19.org  

In 1959, Abdurrazzaq Nawfal, an Egyptian scholar, noticed some mathematical relations between the frequency of certain words. While writing his book "Al-Islamu Deenun wa Dunya" (Islam: both Religion and World), he noticed that the frequency of the word "Dunya" (World) had exactly the same frequency as the word "Akhirah" (Hereafter), 115 times each, in the Quran. In 1968, while writing another book titled "Alemul Jinni wal Malayika" (Universe of Jinns and Angels), he noticed that the word "Shaytan" (Satan) had exactly the same frequency as the word "Malak" (Angel), 88 times each. These interesting literary symmetry in the frequency of certain words led him to make a more comprehensive study on the numerical structure of the Quran. Nawfal published his findings in 1983 in a book: "Al-I'cazul Adadiy LilQuranil Kareem" (Numerical Miracle Of the Holy Quran). The book was published by Darul Kitabil Arabiy, Beirut, Lebanon. 

Some of his findings are striking. Three examples, I believe, leaves no doubt that the Quran is a mathematically designed unique book. 

• The word "month" (shahr) occurs 12 times.
• The word "days" (ayyam,yawmayn) occurs 30 times.
• The word "day" (yawm) occurs 365 times.

If you are interested with the arguments on the mathematical structure of the Quran, please obtain my lengthy debate with Lomax, in "Running Like Zebras". The argument exposes the hypocrisy and deception of those who have traded God's word with medieval Arab fabrications, that is, Hadith and Sunnah. You can download the book from http://www.moslem.org/yuksel.htm. [Now, you can download the book from tihs site] 

In the end of this argument we will present the list of chapters and verses where these three words occur in the Quran. 

Ahmed ELNEWEIHI:The word "YAWM", or "day" is mentioned 365 times in the quraan. 

DEAN Ahmad: But there are 354 days in the Muslim year. 

ELNEWEIHI: But, who said the Quran is restricted to the muslim calender? The Quran is a message to all mankind and should reflect the more "accurate" count of the number of days in the year. 

Daniel LOMAX: Then should we expect there to be 365.2425 occurrences of the word "day" in the Qur'an? By the way, has anyone verified the count? This figure comes from the Khalifites, who are notorious for doctored counts. Many of them do not check out. 

Jochen KATZ: Well, shouldn't you expect more accuracy from the word of God, if it was indeed a thing planned by him to discover? It is more like 365.3 days. So, only a crude first approximation. And then, scientific research has shown that the earth is slowing down in its rotation. Comparison of some shells and the growth rings of very old trees that have been found, show that several thousand years ago the year had nearly 400 days. And we are loosing a number of seconds every year. So, the time will come it won't only have 364 days and each day a bit longer than today. That too will make the miracle disappear. Just wait long enough. 

ELNEWEIHI: If you have a word that makes sense and can be described as 0.3.... of a word, please let me know. 

This is not a "crude" approximation, this is a mathematically correct approximation. I thought from your e-mail address that you may have some mathematical background, but may be I am wrong. For your information, 365 is the proper mathematical rounding up of the number 365.3....... 

Having been so accurate as to request that the Quran should have repeated the word "Day" 365.3.... times (and even then, I am sure you would not have been convinced), I do not expect that you turn around and tell me that your reasons for believing in Jesus is that he was foretold in the Bible. I will then ask you to find from the bible a quote that describes all the details (including the height, the color, the era, the name of the king of the day, . so on..) that would show beyond any doubt that your beliefs are on sound basis. After all, the Bible should have made it so clear that no one would have any doubt that he was the Son of God. 

Edip YUKSEL: Katz is demonstrating a sophisticated degree of knowledge! Ironically, he flunks to see the clear and simple relation between the frequency of the word "yawm" (day) in the Quran, and the number of days in a year, that is 365. I wonder why he is resorting to fractions of a day to deny such a clear message. How hard he is trying to reject the clear mathematical relation! Watching the Muhammedan and Christian disbelievers rejecting the clear divine signs confirms the Quranic statement once more (6:25; 7:146). 

As for the slowing down... Well, the number of days won't go down 364 since the end of the world is not too far (42:17 ....). Quran gives the time of the "Hour" and it is less than a thousand year. The Hour will struck disbelievers. Just wait long enough. 

KATZ: By the way, some Christians employ the same silly reasoning to the Bible too. You are welcome to answer in the same revealing way. 

ELNEWEIHI: I will not turn down your invitation. I agree you with you that some christians employ silly reasoning to the bible, but I do not agree that it is the "same" silly reasoning. For the numberof days in a year is 365 is not silly, but how some christians quote from the bible to show that the bible had predicted the future is indeed silly. I heard and read some of them say the bible had predicted many events and wars when it said that people of the North will conquer people of the South and so on. 

KATZ: Counting exercises keep many a believer busy. But I don't think they will ever establish anything of great significance. Just my personal opinion. 

ELNEWEIHI: If you remember, I said to you in my first article that we can go on with these and similar discusions without producing any evidence that can be called "an evidence beyond any doubt". I invited you to debate with me the basis I cited before (and can cite again) for my belief and those that you can site for your belief. You have unfortunately declined. 

Your answer reminded me of the verse in the Quran where God says to Muhammed that even if He (God) sent down a ladder from the sky so that Muhammed can climb on it in front of the non-believer (as a proof of being a prophet of God) , they will only say: you musthave hypnotized us to see you doing this, but it was not actually true. 

KATZ: just head [sic] read this 'slowing down thing' a few days ago, so that was a new thought, but I had better adorned it with many smileys as to not be taken so seriously in this specific posting. 

ELNEWEIHI: It is too bad you are retracting that statement, because it just occured to me that if the "slowing down thing" was correct, it would have pointed to yet, another miracle in the Qur'an. 

Since the counting of the word "Yawm" or "day" and relating it to the number of days in a year was "discovered" only recently, one can say that the Qur'an has prophesized that when people will discover this count, the number of days in the time of this discovery will indeed be rounded to 365 days. In other words, we would have here the combination of a scientific fact and a prophecy in one. 

Would not that have been a more accurate prophecy than the statements in the bible that christians claim them to be prophecies, to try to prove that the bible is truly the word of God? 

I must add here that until I verify the count of the word "Yawm" in the Qur'an myself, I can not claim any miracle. I must also repeat that I am not in a hurry to do that, because this is not the basis of my belief. 

KATZ: For that I want to combine Mr. Lomax counting results with Ahmed Elneweihi's ingenious prophetic interpretation. :) 

Now, may I propose that this is a backward prophecy instead of a forward prophecy? And the scientific method (proof?) given by the Qur'an (or better: by those who have nothing better to do to make up proofs for ) (the divine origin of it by methods which were never intended to be read into ) (the text) for the real age of the earth is that we calculate back how many years from the creation of the earth it would have taken to slow down the rotation of the earth as to give the decrease from 475 days/year to 365 days/year, because clearly, this given number corresponds to the time of creation. 

Only humorous responses to this posting will be taken seriously. 

Asser HASSANAIN:You know, I don't understand what these arguments about the numeracity of the Quran is all about! The numeracity of the Quran (that is, the striking numerical pattern) should NOT be used as means to support an unrelated religious view or a religious discussion. 

LOMAX: I admire the brother for admitting his ignorance at the outset. What striking pattern? Aside from the utter lack of such a "pattern," I agree with the remainder. Whatever pattern exists, even if it is very, very striking, does not ipso facto prove much other than there is a pattern. When I did believe that there was a clear pattern, it did not lead me to conclude that Rashad Khalifa was a Messenger!, only that the book was beyond ordinary human origin. But I was depending on false data from Khalifa. 

Nevertheless, I remain grateful to him, for this false data increased my faith and led me to begin to seriously read the Qur'an in Arabic, where I found ample confirmation not dependent upon number tricks. 

LOMAX: Brother Behnam has noted the lack of independent confirmation of Khalifa's work. This is a little misleading. Many others have reported on numerical phenomena in the Qur'an; however, there is no coherent explanation of what it is nor any demonstration that what has been discovered is statistically significant. "Beyond Probability" by Arik does attempt a calculation of probability, but it is incorrect on its face, as will be seen by anyone who knows probability theory. It does not take an expert, by the way, just a basic knowledge. 

Further, Khalifa's work is so full of errors and undocumented methods that anyone who tries to verify it soon runs into serious difficulties. This is not obvious to English speakers, because our language is written very differently than Arabic. For example, Khalifa counts the letter alif, but there is, in fact, no consensus on how to write alif in the Qur'an, and Khalifa's counts correspond to no known ms. or system of writing. Certainly they do not correspond to the Tashkent mushaf, which Khalifa used when counting Sad (in one place; it is not clear that he used it consistently, in fact, it is clear that he did not.) 

Some time back, I wrote a "Draft FAQ" on this subject, detailing matters on which clarity is necessary before claims about these miracles can be objectively verified. Yuksel promised to respond to that, but so far, nothing but more bluster. I think I will repost that FAQ. 

LOMAX: It is the wont [sic] of Khalifites to claim this or that numerical phenomenon in the Qur'an as a "miracle." In spite of repeated invitations, they have never defined just what they mean by "miracle," but the apparent meaning is any striking congruity of numbers derived from the Qur'an, or sometimes from other sources like the numerical values of the letters in Rashad Khalifa's name. 

When word counts are involved, more often than not, I have found that the counts have been manipulated to produce the striking totals. This claim that the occurrence of the word "day" (yawm) in the Qur'an is 365 is a very good example. 

Edip Yuksel wrote: "Below is the frequency of the word "Yawm" day (in its singular form) in the Quran. I have copied from one of my Turkish books. Unfortunately, during the transfer it lost its format." 

Notice that Yuksel did qualify the statement, unlike the earlier mentions of this "miracle" in this newsgroup. He is only counting singular forms. Now, if it were necessary to count the dual and plural forms of the word to come up with the "miraculous" total, I am certain that they would have been included. Nevertheless, it would be interesting if all occurrences of the singular "day" in the Qur'an totalled 365. Do they? 

I have seen this claim before. Then, I looked up "yawm" in the Kassis concordance, and found 475 mentions. However, this included the dual and plural forms, and it is a piece of work to separate them out. But now Yuksel has presented us with a list, albeit mangled, of his claimed "singular forms." Further, I just obtained a copy of the Flugel concordance, which lists each unique form in superb detail. So, I was moved to check this claim out more precisely. 

