Satr: Serialization

Discussion   Join  

See Also: 

Deconstruction and Persistence
Tafsir (Exegesis)
Kitab (Book)
Zabūr (Harsh, Difficult Book)
Nur (Light)
Nafs (Self)
Qalb (Heart)
Kursi (Stacked Pages.Sheets)
Kalima (Divine Spoke Words)
Jawāmi’ Kalām (Compressed Spoken Words)
Tauhid (Divine Oneness) vs. Kathra (Multitude)   
Entanglement Not Order  

If the entity/world A wills to communicate with the entity/world B, and by communicate sending objects or remote controlling objects is meant,  a third entity is needed:

1.    An entity with spatial attributes, called ‘place
2.    Place to store the communication
3.    Place to preserve and ward off the corruption
4.    Delay (store-forward), in case A and B may not co-exist
5.    Place as a buffer to avoid commixing of A and B, to avoid direct communication and access
6.    Place to render the communication and eventual emanation/broadcast. 

Note: By ‘render’ post/pre-processing is meant as in the context of a process output. By Process a collective that supports and guarantees the continuation of an entity, and by output participation and appropriation for objectification of another entity are meant. 

There is such a peculiar place, a universal one at that, which can/must support any and all communications; itself has no intellect to initiate or create the communication, therefore acts like a place for storing and forwarding the communication—a spatial middle-agent.

This universal place causes the need for the simplest form of storage-format to support all communications, and such format for storage/processing/emanation is called Satr: Serialization, ‘And all little and large are serialized/transcribed’[54:53].

 وَكُلُّ صَغِيرٍ وَكَبِيرٍ مُّسْتَطَرٌ

A, B and the Satr (Serialization) can be modeled as three entangled Borromean rings, forming a Quantum wherein if any of the rings removed the other two move away freely without any entanglement. Without Satr (Serialization) there would be no two worlds/entities communicating and if the two do communicate there has to be a Satr!

Note: Without the Satr (Serialization) there would not even exist the concept of ‘two’ as in ‘two worlds/entities’! We can imagine or say ‘two worlds/entities’ only after the application of Satr (Serialization)!

The following may serve as examples of Satr (Serialization) in science and technology:

DNA Transcription

Transcription is the process through which a DNA sequence is enzymatically copied by an RNA polymerase to produce a complementary RNA. Or, in other words, the transfer of genetic information from DNA into RNA. In the case of protein-encoding DNA, transcription is the beginning of the process that ultimately leads to the translation of the genetic code (via the mRNA intermediate) into a functional peptide or protein. Transcription has some proofreading mechanisms, but they are fewer and less effective than the controls for DNA; therefore, transcription has a lower copying fidelity than DNA replication.

Like DNA replication, transcription proceeds in the 5' → 3' direction (ie the old polymer is read in the 3' → 5' direction and the new, complementary fragments are generated in the 5' → 3' direction). Transcription is divided into 3 stages: initiation, elongation and termination.

Translation is the second process of protein biosynthesis (part of the overall process of gene expression).Translation occurs in the cytoplasm where the ribosomes are located. Ribosomes are made of a small and large subunit which surrounds the mRNA. In translation, messenger RNA (mRNA) is decoded to produce a specific polypeptide according to the rules specified by the genetic code. This is the process that converts an mRNA sequence into a chain of amino acids that form a protein. Translation is necessarily preceded by transcription. Translation proceeds in four phases: activation, initiation, elongation and termination (all describing the growth of the amino acid chain, or polypeptide that is the product of translation). In activation, the correct amino acid (AA) is joined to the correct transfer RNA (tRNA). While this is not technically a step in translation, it is required for translation to proceed. The AA is joined by its carboxyl group to the 3' OH of the tRNA by an ester bond. When the tRNA has an amino acid linked to it, it is termed "charged". Initiation involves the small subunit of the ribosome binding to 5' end of mRNA with the help of initiation factors (IF), other proteins that assist the process. Elongation occurs when the next aminoacyl-tRNA (charged tRNA) in line binds to the ribosome along with GTP and an elongation factor. Termination of the polypeptide happens when the A site of the ribosome faces a stop (nonsense) codon (UAA, UAG, or UGA). When this happens, no tRNA can recognize it, but releasing factor can recognize nonsense codons and causes the release of the polypeptide chain. The capacity of disabling or inhibiting translation in protein biosynthesis is used by antibiotics such as: anisomycin, cycloheximide, chloramphenicol and tetracycline.

