Well Here Goes...
-
Maybe the inclusions of bismillah were man made? or a tradition otherwise why not count them in numbers? I'm not doubting the inclusion of bismillah i'm just trying to reason why they weren't numbered were they in older manuscripts?
Numbering is useful for references that makes sense but is it really important how many chapters there are? or how many numbers there are?
-
Peace Meteora,
Of course not everything will work with the #19. Where's the sense in adding any 2 random numbers mentioned in the Quran, for example? All the facts presented regarding the #19 give people a way to decipher what is and isn't the true Quran. The link again is here http//www.submission.org/quran/protect.html
If Allah talks about "preserving the Quran" (the true Quran that is) why would he not give us a way to decipher the original one? Please check the link instead of asking again what the purpose of the #19 is.I didn't ask you about the purpose of 19. I asked you to give everyone the formula for the stupid Code 19, which you falsely claimed to be a "mathematical system". Every "mathematical system" has a repeatable formula that one can apply consistently and get a predictable result. You can't provide such formula and thus you evade the question and instead provide a useless link to some 19ers nonsense. Again, the question is
If Code 19 is a "mathematical system" then it has a repeatable formula that one can apply consistently and get a predictable result, what is the formula for Code 19?
Hopefully, you can read it better now.
Because there's nothing special about it. Being the first or last verse/ayah gives a little bit of status. Also, it's not like I just mentioned that fact by itself. What about all the other countless facts about the #19. Should we reject them too?
These are not facts. These are the inevitable 1 in 19 random successful results out of the thousands of trials that Khalifa conducted.
[email protected] should know.
[email protected] are hypocrites because they know that the order of revelation is based on Hadiths and Sunni Scholars and yet they shamelessly use Hadith-based junk when it suits their purposes.
They must then be the lies of
Yusuf Ali "And We have set none but angels as Guardians of the Fire; and We have fixed their number only as a trial for Unbelievers,- in order that the People of the Book may arrive at certainty, and the Believers may increase in Faith,- and that no doubts may be left for the People of the Book and the Believers, and that those in whose hearts is a disease and the Unbelievers may say, "What symbol doth allah intend by this ?" Thus doth allah leave to stray whom He pleaseth, and guide whom He pleaseth and none can know the forces of thy Lord, except He and this is no other than a warning to mankind."
Shakir And We have not made the wardens of the fire others than angels, and We have not made their number but as a trial for those who disbelieve, that those who have been given the book may be certain and those who believe may increase in faith, and those who have been given the book and the believers may not doubt, and that those in whose hearts is a disease and the unbelievers may say What does allah mean by this parable? Thus does allah make err whom He pleases, and He guides whom He pleases, and none knows the hosts of your Lord but He Himself; and this is naught but a reminder to the mortals.
and Pickthal We have appointed only angels to be wardens of the Fire, and their number have We made to be a stumbling-block for those who disbelieve; that those to whom the Scripture hath been given may have certainty, and that believers may increase in faith; and that those to whom the Scripture hath been given and believers may not doubt; and that those in whose hearts there is disease, and disbelievers, may say What meaneth allah by this similitude? Thus allah sendeth astray whom He will, and whom He will He guideth. None knoweth the hosts of thy Lord save Him. This is naught else than a Reminder unto mortals.
What is different between these translations and Khalifa's?
Unlike the liar Khalifa, all the above translations say that the number is ONLY a trial for the disbelievers. Unlike the liar, they all preserve the correct cause (underlined) and effect (bold) relationship. So the effects described are not a result of the number but are a result of the number being ONLY a trial for the disbelievers.
Read the ayah carefully. He does not have to outright state it's a miracle. The way he talks about it shows that it clearly is one.
He calls it a "fitnah" in Arabic (which means test/trial) meant to eliminate doubt and make the people of the book (Jews, Christians) increase in faith, and that it would disturb only the disbelievers. Miracles are only rejected by disbelievers.There is no verb ?disturb? in the passage. The word ?fitnah? is a noun that means ?trial/temptation?. The count of 19 is ONLY a temptation for the disbelievers. Everything (eliminate doubt and make the people of the book increase in faith, etc.) is a result of the COMPLETE underlined clause and not just the number by itself. Find someone who is tempted by Code 19 and you will find a disbeliever who doesn?t believe in the great reading without some kind of miracle code. It is thus not surprising that this someone would also admit that they may as well not believe the god?s words without the code. They believe in the code more than in the god and his words.
