Mistakes (falsifications?) in Mohammed Asadi's Article
-
Salaam all,
I recently read Muhammed Asadi's article "The Quran and Self-Reference"
I loved it and sent it to a few friends....but decided today to check through it just to verify the claims since I was now sending it to others.
I'm really hoping that he's right and I'm not, but what I found does not corroborate his claims.
His claims that I verified to be true are in blue, the ones that I found that were false are in red.
CLAIMS
Jesus = 25 times
Adam = 25 times359
Jesus = 7th repetition
Adam = 7th repetitionMY FINDINGS
The same
CLAIMS
Dog = 5
The nation which denies our revelations = 57176
Dog = 1
The nation which denies our revelations = 1MY FINDINGS
The same
CLAIMS
The Blind = 8
The Seeing = 9Verse 3519
The Blind = 5th repetition
The Seeing = 5th repetitionMY FINDINGS
The same
CLAIMS
1316
The Blind = 3rd repetition
The Seeing = 3rd repetitionMY FINDINGS
The same.
CLAIMS
al-Dhulumaat = 12
al-Nur = 133520
al-Dhulumaat = 10
al-Nur = 10MY FINDINGS
al-Dhulumaat = 13 (14 results in 13 verses)
al-Nur = 12 (13 results in 12 ayahs)3520
al-Dhulumaat = 11th verse (12th repetition)
al-Nur = 9th verse (10th repetition)So Asadi miscounts his own sourcebook (which I checked), when counting al-dhulumaat, being sharp enough to skip the 2nd repetition of the word in ayah 2257, but not enough to get the final count right.
CLAIMS
Another amazing thing that we notice is that the same statement is repeated in chapter 13 16, and the same trend emerges
1316
al-Dhulumaat = 6th repetition
al-Nuur = 6th repetitionMY FINDINGS
al-Dhulumaat = 6th verse (7th repetition)
al-Nur = 5th verse (6th repetition)As you can plainly see, he counts the total verses for dhulumaat and the total repetitions for nur, to get the figure 6 for each...
CLAIMS
Another trend is emerging from the above also Whenever the Koran says that something is not like the other, the positive mentioned (for example "the seeing" (+) as opposed to "the blind" (-) and "the light" (+) as opposed to the "depths of darkness" (-)) are always one more than the negative. As we saw above, "the seeing (al-baseer)," is mentioned nine times as opposed to the eight of "the blind (al-aama)." Similarly, "the light (an-Nur)" is mentioned thirteen times as opposed to the twelve times that "the depths of darkness (az-zulumat)," is mentioned.
Here we see why the distortion happened.
MY FINDINGS
'Seeing' (+) is 1 more than the negative 'the blind'
BUT
'the light' (+) is 1 LESS than the negative 'the depths of darkness'CLAIMS
al-Dhill = 4
the heat (al-Har) = 33522
al-Dhill = 3
al-Har = 3MY FINDINGS
al-Dhill = 3
al-Har = 2
al-Huroor = 1al-Huroor is the actual word used in the verse he is taking as an example, but he counts al-Har
3522
al-Dhill = 3
al-Har = 0 (because it doesn't occur in the verse)
al-Huroor = 1 (because it's the only time the word is mentioned in the Quran)al-Har and al-Huroor together = 3 (because al-Huroor occurs after the 2 verses with occurrances of al-Har)
Note He doesn't give the page number of his source book for al-har, possibly because it lists al-har and al-huroor separately.
Also, his own source lists 3 occurrences of al-dhill, and not 4 as he claims.
CLAIMS
al-khabeeth = 7
al-tayyib = 7kh-b-th (root of khabeeth) = 16
MY FINDINGS
The same.
So what does this mean?
This means that when the Quran says that one thing is like another, it is.
But when the Quran says that one thing is NOT the same as something else, the pattern seems to fail. The total number of hits is not the same, as the Quran suggests, but the number in the sequence of repetitions is not the same.
This is because al-dhulumaat and al-nur do not occur the same number of times in the sequence.
And al-Dhill and al-Har seem to be the same, if we count al-Har with al-Huroor as he has done....which would contradict the whole theory.
If we took al-huroor alone, the whole pattern of having one with 1 more occurrence than the other would fall apart.So what should I do with this information? Email him maybe? Does anybody else want to try their hand at this?
-
Peace,
I care. Hopefully someone in charge sees your post and verifies the article.
handshake
-
Hi
First, falsification is based on preformed hypotheses since the Quran didn't claim such a counting system, you cannot talk of falsification.
Second, the counting errors were not deliberate otherwise I would not have provided pages and the source of count,
Third, the system of self reference does not collapse since the unlike are still unlike and not like even according to the critics count, the only thing that collapses is the sequence of occurrence which has nothing to do with self reference.
