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 14th 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 7th 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 22nd at 8 PM GMT. The episode will be
subsequently uploaded to the youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/TheJinnAndTonicShow
[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
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do not know why you removed you comment.
DeleteYour video response, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SllZ3IM0T2Y is pathetic. You merely have repeated two arguments already found in Hamza's paper and I have already addressed them in my paper under points 3 and 7 under the section of "nutfah" which can be found here
http://embryologyinthequran.blogspot.com/2012/08/2-drop-of-fluid-nutfah.html
Using your logic, you can define just about every term that is singular as "a singular entity from a bigger group of its kind". This does not get anyone everywhere.
Also, your last comment, you know yourself is a pathetic argument. "assumed knowledge" ? "Hey everyone, Lisan al-Arab states blah blah" "where?" ... "oh you have to ASSUME it" -
Like I said, if this is all you have, I am in a very good spot!
I do advise you to study Arabic at a scholarly level. Please read my article that I made on this very issue and comment on it.
Deletehttp://understandingthequranmiracle.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/rebutle-of-atheist-regarding-point-in.html
I see you have set comments on your blog on "approval". Do not expect me to argue with where you censor! Anyways...
DeleteThe article is the same as the video where in you strawman me and refuse to look at the actual points. On top of which, you bring in new claims that are absolutely irrelevant to everything I said. The video has been addressed and refuted in detail in the following post,
http://captaindisguise.blogspot.com/2012/09/objection-2-to-embryology-in-quran-much.html
The only new statements in there are yet another set of irrelevant examples regarding "nutfah" signifying a single sea. That and similar arguments have been addressed and refuted in the following post,
http://captaindisguise.blogspot.com/2012/10/objection-3-to-embryology-in-quran-much.html
As I have said, your strength is also your weakness. You seem to know a lot of Arabic but at same time knows next to nothing about everything else. This is why you are incapable of looking at the bigger picture in which everything you raise are irrelevant to my points!
The hadith regarding 40 days is not incorrect.
ReplyDeleteAbdullah bin Mas'ud (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), the truthful and the receiver of the truth informed us, saying, "The creation of you (humans) is gathered in the form of semen in the womb of your mother for forty days, then it becomes a clinging thing in similar (period), then it becomes a lump of flesh like that, then Allah sends an angel who breathes the life into it; and (the angel) is commanded to record four things about it: Its provision, its term of life (in this world), its conduct; and whether it will be happy or miserable. By the One besides Whom there is no true god! Verily, one of you would perform the actions of the dwellers of Jannah until there is only one cubit between him and it (Jannah), when what is foreordained would come to pass and he would perform the actions of the inmates of Hell until he enter it. And one of you would perform the actions of the inmates of Hell, until there is only one cubit between him and Hell. Then he would perform the acts of the dwellers of Jannah until he would enter it." [Al- Bukhari and Muslim]. Book 1, Hadith 396
Does an embryo become a clinging thing after 40 days? Yes.
http://nicheoftruth.org/pages/human_embryonic_development.asp
Regardless the criticism of these convenient terms is a valid one. Nutfah is taken to mean drop in most translations of the Qur'an.
To Mohammed Mehdi,
DeleteMy full criticism is presented in the following pages,
http://embryologyinthequran.blogspot.com/2012/08/2-drop-of-fluid-nutfah.html
http://embryologyinthequran.blogspot.com/2012/08/4-clinging-form-alaqah.html
Regarding your argument, "The hadith regarding 40 days is not incorrect. ... Does an embryo become a clinging thing after 40 days? Yes.", I believe the following sections (from the links above)will address them,
"Quite clearly, Muhammad is stating blatantly erroneous ideas about reproduction. Whether “nutfah” meant sperm or semen, the notion of humans “brought together in his mother’s womb for forty days in the form of a nutfah” is factually incorrect. Muhammad then continues with his factually incorrect ideas by saying that after nutfah, the embryo becomes an alaqah (clot of blood) for a similar period (40 days) and then a mudghah (lump of flesh) for a similar period (40 days) ... The fact of the matter is that within 60 days or 9 weeks, embryo would have started to resemble a human infant.[xxviii] Yet Muhammad would have everyone believe that at 9 weeks, the embryo is merely a blood clot"
"Consider the implication of Hamza’s interpretation. The root word “alaq” means to hang or to stick.[vii] Hamza then infers that the derived word “alaqah” can refer to anything that hangs or is suspended or clings. Such a vague generalization would allow one label practically everything as an “alaqah”. A person could refer to his jacket as “alaqah” if it is hung in a closet or is clinging to his body. Every fruit or flower that is hung or clings on trees; plants etc can be labeled “alaqah”. Every flying bird can be interpreted as “hanging” in air and thus labeled as “alaqah”. Even the earth, other planets and stars etc can be thought of as being suspended in space and thus labeled as “alaqah”. The possibilities seem endless ... If any physical object can thus be generalized and labeled as “alaqah” then it is quite clearly meaningless for Hamza to claim that the term “alaqah” with its meaning of “hanging substance” refers to some specific stage of human development. "
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete