Author Topic: Mistakes (falsifications?) in Mohammed Asadi's Article  (Read 6637 times)

ths

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 342
Mistakes (falsifications?) in Mohammed Asadi's Article
« on: April 07, 2010, 12:41:02 PM »
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.

1.

CLAIMS:

Jesus = 25 times
Adam = 25 times


3:59:

Jesus = 7th repetition
Adam = 7th repetition



MY FINDINGS:

The same


2.

CLAIMS:

Dog = 5
The nation which denies our revelations = 5


7:176:

Dog = 1
The nation which denies our revelations = 1


MY FINDINGS:

The same


3.

CLAIMS:

The Blind = 8
The Seeing = 9


Verse 35:19:

The Blind = 5th repetition
The Seeing = 5th repetition


MY FINDINGS:

The same



4.

CLAIMS:

13:16:

The Blind = 3rd repetition
The Seeing = 3rd repetition


MY FINDINGS:

The same.


5.

CLAIMS:

al-Dhulumaat = 12
al-Nur = 13


35:20:

al-Dhulumaat = 10
al-Nur = 10



MY FINDINGS:

al-Dhulumaat = 13 (14 results in 13 verses)
al-Nur = 12 (13 results in 12 ayahs)


35:20:

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 2:257, but not enough to get the final count right.


6.

CLAIMS:

Quote
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]:



13:16:

al-Dhulumaat = 6th repetition
al-Nuur = 6th repetition



MY 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...


6.

CLAIMS:

Quote
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'


7.

CLAIMS:

al-Dhill = 4
the heat (al-Har) = 3


35:22

al-Dhill = 3
al-Har = 3


MY FINDINGS:

al-Dhill = 3
al-Har = 2
al-Huroor = 1


al-Huroor is the actual word used in the verse he is taking as an example, but he counts al-Har

35:22

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.


8.

CLAIMS:

al-khabeeth = 7
al-tayyib = 7


kh-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?

















فَاسْتَبِقُوا الْخَيْرَاتِ ۚ
So strive as in a race in all virtues!
5:48

ths

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 342
Re: Mistakes (falsifications?) in Mohammed Asadi's Article
« Reply #1 on: August 07, 2011, 07:39:50 AM »
Guys it's pretty bad that Freeminds is till this day hosting an article with false information on it. Does no one care?

I suggest a moderator either check the article or have it removed.
فَاسْتَبِقُوا الْخَيْرَاتِ ۚ
So strive as in a race in all virtues!
5:48

Eikonoklastes

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 159
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mistakes (falsifications?) in Mohammed Asadi's Article
« Reply #2 on: August 07, 2011, 06:04:54 PM »
Peace,

I care. Hopefully someone in charge sees your post and verifies the article. 

:handshake:
Now, we must all fear evil people. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good people.

mstrasadi

  • Beginner/Inquirer
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Mistakes (falsifications?) in Mohammed Asadi's Article
« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2012, 09:43:25 PM »
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.

youssef4342

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1215
Re: Mistakes (falsifications?) in Mohammed Asadi's Article
« Reply #4 on: May 03, 2012, 01:06:48 PM »
Peace be with you as well, hope that was cleared.
Facebook Group
https://www.facebook.com/groups/310518545650653/

"Fear not those who can kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear the one who can destroy both the soul and the body in hell." (Matthew 10:28)

ths

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 342
Re: Mistakes (falsifications?) in Mohammed Asadi's Article
« Reply #5 on: September 06, 2012, 06:58:02 AM »
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:

Quote
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.


Quote
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.

Quote
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.
فَاسْتَبِقُوا الْخَيْرَاتِ ۚ
So strive as in a race in all virtues!
5:48

mstrasadi

  • Beginner/Inquirer
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Mistakes (falsifications?) in Mohammed Asadi's Article
« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2013, 12:19:13 PM »
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

mstrasadi

  • Beginner/Inquirer
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Mistakes (falsifications?) in Mohammed Asadi's Article
« Reply #7 on: January 28, 2013, 07:10:46 AM »
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.

ths

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 342
Re: Mistakes (falsifications?) in Mohammed Asadi's Article
« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2015, 11:53:14 PM »
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!
فَاسْتَبِقُوا الْخَيْرَاتِ ۚ
So strive as in a race in all virtues!
5:48

Wakas

  • Administrator
  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 11063
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mistakes (falsifications?) in Mohammed Asadi's Article
« Reply #9 on: September 28, 2015, 03:19:21 AM »
You will have to PM Layth about it. Perhaps he can insert a link to this thread in it etc.
All information in my posts is correct to the best of my knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should seek knowledge and verify: 17:36, 20:114, 35:28, 49:6, 58:11. My articles

www.studyQuran.org