Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina

Mr. Yamin Zakaria is an outspken Islamic apologist who calls the Islamic terrorists, “freedom fighters”. His articles are carried by Media Monitor Network, Al Jazeerah,  Information Clearing House and a series of other publications.  He lives in London, UK.

This debate took place several years ago and was published on Faithfreedom.org. http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/YaminZakariaindex.htm

Hi

Who will be adjudicating the debate? What proof do we have that you will pay up when you have been defeated?

Can we also get a glimpse of what you propose as ALTERNATIVE?   It is very easy to call people ugly whilst hiding behind a mask. If you judge ISLAM to be incorrect you must have pre-defined set of criteria, values and principles by which you judge. Otherwise the ‘debate’ is merely where you have setup yourself as judge, jury and executioner.

May I ask you also, that since you have this amount of money to give away does this mean you have financial and political backings from certain quarters? Or are you just wealthy?

Whilst in debate can you maintain a level of decorum as opposed to name calling, of which there are many examples on your website e.g. calling someone “subhuman”. As you can appreciate, such labels can also be attributed towards yourself.

Yamin

Hello Mr. Yamin Zakaria

I will be glad to debate with you on Islam.  As for the payment after being defeated you must take me for my word and if you don’t, you are not required to debate. One thing I can assure you of is that I am not a gambler. If I had any doubt in my mind, even as little as one in a billion chance of being wrong, I would not have risked confronting a savage and unforgiving deity such as Allah and facing the possibility of his eternal tortures. I had my share of doubts at first, but as I read and I understood more, those doubts dissipated and when I started my Internet campaign six years ago, my conviction about the fallacy of Islam was as certain as my conviction about the roundness of the Earth

So Mr. Zakaria, you don’t have to be too concerned about securing the money because you can bet your life that you are going to lose this debate and I will prove once again that Muhammad was not a prophet but a successful cult leader no different from Jim Jones or David Koresh and much crueler than Hitler.

Yes, I do have a better alternative to Islam, but I am not here to tell people what path they should choose. I leave that to them to decide. Almost anything is better than Islam. All I want to tell them is that Islam is dangerous and we must get rid of it soon or the world will face a major catastrophe much worse than the Second World War.

Personally, I am a practitioner of the Golden Rule. The reason I oppose Islam is because it is against the Golden Rule. Islam is wicked in its core and it is destructive. I do not oppose Islam because it is false but because it is evil. I have no problem with people who love to believe in fairytales. But when their fairytale fills them with hatred of their fellow humans and encourages them to shed the blood of the innocent people, then I take a stance. That is not the kind of fairytale I can tolerate nor I would accept your right to believe in it. You must end this insanity and stop killing people or we will have to stop you.

No, I am not wealthy. The money I am offering comes from the equity in my house. I made this offer to get your attention. This is to prove to Muslims that the reason their scholars shun me is not because they think what I say is not relevant or not important, but because they know they have no chance of winning a debate. The fact that you have accepted this challenge is a good harbinger of your honesty. I hope this honesty will assist you to see the light and leave Islam.

However, I made a search with your name and read a few passages of your articles and gave up on that illusion very soon. I am afraid your heart is filled with Islamic hate and you have no regards for truth, fairness, love and mankind. You have a very twisted sense of morality and your entire articles do nothing but to provoke hate, justify violence and divide mankind. You are indeed a true follower of Muhammad and an enemy of humanity. Nonetheless, I consider debating with you beneficial. I have no interest in you Sir. I am after my fellow humans who erroneously think they are Muslims. Fortunately, they are the majority and it is they whom I want to reach and help to make the leap from Islam to humanity. By debating with you publicly, I can make them see the stupidity of Islam and hopefully many would see the light and leave this cult.

Yes Sir, I will maintain the level of decorum even if you don’t. In fact one way I win is to show my readers that Muslims can’t debate without resorting to ad hominem. Very few Muslims can control the temptation of personal attacks. Those few who succeed have my utter respect.

As for calling someone “subhuman” I have made it clear that I do not consider those who behead people or target civilians and engage in senseless acts of terror, humans. There are many verses of the Quran that encourage the Muslims to engage in such savageries and inhumane acts. Those who follow such teachings are not humans and we should stop this stupid game of political correctness and call them so. They are savages. They are less than subhumans. They are monsters. Our humanity is determined by our humanness and that is in the strength of our soul, in our concern for our fellow beings, in our care and love for mankind and not by our appearance. Can Hitler be called human? How about his supporters who perpetrated those hideous crimes?  I do not know your answer to this question, but mine is, NO!  A person cannot be called a human if he or she has no humanity. By the same token, neither Muhammad can be called a human nor those who live by his mandates, kill, loot, rape, behead and butcher innocent people targeting the most vulnerable and defenseless.

Do you have any problem with this definition? Do you think this is a condition you can’t accept? Are you demanding that I should drop such characterization before you engage in debate with me? In that case you don’t have to debate. Not only I will not retract, I actually hope the entire world adopt this definition and denounce the Quran as a barbaric book of terror and all those who follow its inhumane teachings as subhuman.  I want to end this political correctness “lest we hurt the sensitivities” of a bunch of thugs and terrorists. I want the whole world call a spade a spade and stop this foolish game of appeasement. If I considered Islam to be a humane religion why would I oppose it?

So not see this as labeling but as a charge. If I make such a claim, I must be able to prove it and if you want me to withdraw it you must be able to disprove it.

Let us make this a rule: Each one of us is free to make any assumption that he pleases but he must be able to prove that assumption or withdraw it. I think this is fair. This would give either one of us the freedom to say whatever we want without any restriction, BUT we must prove it or take it back. That is freedom of speech with responsibility.

You’ll find that in the course of our debate I will call Muhammad an assassin, a lecher, a rapist, a highway robber and many other things. These are not insults. These are charges. It is up to me to prove these charges or apologize for them and withdraw them. Once I prove either one of these charges, you may want to attempt and disprove them or plead no contest. We will go from one topic to another. I will lay the charges on Muhammad and the Quran and present my proof. Then it is up to you to rebut those charges. At the end we don’t have to agree. It is up to our readers to be the judge.

I will publish all our correspondence in my site. You are free to do the same in yours. If you don’t, our readers may interpret this as your lack of confident in your ability to win this debate. But it is entirely up to you to publish them or not. If you don’t have a site, send them to AlJazeera.com that frequently publishes your hate laden articles.

I trust you find these rules fair and equitable. After all if my charges are nothing but libel, you’ll be able to demonstrate that. In that case I will remove them. If you can disprove all the charges, you have my word that I will sell my house and give you the money that I have promised. This is a public statement and I am a quasi public figure known to a few million people. If I don’t keep my word, this would be the end of me. Furthermore, I will remove all the pages of this site with the exception of the index page with a message saying, I have been proven wrong by Mr. Yamin Zakaria and to honor my word this entire site has been removed. On the other hand, if you lose, you don’t have to do anything. You can continue digging your heel in your ignorance and promote your hatemongering religion of terror and darkness. So as you see, you have nothing to lose while I am risking everything. The rules of this debate are totally in your favor, except for the fact that you are standing on a very shaky ground of faith and conjecture and are armed by an air gun that makes only noise, while I am standing on a solid ground of facts and my logical gun is loaded with real ammunition. In other words, you defend Islam from the position of belief and irrationality and I attack it from the position of logic and truth.

If you agree to continue, please let me know and I will bring my first charge against Muhammad.

Part II

Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina

For the sake of clarity I have quoted the rebuttal of Mr. Zakaria and responded to each paragraph separately. Mr. Zakaria believes his rebuttal should be published in one pieces or it loses its efficacy. To read his rebuttal in one piece and be swayed by its power, please read his unbroken response Here

Yamin Zakaria wrote:$50,000 Debate – Here is my response to Mr. Ali Sina Please note where I have used bold and italics inside quotes to highlight Mr. Sina’s quotations in his previous response. a) You (Ali Sina) say that I must take your word as being the judicator as well as the opponent, oh really! This is surely a laughable and a farcical position, it is like saying one of boxers in the ring should also be the referee. Then expect the other boxer to take his word when the final scoring is done! Is this how you understand objectivity and fair play? Or is this coming from your “logical gun”? This reminds me of one my recent debate with a ‘disciple’ of yours who after a while started to delete my email response without reading them (by his own admission) and kept sending me his rants and outbursts. Rather, this demonstrates that you are not serious about the money and you are using it to get cheap publicity. Since you want to be the final judicator, for sure you are not “gambling” with anything but standing on “very shaky ground of faith” in fear of my “logical gun” that any impartial observer would easily see applying basic common sense!It also demonstrates arrogance on your part thinking that you can be Judge, Jury and Executioner all at the same time. Perhaps this is our first glimpse into your “position of logics and truth” that you so proudly boast about! What I proposed was FAIR – We appoint or agree on judicator(s) and I would like to further propose that we have a binding contract through our solicitors who will hold the money into a neutral account. We should limit the number of exchanges then the judicators should pronounce the verdict. In the UK we have a saying “put your money where your mouth is”. Please clarify this important point.

Ali Sina Wrote:

No Mr. Zakaria, the referee is the public. I do not expect you to accept your loss even though I would if I am wrong. Now are you going to defend Muhammad of the charges that I made against him or are you going to weasel your way out of the debate with these excuses. Remember I did not invite you to debate, you responded to my general invitation and these are the conditions. Take it or leave it. I am not going to waste my time and the time of my readers discussing about silly things. I want to debate about Muhammad and prove that he is indefensible. If you are not up to the challenge, please clear the way and let a real contender respond.

Furthermore, I don’t have disciples. My readers are freethinkers. I know this is a difficult concept for you to grasp, but let me tell you that even my cat is a freethinker. He has a mind of his own and does not pay any attention to what I say. That is why I like him. He is a freethinking cat. The followers of Muhammad, who blindly obey what he told them and have submitted their intelligence to him cannot understand this and do not have a cat’s independence of thought. They pride themselves in their submission and slavery.

You are filibustering Mr. Zakaria. First try to debate. If you sense you are getting any close to winning then you can start talking about the money. Suppose I lie and there is no money. Won’t you like to clear your prophet’s name from these charges? Isn’t defending Islam enough incentive for you? I am not going to waste my time discussing on this matter.

The more we talk about the form the less we have time to talk about the substance and this is not my idea of debate.  This is my offer. Take it or leave it. Without the offer, Muslims don’t debate, now with the offer they want to talk about the money. How can I get you people talk about your prophet and defend him from the charges I have laid on him?

b)        You say the following with respect to providing mankind an alternative to Islam:“Yes, I do have a better alternative to Islam but I am not here to tell people what path they should choose. I leave that to them to decide.” You have a mysterious alternative but you do not elaborate on this at all although this is exactly what I asked for in my first email. This is Deja vou for me. In any case, from the above one line ‘elaboration’ your alternative seems to be rather contradictory. What if the people decided to choose the path of ISLAM by your criterion of letting people decide freely? Then by your ‘logic’ your opposition is not to the ideas of ISLAM as long as they have exercised their free choice in selecting that path. But, then you contradict yourself when you later deny that right of free choice as you say: “nor would I accept your right to believe in it” i.e. Islam. You sound a like a confused person standing on “very shaky ground of faith and conjecture”. How can you say: “I am not here to tell the people what path they should choose. I leave that to them to decide” and then you contradict yourself by dictating that they should not choose the path of ISLAM as you later say “nor would I accept your right to believe in it”? This indicates that you are confused on the fundamental basis of your argument. Furthermore, when invoking criticism by rational necessity you must have what is right in your mind to criticise with in the first place. Otherwise you are like a masked man that calls everyone else ugly! HENCE PLEASE NOTE: We do need a comprehensive elaboration on your alternative to pursue a serious debate as we can only get meaningful discussion when you know what each side stands for – this is particularly vital for the audience. And it seems you fear to provide alternative as you will end up contradicting yourself just like I have already demonstrated, as it is self-evident from your statements.

You keep asking about an alternative. I already clarified this point. I said people must be free to believe in any fairytale they like. However if their fairytale tells them they should kill others, then that fairytale must be stopped. I do not have the right to believe that by killing you I will go to heaven and neither do you have such a right.

Recently a young lady friend of mine in Belgium was threatened and the police captured her would be assassin before he could carry out his evil design. When questioned, he said, I am a sinner, but I want Allah to forgive my sins and send me to heaven. The best way to do that is to kill an apostate. The Belgian police thought he is mentally disturbed. But you and I know that is not true. He is a believer of the lies of Muhammad and he had accomplices. The victim is even frightened to write her story. This is not the kind of belief free people should tolerate.

So far Islam has advanced by camouflaging itself as a religion. This must change and I am determined to change it. People will gradually learn the truth and realize Islam is a dangerous cult that aims to subdue them and subvert their way of life. Then Muslims will be seen as the enemy and they will lose their right to promote and propagate their cult of terror. That is my goal.

Do the Nazis have the right to promote their cause? I don’t know of any democratic country that allows such thing. Most democratic systems ban racist and fascist movements. Islam is a fascistic ideology. It must be banned.

Banning Islam is not against democracy and freedom of thought. Democracies have been earned through sacrifices and blood. Those who believe in democracy should also protect it. Democracy does not mean dictatorship of the majority. It does not mean letting fascism come to power democratically to behead that democracy. Hitler and Khomeini came to power through popular vote. But they did not bring democracy. They strangulated it.

I want to unmask Islam and let the world see Islam is worse than Nazism. It must be stopped. This is not against democracy. This is to protect democracy. Democracy has some rules. One rule of democracy is respect of the rights of the minority. We can’t let an undemocratic ideology or a party come to power, using our democratic process, when it does not believe in the rights of the minority. That is why Islam must be stopped.

I accuse Islam because it is contrary to the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is my yardstick. Islam is diametrically opposed to the Golden Rule and hence a threat to mankind. This is my standard for criticizing Islam. Is that not clear? I oppose Islam for the same reason I oppose Nazism and fascism. These ideologies are ideologies of hate and they are contrary to the Golden Rule. I do not have to tell people what ideologies are good for them. As long as their belief system does not violate the Golden Rule and as long as they respect my freedom of belief, they should be free to believe in whatever they wish.

c) You then go on to say “Almost anything is better than Islam”. So surely you must have a set of values to judge Islam by otherwise it is empty rhetoric typical of a bigot, blinded by hate. To classify something as evil or good you need define and elaborate your criteria of assessing good and evil. Something is not evil simply because you say so!You refer to the crimes of the Second World War. By your criterion of letting people to choose freely, there should be no objection if they chose the likes of Hitler again! So what exactly are you espousing Mr Sina? Again does this not show you are indeed a confused man or a woman?  Or is that your position on “logic and truth”! Please elaborate on the above points explain what you exactly mean.

No! Something is not good or evil simply because I say it or because Muhammad says it. Good and evil must be measured according to a defined criterion. My criterion is the Golden Rule. This is a self evident criterion. It works like an inner compass for all human beings who are endowed with commonsense. In Islam this criterion is rejected. Good and bad are not manifest on their own. They are not determined by what Muhammad ordered and prohibited. What he ordered or prohibited is often contrary to the Golden Rule. But since for Muslims, his words are the standard they have no regards for the Golden Rule.

The Golden Rule says do to others what you would expect others do to you. This is very simple and easy to understand and apply. I do not like to be cheated, so I must not cheat others. I do not like to be killed, so I must not kill others. I do not want anyone rape my wife or daughter, so I must not rape someone’s wife or daughter. This principle works like a Swiss clock. It never fails. You can find all the guidance you need through this compass.

But the Golden Rule has no place in Islam. Muhammad told his followers to fight the unbelievers and impose on them his religion. How do you like the Jews, the Christians or the Hindus fight the Muslims and impose their religion on them? Muhammad raided civilian towns, killed unarmed men, looted their belongings and enslaved and raped their wives. How do you like this to be done to you and your family?

Let me quote some of the verses of the Quran switching the words “Muslims” and “non-Muslims”. Let us see how they sound.

8:12 We will cast terror into the hearts of Muslims. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

3:28, Let not the non-Muslims take for friends or helpers the Muslims.

8:65, Rouse the non-Muslims to the fight against Muslims.

9:5,  Then fight and slay the Muslims wherever ye find them,

9:14, Fight the Muslims, and God will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame.

9:23, O ye the non-Muslims take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love Islam.

9:28, O ye the non-Muslims! Truly the Muslims are unclean.

9:123, O ye non-Muslims! fight the Muslims who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you.

47:4, Therefore, when ye meet the Muslims, smite at their necks; At length.

How do you like them? I bet you don’t.

That is why Islam is contrary to the Golden Rule. That is why Islam is evil in its core. That is why we must eradicate this ideology of hate to assure mankind is safe and human lives are not sacrificed. So as you see there is no contradiction between promoting democracy and freedom of thought and eradicating Islam, Nazism, fascism or any other hatemongering and divisive ideology.

d)              You then state:“However, I made a search with your name and read a few passages of your articles and gave up on that illusion very soon. I am afraid your heart is filled with Islamic hate and you have no regards for truth, fairness, love and mankind.” It is difficult fathom why you want to engage in a debate with me and yet you confess that you do not want read my views as you say “read few passages of your articles and gave up”! It appears to me that you have made up your mind even before engaging in the debate. Is that how you intend to debate? Please clarify this important point.Furthermore, you pass judgments (“Islamic hate”, “truth”, “love”, “twisted sense of morality”) on me without elaborating on what those terms mean by referring to my articles but of course you cannot because you have not read them! Is this not a clear evidence of blind-fanaticism of the type espoused by the likes of Hitler? You claim my “twisted sense of morality” with no examples or elaboration but then why don’t you state and define your so-called “morality”. There is no need to be shy! We want to get a glimpse of the religion according to Prophet (or read as Profit) Ali Sina after we leave Islam. So, please elaborate on your morality and we will be looking forward to seeing this. But wait – According to your earlier stated criteria, truth, hate morality are all subjective as you said let people decide freely! So now what ABSOLUTE ‘morals’ are you HYPOCRITCALLY trying to lecture me with? This all sounds like a position of someone talking from a position of “belief and irrationality” standing on “very shaky ground of faith and conjecture”.

Mr. Zakaria, let me remind you again that it is you who approached me and declared your readiness to debate with me. So your question, “why you want to engage in debate with me”, is moot. As for reading your articles, I read enough to see where you come from and what you say. Whether you like it or not you belong to a very well defined pigeonhole. Sure we will discuss all your views and I will show why I believe you have a very twisted sense of morality. One example of that is in the above verses. You have no problem reading those verses as they appear in the Quran and you would defend them. But certainly you feel very much uncomfortable if the places of Muslims and non-Muslims are switched.

You want me to explain to you what morality is. I think I already did that. It is the application of the Golden Rule. Morality is not relative. The Golden Rule is absolute and so the morality that is derived from it. It is Islam that teaches moral relativism. Rape is bad, but rape of the disbelievers is good. Murder is bad, but Murder of kafirs is divine. Child molestation is bad, but if Muhammad lusts after a 9-year-old child that is good. If a non-Muslim kills a Muslim he should be put to death, but no Muslim should be killed for killing a non-Muslim. A married man may lust after other woman and take numerous wives and concubines, but women must remain chaste. Islam is a moral relativistic doctrine.

e) You then go on to make a lot of allegations using terms like “evil”, “humanity”, “savagery”, “rape”, “innocent”, “murder” etc without defining and elaborating them, and the basis from which those are derived. You also say:“Each one of us is free to make any assumption that he pleases but he must be able to prove that assumption or withdraw it. I think this is fair.” Charges are normally brought against someone in a court of law where the criteria of determining crime and punishment already exist and are agreed upon. However in a debate across different ideologies we need to agree on the criteria and the definitions of the terms before we can determine the respective allegations. Otherwise they are mere“assumptions” or “accusations” herald from a premise not recognised by the other and vice versa. Hence, by rational necessity this is a prerequisite before you can establish the truth of your allegation. To illustrate the point here are two examples which you yourself touched upon.

You say I have made a lot of allegations against Muhammad without elaborating them. We are just beginning this debate. I will withdraw any charge that I can’t prove. But of course I can’t prove all of them at once in an introductory message. That was just to let you know the kind of accusations I am going to make against your prophet. We shall go through them one by one and then I will present my proofs and you’ll have the opportunity to refute them.

We consider those who engage in beheading en masse by the use of Napalm, B52s and Cluster bombs etc are the real “subhumans”. ThoseUS soldiers in Abu-Ghraib, Fallujah and elsewhere “engaging in senseless acts of terror” behaving like real “monsters, beasts and vampires”. As for the Iraqis they are merely the heroic resistance fighters defending their lands by whatever means they have at their disposal. Let us not forget the US is in Iraq not the reverse.  So you see we are at odds as to what is meant by the term “subhuman” and the other terms, and how they are applied. Similarly, we can call someone a “murderer” but according to which laws he or she has committed the crime?

In your zest to accuse America, you have confused and bungled up a lot of issues. Let us dissect and clarify them. What happened in Abu Ghraib was a crime according to the US military law. The perpetrators broke the law. They were prosecuted and found guilty and were put behind the bars. Some of them received sentences as long as 15 years. We certainly can’t condemn America, its people or its government and not even its military if a few of its individuals break the law. Criminals and law breakers exist in every society. If they are prosecuted and punished the society can’t be blamed.

Before responding to the rest of the charges let me make a comparison to what these prison guards (now convicts) did and what Muhammad did. The following is an extract from the abbreviation of  Sira

“Kinana, the husband of Safiya, had been guardian of the tribe’s treasures, and he was brought before the apostle, who asked where they were hidden. But Kinana refused to disclose the place. Then a Jew came who said, ‘I have seen Kinana walk around a certain ruin every morning.’ The apostle asked Kinana, ‘Art thou prepared to die if we find thou knewest where the treasure was?’ And he replied, ‘Yes.’ So the apostle ordered the ruin to be dug up, and some of the treasure was found. After that Kinana was asked again about the remainder, but he still refused to tell. The apostle of Allah handed him over to al‑Zubayr, saying, ‘Torture him until he tells what he knows’, and al‑Zubayr kindled a fire on his chest so that he almost expired; then the apostle gave him to Muhammad b. Maslama, who struck off his head.”

