On Self Reference and the Law

#8 by anew on December 22, 2003 6:48am PT

You mistake my interest in the philosophical analyses of self reference and indexicals!! I am not seeking some PURIST propoganda which you have posted in this blah blah about purifying the Iman of the Ummah......Even my maulana from my gali can preach better than this post.

Qur`an - Our weapon in the War of Ideas

The purpose of the advent of Prophet Mohammed (SAW) is described in Surah Al-Saff as follows:

He it is Who has sent forth His messenger with the Guidance (Al-Huda) and the True way of life (Deen al-Haq), to the end that he make it prevail over all aspects of living... (Al-Saff 61:9)

In order to achieve this goal, Prophet Mohammed (SAW) required a large number of devoted and committed followers. How did he manage to find and train those followers? This has been described in the very next Surah, as follows:

He it is Who raised among the unlettered people a messenger from amongst themselves, who recites His revelations to them (Tilawat al-Aayat), and purifies them (Tazkiyah), and teaches them the law (Ta`leem al-Kitab) and the wisdom (TA`leem al-Hikmah)... (Al-Jum`ah 62:2)

Thus, it was nothing but the highly inspiring and moving verses of the Holy Qur`an which were effectively used by Prophet Mohammed (SAW) to remove the false beliefs from the minds of his audience, to inculcate the knowledge of reality as revealed by Almighty Allah (SWT), to purify their hearts and to reform their characters, to teach them the injunctions of their Lord and the wisdom contained therein. The Qur`an repeatedly mentions the fact that the center and axis of the Prophet`s activities vis-à-vis the training and purification of his Companions was the Holy Book itself, for instance:

So keep on reminding through the Qur`an whoever fears My warning. (Qaaf 50:45)

(Say...) that this Qur`an has been revealed to me that I may warn you with it, and those whom it reaches. (Al-An`aam 6:19)

So we have made this (Qur`an) easy in your tongue, that you may give good tidings with it to those who take heed and warn with it the froward folk. (Maryam 19:97)

The process of the revolution brought about by Prophet Mohammed (SAW) can be understood as having two phases: The primary or elementary phase was the generation of man-power, the making of a disciplined group of dedicated volunteers who were willing to sacrifice everything for the sake of attaining the pleasure of Almighty Allah (SWT) and the salvation in the Hereafter.

The approach of Prophet Mohammed (SAW) during this phase can be understood with reference to the verse of Surah Al-Jum`ah, as quoted above. The second phase was the actual revolutionary struggle, consisting of three stages: Passive Resistance, Active Resistance, and Actual Conflict.

The point we wish to emphasize here is the central and pivotal importance of the Holy Qur`an vis-à-vis the primary or elementary phase of an Islamic Revolution. There are a number of groups and parties active throughout the Muslim World who have adopted the target of establishing the system of Khilafah, or the bringing about of an Islamic Revolution, as their goal.

Most of these groups and parties are oblivious of the fact that the establishment of the Islamic System of Social Justice is not possible without the revitalization of Iman in a significant portion of the Muslim Ummah. This revitalization of Iman, in turn, is possible only by the propagation of the knowledge and wisdom of the Holy Qur`an, both at the highest level of scholarship in order to attract and influence the educated classes, as well as on a mass scale for the benefit of the general public.

The war between Islam and kufr is being fought primarily on an ideological level, and it is mere wishful thinking that the Islamic politico-socioeconomic system can be established without first achieving a convincing victory over false ideas and philosophies. In this respect, the weapon that has been provided to us by Almighty Allah (SWT) is the Holy Qur`an. We must use this weapon at all of the different fronts in this war of ideas, because it is only the triumph of Islam as an intellectual and ideological reality that can pave the way for the domination of Islam as a political force.

