Anwar Bilal's Blog

How to Shamelessly Defend Murdering Apostates/Ex-Muslims (feat. Asadullah Ali)

2014-06-06T03:05:00.003-07:00

NOTE: Serious Cringe Alert ahead

Hello World,

Have you met DawahFilms aka Asadullah Ali al-Andalusi? Wonderful guy. An intellectual Lion ... of God nonetheless.*
(and for the Brown folks in the audience, did I mention he is WHITE and speaks english with an AMERICAN accent. My My ... Brown folks will get it!)

Ali holds several degrees in philosophy, Islamic Studies and reading chicken entrails (the last one was probably made up to boost his credentials).

al-Andalusi (he wants you to know he is from Muslim Spain) has a youtube channel. If you just visited his channel, you have come to the sad revelation that he has it "closed" and "offline".

Fortunately he is still willing to sacrifice a substantial amount of time on youtube for the benefit of mankind. He is very keen on letting everyone on youtube know how he has more important things to do than spending time on youtube.

He occasionally confronts fascists of the secular & liberal persuasions in order to expose their irrationality, ignorance and un-philosophical-ness...

Recently, DawahFilms rounded up several youtube libtards for a once in a lifetime learning experience. The topic, for the liberal minded, is "Murder of Apostates from Islam". But for those high minded folks such as al-Andalusi, the topic is "The Equitable Disciplinary Action for Federal Contract Infringement".

So then the libtards yell "freedom, freedom". They believe an individual should not be put to death for coming to the conclusion that the beliefs of a religion are false.

Asadullah, with gentle and calm poise, replies "hahaha you are all dumb". He proposes, using logic and arguments and evidence and God and most importantly himself, that an apostate from Islam should be killed.

The following is a meticulous examination of al-Andalusi's reasoning and argu... actually screw that! After all, it is not fitting for a dog to question a Lion.

Without further ado, here are the "not simple-minded" reasons for why leaving Islam is a crime punishable by death...**

1. You see All Muslims have agreed to be killed if they leave Islam. They even signed a contract (for real!)
1.1 So really, this is just like suicide. nothing more. Very progressive of Islam, in my liberal opinion.

2. Islam is very serious ... emotions, feeling, desires are for wimps ... Islam is for men and men kill other men, especially for breaching contracts, which every muslim has agreed to. (for real)

3. Postmodernism lololololol
4. Libtard atheists have no arguments but degrading insults for the Intellectual Lion who just wants to upgrade men to take contracts seriously....so killing apostates is alright

5. We are liberal fascists ... no argument there.
6. Haha if libtards think an apostate should not be killed for disagreeing with Islam, that is just like saying anyone can breach any contract ...so logical

7. Human Rights are Evil, of course. why? because philosophy.
8. Liberals bomb people who disagree with them so it's cool to behead those who disagree with Islam ... who can possibly argue against that?

9. Most importantly, you see, even Ex-Muslims know Islam is the truth. They are just choosing to die (and roast in hell for eternity).
10. Contract ... Contract ... Contract ... Very serious .... and all Muslims have agreed to be killed once they leave islam.
11. Again, you really need to get this right, apostates just want to die. They really are just trying to kill themselves. If you weren't all blazing islam-haters, you would know that Islam is merely providing suicide assistance ... progressive much!

12. Finally, GOD!

Asadullah Dawah Ali al-Andalusi concluded his words of wisdom with the following;

Now to the subset of the Brown folks who MIGHT accidentally get the notion that "Asadullah Ali is a white-man's burden convert coming in to 'school us all' about our faith" ... ignore it. It is just waswas from Shaytan aka liberal secular fascists.

In conclusion, contracts, suicide and liberal fascists hence kill anyone who leaves Islam

And most importantly;

_________________________________________________________________________________

* His name Asadullah means "Lion of God"; that is what he decided to call himself after he became a Muslim. His entire name, Asadullah Ali al-Andalusi, translates to 'Ali The Andalusian Lion of God'. Nice, who wouldn't name oneself that?

** Comments taken from: https://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=aChKwrAqFqw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGEdThjcmbA

PS. Googling for an image of Dawahfilms led me to this screenshot of one of his comments from a long time ago;

From a person who said "real terrorism" is when one has to appease the crowd comes the line that "real human dignity" is in murdering people for coming to conclusions that contradict his fascist religion.

PPS. In the remote chance that the Lion sees fit to answer this lowly bitch, and in the remoter chance that he thinks and wishes to state that his views have been misrepresented, I ask for his forgiveness. But that being said, I have no interest in engaging him ... Hope, he has signed a contract somewhere to respect that much!

PPPS. My Muslim relatives who live under Muslim governments would like to know where they can get a copy of this contract that every Muslim has agreed to. Who knows what they have all agreed to die for ... crap, my Uncle just got beheaded. He said the earth is round and that breached his contract ... oh well he was probably a liberal!

"Update (06/09/2014) - His Highness Asadullah Ali al-Andalusi has made a "quick" response. (Very important to notice that it was "quick" as it does not befit a lion to provide non-quick responses to dogs) http://asadullahali.wordpress.com/2014/06/10/a-quick-response/

In light of Ali's response, I must admit a grave mistake on my part; in that I have unintentionally omitted a major detail from Asadullah's defense of killing ex-Muslims; a detail that increasingly many Muslims seem to think absolves themselves of the inherent hate in certain beliefs of theirs.

What is the detail?

The new hashtag - #OnlyInAnIdealIslamicState

Phew, What a relief!"

Muslims, Mata Amrithanandamayi & Gail Tredwell's Holy Hell

2014-03-06T14:50:00.002-08:00

Those acquainted with the small piece of land called Kerala in South India are witnessing an uproar regarding a “character” popularly known as Mata Amrithanandamayi aka “The Hugging Saint” aka Amma (meaning: Mom); an individual considered to be a God incarnate. She has followers numbering in the millions across the world from various ethnicities, cultures, financial and educational backgrounds.

"Amma" courtesy of Futurama

As of recently, the devotees of the “hugging saint” are enraged over a recently published book called Holy Hell: A Memoir of Faith, Devotion, and Pure Madness by Gail “Gayathri” Tredwell; she is an Australian white woman who converted and became a a very close devotee of Amma for 20 years before abandoning her in 1999. Gail’s book has accused Mata Amrithanandamayi of fraud, sexual exploitation and corruption. Gail has also reported that she had been raped by male priests very prominent in Amma’s ashramam (meaning: monastery).

The real face of Amma?

For western readers, it is not much of a surprise that those in the divinity-business have two-faces. However, such skepticism has still not taken root in the public conscience of Indian believers and as expected the faithful devotees of Amma have denounced Gail Tredwell and have suggested various conspiracies from Hinduphobia to Hidden Christian agenda to Unrequited Love to Insanity.

Now, where do Muslims come into this picture? Muslims are a minority population in Kerala and since their religion demands it, they are opposed to these cults developed around “holy-men”; the reason being of course, that for Muslims, Prophet Muhammad has eternally copyrighted God’s access to mankind. So for orthodox Muslims, all present personality-cults across the world are to be dismissed because only Muhammad’s personality-cult from 1400 years ago is valid. Therefore, Muslims are quite overjoyed over Gail Tredwell’s revelations with most of them going “I told you so!!!”.

I come from Kerala’s minority Muslim population and this affair has been a topic of conversation among many of my family members and their friends. The purpose of this post is to highlight my thoughts on how the very people who remain skeptical and rational about other religious cults are unable to reflect the same questions onto their own beliefs. Here are some of the most ironic points (rephrased) made by Muslims regarding this matter;

1) “Amma’s followers are brainless-brainwashed sheep. If they could think rationally for a moment they would abandon her cult”. – The person who said this is the kind of guy who says “Qur'an is from God because it says so in the Qur’an”

2) “These followers will rationalize anything away in order to protect their belief in Amma” – Yet this person rationalizes away many of Muhammad’s actions (marriage to Aisha, Zaynab, warfare etc) in order to protect his belief in Islam.

3) “Amma and her cult are very influential, both politically and financially, and thus will try to silence those who try to tell the truth and only popularize whatever they want others to hear.” – The same person thinks early Islamic history is credible and that it wasn't a case of the winners writing their own history the way they wanted it to be heard.

4) “Gail Tredwell must have been a very naïve white woman to have fallen for such a cult. There are many such whites who are clueless and turn to India desperate for a religion.” – The same person does not think this is the case with the many clueless western converts to Islam.

5) “More people would leave Amma if they didn’t have to fear persecution” – The same person thinks killing apostates from Islam is justified (but only under nations implementing Sharia – what a relief!)

6) “Why don’t these people at least use their brain and question their beliefs about Amma’s divinity” – The same person has not questioned why he believes the words coming out of Muhammad’s mouth are the words of God.

7) “Amma’s followers believe she has never had a period because she is a God incarnate in a state of perpetual purity. How stupid are they?” – The same person does not question the miracle stories around Muhammad and Qur’an and also does not reflect on the fact that Muslim women are prohibited from praying, reciting the Qur’an loudly, fasting, circling Kaaba, staying in the mosque etc, during her menses because Islam considers it an unclean state.

8) "The Amma cult is prosecuting the journalists reporting on the controversy. Shouldn't there be freedom of press and expression" - The most speechless I have felt. The same person wouldn't think twice about putting anyone who criticizes or satirizes Muhammad behind bars.

9) "The Amma followers believe that Amma became a God-incarnate in her teenage. How could anyone believe such absurdities " - The same person believes Jesus talked as an infant and other such miraculous stories

10) "The followers of Amma are trying to silence/murder those who leave their faith. They must be very insecure." - The same person believes apostates from Islam should be killed because they are committing treason.

These Muslims, are astonished by those sincere individuals who are part of personality-cults. Muslims wonder why these individuals don’t see they are in a cult and why they don’t question what they are told in the cult.

Dear Muslims, they do not see they are in a cult for the same reason you do not see you are in a cult. They do not question what they are told in the cult for the same reason you do not question what you are told in your cult. Therefore, as a remedy to this quandary, Start Questioning...

Objection 4 to Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing

2014-02-19T15:32:00.001-08:00

For a longer list of objections and replies to Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing, see the following page, http://embryologyinthequran.blogspot.com/p/objections-and-replies.html

4. Objection: Nabeel al-Khalidy aka LearnQuranicArabic (hereby LQA) claims that the word "نُطْفَة" (nutfah), as used in the Qur’an, means a spermatozoon and thus a miracle.

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUwQAytS5wg;

Transcript of Video: http://pastebin.com/48NpwJEc

LQA's claim is as follows; i) Anagrams of a word are synonymous or at the very least relational with each other and thus can provide the meaning of that word; ii) Some anagrams of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) have meanings that are attributable to the properties of a spermatozoon; iii) Therefore, "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) is the best Arabic word in the 7th century to describe a spermatozoon. iv) Therefore, "نُطْفَة" (nutfah), as used in the Qur’an means a spermatozoon v) Therefore, the Qur’an has miraculous scientific foreknowledge.

Reply: For a PDF version of the following response, visit http://www.scribd.com/doc/208156085

“One cannot guess how a word functions. One has to look at its application and learn from that. But the difficulty is to remove the prejudice which stands in the way of doing so.”

~ (Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, 340)[1]

Contents

I. Background to LQA’s Argument

II. Summary of LQA’s Argument

III. Initial Impression

IV. Objections to LQA's Argument

i) Logical Objections

1) The conclusions are non-sequitur

2) The Argument commits the fallacy of Hasty Generalization

3) The Argument commits the fallacy of Undistributed Middle

4) The Argument is Self-Refuting;

ii) Epistemological Objections

5) Hidden Unjustified Assumptions

6) LQA’s Methodology is Arbitrary & Circular;
6.1) The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy

6.2) The homunculus Counter-example

6.3) Reductio-ad-Absurdum

iii) Empirical Objections

7) The argument equally applies to "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) signifying 'Seminal Fluid';

8) The argument ignores relevant evidence.

V. Conclusion

While LQA's case is not a direct objection to any of the specific arguments provided in Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing (hereby EQMAN), it, at the very least, is meant to negate one of EQMAN's central points; which concluded that the most reasonable understanding of the word "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) in light of all the relevant evidence is that it signifies seminal fluid as per a 7th century understanding and not that of a sperm cell as per the modern understanding.

On a side note, an interesting development regarding this topic is that as of September 2013, Hamza Andreas Tzortzis, the person EQMAN was directed against, has repudiated and withdrawn his paper on the topic. He has also referenced EQMAN in his recent article regarding his retraction.[2] Thus, it is anticlimactic that other apologists, such as LQA, who came to the scene to defend Hamza’s currently rejected views, would also not follow suit.

Nonetheless, the post will begin by providing the background details for the present argument; after which a detailed analysis of and objections to the argument will be presented.

I. Background to LQA's Argument

LQA has already been subject to two previous responses on this site.[3] [4] He attempted to conclude that the term "نُطْفَة" (nutfah), as used in the 7^th century text of Qur’an, signifies the modern understanding of sperm cells. However the two previous posts had demonstrated that LQA’s conclusion does not follow from his premises and that he had failed to holistically address the presented counter-arguments and consequently ignored relevant evidences.

Much in the same fashion, LQA can be seen here mischaracterizing a counter-argument and then continuing with his new claims all the while ignoring relevant evidences to the contrary.

The following post will take a holistic approach rather than a point-by-point rebuttal; wherein LQA’s argument will be analyzed for its logical validity, hidden assumptions and empirical veridicality.

II. Summary of LQA’s Argument

For LQA’s video, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUwQAytS5wg

For a Transcript of LQA’s video, see: http://pastebin.com/48NpwJEc

(NOTE: It is recommended that the Readers watch LQA’s video or see its transcript before reading the following refutation.)