Data Packetization, RPC and Object Serialization

In computer science, in the context of data storage and transmission, serialization is the process of saving an object onto a storage medium (such as a file, or a memory buffer) or to transmit it across a network connection link, either as a series of bytes or in some human-readable text format such as XML. The series of bytes or the format can be used to re-create an object that is identical in its internal state to the original object (actually a clone).

This process of serializing an object is also called deflating or marshalling an object. The opposite operation, extracting a data structure from a series of bytes, is deserialization (which is also called inflating or unmarshalling).

In the context of concurrency control, serialization means to force one-at-a-time access. For example, a single-threaded ActiveX server can process only one request at a time; thus requests are queued and executed in the order they are made. (The remainder of this article treats serialization in the object-storage and transmission sense explained above.)

Particle Waves

The double-slit experiment consists of letting light diffract through two slits producing fringes or wave-like patterns on a screen. These fringes or interference patterns have light and dark regions corresponding to where the light waves have constructively and destructively interfered. The experiment can also be performed with a beam of electrons or atoms, showing similar interference patterns; this is taken as evidence of the "wave-particle duality" predicted by quantum physics. Note, however, that a double-slit experiment can also be performed with water waves in a ripple tank; the explanation of the observed wave phenomena does not require quantum mechanics in any way. The phenomenon is quantum mechanical only when quantum particles - such as atoms, electrons, or photons - manifest as waves.

By the 1920s, various other experiments (such as the photoelectric effect) had demonstrated that light interacts with matter only in discrete, "quantum"-sized packets called photons.

If sunlight is replaced with a light source that is capable of producing just one photon at a time, and the screen is sensitive enough to detect a single photon, Young's experiment can, in theory, be performed one photon at a time -- with identical results.

If either slit is covered, the individual photons hitting the screen, over time, create a pattern with a single peak. But if both slits are left open, the pattern of photons hitting the screen, over time, again becomes a series of light and dark fringes. This result seems to both confirm and contradict the wave theory. On the one hand, the interference pattern confirms that light still behaves much like a wave, even though we send it one particle at a time. On the other hand, each time a photon with a certain energy is emitted, the screen detects a photon with the same energy. Under the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum theory, an individual photon is seen as passing through both slits at once, and interfering with itself, producing the interference pattern.

A remarkable result follows from a variation of the double-slit experiment, in which detectors are placed in each of the two slits, in an attempt to determine which slit the photon passes through on its way to the screen. Placing a detector even in just one of the slits will result in the disappearance of the interference pattern. The detection of a photon involves a physical interaction between the photon and the detector of the sort that physically changes the detector. (If nothing changed in the detector, it would not detect anything.) If two photons of the same frequency were emitted at the same time they would be coherent. If they went through two unobstructed slits then they would remain coherent and arriving at the screen at the same time but laterally displaced from each other they would exhibit interference. However, if one or both of them were to encounter a detector, then they would fall out of step with each other, i.e., they would become decohered. They would then arrive at the screen at slightly different times and could not interfere because the first to arrive would have already interacted with the screen before the second got there. If only one photon is involved, it must be detected at one or the other detector, and its continued path goes forward only from the slit where it was detected.

The Copenhagen interpretation posits the existence of probability waves which describe the likelihood of finding the particle at a given location. Until the particle is detected at any location along this probability wave, it effectively exists at every point. Thus, when the particle could be passing through either of the two slits, it will actually pass through both, and so an interference pattern results. But if the particle is detected at one of the two slits, then it can no longer be passing through both - its presence must become manifested at one or the other, and so no interference pattern appears.