Five Fronts in the War of Ideas

We believe that there are five major fronts in the ideological war, and that we must use the guidance and wisdom of the Holy Qur`an to defeat the various false doctrines at each of these different fronts, as described below:

1. Folk Religion: Unfortunately, a large proportion of the Muslim Ummah today has a severely distorted view of Islam. They have adopted a number of beliefs and custom directly from the non-Muslim, like the Hindus. Thus, we find that many shades and varieties of shirk (assigning partners to Allah) have invaded the Muslim mind and life-style.

There are a large number of Muslims who regularly visit the shrines of saints and offer their prayers, asking for succor from these long deceased holy men. Similarly, a widespread belief is that these saints will have the prerogative, on the Day of Judgment, to intercede on behalf of their devotees. It is obvious that these and many related beliefs and practices that are prevalent today among the Muslims are in sharp conflict with the Islamic doctrine of Tauheed.

It was precisely the type of shirk prevalent in Arabia during the time of Prophet Mohammed (SAW) that has again found its way in the Muslim society. The Holy Qur`an is full of refutations and arguments against these beliefs and practices, especially the Surahs that were revealed in Makkah. In order to reform and rectify the religious beliefs and practices of the common Muslims, all we need to do is to start a movement of Turjuma-e-Qur`an (Translation of the Qur`an).

For most Muslims, Arabic remains a foreign and alien language. What is needed, therefore, is to have brief sessions in the mosques after the Fajir and/or Asr prayers every day, in which a small portion of the Qur`an is recited and its translation explained to the audience. We believe that no deep scholarship is required here, as the mere translation of the Qur`an is enough to remove the false beliefs and to promote genuine Islamic faith and practice.

2. Materialism: The dominant ideology of our times is materialism, not in the sense of a specific academic viewpoint but as the general mindset of the modern man. Although there are a number of philosophical systems popular in the world today, the underlying idea that is common in most of these systems is either a categorical or an implicit denial of all spirituality, metaphysics, and transcendence.

The history of the present materialistic atheism goes back to the beginning of Christian religion. The innovations introduced by St. Paul in the original teachings of Prophet Jesus Christ had led to the genesis of a completely new and different religion. The highly irrational dogma of Trinity ultimately resulted in the divorce between two natural allies, religion and reason.

The conversion of Caesar Constantine in 313 C.E., and of the entire Roman Empire during the next hundred years or so, was the starting point for the establishment of Christian theocracy in Europe. The huge vacuum created by the Pauline idea of abolition of the Mosaic law was then filled by the virtually unlimited authority of the Church, represented by the infallible Pope. During the Middle Ages, the Church and the clergy ruled the masses with an iron hand, oppressing and exploiting them in the name of religion, while discouraging any inclination towards science or rationalism.

The Aristotelian system of cosmos, as adopted by Ptolemy, was incorporated into the Christian theology. As a result, when Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo opposed the Geocentric doctrine and proposed Heliocentric views based on their scientific observations, the Church condemned and vehemently opposed them as heretics, starting the unfortunate rivalry between Science and Religion.

The scientific and rationalistic movement in Europe, therefore, cam face to face with the powerful religious establishment of the Church. The latter used all its resources to halt this new wave of progress towards knowledge and learning, but succeeded only in producing among the masses a deep mistrust of all things connected with religion. The ruthlessly unfavorable attitude of the clergy caused a reactionary feeling of hatred against the Church, and then against the very idea of religion itself.

The development of science and modern philosophy in Europe, therefore, was forced to take place in an environment which was hostile to religion, and this hostility has since then permeated deep down into the very roots of Western thought. The world-view and civilization that grew out of this materialistic frame of mind is characterized by a profound shift of emphasis — from God the Almighty to the material universe and laws of nature, from spiritual pursuits to sensual gratification, and from salvation in the life Hereafter to success and prosperity in this world.

Scientism has largely been accepted as epistemology by the modern man, resulting in a profound weakening of the faith in God, in the soul of man, and in the life Hereafter. The influence of the prevalent atheistic philosophies is not restricted to the academicians, but it has permeated deep into the minds and life-styles of ordinary citizens.

