I am a 22 year old man, Muslim from Cameroon. I am very devoted to my religion and my parents. But my faith is making my life miserable, because of my sexual orientation, i am gay, i knew it since i was 6 or 7, i tried to change it since for almost 10 years now, it is only wish for during the Ramadan for more than a decade, i prayed every night that Allah make me normal or at least make me attracted to women, but so far nothing has changed, worse my desire for sex with men is only growing every day, and i am desperate.

I tried having sex with a girl of my age hoping for a miracle, but it was a disaster and a humiliation as i didn’t have an erection, worse i was disgusted.

Every day for me is a torture, i can’t to the mosque cause i feel dirty and guilty for having such thoughts in Allah ‘s house, i feel like everyone around me knows, or that the angels are watching me , and i am ashamed of what god might think of me.

I don’t have male friends, i felt in love with both of my two previous best friends when i was 14 and 17.
I am lonely, miserable and desperate. Every night i close my eyes i find myself hoping not to wake up the next day.

And i have so many questions in my mind :
Why did god make people gay but forbids homosexual intercourse ?
Why did is god punishing me like that?
Is God punishing my dad?
Why isn’t Allah answering my prayers?
How am i supposed to leave like this?
How can i have kids if can’t even have an erection with a girl?
What if i loose it?

My faith is shaking i don’t wanna go to hell. I would kill myself to end this but i would go to hell too.
Help me please, i don’t understand, give some answers.

PS: I know that some imams can’t accept the fact that people are born gay or think that homosexuality is a choice but i can assure you in my case it’s not, i would have never chosen that.

Thank you.

Rafiq

Dear Rafiq (name changed),

The first thing you should do is to get rid of your guilt. This is not possible as long as you believe in Islam. You have to understand that God will not send humans to hell. This whole idea is a lie. There is nothing you can do that is offensive to God. Of course if you hurt other people then I assume there may be consequences.  If there is an afterlife, there must also be some justice. But God will not punish people for believing or not believing or for any other reason, especially for their sex life.  If God exists, he cannot be so petty.

We humans, compared to God are infinitely smaller than ants are to us.  Can an ant do anything that may offend you to such an extent that you may want to burn her?  Can a cat that is much closer to us do anything that you would want to burn him?  Of course this is silly.  You’d be crazy if you could be offended by an ant or a cat and want to punish them. This belief that God will punish and reward people for their beliefs or for their sexual activities is attributing insanity to God. If God exist, this belief is blasphemy.

Don’t believe in that lie. Don’t believe in Islam and anything Muhammad said. He was a psychopath who wanted to have control over people’s lives and their thoughts. Fear is the tool of domination for psychopaths.

Once you get rid of your belief in Islam and your irrational guilt about your sexuality, more than half of your problems will be solved.  This guilt is the killer. Get rid of it. If you still think Muhammad was a prophet of God, read my book and you will be convinced that he was a mentally sick man.  He was a pathological liar.

Now as for you being a gay, of course living in an Islamic country makes your life very difficult.  This is not something that can be changed overnight. For attitudes to change, Muslims must leave Islam.

Also no one knows why some people become gay.  Some say it is genetic. I don’t believe that it is genetic because if it were so, it would have become extinct millions of years ago.  Since homosexuals generally don’t procreate, a homosexual gene would not have passed to future generations.

An ancient poet called Sappho wrote about love between women in 600 BC in the Islands of Lesbos, a district in Greece. Although most of her her poems are destroyed, the legend has it that because all the men in the Island were massacred, women turned to each other for love and sex.

The story is probably true, but even if it were not it is a fact that adults who have never had sexual feelings for same sex can develop it. There are many movies and literature that actually promote homosexuality.  When I had a TV and used to waste my time in front of that box I saw several movies that were clearly promoting homosexuality to heterosexual women as a form of liberation from their abusive marital life. Today they teach it in schools. This is the Left’s agenda to destroy the family.

Despite this brazen propaganda to promote homosexuality, homosexuals deny categorically that homosexuality is a learned behavior.  It is kind of like Islam being a religion of peace. On one hand Muslims promote jihad and murder people and on the other hand they insist that it is the religion of peace.

When lies take over our lives, truth is always the casualty.  To  silence the critics of Islam or of homosexuality they label people with derogatory adjectives such as Islamophobic and homophobic. Both these terms are devised to silence any discussion about Islam and homosexuality.  You can never find the truth under tyranny of thoughts.

Many factors contribute to the development of homosexual attractions. Same-sex attraction is the result of a complex interaction of personality, biological inheritance, and developmental experiences.

Homosexuality is often the symptom of deeper inner psychological conflicts.  For example, a girl may lose her mother at a very young age. She may feel a void in her for maternal love. She may feel attraction to other women to fulfill this void and that attraction is  erroneously expressed in a sexual way. This may provide instant intimacy and gratification but leaves the underling cause unsatisfied.

Also boys need to create a strong bond with their father. If the relationship is not ideal, emotional scars are created that affect their identity, including their sexual identity.  Often people growing up in dysfunctional families are not aware of it because that is the only model they know.

These emotional struggles can be rejection, abuse, lack of self-steam, confusion in gender identity or fear. However, often people who have sexual problems can’t recognize this and hide the real issue and deny it.  The need may not be sexual at all and the solution is also not sexual.

In my opinion homosexuality is formed through classical conditioning.  Pavlov’s experiment may explain it. If an individual is conditioned to respond when a neutral stimulus (in the case of homosexuality, someone of the same sex) is presented along with a stimulus of some significance (in this case, sexual pleasure) the individual will link the two together and may be aroused by objects that are not sexually meaningful, such as a person of the same sex.

This association can take place at any age. But like all conditional responses, the younger the person the stronger will be the link between the stimulus and the response.

Animals can also be conditioned. In fact the experiment was first performed by Pavlov on his dog. Just as a dog can salivate by hearing a bell ringing, something that has nothing to do with food, a person  can feel aroused by anything, including someone of their own sex if that thing is linked to sexual pleasure, love or romantic feeling.  This explains also fetishism and why someone can be sexually aroused by a woman’s shoe or a piece of her apparel. It is the connection that the individual makes in his head that makes the fetish sexually significant.  Animals can become homosexual – for the same reason we human become homosexual.

Sadly, the subject of homosexuality has become a taboo. No one can study it objectively. On one hand we have Muslims who think gay people should be killed and that is the end of the story and on the other hand westerners believe any objective discussion of  homosexuality  is homophobia and bigotry.  The result is perpetual suffering for countless innocent souls.   Humans are stupid creatures.

Can a gay person develop sexual attraction for a person of the opposite gender?  There are many who claim to have done it.  It might be difficult but not impossible.  It must be done gradually.   I have read also stories of people who claim they had no sexual feeling for the persons of the same sex and developed that feeling later in life. One gay person who wrote in the forum of Faithfreedom.org, several years ago, said he was not gay at all. He started watching gay porn for laughter and gradually became curious and interested until he fantasized and then acted upon it.

If what this person said is true and if the stories of gay people who have become heterosexual are  true then it must be possible for a gay person to develop sexual feelings for the opposite sex and effectively recover.

The recovery will be easier if you don’t entertain sexual fantasies with another man.  Every time you fantasize, your attraction to men become stronger.  Instead, if you fantasize about women, you gradually will feel attracted to them.  Brain is a powerful tool. You are what you think. Think what you want to be and you will be it.

It is a sure thing that life for you in an Islamic country is not going to be easy.  If you can migrate to a non-Muslim country you will have a much better chance to live a happy life.  Another thing you must do is to get rid of your guilt. This guilt is the main killer. It is a false guilt. God will never punish you for being a gay.  If He is God, he will love you just the way you are. You are not committing any crime or sin and your thoughts are not disgusting.   Don’t let false beliefs destroy your life.  You are in control of your thoughts. You can stop believing in a false religion and liberate yourself from its yoke.

There are three things that I suggest you should do.

1-      Get rid of your belief in Islam because it is a lie and get rid of your false guilt. That false guilt torments you more than anything else.

2-      Try to migrate to a non-Muslim country by all means.

3-      Slowly, try to awaken in you the sexual attraction towards women.  If one guy can develop attraction for men by watching gay porn, maybe the reverse is also true and you can develop attraction for women by watching them in a sensual way.  If homosexuality is caused by classical conditioning, which is what I believe, then one may be able to reverse it by the same process by changing the stimulus.  This process may be  slow. Don’t expect result overnight.  The process must be pleasurable.  Don’t force yourself. Watch the faces and the bodies of nude women in erotic poses and discover their beauty. Do it slowly and regularly until you start seeing them sexually appealing. You may pleasure yourself at the same time envisioning having sex with them. What you want to do is connect the part of your brain that is aroused by sexual pleasure to women and their bodies.  Your brain neurons must create new connections linking women with eroticism.  Avoid watching porn that involves men even if that is a heterosexual act.

You tried to sleep with one woman and it was a disaster. That is because it was too much at once. You have to do this slowly without any pressure for performance. Do this alone first and once you start feeling attraction to women, find a girlfriend, explain your struggle to her and you’ll find that she will be more than happy to help you.

You may never be able to get rid of your homosexual feelings.  Don’t try it because it does not work and it will cause you frustration. It is fine if you feel attracted to men. Accept yourself as you are and be in peace with yourself. Just don’t act upon it and don’t engage in fantasizing about men.  I may find many women attractive, but this does not mean I should act upon my feeling.

There is an old Chinese story I mentioned before about a young student going to his master complaining about his handicaps and telling him how he has tried and has failed to overcome them. His master draws a line on the ground and says if you can make this line shorter, without erasing it or covering it, you will be able to overcome your flaws. The student thinks and thinks and finally gives up saying this is one of those puzzles that has no solution. His master says, it has, watch carefully. He then draws another much longer line next to it and says, look, isn’t the first line shorter?  The moral of the story is that instead of striving to overcome what you perceive as flaws in you, ignore them and instead work on other areas of your life and make them stand out. Your flaws may never go away, but they become insignificant in comparison to your strengths. Eventually, when you draw many longer lines, they become invisible.

I am of the opinion that homosexuality is a disorder, not unlike eating disorder.  Some people are more prone to be obese than others. But this is not a determining factor. Obese people can overcome their eating disorder and have a normal body. It takes more work and more awareness for them than it takes for someone who has no problem with food.

Don’t commit suicide. Even if you never get rid of your homosexuality, you can live a happy and fulfilling life by getting rid of your guilt and by migrating to a non-Muslim country.  You can take these two steps easily.  In Cameron, go and live in Christian areas and befriend non-Muslims.

Strive to excel in what you can be good at. It may be a profession or a vocation and serve humanity in that capacity.  If you can discover heterosexual attraction, fall in love with a woman and form a family that would be great. If you can’t, it is also fine. Many great people, like Socrates, Leonardo Da Vinci and Michael Angelo were gay. You can be gay and have a very fulfilling life.

There are sites that can help. This is a good one with sound advices.

http://www.samesexattraction.org/

Wish you all the best

Ali Sina

Hello Ali

I have been reading your website and have just ordered your book. I need to tell you my story. I was bought up in a good strict Christian family and although I was strictly disciplined in truth I knew nothing but happiness for the first 17 years of my life.

I met a Muslim man who was 31 and 11 years later we are still together. The last 11 years have been miserable because of his past and upbringing (I know this now).

I feel stupid because I spent the last 11 years misusing my Christian indoctrination by ‘turning the other cheek’ and forgiving unconditionally.

I kept our relationship a secret for 5 years and lost my virginity to him. We had several years long distance [relationship] while I studied etc. I always remained loyal and I suppose the years just went by. I feel I’ve let my family down.

I always thought we could compromise when we marry but that was before I met his family. When I met them I couldn’t understand why they were all so cold, heartless and cruel and why they would go for years ‘not talking to a family member’ why they couldn’t forgive and why they were full of so much pride. Why they were cruel to one another, and why they had one upmanship, why they lied and kept secrets. I have endured physical mental and emotional abuse from my partner and also from them.

I am far from my family now and dependent on my partner. I started to look into Islam and was horrified by what I read. I read with an open heart and mind and cannot find anything good in it. I studied because i wanted to show him the way he was behaving was wrong but in reality if he is following the Quran he is doing ok!

It sickens me. After a year and a half of terrible communication with my partner and an increase in physical abuse I left. It took all my strength to leave. He begged me to come back and I went back after two weeks. I have told him I don’t want Islam in my life. I have realized now that he mistook my Christian tolerance for Islamic submissiveness. I am entirely dependent on him. I stupidly gave up my job and all means of independence when I moved here. I told him within a week of coming back that it wasn’t right and I have to leave. He broke down and told me he was sexually abused and beaten every day as a child. This has made me sink even lower I feel awful. I want to be strong for him. I feel torn between saving him and saving myself. I have very clearly told him everything about his religion that he doesn’t know. He knows the anger i feel towards Islam. I feel weak. I need help. I feel guilty if I leave him and sick and depressed if I don’t. I fear I’ll be making a mistake as since he revealed his pain to me he seems to have changed. He is calm and loving and apologises for wrong doings and I’m very confused. I wish he’d told me years ago.

He says we will move away from his family and i can raise the children Christian, but he doesn’t want it ‘in his face’ this is a different tune to the one he was playing a few months ago. I’ve told him if he knows this religion is paedophilic, murderous and cruel why doesn’t he reject it outright? An evil Christian is one who is not following the bible, an evil Muslim is one who IS following the Quran.

Don’t know what I’m expecting from you apart from someone to listen who understands. I just don’t believe he will do these things he said but I don’t want to let go of the only man I have ever loved or been intimate with and there have been good times.

Hi Marta (name changed),

In order to save someone else from drowning you have to be on firm ground yourself otherwise both of you get drowned.  If you are in peril you can’t help others.

Your partner is damaged. You can leave him. This is an option and the easiest one, if you still don’t have children. But if you have children it may not be the best or at least the first option you may want to consider.

If you don’t want to leave him there are three steps that you should take together.

The first is that he must realize Islam and its nefarious culture is the main culprit for his misery and the misery of his family and his society.  There are no emotionally healthy and happy Muslims.  It is fair to say that every Muslim is damaged to a certain degree.   This is true about everyone, Muslim or not, but it is much truer in the case of Muslims.  You can’t grow up in a cesspool, breathing that fetid air and drinking that poop water and grow up healthy and sane.  As the result no Muslim is 100% okay.  I haven’t seen any and I don’t believe there is one.  Leaving Islam is the first step towards sanity and normalcy.

However, it does not mean once you leave Islam all your problems will be solved and you will become a normal person. It may take a few generations to undo the damage that Islam has done to Muslims. You can’t overcome 1400 years of this kind of abuse overnight. For 14 centuries these people have been following a sociopath. The damage can’t be undone easily.

Any person who marries a Muslim should also know that they come with a big emotional baggage.  This does not mean you can’t find good and loving people among Muslims. All humans are born angelic. We get damaged on our way to adulthood. A Muslim child gets more beating.

The next thing you and your husband/partner should do is to get away from his toxic family. Get out of his country and go back to yours. You are still young and you can find a job and be independent. He too can find a job.

These two steps are fundamental, because you want to eliminate the source of the problem.  If your basement is flooded, the first thing you want to do is to stop the water coming in, such as shutting off the tap, before trying to get rid of the water that is in the house . Likewise, you must end the negative influences in your partner’s life, which are his religion and his family before seeking help for him.

Once out of Islam and away from his family, he should seek therapy.  This is a long process but an experienced psychologist or maybe even a psychiatrist can help.  He needs professional help. All Muslims need psychiatric help to a varying degree.  Of course the first thing they should do is to leave Islam.

These are things he must do to overcome his problems.  If he takes the first two steps, you may want to remain loyal to him and be supportive. Help him overcome the damage. It will never be a full recovery but at least it may be enough for him to function as a loving husband and father.

If he refused to leave Islam and cut his umbilical cord from his family, then there is no hope for him.  Consider him a write off and move on with your life.  At 28, you are in the prime of your life.  You can start again and with your experience you will do fine this time.

If you don’t have children, don’t bring any to world yet.  A troubled relationship can become worse with the burden of children and you don’t want to be responsible for destroying their lives.  If you have children and your man refused to leave Islam and his family, take them and move away from him.  It is better for them to grow without a father than letting him abuse and damage them.

The new edition of my book is not available for sale yet. You may want to ask for refund. I attach a copy of the older edition.

Wish you the best

Ali Sina

Dear Ali Sina it is an honour. Forgive me but that is how I feel receiving a response from you. I just got a hold of your book “Understanding Muhammad.” It is very captivating, your intensive scrutiny is expounded forceful and vividly. I

had an American friend who converted to Islam after feeling disillusioned with her former religion while disconcerted during her spiritual quests.  During my spiritual crisis, not been able to explain my pathetic and meaningless existence in this world, I turned to Islam after a Muslim author cordially presented me his book giving me a precise and embellished introduction to Islam. He directed me to a kind and educated Muslim activist around the area. He had also directed me to another Muslim convert and within time I found myself surrounded by these magnificent Eastern people with sharp features, big eyes and soothing tenuous voices, fervent devotion and admirable display of adoration…I was marvelled yet overwhelmed utterly. I believed that I found the perfect God, not one limited form of God through a human being.

Dear Clara, (name changed)

First of all the very notion that some races are better and some are worse is a blatant lie.  Humanity is one race with thousands of ethnicities.  We have different features but no race is ugly. Beauty is in the harmony of the features.  It does not matter which race you are.

This beautiful face is a composite of a few very avarage looking persons.

Actually, science has finally given away the mystery of beauty. Beau­ty is just the av­er­age. Yes “av­er­age” faces, crea­ted by com­pu­ter as composites of many others, are generally rated as bet­ter-look­ing than ordinary faces. Blend­ing even just a few faces—even un­at­trac­tive ones—tends to pro­duce sur­pris­ing im­prove­ments. (Try it your­self here. It is fun.)

This is the future of mankind. As the world becomes smaller and people of different races intermarry, our genes blend and as the computer generated images show our species will become more beautiful.

Now we have solid empirical evidence that mixing our genes will improve our species. Consider yourself a pioneer of the future human race.

Furthermore, beauty is not in the looks but in the personality.  If you have a magnetic personality you look beautiful. How many times you have seen people who looked beautiful or handsome at first but immediately you lost interest in them when they opened their mouth or acted in some inappropriate way?  Contrary wise, as Alice in the Wonderland says, you may meet people who don’t look attractive at first, but they mesmerize you with their towering personality and you find them very attractive.

This face is a composite of ten very avarage looking faces,

Beauty is in personality and personality is something one can work on.  If you stop worrying about your looks and instead focus your attention on others, they will find you attractive.  When you meet someone, don’t think about how you look. Instead make them know how beautiful and wonderful they look. They immediately reciprocate and will find you beautiful too.

Mexicans have very beautiful features. They don’t look like Europeans. If your standard of beauty is the white race, you’ll have difficulty finding beauty in any other race.  An example can make this clear. If your measure of beauty in flowers is rose, you’ll find no other flower can compare to it. But the comparison is wrong.  Each flower has its own beauty. You should not compare.

Of course the claim that some races are intellectually inferior is a sheer lie.  We all originated from Africa and if you go thirty or forty thousand years back, you’ll find all of us come from the same tribe.  This is a blink of an eye in the evolutionary scale.  Although human race lived apart for thousands of years, this is not enough for any major change in our brain to take place. We are the same people, intellectually and in all other respects.

The fact that some cultures remained backward has nothing to do with genes, but with social conditioning. Now we can see the fallacy of racism.  I live in Canada, a country of immigrants where everyone has more or less the same opportunity.  The index of success among all ethnicities is the same. Canadians come from all over the world, but when given equal opportunity they perform equally.  This debunks racism completely. Rich and poor, smart and dumb are distributed equally among all races, which clearly shows race is not a factor. In fact race does not exist at all. We’re all one race.

Generally Muslims are under achievers. It does not matter what race they are. They are often poorer and often more violent. This has to do with their bad culture and bad religion, and not with their genes. African Americans are more likely to go to jail than the whites by a stagering index of 39 times.  This too has nothing to do with genes. The blacks have lost their way when they started believing in the lies of the liberals and became Democrats. They abandoned family values. The index of teenage pregnancy among the blacks in America is staggeringly high and single motherhood is the norm.  Alcoholism and drug addiction is high. What can you expect from children growing up in such dysfunctional families?  To add insult to injruy a much larger percentage of blacks are racist, compared to whites.  In fact an alarming number of blacks are racist.  Their blind support of Obama is proof of that.  It is these flaws that have kept the blacks in the slums not their genes.

Racism is scientifically wrong. It is also morally wrong and intellectually dishonest.  It is the acme of stupidity.  We passed this stage of ignorance and we must never allow it to come back.  In my experience the least racist people are the whites. All other races are more or less racists.

There is an old Chinese story that is worth mentioning here. A young man who studied hard to be the best kung fu fighter thought to himself if he finds about his opponents’ weaknesses he will have an upper hand over them and can beat them in any competition.  He watched them carefully and studied their shortcomings before competing with them. But each time he was defeated. Depressed and disheartened he went to his master and asked what is wrong with his strategy. “It seems to make perfect sense,” he said, “look for an opening where my opponent comes up short, and then use that to achieve victory. Why did it not work?”

His master drew a line in the sand and said,  “Make this line shorter without touching it or covering it up in any way. If you can figure out how to do that, you will also understand why your strategy did not work.”

The young man considered the line for hours and found it impossible to do what his master asked. He finally gave up. “This is one of those puzzles that has no solution,” he protested.

“Yes it has,” said his master. “Now watch carefully.” He then drew a longer line in the sand next to the first one.  “This is the way to do it” said the master. “Don’t you see the first line is shorter? And I didn’t touch it.”

The moral of this story is, don’t focus on things you can’t change.   Instead work on your strengths.  Soon what you consider a defect in you will become insignificant and invisible to others and even to yourself. Instead of striving to diminish your defects, increase your perfections.

Please watch this video. This is the application of the above principle.

 

You asked whether our existence is accidental or whether there is a purpose for which we were born.  I believe we are products of accident. There is no purpose to why we were born.  Wind scatters seeds all over. Many of them fall on wrong places and never germinate. Only a few fall on the right soil, with the right moisture and sunlight and grow to become fruitful plants. Their existence is only accidental. If you think of the number of sperms wasted for just one to meet the ovum and become a baby, you’ll see there is not much difference between our existence and the existence of a plant. We are all products of accident.

But a life without a purpose is not worth living. So it is up to us to give a purpose to our existence.

We are made of billions of cells, each created with a specific purpose. The cells that were meant to be bone marrow, can’t decide to become muscle cells or brain cells.  The purpose of their existence is predetermined. Unlike our cells we humans are free to choose what to do with our life and how to fulfill the purpose of our existence. The only limitation is in our imagination and in our determination.

The fact that there is no predetermined purpose to our existence is not a bad thing. It is actually great because we can choose any purpose for our existence that we want and we can change it. I had a different purpose in my life until 14 years ago. Then I changed it and I am happier.  My life has a big purpose now.  It is a purpose that I chose.  The “calling” came from myself.

You have to choose the purpose of your existence. Do something that will help others.  The more you help others the more fulfilled you become. The tragedy is in not having a purpose. Alas most people live this tragedy.

This conspiracy is sheer evil. It is made by very evil people and believed by very stupid people.  It is maliciously devised as the new blood libel.  I will explain that at the end of this article. But first let me debunk the claim.  This article is based on logic and science, not on political agenda.  Please first watch the claim.  911-conspiracy.

Well, it sound convincing, doesn’t it?  Now let us go over the claims one by one and uncover the deception.  The myths promoted are as follow:

Myth 1 – The Collapse of the Building 7

One question that the conspiracy theorists ask is, why a third sky scraper at the WTC that was not hit by the planes collapsed?

I quote the following paragraph from Wikipedia:

“The working hypothesis, released in the June 2004 progress report and reiterated in a June 2007 status update, was that an initial failure in a critical column occurred below the 13th floor, caused by damage from fire and/or debris from the collapse of the two main towers. The collapse progressed vertically up to the east mechanical penthouse. The interior structure was unable to handle the redistributed load, resulting in horizontal progression of the failure across lower floors, particularly the 5th to 7th floors. This resulted in “a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure”

The insurance company agreed to replace the building. This cost them seven billion dollars.

Firsly, insurance companies don’t pay the owners if their buildings are damaged or destroyed. The insurance is for replacement cost.  Therefore, Larry Silverstein, the lease holder of the building did not and could not collect one dime from that seven billion dollars. That money was paid to a contractor hired by the insurance company to replace the building.  This is the normal procedure.

Secondly, would the insurance company pay so much money if the building was fraudulently destroyed?  Wouldn’t they send their own inspector to verify the legitimacy of the claim? Seven billion dollars is not small money. If they paid that money it is because they were convinced of no faul play.

Thirdly,   who would have benefited from the destruction of that building?  If the intent was to kill people, as the conspiracy theorists want us to believe, that goal was not achieved.  So if the official explenation that says the building had suffered fatal damages due to the fall of the debries from the two WTC towers is not true what other motive can these conspiracists think of?

The video claims that Larry Silverstein is on tape saying he ordered the New York Fire Department to “pull it.”

Think about this for a moment. Is this claim realistic? Would the NYFD pull down a perfectly safe building just because its owner orders them to pull it?

To answer this first argument one does not have to be a building engineer or have any knowledge of structures. All one needs is a little commonsense.  Alas commonsense is not all that common. As Bertrand Russell rightly pointed out, “in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” [Marriage and Morals.1929 ch. 5]

This picture shows the damage sustained by Building 7 and why it became necessary to bring it down.

The following paragraph is taken from Wikipedia

 After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts. Over the course of the day fires burned out of control on several floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building. During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30. In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon. At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse. During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building. Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel. At 5:20:33 pm EDT the building started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, and at 5:21:10 pm EDT it collapsed completely. There were no associated with the collapse.

Myth 2: Fire alone is not enough to collapse steel buildings.

The conspiracists argue that considering that Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia burned for 19 hours and yet it never collapsed how could the twin towers fall after one and two hours of burning.  They also ask, “How could the jet fuel have caused the collapse when the Federal Emergency Management has stated that most of the jet fuel was gone in the initial fire ball?” Moreover, they ask, “How could the fires have caused the collapse at all since tests by Cardington found that steel buildings survive fires with temperatures beyond the range possible with Jet Fuel?  Since the black smoke coming from the buildings indicates that the fire was oxygen starved and could not have reached its maximum degrees of 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and steel melt at much higher temperature of 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit, how could cleanup crews have found melted steel in the basements?”

Here are my answeres: When a steel structure high-rise catches fire, the only fuel is the furniture inside the building. This does not produce enough heat to melt the steel structure.

When thousands of liters of jet fuel burst at once in a closed space the heat generated is a lot hotter.  It’s no longer just heat but a bomb. That is because the heat is trapped.  A log burned inside a woodstove can generate more heat than if it is burned in an open space where heat can dissipate into the atmosphere.

However, the buildings were not collapsed because the steel columns melted.  They collapsed because the structure was damaged and rendered precarious. The heat softened the steel and allowed it to bend precipitating the collapse.  It was an added element, but not the main cause.

The South Building fell after just one hour becuse the weight above the damge was more than that of North Building that fell after two hours burning.

Structural damage alone was enough to make the buildings collapse.  That was what happened to Building 7.

In June 1995 the Sampoong Department Store in Korea collapsed because of structural failure.  At first minor cracks started to show. The cracks widened gradually.  It took several days after the cracks were discovered for the structure to finally give in.  With so much weight above the point of impact causing so much damage to the columns, the two towers were doomed even without a fire.

Myth 3: Super thermite was used to increase the heat.

Physicists such as Steven E. Jones and Niels Harrit have claimed that within the dust and rubble of the World Trade Center towers lies evidence of “a highly engineered explosive.” They are pointing to traces of active thermitic material, a substance that produces intense localized heat when burned that was found among the rubbles in Ground Zero.

Answere: Super thermite can only generate intense heat in small areas. Painting it on one inch thick steel, which is the the thickness of the steel used in building the columns of WTC, and setting it on fire does not make the steal hot enough to bend. In fact the fuel will end before the other side of the steel gets hot.  This theory is completely unscientific.

But where did the traces of super thermite come from?

Active thermitic material is a combination of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in form of thermite known as “nanostructured super-thermite.” It is used in steel cutting and welding, fireworks shows, hand grenades and demolition.