The American guards who broke the law are prosecuted and are now serving their prison terms. But they did not kill their prisoners and the torture was mere humiliation and light compared to what Muhammad did to Kinana. However, you worship Muhammad and think he was a perfect example to emulate. Can you explain this moral relativism?

Now, let us talk about the rest of your accusations. You accuse the American and the British soldiers and their respective governments of criminal activity for what they do in Iraq. Who are you to say that?  72% of the Iraqis defied all the threats from your terrorist brothers and went to the polls to show they want to take charge of their lives and they are not going to be intimidated by the terrorists. The turnout would have been much more in some cities where people did not dare to vote fearing the terrorists would do good on their promise and would behead them and their children. So obviously the Iraqis are happy with the presence of the coalition forces in their country and they hate the terrorists who routinely round up truck drivers, health care workers, police officers and ordinary people, shoot them or behead them and try to win through creating fear among the people.

The coalition forces, i.e. the kafirs, are trying to bring democracy and self rule to the oppressed people of Iraq. Their Muslim “brothers” are trying to take away that freedom through terror and planned killings.

The coalition forces never have targeted innocent people. Innocent people have sadly died despite the extra care, in the crossfire. This is not terrorism. This is unfortunate collateral causality.

A doctor may operate on a patient and the patient may die in the process. This is not murder. The intent matters. The intent has not been to murder, but to save life. Muslims murder their victims intentionally. They deliberately target civilians, bomb them and shoot to kill them. The victims of 9/11 in WTC, 3/11 in Madrid, the innocent children in Beslan, the victims of Bali, Riyadh, Synagogues in Turkey, Churches in Iraq, the Israelis killed by suicide bombers, were deliberately targeted by a malicious design. There is a huge difference between these two killings. Americans never target civilians, never kill non-combatants. If an American soldier shoots a wounded enemy, he is charged and prosecuted. So your characterization of Americans and the coalition soldiers is false. They are not engaged in senseless acts of terror and they are not monsters. They are soldiers who are fighting a just war. They want to liberate an oppressed people who are grateful for being liberated. I am an Iranian and I would welcome these soldiers to invade my country and liberate my people.

Americans and other coalition forces are not in Iraq to steal the oil and the wealth of the people.  Americans are paying huge amounts of money to the Iraqis to rebuild their country. Many of these kafir nations have forgiven their loans to Iraq. They want to see Iraqis are freed, prosperous and happy. It is unconscionable to call these armies of liberation, terrorists, monsters and vampires. If they are so bad why the Iraqis don’t want them to leave? Because they know who are the terrorists. Those are your religious brothers – those who cowardly behead or shoot people and shout Allah-u’ Akbar.

If a bunch of gangsters take my family as hostage and I ask a neighbor for help and if during this shootout my son is killed, I can’t accuse my neighbor of murder. He did not intend to kill my son. It was an accident. But the thugs inside who have taken my family as hostage and behead them one after the other until their demands are met are the terrorists. Only a fool is unable to see the difference.

Now let us compare the actions of Americans in Iraq with what Muhammad did to his victims. Muhammad raided his victims with no warning. He took them by surprise. When they had gone out after their daily business and were not ready for combat. He rode among them in full military gear and butchered as many men as he could. Then he took their children and wives as slaves and took possession of their properties. He even allowed his men to rape the women thus captured and he himself always took the prettiest for himself. Juwairiayah, Rayhana and Safia are three women thus captured and raped. Muhammad built his immense wealth by killing and looting.

When I said you have a twisted sense of morality, it was because I read this very nonsense statement of yours about the Americans in one of your articles and you confirmed what I said about you.

Another example we consider Homosexuality, Adultery, Rape, Bestiality, Sadism, Incest, Necrophilia, Snuff Sex, and many other deviant forms of sexual practices as understood from Islamic texts are crimes punishable in Islam. But these practices seem perfectly acceptable to many of the freethinkers around us, and in accordance to your criteria of letting people decide freely. Similarly you may levy certain charges against me using your definitions of certain terms. Hence we must agree on the criteria, definitions then we can proceed to evaluate your allegations.

Again you have mixed and bundled up a lot of things that are different in nature and erroneously stated that these are all accepted to many freethinkers while they are against Islam. Let us take them one by one.

Homosexuality is not a crime. There are a couple of elderly Lesbians leaving next door to me. I have not seen anything indecent or inhumane in them. If they sleep in the same bed or they don’t does in no way affect me. It is not even my business to ask whether they share the same bedroom or have separate bedrooms. They are working like anyone else and contribute to the society like others. They have not hurt me. Why should they be killed? What is more immoral? That they are homosexual or that you are a murderer? This is another example of your twisted sense of morality. You see homosexuality as immorality but you don’t see anything wrong in killing people.

I am not an authority on this subject. But I know that at least a good portion of homosexuals are physically and emotionally not normal. They are different. If you believe God creates people, then God made them this way. What right do you have to tell God he has made a mistake in creating the homosexuals the way he has? What right do you have to take away the lives of those whom are the handiwork of God? As long as they don’t harm others, what food they eat, what movies they watch or with whom they sleep should not be anyone’s business. If what they do is wrong, it is none of your business, let God deal with them the way he knows best.

Adultery: In Islam this falls under two classes: The premarital sex and the out of marriage sex. As for premarital sex, it is none of your damn business. You can teach your morals to your children, but you have no right to impose your morality on others. As for adultery of married people, it is something that should concern the husband and the wife and again it is none of your damn business. You make sure you do not commit adultery like the majority of Muslim men and watch your wife. You have no business to put your nose in the private lives of others.  If I marry someone who commits adultery, I will divorce her, but it is not up to the state or you to stone her. This is why I say you have a very twisted sense of morality. You see adultery as something abhorrent when it is none of your business, but see nothing wrong in stoning a person to death.

Then again you believe in polygamy. This is licensing adultery. You can have sex with as many women as you like, all you have to do is declare them your wives and divorce them at whim. That is a mockery of marriage. Muhammad allowed muta or temporary marriages. Umar banned it, but the Shiites still practice it. This is nothing but legalized prostitution.

Rape: Rape is a crime in civilized countries and there is zero tolerance for it. The rapists are brought to justice and if they present a permanent danger they are often locked up for good. But rape is not so bad in Islamic countries. First of all a husband can rape his wife anytime and this is not considered rape at all. But that is not what concerns me most. What is essentially evil in Islam is that rape is prescribed in the Quran and was practiced and encouraged by Muhammad himself. Muhammad told his followers it is okay to rape women captured in war even if they are married, 4:24 Suffice to say that your twisted sense of morality did not allow you to see that rape is something the civilized world does not tolerate while it is part of Islam. I am afraid you put your foot in your mouth when you casually included “rape” to the list of your diatribe against the West.

Bestiality: This sickness is in no ways exclusive to the westerners. We have Rumi talking about a maid and her lady having sex with a donkey and there are injunctions by Muslim jurists regulating sex with animals. Khomeini talked about this extensively. In fact, because the relationship between men and women in Islam is taboo, bestiality is far more practiced in Islamic countries than in non-Muslim world. Sex with animals among the non-Muslims is an aberration while among Muslims is not that unusual. According to Google Trend Islamic countries top the list of searches on animal sex. So, when you accuse the westerners of bestiality, you are a pot calling the kettle black. You see the thorn in the eyes of others but can’t see the beam in your own.

Sadism: This is not a cultural disease, but a psychological one. Sadists are psychopaths. They are often victims of childhood abuse. But childhood abuse happens more in Islamic countries where people are allowed to beat their children and domestic violence is unchecked. Children thus neglected or grown up in abusive environments become sadists. Sadists abound in Islamic countries. How many Saddams, Khomeinies, Al Zarqawi or Bin Ladens can you find in Western countries?

But that is not all. Muhammad himself was a sadist and used to torture his victims. We already talked about Kinana, let us quote a hadith to learn more about Muhammad’s sadism.

Bukhari 7, 71.589

“Some people were sick and they said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Give us shelter and food. So when they became healthy they said, “The weather of Medina is not suitable for us.” So he sent them to Al-Harra with some she-camels of his and said, “Drink of their milk.” But when they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away his camels. The Prophet sent some people in their pursuit. Then he got their hands and feet cut and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron. I saw one of them licking the earth with his tongue till he died.”

Your Allah is also a sadist.

4.56 Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.

Isn’t this sadism? Islam is sadism. It is a cult created by a sadist psychopath.

Incest: This is a sickness of mind. It is by no means an exclusively western problem. In fact incest is much more a problem in Islamic counties than it is in the West. Because the relationship of men and women is taboo and because boys see only their sisters unveiled and accessible, incest among brothers and sisters and uncles and nieces happen a lot more in Islamic countries where women can be raped by their family members. This problem rarely surfaces, unless the sister becomes pregnant and if that happens she is killed to save the “honor” of the family.

Necrophilia: This is a mental disease and it has nothing to do with race or culture. There are sick people everywhere and I am sure Muslims who are sick in many other ways thanks to their sick religion are no better when it comes to this insanity. Do you have any proof that necrophilia does not happen in Islamic countries?

Talking about Necrophilia there is a curious hadith that I would like to share.  It is from a book called “Kanz Al Umal” (The Treasure of the Workers), in the chapter of “The issues of women”, authored by Ali Ibn Husam Aldin, commonly known as Al-Mutaki Al-Hindi. He based his book on the hadiths and sayings listed in “Al-Jami Al-Saghir,” written by Jalal ul-Din Al-Suyuti.

Narrated by Ibn Abbas:

‘I (Muhammad) put on her my shirt that she may wear the clothes of heaven, and I SLEPT with her in her coffin  (grave) that I may lessen the pressure of the grave. She was the best of Allah’s creatures to me after Abu Talib’… The prophet was referring to Fatima , the mother of Ali. (Sentence number 34424 http://www.al-eman.com/Islamlib/viewchp.asp?BID=137&CID=426#s2

Demetrius Explains:  “The Arabic word used here for slept is “Id’tajat,” which literally means “lay down with her.” It is often used to mean, “Lay down to have sex.” Muhammad is understood as saying that because he slept with her she has become like a wife to him so she will be considered like a “mother of the believers.” This will supposedly prevent her from being tormented in the grave. Muslims believe that as people wait for the Judgment Day they will be tormented in the grave. “Reduce the pressure” here means that the torment won’t be as much because she is now a “mother of the believers” after Muhammad slept with her and “consummated” the union. ”

The above explanation may not be necessarily correct. I personally think Muhammad simply laid down with the cadaver. There is no doubt that Muhammad was sick in the head but I doubt he was that sick. Anyway, I just quoted the haidith as I found it relevant but my hunch says Demetrius is wrong.

اضطجع مع امرأة في القبر

إني ألبستها قميصي لتلبس ثياب الجنة، واضطجعت معها في قبرها لأخفف من ضغطة القبر، إنها كانت أحسن خلق الله صنيعا إلى بعد أبي طالب – يعني فاطمة أم علي‏.‏

‏(‏الديلمي – عن ابن عباس‏)‏‏.‏

كنز العمال في سنن الأقوال و الأفعال .. باب في جامع مناقب النساء

http://www.al-eman.com/Islamlib/viewchp.asp?BID=137&CID=426

Snuff Sex: I have no idea what is this. It is the first time I hear such word. Can you please explain to us how it is done and why you think the westerners do it more than Muslims?

So as you see your accusations are completely baseless. Some of these insanities are practiced more among the Muslims and some of them are even encouraged by Islam.

Pedophilia: You either forgot or intentionally did not talk about this mental disease. This happens also in the West and the tolerance of the Westerners towards it is nil. The pedophiles are hunted down and locked up to protect the children. However, you conveniently did not mention it because pedophilia is not a crime in Islam. Many men have pedophilic relations with young boys and marrying children is also a sunnah. In fact pedophilia in Islam is so normal that Muhammad in his sick way of thinking promised “pearly boys” to his faithful followers. The thought of that is sickening but the fact that Muhammad makes it part of the heavenly rewards shows he thought is it something pleasurable.

52:24 Round about them will serve, (devoted) to them. Youths (handsome) as pearls well-guarded.

وَيَطُوفُ عَلَيْهِمْ غِلْمَانٌ لَّهُمْ كَأَنَّهُمْ لُؤْلُؤٌ مَّكْنُونٌ

Mr Sina, as I stated earlier this is not going to be a debate about Islam or nothing but Islam and the alternative as you said you have a “better alternative”. By rational necessity this has to be the case as issuing criticism by definition means there are criteria for making that judgement. It seems you (Mr. Sina) simply want to sit and levy charges against Islam without elaborating your “better alternative” in fear of exposing yourself. So that others can put your “better alternative” to the docks as much you are doing to Islam. Avoiding this tantamount to intellectual defeat, like the man who wears a mask and calls everyone else ugly but his so-called “better alternative” is kept hidden under the mask because it is in reality very grotesque. Hence, this is important for our viewers to see objectively both sides of the arguments, so that they may know what “better alternative” that they are getting into after leaving ISLAM.Of course when we get to the actual debate after you clarified these above points, it would be constructive for you and others to keep to one subject at a time rather than go off at a tangent on many other issues. I see that in your enthusiasm you have touched a lot of subjects no doubt you will get an opportunity so please be patient.

Once again you urged me to show you a better alternative to Islam. I already said what my alternative is. I am a humanist and a practitioner of the Golden Rule. This is my alternative. But because I believe in the Golden Rule and the freedom of faith, I respect people’s choice to believe in any religion they like. I do not agree with the premises of any of these religions; however I have no right to stop people believing in them. My fight is not against faith, it is againsthate. The reason I am against Islam is not because it is a religion but because it is a political movement of imperialism and domination in the guise of religion.

I know why you insist so much that I tell you what religion I practice when I practice none. You can’t defend Islam. You are only trained to engage in tu quoque or the “you too” fallacy and attack other religions instead of defending Islam. With me you feel helpless. You are completely disarmed. The circuits in your brain are short circled. You just don’t know what to do next.

Here is where the weakness of Islam is exposed. All you Muslims can do is to counter attack and start finding fault with the religion of your opponent. And since you can’t do that with me, you simply are lost.

Let me explain this to you Mr. Zskaria. I have no religion. I do not believe in anything. I am a freethinker. I doubt, investigate and come to the truth by weighing the facts. My motto, is doubt everything, find your own light. It is not that I see all religions as totally wrong. I see truth and beauty in all the religions in various degrees. The only religion that is bereft of truth and beauty is Islam. I cherry pick the good things in all the religions and philosophies. I think all religions are manmade. But this does not mean they are bad. Some parts of them are very good. Although I do not think they are divine guidance, I think one can find pearls of wisdom in many of them. The only religion that is pure dung and has no pearls is Islam. Other religions are manmade while Islam is made be a psychopath. This is the big difference.

You need not worry about telling me about publishing my response, as not only I have a website but huge email database and my articles regularly appear on many websites and newspapers. Issuing such petty threats like a school boy does not bother me so do not waste your time going down that venue. If you do not publish my response the readers will “interpret this as your lack of confident in your ability to win this debate”.Yamin Zakaria London , UK

Finally I am happy to hear that you are going to publish our debate. Please let us know the URL so I can link to your site. You may also link to mine if you choose so.

Ali Sina

Part III

Mr. Zakaria wrote:

The “Golden Rule” Cult of Ali Sina$50,000 Debate – My Second Response [1] to Mr. Ali Sina I accepted Mr Sina’s offer to debate with him and asked him to clarify the terms of his offer: the practical mechanism in place for determining the winner and verifying the availability of the prize money ($50,000). It is sensible and the norm to clarify the terms of the contract prior to engagement. So, I am perplexed and the readers will surely judge as to why the clarification process can amount to “silly things” or “excuses” or “filibustering”! The only “weasel” like behaviour that I can see is Mr Sina trying to evade this issue! What was really silly is Mr Sina’s incompetence to recognise that two opponents cannot be expected unilaterally to: declare victory or admit defeat, especially when there is a large some of money is at stake. Commonsense dictates that impartial (not the ‘publics’ visiting Mr Sina’s forum) judicators are required to asses the debate and issue the verdict. Any genuine freethinker even with a miniature “logical gun” would have recognised this simple fact! Time would be far less wasted if Mr Sina admitted that he had lied about the money. We can continue with the debate without arguing about side issues. I have no problem with debating regardless of the money which I would have most probably donated to the various causes.

Mr. Zakaria.

The terms of my offer are spelled out clearly. I also said if you don’t trust me, you don’t have to take the challenge.

Now you say you need an independent jury to decide who wins the debate. I agree with that. So let us select the jury. Naturally no Muslim can be nominated for such task. We need an unbiased jury. Who do you suggest? How about a panel of non-Muslim journalists, writers and others? How about advertising this debate to a wider audience? I think that would be a great idea. So let us toss some names. Maybe our readers can suggest a few names too. If I lose, I lose $50,000 dollars. If you lose, that would be the loss of Islam. Let me improve your chances by letting you bring any other Muslim scholar to assist you. It can’t get better than that. You can form your panel of Muslim scholars and I will be okay alone. Let millions of people read this. How about publishing this debate in Al Jazeerah site? If you do that I will try to get one of the MSM newspapers to publish our debate too. Here is your chance to redeem the name of Islam and perhaps win thousands of new converts.

However there is a problem that we have to take care of. Somehow we must ascertain that the jury will not be assassinated after passing their verdict if they decide in my favor. How can they be assured that after declaring Islam is a false religion publicly they won’t be assassinated? Based on this, I have a feeling that finding a truly unbiased jury is not going to be easy. Only those who have already made their minds to vote in your favor would feel comfortable accepting the job.

Before getting to the actual substance of the debate I would like to answer couple of points that Mr Sina cited in his previous response. First of all, had Mr Sina exercised his freethinking ‘capability’ he might have realised that I used the word “disciple” to denote sarcasm, hence it was stated within single quotes. Instead, he should have let his cat answer that point as it might have had a better chance in spotting the sarcasm!Secondly, as followers of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) we use our intelligence correctly to verify His Prophethood and the existence of the creator as opposed to have blind faith in a man who proclaims that he has the truth wrapped up in his so-called “Golden-Rule”! Consequently, we submit to our creator in obedience that is the most intelligent and consistent thing to do. But that is another separate discussion.

Mr. Zakaria. It is fine to submit to the Creator. The problem is that you must first make sure that this thing you submit to is the Creator and not the Satan. That is the question we are dealing with. In my view and based on my understanding of Islam, Allah is Satan and not the Creator. So it is up to you to prove that Allah is God.

How can the teachings of the Creator not be in harmony with the Golden Rule? .

You said you  used your intelligence correctly to verify the Prophethood of Muhammad and the existence of the Creator. If you used your intelligence correctly you should be able to prove it. That is what I am interested to hear from you.

Now, lets move on to the real issue of the debate. Mr Sina said that he will be making the allegations against Prophet Muhammad (SAW) on the basis that the Prophet (SAW) has violated the “Golden Rule”. As he says Islam contradicts the “Golden Rule”; the rule is his “criterion” and “yard stick”. Therefore, Mr Sina has to prove the legitimacy of the “Golden Rule” otherwise it is a mere assumption. In the absence of proof, Mr Sina would be violating his first rule which he stated earlier: “he must be able to prove that assumption or withdraw it”!

No Mr. Zakaria. I do not have to prove the legitimacy of the Golden Rule. I don’t think I have to prove day is bright and night is dark to a seeing person and to a blind, that won’t make no difference. The Golden Rule is a universal principle and it is self evident. We must not measure the validity of the Golden Rule with what Muhammad said, but rather we must establish the legitimacy of Muhammad and his claim by the yardstick of the Golden Rule. If this is how you used your intelligence to verify the prophethood of Muhammad, I am afraid you did not use it correctly.

I am very pleased that you were honest enough to question the legitimacy of the Golden Rule. Most apologists of Islam lie about it and twist the truth to make Islam look compatible with the Golden Rule. I commend your honesty in this case for not falling into that temptation and for making my job so easy.

In fact it is YOU who must prove the legitimacy of Islam. Why Islam is not compatible with the Golden Rule? We humans measure every right and wrong with this yardstick. That is how we know stealing is bad, murder is bad, rape is bad, pedophilia is bad, cheating is bad, and kindness is good, generosity is good, forgiveness is good etc. But you question the Golden Rule. You think it is nonsense. You believe that the good and bad are what Muhammad enjoined and prohibited. So tell us Mr. Zakaria how do you know Muhammad was not messenger of Satan or a psychopath? This is the question that you must answer.

Tell us how do you know Muhammad was not lying? Being truthful is a tenet of the Golden Rule. You do not believe in the Golden Rule. Muhammad also did not believe in the Golden Rule. He instructed his followers to lie to their victims to win their trust and when they lower their guards, kill them. He sent one of his disciples to the Meccans and to the Bani Quraiyza and told him to lie to both groups and to deceive them. Then he added: “war is a game of deception”. So a man who was capable of lying, commit assassination, cause sedition to advance his malicious designs, could not have lied about being a prophet of God? Once it is established that he broke the Golden Rule and lied on several occasions, why should we believe him when he claimed to be a messenger of God?

He raided innocent civilians with no warning, butchered the men and took the women and children as slaves and then he allowed his men to rape the women. How do Muslims like to be treated that way? What Muhammad did was against the Golden Rule. But you have no regards for the Golden Rule anyway. You question the legitimacy of this universally acclaimed principle. You think it is okay for a Muslim to kill non-Muslims, rape their wives and enslave their children, but it is not okay for none Muslims to do the same to Muslims. If this is not a Satanic religion, please explain how it differs.  Tell us what criteria you use to determine that Muhammad was a messenger of God?

The Golden Rule

You called the Golden Rule “Ali Sina’s cult” and asked me to “prove the legitimacy of the Golden Rule”.

The Golden Rule is as old as humanity. It is commonsense Mr. Zakaria. What on earth is more self evident than “Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you”? This is actually the common theme in almost all the religions. I will quote this principle as stated by various religions based on alphabetical order.

