Edip Yuksel didn't Answer Ali Sina
3 September 2009
QuoteWhat is happening dear Edip? Why is it that I feel like talking to an answering machine? You have completely neglected my questions and like all your fellow co-religionists resorted to copy-pasting. Where are the answers to these questions::
I spent about a month debating with Ali Sina; he was too eager to feed himself and others from piles of literary garbage called hadith. Our debate is posted at
www.19.org and soon it will be published in a book together with my debates with other islamophobic warmongers such as Robert Spencer. If you read my debate with Ali Sina you will learn that Ali Sina lost the arguments repeatedly.
Quote1- How can Muhammad's character be irrelevant to his claim? How can we be sure that he was not a liar? What if he lied for the same reason Jim Jones and thousands of other charlatan, impostor cult leaders lie manipulate and control the foolhardy?
It is relevant, but it is not necessary, which I will briefly explain below. A first hadith books that tell us stories about his character were collected and written more than two centuries after Muhammad's departure. In other words they have no credibility. Second, if you still wish to use those sources to engage in character assassination as your guru Ali Sina had attempted, you must also believe that he had the sexual power of 30 men (a strange yet a miraculous feat!), that he split the moon into two pieces and one piece fell in Ali's backyard, etc. No, if you tell us that you will only pick the trash you like from those piles of hearsay reports, then I will tell you have it and eat it too. Now let me explain why hearsay reports about Muhammad's character is not necessary. The Quran itself, through its scientific accuracy and numerical structure is a living proof for its divine nature. So, instead of evaluating verifiable and falsifiable evidence, I will not indulge in digging historical garbage cans.
Quote2- Muhammad made so many bogus claims about being the best of the creation, and a perfect example to follow. How can we verify these self adulating claims? And how are we supposed to follow his examples as Allah asked us to do in the Quran if we are not allowed to read his history or believe it? You reject his biography in its entirety (except the part that is not incriminating) so can you tell us how else can we know him to comply with the Quranic injunctions and follow his examples? Or are you saying those verses where he said follow my example and I mentioned before are all later day fabrications? Are we supposed to take those verse and the verse 33:21 that says "Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct)" seriously or not?
First, you have no evidence that Muhammad claimed to be "the best of the creation," except hearsay reports where you can find all flavors of Muhammad. As for Muhammad being an example... Instead of looking too far, if you paid attention the context of the verses you would realize that it was about his bravery in defending the men, women and children who were attacked and killed by polytheist religious bigots and aggressors. If you are attempting to use the Quran to justify your invitation to dig hadith books, then you must be consistent in your using the Quran. The same Quran mentions Abraham too as a role model. It is obvious that the Quran was not advocating its readers to find collections of hearsay reports about Abraham. You should respect the context of the text you are quoting.
Quote3- I asked you to explain the meaning of Sura 111 and Sura 38:41-44 without referring to hadith, tafseer and Sira, by merely trying to decipher their meanings from the Quran. Can you do that? These are just two examples. Most of the Quran is incomprehensible without hadith and tafseer and I will keep pointing them out as we touch them. :
I have answered that in the endnote of the Quran: a Reformist Translation. You may read it at
www.quranix.com. I cannot repeat and rewrite the same thing over and over for every person who has the same question. Since you are specifically addressing me and accusing me of not answering some questions, then you should know about my most relevant work for your question: QRT. But, like many critics with little attention span, you choose not to read the ideas of people you are so passionate to criticize. "Edip I have not read your translation of the Quran; but you did not answer this or that person's questions about this or that verses of the Quran" How does it sound? If you had done this several decades ago, I would not be able to criticize you this way. But, now you have electronic versions of the book freely available at your fingertips. On top of that you do not even need to read the entire book to check whether I have answered your question; all you need is to pick a key word and click on the "search" function of Microsoft Word, PDF, or google.
Quote4- We also talked about the Quran's claim that God transformed the Jews into apes and swine (5:60) and said 'Be ye apes' (2:65, 7:166). These are not metaphors. No scholar has understood them as metaphors because the texts make it clear that they are not metaphors. Can you explain to us how this absurdity is possible? How come such an amazing phenomenon was not recorded in any book prior to Muhammad saying such thing? How can such a ridiculous statement be compatible with science? Remember, it was you who said We will get to the scientific accuracy of the Quran. Explain this please scientifically.:
The Quran contains numerous metaphors and I believe that the verses you are referring to are using metaphors. Here is the related discussion from the Quran: a Reformist Translation:
002:065 Turning to monkeys and swine is most likely a metaphor indicating their spiritual and intellectual regression since verse 5:60 adds another phrase, ?Servants of the aggressor?, which does not depict a physiological transformation. Also see 7:166. Jesus likens his own people figuratively to swine and dogs (Matthew 7:6; 2 Peter 2:22). Swine was regarded as the most filthy and the most abhorred of all animals (Leviticus 11:7; Isaiah 65:4; 66:3, 17; Luke 15:15-16). See 5:60; 7:166).
Quote5- You claimed Muhammad wrote the Quran with his own hand. I asked how do you know that. Where is your source? Why should we believe you when he himself claimed to be illiterate and unable to read. 7:157 , 6:22 :
I have discussed this issue numerous times. So, do not expect me to write it AGAIN or paste it here. You can easily find my reasons for my claims by visitng
www.quranix.com and it will take you only one click to find the article in the introductory section of QRT. Besides, you can find the older version of it at:
http://www.yuksel.org/e/books/rtq.htm which will take you only one click, perhaps less than a calorie
Again, is it too unfair to expect from my critics to read my work before accusing me of not answering a particular question?
Quote6- You made the claim that ummi does not mean illiterate but gentile. I quoted the verse 2:78 were Muhammad alludes to the Jews and calls them ummayoon ْ أُمِّيُّونَ because they cant read their book. What is your response?:
So far, this is the only novel question I read. Whoever came up with this criticism, I acknowledge that it has merit since its context is indeed about Jews. However, I would like to remind you that the word Ummy is contrasted to the People of the Book and Jews are considered to be the People of the Book in general. Ummy does not describe inability to read, but lack of knowledge of divine books. Meccan Arabs were called Ummy, not because the Quran was referring to their illiteracy per se, but their lack of knowledge about Torah and Injeel.
Quote7- We talked about sura 33 and I said this sura is not self explanatory. I asked you to tell us who are the confederates mentioned in verse 20 and from where they did not withdraw. Explain that without any reference to hadith or tafseer. :
It depends what you expect from the Quran. If you are expecting it to be a history book; it is not. You might have similar questions for every history book, since you could still have questions about more details and more details. I have no problem in understanding the message of the chapter 33 without knowing those irrelevant details. Tell me my friend: what it would change in my understanding of the points made in those verses if I knew the name of confederates?
QuoteGuys, these questions are not answered. if you can answer please, write here so that Ali Sina finds his way 
:
If you are visiting his website drop him this news: 17:91 and
