Ali Sina’s Response to Mr. Mustafa Hoseini Tabatabaie

Today, July 16, 2011 I received an email from a friend informing me that Muslim scholar Mr. Mustafa Huseini Tabatabie has written a refutation to my response to Ayatollah Montazeri. This refutation is four years old. However, he did not send me a copy. It’s only now that I saw it for the first time.

Mr. Tabatabaie chides me for not being respectful to Islam and to Muhammad.  I admit that I don’t have any respect for the man who thinks I should be killed for not submitting to him.   That would be absurd. Respecting such a vile man means validating his asinine claims. As a rule I don’t respect any ideology that is divisive, promotes hate and violence. By the same token I have no respect for communism, Nazism, fascism, or Thuggee religion. I put Islam in the same category.

As a matter of fact respecting ideologies is a fallacy. All ideologies, even good ones, such as democracy, should be open to criticism. If they can’t stand the test of scrutiny they must be discarded. Beliefs don’t have to be respected. It is human rights and human dignity that must be respected. We must respect people’s right to believe, even in what we consider to be false.  However, no belief is above criticism.


The Marriage to Aisha

In regards to the young age of Aisha Mr. Tabatabai says there is discrepancy in hadiths and there are also hadiths that show the age of Aisha was between 12 to 20 years when Muhammad married her.  This is a weak claim made by contemporary Muslim scholars.  For example, Mr. Tabatabi quotes Ibn Ishaq who said Aisha was one of the early convert to Islam. Aisha herself says that as long as she remembers her parents were Muslims. In other words, she was born into a Muslim family. There are dozens of very detailed hadiths where Aisha herself says she was six years old when she was given in marriage to Muhammad; that she was playing on a swing when her mother came and took her to Muhammad; that she had her dolls with her and her girlfriends used to visit her and they played with dolls; that when Muhammad entered the room her friends used to hide, but Muhammad would call them and he would play dolls with them. Seventeen or 20 years old women don’t play with dolls.  The same hadiths say that playing doll in Islam is prohibited but an exception was made for Aisha because she had not reached the age of puberty. There is another hadith that says when Muhammad told to Abu Bakr that Aisha was shown to him in a dream, carried by Gabriel, and he said, if it is the will of God it must happen,” Abu Bakr begged Muhammad to wait a few more years until Aisha reaches puberty.  There is no authentic and reliable hadith stating Aisha was older.  The biggest evidence the revisionists present is one hadith that says Asma, the sister of Aisha who was ten years older than her died at the alleged age of 100 in 692 CE. Therefore Aisha must have been born in 602 CE and since her marriage took place in 618 CE she must have been 16 at the time and not six.  This is the best argument they present. But it is very weak.  Ninety years old people look old to all those around them. People thought Asma was 100 when in reality she was 90.  This is a very honest mistake. Her exact date of birth was not of importance so the historian did not research it. He gave a round number to highlight her advanced age.

It is also interesting that neither Mr. Tabatabaie nor any of the modern revisionists try to use this argument to ban the child marriage that is prevalent in Islamic countries. Child marriage is practiced in most Islamic countries and it is part of the Sharia. This argument is only used to counter the criticism of Islam.  On one hand they deny Muhammad’s pedophilia and on the other hand they emulate him in that.  This is a perfect example of Islamic taqiyah, “to conceal the truth.”

To defend Muhammad Mr. Tabatabaie engages in another fallacy and quotes cases where younger women have married older men.  He wonders why should there be any problem for Aisha to fall in love with Muhammad.

The fallacy consists in the fact that we are not arguing about the difference of age between Muhammad and Aisha. Younger women do marry older men for their money. But Aisha was only six years old.  At this age the only thing a girl can decide is the color of her dress.  A child that young does not have the maturity to decide about her marriage. In fact, Aisha says that nothing “surprised” her more than when Muhammad “came to her” in that forenoon.   That little girl did not know anything about sex and why this old man was touching her private parts.  We are not talking about the difference of age between Muhammad and Aisha. We are talking about pedophilia.

Mr. Tabatabaie expresses his amazement that I have a problem about the fact that 14 centuries ago two consenting people married when even their families had agreed to such a marriage. He claims I should respect people’s freedom.

What amazes me is the fact that Mr. Tabatabaie thinks a six year old child is mature enough to consent to marriage. The fact that Aisha’s parents consented is not good enough. They were brainwashed and blinded by their zealotry.  Please watch this video A man is saying he witnessed Khomeini soliciting one of his followers to let him have sex with his five years old daughter and that benighted man consented.  Does the consent of a brain dead believer justify the crime of Khomeini? Abu Bakr was a cultist. He had given up thinking rationally. He believed in every nonsense Muhammad told him.  This is what blind faith does to people.  In our own time we had many cult leaders like David Koresh and James Jones who persuaded their followers to let them have sex with their wives and daughters and these men consented. Cult leaders abuse the trust of their followers. The mechanism is complex. To understand this I suggest you read my book Understanding Muhammad and Muslims.

Having sex with a child is morally wrong. What part of this, Mr. Tabatabaie does not understand?

Mr. Tabatabaie says that the charge of pedophilia does not apply to Muhammad because pedophiles are compulsively attracted to children whereas Muhammad’s other wives were older.

This is a fallacy. One does not have to be a serial killer or a serial thief to be convicted of murder or theft. A person who is not a pedophile cannot find little girls sexually attractive.  If I see a bunch of little girls naked the only feeling I can have for them is parental. It is simply not possible for me to find girls as young and 12, sexually attractive. If a grown up man feels any sexual attraction for young children he is a pedophile even if he never acts on his paraphilia.

Let me make an example. Is it possible for a man to have sexual feelings for another man? No, unless he is a homosexual. If you have attraction for a person of same sex you are a homosexual, even though you don’t act on it. Muhammad acted on his pedophiliac instinct.

The marriage between Muhammad and Khadijah was a codependency. These two individuals were both emotionally unhealthy.  They suffered from disorders that I have explained in my book. Their marriage was a sick symbiosis and not a mature love. Khadijah was to Muhammad a sugar mommy.

All other Muhammad’s wives were teenagers or in their early teens when Muhammad married them. Some of them were widowed because Muhammad had killed their husband.  As for Sauda, she was not an old woman when Muhammad married her.

How old was she?  No mention of her age is made.  Ibn Sa’d writes, Sauda died during the rule of Muaviyah in the year 54 Hijra. [Tabaqat V.8, page 56] Muhammad married her about a month after the death of Khadijah, i.e. three years before Hijra. Therefore, Sauda died 57 years after she married Muhammad. What is the normal age of a person? Sauda was a large woman. Often overweigh people don’t live long. But let us say she died at the age of eighty.  80-57=23. Sauda was 23 years old when the 50 year old Muhammad marreid her. This makes sense since when Sauda’s first husband died; she did not have yet a child. If Sauda died at the age of 90, which is unlikely, she could not have been older than 33 years when she married Muhammad.  As we can deduce, Sauda was about half the age of Muhammad. But she was older than his other wives who were 36 to 44 years younger than him and that is why Muhammad did not sleep with her and wanted to divorce her. [Tabaqat V. 8 p. 53-54]

Another argument presented by Mr. Tabatabaie is that Muhammad’s marriages were politically motivated, intended to foster friendship with their relatives.  Let us give the benefit of doubt to Mr. Tabatabaie and accept his argument.  Is this ethically right? This only proves that Muhammad treated women as objects and pawns in his big political chess game.  We don’t have to be a psychologist to understand the humiliation that a woman would feel knowing she is not chosen because of her own merits or because she is loved, but because she is useful to her husband’s political ambitions.

The argument that Muhammad’s marriages were politically motivated is rehashed by all Muslims. It amazes me that they don’t realize this is strong evidence that Muhammad was an opportunist manipulator who used others for his own  gain.

However, I assure my readers that Muhammad was also motivated by lust.  A Muslim named Jarir ibn Abdullah narrated that Muhammad asked him, “Have you got married?” He replied in the affirmative.  Muhammad enquired, “A virgin or a matron?”  He responded, “I married a matron.” Then Muhammad said, “Why not a virgin? So you may play with her and she may play with you?” [Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 310]

Ibn Sa’d makes it clear that Muhammad wanted to divorce Sauda only because she was not attractive, until she begged him to not divorce her and told him that she has no need for sex and  he can use her turn to sleep with Aisha.  Sauda wanted to have the title of being the Prophet’s wife for prestige and money.  Her chances of getting re-married were slim and she would have faced poverty.  Remaining a wife of Muhammad paid off. From every raid and pillage, the wives of Muhammad received their share of the booty and slaves. Omar, during his caliphate, sent to Sauda a burlap sack filled with Dirhams (Probably the proceeds of the loot of Persia or Egypt). Sauda asked, what is this? They said it is Dirhams. She exclaimed, “SubhanAllâh, they send me money in a sack of dates?” [Tabaqat V. 8 p. 55]


Muhammad’s robberies

After accusing me  of rudeness for calling Muhammad’s robberies, robberies, and insisting that I should have used a more respectful term to describe his criminal activities, Mr. Tabatabaie engages in the typical Islamic arguments.

He says that Muhammad and his followers in Mecca were persecuted and their property taken away.  So they raided the caravans of the Meccans to recover their own lost property. I have demonstrated in my book that the claim of persecution of Muslims is a myth.  Both Ibn Ishaq and Tabari clearly state that the Quraish were angered, not because Muhammad was preaching monotheism, (the Jews and the Christians and the Sabeans also were monotheists), but because he insulted their religion in every opportunity.  Muhammad deliberately taunted them. His goal was to cause disunity, bueause only through that he could control his followers.  If they hated their families, they would love him.

Ibn Ishaq narrates that the elders of Quraish got together and said, “We have never known anything like the trouble we have endured from this fellow. He has declared our mode of life foolish, insulted our forefathers, reviled our religion, divided the community and cursed our gods.” At this time Muhammad enters Ka’ba and starts circumvallating it. One of them calls on him saying he should stop dividing the community. Muhammad stops, his face is red with rage. He says, “Will you listen to me O Quraish? By him who holds my life in His hand I bring you slaughter. [Sira p. 131]

The Baha’is don’t insult Islam.  They are not calling for the slaughter of anyone and yet Muslims have been prosecuting them since their inception and killing them mercilessly.  And Mr. Tabatabaie has the chutzpa to uphod the myth of the persecution of Muslims in Mecca, but he will never voice any condemnation for the persecution of Bahais in Iran.

There was no persecution of Muslims in Mecca. People kept their children at home so they don’t get mislead by the man they believed to be an impostor and the divider of the community. This is not persecution but protection of the loved ones. Bilal was beaten not because he converted to Islam but because he insulted his master’s religion. Umayyah sold Bilal to Abu Bakr when he offered to buy him. This shows he did not care that Bilal had converted to Islam. But he did not want one of his slaves insult his religion.  That is not unreasonable.

I have shown in my book that the alleged persecution of Muslims in Mecca is a myth. One proof that Muhammad was never at risk in Mecca is the discourse of his uncle Abbas at Aqaba. When the new converts of Yathrib came to Mecca to pledge their allegiance to Muhammad, Abbas stood up and said, “O People of Khazraj, you know what position Muhammad holds among us. We have protected him from our own people who think as we do about him. He lives in honor and safety among his people, but he will turn to you and join you. If you think that you can be faithful to what you have promised and protect him from his opponents, then assume the burden you have undertaken. But if you think that you will betray and abandon him after he has gone out with you, then leave him now, for he is safe where he is.”[Sira p. 203]   This contradicts the claim made in the Quran 8:30 that unbelievers were plotting to bond, or to slay or to exile Muhammad. How can we reconcile these contradictory statements? Truth was irrelevant for Muhammad. He said what was needed in every situation.

Another myth that Muslims love to say is that Muhammad was called Amin because he was trusted by the Meccans.  Mr. Tabatabaie says people leaved their belongings to him.  Why? Did Muhammad own a pawn shop? Did he own a bank or rented out storage facilities? Why would people leave their belongings to him?

1.4 billion Muslims, for 14 hundred years have been rehashing this nonsense and not a single one of them pauses to wonder why? Why if the Meccans thought Muhammad was honest and truthful they called him a liar, a majnoon and a lunatic?

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 he was also a trader.  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 Quran makes many claims portraying Muslims as victims and persecuted. But those claims are not supported by the history of Islam. We don’t have an independent source of history. All we are left with is the Islamic narrative and that belies the claims of the Quran.

Mr. Tabatabaie quotes the Quran as if it is the word of God and anyone must believe them. That maybe so for Muslims but I don’t regard the Quran as the word of God. I think this book reveals the hallucinations of a mentally sick man.   I base my narrative on what early Muslims have reported and conclude that the claim of persecution is a myth.

After buying into the myth that Muslims were persecuted in Mecca, Mr. Tabatabaie justifies the raid of their caravans and looting of their property.  What an amazing rationalization by someone living in the 21st century but still thinking like a man living in the seventh century.

Let us assume the Meccans persecuted the Muslims and drove them out of Mecca. This is not true. But let us accept it for the sake of argument.  Does this justify raiding and looting the caravans coming from that town?  Let us say I am mistreated by some people in a town, can I rob anyone coming from that town?  This is absurd. But it is also a deception.  Did the Jews of Bani Qainuqa persecute Muslims? Why did Muhammad besiege their fortress, exiled them and stole their property?  He did the same in eventy other places.  Muhammad grew up with the Hawazin in the first five years of his life and then he raided them and killed them and stole their belongings.  What was their crime?

Tarikh Tabari is accessible to all Persian speaking people. It can be downloaded online. The story of Muhammad’s crimes can be read in volumes 3, 4 and 5.  Any Persian, with a grain of humanity (ensaniyyat) left in him who reads this book, can no longer call himself a Muslim.

Mr. Tabatabaie accuses me of being unfair for saying Muslims were not persecuted in Mecca, but it was Muhammad who urged them to leave.  I base my claim on what Muslim historians have written and not on the bogus claims of Muhammad.

When the Muslims escaped to Abyssinia, their parents sent Amr ibn ‘As and Abdulah ibn Abu Rabi’ to plead with Negus to send them back to Mecca.  Muslims want to make this look like the Meccans plot to kill or harm these converts. However, that is not what their history books say. The Meccans wanted their kids to come back.  Amr had two sons among the escapees, Sahm and Sa’id. In total 14 members of his immediate family had gone to Abyssinia. Abdullah also had his son Ma’mar among the escapees.  Before meeting the King the two men discussed.  Amr said, “Tomorrow I will tell the King something that will uproot them all.” Abdullah begged him not to do it. He said, “They are our kindred, though they have gone against us.”  What was it that Amr wanted to say? He wanted to say that Muhammad says Jesus is not son of God but a slave.

Can we say these people were persecuting the Muslims?  Prior to leaving, Abu Talib called Amr and Abdulalh and told them that two of his sons, Ja’far and Amr are also among the escapees. He asked  them to take a poem that he had written, to Negus. In that poem he pleaded with the King to treat their children kindly. Then he said, “The bitterest enemies are oft the nearest in blood.” Despite all these evidence and more that are in my book Muslims want us to believe the Meccans were persecuting the Muslims.  For Muslims truth has no meaning. All that matters is propaganda.

There are many stories like these in Tabari, in Ibn Ishaq and in Tabaqat. If Muslims stop accepting every baloney that Muhammad has said in the Quran as word of God and judge that book in the light of the history of Islam written by early Muslim historians they can see Muhammad’s big lie unfolding in front of their own eyes.

Ibn Sa’d narrates the story of Mus’ab ibn Umair, a well dressed youth of Mecca.  His parents loved him dearly. His mother Khunaas was a wealthy and influential lady.  She donned him with the best and finest cloths, indulged him with the most expensive perfumes and bought him the most elegant and fashionable shoes.   Mus’ab was one of the early converts in Mecca.  He kept his faith a secret.  When Khunaas learned about it she was distraught.  She locked him inside the house. When Muhammad ordered his followers to go to Abyssinia Mus’ab was among them.   That was the “oppression” that Muslims were subjected to. Upon his return, his mother tried again to persuade him to leave Muhammad.  Her cries fell on deaf ears.  She stopped giving him money.  Mus’ab was undeterred.  He wore tattered cloths and remained steadfast in his faith. Muhammad sent him to Medina to preach.  He was successful and managed to convert seventy people.  These are the same seventy who visited Muhammad at Aqaba and pledged to support him.

When Mus’ab returned to Mecca he did not go to visit his mother.  When she heard that her son was in town, she felt dejected.   She sent him a message saying, how ungrateful can you be to your mother?  You came to the city where I reside and did not come to see me?   He responded I would not go to anyone’s house before visiting the house of the Prophet.   When he visited her, she pleaded with him to stay.   He said don’t insist mother, for if you attempt to impede me leaving I will have no choice but to kill you.  His poor mother said you may go and wept bitterly.  Mus’ab said I want your own good mother.  Now attest that there is no god but Allâh and Muhammad is his messenger.  She responded, by the brilliance of the stars I will not abandon my faith, but you are free to do as you please. Mus’ab left and soon after he immigrated to Medina.  He took part in Muhammad’s raids and robberies and was killed in the Battle of Uhud. Her mother was there. She held the dead body of her son in her arms and cried. [Tabaqat V. III p. 100-102] Persecution eh?

This is what Muslims call persecution. Distraught parents were trying to prevent their wayward children following a man who incited hatred and divided the community.  That is not persecution. It is parental concern. I would do everything to stop my child following a cult. Persecution is what Muslims do to minorities in Islamic countries.

As I always say, we must understand the Muslim terminology. When Muslims use the same words we use, they mean an entirely different thing.  For example, persecution means abusing someone for his belief, or race, etc.  In Islam this word has an entirely different meaning. Muslims feel they are entitled to imprison, torture, and kill others for their belief, as Muhammad did. This does not constitute persecution. But if someone opposes Islam that person is a persecutor of Muslims.  I am a critic of Islam. I write about this religion and expose its lies. I have never harmed any Muslim and never encouraged anyone to do so.  Yet, in the eyes of  Muslims, I am an oppressor.  This is how Muslims perceive oppression and persecution. Oppressor is a person who criticizes Islam. So the Meccans who tried to stop their children following a madman were  oppressors. But Muslims who killed them were doing jihad and practicing their faith.

Muslims were the first to resort to physical violence. Ibn Ishaq says (Sira p. 166) Sa’d bin Abu Waqqas picked up a camel’s jawbone and struck a local polytheist who was “rudely interrupting” his group of praying Muslims. This was the first blood to be shed in Islam” .

Mr. Tabatabaie accuses me of quoting the Quran only when it suits me such as when it prescribes killing and maiming the unbelievers, but ignore the verses that portray Muslims as victims.  This argument is a fallacy.  I believe Muhammad was a liar.  What a liar claims about his innocence is irrelevant. Only his confessions count.  A criminal can make a lot of claims to portray himself as innocent, none of that count. But if he says a few words that prove his guilt those words count.

In One occasion when Muhammad threatens the Meccans telling them he has brought slaughter, Abul Hakam (whom Muhammad abused and called Abu Jahl) went to him and angrily told him to stop this nonsense.  When Hamza, Muhammad uncle heard it, he went to Abul Hakam while he was sitting in the mosque in Ka’ba,  lifted up his bow and struck him a violent bow. [Sira 185]  Up to that day no Muslim was abused in Mecca. All the beating and abuses were done by Muslims?  To understand this think of what is happening in Europe today.  Who is abusing whom in Europe?  It’s Muslims who rape the European women, beat them and abuse them. At the same time they are the ones who cry victim.  This has been the modus operandi of Islam since its inception.

Mr. Tabatabaie quotes the verse 6:108 in which Muhammad says, “Revile not those unto whom they pray beside Allah lest they wrongfully revile Allah through ignorance.” He wants to show us that Muhammad discouraged Muslims reviling people’s beliefs.

It is foolhardy to take Muhammad for his words. Confucius said the superior man is one whose words coincide with his actions.  By that standard Muhammad was an inferior man. He said many things that on the surface appear to be goodly words but in practice he led a very different life.   The very fact that he rammed into Ka’aba and desecrated that temple that was holy to the Meccans is evidence enough that he was not living by what he preached in verse 6:108

Not only Muhammad did not respect anyone’s belief he did not respect their freedom and their lives. Upon conquering Mecca he gave the unbelievers an ultimatum to convert or to die.

“So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.” (Quran 9:5)

The story of Muhammad’s violent expulsion of non-Muslims from their own city can be found in Ibn Ishaq p.920-923.

Not even the people of the book were safe. “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim. “(Sahih Muslim 4366)

Tabari says that after Muhammad’s death most of the Arabs apostatized. Abu Bakr attacked them. He burned them in fire, stoned them to death, threw them from cliffs, or cast them in wells. [Tabari v. 4, p. 1392].  Hundreds of thousands of apostates died in the wars named after them Irtidad (apostasy). So much for respect of people and their beliefs!

Islam is a religion of lies. Everything in this faith is a lie. Everything is deception. Expurgate Islam of lies and all that will be left is a psychopath criminal and a band of brain dead gangsters who committed the most hideous acts of villainy in the name of God.

Mr. Tabatabaie makes a distinction between insulting people’s beliefs and Muhammad’s desecration of Ka’ba. He asks how else Muhammad could convince the Arabs that their idols were useless.

I believe that Allah is a fictitious deity, not just useless but the belief in him is dangerous. The Arab idols had at least a physical existence. Allah is the figment of a sick mind with no existance. I don’t believe in gods, but I am not here making an argument against the belief in God.  I respect the right of the people to believe. The argument that I am making is that the deity that Muhammad preached is not the God of the universe. He is not even the god of the Bible.  Allah was the title of Hubbal the moon god.  Do I have the right to ram into mosques, (assuming I had the power to do so) and destroy every trace of Allah and confiscate those mosques?  That is what Muhammad did to Ka’ba, and Muslims did to countless temples of different faiths.

The fact that Muhammad thought he was right and called others misguided and ignorant did not give him any right to destroy and to confiscate their temple. This is obvious to any fair minded person. Yet it is so unclear to Muslims. Muslims have been invading the churches and the temples of other faiths, destroying them and building their own mosques on top of them and they think this is okay.  They can’t fathom the fact that what Muhammad did and what they have been doing for over a thousand years is evil.  They think since they are right, all their crimes are justified.

Mr. Tabatabaie, accuses me of misrepresenting the truth when I quoted the verse 4:89 that says,  “choose not friends from them (the apostates) till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to their unbelieving relatives) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,”

He says why I did not quote the verse that follows that says, “Except those who seek refuge with your allies, or (those who) come unto you because they don’t want to make war on you or make war on their own folk. Had Allah willed He could have given them power over you so that assuredly they would have fought you. So, if they hold aloof from you and wage not war against you and offer you peace, don’t fight them.

This is the deception of Muhammad. Only those versed in the history of Islam and the Quran can see through his deception. On the surface it appears that Muhammad is saying don’t fight those who don’t fight against you. In reality he considered anyone who spoke against Islam and resisted the advance of his diabolic religion as the enemy to be killed. Anyone who criticizes Islam or resists accepting it falls into that category. You either surrender to Islam or you are an enemy.  Did the Jews of Kheibar attack Muslims? Muhammad’s wars are called ghazw and saria. These words mean raid, ambush, sudden attack. Muslims were raiders. If the battles of Muhammad were defensive, as Muslims deceitfully claim, why they were called ghazw? Unless you really know Islam you can fall into these traps that Muslims lay.  According to Tabari Muhammad waged 78 ghazws, some were assassination of a poet and others large scale raids of big towns resulting in thousands of deaths.  Only in two occasions the Meccans retaliated, one in Ohud and the other the battle of the confederates, which was not fought. In all other cases Muhammad was the aggressor.

Mr. Tabatabaie says I am either ignorant or a traitor (deceiver) for misleading people by not saying Islam prohibits making war against those who don’t make war against Islam.  That is not true. Did we Persians attack the Arabs?  Did Egypt or Spain attack Islam?  Who is the deceiver here?  Those who did not believe in Islam were regarded as the enemy by Muhammad and waging war against them became mandatory.  What is the meaning of the verse 9:5 quoted above?  There is nothing defensive in that verse.

Mr. Tabatabaie tries to justify the butcheries of Muhammad with a verse form Lucas 22:36 were Jesus tells his disciples to sell their coat and satchel and buy swords. In the mind of this respected Muslim scholar this verse makes Jesus a war monger mass murderer like Muhammad.  Assuming this were true, does one evil justify another?

I am not an apologist for Christianity. However, I would like to be fair. Had Mr. Tabatabaie read a bit more of Lucas 22 he would have realized that all Jesus wanted were a couple of swords, possibly so his disciples could defend themselves against the Roman soldiers. In verse 38 when his disciples say they have already two swords with them, Jesus says “that is enough.”  Clearly he was not planning to start a war with two swords. This happened when Jesus knew that the soldiers were coming to take him. A few hours later the soldiers arrived.  But they were not interested in his disciples.   His disciples asked “Lord, whether we smite with sword?   And one of them smote the servant of the prince of priests, and cut off his right ear. But Jesus answered, and said, Suffer ye till hither. And when he had touched his ear, he healed him. [Lucas 22 49-51]

Jesus prohibited his followers to use the sword against the soldiers who had come to take him and heals the wound of one of them. How can anyone equate this episode with the raids and  massacres of Muhammad?

Mr. Tabatabaie claims that the Meccans were constantly raiding and robbing the Muslims in Medina and so the verse 22:39 was revealed which said “Sanction is given unto those who fight because they have been wronged; and Allah is indeed Able to give them victory.

This is the distortion of history.  Tabari  tells us about several unprovoked raids of Muslims until one of them succeeded in Nakhla resulting in one death, which is hailed by all historians as “the first bloodshed in Islam.”  The first person injured was a non-Muslim and the first person killed was also a non-Muslim. After Nakhla, Muhammad launched a few minor raids, until he had his major breakthrough in Badr where his young and agile men killed a bunch of “old and bald” men, reluctant to fight their own children.  After that victory Muhammad became emboldened. He raided the Bani Qainuqa and assassinated Abu Afak, Asma bit Marwan and Ka’b ibn Ashraf.  The Meccans found the rout to Syria dangerous and took their caravans to Iraq. This rout was very far and water was scarce. Even then Muhammad sent Zeid ibn Haritha to raid them. Zeid looted their caravan, but Abu Sufyan and his men escaped. It was only then that Abu Sufyan made a mini raid to the North of Medina, killed one of the Ansar and cut a few date trees.  He stole a few of Muhammad’s goats. But don’t forget that Muhammad did not have goats when he went to Medina. All those goats were stolen from others.

Much before the verse 22:39 was given, Muslims were raiding and looting. Mr. Tabatabaie quotes from Maghazi. Maghazi is plural for ghazw. It is the history of Muhammad’s raids, not defensive wars.  How then Mr. Tabatabaie says Muhammad’s wars were all defensive?  Then why the book of his wars is called Maghazi?   Lying comes so natural to Muslims that they don’t even think about it.  If most Muslims don’t know that Muhammad’s wars were raids, Mr. Tabatabaie knows that. He is a real scholar of Islam.  Despite all these misrepresentations and deceptions Mr. Tabatabaie calls me a “traitor.”  Have I betrayed my country?  Those who can read Parsi can see that Mr. Tabatabaie has vilified the Persian kings of the pre Islamic Iran and has berated our Iranian heritage and culture. And yet, I am a traitor and he is not.  I suppose we have different allegiances.

Mr. Tabatabaie says that Muhammad sent Abdullah ibn Jahsh and seven other men to Nakhla to “bring him information” about the Quriash. And that Abdullah raided their caravan by his own initiative without permission.  There is much to this story than what is written. You don’t need to be a detective of have psychological training to read between the lines.  This story reveals the manipulative mind of the narcissist Muhammad.

Abdullah ibn Jahsh was Muhammad’s maternal cousin. Jahsh was Amina’s brother. Muhammad  sent Abdullah to Nakhla with a clear mission known to him and to Abdullah alone. The other men were not told about the mission.  He gave Abdullah a sealed letter ordering him not to open it until they have travelled for two days.  Now think about how this coniving man manipulated everything.  When the men opened the letter, it said that they should bring information about the Quraish caravan. It also said that no one should be forced to take part in this mission if he does not want to.  Why? Because it was the month of Rajab, a sacred month for Arabs.  During these sacred months Arabs did not shed blood.  That is why Muhammad said don’t force anyone in this mission against his will.  Spying was not taboo, shedding blood was taboo.  The message was clear even though it was not spelled out.  Abdullah knew exactly what Muhammad wanted. He told others if they were ready for martyrdom they should follow him. All of them agreed. Two of them lost their camel (maybe intentionally) and did not go. The other six went to Nakhla. They met the small caravan guarded by four men. They deceived the amins of the caravan by shaving their heads and pretending to have come for the lesser pilgrimage. When the amins lowered their guards, the raiders threw arrows at them. They killed one and took two as hostage. The fourth person escaped.

They brought the booty and the two prisoners to Medina.  Muslims were shocked. They still considered killing in those sacred months taboo. They said Muhammad should release the prisoners and return the booty. The cunning prophet devised a plan. He rebuked Abdullah and said, “I did not order you to fight in the sacred month.”  In this way he shifted the blame to  Abdullah.  He then said, leave the booty to me until Allah decides. The next day his Allah revealed  “They will ask you about the sacred month, and war in it. Say, war therein is a serious matter, but keeping people from the way of Allah and disbelieving in him and in the sacred mosque and driving out His people therefrom is more serious with Allah. ” [Quran 2:217]

Now you see why Muhammad needed to portray himself and Muslims as victims? To justify rading them and killing them.  Muslims do the same to this day. They are the victimizers everywhere while they always cry that they are the victims.  Witless people like the leftists buy that narrative. A good example is the claim of the victimhood of the Palestinian Arabs.  They are not victim at all. They are the agressors and the victimizer. They are the ones who have stolen the lands from the Jews. But  they portray themselves as victim so they have justification to kill the Jews. It is not about land. It is about jewish hatred.

Is keeping people from becoming Muslim worse than killing? This is the morality of Islam. Writing against Islam is worse than Muslims killing us.  It is by this “logic” that Muslims say I am worse than Usama bin Laden.   Massacring thousands of people is not as bad as writing articles against Islam.  This is in a nutshell the Isalmic morality for you. And as you see it all comes from the Quran.

The Golden Rule is something Muslims don’t understand.  It’s sad but they simply can’t put themselves in the other person’s shoes.  Muslims are incapable of understanding that what they do is evil because they have no grasp of the Golden Rule.  The understaning of the Goldern rule is what defines humanity.  Animals, and people who have not evolved their humanity, (Nazis,  fascists, communists, Thuggees, criminals, psychopaths,  and Muslims) are incapable of understanding the Golden Rule.

I will respond to the rest of Mr. Tabatabaie’s refutation of my letter to Ayatollah Montazeri in another date.



I placed a link to this article in Mr. Tabatabie’s page where he wrote his rebuttal to my letter to Ayatollah Montazeri. Mr. Tabatabaie removed the link. Obviously he does not wish his readers to see this article.

He also posted two very short comments below this article, but instead of saying anything of value he insulted me and disapeared.




You may also like...

433 Responses

  1. Raj says:

    Aisha's dolls speak the truth.

  2. Ali Sina says:

    Thank you and also good luck with your free energy researches. I am also a believer and have tinkered with it. So far no success. But I am sure we will find it in this century.

  3. Hi! I’ve been following your website for some time now and finally got the courage to go ahead and give you a shout out from Atascocita Tx! Just wanted to tell you keep up the good job!

  4. John K says:

    If you think you can beat Ali Sina, you can go here and collect $50,000 while you are at it:

  5. John K says:

    Bring it here if you think you have something.

  6. Hassan says:

    why every time u quote marrige to aisha , has all ur answer.

  7. FoundInTheLord says:

    Checkmate indeed, Alisina wins, flawless victory!

  8. Rembrandt says:

    "There is no god but allah, and mohammad is his last prophet" was the argument presented to Dr Sina and he has proved it false from the same proofs presented for the argument.

    Reductio ad absurdum simply means reducing to the absurd. With Quran no reduction has to be done.

    Now its your mohammadeans turn to reply to his proofs. He has presented his proofs in the numerous articles.

    "You really need to tone down your ego, shameful plugs of your books,saying how good you are and the hatred in your heart. "

    This is an example of an ad hominem.

  9. Rembrandt says:

    Hell 'is' Upon them. They live in a perpetual hell. The few minutes of reprieve they get while praying are the only source of peace, well being or funny good feeling for them, Unlike members of most other religions.

    You should be a narcissist to know the pain.

  10. satyameva jayate says:

    islam is the most ridiculous religion of the world. The religion which does not recognize the most humane practice of adoption is mere a bullshit. Hell be upon Muhammad and his followers.

  11. Human says:

    Amen bother.. God Bless Israel..

  12. Babak says:

    پاسخ جديد آقاي طباطبايي به اين نوشته شما

    مغلطه ابتدايي طباطبايي پيرامون توهين به مقدسات است كه خيلي روي آن مانور ميدهد. پاسخ مفصلي به اين مغلطه به زبان فارسي در لينك زير موجود است

    با احترام

  13. I simply want to mention I am just newbie to blogs and honestly enjoyed your web page. Almost certainly I’m likely to bookmark your website . You surely come with outstanding writings. Thank you for sharing your web-site.

  14. Jakob says:

    Ali Sina, your entire debate was based on Reductio ad absurdum ( A common type of reductio ad absurdum is proof by contradiction (also called indirect proof), where a proposition is proved true by proving that it is impossible for it to be false. That is to say, if A being false implies that B must also be false and it is known that B is true, then A cannot be false and therefore A is true.)

    Where such an argument is premised on a false dichotomy, the ostensible proof is a logical fallacy.

    You really need to tone down your ego, shameful plugs of your books,saying how good you are and the hatred in your heart.

    Personal opinions are not facts do not try and pass them off as such.

    Regards Jakob

  15. haider says:

    Hahaha so many people pwn you.

  16. EntoyDaDragoN says:

    Ali Sina’s debate with a muslim ends with a checkmate. LOL

  17. Ali Sina says:

    Okay thanks. I was not sure whether you’re going to answer the question or will content yourself by psychoanalizing me.

  18. فرزاد says:

    جناب سینا

    ظاهرا دچار فراموشی هم شده اید این سوال را در صفحه دیگری از من پرسیده اید و درخواستتان هم این بوده که من در همان صفحه جواب دهم و من هم همین کار را خواهم کرد منتها اکنون (ماه رمضان) کمتر می توانم برای بحث با شما وقت بگذارم و بعد از ماه رمضان بیشتر در خدمت شما خواهم بود البته جواب شما در مورد نظر قرآن در مورد سرنوشت انسان بعد از مرگ را فردا یا پس فرداشب خواهم داد.

  19. Ali Sina says:

    Mr. Farzad,

    You offered to answer my questions about the Quran. I asked you a simple question. Does the soul go to the next world right after the death occurs or there is no such thing as soul and the body will stay in the grave until it is resurrected in the Day of Judgment and then will enter its last abode?

    Instead of answering it you psychoanalyzed me and suggested that I should be hospitalized in a mental asylum.

    I am moved by your concern about my well being. I’ll take note and will seek help as you suggested. Now will you answer my question please?

    You say a person who can accuse 1/4th of humanity of being insane must be insane and his words are worthless. I have shown Muhammad was insane and in my book I also demonstrated how sane people act insanely when they believe in insane people. But all that aside, and agreeing that I too maybe insane, does my question have an answer or not?

    You also say the reason I don’t claim to be a prophet is because I fear to be ridiculed. You are right. I fear that if I make such a claim I will be ridiculed. Anyone who claims to be a messenger of a god that does not exist is a ridiculous person. So as long as a little sanity is left in me I’ll not make that claim.

    You say your identity should not be important to conduct this debate. I agree. The problem is that Muslims often dismiss my opponents as not knowing Islam well. They do this to discredit me. By decrying my opponents they can say no real scholar has debated me so all my victories are insignificant.

    I believe you are quite a learned mullah. I also believe you are someone of name and reputation. At least it appears that you are much more learned than most mullhas, including Mr. Tabatabaie who contended himself to call Aisha a liar and insulted me instead of answering my arguments. Now, if you wish to remain anonymous, I will be still glad to debate with you but will not invest time translating your responses word by word. I just give a gist of them and respond.

    Please answer the question I asked. What happens to us after we die? What the Quran says in this regard? This should be a simple question if you knew a straight forward answer. Even if I am insane, still the question is valid. Isn’t it?

    If you don’t know the answer, I will move on to the next question.

  20. فرزاد says:

    جناب دکتر
    1- بهترین توصیفی که می توانم از نوع عملکرد شما داشته باشم مثالی است که روزی مدیر مدرسه برای تشویق و ترغیب ما از آن استفاده کرد و آن مثال این بود که به ما توصیه کرد در هر زمینه ای که قصد تحصیل دارید باید مانند کفش دوز و پینه دوزی که کنار خیابان نشسته عمل کنید کفاش کنار خیابان اصلا به قیافه افراد٬‌نوع لباسشان٬‌ میزان تحصیلات و … هیچ توجهی ندارد بلکه تمام حواس او به کفش های رهگذران است که از چه نوعی است نیاز به تعمیر دارد یا ندارد تازه واکس خورده یا نه و … در پست قبلی از شما سوال کردم که نمی دانم تخصص شما در چه رشته ای است اکنون باید جواب این پرسش را به راحتی حدس بزنم! شما باید در یکی از رشته های مربوط به روان آدمی دکترا داشته باشید و یا لااقل مطالعات زیادی در مورد این موضوع داشته باشید و نوع نگاهتان به آدمیان نوع نگاه همان کفاش به کفش انسانهاست.
    2-اگر بپذیریم که شما مبتلا به همان مشکلاتی هستید که به دیگران از جمله آخرین پیامبر خدا صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم نسبت می دهید آنگاه
    دیگر سخن شما در این باره هیچ ارزشی ندارد و موضوع کاملا تغییر می کند و یک انسانی که از انواع مشکلات روحی و روانی رنج می برد شایسته بستری شدن در یکی از مراکز نگهداری و مراقبت از بیماران روانی است نه نشستن در جایگاه یک قاضی و یا پزشک متخصص اعصاب و روان و طبابت کردن.
    3-کسی که به راحتی می تواند چشمان خود را ببندد و حدود یک چهار جمعیت جهان را دیوانه خطاب کند بدون اینکه نیاز به معاینه داشته باشد دیوانه خطرناکی است که باید هر چه زودتر زنجیر شده و یا معالجه شود.
    4-اتفاقا شما هم تمام تلاش تان این است که دیگران را به دنبال نظرات خود بکشید منتها چون یقین دارید که مورد تمسخر واقع خواهید شد ادعای پیامبری نمی کنید اگر در این موضوع شک دارید می توانید یکبار دیگر مطالب گذشته اتان را مرور کنید تا متوجه شوید که پر است از توصیه دیگران که چه بکنند و چه نکنند مگر پیامبر اخرالزمان چیزی بیش از این انجام داده است او هم بلانسبت مانند شما توصیه هایی داشته است مبنی بر این که افراد بت نپرستند٬‌خیانت نکنند٬ دروغ نگویند٬‌راستی پیشه کنند٬‌ زنا نکنند و …..برای اینکه زیاد هم دچار زحمت نشوید کافی است به توصیه هایتان به دو زنی که از شما در باره ادامه زندگی با یک مرد مسلمان سوال کرده بودند نظری گذرا داشته باشید.
    5- از من خواسته اید که خودم را معرفی کنم تا بتوانید بحث ها را به انگلیسی ترجمه و مستقلا منتشر کنید٬‌من ابایی از معرفی خودم ندارم من آدمی هستم تقریبا بی هیچ نام و نشانی و اینکه شما نام و نام خانوادگی حقیقی مرا بدانید یا ندانید هیچ تاثیری در مباحث نخواهد داشت٬‌بر خلاف منطق شما که ارزش سخن را با کوچکی و بزرگی صاحب آن می شناسند و داوری می کنند در منطق ما این سخنان هستند که وزن و اعتبار اشخاص را معین می کنند٬‌لذا اگر می بینید بحث ها در حدی است که قابل ارائه است بدون هیچ واهمه ای آنها را ترجمه و منتشر کنید و در معرض قضاوت دیگران قرار دهید و هر نامی که مایل اید بر طرف مقابتان بنهید البته نام حقیقی من محسن احمدی است و همانطور که قبلا هم عرض کردن آشنایی با دروس حوزوی و به خصوص مطالعاتی در عرفان اسلامی دارم.

  21. Ali Sina says:

    Mr. Farzad,

    I am not diagnosing Muhammad from a distance to prescribe medication. I am providing answers that explain his mystique. The life of Muhammad, unlike that of Jesus, Moses or Zoroaster is very much detailed. There are tens of thousands of anecdotes narrated by his close companions who believed in him and loved him. It is not difficult to understand Muhammad. If you also have some knowledge about human psychology, you can see that everything he did can be explained by a mental disorder. Symptoms are undeniable.

    You say I am suffering from the same mental disorders that I say Muhammad suffered. Let us say you are correct. This does not invalidate my claim against Muhammad. It is ad hominem. Ad hominem is attacking the person instead of his argument.

    Now suppose I suffer from all those mental disorders. Who cares? I am not claiming to be a prophet of God. I don’t want anyone to follow me. There were great men who suffered from similar disorders that I believe Muhammad suffered. I have a list of them in my book. Nicolai Tesla was a great inventor. One of his inventions is the electric motor that revolutionized how we live. He suffered from obsessive compulsive disorder. Dante, Dostoyevsky, Charles Dickens and the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard suffered from temporal lobe epilepsy. According to Aristotle, Socrates suffered from epilepsy. The list is long. History is full of geniuses who suffered mental disorders. The point is that we don’t follow them. So let us assume I am also mentally ill. Why should this matter? I don’t have followers. People read what I write and accept or reject it depending on their own criteria. The problem with Muslims is that they blindly follow Muhammad. That’s why Muslim world is insane.

    You say no credible psychologist diagnoses someone whom he has not seen. This is not true. Eric Fromm has diagnosed Hitler as a narcissist without seeing him. Many world leaders have been diagnosed with NPD by famous psychologists without ever seeing them. In my book I have a list of them. Those diagnoses are not made by me.

    Furthermore, you say the only thing that matters is the Quran. But the Quran is full of nonsense, absurdities and blunders. If you want let us talk about the Quran. I asked you to read the article Does the Quran Prohibit Killing and answer it. You answered it only by reading the title. Please read the article and answer it. I’d love to discuss the Quran with you. You are convinced that the Quran has no error. I can show you hundreds of them.

    You say the reason the scholars of Islam don’t debate with me with their real name is because they don’t consider my arguments important. But what I write is changing the way people view Islam and I have led thousands of Muslims leave Islam. Shouldn’t someone disprove me once and for all? Many Muslims have written rebuttals to my arguments but they don’t show up for a debate. One example is Mr. Tabatabaie who wrote his rebuttal four years ago and never sent me a copy so I could respond. When we finally met “face to face” in this site, all he did was to insult me. Another example is your own good self. Obviously you are quite a learned person and I dare to say more than Mr. Tabatabaie. However, you refuse to introduce yourself and debate only anonymously.

    In the last paragraph you said you are willing to answer all my questions about Islam. I am glad to hear that. Let us focus on the Quran now. In your view this book is flawless. I argue it contains hundreds or maybe thousands of errors. Please now answer the article Does the Quran Prohibit Killing. Please post your replies at the bottom of that article, not here. Also if you introduce yourself I will translate your responses into English and publish our discussion as a main article, in a separate page. In this way it will be read by more people.

    All the best

  22. فرزاد says:

    جناب دکتر
    نمی دانم تخصص شما در چه رشته ای است٬‌ اگر شما از ورای هزار و اندی سال نبض آخرین پیامبر خدا را در دست گرفته و مشغول طبابت شده و حکم به انواع امراض روحی و جسمی می کنید پس باید برای ما بسیار راحتر باشد که در باره شما قضاوت کنیم.
    جناب سینا هر انسانی که سطح سواد او کمی بیش از سطح دبیرستان باشد به راحتی می تواند تشخیص دهد که آخرین متنی که شما در جواب من نوشته اید توسط کسی نوشته شده که سلامتی روحی و روانی او به شدت در معرض خطر است و تقریبا از تمام بیماری هایی که در متن از آنها نامبرده رنج می برد توصیه می کنم هر چه زودتر خود را به یک روانپزشک و یک روانکاو حرفه ای نشان دهید و قبل از اینکه خیلی دیر شود معالجه خود را آاغاز کنید.
    برای اثبات بیماری شما همین بس که تاکنون هیچیک از بزرگان تاریخ علم برای قضاوت در باره دیگران خصوصیات جسمی آنها را مد نظر قرار نداده اند بلک به آثار به جا مانده از آنها بسنده کرده اند؛ فرض کنید تمام آن بیماری هایی که به پیامبر خدا ص نسبت داده اید ثابت و مسلم باشد اما آنچه امروز روی میز ما قرار دارد قرآن و کتاب این پیامبر است و مبنای قضاوت بزرگانی که از آنها نامبرده شد و دیگرانی که نامی از آنها نبردیم حداقل از یک زاویه قرآن محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم بوده است نه شخصیت او؛ اگر اثر به جا مانده از پیامبر خدا ص لیاقت و شایستگی تکریم از سوی بزرگان را داشته باشد که دارد و آنها هم به این موضوع اعتراف کرده اند به طور طبیعی ما را به این نتیجه می رساند که صاحب این اثر حداقل از این جهت که بتواند اثری بیافریند که شایسته تکریم است نقصی نداشته است و این موضوع به ما نشان می د هد که قطعا شما در جایی اشتباه کرده اید.
    منشاء‌ این اشتباه دلائل متعددی می تواند داشته باشد٬‌از نوع اتهامات سستی که پیامبر خدا وارد کرده اید به دست می آید که یکی از این دلائل این است که شما ابتدا به نتیجه رسیده و سپس به دنبال پیدا کردن دلیل برای اثبات مدعای خود برآمده اید لذا نتیجه این شده است که اکنون در برابر چشمان ماست.
    و اینکه مدعی هستید ترس از شکست بزرگان دین اسلام را از محاجه و بحث با شما فراری داده است حرف درستی نیست و اگر می بینید کسی به نظرات شما اهمیت چندانی نمی دهد ضعف بسیار شدید آنهاست٬‌شما هرگز نمی توانید یک کودک پنج ساله را با دلایل علمی متقاعد کنید که مثلا فلان خوراکی برای سلامتی او مضر است.
    برای اینکه اثبات کنم شما در اشتباه هستید حاضرم در هر موردی که شما فکر می کنید از تمام موارد مسلم تر و قطعی تر است با شما بحث کنم.