LQA begins by displaying the ‘argument’ of the critics (at timestamp 00:26)

0:00:26.5 So I am going to speak about the word NUTFAH and what actually a NUTFAH means. Now what critics of the Qur'an say is the following; they say "The Qur'an contains X". So X is a particular word; in this case NUTFATAN. In the 21st century, X is translated as Y. So what they says is, for example, NUTFATAN is translated as a sperm or sperm cell. 0:01:00.0

LQA has already begun on a mistaken note. The argument, which LQA characterized as being from the “critics”, was taken from a blogpost of the present author.[5] Contrary to what LQA stated, the argument is not from a “critic” of the Qur’an but rather it was the characterization of a fallacious argument used by Muslim apologists. It is not entirely clear how LQA could have mistaken the two. Given that LQA is in the habit of hiding away links to the work of his critics, he has misled (perhaps intentionally) his audience with such a mischaracterization.

Regardless of the mischaracterization, LQA proceeds with his argument which can be summarized in the following manner.

1) If "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) meant spermatazoon, then Quran is a miracle.

2) "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) means spermatazoon

2.1) "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) is the best Arabic word in the 7th century to describe a spermatozoon.

2.1.1) Anagrams are synonymous or relational in meaning with each other.

2.1.2) Some anagrams of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) have meanings that are attributable to a spermatozoon.

Conclusion) Therefore, Qur’an is a miracle

LQA’s justification for premise 1 is the charge of scientific foreknowledge which, for the sake of the argument, is acceptable.

LQA’s justification for premise 2, found in 2.1.1, 2.1.2 & 2.1, is perhaps the most notorious part of his video. LQA then makes the leap, quite visibly, to his ultimate desire that the meaning of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) be sperm cells and thus the Qur’an a miracle.

III. Initial Impression

The ‘Science in the Qur’an’ lobby has been engaged in the same task for the previous four decades; namely trying to fit an elephant through a pinhole.

At least as of recently, many Muslims are becoming increasingly aware of the fact that such a task is not feasible.[6] Hamza Tzortzis himself is an example when he states the following;

“Regrettably, the scientific miracles narrative has become an intellectual embarrassment for Muslim apologists, including myself.” [2]

However, less sophisticated Muslims still resort to the technique of ‘pretending that the pinhole is large enough’.

Such apologists as Zakir Naik and Harun Yahya were once in favor of directly reinterpreting the verses to suit their wishful thinking. When this was not sufficient, those like Hamza tried to base his reinterpretations by unjustifiably deriving meanings from the cognates of Qur’anic words. Since the release of EQMAN, this method too has been shown to be insufficient. As a consequence, LQA arrives with the new method wherein he pretends anagrams of a word, on top of the cognates, are synonymous/relational and are then used to derive contrived and suitable meanings. The need for such Muslim apologists to make the pinhole as large as possible could not be more apparent.

IV. Objections to LQA's Argument

This post will outline the various flaws that have resulted from LQA's lack of critical thinking and negligence of crucial evidence. The objections presented are;

i) Logical Objections

1) The conclusions are non-sequitur

2) The Argument commits the fallacy of Hasty Generalization

3) The Argument commits the fallacy of Undistributed Middle

4) The Argument is Self-Refuting;

ii) Epistemological Objections

5) Hidden Unjustified Assumptions

6) LQA’s Methodology is Arbitrary & Circular;
6.1) The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy

6.2) The homunculus Counter-example

6.3) Reductio-ad-Absurdum

iii) Empirical Objections

7) The argument equally applies to "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) signifying 'Seminal Fluid';

8) The argument ignores relevant evidence.

i) Logical Objections

1) The conclusions are non-sequitur.

Consider LQA’s primary argument again;

2.1.1) Anagrams are synonymous or relational in meaning with each other.

2.1.2) Some anagrams of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) have meanings that are attributable to the properties of a spermatozoon.

2.1) "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) is the best Arabic word in the 7th century to describe a spermatozoon.

2) "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) means sperm cell

This set of statements form the crux of LQA’s video yet he fails to justify his central conclusions. Firstly, no justification is given for (2.1.1) as to how anagrams of a word can provide meanings for each other. Secondly, no justification is given for (2.1) as to how "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) becomes the best Arabic word to describe a spermatozoon merely because he derived contrived meanings from some anagrams of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah). Lastly and most importantly, no justification is given for (2) as to how "نُطْفَة" (nutfah), as used in the Qur’an, means a spermatozoon merely because LQA retrospectively concluded it is the best word to describe a sperm cell. Therefore, the 3 main conclusions in LQA’s argument are entirely non-sequitur.

LQA’s conclusion in (2.1) asserts that "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) is the best Arabic word in the 7^th century to signify the idea of a spermatozoon. The reasoning he provides is that he derived four contrived definitions that are attributable to a “sperm cell” from the anagrams of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah). The four specific definitions will be discussed later.

LQA’s argument begs the question of what exactly the objective rules are for declaring a certain word as the “best word” to denote a concept; and for this LQA provides no explicit answer. Thus, one is left to presume that the “best-word” is those with anagrams onto which contrived meanings can be imposed upon. What is then the justification for this assertion? No answer is to be found in LQA’s video and thereby one is left with nothing more than the arbitrary and subjective line of LQA’s reasoning. Therefore, this conclusion is a non-sequitur.

The last of LQA’s conclusion is in (2); where he implies that "نُطْفَة" (nutfah), as used in the Qur’an, means, without any doubt, “a sperm cell”. This is concluded from the unjustified conclusion in (2.1), which itself is concluded from another unjustified assertion in (2.1.1).

In other words, the meaning of a 7^th century usage of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) as “sperm cell” is not entailed even if it is the case that "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) is the “best word” to describe a spermatozoon. Therefore, LQA’s central conclusion exists as the product of a three-fold non-sequitur line of reasoning.

2) The Argument commits the fallacy of Hasty Generalization

Premise (2.1.1) states that anagrams of a word can provide meanings for each of the anagrams. LQA merely asserts this by providing a solitary example;

0:02:38.0 Now here we have a root, the AYN-MEEM-LAM. And from this root we get the concept of action. Now there is a phenomenon in Arabic as well as other semitic languages which is the base letters of a word; is that you use the same letters but you rearrange them. And what it does is give related meaning. And sometimes even, information about another word that has the same letters. Now let's say for example somebody did something; he tried to build something for example but he had no knowledge. That would be a crime. Here in

Australia

if you were to build a house without having the proper knowledge, the proper background, this would be an offence; because it is endangering people's lives. So what do you need; there is something you need with action. And that is I'LM, knowledge. So let us, here, that A'mal and I'lm are related. You can't have one without the other; even when it comes to religious matters. We want to learn some rules, we might learn how to pray, but there is not point if one is not acting. And actually if you don't act it is a big sin. So there is a relationship between these two. Same letters, different order and they give related meanings. 0:04:09.0

From this example, LQA tries to derive a universal rule that one can use anagrams to provide meanings or explanations of each other. Formally, the reasoning used by LQA commits the hasty generalization fallacy. It does not follow that since the anagrams of a few words can be arbitrarily related to each other that such a linguistic nature of the proposed relationship is a universal rule.

In fact, such a warning is even admitted by Muslim linguists who have expounded on this matter. Consider the statements below taken from one of the few English sites that discuss this linguistic word play; (see http://www.learnarabiconline.com/greater-etymology.shtml)

“There is [a] type of etymology ... called Greater Etymology (الاشتقاق الكبير) that recognizes the common meanings words with different base letters share ... This is by no means a mature science ... There are no rules, no systematic methodologies except those we impose ourselves, and no observations are to be taken as universally applicable regulations.”

Incidentally, “no rules” and “no systematic methodologies” is a perfect description of LQA’s video. He has merely imposed his preconceived conclusion on to the anagrams in order to contrive the meaning of a spermatozoon. Thus it is comical to think that LQA is utilizing an admittedly “immature” idea with no rules, no system, no methodology in order to “predict” his preconceived interpretations. One can only wonder at the amount of desperation behind such an attempt.

Regardless, given that this is not a universal rule, there is no need to press on the issue further. One can easily look at the examples given in the website above as well as LQA’s video and come to the realization that the so-called relationship between the anagrams are extremely arbitrary and/or subjective. For example, in website above, 2 anagrams with meanings “baking” and “eagle” respectively are related by saying an eagle is “hasty” bird while a baked good “hastens” to break apart. Such are the degree of arbitrariness involved in this linguistic puzzle; an exercise far removed from reality.

Similarly, in LQA’s video, the word "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) is compared with an anagram having the meaning of “death/obstruction”. In order to relate the two, he states the following;

the root of NUTFAH has the root NOON-TA-FA. Now those three letters, if we were to rearrange them we get the following patterns. ... the TA-FA-NOON. Words on this root mean, death and obstruction. That is very interesting because we know sperm have a hard time when they enter the female body. There are so many different obstructions in the way that cause problems for it and all the sperm cells will die; or one could enter into the egg. So either one survives or none survives Subhanallah. 0:05:48.1

Think about the amount of arbitrariness involved. “Death” is related to “sperm” because it (like all organic matter) “dies”. “Obstruction” is related to “sperm” because it, like all living things, has some “obstructions” in its life cycle.

This arbitrary and un-objective methodology of letter-play and guesswork is LQA”s grand plan to “miraculize” the Qur’an. It cannot be stated with enough emphasis that LQA’s assertion (2.1.1) of anagrams providing meanings for each other is a blatant non-sequitur on top of a hasty generalization fallacy.

On a side note, regarding this letter-play guesswork methodology, it may be of benefit to heed to the Wittgensteinian view of language. He is of the view that meaning in language is not prior to its usage but rather the meaning should be derived from the way the words are used.

While the topic of phonosemantics (the relation between sound and meaning) is an important question in linguistics and the origin of language, it is also important to keep in mind the view that language is a product of human usage and thus it is not entirely sensible to abstract language away into a world of formulas and theories; especially when this is done by ignoring the way in which the language is regularly used. LQA is guilty of such a pseudo-intellectual line of reasoning when he ignores how "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) was used in antiquity in favor or his anagram-guessing-game. To quote Wittgenstein again, “One cannot guess how a word functions. One has to look at its application and learn from that.”[1]

3) The Argument commits the fallacy of Undistributed Middle

The fallacy of undistributed middle is one of the most common examples of false reasoning present in many of the ‘Science in the Qur’an claims’[7] [8]. The same is repeated by LQA when he makes the following argument;

1) The Qur’an mentions "نُطْفَة" (nutfah)

2) “Spermatazoon” can be denoted using "نُطْفَة" (nutfah)

Therefore, The Qur’an mentions “spermatozoon”.

Such an argument commits the fallacy of undistributed middle. LQA would have to establish that any and every usage of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) denotes a “spermatozoon”. However, this is patently false as it is even documented in Lisan al-Arab that "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) was meant to signify “seminal fluid” and thus consistent with a 7^th century understanding of human reproduction.

Therefore, LQA’s attempt to signify "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) as “spermatozoon” does not in and of itself entail that the Qur’anic usage has the same meaning; especially given the evidence from Lisan al-Arab.

4) The argument is self-refuting

The following objection is a result of considering the logical consequences of (2.1.1) and (2.1).

Consider a word “ABC”; if “ABC” can mean “X” because its anagrams, “CBA”, “BAC”, “CAB”, etc are related to “X”, then it can also be said that “CBA” means “X” because its anagrams “ABC”, “BAC”, “CBA” etc are related to “X”. Likewise, for each of the other anagrams.

Similarly, if anagrams of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) can provide the meaning of “spermatazoon” to "نُطْفَة" (nutfah), then "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) can provide the same meaning to its anagrams. Thus, any one of the anagrams of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) listed by LQA can mean a spermatozoon.

Therefore, if LQA’s anagram-guessing-game is valid, then the 4 anagrams of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) listed by LQA can denote a sperm-cell and thus, using LQA’s methodology, each of the 4 words can be considered as the “best word” to signify a spermatozoon. However, given that LQA insisted that "نُطْفَة" (nutfah), and no other, was the “best word” and since his own argument has produced other “best words”, LQA’s argument is self-refuting.

ii) Epistemological Objections

5) Hidden Unjustified Assumptions

Hidden assumptions are at times difficult to detect. The same can be said in LQA’s case. Consider when LQA asks what the best 7^th century Arabic word is to denote a spermatozoon. In asking such a question, LQA has already assumed that there exists a word in 7^th century Arabic that denotes “spermatozoon” and that it is merely a matter of discovering it. He further assumes that it is sensible to identify non-existing concepts using words with alternate meanings.

Such a question is the equivalent of asking what the best 12^th or 13^th century English word to denote a “biological cell” is. It has first of all assumed that such a word even exists or that it makes sense to believe that the concept of a “biological cell”, which did not exist in the 12th or 13^th century, can be identified using words that had different meanings.

If a sophist wanted, he could present subjective and arbitrary reasons to claim that words like “cell” or “prison” or “block” etc can signify a “biological cell” in the 12^th or 13^th century. Yet if such a person were to present any ancient text that has the word “cell” or “prison”, in a metaphorical phrase such as “the prisons of a human being”, and claim it divinely refers to the biological cells of the body; it would be rejected as stupidity.

Now consider the following Qur’anic example. In Sura 12:19, there is a phrase which states, “And there came a caravan” (وَجَآءَتْ سَيَّارَةٌ). The 7^th century Arabic term used to mean “caravan” is “sayyara” (“ سَيَّارَةٌ”). Incidentally, “sayyara” (“ سَيَّارَةٌ”) means “car” in the 21^st century. Perhaps, if LQA wanted to he can claim that Qur'an in Sura 12:19 uses “sayyara” (“ سَيَّارَةٌ”) to mean a “car”. He could even use his anagram-guessing-game to say that the angrams of “sayyara” (“ سَيَّارَةٌ”) are related to the definition of a “car”, which, given the arbitrary nature of LQA’s methodology, should be fairly easy.

Would it now be reasonable to claim that the Qur’an was mentioning a “car” instead of a “caravan” in the ancient deserts of the Middle East or North Africa? Likewise, LQA’s attempt to do the same with "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) is equally unreasonable.

