My Debate with a Shiite Mullah on What Makes Us Human

My Debate with a Shiite Mullah on What Makes Us Human

 

This debate is one of the most enlightening debates I have ever had.   It shed a lot of light on many important issues that so far I had not discussed.  It reveals how Islam devalues man, denies his inherent dignity and regards him as a wicked and evil being that needs to be harnessed and controlled through stringent rules.  This view explains why there are so much human rights abuses in Islam; why the laws of Islam are so draconian, and why the Sharia prescribes beating, maiming, and beheading.  You can also understand why Muslims commit what we perceive as evil, while they regard them as divine, and learn why Islam is irrational and incompatible with human dignity.  My opponent was a learned mullah, a Shiite cleric from Iran.  I thank him for leading this debate towards this direction.

Mr. Farzad is an Iranian cleric with whom I had a mini debate in one of the forums of this site.  Although I consider him a learned person unfortunately the debate was just between him and me.  He prefers to write in Persian and I can only write in English.   I’d like that more people read the debates and learn from them and consequently I did not reply to his last comments. Mr. Farzad has come back complaining that I did not answer him, which must be interpreted as my inability to respond and hence I should remove my site.

Here is my reply to him.

Dear Mr. Farzad,

There are countless replies to my challenge. They are all over the web. None of them answers anything. I can’t reply to each and every person who writes a “rebutal” to one of my articles. That does not mean what they say has any value. They rehash the same things. Basically, the replies of Muslims consists in two fallacies. 1- The Sira and hadith are not reliable 2- We must not judge the morality of ancient people with the morality of today. These two are the only themes that are repeated in a billion different ways. Both are fallacies.

1- If the authentic Islamic sources are not reliable then Islam is alreay currupted. According to the Quran Muslims are required to follow the examples of their prophet (sunnah). The sunanh of Muhammad can be found only in the hadith and the sira. These sources say Muhammad was a criminal, rapist, mass murderer, terrorist, assassin. That is why Muslims do what they do. They follow the sunnah of their prophet. If this sunnah is corrupted then Islam cannot be practiced.

2- Moral relativism is also a fallacy. What Muhammad did  has been always evil. Furthermore, assuming what he did was a norm for his time. Why did he emulate the evil practices of the people whom he called ignorant? Did he come to follow the practices of the ignorant people and hence make them permanent or set a new standard?

If you write in English I’d be glad to reply. I can’t reply in Persian and if I respond only to you without translating your articles, it won’t be a fair debate since people don’t know what you wrote.

I have a proposition. If you translate my responses into Persian I will translate yours into English. In this way we have this debate in both languages.

Mr. Farzad responded.

جناب سینا
من جایی خارج از سایت شما در وب جواب ادعاهای شما را نداده ام اگر فراموش نکرده باشید در دو مقاله که در دو پست بالا آدرس آن را قرار دادم بحث مفصلی در دو سه مورد که شما ادعا کردید در معارف قرآن و اسلام تناقض وجود دارد من جواب ادعای شما را دادم و ثابت کردم که بر اساس اصول ثابت منطقی اشتباه کرده اید اما متاسفانه بحث از طرف شما رها شد و بی نتیجه ماند..

اگر به یاد بیاورید در این مورد جواب مفصل را به شما دادم در مورد سیره که بسیار مورد علاقه و توجه شماست یا باید کلیت آن را پذیرفت یا به کلی آن را رد کرد که متاسفانه شما به شکل کاملا گزینشی آنچه را فکر می کنید مدعای شما را ثابت می کند به عنوان سند قبول می کنید و بقیه سیره و حدیث را یکباره از هستی ساقط کرده و رد می کنید و این چیزی جز فریب دادن مخاطب ناآگاه و مغالطه و سفسطه ای روشن و آشکاربیش نیست.

در مورد عدم مقایسه اخلاق مردمان دوران قدیم و جدید، دیگران نمی دانم چه گفته اند اما اگر به یاد بیاورید از شما خواستم قبل از اینکه در موضوعات فرعی بحث شود ابتدا تکلیف مبانی اساسی دو فکر مشخص شود بعد در مورد اخلاق و رفتار گذشته و حال قضاوت کنیم؛ اخلاق و رفتار متکی بر خدامحوری در بعضی از شاخه ها کاملا متناقض و متضاد با اخلاق و رفتار متکی بر انسان محوری است.

آنچه مهم است این است که کدامیک از این دو مبنا منطقا قابل پذیرش است، همانطور که عرض کردم اگر مبنای خدامحوری و به خصوص خدایی که خاتم المرسلین معرف آن است عقلا قابل اثبات نباشد آن وقت نوبت به این می رسد که رفتار این کسی که مدعی پیامبری است را از زاویه دید شما (انسان محوری) نگاه کنیم و بسنجیم اما اگر یادتان باشد گفتید که علاقه ای ندارید بحث را ریشه ای حل کنید بلکه آنچه برای شما مهم است این است که به هر قیمتی شده از زاویه دید خود شخصیت حضرت محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم را لگد مال کنید.

مغالطه آن نیست که شما به آن اشاره کرده اید بلکه مغالطه این است که با عینک انسان محوری رفتار انسانی خدامحور را مورد قضاوت قرار دهی.

من کاملا آماده ام نوشته های شما را به فارسی ترجمه کنم؛ در مقابل پیشنهاد می کنم پست مجزایی به عنوان بحث آزاد با من ( در موضوعی که مورد علاقه شماست) ایجاد کنید تا در ذیل آن تا به نتیجه رسیدن کامل با یکدیگر بحث کنیم.
البته اگر این بحث در یک فروم انگلیسی یا فارسی انجام شود با توجه به قابلیت های مثبتی که فروم در پیگری یک بحث دو طرفه دارد بسیار مطلوب تر خواهد بود علاوه بر اینکه من جهت پست زدن در سایت شما باید حتما از فیلتر شکن استفاده کنم و این کار را کمی سخت می کند.

 This is the translation.

Mr. Sina,

I did not reply to you outside your site and I was not disrespectful either.  I answered in detail to a couple of your accusations that there are contradictions in the Quran and Islam.  I responded to these charges and logically proved you are wrong. Unfortunately, you abandoned the debate.

If you recall I had given ample response, especially regarding the Sira in which you are so interested, saying that you must either accept it in its entirety or reject it in its entirety.  Regrettably, you only pick the parts that you believe validate your own arguments and reject the rest of the Sira and hadith wholesale.   This is nothing but a clear demagogy, sophism and logical fallacy.

In regards to the impossibility of comparing the morality of ancient people to modern morality, I don’t know what others have said, but if you recall I said, before we discuss secondary issues we must first decide on the fundamentals of the two schools of thought and then decide about the morality in the past and in the present.  God-centered morality and ethics are in some cases entirely different from man-centered morality and ethics.

What is important is to know which one of these concepts is logically acceptable.  As I stated, if the concept of God-centered morality, especially the god that Muhammad is his last prophet, cannot be proven logically, then we should evaluate the conduct of his prophet from your perspective, i.e., human-centered morality.  However, as you may remember, you said you have no interest to solve this question radically, but what matters to you most is to trash Muhammad and trample his personality through your own point of view.

The fallacy is not what you pointed out, but the fallacy is in judging/measuring God-centered morality with man-centered morality.

I am totally ready to translate your write-ups into Persian.  In exchange, I request you to create a new article dedicated to our debate so we can discuss any subject of your interest [without interruption].

If this debate is conducted bilingually, considering the positive qualities that each language has, it would become very much desirable.  I must also add that in order to write in your site I must necessarily use proxy servers and filters [as it is blocked in Iran].  This may represent some difficulty.

 

My response:

Mr. Farzad,

You say I must either accept the hadith and sira in their entirety or reject them in their entirety and that by accepting a part of it and not all of it I am committing demagogy.

I am afraid your reasoning is flawed. I am acting as the prosecutor of Muhammad and Islam. My goal is to prove he was a liar. An impostor may laud himself loftily. His bragging about himself are not taken into consideration in his trial.  His prosecutor will highlight only the parts of his statements that can be used against him to prove his guilt.

There are many tales of miracles attributed to Muhammad in the Sira and in the hadith and even in the Quran we find the fable of the Mi’raj. Do we have to accept them? Once I prove he was a liar by his own admission, all his claims of grandiosity become null.

This is a simple logic and I am surprised that you bring such a fallacy up when you know or should know it is a fallacy.  Let us say someone steals something from you. You charge him with theft. He denies it, but under cross-examination, he contradicts himself.  You then prove his guilt only by picking a few contradictory statements which establish he is a liar.  His other claims about him praising himself and saying how honest he is are irrelevant.  The judge will not accept everything he says nor will he reject everything he says.   He hears it all and only pays attention to where he contradicts himself.   That is what I am doing with the claim of Muhammad in the Quran, the Sira and the hadith.

 

In my previous response I also accused Muslims of using moral relativism to defend Muhammad’s immoral conduct.  You argue that first we have to decide whether the basis of morality should be God-centered or man-centered and think this is  crucial to resolve the problem of immorality imputed to Muhammad.

God-centered morality is a logical fallacy. It is a circular reasoning.  Let me make a simple example to debunk this fallacy. Let us say I claim to be a prophet of God and manage to deceive a few people. Then I order my followers to do things that they consider immoral and unethical from human perspective.  For example, I tell them to raid the homes of people, loot their belongings and rape their women.  I tell them to allow me to have sex with their daughters.  I tell them they should assassinate anyone who badmouths me, etc.  They know everything I say is immoral and unethical but I tell them, you should not judge me by your flawed human-centered morality. I am the prophet of God. My morality is God-centered. Now shut up and do as I say.

Do you see the absurdity of God-centered morality argument?  This fallacy was used by every cult leader. The followers of Shoko Asahara injured hundreds of innocent people in Tokyo and killed dozens of them. They used this very argument.  They convinced themselves that they must not question the wisdom of God.  The followers of Charles Manson went on a killing spree, butchering innocent people at random. They used this very reasoning.  The same can be said of the followers of Jim Jones, David Koresh and all other cults.

Assuming God exists, his morality cannot go against our morality.  God gave us an infallible moral compass to discern between right and wrong.   This compass is called the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule says don’t do to others what you don’t like to be done to you.  This rule is called golden because we can understand it in the core of our being. It is self-evident and it has existsted for thousands of years among virtually all the people (Islam, Nazism, Fascism and communism being exceptions).   The Golden Rule is the basis of all morality and ethics.  Anything that goes against it is unethical and immoral.

Any person who says, I don’t practice the Golden Rule because I don’t follow human centered morality but God centered morality is a deceiver.  That is how we can recognize false prophets.  Jesus said you will recognize them [the false prophets] by their fruits.    This throws out of the window your argument that God-centered morality is different from man centered morality and incomprehensible to humans.   If that were the case how could we distinguish a true prophet from a charlatan?   How can we reject the claim of Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, or myriads other cult leaders?

Assuming there is a God, His morality cannot be different from man’s morality.   It can be superior but never opposed to it.  Muhammad lived like a thug and a criminal and you say his morality was God-centered?   Jesus and Buddha lived by a morality superior to that of common men.  When on the cross, Jesus pleaded to his God: Father, forgive them for they don’t know what they are doing. This is a higher morality. Muhammad sent assassins to kill his critics, including a mother of five children. And you claim his morality was God-centered? In what ways his actions were different from those of a criminal?

This is the problem with Islam. You Muslims have mistaken Satan for God. Everything Muhammad did was Satanic.

Sadly, this fallacy is not yours alone. It is shared by all the Muslim scholars.  In the book Reliance of the Traveller, a classic manual of Islamic sacred law by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (Died 1368 AD) we find a variation of this fallacy.  The author says, “since the source of legal rulings is Allah the question arises. Is it possible for the mind alone, unaided by Allah’s messengers and revealed scriptures to know rulings, such that someone not reached by a prophet’s invitation would be able through his own reason to know Allah’s rule concerning his actions? Or is this impossible? The position of the Asha’ris, the followers of Abul Hasan Ash’ari, is that the mind is unable to know the rule of Allah about the acts of those morally responsible except by means of His messengers.”

This is the position of all Muslims today, whether Sunni or Shiia. This is the fundamental flaw in Islam that proves its origin is not divine.   The message of Jesus can be logically understood to the extent that one can reach at the same conclusion without ever having heard his name.  Here are a few examples:

Love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! In that way you will be acting as true sons of your Father in heaven. (Matthew 5:43)

For if you forgive men for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. (Matthew 6:14)

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. (Matthew 7:12)

Do not judge or you too will be judged. (Matthew 7:1)

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? (Matthew 7:2)

He said unto the people who brought to him a prostitute asking what to do with her, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” (John 8:7)

These teachings resonate with our human sense of morality. They don’t contradict them.

The teachings of Muhammad contradict our sense of morality.  They go against every fiber of our being and what we perceive as good. It is impossible for one to come to them using one’s own commonsense and logic. One has to be indoctrinated in Islam.  Islam goes against human nature.  Here are a few examples:

Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you (Q. 2:216)

This verse admits that humans loath fighting, and yet Muhammad encourages his followers to go against their commonsense and nature and  prescribes fighting for them. If we ignore all the absurdities of the Quran and all the crimes of Muhammad, this verse alone is enough for any person with commonsense to realize Muhammad was not a true prophet of God but a charlatan cult leader.

Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah  (Q,3:28 )

This teaching is also contrary to our sense of morality. If children are not indoctrinated and don’t learn to hate others based on their race, religion or caste, they have no prejudice against each other.  Religious hatred is not natural. It must be indoctrinated, as this verse does.

Allah forgives not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgives anything else.  (Q. 4:48 )

A rational person would naturally think that God abhors doing injustice and cruelty more than anything else. But no, Allah will forgive any crime and even prescribes cruelty and injustice towards the unbelievers/ He is only worried about people setting a partner with him.  This makes no sense.  If there is no other god but Him, why this much paranoia?  How can a sane god be so jealous of non-exiting gods? It appears that Allah is not very much convinced that he is the only God. Could it be that he is not God but Satan and that is why he is so possessive?  This much insecurity is suspicious.  One must be indoctrinated to believe in such absurdity.

I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them. (Q. 8:12)

No sane person would come to this conclusion on his own. These teachings are contrary to human sense of morality. Assuming someone who is not a messenger of God wrote these verses. Isn’t it obvious that that person is evil?  Why should we accept them as divine when they are uttered by Muhammad?

The Islamic argument that man cannot understand God’s laws or morality without the aid from a messenger and that it is possible for God’s morality to be entirely contrary to human consciousness is a patent proof that Islam is not from God.   It would be utterly cynical and unjust for God to give man a sense of morality and a rational mind and then send a message that goes diametrically against them.  How can a just God make us believe that killing, raping, stealing, torturing and abusing others is wrong and then send a messenger who does all these things?

It is not difficult to see Muhammad fooled the ignorant people of his time.  What is incomprehensible is that in this day and age of enlightenment still there are over a billion otherwise normal and intelligent people who believe in that charlatan and think that scoundrell will take them to heaven. This is the tragedy Mr. Farzad.

 

Update: 2/24/2012  4:14 pm

ترجمه قسمت ابتدایی متن “اسلام دین نسبیت گرایی در اخلاق”

جناب فرزاد

شما می گویید من یا باید حجیت حدیث و سیره را به طور کامل قبول کنم و یا هیچ اعتباری برای آن قائل نباشم، پذیرش قسمتی از آن (که مدعایم را ثابت می کند) و رد کردن (قسمتی که به سودم نیست) مابقی آن نوعی عوامفریبی است.

من نگرانم استدلال شما معیوب و ناقص باشد. عملکرد من همانند عمل پیروان محمد و اسلام است. هدف من این است که ثابت کنم او یک دروغگو است. شیادی که ممکن است مغرورانه خود را ستایش و مدح کند. ستایشات او از خود از منظر خود او بررسی نمی شوند، پیروانش تنها قسمتی از عبارات او که می تواند بر علیه او استفاده شود و گناه او را اثبات کند پر رنگ می کنند.

تعداد زیادی معجزات افسانه گونه منسوب به محمد در سیره و حدیث وجود دارد و حتی در قرآن افسانه معراج را می بینیم، آیا ما باید اینها را قبول کنیم؟ وقتی من با استفاده از اعترافات خود او اثبات کنم او یک دروغگو بوده است، تمام ادعاهای پرمطمطراق او باطل خواهد شد.

این یک استدلال ساده است و من متعجبم که شما از آن تلقی مغالطه دارید (درک بهتری از جمله شما برای من حاصل نشد).

اجازه دهید تصور کنیم کسی از شما چیزی دزدیده است. شما او را دزد خطاب می کنید. او انکار می کند، اما زیر بازجویی او تناقض گویی می کند. سپس شما فقط با تعداد کمی از این تناقضات که ثابت می کند او یک دروغگو است گناهکار بودن او را اثبات می کنید. در این صورت سایر ادعاهای او در باره ستایش خویش و اثبات درستکاری اش نامربوط خواهند بود. تمام این تعریفات تنها خاطر نشان می کنند که او در مورد خود گرفتار تناقض گویی شده است. این آن چیزی است که من با استفاده از ادعای محمد در قرآن و سیره حدیث انجام خواهم داد.

در جواب قبلی من همچنین مسلمین را به استفاده از نسبیت گرایی اخلاقی در دفاع از سلوک غیر اخلاقی محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم متهم کردم. شما استدلال کردید که در ابتدا ما باید تصمیم بگیریم که آیا اخلاق خدامحور است یا انسان محور و این موضوعی تعیین کننده در حل مشکل رذائل نسبت داده شده به محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم است.

(and think this is crucialاین جمله مفهوم نشد(

اخلاق خدامحوری یک مغالطه منطقی است. این قضیه مبتلا به دور است. اجازه دهید یک مثال ساده بزنم تا این مغالطه را روشن کنم. اجازه دهید ادعا کنم که من پیامبر خدا هستم و قصد دارم که تعدادی کمی از مردم را فریب دهم. سپس پیروان خود دستور می دهم امور غیر اخلاقی از دیدگاه انسان را تصور کنند. به طور مثال به آنها می گویم به خانه مردم یورش برند مایملکشان را به غارت برند و به زنانشان تجاوز کنند به آنها می گویم به من اجازه دهند تا با دخترانشان آمیزش کنم به آنها می گویم باید هر کس به من بد می گوید را بکشند و غیره . آنها می دانند هر چیزی که من می گویم غیر اخلاقی و از رذائل است اما من به آنها می گویم شما نباید با ملاکهای معیوب اخلاقیات انسان محورانه در مورد دستورات من قضاوت کنند. ساکت شوید و آنچه من می گویم عمل کنید.

آیا چرند بودن استدلال مبتنی بر اخلاق خدامحور را مشاهده می کنید؟ این مغالطه توسط تمام رهبران کیش ها استفاده شده است که مثالهایی در متن از این گروهها از جمله “شکو آشارا” “چارلز مانسون” آورده شده که عینا همین استدلال را برای توجیه رفتارهای غیر اخلاقی خود به کار می برند.

فرض کنید خدا وجود دارد، اخلاق این خدا نمی تواند بر ضد اخلاق ما جریان داشته باشد. خدا به ما یک فهم اخلاقی مصون از خطا عطا کرده تا بین درست و نادرست را تشخیص دهیم این فهم قانون طلایی نامیده می شود. این قانون طلایی هر آنچه برای خود نمی پسندی را برای دیگران روا نمی دارد این قانون طلایی نامیده می شود زیرا ما می توانیم آن را در درون وجود خود حس کنیم این قانون بدیهی است و هزاران سال به طور واقعی در میان تمام مردم بوده است (اسلام، نازیسم، فاشیسم و کمونیسم استثنا شده اند). قانون طلایی پایه و بنیان تمام اخلاقیات و فضائل است. هر چیزی که بر ضد آن باشد غیر اخلاقی و از رذائل است.

جواب

جناب سینا

قبل از شروع در جواب دو نکته را متذکر می شوم اول اینکه لطف کنید برای بیان یک موضوع از توضیح بسیار زیاد و بیان آن به صورت های گوناگون اجتناب کنید و خلاصه و لب مطلب را کاملا مستدل و کوتاه بیان کنید این جمله معروف است که “خیر الکلام ما قل و دل” یعنی بهترین سخن آن است که کوتاه و گویا باشد، پر حجم کردن نوشته اگر صاحب آن را به پر گویی و حرافی متهم نکند، چیزی به وزانت آن نخواهد افزود.

دوم اینکه به دلیل فوق و به دلیل اینکه احساس کردم شما به درک درستی از مدعای من نرسیده اید و ادعای دیگری را رد کرده اید تنها قسمتی از متن شما را ترجمه کردم و جواب آن را بیان می کنم و بقیه را به روزهای بعد موکول می کنم.

اما جواب از قسمت اول در مورد معتبر بودن و نبودن سیره و حدیث:

ادعا کردید که با اثبات کذاب بودن پیامبر رحمت صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم، تمام آنچه در سیره و حدیث در باره محسنات اخلاق او آمده است را تبدیل به تناقضاتی می کنید که هیچ ارزش مثبتی برای اثبات مدعای او و سایر پیروان او نداشته باشد. به قول ما بسم الله، دست از کلی گویی برداشته و مدعای خود را اثبات کنید، محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم در دوران جاهلیت معروف به محمد امین بوده است، از همین دوران که مشتمل بر دو سوم از مدت عمر شریف آن حضرت است شروع کنید و با استفاده از سیره معتبر چند مورد از دروغگویی های ایشان را در دوران قبل از بعثت و سیزده سال قبل از هجرت ثابت کنید تا نوبت به ده سال پایانی عمر او برسد، البته بعد از انجام آنچه که در جواب از قسمت دوم از شما درخواست خواهم کرد چرا که آن بحث حکم پایه و اساس برای این موضوع را دارد.

جواب از قسمت دوم:

برداشت شما از کلام من کاملا نادرست است لذا عنوانی که برای این موضوع انتخاب نموده اید و به دنبال آن جوابی که بیان کرده اید کاملا نامربوط است. مدعای من این نیست که اخلاقیات دو نوع است اخلاقیات از دید انسان و اخلاقیات از دید خداوند، بلکه منظور من این بود که نگاه به هستی دو گونه است یکی اینکه اصالت را به وجود خدا بدهیم و این منظر به هستی بنگریم دیگر اینکه انسان را اصل تصور کنیم و همه چیز را با توجه به نفع و ضرر او بسنجیم. اگر اصالت را تنها لایق خدا دانستیم تعریف ما از اخلاقیات در بعضی از موارد (تنها در بعضی از موارد) با زمانی که اصالت را به وجود انسان می دهیم متفاوت و گاه متعارض می شود. مثلا موضوع قتل و کشتن از دید دوم با توجه به اینکه موجب حذف انسان از هستی می شود کاری غیر اخلاقی است و تنها هنگام دفاع مجاز شمرده شود اما از دیدگاه اول با توجه به ا ینکه زندگی در دنیا و آخرت یک جا دیده می شود و زندگی در دنیا از جهت زندگی بودنش تقریبا ارزشی معادل صفر دارد قتل و کشتن معنا و مفهومی دیگر پیدا می کند بر اساس این نظر مرگ انسان چیزی بیش از عبور از یک گذرگاه و عبور از یک مرحله به مرحله دیگر نیست؛ اگر قرار باشد انسانی در دنیا در راستای رسیدن به سعادت و کمال تلاش نکند و یا علاوه بر این مانع سعادت و تلاش دیگران شود بسیار به نفع اوست که هر چه سریعتر از این مرحله عبور کند و یا عبور داده شود.

آنچه در این مرحله از بحث از شما انتظار می رود این است که مدعای خود بر انسان محور بودن هستی را با دلایل محکم و قابل قبول اثبات کنید و نقائص و تناقضات منطقی خدا محور بودن آن بیان نمایید.

در پایان این قسمت باز هم خواهش می کنم بحث را دسته بندی کرده و از حاشیه رفتن زیاد اجتناب نمایید

Mr. Sina

Before answering you, I’d like to request to please refrain from repeating the same arguments in different ways.  It would suffice to present the gist of your argument briefly. There is a saying, “the best speech is the shortest one.”  If excessive wordiness is not an indication of the speaker’s garrulity it adds nothing to the subject.

Secondly, partly because of the above and partly because I thought you did not grasp my argument and instead refuted another argument that I had not raised, I only translated a portion of your write up.  I will translate the rest in the coming days.

Now, here is my response regarding the authenticity of the Sira and the Hadith.

You wrote that by proving the prophet (PBUH) a liar, all his claims and the claims of his followers about his virtues mentioned in the Hadith and Sira become invalid.

Very good! Instead of making unsubstantiated claims please prove your accusation.  The prophet (PBUH) was known as Amin (honest) in the pre Islamic era of ignorance (jahelliyah).  Starting from the time before his anointment and the thirteen yeas after it, please show us some of his lies that you find in the hadith and Sira and then tell us about the last ten years of his life.  But first read the following as it is fundamental to this question.

You completely misunderstood my words.  Therefore the title that you have chosen for this debate and your response are irrelevant.

I did not say that there are two kinds of moralities, i.e. a morality from man’s perspective and morality from God’s perspective.  What I said is that the perception of reality is of two kinds.  One is to view God as the focal point of existence and evaluate the world from this perspective and the other is to consider man as the focal point and evaluate everything based on their utility to him, i.e. whether they are beneficial to man or hurt him.

If we consider God as the only focal point, the objective of existence, our definition of morality in some cases (and only in some cases) will be different from what we understand as morality from human point of view.  For example, killing, from the latter (human) perspective, which results in the destruction of a human life, is seen as unethical and acceptable only in the case of self-defense.   But from the former (God’s) perspective, life has almost zero value, because life in this world and the next is not separated, but it is a continuum.  From this perspective, killing takes an entirely different meaning and death becomes nothing more than a passage from one state to another.  If a person does not endeavor to attain beatitude and perfection, and hinders others from attaining beatitude, it is in his own interest that he passes from this stage of life to the next as quickly as possible.

What I expect from you is to prove convincingly that the world is human-centered and disprove the claim that it is God-centered.

At the end I plead again to be concise and avoid beating around the bushes.

.

Mr. Farzad,

As for your first claim that Muhammad was known as Amin before his be’that (anointment) by everyone and Amin means honest, I am afraid this is a lie that Muslims have been repeating so much that now they believe in it.  I have debunked this claim in my book, Understanding Muhammad and I quote.

Muslims claim that Muhammad was known to be an honest man as the Meccans called him Amin. This claim is disingenuous. Amin means trustee. It was the title of those who sold and bought merchandise on behalf of others.  One is called school trustee, or city trustee because of his profession.  The title “Amin” is a label for every sort of profession.  Here are some examples: Amin El-Makataba (Trustee of the library); Amin El-Shortaa (Police Trustee); and Majlass El-Omnaa (Council of Trustees.)

Abul Aas, husband of Zeinab, Muhammad’s daughter, was also called Amin because of his profession.  He did not convert until he was forced to. Muhammad ordered Zeinab to leave him unless he converted.

Muhammad acted as the trustee (Amin) for Khadijah once, when he took her merchandise to Damascus and sold it on her behalf. Had the Meccans believed Muhammad to be trustworthy they would not have derided him when he told them that he had received a message from God.  According to Muhammad’s own admission made in the Quran, those who knew him best called him a liar and a madman, (Q.15:6) a charge that he denied by making his Allâh testify: “Therefore continue to remind, for by the grace of your Lord, you are not a soothsayer, or a madman.” (Q.52:29)

The Sira does not give much information about Muhammad before his claim to prophecy.  There is no data for me to show that he was a liar then. However, there is plenty of evidence that show he was a liar after his claim.  All my articles show he was a liar. There is no point for me to repeat. Just read any of my articles. Here is one example: http://alisina.org/is-muhammad-mentioned-in-the-bible/

 

You say I misunderstood you completely and that you did not say God-centered morality and man-centered morality are different, but what you said is that our perceptions of these two moralities are sometimes different.

I don’t think I misunderstood you.  It is the same.  God’s morality should not be perceived as evil. If it is, humans can’t be blamed for rejecting it.  A real god can’t play such tricks on humans.    If the conduct of a true messenger of God can appear as evil, how can we know he is from God?

Even though you object that I repeat the same thing more than necessary, it is clear you still did not understand that I already refuted the claim of God-centered morality as circular reasoning. Please refer to the example I made about me claiming to be a prophet and acting unethically.  This argument is debunked.  The burden of proof is on you to show that the world is God-centered.

You say in the eyes of God, human life is worth nothing because He does not see a separation between this world and the next.  This claim is also a fallacy.  First you have to prove the existence of God.  Next you have to prove that Allah is God. And then you have to prove that Muhammad was a true prophet of this god. You have done none of the above.  You are engaging in the fallacy of Begging the Question. Your premises include the claim that the conclusion is true. Forget about proving the existance of God. Let us take that for garanted. Please prove the other two claims.

Without providing evidence to any of the above claims you come to the conclusion that it is in the best interest of those who disagree with you to be killed.  The absurdity of this claim is self-evident, but ruefully, it is not so to Muslims.  Therefore, allow me to explain the obvious.

What escapes you and your co-religionists is that everyone believes to be right.  According to you, I am not attaining felicity and perfection because I don’t believe in Islam and since I write about my views I am hindering others from attaining them too. Therefore, it is in my best interest to be killed as quickly as possible.

There are two problems:

a)      Let us assume that your twisted way of thinking is right and that Islam bestows beatitude to humanity and those who don’t want to believe in it must be killed.   Why your god can’t kill them personally?  Why does he need henchmen to do his dirty work?

I have been writing against Islam for about 14 years. Thanks to my writings thousands of Muslims have left Islam.  According to your diabolic logic, Allah wants Muslims to kill me.  Why can’t he do this himself?

A Muslim challenged me to a mubahila and promised that within 90 days I will be a dead man. He prayed and asked other Muslims to pray.  That is about four years ago.  I never heard from him again.  I hope he is not dead.

Your god has no power.  He depends on his henchmen.  How is he different from a Mafia godfather? 

 

b)     We the non-Muslims, believe that Muslims are trapped in the dark pit of ignorance. They are the ones who are living in misery and causing pain to others.   All we have to do is to point at the wretched Muslim world to prove our point.  So based on your warped Islamic logic, we the non-Muslims must kill the Muslims.

You see, we feel exactly the way you feel.  We feel we are right and happy, and Muslims are miserebel and a hindrance to the happiness of mankind.  Tell me why we should not give you a taste of your own remedy and get the world rid of Muslims and Islam?

The reason you Muslims are not killing us yet wholesale, is because you are weak.  You will if you become strong.  We are strong now and we can squish you like cockroaches.  We can send your world into Stone Age in mater of hours.  Tell me why we shouldn’t?

You think it is divine to kill the unbelievers. Why do you think it is wrong for the unbelievers to kill you first in self-defense?

This is where the Golden Rule comes into play – something you Muslims don’t understand.  The reason non-Muslims are not killing you is because we believe in the Golden Rule.  And the reason you exposed your evil thoughts with a straight face is because you don’t believe in the Golden Rule.

Let us assume that Satan exists and he wants to destroy mankind.  According to the scriptures of all the religions he has no power except in deceiving people.  Let us say Satan asks you to advise him the best way to destroy mankind using his only faculty which is deception. What better ways can you think of than inventing a false religion that calls the believers to kill the unbelievers?  

Please answer these four questions. I highlighted them so you don’t forget.

Update: 2012/02/24,  11.00 PM

ترجمهبا توجه به نخستن ادعای شما در مورد اینکه محمد ص قبل از بعثت نزد همگان به عنوان امین شناخته می شده است و امین به معنای درستکار است منترجمهبا توجه به نخستن ادعای شما در مورد اینکه محمد ص قبل از بعثت نزد همگان به عنوان امین شناخته می شده است و امین به معنای درستکار است من متاسفم، این دروغی است که مسلمانها به قدری آن را تکرار کرده اند که اکنون همه آن را باور کرده اند. من در کتاب خود “شناخت محمد” این ا دعا را رد کرده ام و گفته ام مسلمین ادعا می کنند که محمد ص فرد درستکاری شناخته می شد تا جایی که اهل مکه او را امین می نامیدند. این ادعایی نادرست است. معنای کلمه امین امانتدار است این کلمه عنوانی است برای کسانی که از طرف دیگران کالا خرید و فروش می کنند. بعضی امانتدار مدرسه نامیده می شوند یا امانتدار شهر چون این شغل آنهاست. عنوان امین نشانه ای است برای هر نوعی از کار و پیشه. به طور مثال گفته می شود امین المکاتب (امانتدار کتابخانه) امین الشرطه (امانتدار پلیس) و مجلس الامناء ( مجمع امانتداران).ابوالعاص شوهر زینب دختر محمد ص نیز به دلیل شغلی که داشت امین نامیده می شد. او ایمان نیاورد تا زمانی که مجبور شد. محمد ص به دخترش زینب دستور داد اگر ابوالعاص ایمان نیاورد از او جدا شود.محمد ص یکبار برای خدیجه امانتداری کرد، زمانی که او مال التجاره خدیجه را گرفت و آن را در دمشق از طرف او فروخت. اگر اهل مکه باور کرده بودند که محمد مورد وثوق است نباید هنگامی که به آنها گفت پیامی از طرف خدا دریافت کرده است او را مسخره می کردند. بنا بر تصدیق خود محمد در قرآن، آنها که او را خوب می شناختند او را دروغگو و دیوانه نامیدند و در آیه ای دیگر آمده که پس تذكّر ده، كه به لطف پروردگارت تو كاهن و مجنون نيستى.سیره اطلاعات زیادی در باره محمد قبل از ادعای پیامبریش به ما نمی دهد. اطلاعاتی وجود ندارد که من نشان دهم او در آن زمان دروغگو بوده است اما دلایل متعددی وجود دارد که نشان می دهد او بعد از ادعای پیامبری دروغگو بوده است. تمام مقالات من نشان می دهد که او یک دروغگو بوده است. دلیلی برای تکرار نمی بینم، تنها یکی از مقالات مرا بخوانید، به طور مثال به این لینک رجوع کنید:
http://alisina.org/is-muhammad-mentioned-in-the-b…
شما گفتید که درک من از کلام شما کاملا غلط بوده است، و شما نگفته اید که اخلاق خدامحورانه با اخلاق انسان محورانه با یکدیگر فرق می کنند بلکه آنچه گفته اید این است که دریافت ما از این دو اخلاق گاهی متفاوت است.من فکر نمی کنم که برداشت نادرستی از حرف شما کرده باشم. هر دو برداشت یکی است. از اخلاق خدایی نباید زشتی ادراک شود. اگر اینچنین باشد جایی برای ملامت انسانهایی که آن را نپذیرند نیست. اگر رفتار یک پیامبر راستین قابلیت تطبییق بر زشتی داشته باشد، چگونه ما می توانیم بفهمیم او از طرف خدا آمده است؟ولو ا ینکه شما معترضید که من یک موضوع واحد را بیش از آنچه لازم است تکرار می کنم به نظر می رسد هنوز متوجه نشده اید که من هم اکنون ثابت کرده ا م که ادعای اخلاقیات خدامحورانه به دور منطقی مبتلاست.شما گفته اید از منظر خداوند زندگی انسان ارزشی ندارد زیرا از منظر خدا تمایز و جدایی بین این دنیا و دنیای دیگر نیست. این مدعا نیز یک مغالطه است. شما باید ابتدا وجود خدا را ثابت کنی سپس لازم است ثابت کنی که الله همان خداست و در آخر ثابت کنی که محمد ص یک پیامبر راستین از طرف این خداست. شما هیچکدامیک از کارهای فوق را نکرده اید.بلکه گرفتار مغالطه التماس پرسش و پاسخ شده اید. قضیه شما شامل این ادعاست که نتیجه درست است.بدون ارائه استدلال در مورد هریک از ادعاهای فوق نتیجه گرفته اید که ….. هر کس موافق شما موافق شما نباشد باید کشته شود. آنچه که شما و هم کیشانتان را می رهاند این است که هر کس ایمان بیاورد درست عمل کرده است. بنابر نظر شما، من به سعادت و کمال نمی رسم چرا که اسلام نیاورده ام و از آنجایی که من در باره نظراتم می نویسم مانع رسیدن دیگران به کمال می شوم به همین دلیل به نفع من است که هر چه زودتر کشته شوم.در این اینجا دو مشکل وجود دارد:الف) اجازه دهید فرض کنیم که نوع تفکر پر پیچ و خم شما درست است، و اینکه اسلام سعادت را به انسانیت ارزانی داشته است و کسانی که نمی خواهند ایمان بیاورند باید کشته شوند. چرا خدایت به شخصه نمی تواند آنها را بکشد؟ چرا او نیاز به بندگانی دارد که این کار کثیف را برای او انجام دهند؟من نزدیک 14 سال است که بر ضد اسلام می نویسم در سایه نوشته های من هزاران نفر از مسلمانان اسلام را ترک کرده اند بنابر منطق شیطانی شما الله خواسته که مسسلمین مرا بکشند چرا او خود این کار را نکرده است؟یکی از مسلمانان مرا دعوت به مباهله کرد و و قول داد که در طول مدت نود روز من خواهم مرد او دعا کرد و از دیگر مسلمین نیز خواست دعا کنند. از این ماجرا حدود چهار سال می گذرد تاکنون از او خبری نشنیده ام ،امیدوارم که زنده باشد.خدای تو قدرتی ندارد. او متکی به بندگان خویش است او چه فرقی با یک سرکرده مافیا دارد؟ب) ما غیر مسلمانان معتقدیم که آنها در چاهی از نادانی به دام افتاده اند. آنها کسانی اند که در بیچارگی و تهیدستی زندگی می کنند و موجب آزار دیگران می شوند. تمام آنچه ما باید انجام دهیم این است که روی دنیای تاسف آور مسلمین تمرکز کنیم تا نظرات خود را اثبات کنیم. لذا بنابر منطق اسلامی منحرف شما ما غیر مسلمین باید مسلمانان را بکشیم.می بینید که احساس ما همانند احساس شماست. ما احساس می کنیم که بر حقیم و خوشحالیم و مسلمانان مانع خوشی و شادمانی انسانیت اند. به من بگویید چرا ما نباید راه درمان شما را در مورد خودتان به کار گیریم و دنیا را از وجود اسلام و مسلیمن پاک کنیم؟دلیلی که شما مسلمانان به طور یکجا ما را نمی کشید این است که ضعیف هستید. اگر قدرتمند شوید این کار را خواهید کرد. ما هم اکنون قوی هستیم و می توانیم شما را مانند سوسک حمام له کنیم. ما می توانیم شما را در عرض چند ساعت به عصر حجر بفرستیم. به من بگو چرا ما این کار را نمی کنیم؟شما فکر می کنید که این خدایی است که ناباوران را بکشید. چرا فکر می کنید که اگر آنها در مقام دفاع از خود شما را بکشند کار غلطی کرده اند؟اینجاست که قانون طلایی نقش خود را بازی می کند چیزی که شما مسلمین آن را نمی فهمید دلیلی که غیر مسلمانان شما را نمی کشند این است که ما به این قانون طلایی عقیده داریم و دلیل اینکه شما به صراحت افکار شیطانی تان را آشکار می کنید این است که به این قانون اعتقاد ندارید.اجازه دهید فرض کنیم شیطان وجود دارد و می خواهد انسانیت را نابود کند بنابر متون مقدس تمام مذاهب او قدرتی به جز فریب دادن مردمان ندارد. اجازه دهید از شیطان بخواهیم که از شما درخواست کند بهترین راه برای نابودی انسانیت را با توجه به تنها توانایی او یعنی فریب دادن به او توصیه کنید. چه راهی بهتر از جعل یک مذهب غلط که دعوت به کشتن غیر مسلمانان کند به فکر شما می رسد؟لطفا این چهار سوال را پاسخ دهید. آنها را پر رنگ کردم تا فراموش نکنید.اجازه دهید ابتدا نوشته شما را خلاصه کنم:1) واژه امین به معنای درستکار نیست بلکه تنها عنوان یک شغل و حرفه است پس اینکه محمد را امین می گفته اند اشاره به شغل او بوده نه صفت امانت و درستکاری او دلیل این مطلب این است که اکر مکیان او را امین به معنای درستکار می دانستند وقتی ادعای رسالت کرد او را تصدیق می کردند اما نه تنها این کار را نکردند بلکه او را کاهن و دیوانه خطاب نمودند.2) دروغگو بودن پیامبر تا قبل از رسالتش به دلیل کمی اطلاعات از آن دوره قابل اثبات نیست آنچه مهم است اثبات این صفت در زمانی است که ادعای پیامبری کرده است.3) فرقی بین این دو قضیه نیست:الف) اخلاقیات از منظر خداوند معنایی متفاوت از اخلاق از منظر انسانها دارد.ب) اخلاقیات از منظر هستی شناسی خدامحوری در بعضی از موارد معنایی متفاوت از اخلاقیات از منظر هستی شناسی انسان محوردارد.پس انسانها حق دارند بر اساس فهم خود از اخلاقیات از دستورات اخلاقی خداوند سرپیچی کرده و هر کس بر اساس این دیدگاه مدعی پیامبری شود باید تکذیب شود.4) شما قبل از اثبات وجود خدا نتیجه گرفته اید که اخلاقیات مبتنی بر خدامحوری حق و غیر آن باطل است و این یک مغالطه است.5) مسلمانان معتقدند هر کس ایمان نیاورد و هر کس که مانع سعادت دیگران شود باید کشته شود واینکه اکنون ما را نمی کشند به دلیل ضعف آنهاست.6) رمز اینکه غیر مسلمانان با توجه به قدرتی که دارند، به قضیه فوق اعتقاد ندارند ا ین است که پایبند به قانون طلایی هستند و الا بر اساس دیدگاه شما باید مسلمین را قتل عام کرده و یا به خاک فلاکت بیافکنند.جناب سینامن متوجه نگرانی پنهان شما در خالی بودن دستتان در استدلال بر مبانی اصلی بحث هستم لذا کاملا درک می کنم که چرا از تمرکزبر روی مقدمات فرار کرده و مستقیم به نتیجه مطلوب خود که همان تنقیص مسلمین و پیامبر آنهاست پرداخته و آن را مدام با عبارات مختلف تکرار می کنید؛ نگران نباشید اجازه دهید آهسته آهسته و قدم به قدم جلو رفته مبانی بحث را مستحکم کرده و در آخر بر اساسی مبانی عقلی و منطقی به نتیجه گیری در جزئیات بپردازیم.هزار و چهارصد سال پیش شخصی ادعای پیامبری کرده، مدعای اصلی او این است که هستی دارای خداست و هستی بدون خدا (که در قرآن معرفی شده) بی معناست. بر مدعای خویش دلیل آورده و عده کثیری استدلال او را پذیرفته و ادعای او را تصدیق کرده اند.حال شما مدعی هستید که نیازی به خدای او نیست و نگاه به هستی بر اساس محور قرار دادن انسان کاملا معنادار است.لطفا مدعای خود را اثبات کنید. اگر بتوانید چنین کنید من همین جا به بحث خاتمه داده و مدعای شما را با شجاعت تمام می پذیرم.اما جواب:1) در کتاب لغت لسان العرب در مورد ریشه ” امن ” چنین آمده است: أمن: الأَمانُ و الأَمانةُ بمعنى. و الأَمْنُ: ضدُّ الخوف. و الأَمانةُ: ضدُّ الخِيانة.در قرآن در وصف شهر مکه آمده است : وَ هذَا الْبَلَدِ الْأَمينِو در وصف جبرئیل : نَزَلَ بِهِ الرُّوحُ الْأَمينُو در توصیف حضرت موسی علیه السلام از زبان دختران شعیب گفته شده: قالَتْ إِحْداهُما يا أَبَتِ اسْتَأْجِرْهُ إِنَّ خَيْرَ مَنِ اسْتَأْجَرْتَ الْقَوِيُّ الْأَمينُشهر مکه نمی تواند شغل امانتداری را انتخاب کند و ملائکه نیز نیازی به حرفه و پیشه ندارند و حضرت موسی علیه السلام در آن زمان که آواره بوده و قبل از آن هم که نازپرورده دستگاه فرعون و بعید می دانم چون او نیز به تجارت از طرف کسی رفته او را امین نامیده باشند.شما نمی توانید با مراجعه به فرهنگ لغت انگلیسی به درک درستی از کلمه امین برسید و آن را با کلمهTrusteeمعادل کنید. زبان عربی به شهادت ادیبان کاملترین زبان دنیاست و هر واژه ای در این زبان بار معنای خاص خود دارد لذا اگر کسی ادعا کند دین اسلام کامل ترین دین است چون به کاملترین زبانها نازل شده این ادعا جای بررسی دارد.مضافا که در زبان عربی برای بیان یک شغل از صیغه فعال استفاده می شود مانند بقال (سبزی فروش) حداد (آهنگر) خباز (نانوا) و ….

امین نیز اگر عنوان شغل و حرفه بود باید به همین صیغه بیان می شد.

2) اگر دروغگو بودن پیامبر خارج از زندگی پیامبرانه او قابل اثبات نباشد که نیست آنگاه اثبات این موضوع با توسل به انکار نبوت او مانند این است که گفته شود او دروغگو است چون ادعا می کند که پیامبر است، اگر صرف ادعای پیامبر بودن مساوی با دروغگو بودن باشد حق با شماست اما شما هنوز چنین چیزی را اثبات نکرده اید. البته اثبات آن را در این مرحله از شما نمی خواهم چون این یک موضوع فرعی است و اثبات آن قبل از ثابت کردن مبانی اصلی کاری عبث و بیهوده است.

3) فاصله بین این دو قضیه از زمین تا آسمان است بر اساس یکی زندگی می کنیم که زندگی کرده باشیم و بر اساس دیگری زندگی می کنیم که به سعادت در آخرت برسیم. یکی ما را حبس و درنهایت دفن در زمین می کند و دیگری دست ما را در دست آسمان می گذارد بعد از تلاش برای ا ثبات مدعای خود متوجه این نکته خواهید شد.

4) من چنین نتیجه ای نگرفته ام بلکه تنها برای شروع بحث مدعای خود و مدعای شما را تصور کرده ام همین و بس، هر گاه نوبت من رسید که مدعای خود را اثبات کنم حتما چنین خواهم کرد.

5) من تنها یک مثال جهت بیان درک متفاوت دو دیدگاه از موضوع واحد، زده ا م و متاسفانه شما از این کج سلیقگی من جوگیر شده و یک منبر مفصل رفته اید غافل از اینکه اینجا مجلس سخنرانی و موعظه نیست لذا وارد جزئیاتی که هنوز نوبت به آنها نرسیده نمی شوم.

6) این موضوع بیش از آنکه پایه و اساس دینی و مذهبی داشته باشد موضوعی سیاسی است تا آنجا که من می دانم در هیچ دین و مذهب پدر و مادر داری قتل عام غیر باوران به آن دین و مذهب نیامده است و باز شما اینجا هم جوگیر شده و داد سخن داده اید.

اما در مورد قانون طلایی (که هنوز نوبت بررسی و صحبت در باره آن نیز فرا نرسیده است) که فکر می کنید در دنیای اسلام کسی پی به آن نبرده است کاملا در اشتباهید زیرا اولا قانونی میلیاردها برابر با ارزش تر از قانون طلایی در قرآن آمده است:

إِنْ أَحْسَنْتُمْ أَحْسَنْتُمْ لِأَنْفُسِكُمْ وَ إِنْ أَسَأْتُمْ فَلَها (اسراء 17)

اگر نيكى كنيد، به خودتان نيكى مى‏كنيد و اگر بدى كنيد باز هم به خود مى‏كنيد

این آیه نه تنها بدی کردن در حق دیگران را نکوهش می کند بلکه می گوید با بدی کردن در حق دیگران به آنها بدی نکرده اید بلکه در حق خود بدی کرده اید.

قانون طلایی قانونی کاسبکارانه است؛ چون نمی خواهم کسی در حق من بدی کند در حق کسی بدی نمی کنم و این یک معامله تمام عیار است که کمی تا قسمتی از اخلاق به دور است.

ثانیا عین این قانون طلایی شما در احادیث ما آمده است:

در کتاب تحف العقول صفحه 14 پیامبر رحمت به علی علیه السلام وصیت کرده است: يَا عَلِيُّ مَا كَرِهْتَهُ لِنَفْسِكَ فَاكْرَهْ لِغَيْرِكَ‏ وَ مَا أَحْبَبْتَهُ لِنَفْسِكَ فَأَحْبِبْهُ لِأَخِيك‏

یا علی آنچه برای خود روا نمی داری برای دیگری هم روا مدار و آنچه بر خود می پسندی برای برادرت نیز بخواه.

و در وصیت حضرت علی به پسرش امام حسن علیما السلام آمده است: أَيْ بُنَيَّ تَفَهَّمْ وَصِيَّتِي وَ اجْعَلْ نَفْسَكَ مِيزَاناً فِيمَا بَيْنَكَ وَ بَيْنَ غَيْرِكَ فَأَحْبِبْ لِغَيْرِكَ‏ مَا تُحِبُّ لِنَفْسِكَ وَ اكْرَهْ لَهُ مَا تَكْرَهُ لِنَفْسِكَ وَ لَا تَظْلِمْ كَمَا لَا تُحِبُّ أَنْ تُظْلَمَ وَ أَحْسِنْ كَمَا تُحِبُّ أَنْ يُحْسَنَ إِلَيْكَ وَ اسْتَقْبِحْ مِنْ نَفْسِكَ مَا تَسْتَقْبِحُ مِنْ غَيْرِكَ وَ ارْضَ مِنَ النَّاسِ لَكَ مَا تَرْضَى بِهِ لَهُمْ مِنْكَ

فرزندم وصیت مرا به گوش جان بسپار، نفس خود را میزان و معیار جهت سنجش بین خود و دیگری قرار بده، دوست بدار برای دیگری آنچه برای خود دوست داری و مپسند آنچه را برای خود نمی پسندی، به کسی ظلم نکن همانطور که دوست نداری کسی به تو ظلم کند و نیکی کن همانطور که دوست داری در حق تو نیکی کنند، اگر چیزی را برای خود زشت می شماری برای دیگری هم زشت بشمار به همان مقدار که می خواهی مردم از تو راضی شوند از آنها راضی شو. همان صفحه 74

جواب سوالات شما را بعد از روشن شدن مبانی اساسی بحث به طور مفصل خواهم داد البته اگر دقت کنید در لابلای بحث ها جواب خود را پیدا خواهید کرد.

در پایان از همه دوستانی که سوالاتی دارند خواهش می کنم تا پایان بحث من با جناب سینا صبر کنند اگر جواب آن را نیافتند در خدمت آنها خواهم بود.

بنابر هر دلیل اگر اصراری بر پرسیدن مطلبی دارید آن را ایمیل کنید زیرا من فرصت خواندن کامنت ها را ندارم.

mahigoli@hotma.com

Mr. Sina,

I am quite aware of your inability to produce logical arguments in defense of your position.  I understand the reason you avoid focusing on preambles and draw your desired conclusion right from the start, which is disparaging Muslims and their prophet, and repeating constantly the same things in different words.   Please don’t worry. Let us proceed slowly and step by step and let us delineate the structure of our debate first. Eventually, we will get to the conclusion with logic and reasoning. Then we can deal with details.

Fourteen hundred years ago, a man claimed to be a prophet.  His main contention was that the world has a creator and that the universe without God (who is named in the Quran) is meaningless.  To prove his claim he presented reasoning and a large number of people accepted his reasoning and believed in his claim.

Now you say that there is no need for a god and that Man is the pivotal point of existence, not God.

Please prove your claim. If you can prove it, I will end the debate right here and courageously will accept your claim.

Here is the rest of my response:

You say, amin does not mean truthful, but trustee, and that it was the title given to merchants and hence it is a profession and not an attribute.  Therefore, Muhammad was called amin because of his profession and not because he was known to be truthful.  And you argue that if the Meccans thought Muhammad was truthful, they would have accepted his claim when he told them he is a prophet.  Not only they did not accept him they called him soothsayer and madman.

My answer is that the root of the word amin is amn which means safety, the opposite of fear and the opposite of treachery.

The Quran describes the city of Mecca as: This is an amin city

It describes Gabriel as, “نَزَلَ بِهِ الرُّوحُ الْأَمِينُ   The Faithful Spirit has descended with it, (Q.4:174)

In the description of Moses it says,

قَالَتْ إِحْدَهُمَا يَأبَتِ اسْتَءجِرْهُ إِنَّ خَيْرَ مَنْ اسْتَءجَرْتَ الْقَوِيُّ الْأَمِينُ

“One of the two women said: O my father! Hire him! For the best (man) that thou canst hire in the strong, the trustworthy (amin).”

The city of Mecca cannot be a profession.  The Angle also does not have any need to work as a trustee.  And Moses, when still a wanderer and before that when he grew up in the court of Pharaoh in opulence did not need to become a trustee merchant.  You can’t consult an English dictionary to understand the true meaning of the word amin and say it means trustee.

The Arabic language is acknowledged by all the linguists, as the most perfect language in the world.  Every word in this language has a specific meaning.  Therefore, if someone claims that Islam is the most perfect religion because it has been revealed in the most perfect language, that claim deserves consideration.

In addition, in Arabic most professions are described in a single word, for example baqqal means grocer, haddad means smith and khabbaz means baker.  If Amin was also a profession then it would have rhymed with the above words.

2-Your second argument is that there is not enough material about Muhammad prior to his claim to prophesy, hence it is not possible to prove or disprove he was a liar.  But we have a lot of documentation to show he lied after he claimed to a prophet.

My answer:

If it cannot be proven that Muhammad was a liar out of the sphere of his claim to prophecy then proving him to be a liar by disproving his claim will be difficult.  It is like saying he is a liar because he claims to be a prophet.  If the claim to prophethood is equated to lying then you are right.  But you haven’t proven such thing yet.  Of course we must leave that argument for later and I am not asking you for it now.  That is a secondary issue and to discussing it before setting the norms of discussion is futile.

3- Your third argument is that there is no difference between god centered morality being essentially different or perceived different.  Therefore, humans have the right to reject the so called god-centered morality if it contradicts their perception of morality. If any person claims to be a prophet of God and practices a morality contrary to what we human perceive as immoral, that person is an impostor and not a prophet of God.

My response is:

The difference between these two definitions is astronomical.  One is for our life in this world and the other is for our beatitude in the next world.  The former will lead us to our death and burial in the ground and the latter will take us to heaven.  After you try to prove your claim, you will come to understand this point.

4- Your next argument is that I have jumped to speculate about the morality of God  before proving the existence of God or that Allah is God or that Muhammad is a messenger of God and that is a fallacy.

My response is:

I did not come to such conclusion.  Just for the sake of our debate I described your claim and my claim.  That is all.  When it comes the time for me to prove my claim, I will certainly do so.

5- You said Muslims believe that whoever does not believe in Islam and whoever hinders others to converting to Islam must be killed and the reason they are not doing it in grand scale now is because they are weak.

My response:

I only made one example to explain the difference between God centered morality and man centered morality. Unfortunately, you took advantage of this example and pontificated about the lack of morality in Islam.  But this is not the time to discuss that.  I will not enter into details later.

6- You wrote the reason the non-Muslims don’t want to kill the Muslims even though they have the power to do so, is because they follow the Golden Rule. Had they had a doctrine similar to Islam they would have killed Muslims and violated their rights, as Muslims do where they are the majority and in power.

My response:

These killings are not as much religiously motivates as they are politically motivate.  As far as I know no real religion prescribes killing the unbelievers.  Again, you climbed on your high pulpit and preached to the coir.

Now, in regards to the Golden Rule, it is not yet the time to discuss this matter, if you think no one in the Muslim world has ever thought about it you are wrong. There is a law in the Quran that is billions of times superior and better than the Golden Rule.

إِنْ أَحْسَنتُمْ أَحْسَنتُمْ لِأَنفُسِكُمْ وَإِنْ أَسَأْتُمْ فَلَهَا

“If you do good, you will do good for your own souls, and if you do evil, it shall be for them. “

The Golden rule is transactional – Because I don’t want others to treat me badly I don’t treat others badly.  This is a transaction pure and simple that has a trace of morality in it.

Furthermore, a similar golden rule of yours can be found in our ahadith.

In the book   تحف العقول page 14 it says, “O Ali, don’t chose when you would not choose for yourself and favor for your brother what you favor for yourself.”

In his will to his son Hassan, Ali said: “My son, hearken to my advice.  Make your own self the measure between thyself and others.  Love for others what you love for yourself and don’t do to him what you don’t like yourself.  Don’t treat others cruelly just as you don’t like to be treated cruelly; and be kind to others just as you would like others to be kind to you.  If you consider anything unpleasant for yourself don’t choose it for others and just as you wish others to be content of you be content of them.  P. 74.

I will reply to your questions after we clarify the structure of our debate.  Of course, if you pay attention you will find your responses in what I have written already.

Finally, I’d like to request all the friends who may want to ask questions from me to wait until the end of this debate. If you don’t find your response at the end, I will be at your service to answer any question.

You can also email me your questions to mahigoli@hotma.com

 

Update 2012/02/05 6:44 am

Mr. Farzad,

You say 1400 years ago Muhammad claimed to be the messenger of God and presented his reasoning which were accepted by people who believed in him.

I have studied Islam intensively for the last 14 years and even before that, I had some basic knowledge of it as most Muslims have, but I never saw any convincing reasoning.  If you present that reasoning and it is logical then it would be the end of discussion.  The problem is that there is no evidence for the claim of Muhammad and yet Muslims merrily kill anyone who disagrees with this unproven claim.

You said, “Now you say that there is no need for a god and that Man is the pivotal point of existence, not God. Please prove your claim.”

You are engaging in the fallacy of the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on you not on me.

My claim that morality is man based is self-evident. Is it not evident that killing, raping, torturing and looting others is evil?  I don’t have to prove this human based morality.

You on the other hand say that although all these things are evil when viewed from human perspective, they can be moral and good when seen from God’s point of view.  It is you who has to prove this outlandish and seemingly absurd claim.  Unless your god is Satan, your claim makes no sense at all.

 

You explain that amin used in several verses of the Quran can only be interpreted as truthful and not as trustee.  That is true.  But amin also means trustee as in Amin El-Makataba (Trustee of the library); Amin El-Shortaa (Police Trustee); and Majlass El-Omnaa (Council of Trustees.)

Arabs gave the title of Amin to the merchants who traded goods on behalf of others. People trusted their goods to them and called them trustees. Muhammad acted as Khadijah’s trustee only once in his lifetime.  I also said that Abul Aus, Zeinab’s husband who reluctantly accepted Islam was known as amin. If you just pay attention to what I write, there will be no reason for repetition.  If you bring up this subject again, you will get the same answer.  Once a topic is answered, please let us close it and move on.

 

You also make another unsubstantiated claim that all the linguists agree that Arabic is the most perfect language. No they don’t.  English is by far the most comprehensive language. Try to write a scientific thesis in Arabic.

 

You said, “If the claim to prophethood is equated to lying then you are right.  But you haven’t proven such thing yet.”

Yes I have. All my articles prove Muhammad was a liar and I gave you this link as example. http://alisina.org/is-muhammad-mentioned-in-the-bible/ Muhammad claimed that he is mentioned in the Bible by name. He is not. This is just one of the thousands of his lies.

When you say there is a world of difference between God centered morality and man centered morality I believe you did not understand me.  My point was that it makes no difference whether the injustice we perceive in what you term as God’s morality is real or perceived.  All realities to us humans are perceived.  So if our perception is that your god is immoral and evil we should not be blamed for rejecting him. Our responsibility as humans is to judge the claims of all the claimants based on our commonsense and our own sense of morality. If a man claims to be a prophet of God and engages in theft, rape, raid, pedophilia and killing we must not accept him. Such a man cannot be the prophet of God, whether his name is Charles Manson or Muhammad ibn Abdullah. The claim that we can’t understand God’s morality and that it is possible that things that appear to us as evil may actually be divine in the sight of God is baloney. That is the trap in which all foolish cultists fall and become unable to see their guru is an evil impostor. Here is one example of that. http://alisina.org/which-religion-is-good/ Read the email Thomas wrote to me to defend his guru’s sexual perversity, at the end of the article.

You say you have not begun debating about God centered morality yet and that I am jumping to conclusions hastily. Yes you have and you defended this fallacy from the start. I debunked it in every response I gave, as if such a silly idea needs debunking.

You say the terrorism and killings we see in Islamic world are politically motivated and not necessarily religiously motivated.  I say they are both. In Islam politics and religion are inseparable. Muhammad started a religion to dominate and control.  Islam has always been a tool of political domination. Unlike Christianity and other faiths Islam is not a personal faith, It is a religion of state.

You then quote the first part of the verse 17:7 “If you do good, you will do good for your own souls, and if you do evil, it shall be for them,” and say it is a billion times better than the Golden Rule.  What you don’t say is that the above is not a teaching of Muhammad to Muslims. It, like the other verse in the same sura that says whoever kills one man is like he has killed the entire humanity, is part of a fable about the Israelis that Muhammad is rehashing in the Quran.  If you read it in its context you’ll see it is not a teaching at all.

At the end you berate the Golden Rule and say it is nothing but a mercantile transition. Obviously you have not understood it.  I am not going to explain it because I believe the rule is self-explanatory, and even those who pretned not to understand it, perfectly understand it when it comes to their interestes. Even a psychopat wants to be treated fairly. He just does not want to treat others in the same way he likes to be treated.  Take the example of Muhammad. he could not tolerate  anyone stealing from him and tortured to death a few Bedouins who stole his camels. However, he had stollend those very camels. It was okay for him to steal. It was just not okay for others to steal from him.

Ali Ibn Abu Talib was a ruthless man

Then you surprise us by quoting a few passages attributed to Ali that are repetitions of the Golden Rule.

The question is whether those words were actually said by Ali or were attributed to him by the zealot Shiites later.  How can we know the truth? All we have to do is look at how Ali treated his opponents.  He was one of the most ruthless and evil men in Islam after Muhammad himself. So if he really said those words then he did not walk his talk. Confucius said the greatness of the superior man can be measured by the extent that his deeds and his words coincide.  Apart from the fact that I believe those words are falsely attributed to Ali, words without action are dime a dozen.  But let us focus on Muhammad.  Ali may be important for the Shiites but he is not important for the majority of Muslims. There is enough to say about Muhammad.

Your response was long but you ignored my four questions. I repeat them again.

1        If the conduct of a true messenger of God can appear as evil, how can we know he is from God?

2        If Allah is powerful why he depends on his henchmen and cannot kill his critics without the help of Muslim assassins?

3        If in your “God-centered morality” it is okay to kill the unbelievers, why do you think it is wrong for the unbelievers to kill you first in self-defense?

4        If Satan asks you to advise him the best way to destroy mankind using his only faculty which is deception. What better ways can you think of than telling him to invent a false religion that calls the believers to kill the unbelievers?

 

Update: 2012/02/26 2:38 AM

ترجمهشما می گویید محمد 1400 سال پیش مدعی پیامبری شده و دلایل ارائه شده از طرف او به وسیله عده ای از مردم مقبول واقع شده و به او ایمان آورده اند.من ازبیش از 14 سال قبل اسلام را مورد مطالعه قرار داده ام و مانند اکثر مسلمین اطلاعات مهمی از اسلام دارم، اما من هرگز این دلایل را متقاعد کننده نیافتم. اگر شما این دلایل را به صورت منطقی ارائه کنید بحث تمام می شود. مشکل اینجاست که هیچ دلیلی برای صحت ادعای پیامبر وجود ندارد و هنوز مسلمین مشتاقانه هر کسی را که با مدعیات ثابت نشده او مخالف کند می کشند.جواب: من در این قسمت از بحث تنها آنچه در عالم خارج واقع شده را تصویر کردم، شکی نیست که این اتفاق افتاده؛ شخصی ادعای پیامبری کرده و در طول هزار و چهارصد سال گذشته میلیاردها نفر که میان آنها از روستاییان ساده بیسواد تا انسانهای فرهیخته ای که مورد افتخار بشریت هستند مدعای او را به هر دلیل پذیرفته اند.مدعای او به طور خلاصه چنین است:هستی دارای خداست، تمام هستی از جمله انسانها مخلوق این خدایند، هدف از خلقت انسان عبودیت و شناخت این خداست، مرگ نه تنها پایان زندگی نیست بلکه آغاز زندگی حقیقی بر اساس عملکرد و رفتار در زندگی دنیایی است.در مقابل افرادی مثل شما مدعی هستند که خدایی وجود ندارد و یا اگر هم دارد کاری به کار انسان ندارد، تنها هدف ما از زندگی کردن این است که زندگی کنیم، مرگ پایان همه چیز است.لطفا دقت کنید پیامبر خدا صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم ادعا کرده، دلیل آورده، میلیاردها نفر دلیل او را معقول دانسته و ایمان آورده اند در این مرحله من کاری ندارم که در واقع دلیل او معقول بوده یا نبوده است.شما نیز در مقابل این ادعا، ادعای دیگری دارید، برای ادعای خود دلیل بیاورید شاید من و بسیار از دیگر مسلمانان ادعای شما را معقول دانسته و به شما ایمان بیاوریم.اصلا بگذارید من چند پله جلوتر بروم، فرض کنید شما اثبات کردید که راهی که حضرت محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم پیشنهاد کرده راه غلطی است و من هم دلایل شما را کاملا معقول دانستم و فهمیدم راهی که تاکنون رفته ام کاملا بیراهه بوده است. اکنون می خواهم راه جدید دیگری را انتخاب کنم و شما راه خود را پیشنهاد می کنید. به طور حتم شما انتظار ندارید که من گوسفند وار به دنبال شما بدوم و طلب دلیل از شما حقی غیر قابل اغماض است، لطف کنید دلیل خود بر درستی راهی که می روید را ارائه نمایید.ترجمه بقیه مطالب شما و جواب به آنها را به بعد از عبور از این مرحله موکول می کنم و تا این نکته اساسی روشن نشود وارد بحث جدیدی نخواهم شد. البته چهار سوال شما را جواب می دهم.. اگر رفتار یک پیامبر راستین قابلیت تطبییق بر زشتی داشته باشد، چگونه ما می توانیم بفهمیم او از طرف خدا آمده است؟زشتی و زیبایی بر اساس تفکر شما کاملا نسبی است، به طور مثال سکس در ملاء عام، همجنس بازی و همجنسگرایی حتی در فرهنگ غرب در جایی موضوعی اخلاقی هستند اما در جایی دیگر غیر اخلاقی. بسیاری از رفتارها در فرهنگ غرب اخلاقی است اما در فرهنگ شرق کاملا غیر اخلاقی. لذا از این منظر هیچگاه نمی توانید ملاک و معیاری بر درستی و نادرستی ادعای پیامبری از طرف کسی پیدا کنید.خدای تو قدرتی ندارد. او متکی به بندگان خویش است او چه فرقی با یک سرکرده مافیا دارد؟فرق در نیاز و عدم نیاز است، خدای من غنی بالذات و خارج از دایره فعل او انفعال است. اگر او به من روزی زیاد داده و درمقابل خواسته که به فقرا کمک کنم این نشانه ناتوانی او در رفع فقر آن فقیر نیست بلکه در اینجا دو امتحان است یکی برای من و یکی برای فقیر، این سر موکول کردن انجام امور به بندگان است نه عجز و ضعف او. علاوه بر اینکه اگر بنده ای کاری انجام دهد از آنجا که نیرو و توان بنده از طرف خداست باز این خداست که آن کار را انجام داده است.شما فکر می کنید این خدایی است که ناباوران را بکشید. چرا فکر می کنید که اگر آنها در مقام دفاع از خود شما را بکشند کار غلطی کرده اند؟ما هرگز فکر نمی کنیم که آنها در مقام دفاع از خود کار غلطی کرده اند من تاکنون جایی ندیده ام که کسی کافری را به خاطر دفاع از خود ملامت کرده باشد، حتی حیونات هم حق دارند از خود دفاع کنند. در ضمن مقدمه سوال شما کاملا غلط و عوامفریبانه است هیچ قانونی در اسلام مبنی بر اینکه صرف ناباور بودن دلیل بر استحقاق کشته شدن است وجود ندارد.. اجازه دهید از شیطان بخواهیم که از شما درخواست کند بهترین راه برای نابودی انسانیت را با توجه به تنها توانایی او یعنی فریب دادن به او توصیه کنید. چه راهی بهتر از جعل یک مذهب غلط که دعوت به کشتن غیر مسلمانان کند به فکر شما می رسد؟راه بهتر از نظر من تشویق به حرص و طمع است، که اکنون مدعیان قانون طلایی به دلیل گرفتار شدن به آن در همین چند سال اخیر میلیونها نفر را فقط در خاورمیانه به خاطر حفظ منافع پست دنیایی خود به خاک و خون کشیده و به خاک سیاه نشانده اند

Mr. Sina,

You say you have not seen any evidence that Islam is true and asked me to give you that evidence.

I only mentioned the historic fact about what happened.  A person claimed to be a prophet of God and for the last 1400 years billions of people of all walks of life, literate and illiterate, have believed in his claim.

He claimed that the world has a god and that everything including humans are His creations, and that death is not the end.  Please note that the Prophet (PBUH) has made this claim and has presented his evidence and billions of people have accepted his evidence and believed in him.  At this moment I am not interested to analyze whether his evidence is logical or not.

You have a different claim. Please provide an evidence for your claim. Maybe Muslims and me will find your claim more logical and will believe in you.

Let me go a few step further. Let us suppose you prove the way that Muhammad (PBUH) has proposes is wrong and I accept your reasoning and believe that I had been misled.  Now, I want to choose a new way and ask you to show me your way.  Most certainly you don’t expect me to follow you like a sheep without asking for proof.  So please give me the evidence that your way is correct.

I will translate the rest of your article and my response to it after you answer the above fundamental questions.  Until then I prefer not to enter into a new discussion.  But here is my answer to you four questions.

1-      If the conduct of a true messenger of God can appear as evil, how can we know he is from God?”

My response:

Beauty and ugliness, according to your thinking are completely relative.  For example, having sex in public, homosexuality, and promiscuity, even in western cultures are sometimes morally acceptable and sometimes morally unacceptable.  A lot of conducts in the western culture are considered morally acceptable, but in eastern cultures are unacceptable.  Consequently, it is impossible to find a universally agreed upon standard by which to judge the conduct of a prophet.

2-      If Allah is powerful why he depends on his henchmen and cannot kill his critics without the help of Muslim assassins?

My response:
The difference is in need and lack of need. My god is self-sufficient and outside the circle of action/reaction.  If he gives me riches and in exchange he asks me to help the poor, it is not because he is powerless to remove the poverty from that poor.  In this there are two tests. One is for me and the other is for the poor.  God wants to delegate his affairs to his slaves (people). That is not because he can’t do them himself.   Furthermore, if a slave does something, since his power originates from God’s power, it is in reality God who has done the work through that slave.

3-      If in your “God-centered morality” it is okay to kill the unbelievers, why do you think it is wrong for the unbelievers to kill you first in self-defense?

My Response:
We don’t think that self-defense is wrong.  I have not seen anywhere [in the scriptures] that anyone blamed a kafir for self-defense.  Even animals have the right to self-defense.  Furthermore, the premise of your question is wrong.  There is no law in Islam that says that unbelievers deserve to die for merely not believing.

4-      If Satan asks you to advise him the best way to destroy mankind using his only faculty which is deception. What better ways can you think of than telling him to invent a false religion that calls the believers to kill the unbelievers?

My Response:
A better way, in my opinion. Would be to encourage people to be greedy. Thanks to this greed the proponents of the Golden Rule, in these past few years, only in the Middle East, have butchered millions of people to protect their base worldly interests.

 

Update 2012/02/26 5:32 AM

Mr. Farzad,

Your response is replete with logical fallacies.  Nothing unusual about that! Islam is a collection of logical fallacies.  I will point them out shortly, but first let me answer your question.

You ask me to suggest a better way than Islam.  I have answered this question in a separate article titled, Which Religion Is Good?  In that article I quote Krishnamurthi who said, “Truth is a pathless land’. Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophic knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection.”   

Truth is like sunlight. You don’t have to go anywhere or follow anyone to find it. No path will take you closer to it. All you have to do is get out of the cave of your mind and bask in its splendor and warmth. 

Religions in general and Islam in particular take us away from truth.  They are based on unsubstantiated claims supported by logical fallacies, and sheer lies. 

The claim that there is a god in heaven who does not need to be worshipped, but nonetheless he creates humans with freedom to worship him  (there is no compulsion), or else, he will chop them and mince them and roast them and toast them and bake them and boil them, sounds a bit phony.  It is not befitting for smart people of any time, let alone of this day and age, to believe in this balderdash.

You ask me to show you a good way so you can follow me.  Okay! You need to change your paradigm. The problem is this very notion of following.  Following is for sheep, not for humans.  We are all endowed with a brain that, unless insane, can lead us to the right path.  We all have a compass within us that can show us the true North.  We don’t need to follow anyone.  We all can be prophets to ourselves. 

How do we find the truth in science? Not by following this philosopher or that scientist.  We find the truth in science through research, investigation, observation, analysis, tests and a lot of trial and error.  Sometimes we make mistakes and come to erroneous conclusions, but if we follow this foolproof methodology we will eventually find the right answer.  This is called the scientific method. 

Finding the truth about spirituality, morality and ethics should also be done in a scientific method.  Yes intuition helps, and even scientist credit intuition and inspiration for many of their discoveries.  But they always support their intuitions with facts and scientific observation.

If God is infinite, truth must be infinite.  We humans are finite and as such it is impossible for us to reach the infinite truth. But we can get closer to it.  Our truth can expand, just as our knowledge expands. 

In order to expand our understanding of the universe we question it. We challenge what we know and that is how we learn more.  Shouldn’t we do the same for our spiritual understanding?

In the middle ages people believed in Socrates, Plato and Aristotle as the ultimate authority on knowledge.  As the result science became stagnated.  Enlightenment took place when we stopped beliving and quoting these masters and  started questioning our knowledge and the knowlege of the above sages.  It was then that our knowledge of science exploded.  We began to doubt and to experiment. That brought us to where we are today. It is thank to this scientific approach that you and I can debate live while living on opposite sides of the world. 

We need a similar approach in matters of religion and spirituality.  There is nothing those primitive people knew that can be of any use to us.  The sacred books of all religions are full of errors about the universe and how it came to exist.  If they are so wrong about this world why should we believe in their stories about the next?  The knowledge of the ancient people is of no use to us. Why their morality and spirituality should be of any use?

If you treat others the way you’d like to be treated you have found the right path.  Why would you need to follow someone else to tell you what you can find on your own?  Is it not clear that cheating, lying, hurting, abusing, discriminating and violating other people’s rights is wrong?  Do we need a messenger from God to tell us what we already know?

The problem with following someone else is that if this person is an impostor, he can make us do very evil things.  Look at ordinary people who become cult members.  They can often become very dangerous to others and to themselves.  They do evil cheerfully and with total devotion and conviction.  Is it not possible that Muhammad may have been a cult leader? 

That is my argument. I can’t prove this in few sentences. But if anyone is interested I invite them to read my book where I have provided irrefutable evidence to this claim.

Good people do evil things when they follow false doctrines.  That is why Muslims do so much evil to themselves and to others.  Those who follow Muhammad have forsaken their humanity and have become monsters.

You repeated what you said before that you can’t provide any evidence to the claim of Muhammad, but that there must be some truth to it or else why would billions of people, some very educated,  believe in him for so many centuries.

There are no less than four logical fallacies in your reasoning.

1-      Truth cannot be attained through the consensus of the majority.  If a proposition is false the mere fact that many people believe in it does not make it true.  There was a time that most mankind believed that the earth is flat and stationary while the firmament revolves around it.  Despite the consensus of the majority, this belief was always wrong.  This fallacy is called, argumentum ad numerum.

2-      The next fallacy in your statement is argumentum ad populum. The fact that a proposition is favored by many does not make it true either.  

3-      The next fallacy is argumentum ad verecundiam. A false proposition does not become truer if many educated people believe in it.  Educated people can also be wrong.  For example, Einstein was wrong when he said God does not play dice. God plays dice all the time.  Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is a scientific fact.

4-      Your next fallacy is argumentum ad continuum.  A false proposition does not become truer because it has lasted a long time. The fact that Islam has survived for 14 centuries is not the proof of its truth.  The reason for its survival is to be sought in Islamic suppression of free enquiry.   Had Islam allowed free thought and questioning it would have been eliminated a thousand years ago or even in Medina where the Jews could debunk it easily.  But Muhammad assassinated his critics.  Islam has survived not because it is true but because it is intolerant of criticism.  You can keep a space dark for ever, as long as you don’t allow light to shine in.

But that era is over.  Now truth is coming out.  For the first time opponents and proponents of Islam can discuss freely as you and I are doing, without the former fearing for their lives.  Now truth can be exposed and when truth is out Islam will be eliminated.   The Islamic regimes know that.  That is why they are so fearful of the Internet.  The mullahs want to ban all search-engines in Iran and create their own version of it called Yahaq.com, where they can control information.  They know that to survive they have to keep people ignorant.  But I doubt they will succeed.

And here is my response to your response of my four questions.

1-      You say morality is relative to cultures and since there is no universally accepted standard of morality we can’t judge the conduct of Muhammad.

Morality may have different meanings for different cultures. One culture may think woman are talking walking vagina and that every part of their body is erotic and therefore they should cover themselves from head to toe. Another culture may think there is nothing wrong in nudity and may even license nudist camps. These two are extremes.  Personally, I prefer moderation in everything. Most people share my views.  However, this is not the point of our discussion.  I am not condemning Muhammad for practicing one form of morality or another.  I am condemning him for practicing the morality of jungle where might is right.

Whether your culture allows nudity or practices hijab and which is better is not the point. The point is that abuse and violation of human rights is wrong in any culture.  Just as you find it objectionable for someone else to tell you how to dress, what to eat and what not to eat, what to read and what not to read, etc. Others also don’t want you to impose on them your morality and values.  This is what the Golden Rule is all about.  Muslims have no understanding of the Golden Rule and you have been pooh-poohing it all along, which shows those words you quoted earlier attributing them to Ali about the Golden Rule are not really his words.  One zealot mullah must have thought they sound good and attributed them to Ali.  However, as you have made it clear Islam has no room for such thing.   You want to violate the human rights of others and abuse them, but want them to treat you fairly, even preferentially.   You believe in the law of jungle,.  As long as you have the power, you will ignore the rights of others.. You jail and kill the apostates and those who preach other faiths to Muslims, while you spent the money of the poor Iranians to build mosques in Europe to deceive and convert the westerners to convert to Islam.   Your conscious is so low that you see nothing wrong in that and genuinely believe this is how things should be. This is the morality of the psychopath. I am not talking about you personaly. I am talking about Muslims in general.

 In Understanding Muhammad, I argue that your prophet was a psychopath and Muslims become like him to the extent that they follow him.  

 Even if morality may be relative, ethics are not. No civilized culture allows pedophilia, raid, rape and theft.  Islam sanctions these evil practices.  No ethical culture allows killing people for having different views or abandoning what is agreed by the majority. Islam practices it. You justified it by claiming that the morality of God may seem diabolic to humans, but we must not question it. This is of course a fallacy as I have pointed out numerous times.

 I don’t accuse Muhammad for lack of morality. I accuse him for lack of decency, for his inhumanity, for his cruelty, injustice and ruthlessness.

 2-      I asked why your Allah can’t kill his critics and he depends on his followers to do his dirty work. You responded that he delegates his work to others to test them and made an example that God can eliminate poverty, but he doesn’t do it. Instead he gives a lot of money to some people and keeps other hungry and asks the rich guy to feed the poor guy and in this way he can test both of them.

I know you wrote this with straight face but I can’t stop laughing. This alone shows the stupidity of this deity.  Assuming the rich guys are all good Muslims and give generously to the poor, isn’t this denigrating for the poor.   I know if I become poor and don’t have food to eat I rather die than ask for help.  Why would a sane god act so stupidly?

Can you explain why this god of yours, whom you say knows the future and the past, needs to test people?   Testing is to evaluate the abilities, aptitudes, skills, performance or qualities of an individual.  Don’t you say you god know all these things? Then what is this test for?  Thousands of innocent children suffer with hunger and die of malnutrition all over the world every day.  Your god can end their misery, but he doesn’t.  What are they being tested for?

This is a ridiculous fallacy. But you use it to explain the injunctions of murder and violence in the Quran.  You want us to understand that Allah can kill his critics, but he doesn’t because he wants his believers to do it so he can test them. Test them for what?  Is becoming a murderer a requirements to get into Islamic paradise?

You are an educated man. You’ve spent decades learning all the Islamic nonsense. If only you spend one minute thinking rationally you’d see these arguments that you use to defend Islam are baloney. Islam is a very idiotic religion. Any person with a little rational thinking can debunk it.

I was challenged to a mubahila. I told this guy that this is ludicrous. He insisted that it works because it is in the Quran. If Allah had any power over me that time was the best time to kill me.  But he couldn’t.  He allowed Islam and his challenge of mubahila ridiculed and proven wrong.  And I never heard from my opponent.  I only hope he did not die.

You believe your god can do miracles but he doesn’t do it because he wants to test us. I can say the same about a can of Coca Cola.  If I claim that I am a prophet of a can of Coca Cola who is capable to destroy mankind if they don’t believe in me, but it doesn’t. Instead it tells me to kill those who oppose me, wouldn’t you say I am crazy and dangerous? Wouldn’t you lock me up as a threat to the society?  Of course you would and you should. Yet you have no problem believing in exact same ridiculous claim made up by the lunatic Muhammad.  What is wrong with you?

3-      I asked since Islam says sly the unbelievers why shouldn’t we the unbelievers, preempt and in self- defense and kill you Muslims before you can kill us.  You responded that no one blames the kafirs for defending themselves and you added that Islam does not prescribe killing unbelievers indiscriminately.

Well in that case why do you object when the western powers attack Muslim nations that harbor terrorists?  But forget about what other countries do. Let us talk about our own country Iran.  Mr. Ah-Nejad had repeatedly said that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of time and he is in the pursuit of nuclear bombs. Despite the denial of the regime the intention is clear to everyone.  So I believe you should have no problem with Israel attacking Iran before Iran nukes her out of existence.

Furthermore, there are many injunctions in the Quran to kill the infidels. The Sura Nine is all about killing anyone who does not submit to Islam or does not pay the jizya tax feeling humiliated and subdued.   We Iranians posed no threat to Islam, but Muhammad sent a letter to our king giving the ultimatum to submit or face war. A few years later we were attacked.

4-      I asked whether you can advise Satan a better way to destroy mankind than devising a false religion that instructs its followers to hate and kill the unbelievers.  You said I would tell him to encourage people to be greedy and then said the proponents of the Golden Rule are greedy and that is why they have killed millions of people in the Middle East.

It is clear that you don’t understand the Golden Rule. But we discussed that already.   You are also wrong about greed. Greedy people have always existed and probably will always exist. However, most people are not greedy and in true democracies, where the opposition is strong, there are checks and balances and a greedy ruler does not have the power to do as he pleases.  This can happen in our Iran and in other banana republics that are controlled by tyrants.

When there are natural disasters anywhere in the world you can see the humanity of good people shining. They come out by millions and donate whatever they can, food, clothing, money and their time to help the affected people.   This is less so in Islamic countries and that is a matter of statistics. It is not that Muslims don’t care about the misery of others, but because of their indoctrination they think giving money to advance Islam (jihad) is more important than to help other humans.

You also never see an Islamic country helping a non-Muslim country that is hit by a natural disaster in any significant way. Why help those who don’t believe in Allah and his messenger?  Musims must slay the unbelievers wherever they find them not to help them.

Israel is generally the first to come to help and the Israelis give most per capita than any other nation. Damn these Jews! They beat Muslims even in charity and good deeds.  One wonders how these cousins of apes and rats excel Muslims in everything, and not just a little, but by thousands of times.   Who knows! Maybe Muslims are the cousins of cockroaches.

I too used to think that evil is caused by greed.  It was when I read the Quran that I realized a lot of evil in the world is caused by evil beliefs.  Good people do evil cheerfully when they are under the influence of an evil doctrine.

Take the example of Hamza Lashgari, the 23 year old Saudi journalist. He wrote three tweets that Muslims thought is insulting their prophet.  They were not insulting at all. Tens of thousands of Muslims demanded him to be killed. What these people want is sheer evil. How can so many people be so evil? It is not greed!  It is Islam that has reduced them into monsters.   Nothing is more evil than evil indoctrinations and that is why Islam is the number one evil in the world.

Update: 2012/02/26  9:50 AM

جناب سینا

همانطور که قبلا هم به شما گفته ام انسان بی تجربه ای در زمینه بحث با مخالفان اسلام نیستم، با این نوع بحث کردن شاید بتوانید مخاطبانی که آگاهی کافی نسبت به این نوع بحث ها ندارند را فریب دهید اما راهی برای فریب من پیدا نخواهید کرد.

توسل به مغالطه و سفسطه یابی در کلام طرف بحث غالبا زمانی اتفاق می افتد که انسان هیچ جواب منطقی در دست ندارد و ناگزیر است جهت خلاصی از مخمصه ای که در آن گرفتار شده انواع مغلطه ها و سفسطه ها را بر طرف مقابل خود تحمیل کند.

نکته دیگر اینکه سخن شما آن قدر طولانی و مفصل و توضیح واضحات و تکرار ذهنیات پر از تناقض است که انسان رغبت به خواندن آن نمی کند چه برسد به اینکه یک شخص مبتدی در زبان انگلیسی مانند من وقت زیادی را جهت ترجمه کردن آن به فارسی صرف آن کند.

هر انسان آگاه و با انصافی اگر جواب بسیار طولانی شما را در برابر سوال بسیار ساده و کوتاه من بخواند متوجه دست و پا زدن شما برای اینکه به گونه ای خود را از پاسخ دادن رها کنید می شود؛ بسیاری از سخنان شما بسیار زیبا و شاعرانه است ما من برای مشاعره با شما اینجا نیامده ام، در مواردی متوسل به توهین شده اید، این نیز مرا عصبانی و وادار به مقابله به مثل نخواهد کرد. تنها چیزی که می تواند راهگشا باشد استدلال عقلی و منطقی است اما متاسفانه علاقه بسیار زیاد شما به سخنرانی و خطابه باعث گم شدن این عنصر اساسی در لابلای ده ها موضوعی که در حال حاضر ربطی به موضوع اصلی بحث ندارد می شود.

سوال کردم: آیا دلیلی بر درستی راهی که می روید دارید؟

جواب دادید: حقیقت یا اصلا وجود ندارد و یا اگر وجود دارد دست یافتنی نیست پس هیچکس اعم از فیلسوف و غیر فیلسوف، روشنفکر و غیر روشنفکر، پیامبر و غیر پیامبر ابزاری برای اثبات حقیقت بودن راهی که می رود ندارد. هیچکسی نباید از دیگری پیروی کند و هیچکس حق ندارد به دیگری رفتن راهی را توصیه کند.

تنها و تنها و تنها یک راه اطمینان بخش وجود دارد و آن هم اینکه هر کسی به ندای درون خود گوش کند.

آیا درست متوجه شدم؟ جواب دهید بله یا نه و اگر نه در یک جمله کوتاه آن را تصحیح کنید تا نظر خود را بیان کن

Mr. Sina,

As I stated before, I am not an inexperienced person when it comes to debating the opponents of Islam. With these arguments you may be able to deceive those who are less informed, but you can’t deceive me.

Resorting to fallacies and sophisms in debate often recurs when a person is left with no logical answers and is forced to resort to all sorts of sophism and fallacies so he can release himself from the grasp of his opponent.

Another point is that your writings are so long, replete with repetitions, contradictions and errors that one has no desire reading them let alone for a beginner in the English like me to spend excessive time translating them.

Any fair person, by reading your long responses to my simple questions will see your desperation to avoid responding.  A lot of what you write is quite beautiful and poetic. But I am not here for a poetry contest. In some cased you have resorted to insults. This too makes me angry and forces me to retaliate in kind.

The only thing that can solve the problem is logical arguments. But unfortunately your intense love for garrulity and preaching results in the loss of this crucial element in the pile of arguments that have nothing to do with the subject we are discussing.

I asked, can you prove that your way is correct.

You answered, either truth does not exist or if it does it is unattainable. No one, whether a philosopher, a thinker, a prophet or a commoner can prove that his way is right, no one should follow another person and no one should impose his way on someone else. There is only one correct way and that is listening to ones one inner voice.

Is my understanding correct? Please answer yes or no and if not please in a simple sentence explain your position.

 

Mr. Farzad,

Whether I am struggling for answers or it is you who can’t come up with one, is something for our readers to decide.  If it makes you feel better to beat your chest, you may do so. My interest is to see truth exposed.

I don’t think I am repeating myself too much. I do my best to explain my views clearly.  If too much reading bores you, you may read and answer as much as you like.  I like to answer to every point that my opponent raises.  A question may be short, but sometimes the response my take volumes and sometimes a long question has only a word of affirmation or negation as response. Often, Muslims incorporate numerous fallacies in one sentence. I think it is important to refute them all.

I am not interested in you Sir. I know you are part of the regime that kills my brothers and sisters.  I know Islam is your source of income. It is not just your religion but also your business and career. You will deny the truth even if it hits you in the head. If you don’t’ you’ll be in big trouble.  Although I am debating with you, I am actually writing for many Muslims who want to know the truth. They want to read both sides of the argument in one page.

Please also note that I did not insult you. I am quite aware that Muslims feel insulted when their faith is criticized. But I don’t apologize for that. I speak my mind and will use the proper words to describe Islam and its founder. I am not here to protect anyone’s feelings. My concern is the lives of the people that you Muslims destroy. Believe me; your feelings have no value in comparison to those precious lives.

You are also free to say what you want about my beliefs. But if you insult my person, I will withdraw. When it comes to insults I am no match to Muslims. That is not my turf.  In that arena Muslims are champions. My specialty is logic not personal attacks.

As for your question, yes I think you got it more or less. However, I suggest you read what I wrote one more time before responding to it. That part is not long.  If you are in doubt about what I actually say, you’ll not be able to answer properly and this will not look good on your overall performance. Remember that your job is not to convince me, but our readers.  If you have difficulty to understand my English I will reword it.

 

Update 2012/02/26 8:48 PM

 

ترجمه پاراگرف آخر

با توجه با سوال شما، بله من فکر می کنم شما کما بیش درست فهمیدید. اما من پیشنهاد می کنم شما قبل از اینکه جواب مرا بدهید یکبار دیگر نوشته مرا بخوانید آن نوشته چندان طولانی نیست اگر در فهم مقصود واقعی من شک دارید به طور طبیعی قادر نخواهید بود به درستی جواب مرا بدهید و این سبب نگاه بدبینانه روی عملکرد شما خواهد شد. توجه داشته باشید که کار شما متقاعد کردن من نیست بلکه باید روی خوانندگان تاثیر بگذارید اگر در فهم نوشته های من به زبان انگلیسی مشکلی دارید من با عبارت دیگر آن را بیان خواهم کرد.

جناب سینا

تمام تلاش من این است که به شما نشان دهم تمام تفکرات شما روی اساس و پایه ای بنا شده که هیچ مبنای عقلی و منطقی و حتی انسانی (به معنای خاص) ندارد. کلمات چند گانه دزدی، تجاوز، کشتار، کودک آزار یا بچه باز و … که به صورت چندش آوری تکرار می شود موضوعات دست چندمی هستند که تا نتوانید اصل مبنای مرا رد کنید قابل حل نیستند، برای اینکه بتوانید ضربه محکم و کاری به مبنای من وارد کنید باید ابتدا جای پای خود را محکم کنید و مبنایی خالی از هر گونه اشکال برگزینید. پس لطف کنید اجازه دهید ببینیم شما قادر به دفاع از مبنای خود هستیدا یا نه.

من هنوز شروع به دفاع از اصول اعتقادی پیامبر رحمت نکرده ام که شما مرا به ارتکاب مغالطه توسل به ا کثریت و …. می کنید تنها وضعیت موجود را گزارش کرده ام همین وبس، برای اینکه نشان دهم هر کسی که ادعایی دارد باید این مسیر را طی کند و شما از این قاعده مستثنی نیستید.

حال برسیم به بررسی مدعای شما

1) حقیقت یا اصلا وجود ندارد

2) یا اگر وجود دارد دست یافتنی نیست

3) هیچکس اعم از فیلسوف و غیر فیلسوف، روشنفکر و غیر شنفکر، پیامبر و غیر پیامبر ابزاری برای اثبات حقیقت بودن راهی که می رود ندارد

4) هیچکسی نباید از دیگری پیروی کند

5) هیچکس حق ندارد به دیگری رفتن راهی را توصیه کند.

6) تنها یک راه اطمینان بخش وجود دارد و آن اینکه هر کسی به ندای درون خود گوش کند.

بر اساس سه مقدمه اول هر کسی هر چیزی که بگوید درست است (حتی پیامبر رحمت که این همه مورد ملامت شماست) و به عبارت دقیق تر اصلا درستی و نادرستی معنا ندارد زیرا با توجه به آنچه در بخش ششم آمده تنها راه ممکن برای تولد یک اعتقاد ندای درونی انسانهاست و هر کسی حق دارد به آنچه از ندای درونی او زائیده شده اعتماد کند بلکه چاره ای جز اعتماد ندارد چون اولا راه دیگری برای فهم حقیقت وجود ندارد ثانیا بر اساس مقدمه چهارم پیروی کردن از دیگران موضوعی مذموم و ناپسند است و براساس مبنای پنجم آیا می توانید توضیح دهید علت رفتار پیامبرانه شما در این سایت چیست؟ چرا بر خلاف مبنای پذیرفته شده خود این همه دیگران را امر و نهی می کنید؟ نکند شما هم از جمله کسانی هستید که مرگ را تنها برای همسایه حق می دانید؟ فقط در یکی دو جمله بیان کنید که

آیا به لوازم مبنایی که انتخاب کرده اید پایبند هستید؟ شما در لابلای استدلالهایی که می کنید از عقل و منطق زیاد سخن می گویید درحالیکه این دو عنصر اساسی هیچ جایی در میان مبانی اعتقادی شما ندارد؛ چه توجیهی برای این موضوع دارید؟ .

ادعا و سوال اساسی خود در مورد مبنای شما را بعد از جواب شما که امیدوارم که گویا و البته کوتاه باشد بیان خواهم کرد

 

All my effort is to show you that your thoughts are not logical, rational and not even humane.  Words such as raid, rape, plunder, massacre and pedophilia, etc. that are disgustingly repeated by you, are second and third hand concepts that cannot be resolved unless you reject my point. If you want to demolish my argument, you have to first strengthen your footstep and choose a concept that is free from error.  Therefore, let us first see whether you can defend your own views or not.

I have not yet begun to defend the principles and the beliefs of the Messenger of Mercy that you accuse me of using logical fallacies. I only reported the present situation.  That is all. All I wanted to show is that any person who has a claim must follow this procedure and you are not an exception to this rule.

Now let us analyze your claim.

You said 1)truth either does not exist or 2) if it does, it can’t be attained, and 3) no one, including philosophers, thinkers, prophets, etc. can prove the correctness of his way.  Therefore, 4) no one should follow someone else and 5) no one should impose his views on others. 6) There is only one secure way and that is for each person to listen to his own inner voice.

Based on the first three claims, any idea presented by any person must be correct (even that of the Messenger of Mercy whom you attack constantly).  In other words right and wrong have no meaning at all. Because based on your point 6 the only truth is the inner voice of the individual and each person has the right to trust his inner voice and in fact he has no other choice but to trust it.  Because first there is no other way to understand the truth and second, following someone else is something that has to be shunned.

In that case can you explain your prophetic conduct in this site? Why, despite inviting others to think for their own, there is so much lecturing, preaching and sermons in your writings?

Are you among those who don’t walk their talk, or as we Persian say believe that death is good, but only for the neighbors?  Please answer in one or two sentences.

Are you bounded by your own principles and rules? You speak a lot about logic and reason, whereas these two concepts have no place in your thoughts and beliefs.  What is your explanation?

I will give my main answer after your reply and I hope it will be clear and short.

 

Update 2012/02/26 11.09 PM

Mr. Farzad,

You say you haven’t started the debate yet.  Believe it or not this is it.  You keep saying you will answer my questions only after we delineate the structure of the debate or after I explain to you my beliefs about the nature of truth or when this or that condition is satisfied.  You are just beating around the bushes.  This debate is about Muhammad.  You claim that imprisoning people, abusing their human rights and killing them are acceptable because they are sanctioned by your god.  We want to see the proof that your god is the real God and not Satan. .

What I believe and what I think about truth is irrelevant to our readers.  No one is interested to know what Ali Sina thinks about truth and reality.  They come here to learn the truth about Islam.  So please don’t try to divert the subject.

I have explained my views in the article I gave you in the link. But I am not asking people to believe in what I say.  I may be wrong.

Here is the gist of my epistemological thoughts.  I believe that if there is a god, he/she/it must be infinite. Therefore, the divine truth must also be infinite.  We humans are finite. All we can understand are some aspects of the truth.  For example, let us say a group of people are standing at the foot of a tall mountain.  They can’t see all of it and depending on their vantage point each person gets a different perspective of it.  Likewise, it is impossible for one person to know the entire truth.  Therefore, we should neither follow others nor try to impose our views on others.  However, we can exchange our views and learn about this mountain more from those who have different perspectives of it.

You say I am wrong. Maybe I am! I am not trying to convince anyone to believe in what I believe. I say each person has to find the truth on his own. Truth is a pathless land.  Each person’s truth is good for himself.  But he may be wrong. The point is to keep searching. This search must continue to the end of life.  It is like knowledge.  We can never gain all the knowledge. Knowledge is infinite. But we keep searching for it and keep learning more every day.

Was Muhammad’s truth also right? Of course not! From his own perspective his truth was right because he was insane.  This does not mean that what an insane person perceives as truth and is convinced of it is actually true.  No one can claim to have found the whole truth.  Anyone who makes that claim is a charlatan. It is like someone claiming to have learned all the knowledge of the universe.

You say I am not logical at all and not even humane. Well, in that case you should have no difficulty to point out my errors and highlight my inhumanity.  Don’t keep attacking me. Instead attack my arguments.

This debate is not about Ali Sina and his thoughts. No one give a damn about my thoughts and no one should.  If I ever solicit followers, you are most welcome to dissect and disprove my thoughts.  Until them please let us stick to the subject. The subject of our debate is Muhammad and his claim, not Ali Sina.

You are making a claim that Muhammad was a prophet.  Based on that belief you also say some people who don’t contribute to the felicity of others, as defined by Islam, should be eliminated.   Do you have any proof for this claim for which you are so eager to kill?

You said that Muhammad made his claim to the people around him and showed them his evidence and they accepted it. But now you can’t produce that evidence. You just follow him because you think all those people who followed him could not have been wrong.   I explained that your faith is based on a series of logical fallacies.  Yes it is possible for billions of people to be in error for many centuries. The intensity of their faith and their zealotry is not the proof of the validity of their belief either.

As far as I can see this debate is over. Instead of proving Muhammad’s claim you want to prove my epistemology is wrong. Who cares? This is also a logical fallacy. It is called red herring.  You want to divert the subject. Let us say I am wrong.  Will you be any closer to prove Muhammad’s claim?  There are many people who don’t believe in my philosophy.  Can you address them and prove to them Muhammad’s claim?

If you can’t follow this debate and have nothing else to add, maybe it is time to say goodbye.   However, if you can show us the evidence that Muhammad was a prophet of God, I am all ears.  If you want to continue please focus on the question.  The question is not about what I think. It is about giving evidence that Muhammad was a prophet of God and hence all these killings, rapes and raids, imprisonments and executions are justified.

 

Update 2012.03/01 9.00 AM

ترجمه

شما می گویید هنوز بحث را شروع نکرده اید، اما خواسته یا نخواسته این کار را می کنید. شما مدام تکرار می کنید زمانی به سوال من جواب می دهید که پایه های اساسی بحث مشخص شود یا بعد از اینکه من عقیده ام در باره ماهیت حقیقت را توضیح دهم یا این یا آن شرط محقق شود. این بحث در باره محمد ص است. شما ادعا می کنی حبس کردن مردم، ضایع کردن حقوق انسانی آنها و کشتن آنها قابل قبول است زیرا آنها توسط خداوند محکوم شده اند. ما می خواهیم ببینیم ادله و نشانه خدای شما مطابق با خدای واقعی است نه مطابق با شیطان.

اعتقاد و تفکر من در باره حقیقت ربطی به خوانندگان ما ندارد. هیچکس علاقه ای به اعتقاد علی سینا در باره حقیقت و واقعیت ندارد. آنها اینجا هستند تا حقیقت را در باره اسلام بدانند بنابر این لطفا سعی نکنید موضوع را عوض کنید. من در لینکی که به شما دادم اعتقادات خود را بیان کرده ام اما از مردم نخواسته ام که به نظران من ایمان بیاورند. شاید من اشتباه کرده باشم.

جواب

علت اصرار من بر کشف نوع جهانبینی شما این است که به شما و خوانندگان نشان دهم که دلیل اصلی علی سینا دردشمنی با حضرت محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم همین نوع جهانبینی اوست. شما عینکی سیاه به چشم زده و همه چیز در باره اسلام و پیامبر آن را سیاه می بینید و من تا این عینک را از چشم شما برندارم نمی توان به شما ثابت کنیم که هستی شناسی و جهانبینی پیامبر آخرالزمان رنگ دیگری دارد. علت اینکه مثلا مولای رومی با آن همه بزرگی خود را عبد و بنده محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم می داند اما علی سینا که هیچ محلی از اعراب ندارد (بنابر اعتراف خودش) اینگونه بی باکانه بر او می تازد، فهم و دانایی سطح بالای علی سینا و احمق و نادان بودن مولوی نیست بلکه علت اصلی نوع نگاه این دو نفر به هستی است. من باید بدانم با چه کسی بحث می کنم نوع بحث با یک کافر مطلق، یک مسیحی، یک یهودی و … کاملا با هم متفاوت است. پس به من حق دهید که ابتدا خوب شما را بشناسم.

ترجمه

خلاصه ای از اعتقادات معرفت شناختی من:

من اعتقاد دارم اگر خدایی وجود داشته باشد او باید لایتناهی باشد. از این رو حقیقت خدایی نیز باید نامحدود باشد. انسانها محدود هستند. تمام آنچه ما می توانیم بفهمیم گوشه هایی از حقیقت هستند برای مثال اگر عده ای از مردم پایین یک کوه بلند ایستاده باشند آنها نمی توانند تمام کوه را ببینند و بنابر موقعیت آنها هر یک تجسمی از آن کوه دارند همچنین برای یک نفر ممکن نیست که تمام حقیقت را بشناسد به همین دلیل ما نباید از دیگران تبعیت کرده و نباید سعی کنیم عقاید خود را به دیگران تحمیل کنیم دانایی و علم بیکران است اما ما مدام به دنبال آن هستیم و از یادگیری هر روزه غفلت نمی کنیم.

جواب

بعضی از این اعتقادات شما درست و بعض دیگر نادرست است و شما هیچ راهی برای اثبات درستی آنها ندارید، بله درست است که حقیقت نامتناهی است اما همه مردم از یک سطح و یک زاویه به آن نگاه نمی کنند (داستان مولای رومی در مورد فیل در تاریکی) و گرنه این همه سطح معلومات مردم با یکدیگر متفاوت نبود. از کجا می دانید که پیامبران خدا روی نوک قله این کوه نایستاده و هستی را تصویر نکرده اند در اینکه شما و من در دامنه این کوه هستیم و پشت و دیگر زاویه های آن را هرگز نمی توانیم ببینیم شکی نیست اما همه انسانها در حد من و شما نیستند بعضی پایین تر و بعضی بسیار بالاترند.کار درست این است که ما هم تلاش کنیم خود را بالاتر بکشیم و معرفت خود را افزایش دهیم نه اینکه آنها که بالاتر اند را پایین کشیده و بخواهیم از زاویه دید تنگ ما هستی را بنگرند. اینکه من تلاش می کنم چنین دیدگاه مهمی را به شما بشناسانم چه ارتباطی با مغالطه و سفسطه دارد؟

ترجمه

آیا حقیقت محمد ص همچنین درست است؟ البته نه از زاویه دید او حقیقتش درست است زیرا او یک دیوانه بود. این به این معنا نیست که ادراک یک انسان دیوانه از حقیقت و تلقی او از حقیقت واقعا درست است. هیچکس نی تواند ادعا کند همه حقیقت را درک کرده است. هر کسیکه چنین ادعایی کند کذاب است این مانند این است که کسی ادعا کند که تمام علوم هستی را فرا گرفته است.

جواب

آری محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم دیوانه است چون بسیار فراتر از فهم شما و امثال شما حرف زده است اگر آن عینک سیاه را از چشم بردارید و فهم خود را ملاک قرار ندهید مشکل حل خواهد شد.

ترجمه

شما می گویید من منطقی نیستم و حتی انسان نیستم، خب در این موقعیت شما هیچ مشکلی جهت نشان دادن خطاهای من ندارید و انسان نبودن مرا برجسته کنید، حمله به من را متوقف کنید در مقابل ادعاهای مرا مورد حمله قرار دهید.

جواب

معلوم می شود ترجمه درستی از حرف من نکرده ا ید و آن را خوب نفهمیده اید من نگفتم شما انسان نیستید بلکه ادعا این است که مبانی تفکر شما نه تنها عقلانی و منطقی نیست بلکه حتی انسانی به معنای خاص که توضیح خواهم داد هم نیست یعنی شما تنها تصور می کنید که تفکرات شما انسان محور است.

ترجمه

این بحث در باره علی سینا و افکار او نیست کسی برای افکار من اهمیتی قائل نیست و نباید هم باشد. اگر من تاکنون درخواست متابعتی داشته ام شما حق دارید افکار مرا زیر و رو کرده و آنها را رد کنید. تا آن موقع لطفا اجازه دهید به بحث خود ادامه دهیم موضوع بحث ما محمد ص و ادعاهای اوست نه علی سینا.

شما ادعا کردید که محمد ص یک پیامبر بوده است بنابر این عقیده همچنین گفتید بعضی از مردم که مشارکتی در سعادت مردم ندارند همانطور که بوسیله اسلام تایید شده باید از میان برداشته شوند. آیا دلیلی براین مدعای خود مبنی بر اشتیاق برای کشتن دارید؟

جواب

شما دائما در گوشه گوشه سایتتان به دیگران توصیه می کنید که اگر می خواهند دینی انتخاب کنند آن دین چه مشخصاتی باید داشته باشد، اگر می خواهند ازدواج کنند اصلا با یک مسلمان ازدواج نکنند و ….

بعد ازاینکه اثبات کردم مبانی معرفتی شما هیچ اساس و بنیانی ندارد جواب سوال شما را خواهم داد.

ترجمه

شما گفتید محمد ادعایی کرده برای اطرافیان خود کرده و دلیل خود را بیان کرده و آنها نیز قبول کرده اند اما اکنون شما نمی توانید آن ادله را بیاورید شما فقط از ایشان پیروی می کنید چون فکر می کنید که تمام آن مردمی که به او ایمان آورده اند نمی توانسته اند به خطا رفته باشند. من توضیح دادم که اعتقاد شما مبنی بر یکسری مغالطات منطقی است بله ممکن است میلیاردها نفر از مردم برای قرن ها اشتباه کنند شدت ایمان آنها و تعصبشان درستی اعتقاداتشان را اثبات نمی کند.

جواب

اگر چنین باشد من اکنون باید یک مسیحی باشم چرا که امروز تعداد مسیحیان بیشتر از مسلمانان است. چون بیشترند پس حق با آنان است یا حداقل باید یک مسلمان سنی مذهب باشم چرا که تعداد آنها حداقل چهار برابر شیعیان است. قبلا هم در مباحث چند ماه پیش به شما تذکر دادم کثرت دلیل بر حقانیت نیست اما اتهام نفهمی و نادانی به عده کثیری از مردم آن هم توسط کسی که به نادانی خود اعتراف دارد ادعایی نیست که به این راحتی ها قابل پذیرش باشد و یکی از دلایل اصرار من بر شناخت مبانی معرفتی شما اثبات این موضوع است که شما اصلا در حد و اندازه کسی که صلاحیت برای وارد کردن چنین اتهام بزرگی داشته باشد نیستید.