  23. Ali Sina says:

    Mr. Farzad,

    You accuse me of megalomania and self-aggrandizement for saying if the old Muslim sages, such as Hafez and Rumi and also the famous non-Muslim personalities such as Gandhi and Bernard Shaw knew what I know they would never have praised Islam.

    Where I made that claim I also wrote a disclaimer that this is not because I am smarter than others, but because I am fortuitously positioned to see things others could not. I have access to modern psychology as well as good knowledge of the biography of Muhammad, which allows me to see him from a perspective that few had the chance to see.

    For old Muslim sages, Muhammad was an enigma. He did things that are evidence of his sincerity. So we can’t dismiss him totally as a liar. He lied when is suited him, but unlike ordinary people he believed in his lies. This is incomprehensible for normal people. But Muhammad was no ordinary person. He suffered from narcissistic personality disorder, a mental condition that was only discovered in the last few decades. Even though Freud and Alfred Adler have written about it, the term "narcissistic personality structure" was introduced by Kernberg in 1967 and "narcissistic personality disorder" was first proposed by Heinz Kohut in 1968.

    Muhammad also suffered from Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. The first to suspect this was Halima, his wet nurse, or her husband Harith, when Muhammad was just five years old. Theophanous, (752-817) a Byzantine historian was the first recorded scholar to claim that Muhammad suffered from epilepsy. Today, we can confirm that claim.
    Recently, several people diagnosed Muhammad of suffering from achromegaly. I studied the physical characteristics of Muhammad recorded in his biographies and compared them to this disease and found the claim to be true. You can find more about that in my book.

    I also suspected that Muhammad may have suffered from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. My research proved me right. You can also find the evidence in my book. Muhammad also suffered from impotence. I have shown that too.

    I did not do these discoveries because I am smarter, but because I did a research on them. That is all. Anybody could have come to the same conclusion if they dedicated some time to do research. Hafez and Rumi obviously were not in a position to make that kind of research. These sciences did not exist in those days. The modern Muslims and those who have praised Muhammad take his “greatness” for granted without doing any independent research. They all commit the fallacy of argumentum and numnerum, argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad antiquitatem. In other words they accept Muhammad to be a great man because 1.5 billion people love him and follow him and because his religion has lasted for 1400 years. These are all fallacies. If these people do the same kind of research I did they would certainly come to the same conclusion I came. I don’t claim to be smarter than others, but I blame those who praise Muhammad of intellectual laziness. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. Where are they? Why they don’t come forth? Those who come do so anonymously lest they are defeated and embarrassed.

    I found something that few have – not because I am smarter but because I paid attention. You think I am wrong. Prove me wrong.

    Once the knowledge about Muhammad spreads, Muslims will leave Islam. You may not be among them because I suspect your livelihood depends on Islam. But ordinary people that have no vested interest in this faith will not be able to fool themselves any longer. Islam will fall once Muslims learn the truth. And yes I have a share in that. I have shed some light on the mind of this sick man that is crucial in understanding him.

  24. فرزاد says:

    Here is my response to you Mr. Farzad

    جناب سینا

    هدف از بیان نقل قول های بالا در مورد قرآن این نکته بود که نشان دهم چقدر فرق است بین انسان فرهیخته و با انصاف و بین انسانی که نفرت و دشمنی وجود او را احاطه کرده است؛ اینکه انیشتین یا دیگری یا سومی چه اعتقاداتی داشته اصلا مهم نیست مهم این است که وقتی با کتابی مثل قرآن مواجه می شود اگر عیب و نقصی در آن می بیند حسن و ارزشهای آن را نیز می بیند و اینقدر آزاده است که به راحتی اعتراف کند این کتاب کتاب بزرگی است و دارای ویژگیهای مثبتی است ٬‌البته جواب شما به این مطلب کاملا روشن؛ شما به راحتی ادعا خواهید کرده که اگر تمام کسانی که از آنها نقل قول شد اگر اطلاعات گسترده شما را داشتند هرگز در تایید قرآن حرفی نمی زدند کما اینکه اگر حافظ و مولوی و سعدی و هزاران فرهیخته دیگر پیامبر مکرم خدا را مانند شما می شناختند هرگز به شاگردی او افتخار نمی کردند!‌ ببنید چقدر خوتان را تحویل می گیرید!؟ فکر نمی کنید باید راهی پیدا کرد تا دنیای امروز شما را بشناسد و خدای ناکرده از فیض وجود دانشمندی که تاریخ نظیر آن را به خود ندیده است محروم بماند! به هر حال شما مدعی هستید که احدی در طول تاریخ نتوانسته به سطح علمی شما برسد و این چنین کشفیات بزرگی که شما به آن نائل شده اید را درک و هضم کند٬ کسی که خود را استاد بزرگان فرهنگ و ادب فارسی بلکه سرور دانشمندان جهان می داند کم انسانی نیست و باید مورد توجه قرار کیرد! لطفاکمی به خود آیید سطح پروازی خود را کمی پایین تر بیاورید تا آب معارف واقعی به وجود شما دسترسی پیدا کند بلکه شاید قطره ای از معرفتی که نصیب امثال مولوی و حافظ شده بر شما هم ببارد.

    افتادگی آموز اگر طالب فیضی

    هرگز نخورد آب زمینی که بلند است

  25. Sanada_10 says:

    That's not what I mean. I was talking about your human nature. Human always see god from his/her own viewpoint. This is a mistake. The very nature of god who punishes and rewards people came from this human nature.

    Why don't you put another wager? If god exists then:

    1. All of humans irrespective of religions will be either saved or doomed. It's god after all, it can do what it wishes.
    2. Humans who got lured by "existing" religions will be doomed because it's a test to know "god's nature" without being "tricked" by ours. This statement is backed by the behavior of god itself, always hiding.

    You can't prove religion with this method but you can dismiss religion which clearly has many mistakes.

  26. Maruf says:

    Dear Sanada_10,

    You said ""When you put your self as a judge you had done a mistake"""

    I will judge after studying the existing religions. Because all the materials are in front of me. At least I have to do that. and I think every person require to do that. If you have other idea that's up to you. We are different persons. Nobody will bear the burden of others if God Exists. If God do not exists then irrespective of religious or atheists everybody is same destined.

  27. Sanada_10 says:

    So basically you are saying that Jesus actually taught reincarnation? I have few questions on this one:

    1. Is there any "original" teaching that verify this?
    2. Is there any evidence that the disciple of Jesus belief in it? John 9:1-2 doesn't show that belief, only curiosity.

  28. John K says:

    That's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about what people do to attack religion. It has no bearing on the effect on religion or its adherents.

  29. everin says:

    "It becomes superstition when it is used as a club to berate religion" is only yr misconception. A true religion can stand all criticism.

  30. everin says:

    U still have not answered the question on how a physical body can fly to the spiritual world in yr web of Judeo-Christian reasoning. And u had ignored the Calton's story. Jesus was a simple man n could not talk things in a figurative manner. His audience were all simple folks.

  31. everin says:

    @ JOHN K, If resurrected, Jesus could not fly to the kindom of God, the Holy Spirit in a PHYSICAL FORM.
    Jesus had said " Unless u are born again, u cannot see the kingdom of God ".
    That is to say when u die n be born again as a spirit, then only u can see the Kingdom of God. People in Out-Of-Body Experiences sometimes can see God, Buddha or Jesus or other Deities,, as in the case of Calton who had seen Jesus, Peter n John in the kingdom of God n came back to tell it all. Only spirits can go to the Dimension ( kingdom ) of the Holy Spirit.

  32. John K says:

    Hi Charlie,

    I'm not sure why you have such difficulty with biblical teachings. Is it cultural because you are not exposed to the Bible much in your country?

    Jesus was talking about baptism being a form of rebirth, the death of the man of sin and the rebirth of a new man in Christ. This is all figurative and has nothing to due with physical death, hence the confused response in the story.

    Judeo-Christian religion has strong traditions concerning resurrection. It was a point of controversy recorded in the Bible among some who disputed concerning Jesus' teachings.

  33. everin says:

    If resurrected, Jesus could not travel to the kingdom of God in a physical form.
    Jesus had said " Unless u are born again, u cannot see the kingdom of God ".
    That is to say when u die n be born again as a spirit, then only u can see the Kingdom of God. People in Out-Of-Body Experiences sometimes can see God, Buddha or Jesus or other deities,, as in the case of Calton who had seen Jesus, Peter n John in the kingdom of God n came back to tell it all. Only spirits can go to the kingdom of the Holy Spirit.

  34. John K says:

    Joke I know. But still proof spirit time travel doesn't work.

  35. everin says:

    Law of Karma = You will not get what do not deserve. The winning-numbers story was meant to be a joke. Hahaha ! Yes , spirit can do time travel.

  36. John K says:

    Ha ha ha Charlie! You are free entertainment!

  37. John K says:

    Ha! Do you have any proof there is no Judgement Day and no Resurrection? Do you have proof Jesus was not resurrected?

  38. John K says:

    First they were talking about out-of-body travel, but now it has progressed to time travel.

  39. John K says:

    Yeah. If it were real, everybody who believes in this would spend all their time practicing to get the winning numbers. Since no one has won, I guess the belief isn't true.

  40. everin says:

    @John K . She was right n u, still doubtful as ever. U still believe in the resurrection of the dead on Judgement Day, just like the Muslims do ? Do u have any proof of resurrection. Even the resurrection of Jesus was a myth. Some scientists belived Jesus was resuscitated instead of resurrected.

  41. everin says:

    Some of those 40 authors had tried to be cleverer than Jesus. Read Head and Cranston, 1967 re- the meeting of the Second of Constinople in 553 A.D., in which The Pope n other Church leaders had decided that reincarnation was not good for the people to know n this concept should not be preached by the Church. Fortunately. one of Jesus' teachings still recorded in John 9: 1-2. They added another meaningless verse in John 9: 3 to muddle it up. Please no more beating around the bushes re this matter, John K.

  42. Sanada_10 says:

    You mean Déjà vu?

  43. everin says:

    >This proves that every human has a spirit attached to him/her. The scientists, including John K, never believe this phenomena, unless they experience it themselves. Nex time try to fly away as far as u can n see the results of a future lottery draw n remember the numbers.
    Click OUT-OF-BODY n Near-Death Experiences n u will know more.
    When I was 20 + , I had a few short dreams about future events about myself which later proved to be true. Unfortunely, I did not see any winning numders. Hahaha.

  44. Sanada_10 says:

    The question then arises. That act was regulated by Muhammad, the very best example of humanity who had a very superb morality, well at least, it’s supposed to be like that. It was surely practiced in his time and after his death including in country which has a very strict sharia law. This is the core of the law regarding adultery and since Muhammad claimed to be the last prophet and made the last law then this act should be the best standard for all time including ours.

  45. John K says:

    You should be ashamed of your ignorance Maruf. It makes you look bad in public when you say things like that.

  46. John K says:

    You must be kidding Maruf. Palestinians are occupying Israeli land. Palestinians are mostly Jordanians and Egyptians. Dr. Sina has an article on this site about it. Go read it.

  47. Maruf says:

    What a Joke ""February 2001 Israel sent an fully-equipped field hospital, staffed by doctors and nurses, to assist in treating victims of an earthquake in Gujarat"""

    Israel has occupied palestinian land, killed more than 47000 muslims in palestine and making a joke by sending hospital.

  48. Maruf says:

    It is in Quaran I know but not applied by any country.

  49. Arya Anand says:

    I think though we can reject reincarnation outright but not karma. There is cause and effect principle working in our universe. The term Karma just means cause and effect. We cannot also reject the possibility of life after death in some other way like life in spiritual realm. We bear the fruits of our deeds. So whatever we do here in this physical world has its effect not only in this life as we see it but also in the spiritual life or life that we will have in other dimension after our death in this world. It is only a philosophy and there is no proof for it.

  50. John K says:

    It's not on that level, Jason. The Big Bang is a theory. Like all scientific theories, it is subject to being superceded or modified, but a considerable amount of work has been invested in the math and modeling. The math only starts to break down in the fraction of a second after the bang. That's a tremendous accomplishment to have gotten that close. If you look at Dr. Sina's other article on the Big Bang, you will need a new model has emerged that solves some of the problems. If it turns out to be valid and supercedes the Big Bang, it doesn't change many of the essential things that are known about reality. We are always learning more, and there is so much more to learn, but a rigorous scientific theory is far from a superstition. It becomes superstition when it is used as a club to berate religion.

  51. John K says:

    Haven't seen any proof.

  52. Jason says:

    1) All the races in the world were the decesdants of Adam n Eve. 2) Noah's Ark. 3) The earth was created in 7 days. 4) Jesus was the son of God ? And many other stories.

  53. Jason says:

    So is the Big Bang theory of creation !

  54. Sanada_10 says:

    It's in the Quran, Maruf.

  55. John K says:

    Well, there is no evidence, but they cannot be disproven either. I don't mind people expressing a religious faith in them, but I can't agree when people cite evidence for them.

  56. John K says:

    What? Don't you read the news? Don't you live in a Muslim country? You are the one being blind as a fish!

  57. John K says:

    You are really way off on this Maruf.

    The statistics for rape in the West are very, very low percentage-wise in regards to the population. Furthermore, you may be interested to know that in some Western cities, 100% of the rapes are committed by Muslims as they exercise what they perceive is their right over the unbelievers.

    On the other hand, in Muslim countries, rapes are routinely committed as a part of the culture, again, as a manifestation of their feeling of rights, and often inflicted as a shura council punishment, or honor revenge, or just for being out without a hijab. Look at this recent article. Pakistan is the third worst country for women. Why? Because of Islam, of course:

  58. Ali Sina says:

    Here is my response to you Mr. Farzad

  59. Maruf says:

    You said """Furthermore, Muslim women cannot report having been raped because according to Islamic law they must either have four male witnesses or they can be punished""".

    You are giving wrong information. How many Muslim countries has implemented this Islamic rule? Muslim country's courts dont follow this rule of witness. You are trying to hide the truth. You are acting as a slippy fish to avoid catching.

  60. Maruf says:

    Dear Ali Sina,

    I want to say in Muslim countries the rape stats is far far low then the west.
    How many Muslims have been punished in West for rape, can you provide with authentic official data. The links you provided is anti Muslim websites. No reliable data. You are trying to hide a real truth. I have given you authentic US official data. Summery 1 of every 6 woman and 1 of every 4 college girl experienced sexual assaults. Every minutes 2.27 rapes. Looks fine. Very technologically raped advanced country.

  61. Nastika says:

    Reincarnation and Karma are superstitions.There's no scientific evidence for these beliefs.They should be discarded and ridiculed as all other belief systems.

  62. everin says:

    @ John K, Many of the bible stories were proven to be scientifically wrong. What more u have to say, man ?

  63. فرزاد says:

    بدون شرح

    Quran in sayings of Non-Muslim Scholars

    Quran is a book which guides human beings in several dimensions of life and nobody can deny it an its several special charactenstics and everybody may use it according to his capacity, here we want to talk about different viewpoints of non-Moslem scholars about Quran which show that the divine trainings of this book will soon spread through the world. Of course it should be mentioned that every scholar has looked at Quran from his own point of view and has not been able to discover all characteristics and deepness of its trainings.

    1) Albert Einstein (1979-1955):

    Quran is not a book of algebra or geometry but is a collection of rules which guides human beings to the right way, the way which the greatest philosophers are unable to decline it.

    2) Will Dorant (born in 1885):

    Religious treatments in Quran contain worldly treatment too and all of its affairs are sent from Allah by revelation. Quran contains rules such as: good manners, healthiness, marriage, divorce, treatments with children and animals and slaves, commercials, politics, unlawful profit, debt, contracts, recommendations, industrial affairs, wealth, amercments and punishments and war and peace. Quran creates simple beliefs in simple souls, which are free from bad traditions and worship of idols. Quran has established principles of union discipline and social unity between Moslems.

    3) Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1721):

    Quran takes the responsibility of man prosperity alone. I hope it will not be too late that time which I can unite all the scholars of all the countries together and establish a monotone society based on principles of Quran only which will guide people to prosperity.

    4) Gandhi (1869-1948):

    By learning Quran, every body will achieve revelation secrets and religion knowledge. In Quran we don t see anything which allows using obligation to change others religion. This sacred book says in the simplest way: there is no obligation in religion.

    5) Dr. Johan Wolfgang Von Goethe (German Poet): In 1832 said,

    for long years, priests prevented us understanding Quran realities and greatness of its bringer, but by improvement of sciences this book will take human attention to it and become axis of thoughts.

    6) Lion Tolstue (Russian philosopher):

    Quran contains clear realties and tenets and human beings can utilize it generally.

    7) Bernard Shaw (English philosopher):

    He foretells that Europe will accept religion and book of Mohammad (PBUH).

    8) DR. Marks (1818-1883):

    Quran contains all divine messages, which exist in all sacred books for all nations. There are verses in Quran that relates to learning science and thinking and discussing and training and I confess that this firm book has corrected many of the man mistakes.

    9) Dr Shebly Shommyel (1853-1917) (Special student of Darvin):

    Prophet of Islam took attentions of human being wisdom towards him by Quran eloquence and made them unconscious against his book.

    10) Charles Francis (American professor):

    Bible is a book which no one knows in America but Quran is a book which every Moslim knows and it is not a lie. But it should be mentioned that being unaware of bible is a good luck for religion.

    11) P.H Corbin (France contemporary Islam knower):

    If Mohammad (PBUH) thought was superstitious and Quran was not revelation, he never dared to invite man to science. No thought and no person has invited human beings to science as Mohammad did. As we see that it has talked about science 950 times.

    Of course, the quotations which are mentioned above are very little because of the briefness of this article, so we don’t refer to all of them and suggest the researches to research references

    Other Useful links:

    The Twin messages of Quran

    Searching for scientific facts in the Qur’an

    Scientific exegesis of the Qur’an a viable project

    البته مطالب بالا و نظرات همانهایی که علی سینا نظر آنها را مهم می شمارد چندان عجیب نیست بلکه عجیت این است که علی سینا نظر خود در مقابل نظراین بزرگان را ناشی از خود شیفتگی افراطی نمی داند و دائما چرندیات و خزعبلاتی را که از حفظ کرده طوطی وار باز تکرار می کند و البته این حالت از کسی که قلب او ازنفرت و دشمنی کور شده چیز عجیبی نیست.

  64. Sanada_10 says:

    Prevention is far better than solution. With this you won't need to experience that anymore.

  65. John K says:

    Cannot be proven is not the same as disproven. There are 7 or 8 contemporary scholarly schools of thought on biblical criticism, only one of which considers it a complete fabrication.

    I also posted for you a post from Ali Sina on how to approach the Bible in another thread.

  66. everin says:

    According to Wikipedia he was born a prince, not an Hindu. When he left the palace, he went to stay with some sages for a while, but he was dissatisfied with their teachings n left to seek enlightenment.
    He meditated under a bodhi tree n found it. the Hindu people then revered him as a god. I don't think he needed to borrow any doctrine from nobody.

  67. everin says:

    U need rocket science to convince u. They were so many bible stories that cannot be proven n yet u believe them. what an irony ?

  68. John K says:

    Now that's a new one. Spanish name and writes Chinese!

    I don't think Dr. Sina would go along with it….

  69. El Padrino says:

    My above comment is meant for Grace

  70. El Padrino says:


  71. El Padrino says:

    I believe you but why prevent it when you can just go with the flow.

  72. Sanada_10 says:

    Believe me or not, I'd been experiencing that too until I found a way to prevent it. It doesn't happen anymore for months now.

  73. John K says:

    Ali Sina has a good explanation here:

    "Muhammad claimed that his book is the verbatim words of God. Since God is infallible and cannot make even one mistake, if we find one error in the Quran it proves that Muhammad lied. We have found hundreds of errors in that book, if not thousands.

    The Bible does not claim to be the verbatim word of God. If you read the Bible you’ll see that it is a narrative of different people, written by humans. According to the believers of the Bible the authors of that book were inspired. This is not the same as to say I have brought a textual message from God. I can watch a beautiful scene, become inspired and go home and draw it or compose a poetry describing it. I am interpreting my own experience. Of course my experience is subjective. The authors of the Bible claimed they were inspired, but in nowhere they said that any part of that book is verbatim words of God. The Bible does not say it is the exacts word of God, but a message from God.

    So if there are errors in the Bible, one can attribute them to the fallibility of those who wrote it. The enlightened Christians do not get boggled by the words, but by the mesage of the Bible. The Bible was written by about 40 individuals whose names are recorded. However, the gist of the message of all of them is the same, which is diametrically opposed to the message of the Quran."

  74. John K says:

    That would be theory, not proof though. There is no way to design a scientific experiment to test the theory.

  75. Sanada_10 says:

    Human civilization from the beginning had the capability to question. That's why many beliefs exist.

    Yes, I know your answer would be like that and I know too that this thinking is rather "selfish" in the sense of morality. But religion (not all) ironically uses this to create followers.

    Now, I'll ask again, "why do you love yourself first?". If we implement this in moral teaching of religions we will get minus point.

    God is not relative therefore there is no statement like "real religion is not 100 % true" and of course there is no lab for that since religion is just a belief and a compilation of books. What can you do about that? The real problem is the content of the book. Islam is clearly man made and has many scientific errors. It makes sense only if you put a mortal as its author.

    Now, back to your wager. I've told you that you are limiting the wager. How about that? When you put your self as a judge you had done a mistake. You would use your limited view as a human to judge god's so called behavior, you would make god like a human. This is where the real problem comes.

  76. everin says:

    @ John K n Arya Anand,____Further indications of reincarnation are in people who have irrational fear of fire, water in the sea, pond, or river, height, confined space, strangers, etc.,etc. Their fear were rooted at the time of their deaths in past lives. They met their deaths as they were were burnt, drowned, fell from high places, locked in a cell, or attacked by strangers, etc.etc. Sometimes, some people were born with scar marks, indication of the injuries they received in their previous lives.________________________________________________

  77. El Padrino says:

    John K,here's the thing…all of us have "woken up" in bed and found ourselves not being able to move our body,you feel paralysed & helpless.Simply put,your mind is awake but your body is still asleep.Tremendous fear sets in once you find yourself unable to move,this why the old people say they were "choked by ghosts".
    Here's a simple solution when you find yourself in such a predicament:
    1.Don't try to move your body physically,after all it's still asleep.
    2.Mentally get out of bed.In other words…Visualize yourself rolling out of bed & you'll instantly "disconnect" from your body.
    3.Now explore your surroundings.To reconnect with your body again just think of it & you'll snap back in an instant.

  78. El Padrino says:

    Yes,I experienced that many times in the past but not so much recently.No I did not see any "dead" relatives but all I could do was walk around in my own house,maybe the back & front yards.It's extremely scary at first,especially when you're looking but at your body lying in bed but the more you do it,the easier & freer you feel.
    The only God I saw was in a lucid dream where I got a visit about 4 times.

  79. everin says:

    I thought The bible should be based on Jesus' teachings n not the other way round. So the authors who wrote the bible according to their own agendas ( read Head and Cranston, 1967 ). Don't muddle up Jesus' teachings. No wonder Dr, Albert Einstein had said the holy books were so confused n ill-informed.
    All who doubt reincarnation, click "reincarnation evidence" n u will have all the evidence esp. the video types. There are aslo many books written on the subject in the market. Go n read them.

  80. Ali Sina says:

    You quoted Gustav Le Bon who vilified the Jews. Le Bon was a favorite source for Hitler and Mussolini. Of course you’d love him just as these two criminals did. Is there anything Hitler did that you don’t like? Of course not! Hitler was an admirer of Muhammad and regretted that Germany was not an Islamic country.

    The fact that Le Bon calls the Jews savages does not make them so. We see them at the forefront of our civilization. On the other hand Muslims are true savages. Don’t you have eyes to see what is happening in the world? Jews are the major contributors to science and art while Muslims are engulfed in poverty, dictatorship, barbarity and incivility. Who do you want to fool? Truth is manifest like the sun. Why should I care what a racist like Le Bon says when I have eyes to see?

    You say Iran is a prosperous country and all the bad press we hear about it is just that. So are you saying those millions of Iranians who poured into the street to ask for their freedom are all computer generated and not true people? Hundreds of people were shot and killed during the demonstrations. How many civilized countries open fire on their citizen for demanding freedom? Thirty three years is not enough? During these years South Korea and India have become major world powers whereas they were far behind Iran in 1979. Neither of these two countries has oil. Foreign banks are full of the money that the mullahs have stolen from the people. This is all because of Islam.

    The two verses that you quotes are what I was going to quote to show that the hatred between Jews and Muslims is one sided. It starts with Muhammad and Jews have no part in it. They are the victims of this hatred. And this is precisely my point. This hatred will not go away unless Islam is eradicated and Muslims are set free from the bondage of Islamic lies and deception. This war in the Middle East is because of the sick mind of Muhammad. We have no other chance but to get rid of Islam. And I am doing it. With truth I am demolishing this tall edifice of lies. The fall of Islam is imminent.

  81. Ali Sina says:

    As you see the reason the Jews are richer is because you buy their products. Why don't you stop using their products. You know why. It's because you need them. Isn't it hypocrisy to blame the Jews for being richer and continue enriching them by buying their products. Doesn't Khamanei use a pacer? That is made by the Jews. That shameless man is alive thanks to the Jewish invention and still hates them Jews.

    You are obviously an intelligent man and yet you are incapable of joining the dots and seeing why the Jews are wealthy. They are wealthy because you use what they make. It's Islam that has blinded you. Otherwise you'd be able to see what I see.

    I don't see the Jews as superior or as malicious people who somehow have found a way to control the world. How stupid is that claim? How can 14 million people control 7 billion people? This means every Jew is controlling 500 people. Gosh if that is so you really must worship the Jews for they must be way superior to you. How silly is that claim?

    No my dear. The Jews are in control of nothing. But they are wealthy because they use their brain. Their brain is not superior to ours. In fact I argue that most of them are pretty dumb. The majority of the Jews voted for Obama and still support this criminal anti Jew. Obama has the same kind of sympathy that you have about the Jews and the Jews were so stupid that over 90% of them voted for this fraud. So you see? They are not smart. But they use their brain to invent and to discover and you and I need what they invent and discover. We buy their products and we make them rich. Why can't we do the same? We can, but we must first leave Islam and clean our brain from this disease.

  82. Ali Sina says:

    I will stand on the side of justice and truth and I will defend the Jews, the Christians or any other religion against Islam because I know it is Islam that is at fault; it is Islam that promotes hate and violence; it is Islam that divides mankind. I am an atheist but my fight is not against any religion. My fight is against Islam not because it is a religion but because it creates people like you who are filled with hatred.
    You keep asking why the Jews control the world. I answered this question several time. You refuse to listen because you are filled with hate. Let me give you one example. There is one man I intensely dislike and that is Michel Bloomberg. He is a shameless traitor and a Jew. I dislike him because he is cozying up to Muslims to sell his products. He sells a piece of software that analyzes the stock market and it is a great help for traders and investors. It is very expensive. But supposedly it must be good. In 2008 he sold 5 billion dollars of this product only to Arab nations. That is a lot of money. That is why he cozy up to Muslims. But he is a Jew. A shameless Jew! Nonetheless a Jew! Who is enriching him? Muslims? There you have your answer. Jews make products that everyone needs. You too are responsible for enriching the Jews.

    Since you hate the Jews and are angry that they are rich, I advise you to boycott anything made by the Jews. But do it right. To help you, I enlist all the products that are made by the Jews and you should avoid.

    Make sure that you do not have tablets, drops, lotions, etc., made by Abic or Teva.
    It may mean that you will suffer from colds and flu this winter but, hey, that's a small price for you to pay in your campaign against Israel.
    An Israeli company has developed a simple blood test that distinguishes between mild and more severe cases of Multiple Sclerosis.
    So, if you know anyone suffering from MS, tell them to ignore the Israeli patent that may, more accurately, diagnose their symptoms.
    An Israeli-made device helps restore the use of paralysed hands. This device electrically stimulates the hand muscles, providing hope to millions of stroke sufferers and victims of spinal injuries.
    If you wish to remove this hope of a better quality of life to these people, go ahead and boycott Israel.
    Young children with breathing problems will soon be sleeping more soundly, thanks to a new Israeli device called the Child Hood.
    This innovation replaces the inhalation mask with an improved drug delivery system that provides relief for child and parent.
    Please tell anxious mothers that they shouldn't use this device because of your passionate cause.

  83. Ali Sina says:

    You accuse me of engaging in fallacy when I say all the evil things in the Islamic world are caused by Islam, whereas the greatness in Islamic world has nothing to do with Islam. This is not a fallacy. It is a fact. Misogyny, wife beating and denigration of women prevalent in all Islamic world is because of Islam. Human rights abuses, discrimination against religious minority and violation of their human rights is thanks to Islam. Pedophilia (bache bazi) and child marriage is due to Islam. Dictatorship and lack of democracy is the fruit of Islam. Unproductivity and waste productive time in praying instead of working and the waste of human resources of women, is the result of Islam. Suffocation of critical thinking is also thanks to Islam. All these contribute to keep the Islamic societies backward, abusive and ignorant. I can clearly pinpoint to the negative influence of Islam in the Islamic world. Can you tell me about its positive influences? Don’t be vague and don’t make unsubstantiated claims such as the Golden Age of Islam was because of the teachings of Islam. No it wasn’t! It was because of the loot and the wealth stolen from Persia, Egypt, India, South Italy and Spain. Islam has given nothing to mankind except war and bloodshed. It has brought nothing but misery. A good example is Iran. After more than 32 years and so much wealth bubbling from underground, this country is a third world country and is the number one abuser of human rights. Its Muslim rulers butcher its population with no shame. This is Islam for you. You want me to respect this filth?

    You said the Quran is a book of guidance and not a book of science. In that case why do you insist that Islam has been a factor in the advancement of science? I don’t expect the Quran to be a book of science. But please do not say Muslim thinkers and scientists were the products of Islam. Let us agree that the Quran is a book of guidance. Now the question is whether it guides mankind to good deeds or to evil and hate. That is something we can discuss.

    In your previous email you accused the Jews of controlling the world and asked why they are the wealthiest people. As a Muslim you can’t see the truth and are filled with hatred of the Jews. I explained that the Jews are not controlling anything. And the reason they are wealthier is because they went after science and business. The disproportionate number of Jewish scientists is the answer to your quandary. The reason they are wealthier is because you use their products. From Intel microchip to the pacemaker, to Microsoft Windows and thousands of other products that you use on daily basis are made in Israel or by the Jews.

    You say because I defended the Jews against your baseless hatred I must be Jew. No! I am not a Jew. I am born to Muslim parents and on my mother side I am a syyed, As far as I know there is no Jew in my genes. However, unlike you I am not blinded by hatred. I can clearly see it is not the Jews who hate Muslims but it is the Muslims who hate the Jews. The reason for this hatred is Muhammad. That man was a narcissist and cursed the Jews for not believing him. If you want to understand the source of this hatred in him you have to read my book. Once you know Muhammad psychologically you will understand everything about him.

    I have no enmity with the Jews just as I have no enmity with Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, Bahais or any other people. I stand on the side of goodness and I am racially blind. I don’t give a damn what is the color of the people or what religion they believe. It’s goodness that I defend and I see no goodness in Islam. It is a religion of hate. You call me a Jew just because I defended them. This is proof of your hatred against the Jews. Imagine the result. Anyone standing on the side of righteousness and human rights of the Jews or any minority in an Islamic country was accused of being a Jew or a Christian and was persecuted. As the result even good people were afraid to speak out and defend the oppressed. This is the clear example of how Islam converts the Muslims into a evil beings.

  84. Ali Sina says:

    Mr. Farzad.

    You wrote;

    مشک آن است که خود ببوید / نه آنکه عطار بگوی

    This verse is precisely my response to you. If Ali and Ja’far had any virtue, the world would have recognized them. But they are completely ignored. The only people who praise them are Shiites. Now, attar or perfume vendor has an interest to praise the fragrance of his perfume. He cannot be considered unbiased. Likewise, believers cannot be considered unbiased when praising the holy figures of their religion. Ali is ignored even by the Sunnis. He is nobody in the field of knowledge. I read a few pages of Nahjul Balagheh. This book is just as asinine as the Quran. Only you see eloquence and beauty in that book because you have faith in Ali. Faith is blind. When I was a believer I used to give talks about Imam Hussein and praise him to the heavens. Now I know better. At that time I was a believer and blind.

    There is no contradiction in what I said. I said if Ali and Ja’far were great their greatness would have been discovered by thinking people of the world. And I said the opinions of the believers don’t count. If I tell you I am the smartest person in the world and name my mommy as the only witness you have reason to not believe me. Show me someone unbiased who thinks Ali is great, not a Shiite who thinks Ali is almost God.

    You say that the great Muslim thinkers are the product of Islam. This is not true. If Islam could produce great thinkers why the nations that are more Islamic are less civilized and poorer? If it were not for oil all the Arab countries would be in abject poverty. They are not producing anything that the world needs.

    Furthermore, show me how Islam has been a direct influence in giving birth to Muslim scientists and thinkers? Do you find any algebra, chemistry, physics of medicine in the Quran? In what ways Islam has made Hafez and Sa’di? They were Muslims because they were born in a Muslim country. Can we say Einstein owed his knowledge to Judaism or Galileo is a product of Christianity? The scientists that were Jews and Christians outnumber those of Islam and yet we never hear the Jews and Christians try to credit their religions for them. Only Muslims engage in this fallacy. This is another indication of the intellectual bankruptcy of the ummah.

    You expressed your surprise why I dislike the word kofr and kafir and explained kofr means hiding the truth or denying the truth. Isn’t that enough reason to consider this word derogatory? To say we are believers and the rest of the world is hiding the truth is an insult. We don’t deny the truth. We reject your claim say Islam is false. Better words are unbeliever, irreligious and atheist (In Persian, bi deen or bi khoda). These words are descriptive, while kafir is derogatory.

    You say my enmity to Islam is because I am biased, unfair, and ignorant of Islam and even a narcissist. I have written extensively on Islam and in hundreds of articles I have proven that Islam is a lie. I have issued a challenge that should any person prove me wrong I will withdraw my claim against Islam, announce publicly that I have been corrected and will even donate $50,000 to the person who proves me wrong or will give it to the charity of his choice. Now if you think you are up to it, “in gooyo in meydaan.” Why don’t you refute one of my articles? Let us start with the one I asked you to refute, Dose the Quran Prohibit Killing. Read the article, not just the title.

    What I have found about Islam is changing the views of millions. Thousands of Muslims have written to me and thanked me for opening their eyes. Millions have seen the truth either by reading my articles or through those who have been influenced by them in one way or another. Leaving Islam and opposition to it has been transformed into a worldwide movement. You keep saying I am biased and blinded by hate. Or course I am biased and I do hate Islam. But I am not unfair or blinded. Prove me wrong and I will acknowledge I have been mistaken.

  85. فرزاد says:

    1-اشاره کردید یکی از نشانه های بزرگی افراد توجه سایر متفکران و فیلسوفان به آنهاست٬‌ اولا مشک آن است که خود ببوید / نه آنکه عطار بگوید ثانیا همین مقدار در بزرگی علی بس که افرادی چون حافظ و سعدی و مولوی که افتخار بشیریت اند افتخار می کنند که بنده ای از بندگان علی بن ابیطالب باشند و این چیزی نیست که قابل انکار باشد.
    2- ببینید چطور در دو پارگراف نزدیک به هم نمی توانید متناقض حرف نزنید در یک قسمت مدعی می شوید که بزرگی افراد را باید از توجه نخبگان به آنها فهمید و در قسمت بعد به راحتی این ادعای خود را نقض کرده مدعی می شوید دلیل توجه بزرگان و عقلای مسلمین به پیامبر خدا صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم را ناشی از ناآگاهی آنها می دانید این از یک طرف٬‌از طرف دیگر بار دیگر تکرار می کنم من ادعا نکردم که بزرگانی چون حافظ و سعدی دلیل حقانیت اسلام اند بلکه ادعا این است که این بزرگان محصول مستقیم قرآن و معارف اسلام اند یعنی اگر قرآن نبود آنها نهایتا یکی می شدند مانند ایرج میرزا به عبارت خلاصه تر حافظ و سعدی و مولوی و بسیاری دیگر چکیده قرآن و اسلام اند٬‌ امیدوارم متوجه مطلب به این روشنی بشوید.
    3-در دو مطلب بالا نشان دادم که سفسطه یابی شما بی جا بوده و تنها برای فرار از تنگنای بحث به آن متوسل شده اید.
    4- واژه کفر در فرهنگ ما هیچ بار معنایی منفی ندارد و تنها عنوانی است برای گروهی از مردم که به بعضی از امور اعتقاد ندارند٬ کفر به معنای پوشاندن و کافر به کسی اطلاق می شود که حق یا قسمتی از حق را بپوشاند٬‌ البته در تجارب قبلی که داشته ام متوجه حساسیت منکرین خدا و اسلام روی این لغت شده ام و تا به امروز دلیل آن را متوجه نشده ام البته احتمال می دهم این لغت در فرهنگ غرب بار منفی بسیار زیادی داشته باشد. در ضمن من متوجه نشدم چرا تقسیم بندی انسانها بر اساس عقایدشان نشان از عدم اعتقاد به آزادی عقیده است٬‌ گروهی مسلمان اند عده ای دیگر مسیحی اند و گروه بعدی بودایی و …. و خیلی طبیعی است که دسته ای نیز هیچ اعتقادی نداشته باشند و طبیعتا لازم است عنوانی برای این گروه انتخاب شود و این عنوان هر لغتی می تواند باشد که کفر و کافر هم لغتی از لغات هستند که بار رساندن این مفهوم را به دوش کشیده اند همین و بس و شما هم می توانید اسلام را کفر بنامید چرا که اسلام هم به نوعی روی بی خردی می پوشاند.
    درضمن در اسلام کسی به خاطر کفرش کشته نشده و نمی شود در اسلام آزادی عقیده وجود دارد آنچه در اسلام ممنوع است آزادی بیان به منظور ایجاد رخنه در جامعه مسلمین است که البته جای بحث این موضوع در اینجا نیست.
    5- همانطور که بارها اشاره کردم من دلیل حقانیت اسلام را تعداد طرفداران آن و یا … نمی دانم و توضیح این موضوع را در مطالب بالا دادم.
    6- در موارد متعددی نشان دادم که دشمنی شما یک دشمنی آگاهانه نیست و متاسفانه از انصاف در وجود شما خبری نیست و همین مقدار که خود را انسان فرهیخته ای می دانید که به دلیل این صفت دشمن اسلام شده است در حالیکه هزاران و شاید میلیونها انسان با تحصیلات عالی اسلام را دین کاملی می دانند و هیچ دشمنی با ‌آن ندارند٬‌ این مطلب را آشکار می کند که شما به طور افراطی انسان خود شیفته ای هستید و فکر می کنید که مطالبی را کشف کرده اید که دیگران قبلا آن را ندیده اند و مدعی می شوید اگر حتی حافظ وسعدی اطلاعات شما را داشتند! دشمن اسلام می شدند در حالیکه شما تنها یک سری مطالب تکراری را بیان می کنید که در صورت ترزیق دشمنی کور به آن می توان به نتایجی رسید که شما رسیده اید و علت اینکه این مطالب دیگران را به چنین نتیجه ای نمی رساند احمق بودن و بی سواد بودن آنها نیست بلکه این وجود انصاف و عدم دشمنی کور است که اسلام و پیامبر آن را از دید آنها ستودنی و قابل احترام می کند.

    7-تاریخ با تحلیل های مورد علاقه شما تغییر نمی کند٬‌این یک واقعیت است که در دوره ای از تاریخ اسلام در اوج افتخاربوده و در مقابل غرب در حضیض انحطاط؛ شما می توانید از هم اکنون تا آخر عمرتان بنشینید و برای این واقعیت دلیل بتراشید و به آن دل خوش کنید و مطلبی که دوباره تکرار کردید اینکه اگر خوبی در جامعه مسلمین یافت شود ربطی به مسلمان بودن آنها ندارد و اگر بدی مشاهده شود تماما ناشی از اسلام است٬ شما که متخصص در سفسطه یابی هستید لطف کنید نوع این سفسطه ای را که مدام تکرار می کنید را نیز مشخص کنید.
    8- اشاره کردید که از علومی مانند شیمی٬‌فیزیک و … در قرآن خبری نیست؛ در ابتدای سوره بقره موضوع کتاب قرآن به روشنی بیان شده است؛ ذلک الکتاب لاریب فیه هدی للمتقین٬ این کتاب کتاب هدایت است نه یک کتاب علمی ساده که ارزش حیاتی برای نوع انسان ندارد٬‌اگر گاهی به بعضی از واقعیت های علمی در قرآن اشاره می شود تنها از منظر هدایت است٬‌قوانین علمی با تلاش انسان قابل کشف و دستیابی اند آنچه مهم است پیدا کردن مسیر حرکت است که بدون هدایت خداوند ممکن نیست و قرآن این کار را کرده است پس از این زاویه هیچ اشکالی بر قرآن وارد نیست و همین مقدار که راه را برای تلاش معتقدان به آن برای رسیدن به اوج مقامات علمی مسدود نکرده است برای تعالی جامعه اسلامی کافی است و در لحظاتی از تاریخ این اتفاق افتاده است.
    9-در قسمت بعد تایید کردید که قرآن و پیامبر آن یهودیان را از نسل میمون و خوک نمی دانند بلکه پیامبر خطاب به آنها فرموده که شما برادران کسانی هستید که در گذشته مسخ شده اند و این اشاره به هم صفت بودن آنها با گذشتگان خویش است٬‌ اینکه مسخ یک موضوع چرند و مسخره است یا نیست محل بحث آن اینجا نیست و قبل از اثبات خدای قادر و حکیم بحث در باره آن بیهوده است لذا هیچ بی احترامی به شما صورت نگرفته و این واقعیتی است که قابل انکار نیست.
    10-مطالبی را که در بیان حمایت از یهودیان بیان کردید بیش از آنکه پاسخی به اشکال من باشد کاشف علت دشمنی شما با اسلام بود دشمنی بین اسلام و یهودیت یک دشمنی دیرینه است و حمایت تمام عیار شما از یهودیان همه چیز را روشن کرد پس بیش از این مخاطبان خود را با عناوینی مثل تفکر عقلانی فریب ندهید و شجاعانه به آنها بیان کنید که قلبا یک یهودی افراطی هستید و وظیفه اولیه یک یهودی دشمنی با اسلام است.
    بالاخره بیان نکردید چرا این تعداد اندک یهودی بر همه دنیا مسلط شده اند٬‌همه مردم دنیا که مسلمان نیستند که اسلام دست آنها را بسته باشد٬‌مطالبی را که شما در حمایت از یهودیان لیست کردید بیشتر تایید نظر من بود که باید دنبال علتی خاص بود و اینها که شما بیان کردید تنها ظاهر قضیه است٬ گوستاولوبون فرانسوى مى‏گويد: اگر ما بخواهيم صفات يهود را در چند كلمه خلاصه كنيم، بايد بگوئيم: يهود مانند انسانهائى هستند كه تازه از جنگل وارد شهر شده‏اند و هميشه از صفات انسانى بى‏بهره بودند، چرا كه همچون پست‏ترين مردم روى زمين زندگى مى‏كنند.

    بنى اسرائيل هميشه مردمى وحشى، سفاك و بى‏غيرت بوده، حتّى در زمانى كه خود آنها بر كشورهاى خود حكومت مى‏كردند، باز هم از سفاكى خود دست بر نداشته‏اند، بى‏پروا وارد جنگ شده و چون از پاى در مى‏آمدند، به يك مشت خيالات غير انسانى و بى‏اساس پناه مى‏بردند. خلاصه آنكه هيچ فرقى ميان يهود و حيوانات نمى‏توان گذاشت. جهت آشنایی با میزان توحش یهود می توانید سری به لینک زیر بزنید.
    11-ایران اسلامی جامعه ای است در آغاز یک راه و مدت سی سال آنهم سی سالی که مدام از اذیت و آزار دشمنانش در آسایش نبوده است٬‌ زمان مناسبی برای قضاوت در مورد موفق بودن یا نبودن نیست اما در عین حال ایران امروز به هیچ وجه قابل قیاس با ایران سی سال پیش نیست و آن فقر و فلاکتی که شما از آن یاد کردید تنها تصویری است که دشمنان ایران از جامعه ایران برای افراد ناآگاهی همچون شما منعکس کرده اند و برای ما که در اینجا زندگی می کنیم شنیدن این مطلب بسیار جای شگفتی دارد آن هم از زبان کسانی که ادعای فهم و فرهیختگی می کنند؛ اگر وضعیت ایران امروز را با کشورهایی که همچنان تحت حاکمیت دیکتاتورهای آمریکایی و اسرائیلی هستند مقایسه کنید مشاهده خواهید کرد که فاصله آنها با ما فاصله از عرش تا فرش است.
    12-و مطلب آخر و مهم در باره یهود اینکه علی رغم این همه موفقیتی که به آنها اشاره کردید این واقعیت است که:
    ضُرِبَتْ عَلَيْهِمُ الذِّلَّةُ وَ الْمَسْكَنَةُ وَ باؤُ بِغَضَبٍ مِنَ اللَّهِ ذلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ كانُوا يَكْفُرُونَ بِآياتِ اللَّهِ وَ يَقْتُلُونَ النَّبِيِّينَ بِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ ذلِكَ بِما عَصَوْا وَ كانُوا يَعْتَدُونَ بقره -61و:
    ضُرِبَتْ عَلَيْهِمُ الذِّلَّةُ أَيْنَ ما ثُقِفُوا إِلاَّ بِحَبْلٍ مِنَ اللَّهِ وَ حَبْلٍ مِنَ النَّاسِ وَ باؤُ بِغَضَبٍ مِنَ اللَّهِ وَ ضُرِبَتْ عَلَيْهِمُ الْمَسْكَنَةُ ذلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ كانُوا يَكْفُرُونَ بِآياتِ اللَّهِ وَ يَقْتُلُونَ الْأَنْبِياءَ بِغَيْرِ حَقٍّ ذلِكَ بِما عَصَوْا وَ كانُوا يَعْتَدُونَ بقره- 112
    خلاصه اینکه همان قانونی که شما به عنوان خدا به آن معتقدید حکم کرده است که یهود به دلیل صفات رذیله ای که دارند باید همیشه در حالت ذلت و بدبختی زندگی کنند هر چند که تمام ثروت دنیا در چنگ آنها باشد و قرآن این قانون را امروز برای من و شما آشکار کرده است و اگر در تمام قرآن به جز این واقعیت چیز دیگری وجود نداشت حق این بود که در برابر آن سر تعظیم فرود آوریم و به آن ایمان بیاوریم و ما این کار را کرده ایم و به آن افتخار می کنیم. برای آشنایی بیشتر با صفات یهودیان به لینک بالا مراجعه کنید.

