Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Hi guys,
I hope I can get all this into a single 15 minute video, because as DPR quite rightly
points out: you can start more fires in 5 minutes than you can extinguish in 15.
My favourite Hamza has once again presented his opinion on embryology in the Koran, which
he calls "new" and "long awaited". In spite of my pre-emptive refutation in my "oops - Hamza
did it again" video. And he did exactly what I had predicted. In this speech, Hamza makes
several bold claims, such as that the Qur'an was revealed over 1400 years ago, and contains
many references to scientific miracles, far beyond the knowledge at the time. He still
can't make up his mind on when the paper for this is going to be released. Vague, ambiguous
statements.
When exactly was the Koran revealed if it was over 1400 years ago? Years based on sidereal
months or tropical months or synodic months or draconic months? What is the definition?
Is there a scientifically verifiable date as from when we can take the Koran as having
been revealed?
The Koran makes no reference to anything. Least of all science and it does not mention
any verifiable scientific miracle.
Hamza here claims that the Koran is not based on a 7th century worldview.
How so? Where does it mention anything else? People believed the heavens were held up by
mountains which also stabilised the ground.
The Koran mentions things like thunder without lightning, a split moon, hitting a corpse
with a steak raises it, a barrier between salt and sweet water, all things which we
know today are not true and attributed to superstition at the best of times. The Koran
does not mention anything of any practical value we know today. Not even a bicycle. All
we have is a book full of superstitions. Where is the evidence that there is anything in
the Koran that was not known at the time? So there is no proof for any of his claims.
Hamza was recently schooled by a real life embryologist (no, it was not an interesting
discussion and not with someone "claiming" to be a professor) of what would have to be in the
Koran for it to be accurate regarding embryology and what IS found in the Koran. What part
of "it is vague" and "it is wrong" doesn't he understand? Why does he still claim there
is some correspondence between the Koran and modern science?
No Hamza, there isn't. It's only your imagination and make-belief world. The Koran only describes
what is the obvious appearance - not the medical processes.
What we see here is the typical setting up of false premisses. The statements our Mr.
Hamza makes are only possible through interpretation, not stating facts. What Hamza does is talk
about sentences in the Koran and then mixing this with human interpretations in the Hadiths
to give the impression he desires.
He also quotes endless embryology books and embryologists, then quickly adding some words
from the Koran, making it look as though there is some correspondence. There is not and no
embryologist today or any modern book on embryology mentions any word used in the Koran or even
mentions the Koran as it would be a miracle if a book written more than 1000 years ago
would contain something corresponding to modern medicine.
The Koran, which Muslims consider god's word, in general does not make any hard and cold
assertions, but only manages some vague and ambiguous statements - except when it comes
to heaven or hell, which are described in great detail. Maybe because we can't measure
or check them?
I have already shown over a year ago that the Koran contains the same stages as can
be found in Greek medicine.
and that Greek medicine resembles the Koran almost word for word.
We have some empty promises, where here Hamza promises his claims are not based on the statements
made by a Canadian anatomist in his function as a paid actor, Keith Moore
and then whom does he mention?
Moore is supposedly not used at all but somehow creeps in again. Moore did not speak a word
of Arabic, yet his "translation" changes Islamic embryology, which apparently is different
from any other, or normal embryology.
Instead of making some valid points, Hamza now pleads and begs for the special consideration
of his book, disregarding any scientific consideration of embryology.
It is with great pleasure that I see the fabricated lies made up some 40 years ago by a Yemenite
Arab being abandoned and ditched bit by bit. Yet instead of just accepting the Koran as
a religious book, some Muslims stubbornly refuse to let go and still try to put science
into this ambiguous and unclear worded, religious book.
Hamza does this by going from "the Koran contains scientific miracles" to pleading for understanding
that the Koran does not really contradict science, but botches it. Let me show how he
does that.