Bahá’í  Faith: “Choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself.” Epistle to the Son of the Wolf

Brahmanism: “This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you”. Mahabharata, 5:1517

Buddhism:  “…a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?” Samyutta NIkaya v. 353

Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.”Udana-Varga 5:18

Christianity:  “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” Matthew 7:12, King James Version.

“And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.” Luke 6:31, King James Version.

“…and don’t do what you hate…“, Gospel of Thomas 6.

Confucianism:  “Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you” Analects 15:23

“Ze-Gong asked, ‘Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?’ Confucius replied, ‘It is the word ‘xu’ — reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'” Doctrine of the Mean 13.3

“Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence.” Mencius VII.A.4

Ancient Egyptian: “Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do.” The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 – 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to 1970 to 1640 BCE and may be the earliest version ever written.

Hinduism:  “One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself.” Mencius Vii.A.4

“This is the sum of the Dharma [duty]: do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you.” Mahabharata 5:1517

Humanism: “(5) Humanists acknowledge human interdependence, the need for mutual respect and the kinship of all humanity.”

“Don’t do things you wouldn’t want to have done to you, British Humanist Society.

Jainism:  “In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self.” Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara

“A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. “Sutrakritanga 1.11.33

Judaism:  “…thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”, Leviticus 19:18

“What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary.” Talmud, Shabbat 31a.

“And what you hate, do not do to any one.” Tobit 4:15

Native American Spirituality:

“All things are our relatives; what we do to everything, we do to ourselves. All is really One.” Black Elk

Roman Pagan Religion: “The law imprinted on the hearts of all men is to love the members of society as themselves.”

Shinto:  “The heart of the person before you is a mirror. See there your own form”

Sikhism:  “Don’t create enmity with anyone as God is within everyone.” Guru Arjan Devji 259

Taoism: “Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.” T’ai Shang Kan Ying P’ien.

Wicca: “An it harm no one, do what thou wilt” (i.e. do what ever you will, as long as it harms nobody, including yourself). One’s will is to be carefully thought out in advance of action. This is called the Wiccan Rede

Yoruba: ( Nigeria ): “One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts.”

Zoroastrianism:  “That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself”. Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5

“Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others.”  Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29

Islam is the only religion that does not adhere to the Golden Rule (and I am glad that you admit that). The closest that Islam comes to this principle is a hadith that says

“None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.” Number 13 of Imam “Al-Nawawi’s Forty Hadiths.”

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

This is the perfect definition of fascism. There are many other verses that show the brotherhood in Islam is not universal. The rest of mankind have no rights and should not be treated in the same way that Muslims are to be treated. The entire Quran is the breach of the Golden Rule. Quran tells Muslims to slay the unbelievers wherever they find them (2:191), do not befriend them (3:28), fight them and show them harshness (9:123), and smite their heads (47:4).

In my debate with Mr. Edip Yuksel, the leader of the sect of Submitters, I quoted a few verses from the Quran switching the places of “Muslims” and “non-Muslims”.  Here are a few of them:

8:12 We will cast terror into the hearts of Muslims. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

9:5,  Then fight and slay the Muslims wherever ye find them,

47:4, Therefore, when ye meet the Muslims, smite at their necks; At length.

Mr. Yuksel was outraged.  He called me a “theo-fascist” and wrote: ‘His [Ali Sina’s] “subhuman” remark was the last, but a venomous drop that filled his cup of hatred and bigotry. He is not a person to reason with, since his mind is filled with toxic hate and his stomach is thirsty for fresh blood….”  All that because I quoted the verse of the Quran switching the places of “Muslims” and “non-Muslims”!

Muslims like to do all these evil things to others but they do not like reciprocation. As you rightly said it Islam is not in conformity with the Golden Rule.

In all the religions, the Golden Rule applies. This is not to say that I agree with these religions. They are a mix bag of good and bad. but Islam is the only religion that is bereft of any good. The Golden Rule is the inner compass with which all the sane people can distinguish between right and wrong. Its application is very simple. I don’t like to be killed, so I must not kill. I do not like to be robbed, so I must not rob. I don’t like to be lied to, so I must not lie. I do not like my wife or daughter be raped, so I must not rape someone else’s wife or daughter, etc. The Golden Rule is an unerring compass. In fact it is so unerring that religions become superfluous. People without religion can follow this Rule and find their way unerringly.

Now let us see why Islam is the only religion that does not follow the Golden Rule. The answer is that all other religions were human constructs and many of those humans were good people, but Islam is made by a very demonic mind. Either Muhammad was a messenger of Satan or he was a psychopath. Personally I do not believe in the existence of Satan. Therefore I would say he was a psychopath.

Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of Malignant Self Love in an article titled The Cult of the Narcissist writes:

“The narcissist’s control is based on ambiguity, unpredictability, fuzziness, and ambient abuse. His ever-shifting whims exclusively define right versus wrong, desirable and unwanted, what is to be pursued and what to be avoided. He alone determines the rights and obligations of his disciples and alters them at will.”

This is exactly how one can describe the teachings of Muhammad. His definition of right and wrong are not based on the Golden Rule. They are whimsical. Some things are halal (licit) and other things are haram (illicit). What is lalal or haram is not self evident. They are based entirely on his whims.

We can understand Muhammad better if we study another psychopath cult leader and compare the two together. Let us take the example of Jim Jones who founded the People’s Temple and his followers drank poison-laced Cool Aid and committed mass suicide to prove their loyalty to him.

Jeanne Mills, one of the better-educated members of People’s Temple who escaped the cult but later was assassinated by a cult member (cult leaders don’t tolerate dissention) commented: “I was amazed at how little disagreement there was between the members of this church. Before we joined the church, Al and I couldn’t even agree on whom to vote for in a presidential election. Now that we all belonged to a group, family arguments were becoming a thing of the past. There was never a question of who was right, because Jim was always right. When our large household met to discuss family problems, we didn’t ask for opinions. Instead, we put the question to the children, “What would Jim do?” It took the difficulty out of life. There was a type of “manifest destiny” which said the Cause was right and would succeed. Jim was right and those who agreed with him were right. If you disagreed with Jim, you were wrong. It was as simple as that. [Mills, 1979]

This is exactly how Muslims behave. Muslims follow two things, one is the Quran and the other is the Sunnah. The Quran is the words of Muhammad (claimed to be Allah’s) and the Sunnah are the life examples of Muhammad. The details of the Sunnah are described in the voluminous books of Ahadith (Plural of hadith). The doctors of Islamic law study for years to master these details and the believers do not do anything without consulting these doctors and learning the correct way of doing things. Sunnah is in effect the Islamic “prescription for living” based on the examples set by Muhammad and how he lived. These are the details about Muhammad’s life reported by his companions and wives. Through Sunnah Muslims learn how to perform prayers, how to do ablution, how to clean their nose, their feet and their ears; how to eat, what to eat and what not to eat, how to sleep, how to dress and how to shave. They learn how to copulate, how to defecate and how to urinate, with which foot enter the toilet and on which one place most of the weight while evacuating. They learn which direction to face during defecation or urination and how many pebbles to use for cleaning purposes after the call of the nature and with which hand to clean one’s private parts. They learn what length of the penis can enter the vagina without annulling their fast and how to clean after having a wet dream, or even how to fondle their wives and enjoy them when they are menstruating. Everything is detailed. Every action is prescribed. All believers have to do is spend years learning these “important” examples set by Muhammad and follow them mindlessly and meticulously in the fond belief that he will have fulfilled his duty as a Muslim and will be rewarded for his “good” deeds.

Good and bad in Islam have completely different meanings. For the rest of mankind good and bad can be defined through the Golden Rule. But in Islam that is not the case. Good and bad in Islam are defined by Muhammad. What he allowed is good and what he prohibited is bad. According to the Golden Rule killing, stealing and raping are bad. But in Islam these very acts are enjoined and are good if they are done in the name of Allah.  Muhammad exhorted his followers to do Jihad, to fight and kill people, to loot their properties and to rape their wives.

Allegations are normally brought against someone in a court of law where the criterion of determining the crime is already enforced. But this is not a court of law and Mr Sina should stop assuming in his arrogance that he is in one in the guise of judge, jury and executioner; as he constantly demands that Muslims should come forward to defend the Prophet (SAW) as if the Prophet has already been proven to be guilty by Mr Sina’s constant rants.

I am prosecuting Muhammad in the court of the public opinion. The charges are that he was not a prophet of God but a cult leader and an impostor. The challenge is to prove me wrong. You accepted this challenge. Now you have to prove me wrong or accept defeat and withdraw.

We are in fact debating from two different premises with different sets of criteria. Therefore, unless we agree on some common criterion for assessing the allegations of Mr Sina we will only trade accusations and counter accusations as neither of us recognises each others premises, criteria and values.

The criteria I have used are the Golden Rule, the commonsense and the logic. Do you disagree with these criteria? Then please tell us what criteria you use to determine that Muhammad was a prophet of God and not a liar. Do you have any criteria. Or perhaps you want us to take Muhammad for his word! This is like asking a criminal to tell us whether he is innocent or not and believe him. This criterion may satisfy the benighted followers of Muhammad who are desperate to believe at any cost, but it sure can’t satisfy the rest of us. If we believed in Muhammad’s trustworthiness, why would we question him? The problem with Muslims is that their logics is so naive that is laughable.

Do you have any criterion to determine Muhammad’s truthfulness beside his words? Please share that with us. That is the whole point we are having this debate.

Mr Sina is the one bringing forward the allegations on the basis of his criterion of the “Golden Rule”. Therefore, the onus is on him to prove that rule as absolute authority by substantiating that it is: comprehensive, self-evident and universal. Once consensus is reached on the “Golden Rule” it will naturally function as a common criterion. Then we can logically proceed to asses the allegations brought forward using the rule as a “Yard Stick”. This is the heart of the debate. Therefore, I have addressed the “Golden Rule” first followed by the other points in the previous response of Mr Sina.

Your consensus is not required. You can keep denying as much as you please. In fact your denial of the obvious is the very ticket that makes me the winner in this debate. If in a debate I insist that you should prove that the sun is brighter than the moon would my filibustering tactics bring us to an impasse? Hardly so. It in fact is proof of my inability to reason and this makes you the winner, and me, a clown. I am afraid your denial of the universal truth of the Golden Rule has the same effect on you. It only makes you the laughing stuck of  our readers. In fact it is this kind of irrationality that will open the eyes of those good people who are still under the illusion that Islam is a religion.

Mr Sina’s “Golden Rule”First of all, Mr Sina only mentioned the “Golden Rule” abruptly in his first response. Almost halfway into his second response he defined and elaborated it with examples. So, Mr Sina needs to pay attention to what he writes and when he writes and he says: “The Golden Rule says do to others what you would expect others do to you. This is very simple and easy to understand and apply. I do not like to be cheated, so I must not cheat others. I do not like to be killed, so I must not kill others. I do not want anyone rape my wife, so I must not rape others. This principle works like a Swiss clock. It never fails. You can find all the guidance you need by this compass.” The points below will rationally and factually prove: the so-called “Golden Rule” is not self-evident, not universal, and inadequate to provide comprehensive guidance; – but also Mr Sina actually contradicts this notion. I hope Mr Sina this time pays attention to the actual principle presented instead of going into a tangent by disputing the examples cited, a classic method of filibustering! A) Contradictions – Mr Sina also claimed that: “Golden Rule is absolute and so the morality derived from”. Yet, his definition of the “Golden Rule” rule clearly states that it is the prerogative of the individuals to interpret the meaning and the scope of the rule as it says “what you would expect” or what you “do not like”. Taking his example of cheating, a trader may think that it is lawful to inflate the image of his goods but the consumer may feel cheated. Hence, the rule is not only subjective but also inadequate and Mr Sina has contradicted himself clearly on this point! Mr Sina, my foot is not in my mouth but firmly embedded in your one track abusive and arrogant foul mouth! To claim that democratic societies have fixed morality shows the lack of basic knowledge as democratic societies themselves would dispute that! The process of legislation is there catering for changes in morality. We witness everyday certain morals demolished replaced with new ones, homosexuality was once a sin but today it is fashionable. ‘Living in sin’ was a sin at one time but today it is the norm, and so on. Then Mr Sina has the audacity to state that bestiality and incest are sickness, but why? Is there anything inherent in these acts to classify it as good or bad or right or wrong? Has he asked those people who practice such things? Or has Mr Sina determined that from the “Golden Rule”, if so, how?

This is absurd. The Golden Rule is not subjective. It is not lawful for a trader to cheat. Say for example I am a goldsmith. If I sell you gold plated silver claiming it is pure gold; that is cheating. If I am a used car vendor and I secretly lower the mileage of the cars in my lot to make them look newer than what they are, this is cheating. I do not know how you do your business and how you justify your actions, but to me the Golden Rule is very clear. I perfectly know what is cheating, what is lying, what is cruelty, injustice and abuse. There is nothing clearer than the Golden Rule.

You say that morality changes with time, for example homosexuality was one day immoral and now it is not. Then you ask what makes immorality inherently bad and what the Golden Rule can tell us about it

There is a difference between morality and ethics. Morality is the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. But these standards vary from culture to culture and religion to religion such as Christian morality, Islamic morality, etc. With this definition, you are right, morality is relative and subjective.

Morality is also relative to history. The morality of ancient men is considered immoral today and vice versa. In old times slavery was not immoral. Today it is. In ancient times human sacrifices were not immoral. In fact we see Abraham attempting to sacrifice his own son. After him and today, human sacrifice is regarded immoral. Beating one’s wife at one time was not immoral. Today it is and in may civilized countries it is punishable by law. Polygamy at one time was not immoral. Many Biblical figures practiced polygamy. But today polygamy is immoral. Also there are things that ancient men regarded as immoral but modern people don’t see them as such. In some cultures, exposing one’s hair for women was considered immorality. Today it is not.  Therefore societies evolve and their perception of morality changes.

What does not change is ethics. Slavery has been always wrong. Murder, rape, looting and lying have never been right and will never be right. Ethics derives from the Golden Rule. Morality is the subjective interpretation of this ethics.

Societies whose morality is not based on ethics are moral relativistic societies. Moral relativism is a characteristic of Islam. Islam condones evil acts if the outcome of that benefits Islam and the Muslims. Moral relativism means justifying the means by the ends. For example, according to Islamic ethos, murder, rape and theft are bad, if the victim is a Muslim but they are okay if they are done to non-Muslims. One can do evil if with that Islam is benefited.  Islamic morality does not concern itself with ethical values but with halal and haram which are whimsical and do not derive from ethics and the Golden Rule. In fact Islamic ethics is an oxymoron. Islam is not concerned with ethics at all. The discussion of ethics is alien to Muslim philosophers and jurists.

Ethics enjoin that the violation of the rights of any human being is wrong. This is not the case in Islam. Islam does not regard as full humans those who are not Muslims and hence their rights are not the same as the rights given to Muslims. Women in Islam also do not have equal rights. In Islam it is the Sharia that dictates what is wrong and what is right.

Ethics is derived from human conscience and the Golden Rule. Any reasonable person is capable to distinguish the right from the wrong using the Golden Rule as the parameter. This is not the case in Islam. Right and wrong in Islam are based on what Muhammad said and did and not on what ethics dictates. For example ethics dictates that beating women is wrong. In Islam it is permissible to beat one’s wife. According to ethics, punishment must not exceed the crime; in Islam the punishment of petty thief is chopping the hand. Also the eternalburning of the polytheists in Hell is infinitely superior to their crime, which is an indication of the injustice of Allah.

Islam also concerns itself with “sins of conscience”. Ethics does not prescribe any punishment for such “sins”. Individuals in ethical societies have the freedom of thought and expression. You are free to think, say and do what you please as long as you do not harm others. In Islam such freedom is inexistent. You would be punished and even brutally executed if you criticize Islam, apostatize, engage in sex out of marriage or have homosexual tendencies.

In Islam it is halal to beat one’s wife but it is haram for a woman to expose her hair to strangers. It is halal to be promiscuous and polygamous but the same is haram for women. It is halal to own slaves but it is haram to charge interest on loan. It is halal to deflower a 9 year old girl but it is haram for girls and boys to mingle. It is halal to rape a boy and have pedophilic relationship with him but it is haram to have homosexual relationship with another adult. Islamic Sharia is against human ethics. Morality in Islam is relative to what Sharia dictates and not to what logics or ethics say.

When I read the Qura, it was the treatment of the non-believers that shocked and jolted me to reality. I said, if I don’t like to be treated like a dhimmi then I don’t want to be a Muslim. I had enough conscience to come to that realization on my own. Some Muslims seem to be totally bereft of any conscience. They scoff at the Golden Rule and are unable to put themselves in the shoes of their victims. These people need a more tangible way to feel the pain that they cause to others. They must be literally treated like dhimmis so they can feel in their own flesh and bones the pain that they cause to others.

It is a mistake to assume all humans are endowed with human feelings and human conscience. As it is clear from Mr. Zakaria’s rejection of the Golden Rule, true Muslims do not possess conscience. Conscience has not evolved in them. The Golden Rule can only be understood by humans. Animals and true Muslims do not understand it. Why is it that conscience of true Muslims is at the same level of the conscience of animals? It is because they follow a pathological narcissist. Narcissists do not have conscience. Their conscience has stopped at the age of three or four. They genuinely are unaware that other people have rights and feelings. Intellectually they are conscious about it. But they do not care. They only pay attention to things and people that serve them, but if they seize to be of service to them they will destroy them. They can kill any number of people without any feeling or pang of conscience. By following a psychopath, true Muslims behave like their prophet and their conscience is no more than the conscience of children or animals.

This reality is so shocking that many good people resist accepting it. But the derision of the Golden Rule by Mr. Zakaria is a clear proof of my argument.

Ethics has little to do with religion. As Gandhi said ethics is the matter of economics. The question is where to invest our vital energy for a higher yield. If you invest your energy into sensual pleasures you will get a temporary gratification. If you invest it in more meaningful things you will get greater satisfaction.

Leading a moral life is not about renouncing pleasure. A life that is not gratifying is not worth living. It is about choices. What we choose for pleasure? That is the question. One who invests his energy in the service of humanity gets more satisfaction than one who indulges in the pursuit of worldly pleasures.

I sit in front of my monitor and write countless hours. I make no money out of it – not at least until I start selling my books. To do this I had to renounce many pleasures that I used to take for granted, such as vacations, dinging out, going to theaters and not the least, enjoying good wine. I simply can’t afford them anymore. But I do not miss any of that. I get immense pleasure in my work. I feel I am doing something of value. In my small way I am contributing to the world and this is very gratifying. So as you see, pleasures are not always carnal or sensual, they can be intellectual and spiritual. The latter ones are more gratifying that the former ones.

But this is a personal choice, and it derives from one’s maturity and spiritual awareness. Morality should not be imposed by a higher authority such as state or religion. An imposed morality is not morality. One who leads a moral life for the fear of hell is not a moral person because he has not made his choices freely. Fear and greed, the traditional contrivances of religions, used as incentives to force people into accepting their morality, do not make the society moral. No one and no religion should impose its morality on people. The imposition of morality is unethical. Religions that threaten their followers with the hellfire or bait them with the promises of paradise do not make them moral. Stick and carrot have better results in training animals than educating people. Only the person who chooses the higher road freely can be called a moral person.

A moral person chooses to live morally because it gives him immense pleasure. One, who is honest, takes pleasure in being honest. He would prefer to be tortured than to lie or to deceive. Our morality is directly linked to our spiritual maturity. When we evolve spiritually; knowledge, service to humanity and working for peace gratify us more than indulging in sensual pleasures. Nothing is wrong with sensual pleasures. But we get more pleasure in doing something in the service of humanity than gratifying our senses temporarily.

Primitive religions treat you like children (if not animals). They want to impose their outdated morality on you by threatening you with hell and bribing you with heaven to accept their antiquated and often unethical morality. Whether you are moral because of this fear and greed or because you find satisfaction in leading a moral life, depends on your maturity and spiritual awareness

The religious morality is not divinely ordained. It is the morality of the ancient people, their sages and, in the case of Islam, a charlatan. We do not need the morality of the ancient man just as we do not need his technology, science or medicine. The morality of the ancient man must be buried with his bones. Modern humans must chart their own morality. Morality must evolve just as human knowledge and his awareness has evolved.

New morality does not mean immorality. It means coming out of the dark ages of ignorance and rearing new generations that are responsible. It means teaching the Golden Rule. Humans can no longer be chained with phobias and threats of the afterlife. Science has shed light on the absurdity of religious concepts and shaken the foundation of the beliefs that our forefathers held so sacrosanct. The manacles of obscurantism are broken forever. (Unless we let Islam to destroy our world.) Today we have to raise our kids with awareness. They must learn that mankind is One. Just as our parents taught us the religious lies and we believed, we can teach our children the truth and they will believe. The following is one such truth.

All human beings are limbs of the same body. God created them from the same essence. If one part of the body suffers pain, then the whole body is affected. If you are indifferent to this pain, you cannot be called a human being. –Saadi

We do not need to lie and frighten our children with hellfire to raise them as moral, loving and good people. That has never worked. The history of inhumanity of mankind and especially that of the standard bearers of religions stand witness to this claim. Religions that are more fear based are more sadistic. Islam is a fear based religion. It is absolutely deprived of any logic and therefore it is the most inhumane and barbaric religion.

If we love our children, they learn to love. If we are honest, moral and ethical they learn that too. We can build a better humanity by acting humanely today. But first we have to teach our children how to love and how to be ethical and follow the Golden Rule.

Compare the words of Saadi to the words of Muhammad:

“Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers”  9:14,

As you see, the very belief in Islam is unethical and immoral. We cannot heal Mankind until we do not remove Islam. This cancer has reached a point that is going to kill us all. It is either the Humanity or Islam. Mankind will not have a future as long as this disease is left untreated. Islam must be eradicated now. Tomorrow is too late.

