|
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.org
http://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.
< back
next >
|