I took Yuksel's list, formatted it, and imported it into a database program. Then I used the Kassis concordance to insert all mentions of the word, including the dual and plural. Since Kassis, conveniently, gives the verse numbers from Flugel's edition of the Qur'an in addition to the more standard numbers used by Khalifa, I was able to easily identify each form. In the process, I found several misprints in Yuksel's list, plus tabulation errors, as well as three occurrences missing from Flugel. I did not find any errors in Kassis. Note, however, that I do not have a validated Arabic Qur'an in machine-readable form. It is possible, but unlikely, that there are additional mentions not listed here. 

The finished database is appended below for anyone who wishes to examine the data. 

Of the 475 total occurrences of all forms of "yawm," 3 are in the dual and 27 are in the plural, leaving 445 in the singular. 

Flugel's concordance lists 34 different forms of this word, including variations caused by prefixes or suffixes. Here is a list of these forms, with the total count for each form, and Yuksel's inferred count. The "<" at the right shows counts which are in error, or which result from an unstated condition. The number at the beginning of each row is the sequence of the form in Flugel. Transliteration notes are at the end of this article. 

F. form total/Yuksel 
20 !al-'ayya!mu 1 0 plural 
16 !alyawma 38 38 
24 !l-'ayya!mi 1 0 plural 
9 !lyawmi 1 1 
3 !lyawmu 2 2 
26 -'ayya!ma~! 3 0 plural 
21 -'ayya!mi 1 0 plural 
23 -'ayya!mi~ 18 0 plural 
25 -'yya!ma 1 0 plural 
10 bi!lyawmi 2 2 
22 bi-'ayya!mi 1 0 plural 
5 biyawmi 5 5 
17 fa!lyawma 8 6 < 
33 fayawma^'i&i~ 4 0 < 
6 liyawmi 4 4 
8 liyawmi~ 4 4 
18 wa!lyawma 2 2 
12 wa!lyawmi 21 21 
27 wa-'ayya!ma~! 1 0 plural 
11 wabi!lyawmi 1 1 
14 wayawma 44 44 
34 wayawma^'i&i~ 1 0 < 
13 yawma 132 131 
32 yawma^'i&i~ 65 1 < 
15 yawma~! 16 16 
31 yawmahum 4 1 < 
19 yawmayni 3 0 dual 
4 yawmi 31 31 
7 yawmi~ 28 28 
30 yawmihim 2 1 < 
29 yawmikum 4 0 < 
1 yawmu 16 16 
2 yawmu~ 9 9 
28 yawmukum 1 0 < 
TOTALS 475 364 

Yuksel's counts do not add up to 365 because he skipped his number 297. To summarize the discrepancies, besides plurals, Yuksel has not counted any of the forms ending with ^-i&i~, except for one single mention at 45:27. This accounts for 69 omissions. He counted 6 mentions of fa!lyawma out of 8 (2 omissions). He also inconsistently counted simple forms of yawm with suffixed pronouns: 1 out of 4 occurrences of yawmahum were counted (3 omissions), 1 out of 2 yawmihim (1 omissions), and yawmikum and yawmukum were not counted at all (5 omissions). Finally, he missed a mention of yawma at 45:17. With the 30 duals and plurals, this accounts for the difference of 111. 

I see no way to reconcile this data with the claim of 365 mentions. The sloppiness of the counting is typical of Khalifite claims; if the count works out, research and checking have a tendency to stop. 

I would appreciate notice of any substantive errors in this article... 

ALL MENTIONS OF ANY FORM OF "YAWIMA" IN THE QUR'AN 

• "yseq" is the number given by Yuksel to the mention, or is his number for the most recent mention.
• "xseq" is the number of additional mentions I found. If "xseq" is 0, the mention is found in Yuksel's article. These numbers can be used to recover the verse order if the database has been resorted.
• "verse" is the standard verse number, prefixed with "y" if it is from Yuksel, and "x" if it is not in his article.
• "F#" is the verse number from Flugel's concordance and Qur'an.
• "form" gives my own transliteration of the Arabic form. This is non-standard, but standard transliteration does not fully convey Arabic writing, only pronunciation, more or less. Transliteration notes are at the end.
• "trans" is a rough translation of some words; also some mentions of "day" give a specific number, which is shown.

Notes: The total count is 476 instead of 475 because Yuksel's unused 297 is numbered. Interestingly, this is number 365 in my list! "F missed" indicates that this mention is not found in Flugel's concordance. One verse in Yuksel is slightly "out of sequence." Three mentions of "day" refer to "part of a day." Two of Yuksel's verse numbers were incorrect or nonstandard. 

Unusual transliteration symbols: ~ nunates the previous vowel ! is alif, and also hamzat-ul-wasl - is alif as a chair for hamza ' is hamza & is dhal ^ is a point (used with hamza). 

LOMAX: Edip Yuksel wrote: "Just now I saw Lomax' legthy answer which is trying to confuse the simple issue. I am, inshallah, going to expose his blindig prejudice, as I did before." 

It is my sincere hope that Yuksel can do what he claims. But I fear that he must first cast the beam out of his own eye before he will be able to help me with my own defects of vision. 

My answer was not "lengthy," rather it was short, in its summary, and lengthy only because the supporting data was appended. Yes, this issue is simple. How many times does the word "day" occur in the Qur'an? 

The short answer is zero, because "day" is an English word. One will note that zero is divisible by both 19 and 365 without any remainder. 

But, really, we are talking about an Arabic word. But what Arabic word? It turns out that this is not a simple a question as the Khalifites would pretend. If the word is "yawm" in all its forms, the answaer is 475 times, to the best of my knowledge, and I have made it easy to correct me by publishing my "lengthy" response. I actively invite and hope for correction. 

Eliminating the non-singular forms, we still have 445. To get 365, it is necessary to eliminate some singular forms. An obvious candidate is yawma'idh, which means, literally, "the day when," and 'idh is written connected with yawm, so one may be able to claim, by the perverse logic typical of Khalifites, that this is a different word (but Khalifa translates it using the word "day"). This will only account for 70 mentions; we still have 375 left. If we eliminate all forms with pronoun suffixes, there remain 364, or, instead, we can eliminate all forms with prefixes, in which case their remain 356. I haven't yet found a way to get 365. My guess is that either there is a missing occurrence in the list, in which case 364 becomes 365, or previous sources accidentally counted, like Yuksel, one of the yawma'idh occurrences. 

Edip Yuksel wrote: "For those who wonder our previous debate with Lomax on the code 19, please download a copy of "Running Like Zebras" from: http://www.moslem.org/yuksel.htm" 

I thank Yuksel for the link. . . . 

As for "running like zebras," I would rather run like a zebra, which is a honest creature meaning harm to no one, than bark like a hyena. 

Edip Yuksel  wrote: "Wait Lomax. The candle of falsifiers cannot misguide people against the light of the truth." 

Satan has power only over those who follow him. Khalifa said, a false messenger is a messenger of Satan. This is the warning, as always there is a warning, like the warning of the angels at Babylon. 

With the work I did, and presuming that Yuksel had actually counted the words, it should be only a few minutes to make a preliminary comment on my paper. After all, all it talked about is a word count, and the differences between my count and Yuksels's count were thoroughly and clearly cited. I found numerous clear errors in Yuksel's count. I hope that he or anyone else can find any remaining errors in mine. 

But, true to form, Yuksel responds, not with facts, but with bluster. Instead of joining with others as seekers of truth, he blames me for "extreme skepticism." Yuksel, repent; your repentance will open for you the gates of paradise and ward off from you humiliation in this life and the next. I do not write all this but in the hope of guidance for myself and for others, including you and other brothers and sisters who, like 

Dr. Khalifa, were misled by this particular fitna. 

LOMAX: Edip Yuksel  wrote: "Well, Lomax you are exposed many times of trying to confuse the issue by a wobbly extreme skepticism. Thank God it has been documented in "Running Like Zebras" for those who seek the truth." 

For me, the matter becomes more and more clear. Originally, the "numerical miracles" were presented by Dr. Khalifa as a proof that even the skeptical could examine and test. Supposedly it was "scientific" and "mathematical" proof. Now, when one of these claims is carefully examined, and the results of the investigation are published in a way that makes it easy for anyone to check the results, Yuksel can only refer to "skepticism" as if it were something hateful. This is the mark of religious fanaticism; more and more, I see his resemblance to the very religious scholars he hates. This is not surprising, that the son would resemble his father. 

Edip Yuksel  wrote: "As for your recent posting on the frequency of the word "day", wait few days for its exposition. And do not forget that God is the only master of the day of judgment. The miracle of the Quran will continue to increase the faith of believers despite of falsifiers." 

A "falsifier" is someone who changes the truth. Yuksel is the man who, with his own hand, with white-out and pen, altered the text of the Qur'an, by his own admission. He is the man who published a list, supposedly of all occurrences of the word "day" in the Qur'an, and this list was false on its face, and even more false when examined in detail. If I have erred in my publication, I invite correction, something Yuksel does not do; in fact he hates it. 

My original work on the 19 contained a detailed discussion of the question of how many times the word "Allah" occurs in the Qur'an. That discussion, based on the work of Khalifa collated with the work of Phillips, and a direct examination of the Qur'an were these two sources differed, was in error as to its conclusions. The error proceeded from the fact that Phillips had not found all of Khalifa's errors, and the errors that remained were balancing errors; the result being that the count of "Allah", excluding the initial bismillahs, but including the first, was 2699; thus Khalifa, apparently, was correct in his later assertion that the count becomes 2698 if 9:128-129 are excluded. 

(Of course, it is also 2698 in Warsh without truncating sura 9, because Warsh does not include 1:1 as a verse of the Qur'an.) 

But I only was able to discover this once I obtained a copy of the Arabic/English edition of Khalifa's translation, which gives a runninig total. With that running total, I could compare it with the earlier verse-by-verse total from Visual Presentation of the Miracle, and find the remaining discrepancies. Khalifa's early work was full of errors. 

My point is that, even though I published clearly founded and verifiable (but wrong) evidence that the count was 2701, no Khalifite pointed out where I was wrong. this is because they do not actually count these things: they are people of the very taqlid they condemn. 

At one time, by his report, Yuksel actually did do quite a bit of counting. But he has settled into belief, and this 365 day question is the proof. 

When I started to count, I did not know whether or not the count would be 365 days or not. I merely thought it was absurd to debate the significance of a phenomenon that had not been shown to exist. 

