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 websiteiv 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 21st
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 16th 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
[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.
