Whenever
Hamza the liar Tzortzis opens his mouth or puts pen to paper it causes muscular
contractions in my body which feels as though I am loosing body fluids through
every conceivable body crevice or opening.
This
time around (there’s no date, so I’ll take today, 20.08.2013), he has outdone
himself once again.
He
is releasing a draft, a pre-release draft, a released pre-release. Is there
such a thing as a draft after release status? I have never released a draft in
my life, as my draft developed into a release version, before I released it. My
versions 0.x were not released, but version 1.0 was the release version. I have
never released a draft. Hamza does. He makes this very clear by labeling it Pre-release Draft
0.9b. He probably uses it to
let others fix his mistakes.
Also,
science was used to verify that a discourse was divine with a capital D. That
is equally impossible, right from the start. Science does not concern itself
with anything super-natural, be it ghosts or gods.
So the
entire essay will be about the impossible. Great stuff.
The
text he is referring to is the Koran, is a vague, unstructured book, not a discourse, which I have down as a
formal discussion of a subject or the formal treatment of a subject, but
whatever, if he needs words which sound important to make a boring and
primitive subject more interesting or upgrade a book…. It’s just that a book as
vague and ambiguous as the Koran just doesn’t deserve to be called a discourse
in my eyes.
In
linguistics, it can be any unit of connected speech, but when reading a book, I
would not use this expression for sure. But never mind la, not important
Hamza,
acting like the academic he wishes he were, provides a link to Google in the
form of a footnote, showing the result of a search – but when he makes a huge
claim, such as the claim that “Islamic classical scholarly
tradition was engaged in a debate as to whether to use science”, there is no
source. I actually doubt there is one and that he made that up, simply because
it sounds nice.
Our Hamza now goes into his usual waffling mode,
saying that the birth of this what he calls “movement” was based on a book from
the 70s, but it was born in the 80s. Of course.
Let’s
take a quick look at the sequence of events:
A
Muslim from Yemen, Abdul Majeed al-Zindani, studied in Cairo, was fired and
went to Saudi Arabia, where he and his friend and fund-raiser, Osama bin Laden,
embarked on several projects together. Zindani, a one-man deception party,
founded the “Commission on Scientific Signs in the Quran and Sunnah”, based in
Saudi Arabia. He found a French doctor at the Saudi court, Dr. Maurice
Bucaille, who delivered the basis for Bucaillism, “Bible, the Koran and Science”
a hilarious book. Zindani then found another doctor, this time from Canada, a Dr.
Keith Moore, who released one his editions of a textbook which also became a
hit with gullible Muslims. Even today, some Muslims call him a “scholar”, full
of admiration for his outstanding capabilities to lie to Muslims and deceive them
for so many years.
The
back cover of the Bucaille book claims that “As a surgeon, Maurice Bucaille has
often been in a situation where he was able to examine not only people's
bodies, but their souls.” So we know what level these doctors are operating on.
Today
we know that both these charlatans and medical doctors went ahead and made huge
amounts of money, selling complete nonsense in the form of ridiculous claims,
without much effort.
Next,
Zindani branched out and used different deceptive tactics and now produced a
movie, using non-Muslim academics. They
were not prominent
Western academics or eminent
non-Muslim scholars, as Hamza would like to think, but University professors or
scientists, who went not to one, as Hamza mistakenly claims, but several
conferences. The movie was edited in a way that it seemed that they were making
positive remarks regarding scientific contents in the Koran, which they were
not, as they themselves attested recently in interviews by the Wall Street
Journal and the VLogger TheRationaliser.
The
lies and deception did work however through 30 or 40 years, making people like
Zakir Naik and Harun Yahya very rich people. Maybe Hamza thought in his naivety
and largely unused brain he could latch on to that.
He
probably has not realized yet that a few years ago the facts emerged and the
entire movement claiming scientific miracle died down. He should know as he was
the last to experience this when the embarrassingly bad paper on the scientific
accuracy of embryology in the Koran was completely destroyed and shown to be
utterly fallacious and wrong, demonstrating that biased and preconceived
research delivers only the results you want, not the truth.
People
who were gullible enough to join Islam due its modern appeal and the apparent
scientific accuracy were soon disillusioned and were appalled by the dishonest
and deceptive marketing tricks used by the salespeople and scouts. They left
Islam just as quickly as they had joined and I have not heard of any of them
having been killed, as is demanded by Muslim clerics over and over. One learns
to be grateful for things like that.
So
this is where we are today.
