The hyperlinks on the website dont appear to work, and so i cant find page 1:Hamza Tzortzis vs. Ali Sina Page 2
Hello Mr Sina,
First and foremost the issue is the Quran as an inimitable text. Your “maths” issue relating to inheritance is a way for you to run away from the topic. Lets take one topic at a time, otherwise it will be counter productive. Your “maths” issue is dealt with on this site
www.answering-christianity.com and many other sites. This does not relate to my discussion so I will focus on the Quran as an inimitable text.
That was just an example of clarity. I did not want to talk about the errors of the Quran. If you read carefully this point is clear in my last paragraph. Many Muslims have tried to explain this error and they all have failed. But let us leave the errors of the Quran for another time. Let us concentrate on your list of the unique linguistic features of the Quran and see what do Chandelier Structures, Multi-Tiered Structures, Long Argumentative Structures, Hysteron and Proteron and other gobbledygook you enumerated mean and in what ways they make the Quran an inimitable piece of literature.
I will take your first paragraph as irrelevant as it is your way of trying to contextualise your argument which has no evidence or basis.
The linguistic features will obviously make no sense to you because you have no idea about literature or linguistics. That is why I laugh when I read your site as it is so unacademic when it comes to the Quranic discourse.
Keep your laughter for the end. Now try to explain what those “linguistic features” mean and how they make the Quran superior to other books.
Also, if you say that you can make a list of linguistic features in any book, then show me a list with textual examples, try and use my list. I am not saying that you can not provide a list, you can – however I am just trying to highlight a contradiction as you said you do not even know what linguistic features are. You obviously failed to read the “Intoduction to the Qurans Linguistic and Literary excellence” article – so I suggest you read it as it will provide you with examples and a western scholarly point of view. Please try and read all the information I have given you as it will save me time. It also deals with your “subjective” argument.
You claimed that the Quran has unique linguistic features and you gave me a long list of them. I asked you to go over that list one item at a time, explain what they mean and tell us why the Qurna is different. You are asking me to go and read other articles. Let me remind you that this debate will be read by others and you must keep them in mind when you write. People don’t have time to go and read long articles to understand you. You must concisely explain everything. Please don’t be verbose. You are not going to win by boring people to death. Limit your responses to around 500 words. We do not want to bore our readers.
As for the list I will give you a very simple small taster (below), the extensive explanations will have to wait as you can imagine it will take sometime. At the end of the example I have provided you with a list of western perspectives, I am sure you wil appreciate that most of these Arabists have actually translated the Quran and are probably in a better position than you in realising the reality of the Quranic discourse. Furthermore I have provided you with a few more simple examples of the Quranic discourse as you have to wait for my explanations to the more complex list I sent you.:
Stop right here. Argumentum ad verecundiam or appeal to authority is not a valid argument especially when some of these “authorities” were believers themselves. And if they were not believers then why not? Were they sincere or did they have other motives? If they sincerely believed the Quran is miraculous why they did not convert? I am not interested to hear the opinion of the third parties. You must show us why Islam is superior to other books in a clear and convincing way the way I have shown the errors of the Quran. I am not saying so and so says the Quran is mistaken, I show you that it is. So please show us the superiority of the Quran to other books.
Unique Style/Genre
Style
Is the Quran prose? poetry? By scratching the surface we se that it can not fit in neither. Please see:
http://www.theinimitablequran.com/QuranicStyle.htmlhttp://www.bringbackjustice.com/TheExpressionoftheCreatorConclusiveProof.pdf Writing in rhyme is not a miracle but rather a symptom of Temporal Lobe Epilepsy and a very strong proof that Muhammad suffered from this disease. See this
There are other symptoms associated with TLE and most of them were present in Muhammad as I have shown in this article:
Genre
Please also see:
Neal Robinson. 2004. Discovering the Qur’an: A Contemporary Approach to a Veiled Text. Georgetown University Press.
Hussein Abdul-Raof.The linguistic Architecture of the Qur’an. Journal of Quranic studies Vol. 2, Issue 2. Edinburgh University Press.
M. Abdullah Draz. 2001.The Qur’an an Eternal Challenge (al-Naba’ al-’Azim).The Islamic Foundation.
As I said argumentum ad verecundiam and opinions are not valid arguments. All these people could easily be wrong. Foe every person who thinks the Quran is great there are at least four who thinks it is a very stupid book. You promised to prove that the Quran has linguistic features that are not seen in any other book. Give us that proof.
I am going to publish these quotes in smaller fonts for those who don’t want to waste their time reading them. They are worthless as proof. In future, I will simply delete them. You are welcome to give us links but please don’t bore the readers by quoting people’s opinions. They are not valid arguments.
[Small example]
“As a literary monument the Koran thus stands by itself, a production unique to the Arabic literature, having neither forerunners nor successors in its own idiom. Muslims of all ages are united in proclaiming the inimitability not only of its contents but also of its style… and in forcing the High Arabic idiom into the expression of new ranges of thought the Koran develops a bold and strikingly effective rhetorical prose in which all the resources of syntactical modulation are exploited with great freedom and originality.”
This statement coming from the famous Arab grammarian H. Gibb, is an apt description of the Qur’anic style, but this genre is not simply a subjective conclusion, it is a reality based upon the use of features that are abundant in all languages. This may seem strange that the Qur’an has developed its own style by using current literary elements. However, it should be noted that the Qur’anic discourse uses these common elements of language in a way that has never been used before.
Penrice acknowledges the Qur’an’s literary excellence: ”That a competent knowledge of the Koran is indispensable as an introduction to the study of Arabic literature will be admitted by all who have advanced beyond the rudiments of the language. From the purity of its style and elegance of its diction it has come to be considered as the standard of Arabic…”
The Qur’an is an independent genre in its own right.Its unique style is realised through two inseparable elements; rhetorical and cohesive elements. From a linguistic point of view rhetoric can be defined as the use of language to please or persuade.
Cohesiveness is the feature that binds sentences to each other grammatically and lexically. It also refers to how words are linked together into sentences and how sentences are in turn linked together to form larger units in texts.
This is not unique to the Quran. Every book that you can think of has arguments that are rhetoric. Every person can speak in rhetoric. This is no proof that the Quran is from God. As for cohesiveness, the Quran fails that criterion. This book is a mishmash of different verses and a hodgepodge of deliriums of a sick mind written during 23 years and they are jumbled together with no connection to each other. No other book is as confused as the Quran. Without tafseer (interpretation) no one can understand it. Why should a book that claims to be clear need so many tafseers? This is the most incohesive and incoherent book that is ever compiled. Various ideas are scattered all over. Each sentence says something different and they often contradict each other. Hence the “science” of nasekh val mansookh was invented to make sense of the book.
Hamza Tzortzis vs. Ali Sina Page 3
These elements combine with each other in such a way that interlock and become inseparable. This unique combination captivates the reader and achieves an effective communicative goal. The rhetorical and cohesive components of the Qur’anic text cannot be divorced from each other. If the Qur’anic text were stripped of these elements, the remaining text would cease to be the Qur’an and neither would it not sound like the Qur’an. Arbuthnot states:
These are subjective statements. Just as the Quran captivates you, it repulses me. So far you have not given a single logical and objective proof to support your claim.
“…the Koran is regarded as a specimen of the purest Arabic, written in half poetry and half prose. It has been said that in some cases grammarians have adopted their rules to agree with certain phrases and expressions used in it, and that though several attempts have been made to produce a work equal to it as far as elegant writing is concerned, none has as yet succeeded.”
The fact that sometimes Arab (Muslim) grammarians have tried to adapt the Arabic grammar to match the Quran is no proof that the Quran is right. It in fact shows when it was written it was inconsistent with the established grammar of the Arabic language. Now, why would Muslims try to adapt their language to the errors of the Quran? For the same reason they adopted the immoralities of Muhammad and made them the standard of their morality. Muslims are brainless. They do whatever Muhammad did mindlessly. This is the sign of the sickness of the Umma and not the proof that the beauty of the Quran.
From a linguistic point of view the Qur’an employs various rhetorical features such as the use of rhythm, figures of speech, similes, metaphors, and rhetorical questions. Also, the use of irony and the repetition of words are a just a small part of the Qur’an’s repertoire of rhetorical devices. Its cohesiveness includes various methods such as parallel structures, phrasal ties, substitution, reference and lexical cohesion. These features provide the bedrock and hang together to create the Qur’an’s unique style.
You already said this and I responded to it. Please try to be concise and avoid repetitions. Other books also have similar linguistic features in a much more beautiful way. The Quran is the only book that is truly a pain to read. On the other hand the Bible is really a simple and beautiful literature, even though it is written by men and it is not believed to be the verbatim words of God.
Non-Qur’anic Arabic texts mostly employ cohesive elements but the Qur’an uses both cohesive and rhetorical elements in every verse. The following is a good example to highlight the uniqueness of the Qur’anic style:
“Men who remember Allah much and women who remember” [Qur'an 33: 35]
Al-dhalikirin Allaha kathiran wa’l-dhakirati
The Qur’anic verse above, in a different word order such as the verse below,
“Men who remember Allah much and Women who remember Allah much”
al-dhakirina Allaha kathiran wa’l-dhakirati Allaha kathiran
You are just fooling yourself. There is nothing special in these sentences.
Would not deliver the same effect, as the word ‘Allah’ has become linguistically redundant, in other words it has become needlessly wordy or repetitive in expression. The original Qur’anic structure achieved its objective by separating the two subjects in order to sandwich the word ‘Allah’ and using the ‘wa’ particle as a linguistic bond. This Qur’anic verse has also a rhetorical element as the word Allah is ‘cuddled’ and ‘hugged’ by the pious who remember Him a lot, which is indicated by the arrangement of the words in this verse, this rhetorical aspect is also indicated by the rhythm of the structure. In this example the Qur’an combines rhetorical and cohesive elements to produce the intended meaning. Any change to the structure of a Qur’anic verse simply changes its literary effect. Arbuthnot explains in his book “The Construction of the Bible and the Koran” this effect of the Qur’anic style:
You are boring us and have said nothing so far to make us believe that the Quran is special.
Again you start giving us the opinions of people. You don’t know the alphabets of logic. They are not worth reading or refuting because they are opinions. Islam is based on opinions. There is no single evidence that this cult is indeed a religion. The faith of the Muslims is based on the opinions of others. This was the case from the start. Muhammad gave no proof for his claim. The faith of the Muslims from the early days was based on the opinion of others. “Ah, look Abu Bakr has also converted so Islam must be true”, and Abu Bakr converted because Khadija who was outwardly a respectable woman converted. What no one knows and I have proven in my second book is that Kahdija was a co-dependent.
Hamza Tzortzis vs. Ali Sina Page 4
Anyway, opinions are not logical arguments. Most of these people that you enlisted below were paid by the Saudis to write these foolish remarks. If you want to continue this debate, present the facts, not opinions. Opinions are a dime a dozen. Even good people can err. Gandhi was a good man but when it came to Islam he was a very ignorant man. I agree with G.W. Bush on a lot of issues but I don’t give a hoot to his opinion on Islam when he says it is a religion of peace. Please refrain from quoting the opinions of others. This must be hard for you because then you have nothing else to say. But I am not going to let you hijack this debate with logical fallacies and waste the readers’ time. Your task is to talk about the list that you presented as evidence of the inimitability of the Quran. This time I publish these opinions in small fonts for those who want to skip them. If you send more of them, I will delete them.
“It is confessedly the standard of the Arabic tongue… The style of the Koran is generally beautiful and fluent… and in many places, especially where the majesty and attributes of God are described, sublime and magnificent… He succeeded so well, and so strangely captivated the minds of his audience, that several of his opponents thought it the effect of witchcraft and enchantment.” To end this section, with the words of
Professor Philip H. Hitti:
“The style of the Koran is Gods’ style. It is different, incomparable and inimitable. This is basically what constitutes the ‘miraculous character’ (ijaz) of the Koran. Of all miracles, it is the greatest: if all men and jinn were to collaborate, they could not produce its like. The Prophet was authorized to challenge his critics to produce something comparable. The challenge was taken up by more than one stylist in Arabic literature-with a predictable conclusion.”