  86. John K says:

    My mom used to claim she was doing this. I don't know if she still believes that is what actually happened.

  87. John K says:

    Right. I understand what you are saying. The question reflects that the people believed that he may have done something before he was born, but the belief of the questioner is not endorsed by the Bible, but rather only Jesus' response.

    Also in the Judeo-Christian paradigm, this would refer to the belief that we lived with God as his spirit children before being born to the earth, but being born only happens once.

  88. John K says:

    Oh! Thanks for the offer. But that's not the kind of evidence I would accept!

  89. everin says:

    @ John K
    Still have doubts on Reincarnation. Just click on " reincarnation evidence " u'll find all kinds of evidence esp the video ones.

  90. everin says:

    @ El,
    I heard of it, So u did it, tell us yr experience. Did u see God n yr dead relatives ?

  91. everin says:

    Where is John 9 ; 1 n 2. ? Why God's work should be made manifest in him. No meanging ?

  92. El Padrino says:

    @ everin
    Have you ever done astral travelling,where the consciousness leaves the body usually during sleep (some experience this when meditating) and explore other realities while still being aware that your body is lying in bed?

  93. John K says:

    Thanks for your goodness Arya.

  94. Arya Anand says:

    Yes, John. Surely, we can work together with mutual respect and dignity despite our difference of views on any matter.

  95. John K says:

    Thank you. I otherwise admire your other posts and work. I hope this disagreement does not prevent us from working together with mutual respect Arya.

  96. Arya Anand says:

    Let's agree to disagree, John K.

  97. John K says:

    "Belief in a personal god requires discarding of logic and reason. Logic is incompatible with belief in a personal god."

    Well, I disagree. Your response sounds like you didn't hear anything I said!

    I was raised on logic. I didn't accept religion until I was 20 years old, and I didn't throw away logic to do it. If you think logic disproves religion, you have a low standard of proof. Even Einstein said that science is unable to disprove religion.

  98. John K says:

    That's not what he said at all:

    John 9:3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

  99. John K says:

    Right. Our feelings follow what we think. This is sometimes used as therapy against depression.

  100. John K says:

    Well, actually Dr. Sina says Muslims need the shock therapy of humiliation to get them off their supremacist high horse. I admit to not being comfortable with it. He says not to worry about offending them, but rather to worry about saving them from Islam.

  101. Ali Sina says:

    Dear Maruf,

    Rape happens everywhere. In the western countries it is a crime. In Islamic countries it is a way of life. In the west if a husband forces his wife to have sex with him, she can charge him with rape. Muslims simply scuff at the idea because they do not consider this as rape.

    Furthermore, Muslim women cannot report having been raped because according to Islamic law they must either have four male witnesses or they can be punished. Since generally rape does not happen in front of four male witnesses, Muslim women generally do not report being raped. However, it is reality that Muslim women are harassed in Islamic countries any time to go out. They also can be raped in their own homes by their male relatives. In such cases the family may decide to kill the girl to wash the “stain.” So women never talk about it.

    All you have to do to see that rape among Muslims is disproportionately higher than among non-Muslims is to see who is committing rape in Europe, Australia, USA and Canada. Most of the cased of rape are committed by Muslims. See this article for example;
    And here is the story of Egyptian Muslims Kidnap, Rape, Convert Hundreds of Christian Girls. These rapes are not even considered as such. No one is charged and no one is punished.
    Here is the story of how Muslims Muslims rape, torture, mutilate Christian girls in Iraq.
    The same happens in Pakistan

    Rape takes place where men and women are segregated and men become sexually frustrated. Where there is no gender segregation, the incidence of rape is much lower. Prior to Islamic invasion in Europe, this phenomenon was extremely low.

  102. everin says:

    @Arya Anand,
    There are so many documented n verified cases in " reincarnation evidence " . Just clicks away in the internet.
    My masters had gone further than the doctrince of Karma n reincarnation by declaring the 3 level of all existence as mentioned in my previous postings n the parts of the body from which the spirit leaves upon the death of a person.

  103. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    Thank you, Juste ~!

  104. Ali Sina says:

    Mr. Tabatabie.

    You did not refute any of the points I raised about the age of Aisha. All you did was to deny the authenticity of the hadiths and call her a liar. In addition you are insult your opponent. If all you can do is this, I do not consider you a worthy contender. Furthermore, you have removed the link I posted on your site to my response to you. This is evidence that you realize you have been defeated.

    If you can behave like a scholar, I would be happy to debate with you. I have numerous objections about Islam that have not been answered. I could ask them from you. I will also translate your responses to English and post them on my site. However, if you prefer to act like your prophet, i.e. with rudeness, I ignore you. When it comes to insult I am no match to a Muslim. In that arena you are a winner without contest.

    This applies to you too Mr. Farzad. I know it is tempting but please refrain from insulting. That is hardly a scholarly language. Obviously you are a much more educated person than Mr. Tabatabaie, and clearly more learned. So I expect more from you.

  105. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    Oops, it just dawned on me. Man, I'm such a dim-wit. That's not what dawned on me, actually, that too. 🙂
    But, yes, gandhi.
    @ Sanada_10 – Yes, it's gandhi that I missed on the list. 🙂
    @ Arya Anand – It was gandhi that I *intentionally* missed from the list. But, if one observes stupid behavior, ad-hominems, name-calling, etc against a comment-er and the attacker uses some icon to justify his/her acts, then yes, that icono-philic behavior too is deplorable. No exceptions. Heck, I'll go ahead & include Ali Sina in that list of icons too – if people use Sina as an excuse to indulge in ad-hominems against comment-ers.

  106. Ali Sina says:

    "سوال کردید که آیا قرآن کشتن را ممنوع کرده است"

    That was not my question. Please read the article and answer the question. Please post your answer in the same page the article is posted.

  107. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    @ Arya Anand,
    Actually no. Au contraire I have great respect for a reformer like Jesus – although there are N number of things I actually don't agree with (on his sayings). I respect Jesus only as much as I do Shiva, Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Mahavira, Guru Govind Singh (& many others like the thirthankaras, the Sikh gurus). To me, each of them had some wonderful things to say & do, and so did they have some negative aspects too.
    I single out gandhi because it is my understanding that this stupidity of moral relativism & spinelessness (in the name of non-violence) that he advised to my (rather our, considering you as a Hindu Bharathiy naagrik/citizen) Hindu brethren, that's causing a majority of not just us Hindus, but even Western masses to bow down in the face of the existential threat of Islam..
    And I try my best to not indulge in ad-hominem or name-calling against any comment-ers in this forum (though I think I've failed with "continuum").
    @ Sanada_10,
    I don't quite understand why you posted "Gandhi?". gandhi is deified across all states & in school text books all over India – and he is elevated as a "Mahatma" – meaning a good, great or exalted soul. When I find the truth to be diametrically opposite to that, I chose the diametrically opposite word "Duratma" (which as Arya Anand pointed out means) bad soul.
    Honestly, when a 60+ yr old man sleeps or gets naked massages with 20- yr old girls at his "ASHRAM", I know not any other term to properly describe that swine's soul other than DURATMA. [Ashram generally denotes a place for learning & achieving spiritual progress. If interested, one could always google to learn more. Search term: Varnashrama-system and that will give more insightful details about Ashram too]

  108. فرزاد says:

    سوال کردید که آیا قرآن کشتن را ممنوع کرده است؟
    به طور طبیعی جواب من مثبت است قرآن هیچگاه بی دلیل دستور به کشتن کسی نداده است اما هرگز هم از مسلمانان نخواسته است منفعلانه شاهد فعالیت دشمنان خود باشند و اجازه دهند که آنها بر امور مسلمین مسلط شوند و از آنها خواسته همیشه آمادگی لازم برای مقابله با آنها را داشته و در صورت لزوم به جنگی تمام عیار علیه دشمنان خود وارد شده و آنها تار و مار و نیست و نابود کنند یعنی همین کاری که تمام عقلای عالم از هر کیش و مسلکی که باشند انجام می دهند.

  109. Maruf says:

    Dear Dr. Ali Sina,

    You have said Muslim Woman are sex objects and hence should be covered.
    You tried to say in your whole comment that dressing is depends on respective culture. Yes I fully agree with you.
    Therefore I think Islamic culture for dressing up for woman is to cover the whole body except face, wrist and feet , it is prescribed by Islam and for non Muslims there has no prescribed dressing, those depends upon their practices. I think is easy math that some people may very angry as they cant see the body beauty of Muslim woman, they cant do business with them, they cant arrange beauty contest for them, cant sell cosmetics, cant spread AIDS by them, cant mix freely with them for wearing the hi jab but I don't consider you similar to that guys.

    Here is some statistics for your kind consideration;

    In the link I have read the following but not surprised as it is usual for them as Gay is fully allowed;

    According to United States Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, there were overall 191,670 victims of rape or sexual assault reported in 2005.[71] Only 16% of rapes and sexual assaults are reported to the police (Rape in America that means total 11,97,937 in that year or 3282 per day or 136 per hour or 2.27 per hour :A Report to the Nation. 1992 and United Nations Populations Fund, 2000a).[72][73] Factoring in unreported rapes, 1 of 6 U.S. women has experienced an attempted or completed rape.[75] More than a quarter of college age women report having experienced a rape or rape attempt since age 14.

    In the following link top listed are all western developed countries there I found no Muslim country….

    Now you consider which people considers woman as a huge giant walking talking Vagina.

    You also may mentioned that Muslims are not developed countries, they are far behind the technologies.
    I knew that Muslim God have not assured their technological development He assured their peace in this world and hereafter.

    I am on my homework of searching a more true religion, pray for me.

    I have a complain that some of my comments/replies are missing although they comply your terms and conditions. Will you pls tell why?

  110. فرزاد says:

    جناب سینا
    متاسفانه من وقت محدودی دارم و امکان پاسخگویی سریع به مطالب شما را ندارم اما مطمئن باشید سر فرصت به تمام مطالب ادعایی شما به ترتیب پاسخ خواهم داد البته شما اختیار خواهید داشت بدون اینکه منتظر پاسخ کامل من باشید مطالب خود را سلسله وار بیان کنید.
    1-اشاره کردید که شیعه مشهور به جعل حدیث است اولا این حرف درست نیست آنچه مشهور است این است که احادیث جعلی زیادی توسط دشمنان شیعه در میان احادیث شیعه وارد شده است با این حال این به این معنا نیست که راه شناخت حدیث جعلی از غیر جعلی بسته است و راههای زیادی برای این منظور بیان شده است. یکی از این راهها حکم عقل است و حدیثی که از امام صادق علیه السلام بیان شد توسط حکم عقل تایید می شود.
    2- وقتی من مدعی هستم که نفرت و دشمنی تمام وجود شما را پر کرده و ذره ای از انصاف در وجود شما یافت نمی شود به این دلیل است که شما هر چه ویژگی مثبت در اسلام و مسلمین وجود دارد را ناشی از تاثیر دیگران و یا هوش و ذکاوت ذاتی خود آنان می دانید و تمام صفات منفی را ناشی از اسلام می دانید٬‌فکر نمی کنید بحث با چنین انسان دگمی راه به جایی خواهد برد؟ چطور ممکن است وقتی امام جعفر صادق علیه اسلام کسی که بدون اینکه استادی دیده باشد خود کرسی تدریس دارد٬‌حرف درستی می زند آن را از خارج از اسلام به ارث برده باشد اما اگر حدیث مجهول و یا مجعولی که بیان کننده مطلب نادرستی است صحت انتسابش به آن امام از نظر شما غیر قابل خدشه و انکار و ناشی از مسلمان بودن اوست؟
    3-منابع آموزهای اسلام منحصر در قرآن نیست اگر دقت کرده باشید می دانید که کلمه الله اکبر در قرآن نیامده است تعابیری نزدیک به معنای الله اکبر مثل لیس کمثله شیئ یا سوره توحید در قرآن آمده است و اینکه از شما خواستم در قدم اول بپذیرید کلیت خدای محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم از نظر عقلی مشکلی ندارد به این دلیل بود که در قدم بعدی وارد بحث در جزئیات این بحث از منظر قرآن شویم و من با استدلال عقلی و منطقی تمام اشکالاتی که به واسطه آنها شما خدای قرآن را خدای نامعقولی می دانید را پاسخ دهم. تعریف قرآن از خدا یک تعریف کلی٬ مبهم و غیر قابل فهم نیست که شما اشکال می کنید کلی گویی اثری ندارد و نشان از هوشمندی شخص نیست٬‌البته تعریف قرآن به گونه ای است که خدا را از غیر قابل توصیف بودن خارج نمی کند و محدودیتی در آن به وجود نمی آورد.
    4-اگر ما به پایه مشترکی دست پیدا نکنیم ادامه بحث غیر ممکن است وجود این پایه مشترک باعث می شود اگر ما در جایی به گره کوری در بحث برخورد کردیم به آن پایه برگشت کرده و بر اساس آن گره را باز کنیم٬‌اگر ما به مفهوم مشترکی از خدا دست پیدا نکنیم ادامه بحث کاملا بیفایده است شما به راحتی جنگهایی که محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم داشته است را کشتار می نامید و از جنایت های بیشمار اسرائیل به نام دفاع از خویش حمایت خواهید کرد و آنچه در این میان هیچ ارزش و اعتباری ندارد تفکر عقلانی است که شما پرچم آن را بر سر در سایت خود نصب کرده و مدعی آن هستید. شما می خواهید محمد را صرف نظر از خدای او و ازدیدگاه خودتان نقد کنید خب این کاملا طبیعی است که آن وجود شریف در دادگاه نظر شما محکوم خواهد شد اما شما از این نکته غافل هستید که چطور شیفته خود شده و فهم خود را عقل خالص و ناب تصور کرده و آن را ملاک تشخیص خوب از بد می دانید و این نشانه از ناپخته بودن افکار شماست همانطور که اشاره کردم دشمنی کور در کلمات شما موج می زند اما خودشیفتگی خارج از حد استاندارد مانع از فهم این واقعیت در وجود شما شده است. مجددا به اعلام می کنم که شما به جز یک دشمن هیچ چیز دیگری نیستید و از این منظر نظراتتان هیچ ارزشی ندارد.

    5-از شما خواستم دلیل عقلی بر لزوم انسان گرایی بیان کنید٬ تنها مطالبی سطحی و ساده مبنی بر خوب بودن انسانگرایی و بد بودن تفکر مذهبی بیان کردید یکبار دیگر سوال می کنم چرا ما باید انسانگرا باشیم به عبارت دیگر اگر ما انسانگرا نباشیم چه اتفاقی می افتد٬‌سوال من از لزوم است نه از محسنات انسانگرا بودن٬‌ طرفداران حقوق حیوانات هم برای تفکر خود محسناتی بیان می کنند اما صرف وجود این محسنات دلیل نمی شود که منطقا هم فکر آنها صحیح باشد. یکی از معایب تفکر مذهبی را وجود اختلافات مذهبی می دانید و اینکه با چه معیاری می توان صحیح را از سقیم بازشناخت٬‌عرض می کنم معیار همان پرچمی است که در بالای سایت شما افراشته شده است یعنی عقل گرایی٬‌ اینکه ما انسانگرا باشیم چون انسان هستیم نیاز به پشتوانه عقلی ندارد و بسیار طبیعی است که از منظر یک انسان٬ انسان از همه موجودات برتر باشد و بخواهد خود را به سایرین تحمیل کند و با این وجود نیازی به عقل و تفکر عقلی نیست و شما بیهوده بر سر دکمه های کیبورد خود می کوبید. جناب دکتر برای شناخت یک تفکر درست از نادرست تنها معیار و قانون منطق است هر فکری که منطقا به تناقض برسد باطل است و هر فکری که عاری از تناقض باشد درست است؛ انسانگرایی دارای ذاتی متناقض است هر چند به ظاهر زیبا باشد و معنویت گرایی و آخرت گرایی تناقض منطقی ندارد هر چند به ظاهر مشکلاتی هم وجود داشته باشد.

    6- بیان کردید آنچه در قرآن و کلمات محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم در خصوص نفی ظلم آمده است حرفهای درست وخوبی است اما به دلیل اینکه این اصول خوب و قابل پذیرش در مرحله عمل اجرا نشده بلکه برعکس آنها عمل شده است ارزشی ندارند و اصولا خوب حرف زدن کار چندان سختی نیست بلکه آنچه سخت است عمل است٬ اولا آنچه از قرآن نقل شد مربوط به عذاب و پاداش در آخرت است و متاسفانه شما با چرخاندن بحث به طرف رفتار دنیایی پیامبر و طرفداران او آن را از مسیر اصلی منحرف کردید من این تلاش و علاقه شما را برای اثبات مدعای خود مبنی بر استفاده از کوچکترین بهانه ممکن برای نقد رفتار پیامبر خدا کاملا درک می کنم اصولا از یک دشمن انتظاری بیش از این نیست اما از اینکه قبول کردید احیانا ممکن است مبانی اسلام و قرآن مبانی درستی باشند خوشحالم و این جای کمی امیدواری برای مباحث آینده باز می گذارد٬ ثانیا محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم بر اساس مبانی خود عمل کرده و از این دیدگاه هیچ ایرادی بر او وارد نیست و یتیم شدن احتمالی چند کودک در اثر جنگ از ابتدایی ترین اثرات یک جنگ است٬‌ اشکال این است که اگر مسلمین چنین کنند زشت و ناپسند است اما اگر مثلا آمریکایی ها در تنها یک جنگ مثل جنگ عراق زمینه نابودی مستقیم و غیرمستقیم میلیونها انسان را فراهم کنند اشکالی ندارد و ثالثا من تا شما را متقاعد نکنم که خدای محمد ص عاری از هر گونه عیب وایرادی است وارد بحث در انتقادات وارد شده بر محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم نخواهم شد زیرا به دلایلی که عرض کردم بحث بیهوده ای است.
    7-شاید از منظر شما یک ساعت چون یک ماشین است احتیاج به سازنده ای دارد که حرکات چرخ دنده ای آن را به گونه ای مدیریت کرده که کمترین نقصی در کار خود نداشته باشد اما در مقابل مثلا اینکه زمین ما با سرعتی حدود 1700 کیلومتر در ساعت به دور خود و با سرعتی حدود 2200 کیلومتر در ساعت به دور خورشید و همزمان با سرعتی حدود 900 هزار کیلومتر در ساعت به همراه خورشید به دور کهکشان راه شیری و حتما با سرعتی به مراتب بیش از این به همراه کهکشان راه شیری به دور چیز دیگری و احتمالا با سرعتی دیگر همراه آن چیز به دور چیز چهارمی می چرخد و میلیاردها سال بدون تخلف و ذره ای انحراف به کار خود ادامه می دهد٬‌چون دارای حرکتی طبیعی است نیاز به مدیر و مدبر ندارد٬‌اما مطمئن باشید عقول سالم چنین چیزی را از شما نخواهند پذیرفت واینکه قانون تکامل را پشتوانه نظر خود می دانید کمکی به حل مشکل نخواهد کرد٬‌ تکامل به معنایی که مد نظر شماست منطقا دارای تناقض است و از نظر عقل قابل پذیرش نیست که همانطور که شما هم اشاره کردید جای بحث آن اینجا نیست.
    8-بارها اشاره کرده اید که علاقه ای به بحث در باره وجود و عدم وجود خدا ندارید٬‌جناب سینا بدون اثبات وجود خدایی معقول و منطقی هیچ چیزدیگری قابل اثبات نیست حتی انسانیتی که محبوب شماست تنها یک تخیل و احساس شاعرانه است٬‌ و تلاشی از روی غریزه است برای بقاء‌ انسان حیوانی است مانند سایر حیوانات با درصد هوشمندی بیشتر٬‌همین و بس نه خوبی وجود دارد و نه بد‌٬ بدون مذهب حتی مفاهیمی مثل پدر٬‌مادر٬‌خواهر٬‌برادر و ……. وجود خارجی ندارند و صرف تعابیری خود ساخته اند برای مدیریت زندگی.
    مدعی هستید که اگر ما قانون طبیعت را جایگزین خدایی که حکیم و علیم است کنیم زندگی و دنیا معنادار می شود لطفا منطقا این ادعای خود را اثبات کنید٬ و نشان دهید که با اتنخاب این راه به تناقض نمی رسیم.

  111. Ali Sina says:

    Hi Happy

    Alberto Rivera was a disturbed man who lied profusely and made up many unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. No I don’t believe the Catholic Church sent Khadijah, “a Catholic nun,” to marry Muhammad who was then only an insignificant youth of 25 years old, ignored by everyone, to sow the seed of a new religion in him and encourage him to start Islam in order to exterminate the Jews. This is sheer baloney.

    I don’t think the Catholic Church is holy and I do not discard the possibility that many bishops are highly corrupted and that Pope John Paul I may have not died of natural death, but assassinated by a few insiders. He was a revolutionary and had many innovative ideas. He was the first to refuse the sedia gestatoria, and used the pronoun “I” instead of the royal “we”. But the tales of Rivera are fairy tale. The man was utterly nuts and many of his claims about himself and his credentials are false. He was also involved in many frauds and was wanted by police in Spain and in USA.

  112. Ali Sina says:

    Rely on your brain. Heart can be fooled. Faith is blind.

  113. everin says:

    In his trance-readings, Edgar Cayce spoke about 30 reincarnations of Christ, even though in his waking state he doubted the existence of reincarnation.
    Jesus Christ, when asked about by his disciples why the man they saw was born blind without incuring any sin, answered ( in John 9 : 1-2 ) that he was sinful because he had lived before.
    Some hypnotists can discover people"s past lives in the advance countries.
    We know the end results of Karma n Reincarnation, like why some people were born to suffer in poverty n others were born to be rich n enjoying life. Is God that very unfair.?
    There is also no proof for the Big Bang theory n yet the scientists accepted it to be true. Did any one see the Biggest Explosion ? Yes ? Who ?

  114. John K says:

    I believe Israel was also among the first in Japan after the tsunami and nuclear disaster.

  115. John K says:

    Thanks for clarifying Arya. I will say I disagree. I was raised as a scientific atheist. I did not choose to accept the LDS Church until I was in my third year of the chemistry program.

    As I have written elsewhere on this site, because of my training in the scientific method, there had better be a good reason for it. We do not believe in blind faith. Paul said to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good, and also, faith is evidence of things which are not seen, which are true.

    So I will not believe something that cannot be proved by science unless it is true, and there is evidence of it. Christ said that he would send the Holy Spirit which would testify of the truth of all things. Many of the great classical literary traditions of the world have genres dealing with transcendent or spiritual experiences. Each individual must explore those experiences and evaluate for themselves the meaning of them. Dr. Sina's book says there is a "god center" in the brain which gives us those experiences. I say that is too cynical to believe that healthy brains deceive us.

    I should say I have additional degrees and professional experience in textual analysis, and that after 35 years of study, I find nothing irreconcilable with logic or my scientific views. This troubled me when I was first investigating Christianity, but no longer does. One thing that helped me was the science fiction movie, 2001: A Space Odyssey because of the way Dave evolves into the Star Child at the end of the movie. This assured me that I can keep all of my knowledge about science and the universe and just put God on top of it all. I think this is not much different from Dr. Sina's view, except that he sees such as God as Principle only, and not a sentient being. Of course, it's a long leap to identify that being with Jesus Christ.

  116. Maruf says:

    Dear Ali Sina,

    You said """So be very careful not to be fooled by Muhammad’s propaganda and lies""

    Thanks, I am very careful for everybody except what my heart feels.

  117. Maruf says:

    Dear Sanada_10,

    Thank for questioning. I believe human civilization have reached in this stage only for human's questioning mind.

    Your first question is "Maruf, I just want to ask you one thing. Why do you think that you must follow a religion? I mean, in the sense of organized religion which has carrot and stick (not all religions have that). Is it to save your life?

    Answer: Yes to save myself.

    Question: I see that is common in people but why do you want to save your life in the first place? Knowing this is important.?

    Answer: Because I love myself first.

    Your 3rd question is "I'll add one more, since no religion is proven to be true why should I choose it?
    Answer: There is no religious laboratory to prob religion. Everybody insist their religion is proven/correct/right although we see many flaws/contradictions etc. So I decided to become a Judge as well as Solicitor for the sake of myself. I have read Koran and bible and withing short time will read other major religions as well. If I don't find 100% true religion then I will pick up the most true one asking my heart to save myself. I don't want to put myself in uncertainty. If there is one God there must be one true religion!!!. Just I have to do some homework nothing more. I am not new, many people before me have done this homework. If I fail, at least I could say I have tried.

    Just Pray For Me.
    [email protected]

  118. Arya Anand says:

    Truth seeker,
    Dont' you know Buddha's original name was Siddharth and he was born and brought up as a Hindu. Before he became Buddha, Siddarth traveled so many places in northern India seeking knowledge and stayed with Jain sages and learned their doctrines and he even practiced their beliefs and was a Jain for quite some time. The doctrine of re-births is one of the core beliefs of Jainism. So there is every possibility that Buddha borrowed their belief of cycle of births and incorporated it in his belief system. As records say, he called himself Buddha meaning a person who has attained Buddhi(wisdom) after he reportedly attained wisdom in a night after being tempted by Mara(equivalent of Satan). He did not found a separate religion "Buddhism" but only preached reforms in Hindu Dharma just like Jesus did not intend to found a separate religion "Christianity" but only taught reforms in Judaism. There are many similarities between Buddhism and Christianity. Judaism and its offshoot Christianity fantasy about coming of Messiah(Masiach) while Buddhism foretells the coming of Mettaya(Maitreya).

  119. Truth seeker says:

    @ arya anand,

    Bullshit! Anand. Buddha is a great and intelligent teacher and he need not borrow any doctrine from any fool. He got his messages from his meditation from a spiritual source. Don’t claim credit for your Induism.

  120. Happy says:

    It is my honor to write to you, Sir. I follow your articles. I want to ask question, perhaps out of context, whether you, Sir, knowing something. About some secret writing, which ever issued by the Chick publication long ago. I do not know, exactly what year its published. It is about of Alberto Rivera recognized as a Catholic priest who converted to Christianity, the others such as Four Horsemen, The Godfather, and so on , On that writings mentioned that there was a connection between Islam and the Vatican – Rome. How do you think about this? Thank you.

  121. پاسخ says:

    آقای علی سینا آیا شما احساس میکنید مطالبی که مینویسید کوچکترین ارزشی دارند
    شما با استناد به یک حدیث ضعیف دهها حدیث رو انکار میکنید فقط برای اینکه زشتترین توهین رو به پیامبر اسلام بزنید
    پیامبر اسلام اصلآ تمام زنانی که باهاش ازدواج کرد سنشان بالا بودند عایشه که جوانترین بود 18 سال داشت کدوم انسان شریفی به فکرش میرسد که بگوید این شخص گرایش به بچه ها داشته؟
    آخر خودتان را مسخره ی ملت نکنید بجای پاسخ های غیر منطقی کمی انصاف و منطق نشان بدهید باور بفرمایید چیزی از شما کم نمیشود

  122. پاسخ says:

    درباره استدلال اول استاد طباطبایی علی سینا میگه چون عایشه گفته تا زمانی که یادم میاد پدر و مادرم مسلمان بودند. 1. وقتی کسی میخواد حدیثی از ابن اسحاق رو زیر سئوال ببره باید در مقابل احادیث دگیر با اسناد دیگر ذکر کنه نه همینطور نقل قول کنه ولی از اون گذشته انسان تا یکی دو سالگیش رو یادش نمیاد اطرافیانش چه دینی داشتند این درواقع سخن استاد رو اثبات میکنه عایشه وقتی اسلام آورد حداقل چهار پنج سال داشت و در زمان ازدواج 17 18 ساله بود. حدیث دیگر که ایشون در هر دو جمله ذکر میکند ارزش ندارد چرا که به نفع عایشه نوشته شده از قول خودش. حدیث میگوید پیامبر آمد و من را دید و بلافاصله عاشقم شد و اصرار ورزید که با من ازدواج کند و پدرم ابتدا راضی نبود.. از کسی که اینقدر عقده و حسودی نسبت به زنان دیگر پیامبر دارد چنین حدیثی رو ذکر کردند کاریست مسخره. ولی ایشون دروغ هم گفتند در هیچ حدیثی گفته نشده عایشه به سن بلوغ نرسیده بوده. بعد هم ایشون درباره استدلال دوم میگویند اسما سنش رو غلط گفت که روند بشه یعنی گفت 90 سال بود گفت 100. اولآ سن بازار نیست که چیزی بخوان بفروشند روندش کنند اصولآ هم انسانها سنشون رو پایین میاورند نه بالا.

  123. Arya Anand says:

    Hi everin,
    You seem to be strongly influenced by the Buddhist doctrine of cyclical births of souls in the physical world till they reach the point of no birth. This doctrine was borrowed by Buddhism from Hindu philosophy. This doctrine like the Zoroastrian doctrine of resurrection and final judgment day that was later borrowed by Christianity and Islam, is only a human invention and there is no proof for it.

  124. Arya Anand says:

    Hi John K,
    You are influenced by your faith in the dogmas of a Christian denomination Mormonism and hence your comments do not surprise me. When I said all religious minds are same, I meant they are no different from each other when it comes to blind belief in an acting personal God, sidelining reason and logic. Belief in a personal god requires discarding of logic and reason. Logic is incompatible with belief in a personal god. It is like either you lose logic or lose faith in a personal god.

  125. Arya Anand says:

    Duratma Gandhi and it means wicked soul Gandhi.

  126. Arya Anand says:

    I guess you missed Jesus in your list. Is it?

  127. Agracean says:

    Kudos to Dr Ali Sina, for all the above reports on how Israel earn and spend their hard earned money! I think that Mr Farzad must be amazed at how my loving Creator God bless Israel richly in so many ways and how Israel, a small nation can contribute so much to humanity and help so many countries when disaster struck. It's time for Mr Fazad take a good look at Iran where he came from and realized what Muhammad's Allah and Allah's last prophet and all his devout followers did to the land of Iran and how they spent so much money to invent nuclear bombs to wipe out Israel. This is insanity beyond measure. May God bless Israel and all the descendants of Ibrahim, Ishaq and Yaqub. 🙂

  128. Ali Sina says:

    How Israelis spend their money

    An Israeli Health Ministry team of doctors and nurses was sent to Thailand to aid rescue efforts
    Israel offered a search-and-rescue team to India, together with consignments of food and medicine.
    International fund-raising efforts: Several Israeli and diaspora Jewish organisations launched emergency appeals for funds to aid longer term relief and reconstruction
    Israeli Humanitarian Aid to Haiti after the January 2010 Earthquake World leaders and international media outlets have praised Israel for its efforts to provide advanced medical and search-and-rescue relief to victims of the January 2010 earthquake that ravaged the island of Haiti. An Israeli field hospital in Haiti set up by a team from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) treated 1,111 victims, including dozens of children, since the 7.0-magnitude earthquake devastated the nation. Israelis performed 317 surgeries and delivered 16 babies in the hospital’s maternity ward; the mother of one of the newborns said she would call him Israel. Four Haitians were rescued with the assistance of the IDF search-and-rescue team. The 236-member IDF disaster relief delegation left 30 tons (27,216 kg) of medical equipment before departing Haiti.
    Israel has granted asylum to hundreds of refugees from Sudan’s Darfur region. According to the UN, more than 400,000 people have been killed in the six-year-old Darfur conflict, and more than two million more have been displaced. The conflict has been marked by widespread atrocities such as mass rape, military attacks on civilians and ethnic cleansing.
    The Center for International Cooperation, better known by the acronym MASHAV, is the Israel Foreign Ministry’s international development program. MASHAV assists countries striving to alleviate global problems of hunger, disease and poverty by providing technical training and sharing technology to improve quality of life. MASHAV’s projects include: Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security, Crisis Medicine Training, Community Development, Education, Empowerment of Women, Social Change and Humanitarian Aid. One example of MASHAV’s work is its African Market Garden project, which aims to enhance agricultural yields and reduce risk to single-household farm-plots in arid and semi-arid zones. In MASHAV’s Eye Camps program, Israeli eye doctors set up temporary clinics in developing countries for two-week periods to treat preventable blindness and ocular disease. The doctors treat hundreds of patients, perform operations and train local staff.
    Israeli organizations were also involved in providing aid to Pakistan after the November 2005 earthquake in Kashmir. An Israeli NGO, Israeli Flying Aid (IFA), which provides disaster relief around the world, sent a mission to the region and provided thousands of families basic dry food products, blankets, coats, socks, personal clay heating kits and iron sheets to shield temporary shelters from heavy snow.
    The Fast Israeli Rescue and Search Team (FIRST) is an Israeli NGO that sends search and rescue teams to disaster zones around the world. An earthquake in Peru in August 2007 killed more than 520 people and left 90,000 people homeless. FIRST sent a delegation of three doctors and three nurses to assist those injured by the earthquake. FIRST has also provided relief assistance in Turkey, India, Mexico, El Salvador, Greece, Armenia and New Guinea, among others.
    IsraAID, founded in Israel in 2001, is an umbrella organization of more than 35 Israeli and Jewish non-governmental organizations and other individuals active in development and relief work around the world and concerned about global issues. Its members include the American Jewish Committee (AJC), B’nai B’rith International, FIRST, the Jerusalem AIDS Project, United Jewish Communities (UJC), Joint Distribution Committee (JDC), Save a Child’s Heart, the Israeli Friends of Tibet and Aid Without Borders (AWB). According to IsraAID, its members “believe in providing humanitarian aid worldwide to people in need, regardless of religion, race, gender, nationality, age and disabilities.”
    IsraAID and its members have provided relief assistance to more than 20 countries including Haiti, Rwanda, India, Mexico, Congo, Chad, Sudan (Darfur) and Malawi. After the January 2010 earthquake, IsraAID sent a 15-member civilian response team to Haiti, including doctors, nurses, paramedics and logisticians. The team provided emergency medical assistance and distributed humanitarian supplies in Port-au-Prince. The medical team set up operations in Port-au-Prince’s main hospital while the logistical personnel remained in the airport area to assist local NGO partners with logistical support for relief items that were continuing to land. IsraAID has also partnered with organizations to bring relief to areas hit by the deadly 2004 tsunami in Southeast Asia including Sri Lanka and co-coordinated the first Israeli humanitarian mission on the Kenya-Somali border, during which the Israeli team provided aid to Somali refugees.
    The organization, along with FIRST, sent a team of six medical personnel and airlifted almost two tons of medicine and medical equipment to Pisco, Peru, to aid the victims of an earthquake that struck the country on Aug. 15, 2007. The medical team opened several field clinics in areas affected by the earthquake and treated at least 400 patients.

  129. Ali Sina says:

    But Israelis also spend that money, Look how

    Israel’s Disaster Aid
    Israeli teams have often been among the first on the scene after natural disasters across the world.

    February 2001 Israel sent an fully-equipped field hospital, staffed by doctors and nurses, to assist in treating victims of an earthquake in Gujarat, Western India . In the first two days of its operations, over 200 people were treated in the field hospital.
    1998 Israel sent emergency medical aid teams and equipment to help victims of Hurricane Mitch which struck Central America . The Israelis included experts in infectious diseases, epidemiology, intensive care treatment and treatment of traumatic aftermath of mass disasters.
    1999 Israel sent large supplies of medicine and food, and special consignments of enriched milk for babies, to help victims of an earthquake in Colombia.
    2001, Israeli assisted Georgia (formerly a part of the Soviet Union ) in the aftermath of a severe drought. The Israeli Foreign Ministry contributed baby food, and, in conjunction with Israel ‘s Ministry of Agriculture, donated large stocks of quality seeds to enable Georgian farmers to recover from the aftermath of the drought.
    Other disasters where Israel has made a significant contribution to relief efforts include earthquakes in Turkey (2000) and El Salvador (2001), and floods in Venezuela (1999) and in Mozambique (2000).

    26 December 2004, a massive undersea earthquake occurred in the Eastern Indian Ocean, off the Indonesian coast. The quake triggered giant waves (‘tsunamis’) which struck coastal areas in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, India and other countries, as well as Indian Ocean islands, with devastating force. Israel immediately sent the following aid:
    Massive airlift of emergency supplies within 48 hours: Israel’s Defence Ministry sent a plane to Sri Lanka loaded with 80 tons of emergency supplies, together with a team of 50 Israeli medical and rescue personnel, within 48 hours of the disaster.
    The supplies included tens of thousands of bottles of drinking water, 12 tons of food, 17 tons of baby food, nine tons of medicines, blankets, mattresses, beds and electricity generators.
    A top level medical team from Israel’s internationally renowned Hadassah hospital arrived in Sri Lanka on 27 December, including the hospital’s head of general surgery, the head of its trauma unit, its chief of paediatrics, and two anaesthetists
    Israeli voluntary organisation Latet despatches supplies: On 28 December, the Israeli voluntary organisation Latet (“to give”) filled a jumbo jet with 18 tons of supplies contributed by the public. An Israeli company donated 250,000 water purification tablets, to help provide tsunami survivors with safe drinking water.
    Magen David Adom sends medicines for treating the seriously injured: On 29 December, Israel’s equivalent to the Red Cross, Magen David Adom, donated a planeload of medicines to Sri Lanka for the treatment of seriously injured tsunami victims, and those suffering malnourishment

  130. Ali Sina says:

    How Israel makes money

    Environmental protection
    More than 85% of the solid waste in Israel is treated with environmental sound manner.
    Israel has the record for most solar-powered water heaters per capita- 95% of homes have this technology
    Solar powered street and garden lamps are a very common thing in Israel. The solar plate recharges throughout the day and at night it illuminates cities and parks.
    After long research at the Weitzmann Institute of science, in Rehovot, a”Sun Tower” was built – a field of 64 mirrors that can sense the sunshine and adjust themselves so they receive maximum sunlight. The mirrors centre the light to a receptor on top of a tower which then heats compressed air that moves a turbine, which produces electricity. It can go up to 1200 degrees and withstand the pressure of 25 atmospheres.
    The Negev already accommodates an experimental settlement – Neve-Zin in the Zin Valley. All the buildings and infrastructures in it depend on solar energy all year long.
    An Israeli company was the first to develop and install a large scale solar power plant in the Mojave Desert in order to supply enough clean electricity to power 400,000 homes in central and northern California
    Israel has the most biotech startups per capita.
    Drip irrigation system- invented by an Israeli almost 40 years ago. A major part of resolving the water crisis. Used around the world
    Motorola’s R&D facility in Israel has developed another in its line of products which apply state-of-the-art IT and communications technology to urban and rural water conservation. The product – Radio Piccolo XR – communicates remotely with a central irrigation control system and can be used to regulate water use in rural areas, but also in city parks, and municipal water supply systems
    Engineers have developed a revolutionary range of greenhouse nets that use the light spectrum in shades of blue, red, pearl and grey to regulate the growth of plants inside greenhouses. The so-called Chromatinets are being marketed by Israeli kibbutz-based company Polysack. Grey nets induce additional branches and increase yields; blue nets induce short branches which assist packing and export; and red and pearl nets accelerate overall plant growth. All the chromatinets are environmentally-friendly. Another Israeli company, Klayman Meteor, has developed a new type of net that increases effectiveness against insects and viruses, and thereby increases plant yields.
    A team of scientists at The Technion in Haifa has achieved a breakthrough in the design of fuel cells for cars. The team has improved the method of producing hydrogen for fuel cells using so-called solar water splitting systems. Fuel-cells are widely seen as the key to making environmentally friendly “clean” cars commercially available in the future, and reducingthe world’s dependence on highly-polluting oil
    Israeli company Dry-Kor, based in Atlit in Northern Israel , has developed a new air conditioning technology which lessens the chance of chemical contamination of the air, by not only cooling the air, but removing the bacteria in the air. “We are practically washing the air” said the company’s founder. The technique could have particular benefits for hospital operating rooms, laboratory clean rooms, and for food manufacturers and drugs companies where it is essential that air is kept clean and bacteria-free

  131. Ali Sina says:

    How Israel makes money

    Israelis invented the camera that patients swallow to help doctors diagnose digestive tract diseases and save lives.
    Babysense, the system that protect babies from the sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) was invented in Israel.
    Israeli scientists developed the first radiation free method to discover breast cancer.
    The first Anti Virus was created in Israel in 1988 by 3 computer experts at the Hebrew University. This anti-virus was the basis for many other anti viruses that came later.
    The first blood bank was built at Beilinson hospital 10 years before the state was established.
    In 1997 the first artificial heart transplant was made at the Sheba hospital. It was made to function as the left ventricle
    In 1999 Israel used the first brain pacemaker, which stopped the tremor that comes with Parkinson’s disease.
    In 2010 a kidney transplant was made from a person with one blood type to another with a different blood type, a transplant which, until now, was very dangerous because the kidney works with blood.
    Israeli scientists created new ways to fight cancer and increased the efficiency of medicines.
    One of the greatest achievements of 2006: the research made by Israeli scientist Shulamit Levenberg got us one step closer to creating new organs for transplant.
    Israeli scientists also developed the first DNA computers, leading the way to even more efficient ways to fight diseases.
    Israel has been responsible for huge breakthroughs in treatment of AIDS:
    Developing Hypericin, a drug whose antiviral properties were documented at the Weizmann Institute. Vimrxyn, a hypericin-based drug is now being tested for the treatment of AIDS.
    Making progress on a new type of artificial blood that could potentially help slow the spread of the AIDS virus.
    An Israeli-American firm, Pharmos/Pharmatec, developing an improved method for delivering AZT to the brain.
    Hebrew University researchers developing what they believe is a means to help AIDS patients overcome serious infections and neurological problems.
    Israeli scientists have developed new devices for measuring and injecting Insulin for diabetics, which are both less painful and more efficient.
    Israel’s head of neurology at Rabin Medical Centre has developed a means of treating Parkinson’s disease using the person’s own bone marrow stem cells
    Researchers at Ben Gurion University are working on a new delivery system for drugs used in cancer and Parkinson’s disease. The drugs are delivered directly to the affected part of the body and, in so doing, eliminates unwanted side effects
    A program that can help a deaf man use a cell phone! This program, “Lipcell” can translate the words from the other speaker into a three dimensional exhibition of a human face. In this way the deaf man can read the lips of the other speaker. It is a collaboration of Israel’s largest phone company, Cellcom, and a company called SpeechView.
    A computerized model has been developed that allows living cells to be scanned to see how they respond to friction, pressure etc. This will eliminate, or certainly lessen, the need to use animals in this area of medical research
    The medical company Deep Breeze has developed a device for instantly diagnosing the state of a patient’s lungs enabling the immediate diagnosis of asthma
    The Copaxone (also known as Glatiramer acetate), one of the most efficient medicines, and the only non interferon agent, for Multiple Sclerosis, was developed by Israeli Teva Pharmaceuticals
    Discovery of Bti- an environmentally-friendly bacteria which eradicates mosquitoes and black flies, and reduces the incidence of mosquito-borne diseases, notably malaria. Since Bti was introduced along the Yangtze river in China , malarial infections from mosquitoes have dropped by 90%. Professor Margalith is currently involved in projects in the Central Asian Republics. Bti has also been used to control river blindness in eleven African countries, reportedly saving the sight of millions.
    Drug Velcade developed over a period of 30 years by scientists at Haifa. Has significant results in treatment of Myeloma
    Imaging device for carrying out radiation free xrays on patients with spinal deformities developed in Israel
    First vaccine against West Nile virus developed by Israelis
    Researchers in southern Israel developed new vaccines to combat germs eg pneumococcus, that are prevalent in children and easily spread in day care centres.
    Israeli researchers believe that a biological ‘switch’ found in plants may hold the secret for a new cancer treatment for humans. Scientists believe a process in plants to switch on cell growth, could be used in humans to switch off tumour growth.

  132. Ali Sina says:

    How Israel makes money.

    Israelis hold more patents per person than citizens of any other nation.
    Israel is one out of 8 countries that are capable of launching their own satellites into space.
    Israel has more scientists and engineers per capita than any other country.
    Israeli scientists publish more scientific papers than any other nation.
    A computer chip – made of living organisms and DNA. And it can also produce 330 trillion (330,000,000,000,000) actions in a second!
    Cherry Tomatoes were developed in Israel 15 years ago by a few research groups.
    The Galanit is a new flower that grows in blue and white – the colors of the Israeli flag. The flower had been developed in Israel by the Ministry of Agriculture during the last eight years!
    Epilady (or epilator) – this hair removal device was invented by two Israelis from a Kibbutz who wanted to make their wives’ lives easier and came up with an idea for electronic tweezers. It might not be life saving, but for millions of girls all over the world it’s definitely an essential device!!
    An Israeli company has developed a revolutionary new drug that could solve the problem of Colony Collapse Disorder, the disturbing syndrome that has been wiping out bee communities and threatening agricultural production all over the world.
    Most of the components of the Windows XP operating system were developed in Israel.
    An Israeli company invented the technology behind ICQ instant messaging.
    An Israeli company invented the network security technology, such as the firewall.
    The first PC anti-virus was invented in Israel.
    A virtual keyboard – a laser projector with a sensor that radiates a hologram of letters on any straight surface, and the sensor senses your fingers moving and translates it into real typing.
    The algorithm (code) that’s used today for sending e-mails, was made by an Israeli who worked at the Ben-Gurion University in Be’er-Sheva in 1980
    DiskOnKey (or USB flash drive) was developed by Dov Mor, the CEO of MSystems.
    One of the more recent developments is sending medical images (like ultrasound exams) through the cellular phone. This invention was made by Professor Boris Rubinsky and his team at Hebrew University and the University of California, Berkeley.
    Modu (an Israeli invention) is the smallest and the smartest mobile phone on earth because it is not only a mobile phone – it can be also a games console, a palm computer, a laptop and many other things.
    Using the internet and a PC has depended in the past on being able to manipulate a mouse by hand to navigate the screen. Israeli company Commodio has now developed the world’s first Voice Mouse – the screen responds to commands from the human voice. Using the voicemouse (called QPointer Handsfree ), the user can write and send email, use the Internet, and create and edit documents, without using his or her hands. The product is expected to be of particular value to those who suffer from Parkinson’s disease, paralysis or other physical disabilities. Microsoft has chosen Commodio as its business partner for voice operations
    Scientists at Israel ‘s Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot have created the world’s smallest computing device. The device uses so-called DNA (or biological) computing instead of silicon microchips, and marks a breakthrough in biological computing methods. The device operates at a computing speed equivalent to 15 trillion computers, and is more than one million times more energy-efficient than a PC. In the future, DNA computing is set to move from the realm of near-science-fiction, to transform pharmaceutical research
    In March 2003 Intel, the world’s leading chip manufacturer, unveiled its new microchip, the Centrino, in a worldwide marketing campaign. The Centrino’s key advantage is its low electricity consumption, making it highly suitable for laptop PCs, notebooks, the new generation of mobile phones, and other mobile devices. The Centrino was developed at Intel’s Israeli R&D facility in Haifa , Northern Israel . Intel’s Haifa centre is working with a second Intel Israel facility, in Petach Tikva, on the next generation of processors for cellular networks
    Attacks by hackers on websites is one of the most serious challenges facing companies and non-profit organisations on the internet. In 2002, US company Sanctum was recognised by industry consultants as the “de facto” leader in meeting this challenge. Sanctum markets products which enhance website “firewalls” by adding a further layer of security against attack. Sanctum’s two products AppScan and AppShield were developed in Sanctum’s research centre in Herzliya in central Israel

  133. Ali Sina says:

    Mr. Farzad,

    You asked why 14 million Jews control the whole world. They don’t control anything. This is a lie. You also asked why most of the wealth of the world is in their hand. This is also not true. But Israelis enjoy a higher standard of life than anyone else and the reason is that people like you enrich them. You buy their products. This is how Israel makes money.