Not at all. I actually have evidence when I argue, unlike Hadithists who have nothing besides "this is sahih so it must be right!1".
You use the same fallacies as Hadithists but instead you say ?this is 19 divisible so it must be right!?
If you really had evidence then you would have answered my simple question about the formula for the supposed ?mathematical system? of Code 19 that can be consistently applied to get a predictable result. But even this simple evidence, you don?t actually have. You don?t have anything besides "this is 19 divisible so it must be right!"
It's a little crazy to think that gigantic number is a multiple of 19, yet was divised by someone...
See what I mean.
You don?t have anything besides "this is 19 divisible so it must be right!"
and you can find the order here as well http//www.missionislam.com/quran/revealationorder.htm
As well as in many other links. No one has a different order than what is shown.Your appeal to popularity above is another Hadithist logical fallacy that you borrow.
Please read again. the entire chapter is 1 sentence, and each ayah is a phrase of the sentence. misplace any verse in it, it becomes an incomplete sentence. This isn't rocket science.
Unless you are claiming that each chapter is one sentence and this is how you know where chapters end and start then what you are saying is completely irrelevant. How would you know where chapter 2 or any chapter that is not one sentence starts and ends? How do you know that it ends with 2286 and not 2281, etc. etc.? Without the manmade chapter titles and the decorations then maybe chapter 3 is actually another chapter without a Bismallah starting in 2282 and ending in 2286.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Sarah,
Maybe the inclusions of bismillah were man made? or a tradition otherwise why not count them in numbers? I'm not doubting the inclusion of bismillah i'm just trying to reason why they weren't numbered were they in older manuscripts?
I don't get it. If you don't doubt the inclusion of the Bismallah then why are you saying that their inclusion is maybe manmade?
As for the reason why they weren't numbered, NONE of the verses in the great reading were numbered in older manuscripts. So if you are going to say "maybe they are manmade, otherwise why not count them in numbers?" then you can say the same thing about the entire great reading.
Numbering is useful for references that makes sense but is it really important how many chapters there are? or how many numbers there are?
And why is it "really important"? Are books with 114 chapters more logical than books with 113 chapters? Which is more important to you, the number of chapters or the content of the chapters? Would you disregard even an average book because it has only 113 chapters and not 114? If you wouldn?t do this for an average book then why wouldn?t you give the god the same courtesy? Why when it comes to the god?s words suddenly ?how many chapters? or ?how many numbers? (whatever that means) becomes ?really important??
Peace,
Ayman
-
I?m not doubting I was just questioning to see your conclusions I don?t follow code 19.
To me the book is of guidance not about how many chapters there are and their numbers. The thing is why not number bismillah then? maybe people are doing injustice by not recognising it as part of Quran??
Besides takes sunnis for example in prayer second surah after the fatiha they will not recite bismillah at least not aloud even some madhabs don?t recite bismillah aloud but apparently say it in their heart/head? I was just throwing possibilities as why it?s not numbered. I don?t know the history of the numbering of the Quran. I?m just wondering.
The content is what matters to me? 114 or 113 doesn?t make any less or more logic but you are challenging the existence of chapters by proclaiming bismillah is the start of a new surah. Realistically that can?t exactly be confirmed it?s just a notion.. I just wanted to see your reasoning hence asking you about the numbering of bismillah.
Numbers don?t matter, content does. I?m not a mathematician just a human seeking God and guidance. No codes, no number, that doesn?t do anything for me.
Salam
-
Peace Sarah,
I?m not doubting I was just questioning to see your conclusions I don?t follow code 19.
To me the book is of guidance not about how many chapters there are and their numbers. The thing is why not number bismillah then? maybe people are doing injustice by not recognising it as part of Quran??Agreed.
Besides takes sunnis for example in prayer second surah after the fatiha they will not recite bismillah at least not aloud even some madhabs don?t recite bismillah aloud but apparently say it in their heart/head? I was just throwing possibilities as why it?s not numbered. I don?t know the history of the numbering of the Quran. I?m just wondering.
The history is that there was no numbering at all. Now anyone can go in and number the passages for referencing convenience based on things like rhyme or where a sentence starts and ends, etc. There is nothing wrong with that as long as one doesn?t claim that their numbering convention is divinely inspired.
