what is the signifigance of number 786
Jochen Katz
In article <5tcs4u$2pv$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>, Omar Farouq <oma...@ibm.net> writes:
} > Does anybody know what the signifigance of number 786 is?
} > I'm told it is an Islamic number...This has been told to me time
} > and time again, but nobody knows why..
}
} All numbers are Islamic, my friend, but let me answer your question.
Okay, I would agree if you meant that no number is unIslamic (not against
Islam), but to declare numbers to be Islamic is a bit much. I think there
will be pretty few numbers who have first been defined/studied/ ... by
Muslims or in order to do Islamic theology or to further Islam.
I think that most number at least up to a million have been used by humans
long before the arrival of Islam and as such they are probably more Hindu
Chinese or Greek than they are Islamic.
The only unIslamic number that I can think of is "three" given that the
Qur'an says: Do not say three, desist.
Therefore I still am free to use any number I like for any purpose
that is in agreement with my own faith without asking any Muslim
if I have the right to do so with (your) "Islamic numbers". :-)
Jochen Katz
Omar Farouq
Jochen Katz wrote:
: Omar Farouq <oma...@ibm.net> writes:
:
: } > Does anybody know what the signifigance of number 786 is?
: } > I'm told it is an Islamic number...This has been told to me time
: } > and time again, but nobody knows why..
: }
: } All numbers are Islamic, my friend, but let me answer your question.
:
: Okay, I would agree if you meant that no number is unIslamic (not
Yes, that is what was meant, in a general sense. But you can also say
that all numbers are "muslim;" muslim being a submitter to the will of
God. Why? Because *all* creation is submitting to God unwillingly, and
some are submitting willingly (i.e. accepting God's true religion;
Islam). In the previous sense, and by using Arabic terminology for the
word "submit" you, Jochen, are a Muslim, unwillingly, like the
mountains, trees, stars, rocks, and animals, etc. Would it not be nice
to look into the willing type of submission (Islam) instead of trying to
defy God by tellng Him that He is three into one, even as He tells you
that He is ONE?
: I think that most number at least up to a million have been used by
: humans long before the arrival of Islam and as such they are probably
: more Hindu Chinese or Greek than they are Islamic.
You missed the whole point about the meaning of "Islamic" and thus you
were carried away with this silly post of yours.
: The only unIslamic number that I can think of is "three" given that
: the Qur'an says: Do not say three, desist.
The number itself is not "unIslamic." It is the concept behind it that
was invented by humans (i.e. Trinity) that is unIslamic.
: Therefore I still am free to use any number I like for any purpose
: that is in agreement with my own faith without asking any Muslim
: if I have the right to do so with (your) "Islamic numbers". :-)
Knock yourself out! You will not get any objections from me with regards
to using any numbers for any purpose, including 666, as that number is
also not "unIslamic." :-)
Salaam, Omar
annita
> :
> : Okay, I would agree if you meant that no number is unIslamic (not
> : against Islam). . .
>
> Yes, that is what was meant, in a general sense. But you can also say
> that all numbers are "muslim;" muslim being a submitter to the will of
> God. Why? Because *all* creation is submitting to God unwillingly, and
> some are submitting willingly (i.e. accepting God's true religion;
> Islam). In the previous sense, and by using Arabic terminology for the
> word "submit" you, Jochen, are a Muslim, unwillingly, like the
> mountains, trees, stars, rocks, and animals, etc. Would it not be nice
> to look into the willing type of submission (Islam) instead of trying to
> defy God by tellng Him that He is three into one, even as He tells you
> that He is ONE?
>
>
> You missed the whole point about the meaning of "Islamic" and thus you
> were carried away with this silly post of yours.
>
>>
> The number itself is not "unIslamic." It is the concept behind it that
> was invented by humans (i.e. Trinity) that is unIslamic.