WTC towers were made with steel welded together.  Hundreds of tons of welding rods were used to build the two towers. Of course you’d find thermite in the dust. Wherever there is a structure made with welded steel you will find thermitic material.

More importantly after the collapse of the buildings the columns had to be cut so they could be removed. This allowed thermite to be scattered all over the place and that is the reason melted steel was found on the site.

So much for the erudition of these two “physicists!”

Myth 4: The impact of the wind and storm is greater than the impact of the airliners

One question the conspiracy theorists ask is, “how could the airliners’ impact have caused the collapse when wind gust and storms had at times been greater than the impact of the airliners?”  They argue that the buildings were designed to stand the wind force gust of 140 mph that cause a sheer lateral force of 11,000,000 pounds, which exceeds that caused by the airliners.

This is sheer deception.  No one has said that the buildings fell because of the impact. The 11,000,000 pound force is sustained by the entire structure, whereas the airliners hit only a small area of the façade.  This localized force was enough to destroy the columns. The buildings did not bend because of the impact.  They did not fall because of the impact. They collapsed because of the damage caused to the columns that gave in to the weight of 20 and 40 stories above them.

A bullet that can kill you will merely push you slightly if its impact is distributed by an anti-bullet vest.  The wind’s impact is distributed whereas the impact of the panes were localized which caused structural damage.

Myth 5: The Twin Towers were destroyed through Controlled demolition.

Another question asked is, “how could the buildings collapse with the speed of gravity? Each floor hit, should have slowed the fall.   This couldn’t have happened without explosives placed inside the structure. “

Answer: This question may confound those who have little understanding of physics.  Why should the floors have slowed down the fall?  The weight of the material falling becomes bigger and bigger as it goes down. If the first floor below the impact could not resist that weigh falling on it there is no reason to expect that the floors beneath it would resist. All floors were built with similar strength but the weigh falling on each lower floor was greater than the the one supported by the upper floors.  This is like expecting layers of cardboard place at a distance to each other held beneath a falling bowling ball slow its fall.  Floors are built to support the weight of people and furniture. They are not designed to support the falling weigh of thousands of tons of concrete.  Construction workers know that floors cannot support a lot of weight and while storing the construction materials they never put too much weigh in one spot.  No floor can stand the falling weigh of 20 or 40 story building.  Often the falling weigh of one story is enough for the lower floor to give in. Such an argument is ridiculous.

Myth 6: Explosives were used to demolish the buildings

This claim is the crux of this conspiracy theory and it is the easiest to disprove.

A few eye witnesses have claimed that they heard several explosions. Jesse Ventura, the conspiracy theorist enthusiast, has interviewed several people who claim they heard, two, three, four, and up to ten explosions.

Ventura heard several contradictory reports.   This means that with the exception of  one, all others lied to him, or merely they are confused people.

There are many videos showing the entire event.  None of those videos show any explosion.  The huge dust created is caused by the crushing of the concrete.

The best way to debunk the theory of controlled demolition is to watch the collapse of the WTC towers and compare them with controlled demolitions.

In controlled demolitions the columns are perforated and dynamite is placed inside them.  When they are detonated the building falls and get crushed as the floors hit the ground.  In controlled demolition, the demolition happens from bottom up.

Here are a few demonstrations of controlled demolition. Note how elaborate is the process of preparing a building for demolition.  Did all these preperations happen in the offices of people in WTC under their nose  withouth anyone noticing?

The collapse of the WTC is very different.  All the videos show that the demolition is talking place from top to bottom. While the upper floors are being destroyed the floors below them are still standing. They fall as soon as they are hit by the weight of the falling debris.

It takes only a few minutes of attentively watching the videos of the falling of the twin towers to dismiss all these asinine conspiracy theories.  If you watch carefully you will see that the floors below the impact are standing intact when the upper floors fall on them, which means no demolition took place bellow them and the whole argument of controlled demolition is discredited.  This is all we need to dismiss all the other claims.  Compare this fall with the falls of many other controlled demolitions.  You will see the difference. In controlled demolition all the floors fall together.  Whereas the lower portion of the WTC towers are standing firm until they are hit from above.

This is all you need to watch to see this conspiracy theory is a big lie. You don’t have to be a building engineer or even an intellectual giant.  All you need is to have a little bit of commonsense.  That is what most people lack. We humans are victims of our own gullibility.  We let ourselves to be fooled because we don’t learn critical thinking. We are a stupid species. This is the reason behind our never ending misery. Isn’t the election of Obama proof enough that masses of humanity are just plainly stupid? The majority of mankind all over the world thought this mentally sick man is the Messiah.  It is the same people who believe in this stupid conspiracy theory.

The following is a computer generated simulation of how the buildings collpsed.

Myth 7: The top part of the buildings fell over so there was no weight on floors below.

Another question asked is, “How could the twin towers fall straight down when the damage and resulting fires were only to one corner two sides? Only the tops of the twin towers should have fallen, and they should have fallen over not straight down. In fact the top of one tower did fall unto building 4, so there was no building weight to crush the floors below.  So what caused the collapse of those floors?”

Answer: This is just a lie. First of all the top parts of the buildings did not fall over but right on the floor below. Here is the picture that shows it.

Secondly why should the building with such a huge floor area fall over? This would have required an enormous lateral force. If the only force in action was gravity there is no reason for the top parts to fall over.  Once two sides and the core of the building gave in the rest of the coulmns did not have the strength to hold the building in place. They bent and the building fell on itself.

This picture is enough to see that the floors below had no chance of standing that weight.  The top floors with the weight of 40 storeis fell faster than the one with 20 stories.

Myth 8:  The hijackers could not fly.

One of the hijackers’ flight-instructor has said, “I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.”

The hijackers did not have to learn how to take off or land the planes. Steering them in the air does not require a lot of training. That is all they wanted to learn to perpetrated this crime.

Assuming the fanatical Islamic terrorists who cheerfully seek martyrdom to go to heaven were not piloting the planes, who piloted them?  Who else is so eager to commit suicide?

The argument is so idiotic that it does not need any refutation. But it gives us a glimpse into the devious minds of the conspiracy theorists and the gulibility of those who accept them.

The absurdities do not end here. The conspiracists ask. “Isn’t it too much of a coincidence that four hijacked airplanes had only 20% to 50% of their seats filled, while all other transcontinental that day had 70% to 90% of their seats occupied?”

I don’t know how many seats in those hijacked planes were occupied and whether this was highly irregular.  The objective of these conspiracy theorists is only to confound and we will see why below.  However, let us give them the benefit of the doubt and accept this claim. What are they trying to prove? That those who planned the destruction of the WTC and caused the death of 3000 people were concerned about saving the lives of a few dozen more Americans and hence they decided not to fill the planes with passengers?  If the intent was to kill and this was all planned by Bush, Chaney and Condoleezza Rice why not fill the planes to the maximum capacity?

Liars are inconsistent. The goal is to sling so much mud in the hope that some of it may stick. This decietful kind of persenting arguments is typical of all bankrupt ideologies that rely on lies to come to power. It was practiced by the Nazis in Germany, the fascists in Italy, the communists all over the world, and now by the leftists and of coures by Muslims who have been lying for 1400 years.   These hate mongers rely on the power of the big lie.  The bigger the lie the more credible it sounds.

The New Blood Libel

During the middle Ages in Europe, on Passover, the bizarre blood libel accusations were often leveled against the Jews. These accusations usually led to violent attacks against Jewish communities. There were hundreds of blood libels throughout history, resulting in the deaths of thousands. The blood libel theme rarely deviated. A child–almost always a young boy–was lost. Allegations then arose that the Jews murdered him and used his blood for ritual purposes. Usually those leveling the accusations had murdered the child themselves in order to accuse the Jews. Sometimes the child was a victim of an accident or later found unharmed. The cruelest methods of torture were often used to force confessions and the fabricated charges would serve as a pretext to slander and attack Jewish communities.

By the 14th century, ritual murder charges became common at Passover time. The fact that human sacrifice and the use of even animal blood for any purpose are strictly forbidden according to Jewish law did not matter to those perpetrators and believers of lies. Reason is abandoned when hatred and ignorance rule. Repudiations of blood libels by many popes throughout the ages did little or nothing to stop them.

To this day in many Arab countries Muslims promote this libel against the Jews to demonize them and arouse hatred against them.  This libel is however has been exposed. However the hatred against the Jews is still alive. The Jew haters have now invented a new libel – the 9/11 conspiracy theory.  According to this theory, it was not the Muslims who perpetrated the carnage in the September of 2001, but it was Mossad, the national intelligence agency of Israel, with the help of the CIA and Bush administration.

A variety of motives are suggested, including: to cause the United States to attack enemies of Israel; to divert public attention away from Israel’s treatment of Palestinians; to help Zionists take control of world affairs; and to persuade Americans to support Israel.

Some proponents of this believe that Jewish employees were forewarned by Israeli intelligence to skip work on September 11, resulting in no Jewish deaths at the World Trade Center. According to Cinnamon Stillwell, some 9/11 conspiracy theorists put this number as high as 4,000 Jewish people skipping work. This was first reported on September 17 by the Lebanese Hezbollah-owned satellite television channel Al-Manar.

The number of Jews who died in the attacks is variously estimated at between 270 and 400. The lower figure tracks closely with the percentage of Jews living in the New York area and partial surveys of the victims’ listed religion.

Who is behind this conspiracy theory?

Lies are promoted because someone benefits from them.  Who benefits from spreading this lie?

It is not difficult to see who benefits. Muslims and the leftists are the ones who benefit.

Osama Bin Landen, who has called this attack ghazwah, (raid) has gloated about his success. The hijackers are lauded by many Muslim jihadi sites. Isn’t that enough evidence that Muslims were behind it?

Al-Muhajiroun led by Omar Bakri Muhammad and Anjem Choudary organized a conference “The Magnificent 19″, praising the September 11 attacks.

These are facts that the conspiracy theorists ignore, but they cling to baseless theories, none of which is logical or scientific.

Bertrand said, “If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.”

This explains why this stupid conspiracy theory is accepted by so many gullible folk.

The objective is to confound and distract people so the enemy is not stopped. Muslims on one hand lionize the hijackers and at the same time they deny they had anything to do with it.  With one side of their mouths they say America had it coming and with the other side they shift the blame on the Jews and the CIA and Bush.  This is all taqiyah.  And of course the leftist useful idiots are always on the side of whoever is against America. The more confusion is created the more votes they can grab.  They know that their only hope to come to power and stay in power is through lies. Anything that can smear America is welcomed. Any absurdity that can blame the Jews is accepted.  They prefer lies to truth even when there is no evidence to support them.

The 9/11 carnage was inspired by the Quran; it was devised by Muslim mujahids; it was perpetrated by Islamic fighters; it was hailed by Muslims as thier great victory and was cheefully celebrated throughout the Muslim world.

The reason Muslims promote this conspiracy is clear. It is their new blood libel against the Jews.  But anti-Semitism is alive even among non-Muslims.  The people who incinerated six million Jews are still alive, hidden among us. They may be engineers and experts.  But they lie motivated by their hatred of the Jews and America, not by facts.

There is an excellent artilce on the absurdity of this conspiracy theory. Here is a quote from that article:

1. A good conspiracy theory suggests that the government is competent enough to map out the strategy, plan the mission, subvert the individuals required to run the plot and then carry it out without getting caught. For anyone who has ever worked for government, it is known that the level of competency required to create such a conspiracy is beyond that of virtually any government – democratic or otherwise.

2. A conspiracy theory assumes that the government pays its employees enough to remain silent. Given the untold millions that could be made by a single book deal revealing the conspiracy and the relatively low rates of pay in government, this is obviously a ludicrous suggestion.

3. The 9/11 conspiracy theory assumes that the rank and file worker in government who helped carry out the conspiracy would tolerate and assist in the mass murder of their fellow citizens. This might be a fair criticism of senior political leaders in some states, but it is a slanderous accusation for the vast majority of government workers in democratic states.

Please read all this article here.  9/11 Conspiracy Theories – Debunking Richard Gage

And here is another very good article on the subject.

9/11 conspiracy theories: The truth is out there…just not on the internet

Please spread this article and if anyone can help me create a video on this subject I would greatly appreciate it. Lies will keep spreading as long as truth remains hidden.  Those who fabricate lies and spread them don’t have our best interest in mind.  Let us spread the truth and put an end to this devious lie.

If Jesse Ventura had put a fraction of the work that he has put on his biceps on his brain, he wouldn’t have made that conspiracy movie about 9/11.    One person asked him whether he is going to make a documentary on Obama’s ineligibility. His response was no. He added that it does not bother him at all. The biggest fraud on the American people does not bother this man but he has no problem deceiving the public with lies and blaming the victim when an external anemy attacks America.

The problem is not Jesse Ventura. He is after money and lacks patriotism. The problem are the ordinary Americnas who watch his stupid programs and and make him rich.  The problem is that the Americans no longer can distinguish between freinds and enemy, or even turth and falshood. Such a nation is doomed and we can see that happening.

I am not a Muslim, but an Agnostic. I believe in love. In my opinion fighting fire with fire, results in… more fire.  However, your web page is very enlightening.

I have a personal request for you in regards to my own life. I believe that you may shed some light on my situation. I would appreciate it if you could make the time for a brief exchange of opinion.

I am a 30+ year old independent consulting engineer.  I started a relationship with my banker, who is a wonderful Muslim woman. We mutually agreed that religion is a personal choice, and that we will respect each other’s choices.

The relationship is currently based on electronic communication.

The only contact we have had outside work has been one lunch break. Since then she is always busy: exams, family, etc.  Her current commitment is to make a meeting happen next week, after an important banking exam.

She is actively involved in the Muslim community.

She describes her family as conservative.

She declares her love to me.

She also declares her love for her family.

She does not want to lose them, or me.

She has never been married.

As a person with intimate knowledge of Islam, and one who has an open mind, I would appreciate if you could share your wisdom with me.

I trust you also believe in love (as a feeling, and as a conscious decision that has to be made).

Kind regards

Hi Frank (name changed),

Love is overrated. You may love someone today and stop loving him/her the next day. All divorces happen between couples who were once madly in love with each other. Spouses who once were best friends become mortal enemies.  Yes love is important. It is a sine qua non for a happy marriage, but it is not everything. There must be also compatibility.

As a non-Muslim you will never have compatibility with a Muslim partner for whom religion is important and is actively involved in it.

Marriage is not just for the benefit of the couple. In fact it is not about them at all. It is for the benefit of the children. Marriage is an institution we humans have devised to protect our future generations. It is a sacred institution made for the survival and the happiness of our species. If it were not for children we would never have invented the marriage.  The fact that we fall in love and develop loyalty to our partner is nature’s way to ensure our future generations are protected and provided for.  You don’t see this kind of marital love and relationship in most other mammals because their offspring does not need so much paternal care as human babies do.  On the other hand most species of birds form monogamous relationships, some for life and some for the duration of hatching and fledgling of their chicks. Monogamy among mamals is rare. Only 3% of mamals are monogamous, in contrast 90% of birds are monogamous.

Some people think marriage is a religious institution – a relic of the past. This is not true. Marriage is an evolutionary imperative in humans.  The ceremony itself is just a social contract but marital commitment is in our nature.

When you try to choose a life partner, think about your future children first.  How their best interest will be served? They are the primary purpose of marriage.  Of course you get love and companionship from marriage too.  But this is not why marriage was instituted.  Marriage was instituted for the benefit of children. Everything else is a bonus.

Children need a harmonious place to grow. When you marry a Muslim and you are not, your relationship will NOT be harmonious.  The exhilaration of sexual attraction will die very soon. Honeymoon will be over in days. To live with someone for the rest of your life you need to be compatible together.

Yes religion is a personal matter, but that is only in your relationship with your co-workers and your neighbors, not with your spouse.  How will you raise your children? If you teach them a set of values and she tells them something different the kids will be confused and disoriented.  If the father and mother don’t respect each other’s opinions and beliefs, children cannot respect either one of them, or worse, they will take side.  The mother has more emotional  control over the children. So be prepared to be the outsider in your own home.

There will be also conflicts in other areas.  If you can’t share your thoughts with your spouse because they will offend her you grow apart. Soon you will feel you are living with a stranger with whom you have little in common. Then both of you may find others to share your soul with and maybe other things.  Infidelity happens when spouses have nothing to talk about.  And I can assure you that you’ll have very little to talk about with a brain dead Muslim.  Don’t deceive yourself. There are no bright Muslims. If they are, they will leave Islam.

Also this woman is not being truthful to you. She is a devout Muslim coming from a conservative Muslim family. She knows that as a Muslim woman she cannot marry a non-Muslim man. But she is hiding this fact from you for the time being until she has you on the hook. Then the mind games and manipulations begin and she will gradually try to corner you into accepting Islam.  It will be of course just to please her parents and other silly excuses. It will be only a “formality” to keep the peace in her family and if you love her enough you should make that little sacrifice.  Once you give in you lose your respect.  Nature dictates that men must lead and women must follow. If you do anything that goes against this law of nature, you will lose your status and with it your respect. With words she may praise you but as a man you are finished. She is a woman after all and women don’t have a lot of respect for weak men.  She perceives you as one who is willing to give up on his principles for her and that is a death sentence of a good relationship.

I am not suggesting that men should be obstinate. That is a turn off. In ordinary things, it is better to be accommodating.  How to decorate the house, where to eat, where to go for vacation, etc., are things that you should give in, if she feels strongly about them.  However, in matters of principle never give in no matter how she insists and threatens you.  I can’t see anything more fundamental than one’s belief. Women will love you more if they find you stronger than them.  Once again I must emphasize that obstinacy is not strength, it is camouflaging weakness.

It is up to you to decide what to do. But since you asked me I will give you my opinion, even though it may not be what you hoped to hear.  I suggest you either stop meeting her or meet her and tell her what I told you. Tell her for the sake of the children you should both belong to the same faith. Tell her you are willing to convert to Islam if she reads my book and shows where I am wrong (I will send you a PDF file if you ask for it).  This is a trick. It is intended to make her read my book. Once she reads it she will leave Islam.  If that happens, then date her and see whether you are really compatible in other areas. If she refuses to read, say goodbye and thank me for saving you from a lot of unnecessary future pain. The chances that you will find happiness with a devout Muslim is very slim.

Muslims are like anyone else. They can be smart, charming, loving or just cranky and moody, etc. However, there is something very sinister in them. That is their belief in a psychopath. When people follow a psychopath they can do irrational things that are beyond your expectation.  They can be also extremely ruthless and evil. Remember that Muslims have no understanding of the Golden Rule.   That is a big disadvantage for you or for anyone dealing with them.

Help this woman to leave Islam or dump her. That is the bottom line.

BTW, I am not fighting fire with fire. I am fighting ignorance with rationality.

Cheers

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

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.

This article was written in May, 2009

Our friend Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, the indefatigable defender of the Western civilization, send me the following email and asked me to answer to the criticism of a Muslim to an article that I wrote four years ago on the incompatibility of Islam and the Golden Rule.  Here is this Muslim’s email and my response to him.

Recently I came across an attack on your piece on Islam and the Golden Rule. These passages below were cited in refutation. Any guidance you can give me on responding to this would be greatly appreciated.

Islamic Text on the Golden Rule:

The Quran:

“Serve God, and join not any partners with Him; and do good – to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbors who are near, neighbors who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (ye meet), and what your right hands possess [the slave]: For God loveth not the arrogant, the vainglorious” (Q:4:36)

(In fact the Quran goes beyond saying the Golden Rule by stating in more than four places that “Return evil with Kindness.” (13:22, 23:96, 41:34, 28:54, 42:40)

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh):

“None of you have faith until you love for your neighbor what you love for yourself” (Sahih Muslim)

“Whoever wishes to be delivered from the fire and to enter Paradise…should treat the people as he wishes to be treated.” (Sahih Muslim)

“None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself” (Forty Hadith-Nawawi)

“None of you is a believer if he eats his full while his neighbour hasn’t anything.” (Musnad)

“Do unto all men as you would wish to have done unto you; and reject for others what you would reject for yourselves.” (Abu Dawud)

“Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you.” (Farewell Sermon)

“There should be neither harming nor reciprocating harm.” (Ibn- Majah)

The Quran is a book of double standards. Indeed, there are exhortations to Muslims to be kind to the poor, the traveler, the orphan and the sick.  This is to be expected. If you want to start a religion you must preach something good or you’d not find anyone to believe you.  You cannot preach only evil. In order to attract followers you must teach things that people like and can easily identify as good. Once they accept you as a prophet, guru or their spiritual guide, then you can do whatever you want and get away with it.

The difference between a true spiritual teacher and a conman is in their consistency. There are several teachings of Muhammad that can be compared to those of Jesus, but the teachings of Jesus are consistent while those of Muhammad are not.  Even a criminal can give you good advises, this does not mean he is a good person.

When I was young there was a radio show in Iran called A City within Our City.  Every week the producer would interview a prison inmate on death roll and the criminal would tell the story of his life and what brought him to crime. At the end of the program the producer would ask whether the criminal had any advice for young people. These criminals often had the best advises. They knew exactly the difference between right and wrong. I recall thinking; if only someone compiled the advices of these criminals he could write the best book of guidance. Good words are dime a dozen. If words are not accompanied by deeds they are worthless.  In fact the difference between a great man and a conman is in the measure that their words and deeds differ. Demagogy is the domain of all charlatans and they are good at it.

We find similar good exhortations in the teachings of Jim Jones who actually based his religion on “social justice”. He adopted children from many races to set the example.

The problem with the good teachings of Muhammad is that they are reserved for fellow Muslims. When the hadith says, “None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself,” it is talking about the brothers in faith.

The brotherhood in Islam does not extend to everyone. The Quran (9:23) states that the believers should not take for friends and protectors (awlia) their fathers and brothers if they love Infidelity above Islam. In fact there are many verses that tell the Muslims to kill the unbelievers and be harsh with them. A clear example that Islam is not based on the Golden Rule is the verse (48:29): “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.” This is the perfect definition of fascism.

There are many other verses that show the brotherhood in Islam is not universal. Non-believers have no rights and should not be treated in the same way that believers are to be treated. The entire Quran is a breach of the Golden Rule. The Quran tells Muslims to slay the unbelievers wherever they find them (2:191), don’t befriend them (3:28), fight them and show them harshness (9:123), smite their heads (47:4), etc.  Are these verses compatible with the Golden Rule?

Islam is the only doctrine that calls upon its believers to do evil to others for the simple fact that they are not believers.

According to Muslims it is not the Golden Rule that defines the good and bad, it is Muhammad who does it. They believe that what is good for Islam is the highest virtue and what is bad for Islam is the ultimate evil.  This is the definition of good and evil in Islam. This is the ethos of all cults. From Asahara’s “Aum  Shinrikyo” to Jim Jones’ “People’s Temple”; from Sun Myung Moon’s “Unification Chruch” to David Koresh’s “Davidian Branch”, the recurring theme is that the cult’s interests override human understanding of right and wrong. In order to advance the interest of the cult, which is regarded as the ultimate good, everything, including lying, and even murder and assassination are permissible. The end is deemed to be so lofty that it justifies the means. This is the same idea of fascism where glorification of the state and total subordination of the individual to it are enforced.

None of the verse quoted above by Muslims have anything to do with the Golden Rule.

Verse 13:22 tells the believers to be patient and generous with their money. This is what all cults demand from their followers. The more sacrifice the cultist make the more he or she can be manipulated.

Verse 23:96 asks Muslims to repel evil, where the definition of evil for Muhammad was contradicting him.

Verse 41:34 is a Meccan verse where Muhammad and his followers were the underdogs and here he preached patience and said repel evil with good so your enemy becomes as friend. Could he have done anything else?  When he was weak he had to play the nice guy.  These orders changed when he came to power. In Medina he banished and massacred entire populations just because he suspected that they may not be friendly to him.

Verse 28:54 is a repetition of 23:96 and verse 42:40 says whoever forgives and amends, he shall have his reward from Allah.  However, Muhammad never forgave those who mocked him. As for Muhammad’s unforgiving nature it is enough to recall the fate of Oqba the man who mocked Muhammad in Mecca. When he was captured in the Battle of Badr, Muhammad ordered his decapitation. Oqba ventured to expostulate and demand why he should be treated more vigorously than the other captives who were kept for ransom.  “Because of your enmity to God and to his Prophet,” replied Muhammad. “And my little girl!” cried Oqba, in the bitterness of his soul, “Who will take care of her?” – “Hellfire!” exclaimed the heartless conqueror; and on the instant his victim was hewn to the ground.  “Wretch that he was!” continued Muhammad, “and persecutor!  Unbeliever in God, in his Prophet, and in his Book!  I give thanks unto the Lord that has slain you, and comforted mine eyes thereby.”[1]

How do you reconcile the claim that Muhammad in his farewell sermon said, “Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you,” with the fact that in his deathbed he said, “No two religions are allowed in Arabia” and ordered the forced conversion, expulsion or ethnic cleansing of the Jews and Christians and the massacre of Pagans?

The sura 9, which is the last words of Muhammad, is a manifesto of discrimination and human rights abuses. This sura alone is proof that Islam is against the Golden Rule

The first requisite to feel the pain and suffering of others is to accept that they have feelings that they are like us who also feel hurt the way we do. If we dehumanize and deny such feelings on others we don’t feel any remorse in abusing them. Muhammad claimed all those who disbelieve in Allah are the worst creatures. He even said that all non-believers will end up in hell where they will be tortured for eternity. How then Muslims can treat equally those whom they believe to be worse than beast deserving of eternal punishment?

There is nothing in the Quran and Hadith that would make us believe that Islam is compatible with the Golden Rule.

Mubahila, is a silly practice that Muhammad institutionalized in the Quran. When he was still not powerful to kill his detractors, he would invite them to curse each other so the one who is wrong may die. This practice is called mubahila. It is utterly nonsense but Muslims can’t discard it because it is in the Quran.

In April 2008 Mr. Shabir Bhatti, a Muslim from Pakistan challenged me to mubahila. Here is our discussion.

Shabir Bhatti dasvedas@googlemail.com

date Tue, Apr 22, 2008
subject Invitatation to mubahila

This is an invitation to Ali Sina to a mubahila in order for God to decide who is wrong and who is right.

Ali Sina,
I have read all the rubbish you have written on your website.
I do not even see it right to argue with someone like you so i have a different way to solve this.

I am extending to you an invitation to a mubahila, I will pray to my God with my beliefs and you pray to whomever you believe and the first one to die in 90 days was wrong.

If you think you are right and are willing to accept my offer contact me with an acceptance.

We will wait for 90 days after your acceptance and see who was wrong.

If you do not accept this then i advice you remove your website.

I am forwarding this website to as many people as i can with reference to your website so that there are witnesses.

I advise you to do the same.

Waiting for your reply.

Shabir Bhatti (dasvedas@gmail.com)

I replied:

And how do we know who won at the end of 90 days?

The person who is wrong will not live to see the 91st day. If i am wrong i will die before the end of the third month and if you are wrong you will.
Do you accept?

Mr. Shabir Bhatti:

I accept that you pray so I die within 90 days. I will however not pray for your death, but rather your enlightenment. I harbor no ill faith towards anyone. I consider Muslims as primary victims of a lie and my goal is to help them see the truth, leave their cult, prosper and live happily ever after. Praying for people’s death is against my values. I do not consider it as an ethical thing to do. Actually I think it is stupid. There are many people that I wish to die soon and go to hell, such as Osama Bin Laden, the despots in Iran, etc. However, I don’t sit there prying for their death. That would be waste of my time.

You seem to think that by invoking evil on me, I will die. Now, the fact is that anyone can die at any time. No one can be certain to live the next day. So there is always a chance that either one of us die in these coming 90 days. This should be attributed to chance and not to the effect of cursing. Therefore, assuming I die within 90 days, it is no proof that I died because you cursed me. However, what if I don’t die? It will prove that your cursing has had no effect and that your Allah is bogus. What will you do if you see me still kicking after the lapse of 90 days? Will you then accept the fact that Islam is a lie? Allah in the Qur’an establishes mubahila as a legitimate form of finding the truth.

3.61: If any one disputes in this matter with thee, now after (full) knowledge Hath come to thee, say: “Come! let us gather together,- our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves: Then let us earnestly pray, and invoke the curse of Allah on those who lie!”

