ĒFaith Freedom International's Ali Sina attempts to contest the solid evidence for the Quran and Modern Science DebateĒ
Sinaís Second rebuttal:
The first part of your argument is nothing but ad hominen, insults and boastfulness. Since none of that has any scholarly value I leave it unanswered. You obviously feel that ad hominem is a good substitute to reason and when you are short of reason you can freely insult your opponent and thus win the battle. This is why Dr. Morey did not think you are worth responding to. However since one of my objectives is to prove Islamsists are savages full of arrogance and bravado I am pleased by your behavior and encourage you to continue.
The fact that you quote a racial remark made by a poster in FFI to smear the name of FFI and neglected completely the warning that this poster received and the angry reaction of the regular members of FFI is also good indication of your selective mind. This shows clearly you are desperate to find any fault with your opponents, and will even use the mistakes of those who have nothing to do with FFI to make your point.
You are obviously no one that needs to be exposed. I donít think I should give you that much credit in saying I exposed you. You are too insignificant for that. The reason I am interested to continue this debate is not because I see any value in you but because you are a typical Muslim and I am interested to make my readers get to know a typical Muslim. A good example is worth much more than what I can say with a thousand words.
to put Ali Sina's refutation in a nutshell, he basically said, that all the scientific statements in the Quran were ALL coincidences and good guesses
Obviously you did not read what I wrote or did not understand it. I did not say those verses are coincidence and good guess. I said most of what Muhammad said is wrong and the rest is commonsense, things that any ignorant man living in his time could have known. As I said your argument is petitio principii. It means that your premise is wrong. Your premise is that what Muhammad said is true and then conclude that a man like him could not have come to that many correct conclusions on his own and hence the Quran must be the word of God. But as you part from a false premise your conclusion is wrong. Obviously you are stuck here and canít go forward. This is all you learned and this is all you can talk about. Therefore all you can do is repeat yourself like a broken disk. There is no reason to see whether what Muhammad said was because he was a genius, just guessed them, was a great scientist etc. Because what he said is mostly wrong and what is not wrong is commonsense and general knowledge available to anyone at his time.
You quoted Spinoza, one of the members of FFI who said:
I listened to Denis Giron's debate and I thought the argument of 'chance' was rather ridiculous.
And triumphantly concluded:
Smart people who have listened to the debate realize that you CAN NOT pass off all of the scientific statements as guesswork and coincidence, Ö
here is a smart kid, he knows the pit falls that lie ahead... I only wish Ali Sina had the same common sense
However in your haste you forgot to read the rest of his message or may be you did not comprehend what he wrote:
Scrape together a few post facto mircles of reinterpretation, ignore the fact that most of the Quran contains complete idiocy and quite a few errors and inconsistencies (which require tremendous amounts of doublethink, blissful ignorence and mental gymnastics to swallow) and claim the divine (!) authorship of that wicked piece of 'literatuur' has been 'proved'.
This is basically my argument. The question of chance, guess or genius becomes ludicrous when the entire Quran is full of nonsense, errors and absurdities. I am afraid your understanding is very limited.
As for the question of the bees, there is just one verse in the Quran and I already quoted it.
And thy Lord taught the Bee to build its cells in hills, on trees, and in (men's) habitations;
What is so scientific about it? Any idiot knows that bees build their cells in hills, on trees and in human dwellings? Why such a sentence should be a miracle? As I said the word bee in Arabic is feminine. Muhammad had to use this word because this is an Arabic word and there is no other word that can substitute it. So if any credit is due it should go to the Arabs who invented a feminine word for bee. This argument of yours is as ridiculous as saying someone calling a hen, hen must have divine knowledge because hens are female.
As for the city of
if that logic was true... then that means we have a record of EVERY destroyed city from the time of Adam, which would go back BILLIONS of years ago, I would like to ask Ali Sina to please provide for us that list
First of all Adam is a mythological personage. Second, the age of humanity is not billions of years. Homo Sapience is only 100,000 years old. Thirdly humans started to become city dwellers no more than four thousand years ago and Forth the writing was invented almost at the same time. So this demand shows the lack of knowledge of Mr. Ahmed. Finally such a request is just laughable. How can one produce the list of all the cities lost? I just highlight these things so we can peer into the pathetic mind of a Muslim. In my response that it is not likely for the Arabs to forget one of their own cities, this gentleman is demanding that I produce a list of all the lost cities dating back to BILLIONS of years.
Mr. Ahmed said that the name Iram did not exist in any pre-Islamic books. I
said what books? Muhammad and his marauding gangs burned all the pre-Islamic
books. They dismissed them as false or redundant because as Muhammad said
anything pre-Islamic was Jahili (ignorance) and there was no need for them. The
history reports the burning of the libraries in virtually all the countries
that Muslims invaded. The most famous one of then was the huge library of
From the time of the pre-Islam very little books are left. The Egyptian scholar Taha Hussain, in his book Fi al-Adab al-Jaheli contended that:
The vast quantity of what is called pre-Islamic poetry has nothing to do with the pre-Islamic literature, but it is fabricated after Islam. ... Thus our research will lead us to a very strange conclusion; that this poetry can not be used in interpreting the Qur'an. http://debate.domini.org/newton/inventions.html
Paul Newton the Christian scholar on Islam states:
"Need is the mother of invention" is a saying that is true in many areas but in particuler it is true to what is called the science of the Qur'an.
"When the Muslims found themselves in the need to protect what they believed to be the miraculous nature of the Qur'an they invented:
They invented non-Hijazi and foreign words
They invented grammatical rules.
And it goes without saying that
They invented a huge amount of Hadith.