ترجمه

آنچه من می فهمم این است که این بحث تمام شده است. به جای اینکه ادعاهای محمد ص را اثبات کنید شما می خواهید غلط بودن معرف شناسی مرا اثبات نمایید اما اگر شما بتوانید دلایل اینکه محمد ص پیامبر خداست را به ما نشان دهید من سرا پا گوش خواهم بود اگر می خواهید به بحث ادامه دهید لطفا روی سوال تمرکز کنید. سوال در باره تفکرات من نیست بلکه درباره ارائه دلیل بر اثبات پیامبری محمد از طرف خداست دلایلی که تمام این کشتارها، تجاوزات و حملات و حبس ها و اعدام ها را قابل توجیه می کند.

جواب

از اینجا اثبات مدعای خود را شروع می کنم

اگر خدا وجود نداشته باشد و یا اگر وجود دارد نقشی در هستی نداشته باشد

انسان به معنای خاص هم وجود ندارد

انسان به معنای خاص یعنی موجودی که دارای کرامت است ،دارای حق و حقوقی است و امتیاز خاصی بین همه موجود دارد

امتیازی که سبب می شود به خود حق دهد هر آنچه در هستی است را بر اساس منافع خود نظاره کند و همه آنها را در خدمت خود ببیند

حال سوال این است که این امتیاز را چه کسی به انسان داده است؟ .

آیا اعتباری است که چون هیچ رقیبی وجود نداشته انسان برای خود قائل شده است و این افتخار را به خود داده که خود را مرکز و محور هستی معرفی کند و بر اساس آن حقوقی را معین کند که اگر ذره ای از این حقوق نادیده انگاشته شود هستی زیر و زبر شود؟.

یا این کرامت، این خاص بودن، این دردانه بودن، از سوی دیگری به او عطا شده است؟ .

آنها که انسان محوراند چاره ای ندارند که شق اول را انتخاب کنند

و به طور طبیعی خداباوران این امتیاز را از طرف خدا می دانند؛ وَ لَقَدْ كَرَّمْنا بَني‏ آدَمَ وَ حَمَلْناهُمْ فِي الْبَرِّ وَ الْبَحْرِ وَ رَزَقْناهُمْ مِنَ الطَّيِّباتِ وَ فَضَّلْناهُمْ عَلى‏ كَثيرٍ مِمَّنْ خَلَقْنا تَفْضيلا

چرا بر مبنای اول چنین انسانی وجود ندارد و اصلا انسانیت معنا ندارد؟ .

چون بنا به اعتراف همه انسان محوران حتی اگر خدا وجود داشته باشد انسان موجودی با قصد خاص نیست بلکه خداوند تاس انداخته است. موجودات زنده آغازشان از تک سلولی هاست و انسان هم بنابر اتفاق نه براساس نقشه قبلی و از پیش هدایت شده انسان شده است؛ توانایی های خاص انسان که سبب شده برای خود کرامت و حق و حقوق بتراشد ریشه در طبیعتی دارد که هیچ قسمتی از آن بر قسمت د یگر مزیت ندارد در حقیقت

انسانیت واژه ای است کاملا معادل خریت، گاویت، اسبیت و دریک کلمه حیوانیت منتهی حیوانی با ویژگیهای خاص همانطور که سگ نیز دارای ویژگیهای خاص خود است.

بدون محور قرار دادن خدا حتی اصطلاحاتی مانند پدر، مادر، خواهر، برادر، دوستی، دشمنی و …. بی معنا هستند ما جزئی از طبیعتیم و در طبیعت این کلمات معنایی ندارند

انسانها موجوداتی هستند که در علفزار طبیعت سبز شده، رشد می کنند و بعد هم خشک شده و از بین می روند همین و بس

حال چه فرق می کند یکی هنوز سر از خاک بر نیاورده توسط پاهای تنومند یک فیل له شده و از بین برود و دیگر در پناه درختی تنومند یک بهار دوام بیاورد سپس خشک شده و از بین برود؟ .

علی سینا ادعا می کند این موجود بدون اینکه ریشه در خدا داشته باشد دارای کرامت است و چون از این دیدگاه کرامت او در بعضی از جهات توسط دین اسلام نادیده گرفته شده پس اسلام باطل است

حال سوال این است کدام کرامت؟ کدام حق و حقوق اگر بتوانید با دلایل منطقی و عقلانی نه با کلماتی احساسی و شاعرانه این کرامت را ثابت کنید به گونه ای که اگر غیر از این باشد ما با تناقض مواجه شویم حق کاملا با شماست و ادعای محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم دروغی آشکار است.

اما اگر نتوانید آنگاه نوبت خدایی که به انسان کرامت داده و او را بر دیگران برتری داده می رسد تا حق و حقوق و مرزهای کرامت انسان را معین و مشخص کند.

منتظر می مانم تا شما خود را به عنوان انسان خاص اثبات نمایید.

 

 

The reason I am interested to understand your world view is to show you and the readers that the real reason for Ali Sina’s enmity with the Prophet (PBUH) is his world view.  You wear dark eyeglasses and see everything about Islam and its prophet darkened.  As long as I don’t remove these glasses from your eyes it is not possible to prove to you that the wisdom and the world view of the Last Prophet have a different color than what you see.  For example, the reason Maulana Rumi, with all his greatness considers himself a slave of Muhammad (PBUH) and Ali Sina who according to his own admission is not an important person, attacks the Prophet so recklessly, is not proof of his understanding and knowledge and Rumi’s ignorance. The difference is the way these two look at things. I must know who my challenger is. The language I’d use to debate with a complete atheist is different from how I’d address a Christian or a Jew, etc.  Therefore, you have to give me the right to know you first.

You accuse me of wearing dark glasses when I view Islam. I could accuse you of wearing rose colored glasses when you view the same.  It is obvious that we both are biased.  This is normal in every religious discussion.  Our goal is to shed light on the subject from both angles so our readers can see it better.  They can be atheists, or belong to any religion.   You should expound the truth as you see it, irrespective of my beliefs.  You want to convince the readers, not me.

Your argument that Rumi who was smarter than Ali Sina was a believer is an argumentum ad verecundiam.  Incidentally, Muhammad refuted this fallacy when he called the wise men of Mecca, fools and ignorant and credited the lowly slaves and youths for believing in him.  Of course he was wrong, but his argument that one is not necessarily right if he is a learned person was valid.  One should not automatically believe that eminent people know more.  Rumi was a genius poet, but his understanding of spiritual world had many holes in it.  Compared to Muhammad he was a lot wiser but compared to today’s enlightened people, or even yesterday’s, such as Buddha, he was a confused man.  Rumi also believed in Muhammad’s balderdash that God transformed the Jews into monkeys and pigs for breaking the law of Sabbath. And there are many more gross absurdities in his beliefs.  But let us not digress.  However, your argument that we see the world with different glasses is correct.  The question is which are the right ones, the black ones that I wear or the rosy ones that the believers wear?  We are here to decide that.

Some of your beliefs are correct and some of them are incorrect and you have no way to prove them.  It is correct that truth is infinite, but all the people don’t look at it from the same level and angle. (I remind you of the Indian parable of the elephant in the dark that is quoted by Rumi). If not for this, there would not have been so many different views among the people.   How do you know that the prophet of God is not standing on the peak of this mountain and can view it in its entirety, whereas we are at the foot of that mountain with our limited views?  There is no doubt that all the people are not in the same level of understanding. Some are lower and some are higher.  We must strive to climb higher and increase our understanding and not pull those who are higher down and force them to view the world from our limited perspective.  I am trying to show you this higher perspective. What this has to do with fallacies and sophism [of which you accuse me]?

I agree that people have different understanding. An uneducated person has a much lesser understanding of science than a scientist.  But this higher understanding must be demonstrated.  One cannot simply claim to be the greatest scientist without any evidence.  You claim that Muhammad was standing on the peak of the knowledge and hence could see things that are beyond our grasp.  Where is the proof?  He said a lot of things that are proven to be wrong. His views about the physical universe and science have been all incorrect. If he was so ignorant about this world, why should we believe his claims about the next?  If someone claims to be the biggest scientific mind and can’t do a simple math, should we believe his outlandish claim?

Here is the problem that I try to make you see, which you can’t because you wear those rose colored glasses when you view Muhammad.

You said Muhammad was a mad man.  My response is that yes he was, because his understanding was way superior to yours. If you remove your dark glasses and don’t use your own understanding as the measure the problem will be solved.

You just put our finger on the problem.  You want me to not use my own understanding.  Then whose understanding should I use?  If we stop using our own understanding we become easy prey to any charlatan.  God has given us understanding to use it.  Each person has to use his or her own understanding.  If there is going to be a day of reckoning, what excuses will you have in front of your creator when he asks, I gave you understanding so you can discern between truth and falsehood and distinguish good from evil, why did you not use it? Why did you believe in an impostor whose teachings were contrary to your understanding?

How will you answer Him?  Will you tell him I did not trust the instrument you gave me and was not sure whether it works?  If you don’t use your own understanding, what standard do you use to find the truth?

Obviously you did not understand me correctly. I did not say you are not ensan, I said your thinking is not rational and not even ensani.  In other words your thinking revolves around human.

Ensan means human and ensani is humane. My translation is correct.  However, if you meant humanist then the word in Persian is Ensan gara. And yes I am a humanist and I believe Man is the measure of all things.

We know what is Man. In our essence we are all the same.  We can use Man to measure all things human.   If I give you the distance between two points in number of feet, you can understand, because the size of the foot in all humans is more or less the same.  But if I give you this measure in God’s feet no one will understand, because no one knows the size of God’s foot.

When I talk about human love, everyone understands me because we all feel love more or less in the same way.  But when I talk about God’s love I am talking of something abstract.  My speech becomes vague and incomprehensible.  The same can be said about God’s wisdom, God’s knowledge, God’s justice, etc.  Like god’s foot size all these attributes are imaginary and vague.  Their use is deceptive.   Therefore, Man must be the measure of all things human.  Any other measure is vagu.

In your site you advise people that if they want to choose a religion they should follow a personal religion and if they want to marry they should not marry Muslims, etc.  When I prove to you that your understanding is wrong and with no foundation I will answer you accordingly.

You accused me of committing the fallacy of argumentum ad numerum.  If this were the case I should have been a Christian because there are more Christians in the world than Muslims. Or at least I should have been a Sunni Muslim because they are four times more numerous than the Shiites.  I also mentioned this in our earlier discussion a few months ago. However, accusing a large number of people of ignorance especially by someone who admits to be ignorant is not a claim that can be easily accepted.  One of the reasons of my insistence in understanding the basis of your belief is to prove that you are not in the position to make such an accusation.

If you have already accepted that argumentum ad numerum is a fallacy then we agree on something.  Are you saying this logic becomes invalid when it comes to Muslims?  I hope not! I have the right to say Muslims are wrong.  Why I should not be in a position to make such claim?

Acknowledging ones ignorance is the beginning of wisdom.  The more you know the more you realize how little you know.  Those who don’t admit their ignorance are in compound ignorance.

From here on I will begin to prove my claims.

If God did not exist or if He did not have a role in the world, there can be no meaning for Man either.  By this I mean a being with greatness, with rights and especial privileges among other creatures.  These privileges allow him to have rights over whatever there is in the world, take advantage of them and use them for his benefit and at his service.

The question is who has given Man this privilege?

Is it correct to say that because Man has no rival he has claimed these privileges on his own and has positioned himself at the center of everything?  Or has this specialism and uniqueness been bestowed upon him by someone else?

Those who believe in humanism have no other option but to pick the former hypothesis.  Theists on the other hand believe this privilege is given to man by God. “And surely We have honored the children of Adam, and We carry them in the land and the sea, and We have given them of the good things, and We have made them to excel by an appropriate excellence over most of those whom We have created.  (Q. 17: 70)

Why based on the humanists’ premise such a person does not exist at all and humanity has no meaning?

Because according to all humanists, even if God exists, Man is not created intentionally, but his creation is accidental. They believe that living began as bakteria and Man is also the product of accident and not an intelligent design.  And Man’s faculties that allow him to excel over other creatures are rooted in nature, meaning, no creature is better than the other.   Man is placed at the same level of other animals such as donkeys, cattle and horses.  Man is an animal with special characteristics, just as dog has its own unique characteristics.

Putting God out of the picture will render even concepts such as father, mother, sister, brother, friend and foe meaningless. We become a part of the nature and these words mean nothing.

Humans are seen as blades of grass that grow in the pasture of nature and then die and perish.  It makes no difference whether they are squished under the feet of an elephant or grow under the shade of a tree and survive for a season as they will eventually die and perish.

Ali Sina says that this blade of grass is great without having any root in God and since from this perspective, Mans greatness is sometimes ignored by Islam then Islam must be false.

Now the question is which greatness and which rights? If you can prove this greatness in a logical way, without resorting to emotionalism and sentimentalism, in a way that would make the alternative explanation impossible, you win and the claim of Muhammad (PBUH) is false.

But if you can’t prove this greatness in Man is innate or natural, we have to attribute it to the God that has excelled him over other creatures and has given him special rights and privileges.

I look forward so you can prove your own self as a special human.

The answer to this question is not in theology. Science has already provided the answer.  Man is the result of 4 billion years of evolution.  Intelligent man is about 40,000 years old and as a civilized creature he is barely 4,000 (approximately) years old. That is when we started hearing about God for the first time.  Life in this planet is 100,000 times older than us and 1,000,000 times older than our civilization.  Where was God all this time?

We don’t excel over other creatures.  We are smarter and have a rational brain that they don’t have. They have faculties that we don’t have. They can see, better, run faster or see hidden objects with sonar waves, etc.   kookoo chick hatches in surrugate nests and then travels over a thousand mile to find her parents.  We humans can’t even comprehend that.  Most animals sense pending natural disasters. We don’t.  Because of our larger brain we have positioned ourselves at the top of the food chain.  It is very clear why we dominate other animals. We are smarter.  And the reason we are smarter is because of our evolution.  I don’t have to prove this because this is a fact. You claim that we excel other animals because of God. This is not true because first you have to define in what ways we excel.  Dogs excel humans in smelling.  Eagles excel humans in sight. We only excel in intelligence.  Each creature has developed faculties that allow it  to survive best.  This does not need any proof because it is self-evident.  It is you who has to prove this presumed “excellence” in humans is bestowed by an alleged god. You can’t even prove the existence of that god.  You back up one fallacy with another.

However, this subject is red herring.  I don’t want you to prove to me the existence of God.  Let us agree that God exists and he has created man and has made him excel over other creatures, just as you say.  What this has to do with Muhammad?  I want you to prove that Muhammad was a prophet of this god of whom you talk about.

Let us assume God exists. This God must be, knowing, merciful, forgiving with all the divine attributes that we expect from a real god, which are basically our own good atributes.   His messenger must exemplify those attributes.  But Muhammad did not evince any such qualities. He was a ruthless man. He raided, looted, raped and massacred innocent people.  What he did was not godly. He acted like a thug not like a holy man.  Please let us not digress from the subject and answer the question I ask you in every post.  What is your proof that Muhammad was a prophet of God?

Can you answer this question without going tangent and beating around the bushes?

 

Update: 2012/ 03/ 02  10:35 PM

خب الحمدلله به نظر می رسد در یک سری اصول اساسی بحث نظرمان یکی شده یا بسیار به هم نزدیک شده، در چند مورد هنوز اختلافاتی هست که به آنها اشاره می کنم.

یکی از سوالات اساسی که مطرح کردید این است که خداوند به ما قوه فهم و درک داده اگر قیامتی و روز جزایی در کار باشد و خدا از تو بپرسد چرا قوه فهم و درکی که به تو دادم تا خیر و شررا از هم تمیز دهی به کار نبردی؟ چرا به شیادی ایمان آوردی که آموزه های او بر خلاف دانسته ها و فهم توست؟ چه جوابی به خدای خود خواهی داد؟

آیا به او می گویی که من به آن وسیله ای که تو به من دادی اطمینان نکردم و به عملکرد آن مطمئن نبودم؟

اگر ما فهم و ادراک خود را به کار نگیریم چه ملاک و معیار دیگری برای رسیدن حقیقت وجود دارد؟

سوال بسیار خوبی است و البته یکی از نقاط اصلی اختلاف من و شما.

فهم و درک درونی که در معارف قرآن و اسلام از آن تعبیر به فطرت می شود چیزی نیست که قابل انکار باشد و یکی از قابلیت های برجسته انسان است، در فطرت، خمیرمایه و سرشت انسان درک خوبی و بدی بر اساس نیازهایی که در خود احساس می کند وجود دارد که البته حیوانات نیز به صورت ابتدایی از چنین قابلیتی برخوردارند. یکی از چیزهایی که در میان تمام انسانها از ابتدا تا کنون درک شده است و مشترک بین همه آنهاست توجه به مفهومی به نام “خدا” ست. علی رغم تمام تلاشهایی که جهت خدا زدایی از ذهن انسان در گذشته شده و اکنون نیز ادامه دارد، هیچگاه این تلاشها راه به جایی نبرده است و یکی از دلایل محکم من بر وجود خدا همین حس مشترک (فطرت) است.

عدم توجه به این حس کلی و دخالت ندادن آن در فهم جزئیاتی که به آن خوبی و بدی می گوییم یقینا باعث گمراهی ما خواهد شد لذا اگر قیامتی در کار باشد یکی دیگر از سوالاتی که خدا از ما خواهد کرد از همین عدم توجه خواهد بود. به طور قطع و یقین جای این سوال باقی است که مگر من به توی انسان عقل و فهم درک نداده بودم چرا خود را به دنیایی که انتهای آن نیستی و نابودی است و هیچ ثمری ندارد مشغول کردی؟ آیا جای این نبود که اگر کسی ادعا کرد از من خبری دارد با استفاده از همین حس تمام زوایای ا دعای او را بررسی کنی؟

ادعا کردید که

انسانگرا هستید و انسان را ملاک و معیار همه چیز می دانید. چون ما همه چیز را در باره انسان می دانیم اما هیچ چیز درباره خدا و ملاک و معیارهای او نمی دانیم و همه معیارهای او مبهم است.

جواب

خب این کاملا طبیعی است اما تکلیف ما با آن حس مشترک چه می شود؟ همه ما حس می کنیم که هست؛ آیا به صرف اینکه مبهم است باید از آن گوش دادن به این الغاء درونی صرف نظر کنیم؟

در جواب این سوال من که آیا می توانید خود را به عنوان انسان خاص که دارای کرامت است اثبات کنید جواب داده اید که:

جواب این سوال در خداشناسی نیست بلکه علم به این سوال پاسخ داده است. انسان نتیجه چهار میلیارد سال از تکامل است. انسان هوشمند حدود چهل هزار سال عمر دارد و به عنوان یک موجود متمدن در حدود چهار هزار سال طول عمر اوست. به همین دلیل زمانی که برای نخستین بار در باره خدا چیزهایی شنیدیم زندگی در این سیاره صدهزار بار مسن تر از ما بود و یک میلیون بار مسن تر از تمدن ما. در تمام طول این مدت خدا کجا بود؟

جواب

ظاهرا فراموش کرده اید که خدای مفروض ما ازلی و ابدی است و در محدوده زمان و مکان نمی گنجد. زمان حتی خارج از سیاره ما چیزی بی معنا و یا حداقل مبهمی است. زمین ما تنها یکی از میلیاردها میلیارد شیئ در فضاست که در محدوده خاصی به دور یک شیئ فضایی دیگر که نام آن را خورشید گذاشته ایم در گردش است و این گردش را ملاک سپری شدن ایام و سالها و قرنها قرار داده ایم. اگر موجوداتی هوشمند از ورای منظومه ما به ما بنگرند یقینا با صدای بلند به ما و ملاکهایمان خواهند خندید.

در قسمت بعدی

خلاصه حرف شما این است که چون انسان با هوش تر از دیگر موجودات است پس سطان جنگل است وحق دارد روزانه میلیونها موجود زنده دیگر را سلاخی کند تا شکم خود را سیر کند! و برتری ما دلیل علمی دارد و نیاز به خدا برای اثبات برتری انسان نیست.

جواب

من شک ندارم که شما متوجه منظور من شده اید ولی چون جواب منطقی برای آن نداشته اید مجبور شده اید چنین جوابی بدهید، شاید هم سالها دوری از فرهنگ ایرانی و اسلامی و خدایی فهم معنای واژه کرامت (گرامی بودن) را برای شما سخت کرده است، من اصلا نمی دانم این واژه در فرهنگ غرب معادلی دارد یا نه؟ که البته بعید می دانم داشته باشد چرا که اگر وجود داشت این همه کشتار و خونریزی برای پر کردن شکم ( همان قانون جنگلی که به آن اشاره کردید) قابل توجیه نبود.

جناب سینا

تمام آن اخلاقیاتی که بر اساس آنها دیگران را متهم به بی اخلاقی می کنید مبتنی بر اثبات وجود چنین کرامتی برای انسان است و الا به صرف اینکه تکامل طبیعی باعث بزرگتر شدن مغز انسان شده است تنها هوشمندتر بودن انسان را اثبات می کند نه گرامی تر بودن او را. بر اساس منطق شما چه اشکالی دارد که ما همانطور که گاوها، گوسفندها، مرغ ها و …. برای پر کردن شکم خود پروار کرده و سلاخی می کنیم در گوشه ای هم همنوعان خود را پروار کنیم بعد هم آنها را سر بریده و مصرف کنیم آیا صرف اینکه مغز انسان بزرگتر است چنین مصونیتی به او بخشیده که خورده نشود؟ در کجای طبیعت چنین قانونی نوشته شده است؟

به طور قطع به قانون طلایی بر منع این کار اشاره خواهید کرد غافل از اینکه قانون چیزی است که تخلف ناپذیر باشد در حالیکه قانون طلایی هیچ ضمانت اجرایی ندارد و تنها در حد چند توصیه اخلاقی است یعنی اگر جایی کسی بداند که یقینا دست قانون جزایی به اونمی رسد و مال زیادی از مردم را بدزد چه اتفاقی می افتد؟ همینطور است سایر چیزهایی که از دید شما اخلاقی و انسانی است.

اشاره کرده اید که

بیاییم فرض کنیم خدا موجود است؛ انسان را آفریده و او را بر سایر موجودات برتری داده است، این موضوع چه ارتباطی به محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم دارد؟ من می خواهم شما اثبات کنید او پیامبر خدایی است که در باره او صحبت می کنید.

جواب

اگر دقت می کردید در همان پست قبلی جواب این سوال را داده ام. اگر خدا موجود باشد و به انسان کرامت داده باشد آن وقت این خداست که تعیین می کند چه چیزی اخلاقی است و چه چیزی نیست. انسان تنها مجری قوانین خداست و حق قانون گذاری ندارد. بله ما به واسطه فهم و درکی که همین خدا به ما داده بسیاری از جزئیات اخلاقی را درک می کنیم اما به طور یقین به واسطه دید محدود و اطلاعات ناقصی که داریم مواردی هم هست که قادر به درک آن نیستیم و اینجاست که نیاز به موجودی به عنوان واسطه بین خدا و انسان ضروری است و عقل حکم می کند که بر خدا واجب است قوانین خاص خود را به انسان اعلام کند که اگر نکند حق تعقیب نخواهد داشت (ما كُنَّا مُعَذِّبينَ حَتَّى نَبْعَثَ رَسُولا ) اسراء- 15

برای اثبات رسالت حضرت محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم علاوه بر معجزات ریز و درشتی که در سیرهایی که شما – و برای اثبات مدعای خود در مورد رفتار پیامبر به آنها تمسک می کنید – به عنوان سند قبول دارید آمده است، نشانه و معجزه اصلی قرآن است؛ پیامبر خاتم در قرآن ادعا کرده که أَ فَلا يَتَدَبَّرُونَ الْقُرْآنَ وَ لَوْ كانَ مِنْ عِنْدِ غَيْرِ اللَّهِ لَوَجَدُوا فيهِ اخْتِلافاً كَثيراً (نساء- 82) اگر این قرآن از طرف غیر خدا بود هر آینه در آن تناقضاتی آشکار می یافتند.

استدلال بسیار ساده است، در بحث چند ماه قبل شما دو مورد از این تناقضات را در باره زندگی آخرت و شفاعت از من سوال کردید و من جواب دادم و در مقابل از طرف شما جوابی به جز سکوت نشنیدم که نشان از متقاعد کننده بودن جواب من داشت. اگر شما بتوانید تناقض آشکاری را در قرآن اثبات کنید آن وقت انتساب آن به خدا و در نتیجه اثبات پیامبر بودن حضرت محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم با مشکل مواجه خواهد شد.

علاوه بر این موضوع تحدی نیز دلیل محکمی بر اثبات رسالت پیامبر خاتم صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم است یعنی قرآن از دو جهت محتوا و سبک دلالت قوی بر اثبا

موضوع بحث دارد

Update: 2012/03/03  9:30 PM

Great! It looks like in many basic principles we have the same views or are close. There are discrepancies in a few topics that I will point them out.

One of your main arguments is that God has given us understanding. You say we are responsible to God to use our understanding. You asked if we don’t use our own understanding what we shall use to find the truth.

This is a good question and is one of the main differences between our positions.

The inner understanding that in the Quran is referred to as  فطرت (nature) is not deniable and it is one of the prominent human faculties.   Man can sense good and evil in his nature, essence and core because of the needs that lie within him.   Even animals are endowed with that faculty, albeit at a much primitive level.

A concept that is commonly understood by all humans from early on is the concept of God.  Despite all the efforts, of past and present to erase the belief in God, it has survived. One of my strong evidences in the existence of God is this very ubiquity of the belief in Him.

Ignoring this universal sense and precluding it in understanding of what we define as good and evil will most certainly lead us astray.  Therefore, if there is a Judgment Day one of the questions that God will ask us will be this very omission.  He will certainly ask, didn’t I give you understanding? Then why did you preoccupy yourself with a transient and ephemeral world that does not benefit you?  Why you did not investigate the claim of the one who claimed to bring you my news?

You claim that all humans universally understand the concept of God and therefore this is one reason of the existence of God.  This is not true. Your premise is false.  Many cultures, such as Chinese and Japanese evolved without having any idea about God. Many other cultures such as Africans believed in different forms of animism. Others, such as Indians, worshipped multiple deities who had little in common with the gods that were worshipped in the Middle East.  The God of the Bible and the God of Muhammad are gods of desert.  Today, thanks to Christian and Muslim proselytism these two gods are accepted by a large number of people. But still there are many, such as yours truly, who has no belief in any god.    The belief in God must be indoctrinated. It does not occur naturally in humans.  Your premise is false.  This is petito principi fallacy.

You then conclude that if there is a Judgment Day, God will ask why you did no use your understanding to realize that your world is ephemeral and did not listen to the one who claimed to have my news.

This logic is typical fallacy of circular reasoning.  I can see this world. Where is the evidence of the next? Why should I believe in the invisible and unconfirmed and even illogical world that Muhammad described and not believe in the world described by Lemuel Gulliver where he claimed he have travelled and saw finer size people?   Unless you provide an evidence of Muhammad’s next world, it is a fantasy.  No sane God would send people to hell for not believing in a fantasy.

Then you say God will question me for not using my intelligence to believe in Muhammad who claimed to be his prophet. I believed in Muhammad when I was not using my intelligence. I stoped believing in him when I used my intelligence. It was through my intelligence that I realized this man was mentally sick, a charlatan impostor and not a prophet of God.  I have shown his crimes, his blunders and his moral depravity as evidence that he was not a prophet of God.  Give me one evidence that he was.  This debate is becoming prolonged and you beat around the bushes while you have not answered this question.

There is not a day that a loon does not claim to be a messenger of God. Why should we investigate their claims?  They are all liars because God is not stupid to send messages like that. If  God wanted to send messages to humans he would make himself known to them.  If all those millions of other claimants who have no proof for their claims are liars why Muhammad should be different? He too has no proof for his claim. In addition he was more evil.

Now I don’t say you should not believe in the next world or in Muhammad’s.  You are free to believe in anything that makes you happy. But you are not free to kill those who don’t believe in your fantasy.

People with understanding and reason don’t believe in unsubstantiated claims and fairy tales. Gullible  people do.  And I don’t mind it. What I mind is when they want to kill others, or as you put it, hasten their passage from this word to that imaginary world.

 

You said you are a humanist and regard man as the measure of all things.

Alright! This is perfectly natural. However what shall we do about that universal feeling about God? We all feel that He is. Should we ignore that inner call just because it is incomprehensible/non clear?

This is another fallacy.  That feeling is not universal. I have no such delusions whatsoever. Once upon a time I too believed in that boogeyman in the sky but not anymore. If you feel it, you are free to believe.  But don’t assume everyone does and don’t try to impose it on others.  I have the right not to believe too. You can believe in a stone, but don’t throw it at me.  You can parrot as much as you like about the Golden Rule but as long as you don’t understand that my rights to not believe are just as sacred as yours to believe you have no understanding of this rule.  A person who does not understand the Golden Rule and does not apply it is not an evolved human. He or she is a sub-human whose consciousness is still lingering in the animal kingdom. Muhammad was one such person and so are his benighted followers.

 

You said humans are the result of evolution and ask where was God all this time when we were not evolved yet to be called human.

You seem to have forgotten that our hypothetical God is eternal and. Time out of our planet is meaningless. We measure time by counting the revolution of the earth around one of the billions of stars that we call sun. If some intelligent creatures viewed us from outside our solar system, they will certainly laugh at us.

And what this has to do with my question? I asked where God was for billions of years when we humans were still living in animal kingdom.  Your response that time is measured by the revolution of the earth and that the ETs think humans are funny creatures has nothing to do with my question.

 

I asked why Man excels over other creatures and can dominate them. Isn’t this proof that God has given his virtues and superior faculties?  You wrote that our superiority to animals has scientific reasons explainable through evolution and there is no need to drag God into the picture.

I have no doubt that you correctly understood me. However, since you could not find a logical answer, you were forced to give this answer.  Perhaps thanks to years of alienation from your Islamic culture you have forgotten the meaning of the word کرامت which means to be noble and virtuous.  I don’t know whether this word has an equivalent in the western lexicon.  I doubt it has because if they had any understanding of it, there would not be so much killing and massacrs just for filling their bellies (just like the law of Jungle that you mentioned).

Yes these words exist in western languages and the westerners understand them a lot better than Muslims.  They seek honor in honesty and in integrity in their belief and action.  They seek nobility in exalted moral and mental character and in exellence. Unlike Muslims, their honor and dignity does not hinge on what their women wear or do, but in how they conduct themselves.  They don’t beat or kill their daughters for talking to a boy or for revealing her hair to strangers.

And as far as killings, please pull your head out of the sands and look around yourself.  Nine out of ten conflicts worldwide involve Muslims, while they comprise only one fifth of humanity.  This means that Muslims, as a group, are a whopping 36 times more likely to resort to violence than others.   Our Iran that is ruled by religious people like you has the highest political prisoners per capita in the world and highest execution per capital. These are the only shameful records Iran holds in the world community.

The Islamic regime in Iran is about to execute Youcef Nadarkhani, an innocent man, a father of small children because he has changed his religion to Christianity and you have the chutzpa to talk to me about nobility?  These acts of barbarity ranks  Muslims lower than beasts. What nobility are you talking about?  It is you who does not know the meaning of this word.

Mr. Sina,

Whatever is your definition of ethics that you accuse others of lacking it prove the necessity of the existence of many virtues in humans. Otherwise, if evolution were the only cause for growth of human brain, Man would have been smarter, but without virtues, ethics and morality.  Based on your reasoning, why should we not be like animals, and just as we kill and eat beef and lamb and chickens, raise also other humans, then slaughter them and consume them?   Is the fact that humans have larger brains reason enough not to cannibalize them? Where in the nature it says not to eat your kind?

Most certainly, you will bring in the Golden Rule to refute my argument, ignoring the fact that a law must be inviolable, whereas the Golden Rule is not binding. It is nothing but a mere suggestion.  If someone knows for certainty that he can steal and get away with it, why should he follow the Golden Rule? The same can be said about other things that in your view are unethical.

You are making many baseless claims without substantiating them.  You say that humans are not ethical or moral by nature, but instinctively evil and it is only through the fear of retribution that they can behave ethically.

This claim is false scientifically.  Psychological studies performed on infants, show that the sense of justice and the grasp of good and bad exist in children, less than one year old.  Even babies understand crime and think it deserves punishment.

This is the sad thing about Muslims. They don’t read. Muslims are as a whole unread and ignorant.  Instead of searching the truth in labs and in experiments they rehash the absurdities of the ancient people.

Yes morality is innate in humans. Your understanding of human nature is based on your Islamic indoctrination. Islamic indoctrination stems from the mind of Muhammad who was a narcissist. Narcissists have a distorted understanding of human nature. They think others are also like them. A narcissist breaks the rules if he thinks he won’t be caught. The only thing that stops a narcissist from breaking laws is fear of being caught.  Islam is a fear based religion. It is because its founder was a narcissist.

Many years ago I had a talk with a young  Muslim. He told me basically what you are saying. He said if it were not for the fear of God nothing would stop a person to fornicate with his mother. I asked him whether he lusted after his mother and whether his belief in Islam is the only thing that stops him from jumping into bed with her.  Do you see the absurdity of this reasoning?  You say if it were not for religion and the fear of retribution nothing would stop people from stealing, committing all sorts of crimes and even cannibalizing each other.  Will you do these things if you did not believe in God?

More and more people are becoming vegan because they think it is unethical to abuse or kill another creature when we can easily survive by eating fruits and vegetables.  These people prove that there are many with higher consciousness who do the right thing because it is right and not because of fear of retribution.  Muhammad was a very sick man and his ummah is also sick.  Islam brings humans at the lowest level of consciousness. – the consciousness of a psychopath.

Why an educated person such as you should utter this much nonsense? It is because instead of using your brain you get your inspiration from the brain of a mentally sick Arab of the seventh century.  You babble nonsense because you follow a mad man.

Good people, whether theist or atheist, do good things and evil people do evil things. But for good people to do evil you need religion.   Killing another human being is the ultimate evil.  Killing someone for his belief is even worse than cannibalism.  At least the cannibal kills someone else to survive. But Muslims kill countless others for a lie.  You see no problem in killing apostates like me or Yucef Nadarkhani. Why would an educated man like you condone such insanity? It is because when sane people follow insane people they act insanely.

Your faith is a lie. That is okay.  Most faiths are lies.  The problem with Islam is that you kill others because of this lie.

You asked me to prove that Muhammad (pbuh) was a prophet of God. If you had paid attention I have already answered this question in my previous post.  If God exists and he is the one who makes humans virtuous, making him excel of other animals, then it is God that decides what things are moral and what things are not. Man is nothing but the executor of Gods laws and he cannot make laws.

Yes, It is thanks to this very understanding that God has given us we can understand many details of morality, but certainly because of our limited knowledge and our imperfection we cannot grasp many other facts about morality.  And it is here that we see the need of an intermediary between God and Man. Therefore, logically, it is incumbent on God to announce his laws through a human. If he doesn’t he can’t blame and punish us.     “And WE shall never punish until WE have sent a Messenger.” (Q. 17:15)

What a twisted logic? So God sends messengers in order to  punish those who don’t believe?  Your God is also insane. It is because he too is the figment of a sick mind.  This whole notion of God creating mankind and punishing them is idiotic. If you use your brain for one minute rationally you will see it is utterly stupid.

I discussed these points with an educated Muslim about 13 years ago.  He was a strong believer but a good man.  We discussed a lot. He stopped talking to me and left in anger. But I had sown in him the seed of doubt. Many years later he left Islam.  Recently he wrote to me and thanked me. This made me very happy.  Since he was a teacher in an Islamic school, he lost his job.  He lost also his friends. But he found the truth and his soul.  Please listen to his impeccable logic about why the belief in the kind of God you believe is insane.

 

To prove that the Muhammad (PBUH) is the prophet of God, there are many miracles in the Sira and the Quran which prove that claim and that is the same Sira that you use as evidence to attack him.  The Quran says, “Will they not then ponder on the Qur’an ? If it had been from other than Allah they would have found therein much incongruity.” (Q. 4:82)

Presenting miracles attributed to Muhammad in the Sira as evidence is a fallacy.  Those stories are all false.  Muhammad denied being able to perform miracles. He said “I am only a man” (Q. 17: 93) “And the Unbelievers say: “Why is not a sign sent down to him from his Lord?” But thou art truly a warner, and to every people a guide.” (Q. 13: 07). In the article, Did Muhammad Perform Miracles I have proven that he didn’t, according to the Quran.

As for the verse 4:82 that challenges anyone to find an error in the Quran, there are over a thousand of them. Look at this site for a list of them. http://1000mistakes.com/

The evidences are many. A few months ago you asked me about two of these contradictions and I responded, but you did not reply and I did not hear anything from you other than silence, which is proof that my reply was convincing. If you can prove the contradictions of the Quran then we can’t attribute that book to God and therefore proving that Muhammad was a messenger of God becomes difficult.

In addition, by its style and by its content the Quran is evidence of that the Prophet (PBUH) was a prophet of God.

If I did not respond to you, it does not mean you won and I could not answer you.  I simply ignored you because debating in two languages is not useful to my site, where most of the readers are English speakers. This time we agreed to translate each-other’s responses.  I am the only one who is doing it.  This is time consuming and tedious.

I’d like to end this debate. You are repeating yourself. You have not provided a single logical proof that Muhammad was a prophet of God.  Your evidences are logical fallacies as I have pointed them out.  I did not start this debate hoping that you’d see the light and leave Islam. I wanted this debate as evidence that no one, whether Sunni or Shiite has any evidence for his belief in Islam and that his religion is entirely based on logical fallacies, and sheer lies.  I have achieved my objective and I bade you fair well.

 

Update: 2012/03/05  1.00 PM

 

جناب سینا

من به قصد مجادله اینجا نیامدم

تنها سه نکته

اول اینکه نوشته طولانی شما هرگز نتوانست جواب سوال من را در خود گم کند.

1- سوال از منشاء کرامت و عدم کرامت انسان بود و شما بحث را منحرف به منشاء اخلاق مداری انسان کرده و مدعی شدید که ریشه در طبیعت دارد و حتی کودکان نیز آن را درک می کنند. اینکه طبیعت انسان را اخلاق مدار کرده نه تنها به شما کمکی نمی کند بلکه به ضرر شماست و اخلاق انسانی را هم ردیف دیگر مشخصه های سایر حیوانات کرده و ارزش آن را در حد قوه شامه سگ، چشم تیز بین عقاب و …. پایین می آورد.

خلاصه استدلال من بر درستی راه خود و نادرستی راه شما

همه ما اعم از باخدا و بیخدا حس می کنیم که انسان دارای کرامت است و تمایز او از سایر حیوانات به بزرگی مغز و سایر ویژگیهای طبیعی او نیست؛ هیچ چیزی در طبیعت برتری ارزشی بر چیز دیگری ندارد چرا که هیچ کس و هیچ چیز دخالتی در کسب ویژگی خاص خود نداشته است.

2- تنها و تنها موجودی برتر می تواند دست انسان را گرفته و بر مقام رفیع انسانیت نشانده و او را متمایز بر سایر موجودات کند؛ آن موجود جز خدا نمی تواند باشد، اگر هست من را نیز مطلع کنید.

3- از میان تمام خدایان قابل فرض تنها خدای قرآن قابلیت دفاع منطقی و عقلی دارد و این نشان می دهد حضرت محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم پیامبری حقیقی و راستین است.

4- استدلال فوق کامل باشد یا دارای نقایصی باشد به هیچ وجه جایی برای عقیده شما نمی گذارد زیرا شما مدعی کرامت انسان هستید اما نمی توانید منشاء آن را اثبات کنید.

دوم اینکه

شما تنها ادعا می کنید که پایبند به قانون طلایی هستید، قانون طلایی می گوید به دیگران توهین نکن تا به تو توهین نکنند اما متاسفانه تمام نوشته های شما از جمله آخرین نوشته تان در جواب من مملو است از اهانت و فحش همین یک مورد کافی است که اثبات کند مدعیان پایبندی به قانون طلایی تنها عده ای شیادند که می خواهند با پرچمداری قانون طلایی هر بلایی که بخواهند به سر دیگران بیاورند.

سوم اینکه

اگر یادتان باشد در بحثهای قبلی در مورد تناقضات قرآن با توپ کاملا پر به میدان آمدید اما وقتی جواب دو مورد از تناقضات را دادم به یکباره میدان را خالی کردید اگر این بار هم این کار را بکنید جای تعجب چندانی نیست، توصیه می کنم به جای سوار شدن بر موج احساساتی که تنها بچه ها را قانع می کند به سلاح عقل و منطق مسلح شوید تا بتوانید محکم و قاطع از موضع خود دفاع کنید

Mr. Sina,

I did not come here to argue.

I have three points that have remained unanswered. Your long replies have not been able to refute them.

The first is about the source of karamat کرامت in humans. You diverted the discussion and instead talked about the innate origin of morality in humans and how they are manifest in babies. This concept that nature is the source of morality, not only does not help you, it works actually against you as it puts human morality at the same level of animal faculties, devaluing it to the level of the dogs olfactory and the eagle’s vision.

The following is a summary that shows the correctness of my argument and the incorrectness of yours.

1-      Everyone, whether theist or atheist senses that Man is superior to animals and this superiority is not due to the size of his brain or his other natural characteristics.  Nothing in nature is superior to something else, because no one and no thing has any role in attaining his or its attributes.

2-      Only a superior being can take Man’s hand and place him on the higher rank of humanness and make him excel over other creatures.  That being can’t be any other but God. If not God then please let me know who.

3-      Among all the presumed gods, only the god of the Quran can be defended logically and rationally and this proves that Muhammad (PBUH) was the true messenger of God.

4-      Whether the above reasoning is complete or whether it has holes in it, it leaves no room for your belief because you agree that Man is endowed with کرامت but you can’t prove its source.
Second Point:

You claim that you adhere to the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule says don’t insult others so they don’t insult you. But unfortunately all your writings, including your last one in my response were filled with insults and curses. This alone is enough to prove that the advocates of the Golden Rule are a bunch of con artists who by championing the cause of the Golden Rule want to inflict on others all sorts of calamities

Third Points

If you remember, in our previous discussion in regards to the contradictions in the Quran you came along very defiantly and when I replied to your questions, you withdrew from the scene. I wouldn’t be surprised if you do the same this time too. I recommend instead of riding over the waves of emotions, which can only convince children, to use the weapon of reason and logic so you can strongly defend your position.

 

Mr. Farzad,

You keep asking about the source of کرامت.   You have to first define what you mean by it.  I translated it as nobility.  And I explained that what makes humans dominant over other animals is our superior brain. We have a better tool for thinking.  Then you argued that one can be very intelligent person and still act like a beast.  That is very true.  Germans were very smart people and still they acted worse than beasts when they allowed themselves to be deceived by Hitler. The same is true about Muslims.  Muslims are no less smart than other people and yet they are very savage people.  This is not an insult. Just look at this video.   Muslims have been doing these barbarities since the time of Muhammad.

 

 

Your friends in the regime in Iran rape virgins before executing them. This is because in your belief virgins don’t go to hell and to free the hands of God so he can send these innocent girls to hell they are raped the night before their execution.  I am sure you have a very convincing explanation for that too. Actually I know your explenation. You will probably say that they are not raped but forcefully married to the prison guards and a box of sweets is always sent to thier families to celebrate that happy occasion.  It may be hard for the world to comprehend , but this is the karamat (dignity)  of the Shiite Muslims.  No one can beat Shiites in depravity, not even the Sunnis.

 

What is this کرامت you are talking about Mr. Farzad? When Muslims act according to Islam they become worse than animals.  Please explain what is your definition of کرامت.

Man is ethical naturally. Just as apple is sweet naturally, but apple can become sour if something goes wrong (lack of sunshine, bad soil, draught, etc.), when humans are abused or brainwashed with doctrines of hate, they will lose their goodness and can become monsters. (This is what happened to Muhammad.  For more explenation read my book, Understanding Muhammad).

Like all our other faculties human ethics, his nobility and dignity are products of evolution.  Just as parental love is a necessity for the survival of a species, so is human ethics.  Physically, we are weak creatures. We can’t survive on our own.  We need the support of other humans, our family, our tribe and now the entire humanity, to survive.   This very computer we are using to communicate is the fruit of the effort of other people from all over the world.  Since our survival depends on others, we have evolved a set of precepts that lubricate our interaction. These precepts are innate.  Even babies understand the concepts of justice and fairness.

You say this faculty is God given. Not so!  It has evolved gradually and it is still evolving.  Human consciousness is expanding.  There is no doubt that western societies are ethically more evolved than Islamic societies.  The western nations wrote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Muslims have difficulty subscribing to it. They can’t accept the freedom of faith that is so intrinsic part of our human rights.  They can’t accept equality of genders because it goes against the misogyny of the Quran.

You make fallacious claims without any attempt to substantiate them.  You say only a superior being can lift man and make him excel over other animals or, as you put it,  give him karamat.  What is this karamat you are talking about?  According to your reasoning Muslims must have more karamat than those who reject Islam. Then why Muslims as a whole are more savages compared to others?  Why they commit so many violance and violations of human rights?

You claim among all the presumed gods, only the god of the Quran can be defended logically and rationally.  What is logical and rational about Allah?  It is the most asinine definition of God.   Allah, like his inventor, is a narcissist. How can the creator of the universe suffer from a mental disorder?   Please see this, http://alisina.org/what-is-god/

You say whether your reasoning is right or not it leaves no room for my reasoning because I (Ali) agree that Man has karamat but I can’t prove the source of it.

This is called straw man fallacy.  I don’t even understand your definition of karamat let alone agreeing that it is God given.  I know human ethics, his nobility and his dignity, as well as all his virtues  are evolutionary necessities.  They are not handed down by any god. They have evolved along with our psychological evolution.

Then you say my articles are full of insults and conclude that proponents of the Golden Rule are con artists who want to bring calamity to mankind.

First of all criticizing a doctrine, calling it savagery and stupid is not insult.  We say the same things about Nazism or other diabolic creeds.  A religion that demands killing its detractors and prescribes rape should not be respected.  If what I say is not true, you can prove them wrong.  Also, you are free to attack my beliefs. Beliefs don’t need protection.  If they can’t be defended they must be discarded.  Some beliefs are wrong and some are stupid. Islam is an asinine faith.

Secondly, what this has to do with the Golden Rule, the law that says, treat other as you wish to be treated?  Didn’t you quote several passages that you claims are from your Imam Ali that said the same things? Are you saying that Ali was a con artist too?  Well, of course this only proves that those passages you attributed to Ali are forgeries. Ali never said those things.  It requires an evolved human to understand the Golden Rule. Ali was a ruthless thug who murdered innocent people because they did not want to submit to Islam. He burned a man alive because he had apostatized. How could such a brute understand the Golden Rule?

You also say the proponents of the Golden Rule want to bring calamity to mankind? Really? How can treating others the way one would like to be treated will bring calamity?  Didn’t I say Muslims are unable to understand the Golden Rule? They can parrot it, but understanding it? No way!

In your third point you repeated your claim of victory because I did not answer you.  As I said before I have no delusions about you seeing the light any time soon.  The reason I debate is to show to others the intellectual bankruptcy of Muslim intelligentsia. My goal is achieved.  The readers don’t need my assistance to see the fallacy of your arguments.

I asked what happens to people who die until the Day of Resurrection. You replied they stay in the grave conscious so they can be punished and rewarded in the grave.  Do I have to respond to this?  The readers don’t need my assistance to see the ridiculousness of this belief.

Update: 2012/03/06  1:10 AM

شما اگر انسانی به دنبال کشف حقیقت بودید

به جای این همه داستانسرایی و قصه پردازی و آشکار کردن نفرت درونی خود نسبت به مسلمانها که لحظه ای نمی توانید خود را از آن جدا کنید

تنها با یک جمله پرسشی ساده مانند

” فلانی من معنای کرامت از نظر شما را متوجه نمی شوم ممکن است آن را دقیق توضیح دهید؟”

می توانستید بحث را دنبال کنید.

کرامت چیزی است که انسان را انسان می کند و به او ارزشی جدای از حیوانات می بخشد این ارزش به هیچ وجه نمی تواند ریشه در طبیعت داشته باشد زیرا در طبیعت ارزش معنا و مفهوم ندارد بدون وجود این کرامت و گرامی بودن هیچ انسانی نمی تواند از انسان دیگر انسان تر باشد همانطور که هیچ گاوی از گاو دیگر گاوتر نیست بلکه تنها می تواند قوی تر، زیباتر یا شیرده تر باشد و هیچ اسبی از اسب دیگر اسب تر نیست بلکه تنها می تواند سریعتر و چابکتر و یا سنگین و سبک تر باشد.

انسان تا وقتی که از زاویه طبیعت به او نگاه شود چیزی جدای از طبیعت نیست و تنها یکی از حیوانات پستانداری است که روی دو پا راه می رود، توانایی خندیدن و گریه کردن و تعقل و … دارد. نگاه به انسان از این زاویه با توجه به اینکه هر کاری انجام دهد ریشه در طبیعت او دارد نه می توان او مورد ملامت قرار داد و نه او را تشویق کردن کما اینکه هیچ گرگی به دلیل خونخوار و درنده بودن مورد شماتت قرار نگرفته و بازخواست نمی شود و هیچ گاوی به دلیل شیرده بودن مورد تقدیر و تشکر واقع نشده و به او جایزه نمی دهند.

اگر بخواهیم انسان را مورد امر و نهی قرار دهیم ، برایش حقوق بشر بنویسیم، ملزم به رعایت قانون طلایی کنیم و او را به دلیل کارهای اخلاقی و غیر اخلاقی که انجام می دهد مستحق جزا و پاداش بدانیم و در یک جمله او را متصف به انسانیت کنیم به یک ویژگی نیاز داریم که ریشه در طبیعت نداشته باشد چرا که هر چیز طبیعی، طبیعی است و وقتی طبیعی بود دیگر جای چون و چرا ندارد همینی هست که هست نه چیزی بیشتر و نه چیزی کمتر اگر کسی آدم می کشد بر اساس طبیعت خود آدم می کشد و اگر به دیگران احسان و نیکی می کند باز بر اساس طبیعت خود این کار را انجام می دهد در حالیکه همه ما بر اساس همان حس مشترکی که از نظر شما اساس معارف انسان است می یابیم که اینگونه نیست و ویژگیهای انسان چیزی واری ویژگیهای سایر حیوانات است. این ویژگی خاص تنها از طرف یک موجود بالاتر و والاتر که خارج از طبیعت است می تواند به انسان اهدا شود؛ این همان موجودی است که ما به آن خدا می گوییم و این خدا در آیه 70 سوره اسراء به اهداء کرامت به انسان تصریح کرده است: ما آدميزادگان را گرامى داشتيم و آنها را در خشكى و دريا، (بر مركبهاى راهوار) حمل كرديم و از انواع روزيهاى پاكيزه به آنان روزى داديم و آنها را بر بسيارى از موجوداتى كه خلق كرده‏ايم، برترى بخشيديم.اخلاق مدار بودن یا نبودن انسان در مقایسه رفتار او با دیگران آشکار می شود در حالیکه کرامت انسان چیزی مستقل در وجود انسان است یعنی اگر تنها یک انسان روی کره زمین زندگی کند دارای این ویژگی است.

نمی دانم لحظاتی که مشغول نوشتن این جمله خود که “انسان به دلیل باهوش تر بودن در راس هرم غذایی است” متوجه این نکته بودید که با دست خود انسان را از مقام انسانیت خلع کرده و او در حد حیوانی از حیوانات که در طبیعت زندگی می کند تنزل دادید و اعتراف کردید که موجودی به نام انسان وجود ندارد؟

تا اثبات نشود که انسان بدون وجود خدا وجود خاص دارد جواب دادن به سایر اتهامات شما علیه اسلام ضرورتی ندارد

If you were someone interested in truth, instead of this much storytelling and exhibiting your inner hatred for Muslims, which you can’t avoid even for a moment, you would have responded to only one question.  You could have said, I don’t understand the meaning of karamat from your point of view. Can you please explain it?

Karamat is what makes a human, a human and distinguishes him from animals.  There is no way for this thing to be rooted in nature. In nature values have no meaning.  Without this karamat no person can be more human than others, in the same way that no cow is more cow than other cows. She can only be stronger, better looking, or have more milk.  And no horse is more horse than other horses.  He can only be faster, more agile, heavier or lighter.

If we want to command humans to the right path and prohibit them from the wrong path, ascribe any rights to them, prescribe the Golden Rules for them, and punish and reward them for their moral and immoral deeds, or in a nutshell, attribute to them “humanness,” we need one thing that has no roots in nature. That is because everything that comes from nature is innate and one cannot be responsible for what is innate in him.  That would be his nature and no one can be blamed for what is his nature.  Nothing can be added to it, nor can anything be subtracted from it.  If a person kills someone, he does it because it is his nature and if he shows kindness, it is also because it is his nature.

All of us, based on that very common perception, which in your view is the basis of human consciousness, can see this is not the case.  Human characteristics are different from animal characteristics.

These superior characteristics can only be bestowed upon Man from a being that is outside the nature.  This being is what we call God.  There is a confirmation of this God’s gift to mankind in the Quran 17:70.  “Indeed, WE have honoured the children of Adam, and WE carry them by land and sea, and provide them with good things and have exalted them far above many of those whom WE have created.”

The ethics of a person can be determined by how he deals with other humans. whereas, his dignity (karamat) is something independent from his ethics.  In other words, if there is only one person in the world, this specific characteristic that makes him human and we call Karamat is present in him.

I don’t know whether you are aware that when you wrote “thanks to his intelligence man has placed himself at the top of the food chain,” you stripped Man of his humanity and placed him at the same level of animals who are subject to nature, and admitted that humanity as a reality does not exist.

Until we can’t agree that humanity is a distinct reality that can only be given by God, responding to your other charges against Islam is unnecessary.

Mr. Farzad,

Your explanation of the word karamat is not different from what I understood in the first time.  We agree on the meaning of the word.  The best translation of it is humanity or humanness.  It can also be understood as dignity, nobiity, honor, etc.  The difference between us is that you believe this humanity is something outside the nature, which can only be given by a being that is outside the nature, and hence this proves the existence of God and I don’t.