The content is what matters to me? 114 or 113 doesn?t make any less or more logic but you are challenging the existence of chapters by proclaiming bismillah is the start of a new surah. Realistically that can?t exactly be confirmed it?s just a notion.. I just wanted to see your reasoning hence asking you about the numbering of bismillah.
I am not challenging the existence of chapters. We would still get the same exact great reading if we used the Bismillahs as chapter makers. The only difference is that we would get a longer Chapter 8 (encompassing what is presently 8 and 9) and only 113 chapters in total. The god-given content is 100% the same. So if content is what matters to you and you disregard the manmade chapter titles and decorations then there is no other possible conclusion.
Numbers don?t matter, content does. I?m not a mathematician just a human seeking God and guidance. No codes, no number, that doesn?t do anything for me.
Sister, I agree 100%
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman
Thanks for your reply... you know the chapter names I never thought of them as man made until you mentioned it though it is helpful to refer to a verse by name/number. The more I talk to people the more ignorant I feel the more I read the more I realise how little I know. It?s quite frustrating.
Though seeming (most) people seem contended with 114 chapters wouldn?t that be a good enough system to go by? Or do you think it?s an injustice because it?s an innovation? On that note, do you have any knowledge as to when this came about (the numbering and/or the title labelling)?
-
Peace Sarah,
I?m not doubting I was just questioning to see your conclusions I don?t follow code 19.
Numbers don?t matter, content does. I?m not a mathematician just a human seeking God and guidance. No codes, no number, that doesn?t do anything for me.
bravo bravo bravo group peace
-
Peace Sarah,
Thanks for your reply... you know the chapter names I never thought of them as man made until you mentioned it though it is helpful to refer to a verse by name/number. The more I talk to people the more ignorant I feel the more I read the more I realise how little I know. It?s quite frustrating.
This is normal when we are on a journey towards the truth. As we get closer, we realize how little we knew before. This is not something to be frustrated about because this is an indication that you are going in the right direction.
Though seeming (most) people seem contended with 114 chapters wouldn?t that be a good enough system to go by? Or do you think it?s an injustice because it?s an innovation?
I think that as long as people realize that chapter titles and decorations are manmade then it doesn't matter because if they truly realize this then they will automatically understand that no matter what convention the majority uses, the great reading has 113 chapters and what is 8 and 9 is actually a long chapter 8.
The injustice arises when people start changing the god-given content of the great by, for example, deleting passages from the end of chapter 9 based entirely on manmade stuff.
On that note, do you have any knowledge as to when this came about (the numbering and/or the title labelling)?
The earliest manuscript that I have seen with chapter titles dated from the 7th century AH/ 13th century CE. Certainly, I can say with confidence that none of the early manuscripts (dating from 7th to the 9th century CE) had chapter titles.
One of the early verifiable references to chapter titles is from the 8th century and comes not from Islamic sources but from a Roman Christian polemic against the great reading by John of Damascus (730s CE). In the polemic he refers to chapters of ?The Women?, ?The Camel of God? (probably Chapter 7), ?The Table?, and ?The Cow?.
As a side note, some modern Christian polemists have argued that the great reading wasn?t developed and canonized until the 9th century CE. Ironically, by providing the names of chapters, which were devised long after the text was established, John of Damascus inadvertently refutes the modern Christians polemists.
As for the numbering, some early manuscripts show a dot where people thought a verse ended based on the rhyme. However, the dots placement was different from today. For example, some chapters such as the short ones at the end (like 114) didn?t have any dots and were thus considered one verse. Much later, the dots were replaced by verse markers and then again much much later numbers were inserted in the verse markers.
Peace,
Ayman
-
I didn't ask you about the purpose of 19. I asked you to give everyone the formula for the stupid Code 19, which you falsely claimed to be a "mathematical system". Every "mathematical system" has a repeatable formula that one can apply consistently and get a predictable result. You can't provide such formula and thus you evade the question and instead provide a useless link to some 19ers nonsense. Again, the question is
If Code 19 is a "mathematical system" then it has a repeatable formula that one can apply consistently and get a predictable result, what is the formula for Code 19?
Where do you get the definition of what a mathematical system is? If that doesn't suit you, then lets just refer to it as a mathematical miracle (which it is) and I just said that not everything you come up with will work with the #19. No one is going to be like "ok, lets see what I get if I add the number of verses in this chapter and this one. Well what do you know, it's not a multiple of 19! Therefore, the #19 fails." The miracles have been shown bro, so your question is meaningless.