By far the best sentence I have heard from him: atheist apologists claim the Koran copies
from Galen. Apologists? Atheist apologists? I have to prove the Koran contains more than
postulated by Hippocrates, Aristotle and Galen? I need to defend the inability of theists
being unable to provide proof of a god?
Wow! Is this honest? Scientific?
I could go on and take every single sentence apart, but the speech is not really worth
it.
Like all religious books, the Koran has some built-in protective mechanisms, designed to
act as a safeguard. "Produce one like it" may have been difficult in the 9th century,
but today, it is all too easy.
Allah - over time - reduced the challenge from "entire book" (17:88) to "ten chapters"
(11:13) to "one chapter" (10:38) chapter and finally down to something even remotely like
it (2:23). Did he think initially that it would be too difficult and thus had to reduce
it in stages, or was he simply bragging and realised it would be sufficient to impress
the 7th or 8th century desert nomads? And why didn't he know that over time there would
be hundreds of books, chapters and sentences as good as or better than the Koran?
But as it stands, if Mr. Hamza has a point, he thinks we are screwed. So, let's see what
the experts write: the linguists: Ali Dashti the famous Iranian-Arab scholar
in "Twenty Three Years" writes "Neither the Qur'an's eloquence, nor it's moral precepts
are miraculous."
He also quoted: Ebrahim on-Nazzim who openly acknowledged that the arrangement and syntax
of the Qur'an are not miraculous and that work of equal or greater value could be produced
by other God-fearing persons.
Web-sites such as answering Islam
have page after page of examples, as has
Here's a whole lot of suggestions on how to make a better and more plausible and more
correct and more accurate Koran:
An interesting discussion can be found on Islamic Awareness,
where it says: "according to Abd al-Jabbar the correct interpretation of sarfah is that
the motives to rival the Qur'an disappeared (insarafah) because of the recognition of
the impossibility of doing so", i.e. it had become a self fulfilling prophecy, which was
accepted for superstitious reasons. Others say that it could be possible to reproduce
the Koran, but people stopped doing so, as was expressed by
several Arabs.
I myself have produced some sentences, which are longer than chapter 108, are about what
Hamza mentions in his pamphlet on page 8 and make a lot more sense - as they are not wrong,
neither in contents, nor in grammar.
If we look at Surah 55 aya 24 it says: He gave you ships that roam the sea like flags
If I were a god-like being with an inclination towards science I would rather say:
I gave you the abilities to construct ships that roam the sea like flags
I gave you the abilities to construct aeroplanes that roam the skies like hawks
I gave you the abilities to construct vessels that roam the galaxies like solar winds.
Use them to discover your world and the Universe.
So what we see in reality is that this has been done over and over.
These words are not scattered and are prose and not some prose and some poetry and some
neither - as in the Koran. All my words are meaningful, non contradictory, non-vague and
don't consist only of 2 or 3 random letters, forming e.g. an ad.
41:1: H M
How come Muslims have missed this "sign"?
But it gets worse. A lot worse, because we now hear from Hamza that the Koran would not
lie, because Allah would not lie because it says so in the Koran. Muhammad would also
not lie? The usual special pleading.
Hamza thinks and is stuck on this that the Koran was transmitted and written down word
for word, based only on what Muhammad said.
No Hamza, there is no proof or evidence the Koran was written or dictated by Muhammad,
no matter what you think or say.
Muhammad could not select the truth and reject anything wrong because nothing is there to
select. So there is no point stating that Muhammad could not have selected only the
correct parts. And whatever is in the Koran on embryology is totally, completely and utterly
wrong.
It is much more likely that the Koran was written by several people over a much longer
time period. That would explain the many inconsistencies and contradictions. It would also explain
all the different stories, fables, folklore, legends, myths and tales which would have
been added by different people who also all added their individual Moses story. And it
would explain how Greek medicine and Hindu or Jewish geology ended up in the Koran.
Hamza then explains how ambiguous the Koran really is and how the Koran can mean anything,
but will always mean what is correct.