Since I don’t believe in this nonsense and I don’t wish you harm, I am not going to pray for your demise, but I welcome your curses. You are also authorized to call upon all the Muslims you can find, and those who read this (I am going to publish this exchange) to join you in cursing me and invoking evil on me so I may die within 90 days. I suggest you write to all the Islamic sites and ask them to advertise this unilateral mubahila. Go to Muslims’ comments page in faithfreedom.org site and write to all the Muslims who wished me dead to join you in this “mighty” enterprise. If millions of Muslims join, your cursing may have more strength.

However, if after this period I am still alive, will you start questioning the truth of the Quran and the claim of Muhammad? Will this be enough for you to see that Muhammad was a liar?

While Jesus asked for forgiveness for those who crucified him, Muhammad had so much hatred in his heart for those who rejected him that he often cursed them.

Here are a few examples:
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 397:
Narrated Salim’s father:
That he heard Allah’s Apostle, when raising his head from bowing of the first Rak’a of the morning prayer, saying, “O Allah! Curse so-and-so and so-and-so” after he had said, “Allah hears him who sends his praises to Him. Our Lord, all the Praises are for you!” So Allah revealed:– “Not for you (O Muhammad! )……(till the end of Verse) they are indeed wrong-doers.” (3.128) Salim bin ‘Abdullah said’ “Allah’s Apostle used to invoke evil upon Safwan bin Umaiya, Suhail bin ‘Amr and Al-Harith bin Hisham. So the Verse was revealed:– “Not for you (O Muhammad!)……(till the end of Verse) For they are indeed wrong-doers.” (3.128)

The verse 3:128 says, it is up to Allah to decide whether he would punish people or not. That cunning psychopath was a master manipulator. He knew his curses will have no effect and his imaginary Allah is only a figment of his imagination. He put these words in the mouth of his god so his followers don’t come to see that he is just a liar with no powers. Unlike you who seem to actually believe in this nonsense to the extent that you bet your life  on it, Muhammad knew  that he was lying. He left for himself a scape rout. If his opponents died, he would claim victory and if they didn’t he would say Allah chose not to punish them.

This is another version of the same hadith:
Volume 6, Book 60, Number 83:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Whenever Allah’s Apostle intended to invoke evil upon somebody or invoke good upon somebody, he used to invoke (Allah after bowing (in the prayer). Sometimes after saying, “Allah hears him who sends his praises to Him, all praise is for You, O our Lord,” he would say, “O Allah. Save Al-Walid bin Al-Walid and Salama bin Hisham, and ‘Aiyash bin Abu Rabi’a. O Allah! Inflict Your Severe Torture on Mudar (tribe) and strike them with (famine) years like the years of Joseph.” The Prophet used to say in a loud voice, and he also used to say in some of his Fajr prayers, “O Allah! Curse so-and-so and so-and-so.” naming some of the Arab tribes till Allah revealed:–”Not for you (O Muhammad) (but for Allah) is the decision.” (3.128)

These are the teachings of that evil soul:
Book 009, Number 3562:
Ibn ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with them) reported: Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) asked a person from the Anger and his wife to invoke curse (upon one another in order to testify to their truthfulness), and then effected separation between them.

Is invoking curse upon one another the right way to find the truth? What about fact finding, investigation, dialogue, reasoning and logic? Muhammad and his followers want nothing to do with them. They have no understanding of these terms. All they can do is curse and if that doesn’t work, terrorism will do. What a pathetic religion!

Regards
Ali Sina

Mr. Bhatti replied:

Do you believe in the supreme God, the God of the heavens and the earth, the God who created all things?

Mr. Bhatti:

Whether I believe in God or not does not change the fact that Islam is a lie. Let us say that I believe in God. What Islam has to do with God? This is like the followers of David Koresh, the mad man who started a religion and caused the death of tens of his followers say if you believe in God you should believe in David Koresh. I see no connection between God and Muhammad. Muhammad was a charlatan liar. This pervert man had no understanding of God. He used God to fool people. This argument often used by Muslims is a non sequitur.

This is not about me praying for you to die or you praying for me to die, this is about both of us praying to God to decide who is wrong and who is right.

God already knows which one of us is wrong. Why would he need that we curse each other and invoke his wrath on one another to decide which one is wrong? Isn’t that silly? Only an idiot man like Muhammad could come up with this asininity. You and I live in this age of enlightenment. We should not let a lunatic ignoramus fool us with his lies. If the idea is for God to make people see the truth, then all he has to do is open the eyes of those who are misguided.

Beacause if I am right, then you have comitted a grave sin and if you are right then I will happily accept the punishment of God Almighty for being ignorant.

Sin is in terrorizing, causing harm and doing evil. Ignorance is not a sin. People believe in all sorts of things with sincerity. They are so sure of their beliefs that they are willing to sacrifice their lives for what they believe. However, not all beliefs are true. Believing in lies is not a sin, it is ignorance. I believed in Islam, when I learned the truth, I stopped believing in it. This does not mean I was a sinner because I believed in a lie. I was only ignorant of the truth. Now let us say I am wrong and Islam is true. I have committed no sin. I have come to this conclusion based on the evidences that I have found. I am challenging anyone to prove me wrong and I will change my mind again. God wants us to use our brain so we are not misled. I used mine and found out that Muhammad is not leading me to God but to evil. I stopped believing in him. Do you think I am wrong? Why don’t you show my errors? Why do you instead want to invoke the curse of God on me so I die? This makes no sense. I know it does not make sense to you either, but you rehash this nonsense because you think Muhammad was a real messenger of God and believe in every absurdity that that crazy man believed.

I assure you that God will not punish ignorant people. If there is punishment, it is only for evil-doers such as Muhammad and those of his followers who harm other people. He was the one who raided, looted, raped and assassinated innocent people, not me. He was the one who fooled people with his lies and made them kill one another while promising them orgies in paradise, not me. He was the one who made people slaves, both physically and mentally and threatened them against using their brain, not me. If I am mistaken, I am only an ignorant person and no real God will punish ignorant people, especially when I am asking Muslims to come forth and show my errors. But Muhammad cannot get off the hook. He committed too many crimes and if there is a hell, you can bet that he is the one burning.

If you do not believe in the one God then its a different matter. In that case call for the help of whatever you believe in.

Mr. Bhatti God has already given his help to us. He has given to everyone a brain and the faculty to think. This is all we need to find the truth. There is no need for us to invoke evil on each other and pray for one another’s death to see who is right. How do you find your sustenance? Do you sit there all day praying for food? If you do that you will die of hunger. You go out and earn your living through work. You use your talent and your hands to earn your bread. Food does not fall on your lap from the sky. You must earn it. You should do the same when you want to find the truth. Read, ponder and use your brain. Alas, so many people cannot use their brain when it comes to important things such as truth. They rather believe blindly in a charlatan.

This is not the first time the mubahila has been used and its authencity is recorded in history.
In the case that you are still alive after the given period, i promise i will (Allah forgive me) denounce Islam and join you.

Okay. If it takes this for you to see that Islam is a lie, I accept your challenge. How about starting today? Remember that people die, whether right or wrong. So if I die in these 90 days it is not the definite proof that Islam is true. But if I don’t die, it is definite proof that Islam is a lie and Muhammad was just a crazy man with no understanding of God.

What i need from you is a clear acceptance, In the words I (your name) accept this mubahila or a clear rejection.
If you reject it, then you have to take down your website and tell all those you have infected that you are wrong.

I have already accepted. So let us establish the date of the publication of this debate (Apr 22, 2008) as the start of this unilateral muhahila. Since I am not praying for your death, I expect you to write after 90 days and declare your apostasy. If you don’t write, people will think that you are dead and that your cursing has backfired. And that God finally got tired of you and took your life to show you the truth in the other word. So if you are still alive, you must write and declare your apostasy. This is your own term. After all why would you want to believe in a religion that according to your and Muhammad’s parameter is false?

I do not want to get into a debate about authencity of things. You extended a challenge and you except people to accept it. So here i am extending you a challenge, if you believe you are right why not just accept it.

Waiting for your acceptance or rejection.

Shabir Bhatti

I agree with your challenge. I am also going to publish your email address so those who want to join you in your effort can contact you. I also urge you to contact any Islamic organization and mosque and give me their names so I can publish them. I want a lot of Muslims join this cursing marathon. If you are an angry Muslim and believe in the nonsense of muhahila please join the party. Haply, at the end, those who took part in this silly enterprise will see the stupidity of it and will start questioning Islam.

========

Mr. Shabir Bhatti sent this email:

I have read the article, and i am very happy you did so. Now the matter is in Allah’s hands.

Shabir Bhatti

Mubahila Part II 

After publishing my response to Mr. Shabir Bhatti who invited me to a tournament of cursing and invoking the wrath of God on each other to find the truth, I asked him the following.

Mr. Bhatti,

Are you going to accept that Muhammad was a liar if after 90 days I am still alive?
This is what he responded:

from: Shabir Bhatti <dasvedas@googlemail.com>
date Sun, Apr 27, 2008
subject Re: Invitatation to mubahila

I will accept all that you say if you are still alive after 3 months if you accept openly that if your death occurs within 3 months, it is proof that you were wrong and you will ask one of you colleagues now to take down the website after you are gone and to promise not to pretend to be Ali Sina.

Mr. Bhatti:

People die without warning. No one can be sure to live the next hour. It is silly to say that in case I die, it proves that Islam is true. That makes no sense. Is there any guarantee that without your curses I will live the next 90 days so that we can conclude that if I die it is the result of your cursing? I know you are a Muslim and as such not acquainted with logic, but please do the extra effort. If I die it is no proof that I died because you cursed me and therefore Islam must be true. On the contrary if I survive, it is proof that Islam is false. You have entered in a bet in which you either lose, or you gain nothing. I did not set this trap for you. You set it and stepped into it.

If you had used your logic you would have realized that mubahila is foolish. Truth and falsehood cannot be determined in a tournament of cursing. Allah must be a cretin to devise such a stupid system. You Muslims attribute insanity to the Creator. That is why I say Islam is kufr and Muslims are kafirs par excellence.

Truth and falsehood are not established through cursing. They are established through evidence, reasoning and logic. Let us say I believe the Earth is flat and you say it isn’t. Can we find who is right by invoking the curse of God on each other and prying that the one who is wrong may die? Is that a logical way to find the truth? Come on Mr. Bhatti. You write in perfect English. I bet you have some education. Why don’t you use your brain to see the stupidity of this silly thing called mubahila?

People believe in all sorts of beliefs. Not all of them are true. Those who believe in false beliefs are not liars. They are merely misinformed and misguided. To call one who does not believe in what you believe a liar, is absurd. A liar is a person who knowingly falsifies the truth. For example, when Muslims say Muhammad’s wars were in self-defense, they are lying. They know that his wars were raids and offensive. When they say he married old widows to protect them, they are lying. They know that his wives and concubines were all (with the exception of the first one who was wealthy) in their twenties and teens and he had a child as a wife.

Muhammad encouraged his followers to lie to the unbelievers in order to deceive them. But if a Christian believes that Jesus has resurrected, he is not a liar. That is his belief and even if that belief may not be true, he believes that it is. There is a difference between lying, i.e. knowingly giving false testimony, and believing in something that is not true.

It is not difficult to see mubahila is stupid. It may work as bluff on superstitious people who may back off from it. Rational people only scoff at it. If there was any truth to mubahila why Muhammad did not use it to eliminate his enemies? Why did he resort to terrorism and launched so many raids when all he had to do was invoke the wrath of Allah on those who rejected him? Did Muhammad win any of his wars through mubahila? No. He said “I have been made victorious with terror.” He was fully aware that his prayers are not going to be heard by God. Mubahila was his bluff, but for result, he relied on his henchmen and not on God.

Unlike Muhammad who knew mubahila is worthless, you seem to be sincere. Obviously, in this case sincerity is not a virtue. It only belies your gullibility. I hope at the end of this silly exercise you will realize the stupidity of mubahila and Islam in general and will leave this cult. However, I am not holding my breath. I doubt that you will leave Islam. You will simply think that the real Ali Sina is dead and someone else is now impersonating him. It is very difficult to wake up someone who does not want to wake up. Those who are capable of rational thought can easily find the truth by reasoning.

This is not the first time I am invited to do mubahila. The first time was eight or nine years ago. My response to my challenger was the same. I never heard from the gentleman. Like all Muslims who after being defeated disappear from radar, he vanished and did not write back.

The very fact of assuming that one can influence the will of God and tell him what to do, is proof of one’s lack of understanding of God. Isn’t it foolish that insignificant creatures like us expect that the maker of this magnificent universe change his plans and do our bidding?

No matter how you look at it Islam is a stupid religion made by a very stupid man for even more stupid people. I hope at the end of these 90 days you will realize the asininity of this faith and will start investigating the truth.

 Mubahila Part III 

This is the continuation of my discussion on mubahila (cursing one another so the one who is in error may die)

What will you do Mr. Sina, if i call your parents, liars, rapists, mad and all that you called my beloved Muhammad (SAW) what will you do? I love my prophet a thousand times more than my parents, so can you imagine how i fell at the moment about you, you have no idea.

Mr. Bhatti,

I was there one day too and I am familiar with what you feel. The truth is that Muhammad is not your parent. He even disowned his adopted son and made his ficticious god say, Muhammad is not the father of anyone. Muhammad is no one to you or to me. My ancestors prided themselves to be the decedents of him, but if you do some math you’ll see that after about ten generations basically no trace of his gene was left in those who claimed to be his descendants. Divide 1 by 2 and keep dividing the result by 2 for ten times. What is left is less than one in a thousand. After 20 generations it is one in a million. After 30 generations it is one in a billion. After 40 generations it is one in a trillion. I am more than 50 generations away from Muhammad.  The trace of his genes in his so called decedents today is less than a drop in an ocean. Therefore, comparing Muhammad to your parents is absurd even if you were his descendent, as I am.

What you have is a mental bondage. You are like an addict that depends on his drug and if that drug is taken away from him, he throws fits and tantrums. My goal is to wean Muslims from this mind numbing drug and set them free so they don’t lose their sanity and don’t act like savages anytime anyone says something about Muhammad. The relationship Muslims have with Muhammad is not healthy. There is a remedy to that. It is called truth. Once Muslims are exposed to truth and they can see who Muhammad was, they will recover from this mental sickness.

Muhammad was a narcissist who invented a personality cult around himself so he could be praised and loved. Allah was his own alter ego. That man was emotionally disturbed. He invented Islam so through it he could garner the attention and respect of people. To understand Muhammad you have to study the biography of other narcissists such as Jim Johns, David Koresh, Joseph Koni, Charles Manson and Shoko Asahara. These insane people also created a personality cult around themselves and were worshiped by their brainwashed followers. Once you come to see the truth about Muhammad you will have no other feeling but despise for that degenerate criminal. Then you will be very grateful to me for setting you free from this mental bondage and will see me as your best friend and not as someone to curse and wish to die.

The Quran, you say was written by Muhammad (SAW) and not God. In that case I cannot imagine how someone who was a narcissist, a misogynist, a rapist, a pedophile, a lecher, a torturer, a mass murderer, a cult leader, an assassin, a terrorist, a mad man and a looter, 1400 years ago could have written a book in such rich Arabic and so consistent over two decades.

First of all the Quran is not a rich book in any sense. It is clear that the author of this book was very ignorant and an unlettered person. He probably had some basic familiarity with reading but most certainly he was not an erudite person. We have texts coming to us from antiquity that demonstrate the erudition of their authors. The Quran does not measure up. It is an editor’s nightmare. Furthermore this book is full of errors and inconsistencies. In fact it is so confused that you can’t understand it unless you consult tafseer and hadith. Muhammad’s words also kept changing, to such an extent that Muslim scholars created an entire “science” known as nasikh wa mansookh (the abrogator and the abrogated.) The Quran itself testifies that it is not a consistent book. Verse 2:106 says:

“None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar.”

How can you say the Quran has been consistent for twenty years when the Quran itself denies that claim?

Do you think that if you die within the period of the mubahila, your followers will think it was just a coincidence? Think again Mr. Sina and this time consider the human psychology.

Mr. Bhatti, I don’t have followers. I have not started any religion to have followers. I have readers and you are one of them. Some of my readers agree with what I say and some don’t.

Of course if I die within these 90 days that you are praying for my death no one in his right mind would think I died because of that. Is God a child play? How can the maker of this universe depend on the whims of his creatures? How can you pretend that tiny beings such as us can influence the will of an almighty God who allegedly is the maker of this incredibly immense universe? Who the hell you think we are to have such powers to alter God’s plans? If God wants to take the life of someone he knows when. He does not need his creatures to tell him what to do.

Is there any guarantee that without your curses I will survive these 90 days so we can deduce that if I die it is because of your curses? On the contrary, if I don’t die it is clear that your curses were not efective and your religion is false. In this bet, you will either lose, or gain nothing. However, if after these 90 days I stay alive and you start doubting Muhammad, you will be a winner. You will lose your bet but you may win your freedom. That would be a major victory.

If you die within this period of time 90% of your followers will stray away believe you were a liar. Trust me, when it happens, it will happen in such a way that all will see and all shall believe. Inshallah.

Please Add this to your site without editing, if you have the balls to which i believe you do.

Nobody is following me. I am inviting everyone to use their own brain. No one accepts anything I say because of my authority. I have not laid any claim to any authority. I am an ordinary person with no hidden knowledge. Everything I know I learned from others. If what I say makes sense to my readers and they find it to be reasonable, they will accept it, but if what I say is irrational and unfounded no one will accept it. Suppose I die, why should any sane person assume I died because of your curses? I am not praying for your death, but can you be sure that you will be alive in the next 90 days? Just as you can’t give such assurances, I can’t either. If either one of us dies, it does not mean that that person was wrong. Those who are wrong and those who are right die equally. When death comes it does not question who is right and who is wrong. We all die and we don’t know when it will happen. The truth of something must be established by proof and not by the death of someone. Imagine that I tell you there is life on Mars and you deny it saying prove it. Is it rational to say let us curse each other so the one who is mistaken dies and we know the truth? Isn’t that laughable? Mubahila is stupid and ludicrous. It is not befitting for rational people living in the 21st century to believe in this nonsense.

You gave your word that if after 90 days I am still alive, you will leave Islam. I know it won’t happen. I know the mind of the believer and how it is shackled. However, I hope this will create doubt in you and you will start reading the articles posted in FFI and searching the truth. This could be a turning point but you must do your homework.

Three months later I wrote to Mr. Bhatti

Sun, Jul 27, 2008

Greetings Mr.Shabir,

The three months have passed and I am alive. We agreed that this would be proof for you that Muhammad was a liar. Remember that we had a pact. I was confident that your cursing will have no effect. Now it is your time to see I was right.

Please allow me to send you my book. After reading it, I assure you that you will not doubt anymore that Muhammad was a sick man and not a prophet of God.

I look forward to hear from you,

Ali Sina

He did not reply.  I waited another seven months and wrote again.

Wed, Mar 4, 2009

Dear Mr. Shabir Bhatti

It is over ten months that you issued the Mubahila challenge and said let God decide who is right and who is wrong by killing the person who is wrong.  I accepted your challenges making it clear that I am not going to sit there cursing you and praying for your death and that if you die, I am not responsible. However, you were adamant to pray for my death and were sure that within 90 days I will die and everyone will know I was wrong.

Several people have written to know the outcome of that mubahila. Obviously I am alive and kicking. They want to know what happened to you. Have you gone to meet your creator or have you left Islam as you had promised you would.

I hope you are not dead, but if you are maybe God took your life to show everyone that Islam is false. If you are alive then you must fulfill your end of the bargain and denounce Islam as it has been proven false by its own silly standard. Save your soul before your actual death.

You have remained silent and did not respond to the email I sent you after the 90 days were over. What is happening? Are you still hitting your praying rug invoking Allah for my death?  We all die, but the deadline of your mubahila is over. If your Allah had any power, he would have used it to kill me and save the honor of his religion. It is clear that Allah does not exist. If this world has any god, it is not Allah.

Because of this mubahila you have shown to the world that Allah is false. I warned you about this. You were adamant to carry on and when I asked, “Are you going to accept that Muhammad was a liar if after 90 days I am still alive?” you confidently wrote,  “I will accept all that you say if you are still alive after 3 months.” Are you going to stick to your end of the bargain?

I have kept your name and email hidden, because I thought you may at the end see the light and leave Islam. So I protected your identity. However, if I don’t hear from you, I assume the mubahila has backfired and you are now in the presence of your maker and repentant for following a false charlatan.  In that case I will publish this email along with your name and email for everyone to know what happened.

But if you are alive and are not responding, you are in breach of your end of the bargain.  Muhammad also broke his promises and instructed his followers to do the same.  This proves once again that Islam is false and all the claims of Muhammad are bogus. Are you going to accept that he was a liar or are you waiting to die to learn this truth?

Ali Sina

To this day Feb 16 , 2012 Mr. Bhatti has not replied.  I hope he is not dead, but in either case the matter is settled.  Islam is a lie based on its very twisted standard.  I reprint this article in this new blog for those who still believe in Muhammad and in mubahila as evidence that both are false.

You can read more about mubahila in this Islamic site

Update: 2012/02/20

I tried several times to contact Mr. Bhatti and I even sent him emails from other email addresses annonymously in the hope to get a response from him.  None of my emails were responded to.  Now I am getting worried that Mr. Bhatti may have died.

I hope this is not the case, but remember that Mr. Bhatti was absolutly convinced that the person who is wrong will die at the end of the 90 days. Since I did not die, he might have thought that he will die and may have died because of his conviction. Our brain is a very powerful instrument.   A great percentage of diseases are cured due to the placebo effect.  One actually can die if he strongly believes that he would.  If that is the case, it would be a real tragedy that a good man may die because of his belief in a lie. I pray that he is well and just refuses to reply.

Ali Sina would you exactly tell me something about yourself on how you actually acquired all the stuff you have on your site? Who are you and what do you do and aim for? What is in your head that you wrote such degrading things about my prophet? And the so called comments on your website do not even look real. How are there no ‘negative’ comments on there? I will be waiting for your answers. And by the way, what actually is your own faith?

Dear Iltemaas

I am an ordinary person.  I am not associated with any political or religious group and I am not seeking any power for myself.  I am not running for any political office and I am not looking for fame and fortune.  But I care about the future of mankind and I believe every ordinary person can contribute to the betterment of the world. I am trying to do my share.

When in 1994 I studied the Quran, I was shocked and realized this book is not from God.  And when I read the biography of Muhammad I realized that everything he did and said can be explained with narcissistic personality disorder.  Suddenly, it dawned on me that Muhammad may have been a narcissist.

Since then I read all the principal biographies of Muhammad and learned about the details of his life and I became convinced that he was not a prophet, but a man who suffered from a series of mental disorders.

This was a major discovery for me, because it sheds light on the whole picture. It made me understand Muhammad.  Muhammad is an enigma. It is not easy to dismiss him as a liar. He lied a lot, but there is also evidence that he believed in what he was saying.  The enigma was solved when I introduced narcissism into the equation.

I decided that I must share my insight with others.  This was to me a too important revelation to keep it to myself.  If Islam is the product of a mentally disordered man 1.5 billion Muslims are following an insane man.  In fact everything Muslims believe and do is insanity.  The belief that God created the universe so insignificant humans worship him and if they fail he would burn them for eternity is insane.  Praying five times per day, fasting the whole day and circumambulating a building for expiation of sins, with all their weird rituals are insane.  The belief that God runs a celestial resort filled with white whores for those who believe and burns the unbelievers for eternity is insane.  Islamic theology, Islamic eschatology, Islamic laws and Islamic world view are all insane.  But more importantly how Muslims are supposed to promote their faith that is in my opinion the ultimate insanity.

This insanity is harmful to Muslims and to non-Muslims and because of it Muslims are backwards, violent, their women are abused and their minds are shackled.  I thought to myself if they learn the truth they will be cured of their insanity, just as I was cured of mine after I discovered the truth.  And hence I started writing.

Those who read my articles, at first get very upset. But if they don’t give up, eventually they will see the light.  When they are set free they will become very grateful to me and I feel good about what I do. I think nothing gives one more satisfaction than liberating someone.  Think about the joy you feel by setting free a trapped bird and see it fly. I get 100 times more satisfaction when people write to me and say Ali, I owe you my freedom. I am not just setting that person free, but also his children, his grand children and his great grand children, generation after generation, and also people who he will set free.  I am setting thousands of people free through him.  Can you put a price on that?  There are somethings in life that are priceless.  Here is one such story

I was born in a good muslim family in Bahrain, We are 5 brothers. I remember about 6 months ago, me and my brothers started a campagn against Sina and his works. We tried to hack faithfreedom. It was easy first, as one of my brother was a technologist. We used to send DDOS attacks. But after they tightened up the security it was almost impossible for us to break in.

All of my brothers are critical of Sina and his work. I used to visit FFI daily to debunk things Sina and his team members say. It was like a mission for us. But after visiting FFI for days, I started thinking. I don’t know, maybe Sina is right or maybe he is wrong. It pissed me off. Thoughts started ranging in my ears.

But as I see, FFI got a lot of Islamic news, as we go through its content. I realized, this much trouble from my beloved religion and my beloved prophet whom I used to pray 5 times a day? I told it to my mother and she told me and my brothers to stop visiting any of Ali’s websites. I ignored her advice.

about a weak ago, I visited Ali’s new website and read about 8 article. I said to myself that if my religion is true, then Sina’s stuff can’t affect it. As I went through, I found that Sina is a prophet of new age. I curse myself to what I did. He opened my eyes about what happened in the past. Now I know that Muhammad is not my prophet.

The reason I called Sina a prophet is not because of his scholarly ability. But because he removed my guilt. I used to say to myself what if Islam is right, what if Sina is right, what if I’m wrong? Is there anything wrong happened to me by Satan? Negative things like that, I cannot sleep peacefully.

After I visited alisina.org, he used reasonable and scholastic points. Some of my brothers are saying that he manipulated things, some said that the Quran and Hadiths are corrupted by some people. But if they are corrupted, then Islam is already failed, and if Sina manipulated, why I can see the same ayats and quotes in the hadiths I own? Sina is right.

The reason why many rare people are there like Sina is because they are afraid of Islam and fear they will be killed. And they don’t have any purpose like Sina has, who has devoted his whole life helping people like me and my brothers. I salute you Mr. Sina.

I can say, I used to hate you, I tried to destroy your work, but you have my word, I will try to spread your message. If you have any work I can help you with in my country, I will be ready in your service. I cried when I realized that you are right. You will be remembered, forever.

Thank You for your effort Mr. Sina. You are on right side, and your message will never be destroyed.  Source

As for my faith, I believe in the Golden Rule. So to some extent I am a follower of Jesus, a disciple of Buddha and a practitioner of Dao.  My philosophy is atheism, or maybe I should say agnosticism, because I am not certain about anything.  If a religion promotes unity of mankind, equality of all the people and reason, I believe in that religion.

Please watch this video and see how much joy you feel in your heart.  That is how I feel when I set a Muslim free from Islam, and they feel also the same way this wale feels. The difference is that Muslims don’t know they are trapped until they are set free. That is becuase this wale was free until she got entangled, but Muslims are born entrapped. They don’t even know what is freedom.

Sheila Musaji responded again. But she did not answer any of my questions. She wrote, “I have no obligation to discuss any of these issues with him.” (That “him” is me. Sheila can’t get over her hatred to talk to me directly).

If you have not been following this debate please start with An Olive Branch For Sheila Musaji

Sheila Musaji explained that the Old Testament has also plenty of absurd teachings, which she said “are taken out of context.”  She believes that neither the rabbis nor the Muslims owe any explanation to anyone. Of course we know why. Because they have none!

Musaji wrote:

The fact that there are verses in the Qur’an that can be interpreted variously is also not unique - that there are verses that be seen as cruel and violent in the Bible (Old and New Testaments) cannot really be disputed.

Two wrong don’t make a right. The fact that there are violent passages in the OT does not explain away or justify the violent instructions in the Quran. However, the comparison is misleading. The passages of the OT are stories about what happened in the past. That book does not instruct the Jews to kill unbelievers. The violent passages of the Quran are mandates of Allah to Muslims. They are instructions to kill. Furthermore, the Bible is a book of fables. Those stories of grand scale massacre may have never happened. The Pentateuch was written in about 700 to 800 BC and it is all legend and fiction.  But Muhammad was not a fictional character and his crimes are well documented.

