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

Spread The Word! Share it: