Status: Age: 117 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 19, 2006
Posts: 70
Post subject:
With regards to the Abjad numerology issue, it's clear that it has been used extensively in Jewish and Muslim traditions (with regards to Islam, this is especially the case in sufism where even the shape of the letters have symbolic meaning i.e. they take the name Adm being a representation of Standing sitting and prostrating), whether or not such things have been sanctioned by God is another issue which this discussion hopes to clear up.
If someone puts forth an idea and purports it to be truth from God then it's everyone's right to question the validity of the claims no matter how educated they are, they don't need to be educated to ask questions, rather the claimant needs to answer these things. Let's have the discussion continue on as it has been.
Posted:
Tue 08 May, 2007 2:44 am
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 58 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Hello all,
www19org wrote:
So, I am going to post my answer your criticism, which was has been published at www.yuksel.org for a decade. I am quoting it from point 12:
12. As far as 9.128129. . . From 1974 (when the miraculous function of number 19 of chapter 74 was discovered), until 1985 (when the two false verses were exposed), for eleven years, no one knew that Rashad's computer data was one short regarding the frequency of the word God. Both the proponents and opponents of the miracle did not notice this crucial error for more than a decade. Why? Because, the most popular and accurate index of the Quran, Al-Mujamul Mufahras Lielfazil Quranil Kariym, had the same count 2698, when you add the one missing. (The index accepts the Fatiha's Basmalah as the first verse of the Quran, but fails to mention it in the list of the word "Allah")
If I had noticed the error in the beginning, I would, most likely, never have had the courage, or interest in studying the mathematical structure of the Quran. I would have refuted it outright and labeled it as a blasphemy of numerology. The miracle of the Quran would have been stillborn in the first days of its discovery. No one would have considered it worthy of examination. Even Rashad himself, then a traditional Muslim, most likely would not have accepted it under those circumstances. We strongly believe that God Almighty deliberately delayed this important problem for a simple reason: to publicize the miracle of the Quran, and give the Muslim world a chance and time to study it. After everyone got a good idea what 19 was all about, God let us discover the error. Everyone was put to the test: either follow the testimony of the Quran, or the testimony of your parents and the majority of people. Those who strengthened their faith according to the prophecy of 74.31 chose the testimony and signs of God, those who followed their parents and peers rejected the testimony and signs of God.
www19org wrote:
This process, I believe, was a fulfillment of 6.158 and 3.179.
From all the above I will only reply to 6:158 and 3:179
Brother Edip claims that 6:158 is related to the alleged code 19 somehow, sort of the process of accepting or rejecting the alleged code 19 is a fulfilment to 6:158, let me bring it in here and see if brother Edip has a point:
Are they waiting to see if the angels come to them, or thy Lord (Himself), or certain of the signs of thy Lord! the day that certain of the signs of thy Lord do come, no good will it do to a soul to believe in them then if it believed not before nor earned righteousness through its faith. Say: "Wait ye: we too are waiting.
-> 6:158 is telling us about two things, death and some of the signs of the JD, the verse message is simply belief will not be accepted if the process of causing us to die by the Angels of death or by Allah has started or if some of the signs of the JD has arrived, ? Are they waiting to see if the angels come to them, or thy Lord (Himself), or certain of the signs of thy Lord! the day that certain of the signs of thy Lord do come, no good will it do to a soul to believe in them then if it believed not before nor earned righteousness through its faith.?
As you can see there is nothing about code 19, on the other hand the above verse does not apply to the believers, it can only apply to the unbelievers, therefore it can't be about code 19 because according to brother Edip, 74:31 is telling us that code 19 is directed at the believers and the unbelievers.