These are not facts. These are the inevitable 1 in 19 random successful results out of the thousands of trials that Khalifa conducted.
Can you confirm that it was 1 in 19 or something to that extent, and once again not everything will work with it. He most likely decided to find extra little formulas that did not question the already-established miracles having to do with the number. the 100-200 digit number (of the order of chapters following their revelation number) being a multiple of 19, still isn't enough for you. What tells me you'll still question it even if it fits your definition of a "mathematical system"?
[email protected] are hypocrites because they know that the order of revelation is based on Hadiths and Sunni Scholars and yet they shamelessly use Hadith-based junk when it suits their purposes. Your appeal to popularity above is another Hadithist logical fallacy that you borrow.
And what tells you this is only a result of hadith? How do you know this wasn't common knowledge and a historical fact passed down? Submission.org points out the bs about the Hadith/Sunna in general. The chapter revelation order wouldn't fall in the category "Hadiths" because it is a historical fact, not a fabricated story about Muhammad enforcing a law not in the Quran.
Unlike the liar Khalifa, all the above translations say that the number is ONLY a trial for the disbelievers. Unlike the liar, they all preserve the correct cause (underlined) and effect (bold) relationship. So the effects described are not a result of the number but are a result of the number being ONLY a trial for the disbelievers. There is no verb ?disturb? in the passage. The word ?fitnah? is a noun that means ?trial/temptation?. The count of 19 is ONLY a temptation for the disbelievers. Everything (eliminate doubt and make the people of the book increase in faith, etc.) is a result of the COMPLETE underlined clause and not just the number by itself. Find someone who is tempted by Code 19 and you will find a disbeliever who doesn?t believe in the great reading without some kind of miracle code. It is thus not surprising that this someone would also admit that they may as well not believe the god?s words without the code. They believe in the code more than in the god and his words.
What is the difference, if any? If it is made for a trial (which no one disagreed about) then it can be used to increase belief and disturb believers, which it successfully does. Being "only a trial" doesn't equate to "not a useable number to confirm miracles" unless you have evidence saying otherwise.
You use the same fallacies as Hadithists but instead you say ?this is 19 divisible so it must be right!? If you really had evidence then you would have answered my simple question about the formula for the supposed ?mathematical system? of Code 19 that can be consistently applied to get a predictable result. But even this simple evidence, you don?t actually have. You don?t have anything besides "this is 19 divisible so it must be right!"
See what I mean.
You don?t have anything besides "this is 19 divisible so it must be right!"
I provided evidence which you ignored (or rejected), something Hadithists never have. You're ignoring it just to say someone tried to change the meaning of a verse or say "it doesn't work for every mathematical equation I can think of!" Yet in no case would a number be a solution to every equation.
Unless you are claiming that each chapter is one sentence and this is how you know where chapters end and start then what you are saying is completely irrelevant. How would you know where chapter 2 or any chapter that is not one sentence starts and ends? How do you know that it ends with 2286 and not 2281, etc. etc.? Without the manmade chapter titles and the decorations then maybe chapter 3 is actually another chapter without a Bismallah starting in 2282 and ending in 2286.
The code confirms it, and I'm simply an acknowledger of this, and what you're doing is implying "this doesn't prove anything". You didn't bother going through "preserving the Quran" article, like I did.
-
Well..I spent a little more time on this board. It seems you are well aquainted with the 19 issue and have gone far in arguing with 19ers (like Edip) for a while and are a code rejector in general. I however have much faith in it and that's the point. If you don't believe it's a sign/miracle because it doesn't work every time someone tries to see it's a multiple of something, that's fine. What if the failed trials are just the false formulas they concocted? The right ones are the right ones. For the record I'm not more obsessed with the number (hardly obsessed actually) than with God's words and laws. Right now I acknowledge it as nothing more than a preservation code for the Quran.
-
Peace Meteora,
Well..I spent a little more time on this board. It seems you are well aquainted with the 19 issue and have gone far in arguing with 19ers (like Edip) for a while and are a code rejector in general.
Yes, I am a rejector of moronic codes like the Bible Code and Code 19. All those stupid codes simply rely on numerology trial and error and presenting to an ignorant naive audience the successful trials while hiding the failed trials. The fact is that in any random sample of numbers 1 out of 19 numbers is going to be divisible by 19. All that the code worshippers do is present the successes and hide the failures.
