Content deleted Content added
m ce |
|||
Line 194:
Common critiques of [[Numerology|numerological]] claims also apply to the Quran Code. Critics often invoke the concept of [[stochastic]] processes to explain how seemingly mystical patterns could appear in any large dataset. One such critic was [[Bilal Philips]], who argued that Rashad Khalifa's "miracle 19" theory was a hoax based on falsified data, misinterpretations of the Quran's text, and grammar inconsistencies.<ref name="Bilal Philips about Rashad Khalifa hoax">{{harvnb|Philips|1987|p=64}}</ref>
Additionally, since early Quran manuscripts can contain orthographic differences in certain passages, the precise number of letters in those sections can be unclear.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Brubaker |first=Daniel Alan |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tFLfxQEACAAJ |title=Corrections in Early Qurʾān Manuscripts: Twenty Examples |date=2019-05-21 |publisher=Think & Tell |isbn=978-1-949123-03-6 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Brockopp |first=Jonathan E. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MRkuDwAAQBAJ |title=Muhammad's Heirs: The Rise of Muslim Scholarly Communities, 622–950 |date=2017-08-10 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-108-50906-0 |pages=73, 76 |language=en}}</ref> For example, since the frequency of the letter Alif is subject to debate, there is not an universally agreed letter count in the Alif initialized Surahs. However, to prove his theory Khalifa chose those versions of the text that included letter frequencies divisible by 19.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Sardar |first=Ziauddin |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uLjaAAAAMAAJ |title=Explorations in Islamic Science |date=1989 |publisher=Mansell |isbn=978-0-7201-2004-2 |pages=31, 35 |language=en}}</ref> Additionally, Khalifa claimed that the initial "Nūn" in [[Surah 68]] should be spelled as to include an additional Nūn: "Nūn Wāw Nūn" in place of the orthodox spelling, "Nūn". This allowed Khalifa to claim that there are 133 (19×7) Nūns in Surah 68, instead of 132, which is not a multiple of 19. However, Khalifa's spelling does not appear in any Quranic manuscripts.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Sardar|first=Ziauddin|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uLjaAAAAMAAJ|title=Explorations in Islamic Science|date=1989|publisher=Mansell|isbn=978-0-7201-2004-2|pages=41|language=en}}</ref> He also assumed that the correct spelling or reading of the word "basṭatan", which occurs in [[Al-A'raf|Surah 7]], verse 69, contains the Arabic letter Sīn instead of the letter Suād, which is the conventional spelling.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Sardar |first=Ziauddin |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uLjaAAAAMAAJ |title=Explorations in Islamic Science |date=1989 |publisher=Mansell |isbn=978-0-7201-2004-2 |pages=41 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last1=Pickthall |first1=Marmaduke William |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MYJCAAAAYAAJ |title=Islamic Culture |last2=Asad |first2=Muhammad |date=1988 |publisher=Islamic Culture Board |pages=39 |language=en}}</ref> He based this assertion on the [[Samarkand Kufic Quran|Samarkand Codex]],
Khalifa also claimed that two verses in the Quran, specifically [[At-Tawbah|Surah 9]], verses 128 and 129, were humanly added, and should not be included. He supports this claim by the hadith [[Sahih al-Bukhari|Sahīh al-Bukhārī]] 7425, according to which [[Zayd ibn Thabit|Zaid ibn Thābit]], tasked by [[Abu Bakr]] with compiling the Quran, found only one witness to attest to the validity of verses 9:128–129, Khuzaima al-Ansari.<ref>{{cite web |last= |date= |year= |title=97 Oneness, Uniqueness of Allah (Tawheed) |url=https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7425 |archive-url= |archive-date= |access-date= |publisher= |pages= |language=en, ar |format= |quote= |periodical=Sahīh al-Buchārī}} listed at sunnah.com</ref> Thus, Khalifa claimed that the Quran has only 6346 verses instead of the traditional count of 6348. The omission of these verses is integral to his theory; if these two verses are taken into account, there are 2699 occurrences of the word "Allah" and 115 occurrences of the word "Rahim", neither of which are multiples of 19.
| |||