River

Greetings Iasion

The Suras reported by Ibn Mas'ud in Ubayy ibn Ka'b's mushaf were not really suras but instead Ka'bs personal qunat ( in prayers)


To this a reference was made by al-Qadi in al-Intisar, when he said: The words of qunut reported to be recorded by Ubayy ibn Ka'b in his mushaf, could never be proved to be revealed Qur'anic verses but they were only some mode of supplication... as had they been of the Qur'an they would have been reported in the same way as a Qur'an whose veracity was established for all. Also they might have contained some of the Qur'anic words of earlier verses, permitted to be used in supplication while being merged with non-Qur'anic words.All this was never confirmed to be narrated by him, but it was reported to be recorded in his mushaf. He is known to have recorded in his mushaf other than the Qur'an such as supplication and interpretation (ta’wil).


If you have further questions please read the following link


http://biphome.spray.se/hyla/legacy/07.htm




P.S There is an erroneous hadith of weak chain of transmission that says that Aisha had 2 additional Suras beneath her bed ...but the " dog ate it".....kinda like " the dog ate my homework" argument. If you are easily satisfied by this as a means of solid evidence, then my friend, you appear to be satisfied quite easily.

Kat_Somm_Faen

Dude

Nice example of circular reasoning! River, get real man. I mean GET REAL.

1. Quran is a word of God.
2. It exhibits some remarkable statistical patterns.
3. Other books that do so are not the word of God.

C. Therefore the Quran is the only word of God.

Niiiiiiiiice!!!

So if a book is NOT the word of God - it is just pure luck and conicidence and if it is the word of God it is divine and perfect

Come on!

River

ya....sumthin' like that....

TheDiddleyMan

I would like to point something out here. In Arabic there is more than one way to count a word. In other words, there is often times more than one form of a word where the root word is the same. This is because in Arabic, suffixes and prefixes that would be separate from the word in English are joined to it. For example, in the case of the word "day," - "yawm" there is "al-yawm" which means "the day" or "yawn-izin" (I believe that is it) which means "that day." There are many others as well. The root word - "day" - is still the same and has the same meaning, but it has different forms in the Arabic language. (I'm not a linguist, but it seems to me that in English, suffixes and prefixes change the meaning of the root word, and they do sometimes as well in Arabic....)

Anyhow, the gist of all this is that in Arabic, one can redefine what exactly is a word and be a lot more manipulative in what one counts than you can in english. There is only singular form of the word "day."

I don't know anything about the statistics River has presented, but I do know about the 19 thing. The reason I have investigated some of the 19 thing is because it has an actual basis in a Quranic verse (though the interpretation of that verse could very well be flawed). The statistics River is presenting are similar to the claims made by Christians and Jews so.....

So let me give you a couple of examples. It is claimed by Khalifa and his followers (the 19ers) that the words "Ilah" = god, and "Rabb" - lord, occur as multiples of nineteen in the Quran, with the supposed "false verses" removed. But both of these words are counted differently. The count of the word "Ilah" excludes forms with pronominal suffixes, i.e. "your god," "our god" and so on. The count of the word "Rabb" includes all singlur forms. What Khalifa, the leader of the 19 movement, has done is to exclude all the forms of the word "Ilah" that have suffixes, but include suffixed forms of "Rabb" in his count for that word. Why? Because it makes his statistic work.

This is one of Khalifa's main tricks. He excludes forms of words based on physical differences. For example, often times his doesn't count suffixed forms of words, but he does count prefixed forms. If this sounds arbitrary and silly, well, that is because it is. He also sometimes excludes forms of words that have "tanween" suffixes - that is, suffixes of one letter where the one letter has no meaning in and of itself as a suffix but makes the word nominative, accusitive, or whatever. Remember, I am not a linguist, this is just my understanding.

Finally, he would sometimes exclude woulds based on meaning. For example, when counted the word "wahid" meaning "one" he only counted those occurrences that referred to Allah. Now, at times this seems logical, but he never followed the rule consistently, (for example, in the case of the words Rabb and Ilah)

Anyhow, River here is my advice to you. You should do what very few Muslims (but incidentally many Christians and Jews have done with the Bible Codes and theomatics, however much there results have been criticized) have dared to do: do scientific tests.

You claim that there is a statistical miracle in the Quran, then back it up with statistic tests. Form a hypothesis and then research and present your results, with confirmations from other people. So for example, regarding the claim that every time the Quran claims that something is "like" something else the things that are compared occurr the exact same amount of times in the Quran, then test that hypothesis. Look up every time a comparison is made in the Quran (remembering to define what a comparison actually is - does the word "like" have to be used? Is it implicit or explicit?) Count all of the words using a consistent, logical method. Don't just present the statistics that work, present those that don't work. If the Quran is from Allah and your claims are true, then it will be proven even more strongly if you give statistical proof, rather than just statistical claims.

So far all you have done is to come on this board and make claims that most people do not have the ability to verify for themselves (knowledge of Arabic is necessary, and so is having multiple concordances as most concordances have many errors). If you are going to claim a statistical miracle, then verify that it is in fact a miracle for yourself with statistics (remember, the Quran tells you not to believe anything unless you have verified it).

Very few people are taking your claims seriously right now because you have not presented them seriously. Your claims come across as evangelistic and polemic drivel (and rather a lot like "spam"). So do your homework. Otherwise, I don't think many of us care to take the time and look into your claims, impressive as they may be.


That is my rant.

Kevin

tribalbeeyatch

Agreed. And yet the testicles are nowhere to be found within this "large area". Given the rather broad 'guess' present in the Koran, I find it especially telling that it was so utterly inaccurate.

Jayjay

Now you're getting it. Quran is as much the word of God as Moby Dick.

River

- Kevin (Diddleyman)


I thank you for taking the time to address the claims. I must add, I am not a Khilafi so I don't prescribe to his 19 methodology. I do believe however, the Qur'anic frequencies are interesting and not " fraudalant" as some may want to believe. I have contacted a learned scholar in farsi and arabic and he also believes that the Qur'an is " measured out" or " chiseled". I would hope future Muslim scientists place any mathematical example to greater scrutiny. I have presented the article not as spam but as something that might merit interest or spark future studies.

Nickle

Lobstrosity, you're my hero:

smoke 9
live 9
brought to you by Phillip Morris

devil 10
terrors 10

strong 10
bear 10
similituditudilitude?

doubt 11
friend 11
obviously alluding to Judas betraying his friend Jesus

book 12
answer 12
I'm sure it means the Qur'an

idol 8
image 8

I could do this all day!

:banghead:

I don't even know what to say,

pariah

That was my point River! You say that the numerology means something when in arabic because it is the literal word of God. But the version that is NOT the word of God, the version that is the translation of, has just as many simliliarities. obviously a book does not have to be written by God to have similiarities.

Also, just curious, why do you "-" out the "o"
in God?

TheDiddleyMan

The nineteen frequencies are not "fraudulent", they are just not significant because they are not calculated consistently, and are taken out of a pool of large statistics. I don't think Khalifa was a liar, just somebody who didn't understand statistics. What particular numbers do you find to be "beyond probability" (to quote Arik)? I have seen numbers that can be called "interesting" but on close examination I find that few of them are close to being significant. My examination is only a bit underway though.....

If you present your numbers as sparks for future studies, then present them that way. Don't say "To the agnostic and naysayers" and then offer numbers as proof when they are not meant to be seen that way, but only as *possible* proofs.

Kevin