B) Self-Evident – If the “Golden Rule” was self-evident then it would be universal but nobody upholds this as a fundamental principle for dealing with all matters in life. Otherwise it would manifest as a fundamental yardstick in legal principles, embedded in the constitution etc. The mere fact that the meaning and scope of the “Golden Rule” is disputed it is evidence, that the rule is not universal and self-evident. Therefore, since the authority of the “Golden Rule” is moot, so are allegations of Mr Sina which is based on the rule.

The Golden Rule IS universal. It is the foundation of justice system in all civilized societies. As I quoted earlier, the Golden Rule is the common denominator of all religions and social systems. The only religion that defies the Golden Rule is Islam. Only in Islam, abuse, inequality and injustice is prescribed by the religion itself. Injustice happens in all the societies, but they are transgressions of the law and are against the stated Golden Rule. Islam is the only religion that sanctions and institutionalizes injustice.

Since it is illogical to imagine that God is unjust and the Quran also claims that justice is a divine Quality, the only logical conclusion is that Islam is not from God. It is either from Satan or from a psychopath.

C) Conflicts – The “Golden Rule” as defined and elaborated by Mr Sina is not universal as it makes no references as to how it can be used to resolve conflicts of interests e.g. China feels it has the right to occupy Tibet, Russia over Chechnya and Israel over Palestine etc. Lack of answers on such issues is a very serious deficiency in Mr Sina’s “Golden Rule”. Because the “Golden Rule” cannot arbitrate disputes by giving answers which would have been the baseline to judge the actions of the Prophet. Therefore, how did Mr Sina arrive at his allegations against the Prophet’s conduct many of which pertained to resolving conflicts with the pagan Arabs? Undoubtedly, any impartial observer will see that Mr Sina’s charges are based on blind hatred.

Obviously my opponent has no clue about the meaning of Golden Rule. International conflicts are essentially the same as interpersonal conflicts. WouldChina like to be invaded by a foreign force? Would the Chinese like to lose their freedom and autonomy to an occupying alien power? If not then the Chinese occupation of Tibet is wrong. But knowing what is wrong it does not deter people from doing it. People transgress and break the ethical, moral and legal laws all the time. The Golden Rule is a guideline not a deterrent. We need laws and in this case International laws with teeth to deter aggression.

Of course each case is different. In the case of Israel, it were not the Israelis who started the war. Arabs initiated it. They lost the war and the only thing they should do to regain their lost territories is to apologize for their stupidity and aggression and promise end of hostility. Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories for the safety of her own people. The wall is to protect the Israeli lives. Israel was always ready to negotiate and return the occupied territories. But they could not because until Arafat was alive, the Palestinians were not ready to give up on violence. Now that he is dead and there is a chance to restore peace, we see Israelis are more than willing to work with the Palestinians and even they released 900 Palestinian terrorists. In my opinion that was a terrible mistake, but it shows to what extent the Israelis are willing to bend backwards to accommodate the Palestinians and end this senseless war that Muslims have been waging on them.

The Israelis did not break the Golden Rule. The Palestinians where the one who broke it and they lost.

Now how Muhammad dealt with his problems? He did not apply the Golden Rule. He raided civilian villages with no warning and massacred unarmed people, looted their properties and took as slaves and sex slaves their wives and children. Has Israel done such thing to the Palestinians?  Why it is okay for Muslims to raid and massacre entire populations but it is wrong if others in their own self defense occupy a Muslim land?

Mr. Zakaria insists that we cannot use the Golden Rule as the parameter to judge the actions of the Prophet. He contends that the Golden Rule is faulty and the actions of the Prophet are superior to that. In that case may we follow the actions of the Prophets vis-à-vis the Muslims and deal with them the way Muhammad dealt with non-believers?

Why should we not cast terror into the hearts of Muslims and strike off their fingertips off them? (8:12)  Why should we not fight against them? (8:65) Why should we not fight them and slay them wherever we find them? (9:5) Why should we not treat the Muslims as najis (unclean) and shun them? (9:28) Why should we not smite at their necks; at length when we meet them? (47:4) If what Muhammad did was better than the Golden rule, why should we not follow his examples and do to Muslims what he did to non-Muslims?

But the most important question is why Muslims who read these verses are not disgusted of this much evil in Islam? Why they have killed their conscience? What happened to their humanity? Why they have let themselves to be fooled by a psychopath and follow a monster? You have no excuse. If I saw the evil of Islam only by reading the Quran, why can’t you? How much you want to fool yourself and act like animals?  I had no help. You have my help and the help of hundreds of others who have made this transition and are extending their hands to help you.

D) Retribution – How can the “Golden Rule” be used to determine retribution for the countless scenarios? Without this knowledge, the one seeking justice is likely to violate the “Golden Rule” in exceeding the limits of retribution. If the “Golden Rule” was absolute and universal the level of retribution would have been similar at least across nations (democracies) that epitomises it.However, even within a single democracy there is great variance on the subject of retribution. Even on matters of life and death. For example, capital punishment is applied in some of the US states but not others. Since the rule is incapable of determining the level of retribution then Mr Sina is not in a position to levy charges against the final Prophet (SAW) or any one else engaged in seeking retribution. His yardstick has no measurement!

Mr. Zakaria is confusing the principle of the Golden Rule with retribution. The Golden Rule is a guideline. It teaches us a way to evaluate our actions, do the right thing and avoid the wrong thing. It has nothing to do with penal codes. These are simple concepts. It is unfortunate that we have to explain such simple things to great Muslim scholars. Mr. Zakaria is a known figure in Islamic word. He writes for Al Jazeera and yet he confuses the Golden Rule with the penal code.  Do not steal, is a guideline. How to punish the thief is part of the penal code and it varies from country to country.

E) Rape, Paedophilia and Cannibalism – Taking Mr. Sina’s own example of rape there are many who find raping and being raped a turn on. There are couples that are into swapping kids. We all witnessed the two consenting adults in Germany engaged in Cannibalism. These categories of people using the logic of Mr Sina’s “Golden Rule” may well argue that since they have no problem if others do to them all those things (Rape, Paedophilia and Cannibalism); they are entitled to do the same to others. Especially, because as the “Golden Rule” is silent on the matter of consent. Hence, Mr Sina’s “logical gun” is backfiring!

Dear Mr. Zakaria. You are again confusing yourself. Rape, cannot be consensual. If it is consensual it is not rape.  Rape is the crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts. For example when Muhammad raided innocent people and took women as captives and had sex with them; that was rape. But when two consenting adults have sex, that is not rape.

Pedophilia is a crime and it is rape. Even when the child is allegedly consenting, the consensus of a child is not an alibi. When Muhammad had sex with under age children he was committing the crime or rape. In the West people have zero tolerance for pedophilia! Pedophiles are hunted and brought to justice even if the crime has happened decades ago. The westerners have a good handle over this problem. Pedophilia is a problem in Islamic world. Most Sheikhs are pedophiles. Most Mullahs are pedophiles. Your Prophet was a pedophile and pedophilia is promised as a heavenly reward to Muslim men.

As for cannibalism, this was an act of insanity committed by two mentally sick men that shocked their countrymen. You must be really desperate to blame a society for the insanity of their mentally infirm. Cannibalism is not part of any culture. Idi Amin, a Muslim, used to gnaw on the hearts of his victims. In his sick mind he thought this gives him their courage. Can we blame Islam for that?

The Golden Rule is not silent over these problems. But the Golden Rule guides only sane people. Insane people are insane. You can’t expect them to act normal. Normal people do not have any pedophilic tendencies, they do not rape and they do not eat human flesh. These are psychological problems. No one follows the psychopaths in the West. These psychopaths are hospitalized. But you an a billion benighted people like you follow a psychopath. This is tragic that you blame the Westerners for their mentally infirm while you yourself worship a mentally sick man.

Similarly, Mr Sina talks about murder in absolute terms but what about the animals? Why the animals can be slaughtered en masse for food and used in animal experimentation, violating their “Golden Rule” or is the animal kingdom outside the jurisdiction of Mr Sina’s “golden Rule”. The vegetarian community and the animal rights campaigner might well argue this point.

The Animal Rights is an on going and controversial issue. For six years I became a vegan just because I though it is unfair to slaughter animals for food when we can easily get the nutrients we need from vegetables. Then my mother came for a visit and she damn cooks so good that I gave in to my craving and started eating meat again. But you are right. My conscience is still guilty and I try to cut back and I may go back to vegetarianism again.

However we humans have evolved by eating meat. Without meat, our brain could not have evolved the way it has. There is no simple answer to this question. I hope one day we find a substitute to meat and stop killing animals for food.

But killing animals for food is legitimate. What is utterly inhumane is slaughtering them as sacrificial animals. This is truly a barbaric ritual, a relic of Paganism that Muhammad universalized by incorporating it in his cult. I can understand killing animals for food, but I can’t understand killing them as offering to a bloodthirsty deity? What kind of god is this Allah that enjoys seeing the blood of innocent animals spilt? This is truly sadistic. Unless Allah is Satan, I see no justification for this barbaric ritual.

Furthermore how come you that are so concerned for the animal rights don’t give a damn about the human rights of the victims of Islam?

There are many who subscribe to the Darwin ’s principle of: “the survival of the fittest”. If nature is supposed to function in this way, why should this not be extended to human beings? In fact, the free-market model found in most democracies operates on this principle. Accordingly, some would argue as others have practiced in the past, the right of the stronger party to extinguish the weak and the disabled purifying the gene pool. Hence they apply their interpretation of the “Golden Rule” and go on to take out the weaker species or until they themselves get taken out by stronger party.

The survival of the fittest is a law that applies even to humans. But we humans are not competing against each other. In fact our survival depends on the understanding of our oneness as one species. We can only survive through cooperation.

There is a misunderstanding of the concept of the “survival of the fittest” especially among the religious people. Let me clarify that.

Survival of the fittest does not mean the one who is most aggressive and violent will survive. It means those who can cooperate will survive. Let me explain the phenomenon of human evolution to dissipate some of the myths surrounding it.

Some millions of years ago a group of apes used to live somewhere in Africahappily. A draught or some natural phenomenon like that forced them to move out in the search of new pastures. One group went to the left and they found a jungle full of fruit trees and few predators. They mostly survived, procreated and prospered and they lived there ever after. Their descendants continue to live there up to this day.

The other group went to the right and they found a prairie where fruit trees were scares. They had to eat grain to survive. Those of them who could use their fingers dexterously found enough food. The rest starved and died. The prairies where filled with ferocious beasts. Those of them who could stand on their two hind legs and see the danger from afar had a better chance to escape and survive; the rest fell prey to the wild animals and perished. Those of them who could cooperate had a better chance to capture an antelope or other beasts of prey, but the rest died out of hunger. Those of them who had bigger brains, were smarter and could make tools, could kill bigger animals to eat. They survived; the rest did not. Many of them died, only a few who had the above characteristics survived. These traits were prized by nature and those who did not have them died at childhood and did not pass their genes. Of course mutation is another factor in evolution but this is not a course in biology.

Today our survival depends on the same principles that helped us evolve and become homosapiens. Those of us who can cooperate, can watch each other’s nacks, can care for one another, and those of us who can make better tools will survive. The rest will perish. Guess who has these traits today? Muslims or non-Muslims?

Survival of the fittest does not mean let us see who can pull the trigger first and kill the other one faster. This is insanity. Our survival depends on how we can cooperate with each other and take care of one another. It also depends on our discovery of science and technology. Muslims are unable to cooperate with anyone including themselves. Like their prophet they are paranoid. They see enemies everywhere, enemies who dictate their destinies either through remote control or by their proxies. They are also caught in superstitions, fairytales and mindless rituals that renders them unable to create science and technology.

Cooperation and taking care of each other comes natural to us humans. We instinctievely tend to care for each other. If one is in danger, complete strangers risk their lives to save him almost instinctively and very much irrationally. We are deeply moved and pained when we watch the news about disasters hitting people half a world away from us. This empathy is not common among other animals. We are the only species that feel in our soul the pain of our fellow beings. Of course not all humans have reached this humanness. Those who dance in the street after hearing thousands of their fellow humans are burned in tall buildings are not humans. They are beasts in human shell.

Today over a billion people are following a psychopath. They have lost their humanity. They can’t see the oneness of mankind. They constantly fill their hearts and souls with hatred of their fellow beings.  If you do not bow to their sadistic deity they regard you as their enemy and think of nothing else but to kill or subdue you. The psychosis of one man is now reflected in one billion zombies who genuinely are unable of rational thought. A billion people following a psychopath make a billion psychopaths. These billion plus disciples of madness are bringing the world to the brink of destruction.

With the technology that we have, strife is lethal to the survival our species. We have past the stage when we had to compete with other animals. Now we dominate this planet and as such we are its custodians. We are responsible to preserve it for ourselves and for animals, our fellow passengers of this spaceship called Earth. This is not against the evolution. This is part of the evolution. Evolution is a continuous process. Now we are at a stage where we are evolving, intellectually and spiritually. We will be fit for survival if we use our intelligence, put aside the stupid ideologies of hate and learn to cooperate with each other.

Competition is not the only law of evolution. Cooperation is a great factor in evolution. The bees depend on flowers and the flowers depend on bees. We are all interdependent and live symbiotically. The evolution is a harmonic symphony. Our species did not evolve through competition among ourselves. We evolved because we learned to cooperate. The survival of our species depends on our understanding of the fact that we are one people, the proverbial children of Adam and Eve and dependant on one another.

Today nothing is threatening our species more than strife. Ideologies that divide mankind are dangerous. We have survived very dangerous ideologies such as fascism, Nazism and communism. Now we are facing an even bigger threat and that is Islam.  Mankind must unite and fight this ideology with all its might. If we fail to destroy Islam, our extinction is guaranteed.

We should fight the ideologies that divide mankind in “us” vs. “them”. Islam is a divisive ideology. It is an ideology of hate. This ideology is insane. It is created by a psychopath to manipulate, to divide and to conquer. We simply can’t afford let Islam destroy mankind.

We invite the Muslims to stop this madness and join the rest of mankind. But if they don’t, if all they think is to kill us and to dominate us, then it is incumbent that we fight back and stop them. If they do not want to listen, if they are so much inebriated in their insanity that will not stop until they kill us all. Then we have no option but to kill them first. We have to fight this insanity not only for our own survival but also for the survival of our species and our civilization. Islam must be stopped at any cost. The longer we wait the higher will be the price that we would have to pay.

The world is waking up and is sensing the danger. They are hearing what you say and they are taking you seriously. You have made your point that you would not stop until you annihilate the rest of mankind. Your insane prophet promised you that 20 of you can kill 200 of us and at the end you will be victorious.(8:65) As soon as the world see the futility of arguing with you, they will cast terror into your hearts (8:12), slay you (9:5) and smite your necks; at length when they meet you (47:4). We can’t back off. Our back is against the wall. You must back off or face our wrath.

After all when it comes to survival, we are all animals. Your madness knows no bound and all you can think of is how to destroy us and make your sadistic cult dominant. You’ll not be able to carry out your evil design. We will destroy you first. Mankind is us. You are followers of a psychopath. Mankind’s weakness is in assuming that Muslims have the same conscience that humans have. But by deriding at the Golden Rule you made it clear that this is not so. You question the Golden Rule and mock logic. My words have no effect on you and other Muslims who read this site. Instead of coming to their senses and reasoning they feel offended, stop reading or become hardened in their hatred. The only language you speak and understand is the language of force and terror. The world is waking up rapidly. I am your best and last hope. If you don’t heed to me, if I fail to wake you up with my words, others will start speaking to you in the language that you understand best and wake you up in a bad way.

Why I am doing all this? Why I do not go back to my profession and don’t make money? Why I denounced the luxuries and the comfort that once I had and everyone takes for granted to write and to wake you up? It is because I see all this happening. I see cities burning in hot scorching smoke, I see scared children running naked with their skin falling apart. I see cadavers everywhere and no one to collect them and burry them. I see all these things, not like Nostradamus who prophesied and predicted things but like a meteorologist forecasting the weather. Big clouds are building up and a huge tempest is gaining momentum.

The Armageddon is upon us. The only way to stop it is to stop the insanity of Islam. I am doing my share to educate the Muslims and let them see Islam is not a religion, but the madness of a psychopath. Islam is not going to take you to heaven in the next world but it will take all of us to hell in this world. I want to stop this tempest and avoid this disaster by waking up the Muslims and bringing them to their senses. If I fail, we all fail. Humanity will fail and millions if not billions will die.

I am not addressing you Mr. Zakaria. You are a lost soul filled with hatred and blind faith. You kept asking me to “unmask” myself and tell you what is my belief. I knew why. It was because you can’t defend Islam. All you can do is to attack your opponent’s creed. But you goofed this time. You attacked the Golden Rule. You attacked the foundation of our humanity and what makes us humans, humans. How ridiculous of you Sir. I am talking to millions of good people who are born in this cult and think they are Muslims. I ask them to leave Islam today and announce their apostasy. Don’t wait. Don’t hesitate. There is an explosion building up. The only way to stop it is to deflate Islam by convincing huge numbers of Muslims that they must leave this cult. Only this will dishearten the terrorists and will end their madness. As long as you remain a Muslim they become hyped and will continue destroying this world.

Let the world know you no more support this madness and you are not part of this network of terror and insanity. It is your adherence to Islam that encourages people like Mr. Zakaria and Osama Bin Laden to continue fomenting hate and destroying lives. They get energized by masses of Muslims such as you who read their hateful articles and either nod or remain silent. Your silence is lethal. Don’t wash your hands for the crimes of Bin Laden and your other terrorist brothers. You are guilty by complacence and when the disaster strikes, you, me and our children will not be spared. We will all burn in this hell that you are about to bring upon mankind through your ignorance and stupidity. Stop this insanity and leave Islam today. Only you can prevent this war. All you have to do is to leave Islam and curse the mad man who created it. Stop this damn like that Islam is against killing or it means peace. You know you are lying. Do not choose the path of hypocrisy and denial. Recognize that you were misled. Leave Islam and learn to become human again. You can’t be a moderate Muslim. There is no such thing as moderate Muslim.

So, I have made my case based on Mr Sina’s definitions and his principles with clear examples proving that the “Golden Rule” is not universal, not self-evident, inadequate and not absolute. But also Mr Sina himself is muddled on the issue! It is flawed as a fundamental principle. At best it is just a moral advice to individuals to exercise self-restraint. Therefore, the allegations against the final Prophet (SAW) cannot be levied as MR. Sina himself does not know the meaning of his own rule, its scope and therefore it is from being in a position authority to judge others.

You are very much mistaken Mr. Zakaria. I perfectly know the meaning of the Golden Rule and I live by it. It is you who do not understand it, question its legitimacy and deny its universality.  Yes the Golden Rule is a moral advice to individuals. What else you expected? Isn’t religion a moral advice? The Golden Rule is a good advice. Islam is a bad advice. This is the difference. At the end it is up to the individuals to follow these advices or not. But those who follow the Golden Rule do good and those who follow Islam do evil.

The charges against Muhammad stand in full vigor. Muhammad broke the basic principles of the Golden Rule. Because of this he is disqualified as a human being let alone a prophet of God. He was a monster. If not an incarnation of Satan, he was indeed a very disturbed psychopath. He must be compared to Jim Jones, David Koresh or Hitler.

In the absence of proof it also implies Mr Sina like other anti-Islamic zealots has blind faith in the “Golden Rule”, “based on shaky grounds”. Yes, for once I do agree with Mr Sina let us call a spade a spade. Mr Sina is the muddled ‘Prophet’ of the so-called “Golden Rule” who cannot even articulate the basic idea of his rule and later examples will provide corroborative evidence of his muddled mindset.Mr. Sina will probably feel very uncomfortable if he has managed to follow up to this point with sincerity. Hence, let him now prove his so-called “Golden Rule” by addressing the above points. Otherwise he is also hypocritically breaking his own rule when he said earlier that: “he must be able to prove that assumption or withdraw it”.

The reliance on the Golden Rule does not require any faith Mr. Zakaria. The Golden Rule is not a belief. It is a principle based on commonsense. It does not require any prophet. It is a compass that all sane people carry within. It is the most obvious principle. Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you. What could be clearer than that?

Mr Sina’s Logical GunMr Sina casually used terms like “rape”, “paedophilia”, “murder”, “Hate” and other similar ideas in an abusive manner against the Prophet in his two previous responses and in his website. Yet, he is the one that cited his first rule demanding that none of us should make any assumptions without proof. So he has violated his own principle by using such terms without defining and proving it in the first place. The points below will show that he not argue consistently despite bragging about his “logical gun”. Also, he proclaimed himself as a “menacing” debater by email, I am sure our readers have already seen his level of ‘modesty’! Mr Sina’s references to the actions of individuals do not help to support his case because individuals can act in line or against, divine principles. However, we judge democracies by their actions because there is no holy book of democracy or the “Golden Rule” book that elaborates on right and wrong. If Muslims were to engage in “rape”, “incest” etc as defined by Islam then that is precisely due to the non-adherence to Islam! We have to resort to the Islamic definitions as Mr Sina has not defined his terms and we have not agreed to accept his definitions as correct.

Dear Mr. Zakaria. In round II of our debate I asked you whether you are ready to hear the charges that I have brought against Muhammad and you said, you want to respond to my letter first. Looks like you forgot that already. I have not yet presented my charges. I will dedicate a full round to each charge. I will present my proofs for every accusation that I make against Muhammad or withdraw that accusation with an apology. But we are not there yet. I will present the charges with their respective evidences whenever you are ready.

So let us take some of Mr Sina’s examples. Paedophilia is considered to be sexual acts with a child but how is the line drawn between a child and an adult. He considers a nine year girl who has acquired mental capacity and puberty to be a child. But Mr Sina has no problem in accepting that a twelve year old girl in New Hampshire on the eve of her birthday is a child and next day magically transforms into an adult. This is clearly arbitrary. If Mr Sina is really opposed by pre-pubescent sex which was not the case with the Prophet’s marriage then why does he remain silent like a mule on the Rabbinic laws that do permit non-Penetrative sex with pre-pubescent children. Mr Sina is simply selective as he is a hypocrite.