QUOTES
Dr Martin Zammit
“Notwithstanding the literary excellence of some of the long pre-Islamic poems, or qasaid, the Qur’an is definitely on a level of its own as the most eminent written manifestation of the Arabic language.”
Joseph Schact
“The Koran was also linguistic document of incomparable importance. It was viewed as a source of grammatical and lexicographical information. Its stylistic inimitability not-withstanding, it even came to be treated as a standard for theories of literary criticism.”
Hency Stubbe
“The truth is I do not find any understanding author who controverts the elegance of Al Qur’an, it being generally esteemed as the standard of the Arabic language and eloquence.”
Professor E. H. Palmer
“That the best of Arab writers has never succeeded in producing anything equal in merit to the Qur’an itself is not surprising”
Hartwig Hirschfield
“The Qur’an is unapproachable as regards convincing power eloquence and even composition.”
Professor Philip H. Hitti
“The style of the Koran is Gods’ style. It is different-incomparable and inimitable. This is basically what constitutes the “miraculous character (ijaz)” of the Koran. Of all miracles, it is the greatest: if all men and jinn were to collaborate, they could not produce its like. The Prophet was
authorized to challenge his critics to produce something comparable. The challenge was taken up by more than one stylist in Arabic literature-with a predictable conclusion.”
Professor Hamilton Gibb
“Well then, if the Qur’an were his own composition other men could rival it. Let them produce ten verses like it. If they could not (and it is obvious that they could not) then let them accept the Qur’an as an outstanding evidential miracle.”
Karen Armstrong
“From the above evidence the Qur’an is acknowledged to be written with the utmost beauty and purety of Language. It is incontestably the standard of the Arabic tongue, inimitable by any human pen, and because it still exists today, therefore insisted on as a permanent miracle sufficient to convince the world of its divine origin. If the Qur’an was written by Muhammad, why were not Arab scholars and linguists able to rival the Qur’an?”
Dr T.B. Irving
“The Qur’an is a magnificent document … because of its matchlessness or inimitability.”
Dr Maurice Bucaille
“The above observation makes the hypothesis advanced by those who see Muhammad as the author of the Qur’an untenable. How could a man, from being illiterate, become the most important author, in terms of literary merits, in the whole of Arabic literature?”
R. Bosworth Smith
“. . . A miracle of purity of style, of wisdom and of truth. It is the one miracle claimed by Muhammad, his standing miracle, and a miracle indeed it is.”
Arthur J. Arberry
“In making the present attempt to improve on the performance of predecessors, and to produce something which might be accepted as echoing however faintly the sublime rhetoric of the Arabic Koran, I have been at pain to study the intricate and richly varied rhythms which – apart from the message itself – constitutes the Koran’s undeniable claim to rank amongst the greatest literary masterpieces of mankind.”
Edward Montet
“All those who are acquainted with the Qur’an in Arabic agree in praising the beauty of this religious book; its grandeur of form is so sublime that no translation into any European language can allow us to appreciate it.”
Just to finish I would be grateful if you can read all the information I have given you as it answers your “subjective” argument. Please do as it will save us time and we can move on. Thanks.
I have not yet presented my argument against the Quran. So how did you come to the conclusion that my argument is subjective? I have only shown that yours are subjective and baseless. If you are done, I will start showing the linguistic flaws of the Quran. Then you’ll see how logical arguments should be presented. I would not quote neither the opinions of others nor would give my own opinion without backing them with proofs. I will quote verses of the Quran and would show why they are flawed. I am not going to read anything outside this debate. Bring your evidence here and be concise. About 500 words per message should suffice.
I will send you a detailed explanation of the linguistic features with Quranic examples when I get the time to educate you.
You need to educate yourself first as to what is subjective and what is objective. You seem not to know the difference. Opinions are subjective, whether it is yours or others. You have said nothing but opinions so far.
This may interest you too (its less technical as you need to wait for my linguistic features explanations for further info):
A unique feature of the Qur’an is that of numerical symmetry. This can be taken as an interesting feature of coherence due to the fact that the Qur’anic text was revealed over a 23 year period. Furthermore this feature sheds more light to the question of authorship.
The alleged numerical miracles of the Quran is entirely a different subject. Keep it for another occasion when we talk about it. Now you must only prove your claim that the Quran has unique linguistic features. Therefore I am not going to publish what you wrote on the subject of numerical miracles of the Quran or discuss it at this moment.
In my previous response I asked you to explain that long list you gave as the unique linguistic features of the Quran. I called it gibberish. In response you wrote: “you have no idea about literature or linguistics.” Maybe I don’t. But you say you do. So please enlighten us. This is the only thing you must talk about for now. Please do not introduce any other subject and do not quote opinions.
I accused you of being a demagogue. That list is only a collection of some jargons, some of them have nothing to do with linguistic. They are invented to fool the gullible and the uninformed. In this response you completely avoided my question and talked about other irrelevant things. Please go back to your previous message, explain to us item by item your list (that I highlighted in red). I am not going to let you weasel your way out of it. You must either explain that list or admit that you don’t know.
Hamza Tzortzis vs. Ali Sina Page 5
Linguistic Structure of the Quran Part III
Hamza Tzortzis vs. Ali Sina
2006/03/09
<< go to part I
Hello Ali Sina,
Thank you for putting up my response. I will explain the linguistic features in my previous email. I will also provide examples from the Quranic text. But you will have to give me some time. It was a long list.
I sent you my previous email to set the scene and give you some background.