The little boy who said that the emperor had no clothes was not a skeptic, he merely reported what he saw. 

However, so many times has this particular "emperor" appeared naked inpublic, I do now expect him to be unclothed, and I am not sure that I willcontinue to spend the dozen or so hours of work that it took, in thiscase, to carefully collate the data, every time another Khalifite claimappears. 

If there is a numerical miracle in the Qur'an, the Khaliftes are guilty, not of proclaiming it, but of concealing it by a confusion of false claims. I am still, from time to time, working with people who believe they have found statistically signficant phenomena; so far, no cigar, but, as Yuksel says, judgment is with Allah, and he guides to his path whom he wills. 

THERE ARE 365 OCCURRENCES OF THE WORD "YWM" (DAY) IN THE QURAN 

LOMAX: Of the 475 total occurrences of all forms of "yawm," 3 are in the dual and 27 are in the plural, leaving 445 in the singular. . . .Yuksel's counts do not add up to 365 because he skipped his number 297. To summarize the discrepancies, besides plurals, Yuksel has not counted any of the forms ending with ^-i&i~, except for one single mention at 45:27. This accounts for 69 omissions. He counted 6 mentions of fa!lyawma out of 8 (2 omissions). He also inconsistently counted simple forms of yawm with suffixed pronouns: 1 out of 4 occurrences of yawmahum were counted (3 omissions), 1 out of 2 yawmihim (1 omissions), and yawmikum and yawmukum were not counted at all (5 omissions). Finally, he missed a mention of yawma at 45:17. With the 30 duals and plurals, this accounts for the difference of 111. 

I see no way to reconcile this data with the claim of 365 mentions. The sloppiness of the counting is typical of Khalifite claims; if the count works out, research and checking have a tendency to stop. 

YUKSEL: Well, as you see, I did not stop. (It is another proof that I am not a Khalifite as projected by a confessed Muhammadan, Lomax). I would like to thank Lomax for his efforts. I Hope it will serve a good function to find the truth of this matter. Based on Lomax's tedious work, I have corrected several typo errors. As for his summary of "discrepancies," here are my answers: 

I did not count the word YWM (pronounced as yawm) with suffixes. I did not need to mention this, since the word (YWM) by itself was sufficient to express this point. In my earlier posting I wrote about "the frequency of the word "yawm" day (in its singular form) in the Quran." A non-hostile eye would easily notice that I did not mention "yawmahum" (their days), nor yawma-izin (that day), etc. In fact, the counting method we deduce from this word is used for all other computations. For instance, in the count of the word ALLAH (GOD) we did not count the ones with the suffix HUMMA. As we discussed in my book "Running Like Zebras," (available from http://www.moslem.com [and from www.yuksel.org]) a clear, sound and consistent counting method is employed in the mathematical structure of the Quran. The confusion here is superficially created by Lomax, whose skeptical confusion reaches a crescendo when it comes to the mathematical structure of the Quran, or monotheism. 

The 45:27 in my list was merely a typing error. It should have been 45:17. I also omitted one, only one count of "fa!lyawma." Lomax confused the word I have counted in 7:51 with the one I have not. He is right regarding the second omission. I have missed the word "fa!lyawma" in 46:20. This, by the way, makes my count 365. 

As I stated above, Lomax wrongly identified the word I have counted in 7:51. There, I did not count "yawmahum" (their days) as he claimed; I counted "fa!lyawma" which he wrongly accused me of its omission. 

Below is my correction of the list presented by Lomax. 

I have erased the notes regarding Flugel's concordance. It is irrelevant at this point and will complicate the simple counting of the word. Thanks to Lomax, he has already managed to create a non-friendly sceen by his "unusual transliteration symbols." Furthermore, in order to create consistency, I have translated the few words that he had forgotten to translate. I also want to remind the reader the fact that the three-letter root of the word in question is"YWM." The vowels used in English transliterations are not original letters. 

ALL MENTIONS OF ANY FORM OF "YWM" IN THE QURAN 

• "YSEQ" is the number given by Yuksel to the mention, or is his number for the most recent mention.
• "XSEQ" is the number of additional mentions that Lomax found. If "xseq" is 0, the mention is found in Yuksel's article. These numbers can be used to recover the verse order if the database has been resorted.
• "VERSE" is the standard verse number, prefixed with "y" if it is from Yuksel, and "x" if it is not in his article.
• "FORM" gives my own transliteration of the Arabic form. This is non-standard, but standard transliteration does not fully convey Arabic writing, only pronunciation, more or less. Transliteration notes are at the end.
• "TRANS " is a rough translation of some words; also some mentions of "day" give a specific number, which is shown.