Mr. Zakaria,  A 9 year old child is a child. A 12 year old child is also a child. I do not think children should engage in sex before they reach the age of 18. Now why having sex with a 17 years 11 months 29 days old girl should be a crime and one day later it should be okay? This is sheer legality. But laws are to protect us. Why you should be fined to go through a red light when the there are no cars crossing the street? Because you have to follow the law! It is not stupid to follow the law. Technically one day makes no difference but legally it does. Now when we talk about Aisha we are not talking about one day or one week. We are talking about nine years. one day may not make that much difference but 9 years or 3240 days make a hell of a difference.

You are engaging in a childish game. You ask me what one day difference can make. Then you go on to say what two days difference can make. Then three days and four days until you come to say if it is okay for an 18 years old girl to have sex it should be also okay for a 9 year old girl to have sex. If this is your logic them we could keep playing this silly game of yours and say it is okay to have sex with an infant girl as soon as she is born. Sir! A 9-year-old child is a child. If in New Hampshire a 12 year old girl was raped that is rape and whoever done it must be brought to justice. If she had sex with a 13 year old boy then both of them must be counseled. In that case no crime is committed except the crime of stupidity. You call me a mule for not speaking out against the rape of a 12 year old child in New Hampshire . Well, no body asked my opinion about that and there are others who must have spoken against it. My job is not to denounce thousands of crimes that happen on daily bases across the world. Every country has its own law and its own law enforcement officers. That is their job. My job is to unmask Muhammad. No one is worshipping the rapist of that 12 year old girl in New Hampshire but over a billion benighted people in this planet not only follow this psychopath but they kill for him. Now who is the mule?

Despite the disparity in age (which is a matter of taste) between two individuals engaged in a normal heterosexual relationship is some how abhorrent but Mr Sina has no problems with homosexual relationships and other forms of deviancies in this age of sexual liberalism where all taboos are broken! It can be further argued heterosexual relationship at least conforms to nature as one procreates. So how did Mr Sina employ his “logical gun” to come to such conclusions? If Mr. Sina investigates further, even a cursory Google Search he will find vast majority of the paedophilia websites, the people running it and the clients and they are NOT from the Islamic world. Does he not see those same types of people raiding the beaches in Thailand and South East Asia for kids that trying to survive in poverty? What about within theUS , the various organisations like NAMBLA trying to legitimise Paedophilia?

Pedophilia

Mr. Zakaria. I do not watch pedophilia pictures. This is one thing that extremely disturbs me. Two things I can’t watch. One is videos showing your jihadi brothers beheading people and the other is pictures of pedophilia. The picture I published in my previous posting showing a Mullah kissing a boy on his lips bothers me a lot and each time I look at it my blood starts boiling and I want to tear that monster apart with my bare hands.

Some people have heart disease, some have liver disease and some have mental disease. Pedophilia is the most sickening mental disease. Nonetheless the law against pedophilia in civilized western countries is harsh and uncompromising. Yes there are sick people in the West too and some of them are pedophiles. But this is not a norm. The pedophiles are criminals and they are caught and punished. The difference is that pedophiles in the West are despised and if caught go to jail while you worship a pedophile and follow his examples. How dare you talk about pedophilia when your prophet was a pedophile? You don’t seem to be aware of how much fool of yourself you make when you blame the West for crimes of some of their sick individuals and forget the man whom you call a prophet was a pedophile.

Having sex with a 9-year-old child at the age of 53 for someone who called himself the best of creation is not a “matter of taste”. It is disgusting. How can a 53 year old man have sexual feelings of a 9 year old child? Children at that age do not have femininity. The thought of that is just sickening. This is not the question of perversity. This is a question of insanity. Muhammad’s lust for women is not insane. It’s perversity. But having sexual feelings of a 9 year old child is insanity. That man was sick in the head. How can any sane person follow such a monster? Muslims must be ashamed for not seeing anything wrong in that and justifying it by nonsensical talks of moral relativism.

Homosexuality

As for homosexuality yes I do have problem with it, but not in the same way that you have. I know some people have some complication with their sexuality. Some of us are born with circulatory complications, some are born with respiratory complication and some are born with sexual complications. Sometimes these complications are biological and visible and sometimes they are psychological and invisible. These people simply can’t have heterosexual relationship. There are women born in men’s body and vice versa. Their lives are not easy. They have their own pains and struggles. What is utterly inhumane is if the society also incriminates them for their sexual complications. In the past if someone was born deformed the ignorant people abused him and believed he was cursed by God. Your attitude towards the homosexuals is no different. I am not a political correct to say homosexuality is normal. Sexuality is a bodily function for procreation. So homosexuality is not natural, but it is not immoral. You and I can’t become homosexuals. We can become thieve or lechers. All we have to do is to become immoral to lust after the wife of our neighbor or steal from him. But we can’t become homosexuals. This should tell you that homosexuality is not due to immorality. It is a biological or psychological anomaly. The only immorality in this is if we abuse the homosexuals.

Mr Sina also claims Islam exhibits hate. But instead of just elaborating his claims and providing his definitions of hate, it is he that displays the hatred towards Islam and Muslims violating his “Golden Rule”. From the tone, content and deliberate uses of certain pejorative terms he incites hatred. Mr Sina’s website confirms that as it only contains anti-Islamic diatribe but nothing on his so-called “Golden Rule”. Why not? Because he wears a mask and calls others ugly and he is afraid to show his face as it can be also put on the dock. Here it is pertinent for me to quote an Old Persian says “If you don’t like what you see in the mirror break your face not the mirror”. Mr Sina must feeling the cracks in his face now and in his words “lost”, “completely disarmed” and “the circuits in his brain are short-circuited”. This only proves that “freethinkers” are unable to pose intellectual argument and provide an alternative that is as comprehensive as Islam, hence all they do behind their masks is it try and provoke a fight ‘below the belt’ by constantly emitting profanity and obscenity like hoodlums!

I don’t think hate needs to be defined. If you disparage people calling them najis (unclean), children of apes and swine, enemies of God, fuels for hell, etc. you are inciting hate. If you encourage your followers to kill these people, be harsh with them, slay them wherever they find them and smite their necks, this is inciting violence.

Denouncing Islam is not violation of the Golden Rule, just as denouncing Nazism or fascism is not the violation of the Golden Rule. Actually denouncing any ideology even the good ones is not against the Golden Rule. If an ideology can’t stand scrutiny it is false and it must be denounced. But you can’t denounce the Golden Rule because the Golden Rule is the principle and not a belief.

What is contrary to the Golden Rule is doing to others what you don’t want to be done to you. For example, fighting and killing those who do not share your belief is against the Golden Rule. You certainly don’t like it if someone forces you to submit to his belief and kill you if you resist. So as you admitted Islam is contrary to the Golden Rule and anything contrary to the Golden Rule is evil.

I don’t wear a mask. I told you I am a humanist and a practitioner of the Golden Rule. In your tradition of attacking your opponent’s beliefs, instead of defending Islam, you took your cheap shot even at the Golden Rule and with that you dug your own tomb. It is okay to attack any ideology, but you should not attack the Golden Rule because the Golden Rule is not an ideology. It is the principle that defines our humanity. This was your biggest mistake that sealed your fate right from the start.

Sudden attack

Another example of the muddled mindset of Mr Sina is that he cannot distinguish between the status of War, declared between nations and actual military operation. He cites one of the raids of Prophet Muhammad as wanton aggression but the war was declared prior to that. Just like the US declared the war on Iraq but it did not give the Iraqis the battle plan telling them when and how they will conduct the raids.

You are talking about too many things at the same time. When we get to this point I will prove that with the exception of one or two wars, all the raids of Muhammad were unannounced. In fact the very word ghazwa, by which the wars of Muhammad were known, means sudden attack. So let us not get too much distracted. I told you if I do not prove any of my charges, I will withdraw that charge and apologize for it. Just be patient, we will get to that.

I have decided to provide some entertainment by giving further examples illustrating that he is false and muddled Prophet of the cult of “Golden Rule”. You will have some light entertainment, so please continue. I know it has been long.

Dear Mr. Zakaria. You are here to respond to my charges against Muhammad and prove me wrong. You are not here in the quality of a comedian. How about leaving the entertainment after your victory and for now you try to rebut my accusations?

A few weeks ago I had a long debate with Mr. Edip Yuksel, one of the leaders of the Submitters. After the third round of our debate he stopped discussing Islam altogether and instead he wrote extensively about me, making a thorough and free of charge psychoanalysis of yours truly. He quoted what others had written about me and finally made a prediction that on February 19 (2005) something is going to happen to me which neither the FBI nor my bodyguards can protect me. What this thing could be, I wonder! My hunch is that he is poking needles into a doll that he calls Ali Sina.

May I suggest you leave the entertainment for later and concentrate on your role as the defender of Muhammad? That is why you are here after all, aren’t you? You are of course welcome to entertain us as much as you like, but that won’t help you win the debate.

On Islam and Religion – Here are a couple of quotes from Mr Sina:a) “So far Islam has advanced by camouflaging itself as a religion.” b) “The reason I am against Islam is not because it is a religion but because it is a political movement of imperialism and domination in the guise of religion.” He says Islam is not a religion in the first quote then he says it is in the second quote, and again in the latter part of the second sentence he says Islam is not a religion. Exactly what Mr Sina is trying to tell us I will let the audiences judge that and he does not posses a “logical gun” but an “illogical and irrational gun”!

I don’t see any contradiction. I do not see Islam as a religion, even though sometimes I use that terminology.

On Nazism and Fascism – Mr Sina says: “Do the Nazis have the right to have their party and promote their cause? I don’t know of any democratic country that allows such thing. Most democratic systems ban racist and fascist movements.”Well, almost all leading democracies, including US and Europe permits Nazi parties and the likes to operate e.g. the “US Nazi Party” started by Lincoln Rockwell, the “British National Party” of Nick Griffin, and Vlaamsblok in Belgium etc. This is common knowledge. As for Nazis who will decide who is a Nazi or not. It is Mr Sina who is trying to HYPOCRITICALLY dictate to those whom he considers to be Nazis and Fascists like a Nazi. Nazism and Fascism were born amongst democracies not ISLAM. Its birth place and practice was in Europe . Both pertain to the exaltation of their races as their central theme which is diametrically opposed to ISLAM! Why Mr Sina uses such words to charge other when he does not even have the basic rudimentary knowledge on the subject!

I am under the impression that racist parties are disallowed in most democratic countries. But racist groups form their own groupies and operate under the protection of the freedom of speech act at the fringe of the law. It is the same law that allows hatemongers like you live freely in the West and spew their venom at their hosts. Anyway, that is not the area of my expertise and I could be wrong. I could be wrong on many things Mr. Zakaria. You are here to disprove my charges against Muhammad and not the fact that I am not infallible.

Islam is not against fascism. As I said earlier, the verse (48:29) that says “those who are with him [Muhammad] are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other” is a perfect description of fascism. Islam does not have the concept of race supremacy, even though Muhammad spoke of the blacks disparagingly calling them “raisin heads” and joked about the dark skin of the Bani Tamim saying they are Indians. Instead he advocated religious supremacy. So in the religious sense, Islam is “racist”. In Nazism the non Arians were considered inferior and the Jews were the escape goat for all the social ills. In Islam the non-believers are inferior and the Jews are the escape goat for everything that is wrong in the world. In Nazism the Fuhrer was the ultimate authority and no one could question him. In Islam Muhammad is the ultimate authority and no one can question him.  Craig Winn, in The Prophet of Doom, has drawn the comparisons between Muhammad and Hitler and the Quran and Mein Kampf. The similarities are astounding.

Democracy

On Democracy and Dictatorship – Mr Sina says: “Democracy does not mean dictatorship of the majority. It does not mean letting fascism come to power democratically to behead that democracy. Hitler and Khomeini came to power through popular vote. But they did not bring democracy. They strangulated it.”So if democracy is not the dictatorship of majority then is it dictatorship of minority? Since he is implying that democracy is the rule of the people for the people by the people but not if it violates Ali Sina’s golden rule”! Who ever decides arbitrarily a party or idea is or is not in compliance to democracy is in fact by definition a dictator. After all the acrobatics of what democracy is not, Mr Sina could not say what democracy is. The more he elaborates the more he exposes his weaknesses, contradictions and intellectual bankruptcy. Then Mr. Sina claims “democracy protects minority”, well not really! In fact minorities are at the mercy of majority rule of democracy or the Capitalist elites. Those ‘rights’ of minorities can be changed overnight as we all saw the so-called human rights abolished overnight in Camp-X-ray, Bagram, Belmarsh, Abu-Ghraib etc. Minorities are no more or no less safe than the Jews as minorities were safe living in democraticGermany in the 1930s or the Japanese living within the US just afterPerl Harbour ! Only recently democratic societies have learnt to display a semblance of tolerate after two world wars and centuries of intolerance and genocide!

No dear Mr. Zakaria. Democracy is neither the dictatorship of the majority nor the dictatorship of the minority. Democracy is not dictatorship at all.  First of all majority and minority are not static. Various political parties present their platforms and vie for the public support. The public votes and elects their rulers. The party that loses does not disappear in dungeons. They serve the nation as the opposition party and make the ruling party have a run for their money. The winners are the ones who run the country but the “losers” are the ones that hold their leash. Everything is transparent and after four years, the public gets to decide again who should be in charge. People who voted for party X can change their mind and vote for party Y. People’s loyalty is to themselves and their country, not to the parties.

The problem with Islam is that it is a political movement, but pretends to be a religion. There lies the confusion. On one hand it wants to run the country and on the other it claims to be a religion and demands absolute loyalty. Once you are a Muslim you can’t get out of it and you can’t vote for anything else. Muslims will and must always vote for Islamic parties and if they are the majority that is the end of minorities. This is how Hitler and Khomeini operated. The minority is not even allowed to express their opposition to the Islamic ruling party and they have no chance of forming the government ever. The danger of Islam is precisely in the fact that it mixes politics with religion and demands religious loyalty. This gives birth to a fascistic state such as the Islamic Republic of Iran or the Taliban Afghanistan and a de facto dictatorship.

In democracies the minorities are never at the mercy of the ruling party. Every individual, irrespective of his political affiliation and who is ruling, has exactly the same rights as others and no one is “more equal”.

As usual you always confuse the issues. Here you throw in Bagram, Belmarsh, Abu-Ghraib etc. What these have to do with democracy and our discussion? Abu Ghraib is a prison. In prisons we don’t have democracy. Prisons are not built to give the inmates freedom, but to take their freedom away. You seem to be a very confused person. In Islamic countries ordinary citizens don’t have freedom and you are complaining that the Americans deny freedom to captured terrorists?

If you are talking about the abuse, then that is another subject. Yes if the guards break the law and abuse their authority they must be reprimanded and America has been very determined about it. Some of the abusers of Abu Ghraib received 15 years jail sentence. That is harsh in my opinion for what they did. If the accused were civilians they would not be punished so harshly. I suppose the military judge wanted to make an example of them for other soldiers.

On Freedom of Belief – Mr Sina says: “Banning Islam is not in contradiction with democracy and freedom of thought.” Freedom means unrestrained, opposite of banning or censoring. You cannot logically have both operating at the same time and then call it freedom! Once you put any constraint on freedom by definition it ceases to be free, however for political propaganda people wave the word ‘freedom’ even when they not only impose restrictions but use their military powers to kill, rape and loot in its name!

You are wrong Sir. Your freedom ends where mine begins. You are not free to kill me for my beliefs, for what I say, or how I live my life. You are not free to preach hate against me. We are free because no one dictates what we should do or believe. This is the meaning of freedom. Freedom does not mean having the liberty to impose our whims on others. Who said freedom in unconstraint? Freedom is the balance of the rights of all humans; not the unrestricted freedom of some and the slavery of others. You have a distorted understanding of freedom. You have a distorted understanding of everything. That is why you are a Muslim.

He said earlier that anyone can believe in any fairy tale as long as it does not say “they should kill others”. Is that not Mr Sina dictating to others now? His attitude towards Muslim, or banning of the Quran and Islam, is a carbon copy of what was preached by Nazi intellectuals, like Streicher. So, by default, Sina behaves like a Fascist, Nazi himself. Then Mr Sina makes his fantastic claim that is illogical, laughable and pretty stupid. He says “I believe in nothing”, and he also stated “I have no religion. I do not believe in anything. I am a freethinker.”

You are wrong again. I am not advocating killing anyone. I am working to bring all the people of the world together. I want everyone to see the folly of antipathy and division. I want to end ideologies of hate that divide mankind in “us” and “them”.  I am fighting Islam precisely because it mongers hate and instructs its befogged followers to kill others. It is the Quran that resembles Hitler’s Mein Kampf; it is Islam that contains fascistic teachings that promote hatred of non-believers. Who do you want to fool? We read the Quran and we can discern. We hear the sermons of your mullahs and we know they preach hate. I am not a hate monger. I am a peace maker and an iconoclast. If I lash out at Islam and smash this ideology of hate it is because it is a false and a hate based belief. This is not hatred. This is love. I am breaking your shackles not your arms. I am removing your blinders not your eyes.

I did not mention religion but merely asked for his alternative to Islam. In any case, religion essentially is a viewpoint towards life and its purpose. Any alternative you give on that position regardless of what you call it you have a position, i.e. a religion. Hence everyone has a religion but it might not be a main stream one that is established and tested for centuries with billions of followers! So the statement of not believing is meaningless because that in itself constitutes a belief, a viewpoint. It is the same as saying that there should be no laws in society which by default itself becomes a law, enforced and dictated. Or as illogical as saying that we are free but except don’t cross the line (“Golden Rule”) drawn by Mr Sina!

An alternative to religion is not another religion. Religions are based on beliefs. Belief is acceptance of something without evidence. I rely on doubt not on beliefs. These are two opposing paths. The fact that a religion is believed by many people does not make it right. This is called argumentum ad numerum and it is a logical fallacy. Truth cannot be established by the consensus of the majority.  It is not that I am against religion. I respect people’s choices to believe or not to believe. I chose not to believe, but to doubt, to question, to investigate and to accept only if something is proven to me. However, not everyone can or wants to do the same. Many people find it easier to believe. There are times that I wish I could believe too. The feeling is very comforting. However, I can’t believe anymore.

My problem with Islam is not because it is a belief system but because it is a hate system. Islam preaches hate and it incites its followers to kill. That is why I am against Islam. The fact that Muslims believe that Muhammad went to the seventh heaven riding on a horsy, or he split the moon asunder, or talked to an angel, or that Sun sets in murky waters sound ridiculous, but it is not the reason I am against Islam. People must have the freedom to believe even in absurdities. Islam must be banned because it violates the Golden Rule. It is the only major religion that does that. The Golden Rule is not drawn by me. It is a universal principle of fairness. We must not permit a religion that says, we kill you but you should respect our hateful message to advance. That is not a religion. That is Satan worshiping.

Who is bungled up on the issue of Abu-Ghraib?Mr Sina is the one bungled up exposing his gross ignorance by regurgitated the cheap propaganda of the rightwing establishment like the so many migrant coolies! Abu-Ghraib was ‘abuse’, “letting of steam”, and “cheer leader exercise” to the US establishment but to the Iraqis it was “murder”, “torture”, “kidnappings” and “humiliation” by the American gangsters. A lot more happened in Abu-Ghraib, Umm Qasr and other US-run prisons then Mr Sina suggests. Seymour Hirsh saw the video clips of young teen and pre-teen boys screeching whilst being sodomised by US soldiers. Yes, the real Paedophiles not the imaginary ones claimed by Mr Sina. The US senator said after seeing the pictures and videos, “it was like descending into hell but unfortunately it was our creation”. There are accounts of necrophilia and many disappearing in that horror chamber. Please remember not what was seen but what was not caught on camera and what was caught but not shown. Also, not to mention we have not heard the Iraqi side of the story! Why? Unfair media coverage and the Iraqis have honour and dignity; they are not going to turn up on the Jerry Springer show discussing their most intimate details as if they are some kind of animals devoid of shame! Yes the Jerry Springer folks are the product of the society advocated by ‘freethinkers’; climbing the tree of the “Golden Rule” like chimpanzees!

Whatever happened in Abu Ghraib the American Media broadcasted it; the American politicians condemned it; the American public denounced it; the American justice system punished its perpetrators. I do not see anything wrong in that. An entire nation can’t be responsible for the actions of a few law breakers. You would have had a case if the Americans tried to cover up and the perpetrators went free. I think the Americans are naïf to air such things. They want to play clean with an enemy that plays dirty.  They should not have shown those pictures that fueled the hatred of hatemongers such as you and cause more revenge and death of innocent people. They should have punished the perpetrators, but not made those videos public. Sometimes I truly wonder of the stupidity of the Americans. Or perhaps it is the leftists who also hate America. Their high ranking politicians and bureaucrats go on air to explain where lies their weaknesses for terrorists to attack, how easy it is to make those attacks and how much damage such attacks can cause to the nation. Is that foolish or what!

Now compare that with the heinous crimes of Muslim terrorists. Those people humiliated and molested in Abu Ghraib were terrorists. The victims of the Islamic terrorists are ordinary and innocent people who have done no harm to anyone. This is a huge difference. The American guards humiliated but did not kill those prisoners. The victims of the Muslim Jihadis are often beheaded in the most barbaric way. But the biggest difference is the reaction of the public. The Americans were outraged and indignant. But the Muslims in general condone the terrorists. You yourself are a good example of that. You have no qualms defending the barbaric acts of your terrorist brothers. This shows only one thing. American public in general is good people who have their bad apples, while Muslims are generally bad apples and the good ones are rarities.

Why is that so? It is because Muslims don’t follow the Golden Rule. They commit all heinous crimes against others, but can’t accept if the same is done to them. This is typical attitude of a narcissist and since they all follow a pathological narcissist as a prophet, they all have entered into his bubble universe of self glorification and contempt for others. Each and every one of them evinces their leader’s narcissistic traits. The level of narcissism of Muslims varies from person to person and it depends on the degree that they believe and follow their model narcissist guru. There are many good humans among Muslims but they are humans to the extent that they are not Muslims.