Finally, I have not revisited the objections to recount them, will do so when I get the time. Before you cry foul and try to discount the whole paper based on a couple of errors (if they are errors, yet to be verified) think about the work that goes into each of these papers.
-
Peace be with you as well, hope that was cleared.
-
Mr. Asadi
Firstly, the title of the topic was "Mistakes (falsifications?)" - so I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Secondly, I clearly stated
I loved it and sent it to a few friends....but decided today to check through it just to verify the claims since I was now sending it to others.
I'm really hoping that he's right and I'm not, but what I found does not corroborate his claims.
Thirdly, it is your responsibility as the author of this article to double check your own work.
First, falsification is based on preformed hypotheses since the Quran didn't claim such a counting system, you cannot talk of falsification.
The Quran didn't make these claims. YOU did.
Second, the counting errors were not deliberate otherwise I would not have provided pages and the source of count,
Or you just relied on everyone being too lazy to double check your work.
It is inconceivable that someone makes such grandiose statements about the Quran, but doesn't bother to double check his work, which in all honesty, smacks of tampering.
And imagine, this article with its lies has stood on this site for years now, deceiving thousands of people. That's not something to be taken lightly. The admins didn't bother to check it, nor take it down after I notified them, and neither did you.
-
Mistakes are not "falsifications" when they are not accompanied by a particular hypothesis. The only hypothesis of the article was that the Quran does not make errors of self-reference. If the unlikes don't have a particular pattern of being one less than the likes but are UNLIKE then there is no falsification. Your main problem, and it is a problem, is that you are coming up with ad hominem attacks against the work I did, which involved many more counts compared to the ones you found "errors" in. I counted the items in all sincerity, and provided page numbers so that people could check, whether the readers would be LAZY or not, cannot be my motivation because I have no control over what the readers might do with the article. The work to you smacks of "tampering" because you pick one small detail and concentrate on it rather than the big "grandiose" claim made about the Quran which is about self-reference and this "mistake" does nothing to alter that. I suggest you do some work of your own, what is it that you have produced to further our understanding of the Quran? Other than motive monger on why other people did the work they did. What did I stand to gain from "tampering" which is an outrageous claim. Even if you take that entire article out, it does nothing to take away from the rest of the extensive work I have done on the Quran.
Further the claim of likes and unlikes, even though I composed the article and did work on the issue, in terms of counting and providing page numbers, it was not my original idea, Gary Miller came up with it and his counts matched my own. He specifically asked me not to associate his name with the findings that is why the acknowledgements to a particular name (not the source) were removed.
I do not have control over what other sites have done with the article but I have added a disclaimer to it on my site
http//rationalreality.50webs.com/godel.htm -
Note also that the self reference pattern has to hold in the Quran otherwise, it
fails its own claim/hypothesis that is falsifiable regarding no
errors/contradictions. God cannot make errors of self reference, as
for the pattern of likes and unlikes in terms of successive verses
etc, that is not claimed by the Quran and is superfluous, if people want to dwell on that, it is their concern. -
Why on earth is this article still hosted on this site??
It's amazing that no mods give a damn that they have been spreading lies about the Quran for years. I notified the forum of mistakes/falsifications in this article in 2010 for God's sake. Here we are 5 years later and no one has bothered to take this article down.
Then we complain about traditionalists spreading lies about the Quran!
-
http//free-minds.org/koran-and-self-reference
^ It's under the science section presumably moved from the quran sec at some point.
-
The whole article seems bogus to me claiming Quran has not been tampered with while there is evidence brought by Gerd R Puin showing it has been tampered with. Furthermore it makes assertions like knowing the amount of days in a year can not be the work of a man or group of men living in the Arabian Desert over fourteen hundred years back. Does the author seriously believe people were that stupid at that time (not being able to count the days in a year)? Does the author believe the skilled scribes of the caliphs (since Uthman) were unable to produce the same phenomenon?
Examples of manipulation of the Qur'an revealed on the Sanaa manuscripts by the visible presence of palimpsests (the lower writing being scraped or washed off, is still visible in the upper writing)
http//i.imgur.com/qDTVDoN.jpg
1 - David Manuscript 86/2003, front (photo Sotheby's, carried out for the auction in 1992)
2 - Enlargement of a manuscript fragment photographed by Gerd Puin
3 - Lighting of a portion of the portfolio with ultraviolet light revealing the palimpsest
4 - Inferior text of a palimpsest reconstituted by Asma Hilali (see note 13; here it shows an earlier version of a fragment of text s24,33 different from the Cairo editionHow does the author respond to above evidence of text manipulation?