This is similar to the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics provided by Richard Feynman (although Feynman stresses that this is merely a mathematical description, not an attempt to describe some "real" process that we cannot see), in which a particle such as a photon takes every possible path through space-time to get from point A to point B. In the double-slit experiment, point A might be the emitter, and point B the screen upon which the interference pattern appears, and a particle takes every possible path - through both slits at once - to get from A to B. When a detector is placed at one of the slits, the situation changes, and we now have a different point B. Point B is now at the detector, and a new path procedes from the detector to the screen. In this eventuality there is only empty space between (B =) A' and the new terminus B', no double slit in the way, and so an interference pattern no longer appears.

Dara: The atomic particle if Serialized, and its Serialization waves through the space, where and when in some location in space-time the particle is reversibly reconstructed to be the selfsame of the original particle. This waving of the Satr (Serialization) is observed by the double-slit experiment. The experiment is performed with many other particles and ions and the results is always similar. There is a wave pattern no matter what particle is used, so the observation is not about the particle, it is perhaps due to the Satr (Serialization) of all objects in the universe.   

Reversible Deconstruction
Serialization may be understood by its procedural attribute: Reversible Deconstruction. In order for an object in entity A, for example a protein in a cell, to be communicated to the subdivision cell B (when A splits in half), the protein is first deconstructed into the serialized DNA strands and upon the splitting of the cell, a copy is duplicated placed in B; this strand is read (like a text) by a reader (RNA polymerase) and copied and (mRNA) released into the cell B where the protein folds and a fully functional biological component starts working within the cell B. So the said protein was a micro-biologically functional entity in A and yet it was ‘reversibly deconstructed’, copied into B and reconstructed to full functionality again.

Reconstruction may take place in another context, far away, in another time, most frequently in another universe!

Note: Places for reconstruction may vary: time-space, intellect/mind or spiritual heart.

Satr (Serialization) is necessary for the persistence/coherence of the communication and the object that is communicated/transmitted. Without the Serialization the object can easily wither away and no copying/restoration or error correction may be possible.

You see an apple on the table; half an hour later on you see still the ‘same’ apple on the table. The selfsame of the apple, its persistence through the time-space, is directly due to its Satr (Serialization), had it not been serialized at 8:00 pm it would have been an apple and yet at 8:01 pm it might have become a fly.

When you say it is the ‘same’ apple, you directly came across feeling the serialization of the apple. You prehended the apple as a part of your experience, and within this ‘drop of experience’ you felt the same-ness or the selfsame of an apple! Or you felt the serialization of the apple.

Tafsir (Exegesis)

‘Akrama said: Written in every line (Satr) (with regards to ‘And all little and large are serialized/transcribed’[54:53] )

 وَكُلُّ صَغِيرٍ وَكَبِيرٍ مُّسْتَطَرٌ

تفسير جامع البيان في تفسير القران/ الطبري (ت 310 هـ

حدثنا بشر، قال: ثنا عبيد الله بن معاذ، عن أبيه، عن عمران بن حُدَير، عن عكرِمة، قال: مكتوب في كلّ سطر.

Qatada said: ‘And all little and large are serialized/transcribed’[54:53] means preserved.
حدثنا بشر، قال: ثنا يزيد، قال: ثنا سعيد، عن قتادة، قوله: { وَكُلُّ صَغِيرٍ وكَبِيرٍ مُسْتَطَرٌ } أي محفوظ.

‘And all little and large are Mustatar (serialized/transcribed)’: Mustatar is derived from Satr vis-à-vis the template Mufta’al which carries the sense 'caused intentionally'. (Dara: The transcription and serialization are not accidental operations; they are carried out intentionally by the Divine Will and Decision)  

إنما هو مفتعل من سطرت: إذا كتبت سطراً.

‘And a lined book’ [52:2] and ‘In Raqqa (Page(s)) Manshūr (Open, Public)’ [52:3] mean a book that is written on or paged.