What can be done is to attempt to marginalize those who continue to promote extremist interpretations of religious texts

How? So you are proposing that we should not talk to them, but build a wall between us and them and establish a sort of apartheid between the “moderate Muslims” such as you, and the extremist Muslims? Will that solve the problem? Will they stop bombing and killing us?

The evidence shows that this is not the case.  These so called extremists are busy killing the so called moderates in Iraq, Pakistan, Jordan, and everywhere.

Isn’t it better that we explain to them and show them that their way is wrong? Well, for that you have to have a dialogue. But you are averse to dialogues and debates. You have gone into your room and shut the door behind you.  You like to sit on your high moral horse and pontificate.  Well guess what! They are not listening.

Why you are unwilling to debate with them? It is because in a debate you will have to rely on the Quran to see who is right and you know that you will lose. The so called extremists have the backing of the Quran. They can prove that they are the real Muslims and you are a hypocrite that wants to bring innovation into Islam and “contaminate” it with democracy and Americanism.  You can’t sell your new concoction of Islam to Muslims.  As far as Muslims are concerned you are nobody to tell them how to interpret the Quran.  You are only a useful idiot. Your function is not to define Islam for them but to pull wool over the eyes of the westerners and make them believe Islam is harmless. Know your place, you white woman. Yes you are a convert and a woman. How do you even expect Muslims to listen to you, a woman, someone their prophet said is deficient in intelligent and faith, and not their own great male scholars?

Muhammad said cover your head and your bosom. This is a teaching of the Quran. But you don’t do it. Why? Because you want to deceive the westerners into thinking that Islam gives women freedom to dress as they please.  That is not true. Islam does not give such freedom to anyone. Of course Muslims, ever and anon, violate the mandates of the Quran. They are after all humans and want to enjoy their life.  They dilute their religion so they won’t suffocate. But that is not what Islam teaches.

If you drink urine you get sick and if you drink it regularly you die. But you can live a relatively normal life if you dilute your cherished urine with a lot of water.  That is what you are doing. But if Islam is good why not practice it as Muhammad intended and if it is bad why practice it at all?

You claim that you want to make Islam moderate. But you refuse to talk to the extremist or to anyone. What is you strategy then?

You wrote, “Sina is still carrying on a debate with himself on his site.”   No, dear Sheila I am debating with you ,but you are not responding.

You have put cotton in your ears and don’t want to listen.  Explain to me and to our readers how do you propose we convince the extremists that they are in error if you refuse to debate?  Show me that you have a plan that works and I will join you in promoting it.

But you don’t have a plan. You have nothing except a bunch of lies.  I wrote four long letters to you and went over a litany of problems with Islam.  You did not refute any of them nor did you comment on them. You simply ignored everything I wrote and went on doing what you do best – to vilify and malign your opponent. In this last response of yours, instead of answering any of my concerns, you equated me to Nazis and wrote extensively to show I am a Nazi.

You wrote,

It is not possible for any decent human being not to see the incredible similarities between this Nazi propaganda and the propaganda of the Islamophobes.  In fact, many passages from Ali Sina’s work read as if he has simply taken one of these statements and changed “Jew” with “Muslim” or “Judaism” with “Islam”.

You refuse to engage in a debate and refuse to answer the questions about Islam, but you know how to vilify people.  That is your strength – ad hominem.  And you call yourself a moderate Muslim!

Indeed you are! This is the true face of a moderate Muslim.  You are a good representative of this mythological creature. You don’t engage in debates. You don’t want to solve the problems through dialogue. You don’t want to get into sticky issues where the fallacy of your position can be exposed. You want to pontificate like those two rabbis in my previous debate.  They said, “We don’t debate Scriptures. We’ll tell you what we perceive the scriptures are saying. We give you the historic background; we’ll even add in science, but to debate it? No!”

No dear Sheila. I am not debating with myself. I am debating with the world.  People are reading and commenting. They can see through your façade of “moderation”. They can see the lies, the fraud and the bankruptcy of the so called moderate Islam.  Next time when they hear about “moderates Muslims” they will remember you.  There is no such thing as moderate Muslim. This is another Islamic deception. It is an oxymoron. It makes as much sense as cold fire, or tiny giant, or perfumed excrement.

I have even tried to have a dialogue with Tarik Fatah. He too refused it and instead contented himself to vilify me and Wafa Sultan.

It is time that we put an end to this charade. Truth was spoken by Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdogan who, condemned the term “moderate Islam”, often used in the West to describe his own party AKP and said, “These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

But Muhammad was more emphatic in such condemnation. He said,

“Do you, then, believe in some parts of the divine writ and deny the truth of other parts? What, then, could be the reward of those among you who do such things but ignominy in the life of this world and, on the Day of Resurrection, they will be consigned to most grievous suffering? For God is not unmindful of what you do.” (Q.2:85)

Those who are interested to see the impossibility of reforming Islam and the futility of attempting it can read my article, The Illusion of Reforming Islam

(If you have not been following this debate please start with An Olive Branch For Sheila Musaji)

Ms. Musaji commented also on my discussion with the Rabbis.  She quoted my initial passages where I said much of the intolerance of Islam is owed to the intolerance in the Old Testament. She then wrote:

Sounds as if he is not only Islamophobic, but also anti-Semitic.  And, a little later in this article this gem appears which shows that at the very least, he is a racist: We Persians are of the same genetic stock as Germans and we had a far superior civilization than Arabs.

It seems that Ms. Musaji has some difficulty in comprehension.   I am against Islam. That does not make me Islamophobic. Islamophobia is a fallacy.  You can say Islam-hater. That I agree.  But one can’t be “phobic” of a belief.  This is a deception. But as Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister said, if a lie is repeated often it will be believed as truth eventually.  A good example is “homophobia.” This is a fallacy.  Homosexuality is a disorder no different from eating disorder or a personality disorder.  Homosexuality is a sexual disorder, like sadomasochism, fetishism, zoophilia and pedophilia. Now these disorders are not all the same and have different implications, but they are all disorders.  I am not a homophobe for considering homosexuality a disorder. Homo means same. I don’t have an irrational fear of men.  But this lie was repeated so much that today most people have fallen for it.  The idea was to stifle any criticism about this subject and they succeeded. It is a tyrany of thought.  All totalitarian systems are fascitic and want to control and manipulate your thoughts Now they even have gay pride parades, as if there is something to be proud of a disorder.  This is how masses are manipulated through propaganda. They shame you into silence. Few people dare to say homosexuality is not normal.  If they do, they will be called biggots.  They even gave it a chichi name: “gay”, meaning happy. This is also a lie. Homosexuals are not happy.

Muslims are using the same deceptive tactic.  They want to stifle the legitimate discussion about Islam.  So they invented this lie and with the help of their leftist lackeys who gave us the fallacy of homophobia they will repeat it until it is seen as truth.   But Islam is an ideology. No one can have an irrational fear of an ideology. You can strongly disagree with an ideology and you can even hate it, but you can’t be phobic of it.  Ideologies don’t have fangs. It is their believers who may have fangs. Now, it would be more logical to say Muslimphobia.  Muslims can hurt you. If you see a group of Muslims coming out of a mosque, you would be wise to run as fast as you can. This poor Hindu in Bangladesh was not Muslimphobic.  He passed in front of a mosque when the worshippers of Allah had just finished their Friday prayer and were coming out of it. They grabbed him, they dragged him inside the mosque, they beat him until he died.

It is a fact that people are developing Muslimphobia. They are not becoming Muslimphobic because of what I write, but because of what Muslims do.

What is the best representative of Islam? The Quran or Muslims? Of course every Muslim will agree that the Quran is the best representative of Islam and Muslims don’t represent Islam at all. Well I have a copy of the Quran on my shelf next to me. I am not afraid of it. But I will be  afraid if a Muslim shows up in front of my door. I think this is true for everybody.  So it is clear that Islamophobia is a lie. Muslimphobia is debatable, because phobia is irrational fear and there is nothing irrational about fearing Muslims.

Musaji also calls me anti-Semitic. Why? Just because I exposed two hatemongering rabbis and showed the nonsense written in the Bible?  She is incapable to distinguish beliefs from people. I am a Zionist. I have defended the rights of the Jews as a people to go back to their ancestral land and be left alone.  Israel was a historic necessity. What happened in Europe seventy years ago to this people would never have happened had they had a place to call home where they could take refuge. Many of them sailed to other countries but were denied entry.  Six million of them were gassed and incinerated.  We cannot allow that kind of holocaust again and that is why Israel exists.

Today that the number of Muslims in the west is on the rise,  Jews are again under attack. This time the treat to their lives comes from Muslims. That is why Israel is necessary and as long as there are Muslims, Israel must be protected.

Now, let me make a concession. If one day all Muslims give up following Muhammad and give up their natural hatred of the Jews, I will no longer see a need for Israel.  On that day we all can live in harmony and peace.

But being a Zionist does not mean I agree with the Bible.  Why should I? That is a book of fables. Adhering to it makes people biggoted and hate mongers like those two rabbis. Blind faith makes one intolerant.

I care about people’s rights, not about their beliefs. I don’t care about any belief, not even mine.  You are most welcome to attack my belief.  Beliefs don’t have a right.  Humans have rights. And the foremost of all human rights is freedom of conscience, which cannot exist without freedom of speech.   People are free to believe in what they want and criticize what they want.  This is the foundation of freedom.  Without the freedom to criticize beliefs there is no freedom.

You also called me racist because I said we Persians had a superior civilization to Arabs.   Again you are engaging in a logical fallacy. You want to equate cultures with people.  Some cultures are not culture at all. They are barbarity. A “culture” that practices stoning, amputates the limbs of common thieves, beheads its detractors, considers the minorities as second class citizens, regards its women as sex object and calls them awrat (walking-talking vagina), is not equal to a culture that upholds equality for all its people, irrespective of their faith or gender and practices democracy and freedom.

All cultures are not equal. Cultural relativism is another leftist fallacy.  We Persians had a much more superior culture than the Arabs. But after the invasion of Islam we were reduced into barbarians.  We became like them. Now we are all barbarians. The first charter of human rights was written in Persia more than 2500 years ago.  Today Iran is one of the top violators of human rights. If not to Islam to what else shall we attribute this devolution?

It is not racist to say Muslims are savages any more than to say Nazis were  savages. Islam is an ideology. It is not hacked into our genes. We can give it up and regain our civility.  That is the whole purpose of what I do.  Muslims are drowning in the cesspool of Islam. Just look at the pictures of Muslims when protesting in the streets. If not savages what they are.  Are they civil? Is this what civilized people do? I want to pull them out of Islam and restore their civility and their humanity. Yes they are not even human anymore.

Most Jews have given up their belief in the nonsense of their religion a long time ago.  Most of them don’t believe in religion anymore. Those who do are like those rabbis, filled with bigotry and hate.  But they are the minority. Even when Jews go to synagogues it is for ceremonies.  Religion can be a cohesive force. It brings out the spirit of fraternity and builds community.

The thinking  Jews take the Bible with a lot of salt. I don’t object to that kind of religion.  I know many Jews, Christians, Hindus and people of other faiths that are beacons of light. I don’t agree with their religions, but they are my brothers and sisters in humanity.  If people believe in goodness, if they promote unity among all people, if they don’t discriminate against others on the basis of what they believe, they are my brothers.  Those two rabbis don’t represent the Jews. Several Jews wrote to me and said that those guys are not even Jews. They are messianic Jews. In other words they are Christian evangelists posing as Jews to convert other Jews to Christianity. If they are really disciples of Jesus, they are doing him a great disservice.

You may say there are many Muslims who are moderate too. Yes there are, but the problem is that they, and if not they, their children are at risk to revert to the pure Islam of Muhammad and that is when they become dangerous. I am not saying good humans among Muslims don’t exist. Of course they do. Somone mentioned Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam who was the president of India as an example of a “good Muslim.” Dr. Abdul Kalam is not a good Muslim. He is a good human. In fact he is a very bad Muslim.  Khomeini was a good Muslim.  There are  many good people born among Muslims who even think they are Muslim but they are wonderful human beings. However, if you examine their lives you’ll see that they violate the teachings of Muhammad.  They use their own conscience as compass and not the Quran and the Hadith.  They are good people because they are bad Muslims. The reverse is also true.  The more a person tries to follow Islam and emulate Muhammad the more evil he becomes.

People of other faiths don’t believe that their scriptures are the verbatim words of God – I mean the thinking people. Jews and Christians believe that the Bible was written by inspired men.  When you read the Bible it is clear that it does not claim to be the word of God.  This allows the believers of these faiths to use their own judgment and reject the parts of the Bible that are not savory.  Jews don’t practice stoning. As far as we know they haven’t been practicing this barbaric law for over 2000 years.  Christians don’t regard women as inferior even though Paul made it clear that they are. Muslims don’t have this luxury. The Quran is considered to be the verbatim word of God and you can’t deviate from it.  If you do for a time, it will be short lived. The mullahs can remind the Muslims that they are deviating from the Quran and Islamic extremism will be resurected.

Islam cannot be reformed. You can use it less but you can’t change it. It is like urine in drinking water. Any amount of it is toxic.  In less doses it does not kill you. But the wretched Umma has been sick for 1400 years for drinking this urine. Even though Muslims have not always been as savages as they are today, they have never been civilized.  The difference between you Ms. Musaji, and the types of Bin Laden is not in principle but in degree.  They want the urine of Islam as pissed by Muhammad unadulterated and in its pure state, while you want it diluted with  Americanism.  You can’t stomach the pure Islam.  To their credit they are not hypocrite, but you are.  If Islam is divine why do you want to mix it with American values?  Just stick to what the Quran says and Muhammad did.  Bin Laden was sincer about his faith. You are not.

Criticizing cultures and beliefs is not racism.  There is nothing racist in criticizing a culture that believes in slavery, practices misogyny, thinks women are deficient in intelligence and does not allow them equal rights in the court of law, in inheritance or in marriage. It is okay to denounce a culture that says don’t take people of other faith as friends and leaders (awlia).  It is not racism to say Muhammad was a psychopath like Jim Jones and Hitler, don’t follow that criminal.

So as you see I am not a racist for saying Islam is savagery and I am not an anti-Semite for saying the Torah is a book of fables.

Today I had a sad revelation. My neighbor is out of town and he asked me to take care of his chickens.  Every morning I let the birds out of their coop and throw on the ground a handful of grains. He said this is their treat.  There are a dozen of hens and a rooster. I noticed, while the hens run to eat their treat as fast as they can, the rooster stands by and does not eat. At times he shows his hens where they can find more grains. He himself does not eat the treat.  I was amazed to see these animals, of which we think so little and abuse them so inhumanely, have such a tender feelings for each other. While contemplating on the love these birds have for each other, my heart was filled with sadness by memories of my days living in Pakistan. I lived in Peshawar. This is the most Islamic town of Pakistan. When the Pashtoons invited me to their home, men and boys sat around the food and ate while women and girls stayed in the kitchen. Sometimes they peeped to see when we are done so they can take the leftover to the kitchen and eat their share.  I thought to myself, there is more chivalry, more nobility and more humanity in this rooster than in some of us humans.

But why these people treated their women in such a way? If you read the Sira you’ll see this was the tradition of Muhammad.   This is not culture. This is savagery.  This savagery comes to Muslims through Muhammad and his mysogynistic teachings.

Let us continue:

It is both surprising and not surprising that Ali Sina has now been named to the Board of Directors of the newly formed Stop the Islamization of Nations SION which is a coalition SIOA, SIOE, and other hate groups, and which will be led by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer.  It is not surprising because of the animosity towards Islam that he shares with Geller and Spencer.  It is surprising because of the fact that Geller herself is Jewish, and Ali Sina seems to have as much animosity towards Judaism as he does against Islam.

Perhaps this is above your ken but what unites Pamela Geller (a Jew), Robert Spencer (a Catholic), Wafa Sultan (a secular humanist), Babu Suseelan (a Hindu) ,and yours truly, is our humanity. We have different beliefs, but we don’t allow that to divide us.  To a Muslim this might be incomprehensible. You see the world divided on religious lines.  We don’t see it that way. We see all mankind as members of one gigantic human family.  We have different tastes in politics and in religion. But we never let them come between us and divide us.

I receive many emails from youths who say they no longer believe in Islam and want to become Christian. I never discourage them. Let me quote what I wrote to one such youth yesterday.

This 22 year old Somali woman wrote to Pamela Geller and told her that she wants to be a Christian.  She added, “However, i know that if my family [comes to] know about this they will surely end my life since it will bring them shame in our community. Once my father found a bible in my drawer and he told me that if he founds it there again he will do something to me that i will regret forever. I feel unsafe here and am looking for a way out please help me before it is too late.”

Pamela asked me to reply and here is a few passages from my email to her:

“Faith is a very personal matter. It is a relationship you have with your God.  No one can take it away from you and you don’t have to speak about it to anyone.   Jesus did not start a new religion. He wants to have a personal relationship with you.  As long as you have him in your heart, he is with you even if you don’t attend any church or interact with other Christians.  

If you live in your parent’s home, you need to live by their rules. Don’t keep a Bible at home and don’t have any cross or anything that may make them think you are a Christian.  You don’t need to do any baptism either.  Love of God is your baptism. Soon you will be out of your parent’s home and will be more independent.

…

Meanwhile I suggest you act with caution.  Time will pass fast. Study hard and get the best education you can. Education is your key to freedom. If you have a good education you can get hired sooner and afford getting out of your parental home faster. You may even go and live in another city or another country.  

If you want to read the Bible you can find it online. If you want to discuss your faith with anyone you can find Christian communities online.  Don’t share your thoughts with anyone. Study, study and study!  This is the fastest way to your freedom.”

Pamela is a Jew and I am a humanist. But neither of us discouraged this girl from following the path that she had chosen for herself.  We don’t care about people’s faiths. We care about their lives.  We don’t divide mankind along religious lines.  There is no such thing as believers/unbelievers, the faithful and the kafir in our lexicon. What matters, is our humanity and what makes us human is not what we believe, but how we live.

You are a Muslim. You are genuinely incapable to see that we are humans first, and religion is nothing compared to the strong string of humanity that runs through the core of all of us and binds us together like the beads in a rosary.  You see the world from the tainted glasses of Islam. What you don’t know is that those glasses come from the mind of a psychopath narcissist.  Islam is insanity.  This is not an insult.  This is my thesis and I have proven it. Read my book and you too will agree.

You then continued:

The Southern Poverty Law Center published a report citing Geller for hate speech.  The AFDI has been named a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  The American Freedom Defense Initiative is the parent group of the SIOA.  Spencer, Geller, and Yerushalmi are featured in the SPLC reports Jihad Against Islam and The Anti-Muslim Inner Circle.

Yes I know. These traitorous leftist organizations are your lackeys.  What unites them with you Muslims is your common hatred of the Judeo-Christian western values.  But they are stupid.  They think by supporting fellow haters of the western values they will be stronger and you will help them to come to power. All they have to do to see their folly is to talk to fellow commies from Iran. Let them talk with Maryam Namazi from UK.  Namazi and her comrades were instrumental in the revolution of 1979 in Iran. They threw their lot with Islamists. But they were the first who were eliminated when Khomeni took power.  If Islam ever comes to power in Europe or in America, all those left leaning organization that today defend Islam will be the first to be eliminated.  Those who don’t read the history, tend to repeat the same errors.

Pamela Geller and her organizations don’t become hate groups just because a bunch of moon-bat leftists says so.  Pamela has demonstrated her compassion and care for countless hapless and helpless young Muslims whose own families have turned against them.  Young Muslims write to her from all over the world asking for help. This woman should be awarded the Nobel Prize for her humanitarianism and for her compassion.  Alas the Nobel Prize committee is so politicized that they think charlatans like Arafat, Obama and Al Gore are more deserving for that prize than good humans who truly serve mankind.

One of the saddest stories is when Gore was granted the Nobel Prize for lying about global warming there was a 92 years woman named Irene Sendler, who was also a nominee.  She had saved some 2,500 Jewish children from the Nazi Holocaust by smuggling them out of Warsaw Ghetto, in her basket.  I felt a lump in my throat when I read her story and  that instead of her the committee chose this filty liar.

I don’t give a damn about those organizations calling Pamela Geller a hate monger.  I can see how much she cares about people. I saw how she took to heart the case of Rifqa Bari and protected that beautiful soul when her parents wanted to kill her.

Where were you to protect Rifqa? Why young Muslims don’t write to YOU to protect them from their families and write to Pamela?  Because they know you are a hypocrite Islamist and all you care is your damn religion, but Pamela is a humanitarian who cares about them and is not concerned about what religion they believe.  I have seen people write to her and say they want to stay Muslim but just want to be free from the tyranny of their parents and Pamela still advised them compassionately and tried to help them without ever telling them they should leave Islam first.

 Pay Pal at least temporarily suspended Geller’s site Atlas Shrugs for being a hate site.

Sure! They did it because a bunch of Muslims like you lied about her and libled her of spreading hate.  When Pay Pal realized they had been duped they reversed their decision.

You then said

Spencer and Geller attempted to patent the SIOA trademark, but were refused by the U.S. patent office The government response, posted on the site, states, “The applied-for mark refers to Muslims in a disparaging manner because by definition it implies that conversion or conformity to Islam is something that needs to be stopped or caused to cease.”

 That is because our Governments are misled. They consider Islam a religion and as such it is protected.  That is why we formed SION (Stop Islamization Of Nations) to educate and to unmask Islam.  Islam is not just a religion. It is more a political ideology of domination. It must be classified as such. It is more akin to communism and Nazism than it is to other faiths. Muhammad said al Islamo deenun wa dawla (Islam is both religion and government.) One cannot be separated from another. This is what people don’t know. It will take some time to make the world aware of it. But we are patient and determined.  More prominent people are joining SION from all over the world. We are poised to become a powerful international force.  And we will go after traitors who sell their country for vote.  We will expose them. We know that anytime a politician supports Islam we have to follow the money trail to find a skeleton in their closet. That is what we intend to do.

 The Center for American Progress released a groundbreaking report Fear Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America.  The key researchers for this report were Wajahat Ali, Eli Clifton, Matthew Duss, Lee Fang, Scott Keyes, and Faiz Shakir.  The report itself is the result of a six month investigative project, and is 132 pages in length.  Geller is cited as part of this network.

Oh really!? So a bunch of Muslims and their minions got together and cited Geller as Islamophobe? And what else is new?  I repeated many times that Islamophobia is a fallacy. Geller is a defender of the Western civilization.

Musaji quotes several other organizations that are either run by Muslims or are sympathetic to Islam that denounce the critics of Islam as “Islamophobe”. In her opinion this is “evidence.”  In Persian we have a saying: They asked the fox who will testify on your behalf, he said my tail. Or better than that is when Allah backs up Muhammad.  Who gives a damn if Muslims and their minions call us hate monger? This is circular reasoning.  I talk about facts and I have shown that we are not hate mongers, but Muslims are.

Update 1/28/2012

The following is my response to Sheila Musaji’s response to me dated 1/26/2012.

Despite the fact that I almost always addressed her directly, Musaji never addressed me directly. This lady’s heart is so much filled with hatred of me that she can’t bring herself to call me by my name and speak to me directly. That is fine. I will speak to her directly. I have no hatred for her. She is only a misguided soul.

Dear Ms. Musaji,

I wrote a long response and asked you specific questions. For example when you said “I strongly uphold freedom of faith,” I asked you to explain the wars of apostasy in Islam and the actions of Muhammad, the Guided Caliphs, and the practice of killing the apostates in all the history of Islam and all Muslim countries. You ignored the subject altogether.

You quoted the verse 2:256 where it says there is no compulsion in religion, but ignore me when I quoted several other verses that say kill those who don’t believe. I asked you to explain the discrepancy and you chose to ignore that too.

I showed how Mawdudi has resolved the apparent contradiction and has shown that the verse about “no compulsion in religion” is just a misunderstanding.  You ignored that too.

I told you about my neighbors’ rooster who in my opinion has more chivalry, more nobility and more humanity in the way he treats his hens than many Muslims who treat women so badly and I showed that this misogyny among Muslims is because of the teachings and examples of Muhammad. You ignored the subject altogether.

My response contained many important points that you ignored. Instead you took an issue when I said you have dedicated your entire energy in maligning the critics of Islam and said that had I looked more carefully I would have seen that you also write about other subjects.

Yes you are right. I take that back. You also write about other subjects. Probably I should have been more careful in the choice of my words and should have said you dedicate MOST of your energy in maligning the critics of Islam. I apologize for that. You do indeed write about other thing.

Well, when you are right, you are right. I acknowledge my error. Will you do the same? Are you capable of acknowledging your errors?

You wrote:
“On TAM, we regularly call out those within the Muslim community that I identify as the “lunatic fringe”, discuss various interpretations of aspects of Sharia, condemn any interpretations that violate human rights.

Good! I am happy to hear that you do that. But what if those whom you identify as “lunatic fringe” are the ones who understands Islam correctly? What if Islam and human rights are not compatible?  Why is it that the ones who are more dedicated to Islam and try to practice it best are the ones that violate human rights? Could it be that there is something in Islam that contradicts human rights?

Let us see a few examples:

According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, men and women have equal rights. Please note that functions and rights are not the same.  Does Islam recognize the equal rights between man and woman?  It doesn’t. I already mentioned a few examples and I can show you dozens more.

According to the UDHR all people have equal rights? Does Islam agree with this?

In Saudi Arabia the blood money for a person depends on his or her religion and gender. Here is a break down:

• 100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man
• 50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman
• 50,000 riyals if a Christian man
• 25,000 riyals if a Christian woman
• 6,666 riyals if a Hindu man
• 3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman

According to this hierarchy, a Muslim man’s life is worth 33 times that of a Hindu woman. This hierarchy is based on the Islamic definition of human rights and is rooted in the Quran and the Sharia. It can be found on The Risala of ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (310/922 – 386/996), A Treatise on Maliki Fiqh. You can read the full text here.

Do you agree with this hierarchy?  This is the concept of the human rights in Islam.  This is the interpretation of Muslim scholars of the Quran and there is consensus.  Is this your understanding of human rights? And if not on what basis you propose to change it?

The UDHR and the Islamic human rights are not the same. Based on the former, the latter is in violation.  Which one you uphold?

You bragged that you converted to Islam 40 years ago and presented your conversion as evidence that there is no compulsion in conversion. I pointed out that everyone does silly things when they are young and the conversion of an inexperienced young woman is hardly a valid evidence of the truth of things that she embraces.  You did not give any objective evidence to the truth of Islam.  You presented you own conversion as evidence. But the conversion of a young girl can be subjective.  It’s of no value to others.  Then you get upset when I scuff at it as evidence.  You say “This is simply a nasty, speculative, and meaningless attack on me as an individual that deserves nothing but contempt.” If you are so sensitive about it, you should not have presented it as evidence.

In this response you answered none of my arguments. You ignored my questions altogether. The only thing you talked about is how your petal delicate sensitivity was hurt when I scuffed at your evidence.  Your conversion is meaningless to us. Even the conversion of a learned and wise person is meaningless, let alone the conversion of a young girl who may have converted because she had fallen in love with a Muslim guy.

So basically your response had no answers. But you had to say something. So you quoted two commentators, Sundried Atheist and Enlightened 25 to find me guilty by association.

These two individuals are not my disciples. In fact I have had several encounters with them and have chided both of them. They are more disciples of Richard Dawkins. That is why I don’t share the views of Prf. Dawkins because I see the fruit and I don’t like it.  Both these individuals are anti-Semites and the former person actually thinks women should cover themselves. So go figure.  They have nothing of me.

Then you wrote another article on 1/28/2012 in response to my long article (above). But you say nothing there either.  You don’t address any of the arguments or bother to answer any of my questions. You merely quoted a few of my passages and summarize:

“Here is the gist of his argument:  I hate Islam, but that is not Islamophobia. I believe that “Muslims are savages”, but I am not a bigot.  I believe that “Homosexuality is a sexual disorder, like sadomasochism” but I am not homophobic.  I believe that Judaism is a religion of “nonsense”, those who believe in it are “filled with bigotry and hate”, but I am not an anti-Semite.  I believe that my culture is superior to others, but I am not a racist.  Terms like Islamophobia or homophobia are lies, there is no such thing.  I am sorry, but there is such a thing as anti-Semitism, there is such a thing as Islamophobia, there is such a thing as homophobia, there is such a thing as racism.  You can object to the use of one or all of those words, but the bottom line is that no matter what you call this ideology, it is hateful bigotry.”