    High Technology
    •The first cell phone in the world was developed in Haifa, Israel.
    •Israel developed the first camera chip used in cell phones.
    •Israeli companies invented the SMS and voice mail systems.
    •Israel holds the most High-Tech industries per population.
    •Invention of Safety Centre, a device to assess driving habits and improve them. Helps cut accidents.
    •Iron Dome – a mobile system that detects incoming short range missiles and assesses where they will land. If the target site is unpopulated no counter attack is mounted, if it will hit a populated area then small, guided missiles are fired to destroy the incoming missile mid air
    •The Arrow missile “Interceptor” is another Israeli project. This is a first of its kind – the only one that can intercept a ballistic missile. The arrow manoeuvres and destroys the attacker missile.
    •The IDF’s creative thinking has produced the Air Mule, an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) which helps with medical rescue and evacuation.
    •Urban Aeronautics has developed propellers which are installed inside the aircraft instead of outside. This enables the aircraft to carry out different operations in narrow places that are inaccessible to conventional planes and helicopters.
    •Invention of largest unmanned aircraft named Eitan. Can fly up to 45,000 feet carrying high-tech cameras and sensors which will give more precise information of ground activity during conflicts or in general monitoring of nations eg Iran
    •Israeli invention of “Earthquake Alert”, a home device to give early warning of earthquakes. Analyzes movement and determines if it is because of an earthquake or some other cause
    •Xaver 400 /800. These devices give 2D (400) or 3D (800) images below rubble. Used in searching for people following earthquakes who otherwise might not be found, or in hostage situations where the police need to see what is happening within buildings
    •Israeli company Satec, a world leader in electrical power products, has developed a system called ExpertPower for monitoring and preventing power breakdowns and blackouts. The system monitors energy distribution and use, and provides real-time reports via the Internet to assist in avoiding power system overloading.

  134. enlightened25 says:

    True nazis have alliance with muslims but today many of them of use the islam issue to promote their own ideologie. Yes america allied itself with other nations, but also stalin fought against hitler. Imagine someone saying don`t mention all the Mass killings under Communist regimes to stalin incase he gets upset and no longer fights against hitler. Yes we must talk about other peoples beliefs, especially if those beliefs share many traits with islam. No belief is free from criticism, or any personality whether it gandi, jesus or dalai lama. And i will say anyone who stops talking about islam and opposing it simply becuse their belief was criticised they have shown their true colours.

  135. John K says:

    Not quite true. You should read up more on the alliance between Nazis and Muslims.

  136. Ali Sina says:

    6-I said 14 million Jews have won 185 Nobel Prizes and most of them in science whereas 1.4 billion Muslims have won only 8 Nobel Prizes and most of them are for peace, which is politically motivated. The reason I said, is because the Jews are not infected by Islam and went after science. You then asked why the Christian countries are dominated by the Jews.

    You want to insinuate that Jews control the world and suck the blood of all the nations. This asininity was propagated by Hitler and the forgers of the document called Elders of Zion. First of all the Jews are not in control of anything. The reason they are wealthier than Muslims is clear in the disproportionate number of them winning the Nobel Prizes in various scientific fields. They have been living in captivity and as second class citizens most of their existence. They realized soon that if they have to survive they have to go after science, art, business and excel in whatever they do. If they were needed and considered useful they were left alone, otherwise they were often exterminated. Now that they are free they use the same dedication to succeed. Most of the hi-tech products you are using is invented by the Jews. Now if you really what to boycott Israeli product to bring down Zionism I suggest you watch this video.

    You are a Muslims and think the Jews are prosperous because they are stealing from Muslims and also Christians. This is part of your disease called Islam. You can’t accept the reality and try explain everything with your fantasy.

    It’s now over 32 years that Iran is controlled by Islamic rulers. Why in these years it has slipped further into poverty? Despite all his flaws, at least at the time of the Shah, Iranians were prosperous. Now, after 32 years and even though the oil is sold at exorbitant price, Iran has been reduced into a third world country. The standard of life of the Iranians inside the country is no better than the Bangladeshis. With the difference that we have oil and they don’t. Is that also the fault of the Jews? It’s interesting that you keep calling me bi ensaf. (unfair, unjust). As a Muslim you don’t know the meaning of ensaf.

    Christian countries are doing well. All the countries of the world are doing better than Muslims.


    Ali Sina

  137. Ali Sina says:

    5-You deny that Islam has anything to do with the backwardness of Muslims and said “when Europe of the Middle Ages was drowning in its filth Muslims were at the peak of their glory” and blamed the present backwardness of Muslims on the west for supporting dictators in Islamic countries.

    This point alone requires a good analysis, because it is fraught with fallacies. First of all the downfall of the west and the demise of the classical civilization is mostly owed to Islamic invasion of Europe. This argument is conclusively demonstrated by John O’Neill in his book, “Islam and the Demise of the Classical Civilization.”

    Secondly, the so called glory of Islam was mostly due to the fact that Muslims had invaded many countries and were living off the spoils of the war. People who produced those wealths were impoverished that the Muslims who stole them were enriched.

    There were also many thinkers and scientists in those so called Golden Are of Islam. Many of them did not believe in Islam and some, like Zakaria Razi mocked the prophets and called them Billy goats (rish bozi). How can we explain their emergence? Did they learn their science from the Quran or from the books they translated from the Western knowledge. It is no secret that the rulers of Islam, in those days were not so much concerned about Islam. Ma’mun even persecuted anyone who claimed the Quran is eternal. The early caliphs, with the exception of the first four, were secular rulers. They used Islam as an instrument to raid and loot and make the foolish masses do their bidding but in their courts they were quite liberal. This allowed the thinkers of vanquished nations, flourish. But soon the loot ended and the Muslims were engulfed in poverty, from which they never recovered and will never recover unless they leave Islam. Muslims are incapable of producing anything or of innovative ideas.

    If Muslims discover something or invent something, it is not because of Islam. There is no science in the Quran. Does the Quran teach chemistry, algebra, physics or medicine? No, but it teaches deception, violence, terrorism and hate. Islamic culture is an oxymoron, and Islamic terrorism is redundancy.

    I am not the one saying Jews are the descendants of the monkeys and pigs. It was Muhammad who thought God transformed the Jews into Pigs, rats and monkeys. He repeats this asinine statement three times in the Quran.

    When Muhammad besieged the fortress of the Bani Quraiza he shouted at them, “You brothers of monkeys, has God disgraced you and brought his vengeance upon you?” [Sira of Ibn Ishaq page 461]. Poor Rumi was influenced by this idiotic thinking of Muhammad and he rehashed this nonsense in his Mathnavi. By insulting me you cannot change the facts. These are facts documented in the Quran, Sira and Mathnavi.

  138. Ali Sina says:

    4-You quoted a poem that says some people prefer faith and others desire kofr. I don’t like the word kofr. It is insulting. But I agree that some people prefer faith and others favor reason. My whole problem with Islam is because it does not recognize the rights of the people who don’t want to believe. The very fact that you divide people among those who believe and those who do kofr is proof that you don’t recognize that freedom. What is kofr? This is insult. In a debate that I had with a Pakistani cleric I demonstrated that Muslims are the ones who do kofr.… Islam is kofr. Please see that article. Yet my problem with Islam is not because it is kofr, but because it does not acknowledge that people must be free to choose and there should be no imposition or compulsion in matters of faith. Even Muhammad made that claim but then he killed those who did not believe in him.

    You also said the truth of a proposition cannot be determined by the number of people upholding it. That is great, but weren’t you the person who said 1.2 billion people believe in Muhammad and hence he cannot be the evil person that I say he is? Anyway, I am happy you came to that conclusion finally and I hope you will not think Islam is true just because a billion people follow it or because Rumi and Hafez were Muslims, or because it has lasted for 14 centuries or because Muslims love it. All these are logical fallacies.

    You also said many people who leave Islam in their youth do so in order to indulge in a sinful life of lust and pleasure and they return to Islam when they come to reason. I agree. Those who leave Islam so they can indulge in carnal pleasures often revert back. Many terrorists and suicide bombers were just as you describe them. But those who leave Islam because they realize this faith is contrary to everything that is good and decent don’t return. Those whom I help leave Islam are in the second category. The difference is in leaving Islam after gaining knowledge of it or leaving it because you like to live a life of libertinage. That is why I encourage all those who leave Islam to deepen their knowledge of it. Once they learn everything I know they will never return. Islam attracts ignorant people. My goal is to eliminate ignorance.

    I am glad that you did not include me among those who leave Islam to indulge in lustful life. However, you say I do this out of “prejudiced enmity.” I am an enemy of Islam but my enmity is not based on prejudice. It is very much informed.

    But why I oppose Islam? As a Muslims for you it is incomprehensible to acknowledge that some people may find Islam abhorrent and oppose it because they want to fight evil. In your mind anyone who opposes Islam must have a disease in his heart, is doing it out of envy, or malice or perhaps has an ulterior motive, for example financial gain. This is not just your thinking. This is Islamic indoctrination that has been handed down to you by Muhammad. Muhammad was a narcissist and this line of reasoning fits the characteristics of a narcissist.

    Let me inform you that I oppose Islam for the same reason that I oppose Nazism, communism, fascism, misogyny, discrimination, violation of human rights and pedophilia. I fight against Islam because it is evil, not because it is a lie. There are countless other religions that I don’t subscribe to, but I am not against them. I am not against faith. I am against hate.

  139. Ali Sina says:

    Mr. Farzad,

    1-You reiterate that Ali ibn Abu Taleb’s greatness is evident from the book attributed to him, Nahjol Balagheh. I said if Ali had any wisdom there would have been some mention of him by thinkers and philosophers. But he is ignored. Yet books of Hafez , Sa’di and Khayyam are translated in many languages and most educated people know them.

    2-You say that if Muhammad did not have anything new to offer I have to explain where the wisdom of Muslim thinkers such as Rumi and Hafez originated. My answer is that geniuses appear among all nations and cultures. The fact that there have been many Muslim geniuses is not a credit to Islam. It just happens that these people were born in Islamic countries and believed Islam to be true. If they knew what we know today, they would not have called themselves Muslim. Today we can explain Muhammad from the psychological point of view. Even ordinary Muslims who understand this will no longer believe in him. Geniuses can be wrong. Religion controls humans from a subconscious level. Its grip on us is much greater than our intelligence that operates on a conscious level. So it is very possible for smart people hold beliefs that are very stupid.

    3-You say you have plenty of experience in debating and have seen people who lose an argument engage in logical fallacies. I also have plenty of experience in debating. My debates are mostly published and you’ll find thousands of them, some short and some very long ones. However if you are insinuating that I engage in logical fallacies I challenge you to show them. I noticed several logical fallacies in your arguments and highlighted them – the fallacies of argumentum ad numerum, argumentum ad verecundiam, argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad antiquitatem. You also engaged in the fallacy of ad hominem, which you acknowledged, but have refrained from it after I brought it to your attention. And of course, all Muslims engage in circular reasoning when they claim Muhammad is a prophet of God because he said so. I can show exactly where these fallacies took place. Will you show me which fallacies I engaged in and where so I can be watchful from now on?

  140. فرزاد says:

    جناب سینا
    1- ملاک بزرگی و کوچکی مردان بزرگ تاریخ قضاوت کسانی مانند من و شما نیست علی بن ابیطالب دارای جایگاهی مشخص و رفیع است و حتی دشمنان او به این موضوع اعتراف دارند و لازم نیست کسی مانند من اعتقاد به تشیع داشته باشد تا علی را بزرگ ببیند٬ هر کسی هر دین و مسلکی که داشته باشد کافی است کمی انصاف داشته باشد تا در برابر عظمت علی قد خم کند٬ جرج جورداق مسیحی یکی از این افراد است؛ البته با وجود کتابی به نام نهج البلاغه اصلا نیازی به تعریف و تمجید دیگران نیست.
    2- من ادعا نکردم چون رومی و حافظ مسلمان اند پس اسلام دین درستی است حرف من است که از یک مقدمه نادرست نتیجه درست حاصل نمی شود و یک معلم بیسواد نمی تواند دانش آموختگانی فرهیخته آن هم فرهیختگانی تا این حد بزرگ که در راس هرم بزرگان انسانیت هستند پرورش دهد و شما که ادعا می کنید محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم چیزی برای عرضه نداشته و برعکس انسانی چنین و چنان با صفات منفی بوده باید این تناقض را حل کنید.
    3- جناب دکتر من تجربه نسبتا زیادی در بحث با مخالفان و دشمنان اسلام داشته ام٬‌ معمولا در حین بحث وقتی زمانی فرا می رسد که طرف مقابل دیگر حرفی برای گفتن ندارد به عنوان یک حربه برای فرار از تنگنای بحث شروع به یافتن انواع مغلطه و سفسطه می کند و این را برگ برنده ای برای خود تصور می کند.
    4- به قول شاعر “متاع کفر و دین بی مشتری نیست / گروهی این گروهی آن پسندند” متاسفانه شما همچنان به تفسیر نادرست از سخنان من ادامه می دهید و بر اساس این تفسیر غلط جواب های خود را بیان می کنید هیچگاه کثرت و قلت طرفداران یک دین٬‌ فکر و … دلیل بر درستی و یا نادرستی آن نیست لطفا جواب منطقی و عقلانی به تناقضی که در شماره 2 بیان کردم بدهید در ضمن بسیاری از کسانی که شما مدعی هستید دین اسلام را ترک کرده اند بعد از گذشت مدت زمانی نه چندان طولانی وقتی که عقل آنها به حد بلوغ رسید و از میزان شهوت جسم آنها کم شد دوباره به اصل و فطرت خود رجوع می کنند و به جبران مافات می پردازند و نکته دیگر اینکه غالب این افراد از میان کسانی هستند که یا هیچ اطلاعی از پایه های اعتقادی خود ندارند و چون اسلام را مانع و سدی در برابر لذت های زودگذر می بینند از آن ناخشنود می شوند و آن را ترک می کنند و یا اطلاعات آنها ناقص است و کسانی همچون شما هستند که تنها از زاویه دشمنی و به دور از انصاف اسلام را نگاه کرده اند و خروجی فهم آنها جز دشمنی کور و متعصبانه چیز دیگری نیست.
    5- عقب ماندگی های امروز دنیای اسلام هیچ ربطی به آموزه های دینی مسلمین ندارد اگر این آموزه ها سبب عقب ماندگی و پسرفت بودند نباید زمانی که اروپائیان در کثافات خود غرق بودند و دوران سیاه قرون وسطی را طی می کردند مسلمین در اوج فرهیختگی باشند از نظر من این عقب ماندگی تنها و تنها دلایل سیاسی دارد که ما امروز به روشنی آن را مشاهده می کنیم و غربیان پست و رذل عوامل خود را به اسم شاه و رئیس جمهور مادام العمرو … بر سر مسلمین مسلط کرده اند و آنها را به خاک فلاکت انداخته اند جناب سینا تاریخ هنوز پایان نیافته است و هنوز بسیار زود است که ما به نتیجه گیری نهایی برسیم زمانی می توان به قضاوت نشست که در شرایط مساوی همه فکرها به میدان مسابقه وارد شوند و باشرایط عادلانه و مساوی به رقابت بنشینند آنگاه اگر نتیجه همین بود که ما امروز مشاهده می کنیم حق با شماست و من ساکت خواهم شد.
    در ضمن از بیسودای و کم ا طلاعی شما همین بس که فکر می کنید یهودیان امروز از بازماندگان خوک و میمون های مسخ شده هزاران سال پیش اند و حماقت خود را به مولوی نسبت می دهید و احمقانه خواندن مسخ هم یکی از نتایج از جزء‌ به کل رسیدن است که شما با اینکه خود را انسانی با معلومات بالا می پندارید متاسفانه به آن مبتلا هستید.
    6- اشاره کردید که امروزه چهارده میلیون یهودی دارای موقعیتی ممتاز در سطح جهان اند در حالیکه یک و نیم میلیارد مسلمان مقهور قدرت آنان اند و این موضوع تنها به این دلیل است که آنها اسیر آموزهای اسلام نیستند٬‌ خیلی جالب است این توپ در زمین شما گردش بیشتری دارد آیا می توانید توضیح دهید علت برتری همین چهارده میلیون یهودی بر حدود دو میلیارد مسیحی و بیش از دو میلیارد از مسلک های دیگر چیست چرا یهودیان با این اقلیت بسیار کم تقریبا مالک اکثر ثروت دنیا هستند٬ مسیحیان که مانند مسلمین اسیر آموزهای اسلام نیستند و اساسا سالهای متمادی است که دین را از عرصه اجتماع خارج کرده اند٬‌ چرا مسیحیان مقهور یهودیان اند؟ من یقین دارم شما جز داستانسرایی و یا انکار جواب دیگری نخواهید داشت اما اگر دنبال حقیقت و جواب درست هستید به قرآن مراجعه کنید حتما جواب درست را خواهید یافت.
    جواب پست های بعدی را در شب های آینده خواهم داد.

  141. enlightened25 says:

    Those of us in the anti-islam camp have a lot of different views and beliefs. Their are atheists, christians, jews, communists, nazis, materialists, spiritualists, conservatives, liberals and so on and so forth. The point is even if i agree complety with, say a nazi about islam, that is not going to stop me talking about his disgusting beliefs. Simply becuse he agrees with me about one issue. In my view their are two types of people who critise islam. 1)Those who genuinely see islam as a danger to the survival of our species. And 2)Those who oppose it not becuse they see islam as a danger to the survival of humanity, but becuse they see islam as threat to the survival of their ideologie.

  142. everin says:

    Thousands of people killed in natural disasters is no big deal to God. It is not a diabolic act. It is the working of His Law of Karma, u get what u deserve. These people were killers in their previous lives. They were the soilders of Emperor Chin tze Hwang, of Genghis Khan, of Stalin, Hitler, Emperors Napoleon n Hirohito, and countless other blood-thirsty dictators in history. They were in the disaster areas to meet their fate by Divine arrangement.. God doesn't play dice, according to Dr, Albert Eistein.
    Death in the physical world is birth in the spiritual world, where souls will be sorted, rehabilited n reincarnated. The process is something like that in a recycling plant. GOD IS FAIR TO ALL.

  143. John K says:

    It just occurred to me that you are thinking of biological cloning rather than Star Wars clones.

    Of course, in my religious paradigm we are spirits who reside inside biological "machines". So since clones have been created and lived, I imagine spirits are sent to inhabit bodies which are not conventionally made as well.

  144. John K says:

    Hi Arya,

    You really surprised me with this statement:

    "Religious mind is the same irrespective of whether it is Muslim, Christian, Jewish… "

    Judging by your other posts, I thought you were a pretty sharp thinker, but this stoops pretty low. As Dr. Sina has spent ample text refuting this thought on this site, I won't elaborate, but rather just say it leaves me disappointed in you.

    "So you mean to say that God and Law are different from each other and exist on their own eternally without their maker. In this case, God is incapable of making or changing Law and wields no power over the Law."

    That's correct.

    "So it is clear that he is not the creator of the universe."

    Depends how you define create. As I previously cited the law of matter and energy, matter cannot be created. However, God organized the universe, most likely via the Big Bang as it is currently the most widely accepted theory of the origin of the universe.

    "why pray to this impotent God?"

    Don't you ever call your parents? "ET phone home".

    "doesn't it constitute criminal offence on the part of this powerful God?"

    In what part of your law is this criminal code contained?

  145. John K says:

    It's still computing 😉

  146. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    To each, his opinion, as long as we don't plan to assault each other physically 🙂
    What are your opinions on Neural computing & cloning?

  147. Arya Anand says:

    Hi John K,
    Religious mind is the same irrespective of whether it is Muslim, Christian, Jewish or any other creed or cult. All religious people lose logical thinking and make asinine statements to uphold the existence of personal God. Your statements show you are in this category. You said God is not the maker of Law and asked why should he intervene in the natural law. So you mean to say that God and Law are different from each other and exist on their own eternally without their maker. In this case, God is incapable of making or changing Law and wields no power over the Law. So it is clear that he is not the creator of the universe. Then, how you are sure this being that you call God is really the God and why pray to this impotent God? Don't you know that on your premise the Law is the real God not the impotent being that you assume as god?

    If God has power over the Law but does not intervene to prevent the disasters as you say, doesn't it constitute criminal offence on the part of this powerful God?

  148. John K says:

    "Many of them live with their Islamic families and in Islamic countries. I tell them to keep their beliefs to themselves. I even tell them go to the mosque and through the ritual of praying and pretend fasting."

    Thank you for being considerate of their safety.

  149. John K says:

    Hi Arya,

    How does anything come into existence, whether it's matter, you, or I? Things just exist. They always have and always will. The law of conservation of matter and energy states that they can be transformed, but not created or destroyed.

    I appreciate your question, but note that I did not say that God makes Laws, I said that he respects them. Why is it his job to intervene in everything that happens in the universe? As a loving parent, you will protect and teach your children safe living when they are young, but when they grow up, you let them manage their own lives on their own. The issue is not whether or not natural disasters occur, but rather how we react to them when they occur. Do we love and help our fellow man? Do we work to improve river channels and install dams so that flooding causes less damage next time?

  150. everin says:

    No. no, my kettle is an electrical one that never goes black. Everyone here says yr pot is "black" all over.

  151. Arya Anand says:

    How did this God of Principle and Law come into existence? Who is the creator of this God? Who gave this much power and authority to this God? Why should he make the Law and decide not to intervene even when there is a lot of natural disasters and calamities that kill tens of thousands of innocent people and other living beings? Do you mean this God of Principle and Law is insane criminal?

  152. John K says:

    You have a point. Dr. Sina would prefer that other religions not be discussed at all, but I find it near impossible, as you say, because of the relationships you mention, as well as the fact that articles on the site constantly touch on comparative religion and otherwise cite issues related to other religions.

    The issue is the hostility. Dr. Sina has specifically asked us not to attack other religions here. He is trying to build an alliance among people of all religious backgrounds to resist Islam. It would be like the Allies trying to defeat the Nazis in WWII with the British, French, and Americans all fighting among themselves.

  153. John K says:

    "If he can control them but does not intervene nor he warns people to get out of the harm’s way, he is a callous god unworthy of praise…. No matter how you look at it, the god you describe is unworthy of praise. But all these things will start making sense if you replace God with Principle and law."

    God is a God of Principle and Law and as such respects them and does not violate them. It's not his job intervene in everything that happens everywhere. It's our job to learn from our experiences and learn to master our world.

  154. Ali Sina says:

    Mr. Farzad,

    You say artificial intelligence is created by an intelligent being so how can that intelligent being have come to exist without a creator? Indeed any machine must have a maker. A watch would not exist without a watchmaker. However the universe is not a machine but a living organism and is subject to a different set of laws – the law of evolution. I am not going to go into details but I have written an article that answers this question.

    Finally, you said that I said if God were real no person would die. That is not what I said. I said if God existed he would not kill countless people including innocent children in so many natural disasters. If indeed an intelligent being were behind these so called “acts of God,” he would be a terrorist. Why would God send a tsunami or an earthquake or a hurricane and murder hundreds of thousands of people indiscriminately and bring so much pain and misery to the lives of those who survive? Wouldn’t that be insane? That is terrorism and completely without reason. As insane and nefarious as it may be there is logic behind terrorism, but there is no logic behind natural disasters.

    If God is responsible for them, he is a terrorist unworthy of praise. He is a diabolic being.
    If these disasters are out of his control then he is an impotent inept god, unworthy of praise.
    If he can control them but does not intervene nor he warns people to get out of the harm’s way, he is a callous god unworthy of praise.
    If he knows what is happening and wants to help but he can’t then he is a worthless god unworthy of praise.
    No matter how you look at it, the god you describe is unworthy of praise. But all these things will start making sense if you replace God with Principle and law.

    Anyway, as I said before, I am not interested debating the existence or inexistence of God. Let us assume God exists and it is the same god you are talking about. With that premise I would like you to prove to me that Muhammad is a messenger of that God.

    Muslims shun the discussion of Islam because they know it is not something they can defend. They love to expand the discussion to more abstract subjects such as god. In this way they don’t feel isolated as many other religions also believe in a god that is more or less similar to Allah. That is why I avoid the discussion of god. And frankly I don’t have a problem with god. You are welcome to worship a stone, but don’t throw it at me.

    Now, let us end this debate here and I move on to the next subject. My first question is:
    Does the Quran Prohibit Killing
    Obviously you are a learned mullah. Maybe a teacher of the howzeh in Qom. Let us see if you can answer my questions.

  155. Ali Sina says:

    Mr. Farzad,

    You accuse me of pick’n choosing some verses of the Quran to make my case against it and ignore other verses such as, 9:70 that says, “It was not Allah Who should do them injustice, but they were unjust to themselves.” Or 4:40 “Surely Allah does not do injustice to the weight of an ant, and if it is a good deed He multiplies it and gives from Himself a great reward.”

    Not bad words. But good words that are not supported by good deeds are worthless. In fact Confucius said the greatness of a man can be determined to the extent that his deeds match his words.

    Did Muhammad’s deed match these words? He raided, looted, tortured, raped and massacred people. What justice was he talking about?

    In the verse 9:70 he says it was not Allah who did them injustice but they did it to themselves. He is narrating the fable of the biblical prophets. But look at what he did to those who did not believe in him. Did he leave them to God or to themselves? No, he raided them; he massacred them; he enslaved their women and children.

    In a hadith Muhammad said whoever steals the land of an orphan that land will encircle his neck in the hell (or something to that effect). Then we see him making countless children orphan and taking all their properties and selling themselves as slaves. Imagine how much land must be encircling the neck of Muhammad in hell. How did he enrich himself in Medina? How did he acquire those gardens of dates that he donated to his followers? Fadak, which he gave to Fatima and Ali, which caused the enmity between Fatima and Abu Baker and is the source of Shiism was a stolen property.

    Please, don’t be fooled by words. Words are dime a dozen. When I was growing up in Iran there was a radio show called Shahri dar dele shahr-e maa (a city within our city). Every week the producer interviewed an inmate on death roll. At the end he would ask him whether he had any advice for young people. I was about ten or eleven years old at that time. I was amazed that these hardened criminals and murderers had the best advice. But they did not live by their own advice.

    Muhammad said a lot of good things. But he lived a life crime. One who reads the Sira will realize that there has been no man as evil as Muhammad. He was much more evil than Hitler. Once the truth about him is known Hitler will be very happy because he won’t be remembered as the most evil man in history.

  156. enlightened25 says:

    I understand that this site is about islam but why other religions CANNOT be discussed. Why islam cannot be reformed? becuse it Claims divine origins. Even the evil secular ideologies like nazism and marxism could be reformed -for the simple reason they claim no divine authority. The same thing can be said about democracy, secularism, capitalism, humanism and so on. Becuse even if their is something wrong with these ideas they can change, improve, reform or even start again from scratch. So i cannot see how you can critise islam without talking about God or where it got these ideas from (i.e christianity and judaism).

  157. John K says:

    I'm sorry your paradigm is so embittered. Wishing it to be so, however, does not make it so.

    This site welcomes and respects persons from all religious backgrounds except Islam, so your hostility is out of place here.

  158. enlightened25 says:

    "Are you sure you are not an undercover Muslim?" No i am not an undercover muslim and anytime i get the chance to bash muhammed and his evil cult i will do so. But I will not be a hypocrite and try to take the the softly-softly approach where christianity is concerned like some other unbelievers on this site do (like ali sina). I see judaism and christianity as the root of all the evil doctrines in islam, the main one being a belief in a supreme being which is nothing but the wish to be enslaved. Of course i have no doubt if judaism was never invented their would have been other mad cults, but none i think as sinister as judaism and its offsprings.

  159. enlightened25 says:

    Mr john k sharia law is very similar to biblical law infact muhammed borrowed a lot from the bible. For example when a jew was found to have committed adultery, mo asked the rabbis what is the punisment prescribed in the torah. The rabbis replied stoning but the jews no longer used it, becuse of their low numbers. Muhammed then said the poor soul had to be stoned to death, simply becuse its in the bible. So at least the muslims are not hypocrites -unlike the jews and christians.

  160. John K says:

    You must live in a country with Sharia Law.

    Are you sure you are not an undercover Muslim?

  161. Ali Sina says:

    Mr. Farzad,

    You quoted a hadith that says someone said God is greater than all things and Imam Ja’far said that limits God. You must say God is greater than any description of him. Assuming this is a true hadith. I say assuming because the Shiites are notorious for fabricating hadiths. This is not what Muhammad says. Muhammad’s takbir consists in Allah Akbar, nothing else. So why would Ja’far make that statement? Because by his time many great thinkers have been born in Islam and they had started projecting their own understand into it. Their superior thinking is not from Islam. Muslims have always been more intelligent than Muhammad. Ja’far was influenced by the thinking of the sages of his time not necessarily by what Muhammad said. Furthermore, as I said earlier the indescribablity of God is not new to Islam. It existed at least since Judaism. And it is not such a great wisdom. If you ask a person to describe something that he can’t because he does not know, he will tell you, it’s hard to describe it. You think it’s such a big wisdom. It is not.

    You said if I agree that Muhammad’s description of God is not illogical you would be happy to answer all my questions about Islam.

    I already said that Muhammad’s definition of God is the same as the pagan gods. Of course I do not accept a personal God such as Allah. A god that sends messengers, answers prayers, punishes and rewards is a personal God. But that is not the only problem with Islam. Generally I don’t get into the discussion about God. I am not against the belief in God. As you have noticed I have many fans who are believers. Let us assume, for the sake of argument that Muhammad’s understanding of God was correct. There are a million and one other problems with Islam that have nothing to do with God. One of them is here.… The problem with Islam is far greater than its definition of God. You made me get into this subject. I am not interested in this subject. I want to talk about Muhammad and the Quran. So let as agree with whatever definition you want to give to god and let me show you that Muhammad could not have been the prophet of that god you are talking about.

    You say to escape from the problems that exist in my thesis I have made Man the center of everything and you ask me whether I have any evidence for such a position.

    I am a humanist. Humanism takes man (ensan) as the measure of all things. It’s an ideology which espouses reason, ethics and justice and rejects supernatural and religious dogma as basis of morality.

    It’s important that the parameter should be known. We know man. We know what affects him. What hurts him and what makes him happy. Humanism takes man as the measure and builds all values around him.

    What else can we take as the measure? God? Whose god? Each person’s god is different. Even Muslims have different gods. Why would they kill each other? Even the Shiites have different Gods. Khamanei thinks his god has authorized hid to kill anyone who disagrees with him. Other Muslims go to the rooftop and shout Allah Akbar against Khamanei. Whose god is the right one?

    The parameter must be known and measurable, not something imagined like God or the message of God. If the measure is not standard you can’t measure anything with it.

    Religion cannot be taken as parameter, because humans have many religions. Whose religion should we use as parameter? There is only one thing we all agree that that is our humanity. We all have the same needs. We need to be free and to pursue happiness. As long as our freedom does not violate the freedom of others, our freedom is sacrosanct. People of all faiths agree on that. Muslims are the only people who don’t. They are the only people who think their faith must dominate all mankind whether they like it or not.

  162. Ali Sina says:

    Mr. Farzad,
    You say that Muhammad was illiterate and yet great people like Ali ibn Abi Talib, Imam Ja’far Sadeq , Rumi and Hafez benefited from his knowledge.

    Let us analyze this claim. First of all I don’t see any greatness in Ali and Ja’far. You see greatness in them because you are a believer. That is faith not facts or reason. Do you see any philosopher or thinking person ever quote these two men? Yet they quote Confucius, Buddha, Lao Zi, Socrates, Kant, and countless other people. Ali and Ja’far are only great for the Shiites. Then again David Koresh and Charles Manson were also great for their benighted followers.

    As for Rumi and Hafez and other Muslim sages, please know that even the wisest person can be wrong. The argument you preset is called argumentum ad verecundiam or appeal to authority. It is a logical fallacy. A false proposition does not become true just because people of authority believe it to be true. Up until Copernicus and Galileo all the sages of the world thought that the Earth is flat and the center of the universe. Islam does not become true, just because Rumi and Hafez or countless other Muslims thought it is. I have evidence that show Muhammad was not a prophet of God but a mentally sick man. I am offering $50,000 reward to anyone who would read my book and prove my claims wrong. This offer is ten years old.
    I am not claiming to be smarter than 1.5 billion Muslims. But I have stumbled upon something that few have. I was in a privileged position to make that discovery, and not because I am smarter than others. Numerous other people such as Ali Dashti, and Ahmad Kasravi had also realized that Muhammad was a liar. But I have unraveled his mystique. I have diagnosed his mind and with precision have shown his mental disorders. Once a person reads my book, all his questions will be answered. You don’t get more information from my book, but an “aha”. Suddenly, everything falls into place and you become an expert on Muhammad.

    The fact that the Quran is published in large numbers does not prove that it is true. Believers of any faith think their holy book is divine. They buy it and distribute it. This is another logical fallacy, called argumentum ad numerum. A proposition does not become true because a large number of people believe in it.

    You ask how an illiterate man could attract millions of devotees. Have these millions had a chance to hear what the critics of Islam say? How can they make an intelligent judgment if all they have heard is Islamic indoctrination? How can they find the truth when they will be prosecuted and even killed if they ask the wrong question? I did. But no one had an answer and I realized if I insist I will be in trouble. Fortunately I was living in a western country and most Iranians have no faith in Islam anymore.

    But that is changing. I started exposing Islam in 1998. Since then millions of people have been informed and thousands have been inspired to start their own sites and speak out against this cult. As the result millions of people have left Islam. These days the biggest growing religion is apostasy to Islam.

    I receive emails from countless people who tell me they no longer believe in Islam and ask me what they should do. Many of them live with their Islamic families and in Islamic countries. I tell them to keep their beliefs to themselves. I even tell them go to the mosque and through the ritual of praying and pretend fasting. At one moment we will be so numerous that Islam will fall on its own. That day is not too far away.

    Tell me what Muslims have learned from Islam? Why Muslim countries are invariably more backward and barbaric than non-Muslim countries? Doesn’t this show that Islam has been a negative influence for Muslims?

    Even geniuses such as Rumi, said stupid things like Allah transformed the Jews to monkeys and pigs. Why a great man such as Rumi would say such a stupid thing. That is the influence of Islam in him. Islam has been a negative force. Millions of Germans believed in Hitler. Millions of Italians adored Musolini, Millions of Chinese worshipped Mao. The fact that millions of people believe in something does not mean that thing has any value. In fact as Bertrand Russell said, “ The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”

    Fourteen million Jews have produced 185 Nobel Prize winners and 1.4 billion Muslim have eight, one of them the terrorist Yasser Arafat. How come sons of monkeys and pigs have beaten the rightly guided Muslims so badly? Are they smarter? No. They are not infected by the disease of Islam. That is all. When we dump Islam we too will start shining.

  163. John K says:

    Look. I was born with a science fiction book in my hands, and on any other subject, I would be the first to say the same kind of thing that you are saying, and I have said it many times throughout my life, but believe me, sentient computers are not going to happen. This is one of the most explored concepts in science fiction, and holds fascination for both the learned and the masses, but it's not going to happen.

  164. enlightened25 says:

    If a man preached what jesus did, today he would be locked up in a mental hospital. Even the famous christian apologist C.S lewis had to admit if jesus was not the son of god, he must be a lunatic, a liar, or worse.

  165. فرزاد says:

    جناب سینا
    1- قرآن محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم را امی می داند٬ “امی” یعنی کسی که نزد استادی درس نخوانده و معارف و معلومات او از خویشتن است و این از مسلمات تاریخی است که او خواندن و نوشتن نمی دانسته است اما درعین حال کتاب او یعنی قرآن پرفروش ترین و مورد توجه ترین کتاب دنیاست٬ شاید شما بتوانید اتهاماتی بی اساس را به پیامبر خدا وارد کنید اما نمی توانید این واقعیت را انکار کنید که کسانی چون علی بن ابیطالب٬‌ امام جعفر صادق علیهما السلام و مولای رومی و حافظ و هزاران تن دیگر از شاگردان مکتب او هستند و دانش آموخته کتاب قرآنند و خود به این شاگردی اعتراف دارند و به آن افتخار می کنند؛ شما که به محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم اتهام بی سوادی می زنید در مرحله بعد باید این تناقض را حل کنید که چگونه ممکن است یک بیسواد مولف کتابی باشد و هزاران بلکه میلیونها شاگرد فرهیخته داشته باشد که نه تنها افتخار اسلام بلکه افتخار انسانیت و بشریت اند.
    2- اشاره کردید که معنایی که من از الله اکبر بیان کردم برداشت و تفسیر شخصی من است نکته ای که باید به آن توجه کنید این است که اهل بیت پیامبر ص مفسر اصلی قرآن و معارف اسلام اند و من نیز این معنا از الله اکبر را از اهل بیت علیهم السلام فرا گرفته ام و به غیر از معارف قرآن و اهل بیت چیزی از خود ندارم در تفسیر و معنای الله اکبر به حدیث زیر توجه کنید:
    وَ عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنْ سَهْلِ بْنِ زِيَادٍ عَنِ ابْنِ مَحْبُوبٍ عَمَّنْ ذَكَرَهُ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع قَالَ قَالَ رَجُلٌ عِنْدَهُ اللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ فَقَالَ اللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ مِنْ أَيِّ شَيْ‏ءٍ فَقَالَ مِنْ كُلِّ شَيْ‏ءٍ فَقَالَ أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع حَدَّدْتَهُ فَقَالَ الرَّجُلُ كَيْفَ أَقُولُ قَالَ قُلِ اللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ مِنْ أَنْ يُوصَفَ. وسایل الشیعه جلد 7 صفحه 191
    شخصی نزد امام صادق علیه السلام گفت الله اکبر٬ امام از او پرسید خدا از چه چیزی بزرگتر است آن شخص گفت خدا بزرگتر از هر چیزی است امام صادق علیه السلام فرمود خدا را محدود کردی آن شخص گفت چگونه بگویم امام فرمود بگو خدا بزرگتر از آن است که به وصف درآید.
    3- همانطور که قبلا هم عرض کردن بنابر بیان خود قرآن پیامبر خدا مکمل راه پیامبران قبل از خود است و تفسیر همه پیامبران از خدا٬‌ با توجه به اینکه تا به مرحله شناخت لازم از خدا نرسند شایستگی پیامبری را پیدا نمی کنند٬ تفسیر و برداشت واحدی است و اختلاف تنها در بیان آنها دربا توجه به میزان درک مخاطبان آنهاست؛ اصلی ترین مشخصه خدا که بدون آن لیاقت خدایی ندارد همین غیرقابل توصیف بودن اوست٬‌ پس اگر ادعا می شود پیامبر صحیح ترین تعریف از خدا را دارد در مقایسه با غیر از پیامبران است و فرق او با سایر پیامبران در معرفی بیشتراز خداست که شما به آن تحت عنوان 99 اسم بیان کردید؛ بحث اسماء و صفات خدا گل سر سبد معارف قرآنی است که در صورت دریافت درست معنای اسماء‌ و صفات خدا نفس انسان به آرامش کامل می رسد و از جوش و خروش و اضطراب فاصله گرفته و مصداق “یا ایتها النفس المطمئنه ارجعی الی ربک راضیه مرضیه فادخلی فی عبادی” می شود.
    4- اگر شما بپذیرید که تعریف محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم در مرحله اول دارای اشکالات عقلی و منطقی نیست آنگاه در مرحله بعد من در خدمت شما خواهم بود و تمام آنچه که به نظر شما غیر قابل پذیرش است و عقلانی نیست را با بیان عقلانی و منطقی اشکالاتش را برطرف خواهم کرد.

    5- برای فرار از اشکالاتی که به شما وارد است تمام تکیه شما براین مسئله است که انسان و زندگی او را اصل و اساس فرض کرده و خوب و بد را با آن مورد سنجش قرار می دهید٬ البته این موضوع احساس خوب و شاعرانه ای است اما ما در جلسه شب شعر شرکت نکرده ایم٬ آیا شما دلیلی علمی٬‌ منطقی یا فلسفی بر مدعای خود دارید؟
    6- بدترین نوع انتقاد بر یک فکر و مکتب و … این است که به صورت نقطه ای آنچه به گونه ای مدعا را ثابت کند گلچین کرده و صرف نظر از سایر مطالب ادعا کنی که این اشکالات و انتقادات مثلا در قرآن وجود دارد قرآن به صراحت بیان می کند که “فَما كانَ اللَّهُ لِيَظْلِمَهُمْ وَ لكِنْ كانُوا أَنْفُسَهُمْ يَظْلِمُون‏” و یا “إِنَّ اللَّهَ لا يَظْلِمُ مِثْقالَ ذَرَّةٍ وَ إِنْ تَكُ حَسَنَةً يُضاعِفْها وَ يُؤْتِ مِنْ لَدُنْهُ أَجْراً عَظيماً” همچنین “فَمَنْ يَعْمَلْ مِثْقالَ ذَرَّةٍ خَيْراً يَرَهُ وَ مَنْ يَعْمَلْ مِثْقالَ ذَرَّةٍ شَرًّا يَرَهُ” هر کس کار خیری انجام دهد همان کار خیر را می بیند و هر کس کار شری انجام دهد همان کار شر را می بیند.
    این هم یکی دیگری از معارف جدید قرآنی است که هر آنچه در هستی اتفاق می افتد با استفاده و تکیه بر قدرت خداست “لاحول و لاقوة الا بالله”‌ همه فاعلها و همه قابلها تحت قدرت اوهستند اما در عین حال ” ما أَصابَكَ مِنْ حَسَنَةٍ فَمِنَ اللَّهِ وَ ما أَصابَكَ مِنْ سَيِّئَةٍ فَمِنْ نَفْسِك‏” هر خیر و نیکی که به تو برسد از خداست اما آنچه مکروه و ناپسند است محصول عملکرد خود توست. شما برای فرار از این تناقض بزرگ چاره ای ندارید جز این که انسان و زندگی او را محور قرار دهید؛ موضوعی که با هیچ نوع دلیلی قابل اثبات نیست و تنها یک برداشت ناشی از خودخواهی و خود شیفتگی انسان نسبت خویشتن و تحمیل خواستهای خود بر دیگر موجودات است اما قرآن به این زیبایی و ظرافت مشکل را حل می کند و در عین پذیرش جریان قانون واحد در همه هستی تنها اراده انسان را که آن هم تحت سیطره همین قانون است را فارق بد و خوب می داند.
    7- در مسئله هوش مصنوعی و عملکرد کامپیوتر ما می دانیم که هوشی واقعی آن را ساخته و کنترل می کند و بسیار احمقانه است که روزی کسی فکر کند این ها خودبخود به وجود آمده اند با این وجود نمی دانم چطور انتظار دارید تصور اینکه هوش واقعی٬ که سازنده هوش مصنوعی است خوبخود به وجود آمده باشد٬ احمقانه نباشد!
    8- در قسمتی دیگر از بحث مدعی شده اید چون انسانها در اثر حوادث طبیعی یا غیر طبیعی زندگی خود را از دست می دهند و می میرند پس خدا وجود ندارد! اگر خدا وجود داشت هیچ انسانی مرگ را تجربه نمی کرد!
    لطفا کمی به این جملات فکر کنید و ببینید آیا راهی برای دفاع از آنها وجود دارد؟ اگر خدایی که محبوب شماست وجود داشت اصلا نوبت به شما می رسید که بخواهید زندگی را تجربه کرده و احیانا عقلی ترین و بدهی ترین معارف را به زعم خود به چالش بکشید؟ با عرض معذرت آیا این افکار کودکانه نیست؟

  166. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    Yesterday's science fiction is today's reality. It's not completely impossible for today's science fiction to become tomorrow's reality.
    Back in the 10th century, if someone said the earth was spherical & revolved around the sun, he would've been laughed at. In the 11th century if someone told that a person in Europe can convey a message to another in China within 2 minutes, he would've been laughed at.
    Now, we're in the 21st century; and yet, we continue to laugh at what we collectively term "outlandish".

  167. John K says:

    The thing is that those things do not mean what you think they mean. So either you are hostile and deliberately deceptive, or your are ignorant and too lazy to study and find out the correct answers.

  168. John K says:

    "Artificial intelligence is procreating itself and perhaps, at this pace, in 100 years, it will surpass the intelligence of humans."

    No computer ever output anything that was not input by a human being. Inanimate objects and human beings cannot be conflated.

  169. John K says:

    "This is another argument to prove that God does not exist."

    The absence of God's intervention against natural forces is not proof of non-existence. We were sent here to learn to deal with nature. If he dealt with it for us, there would be no purpose for us to be here.

