Friday, June 6, 2014

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

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 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 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:

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)

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!"

Thursday, March 6, 2014

Muslims, Mata Amrithanandamayi & Gail Tredwell's Holy Hell


             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...

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

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

For a longer list of objections and replies to Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing, see the following page,

4. ObjectionNabeel 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.
Transcript of Video:

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

“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]

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 7th 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
            For a Transcript of LQA’s video, see:

(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 7th 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 7th 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

“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 7th 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 7th century Arabic word is to denote a spermatozoon. In asking such a question, LQA has already assumed that there exists a word in 7th 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 12th or 13th 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 13th 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 12th or 13th 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 7th century Arabic term used to mean “caravan” is “sayyara” (“ سَيَّارَةٌ”). Incidentally, “sayyara” (“ سَيَّارَةٌ”) means “car” in the 21st 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 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 4th edition. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Page 116e

[3]. CaptainDisguise 2012. Objection 2 to Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing.

[4]. CaptainDisguise 2012. Objection 3 to Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing.

[5]. CaptainDisguise 2012. Objection 1 to Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing.

[6]. QuranMiraclesRefuted 2013. Muslims against the "Science in the Qur'an" Claims.   

[7]. Captaindisguise & Taverille, M 2012. Embryology in the Qur'an: Much Ado about Nothing. Page 6.  

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