They cannot take heed against God's will. He is the source of righteousness; He is the source of forgiveness. (74:49-56). 

Intelligent People's Guide to Code 19:
The Third Round

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.

I am engaging in this debate not only for you, but also for present and future generations who might be curious to know about the details that you call "nostalgic." You have indeed ignored to address many substantial points, which is fine. The truth-seeking readers will notice those points and they will learn that the darkness has no way to win against the light; the fire of hell has no power to burn the divine signs; the arrogance and ignorance has no power to cover the clear evidences.

You are the one who started this debate and you were the first one who called us names, such as TRICKY, MAGICIANS, HYPOCRITES, etc. One thing you should learn that you are debating with someone who is different from your targeted audience whose characteristics were defined by you in the title of your article, in accordance to God's will. (47:29; 10:95-102). You might now regret for the title of your 19-phobic article, but it is God's plan to expose people and incriminate them with their own utterances.

Kitabun Marqum: The Numerically-Structured Book

1. Mistranslation of the great reading

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.

Ayman has misunderstanding. I was referring to his accusation; he accused me of deliberately hiding my untraditional translation from the reader.

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:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/ jramm.html

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/ raqush.html

Moreover, if "dotting" was used on such mundane average everyday documents as business letters early in the 7th century (for example see: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Papyri/PERF55 8.html ) 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.

I was referring to the earliest available manuscripts of the Quran. I recommend you and others to see The Quran: A British Library Exhibition World of Islamic Festival, 1976, Martin Lings and Yasin Hamid Safadi. I have studied some of the oldest available manuscripts, some were originals and some were photocopies of the originals. The point of my argument was simple: To read a text, during the revelation era, native Arabs did not need to dot the letters. However, they had to dot the letters when they used letters as digits that add up to numbers. Thus, the description of the Quran as MaRQuM, that is dotted or digitized, is a reference to the Quran's numerical structure. A structure that was hidden from everyone until 1974, and will be hidden from the people who are unappreciative and have disease in their hearts, until the end of the world. (See: The Hidden, 74:31).

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.

Well, you just proved your lack of knowledge on the subject matter. I recommend you to study the books and the history of mathematics or numerals. In the first round, I referred to Georges Ifrah's The Universal History of Numbers, a remarkable book on the subject. But, it seems that you are scared to find out that Arabs during Muhammad times were using their alphabet as digits/numerals. Closing your eyes to this fact may preserve your 19-phobia, but it is evident in archeological evidence and massive scholarly research.

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.

How early? Which century? I am referring to the earliest available manuscripts. You are trying to hide behind the ambiguity of the word "early." Besides, this was not my main point. It seems that unable to rebut the main points, you are going after secondary supportive arguments. The main point of my argument was this. I cannot believe that I have to repeat myself so many times to make your ear hear it. I am going to put in bold, so that you have no excuse of not getting it.

During the era of the revelation of the Quran, Arabs could read texts without dotting them or without adding vowels to them, since they could recognize the ambiguous letters of the words from its proximate context. To be able to read undotted text one needs to have knowledge of language and a certain level of intelligence. The earliest available Quran manuscripts testify to this fact. During the era of revelation, Arabs did not use the so-called Arabic numerals; they used their Alphabet, which was in a different order than the modern Arabic Alphabet, to represent numbers. (The order of Modern Arabic alphabet is a late innovation by those who abandoned the Quran and followed Hadith and Sunnah). To use numbers as digits/numerals, they had to DOT them. Thus, the Quran describing itself as MarQuM, that is dotted or digitized, has implication to its numerical structure.

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.

Ayman's ancestors changed the order of Arabic alphabet and its numerical function about two centuries AFTER the revelation of the Quran. So, the meaning and implication of the DOTTED/DIGITIZED is lost for their children. Had Arabs still used the original SEQUENCE of their alphabet as digits or numerals, then Ayman and his ilk would not have declared his ignorance, and I would not need to bother to connect the dots. Ayman is an educated person who feels the confidence to take a debate on this issue, and yet he does not know this simple historical fact. In sum, the word MaRQuM means numbered, as it is evidenced from historical facts and its use among living Arabs today. Ayman ignores both the past and present to distort the meaning of a word.

Arabs Used Alphabetical Numerals During Revelation

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!

This is another patently false claim. Any reader, including your pupils can learn the facts about the use of Gematria or Abjad by Arabs during the era of Prophet Muhammad. Ayman is again in the business of turning things backward; he is trying to use an evidence supporting Code 19 against it. If the book given to Moses was by God, then what is more natural to find similar code in that book too? In fact, that would be a reasonable expectation. If we did not know about the existence of Code 19 in the original text of the Old Testament, then Ayman and his ilk would justifiably question that by saying, "God uses common attributes for Torah and the Quran; then why there is not even a hint of presence of such a code in Torah?" Like all other chronic disbelievers, no evidence and sign will make him see. What Ayman is doing is taking advantage of the negative connotation of the word Jew in the minds of his audience and thus appeal to their tribal emotions.

It is true that Bab and Bahaullah were intrigued by the number 9 and 19, but their interest has nothing to do with the function of the number 19 in the Quran as it is prophetically described in Chapter The Hidden. As for Christians, I was not aware of their "obsession" with the number 19, and its association with Virgin Mary. Even my search via google among millions of websites did not provide such an "obsession." Ayman, in order to topsy-turvy the facts, in order to appeal the xenophobic emotions of his audience, is creating new obsessions for Christians.

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.

So what? There are different ideas among archeologists regarding the origins of the Roman numerals, but as you also acknowledged, they used letters for numerals, if not for all numerals. Georges Ifrah, in his remarkable book, The Universal History of Numbers, has dedicated the Chapter 17 to "Letters and Numbers," Chapter 18 to "The Invention of Alphabetic Numerals" and Chapter 19 to the "Other Alphabetic Number-System". There the athor provides extensive information with supported by archaeological evidence, their pictures and graphics, on the Hebrew, Armenian, Phoenician, Greek, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopian Alphabetic Numerals. So, you may try to hide yourself behind the semi-tally nature of Roman numerals, you cannot ignore all the evidences regarding many ancient Alphabetic Numerals, and especially the Arabic ones.

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.

This is the continuation of Ayman's sinking into his denial of facts. Enough said. Anyone can easily investigate the question for himself or herself. I highly recommend Ifrah's book since it is the most comprehensive work on the subject and is highly acclaimed by scholars.

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".

Again, these claims about the early Arabic numerals is no more than claiming that the earth was flat during the time of Prophet Muhammad. Anyone can learn the facts about the history of Arabic numerals by visiting the closest library or asking professor google.

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.

Here, for the first time Ayman caught an error in my response. Congratulations. Yes, the translation of the word "Ashab" as "dwellers" may not fit the both the cave and numbers. (Though, when the prophetic implication of the verse is fulfilled in the future our understanding might dramatically change, like the ones in chapter 74). Therefore, a more accurate translation for us would be the "the people of the cave and the numbers."  Ayman is demonstrating his number-phobia by finding the association of the "people of the cave" to "inscription" to be okay, but "number" not to be okay. He claims that his choice of "inscription" fits in the context. Ironically, he is the one who ignores the context where 13 verses after the word RaQYM there is a detailed debate about NUMBERS in relation to the people of the cave. His ignorance and arrogance make him blind to that intriguing contextual relationship. The number of letters from the beginning of the Chapter to the phrase "three hundred and increased by nine (300+9)" in verse 25, being exactly 309 and few other details, is a hint regarding another great numerical sign in relation to RaQYM.

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.

No, it is not a circular argument. The verse refers to A WITNESS among the Children of Israel, that is the Jews, who you wish your audience to dismiss just because of their race, AND we learn that indeed A WITNESS from Children of Israel witnessed to the same numerical structure in the original text of the Old Testament. This cannot be a coincidence.

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.

It seems that you will never get it. A study on the meaning of the singular form AYAT and its plural AYAAT will inform the reader what I meant.

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.

If we apply your logic, we should dismiss Jesus as God's messenger, just because Christians idolize him! However, I cannot hide that that I really loved your last sentence. It is such an extraordinary uppercut; sure to the number ZERO.

Numbers Everywhere!

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.

As if I claimed or even suggested that the word AYAT and ABYAT are similar words, Ayman is reminding me that they are "two completely different words." As for Ayman's argument regarding the number of verses: From the earliest available manuscripts, it is evident that verses of the Quran were separated by big dots. I use the word "verse" because of the convention. A better word for the statements in the Quran would be the plural word "signs." I should perhaps start using that.

If there is order of units, in Ayman's argument, such as letters, words, and sentences, then the numbers are embedded in Ayman's paragraph quoted above. For instance, Ayman's 46^th word in his 4^th sentence in the paragraph above (4:48) is about numbers! If numbers are made up arbitrarily by my imagination, then Ayman does not have any 2:15 in his paragraph! (Should he check the Quran instead of his paragraph, he would find the consequence of his actions.)

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.