Let's now look at verse 3:179,
On no account will Allah leave the believers in the condition which you are in until He separates the evil from the good; nor is Allah going to make you acquainted with the unseen, but Allah chooses of His messengers whom He pleases; therefore believe in Allah and His messengers; and if you believe and guard (against evil), then you shall have a great reward. [The Quran ; 3:179]
مَّا كَانَ اللّهُ لِيَذَرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَلَى مَآ أَنتُمْ عَلَيْهِ حَتَّىَ يَمِيزَ الْخَبِيثَ مِنَ الطَّيِّبِ وَمَا كَانَ اللّهُ لِيُطْلِعَكُمْ عَلَى الْغَيْبِ وَلَكِنَّ اللّهَ يَجْتَبِي مِن رُّسُلِهِ مَن يَشَاء فَآمِنُواْ بِاللّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَإِن تُؤْمِنُواْ وَتَتَّقُواْ فَلَكُمْ أَجْرٌ عَظِيمٌ (179)
-> I can't see how this is related to the alleged code 19, the verse above is about the battle of Uhud, in fact from verse 155 up to this verse 179, it is all about the huge test the believers were put through in the battle of Uhud, please all, read the verses 3:155-179 and see for yourself if it has anything to do with the alleged code 19
-> The above verses is telling us that what happened in Uhud battle when Allah caused the Kafiroon to win was nothing but a tough test to separate the evil from the good, i.e. separate the hypocrites from the true believers: ? On no account will Allah leave the believers in the condition which you are in until He separates the evil from the good?, the verse then is telling us that Allah ? nor is Allah going to make you acquainted with the unseen?, but Allah choses His messengers to send His messages through them :? but Allah chooses of His messengers whom He pleases;?, if brother Edip is suggesting that the verse is talking about the alleged and self claimed messengership of Rashad Khalifa, then this is totally different subject and require a detailed study of the words Rasul and Nabi, so I will skip this argument for now till we discuss Rashad Khalifah use of the Quran to prove his alleged and self claimed messnegership
www19org wrote:
13. Please note the emphasize on "We" in verse 15.9: "We, indeed We, yes We have revealed the Zikr (reminder), and We will preserve it." I don't remember such an emphasis anywhere else in the Quran. The short verse refers to God Almighty four times in regard of preserving His book.
I can't believe how weak the arguments of brother Edip are, verse 16:9 only uses the emphasis '????Inna Nahnu? one time, not four times as brother Edip is alleging, as well the words were used in regard of sending the Quran ?Inna Nahnu Nazalnna Al Zikr", however, in regard to preserving the Quran there was no emphasis because it was only '????Inna? that is used not '????Inna Nahnn?, '????Wa Inna Lahu La Hafizoon?, NOT ?Wa Inna Nahnu Lahu Lahafizoon? also if you read the Quran well you will see that the same emphasis through the use of the words '????Inna Nahnu? was used in 19:40, 36:12, 50:43 and 76:23, so there is nothing unique about 16:9 in using "Inna Nahnu" as brother Edip is telling us
www19org wrote:
What does that mean?
It means nothing a I just proved before, there was no emphasis in regard to preserving the Quran, it was only emphasised regarding sending the Quran
www19org wrote:
To me, the message is obvious: it is not you (people) who will preserve the Zikr, it is God who will preserve it.
God will cause the people to preserve it as He caused Moses to strike the sea as He caused Jesus to wipe with his hands to heal as He causes the Angels of death to take our souls
www19org wrote:
Please note, the relation between the revelation and preservation in the verse.
There is no relation other than the common sense, the words been used in one verse means nothing to be honest, you are just trying hard to find anything to validate your weak arguments
www19org wrote:
What is more appropriate than looking for a relation between the revelation and its protection?
Really, brother Edip your arguments are so weak, there is no relation other than both are said in one verse in two sentences with a WAW in between
www19org wrote:
Is it possible that the revelation contains an automatic protection?
See, how you are trying hard to stretch it?
www19org wrote:
How does God preserve the Zikr?
Well, we can see that it is preserved, the copy I have is the same one you have with the only difference is the two verses you removed based on an imaginary code
www19org wrote:
Obviously, with its own revelation. How do we know, or what is the proof?
We don't need proofs other than seeing it unchanged and that is what have been for the last 1400 years.