حدثني محمد بن عمرو، قال: ثنا أبو عاصم، قال: ثنا عيسى وحدثني الحارث، قال: ثنا الحسن، قال: ثنا ورقاء جميعاً، عن ابن أبي نجيح، عن مجاهد، في قوله: { وكِتاب مَسْطُورٍ } قال: صحف.
حدثنا بشر، قال: ثنا يزيد، قال: ثنا سعيد، عن قتادة، في قوله: { وكِتابٍ مَسْطُورٍ } والمسطور: المكتوب.
حدثنا ابن عبد الأعلى، قال: ثنا محمد بن ثور، عن معمر، عن قتادة، في قوله: { مَسْطُورٍ } قال: مكتوب.
حُدثت عن الحسين، قال: سمعت أبا معاذ يقول: أخبرنا عبيد، قال: سمعت الضحاك يقول في قوله: { مَسْطُورٍ } قال: مكتوب.
وقوله: { فِي رَقٍّ مَنْشُورٍ } يقول: في ورق منشور.
وقوله: «في» من صلة مسطور، ومعنى الكلام: وكتاب سطر، وكُتب في ورق منشور.
حدثنا بشر، قال: ثنا يزيد، قال: ثنا سعيد، عن قتادة { فِي رَقٍّ مَنْشُورٍ } وهو الكتاب.
حدثني الحارث، قال: ثنا الحسن، قال: ثنا ورقاء، عن ابن أبي نجيح، عن مجاهد، { في رَقٍّ } قال: الرقّ: الص

‘And a lined book’ [52:2] means a book that is written, and the Satr is the order/lining of the written alphabets. It could mean Qur’an, or what Allah has written within the Lauh_Mahfūz (The Preserved Tablet), or the Moses’ tablets, or what is within the hearts of the Aulia (Friends of Allah) of Ma’refa (Divine Gnostics) or wisdom.

‘In Raqqa (Page(s)) Manshūr (Open, Public)’ [52:3]: Raqq is the thin-sheet written upon, and it was borrowed as a terminology (‘Isti’āra) to render the concept of written within a book, and the fact that Raqq is not Al-Raqq i.e. being used in an indeterminate grammatical form, no Al (Alif-Lum, the), indicates its aggrandizement and what is meant within them (pages) is not something well-known by the general public. 

تفسير انوار التنزيل واسرار التأويل/ البيضاوي (ت 685 هـ)
{ وَكِتَـٰبٍ مُّسْطُورٍ } مكتوب، والسطر ترتيب الحروف المكتوبة. والمراد به القرآن أو ما كتبه الله في اللوح المحفوظ، أو ألواح موسى عليه السلام، أو في قلوب أوليائه من المعارف والحكم أو ما تكتبه الحفظة.
{ فِى رَقّ مَّنْشُورٍ } الرق الجلد الذي يكتب فيه استعير لما كتب فيه الكتاب، وتنكيرهما للتعظيم والإِشعار بأنهما ليسا من المتعارف فيما بين الناس.

‘In Raqqa (Page(s)) Manshūr (Open, Public)’ [52:3]: What is the benefit of mentioning the thin-pages (Raqqa) since the greatness of a book is determined by its content and not by the type of its pages? We answer that this does make ‘Isharat (Point) towards clarity i.e. this book in Raqqa is not a book that is concealed, it is a book that is accessible and can be read/studied by people. 

 تفسير مفاتيح الغيب ، التفسير الكبير/ الرازي (ت 606 هـ)
المسألة الرابعة: ما الفائدة في قوله تعالى: { فِى رَقّ مَّنْشُورٍ } وعظمة الكتاب بلفظه ومعناه لا بخطه ورقه؟ نقول هو إشارة إلى الوضوح، وذلك لأن الكتاب المطوي لا يعلم ما فيه فقال هو في رق منشور وليس كالكتب المطوية وعلى هذا المراد اللوح المحفوظ فمعناه هو منشور لكم لا يمنعكم أحد من مطالعته، وإن قلنا بأن المراد كتاب أعمال كل أحد فالتنكير لعدم المعرفة بعينه وفي رق منشور لبيان وصفه كما قال تعالى:
{ كِتَابًا يَلْقَـٰهُ مَنْشُوراً }
[الإسراء: 13] وذلك لأن غير المعروف إذا وصف كان إلى المعرفة أقرب شبهاً.