He proves each and every one of his claims in an article available here:
According to Taha Hussain Muslims destroyed all pre Islamic books and then fabricated poetries and words to justify the errors of the grammar of the Quran. The proof is convincing. One evidence presented by Taha Hussain is that all those poetries are in Quraysh dialect when in reality the Arabs spoke many different dialects and it is highly unlikely that these Arabs who were so tribalists would compose poetries in the dialect of the Quraysh instead of their own. They went even as far as to compose poetries and attribute them to Adam.
Mr. Ahmed asks me to remove my website if I canít prove what I say is true. I have proven everything I say about Muhammad and the Quran is true. My challenge is that if anyone can prove me wrong I will remove my site. As I said before Mr. Ahmed has problem with comprehension. He has learned only one argument and that is the bee, Iram, iron, sea, orbit argument and that is all he can talk about. That argument is proven false but he canít get over it because that is all he knows. Unfortunately that little knowledge proved to be unfounded and now he does not know where to stand.
Mr. Ahmed quoted the verse 3:7 that says some of the verses of the Quran are clear and some are not. Can he tell us why the Quran contradicts itself in other verses and claims to be:
clear book (5:15)
easy to understand (44:58 , 54:22 , 54:32, 54:40)
explained in detail (6:114),
conveyed clearly (5:16, 10:15)
with "no doubt" in it (2:1).
I also quote the questions raised by Orenda one of the members of FFI. Those are also my questions. She wrote:
"I have a big problem with this ayah I am hoping you can help me to understand. To me this ayah is entirely illogical. Why would Allah purposefully send revelations which are unclear? and that he knows that will cause Fitnah and that he knows people will use the unclear verses for evil. ? Why would I purposefully give unclear directions to my friend when I know the chance could mean the loss of her very life?
Why send unclear meanings at all, because Allah says none know the hidden meaning except Allah. Therefore, it would be useless to study the Qur'an front and back, in fact the ayah implies that searching for hidden meanings cause fitnah. Allah has declared that only he knows the hidden meaning.
Yet, at the same time, Allah expects those people who are knowledgable to say we believe in it, all of it. The clear AND unclear.
How can they believe in the unclear parts when they can not know the meaning?!"
As for a "barrier between fresh and salt water" there is no such barrier at all and the Quran is wrong. The sweet waters enter the sea and eventually mix with the sea water. Anyone standing on a hill can see that when the water enters the sea (especially when it is muddy) it pushes the sea water aside and because of its momentum goes forward. In the mouth of the delta the waters seem to be separate but soon they merge. The Quran mentions that there is a barrier and the Quran is wrong. So the question of probability and chance is irrelevant because the Quran is wrong.
Mr. Ahmed provided a link to the Islamic site that tries to explain the
miracles of the Quran. In that link there is a picture of the Mediterranean Sea
As the verse 25:53 makes it clear, Muhammad is talking about two seas one
with sweet and palatable and the other with salty and bitter water. The water
in both Atlantic and
When I say that Muhammad must have heard that at estuaries waters do not mix Mr. Ahmed says " total baseless assumption, show us proof of what you are saying if you are truthful"
Dear Mr. Ahmed. I am not making any absurd claims about Muhammad. It is you who are claiming Muhammad had never heard about this phenomenon that could have been observed by anyone and was known universally by all seamen and those who lives near the deltas. It is up to you to prove to us that he never had heard what everyone else already knew.
If I write the relativity formula and claim this is revealed to me and I never heard of Einstein, it is not up to you to prove I have heard of him. It is up to me to prove I have not.
Once again you affirm that science has confirmed that there is a barrier between the seas. The only link you provide is the Islamic site from where you learned the only argument you have mastered. Please provide one reliable non-Islamic site that says there is "a barrier and a forbidden partition" between salty water and sweet water.
You sound like that fox who was caught stealing the grapes and when brought to the judge pleaded innocence and produced his tail as his witness. Islamic sites are not scientific sites. They all rehash the same nonsense and their claim that Quran is scientific is no proof to us.
To sum up what ali states, he passes it off as a coincidence
I am sorry. I donít think you are really paying any attention. To say these are all coincidences I must first agree that the Quran is right. I never said such thing. Quran is wrong in most of these cases and where it is right the knowledge was available to sun and dry and hence it was no coincidence that Muhammad got it right. Muhammad said nothing that an unlettered man of his time could not have known.
The rest of the "rebuttal" written by this character Mr. Ahmed is filled with insults and name-callings. I do not think my readers really are interested in that kind of debate. I let him win in the arena of hooliganism and arrogance uncontested.
Mr. Ahmed also demands that I should prove that Muhammad destroyed the books
of the Jahilia, the pre-Islamic era called by him the age of ignorance. I
believe that is ludicrous. It is up to him to show us at least one book of
history, philosophy, medicine, astrology, or chemistry dating back to the
Jahilia. It is unreasonable to assume that a nation known for their eloquence
and literature did not write a single book on any science. As I said there are
some poetry attributed to the Jahilia, but as Taha Hussain has shown they are
all forgeries. Muslims simply destroyed all the books in Hijaz as they did in
Finally you have not yet answered the question that I repeatedly asked you in each and every communication to you. Do you think if you prove that the Quran is miraculous but fail to disprove the charges of murder, assassination, lecher, pedophilia, genocide, theft, etc that I bring against Muhammad he is still a prophet of God? Let us suppose you prove the Quran is miraculous but Muhammad is proven to be a villain and a monster. Who do you think the author of the Quran would be? Donít you think may be then the Quran is the work of Satan? I need an answer to that. You seem to not to want to discuss the character of Muhammad while I believe this is crucial. Would you follow a murderer if he can impress you with a few tricks? You actually seem to not to want to discuss anything else but what you learned about bees, etc and what you are so good at i.e. insults.