Numbers are everywhere. In the computer screen, in the genes, in the periodic table, in the apple pie or the circle's pi, everywhere there is number. There are numbers in the snails shell, in your nose, and the lenses of your eyes. And it is in the Quran too, as one of the greatest miracles! A prophetic miracle that will not be witnessed by backward people (74:37).

"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."

This is the second time Ayman is catching my error. But, if he was fair, he would have easily noticed that it was an unintended simple error. In the beginning of the paragraph, I defined singular form AYAT in parenthesis with two words: sign and miracle. In fact, I had indicated previously that the singular form AYAT in the Quran means sign, miracle, evidence, or lesson. However, while writing in haste, in one of the references to Ayat, I forgot to mention all its meanings. Ayman is ready to forget its context and all the other statements, just to attribute a false idea to me. Furthermore, the singular form AYAT, contrary to what Ayman claims, is frequently used to describe many miracles, such as the parting of the red sea and reviving the dead bird.

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.

Ayman is beating the dead horse. I have conclusively discredited his fabrications regarding the meaning of initial letters. If he checks the first volume of Zarkash'is Al-Burhan Fi-Ulumil Quran, he would learn that many scholars tried hard to assign a meaning to those letters, but none received recognition, since all were arbitrary and subjective fabrications. Now, despite the 8 occurrences of the expression "tilka ayat" (these are signs) in conjunction with the initial letters, he is still trying to sell his silly fabrications. Besides, he is unable to see the signs/evidences nowhere in the entire Quran.

He Wants "Suhufun Munasharah" (Published Pages)

2. "Doctors who smoke" syndrome

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.

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

etc...

Thanks for the list. I will ask a mathematician who witnessed the code 19 to be the co-author of an article for those journals. I cannot do it this year, since I have deadlines to beat. I know how fussy Journal editors are; usually on technical and procedural details, rather than the substance.

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.

Are you bluffing or the journals you are called upon to referee were not worth mentioning their names? Your identity is hidden from public and you can claim whatever you wish. You might be an astronaut too. If your peers are as blind and arrogant as you are, I would not be surprised to get rejection letters from them. To the divine signs, peers like you do not have ears.

I have no doubt that Ayman will not witness the miracle of the Quran because it is published in the pages of journals. As the prophetic language of 74:52 describes and criticizes the demand of modern disbelievers regarding the code 19 reminder (ZiKR; ZiKRa; taZKiRah): "suhufun munasharah" that is "published pages."

3. The Code-19 Archeologist

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.

You accused us about fixing the letter Sad in chapter 7, and when I presented the facts, you suddenly forgot about your specific accusation. Instead of apologizing and accepting the facts, you prefer to run from the number 19.

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.

Here is what you wrote in your first article: "Hence, if proponents of Code 19 decide to use the Tashkent copy for something, they must use it for all the counts and not just for fixing the count of the letter 'Sin' to match a result that they want." If this is not an accusation, then the what is an accusation?

Stereograms and Cyclopes; Lions and Zebras

4. Evading the Standard Methodology Issue

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.

I can easily write down the methodology and definition for the code 19 phenomenon in the Quran. This might be a necessary piece of information for those who are not familiar with the Quran. However, people like you who claim expertise in the Quran should be able to infer the methodology and definition based on the examples I provided. If you are not able to infer the methodology and definition from the examples I provided, then you have no clue about the subject you are arguing. Perhaps you want to sidetrack the issue and bog down the argument on the procedure rather than the substance.

Did I make myself clear now why I do not respond to your demand? I know your modus operandi, and I know how you are trying so desperately to find a way to bore and distract the audience with lengthy procedural details so that they would not see the obvious facts and would not leave you alone in your darkness.

The closest analogy to the miracle of 19, to its both subjective and objective nature, is perhaps stereograms. Here is a brief description of Random-dot stereograms:

"Random-dot stereograms take advantage of the fact that our brain's visual processing apparatus pays particularly close attention to elements that are identical in our left and right visual fields. By embedding identical but displaced dot-pattern images in the left and right sides of a field covered with randomly placed dots, random-dot stereograms create patterns that look like visual noise in two dimensions, until you look at them the right way. The most amazing thing about the random-dot stereograms is that they make it possible to see startling 3-D illusions without the help of special glasses or head-mounted displays or optical devices of any kind." (Stereogram, Cadence Books, San Fransisco, 1994).