Looks like my suspicion about your difficulty to comprehend things is correct. A child understands what I wrote but you didn’t. Let me repeat.

Hating Islam does not make one Islamophobe because this word is a fallacy. One cannot fear an ideology. One cannot be a Christianophobe for example.  What part of this you don’t understand?

To say Muslims are savages is stating the obvious. Stating the truth does not make one a bigot.  Isn’t stoning savagery? Don’t Muslims practice stoning? There are many other Islamic practices that prove Islam is savagery.  What part of this you don’t understand?

Homosexuality is a disorder and homophobia is a lie. I have no fear of men and not even of homosexuals. I don’t see homosexuality as something shameful, in the same way I don’t see obesity as something shameful. But both obesity and homosexuality are disorders. What part of this you don’t understand?

I am a Zionist. I have defended Israel since always, even before I denounce Islam. But like Einstein and Espinosa and multitude other Jewish thinkers, I don’t believe in the fables of the Bible. Would you say that Einstein was an anti-Semite? Religion and people are two different things. I am with the people, but I don’t care about beliefs. What part of this you don’t understand?

I did not say my culture is superior to others. You truly have a very poor comprehension.  I said Iranian culture was superior to Arab culture before we were invaded by the marauding Muslims. Today, thanks to Islam we are just as barbarians as our invaders.  Why recognizing that some cultures are superior to others would make one a racist? Can’t you see the difference between race and culture?

And yes both Islmaophobia and homophobia are lies.  Repetition does not make them true. What part of this you don’t understand?

You ignored all my arguments and when you responded, you made it clear that you have a poor comprehension.  You are no scholar dear Sheila Musaji. You are not an intellectual and you are not even intelligent.  You are the fifth column that aims to “eliminate and destroy the Western civilization from within and sabotage their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all religions.”

I don’t think you will respond.  I think by now you must have realized  that I destoryed you.  The more you write the more you expose your vulnerability.   But in case you decide to respond, please go to the bathroom and cough strongly. See if you can spit out that hatred that you have for me out of your chest and then go back and read what I wrote from the beginning.

This debate continues here

Dear Ms. Musaji,

You start your response by addressing me, “Dear Ali Sina (whoever that might be).”  What do you mean by whoever that might be? I am me. Who else do you think I am?

You wondered why my book is selling on Amazon at such exorbitant prices.

I have stopped selling my book because I am going to launch the sixth edition of it.  Many vendors sell stuff on Amazon.  Some of them take advantage of the scarcity of an item to sell it at exaggerated prices. But why would anyone buy my book at such price when I’ve offered to send the fourth edition in PDF for free to anyone who asks for it?  The sixth edition is not yet printed so no one can buy it at any price.  When it becomes available, it will have the retail price of $18.95 and probably it will sell for less.

You wrote,

“I would not provide you with my mailing address, any more than you would provide me with yours.  Why would any sane person provide their mailing address to a total stranger who hides behind a pseudonymn? [sic]  (Since you were so kind correcting my typos, I thought I should return the favor.)

Now come on! How many Muslims have been assassinated by apostates since the start of Islam? Can you name one?  Apostates don’t kill Muslims. On the other hand millions of apostates were killed by Muslims since the time of Muhammad.

After Muhammad died, many left Islam. Abu Bakr waged a savage war against the apostates (War of Apostasy) and killed hundreds of thousands of them. Tabari says, he “burned them, stoned them to death, threw them into well or cast them off from cliffs, until he brought them back into submission.” He wrote  a Muslim named Ilyas left Islam and fought against Muslims (for his freedom). When he was captured Abu Bakr ordered to ignite a fire in the middle of the mosque in Medina and threw the wretched man in the fire alive. (Tabari, v. 4, p. 1390 Persian ed.)

Also Bukhari reports a sahih hadith that says, “Some Zanadiqa were brought to `Ali and he burnt them.  The news of this event, reached Ibn `Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.‘” [Bukhari 9: 84: 57]

I am not afraid of you. I think you are a harmless misguided soul. I am afraid of your Muslim brethren.   Anyway, this is just an excuse. I also offered to send my book to you in PDF.

You say “Ali Sina is a pseudonymn” [sic].  Ali Sina is part of my name. I don’t use my full name. But why should this matter?  Many people adopt a nom de plume for their literary or artistic work. Marilyn Monroe’s real name was Norma Jeane Mortenson.  Larry King’s real name is Lawrence Harvey Zeiger.  Does it matter?  These are excuses.  In logic they are called red herring.

I read a few of your articles. You write exclusively about people in the anti-jihad movement. You don’t refute them. You vilify them. You engage in ad hominem. All your articles are personal attacks.  I haven’t seen once you refute what we say.  You are a Muslim and this is how the brain of a Muslim works.  Muslims ignore the criticism made against Islam. Instead they focus on the person criticizing Islam and try to discredit them. This is a pattern.  Even if a Muslim tries to refute your argument, he or she cannot resist making an ad hominem remark about you.  This is a logical fallacy, but to Muslims it all comes naturally. I bet you are not even aware of it.  This is how you think. In your Islamic way of understanding, you think all you have to do to refute someone is to discredit him. You don’t realize this is a fallacy.  To you and to your fellow Muslims it is normal.  Your prophet reasoned in the same way.  Istead of providing logical arguments he called his detractors deaf, dumb, blind, and with no understanding. He thought that will do. Muslims repead these stupid verses and think they are words of God.

You don’t have to fear me or any anti Islam activist dear Ms. Musaji. I am not known for eating Muslims.  Anyone can see the claim that you are afraid of me is disingenuous.

You quoted me extensively, but you did not refute what I said nor did you say why you think those quotes are bad. Those are my views.  I’d gladly debate with you or anyone to prove everything I said.

You wrote

“I strongly uphold freedom of faith, and am a signatory to a statement initiated by Muslims declaring our commitment to that freedom.”

Really?  You strongly uphold freedom of faith? So are you ready to denounce Abu Bakr and Omar and even Muhammad who killed the apostates?  Are you saying the reason all those millions of apostates that were killed since the time of Muhammad and are being killed to this day is due to Muslims’ misunderstanding of Islam?  May I ask who you are that we should take your interpretation as valid and not that of, say, the renowned Muslim scholar Abul Ala Mawdudi?  Mawdudi was one of the foremost scholars of the last century. In his book The Punishment of the Apostate according to Islamic Law, he wrote,

“To everyone acquainted with Islamic law it is no secret that according to Islam the punishment for a Muslim who turns to kufr (infidelity, blasphemy) is execution. Doubt about this matter first arose among Muslims during the final portion of the nineteenth century as a result of speculation. Otherwise, for the full twelve centuries prior to that time the total Muslim community remained unanimous about it. The whole of our religious literature clearly testifies that ambiguity about the matter of the apostate’s execution never existed among Muslims. The expositions of the Prophet, the Rightly-Guided Caliphs (Khulafa’-i Rashidun), the great Companions (Sahaba) of the Prophet, their Followers (Tabi’un), the leaders among the mujtahids and, following them, the doctors of the shari’ah of every century are available on record. All these collectively will assure you that from the time of the Prophet to the present day one injunction only has been continuously and uninterruptedly operative and that no room whatever remains to suggest that perhaps the punishment of the apostate is not execution.”  (Mawdudi, 1  994 P. 10)

Mawdudi gives the proof from the Quran for the commandment to execute the apostate. He wrote:

“Here I wish briefly to offer proof that will quiet the doubt in the hearts of those who, for lack of sources of information, may think that perhaps the punishment of death did not exist in Islam but was added at a later time by the “mawlawis” (religious leaders) on their own.

God Most High declares in the Qur’an:

But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief — Lo! they have no binding oaths in order that they may desist. (9:11,12)[1]

The following is the occasion for the revelation of this verse: During the pilgrimage (hajj) in A.H. 9 God Most High ordered a proclamation of an immunity. By virtue of this proclamation all those who, up to that time, were fighting against God and His Apostle and were attempting to obstruct the way of God’s religion through all kinds of excesses and false covenants, were granted from that time a maximum respite of four months. During this period they were to ponder their own situation. If they wanted to accept Islam, they could accept it and they would be forgiven. If they wanted to leave the country, they could leave. Within this fixed period nothing would hinder them from leaving. Thereafter those remaining, who would neither accept Islam nor leave the country, would be dealt with by the sword. In this connection it was said: “If they repent and uphold the practice of prayer and almsgiving, then they are your brothers in religion. If after this, however, they break their covenant, then war should be waged against the leaders of kufr (infidelity). Here “covenant breaking” in no way can be construed to mean “breaking of political covenants”. Rather, the context clearly determines its meaning to be “confessing Islam and then renouncing it”. Thereafter the meaning of “fight the heads of disbelief” (9:11,12) can only mean that war should be waged against the leaders instigating apostasy.”

 Modern Muslims feel embarrassed about this barbaric law and deny that the punishment of apostasy in Islam is death.  They say such law is not in the Quran. But it is in the hadith.

From Zayd ibn Aslam, Malik has reported that the Apostle of God declared: Whoever changes his religion should be executed. Malik said about this tradition: As far as we can understand this command of the prophet means that the person who leaves Islam to follow another way, but conceals his kufr and continues to manifest Islamic belief, as is the pattern of the Zindiqs and others like them, should be executed after his guilt has been established. He should not be asked to repent because the repentance of such persons cannot be trusted. But the person who has left Islam and publicly chooses to follow another way should be requested to repent. If he repents, good. Otherwise, he should be executed. [Tahawi, Kitab al-Siyar, Bahth Istitabat al-Murtadd; also Bayhaqi, Muwatta; al-Shafi'i, Kitab al-Umm.]

When we discuss about the subject of apostasy with Muslims they will always quote the verse 2:256: “There is no compulsion in religion.”

I’ll discuss what this verse means in a moment. But let us assume it gives people the freedom to believe or not to believe.  Then how are you going to explain the following verses?

O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them…. (9:73)

O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you…. (9:123)

Say unto those of the wondering Arabs who were left behind: Ye will be called against a folk of mighty prowess to fight them until they surrender…. (48:16)[7]

There seems to be a contradiction. In one place the Quran says there is no compulsion in religion and in many other places, the same book says fight those who don’t believe until they surrender.

Here is where the doctrine of abrogated and abrogator comes into play. The later verses abrogate the earlier ones. The Suras 8 and 9 are among the later suras.  They abrogate any seemingly tolerant verse.

However, Mawdudi clarifies the verse 2:256 and explains why it does not contradict the other verses that say kill those who leave Islam. He writes, “Then there is the criticism of contradiction, which for the most part will disappear automatically by carefully reading the above discussion. “There is no compulsion in religion” (la ikraha fi’d din: Qur’an 2:256) means that we do not compel anyone to come into our religion.  And this is truly our practice. But we initially warn whoever would come and go back that this door is not open to come and go. Therefore anyone who comes should decide before coming that there is no going back. Otherwise he should kindly not come. Let someone explain what contradiction is finally to be found here. Without doubt, we deplore hypocrisy and want to see everyone in our community as a true believer. But if hypocrisy overtakes anyone who steps away from his community through the door he knows is no exit, the fault lies with himself. To extricate him from this condition, we cannot expose our order to anarchy. If he has such concern for righteousness that he does not want to remain a hypocrite but wants to be true to the object of his present belief, then why would he himself not come forward to receive the punishment of execution?”

Mawdudi’s explanation solves the problem of contradiction and it also makes it clear that Muslims can’t leave Islam. Islam is a one way road.  No U turn is allowed.

It is true that there is no compulsion in accepting Islam. Non-believers have also the options to pay jizya or face death. With so many options, how can we talk about compulsion?

This is the truth about “no compulsion in religion.”  You converted 40 years ago when you were young and inexperienced. We all did stupid things when we were young. Most of us gained wisdom as we aged. But once one converts to Islam the brain becomes numbed.  Although others recover from their youthful follies a Muslim is trapped.  But there is no reason to despair. My book can help.  Whether you are old or young, when you learn the truth, you can no longer cling to lies.

I know the exact things that chain Muslims to Islam and I have broken those chains.  I have removed the mist in the air.  After reading my book you can see the truth about Muhammad.  Suddenly everything will start making sense to you and for the first time you will say aha! Now I understand. When you read my book you don’t just learn more about Islam, you become an expert and can answer any question about it.

You said,

“I feel no need to defend that choice by in any way disparaging my former faith.  In fact, to behave in such a manner would cheapen my choice.”

I don’t think you get it dear Ms. Musaji. We don’t disparage Islam to defend our choices.  We attack Islam because it is evil, because it has kept our people in slavery, because it is bringing death and misery to millions. What part of this you don’t understand?  Islam has reduced half of the people (women), into lower class beings; it violates the human rights of the minorities; it has kept a billion people in ignorance; it divides mankind and foments hate, war and destruction.  What part of this you don’t understand?   We don’t fight Islam because it is our ex religion. We fight it because we understand how evil it is. We know that if it is not stopped mankind will be destroyed.  I don’t believe in any religion, but I would never say this about any religion. Only Islam is this diabolic.  Instead of writing about freedom fighters and vilifying us, listen to us and hear what we say for Pete’s sake.

Your site is nothing but a museum of logical fallacies.  You have written numerous articles maligning people in the anti-Jihad movement, which you accuse of  “Islamophobia,” in an attempt to stifle genuine criticism of Islam. Islamophobia makes as much sense as Christianophobia, Hinduphobia, or even communist phobia.  You can’t be phobic of an ideology.  It is a lie like homophobia.  It is another example of Islamic bullying to silence criticism of Islam.  Islamophobia is a logical fallacy.

In fact your entire site is based on logical fallacies.  Instead of refuting any of our arguments you attack our persons and try to portray Muslims as victims.  Muslims are not victims. They are victimizers, not just where they are the majority, but also where they are the minority.  Who is committing terrorism against non-Muslim in India, in Bali, in Philippines, in Nigeria, in Somali (before the secession) in Russia, in Europe and in America?

Your arguments are all ad hominem, appeal to pity, appeal to emotion, appeal to spite, and false dilemma such as when you equate Islam to a race and accuse the critics of Islam of being racist and anti-Muslim.  You compare Muslims to blacks and Jews. That is a deception.  Being anti-black or anti Semite is racism.  But being anti-Islam, anti-Christianity or anti Judaism is not racism.

You can’t silence us with these fallacies. If you want us to stop, engage with us in a debate and prove us wrong.  Can you do that? Of course you can’t.  Reason has never been Islam’s forte. Muslims are good at logical fallacies, at violence, at hooliganism, at demonstrations, at car burning, at train and bus bombing, at building demolition and at other ingenious ways to kill humans.  But they are not good at reasoning.  You bring all the silly excuses to run away and not to engage in a debate.  I offered you to read my book. You ignored my offer to send it to you in PDF and claimed you fear me.  How ridiculous can you get and who do you think you can fool?

You say you are not afraid of the truth? Then read my book and prove me wrong. You are not afraid of debate?  Continue this debate and keep publishing my response in your site.

You wrote,

“I do respond, and respond strongly to those individuals who malign the faith of others.”

Really? Good!  What is your response to Muhammad who maligned the faith of the Jews and Christians and said, “And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away?” (Quran 9:30)

What is your response to him for maligning the religion of the pagans?

Ibn Ishaq says, “When the apostle openly displayed Islam as God ordered him, his people did not withdraw or turn against him, so far as I have heard, until he spoke disparagingly of their gods. When he did that they took great offence and revolted unanimously to treat him as an enemy.”[Sirat Rasoul Allâh p. 118]

Muslims continued the tradition of their prophet. Wherever they went they destroyed the temples of the vanquished and disparaged their faith. The disrespect of the faith of others and violation of their freedom of conscience continues to this day in all Muslim countries.

You have written many articles maligning the critics of Islam. Show us one where you have condemned your own brethren for disparaging other faiths. Show us where you have stood for the rights of the victims of Islam. Did you write any article sending it to an Egyptian media denouncing the Muslims for killing the Coptic Christians?  Did you write anything for Pakistanis denouncing them for their blasphemy law?  Of course not! Your goal is not to stop the barbarity of Islam. Your goal is to bambuzzle your own poeple so they lower their guards and not see Islam  as a threat.  There have been many fools and traitors like you in history. We Persians had Salman, may he rot in hell.

Yes you have written articles claiming Islam allows freedom of religion. Those articles are for the consumption of non-Muslims and to deceive them.  You never call upon Muslims to be tolerant.  You know that they will laugh at you if you do.  First of all you are a convert and secondly you are a woman.  Will Muslims listen to you and ignore their own scholars, and ignore the Quran and the hadith?  They tolerate you for now. You serve their purpose.  To borrow a term from Lenin, you are a useful idiot for them.  They let you say what you want and pull the wool over the eyes of their targeted victims.  You are a deceived woman and the best person to deceive the westerners.

I sent you an email and said if you ignore it I will publish it. You call that “a veil threat.”  Why would you see publishing an email as a threat? You like to portray yourself as a victim don’t you?  If you have truth on your side, you will never be afraid of a pen and will never think of it as a threat. You will see it as a threat only when you know it can destroy your house of cards.

You objected when I said please read my book and consult with your Muslim husband or an imam. You say I am patronizing and this shows my contempt for women and their ability to make their choices.

Well, not entirely true. I never said women are “deficient in intelligent”, or they have “faulty memory and comprehension.” In fact I don’t believe in that balderdash at all. Those are the words of Muhammad.  But aren’t you a Muslims? Don’t you believe in Muhammad? Here is what he said about women.

“I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.” The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence.  Sahih Bukhari 1:6:301

Now ponder on the reasoning of that brute.  Who established that the evidence of two women is equal to witness of one man?  Wasn’t Muhammad who said it? Here he deceives the benighted women listening to his charade with a circular reasoning.

In another place he said, “Woman is like a rib. When you attempt to straighten it, you would break it. And if you leave her alone crookedness will remain in her. [Sahih Muslim 8: 3466]

Elsewhere he said, “After me I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women.” [ Bukhari 7: 62: 33]

In another place he said, “Many amongst men reached (the level of) perfection but none amongst the women reached this level except Asia, Pharaoh’s wife, and Mary, the daughter of ‘Imran.” [Bukhari 4: 55: 623]

In the above hadith he confused Mary the mother of Jesus with Miriam doubter of Imran (Miriam was the sister of Moses and Aaron).

There are plenty of other hadiths and verses from the Quran that are proof positive Muhammad was a misogynist who thought women are crooked, and not as smart as men.

I don’t believe in Muhammad, but you do.  So why are you offended when I echo what your prophet said?  Do you disagree with him? You either agree  or you don’t. If you do,  don’t complain when I address you the way your prophet did and if you don’t, why do you follow that man?

You said,

“Your assumption that I might be motivated either by some need to gain notoriety by engaging in a polemical debate with a person who has attained “some notoriety” or by greed in considering the possibility of financial gain as an incentive is offensive.”

No, no! You misunderstood me.  I did not imply either of these things. I know you are just as “notorious” as me and perhaps even more. That is not what I said. I said don’t ignore me as most Muslims do saying I am nobody.  I am nobody in real life, but in the anti-Islam movement I have a name.  I did not say you’ll become famous by debating with me. Fortunately I am not a narcissist (at least I try not to be).

Also the financial reward is my outstanding offer to any person who can prove me wrong.  I guess I would owe that much to the person who would save my soul and lead me to the right path. In your case I said I will give the money to you so you can donate it to the charity of your choice.  I think I was very careful in my words so not to offend.  You can even instruct me to pay the money to the charity of your choice and I publish the receipt.

I didn’t insult you and yet you get offended.  Muhammad insulted you, but you don’t get offended.  Something is wrong with this picture and I know what it is. It is your faith in Muhammad and your hatred of me that has blinded you.  As the result you can’t distinguish right from wrong.  You can’t recognize that I am a friend wanting to save you from this pit of darkness and the cesspool of ignorance that Muhammad has kept you in.  I am your friend, not that psychopath.

I decline your offer. I have no time or interest in writing a rebuttal of your book.

Of course you decline.  You fear the truth.  You fear that my book may demolish your cocoon of lies and leave you unprotected and unprepared. You have spent 40 years in this dungeon of deception and coming out of it will be painful. The movie Shawshak Redemption portrays an old prisoner named Brooks Hatlen who after spending most of his life in prison, where he had gained some respect and importance as the Shawshank’s Librarian, gets paroled and is set free.  Brooks can’t handle his freedom and shorthy after his release he hangs himself.  The old Brooks represents the typical Muslim.  Muslims are used to the prison of Islam. They may even have gained some standing and respect among fellow believers.  They have nothing outside Islam and can’t imagine a life without it.  That is your dilemma dear Ms. Musaji.

I don’t expect heroism from you.  My mother once said, whatever you say about God sounds logical, but I can’t live without Him. I told her continue believing.  I don’t want to shatter her world and I don’t want to shatter yours either. All I want is to show to the world that you are just a lost soul, surely deserving of our compassion, but not a beacon of light.   Your articles are nothing but compilations of logical fallacies.  They make you feel good, thinking you are contributing something to mankind, when in reality you walk in darkness.  You can’t distinguish right from wrong and are fearful of trying to experience a reality that may shatter your weltanschauung. To write all that trash against us you must have browsed countless pages, but alas you did not pay attention to anything. All you cared was to copy passages that in your opinion prove we are bad.  But they don’t.  You simply did not understand them.

“I don’t believe that declining your “challenge” proves my insincerity,”

Sincerity is overrated.  The road to hell is paved with sincerity. You are sincere alright! But so are those who strap bombs to themselves and blow up a bunch of innocent people.  The followers of Jim Jones who drank his tainted Cool Aid and administered it to their children were also sincere.  People of all faiths are sincere. But sincerity without understanding is a sure path to hell.   You are sincere, but you lack understanding.  Truth sparks when opposing ideas collide and you are afraid of that collision.  You fear it may crush your ideas.  You seek safety in your cocoon.  You are sincere in your belief, but not to truth.  One who cares about truth will not shy away from challenges to his or her ideas.

“the challenge itself provides even more evidence of your own insecurity.

You are wrong.  The one who hides is insecure.  I don’t show my face, because I am afraid of losing my life.  I am not sure whether I will be able to live long if I go out.  I am insecure in regards to my safety.  If I had nothing to fear, why would I hide?  But I am willing to debate with anyone.  That is because I am not afraid losing my beliefs.  If I am wrong I would love to be corrected.  Do you see the difference?

You are afraid of losing your belief. Forty years is a lifetime.  Your circle of friends, your social standing, your family and your entire life will be at stake.  Finding the truth at this stage in your life will destroy you.  So you are afraid to challenge your beliefs.  That is fine with me.  I want to help generation of the future.  But it was necessary to poke into your bubble of self-righteousness and blast it so when people  read your articles they can have a better understanding of who you are and where you come from.

There is something wrong with a worldview that promotes the idea that demonizing others somehow increases your own stature.

I could not agree more, but look who is talking?   Isn’t this exactly what you do?  You have a long list of people that you demonize but never respond to their arguments.

I am not demonizing Islam. Islam hardly needs demonization.  I am exposing the truth. I dig the truth from the Sira, the hadith and the Quran and reaveal it to the world . I also invite anyone to show where I go wrong.   This is the test of my sincerity.  You failed that test.   I am not afraid for my views to be challenged.  You are.

 I am ignoring your and publishing your email myself.  Others can judge for themselves the meaning of your offer and of my rejection of that offer.

Will you also publish this response?  Or if not, will you provide a link to this page in your site?  That would prove your sincerity, but I am not holding my breath.

This debate continues here

Well, this is a great start.  I think we’re going to have fun. Let us see how it will work out.  The following is what I wrote and what she wrote.   She had even the courtesy to correct my typos by highlighting them. What can one ask more?

I have a feeling this is going to be an interesting debate, unless Ms. Musaji decides to cut it short, in which case  I won’t be surprised, only a bit disapointed.

To read my response to Ms Musaji, please come back tomorrow.

Ali Sina Launches Sharpened Olive Branch of Hate

by Sheila Musaji
Today I received this email from Ali Sina with the heading “Sending you an olive branch”:

Dear Ms. Sheila Musaji

I read a few of your articles and see you have dedicated your efforts to malign the apostates, those who are fed up with Islam and want to protect the non-Muslim world from its onslaught. Of course you don’t see it that way. That’s okay. Maybe one day you will.

I have an offer for you. How about I send you a copy of my book, Understanding Muhammad? You read it. I promise by the time you are done you will no longer want to be a Muslim.

Now you may think this is ridiculous because nothing in the world can change your views about Islam. That is okay. Read it anyway. Read it, not with an open mind but with hatred in your heart against me. Read it with close mind and strive hard to deny all the evidences that I present and try to find errors in it. Resist all my claims. By the time you are done reading the book you’ll lose your faith.

And what if you don’t? I promise you will. I have sent my book to hundreds of Muslims. They all promised to read it and get back to me showing my errors. I told them that I will publish their rebuttal. A percentage of them wrote back to thank me for opening their eyes. They are now fighting alongside me helping other Muslims to leave Islam. Another group wrote to say I have a diabolic ability to induce doubt in Muslims and hence they stopped reading further. But most of them never replied. Not a single person wrote back to do what they promised they’d do, i.e. refute me and show my errors. Not one person! Isn’t that something? Are you willing to take this challenge?

Should you agree to read the book and refute it, I will publish your rebuttal and if you are correct I will withdraw my book from circulation, my membership from SION, and will stop my sites faithfreedom.org and alisina.org. There is also a financial reward of $50 K that I would give to you so you can donate to the charity of your choice.

If you are sincere you’d admit that by doing that you’d achieve a lot more than writing against me, Wafa Sultan (who is by the way my spiritual daughter) and other people in anti-Islam movement. After all these years I have gained some “notoriety.” If you refute my book I will stop my anti-Islam activity and people will notice. I’ve led thousands of Muslims out of Islam. Maybe many of them will want to take another look at Islam. Don’t say I am insignificant. Maybe in real life I am, but in the anti-Islam movement I have a name and a reputation. You’ll lose two days reading a book that you hate. In exchange you may eliminate a “notorious” enemy of Islam and in fact may even win him to your side. You know the story of Islam. Many of its great supporters were originally its staunch enemies. I could be one of them. Why not?  Don’t you believe in Allah’s power? All you’ve to do is read my book, which I will send to you in hard copy or in PDF, whatever is your choice. You can get help from your Muslim husband or imam or anyone you wish.

I am not going to publish this email, unless you ignore it. If you ignore it, it will be evidence of your lack of sincerity. My offer to you is sincere and generous. I’ve dedicated 14 years of my life fighting Islam. I am ready to stop and even apologize publicly, should you read my book and prove it wrong. Your investment is only two days of your time. You have nothing to lose except your faith in a lie. That is not bad at all.

If you ignore my offer, I will publish this email. Since you’ve dedicated your life to malign SION and its members I want the world to know you are not a sincere person. But if you reply and read my book, we’ve opened the line of dialogue. You’ll either leave Islam as I predict, or you’ll refute it and I will join Islam. I will also publish your rebuttal, which will help others to see the truth.

I am sending you an olive branch. The ball is now in your court.

Kind regards, Ali Sina

Dear Ali Sina (whoever that might be),

The book that you are offering to send to me has been in print since 2008 (4 years) and is published by your own Faith & Freedom Publishing company.  It is sold at Amazon.com, and it is listed as selling for $157.71.  Another of your books Understanding Islam & Muslims is listed as having only one new copy available for $999.99 although it was published in November of 2011.

If you are such an effective voice speaking against Islam that you can GUARANTEE that any Muslim reading your book will leave Islam, it would seem that you would want your books to be widely disseminated.  At these prices, that isn’t likely.  Perhaps this one on one method of soliciting readership from particular individuals is how the book was meant to be distributed.

I think that this offer is just a ploy.  I would not provide you with my mailing address, any more than you would provide me with yours.  Why would any sane person provide their mailing address to a total stranger who hides behind a pseudonymn?