Because brother Edip started talking about 74:30-31 I will stop now and dedicate my next comment to reply to his understanding to 74:30-31
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Sat 21 Oct, 2017 5:36 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted:
Tue 08 May, 2007 11:25 pm
www19org
Status:
Faith:
Joined: Apr 21, 2007
Posts: 5
Post subject:
EDIP: I will not continue this debate with you, since you lack the ability to think logically, at least on this subject. Your circular answer below, to my demand for clarification of the meaning of the word "similar", and your lack of comprehension of logical problem with your position, has provided me with compelling evidence that conducting a debate based on reason will not be possible with you.
I cannot and will not waste my time further with you and with those who would not notice the fatal problem with your answers, which is beyond having or not having sufficient knowledge on a particular issue. There was only one chance that we could engage in a healthy and productive debate: as long as both of us used our God-given common language, that is logic, in this debate. Since the beginning, I noticed the signs of a major problem, beyond ignorance and arrogance, with your arguments, but I ignored them until you made the problem so clear with your inability to see the circular devil in your answer, which you interspersed it within my previous reply.
So, have a nice day, dear brother Ahmed.
Peace,
Quote:
EDIP: Can you let us know what you mean by "similar"?
AHMED: Sure, Similar ? means the least FROM A GOD ?
EDIP: There are many great works of literature written by Arabs,
AHMED: Are these works from A GOD?
EDIP: and some are claimed to be even better than the Quran.
AHMED: Hmmm, it can 'ąt be because these books are not from A GOD, you can 'ąt compare apples with mangos, I call this on www.faithfreedom.org web site The Tutty Fruity fallacy ?
EDIP: Besides, what about non-Arabic works of literature?
AHMED: Are they from A GOD?
EDIP: Many people find the repetition in the Quran boring
AHMED: I didn 'ąt
EDIP: or description of hell in the Quran lacking taste.
AHMED: The description of Hell in the Quran is the best ever, I love it, no one can warn others with hell in such beauty but Allah, did you see the Jahannam Movie?
EDIP: If you cannot define the meaning of your standard, that is "similar", then you have no standard.
AHMED: I did defined the min requirement of the word similar and what I defined comply with the Quran because there is no other God but Allah, therefore no one will be able to come up with a book from another god, i.e. the challenge will never be met and that is what the Quran predicted exactly.
EDIP: You will reject every other book as not being similar for arbitrary reasons.
AHMED: When the min requirement is met i.e. a book from a god the least ? then I will honestly look into it seriously, and check other requirements.
EDIP: You will reject every book that is a bit similar to have been plagiarized from the Quran.
AHMED: As I said, when you bring a book from a god as well bring that god to give witness if you are truthful then I will look seriously into the matter, but I know you will fail to do so 100% because there is no other gods but Allah.
EDIP: So, you lack an OBJECTIVE definition of the challenge of the Quran.
AHMED: Sounds like you are the one who lacks it really, I know many so called Muslims understand the challenge incorrectly. Al hamdullelah I'm not one of them.
See, we can NOT compare a book by Shakespeare and a book by Allah because Allah is a God and Shakespeare is a human, makes sense to you?
EDIP: Besides, even if you prove victory for now, you cannot guarantee that tomorrow someone would not accomplish the challenge.
AHMED: This is a challenge that I know that it will never be met, this is what the Quran said not my wishful thinking ? and when I thought about it logically then it is true that the challenge will never be met because the word similar book means the least a book from another god so we can compare the two and see which book is better.
EDIP: You should consider this: The Quran is not really challenging anyone; it is a rhetorical challenge.
AHMED: Of course it is not the Quran that is challenging, it is the Author of the Quran Who is the Challenger
EDIP: The Quran is declaring its unique nature;
AHMED: Of course, its unique natire that it is the direct words of Allah, don 'ąt you agree?
Posted:
Wed 09 May, 2007 9:21 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 58 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Hello all
Because brother Edip has withdrawn from this debate, I'm going to lock the thread and inshallah will continue later on to refute what he claimed, he took the chance to say what he wanted but he can't stand to give me a chance to say what I want so he withdrawn before I finish my refute, however my refute is going to be finihsed now with no disturbance
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
All times are GMT + 10 Hours Ported for PHP-Nuke by nukemods.com
