Omar a college student from Canada responds to Ali Sina:
Nadir:
I read your debate with Ali Sina and so I thought I would give my comments.
What I am going to do is to copy what Ali Sina says and then post my reply to
it.
"Denis already responded to you adequately. His responses satisfy any thinking man."
Obviously this is the thought of a
wishful anti-Islam hate monger. It's amazing how Ali here speaks on the behalf
of every thinking man! His arrogance here is so evident. I personally read the
transcript and found Nadir owned Denis.
"The fact that bees are female was already known to people at least 1000 years before Muhammad. The oldest book that describes bees is attributed to Aristotle 350 BC."
Not All bees are female.
"Aristotle observed that the brood of drones appear even when there is no
ruler bee in the hive. This is an accurate observation. As we know today,
unfertilized female workers can lay eggs in the absence of a queen, but the
eggs develop into drones. Aristotle gave a fairly accurate description of the
bees with only few mistakes like confusing the gender of the Queen and calling
it the King."
This is true, yet it does not
address the question at hand.
"The word bee in Arabic is nahla. This word was not invented by Muhammad. This is an Arabic word used by everyone who speaks Arabic. The word is feminine. In Arabic some words are feminine some are masculine. For example Rahmat (mercy) is a feminine word. The fact that Muhammad uses an Arabic word that happens to be feminine is no indication that he was the first who discovered bees are female."
That's not true and exposes Ali's
ignorance of the Arabic language. The Quran here says “nahl” not “nahla”.
“Nahl” is not a feminine word. It could refer to males, females or a mixture of
both. Then the verse continues and says “ittakhithee”. The “ee” at the
end of the word tells us that God here is directing His speech at female bees.
"In fact not all bees are female. As I said the gender of the worker bees was already known to everyone at least for 1000 years before Muhammad."
That's not true and is a lie.
Aristotle never knew the gender of the worker bees.
"All Arabs used the same word even before Muhammad."
Again not true. The 2 words have
been used throughout Arabic history. Also the Quran uses the word “Nahl” which
could be male or female, not “Nahla”.
"Why Muhammad should be called a miracle maker and they who taught Muhammad the word"
The Quran should be called
miraculous because it told something which was scientifically discovered few
years ago. Also, nobody taught the Prophet the word. It was revealed to him.
"should be called "ignorant", as Muhammad disparagingly referred to all those who lived before him?"
The Prophet did not disparage all
those who lived before him. The Quran only described pre-Islamic Quraysh as
ignorant because indeed, they were ignorant. They had no knowledge except
poetry trade and wars. They had no scientific knowledge. That's why we hear of
pre-Islamic Arabian poets, but never hear of pre-Islamic Arabian scientists or
men who men who changed history.
"Mr. Ahmed is living is self-delusion. How come a city was destroyed and no one knew about it? Isn’t this an absurdity? The destruction of a city is a big event. It is obvious that people will talk about it and tell its tales to their descendants. Pompeii, Sodom and Gomorrah had similar fates. Although the actual cities were lost, they remained in our folklore."
"It makes no sense that Arabs forget completely about a city destroyed thus."
1. The name of that city is not
mentioned in any book at all prior to the Quran.
2. The destruction of a city is not always
a big event, especially in those ancient times. People had no means of
communication to know what happened in far places.
3. Muslim/Arab scholars of the Quran
did not recognize the name of that city. Actually the majority of them thought
it was a description of people of Aad, some thought it referred to Sam the son
of Noah! Only few people thought it referred to Alexandria (It was obviously
wrong as it never underwent total destruction). So this rhetoric talking that
the Arabs passed the story of that destroyed city from generation to generation
is false, or else the Muslim scholars of the Quran would have identified the
name of that city. Ali Sina here is in a big fix!
"It makes no sense that Arabs forget completely about a city destroyed thus. Muhammad and his followers destroyed all the books that belonged to the pre Islamic era of "jahiliyyah"."
That's a lie and untrue. Many
pre-Islamic books exist in every country that the Arabs conquered. In Arabia,
the 7 famous poetry books that belong to Imroa Alqays, Torfa Ibn Alabd etc are
available today and are considered the epitome of poetry in any language.
"The tales of Iram with its lofty pillars must have been in the lore of the people of Arabia and the way Muhammad casually mentions it with no further explanation is clear that his audience already knew what he is taking about."
