|
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.
< back
next >
|