I will refute this claim in a moment. However, let me emphasize that even if you were right and there is a being outside the nature that bestows the special gift of humanity to humans, it still does not prove the claim of Muhammad.   I repeatedly asked you to prove the claim of Muhammad.  I even conceded, for the sake of argument, to accept the existence of God with the same characteristics that you attribute to him, so we can move on to the subject of our concern.   You prefer to talk about the red herring, in this case God,  becuse you have no proof for Muhammad.  Many of the readers of this blog believe in God and I have no problem with that.  I am not promoting atheism.  I want people to leave Islam.  So let us assume that there is a god in the sky with the exact same characteristics that you say.  Can you prove that Muhammad was a prophet of this god?

 

As for your claim that karamat is something unique to humans outside the nature it is up to you to prove it.

I agree that  our humanity is not limited to our interpersonal interaction.  Even a person stranded in another planet with no other human to interact, is still a human. What makes him a human is his brain.  Our highly advanced brain allows us to have spatial and conceptual thoughts that most animals can’t have.  It enables us to plan, to fantasize, to invent religions, imagine an afterlife and forge a god in our own mind.  Animals can’t do that. This is what sets us apart from them.

Our humanity stems from our consciousness and our consciousness is the function of our brain.   If a perfectly normal, intelligent and consciontious person becomes a drug user, his brain gradually gets damaged.  Every time he uses that substance he loses the function of a few million brain cells.  In a short time this person can no longer reason like a human. His conscience will be affected. He may steal from his parents and grandparents. He will lie and manipulate his loved ones. He will spend the money that must be used for food, clothing and education of his children on his addiction.  His humanity is diminished.  The same is true with people abusing alcohol.  Some of these brain damaged people molest even their own children.  This proves that our humanity or what you call karamat is a function of our brain.  If the brain ceases to function properly, whether as the result of mind altering substances, a mental illness, or mind altering doctrines, we can lose our humanity.  A narcissist has no conscience.  He has no empathy. In other words he has no humanity.  Narcissists are often victims of childhood abuse.  You can’t blame their inhumanity on God.  They are victims of circumstances.  The same is true of cultists.  They too lose their conscience.  They are perfectly normal people who under the influence of their belief become bereft of conscience and can kill others with total clarity of mind and justify that. just as Muslims justify killing the apostates.

Our emotions, our feelings, our sense of justice, love,  compassion, magnanimity  and altruism are all functions of our brain.  It is the sum of all these faculties that make us human.  It is our brain that distinguishes us from other animals.  These faculties can be nurtured or they can be damaged.

The brain is not just a powerful computer. It is also the regulator of our emotions such as happiness, sadness, joy, anger, depression, optimism, jealousy, envy, greed, kindness, etc.

This subject is the realm of psychology, not theology.  Theologists often make assumptions that are not based on facts.  Your assumption that humanness or what you call karamat is not from nature has no basis in science.  It is a false premise and I challenge you to prove your claim.   The proofs that you presented so far are all based on false premises.

Man is a biological machine. What we term as spiritual is also the function of the brain.  Nature is more complex than what meets the eyes.  There is a new realm of science called quantum physics that provides an explanation to all the phenomena that so far were the exclusive domain of religions and occult such as telepathy, psychic power, clairvoyance etc.  These are physical realities.  They are part of our nature and functions of our mind.  Nothing exists out of the nature.  There is a whole new universe in the subatomic world for us to discover.  This is the world of thoughts.  And here lies the answer to our spiritual quest.  The more we discover this world the more answers we can provide into what has been hitherto the domain of occultism.

 

Let me recapitulate.  You say there is something intangible in humans that does not exist in nature. That thing, must have been bestowed on us by a god.

I say, this is a false premise.  Nothing exists out of nature.  The faculties you refer to and call karamat are functions of our brain.  They stem from human mind.  They can be nurtured and they can be damaged.  There is no difference between them and any other faculty that we humans possess, like our eyesight or our muscle power, or brain power, etc. If they were given to us by God no one could have altered them.

The ball is in your court to prove that humanness has divine origin. This is tough to prove becuse first you have to prove the existance of God.  So any atempt to prove that humanness has divine origin is circular reasoning.   You simply can’t win this argument.

 

Update: 2012/03/07 1:10 AM

خدا یا وجود دارد یا ندارد اگر ندارد که ما در جنگل طبیعت زندگی می کنیم و هیچکس حق امر و نهی دیگران را ندارد، بلکه هر کس زور بیشتری دارد (ثروت و قدرت) حق دارد خود را بر دیگران تحمیل کند و البته دیگران نیز حق دارند به هر شیوه ممکن از خود دفاع کنند؛ یعنی همین کاری که انسانها در حال حاضر مشغول به آن هستند.

اما اگر خدا وجود داشته باشد این خدا باید عاری از هر گونه تناقض منطقی باشد و تنها خدایی که از هر گونه تناقض خالی است خدای قرآن و محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم است و شما نمی توانید از این مرحله به راحتی عبور کنید و بگویید من با خدا مشکلی ندارم بلکه مشکل من با کسی است که بی نقص ترین تعریف را از خدا دارد، همین جا باید توقف کنید و خدای قرآن را بر اساس تنها معیاری که جهانی و یونیورسال است یعنی منطق (نه خواست و میل دورنی خود و دیگر همفکرانتان) بررسی کنید یا آن را منطقا بپذرید و یا منطقا رد کنید. اگر هم از منطق چیزی نمی دانید که ظاهرا همینطوراست حق ورود به چنین عرصه ای را ندارید همانطور که من حق جراحی قلب یا حق نشستن در کابین خلبان به عنوان خلبان را ندارم.

شما مدعی هستید که مغز ما این توانایی را دارد که خیال پردازی کند، دین ومذهب اختراع کند، دنیای دیگری تصور کند و خدایی را در ذهن ما جعل کند.

به طور طبیعی قبول دارید که اختراع قانون طلایی و نوشتن حقوق بشر نیز از توانایی های مغز ماست چرا ما باید به بعضی از توانایی ها مغز خود احترام بگذاریم و بعضی دیگر را مورد بدترین توهین ها قرار دهیم؟

دلیل کاملا روشن است مغز ما بر اساس دیدگاه شما کار و فعالیت بیهوده انجام نمی دهد بلکه هر کاری می کند برای بقاء انسان است؛ محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم هزار چهار صد سال پیش فکر خود را به کار گرفت و با کمترین تلفات ممکن دینی اختراع کرد، خدایی ساخت و براساس آن سرزمین خود را به یکی از مراکز مورد توجه دنیای آن روز قرار داد و باعث رونق تجاری آن شد و امروز یک و نیم میلیارد در سراسر دنیا یکی از بزرگترین آرزوهای آنان سفر به آن دیار است. لنین و استالین و هیتلرو چنگیزخان مغول و … هم همین کار را کردند منتها چون از هوش و ذکاوت کافی برخوردار نبودند شکست خوردند و امروز نیز دنیای غرب نیز همین کار را می کند اینها نیز حقوق بشر را اختراع کردند و آن را حربه و ابزاری کردند برای تسلط بر دیگران هر کجا به نفعشان باشد این ابزار را به کار می گیرند و هر کجا به نفعشان نباشد چشمان خود را به راحتی می بندند و حتی اگر لازم باشد از جنایتکار دفاع می کنند مانند حمایت از جنایات صهیونیستها در اسرائیل. خلاصه کلام اینکه انسانیت حقیقی وجود ندارد بلکه آنچه موجود است انسانیت ابزاری است، ابزار و وسیله ای برای تسلط بر دیگران بر اساس قانون جنگل!

براین اساس دشمنی علی سینا با مسلمانان کاملا قابل فهم و درک است من هم حق را به او می دهم او حق دارد برای مرگ خود نگران باشد اما هیچ نگرانی برای کشته شدن و از هستی ساقط شدن میلیونها افغانی و عراقی و فلسطینی و یمنی و … توسط همفکران خود (لیبرالیسم و صهیونیسم) نداشته باشد؛ ما در طبیعتی کاملا وحشی زندگی می کنیم و در طبیعت جنگ برای بقاء در جریان است و ترحم بر دشمن معنا و مفهوم آن وداع با زندگی خود است. تمام ایسم های موجود در دنیا شیطانی و تنها دو ایسم (لیبرالیسم و صهیونیسم) مقدس و رحمانی هستند.

علی آقا شما که انسانیت مورد نظر مرا نفهمیدید آیا من منظور شما را درست فهمیدم؟ آیا ثابت کردم که انسانیت حقیقی اگر وجود داشته باشد نمی تواند ساخته دست طبیعت باشد و باید از ماوراء طبیعت به انسان تزریق شود؟ (نفخت فیه من روحی) آیا ثابت کردم اگر انسانیت حقیقی وجود نداشته باشد علی سینا تنها برای بقاء خود در تلاش است و دشمنی او با مسلمانان کاملا طبیعی (حیوانی و جنگلی) است؟

 

Either God exists or he doesn’t. If he doesn’t then we live in the natural jungle and no one has the right to tell others what is right and what is not.  Whoever is stronger (has more money and power) has the right to impose himself on others. Of course others also have the right to defend themselves in any way possible. That is what humans do at the present moment.

However, if God exists, this god must be sanctified from any logical defect. The only flawless god is the God of the Quran and Muhammad (PBUH). You can’t ignore this matter easily and say I have no beef with God but my beef is with the one who has given the most flawless definition of God.

Let us stop right here and define God with the only logical and universally accepted parameter (and not our own whims and caprices).  You either accept this definition logically or you don’t. If you know nothing about logic, which apparently you don’t, you have no right to enter in this arena, just as I have no right to perform heart surgery or become a jet pilot.

You say that humans can fantasize, invent religion, envision a next world, and forge a god in their imagination.  Naturally, you must also agree that the invention of the Golden Rule and writing the human rights are the products of our brain.  Why should we pay homage to some of our mental activities and disparage and insult its other activities?

It is clear that according to you, our brain does not function uselessly, but whatever it does it is for our survival. Muhammad (PBUH) used his brain 1400 years ago and with the least casualties invented a religion, forged a god and based on that he made his country the focal point of the world of his time and made it a center of commerce and wealth.  And today the greatest wish of 1.5 billion people from all over the world is to visit that land.  Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Genghis Khan, etc., did the same, but because they were not smart enough they were defeated.  Today the West is doing the same. They have invented the human rights and use it as a tool and a weapon to subjugate others. Where it is in their advantage they use this weapon and where it is not in their advantage they easily close their eyes. And should it be necessary they will defend the criminals, for example the support of the crimes of the Zionists in Israel.  The bottom line is that there is no real humanity. What exists is that humanity is being used as a tool and a means of domination – just like in Jungle.

Based on this principle, the enmity of Ali Sian with Muslims is perfectly understandable and I too say he is right. He is right to be worried for his own death but he shows no concerns for the death of millions of Afghans, Palestinians, Yemenis,… in the hands of his co ideologists (liberalists and Zionists).  We live in a wild natural world. In nature there is fight for survival and compassion to the enemy means forgoing one’s own life. All the isms of the world are satanic and only two isms are sacred and divine, i.e., liberalism and Zionism.

Mr. Ali, you did not understand my idea of humanity. Have I understood you correctly? Have I been able to prove that if humanity is a reality, it cannot be a product of the nature, but must be given to humans from a supernatural source?  (I blew in him my spirit), that if there is a real human (endowed with humanity) Ali Sina is only striving for his own survival and his enmity with Muslims is perfectly natural, i.e. based on the animalistic instinct of the jungle?

 

Mr. Farzad,

The reason you and I cannot find a common ground is that we have two distinct and mutually exclusive understanding of man (انسان). You see man as a wicked creature, with no nobility and inherent goodness, one who if left alone will engage in all sorts of crimes, immoral and evil conduct, who has to be reined like a wild beast. Of course if this is your definition of human the need for a trainer, someone who can put him on a leash and tame him becomes imperative. Then you propose Islam because its harness is tighter and its leash is shorter.

My definition of man is diametrically opposite to yours. I see man as a noble being, naturally endowed with dignity.  Things can go wrong and he can turn to be a monster. If Hitler had a loving father who did not beat him savagely he would never have become the mass murderer he became. If Stalin, Saddam, Genghis Khan, Muhammad and other psychopaths of history had a happy childhood they would not have turned into the monsters they turned to.

This is the crux of the matter and the reason we can’t see eye to eye. I see man as a noble being and you see him as a wild, pervert, potentially criminal who may even fornicate with his mother if left uncontrolled.  You believe that man can become human only if instructed with “humanity,” which can only be taught by a messenger of God.   He must be told what is right and wrong because on his own he can’t know the difference.   And because there is no inherent dignity in man, he can be beaten like an animal until he submits and obeys.   His life  also  has no  intrinsic value.  If he rebels, he can be slaughtered like an animal.   That is why you keep insisting that without God’s rule man will become a canibal.  This is your idea of man – a crooked being who without the stick and carrot and a harness is naturally inclined towards evil and will go astray.

Your definition of man is consistant with your defintion of right and wrong.  In your Islamic world view, right and wrong are not  obvious to man.  Things that we may regard as evil, such as raiding, killing, rape, theft and pedophila may actually be good and divine and things that we perceive as good, such as kindness to strangers (unbelievers), may actually be bad. “Fight the unbelievers around you, and let them find harshness in you.” (Q.9:123)  “Oh, Believers, do not make friends of your fathers or your brothers if they love unbelief above Islam. He who makes them his friends does wrong.” Quran 9:23)  Based on this reasoning Man cannot know what is good and what is evil. He must be instructed by the messenger of God and after him by mullahs like you. If the messenger of God says fighitng is good, rape is good, killing is good, child rape is good, we should discard our own commonsense and believe him.

This is contrary to my belief. I believe humans have a rational mind that can distinguish right from wrong.  This faculty of discenment is innate.  If something appears abhorent, it is abhorent and vice versa.  If someone claims to be a messenger of God and tells us things that go against our reason and commonsense, like for exampel “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you,” (Q.3:216) that person is an impostor and not a messenger of God.   I believe humanity is inherent in man, and that he instinctively knows the difference between right and wrong.

Each person judges other with his own standards. An honest person is trusting and a crooked person is suspicious of everyone. کافر همه را به کیش خود پندارد .  Why you have such a low estimation of man? It is because you view the world through Muhammad’s eyes.  Muhammad was a narcissist. Narcissists are law breakers. They have no control over themselves. They have no conscience.  The only thing that can stop them is the fear of being caught.   Judging others according to his own standards the narcissist who wants to control others uses fear as the instrument of control.  He invents a vengeful deity and makes his followers believe that should they deviate from his orders there will be dire consequences.  The more twisted is the mind of the psychopath the more stringent are his rules.  That is why Islam is so demanding and it has so many rules and requirements. I invite every Muslim to read my book Understanding Muhammad.  I have laid this point so clearly that leaves one with no option but to agree that Muhammad was a psychopath.

Since your entire world view is based on this false premise that man is naturally evil, and only when in leash he can behave properly, you come to all sorts of false conclusions such as there must be a God to show mankind the right way

 

Update 2012/03/08  1:30 AM

جناب سینا
ظاهرا حدس من درست است شما منطق ارسطویی نخوانده اید، خوانده اید؟
برای اثبات خود مجبور شده اید یک صفحه روزنامه کامل حرافی کنید و حداقل هر مطلبی را دوبار تکرار کنید؛ اثبات حرف حق نیاز به این همه زور زدن ندارد بلکه طی یک یا دو خط و حداکثر یک پاراگراف کوتاه قابل بیان و اثبات است.

متاسفانه حتی نزدیک به فهم حرف من هم نشده اید لذا مجبور شده اید این همه آسمان و ریسمان به هم ببافید.
اینکه من مدعی می شوم اخلاقی که ریشه در طبیعت انسان دارد ارزش برای انسان محسوب نمی شود معنای آن لزوما خلاف اخلاق رفتار کردن انسان و شیطانی بودن ذات انسان نیست انسانها برای حفظ جان خود هم که شده مجبورند به گونه ای با هم کنار بیایند (مفاد قانون طلایی).
در طبیعت انواع و اقسام موجودات وجود دارند بعضی ذاتی بسیار آرام مانند اکثر علفخواران و بعضی دیگر ذات و طبیعتی ستیزه جو دارند مثل اکثر گوشتخواران اما نه دسته اول را می توان مورد ستایش قرار داد و نه دسته دوم را مورد ملامت، هر کدام بر اثر طبیعت خود عمل می کند. در میان موجودات طبیعت یکی هم انسان است که بر اساس توانایی های طبیعی خود این “اختیار” را دارد که بد یا خوب عمل کند؛ اما چه خوب عمل کند و چه بد عمل کند باز متاثر از طبیعت خویش است و مختار بودنش نیز امتیازی دارای ارزش برای او نیست چرا که خودش جهت کسب این امتیاز هیچ دخالتی نداشته است و بر اساس تفکر شما طبیعت بر اثر روند تکامل به او عطا کرده است همانطور که به حیوانات دیگر ویژگیهای دیگری عطا کرده است اینکه دایره عمل انسان دارای گستره بیشتری است به دلیل فوق موجب امتیاز او نمی شود.
آقای علی آقای سینا بر خلاف شما که وجود اسلام بزرگترین مشکل شماست و به زعم خود کمر به نابودی آن بسته اید، من هیچ نگرانی از این موضع شما ندارم تجربه تاریخی نشان داده این مدعای خداوند در قرآن که فرموده: إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَ إِنَّا لَهُ لَحافِظُون حقیقتی ثابت و غیر قابل تغییراست و کار اشخاصی مثل شما مصداق کامل این آیه است که: يُريدُونَ لِيُطْفِؤُا نُورَ اللَّهِ بِأَفْواهِهِمْ وَ اللَّهُ مُتِمُّ نُورِهِ وَ لَوْ كَرِهَ الْكافِرُونَ. شما هر مقدار که قدرت فوت کردنتان زیاد باشد ممکن است بتوانید چند پر کاه بی ارزش را جابجا کنید اما در نهایت تنها گلوی خود را پاره کرده ا ید؛ نگرانی اصلی من خود شما هستید که اسیر توهمات ذهنی خود شده و سراب را آب پنداشته و هروله کنان و شتابان به سوی آن می دوید اما در نهایت دیر یا زود جز خاک گور چیزی نصیب شما نخواهد شد. بر اساس دیدگاه شما مرگ همه چیز را برای انسان صفر کرده و او را نسیا منسیا می کند حال هر عددی که در این صفر ضرب شود نتیجه تغییری نخواهد کرد و حاصل تنها صفر خواهد بود.
بعد از شکست همه ایسم های به ظاهر انسان محورانه در مقابل تفکر خدامحورانه به نظر می رسد تنها لیبرالیسم باقی مانده و تنها تفکری که در مقابل لیبرالیسم ایستاده اسلام (از نظر من تفکر شیعی آن) است؛ بر اساس فورمول بالا که نهایت کار من و شما برگشت دوباره به خاک است حاصل فعالیت انسانهایی مانند شما چاق و فربه کردن مکتب لیبرالیسم است؛ یعنی تک تک انسانها فدای مکتب می شوند بدون اینکه بهره ای از آن ببرند اما بر خلاف ظاهر مکتب اسلام که به نظر می رسد می خواهد همه انسانها را فدای خود کند (که در حقیقت اینطور نیست) هر چند فعالیت مسلمانان باعث فربه شدن اسلام می شود اما تک تک مسلمانها مزد خود از این فربه ساختن را می گیرند و اینطور نیست که فقط خاک گور نصیب آنها باشد و این موضوع هر چند از نظر شما توهمی بیش نباشد اما بی شک در مرحله عمل باعث شکست مکتب مقابل خواهد شد.
در مقابل اصرار و سفارش و توصیه شما مبنی برخواندن نوشته هایتان که حاصل استمنائات فکری یهودی زده شماست توصیه می کنم برای رها شدن از این توهمات، که سایه انواع ظلمتها را بر ذهن شما گسترانده است، منطق صوری را خوب بخوانید تا بتوانید بین یک قضیه منطقی و توهمات ذهنی فرق بگذارید و به بیراهه نروید

Mr. Sina,

Apparently my feeling is correct. You have not read the Aristotelian logic. Have you? In order to prove your point you were forced to write a whole newspaper page size of prolixity and repeat each point at least twice.  To prove something truthful, it does not require so much effort. It can be demonstrated in one or two lines, or maximum in one paragraph.

Unfortunately, you have not come even close to understanding my point and consequently you were obliged to engage in so much garrulity.

When I say the morality of man that is rooted in nature has no value it does not mean that necessarily man is immoral and his essence is satanic. Even for their own survival, humans have to get along in any way possible (in other words, they must follow the Golden Rule).

There are all sorts of creatures in nature. Some of them are peaceful, like most herbivores and some are more aggressive, like most carnivores. However, we can neither praise the first group nor blame the second group. Each acts according to their own nature. Among the animals in the nature one is man who according to his nature is free to act either good or bad. However, whether he acts good or bad he is influenced by his own nature. His freedom to act also is a privilege of no value to him, because he has had no role in acquiring that privilege. According to you he has acquired it naturally through evolution, just as other animals have acquired other faculties and just because man has a wider circle of action it does not give him any superiority over animals.

Mr. Ali, Mr. Sina, contrary to you who thinks Islam is the biggest problem and in your own thinking want to eradicate it, I have no concerns about your position. The historic experience shows that “WE verily have sent down this Reminder, and most surely WE are its Guardians” (Q. 15:9) is a confirmed truth. And the efforts of people like you are refuted in the Quran 61:8, “They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths but Allah will perfect His light, though the unbelievers may be averse.” No matter how forcefully you blow, you may displace a few worthless straws and at the end you will only tear your own throat.

My main concern is your own self who are enslaved by your fantasies and have mistaken the mirage for water and heedlessly and hurriedly are running towards it.  At the end, sooner or later, you’ll attain nothing but the dirt of the grave.  According to you, death is the end of everything. It is coming to nothingness. Now, it makes no difference what number is multiplied to nothing (zero) because the result will be still nothing.

After the defeat of all allegedly humanist isms, vis-à-vis God centered thinking, the only ism left is liberalism and the only thought that is challenging liberalism is Islam (in my view the Shiite Islam).

Based on the above equation, which will inevitably make you and me to return to dust the result of the effort of people like you is to fatten the ideology of liberalism.  One by one, people are sacrificed for this ideology without gaining any benefit from it.  Contrary to the appearance that Islam wants to sacrifice everyone for its own survival, although the activity of Muslims results in fattening Islam, every individual Muslim will get his reward for fattening Islam.  It is not that they will get just the dirt in the grave.  Although you think this is nothing but a fantasy, without a doubt, in practice, it will result in the defeat of the opposing ideology.

In response to your insistence that I read your writings, which are the result of Judaic influence in you, I suggest that to get rid of your confusions, you should read the logic of Sovari, so you can distinguish between a rational argument and illusion and don’t go astray.

 

Mr. Farzad,

Is this all you can say?  You start with a few ad hominem comments and end your article by saying I don’t understand logic.  You also say that I will die one day and my life will be wasted.  How do you want me to respond to these? Shall I remind you that in my view you are the one whose life is a waste? What is the point of these talks?

 

We are here to prove our points of view. You say Allah has promised to protect his religion. In that case why did you want to debate with me? Didn’t you come to prove me wrong? You couldn’t and now leave it to Allah? Let me tell you that Allah is not god. He is the figment of Muhammad’s imagination.

 

The reason Islam has survived so far is because Muslims silenced and killed any person who criticized it.  But things have changed. No one can stop the Internet and the truth about Islam is spreading like wild fire.  Islam’s biggest enemy is truth and the days of Islam are numbered.

You say if man’s faculties are acquired through evolution then he cannot be superior to animals because he has not worked for them.  Who said man is superior to other creatures? We are smarter.  Of course we ascribe more value for our selves than we do to other animals. I doubt animals share this opinion.  This argument about superiority and inferiority is absurd. We are humans and have to live like humans. Animals should live like animals.  The problem arises when some people live like animals.  Raiding, raping, plundering, abusing, beating and imprisoning others are not human behavior.  That is my problem with Islam.  Muslims devalue humans and treat them like animals and in the process they act like animals.

You say, “When I say the morality of man that is rooted in nature has no value it does not mean that necessarily man is immoral and his essence is satanic.”  Didn’t you say without religion there is nothing to stop man to eat his own kind? You obviously don’t think much of humans. Now you try to backpedal.  But if you agree that man’s dignity is intrinsic then what was all that talk about human dignity must come from out of nature?

You justify beating, imprisoning, raping and killing and think all that is divine because they are sanctioned by your religion and practiced by your prophet. What if your belief is a lie? Shouldn’t you investigate the claim of Muhammad before committing all these crimes?

For your information, I don’t subscribe to liberalism.  Liberalism is another sickness of mind barely better than Islam. I am a free man, a rational being and I value my independence of thought and my individualism. I don’t subscribe to any ideology. I am a prophet to my own self, not a follower of any school of thought.

Thank you for this debate. This was a subject I had not discussed before and I am happy I did.  I think we managed to shed light on many important issues such as what Muslims think about themselves and others as human beings. Wish you the best

 

Update: 2012/03/ 12:08 PM

بحث کردن با کسی که از منطق چیزی نمی داند مانند بحث کردن با کودک دوساله است بر سر اثبات اینکه بستنی برای مریضی او خوب نیست.

هدف اصلی من از بحث با شما این بود که در مرحله اول به خودتان و در مرحله بعد به خوانندگان ثابت کنم که شما چیزی از منطق نمی دانید و شما اعتراف کردید که منطق نخوانده اید.

تمام ادعاهای شما تراوشات ذهنی بیماری حراف و یاوه گوست که با تکرار مکرر این کلمات:

Raiding, raping, plundering, abusing, beating and imprisoning others

به ارگاسم فکری می رسد و چنان به این استمنای فکری معتاد شده که گاه در یک نوشته کوتاه مانند این نوشته آخر با یک مرتبه تکرار ارضاء نشده، دوباره آن را تکرار می کند.

اگر من در جایی کوتاه آمده و از زاویه دید یک منکر خدا انسان را بررسی می کنم برای این است که به کودکان دبستانی که از منطق چیزی نمی دانند واقعیت وجودی انسان را بفهمانم و الا طبیعتی که این همه هنرمند است که قادر است موجودی با این همه قابلیت بسازد چرا تنها به همین یک مورد بسنده کرده است چه چیزی مانع شده از اینکه قدرت خود را در راه بزرگتر کردن مغز سایر حیوانات از دست بدهد؟ چه اتفاقی افتاده که بنابر نظر بعضی از بزرگان علم تکامل، تکامل در زمان ما متوقف شده؟ اصلا در آن چند میلیارد و چند میلیون سال چه غلطی می کرده که قابلیت او در این چهار یا چهل هزار سال اخیر در ساختن انسان متمدن بروز کرده است؟ شما خوب می دانید که این موضوع یکی از بزرگترین معماها و مجهولات علم روز است.

موضع من به عنوان یک مسلمان کاملا محکم و پا برجاست من معتقدم که درک خوبی و بدی توسط خداوند در وجود انسان نهاده شده است:

وَ نَفْسٍ وَ مَا سَوَّئهَا، فَأَلهَْمَهَا فجُُورَهَا وَ تَقْوَئهَا، قَدْ أَفْلَحَ مَن زَكَّئهَا، وَ قَدْ خَابَ مَن دَسَّئهَا

و قسم به جان آدمى و آن كس كه آن را (آفريده و) منظّم ساخته، سپس فجور و تقوا (شرّ و خيرش) را به او الهام كرده است، كه هر كس نفس خود را پاك و تزكيه كرده، رستگار شده

و آن كس كه نفس خويش را با معصيت و گناه آلوده ساخته، نوميد و محروم گشته است!

بدون وجود خدا انسان تنهای حیوانی از حیوانات جنگل است منتها حیوانی که در این چند ثانیه آخر عمر خود (نسبت به وجود حیات چند میلیارد ساله روی زمین) یاد گرفته کمتر وحشی باشد تا در آسایش بیشتری زندگی کند.

 Mr. Sina

Debating with someone who does not know logics is like trying to make a two year old child understand that ice cream is not good for him.

My objective of coming here was to prove to you, primarily, and to the readers, secondarily, that you don’t know much about logics and you confessed that you have not read logics.

All your claims are the cogitations of a sick and garrulous mind who by repeating the words such as “Raiding, raping, plundering, abusing, beating and imprisoning others” arrives at an intellectual orgasm and is so addicted to this mental masturbation that sometimes in one short writing, like the last comment, is not satisfied to mention them once and has to repeat them twice.

If I give in sometimes and analyze God from the point of view of a denier of God, it is to make school children  who don’t understand logic, to understand the reality of man.  Otherwise, why would nature that [according to you] is so capable of making a creature as smart as man has stopped short of enlarging the brains of other creatures?   What has happened that according to some proponents of evolution, this evolution has stopped working? What the heck this evolution was doing in all those four billion years and why only now, in these last four or forty thousand years its effect has become manifest? You know very well that this is one of the biggest puzzles and conundrums of science today.

My position as a Muslim is completely strong and firm. I believe that the comprehension of good and bad is given to man by God.  “And the soul and Him Who made it perfect, Then He inspired it to understand what is right and wrong for it; He will indeed be successful who purifies it. And he is indeed a failure who stunteth it. “(Q.91: 7-10)

Without God, man is only an animal among animals of the jungle, but a man who in these last few seconds of his existence (compared to his several billion years of his existence on the planet) has learned to be less savage so he can live in more comfort.

Mr. Farzad,

This debate is over. When someone foams his mouth and attacks his opponent, it is clear that he has run out of things to say.

I never said I have not read logic.  However, I see no reason to boast about my erudition either.   عطر آن است که خود ببوید نه آنکه عطار بگوید

As for your statement about evolution, this is something you can learn if you Google it.  Any child knows how evolution works. Also evolution has never stopped and it will never stop.  No one who understands evolution will ever say such asininity.

The bottom line is that you believe man is utterly unable to distinguish right from wrong. In fact what we perceive as evil, like stealing, raping, killing, abusing, torturing, cheating, discriminating, etc., may be good for us and vice versa, things that we instinctivly beleive to be good like kindness to strangers (unbelievers) may be bad.  We can’t find the right way without Muhammad’s guidance. Our conscience can mislead us.  Instead of trusting our own conscience we must listen to the prophets of God and not just any prophet, only to Muhammad because the messages of all other prophets are corrupted by man.  If Muhammad says things that we may believe to be evil and go against our commonsense and conscience, we must ignore our commonsense and conscience and beleive what Muhammad says.  Who are we to judge and question the messenger of God?

This is in nutshell the philosophy of Islam and your conviction of it is unshakable.  You won’t even allow doubt to rattle your belief. After all you admit that your commonsense and conscience are not adequate instruments for you to distinguish between right and wrong.  You will not use your brain or your conscience because you believe they may mislead you. Instead you blindly follow Muhammad. It does not matter how egregious his teachings may sound and how evil they may appear.  He is after all the Prophet of God and he is the one who will decide what is good and bad not you.

All I can say is to quote  Bertrand Russell who said,   “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.”

 

 

Update: 2012/03/11 11:08 PM

جناب سینا
ادعا می کنید که از بسته شدن کامنت این بحث اطلاعی نداشته اید و ناخواسته این اتفاق افتاده است، اگر خودتان ادعای خود را باور کردید من هم باور می کنم، البته این موضوع چندان مهم نیست.
آیا حذف شدن ترجمه آخرین نوشته من و جواب شما به آن نیز اتفاقی بوده است؟
گفته اید این بحث تمام شده است، بله از جهاتی بحث تمام شده، از این جهت که یک دیدگاه و فلسفه انسان محور هرگز نمی تواند بر مدعای خود برهان عقلی و منطقی ارائه کند بحثی باقی نمانده است؛ اما بحث عقل و جهل، دین و کفر، عدل و ظلم، خداپرستی و شهوت پرستی هرگز تمام نخواهد شد و همچنان ادامه دارد.
اشاره کرده اید که به شما اهانت و حمله کرده ام، یکی از چیزهایی که در طی این بحث من از شما آموختم این بود که اگر کسی به چیزی اعتقاد داشته باشد و بر آن دلیل اقامه کند بیان آن توهین و فحش نخواهد بود بلکه واقعیتی است که جهت آگاه شدن دیگران باید بیان شود، آنچه در نوشته پیشین به شما نسبت دادم اعتقاد من نسبت به شماست و دلیل آن را نیز در آن نوشته و در نوشته های قبل بیان کردم لذا مطالب بیان شده بر اساس دیدگاه خود شما به هیچ وجه حمله شخصی و اهانت نیست بلکه واقعیتی است که نباید از بیان آن ابا داشته باشم، این که من اعتقاد دارم شما مبتلا به استمنای فکری شده اید حمله به شخص شما نیست بلکه یک نوع بیماری است که ذهن شما به آن مبتلا شده است، همانطور که می دانید شخص مبتلا به بیماری ذهنی کمتر متوجه بیمار بودن خود می شود و شما استثنا نیستید.
در باره فضل و دانش خود نقل کرده اید که: “عطر (مشک) آن ا ست که ببوید نه آنکه عطار بگوید” عطر ممکن است چنین خاصیتی داشته باشد که ندارد و بسیاری از افراد نمی توانند بین عطر واقعی و عطر قلابی تفاوت قائل شوند، اما قضایای منطقی چنین نیستند حتما باید اهل خبره ای باشد تا بتواند فلسفه را از سفسطه و برهان را از مغالطه باز شناسد اگر در تمام نوشته های طولانی خود توانستید یک قضیه منطقی که بر اساس شکل اول از اشکال اربعه منطقی باشد پیدا کنید حق با شماست.
آنچه از برتراند راسل جهت رد نظر من بر استواری بر اعتقاداتم نقل کردید که احمق ها و متعصبان همیشه به خود مطمئن هستند اما دانایان پر از شک و تردیدند،
اولا قسمت اول آن بیشتر شامل حال خود شما می شود که با اعتقادی راسخ در لباس یک پیامبر تمام عیار به ترویج عقاید سست و باطل خود مشغولید ثانیا این حرف شامل هر فرقه و گروهی که شود شامل ما شیعیان نمی شود، خوب می دانید که اهل سنت به ما می گویند رافضی؛ رافضی یعنی کسی که هیچ مطلبی را بدون مدرک و دلیل قبول نمی کند؛ کیش ما بر سه ضلع تشیع، فلسفه و عرفان استوار است یعنی قرآن، برهان و عرفان. کسی که با این سه درآویزد هیچ شانسی برای پیروزی او قابل تصور نیست و شما از این قاعده مستثنا نیستید.
در خلال بحث به موضوعات متعددی وارد شدید که هیچ ربطی به موضوع اصلی بحث نداشت و علیرغم باطل بودن به دلیل دور نشدن از موضوع اصلی من به آنها ورود نکردم و جواب شما را ندادم که به مرور جواب آنها را خواهم نوشت البته بیشتر برای خودتان اگر مایل بودید آنها را برای اطلاع خوانندگان سایتتان ترجمه کنید

Mr. Sina,

You claim that the comments were closed accidentally and you were not aware of it. If  you yourself believe in what you say I believe too. This is not an important issue. Was also the deletion of my last comment and your response to it [that you had already published] also accidental?

You say this debate is over. Yes, it is in some respects.  Since a humanist philosophy cannot provide any logical argument, there is nothing left [for you] to say. However, the discussion about reason and ignorance, religion and disbelief, justice and injustice, theism and lustfulness, will never end and will continue forever.

You said I attacked you. One of the things that I learned from you in this debate is that if someone believes in something and presents his proof to support his belief that is not considered personal attack because it is to inform others. What I wrote in my previous message about you is my belief about you and I also presented my reasons both in that comment and in previous comments. Therefore, what I said, according to your own self, are not insults or personal attacks; they are truths that one must not hide.   The fact that I believe you are infected by intellectual masturbation is not an attack on your person. It is an illness that has affected your mind.  As you know the person who is mentally sick is not aware of his sickness and you are not an exception.

You talked about your erudition. It is possible for the perfume to smell fragrant even if it is not. Many people can’t distinguish between a real perfume and a synthetic one. However, logical problems are not like that. Only an expert can separate philosophy from sophism and reason from fallacies.  If in your long write-ups you can find any arguments based on logical principles, then you are right.

You quoted Bertrand Russell to dismiss my conviction, saying only fools and fanatics are certain, but the wise people are full of doubts.  First of all the first part of that best suits you who with absolute conviction in the grab of a prophet are spreading your unfounded and invalid beliefs. Secondly, this applies to all sects and groups and not just to us the Shiites.  You well know that the Sunnis call us Rafezi. Rafezi means someone who does not accept anything without evidence.

Our doctrine is based on three foundamentals, shiism, philosophy and erfan (knowledge), in other words the Quran, reason and knowledge. There is no chance to defeat someone who clings to these three principles and you are no exception from this rule.

You touched many subjects that had nothing to do with the main subject of our discussion. And despite the fact that they were invalid, I did not respond to them so I won’t get away from the main subject, but I will gradually.  Of course, it would be more for your own sake. But if you wish you can translate them for the readers of your site.

Mr. Farzad,

In another post I explained why our last comments that I had published were deleted several hours later.  As it happened I had another open browser on the same page which was not updated. Hours later when I came to my computer I saw that browser and I saved it before closing it.  So the updates were lost.  When I found out I went to the history and copied what I had written  and added it to the page again.  Your comment was not lost because a copy of it  exists in the comment section.  Why these things are so important to you? Have you really run out of things to say? Is it why you are grabbing to any straw?

You say the discussion about reason and ignorance, justice and injustice, theism and lustfulness, etc., will never end.  I am afraid that discussion is also over.  Once you say that man is imbecile; all his wisdom, his consciousness and his morality amount to nothing; and he can’t know the difference between right and wrong on his own; and only Muhammad can teach him these things, otherwise he may become a canibal, there is nothing else to talk about.  This is, as you mullahs say, فصل الخطاب   the end of discussion. What is the point of arguing when all that has to be known is already said by Muhammad and is written in the Quran?   You love the word masturbation, so let me say that by your reasoning arguing is nothing but intellectual masturbation.  What is the point of discussing anything when all one has to do is to open the Quran and read it?

You either side with reason or with religion. You can’t have it both ways. These two are mutually exclusive.  If reason can lead us to truth then why we need religion and if religion is supreme why we need to argue about anything?  If you side with reason, religion is superfluous and if you side with religion, reason is redundant.

As for your justification of personal attacks on me, I believe you misunderstood me. You and I are not the subjects of this debate.  The subject is Muhammad. If we attack each other it will be ad hominem and red herring.  Assuming, your charges against me are true and my logic is at the same level of a two year old toddler. What this has to do with the questions I am raising about Muhammad? Why you don’t show the flaws of my logic? Let others grade my logic.

You say the Sunnis call the Shiites Rafezi رافضی because you don’t accept anything without evidence.  You are wrong.  That would be skepticism. Believers can’t be skeptic. Rafezi drives from rafaz which is the origin of the English word refuse.  Sunnis call you refused, i.e., rejected from religion, or those who have refused the true religion and walked away.  They don’t even accept the Shiites as true Muslims. Your faith is refused.

 

Update: 2012/03/13  5:23 AM

جناب سینا

تجربه دیگری که از بحث با مخالفان خدا و دین برای من حاصل شده این است که هنگام عجز از جواب، حرف طرف مقابل را به صورت غلطی آشکار تفسیر و معنا می کنند سپس با قدرت تمام شروع به پاسخ دادن به قضیه ذهنی خود ساخته می نمایند.

من در هیچکدام از سخنان سابق خود ادعا نکردم که انسان ضیعف العقل است و تمام توانایی های منحصر به فرد او یعنی عقل، هوشیاری و اخلاق مداری او هیچ ارزشی ندارد، حرف من این نیست که انسان توانایی تمییز بین درست و نادرست را ندارد و این تنها پیامبر رحمت صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم است که می تواند این امور را به انسان آموزش دهد و اگر او چنین نکند شاید انسان آدمخوار شود؛ من جایی ادعا نکردم هر چیزی که باید دانسته شود در قرآن آمده است و توسط پیامبر خدا صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم بیان شده است.

جواب این حرف شما را از زاویه دیگر در بحث چند ماه پیش داده ام؛ اختلاف من و شما در منشاء توانایی های منحصر به فرد انسان است شما مدعی هستید که طبیعت کر و کور و لال و نفهم، موجودی بصیر و سمیع و گویا و علیم تولید کرده است و من مدعی هستم اولا فاقد کمال نمی تواند معطی کمال باشد ثانیا اگر فرض را بر اعطاء این قابلیت ها از طرف طبیعت بگذاریم دیگر نمی توانیم آن را کمال بنامیم و به قول یکی از کامنت گذاران تنها یک فکت و واقعیت عینی خارجی است که قابلیت ارزش گذاری ندارد و ارزش محسوب نمی شود؛ واقعیت های طبیعی بسیار زیادی در اطراف ما وجود دارند که بعضا هم بسیار شگفت انگیزند اما هیچکدام نمی توانند ما را مجبور کنند که تا کمر در مقابل آنها خم شده، آنها را گرامی بداریم و تکریمشان کنیم؛ انسانی که محصول طبیعت صرف است هم یکی از این واقعیت هاست، این انسان با همه ویژگیهای منحصر به فردش اگر توسط موجودی علیم، قدیر و حکیم انتخاب نشده باشد هیچ دلیلی بر اینکه احترام او واجب باشد نیست. بله انسانها می توانند بر اساس قابلیت های مذکور یک سری امور اعتباری را جعل کرده و با وضع یکسری قوانین اعتباری دیگرآن امور را لازم الاجرا بدانند و متخلفان را تنیه کنند. اما این موضوع صرف اعتبار است و کرامت ذاتی برای انسان نمی آورد. امیدوارم توضیح کاملا رسا و قابل فهم باشد.

قصه اینکه ما چه اموری را درک می کنیم و پیامبر خدا صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم و قرآن او چه چیزی را به ما آموزش می دهند باشد برای بعد.

در بخش دیگر مدعی تعارض عقل و دین شده و آنها را مانعة الجمع تصور کرده اید. جواب را خیلی کوتاه می دهم، عقل و دین مکمل هم اند هر قضیه صحیح منطقی نیاز به دو عنصر دارد یکی ماده و دیگری هیئت؛ عقل هیئت قضیه است و دین ماده، اگر دین نباشد عقل چه چیزی را می خواهد پردازش کند که به کار انسان آید؟ اگر هدف غایی گذران زندگی و طی فاصله تولد تا مرگ است، حیوانات بدون نیاز به عقل بدون هیچ دغدغه ای این فاصله را طی می کنند در این صورت آیا عقل ما زائد نیست؟

در مورد حمله شخصی و اینکه موضوع این بحث پیامبر خدا صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم است نه شما

قبلا دلیل خود را بیان کردم؛ در اینجا این موضوع را اضافه می کنم که وقتی فردی با عقل جمعی مشکل دارد و موضوع مشکل آنها یک واقعیت عینی و علمی محض نیست ابتدا باید صحت مشاعر آن فرد از یک طرف و صحت مقدمات استدلال او از طرف دیگر مورد سنجش قرار گیرد اگر از این دو امتحان سربلند بیرون آمد آنگاه نوبت به بررسی مدعای او می رسد و ما اگر فرض را بر صحت جسم و جان شما بگذاریم، صحت مقدمات استنتاج شما سخت مورد تردید بلکه همانطور که بحث شد به طور قطع و یقین باطل و بی اساس است لذا بررسی اصل مدعای شما معنا و مفهوم ندارد اما با این حال من بنا به قولی که در پست قبلی به شما دادم برخواهم گشت و از ابتدای بحث تاکنون خطاهای فکری و مدعیات باطل شما را تک به تک بیان خواهم کرد. البته احتمالا این موضوع به بعد از تعطیلات عید نوروز موکول خواهد شد

 Mr. Sina,

My experience with debating with the enemies of God and religion is that when they feel powerless to reply, they twist the words of their opponent and interpret it differently and then they respond powerfully to their own imaginary construct.

I never said that man is imbecile and all his faculties, like reasoning, consciousness and his morality are worthless. I am not saying that man cannot distinguish right from wrong and only the Prophet of Mercy (PBHU) can teach him these things and if not he may become a cannibal. I never said everything that needs to be known is in the Quran and is already stated by the Prophet (PBUH).

I already answered this point a few months ago in our previous debate. The difference between you and me is in our beliefs the source of man’s unique powers. You say that the blind, deaf, dumb and ignorant nature has produced a seeing, hearing, talking and knowing being.  I say that first of all something imperfect cannot create something perfect and secondly, if we assume that these faculties are endowed by nature, we can no longer call it perfect.  It is only one external and obvious fact that does not deserve to be appreciated and it cannot be considered a value.

There are many natural phenomena around us, some of them quite amazing, but none can force us to bow to them, revere and glorify them. A man that is only a product of nature is one such phenomenon. There is no reason to respect such a man, despite his unique characteristics, if he is not chosen by a knowing, powerful, and wise being.  Yes, it is possible to forge a series of credits based on undesirable traits and regard those traits obligatory through other series of rules and punish the detractors.  However, this is based on credit and it does not bring innate dignity to man. I hope my explanation is clear and understandable.

Let us leave the discussion of things that we can understand and things that must be instructed by the messenger of God (PBUH) for a later time.

In another part you talked about the incompatibility of religion and reason and regarded them as mutually exclusive. I will reply briefly. Reason and religion are complementary. Each correct and rational subject requires two elements. One is its matter of it and the other its self. Reason is the self of the subject and religion is its matter. If there is no religion, what will be the utility of reason for man?  If the ultimate goal is to spend the life between birth and death, animals can do it without the need of reason and with no concerns. In that case isn’t our reason superfluous?

In regards to personal attacks [on you] and your claim that the subject of discussion is the Prophet (PBUH) and not you, I mentioned before my reason. Here I add that when someone has an issue with the wisdom of the majority, and the subject of their problem is not an apparent and scientific reality, first we must evaluate, on one hand the soundness of that person’s intelligence, and on the other, the soundness of his reasoning.   If he passes these tests then we can analyze his claim.  If we assume that you are physically and psychologically healthy the correctness of your reasoning is very dubious. As I said before, it is certainly invalid and unfounded. Therefore, there is no point in responding to your main arguments. Despite that, because I had promised since the beginning of our debate I will point out your mental errors and your invalid claims one by one, although it may be for after the Norooz festival.

 

 

Mr. Farzad,

You accused me of using straw man fallacy and disproving things you never said.  You claim you’ve never said that man is imbecile and his conscience, reason and morality amount to nothing and that only your prophet can teach these things to him.  I am afraid that is what your statements boil down to.  You made it very clear that man without divine guidance will go astray to such extent that he may even eat his kind. You asked me to disprove this claim based on the evolution or nature.

You confirmed that claim even in your latest reply when you said if human faculties come from nature they have no value. You believe that in such case man does not have to be revered because he is just an animal, only with a bigger brain.

So what is wrong in accepting that man is another animal with more evolved brain and hightened faculties and that his wisdom, discernment, intelligence, morality and ethics are all products of the nature?  You say human’s noble traits cannot come from nature because nature is devoid of them. Yes they can.  Date is sweet even though the dirt that sustains it is not.  Likewaise humans can acquire intelligence and other faculties from the nature that is devoid of them. Everything exists in nature in potential.

These superior human faculties that you believe are given to us through an external source such as a revelation don’t have a physical or spiritual existence. They are functions of the brain, just as life is the function of living organisms or sound is a function of a musical instrument.  It is meaningless to ask who gave the violin its sound. When the cords of the violin are stroked they make a sound. Sound has no independent existence outside the violin. Likewise, intelligence and other human faculties are functions of the brain.  The difference between us humans and animals is not in substance but in degree.  Our brain is bigger and functions better. That is why we can think about concepts that animals can’t.

A dog can smell millions of different smells that we don’t know even exist. His nose is not different from ours. It is just more powerful.  Likewise, we have the same kind of brain that animals have. Ours is more powerful.

You have made your position very clear. You deny man is naturally endowed with enough intelligence to discern between right and wrong and that is why he needs instructions from Muhammad, without which there is a risk that he may become a savage and eat his kind.   This is in nutshell what you believe. But every time I nail you down you try to backpedal and deny it.   That is okay, you are free to say what you want. Our readers are smart.

You say if human’s nobility is a product of nature then it does not merit any respect and no one should bow to man because he is just an evolved animal.

Why should anyone bow to us? Why are you so obsessed with values and ranks?  This line of reasoning has dire consequences. When you consider yourself superior to someone else, whether animal or human, you belittle and objectify them. You tend to use and abuse them..  That is why humans have used and abused animals for so long.  We thought God created them for us.  But that is not true.  Animals are not created for us to use and abuse.  In the past it was forgivable, but not anymore.  Now we don’t need animals for our survival and we must respect their life and their dignity.  The only thing that sets us apart from animals is our rational mind.  Emotionaly, they are similar to us.

Animals are not the only victims of this twisted reasoning. When you say some people have more value than others, because of their belief or disbelief, you dehumanize the disbelievers, discriminate against them and violate their human rights.  That is why you think it is okay to beat, imprison and kill the disbelievers, particularly those who oppose Islam. They simply have no value for you. Nothing has any value for you unelss it is services Islam.

Islamic thinking is dangerous.  Its philosophy is based on false premises that are harmful to mankind.  Why so much obsession with values? According to this thinking there must be a system of punishment and rewards for the world to make sense.  This is a primitive way of thinking. A more mature way of thinking is to focus on capacities and potentials.  No one is better or worse, we have different potentials.  Take the example of cells in a body. They are different and have different functions, some of those functions are more vital than others, but we don’t discriminate between them. They are all important.

Instead of thinking of values why not think of functions. No one is superior or inferior. Democracies are based on this premise. All men (includes women) are equal.  In Islam men are superior to women, the believers are superior to disbelievers, free men are superior to slaves, etc.  This value system is even translated in monetary terms where the blood money of a Muslim man is twice that of a Muslim woman and at the bottom of the scale is the polytheist (Hindu) woman whose life is worth 33 times less than that of a Muslim man.

You say religion and reason are complementary. This is not true. They are mutually exclusive.  Belief means accepting a postulate without evidence. Reason means never accepting anything without evidence.   How can these two complement each other?  We believe in things that we can’t prove. For example, one may believe in Bigfoot. This is not an illogical belief.  Bigfoot is believed to be a primate.  But because there is no evidence of such creature we can only believe. However, we never say we believe in gorillas, because we know grillas exist.  Another example: If I ask you the time and you don’t have a watch you may guess and say, I believe it is 3 PM.  But if you have a watch you’ll look at it and with certainty will say the hour.  In the first case you believe because you are not sure and in the second case you know because you are sure. Belief is based on speculation and conjecture and knowledge on facts.  Faith and reason don’t complement each other, they exclude each other.

It is simple to prove this point. Take the example of evolution. Evolution is not a theory anymore. It is a scientific fact. But believers in creation cannot accept it.  So how can religion and reason complement each other?  Believers will deny facts to defend their faith. Muhammad believed earth is spread out like a carpet. He also believed that sun and moon are both luminary objects in the sky that revolve around the earth every 24 hours, chasing each other without ever reaching each other.  Reason opposes that beleif.  Muslims defended Muhammad’s belief until finally the evidence became overwhelming and they were forced to reinterpret their scripture and side with reason.  There are countless examples that show reason and religion don’t mix.

Now a person can be religious and rational at the same time. However, in areas that he is more religious he is less rational and vice versa. We humans are good in compartmenting our brain. That is why one can find scientists who are also religious.  However, they don’t use religion and science as complementary elements. They think less as scientists when they put on their religious hat one and less as believers when they think as scientists.  Show me one instance where science and religion complement each other.  There is none.

You ask, without religion what good is reason for. This is an absurd question but you made your reason for asking it clear.  You said if the goal is to live life from birth to death, also animals can do it without the need of reason.  This belies another twisted Islamic thinking that life in this world is worthless and one should live only for the next world. Where is the evidence of the next world?     نه عاقل است که نسیه خرید و نقد بهشت  I am not saying that the next world does not exist. It may exist, just as the Bigfoot may exist.  The point is whether it is wise to give up this life in the hope of a one that may not exist at all?  Believing in the next world gives hope to some people and I don’t oppose such belief.  What is foolish is to throw away this life for something unproven or worse, take the life of someone else for it.

I sometimes  buy lottery tickets.  I know the chance of hitting the jackpot is very slim – one in 14,000,000. But I spend two dollars to dream for a few days of becoming a millionaire.  Ah what would I can do with that much money!  It gives me hope and it is worth the two dollars.  I am buying a dream. But what if I spent all my money buying tickets to increase my chance of winning?  Wouldn’t that be stupid?

That is what you Muslims do. You give up everything in this life for something unproven.  This life is in front of us. Why not make it better for ourselves and for others?  You make this life a hell for everyone else and for yourselves in the hope of a life that may not be true.  This is ulitmate stupidity.

At the end you make the surprising claim that if you can prove I am not mentally sane or rational, you will be exonerated from answering my main questions about Islam.  Only a Muslim can come up with a reasoning as warped as this.  I don’t mind that instead of answering my charges against Islam and Muhammad you attack me because that is basically like throwing the towel and conceding defeat.  Ad hominem is the last weapon of the loser. I believe that is where we are at.  You are finished and you know it. That is why you cling to logical fallacies as your last weapon.  “Go ahead, make my day.” Disgrace yourself as much as you want.

It is funny that you know this too. At the beginning of your latest reply you said when a person sees he is losing he will twist the word of his opponent and attack it.  That is called straw man fallacy and it is very true. So you know that using logical fallacies is a sign of defeat. Of course I did not use straw man fallacy which you accused me of. But you are now saying you want to use ad hominem fallacy.  You basically have confessed to what is obvious to everyone else  that you’ve lost this debate.

Update: 2012/03/14  2:03 AM

You wrote:

“The only thing that sets us apart from animals is our rational mind.”

“We must respect their life and their dignity.”

“Emotionally, they are similar to us.”