For
the first time, Hamza acknowledges this. He actually brings up entire
paragraphs which make total sense to the extent that I thought he finally got
it. But then he writes something silly, showing he is a good copy/paste artist
but does not have the brain to actually process the contained information and understand
it.
He
uses the ideas of a Muslim scientist, who deplores the state of education
amongst Muslims and fights for less dogma and more knowledge, but Hamza does
not really understand the professor. He never has.
He
just pretends he does.
But
now he has a problem: he says the Koran is not really scientifically accurate
because science is not 100% accurate. But then why use this unreliable and
inaccurate science to verify the divine origins of the Koran? What he tries to
do is to soften the reliability of science – but is still faced with the
problem of the many, many mistakes in the Koran which are not based on science.
He concedes the errors of scientific accuracy but can’t allow for divine
errors. So he does today, what the
so-called “scholar” did with me 2 years ago in the Fanar in Doha: he said that
over time, scientists will conclude that sperm is not produced in the testes
but in the torso, hoping that unreliable science will one day say the same as
the Koran.
But
excuse me, then the Koran would be just as unreliable and inaccurate as
science.
But
Hamza is not honest enough to let go of this stupid divine and inerrant concept
in the Koran, which is actually killing Islam. Maybe he thinks that because
then internet is not mentioned in the Koran it does not exist, but it is there
and delivering the facts which lead to more and more questions around the Koran
without convincing answers.
In
the section on miracles he loses the plot completely, mixing “scientific”
sentences with naturalistic explanations and linguistics.
Maybe
that’s why it’s a "Pre-release Draft 0.9b"
Oh
no, here go the muscle again….
He
now softens up the text of the Koran
in that words may mean something or may not. So the words “there is no god but
god” or “don’t eat pork” may mean something completely different today,
according to Hamza.
He
tries and represents what the devout Muslim, a Dr. Nidhal Guessoum, an Algerian
astrophysicist and Professor of Physics in the UAE has written. This scientist
is still a creationist who loves to tinker with evolution, trying to find and
propagate any type of alternative explanation even though he accepts the basic
theory and hates rejectionists like Harun Yahya. Reading about this guy and
what he has written is quite fascinating and I need to, I all honesty,
congratulate Hamza on this find.
Dr.
Guessoum writes academic and scientific papers such as “Setting up a Student
Satellite Receiving System”, something I do in practice without a paper in 2
hours on a Saturday afternoon.
But
he does an excellent job when it comes to assessing Islam, where he says: “While
there is no doubt in people’s minds that human knowledge evolves and grows, it
is often understood that religions, especially Islam, are absolute, immutable,
and transcendent principles, which are set in rigid frames of reference.”
Dr.
Guessoum takes a refreshingly different approach towards Islam and the Koran,
rejecting the classic “revelation via angel” story and sees the text as a
collection of very loose indications. He does
fall into the propaganda trap of the so-called “Islamic Golden Age”, but does point out that the lives of the
protagonists at the time were hardly considered Islamic at all.
He
shows the dilemma of the literal Koran and says that the Koran MUST be taken
metaphorically to be applicable in different times and by different people and
is quite happy to be accused of cherry-picking.
In
an exciting critique of Guessoum’s book, Dr. Rana Dajani, an assistant biology
professor in Jordan, writes:
“In
his presentation, Guessoum addresses the reader’s intellect and leaves it to
him or her to draw conclusions concerning science and religion.”
On
evolution she openly admits:
“As
a molecular biologist, I will focus on the issue of Islam and evolution (human
and nonhuman). Evolution is a fact that cannot be denied. We see manifestations
of it in the design of drugs that target the influenza virus and in antibiotic
resistance of bacteria and in forced evolution exhibited in artificial breeding
of various plants and animals.”
“Guessoum
presents this reaction to evolution with various examples in his chapter. The
fact that a sound scientific theory is so vehemently denied by Muslim
scientists, let alone the layperson, on the basis of belief not logic is scary
because it makes one wonder what else is being denied in the name of religion
and played upon by people who want to control others through ignorance and
emotion. This position alienates the world of Islam from thinkers and deprives
the individual Muslim of the full use of his mind”
Hamza
does not take advantage of the brilliant brain of these scientists and the huge
reservoir of wisdom available to him here, but, ever the copy/paste artist, we
get shown just 2 or 3 words from the book.
Without
any explanation on how Dr. Guessoum applies this idea in practice, but we are
told that now we get a new approach,
which is demonstrated by using words, which look exactly the same as they did
in Hamza’s previous, embarrassingly bad essays.
It
has the same result in that premiss 1 is that the Koran is never wrong and
premiss 2 that if reality is different from the Koran, reality needs to be
changed and adapted to the Koran..