Again, that's untrue. If what you
are saying is true, then why the Islamic scholars of the Quran (Tabari, Ibn
Kathir) never knew what the word Iram meant? They even did not know it was a
city. As for the Quran mentioning the name casually, that's the state of the
Quran. The Quran does not go into useless, boring and contradicting details
such as the Bible does for instance. The Quran usually delivers just the moral
story/lesson of the event.
"Again, this premise is wrong. First of all anyone going to the sea watching sweet waters carrying sediments flowing into the salty waters of the ocean can see they do not mix immediately."
Rivers did not exist in Arabia.
"In fact this is quite a scene and people who observed it must have narrated to others in the land with amazement. This phenomenon was hence readily observable to everyone as it is today."
This cannot be observed by the naked
eye. Also an amazing scene should have found its way to literature; however, no
book ever described such a scene before the Quran.
"Sailors must have noticed more buoyancy of their boats in the salty waters of the sea than when they were navigating in rivers and lakes of sweet water"
This is a mere supposition. It's
also wrong. This is evident by a famous story where a boatman was heading from
the Atlantic to the Amazon and was so thirsty. He was rescued by other shipmen
who gave him a cup from the water that the boat was surfing on. The boatman was
surprised to find the water sweet and that he was in the Amazon (He thought he
was still in the Atlantic). Obviously this story wholly refutes Ali's point
here. Sailors do not feel any buoyancy when moving from sweet waters to salty
waters and vice versa.
"Waters that have different salinity, density and temperature do not mix readily, however they do eventually."
They never mix. There is a barrier
of half-salty and half-sweet water that prevent them mixing.
"But Muhammad states that there is a barrier between them and a partition that is forbidden to be passed. This is of course not true. Muhammad must have heard about this phenomenon but his knowledge was not complete and he assumed that the waters never mix. That is why he is talking of barriers between the seas. There is no such barrier at all and all waters do mix."
And whom did the Prophet hear this
phenomenon from? See all of your argument is conjectures and assumption with no
solid evidence!
And rivers never mix into seas.
There is a barrier of sweet-salty water that prevents this. You are wrong on
this.
"This verse points to Muhammad’s ignorance and it is no miracle at all."
This verse points to scientific
miracle and proves the Divine authorship of the Quran.
"Isn’t this obvious to anyone who has taken a dive into the water to know that the deeper you go the darker it becomes? Mr. Ahmed is under the impression that all the humanity is bozo and cannot understand these simple facts that can be readily experienced by everyone. You surprise me Mr. Ahmed. Didn’t you really know that under the water there is less light? Did you have to read the Quran to learn this simple fact that is known to sun and dry even those who have no knowledge of the modern science?"
People at the time of the Prophet
never knew of this information. To experience the darkness of the sea you have
to get into the sea for tens of meters. Obviously they never did this or else
they would have drowned, because they had had no swimming suits and advanced
technology. Also such a thing would have found its way to literature, but
nothing in pre-Islamic literature points to this.
"I am always amazed to see the desperation of the Muslims to find miracles in the most banal statements of the Quran."
And I am always amazed at your
pathetic attempts in denying the sun clear evidences for science in the Quran.
All of your "argument" is full of "they must have known",
"he must have heard it", "they must have noticed". It's all
baseless assumptions.
"Mr. Ahmed, please understand that this verse is not trying to explain to the readers how the deep oceans look but it is exemplifying the state of the unbeliever with something that is already known to everyone. This shows that people who read this verse already knew that the dept of ocean is dark and with this example Muhammad tried to make them visualize the state of the unbeliever."
That's untrue because Islamic
scholars of the Quran never understood as such. Actually they skipped the
portion of the verse that talks about the dark seas.
"If they did not know that the dept of the deeper waters are dark then the verse would not express what it intends to express."
The verse would still express what
it intends to express even if they had no knowledge of the deeper waters.
Darkness is black, and the Arabs obviously knew what black was like.
"If I tell you my shirt is as green as my hat, when you have never seen my hat, you would not understand how green is my shirt and I would not be speaking clear to you. Remember, clarity is one of the claims of the Quran. But if I say my shirt is green like pine tree, you’ll soon know what kind of green I am talking about."
False analogy, because green is a
known colour and can be easily visualized without even seeing your shirt. Also
darkness is black, and there is not “light black” or “dark black” like there is
“light green” or “dark green”.
"Furthermore Muhammad is not talking about "deep oceans"."
The Quran is talking about very deep
seas. The Arabs used to call oceans seas too.
"In deep oceans you do not need to "stretch your hand" as Muhammad says, in order not to see it. You cannot see your hand without stretching it"
It says if you get your hand out (Of
your pocket obviously), you cannot see here, which is true logically and
scientifically.