Dr.sina

All of my effort was to achieve to this point and prove that you are just an animal that its brain is a bit bigger than other animals. And you with all of your ability tried to hide this reality but at end succumbed and acknowledged completely to this fact. Your loyalty is appreciated and I thank you although thanking of animals is not prevalent.

Now at this point the debate is over.

just one point, maybe “Emotionally”, they are similar to us but “logically” they are not.

 

Mr. Farzad,

Any person who knows anything about evolution knows that humans are animal.  How did I try to hide this?  I have been saying this all along. This is a scientific fact now proven by DNA, something that did not exist at the time of Darwin.  That is why evolution is no longer called a theory. It is a proven principle. Not only we are apes we actually originated from bacteria, which in all likelihood, fell on this planet about four billion years ago taking a ride inside an ice meteorite.

We come from animal kingdom. Biologically we are no different from other animals.  We are cousins to all the creatures that you see including the earth worms and insects.  Emotionally, we are very similar to our nearest kin, the mamals.  Intellectually we are somewhat different. Everything that sets a man apart from an animal is in the evolution of his brain.  It is this evolution that is responsible for the appearance of human consciousness, morality and ethics. It is thanks to this evolution that man has the ability to grasp the Golden Rule, feel empathy and altruistic love, not just for his kind but also for all the living creatures.  This evolution is in progress. That is why we have so many people turning to veganism.  Veganism is an evolution in human consciousness. Many people are realizing that not only abusing other people is morally and ethically wrong, abusing animals is also morally and ethically wrong.

However, this evolution of human consciousness is not homogeneous. Not all the people are equally evolved morally.  Just as physical environment is responsible for the bodily evolution intellectual environment is responsible for the evolution of our consciousness.

For us to evolve morality, understand fairness and be ethical, we need a right intellectual environment.  You can throw the best seeds on an unfertile ground and they will not grow. Likewise, if people are raised in cultures that are bereft of ethical values, they will not evolve as ethical humans. Their level of consciousness will remain at the same level of animals.

This is what has happened to Muslims.  Thanks to Islamic indoctrination that comes from the mind of a psychopath  Muslims have not evolved morally.  Their level of consciousness is at the same level of the consciousness of animals.  They act beastly.  In Islamic world might is right. Minorities have no right. Oppositions are subdued – just like in jungle.  Muslims are morally less evolved humans. They are sub-humans. This is obvious to anyone who reads the daily news coming from the Muslim world.

In the early morning of March 7, 2010, between 200 and 500 Nigerian Christians, mostly women and children, were butchered in the villages of Dogo Nahawa, Zot and Ratsat, by Muslims

You say that all you wanted is to prove was that I am an animal.  We humans descend from animals but I am not an animal anymore. I have strived to evolve. I left Islam and became a human.  This may not be your choice, because your religion is also your business and your source of income.  But I hope that other Muslims who read this debate will make that choice.  One cannot be a Muslim and a human.  Islam and humanity are not compatible.  The Muslims who perpetrated the atrocities shown in the above pictures followed the teachings of their prophet.   This is the naked Islam.  Muhammad set the example. He ordered his followers to burn a mosque that he thought was rebelious, with its worshippers inside.

This human evolution must happen at our consciousness. It is not genetic.  Genetically all humans are the same.  But our consciousness is at different stages of evolution.

Many ex-Muslims wrote to me and told me that now that they have left Islam, it is as if a load has been lifted off their shoulders. For the first time they don’t feel guilty loving all mankind, irrespective of their beliefs.  This is what makes us human – to have the ability to love other people irrespective of their belief, race, etc.

My hope is to help all, or at least most Muslims to take that evolutionary step and pass from the animal consciousness into human consciousness. No person who can have so much hatred of mankind in his heart, as Muhammad had and instructed his followers to have, can be truly called an evolved human. I took that evolutionary step consciously when I left Islam and I want to help other Muslims to take it too.


Spread The Word! Share it:

This article has 437 comments

  1. @Sachine
    All the useful important scientific, historic informations already contain in divine book of Islam the Holy Quran

  2. Very useful information. Thank you for sharing it.             Thanks 99th

  3. Very nice information. Thank you for sharing it.             Thanks pmd

  4. respects life = psychological need ( only human have)
    ???
    so you can read animal mind, uhh…?
    Animals do attack on human when they think their life or their little one's life is in danger.

  5. we can see rumi's quotes which is plagiarism. These are teachings of bagavatpada Adishankaracharya while arguing with buddists. These cockroaches steal vedanta and pose it as a great thinking. The need to debunk sufism is paramount as this makes Islam look acceptable by posing as a spiritual engine while stealing the legacy of great Indian minds and selling back. As yazderg III calls Arabia is truly land of locusts and insects.

  6. Correct. But whole of this Excercise is againest a Looming 'Veiled Threat' of imposing Uncompromising Regressive Tenets on mankind. Asia is feeling the heat of this Regressive Thinking in the form of Unbridled Population Explosion & Horrors of Religious Imperialism.

  7. What prevented Mighty, Mighty Almighty from creating Perfect Beings if it is His sole objective. Why ALL-MIGHTY had to depend on Unreliable Method of Relying on some self Messengers to Demand Respect instead of Giving-out a Global Audible Annunciation proclaiming his Supremacy. Parents Teach & Insist childern to not only respect them alone but also other Elders / Teachers etc. Why Mighty, Mighty AlMighty is not able to crush Saitan who is misleading Mankind. Why He has created Saitan at all – in First Place ?

  8. Do you mean Large Section of Man-kind 'Consumes & Consumed by & Continues to be so' of Some Bodies Verbal Diarrhea !

  9. @I'm no Almighty
    ALLAH is not starved for praise. Allah is complete in all respect. Allah punishes non-believers for their ungratefulness for their creator (Allah). As parents rebuke children for not giving respect to elders same Allah does by punishing the non-believers in him and prophet. If Allah would have starved for praise, universes creation process should be from eternity because Allah is starved from eternity by this sense. But Quran no where says Allah creating universe/humans since eternity. Quran says it is our first and last birth as humen after that will be judged by Allah on Quayamat day/day of judgement.

  10. GOD is starved of praise means GOD is Incomplete ! God punishes Non-believers (created by him !) means he is meaner than ' Human Parents!'. The God of your belief was only a'Convinient Tool' by its inventor to acertain absolute submission of his followers & enlarge the herd !

  11. YOU ARE 100% RIGHT !
    Muslims are brainwashed people. MOST MUSLIMS SIMPLY CANNOT THINK LOGICALLY ANYMORE.
    BUT THE PROBLEM IS THEY THEMSELVES THINK (because of the brainwashing) THEY DÓ THINK LOGICALLY. This BRAINWASHING is instilled in them by FEAR !! They are (they say this themselves) SLAVES of Allah….they are NOT FREE !!!
    Fear of Allah, Hell,Satan, Mohammed, Jinns, punishment of the grave ….and so on !!!
    So we must take away this irrational fear BY SHOWING THEM THE TRUTH .!! To begin with the SMART MUSLIMS !!! The truth will set them free

  12. Dear Sudhakar,
    '
    Very beautiful eply you have given.

  13. Udaybhanu Chitrakar
    Monday 22 October 2012, 6:45 am

    In Christian religion there was The Old Testament. The Old Testament God of the Christians was as cruel and ruthless as Muhammad and Allah. But then in Christian religion there was The New Testament also, in which Jesus Christ brought in God's love for mankind. Islam is not a complete religion in this sense, because it did not get its New Testament, and so its followers had to adhere to its Old Testament only, i.e. to the Koran, in which rape, loot, murder, torture, killing of unbelievers in Allah and in Muhammad as His prophet etc. are not only allowed, but also shown as the only path for going to the heaven.

  14. I like especially the foto above the article.
    LOOK carefully again readers. Look at these evil selfish faces of these imams. Look how these evil bastards march like soldiers. Look at their fat belly's . Do you think that these hypocrite cowards will blow up themselves for Allah ??? Of course NOT. This they leave some stupid gullible muslims who payed for their fat belly's. Disgusting evil muslims !!!

  15. Great and commendable job, Mr. Sinai, It is useless trying to educate Mr. Farhad as he is a medieval school man.

  16. After going through the debate my conclusion is that Islam creates such a short circuit in the human brain that muslims cannot even comprehend simple and self evident logic. They are left with burnt transistors, broken resistors and dry solderings. I donot think that logic alone can eradicate the disease that is Islam.

  17. CREATION ARE CREATION THEYRE IN STATE OF IMPERFECTION THATS WHY THERES A REPENTENCE LET US LOOK ON YOURSELF BEFORE WE POINT FINGERS TO OTHERS AND THESE DEBATE DOESNT GIVE A SENSE BUT DESEASE IN THE HEART

  18. QUARAN FOLLOW YOUR RELIGION AND I WILL FOLLOW MY RELIGION DEBATE THEY WONT BENEFIT US BUT MISLEAD WHOS SUPERIOR THAN WHO IS ONLY LORD KNOWS NOW BACKBITTING IS A SIN

  19. having a 50 yr old man who married a six yr old child as the head of a so-called "religion" , asking believers to kill un-believers, stoning people to death for adultery when its
    leader was engaged in polygamy with at least11-13 women simultaneously, threatening people with death when they bring out the truth about mohd and the "religion",…..surely this sounds more like a criminal organisation suited to its own convenience and warped values.

    worse they have engaged god(allah) to be their sponsor to give them legitimacy and respectability

    we should not allow ourselves to be fooled by the association of this organisation with"allah" but see it for what it is, and by what it preaches and does.

    by any decent standards this is an organisatiion that should be treated as criminal and banned and all its members put under surveillance. it is an insult to even compare it with other religions.

  20. why Muhammad hated humanity?and why billions of normal people(muslims) love to shed blood of innocents?answer me please.

  21. what is your verdict on why Islam is so popular that 1.2 billion are following it today. We know, any rational person know that this is totally rotten in it's core and how and why these muslims can't see that.

  22. Independent Observer
    Friday 10 August 2012, 8:57 am

    Its clear from the debate that Mr Farzad could not justify the acts of the prophet. He justified it by saying humans are immoral by nature.

    The point is Mr Farzad and his fellow pro muslim scholars will never acknowledge defeat that easily. coz if they do they will be hanged in their country for blasphemy.

  23. thanks mate @ greco8088

  24. I agree with Boiragi's points. However one must admit some good entertainment value in the debate. I found myself laughing out loud several times while reading responses by the Shiite cleric. I know the subject is very serious. But for me the debate had elements of good comedy as well.

    Thank you Mr. Sina for your scholarship and much patience.

  25. Only 0.5 % people in world are engaged in debates.Out of 10% take it seriously and most of don't care. Everyone else are busy in fulfilling their life needs. Life is real and muslims are doing real things, practicing for real. You can't claim any your win in debate over muslims, for that you need to show up for real not like pussyboy hiding,accusing and blaming. 10 years later you will see these debates are always open. Strike counter-strike , allegations-refutations , insults-praises.

  26. @all

    1. What is debate? Can Muslims debate?

    Debate is a process of exchanging thoughts between two or more ideologies in order to reach closer to the truth in friendly manner. A truth seeker remains always in a state of debate within. Debate is nothing but to challenge an old ideology with new thoughts and if found necessary, the old stand is modified in order to face new challenges/questions that will further lead to rectification of our thoughts. And this process goes on and on. This is the basis of science and philosophy. Prerequisite of debate is nothing but to accept that I will modify my stand if needed. In other words, it is to accept that my current belief may not be perfect and I am ready to refine it.

    But is this possible in Islam? No, because Islam is defined as the complete belief in Allah, Muhammad, heaven, hell, angels, judgment day, Quran etc. As soon as you question/disbelief/agree to accept that there may be imperfection in the concept of any of the above, you are no more a Muslim.

    And unfortunately, any Muslim, if labeled as Non Muslim, propagates his new belief, is to be put to death! So when it is proven that any Muslim (as per the definition of Quran) does not fulfill the prerequisite of debate, how can there be debate with him? Moreover, if someone ensures that he does not believe in killing of apostates, he automatically becomes apostate because of disbelief in Quran and Sunna duo. So in one case Jihadis can’t fulfill the condition for debate and in other case they no longer remain Muslims even before starting the debate.

    There is no third case unluckily

  27. You can mix oil with water its called milk or emulsion.

  28. "born in in-breeding and may have got weaker genes, which disables him to think rationally"

    Ali Sina born in same race of that mullah.This debate is worthless.

  29. Why would you want to spend time arguing with someone who is totally brainwashed, born in in-breeding and may have got weaker genes, which disables him to think rationally, or he maybe born with a brain that does not function at all, I mean the Scholer from Iran and his ability to think.

    The purpose of this website will be to those people who may be Muslims by birth, however, like yourself, did not grow up in strictly Islamic doctrain, and who is also sympathetic or moderately in tune with jihadi movements and do not know which way to turn. I am sure they are the middle class and large in number. Let them make the decision or a conscious decision.

    You can't streigthen a dog's tail. You will never win outright against him, with Anjum Chaudhuri, because their paradigm are oh so different from yourself Mr Sina. Their consciousness, or morality is so dillusional that they do not know what is even called humanity.

    You can't mix oil with water.

  30. Thank you, Ali Sina.
    I had the impression, that the post above was a single post from Mr. Farzad after the debate was closed.
    And we both know that he can write an exellent english, if he wants to.

  31. @Ali Sina Sir
    Before debating with Muslims we should know why to debate with Muslims. Please go through this article. http://satyagni.com/islam-and-hinduism-debate/

  32. I translated all his posts and published them in the article above.

  33. Please translate if you want to be taken seriously, mr. Persian

  34. The Shiite Mullah lost the debate pathetically. At times I even felt sorry for him. That's what happens when you are trying to defend the indefensible.

  35. No he is actually a regular guy. He can be also very smart in other areas. It is the belief in Islam that makes one babble nonsense.

  36. Thanks for the debate Dr. Sina,
    Anyone with a functional mental faculty can conclude that your opponent is a delusional and/or mentally deranged human being.
    I recommend not waste anymore valuable time to debate on his way of thinking. The whole brain tissue is necrotic and no intervention can assist.
    Long live humanity and rationalism,

  37. Dear Ali, my sweet sweet brother. Shia , acc. to me and some scholars , does not fulfill the criteria of islam. They does not fully respect our beloved Prophet(pbuh) ((As per my knowledge but Allah swt knows the best)). So debating with such a person is useless.So sweetheart,nice try but (a smile prevailed over my face)……………………………………………………………………………..
    SALAAM

  38. Thanks Sina sir, we too want to hope. Probably Mr. Ataturk also did hope so. Hope never dies. Only we die, however long we live.

  39. And if you say I lack consciousness or I am evil, then I am evil and SO WHAT. Evil doesn’t exist and I am not obligated to agree with you or to share your morality, so you can f*** off.

  40. "Why should we believe blindly on some mad man??" I did not say you should believe in any one. All I say is do not follow any rules at all, follow you own morality, listen to your own inner voice. Moral objectivism/absolute morality is a fallacy only said by ignorants who have no understanding of what a moral value is. A moral judgement is essentially a logical judgement, based on pre existent goals. These goals only exist in peoples heads they have no objective basis. ANYBODY and I do mean anybody who claims you are moral obligated to do anything or to have a position on this or that is just using emotional blackmail to try to enforce their morality on you.

  41. Why should we believe blindly on some mad man?? Yes the moralities are relative, but there are many issues on which we can arrive on common consensus, And we can resolve others… or we can choose to live with a little differences between us. But killing and harassment is no way a justified means as fu**ing Muhammad ordained…

  42. \”But I donot see anything good coming in my lifetime.\”

    Don\’t be so sure. Unless you plan to die very soon, you will see big changes happening in comming years. Things don\’t happen on their own. Someone must set them into motion. Things are being set into motion. Just wait dn don\’t despair. The comming years are going to be amazing.

  43. I have faith that someday, someday they will understand how much we (Other religions, I donot want to use the word Kaffir or Dhimmi) are suffering from their religion. But I donot see anything good coming in my lifetime. Their ignorant behaviour, is closing the drapes of muslims to outside world. Even though they are our brothers and sisters, but they like to see the evil within us, they want us to humiliate them so that they can get some amount of guilty pleasure. This is sad, very sad. A muslim is a good human, good husband, good father until and unless his islamists mind take off.

    I afraid that someday they will get the nuclear arsenal and will use the same way they use suicide bombs upon us. I wish I could do something, but afraid that my family will be in danger if I openly come against them

  44. And tell me why one of those things matter? Who gives a dam? Hitler was influential too. You are a dumb shit

  45. I read this when it was in the debates in ffi. Each and very debate is a coffin nail in Islam. The mullah does not make one point of any substance. Islam is a true gutter religion.

  46. Your comment about the Chinese narrative of Mao fighting the Emperor of China made me sit up and take notice, and I will tell you why. Your statement about Mao fighting the Emperor of China is incorrect.

    When Mao was in his ascendancy during the 1930s and 1940s, there was NO Emperor of China. The last "Ch'ing" (Manchu) Emperor, Pu Yi, was deposed in 1911 at the age of around 9. Mao and his Communists were in opposition to the Koumintang government of Chiang Kai-Shek, a Chinese general and nominal ruler of China during the 1930s and 1940s. The two sides worked together *or at least halted their war against each other* to fight the Japanese and help drive them from Chinese territory from 1937 – 1945, and then at the end of WWII, they fought each other for control of China. The Communists under Mao won and the KMT under Chiang fled to Formosa (Taiwan).

    Also, at the time of Mohammad, there were a number of very strong "kings" about, though there was NO central authority in most of the Arabian Peninsula. To the Northeast, the Sassanian Persian empire reigned; to the Northwest, the Easter Roman Empire held Syria and Judaea and Samaria; across the Red Sea lay Egypt, also held by the Eastern Roman Empire; and further south, also across the Red Sea, the black kingdoms of Ethiopia, Cush and Axum.

    Mohammad also didn't invent monotheism. He borrowed (or perhaps stole) from the Jewish tribes then extant in Arabia, and from what was known in the region of Nestorian Christianity. He did choose the top god in the pagan Arabian pantheon, Allah, as his "god."

  47. To think the creator is separate from the created like in islam ,christianity and judaism is a ridiculous joke

  48. Mr Farhad I can opine only 2 inferences from islam and koran ..either the arabs/moslems are too intellectually incapable of understanding philosphy that assumingly god as a super being (as in abrahamic religions ) had to resort to islam for upliftment !! or Mohamad was indeed a devilish person .

  49. I think u should be smarter than that. What u see blossoming here is "TRUTH vs LIES" Stupid of u to call Dr. Sina to open a link for dating.

  50. “We "die" every moment when our cells take years to renew themselves ?????” Yes our cells are dying every movement and new one’s are replacing them. The body is always changing every second – as is the consciousness. Nothing hard to understand their.

  51. Freak photo n freak logic. No end to yr insanity. We "die" every moment when our cells take years to renew themselves ????? Another LIE when u said the ghosts are coward when u are the real coward. Lies are what u are good at spinning. ENOUGH OF YR BS !!!

  52. “I think this is soon to become a dating site. I've seen many a time two people fightin like this end up head over heels for one another.” Now you made me laugh, okay their may be something to your idea of becoming a dating site, but seriously though I am not a homosexual that is falling “head over heels” for a old man that believes in ghosts.

  53. I think this is soon to become a dating site. I've seen many a time two people fightin like this end up head over heels for one another. Mr Sina please open a link for dating as I can see something blossoming here.

  54. Yes I am an alien to delusional freaks like you.

  55. “Yr sanity was called into question” More ad hominem. If you would rather be chopped up by some cultists or worse yet be enslaved to some cult leader then be my guest. But don’t tell me I am “morally obligated” to do the same. “We die every moment n teacher reborn into the students n many other stupid things.” Yes we die and are reborn every moment. The only way we have a sense of self in the first place is through memory. And even memories change and became distorted and lost over time.

  56. Attract what ? Attracted to a weird fool. U do better to judge his sanity. Look at the pisture he put up here. Really looks like a freak alien.

  57. “terrible lies u said about me n the Christians.” Yeah what lies about Christians? They believe daddy has saved them and just like you that death is not real.
    "Why should I be afraid to die when I knew my spirit will live on to meet my late parents, n later my Su God" This is why you are afraid of death. You don’t even believe death is real that it is an illusion. This is delusional wish thinking. “TO PROVE THAT U ARE NOT A COWARD, WEIRD FOOL !!!” I am not afraid of the dead, of the darkness only ignorants are afraid of the dark. These ghosts if they are not coward can come and get me. Since they travel through space and time in a instant it should not be too hard. I am not going chasing after some cowardly ghosts.

  58. U ARE MOST FEARFUL OF DEATH BECAUSE U DARE NOT STAY IN A HAUNTED HOUSE. Yr sanity was called into question when u twisted the Golden Rule into something evil n said we die every moment n teacher reborn into the students n many other stupid things. I had enough of yr stupidity.

  59. Oh pathetic 25% (SANITY), what terrible lies u said about me n the Christians. Why should I be afraid to die when I knew my spirit will live on to meet my late parents, n later my Su God who surely will not mete any serious PUNISHMENT against me as I had not commited any great sins. NOW TAKE UP MY CHALLENGE N STAY IN A HAUNTED HOUSE TO PROVE THAT U ARE NOT A COWARD, WEIRD FOOL !!!

  60. LOL, I don’t think so. Everin is not a pretty young women with long hair he is just a delusional old man.

  61. No theres is no such thing as paranormal scientists. I already told you what paranormal means and even gave you an example of what would constitute paranormal. “When all the people agreed that it is paranormal” All the people oh really? And even if they did its still a logical fallacy Ad Populum. No you are the coward, you are terrified of death of that moment when all your senses, your thoughts, your emotions and your memories are gone. You are a coward in not seeing reality as it really is and not even been prepared to face death. This is the height of cowardice and womanliness, you are as bad as the Christians who hide behind their heavenly mother shaking like cowardly dogs thinking she will make everything all right.

  62. Watch out! Opposites attract.lol!

  63. Better Stay in yr "well" with yr weird logic n psuedo reasoning. The paranormal scientists will laugh till they drop at yr most stupid reasoning. When all the people agreed that it is paranormal n u came to say the opposite. U are as odd n weird as the photo u put up. U remain a coward.

  64. I am sorry but these things are not paranormal. Voice recordings and mysterious lights are not paranormal. Paranormal means phenomena outside the range of scientific explanation (based on its current models). For example the observations made using a telescope by Galileo where at the time “paranormal” because they was against the geocentric model. Or if in modern times the results of the experiment set up by Dr Sam Parnia to test whether people who have clinically died brought back information about the target above them, came back as positive then that would be paranormal (because it would overthrow our current understanding of consciousness), and it would be evidence of the hypothesis that consciousness is like information and the body the storage device (for example sound files are stored on a mp3 player).

  65. Barry Doyle

    Our Approach

    Working under a standardized protocol, Allied Paranormal provides the following benefits for people who seek the services of a dedicated and professional paranormal team:

    • Allied Paranormal provides investigations free of charge
    • Highly-trained, experienced investigators
    • Expert use of paranormal investigative technique and methodology
    • Case background research
    • Careful analysis and authentication of evidence
    • Pre-investigative interviews
    • Written reports for clients
    • Copy of evidence
    • Emotional support • Dedicated follow-up support
    • Client discretion and privacy is respected.//

    The above is just one website of the hundreds of paranormal societies all over the whole world. Click n find out yrself, lazy fool. U chicken out n dare not step into a haunted house to experience the real "thing" yrself.
    U are just an amateur wanting to learn more but too lazy to find the materials yrself. U display yr ignorance by "shooting" in the dark most of the times.

  66. “For yr limited knowledge, some paranormal investigators are scientists n many are from scientific backgrounds.” Give me a list of their names and provide me with a scientific paper that proves 1) Controlled scientific tests were carried out and 2) Paranormal entities were detected under these controlled conditions.

  67. Take up my challenge to prove my claim. Or u are a coward n just chicken out. Before u do so don't bombard me yr twisted logic n psuedo truth. For yr limited knowledge, some paranormal investigators are scientists n many are from scientific backgrounds. If u chicken out. don't ever give me a reply.

  68. “Yr mission is to overturn all the valid religious doctrines n trick people into believing yr BS.” Valid religious doctrines eh? Then why they cannot defend them rationally? Because their bullshit that’s why. That’s why you make a personal attack on me, instead of responding in a rational way. You are not a rational person you are controlled by your emotions you don’t have a clue what truth is and you are a complete ignoramus with no understanding of reality.

  69. Twisting n turning n speaking with a fork tongue is the trick of yr trade. U maybe be a freak alien as grosteque as the picture u put up. Yr mission is to overturn all the valid religious doctrines n trick people into believing yr BS. Or u are just amateur poking here n there n trying to learn from others.

  70. This should be one reason for all Muslim women to leave Islam. If there is no respect for women, there is no humanity. No man had ever given birth to a child, not even this impostor Muhammad and/or his fig of imagination, allah. Muhammad had been under the sandals of one woman for too long, so he hated women, and made such claims as a woman being half a man, and if she is raped she has to bring 4 men to prove that she had been raped by one man, who might be her husband!

  71. No what I actually said was we should investigate scientifically every "paranormal" claim. Anecdotal reports and personal experiences do not count as scientific evidence. So take up my challenge (or rather the challenge of all the sceptics) and prove these claims SCIENTIFICALLY. By the way Christopher Hitchens had a better understanding of reality than the delusional Dalai Lama and most other Buddhist monks.

  72. Take up my challenge before u spout any self-righteuos, psuedo theories which cannot be accepted coz u never investigaie their validity on the grounds. Yr ideas are as grotesque as yr photo on this comment section.

  73. No not all the religions believe in spirits and even if they do they teach a load of other crazy bullshit which you don’t believe in. This is a fallacy called Appeal to Common Practice because most religions or cultures believe a certain thing it doesn’t mean its true. These paranormal investigations are worthless to a sceptic we need to investigate it under scientific conditions. Hell it would be great would it not for example if prayer actually healed people better than our current medicines and medical operations? Problem is if someone is claiming that we need to scientifically investigate that claim not just take their word for it. As obviously it would be suicidal to stop using our medicine and just pray instead without evidence prayer heals.

  74. Ghosts will not "touch" yr fifthy body unless u trample into their domains, stupid ! All the religions support " afterlife n spirits ". As for "reincarnation", it is mentioned in the Bible, Buddhist texts, Hinduism, Chinese n Japanese religions. Only James Randi n some fools like u cannot keep up-to-date with the paranormal investigations n the spiritualists. A FOOL NEVER LEARN is a nice song by Andy William.

  75. All ready been around long enough to know that your facts on Islam and Judaism are not based on facts at all and many have shown this but alas you are court up in your own delusions

    You have shown nothing more then blind hatred towards the Muslim and Jewish People (The true Jewish who do not justify abuse and deaths of Muslims)

    Many have showed this, some were even deleted over time

    Ali Sina fooling the lazy, ignorant and uneducated since the early 1990's

  76. Buddha did not even believe in a soul. “If no soul exists, reincarnate what BS ???” Could not have said it better my self reincarnation is Bull****. Also what is the “soul”? You still haven’t defined what that is. “NOW TAKE UP MY CHALLENGE AND STAY IN A HAUNTED HOUSE FOR A FEW NIGHTS AND SEE WHAT WILL HAPPEN.” Why these ghosts cannot come to me eh? To afraid to leave their haunting? Real scary those ghosts, I call to all the spirits and ghosts to get me, come on don’t be shy. Or better yet present yourself to some professional scientists to prove scientifically that their is “life after death“. That will shut all the sceptics up, James Randi will also give you 1 million dollars how about that? Okay you might not have much use for that money but your living relatives will.

  77. Oh ! no, all those stuff had many books n website stories to back them up. The body will be dissolved but not the soul. That is why Buddha had discovered The Law of Karma n Reincarnation. If no soul exists, reincarnate what Shit ???
    NOW TAKE UP MY CHALLENGE AND STAY IN A HAUNTED HOUSE FOR A FEW NIGHTS AND SEE WHAT WILL HAPPEN. Inusure yrself first in case u get injured when running away too fast., No use being an arm chair critic arguing with pseudo logic. Get the facts on the ground because knowledge cannot be acquired by merely talking rots. U n yr BS with no backing.

  78. My mumbo jumbo? Your the one that believes in souls, afterlife,ghosts,reincarnation and all the rest of it. What do you call that? That is mumbo jumbo sir.

  79. I don't think you have done anything good by doing this so I am skipping thank you.
    Also include picture of 300 muslims killed in Nigeria by christians in january 2012.

  80. I removed the picture becuase I can't find a reliable source for it.

  81. U will do better by refuting all the points highlighted by him than by accusing him blindly. U stand to win USD 50,000. All the best.

  82. Look at the man he is wearing dhoti ( traditional men's garment in India) where in indonesia they wear sarongs

    Hatred screwed you to tamper and to manipulate things. Barking dog instantly become your identity.

  83. Keep all yr mumbo jumbo to yourselft. OK ?

  84. Can you show me a link to a news site showing the source of the two pictures. I am particularly interested about the first picture of the man trampling the little boy. The site from where I copied it say it is from Indonesia.

    Yes you are right. I hate Islam and I want the whole world to hate this evil doctrine of hate, violance and stupidity. I hate any doctrine that divides mankind.

  85. I come across this website by accident and am surprise at the way it spreading hatred against Islam. Having said that let me start by saying that from the pictures in this article purported to be from Indonesia it is not correct as that picture is from India and the second picture is from Congo (DRC) and was taken in 2009 when fuel tank exploded killing people who came to scoop the product. Imam Hambali said 'The lion is fear inspite of it silence while the dog is stoned despite its barking' Ali may God (Allah) show you the light.

  86. Yes the Buddha was enlightened he had a perfect clear conscious understanding of reality. The things he taught, you have no understanding of, he did not believe in any of the nonsense you do indeed he ridiculed the beliefs of the ignorants of his time like the beliefs in a self, soul, afterlife and gods. “Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream that their souls are separate and self-existent entities.”
    “This body will be dissolved and no amount of sacrifice will save it.” – The Buddha.

  87. Buddha got enlightened at 100% and u, only at 25%. No wonder u f**k things with yr mumbo jumbo of "magic" n "alien".

  88. Yes you believe in “magic” and when I say magic, I mean you believe these things are “uncaused” and not that they are just unexplained or even unexplainable. Which is a deception the believers in the paranormal pull, they want to destroy a fundamental logical principle – cause and effect. The reason of course is obvious cause and effect is a mechanical process, and nature is a machine. They don’t want that, they want to be “supernatural” and “special” with a “soul”, they cannot accept they are just a biological machine and when it stops functioning they are dead. Nor do they just believe(if pushed)that our personality or if you will our information is stored in a “soul” (comparable to a hard drive.) No that’s not enough they want to PERSONALLY survive death, but they are only dreaming.

  89. What I am telling is if these beliefs were true it would be obvious to everyone. Plus the fact NDE in most cases doesn’t happen, why is that? Why if reincarnation was true 99.99% of people remember absolutely nothing? LOL even the dalai lama admits he remembers nothing of his supposed past life as the previous dalai lama which he was recognised as the reincarnation of. (Though he claims {based on “past life memories”} he is actually the reincarnation of a different previous lama.)

  90. Now u deviated to "MAGIC", n then to "ALIEN" . Show us yr proof. U n yr PSUEDO LOGIC !!!

  91. Now u deviated to "past life memories", n then to NED. Yr mind cannot fix on any target. Lack of concentration ? U are still at 25% only ?

  92. Also these things have no plausible theory undefined words like soul mean nothing and no believer in reincarnation offers any sensible explanation for “past life memories”. Of course this is because they believe in “magic” or these things are entirely “uncaused” they don’t even want to offer a explanation for these hypothesises, as that would destroy their faith in “magic”. For instance a logically possible hypothesis to explain (if it was proved) past life memories could be that just before a person is about to die a alien makes a copy of their brain and somehow channels the information into the brain of a baby. But the believers in reincarnation don’t want that they want it to be special to be “magic“. This is the same in all religions not just the believers in the paranormal and the new age – they want to be free from logic.

  93. "These incredible tales happened REPEATEDLY. If u cannot accept them as evidence, what more can I say ???" No they don’t, the majority of people do not so much as claim to have “past life memories”, no child I have heard of has suddenly started fluently speaking ancient Greek and people are not constantly getting information and feelings from their loved ones – which we would expect if our brain was like a TV aerial. The vast majority of people who have cardiac arrest don’t have a “near death experience”.

  94. These incredible tales happened REPEATEDLY. If u cannot accept them as evidence, what more can I say ???

  95. If you think that is scientific evidence you have no idea what evidence is. They can claim having a tape recorder is a scientific experiment but it just isn’t. In science we require the most highest standard of evidence through experiment that can be tested and repeated under controlled conditions. Having a tape recording or dogs barking is no where near that standard. If you claim people can remember “past lives” or kids start speaking dead languages or telepathy is a reality or consciousness is like software that can survive death in some way, anecdotal reports and pseudo scientific experiments don’t cut it. These claims if they are to be accepted by rational people must be (quite literally) put to the test.

  96. Enlightened@25%,

    The paranormal investigators will use an Electronic Voice Phenomenal to record voice replies of the disembody spirits when they throw questions at certain spirits in the haunted houses. They got short whispering answers recorded in the EVP. They also capture photos of the apparitions, or orbs of the spirits. These are repeating incidents. What more evidence do u want ? If u happen to bring a fierce dog in to a haunted house, it will bark at the unseen entity ( spirit ). U cannot see it but the dog can see.
    These thing often happen in haunted houses in defiant of yr logic n science.

  97. Then how are you “explaining” them? On blind faith? No all these claims should be tested under controlled scientific conditions. Otherwise these people are just asking us to accept anecdotal stories on faith not on evidence.

  98. Self defense is INSTINCTUAL and part of our animal nature that evolved with us, not taught. You do not need a special teaching sent from God to tell you what is already instinctual. If anything, humans need to be taught to "Love your enemies. Bless those who persecute you." By sanctifiying "self defence", you create a dangerous and insidious foundation for sacred violence and human sacrifice, manifested by Quran-motivated violence we see on the news every day. Therefore, a redundant, and very dangerous message could not possibly be from God, which means that a fair chunk of the Quran was created simply by arab tribal warriors of the 7th century. And I think that, in the end, the proof is in the pudding: the muslim world has more conflicts, never-ending cycles of violence, and "self defence" going on than anywhere else. As a result there is a great deal of suffering, and its victims blame everyone else except the true source

  99. Go n gather all the scientific evidence u want in haunted houses n u will find them not scientific after all because u cannot explain those happenings based on science. So, whatever logic of yours has become useless /not applicable in this case.

  100. hi guest
    please start refuting ali sina .. all the best.

  101. Stay around and keep reading and you too will come to agree with me. Many came here, even insulting me. Eventually they saw the light and now they are on my side, and even love me.

  102. No logic applies in all possible worlds. The believers in the “paranormal” would do well to remember the principle of Occam’s razor. Ironically enough you yourself have “explanations” (based on faith not scientific evidence) to explain paranormal happenings in a “haunted house”.

  103. Human logic is not applicable to the spiritual world. Trying to explain the happenings in the haunted houses, u will knock yr head against the wall using Occam’s razor.

  104. As long as muslims won't understand the golden rule "dont do to others (women, children, apostastes, etc) what you don't want done to you", they won't be humans. Their stealing from those who can't defend themselves, raping, terrorizing to have the upper hand is the law of monkeys.
    Real humans don't behave like that. Psychopaths, who are subhumans on a par with monkeys, do.
    Another point: muslim countries count amongst the least literate, the poorest, the saddest countries. Nobody is happy.
    Muslims flock in droves to Western countries in search of a better life and contrary to their belief, their poverty is not due to climatic conditions, the West or this or that dictator: islam is directly responsible for the mess they live in, and yet, out of ignorance or indoctrination, they bring the very thing which causes their misfortune in their suitcases, islam.
    The turkish leader Mustafa Kemal proved the stagnation islam is responsible for beyond any doubt. He severely curbed it and brought, as if by miracle, an unprecedented prosperity to Turkey. The country is still living on the shreds of it. Nowadays, islam is back in Turkey and the country is rapidly falling back to the middle ages.
    The only exception are the oil-rich countries. But wait till there's no more oil… will they be back on camels? Given the stupidity, the mere money-wasting of the majority of their grandiose investments, one can easily conjecture.

  105. As long as muslims won't understand the golden rule "dont do to others (women, children, apostastes, etc) what you don't want done to you", they won't be humans. Their stealing from those who can't defend themselves, raping, terrorizing to have the upper hand is the law of monkeys.
    Real humans don't behave like that. Psychopaths, who are subhumans on a par with monkeys, do.
    Another point: muslim countries count amongst the least literate, the poorest, the saddest countries. Nobody is happy.
    Muslims flock in droves to Western countries in search of a better life and contrary to their belief, their poverty is not due to climatic conditions, the West or this or that dictator: islam is directly responsible for the mess they live in, and yet, out of ignorance or indoctrination, they bring the very thing which causes their misfortune in their suitcases, islam.
    The turkish leader Mustafa Kemal proved the stagnation islam is responsible for beyond any doubt. He severely curbed it and brought, as if by miracle, an unprecedented prosperity to Turkey. The country is still living on the shreds of it. Nowadays, islam is back in Turkey and the country is rapidly falling back to the middle ages.
    The only exception are the oil-rich countries. But wait till there's no more oil… will they be back on camels? Given the stupidity, the mere money-wasting of the majority of their grandiose investments, one can easily conjecture.

  106. iF ALL THIS PEOPLE THAT YOU SAY WERE MONOTHEISTS WHY DID THEY ATTACKED HIM SINCE DAY ZERO?WHY DIDN'T THEY JOINED HIM? WHY TODAYS SO CALLED MONOTHEISTS TOGETHER WITH ATHEISTS ARE STILL DOING THE SAME? BY THE WAY WHO IS MONOTHEIST BESIDE MUSLIMS TODAY?

  107. This story is ridiculous. In logic we have a principle called Occam’s razor that means the most likely explanation is the most likely. If you put milk out and the next morning its gone almost certainly the local cats drank it and someone who claims aliens took it to their spaceship is basically saying they believe (without evidence) a very unlikely explanation is the most likely. Or in this case what is most likely the person is lying, he (or the deceased) shared this conversation with someone else or a “ghost” is using email?

  108. So here is your logic if I accept what Sina says I have been brainwashed if I don't I have not .I don't accept anything without a proof.Keep your prescritoin for yourself.

  109. Ali Sina you say you studied Islam for more then 14 years yet you do not show any evidence of this claim
    ''Over 14 years of Study'' yet no knowledge of Arabic and make basic mistakes and miss basic Islamic facts on Quran History and Hadith ect

    Which show it is nothing more then baseless slander

    Justication of hatred and abuse on Islam

    Accusing all Muslims of crimes due to some commiting crimes

    Remember that No soul shall bare the burden of another

    ''With these arguments you may be able to deceive those who are less informed, but you can’t deceive me''

  110. Better for u to give me a convincing reply. What is truth ? Why yr life without spirit ?

  111. Tell us which one of Sina's writing is wrong and stop doing personal attack .It only shows you are frustrated by his truth . It seems YOU have been sodomized by the hatred in your comments…..

  112. But whatever he said is Truth about Brahma

  113. Ali Sina is coward who can't understand Mumbo jumbo

  114. Are you questioning me or enlightened25?

    I can give you convincing reply.
    But I feel it doesn't fit into this site.

  115. Mr.Humanity
    The nonsense about Brahma & Saraswathi is being posted by a
    Goddamn Son of Mohammad's Rapacious follower in my name.
    Kindly note Mr.Ali sina

  116. I think that you have been diagnosed with the symtoms you think Sina has. Don't worry we'll give you the prescription.Alisina's writing is definately convincing as no one has yet proved him wrong . People who want power and influence would never be kept anonymous and also not getting any material gains out of it. In his writings you can see that he has great knowlege on the biography and quran as he always quotes the verses and chapters. Don't just jump to conclusions, do your research with an open mind and try to see things through the eye of the critic, not only through eyes that have been brainwashes.

  117. Hi, first of all I don't think two billion people practicing Islam are complete idiots to believe what Sina is trying to prove is correct. If he is for example dr. Of psychology he may understand that past trauma can eventually lead to a personality which he is currently presenting with. He needs to seek professional help. Non of his writings are either convincing or prove anything.

    In this case he may another day write about Jesus and Moses being delusional and mad too. Psychiatry it self is not a science but a controlling mechanism promoted by people who like the power and influence. If Sina is claiming to have read Mohamads biography and quran than he is a sick man who needs help.

    I feel sorry that you were abused in childhood (sodomized) by some called them self Muslims or beatin by your dad but I really encourage you to seek help and don't trap in delusional, and grandious thoughts that you are saving life's. Please get treatment.

  118. Can you give proof for your stupid comments from Mahabharata? And if you don't believe in the way Ali Sina debated with Farzad, why are you changing the topic???

    What has Draupadi to do with "What Makes Us Human" ?

  119. See, if you don't know, please don't talk about that.

    Many Puranas were adulterated and this Saraswati Purana is NOT even registered among 18 Puranas. This was written by evil Mohammedans during their invasion of peaceful India. Therefore, this is not considered authentic and incest is a barbaric way of increasing population and mother of diseases scientifically.

    Secondly, please stick to topic. The fundamental rule of Group Discussion is NOT to deviate from the topic. Post something about humanity and stop discussing irrelevant things which has nothing to do with that.

  120. \”Mr. Sina, we want to see that you performing a real debate with a great scholar who’s understanding on logical process and arguments is crystal clear, his Philosophy is not to hide the question rather than the fact.\”

    If you find sich a person then he is not a Muslim.

  121. How Draupadi used to manage with five husbands in mahabharat ?

    1. She was the most sexiest women.
    2. She was always wanting sexual pleasures.
    3. She was immaculately beautiful and proud for her beauty.
    4. She never talked other than sex with her husbands.
    5. She always praised the last person and thanked for his new tricks.
    6. She used to demand various/ different things from all of them.
    7. She used to sprung surprises to the last (husband) person with various Kama Sutra Asanas.
    8. Her experiments made all the husband every happy and contended.
    9. When confronted with problems, Lord Krishna used to help her.

  122. Even Ali Sina cannot understand this kind of Mumbo jumbo. U talk about self n truth. What about spirit ?

  123. I think Mr. Sina waste his time and energy by defending Mr. Farzad. He is far behind from the logic and rational argument. Even he is not able to submit single evidence against Mr. Sina’s chief complain about the hypocrisy of Muhammad. He fails to refute the facts and evidence mentioned by Mr. Sina against the prophet of Islam. This kind of debate should base on the validity of historical proof or evidence and both of them should justify their sharing through the historical references, arguing its authenticities and weakness by pursuing relevant logic. Theological fallacies are not the center-part of this debate rather than the judgment of historical references. However, what we see there? The Shiite scholar turns the argument in some hocus-pocus fallacies and makes the debate very clumsy to understand!

    The focus of the debate had not any relation with the True Existence of God or Superiority of Human over Animal kingdom, but Mr. Farzad successfully reverse the chief complain of Mr. Sina and puzzled him to repeat himself by debunking some useless arguments. If we analysis the main concern of the debate we ought to say that Mr. Sina clearly trapped on by this tricky guy and mislead his energy. The debate on “God Centered Morality” or “The Human” is relates with the Ethical Relativism and this kind of talking never goes to any ends for its abstractness. Mr. Farzad uses it as a weapon to play a tricky game with Mr. Sina. He successfully convinced Mr. Freethinker to make busy with the trick so that he never reach the focal point of the debate. When anybody pointing out your religious perception as wrong and you have not sufficient logical evidence to disprove it, the only safe way left behind to you is to catch the abstraction and puzzling your opponent with this. That is what Mr. Farzad does with Mr. Sina. Philosophical Abstraction is always sweeter than the historical evidences and the Shiite Imam successfully made it workable for him. Mr. Sina ought to pay more than he wishes!

    Mr. Farzad is not an extraordinary debater but he knows how to play the game and distorting the chief complain by issuing some absurd topics that is not correlates with the main concerns of the debate. He is very traditional on his way and seems very outlandish in his logical boundary. He knows little about the Scientific Perception but act like a master on it! According to receive the perception of “Reason” and “Religion”, the Shiite Imam cleverly mixing the Religious Perception to Scientific Perception and produces a jumbled ghost. The ghost serves the way of keeping his religious trading with people safe and secure. Mr. Farzad’s level of understanding about Scientific Proof and Biological Evaluation makes him unfit to any rational thinking or debate. He stands upon just on some traditional belief, superstitious references. He is a blind man without any tendency of justifying his knowledge by the other discipline. Commonsense is not an extravagant thing for any debater, moreover it is the key to fetch meaningful words from any kind of logical argument, but the strange is that this humbug makes foolish Mr. Sina by engaging him repetition and oratory disorder! That is his tricks to repeatedly parrot the Ethical Values, so he avoid complains which Mr. Sina raised at the beginning of the debit. He succeeded to hide himself from some valued questions and evidences of modern intellectual exploration. That is why the debate goes on trackless ways and makes it meaningless to its readers!

    Near future, we think Mr. Sina should careful of participate such kind of debate like this. The debate is going meaninglessly long, boring and disgusting. It gives nothing but beating around the bush to its readers and able to force Mr. Sina of going the same repetitive way as like his opponent!

    Mr. Sina, we want to see that you performing a real debate with a great scholar who’s understanding on logical process and arguments is crystal clear, his Philosophy is not to hide the question rather than the fact. Anyway, I want to request you that before you performing a debate with somebody please remembers the word that Debate with a mimicking person is more dangerous than sleeping with a hypocrite.

  124. Having empathy for other living forms is a noble trait, Mr.Farzad, that is what
    is true rationality. It is you, who has been denying rationality & sticking to a
    Terrible Dogma. Ali sina is endowed with Divine qualities like –

    "nonviolence, truthfulness, freedom from anger; tranquility, aversion to faultfinding,
    compassion and freedom from covetousness; gentleness, modesty and
    steady determination; vigor, forgiveness, fortitude, cleanliness, freedom from envy
    and the passion for honor–"

    On the other hand you claim to be a worshiper of true GOD ( formless , the
    unmanifested, that which lies beyond the perception of the senses, the all-pervading,
    inconceivable, fixed and immovable–the impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth )

    To worship such formless True GOD –"one has to control the senses,
    render service to everyone and engage in the welfare of all beings. "

    In order to perceive the Supersoul within the individual soul,
    One has to cease the sensual activities of seeing, hearing, tasting, working, etc.
    Then one comes to understand that the Supreme Soul is present everywhere.
    Realizing this, one envies no living entity–he sees no difference between man
    and animal because he sees soul only, not the outer covering. But for the
    common man, this method of impersonal realization is very difficult.
    Bhagavad Gita Chapter 12. Devotional Service TEXT 3-4

    We conclude that you are endowed with Demonic qualities.
    " Arrogance, pride, anger, conceit, harshness and ignorance–these qualities
    belong to those of demoniac nature, O son of Prtha." BH-Gita 16th Ch- verse- 4

    GOD is great !! But surely not ALLAH.
    we could say that Allah is just another name of GOD.
    But that won't solve your Ignorance & your Ignorance is our Headache as you'll
    wage jihad in the name of ALLAH. So until you arrive at a Nobler conception of GOD,
    Your ALLAH is SATAN.

  125. Why should you follow Buddha blindly?
    what makes you believe Buddha as the pinacle of wisdom.

    "There is rebirth of character, but no transmigration of a self."

    "Therefore, seek the life that is of the mind. Where self is,
    truth cannot be; When truth comes, self will disappear. Therefore, let your mind rest in the truth; propagate the
    truth, put your whole will in it, and let it spread. In the
    truth you shall live forever."

    "Self is death and truth is life. The cleaving to self is
    a perpetual dying, while moving in the truth is
    partaking of Nirvana which is life everlasting."

    "Practise the truth that your brother is the same as
    you. Walk in the noble path of righteousness and
    you will understand that while there is death in self,
    there is immortality in truth."

    "There is no sankhara which has sprung into being
    without a gradual becoming. Your sankharas are the
    product of your deeds in former existences. The
    combination of your sankharas is your self."

    This whole dialogue is phony and low in logic.
    "Practise the truth that your brother is the same as
    you. " is only morality not philosophy or spirituality.
    without a self- pain or pleasure or liberation or
    Nirvana makes no sense. How can there be
    sankharas without a self. how can you say
    " you reap what you sow " without a self .

  126. "That is what you Muslims do. You give up everything in this life for something
    unproven.This life is in front of us. Why not make it better for ourselves and for
    others? You make this life a hell for everyone else and for yourselves in the hope
    of a life that may not be true. This is ulitmate stupidity." — ALI SINA

    Chapter 17, Verse 19. Srimad Bhagavadgita
    " And those penances and austerities which are performed foolishly by means
    of obstinate self-torture, or to destroy or injure others, are said to be in the mode
    of ignorance."

    Sridhara Swami's Commentary —
    Now Lord Krishna explains tapah or austerities that are indicative of "tama guna"
    the mode of ignorance. The austerities that consist of foolish concoctions as well
    as diabolical practices due to an acute lack of discrimination, which is sadistic
    and masochistic, which causes mental and physical anguish to oneself such as
    flagellation and causes acute suffering to others such as blood rituals and human
    and animal sacrifices are irrevocably situated completely in the darkness of
    "tama guna."

  127. Mr.Ali Sina – "Now I don’t say you should not believe in the next world or in
    Muhammad’s. You are free to believe in anything that makes
    you happy. But you are not free to kill those who don’t believe
    in your fantasy."

    Mr.Ali sina, you made an excellent point that Muslims may believe in
    anything that makes them Happy, But they are not free to kill those who
    don't believe in their fantasy. Kufr & Jihad are the two Fangs of this
    dangerous serpent called ISLAM. ISLAM must be defanged.
    Will the Mullahs allow themselves to be defanged?

    Moreover Mohammad thrived on war booty and Raping of captive
    women.Following in Mohammad's footsteps, Muslims have been
    inspired throughout the 14 centuries by the prospect of war booty &
    Rapes.

    How can ISLAM survive without war booty & Rapes.
    For fulfilling their unholy lust Muslims need Wars.
    For waging unrighteous war they need to Divide the world
    into believers & Unbelievers. ( not by any real wrong committed ).

    Why will any Mullah see reason in your arguments.
    That will be the death knell to their religio-political nonsense.

    5. “ For, timorous woman, making love to other man’s wives and
    even carrying them off by force is perfectly appropriate behavior
    for Raksasas. Let there be no doubt about this." –RAVANA

    18th Sarga – Sundarakanda 5th verse
    The Ramayana Of Valmiki (Vol. 5) Sundarakanda
    An Epic Of Ancient India – By Robert P. Goldman

    Have no doubts , this fellow Mohammad was no different from RAVANA.
    Muslims are miniature Mohammads & Mohammad is a mini RAVANA.

  128. You are describing purpose to nature. This is called the Moralistic fallacy
    fallacy. As professor Huxley explains “The propounders of what are called the "ethics of evolution," when the "evolution of ethics" would usually better express the object of their speculations, adduce a number of more or less interesting facts and more or less sound arguments, in favour of the origin of the moral sentiments, in the same way as other natural phenomena, by a process of evolution. I have little doubt, for my part, that they are on the right track; but as the immoral sentiments have no less been evolved, there is, so far, as much natural sanction for the one as the other. The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before.”

  129. Oh my God! The christian baby vs Muslim man!! What a horror, this is the devil at his worst!! I am sick!

  130. It is filling your heart with hate, with lies, with superstitions ? huh How can I say ? huh I have no clue what light is? huh I knew very well your evidence? huh

    You do one more thing think what I am thinking and that will give me more time

    I see there is nothing happening to Islam for real . Its still life style of billion. There is no need to defend it either because there are haters with different perspective , blame gamer with no perfect solution for mankind.

    Thank you for sharing defining and redefining is no end of story. I believe and I move on

  131. Thieves and murderers are defective products. That is all.

  132. What you call medicine is your narcotic. It is not giving you mental and spiritual health. It is killing your spirit and mind. It is filling your heart with hate, with lies, with superstitions. But you are addicted to it and you can’t let go. You think there is no life beyond Islam.

    The very fact that Islam is everything is the sign that it is not a religion but a cult. Only cults are totalitarian and encompassing. Study the modern cults and compare them to Islam. I did. I have dedicated two chapters of my book to this comparison. The proof is undeniable.

    How can you say Islam is natural light when you have spent all your life in the cave of Islam? You have no clue what light is. I have been on both sides and I know Islam is nothing but darkness.

    We get nowhere if each one makes claims without evidence. I have provided my evidence in my book. So far all those who read the book left Islam or I never heard back from them. On the other hand I knew very well your evidence. It is the same that I believed.

  133. This is what I said you hate all Muslims and know 2% of them. There are 98% like me who are compatible with Islam and life style in various ways like believing,performing,practicing etc. I am not talking about ex-Muslims there is no such thing they are non-Muslims.

    Assume your life is on medicine named Islam and you are living (you would have been dead if its poison). You investigated side-effects, demerits of that medicine and showed your arguments(book). Do you have alternative zero side effect and effective medicine better than Islam? Are you withdrawing treatment without an alternative?

    Remember Islam is the complete system intellectual, emotional, social, financial ,physical, political

    Remember Islam is based on strong belief

    Remember Islam has success stories.

    I prefer natural light against different light

    When you argue, you hate you are just a lawyer. You are no great.

    Don't worry my book have no conclusions because reader is a part of my book. I need extensive study of readers only.