If you have already admitted that you have no idea about linguistics and classical Arabic then why do you reject the Quotes I have given you. These Arabists such as Martin Zamit are well known in their work of Classical Arabic and their analysis of the Quranic text. An uneducated (in terms of Arabic & linguistics) person like you just sounds arrogant when rejecting authorities on the subject. I wonder how much H. Gibb, M. Zammit, A Arberry etc were paid by the Saudi Government? Please spare me the rubbish.
I said you have no idea what you are talking about. Please pay close attention to what you read. I challenged you to explain that list. You say you are going to do that. You can have all the time you want but make sure you do not exceed 500 words. People have limited time and we must respect them.
Why I said, don’t quote others? Because: you must prove the inimitability of the Quran without resorting to the opinions of this or that. Because: this is called argumentum ad verecundiam and it is a logical fallacy. Aristotle was a great philosopher but even he made lots of mistakes. If you say whale is a fish and quote Aristotle, you are engaging in a logical fallacy. Just as Aristotle was wrong about whales, these fellows are wrong about the Quran. Argumentum ad verecundiam is an invalid argument. I am not going to accept that no matter how you insist, just as you should not accept it if I quote great thinkers and famous people who said Islam is barbarity without giving evidence to that claim. We must prove our claims. If you can’t do that, that is the end of discussion. You can’t substitute logics with logical fallacies.
What is really funny is that you reject scholarly statements but yet you say you have a case to show the Quran is a poor piece of literature!
That is not funny at all. That is the way it should be. Proof is more important than the opinion of the entire world. Need I remind you that Galileo had the proof while the entire world was relying on opinions and beliefs? Who won at the end?
Let me show you what I mean by using an example:
Mr Sina goes to his Physics teacher and says that he has refuted Newtonian Physics. Teacher replies ‘Ok, show me the proof’ and all you do is come up with swiping statements such “gobbledygook” and “hodgepodge of deliriums of a sick mind”. Now Mr Sina rejects the text book that the teacher quotes from and even rejects top academics on the subject! Even though Mr Sina admits he has no knowledge. Do you get my point?
I have not even started showing the linguistic errors of the Quran in this debate with you. We are still waiting for your evidence that the Quran is inimitable.
Also with regards to the grammar issue, I have alreadydealt with this please see this:
I read this link. It contains no valid argument. But we will discuss it once you present it here as your argument. I am not going to discuss external links.
You made me laugh when you said that the Bible is a beautiful read in terms of its literature! Being a Greek Convert and understanding Classical Greek I am amazed how you havent noticed the linguistic and grammatical errors of the Bible that even Christian Scholars admit to. But who am I kidding? Mr Sina likes to make swiping statements with no knowledge – even when he admits it himself!
You can laugh as much as you want. The Bible, unlike the Quran is the paragon of clarity and fluidity. This is not to say that what the Bible says is right, but we are talking about linguistics. The language must be without equivocation. The Bible is like that. You don’t need tafseers of the Bible to understand it. The Quran is a confused book. Without tafseer it can’t be understood.
For example, Mr Sina states “You are just fooling yourself. There is nothing special in these sentences.” Ok, that may be your opinion. But based on what? You obviously have no knowledge of linguistics so how can you make that statement?
Sir! It is up to you to prove that those verses are inimitable. You haven’t done it. The burden of proof is on you, not on me. I say the Bible is more clear than the Quran. The proof is that there are no tafseers for the Bible and it can be understood on its own. This is the proof. Now, what is your proof that those verses you quoted are inimitable. The following sites contain verses much better than the Quran.
www.islam-exposed.orghttp://suralikeit.com/ Can you prove that the Quran is superior to these books? Of course you can’t.
This example came from the academic Quran Journal that sent many ripples in the world of linguistics (this is also evident by the absence of refutations to the article). Please see:
Hussein Abdul-Raof. The linguistic Architecture of the Qur’an. Journal of Quranic studies Vol. 2, Issue 2. Edinburgh University Press.
You become completely helpless without the argumentum ad verecundiam. There have been important newspapers in various Islamic countries that claimed an skeleton of a man 10 meter long has been found. Is there any validity to what Muslims say?
Why are you resorting constantly to the opinions of others instead of proving your claim that the Quran is inimitable? It is because you can’t do that.
So Mr Sina. Please let me know where you get you knowledge from?
I use my brain. This is called critical thinking. You can do it too. This is something everyone can learn. All you have to do is dare to doubt. The rest comes naturally. Try it. You might like it.
Hamza Tzortzis vs. Ali Sina Page 6
If you say that the comments from academics are opinions and Islam is just based on opinions then why did you accept my challenge? You obviously are stating your own opinions too e.g. “you are just fooling yourself. There is nothing special in these sentences.” So if we apply your logic then there is no point in discussion? Right?
I accepted your challenge and asked you to give me logical and objective proofs. I did not agree to listen to logical fallacies. Yes if I say anything without backing it up with logical proofs, then I would be erring too.
Many people think I am a great debater. I don’t want to feign false modesty here. It is true that I always win in any debate on any subject with any person. This has made some people think that I am a great scholar. I wish I could agree with that too but I am afraid that is not true. I know no more than an average guy in the street. (provided that is not a street in an Islamic country. There I am a philosopher.) So how can I win in every debate even though I admit to my ignorance? Aha! I have a secret. Once you learn this secret, you become undefeatable too. You can debate on any subject, with any person and win every time. That is how powerful it is. What people would do to learn this secret? How much would you pay if someone teaches you this secret? Shall I tell you what that secret is? I am going to give it away for free. I know people don’t appreciate things that are free. It’s too bad because this one is priceless. Put all your university qualifications on one plate of the balance and this secret on the other plate. It weighs more.
Despite that it is very simple. I can summarize it in one sentence. That is how great truths are often. They are awfully simple and yet immensely powerful. The secret is, never say anything that you can’t defend logically. That is all. This is the secret of debating with anyone, on any subject and winning every time. Even if you are an eight grade student, if you use this secret as your strategy in debating, you become invincible.
Once you adopt this as your strategy, you’ll be surprised how little you can say. But that little will always make you win. You don’t need too many weak arguments. That is like having too many weak spots. Paradoxically, the more you claim, the more you expose your vulnerabilities and the weaker becomes your position. All you need is one or two logical and unbeatable arguments. This will make you invincible.