Even, Edip acknowledged the fact that Khalifa conducted thousands of trials and only presented his successful trials.
I however have much faith in it and that's the point.
You might as well have faith in Santa Claus and the Toothfairy.
If you don't believe it's a sign/miracle because it doesn't work every time someone tries to see it's a multiple of something, that's fine. What if the failed trials are just the false formulas they concocted?
Both the failed and successful trials are random formulas that Khalifa and 19er concocted. If they showed you both the failures and successes then you would see that their success ratio is 1 in 19, which is the same as in any random sample. This is why they carefully hide their failed trials.
The right ones are the right ones. For the record I'm not more obsessed with the number (hardly obsessed actually) than with God's words and laws. Right now I acknowledge it as nothing more than a preservation code for the Quran.
You said that without the Code "we may as well not believe in the Quran", so you are definitely obsessed with this stupid Code. It is OK, people who are obsessed with something, never readily admit it.
It doesn't preserve anything except the delusions and obsessions of those who are ignorant of the basic principles of mathematics and yet put their faith in a "mathematical" miracle which is not even a mathematical system, let alone a miracle.
Peace,
Ayman
-
You said that without the Code "we may as well not believe in the Quran", so you are definitely obsessed with this stupid Code. It is OK, people who are obsessed with something, never readily admit it.
Sorry to but in, but the "we may not as well believe in the Quran" argument is weak and I think you (Ayman) are obsessed with bashing Code-19.
people who are obsessed with something, never readily admit it.
From my personal experiences, I believe you can get obsessed over debating on forums, lol.
Peace,
Yaqub -
Peace Yaqub,
Sorry to but in, but the "we may not as well believe in the Quran" argument is weak and I think you (Ayman) are obsessed with bashing Code-19.
The "we may not as well believe in the Quran" argument is used by 19ers not by me so tell this to them and learn to read before making comments.
people who are obsessed with something, never readily admit it.
From my personal experiences, I believe you can get obsessed over debating on forums, lol.I think that based on what you said you are obsessed with butting in and making useless remarks.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Sorry to but in, but the "we may not as well believe in the Quran" argument is weak and I think you (Ayman) are obsessed with bashing Code-19.
people who are obsessed with something, never readily admit it.
From my personal experiences, I believe you can get obsessed over debating on forums, lol.
Peace,
Yaqubbravo
-
Sorry to but in, but the "we may not as well believe in the Quran" argument is weak and I think you (Ayman) are obsessed with bashing Code-19.
people who are obsessed with something, never readily admit it.
From my personal experiences, I believe you can get obsessed over debating on forums, lol.
Peace,
YaqubDear Brother
You are equally obsessed with code 19 . Otherwise you could have stopped worshipping it and believed in Allah's Quran and not RK's book.
Regrards -
Please Q_Student, it is obvious Ayman knows more about Code-19 than I do currently, and it is obvious that both you and Ayman post more than I do on the subject. So how do you conclude that I am more obsessed about it than you? rotfl
Look at all of your posts on this forum. You may not believe in the Code, but it is obvious that you are more obsessed over it than any other 19er, even if you are obsessed about bashing it.
That's all I want to say.
-
Please Q_Student, it is obvious Ayman knows more about Code-19 than I do currently, and it is obvious that both you and Ayman post more than I do on the subject. So how do you conclude that I am more obsessed about it than you? rotfl
Look at all of your posts on this forum. You may not believe in the Code, but it is obvious that you are more obsessed over it than any other 19er, even if you are obsessed about bashing it.
That's all I want to say.
Salaam brother
Some obsessed with hadiths
Some obsessed with code 19
Some obsessed with inscriptions.
All these in the same category ,names and labels different.
Regards -
Ayman, please show me where you found out the gaps between verses, and the beginning of chapters, and the revelation orders were man's idea. We've established that Sura names and in-book decorations are man-made, because they aren't important.
Yes, I am a rejector of moronic codes like the Bible Code and Code 19. All those stupid codes simply rely on numerology trial and error and presenting to an ignorant naive audience the successful trials while hiding the failed trials. The fact is that in any random sample of numbers 1 out of 19 numbers is going to be divisible by 19. All that the code worshippers do is present the successes and hide the failures.