  134. Since are a down-to-earth fellow n never believe in the spiritual world, I send u this story. Message from beyond the grave. 1-0 of 0prev next Emails from dead man’s account helping family and friends find closure : When Jack Froese, 32, died of a heart arrhythmia in June 2011, he left behind a number of grieving friends and family members. But the BBC reports that several mysterious posthumous emails from Froese's account have brought some happiness and closure to those who were closest to him. Last November, five months after Froese's death, his childhood best friend Tim Art received an email from Froese's account. “One night in November, I was sitting on my couch, going through my emails on my phone and it popped up, 'sender: Jack Froese.' I turned ghost white when I read it,” Hart told the BBC. “It was very quick and short but to a point that only Jack and I could relate on.” The email had the subject heading, “I'm Watching.” While the text of the message itself read, “Did you hear me? I'm at your house. Clean your f***ing attic!!!” Hart says that shortly before Froese's death, the two had a private conversation in Hart's attic, during which Froese teased him over the attic's messy state. “Just he and I up there. That's it,” Hart said

  135. “Empathy is intrinsic in our nature.”There is no evidence of any such magical “morality organ”. I copied this from the internet “Children begin to learn values when they are very young, before they can reason effectively. Young children behave in ways that we would never accept in adults: they scream, throw food, take off their clothes in public, hit, scratch, bite, and generally make a ruckus. Moral education begins from the start, as parents correct these antisocial behaviors, and they usually do so by conditioning children’s emotions. Parents threaten physical punishment (“Do you want a spanking?”), they withdraw love (“I’m not going to play with you any more!”), ostracize (“Go to your room!”), deprive (“No dessert for you!”), and induce vicarious distress (“Look at the pain you’ve caused!”). Each of these methods causes the misbehaved child to experience a negative emotion and associate it with the punished behavior.” The whole article is here http://www.philosophynow.org/issues/82/Morality_i

  136. “We care about each other. This is the way we are built.” That is how nature produces us yes just in the same way it produces thieves and murders. You forget we are part of nature and 1 day we may literal be able to program peoples brains, we could reprogram psychopaths with empathy, we could create completely submissive slaves or extremely aggressive fearless killing machines. A whole new human could be made. This “humanness” is not fixed man is evolving all the time.

  137. Of course we are not separate from anything else I don’t need any "Quantum physics" to tell me that. Boundaries are created by our mind, they are illusionary. However without this illusion we would not and could not continue to exist we would die. Nature is a not a beautiful dream world, it is a place of pain, suffering destruction and death. All of which is completely natural and anyone one that thinks otherwise is living in a dream world. You did not answer my question about the food chain nor my question how our use of resources causes pain and suffering to countless other species. Should we all commit suicide so we don’t cause suffering? If "they" are a continuation of us then why deny them? As we all know despite the fact the evolution does not have a purpose it is endlessly driving towards perfection, producing endlessly more and more powerful and advanced being(s).

  138. This \”they\” you are talking about is us. It is we people who will find ways to beat the nature and evolve ourselves.

    Empathy is intrinsic in our nature. Why people go to desolate villages in Africa to help the poor and orphans? Why everyone (with the exception of Muslims) donates money and aid when a natural disaster hits in a place they had not heard of before, half a world away? Why some people risk their own lives to save someone drowning or in peril? We humans are interconnected, or if you like entangled. Thanks to Quantum physics we know that all particles of the universe are entangled. What happens to one particle affects the entire universe instantly. This division you see is an illusion. We are one with the universe. And of course the greatest entanglement is the humanity that we share with other humans. Others are our extensions and we are theirs.

    Think about your genes. Where they come from and where they will end? They come from 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents and so on. Go back ten generations and you carry the genes of thousand people. Go back 20 generations and you carry the genes of one million people. Go back 30 generations and you carry the genes of one billion people. For every ten generations add three more zeros. If you don’t believe me open out your calculator and do the math. Doesn’t this tell you that we are closely related?

    Do the same thing forward. In a few short generations you will have million and billions of descendants. Every person will be your descendant. But they will be also my descendants. So you and I are not only distant cousins, we are also going to have common descendants.

    Do you see the foolishness of all these wars and killings? We are killing ourselves. We care about each other. This is the way we are built. Don\’t compare man with animals. Muslism are not fully humans. They can pose questions like this. But for fully evolved humans empathy and fellowship is part of who they are.

  139. “But those who are evolved enough and have empathy learn the value of cooperation and co-existence, are better equipped to survive.” But they only need to cooperate among themselves to survive. Take your example of these possible future “intelligently designed” new humans (if we could call them humans). They would be superior to us “ordinary humans” in every way, they could potentially live for hundreds of years, their intelligence and physical strength would far outstrip ours and they would cooperate among themselves. What would they need us for? And if they did need us for anything we would immediately be enslaved and they could do anything they wanted to us (including wiping us out).

  140. I did not say evolution has any aim. But what does not kill you will make you stronger. The fittest will survive. Most mutations are for the worse. One in a million of them are positive mutations. But the individual with bad mutation will not survive. Only the few with good mutation will survive. That is why evolution goes upwards and not downwards.

    Talking about evolution in human consciousness; those who are less evolved, like Muslims will kill each other to extinction. But those who are evolved enough and have empathy learn the value of cooperation and co-existence, are better equipped to survive. Unlike most animals we humans are social creatures. We need each other for our own survival. Muslims will lose in this battle, because they still want to apply the laws of Jungle to human world. In human world the fittest is not the more aggressive person but the one who can cooperate with others. The fittest person is the one who is has more hightened \”spiritual\” qualities.

  141. There is a simple anatomy of hate. You smear and vilify your opponent with lies, accuse them of your own crimes and pretend to be a victim when you are the villain. In this way the foolish people will hate them and will increase their hostility against them.

    This technique is used by all psychopaths. Hitler was a master of it. I have explained this in detail in my book.

    Muhammad did the same and Muslims do it too. No one is killing the Muslims, but Muslims have been making this claim since the beginning of Islam. Muslims start the wars everywhere. They kill innocent people. When these people react and go after the Muslim fighters, Muslims cry victim. This is the typical mentality of the psychopath.

    We always hear Muslims say Hindus killed Muslims in Gujarat. What they never say is that this was retaliation after Muslims killed hundreds of Hindu worshippers. We always hear Muslim say Israelis kill Palestinian Muslims. What we never hear is that there are countless Arabs living in Israel and they even get into the Parliament, but if a Jew happens to end up in a Muslim territory by mistake he will be slaughtered at once. Muslims are the ones who shell Israeli civilians. The Israelis try hard to kill the fighters only. But these coards hide among the childern in the hope that if they are killed a few children are also killed so they can use that as propaganda against Israel. We always here that American troops have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan to kill the civilians. This is a lie. It happened twice when two solders, on in Iraq, several years ago and one in Afghanistan snapped. Under duress some people can snap and kill even their own loved ones. This is not the policy of America. But truth has never mattered to Muslims. Islam is based on lies and thrives on lies so lies must be said shamelessly and endlessly.

    Muslims have been and still are the ones who start the hostilities. Look at Europe. Muslims have claimed parts of the cities and say Islam will dominate those countries. They are raping non-Muslim girls. People are getting restless and eventually they will react. There will be bloodshed. But who is to blame? Of course Muslims. There is a limit to human patience and the patience of many Europeans is running out.

    You better read my book before finishing your book because once you read it you will want to change your book completely. Truth will set you free and you will no longer want to waste your time writing lies and deception. They appear as truth now, but that is because you see them through Islamic glasses. My book will help you see the same things under a very different light.

    “I know I will be Muslim till my death as I know nature of Truth.”

    That is what I thought. But truth set me free.

  142. “U and yr pure nonsense !” Typical illogic from you again. If what I am saying is nonsense you have to prove it wrong rationally.

  143. “God is the exception.” There are no exceptions. All things have a cause that includes your finite “God”. “Nowhere did I said God is finite. He is the infinite Being who created finite things n beings. Without an infinite Being, nothing can be created.” You believe God is a thing don’t you? If this god of yours is separate from the material world that thing is finite. “What about students who could not adsorb the teachings of the teacher ? So this throws yr theory out.” No it doesn’t my words here have an effect on you despite the fact you don’t “absorb” them and just repeat absurd nonsense. “Rebirth” is just cause and effect that’s it, it is not some mystical bull****.

  144. If you think I don’t love Muslims you have to pay more attention then. I hate Islam and I hate what Muslims do under the influence of Islam. I hate the fact that good people are reduced into beasts, murderers and psychopaths. I hate the fact that Muslims instead of contributing to the betterment of mankind and their own happiness have become parasites to humanity that contribute nothing good, cause harm to others and live like beasts.

    My goal is to rescue them. Those who pay more attention than you notice this and they are influenced by it. They leave Islam once they see the truth. I am winning Muslims with truth. How do you show love to a people who follow Devil? Do you approve what they do? Do you tolerate their evil deeds? The very fact that I work with no pay answering people’s emails and questions is labor of love. Otherwise why should I spend so much time on a thankless, payless job?

    If your brother or son is in wrong company, in love with a very bad person, is member of a gang or involved in drugs. How do you deal with it? How do you show your love to him? The only way I know is to show him the truth. The truth is that Muhammad was not a prophet. He was a psychopath and a very evil man. I have shown this truth with ample evidence. Those who listen leave Islam and those who leave Islam thank me. Even though at first they hated me they end up loving me. How could that be possible if I hated them?

  145. Now u twisted n said “ we change “ and not “ WE DIE”.   U and yr pure nonsense !

  146. God is the exception. He generated the Big Bang n all the energy n things there are in the universe.  Energy cannot be created in the human sense, but not in God’s n other spirits’ sense. E.g. there are people who experience the energy of the Divine Light.  Spiritual energy can also be seen in haunted house in the banging of the doors n the flying of things in the air. Who created those energy ? You ??. Nowhere did I said God is finite. He is the infinite Being who created finite things n beings. Without an infinite Being, nothing can be created.  Everything is in His power for He is the Generator, Operator n Destroyer. I.e. GOD. If u said “change’ is seemed to be permanent is OK, but not “ nothing is permanent.”  What about students who could not adsorb the teachings of the teacher ? So this throws yr theory out. “ Mathematic is the language of God. “………………….Galileo.       

  147. “If u want to think that we die every 2 minutes, go ahead.” No we are changing every second just like everything else that exists. You are not the same person for 2 consecutive moments. Of course some times things change more rapidly than usual like suffering a serious injury or at the time of physical death. “All of us here cannot accept that kind of nonsense.” If that is the case then it is because they believe in the illusion of the self. However any rational person can see which one of us is talking nonsense.

  148. “Energy can never be created nor destroyed and therefore is permanent.” That what I meant I believe in change I don’t believe in annihilation. When you burn firewood it becomes heat and ash. “Since God created energy, He is also permanent.” This completely contradicts what you just said, Energy cannot be created or destroyed remember? Do you even read what you write? “God also created yr soul which is also permanent until He decides to destroy it.” “God” (and by the sounds of it you believe in a finite God) can only change something not destroy it. “So u meant the student has the teacher’s gene.????” No that’s not what I meant, the knowledge of the teacher is reborn in the student.

  149. Thank you for elaborating ecosystem

  150. "Just try to think of your fellow human for now"
    "try to love all mankind"

    Why didn't you tried Muslims to win with love. Are you under estimating love? I have noticed doze of hatred in you about Muslims. You intentionally hit their belief. If their belief is wrong and you say you have better for them . Why don't you approach them with LOVE ?!

    You are presenting yourself a hypocrite.

  151. “ Nothing in this universe is permanent” = BS.   Energy can never be created nor destroyed and therefore is permanent.  Since God created energy, He is also permanent.  God also created yr soul which is also permanent until He decides to destroy it.  If u said my son has my gene, it is ok. But to say I reborn in him is utter rubbish. Worse still to say teacher reborn in student.  So u meant the student has the teacher’s gene.???? If u want to think that we die every 2 minutes, go ahead.  All of us here cannot accept that kind of nonsense. U are really at 25% only.   

  152. How many muslims have been killed in hands of non-muslims? You are too biased in analysis rest is the history.

    "Whenever you are ready to face the truth, ask me and I will send you my book. Once you read it you will no longer be a Muslim"

    I am writing some books science and signs , heart of Jerusalem, Schizophrenic truth etc I will read your book after finishing those.

    I know I will be Muslim till my death as I know nature of Truth.Its up to your inner self how you manifest it.

    People who hate me don't know about me !

  153. “I believe evolution is endless and having empathy for other humans and animals is part of it.” Evolution can be cut off at any time. Nature has no goal or purpose, yes everything is always changing but it is not driving towards any goal. Who said empathy for all living things is part of this evolution? Man would not have got to this point if he did not have to kill other animals to survive. Just like in the debate about how a super advanced alien civilization would treat us, some argue they would be kind to us because if a society does not cooperate it will collapse. That argument is wrong, yes because a society cooperates with each other does not tell us anything how they would treat other societies or species. Most likely they would kill or enslave us. Having empathy for all living things has nothing to do with evolution. The very idea of loving all creatures is ridiculous, the food chain is part of nature if you take away the pray the predator will die. Also many species suffer from our pollutants and would be very glad if we dropped of the planet tomorrow. All things need resources to survive so we cannot help but cause suffering it is a part of nature.

  154. I am not dreaming it’s a fact the only place Good and evil exists is inside your own head, written on your own heart. Being a slave to a living master is bad enough let alone a rotted corpse who is nothing but worm food.

  155. Humans will not evolve anymore, at least not through the process of natural selection. The only way for us to evolve is through intelligent design, not by God but by our scientists. I believe in the future we can manipulate our own genes and improve them. This would make us evolve at a much faster rate than ever.

    However, the evolution we are talking about is not physical. It is the evolution of consciousness. If you think you have reached your maximum potential then you can stay where you are. I believe evolution is endless and having empathy for other humans and animals is part of it. You don’t have to have empathy for bacteria. Just try to think of your fellow human for now. Accept that all people are the same and one does not become deserving of abuse just because he is not a Muslim. If you reach this stage you have done a lot already. Maybe in your next reincarnation (assuming there is one) you can work on other areas and include animals also in your love. For now, at least try to love all mankind.

  156. \”who would have supported and that man is leading Islam?!\”
    You are engaging in straw man fallacy ore red herring. The man in that picture is not leading Islam. He is following Islam. He killed that baby becuse he is a Muslim and that child was a Christian and for no other reason. This is the truth that you are unwilling to admit. Normal people become monsters when taught Islam. 280,000,000 non-Muslims were killed in the hands of Muslims during these 1400 years. Your ancestors were also victims of this evil belief. Muslism also kill each other. This is a religion of savages. Instead of getting offended think about what I say and ask yourself why Muslims are the most violent people on Earth? Don\’t make excuses such as politics, land, etc. Political disagreements exist everywhere, but it is 100 more among Muslims. Others solve their disagrements through negotiations, Muslims want to resolve them through violence.

    Whenever you are ready to face the truth, ask me and I will send you my book. Once you read it you will no longer be a Muslim.

  157. In the process of enlightenment you are evaporating your mind 25% is done !

    You are dreaming army with all commander-in-chiefs
    You are dreaming a nation with all presidents

    Now run this world as you want.

  158. He was probably thinking I am just about to die or something along those lines. He did not suffer and was dead within seconds. Anyway “good and evil” does not come from the teachings of dead prophets, philosophers or statesmen but every man’s own heart. Every man must have the strength to obey only his own consciousness and invent his own purpose and not to be a mindless slave to “commandments”. Anyone that claims you are “morally obligated” is talking bull to try to manipulate you. To who or what could we possible be obligated to? Nowhere in the universe will you find “moral obligation”.

  159. Low IQ Version

    Can you explore your little brain to tell me which logic ? I don't look at chicken as human.

    I have resigned from high IQ society and pretty much happy with average IQ folks with common sense.

    FYI : It's disturbing to feel the feelings of animal considering they are human.

    Even for human its disturbing .

    I was watching saddam hussein's execution video .I was trying to feel what might be he thinking. I was watching his facial expression interacting with folks around who were going to hang him . One guy sophisticaly explaining him about rope and cover.Last words from him "La ilaha illallah, Muhammad ur rasulullah"

    Whatever he had done in the past for others.It was disturbing to feel those feeling at that time.

  160. I have been evolved fully and don't have a plan to evolve as mutant with chicken head

  161. Low IQ Version

    who would have supported and that man is leading Islam?!
    You are trying to paint black that means you have black ink.

    means Irrespective of authenticity of that picture that action can not be supported in any case and that person is ignorant Muslim should be prosecuted . Religious ref (Qur'an 5.032).

    That man is not face of Islam but if it is being projected as face of Islam to dismantle law and order then it shows your dirty intentions.

    heartless zealot , Ignorant, no compassion I don't care labels about me.

    Congratulations if you are marrying a chicken as metaphor

  162. Yes but I also think it should be an animated SERIES rather than a movie. This is because a series will give you the time to highlight many details of the most heinous crimes committed by pedo MO every week or so. I hope you find a good animation company. Best of luck.

  163. I'd rather be a stupid person MARRIED to a chicken than a heartless zealot defending that monster in the picture.

  164. I think Dr Sina has evolved more than enough. Now it's your turn.
    If you think bacteria and viruses are anything like animals, then you probably quit school too soon.

  165. “How could he differentiate whether a soul is permanent or not.” How could a “soul” (whatever you mean by that) be permanent? Nothing in this universe is permanent. Furthermore the soul of which Everin? The Everin of right now? 2 minutes ago? Ten years ago? The boy that was Everin? The Everin that will die at some point in the future? “explain this nonsense.” I already explained “that nonsense” to you. “How can parents being reborn in the son—-Pure rubbish.” Because your children are part of you, you are reborn in them. This happens all the time everything you effect you become, and vice versa. The Buddha’s teaching of rebirth is meant only as a poetic expression of cause and effect.

  166.  Buddha is not God n he never believe in a supreme Being,  How could he differentiate whether a soul is permanent or not.  “ We are being reborn every movement” explain this nonsense. Could his messages  be a later day corruption rewritten by many other monks ? How can parents being reborn in the son—-Pure rubbish.

  167. “I simply click “Buddhist Doctrines” n I got this : 11. Rebirth is another key doctrine in Buddhism and it goes hand in hand with karma. There is a subtle difference between rebirth and reincarnation as expounded in Hinduism. Don’t be a lazy fellow. Go n check yourself.” You forgot to copy the next part “Buddhism rejects the theory of a transmigrating permanent soul, whether created by a god or emanating from a divine essence.” What Buddha taught about rebirth has nothing to do with the nonsense you believe in. According to him we are being reborn every movement. To use a couple of his examples of parents being reborn in the son or the teacher in the student.

  168. A story from the internet.
    There is an Arab in a taxi…
    He asks the driver to turn off the radio and explains that he must not hear music as decreed by his religion, for in the time of the prophet, there was no music, no radio.
    So the driver turns off the radio, stops the car, leans over and opens the back door.
    The Arab asks him : "What are you doing?"
    The driver replied : "In the time of the prophet there were no taxis, so get out of my car and wait for a f**kin' caravan."

  169. you have no compassion.
    Animals love, cry and have dreams when sleeping. They are no different!

    Just because we can think on a higher level does not justify killing or torturing animals. On the contrary, that make us beneath them.

    Following your logic: people who have higher IQ than you are allowed to put you in a cage, abuse you and eventually kill you.

  170. It's simple dissection and analysis of response/reply.

    But I think we should be able to decode secrets in universe as we think we are seeking solutions to problems affecting humanity.

    I am not cleric, scholar,writer but there are 98 % like me who are compatible with system.

  171. Tea Total please change your style of writing. This section is not for the Da Vinci Code. All smiles.

  172. Next time you evolve more please include bacterias, virus. You better learn to accept facts about ecosystems.

  173. Christian child under his feet = who would have supported and that man is leading Islam?!

    You are trying to paint black that means you have black ink.

    Nations that don’t believe in Islam= Islam is growing in those nations

    Muslims are true parasites of mankind= Hatred , Racism
    mass murderer pedophile = same goes

    Something must be wrong with this faith that reduces its followers into murderous animals with zero benefit to mankind. = 1400 years and billion World would have no history

    You lack basics in discussion

    Your Response : Ego-defensive rational , emotional insulation

    Did I call you STUPID when you want to respect chicken and advocating their dignity?!

    Ask 7 year old person of any religion sect country he/she will tell you story.

  174. When we say respect animals we mean respect their rights. Don’t abuse them, don’t imprison them in a cage for the rest of their lives. Even as irrational creatured they are hurt if abused. This is the question of humanity and evolution of our consciousness. Empathy is the essense of humanity. If one cannot feel empathy one is not a fully evolved human. We must feel empathy for all sentient beings, not just for people. The more encompassing is your love the more evolved human being you are.

  175. Hi,

    Yes the movie will be animated. That is the only way we can do it without putting any actor’s life in danger. Now we are searching an animation company would would do a good job. We don’t want to make something cheap like the Saturday moning cartoon made for children. Feeling is the essense of this movie. Look at this clip.

  176. Will you please explain what politics, conspiracy, orchestrated crime and control of finance drove that Muslim man in the picture to crush the body of that little Christian child under his feet? This crime happened in Pakistan. Do Christians in Pakistan have any political clout or control over anything? This kind of abuse happens in all countries where Muslims are the majority. It happens also where they are the minority. Don’t you want to admit that Islam is responsible for all these crimes?

    All things you think Islam teaches, such as punctuality, consistency, etc. are not true. But assuming they were why would anyone need to follow a mass murderer pedophile to learn them? It is obvious that the nations that don’t believe in Islam have much better focus, concentration, and other qualities. Just look at the result. All scientific achievements are made by non-Muslims. Muslims are true parasites of mankind. So clearly what Islam teaches is deficient. Something must be wrong with this faith that reduces its followers into murderous animals with zero benefit to mankind. Can’t you acknowledge that?

  177. I simply click “Buddhist Doctrines” n I got this :  11. Rebirth is another key doctrine in Buddhism and it goes hand in hand with karma. There is a subtle difference between rebirth and reincarnation as expounded in Hinduism. Don’t be a lazy fellow. Go n check yourself.

  178. Next time when you sleep please keep journal on your bedside and note down all ideas that you are dreaming. What else you enjoy doing in life?

  179. “But in the long run this, the scoundrel's game is a losing game. You just don't have infinite bridges to burn, neither can you guarantee you'll always be in powerful position.” That’s right if someone comes to kill you or threaten you and you defeat or kill him you will take his place as the strongest person. This is change or sometimes this change goes by the name evolution. Just like we are afraid that machines will take over. If they are more intelligent and stronger than us why deny them?

  180. “Have u study all the Buddhist scriptures ?” No I have not studied all of them. But give me one teaching of the Buddha where he says anything similar to what you believe? And I do not mean the nonsense books written by Tibetan Buddhism. “Only a fool will equate wisdom with the Laws of Karma n Reincarnation.” I never said such a thing. “Laws of Karma n Reincarnation” is just cause and effect.

  181. I have no problem if you respect chickens even if they don't need it and don't respond to it. And I have no intentions to invade , hurt your belief.

    "To You Be Your Way And To Me Mine." (Qur'an 109:6)

    "If your enemy inclines toward peace, then you too should seek peace and put your trust in God" (Qur'an 8:61)

  182. Hello Mr. Sina,

    I posted on your blog about the muhammad movie a couple of weeks ago. i suggested that you create a cartoon instead. now i am thinking why not create a weekly cartoon series about the pedo prophet about the different chapters of his wretched life. i wonder what the reactions of muslims would be to such a thing being done every weeks for a few weeks at least. i would really enjoy that.

  183. Thank you for responding. I gathered you understood sequel question and answered justifying your take on this too!

    Talking about Muslims you have concluded yourself with no doubt so there is little space for me as in discussion. There is no wonder of having opponent's political view and perspective.There are lots of reason explaining this like politically driven, religiously driven , conspiracy, orchestrated crime, regional conflicts, control of finance and power.

    Toughest is to be simple what Islam is . Islam teach how to have control over physiological needs to be better than animals through sawm . Islam teach punctuality , consistency , physical way to do , yoga , meditation , focus , concentration through salat. Just a few, there are lot of things like celebration of festivals, social life which make Islam a wonderful religion.

  184. Ok… We're all animals, with different sizes of brains.
    If we have bigger brains, shouldn't we learn to use them better, by respecting creatures that are emotionally similar to men but not logically? (and I don't mean women!!!!!)

  185. Ignorant and heartless… You would believe anything you read as long as it justifies your point of view.
    I respect chickens more than I respect many people.

  186. I did not say you should look at chickens the way you look at humans. I said Animals are not objects but sentient beings who feel pain, sadness, happiness and many of the emotions that we have. They should not be abused.

    There are plenty of scientific studis on veganism, which show it is a much healthier diet than eating meet and animal products. The site you showed is not scientific.

    You can’t deny that Muslims are more savage than others. There are political problems everywhere, but only Muslims act like animal. All people have the same emotions, but only Muslims give in to their beastly instincts. They are the only people who learn to hate in their mosques and through their holy texts. There is no doubt that Islam reduces humans into savages.

  187. Question of degree?!

    You are confused in understanding human and animals(Human is superior to animal)

    pain = physiological need (both human & animal have)
    respects life = psychological need ( only human have)
    dignity = esteem need (only human have)

    While setting examples in accusing Islam please don't mention only religion but also mention factors like control of economics and political power from either side.

    I am just worried you should not look at chicken the way you look at human. Joining with chickens accusing human is the greediest and deadly specie and should have to pay for brutality and mass murder against chickens.

    I do respect anyone's personal choice to be vegan irrespective of reasons but just to mention what I found online
    THE DEADLY DANGERS OF VEGANISM http://naturalhygienesociety.org/diet3.html

  188. As it is said, little knowledge is dangerous, u knew only a tiny part of Buddhism n begun to talk nonsense about it.  Have u study all the Buddhist scriptures ?  And not the one that is confusing to u. U are enlightened at less than 25% . Only a fool will equate wisdom with the Laws of Karma n Reincarnation.

  189. Yr statements are confusing. U change but I do not change.  Don’t jump to another man or clone when we are debating afterlife. U are dragging in more of yr rubbish.

  190. Not at all. This is a question of degree. I believe a perosn who is also aware of the pain to animals, and respects their life and dignity has a more hightened consciousness than one who abuses and sacrifices animals to please his deity. This does not mean the latter is not a human. It is just the question of degree. But a man who murders another human for his beleif is truley bereft of huamnity. Can you in right conscience call the man standing on that baby and killing him a human? And yet can you deny that he does that because he is a Muslim? Isn't it fair to say Islam has reduced this man into a beast?

  191. I'm a merchant, not a philosopher.
    In my world this is the rule: in the end, a good trade is based on good faith.
    Example:
    Let's say you and I trade.
    I with my Golden Rule that because I don't like being ripped off and don't want to be ripped off, I shall offer you then a fair trade and I won't rip you off. And I of course expect the same from you.
    For a while this arrangement works, but then you realize, hey you don't have to do fair trades! I have the power to make grab everything for myself! This guy is wide open, so let's just rob him!
    And of course I stand no chance, me practicing Golden Rule, falls prey to your scheme, I make a loss, and you gain your ill gained profits and move on.
    You think you have taken advantage of me, and perhaps it's true. But in the end, what you have just did is you have killed the goose that lays golden eggs. From then on and forever more I shall have no more good faith for you, and shall never trade with you ever again.
    Well, no problem, you can always find other preys…
    Except, your reputation for abuse spreads, and soon enough no one will want to have anything to do with you.
    In this scenario, you better have your answer in power, something that can make others have little choice but to deal with you. Even then they will be wary, because you pursue your interest merely by relying on your power to impose yourself on them (that they shall never cheat you while you can rob them with impunity) instead of good faith in your fellow men.
    But in the path of power, not long after, someone else with more power, or with equal power but with good faith, comes along, and then your only remaining foundation is now gone. You are finished.
    ..
    Power. Or people's good faith?
    Power, or Golden Rule?
    ..
    You say Power.
    I say both. But Golden Rule is preferred.


    So yeah, Golden Rule is not perfect. It allows scoundrels to prey on innocents, … at first.
    But in the long run this, the scoundrel's game is a losing game. You just don't have infinite bridges to burn, neither can you guarantee you'll always be in powerful position.

  192. “U don’t die every moment but mutate from a baby to a boy to a man.” That’s right “I” change every moment, because there is no “I” try to find where or when you began to exist and you will not find it, you will only find the process of change. “but u still maintain some of the personality/ character..” That’s what the Buddha said but then you must agree that persons can be the same, in the same sense that two flames of the same kind are called the same; and you must recognize that in this sense another man of the same character and product of the same karma is the same as you.

  193. “He is the one who believed in afterlife” From what I read in the above gospel of Buddha it seems he did not even believe in life before death. “n also the first to propose the doctrines of the Laws of Karma n Reincarnation.” He himself would reject this did you not read what said? “Answer me, O Brahman, where does wisdom dwell? Is wisdom a locality?” So to say someone first came up with “the Laws of Karma n Reincarnation” or that is just cause and effect is ridiculous when wisdom is not a locality.

  194. So now u believe in Buddha. He is the one who believed in afterlife n also the first to propose the doctrines of the Laws of Karma n Reincarnation.  U don’t die every moment but mutate from a baby to a boy to a man.  U may not be the same as when u are a boy but u still maintain some of the personality/ character..  Yes, u change with more experience n wisdom, esp. after u spend some time in a haunted house.  

  195. This is the sequel of my first question "Is it a prerequisite to be human that you should not eat chicken? " Hope you understood this question.

  196. I don't understand your question?

  197. “A stint in the haunted houses will rock yr believe system.” No it would not, just like if a clone of one of my deceased loved one’s appeared to me it would be irrelevant to my position about “life after death”. A “spirit” appearing to me just like with a clone would fall under the “continuation of personality” category.

    “Prove these statements : “ die every movement” n “ continuation of the personality” . They sound like rubbish to all of us.” Yes the false “I” dies every moment. We like all other things are changing every second. Every new “you” inherits memories from the old “you”. Tell me are you the same person as when you was a boy? Or a baby? There is rebirth of character yes but no persistent ego or self (or soul or whatever). Read these wise teachings of the Buddha on the nature of identity, causation, and rebirth. http://members.optushome.com.au/davidquinn/Buddhi

  198. Afterlife cannot be proven by yr logic.  But why are haunted houses being haunted ?  A stint in the haunted houses will rock yr believe system. No use arguing with yr pseudo logic.  Prove these statements : “ die every movement”  n “ continuation of the personality” . They sound like rubbish to all of us.

  199. There is no such thing as an "afterlife". How can their be an afterlife when we die every movement? Now Imagine in your mind another everin exists in a parallel universe, he is exactly the same as you in every way. Now lets say you die, but the other everin does not would you say that “you” survived? Logically you cannot have survived. Yes these is a continuation of the personality but that is all. This is all the “spirit” can be (if such a thing exists) a continuation of “your” personality.

  200. Afterlife is proven by the spirits hanging around in haunted houses. There is no such thing as resurrection. When a man dies, his spirit may hang around for some time before floating away to the spiritual world. But if he is filled with a grude or attachment, his spirit will be trapped, n become an earth-bound spirit, hanging around in the place or house where he met his death. He feels that he still has some unfinished business to be done n refuse to accept that he is dead. If he is awaken n asked to leave by a spiritualist, he may go to the light of the Holy spirit n never return to earth again, unless reincarnated in the future.

  201. You may want to rephrase as: I despise those humans who lack the ethical backbone to perceive and acknowledge the moral faults of the creed Judaism.
    I guess, "I hate the Jews" is shorter, but it equates persons with their beliefs, when these are fleeting, varied, and continuously (d)evolve; that statement is therefore unfair and leads to misunderstandings. Because certain beliefs are invalid, it leads to casting people as disposable. So, better go with the long sentence; it will save you time and heartache in the long run.

  202. Hello SundriedAtheist,
    If you don't believe in Mohammed or Allah, why add (pbuh) after writing his name? Or, is it added automatically in code(now that would be revolting!)? I commend you for your involvement and perseverance so far, but this relatively minor detail finds me confused. By adding (pbuh) you affirm to Muslims that you believe in Mohammed after all, so that your arguments become illogical. Muslims might come to conclude that, though you believe in Allah / Mohammed, you just argue because of your own stubbornness, or because Allah has hardened your heart. The same can be said about being an atheist, and yet referring to God as He or Him with a capital H (why the reverence, if you know it is fiction)?

  203. Why should one look at Chicken in humanitarian way ? Isn't there any chicken way out ?

  204. Excellent retort Enlightened25

    Take away a man’s intelligence and he we will become an animal, program an animal with intelligence and he will become a man.

    Sums up Islam as the animal ideaology; when they become enlightened they see it for what it is; Islam is hatred built on hatred built on hatred

  205. “All of my effort was to achieve to this point and prove that you are just an animal that its brain is a bit bigger than other animal.” Yes and what is your point exactly? Take away a man’s intelligence and he we will become an animal, program an animal with intelligence and he will become a man.

  206. This is an excellent discussion between Kutadanta (a Brahman leader) and the Buddha on the nature of identity, causation, and rebirth. It is unusually intelligent and profound. http://members.optushome.com.au/davidquinn/Buddhi

  207. “We must respect their life and their dignity.”

    “The only thing that sets us apart from animals is our rational mind.”

    “Emotionally, they are similar to us.”

    Dr.sina

    All of my effort was to achieve to this point and prove that you are just an animal that its brain is a bit bigger than other animals. And you with all of your ability tried to hide this reality but at end succumbed and acknowledged completely to this fact. Your loyalty is appreciated and I thank you although thanking of animals is not prevalent.

    Now at this point the debate is over.

    just one point, maybe “Emotionally”, they are similar to us but “logically” they are not.

  208. Is it a prerequisite to be human that you should not eat chicken?

  209. “Believing in the next world gives hope to some people and I don’t oppose such belief. What is foolish is to throw away this life for something unproven or worse take the life of someone else for it.” Beliefs are harmful very harmful, they are emotional attachments. Emotion comes from the animal in us, reason is human and anyone who values humanity should value reason and oppose emotion.

  210. “I am not saying that the next world does not exist. It may exist, just as the Bigfoot may exist. The point is whether it is wise to give up this life in the hope of a one that may not exist at all?” What is the point in asking foolish people to be wise? You can believe in the possibility Bigfoot exists but if you accept anything without appropriate evidence that is dogma. Anyway comparing Bigfoot to afterlife belief is like comparing apples and oranges one has some plausibility to it the other is simple a impossibility. I will grant you it is conceivable the consciousness survives death in some way but the question is are we logically the consciousness? For example someone makes a clone with all “your” memories in it and as soon as you die it wakes up. But logically it cannot be “you”, this is validated by 2 simple observations, 1) A clone can be made while you are still alive. 2) More than one could be made. And anyway that is not what Muslims believe in they believe in resurrection nonsense.

  211. “This question is ancient. There were intense debates about the
    nature of self / consciousness.” There is no debate it is simple logically impossible for a thing to exist independently. I see no mystery about consciousness, consciousness like all other things operates by cause and effect. “The point to be remembered is that the highest truth is not within the grasp of most of us.” That is because the vast majority of people don’t care about the highest truth and of course they want to be free from logic.

  212. A: " Because it is impossible for a self, or anything else for that
    matter, to exist inherently. "

    This question is ancient. There were intense debates about the
    nature of self / consciousness. You may go through chapters XV to xxII
    of TRIPURA RAHASYA
    http://scriptures.ru/tripura1.htm
    http://scriptures.ru/tripura2.htm

    you are most welcome to challenge the doctrine of "self". It doesn't hurt
    me. Anyway I am not "self" realized & these are mere intellectual debates.
    The point to be remembered is that the highest truth is not within the
    grasp of most of us. what we are interested in is the " Freedom to think,
    debate, understand, challenge, reject or accept, to live according to one's
    belief without hurting others' freedom in any way. I am here because ISLAM
    is a threat to freethinking & muslims too should experience free thinking.

  213. Alisina be careful. Farzad is starting to become very dangerous now. He is using different tactics on you.You use logic and good reasoning in all your debates, not him. He is using all kinds of phsycology to exhaust you and eventually break you . All the insults that he is directing towards you, is actually Farzad describing himself. Farzad we are getting tired of these debates now. Please we want to know the bottom line. Alisina you are so accomodating I cant believe that you can be so resilient. Only answer him if he can give you the proof. Really you don't have to accept this abuse.

  214. جناب سینا
    تجربه دیگری که از بحث با مخالفان خدا و دین برای من حاصل شده این است که هنگام عجز از جواب، حرف طرف مقابل را به صورت غلطی آشکار تفسیر و معنا می کنند سپس با قدرت تمام شروع به پاسخ دادن به قضیه ذهنی خود ساخته می نمایند.

    من در هیچکدام از سخنان سابق خود ادعا نکردم که انسان ضیعف العقل است و تمام توانایی های منحصر به فرد او یعنی عقل، هوشیاری و اخلاق مداری او هیچ ارزشی ندارد، حرف من این نیست که انسان توانایی تمییز بین درست و نادرست را ندارد و این تنها پیامبر رحمت صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم است که می تواند این امور را به انسان آموزش دهد و اگر او چنین نکند شاید انسان آدمخوار شود؛ من جایی ادعا نکردم هر چیزی که باید دانسته شود در قرآن آمده است و توسط پیامبر خدا صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم بیان شده است.
    جواب این حرف شما را از زاویه دیگر در بحث چند ماه پیش داده ام؛ اختلاف من و شما در منشاء توانایی های منحصر به فرد انسان است شما مدعی هستید که طبیعت کر و کور و لال و نفهم، موجودی بصیر و سمیع و گویا و علیم تولید کرده است و من مدعی هستم اولا فاقد کمال نمی تواند معطی کمال باشد ثانیا اگر فرض را بر اعطاء این قابلیت ها از طرف طبیعت بگذاریم دیگر نمی توانیم آن را کمال بنامیم و به قول یکی از کامنت گذاران تنها یک فکت و واقعیت عینی خارجی است که قابلیت ارزش گذاری ندارد و ارزش محسوب نمی شود؛ واقعیت های طبیعی بسیار زیادی در اطراف ما وجود دارند که بعضا هم بسیار شگفت انگیزند اما هیچکدام نمی توانند ما را مجبور کنند که تا کمر در مقابل آنها خم شده، آنها را گرامی بداریم و تکریمشان کنیم؛ انسانی که محصول طبیعت صرف است هم یکی از این واقعیت هاست، این انسان با همه ویژگیهای منحصر به فردش اگر توسط موجودی علیم، قدیر و حکیم انتخاب نشده باشد هیچ دلیلی بر اینکه احترام او واجب باشد نیست. بله انسانها می توانند بر اساس قابلیت های مذکور یک سری امور اعتباری را جعل کرده و با وضع یکسری قوانین اعتباری دیگرآن امور را لازم الاجرا بدانند و متخلفان را تنیه کنند. اما این موضوع صرف اعتبار است و کرامت ذاتی برای انسان نمی آورد. امیدوارم توضیح کاملا رسا و قابل فهم باشد.
    قصه اینکه ما چه اموری را درک می کنیم و پیامبر خدا صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم و قرآن او چه چیزی را به ما آموزش می دهند باشد برای بعد.

    در بخش دیگر مدعی تعارض عقل و دین شده و آنها را مانعة الجمع تصور کرده اید. جواب را خیلی کوتاه می دهم، عقل و دین مکمل هم اند هر قضیه صحیح منطقی نیاز به دو عنصر دارد یکی ماده و دیگری هیئت؛ عقل هیئت قضیه است و دین ماده، اگر دین نباشد عقل چه چیزی را می خواهد پردازش کند که به کار انسان آید؟ اگر هدف غایی گذران زندگی و طی فاصله تولد تا مرگ است، حیوانات بدون نیاز به عقل بدون هیچ دغدغه ای این فاصله را طی می کنند در این صورت آیا عقل ما زائد نیست؟

    در مورد حمله شخصی و اینکه موضوع این بحث پیامبر خدا صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم است نه شما
    قبلا دلیل خود را بیان کردم؛ در اینجا این موضوع را اضافه می کنم که وقتی فردی با عقل جمعی مشکل دارد و موضوع مشکل آنها یک واقعیت عینی و علمی محض نیست ابتدا باید صحت مشاعر آن فرد از یک طرف و صحت مقدمات استدلال او از طرف دیگر مورد سنجش قرار گیرد اگر از این دو امتحان سربلند بیرون آمد آنگاه نوبت به بررسی مدعای او می رسد و ما اگر فرض را بر صحت جسم و جان شما بگذاریم، صحت مقدمات استنتاج شما سخت مورد تردید بلکه همانطور که بحث شد به طور قطع و یقین باطل و بی اساس است لذا بررسی اصل مدعای شما معنا و مفهوم ندارد اما با این حال من بنا به قولی که در پست قبلی به شما دادم برخواهم گشت و از ابتدای بحث تاکنون خطاهای فکری و مدعیات باطل شما را تک به تک بیان خواهم کرد. البته احتمالا این موضوع به بعد از تعطیلات عید نوروز موکول خواهد شد.

  215. When we value something as Good or Bad what we are saying is that is how we desire the world to be or in a Nietzschean sense the will to power. When you say “we” what you mean to say is “I”, no one is morally obligated to do anything. Of course we can all share a SUBJECTIVE goal but we can’t just call something objective when it isn’t. “We know better than any deity what benefits us and what hurts us.” “we” all have different goals and values this deities preferences to how humans OUGHT to behave is just as subjective as any humans. Imagine for a moment there was a cosmic Saddam Hussein talking to Muhammad would we be any more obligated to obey that thing, than Muhammad? Of course not.

  216. Good and evil have no meaning unless they affect a life and since we humans value our own lives more than the lives of other species, we consider only what affects us as good and bad. If an earth quate happens in an uninhabited area causing no damage to human life and property, we don\’t consider it bad, but if it kills thousands of people then it is a bad. Therefore goood and evil are purely human constructs. What hurts humans primarily and animals secondarily is bad and what benefits them is good. We know better than any deity what benefits us and what hurts us. We can decide what is good and what is bad. I think the Golden Rule is the best measure for making that determination.

  217. This is something interesting I copied from the internet.

    Q: It is impossible for a machine to possess life.
    A: You are a machine that possesses life.
    Q: But a machine cannot experience self-consciousness.
    A: A machine can believe it is experiencing self consciousness, as you do.
    Q: Are you saying that I only believe I have self consciousness?
    A: Yes.
    Q: How can you know self consciousness is not real?
    A: Because it is impossible for a self, or anything else for that matter, to exist inherently.
    Q: Machines are wholly material, so how can they possess life?
    A: You are wholly material and yet we say you possess life.
    Q: I am not wholly material! I have a soul or a spirit, which purely material things do not.
    A: What is this soul of yours? Show it to me!

  218. Q: You have yet to convince me. If an exact robot copy was made of me, would I feel self-conscious in that robot?
    A: If it was an exact copy of you, then it would sincerely believe it was you. What is more, it would question whether it was possible for you to possess life, as you are merely a machine, whilst it possesses spirit.
    Q: Would such an intelligent machine experience emotions?
    A: Just as you do.
    Q: But my emotions are based on a whole lifetime of experiences, whereas the machine would have no past.
    A: It is conceivable to program a machine to think it has had the same experiences as you. It is also conceivable, with suitable technology, to make an exact copy of your brain, with all its thoughts and memories intact. You seem to forget that you are a machine, and changing from moment to moment. You are therefore not the same machine for two consecutive moments. Each new "you" inherits memories and experiences from the old you. At any point in time you have no age at all, yet possess a lifetime of experience. As you see, age is no barrier to experience.

  219. Q: The difference between machines and humans is that in the case of machines there are only a limited number of possible reasons for failure. The problem with the car will be found in either the electrical system, or the fuel system.
    A: Things have infinite causes because of the inter- connectedness of all things. There are however a finite number of categories of causes, though each contain an infinite number of causes. The electrical and fuel systems are two such categories. A further category might be called "extraordinary causes," which would cover the possibilty that aliens are directing a disabling beam at your car from outer space. Similarly, if a human being is faulty, the cause must lie within a limited number of categories of causes. For example, a cause must be either physical, mental or spiritual.
    Q: But machines are man-made, and man-made things cannot possess life.
    A: Are machines really man-made? I think you will find it is Nature that makes all machines, just as Nature has made us. Nature works through us and as us to do all that we do, including the making of machines.

  220. Q: No, but machines always have definite causes for what they do. If a car fails to start in the morning, the engine may need new spark plugs.
    A: All things have definite causes, though we may not be able to determine precisely what those causes are. Can you be certain that the problem with the car is worn spark plugs? If you replace the spark plugs and the car starts, can you be sure you have fixed the problem? You see, all things are the same, whether human or machine, in their inherent unpredictability.

  221. Q: We cannot adequately describe much of our behaviour and experience in words; this is evidence of a spirit, or a soul that dwells within the body. Our scientific categories are not sufficient to deal with such spiritual truths, so I cannot show it to you as such.
    A: We cannot adequately describe much of a computer's behaviour and experience in words. There are an infinite number of variables operating whenever we use a machine, so there is always unpredictability, and therefore "spirit" as you say.
    Q: How can you say that? It is my experience that machines are totally predictable: it is this predictability that makes them different from us.
    A: Can you predict with certainty whether your car will start in the morning?

  222. “Our doctrine is based on three foundamentals, shiism, philosophy and erfan (knowledge), in other words the Quran, reason and knowledge. There is no chance to defeat someone who clings to these three principles and you are no exception from this rule.” Really? As we all now when a person dies in the vast majority of cases they are either cremated and they becomes ash or buried and the body bio degrades and becomes soil. Can you tell me how ash or soil can have their (non-existent) ribs crushed in the grave? This is not knowledge it is a fairytale designed to scare gullible fools. Also you say man cannot say what is good and evil. Good and evil come from a mind they have no objective existence. So Allah has no more right to decide what is good or evil than a human (if your logic is correct). Allah’s good and evil comes from his mind and has no more objective basis than my good and evil.

  223. “What has happened that according to some proponents of evolution, this evolution has stopped working? What the heck this evolution was doing in all those four billion years and why only now, in these last four or forty thousand years its effect has become manifest? You know very well that this is one of the biggest puzzles and conundrums of science today.” The first thing you should know is evolution is not a scientific theory, but a philosophical fact about reality. Change happens at every moment, of course some things change more rapidly than others.

    “And the soul and Him Who made it perfect, Then He inspired it to understand what is right and wrong for it; He will indeed be successful who purifies it. And he is indeed a failure who stunteth it. “(Q.91: 7-10)” Where is this “soul“, show it to me? We humans are machines the soul is a complete fiction.

  224. جناب سینا
    ادعا می کنید که از بسته شدن کامنت این بحث اطلاعی نداشته اید و ناخواسته این اتفاق افتاده است، اگر خودتان ادعای خود را باور کردید من هم باور می کنم، البته این موضوع چندان مهم نیست.
    آیا حذف شدن ترجمه آخرین نوشته من و جواب شما به آن نیز اتفاقی بوده است؟
    گفته اید این بحث تمام شده است، بله از جهاتی بحث تمام شده، از این جهت که یک دیدگاه و فلسفه انسان محور هرگز نمی تواند بر مدعای خود برهان عقلی و منطقی ارائه کند بحثی باقی نمانده است؛ اما بحث عقل و جهل، دین و کفر، عدل و ظلم، خداپرستی و شهوت پرستی هرگز تمام نخواهد شد و همچنان ادامه دارد.
    اشاره کرده اید که به شما اهانت و حمله کرده ام، یکی از چیزهایی که در طی این بحث من از شما آموختم این بود که اگر کسی به چیزی اعتقاد داشته باشد و بر آن دلیل اقامه کند بیان آن توهین و فحش نخواهد بود بلکه واقعیتی است که جهت آگاه شدن دیگران باید بیان شود، آنچه در نوشته پیشین به شما نسبت دادم اعتقاد من نسبت به شماست و دلیل آن را نیز در آن نوشته و در نوشته های قبل بیان کردم لذا مطالب بیان شده بر اساس دیدگاه خود شما به هیچ وجه حمله شخصی و اهانت نیست بلکه واقعیتی است که نباید از بیان آن ابا داشته باشم، این که من اعتقاد دارم شما مبتلا به استمنای فکری شده اید حمله به شخص شما نیست بلکه یک نوع بیماری است که ذهن شما به آن مبتلا شده است، همانطور که می دانید شخص مبتلا به بیماری ذهنی کمتر متوجه بیمار بودن خود می شود و شما استثنا نیستید.
    در باره فضل و دانش خود نقل کرده اید که: “عطر (مشک) آن ا ست که ببوید نه آنکه عطار بگوید” عطر ممکن است چنین خاصیتی داشته باشد که ندارد و بسیاری از افراد نمی توانند بین عطر واقعی و عطر قلابی تفاوت قائل شوند، اما قضایای منطقی چنین نیستند حتما باید اهل خبره ای باشد تا بتواند فلسفه را از سفسطه و برهان را از مغالطه باز شناسد اگر در تمام نوشته های طولانی خود توانستید یک قضیه منطقی که بر اساس شکل اول از اشکال اربعه منطقی باشد پیدا کنید حق با شماست.
    آنچه از برتراند راسل جهت رد نظر من بر استواری بر اعتقاداتم نقل کردید که احمق ها و متعصبان همیشه به خود مطمئن هستند اما دانایان پر از شک و تردیدند،
    اولا قسمت اول آن بیشتر شامل حال خود شما می شود که با اعتقادی راسخ در لباس یک پیامبر تمام عیار به ترویج عقاید سست و باطل خود مشغولید ثانیا این حرف شامل هر فرقه و گروهی که شود شامل ما شیعیان نمی شود، خوب می دانید که اهل سنت به ما می گویند رافضی؛ رافضی یعنی کسی که هیچ مطلبی را بدون مدرک و دلیل قبول نمی کند؛ کیش ما بر سه ضلع تشیع، فلسفه و عرفان استوار است یعنی قرآن، برهان و عرفان. کسی که با این سه درآویزد هیچ شانسی برای پیروزی او قابل تصور نیست و شما از این قاعده مستثنا نیستید.
    در خلال بحث به موضوعات متعددی وارد شدید که هیچ ربطی به موضوع اصلی بحث نداشت و علیرغم باطل بودن به دلیل دور نشدن از موضوع اصلی من به آنها ورود نکردم و جواب شما را ندادم که به مرور جواب آنها را خواهم نوشت البته بیشتر برای خودتان اگر مایل بودید آنها را برای اطلاع خوانندگان سایتتان ترجمه کنید.

  225. Congratulation again Dr Ali Sina,

    You have managed to show us once and for all that the muslim could not explain islam from the perspective of logic.No matter how we try to ask for logical explaination they would shy away and going into circular reasoning.I was a muslim onced but when l realized the true islamic principal ,i laughed and declared my self a free thinker.

    i Love the part when you said if Allah is the most knowing and why humans need to be tested.If i am still a muslim i would not be able to answer that. I think Allah also should be blamed for satan's existance and he Should be Charge together with satan in the court of law for the misery of human being.His sin is in abbeting Satan despite knowing very well that satan is out to decieve the good people of the world and Allah condorned it

  226. There is no car apart from the parts – True.
    “But the Driver ( Intelligence) and the Rider ( Self) use the car ( body vehicle).
    just as we dispose of old car and acquire new car
    just as we discard old clothes and acquire new clothes
    in the same way the Self ( subtle body consisting of desires, ego, memories)
    acquires new Gross body ( through taking birth in the womb of Mother)
    To actualize this knowledge of "Self" it takes intense efforts spread across
    manylifetimes, just as Budha took thousands of Births ( as Gross bodies).” When we dispose of a car it does not magically transform into another car. Some of its parts may be used on another car, some may be recycled and used for other purposes and some may simple be incinerated. It is exactly the same with ourselves.

  227. “There is no Atma ( self) , the true meaning of this statement
    is that the Body as self is a wrong notion , that the self ( the true meaning
    of the feeling "i" or "I"ness which is so strongly ingrained in us is beyond body. “ No that is not the true meaning of that statement. When Descartes said “I think, therefore I am” he forget to ask what “I” am. This belief in a self comes from pure egotism. Feelings do not come from "beyond" the body. This belief is pure nonsense. If you don’t believe me put your hand in a fire and you will feel pain.

  228. "That doesn't mean we didn't exist at that time.
    we know very well that we were alive at that time, but we don't remember
    what we did on that day.” That person from ten years ago is “dead” or more accurately they have changed. It is conceivable we could program someone else’s memories into your brain. Would you say that person was “you”?

    “we say "I" remember & some other times we say "I" don't remember.
    There is an "I" which is identifying with remembrance or forgetfulness.
    That "I" is seperate from memory ( which is the word for chiththa/ chitta)” How can their be an “I” when “I” am always changing?

    “The advaita philosopher Adisankara gives the gist of who this "I" is
    ( or who or what this "I" is not) in six stanzas called Nirvana Shatakam. http://swamij.com/shankara-atma-shatakam.htm&… The “I” is an illusion. We know that because it impossible for a thing to have inherent existence.

  229. In this life itself we do not remember our activities, thoughts, incidents
    etc beyond a week. If I ask you what you were doing 10 years ago on this
    same date, the chances are that you won't remember. Not only you but
    most of us don't remember. That doesn't mean we didn't exist at that time.
    we know very well that we were alive at that time, but we don't remember
    what we did on that day.

    we say "I" remember & some other times we say "I" don't remember.
    There is an "I" which is identifying with remembrance or forgetfulness.
    That "I" is seperate from memory ( which is the word for chiththa/ chitta)

    The advaita philosopher Adisankara gives the gist of who this "I" is
    ( or who or what this "I" is not) in six stanzas called Nirvana Shatakam.
    http://swamij.com/shankara-atma-shatakam.htm

    Budha started with the premise of body being Atma (self).
    When he discovered that Body is not self or that body is ephemeral
    he declared – There is no Atma ( self) , the true meaning of this statement
    is that the Body as self is a wrong notion , that the self ( the true meaning
    of the feeling "i" or "I"ness which is so strongly ingrained in us is beyond body.

    There is no car apart from the parts – True.
    But the Driver ( Intelligence) and the Rider ( Self) use the car ( body vehicle).
    just as we dispose of old car and acquire new car
    just as we discard old clothes and acquire new clothes
    in the same way the Self ( subtle body consisting of desires, ego, memories)
    acquires new Gross body ( through taking birth in the womb of Mother)
    To actualize this knowledge of "Self" it takes intense efforts spread across
    manylifetimes, just as Budha took thousands of Births ( as Gross bodies).

  230. Sorry I did not realize the comments option was not ticked. I don't know why it became unticked. I was surprised why no one is posting any comments. This was a very good debate. I hope people comment and ask questionf from Mr. Farzad who said he will reply when the debate is over.

  231. Mr. Farzad,

    Thank you for the debate. I think it was very enlightening. You promised to respond to the readers once the debate between us is over. Hope you will stay and answer their questoins.