As for what the US did to the few escape goats offering light sentences does not remotely constitute justice and largely propaganda trials. So that the likes of Mr Sina can feel good that ‘democracy’ is working. As the crimes were committed on Iraqi soil they should have been judged by the Iraqis and had the situation been reversed this is exactly what theUS would have demanded!

I think the culprits were punished more than what they deserved. 15 years in jail is almost the punishment of manslaughter. These were American soldiers violating their military code of conduct. They were court marshaled by the American military. This is the procedure. Had they been civilians, they would have been handed to the Iraqi authorities. The crime of these American soldiers was light compared to what Muslims do to each other. Do you know what kind of tortures the Iranian mullahs do to their own people? Abu Ghraib in comparison is picnic. Where is the outcry of Muslims? Saddam tortured and murdered the Iraqis in much worse ways. Did you ever condemn him? If you think 15 years jail is light sentence what are you asking for your terrorist brothers? You are not even condemning them. You are praising them. Your hypocrisy and double standard is loud and clear Mr. Zakaria.  Didn’t I tell you not to fuss too much about the $50,000 dollars reward? Now probably you would give me $50,000 dollars to not to publish this debate. Of course you may not even know when you are defeated. Islam blinds its victims.

Then Mr Sina brings the incident of Kinnan (from the Life of the Prophet (SAW)) which is incorrect analogy. Kinnan was executed for violating the terms agreement with the Muslims. Remember the so-called “Golden Rule” has no way of determining the level of retribution that should be given. The incident was not sadistic torture of innocents like in Abu-Ghraib style for ‘fun’ and satisfying sexual perversions, so the analogy is incorrect. Furthermore, the Prophet by his actions is defining a law so which other laws can be used to judge Him as a Prophet? Indeed Mr Sina is confused on basic principles.

What terms of agreement Kinana violated? Muhammad attacked his town Kheibar at dawn when people opened the gates of the fortress and went out to the fields after their farming and their daily business. He and his cavalry entered the city and started their killing spree. Kinana was in one of the fortresses of Kheibar. After it became clear that resistance is futile they offered to surrender if Muhammad spared their lives. Muhammad agreed but made the condition that they give him all their wealth and properties. They agreed. Did they have any choice? Kinana was the treasurer of the town. He had hidden the treasures of the city in a ruin. A treacherous Jew, perhaps to win Muhammad’s favor and save his own neck, tipped him off. Muhammad brought Kinana and told him to tell him about the treasures. He did not and so Muhammad tortured him, branded his eyes with hot iron rod, burned his body and then beheaded him. What agreement did he violate? If a thief grabs you and tells you he will kill you if you do not give him all your money and you agree but then decide to hide some for yourself, are you breaking the terms of your agreement? Is that an agreement? Is that the way a messenger of God must behave? Where is your conscience and humanity Mr. Zakaria? You have made it clear that you are a follower of Satan. The more you defend this criminal prophet of yours the more you show our readers the evil nature of Islam. It is because you mock the Golden Rule, the very thing that makes us human.

You say “The incident was not sadistic torture of innocents like in Abu-Ghraib style for ‘fun’ and satisfying sexual perversions..” …. Really!?

Muhammad tortured this young man to make him reveal where he had hidden the treasures. No it was not for ‘fun’. It was for greed. Is it okay to torture people for money? As Ibn Ishaq reports “The apostle of Allah handed him over to al‑Zubayr, saying, ‘Torture him until he tells what he knows’, and al‑Zubayr kindled a fire on his chest so that he almost expired; then the apostle gave him to Muhammad b. Maslama, who struck off his head.” This is from the abridged version of the Sira. Tabari gives a gory detail of the torture. After beheading the youthful Kinana Muhammad takes his 17 year old wife to his tent and rapes her. He is now 58 year old with fetid mouth and smelly body. And you say this is not comparable to humiliating a bunch of Muslim terrorists in Abu Ghraib? Why are you so unfair? Because you have no regards for the Golden Rule. Those who mistreated the prisoners of Abu Ghraib are not the prophets of the Americans. They are their criminals and are spending time in jail. And yet you follow Muhammad and he is your prophet “(SAW)”. Have you ever thought why Allah did not reveal to Muhammad the whereabouts of the treasures? Muhammad received a lot of revelations allowing him to break his treaties and licensing him to have sex with any woman he desired. Why he never received a revelation about something he could not have possibly known such as the whereabouts of these treasures?

You say: “Furthermore, the Prophet by his actions is defining a law so which other laws can be used to judge Him as a Prophet.”

So just because he claimed to be a prophet he can break all the laws of decency, ethics and fairness and do as he pleases because he is the one who defines the law? Has it ever occur to you that he could have been an impostor? What if this ghost that visited Muhammad was Satan and not Gabriel? How can we know that Muhammad was a prophet of God and not of Satan? Jesus said “Ye shall know them by their fruit”. The actions of Muhammad were satanic. His fruits were bitter.

You have placed the cart before the horse. We must not define right and wrong by the actions of a man who claims to be a prophet but rather evaluate his claim by his actions. This is elemental logic. Can we use the same criteria for all the prophet pretenders and say for example, Charles Manson defines what is right and wrong and his actions should not be evaluated by the Golden Rule? Why Muslims are unable to see these simple logics? Don’t you Muslims feel ashamed of this much stupidity? And you have the chutzpa to demand respect? What part of your actions or belief is respectable? You must be despised for these reprehensible beliefs not respected.  I promise this is going to happen. As the world comes to learn the true Islam and hear it from your own mouths, everyone will scorn Islam and all of you will be despised. Today 44% of Americans think Muslim’s civil rights should be taken away from them. This is 44 points rise since three and half years ago. Soon this number will rise to 88%. You are too dumb to make the transition on your own. Logic has no effect on you. You need a “gentle” push and that “gentle” push will be given to you in a very humiliating way. This must happen because only through humiliation many of you will wake up and end this insanity.

Twisted Morality and Iraq WarThe birth of US was soaked in the blood of seventy million peaceful Native Americans, followed by the brutal African slave trade. Then the colonial expedition of terrorising the world started with the phoney Spanish-American wars killing over 500,000 Philippinos and she also terrorised Central and Latin America . The killing of innocent civilians climaxed in Hiroshima , Nagasaki , Dresden , Vietnam , Korea , etc. where the art of real mass terrorism was developed. I can go on giving endless examples. Yet none of this seems to register in Mr Sina’s scale of twisted morality. Mr Sina needs to understand that the US is propelled by corporate profit as a capitalist state not by any principle like the so-called “Golden-Rule”.

As usual you are engaging in logical fallacies of tu quoque and red herring and you are mixing apples and oranges. Whatever the Spaniards did to the Incas or the Americans did in Hiroshima have nothing to do with our discussion about Muhammad. Apart from the fact that you are grossly misrepresenting the truth, the history of American wars is not our subject of discussion. Today’s people are not responsible for the actions of their ancestors. Even if whatever you said were true, none of that proves that Muhammad was a prophet of God or can acquit him of his crimes. If an American administration or anyone else has done something wrong no one is proud of that and no one is taking those actions as model to follow. No one is saying those men of centuries or decades ago define what is right and wrong. The standard is the Golden Rule and as the case of Abu Ghraib shows, if a few Americans break that Rule everyone else condemn them and bring down their stick to punish them. But you are not only oblivious of the crimes perpetrated by Muhammad. You go even as far as to say he set the standard and defined the right and wrong. If he set the standard, why you complain if the American prison guards mistreated their prisoners in Abu Ghraib? They were following the examples of your prophet in a very small scale. Or is it that only Muslims are allowed to torture and abuse?

Of course you say torture and abuse per se are not bad. If Muhammad and his followers torture others that is divine; it is all justifiable, but if it is the other way round then it is an unforgivable crime. This is moral relativism. But you are not even hiding it. You are the one that scuffs at the Golden Rule. You are the one who says we Muslims can do all evil deeds because we do not follow the norms of the Golden Rule. We follow the examples set by our prophet; but you are not allowed to reciprocate and do the same to us because you are not Muslims and must follow the Golden Rule.

The Golden Rule is a fancy name for fairness. When you say the Golden Rule is an evil cult of Ali Sina, you are attacking the very concept of fairness. How can God send us a religion that is unfair? How can his prophet break the rules of fairness?

Twisted Morality and Iraq WarThe criminality of the Iraq war was in violation of the UN charter clearly stated by Kofi Anan and the rest of the international community. Iraqhas NEVER launched an attack against the US or UK in its short history hence the war was unprovoked. The US also violated Mr Sina’s “Golden Rule” since if you don’t like to be attacked or invaded you should not do that to others constantly in distant lands. Hence, any subsequent attacks or deaths as a result of this illegal war are to be blamed on the US . Yet, Mr Sina refers to humanity but note the vast majority of HUMANITY actually opposed the US aggression as massive demonstrations all over the world including within the US andUK , coupled with the opinion polls clearly proved this point. It is Mr. Sina that is on the side of true inhumanity that is dispensed by the USmilitary.

This is more red herring. Whether the invasion of Iraq was justified or not has nothing to do with the discussion of Islam. In other occasions I have written about it and defended it. But even if I am wrong and America should not have invaded Iraq to free the Iraqis and get them and the world rid of one of the despotic and criminal regimes of our time, still the charge that Muhammad was a false prophet-pretender remains unanswered.  I invite you Mr. Zakaria to concentrate on Islam and Muhammad and leave the tu quoque fallacy out of this discussion. It won’t get you anywhere and it only highlights your inability to defend Muhammad and Islam against my charges.

Mr Sina then has the gall to speak on behalf of the Iraqis without even asking them. If the Iraqis were happy with the US they would not be killing the US soldiers daily and the freedom fighters could not operate without the support of the indigenous Iraqi population. The earlier opinion polls showed 92% – 95% viewed the US as occupiers. If the Iraqis felt liberated the US soldiers would be showered with roses not bombs and bullets and their leaders would not be sneaking in and out ofIraq like oil-thieves and pirates.

The Iraqis are not killing the Americans. The Iraqis are constantly being bombed and killed by your terrorist brothers. Thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed since the overthrow of Saddam by your terrorist brothers. These terrorists are not Iraqis. They are international Islamic terrorists. The Iraqis are those courageous people who despite all the threats to kill them and their children went to the urns, voted and dipped their finger in the ink, proudly showing it off to the world in defiance of the threats of your terrorist brothers.

Mr Sina makes laughable claims like “Americans never target the civilians, never kill non-combatants” as if he is a guest on Fox-TV. This is the apex of ignorance and not just the Iraqis but the Vietnamese, Japanese, Koreans, South Americans, Hispanic, Afro-Americans and a long list of people would certainly disagree about the US not targeting civilians. As stated earlier the US and UK practically invented the art. There are even videos on the net showing US soldiers executing Iraqi civilians for fun. The eminent TV journalist John Pilger showed in a TV documentary that farmers in desolate places were bombed even the sheep were not spared! When the US drops 500 pound bombs on civilian areas instead of letting their ‘brave’ marines in for a hand-to-hand combats claims of not deliberately targeting civilians is irrational. Now wonder the US does not want to sign up to the International Criminal Court.It is the American gangsters who have come across the ocean to kidnap people, committing high-tech beheadings en masse using missiles and bombs. This is acceptable to Mr Sina’s twisted morality but not the couple of beheadings done in retaliation using the low-tech methods of knives. The Nazis detached themselves from the victims as they released the gas from the distance, just like Mr Sina is absorbing the sanitised version of the war as morally superior from a distance! Mr Sina is the one displaying true Nazi like behaviour. How perverted and sick yet he has the audacity to charge others with Nazism and twisted morality! If Mr Sina was attacked by burning Phosphorus or Napalm bombs he would be begging Musab Al-Zarqawi to behead him in order to relive the pain. Even the father of Nick Berg courageously made this point that at least his son was not tortured to death like the Iraqis suffered in the horror chambers of Abu-Ghraib and Camp-X-Ray! Anyway, I can go on refuting few of his remaining points but Mr Sina has enough on his plate and his first task will be to prove his so-called “Golden-Rule” otherwise no allegations can be brought forward and he would be in violation of his first rule as explained earlier. Yamin Zakaria London , UK

These are the raving babbles of a logically defeated terrorist sympathizer, who is filled with hate and who has not inhaled a breath of humanity and fairness in his entire life. This man is living in UK among the very people he hates and wants to destroy and behead. This is the irony and may I say the naiveté of the Westerners that allow people like Mr. Zakaria to live freely in their country and spew hate against them.

America and Britain are countries made of people. People mistake and under threat they act irrationally. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a gross mistake – a mistake that was made under duress by a few men in Whitehouse. The people were not consulted. You can’t blame an entire nation, or worse, their grandchildren for the mistakes of a few men. Japanese were the invaders. They were fighting relentlessly and Americans were tired. Americans did not want to destroy Japan or kill them. They wanted them to stop the aggression. After the defeat of their army, America helped Japan to rebuild and become the economical giant that it has become today. Is Japan colonized or occupied? America has fought and won against dozens of countries. Are any of them occupied by America? All of them got rid of their dictators and are better off now than they were before the American invasion.

Americans bombed the two cities to make the war criminal Japanese emperor Hirohito to stop. The Japanese were fighting a war with religious fanaticism. Maybe this should be a warning to Muslims too. You push too far, you can get hurt. The war ended after two cities were nuked. It had its desired effect and with the end of war more lives were saved. However, it was a mistake to target cities and kill people. The Americans should have thrown the bombs in uninhabited areas first and threaten to throw them on cities if the Japanese did not stop their aggression. But those who made the decision to bomb cities were humans and under pressure and fear humans do stupid things. We do not praise what they did. We do not worship the perpetrators. You are praising your murderous terrorist brothers. The westerners are not blinded by an insane ideology (unless they are leftists). They are free people, but as people they have their flaws, some of them are greedy, some are stupid, some are ruthless, but many of them are good humans who care about other humans. They can condemn bad deeds and those who commit them. They do not follow their criminals and evildoers. They denounce them [the criminals] and punish them. You are not only following a criminal who had no regards for fairness, but you think he set the standard. This is the difference.

Good and bad people are found in all the societies and among all the people. We are not talking about people. We are talking about the pattern that a society should choose to follow. All the people of the word, irrespective of their religion or belief have adopted the Golden Rule as their torch of guidance. Beliefs vary, but the principle is the same. In all the religions and social philosophies, good and bad are defined by the Golden Rule. Islam is the only exception. The Golden Rule is the very concept of fairness. When you mock the Golden Rule you mock fairness.

All religions and social philosophies derive their laws from the Golden Rule, i.e. they are based on the concept of fairness. Good and bad are standard everywhere and among all the people. Everyone knows, murder is bad, torture is bad, rape is bad, theft is bad, etc. Muslims are the only exception. They are the only people who consider all these things bad if it is done to them, but okay for them to do it to others. They are the only people who do not judge the actions of their prophet with the standard of fairness, but the other way round. So it was okay for Muhammad to be a pedophile, rapist and mass murderer, but the entire Western society should be blamed for the actions of a few psychopaths and criminals among them. This is the most bizarre pot-calling-the-kettle-black example that I can think of.

Islam is indeed a doctrine of moral relativism that is contrary to the Golden Rule and everything that is right. It is the only religion that says fairness is not right and defines fairness by the actions of its prophet instead of the other way round. This shows Islam can’t be a religion of God because it is inherently evil.

There are many verses in the Quran that talk about mercy, justice, kindness, honesty, forgiveness, goodness, etc. But once we get deeper and study carefully the Quran and the biography of Muhammad, a different picture emerges. All the above are demagogical propaganda and lip service. Even Hitler used these clichés to fool his audience. The message of Islam is a message bereft of goodness and Muhammad was a truly evil man.  It is hard to find a man as vicious and as sadistic as Muhammad in the annals of history. Hitler was an evil man. And yet he had some good qualities. He was not a pedophile or a lecher. Muhammad had no good qualities. That man was the embodiment of everything that is evil. Even his acts of kindness and generosity were manipulative and politically motivated. If Satan really exists, Muhammad was it. But I doubt that even Satan could be as monstrous and evil as the psychopath Muhammad.

It is a tragedy of gargantuan proportion that over a billion people follow such a monster and believe he was the one who set the standard of fairness. This means these billion benighted people will happily do evil with no compunction and are proud of their crimes.

As the readers can see, Mr. Yamin Zakaria is unable to see the beam in the eyes of Muhammad and Muslims when he is quite capable to see the speck in the eyes of others. But the sad reality is that he is not the only one. There are a billion people like him. They act like zombies. Unless they see the light and leave Islam they must not be trusted. It is not that all of the Muslims are bad people. Good and bad people exist in all the societies. Many Muslims are wonderful humans. However, there is a veil that separates them from reality and makes them jaundiced. Even the good ones shut their critical thinking and give in to evil of Islam. They could be saints, but flaunt Islam in front of them and they will lose all their humanity the same way Superman lost his powers when exposed to kryptonite. Good people who believe in Islam become helpless when confronted with the explicit verses of the Quran that incite hate. This is the effect of Islam on Muslims. They are mesmerized by the evil ghost of a psychopath. They can easily be possessed and do evil things. So destructive is the influence of Islam on Muslims.

You never understand when Muslims talk about “goodness”. “Good” for a Muslim is not the same thing as it is for you. Good is what Muhammad enjoined them to do not what is actually good. Read the Quran to see what he enjoined. He enjoined them to kill you, to rape your wife and to enslave your children. This is the interpretation of good in the Islamic dictionary. Your problem as a non-Muslim is that you don’t understand the language of Muslims.

If you are a Muslim, I urge you to leave Islam. Do not be a follower of Satan. You will not go to heaven by following a demonic cult. You will bring Hell to Earth if you do so. Leave Islam! Islam is a lie. You will not be rewarded by following a lie. Don’t fool yourself. You have the unerring compass of the Golden Rule within you. The Golden Rule is not a doctrine or a belief. It is fairness. Anything that is not fair is not from God.

You can have any belief you like, but you must follow the Golden Rule nonetheless. Compare religions to means of transportation. You can choose any means you want. But you can’t break the laws of physics. The Golden Rule is the law of our humanity. It is what sets us humans apart from animals. Only savage beasts can harm others and not feel remorse. Some people are sick and their conscience has not evolved to make them full humans. Unfortunately these people continue to harm and hurt others and feel no compunction. This is part of our struggle as humans.

We are here to evolve and help each other to evolve. At this stage of our evolution we must evolve spiritually. We must learn to love our fellow humans and do to them what we expect to be done to us. That is, do good! In our conscious struggle for our spiritual evolution the Golden Rule is our only inner compass and torch of guidance. The purpose of life is not to appease a deity to be rewarded with an orgiastic paradise filled with sensual pleasures. This is a preposterous lie that only a fool can believe. The purpose of life is to evolve spiritually and to become full humans. It does not matter what religion you follow or whether you have no religion at all. You must follow the Golden Rule. You must not transgress the standards of fairness. You must Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you. This is the essence of all wisdom.

Part IV

Exposing Ali Sina’s “Golden Rule” Cult – Part$00,000 Debate – My third Response [1] to Mr. Ali Sina Mr Sina states that the “Golden Rule” is the “foundation of the justice system” but paradoxically he says it has no relationship with the issue of retribution and he says: “The Golden Rule is a guideline. It teaches us a way to evaluate our actions, do the right thing and avoid the wrong thing. It has nothing to do with penal codes.” So, what is retribution? Retribution (penal codes) is truly a universal concept applied by all societies to establish justice by punishing the criminal; – retribution is an essential component of justice, they are inseparable as darkness is to light. Therefore, if the “Golden Rule” has “nothing to do with” retribution by implication it is also practically divorced from justice. If that is so then how can the “Golden Rule” be the “foundation of the justice system” as Mr Sina boldly stated! It seems Mr Sina’s ‘scholarly’ mind failed to recognise this fundamental contradiction? His says the “Golden Rule” should be used to evaluate actions but not retribution, which is bizarre since retribution is itself an action that needs to be guided. Otherwise one can exceed the limits of retribution thereby violating the “Golden-Rule”! For example[2] the citizens of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Fallujah, Mei Lai, Sabra-Shatila etc. would certainly argue that point where needless disproportionate-inhumane-systematic-indiscriminate mass executions of innocent civilians took place! These examples never seem to register in Mr Sina’s ‘moral’ conscience. If I were to lower myself to using Mr Sina’s language [3] I would have said he is devoid of human feeling like an animal. Divorcing the “Golden Rule” from retribution proves that then rule is inadequate to provide solutions for addressing numerous complex issues in life. More importantly how can Mr Sina continue to be abusive and rant about the Islamic penal codes and by implication Islamic justice and injustice? Therefore, on what grounds will Mr Sina bring his allegations since much of it is based on the Islamic penal codes for which the “Golden Rule” has no answers according to Mr Sina’s words? This also proved my earlier point that when the anti-Islamic-fascists are asked to elaborate on their alternative they either churn out contradictory statements or exhibit ‘silence’ by going into an abusive mode. If I was Mr Sina I would resign at this point and not suffer further embarrassment by attempting to defend such absurd and contradictory ideas while waving the flag of “logical gun”, “freethinker”, “commonsense”! Moreover, if the diatribe pertaining to the Islamic penal code remains on Mr Sina’s website, he must be either a hypocrite or intellectually inept unable to understand the implications of his own statements! While on the subject of retribution we see the shameless hypocrisy from these anti-Islamic-fascists moaning about retaliation whilst remaining mute on the initial aggression. For example, a quick beheading by a knife is evil but not indiscriminate use of napalm causing severe pain as the victims are roasted to death. Similarly being subjected to slow torture (“softening up”) or sodomised to death in Abu-Ghraib is euphemistically termed ‘abuse’ but any retaliation is ‘terrorism’. Then Mr Sina has the audacity to lecture others about ethics and also you can see why Mr Sina is not interested in the subject of retribution? The Nazis used to hide their natural human emotions and suppress their guilt by releasing the lethal gas from a distance. A behaviour that is being replicated by the likes of Ali Sina as he absorbs uncritically the sanitised version of the war, ignoring the mass beheadings and more, done by the US forces. And if I were to exercise my legitimate right of retaliation [4] I also would have used terms like “animals” and “sub-humans” to describe Mr Sina. But I prefer to remain civil and focused on the actual arguments instead of constantly ranting, abusing and producing lengthy discussion on speculative theories regarding pre-historic apes, all of which has no relevance to the debate. Just to remind everyone my very first response made reference to the issue of keeping decorum but as usual Mr Sina bragged about it then true to his hypocritical nature violated it subsequently.