6) LQA’s Methodology is Arbitrary & Circular;

Consider LQA’s methodology again. Take a word; have a preconceived “meaning”; list the anagrams of the word; impose the desired meaning onto the anagrams. Then, conclude that the imposed meaning has been derived from the anagrams.

Thus, LQA takes the word "نُطْفَة" (nutfah); he wants it to mean “spermatozoon”; he lists the following anagrams “نفط” (na-fa-ta), “طنف” (ta-na-fa), “طفن” (ta-fa-na), “فطن” (fa-ta-na); with the following meanings respectively; “movement of fluid with force”, “to protrude”, “death/obstruction”, “to be intelligent, skillful”.

He then imposes the concept of a “spermatozoon” on to these definitions however arbitrarily as possible (to see his reasoning in full, see transcript from timestamp 04:00 to 09:30 http://pastebin.com/48NpwJEc). Then he finally concludes that his imposed meaning has been derived. Such a line of reasoning is as circular as it gets.

If one were to grant the validity of this anagram-guessing-game for the sake of the argument, then what is most striking about LQA’s line of reasoning is its ultimately arbitrary or subjective or selective nature. Clearly there is nothing in the 4 anagrams LQA presented that specifically and directly references a “spermatozoon”. Instead LQA is forced to artificially impose the concept of “spermatozoon” on to the 4 anagrams. Hence, LQA’s argument is circular in nature as it boils down to LQA deriving the concept of “spermatozoon” from the 4 anagram via imposing the concept of “spermatozoon” onto the 4 anagrams

6.1) The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy

However, if one were to analyze the 4 anagrams without LQA’s circular line of reasoning; clearly there is nothing to suggest that i) “forcefully moving liquid” + ii) “protrusion” + iii) “death/obstruction” + iv) “intelligence” = a “spermatozoon”.

LQA’s argument then is a prime example of the texassharpshooter fallacy. He has deliberately chosen to fit his 4 anagrams into a description of a spermatozoon. In other words, rather than following where the evidence leads to, LQA selectively chooses his “evidences” to fit his preconceived conclusion. One could impose any number of concepts on to the 4 definitions.

6.2) The homunculus Counter-example

In fact, due to the arbitrary nature, one could easily use LQA’s method to claim that "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) means a vast number of concepts including imaginary ones. For a simple example, consider the following. There used to be a theory called “preformationism” which stated there exists a homunculus i.e. a miniature human, in the seminal fluid which merely grows in size during the course of pregnancy.

Would it now be possible to use LQA’s methodology and impose the outdated concept of a homunculus on to the 4 anagrams? This is quite easily achieved. A homunculus is implanted through i) “the movement of liquid with force”; it ii) “protrudes” out of the womb for delivery; faces the risk of iii) “death” and other “obstructions” during pregnancy” and of course it is an iv) “intelligent” creature.

Thus, using LQA’s very own methodology, "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) can refer to a homunculus, therefore "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) would mean a homunculus and therefore the Qur’an would be wrong. Fortunately for Muslims in this case, LQA’s reasoning is utterly asinine.

6.3) Reductio-ad-Absurdum

In fact, the homunculus counter-example can be used to show that LQA’s method is illogical. Since LQA’s method gives rise to contradictory conclusions as "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) meaning a homunculus as well as a spermatozoon, it follows, via reductio-ad-absurdum, that LQA’s method is false.

iii) Empirical Objections

7) The argument equally applies to "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) signifying 'Seminal Fluid'.

A rather hilarious point about LQA’s argument is that every single one of its premises can be used to justify the conclusion that "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) means “seminal fluid”. Consider, the four anagrams provided by LQA,

Each of the 4 inferences LQA made from the 4 anagrams are equally applicable or relatable to the concept of seminal fluid. “Seminal fluid” is a “liquid moving with “force”, it “protrudes”, it “dies/decays”, faces “obstructions” in the body and transports cells that will develop into “intelligent” beings.

Add to this point the fact that classical dictionaries like Lisan al-Arab specifically defines "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) as “seminal fluid”. Thus, even if one were to accept LQA’s methodology, it would still be more reasonable to accept the definition of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) as “seminal fluid”.

On a side note, consider the following thought; 'X' and 'not X' cannot both be true. X then is not the best word to describe 'not-X'. Of all possible words, why would the word that was used and understood to mean “seminal fluid” be the best word to designate the meaning of 'sperm'?

8) The argument ignores relevant evidence.

As noted before, LQA has ignored the entirety of evidences presented in EQMAN. The most important of which are the following statements from Lisan al-Arab where it defines "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) specifically as “seminal fluid”. For any reasonable person, such a direct example of the usage of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) should outweigh any contrary retrospective anagram-guessing-games;

V. Conclusion

Anyone who has taken the effort to deconstruct LQA’s contentions very easily receives the message that he is not a very competent thinker. As demonstrated in the previous two posts, there are often huge gaps in his argument that are blatantly visible for anyone with eyes to see. LQA, perhaps as a result of his lack of training in formal logic, is unable to distinguish between facts and assertions, deductions and assumptions, inferences and wishful thinking. He also does not seem capable of seeing through his own prejudices and assumptions. More damaging, however, is his inability to analyze the logical validity of his arguments. Consequently and unsurprisingly, he is also incapable of deconstructing counter-arguments accurately.

LQA’s present argument is one such cocktail of hidden over-generalizations, weak inferences and logical fallacies concocted on top of counter-arguments he failed to comprehend.

Regardless, this post has sufficiently demonstrated that LQA relies on assertions without any proper or sensible justification. The claim that one could derive the meaning of a word through anagrams and arbitrary interpretations, all the while ignoring the established meanings, is desperate, disingenuous and pseudo-intellectual.

Even if one were to hypothetically grant the validity of LQA’s anagram-guessing-game, one is still struck by its arbitrariness since LQA’s methodology can also be used to make words mean a vast number of concepts. For example, LQA’s methodology was used to show that "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) can also refer to an outdated concept of the homunculus. This consequently also proves that LQA’s methodology is false via reductio-ad-absurdum.

Additionally, LQA’s methodology can also be applied to the conclusion that "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) means seminal fluid. This conclusion would also be supported by the historical context as well academic lexicons of classical Arabic. Incidentally, LQA has consistently chosen to ignore the relevant evidences from academic lexicons presented in EQMAN.

Overall, LQA’s argument is pointless and asinine. The only redeeming quality of having wasted one’s energy in refuting such a silly argument is the realization that Muslim apologists have hit absolute rock-bottom when they have to rely on anagrams and guesswork to argue for their position.

UPDATE 02/21/2014 - Nabeel al-Khalidy aka LearnQuranicArabic has complained that I skipped over his "main ayah", verse 75:37, which he speaks about from 01:00 to 01:57 in his video. Skipping this argument in the post above was an oversight on my part for 2 reasons. The 2nd reason is that this wasn't the main argument of his video in my assessment. The 1st and mote important reason is that this argument had ALREADY been refuted in the original paper, EQMAN pages 16-23 (specifically 22-23)[7]. In fact, this was also pointed out directly to Nabeel in Objection 2 [3]. It remains to be seen how much longer Nabeel will continue to throw refuted arguments at me.

[1]. Wittgenstein, L 2009. Philosophical Investigations. Translated by Anscombe, Hacker & Schulte. Revised 4^th edition. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Page 116e

[2]. Hamza Tzortzis 2013. Does the Qur’an contain Scientific Miracles.

http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays-articles/exploring-the-quran/does-the-quran-contain-scientific-miracles-a-new-approach/.

[3]. CaptainDisguise 2012. Objection 2 to Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing. http://captaindisguise.blogspot.com/2012/09/objection-2-to-embryology-in-quran-much.html

[4]. CaptainDisguise 2012. Objection 3 to Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing. http://captaindisguise.blogspot.com/2012/10/objection-3-to-embryology-in-quran-much.html

[5]. CaptainDisguise 2012. Objection 1 to Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing. http://captaindisguise.blogspot.com/2012/09/objection-1-to-embryology-in-quran-much.html

[6]. QuranMiraclesRefuted 2013. Muslims against the "Science in the Qur'an" Claims. http://dawahganda.blogspot.com/2013/01/muslims-against-science-in-quran-claims.html

[7]. Captaindisguise & Taverille, M 2012. Embryology in the Qur'an: Much Ado about Nothing. Page 6. http://www.scribd.com/doc/110224187/2-101612-Embryology-in-the-Quran-Much-Ado-About-Nothing

[8]. Hamza Tzortzis 2013. Does the Qur’an contain Scientific Miracles. Page 4

http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays-articles/exploring-the-quran/does-the-quran-contain-scientific-miracles-a-new-approach/.

Quran Verses on Various Topics

2013-11-18T01:30:00.000-08:00

1) Islam is the only acceptable religion

3:85 “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.”

2) No Free Will

81:27-29 “Verily this is no less than a Message to (all) the Worlds: (With profit) to whoever among you wills to go straight: But ye shall not will except as Allah wills,- the Cherisher of the Worlds.”

2.1) God misleading people

2:15 [But] Allah mocks them and prolongs them in their transgression [while] they wander blindly.

2:17 “Allah mocks at them and gives them increase in their wrong-doings to wander blindly.”

3) Muhammad responding to critics

2:13: And when it is said to them, "Believe as the people have believed," they say, "Should we believe as the foolish have believed?" Unquestionably, it is they who are the foolish, but they know [it] not.

68:44: So leave Me, [O Muhammad], with [the matter of] whoever denies the Qur'an. We will progressively lead them [to punishment] from where they do not know.

4) Ad-Hominems/ Insults

98:6 “Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures.”

5) Conspiratorial and Paranoid Muhammad

2:14 “And when they meet those who believe, they say, "We believe"; but when they are alone with their evil ones, they say, "Indeed, we are with you; we were only mockers."

6) Angels taught black magic

2:102 “And they followed [instead] what the devils had recited during the reign of Solomon. It was not Solomon who disbelieved, but the devils disbelieved, teaching people magic and that which was revealed to the two angels at Babylon, Harut and Marut. But the two angels do not teach anyone unless they say, "We are a trial, so do not disbelieve [by practicing magic]." And [yet] they learn from them that by which they cause separation between a man and his wife. But they do not harm anyone through it except by permission of Allah. And the people learn what harms them and does not benefit them. But the Children of Israel certainly knew that whoever purchased the magic would not have in the Hereafter any share. And wretched is that for which they sold themselves, if they only knew.”

7) If it was not from god then there would be contradictions in it.

4:82 “Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it much contradiction.”

8) Only Allah knows what is in the womb

31:34: Indeed, Allah [alone] has knowledge of the Hour and sends down the rain and knows what is in the wombs. And no soul perceives what it will earn tomorrow, and no soul perceives in what land it will die. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.

Hadith Bukhari Vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith 219 : Allah's Apostle said, "The keys of Unseen are five which none knows but Allah: None knows what will happen tomorrow but Allah; none knows what is in the wombs (a male child or a female) but Allah; none knows when it will rain but Allah; none knows at what place one will die; none knows when the Hour will be established but Allah."

http://sunnah.com/urn/43740

9) Muhammad called a liar

16:101 - And when We substitute a verse in place of a verse - and Allah is most knowing of what He sends down - they say, "You, [O Muhammad], are but an inventor [of lies]." But most of them do not know.

25:4 – “And those who disbelieve say, "This [Qur'an] is not except a falsehood he invented, and another people assisted him in it." But they have committed an injustice and a lie.”

10) Muhammad accused of learning or being helped

16:103 - And We certainly know that they say, "It is only a human being who teaches the Prophet." The tongue of the one they refer to is foreign, and this Qur'an is [in] a clear Arabic language.

25:4 – “And those who disbelieve say, "This [Qur'an] is not except a falsehood he invented, and another people assisted him in it." But they have committed an injustice and a lie.

25:5 – “And they say, "Legends of the former peoples which he has written down, and they are dictated to him morning and afternoon."

11) Skepticism of the Meccan Polytheists

i) Why the Qur'an wasn’t produced all at once?

25:32-33 – “And those who disbelieve say, "Why was the Qur'an not revealed to him all at once?" Thus [it is] that We may strengthen thereby your heart. And We have spaced it distinctly. ”

ii) Why the Qur’an wasn’t revealed to an angel that would appear to the Meccans?

25: 7 – “And they say, "What is this messenger that eats food and walks in the markets? Why was there not sent down to him an angel so he would be with him a

warner?”

12) Equality or lack there of for Slaves

16:75 – “Allah puts forward the example (of two men a believer and a disbeliever); a slave (disbeliever) under the possession of another, he has no power of any sort, and (the other), a man (believer) on whom We have bestowed a good provision from Us, and He spends thereof secretly and openly. Can they be equal? (By no means, not). All the praises and thanks be to Allah. Nay! (But) most of them know not.”

13) Muslim does not doubt

49:15 – “Only those are Believers who have believed in Allah and His Messenger, and have never since doubted, but have striven with their belongings and their persons in the Cause of Allah: Such are the sincere ones”

14) Inimitability of Qur'an

17:88 – "Say, "If mankind and the jinn gathered in order to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like of it, even if they were to each other assistants.""

2:23-24 - "And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah, if you should be truthful. But if you do not - and you will never be able to - then fear the Fire, whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers."

10:37-38 - "And it was not [possible] for this Qur'an to be produced by other than Allah, but [it is] a confirmation of what was before it and a detailed explanation of the [former] Scripture, about which there is no doubt, from the Lord of the worlds. Or do they say [about the Prophet], "He invented it?" Say, "Then bring forth a surah like it and call upon [for assistance] whomever you can besides Allah, if you should be truthful.""

11:13-14 - "Or do they say, "He invented it"? Say, "Then bring ten surahs like it that have been invented and call upon [for assistance] whomever you can besides Allah, if you should be truthful." And if they do not respond to you - then know that the Qur'an was revealed with the knowledge of Allah and that there is no deity except Him. Then, would you [not] be Muslims?"