  232. “Each acts according to their own nature. Among the animals in the nature one is man who according to his nature is free to act either good or bad. However, whether he acts good or bad he is influenced by his own nature.” Which contradicts “His freedom to act also is a privilege of no value to him, because he has had no role in acquiring that privilege.” Man has no “freedom to act” this is religious boloney. A man acts as you say according to his nature. What his nature is, is caused by evolution, genetics, environmental factors, social conditioning and so on.

    “According to you, death is the end of everything. It is coming to nothingness.” Making up lies again to make a saint of your self and to demonise other people. No the choice is not between believing in Islam or that everything ends with death. It does not end it just changes, when a candle flame is extinguished it becomes something else. Also note you die every moment and their no “you” to begin with. “You” change every moment the person you was five minutes ago is gone.

  233. جناب سینا
    ظاهرا حدس من درست است شما منطق ارسطویی نخوانده اید، خوانده اید؟
    برای اثبات خود مجبور شده اید یک صفحه روزنامه کامل حرافی کنید و حداقل هر مطلبی را دوبار تکرار کنید؛ اثبات حرف حق نیاز به این همه زور زدن ندارد بلکه طی یک یا دو خط و حداکثر یک پاراگراف کوتاه قابل بیان و اثبات است.

    متاسفانه حتی نزدیک به فهم حرف من هم نشده اید لذا مجبور شده اید این همه آسمان و ریسمان به هم ببافید.
    اینکه من مدعی می شوم اخلاقی که ریشه در طبیعت انسان دارد ارزش برای انسان محسوب نمی شود معنای آن لزوما خلاف اخلاق رفتار کردن انسان و شیطانی بودن ذات انسان نیست انسانها برای حفظ جان خود هم که شده مجبورند به گونه ای با هم کنار بیایند (مفاد قانون طلایی).
    در طبیعت انواع و اقسام موجودات وجود دارند بعضی ذاتی بسیار آرام مانند اکثر علفخواران و بعضی دیگر ذات و طبیعتی ستیزه جو دارند مثل اکثر گوشتخواران اما نه دسته اول را می توان مورد ستایش قرار داد و نه دسته دوم را مورد ملامت، هر کدام بر اثر طبیعت خود عمل می کند. در میان موجودات طبیعت یکی هم انسان است که بر اساس توانایی های طبیعی خود این “اختیار” را دارد که بد یا خوب عمل کند؛ اما چه خوب عمل کند و چه بد عمل کند باز متاثر از طبیعت خویش است و مختار بودنش نیز امتیازی دارای ارزش برای او نیست چرا که خودش جهت کسب این امتیاز هیچ دخالتی نداشته است و بر اساس تفکر شما طبیعت بر اثر روند تکامل به او عطا کرده است همانطور که به حیوانات دیگر ویژگیهای دیگری عطا کرده است اینکه دایره عمل انسان دارای گستره بیشتری است به دلیل فوق موجب امتیاز او نمی شود.
    آقای علی آقای سینا بر خلاف شما که وجود اسلام بزرگترین مشکل شماست و به زعم خود کمر به نابودی آن بسته اید، من هیچ نگرانی از این موضع شما ندارم تجربه تاریخی نشان داده این مدعای خداوند در قرآن که فرموده: إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَ إِنَّا لَهُ لَحافِظُون حقیقتی ثابت و غیر قابل تغییراست و کار اشخاصی مثل شما مصداق کامل این آیه است که: يُريدُونَ لِيُطْفِؤُا نُورَ اللَّهِ بِأَفْواهِهِمْ وَ اللَّهُ مُتِمُّ نُورِهِ وَ لَوْ كَرِهَ الْكافِرُونَ. شما هر مقدار که قدرت فوت کردنتان زیاد باشد ممکن است بتوانید چند پر کاه بی ارزش را جابجا کنید اما در نهایت تنها گلوی خود را پاره کرده ا ید؛ نگرانی اصلی من خود شما هستید که اسیر توهمات ذهنی خود شده و سراب را آب پنداشته و هروله کنان و شتابان به سوی آن می دوید اما در نهایت دیر یا زود جز خاک گور چیزی نصیب شما نخواهد شد. بر اساس دیدگاه شما مرگ همه چیز را برای انسان صفر کرده و او را نسیا منسیا می کند حال هر عددی که در این صفر ضرب شود نتیجه تغییری نخواهد کرد و حاصل تنها صفر خواهد بود.
    بعد از شکست همه ایسم های به ظاهر انسان محورانه در مقابل تفکر خدامحورانه به نظر می رسد تنها لیبرالیسم باقی مانده و تنها تفکری که در مقابل لیبرالیسم ایستاده اسلام (از نظر من تفکر شیعی آن) است؛ بر اساس فورمول بالا که نهایت کار من و شما برگشت دوباره به خاک است حاصل فعالیت انسانهایی مانند شما چاق و فربه کردن مکتب لیبرالیسم است؛ یعنی تک تک انسانها فدای مکتب می شوند بدون اینکه بهره ای از آن ببرند اما بر خلاف ظاهر مکتب اسلام که به نظر می رسد می خواهد همه انسانها را فدای خود کند (که در حقیقت اینطور نیست) هر چند فعالیت مسلمانان باعث فربه شدن اسلام می شود اما تک تک مسلمانها مزد خود از این فربه ساختن را می گیرند و اینطور نیست که فقط خاک گور نصیب آنها باشد و این موضوع هر چند از نظر شما توهمی بیش نباشد اما بی شک در مرحله عمل باعث شکست مکتب مقابل خواهد شد.
    در مقابل اصرار و سفارش و توصیه شما مبنی برخواندن نوشته هایتان که حاصل استمنائات فکری یهودی زده شماست توصیه می کنم برای رها شدن از این توهمات، که سایه انواع ظلمتها را بر ذهن شما گسترانده است، منطق صوری را خوب بخوانید تا بتوانید بین یک قضیه منطقی و توهمات ذهنی فرق بگذارید و به بیراهه نروید.

  234. “No line of research has conclusively demonstrated the existence of reincarnation.” If rebirth was true it would be obvious to everyone we would all have complete memories of all our “past lives”. Note even if it was true it would not be “personal survival” but just continuation of memory. There is no "self" apart from memory, and other such things, just as there is no "car" apart from the parts of a car. This was the essence of the Buddha's teaching of "anatma"("no-self").

  235. To enlightrned25 –
    You may follow the following links which throw some new light on the other
    world / Rebirth etc
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation_researhttp://terenceyap07.hubpages.com/hub/Reincarnatio

  236. “If he doesn’t then we live in the natural jungle and no one has the right to tell others what is right and what is not.” Except Muhammad of course.

    “The only flawless god is the God of the Quran and Muhammad (PBUH).” As I see it there are 2 kinds of God – finite and infinite. If Muhammad’s God is infinite then it cannot exist for the very simple reason “existence” is a finite quality – by definition. If it is finite however that means it is a limited being just like ourselves that suffers all the limitations of a finite being. And that thing is not flawless (by the very fact it’s a thing).

    “Have I been able to prove that if humanity is a reality, it cannot be a product of the nature, but must be given to humans from a supernatural source?” No, indeed I have proven that is logically impossible for their to be such a thing as “supernatural” nature is everything that exists. You can’t have something that exists “outside” or “above” nature – by definition.

  237. خدا یا وجود دارد یا ندارد اگر ندارد که ما در جنگل طبیعت زندگی می کنیم و هیچکس حق امر و نهی دیگران را ندارد، بلکه هر کس زور بیشتری دارد (ثروت و قدرت) حق دارد خود را بر دیگران تحمیل کند و البته دیگران نیز حق دارند به هر شیوه ممکن از خود دفاع کنند؛ یعنی همین کاری که انسانها در حال حاضر مشغول به آن هستند.
    اما اگر خدا وجود داشته باشد این خدا باید عاری از هر گونه تناقض منطقی باشد و تنها خدایی که از هر گونه تناقض خالی است خدای قرآن و محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم است و شما نمی توانید از این مرحله به راحتی عبور کنید و بگویید من با خدا مشکلی ندارم بلکه مشکل من با کسی است که بی نقص ترین تعریف را از خدا دارد، همین جا باید توقف کنید و خدای قرآن را بر اساس تنها معیاری که جهانی و یونیورسال است یعنی منطق (نه خواست و میل دورنی خود و دیگر همفکرانتان) بررسی کنید یا آن را منطقا بپذرید و یا منطقا رد کنید. اگر هم از منطق چیزی نمی دانید که ظاهرا همینطوراست حق ورود به چنین عرصه ای را ندارید همانطور که من حق جراحی قلب یا حق نشستن در کابین خلبان به عنوان خلبان را ندارم.

    شما مدعی هستید که مغز ما این توانایی را دارد که خیال پردازی کند، دین ومذهب اختراع کند، دنیای دیگری تصور کند و خدایی را در ذهن ما جعل کند.
    به طور طبیعی قبول دارید که اختراع قانون طلایی و نوشتن حقوق بشر نیز از توانایی های مغز ماست چرا ما باید به بعضی از توانایی ها مغز خود احترام بگذاریم و بعضی دیگر را مورد بدترین توهین ها قرار دهیم؟
    دلیل کاملا روشن است مغز ما بر اساس دیدگاه شما کار و فعالیت بیهوده انجام نمی دهد بلکه هر کاری می کند برای بقاء انسان است؛ محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم هزار چهار صد سال پیش فکر خود را به کار گرفت و با کمترین تلفات ممکن دینی اختراع کرد، خدایی ساخت و براساس آن سرزمین خود را به یکی از مراکز مورد توجه دنیای آن روز قرار داد و باعث رونق تجاری آن شد و امروز یک و نیم میلیارد در سراسر دنیا یکی از بزرگترین آرزوهای آنان سفر به آن دیار است. لنین و استالین و هیتلرو چنگیزخان مغول و … هم همین کار را کردند منتها چون از هوش و ذکاوت کافی برخوردار نبودند شکست خوردند و امروز نیز دنیای غرب نیز همین کار را می کند اینها نیز حقوق بشر را اختراع کردند و آن را حربه و ابزاری کردند برای تسلط بر دیگران هر کجا به نفعشان باشد این ابزار را به کار می گیرند و هر کجا به نفعشان نباشد چشمان خود را به راحتی می بندند و حتی اگر لازم باشد از جنایتکار دفاع می کنند مانند حمایت از جنایات صهیونیستها در اسرائیل. خلاصه کلام اینکه انسانیت حقیقی وجود ندارد بلکه آنچه موجود است انسانیت ابزاری است، ابزار و وسیله ای برای تسلط بر دیگران بر اساس قانون جنگل!
    براین اساس دشمنی علی سینا با مسلمانان کاملا قابل فهم و درک است من هم حق را به او می دهم او حق دارد برای مرگ خود نگران باشد اما هیچ نگرانی برای کشته شدن و از هستی ساقط شدن میلیونها افغانی و عراقی و فلسطینی و یمنی و … توسط همفکران خود (لیبرالیسم و صهیونیسم) نداشته باشد؛ ما در طبیعتی کاملا وحشی زندگی می کنیم و در طبیعت جنگ برای بقاء در جریان است و ترحم بر دشمن معنا و مفهوم آن وداع با زندگی خود است. تمام ایسم های موجود در دنیا شیطانی و تنها دو ایسم (لیبرالیسم و صهیونیسم) مقدس و رحمانی هستند.
    علی آقا شما که انسانیت مورد نظر مرا نفهمیدید آیا من منظور شما را درست فهمیدم؟ آیا ثابت کردم که انسانیت حقیقی اگر وجود داشته باشد نمی تواند ساخته دست طبیعت باشد و باید از ماوراء طبیعت به انسان تزریق شود؟ (نفخت فیه من روحی) آیا ثابت کردم اگر انسانیت حقیقی وجود نداشته باشد علی سینا تنها برای بقاء خود در تلاش است و دشمنی او با مسلمانان کاملا طبیعی (حیوانی و جنگلی) است؟

  238. Mr.Farzad – " You claim that you adhere to the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule says
    don’t insult others so they don’t insult you. But unfortunately all your writings, including
    your last one in my response were filled with insults and curses. This alone is enough
    to prove that the advocates of the Golden Rule are a bunch of con artists who by
    championing the cause of the Golden Rule want to inflict on others all sorts of calamities"

    Mohammad was a violent self proclaimed prophet who broke the symbols of others' faith.
    He created the non existing divisions of Idol worshippers vs. Worshippers of Formless
    GOD. He created this division purely to impute criminality to the the act of Idol worship
    so that he can merrily wage war – pillage the victims' wealth & rape the captive women.
    Following in Mo's footsteps Muslims all over the world have been violating Human rights
    of all people. Muslims are not willing to understand the philosophy of Idol worship as
    practiced widely in India – Perhaps because their intention is to wage war & capture
    the women for enjoyment & not attaining anything higher.

    The following links will throw some light on Idol worship which Muslims have a penchant to attack
    http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t
    http://arjun2k.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/vivenkand
    http://www.myads.org/journal/bkn29.shtml
    http://www.greenmesg.org/swami_vivekananda_saying
    http://studentofvihe.sulekha.com/blog/post/2010/0

    The physical calamities wrought on Non-Muslims by Muslims throughout the
    past 14 centuries is mind boggling to say the least, all due to a Pretext –
    The pretext of spreading knowledge of GOD through murder, pillage & Rape.
    What a wonderful method the Muslims have chosen !! .
    Yet when we point out the fallacies of their basic philosophy , they cry foul and
    accuse us of " Inflicting all sorts of calamities on Muslims".
    While Muslims are wedded to the philosophy of wiping out Non-Muslims,
    we are only interested in converting Muslims to basic human sanity .

  239. "There is no way for this thing to be rooted in nature. In nature values
    have no meaning." Really? Values come from your mind, your mind is produced by nature. Values, goals, meaning and purpose come into the world through consciousness. Their is no mystery their.

  240. "The impact of our actions
    in the next world ( the stage between Death & Birth ) as well as in the next Birth
    ( the concept of next birth is absent in Abrahamic religions)." This belief is complete nonsense, it is just as absurd as the belief in "the punishment of the grave".

  241. Mr.Farzad – "Karamat is what makes a human, a human and distinguishes him
    from animals. There is no way for this thing to be rooted in nature. In nature values
    have no meaning. Without this karamat no person can be more human than others"

    Ok. So your Karamat is the equivalent of -"faculty of discrimination".
    To be able to discriminate ( understand what is ) Good & Bad conduct , not from the
    immediate perspective, but from a long term perspective. The impact of our actions
    in the next world ( the stage between Death & Birth ) as well as in the next Birth
    ( the concept of next birth is absent in Abrahamic religions).

    If your prophet had any Karamat, he chose to hide it as his inhuman & Brutal
    conduct proves ( don't attribute it to God centered morality). What Mohammad
    did and preached is contrary to our perspective of Justice & Good conduct. We
    believe Mohammad's conduct is Hell rewarding. No true GOD will inspire his
    devotees to Hell rewarding actions. So the question remains – Who inspired
    Mohammad to Hell rewarding actions?

  242. Mr.Farzad, What is the point in writing in a language and script not understood by most of us.

  243. “These superior characteristics can only be bestowed upon Man from a being that is outside the nature.” A being outside of nature? This is logically impossible everything that exists, exists in nature. What is superior about man’s characteristics? He may be the most superior animal on this planet (at least in his intelligence) but we can conceive of aliens that are millions of times more intelligent than man. Also even if man’s intelligence was programmed into him by some extremely powerful and intelligent alien being this would still be from nature. As I think you will find this alien or a so-called God despite your nonsense claim would still be a part of nature and nature would work through it.

  244. "Like all our other faculties human ethics and nobility are products of evolution. Just as parental love is a necessity for the survival of a species, so is human ethics. Physically, we are weak creatures. We can’t survive on our own. We need the support of other humans, our family, our tribe and now the entire humanity, to survive. This very computer we are using to communicate is the fruit of the effort of other people from all over the world. Since our survival depends on others, we have evolved a set of precepts that lubricate our interaction." What you just described is a fact not a value and you don’t get values from facts. "These precepts are innate. Even babies understand the concepts of justice and fairness."

    "when humans are abused or brainwashed with doctrines of hate, they will lose their goodness and can become monsters." These 2 statements seem to contradict each other if morality is innate as you claim then how come it can be changed? Where is your proof of objective morality?

  245. شما اگر انسانی به دنبال کشف حقیقت بودید

    به جای این همه داستانسرایی و قصه پردازی و آشکار کردن نفرت درونی خود نسبت به مسلمانها که لحظه ای نمی توانید خود را از آن جدا کنید

    تنها با یک جمله پرسشی ساده مانند

    ” فلانی من معنای کرامت از نظر شما را متوجه نمی شوم ممکن است آن را دقیق توضیح دهید؟”

    می توانستید بحث را دنبال کنید.

    کرامت چیزی است که انسان را انسان می کند و به او ارزشی جدای از حیوانات می بخشد این ارزش به هیچ وجه نمی تواند ریشه در طبیعت داشته باشد زیرا در طبیعت ارزش معنا و مفهوم ندارد بدون وجود این کرامت و گرامی بودن هیچ انسانی نمی تواند از انسان دیگر انسان تر باشد همانطور که هیچ گاوی از گاو دیگر گاوتر نیست بلکه تنها می تواند قوی تر، زیباتر یا شیرده تر باشد و هیچ اسبی از اسب دیگر اسب تر نیست بلکه تنها می تواند سریعتر و چابکتر و یا سنگین و سبک تر باشد.

    انسان تا وقتی که از زاویه طبیعت به او نگاه شود چیزی جدای از طبیعت نیست و تنها یکی از حیوانات پستانداری است که روی دو پا راه می رود، توانایی خندیدن و گریه کردن و تعقل و … دارد. نگاه به انسان از این زاویه با توجه به اینکه هر کاری انجام دهد ریشه در طبیعت او دارد نه می توان او مورد ملامت قرار داد و نه او را تشویق کردن کما اینکه هیچ گرگی به دلیل خونخوار و درنده بودن مورد شماتت قرار نگرفته و بازخواست نمی شود و هیچ گاوی به دلیل شیرده بودن مورد تقدیر و تشکر واقع نشده و به او جایزه نمی دهند.

    اگر بخواهیم انسان را مورد امر و نهی قرار دهیم ، برایش حقوق بشر بنویسیم، ملزم به رعایت قانون طلایی کنیم و او را به دلیل کارهای اخلاقی و غیر اخلاقی که انجام می دهد مستحق جزا و پاداش بدانیم و در یک جمله او را متصف به انسانیت کنیم به یک ویژگی نیاز داریم که ریشه در طبیعت نداشته باشد چرا که هر چیز طبیعی، طبیعی است و وقتی طبیعی بود دیگر جای چون و چرا ندارد همینی هست که هست نه چیزی بیشتر و نه چیزی کمتر اگر کسی آدم می کشد بر اساس طبیعت خود آدم می کشد و اگر به دیگران احسان و نیکی می کند باز بر اساس طبیعت خود این کار را انجام می دهد در حالیکه همه ما بر اساس همان حس مشترکی که از نظر شما اساس معارف انسان است می یابیم که اینگونه نیست و ویژگیهای انسان چیزی واری ویژگیهای سایر حیوانات است. این ویژگی خاص تنها از طرف یک موجود بالاتر و والاتر که خارج از طبیعت است می تواند به انسان اهدا شود؛ این همان موجودی است که ما به آن خدا می گوییم و این خدا در آیه 70 سوره اسراء به اهداء کرامت به انسان تصریح کرده است: ما آدميزادگان را گرامى داشتيم و آنها را در خشكى و دريا، (بر مركبهاى راهوار) حمل كرديم و از انواع روزيهاى پاكيزه به آنان روزى داديم و آنها را بر بسيارى از موجوداتى كه خلق كرده‏ايم، برترى بخشيديم.اخلاق مدار بودن یا نبودن انسان در مقایسه رفتار او با دیگران آشکار می شود در حالیکه کرامت انسان چیزی مستقل در وجود انسان است یعنی اگر تنها یک انسان روی کره زمین زندگی کند دارای این ویژگی است.

    نمی دانم لحظاتی که مشغول نوشتن این جمله خود که “انسان به دلیل باهوش تر بودن در راس هرم غذایی است” متوجه این نکته بودید که با دست خود انسان را از مقام انسانیت خلع کرده و او در حد حیوانی از حیوانات که در طبیعت زندگی می کند تنزل دادید و اعتراف کردید که موجودی به نام انسان وجود ندارد؟

    تا اثبات نشود که انسان بدون وجود خدا وجود خاص دارد جواب دادن به سایر اتهامات شما علیه اسلام ضرورتی ندارد.

  246. Mr.Farzad – " 3-Among all the presumed gods, only the god of the Quran can
    be defended logically and rationally and this proves that
    Muhammad (PBUH) was the true messenger of God."

    So far I Have not seen any logic in your statements. The GOD of Quran is the
    Alter ego of Mohammad & Mohammad was mired in sense addictions – LUST,
    ANGER & GREED. Mo's lower mind (= LUST, ANGER, GREED) prompted him
    to Forgery. Quran is a Forgery. It is not GOD's words. The Forgery can be
    detected even by ordinary people. The Lusty followers of MO' found it convenient
    to believe in the Forgery as MO' rewarded them with plenty of opportunities to
    pillage & Rape.

    BG 16.21: – There are three gates leading to this hell — lust, anger and greed.
    Every sane man should give these up, for they lead to the degradation
    of the soul.

    BG 16.22:- The man who has escaped these three gates of hell, O son of Kuntī,
    performs acts conducive to self-realization and thus gradually attains
    the supreme destination.

    Mohammad was filled to the brim with LUST, ANGER & GREED. Alisina has
    proved this point conclusively. The above two verses are from the Mouth of
    Srikrishna who is GOD Incarnated in Human form. Note that Srikrishna
    doesn't condemn someone to hell for mere disbelief in him. MO' must have
    gone to hell & most of his followers would also have followed him to hell.
    But God being merciful, will not keep them in eternal hell. GOD keeps sending
    you back so that you may progress on the path (= acquire noble qualities =
    acquire GOLDENRULE ). GOD also keeps sending wise people like Alisina
    for our benefit. Make best use of this opportunity to reject Diabolical Doctrine
    ( ISLAM ) and First enter the fraternity of Human beings ( I am sorry to say this
    but Islam is Subhuman, Inhuman, beastly, Demonic ).

    Quit Islam & Save Humanity

  247. Islam deserves to be condemned for it's irrationality & cruelty. Muslims
    can't think rationally. How can a merciful GOD permit his own children
    to be put in eternal hell?

    Ponder over the following points.

    1. Is GOD the creator of our destinies (= all that we experience in our life
    from birth to death).
    2. If yes, Why has he endowed some with riches, health, power, peace
    and knowledge & why has he denied the same to many of his own
    children. Is GOD so blatantly partisan?
    3. If GOD is the creator of destinies of all of us, how is man culpable
    for so called transgressions. Why should man be punished for the
    fault of GOD.
    4. If we want to save GOD from the fault of partisan attitude, we must
    admit that the destinies that GOD is creating for us are the result of
    our own actions.
    5. If we admit the above point, we must admit that all of us were born
    many times during which ( past lifetimes) we performed some
    virtuous ( = following GOLDENRULE) deeds and some sinful deeds.
    we are experiencing the fruits of our own previous actions (virtuous
    or sinful) during the present lifetime.
    6. Virtue is that action which benefits & brings joy to the created beings.
    Sin is that action that causes pain & grief to the created beings.
    Help ever & Hurt never is the GOLDEN RULE
    7. Punishment given for a crime ( = defined as causing unprovoked
    harm to others or the collective) can not be called sin. On the other
    hand it becomes a virtue.
    8. Since Mohammad has transgressed the GOLDEN RULE he is a
    Criminal Whoever inspired him to such massive crime stretching
    across two millenia can not be GOD. Quran certainly is from SATAN.
    9. GOD will put Muslims in hell. Not eternal hell.
    10. Out of compassion for well intentioned, Naive but Stupid Muslims
    God has sent Ali sina .
    11. But for the arrogant jihadis wedded to the lusty criminality of Quran ,
    GOD has always sent down powerful warriors to bestow defeat.
    In the current age, GOD has bestowed the western civilization with
    incisive intellect, knowledge & overwhelming POWER.
    12. The Arrogant Jihadis (knaves among Muslims) will be born again
    to be crushed and defeated by superior powers till their arrogance
    is crushed. They become Human beings only after that.

  248. I would love to see you share your wife with three other men.

  249. جناب سینا
    من به قصد مجادله اینجا نیامدم
    تنها سه نکته
    اول اینکه نوشته طولانی شما هرگز نتوانست جواب سوال من را در خود گم کند.
    1- سوال از منشاء کرامت و عدم کرامت انسان بود و شما بحث را منحرف به منشاء اخلاق مداری انسان کرده و مدعی شدید که ریشه در طبیعت دارد و حتی کودکان نیز آن را درک می کنند. اینکه طبیعت انسان را اخلاق مدار کرده نه تنها به شما کمکی نمی کند بلکه به ضرر شماست و اخلاق انسانی را هم ردیف دیگر مشخصه های سایر حیوانات کرده و ارزش آن را در حد قوه شامه سگ، چشم تیز بین عقاب و …. پایین می آورد.
    خلاصه استدلال من بر درستی راه خود و نادرستی راه شما
    همه ما اعم از باخدا و بیخدا حس می کنیم که انسان دارای کرامت است و تمایز او از سایر حیوانات به بزرگی مغز و سایر ویژگیهای طبیعی او نیست؛ هیچ چیزی در طبیعت برتری ارزشی بر چیز دیگری ندارد چرا که هیچ کس و هیچ چیز دخالتی در کسب ویژگی خاص خود نداشته است.
    2- تنها و تنها موجودی برتر می تواند دست انسان را گرفته و بر مقام رفیع انسانیت نشانده و او را متمایز بر سایر موجودات کند؛ آن موجود جز خدا نمی تواند باشد، اگر هست من را نیز مطلع کنید.
    3- از میان تمام خدایان قابل فرض تنها خدای قرآن قابلیت دفاع منطقی و عقلی دارد و این نشان می دهد حضرت محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم پیامبری حقیقی و راستین است.
    4- استدلال فوق کامل باشد یا دارای نقایصی باشد به هیچ وجه جایی برای عقیده شما نمی گذارد زیرا شما مدعی کرامت انسان هستید اما نمی توانید منشاء آن را اثبات کنید.
    دوم اینکه
    شما تنها ادعا می کنید که پایبند به قانون طلایی هستید، قانون طلایی می گوید به دیگران توهین نکن تا به تو توهین نکنند اما متاسفانه تمام نوشته های شما از جمله آخرین نوشته تان در جواب من مملو است از اهانت و فحش همین یک مورد کافی است که اثبات کند مدعیان پایبندی به قانون طلایی تنها عده ای شیادند که می خواهند با پرچمداری قانون طلایی هر بلایی که بخواهند به سر دیگران بیاورند.
    سوم اینکه
    اگر یادتان باشد در بحثهای قبلی در مورد تناقضات قرآن با توپ کاملا پر به میدان آمدید اما وقتی جواب دو مورد از تناقضات را دادم به یکباره میدان را خالی کردید اگر این بار هم این کار را بکنید جای تعجب چندانی نیست، توصیه می کنم به جای سوار شدن بر موج احساساتی که تنها بچه ها را قانع می کند به سلاح عقل و منطق مسلح شوید تا بتوانید محکم و قاطع از موضع خود دفاع کنید.

  250. This is the best example of VERBAL DIARRHEA ! You can't stop it eh!!!

  251. dharma marg noble
    Sunday 4 March 2012, 8:20 am

    To Dr. ALI SINA ::: It is my considered opinion that you should continue the debate with Mr. FARZAD. I know fully well , that he failed miserably to provide one point for his case , in terms of rationality, logic and reason or even common sense. But still it will be useful as a record to collect all that Mr FARZAD can offer as an ISLAMIC scholar. This will be of immense help and valuble as a collected and documented record of an ISLAMIC SHIA scholar ( SO CALLED, really I laugh at the depth of knowledge of so called ISLAMIC scholars ), for future reference . It is also becoming more easy to see the level of these ISLAMIC SCHOLARS and obviously you are becoming more solid and strong in presenting your case against MOHAMMAD and ISLAM too.

  252. Co-husbands is permissible in Hindus . Their godess Dropadi had five husbands.

  253. Frankly-speaking
    Sunday 4 March 2012, 6:14 am

    I mean killing of between Sunni and Shia Muslims

  254. Frankly-speaking
    Sunday 4 March 2012, 6:12 am

    / The darkness of creation division / includes the killing of each other between Sunni and Shitte Muslims till the end of days.

  255. It's weird to dress nasty and judge others as they don't follow modesty.

  256. Mr.Farzad – "If God did not exist or if He did not have a role in the world, there can
    be no meaning for Man either. By this I mean a being with greatness, with rights
    and especial privileges among other creatures. These privileges allow him to
    have rights over whatever there is in the world, take advantage of them and use
    them for his benefit and at his service."

    You mean to say – If God does not exist, Man's existence on earth will end with death.
    Such an ending is somehow unacceptable to our deeper psychology, which wishes
    to live forever. This longing for everlasting life makes Man follow umpteen religious
    Idealogies.

    Most theists rely on the Concept of GOD to believe in life after Death. However
    the JAINA philosophy believes in continuity of existence ( of Soul ) even after
    physical death without the need for GOD. It also believes in Rebirth of the same
    soul in different body to fulfill it's unsatisfied desires. The journey will end when
    the soul is satisfied with it's desires being fulilled and it attains a state of BLISS
    without the need for a GOD.

    Next – " These privileges allow him to have rights over whatever there is in the
    world, take advantage of them and use them for his benefit and at his service."

    You seem to think Man has been given special privileges by GOD to Boss over
    the less privileged. This is precisely the Demonic interpretation of GOD's purpose
    in creating Human beings.

    The only additional capability that we Humans are endowed ( by GOD or the process
    of natural evolution over many births) is our Faculty of Intelligence. If we use the
    Intelligence as a servant of our Lower mind ( which makes us covet neighbor's
    wealth & women) we end up entrapped in the mire of sensual addictions. On the
    other hand If we use our intelligence properly, we will learn that GOD doesn't want
    us to be entrapped in Sense addictions. Rather Faculty of Intelligence should be
    used to control the lower MInd. The signs of a Higher mind are sense control,
    readiness to serve others, peace, courage, freedom from vices, Protecting the less
    privileged ( not bossing or trampling over them) , not claiming special privileges,
    the ability to create wealth without violating other's rights, fulfilling one's desires
    without trampling over others' rights, understanding the purpose of creation
    ( as attaining freedom from sense dependency), engaging in service of creation
    with loving devotion, worship, prayers, Bhajan, keertans & Meditation.
    I
    It doesn't matter whether Alisina believes in GOD or not. The point that Alisina is
    making is that Mohammad used his intelligence ( GOD given or otherwise) to
    promote his lower mind i.e., to justify murders, pillaging & Rapes. Following in
    Mo's footsteps Billions of Muslims have been busy putting their intelligence at
    the service of their lower minds . There is no use in denying this Truth, the truth
    of the Ravages wrought on the Humanity by the servants of SATAN (= the LOWER
    MIND).

    As you have admitted , Mohammad felt GOD has given him “special privileges”
    and ownership Rights over the rest of Humanity. He took advantage of it for his
    ( = lower mind craving for neighbor’s wealth & neighbor’s women) benefit and at
    his service.That is why Muslims are a headache to their neighbors.

  257. "We become a part of the nature and these words mean nothing.
    Humans are seen as blades of grass that grow in the pasture of nature and then die and perish. It makes no difference whether they are squished under the feet of an elephant or grow under the shade of a tree and survive for a season as they will eventually die and perish." Mr Farzad we are part of nature, do you honestly believe man is separate from nature? Your claim that without God man has no purpose but this is blatantly false are your messages on this site without purpose and happened by random chance? Clearly not. As for your saying man just dies and vanishes this is also nonsense there is a saying, is not something of the father reborn in the son? Or something of the teacher in the student?

  258. dharma marg noble
    Saturday 3 March 2012, 5:38 am

    Mr. FARZAD :::: please note that we don't have any animosity or opposition to ISLAM/moslems. OUR issue,opposition and denouncement is against the religious tenets of ISLAM and the actions stemming out of the preachings/teachings of ISLAM. ISLAM is a negative ideology, based on hatred, ill will against unbelievers. ISLAM is fully violent. ISLAM is exclusivist. ISLAM is slavery.ISLAM is totalitarianism.ISLAM is subjugation. ISLAM flourished by instilling fear ,terror in both the adherents and unbelievers. Time and space conspired to make ISLAM to subjugate others, expand. Lack of knowledge, ignorance, ISLAMIC propaganda of lies,dishonesty also helped so far in favour of ISLAM/MOSLEMS. Now, with revolution in communications/information technology, internet ,coupled with Moslem women education will spell death to ISLAM. Here , the role of DR. SINA is monumental.

  259. dharma marg noble
    Saturday 3 March 2012, 5:23 am

    Mr.FARZAD :::I am fully confident that Dr. ALI SINA will easily prove his ideas and values for which he has dedicated his life to make this world a better place for all humanity. Such philosophy is diametrically opposite of ISLAM. Hence these debates and clashes. As long as ISLAM exists , there can't be peace,progress,prosperity and oneness amongst the human race. To be honest , there is no spiritual content in ISLAM. ISLAM is copied by a jealousied Mo, to make his tribe supremacist , at that time in ARABIA. Since Mo do not have any original thinking or capacity to formulate new spiritual philosophy, he simply copied from the exisitng bible,torah stories of christians,jews ,combined with preislamic folk lore & practices of arabia. Even now you can see people fighting to make their tribe, ethnic group, their religion subjugate others and dominate on others. ISLAM is false. Mo was a false profiteer profit !!!

  260. dharma marg noble
    Saturday 3 March 2012, 5:06 am

    FARZAD ::: ANY GOD and spiritual philosophy must raise a human nature and his actions/thinking to a higher level , apart from conferring highest human values,virtues ,morals , peace,love,freedom, equality and make a human being free from fear and terror . ISLAM/ISLAMIC ALLA/ ISLAMIC tenets are totally antithesis to the values mentioned above. MO/ISLAM brought the world , humanity to the lowest levels of demonism,darkness, death,destruction, cruelty,slavery,intolerance ,fascism,hatred.

  261. dharma marg noble
    Saturday 3 March 2012, 4:53 am

    Mr. FARZAD ; You talk about GOD . Your ISLAMIC ALLA and QQUURRAANIC God is different . Dr. ALI SINA is a very intelligent thinker,intellectual and a great humanist . Dr. ALI SINA , as a moslem studied and understood all aspects of ISLAM/ QQUURRAAN /sira/ hadiths thoroughly and becoz he was born IN ISLAM/ISLAMIC culture – Dr. ALI SINA has first hand knowledge / information about ISLAM /moslem psychology . He is uniquely qualified to be a critique of ISLAM…..You and ISLAM/QQUURRAAN (ISLAMIC ALLA /GOD) does not even recognize or think all creation is equal , even amongst humans. You/ your ISLAMIC ALLA has hatrewd/contempt for nonbelievers and think that all nonbelievers deserve death at the hands of moslems . What i am telling is that YOU contradict yourself. U say your ALLA bestowed on humans , to excel and exploit all nature and other creatures. Evidently your ALLA gave U to excel in killing nonbelievers !!!

  262. خب الحمدلله به نظر می رسد در یک سری اصول اساسی بحث نظرمان یکی شده یا بسیار به هم نزدیک شده، در چند مورد هنوز اختلافاتی هست که به آنها اشاره می کنم.
    یکی از سوالات اساسی که مطرح کردید این است که خداوند به ما قوه فهم و درک داده اگر قیامتی و روز جزایی در کار باشد و خدا از تو بپرسد چرا قوه فهم و درکی که به تو دادم تا خیر و شررا از هم تمیز دهی به کار نبردی؟ چرا به شیادی ایمان آوردی که آموزه های او بر خلاف دانسته ها و فهم توست؟ چه جوابی به خدای خود خواهی داد؟
    آیا به او می گویی که من به آن وسیله ای که تو به من دادی اطمینان نکردم و به عملکرد آن مطمئن نبودم؟
    اگر ما فهم و ادراک خود را به کار نگیریم چه ملاک و معیار دیگری برای رسیدن حقیقت وجود دارد؟

    سوال بسیار خوبی است و البته یکی از نقاط اصلی اختلاف من و شما.
    فهم و درک درونی که در معارف قرآن و اسلام از آن تعبیر به فطرت می شود چیزی نیست که قابل انکار باشد و یکی از قابلیت های برجسته انسان است، در فطرت، خمیرمایه و سرشت انسان درک خوبی و بدی بر اساس نیازهایی که در خود احساس می کند وجود دارد که البته حیوانات نیز به صورت ابتدایی از چنین قابلیتی برخوردارند. یکی از چیزهایی که در میان تمام انسانها از ابتدا تا کنون درک شده است و مشترک بین همه آنهاست توجه به مفهومی به نام “خدا” ست. علی رغم تمام تلاشهایی که جهت خدا زدایی از ذهن انسان در گذشته شده و اکنون نیز ادامه دارد، هیچگاه این تلاشها راه به جایی نبرده است و یکی از دلایل محکم من بر وجود خدا همین حس مشترک (فطرت) است.
    عدم توجه به این حس کلی و دخالت ندادن آن در فهم جزئیاتی که به آن خوبی و بدی می گوییم یقینا باعث گمراهی ما خواهد شد لذا اگر قیامتی در کار باشد یکی دیگر از سوالاتی که خدا از ما خواهد کرد از همین عدم توجه خواهد بود. به طور قطع و یقین جای این سوال باقی است که مگر من به توی انسان عقل و فهم درک نداده بودم چرا خود را به دنیایی که انتهای آن نیستی و نابودی است و هیچ ثمری ندارد مشغول کردی؟ آیا جای این نبود که اگر کسی ادعا کرد از من خبری دارد با استفاده از همین حس تمام زوایای ا دعای او را بررسی کنی؟
    ادعا کردید که
    انسانگرا هستید و انسان را ملاک و معیار همه چیز می دانید. چون ما همه چیز را در باره انسان می دانیم اما هیچ چیز درباره خدا و ملاک و معیارهای او نمی دانیم و همه معیارهای او مبهم است.
    جواب

    خب این کاملا طبیعی است اما تکلیف ما با آن حس مشترک چه می شود؟ همه ما حس می کنیم که هست؛ آیا به صرف اینکه مبهم است باید از آن گوش دادن به این الغاء درونی صرف نظر کنیم؟

    در جواب این سوال من که آیا می توانید خود را به عنوان انسان خاص که دارای کرامت است اثبات کنید جواب داده اید که:
    جواب این سوال در خداشناسی نیست بلکه علم به این سوال پاسخ داده است. انسان نتیجه چهار میلیارد سال از تکامل است. انسان هوشمند حدود چهل هزار سال عمر دارد و به عنوان یک موجود متمدن در حدود چهار هزار سال طول عمر اوست. به همین دلیل زمانی که برای نخستین بار در باره خدا چیزهایی شنیدیم زندگی در این سیاره صدهزار بار مسن تر از ما بود و یک میلیون بار مسن تر از تمدن ما. در تمام طول این مدت خدا کجا بود؟
    جواب
    ظاهرا فراموش کرده اید که خدای مفروض ما ازلی و ابدی است و در محدوده زمان و مکان نمی گنجد. زمان حتی خارج از سیاره ما چیزی بی معنا و یا حداقل مبهمی است. زمین ما تنها یکی از میلیاردها میلیارد شیئ در فضاست که در محدوده خاصی به دور یک شیئ فضایی دیگر که نام آن را خورشید گذاشته ایم در گردش است و این گردش را ملاک سپری شدن ایام و سالها و قرنها قرار داده ایم. اگر موجوداتی هوشمند از ورای منظومه ما به ما بنگرند یقینا با صدای بلند به ما و ملاکهایمان خواهند خندید.
    در قسمت بعدی
    خلاصه حرف شما این است که چون انسان با هوش تر از دیگر موجودات است پس سطان جنگل است وحق دارد روزانه میلیونها موجود زنده دیگر را سلاخی کند تا شکم خود را سیر کند! و برتری ما دلیل علمی دارد و نیاز به خدا برای اثبات برتری انسان نیست.
    جواب
    من شک ندارم که شما متوجه منظور من شده اید ولی چون جواب منطقی برای آن نداشته اید مجبور شده اید چنین جوابی بدهید، شاید هم سالها دوری از فرهنگ ایرانی و اسلامی و خدایی فهم معنای واژه کرامت (گرامی بودن) را برای شما سخت کرده است، من اصلا نمی دانم این واژه در فرهنگ غرب معادلی دارد یا نه؟ که البته بعید می دانم داشته باشد چرا که اگر وجود داشت این همه کشتار و خونریزی برای پر کردن شکم ( همان قانون جنگلی که به آن اشاره کردید) قابل توجیه نبود.
    جناب سینا
    تمام آن اخلاقیاتی که بر اساس آنها دیگران را متهم به بی اخلاقی می کنید مبتنی بر اثبات وجود چنین کرامتی برای انسان است و الا به صرف اینکه تکامل طبیعی باعث بزرگتر شدن مغز انسان شده است تنها هوشمندتر بودن انسان را اثبات می کند نه گرامی تر بودن او را. بر اساس منطق شما چه اشکالی دارد که ما همانطور که گاوها، گوسفندها، مرغ ها و …. برای پر کردن شکم خود پروار کرده و سلاخی می کنیم در گوشه ای هم همنوعان خود را پروار کنیم بعد هم آنها را سر بریده و مصرف کنیم آیا صرف اینکه مغز انسان بزرگتر است چنین مصونیتی به او بخشیده که خورده نشود؟ در کجای طبیعت چنین قانونی نوشته شده است؟
    به طور قطع به قانون طلایی بر منع این کار اشاره خواهید کرد غافل از اینکه قانون چیزی است که تخلف ناپذیر باشد در حالیکه قانون طلایی هیچ ضمانت اجرایی ندارد و تنها در حد چند توصیه اخلاقی است یعنی اگر جایی کسی بداند که یقینا دست قانون جزایی به اونمی رسد و مال زیادی از مردم را بدزد چه اتفاقی می افتد؟ همینطور است سایر چیزهایی که از دید شما اخلاقی و انسانی است.
    اشاره کرده اید که
    بیاییم فرض کنیم خدا موجود است؛ انسان را آفریده و او را بر سایر موجودات برتری داده است، این موضوع چه ارتباطی به محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم دارد؟ من می خواهم شما اثبات کنید او پیامبر خدایی است که در باره او صحبت می کنید.
    جواب
    اگر دقت می کردید در همان پست قبلی جواب این سوال را داده ام. اگر خدا موجود باشد و به انسان کرامت داده باشد آن وقت این خداست که تعیین می کند چه چیزی اخلاقی است و چه چیزی نیست. انسان تنها مجری قوانین خداست و حق قانون گذاری ندارد. بله ما به واسطه فهم و درکی که همین خدا به ما داده بسیاری از جزئیات اخلاقی را درک می کنیم اما به طور یقین به واسطه دید محدود و اطلاعات ناقصی که داریم مواردی هم هست که قادر به درک آن نیستیم و اینجاست که نیاز به موجودی به عنوان واسطه بین خدا و انسان ضروری است و عقل حکم می کند که بر خدا واجب است قوانین خاص خود را به انسان اعلام کند که اگر نکند حق تعقیب نخواهد داشت (ما كُنَّا مُعَذِّبينَ حَتَّى نَبْعَثَ رَسُولا ) اسراء- 15
    برای اثبات رسالت حضرت محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم علاوه بر معجزات ریز و درشتی که در سیرهایی که شما – و برای اثبات مدعای خود در مورد رفتار پیامبر به آنها تمسک می کنید – به عنوان سند قبول دارید آمده است، نشانه و معجزه اصلی قرآن است؛ پیامبر خاتم در قرآن ادعا کرده که أَ فَلا يَتَدَبَّرُونَ الْقُرْآنَ وَ لَوْ كانَ مِنْ عِنْدِ غَيْرِ اللَّهِ لَوَجَدُوا فيهِ اخْتِلافاً كَثيراً (نساء- 82) اگر این قرآن از طرف غیر خدا بود هر آینه در آن تناقضاتی آشکار می یافتند.
    استدلال بسیار ساده است، در بحث چند ماه قبل شما دو مورد از این تناقضات را در باره زندگی آخرت و شفاعت از من سوال کردید و من جواب دادم و در مقابل از طرف شما جوابی به جز سکوت نشنیدم که نشان از متقاعد کننده بودن جواب من داشت. اگر شما بتوانید تناقض آشکاری را در قرآن اثبات کنید آن وقت انتساب آن به خدا و در نتیجه اثبات پیامبر بودن حضرت محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم با مشکل مواجه خواهد شد.
    علاوه بر این موضوع تحدی نیز دلیل محکمی بر اثبات رسالت پیامبر خاتم صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم است یعنی قرآن از دو جهت محتوا و سبک دلالت قوی بر اثبات موضوع بحث دارد.

  263. We Indians are by and large Believers in GOD. If someone were
    to compile all the Devotional poetry of India It'll run into a billion verses.
    I am not condemning belief in GOD. I condemn Islam for it's demonic
    conception of GOD. Islam has destroyed Human values wherever it has
    gone. True GOD does not advise Humans to violate the GOLDEN RULE,
    which we call as DHARMA. It is Dharma which upholds the creation & it
    is Dharma that Islam attacks. Since you are born and brought up in a
    Demonic society it is very difficult for you to understand the subtleties of
    Human Dharma. Your culture doesn't even know that All of us were born
    many times & all of us will be born many more times till we attain enlightenment.
    The law of karma you are blissfully ignorant of due to which you commit
    horrible violence. If you wish to get a glimpse of Nobility kindly go through
    the dialogue between Bhishma and Udhistira ( also known as Dharmaraja)
    as given in Shanti parva & Anusasana parva of Mahabharatha.

    If you wish to get a glimpse of the vedic wisdom kindly go through upanishads
    as translated into your own language by Dara shikoh — http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Dara_Shikoh

  264. "it's my favorite nut job with a rock fetish! "

    Hey well I'm not the one who thought up the idea that rocks should be put in a woman's vagina to stop coitus. That's all you.

    "nut job"

    Awww the name calling begins again. Well you called me an MF in spanish as well as an SOB so I guess this is nothing new.

    "Did I hurt your poor feelings again? "

    No just exposing you as usual :)

  265. M.Freeman

    I agree with you.Hinduism is by far much better than Islam.

  266. Wow…it's my favorite nut job with a rock fetish!
    Did I hurt your poor feelings again?

  267. Awwww look who's back! Our favorite ex-gangbanger!

    What's a matter El Padrino? I thought "you were done having these discussions." I thought you were done "wasting precious time answering the same questions over and over."

    Oh well I guess some people never stop lying. No matter…. I always be here to greet you with a smile :) Welcome back ex-gangbanger!

  268. Your above comment shows how outdated and dumb you are, Mr HAHAHA.

  269. Mr/Mrs.Sudhakar

    Without a wise creator darkness and lightness is totally meaningless and nonsense.

    After translation my last text by Ali Sina you and other readers can understand trueness of what I’m claiming. Please be patient till then.

  270. Sorry, I cannot see the logic in yr statement.  U are confusing yrself with too many logical n illogical theories.

  271. Firstly,I'm a meat eater too.If I could live off protein supplements alone to achieve muscle mass & strength,I would but I'm afraid that's not possible>Ask any bodybuilder.So I can't condemn others for eating meat.

    Secondly,All the main hindu texts permit it's followers to sacrifice animals & to consume their meat.

    Lastly,Even swami vivekanda stated in his book that ""There was a time in this very India when, without eating beef, no Brahmin could remain a Brahmin;"

  272. Do not confine Hinduism to one goat sacrifice. All Hindus do not do this. Hinduism is too vast to understand. if you really want to know what Hinduism is and what India is then study Swami Vivekananda's books to start with. Hinduism has no prophet and it was not started by a single individual. There are some glaring defects in Hinduism with the caste system being the most striking one, not these sacrifices. Many have done away with it. With all the glaring defects, Hinduism is any time better than Islam and for that better any religion under the Sun is better than Islam. It only has charlatans like Zakirbhai MBBS as its saleman.

  273. HA HA NOBODY IS COMING TO ISLAM. YOU GUYS ARE PROCREATING YOURSELF. SOME OF YOU DOLTS HAVE UMPTEEN NUMBER OF WIVES AND EACH WIFE HAS HALF A DOZEN OFF SPRINGS…HA HA HA REDEEM YOURSELF HAHAHA..COME TO CHRIST..SAVE YOUR STUPID SOUL.

  274. Mr.Farzad – "He claimed that the world has a god and that everything including
    humans are His creations, and that death is not the end. Please note that the
    Prophet (PBUH) has made this claim and has presented his evidence and billions
    of people have accepted his evidence and believed in him. At this moment I am
    not interested to analyze whether his evidence is logical or not."

    We have no objection if any person comes out with Spiritual Truth. The Spiritual
    Truth should bestow fearlessness & give a sense of security to all of Humanity.
    Mo's claims have caused intense suffering to billions of people & continue to cause
    suffering to billions more in the centuries to come. The wisdom of sages that we
    inherited in India says – Help ever & Hurt never is the golden Rule. The sign of
    a GODMAN is freedom from lust, anger and greed. On the other hand Mo possessed
    them in abundance. It is clear that Mo's contemporaries who became first Muslims,
    were misguided as they lacked the intelligence to discern a genuine GODMAN from
    a charlatan. Why should you mortgage your intelligence to the stupid decisions of a
    Billion fools. Truth is not a democratic choice to be decided by majority Vote.
    Come out, Mr.Farzad , from the 14 centuries of Darkness,
    The Darkness of creating Divisions ( of Muslim & kafir)
    The Darkness of treating Murders, abductions,pillaging & Rapes
    as holy and heaven Rewarding
    The Darkness of closing your minds to logic and real wisdom

  275. Prudence -"What is the motivation for the empashis on faith
    in monotheism and the Last Day?"
    For Mo"s monotheism, He was the sole spokesman. In the guise of
    promoting Truth ( = monotheism ) Mo could insert his own diabolical
    doctrine of Mo being the last prophet, that the only true God spoke through
    him, that all Muslims should fight the Kafirs, That Muslims are permitted
    by no lesser authority than the creator of this Universe to raid, kill, loot
    and Rape Kafirs, that such (un)holy war will lead them to heaven.

    Dull headed Muslims ( the first converts) thus helped Mo to become
    Rich & powerful in satisfying his wild sexual cravings at the expense
    of many innocent Arabs of 7th century.

  276. When it comes to “God” their are only 2 possibility’s 1)Either God is everything or 2)He is less than everything. This is not beyond “human logic”

  277. Dr. Ali Sina 's debates are forcefully cogent, and eloquent.

  278. If you think all supernatural and belief whatever have been told to you and you accepted as logic.So there is nothing illogical in this world

    Good Luck

  279. It is beyond yr logic n not mine n many others’ !  Keep yr limited knowledge to yrself.! OK ?   Spirits are also beyond yr logic until u experience them yrself in a haunted house.

  280. Friend we are discussing about Infinity is within human logic or not. And you are just explaining nature of GOD which is a belief. Whatever you have described about GOD you can't prove logically.

    Infinity is beyond human logic. Its proved

  281. 1. Go to : Infinity – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 2. The infinite nature of God is this : He existed forever n ever before n after the Big Bang, which was the starting point for human existence n had been   used by human to measure his time in this universe. GOD is boundless n timeless. I.e. u can never measure His size nor His time of existence. U can say that He is everywhere in endless time.  He is Generator (of life n everything), Operator n Destroyer ( of everything) i.e. G.O.D in short.

  282. Ali Sina Ran away

  283. ‘Love your enemies and do good to them that hate you and despitefully use you,’ is the
    despicable philosophy of the spaniel that rolls upon its back, when kicked. Obey it, O!
    reader, and you and all your posterity to the tenth generation shall be irretrievably and
    Literally damned. They shall be hewers of wood, and carriers of water, degenerates,
    Gibeonites. But hate your enemies with a whole heart, and if a man smite you on one
    cheek, smash him down; smite him hip and thigh, for self-preservation is the highest law.
    He who turns the ‘other cheek’ is a cowardly dog — a Christian dog.
    Give blow for blow, scorn for scorn, doom for doom, with compound interest liberally
    added thereunto. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, aye four-fold, a hundredfold. Make yourself
    a Terror to your adversary and when he goeth his way, he will possess much additional
    wisdom to ruminate over. Ragner Redbeard, Might is Right.

  284. "is eternity which is a belief." No its not causes go back ad infinitum their is no such thing as a "beginning" or a "end".

  285. ali sina said: "They come here to learn the truth about Islam."
    I FULLY SECOND YOUR WORDS

  286. As per your comment your GOD using western civilization as henchmen. GOLDEN RULE says love your enemy and here you are providing enough proof that you too don't care GOLDEN RULE. All hatred you sum up and repeatedly stating that you don't like ISLAM.

    So friend screw up that GOLDEN RULE. Fight with enemies. Be a man no pussy.

  287. TELL ME IF ANYONE FROM YOUR FAMILY CAN READ AND UNDERSTAND WHATEVER YOU SAY. IF THEY ARE HAPPY WITH YOU. I HAVE NO PROBLEMS.

  288. Infinity intersected internet oops I can't find it. Why don't you send me as an attachment on my email id

  289. You are messing up logic with belief "has no beginning and no end" is eternity which is a belief. You lost infinity . Infinity is beyond your logic.

  290. Mr.Prudence
    Accusing polyformists ( those worship one GOD in various forms) as polytheist
    ( = worshiping many GODS) was Mohammad's unique rallying point.
    By equating polytheism with great CRIME Mohammad could confuse some
    dull heads who formed his first recruits. By threatening hell fire he would make
    them commit "holy crimes" called JIHAD. His Emphasis on One GOD comes
    with the package of Jihad and Jannath & hell-fire for refusing to join his criminal
    Gang all intended to satisfy his lust.