Why I am giving my secret away? It is because you won’t be able to use it against me. Since I am using it, I am invincible already. If you used it too, we both become invincible. This means we would stop being opponents. There would be no more disagreements between you and I. Since you have already made sure that whatever you say is logical and can be proven, I won’t be able to disagree with you. If I do, I would be going against logic and would become vulnerable. If we both use this strategy, we would end up agreeing with each other. If everyone uses this strategy, we would reach a universal consensus.
This does not mean that everyone would start thinking alike. We would still disagree but these disagreements would be knowledge based and debatable. That is how scientists disagree on a scientific theory. Eventually truth will come out. Today’s disagreements are faith based. They are not debatable. Therefore there can never be a consensus unless one group starts killing others and tries to impose their understanding on others as Muslims do. This won’t be discovery of the truth but the imposition of falsehood. Truth does not need any physical force to support it. Truth is powerful on its own. It is falsehood that needs force to make itself accepted.
If we use this strategy, all these spurious ideologies that can’t stand the probing of logic will vanish because no one would want to present a postulate that he can’t defend logically. Fideism will end and rationalism will rule. Most of the miseries of mankind are caused by fideism. Fideism is blind belief in postulates that cannot be proven through scientific reasoning and logic. While rationality can lead us to only one path and unite all of us, fideism can be infinite. Truth is only one, but falsehoods are many.
Logical arguments never clash. Logic is one. It can’t have contradictions within itself. It is the ignorance and irrationality that clashes with either logic or other forms of ignorance and irrationalities.
Please tell me how M. Zammit, Neal Robinson, H. Gibb, J. Schact etc are paid by the Saudis? Actually dont bother. Its just your opinion.
They either knew they were lying and said these things because they benefited financially as Bucaille and Moore did or like Gandhi they have spoken out of ignorance. Everyone can err, even intelligent people.
You also state “I have not yet presented my argument against the Quran”. Im intrigued. How can someone who has admitted in having to knowledge attempt to state their case on that area? Please explain. Unless you are going to use the likes of Noldeke and other Orientalists. If you do I will not be as arrogant as you by rejecting them as opinions. I have refutations for those outdated works. Bring them on.
I have refuted the Quran on many occasions, but not in this debate with you. No Sir, I am not going to rely on the opinions to show the fallacy of the Quran. I will show it in a way that anyone can see with their own eyes.
You said “will quote verses of the Quran and would show why they are flawed” Ok Mr Sina. If you have no idea about Classical Arabic or linguistics then how are you going to do this? You have contradicted yourself.
When it is my turn I will show you how. Now it is your turn to explain that long list and prove why the Quran is inimitable.
So now you state that people who recite poetry or who are poets suffer from Epilepsy. Interesting. I will leave it as that.
That is not what I said. Hypergraphia and tendency to end the sentences rhythmically while writing prose can be symptoms of Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. Mario F. Mendez, M.D., Ph.D., Professor of Neurology and Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences, UCLA School of Medicine writes: “Some epileptic patients write profusely about their thoughts and feelings. This hypergraphia may occur as part of the Geschwind syndrome, a controversial personality disorder characterized by circumstantiality, viscosity or “stickiness” in social interactions, an intense preoccupation with moral or philosophical issues, and irritability or ease to anger. This report describes a unique patient who developed an irrepressible urge to write in rhyme concomitant with the onset of a seizure disorder.”
If Muhammad was suffering from TLE, then that explains his penchant for rhyme. Can writing in rhymes alone be the proof that one suffers from this mental disorder? No. Other symptoms must also be present. In Muhammad other symptoms were also present as I have shown in this article.
This also shows that you have failed to read the link. What Quranic commentators have said (Muslim/NonMuslims/Atheist etc) is that the Quran is a style of its own, which has not been imitated by the ones who were best placed to challenge the Quran. Please see this:
You seem not to be able to get rid of this logical fallacy. I said this enough that opinions are not proof. You can’t use them as substitute to logical arguments. First you must give the proof and then if you want you can add these opinions as spices. However, spices are not the main course.
Hamza Tzortzis vs. Ali Sina Page 7
The Quran is not poetry, or prose. To summarise the Unique Style article, the Quran is not Poetry as it does not have a metrical rhythmical pattern like the known 16 al-Bihar (rhythmical patterns). Also it is unlike saj (rhymed prose) as it is rhythmic in nature and does not follow the rules of Arabic prose. A good example is its shift in person and number (known as Iltifat). Please see this.
And the Quran is not like straight prose (mursal) as it has its own rhythm and rhymes in many areas. Actually an interesting fact is that the Quran ends with the letter noon 50.08% of the time. Not one text has achieved this, especially one that size and with content the Quran has – and to add - that it was revealed over 23 years. Please see this:
The fact that the Quran breaks all the norms of poetry and prose is not because it is a miracle. It is because the person who wrote it was an illiterate and ignorant man who thanks to his TLE, liked to make his sentences rhyme. When I was a child there was a beggar in Tehran who had set his business around Salsabil Cross. Everybody knew him as Hossein deevooneh (crazy Hossein). But if you addressed him anything but Hossein Agha, (Mr. Hossein) he would get very upset. He would swear at you and throw stones. Those who lived in that area of Tehran about thirty years ago or more might remember him. He was a short and grumpy man but he was a celebrity of a sort and people liked him because he was talkative and no matter what you said he used to retort back in rhymes. I liked to watch him get into arguments with the passerbys and while he appeared to be very serious, his quick wit and ad lib responses that rhymed were really funny. May God bless his soul. He was a real show. I even heard him once say that he was a general. He might have also claimed to be a prophet but I did not hear that myself.