Mr. Zakaria,

The Golden Rule and retribution are two different concepts. The Golden rule tells you to treat others with fairness. But what if you don’t? What if you abuse their rights and act unjustly? Then a just society that is bound by the Golden Rule must bring you to justice.

For example stealing is wrong and it is against the Golden Rule. But thieves exist everywhere. Not everyone can live by the high standards set by the Golden Rule. Your own prophet is a good example. He broke all the rules. A just society must bring to justice law breakers like him.

The purported raison d’être of religions is to guide people to do the right thing. If everyone was doing the right thing then there would be no need for religions. People break the Golden Rule and wrong others. That is when retribution is needed. How this retribution is applied varies from society to society and it depends on how they interpret the Golden Rule.

Stealing is wrong in all societies. But the punishment for stealing is different from society to society. For example in Canada if you are caught shoplifting and it is your first time you can get away with some hours of community work. In Islamic countries your hand may be chopped. In Western countries pedophilia is an unforgivable crime. You can’t get away with it if you are convicted even decades after committing the crime. In Islamic countries you may not be even charged.

The person who commits a crime is breaking the Golden Rule. Unfortunately law breakers exist in all the societies. How to make people law abiding, is a painstaking process and it must start by educating families, eliminating poverty, providing opportunities and hopes for the youth, etc. How a society applies retribution after the law is breached also depends on how it interprets the Golden Rule.

The Golden Rule dictates that the punishment must not exceed the crime. Since Islamic societies are not bound by the Golden Rule, but by what Muhammad said, their laws of retribution are often unjust. Stoning the adulterers, killing the apostates chopping the hands of thieves or gauging his eyes, are contrary to the Golden Rule. You wrote:

“Therefore, if the “Golden Rule” has “nothing to do with” retribution by implication it is also practically divorced from justice.

I could not have said it better. By your own admission, Islam has nothing to do with the Golden Rule and the universally accepted norms of fairness. Therefore it is divorced from justice.

Again you could not resist the temptation of talking about Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Fallujah, Mei Lai, Sabra-Shatila, etc.

Again I have to remind you that you are engaging in tu quoque fallacy. This debate is not about America. You are here to prove Islam is a religion sent by God. America is just a country and Americans are fallible. How in your mind the sins of Americans justify the sins of Muhammad is beyond me. Are you capable of defending Islam or all you can do is engage in “you too” fallacy?

You ask “on what grounds will Mr Sina bring his allegations since much of it is based on the Islamic penal codes for which the “Golden Rule” has no answers according to Mr Sina’s words?”

Of course the Golden Rule has answers. But the penal code and the Golden Rule are two different things. The penal code must be fair and just and hence in harmony with the Golden Rule. In Islam neither the guidelines given to the individual nor the laws are in conformity with the Golden Rule. The guidance given to the Muslims is unfair and so are the laws. In Islam women are not treated equally, the minorities are second class citizens, the apostates must be put to death. These teachings are unfair. Also the laws of Sharia are unjust.

The more Mr Sina is unmasked the more difficulty he is facing. The above mentioned points proved that he cannot even present a coherent set of thoughts, let alone a comprehensive alternative to Islam. Like I said earlier, anyone can call others ugly behind a mask but once they have to expose their face it is not so easy. Indeed, Mr Sina is feeling very uncomfortable being unmasked as he is so used to hurling insults and abuse at the Prophet (SAW) and the Muslims behind the mask, expecting the Muslims to simply defend as if they are already guilty by Mr Sina’s allegation; and Mr Sina by de facto would be judge, jury and executioner.

Mr. Zakaria. You keep dodging the main subject. You already talked about my “mask” and me being judge, jury and executioner. Our readers got your point. Leave it to them to be the judge now. Please talk about Islam. You are not here to talk about my mask or me; you are here to disprove my charges against Muhammad. Do you think you are up to it? Or all you can do is talk about my “mask”, Hiroshima and Abu Ghraib, filibuster and dodge the main issue which is Islam?

Thus, Mr Sina makes another desperate attempt to alter the framework of the debate so that he can assume the position of judge, jury and executioner and accordingly he presented his argument and he says:“The charges are that he was not a Prophet of God but a cult leader and an impostor. The challenge is to prove me wrong. You accepted this challenge. Now you have to prove me wrong or accept defeat and withdraw.” The challenge was initiated by Mr Sina; rational necessity dictates that the onus is on him to substantiate the charges FIRST and its basis since we are not in a court of law where the legal framework is already in existence and enforced upon the two sides. Furthermore, the statement “Challenge is to prove me wrong” shows his arrogance and devious nature. If we took on the challenge at face value it would mean accepting that Mr Sina is right unless we can prove him wrong, thus giving credence to the allegations. On the other hand we would be presumed to be guilty unless we can prove our innocence to Ali Sina the ‘Prophet’ of the “Golden-Rule” cult! Mr Sina is desperate for that position of being a judge, jury and executioner where the burden of proof is shifted entirely only on our neck!

Several times I asked you to let me present the charges one by one and back them with my proof. Each time you insisted that you want to respond to what I have written already first. I think we are going in circles and you are not adding anything new to the discussion. Therefore, I am going to present my first charge whether you are ready for it or not right after this response. We must not keep you waiting any longer.

Mr Sina must learn the Golden Rule of a debate; – which is a two-way contest, where he must prove his allegations as much I have to prove them to be false. I hope Mr Sina’s supporters will make him understand this elementary point and anyone with an atom of sincerity would see what I am stating is fair.

It seems that you know the meaning of the Golden Rule after all. If you are asking me to abide by it lest your rights are violated, why do you think you are above it when it comes to the rights of other people?

Yes Mr. Zakaria, I understand this elementary point. It is you who call it “a cult” created by me.

Mr Sina’s conniving attempt to assume the position of being right putting the entire burden of proof on us is demonstrated by addressing Mr Sina’s claim that the Prophet was an impostor unless we can prove otherwise. He cites various allegations in an abusive tone as ‘proof’ of why Muhammad (SAW) is not a Prophet. This approach is intellectually dishonest (devious) since even if we refute Mr Sina’s allegations that only establish Muhammad as innocent of those charges – it does not prove his Prophethood, since Mr Sina has not stated what constitutes Prophethood. Otherwise any individual can be identified as a Prophet if he evades Mr Sina’s charges. Had Mr Sina approached the subject objectively, logic (something that he mentions but never seems to apply) would have required for him to define what constitutes Prophethood in the first place and then build his argument from that basis. His lack of definition shows he is not interested in the subject of Prophethood but only how he can legitimise his constant defaming of a person who is not here personally to defend himself. This is something Mr Sina replicated when he abused his relatives behind their back without provocation! How disgusting! These are the traits of a coward who is intellectually bankrupt. Without elaboration on Prophethood Mr Sina’s allegations are unsubstantiated. His charges are subjective, based upon his vague notion of right and wrong allegedly derived from the “Golden Rule” which he is struggling to articulate as being universal and absolute in the first place.

The burden of proof is always on one who makes an accession. You are claiming that Muhammad was a prophet of God. It is up to you to prove this claim. I am claiming that he was a pedophile, a mass murderer, a lecher, a rapist, an assassin, a thief, and a psychopath. It is up to me to prove these charged. You have not given any proof of the prophethood of Muhammad and you are not going to give any because you have got none. However, I have proof to all the above charges and I will start on them right after this response.

These are two different issues. If we both fail to back up our claims with proof, Muhammad is neither a prophet not a monster. He is just an ordinary man and a liar. But if I manage to prove any of my charges then Muhammad becomes a criminal. If I manage to prove all of the above charges then he is indeed a monster.

A more serious problem for Mr Sina is that if he acknowledges Prophethood he is then forced to acknowledge the existence of GOD! Which in turn is made difficult as judging from Mr Sina’s writing he seems to deny the existence of God as he denies the notion of accountability and afterlife? Which is why I am also perplexed why Mr Sina also keeps referring to Satan!

I am not here to prove the existence or inexistence of God. For the sake of argument I agree with the religious notion of God as believed by the monotheistic religions.  Also for the sake of argument, let us suppose that Satan exists. With that premise I can show that Muhammad was more likely sent by Satan than by God. This makes your job really simple. You don’t have to prove the existence of God and Satan. All you have to do is to prove that Muhammad was a messenger of this God you are talking about and not of Satan.

In any case, God Al-mighty is by definition the absolute creator of the universe including Mr Sina. So what right does Mr Sina have to impose his criteria of Prophethood on God? In fact if he did it would be irrational as questioning GOD means to undermine the entity (GOD) that created Mr Ali Sina and his mind. Thus, if GOD is faulty by definition Mr Sina’s mind must also be faulty! The Creator cannot be deficient whilst its created subject right, it is as absurd as expecting the branches of a tree to remain up whilst the root of the tree is severed.

The only faulty thing here is your reasoning. You first assume that Allah is God and my creator and then say I should not question him. This is absurd. You have not yet proven this thing you call Allah is actually God. I say Allah, or whoever whispered the Quran to the ears of Muhammad, far from being God is Satan. I can easily show the god of Muhammad was satanic. All I have to do is to quote a few verses from the Quran.

How ludicrous it would be if I tell you that I have brought a message from Jumjum who is the real creator of this universe, and I am his messenger and then demand your absolute obedience and submission to him and myself without providing any proof to my claim! Wouldn’t you ask me for a proof? If you are intelligent you would. If you are not you may believe me without asking for a proof. Why should we be stupid and believe Muhammad who gave no proof whatsoever for his claim?

Further Inconsistencies of the “Golden Rule” CultSelf-Evident and Universal – I have already dealt earlier with the issue of Retribution and Mr Sina acknowledged this rule is inadequate to cover that sphere. Mr Sina charges on the basis of violating his “Golden Rule” whilst my premise is one of Islam, so “logic” and “commonsense” means we need to agree on some common principles by which we can assess the allegations. Otherwise both sides will only trade accusations and counter accusations. Mr Sina proposed “Golden Rule” as a premise which I disputed by giving five or more categories of reasons and not just simply due to my denial as Mr Sina alleges in desperation and laughably declares victory! Note also that not only I dispute the rule itself as an ultimate arbiter but also its interpretation given the various circumstances! Mr Sina suddenly alleges that he is not required to “prove the legitimacy” of the “Golden Rule” as it is a universal principle and self evident. On the contrary he says I must prove legitimacy of Islam against the assumed “Golden Rule”. So once again Mr Sina wants to turn the debate into an inquisition of the “Golden Rule” shifting the entire burden of proof on my neck – condemned as guilty until I can prove my innocence! I too can make the same claim about legitimacy of Islam especially as there are over 1.5 billion followers that continues to grow, a system that has been around for 1500 years. Hence ‘slightly’ larger than the “Golden Rule” cult followers who are like all the other cults mentioned, recent and ephemeral.

The Golden Rule is not a cult. It is another name for fairness. It says treat others the way you want to be treated. How can this be a cult?

The Golden Rule is a principle not a group. Looks like you are more confused than I had originally thought.

A few paragraphs earlier you wrote: “Mr Sina must learn the Golden Rule of a debate; – which is a two-way contest, where he must prove his allegations as much I have to prove them to be false.”

Here you are asking me to follow the Golden Rule. In other words you are telling me to be fair. So how can fairness be considered a cult? What you say is not only preposterous, but also absurd. Fairness is an attitude. It is not a cult? This is beyond absurdity. It borders ridicule.

If the “Golden Rule” is universal and self-evident where are the followers and volumes of books and scholarly materials on the subject? Which society is a practical example of that? In fact there is not even a section on it on his website? Why? The truth is we only discovered his “Golden Rule” during the course of this debate! Mr. Sina is now beginning to sound like an irrational fanatic who is trying to shove down people’s throat the cult of the “Golden Rule” as he admits his blind faith in the issue. So it is Mr Sina that is in denial not me as I have presented numerous arguments against the “Golden Rule” with evidence. But of course there are many readers and most certainly the objective ones will see this as Mr Sina’s open hypocrisy and a complete idiocy after taunting the Muslims for talking Islam at face value.

There are no volumes of scholarly dissertations on the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is one sentence and it requires no explanation. It is the most obvious principle. It is our inner compass. It tells us how to be fair. No one wrote a book on it because no one is stupid enough to question it.

Why I never talked about it before? Because you are the first person who are questioning it! I could never believe someone would disagree with the Golden Rule.

Your expertise as a Muslim is “tu quoque“. You don’t know how to defend Islam. It is not just you; not a single Muslim that can defend Islam. But you are all experts in the logical fallacy of tu quoque. That is why you attack the Golden Rule. This is pathetic. I am saying Islam is not fair and you are telling us, but fairness is a cult. Is there anything more ridiculous than this?

Hence, to cover his inadequacies Mr Sina unashamedly borrows statements from other religions to support his case!

The adherence to the principle of the Golden Rule is the common denominator of all religions. Why should this be shameful? I believe it is shameful to advocate a religion that is contrary to the Golden Rule.

He also tries to make a ludicrous analogy between the “Golden Rule” with the tangible realities perceived through our senses. Sense perception of the reality is what the human mind can determine alone using the senses and previous knowledge. Like everyone can verify using their senses that fire is hotter than ice and the night as being darker than day, sun is brighter than the moon. But that is not the case with morality, ethics and principles that are dependent on your external values, beliefs etc.

This is a case of self projection. All the sane people of the world can distinguish between right and wrong intuitively. Muslims are the only exceptions who follow someone else. Yes our senses can tell us what is wrong, unjust or cruel. Those whose sense of morality is not numbed by a cult created by a psychopath can easily differentiate between justice and injustice, kindness and cruelty, honesty and deceit, etc. with the same certainty that they can differentiate between light and darkness or warmth and coldness. We use the Golden Rule to determine that. Why do you think “that is not the case with morality”? It is because as a Muslim you are a moral relativist. You are genuinely unable to see the difference between good and bad. Good and bad, in your twisted sense of morality do not have any meaning. Good is what benefits your cult and bad is what endangers your cult. So if by murdering children in Beslan your cult benefits, that mass murder is a good and the perpetrators of that heinous crime are “freedom fighters”. But if someone writes a book or an article and tells the truth about Islam that unmasks it, that is evil and the person who has done it must be killed.

Morality, ethics and principles are not dependent on our external values and beliefs.  Rape, pedophilia, murder, theft and assassination are bad irrespective of our beliefs.

I am very pleased that you are so straightforward and unlike many other Muslim apologists are not trying to misrepresent Islam. You are really unmasking Islam for the world to see. According to your moral relativist cult all the above sins are good if they are perpetrated by Muslims and their prophet who according to you defines what is morality and if the same is done by others they are bad. So you can’t really say Murder is bad. It depends on who is the murderer and who is the victim. If the murderer is a Muslim killing a non-Muslim, then it is okay. If it is the other way round, it is bad.

Muslims can lie and it is good, but others must not. Muslims can rape the non-Muslims and it is good, but if a non Muslim looks at a Muslim woman he must die for it and his community must pay for it with blood and rape. Muslims can bomb and kill thousands of innocent people and when they do it, it is a divine justice, but if the non-Muslims kill by accident a Muslim this is a crime that all the non-Muslims must pay for it. This is the essence of what Mr. Zakaria is saying and Islam stands for. He says morality, ethics and principles depend on your external values. If your external values tell you that you are a superior being by virtue of your belief in a deity called Allah, you can commit all the crimes and still be a good person. But if you are an unbeliever even your good works are meaningless and you’ll be burned in Hellfire.

Those relate to: “what you ought to do” not what the reality of the physical world is. So the analogy cited by Mr Sina does not support his “Golden Rule” but to the contrary it proves he does not understand the principle that he is citing. Either way this is a poor attempt to evade the real crux of the debate as Mr Sina is being unmasked he feels very uncomfortable as his superficial thoughts is being exposed, of course everyone is already familiar with his anti-Islamic-fascist diatribes. The only other corroborative evidences are some handpicked and borrowed religious references. Since Mr Sina lacking his own bible of the “Golden Rule” he unashamedly borrows from the religions that he disbelieves in the first place! In fact he cannot cite one person or one piece of text that exclusively talks about his so-called “Golden-Rule” yet we are to take his word as this is universal? This is again more absurdity from Mr Sina. Further contradictions are exposed below.

The very fact that all the religions and social philosophies talk about the Golden Rule prove the universality of this principle. The fact that Islam is the only exception justifies the existence of Faithfreedom.org. As I stated in the mission statement, we are not against faith. We are against hate. The reason we fight Islam is because it is a cult of hate that is divorced from the basic precepts of goodness and is in defiance of the Golden Rule.

It is not that Mr. Zakaria disagrees with the Golden Rule. In fact when he urges me to be fair and follow “my” Golden Rule and prove my allegations to be true as much as he has to prove them to be false, he shows that he knows what the Golden Rule is. However his Islamic moral relativism makes him demand that I follow “my” Golden Rule while he considers himself exempt from it.

The reader must note that Mr. Zakaria is not making these rules up. He is faithfully presenting the Islamic morality and ethics. Muslims invariably are convinced that they are entitled to harm you, but you are not allowed to retaliate. Assuming that Muslims have the same vales as others is a grave mistake that could cost many lives. Muslims are not bound by the same morality that others are. They will kill you with clarity of conscience and without any compunction. Your best Muslim friend will rape your wife and slash your throat. You do not have to listen to me, just listen to Mr. Zakaria. He is a true Muslim. He is telling the truth when he says the Golden Rule is worthless and morality, ethics and principles depend on your exterior values. To understand what are the Islamic values all you have to do is to read the Quran. The Quran says you are a filthy infidel that deserve to be killed or reduced into slavery and dhimitude and become subdued, humiliated and pay tributary to Muslim masters.

If you think you can win the hearts and the minds of Muslims by being kind to them you are committing a huge mistake. As for Muslims, they think it is your duty to be good to them, but they do not have to reciprocate because they are above the Golden Rule. Muslims have different values. Their morality, ethics and principles derive from their values and not the other way round.

a) As a reminder, by not bringing proof Mr Sina is in fact breaking his first rule confirming his hypocritical nature once again, when he said: “Let us make this a rule: Each one of us is free to make any assumption that he pleases but he must be able to prove that assumption or withdraw it… BUT we must prove it or take it back”.

This is already answered.

If the rule was self-evident and universal I would not be able to contest it in this manner. His assertions that the “Golden Rule” does not need to be proved shows his inadequacy and tantamount to a kangaroo court where the claimant brings the charges against the defendant even before the rules for evaluating the charges has been agreed.

The manner you contested? All you said is that the Golden Rule “is a cult”. This doe

s not show the inadequacy of the Golden Rule. It only shows your inadequacy to understand the basics of logic.

b) Mr Sina gets himself into a bigger muddle. He says only Islam is non-compliant to the rule but all the other religions cited are on the basis of quoting a single reference from each religion. As if those religions are representative based on that single quote! The first religion cited by Mr Sina i.e. the Baha’i Faith [4] (Heretical sect within Islam) clearly acknowledges Muhammad as a Prophet (SAW) not an impostor, diametrically opposing Mr Sina’s allegation. So how can the Baha’i who is siding with the violators (Islam) of the “Golden Rule” be a reference for the rule? This is again clear absurdity from Mr Sina who has got his basic facts wrong not for the first time, yet brags about his ‘scholarly’ level and menacing debating capabilities!

The Golden Rule is a universality of this principle. Under no circumstance I agree with all these religions who contradict each other. The point is not that these religions are true; the point is that the concept of Golden Rule is self evident and universal. All the people of the world, irrespective of their religion, agree with this principle. Muslims are the only exception. Everyone knows doing evil is bad and ends do not justify the means. Muslims are the only people who believe good and bad are relative and they can do evil if the end justifies it. This makes Muslims very dangerous. Mr. Zakaria’s confession should serve as a warning that Muslims cannot be trusted. Kindness to Muslims will not be interpreted as a sign of goodness and friendship that needs to be reciprocated but rather as the sign of weakness, which must be taken advantage of to further the supremacy of Islam.

If you feed a dog, eventually he wags his tail and becomes your friend, but if you feed a wild animal such as a bear, you only endanger your own life. Wild animals do not have conscience and are not bound by the Golden Rule. Muslims have the same level of maturity as far as their conscience is concerned.  Kindness to Muslims is a big mistake that could cost your life. First you have to wean them from Islam and convert them into humans and then be kind to them. Appeasing Muslims could bring this world to its doom. Muslims must be educated, and weaned from their barbaric cult or crushed, but never appeased.

Just when you thought it can’t get any worse well it does. Mr Sina also cites Sheikh Saadi to support his “Golden Rule” but Sheikh Saadi was a known and a highly regarded Islamic-poet who openly praised the Prophet in his poetry that is recited by the millions of Muslims. He says: “He (Prophet Muhammad) attained the pinnacle of greatness with his perfection; he dispelled darkness with his beauty; excellent were all his qualities; shower your blessings on him (Prophet Muhammad) and his family”. According to Sina’s ‘logic’ Sheikh Saadi, an admirer and a follower of the Prophet (SAW) should really be an animal, but yet Mr Sina hypocritically cites him as someone who is compliant to his “Golden Rule”. Displaying such blatant inconsistencies one can only conclude he is far from a rational person.

