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
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.
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)
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
Now for LQA’s main
contention (1). Once again, his contention can be found in the following
video uploaded on his youtube channel.
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.
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
[iii]. “نطفة
(Nutfah)”. Lisan-al-Arab. http://www.baheth.info
[iv]. Captaindisguise & Taverille, M 2012. Embryology
in the Qur'an: Much Ado
[v].
Captaindisguise 2012. Embryology in the
Qur'an: Much Ado
[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
[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
[xi].
Stoppard, Miriam 2008. Conception,
Pregnancy & Birth: The Childbirth Bible for Today's Parents. Penguin
publications. Page 30.