Ibn Ajiba
‘And all that they did (is) within the Zabūr (Preserved Archive)’ [54:52] means all they did of disbelief and rebelliousness, in great details, archived in a preserving archive. ‘All little and large’ [54:53] refers to the deeds, all transcribed/serialized/lined/paged within an Archive (Lauh).

Dara: As you may read below, Entanglement Not Order, there is no way to claim which was done first i.e. did we first do our actions and then it was written in an archive, or first it was written in an archive, and the transcription was enacted by us in full detail afterwards in this world. 

تفسير البحر المديد في تفسير القران المجيد/ ابن عجيبة (ت 1266 هـ)
 { وكلُّ شيءٍ فعلوه } من الكفر والمعاصي مكتوب على التفصيل { في الزُبرِ } في ديوان الحفظة، { وكل صغيرٍ وكبيرٍ } مِن الأعمال، ومِن كل ما هو كائن { مُسْتَطَرٌ } مسطور في اللوح بتفاصيله.

تفسير تفسير الجلالين/ المحلي و السيوطي (ت المحلي 864 هـ/السيوطي 911 هـ)
{ وَكُلُّ صَغِيرٍ وَكَبِيرٍ } من الذنب أو العمل { مُّسْتَطَرٌ } مكتوب في اللوح المحفوظ.

Note: In Qur’an any reference to the word Satr (Serialization) or any of its grammatical derivatives always deal with the ideas of a Lauh (Divine Tablet) as was described above. However there is a standing-phrase, an oft-repeated term that is used exclusively for human scribbling and writing: Asātirul Awwalin (The tales/writings of the ancient folk) referring to what people wrote in the past. This clearly partitions the phraseology of the Qur’an on Satr (Serialization), with little confusion on its meaning. Asātirul Awwalin is found at [6:25], [8:31], [16:24], [23:83], [25:5], [27:68], [46:17], [68:15] and [83:13]; and in all these the term refers to human writings of the past. 

وَمِنْهُم مَّن يَسْتَمِعُ إِلَيْكَ وَجَعَلْنَا عَلَى قُلُوبِهِمْ أَكِنَّةً أَن يَفْقَهُوهُ وَفِي آذَانِهِمْ وَقْرًا وَإِن يَرَوْاْ كُلَّ آيَةٍ لاَّ يُؤْمِنُواْ بِهَا حَتَّى إِذَا جَآؤُوكَ يُجَادِلُونَكَ يَقُولُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ إِنْ هَذَآ إِلاَّ أَسَاطِيرُ الأَوَّلِين

وَإِذَا تُتْلَى عَلَيْهِمْ آيَاتُنَا قَالُواْ قَدْ سَمِعْنَا لَوْ نَشَاء لَقُلْنَا مِثْلَ هَـذَا إِنْ هَـذَا إِلاَّ أَسَاطِيرُ الأوَّلِينَ

وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُم مَّاذَا أَنزَلَ رَبُّكُمْ قَالُواْ أَسَاطِيرُ الأَوَّلِينَ

لَقَدْ وُعِدْنَا نَحْنُ وَآبَاؤُنَا هَذَا مِن قَبْلُ إِنْ هَذَا إِلَّا أَسَاطِيرُ الْأَوَّلِينَ

وَقَالُوا أَسَاطِيرُ الْأَوَّلِينَ اكْتَتَبَهَا فَهِيَ تُمْلَى عَلَيْهِ بُكْرَةً وَأَصِيلًا

لَقَدْ وُعِدْنَا هَذَا نَحْنُ وَآبَاؤُنَا مِن قَبْلُ إِنْ هَذَا إِلَّا أَسَاطِيرُ الْأَوَّلِينَ

وَالَّذِي قَالَ لِوَالِدَيْهِ أُفٍّ لَّكُمَا أَتَعِدَانِنِي أَنْ أُخْرَجَ وَقَدْ خَلَتْ الْقُرُونُ مِن قَبْلِي وَهُمَا يَسْتَغِيثَانِ اللَّهَ وَيْلَكَ آمِنْ إِنَّ وَعْدَ اللَّهِ حَقٌّ فَيَقُولُ مَا هَذَا إِلَّا أَسَاطِيرُ الْأَوَّلِينَ

إِذَا تُتْلَى عَلَيْهِ آيَاتُنَا قَالَ أَسَاطِيرُ الْأَوَّلِينَ

إِذَا تُتْلَى عَلَيْهِ آيَاتُنَا قَالَ أَسَاطِيرُ الْأَوَّلِينَ

A ‘place’ to archive an ensemble of different Satr (Serializations) for different entities, to render the actual serialization and eventual emanation/broadcast. 

Abdus-Salām Sullami
‘We sent down to you a Kitab (Written Book)’ [5:48], means the entity is called Kitab (Book) not because of what it became i.e. the companions of the Prophet wrote it in pages, but because its nature, while was being revealed to the Prophet, was a book—in and of itself already written.

انا  انرلنا اليك الكتاب  معناه انا انرلنا اليك المكتوب في اللوح
المحفور فسماه وقت انراله بما كان عليه ولا يكون هذا من مجار
تسمية الشئ بما يؤول اليه

Rāghib Isfahani
Harsh/rough writing in Arabic is called Zabar (Abrasive, Harsh), therefore some Kitab was called Zabūr—a derivate of Zabara—since they dealt with harsh of subjects of death and destruction e.g. nations Allah destroyed or the way people die or killed. Zabūr also means a book that is quite difficult to understand. Also a Divine Book that contains intellectual writings but is void of laws is called Zabūr as the book of David was called the same name to indicate his book was void of commandments, rather it contained intellectual concepts

{الزُّبُرِ} جمع زبور بمعنى مزبور أي: مكتوب، يقال زبرت الكتاب أي: كتبته كتابة عظيمة.

If the emanation from the Kitab is in the form of wide-range spreading broadcast, the Kitab and its emanation are termed Nur (Light), like unto optical light spreading into every crevice and travel far, and appear at the same time in many places

A Kitab of all complete Satr (Serializations) of a single entity; within Nafs there is no serialization of any other entity and all of her possible serializations are found in her Nafs. Nafs’ (Self’s) relentless focus on a single entity is a Tajalli (Lucent Manifestation) of Tauhid (Divine Oneness)! Her propagation through time-space is also a Tajalli (Lucent Manifestation) of Divine Negation, the very foundation of multiplicity. 

Read how Allah described ordaining justice for Hu’s (ITs) own Nafs (Divine Self):

'(Allah) Kataba (Wrote) upon Hu’s (ITs) Nafs (Divine Self) Rahma (Mercy)' [6:12]

قُل لِّمَن مَّا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ قُل لِلّهِ كَتَبَ عَلَى نَفْسِهِ الرَّحْمَةَ لَيَجْمَعَنَّكُمْ إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ لاَ رَيْبَ فِيهِ الَّذِينَ خَسِرُواْ أَنفُسَهُمْ فَهُمْ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ

'Your Lord Kataba (Wrote) upon Hu’s (ITs) Nafs (Divine Self) Rahma (Mercy)' [6:54]

وَإِذَا جَاءكَ الَّذِينَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِآيَاتِنَا فَقُلْ سَلاَمٌ عَلَيْكُمْ كَتَبَ رَبُّكُمْ عَلَى نَفْسِهِ الرَّحْمَةَ أَنَّهُ مَن عَمِلَ مِنكُمْ سُوءًا بِجَهَالَةٍ ثُمَّ تَابَ مِن بَعْدِهِ وَأَصْلَحَ فَأَنَّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ

A Kitab where the Satr (Serializations) are reconstructed into the Nur (Light) or ‘Ilm (Divine Knowledge), and vice-a-versa. 