14.1) Response by Meccans

8.31 – "And when Our verses are recited to them, they say, "We have heard. If we willed, we could say [something] like this. This is not but legends of the former peoples.""

15) Abrupt Change in Narrator

21:18-19 – "Rather, We dash the truth upon falsehood, and it destroys it, and thereupon it departs. And for you is destruction from that which you describe. To Him belongs whoever is in the heavens and the earth. And those near Him are not prevented by arrogance from His worship, nor do they tire."

16) Muhammad speaks in 1^st person

51:49-51- “And of all things We (Allah) created two mates; perhaps you will remember. So flee to Allah . Indeed, I (Muhammad) am to you from Him a clear warner. And do not make [as equal] with Allah another deity. Indeed, I (Muhammad) am to you from Him a clear warner.”

17) Charity can be used for Islamic Proselytizing

9:60 – “Zakah expenditures are only for the poor and for the needy and for those employed to collect [zakah] and for bringing hearts together [for Islam] and for freeing captives [or slaves] and for those in debt and for the cause of Allah and for the [stranded] traveler - an obligation [imposed] by Allah . And Allah is Knowing and Wise.”

Tafsir ibn Kathir – “Al-Mu'allafatu Qulubuhum There are several types of Al-Mu'allafatu Qulubuhum. There are those who are given alms to embrace Islam... Some of Al-Mu'allafatu Qulubuhum is given from alms so that they become better in Islam and their heart firmer in faith... Some people are given because some of his peers might embrace Islam, while others are given to collect alms from surrounding areas, or to defend Muslim outposts.” http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2543&Itemid=64

18) Muhammad & Self-Serving Revelations

33:36 – “It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error.”

33:37 – “And [remember, O Muhammad], when you said to the one on whom Allah bestowed favor and you bestowed favor, "Keep your wife and fear Allah ," while you concealed within yourself that which Allah is to disclose. And you feared the people, while Allah has more right that you fear Him. So when Zayd had no longer any need for her, We married her to you in order that there not be upon the believers any discomfort concerning the wives of their adopted sons when they no longer have need of them. And ever is the command of Allah accomplished.”

33:50 – “...a believing woman if she gives herself to the Prophet [and] if the Prophet wishes to marry her, [this is] only for you, excluding the [other] believers...”

19) Meccans on Ressurection

17:49-51- “And they say, "When we are bones and crumbled particles, will we [truly] be resurrected as a new creation?" Say, "Be you stones or iron Or [any] creation of that which is great within your breasts." And they will say, "Who will restore us?" Say, "He who brought you forth the first time." Then they will nod their heads toward you and say, "When is that?" Say, "Perhaps it will be soon –“

44:34-37- “Indeed, these [disbelievers] are saying, There is not but our first death, and we will not be resurrected. Then bring [back] our forefathers, if you should be truthful.”

45:24-26- “And they say, "There is not but our worldly life; we die and live, and nothing destroys us except time." And they have of that no knowledge; they are only assuming. And when Our verses are recited to them as clear evidences, their argument is only that they say, "Bring [back] our forefathers, if you should be truthful." Say, "Allah causes you to live, then causes you to die; then He will assemble you for the Day of Resurrection, about which there is no doubt, but most of the people do not know."

Muslims against the "Science in the Qur'an" Claims

2013-09-21T11:09:00.004-07:00

The Post Muslims against the "Science in the Qur'an" Claims has been moved here - http://dawahganda.blogspot.com/2013/01/muslims-against-science-in-quran-claims.html

Qur'an's Error: Sura 4:82 "If [Quran] had been from other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction"

2013-02-04T01:17:00.004-08:00

Sura 4:82 would be found in the average Islamophile's list of favorite verses. It is often quoted in the form of a challenge to Skeptics and others.

Sura 4:82 states the following; (http://quran.com/4/82)

Sahih International

If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it much contradiction.

Muhsin Khan

Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much contradictions.

Pickthall

If it had been from other than Allah they would have found therein much incongruity.

Yusuf Ali

Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.

Shakir

And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy.

Dr. Ghali

And if it had been from (any where) other than the Providence of Allah, indeed they would have found in it many difference (s).

Utilizing this verse, the Muslim apologist will demand reasonable individuals to show an error in the Qur'an. They will also state with exuding confidence that no one in 14 centuries have been able to show an error in the Quran.

Such a conversation usually unfolds in 2 ways; i) the Skeptic ignores the apologist or ii) the Skeptic shows some of the errors in the Quran (creation from blood clots, setting of sun in a muddy spring, seminal fluid from the back, flat earth, denial of human evolution etc).

Whenever ii) occurs, the apologist will usually dismiss any evidence and can be seen asserting his literary liberty to interpret the sentences however he wishes to. Given the spectacular vagueness of much of the Qur'anic statements, the conversation almost always reaches an impasse with each side rejecting the other's interpretation (and perhaps moving on to a round of creative insults).

However it seems to be the case that neither the apologist nor the Skeptic has reflected carefully on the challenge itself. The great irony of the Qur'an is that the very verse that issues this challenge also meets the challenge i.e. Sura 4:82 is an error on its own since it constructs a false conditional statement.

The verse states that if the Qur'an was from a source other than Allah, then it would contain many errors or contradictions.
Now consider this question, is it possible for a man-made work to contain no errors or contradictions? This should be uncontroversial. There are countless human texts that would be free of any errors, specifically falsifiable or 'findable' errors.
Then, if it is the case that it is possible for man-made works to be free of any errors, then it is also possible for the Qur'an to contain no errors and be man-made i.e. be from a source other than Allah.
Given the above possibility, Sura 4:82 constructs a false conditional for it is easily possible for the Qur'an to be "from other than Allah" and yet contain no errors.
Thus, Sura 4:82 is an erroneous statement.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

It is recommended that the following videos (about "conditional statements") are watched;

Philosophy: Conditionals Parts 1-4 by Justin Khoo, Asst. Professor of Philosophy at MIT

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

In Logic, certain statements are called "conditional statements" when it consists of a relationship between 2 (or more) atomic statements where one is the antecedent and the other is the consequent. These are usually denoted as "If ... then" statements. For example;

"If John is a human, then John is a mammal"

The antecedent in this case is "John is a human" and the consequent is "John is a mammal". In logic, this statement is equivalent to it's "contrapositive statement" which in the above case would say;

"If John is not a mammal, then John is not a human"

In Formal Logic, any conditional statement can be symbolized in the following manner;

"P --> Q"
=(this is equivalent to its contrapositive)=
"~Q --> ~P"

P symbolizes the antecedent; Q symbolizes the consequent; '~' symbolizes negation (i.e ~P means "not P" or "P is false"); '-->' symbolizes the conditional relationship (i.e. "~Q --> ~P" means "IF not Q THEN not P)

A fair knowledge of these simple concepts alone are sufficient to examine the Qur'anic statement in Sura 4:82. Consider the verse,

"If [Qur'an] had been from other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction"

The verse expresses a conditional relationship between two atomic statements. The antecedent is the atomic statement "The Qur'an is not from Allah". The consequent is the atomic statement "many Errors will be found in the Quran" (Verse rephrased for simplicity). Thus the verse is stating the following relationship;

"If the Qur'an is not from Allah, then many errors will be found in the Quran"

Let A = "The Qur'an is from Allah". Thus ~A = "The Qur'an is not from Allah" (which is the antecedent above).
Let E = "many Errors will be found in the Quran" (which is the consequent).
The above statement can be symbolized as

"~A --> E"

As stated above, this statement is logically equivalent to it's contrapositive statement which would state the following;

"~E --> ~(~A)"

"~E --> A"

"If many errors are not found in the Qur'an, then the Qur'an is from Allah"

For those who were unable to spot the mistake in the original verse, its contrapositive statement should certainly render the issue clearer. A conditional statement is false if it is possible for the antecedent to be true and the consequent still false. Such is the case for this verse.

Take the original verse for example, it is possible for the antecedent to be true and yet for the consequent to be false i.e. for the Qur'an to be not from Allah, and at the same time be free of errors. Likewise, for the contrapositive statement, it is possible for there to be no errors in the Qur'an and yet at the same time, not be a product of divine intelligence.

It would clearly be absurd to state that any piece of text that does not contain errors is from Allah and yet this is what the Qur'an claims by logical extension. Certainly, for the Muslim apologist (especially ones acquainted with the principles of Propositional Logic), this is an irrefutable error in their Holy Book. Their only option to rescue the Qur'an is to show that it is impossible for the Qur'an to not be from Allah if it had no errors in it. Of course, this is not at all a tenable position as Humans have produced countless texts with no errors in it.

Thus, offering one of the greatest unintentional ironies, the very verse that challenges one to show errors in the Qur'an is on its own an irrefutable error.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

The argument in its simplest form can be symbolically represented in the following way;

Translation:

1. If there are no errors in the quran, then it is true that “If the quran is not from god, then there are errors in the quran”

2. For all X, it is not true that “if there are no errors in X, then X is from god”

3. For all X, if there are errors in X, then X is not from god

4. ~~SHOW~~: There are errors in the quran

5. ASSUME there are no errors in the quran

6. ~~SHOW~~: Contradiction

7. If the quran is not from god, then there are errors in the quran

8. If there are no errors in the quran, then the quran is from god

9. It is not true that “if there are no errors in the quran, then the quran is from god”

10. Contradiction (8, 9)

11. If there are errors in the quran, then quran is not from god

12. The quran is not from god

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Possible Objections from Muslims

1) The verse actually means "Since Qur'an is from Allah, no errors will be found in the Quran."

Reply: Such an objection is tantamount to claiming that the Qur'an meant to say "X" but instead said "Y". Even if this is what the Qur'an meant by the verse, it has no bearing on the argument above. The argument above is based on the structure of the statement in the Qur'an. It is the structure that is at fault. For example, consider the verse again

"If the Qur'an is not from Allah, then errors will be found in the Quran"

Let A = "The Qur'an is from Allah". Thus ~A = "The Qur'an is not from Allah" (which is the antecedent above). Let E = "Errors will be found in the Quran" (which is the consequent). The above statement can be symbolized as

"~A --> E"

If instead, the Qur'an were to say "If the Qur'an is from Allah, then no Errors will be found in the Quran" (i.e. "A --> ~E), then the conditional relationship would be correct. However, as it is currently found in the Qur'an, the conditional relationship is false.

2) The verse is an example of Abductive Reasoning

Reply: First and foremost, it should be noted that Abductive logic does not absolve the false relationship constructed in a conditional statement. Thus, this is an absurd and misinformed use of the term "Abductive Rasoning".

A false conditional is a false statement i.e. it is an error in the truth of the statement. This is not an error in deductive logic for it to be reconciled with inductive or abductive reasoning. To state so, is to show an utter misunderstanding of the argument presented in this blogpost as well as ignorance of formal Logic.

Secondly, abductive reasoning could only have been utilized if the conditional statement had been in the form of a true conditional, as found in objection 1, i.e. "If the Qur'an is from Allah, then no Errors will be found in the Quran". However, this would still be a very weak case of abductive reasoning.

Abductive Reasoning can be defined in the following way; it is a form of reasoning that allows one to reasonably hypothesize an inconclusive statement from a known event. For example, consider the following conditional

(1) "If there is fire, then there is smoke"

In formal logic, based on the above conditional, it is fallacious to conclude there is fire if there is smoke (Since that is not what the conditional states; this commits the fallacy called Affirming the Consequent). However, if one were to see smoke, it is certainly reasonable for one to assume or hypothesize that there is fire (even if the fire is not visible). Such a form of reasoning is called Abduction (as opposed to deduction or induction).

On the other hand, consider this conditional statement;

(2) "If it is night, then John is asleep"

Unlike example (1), it is not as reasonable to assume that it is night just because John is asleep as he could be sleeping during daytime in this particular instance. This would constitute a weak case of abductive reasoning.

However, consider a conditional such as this,

(3) "If Obama is living in Mars, then Obama is breathing"

Based on this conditional, it would in fact be unreasonable to abduce from the fact that Obama is breathing, that he is living in Mars. However, note that the conditional is a true statement i.e. if Obama were to be alive on Mars, he would have to be breathing. Yet it would be unreasonable to state that he is on Mars merely because he is breathing. This would constitute an absurd case of abductive reasoning.

Likewise, even if the Qur'an contained no errors, it would not be reasonable to state that the Quran is from Allah. To establish such a form of reasoning, the Muslim would have to take on the absurd task of showing that any text that is free of errors are from Allah. Of course, this is false as countless human works contain no errors or contradictions etc.

3) Special Pleading: The Qur'an is special for reason 'X', therefore any human author would produce many errors.

Reply: Such an argument is a textbook case of the fallacy of special pleading. Some of the reasons given by apologists are the following;

1) The Qur'an is considered sacred by over a billion people.
2) The Qur'an is considered the best Arabic work.
3) The Qur'an is the basis for the Arabic language.

These are some of the reasons given by apologists to argue that the Qur'an is special enough that if it were the product of a human being, they would make many errors. What the apologists fail to do is to demonstrate how such reasons entail that the text cannot be the work of a human being, even if it is accepted that such reasons make the Qur'an "special" or "unique".

The reasons given by apologists revolve around the following two facts; i) The Qur'an has importance to Muslims and ii) The Qur'an is important for the Arabic language.

Neither fact requires supernatural interference. It is very understandable, for reasons all too human, how anything from an idol to a person to a book to a sport can be influential for people and communities, and even be turned into divine symbols; especially if the said people or communities are prone to superstitions or gullibility.

Likewise, the next fact about the importance of the Qur'an in the Arabic language is also understandable for the same sociological reasons. The great Arab civilizations of the past that produced its writers, linguists, poets and litterateurs lived in Islamic nations that consisted of the same people and communities mentioned in the previous paragraph.