The revival of Islamic faith in the present materialistic milieu is possible only by means of a powerful intellectual movement. The weapon to fight against the modern atheistic ideologies is nothing but the Holy Qur`an itself. However, the battle at this front cannot be won by merely explaining the translation of the Qur`anic verses.

Instead, much more arduous efforts are needed in this regard. The envisioned intellectual movement should aim at effectively refuting the false claims of the scientific and empirical method as the only reliable source of knowledge. It should point out the logical flaws in the materialistic philosophies and disprove the un-Islamic features in the dominant Western paradigm.

Such an intellectual movement can be started, and its momentum maintained, only by a team of dedicated and capable Muslim scholars, and will require a deep and in-depth study of the Qur`an along with a first-hand knowledge of modern philosophy and social sciences. It is only through the presentation of Qur`anic teachings in contemporary idiom and at the highest intellectual level of our times that the prevalent materialism can be defeated.

3. Uncertainty and Lack of Faith: Today, a big segment of the Muslim Ummah is suffering from a serious lack of faith in the guidance and teachings of Islam. What do we mean by lack of faith? Note that the world Iman has been used in the Qur`an in two different connotations, representing the dual aspects of the concept of “faith” itself. Thus, from a purely legal standpoint, Iman simply implies a public testimony which may or may not manifest in a person`s behavior and actions.

However, true Iman is much more than mere verbal attestation. True and genuine Iman implies a strong inner conviction and deeply felt certitude, which is invariably manifested in a person`s whole being and his entire life, affecting all his actions and behavior, his values and ambitions. Thus, anyone who testifies to the unity of Allah (SWT) and the prophethood of Mohammed (SAW), and who doesn`t deny or reject any of the basic and essential teachings of Islam, will be considered a Muslim for all legal purposes and will be accepted as a member of the Muslim society.

This definition of a Muslim, however, is limited strictly to legal matters; in reality, it is quite possible for those who are legally Muslims to be devoid of true faith, in the sight of the Almighty Allah (SWT).

Generally speaking, although there are more than a billion Muslims in the world today, the level of real and genuine Iman among them is seriously low. Instead of a firm conviction in the teachings of the Qur`an and the guidance of Prophet Mohammed (SAW), there is a lot of doubt and uncertainty. It seems that the articles of faith are lying in some neglected corner of our minds as ineffective pieces of dogma, and these have little or nothing to do with our practical lives. The cure for this lack of faith is, again, the Holy Qur`an itself.

He it is who sends clear revelations to His slave, that He may bring you out of darkness into light; for Allah is surely gracious and kind to you. (Al-Hadeed 57:9)

If the Qur`an is studied and its ayaat are pondered upon in an authentic quest for truth, all the veils of darkness shall be lifted from one`s heart; it is this process of enlightenment which ultimately leads one to the attainment of faith and certitude.

4. Permissiveness and Westernization: The kind of cultural and social values that are gaining more and more acceptance among the Muslim in the name of modernization are, in general, diametrically opposed to the teachings of Islam. The mass communication media throughout the Muslim World are actively engaged in promoting a mindset and a lifestyle which is predominantly Western, liberal, and permissive.

Especially in recent years, there seem to be a growing trend towards the easy availability of obscene novels and magazines, and the transmission of vulgar television shows, cultural programs, and feature films. The electronic media is becoming more and more preoccupied with music, dancing, and modeling, and all this is being enthusiastically patronized by those in power.

The effects of such liberal and permissive media policies are both far-reaching and destructive, as they are effectively uprooting the remaining traces of Islamic morality. At this front too, the battle has to be fought with the weapon of the Qur`an. Our scholars and Ulama need to pool their energies and start a movement of Qur`anic lectures and discourses, especially through the mosques.

