|
Edip Yuksel vs. Ali Sina
Round X - page 37
Back
< > Next
|
Ali
Sina repeatedly claimed that the Quran was not detailed because it
did not provide the real identity of person in chapter 111; he
wondered about Abu Lahab and claimed that Quran is meaningless
without hadith and other storybooks, since they provide much detail
about that character. Well, I just proved the Quran, since according
to the Quran fanatic disbelievers will never understand the Quran
(17:45-46). The believers of the Quran find Abu Lahab (Father of
Fire) a universal character. For instance, with his promotion of
hate and violence against one fifth of humanity, Ali Sina is an
example of prototype Abu Lahab. He is the Father of Fire. He will
end up in his own hell together with his supporters who carry fuel
for his fire.
|
These are childish explanations that satisfy
only the already convinced. I only quoted two examples, one about Abu
Lahab and the other about Job. But there are many other examples where the
Quran is not clear unless the sha’ne nozool of those verses are known. A
good example of that is the Surah Bara’a that I quoted in page 15 of
this debate. For example the Verse 5 of that Sura says when the “forbidden
months are passed, then fight and slay the Pagans”. What are these
forbidden months? This is not insignificant. This Sura is instructing
Muslims to shed blood. So it is a matter of life and death to know what
those forbidden months are. The Quran does not make this clear. Therefore
without the tafseer the Quran is incomprehensible. I can bring hundreds of
examples like this. No person can make sense of the Quran without the
knowledge of the events surrounding it, not even you. That is why in you
book, you relied extensively on hadith.
|
2.
Ali Sina frequently makes false claims with hyperbolic
pontifications.
For instance, he claimed that verse 7:166
claims that God "literally" transformed Jews to monkeys
and pigs and continued by saying that "no scholar has
understood them as metaphors." I quoted from Muhammad Asad's
translation, The Message, and proved that he was simply wrong.
Another example is his assertion regarding
the Quranic verses promoting freedom of religion and expression. He
claimed that all belong to Meccan era when Muhammad was weak. The
trashy sources he was so fond of using against my faith, yes his
favorite sources are reporting differently regarding the first verse
in his reference. Thus, he misrepresented his own trashy sources.
Verse 2:256 is listed as Medinan verse by the sources he wished me
to believe. Again, he mixes truth with falsehood, pieces of glass
with diamond, poison with candies… Exactly like hadith narrators
and collectors had done.
|
The verse 7:166 is completely asinine. Of
course not all Muslims are dumb. It is natural that some of them see the
stupidity of this verse and try to reinterpret it. For example Miraj is an
absurdity and many Muslims like Rumi gave “spiritual” meaning to it.
Nonetheless the verses about Jews becoming apes are not allegorical. That
is why Rumi could not change them even though he was a brilliant man. Some
scholars, like you, claim they are allegorical. But the verses are very
clear. If these scholars insist that black is white that does not change
the truth. There are also scholars that say, the Quran is a tolerant book.
Does it make any difference? They are simply lying. Anyone can see the
Quran is not a tolerant book just as anyone can see that those verses are
not allegorical.
|
3.
Ali Sina has the habit of putting words in his opponent's mouth.
For instance, regarding my promotion of
Islamic Reform, he either from ignorance or deliberately switched my
words around and described it as Reform in Islam.
I told him to go ask someone who knows
English better than him the difference between "Reform in
Islam" and "Islamic Reform." He indicated that he has
read some of my articles at my website. Has he done so, he should
have learned that I do not suggest what he is trying to put in my
mouth. Perhaps, he is deliberately trying to misrepresent my
position to divert from the main issues. He has somehow succeeded
many times by resorting to his favorite silly storybooks, and
copying and pasting them here.
|
I asked you to explain what do you mean by
"Islamic Reform". You are beating around the bushes but not
answering my simple question. Why instead of accusing me of being
dishonest, you just don’t explain what you mean. I asked you a simple
question. What does Islamic Reform mean? I understand it as reforming
Islam. You say I am ignorant and my understanding is wrong. So please
explain it so even an ignorant person like me can understand.
You are following a pattern of evasion by
resorting to ad hominem and introducing red herrings.
|
4.
Ali Sina lacks academic rigor, and when it is in his advantage, he
confuses modern Arabic with classic Arabic, or uses third class
unreliable sources.
His suggesting MOKAFAT in our debate on
Jizya was interesting: After another lengthy diversion with a load
of trashy references and lies, he finally made an argument, though a
funny argument. First, the word MOKAFAT is modern Arabic and is not
used in the Quran and hadith books. He is confusing a Modern Arabic
word with classic Arabic.
Ali's linguistic sources are little better
than his hadith sources, but they are still third rate sources. He
referred to vikipedia.org regarding our discussion on the word Jizya
of verse 9:29. Any person can go write an article and definition in
wikipedia.org, including him and any of his followers. From his
MOKAFAT, his knowledge of classic Arabic became suspect, and from
using wikipedia.org, his level of academic gullibility became an
issue.
Another
example: He criticizes the Quran for being unscientific by reading
the verses of the Quran like a third grader. For instance, he refers
to verse 18:86 and understand it as "Koran teaches us that the
Sun sets in a muddy spring." He ignores the fact the verse is
not describing an astronomic event, but the PERCEPTION of Zul
Qarnain (the one with two generations), since he verse introduces
the perception as "HE FOUND". I urge anyone to search
google by putting the following words in quotation "sun set
behind" and they will find that more than ten thousand sites,
including modern universities astronomy sites "teaches us that
the Sun sets" behind the mountains, clouds, trees, etc. If you
wish you may search for "sun sets in" OR "sun set
in."
|
We already discussed the
word Jizyah and from the text of the verse 9:29 it is clear that this is
not something desirable. It says: fight them “until they pay Jizyah with
their own hands and they are humiliated”. The word saagher means subdued
and humiliated.
حَتَّى
يُعْطُواْ
الْجِزْيَةَ
عَن يَدٍ
وَهُمْ
صَاغِرُونَ
We have not yet discussed the verse 18:86 or other absurdities of
the Quran. This I hope we start doing in our next phase of debate. So far
we discussed the incomprehensibility of the Quran and its inhumanity. The
absurdities of the Quran require a dedicated discussion.
Back
< > Next
Index to this debate
|