What is pitiable is that a billion otherwise sane people follow Muhammad deevooneh (opps! I mean PBUH) and think his madness was the sign of his divineness? What can be more ridiculous than that? Now the insanity of one fruitcake is reflected in all these billion people. Isn’t that a tragedy? This is no different from the entire Germans who went mad by following a mad man. The Germans proved that by following an insane man such as Hitler millions and billions can become insane. Doesn’t this explain the total madness of Muslims? Isn’t it madness to burn churches, embassies and kill a hundred innocent people over a few cartoons?
As for your objective/subjective point, I agree. I havent even started on the list yet, I was just providing you with information, that you have failed to read.
Just get to the point please without further ado.
Objective: It either is Prose or Poetry or its own style. Thats objective. I give you an example, are you male or female? Get my point? Now what you have to do is prove thats its not its own style. Please see:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Miracle/ijaz.html http://www.theinimitablequran.com/QuranicStyle.html http://www.theinimitablequran.com/UniqueGenre.htmlYes it must be either prose or poetry and if it is not, chances are that the person who wrote it was an illiterate man – someone like Hossein deevooneh who did not know the basic rules of the language but was fond of rhymes. Isn’t this stupid to confuse shortcomings with miracles? This is like saying all people walk on their two legs and if a person walks on his four legs he must be performing a miracle. How much stupidity is enough Mr. Hamza? This is embarrassing. Muslims really are laughable creatures. A chimpanzee must have more wits than a Muslim.
There is one person, Terence, who claims to be Al-Imam Al-Mahdi and he writes in the same style of Muhammad. He writes proses that rhyme. Take a look. Does that make him a prophet? Use the same standard for Muhammad. If talking in rhymes is proof of prophethood, you must admit that Terence is also a prophet. If this is no proof of prophethood for Terence, why should it be for Muhammad?
You said “I accused you of being a demagogue. That list is only a collection of some jargons, some of them have nothing to do with linguistic. They are invented to fool the gullible and the uninformed.”
Give me some time and I will give you explanations for all the linguistic features I mentioned with examples. What is interesting is that you still have the arrogance to say “some of them have nothing to do with linguistic” Mr Sina you must understand that my intention is not to win you over or even win the debate. You have the platform, I have no interest in winning. I am just here to show that you need to entertain the fact the you may be wrong. And I feel I can expose your blind faith by showing you the academic world and the latest research on the Quran that says the opposite of what you say! Its that simple. Give me sometime and I will expand on the list.
You can have all the time you need, but I urge you again not to engage in the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy. It seems that this is what you intend to do. I am not interested to hear that and I am not going to publish that nonsense. You may quote anyone you like, but you must first demonstrate and prove your claim logically and independent of the opinion of the so called experts.
p.s. please access the links below that deal with your inheritance issue:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/my_01.htmhttp://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=discussion&did=24I have read those and many other feeble explanations. They are ludicrous. Nonetheless, we will discuss them when we get there. Now let us concentrate on what you have to say. But please make it short. There is no need to include everything in one message. The only way to eat an elephant, is one bite at a time.
Again may I ask – why have you failed to read my threads? Are you afraid of information that contradicts your current reality (that is based upon blind faith – you can see this as most of your arguments are old orientalist arguments and missionary perspectives based upon english translations of the Quran – How pathetic.)
Regards,
Hamza Tzortzis
Every fallacy needs to be responded. If I read all those links and try to respond to them, it will become so long that no one would have time reading it. We can discuss anything you like one point at a time.
Hamza Tzortzis vs. Ali Sina Page 8
Linguistic Structure of the Quran Part IV
Hamza Tzortzis vs. Ali Sina
2006/03/30
<< go to part I
[Its a very long email - but you will have to put it all up or I will not continue to debate. I feel all the points I raised are essential. You asked for explanation and here it is. So be patient. And I am sure your readership will find it interesting, they can read it chunks!]
Dear Hamza: Please keep in mind that you are talking to an ex-Muslim who can read the Muslims like an open book and not a dhimmi. I know the Muslim mind. They love to order you what to do. They are bullies and I am an expert in taming bullies. So please drop this attitude of telling me what to do. This is my site and I do what I please. You get more with me than a non-Muslim would ever get from a Muslim. For this you must be grateful. I do not do this because I am obliged or bound by silly PC laws. I do this to humiliate you Muslims. Please don’t even try to bully and demand things from me. I am trying to teach the world how to deal with Muslims. They must wise up and keep the Muslims under their feet or the Muslims will be at their throat.
I already told you to send your response in short parcels. I will publish hundreds of them but do not send a long email as this would make my readers tired. They have only few minutes to spare and we must respect that. I am going to publish your long email piece by piece. I have not read all of it yet, but as I said, if you have engaged in argumentum at verecundiam fallacy, i.e. instead of proof you have quoted the opinions of others, I will spare my readers and will not publish that part. The forum is free and you are most welcome to publish there, I will make a link to it for those who may want to read.
I h I have seen some of the opinions from other people who are not involved in this debate. Because of their generality I will just deal with some of the main points raised.
1) 1- I posted the opinions of well known and senior scholars regarding the superior nature of the Quranic discourse as I felt that it was necessary due to your lack of knowledge in the area of linguistics and Arabic. I wanted to add some “spice”. They do not provide proof. There have been many statements for and against Islam and other religions. As you say they are simply statements. But in saying that, you can not have the arrogance to reject them as there is a consensus amongst the non-Muslim linguists.
You should add your spice after having cooked your meal. So far we saw nothing but spice.
2- Other scriptures have claimed to be “beautiful” works or “literary masterpieces” such as the Great Poet Vemana. Now if we analyse such works we can see that they are in the form of known linguistic styles such as the Aata Veladhi metre. The Quran differs as it is in an unknown form within a sound grammatical structure. And yet no one can replicate its intricate linguistic structures and the abundance of rhetorical devices etc. Other pieces of literature can be amaziing and may have great aesthetic effects, but they are not inimitable. If one man can do it, so can another. This is not the case with the Quranic discourse.