As the teachings of the Qur`an would start to permeate and penetrate the society, the level of general dissatisfaction with the liberal attitude of the media will also increase, forcing the media masters to either change their policies in accordance with the Islamic spirit or cede to the true followers of Islam.

5. Sectarianism: A very serious threat to the unity and cohesion of the Muslim Ummah is represented by the menace of sectarianism. Unfortunately for us, the Ummah — as established by Prophet Mohammed (SAW) — has been dissolved over the centuries into a large number of subdivision along sectarian lines.

Many of the religious seminaries and Ulama of various sects are spending most of their time and energies in defending and propagating their particular brands of dogma and ritual, often insisting that any variation in such matters is nothing short of apostasy. Such narrow-mindedness has resulted in prejudice and intolerance among the masses, leading to a dangerous trend towards sectarian militancy.

The central axis and pivot of the Muslim Ummah is the Holy Qur`an. It is the Divine Revelation that provides the Muslims with a unifying source of guidance, consolidating them in the form of a singular force despite all their secondary differences and minor disagreements. The evil of sectarianism, therefore, can only be done away with the sword of the Qur`an.

This is because human beings who have a common goal tend to unite and associate with each other. People with similar interests, ambitions, and priorities are automatically attracted towards each other. No artificial effort or external coercion is needed to unite them. Since the Holy Qur`an is common to all of the various sects, it has a tremendous potential for uniting them together. If we succeed in making the Holy Qur`an the center and nucleus of our lives, then all strife, disharmony, and sectarianism will disappear from the ranks of the Ummah. InshaAllah. (Pray for Dr. Israr Ahmad for writing such a comprehensive article. May ALLAH guide us in the Light of Quran)

The issue is not merely of self reference but also of the use of indexicals, personal pronouns in the religious texts -for example in Quranil Hakeeem sometimes Allah refers to pronouns `I` or `Me`, and at other times `We`. This is the traditional interpretion- however, it can be open to other interpretations- the results of which could be astonishing and still not contrary to the principles of Islam.
The problem is that these indexicals can be understood only with reference to the context of utterence- but what was the ``context`` in which the revelations of Quran is to be understood?
For example in Surah al-Anbiya’ 21:107 “And We did not send you (O Muhammad) except as a mercy to the world.” The word “we” is plural, more than one. Why does Allah use “We” instead of “I” to refer to Himself?
The rule as to the interpretation of the Quran is given in the Book itself: ``He it is Who has revealed the Book to thee; some of its verses are decisive -- they are the basis of the Book -- and others are allegorical. Then those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead, and seeking to give it their own interpretation. And none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord. And none do mind except men of understanding`` (3:6). In the first place, it is stated here that there are two kinds of verses in the Quran, namely, the decisive and the allegorical -- the latter being those which are capable of different interpretations. The issue regarding interpretation of the indexicals becomes even more complicated when you examine the rule of interpretation itself- here the words like ``they``, ``those``, ``who``, ``thee`` etc...are the references which are only clear to ``men of understanding``.

PaagalInsaan #5

Try Italo Calvino`s ``If on a wineter`s night a traveller``. The first chapter of the book is you, the reader, buying the book. There are other examples, but I can`t remember them at this point.

Oh, and I take your point about the content being a bit weak. I am totally out of depth when making sweeping comments about self-reference and the law.

* i d e a

To me, the form of this essay was somehow more attractive than its content. Has someone ever tried ``self-referential stream-of-conciousness`` in fiction? Like character trying to cope with depression by attempting an objective analysis of his stream-of-conciousness?

We need a paradign shift as far as our perspective of religion is concerned. No man made laws and Philosphies can give man peace, tranquility and transcendental ascendancy. We need to shift back to Divine Message - Islam- submission to ALLAH in all spheres of life.