	YSEQ	XSEQ	VERSE	FORM		TRANS
1	1	0	y1:4	yawmi
2	2	0	y2:8	wabi!lyawmi
3	3	0	y2:48	yawma~!
4	4	0	y2:62	wa!lyawmi
5	4	1	x2:80	-'ayya!ma~!	days
6	5	0	y2:85	wayawma
7	6	0	y2:113	yawma
8	7	0	y2:123	yawma~!
9	8	0	y2:126	wa!lyawmi
10	9	0	y2:174	yawma
11	10	0	y2:177	wa!lyawmi
12	10	2	x2:184	-'ayya!ma~!	days
13	10	3	x2:184	-'ayya!mi~	days
14	10	4	x2:185	-'ayya!mi~	days
15	10	5	x2:196	-'ayya!mi~	days
16	10	6	x2:203	-'ayya!mi~	days
17	10	7	x2:203	yawmayni	(2) days
18	11	0	y2:212	yawma
19	12	0	y2:228	wa!lyawmi
20	13	0	y2:232	wa!lyawmi
21	14	0	y2:249	!alyawma
22	15	0	y2:254	yawmu~
23	16	0	y2:259	yawma~!
24	17	0	y2:259	yawmi~
25	18	0	y2:264	wa!lyawmi
26	19	0	y2:281	yawma~!
27	20	0	y3:9	liyawmi~
28	20	8	x3:24	-'ayya!ma~!	days
29	21	0	y3:25	liyawmi~
30	22	0	y3:30	yawma
31	22	9	x3:41	-'ayya!mi~	(3) days
32	23	0	y3:55	yawmi
33	24	0	y3:77	yawma
34	25	0	y3:106	yawma
35	26	0	y3:114	wa!lyawmi
36	26	10	x3:140	!al-'ayya!mu	days
37	27	0	y3:155	yawma
38	28	0	y3:161	yawma
39	29	0	y3:166	yawma
40	29	11	x3:167	yawma^'i&i~	that day
41	30	0	y3:180	yawma
42	31	0	y3:185	yawma
43	32	0	y3:194	yawma
44	33	0	y4:38	bi!lyawmi
45	34	0	y4:39	wa!lyawmi
46	34	12	x4:42	yawma^'i&i~	that day
47	35	0	y4:59	wa!lyawmi
48	36	0	y4:87	yawmi
49	37	0	y4:109	yawma
50	38	0	y4:136	wa!lyawmi
51	39	0	y4:141	yawma
52	40	0	y4:159	wayawma
53	41	0	y4:162	wa!lyawmi
54	42	0	y5:3	!alyawma
55	43	0	y5:3	!alyawma
56	44	0	y5:5	!alyawma
57	45	0	y5:14	yawmi
58	46	0	y5:36	yawmi
59	47	0	y5:64	yawmi
60	48	0	y5:69	wa!lyawmi
61	48	13	x5:89	-'ayya!mi~	(3) days
62	49	0	y5:109	yawma
63	50	0	y5:119	yawmu
64	51	0	y6:12	yawmi
65	52	0	y6:15	yawmi~
66	52	14	x6:16	yawma^'i&i~	that day
67	53	0	y6:22	wayawma
68	54	0	y6:73	wayawma
69	55	0	y6:73	yawma
70	56	0	y6:93	!alyawma
71	57	0	y6:128	wayawma
72	57	15	x6:130	yawmikum	your day
73	58	0	y6:141	yawma
74	59	0	y6:158	yawma
75	59	16	x7:8	yawma^'i&i~	that day
76	60	0	y7:14	yawmi
77	61	0	y7:32	yawma
78	62	0	y7:51	fa!lyawma
79	62	17	x7:51	yawmihim	their day
80	63	0	y7:53	yawma
81	63	18	x7:54	-'ayya!mi~	(6) days
82	64	0	y7:59	yawmi~
83	65	0	y7:163	yawma
84	66	0	y7:163	wayawma
85	67	0	y7:167	yawmi
86	68	0	y7:172	yawma
87	68	19	x8:16	yawma^'i&i~	that day
88	69	0	y8:41	yawma
89	70	0	y8:41	yawma
90	71	0	y8:48	!alyawma
91	72	0	y9:3	yawma
92	73	0	y9:18	wa!lyawmi
93	74	0	y9:19	wa!lyawmi
94	75	0	y9:25	wayawma
95	76	0	y9:29	bi!lyawmi
96	77	0	y9:35	yawma
97	78	0	y9:36	yawma
98	79	0	y9:44	wa!lyawmi
99	80	0	y9:45	wa!lyawmi
100	81	0	y9:77	yawmi
101	82	0	y9:99	wa!lyawmi
102	83	0	y9:108	yawmi~
103	83	20	x10:3	-'ayya!mi~	(6) days
104	84	0	y10:15	yawmi~
105	85	0	y10:28	wayawma
106	86	0	y10:45	wayawma
107	87	0	y10:60	yawma
108	88	0	y10:92	fa!lyawma
109	89	0	y10:93	yawma
110	89	21	x10:102	-'ayya!mi	days
111	90	0	y11:3	yawmi~
112	90	22	x11.07	-'ayya!mi~	days
113	91	0	y11:8	yawma
114	92	0	y11:26	yawmi~
115	93	0	y11:43	!alyawma
116	94	0	y11:60	wayawma
117	94	23	x11:65	-'ayya!mi~	(3) days
118	94	24	x11:66	yawma^'i&i~	that day
119	95	0	y11:77	yawmu~
120	96	0	y11:84	yawmi~
121	97	0	y11:98	yawma
122	98	0	y11:99	wayawma
123	99	0	y11:103	yawmu~
124	100	0	y11:103	yawmu~
125	101	0	y11:105	yawma
126	102	0	y12:54	!alyawma
127	103	0	y12:92	!alyawma
128	103	25	x14.05	bi-'ayya!mi	days
129	104	0	y14:18	yawmi~
130	105	0	y14:31	yawmu~
131	106	0	y14:41	yawma
132	107	0	y14:42	liyawmi~
133	108	0	y14:44	yawma
134	109	0	y14:48	yawma
135	109	26	x14:49	yawma^'i&i~	that day
136	110	0	y15:35	yawmi
137	111	0	y15:36	yawmi
138	112	0	y15:38	yawmi
139	113	0	y16:25	yawma
140	114	0	y16:27	yawma
141	115	0	y16:27	!alyawma
142	116	0	y16:63	!alyawma
143	117	0	y16:80	yawma
144	118	0	y16:80	wayawma
145	119	0	y16:84	wayawma
146	119	27	x16:87	yawma^'i&i~	that day
147	120	0	y16:89	wayawma
148	121	0	y16:92	yawma
149	122	0	y16:111	yawma
150	123	0	y16:124	yawma
151	124	0	y17:13	yawma
152	125	0	y17:14	!alyawma
153	126	0	y17:52	yawma
154	127	0	y17:58	yawmi
155	128	0	y17:62	yawmi
156	129	0	y17:71	yawma
157	130	0	y17:97	yawma
158	131	0	y18:19	yawma~!
159	132	0	y18:19	yawmi~
160	133	0	y18:47	wayawma
161	134	0	y18:52	wayawma
162	134	28	x18:99	yawma^'i&i~	that day
163	134	29	18:100	yawma^'i&i~	that day
164	135	0	y18:105	yawma
165	136	0	y19:15	yawma
166	137	0	y19:15	wayawma
167	138	0	y19:15	wayawma
168	139	0	y19:26	!alyawma
169	140	0	y19:33	yawma
170	141	0	y19:33	wayawma
171	142	0	y19:33	wayawma
172	143	0	y19:37	yawmi~
173	144	0	y19:38	yawma
174	145	0	y19:38	!alyawma
175	146	0	y19:39	40	yawma
176	147	0	y19:85	yawma
177	148	0	y19:95	yawma
178	149	0	y20:59	yawmu
179	150	0	y20:64	!alyawma
180	151	0	y20:100	yawma
181	152	0	y20:101	yawma
182	153	0	y20:102	yawma
183	153	30	x20:102	yawma^'i&i~	that day
184	154	0	y20:104	yawma~!
185	154	31	x20:108	yawma^'i&i~	that day
186	154	32	x20:109	yawma^'i&i~	that day
187	155	0	y20:124	yawma
188	156	0	y20:126	!alyawma
189	157	0	y21:47	liyawmi
190	157	33	x21:103	yawmukum	your day
191	158	0	y21:104	yawma
192	159	0	y22:2	yawma
193	160	0	y22:9	yawma
194	161	0	y22:17	yawma
195	161	34	x22:28	-'ayya!mi~	days
196	162	0	y22:47	yawma~!
197	163	0	y22:55	yawmi~
198	163	35	x22:56	yawma^'i&i~	that day
199	164	0	y22:69	yawma
200	165	0	y23:16	yawma
201	166	0	y23:65	!alyawma
202	167	0	y23:100	yawmi
203	167	36	x23:101	yawma^'i&i~	that day
204	168	0	y23:111	!alyawma
205	169	0	y23:113	yawma~!
206	170	0	y23:113	yawmi~	part day
207	171	0	y24:2	wa!lyawmi
208	172	0	y24:24	yawma
209	172	37	x24:25	yawma^'i&i~	that day
210	173	0	y24:37	yawma~!
211	174	0	y24:64	wayawma
212	175	0	y25:14	!alyawma
213	176	0	y25:17	wayawma
214	177	0	y25:22	yawma
215	177	38	x25:22	yawma^'i&i~	that day
216	177	39	x25:24	yawma^'i&i~	that day
217	178	0	y25:25	wayawma
218	178	40	x25:26	yawma^'i&i~	that day
219	179	0	y25:26	yawma~!
220	180	0	y25:27	wayawma
221	180	41	x25:59	-'ayya!mi~	(6) days
222	181	0	y25:69	yawma
223	182	0	y26:38	yawmi~
224	183	0	y26:82	yawma
225	184	0	y26:87	yawma
226	185	0	y26:88	yawma
227	186	0	y26:135	yawmi~
228	187	0	y26:155	yawmi~
229	188	0	y26:156	yawmi~
230	189	0	y26:189	yawmi
231	190	0	y26:189	yawmi~
232	191	0	y27:83	wayawma
233	192	0	y27:87	wayawma
234	192	42	x27:89	yawma^'i&i~	that day
235	193	0	y28:41	wayawma
236	194	0	y28:42	wayawma
237	195	0	y28:61	yawma
238	196	0	y28:62	wayawma
239	197	0	y28:65	wayawma
240	197	43	x28:66	yawma^'i&i~	that day
241	198	0	y28:71	yawmi
242	199	0	y28:72	yawmi
243	200	0	y28:74	wayawma
244	201	0	y29:13	yawma
245	202	0	y29:25	yawma
246	203	0	y29:36	!alyawma
247	204	0	y29:55	yawma
248	204	44	x30:4	wayawma^'i&i~	that day
249	205	0	y30:12	wayawma
250	206	0	y30:14	wayawma
251	206	45	x30:14	yawma^'i&i~	that day
252	207	0	y30:43	yawmu~
253	207	46	x30:43	yawma^'i&i~	that day
254	208	0	y30:55	wayawma
255	209	0	y30:56	yawmi
256	210	0	y30:56	yawmu
257	210	47	x30:57	fayawma^'i&i~	that day
258	211	0	y31:33	yawma~!
259	211	48	x32:4	-'ayya!mi~	(6) days
260	212	0	y32:5	4	yawmi~
261	212	49	x32:14	yawmikum	your day
262	213	0	y32:25	yawma
263	214	0	y32:29	yawma
264	215	0	y33:21	wa!lyawma
265	216	0	y33:44	yawma
266	217	0	y33:66	yawma
267	217	50	x34:18	wa-'ayya!ma~!	days
268	218	0	y34:30	yawmi~
269	219	0	y34:40	wayawma
270	220	0	y34:42	fa!lyawma
271	221	0	y35:14	wayawma
272	222	0	y36:54	fa!lyawma
273	223	0	y36:55	!alyawma
274	224	0	y36:59	!alyawma
275	225	0	y36:64	!alyawma
276	226	0	y36:65	!alyawma
277	227	0	y37:20	yawmu
278	228	0	y37:21	yawmu
279	229	0	y37:26	!alyawma
280	229	51	x37:33	yawma^'i&i~	that day
281	230	0	y37:144	yawmi
282	231	0	y38:16	yawmi
283	232	0	y38:26	yawma
284	233	0	y38:53	liyawmi
285	234	0	y38:78	yawmi
286	235	0	y38:79	yawmi
287	236	0	y38:81	yawmi
288	237	0	y39:13	yawmi~
289	238	0	y39:15	yawma
290	239	0	y39:24	yawma
291	240	0	y39:31	yawma
292	241	0	y39:47	yawma
293	242	0	y39:60	wayawma
294	243	0	y39:67	yawma
295	243	52	x39:71	yawmikum	your day
296	243	53	x40:9	yawma^'i&i~	that day
297	244	0	y40:15	yawma
298	245	0	y40:16	yawmahum
299	246	0	y40:16	!alyawma
300	247	0	y40:17	!alyawma
301	248	0	y40:17	!alyawma
302	249	0	y40:18	yawma
303	250	0	y40:27	biyawmi
304	251	0	y40:29	!alyawma
305	252	0	y40:30	yawmi
306	253	0	y40:32	yawma
307	254	0	y40:33	yawma
308	255	0	y40:46	wayawma
309	256	0	y40:49	yawma~!
310	257	0	y40:51	wayawma
311	258	0	y40:52	yawma
312	258	54	x41:9	yawmayni	(2) days
313	258	55	x41:10	-'ayya!mi~	(4) days
314	258	56	x41:12	yawmayni	(2) days
315	258	57	x41:16	-'ayya!mi~	days
316	259	0	y41:19	wayawma
317	260	0	y41:40	yawma
318	261	0	y41:47	wayawma
319	262	0	y42:7	yawma
320	263	0	y42:45	yawma
321	264	0	y42:47	yawmu~
322	264	58	x42:47	yawma^'i&i~	that day
323	265	0	y43:39	!alyawma
324	266	0	y43:65	yawmi~
325	266	59	x43:67	yawma^'i&i~	that day
326	267	0	y43:68	!alyawma
327	267	60	x43:83	yawmahum	their day
328	268	0	y44:10	yawma
329	269	0	y44:16	yawma
330	270	0	y44:40	yawma
331	271	0	y44:41	yawma
332	271	61	x45:14	-'yya!ma	days
333	272	0	x45:17	yawma
334	273	0	y45:26	yawmi
335	274	0	y45:27	wayawma
336	274	62	x45:27	yawma^'i&i~	that day
337	275	0	y45:28	!alyawma
338	276	0	y45:34	!alyawma
339	276	63	x45:34	yawmikum	your day
340	277	0	y45:35	fa!lyawma
341	278	0	y46:5	yawmi
342	279	0	y46:20	wayawma
343	280	0	y46:20	fa!lyawma
344	281	0	y46:21	yawmi~
345	282	0	y46:34	wayawma
346	283	0	y46:35	yawma
347	284	0	y50:20	yawmu
348	285	0	y50:22	!alyawma
349	286	0	y50:30	yawma
350	287	0	y50:34	yawmu
351	287	64	x50:38	-'ayya!mi~	(6) days
352	288	0	y50:41	yawma
353	289	0	y50:42	yawma
354	290	0	y50:42	yawmu
355	291	0	y50:44	yawma
356	292	0	y51:12	yawmu
357	293	0	y51:13	yawma
358	293	66	x51:60	yawmihim	their day
359	294	0	y52:9	yawma
360	294	67	x52:11	yawma^'i&i~	that day
361	295	0	y52:13	yawma
362	295	68	x52:45	yawmahum	their day
363	296	0	y52:46	yawma
364	297	0	y54:6	yawma
365	298	0	y54:8	yawmu~
366	299	0	y54:19	yawmi
367	300	0	y54:48	yawma
368	301	0	y55:29	yawmi~
369	301	69	x55:39	fayawma^'i&i~	that day
370	302	0	y56:50	yawmi~
371	303	0	y56:56	yawma
372	303	70	x57:4	-'ayya!mi~	(6) days
373	304	0	y57:12	yawma
374	305	0	y57:12	!alyawma
375	306	0	y57:13	yawma
376	307	0	y57:15	fa!lyawma
377	308	0	y58:6	yawma
378	309	0	y58:7	yawma
379	310	0	y58:18	yawma
380	311	0	y58:22	wa!lyawmi
381	312	0	y60:3	yawma
382	313	0	y60:6	wa!lyawma
383	314	0	y62:9	yawmi
384	315	0	y64:9	yawmu
385	316	0	y64:9	liyawmi
386	317	0	y64:9	yawma
387	318	0	y65:2	wa!lyawmi
388	319	0	y66:7	!alyawma
389	320	0	y66:8	yawma
390	321	0	y68:24	!alyawma
391	322	0	y68:39	yawmi
392	323	0	y68:42	yawma
393	323	71	x69:7	-'ayya!mi~	(8) days
394	323	72	x69:15	fayawma^'i&i~	that day
395	323	73	x69:16	yawma^'i&i~	that day
396	323	74	x69:17	yawma^'i&i~	that day
397	323	75	x69:18	yawma^'i&i~	that day
398	323	76	x69:24	!l-'ayya!mi	days
399	324	0	y69:35	!alyawma
400	325	0	y70:4	yawmi~
401	326	0	y70:8	yawma
402	326	77	x70:11	yawma^'i&i~	that day
403	327	0	y70:26	biyawmi
404	327	78	x70:42	yawmahum	their day
405	328	0	y70:43	yawma
406	329	0	y70:44	!lyawmu
407	330	0	y73:14	yawma
408	331	0	y73:17	yawma~!
409	331	79	x74:9	yawma^'i&i~	that day
410	332	0	y74:9	yawmu~
411	333	0	y74:46	biyawmi
412	334	0	y75:1	biyawmi
413	335	0	y75:6	yawmu
414	335	80	x75:10	yawma^'i&i~	that day
415	335	81	x75:12	yawma^'i&i~	that day
416	335	82	x75:13	yawma^'i&i~	that day
417	335	83	x75:22	yawma^'i&i~	that day
418	335	84	x75:24	yawma^'i&i~	that day
419	335	85	x75:30	yawma^'i&i~	that day
420	336	0	y76:7	yawma~!
421	337	0	y76:10	yawma~!
422	338	0	y76:11	!lyawmi
423	339	0	y76:27	yawma~!
424	340	0	y77:12	yawmi~
425	341	0	y77:13	liyawmi
426	342	0	y77:14	yawmu
427	342	86	x77:15	yawma^'i&i~	that day
428	342	87	x77:19	yawma^'i&i~	that day
429	342	88	x77:24	yawma^'i&i~	that day
430	342	89	x77:28	yawma^'i&i~	that day
431	342	90	x77:34	yawma^'i&i~	that day
432	343	0	y77:35	yawmu
433	343	91	x77:37	yawma^'i&i~	that day
434	344	0	y77:38	yawmu
435	344	92	x77:40	yawma^'i&i~	that day
436	344	93	x77:45	yawma^'i&i~	that day
437	344	94	x77:47	yawma^'i&i~	that day
438	344	95	x77:49	yawma^'i&i~	that day
439	345	0	y78:17	yawma
440	346	0	y78:18	yawma
441	347	0	y78:38	yawma
442	348	0	y78:39	!lyawmu
443	349	0	y78:40	yawma
444	350	0	y79:6	yawma
445	350	96	x79:8	yawma^'i&i~	that day
446	351	0	y79:35	yawma
447	352	0	y79:46	yawma
448	353	0	y80:34	yawma
449	353	97	x80:37	yawma^'i&i~	that day
450	353	98	x80:38	yawma^'i&i~	that day
451	353	99	x80:40	yawma^'i&i~	that day
452	354	0	y82:15	yawma
453	355	0	y82:17	yawmu
454	356	0	y82:18	yawmu
455	357	0	y82:19	yawma
456	357	100	x82:19	yawma^'i&i~	that day
457	358	0	y83:5	liyawmi~
458	359	0	y83:6	yawma
459	359	101	x83:10	yawma^'i&i~	that day
460	360	0	y83:11	biyawmi
461	360	102	x83:15	yawma^'i&i~	that day
462	361	0	y83:34	fa!lyawma
463	362	0	y85:2	wa!lyawmi
464	363	0	y86:9	yawma
465	363	103	x88:2	yawma^'i&i~	that day
466	363	104	x88:8	yawma^'i&i~	that day
467	363	105	x89:23	yawma^'i&i~	that day
468	363	106	x89:23	yawma^'i&i~	that day
469	363	107	x89:25	fayawma^'i&i~	that day
470	364	0	y90:14	yawmi~
471	364	108	x99:4	yawma^'i&i~	that day
472	364	109	x99:6	yawma^'i&i~	that day
473	364	110	x100:11	yawma^'i&i~	that day
474	365	0	y101:4	yawma
475	365	111	x102:8	yawma^'i&i~	that day