  170. Ali Sina says:

    You then said since everything is governed by this universal law that I am talking about, Hitler and Stalin are just as natural expressions of this law as are rain and the movement of the stars. Therefore, why would I call some of these expressions good and some of them bad.

    Good and bad are human constructs. Nature is quite mindless and does not distinguish good and bad. They only have meaning when they affect life. For example, if an earthquake happens in an uninhabited area, it is neither bad nor good. But if it happens in a populated area and kills many people it is bad.

    For nature, good and bad are meaningless. This is another argument to prove that God does not exist. Any intelligent god would have been a bit more careful in his “acts.” But these so called acts of God happen in places where they destroy millions of lives. This is another proof that there is no God. If these disasters were acts of God, God would be a terrorist.

    Hitler, Stalin and Muhammad were evil because they destroyed innocent lives. We can’t blame natural disasters because they have no intelligence. But we hold Hitler, Stalin and Muhammad accountable for their crimes. They knowingly destroyed lives and hurt people. If they were animals, we would not hold them responsible, but since they had the intelligence of a human, but acted like beasts, we hold them responsible.

    You also said that the Quran does not say God punishes and rewards people but rather it is them who will reap the result of their own actions, naturally.

    That is not what the Quran says. There are countless verses in the Quran that say Allah curses those who reject faith (Q. 2.161); that there is a fire prepared for them (Q. 3:131); that these people draw the wrath of Allah (Q. 3:162) and the verse 3:192 clearly says that it is Allah who admits people into fire and would not help them. That is enough to make my point, but there is more.

    The God of Islam is very much involved in punishing people and rewarding them. In the Day of Judgment he will send people to hell and heaven based on their belief and disbelief. So the punishment and reward don’t happen naturally, like you put your hand in fire and it burns. You will be judged and sent to hell or paradise by a thinking being – Allah.

    This makes Allah very evil. If you pay the consequence of your action though natural law, like burning yourself or falling, the law is mindless and cannot be blamed. But if you are sent to burn in hell for eternity just because you questioned Allah, then this Allah is quite demonic.

    If Allah had nothing to do with rewarding and punishing people then why Muslims pray for forgiveness? It’s obvious that sending people to hell is in the hand of God.

  171. Ali Sina says:

    Dear Mr. Farzad,

    I am not testing your knowledge. I have no doubt that you are a learned man. I simply disagree with your conclusion. If I go into details it’s because I’d like people who are new to such discussions understands.

    The arguments I presented were to show Muhammad’s lack of understanding of God and that his thinking was very primitive. In fact the god of Muhammad is not much different from the deities of the Babylonians. Although he claimed his god is the same god of the Bible, they don’t look alike.

    You say that the Islamic acclamation of Allah Akbar is not to denote the superiority of God to other objects or other gods, but to sanctify him from attributions and that it actually means God is greater to be described.

    This would have made sense, but that is not what the acclamation says. It says Allah Akbar and not Allah akbar men yusif. This is your addition. Listen to the chant of Adan. Does it say Allah akbar men yusif? Takbir is only Allah Akbar. Furthermore, the 99 names that Muhammad attributed to God belie your claim. If you were the author of Islam, I am sure Islam would have been a much more intelligent religion. But you are not. The author of Islam is Muhammad and he was an illiterate man and an ignoramus. His ignorance is reflected in his religion.

    You also say that the statement that God is indescribable is a new concept introduced by Muhammad. Not only this concept is not introduced by Muhammad, and he described god in 99 ways and some of them are just satanic attributes, the indescribability of God existed much before Muhammad and Islam. Gospel Mark 4:30 reports Jesus says say “What shall we say the kingdom of God is like, or what parable shall we use to describe it?

    Isaiah 46:5,9 says "To whom will you liken me and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be alike?…for I am God and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me."

    Isn’t this what Muslims claim to be the core of the message of Muhammad? Well this message already existed. Muhammad heard these things and rehashed them. This was not something new. There is nothing new in Islam. Everything Muhammad said he learned it from the Jews, the Christians or from the Pagans. I challenge you to show me something new that is not utterly stupid. For example Muhammad said God transformed the Jews into monkeys and pigs. This is new, but it is very stupid.

    You say I contradicted myself by saying the Principle controls everything and at the same time he does not do anything. Probably I did not explain myself well. I never said the Principle controls anything. I said it would be misleading to say the Principle controls because laws have no will or intelligence to control. If you pour water from a high place it forms a rivulet. There is a shape to it. It is determined by the topography of the land and by the law of gravity. There is no designer. Likewise the rivers, the mountains, the oceans, the earth and the entire universe are formed. Everything is formed because of these laws. But these laws are not thinking beings. They have no existence.

    You said that existence is not limited to physical and tangible existence and for examples mentioned love, intelligence, understanding, sovereignty, etc. These things do not have tangible or physical existence. They are functions. They are manifestations of the Single Principle. They are not intelligent. They do not interfere or interact with the world the way you say God does. This example validates my argument and invalidates yours.

    You also said that these laws (love, intelligence, etc.) require an intelligent being to create them and that something that has no intelligence cannot create something intelligent.

    That is not true! Your computer is not intelligent and yet it is capable of making complex calculations that even humans cannot make. Artificial intelligence is procreating itself and perhaps, at this pace, in 100 years, it will surpass the intelligence of humans. When you play chess with a computer it always wins, unless you instruct it to make deliberate mistakes so you can have some fun. Where this intelligence comes from? Artificial intelligence is manifested through the interaction of tiny transistors. The same happens in human brain. Our intelligence is not given to us by God. It is the function of our brain. The same can be said about love, fear, anger, compassion, empathy or other human qualities. They are all functions of our brain. If the brain is damaged, these functions will be affected. They don’t have any existence. Love does not exist on its own. It’s the function of the brain. Intelligence does not exist anywhere else outside human brain. So, it’s possible that in a universe devoid of intelligence, creatures evolve that are endowed with intelligence. The more complex is the organization of the matter (the organism), the more complex will be its functions. There is no need to presuppose the existence of any intelligent god into the equation.


  172. Sanada_10 says:

    I suggest you put the quotation on the word "great". Yeah, it's great in the sense of experiment.

  173. Agracean says:

    The pot calling the kettle black!

  174. enlightened25 says:

    No i would like you to do that and well as state your position clearly. Do you 1)Believe jesus said those things and agree with them or 2)You deny that jesus said those things or at least accuse me of taking those verses "out of context" or some similar argument. 3)You admit that jesus said such things but you yourself do not agree with them. In which case why continue to support a religion which is contradictory with your feelings?

  175. enlightened25 says:

    Are those things in the bible or not?

  176. فرزاد says:

    جناب سینا
    باور نمی کنم شما این اشکالات را به صورت جدی در اینجا مطرح کرده باشید به نظر می رسد با بیان این مطالب بیشتر در حال محک زدن میزان اطلاعات من هستید تا اینکه بخواهید محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و خدای او را به چالش بکشید٬‌ من به شما عرض می کنیم نیازی به این کار نیست شما فرض کنید در مقابل یک نیمه حرفه ای ایستاده و مشغول بحث هستید پس خواهش می کنم سطح بحث را کمی بالاتر ببرید و این اشکالات ساده و پیش پا افتاده را مطرح نکنید؛ در پست های قبلی از من خواستید که اثبات کنم محمد در تعریف خدا چه چیز جدیدی را بیان کرده است و پست ما قبل آخر به دلیل ا ینکه خدا غیرقابل تعریف است و محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم او را تعریف کرده این نشان از باطل بودن تعریف اوست و بعد اشکال کرده اید که او گفته است که الله اکبر٬‌خدا بزرگتر است و چون اکبر صفت تفضیلی است پس حتما باید در مقابل خداوند خدای دیگری قرار دهیم و بعد بگوییم خدا ازاو بزرگتر است در حالیکه این حرف فرضیه خدای واحد را رد می کند و اساسا چون خدای دیگری در هستی وجود ندارد کلام باطلی است و با مثالهای متعدد این اشکال ساده را توضیح مکرر داده اید در حالیکه اصلا نیازی به این مثالها و توضیحات نبود و اگر در یک جمله کوتاه از من سوال می کردید که خدا از چه بزرگتر است؟ من جواب شما را می دادم.اما جواب در حقیقت همین یک جمله کوتاه یعنی الله اکبر به تنهایی هر سه اشکال شما را جواب می دهد و نیاز به استدلالهای پیچیده منطقی و فلسفی نیست؛ همانطور که در بیان ائمه معصومین علیهم السلام نیز آمده و شما می توانید با یک جستجوی ساده به منابع آن دست پیدا کنید الله اکبر به معنای الله اکبر من کل شیء نیست یا من اله دیگر نیست تا اشکال شما وارد باشد بلکه به معنای الله اکبر من ان یوصف است یعنی خدا بزرگتر از آن است که به وصف درآید یعنی همان خدایی که شما با توضیحات مفصل مدعی آن هستید یعنی خدای غیر قابل تعریف و غیر قابل توصیف پس: الله اکبر یعنی 1- خدا غیر قابل تعریف و بیان است 2- تعریفی از خدا بیان شده که جدید است و دیگران قبلا به آن اشاره نکرده اند 3- خدا بزرگتر از آن است که به وصف درآید نه اینکه خدا از تمام خدایان دیگر بزرگتر است.حال اجازه دهید به خدای شما بپردازیم شما معتقدید که خدا قانونی است که هستی را مدیریت می کند اما موجود نیست لذا کاملا بی معناست که بگوییم که به خود و افعال خود شعور دارد و بی معناست که به او کاری را نسبت دهیم.اولین تناقض در تعریف شما این است که از یک طرف مدعی هستید که خدا (قانون)‌ هستی را مدیریت می کند و از طرف دیگر می گویید نسبت دادن کار به او ممکن نیست چون او موجود (وجود محسوس و فیزیکی) نیست. دومین اشکال این است که وجود را تنها منحصردر وجود محسوس کرده اید در حالیکه بسیاری از مفاهیم در اطراف ما وجود دارند اما محسوس نیستند مفاهیمی مثل عشق٬ ملکیت٬ شعور و فهم و …. اشکال سوم این است که وجود مفاهیمی که عرض شد غیر قابل خدشه و اشکال است و احدی در آن شک ندارد٬‌اگر وجود دارند که دارند٬‌خارج از قانون مورد ادعای شما نیستند یعنی این قانون است که عشق تولید می کند و مهمتر از همه فهم و درک و شعور تولید می کند٬‌ما در فلسفه یک اصل کلی داریم که فاقد کمال نمی تواند معطی کمال باشد حال چگونه است قانونی که هیچ کمالی ندارد می تواند تولید کننده این همه معرفت و شعور باشد؟اشکال چهارم که مهمتر از همه است این است که هر چه در هستی قابل تصور باشد نمی تواند از سیطره و تسلط و شمول این قانون بیرون باشد باران قسمتی از این قانون است حرکت سیارات و ستارگان داخل این قانون اند٬‌هیتلر و استالین هم از این قانون تولید می شوند و اگر کسی مدعی پیامبری شود از محصولات عملی همین قانون است؛‌ حال شما باید توضیح دهید با چه معیار و مقیاسی بعضی از این قوانین را می پسندید و خوب می دانید و بعضی را از خود می رانید؟ و چرا از دیگران هم می خواهید از آنچه شما نمی پسندید برحذر باشند؟ مگر نه این است که هر آنچه این قانون تولید می کند در نهایت اتقان و استقامت است .اشاره کرده اید که آتش در راستای این قانون است اما مثلا پیامبری در مقابل آن است و یک دروغ است آیا می دانید حتی اگر در برابر قانون باشد حتی اگر دروغ باشد باز این در برابر بودن و این دروغ بودن هم نمی تواند خارج از این قانون باشد فراموش نکنید که قانون شما عام است و حتی آنجا که ما فکر می کنیم بی قانونی رخ داده باز این بی قانونی تحت تسلط قانون است منتها چون ما آن را نمی پسندیم اسم در برابر قانون را روی آن می نهیم.در قسمتی دیگر اشاره کرده اید که بهشت و جهنم تنها از خدای شخصی مشکل دار و مریض برمی آید؛‌ من از شما تعجب می کنم به نظر می رسد حتی یکبار هم قرآن را نخوانده اید بارها در قرآن آمده است بهشت و جهنم از یک قانون و سنت پیروی می کند و برخواسته از احساس خوشی یا نفرت خدا نیست و انعکاس عملی است که انسانها در دنیا انجام داده اند در محیطی دیگر به نام آخرت نه چیزی بیشتر تقریبا شبیه آنچه ما امروز در محیط های برنامه نویسی انجام می دهیم یک کد می نویسیم در صفحه نمایش آتش نمایان می شود کد دیگر می نویسم آب روان را مشاهده می کنیم یک کد رنگ قرمز را نمایش می دهد کد دیگر رنگ سبز را این بسیار ساده است که نکاح و ازدواج در آخرت به صورت باغ و بوستان متجلی شود و در مقابل زنا مار و مور و آتش و چرک و خون و تنها ارتباط این موضوع با خداوند این است که او چنین برنامه ای را نوشته است و از ما خواسته که در این برنامه بازی کنیم و به اختیار خود مشغول جمع آوری امتیازهای منفی و مثبت شویم.اگر گاهی جواب را دیر می دهم به علت مشکلات کاری و گاهی مسافرت و از همه مهمتر ماه رمضان است که افطاری رفتن و افطاری دادن و … وقت زیادی را می گیرد.

  177. Juste says:

    Mr. Duratma Gandhi,

    I agree!

    FYI to everybody. The muslims are loving it by the way. So, keep on doing what you are doing.

  178. Sanada_10 says:


  179. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    Ad-hominem, unwarranted insults on comment-ers & other such assorted activities aren't anything new in these comments section. I empathize with all those comment-ers who've been name-called.
    The best thing to do is point out the ad-hominem & allow time to work its magic. Sometimes the attacker might just realize he/she is indulging in unwanted, unwarranted ad-hominem attacks – and there's the *minute* possibility for reason & rationality to work. And if it doesn't, you'll still come out as better – for pointing it out & not reverting to the same filthy tactic.
    Stay calm & composed, Arya Anand. I share your thoughts against stupidity & icono-philic-behaviour (whether the icon is Rama, Krishna or Allah, Mo, etc (you know whom I missed intentionally from this list, don't you?))
    My empathy is with Jason too. It's sad to see ad-hominem attacks at your person & character, dear Jason.

  180. John K says:

    As I mentioned in a previous post, I was raised as a scientist, and if someone asks me to believe something that cannot be proved by science, there had better be a good reason. As Christians, we believe we have the evidence of the witness of the Holy Spirit, as well as "by their fruits ye shall know them".

    But without this knowledge, all one has is science. Since science is limited in what it can know, trying to know something that is beyond the reach of science is of necessity a guessing game. This is the spirit of Einstein's statement above. Dr. Sina's adoption of a certain scientific point of view by no means makes him a worshiper of Einstein. At best you might consider them two intellectuals with a common point of view, but I think Einstein was more open to the idea of God, especially near the end of his life, than Dr. Sina. But there's a post from Dr. Sina on this site that also acknowledges that science may prove the necessity of the existence of God as a first cause.

  181. Agracean says:

    So, I came to the conclusion that I can't fully believe and trust in Dr Albert Einstein's sayings or belief about his Single Principle behind every creation, since he has no knowledge of the purpose of going through life and death on planet earth and also, he has no knowledge at all about the spiritual realm. He was merely playing the guessing game and thus, deceiving himself and those who worship him like a god and the sad truth is, my beloved hero, Dr Ali Sina, is one of them.

  182. John K says:

    Einstein had previously explored this belief that man could not understand the nature of God in an interview published in 1930 in G. S. Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great explaining:

    I'm absolutely not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza’s pantheism, but admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things.

  183. John K says:

    Apparently haven't paid much attention to my posts.

  184. John K says:

    Sad you don't know enough about the Bible to know what you are even talking about.

  185. John K says:

    Sorry. I won't let you define my beliefs.

  186. everin says:

    Neither did u know me when we started to debate. U n Abd. Ihsan are great at debating !!!!!!

  187. Agracean says:

    Dear Arya Anand

    What's wrong with being open and honest about my affections for Dr Ali Sina? What's wrong with me for admiring a great man like him? What's wrong with being truthful and advocating for the truth here? What's wrong with helping others to the ultimate truth? Don't you know that I'm a free person and I've got human rights and freedom of expression here? In what way am I showing any indecent behaviour? Why are you so mad about such minor issues? How could you say that I also name calling those who criticise my 'blind' beliefs and post 'childish' comments without checking the facts first? Do you think that all your comments are not childish? That's really foolish of you to say that!

    Do you know Mr Jonathan Harrel as well as me? 🙂 My dear Harrel is a pantheist who can't see beyond pantheism and he can't accept the fact that God is real, so he told me to take a long break, so that he can continue to live a his busy life of ignorance. Why drag John K into this issue? He's my awesome friend. You should learn from him.

  188. everin says:

    Very well said. She is possesive, dogmatic n unreasonable and also a bigot. Any good guy will stay away from her.

  189. Arya Anand says:

    Jason is NOT jealous of your so called affection for Ali Sina but he only pointed out how indecently you are behaving here. The way you are expressing your affection for a person in a public forum is undesirable and even make others shy away from reading your comments. You are also name calling those who criticise your blind beliefs and post childish comments. Remember, once Jonathan Harell advised you to take a long break. Maybe John.K will become sad if you take a break again because he seems to enjoy all your offensive words and nonsense.


  190. Agracean says:

    Hi Mr Jason, thanks for your nonsense here. Why are you so jealous of my affection toward my dear hero, Dr Ali Sina? Is it true that you fall in love with him too? Why are you so irritated with my friendly comments here with my friends? Is it true that you are jealous that I didn't give you a 'good' name and that I also didn't 'character assinate' you at all? I'm glad that my comments make you laugh like a stupid fool and it's no wonder that you like to swallow bullshit. Please rest assure that I will never blame you coz I knew that your brain is as small as a mustard seed and that you are as dumb as a dumb ass.

  191. Agracean says:

    Come on, Mr everin, how in the world do you know and determine that Dr Albert Einstein is 100% correct in his belief and ideology when he was ignorant of his new address after his expiry date? S

  192. Agracean says:

    Mr everin, I'm not a China doll neither am I made in China, so for goodness sake, please behave yourself like a gentleman with balls intact and not like an eunuch. Thank you.

    Why accuse me of not telling the truth and where in the world did I say that Jesus still had the life on this earth? You're really dumb and not me for creating all this silly confusion here and how in the world did you know that I don't understand what Sanada_10 meant? I don't know this Abdullah Ihsan and why should I debate with her?

  193. everin says:

    I had long returned the teachings to the human-created god who was so confused n ill-informed, according to Prof. Einstein.

  194. everin says:

    By THE WAY u are not telling THE TRUTH, to say that Jesus still had The LIFE on this earth.— China doll. U are so dumb that u don't understand by engaging some one in this debate. Sanada is asking u to debate with Abd. Ihsan, Who is in the same category as u.

  195. enlightened25 says:

    I think you would get along great with those muslims with all those similarities between mo and jesus messiah. Oh and don`t forget to turn your cheek if the muslims get nasty with you. You wouldn't want to harm your enemies would you? You HAVE to love them remember.

  196. enlightened25 says:

    Yeah another "logical" arugment from you. No mr Johnk k i think you would fit better than me. After all you share so much in common blind faith, clouded definitions and bogus claims. And theirs the leaders of those religions muhammed and your mad messiah two deluded individuals look at some of these staments of his "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:35-36) "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel … It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs." (Matthew 15:24-26)

    Did you see what he said about the non-jews (which includes you) he called you a dog. See what this god of peace said "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)

  197. John K says:

    Aren't you swell. Fit in great with Muslim supremacists, wouldn't you?

  198. enlightened25 says:

    No i think that should you be you and your fellow liars for jesus who of course try to keep their god as ill-defined as possible.

  199. John K says:

    Try studying linguistics.

  200. enlightened25 says:

    Aren`t you defining god? Is not your stament. "Doesn't it seem vain for us to suppose to be able to define God's nature for him?" defining god as 1) a personal being and 2) masculine. Of course we can know what God isn`t but we cannot know what god is, becuse "everything" by definition cannot be defined.

  201. JASON says:

    These anwers are for Agracean.

    Way = you bulldoze your WAY into this debate to fall in love with DR. Ali Sina

    Truth = you keep irritating others with name calling and character assination. You talk rubbish but not the TRUTH.

    Life = You keep all of us laughing and LIFEly with your stupidity and bullshit.

    I don’t blame you coz you are young and dunb as you have said..

  202. John K says:

    Doesn't it seem vain for us to suppose to be able to define God's nature for him? Einstein was not so vain.

  203. John K says:

    Abdullah, you really ought to follow your own advice. I haven't read so many ignorant self-righteous posts from one person in a long time until I started reading yours today.

  204. John K says:

    Abdullah, you really ought to follow your own advice. I haven't read so many ignorant self-righteous posts from one person in a long time until I started reading yours today.

  205. John K says:

    Jesus said "by their fruits ye shall know them".

    Islam, Allah and Muhammad are all reflections of each other. The evil deeds of Muhammad, the evil teachings of the Quran, and the evil words attributed to Allah are all one. You cannot separate them. They are all the sick fabrications of Muhammad's mind anyway. If you read the Quran in its historical context, it is obvious that each Sura was given to satisfy some expedience that Muhammad wanted at the time.

  206. John K says:

    Thought you knew the Bible well enough to recognize biblical references 🙂

  207. John K says:

    وقت گزارنے کے ٹن ہے، یہ نہیں ہے؟

  208. John K says:

    "he wanted to be very much a part of Her Majesty's empire & remain a slave to the white man's racial impulses"

    Your racist comments poison your posts and reputation.

  209. Sanada_10 says:

    That's not a praise, you know.

  210. Agracean says:

    China man, how can you be so ignorant of Who is the Way, the Truth and the life? I thought that you're the 'smartest' of all here?

  211. Agracean says:

    Thanks, my dear prize fatty calf that moooo, for knowing me so well. 🙂

  212. Sanada_10 says:

    She can't, that's why she's swimming in the past.

  213. Sanada_10 says:

    Remember Charter of Medina, Abu Bakr, or Muhammad's last day in Mecca? You should look into the mirror. And yeah, your answer is red herring, it has nothing to do with his topic.

  214. Sanada_10 says:

    What should I say about you? You are obvious.

  215. Sanada_10 says:

    Desperate, auntie?

  216. Sanada_10 says:

    And spewing false info like you?

  217. everin says:

    China Girl, What way, what truth and what life ? explain.

  218. Agracean says:

    Dear Dr Ali Sina

    I'm truly amazed by the fact that my dear Iranian hero, Dr Ali Sina, who originated from Iran, could admire Daoism which was concorted in China, where all my ancestors came from instead of believing in Jesus Christ, when He said that He is the WAY(DAO), the TRUTH and the LIFE!

    If the universe is governed by the Single Principle, then, surely it must be perfect in every sense. Can my dear hero, Dr Ali Sina, explain why imperfection exists? What are the ramifications for such imperfections? Surely the then smart Dr Albert Einstein must have discovered the final solution to all these violations of the Single Principle! So, my dear Dr Ali Sina, please reveal to me what your god, Dr Albert Einstein had to say about the antidote for all these wilful violations of the single principle. Silence is not golden here, so kindly let me have your sweet reply. 🙂

  219. Agracean says:

    Dear Dr Ali Sina

    Have you heard of spiritual law and what does it means? Do you know the consequences of breaking any of the spiritual laws? What is the remedy and final solution for breaking just one spiritual law? Can you tell me if the Single Principle has a mind on its own and how it can determine that only planet earth is heavily inhabited with creatures and other creations while other planets are archived for fun? Is the Single Principle perfect? If yes, why are there imperfection eg. death exist in this world and the reasons behind all these strange imperfections that existed for thousands of years now?

  220. Agracean says:

    Mr Sanada_10, you've got nothing better to say?

  221. Agracean says:

    Hi Juste

    The truth is that people who said that natural laws just exist naturally without a lawmaker are educated beyond their intelligence. That's the problem with education. I'm really puzzled why are there so many smart and intelligent people still believe in Charles Darwin unsubstantiated Evolution Theory and also the Big Bang Theory? Then, I realized that it's the result of too much education so much so that they suddenly became stupid to the point of no return. Their brain and mind cannot think beyond their years of educational knowledge because their brain is too small and as a result it became as stubborn as a mule. You asked me how does a mother learn to love her child? Let me ask you a super simple question, In order to answer your above question. How does a mother learn to hate her child? Yes, Dr Albert Einstein was a professor. So what? Even if he was the President of America. So what? It does matter only when his assumptions were errorneous and wrong.

  222. Agracean says:

    Hi Mr everin, leopard never change its spots. Haven't you change your pseudonym to that of a man yet? Or are you a sissy? What propaganda are you talking about? Your Biblical knowledge is very shallow, that's why you couldn't understand what Jesus is talking about. Yes, Dr Albert Einstein was dead and return to the ground but you are absolutely wrong to say that Jesus is dead! Thus, you are the one who is stupid and immature and not me. No, I'm not a fanatic neither did I 'attack' Dr Albert Einstein. Yes, I'm so lost for words at my hear hero, Dr Ali Sina's unbelief that I couldn't help but use the word 'dumb' to describe my disappointment with him. The truth is that at least, my beloved hero, believe that Jesus is not a charlatan and this shows that you are really dumb dumb.

  223. Agracean says:

    Dear Dr Ali Sina

    By applying the Golden Rule in this instance, you'll know that many ladies here, especially me, is totally embarassed by your above pictures of topless African tribal women. Maybe you should only display one such picture which is good enough for your justification. I think that you'll feel the same way as I do too, if all the above pictures were showing the male genitals.

  224. Agracean says:

    Dear Mr Sanada_10

    Yes, I'm exploring and interpreter is my helping hand.

  225. Juste says:

    Mr. Ihsan, read again.
    I know that understanding a concept within a frame of thought is tough sometimes.
    But try you must. For your own good.

  226. enlightened25 says:

    "Now the example of hardware and software is not comprehensive. Hardware can exist even if there is no software. But the universe cannot exist without the principle underlying it. Every particle is governed by this principle or it would not exist." God cannot be anything finite, this includes your underlying principle. If the universe cannot exist without the underlying principle then it also cannot exist. Becuse a finite thing only exists in relation to something it is not. Creator becomes created and the created becomes creator. So not only god cannot be a being or sprit but also it cannot be a principal or law. Of course if their nothing but the underlying principle then it makes much more sense to just say everything.

  227. Ali Sina says:

    Mr. Farzad,

    You do understand my definition of the Single Principle. However, you ask whether this principle that I call God is aware or is it blindly doing its duties. To say “blindly doing its duties” can be misleading. The principle does not do anything. Only beings can do. If you are a human you can think or talk. If you are a bird you can fly. If you are a flower you can grow and if you are a rock you can fall. But if you are not a being you can’t act. Also awareness requires thinking, judging, evaluating. All these are actions. The Principle does not act.

    You used the word modiriat (control, management). That is also an action. We humans that are part of the being must be aware of it and act according to it. The Principle does not reward or punish, but if we violate it we will get hurt.

    The ramifications of the Single Principle are complex. We are aware of the physical laws, such as gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and the weak force. But as humans we are also aware of other laws that are much more complex such as love. We don’t know the parameters governing love but we know it is a reality that cannot be denied and without which the animal and humans could not have come to exist.

    Chinese call this Dao, (sometimes written Tao), which means Way. The Principle is how things are done. It is the way the universe works. It is not the chef, but the recipe.

    You agree that God is indefinable and incomprehensible, but ask why I limit this unknown by excluding the institution of prophethood. Maybe that too is part of the principle. How could we deny the existence of something we don’t know?

    Fair question! The answer is simple. The institution of prophethood contradicts the Principle. That is the beauty of the Principle, it is always predictable. If God is not a person and does not have personal attributes then he cannot think about us humans and send messengers to us. Furthermore, the message of Muhammad is so primitive that clearly shows he had no understand of the Principle. The god of Muhammad is a projection of his narcissistic persona. Muhammad defined his god very clearly. Now that we have a better understanding of mental disorders we see that everything he said about god applies to psychiatric patients suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. This is a great discovery. Muhammad envisioned a god that had his own mental disorders. Allah was his own alter-ego.

    There are many things that we still don’t know and I will not reject them even though most people do. For example, I never reject the possibility of intergalactic travel and the fact that extraterrestrials may have been visiting the Earth for eons. For the scientific community this is heresy. The scientists rely on the inviolability of Einstein law of relativity. Yet there are many things that we have not discovered yet. Maybe the extraterrestrials know how to travel not through the space but by manipulating it, so a long distance becomes very short. What takes light years to travel, they may travel it in weeks. My point is that we should not reject things that we don’t understand. However, there are things that we do understand and they just go contrary to reason and commonsense. There are a lot of things we don’t know about the Earth, but can we say that may also be flat? This business of heaven and hell and a petty god whose feelings are hurt when humans don’t worship him and is so vengeful that would burn them for eternity does not make sense. Assuming god is a person, does this psychopathic behavior befit him? If you learn more about narcissistic personality disorder, you will see everything Muhammad and his god did can be explained by NPD.

    You brought the example of fire. Fire obeys the natural law. Prophethood violates the natural law. It’s not something we don’t know and don’t understand. It is something we know and understand to be a lie. In the case of Muhammad we also know why he did what he did. I hope the friends who have offered to translate my book into Persian will have it ready soon. Once you read my book you will understand Muhammad. I know the thinking of Muslims and I have written this book to address their questions. For the person who said all I want is to sell my book, I would like to say that I offer the earlier edition of my book for free. Those who for any reason cannot or don’t want to buy it can write to me and I will send them the earlier edition in PDF.

    Generally I don’t debate about God. I have no interest in promoting my understanding of God. My goal is to show that Muhammad was a mentally sick man and not a prophet of God. And the reason is because Islam poses a threat to our survival. Islam has also enslaved 1.5 billion people. There are many religions that I don’t believe, but I don’t have a problem with them. In fact I have no problem with any religion. If Islam was not so evil and so dangerous I would never have bothered writing about it.



  228. Abdullah ihsan says:

    @ Juste

    Take it easy, Sir. 🙂

    I was just suggesting that you read and think more carefully before posting something.

    Remember when you opined (more or less) that Muslims should not go to Mecca for Hajj because Saudi doesn't comply with Islamic teachings? Well, I still noticed you saying similar thing. 🙂


    Be a little more careful. 🙂

  229. everin says:

    "creation of heavens and earth in six days" was copied from the bible.

  230. Juste says:

    Abdullah Ihsan,

    Debunk me!

  231. Ali Sina says:

    Dear Mr. Farzad

    You also wrote, if Muhammad’s understanding of God is incorrect then he is not a prophet and that is the end of discussion. On the other hand if his definition of God is correct then there is no point in arguing about his character.

    Muhammad’s definition of God is incorrect, for the simple reason that God cannot be defined. What is the shape of water? If I say water is not square, not round, not tall, not short, etc. am I helping you to understand the shape of water a little better? When one says water is shapeless anything else is superfluous and simply denotes the person’s inability to grasp the meaning of shapelessness.

    Muhammad actually tried to define God. He said God is bigger. What does this mean? In respect to what God is bigger? You must have something to compare God with in order to say God is bigger. If I say apple is sweeter, I must say to what. To be intelligible I must say apple is sweeter to pear or to grape or to other edible things. Assume there is nothing in the word to eat but apple. Will it make sense if I say apple is sweeter? That would be a fallacy. There must be something edible other than apple so I can say apple is sweeter. Otherwise the statement is mute.
    There is only one ocean on earth. We have given different names to different parts of it. Let us forget the parts and think of it as one ocean. Will it make sense if I say ocean is bigger? You would ask me, bigger to what? My statement would be absurd. This is simple logic. Muhammad failed to understand it. His followers rehash what he said mindlessly and not one of them wonders about the absurdity of what he said. If there is no god other than God then how can we say God is bigger?

    The absurdity of Muhammad’s thinking compounds when we realize that God is non-being. It’s is the principle governing all beings. How can one compare non-being with being? Being is everything that has physical existence. Let us assume there is a spiritual world. That too is part of the being. God is not a being.

    Let me make an example. Think of being as the hardware of your computer, including its electronic functioning. And think of non-being as the software that runs your computer. Your computer does not work without the software, but software does not have any physical, electronic (or spiritual) existence. It’s the program that makes your computer to function in certain ways. You cannot compare software with hardware. If you make that claim it shows you don’t know anything about computers. Likewise, when Muhammad defined God and gave it attributes and a personality he simply revealed his ignorance of God.

    Now the example of hardware and software is not comprehensive. Hardware can exist even if there is no software. But the universe cannot exist without the principle underlying it. Every particle is governed by this principle or it would not exist.

    Whatever Muhammad said about God, all the names and characteristics that he attributed to it and even his claim to be his messenger is evidence of that man’s ignorance of the nature of God.

  232. Abdullah ihsan says:

    @ Juste

    Please, do some more reading and thinking before posting something….. for your own good. 🙂

  233. Juste says:

    Dear Mr. F,

    Point 1:

    What is it that makes us humans to stay humane? I would say our humanitarian values.

    I will not try to compare Muhammad’s God to humanity in general, because we, as humans are oblivious to God. We can not see Him, we can not smell Him.

    But we do can tell a great number of things about how He thinks, in a sense. And compare it to what we perceive as Humanitarian Values and how we treat our fellow humans; like The Golden Rule, Do unto others as you want them to do unto you.

    His orders and His words made up His Prophet and His laws.

    A) His prophet: supposing that he was not a prophet, i perceive Muhammad as a vile man based on what i find in Scriptures. From his stories, his actions and words it is clear to me that Muhammad was a bad example for humanity. He did not abide by The Golden Rule. He abode by his own laws, in which he claimed that his God made all those laws.

    I believe that even 7th century Arabia have some sort of legal systems. Because in fact they were already practicing trades. But i very much doubt the effectiveness of law enforcement, if any in the region at that particular time. If you put Hitler in the shoes of Muhammad and vice versa, what we would know now in this world at this very moment is Jews will most likely to be extinct, Nazi facism will be the second world’s biggest ideology/governmental system and Islam will be non-existent because Muhammad would have lived in 20th century, invaded everybody and then faced annhillation by the Allied Forces.

    What i am implying here is that Humanity does not count such people to be humanitarian. By how they lived and ruled their people.

    So we debunked his God, by His own prophet’s examples. For the fact that if God exists, he would not be as INHUMANE as the God of Muhammad’s.

    B) Muslims believe that Sharia Law is a law that was forged by Allah.

    So therefore it must rule forever until the day of Qiyamah. I have no problem with that.

    But is Sharia Law fair?

    If Sharia Law fair, non muslims in Kafir nations will be in support of it. Simple logic.

    A non muslim testimonies in Sharia court are regarded as half of muslims.

    A raped women must have a male witness presence that support her charges, which is almost impossible for the fact that rapists don’t generally rape their victims in public. If she failed to produce a male witness, she will most likely be stoned to death.

    Everything in Sharia Law is not fair Jizyah, blood money payments, gender inequalities, apostasies etc.

    Think about it. If this is God’s Law, then God must have never meant to survive past the 10th century i think. These laws are feudal age.

    Do you really expect that if humantiy survive through year 6000 AD, while cruising on spaceships, people still abide by these ridiculous feudal age laws?

    The Quran, Allah’s own words also has 1000+ errors in it.

    Does God Almighty make mistakes?

    It’s going to be a long explanation work here, because your mental block is Muhammad.

    To make it easier for you, by all means please compare Jesus to Muhammad. But you have to be very objective in your judgement.

  234. Ali Sina says:


    I don’t believe in God. I don’t need to believe in God. But I understand some people cannot live without the belief in God. However, if you want to believe in god at least believe in one that is not evil.

    No Allah is not the same god of biblical prophets. Allah is an impostor god made up by an impostor prophet. Assuming there is an afterlife and god will ask you why you did not believe in me, if you mention the name Allah you will be sent straight to hell where Allah and Muhammad reside. So be very careful not to be fooled by Muhammad’s propaganda and lies

  235. فرزاد says:

    متاسفانه مجبورم بحث د ر مورد خداوند را به فارسی ارائه کنم چون یک بحث تخصصی است و بیان اصطلاحات تخصصی به زبانی که به آن مسلط نباشی کار بسیار سختی است در صورت لزوم فکر کنم شما راحت تر بتوانید صحبت های مرا به انگلیسی برای مخاطبان سایتتان بیان کنید.
    همانطور که قبلا هم بیان کردم خدای شخص وار به هیچ وجه قابل دفاع عقلی و منطقی نیست٬‌مدعای شما این ا ست که خدا قانون هستی است و این قانون در تمام هستی جریان دارد و آن را مدیریت می کند؛ قانون واحدی که خود را در شکلهای گوناگونی آشکار می کند هر چند خدا یک شخص یا یک چیز نیست اما در عین حال این به این معنا نیست که وجود ندارد.
    من مدعای شما را به این شکل بیان می کنم:
    چیزی که هست اما به هیچ وجه قابل اشاره و شناخت نیست و ما تنها می دانیم که هست اما چه چیزی است یا چه کسی است؟ نه چیزی است و نه کسی است بلکه فقط و فقط هست.
    البته نمی دانم اینکه شما مدعی مدیریت هستی توسط خدا هستید آیا خدا به مدیریت خویشتن نیز آگاه است یا نه؟ از کلمات شما بر می آید که خدا هیچ آگاهی به وجود خود ندارد و این قوانین لایتغیر کاملا کر و کور به وظیفه خود عمل می کنند.
    در قسمت اول با عقیده شما در باره خدا کاملا موافقم اینکه خداوند قابل شناخت نیست چیز تازه ا ی نیست هم آیات قرآن و هم کلمات اهل بیت علیهم السلام پراست از بیان این واقعیت و دلیل این موضوع هم روشن است چرا که اگر چیزی قابل شناخت شد به این معناست که دیگری بر او احاطه پیدا کرده و خدا محیط واقع شده است و چیزی که محیط واقع شود دیگر منطقا نمی تواند خدا باشد و می شود وجودی محدود و ناقص.
    اختلاف من با شما در دو جهت است یکی در شمول این قانون که شما آن را خدا می دانید و دیگری در آگاهی او به وجود خویش. درقسمت اول سوال من از شما این است که به چه دلیل قوانین جاری در هستی را منحصر و محدود به آنچه تاکنون شناخته شده وما با آن آشنایی داریم می کنید؟ آیا نمی شود تمام آنچه را که شما نشانه های خدای شخص وار می دانید قسمتی از همان قانون باشند؟ به طور مثال همانطور که سوزاندن آتش کاملا برای ما طبیعی است و جای تعجب ندارد فرستادن پیامبر هم یک امر کاملا طبیعی باشد که با فراهم شدن شرایطش ما آن را در هستی مشاهده کنیم و همچنین سایر مواردی که جاری بودن آن به عنوان قانون در هستی برای شما جای تعجب دارد.
    بحث را در این مرحله بیش از این جلو نمی برم و از شما هم می خواهم آهسته تر و قدم به قدم حرکت کنید تا بتوان زودتر به نتیجه رسید٬ منتظر پاسخ شما هستم.

  236. فرزاد says:

    1-No I don’t say that, I simply say Muhammad has a specific definition of God; he has offered a God that has not any logical and philosophical problem, you say to me that my claim is not correct because the messenger of this God has some ethical problem and it shows this God is not a true God.
    At this point I suggest you to debate about this God and concentrate on him to know him by logic and philosophy knowledge, if we find him reasonable God it shows that Muhammad at least is an understanding man in this category and has aptitude to be a right prophet, after that we can discuss his behaviors in view point of his new status, at this point he is not an ordinary man so we should not expect him to has ordinary behaviors.
    2-No it isn’t absurd because rational thinking is my only way to know true and false.
    3-I think you have more sufficiency to be called narcissist; Muhammad is well-known for all over the world even for non Muslims, let us to speak about Muhammad’s God at first, then I prove that your theory is false.

  237. everin says:

    The Buddhists do not believe in a Supreme God but they knew the workings of the Law of Karma, i.e. if u do evil deeds u will be punished accordingly, irrespective of whether u believe or not in any god. If u do a lot of charity, u will be rewarded. If u cannot get yr punishment or reward in this life, then u will get it in yr next life (reincarnation ). Heaven is a rehabilitation n sorting center for the souls of human. Some extremely good souls will remain and enjoy in heaven. Others will be born into bad n poor families to endure endless suffering n may get killed to pay for their sins. Some even are born blind or cripple. The remaining good-doers will be born to be rich n famous n enjoy life as if they are in paradise. This is a simplified version of Buddhism.

  238. Sanada_10 says:

    Затем изучить его, не используйте переводчика.

  239. Sanada_10 says:

    Too many assumptions, Maruf. I'll add another possibility:

    There is a god = no one will be the loser or everyone will be the loser. You once again had put yourself in god's position and that's wrong. Why does "following god" equal to "the winner"? This is limiting the wager.

    Now, I have a question for you that you should answer.

    I'll add one more, since no religion is proven to be true why should I choose it?

  240. Sanada_10 says:

    Hey, get used to it. She's like that.

  241. everin says:

    @Grace, u n yr propaganda again.! When Jesus was hung on the cross, he cried out (in pain) something like this, " OMG, why have u forsaken me. " And yet u still believe he is god. There is a Supreme God, but he is not so ill-informed n confused as yr god, according Dr. Einstein, who had found many errors in all the holy books. No doubt, he is dead, so was yr JESUS. ( Stupid n immature argument of yrs by stating the obvious that this guy or that guy is dead )
    Don't be a fanatic by character assissination n attack him by talking bad about his marriages. Don't start yr nonsense by calling other people "Dumb". They are not as dumb as u. AAAA-men

  242. Juste says:

    Grace what are you implying?

    Natural laws don’t need lawmakers. It comes naturally.

    How does a mother learn to love their children?

    Anyone taught her to do that? Of course not!

    PS: Al Einstein was a Professor.

  243. Agracean says:

    Please bear in your mind that Dr Albert Einstein has no idea why in the entire universe, only planet earth is filled with all kinds of creatures and activities. So, for goodness sake, how can you believe and trust in a finite man when he said that the natural laws have no lawmaker when he cannot even see his own tiny little sperm with his own naked eyes while he was still alive on planet earth?

  244. Agracean says:

    But please try to exercise your brain for a while and think beyond your square box and tell me, if you will choose to believe and trust in my beloved Lord Jesus Christ, of Whom you did confess in your earlier comment that He is a not a charlatan or the dead Dr Albert Einstein, who was married and divorced so many times while he was on planet earth and though, he was a great scientist, but he was still a human being like you and me and at his deathbed, he has absolutely no knowledge and idea what will happen to him after death neither did he has any control over his spirit.

    By saying that the natural laws have no lawmaker, you are insulting the Author of the Golden Rule, Lord Jesus Christ and calling Him a liar and that the gospel of peace is a pact of lies! By doing so, you are also doubting Jesus' good works, honesty and integrity when He said that we ought to pray to our Father in Heaven.


  245. Agracean says:

    Dear Dr Ali Sina

    You said, "To ask who made 2+2=4 is absurd. Mathematics is a natural law. Natural laws don’t need a lawmaker. We humans make our own rules and call it law. We need legislators for to devise them. But they are rule. They are conventions. Natural laws are an entirely different thing. They are eternal immutable principles. They exist on their own without the need for a legislator. Hence the existence of a personal god becomes superfluous. When Einstein or I talk about God, we are talking about the single principle governing the universe. We are not talking about a person, or a being, or a spirit. God is the principle itself not the lawmaker separate from the principle."

    Oh my dear dumb hero, how in the world can you say that the natural laws don't need a lawmaker? Do you mean to say that natural laws exist accidentally? I know that you adore and worship Dr Albert Einstein like a god and how you are so captivated and drawn by his belief of the Single Principle governing the universe.

  246. Maruf says:

    Ali Sina,

    Brother, at last you came to the point saying that "If you don’t want to do your homework and want me to tell you what to believe believe in Jesus and his god"

    You are advising me to homework. That the thing I was trying to from you. Because you understand the followings:

    It is sure that we die. Suppose there are two persons unbeliever and believer.

    After death there may be two situations 1) There is no God 2) There is a God.

    Situation 1) There is no God:

    Nobody will not be looser .

    Situation 2) There is a God:

    Nonbeliever will be looser
    Believer will not be looser if he can follow the true God/religion.

    That's why I am searching the more true religion in the world.

    You advised to follow Jesus and his god.
    Luckily I am in right path, I am following the one God of Adam,Abraham,Moses,David, Jacob, Solomon, Jesus, Muhammad peach be upon them all.

  247. Ali Sina says:

    HI Maruf,

    I don’t believe in any religion so I do not give you an alternative religion. I follow reason and independent thinking. However, this may not be for everyone. If you need to believe in a god you have to choose one that is better than Allah. If you don’t want to do your homework and want me to tell you what to believe believe in Jesus and his god.

    Rational thinking is not for everyone. The problem of asking me to tell you what to believe is that you put your trust in my understanding. What if my understanding is wrong? My objective is to make people think on their own not to think for them and tell them what to do. There is a danger in becoming a follower because not all leaders are good people. Most of them are charlatan and impostors like Muhammad. However, if you really don’t want to think, follow Jesus, but don’t become part of any denomination.

    As for ethical living, it is not difficult to know the difference between good and evil. Follow the Golden Rule – treat others the way you’d like to be treated. That is all. Now looking at women is optional. If you think this is something that is stirring in you deviant thoughts you may want to not look at them. I don’t see anything wrong in looking at women or in women walking in revealing clothing, as long as it is not indecent.

    How to dress is cultural. As I showed before in many tribes in Africa and in Amazon women go topless. Breasts are not considered sexual. Men don’t get aroused by seeing women’s breasts. Believe me I was there and spent time with these people. within hours it becomes very normal to look at women who are according our culture naked.

    See more:

    In Islamic countries the entire body of a woman is considered to be sexual organ. So women must cover from head to toe because they are nothing more than a walking talking vagina. That is how Islam values women.

    Now it is up to you. If you see women as giant vagina, you may want to not look at them. If you see them as human beings and don’t get aroused by seeing their ankle or arm or hair, why would you not look at them. You have no problem looking at men, why it is a problem to look at women? It’s because in your twisted and pervert Islamic upbringing women are not fully humans. They are sex objects and hence should be covered.

    It all depends on your values. You can even argue that your values are better. But don’t impose them on others. Everyone must be left free to choose their own belief and values.