In re ballukhan #s 1 & 2

Thank you for your comments. As far as the Pakistan legal experience is concerned, I was talking about Article 8 of the Constitution: ``Any person who abrogates or attempts or conspires to abrogate, subvert or attempts or conspres to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.``

But your comments apply to Islamic law as well. I remember asking someone why they believed in Allah. The answer was: ``Because the Quran tells me so.``

I haven`t really thought sel-reference in the religious context, but I`ll take the website you referred to and have a look round.

Rafay

sample sentence above “Can the legislature pass a law which it cannot subsequently amend” (and not this one) is a good place to begin (Pakistan’s constitutional dilemmas are also an example).

Hardly, the problem with its constitutional dilemmas are the you tried to :
1. Make a set of propositions as AXIOMATIC- i.e. Islamic law as interpreted .
2. Then change the existing legal propositions of the British raj by amending them so that they CONFORM to these AXIOMS.

You can decide now whether it was successful or not??

Rafay := Now you are playing with fire:- the mullahs would pounce on you: I know this problem of self reference has been discussed by Russel, Quine, Godel et. al. But the real fight begins when we start using these issues in semantics and semiotics to analyse the social phenomenon and its ``laws``. Popper infact had made his point when he stated that the social ``theories`` try to use the language of Objective sciences by using terms like ``laws``. To think that the issue of incompleteness of social ``laws`` would arise is to commit the type of fuzziness that Popper had described. The issues of self-reference in the religious texts is even more complex and sensitive- I do not want to turn into a theologician- but find the issue interesting from an academic point of view. I view the texts as a hermneutician would and not as a mullah would- not as fixed logical symbols but revealing new insights on every new reading.
So here is one such reading from a heretic:

KORAN AND SELF-REFERENCE
Taken from the site: http://www.rationalreality.com/
Copyright © Muhammed Asadi 1999

There was a fundamental crisis in mathematics about a hundred years ago, a basic disturbance that affected all of logic till it was repaired. Logicians realized that for centuries they had left out the concept of ``Self-reference.`` For centuries, Aristotle’s rule of the ``Excluded middle`` had been used. This rule is a proposition that states, ``Every proposition is either true or false.`` Somebody was smart enough to question that very proposition. What if that proposition that states that every proposition is either true or false is false? People had overlooked that for centuries. Not so the Koran. If the Koran is what it claims to be then it should be aware of self-reference, as applied to its own statements.

Paul Davies, professor or Mathematical Physics at the University of Adelaide in Australia, in his book, The Mind of God (1992), talks about how Self-reference shook the very foundations of logic and how it was resolved (emphasis is mine):

In spite of its superficial plausibility, the formalist interpretation of mathematics received a severe blow in 1931. In that year the Austrian mathematician and logician Kurt Godel proved a sweeping theorem to the effect that mathematical statements existed for which no systematic procedure could determine whether they are either true or false…. The fact that there exist undecidable propositions in mathematics came as a great shock, because it seemed to undermine the entire logical foundations of the subject.

Godel’s theorem springs from a constellation of paradoxes that surround the subject of self-reference…The great mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell demonstrated that the existence of such paradoxes strikes at the very heart of logic, and undermines any straightforward attempt to construct mathematics rigorously on a logical foundation. Godel went on to adapt these difficulties of self-reference to the subject of mathematics in a brilliant and unusual manner. He considered the relationship between the description of mathematics and the mathematics itself…In this way, logical operations about mathematics can be made to correspond to the mathematical operations themselves. And this is the essence of the self-referential character of Godel’s proof. By identifying the subject with the object- mapping the description of the mathematics unto the mathematics- he uncovered a Russellian paradoxical loop that led directly to the inevitability of undecidable propositions. (Davies 1993:100-101).