Ali Sina is a pseudonymn, and not your real name.  I have no idea who you are.  I only know you by your writings, and in your own words I find evidence that you are an individual I would be wise to fear, not because of your ideas, but because of your hatred.  Here are a few of your own statements:

—  “We strive for the unity of Mankind through the elimination of Islam, the most insidious doctrine of hate. Islam can’t be reformed, but it can be eradicated. It can’t be molded, but it can be smashed. It is rigid but brittle. That is why Muslims do not tolerate criticism of it. To eradicate Islam, all we have to do is tell the truth. It’s that simple. The truth about Islam is out. It’s all here in this site. Now it is up to you to spread it. With truth, the decent Muslims will leave Islam and with each Muslim that leaves, we gain a new soldier in our fight against terrorism. We are growing exponentially. The days of Islam are numbered and world peace is around the corner. Many of us will see that day. We might have to go through very tough times meanwhile. The storm is approaching.

— “We do not want to reform Islam. We want to eradicate it. Just as cancer cannot be reformed and the only way to cure the patient is to eradicate it, Islam cant be reformed either and it must be eradicated for the world to be saved.”

— “Islam, like fascism, appeals to people with low self esteem and low intelligence. Both these ideologies are irrational. They disdain reason, and hail devotion and submission to a higher authority. Like fascists, Muslims are triumphalists. They seek power, domination and control. They pride themselves in their strength of number, in their mindless heroism, in their disdain for life and in their willingness to kill and die for their cause. Islam is political and political Islam is fascism.”

— “Tarek Fatah proves my point that there is no such thing as moderate Muslim … Every “moderate” Muslim is a potential terrorist. The belief in Islam is like a tank of gasoline. It looks innocuous, until it meets the fire. For a “moderate” Muslim to become a murderous jihadist, all it takes is a spark of faith.”

— “I promise that if we continue this campaign of discrediting Islam and Muslim scholars, in no more than a quarter of century, Islam will be defeated. Islam will fall, like communism fell. Mark my words today, even if you think I am nuts. If we all work together, especially the ex-Muslims, we can get rid of Islam sooner than anyone can imagine. Iran is already anti Islamic. More than half of Iranians do not call themselves Muslims anymore. We are demolishing Islam from its foundation. The edifice seems to be intact. But don’t let appearances deceive you. This high tower of lies will come down at once.

— “If any city in the West is nuked I am 100% for nuking tens of cities in Islamic countries. I don’t see Muslims as innocent people. They are all guilty as sin. It is not necessary to be part of al Qaida to be guilty. If you are a Muslim you agree with Muhammad and that is enough evidence against you.”

— “We love you Muslims because you are humans like us. We are all related to each other. We are all limbs of the body of mankind. But you are diseased. You are infected by a deadly cult that threatens our lives. Your humanity is destroyed. Like a limb infected by flesh eating disease, now you are a threat to the rest of mankind. We will do everything to save you, to make you see your folly, and to make you understand that you are victims of a gigantic lie, so you leave this lie, stop hating mankind and plotting for its destruction and it domination. But if all efforts fail and if you become a threat to our lives and the lives of our children, we must amputate you. This will happen, not because I say so, but I say so because this is human response. We humans are dictated by our survival instinct. If you threaten me and my survival depends on killing you, I must kill you. Please come to your senses. Muhammad was not a prophet of God. He was an instrument of Satan to divide mankind so we destroy each other. It is a demonic plot to end humanity. Muhammad lied. He brought hate. Wake up please. You are putting the world, including your own lives in danger for a lie. Read my book and learn the truth about Muhammad. … Islam is disease. What does moderate Muslim mean anyway? Does it mean you are moderately diseased? This makes as much sense as saying, I am a moderate Nazi, or I am culturally a fascist. I only participate in their rallies. Let us call you by your name. You are a hypocrite. You are a useful idiot. You are part of the problem. In fact you are THE problem. If it were not for you, we would easily recognize our enemy and eliminating it, would be easy. But you shield the enemy. You muddy the waters. You confuse us to hide the beast among you. You do not fool me, even though you may fool the non-Muslims. I know your hypocrisy. I know how you hide and support the terrorists secretly but publicly you denounce him and portray yourself as our friend.

If these words were not enough for me to form a judgement about whether or not I would want to interact with you, your email is filled with statements that make my decision very clear.

You open with a false accusation that I “malign apostates”.  I don’t malign people that you call apostates and that I call people who have chosen another faith than that they were born into. Actually, I strongly uphold freedom of faith, and am a signatory to a statement initiated by Muslims declaring our commitment to that freedom.

I have no problem with anyone, including yourself, choosing whatever religious path (or no path) for themselves that they find meaningful.  I am puzzled by the fact that some converts from one belief system to another find it necessary to disparage the faith that they have left.  Forty years ago, I chose Islam.  That was a very personal and private decision, and I feel no need to defend that choice by in any way disparaging my former faith.  In fact, to behave in such a manner would cheapen my choice.  There are different paths that are suitable for different people.  God will judge, not any human being.

I do respond, and respond strongly to those individuals who malign the faith of others whether through anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, anti-Mormonism, anti-Hinduism, or any other form of religious bigotry.  I respond particularly to Islamophobes because I believe that the poison that they spread directly endangers the safety and security of American Muslims including my own children.

You make an offer that you call “sending an olive branch” that includes a veiled threat “If you ignore my offer, I will publish this email … I want the world to know you are not a sincere person”.

Your patronizing statement You can get help from your Muslim husband or imam or anyone you wish shows your contempt for women and their ability to make their own choices and decisions.  I don’t need someone else to help me make my choices.

Your assumption that I might be motivated either by some need to gain notoriety by engaging in a polemical debate with a person who has attained “some notoriety” or by greed in considering the possibility of financial gain as an incentive is offensive.

I decline your offer. I have no time or interest in writing a rebuttal of your book. I am not interested in convincing people to leave whatever faith they have. I don’t need your help to distribute my writings on any topic that I choose to write about.  I don’t care what faith you hold.  I don’t care if your site is online or not, in fact it is good it is there so that people can judge for themselves what sort of poison you are spreading.

I don’t believe that declining your “challenge” proves my insincerity, but the challenge itself provides even more evidence of your own insecurity.  There is something wrong with a worldview that promotes the idea that demonizing others somehow increases your own stature.

I am ignoring your and publishing your email myself.  Others can judge for themselves the meaning of your offer and of my rejection of that offer.
“If it had been the will of your Lord that all the people of the world should be believers, all the people of the earth would have believed! Would you then compel mankind against their will to believe?”  [Qur’an 10:99]

“There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient.”  [Qur’an 2:256]

”(O Prophet Muhammad) proclaim: ‘This is the Truth from your Lord. Now let him who will, believe in it, and him who will, deny it.’”  [Qur’an 18:29]

“Say, O Muhammad.  I worship not that which you worship, nor will you worship that which I worship.  And I shall not worship that which you are worshipping, nor will you worship that which I worship.  To you be your religion, and to me my religion.”  [Qur’an 109:1-6]
SEE ALSO

A Who’s Who of the Anti-Muslim/Anti-Arab/Islamophobia Industry http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/a_whos_who_of_the_anti-muslimanti-arabislamophobia_industry

Islamophobia:  Real or Imagined http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/islamophobia_real_or_imagined

Ali Sina and Faith Freedom International, Sheila Musaji http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/ali_sina

SION:  Hate Groups Unite to Form an International Hate Coalition, Sheila Musaji http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/sion

Please click here to read my response to Ms. Musaji

A person with narcissistic personality disorder often reacts to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation. He expects others to agree with him without him having to prove his claims and if contradicted, he will resort to threats. When we read the Sira (the life of Muhammad) and the Quran, this is exactly the picture we get from him.

But there was another element in shaping his character: The influence of Rabbis.

Judaism and Islam have a lot in common. They have basically the same eschatology and very similar teachings. For example few people know that stoning adulterers that is widely practiced in Islam originates from the Bible. Muhammad did practice stoning but he did not insert it in his Quran. But he said when a law is not clearly stated, Muslims should look into the Bible for guidance.

These are all secondary influences of Judaism on Islam. The main common feature between these two faiths is their intolerance. This intolerance in Judaic texts gave the narcissist Muhammad the power to do as he pleased. He could make his claim without needing to prove it and expect others to believe without questioning him. If they didn’t, he would threaten them with hellfire.

How could he get away with that? Why would people believed in his unproven and often irrational claims? The answer to this question is in Judaism. The Rabbis in Arabia had laid the psychological foundation for Islam among the tolerant pagans. For 2000 years they had preached that Yahweh, their god, is beyond reason, i.e. he is irrational, that his ways are different and they may appear unjust and even evil. But it is not up to humans to question God’s wisdom.

That kind of authority and power is a narcissist’s wet dream. By claiming to be the messenger of God, the same intolerant god of the Jews, Muhammad did not have to prove any of his claims. The reason Arabs fell into his trap was because of the groundwork laid by the Rabbis in Arabia.

I have dome many debates with Muslim and also Christian scholars. But so far the only debate I had with a Rabbi was about Obama and not about religion. He was very irrational, but it was politics.

Recently I became active on Twitter. I sent a tweet about a Palestinian cleric who called for the genocide of the Jews and a Rabbi tweeted back. Here is our exchanges.

AliSina_FFI 17 Jan  Palestinian Cleric Calls for the Genocide of the Jews bit.ly/xFTjan

Rabbi_Shaul 17 Jan  YHWH has always kept a remnant of Jews around no matter who tries to do HaSatans Dirty work. Yeah, some Jews will die, But…

AliSina_FFI When God can let 6 mil innocent people incinerate, we better rely on our own resources and stop HaSatan or HaMuhammad now.

Rabbi.Shaul You are looking at things from Man’s wisdom & not understanding how YHWH works. 2nd – How do you know they are not Saved.

Ali Sina  The only wisdom the alleged God gave me is man’s wisdom. By what shall I judge things then if not by it?

Rabbi.Shaul  He may have given you man’s wisdom, but Solomon Prayed for the Wisdom of Above & got it. You are offered Holy Spirit Wisdom too

Nothing is impossible for YHWH. Do you really think the 6 million or the 40 million under Stalin ALL died in vain? YHWH Knows

Ali Sina  Yes I really think they died in vain. None of that should have happened. It shows God is careless, or helpless, or ignorant.

Rabbi.Shaul They did not die in vain. G-d is anything but careless, helpless or ignorant – He created you. You need to seek G-d properly

Ali Sina God allows Hitler to kill mil.s to show people are free? It shows he’s cynical. What about the rights to life of the victims?

Rabbi.Shaul  I feel your pain, but until you decide to understand the Message of the Good News of Torah & Messiah, you will remain confused

We would love to help you find a True relationship with G-d. It would be wonderfully rewarding for you. Please do not hate G-d

Ali Sina Dear Rabbi, I don’t hate God bcuz he does not exist. But if He did he would be worthy of scorn and hate. Look at the suffering!

Rabbi.Shaul  Sorry to tell you that you are not correct. G-d truly exists. He just won’t reveal himself to you at this time because of you.

Do want to find out that G-d really exist? Are you willing & able to find out you are wrong?

Psa 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no G-d. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works…G-d Spoke this

Pro 10:8 The wise in heart will receive commandments: but a prating fool shall fall. Do you want to Prove G-d Right about you

Ali Sina  This is not proof of existence of God. It is ad hominem – a logical fallacy. I use reason and He, logical fallacies. Go figure!

Rabbi.Shaul I used them to see where your Head was at. I do not expect two verses to prove anything. ?? Would you like to live forever?

Ali Sina What I like and what is the reality R different. I’d love to be billionaire, wise n live 4ever, but I must submit to reality.

Rabbi.Shaul  Unfortunately, You are not local or I would tell you to spend one week with me & you would know G-d is real. I not even talk.

oops – what I meant is that I Would not talk, Not try & Convince you – All you would do is watch & see what G-d does.

Ali Sina If I spend time with you, prob.ly I’d be captivated by your charm, but that does not prove God. Can you prove God using reason?

Rabbi.Shaul  what reasoning do you want to use to prove G-d to you. We know that where Science, History & the Bible agree, you have Truth

Are you willing to reason using all Three sources at the same time? Remember Science, History & Scripture.

Well – my charm is a miracle all by itself. But I would not use my charm – I want G-d to use his so you will know. I am nothing

Ali Sina I will agree with science, history and reason (human reason). If I believed in Scriptures there would be no point debating.

Rabbi.Shaul  How about this. first we look at history in scripture. Then we see if Science & Human History can verify Scripture is true/lie.

Ali Sina U can quote scrip., but it’s no evidence to me. Will you accept Quran as evidence in a debate with a Muslim? No, why should you?

Rabbi.Shaul Interesting – to Islam the Quran is a Bible – but you want me to not use my bible when discussing G-d-so the conversation is.

..G-d vs Allah – not is G-d real cause it appears you believe Allah is real. Am I correct?

Ali Sina I believe Allah and God are both fairytale, one is like Dracula the other like Santa clause. Both are fiction, but different.

Rabbi.Shaul Okay – then you have rejected the “Creator of all, no matter what Name we use” let me know when you are ready, if ever. Oh Well

I hope you realize that my Prayer is one of YHWHs love & not one hate. Because you do not accept scripture, I will not quote

Ali Sina How can I reject something that does not exist? I am ready to debate and publish it on my site. Is email good?

Rabbi.Shaul Email is great, but my prayer will stand during the process, cause that is a way for YHWH to show you he is real & Love you

Ali Sina Sure, U can pray. It’s spreading good will. Nothing wrong in that. (Unless U pray Islamicly that foment hate). Wht’s Ur email?

Rabbi.Shaul I do not pray hatred, but my prayers do not always sound loving. Torahqs@torahabesorah.com I am pleased you are willing.

After this initial exchanges I sent to Rabbi Shaul the following email. Please note that it was the Rabbi who invited me to debate and wanted to prove to me that God loves me. I told him I will publish the debate and he did not object.  Also please note that I was very respectful of my opponent both in my tweets and in my email, which follows.

Dear Rabbi Shaul,

Although I generally don’t debate on the subject of God, it would be an honor to have this discussion with you. I don’t debate about the existence of God because I am pragmatic and I see no evidence that atheism makes people better.  I also see no evidence that religion makes people better. As I get to know people more on a personal level, I start liking animals more.  Yes I have had the good fortune to meet many wonderful souls. Some of them were believers in God and some were not. But generally, I don’t have a very high esteem of our species.  If we are made in the image of God, God must be pretty much screwed up.

Anyway, that is beside the point. I just wanted to let you know that I am atheists only because I find it logical. I accept it intellectually and philosophically, but not religiously.  I am not an evangelist atheist. If Prof. Richard Dawkins can show me that atheism makes people more moral, more ethical and happier, I will join his crusade against religion and God. As long as that is not happening I’ll stay out of that debate.

The truth is that atheists have committed horrendous crimes in the name of atheism. No one disputes about the fact that communists are atheist and their crimes against people of faith are well documented. But some atheists claim Hitler was a believer in God. This is a lie. Hitler used religion and sometimes evoked God for his demagogic proposes but he believed in no other god except himself.  He despised Christianity for its teaching of universal love and pacifism that he interpreted as weakness. He had a great admiration for Muhammad and lamented that Islam did not conquer Germany. He thought Islamic mindless devotion to authority and its penchant for violence best suited the Germanic spirit.  However, he foolishly thought that given time, Germans, thanks to their “genetic superiority” over Arabs would have become the hiers of the Islamic empire.  That was of course another one of pipe dreams. We Persians are of the same genetic stock as Germans and we had a far superior civilization than Arabs. Yet when we succumbed to Islam we were reduced into a shell of what we were. Our country that issued the first charter of human rights is today one of the top violators of human rights. Had Islam conquered Germany, Germany would not have been better than Iran or any other Islamic country.

Atheists have blood on their hands. The only people who beat atheists in crimes against humanity are Muslims.  Atheists have butchered over 100 million people in the last century and Muslims have killed over 280 million people in the last 14 centuries. Of course if you count the sectarian war, where Muslims kill one another, this number can be easily doubled.

So much for atheism! The problem is that religions don’t promote love and amity either. It is clear that religion is the biggest instrument of discord and hate among people. Anyone who claims otherwise is engaging in the logical fallacy of biased sampling and is ignoring the evidence.  They argue that people who originally hated each other became united after embracing the same faith. What they ignore is that they have created another division in mankind and another pretext to hate and fight. As Sigmund Freud said, “It is always possible to bind together a considerable number of people in love, so long as there are other people left over to receive the manifestations of their aggression.”

I stay completely out of the debate about religion and God. Unlike Prof. Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens, I don’t see religion and the belief in God as the mother of all evil. I see intolerance and self-righteousness as the mother of all evil. Atheists can be just as intolerant and self-righteous as theists.

I will debate with you, purely for intellectual exercise. I don’t wish people to give up their faith in God if they are believers. I advocate doubt. I believe doubt is the greatest gift a person can give to another. Not everyone is capable of doubting. It’s an art – a skill that can be learned and honed with practice.  To be able to doubt everything is the first step to enlightenment and freedom. If my younger readers see the value of doubting, I have achieved my goal.

Belief is not the exclusive trait of theists.  I have met and debated with many atheists who are just as firm in their belief and sometimes as bigoted, as a fanatical religionist.

This is what I see as the source of the problem. The problem is not the belief in God or the disbelief in Him. The problem is the belief itself.  Once we fall into that dark pit, we can no longer see. We develop tunnel vision. My entire philosophy is based on doubt. Although your god says doubters are foolish, my view is that belief is another name for credulity. Doubters, far from being fools are the wise ones.  Truth is infinite. It is silly to say one has grasped it all and those who don’t believe are fools.

With this introduction, I leave the stage to you.  Since you want to prove the existence of God, the burden of proof is on you and here is your chance.

I will publish our debate on my websites faithfreedom.org and alisina.org so others can also comment.

Kind regards

Ali Sina

A day after I sent my email I received the following tweets from Rabbi Shaul.

Rabbi.Shaul  I am sorry to inform you that your Email has caused us to realize that you care nothing about learning truth as you agreed.

Therefore, you can watch our Video Response to you at youtu.be/pitKfhAPD0o – you are the Second email we respond to.

Beyond that – Read about Issac Newton – one of the top Scientists & Devout Atheists ever in history & see if you can relate.

Consider our offer to you Closed. You can now watch & see how YHWH deals with as we do not consider you worthy of our time.

Public Notice: I offered @AliSina_FFI to study History & Science to see where it proves Biblical History. He Agreed, then recanted by Email

Public Notice: We will no longer discuss anything with @AliSina_FFI as his email was not one desiring to learn truths from those who know.

Rabbi Shaul did not reply to my email personally. Instead he passed it to a superior of his, an elderly Rabbi who addressed my email in his Youtube broadcast.

I could not find the name of this Rabbi. This is their website http://torahabesorah.com/ If you know his name I will be grateful if you let me know.

IN this long video, the Rabbi’s response to me starts at 2:20 minutes and ends at 17:20. Here is the transcript of what he says.  My response to him is at the end.   The Rabbi’s response is very interesting.  I am sure you’ll enjoy it. Please read it or watch his video.

The second email is in regards to a tweet, that Rabbi Shaul … a man with integrity and character…. And a person had tweeted him and he responded.

You have to understand that first of all we don’t debate Scriptures. We’ll tell you what we perceive the scriptures are saying, we give you the historic background; we’ll even add in science, but to debate it, no.

There was an individual who tweeted him and he responded and this individual said yes he was willing to be shown how through both the scripture Father Yahweh, that scripture, history and science they ‘ll be all coming together, [like] three circles, and where they intersect is where all true set.  Now you can say where two of them intersect, that is true. In most cases that isw correct, but not in all cases.

This individual agreed to this and he sent me a very long email. I am not going to call your name. You know who you are if you watch this broadcast.

First of all let me say that I’m rather disappointed because the agreement and the covenant you made, you now have primarily broken, which in my way of looking at things is basically a lie. Now if you don’t like it I don’t care. I say I see it.

And you talk about your purposes and the way you do things and how you doubt. Well, I doubt your sincerity, I doubt your integrity and I doubt the way you conduct yourself.  What you’re looking for is a fight – a debate and contention. And you’re wanting an opportunity to put this on your website so you can show your superiority and your intellect.

Let me say that I don’t really care how smart you are.  In the world’s eyes if I wanted to look at it, most people consider me a pretty smart fellow too.  And you know what? It’s all foolishness compared to Yahweh.  He said, our birth is but filthy rags and he is referring to the rags used during the menstrual cycle of a woman.

So that’s our best. I take offence at how you describe first of all… God is a Teutonic name.  We don’t use that name at all. We use the Hebrew name of the creator who gave his name in Hebrew, who gave the pure language in Hebrew and who confused the languages at Tower of Babble. We’re talking about historical here.

You said you don’t have a very high esteem of our species.  If we are made in the image of God, God must be pretty much screwed up.

You said, “Anyway, that is beside the point. I just wanted to let you know that I am atheists only because I find it logical. I accept it intellectually and philosophically, but not religiously.

Then you say you’re not an evangelist atheist. I think you’re a liar. Else you wouldn’t caught to be provocative and provoke to try and arrange a discourse so that you can show this to whoever is following you so that you might prove your point. The point is mute.

You go one in tirades of how not only the religious theists, but also the atheists have destroyed in the name of God. First of all as I told you, God is a Teutonic name. It refers to no one in particular. We could be talking about the door and calling it god.

What I do find amazing is as you get down and you start referring to enlightenment and that how “My entire philosophy is based on doubt.”…”Once we fall into that dark pit, we can no longer see.”  If there is not hereafter, if there is not creator then guess what? There is no dark pit. It doesn’t exist. Your logic is [fought with a set of star trek?] is totally illogical. You can’t have a creation without a creator. You might not like that; you might not appreciate that; you might not even believe that and that’s okay with me. If you have no hope, that’s your decision. If you’re this miserable that you feel that the species is what it is then what you don’t rid the species of another cancer as you call it and remove yourself from society? If you have got to try to make yourself and everyone else so miserable by your diatribe and what you’re speaking and the way you bring it forward you advocate doubt.  If there is nothing out there for any of us and a hope, then what reason is there for these people to live in any other way that you say these people live? If there is no hope it doesn’t matter. It’s just like two dogs out there in the street knowing each other up and killing each other over a bone. It doesn’t matter.

You say that not everyone is capable of doubting; it’s an art. Yeah it’s an art alright! It’s an art of putting yourself, whoever you are, out of touch of the creator of this universe. And like I said, that’s fine. I’m not trying to convince you of anything.  My friend was not trying to convince you of anything. He was just trying to merely, trying to show you, through your own logic, the errors of your way.  You tried to put this in… this is the reason you’re going to debate and you’re going to publish it. Let me say there is nothing to be published because it won’t be debated.  I don’t have the intelligence, the wisdom and the understanding to even to begin to debate the Father. He can take care of the situation for Himself and I assure you He will.

If there is nothing out there, whoever you might be, then we have nothing to worry about because we’ll never see each other and we’ll never end up face to face. But if you’re wrong we will, and it stand his judgment against you. You need to take this into consideration.

Isaac Newton was an atheist – a strong atheist. And one day when he looked at the intellectual facts and aaaall that he had learned though many years of his studies, he realized in order to have this organization in the creation there had to be a creator.

You say to doubt everything is the first step to enlightenment. Why find enlightenment if there is nothing?  If this is all there is, if there is nothing more, what are you becoming enlightened about? So you can die and rot?

You’re pathetic and I feel extremely sorry for you. I pity you. You’re like a wounded animal that’s hurt. And I feel pity and I feel remorse for you. But this is a decision that you have made.

Now, you’ll have no more response from myself and we’re not going to get in to a knock down drag out. That’s not going to happen. I have made this clear in the past that debating and trying to have contention and scuff over these issues is a non-issue. Any fool can start a fight. When I was a young man, and I’m not young anymore – when I was a young man, I was really good at that. I know how to start a fight and I know how to finish it. But neither do I want to start one and I don’t want to finish it. But I’ll tell you this: Father will finish it. I’ve seen individuals like you; I’ve heard of individuals like you, and at the end Father rules the day. Yehueh Yahweh will make his presence known.

So, I won’t bother you. I’ve said you received my answer. You said, “With this introduction, I leave the stage to you.  Since you want to prove the existence of God, the burden of proof is on you and here is your chance?

Okay, I got the stage. You’re absolutely right. You gave me permission to take the stage and I just told you that I don’t have to prove anything to you. I have nothing to prove to you. I am not looking for people like you. I am looking for likeminded believers. I am looking for family. And I assume from what I read here that you aint it.  You might find out that you might end up with more than you bargained for. And when you do, it’s going to be too late.

You can say well I don’t believe that. It doesn’t matter. Time will tell. My wife has a saying. When you die you’re going to find out. So if you want to find out today, die! Or tomorrow, die! You’ll find out. And when you’re standing there trying to figure out what to say you remember these words that I’ve spoken. You had the opportunity to do something differently. And you chose not to. You chose the course and the destiny that you place your feet upon. It says the path is broad and the way is broad and the gate is wide that leadth to destruction and many there be that entereth that gate. I got a feeling that if I ever be able to see that gate that you’r probably will be strolled in there. I don’t think you going to like it. Now enough said, That all I am going to say addressing this issue. If you don’t like that, get a life.

Now I apologize to everyone else who might be watching who had witnessed that, but sometimes things need to be said straight. Ant it’s not a debate.

 

Although these two rabbis think I am worthless, I would still like to respond to them. I blieve you will enjoy reading it just as  I enjoyed writing it.

Dear Rabbis. It was Rabbi Shaul who invited me to debate and offered to show me that God exists and he loves me. I have no interest in this kind of debate. I consider it a futile discussion. But I agreed. So is it me that is breaking the covenant or is it you?

You said you want to use the Scriptures as evidence.  I told you that to prove God through Scriptures is circular reasoning. This is an elemental logical fallacy.  It does not behoove a scholar of your age and rank to propose such a fallacy as evidence. It just shows you have little understanding of logic. I have this discussion with Muslims all the time. I ask them, what is the proof that Allah is God? They say it says in the Quran. I ask why should I believe the Quran? They respond because it’s the word of God.  Do you see the circular reasoning?

Then you say that you doubt my sincerity, my integrity and the way I conduct myself.

That is fine. You can doubt my sincerity and integrity, but which part of my conduct is objectionable? Rabbi Shaul offered to show me that God exists. I agreed and I said in my tweets that I will publish it so everyone can benefit and he agreed. Nonetheless after revealing my thoughts about atheism, you insulted me and declared me unworthy. You said you pity me, that I am a miserable person and that when I die I will have to face YHWH and maybe go to hell because of that email. Is my conduct more objectionable or yours?

You took offence because I said I want to put this debate on my website. You say I want to do it so I can show my superiority and my intellect.  You seem to be paranoid even before we start? If you have the truth on your side what are you afraid of?  Let the world see the  great wisdom and superior intellect of your YHWH through you. I am giving you a chance to have a larger audience.  I see no one is watching your videos on youtube.  A lot of people read my sites. I am offering you a portal to reach to a larger audience. Shouldn’t you jump at this opportunity?  You seem to not be very convinced of your own beliefs, otherwise you’d not be so shy about them being challenged.  Doesn’t this tell something about your sincerity and integrity?

You say that you don’t care how smart I am and that you yourself are pretty smart but that our smartness is foolishness compared to the intelligence of Yahweh. And you quoted Him saying our birth [I think He said righteousness] is but filthy rags like rags women use during their menstruation.

These are not very nice words for the creator to say about his creatures. He is demeaing people, degrading and humiliating them. Incidentally, this is what narcissists do. Narcissists put others down. That is the only way they know to elevate themselves. Does the creator of the universe suffer from malignant self-love?

If I were a teacher, I would praise my students. I wouldn’t degrade them. I wouldn’t constantly remind them that I am smarter and compared to me they are ignorant and stupid.  I would overlook their shortcomings and highlight their achievements.  I would focus on their strengths and not on their inadequacies. I would do the same with my employees if I were a boss. This is how you bring out the best in others. It seems that the maker of humans is quite ignorant when it comes to human psychology.  This god of whom you talk is a freaking narcissist.

You call me a liar for saying I am not an evangelist atheist and accuse me of being provocative and to try to arrange a discourse so that I can show to people and prove my point.

I have been debating for fourteen years about Islam. My objective is to unveil the truth. Truth can spark when opposing ideas collide. Of course I believe that my views are true. That is normal. No one would believe in things that they believe to be false. But I am always open to alternative views and will change my views if someone can show me better way of looking at things. I have been doing this all my life and I have been changing my views as I learn new things.  I am not afraid of publishing my discussions for the world to see and letting others scrutinize them. If I am wrong I will admit it. No one expects me to know everything. I think my readers appreciate my sincerity and my earnest desire to find the truth when they see I acknowledge my errors when I stand corrected. This admission does not deminish me. It actually elevates me in the eyes of my reader. They see that I am willing to admit that I am fallible and have no pretense of infinite wisdom.