  248. Ali Sina says:

    If I do what Muhammad did, you would put me in jail and even sentence me to death. But you think Muhammad should not be judged by the same yardstick. Then by what standard should he be judged? By his own, you say. This is amazing. So if he tortured someone and in the same night took his wife to his tent and raped her, it is okay because he said it is okay. This is mind boggling. How can a learned and smart person say such a thing? Your mind is blocked. My book will unblock it.

    Furthermore, the God of Muhammad is utterly an illogical god. God cannot be a person. It cannot do things or have attributes. Note I did not say He. I said “It”. All actions and all attributes are characteristics of beings (hasti, vojood). A god that sends messengers, answers prayers, intervenes in the affairs of the world, breaks his own natural laws to perform miracles, punishes and rewards is a person. If you can say God says this or does that, you are attributing personal attributes to God. Such a god cannot be proven. In fact one can prove that such a god is logically impossible.

    When I talk about God I mean the principle, the immutable and eternal laws that govern the universe. It’s a single principle that manifests its self in many forms. But a principle does not have a personality and is not a being or a thing. That does not mean that it does not exist.

    Let me make an example. Think of mathematics. 2+2 = 4. This is a principle. We can understand it only conceptually but it comprehends everything and it is self-subsisting and eternal. Let us assume that the universe did not exist, that there was nothing. Would in that inexistence world 2+2 add up to anything other than 4?

    To ask who made 2+2=4 is absurd. Mathematics is a natural law. Natural laws don’t need a lawmaker. We humans make our own rules and call it law. We need legislators for to devise them. But they are rule. They are conventions. Natural laws are an entirely different thing. They are eternal immutable principles. They exist on their own without the need for a legislator. Hence the existence of a personal god becomes superfluous. When Einstein or I talk about God, we are talking about the single principle governing the universe. We are not talking about a person, or a being, or a spirit. God is the principle itself not the lawmaker separate from the principle.

    Muhammad’s definition of god is a personal god. This is the same definition in all Semitic religions. However, Muhammad attributed satanic qualities to his god that disqualify him as a god. Muhammad’s god is not the Jehovah of the Bible or the Father that Jesus talked about. As I explained in my article What Is God, we all create our god based on our own understanding that reflects our personality. The god of Jesus is a god of love. The God of Muhammad is narcissist. Allah is a psychopath. All the qualities Muhammad attributed to Allah are listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical of Mental Health. Can possibly the creator of the world suffer from a mental illness? That makes no sense. But it will if you realize that Muhammad suffered from Narcissistic Personality Disorder and he projected his own personality on his fictitious god.

    You ask me to prove that Muhammad’s definition of God has nothing new. The burden of proof is on you. Show me what is new in his definition and I will show you that is asinine and evil.

  249. Ali Sina says:

    Mr. Farzad,

    You say we should know Muhammad from the point of view of his god and not know his god from his point of view.

    Have you had any direct communication with his god? All you know about Muhammad’s god is what he told you. So how can know what god thinks about Muhammad when Muhammad is your only contact with him? Isn’t this claim absurd?

    Replace Muhammad with me. Let us say I claim I am a messenger of God. You say, but I don’t believe you Ali because you are a thief, a murderer, a rapist, a paedophile and a terrorist. I say, ah, but don’t judge me by the same standard you judge ordinary people. I am the messenger of God and I am allowed to commit things that if others commit is considered crime. You must listen to what God says about me and then recite you a verse from my god saying, Ali is the best of the creation, a noble man and a model for all mankind. Would you believe me? Of course you won’t. But when it comes to Muhammad’s equally bogus claim you shelve your intelligence, surrender your rational thinking and gobble whatever nonsense he said uncritically.

    In logic we call this circular reasoning. You accept Muhammad’s claim and overlook his crimes because in your opinion Allah says he is his messenger. How do you know Allah says such thing? Because Muhammad says so!

    In your mind Muhammad and his god are two different entities. I have shown in my book that the two are one and the same. Allah was Muhammad’s alter ego. It is like me creating another alias in this forum confirming anything I say and praising myself. Allah was Muhammad’s invention. It was a tool for him to fool people and make them raid, loot and murder others and bring him power. That is what a narcissist (khod shifteh) craves for. Muslims need to read my book. All those who read it have left Islam.

    There are thousands of books explaining Muhammad’s crimes. They make no dent in the faith of Muslims. Even the siras of Muhammad show he was a very evil man. You are a perfect example of how Muslims think. You don’t give a damn if Muhammad was the most evil man ever born. As long as you think he was a prophet of God you don’t judge his actions and even justify them. My book is the only book that removes this blockade from the minds of Muslims. I was there myself. I had the same mental blockade that Muslims have.


  250. Agracean says:

    شما حق می گویند که اما من هنوز هم ترجیح می دهند فارسی 🙂

  251. Maruf says:

    According to Blaise Pascal (in article we should believe in God. Because if we now believe that there is no God, but after death suddenly found that there is really a God, then no scope to rectify, straight looser. But If we believe in God in this life, then we will be in safe side whether there is God exists or not. So what we have to do is to find out the only true / loving God among the Gods in various religions.

    If Dr. Ali Sina was honest, suppose one of my friends called me, Maruf come out of your home, right then I will asked him where I will live at night? If he could not provide me another home than he has no right to call me come out? My friend should first manage another better home for me if he wants me to leave my current home. But Mr. Sina is not doing that he should have at first come up with a truer / lovelier God comparing to Muslim God before asking Muslims to denounce their faith. But without giving a solution he is offering a problem. This proves that Mr. Ali Sina has something hidden in his mind.

    He also suggests that to live ethically this will be enough for you. I am also agree with him in this regard.

    But who will decide the ethics meaning which is bad or which is right?

    Somebody tells, looking to a woman is bad, somebody tells looking is ok but touching is bad, somebody tells shaking and kissing is ok but adultery is bad, somebody tells everything is ok if both agree. Somebody tells Gay is very bad, some tells no it is their right. Some tells to be vegetarian is right , some tells no everything which is permitted can be eaten . Some tells bikini is perfect because it reveals the whole beauty, some tells no- woman should be modestly covered. Doctors say alcohol is harmful but it is permitted in many countries. Some says gambling is bad because it looses man financially, socially but many countries has permitted it. Some says interest is not bad for economy although it can’t resist recession, others tell that Islamic banking is less affected by the recession. A robber says robbery is good because he can earn much money with less effort and enjoy a luxurious life but the victim will say it is crime.

    For these reasons laws of every country differs each other and there is a continuous clash between pro and con.

    So the question is that who will define the good or bad or set limit. It is obviously the God, the Creator. Otherwise every right or wrong i.e. ethics becomes meaningless. So Gods presence/guidance is essential.

    So what is Dr. Sina doing, he is trying to make Muslims ex, without suggesting a more true God/religion for them. He wants to bring them out of home to under the sun, rain, storm, danger. It is inhuman. He is utilizing his brilliancy, literacy for misleading people, for the evil of the society.

    [email protected]

  252. Sanada_10 says:

    Of course we are. We are not Persian.

  253. Sanada_10 says:


  254. Juste says:

    Hi Mr. F,
    It is not always the case that the clearly manic bipolar person will need or want medical assistance; such people will often either retain sufficient amount of control to function normally or be unaware that they have “gone manic”.
    Mania varies in intensity, from mild mania known ashypomania to full-blown mania with psychotic features including hallucinations, delusion of grandeur, suspiciousness, catatonic behavior, aggression, and a preoccupation with thoughts and schemes that may lead to self neglect.
    Hitler was an Atheist, but he once said that any Germans who die in their “jihad” of slaughtering the Jews will go straight to heaven. Or if they should be born again, they will be born as Pure Germans.
    Dennis Rader, the admitted BTK serial killer said “the devil made me do it”. Muhammad claimed he was “divinely inspired” in his murder sprees.
    See the connections with Muhammad here?
    About God; it was Muhammad that implied his Allah is the same God as the Judeo-Christian’s God.
    This is not true at all. While the Judeo-Christians God generally have loving traits, the God of Muhammad is a hateful God.
    And don’t forget, it was Muhammad that acknowledged and adopted the God of Judeo-Christian concept, not the other way around. In a sense at least.
    Muhammad acknowledged everybody from Adam to himself. On the contrary, there are no mention about Muhammad, Islam Muhammad’s Allah in Judeo-Christian concepts.

  255. Agracean says:

    Don't worry about fatwa or how your imams or mullahs or ayatollahs will react if you do so because you don't have to let them know at all. This is a secret between my loving Creator God, you, me and my beloved hero, Dr Ali Sina.

    Once you embark on this journey of finding the Way, the Truth and the Life, I assure you that you will never be the same again because the absolute Truth will set you free from every lies, deceits, trickery or hambug. Do make up your mind to do so because life on planet is short and precious. God bless.

  256. Agracean says:

    Dear Mr Farzad,

    My name is Grace and I love my dear Dr Ali Sina because he is my hero. I'm glad to read all the exchanges between you and him. Actually, to make things simple and easier for my dear hero, Dr Ali Sina and you, may I propose that you, Mr Farzad, spare some of your precious time on planet earth, to read and study the Torah and the Bible carefully.

    Don't worry about hell fire or Muhammad's curses because he was dead and long gone for many centuries and he won't rose from the ground and kill you for doing so. A loving Creator God don't anyhow send his creations to hell for petty reasons like this. Only Muhammad's Allah enjoys doing so.

  257. فرزاد says:

    1-Unfortunately your understanding of my claims is not correct.

    I do not say because Muhammad has a right view and definition of God no need to investigate his character but I say it is necessary to know Muhammad in view point of his God not knowing his God by his specific features, if he could offer us a right, reasonable and acceptable definition of God, in base of this definition we can know him better and have justice judgment about him; many of negative features that yon mentioned like madness is quoted in Quran of unbelievers and they have accused all of God messengers as maniac.

    If we can accept Muhammad’s prophet hood, at this case he is not an ordinary man so we cannot look at him and his behavior like ordinary peoples and say he had been mad like other maniacs in alleys and had been suffered from brain Insufficiency.

    As you know madness concept has a positive mean in gnosis literature and there are a lot of poems that their poets have showed gladness of having this kind of madness, one of straight result of this madness is wondrous speaking and writing ability, so deeper madness brings more beautiful phrases and it goes ahead until no one can say or write like that.

    2-you are claiming that Muhammad had rehashed concepts that existed centuries before him and I demand you to prove that he does not offer new concepts.

    3-You are claiming that God is an unknowable concept and we can only say he is not so and so; we cannot define God absolutely. I agree with you somehow but not completely; I don’t believe in personal God, however my God isn’t a blind one he is playing basic role by his principal; me, you and Muhammad are some of his uncountable principals; he flows in cosmos like our soul in our body and manage it.

  258. فرزاد says:

    جناب سینا
    1-متاسفانه برداشت درستی از سخنان من ندارید
    مدعای من این نیست که چون محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم بهترین تعریف از خدا را دارد٬‌ پس شخصیت او بی نیاز از بررسی و احیانا وارد کردن بعضی از اشکالات و انتقادات است؛ یکبار دیگر به طور خلاصه ادعای خود را بیان می کنم:
    حرف من این است که بیایید محمد را از زاویه دید خدای او بشناسیم و شخصیت او را مورد تجزیه و تحلیل قرار دهیم نه خدای او را از زاویه دید محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم.
    به بیان دیگر
    اگر خدای محمد خدایی عقلانی٬‌منطقی و قابل پذیرش نباشد آنگاه صحبت از شخصیت او دیگر ارزش چندانی ندارد و ارزش او تا سطح یک مصلح اجتماعی کاملا معمولی سقوط می کند که به قول شما جهت پیشبرد اهداف خود عنوان پیامبر را بر خود نهاده است.
    به بیان سوم
    تجزیه و تحلیل رفتار کسی که ادعای پیامبری می کند با یک انسان معمولی کاملا متفاوت است؛‌ به طور مثال رفتاری که شما بواسطه آن محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم را به نوعی جنون و دیوانگی متهم می کنید و حتی خود قرآن این اتهام را از زبان مخالفان کلیه پیامبران نقل می کند٬‌ با جنونی که یک عارضه ناشی از اختلال جسمانی در انسانهای معمولی است کاملا فرق می کند؛‌ اگر کلمات و اشعار به جا مانده از شعرای عارف مسلک را بررسی کنید متوجه می شوید که آنها دائما از یک نوع جنون صحبت کرده و به آن افتخار می کنند.
    سرمایه عقل، سرّ ِدیوانگی است / دیوانه عشق مرد فرزانگیست
    آن کس که شد آشنای دل از ره درد / باخویشتنش هزار بیگانگیست (مولوی)

    2- دقیقا سخن من همین است٬ شما مدعی هستید که محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم حرف نو و تازه ای در باب خداشناسی و هستی شناسی ندارد و نظرات گذشتگان را تکرار و نقل کرده است٬‌ آیا قادرید مدعای خود را اثبات کنید؟ اگر بتوانید اثبات کنید که راه محمد راه جدیدی به سوی خدا نیست بحث تمام است.
    3- شما ادعا می کنید مقالاتی در باره خداشناسی نوشته اید و اثبات کرده اید که ممکن نیست تعریف اثباتی از خداوند ارائه کرد و نهایتا می توان اثبات کرد که خدا چه چیزی نیست٬‌ تا حدودی با شما موافقم اما این به این معنا نیست که راه شناخت او به طور کامل بسته است و ما به قدر درک و فهم و توان خود می توانیم شناختی از او به دست آوریم و به قول خود شما خدای هر کسی اندازه خود آن شخص و دارای ویژیگی های اوست اما مدعای من این است که با کمک قرآن می توان سطح این شناخت را به بالاترین حد ممکن ارتقاء داد و دنیا و زندگی در آن معنا بخشید و از این سردرگمی نجات یافت.
    متاسفانه باز شما بحث را شیفت می کنید روی شخصیت پیامبر خدا صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم و کلمات خود را باز تکرار می کنید و همچنان ادامه می دهید اگر ما بتوانیم به درک واحدی از خدای هستی برسیم من می توانم تمام رفتارهای پیامبر او را برای شما توجیه عقلانی و منطقی کنم و تناقضات موجود را برطرف نمایم.
    در ضمن متن ترجمه گونه ای از مطالب بالا را به زبان انگلیسی در زیر قرار می دهم تا اگر بقیه دوستان نیز خواستند در بحث مشارکت داشته باشند هر چند مطمئن نیستم توانسته باشم مطلب را به درستی رسانده باشم.

  259. Agracean says:

    Yes, my dear Dr Ali Sina. This is perhaps the fastest and easiest way to communicate with Mr Farzad, Mr Sanada_10 and also, if possible, with you, my dear hero. 🙂

  260. Agracean says:

    آقای Sanada_10

    من عاشق قهرمان من است ، بنابراین من نیاز به خواندن، صحبت کردن و درک فارسی است.
    من یاد می گیرند به شناخت و سخن گفتن یک بیت از زبان فارسی در مورد یک سال پیش

  261. Ali Sina says:

    Both of you are using online translator.

  262. Sanada_10 says:

    من نمی دانستم شما می توانید صحبت می کنند فارسی.

  263. Sanada_10 says:

    Wow, you have a short term memory. Look at my first post to you in this page.

  264. Agracean says:

    آقای فرزاد

    حقیقت حقیقت این است که حتی اگر هیچ کس به آن معتقد است.دروغ دروغ حتی اگر همه به آن معتقد است

  265. Agracean says:

    What is your proposal, my dear prize fatty calf that moooo?

  266. Sanada_10 says:

    Come on, the hint is given. Harrel is Sina's buddy, not me.

  267. Sanada_10 says:

    See? I knew you would say that. Now, how about my proposal?

  268. Sanada_10 says:

    Yes, yes, we got your point so no need for posting it again.

  269. Agracean says:

    Awesome! So you are my dear prize fatty calf that Moooo. 🙂

  270. Agracean says:

    Either you are Mr Moooo or Mr Jonathan Harrel. 🙂

  271. Sanada_10 says:

    I just confirmed it a while ago.

  272. Agracean says:

    I think that you are Moooo. 🙂

  273. Sanada_10 says:

    Keep reading it, you'll see.

  274. Agracean says:

    Please be informed that my loving Creator God did not create hell for human beings, neither does He wish that any of His creations go to that place of torment!

  275. Agracean says:

    Mr Arya Anand, I've to correct your views about me. How in the world can I be like that of Muslims? Muslims never understand the reason why in the first place a horrible place like hell exist and the reason why their god can't wait to send all najlis kafirs and people of the book to hell. Please be informed that my loving Creator God did not create hell neither does He wish any of His creations to go to that place of torment!

  276. Sanada_10 says:

    Jack Pot.

  277. Agracean says:

    Mr Sanada_10, are you Moooo?

  278. Arya Anand says:


    Your mindset is like that of Muslims.

  279. Agracean says:

    Dear Dr Ali Sina

    You said, "An impersonal god that I believe, that Einstein and Espinosa believed, is the single principle underlying the creation. It is not a being at all. It is the law of the universe."

    The following verses sums up everything you need to know about the SINGLE PRINCIPLE underlying the creation and the LAW of the universe:

    John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

    I hope that the above verses will help you to understand the fact that Dr Albert Einstein was halfway through getting his facts right but then…too bad…he expired before he received the ultimate truth.

    in the beginning was the

  280. Sanada_10 says:

    Ah, that what I means. You are doing your old thing again. Glad to see you are still like that.

  281. Agracean says:

    Dear Mr Arya Anand

    Let me give you an illustration to help your ignorance about the truth of the matter. Let's assume that you are a radical Muslim from Pakistan and you've just migrated to Canada. As a new immigrant, you are required to obey the laws of Canada and accept the fact that Canada is a multi cultural society and not a totalitarian society from where you came from. However, you are an extremist and your religiosity pushed you to turn the city you lived into a Islamic gas chamber. Do you think that the Canadian judge is right to judge you and threaten a braindead zombie like you with eternal hell fire? Is this a narcissist's attitude or behaviour for dealing with rebellious and stiffneck fools? Do you think that my beloved Lord Jesus, Son of the living God, Who is also the Prince of Peace, likes to send people to hell?

  282. Sanada_10 says:

    Er, I'm afraid you'll just do your old thingy again to me since that's not good but hey this is the thing. You seriously don't remember anyone at all beside these 2 people even on this site? Weird memory. You can't be a candidate for reciting and memorizing Quran (just kidding)

  283. Agracean says:

    I can't remember you at all cos I've thrown your old username and any of my past comments with you into the sea of forgetfulness, except my beloved hero, Dr Ali Sina and my dear Johnathan Harrel. So, if you could let me know your old username, you can help me save a lot of guessing works here.

  284. Sanada_10 says:

    Oh, sorry, sorry, I forgot to introduce myself. Remember I changed my user name. Take a guess, er, tower of babel?

    I think you will be great together judging from your combative style. Come, try it, he's here as you can see from the "recent comment".

  285. Agracean says:

    Dear Mr/Ms Sanada_10, firstly, I don't know you at all. Secondly, who is this Mr Abdullah Ihsan and what do you mean by 'engage'? Lastly, please justify why do you think that I should engage him and also why Mr Abdullah Ihsan and I will be great together?

  286. Sanada_10 says:

    Yo, Agracean. Why don't you engage Abdullah Ihsan? You two will be great together.

  287. Arya Anand says:

    When there is no personal god, any person who claims to have received revelation from God is a charlatan irrespective of whether he/she teaches violence or peace. This applies to Jesus too. Didn't Jesus threaten those who rejected him with eternal hell fire? Didn't he curse the cities of Sidon and Tyre threatening the dwellers of such cities with punishment on the day of judgment? Doesn't this attitude of Jesus make him a narcissist though he did not use physical violence and gave lectures about peaceful behavior like you show the left cheek when slapped in one right cheek,etc? Didn't Jesus boast that he was greater than Abraham and he was the only way to reach the heavenly Father? I'm not against Christianity or any other religion except Islam. But I cannot accept the balderdash of religious figures including Moses, Jesus, Krishna,etc.

  288. Agracean says:

    Oh my dear Dr Ali Sina, I'm simply overwhelm with joy to know that you didn't make those awful remarks about me. 🙂

    I will forgive our dear Harrel, for this terrible awful mistake. We love him, don't we? 🙂

  289. Ali Sina says:

    Agracian, I did not make those angry remarks. They were made by Harrel who used my account by mistake.

  290. Agracean says:

    Dear Dr Ali Sina

    I'm back for good because I'm no longer upset over your angry remarks about my comments and the fact that I love you and miss you very much. 🙂

    I'm very happy when you said that 'You can say anything about Jesus, but you can’t say he was a charlatan.' This is the basic fundamental truth for you to estabish in your head or belief system before the whole puzzle can be solved. I'm really glad that you do acknowledged the truth that the Author of the Golden Rule is not a charlatan and that all His words can be trusted for eternity. I strongly believe that you'll come to the ultimate realization of the ultimate truth in no time, as you see the Way, the Truth and the Life.

  291. Ali Sina says:

    Mr. Farzad,

    You say there is no surprise that there are similarities between what Muhammad said and what the prophets of the past have said because they all come from the same source.

    But that is not my point. My point is that Muslims credit Muhammad for rehashing what others said. Take the example of Quran 5:32. Muslims everywhere say Muhammad said, “Whosoever killed a person it shall be as if he killed all mankind; and whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he has saved the life of all mankind.”

    This is a deception. Muhammad never said such thing. In fact the Quran quotes this verse from Judaic scriptures. The complete verse is as follow.

    “On account of this, WE prescribed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killed a person it shall be as if he killed all mankind; –unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land– and whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. And our Messengers came to them with clear Signs, Yet even after that, many of them commit excesses in the land.”

    The funny thing is that this statement is in Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 4:1 (22a) and Talmud is not the word of God. It is the collection of the teachings of the high council of Rabbis.

    Look at the irony. Allah is claiming to have said something which he hasn’t. Are you saying that God did not know that these words are not His or was he plagiarizing the Rabbis? Isn’t it more logical to believe that Muhammad heard these words and rehashed them without knowing their source? I leave that to you to decide.

    Now Muhammad was killing people left and right. He had told his followers that killing and getting killed is the best business which will bring them the biggest reward. So he had to interject his disclaimer and while quoting the Talmud he added these words to it “unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land”
    With this disclaimer added he could continue raiding and killing innocent people while accusing them of spreading mischief.

    I am bringing argument after argument, each one of which is enough on their own to prove Muhammad was a liar and the Quran is not the word of God. If these arguments don’t convince you, what will?

  292. Ali Sina says:

    You then argue that the Quran has two readings, one is for the ordinary folk of the street and the other for mystics such as Moulavi and Hafiz.

    The Quran has only one reading and that is what is written there. It is a book bereft of meaning and depth. Muhammad’s understanding of God was no different from that of the folk in the street, and even less than them. But we Persians had an advanced culture and were sophisticated people. We could not accept Muhammad’s primitive definition of God and since denouncing Islam was impossible we projected our own understanding into Quran and redefined Muhammad’s Allah in ways that it was more palatable to our thinking.

    Muslims continue projecting their own thinking into Quran. That is how they find so much science in that book. Muhammad said “whatever is between heaven and earth” and Muslims say he is talking about extra-terrestrials. He said God sent you iron, Muslims say Muhammad is talking about the collision of Tia with Earth that happened four billion years ago. Tia had iron in its core whereas Earth did not have. They ignore that Muhammad also said God sent you the cattle. These are projections. Likewise the mystical definition you find in the Quran is projection. Muhammad did not know mysticism. He was a primitive man who believed bodies will stay in their grave and on the day of resurrection they will come back to life to be judged. Even then he contradicted himself and said those who are martyred are already in Paradise and sending message that they are having fun there and Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Allah. He thought God is a sovereign sitting on his throne who watches over the people to see who misses his prayer, or passes wind during prayer so he can send them to hell.

    Although I don’t agree with Rumi’s understanding of God and reject it, Muhammad was incapable of understanding what Rumi said.

    Rumi, Hafiz and other Persian sages lived in a cognitive dissonance. On one hand they rejected Muhammad’s understanding of God and on the other they projected their own superior understanding into his religion. They call it the “inner” meaning of the Quran (baten). There is no inner meaning in the Quran. What you perceive as inner meaning is your own projection into it. You can project your thinking in any book and interpret anything to make fit your own thinking. Man can deceive himself like no other creature. That is the ability of our imaginative power. We can fool ourselves. We can hypnotize ourselves.

    The Arabic text you quoted says the perfection of knowledge of God is to sanctify him of all attributes. If that is what Muhammad understood then why he came up with 99 names for God. Aren’t they attributes.

    Islam is a religion of contradictions. We Persian call this shotormorgh (ostrich). Now it’s a bird, now it’s a camel. You can find anything in the Quran. On one hand Muhammad says kill the unbelievers wherever you find them and in another place he says there is no compulsion in religion. He said God cannot be defined and he described his attributes. He said God is everywhere and at the same time he said, face the Ka’ba when praying because that is the house of God. He said Jews and Christians shall have their reward and should not fear, (Q.2:62) and also said kill the Jews and Christians unless they pay Jizyah (Q. 9:29).

    The Quran is a book of confusion, not of guidance. Muhammad put in it everything he heared and said things that are contradictory to each other. These contraditions is proof that the Quran is manmade. Everything you find in the Quran, you can also find its opposite.

    You cannot comprehend the Quran unless you understand the mind of Muhammad. Once you read my book you will underhand him. Then whatever he said and did will start making sense to you.

    The very claim that God is omnipresent precludes his need to send messengers. He can communicate with everyone in the same way he allegedly communicates with the self-proclaimed prophets. Prophetshood for Muhammad was a lucrative business. He was a pauper. He was thought to be a lunatic among his people. But because he managed fool a bunch of gullible ignoramuses they waged war for him and sacrificed their lives so he can gain power, wealth and sex. It really does not take much to see that man was a charlatan. You can say anything about Jesus, but you can’t say he was a charlatan.

  293. Ali Sina says:

    Dear Mr. Farzad,

    In your response you state that if Muhammad’s definition of God is correct all the charges made against him become irrelevant or at best can be regarded as gray areas that require further study but Muhammad’s claim to prophethood will be established.

    This claim contains three fallacies.

    1-The character of a messenger of God cannot be separated from his message, particularly someone like Muhammad who made such a lofty claims about himself.
    And you (Muhammad) stand on an exalted standard of character. (Q.68:4)

    You [Muhammad] are a lamp with spreading light. (Q.33:46)

    These are what the Quran says. So it’s allegedly God praising Muhammad. But we see this man lived a life of crime and thuggery, far from being exalted. So wouldn’t that make God a liar? Or perhaps you may say God did not say these things about Muhammad. Muhammad lied and mixed them with the words of God. In that case how can we know that the rest of the Quran are not lies?

    The argument is flawed. I know this is the major problem with Muslims. They close their eyes to the evil deeds of Muhammad and refuse to judge him by the standard of the Golden Rule because they think they should not judge the messenger of God by any standard. Following his example they commit the same crimes he committed and have made the world a hell.

    2-The next fallacy consists in assuming that Muhammad’s definition of God is his own. That is not true. Everything Muhammad said about God was already said by others. There is nothing new in Muhammad’s theology, scatology, ontology, cosmology or sociology. He rehashed concepts that existed centuries before him. If they are correct the credit should go to the ones who said it first, which is generally the Biblical prophets.

    3-Those definitions are incorrect. Apart from the fact that it is impossible to define God, and any attempt in doing so simply proves the ignorance of the person who is engaging in such a fallacy (as you have stated in your message). All one can do is to demonstrate what God isn’t. I have written several articles showing that Allah cannot be God.

    You want to ignore points one and two and focus on point three. Let us assume that you succeed. You then must show that Muhammad was the first to say them and after that you are left with a man whose conduct was unholy.

    Each one of these steps is insurmountable. One cannot define something that is indefinable. One cannot claim credit for something he has plagiarized and the character of the messenger of God cannot be separated from his message.

    These three points are facts. It’s a waste of time to argue about facts and I will not get into that discussion.

  294. Juste says:

    Hi Mr. F,
    I really am intrigued to learn your arguments. Too bad i only understood a small fraction of the characters you used, moreover i do not understand Persian. In your last three long posts, i only got two words right, being and principle.
    So if it is possible, kindly post your arguments in English, so everybody is given a chance to respond. Or maybe you want to wait for Mr. Sina to respond to you personally, that is fine too.
    In any case, it is nice having you around, Dear Sir.

  295. فرزاد says:

    جناب سینا
    در دو پست قبلی لب و خلاصه آنچه مد نظر داشتم را بیان کردم امیدوارم توانسته باشم فهم خود از خدای هستی را تا حدودی منتقل کرده باشم و شما بتوانید بعد از انجام وظایف مهمتری که در پیش رو دارید در فرصت مناسب این بحث را ادامه داده تا اگر اشکلالی در فهم من وجود دارد روشن شود و من قدمی به فهم حقیقت نزدیکتر شوم و از شما نیز می خواهم بیشتر از اینکه به فکر ارائه نظرات خود به مخاطبین بیشتر باشد به فکر تصحیح نظر خود باشید و قبل از اینکه صحت آنها با دلایل عقلی محکم اثبات شود آن را در اختیار مخاطبینی که علم کافی برای شناخت درست از نادرست ندارند نگذارید؛‌نظرات شما به ظاهر بسیار زیبا هستند اما در برابر یک فیلسوف کار کشته حتی چند لحظه هم نمی توانند مقاومت کنند و براحتی نقض و باطل خواهند شد.

    به امید روزی که همگان راهی برای فرار از این زندان بزرگ پیدا کنیم.

  296. Sanada_10 says:

    Try to post in English or use translator.

  297. فرزاد says:

    اما در باره مشابهت مباحثی که در قرآن آمده با کتب پیامبران قبلی این موضوع جای چندان تعجبی ندارد چرا که پیامبر خدا صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم خود تصریح دارد که مکمل راه پیامبران قبل از خود است و تایید کننده آنهاست و اینکه شما مدعی هستید که ایشان تنها مقلد پیامبران قبل از خود است ادعایی که باید با دلایل محکم ثابت شود و بعد از اینکه ثابت شود سطح مطالب قرآن به خصوص خداشناسی آن بسیار بالاتر است مطالب گذشتگان است دیگر جایی برای ادعای شما باقی نمی ماند.
    جملات متعددی از انجیل نقل کردید که ثابت کننده حضور عام خداوند در همه جاست؛ این موضوع کاملا طبیعی است چرا که این خصیصه خدای ادیان ابراهیمی است و اصلا اگر قرار باشد جایی از هستی خالی از خدا باشد این خدا دیگر صلاحیت خدایی ندارد اما آنچه من از قرآن نقل کردم چیزی واری یک حضور عام است؛ در آیه اینما تولوا فثم وجه الله صحبت از وجه است٬‌ وجه چیزی غیر از حضور است در حضور دوئیت کاملا محسوس است اما در وجه صحبت از این همانی است شاید آیه هو معکم اینما کنتم تایید کننده مدعای شما باشد اما دو آیه دیگر چیزی فوق مطلب مورد ادعای شماست.
    در مورد معادل کلمه being در فارسی من درک درستی از سخن شما ندارم نمی دانم منظورتان معنای “موجود” است یا “زنده” شما از خدای خود به principle یاد می کنید فهم من از این واژه معادل فارسی آن “قانون” است؛‌ آن خدایی که من با کمک از قرآن شناخته ام چیزی واری قانون است؛ آیاتی در قرآن است که تصریح به عدم تخلف آنچه در هستی در جریان است از سنت خداست مثل
    فَلَنْ تَجِدَ لِسُنَّتِ اللَّهِ تَبْديلاً وَ لَنْ تَجِدَ لِسُنَّتِ اللَّهِ تَحْويلاً هرگز براى سنّت خدا تبديل نخواهى يافت، و هرگز براى سنّت الهى تغييرى نمى‏يابى‏
    و یا آیاتی با این تعبیر که كانَ وَعْداً مَفْعُولا و یا وَ أَوْحى‏ رَبُّكَ إِلَى النَّحْلِ أَنِ اتَّخِذي مِنَ الْجِبالِ بُيُوتاً وَ مِنَ الشَّجَرِ وَ مِمَّا يَعْرِشُون‏ و پروردگار تو به زنبور عسل «وحى» (و الهام غريزى) نمود كه: «از كوه‏ها و درختان و داربستهايى كه مردم مى‏سازند، خانه‏هايى برگزين‏.
    خداوند قانون هستی است و هستی قدرت تخلف ندارد اما این قوانین آنچنان که از ظاهر آنها بر می آید خشک و غیر قابل انعطاف نیستند در قضیه حضرت ابراهیم ع و آتش چنین آمده که یا نار کونی بردا و سلاما علی ابراهیم؛ در معارف اسلامی مفهومی داریم به نام “مشیت” در جزء جزء هستی و قوانین آن که در واقع چیز جز قانون در هستی وجود ندارد مشیت نهفته است یعنی آتش سوزان است به شرط مشیت اگر مشیت برداشته شود آتش می شود بردا و سلاما علی ابراهیم و این موضوع در تمام قوانین جاری و ساری است و مفاهیمی مثل عذاب یا پاداش که شما با آن مشکل دارید نیز جزئی از قوانین هستی هستند و به گونه ای خداوند در آن دخالتی ندارد خداوند فقط برنامه آن را نوشته است که اگر مثلا شما در محیط دنیا نکاح کنید در آخرت به صورت کاخ و گل و بلبل متجلی خواهد و اگر خدای ناکرده زنا کنید همین زنا در آن دنیا آتش و مار و مور خواهد شد (فمن یعمل مثقال ذرة خیرا یره و من یعمل مثقال ذرة شرا یره)‌.
    و با این بیان بسیاری از اشکالات و شبهات شما بر خدای قرآن قابل رفع خواهد بود و مشکلی باقی نمی ماند.

  298. فرزاد says:

    جناب سینا
    تمام تلاش من این است که ابتدا تکلیف خدای محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم روشن شود؛ اگر خدای قرآن قابل قبول نباشد و ازنظر عقلی نتوان او را پذیرفت آن گاه صحبت پیرامون محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم نتیجه چندان مهمی نخواهد داشت و او در حد یک مصلح اجتماعی معمولی می تواند مورد بحث قرار گیرد که مد نظر ما نیست؛ اگر اصل مدعای محمد ص مبنی بر وجود خدای واحد با اسماء‌ و صفاتی که در قرآن برای او ذکر شده قابل اثبات و پذیرش باشد تمام اتهاماتی که شما متوجه محمد ص می کنید قابل جواب است و اگر هم جایی شک و شبهه ای باقی بماند با اتکا به اصول این شبهات کارایی خود را ازدست خواهند داد و تنها به عنوان یک نقطه خاکستری (نه سیاه) ممکن است ذهن باقی بمانند. به نظر می رسد نقطه اتکاء شما در مخالفت با اسلام و رد آن بر تحلیل شخصیت پیامبر خداست یعنی همانطور که قبلا هم عرض کردم می خواهید از راه معلول ٬ علت را اثبات کنید که روش قوی و محکمی نیست لذا خواهش من این است که بحث روی شناخت خدای قرآن متمرکز شود اگر من توانستم خدای محمد ص را از اتهامات شما بری کنم آن وقت نوبت به خود پیامبر ص خواهد رسید و من در خدمت شما خواهم بود.
    اما بحث در باره خدای قرآن
    ادعای من این نیست که خدای قرآن تفاوتی با خدای انیشتین و امثال او ندارد؛ البته مشترکاتی وجود دارد اما بین خدای قرآن و خدای سایرین فرسنگها فاصله است و به هیچ وجه قابل مقایسه نیستند٬ به نظر می رسد فهم شما از خدای قرآن همان فهم عرفی و به عبارتی فهم کوچه و بازاری است٬ قرآن مدعی است که کتاب هدایت است و این هدایت عام است و شامل هدایت مردم عادی از کارگر و کشاورز و …. تا هدایت مولوی٬‌حافظ٬‌ سعدی و حتی علی ابن ابطالب علیه السلام می شود به طور طبیعی برای شما که می خواهید به طور تخصصی خدای قرآن را تجزیه و تحلیل کنید رجوع به فهم مردم عادی درست نخواهد بود٬ هر چند که آنها هم بهره خود را از معارف قرآن می برند٬ شاگران مکتب قرآن در مرحله اول اصحاب و اهل بیت پیامبر خدا علیهم السلام و در مرحله بعد کسانی امثال مولوی و حافظ خواهند بود٬ شاید شما بتوانید مولوی و حافظ و سایر عارفان اسلامی را منتسب به عرفان هندی و غیره کنید در حالیکه آثار آنها به جا مانده از آنها این موضوع را رد می کند و در حقیقت آثار قلمی آنها ترجمانی از قرآن و احادیث پیامبر خداست که فکر نکنم شما بتوانید این موضوع را رد کنید٬‌اما در این که شخصیتی مثل علی بن ابیطالب علیه السلام میوه خالص و ناب قرآن است هیچ شک و شبهه ای وجود ندارد و او خدا را چنین معرفی می کند:
    اوّل الدّين معرفته، و كمال معرفته التّصديق به، و كمال التّصديق به توحيده، و كمال توحيده الاخلاص له، و كمال الاخلاص له نفى الصّفات عنه، لشهادة كلّ صفة انّها غير الموصوف و شهادة كلّ موصوف انّه غير الصّفة، فمن وصف اللَّه سبحانه فقد قرنه و من قرنه فقد ثنّاه، و من ثنّاه فقد جزأه، و من جزّاه فقد جهله، و من جهله فقد اشار اليه، و من اشار اليه فقد حدّه، و من حدّه فقد عدّه، و
    من قال فيم؟ فقد ضمّنه، و من قال على م؟ فقد اخلى منه كائن لا عن حدث موجود لا عن عدم، مع كلّ شى‏ء لا بمقارنة، و غير كلّ شي‏ء لا بمزايلة، فاعل لا بمعنى الحركات و الآلة، بصير اذ لا منظور اليه من خلقه، متوحّد اذ لا سكن يستأنس به، و لا يستوحش لفقده انشا الخلق إنشاء، و ابتداه ابتداء، بلا رويّة آجالها، و لا تجربة استفادها، و لا حركة أحدثها، و لا همامة نفس اضطرب فيها، احال الاشياء لاوقاتها، و لائم بين مختلفاتها و غرّز غرائزها، و الزمها اشباحها عالما بها قبل ابتدائها، محيطا بحدودها و انتهائها، عارفا بقرائنها و احنائها
    اساس دين شناختن او است، و تصديق تمام توحيد و يگانه دانستن اوست، و كمال توحيد خالص نمودن عمل است براى او، و كمال اخلاص آنست كه صفات زائده بر ذات براى او تصور نكنيد، زيرا هر صفتى گواهى ميدهد كه آن غير از موصوف است، و هر موصوفى گواهى ميدهد كه آن غير از صفت است پس كسى كه وصف كند خداوند را قرينى براى او دانسته، و او را همسر قرار داده، و كسى كه براى او همسر قرار داد پس دو تا دانسته، و كسى كه دو تا دانستش پس او را تجزيه و تقسيم كرده، و هر كه او را تقسيم كند باو نادان است، و كسى كه بوى نادان شود پس اشاره مينمايد بسويش، و كسى كه بسويش اشاره كند او را محدود و معين ميكند، و كسى كه محدودش دانست
    پس او را شمرده، و كسى كه بگويد چيست؟ او را در ضمن چيزى قرار داده، و كسى كه بگويد بر چيست؟ بعضى از امكنه را از او خالى و تهى دانسته خداوند متعال هميشه بوده است نه آنكه حادث است و تازه پيدا شده، موجود و هستى است كه مسبوق بعدم و نيستى نيست، با هر چيزى هست نه بطورى كه همسر او باشد، و غير از هر چيزى است نه بطورى كه از آن كناره گيرد، فاعل است و فعل از او صادر مى‏شود، نه بمعنى حركات و انتقالات از حالى به حالى و نه بمعنى آلت، بصير است و بينا بوده هنگامى كه هيچ چيزى از آنچه را كه آفريده نبوده، و منفرد است و تنها بوده هنگامى كه سكنى (چيزى كه بآن اطمينان بهم رسد) نبوده تا بآن مأنوس شود، و وحشت نكند از نبودنش مخلوقات را بيافريد بدون بكار بردن فكر و انديشه، و بى‏تجربه و آزمايشى كه از آن استفاده كند، و بى‏آنكه جنبش در خود پديد آرد، و بى‏اهتمام نفسى كه در آن اضطراب و نگرانى داشته باشد، اشياء را از عدم و نيستى در وقت خود بوجود و هستى انتقال داد، و ميان گوناگون بودن آنها را موافقت و سازگارى داد، و طبايع آن اشياء را ثابت و جاگير كرد، و آن طبايع را لازمه آن اشياء گردانيد، در حالى كه دانا بود بآنها پيش از آفريدنشان و احاطه داشت بحدود و اطراف و انتهاء آنها و آشنا بود بچيزهائى كه پيوسته‏اند بآن اشياء و بنواحى و گوشه‏هاى آنها.

  299. Ali Sina says:

    Dear Mr. Farzad,

    You are a learned man and I would love to debate with you. I have to apologize becuse I can't. I have to prioritize my time. I am working on a project that I hoped to finish by the end of July. This tuned to be a much bigger project that I had anticipated. So I must dedicate more time to it. My goal is to take my message to a much larger audience. A debate in the forum of a website with an anonymous Muslims certainly does not get the kind of attention that I would like. Although I enjoy debating with you and consider you a worthy contender, I must ask for your forgiveness and withdraw from this debate. However, if you can post your respondes in English, I am sure other freinds here can respond to you.

    Wish you the best
    Ali Sina

  300. Ali Sina says:

    Mr. Farzad,

    Ka’ba used to house the idols of the Arabs. So it made sense for them to go to pilgrimage and pay homage to their Gods. According to you Muhammad believed that God is everywhere. In that case what is the point of going to Ka’ba for pilgrimage?

    Do you see the contradiction? Muhammad borrowed something from each religious tradition to make his own. Islam is a hodgepodge of many religions. He learned about the omnipresence of God from the Christians and Jews, and he copied the hajj tradition of the pagans. Now these two are in contradition, but alas 1.5 billion smart Muslims can’t see it. If God is everywhere, he does not need a house. You don’t have to go around a stone to pay homage to a god that is all around you and in you.

    Muslims are a lot smarter than Muhammad. Rumi was not smart enough to see Muhammad was a charlatan, but he was smart enough to know that God cannot be contained in Ka’ba.

    He wrote,
    I bent the reins of search to the Ka'ba;
    He was not in that refuge of old and young. . . .
    I gazed into my own heart;
    There I saw Him; He was nowhere else.

    In another verse he equates the Ka’ba to the a Magian temple and says,

    What means this idol-form, if this is the house of the Ka’ba?
    And what means this light of God, if it is a Magian temple?

    If Rumi had a chance to read my book, he would have worshipped me instead of Shams-e Tabrizi, for the light I have shed on Islam surpasses what Shams thought Rumi. I am setting Muslims free from all vain imagination. I am giving them the ability to think on their own and be free. Being able to think freely is the ulitmate freedom.

    This does not mean I am smarter than Rumi and Shams-e Tabrizi. I am lucky to live in an age that I have access to the modern understanding of human psychology. I can see everything Muhammad did and said, in that light. They were trying to make sense of Muhammad in the dark while I am standing in the light and can see what they could not see. Rumi and Shams lived in a different era. They had no access to the wealth of knowledge that we have today. These old sages cannot teach us anything. They were lost themselves.

  301. Ali Sina says:

    To understand this you need a shift in your paradigm. As long as you perceive God as a being, you cannot comprehend the principle underlying the creation.

    Now the God of Muhammad is actually much more primitive than any notion of God, explained in the Bible or other religious texts. In my previous message I listed a series of evil characteristics that Muhammad attributed to Allah. The God of Jesus does not have those qualities. To Muhammad those qualities were supreme because he was a narcissists and his god is also a narcissist who does as he pleases and abides by no rule, including his own.

    Although I cannot believe in the God of Jesus, at least I acknowledge that his god is a good god. Muhammad’s god is a very evil being.

    You quote Quran 57:3 “He is the First and the Last, the Ascendant and the Intimate, and He is, of all things, Knowing.” You argue this verse says everything depends on God.

    Yes it does, but it is also a concept borrowed from previous religions. Jesus spoke of it when he said, "I am the alpha and the omega", [Book of Revelation, verses 1:8, 21:6, and 22:13].

    You also quoted Quran 57:4 “It is He who created the heavens and earth in six days and then established Himself above the Throne. He knows what penetrates into the earth and what emerges from it and what descends from the heaven and what ascends therein; and He is with you wherever you are. And Allah, of what you do, is Seeing.”

    You say that the phrase “and he is with you wherever you are,” also talks about God’s omnipresence.

    Yes, that phrase talks about God’s omnipresence as does the one preceding it. But as I said Muhammad had no understanding of the implication of this. If he knew, he would not ask Muslims to face the Ka’ba when they pray. If God is everywhere one can face anywhere and pray. However, the rest of this verse is absurd and contrary to science. The heavens and earth were not created in six days or six periods and Earth is not separate from heavens. It is a part of it. There are many scientific and logical errors in this verse alone. Its logical error consists in the claim that God is the creator, which implies he acted in time. That makes God subject to time. The fact is that time and the universe came to existence together. The verse talks about God establishing himself on his throne. How can a god establish himself on a throne when he is everywhere? And then what is this throne and where is it? These are simple logical fallacies but few people think about them. If you truly meditate on the descriptive verses of the Quran you will find all of them fallacies.

    Muhammad understood god as a sovereign despot who has a throne placed in the seventh heaven over waters, and who is surround by a host of angels. This is absurd. Heaven is not layered and if God does not have a physical body he does not need to sit. This shows how primitive was the mind of this man.

    You quote the mystics of Islam. Of course Muslims were much smarter than Muhammad and did their best to define God in a more logical way. But we are not talking about what Muslim mystics say, we are talking about what Muhammad said. Allah of Muhammad is similar to the gods of the Babylonians and the Canaanites. This shows how primitive was Muhammad’s thinking.

  302. Ali Sina says:

    Mr. Farzad,

    I am Persian. I spent the first 16 years of my life in Iran. After leaving Iran I did not write anything in Persian and never used Persian keyboard. Just as you understand English but find it difficult writing it, I understand Persian, but cannot write it well.

    You say you are not Mr. Tabatabaie. Thank you for clarification. I am sorry to make that assumption. You seem to be quite knowledgeable about Islam and hence my assumption.

