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
4. Objection: Nabeel 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.
4. Objection: Nabeel 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: http://pastebin.com/48NpwJEc
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 http://www.scribd.com/doc/208156085
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.”
Contents
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) TheTexas
Sharpshooter Fallacy
6.1) The
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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUwQAytS5wg
For
a Transcript of LQA’s video, see: http://pastebin.com/48NpwJEc
(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) TheTexas
Sharpshooter Fallacy
6.1) The
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
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 http://www.learnarabiconline.com/greater-etymology.shtml)
“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.”
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.
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 http://pastebin.com/48NpwJEc). 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
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”.
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.
[1].
Wittgenstein, L 2009. Philosophical Investigations. Translated
by Anscombe, Hacker & Schulte. Revised 4th edition. Blackwell
Publishing Ltd. Page 116e
[2]. Hamza
Tzortzis 2013. Does the Qur’an contain
Scientific Miracles.
[3].
CaptainDisguise 2012. Objection 2 to
Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado
[4].
CaptainDisguise 2012. Objection 3 to
Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado
[5].
CaptainDisguise 2012. Objection 1 to
Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado
[6].
QuranMiraclesRefuted 2013. Muslims against
the "Science in the Qur'an" Claims. http://dawahganda.blogspot.com/2013/01/muslims-against-science-in-quran-claims.html
[7]. Captaindisguise
& Taverille, M 2012. Embryology in the Qur'an: Much Ado about Nothing. Page 6. http://www.scribd.com/doc/110224187/2-101612-Embryology-in-the-Quran-Much-Ado-About-Nothing
[8]. Hamza Tzortzis 2013. Does the Qur’an contain Scientific Miracles. Page 4