Read how Allah described ‘placing’ Faith within the believers’ hearts:

‘(Allah) Kataba (Wrote) within their hearts Faith’ [58:22]

لَا تَجِدُ قَوْمًا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ يُوَادُّونَ مَنْ حَادَّ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَلَوْ كَانُوا آبَاءهُمْ أَوْ أَبْنَاءهُمْ أَوْ إِخْوَانَهُمْ أَوْ عَشِيرَتَهُمْ أُوْلَئِكَ كَتَبَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمُ الْإِيمَانَ وَأَيَّدَهُم بِرُوحٍ مِّنْهُ وَيُدْخِلُهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي مِن تَحْتِهَا الْأَنْهَارُ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُوا عَنْهُ أُوْلَئِكَ حِزْبُ اللَّهِ أَلَا إِنَّ حِزْبَ اللَّهِ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ


A Kitab for serialization of multi-dimensional entities, sliced, stacked, paged into 1D lines or 2D sheets/cross-sections for storage/access.

 تفسير جامع البيان في تفسير القران/ الطبري
فأخبر تعالـى ذكره أن علـمه وسع كل شيء، فكذلك قوله: { وَسِعَ كُرْسِيُّهُ ٱلسَّمَـٰوَاتِ وَٱلاْرْضَ }. وأصل الكرسي: العلـم، ومنه قـيـل للصحيفة يكون فـيها علـم مكتوب كُرّاسة

أدب الكتاب  الصولي
فأما الكراريس فواحدها كراسة، قال الأصمعي: كرست الكتب والورق جعلت شيئاً منه إلى شي وأكرس

تصحيح التصحيف وتحرير التحريف  الصفدي
ويقولون: كُرْناسَة، للدفتر، ويجمعونها على كرانس، ويصرفون الفعل فيقولون: كرْنَستُ الكتابَ، وذلك خطأ. والصواب كُرّاسة وكراريس، وقد كرّست الدفتر، وكل ما ضممتَ وركبتَ بعضَه فوق بعض فهو مكرَّس، ولذلك قيل كراسة لأنها مُطارَقة بعضها فوق بعض.

A spoken word, in this case Divine Speech, which has been serialized. 

Jawāmi’ Kalām
The Prophet, peace be upon him, said that he was given the Jawāmi’ Kalām (Compressed Language). The Divine Words were serialized and compressed into a prophetic speech suitable for the last of the prophets and the messengers. He said few words that opened a gate to a large ocean tumultuous with meanings! Therefore Jawāmi’ is understood as compression of Satr (Serialization) and transcriptions.

الجامع الصغير. الإصدار 3,22 - لجلال الدين السيوطي
المجلد الثاني >> [تتمة باب حرف الألف]
2573- إنما بعثت فاتحا وخاتما، وأعطيت جوامع الكلم وفواتحه، واختصر لي الحديث اختصارا. فلا يهلكنكم المتهوكون ـ
["المتهوكون": الذين يقعون في الأمور بغير روية (فهو على وزن "المتهورون" ومعناه. دار الحديث)]ـ
التخريج (مفصلا): البيهقي في شعب الإيمان عن أبي قلابة مرسلا
********** تصحيح السيوطي **********
التصحيح غير موجود. وللسيوطي *** مصطلح *** في ذلك. قال في ديباجة قسم الأقوال من جمع الجوامع:
... للبخاري (خ) ولمسلم (م) ولابن حبان (حب) وللحاكم في المستدرك (ك) وللضياء المقدسي في المختارة (ض)
*** وجميع مافي هذه الكتب الخمسة صحيح فالعزو إليها معلم بالصحة *** سوى ما في المستدرك من المتعقب فأنبه عليه
وكذا ما في موطأ مالك وصحيح ابن خزيمة وأبي عوانة وابن السكن والمنتقى لابن الجارود والمستخرجات
*** فالعز و إليها معلم بالصحة أيضا ***
ورمزت لأبي داود (د) ولابن ماجه (ه) ولأبي داود الطيالسي (ط) ولأحمد (حم) ولزيادات ابنه عبد الله (عم) ولعبد الرزاق (عب) ولسعيد بن منصور (ص) ولابن أبي شيبة (ش) ولأبي يعلى (ع) وللطبراني في الكبير (طب) وفي الأوسط (طس) وللدارقطني (قط) فإن كان في السنن أطلقت وإلا بينته ولأبي نعيم في الحلية (حل) وللبيهقي (ق) فإن كان في السنن أطلقت وإلا بينته وله في شعب الإيمان (هب)
*** وهذه فيها الصحيح والحسن والضعيف، فأبينه غالبا ***
*** وكل ما كان في مسند أحمد فهو مقبول فإن الضعيف الذي فيه يقرب من الحسن ***
وللعقيلي في الضعفاء (عق) ولابن عدي في الكامل (عد) وللخطيب (خط) فإن كان في تاريخه أطلقت وإلا بينته ولابن عساكر (كر)
*** وكل ماعزي لهؤلاء الأربعة وللحكيم الترمذي في نوادر الأصول أو للحاكم في تاريخه أو لابن الجارود في تاريخه أو للديلمي في مسند الفردوس فهو ضعيف فيستغنى بالعزو إليها أو إلى بعضها عن بيان ضعفه ***
********** انتهى مصطلح تصحيح السيوطي **********

