Copout #2 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, 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

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

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

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

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

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.

1. Lisan al-Arab actually defines “nutfah” as “the little water remaining in a bucket”.
2. Hamza mistranslates Lisan al-Arab and claimed that it defined “nutfah” as “a single drop of water remaining in a bucket”.
3. 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”
4. 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