This idea is well stated in the words of E.H. Palmer, who says,

"That the best of Arab writers has never succeeded in producing anything equal in merit to the Qur’ân itself is not surprising. In the first place, they have agreed before-hand that it is unapproachable, and they have adopted its style as the perfect standard; any deviation from it therefore must of necessity be a defect. Again, with them this style is not spontaneous as with Mohammed and his contemporaries, but is as artificial as though Englishmen should still continue to follow Chaucer as their model, in spite of the changes which their language has undergone. With the prophet the style was natural, and the words were those used in every-day ordinary life, while with the later Arabic authors the style is imitative arid the ancient words are introduced as a literary embellishment. The natural consequence is that their attempts look laboured and unreal by the side of his impromptu and forcible eloquence."

Thus, attempts to save the Qur'an by invoking it's subjective religious influence or its historically contingent linguistic influence are guilty of the fallacy of special pleading. These characteristics of the Qur'an do not explain why such a text, with the vast majority of its statements having no falsifiable information, should contain "many errors if it were the product of a human being."

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

In conclusion, by constructing a false conditional statement in Sura 4:82, the Qur'an has committed an irrefutable error. The irony of the fact that this erroneous Qur'anic verse challenges skeptics to show a Qur'nic error is, almost divinely, priceless.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

There seems to have been a debate about this issue on youtube between a Skeptic and a Muslim apologist. The apologist, apparently did the unthinkable, by stating that any book that does not contain errors are from a divine source. For such unfortunate souls, the skeptic, who goes by thinker1, has created (sorry, it was revealed to him) a book that is i) free of errors and ii) claims to be from God. Here you go,

http://infaliblebookfromgod.blogspot.com/

Copout #2 to Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing

2012-10-07T19:10:00.000-07:00

For a longer list of objections and replies to Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing, see the following page, http://embryologyinthequran.blogspot.com/p/objections-and-replies.html

2. Copout: The arguments made by CaptainDisguise "rely" on mockery and insults.

Reply: There seems to be an outcry among certain individuals including Hamza Tzortzis regarding the style of presentation of the paper, Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing, which apparently and allegedly "relies" on mockery and insults. This of course is not true.

While such knee-jerk ad hominem attacks and 'copouts' were expected by the authors and contributors behind the paper, it nevertheless needs pointing out that the above objection is factually incorrect.

While it is the case that the presentation of an argument, however tasteless it is, does not invalidate the argument presented; it is still not true that any of the arguments presented in the paper or the responses to objections posted on the blog "rely" on "mockery and insults".

The paper as well as the replies to the objections on the blog have been written and presented in a very tasteful manner without resorting to mockery or insults as well as preserving objectivity as best as possible.

As such, a distinction should necessarily be made between the presentation of the paper from the personal blogs or sites of the authors behind the paper.

For example, the youtube channel "Captaindisguise", which is run by one of the authors of the paper, is considered as a place where the author engages freely with others and without adorning any aura of an artificial academic air. The author may or may not resort to 'mockery and insults" in such places.

None of the authors, contributors or supporters believe that the personal styles reflected in their corresponding blogs or channels have any relevance to the objectivity and professionalism that has been maintained in the presentation of Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing.

However, it is still not clear what specifically was said by the authors of the paper to be accused of relying on "mockery and insults". A reasonable guess is that Hamza et al. are referring to the fact that the authors have demonstrated that Hamza Tzortzis has been dishonest, inconsistent and often deficient in his work. If this is the instance that has warranted the accusation of 'reliance on mockery and insults', then the authors disagree that this constitutes as "mockery and insults" and no apologies are made for stating blatant truths.

Therefore, such baseless accusation can only be considered as yet another attempt to "convince the mind to circumvent the facts obstructing the path to their deeply held absurdities."

Those with a sounder mind are encouraged to read the paper as well as the responses to raised objections before making premature judgements. An intense effort will be made to address all contentions, valid or otherwise, and will be presented in an organized manner on the blog

Copout #1 to Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing

2012-10-05T11:47:00.000-07:00

For a longer list of objections and replies to Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing, see the following page, http://embryologyinthequran.blogspot.com/p/objections-and-replies.html

1. Copout: "You have not studied Ancient Arabic for decades therefore everything you say is wrong or worthless"

Reply: "You have not studied Ancient Arabic for decades therefore everything you say is wrong or worthless", so sayeth every Muslim who wishes to avoid thinking about the valid contentions raised against many of their erroneous beliefs.

Specific to the paper, Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing, this is an especially irrelevant objection. The content of the paper can be divided into two main tasks;

1) Checking whether a "quote" or "idea" exists in the sources referenced by Hamza Tzortzis.
2) Evaluating the veracity and validity of the arguments proposed by Hamza Tzortzis.

Neither of the above tasks require a knowledge of a particular language, let alone years or decades of specializing in classical Arabic. The paper is not attempting to compose a literary review of any piece of Arabic text but rather provide a fact check on the truth claims made by Hamza Tzortzis.

Moreover, any usage of Arabic in the paper is based on the authority of classical and academic Arabic lexicons along with the consultation of 3 native Arab speakers from Saudi Arabia who have knowledge of classical or modern Arabic.

Thus, such an objection is a silly red herring intended for moving the goalpost and poisoning the well. Therefore, every thinking person can casually reject the naive zealots' attempt to convince the mind to circumvent the facts obstructing the path to their deeply held absurdities.

Objection 3 to Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing

2012-10-01T14:39:00.004-07:00

For a longer list of objections and replies to Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing, see the following page, http://embryologyinthequran.blogspot.com/p/objections-and-replies.html

3. Objection:"Nutfah" does mean "a singular entity from a bigger group of it kind" because Lisan al-Arab says “الواحدة من كل ذلك نَطَفة ونُطَفة” (The singular of all that is natafah and nutafah). (Other similar arguments also addressed).

Reply: Hamza Tzortzis in his original version of his paper had stated that the classical Arabic lexicon named Lisan al-Arab defined a word used in the Qur'an called “nutfah” as “a singular entity from a bigger group of its kind”.[i] This was subsequently found to be baseless which forced Hamza to say that the above definition is only “suggested” by the actual words in Lisan al-Arab, which are “a small amount of water.”[ii] The dishonesty involved in the argument has been documented in detail in the paper Embryology in the Qur'an: Much Ado about Nothing.[iii]

While this may be irrelevant it is worth pointing to the fact that this definition of “a singular entity from a bigger group of its kind” does not originate in any credible source but it comes from an apologetic website[iv] owned by a very unintelligent man.[v]

Nevertheless, despite the fact that such a definition does not exist in Lisan al-Arab and despite the fact that Lisan al-Arab specifically defines “nutfah” as “a small amount of water”, “the fluid of the man” and “semen due to it’s small amount”,ⁱⁱⁱ many individuals and followers of Hamza Tzortzis have been making attempts to salvage Hamza’s credibility by imposing the very convenient definition into whatever pinhole forced into Lisan al-Arab.

The attempts to stuff the elephant of a definition of “a singular entity from a bigger group of its kind” into the needle-eyes of Lisan al-Arab seems to be in the following 2 ways;

1) Certain phrases in Lisan al-Arab suggest the definition of “a singular entity” therefore “nutfah” means “a singular entity from a bigger group of its kind.”

2) “Nutfah” is a singular term. Many singular “nutfah” can add up to become a bigger group of “nutfah” (or “nutaf (.pl)). Therefore, “nutfah” is a “singular entity from a bigger group of its kind”.

Before analyzing the above contentions, a more important factor needs to be addressed. There seems to be a particular misunderstanding among the critics of the paper who are trying to situate the definition of “a singular entity from a bigger group of its kind” into the classical lexicon. Perhaps this is a result of their ignorance of the English language as well a reluctance to consider the logical implications of their arguments.

The important point to note is that when Hamza used the definition of “a singular entity from a bigger group of its kind”; there is a very specific image that he wanted to portray; that of humans being’s created out of “a single sperm that fertilizes the egg which comes from a group of millions of sperm cells”. Even though, this very inference in itself is weak and unjustified, this is what is being attempted.

It is for that very reason that Hamza’s mistakes cannot be justified or given credence to by merely pointing out that whatever substance is signified by “nutfah” has the property of being part of a bigger group consisting of that substance. This would be arguing from an irrelevant tautology because any physical (or logically possible) object, substance etc can have the property of being part of a bigger group consisting of that object or substance.

For example, a single “God” can be a part of a bigger group consisting of many “Gods”. A single “car” can be part of a bigger group consisting of thousands of “cars”. A single “heap of sand” can be part of a bigger group consisting of a million “heaps of sand”. A single “group of people” can be part of a bigger group consisting of many “groups of people”. A single “amount of semen” can be part of a bigger group consisting of more “amounts of semen”. Thus, any physical or logically possible object, substance (including collective nouns such as heap, group, amount) has the property of potentially being a part of a bigger group. This is merely a general characteristic of any “thing”.[vi]

Therefore, presenting such a general property applicable to any object or substance and then attempting to conflate it with specific definition presented by Hamza Tzortzis is not only fallacious but also factually incorrect. Even if objects and substances like “God” or “car” can be described as “a singular entity from a bigger group of its kind”, the same is not true of collective nouns like heap, group or amount. For example “a heap of salt” is not equivalent to “a singular entity of salt”. Such an application is rendered even more meaningless when associated with words like “amount”. For example, “a small amount of water” is not only non-equivalent to “a singular entity of water” but also it is rather meaningless in terms of practical reality to even utter a phrase like “a singular entity of water”. Thus, the second contention listed above is baseless.

Tragically for the intellectual well-being of many Muslims, the above illogical reasoning is what has been presented in order to save Hamza’s credibility. The following is a more specific discussion of the type of bad argumentation that certain Muslims have been engaging in.

Some Muslim apologists assert that Hamza’s version of “a singular entity from a bigger group of its kind” is found in Lisan al-Arab even when Hamza himself admits that this is merely an inference (a bad one at that!ⁱⁱⁱ).

Two examples have been provided by such apologists. The first example which has been quoted from Lisan al-Arab states the following;

Interestingly, this specific example originates from the aforementioned apologetic website^iv run by a very unintelligent man.^v

Nevertheless, the most striking feature of this example from Lisan al-Arab is that it does not even refer to the same word used in the Qur'an. Qur'an uses “نُطْفَة” (nu-t-fah) while the entry above is describing the word “نُطَفَة” (nu-ta-fah).

Secondly, the above entry starts by saying the word “nataf” and “nutaf” (pl.) means “pearls” especially “small pearls” and also that it can mean “earrings”. Then the dictionary continues by stating that “the singular of all that is natafah and nutafah”

At first look, one is left in serious doubt as to how this entry has any relevance at all to a discussion about the Qur’an’s use of the word “nutfah” to mean “semen” or Hamza’s claim that “nutfah” means “a singular entity from a bigger group of it’s kind”.

Then in time when one spots what Muslim apologist’s claim is, one is left in serious doubt as to whether they are being serious. This is because the claim made here is that since the phrase, “الواحدة من كل ذلك نَطَفة ونُطَفة” (the singular of all that is Natafah and Nutafah) exists in Lisan al-Arab, “nutfah” can mean “a singular entity from a bigger group of its kind”.

The Muslim’s reasoning seems to be of the following, “the word ‘singular” and a word that sounds like “nutfah” exists in the same sentence. It is said that the “singular” is the word that sounds like “nutfah”. Therefore, “nutfah” means “a singular entity from a bigger group of its kind”.

Ignoring the fact that this is not even referring to the same word used in the Qur'an, it is appalling to witness arguments already addressed and refuted in the paper, Embryology in the Qur'an: Much Ado about Nothing, being repeated again and again. Hamza too made an attempt to validate his invented definition by pointing out that the grammatical number of the term “nutfah” is one i.e. it is singular and that it follows from the grammatical number of “nutfah” that it means “a singular entity from a bigger group of its kind”. Quite clearly, this is an invalid argument. The grammatical number of a word has no relevance as to the meaning of the word. For counterexamples, consider the words “heap” and “amount”. They are both in the singular form yet it does not follow that “a heap of salt” is equivalent to “a grain of salt” or that “an amount of liquid” is equal to “a singular entity of liquid” (i.e. if such a phrase makes sense at all).

(NOTE: For the purpose of argumentation in the following discussion, the word “نُطَفَة” (nu-ta-fah) used above to mean “pearl” will be replaced with the word used in the Qur'an i.e. “نُطْفَة” (nu-t-fah))

The above contention raised by Muslims is the same as Hamza’s horrendous argument. It does not logically follow from the phrase “singular of all that (i.e nutaf) is nutfah” that “nutfah” means “a singular entity from a bigger group of its kind”. “Nutfah” meaning “a single pearl” does not entail that it cannot mean “a small amount of liquid”, “the fluid of man”, “semen due to its small amount” (all of which are the actual definition for “nutfah” in Lisan al-Arab). More importantly, “nutfah” signifying a “a single pearl” does not entail that it means “a singular entity from a bigger group of its kind” in the sense that Hamza has portrayed it.

For a more detailed counterexample, consider the word “mints” in English. In the 21^st century, the word “mints” can signify “plants of the genus Mentha” or “pieces of candy” etc. The singular of all that is “mint”. Interestingly, there is another meaning for the word “mint” that seems to have fallen out of use. In the middle ages however, the word “mint” was used to mean “a vast quantity or amount” especially in relation to money.[vii] The Oxford English Dictionary provides the following usage of the word from the 16^th century;

However, is there anyone who would argue that such an academically documented usage of the word is false? Would it be considered credible if a person said that the word “mint” cannot signify the meaning of “a vast amount” merely due to the fact that “mint” can also mean “a single piece of candy”?

Such an objection does not even seem warranted or relevant yet it is such weak and false ways of thinking that Muslims are forced to adopt in order ignore the clearly and academically documented usage of نُطْفَة” (nu-t-fah) to signify seminal fluid.