But you are afraid to make your debates public. Why? Is that because you doubt your own self? What other explanation can you give for this knee jerk reaction to my offer to publish our debate?

If you are right, the world can see it. If you are not, you can change your views. Isn’t this the logical thing to do? Or perhaps your attachment to your ego is much stronger than your commitment to truth and you fear I may find some flaws in your reasoning and embarrass you?

Let me tell you Rabbi that all of us were born ignorant. Whatever we know, we learned them from others. A Persian proverb says, seek knowledge from cradle to grave.  There is no shame in not knowing. Shame is in not wanting to know.  In the course of my life, I’ve learned a few things. The most valuable of all is the nsight  that I am ignorant – profoundly ignorant. I cherish this insight more than all other learnings.

You then talk about how Hebrew is a pure language and that all other languages were confusions that YHWH caused among people in the incident at the Tower of Babel and you added, “We’re talking about historical here.”

Really? Is that how languages have come to exist? But science has a different explanation. Linguists say languages branch off from each other and continue to evolve until they become independent languages. The story of the Tower of Babel is not history. It is fairytale. You don’t understand history Sir, and you don’t understand science. You know the Scriptures and you don’t understand them either. The Scriptures are the folklore of ancient people. If you want to cling to them, that’s fine with me, but don’t talk about science and history. Both science and history reject your Scriptures.

I said both theists and atheists have blood on their hand. You misread me.  I did not say atheists kill in the name of God. But they have killed in the name of ideology, be it communism or National Socialism or whatever damn ism of hate that they may come up with.

I said people do evil because of their conviction to be righteous and because of their inability to doubt that they may be wrong or that others may have a point too. It does not matter whether one believes in God or not, if one is blinded by his faith that person can become intolerant.  I inhale the stench of intolerance in you. You are prone to despise people who have views contrary to yours. I explained to you my views so you can see where I come from and make your argument more poignant. That was enough for you to scorn me, vilify me, pity me and call me a cancer, exhorting me to rid the society from myself.

I wrote the problem is the belief itself.  Once we fall into that dark pit, i.e., the dark pit of faith, we can no longer see. You paid little attention to what I wrote and assumed by dark pit I am talking about your hell.

No, that thing does not exist. Assuming God exists, he must be a sadist to run such a torture house.  The whole concept of hell is ridiculous. Debating with a Muslim charlatan that passes himself as scholar I made an example saying, what would people think of me if I torture my cat because he is ungrateful to me despite the fact that I raised him since he was a kitten and took great care of him? If I take offence from a cat wouldn’t it be evidence that I am insane? Of course it would be. It does not matter how ungrateful my cat may be, I could never punish him let alone torture him to death. Now the difference between humans and cats is infinitely smaller than the difference between the creator of the universe and humans. If we can’t do such thing to cats and we will forgive them no matter how misbehaved they are; if we can love them unconditionally, how could God be so unforgiving of humans and torture and burn us for eternity? This is attributing insanity to God.  If God exists, you people who come up with these stupid ideas and portray Him  as a sadist are blasphemers.

Then you say, “You can’t have a creation without a creator. You might not like that; you might not appreciate that; you might not even believe that and that’s okay with me. If you have no hope, that’s your decision.”

Is that your logical argument in defense of a creator? First you make a claim without bothering to prove it. “You can’t have a creation without a creator.”  Yes you can. Evolution takes place through principles, the laws that govern the universe. When you pour water from a high altitude a stream is formed. The stream may take different shapes depending on the topography of the land. It turns left or right. In one place it may run calmly and in another place it may be rough. In some places puddles are forms and in other places cascades are created. The stream has a shape but no designer or maker. It  comes to exist just by itself because of the topography of the land and the law of gravity. In the same way mountains are formed, oceans are made, clouds are shaped. This entire planet and all other planets and stars are all subject to natural laws. Just as our hypothetical stream does not need a designer, the universe also does not need a designer. Natural laws explain everything.

Then you engage in more adhominem and appeal to ridicule (the horse laugh) and appeal to spite and other logical fallacies as your evidence.

Instead of burying your head in that ancient book of fables why don’t you read a book on logical fallacies? You can learn them online. Just read them so you don’t make obvious mistakes. Despite your claim I never said I am smart. But I learned about logical fallacies. Wining debates is not about being smart. Debating is an art like bike riding or playing violin. You can master it when you learn about logical fallacies and stay away from them.  Anyone can do it.

You said, “If you’re this miserable that you feel that the species is what it is then why you don’t rid the species of another cancer you call it and remove yourself from society.”

The fact is that I don’t think I am the cancer of the society.  I think cancers of the society are those who spread ignorance and hate. People who divide mankind between imaginary lines of race, class, caste, gender and religion are cancers of the society. However, my solution is not to remove them from the society but to cure them.  We don’t rise a sword against darkness; we light a candle.  Take a look at my Favicon. It is a candle that shines in the darkness carried on two wings. Candle represents truth and the wings symbolize freedom.  The image portrays the words of Jesus, “truth will set you free.” That is my motto.  I search the truth and I spread it through my writings.

But I could be wrong. That is why I am open to dialogue and allow people to comment and disagree with me because the spark of truth will shine when opposing ideas collide. I learn only from those who disagree with me.  They force me to rethink.

You asked “If there is nothing out there for any of us and a hope, then what is the reason for these people to live in any other way that you say these people live?”

Who said there is no hope? There is hope for mankind.  Everything does not begin or end with us as individuals. I am here because I carry the genes and the wisdom of myriads of generations that preceded me and I pass on this torch to myriads of generations that succeed me. I contribute to the betterment of the world. I learned from those before me and I share that knowledge with the ones that come after me. I hope to add a drop to this vast sea of human knowledge. I hope that I can ease some pain and that the world will be a better place, even if in minute way, because I lived in it. So I will survive not in body or in spirit, but through my deeds. Both good and bad deeds reverberate in the world like ripples on a pond and will survive our death.

Alois Hitler was abusive to his son. Adolf grew up to become a psychopath mass murderer. Muhammad’s mother neglected him. He grew up to become a psychopath mass murderer. Annie Sullivan, a young blind woman, became the governess of Helen Keller who was not just blind but also deaf and mute. Through Annie’s love, Helen became a prolific writer, a political activist and the first deaf and blind to earn a Bachelor of Arts degree. Thanks to Annie, Helen became an inspiration to millions. All these people left their traces in history. They are not dead. They live in the pain or in the joy that they left behind. I hope to leave hehind ease, not pain; happiness, not sorrow. It does not matter whether we survives or not.  We will survive through our impact in the world.  So why not make that impact a positive one?  You on the other hand are concerned only about you and will cling to any lie that promises you eternal life.  What if all that is a lie?  We both die. Ane what is there is not heaven and hell? What did you leave behind?  You leave ignorance, hate and disunity.  I leave understanding.  We both survive alright!  But there is a world of difference between what survives from you and what survives from me.

You want to survive in person and one day meet me and mock me and rejoice when I burn in hell. That is your level consciousness and spiritual maturity. That’s fine for you, but it is not good for me. I cannot have fun in Paradise when countless people are burning in hell. My heart is not the same as yours and I can’t silence my conscience by reminding myself that it was their fault for not believing in the absurd claims of the Bible or the Quran.

You hope for your personal survival. To me that is petty. My hope is for the survival of /*humanity. It’s a bigger hope and a much nobler hope. While you strive for your individual salvation I endure for the salvation of our species, yes this very wretched and misguided species. I see there is evil in people but I also know there is potential for a lot of goodness. I hope to bring out that goodness.

You said, “I don’t have the intelligence, the wisdom and the understanding to even to begin to debate the Father. He can take care of the situation for Himself and I assure you He will.”

If god shows up and debates with me I will accept him. But he doesn’t do that. He sends his messages through men of questionable character and his messages are illogical. How can I know these guys were not lying? Muhammad said exactly the same thing that you say.  He said if we don’t believe in him, his Allah will burn us in hell. But you don’t believe in Muhammad. Why not? The message of the Quran is just as irrational as the message of the Bible. Muhammad also said that one should not question the wisdom of God which is very different from human wisdom.  So why don’t you believe in Muhammad?  What if he was right?

I reject your god for the same reason that I reject Muhammad’s god.  Why should I believe in one illogical god and not in another?  Tell me what makes YHWH different from Allah (or to be precise Hubaal, because allah, like god is also a title and does not refer to any particular god.)

You said, “ But if you’re wrong we will, and it stand his judgment against you. You need to take this into consideration. “

Yes I have taken that into consideration and I have prepared my speech already. Here is a gist of it. I will say, O God almighty and wise. I did not reject you.  I rejected what people said about you.  I refused to believe you are as insane and as evil as people of religion portrayed you. They said you cannot be understood through logic. I could not agree with them because

1-      I reasoned that you must be the maker of logic and hence you can’t be illogical. If the origin of light is the sun then the sun cannot be dark. But these men who spoke of you told me you are illogical. They said your logic is different from human logic. But that made no sense because logic is logic. The greater logic cannot contradict smaller logic. 2 + 2 is always 4 even in complex equations.  So I rejected their argument because it denigrated you.

2-      When they threatened me with hellfire and I thought maybe I should give up reason and believe blindly just in case, as Pascal had reasoned, I was left with the dilemma of which god to believe. Your creatures are promoting countless gods. They are all illogical and all fearsome and vengeful. How could I know which one  are you? I feared following an impostor god, which would have meant going to hell and thought it is safer to not follow any god hoping you’ll understand. Aren’t you happy that I did not follow your rivals? Don’t I deserve some credit for that? I just didn’t want to gamble. So I waited until I die to find out, since you left no reliable clues to find you.

3-      All those men who spoke of you as the god of love and mercy lived a despicable life of crime, murder and deceit themselves. You picked wrong people as your messengers.  I compared myself to many of them and I saw I lead a more ethical and moral life than many of them.  I didn’t want to follow their bad examples. Why didn’t you send good people to guide us? They promoted hate and violence and I am a man of peace.

4-      I loathe cruelty to animals and didn’t eat their flesh because I couldn’t endure the thought of taking an innocent life just to satisfy my taste buds. But your preachers presented you as a bloodthirsty god that demands blood and sacrifice. I thought those practices are satanic.  I thought since you are also the god of animals you must love them too and will never ask people to shed the blood of these lovely creatures. That was a big stumbling block in my belief in you. I just couldn’t envision you as a cruel god.

5-      Those who told me about you also depicted you as a sadist who owns a torture house and burns humans. I could not believe that you can be so crazy and refused to attribute insanity to you.  I knew if you exist you must be the god of reason and love and none of the things I read in the Torah or in the Quran gave me that impression.

If God is reasonable he will agree with my reasoning and if he is not his actions are unpredictable. He may even decide to send all the disbelievers to paradise and all the believers to hell. A crazy god is capable of anything. So why bother?

You said “Isaac Newton was an atheist and one day when he looked at the intellectual facts he realized there had to be a creator.”

There are two problems with this statement. One is that it is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad verecundiam or appeal to authority.  Even smart people can be wrong. Einstein said God does not play dice. He was talking about Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the behavior of particles in quantum physics.  He was proven wrong. God plays dice all the time.  Aristotle believed wales are fish. He was wrong. Wales are mammals. Newton also believed that planets’ motion around the sun is the work of angels. Later Einstein showed it is caused by the curvature in the space surrounding large masses.

The next mistake in this argument is that Newton was never an atheist. He was very much a believer all his life. In his time most people believed in God. Today few scientists believe in God.

You criticized me for saying, doubting everything is the first step to enlightenment. You asked, “Why find enlightenment if there is nothing? If this is all there is, if there is nothing more, what are you becoming enlightened about? So you can die and rot?”

I am not sure what your definition of enlightenment is. Enlightenment means to give intellectual (or spiritual) light to; instruct and impart knowledge to.  Why do you think enligtenment has anything to do with dying and afterlife?  Enlightenment is opposite to obscurantism AKA religious indoctrination and blind faith.

You then summed up your response by saying “You’re pathetic and I feel extremely sorry for you. I pity you. You’re like a wounded animal that’s hurt. And I feel pity and I feel remorse for you. But this is a decision that you have made.”

These are all logical fallacies. Appeal to scorn, appeal to ridicule, ad hominem, etc.  And you are the person who claims to be able to prove God? Your logic is flawed. There is no logic in anything you said. And I don’t blame you because there is no logic in God at all. You can’t produce something that does not exist. You have covered all the gamma of the logical fallacies but did not produce a single logical argument.

You said “I don’t have to prove anything to you. I have nothing to prove to you. I am not looking for people like you. I am looking for likeminded believers.”

Finally you said something that I agree. You have nothing to prove. All you can do is preach to the choir – people who already believe in the same things that you believe. You are unable to convince anyone because you have nothing to prove. Maybe you should tell this to Rabbi Shaul so he does not promise people that he can prove to them that God exists.

You said, “When you die you’re going to find out.”

Isn’t that silly? Would a sane god send a message to mankind that can’t be proven by any means except through their death when it is too late?  Imagine a teacher presents a dilemma to his students and does not solve it. The dilemma looks pretty much stupid and irrational. But he tells them this will be the main question in their final exam and if they fail they will not only lose the year but he will beat them and torture them for years to come. I believe any sane person will see this teacher is crazy and will kick him out of the school. Well your god is no better. He’s damn crazy. You may think that it is okay for God to be crazy but I refuse to believe in an irrational crazy god.

After listening to this rabbi, I somehow felt sympathy for Jesus. I can see now what kind of people he had to deal with.  What is funny is that this rabbi invited offered to show me the love of God. All he showed was intense hatred for unbelievers and anyone who is not “family.”

I think this article will help Muslims to see the absurdity of Islam. Often people can’t see their own flaws and find it easier to see the same flaw in others. This is exactly the kind of arguments Muslims use.  That is because Muhammad copied his religion from what he learned from the jews.  The similarity between Islamic thinking and Judaic thinking is not coincidence.  Rabbis like this person were the people who inspired Muhammad and taught him the fundaments of his religion.  Let Muslims see how ridiculous they look when they argue in exact same fashion that this good old rabbi does.  The reasoning is identical.

The following email was sent to Pamela Geller who forwarded it to me.

Hi Pamela

I’m Halima from Sri Lanka. I’m 14 and I don’t want to live with my family. Please help me, Every time I go out of the house I’m supposed to cover my self which I don’t like doing. My mum hits me or she says she’s not going to take me out of the house if I don’t wear the shawl. My second elder Bro and my mum are sought of religious and It’s really annoying cause I can’t do what I want to. I sometimes feel that maybe I should go to the National child protection authority But then I’m scared that they may send me back home. Please help me! i want to away from my house. I’m scared if I do , my mum might tell all my aunties and uncles and all the Muslims in Sri Lanka would get to know and I guess I’ll be in danger…… I want to remain Muslim (a moderate Muslim) Please tell me what I can do..PLEASE :’(

Thank you

Halima

Dear Halima,

The only consolation I can give you is that you are not alone.  Countless other young kids, mostly girls, suffer in Islamic countries.  When my sister was 14 she used to sew her cloths and used her creativity to make them look different. I am two years older and as a bigoted young boy I did not like the way she dressed. I instigated my father to stop her dressing those cloths. They were not revealing. They only attracted attention and that was not something this brainwashed follower of Allah could tolerate. I had to defend my bloody ghira.  We gave her so much hard time that she got a taxi and told the driver to take her to an institution where she can seek protection.  I don’t know if there was any such institution in Iran at that time. In any case she did not know it and neither the taxi driver. He took her to his home and his wife consoled her. For a day we did not know where she had gone. It was a real hell for us. Then the taxi driver came to our house and told that my sister is safe with his wife. When he made sure we are not going to honor kill her he brought her back.

Believe it or not we were moderate and not fanatical.  A few years after that all of us came out of Iran.  Religious stupidity left us and we became civilized, like normal people.  My sister went to university. She found a bright English man with whom she dated first and then got married. She now has three beautiful daughters all going to university and my father couldn’t be more pleased with her.

Decades have passed and when I think about it, I shake my head in disbelief. How could I act so stupid? What if something bad happened to her? Who but me and my parents would have been responsible? It was all because of religious brainwashing and the idiotic Islamic patriarcal culture where women are seen as sex objects that have to be hidden and not attract attention.

Your parents and your brothers are brainwashed. But don’t be saddened. Give time a chance.  When you are young time seems to go by very slowly and everything is more dramatic. But really a few years is nothing. You have your whole life in front of you.  Be patient and use these years to get a good degree and nurture your mind.  Learn the truth about Islam. Read Pamela’s blog and if you can access my blogs, alisina.org and faithfreedom.org read them too.  Keep your thoughts to yourself. Don’t share them with others, not even with your best friends.  Focus on your studies. Education is your ticket to freedom.  If you can go to a western country for higher studies, you will have your freedom sooner. If your family can’t afford it, don’t worry. Continue your higher studies in Sri Lanka. Get the best education you can. This will allow you to find a good job and live your life independently. Don’t let your parents force you to marriage and don’t think a marriage is your way out of your parental home and freedom. This could turn to be an even worse nightmare.  Once you are educated and have a good job. Get out of your parental home and live independently.  Then find a good man whose brain is not damaged by religion and form your own loving family that is based on equality.

Your suffering is nothing when compared to the suffering of millions of other Muslim girls who are forced to marry often an old man, because their parents can’t afford feeding them or are sold by their own parents. They become complete slaves with no future in front of them.

Wearing the veil is oppressive, but it is not the end of the world. Get a good education. That will give you your freedom.  Hopefully your parents and your brothers will also come out of their ignorance and realize the silliness of their action.

Wish you the best

Ali Sina

Dear Mr. Ali Sina,

I was reading one posting from a Muslim guy , and I was wondering what will be your expert opinion on this.

He wrote :

/////”Islam the primordial religion can be misunderstood easily.

This claim contradicts the Quran. The Quran says repeatedly that it is a “clear book” (5:15) “easy to understand” (44:58, 54:22, 54:32, 54:40), “explained in detail” (6:114) “conveyed clearly” (5:16, 10:15) … and with “no doubt” in it (2:2).

Furthermore, why only Islam is misunderstood and other religions are not?  Shouldn’t the reverse be true? Didn’t Islam come allegedly to clarify all the misunderstandings in other religions?

Islam is perfectly clear. It is its apologists that try to  confuse others because they are embarrassed of the truth.

A superficial acquaintance with the religion may lead one to the view that Islam is of relatively recent origin, compared to other religions, and that it was revealed to Prophet Muhammad SAW as the Last Messenger of Allah to continue Allah’s mission in Tauhid since the creation of Adam. Allah has spoken again to reveal the last commandment to Prophet Muhammad since the vacuum of Divine Revelation since Prophet Jesus 600 years earlier.

This claim is nonsense. Muhammad said all previous prophets preached Islam and then their followers corrupted it so God sent him as the last prophet to set the records straight.  First of all at no time Jews or Christians, let alone Zoroastrians or Buddhists practiced or believed anything resembling Islam.  Muslims claim all these faiths were originally like Islam and changed later by the believers.  This is a bogus claim. The burden of proof is on Muslims. Where is the proof?

Secondly, if God had allowed all his previous religions become corrupted, why Islam should be exempt?  Doesn’t this person say that Islam can be easily misunderstood?  So if it is so easily misunderstood, why should we believe that it is not corrupted already?

The connection between Prophet Muhammad and Prophet Jesus are very close because both of them brought the same divine message to worship One God – Allah.

I have studied both Islam and Christianity. I can say with certainty that there are no two philosophies, teachings, doctrines or beliefs that are more contradictory than these two.  The message of Jesus revolves around love. The message of Muhammad revolves around fear. The cores of these two faiths are diametrically opposed to each other. As the result, all the ramifications are different.  Yes both faiths are theistic, and rehash the Zoroastrian eschatology of heaven and hell, but they worship different gods.  Allah is not the same God of Jesus. It does not have the same characteristics.  Sugar and cyanide share some similarities. Both come in granulated form and are white. But there ends the similarity. The same is true about the God envisioned by Jesus and the deity that Muhammad made up.

Other connection between them is, one of Prophet Jesus tasks – to announce the coming of the last Prophet and Jesus confirmed that the last Prophet will clear his name (Jesus) from false accusations.

Jesus never mentioned Muhammad. Again the burden of proof is on Muslims to show where Jesus talked about Muhammad? The only thing Jesus said is that many false prophets will come and will seduce multitudes. He said you’ll recognize them by their fruits.  The teachings and deeds of a prophet are his fruits. You can say also his followers are his fruits. Look at the actions of Muhammad. He was a mass murderer, an assassin, a thief, a rapist, a pedophile, a deceiver.  Look at his teachings! They are full of hatred and violence.  Look at his followers! They are the most backward and wretched people in the world. They are deceivers who lie about their faith and fabricate phony miracles to attribute to their prophet and to his book of hate and ignorance.  It is easy to see Muhammad was a false prophet when we analyze his fruits.

While Prophet Muhammad – The Last Prophet and Messenger of Allah did his duty and by Allah’s command to clean and clear Jesus and his mother Maryam (Mary) from false accusations.

Clear Jesus’s name of what?  Was Jesus a raider, a plunderer, a rapist, a pedophile, a slave maker, an assassin or a mysogynist and woman beater?  Of what Jesus’s name had to be cleared?  I tell you whose names Muhammad cleared? He cleared the names of Genghis Khan, Hitler, Mao, Stalin and Conte de Dracula. Whatever crimes these monsters committed Muhammad did worse.  He reserved for himself the title of the most evil man in history.  So no one before or after him can be called that. He cleared the names of all the evil people who have ever existed and  were born after him.

Jesus does not need Muhammad to clear his name. If really a man like Jesus existed and did and said things that are attributed to him, he must have been a superior human, the best person who ever graced the earth. Why would such a holy being need his name to be cleared by a villain like Muhammad?  What a preposterous pretense! The worst man is to clear the name of the best man?  The absurdity of the Muslim mind is beyond belief.

In Al-Quran there are at least 3 chapters refer to the story of Jesus (Surah Al-Maidah), his mother Maryam (Surah Maryam) and the story of Jesus Family (Surah Al-Imran) which cannot be found in Christian’s Bible. “

The Quran is wrong about Mary. Muhammad was so ignorant that he confused Mary, mother of Jesus with Miriam, sister of Moses and Aaron who lived at least 1500 years earlier. How could he make such a mistake?  It is because in Arabic both names are written and pronounced Maryam. The illiterate prophet, whose only source of knowledge about Christianity and Judaism was the sermons of Christian preachers such as Qis ibn Sa’ada, the bishop of Nijran, during the annual market fair of Okaz, thought the two Maryams are the same.  This illiterate man did not realize that when the bishop was talking about Maryam he was talking about two different women.

“Allah had honored Jesus, Maryam and his family in The Holy Quran especially Allah put Maryam’s name as one of Quranic Chapter which is chapter 19 – Chapter Maryam. Such the great honor to such devoted and righteous servant of Allah even she was a WOMAN. [capitalization in the original text]

“Even though she was a WOMAN?”  Wow! Even though she was a filthy woman, deficient in intelligence and inferior, she was mentioned in the Quran?   These benighted people really believe women are inferior creatures.  But Allah made an exception and honored Mary by mentioning her in the Quran even though she was a woman. He even capitalizes the word woman to highlight her low status.

Do I need to add anything more?  Just see for yourself the depravity of the mind of this Muslim (not that other Muslims are any better). This is Islam for ya.

Who will tell this servant of Allah that there is no shame in being a woman and also Mary does not need her name mentioned in the Quran and that is no honor? Other Suras of the Quran are named  The Cow, Livestock, Ants, Spider and Spoils (stollen property).

Allah had chosen Maryam as “Woman above of all nations” which this testimony also cannot be found in Christian Bible. Islam recognized Maryam (Mary) as Aulia (Allah’s Holy Person). Allah also had chosen The Family of Imran (Jesus Family) as the chosen family among the family of all nations. Most Christians didn’t know who Imran was. Al-Quran told us Imran was a father of Maryam and he was a religious leader of Jerusalem. Imran also was a grandfather of Jesus. Since Jesus was born without biological father, Al-Quran put Jesus in the line of Imran lineage, which means Jesus was Imran descendant. Imran was a descendant from Prophet Daud (David).

Imran or Amran, was the father of Miriam, Moses and Aarron. As stated in (Ex. vi. 18-20; Num. iii. 19, xxvi. 58; I Chron. vi. 2, 3, 18). He was a son of Kohath and the grandson of Levi.   Amran was not a descendant of David. He lived at least 400 years before David.   Luke 3:23 names Heli as the father of Mary.  This is one of many of Muhammad’s obvious blunders that conclusively prove he was an ignorant man with a very superficial knowledge of the Bible. He did not read the Bible personally.  His knowledge of that book was second hand. In one time he heard Maryam was the mother of Jesus. In another time he heard Maryam was the daughter of Amran and sister of Aaron. He thought these two women are one and the same because in Arabic their names are the same.  All we need to prove Muhammad was a false prophet is this error. And he made thousands more errors like this and worse.

In Christian Bible, the authors of Gospel of Luke and Gospel of Mathew put Jesus after Joseph (Yusuf) Al-Najar. This was not entirely correct since Joseph was not Jesus biological father.”

This is false. The authors of the Gosels believed in the virginity of Mary and claim Jesus was conceived through the Holy Spirit.

“Deeper understanding of the Islamic perspective of religion would reveal that Islam was not founded by Prophet Muhammad SAW. As a matter of fact, Islam as a way of life had its origin at the time when the first man Adam and his wife Eve, was created and sent down to earth.

This is a baseless claim. There is no evidence whatsoever that anything resembling Islam existed before Muhammad invented it.

Deeper understanding of Islam reveals that Muhammad was a mentally sick man. I have shown this in my book Understanding Muhammad.  The evidence is overwhelming.

Adam was also a Prophet and after him was chain of prophets’ follows. The central divine message was, just as it is today, none other than TAWHID – that Allah is One and Alone and He is the Only One worthy of worship and obedience.

Again this is an unsubstantiated claim. Adam is a myth and so are many ancient prophets such as Noah.

 Islam is not a religion based on the personality of the founder which most non-Muslims thought.

This is a lie. Islam is built entirely around the personality of its founder. Muhammad suffered from malignant narcissism and one can see this disorder clearly in all his followers. I invite the reader to read my book for details.

 Islam has no founder and no prophets of Allah can claim that he was the founder but on Allah Himself the Creator revealed Islam by the Chains of Prophets. The prophets of Allah are the channel through whom mankind received a message pertaining to the nature of the Absolute and subsequently the relative, a message contains a VERY strict DOCTRINE – ALLAH IS ONE in conformity with the Islamic perspective to call DEENULLLAH – which means The Religion of Allah.

 

These are all bogus claims with no substance.  In fact evidences indicate that Islam is alien to the Bible.

  We are told in the Quran that even before the creation of man Allah assembled all the souls and made they recognize His Lordship.

Nonsense fairytale!

 Allah mentions in Holy Quran:

“O Prophet, remind mankind about the event when your Lord drew forth from the children of Adam, from their loins their descendants, and made them testify, concerning themselves (saying), Am I not your Lord? They said Yes, We do testify” (Surah Al-A’raf, verse 172)

But, after they was born and they have sight of earth, some of them denied the testify that they had made. Hence belief in Allah as one True Supreme Being to be worship and Oneness of Allah is imprinted on every soul. But as children of Adam and Eve multiplied and spread across the earth, the message of Islam with TAWHID as its alpha and omega began to lose its purity. Belief in monotheism, with which man was created, underwent a process of degeneration. With the passage of time, the teachings of the prophets were either lost or changed to suit fantasies and imaginations.”

This claim is nonsense.  People in Americas, in East Asia and in Africa did not have monotheistic religion. Monotheism is an invention of Akhenathen or Zoroaster. Jews were influenced by these creeds and that is how Christianity and Islam became monotheistic.

Muhammad at one point praised Al Lat, Al Uzza and Al Manat, the daughters of Allah in order to gain the support of the Quraish.  He had no problem embracing polytheism when he thought it may be politically convenient.  Then changed his mind when he realized he needed to keep up the hostility and divide the community, in order to rule. He then said those verses that that acknowledged the three goddesses were satanic verses.  Muhammad adopted monotheism out of convenience because it suited his purpose. If politheism was more convenient, he would have chosen polytheism. If atheism would have made him more successful he would have promoted atheism. Monotheims was only a tool for power.