But when the successful trials happen to restore the Quran to its original format, what's the problem? It's not like the Quran, after using the code becomes so much different than the ones in the homes. There are only slight changes, those changes being nothing more than certain misspellings of words, which is believable seeing how easily we can make typos. Quran is not just about transmitting writings but it's also an oral format, and that's probably how the typos sprouted.
http//www.submission.org/quran/protect.html
Comparing the Egyptian edition to the oldest available Quran, the Tashkent Quran, will show that there have been many human errors in the Tashkent Quran that has to be corrected when the Egyptian edition was made. The errors were obvious because the Quran has always been completely memorized and kept in its oral transmission to these days and can be verified against any written book. It is impossible to consider that God meant to preserve and protect the written books for example by Uthman (the Tashkent Quran), or any other human being for this matter when they are full of human errors.
The link has posted images of the oldest available Quran being compared to the modern Arabic Qurans we have today, and show both have clearly been tampered with.
So what's wrong with using the code to find the mistakes? The code does not emit any words, or verses. The only thing it doesn't validate is 9128&129
http//www.submission.org/images/hadith.GIF
Translation `Ali was asked "Why are you staying home?" He said, "Something has been added to the Quran, and I have pledged never to put on my street clothes, except for the prayer, until the Quran is restored."http//www.submission.org/images/sura-9.gif
The Title Figure of Sura 9 from a standard Quran, showing that this
sura is Medinan, "except for the last two verses; they are Meccan"!!!Volume 6, Book 61, Number 511
Narrated Zaid bin ThabitAbu Bakr sent for me and said, "You used to write the Divine Revelations for Allah's Apostle So you should search for (the Qur'an and collect) it." I started searching for the Qur'an till I found the last two Verses of Surat At-Tauba with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari and I could not find these Verses with anybody other than him. (They were)
'Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty ...' (9.128-129)
You called Sub.org hypocrites for using hadith in their arguments to prove a point, when they reject them. This is not true (that they reject them) because they stated using them for historical evidence is alright. It's using them for religious guidance that's the mistake. God made it clear we should go by his book for religious guidance. He didn't say reject your history. God says in the Quran that the Quran was placed in Muhammad's heart, and is perserved in master tablets with Him (God), but God does not mean he will protect the Mushafs, because I can make false copies of it right now and distibute it to the world (yourself included). Hopefully you would not believe the bs at your doorstep.
So what is God protecting? Surely it must be something we can obtain, the pure word of God. If he is protecting it for us, then there's a way to uncover the true word of God. Care to tell me what works better than the code...if there's another method that is.
Both the failed and successful trials are random formulas that Khalifa and 19er concocted. If they showed you both the failures and successes then you would see that their success ratio is 1 in 19, which is the same as in any random sample. This is why they carefully hide their failed trials. You might as well have faith in Santa Claus and the Toothfairy.
You can say this to anyone who comes up to you and says "I believe in such and such". Even if the code never failed in a calculation, you can still say this to someone and tell him/her it doesn't purify the Quran, or mean God exists. I'm not saying the #19 works with every little equation someone wants to use, but I am saying it works for the right equations, the ones necessary to produce the Quran in its rightful format.
You said that without the Code "we may as well not believe in the Quran", so you are definitely obsessed with this stupid Code. It is OK, people who are obsessed with something, never readily admit it.
Could not find where I wrote this, but if I did then I am surprised. I can't say I've had a good month, and I would be obsessed with it. What's wrong with being obsessed with a sign? That God himself declared was. I am obsessed with it as much as the fact there is a line going across the moon indicating where it split and reformed when Muhammad pointed at it (whether he pointed at it or not is unknown, but it says in the Quran it has split), and that's why there are moon rocks in museums today.
It doesn't preserve anything except the delusions and obsessions of those who are ignorant of the basic principles of mathematics and yet put their faith in a "mathematical" miracle which is not even a mathematical system, let alone a miracle.
That's your opinion. You're not showing how it fails to preserve it, yet you claim so. I've posted links showing how successful it can be, yet you aren't doing your part. So, you can at least show us how it fails and come up with logical points while you're at it. You have probably did this elsewhere, but I do not have the patience and time to read through hundreds of arguments so I'll ask you here.Peace
This doesn't seem to fit with the rest of your post.
-
This doesn't seem to fit with the rest of your post.
rotfl
Peace,
This is part one http//www.islamrevolution.org/9128129parti.htm
This is part two http//www.islamrevolution.org/9128129partii.htm