The author of the referred article has categorically stated that till such time as the explained 'theory' is further developed and substantiated, it would remain a 'theory' and till then, it cannot be termed as 'the only logical explanation of the letters'. I really do not think that in the presence of this submission, any objection can be raised on the said statement. It is an honest submission to affect that even though the author holds the explained as a logical line of reasoning, yet to be accepted as a fact, the particular line of reasoning needs to be further substantiated and proven. However, I would like to give my brief comments on some of the points that you have mentioned in your letter. You write: First of all, it is known that those letters are part of the miracles of the Qur'an and their true meaning is known only to Allah. Please reconsider your statement closely. Your first contention is that these letters are a part of the miracle of the Qur'an. I would really be interested in finding out what is miraculous about these letters. I would, therefore, appreciate if you would kindly give me the explanation of the miracle in the use of these letters. Please bear in mind that a miracle is something, which, by its very existence or incidence, forces us to consider it to be an action of a supernatural being; it is something beyond the control of human beings; something not falling within the cause-effect chain of events. Your second contention is that 'their true meaning is known only to Allah'. That can, indeed, be the case. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Muslim scholars have generally tried to explain these letters on the assumption [2] that because the Qur'an has used these letters, they must have some implication. Why would Qur'an say something, which has always remained incomprehensible for man? If only God knew the meaning, implication and usage of these letters, and yet they were to be used in the Qur'an - which was being revealed for the guidance of man - they should then have been adequately explained by the Qur'an. Proposing an alternative theory, you say: Some say that the letters are symbols, example alif for Allah and so on. This is, indeed, a considerable proposition. However, this theory too needs adequate substantiation before it can be accepted as a 'fact'. The pertinent questions that need to be answered, for the establishment of this theory, are: On what basis are the letters associated with the proposed words? For example, why is ' alif ' taken to be a symbol for the word " Allah " and not for the word " Imaan " or " Islam "? Why are these letters placed only at the beginning of the respective Surahs in which they occur? Why do some of the Surahs begin with identical combination of letters? Do the letters or the combinations thereof have any relationship with the subject matter of the Surahs that follow them? What is the explanation of all the letters so used in the Qur'an, on the basis of this 'theory'? The Qur'an has used fourteen letters in different combinations, what does each of these letters and combinations signify (or symbolize)? It is actually the lack of adequate and exhaustive answer to fourth question only, due to which the explanation proposed by Hamid-ud-din Farahi is still considered a 'theory'. Thus, for the sake of considering the explanation (of considering letters as symbols) more seriously, a comprehensible answer to at least the first three questions should be given. As a further alternate explanation, you write: Some say that they were there to call the attention of the kuffar . For example if I start saying out loud. "A, W, B, C" you will look at me and listen to see what I am talking about and what I am trying to say. This, in my opinion, is quite a ridiculous proposition. I do agree that if you started saying out "A, W, B, D... etc. etc." loudly, you will gain the attention of those around you. But tell me honestly, have you ever resorted to such a practice, to invite attention to what you have to say (even to propagate the message of Islam)? Have you ever seen anyone doing such a thing? Do you know of any incident where the Prophet (pbuh) did such a thing, while he was trying to gain attention, during the early stages of his message, or even any Arab orator to have done so? Have you considered why would such utterances catch attention of those around you? This would only happen because people would find such loud utterances a meaningless and nonsensical thing to do and would probably only look at the person, who is making such utterances with disgust (which may, however, be perceived by the person as having succeeded in catching the attention of those around him). Furthermore, this explanation clearly refutes all meaning or implication of the letters or the combinations used. It holds these letters and combinations as mere strange noises made for the purpose of catching attention of the listeners. If that is truly the case, then the proponents of this explanation should have no objection if the letters or their sequence is changed or altered by anyone reciting the Surahs , or even removed (especially if he is reciting the Surah to himself). After all, this theory holds that there is no other utility of these letters, except to catch the attention of the listeners. As a further alternative, you suggest: Another example which I think makes a lot more sense is that every time there are letters said before the Surah , the surah starts with the mentioning of the Qur'an either in the first or the second ayah . For example " alif laam meem This is the Book...". Now the explanation is that by stating letters Allah is showing the magnificence of the Qur'an. He is saying look, this Qur'an is written in your Arabic letters, yet you cannot make something like it. This proposition, once again, is one, which refutes all meaning, implication and sense for the letters as well as the combination of these letters. Thus, in my opinion, the same objection applies to it, as is given in the previous paragraph. You write: I believe that it is wrong to say that a certain ayah means one thing and that's it, unless the Prophet (pbuh) says so. I really fail to understand the implication of your statement. Do you imply that: The verses of the Qur'an do not have a single clear meaning; or Even though all Qur'anic verses have a single meaning, yet no person, except the Prophet (pbuh) can determine the accurate single meaning of these verses. In either case, I would appreciate if you would kindly explain: What is the basis of your opinion? If the verses of the Qur'an do not have a single clearly comprehensible and determinable meaning, then what exactly is the single path to which God intended to guide all mankind by revealing the Qur'an? If only the Prophet (pbuh) could truly (and ultimately) understand the true implication of the Qur'anic verses, then obviously the Prophet (pbuh) - rather than the Qur'an - should have been made available to all mankind for all times to come, to guide them to the path of God. What is the use of safeguarding the Qur'an from all mistake, alteration and adulteration if it cannot be fully understood by any person even after he has gained the necessary abilities? In my opinion, every verse of the Qur'an has a clearly determinable single meaning, which guides to the path of the Almighty. The existence of a number of various interpretations of the verses does not mean that a verse entails all these different implications. These various interpretations only depict the differences in the interpretations of various individuals. These differences of interpretation do not, in any way, affect the actual single meaning and implication of the respective verses. If a person has the ability to understand the classical Arabic dialect; if he has developed in himself the ability to interpret good literature; if he can interpret the words within a sentence, the sentences within a paragraph, the paragraphs within a chapter and the chapters within a book in their proper context, then there is, apparently, no reason why he cannot determine the exact meaning and implication of any piece of literature, including the Qur'an. You write: Do you believe that the letters are a part of the Qur'an, because from the article it seems like the author was referring to them as the title of the Surahs . Now if you believe that than you can be doing kuffur . Without thinking about it. One of the pillars of Imaan is to believe in Allah's books, all the way up to the Qur'an, and believing in all of it. If someone says he doesn't believe in one ayah than he is automatically out of the circle of Islam. I really do not think that considering the said letters and their various combinations to be the titles of the respective Surahs upon which they have been placed is a negation of their being a part of the Qur'an. Do you not consider the title of a chapter to be a part of the book in which the chapter lies? Do you not consider the words " Kitaab Ahadith al-Anbiyaa " (the book of narrations of the prophets [3] ) or the words " Baab Khalq-e-Aadam wa zurriyyatihi " (The section relating to the creation of Adam (pbuh) and his progeny [4] ) as parts of the Sahih Bukhari ? Thus, considering the various letters or their various combinations as the titles of the respective Surahs does not necessitate the belief that these letters and their combinations are not a part of the Qur'an. August 23, 2000 [1] Reference is to one of Shehzad Saleem's articles titled " Huroof-e-Muqatta`aat - Farahi's Theory ". [2] Which, in my opinion, is quite reasonable. [3] A title of a chapter of Sahih Bukhari - one of the most prominent compilations of narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh). [4] A title of a section of the referred chapter of Sahih Bukhari . Answer published by Moiz Amjad