He
spouts total and absolute nonsense, claiming that the sun swimming in an orbit around Earth makes sense “in
light of today’s scientific findings [i.e. celestial mechanics]”
We
then get to Hamza’s pet word alaqa and the millions of meanings it can have and
how a multilayered Koran can have any meaning you want at the time you need it.
He can’t get over it and is unable to write anything but stuff that results in
laughter and derision.
Hamza
is truly embarrassing, even if he were a 6th grader. He takes what
we have shown him several times and now acknowledges that we were right all
along and the Koran copies or reflects the knowledge at the time, alaqa=blood
clot. But what is hilarious is that he actually says that – and now get this -
his god “agrees with the predominant scientific view of the time”. Because the
Koran is god’s word. So Hamza now puts more importance on what science says
than what is in his magic book.
He
claims the word alaqa means blood-clot or worm or leech. How does know when it
means which? Maybe it was leech in the 7th century and blood-clot in
the 14th and worm today. Or none of the above. Nobody knows.
Hamza,
in his wisdom, which I hope someone will be able to demonstrate at some stage,
claims that it is so obvious that the Koran in using the rubber word alaqa must
mean blood-clot when read for the first time. What is his reasoning? None!
But
after a few days or years or decades or centuries, the word blood-clot changes
into worm or leech. None of this is specified or with any evidence attached. He
says this can be verified using several instructions on what to say and how to
think.
The
height of his inability to grasp reality and the way science works is
demonstrated in these very steps at the end of his pamphlet.
He
mentions “historical statements” in the Koran, without specifying what a
“historical statement” is and without providing a single example.
He mentions a “linguistic and literary miracle”
which everyone knows does not exist.
Then we get the “preserved” Koran, which is
nonsense, the religious messages and the killer argument: “other remarkable
features”, which anyone can make up by the looks of it.
Oh boy! How bad can it get?
Well,
it gets worse. Now he actually tries to apply his favourite word alaqa as a
multi-layer, multi-functional word which can mean different things, all wrong.
Leech. Let’s take a look at a leech, the medicinal leech.
Oh, but why the medicinal leech? Does the Koran say anything about a medicinal
leech? No? Why not? Leeches come in different sizes, shapes and colours. So
which one does the embryo look like? At what stage is the embryo supposed to
look like a leech? From what day to what day? Come on, you say this is scientifically
accurate, so where’s the scientifically accurate data? All Hamza has, is one
single word: alaqa, which he says meant blood-clot at some stage and at some
stage it magically transformed into leech.
blood-sucking worm
feeds on blood
increases body size 10 times
13 cm long
posterior and anterior suckers
60 to 100 teeth
secrete a substance called hirudin
clings to its prey
attaches to outer skin
lives in freshwaters
spend most of their time buried in the muddy bottom of a
pond
has five pairs of "eyes"
has chemoreceptors near their head
breeds in summer
lays eggs
are hermaphroditic
ie not created in pairs and male or female. The leech is
probably the worst example for Koranic veracity you could have chosen, you oaf.
Any mention of this by Hamza?
And
if you have doubts? Well, Hamza has the solution: special pleading. Because god
really exists and if he exists he must be right? Why? Because he’s a god.
And
science can be wrong.
Take
it from god erm Hamza
Finally,
“it could be argued that a
verse could be deemed as more likely”
a scientific miracle – which he said in the beginning doesn’t even exist.
So,
finally, we get the same as we had before. The conclusion does absolutely
nothing, zilch, nada, zero to the existing Bucaillism and gullible Muslims. It’s
the same, identical deception. Does Hamza care about the education of his
fellow Muslims? No, he wants them dumb and prostrating in submission because
Allah knows best.
You
can test any of the laughable claims against this list and come out with the same
and identical result as before. Is the Universe expanding? Yes and all the
points are checked. The same goes for the Big Bang in the Koran and all the
other ludicrous claims. It is just a bad joke.
It’s
an attempt to sound different and as though this was now a more modern
approach. It is not
In
contrast, take the simple 3-step test I developed 2 or 3 years ago:
1. Is this really a miracle?
2. Is this really mentioned
like that in scripture?
3. Does it reflect reality?
Because
Hamza is intellectually challenged, he passes the buck and hides: “Scholars,
thinkers and apologists should develop this further”. Oh well.
Another
pathetic attempt at sounding educated and delivering a complete fail. Why
doesn’t he just shut up and stop embarrassing himself and his fellow Muslims?
No comments:
Post a Comment