Unusual transliteration symbols: ~ nunates the previous vowel ! is alif, and also hamzat-ul-wasl - is alif as a chair for hamza ' is hamza & is dhal ^ is a point (used with hamza) 

CONCLUSIONS: 

I expect Lomax to reflect on this corrected table and acknowledge the following facts: 

1. We both made errors in the counting. 

2. After the corrections, the fact still remains intact: the frequency of the word "YWM" (in its singular form) is equal to the number of days in a solar year: 365. 

3. As Lomax has acknowledged, the frequency of dual and plural forms is 30. Does it require too much imagination to see this number as indicator of average number of days in a month? 

4. The total frequency of all forms of the word "YWM" as acknowledged by Lomax, is 475, that is, 19x25. (Congratulations for discovering this fact "by accident.") 

God always exposes those who rejects the truth (47:29). Here is how: 

First, in our previous arguments on the code 19, Lomax always tried to come up with different ways of count that were not divisible by the code. In other words, he always escaped from that number, fulfilling the prophetic description of 74:50. However, here, God Almighty trapped him with that number. In trying to escape from 365 he resorted to 475, a number divisible by 19. Observing his 19-phobic behavior, I am sure he would have rejected the total 475 had he noticed that it was divisible by 19 or had we introduced it as an evidence for the mathematical code of the Quran. 

Second, Lomax translated SOME of those forms in his list. Inadvertently, he demonstrated the truth since NONE of the forms he has translated were counted by us. If you count the frequency of UNtranslated form(s) you will have 365. Coincidence? 

Also there was a divine sign for Lomax to stop and reflect. He noticed it, but did not take heed. Lomax wrote: "The total count is 476 instead of 475 because Yuksel's unused 297 is numbered. Interestingly, this is number 365 in my list!" He does not know that God Almighty shows His signs to us even through sloppy work. 

5. Fuad Abdulbaqy's concordance is much more accurate than the concordances used by Lomax. His concordance, Flugel, (1) misses three occurrences out of 475, (2) does not follow the standard verse numbering, and (3) divides words into fictional different forms, confusing irrelevant vowels with letters. On the other hand, Abdulbaqy's concordance, (1) misses only one occurrence out of 475 and makes the correction in its introduction. (2) follows the standard verse numbering, and (3) divides words according to a grammatically reasonable classification. Despite my previous suggestions, Lomax is still insisting on not using this most accurate and popular index. 

Abdulbaqi's concordance lists only 9 different forms of this word. Some of those forms should be combined, since the suffix "alif" does not add any extra meaning; except showing that the word is used as an object in the sentence. Therefore, we have only 6 different forms of this word mentioned in the Quran, not 34 diffirent forms as Lomax claims. Here are the different forms of "YWM" listed by "Mu'jam-ul Mufahras Lielfaz-il Quran-il Kareem," preceded by their frequency in the Quran: 

365 ................ ywm, .................... day 
    5 ................ ywm-kum ............. your day 
    5 ................ ywm-hum ............. their day 
    3 ................ ywm-ayn .............. two days 
  27 ................ ayyaam ................ days 
  70 ................ ywm-ezen ............ that day 
----------------------------------------------------- 
475 (19x25) 
 

"Indeed, they have rejected this without studying and examining it, and before understanding it. Thus did those before them disbelieve. Therefore, note the consequences for the transgressors. Some of them believe, while others disbelieve in it. Your Lord is fully aware of the evildoers." (10:39-40) 

"The Hour has come closer, and the moon has split. Then they saw a miracle; but they turned away and said, "Old magic." They disbelieved, followed their own desires, and adhered to their old traditions. Sufficient warnings have been delivered to alert them. Great wisdom; but all the warnings have been in vain." (54:1-5). 

"Disregard them until they meet THEIR DAY in which they are struck. On that DAY, their schemes will not protect them, nor will they be helped." (52:45-46) 

"Read your own record. TODAY, you suffice as your own reckoner." (27:14) 

"Then, when the horn is blown. That will be a DIFFICULT DAY. For the disbelievers, not easy." (74:9-10). 

"God will judge among you on the DAY OF RESURRECTION regarding all your disputes." (22:69). 

"You shall respond to your Lord before a DAY comes which is decreed inevitable by God. There will be no refuge for you on THAT DAY, nor an advocate." (42:47).

LOMAX: Edip Yuksel wrote: "There are 365 occurrences of the word "ywm" (day) in the quran" 

IF we exclude the phrase "the day when," and forms of YWM with attached pronouns, such as "their day," and all the dual and plural occurrences (for the phrase and the forms with attached pronouns are certainly singular), then this statement is true. It should also be noted that, to arrive at this count, one must also include all forms of "day" with prefixed prepositions and conjunctions, as well as with the suffixed alif of the indefinite accusative. 

Yuksel has consistently objected to specifying such detail, but it is important: what is being done here is to determine the method of counting words which allegedly leads to the "miracle." To discriminate words for counting purposes we need to know about these details. 

Yuksel did not indentify any counting errors in my paper. There is one, described below. But I did, apparently, incorrectly assign his counts in some cases. This was due to the fact that his original article did not specify which forms were being counted: I divided the occurrences in the Qur'an into two piles: his, on the one hand, and the others which he had not mentioned. Where there were two occurrences in one verse, and one had been counted and one had not, I assigned the first to Yuksel: until I did my study I had no way of knowing which forms he was counting and which ones he was not, and, once it was relatively clear, I forgot to go back and see if I could reassign these occurrences to show a more consistent pattern. 