"YUSUFALI: In a land close by; but they, (even)
after (this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious-
PICKTHAL: In the nearer land, and they, after their defeat will be victorious
SHAKIR: In a near land, and they, after being vanquished, shall overcome,"
These translations are outdated and
contain various other errors in them.
"This is of course wishful thinking of a deluded believer and the absurdity of that is self-evident. The Romans were not defeated in the Red Sea but in Jerusalem and Jerusalem is above sea level."
The word "fi" means
"near" or “beside” too. The Romans were defeated near the Dead Sea,
which is true.
"If we had to take Mr. Ahmed for his word and disregard the obvious meaning of the word, this verse would have become yet another blunder of Muhammad."
It says "fi adna alard"
If it really meant in the nearer
land, it must have been
"fi adna ard" without the
"al".
The "adna" means lower in
the Quran. Let's look at an example from the Quran;
"ثم دنى
فتدلى"
53:8 Then be drew nigh and came down
Picktall
Thumma dana fatadalla
"Dana" here means
down/low. So "adna" in the Quran means lower......
"Fi" also means
"near". And obviously the Romans were defeated near the Dead Sea.
"However all the interpreters of the Quran have translated the verse correctly."
No, they got it wrong. Read the
Reformist Translation of the Quran to get a clearer idea of what it says. I
also elaborated above of why the correct translation is “lowest” not “near”.
"If Muhammad really wanted to impress his readers he could have easily said that the Red Sea is the lowest land on Earth."
Why would he say this? The Quran is
a book of guidance, not geography. Yet it has implicit references to science
and geography with its teachings.
"Note that the verse is mentioning land and not sea. Muhammad is taking about the Jerusalem and not about the Red Sea."
It's talking about planet Earth, not
land. What the verse is saying is "The Romans have been defeated at the
lowest point on Earth", which is historically and geographically correct
as is the nature of the Quran.
"Mr. Ahmed says that according to the Modern science, iron is the only element that does not belong to the Earth but is sent from heaven to Earth and hence the above verse is a miracle."
The verse never said that iron was
the only element to not belong to the Earth. It speaks of a scientific fact
that iron was sent down from space.
"The verse actually should not be taken literally. In this verse Muhammad is saying that we sent you everything that you need including iron with which has mighty power i.e. is strong and can benefit you as well. He did not mean that the iron, among all the elements, is the only element that has descended from the heaven. In Muhammad's language eveything is "sent' to man by God and that is the meaning of this word andalna here. He did not mean that God sent the iron from they sky but since the giver of the iron is God so the verb nadala is used. Mr. Ahmed in the defense of his theory states that the energy required to create one atom of iron equals several times the energy stored in the sun."
The word "Anzalna"
is mentioned in the Quran more than 300 times, the majority of them means to
physically "send down".
40:13 HE IT IS who shows you His
wonders [in all nature], and sends down sustenance for you from the sky: but
none bethinks himself [thereof] save those who are wont to turn to God.
Huwa allathee yureekum ayatihi wayunazzilu lakum mina alssamai rizqan wama yatathakkaru illa man yuneebu
Here, yunazzil
means to physically send down. Let's even look at the verse at hand
57:25 We sent aforetime
our apostles with Clear Signs and sent down with them the Book and the Balance
(of Right and Wrong), that men may stand forth in justice; and We sent down
Iron, in which is (material for) mighty war, as well as many benefits for
mankind, that Allah may test who it is that will help, Unseen, Him and His
apostles: For Allah is Full of Strength, Exalted in Might (and able to enforce
His Will).
In this verse, God sent down the
Book and Balance, and the Iron. Obviously the teachings and laws (Book and
Balance) were sent down from Heaven to the Prophets on Earth, and so the
context rules that iron was physically sent down to earth.
"Mr. Ahmed in the defense of his theory states that the energy required to create one atom of iron equals several times the energy stored in the sun. This is obviously absurd. This gentleman makes up in bravado what he lacks in knowledge."
To create one atom of Iron takes
about 4 times as much energy of our solar system. This is scientifically
correct. You are obviously ignorant Ali.
"Anyone looking at the sky can see that the Sun and the Moon follow a fixed orbit. This was known to our ancestors since the dawn of time."
That's untrue. Different cultures
had different interpretations to the Sun and Moon.