>
> : Therefore I still am free to use any number I like for any purpose
> : that is in agreement with my own faith without asking any Muslim
> : if I have the right to do so with (your) "Islamic numbers". :-)
>
> Knock yourself out! You will not get any objections from me with regards
> to using any numbers for any purpose, including 666, as that number is
> also not "unIslamic." :-)
>
> Salaam, Omar
IT IS THE CHRISTIANS WHO BELIEVE IN 666 AND 13 AS BAD NUMBERS. I WAS
BORN ON 13 JUNE...I AM NOT SCARED. I NOTICE THAT HOTELS WHICH BELONG TO
CHRISTIANS DO NOT HAVE 13TH FLOOR. WE BELIEVE IN THE POWER OF ALLAH
INSTEAD OF THE POWER OF NUMBERS :).
WE DON'T HAVE PROBLEM WITH NUMBER 3 EITHER; SO, THOSE NON-MUSLIMS WHO
THINK WE DO HAVE MIND PROBLEMS.
HOW CAN THREE BE EQUAL TO ONE AND ONE EQUAL TO THREE. PLEASE EXPLAIN IT
TO US JOSCHEN. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT IT. dare to explain it to us,
the Muslims?
I can still remember that a new born Christian from Philliphine whom I
met in Japan told me that Jesus whom he believed as god was in him. "If
that is the case," I said to him, "then when you went into toilet, your
god went into toilet as well?" He had to agree :)
Another interesting story:
I asked a christian why Jesus was carried by Satan. If he *WERE* God,
wasn't it the most humiliating thing to happen to God: being carried by
His worst creature. Read this verse:
Then the devil *took* him to Jerusalem, and *placed* him on the pinnacle
of the temple...(Luke 4:9).
He told me that that was not a problem since it was his human body
carried by the devil. I then asked him what is meant by "God
incarnate." I had to ask him five times before he answered,"it means
that the body is of human, but the spirit is of God."
Well...if that is the case, then when the devil carried the human body,
he must have carried the spirit of God as well. He agreed.
Don't you agree Jochen :)? He is an educated Christian with PhD.
Friday the 13th...what a nonsense
Abu Aqil
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Fred Karmally
The significance of 786 is that it is the gematrical value of Bismilla.
Those silly people who deny that the Bismillah has 19 letters,
themselves use 19 letters to compute 786!
Fred
AbdulraHman Lomax
as-salamu 'alaykum.
Fred Karmally <sya...@interlog.com> wrote:
This reference might be a bit obscure to most of our readers. I'll
explain the history here as part of my response.
Rashad Khalifa noticed that "BSM ALLH ALRHMN ALRHYM" has 19 letters. I
have transliterated it with one English letter per each of the full,
regular Arabic letters present in the traditional way of writing the
invocation. Khalifa was not the first to notice this and to connect it
with the mention of the number 19 in the Qur'an, but he was the first
to make it the centerpiece of a whole alleged pattern in the book.
However, there are other ways to count letters, and, in particular,
there are omitted letters in this phrase. Therefore, those who were
motivated to find discrepancies in Khalifa's work sometimes pointed
out that his count was not the only way to count it, and sometimes
they even -- according to Khalifa's followers -- claimed that the
count of nineteen was incorrect. That is rather "silly," to be sure,
especially given the long tradition connected with 786. But I myself
have not read any such claim.
To show what is involved with the additional letters, in full script,
where every pronounced or implied letter is written, it would become
"BASM ALLAH ALRHMAN ALRHYM," which is the source of the claim that it
has 22 letters. This would, in fact, be how the phrase would be
written in modern script, except for the long tradition that the name
of Allah is written without the second alif.
But what is interesting here is BASM. Khalifa claimed that each "word"
of the invocation occurred in the Qur'an an exact multiple of 19
times. He reports four words in the invocation: ISM ALLAH RAHMAN
RAHIM. There is a problem with the count of each one of these, except
for RAHMAN. For my purpose here, I will note that Khalifa counted ISM.
What is this ISM? After all, the invocation has BSM. Well, it
represents the missing alif, which he has written with a I. In fact,
when he counted ISM, he did not count BSM, which occurs in the Qur'an
three times if we count the initial bismillahs only once.