Yuksel wrote: "I did not count the word YWM (pronounced as yawm) with suffixes. I did not need to mention this, since the word (YWM) by itself was sufficient to express this point. In my earlier posting I wrote about "the frequency of the word 'yawm' day (in its singular form) in the Quran." A non-hostile eye could have easily noticed that I did not mention "yawmahum" (their days), nor yawma-izin (that day), etc." 

I am very familiar with the arguments, and I did not know what Yuksel claims I would "easily notice" if I were not hostile. Of course, he can accuse me of lying, but the hostility would be his, not mine. I have never seen any mention of these distinctions in any of the writings on this subject. It was only after studying Yuksel's list that I even suspected that these forms were not being counted. 

Quite the contrary, I would have assumed that a count of all the occurences of the singular form of the word "day" in the Qur'an would include "their day" and "your day;" after all, these are clearly singular. But we are getting closer to a description of what the rules are for counting. It would be better if these rules were disclosed at the outset; unless, of course, one's purpose is to make the "miracle" look as impressive as possible. 

Yuksel wrote: "In fact, the counting method we deduce from this word is used for all other computations. For instance, in the count of the word ALLAH (GOD) we did not count the ones with the suffix HUMMA. 

Fascinating. I had not noticed this; this is the first mention of this fact I have seen anywhere. I was already aware that the count included the two orthographically distinct forms ALLAH and LILLAH, but not that it excluded the form with the suffix (which, in the original unmarked Arabic, consists of a single M appended to the end of the word, and which makes it mean "O Allah." Thus it is used in prayers where Allah is directly addressed by name.) The H is not part of the suffix; rather it is part of the name ALLAH. 

Yuksel wrote: "As we discussed in my book 'Running Like Zebras,' ... a clear, sound and consistent counting method is employed in the mathematical structure of the Quran. The confusion here is superficially created by Lomax, whose skeptical confusion reaches a crescendo when it comes to the mathematical structure of the Quran, or monotheism." 

"Running Like Zebras" is a fairly disorganized collection of arguments. It does not describe, at least as far as I have been able to find, any "clear, sound and consistent counting method." Yuksel is here claiming that the only confusion which exists on this subject is that which I have "created," but why is that simple facts like the omission of "Allahumma" from the count of "Allah" are not mentioned until now? Was this omission common knowledge? Again and again, the count of Allah has been described as "the frequency of occurrence of the word "God" (Allah) in the Qur'an." I would expect this to include "O God," (Allahumma) unless otherwise stated. 

So now I look up one of these five mentions in "The Final Testament," the one at 3:26. Sure enough, whereas Khalifa capitalizes the occurrences of Allah (translating them as GOD), here he translates Allahumma as "our god." But "our god" in Arabic would be "ilAhunaa", which does occur once in the Qur'an, at 29:46. No, Allah is the personal name of the one God in Arabic, and "Allahumma" means "O God," the one God, not merely "my God," or "our God, or "your God," but THE God. Or, to put it the way Allah has commanded us to put it, when speaking to the people of the Book, "Our god and your god are one GOD." 

So now we see how the meaning of the Qur'an was distorted in "Final Testament" to maintain this "miracle." One does not find this particular distortion in the earlier translation by Khalifa, "Qur'an: The Final Scripture." 

Yuksel wrote: "The 45:27 in my list was merely a typing error. It should have been 45:17. I also omitted one, only one count of "fa!lyawma." Lomax confused the word I have counted in 7:51 with the one I have not. He is right regarding the second omission. I have missed the word "fa!lyawma" in 46:20. This, by the way, makes my count 365." 

What Yuksel has not made plain is that my errors were in assigning his counts to specific forms of the word. Since I did not know at the outset what specific forms he was counting (in spite of his charge that only a hostile eye would not have known), I assigned the first form in a verse where there were two to his count and made the second form one that he had not counted. Then I forgot to go back and see if changing this would rectify his inconsistencies. This was my error. 

Yuksel wrote: "Below is my correction of the list presented by Lomax." 

Three days later, this correction still has not appeared. Perhaps it is lost in the net somewhere. But I will correct my list, found at http://www.crl.com/~marjan. BTW, if any reader has trouble accessing that site, please let me know. I have had two reports of Netscape crashing when trying to access it (but my copy reads it fine). I have refrained from posting it here because of its length. 

Yuksel wrote: "I expect Lomax to reflect on this corrected table and acknowledge the following facts: 1. We both made errors in the counting." 

I made one error in identifying the form of a count and several errors in allocating counts to Yuksel. I did not expect my work to be free of error. The error in identification, however, was not caught by Yuksel, at least not specifically. He only asserts that a total is different than what I reported, without pointing out the specific instance of the error. This was less than helpful. 

Yuksel wrote: "2. After the corrections, the fact still remain intact: the frequency of the word "YWM" (in its singular form) is equal to the number of days in a solar year: 365." 

I can now say with high certainty that, if the forms with attached pronouns and with the suffix 'idhin are excluded, it is true that there are 365 mentions. For some reason Yuksel is allergic to mentioning the exceptions; I suspect it is because it definitely dilutes the impact of the "miracle." He also does not mention inconvenient facts, such as that there are 365.25 days, not 365 days, in the solar year. Since "part of a day" is mentioned several times in the Qur'an (these have been included in the count of YAWM), perhaps there is some way to reconcile this fractional difference. 

Yuksel wrote: "3. As Lomax has acknowledged, the frequency of dual and plural forms is 30. Does it require too much imagination to see this number as indicator of average number of days in a month?" 

The average number of days in a month is, more accurately, 29.53. What Yuksel is doing is showing that cross-connections can be made between bodies of data. What he has not done is to show that these cross- connections are statistically signifigant. He has not even tried, unless one counts sheer verbal bluster as trying. One measure of effort in which I will probably never surpass Yuksel is in words per argument. Just look at "Running Like Zebras." 

Yuksel wrote: "4. The total frequency of all forms of the word "YWM" as acknowledged by Lomax, is 475, that is, 19x25. (Congratulations for discovering this fact "by accident.")" 

I have elsewhere stated the obvious: one out of nineteen statistics, collected at random, will be divisible by 19. This is not a "miracle." So the existence of 19-divisible statistics does not prove anything, unless it is shown that they occur substantially more often than one out of nineteen examinations. Of course, if one may manipulate counting criteria, one may make it appear that they occur much more often. This is why it is so important that the criteria for counting be clearly and specifically stated in a way that they cannot be manipulated. 

By selecting such criteria, knowing the effects in advance, one may make it appear that 19-divisible statistics are more common than one would expect by chance, but there is a limit to this effect. Essentially, if one has selected the criteria to make a certain group of counts come out 19-divisible, assuming that the original data is random and not ordered by 19-divisibility, this selection should not increase the occurrence of 19-divisibility in new counts done after the selection. 

But if the selection criteria can be nudged each time, because of the unique character of each word, for example, there is no limit to the number of "miraculous" statistics that could be created with diligent labor. 

Yuksel wrote: "God always exposes those who rejects the truth (47:29). Here is how: In our previous arguments on the code 19, Lomax always tried to come up with different ways of count that were not divisible by the code." 

What I have done is not to deny legitimate counts, but to show that there are alternate ways of counting. With a real "mathematical code," this will not deny a legitimate decoding; it only bears on the question of whether or not the counting may have been manipulated to produce the announced result. 

Yuksel wrote: "In other words, he always escaped from that number, fulfilling the prophetic description of 74:50. However, here, God Almighty trapped him with that number. In trying to escape from 365 he resorted to 475, a number divisible by 19. Observing his 19-phobic behavior, I am sure he would have rejected the total 475 had he noticed that it was divisible by 19 or had we introduced it as an evidence for the mathematical code of the Quran." 

I have never denied that there are many nineteen-divisible counts in the Qur'an. Yuksel has simply lost his mind in his polemic. 

Yuksel wrote: "Second, Lomax translated SOME of those forms in his list. Inadvertently, he demonstrated the truth since NONE of the forms he has translated were counted by us. If you count the frequency of UNtranslated form(s) you will have 365. Coincidence?" 

Not at all. I only translated forms which were apparently not included in Yuksel's list. Had Yuksel's list, proposed as proof, been correct, there would have been no problem, except for one word, which I still promise I will get to. 

Yuksel wrote: "Also there was a divine sign for Lomax to stop and reflect. He noticed it, but did not take heed: "The total count is 476 instead of 475 because Yuksel's unused 297 is numbered. Interestingly, this is number 365 in my list!" He does not know that God Almighty shows His signs to us even through sloppy work." 

But I did notice it, and commented on it. This number is an artifact of my work, combined with Yuksel's work. We might choose to consider that as a sign that Allah is guiding our work. I have no problem with that; certainly I ask him for that. But we might also choose to consider it a sign that statistics like this turn up in collections of numbers of all kinds, not just in Qur'an, and I am certain that this is true, and Allah has power over all things. 

Yuksel wrote: "5. Fuad Abdulbaqy's concordance is much more accurate than the concordances used by Lomax. His concordance, Flugel, (1) misses three occurrences out of 475, (2) does not follow the standard verse numbering, and (3) divides words into fictional different forms, confusing irrelevant vowels with letters. On the other hand, Abdulbaqy's concordance, (1) misses only one occurrence out of 475 and makes the correction in its introduction. (2) follows the standard verse numbering, and (3) divides words according to a grammatically reasonable classification. Despite my previous suggestions, Lomax is still insisting on not using this most accurate and popular index." 

I am flabbergasted that Yuksel somehow tries to turn the fact that I discovered three errors in Flugel (and now one more) into some kind of defect on my part. No errors were discovered in Kassis. I have only one reason for not using AbdulBaqi: I do not have a copy. I have ordered one. 

Since Yuksel has now asserted that Abdulbaqy "divides words according to a grammatically reasonable classification," will he now accept AbdulBaqi's classifications as legitimate for a preliminary investigation of word frequencies in the Qur'an? In other words, if AbdulBaqi lists two forms separately, we will not combine them, and if he combines them, we will not separate them? 

This does not mean that, if word frequencies in AbdulBaqi turn out to show a clear pattern in the Qur'an, we might not then look for ways in which AbdulBaqi's classifications might be adjusted, but only that we will not deviate from these classifications *before* we have shown such a pattern. Without *some* clear method of identifying words, it will remain possible that the "miraculous" counts are merely an artifact of the counting process. 