I know that now Ayman will pick the word "ILLUSION" from the description and jump into the air with excitement hoping that he is justified to use the same word for the Code 19. That's fine; he is at liberty to fool himself. I will not go in details regarding the differences between the Code 19 and the analogy of Stereogram. He either learns something from this analogy or confuses himself by the "noise." Interestingly, the Quran contains some literary random-dots to create noise for those who approach the numerical pattern with arrogance and prejudice; they will never pass the noise and see the intentionally embedded patterns and pictures! Interestingly, the random-dot noise starts with the first letter of the Quran. Those with prejudice, at that point start losing the focus and terminally blind themselves to the marvelous patterns that follow. The Quran guides those who seek guidance and increases the misery and confusion of hypocrites and disbelievers (2:20; 3:7; 5:64; 5:68; 17:41; 17:82; 74:31).

I have a stereogram hanging on the wall of my office. To the eye of the uninformed, it is just a bunch of colored random dots. No recognizable pattern is apparent. However, if you stay in front of it in a certain distance, focus your eyes and take little time to practice, you will find that the hidden pictures will emerge. A mother lion with a baby lion! The figures exist there and they are perceived by your mind. The fact that people without communicating with each other can see EXACTLY the same pictures, demonstrates that the hidden pattern is not an illusion, but an objective fact. An objective fact that is seen by some minds and is hidden to others! The 3-D picture in the brain of he witness, is made by the interaction of intentionally designed objective data AND an open-minded brain that gave the possibility for the presence of such a hidden picture among random-dots. The human language is like random-dots in comparison to mathematics, and finding mathematical pattern in it is akin to the design of stereogram.

I invite Ayman to my office and ask him to look at the stereogram hanging on the wall. Some of my friends who are present there testify to the fact that the picture contains two lions. In fact, one of Ayman's friends who had no prior knowledge of the details about the lions in the picture is asked to look at the picture to find out the details about the lions. After staring at the picture for a while, his friend declares his discovery of two lions among the random dots! He discovers exactly the same details as others have done. One is big and the other is small. The bigger one is walking little ahead of the baby which is on the right side. There are some trees nearby, etc. Ayman, with a smirk on his face, instead of focusing on the picture in a certain distance, claims that it is all an illusion, a fitna for us. I show him the written testimony of a former owner of the picture, who happened to be a Rabbi lived long time ago. He too claimed to have seen the pictures of two lions among the random dots. He mocks with the nose of the Rabbi and then he accuses me of tricking people. He starts asking me about the methodology of designing and the definition of the stereogram. "What about publishing it in a reputable magazine?" he innocently demands, "If the editors of magazines could see the picture, then I would too would see it!" Perhaps I would provide him with an answer. But, if I see him turning his head to the opposite direction and on top of that stubbornly closing one of his eyes, from fear of falling into fitna, then I would not take his demand serious! Would anyone waste his time on these kinds of discussions with a lion-phobic guest who is unable to look at the artistically hidden picture in front of him!

No, I will not waste my time to help a blind in his mission to justify and glorify blindness. Ayman has no intention to check objectively whether there is indeed a picture among the apparently disordered dots! I am writing this article for the sincere people, who would open both of their eyes AND their minds, and spend a few minutes or hours in proximity to the picture to see the hidden figures in the conspicuously titled picture, The Hidden. In fact, under the title there is a subtitle which reads, "Only people with two open eyes and minds will see the lions!" A picture in which many people from different countries, ages, and background could see exactly the same details. Obvious for people. Precise. Universal. A picture that changed and keep changing the paradigm of many people. A picture that is hidden from the arrogant and paranoid enemies of the lions. Well, though Aymand did not witness the lion in the picture, I did not know that he was even scared from hearing the word L-I-O-N.

Let me be kind to my lion-phobic friend, and explain the issue of methodology and definition with a simple example. A few pages above, to demonstrate that each text containing ordered units inherently contains numbers, I used one of Ayman's paragraphs that started with his question, "What splitting hairs?". Did I need to write the methodology of my count of words and sentences? Did I need to make the definition of word and sentence? Of course not! A person with average IQ could easily infer that I was counting the expression "ayat"/signs as two different words. If you count them with your MS Word program, you will find out that it counts the pair as one single word. Obviously, for a reason, I did not follow the counting method of MS Word in its entirety. So, I did not need to provide my non-idiot readers with fancy-sounding METHODOLOGY and DEFINITIONS. They would infer it on their own, in a few seconds.

Now, what Ayman wish is to drag me into an argument about MS Word's definition of words versus Edip's definition of words, and thereby let the main point—the numbers being implicit in the structure of ordered units—get lost.

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.

