunar.

17.12. We have made the night and the day as two signs: the sign of the night We have obscured, while the sign of the day we have made visible so that you may seek favors from your Lord, and so that you may know the number of years and the calculation, and We have explained all things in detail.

Given that night and day is certainly determined by the sun and not the moon, the sign in 17:12 leaves absolutely no doubt that the year is solar. More confirmation is in 12:47-49 that talk about the "year" definitely as a solar year because of reference to agricultural cycles and planning of crops that would have to be done according to seasons that don't change from one year to the next.

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.

The word number is just informational and doesn't involve any "act". On the other hand, the word count involves an act of counting. This is clear from the dictionary definition that you provided.

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.

How is it the wrong reading of your translation? Here is your translation where I only replaced the word "number" with the correct word count (I only did so because you said that it doesn't have any effect on the meaning).

"On it is nineteen. We appointed angels to be guardians of Hell, and we made their count 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)

You correctly describe the count of the guardians of hell as ONLY a "fitna"/trial/affliction.

The reason why "those given the book are convinced and the faith of the faithful is strengthened" is that they see that "the count of the guardians of hell is ONLY a trial/punishment for the unappreciative". The word "yaqin" and its derivatives are used in the great reading in connection with empirical observation.

8. Acknowledgement of the inconsistency in Code-19

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.

Your point is irrelevant. Except for Dr. Khalifa's translation, translations do not claim to be divinely authorized or free of inconsistencies and errors. On the other hand, 19ers claim that Code 19 is a "precise mathematical miracle" despite the fact that it is full of inconsistencies. This is indisputable and hence you had no difficulty admitting it. If you change the description of Code-19 to an "inconsistent miracle" then I will agree with you.

Remember that "consistency" is the only criteria we need to determine if something that claims to be part of the great reading is not from The God (see 4:82).

9. The misunderstanding of 3:7

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.

I was hoping that you would carefully read 3:7, 2:26, and 74:31 together before responding.

74:31. "On it is nineteen. We appointed angels to be guardians of Hell, and we made their count to be ONLY a "fitna"/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."

3:7. KHALIFA: He sent down to you this scripture, containing straightforward verses - which constitute the essence of the scripture - as well as multiple-meaning or allegorical verses. Those who harbor doubts in their hearts will pursue the multiple-meaning verses to create confusion/"fitna", and to extricate a certain meaning. None knows the true meaning thereof except GOD and those well founded in knowledge. They say, "We believe in this - all of it comes from our Lord." Only those who possess intelligence will take heed.

2:26. KHALIFA: GOD does not shy away from citing any kind of allegory, from the tiny mosquito and greater. As for those who believe, they know that it is the truth from their Lord. As for those who disbelieve, they say, "What did GOD mean by such an allegory?" He misleads many thereby, and guides many thereby. But He never misleads thereby except the wicked.

Instead of forcing a certain meaning, I will let the reader naturally see the relationship that Edip claims doesn't exist and which is shining through despite Dr. Khalifa's poor translation.

10. The myth of initials

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!

None of the commentators suggested that Alm, Alr, etc. are there for a Code 19 either. The question that you need to ask yourself is why hasn't any commentator suggested that 3m is a set of initials and not a word?

It is because it has a meaning and the meaning fits in the context. This is the same for the other 11 instances out of the 29 where the words had meaning and the meaning fits in the context. 11 out of 29 is far better than the 3 out of 29 we get with Dr. Khalifa's methods or even Dr. Voss's best method.

I have already shown that "pre-quarnic" Arabic makes extensive use of abbreviations. So the remaining 18 sets are in all likelihood abbreviations too.

Enter supporting content here