You are talking nonsense. Yes the Quran differs because it is a book written by a mad man. It has broken many grammatical rules of Arabic language and this is even acknowledged by Muslim linguistics who out of their religious zealotry have claimed that the Quran sets the grammar and not vice versa. Then again Muslims also claim that Muhammad set the standard of morality and his actions should not be judged based on the Golden Rule. This is a fallacy of course. Evil does not become good just because Muhammad did it nor grammatical error become right only because Muhammad made them. The Quran can be replicated. All it takes is someone break the rules of the language and write incoherently. Khomeini was an illiterate man. He had invented a style of language that was all his. This did not make him a genius. The same can be said about Muhammad. The argument that the Quran is inimitable is ludicrous and it is a fallacy. By repeating it ad nauseam you will not make me agree with you. You have not yet proven why it is inimitable. You are engaging in a fallacy called circulus in demonstrando. This fallacy occurs when you assume as a premise the conclusion which you wish to reach. In this case you already claim the Quran is inimitable and establish that as a fact when in reality this is what you still have to prove.
I have stated that the Quran is a stupid book. In many places Muhammad confuses the pronoun and while claiming that the Quran is the word of God, he refers to the author of that book in third person. The ignorance of this man was such that in verse 2:2, he even confused “this” with “that” and while talking about his book he calls it “that” book. Only a three year old child or a lunatic can make such elemental error.
I do not want to get into the subject of the errors of the Quran yet. Now it is your turn to tell us about “Chandelier Structures, Multi-Tiered Structures, Long Argumentative Structures, Hysteron, Proteron” and other gobbledygook you enumerated as miracles of the Quran.
3 Let me also highlight that the challenge is not based on subjective or aesthetic criteria. I will give you some examples: Does the Quran have the greatest use of rhetorical devices? Yes or No? Does the Quran employ consonance unlike any other text? Yes or No? Does the Quran have numerical symmetry? Yes or No? Does the Quran have syntatico-rhetorical infertilisation? Yes or No? Does the Quran employ grammatical shift in a logical and structured manner and in a frequency unlike any other text? Yes or No? Is the Quran a sensitive genre, if a particle or word is changed the semantic cohesion of the passage changes? Yes or No? – Do you get my point. All the comments about beauty of style are subjective. The Quranic challenge is objective. I repeat – the Quran does the above (and more) or not? Simple.
Now you write in the style of your lunatic prophet and are asking rhetorical questions trying to lead the reader to the desired answer. Do you understand the alphabets of logic? If the Quranic challenge is objective then show us in what ways it is a miracle. You are simply beating around the bushes. The burden of proof is on you not on me. Explain each of these claims and tell us why you think they make the Quran a miracle. Breaking the rules of the grammar is not a miracle. Any illiterate person can do that. Do you remember my example of Hossein divooneh or Terence the self proclaimed Mahdi? State in what sense Muhammad was different from Hossein divooneh and the Prophet Terence. Are you trying to take credit for Muhammad’s ignorance and errors?
4- Also on the point of “all other pieces of work have the same linguistic structures” I would say – prove it. Prove to me other pieces of Arabic texts have these linguistic structures and exhibit more rhetorical devices as the Quran. After this email, the burden of proof will be on you.
Mullah Nasreddin was a funny character. He hammered in a nail in the ground and claimed this is the center of the earth. When asked for proof, he responded, if you don’t believe me, go and measure it. This is called the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. You can’t put the burden of proof on me for the claims that you make. This fallacy assumes that something is true unless proven otherwise. As our readers can see, you are engaging in all sorts of logical fallacies and failing to give any convincing proof that the Quran is a miracle or linguistically superior. Yes the Quran is different, but it is not superior. It is inferior to many other books.
5- 5- The Quran does not need the endorsement from non Muslims. As I said the comments by western scholars were posted to set the scene for you as you already admitted in having no knowledge of Linguistics etc.
So far the only things you presented were the opinions of some third party individuals, many of whom ignoramus and incompetent themselves and your own opinion, which of course is invalid because you are supposed to give proofs not opinions. As Rajesh demonstrated, there are more positive comments from people of higher caliber for Bagavad Gita than for the Quran.
6- 6- A point was raised that stated “why does God want to show the detailed linguistic structures, that are too complicated to understand?”. The miraculous nature of the Quranic language is actually the most effective way to prove its divinity. If a text had scientific miracles, one could say in the future science may change (as it has changed throughout the years), also – if a text stated that there were miracles 2000 years ago, then one could say that this is history and could have not happened. The list can go on. With the language miracle this is different, it is based upon known rules and unchanging set of tools i.e. letters, words etc. So with the challenge there is no chance of raising these type of questions.
This is yet another logical fallacy. It is called petitio principii. You are presenting a questionable premise from which you come to a false conclusion. First you must show that the Quran has “detailed linguistic structures, that are too complicated to understand” and only then ask “why”. Where is the “miraculous nature of the Quranic language”? You are getting too much ahead of yourself. You have not yet proven that miracle.
Furthermore the Quran directs mankind to think and the challenge is open and general so this indicates that the reality of the text, content, meaning etc should be analysed. Thinkers should not want things on a plate. They should actually go out and scratch the surface and find out if things are true. And as a result of my independent research I have come to the conclusion that the Quran is a unique and sensitive genre that can not be imitated. Rational deduction suggests only the Creator could have produced the Quran. This is realised from the reality of the text and the historical circumstances i.e. it was revealed over a 23 year period.
If your finding is objective and not subjective you should be able to share it with the rest of us. So far you have failed to do that. When it comes to my turn to prove the Quran is a noting but the cogitation of a sick mind, I will show you what objective proof means. You don’t seem to have a clue. I have read the Quran, I know it is stupid and I can prove it. You claim the Quran is a miracle, so prove it. If you fail to do that, then the Quran is no miracle and the claim of Muhammad being a messenger of God falls on its face. But that is not enough, I will go even further to show Muhammad was a lunatic.
Hamza Tzortzis vs. Ali Sina Page 9
Linguistic Structure of the Quran Part V
Hamza Tzortzis vs. Ali Sina
2006/03/31
<< go to part I
Now let me deal with some of your points before detailing with the linguistic inimitability of the Quranic discourse.