Yuksel wrote: "Abdulbaqi's concordance lists only 9 different forms of this word. Some of those forms should be combined, since the suffix "alif" does not add any extra meaning; except showing that the word is used as an object in the sentence. Therefore, we have only 6 different forms of this word mentioned in the Quran, not 34 diffirent forms as Lomax claims." 

That one classification is legitimate does not deny that other classifications are legitimate. In this discussion, an excess of information is necessary at the beginning; it appears that Yuksel would like to cover up the various differences. I did not claim that it was illegitimate to combine the alif-suffixed forms, for example, nor that there was anything wrong with combining the genetive with nominative and accusative forms. In fact, my piece was primarily investigational: to determine exactly what was being counted, in the absence of clear statements from Yuksel and other claimants. However, note the slipperiness of what Yuksel is saying: AbdulBaqi lists the alif-suffixed forms separately, but we will combine them because it "does not add any meaning;" i.e., the alif only indicates how the word is being used in the sentence (which often does add meaning), but does not make a variation in the meaning of the noun itself. But this could also be asserted about "yawmikum," etc., (that it is "your" day does not make it other than a "day") and it is even more true about "ALLHM"; for the M does not change the meaning of ALLH, any more than prefixing a YA to the sacred name changes its meaning (both forms would mean "O God!"). 

It is no wonder that the rules for counting words have not been stated. Yuksel, I suspect, knows that if he states clear rules, there will still be this exception and that exception. 

Yuksel wrote: "Here are the different forms of "YWM" listed by "Mu'jam-ul Mufahras Lielfaz-il Quran-il Kareem," preceded by their frequency in the Quran: 

365 ywm day 
5 ywm-kum your day 
5 ywm-hum their day 
3 ywm-ayn two days 
27 ayyaam days 
70 ywm-ezen that day 
--------------------------------- 
475 (19x25)" 

It appears that this summary is accurate (except for a minor detail: the count for "ywm-hum" includes "ywm-him"). It matches my corrected database derived from Kassis and Flugel. Note that the occurrences of words do include all the forms with prefixes, but not those with suffixes other than alif. But, looking at this summary, I was able to find one more error in Flugel that I did not discover previously. 

Flugel counts 40:16 as an occurrence of yawmahum. However, the "hum" is not attached to "yawm." Instead, it is a separate pronoun. With the correction implied by this, my counts match the AbdulBaqi counts. Note that Yuksel did not catch this error, though he did assert, correctly, that I had missed a count (actually, the count was not missed, but rather misidentified). He did not specify the misidentified count, though the whole point of my publication of the detailed list and the summary totals by form was to make it easier to find discrepancies like this. It appears that Yuksel reasons from conclusions, not from primary evidence. The current database may be found at http://www.crl.com/~marjan, as 365day.doc. 

Yuksel wrote: "Indeed, they have rejected this without studying and examining it, and before understanding it. Thus did those before them disbelieve." 

I have probably studied and examined the "miracle of the nineteen" more closely than nearly every supporter or critic of it. Yuksel may be an exception, and I think there are a few others. As to "understanding," Allah knows best who is best in understanding. I continue to examine the claims of numerical coherency in the Qur'an. That the boy cried "wolf" falsely so many times does not prove that there is no wolf, only that the boy is not to be trusted. 

YUKSEL: Yes Lomax, the answer was attached. Thank you. 

I was expecting an acknowledgement of the fact that the singular form of the word "ywm" (day), (without suffixes) occurs in the Quran 365 times, its plural forms "yawmayn" and "ayyaam" occur 30 times, and all the forms of the word occur 475 (19x25) times. However, you chose not to acknowledge this simple fact. 

LOMAX: The day you learn to be fully accurate in what you say, that day will I acknowledge what you say as true without reservation. You still have not quite done it. 

I will say what I can say. If it is not enough for you, well, may Allah inform us as to the truth. 

The word "ywm" in all its forms occurs in the Qur'an, according to my research, 475 times. This is equal to 19x25, for those who consider such correspondences significant. 

The dual and plural forms together occur 30 times. 

If one excludes forms with any suffix other than the alif of the accusative, and the dual and plural forms, there remain 365 occurrences. 

All these facts are either explicitly stated in my corrected paper or are easily derived from it. 

Now, you have repeatedly stated that there is a clear and concise method for counting words in the Qur'an. 

(1) What is this method? Can you state it in a way such that it can be applied to any word, without knowing in advance what the word is? Can it be stated so clearly that a computer algorithm could be used to count words? 

(2) With the word "Yawm," all forms together occur an exact multiple of 19 times. This seems to be significant to you. If we count a series of words like "yawm" in the Qur'an, do you expect that the totals for all forms of the words (let us restrict ourselves to nouns, for simplicity) will be divisible by 19 more than would be expected from random variation? 

We already know that this is not true for "Allah." In this case, in the received text, there are 2816 occurrences. It is necessary to exclude the bismillahs other than 1:1, and 9:128, and the five "Allahumma" mentions, to come up with a multiple of 19. 

"Allahumma" is clearly a form of "Allah," even more than is "Lillah." 

This whole matter exposes only how slippery are word definitions and how you have been less than open about discussing all this. In all our discussion, knowing how important was the issue of how to count words, the exclusion of "Allahumma" was never mentioned. It was never mentioned in any publication of Khalifa, as far as I am aware. Khalifa has even distorted his translation of "Allahumma" to make it appear that it does not contain the word "Allah"! 

Yuksel, you know the Qur'an well enough to know what is the fate of those who know the truth and who conceal it. But then there is an exception: "illa ladhiyna taabuw wa aslahuw wa bayyanuw." (2:160). It is enough for me that I have reminded you of this. 

You are like the magicians of Pharaoh; and you object to anyone who shines light on your ropes and hidden wires. But there remains time for you to come forward and declare the truth, though it grows short. 

I fully understand how difficult this would be for you. Yet the reward from Allah would be tremendous. 

Yuksel, you are intelligent enough to know that there are methods for objectively weighing the significance of "coincidences." It would be enough, I think, if you would fully cooperate with applying these techniques to the study of the "miracle." They are statistical techniques, and their results are thus not fully certain, but they are far more reliable than an ad hoc "Gee whiz, that's amazing," and, with a large enough sample, statistical results can be *very* reliable. 

[YUKSEL: Years after this internet debate, I noticed that some other people are also raising the question about ALLAHUMMA (translated as 'our Lord'), which occurs 5 times in the Quran. They ask why this word is not included in the count of ALLAH (God), which is 2698 (19x142). Those who know basics of Arabic grammar will know the reason easily. Those who do not have this knowledge can learn the difference by  checking the context of the usage of ALLAHUMMA and ALLAH. Here are few clues for those who do not know Arabic: 

1. "UMMA" is not  really a suffix. There is no such a suffix in Arabic. ALLAHUMMA is an abbrevated statement usually translated "o my/our Lord." 

2. ALLAHUMMA differs from ALLAH since it cannot be the subject in a statement. Therefore, you cannot replace ALLAHUMMA in the statements where ALLAH is the subject. For instance, "ALLAH created the universe." In Arabic you cannot say "ALLAHUMMA created the universe." Thus, the word ALLAHUMMA is not the same as ALLAH. 

3. ALLAHUMMA is also different than all other attributes of God, and it may not be considered an attribute at all. For instance you can say "ALLAH is Merciful," but you cannot say "ALLAH is ALLAHUMMA." 

4. ALLAHUMMA, though it contains the word ALLAH, yet it is a different word. For instance, though the attributes HAKAM (Judge)  and HAKYM (Wise) contain the root letters HKM, yet they are in different forms and have different meanings. Thus each is counted seperately. Another example is RAHMAN (Gracious) and RAHYM (Merciful). Though both contain the root letters RHM, yet they are in different forms and thus they are counted seperately.] 

Shawki HAMDAN: He also told you that if you follow him you would be wrong. He told you that unless you verify his statements, you do not have to believe him. Have you done that Hyder ? All I hear you saying is that some anonymous person improved your awareness. Who is this person ? Maybe I can improve his awareness. 

The proof of the falsehood of these verses can be verified by anyone, even you ! 

Farid ud-Dien RICE: To what extent have you verified it, Shawki? Br. Abdurrahman Lomax was himself once a follower of Khalifa, and even knew him personally. Br. Lomax tried to verify things for himself, and then found many mistakes in Khalifa's counts. He has even posted himself here the fallacy in the number of counts of the word "Day" in the Qur'an (which the Khalifites claim to be 365, if I remember right), posting every occurrence of the word "Day" which he found. It did not turn out to be the number the Khalifites claim it is. Have you checked things to the same extent Br. Lomax has? 

FINALLY 

YUKSEL: Farid ud-Dien Rice who was relying on Lomax did not know that Lomax in the end of our argument corrected his errors. Rice and other sectarian folks, while accusing others not having checked things extensively, followed our argument blindly. I did not answer Lomax's lengthy reply, since in his last reply he finally accepted the truth without hiding it under his usual elegant and verbose rhetoric, but only with little nagging. I do not want to dwell on his misguided and erroneous new allegations. Lomax and his ditto-heads have been exposed sufficiently in our Internet argument titled "Running Like Zebras." 