Was there anything new in the speech? No.
Everything has been said before, but maybe not in this particular combination.
Let's turn to a factual claim in his speech and his pamphlet, Hamza tells us that "man
is formed from an essence or extract of clay". This can be found endless times in the Koran,
such as in 32:7, which states: "Who made all things good which He created, and He began
the creation of man from clay. Then He made his seed from a draught of despised fluid"
Well, I have at least 3 problems with these 2 vague sentences.
1. If Allah made all things he created good or well, why do Muslims chop off parts of
humans? 2. Why would seminal fluid be considered dirty,
despised or disdained? 3. "began the creation of man from clay" Is
only Adam created from clay, all men or all humans?
"He began the creation of man from clay"
He decides that the god of Muslims must have been using clay only for Adam. Why? Well,
because humans have decided this. Not the Koran supposedly revealed by the god itself.
Hamza claims this clay "scientifically, basically and first and foremost means" the chemical
components.
Excuse me? How does he know indisputably what his god
means? Why doesn't his god tell us exactly what it
means? And what is the definition of "man"?
What is "formed"? What is "essence of clay"? or an "extract
of clay"? What clay from what area?
By whom? When?
How? How many?
In what time?
Does he not know that clay from different geographies is made up of vastly different
elements? Does he not know that science will require answers to all those questions?
I stopped counting when I reached 20, counting the medical terms Hamza uses to describe the
essential components required to describe embryology. The embryology in the real world.
Is any one of these words mentioned in the Koran? No! Are even the most crucial words
or functions mentioned? No!
We don't find the terms ***, ovum, fertilisation or a zygote. You need to imagine them. Like
chromosomes are not mentioned nor are the genes, because we learn from the Hadiths that
the child will not resemble the father or mother depending on genes, but who has an
*** first - superstition, not more.
Like in English, the word flat can refer to a Coke without CO2, a dwelling, a piece of
flat ground, a woman without silicone implants, a mood, etc etc Can I make up a sentence which
has the word flat meaning all of the above? Give it a try. But Mr. Hamza wants us to believe
that alaqa means clinging, blood-clot, leech and the sentences in the Koran can thus mean
what you want and what is correct at any given point in a conversation or discussion. But
CaptainDisguise has thoroughly debunked the claim regarding alaqa (Leech_Like_Thing_Quranic_Embryology_-_The_Muslim_Delusion).
Neither Barry Mitchell nor Ram Sharma ever mention the word leech on any of the 85 pages
of their book "Embryology"; it is not in the glossary or the index. A search comes up blank.
This otherwise very nicely done book only follows modern medicine, describes embryology
and never once mentions the Koran, a blood-clot, a leech or the word alaqa.
So Hamza is clearly lying here.
Because there is no real resemblance between a leech and an embryo, you make drawings - not
photos - of something labelled leech and an embryo. But because you need it to comply
with certain pre-defined restrictions, you need to draw it from on top, not the side
it is usually shown from, then cut off the bottom part or 80% of the entire embryo, the
yolk sac and then put the 2 drawings side-by side. Now you declare the 80% unnecessary,
select the translation of the guy that does not speak Arabic and declare them both to
be leech-like, add the word into some dictionaries and you have a match. Magic.
And Hamza accuses embryologists, scientists and academics of having a shallow view of
embryology in the Koran. I am really beginning to think: who actually cares? Why not wait
for a real claim with scientific proof instead of responding to these half-baked apologetics,
special pleading and whining?
In closing I have 3 short questions:
1. When will Muslims accept that the Koran is a religious book without any useful scientific
contents? 2. When will they accept that in the real
world it is NOT a case of science only being right if it agrees with the Koran or a Bible?
3. When will they accept that no matter how much they twist and turn the words in the
Koran around, science is the wrong topic to try this with, as it is precise and based
on facts?
Religion is neither.
Thank you for your time