You said:
“I said you have no idea what you’re talking about”
I must correct you as it was you who claimed that the linguistic structures are “gobbledygook”. The rest of the email will show you that these are in fact linguistic structures. So it is you who has no idea.
On the grammar issue you said:
“I read the link it contains no valid argument”
Well that must be just your opinion then, I will leave the reader to decide. It is a slap in the face of any intellectual when people say there are grammatical mistakes in the Quran. I suggest your readership to read the link. Case is closed.
You posted the following sites:
www.islam-exposed.orghttp://suralikeit.com/ I have already dealt with these. They are just simple rhymed prose examples of Arabic that contain no complex linguistic features, they fail to have as many rhetorical devices as the Quran, they are not linguistically sensitive which means any word can be replaced and the meaning will not be altered, they have no complex cohesive structures, they do not employ consonance as the Quran does etc etc the list can go on. As I said any Arabic nursery rhyme can be a challenge to the Quran if you do not scratch the surface and start to think. Ali! I thought you were a “free thinker”. If you still believe that these so called challenges are valid, then prove to me they have complex linguistic structures (examples below). Just simply posting two sites up does not prove anything. You have to give me an analysis. Stop standing on the shoulders of “giants”! Use your mind.
First of all you have not yet explained to us what does “rhetoric device”, “complex cohesive structure” or “employing consonance” mean and in what ways the Quran is superior in that sense. As long as you don’t become specific you are not proving anything.
You spoke about your debating technique. Thanks for your “secret”.
Ali. Why have you refused to deal with the Prose and Poetry argument, your story about the Iranian Mr Hossein is out of context and you are playing with your own ignorance and maybe the ignorance of your readership.
You failed to understand my point. Hossein, the village idiot, was a crazy man who like Muhammad he liked to end his sentences in rhyme. No one thought because of that he is a prophet. By the same token, Muhammad cannot be called a prophet just because he liked to end his sentences in rhymes. He was most likely suffering from Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. There are other symptoms to corroborate this claim. You have a good knowledge of English but you seem to switch off when it comes to things you do not want to understand. Otherwise what I wrote was very clear and I believe well understood by everyone.
Your statement:
“This is like saying all people walk on two legs and if a person walks on four legs he must be performing a miracle. How much stupidity is enough Mr Hamza”
Ok. Now you are exposing yourself. Your analogy does not apply, you are showing you know nothing about language and the Quranic challenge.
You already said this many times, but failed to prove your claim.
People do not have four legs. But we do have the grammatical rules, the 28 letters and the blueprint of the challenge – which is the Quran itself. What does this suggest Mr Sina? It means that although we have the tools (unlike your ridiculous 4 legged example) we still cannot imitate it (which will be elaborated below). Your analogy is your way of brushing pass the subject. Good try, but it doesn’t work with me.
You repeat the same thing as if by repeating something false it will become true by magic. You have not yet established that the Quran is inimitable. The example of walking on four legs (using the two arms as legs like quadruped animals) is feasible but it is not a miracle. In the same way writing a book as stupid as the Quran containing this many logical, grammatical, scientific, historic, and mathematical errors is possible but not a miracle. The Quran is an asinine book my friend, it is not a miracle. Don’t repeat the same thing ad nauseam. Prove it if you can. If you can’t admit that it is not a miracle step aside and let me start showing how stupid is this book.
So I say again – why cant you deal with the poetry prose argument? Prove to me that it fits into one of the known styles.
How many times I should tell you that the Quran does not fit into any known style and therefore it is a stupid book. How many times I should tell you that breaking the rules of language is not a miracle but the sign of illiteracy? You have failed to prove that the Quran is a miracle and all you tell us is that because it is odd, it should be from God. That is nonsense. Hossein divooneh’s rhymes did not make him a prophet, Terence’s rhymes do not make him a prophet, why should Muhammad’s rhymes make him a prophet? Those rhymes show this man was illiterate and ignorant.
I have given you examples and a whole article with an analysis. But you just reply with swiping statements. Please do not bore me and try and deal with the arguments I give you.
You have not given us anything so far. You simply have made some baseless statements without even attempting to prove them. I can’t even refute you because you have given no proof to be refuted.
Also, your Terrence example just proves my point. He produces a text that fits into a known style. So this argument just supports my argument. The Quran is not like any known style – please see the previous threads.
You are wrong. Terrence’s style is all his. As I said Khomeini also had his own style of speech, unique to him but grammatically it was very wrong. Muhammad’s style is unique but it reveals his ignorance. Now, if you want inimitable style you should read Shakespeare, Dante, or Ferdowsi. These geniuses wrote in unique styles that set new standards in language. Muhammad, like Khomeini, only revealed that he is an illiterate and ignorant man.
Before I post the linguistic features I want you to understand something. The normal layman Muslim accepts Islam on the basis that no one has been able to imitate the Quran although we have the finite 28 letters, grammatical rules and the blueprint of the challenge! When the best of Arab poets, rhetoricians, linguists etc., of a linguistically homogenous community of the time failed, the layman Muslim wonders how a bilingual/bicultural individual can succeed in reproducing an equivalent “Quran”. The task is so frustrating. My list will exhibit this fact.
The normal layman Muslim is an ignorant brainwashed zombie. He is not the standard for us. The normal layman Muslim riots; burns the churches and embassies and kills innocent people. The normal layman Muslim demands that those who convert to another religion from Islam be put to death. The normal layman Muslim is a savage. He is brain dead. His opinion about Islam and the Quran is as much valid as the opinion of any cult member about his cult. 900 followers of Jim Jones drank cyanide laced Cool Aid voluntarily and gave up their lives. Should we give any validity to the opinions of these fools about Jim Jones and his cult? The opinion of Muslims about Muhammad is as valid as the opinion of those wretched people about their cult leader. How can such zombies decide whether the Quran is inimitable or not? They have no rational capacity. If they had they would leave Islam.
Topic: Can someone post Hamza Andreas Tzortzis VS Ali Sina debate on this topic?