Indeed, the truth of the matter depends neither on me nor on Lomax. It is an objective fact that can easily be verified or falsified by others. I thank to Lomax for allowing us to demonstrate one of the mathematical patterns of the Quran for those who do not accept claims without verification (17:36). Below is the complete list of the frequency of the singular word "DAY" (YaWM) in the Quran: 

No -----> Sura:Verse  
1 ------> 1 :4 
2 ------> 2:8 
3 ------> 2:48 
4 ------> 2:62 
5 ------> 2:85 
6 ------> 2:113 
7 ------> 2:123 
8 ------> 2:126 
9 ------> 2:174 
10 ------> 2:177 
11 ------> 2:212 
12 ------> 2:228 
13 ------> 2:232 
14 ------> 2:249 
15 ------> 2:254 
16 ------> 2:259 
17 ------> 2:259 
18 ------> 2:264 
19 ------> 2:281 
20 ------> 3:9 
21 ------> 3:25 
22 ------> 3:30 
23 ------> 3:55 
24 ------> 3:77 
25 ------> 3:106 
26 ------> 3:114 
27 ------> 3:155 
28 ------> 3:161 
29 ------> 3:166 
30 ------> 3:180 
31 ------> 3:185 
32 ------> 3:194 
33 ------> 4:38 
34 ------> 4:39 
35 ------> 4:59 
36 ------> 4:87 
37 ------> 4:109 
38 ------> 4:136 
39 ------> 4:141 
40 ------> 4:159 
41 ------> 4:162 
42 ------> 5:3 
43 ------> 5:3 
44 ------> 5:5 
45 ------> 5:14 
46 ------> 5:36 
47 ------> 5:64 
48 ------> 5:69 
49 ------> 5:109 
50 ------> 5:119 
51 ------> 6:12 
52 ------> 6:15 
53 ------> 6:22 
54 ------> 6:73 
55 ------> 6:73 
56 ------> 6:93 
57 ------> 6:128 
58 ------> 6:141 
59 ------> 6:158 
60 ------> 7:14 
61 ------> 7:32 
62 ------> 7:51 
63 ------> 7:53 
64 ------> 7:59 
65 ------> 7:163 
66 ------> 7:163 
67 ------> 7:167 
68 ------> 7:172 
69 ------> 8:41 
70 ------> 8:41 
71 ------> 8:48 
72 ------> 9:3 
73 ------> 9:18 
74 ------> 9:19 
75 ------> 9:25 
76 ------> 9:29 
77 ------> 9:35 
78 ------> 9:36 
79 ------> 9:44 
80 ------> 9:45 
81 ------> 9:77 
82 ------> 9:99 
83 ------> 9:108 
84 ------> 10:15 
85 ------> 10:28 
86 ------> 10:45 
87 ------> 10:60 
88 ------> 10:92 
89 ------> 10:93 
90 ------> 11:3 
91 ------> 11:8 
92 ------> 11:26 
93 ------> 11:43 
94 ------> 11:60 
95 ------> 11:77 
96 ------> 11:84 
97 ------> 11:98 
98 ------> 11:99 
99 ------> 11:103 
100 ------> 11:103 
101 ------> 11:105 
102 ------> 12:54 
103 ------> 12:92 
104 ------> 14:18 
105 ------> 14:31 
106 ------> 14:41 
107 ------> 14:42 
108 ------> 14:44 
109 ------> 14:48 
110 ------> 15:35 
111 ------> 15:36 
112 ------> 15:38 
113 ------> 16:25 
114 ------> 16:27 
115 ------> 16:27 
116 ------> 16:63 
117 ------> 16:80 
118 ------> 16:80 
119 ------> 16:84 
120 ------> 16:89 
121 ------> 16:92 
122 ------> 16:111 
123 ------> 16:124 
124 ------> 17:13 
125 ------> 17:14 
126 ------> 17:52 
127 ------> 17:58 
128 ------> 17:62 
129 ------> 17:71 
130 ------> 17:97 
131 ------> 18:19 
132 ------> 18:19 
133 ------> 18:47 
134 ------> 18:52 
135 ------> 18:105 
136 ------> 19:15 
137 ------> 19:15 
138 ------> 19:15 
139 ------> 19:26 
140 ------> 19:33 
141 ------> 19:33 
142 ------> 19:33 
143 ------> 19:37 
144 ------> 19:38 
145 ------> 19:38 
146 ------> 19:39 
147 ------> 19:85 
148 ------> 19:95 
149 ------> 20:59 
150 ------> 20:64 
151 ------> 20:100 
152 ------> 20:101 
153 ------> 20:102 
154 ------> 20:104 
155 ------> 20:124 
156 ------> 20:126 
157 ------> 21:47 
158 ------> 21:104 
159 ------> 22:2 
160 ------> 22:9 
161 ------> 22:17 
162 ------> 22:47 
163 ------> 22:55 
164 ------> 22:69 
165 ------> 23:16 
166 ------> 23:65 
167 ------> 23:100 
168 ------> 23:111 
169 ------> 23:113 
170 ------> 23:113 
171 ------> 24:2 
172 ------> 24:24 
173 ------> 24:37 
174 ------> 24:64 
175 ------> 25:14 
176 ------> 25:17 
177 ------> 25:22 
178 ------> 25:25 
179 ------> 25:26 
180 ------> 25:27 
181 ------> 25:69 
182 ------> 26:38 
183 ------> 26:82 
184 ------> 26:87 
185 ------> 26:88 
186 ------> 26:135 
187 ------> 26:155 
188 ------> 26:156 
189 ------> 26:189 
190 ------> 26:189 
191 ------> 27:83 
192 ------> 27:87 
193 ------> 28:41 
194 ------> 28:42 
195 ------> 28:61 
196 ------> 28:62 
197 ------> 28:65 
198 ------> 28:71 
199 ------> 28:72 
200 ------> 28:74 
201 ------> 29:13 
202 ------> 29:25 
203 ------> 29:36 
204 ------> 29:55 
205 ------> 30:12 
206 ------> 30:14 
207 ------> 30:43 
208 ------> 30:55 
209 ------> 30:56 
210 ------> 30:56 
211 ------> 31:33 
212 ------> 32:5 
213 ------> 32:25 
214 ------> 32:29 
215 ------> 33:21 
216 ------> 33:44 
217 ------> 33:66 
218 ------> 34:30 
219 ------> 34:40 
220 ------> 34:42 
221 ------> 35:14 
222 ------> 36:54 
223 ------> 36:55 
224 ------> 36:59 
225 ------> 36:64 
226 ------> 36:65 
227 ------> 37:20 
228 ------> 37:21 
229 ------> 37:26 
230 ------> 37:144 
231 ------> 38:16 
232 ------> 38:26 
233 ------> 38:53 
234 ------> 38:78 
235 ------> 38:79 
236 ------> 38:81 
237 ------> 39:13 
238 ------> 39:15 
239 ------> 39:24 
240 ------> 39:31 
241 ------> 39:47 
242 ------> 39:60 
243 ------> 39:67 
244 ------> 40:15 
245 ------> 40:16 
246 ------> 40:16 
247 ------> 40:17 
248 ------> 40:17 
249 ------> 40:18 
250 ------> 40:27 
251 ------> 40:29 
252 ------> 40:30 
253 ------> 40:32 
254 ------> 40:33 
255 ------> 40:46 
256 ------> 40:49 
257 ------> 40:51 
258 ------> 40:52 
259 ------> 41:19 
260 ------> 41:40 
261 ------> 41:47 
262 ------> 42:7 
263 ------> 42:45 
264 ------> 42:47 
265 ------> 43:39 
266 ------> 43:65 
267 ------> 43:68 
268 ------> 44:10 
269 ------> 44:16 
270 ------> 44:40 
271 ------> 44:41 
272 ------> 45:17 
273 ------> 45:26 
274 ------> 45:27 
275 ------> 45:28 
276 ------> 45:34 
277 ------> 45:35 
278 ------> 46:5 
279 ------> 46:20 
280 ------> 46:20
281 ------> 46:21 
282 ------> 46:34 
283 ------> 46:35 
284 ------> 50:20 
285 ------> 50:22 
286 ------> 50:30 
287 ------> 50:34 
288 ------> 50:41 
289 ------> 50:42 
290 ------> 50:42 
291 ------> 50:44 
292 ------> 51:12 
293 ------> 51:13 
294 ------> 52:9 
295 ------> 52:13 
296 ------> 52:46 
297 ------> 54:6 
298 ------> 54:8 
299 ------> 54:19 
300 ------> 54:48 
301 ------> 55:29 
302 ------> 56:50 
303 ------> 56:56 
304 ------> 57:12 
305 ------> 57:12 
306 ------> 57:13 
307 ------> 57:15 
308 ------> 58:6 
309 ------> 58:7 
310 ------> 58:18 
311 ------> 58:22 
312 ------> 60:3 
313 ------> 60:6 
314 ------> 62:9 
315 ------> 64:9 
316 ------> 64:9 
317 ------> 64:9 
318 ------> 65:2 
319 ------> 66:7 
320 ------> 66:8 
321 ------> 68:24 
322 ------> 68:39 
323 ------> 68:42 
324 ------> 69:35 
325 ------> 70:4 
326 ------> 70:8 
327 ------> 70:26 
328 ------> 70:43 
329 ------> 70:44 
330 ------> 73:14 
331 ------> 73:17 
332 ------> 74:9 
333 ------> 74:46 
334 ------> 75:1 
335 ------> 75:6 
336 ------> 76:7 
337 ------> 76:10 
338 ------> 76:11 
339 ------> 76:27 
340 ------> 77:12 
341 ------> 77:13 
342 ------> 77:14 
343 ------> 77:35 
344 ------> 77:38 
345 ------> 78:17 
346 ------> 78:18 
347 ------> 78:38 
348 ------> 78:39 
349 ------> 78:40 
350 ------> 79:6 
351 ------> 79:35 
352 ------> 79:46 
353 ------> 80:34 
354 ------> 82:15 
355 ------> 82:17 
356 ------> 82:18 
357 ------> 82:19 
358 ------> 83:5 
359 ------> 83:6 
360 ------> 83:11 
361 ------> 83:34 
362 ------> 85:2 
363 ------> 86:9 
364 ------> 90:14 
365 ------> 101:4 

Below is the complete list of the frequency of the plural forms of the word "DAY" (AYyAM, YaWMaYN): 

No -----> Sura:Verse 
1 ------> 2:80 
2 ------> 2:184 
3 ------> 2:184 
4 ------> 2:185 
5 ------> 2:196 
6 ------> 2:203 
7 ------> 2:203 
8 ------> 3:24 
9 ------> 3:41 
10 ------> 3:140 
11 ------> 5:89 
12 ------> 7:54 
13 ------> 10:3 
14 ------> 10:102 
15 ------> 11:7 
16 ------> 11:65 
17 ------> 14:5 
18 ------> 22:28 
19 ------> 25:59 
20 ------> 32:4 
21 ------> 34:18 
22 ------> 41:9 
23 ------> 41:10 
24 ------> 41:12 
25 ------> 41:16 
26 ------> 45:14 
27 ------> 50:38 
28 ------> 57:4 
29 ------> 69:7 
30 ------> 69:24 

Below is the complete list of the frequency of the word "SHaHR" (Month): 

No -----> Sura:Verse 
1 ------> 2:185 
2 ------> 2:185 
3 ------> 2:194 
4 ------> 2:194 
5 ------> 2:217 
6 ------> 5:2 
7 ------> 5:97 
8 ------> 9:36 
9 ------> 34:12 
10 ------> 34:12 
11 ------> 46:15 
12 ------> 97:3 

That's the END of the debate on 365 days and plus, finally! 
 
  
TOP