Yes, I too believe that we could get along just fine. In fact, let me invite you to a face-to-face debate so that we could discus this issue even finer. If you prefer to do it at the University of Arizona, you will be my host. I will arrange it. Like Ali Sina, an evangelical opponent of the Quran and its signs whom I debated on Internet, you too may decline this offer. Well, if you are scared to show your face in public, then we could arrange a PalTalk discussion. Please give me a good excuse, such as that you are a mute mathematician, you are unable to think fast, or you are a beast with a one eye in middle of your fore-headJ

God uses many of His attributes for His books, including the Quran. Therefore, your attempt to belittle God's infallible words under the pretext of exalting God, tells me a lot about your faith in the "great reading". Among the 57 attributes of the Quran, there are the attributes of "MaJeeD" (Glorious), "HaKeeM" (Wise), KaRYM (Honorable), HuDY (Guidence), AJaB (Interesting/Wondrous), and MaRQuM (digitized/numberically structured). Your last statement may sound poetic to the ears of your audience but it is an empty statement. One could use exactly the same empty rhetoric to reject the entire Quran: "I have no holy books to extract guidance from. I only holy The God." Or, one could say, "I have no great reading to get signs from. I only accept the greatness of The God." By the way, which Arabic word are you using for your Holy?

The 0.3^rd of the Moon and 0.0007^th of a Year

5. Appealing to "Nusemantics"

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.

Your questions demonstrate your confusion. Sun is the major of source of light. If you ask people on the street to associate a word to light, most likely would get the Sun, unless, they have phobia against finding a numerical structure in God's book. Symmetric occurrences of the semantically associated words do not mean that we should treat them the same, and none of us has claimed such. I noticed that you frequently employ a trick: you attribute us some lousy arguments of your own fabrication and declare your victory against them. You even confused a fan of yours at the forum; she was mislead by you about the word AMma (from what?). She thought that it was indeed our thesis; while in fact, it was your own fabrication.

If you could show me how the word "ayyam" may occur 27.3 times in the Quran, then your objection would be valid. Right now, I looked at the frequency of the word QaMaR (Moon) in the Quran and I found it too to be exactly 27. You can check it with Fuad Abdulbaqi's concordance. You may exclaim, "Beware, it is a fitna, it is another coincidence!" Somehow, there is harmony and design in the things you call fitna! Yes, indeed it is the fitna in your impaired mind. You will now ask me about the 0.3 of the word Moon! Well, it is left for you to hang your disbelief on, so that you can blind yourself to God's signs in the design of the Sun and Moon both in the nature and the scripture. You share the same sickness with the Turkish scholar who could not object the fact that the word YaWM in its singular form indeed occurred exactly 365 times in the Quran; he came up with the following objection: "What about the 6 hours?" I told him that God left him six hours to deny the 365 days! He had only 0.0007^th of a year!

You have no idea how magnificent is God's system and test. You have fallen into the fitna of your own making, your head down, you have become an unappreciative of one of the greatest signs, and like all your ancestors, you think that you are guided! You say that you focus on reading and understanding, but you have demonstrated that you are unable to understand the Quran and many of its signs.

Letter A, the Last Resort for the Innumerate Blind

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.

If you check the www.mucizeler.com you will find a statistical analysis of the pattern in frequencies of these letters. But, you are not really looking to test the facts. All you are doing is to evade facing a numerical pattern shining in the Quran. Since you are so knowledgeable about the Quran, about the METHODS and DEFINITIONS, why don't you try to trash the numerical pattern in the frequencies of HM letters?

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.

You wanted and you got a problem: HM letters. These two letters alone has dazzled your eyes. Unable to deal with that EXTRAORDINARY pattern, now you are seeking refuge in another letter, the letter A. You are hoping that we will never be able to substantiate a true count of the letter A, and you are staking your disbelief in the dark cave of that letter. Congratulations, you got a letter and some time! And, enjoy your imaginary hell-fire in the Hidden.

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 , the frequency of my name in your article was 114 so as you can see there is nothing special about this number.

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.

Obviously, there is something special about that number, and thus it pulled your attention. As I said before, the mockery of yours will incriminate you in the Day of Judgment. You were able to see numerical relationship and association between numbers and their implication. However, you ignored them when God, the greatest mathematician, showed them. I wonder whether you will reflect on your position after reading the following verses:

"And every sign that came to them from their Lord, they turned away from it. They have denied the truth when it came to them. The news will ultimately come to them of what they were mocking." (6:4-5)

"T'.S.M. These are the signs (AYaaT) of the Scripture of clarity. Perhaps you are grieving yourself that they do not become believers. If We wish, We could send down for them from the heavens a sign (AYaT), to which they would bend their necks in humility. Whenever a reminder (ZiKR) from the Most Gracious comes to them, that is new, they turn away in aversion. They have denied, thus the news will come to them of what they used to ridicule." (26:4-6).