Furthermore, there is no proof that monotheism is true. There is no evidence of the existence of God.  Many rational people are either deists, or pantheists or atheists.

“Belief in TAWHID strayed into various forms of worship such as ditheism, tritheism and even pantheism. In most cases, excessive love of prophets and even other righteous personalities resulted in the worship of images and idols. The Prophet Muhammad forbad Muslims not to give him credit beyond his real worth.

The Holy Prophet said:”Do not praise me excessively as the Christians did to the son of Mary. Verily, I am merely a slave, so refer to me instead as The Slave of Allah and His Messenger”.

Muhammad was a pathological narcissist. One must not be fooled by his fake pretense of modesty. Here are a few passages where he exhorted his followers to worship him.

• Truly, Allâh and His angels send praise and blessings [forever] upon the Prophet. O you who believe! Praise and bless the Prophet with utmost laud and blessing. (Q.33:56)
• And you (stand) on an exalted standard of character. (Q.68:4)
• You [Muhammad] are a lamp with spreading light. (Q.33:46)
• You of Faith, say not (to the Prophet) words of ambiguous import like ‘Listen to us,’ but words of respect; and obey (him): To those who don’t submit there is a grievous punishment. (Q. 2:104)
• He who obeys the Messenger obeys Allah. (Q. 4:80)
• He who disobeys the Apostle after guidance has been revealed will burn in Hell. (Q. 4:114)
•  You [Muhammad] may have whomever you desire; there is no blame. (Q. 33:51)
•  Allah gives his Messenger Lordship and Power over whomever He wills. (Q.59:6)
•  Blessed is He who holds the reins of Kingship. (Q. 67:1)
• You [Muhammad] are an exalted character of tremendous morality. Soon you will see, and they will see, which of you is afflicted with madness. (Q. 68:4)
• Verily this is the Word (brought by) a most honorable Messenger imbued with power, the Lord of the Throne, Mighty, One to be obeyed. (Q. 81:19)

The most egregious claim, in my opinion, is the claim that God promised him to forgive all his future sins. “Lo! We have given thee (O Muhammad) a clear victory.  That Allâh may forgive thee of thy sin that which is past and that which is to come.” (Q.48:1-2)

Maybe that is why he lived such a despicable life. There is hardly any crime he didn’t commit. Was he under the delusion that his future sins will be forgiven and that he won’t have to respond for them?  Can possibly a sane god make such an offer to anyone?

The following are some of the claims Muhammad made about himself.

• The very first thing that Allâh Almighty ever created was my soul.^[1]
• First of all things, the Lord created my mind.^[2]
• I am from Allâh, and the believers are from me.^[3]
• Just as Allâh created me noble, he also gave me noble character.^[4]

Were it not for you, [O Muhammad] I would not have created the universe.

Can one worship God without Muhammad? Not according to Muhammad. So he made himself an indispensable partner with God.  Islam is shirk, it is Muhammadism. The submission is to Muhammad, not to God. Allah was Muhammad’s alter ego.

Even as man continued to deviate from the original teachings of the prophets, messengers were raised from time to time among groups of people and tribes to bring them back to the right path and reinforce belief the Oneness of Allah. The message of all the Prophets and Messengers was therefore none other than submits to One Ilah. And the Prophet Muhammad SAW was the last line of the chain of prophets of Allah.

Again, this is a baseless claim. Where is the proof?  Did any prophet come to Indians, to Chinese, to Native Americans, to Africans or to Aboriginals of Australia to preach monotheism? Why only cultures influenced by Zoroaster and Akhenathen became monotheists?

Allah says in Al-Quran:

“Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah, and the seal of the Prophets. Allah has Knowledge of All Things” (Surah Al-Ahzab, verse 40)

The Quran is made up by Muhammad. He put these words in the mouth of his imaginary god when he lusted after the wife of his adopted son. He made Allah say he is not the father of his adopted son so it is okay for him to marry his daughter in law.  All the verses of the Quran are made for Muhammad to satisfy his needs. After seeing that any time Muhammad wanted something, a verse came from Allah granting Muhammad’s wish Aisha remarked, “I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires.”[Bukhari, 6: 60:311] Looks like Muhammad’s “lord” was between his legs or at least very much concerned about that body part.

It is foolish to believe the Quran is the word of God when one can find so many absurdities and errors in it.  Sometimes there are several errors in one verse alone.  The confusion between Mary and Miriam is just one of thousands.

While explaining his role in Allah’s plan of prophetic missions, the Prophet Muhammad SAW referred to a building.

The Holy Prophet said:

“The building had been beautifully built and had been completed except for the last brick. I am that last brick. The building has now been completed. Prophethood has come to an end”

The megalomaniac deceiver made a lot of bogus claims like this, but he never gave any proof.  We have proof that the Quran is full of errors. It is impossible that the maker of this universe be as ignorant as it appears in the Quran.

 ”The Islam that we find today in the world is the message brought by the Prophet Muhammad through his teachings (syariat). So, what happened to the Islam of the earlier prophets of Allah? All the revealed teachings (syariat) were originally Islam brought by their respective prophets. But later, the message decayed into what is known today as religions taking the names of the prophets (Christian), the tribes (Jews) or groups (Sabians/Aryans i.e. Vedic and Avestan cultures) they were raised among, or the places they lived. However, Islam in its original form was not based on any particular community, place or personality. According to the Islamic perspective, Allah did not send different truths through the prophets but only different expressions and forms of the same original truth of TAWHID. No religion can in fact be the universal, scientific, art, literature, political, linguist, social and many more that relates to mankind nature which is all in one.

These are all claims with no evidence. Muslims have circular reasoning. They confuse the claim with the proof. If you ask them for the proof they show you the Quran.

Muslims claim that the original message of Moses, Jesus and all other prophets was Islam, which was then corrupted by the believers.  But where is the proof?  When these messages became corrupted? At least it appears that Muhammad believed at his time many Jews and Christians had been expecting his coming by reading their scriptures. So up to that time the Bible must have not been corrupted. But we don’t find any reference to Muhammad in the Old or New Testaments.  Muslims’ explanation: These books are corrupted.  How could all the copies of the Bible become corrupted after Muhammad?  Waraqa, Khadijah’s cousin was a transcriber or interpreter of the Bible. He must have had the original version since Muhammad claimed he had recognize him as a prophet because of his familiarity with the scriptures.  What happened to his copy of the Bible?

There are books left from early Christian writers such as Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, Tertullian, an apologist of Christianity, Dionysius, a pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church, Donatus Magnus, a bishop of Carthage, and Thomas Aquinas.  None of these authors had written anything resembling Islam.  Islam resembles Arab Paganism. All its rituals are borrowed from Pagans.

 The word Islam means both peace and surrender. He who surrenders himself to Allah gains peace. The basic idea here is that man, through the use of his intelligences, chooses to subject himself to the Divine Will. He is then known as a Muslim.

Islam does not mean peace. It means surrender. There is a twist in this also. In Islam peace can be attained only through surrender. So when Muslims talk about peace they mean peace through subjugation of other nations.

The surrender is not to God. It is to Muhammad.  Allah is only a sock puppet of Muhammad.

Intelligence only demonstrates that Islam is a lie. A Muslim is one who surrenders his intelligence to Muhammad and blindly believes in any nonsense, out of fear. Fear is the tool of the psychopath to control his victims. Intelligence rejects Islam and that is why Muslim countries censor all critical discussion of Islam, including my sites. They know that through intelligence Islam will be destroyed.  Islam can survive only when people are kept in ignorance.

I’m sorry for this long e-mail. It would be a privilege to know expert opinion on these. If you’re busy, then it’s ok.

Sorry again.

Sincerely,

Ken

Islam is nothing but deception.  Once the truth about this false religion is revealed to the world this faith of hate and lies will me destroyed.  Such a thing was not possible before because Muslims eliminated any person who dissented. Now they can’t do that easily. They can block sites critical of Islam but that is a futile attempt. Truth is spreading fast and there is no way they can stop it.

Dear Ali,

First of all, let me thank you for responding to my friend Asra. She is also very impressed with your vast knowledge but she has some more doubts which I hope you can clear up for her..

First of all, she wants to know how is it possible that in the Quran in surah number 30 “Al Rum” how did that man predict that the Romans have been defeated but will get victory soon.

The Quran that we have today is compiled during the Caliphate of Othman. Othman started his Caliphate in 644 C.E.  By that time the two wars between the Persians and the Romans were over and the victors in each case had already been known.  What are the chances that the verses 2-4 of Sura 30 that says first the Romans will be defeated and a few years later they will become victorious were altered because the original verses pronounced by Muhammad were wrong?

Of course if what Muhammad had said had been wrong, Othman would not have allowed it to be published, which would have shown Muhammad to be a false prophet.  These verses would have been adjusted to reflect what had actually happened.

Othman ordered all other versions that did not match his, to be destroyed.  Why? It is because they contradicted the one he had put together.  As the result the evidence is lost.  We can’t prove that Muhammad was wrong and Muslims can’t claim these verses as prophecy.  It is absolutely illogical that the compilers would have kept the original verses when the history had proven Muhammad a false prophet.

These verses don’t prove anything because their authenticity is dubious. However, there are many other verses in the Quran that have been proven to be wrong.  Consequently, Muslim scholars try to reinterpret them and twist their meanings.  If there is one error in the Quran, the book cannot be the word of God. There are thousands of errors in that book.

Secondly she mentioned something else a few minutes ago while we were chatting so I am going to copy and paste her exact words here

i was thinking what if god doesn’t like women as i told u in office, we suffer alot not like men, when we have period we have pain, when they break our virginity we have pain also, when we deliver a baby we have pain and we might die, men don’t go through all this

This question should be posed to those who believe in God.  I can only respond from the evolutionary point of view.

We are product of evolution. Obviously, the way we mammals procreate must have been the best way for the survival of our species.  Reptiles and birds lay egg.  For some reason, early mammals kept their eggs inside until it became a fully developed baby.  Marsupials give birth to their fetus much earlier.

The birth pang is not something God has decided. It is the result of evolution and evolution is blind with many flaws.  If every woman who gave birth with pain died, and the child died too, then only those women with large hips who gave birth with no pain would survive and giving birth would be a painless experience, and also women would have much larger hips.  Since this pain does not kill every woman, it is perpetuated in our species.  Women with small hips give birth. If left alone they probably would die. But other humans take care of them so they survive and thier daughters will also survive who also will have small hips and who also will have pain when giving birth.

Millions of years ago, early humans who had small head and hence small brain were not smart enough to survive and procreate.  Their mothers gave birth to them easily but they were unable to survive.  We are weak creatures. Our only weapon to survive in this harsh world is to outsmart creatures that are much faster and much stronger than us. This requires a large brain and a big head, which means a lot of pain for our females at birth.  Consider it a flaw of evolution.  But it is a flaw that does not kill us and hence it is passed to subsequent generations.

Evolution is full of flaws.  Take the example of baldness. Baldness is a flaw, but it is not life threatening. Bald men procreate and pass on the defective gene of baldness to their progeny. If baldness killed the bald in infancy, or if women refused to mate with bald men this gene would have been eradicated. It’s all about the survival of the fittest. If you are fit enough to make it into adulthood and mate, you will pass your gene. If not your gene will become extinct.  The genes that pass don’t have to be perfect. As long as they are not deadly they can survive for millions of years.

So as you see we humans intervene in the natural selection of evolution. We don’t allow evolution to take its natural course and kill us with minor defects.  So these defects are perpetuated.  Doese this mean that there will be no further evolution for human race?  As smart species, we will never evolve further through the process of natural selection. Of course evolution does not happen only through natural selection. It also happens  through mutation. Mutation is a sudden departure from the parent type in one or more heritable characteristics, caused by a change in a gene or a chromosome.  Most mutations are lethal. They kill the individual before he or she can reprocrate and pass that changed gene. But sometimes, very rarely, the mutation is beneficial.  A few years ago a baby superman with genetic mutation was reported in Germany.  A lot of time they are indiffernt. They neither kill us nor add any value to our existance. Recently a little girl was born in USA to black parents with no white ancestory who was completely blod and white. This kind of  mutation is neither beneficial nor detrimental. But it adds variety to the species. I suppose this is how the white race turned white when in reality we are all Africans.

Evolution happens through trial and error.  Our job as rational beings is to overcome the flaws that evolution hand us and fix them when possible.  We have already overcome many of the evolutions’s shortcomings. In fact as smart creatures we stand on the way of evolution.  We give chance to people to live longer who are born with defects that evolution condemns to death.

If you attribute everything to God, you see injustice.  Think of children born with physical or mental defect.  It appears that God has been very unfair to them. But if you evaluate things from the evolutionary perspective, you’ll understand that this is nature at work and nature is flawed.

We are at a stage that we can be in control of our evolution.  Once we decode the human genes we will be able to isolate the defective ones and eventually many genetic diseases will be thing of the past.  Will we be able to get rid of the pain of giving birth? Maybe not. And I don’t think that is something desirable. Would you like ot have an extraordinarily harge hip? I doubt it.  The only way you can get rid of this pain is to either have a large hip or pray that your child is born with small head.  I don’t think you like either  of these alternatives. So you will have pain in birth as payback.

Now, science is rapidly advancing. It is likely that we find a way to give birth naturally with less pain. The answer is in science.  It is not in the hand of God. And please don’t blame that poor old guy in the sky for everything that goes wrong.

Third point,  Sura number 17, ayaat number 88  regarding if all the men and jinn got together and tried to make a book as good as Quran why is that no one so far has even attempted to take up that challenge in 1400 years.. If Quran is nothing but poetry, why did no one even try to write better poetry than Quran in ARabic.. She says there are so many Arab Christians, they can at least try to do this and prove that claim false.

This claim is sheer nonsense. Please watch this video

Also see this link to find many suras written by ordinary Christians that are superior to the Quran in every sense.

http://suralikeit.com/

Last but not least, how is it possible that Islam forbid us not to eat Pork and now medical science has proven that eating pork is bad for our health as it contains many harmful elements and germs. Is that true?

This is a lie. Pork is not in any way more harmful than other meets.  As a vegan I believe killing any animal for consumption is unethical. Also all meets are harmful to the body to some extent.  But Islam is not against killing animals. It just considers pork harmful, which is scientifically unsubstantiated. But it is a lie that you hear in Islamic countries, because Muslims have to prove the Quran is a miracle and will do and say anything to do so.

There are many other points she was asking me and I will try to jolt them down when I talk to her again.. Meanwhile, please answer the above at your earliest convenience.

Best regards

Shakila

All the points that Muslims have raised are already responded. Please encourage your friend to read all my articles and many other great articles posted on http://www.answering-islam.org/  Most likely this site is also banned. Can ou access this site? http://www.islameyat.com/

Islam is a religion of lies.  Everything in this faith is a lie. It is a house of cards. It is glued together with lies.

Dear Ali,

I know you must be tired of me by now but what can I do, you are probably the only person I can speak my heart out to. I feel so lonely these days and even when I am with my family and friends, I feel totally alienated and detached from them. I don’t feel as if I belong to those people who are such anti everything that is not Muslim. Not that I ever was one of them but now I feel if they know my true identity that I am not a Muslim anymore, they would hate me and probably disown me if not murder me.

I guess I can never be an apostate openly and I will have to pretend to be a Muslim rest of my life, at least till my parents are alive. The other day my mom telling me that why don’t I go for Hajj with my brother and his wife next year since they are planning to go. My mom and dad have done their Hajj a few years ago, I did not go with them because I had always said I would go with my husband. Come to think of it, it was just an excuse because deep down inside I could never understand the logic behind it. Now my brother and his wife are planning to go next year and they told me since I am not married yet, its high time I get over with this vital religious obligation as soon as I can.. Now tell me how do I get out of this? Even my parents are insisting that I do hajj next year.. I don’t want to do that, why should I spend my hard earned money on something I don’t believe in anymore.

I am going thru such an emotional turmoil for the last few weeks, I first came across your website a month ago and then wrote to you on 23rd of last month and I still remember I stopped praying somewhere the end of last month. But I have been going thru a mixture of all kinds of emotions since then, sometimes I feel happy and liberated and then I feel scared that what if this is a test from God and I have gone astray for some time and maybe I will go back to being a Muslim. What if this is all a phase. But then I go back to your website and it motivates me again to be steadfast on this path that I have chosen.
I cry a lot these days, whenever I am alone, I just want to sit and ponder.. I am going thru such a difficult time that I feel I am going to have a nervous breakdown. Should I go and see a psychologist or psychiatrist? Do I need therapy? But then I have to make sure that the shrink I see is a non-Muslim. U wrote to an ex Muslim woman do not trust these Muslim doctors as their Islamic fundamentalism is much more important to them then some Hippocratic oath.. Right?

I want to write, I mean I wish I could have my own website and then write what I am going thru and what made me change. How I have always been a bad Muslim but a good human being.. But then living in this country, I cannot do this because sooner or later, they will block my site and I won’t be able to access my own website.

I shall look forward to your reply.

Regards
Shakila

Dear Shakila,

Sorry I was late answering your previous email.  What you are going through is absolutely normal. I already mentioned this in my one article where I talked about my experience.  The false guilt, depres­sion, anxiety, fear, confusion, and anger are present in all those who leaves a cult.

Yes your parents are part of a cult. But so were you and I. This does not change the fact that they are your parents and you owe them filial loyalty and love.

There is a golden rule that I suggest you follow, any time in doubt as what you should do in any situation. Ask what Muhammad would have done and do the opposite. If you do that you will never go wrong.  What was Muhammad’s advice in regards to siblings and parents who were unbelievers?  He said not to befriend them; to cut ties with them, not to associate with them (Q.3:28).   Well, do the opposite. Be loyal and loving to your parents and kin.  In any situation do the opposite of what Muhammad said and you can be sure that you are doing the right thing.

You said sometimes you think all this is a test and that you will eventually return to Islam. You will not. I tried for two years. I did everything I could to restore my faith. I prayed, I hid the Quran behind other books because it was the book that had jolted my faith and every time I saw it, all my doubts were renewed. But nothing worked. The more I tried the less I succeeded. That is why I made the analogy of coming out of the womb of ignorance. Once out I could no longer go back. Don’t believe me? Try it.  Do your best to restore your faith. You will see that it is impossible.  Just give it a time and all your doubts will go away and you will be at peace with your enlightenment.

In your previous email you said you’d like to read the Bible. It is a good idea.  It is banned in your country but you can find it online.  I did the same at first and I even attended a church for a couple of years.  I did it mostly to socialize. I have a great respect for Jesus, but I can’t believe in God. God makes no sense to me.  The more I ponder upon it the more the whole concept appears ludicrous and puerile.  However, I understand that not everyone can live without the belief in God.  And I also don’t believe atheism is superior to theism.  For me it is just a philosophical choice.  I think fanatical atheists are just as bad as fanatical theists.  What you believe is irrelevant, what really counts is how you live your life.

If you don’t fall into extremism, I think Christianity is a good choice.  Just be rational about it.  Jesus was not a fanatic. Learn Christianity from him and not from zealot Christians.

Keep your thoughts to yourself. There is no point in making a public announcement about your apostacy. There are millions of apostates that live like that. There is nothing wrong with it.  A time will come that the majority of Muslims will no longer believe and this edifice of lie with fall on its own. It will collapse like the twin towers of the WTC did.  I said it ten years ago.  You will see it happen.  Even though you may now think it is farfetched, you will see it with your own eyes.  This deception is over.  The world is waking up and Muslims will too.  We need a way to get our message to masses – to millions of people.  There is a way. The project is on its way.  Something is cooking and you’ll hear about it soon.  Everyone will hear about it. That would be the end of Islam.

As for going to hajj, keep telling your parents the same thing you said to them always. Tell them you have made a vow that you will go to hajj as a married woman and you want to keep your word.   Don’t throw your hard earned money in that country.  The more money the Saudis make the more they support Jihad, building of mosques and the spread of Islam.

There are psychologists that specialize in cult rehabilitation. You can find them online.  Avoid going to a Muslim shrink. He will not understand you as he is himself a cultist.  In fact he may give you more trouble.  You don’t suffer from depression, you suffer disillusionment.  It will go away as you learn more.  See these sites.

http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/martin_paul_study_rehab_benefits.htm

www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/secul/landmark/forum.html

www.cultinformation.org.uk

http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_profile/wellspring_retreat_resource.asp

Search “cult rehabilitation” for more links.

Cheers

Ali

Follow up:  Shakila is finally free from Islam and she runs her own blog. Visit her here:

http://liberatednow.blogspot.com/

Sir,

The entire Islamic world believes that the Quran is infallible. This belief is so rooted in their psyche that when a Muslim friend of mine introduced me to Islam, he presented this as evidence of the divine origin of the Quran. He argued that because the Quran unlike all other holy books has not been changed it must be from God.

Please reply about this whether the Quran is corrupted or not.

Whether the Quran is infallible or whether it has been corrupted or not are two different subjects.

As for the first question the answer is that the Quran is not infallible. It contains thousands of errors, absurdities, contradictions, inaccuracies and sheer nonsense. It contradicts logic, history, science, the Bible and even itself. It even contains grammatical errors that show its author was an illiterate man.  Hardly can you find a book as absurd as this book. It is so poorly written that I cannot call it literature.

As for the other question, we don’t know. The Quran we have is the one compiled by Othman. He burned all other versions of the Quran so there can be no disagreement among Muslims. It is clear that the other versions must have been different from the one chosen by him otherwise he would not have burned them.  How did he determine his version is the correct one and the other versions are not?  There was no way for him to know for certainty.  It is very possible that his pick was not the right one. However, since all other versions are destroyed, it is impossible to say whether the one we have is the authentic one.

Just see what has happened to the hadiths. Various people have reported the same story is various ways. They defer in details.  The verses of the Quran could have also suffered similar fate, although perhaps not to that extent, because they were memorized.

However, with a little rational thinking, we can assume since Othman had to burn the other versions to avoid discrepancy, this book must have been altered. It is also possible that many of the verses of the present Quran are not what Muhammad said.  The original verses may have been the ones that were burned.  Many verses may have been lost forever. It is also possible that some verses have been added to the Quran that were not originally said by Muhammad.

I really do not know how or where to start but the fact is that I am really and truly confused with regards to my identity.. I have been born and bred in a typical Sunni Muslim household.. I have always considered myself a very moderate Muslim or rather a liberal one.. I have had boyfriends and relationships.. I have tons of Non Muslim friends who I adore and trust much more than their Muslim counterparts. I have never ever discriminated anyone based on their religious background. I treat people on the basis of their nature and their moral character rather than on their religious beliefs. I do not have any prejudice for any religion, NO actually that is not true.. I do hate those so called Muslim fundamentalists who kill innnocent people in the name of God.. Ever since 9/11, I have been having some doubts but I was too cowards to face them or even acknowledge them until recently when I came accross Daniel Pipes and thru him, I came to know about you..

I am really confused and going thru an identity crisis.. Pleas help me..

Shakila

Dear Shakila,

There is no confusion about your identity. You are a human.  This is the identity we all share.  Thanks heaves you are a decent human.  Our beliefs are not our identity. They, like our clothing, can be changed. What you believe does not define who you are any more than your coat does.

Do you really believe in the same things you believed ten or twenty years ago or when you were a child?  Of course not! You see the world differently and your perception of reality has changed.

We don’t identify ourselves by our clothing, uniforms or costumes, so why should we identify ourselves by our transient beliefs?

This is the root of all problems. People forget that they are humans first and foremost and seek their identity in spurious things such as their religion, nationality, color of skin, caste, etc.  These are the things that separate us. But they are superficial and meaningless.

We can have several identities, as long as they are not in opposition. For example you can be a cop and a gardener. But you can’t be a cop and a thief.  Likewise you can be a human and a Christian or a Hindu or a Buddhist. They are not in contradition. But when you assume a Muslim identity, your humanity is reduced to the extent that you believe and practice Islam.   Those who are complete followers of Islam, like the terroritsts and many imams, have no humanity left in them.

What will happen if we don’t see ourselves as Muslim, Christian, Hindu, white or black, etc., but as humans? That would be a major shift of paradigm.  It is just sheer incidence that you were born into a Sunni Muslim family.  We must not focus on what is incidental but on what is essential. In essence,  you, along with other seven billion people sharing this planet are a human.  Through this shift of paradigm we can see our oneness and our sameness.

Ideologies that divide mankind should be discarded.  To some extent all ideologies divide mankind. But some ideologies are decisively divisive. They divide people between “us” and “them,” and promote hatred and distrust of the other.  Sigmund Freud, said, “It is always possible to bind together a considerable number of people in love, so long as there are other people left over to receive the manifestations of their aggression.”

Racism, fascism, communism, Islam, and some other less known ideologies use hatred of the other to bind their members together.  They need enemies to survive. Hatred fuels these ideologies. Take the hatred of non-believers away and Islam ceases to exist.

The problem with these ideologies is that the more we identify ourselves with them the less becomes our human identity. Our human identity brings us closer together. When I focus on my humanity, I see the same in you and in all other humans. We are just one people, share the same genes, have the same feelings, the same hopes and fears. We love the same way and cry the same way.  There is no difference between us. Unlike most species, like dogs, goats, and horses, which have many races, we humans have only one race.  We have thousands of ethnicities, but we belong to one race.  This is our identity.

Any ideology that diminishes this identity is evil.  We must not tolerate it.  We must not tolerate fascism, communism, racism, sexism, and Islam.  Anything that divides mankind, under the pretext of race, gender, class, or religion must be opposed and eliminated.

We must respect people’s right to believe even in things we don’t believe.  I am an atheist but I am not promoting my belief. It is just my choice because so far it makes more sense to me.  I respect your choice to believe in anything you want, but not if you believe in things that divide mankind, promote hatred and cause division.   That is why I fight to eradicate Islam – not because I believe it is false. I believe all religions are false. I oppose Islam because it is divisive. It diminishes our human identity.

You say you don’t discriminate against anyone for their religion and treat people on the basis of their nature and their moral character rather than their faith.  In that case you are violating the teachings of the Quran that says only Muslims are brother to each other, don’t take as friends and allies (awlia) your own father and brother if they like disbelief and don’t befriend the unbelievers, strive against them, and kill them wherever you find them.   None of the things you do is Islamic.  So why do you call yourself a Muslim?

The problem is that when people like you call themselves Muslim they give legitimacy to Islam, but Islam is evil.  You become like the sugar that sweetens the poison.   People look at you and say we know Shahkila. She is a good person and she is a Muslim so Islam must be a good religion.  But there lies the deception. You are a good person because you don’t follow Islam. You are a good human because you are a bad Muslim.  Good Muslims are dangerous and evil. They are full of hate, like Muhammad.

Your identity is the same as it has always been – a good human. You thought Islam is a good faith. We all did, but we did not know the truth. Now that we see the truth we must throw Islam away.   The more we become Muslim the less human we become.  Any religion or ideology that divides mankind must be discarded and opposed.  Collectively we must not accept evil beliefs.  Banning racism, fascism, communism or Islam is not a violation of human rights. It is the defense of human rights.  It is our duty to oppose these divisive doctrines and eradicate them.   No human has a right to promote hatred.  The world will be a better place without these doctrines of hate.

I know you are a good person and most Muslims are just like you.  But as a Muslim you are a carrier of this disease.  There are people who are HIV positive but do not show any sign of AIDS.  This does not mean HIV is harmless.  You may have good resistance but someone else can catch this virus from you and get AIDS.   Likewise most Muslims have good resistance to Islamic disease.  They are infected by it but don’t show any sign of madness. However, they transmit this disease to others and to their children and millions of innocent people catch the disease of Islam and are transformed into monsters.

If I am HIV positive and sleep around, I am just an immoral person, but if I know I have HIV and still sleep around, I am a criminal.

So far you did not know that Islam is evil, but now you know. From now on it is criminal to call yourself a Muslim.  I have more respect for the suicide bomber than I have for shameless deceivers such as Zuhdi Yasser, Irshad Manji, Tarik Fatah and others like them who denounce everything Islam teaches and say Islam is not this.  They are deceiving the people.  And they will continue deceiving as long as they find an audience.

Update: You might be interested to know that Shakila left Islam and now has her own blog http://liberatednow.blogspot.com/