And when Khalifa counted the alifs in the suras prefixed with alif, he
counted many alifs not explicitly written. So we have a somewhat fluid
definition of "letter" and "word" and this fluidity allowed Khalifa to
find many more multiples of nineteen than would occur naturally with a
single a priori definition.
(If we can change the definitions of what we are counting -- or ignore
the fact that there is any definition at all -- we can select
definitions which produce multiples of 19 and then claim that this is
the "correct" way of counting. This is, in general, how the so-called
"miracle" was produced.)
Is there any real miracle there, in these numbers? Allah knows best; I
have studied these things (originally as one accepting that there was
definitely a miracle, a belief that only disappeared when I attempted
to become careful in my study) and I have not seen any clear evidence
that there is a miracle in them; but the absence of evidence of a
thing is not proof of the non-existence of the thing. It is certainly
true that the number 19 is mentioned in the Qur'an in a context where
it can be understood as some kind of proof or evidence regarding the
Qur'an's authenticity. But it is also, in the same passage, described
as a "fitna," a trial. So, Muslims, beware!
Allah has warned us that Satan suggests that we say, regarding Allah,
what we do not know. You who believe, take a hint!
AbdulraHman Lomax
abdul...@worldnet.att.net
P.O. Box 10316
San Rafael, CA 94912
AbdulraHman Lomax
as-salamu 'alaykum.
Kavosh Soltani <kav...@mnsinc.com> wrote:
>On 20 Aug 1997, Jochen Katz wrote:
>> The only unIslamic number that I can think of is "three" given that the
>> Qur'an says: Do not say three, desist.
>The number 3 - or any other number - are not UnIslamic! What you are
>refering to is not 'three', but 'Trinity' that Allah(SWT) is telling
>Christians to desist from using. I like Yusuf Ali's translation:
>[...] Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: [...]
>Also:
>"They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: [...]
Unfortunately, the word used in the Qur'an in these passage is not the
technical term for "Trinity," but rather the ordinary Arabic word for
"three." I do think that we should be careful about substituting what
we "like" for the clear Arabic of the Qur'an.
It is perfectly legitimate to suggest that the reference to "three" in
the Qur'an *is* a reference to Trinity, but I do believe that the
place for that is in a note or in a parenthetical insertion. We have
many people who read Yusuf 'Ali and assume that what he says in the
translation is in the Qur'an; and thus they could take that the
doctrine of the Trinity (which is a very sophisticated doctrine which
attempts to maintain the unity of God in essence while discriminating
between three persons) is explicitly denied in the Qur'an.
It is not clear that it is. We could easy say that we should not
associate "three" -- of any kind -- with Allah; this is the obvious
reading. But it is quite another to assert that the Trinity is
explicitly denied. There are Christians who have shown, fairly well,
that the Qur'an can be read consistently with Catholic doctrine on the
Trinity; as Jochen Katz has pointed out many times -- and in this case
he is correct -- most or all of the denial of supposed Christian
belief found in the Qur'an is actually a denial of beliefs not held by
modern Christians.
One book I read recently, by a Catholic priest, on the Qur'an, pointed
out in detail how the views rejected in the Qur'an were also rejected,
long ago, by the Church. The Qur'an does not explicitly address,
essentially, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, except possibly in
this passage (Do not say, "three.") But, as has been noted, the
imperative in the Qur'an does not always indicate a categorical
command, to be followed without exceptions. So, while the text plainly
says, "Do not say, three," we can say that there are three letters in
the initials of this newsgroup. Or even that there are three names of
God in the invocation which precedes every chapter but one in the
Qur'an.
So a Christian might very well be able to say that there are three
"names" of God. Beyond that the territory becomes dangerous, and it is
not territory that I will enter as a Muslim, but it is another thing,
to fear to play with fire, than to claim that another is in the fire
because he has said what I will not say.