"However we see that the Sun and the Moon revolve around the Earth and this is the orbit that the Quran is talking about. What Quran says about the orbits of the Sun and the Moon is the observable and perceived orbits of these celestial objects caused by the rotation of the Earth."
There is no verse in the Quran that
says that the Sun and Moon revolve around the Earth. And as I stated earlier,
different cultures had different interpretations to the Sun and Moon.
"The Quran is talking about neither the actual orbit of the sun around the central star of the Milky Way that takes 226 million years nor the orbit of the moon around the Earth that takes 29 days. Muhammad is talking about the "perceived" orbit of these objects that takes 24 hours. Any ignorant man, even the animals, could observe what Muhammad observed. Any ignorant man could have said what Muhammad said. Muhammad was not aware of the actual orbit of the Moon that became known to humanity through the findings of Copernicus and Galileo let alone the orbit of the Sun that was discovered in the 20th century."
The Quran is exactly talking about
these actual orbits,
not the "perceived" orbits. The Quran
clearly differentiates between the orbit of the Sun and the orbit of the Moon and
says that the Sun revolves around something other than Earth.
"And
the Sun runs around a specific point for it (The Sun), such is the design of
the Noble, the Knowledgeable" [36:38]
This
verse clearly says that the Sun revolves around a different object than that
which the Moon revolves around.
"Muhammad is asked about the moon and why it changes shape. This was a perfect opportunity for him to say it is because of the rotation of the moon around the Earth and because the light of the moon is a reflection of the light of the sun. But he did not know the right answer. He instead said that the Moon is a giant clock/calendar in the sky created for the believers to know what time of the month it is and when they should perform their pilgrimage."
You contradict yourself here. You
earlier said that the Quran was talking about the orbit of the Moon around the
Earth. Now you say that the Quran did not provide the right answer? First of
all the Quran provided he right answer that the people asked for. They asked about
the Crescent (Not why the Moon changes shape), and the Quran provided the right
answer that they wanted. Secondly, the Quran clearly hinted that the rotation
of the Moon around the Earth takes stages which are more than 24 hours.
"And the moon We have measured
it to appear in stages, until it returns like an old curved sheath"
The Quran here is talking about the
rotation of the Moon around the Earth in stages. Obviously these stages take
more than 24 hours (28 days).
"Muhammad thought that the Sun and the Moon have
similar orbits chasing each other in the sky while it is not allowed for the
Sun to catch the Moon.
036:040
It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the
day. They float each in an orbit.
We are dealing with a man with a very primitive mind."
That's wrong. This verse never says
that the Sun and the Moon have similar orbits. Verse 36:38 clearly refutes this
and says that he Sun revolves in an orbit around a different object than that
of the Earth
"And the Sun runs
around a specific point for it (The Sun), such is the design of the Noble, the
Knowledgeable" [36:38]
"In the verse 10:5 Muhammad says that the Moon has its own light and then reiterates that it is a calendar in the sky, created for us humans to measure the time."
That's wrong and the translation is
wrong. The verse says that the Sun produces Diyaan
(Light) and Moon looks Noor (Reflected Light). The
Quran has 2 different words for light (Dooa) and
reflected light (Noor). Unfortunately, in English we
don't find this kind of differentiation, and this is where the confusion came
from. The Quran clearly makes the distinction between the light of the Sun, and
the “light” of the Moon. Actually, Muhammed Asad has the right translation;
"10:5 He it is who has made the
sun a [source of] radiant light and the moon a light [reflected], [10] and has
determined for it phases so that you might know how to compute the years and to
measure [time]. None of this has God created without [an inner] truth. [11] Clearly does
He spell out these messages unto people of [innate] knowledge:"
So as we see, this supposed
"error" of the Quran turned out to be a miracle!! How Could the
Prophet at his time know that the Moon did not produce light, rather it
reflected Sun light?
"The moon has been there probably as long as the Earth has been around and that is 4.5 billion years while we humans appeared on this planet only 100,000 ago and will most likely disappear much sooner than the moon. It is ridiculous to assume that the celestial objects have been created for us humans. We are merely one species among the millions inhabiting this planet. Nothing is created for us. These ideas are childish and do not belong to this day and age of enlightenment."
You misunderstood the verse. It does
not say at all that the Sun and the Moon were created for us specifically.
"There is no doubt that Muhammad used to think that
Moon gives light.
25.61
Blessed is He Who made constellations in the skies, and placed therein a Lamp
and a Moon giving light;
71.16
And made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun as a (Glorious)
Lamp?