    You want to show me Muhammad’s depth of understanding of God and say once his insight is appreciated, there would be no need to discuss his character and conduct and his alleged sins would be all washed away, and it would prove that was divinely inspired.

    This argument is a fallacy. Assuming what Muhammad said is divinely inspired, his conduct as a messenger of God is not irrelevant to his claim. Muhammad claimed he is the best example and said everyone should emulate him. If he lived a despicable life of thuggry and crime his insight into God is meaningless. A messenger of God should be sanctified from vices. Look at the life of Jesus. He is unblemished. One cannot claim to be the best example and at the same time raid, rape and loot innocent people.

    You assert that the God of the Quran is no different from Einstein or Espinosa’s version of God. You then go on to say Muslim mystics (urafa) have defined God as the real being and everything else a reflection of God. If you read my article, “What is God?” you will see this is more or less how I defined God. However, that is not how Muhammad understood God. Muslim mystics are not inspired by the Quran but by Hinduism and Indian philosophies and have given their own interpretation. Sufism is not Islam.

    To back your claim you quote the verse, 2:115 “To Allah belong the east and the West: Whithersoever ye turn, there is the presence of Allah. For Allah is all-Pervading, all-Knowing.”

    In this verse Muhammad is talking about the omnipresence of God. People always believed that God is omnipresent. There are many passages in the Bible, such as Proverbs 15:3 and Jeremiah 23:23,24 that say God is omnipresent. Psalm 139:7-10 says:
    Where can I go from your Spirit?
    Where can I flee from your presence?
    If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
    if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.
    If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
    if I settle on the far side of the sea,
    even there your hand will guide me,
    your right hand will hold me fast.

    Muhammad rehashed many things that he heard from Christians and Jews without understanding them. There are many passages in the Quran that prove Muhammad had no understanding of the concept of omnipresence. His claim about Mi’raj to the seventh heaven is one of them. If God is everywhere, why would one need to go to Jerusalem and then climb a ladder to the seventh heaven to meet him?

    Yet, omnipresence has nothing to do with the concept of God as the principle underlying the creation. God is not a being. Air is omnipresent, (at least in the atmosphere of the earth) but air has a physical existence and hence it cannot be compared to God, which has not physical or spiritual existence.

    When I talk about the principle I am talking about the law that governs the universe. It can exist without the universe, but the universe cannot exist without it.

    Furthermore, how can the principle talk, send messages, answer prayers, punish or reward? Doesn’t Muhammad’s Allah do all these things? Then how can you equate him to the God of Espinosa?


  303. فرزاد says:

    جناب سینا
    امیدوارم اگر فارسی نمی توانید بنویسید حداقل بتوانید فارسی را خوب بخوانید و بفهمید٬ من از اسم شما این طور برداشت کردم که شما ایرانی هستید و کاملا تسلط به زبان فارسی دارید و چون زبان سایت انگلیسی است از جواب دادن به زبان فارسی امتناع می کنید به هر حال مهم نیست من هم در نوشتن به زبان انگلیسی مشکل دارم اما درک گفته های شما به زبان انگلیسی برایم چندان دشوار نیست.
    نکته دیگر اینکه من آقای طباطبایی نیستم و تا قبل از مطالعه جوابیه ایشان به شما شناختی از او نداشتم و آشنایی من با سایت شما به طور اتفاقی و از طریق یک وبلاگ که جواب شما را به آقای طباطبایی لبنک کرده بود اتفاق افتاد اما اسم خود شما را به دلیل بحث هایی که با منتقدین اسلام در گذشته داشته ام کم و بیش شنیده بودم٬‌در باره معرفی خودم همین مقدار عرض کنم که یک فرد کاملا معمولی بدون هیچ شهرتی هستم و آشنایی با دروس حوزی و به خصوص آشنایی مختصری با عرفان اسلامی دارم لذا درک خوبی از انتقادات و اشکالات و شبهات شما دارم و به طور طبیعی جواب آنها را نیز با استدلال متقن و قوی می توانم ارائه کنم اگر از نظر شما اصل بحث مهم باشد نه گوینده آن چنانچه تشخیص دادید بحث های ارائه شده از استحکام لازم برخوردار است می توانید آن را ترجمه کرده و معرض قضاوت خوانندگان سایت قرار دهید.
    اما اصل بحث در باره خدای شخص وار و انتساب آن به قرآن
    حق این بود که همانطور که به خدای انیشتین و به خصوص اسپینوزا اشاره کردید از خدای ملاصدرا٬ ابن عربی٬ حلاج و در یک کلام عارفان قائل به وحدت وجود به معنای صحیح آن و نسبت دادن این خدا از طرف آنان به قرآن نیز یاد می کردید؛ حال که بحث به اینجا رسید اجازه دهید ابتدا تکلیف خدای محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم را روشن کنیم٬‌ با روشن شدن تکلیف خدای او فکر کنم نیازی به بررسی شخصیت خود او نباشد و اصلا نوبت به آن نرسد و کسی که توانسته چنین تعریف جامعی از خدا ارائه کند به طور ذاتی شایسته تکریم باشد و دامان او از اتهامات ادعایی خوبخود پاک شود.
    به عنوان مقدمه عرض کنم که در علم کلام بحث می کنند که الله وحده لا شریک له و در فلسفه اصل بحث در این است که واجب الوجود وحده لا شریک له اما در عرفان مضوع بحث بر سر وجود ا ست یعنی مدعا این است که الوجود وحده لاشریک له٬ اگر بتوان ثابت کرد که خدای قرآن بسیار نزدیک به خدای عارفان واصل است این خدا با خدای محبوب و مورد پسند شما تفاوتی ندارد بلکه بسیار کامل تر از آن است و معایب آن را ندارد.
    آیات متعددی در قرآن به معرفی خدا محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم پرداخته است و بررسی همه آنها از حوصله این بحث خارج و تقریبا غیر ممکن است اما بررسی بعضی از آنها به خصوص آنهایی که دلالت روشن تری دارند٬ ما را به شناخت صحیح از خداوند رهنمون می کند.
    همانطور که احتمالا شنیده و می دانید عرفا خدا را معادل هستی دانسته و تمام آنچه به عنوان غیر خدا در هستی به نظر می آید آن را جلوه ای از جلوه های او می دانند به عبارتی ما در هستی شناسی با دو مفهوم بود و نبود (وجود و عدم)‌ سر و کار نداریم بلکه مفهوم سومی نیز باید مورد بحث قرار گیرد و آن نمود است؛ بود خداست٬‌ نبود هم عدم محض است و نمود همه آن چیزی است که در هستی برای ما قابل درک و بعضا برای افراد عادی غیر قابل درک و شناخت است٬ نمود جلوه بود است و از خود بود و وجودی ندارد؛ برای اثبات اینکه قرآن به چنین خدایی عنایت دارد و آن را تایید می کند به سه آیه از قرآن اشاره می کنم:
    1-وَ لِلَّهِ الْمَشْرِقُ وَ الْمَغْرِبُ فَأَيْنَما تُوَلُّوا فَثَمَّ وَجْهُ اللَّهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ واسِعٌ عَليمٌ (بقره – 115) مشرق و مغرب، از آن خداست! و به هر سو رو كنيد، خدا آنجاست! خداوند بى‏نياز و داناست‏.
    همانطور که مشاهده می کنید بدون نیاز به هیچ توضیحی این آیه دلالت صریح بر این موضوع دارد که هستی پر از خداست و اگر شما به ظاهر چیزی غیر از خدا مشاهده می کنید آن چیز وجه و جلوه خداست و به قول عرفا لیس فی الدار غیره دیار هیچ غیری در هستی قابل تصور نیست و هر آنچه هست فقط خداست.
    2-هُوَ الْأَوَّلُ وَ الْآخِرُ وَ الظَّاهِرُ وَ الْباطِنُ وَ هُوَ بِكُلِّ شَيْ‏ءٍ عَليمٌ (حدید-3) اوّل و آخر و پيدا و پنهان اوست و او به هر چيز داناست.
    و این آیه با صراحت تمام استقلالی برای غیر خدا قائل نیست و هر چه اول است و هر چه آخر است و هر چه ظاهر است و هر چه باطن و ناپیداست را او می داند.
    3-هُوَ الَّذي خَلَقَ السَّماواتِ وَ الْأَرْضَ في‏ سِتَّةِ أَيَّامٍ ثُمَّ اسْتَوى‏ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ يَعْلَمُ ما يَلِجُ فِي الْأَرْضِ وَ ما يَخْرُجُ مِنْها وَ ما يَنْزِلُ مِنَ السَّماءِ وَ ما يَعْرُجُ فيها وَ هُوَ مَعَكُمْ أَيْنَ ما كُنْتُمْ وَ اللَّهُ بِما تَعْمَلُونَ بَصيرٌ (حدید-4) او كسى است كه آسمانها و زمين را در شش روز [شش دوران‏] آفريد سپس بر تخت قدرت قرار گرفت (و به تدبير جهان پرداخت) آنچه را در زمين فرو مى‏رود مى‏داند، و آنچه را از آن خارج مى‏شود و آنچه از آسمان نازل مى‏گردد و آنچه به آسمان بالا مى‏رود و هر جا باشيد او با شما است، و خداوند نسبت به آنچه انجام مى‏دهيد بيناست.
    این قسمت از آیه (هو معکم اینما کنتم)‌ به روشنی دلالت بر مقصود دارد. جهت جلوگیری از پراکندگی در بحث به همین مقدار اکتفا می کنم تا نظر شما را در این باره بدانم تا نوبت به قدم بعدی برسد.

  304. Ali Sina says:

    I will gladly send you my book in Persian, once the translation is complete. It may take a few months though. And I promise that should you prove me wrong I will accept your argument and will announce publicly that you helped me see the truth.

    You agree with me that a personal God is not worth worshipping and claim that it is only Christians that believe in a personal god. I am sorry but that is not true. Allah of Muhammad is a person. A personal god is a god that sends messengers, answers prayers, rewards and punishes, has human qualities, like wisdom, power, etc. and acts. These all apply to Allah. So Allah is a very personal god. An impersonal god that I believe, that Einstein and Espinosa believed, is the single principle underlying the creation. It is not a being at all. It is the law of the universe. It is an entirely different concept from Allah or God as the monotheistic religions understand it.

    You say that even though I am not disputing the existence of God, since I reject Muhammad I am automatically rejecting God because Muhammad gave the best definition of God. That is not true at all. I posit that Muhammad’s definition of God is that of a psychopath narcissist. Allah of Muhammad is unbefitting to be called God. Any definition of God is far more superior to that of Muhammad. Allah of Muhammad is a wanton, petulant, despot, who has no mercy on his own creatures. He is bereft of love. I don’t believe in the god of Jesus but at least he is a god who loves and whom I can love. I don’t have to fear him. Allah is entirely based on fear. Fear is the product of ignorance. You eliminate ignorance, the fear is gone and Allah vanishes. Love is the child of freedom. That is the difference between Jesus’s God and Muhammad’s. God of Jesus is for free people. Free people can love. God of Muhammad is for enslaved people. Enslaved people can be kept enslaved only through fear. There is a place for the god of Jesus in the world. There is no place of the god of Muhammad in the free world.

    Anyway, let us put god aside and talk about Muhammad. I will accept any definition of God you give me. All I want is that you prove that Muhammad was the prophet of that god.

    There is only one way you can succeed and that is if you claim god is none other but Satan. Yes indeed Allah has satanic qualities. He is Mutakabbir (Proud), Jabbar (Despot), Qahhar (Subduer), Khafid (Abaser) Mudhell (Humiliator), Mumit (Death Giver) Muntaqim (Avenger), Ad-Darr (the Creator of the Harmful), and khairul Makirin (the Best Deceiver). These are not divine qualities. These are satanic attributes.

    You asked about my definition of the real God. You may want to read What Is God?

    You repeat that I should criticize Muhammad without insulting him. I don’t understand what you mean by insult. I am saying Muhammad was a pedophile, a rapist, a thief, a ruthless killer, an assassin, a mass murderer, a liar, a mentally sick man, a pervert womanizer. You consider these as insult. They are not. They are my charges. I have given evidence to prove each and every one of them. Your argument is flawed. Let us say you have evidence that I have stolen something. You accuse me of theft. If you can prove your charges, I cannot say you are insulting me. And how can you accuse me of my crime if you don’t charge me with it? There is a difference between insults and accusation. If I say Muhammad was gay, it would be an insult because I have no evidence for it. But if I say he was a rapist that is not an insult because I have plenty of evidence for it.

    Anyway, let us structure this debate. I’d like to ask you specific questions about Islam, if you agree. So far all we have done is chit chat. I’d also request that you introduce yourself. My hunch is that you are Mr. Tabatabaie, but I rather hear that from yourself. If you introduce yourself I will translate your responses and will post our discussion in the debates section of the main articles so people who don’t read Persian can also benefit. I am sure you are confident enough and will not have any objection in signing your articles with your real name.

    I am terribly sorry that I cannot write in Persian. There is no excuse for it. It’s just my shortcoming and I am very embarrassed about it. I speak a few languages and I find Persian the most beautiful of all. Maybe I am biased, but maybe it is true.

  305. Ali Sina says:

    Mr. Farzad,

    You say that even though I may find arguments against the claim of Muhammad in the books I trust, in the same books I also find many claims about Muhammad’s honesty and truthfulness, which I cannot deny.

    The sources I am referring to are all written by Muslims. Believers of all faiths are wont of attributing miracles and prodigies to their prophet. So you have to use your commonsense and reasoning when you read them. This you should do with any book. No book should be taken for its word.

    When a believer says my prophet multiplied a handful of dates so an army of 3000 men ate from it, I will not believe it, because it goes against reason and commonsense. Muhammad himself said in the Quran that he cannot perform miracles. So all the miracles attributed to him by his followers are false. However, when the same devout followers say their beloved prophet tortured people, raided, looted and raped his prisoners of war, I have no reason to doubt what they say.

    You see; if I tell you I am the emperor of Canada, you have reason to doubt, but if I tell you I have been caught stealing and served jail term you can take my word it. Likewise, when Muslims report Muhammad performing miracles or was known by everyone as honest, truthful etc. we should take those claims with a grain of salt. But when they say he slept with a little child we don’t have to doubt what they say. In the first case they have reason to lie, in the second case they have no reason to lie.

    Muhammad was not known as an honest man. He was known as a liar, a majnoon, a madman. The evidence is in the Quran. However, his title was Amin because in one occasion and one occasion alone he was the amin of the caravan for Khadijah. Amin means trustee, not necessarily trusted and truthful. Any merchant who traded the goods of others was known as amin. Amin was Muhammad’s profession and not his attribute. I am re-reading all the three Siras because I am working on a project that requires detailed knowledge of the history of Muhammad. I find no virtues in this man. It is painful to read his biography. That man was evil incarnate. I don’t believe in any religion, but I can’t say this about any prophet. And in fact I think Jesus was a loveable man. His teachings, if followed correctly, will make the world better. Muhammad’s teachings, if followed correctly, will make the world a hell.
    You asked why I abandon the clear evidence that prove the claim of Muhammad and cling to some suspicious narratives to reject him.

    What evidence? I have been asking Muslims for ten years to show me a solid irrefutable evidence for Muhammad. I haven’t seen one. All the arguments presented by Muslims are faith based. They are all fallacies. On the other hand there are countless solid evidences that show he was a very evil man.


  306. فرزاد says:

    جناب سینا
    1- همانطور که عرض کردم اگر شما در کتابهایی که مورد اعتمادتان است رگه هایی بر اثبات مدعایتان در مورد پیامبر خدا صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم بیابید بی شک در همین منابع چشمه هایی بزرگ مبنی بر اینکه پیامبر خدا فردی امین، راستگو، آراسته به محاسن اخلاقی و …. بوده است وجود دارد که بعید می دانم منکر آن باشید حال سوال این است چه عاملی باعث شده که شما دلایل روشن را رها کرده و قرائنی که امکان تاویل نیز در آن وجود دارد را مبنای اثبات مدعایتان قرار دهید؟
    در ضمن کتاب بحار مجلسی یک کتاب استدلالی نیست بلکه بمنزله دائره المعارفی است که امکان وجود متون غیر معتبر نیز در آن وجود دارد و هیچکدام از علمای شیعه در بحث های اصلی و مهم به آن استناد نمی کنند.
    2-این بسیار طبیعی است که شخصیتی که این تاثیر شگرف را بر تاریخ گذاشته است احیانا مورد انتقاد هم قرار گیرد و اینکه شما مدعی هستید که انتقادات شما منحصر به فرد است نشان از تحلیل خاص شما از دلایل ادعایی است و این دلایل چیزی نبوده که از دید دیگران مخفی مانده باشد در عین حال خوشحال خواهم شد که یک نسخه از کتابتان را برای من ارسال کنید و من حاضرم در باره آن با شما بحث کنم و اشتباهات احتمالی شما را متذکر شوم البته ترجیحا در یک محیط فارسی.
    3-درست می فرمایید خدای شخص وار لیاقت خدایی ندارد و متاسفانه ظاهرا این نوع خدا از کلیسای تحریف شده به ارث مانده است و تکیه بی خدایان بر درستی مدعایشان همین خدای انسان گونه است اما خدای حقیقی کجا و آنچه مورد انکار بی خدایان است کجا؟
    خلاصه اینکه در اعتقاد ما این انسان است که خداگونه است نه اینکه خدا انسان وار باشد که جای بحثش اینجا نیست.
    در مورد پیشنهاد شما مبنی بر تمرکز بر روی شخصیت پیامبر خدا صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم و نقد و بررسی آن و در نتیجه رد کردن مدعای او، هر چند به ظاهر شما ادعای نفی وجود خدا را ندارید اما با توجه به اینکه بعد از نفی تعریف حضرت محمد ص از خدا هیچ تعریف معقول و منطقی در میدان باقی نمی ماند، چاره ای جز نفی خدا باقی نمی ماند و در حقیقت شما می خواهید با کوبیدن شخصیتی که بهترین معرفی از خدا را دارد، خدایی که تاثیر عملی در زندگی ما دارد را نفی کنید.
    4-منتظر تعریف شما از خدای واقعی خواهم بود.
    5-بحث من با شما در اینجا یک بحث تخصصی عمیق نیست، البته که اثبات وجود خدا با تمسک به پیامبری شخصی استدلال غلطی است منظور از مطرح کردن بحث های قبل، تنها به جهت نشان دادن ا ین مضوع بود که راه انتخابی شما به ناکجا آباد ختم خواهد شد و برای من به عنوان انسانی که عمری محدود دارد نتیجه عملی ندارد و اگر شما واقعا جویای حقیقت باشید می توان با انجام بحث های زیربنایی تکلیف موضوعات سطحی تر را روشن نمود.
    6-پیشنهاد خوبی است، منتظر می مانم تا شما آب را از سرآب بازشناسید و به امثال من آب را بنمایید.
    7-شما نگران منطق دانستن من نباشید، اگر جایی بحثی منطقی سر بگیرد از چارچوب قوانین منطقی فراتر نخواهم رفت، همانطور که در اولین پست متذکر شدم بسیار فرق است بین انتقاد منطقی و همراه با دلیل از شخصی و روانه کردن سیل فحش و توهین به سوی او آیا با خود فکر نکرده اید چرا قادر نیستید بدون حمله کردن به شخصیت پیامبر خدا صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم مدعای او را زیر سوال ببرید؟ فکر نمی کنید اگر کسی حرف درستی بزند هر چند شخصیت او مورد هجوم قرار گیرد حرف او زیر سوال نخواهد رفت؟ آیا نفوذ کلام پیامبر خدا ص در مردم عصر خویش و در طول تاریخ و میان مردم امروز جای فکر و تامل ندارد؟ و آیا در کتاب خویش به این موضوع نیز پراخته اید؟

  307. Sanada_10 says:

    Someone with reading problem needs to read this.

  308. Ali Sina says:

    Mr. Farzad,

    I quote from the same sources that you rely on. My sources are the Quran, the Siras of Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa’d and Tabari. I also quote from Sahih hadith of Bukhari and Muslim and occasionally from Abu Dawud. I don’t quote Majlesi. That book is a book of lies. I am not pinpointing one or two cases that can be anomalies but. All these sources confirm my finding about Muhammad.

    Muhammad has been criticized by many people. My understanding of him is unique. Many people know he was a liar and an evil man. Anyone who reads his biography and the Quran can see that. However, no one has had the insight that I have into this man’s psychology. I think my book is seminal. I invite you to read it. No person who has read my book has come back to refute me. If you think you can, I will be glad to send you a copy of it in pdf. If you prefer reading it in Persian, please wait a few months until the translation is finished.

    Although I don’t believe in a personal God, my writings are not about God. I don’t want to convert people into atheism. This subject does not interest me. The focus of my writings is to show that Muhammad was an impostor and not a prophet of God. These are two different subjects. My fight is against fanaticism not the belief in God. Many atheists think they are the same. They are not. Many atheists are fanatical. It’s fanaticism that has to be eradicated, not the belief in God. Your attack on atheism is a red herring. I am not defending atheism. I suggest let us focus on Muhammad and his claim. For the sake of argument, I accept the existence of a personal God. Now, do you have any evidence that Muhammad was the prophet of this god?

    My argument is that Allah is Muhammad’s alter ego, a tool for him to fool the gullible and dominate them. Assuming there is a God; Allah of Muhammad is not it.

    You say that even if I find 1000 errors in the Quran, because this book is the only line between this world and the invisible world, it would be a mistake to let it go and have nothing to cling to.

    This is a logical fallacy known as circular reasoning or begging the question. You are placing your conclusion in the premis. You assume that the Quran is a line between this world and the next without aney evidence. How did you come to such a conclusion? First you have to show that this claim is true. If there are 1000 errors in the Quran, it is evident that this book is not a line between us and God. It is nothing but a book of lies. Wouldn’t it be foolhardy to cling to a bunch of lies for our salvation?

    Your example is like a person lost in the desert chasing a mirage. And you argue that since we see no water in sight we have to chase that mirage. Actually there is water, but you can’t see it because you are so focused chasing the mirage.

    You don’t deny using ad hominem against me as argument, but justify your action by saying since I am attacking Muhammad who is the beloved of over a billion people you can attack me. I am afraid you don’t understand logics. Muhammad is the subject of our discussion. My goal is to prove that he was a liar and a very evil man. How can I do that without attacking his character? On the other hand I am not the subject of the discussion. Assuming all your attacks on my person were valid, what do I have to do with the subject we are discussing? You can’t defend Muhammad by smearing my character. We are discussing Islam. I am bringing logical arguments against Islam. Your job is to refute my arguments, not attack my character. When the subject of discussion is me, you are most welcome to expose all my defects and warn people not to trust me.

  309. فرزاد says:

    جناب سینا
    همانطور که می دانید از معلول پی به علت بردن علمی ناقص است و ارزش چندانی ندارد. تمام همت و تلاش شما این است که با انگشت گذاشتن بر روی چند واقعه تاریخی و با ملاک و معیار قرار دادن مقیاس های امروزی از ورای هزار و اندی سال به قضاوت بنشینید و کلیت یک فکر و مکتب را زیر سوال برده و رد کنید و ادعا می کنید که که مستند شما کتاب فلان و فلان است در حالیکه فلسفه تالیف منابع مذکور در حمایت از شخصیتی است که مورد هجو شما واقع است و اگر واقعا این منابع نزد شما معتبر اند انصاف حکم می کند که دریایی شفاف و زلال را به صرف توهم سرابی آلوده٬ ناصاف نپندارید؛ یک منبع و مرجع را نمی توان تنها جهت اثبات پیش فرض های مطلوب به استخدام گرفت.
    اما در جواب پیشنهادات و مباحثی که در این پست اخیر مطرح کردید باید عرض کنم که:
    برای رد یا قبول یک واقعه جزیی قبل از بررسی و کنکاش آن واقعه از نظر من باید دید که آن واقعه بر چه اساس و شالوده ای بنا شده است؛ تمام آنچه شما مدعی آن هستید ـ که در یک کلام می شود آن را رد خداباوری و پذیرش خداناباوری دانست ـ بر عدم بنا شده است و از نظر منطق عدم صلاحیت اینکه چیزی بر آن بنا شود را ندارد٬ مدعیات شما هر چند ممکن است ظاهری زیبا داشته باشد اما در نهایت چیزی دست من (انسان)را نخواهد گرفت در مقابل خداباوری مبتنی و متکی بر وجود است و منطقا چنین فکر و نظری به تناقض نمی رسد هر چند به ادعای امثال شما مشتمل بر بعضی از ناراستی ها بر اساس ملاک ها و معیارهای امروزی باشد؛ بر اساس فکر شما من قطعا راهی عدم مطلق خواهم شد و در نقطه مقابل “من” احتمالا به وجود مطلق خواهم پیوست و این احتمال هر چند از منظر افرادی چون شما ضعیف است اما محتمل بسیار بزرگ و عظیم است و عقل در انتخاب بین عدم مطلق و وجود محتمل متحیر نخواهد ماند خصوصا که عدم مطلقی که شما مدعی آن هستید هیچ دلیل منطقی و علمی ندارد.
    بر این اساس اگر شما به فرض بتوانید هزاران ایراد جزئی به قرآن وارد کنید اما با توجه به اینکه قرآن تنها ریسمانی است که از غیب آویزان شده و مدعی است چنگ زننده به آن را از چاه و زندان طبیعت رها خواهد کرد و بالا خواهد برد٬ باز محل اتکا و اطمینان است و انسانی که حتی کورسویی از خرد در او روشن است بی مهابا بر آن نخواهد تاخت و به قول خود قرآن محکم را رها نکرده و متمسک به متشابه نخواهد شد.
    مرا متهم به حمله شخصی به خودتان کردید
    من منکر این موضوع نیستم اما دلیل این کار من رفتار خود در نقد اسلام و پیامبر عظیم الشإن آن است که متاسفانه چون از منظر خود٬ خودتان را به حق می بینید این اجازه را به خود می دهید که از هیچ توهینی به محبوب دل میلیاردها انسان کوتاهی نکنید لذا جای تعجب است که از رفتار مشابه نسبت به خودتان آشفته می شوید و آن را بر نمی تابید.

  310. Scrutator says:

    A slight correction D_G, 'justice' in Urdu is 'insaaf', while in Hindi, it is 'nyaya'. Agreed, 'insaaf' is also used in colloquial Hindi.

  311. Scrutator says:

    You are right, D_G, after Khadija in Islamic Arabia, no woman ever achieved such heights in any field, never mind in business and commerce. Mecca and Medina were definitely multicultural in pre-Islamic times, what with Jews, Christians and non-muslim Arabs (I hate to call them 'pagans', as they are referred to in Western sources), living together peacefully. Muhammad changed all that throughout Arabia, clearly he was no believer in multiculturalism !

    Talking of non-Islamic Arabia, there are evidences to suggest Vedic civilization was widespread in that area, peacefully co-existing with Judaism and Christianity. Aditi Chaturvedi based in the USA had once written a series of eight wonderful articles on the net, proving conclusively what the 'pagans' worshipped was indeed 'Vedic' in nature. Muhammad in fact had adapted a large number of these Vedic practices and incorporated them in his new cult of Islam.

    Muhammad's demonic activities altered a once thriving Arabia for all times to come, reducing it to an impoverished and underdeveloped area for ever.

    Arabia can progress once again, but only if they come out of Islam, as suggested by Ali Sina.

  312. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    Thanks for the response, Juste.
    I think the destruction of Giza in the near-future *might* serve as an eye-opener for socialist-leftist fools. Hopefully we'll be able to save other non-Islamic historic monuments.

  313. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    Well said, Sir.
    I'd like to add that Arabs before this cancer of Islam were also very respectable group of people. People from across the land visited Mecca & various faith-systems lived together without any one system indulging in the barbaric activities like Islam.
    Mo's first wife Khadija being a rich & influential widow speaks volumes about the position of women in pre-Islamic Arab society. I might be wrong when I say this, but I think pre-Islamic Arab society & traditions & culture must have been at least a 100 times better than what Islam imposed on Arabs.

  314. Scrutator says:


    Dear Dr Ali Sina,

    For the last ten years, I having been reading your articles and admire the scientific and logical way in which you deal with issues in Islam and about Muhammad. However, I wish to digress a little and deal with the discord between Sunnis and Shias here.

    The Sunnis refute most of what Shias have to say, to the extent they sometimes describe Shias as "non-muslims" ! Briefly, the broad Sunni position is that Shias introduced errors and lies in compiling the Hadiths and in their other writings; the Shia position, of course, is well known– their recognition of Muhammad's son-in-law Ali as the rightful Caliph after the Prophet's death and differences in detail both of Muhammad's life and the way he conducted himself. They, of course, in turn accuse the Sunnis of not being true muslims !

    I, however, have a different take on this whole vexed issue. Historically, there is no doubt the Persians, before Muhammad, were a highly evolved civilization (like the Indian and Chinese civilizations of that period), what with Cyrus the Great's declaration of the Charter of Human Rights (the world's first such liberal declaration !), their undoubted military prowess as evinced by the empire they controlled (from areas of Arabia, through Iraq, Iran and right up to Bactria and the borders of India) and their stupendous progress in the fields of arts, literature and the sciences. That such a highly evolved entity would fold up within forty years in the face of the marauding Islamic Arab onslaught, I am sure, was a source of great embarrassment and shame felt by most Persians.

    Once Islamicised, they knew, at that time, there was no way out of that cult. So, to avenge their defeat at the hands of 'uncivilized' Arabs, the muslim Persians must have conjured up a "schism" (I use this word in the broadest sense) within Islam, in order to separate themselves from the lowly Arabs. Am I thinking along the right lines ? You are an Iranian, you must know more about this than most of us do. I would be grateful to read about your thoughts on this matter.

    If what I think is even remotely valid, then there is every chance of large swathes of Iranians (except the diehard group of hojet-ol-eslams, ayatollahs and grand ayatollahs sticking up for Islam to the bitter end) coming out of Islam in the not-too-distant future. Surely, now is their moment in history, with increasing amounts of information about the true nature of Islam being readily available on the net. Already, reports on the internet indicate many young Iranians and some Iraqis have given up on Islam.

    If my thoughts are even partially vindicated, them it can only be good news for the demise of this monstrous belief system and for your valiant efforts to eradicate this 'cancer' within our lifetime !

  315. Sanada_10 says:

    First thing you should know that this site is basing its argument on sunni sources, the most dominant sect in Islam, beside the general Quran of course.

  316. Juste says:

    Dear Mr. Duratma Ghandi,
    Thank You Sir…
    Indeed, the pre-Islamic Persians were supporters of individual rights.
    The evidence are abundant that say they lived peacefully in their land and co-exist with the Jews and Early Christians.
    It is so sad to see them traded brave and dignified Persians like Cyrus The Great, Darius The Great, King Xerxes, Emp. Yazdegird etc. For a horny Arab dude named Muhammad who supported paedophiliac acts, pre-marital sex is haram while sex with slaves considered halal and other psychotic way of life. The man has no dignity.
    But i am glad that these days more and more Persians prefer their Persian identity over Islamic/Arabic identity. Even more great news is that they start naming their babies with Persian names instead of Arabic names.
    Personal note: i dated a girl who is a Persian descendant of Farahani clan from her mother’s side. She said to me once that though she always stayed quiet about it, she hated when people referred to her as “Arab”. She said Arabs are nothing like The Persians. Too bad her daddy is a hardcore muslim (a Malay).
    About that Giza Pyramid,
    In regards of ancient Egyptians, sometimes i want to see that happens. Just to further proven that i was never wrong about Islam.
    Fyi. The Buddhist Borobudur Temple in Indonesia that was built ca. 8 century AD. Was bombed with nine explosives in 1985.
    They arrested a blind (literally: not only in heart, mind and soul) muslim cleric Habib Hussein Al Habsyi for being the mastermind and sentenced him for life inprisonment, but later pardoned in 1999.
    Now that is Islamic cultural suicide.

  317. Ali Sina says:

    Yes Mr. Farzad. I know many Shiite scholars believe Fatima was born five years after Be’that. But there is no evidence to support that claim. Shiism is a lie within another lie. Majlesi’s collection of Hadith is not worth the paper on which they are written. The only books I consider valid are Siras of Ibn Ishaq, ibn Sa’d and Tabari and the collection of hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim. Also Sunan abu Dawud has many authentic hadiths. Even then you have to read these books, critically. All books must be read critically.

    To say Fatima was born five year after Be’that means Khadija gave birth to her at the age of sixty. This contradicts reason and science. That is what I mean by reading critically. If a hadith is contrary to reason, then it is likely that it is false.

    I agree! The age of Fatima is irrelevant to the fact that Muhammad was not a prophet of God. However, since you raised this point, I had to answer it.

    No Mr. Farzad. Muhammad’s madness was not the same as that of Hafedh and Moulana Rumi. First of all Muhammad hated to be called a poet. Secondly I see no sign of mental disorder in Hafedh and Moulana. In Muhammad I have enumerated a litany of mental disorders and have shown with ample evidence that he suffered from these disorders. If you wish to read my book, I can send a copy of the earlier edition of it. If you prefer to read it in Persian, I was told by someone that he is translating it. Once it is complete I will post it online and you can download it.

    The mental disorders of Muhammad were not unique to him. In my book I have given examples of many others who suffered from the same disorders and many of them rose to power. However, becoming someone like Muhammad in this day and age is no longer possible. People are not as ignorant as the Arabs of Muhammad’s time and the world also is not as lawless as Hijaz of the 7th century. A man doing what Muhammad did will soon find himself behind the bars. However, if you read my book you will see that there have been many people like him.

    You rehash Muhammad’s bogus claim that no one can write a verse like him. This is baloney my friend. The Quran is a book of gibberish and nonsense. There is no beauty or elegance in that book. It is also full of scientific and logical errors that shows its author must have been an illiterate man.

    By the way, your responses are full of ad hominem. This is not a scholarly attitude. If you want to respond please refute my arguments and refrain from attacking my person. If that is not possible for you I will ignore your future responses.

  318. فرزاد says:

    جناب سینا
    خوب می دانید که اکثر علمای شیعه قائل به تولد فاطمه سلام الله علیها پنج سال بعد از بعثت شده اند
    من در اینجا قصد بحث روایی و تاریخی را ندارم چرا که از نظر من در این نوع بحث ها هیچ نتیجه ملموس و قانع کننده ای حاصل نخواهد شد.
    در بحث های اعتقادی تنها ابزاری که به کار می آید دلایل خشک و غیر قابل انعطاف عقلی است که خب الحمدلله دست شما از این جهت کاملا خالی است.
    در قسمتی دیگر از سخن نسبت هایی را به پیامبر خدا دادید که اگر خوب دقت کنید خودتان آینه تمام نمایی از این صفات هستید در بحث مشابهی که در گذشته با بعضی از همفکران شما داشتم وقتی صحبت از دیوانگی پیامبر خدا شد به آنها گفتم
    ظاهرا نوع دیوانگی پیامبر خدا از نوع دیوانگی امثال حافظ و مولانا و… بوده است البته با شدت بسیار زیادتر
    چرا که سروده پیامبر خدا نسخه منحصر به فردی است که دومی ندارد اما سروده دیگران هر چند از جهاتی متفاوت است اما تقریبا جنس واحدی دارند
    حال که علم این همه پیشرفت کرده حتما قادر است نوع بیماری را مشخص کرده و احتمالا بتواند انسان را به صورت تعمدی به این نوع دیوانگی مبتلا کند بلکه بتواند حداقل شعری در اندازه و قامت شعر حافظ و مولانا بگوید!
    تا در میان سران برای خود سری شود و شهرتی دست و پا کند!
    فبهت الذین کفروا و ساکت شدند.
    آری جناب سینا
    این دیوانگی برای ما اکسیری است که تمام عقلانیت و دنیای شما در برابر آن پشیزی ارزش ندارد.

  319. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    Dear Juste,
    I agree & support your statement. Indeed, Pre-Islamic persians were very powerful as a group. Their strength & perseverance alone has caused a huge impact on the conquering sub-human zombie beasts – so much that it caused a huge split within Islam – as Sunni & Shia. The Persian respect for individual liberty & freedom caused them to rebel against the up-coming monarchy of sunni islam.
    Even till today, the Persian culture has prevailed inspite of the blood-thirsty, sub-human & barbaric theocracy that is sucking the blood (literally) of the Iranians / Persians.
    It is absolutely pathetic & disgusting that a self-proclaimed native of Persia would choose to insult his/her own ancestors & instead sing praises of the conquering barbaric beasts from Arabia. I notice this as a common aspect across regions where Islam forced out the native culture. Look at Afghans & Pakistanis & Bangladeshis as well – they all too intentionally debase their own ancestors. These are the side-effects of the cancer that is Islam.
    Well said Juste. One can also look at the remnants of Zorastrian scriptures & literature to know about the culture of Persia. With the way in which the cancer of Islam has spread, I see (in the very near future) the complete destruction of (even) the Pyramid of Giza (similar to Bamiyan Buddha statues).

  320. Juste says:

    Dear Mr. F,
    Ali Sina has addressed you in details regarding your questions.
    Allow me to add one small detail regarding point one.
    Did you know that The Great Library of Alexandria in Egypt was the biggest in the world and it was said to be the home of some hundreds of thousands of ancient scrolls?
    The Library’s destruction was finalized in 642 AD. The responsible party was The Muslim Conquerors.
    Now all that knowledge of ancient times is lost forever.
    This is what muslim conquerors do. All sources of knowledge other than Islamic are to be considered shirk and must be destroyed.
    Something that all muslim conquests everywhere share in common.
    History also states that the Persians fought long and hard against the invading muslim Arabs before eventually succumbed.
    Know your history, Dear Sir.
    You can start with the website of Center of Ancient Iranian Studies:
    I really hope that one day you will realize what Islamic cultural suicide is all about. And be brave enough to confront it.

  321. Sanada_10 says:

    From wikipedia:

    Fatimah (c. 605–632), the daughter of Muhammad, was born in Mecca to Khadija, the first wife of Muhammad. There are differences of opinion on the exact date of her birth, but the widely accepted view is that she was born five years before the first Qur'anic revelations, during the time of the rebuilding of the Kaaba in 605,[7][8][9] although this does imply she was over 18 at the time of her marriage which was unusual in Arabia.[1] Shia sources, however, state that she was born either two or five years after the first Qur'anic revelations,[3] but this timeline would imply her mother was over fifty at the time of her birth.[1]

  322. Sanada_10 says:

    Islam brought Arabic words to all the places it conquered. Insaaf in my language means "realize or be aware of". Pretty much accurate to be used on muslims themselves.

  323. enlightened25 says:

    "in the case of India, this would mean kicking out almost 80 to 90% of such people. This has to be an ideological struggle." Maybe not all of them, but at least the Politicians and epecially the teachers who instead of teaching kids how to learn and become enlightend. Fill their brains with instructions on how to become brain dead.

    "Bottom-line: I tend to agree with almost all points you've made in this discussion. Thank you for sharing your thoughts – and now I know more about Moral Relativism that what I did before our discussion." Yes when rational people debate often they learn something new. Only downside is we end up agreeing all the time and very quickly don`t have anything to argue about. Anyway nice talking and a pleasant change to have nothing but logical fallicies and emotional rants thrown at me.

  324. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    "ensaf" – On a lighter note, *Islam" brought insaaf (or ensaf) into India. I'm not talking about the meaning of the word – I'm talking about that *word – Insaaf or Ensaf". Islam literally put it into Urdu & Hindi. 🙂
    Insaaf in Hindi means Justice.

  325. Ali Sina says:

    1- This is absurd. All the books of all the countries that succumbed to Islam were destroyed. No trace of them is left.

    2- We don’t know much about Aisha to diagnose her psychologically. We know a lot about Muhyammad. Although we can’t diagnose him we can say that what is written about him lead us to believe he suffered from several mentall inllnesses such as Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Temporal Lobe Epylepsy, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Paranoia, and more.

    Also can you tell me why Aisha, a young girl and fertile did not have any child? Could she have been damged because of premature sex?

    3- Please do not confuse youself with safsateh and maghlateh (sofism and logical fallacies. The age of marriage of children is decided by medical sciece. Girls are not ready for sex at nine. They are not ready even at 12. They can be ready at 16. However, we humand have also a mind and a psychology. Girls are not psychologiclaly ready for entering in marriage contract before the age of 18. I would say even 20 is too young. Humans are not animals in the farm to be exploited as soon as they are ready to bear children. Even though biologically we may be ready for marriage and child bearing at the age of 15 or 16, psychologically we are not. Age of 21 is acceptable, even though statistics prove that those who marry young have a higher percentage of divorce.

  326. Ali Sina says:

    The age of Aisha is always said to be six at the time of marriage which took place about six weeks after the death of Khadija and Muhammad consumated his marriage with her when she was 9. There are a dozen of sahih hadiths that confirm this. So the hadith is motewathir. There is not a single hadith that contradicts this.

    On the other hand you claimed that Fatima was also 9 when she married Ali. I showed you that this claim is false. Ibn Sa’d in volume 8 of Tabaqat p. 16 (Persian edition) says several hadiths claim that Fatima was born 5 years before be’that. In the same volume page 27, Ibn Sa’d says Fatima died six months (and according to some hadiths, three months) after the death of Muhammad, Her age at the time of her death was 29.
    So she must have married Ali at the age of 20 or 21.

    These are facts stated in your own books. Now the person who has no ensaf is you my dear. I am taking these data from your own books and you deny them.

  327. فرزاد says:

    جناب سینا
    همانطور که سن فاطمه سلام الله علیها در هنگام ازدواج بیش از نه سال ذکر شده سن عایشه هم در زمان ازدواج بیش از آنچه شما مدعی هستید بیان شده
    آیا این نوع استدلال کردن شما را یاد این ضرب المثل معروف که
    قربان برم خدا را
    یک بام و دو هوا را
    این ور بام گرما را
    اونور بام سرما را
    نمی اندازد؟
    آیا همین یک مثال کشف نمی کند که قلب شما واقعا مریض است و ذره ای از انصاف در وجود شما موجود نیست؟

  328. فرزاد says:

    Mr. Juste,
    1-I live in iran and I’m a native.
    You said “Persia is a land of great scholar and wisdom”
    can you name some of them? i mean pre-Islamic iranin scholars.

    2- I don’t know Ayesha was indeed sexually matured when Muhammad had intercourse with her but i know that Ayeshe has had a long life after mohammad and have not reported that she has sufferd of having sex with her husband.

    3- a bout chid innocence,
    who is responsible to draw border of childhood? me? you? scince? nature? culture? Ali sina? els?

  329. Ali Sina says:

    Thank you Zia, I am very glad that you feel your mind and eyes are opened. Please read other articles and please help other Muslims too. No one wants to believe in lies, Well some people do, like this Mr. Tabatabaie. He is quite knowledgeable about Islam and yet defends this lie bringing all sorts of logical fallacies.

    Someone asked him why the Quran is so cofusing and disrodered? He responded the Quran is like nature. Sometimes you understand the laws of the nature and sometimes you don’t. Look at the logical fallacy. The Quran claims to be a book of guidance. It must be clear and unequivocal. The Quran itself says this book is clear, with no doubt in it, easy to understand and clearly explained. Most Muslims want to find the truth, but some don’t.

  330. Ali Sina says:

    Fatima was born five years before Muhammad claimed to be a prophet. She married Ali in the second year of Hijra in Medina. This makes her 19 years old at the time of marriage.

    Child marriage was not customary in Arabia. It started with Muhammad and it is not natural. Normal men don’t feel any sexual feelings for children. Evne though child marriage is permitted in many Islamic countries, most Muslims don’t marry children. The reason is simple. They are not pedophile. Muhammad legitimized phedophilia.

    Furthermore, assuming in the old days pedophilia was customary (which is a lie) it is detrimental to children. But it cannot be banned in Islamic countries because it is a sunnah of Muhammd. Muhammad legitimized and perpetuated this evil practice. The truth is that such thing did not exist before Muhammad, but assuming it existed, as a messenger of God he should have ended it and not legitimize it.

  331. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    "schools" – of course it's the same thing in India too. We teach our kids that Akbar (a Muslim) was the greatest king of India.
    None of the facts about him, his merciless activities, his huge harem, his drug addiction & a plethora of negative aspects are never publicized. And gandhi falls in the same category too. School textbooks in India elevate him as a MAHATMA – a great soul. They never teach any negative aspects of gandhi – nor is any criticism (even based on clearly proven facts) are allowed to prevail in the Indian media.
    "kick these fools out" – in the case of India, this would mean kicking out almost 80 to 90% of such people. This has to be an ideological struggle.
    Bottom-line: I tend to agree with almost all points you've made in this discussion. Thank you for sharing your thoughts – and now I know more about Moral Relativism that what I did before our discussion.

  332. Sanada_10 says:

    Human does change but it takes a very long time. If you can't accept that it will be your own business because fact doesn't care about your opinion. Women's natural puberty in 7th century was the same with now, even it came at later age because of lacking nutrient. Unless you can prove it, your argument remains an opinion. A 9 is a 9 regardless of the time and Muhammad was attracted to that immature body. The bigger problem is that Muhammad had made this legal in Quran and set no age limit, making all pedophile can practice that until the end of time. If you wanted to discuss about Aisha you should go to the other related articles, it's all there including your argument.

    You argued that Muhammad was a man of his own time. That's blasphemous, you know.

  333. فرزاد says:


    I cant accept that humans naturally change over times but if it be so, we cann’t blame Mohammad’s marriage to Ayeshe beacase of changing women’s nature during past centuries and at that time marriag with 9 years old girls have been acceptable, therefore Mohammad took her daughter (fatimah) to Imam Ali when she had 9 years old too and you can not find even one word shows that Ayeshe has been deprecate of her marriage to Mohammad.

  334. Arya Anand says:

    Congrats for understanding Muhammad and Islam and joining the rest of humanity.

  335. Juste says:

    There Sanada,
    You just made my case.
    It was Islam that altered these poor people’s (Farsis) way of thinking.
    Their general attitude toward the truth is no more.
    Here is an essay entitled “The Love Of Truth In Pre-Islamic Iran” by Prof. Stanley Insler:
    (this link is addressed to Mr. F too)
    This happens a lot. Islam is a cultural suicide in every aspect.
    In Indonesia:
    The Tenggerese people of East Java are the descendants of Majapahit Princes. They are Hindus, Buddhists, Animisms and an insignificant number of muslims. These were the people who rejected Islam. Now they live exclusively in Mt. Bromo.
    Same thing to the Balinese people of Bali. They were driven out by the onslaught Islam either from Java or some parts of Borneo for rejecting Islam. They are Hindus. Now they live exclusively in Bali.
    Kutai Kartanegara Kingdom of East Borneo was one of the biggest kingdom in Asia was also Hindu. These people are no more. All of them are muslims now. Hence the fall of the kingdom. We can only see their former culture in a museum in Tenggarong now.
    Borobudur Temple in Central Java bears witness of Javanese Buddhism of ancient times. Now? Ever heard of a Buddhist Javanese?
    What a cultural suicide Islam has proven to be.