Godel and Einstein

Self-reference takes into consideration the ``use`` and the ``mention`` of words. When you ``use`` a word, it is the meaning of the word that is implied. When you ``mention`` a word, you are talking about the word and not its meaning. Every sentence can thus talk about the words it is using or the meaning of the word. As an example: If I say, `` Youth comes before manhood,`` it would be logically incorrect unless specified. The reason being that in the dictionary, ``Manhood (the word and not its meaning),`` comes before ``Youth (the word).`` Since the Koran talks about numerous things and uses many words sometimes repeating them many times, if the author of the Koran was a man or group of men we should find many opportunities to find such logical errors of self reference in the book. However we find something amazing when we apply the self-reference check.

If I said, ``There is a mistake in the Bible,``to a crowd of pastors, there would be a great uproar and people would respond with emotion, ``No there is no mistake in the Bible. Show us a mistake.`` I could logically show a mistake in the book by reading a passage like, ``David made a mistake…" See, the word ``mistake`` is in the Bible. Now if the Bible were to say, ``There is NO mistake in this book,`` it would be falsified and disproved logically, by that example. This is no trick; it involves delicate matters of logic. However, safely for now [not so otherwise] the Bible never makes such a claim, but the Koran does!


``Do they not consider the Koran with care. If it had been from anyone other than God, it would contain many (Kathirun) contradictions (Ikhtelaafun-).`` Koran 4:82

The meaning of the statement (use of words) is clear. Considering the nature of the Book and its diverse topics and areas of discussion, if the Book had a human origin, it should be easy to find discrepancies in it. If we consider the ``mention`` of the words a different picture emerges. Let us see if the Koran passes its own falsification test on the criteria of ``self reference`` using the ``mention`` of words.

In the ``mention`` of the word contradictions (Ikhteelafun), the meaning that emerges is; if the book had a human origin it should contain many (Kathirun), Ikhteelafun (contradictions, the word). Many denotes more than one. To check how many times the word ``Ikhteelafun (contradictions)`` occurs in the Koran, we make use of the index of every Arabic word in the Koran. Due to the work of Faud Abd al Baqi, we possess such an index of the Koran today, titled, Al- Moojam al Mofahris.

Indeed the author of the Koran is aware of self-reference and the Koran passes the test of the ``mention`` of words as the word ``Ikhteelafun (contradictions),`` is just mentioned ONCE in the whole Koran in this particular verse. Not many (Kathirun) times, but only once.

Some people band together the last two words of this verse: Many (Kathirun) Contradictions (Ikhteelafun). Then they say see the Koran mentions the words Ikhteelafun Kathirun (Many Contradictions) and the verse says that if it came from other than God it would contain Ikhteelfun Kathirun (Many contradictions). This is a very smart move in trying to prove the Koran false but it’s not smart enough.

People who try to disprove the Koran by taking the last two words in conjunction are implying, in the mention of words, that if the Koran contains the words ``Ikhteelafun Kathirun (many contradictions),`` it came from other than God. The statement in the Koran is not saying that. It is saying that books from other than God can contain the words ``Ikhteelafun Kathirun,`` but so also can a book from God. Thus they fall into the famous Fallacy of the Converse in logic. Rain means wet streets but wet streets do not necessarily mean rain. Similarly, the Koran did not say, ``If it contains Ikhtelafun Kathirun (many contradictions) it came from other than God.`` It does not say that.It is because the qualifier for the verse, ``Kathirun``, i.e. ``many`` is taken out


Jesus is like Adam:

The example of Jesus with God is like that of Adam. He created him from dust and said to him, ``Be,`` and he was (Koran 3:59)

The meaning of the statement is clear. Jesus being born without a father is like Adam’s creation. The new ``mitochondrial eve`` theory of humankind’s descent gives even more credence to this comparison as it was a woman from whom the human race descended and Jesus had a mother only, as well.

However, in the mention of words, it says that the word ``Jesus (Eesa),`` in the Koran is like the word ``Adam.`` It is surprising to note that indeed the word ``Jesus (Eesa) [page 494 of the Index]`` in its mention in the Koran is like the mention of the word ``Adam [page 24 of the index],`` Both words occur in the Koran twenty five times. Not only that, it is in the same order of succession. The verse that mentions that they are like each other is the seventh time the word ``Jesus`` is mentioned and the seventh time ``Adam`` is mentioned.


The example of a ``Dog``:

``The example of him [who forsook our signs] is as the example of the dog. If you attack him he pants with his tongue out and if you leave him alone he does the same. Such is the example of THE NATION WHICH DENIES OUR REVELATIONS… (7:176).``

The Arabic word used for dog is ``Kalb(singular)``. The word for ``dog`` in the singular occurs in the Koran five times. The statement, ``Nation which denies our revelations,`` occurs five times in the Koran also. Chapter 7:176 is the first time the word ``dog (singular)`` is mentioned in the Koran (see page 614 of the above mentioned index), and the first time the statement,, ``The nation which denies our revelations (page 583-584 of the index),`` is mentioned. Therefore the example of the ``The nation which denies our revelations`` is as the example of a dog (Kalb), in the mention or words.


Not alike:

``The blind (al-Aama) and the seeing (al-Baseer) are NOT alike. Nor are the depths of darkness (az-Zulumaat) and the light (an-Nur). Nor is the shadow (az-Zill) as the heat (al-Haroor)…(Koran 35:19-22)

[Note: Please make sure while checking the count in the index that you take note of the word ``the``. For example, ``the light (an-nur),`` is different from just ``light (nur).`` Therefore attention needs to be paid, while counting, to the ``specific`` or the ``general`` usage of the word.]

The word ``the blind (al-aama)`` occurs in the Koran eight times (page 488 of the index). The word used for ``the seeing`` above, (al-baseer), occurs nine times (page 121-122 of the index). Therefore ``the blind`` and ``the seeing`` are not alike. The statement of the Koran above which mentions that ``the blind`` and ``the seeing`` are not alike is the fifth time in succession that the word ``the seeing`` is used in the Koran and also the fifth time in succession that the word ``the blind`` is used.

The word used for ``the depths of darkness,`` (az-Zulumat) occurs twelve (see page 438-439 of the index) times in the Koran; the word for ``the light,`` (an-Nur), occurs thirteen times (see page 725 of the index). Thus ``the depths of darkness (az-Zulumat),`` are not the same as ``the light (an-Nur).`` The other trend that we noticed above, shows up in these words too. The statement above which mentions that ``the light`` is not as ``the depths of darkness,`` is the tenth time both words are used in the Koran, if we take into consideration the use of the words in successive progression in the book. Another amazing thing that we notice is that the same statement is repeated in chapter 13: 16, and the same trend emerges [which makes it impossible to be coincidence]:


``…Say: Are the blind and the seeing equal, or are the depths of darkness equal to the light…" (Koran 13:16)

If we check the succession, it is the sixth time that the word ``the depths of darkness (az-Zulumat),`` is used and the sixth time the word ``the light (an-Nur),`` is used in the Koran. We can do the same with the first part that we already covered above.`` The blind (al-Aama)`` are not as ``the seeing (al-baseer)``. In the verse above, chapter 13, it is the third time the word, ``the blind (al-aama)`` is used and the third time the word ``the seeing (al-baseer),``is used [in the verse which says one is not like the other] in the Koran. In chapter 35 above we saw that it was the fifth time that both words were used in the Koran. 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. The above examples should be enough to confirm this amazing trend in the Koran but let us try one more. The statement above in chapter 35 continues:


``…nor is the shadow (az-Zill) as the heat (al-Har or al-Haroor) (Koran 35:22)``

The word used for ``the shadow (az-Zill),`` is mentioned in the Koran four times (see page 434 of the index) and the word ``the heat (al-Har),`` is mentioned three times. The statement (35:22) which mentions that ``the shadow`` is not as ``the heat,`` is the third time both words ``az-Zill`` and ``al-har`` are used in the Koran.


Did the Koran fail ?