Of course the Moon is not a lamp and it does not give light. These verses are
enough to prove that the Quran is not revealed by any knowledgeable god.
Muhammad simply stated what was obvious to his eyes. His knowledge of the
astronomy was no more than any ignorant man of his time."
Wrong! The verses clearly
distinguish between the light of the Sun and that of the Moon. It says that the
Sun has diyaan (Light of its own), while the Moon has
noor (light from another source). Philologists are of
the opinion that the term diya' (or daw') has a more intensive connotation, and is used to
describe "a light which subsists by itself, as that of the sun and
fire" - that is, a source of light - while nur
signifies "a light that subsists by some other thing" (Lane V, 1809,
on the authority of Taj al-'Arus
): in other words, light due to an extraneous source or - as in the case of the
moon - reflected light.
So as we see, this supposed
"error" of the Quran turned out to be a miracle!! How Could the
Prophet at his time know that the Moon did not produce light, rather it
reflected Sun light?
"This is also clear when he says that the Sun "rises" and "sets" in murky waters. 18.86"
Here is the correct translation;
"When he arrived at dawn, the
Sun was rising on people at a hot spring"
So, what the verse actually says is
that Zul Qarnayn reached
the hot spring at dawn, and there he found some people.
"Of course we were kids and this was a joke. However it seems that the brain of some grownup Muslims is even less evolved than that of the children. So according to our esteemed opponent, if Muhammad did not say that the orbit he was talking about is the rotation of the Sun around the Earth, he must have meant the rotation of the Sun around the black hole in the Milky Way. It does not even occur to him to ask, if that was the case why he did not say that. Why he did not clarify that the moon rotates around the Earth and the Earth rotates around the center of the Milky Way? The Milky Way is very visible in the deserts of Arabia. Muhammad stated what he saw. That is virtually the same thing my cat can see. That is the Sun and the Moon have orbits and they rotate the Earth."
The Quran stated this clearly. The
Quran said that Moon revolves around the Earth and that this process takes
stages (Not 24 hours). The Quran also stated that the Sun revolves around a
point different than that of which the Moon revolves around. Which means that
the Sun does not revolve around the Earth, but around a very specific
point/destination for the Sun alone (The Moon does not share it with he Sun).
This specific point, destination, as we know today, is the center of the Milky
Way.
Here are the relevant verses
"And the moon We have measured
it to revolve in stages, until it returns like an old curved sheath"
"And the Sun runs
around a specific point for it (The Sun), such is the design of the Noble, the
Knowledgeable"
"However Denis is very cautious and does not call the Quran to be a hodgepodge of gibberish. He tries to be politically correct. He is even afraid to call a spade a spade and say all these verses are rubbish."
If this is true, then why has not
Denis said this on his website? The matter of the fact is, Denis respects the
Quran and the guidance, but he does not believe in the whole idea of God.
"He goes only as far to say that the "knowledge" contained in these verses were already known to humans prior to Muhammad. What knowledge? Most of the Quran is garbage."
This is your own subjective opinion.
You are the only one on this planet with such a biased and wicked point of
view. You, in your feelings of grandeur, believe that every non-Muslim is of
the same opinion as your. The fact of the matter is, some members of your site
even acknowledge many of the verses of the Quran. This also applies to Denis.
"Dear. Mr. Ahmed. Please do not be fooled by Denis’s niceness. He is just trying to be politically correct."
Have you got into the mind of Denis
for such a bold claim? The fact of the matter is, Denis is of a completely
different opinion than you on the Quran. Deal with it.
"The truth is that your Quran is the stupidest book ever written."
The truth is that you are the
dumbest person I have ever got across to. See, anyone can have his own
"truths".
“There are
not one or two but hundreds of errors in that book.”
There is no one single
error or contradiction in the Quran.
"I listened to your debate with him and to me it is clear that you are the one who is defeated."
I listened to the debate too and to
me Denis is the one who is defeated.
"Furthermore, please respond to other members. They are all better scholars than you. So debating with them will certainly add to your profile and make you look important."
There are no scholars in your site.
And you certainly are not one either.
"If anything you failed to answer my claim that even if the Quran is proven to be a miracle still Muhammad cannot be called a prophet."
If the Quran is proven to be a
miracle (Which as we see it is), then all those "charges" against the
Prophet will drop automatically, because they would be fabrications and lies. The
facts about the Prophet are in the Quran.
Oh, and Satan does not inspire
books. Satan is a very weak creature [4:76].
Ali Sina of Faithfreedom caught RED
HANDED
Lies against Islam
Home