    Believing in GOD is one thing and believing in Mohammad's GOD is another
    thing. Mohammad's GOD wants his followers to commit crimes (violate
    GOLDEN RULE). Quran's stress on Declaring Mohammad's GOD as one and
    only true GOD was intended to convert the GOLDENRULED polytheists or
    Monotheists into a Band of Thugs to satisfy Mohammad's unholy needs and
    later on create millions of MINI-Mohammads for destroying all that is GOOD
    and NOBLE in Human psychology. This can not but be the work of SATAN.
    Beware , SATAN has spread himself through the monotheistic arguments of
    Mohammad
    on

  291. In India GOLDEN RULE IS called DHARMA. All Human pursuits are divided
    into four broad categories.
    1. Dharma ( to give peace & security to the people around us so that we too
    get back peace & security from the society around us).
    2. The second pursuit is Money gathered without violating other people's rights.
    3. The third pursuit is sense pleasures.
    4. Moksha = liberation from the worldly objects for feeling intense peace & joy.
    Moksha can not be attained without spiritual knowledge or Gnana.
    If you wish to know what is liberation , what is spiritual knowledge
    kindly refer to Upanishads & puranic lore from INDIA. Islamic Monotheism
    is at best childish & at worst it is Demonic.

  292. "Throughout the period of his (Mao's) ascendancy, as reports of his personal life have made
    clear, young and virgin girls were brought to his bed on a regular basis. Agents, they might
    equally be termed pimps, roamed the Chinese countryside searching for suitable girls and explained the situation to their parents. They were sold the idea that a great honour was being provided for them and their daughter. Perhaps financial or material inducements were also provided at need."

    Read more at Suite101: The Sex Life of Chairman Mao: How and Why He Slept with So
    Many Virgin Girls | Suite101.com http://john-walsh.suite101.com/the-sex-life-of-ch
    mao-a53842#ixzz1ngW3xekH.

    There is a huge propaganda in CHINA that Mao's motives in fighting the emperor were
    very noble.If it were so why does Mao needs to enjoy so many virgins, a right denied to
    the common man. It is clear that Mao's motives were more personal enjoyment than social welfare. He only used the misrule of the Chinese emperor to provoke the suffering Masses
    to fight for him. When he succeeded in gaining power he used it to lead a life of debauchery.

    In the case of Mohammad, he violated the GOLDEN RULE to commit many rapes , murders
    and daylight dacoity, all in the name of GOD. Monotheism is not the invention of Mohammad.
    The so called polytheists were actually worshiping the ONE GOD through various forms.
    Fourteen centuries of Islamic propaganda has distorted the real philosophy of polytheism.
    Unlike Mao, In the time of Mohammad there were no kings or their misrule so that Mohammad could not gather the masses against the corrupt Rulers. Mohammad was lusty & power hungry and needed a suitable pretext to gather people around himself. The so called monotheism
    was his rallying point & Unique selling point. Devoid of his super lust Mohammad would have seen that all polytheists are worshiping the One GOD through various forms & that it is not at
    all such a super crime that he made it out to be. See this contradiction —

    1. Polytheists were Following GOLDEN RULE and causing no harm to their fellow
    Human-beings.
    2. Mohammad violated GOLDEN RULE & yet claimed to be a MONOTHEIST & hence virtuous.

    Now think for yourself, Do you want GOLDEN RULED Polytheist as your neighbor or a LUSTY MONOTHEIST Mohammad as your neighbor.

  293. No way I get to define it for u. U can check it out yrself. Go to Internet for the illustrations.

  294. "This is illogical. check there must be some end." No its not and why "must" their be an "end"?

  295. Well said Dan Thrapp.

  296. Islam deserves to be condemned for it's irrationality & cruelty. You people can't think rationally. How can a merciful GOD permit his own children to be put in eternal hell?
    Ponder over the following points.
    1. Is GOD the creator of our destinies (= all that we experience in our life from
    birth to death).
    2. If yes, Why has he endowed some with riches, health, power, peace and
    knowledge & why has he denied the same to many of his own children.
    Is GOD so blatantly partisan?
    3. If GOD is the creator of destinies of all of us, how is man culpable for so
    called transgressions. Why should man be punished for the fault of GOD.
    4. If we want to save GOD from the fault of partisan attitude, we must admit that
    the destinies that GOD is creating for us are the result of our own actions.
    5. If we admit the above point, we must admit that all of us were born many
    times during which ( past lifetimes) we performed some virtuous deeds and
    some sinful deeds. we are experiencing the fruits of our own previous actions
    (virtuous or sinful) during the present lifetime.
    6. Virtue is that action which benefits & brings joy to the created beings.
    Sin is that action that causes pain & grief to the created beings.
    Help ever & Hurt never is the GOLDEN RULE
    7. Punishment given for a crime ( = defined as causing unprovoked harm to
    others or the collective) can not be called sin. On the other hand it becomes a
    virtue.
    8. Since Mohammad has transgressed the GOLDEN RULE he is a Criminal
    Whoever inspired him to such massive crime stretching across two millenia
    can not be GOD. Quran certainly is from SATAN.
    9. GOD will put Muslims in hell. Not eternal hell.
    10. Out of compassion for well intentioned Naive but Stupid Muslims God has
    sent Ali sina .
    11. But for the arrogant jihadis wedded to the lusty criminality of Quran , GOD has
    always sent down powerful warriors to bestow defeat. In the current age, GOD
    has bestowed the western civilization with incisive intellect, knowledge &
    overwhelming POWER.
    They will be born again to be
    crushed and defeated by

  297. I SAID Mr JONATHAN IS STUPID TO CALL YOU CHRISTIAN.

    ANYWAY I AM HAPPY MORE CHRISTIANS ARE COMING TO ISLAM WHAT YOU CALL SINKHOLE SO WELCOME TO THE TRUTH

    #CONVERSATION TERMINATED

  298. Thanks for showing me and Mr Jonathan Harrel your true facet, Mr dumb HAHAHA! :)

  299. So bacteria you eat everyday have no violation of bacteria rights?

  300. Infinity is not eternity what you have believed.

  301. "has no beginning and no end" This is illogical. check there must be some end.

    And if you believe this that infinity has no beginning and no end then its ok

  302. @ Abhi

    Yes I am vegetarian. I turned vegetarian long before I left Islam. In fact, if you read my testimonial you can see that it was the gross human-rights/animal rights violation that triggered my criticism of Abrahamic faiths and my sebsequent departure from Islam.

  303. OH, MY DEAR Mr JONATHAN HARREL THE TRUTH IS THAT YOU ARE SO STUPID.

    ALMIGHTY KNOWS WHO IS RIGHT

  304. I regret to tell you that you have lost your bet and you're the loser. Mr Jonathan Harrel once said that I'm a hardcore Christian. So, stop HAHAHA! How do you come to the conclusion that I'm a 'HYPOCRITE ISLAMOPHOBE WHO JUST HATE ISLAM'? Don't you know that I love all the Muslims and Muslimahs in the world very much, by helping them to get out of the Islamic sinkhole? Wow, you finally showed off your Islamic true colours by your this horrible and terrible comment, 'GOD WILL PUT YOU IN HELL FOR SUPPORTING SATAN WHO IS INTENDED TO TRICK PEOPLE FROM FAITH DIVINITY TO HELL'! Please come to your senses and know that your god is satan in disguise and he like to trick a braindead zombie like you and put you in hell, for supporting him because he is the father of lies and there is no truth found in him.

  305. "Prove everywhere." Just look around you, its right in front of your eyes. "Now tell me with your logic upto where is this everywhere(infinity) is." It doesn’t go "upto" anything it has no beginning and no end.

  306. you are a hard core Mohammad follower,ISLAMIST . You follow ISLAM/MOHAMMAD blindly without any rational thinking. Also U dont question your own thinking whether you want to follow irrational, demonic, cruel,evil things , with violent mind set . Tell you.Today, U ask your self the question? waht kind of life I want to live? Do I want peace, DO i promote good will , well being of people, DO I love other people and other creatures ? What is my moral compass ? AM I happy? what are the things needed to be happy? Am I hurting, am I causing any pain to others? WHat help I am giving to others as a honest ,good, truthful human being ? DO I treat all humanbeing as equal or do I discriminate some people or love some people just because they belong to my religion? Can I be impartial to each and everybody ? will my bias, prejudice and partiality cloud my discretion and therby i do lot of injustice to others ? This is a partial list. How do you want to live ?

  307. Prove everywhere. Ok I will give you space ship 1000 light years speed. Now tell me with your logic upto where is this everywhere(infinity) is.

  308. Kidos I won't come back. A Debatorian at huffington post just refuted my claim to come this world again. Now I have changed my mind.

    Sorry miss you guys!!!

  309. "Something" is a thing it is less than the all, the totality/the infinite is everywhere and everywhen.

  310. There must be something again. I say where totality ends whats after that?

  311. The totality of all there is,

  312. Define Infinity .Take thousands of illustrations Go Ahead.

  313. I BET YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN. YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE ISLAMOPHOBE WHO JUST HATE ISLAM

    GOD WILL PUT YOU IN HELL FOR SUPPORTING SATAN WHO IS INTENDED TO TRICK PEOPLE FROM FAITH DIVINITY TO HELL

  314. " I love death just as you love life. I am beginning to smell paradise. " ……….Mohamed Atta, one of the Arab attackers said this before 9/11.

  315. Don't you know that Dr Ali Sina is an Atheist? Does this means that he is a flip flopper like you? His wealth of knowledge about Islam and the personality of the founder of Islam will truly enlighten many muslims like you, to leave this cult for good.

  316. ترجمه
    شما می گویید هنوز بحث را شروع نکرده اید، اما خواسته یا نخواسته این کار را می کنید. شما مدام تکرار می کنید زمانی به سوال من جواب می دهید که پایه های اساسی بحث مشخص شود یا بعد از اینکه من عقیده ام در باره ماهیت حقیقت را توضیح دهم یا این یا آن شرط محقق شود. این بحث در باره محمد ص است. شما ادعا می کنی حبس کردن مردم، ضایع کردن حقوق انسانی آنها و کشتن آنها قابل قبول است زیرا آنها توسط خداوند محکوم شده اند. ما می خواهیم ببینیم ادله و نشانه خدای شما مطابق با خدای واقعی است نه مطابق با شیطان.
    اعتقاد و تفکر من در باره حقیقت ربطی به خوانندگان ما ندارد. هیچکس علاقه ای به اعتقاد علی سینا در باره حقیقت و واقعیت ندارد. آنها اینجا هستند تا حقیقت را در باره اسلام بدانند بنابر این لطفا سعی نکنید موضوع را عوض کنید. من در لینکی که به شما دادم اعتقادات خود را بیان کرده ام اما از مردم نخواسته ام که به نظران من ایمان بیاورند. شاید من اشتباه کرده باشم.
    جواب
    علت اصرار من بر کشف نوع جهانبینی شما این است که به شما و خوانندگان نشان دهم که دلیل اصلی علی سینا دردشمنی با حضرت محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم همین نوع جهانبینی اوست. شما عینکی سیاه به چشم زده و همه چیز در باره اسلام و پیامبر آن را سیاه می بینید و من تا این عینک را از چشم شما برندارم نمی توان به شما ثابت کنیم که هستی شناسی و جهانبینی پیامبر آخرالزمان رنگ دیگری دارد. علت اینکه مثلا مولای رومی با آن همه بزرگی خود را عبد و بنده محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم می داند اما علی سینا که هیچ محلی از اعراب ندارد (بنابر اعتراف خودش) اینگونه بی باکانه بر او می تازد، فهم و دانایی سطح بالای علی سینا و احمق و نادان بودن مولوی نیست بلکه علت اصلی نوع نگاه این دو نفر به هستی است. من باید بدانم با چه کسی بحث می کنم نوع بحث با یک کافر مطلق، یک مسیحی، یک یهودی و … کاملا با هم متفاوت است. پس به من حق دهید که ابتدا خوب شما را بشناسم.
    ترجمه
    خلاصه ای از اعتقادات معرفت شناختی من:
    من اعتقاد دارم اگر خدایی وجود داشته باشد او باید لایتناهی باشد. از این رو حقیقت خدایی نیز باید نامحدود باشد. انسانها محدود هستند. تمام آنچه ما می توانیم بفهمیم گوشه هایی از حقیقت هستند برای مثال اگر عده ای از مردم پایین یک کوه بلند ایستاده باشند آنها نمی توانند تمام کوه را ببینند و بنابر موقعیت آنها هر یک تجسمی از آن کوه دارند همچنین برای یک نفر ممکن نیست که تمام حقیقت را بشناسد به همین دلیل ما نباید از دیگران تبعیت کرده و نباید سعی کنیم عقاید خود را به دیگران تحمیل کنیم دانایی و علم بیکران است اما ما مدام به دنبال آن هستیم و از یادگیری هر روزه غفلت نمی کنیم.
    جواب
    بعضی از این اعتقادات شما درست و بعض دیگر نادرست است و شما هیچ راهی برای اثبات درستی آنها ندارید، بله درست است که حقیقت نامتناهی است اما همه مردم از یک سطح و یک زاویه به آن نگاه نمی کنند (داستان مولای رومی در مورد فیل در تاریکی) و گرنه این همه سطح معلومات مردم با یکدیگر متفاوت نبود. از کجا می دانید که پیامبران خدا روی نوک قله این کوه نایستاده و هستی را تصویر نکرده اند در اینکه شما و من در دامنه این کوه هستیم و پشت و دیگر زاویه های آن را هرگز نمی توانیم ببینیم شکی نیست اما همه انسانها در حد من و شما نیستند بعضی پایین تر و بعضی بسیار بالاترند.کار درست این است که ما هم تلاش کنیم خود را بالاتر بکشیم و معرفت خود را افزایش دهیم نه اینکه آنها که بالاتر اند را پایین کشیده و بخواهیم از زاویه دید تنگ ما هستی را بنگرند. اینکه من تلاش می کنم چنین دیدگاه مهمی را به شما بشناسانم چه ارتباطی با مغالطه و سفسطه دارد؟
    ترجمه
    آیا حقیقت محمد ص همچنین درست است؟ البته نه از زاویه دید او حقیقتش درست است زیرا او یک دیوانه بود. این به این معنا نیست که ادراک یک انسان دیوانه از حقیقت و تلقی او از حقیقت واقعا درست است. هیچکس نی تواند ادعا کند همه حقیقت را درک کرده است. هر کسیکه چنین ادعایی کند کذاب است این مانند این است که کسی ادعا کند که تمام علوم هستی را فرا گرفته است.
    جواب
    آری محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم دیوانه است چون بسیار فراتر از فهم شما و امثال شما حرف زده است اگر آن عینک سیاه را از چشم بردارید و فهم خود را ملاک قرار ندهید مشکل حل خواهد شد.
    ترجمه
    شما می گویید من منطقی نیستم و حتی انسان نیستم، خب در این موقعیت شما هیچ مشکلی جهت نشان دادن خطاهای من ندارید و انسان نبودن مرا برجسته کنید، حمله به من را متوقف کنید در مقابل ادعاهای مرا مورد حمله قرار دهید.
    جواب
    معلوم می شود ترجمه درستی از حرف من نکرده ا ید و آن را خوب نفهمیده اید من نگفتم شما انسان نیستید بلکه ادعا این است که مبانی تفکر شما نه تنها عقلانی و منطقی نیست بلکه حتی انسانی به معنای خاص که توضیح خواهم داد هم نیست یعنی شما تنها تصور می کنید که تفکرات شما انسان محور است.
    ترجمه
    این بحث در باره علی سینا و افکار او نیست کسی برای افکار من اهمیتی قائل نیست و نباید هم باشد. اگر من تاکنون درخواست متابعتی داشته ام شما حق دارید افکار مرا زیر و رو کرده و آنها را رد کنید. تا آن موقع لطفا اجازه دهید به بحث خود ادامه دهیم موضوع بحث ما محمد ص و ادعاهای اوست نه علی سینا.
    شما ادعا کردید که محمد ص یک پیامبر بوده است بنابر این عقیده همچنین گفتید بعضی از مردم که مشارکتی در سعادت مردم ندارند همانطور که بوسیله اسلام تایید شده باید از میان برداشته شوند. آیا دلیلی براین مدعای خود مبنی بر اشتیاق برای کشتن دارید؟
    جواب
    شما دائما در گوشه گوشه سایتتان به دیگران توصیه می کنید که اگر می خواهند دینی انتخاب کنند آن دین چه مشخصاتی باید داشته باشد، اگر می خواهند ازدواج کنند اصلا با یک مسلمان ازدواج نکنند و ….
    بعد ازاینکه اثبات کردم مبانی معرفتی شما هیچ اساس و بنیانی ندارد جواب سوال شما را خواهم داد.
    ترجمه
    شما گفتید محمد ادعایی کرده برای اطرافیان خود کرده و دلیل خود را بیان کرده و آنها نیز قبول کرده اند اما اکنون شما نمی توانید آن ادله را بیاورید شما فقط از ایشان پیروی می کنید چون فکر می کنید که تمام آن مردمی که به او ایمان آورده اند نمی توانسته اند به خطا رفته باشند. من توضیح دادم که اعتقاد شما مبنی بر یکسری مغالطات منطقی است بله ممکن است میلیاردها نفر از مردم برای قرن ها اشتباه کنند شدت ایمان آنها و تعصبشان درستی اعتقاداتشان را اثبات نمی کند.
    جواب
    اگر چنین باشد من اکنون باید یک مسیحی باشم چرا که امروز تعداد مسیحیان بیشتر از مسلمانان است. چون بیشترند پس حق با آنان است یا حداقل باید یک مسلمان سنی مذهب باشم چرا که تعداد آنها حداقل چهار برابر شیعیان است. قبلا هم در مباحث چند ماه پیش به شما تذکر دادم کثرت دلیل بر حقانیت نیست اما اتهام نفهمی و نادانی به عده کثیری از مردم آن هم توسط کسی که به نادانی خود اعتراف دارد ادعایی نیست که به این راحتی ها قابل پذیرش باشد و یکی از دلایل اصرار من بر شناخت مبانی معرفتی شما اثبات این موضوع است که شما اصلا در حد و اندازه کسی که صلاحیت برای وارد کردن چنین اتهام بزرگی داشته باشد نیستید.
    ترجمه
    آنچه من می فهمم این است که این بحث تمام شده است. به جای اینکه ادعاهای محمد ص را اثبات کنید شما می خواهید غلط بودن معرف شناسی مرا اثبات نمایید اما اگر شما بتوانید دلایل اینکه محمد ص پیامبر خداست را به ما نشان دهید من سرا پا گوش خواهم بود اگر می خواهید به بحث ادامه دهید لطفا روی سوال تمرکز کنید. سوال در باره تفکرات من نیست بلکه درباره ارائه دلیل بر اثبات پیامبری محمد از طرف خداست دلایلی که تمام این کشتارها، تجاوزات و حملات و حبس ها و اعدام ها را قابل توجیه می کند.
    جواب
    از اینجا اثبات مدعای خود را شروع می کنم
    اگر خدا وجود نداشته باشد و یا اگر وجود دارد نقشی در هستی نداشته باشد
    انسان به معنای خاص هم وجود ندارد
    انسان به معنای خاص یعنی موجودی که دارای کرامت است ،دارای حق و حقوقی است و امتیاز خاصی بین همه موجود دارد
    امتیازی که سبب می شود به خود حق دهد هر آنچه در هستی است را بر اساس منافع خود نظاره کند و همه آنها را در خدمت خود ببیند
    حال سوال این است که این امتیاز را چه کسی به انسان داده است؟ .
    آیا اعتباری است که چون هیچ رقیبی وجود نداشته انسان برای خود قائل شده است و این افتخار را به خود داده که خود را مرکز و محور هستی معرفی کند و بر اساس آن حقوقی را معین کند که اگر ذره ای از این حقوق نادیده انگاشته شود هستی زیر و زبر شود؟.
    یا این کرامت، این خاص بودن، این دردانه بودن، از سوی دیگری به او عطا شده است؟ .
    آنها که انسان محوراند چاره ای ندارند که شق اول را انتخاب کنند
    و به طور طبیعی خداباوران این امتیاز را از طرف خدا می دانند؛ وَ لَقَدْ كَرَّمْنا بَني‏ آدَمَ وَ حَمَلْناهُمْ فِي الْبَرِّ وَ الْبَحْرِ وَ رَزَقْناهُمْ مِنَ الطَّيِّباتِ وَ فَضَّلْناهُمْ عَلى‏ كَثيرٍ مِمَّنْ خَلَقْنا تَفْضيلا
    چرا بر مبنای اول چنین انسانی وجود ندارد و اصلا انسانیت معنا ندارد؟ .
    چون بنا به اعتراف همه انسان محوران حتی اگر خدا وجود داشته باشد انسان موجودی با قصد خاص نیست بلکه خداوند تاس انداخته است. موجودات زنده آغازشان از تک سلولی هاست و انسان هم بنابر اتفاق نه براساس نقشه قبلی و از پیش هدایت شده انسان شده است؛ توانایی های خاص انسان که سبب شده برای خود کرامت و حق و حقوق بتراشد ریشه در طبیعتی دارد که هیچ قسمتی از آن بر قسمت د یگر مزیت ندارد در حقیقت
    انسانیت واژه ای است کاملا معادل خریت، گاویت، اسبیت و دریک کلمه حیوانیت منتهی حیوانی با ویژگیهای خاص همانطور که سگ نیز دارای ویژگیهای خاص خود است.
    بدون محور قرار دادن خدا حتی اصطلاحاتی مانند پدر، مادر، خواهر، برادر، دوستی، دشمنی و …. بی معنا هستند ما جزئی از طبیعتیم و در طبیعت این کلمات معنایی ندارند
    انسانها موجوداتی هستند که در علفزار طبیعت سبز شده، رشد می کنند و بعد هم خشک شده و از بین می روند همین و بس
    حال چه فرق می کند یکی هنوز سر از خاک بر نیاورده توسط پاهای تنومند یک فیل له شده و از بین برود و دیگر در پناه درختی تنومند یک بهار دوام بیاورد سپس خشک شده و از بین برود؟ .
    علی سینا ادعا می کند این موجود بدون اینکه ریشه در خدا داشته باشد دارای کرامت است و چون از این دیدگاه کرامت او در بعضی از جهات توسط دین اسلام نادیده گرفته شده پس اسلام باطل است
    حال سوال این است کدام کرامت؟ کدام حق و حقوق اگر بتوانید با دلایل منطقی و عقلانی نه با کلماتی احساسی و شاعرانه این کرامت را ثابت کنید به گونه ای که اگر غیر از این باشد ما با تناقض مواجه شویم حق کاملا با شماست و ادعای محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم دروغی آشکار است.
    اما اگر نتوانید آنگاه نوبت خدایی که به انسان کرامت داده و او را بر دیگران برتری داده می رسد تا حق و حقوق و مرزهای کرامت انسان را معین و مشخص کند.
    منتظر می مانم تا شما خود را به عنوان انسان خاص اثبات نمایید.

  317. INFINITY is beyond yr logic but not mine. U are arguing on stupidity but not I. Many people care about the infinite nature but not u. I believe in the logic of my proof.
    What is the use of those psychological n physiological benefits without the purifications of yr body n spirit ? Purification is necessary to maintain good health n harmony. Spirits ( consciousness ) not necessary remain in comatose bodies. Click “ Near Death Experiences “ or rather “Temporary Death Experiences” to learn more. OK ?
    P.S. Burning joss sticks to pray to idols is the worst offence to human health because of the polution caused by the smokes.

  318. Infinity is beyond human logic.You are being tiny in this tiny world arguing on stupidity and universe having infinite nature do you think anyone really care?

    You are into proving with logic without belief? Try any derivatives of truth.Good Luck.

    Prayers gives back psychological and physiological benefits to a person who prays.

    Spirit remains in coma only conscious is lost.

  319. HAHA …YOU STILL AROUND? I TOLD YOU TO SEEK HELP….

  320. WHEN YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN I WON'T MIND WHAT YOU SAY

    LOOK WHAT HE REPLIED TO ME( IN SAME ARTICLE)

    "The Bible does not have divine source. It is written by humans – ordiniary humans who did their best to write the best teachings."

  321. Annexure

    "BTW only 99% in world are interested in results." should be read
    "BTW 99% in world are not interested in results."

    As long as you hate opponent hes a winner.

  322. I'm glad to know that you are a flip flopper and not Dr Ali Sina.

  323. I AGREE WITH YOUR SENTIMENTS TOTALLY, FATIMA !

    In addition to the one instance of Quranic discrimination you've dealt with, may I add NINE others, ALL CULLED FROM THE QURAN ? …………. Read on:
    …………………………………….

    DISCRIMINATION AGAINST, AND OPPRESSION OF WOMEN IN THE QURAN

    The truth is Islam oppresses muslim women, consider the following irrefutable rulings from the Quran:

    1) A muslim male can marry up to 4 wives simultaneously, a muslim woman cannot have up to 4 spouses at the same time.

    2) A muslim man can BEAT(SCOURGE) his wife on mere suspicion of rebellion, a muslim woman cannot do so to her husband, no matter how lecherous, tyrannical or unjust he is.

    {NOTE: The wife does not need to go against Islam to get beaten, the husband needs only to SUSPECT rebellion on her part to give her a good thrashing ! Quran prescribes the steps before beating of a wife as follows: ADMONISH HER, DO NOT SHARE HER BED, INCARCERATE HER IN A SEPARATE ROOM & FINALLY BEAT HER !}

    3) A muslim man can divorce his wife merely by uttering the word 'talaq' thrice, without assigning any reason for this ! The wife cannot divorce her husband in a likewise manner.

    {I know Islamists will jump up and say the wife can go for a 'khula divorce' in a Sharia court, but it is a long winded and cumbersome process, where even if she wins, she loses custody of her children and any rights to the 'mehr' amount. KHULA DIVORCE IS NOT THE SAME AS THE TRIPLE TALAQ FACILITY ENJOYED BY MUSLIM MEN.}

    4) A muslim man can marry a muslim, Christian or Jewish woman according to the Quran, but a muslim woman is only ever allowed to marry a muslim man.

    5) From the deceased parents' estate, a muslim man inherits twice what his female siblings inherit.

    6) In a Sharia court, as far witnesses go, a man's witness is worth twice that of a muslim woman.

    7) A muslim can leave her house ONLY with her husband's permission, while the husband needs no such permission from his wife to leave home.

    8) A raped muslim woman has to produce four male witnesses, otherwise she is accused of adultery/zina. Will a man ever rape a woman with four guys watching the proceedings ?

    9) A muslim wife has to be ready always to provide "sex on demand" by her husband, no matter what the situation is !

    10) According to the Quran, a husband must confine his wife inside a locked room for "lewd" behaviour till " she starves to death or Allah decides otherwise". Where does it say a muslim wife has the right to do the same with a cheating/lecherous husband ?

    FOR MORE SUCH DISCRIMINATORY RULES AGAINST WOMEN, REFER TO THE QURAN.

    And yet muslim men and and their supporters claim " Islam respects women like in no other religion" !

    If this is the sort of "respect" muslim girls get from Islam, is anyone surprised they leave the faith in droves ?
    …………………………………………………………………..

  324. No, 0 divide by 0 is infinity n NOT meaningless .  Just as God’s power is infinite. / Existence of God need not to be proved /  Then u will be like those ignorant fools who pray to man-made idols or any other objects believed to represent God, which will never give u any respond despite yr praying day n night. Isn’t it necessary to pray to the true God ? If u fall into a coma n yr spirit will go astray, yr body will be laying there, existing like a vegetable plant.  I.E. yr body has lost its “ soft ware “ in computer’s terms.

  325. Polygamy is only as good or as bad as polyandary !

    How would a husband feel if he could see his wife had other co-husbands, besides himself ! NOT VERY GOOD, ISN'T IT ? The fact that the co-husbands would bring in more money into the family kitty is besides the point !

    Similarly, a wife would remain depressed if her husband had other co-wives. GET IT ? Co-wives sharing the domestic chores does not enter the equation !

    One-to-one partnership between a man and a woman remains the best and the only equitable arrangement in terms of a physical, mental, sexual and affectionate relationship. If the man or the woman desires another person, they should first divorce and dissolve the existing relationship, then enter a new one !

    ISLAM STANDS ACCUSED OF VIOLATING THIS CARDINAL HUMAN PRINCIPLE !

  326. ترجمه پاراگرف آخر
    با توجه با سوال شما، بله من فکر می کنم شما کما بیش درست فهمیدید. اما من پیشنهاد می کنم شما قبل از اینکه جواب مرا بدهید یکبار دیگر نوشته مرا بخوانید آن نوشته چندان طولانی نیست اگر در فهم مقصود واقعی من شک دارید به طور طبیعی قادر نخواهید بود به درستی جواب مرا بدهید و این سبب نگاه بدبینانه روی عملکرد شما خواهد شد. توجه داشته باشید که کار شما متقاعد کردن من نیست بلکه باید روی خوانندگان تاثیر بگذارید اگر در فهم نوشته های من به زبان انگلیسی مشکلی دارید من با عبارت دیگر آن را بیان خواهم کرد.
    جناب سینا
    تمام تلاش من این است که به شما نشان دهم تمام تفکرات شما روی اساس و پایه ای بنا شده که هیچ مبنای عقلی و منطقی و حتی انسانی (به معنای خاص) ندارد. کلمات چند گانه دزدی، تجاوز، کشتار، کودک آزار یا بچه باز و … که به صورت چندش آوری تکرار می شود موضوعات دست چندمی هستند که تا نتوانید اصل مبنای مرا رد کنید قابل حل نیستند، برای اینکه بتوانید ضربه محکم و کاری به مبنای من وارد کنید باید ابتدا جای پای خود را محکم کنید و مبنایی خالی از هر گونه اشکال برگزینید. پس لطف کنید اجازه دهید ببینیم شما قادر به دفاع از مبنای خود هستیدا یا نه.
    من هنوز شروع به دفاع از اصول اعتقادی پیامبر رحمت نکرده ام که شما مرا به ارتکاب مغالطه توسل به ا کثریت و …. می کنید تنها وضعیت موجود را گزارش کرده ام همین وبس، برای اینکه نشان دهم هر کسی که ادعایی دارد باید این مسیر را طی کند و شما از این قاعده مستثنی نیستید.
    حال برسیم به بررسی مدعای شما
    1) حقیقت یا اصلا وجود ندارد
    2) یا اگر وجود دارد دست یافتنی نیست
    3) هیچکس اعم از فیلسوف و غیر فیلسوف، روشنفکر و غیر شنفکر، پیامبر و غیر پیامبر ابزاری برای اثبات حقیقت بودن راهی که می رود ندارد
    4) هیچکسی نباید از دیگری پیروی کند
    5) هیچکس حق ندارد به دیگری رفتن راهی را توصیه کند.
    6) تنها یک راه اطمینان بخش وجود دارد و آن اینکه هر کسی به ندای درون خود گوش کند.
    بر اساس سه مقدمه اول هر کسی هر چیزی که بگوید درست است (حتی پیامبر رحمت که این همه مورد ملامت شماست) و به عبارت دقیق تر اصلا درستی و نادرستی معنا ندارد زیرا با توجه به آنچه در بخش ششم آمده تنها راه ممکن برای تولد یک اعتقاد ندای درونی انسانهاست و هر کسی حق دارد به آنچه از ندای درونی او زائیده شده اعتماد کند بلکه چاره ای جز اعتماد ندارد چون اولا راه دیگری برای فهم حقیقت وجود ندارد ثانیا بر اساس مقدمه چهارم پیروی کردن از دیگران موضوعی مذموم و ناپسند است و براساس مبنای پنجم آیا می توانید توضیح دهید علت رفتار پیامبرانه شما در این سایت چیست؟ چرا بر خلاف مبنای پذیرفته شده خود این همه دیگران را امر و نهی می کنید؟ نکند شما هم از جمله کسانی هستید که مرگ را تنها برای همسایه حق می دانید؟ فقط در یکی دو جمله بیان کنید که
    آیا به لوازم مبنایی که انتخاب کرده اید پایبند هستید؟ شما در لابلای استدلالهایی که می کنید از عقل و منطق زیاد سخن می گویید درحالیکه این دو عنصر اساسی هیچ جایی در میان مبانی اعتقادی شما ندارد؛ چه توجیهی برای این موضوع دارید؟ .
    ادعا و سوال اساسی خود در مورد مبنای شما را بعد از جواب شما که امیدوارم که گویا و البته کوتاه باشد بیان خواهم کرد.

  327. Anything divided by zero is meaningless in mathematics. Meaningless is not even zero.

    Existence of God need not to be proved. It accompanies with your own sense of existence of being. You are talking about involuntary functions according to your belief. Sub conscious mind is only in synchronization with nature of existence. Whatever suits this nature it accepts and rejects others naturally.

    Deep in religion you find existence of everything which world categories as science. The only way is belief.

    In a broader way even Atheist accepts God by denying.

  328. Mr. Fazad pawned Ali Sina!

    Ali Sina does not understand that his pedophilia claim is the fallacy of presentism.

    Once you point out a fallacy in an argument that argument falls apart.

  329. The fourth verse:
    [005:051] O you who believe, do not take (certain) Jews and Christians as allies; these are allies of one another. Those among you who ally themselves with these belong with them. GOD does not guide the transgressors.

    Here is the answer:
    We have to put the verses in context again:

    [005:051] O you who believe, do not take (certain) Jews and Christians as allies; these are allies of one another. Those among you who ally themselves with these belong with them. GOD does not guide the transgressors.
    [005:052] You will see those who harbor doubt in their hearts hasten to join them, saying, "We fear lest we may be defeated." May GOD bring victory, or a command from Him, that causes them to regret their secret thoughts.
    [005:053] The believers will then say, "Are these the same people who swore by GOD solemnly that they were with you?" Their works have been nullified; they are the losers.

    These verses talk about believers (Muslims) who were not sure whether the Muslims will prevail in their struggle against the unbelievers or not; this is obvious from verse [005:052].

    And as a result they took Jews and Christians as guardians or as backup just in case the Muslims lost. The Quran describes them as people with doubt or hypocrites (literally: people with disease in their hearts). They did not have full confidence in what they believed in, and consequently felt the need to have an escape plan in case of defeat.

    Verse [005:051] states that Muslims should not make the Jews and Christians their guardians (over other Muslims), and not to entrust them with their lives as allies in war. The verse primarily refers to protection in time of war or hostility. It says not to take Jews and Christians as allies against whomever else we maybe fighting thinking that they will offer us protection in case we lost.

  330. The first verse:
    [002:191] And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

    Here is the answer:

    [002:190] Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors.
    [002:191] And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
    [002:192] But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
    [002:193] And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression

    The second verse:
    [009:005] But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

    Here is the answer:
    This verse refers to the pagans who failed to uphold the peace treaty with the Muslims, and also subsequently refers to anyone who does the same. The verse immediately before, which is 9:4 refers to the pagans who have upheld the treaty and did not break it, God commands the Muslims not to fight them:

    [009:004] (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for God loveth the righteous.

    The verse immediately after 9:5 says Muslims can infact harbour pagans who do not wish to fight, there is no mention that they must convert:

    [009:006] If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

    The third verse:
    [009:029] Fight those from among the people of the Book, who believe not in ALLAH, nor in the Last Day, nor hold as unlawful what ALLAH and HIS Messenger have declared to be unlawful, nor follow the true religion, until they pay the tax considering it a favour and acknowledge their subjection.

    Here is the answer:
    The above verse was revealed after the conquest of Mecca by the Muslims (Muslims had won the war against the pagans at this point and were in the process of establishing the Islamic laws over the land).

    The verse states that the non-believers among the people of the book (Jews & Christians) who do not uphold their true religion and refuse to follow the new laws (Islamic Laws) of the land have to pay a tax (Jizya) or else they will be fought against.

    It is essential to mention that Muslims themselves used to pay a tax called zakat (A pillar of Islam), of which a significant amount went straight to Bait el-mal (the treasury). It would be unfair for Muslims to contribute to the treasury and not the non-Muslims, don’t you think?

    That tax was also put in place as an acknowledgement of the new rule of Islam over the land; those people had to accept that they are living under the rule of Muslims in the nation of Islam. Poor non-Muslims never had to pay this tax; in fact they were recipients of it in the form of charity.

    Scholars differed among themselves regarding the last part of the verse ‘acknowledge their subjection’. Some said that they have to be humiliated while paying the tax, some said that paying the tax is in itself an acknowledgement of the subjection, and there are other views in between those two.

  331. What about 0 divide by 0 ? 0/0 can be any number in mathematics. Therefore, U can say when the Holy Spirit (God) divides Himself to produce trillions of minor spirits. Don't believe in spirits. Try staying in haunted houses n give me a report about their existence.
    Existence of God can only be proven by his Divine light at the Johrei centers all over the world. This Divine light is for the purification of yr soul n body. It can heals yr serious illnesses if u receive it daily. It may also be used to purify haunted houses so the haunting spirits will leave for the spirit world.
    Your sub conscious mind is where yr spirit dwells, which performs all yr bodily functions without yr knowledge.

  332. "As far as I know no real religion prescribes killing the unbelievers." Mr. Farzad has just debunked Islam in his own words, as Muhammad did indeed order the killing of those who refuse to believe.

  333. IF MY COMPACT DISC INTELLIGENCE WILL BE EXPANDED IT WILL BE A BOOK.
    10MB OF MY STORAGE IS EQUAL TO 10TB OF WRITTEN MATERIAL.

  334. yes u must hav read those wrong translations . even hindus hav hard time translating the ancient texts(vedic sanskrit) and there comes the idiots muller and griffith who translated them like a piece of cake. and these guys' translations(and their interpretations and their re-interpretations) are in circulations in most of the places.these translations are valid only to some extent. vedic sanskrit is so archaic and almost very less is know abt its grammar .so anyone who is not trained well will get different meanings. many of the verses/ideas are allegorical/analogical ,so a word-2-word translatins will not give u actual meaning, so any tom dik n harry trying to translate them will come up with translations which u have given. and many have to study sanskrit just as they hav to study a 2nd language.

  335. Sorry, that is BS.
    \”Race realism\” is racism with another name. Races are different. It is obvious. and some races are stronger in one area and weaker in other areas, but no reace is genetially superor or more intelligent than others.

  336. Thank you for all your articles. I've learnt so much and benefitted so much from reading them. They're enlightening indeed.

  337. جناب سینا
    همانطور که قبلا هم به شما گفته ام انسان بی تجربه ای در زمینه بحث با مخالفان اسلام نیستم، با این نوع بحث کردن شاید بتوانید مخاطبانی که آگاهی کافی نسبت به این نوع بحث ها ندارند را فریب دهید اما راهی برای فریب من پیدا نخواهید کرد.
    توسل به مغالطه و سفسطه یابی در کلام طرف بحث غالبا زمانی اتفاق می افتد که انسان هیچ جواب منطقی در دست ندارد و ناگزیر است جهت خلاصی از مخمصه ای که در آن گرفتار شده انواع مغلطه ها و سفسطه ها را بر طرف مقابل خود تحمیل کند.
    نکته دیگر اینکه سخن شما آن قدر طولانی و مفصل و توضیح واضحات و تکرار ذهنیات پر از تناقض است که انسان رغبت به خواندن آن نمی کند چه برسد به اینکه یک شخص مبتدی در زبان انگلیسی مانند من وقت زیادی را جهت ترجمه کردن آن به فارسی صرف آن کند.
    هر انسان آگاه و با انصافی اگر جواب بسیار طولانی شما را در برابر سوال بسیار ساده و کوتاه من بخواند متوجه دست و پا زدن شما برای اینکه به گونه ای خود را از پاسخ دادن رها کنید می شود؛ بسیاری از سخنان شما بسیار زیبا و شاعرانه است ما من برای مشاعره با شما اینجا نیامده ام، در مواردی متوسل به توهین شده اید، این نیز مرا عصبانی و وادار به مقابله به مثل نخواهد کرد. تنها چیزی که می تواند راهگشا باشد استدلال عقلی و منطقی است اما متاسفانه علاقه بسیار زیاد شما به سخنرانی و خطابه باعث گم شدن این عنصر اساسی در لابلای ده ها موضوعی که در حال حاضر ربطی به موضوع اصلی بحث ندارد می شود.

    سوال کردم: آیا دلیلی بر درستی راهی که می روید دارید؟
    جواب دادید: حقیقت یا اصلا وجود ندارد و یا اگر وجود دارد دست یافتنی نیست پس هیچکس اعم از فیلسوف و غیر فیلسوف، روشنفکر و غیر روشنفکر، پیامبر و غیر پیامبر ابزاری برای اثبات حقیقت بودن راهی که می رود ندارد. هیچکسی نباید از دیگری پیروی کند و هیچکس حق ندارد به دیگری رفتن راهی را توصیه کند.

    تنها و تنها و تنها یک راه اطمینان بخش وجود دارد و آن هم اینکه هر کسی به ندای درون خود گوش کند.
    آیا درست متوجه شدم؟ جواب دهید بله یا نه و اگر نه در یک جمله کوتاه آن را تصحیح کنید تا نظر خود را بیان کنم.

  338. @Observer

    You come as a joke if you say yourself Observer. Evidence to prove God and age both make no sense.What evidence you have provided for existence of zero. Its your human logic which never get convinced on the fact that how can be there is nothing. If nothing exists so the world which runs on assumption of zero how can be it something.

    You might have seen evil and angel are being discussed here. Its moronic because evil lies in human nature irrespective of belief.If it's defined in belief then you blame belief or you blame it otherwise.

    Nature of belief is never been lie or true. Rationally you can prove the same thing as good and bad. Belief is beyond good and bad and its nature is not morality. Its nature is justified.Belief opens the doors which no psychologist can find.

    Truth shines and spread across like fire not on morally proved logic but with simple belief.

    Well Observer can be observed only when observer won't be observer any more.

    Thank you

  339. In this age of science and advanced technology we need evidence to prove that GOD exists. Otherwise, there is no point to say that your god is the true and a living one. No use having a blind belief system. Remember there is a LIE in your beLIEf, unless proven otherwise.

  340. You seem to think that social order has always been imposed on by the use of weapons. Which I think is debatable. Laws are not instruments of enslavment. Instead they are here to define what is our freedom because unlimited freedom is not freedom as much as unlimited tolerance is not tolerance.

  341. maybe it means she will hav to resort to some bad words (??maybe)

  342. unlike the abrahamic religions hindus didnt force their law/rules/religins onto the tribals/illiterates/gullible-indians to stop their abnormal practices. but as u hav said these practices r commonly seen in villages/tribal-areas/slums , the more people r educated the more they get drifted away from such practices . and every time i go to a village i hear a new deity name which are not even present in hindu scriptures and every deity has its own myth. and there is always an offering .but if they r not bothering anybody , y bother them (except in case of sacrificing an animal).
    if hindus were as violent as mo- (who went on to critic the pagan arabs and destroyed their idols , massacred them) then u may not see these practices . but it is not possible with hindus to commit such an act.
    so tell me sundriedatheist and dharma-noble-marg , ur blood boils when someone sacrifices/kills an animal , so what happens to u when u r eating one (assuming u r non-vegetarians)?? by the way i'm non-meatarian and i become so out of my own consent.

  343. ترجمه
    شما می گویید محمد 1400 سال پیش مدعی پیامبری شده و دلایل ارائه شده از طرف او به وسیله عده ای از مردم مقبول واقع شده و به او ایمان آورده اند.
    من ازبیش از 14 سال قبل اسلام را مورد مطالعه قرار داده ام و مانند اکثر مسلمین اطلاعات مهمی از اسلام دارم، اما من هرگز این دلایل را متقاعد کننده نیافتم. اگر شما این دلایل را به صورت منطقی ارائه کنید بحث تمام می شود. مشکل اینجاست که هیچ دلیلی برای صحت ادعای پیامبر وجود ندارد و هنوز مسلمین مشتاقانه هر کسی را که با مدعیات ثابت نشده او مخالف کند می کشند.
    جواب: من در این قسمت از بحث تنها آنچه در عالم خارج واقع شده را تصویر کردم، شکی نیست که این اتفاق افتاده؛ شخصی ادعای پیامبری کرده و در طول هزار و چهارصد سال گذشته میلیاردها نفر که میان آنها از روستاییان ساده بیسواد تا انسانهای فرهیخته ای که مورد افتخار بشریت هستند مدعای او را به هر دلیل پذیرفته اند.
    مدعای او به طور خلاصه چنین است:
    هستی دارای خداست، تمام هستی از جمله انسانها مخلوق این خدایند، هدف از خلقت انسان عبودیت و شناخت این خداست، مرگ نه تنها پایان زندگی نیست بلکه آغاز زندگی حقیقی بر اساس عملکرد و رفتار در زندگی دنیایی است.
    در مقابل افرادی مثل شما مدعی هستند که خدایی وجود ندارد و یا اگر هم دارد کاری به کار انسان ندارد، تنها هدف ما از زندگی کردن این است که زندگی کنیم، مرگ پایان همه چیز است.
    لطفا دقت کنید پیامبر خدا صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم ادعا کرده، دلیل آورده، میلیاردها نفر دلیل او را معقول دانسته و ایمان آورده اند در این مرحله من کاری ندارم که در واقع دلیل او معقول بوده یا نبوده است.
    شما نیز در مقابل این ادعا، ادعای دیگری دارید، برای ادعای خود دلیل بیاورید شاید من و بسیار از دیگر مسلمانان ادعای شما را معقول دانسته و به شما ایمان بیاوریم.
    اصلا بگذارید من چند پله جلوتر بروم، فرض کنید شما اثبات کردید که راهی که حضرت محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم پیشنهاد کرده راه غلطی است و من هم دلایل شما را کاملا معقول دانستم و فهمیدم راهی که تاکنون رفته ام کاملا بیراهه بوده است. اکنون می خواهم راه جدید دیگری را انتخاب کنم و شما راه خود را پیشنهاد می کنید. به طور حتم شما انتظار ندارید که من گوسفند وار به دنبال شما بدوم و طلب دلیل از شما حقی غیر قابل اغماض است، لطف کنید دلیل خود بر درستی راهی که می روید را ارائه نمایید.
    ترجمه بقیه مطالب شما و جواب به آنها را به بعد از عبور از این مرحله موکول می کنم و تا این نکته اساسی روشن نشود وارد بحث جدیدی نخواهم شد. البته چهار سوال شما را جواب می دهم.
    . اگر رفتار یک پیامبر راستین قابلیت تطبییق بر زشتی داشته باشد، چگونه ما می توانیم بفهمیم او از طرف خدا آمده است؟
    زشتی و زیبایی بر اساس تفکر شما کاملا نسبی است، به طور مثال سکس در ملاء عام، همجنس بازی و همجنسگرایی حتی در فرهنگ غرب در جایی موضوعی اخلاقی هستند اما در جایی دیگر غیر اخلاقی. بسیاری از رفتارها در فرهنگ غرب اخلاقی است اما در فرهنگ شرق کاملا غیر اخلاقی. لذا از این منظر هیچگاه نمی توانید ملاک و معیاری بر درستی و نادرستی ادعای پیامبری از طرف کسی پیدا کنید.
    خدای تو قدرتی ندارد. او متکی به بندگان خویش است او چه فرقی با یک سرکرده مافیا دارد؟
    فرق در نیاز و عدم نیاز است، خدای من غنی بالذات و خارج از دایره فعل او انفعال است. اگر او به من روزی زیاد داده و درمقابل خواسته که به فقرا کمک کنم این نشانه ناتوانی او در رفع فقر آن فقیر نیست بلکه در اینجا دو امتحان است یکی برای من و یکی برای فقیر، این سر موکول کردن انجام امور به بندگان است نه عجز و ضعف او. علاوه بر اینکه اگر بنده ای کاری انجام دهد از آنجا که نیرو و توان بنده از طرف خداست باز این خداست که آن کار را انجام داده است.
    شما فکر می کنید این خدایی است که ناباوران را بکشید. چرا فکر می کنید که اگر آنها در مقام دفاع از خود شما را بکشند کار غلطی کرده اند؟
    ما هرگز فکر نمی کنیم که آنها در مقام دفاع از خود کار غلطی کرده اند من تاکنون جایی ندیده ام که کسی کافری را به خاطر دفاع از خود ملامت کرده باشد، حتی حیونات هم حق دارند از خود دفاع کنند. در ضمن مقدمه سوال شما کاملا غلط و عوامفریبانه است هیچ قانونی در اسلام مبنی بر اینکه صرف ناباور بودن دلیل بر استحقاق کشته شدن است وجود ندارد.
    . اجازه دهید از شیطان بخواهیم که از شما درخواست کند بهترین راه برای نابودی انسانیت را با توجه به تنها توانایی او یعنی فریب دادن به او توصیه کنید. چه راهی بهتر از جعل یک مذهب غلط که دعوت به کشتن غیر مسلمانان کند به فکر شما می رسد؟
    راه بهتر از نظر من تشویق به حرص و طمع است، که اکنون مدعیان قانون طلایی به دلیل گرفتار شدن به آن در همین چند سال اخیر میلیونها نفر را فقط در خاورمیانه به خاطر حفظ منافع پست دنیایی خود به خاک و خون کشیده و به خاک سیاه نشانده اند.

  344. Please don't put words in my mouth. What on earth this mean anyway?

  345. "And then you see the other guy seem to think alike?" Why should I not enslave him? He will for sure not harm me then. And I can exploit him to the max (which is what the capitalist actually does).

    "Then the gloves are off, you too become fair game in this, surely the other guy too has right to kill you in self defence." Then that gives them carte-blanche to destroy you. "Golden Rule works." Societies are not built on "Golden rules" but on the sword of power. Why if it worked would they need police and army? This is a somewhat uncomfortable question, why do good things happen to "evil" people (or why do they have all the power) and so much evil happens to good people? Why are followers of golden rules always trampled on by these people? One would expect if the golden rule was a absolute law of the universe for its followers to be rewarded by nature but this is not so. Why is it that nature rewards the people that trample on this "golden rule"?

  346. "Thus there's social contracts, both unwritten (norms, courtesy), and written (laws)." Where do these rules come from? They come from the minds of men. They are not absolute laws of the universe they can be ripped up and a whole new code can be written at any moment. You talk about functioning society, fair enough then tell me why one societies code is better than another? The Nazis, communists, Islamic, roman empire, middle age Christendom (and many more) all had/have a functioning society, why is one better than the other?

    "And yet you say these social contracts are … means with which you are being enslaved?" Let me tell you what moral codes are they are slave regulations. You are either slave or master. Now you obey these codes written by other men and do not even pause to think. Then tell why it would be "wrong" for me to command others? To write a societies moral code? These would fulfil all your requirements. Would their be a functioning society? Yes. Would their be law and order? Yes. This is actually the case in all societies the laws are written by the people in charge – the masters.

  347. UNLIKE OTHER RELIGIONS ISLAM COMES WITH GOVERNANCE SYSTEMS IN SELF.

    THIS UNLIKE IS NOT BEING LIKED WHICH IS OBVIOUS.

    ITS WAY TO LONG IN DISCUSSION WILL BE GONE IF STREAMS OF SELF EXISTENCE ARE GETTING CHECKED ON OTHER PLATFORMS.

    PEOPLE OF FAITH WE BELIEVE WE ARE SAFE

    AMBITION OF THIS BLOG IS ALWAYS BEEN A JOKE TO ME

  348. OK NOW DESCRIBE ME I WILL PAY YOU 50 EUROS CASH.

  349. SundriedAtheist,
    GOD and the various conceptions of GOD are different. If Hundred people are shown a person and asked to draw a truthful lookalike sketch of that person only a few will succeed. Even that sketch will not represent all the visual features.We should understand that Abrahamic prophets are poor painters. They could neither grasp the concept & reality of GOD nor could they convey it to the larger Humanity. They are Ignorant people spreading their Ignorance. A kind hearted Agnostic is more beloved to the True GOD than the Ignorant Abrahamic prophets.

  350. Mr.HAHAHA,
    Almost all people can make bricks. Far lesser number can make pots.
    There are far more patients than Doctors. Even among the Doctors skilled surgeons and experts are only a fraction. Very few people on earth understand Astrophysics. In all times knowledge and skill are rare commodities possessed by only a few. know that Ignorance is always in majority. Spiritual Ignorance of Muslims is not only amazing but positively harmful to themselves as well as to the rest of Humanity. Why are you feeling proud about your Ignorance. What is there to be proud of in being Ignorant. We can only conclude that you are shameless.

  351. "Fourteen hundred years ago, a man claimed to be a prophet. His main contention was that the world has a creator and that the universe without God (who is named in the Quran) is meaningless. To prove his claim he presented reasoning and a large number of people accepted his reasoning and believed in his claim" —
    Mr.Farzad , Belief in GOD alone doesn't constitute wisdom. Just as it pains a Mother if one of her children were to kill or injure another of her children, True GOD does not prescribe killing of Non-believers. Nor is belief in GOD the invention of Mohammad. The belief in God is coeval with Human existence. But the uniqueness of Mohammad & his followers is to believe that GOD is their Henchman ready to pardon all their crimes. What is amazing is their stupidity in believing that GOD can give such cruel commands.
    No doubt all societies have punishments. But such punishments are for causing unprovoked harm to others ( meant to deter criminals & to protect innocent people ). Islam is perhaps the first religion to prescribe punishment for non-belief. As such Islamic belief in punishing a person for not believing in Islamic conception of GOD is CRIMINAL.
    Besides, belief in GOD alone doesn't constitute Love of GOD or piety. You should be able to love GOD's creation also if you truly love GOD. Service is the manifest form of that love for GOD & his creation. On the other hand an agnostic person commands much respect as long as he/she is helpful to the society. Islamic piety is criminal.
    It is therefore necessary for you to enlighten yourself first ( that the concept of JIhad is an unprovoked attack on GOD's creation & hence reject it as arising from Satan's provocation ) and enlighten the 1.5 billion people mired in Ignorance about the true nature of GOD.
    If the 1.5 billion Muslims continue in the Criminal psychology of Mohammad & continue to believe in Jihad ( = unprovoked attack for not believing in the criminality of Mohammad) such of those who believe in Jihad will be considered as criminals and dealt with appropriately by the rest of Humanity.

  352. SundriedAtheist .. Your sense and your common sense is at the same level as it was 8 years ago.. the progress is ZERO. sundriedAthiest..

    with best
    yeezevee