Rather, we must note, if we are to hope for any communication with
sincere Christians, that the doctrine of the Trinity does explicitly
affirm that there is One God; that God is not divided in essence. If a
brother is right about some things and wrong about others, we should
not forget to affirm what is right as we attempt to correct what is
wrong, lest we be known simply as a disagreeable people, loving to
find fault with others and not caring for the good of what they do.
AbdulraHman Lomax
mar...@vom.com
P.O. Box 423
Sonoma, CA 95476
USA
Zaharuddin Fikri
as salaamu a'laykum
On 8 Oct 1997 02:57:56 GMT, mar...@vom.com (AbdulraHman Lomax)
wrote:
>It is perfectly legitimate to suggest that the reference to "three" in
>the Qur'an *is* a reference to Trinity, but I do believe that the
>place for that is in a note or in a parenthetical insertion.
IMO, although only a vague sort of "description" is given for the
Trinity in this particular passage, when we look at the other
passages in the Qur'an, some are rather explicit to include /
implicate this meaning of three to imply the Trinitarian concept.
For example, the mentions of blasphemy for assigning a son to
Him. In my understanding of the express words of the Christian
belief, this sonship of Jesus (as) [naudzhu billahi min dzaalik]
is a very important component of their theology.
Perhaps, at that time A Yusuf Ali felt very strongly on this
matter and connected the meanings of those various other passages
when he translated this one. I know other translators had done
just as you suggested, i.e. put explanatory material in
parentheses.
But after some research, I found out that this understanding that
the word three here denotes the Trinitarian concept is because
as-Suddi (the Muslim historian and traditionalist) said the
reason for the revelation of the passage containing ayah 5:73 was
because the Christians said God is part of the Trinity.
>We have
>many people who read Yusuf 'Ali and assume that what he says in the
>translation is in the Qur'an; and thus they could take that the
>doctrine of the Trinity (which is a very sophisticated doctrine which
>attempts to maintain the unity of God in essence while discriminating
>between three persons) is explicitly denied in the Qur'an.
I believe the Qur'anic denial of the Trinity is implicit in its
forms, and that it negates the foundations of that belief in the
most simple manner. Why a theology has got to be sophisticated to
be believed is beyond me. I am chagrined to admit to being
slow-witted because till today I have not understood the Trinity
at all.
>It is not clear that it is. We could easy say that we should not
>associate "three" -- of any kind -- with Allah; this is the obvious
>reading. But it is quite another to assert that the Trinity is
>explicitly denied.
Perhaps it is because it is said in the most simple terms, and is
not very sophisticated for our modern tastes.
However I just wonder whether at the time of revelation, there
was a technical Arabic term to describe Trinity, or whether such
sophisticated defenses of the Trinity as we have today such as
those by Jochen Katz or by kalam theory proponents were de
rigueur back then.
Perhaps such simple terms were used because they strike at the
most basic and fundamental wrong in that belief. wa Allahu a^lam.
>There are Christians who have shown, fairly well,
>that the Qur'an can be read consistently with Catholic doctrine on the
>Trinity;
The Christians are VERY good at reading a lot of things into any
written words. One must applaud them for that. I only wishes that
they keeps it to themselves ;-)
>as Jochen Katz has pointed out many times -- and in this case
>he is correct -- most or all of the denial of supposed Christian
>belief found in the Qur'an is actually a denial of beliefs not held by
>modern Christians.
I see what you are saying. May I translate it (to myself) as,
"The Qur'an has been effective in helping thinkers like Aquinas
and others to re-frame their old beliefs, and to present
ever-more sophisticated and modern explanations of their
theology"?
>If a
>brother is right about some things and wrong about others, we should
>not forget to affirm what is right as we attempt to correct what is
>wrong, lest we be known simply as a disagreeable people, loving to
>find fault with others and not caring for the good of what they do.
I sincerely hope more people (here on sri) would take your kind
and good advice to heart, br. Lomax. insha Allah.
wassalam,
Zaharuddin Fikri