  336. Sanada_10 says:

    It was also Persians who altered Islam with their sect, wrote the history of Islam, invented the so called Islamic science and killed the Arab's Caliph. What would muslims do without them?

  337. Sanada_10 says:

    I mean this persian's post is suggesting that. He/she wants to destroy that barrier. Anyway, child innocence comes from the mentality but how about child's body? It is just started and it is not perfect yet. The risk includes death since our body is not as strong as animal.

  338. Zia says:

    Love you Ali, that's all I could say after reading your material.
    Appreciate your knowledge and research and thanks for opening my mind and eyes.


  339. Juste says:

    Mr. F,
    Thank you for clarifying that to everybody Mr. F.
    You are an okay fellow 😉
    Are you a Farsi?
    Persia is a land of great scholar and wisdom.
    I remember the time before Islam when people come from all over to study there.
    I have high regards for pre-Islamic Persia.

  340. فرزاد says:

    i just mean "unbelievers"

  341. Juste says:

    No way Sanada,
    The keyword is innocence.
    Animals can not understand the concept, we are!
    Humans regard a child’s innocence as something that we must value, respect and cherish.
    If we fail to do so, the barrier between us and animals is no more.

  342. Sanada_10 says:

    What a comedian he is.

  343. Sanada_10 says:

    That's the other way to put that we have to act like animal.

  344. Sanada_10 says:

    Humans naturally change over times depending on the environment. Nature does change because our condition changes. Do you even know what I'm taking about? Our body is adapting the environment, therefore our nature experiences change to suit that environment. BTW, you still didn't address the main point.

  345. فرزاد says:

    when somthing is natural it is natural in all cases it is meaningless to be natural in some ages and unnatural in others.
    i think you do not know mean of natural.

  346. Juste says:

    Please Mr. F.
    Try to refrain yourself from uttering the word “infidels”.
    Everytime i hear that word, i am having difficulties keeping a straight face.
    Here, watch this. You will see what i mean:

  347. Juste says:

    Mr. F, i presume?
    You were right, humans and animals are preety much alike in terms of reproduction.
    When female animals get to their sexually active phase, they release pheromones.
    Male animals use their senses (nose mostly) to recognize their female counterparts readiness to copulate.
    One thing that differs us and them is that we have a concept of “a child’s innocence”.
    Something that we all have to respect.
    But i’m not a biologist Mr. F. I am just telling you what i do know as a general fact.
    What i am wondering about is;
    Can you show us, prove to us rather according to the Scriptures if Ayesha was indeed sexually matured when Muhammad had intercourse with her.
    Something that muslims widely believe to be true.
    I understand that many sahih hadeeths mention her to be a nine year-old at the time.
    And don’t worry about your English Mr. F. I think you are doing okay and everybody understands you fine.

  348. Sanada_10 says:

    Sina had answered you on that.

  349. Sanada_10 says:

    I see you haven't explored enough. Go read around. You didn't say that or you didn't mean that? Translate it into English to prove it.

  350. Sanada_10 says:

    Irrelevant answer. Having sex with parents or siblings is not natural in this age.

  351. فرزاد says:

    as i know infidels believe there is no obstacle to have sex even with mom and sisters.

  352. فرزاد says:

    please just scientific reasons not emotional answers.
    forgive me of weak english.

  353. فرزاد says:

    i didnt say:
    we humans should behave like other animals!!!
    but, is there any doubt that we humans are one of them?
    can anyone explain what is difference between humans and other animals of reproduction aspect?
    why power of PRODUCTIVITY in humans begins sooner than we expect?

  354. Sanada_10 says:

    You're welcome. Nevertheless, if a burglar knows that he can freely take his victim's belonging, he will not destroy the victim because he sees the potential "revenue" continuously coming to him from the "weird" victim (read: Gandhi).

  355. enlightened25 says:

    "But my "stepping stone" reference was the practical demonstration of that stupid idea – in such a large scale in contemporary history." Like i said before Gandi was the messiah of Moral Relativism.

    "And a *HUGE* percentage of people in India – especially ones that influence public opinion (like Op-Ed writers, Politicians, Authors, Artists, Judges of various courts, journalists, heck even hindu religious figures like Shri Ravi Shankar, etc) are of such a mental make-up." It is the same here in the west but not just that (i don`t know if this goes on in india)but the children in schools and universities are indoctrinated into this nonsense as well by their teachers and professors. Of course it goes on through the media as well basically all of whom are liberals though their are some conservative and libertarian journalists, authors and actors.

    "One rule for Muslims & another for us fools. And this is a direct result of gandhi's spineless & suicidal policy." What we need to do is kick these fools out, expose their stupid ideology and most importantly regain our fighting sprit.

  356. enlightened25 says:

    "I'd find it a little stupid because if a bullet kills a human being, it's absurd to destroy the bullet or the pistol (that fired the bullet) or just the finger (that set the trigger) or the paid-assassin (who took money for the murder)." About a year or so ago the muslims in china started trouble and demanding their own state. The chinese reponded with force and many were hung in public. This seems to have stopped the islamic terroism (at least for a while)the message to the muslims was clear fock with us and this is what you get. Of course to stop it in the long run would be to ban islam and stop all immigration from muslim countries.

  357. enlightened25 says:

    The crusaders did not need to kill the muslims. Like Ali sina has said, when the muslims are in poverty the terroism stops and where their next meal is coming from becomes their main priority. They will then start fighting amoung themselves and maybe eventually they will come to their senses and leave this madness or if not they will wipe themselves out or starve to death.

    "It's ironic that one would a) refer to jesus' 'show the other cheek' statement & b) claim xianity indulged in genocide via the crusaders." Retaliation was necessary, of course the mass killings where not (see above).

    "However, even if I weren't able to defend my family, I will not go back & destroy the attackers' family." I did not say that (although if the family were involved i would want justice.)

  358. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    In theory the concept of Moral Relativism is pretty old & I believe it was Thoreau's writings that influenced gandhi. But my "stepping stone" reference was the practical demonstration of that stupid idea – in such a large scale in contemporary history. I may be wrong, but it is this practical demonstration that has put this suicidal policy on the table for many Western lib-tards.
    2. "evil" – I would (may be wrongly, or naively) term such politicians as Lib-tards – liberal-retard. And a *HUGE* percentage of people in India – especially ones that influence public opinion (like Op-Ed writers, Politicians, Authors, Artists, Judges of various courts, journalists, heck even hindu religious figures like Shri Ravi Shankar, etc) are of such a mental make-up. If a hindu temple is ransacked in Bengal – no media will cover it – because it would flare up communal violence. If a defunct babri masjid is even touched, they'll jump up & down like monkeys – and completely ignore the communal-violence paradigm. One rule for Muslims & another for us fools. And this is a direct result of gandhi's spineless & suicidal policy.

  359. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    "Crusades" – Back in 1971 Pakistanis indulged in one of the largest genocides in contemporary history – that of eradicating the kuffar bengalis from West Pakistan. I'm sure there are some fanatics in Pakistan that still like what their armies did to innocent civilians of West Pakistan. To me merciless killing & genocide of human beings is most disgusting – and if someone indulged in it using religion or god as reason, it's so much more debasing. I don't see much of a difference between islamic beasts and those that unleashed such mindless genocidal carnage.
    It's ironic that one would a) refer to jesus' 'show the other cheek' statement & b) claim xianity indulged in genocide via the crusaders.
    "kiss his hands…" – certainly not. I will defend my self & my family – and if required kill the attacker/s. However, even if I weren't able to defend my family, I will not go back & destroy the attackers' family. You see – I'm not a Muslim – where revenge & blood-money are part of the Sharia law.
    "torture & execute" – That's your plan of action & your opinion. I have no issues in a President doing so (rather, it should be the Prime Minister. In the Indian democratic set-up, the President is a ceremonial post with hardly any real powers. In the current Indian administration, the Prime Minister too has become a lot similar to the President – for the real power lies with an Italian lady originally named Antonia Maino, allegedly ex-KGB paid operative & her son Raul Vinci).
    I'd find it a little stupid because if a bullet kills a human being, it's absurd to destroy the bullet or the pistol (that fired the bullet) or just the finger (that set the trigger) or the paid-assassin (who took money for the murder). The logical thing to do would be to determine who paid the assassin (& the many others like him) to indulge in such barbaric activities. Here Kasab is the bullet, Lashkar-e-Taiba the pistol, ISI (Pakistani spy agency) the finger & Arab-funded fanatic organizations (like Jamat ud Dawa) the paid-assassin. It's pretty obvious who recruited such assassin organizations – but not one government in this whole world has the spine to spot the big fat elephant in the room.

  360. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    I'm not here to defend or debase xianity or Jesus. I plead ignorance – but I notice that many of my hindu friends & relatives actually have a deep respect for Jesus Christ. Many have the cross & a photo of Jesus in crucifix right next to photographs of Krishna & Rama. I say this based on my circle/ network. And I don't claim to generalize it to all hindus.
    Other than trying to proselytize, I don't find MAJOR issues in xianity – when compared with Islam. I have a respect for the Missionaries for they helped me with the earliest education I received – of course, they did try to convert my economically-backward family – but we survived as hindus.
    I'm sorry but I may not be responding further on xianity – because I don't really have any further opinions on this. I'll respond to the remaining items on the comments below.

  361. enlightened25 says:

    "please let me know some occurrences in contemporary history who exhibited it in such a vast manner." I think i may have to concede this put, but i would say that people had these views before gandi- i just don`t have the information at hand.
    2. Not exactly if for example i am a muslim terroist who gets tortured by the cia, MI5 or mossad or whoever for information that is worse than killing hundered or thousands of people. Why becuse morality is relative so is it more worse that he is tortured than innocents getting killed. He is a product of his culture, religion etc so to him its not really wrong. But what is really bad that some "bigots" and "racists" would torture this poor soul whose only real crime is to be born on a diffent part of the map. (Note i don`t actually believe this but some people (many of whom are senior politicans) do. To check if someone believes this try to get them to say the word "evil" if they don`t say it they are moral relativists.

  362. enlightened25 says:

    "Which historical event are you referring to?" Have you never heard of the crusades? Was europe split into three like india, which includes pakistan on its door step easily the most backward and fanatic muslis country of them all. If europe was taken by the muslims do you think anything of hummanity would be left?

    "Won't tolerate the intolerant" doesn't mean Tit-for-tat." No but if a muslim tries to kill you, rape your wife, your daugter, take away freedom what are you going kiss his hands and pray for him or use every ounce of strenght you have to defend yourself and loved ones and kill your enemie.

    "And if such a fanatic is caught (like Ajmal Ameer Kasab was on Nov 26 in Mumbai), then I certainly won't provide him a huge security cover at the tax-payer's expense." Not only that i would (if i was the president of india) torture and execute him in public. To make an example of him and to strike terror into the hearts of his fellow muslim brothers (who may have similar ideas)- just like the prophet of islam said.

  363. enlightened25 says:

    "immoral cult" – Are you referring to Jim Jones or Nithyananda?" No i am talking about the jesus of the bible, the man who said turn your cheek and love your enemies. And who said to his followers hate your parents and your brothers and sisters and join me. And who introduced the concept of hell, which even the primative jews did not believe in. So at least in judaism after your property was looted your children put in slavery, and your wife raped at least when your dead thats it. But it was the nazarene who introduced the disgusting concept of eternal hell. And even C.S lewis was forced to concede that if jesus was not the son of god, he must be either the biggest liar the biggest madman or something worse.

  364. Arya Anand says:

    Yes, I'm not a Muslim any more. I converted to Islam when I was very young(still I'm young B) without knowing the true Islam and real face of Muhammad and was ready to sacrifice my education, relations with my family & relatives and was even beaten and driven out of my home twice by my angered father at the time but would not leave my faith for the cause of God believing Allah is the same God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus(I was already familiar with Bible), and the God of the universe. But after reading some of Ali Sina's articles and debates two years ago, I got enlightened and shunned my belief in Muhammad's self proclaimed prophethood and the most barbaric religion "Islam" he invented to suit his own personal agenda. I am thankful to Ali Sina from the bottom of my heart for helping me find the truth about Islam.

  365. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    "immoral cult" – Are you referring to Jim Jones or Nithyananda? Sorry, but I share no contempt of Xianity – though I may not oppose criticisms.
    "if hinduism says…" – I see where you get this from, but all I said was "as a Hindu … prescribed". It is my understanding (based on the culture & traditions of my elders & ancestors) that I'm not under compulsion to follow what is written on a piece of paper – simply because it's a holy / divine revelation. I could be wrong – but that's what I understood from my society & ancestors.
    "But i must ask why if it does then india was raped" – 🙂 Why did Columbus try to circumnavigate & discover a new route to India? To help us indigenous people with education, hygiene & health-care – ROFL. Okay, jokes apart. Why was it raped?
    It's precisely Hindu Yudha-shasthra that lead to huge losses in the early wars between muslim barbarians & hindu-sikh soldiers. Yudha or War was methodical and there were standard-procedures (or Rules of Engagement) that were followed – and against muslim barbarians (who used every trick they could) these rules failed & failed miserably. Let me point you to these links: "" – Hindu king doesn't finish off Mohd Ghori. A fatal mistake. Rule (that should not have been followed by Prithiviraj Chauhan): Don't attack a retreating enemy.
    "" – Like I told you, a Hindu is permitted to evolve his thoughts, decisions & choices; is not tied down to a revelation or word of god (unless he so chooses to; and even then no hindu scripture prevents a hindu from following the bible, torah or Tintin comics). Evolution in both spiritual pursuit & to handle a beast like how a beast should be handled, is advised (by culture, family, tradition & ancestors). Inspite of 1000 years of muslim & english (western / european) *rape* – India survived. India lost huge amounts of resources (land, people, culture even) – but in the remaining land of Bharath us hindus are still 80% and with a TFR (Total Fertility Rate) of 2.68, we're not quite becoming extinct (unlike our european counterparts). Let's see how long Europe survives the current islamic onslaught – of population. The TFR for European non-Muslims are among the lowest in the whole world. This basically means, within a few decades, Muslim kids will dominate the 0 to 20 age group – and soon enough there'll be no Europe to talk about. It's a tragedy that's already started happening – and I wish my (current) European brothers & sisters somehow manage to survive as a civilization & society & a culture. For a culture to survive, the people should have a TFR of 2.11 or more.
    ""christian" europe not only hit it back but humiliated it": Which historical event are you referring to?
    Just to clarify: "Won't tolerate the intolerant" doesn't mean Tit-for-tat. So, if a muslim fanatic kills innocent xians, jews, sikhs, hindus, jains or athiests – then I will not look for some xian, jew, sikh, h indu, jain or atheist fanatic to kill innocent (rather, misguided) muslims. And if such a fanatic is caught (like Ajmal Ameer Kasab was on Nov 26 in Mumbai), then I certainly won't provide him a huge security cover at the tax-payer's expense.
    Now my turn to query you.
    1. "gandi did not found this evil nonsense" – please let me know some occurrences in contemporary history who exhibited it in such a vast manner.
    2. "moral relativism" – interesting term. Basically saying, if a convicted felon were to kill a dog, it is expected; whereas if a MIT Researcher were to do so, it is greatly immoral & very-very wrong. I've not actually seen this on any hindu myths or books. In fact Shri Krishn in the Geetha guides Arjun to kill his own cousins & his elder relatives & teachers. Per Moral Relativism, Arjun's cousins should've been let off easily because in a peculiar way they were like convicted felons – this was expected of them.
    3. My *stepping stone* reference: Preaching tolerance in the face of intolerance was shoved into public parlance & respect after gandhi did his *magic*. Prior to him this stupidity wasn't as prevalent as it became after his demonstration.

  366. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    I quite didn't receive it the way you intended it to be received. Thank you for explaining it to a detailed level.

  367. Sanada_10 says:

    If everything has to be seen from nature then it is ok to commit adultery.

  368. Sanada_10 says:

    NPD's followers never want to accept their mistake.

  369. Sanada_10 says:

    Er, you don't really read mine. At first, I was talking about nature, second, I was talking about living creatures' nature and the third, I was talking about human nature (burglar). It gets more and more specific. Sure, it generally has the same foundation but it also has differences.

  370. Prithvi says:


    You are definitely not a Muslim, why, you have the character and courage to accept and correct your mistake. Ha ha ha! 😀

    Cheers, my dear human friend.

  371. Arya Anand says:

    Dear Prithvi,

    Thank you for correcting me. Yes, what you said is true and only after reading your comment, I remembered an article written some years ago in the English daily "The Hindu" that detailed the story of Indira Gandhi's marriage with Feroze Khan in a mosque in London and other information as to how she retracted from Islam later on, etc.

  372. Arya Anand says:


    Thank you for your advice. I respect human dignity and decency and usually do not respond to garbage talk of bigoted morons.

    I just express my views. If I denounce barbarity of Quran, Hadiths and Sunnah of Islam, I will also do the same about the barbarity of the religious books of not only Hinduism in which I was born and brought up but all religions. Otherwise, I would just be a hypocrite.

    Not all religions are same and we cannot put all religions in same category. There are many good teachings in all religions except Islam and they do not teach their adherents to dominate the world and use violence and terrorism as a tool to attain this goal. Islam is the only religion that poses a serious threat to survival of civilization and humanity. It is this reason why we are need to fight and destroy Islam and only Islam not other religions though these religions particularly Judaism, Hinduism and Zoroastrianism also contain barbaric religious laws in their sacred books.

  373. Arya Anand says:

    Muslims' brains have been severely infected by the most dangerous virus called Islam which disables their capacity to think logically and rationally and makes them even lose common sense. Muslims will never stop justifying the hideous crimes perpetrated by Muhammad unless and until the disease in their brain is cured by shock treatment.

  374. enlightened25 says:

    "but I will not tolerate the intolerant & I will not love those who hate me." I am agreeing with you.

    "May be that makes me a bad person – from the perspective of Xianity – but as a Hindu it's pretty much what has been prescribed." Well who cares what the immoral cult of christianity says, anyway if hinduism says that then it sounds like a very good religion. But i must ask why if it does then india was raped (metaphorically and literally) by islam. While "christian" europe not only hit it back but humiliated it.

    "The stepping stone to this suicidal policy was laid by none other than gandhi" gandi did not found this evil nonsense but he certainly has revived it, call him the messiah of moral relativism.

  375. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    I request you respond to "فرزاد" in Persian as well. I opine that this response of the Persian / Arab commentator is a direct result of the "enforced" culture on their people (Iranians, Persians) for centuries. This barbaric stupidity is not a part of the native Persian culture – IMHO.
    People like Sina & Amil Imani & many others are fighting hard to save the Persians from the Islamic cancer that's affected them.

  376. Ali Sina says:

    This Persian commenter says that nine years old girls start menstruating and this shows that nature recognizes that they are mature enough for bearing children. He argues that we humans should behave like other animals who have no rules about not copulating with their youngsters and that it is an arrogance of our species that has set such rules pretending to know better than the nature.

    There are countless cases of children under 12 dying after being penetrated by their adult “husbands.” So the argument that nature has made nine years old girls ready for sex and child bearing is false.

    Some girls start puberty at 9 or even 8. But in majority of cases puberty stars at 11 and 12 and in some girls it starts at 13 or 14. Each girl goes at her own pace.
    A divine law should have taken this into consideration and to be fair to all girls it should have taken the older age as the minimum requirement. This alone shows Islam is not from God. God can’t be so stupid.

    Furthermore, marriage is more than just sex. Yes you Muslims can enjoy sexually even an infant. That is what Khomeini said. But a girl is not a sex toy. She is a human being in development. Children are innocent. Their innocence must be respected. At the age of nine they should be left alone to play. That is not the age for them to have sex.

    It is sad that I have to explain these simple things to you Muslims. These things are commonsense. If your brain were not destroyed with Islam, you’d never have made such asinine comments.

    What Muhammad did with Aisha was a despicable crime. Cult leaders do these things. You have no problem condemning Jim Jones and David Koresh for the same crime but when it comes to Muhammad you lose your brain and your humanity.

  377. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    I am glad you consider me a hindu – even if i chose to not follow texts. Thank you. Some people don't consider me one, sadly. As I pointed out earlier the has the translation that I quoted – and the site is completely dedicated to hindu puranas, upanishads etc – so I assumed they had good intentions. Why would a pro-hindu website provide such translation – is beyond me – honestly. They list resources of David Frawly, C. Rajagopalachari, N.S. Rajaram.

  378. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    It (that is – the "horror story" reference) was my not-so-deeply-researched opinion based on a large number of translations of Chapter 8 Verses 279 thru 281. I did search through but could not locate these specific verses – would you be kind enough to point them out to me, please?
    NOTE: I did ensure I looked at Hindu sites (& not prejudiced ones),

  379. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    To roger & Arya Anand,
    Please consider my this request: kindly do not resort to ad-hominem & & name-calling. Let's not make this a forum a tool for hurting each other verbally. I apologize if what I wrote had caused this animosity – I wish all my brethren resolve their differences within the social decorum our parents had inculcated in us.
    Once again, this is my very humble request. Wishing you both a wonderful week-end ahead & expressing my utmost gratitude for taking the time to respond.

  380. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    I may not have known about Agnivesh – if that (his praise of mo) is true, it is truly disgusting. Did he also advise that Sikh & Hindu women should agree to their rape by Muslim barbarians?
    Many people are misguided about Islam – but those who advise normal people to capitulate in the face of islamic barbarism are the ones that I take my cudgels against. If agnivesh is simply misguided – but doesn't ask hindus to become cowards, he is *at least* a better-hindu than gandhi.

  381. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    @ Sanada_10,
    Once again, your points are very valid. I don't wish to undermine the entire article – in fact I completely agree with a whole lot of stuff that Dr Sina writes. Okay about the wiki; I'll try.

  382. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    I think it's not *human* nature – that's just NATURE. If any living organism allows a parasite (a virus) to utilize the host-body, the virus will destroy the host.
    I agree wholeheartedly with your opinion. Well said. And thanks for taking the time to respond. Have a nice week-end.

  383. فرزاد says:

    در مورد ازدواج پیامبر اسلام با عایشه نکته ای که از ذهن همگان مغفول است این است که
    حتی اگر سن نه سال را قبول کنیم
    نه سالگی وقتی است که دختر عادت ماهانه می شود و این از نظر طبیعی یعنی اینکه آمادگی برای حمل برداشتن را دارد
    و طبیعت ازدواج در این سن را کاملا مجاز می داند
    به عبارت دیگر اگر خداوند ما را مسلح به قدرت اختیار نکرده بود و مانند سایر حیوانات تنها بر اساس غریزه عمل می کردیم
    قریب به اتفاق دختران در همین سن حامله می شدند و زایمان می کردند
    و از آنجا که طبیعت در این امور خطا نمی کند
    ما انسانهای مدعی فهم و شعور باید از خود سوال کنیم که چرا بر خلاف حکم طبیعت عمل کرده و ازدواج در این سن را مجاز نمی دانیم؟

  384. فرزاد says:

    کسی از شما نخواسته که به اسلام و پبامبر آن احترام بگذارید
    بلکه موضوع در ادبیات بی ادبانه که ناشی از بی تربیتی ذاتی شماست می باشد.
    احترام گذاشتن و با ادب بدون و فحاش نبودن دو مقوله کاملا از هم جدا هستند که البته برای امثال شما اصلا صرف نمی کند چنین مطلب واضحی را بفهمید
    چون اساس و سنگ زیر بنای انتقادات اسلام ستیزان بر توهین و فحاشی است و اگر این ابزار از آنها گرفته شود
    دیگر چیزی برای آنها باقی نمی ماند!!!

  385. roger says:

    @Joker Anand

    And it seems you're proud of your colonial masters. keep believing in them until they once again make you clean their toilets.

    btw…i wanted to have you correct translations of manu smriti and tried it. It seems you're too lazy to cross-check, happy blabbering.

  386. Sanada_10 says:

    I think Gandhi had violated the nature here. Even in our body, we have the immune system that guard us from diseases and it kills anything that attack your body. The nature of all creatures on this earth is to stay alive until it dies naturally. But if you let a burglar to take anything he wants from your home, he will come again in the next day to take more. That's human nature.

  387. Arya Anand says:

    It is you that sounds fool here. Just like bigoted Muslims you are blindly believing all barbaric codes of religion. For Muslims it is Quran, Hadiths, Sunna,etc while for you it is Manu Smriti, Yajnavalkiya Smriti, Naratha Smriti and others Smritis, Sutras, Purans, Epics like Mahabharatha, Ramayana,etc. You have chosen to live in the pride of your ancestors!!! No rationality, logic count in your case. When it is the case, I don't see any difference between Muslim morons and you.

  388. Sanada_10 says:

    Whether I join you or not won't make any difference actually. If he realize that and not doing that again in the future, things will get better without undermining the whole point of the article. You can try to add some info on this in wikipedia because I see very limited info about this Gandhi's controversial quotes.

    Gandhi is really a weird fellow and the hypocrite Obama called him a hero of the entire world. Nevertheless, no system called Gandhism exists so we all should be glad for that.

  389. roger says:

    just wanted to correct you in a same vien you want it to Ali Sina and others who see a good hindu in gandhi. Rest my case.

  390. roger says:

    just like you want to get correct Ali sina. In same intention Swami Agnivesh is not even a hindu. He is nation's traitor, a fake araya samjists, he also praised muhammed once in a press conference with dar-ul-uloom i guess.

    Wearing just saffron clothes doesn't make a any a good hindu.

  391. roger says:

    ————If I choose to not respect the Manu smriti, the Vedas, the Upanishads, the puranas, and various scriptures – does it say that I'm not a follower of Sanathan Dharm? If yes, please point out those verses? If not, then without any of these man-made tools (especially Manu Smriti), I choose to be a follower of Sanathan Dharm. You can call me a fool or even a charvaka – not a problem. ————-

    you got me wrong, i was not saying that 'If you will not respect the hindu texts you're not a follower of sanatan dharma". But even a 'good' athiest is a vedic in itself.
    i assumed, you got traped in Max Muller, Monier Williams and Weber's webb.

  392. roger says:

    ——–I'm not an expert in ancient or classical arabic – so, should I stop looking at the english translations of Quran, Sirah, Ahadith, etc?—–

    There is a difference, quran's english translations of yousuf ali and others are unvirsally accepted by the Arabic scholars also. But story is different for Hindu scriptures. People who translated them had different intentions. Any way its on you how do you go about it, i can only try.

  393. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    @ Sanada_10,
    Do you, then, concur that a honest & humanity-loving individual should no propagate such an evil entity such as gandhi? If yes, please join me – in requesting that Ali Sina retract his statement "Good Hindu becomes gandhi" from the other article "Why attack only Islam?" Would you also spend a few minutes to google the term "gandhi sikh hindu women rape" – the first link I get on the search result is from freedombulwark – a blog site associated with FFI.

  394. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    I don't mind being termed a dog – but I will not tolerate the intolerant & I will not love those who hate me. To aid the "love those who hate you" policy, gandhi goes one step further. he says to the jews – since you are so hated by other people around you, JUMP INTO THE SEA & COMMIT MASS-SUICIDE.
    There, I can't do that & neither can I say that. To me, any one who says that those victims of terror should willfully give up their lives qualifies as a satan-incarnate. May be that makes me a bad person – from the perspective of Xianity – but as a Hindu it's pretty much what has been prescribed.
    Shri Krishn in Bhagawath Geetha orders Arjun to kill his own cousins & his own teachers & elders of the family. Of course, this WAS THE *LAST* OPTION – since the enemies failed to accept any other form of a compromise & were hell-bent on war. And gandhi advised us to become nincompoops – and that's how the majority of my brethren are right-now (when it comes to fighting terrorism & intolerance). Sadly, because of such stupid suicidal policies many Western nations too are tolerating the intolerant. And that's what is the first step in the destruction of this civilization as we know it. The stepping stone to this suicidal policy was laid by none other than gandhi; by abusing certain hindu ideas (which become irrelevant in the face of intolerance & terrorist-violence).

  395. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    There are MILLIONS of exemplary hindoos. If one is so ignorant about hindu & good/exemplary hindu – why should one make a statement "Good Hindu becomes gandhi"?
    If I'm ignorant about mormons & their polygamy – would I go around making statements about mormons? Nah, I don't think so.
    Many of us have provided enough information & links to resources (resources that are available on FFI & on Freedombulwark website) – and yet if an individual chooses to debase hindus by sttating that good hindus become "jianist, pacifist (like gandhi)" – what does it tell you about such an individual?
    Since you ask "who else", here's a very small list – the actual list well run into millions.
    Dayanandh Saraswathi, Swami Agnivesh, Netaji Bose, Vallabh Patel, Swami Vivekanand, Lahiri Mahasaya, Paramahamsa Yogananda, Shri Yukteshwar Giri, B.G. Thilak, Rajagopalachari, T.T.Krishnamachari, Chandrashekar Azad, Rabindranath Tagore, V.O.Chidambaranar, Mahakavi Bharathi, Kanchi Shri Shankaracharya, Pandit Shri Shri Ravishankar, Shri Ramana Maharishi, heck.. even Shri Ramdev.
    NOTE: All of these people are human beings & therefore prone to errors & completely fallible. However, they definitely were much more *good Hindu* than gandhi (the scum bag that he was) could ever even begin to imagine to be. In fact some of them even respect gandhi – because he was an astute, shrewd politician. Because he was able to influence people. Even Osama bin Laden & his henchmen are able to influence people – that doesn't make a person a *good hindu*.

  396. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    I'm not saying Vedas are man-made – but they were passed on as word-of-mouth from generation to generation & then they were written down. Once they were dependent on humans for being passed on & later when they became written transcripts – they became man-made.
    Are Vedas the word of god or some super-power or nature – is a moot point. The entity that we refer to as Vedas is man-made because it was written down by human beings.
    This is similar to how the Torah or the Bible or the Quran is man-made – in the sense that it was compiled, written down or administered by humans.

  397. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    @ roger,
    One quick question. If I choose to not respect the Manu smriti, the Vedas, the Upanishads, the puranas, and various scriptures – does it say that I'm not a follower of Sanathan Dharm? If yes, please point out those verses? If not, then without any of these man-made tools (especially Manu Smriti), I choose to be a follower of Sanathan Dharm. You can call me a fool or even a charvaka – not a problem.
    I don't have any thing against my ancestors & the sages that devised the set of rules & regulations & many other smritis, shasthras & shrutis. I respect them. But, I also acknowledge that they were mere mortals – and are prone to errors too. They're not infallible & they are not beyond criticism. I don't support each of the argument that prejudiced indologists place against my ancestors. But then, I also don't claim my ancestors are flawless.
    If my perspective is wrong, please do go ahead & shatter my ignorance.
    Those verses (Chapter 8 Verses 279 thru 281) indicate punishment for certain really lame offences. I'm not an expert in ancient or classical arabic – so, should I stop looking at the english translations of Quran, Sirah, Ahadith, etc?
    Why don't you first prove that you (or even agniveer, whom I actually respect a lot for his time & efforts on his blog/web-site) are an expert in sanskrit, and prakrit & the very specific (classical) sanskrit that sages like Shri Manu had used – and then let's look at your (or agniveer's) translation of the smriti? Also, while we're at it – what is a linga & a yoni? Should you look at Kamasutra or should you look at the Shiva-linga for an explanation? That's a rhetorical question. I know "bear" is also one word that means 2 different things – so don't need to explain it to me.

  398. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    @ Arya Anand,
    I plead no contest about Mother Teresa. I've visited their Kolkota mission & have a lot of respect for her. But that doesn't make her beyond criticism. I accept my ignorance about the subject (of Teresa) & ergo will not be able to discuss it. Accordingly, I also refrain from making either glorifying or debasing statements about Xians by citing Mother Teresa as an exemplary Xian.
    If you or any other visitor to this site has points to discuss about Teresa – they should go ahead & provide them. May be if it's accomplished that Mother Teresa is actually a blot on Xianity & hence shouldn't be cited as a good Xian – then we should request Sina Akbar to retract that statement as well. I'm 100% sure that there are millions upon millions of *good & exemplary Xians* (just like there are millions upon millions of good & exemplary hindus, sikhs, JAINS, buddhists, bahais, zorastrians, ahmadis, sufis, taoists, atheists, rationalists, et cetera ).
    As pointed out in the earlier comment, the "Ali Sina is ignorant about gandhi" argument no longer applies. We've already shown to Sina enough resources to help him research further & determine the truth for himself. An honest individual would do that & either rebut our statements about gandhi – or if they accept that gandhi was a "jianist, pacifist, non-violent-ist", then they'd retract their statement "Good HIndu becomes gandhi". It's not possible that you accept that an individual is a "jianist" – and then go on & ask good hindus to become a jianist. Why should good hindus become jianists? What the heck is a jianist, in the first place? why should good hindus become pacifist non-violent cowards like gandhi? My friends, my ancestors & my brethren are AS BRAVE AS the people of Iran. Heck, when the Pharsi people faced genocide in Iran – it was us HINDOOOOOS that gave them refuge. And till now, you have Ratan Tata & many other business-giants, that are Pharsis, in India. Why is Ali Sina – as an Iranian native – insulting us hindooos? Why is he advising us to become pacifists & non-violent-ists – will a pacifist, jianist group of people be able to provide refuge to the Pharsis of Iran? Nah, I don't think so.

  399. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    Hi Prithvi & Arya Anand,
    Thanks a million for trying to put some truth about gandhi out in this comments section. These are more fit on the other article "Why Attack Only Islam?" – and that is already filled to the brim with the truth about gandhi. Now, let me quickly express a few words about the issue.
    If I commit a mistake in ignorance & if not one but many people point it out to me – what should I do? Let's say, I'm from the USA & in India I don't see any "divider line" & try driving on the right-hand side of the road – and people on the road point out to me that I should not be driving on the right-hand side of the road & should instead be driving on the left-hand side. I was ignorant & without any respect for my own life & safety or that of others using the road I was driving on the right-hand side – I agree. However, once pointed out, what should I do? Should I continue driving on the right-hand side – or should I drive on the left hand side?
    Sina Akbar (or Ali Sina The Great) too *might have been* ignorant about gandhi – and I definitely don't blame anyone for that. Now, not just me, but many of us have pointed out that gandhi was not a *good hindu* – for he did not practice *good hindu* scriptures. Sama-Gana-Bedha-Danda – this is a basic concept. As a last resort when all other options are exhausted, Hindus are *advised* to FIGHT – something gandhi will not advise. So, gandhi fails the test as a hindu – let alone an exemplary or good hindu. Why Sina Akbar doesn't shatter his ignorance & stop advising my brethren from becoming "pacifist, jianist, non-violence-ists"?
    The ignorance argument no longer applies to Sina Akbar – he has all necessary resources to research & get to the truth. But he intentionally chooses to ignore & stands by his earlier statement "Good Hindu become gandhi" – and *THAT* (his wilful & reckless indulgence in hindu-fying gandhi) IS MY BONE OF CONTENTION WITH SINA AKBAR.
    Once again, many thanks to both of you. I'd also like to express my heartfelt gratitude & thanks to Shri Ali Sina. Words fail me when I try to express his great service to humanity & I humbly request that he PLEASE retract the "Good Hindu becomes gandhi" statement. Please don't insult my friends, relatives & brethren – P-L-E-A-S-E.

  400. roger says:

    You sound fool to me. You are saying that you will accept everything without investigating by yourself. Have you checked those translations with a sanskrit scholar? huh? Don't act like a braindead muslim.

    Follow the link i have given below. Let's see there how much of so called understanding you have of manu smriti.

  401. Prithvi says:

    Dear Arya,

    Feroze Khan was a muslim. The name of his father was Nawab Khan.
    Feroze Khan's mother was a Parsi but was converted to Islam at the time of her marriage.
    Khan is a muslim surname and not Parsi.

    The last startling facts about this piece of information for you is that, in fact Indira Gandhi when married to Feroze Khan in a London mosque also converted to Islam.
    It was later corrected at the suggestion and intervention of "Gandhi Ji".

  402. Arya Anand says:


    Ali Sina also said a good Christian becomes Mother Teresa. This is too unacceptable. Teresa is not as good as she is depicted. There are many an issue about her activities and modus operandi.

    Ali Sina does not know everything and has perhaps tried to quote them just as symbols of service to humanity and non violence as the world has been made believe those two persons.

  403. Arya Anand says:

    I have studied Manu Smriti in English translation and found how barbaric that book is. Don't blame the translators for the barbarity of Manu Smriti.

  404. Arya Anand says:

    @ Prithvi & Duratma_Gandhi

    I agree with Prithvi's comment on this issue. Ali Sina might have just accepted the halo given around Gandhi's head ignorantly and thought Gandhi was a symbol of non-violence. But Gandhi was more of a symbol of hypocrisy and cowardice.

  405. Arya Anand says:

    @ Prithvi
    Feroze Khan was not a Muslim but he was a Parsi(Zoroastrian). Parsis are a very good people.

  406. Prithvi says:

    Dear Amio,

    Negatism is your answer for political reasons and mileage.

    For an example, 90% of Indians do not know that Indira Gandhi (the daughter of Jawahar Lal Nehru) the so to say founder and transformer of the congress into a political party by the same name married a Muslim by the name "Feroze Khan" which was under political pressure changed to "Feroze Gandhi" at the intervention and suggestion of "Gandhi Ji".

    Vande Mataram!

  407. Prithvi says:

    Mr. Duratma_Gandhi (MN):

    Try and see the larger picture. Let us face and accept that world over "Gandhi" has been advertised as a messiah of peace (remember, I am not saying that but he has been advertised, I very well know who he was).
    So, when Mr. Sina asks his followers or believers 😉 to follow the footsteps of Gandhi, he is only asking people to believe in peace and not hate others.

    He is not GOD and cannot possibly know about everything or person in depth.
    May be you can suggest other good names to him like the great "Swami Vivekananda".

    Vande Mataram

  408. Prithvi says:

    Dear Lonelyloner:

    Gandhi Ji was a politician and there is no relation between Gandhi and Hinduism.

    As far as your question is concerned, have you heard a name "Swami Vivekananda".
    I am sure he will answer all your questions on Hinduism, through his teachings.

    A Proud Hindu

  409. roger says:

    want to know about hinduism?

  410. roger says:

    there are many,let me provide you names of few.
    Maharana Pratap, Chattrapati Shivaji, Ram Prasad Bismil, Chandrashekhar Azad…etc

  411. roger says:

    What horror stories you're talking about in manu smriti? btw…are you a sanskrit scholar? don't go by the english translations which are available on net provided by the western indologists.

  412. Sanada_10 says:

    Maybe they can't accept that. Many people choose their own imagination rather than the truth. It's easier to them and being selfish is easy too.

    The impression is so strong, even stronger than Muhammad. As a non muslim, I didn't know Muhammad's character before I read and knew Islam but I knew what kind of attributes they put on Gandhi even if I didn't read anything.

  413. Lonelyloner says:

    honestly i have read little about hinduism or gandhi.
    So if it's not gandhi, then who is a good example of a good Hindu?

  414. enlightened25 says:

    "Do not tolerate the intolerant" thats pretty much the same as "Do unto others as they do unto you" which is better than “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” which raises the question of what to do when jim jones or muhammed comes along.

    when i talk about satan i am not talking about the satan of the religions. To satanists satan represents pride, liberty and individualism. So yes its much better to be satanic than "godly"

    "I'd rather be a satanic person that defends civility & civilization – than a spineless swine that prefers genocide to it's own brethren. I cite gandhi as all that is non-satanic – and i oppose this non-satanic spineless stupidity of gandhi & (since Sina Akbar supports hindooos to become gandhi) Ali Sina Akbar too." Here is a quote from the satanic bible that i think sums up gandi "Love your enemies and do good to them that hate and use you—is this not the despicable philosophy of the spaniel that rolls upon its back when kicked?"

  415. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    Same reason why Muslims in Pakistan & across the globe don't see the evil in their own ideologies. Many people in India also don't see the horror story presented in scriptures such as Manu Smriti – Chapter 8 Verses 279 to 281. Does a million people *believing* in some poop make that poop the TRUTH? I don't think so.
    Hindus in India have been constantly fed on a diet of social-leftist-stupidity & garbage for an education. They've been taught to demean their own culture & their own ancestors – they've been taught to be obedient slaves to their white masters – and gandhi was one of the pioneers that wanted to enshrine the slavery to white man into the heart & arteries of India. gandhi never wanted any *real* freedom from the white men – he wanted to be very much a part of Her Majesty's empire & remain a slave to the white man's racial impulses. gandhi & people that say "Good Hindu becomes gandhi" are a DISEASE to humanity. The only antidote to disease (or lies) is the bitter medicine (truth). I may be the carrier of such bitter medicinal truth – I assure that I administer this with the best of intentions.

  416. amio says:

    why the hindus in India don't see this?

  417. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    Sanada_10: I agree to your perspective. But what of people that've been clearly explained the evil that gandhi was – and still continue to believe that "Good Hindu becomes gandhi" (& advertise the same). The irony is that such an ignorant being chooses to insult & ridicule other such similar beings – because they believe in mohammed being a good person.
    That ignorant being that chooses to insult my brethren is doing it willfully – intentionally – out of blatant disregard of all the facts (facts that have been brought to the notice of this ignorant being). Why so?

  418. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    @ Arya Anand,
    Ali Sina Akbar is well aware of gandhi's issues. I've myself pointed out to him – there are contributing authors at FFI, there is a blog-post on Freedombulwark – yet he choose to insult my friends & relatives by asking us to become nazi-loving zombies and *become* gandhi (on his other article).
    That is my bone of contention with Ali Sina. He still believes & professes that "Good Hindus become Gandhi" – is there a dearth of good Hindu exemplary men & women that he chose to insult us like this? I'd rather my brethren become Kali or Arthanatheswhar – than become gandhi.
    Vande Mataram

  419. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    All I'm saying is "Do not tolerate the intolerant"; "Do not love those who hate you" & "Do not respect those who disrespect you".
    If it's satanic to defend oneself and/or to strike back – the American & international forces in Iraq & Afghanistan are satanic too. And, honestly, I love this satanic forces A MILLION TIMES MORE than the pseudo-peace-niks that hide under their beds during islamic slaughter but shout slogans when the civilized world strikes back.
    If this is what's satanic – I'd rather be a satanic person that defends civility & civilization – than a spineless swine that prefers genocide to it's own brethren. I cite gandhi as all that is non-satanic – and i oppose this non-satanic spineless stupidity of gandhi & (since Sina Akbar supports hindooos to become gandhi) Ali Sina Akbar too.
    Vande Mataram

  420. Sanada_10 says:

    Let's admit it, Gandhi was advertised widely as a man of peace and righteousness, for some people who were not aware they could have taken the bait. Gandhi is a weird character in my eyes.

  421. Arya Anand says:

    @Duratma Gandhi

    I think Ali Sina may not have known well about Gandhi's crooked and wicked character and in forming his opinion on Gandhi's personality Ali must have mostly relied on the popular episodes of Gandhi showing him in good light.

  422. enlightened25 says:

    I think this modified form of the Golden Rule is better "Do unto others as they do unto you" That way people who treat you with kindness will have kindness in return, but those who treat you badly will be repaid in kind.

    "As per the Golden Rule, "if someone slaps you on the left cheek, should you show the other one?" Nah, I don't think so." "He who turns the other cheek is a cowardly dog!"- Anton LaVey founder of Satanism.

    "So there – another religion bites the dust when analyzed using the golden rule." I think satanism passes your analysis.

  423. Duratma_Gandhi says:

    Firstly, it's a wonderful response; sad it's 4 years late. Hope that Mr. Tabatabai responds back.
    Sorry to digress – but your concluding paragraph just set me off thinking.
    "Animals, and people who have not evolved their humanity, (Nazis, fascists, communists, Thuggees, criminals, psychopaths, and Muslims) are incapable of understanding the Golden Rule." – point taken. But, I notice (& infer) that you still observe that rule when communicating with such creatures.
    If a dog barks at you, I hope you don't bark back. If it bites, you don't bite it back. However, even though animals usually don't cook & eat humans, you still wish to not cook & eat animals.
    Now, when it comes to rice, food grains, vegetables & fruits – your this rule goes to the bin. You don't think a dead grain of rice or a dead fruit or a dead vegetable is worthy of any respect – other than cooking & eating it. Any amount of reasoning will not work with you. What does it say of you, oh dear author-the-great (Ali Sina Akbar)
    PS: Your blind faith & irrational support for Nazi-loving, Islam-loving gandhi is another point. After all, you (like Mohammad) are merely another mortal. As per the Golden Rule, "if someone slaps you on the left cheek, should you show the other one?" Nah, I don't think so. So there – another religion bites the dust when analyzed using the golden rule. Similarly gandhi's multiple commandments to the filthy hindooos also fails the golden rule.

  424. Sanada_10 says:

    Ah, maybe some muslims here want to comment? Don't be cherry picker, guys.

  425. Arya Anand says:

    As always, Ali Sina's response is purely logical and rational. Any average person can understand the logic. I wonder how a scholar of Islam like Mr. Mustafa Huseini Tabatabie can refute Ali's valid points. It is only the cultist mindset that makes Muslims lose their logical thinking and emulate their criminal prophet as a holy man and worship him by imitating everything this demonic soul did.

  426. roger says:

    Awesome arguments by Sina! Perhaps, last nail…

  427. enlightened25 says:

    "When Muslims use the same words we use, they mean an entirely different thing." I think someone should write a islamic-kaffir dictionary. Its very important to understand what muslims mean when say words like peace, oppresion etc. Its especially deceptive becuse the muslims are not even aware they are doing it. Its like someone who is not very fluent in a language, may say a word thinking it means something other than it actually does. So beware if you want to debate a muslim learn their language first otherwise you may find you have been misinformed.

  428. Juste says:

    Indeed, Padre.
    I always enjoy Sina’s debates.
    In a sense, he works like Operation Shock and Awe: Swift, Thorough and Precise.

  429. el padrino says:

    Fascinating article

Leave a Reply