The second example provided by Muslim apologists[viii] is another entry from Lisan al-Arab which states the following,

“أَراد بالنطفتين بحر الروم وبحر الصين لأَن كل نطفة غير الأُخرى”

Transliteration: Arada bil-nutfatyn bahr ar-room wa bahr as-seen li’anna kul nutfah ghayr al-ukhra

Translation: He meant by “nutfatayn” (dual of nutfah) are the Roman sea and the Chinese sea because each “nutfah” is different from the others.

In much similar fashion to the previous example produced by Muslims, one is left in serious doubt as to how this entry in Lisan al-Arab is relevant at al in discussing Hamza’ s idea of “nutfah” being a “singular entity from a bigger group of its kind”. Ironically, this entry is very much in line with the content of the paper, Embryology in the Qur'an: Much Ado about Nothing. In the paper, it was stated that Lisan al-Arab defined “nutfah” in the following manner;

Lisan al-Arab states that the Arabs called a small amount of water as well as a large amount of water “nutfah”. Thus, “nutfah” being used to refer to a sea reinforces the fact the term is generically used to denote any “amount of liquid”. Lisan also states that its more common usage is in order to denote “a small amount of liquid”. Thus, this second example produced by Muslim apologists supports the conclusions of Embryology in the Qur'an: Much Ado about Nothing.

Nevertheless, the underlying argument from the Muslims is the same as the one used in the previous examples regarding “pearls”. In this case, they claim because “nutfah” can mean “a single sea” it can therefore mean “a singular entity from a bigger group of its kind”.

This is unfortunately a repetition of all the bad arguments and misunderstanding discussed in this article so far. There is the initial conflation of Hamza’s idea of what “a singular entity from a bigger group of its kind” with the generalized argument from an irrelevant tautology discussed above.

This is also a repetition of the fallaciously false argument produced in regards to the example about “pearls”. “Nutfah” meaning “a single sea” does not entail that it cannot mean “a small amount of liquid”, “the fluid of man”, “semen due to its small amount” (all of which are the actual definition for “nutfah” in Lisan al-Arab). More importantly, “nutfah” signifying “a single sea” does not entail that it means “a singular entity from a bigger group of its kind” in the sense that Hamza has portrayed it.

Thus, after examining the two examples provided by the Muslim apologists, it is clear that the entries from Lisan al-Arab are irrelevant to the discussion and that the corresponding arguments are fallacious as well as false.

Most importantly, it is worth remembering that the very Lisan al-Arab that the apologists are trying to find needle-eyes in for the purpose of passing elephants through it, specifically and unambiguously defines “nutfah” as “the small amount of water”, “the fluid of the man” and “semen due to it’s small amount.”

[i]. Tzortzis, Hamza 2011. Embryology in the Quran: A Scientific-Linguistic Analysis of Chapter 23. Version 1.1. page 12 and page 55

[ii].Tzortzis, Hamza 2012. Embryology in the Quran: A Scientific-Linguistic Analysis of Chapter 23. Version 2.1. page 14

[iii]. Captaindisguise & Taverille, M 2012. Embryology in the Qur'an: Much Ado about Nothing. Page 16-20 and also can be accessed at the following address; http://embryologyinthequran.blogspot.com/2012/08/2-drop-of-fluid-nutfah.html

[iv]. Abdallah, Osama 2008. Detailed meanings of the Scientific Words in the Scientific Verses in the Holy Qur'an. http://www.answering-christianity.com/detailed_meanings_of_scientific_words_in_verses.htm

[v]. Captaindisguise 2011. Osama Abdallah, Sperm & the Qur'an. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK01KC6S1qs

[vi]. Radden, G & Dirven, R 2007. Cognitive English Grammar. Volume 2 of Cognitive Linguistics in Practice. John Benjamins Publishing. Pages 63-78.

[vii]. “Mint”, n¹. The Oxford English Dictionary. 3rd edition, 2006; online version

Sept. 2012.

[viii]. Al-Khalidy, Nabeel 2012. Rebuttal of an atheist regarding a point in embryology and the Qur'an. http://understandingthequranmiracle.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/rebutle-of-atheist-regarding-point-in.html

Objection 2 to Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing

2012-09-29T03:19:00.001-07:00

For a longer list of objections and replies to Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing, see the following page, http://embryologyinthequran.blogspot.com/p/objections-and-replies.html

2. Objection: Nabeel al-Khalidy (hereby LQA) who runs the popular youtube channel LearnQuranicArabic has made the following video response attacking the veracity of one of the claims made in the paper. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SllZ3IM0T2Y

LQA asserts that the grammar behind the Arabic term "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) indicates that the word does mean "a singular entity from a bigger group point" which was rejected as being baseless in the paper. He also asserts that sura 75:37 suggests that "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) indicates a substance other than sperm. (09/28/2012)

Reply: LQA’s video can be broken down to specific claims;

(1) The grammar behind the term "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) indicates the definition of “a singular entity from a bigger group of its kind”.

(2) Sura 75:37 indicates that "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) indicates a substance other than sperm.

Starting with (2), the claim made is that verse 75:37 which states “Was he not a “nutfah” of/from semen (maniyy) ejaculated?” indicates that "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) is a separate substance from “semen” since the word appears separately from the word for “semen”.

It is disappointing to watch Muslim critics merely repeat arguments already addressed and refuted in the paper. This exact claim was made by Hamza Tzortzis.[i] Therefore, this argument was discussed and was found to be baseless.[ii]

The basic summary of the findings in the paper was that the verse 75:37, when analyzed under the proper literary, linguistic and historical context provided by classical dictionaries such as Lisan al-Arab, reveals its meaning to be the following; “Was he not a small amount (“nutfah”) of/from semen (“maniyyin”) ejaculated?”[iii]

For an elaborate discussion of the above point, please refer to points 1 and 3 under section “Nutfah” in the paper, Embryology in the Qur'an: Much Ado about Nothing.[iv]

Now for LQA’s main contention (1). Once again, his contention can be found in the following video uploaded on his youtube channel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SllZ3IM0T2Y

First and foremost, some background information needs to be cleared up.

1) LQA is not responding to the paper per se but the short introductory video that was uploaded to the youtube channel of Captaindisguise which only consists of a few points taken from the larger paper.[v]

2) Out of the few points mentioned in Captaindisguise’s video, LQA only attacks one partially, but pretends to have addressed the entire video when he does not. Thus, LQA’s response could be seen as attacking a strawman. Ironically, LQA agrees with the only point from Captaindisguise that he attacked by admitting that Lisan al-Arab does not say something that Hamza claimed it said.

3) LQA has deleted as well as refused to approve the comments left on his video. LQA has also decided to censor his comment section which reveals a lack of confidence in his work plus an intentional attempt to mislead his viewers by making it appear to them that no one objects to his rather poor video.

4) LQA has also refused to link his audience to Captaindisguise’s original video or paper and thus depriving them of understanding the actual claims made. Such actions by LQA can only be reasonably assigned to his intellectual cowardice.

Getting that out of the way, it is once again disappointing to see Muslim critics repeating arguments already addressed and refuted in the paper. A homologous argument was made by Hamza Tzortzis in his paper.[vi] The argument has thus been discussed and was subsequently found to be ludicrous.[vii]

Thus, LQA’s argument below has been addressed in the paper even before he made it. Nevertheless, his specific contention will be discussed below for the purpose of clarity and for the benefit of those who may be misled by LQA’s video due to their inability or reluctance to think critically.

LQA states the following (at timestamp 02:02);

“Just because a person knows Arabic, modern Arabic and has access to a dictionary does not mean he is an authority on the Qur'an”

This is a rather shallow representation of LQA’s opponents with the clear intention of using the tactic of “poisoning the well” or “moving the goalposts” Certainly one does not need to be an authority of any field in order to check the accuracy of someone claiming a particular source states such and such. Captaindisguise and Martin Taverille have merely done this. For example, it was Hamza’s claim that the classical lexicon Lisan al-Arab defines or suggests the definition of “nutfah” as “a singular entity from a bigger group its kind.” Upon investigation, it was revealed that Lisan al-Arab does not contain such a definition and ironically, LQA admits to this being the case.

LQA then states the following (at timestamp 02:12),

“[Captaindisguise] is saying because of the fact that Lisan al-Arab does not mention that al-nutfah is “a singular entity”, it means that it is not a singular entity"

This is already a very dishonest representation of the points raised in Captaindisguise’s video and perhaps an attempt to keep his audience away from the facts that definitively weaken LQA’s argument. The non-existence of such a definition in Lisan al-Arab was not the only reason for why the conclusion that “nutfah” does not mean “a singular entity” was reached.

There were 4 points mentioned in Captaindisguise’s video and they are;

1) Lisan al-Arab does not define “nutfah” as “a singular entity from a bigger group of its kind” as was suggested by Hamza Tzortzis.

2) Lisan al-Arab specifically defines “nutfah” as “the little/small amount of water remaining in the bucket.” (LQA himself states "nutfah" is a "small amount of water").

3) Also, Lisan al-Arab specifically states that “semen (maniyyin) was called “nutfah” because of its small amount.”[viii] and thus "nutfah" was clearly used to refer to semen synonymously.

4) A hadith from the collection of Hadith Qudsi was mentioned due to it containing a narrative in which Muhammad, the founder of Islam, stating that human beings exist in the form of “nutfah” in the mother’s womb for a period of 40 days;[ix] such a view is erroneous whether “nutfah” means sperm or semen.

None of these points were even acknowledged by LQA and it certainly reveals his “nutfah” of cowardice.

Nevertheless, LQA then spells out his main objections (at timestamp 02:23)

“Now little does [Captaindisguise] know that actually the word "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) is on a specific pattern which is on the pattern of “فُعْلَة” (fua’la). So this pattern that "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) is upon is actually associated with the individual parts produced by the associated verb.”

On a side note, Lisan al-Arab actually states that “there is no verb for nutfah”. However, for the purpose of argumentation, this statement from Lisan al-Arab is ignored and the following discussion will presume that there is a verb associated with "نُطْفَة" (nutfah). LQA continues (at timestamp 02:43);

“So let me just explain this. So we have the verb, for example, “قَطَعَ” (qataa’a) which means “he cut”, doesn’t matter what he cut but he cut something. If you take the 3 letter root, the “ق” (Qaf), the “ط” (Ta’a), the “ع” (Ayn) and you put it on the pattern of “فُعْلَة” (fua’la), you get “قُطْعَة” (quta’ah). So “قُطْعَة” (quta’ah) is actually a noun that denotes an individual part that is cut. So a person could cut something into a number of pieces. One of these pieces is called “قُطْعَة” (quta’ah). This pattern, “فُعْلَة” (fua’la), is also used for singular parts of the body. So for example, “جُذْمَة” (juzmah) means one part of the body. We have the noun “مُضْغَة” (mudghah). “مُضْغَة” (mudghah) means one lump of flesh or one chewed up lump of flesh and similarly we have "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) which is one part of seminal fluid.”

The above quote from LQA is his justification for his claim that “nutfah” can be defined as “a singular entity from a bigger group of its kind”. Specifically his claim is that “nutfah” means “a singular entity from a bigger group of its kind” because “nutfah” is in the pattern of “فُعْلَة” (fua’la).

The amazing irony of this claim is that while it seems to rely on the specifics of Arabic grammar, one does not need any knowledge of the Arabic language in order to understand the logical fallaciousness of LQA’s argument.

This is because LQA’s premise boils down to the following statement;

“There is a pattern (“فُعْلَة” (fua’la)) in Arabic and any word written in that pattern refers to a singular entity from a bigger group of its kind.”

LQA cannot make his argument valid without accepting the above premise. Quite clearly, the above premise is false which can be easily determined from the examples provide by LQA in his video alone. The examples given by LQA are;

1) “قُطْعَة” (quta’ah) is a piece of wood.

2) “جُذْمَة” (juzmah) is a part of the body.

3) “مُضْغَة” (mudghah) is a lump of flesh.

LQA’s reasoning can be applied to a vast many words in Arabic i.e. if “nutfah” is allowed to be defined as “a singular entity from a bigger group of its kind” merely due to it having a specific morphological pattern (“فُعْلَة” (fua’la)) then it follows inescapably that any word having that specific morphological pattern (“فُعْلَة” (fua’la)) can also mean “a singular entity from a bigger group of its kind.” Any attempts to exclude other words would be special pleading which, without strong reasons, is one of the worst ad hoc fallacies in argumentation.

Thus, LQA’s logic would lead one to conclude that “قُطْعَة” (quta’ah), “جُذْمَة” (juzmah), “مُضْغَة” (mudghah) and any other word of that form can be defined as “a singular entity from a bigger group of its kind.” Interestingly, “مُضْغَة” (mudghah) is a word used in the Qur'an to describe the embryo as a lump of flesh. Would LQA argue that due to the word “مُضْغَة” (mudghah), the embryo is part of a bigger group of embryos?

LQA's notion is also falsified by the words of Muhammad himself. Muhammad can be seen referring to the heart as well as the penis using the word “مُضْغَة” (mudghah) (in http://sunnah.com/urn/342030 & http://sunnah.com/urn/1101660 & http://sunnah.com/abudawud/1/181). This further debilitates the notion that any word that follows the pattern of “فُعْلَة” (fua’la) has to mean "a singular entity from a bigger group of it's kind". A much more consistent explanation for “فُعْلَة” (fua’la) is that it refers to a "small amount of a substance". Thus, it would be coherent for “مُضْغَة” (mudghah) to mean "a small amount of flesh" while referring to the heart or the penis. Likewise, it would be more coherent and consistent with the all the usages of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) in Lisan al-Arab if it meant "a small amount of liquid" such as semen.

Worsening the tragedy, if one were to mix LQA’s reasoning with Hamza’s logic, one would be arguing that “قُطْعَة” (quta’ah), “جُذْمَة” (juzmah), “مُضْغَة” (mudghah) and any other word of that form are referring to sperm cells as Hamza had concluded that "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) refers to sperm because it was defined as "a singular entity from a bigger group of it's kind." Such an absurd mess is what LQA’s argument inevitably leads to.

Perhaps, the chaos LQA brings is a product of his ignorance of the English language. Perhaps, he does not understand that “a piece of wood” is different from saying “a singular entity of wood”. Likewise, “a small amount of water/liquid” is not equivalent to “a singular entity of water/liquid”. Colloquially speaking, it does not even make much sense to say something like “a singular entity of wood” or “a singular entity of water.” If any meaning can be given to the phrase, “a singular entity of water”, it would have to refer to a single water molecule (which is smaller than the nanoscale). Quite clearly, the phrase “a small amount of water” which would have to refer to a macroscopic amount of water cannot refer to a single molecule of water or a singular entity of water. The same can said of “a piece of wood” or “a part of the body” or “a lump of flesh”. Words such as “amount”, “piece”, “part” etc are not referring to a discrete amount of something. Thus, LQA is flawed in his equivocation of the two very distant concepts. LQA’s flawed thinking is similar to a person claiming that “a small heap of sand” is equal to “a single grain of sand”.

On the other hand, the grand irony of LQA’s video is that it ultimately supports the claims made by Captaindisguise. For example, he defined “nutfah” as “a part of the seminal fluid”. However, this is no different from saying “a small amount of semen” which is the definition or understanding provided by Captaindisguise in his paper, Embryology in the Qur'an: Much Ado about Nothing.[x] More importantly, his definition does not lend any support for any of Hamza’s claims neither does LQA even attempt to demonstrate how his arguments either refute Captaindisguise’s point or support Hamza’s points.

Having made an absolute mess of the Arabic language using his self-employed authority and having failed to refute any of Captaindisguise’s point, LQA continues to state the following ridiculously erroneous or incoherent statements; (at timestamp 04:06)

“This is why the Lisan al-Arab, actually one of the meanings found in Lisan al-arab is “الماء القليل”, a small amount of water. Because we know that seminal fluid is made up of a large number of sperm cells. These sperm cells actually are surrounded by water and this is what actually the sperm cells use to travel to the egg. Without this water, they will not be able to travel. So it amazing that Allah (SWT) actually chose the word nutfah which has the meaning of fluid which is like water that is used by the sperm cell.”

First and foremost, seminal fluid is not made up of “sperm cells” Semen is distinct from sperm. If anything, it is this fact that differentiates modern ideas about reproduction from the ancient ideas. Semen is considered to be a vehicle for the sperm cells.[xi] For example, defects in the testicles could prevent the production of “sperm” yet this would not impact the production of semen which is a separate liquid that exists with or without sperm cells. Thus, LQA is in error when he makes the statement, “seminal fluid is made up of a large number of sperm cells.”

Secondly, LQA’s words are inconsistent with his endeavor. LQA states “nutfah” refers to “the fluid” that is surrounding the sperm cells which in reality is SEMEN. With such a statement, LQA’s video seems like an exercise in vain. If at the end of all the miserable argumentation, if he ultimately concludes that “nutfah” refers to the semen or the fluind surrounding and used by the sperm cells, then everything he has said is in perfect harmony with the points made by CaptainDisguise in his paper. Not to mention the implications of error as it wrong to claim humans are created from semen or the fluid surround the sperm cells when in fact humans are created from the sperm itself.

Overall, a deeper look at LQA’s claims reveal that 1) he is merely repeating arguments already addressed and refuted in the paper; 2) his argument is fallacious, non-specific and inevitably leads to a mess of absurdities; and 3) the bigger picture of LQA’s claims reveals that his points are ironically consistent with all the points made by Captaindisguise and Martin Taverille in their paper, Embryology in the Qur'an: Much Ado about Nothing and more importantly, his arguments do not provide any support for Hamza’s refuted claims and hopes.

[i]. Tzortzis, Hamza 2012. Embryology in the Quran: A Scientific-Linguistic Analysis of Chapter 23. Version 2.1. page 15

[ii]. Captaindisguise & Taverille, M 2012. Embryology in the Qur'an: Much Ado about Nothing. Page 35.

[iii]. “نطفة (Nutfah)”. Lisan-al-Arab. http://www.baheth.info

[iv]. Captaindisguise & Taverille, M 2012. Embryology in the Qur'an: Much Ado about Nothing. Page 16 and 35 and also can be accessed at the following address; http://embryologyinthequran.blogspot.com/2012/08/2-drop-of-fluid-nutfah.html

[v]. Captaindisguise 2012. Embryology in the Qur'an: Much Ado about Nothing – Hamza Tzortzis refuted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPgT_gV97tw

[vi]. Tzortzis, Hamza 2012. Embryology in the Quran: A Scientific-Linguistic Analysis of Chapter 23. Version 2.1. page 16

[vii]. Captaindisguise & Taverille, M 2012. Embryology in the Qur'an: Much Ado about Nothing. Page 16 and 35 and also can be accessed at the following address; http://embryologyinthequran.blogspot.com/2012/08/2-drop-of-fluid-nutfah.html

[viii]. Ibid., page 16 - 20

[ix]. Hadith Qudsi (or Sacred Hadith). Hadith 4. http://sunnah.com/nawawi40/4

[x]. Captaindisguise & Taverille, M 2012. Embryology in the Qur'an: Much Ado about Nothing. Page 35

[xi]. Stoppard, Miriam 2008. Conception, Pregnancy & Birth: The Childbirth Bible for Today's Parents. Penguin publications. Page 30.

Objection 1 to Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing

2012-09-28T20:27:00.002-07:00

For a longer list of objections and replies to Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing, see the following page, http://embryologyinthequran.blogspot.com/p/objections-and-replies.html

1. Objection: The word "nutfah" can mean "sperm-drop" since many modern translations of the Qur'an have translated it so; therefore "nutfah" means "sperm-drop". They knew Arabic better than [captaindisguise] therefore they cannot be wrong! Also, "nutfah" in modern Arabic means "sperm". (09/24/2012)

Reply: This is an especially ironic objection given that Hamza Tzortzis himself has stated the following;

"Therefore, a translation will never be a representation of the original text and anyone who seeks total equivalence is chasing a mirage"[i]

Nevertheless, this objection is flawed in every shape and form. The objection can be put into the form of the following argument; (Let “X” = a word and “Y” = a modern scientific term)

1) The Qur'an contains “X”

2) In the 21^st century, “X” is translated as “Y”

Therefore, the Qur'an means “Y” when using “X”

For the thinking Muslims, such an objection should seem a bit blasphemous given that Muslims seem to be forced to defend their Qur'an against allegations of error by depending upon the new definitions given to ancient Arabic terms by modern day humans.

On a serious note, the above argument is not even valid. It does not follow from a Qur'anic term having a particular definition in the 21^st century that the same definition existed in the 7^th century. First and foremost, it completely ignores the simple fact that words acquire new meaning.[ii]

The Islamic premise seems to be that the

“The meaning of a word that exists at some point in time can be considered to be the meaning of the word at any point in time.”

This quite clearly is nonsensical and factually incorrect. For example, consider the word “proton” which is derived from Ancient Greek. The word can be seen being used as early as Aristotle.[iii]

Is there any rational person who would conclude that Aristotle was referring to the subatomic particle when he uses the word “proton” merely due to the fact that the word “proton” refers to a subatomic particle in the 21^st century? Of course, not!

As such the Islamic premise is false. Thus the argument presented is unsound and this objection can be rightfully dismissed.

The emphasis on how much knowledge anyone has is irrelevant as it would merely constitute the fallacy of appealing to authority. However, if one is bent on appealing to arbitrary authorities, then translations and explanations presented in the paper Embryology in the Qur'an: Much Ado about Nothing are based on the definitions found in academic and classical lexicons and dictionaries that are far more authoritative than any modern translator.

In summary, the objection is flawed as the premise is factually wrong and thus can rejected.

Also see - The Etymological fallacy http://www.fallacyfiles.org/etymolog.html

[i]. Tzortzis, Hamza 2012. Embryology in the Quran: A Scientific-Linguistic Analysis of Chapter 23. Version 2.1b. page 69

[ii]. Adrian Akmajian et al. 2001. Linguistics, 5th Edition: An Introduction to Language and Communication. MIT Press. Page 25.

[iii]. “proton”. Online Etymology Dictionary. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=proton&searchmode=none

Hamza Tzortzis on Nutfah

2012-09-21T21:28:00.000-07:00

Hamza Tzortzis, senior researcher and lecturer at the Islamic Education and Research Academy, claims that a term used in the Qur’an called “nutfah” (نطفة )^{^[i]} is defined by the 14^th century classical lexicon named “Lisan al-Arab”^{^[ii]} as “a singular entity from a bigger group of it’s kind” and that this definition means that the term “nutfah” refers to the sperm, ovum and even the zygote and not merely and purely to “semen” which was considered as the reproductive material by those in the ancient world.^{^[iii]} Hamza’s goal is for us to be impressed by a 7^th century book making a reference to “sperm cells” and “ovum” and even the zygote long before Scientists discovered them.

Of course, then some of us decided to check “Lisan al-Arab”, and we could not find any definition even remotely closely to “a singular entity from a bigger group of its kind.” Some of us then asked Hamza on his facebook page to provide the original Arabic sentence from Lisan al-Arab, that says ”nutfah” is “a singular entity from a bigger group of it’s kind. ”

Hamza said he will get back and when he did get back to us it was in this form found in version 2.1b of his paper released in April 2012^{^[iv]}. He now says this very convenient definition is suggested by the following words in Lisan al-Arab; “A single drop of water remaining in an emptied bucket.” He also retracts his original that “nutfah” can mean a sperm or an ovum. His new definition is hilariously desperate as he states “nutfah” means “a drop of fluid containing sperm or ovum”.

Let’s not even comment on how much of a pathetic inference it is to say that the statement “a single drop of water remaining in an emptied bucket” SUGGESTS the very convenient definition of “a singular entity from a bigger group of it’s kind”. The reason for not commenting on it is because this is not where the story ends.

Some of us then decided to check Lisan al-Arab again and we still could not find the definition of “a single drop of water remaining in an emptied bucket.” However, there were two instances that could be considered as contenders for this definition.

The first instance is only remotely close due to it containing a reference to “a drop of water”. However, this clearly cannot be helpful to Hamza or any other Muslim because this definition is not even referring to the same word in the Qur'an. The word in the Qur'an is “nutfah” ... the word here is “NuTAfah”. Secondly, Lisan al-Arab is not even defining Nutafah as a drop of water.

Instead. Nutafah is defined as a “pearl of pure color” which the dictionary describes as being similar to a drop of water. It is not saying Nutafah is a drop of water. Therefore, this cannot be what Hamza is referring to.

The second instance comes very very close to Hamza’s given definition from Lisan al-Arab. However, it is also vastly different from what Hamza would like it to be.

Hamza states that Lisan al-Arab defined “Nutfah” as “a single drop of water remaining in an emptied bucket.”

What Lisan al-Arab actually says in the Arabic is the following;

The key words are “al-maa’ al-qaleel (الماء القليل)”. Al-maa’ is the commonly used word for water. Al-qaleel means little or small amount.^{^[v]} It does not mean “a single drop”. The Arabic for “a single drop” would be; “al-qatara al-wahida (القطرة الواحدة)” ^{^[vi]}

So let’s paint the picture so far.

Lisan al-Arab actually defines “nutfah” as “the little water remaining in a bucket”.
Hamza mistranslates Lisan al-Arab and claimed that it defined “nutfah” as “a single drop of water remaining in a bucket”.
Hamza then claimed (without any justification) that his mistranslation “SUGGESTS” the very convenient definition of “a singular entity from a bigger group of its kind”
Hamza then uses this desperately weak inference based on a mistranslation to make the claim that “nutfah” refers to a sperm, ovum and even the zygote.

Or at least that was the case in version 1. Since he got busted on his misrepresentation of Lisan al-Arab, his version 2.1 suggests in a very convoluted manner that “nutfah” refers to “a drop of fluid containing sperm or ovum.”

Now if you thought such an amount of academic dishonesty was the end of it all. Think Again. Here are some other statements from Lisan al-Arab that Hamza did not show us,

Lisan al-Arab states very specifically that that Semen was called “nutfah” by the Arab because of it’s small amount. In other words, Semen was called “nutfah” because semen is a small amount of liquid. If that wasn’t clear enough, consider this; the very statement from Lisan al-Arab that Hamza mistranslated and subsequently made extremely weak inferences from in order to define “nutfah” as sperm, ovum, zygote etc; was in reality and originally used by the ancients Arabs to define “nutfah” as nothing more than semen!

Yet if you thought such an amount of desperation was the end of it all. Think Again. The following is a hadith from the prophet Muhammad that was never mentioned by Hamza. The hadith states the following regarding “Nutfah”;^{^[vii]}

إنَّ أَحَدَكُمْ يُجْمَعُ خَلْقُهُ فِي بَطْنِ أُمِّهِ أَرْبَعِينَ يَوْمًا نُطْفَةً

“Verily the creation of each one of you is brought together in his mother’s womb for forty days in the form of a nutfah”

Whether “nutfah” means semen, sperm, ovum or even the zygote; humans do not exist in the form of any of these for a period of 40 days! Muhammad is wrong! The Qur'an is wrong and perhaps this is the reason why this hadith was never mentioned by Hamza Tzortzis!

Have you ever seen a man more incompetent? Have you ever seen such a display of academic dishonesty? Would you like to see more examples of such dishonest attempts by Hamza Tzortzis? Well now you can with “Embryology in the Qur'an: Much Ado About Nothing – A refutation of Hamza Tzortzis’ Embryology in the Qur’an: A Scientific-Linguistic Analysis of Chapter 23” authored by myself and Martin Taverille

All you have to do is visit www.embryologyinthequran.blogspot.com where the paper can be downloaded or read online. The blog dedicated to debunking the famous Islamic Embryology claim also presents the paper in an easily accessible and readable format by dividing the individual sections of the paper into different pages as well as provide resources for researching the content and raising questions or criticisms! The paper can be discussed in the comment sections of the blog without any restrictions on the character limit. The blog also has information on how to contact the authors of the paper!

If you are interested in knowing more about the paper, tune into the JinnandTonicShow airing on September 22^nd at 8 PM GMT. The episode will be subsequently uploaded to the youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/TheJinnAndTonicShow

[i]. Qur'an 23:14. http://quran.com/23/14

[ii]. “نطفة (Nutfah)”. Lisan-al-Arab. Searchable online at http://www.baheth.info

[iii]. Tzortzis, Hamza 2011. Embryology in the Quran: A Scientific-Linguistic Analysis of Chapter 23. Version 1.1. page 12 and page 55

[iv]. Tzortzis, Hamza 2012. Embryology in the Quran: A Scientific-Linguistic Analysis of Chapter 23. Version 2.1. page 14 - 17

[v]. “قليل (Qaleel)”. Edward William Lane. An Arabic-English Lexicon. Librairie Du Liban. 1968. Vol. 8, page 2992. www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000246.pdf

[vi]. “al-qatara (القطرة)” . Edward William Lane. An Arabic-English Lexicon. Librairie Du Liban. 1968. Vol. 7, page 2542 http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume7/00000070.pdf & “al-wahida (الواحدة)” Vol. 8, page 2927. http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000181.pdf

[vii]. Imam Nawawi's 40 Hadith. Hadith 4. http://sunnah.com/nawawi40/4; also see Riyadh as-Saliheen Book 1 Hadith 396 http://sunnah.com/riyadussaliheen/1/396; & Sahih Muslim Book 33 Hadith 6392 http://sunnah.com/urn/263920 & Sahih Muslim Book 33 Hadith 6395 http://sunnah.com/urn/263950

The Greatest Trick the Devil Ever Pulled

2012-09-12T23:25:00.003-07:00

SPOILER ALERT! - The Usual Suspects (1995)

"The Greatest Trick the Devil Ever Pulled was Convincing the World he didn't Exist"

~ The Usual Suspects (1995)

Even as an atheist, I consider the above statement to be one of the greatest lines ever uttered in a movie. The movie is also an all-time favorite of mine. Yet, all that said and done, the above quote has made me uneasy for a long time.

As an atheist, I do not believe in God or the Devil due to the lack of evidence and reasons for holding such beliefs. As such, I could only remain annoyed when in my casual conversations with my theistic friends, the above line was dropped with a smirk of unfounded confidence. Their suggestion is apparent; the atheists, including myself, have fallen prey for the Devil's greatest trick; the illusion of non-existence.

As far as rationality was concerned, there was nothing to worry about the idea that Devil could have deceived all the atheists into believing he did not exist. Just because a Devil could exist and deceive humans; it does not follow that the Devil does in fact exist (As far as I know, I am unaware of any ontological arguments for the Devil).

However, as an occasionally emotional human being, the assurance of logic was not enough to quench the uneasiness caused by the thought that I could be subject to the The Greatest Trick ever sold by the Devil.

WAIT! do you think I am saying that I am scared that the Devil may have tricked me and sentenced me to a life in hell? No, No. That would be hilarious. What made me uneasy was that at least some theists actually believe that "the greatest trick the Devil" could pull was convincing the world he didn't exist.

One question; which devil did such theists sell their imagination to?

As such, here is a greater trick that the devil could pull. Allow me to lead with an analogy. Let us consider a smaller Devil; a con man. A con man, presumably, makes a living dishonestly by pretending to be something that he is not. Generally, they present the audience with ideas or facts that will be considered "good" by the public. Yet, the con man's strategy was only to "convince" them that what he had to sell was "good" (regardless of their actual goodness). It is conceivable, that such a con man could gather support from the masses who have wholeheartedly joined the charlatan with the best of interests.

With the above analogy in mind, consider the Devil again. What would his greatest trick be? That is a difficult question to answer and therefore, let us focus on a relatively easier question; Can the devil perform a trick greater than merely convincing the world he did not exist.

After all, the charlatans and con-men do not gain anything from convincing anyone they do not exist. It would seem that their active presence or existence is required for them to engage in their dishonest practice. Likewise, what exactly is the "trick" involved in the Devil "hiding" from the masses? After all, the con-men and charlatans would be doing the world a favor if they were to pretend to not exist. The same can be said of the Devil. Of course, the Devil could be capable of causing evil while remaining hidden.

Yet one is forced to ask whether the Devil could pull a trick greater than convincing the world the he does not exist.

What about the devil convincing the world that he is God?

Imagine, an omni-malevolent being named Devil, who appears in different cultures in different forms claiming to be God or messengers of God. Imagine, the Devil appearing through a Jewish carpenter claiming to be the son of God and then 600 years later, appear in front of a different group of people claiming to be an angel of God while deceiving an illiterate merchant in Arabia as well as teaching that those who believed in the earlier "son of God" are wrong and need to be converted. Imagine, the bloodshed and violence such a confrontation would inevitably produce. Imagine, the great many evils that have occurred throughout history in the name of doing "good" and in the name of the "god(s)" who defined the mutually exclusive notions of "good".

Wouldn't the Devil be orchestrating something of such a tremendous scale rather than being the disney-cartoonish genie who whispers gossip into the ears of people (as represented in the Qur'an in Sura 114)?

Does it not make sense then to say that ""The Greatest Trick the Devil Ever Pulled was RELIGION"

Just a thought!

Lowest Land Prediction Claim in the Quran Debunked

2012-03-19T12:02:00.002-07:00

Lowest Land Prediction Claim

Argument

The Qur'an states that the Romans were defeated in “adna al-ard”. “adna” means lowest. “al-ard” means land or earth. Thus, the Qur'an states that the Romans were defeated in the lowest land.

The Romans were defeated at the Dead Sea Shore. The Dead Sea Shore is the lowest land on earth. Therefore, the Qur'an stated that the Dead Sea shore is lowest land on earth before anyone knew of this fact.

(Source for Argument)

Harun Yahya – The Victory of the Byzantium

http://miraclesofthequran.com/predictions_01.html

Verses

(Mohsin Khan Translation)

30:2-3 - The Romans have been defeated. In the nearer land, and they, after their defeat, will be victorious.

(Transliteration)

30:2-3 - Ghulibati arroom. Fee adna al-ardi wahum minbaAAdi ghalabihim sayaghliboon

For other translations, visit http://quran.com/30/2-3

Objections

1) Adna comes from the root word dal-nun-waw. Visit link below.
http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=dnw#%2830:3:2%29

According to lane's lexicon, the root word dal-nun-waw literally means "near" which has been the meaning given by all classical scholars and prominent translators and is in fact the more legitimate one.

(pg 920, middle column, Lane's lexicon)

(pg 921, third column, Lane's lexicon)

Visit link below for Lane’s Lexicon
http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume3/00000086.pdf
http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume3/00000087.pdf

2) According to lane's lexicon, the definition "low" is not referring to depth BUT it is referring to inferiority/ weakness/ disgrace. The Qur'an has also used this word to mean "inferior" in verse 7:169

(pg 920, middle column, Lane's lexicon)

(pg 921, middle column, Lane's lexicon)

Visit link below for Lane’s lexicon.

http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume3/00000086.pdf
http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume3/00000087.pdf

3) Thus the Muslim apologist has committed the fallacy of equivocation and has failed to establish that the words “adna al-ard” does in fact mean “lowest land.”

4) Now let us assume that "adna al-ard" means "lowest/ deepest land". Harun Yahya states the following in his website (linked above under “source for argument”)

“for Christian Byzantium, the loss of the True Cross was the heaviest blow in that defeat in Jerusalem, located near the shores of the Dead Sea”

Now the problem is much simpler. Harun Yahya himself admits that the defeat occurred at Jerusalem. One can also confirm this in any academic source including the Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East, Volume 1, page 555 which states the following,

“The advancing Persians killed thousands of Christians and destroyed hundreds of churches. On reaching Jerusalem in April 614, the Persians placed the city under siege for a month. When it finally fell, 60, 000 Christians were murdered and over 30,000 put into slavery as punishment for their resistance...In 627, the Byzantines defeated the Persians in a major battle at Nineveh” (pg 555)

(Stokes J & Gorman A. Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East, Volume 1. Infobase Publishing. 2008)

Thus this entire apologist claim can be refuted with a single question. Does the Qur'an say that the defeat will be in a place located near the lowest land? Or does it say (according to Apologists) that the defeat will be in the lowest land.

If what Muslim apologists say is true, then the Qur'an would be in error since it would be saying that Jerusalem is the lowest land.

In conclusion, the term “adna al-ard” does not mean “lowest/ deepest land” and the Romans were not defeated at the Dead Sea shore. Therefore, this miracle claim has been debunked.

Sea Barrier Miracle Claim Debunked

2012-02-09T08:34:00.002-08:00

Argument

The quran states there are barriers BETWEEN two seas. Modern science found there are barriers (called a pycnocline) in the sea. Therefore, quran contains modern science

Source for Argument
Harun Yahya - THE SEAS NOT MINGLING WITH ONE ANOTHER
http://miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_50.html

Verses

25:53 - And it is He who has released [simultaneously] the two seas, one fresh and sweet and one salty and bitter, and He placed between them a barrier and prohibiting partition.

55:19-20 - He released the two seas, meeting [side by side]; Between them is a barrier [so] neither of them transgresses

Rebuttal

1) Pycnocline is not the same kind of barrier that is mentioned in the quran and thus they have committed the fallacy of equivocation; thus rendering their argument invalid.

“It has uniform properties and is bounded below by a large density gradient, called the "pycnocline"” (pg 84)

Liss P.S, Slinn W. George N. Air-sea exchange of gases and particles. Springer 1983.

“The layer of seawater with the largest density gradient is called a pycnocline. A pycnocline is a layer separating light surface waters from heavier deep waters.” (pg 30)

“Saturation of seawater with oxygen abruptly decreases within the pycnocline: from 110-60% above the pycnocline to 60-40% within the pycnocline, and up to 5-20% below this layer” (pg 297)

“It is important to stress that the halocline (pycnocline) is also an important means whereby sedimentary material is transported laterally.” (pg 298)

Emilianov E.M. The barrier zones in the ocean. Springer. 2005

“The pycnocline (pyknos, “strong”; clinare, “slope, to lean”) is a zone in which density increases with increasing depth. This zone isolates surface water from the denser layer below. The pycnocline contains about 18% of all ocean water.” (pg 139)

(page 141)

Garrison, Tom. S. Essentials of Oceanography. Cengage Learning, Aug 5, 2011

2) Muslim apologists have failed to provide any support for the claim that when two seas meet there will be "a barrier between them, a partition that is forbidden to be passed." (sura 25:53), "a barrier which they cannot pass" (sura 55:20). Therefore, the onus is on the muslim apologist to provide evidence that such a phenomena actually exists.

3) The so called "science" purported by muslim apologists is factually incorrect. It is physically impossible for two water bodies to prevent itself from mixing when they meet each other unless there is a solid impermeable barrier. Differences in temperature, salinity or density will not create "a forbidding partition" (NOTE: this can be easily tested in ones home). Therefore, the onus is on the muslim apologist to demonstrate such a phenomenon is possible.

4) The muslim apologist fails to consider the obvious and mundane explanation for this verse i.e the barrier is referring to the two seas being separated by land. Since, the quran describes the barrier as something that the seas CANNOT PASS, a land barrier is the most obvious explanation since a non-solid barrier can always be "transgressed".

5) The muslim apologist also fails to demonstrate why anyone should consider alternate fantastical (yet unsupported) claims of an imaginary invisible barrier OVER the obvious explanation of a land barrier.

6) The muslim apologist fails to consider similar verses in older texts namely the bible in

Proverbs 8:29 "when he gave the sea its BOUNDARY, so the waters would not overstep his command"

Jeremiah 5:22 "I made the sand a boundary for the sea, an everlasting BARRIER it cannot cross."

Almost the exact same terminology is used in both the bible and the quran.
Jeremiah 5:22 does in fact contain the word for barrier. The word is gheb-ool
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/gebuwl.html

7) The muslim apologist fails to consider the commonality of the knowledge prescribed to this verse as similar sentiment can be observed in scientific texts that are much older, namely that of the Greek polymath, Aristotle, when he states the following:

"Light parts are dissolved from the sea water by the sun and the dense, salty part remain" (pg 132)

"...This means that the sea has changed its place. it is possible that a gulf is formed when the barrier between the sea and lowlan is destroyed..." (pg 145)

Lettinck, Paul 1999. Aristotle's Meteorology and its reception in the Arab world

""For it is clear that a barrier of silt was formed and after it lakes and dry land, but in course of time the water that was left behing in the lakes dried up and is now all gone." (pg 27)

"The drinkable, sweet water, then, is light and is all of it drawn up: the salt water is heavy and remains behind." (pg 32)

Aristotle, Webster E.W. 2006. Meteorology.

8) Muslim apologists fail to realize that their desperate yet weak attempt at claiming scientific foreknowledge in the quran by the fallacious method of equivocating can be employed in other texts as well. For example,

i) (Ramayana BOOK III: Canto 31.: Rávan) “Breaking the wild sea's barrier down”

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rama/ry229.htm

If the muslim apologist’s line of reasoning is valid, then one would have to necessarily conclude that the Ramayana contains scientific foreknowledge which would then lead to contradiction as it is not possible for both Islam and Hinduism to be true. Since this line of reasoning leads to a contradiction, it follows that the line of reasoning is not valid!

9) (NOTE: i do not agree with point 9 but it still has some merit to it. This point was originally made by TheRationalizer). The muslim apologist fails to consider that this verse could easily be a rephrasing of verse 6 of the Book of Genesis which says "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."

_________________________