Tauhid (Divine Oneness) vs. Kathra (Multitude)
Satr (Serialization) is the most fundamental and the most immediate consequence of Divine Negation and Tauhid (Divine Oneness): Allah and then-sequentially something else i.e. something coming after another, serially: Say Hu (IT) (is) Allah. [112:1] (And then all else follows). Had this serialization not been there, then either there was only Allah and none else, or the creation could never have a clue about Allah!

Satr (Serialization) is the most primordial entity, intellectual and procedural (Process-like), that can be thought of. Satr is Qadim aging from before time immemorial, infinitely ancient.

Kathra (Multitude) is built upon the foundation of Satr (Serialization), without Satr there would be no Kathra. So when you walk around and see lots of trees, lots of people, lots of birds and lots of everything remember that they are nothing but the epitome of Satr (Serialization).

All, the multitude, what you see is nothing but the Zahir (Emergent Abstraction) for Satr (Serialization), or say it in reverse: Satr (Serialization) is the Bātin (Inmost Concealed Core) of Kathra (Multitude).

Laws and Regularity
The laws of any science are the direct consequence of Satr (Serialization), had serialization not being there, how did the laws/regularities generate? Why to have laws at all? Had gravity not being serialized no mathematical equations for it could have been possible, no computer software for computing the trajectories could have been possible. Had gravity not being serialized nothing about it could be written down or taught or be sent down to the unborn intellects.

All the numerical, computational, symbolic, linguistic and algebraic constructs are made possible as the direct consequence of the Satr (Serialization).

Entanglement Not Order

There is a common argument against the Divine Decree and the human freewill: If Allah, prior to our creation, wrote all our actions in a Lauh (Divine Tablet), then why are we held accountable for what we have done? This always has been presented as a clear contradiction, for almost all spirituality and religions.

The core of this paradox is caused by what is known as the sequential-logic that is taught in all schools around the planet. There are axioms, rules of deduction and propositions are generated from the axioms and deduction rules, and what proposition cannot be deduced from the axioms therefore is not valid/correct.

In reality, the Divine Decree and its Satr (Serialization) and the human freewill are a complex Quantum, removal of one makes the whole thing cease, like three Borromean rings in an entanglement:

The rings are entangled but not linked; we cannot tell which one was entangled first! No two are entangled directly, to indicate any linkage or order. We cannot study one without the other two; we cannot separate them! Therefore the Divine Decree and the freewill and the serialization form a complex Quantum and we cannot pull them apart and say: This one was first!

In other words, the sequential-logic is not applicable to this Quantum, it is not a matter of a proposition being true or false, it is the matter that there is no sequential-logic and what there is a entangled Quantum of three somewhat-discernable but inseparable entities. 

Note: No two rings are entangled directly i.e. there is no way studying any two, separate from the tertiary-entanglement, that would bear any meaningful results other than paradoxes as said above! The three rings have to be studied at the same time, away from all linkage and sequentiality or the entanglement needs to be studied as a Quantum, it cannot be understood by simply looking at its sub-parts.

© 2007-2002,  Dara O. Shayda