``Say: The evil (al-Khabees) and the good (at-Tayyab) are not alike…(Koran 5:100)``

When we come to this particular statement in the Koran on dissimilarity, the items mentioned occur an equal number of times. The word ``evil (al-Khabees),`` is mentioned seven times (see page 226 of the index) and the word, ``the good (at-Tayyab),`` seven times also (see page 432). Did the Koran fail? According to our trend above, the negative (the evil) should be one less than the positive (the good). How come ``the evil`` is one more than what it should be?

The Koran fails only if we cut off the statement in the middle of the sentence. The verse continues:


``Say: The evil and the good are not alike; EVENTHOUGH the plenty of the evil amazes you. So be careful of your duty to God, O people that understand, so that you may SUCEED (Koran 5:100)``

If we are careful, just like the above statement mentions, we notice that God joins together all the evil (al-Khabees)`` in the use of words, i.e. all different forms of the word and not only ``the evil (al-Khabees), in order to differentiate between evil and good. Thus ``evil (al-Khabees)`` is separated from ``good (at-Tayyab).``


``That God may separate the evil from the good and place the evil (Khabees) one upon the other also heap them ALL TOGETHER…(Koran 8:37)``

Now acting on the advice of the above verse in the ``mention`` of words, if we ``heap together`` all the ``evil (Khabees),`` in its different forms of use in the Koran, and the many root forms, we end up with sixteen times that the word ``evil`` is mentioned as against seven that the word ``good`` is mentioned. Thus the good and the evil are not alike if we ``heap them together,`` even though the plenty (sixteen as against seven) of the ``evil`` amazes us.

This itself says volumes for the inimitability of the Koran. How could a man or group of men have produced such a mathematically/logically sound book without having any formal education in logic or mathematics and without access to any computer software or indexes?


Month and Days:

In the above-mentioned index of the Koran, if we look at the times the word month (Shahr) is mentioned, it turns out to be twelve. There are twelve ``months`` in the Koran. The number of times the word ``day`` in the singular (Yaum or Yauma) is mentioned turns out to be three hundred and sixty five.

This discovery in the Koran proves as mentioned above that the Koran cannot be the work of a man or group of men living in the Arabian Desert over fourteen hundred years back. This also serves to provide evidence that the Koran hasn’t been tampered with. The statements that mention, ``this is like that,`` for example is the same in succession in the ``mention`` of words. The verse that says that ``Jesus is like Adam,`` for example are the seventh time both Jesus is mentioned and the seventh time Adam is mentioned. If there were any tampering, in the setting of the chapters or the numbering of the verses or additions or deletions, this sequence would break down.


Indeed, We have created everything with a measure (Koran 54:49)

With God, everything is measured (Koran 13:8)



Acknowledgements & Bibliography:

1.This discovery is based on the lecture, ``The Amazing Qur’an.`` . The accuracy of the ``mention of words,`` in the index Al Moojam ul Mofahris was checked many times over by myself. Page numbers are provided for anyone who would like to verify.

2. Asadi, Muhammed. 1992. Koran: A Scientific Analysis. Lahore, Pakistan.

3. Davies, Paul. 1993. The Mind of God. New York. Touchstone Books.


Note:

The Bible is not free from paradoxes (contradictions) of self-reference. The famous ``Epimenides paradox`` is well known. Paul, writing to Titus, says about the Cretans:

12. One of themselves, even a prophet of their own said, The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 13. This witness is true….

(Titus 1:12-13- The Bible)


An analysis based on self-reference tells us that if the statement that Cretans are always liars is true, then since ``one of themselves (a Cretan)`` said this, it must be a lie, since Cretans always lie (according to the statement made). So if the statement is true then it is a lie (based on self-reference). Only if the statement that ``Cretans are always liars`` is false can this ``witness`` be true. So it is a paradox, a contradiction that cannot be resolved. This shows that the author of Titus had no idea what he/she was talking about

http://www.rationalreality.com/