Sa’di was a great poet and a humanist. But he was a human and humans are fallible. Sa’di did not know what I know. Many Muslims today are like Sa’di. They have fallen in love with an Islam that exists nowhere except in their imagination. That Islam is pure. They are fed with lies about Muhammad and his virtues. They believe in those lies and venerate that monster believing him to be a superior being. Sa’di, Gandhi, Bernard Saw and many others were ignorant of Islam. Muslims are not truthful in presenting their religion. Even G.W. Bush said Islam is a religion of peace. What does he know about Islam? None of these people who spoke loftily about Muhammad and Islam are authorities on Islam. Sa’di was born in an Islamic country where criticism of Islam was not allowed. How could he have known the truth about Islam to form an independent and unbiased opinion? If you had asked me a decade ago I would have said the same thing about Muhammad and Islam that Sa’di said. But then my words were informed by ignorance. Today that I know Islam better I am challenging the greatest Muslim scholars to confront me and prove me wrong. The wiser ones stay away; the foolhardy accepts the challenge and is crushed.  If Sa’di was alive today, I would have challenged his statement about Muhammad. I am sure, had Sa’di knew the real Islam, he, like Haifa,  Hamidah and many others would have left Islam.

There is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad verecundiam. It states that something must be true because an authoritative person believes in it. Bill Gates once said that 1 mega bite disk space is more than enough for any computer user. Just because a person of authority says something that thing does not become true. What evidence Sa’di gave in his support of Muhammad? None! He simply echoed the misconception of others. Sa’di was a great man but this does not mean whatever he said was right. He was fallible.

e) Of the religions cited by Mr Sina there are many that clearly violate his “Golden Rule” fundamentally. For example, Judaism considers Mr Sina to be a Gentile and a true subhuman that exists to serve the chosen people of God (Goyeem). The non-Jews (Gentiles) like Mr Sina have practically no value. Here are some examples:“Eating with the Gentiles is like eating with the animals” “A Jew cannot be tried for the murder of a non-Jew but only man slaughter” “A Jew cannot be charged for the rape of a Gentile woman” What Mr Sina was describing about Islam are the very ideas that are held by such people, some of them no doubt are very strong supporter of Mr Sina. But Mr Sina will ignore and remain hypocritically silent on this religion. His so-called moral conscience will evaporate even if he is put on leash by the Jews as he is a worthless Gentile in their eyes. I am still perplexed what is Mr Sina exactly trying to prove by citing those single references from the various religions which not only violates the rule but one is even supportive of Muhammad(SAW).

(points “c” and “d” are missing or you just made a mistake in numbering)

I don’t recall having read such verses in the Bible. I am sure you either made them up or you quote them mindlessly after another Muslim lied about them and you believed him without trying to verify them.

These are false, and not supported in Judaism. Eating with Gentiles is permitted as long as the food complies with Kosher restrictions.

A Jew can and will be tried for murder of a non-Jew. The commandment thou shalt not Murder makes no exception between Jews and Gentiles. The only qualification that can be made concerning this commandment is that killing (not murder) is acceptable, if it is to save an innocent life. Imagine killing a person threatening a child with a weapon.

A Jew can be charged for the rape of a Gentile. This falsehood comes up most often from anti-Semites who claim Talmudic authority for it- there is none, and when people like Mr. Zakaria give a citation for its source, they often cite books that do not exist.

Nonetheless, the Old Testament contains a lot of garbage.  I read that book when I was 13 years old and could not contain my laughter. Later I learned more and found out that Moses was a mythical person and the OT was written by four Rabbis, 700 to 900 years after the alleged life of Moses. A good proof for that is the Deut. 34. This book is allegedly written by Moses. Apart from the fact that the entire Pentateuch that contains Deuteronomy refers to Moses in third person, it has this obituary about him.

^“5 And Moses the servant of the LORD died there in Moab, as the LORD had said. ⁶ He buried him in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is. ^{… 10} Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses,”

It is more than obvious that the Pentateuch was written centuries after the death of Moses and Moses could not have been an important person or the Jews would not have lost his burial place.

OT is a book of myths, legends, some good advice and a lot of nonsense. But Muhammad believed in those Biblical fairytales and plagiarized that book to make his own religion. The above verses which you have invented remind us of the Quran and hadith.

Compare the above verses that you agree are bad with these words of Muhammad that you think are divine:

9:28 “O you who believe! Verily, the Mushrikûn (unbeleivers) are Najasun (impure). So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (at Makkah) after this year, …”

2:65 And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: “Be ye apes, despised and rejected.” See also005.060 007.166

Muhammad sanctioned the rape of women captured in war even if they are previously married.

4:24 “Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess”:

Sahih Bukhari 1.3.111
Abu Juhaifa said, “I asked, [Ali] ‘What is (written) in this sheet of paper?’ Ali replied, it deals with The Diyya (compensation (blood money) paid by the killer to the relatives of the victim), the ransom for the releasing of the captives from the hands of the enemies, and the law that no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for the killing of (a disbeliever).

I condemn both books. The difference is that the Jews know their book is a book of stories and do not take it verbatim. Certainly we do not see Jews practicing the hatred of Gentiles today. But Muslims have not reached that maturity. They believe Muhammad defined the good and the bad and whatever he said should be obeyed.

So how is it that you condemn the Bible and follow the Quran that is worse? Isn’t this hypocrisy and double standard? Of course it is and you are not even hiding it. You believe in moral relativism. You don’t think hadith and the Quran are evil even though they echo the same evil concepts that you falsely allege are in the Bible and criticize them. You are capable of slandering others of your own crimes and find them guilty to justify yours.

f) “Logic” and “commonsense” states that if a religion is compliant to the “Golden Rule” on the basis of one reference then it must be equally considered non-complaint if it violates the “Golden Rule” in one or more issues. “Logic” dictates that you can be either compliant or non-complaint but not both simultaneously! In another paragraph he says: “in all the religions, the Golden rule applies. This is not to say that I agree with these religions. They are a mix bag of good and bad” The “bad” that Mr Sina refers to must be non-compliant to his “Golden Rule”. Thereby rendering these religions non-complaint by one criterion but also compliant by another criterion! Clearly this is absurd and illogical. But this also proves that Mr Sina is not opposed to the violation of the “Golden Rule” per se since any other faith are given the privilege to break the rule but not Islam. This is another clear proof of an irrational man driven by prejudice and blind fanaticism.

Mr. Zakaria, you don’t understand neither logic nor commonsense. These religions are manmade. I don’t believe in any religion. Men are fallible. The point is that these religions acknowledge the Golden Rule as the foundation of their faith, but this does not mean that they always follow it. I can bring cases where all the religions fail to comply with what they preach. However Islam is the only religion that brazenly denies the Golden Rule. This makes a colossal difference.

Because all other religions, at least ostensibly, agree to submit to the Golden Rule they share common values. Good and bad is equally understood by all of them. In Islam this is not the case. When Muslims talk about good and bad they mean totally different things. The non-Muslims can easily be fooled and misled by these words. For example if a Muslim says my Prophet instructs me to be good and just to you, the non-Muslims is deceived. He interprets this “goodness” and “justice” according to his own values derived from the Golden Rule and he lowers his guard thinking this Muslim is also a human like him with the values that all of us humans share. But this lack of understanding of Islam could be his doom. The Muslim does not interpret good and justice in accordance with the Golden Rule. He interprets them in accordance with what Muhammad ordained and prohibited. Muhammad ordained killing the non-Muslim, looting him and raping his wife. This is how the Muslim interprets goodness and justice. As you explained so eloquently, Muslims don’t follow the Golden Rule. Muhammad is for them the one who defined what is good and bad and he set the standard. So while the non-Muslim thinks the Muslim is going to be just to him, the Muslim stabs him in the back, rapes his wife and steals his money, praising Allah while committing these crimes. He is happy because he thinks he has done the good thing and has fulfilled his duty to his god.

When you say you don’t follow the Golden Rule, you say a lot and reveal the real face of Islam for the world to see.

The Jews don’t follow evil teachings because they give more weight to the Golden Rule. The Jews read them but don’t register them and don’t follow them because they know that the Golden Rule should define the values not the other way round. Muslims read similar and worse verses in their books and since they don’t follow the Golden Rule, they have no inner compass of right and wrong and they happily commit all sorts of crimes without knowing what they do is wrong. This makes Muslims extremely dangerous and untrustworthy. You never know when your best Muslim friend is going to slash your throat.

Absolute or Subjective – Mr Sina still insists that the “Golden Rule” is not subjective but the rule clearly states individuals should decide and behave according to their own evaluation of what is right and wrong! If this is not subjective then someone should explain to Mr Sina what subjective means, these are simple ideas that should be present in a self-proclaimed ‘menacing’ debater and a ‘scholar’! Just to remind the readers he also claimed morality was absolute but now he has done a U-Turn on that issue but his ego has prevented him from admitting the fault and got into further twist (See Part 2). If the “Golden Rule” was not subjective, the implication is everyone naturally concurs on the evaluation of the “Golden Rule” in every specific situation. But that would be going into cloud cuckoo land of Mr Sina. Mr Sina naturally avoided this principle and jumped to argue the example of cheating as being unlawful citing few simple cases as if the law itself is clear covering every scenario. If that was so there would be very few litigations as people would concur in their interpretations of the law. Also, the laws differ on cheating across societies hence so does the notion of cheating, therefore it is subjective. Internally, the laws pertaining to cheating also changes again indicative of its subjective nature. Furthermore, cheating is a moral notion which may or many not be inculcated in legal principles, it encompasses many areas. Some married men think that flirting with a woman is innocent but others would dispute. How does the “Golden Rule” view the issue of abortion, as some people see it as Murder others disagree? And so on. The “Golden Rule” can only be absolute when confined to a jar in a vacuum devoid of all reality, as an abstract notion. Mr Sina’s elaboration with a few simple examples to demonstrate concurrence but that is far from the complete picture. But someone surely needs to explain to MR Sina what is meant by subjectivity otherwise he is still under the absurd assumption.

Morality derived from the Golden Rule is universal. However, people adopt their own morality based on their values. These moralities are relative. For example Christian morality is based on Christian values and Islamic morality is based on Islamic values. So morality can be relative, but moral relativism is wrong. Only the morality that derives from the Golden Rule is independent of people’s twisted values and is right.

Values vary from culture to culture, religion to religion and even person to person. But the Golden Rule is a torch of guidance that sheds its light to all the people equally irrespective of their beliefs. The more our values coincide with the Golden Rule the more ethical and righteous we become. The more a culture or religion is divorced from the Golden Rule the more evil it becomes. Nazis had their own values but their values were wrong. They were wrong because they were divorced from the Golden Rule. Islam is completely against the Golden Rule. It is completely evil.

Light reflects on various objects with different intensities. Objects that are exposed to direct sunshine reflect its light most faithfully. Objects that are hidden from direct sunshine also reflect the light, but with less intensity. Objects that are completely away from the light don’t reflect any light. So the light of the sun is absolute but each object reflects a different shade of that light and hence light emitted by these objects is relative. Likewise the morality derived from the Golden Rule is absolute. But since people’s interpretations vary their morality is relative to the extent that they interpret the Golden Rule. The closer you follow the Golden Rule the more moral you become. Islam is defiant of the Golden Rule. This makes Islam absolute evil. All other religions are a mix bag of good and bad. Islam is the only doctrine that is bereft of any good.

The Golden Rule is unerring and necessary inner compass of guidance, but this does not mean it is panacea. As the controversy over abortion demonstrates, there are gray areas for which the Golden Rule has no answers. In cases like that the society must strike a balance between protecting the right of the unborn and the health of the mother. There are many other gray areas for which the answer may not come so easily.

Mr. Zakaria who is rejecting the Golden Rule claims the guidance is given to us through revelation. Can he prove that this revelation he is talking about actually did take place and was not a hallucination of a mentally deranged man? This is the question I have been asking Mr. Zakaria and he has been avoiding so far.

What if Muhammad lied? What if he was a psychopath? Mr. Zakaria is willing to sacrifice everything, break the Golden Rule and do evil, based on a totally unsubstantiated and unproven claim of a man. Is this logical? Nay; it is the apex of stupidity.  Muslims are killing innocent people every day. They killed millions since they followed the instructions of Muhammad. More people were killed in the name of Islam than in all other wars. Only in India alone over 80 million people were massacred by Muslims. Then there is infighting among Muslims who call each other heretic and slay one another. The slaughter continues. Isn’t it time to question whether Muhammad was telling the truth or he was lying?

Conflicts – The “Golden Rule” has no way to determine and practically invoke a solution to conflicts. Nations do not act on the rule but on their self-interests, especially Capitalist states like the US. I am again perplexed why Mr Sina thinks the US is compliant with the “Golden Rule” especially in the realm of its foreign policy. I gave my example of China in Tibet and Israel in Palestine earlier. Mr Sina forged ahead siding with Tibet against China (Most probably as the US sees China as a potential enemy) but that is simply the interpretation of Mr Sina he as he makes no references to the Chinese side of the argument. What is even more Mr Sina then invokes the right of the US to invade Iraq, kill so many people in the name of liberation? This is after Mr Sina’s constant bragging about murder being evil. Never mind the “Golden Rule” of the Iraqis or who authorised the US. So why the US was right to invade a land that is definitely not within its vicinity but China is wrong to take Tibet which was part of its territory historically. Mr Sina simply made his own interpretation of the facts proving again that the “Golden Rule” is subjective and it is unable to resolve such conflicts taking both sides of the arguments, when both sides equally argue their “Golden-Rule” is violated by the other? Even if we take Mr Sina’s verdict who will enforce it, otherwise the rule is irrelevant can be ignored and will be ignored which is the reality across the world.

The difference between Chinese occupation of Tibet and America’s invasion of Iraq is glaringly obvious. Tibet was never historically part of China. You need to check your facts. Chinese have taken away the rights of the Tibetans and have reduced a sovereign country into a colony. The Tibetans are not allowed to vote and elect their own representatives. Democracy, i.e. the rule of people, is stifled and the voices of dissent are gagged. The situation in Iraq is the reverse. Americans are not there to steal anything, but to set that country free. They have allowed the Iraqis to elect their own government. America has helped Iraq financially and is rebuilding it.

Only an intellectual midget is unable to see the difference between the illegal occupation of Tibet by the Chinese who are there for no other reason than to conquer and steal and the American invasion of Iraq who are there to free the Iraqis and the world from one of the most brutal regimes of our time.

Making such comparison is like equating thieves and cops because both carry guns and shoot to kill. Only a person blinded by hate and bereft of discernment is capable of making such a comparison.

Similarly no surprise Mr Sina sided with the Israelis over Palestine (I am sure he does not want his funding to be affected) by referring to post 1948 as if Israel has always existed there. Its existence is a crime as it was the Jews who have come over from Europe to occupy Palestine and with the help of colonial states it was carved out in 1948. Israel is a state for the Jews, the ‘chosen’ people and Mr Sina would be a Gentile whose blood is expendable according to the Talmudic edict. In any case, why is Mr Sina’s interpretation and application of the “Golden Rule” is valid but not ours? Whose “Golden Rule” will prevail probably depend on the “might is right” as the Americans and the Israelis are doing today. If the Golden Rule cannot be used as an arbiter in dispute than how can the allegations against the Prophet be brought concerning all the battles He participated in.

The claim that the Golden Rule cannot be used to determine that injustice and aggressions are wrong is preposterous. Mr. Zakaria makes a fallacious premise and based on that he comes up with an equally false conclusion. He tries to discredit the Golden Rule as measure of right and wrong to establish the legitimacy of Muhammad and justify his crimes. Mr. Zakaria is not trying to defend Muhammad, but rather he is putting on trial the law itself and the very concept of fairness. I have to admit that during these years of debate with Muslims, I have seen everything, but I never came across a logic as warped and as bizarre as the one presented by Mr. Zakaria. What he is trying to establish is that the concept of fairness is evil and hence Muhammad should not be condemned for being unfair. It is like a thief arguing that the law of not stealing is an evil concept and he should not be tried for it or a rapist saying you must first prove that rape is bad before condemning me.

If I had not read Mr. Zakaria’s other essays I would have thought he is an enemy of Islam playing prank and is trying to make Muslims look stupid. For years I have tried to show Islam is evil in its core. I have been quite successful in my effort. But Mr. Zakaria has topped me in a few sessions.  With a few Muslim apologists like him, I can soon retire. They are living testimonies that Islam is evil in its core.

As for Israel, Mr. Zakaria, you must update your facts. Here are a few links that give you the history of Israel in nutshell.

For a brief history of “Palestine” and sovereignty over it

http://www.eylerz.net/brief_history.htm

History in a Nutshell
http://www.conceptwizard.com/conen/conflict_2.html

Nutshell Too

http://www.conceptwizard.com/nutoo/nutshell3.html

Israel on Trial

http://www.conceptwizard.com/trial/trial.html

Hague Professor of international law: This Is No “Occupation”
Arutz Sheva – Israel National News http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=44235

Reversing the Golden Rule – I gave some earlier examples of Rape, cannibalism and Paedophilia saying that those who would like to be subjected to these things may well argue using the principle of “golden Rule” that they have right to do this to others. Mr Sina as usual avoided the principle and delved into the examples [2], ranting about how such things exists in the Islamic world. My examples were not criticism nor did I claim that things like Cannibalism were widespread etc. Mr Sina pointed out the issue of consent (regarding rape) which is irrelevant as his “Golden Rule” does not refer to it. One may not consent and a rapist would definitely argue that if he is overpowered and raped that is fair game using the “Golden Rule”. So he goes on raping or he is raped in line with the “Golden Rule”! Hence using Mr Sina’s “Golden Rule” the rapists would have a great day! If someone says yes he does not mind to be eaten so why can’t he use the Golden Rule to eat others? If a man does not mind being sodomised why can’t he sodomise others? It is obscene that Mr Sina is trying to legitimise rape, murder and cannibalism etc through the backdoors then he has the audacity to lecture others about ethics. Furthermore, he paradoxically justifies using the “Golden Rule” the murder of the thousands of innocent Iraqis by the US forces which is the aggressor by any standards! Rather the “Golden Rule” is a license for Mr Sina to justify his anti-Islamic-fascist and murderous nature who will be happy to take on the role of migrant-coolie serving at the gates of the new gas chambers!

When I was in third grade elementary, our textbook had a story about a fox inviting a stork for dinner. At the table he served his guest the food on a plate. Of course the stork with his long bill did not get much food and left hungry. The next day it was the turn of the stork to entertain the fox. The stork decided to teach the fox a lesson. At the table he served the food in a narrow necked jar. The fox could not eat anything while the stork, dipped his long straight bill in the jar and had all the food to himself. The morale of the story was that if you want to do a favor to someone, do it on his term not on yours.

Looks like Mr. Zakaria has not been taught the basics of the Golden Rule and his excuses are of kindergarten grade. The Golden Rule does not allow one who likes to be sodomized to rape and sodomize others. It is not a license for a masochist who likes to be abused to abuse others. Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you, means treat people with the same respect and fairness that you wish to be treated. It does not mean since I like steak, I can feed steak to a new born baby or to my Hindu neighbor. It does not mean because I like to watch basketball I should take my wife to a basketball game for our anniversary when she likes concerts. The Golden Rule is for people with commonsense. It is definitely for those who are mature enough to find the right path on their own. People who lack commonsense or are deficient in intelligence, not only have difficulty interpreting the Golden Rule they can’t apply any rule at all. Despite the fact that laws are spelled out clearly, everywhere we find people who break them. This shows that the application of the law requires maturity. If you are selfish and immature it makes no difference whether you follow the Golden Rule or the regurgitated religious laws. If you don’t have commonsense, are selfish and inclined to do evil, neither the knowledge of the Golden Rule nor the strict religious laws make any difference.  You break them anyway and that is why penal codes and judiciary systems are needed to deal with lawbreakers.

The Golden Rule is not a substitute to the penal code and judiciary system. Because some people have no understanding of the Golden Rule and could interpret them the way you do, laws must be defined clearly so as to leave no ambiguity. If we did not have clear laws someone could rape a little child and use the silly logic you used in your previous “rebuttal” saying what difference one day can make? Then say what difference two days can make? So on so forth until he comes to the age of 6 or 4 to justify rape of children. If the law says thou shall not have sex with a girl less than 18 you must follow that law. In another country the age of consent may be 17 or 19. You must obey the law of the country in which you live. The Golden Rule can give you a general idea of what is wrong or right, but for details you must consult the law of the land. So the Golden Rule is an inner compass, but it is not a substitute to laws.  The problem with Islam is that its laws are contrary to the Golden Rule.

SummaryThe “Golden Rule” is deficient in addressing penal code hence by implication justice according to Mr Sina. It is by definition subjective and almost abstract as it cannot be used resolve conflicts and numerous issues of life. Especially as Mr Sina expects individuals to adhere to the principle of their own will which renders it almost irrelevant since individuals in most cases will act in their interests violating the “Golden Rule”. The same argument also applies to nations. So the premise for bringing Mr Sina’s allegation is getting weaker, hence he desperately proclaims victory and the rule as being right without proof. In contrast my allegations that it is he and his philosophy that is guilty of all those things and as he is being unmasked these are becoming clearer! As the debate proceeds I will prove that in contrast to Mr Sina I do not make assumptions and then put the burden of proof on his neck, then call it a debate. Mr Sina has produced lengthy waffles providing irrelevant information (filibustering) and more rants and abuse than solid arguments in establishing the truth of the Golden Rule. The rule is neither self-evident nor universal and it also poses a danger to society if used as an absolute arbiter. Since individuals can justify all sorts of acts using the rule.

I already explained that the Golden Rule is not a substitute for the law or law enforcement. People’s values vary. If each is left to interpret the Golden Rule based on his own values then we can’t blame Muslims for all their evil acts because their values make them jaundiced and their interpretation of right and wrong are distorted. So, laws must be clearly defined. We can’t let everyone interpret the law based on his whims and his twisted values. The rules must be spelled out and be clear. However, it’s up to the society to devise rules that are fair and in conformity with the Golden Rule.

The laws of the civilized countries are generally based on the Golden Rule. No law is perfect, but the spirit of the laws operating in Western countries is fair. The laws of Islam are unfair. Islam is the antithesis of fairness. That is why Islam must be denounced and eradicated.

Mr Sina’s constant ranting and abusive foul mouthing does not help to prove his case, for a self-proclaimed scholar he often cites examples without verification e.g. rightwing parties are not allowed to operate in democracies, morality is absolute etc. He is driven by blind hatred and fanaticism hence he is selective in his argument. For example he claims Islam to be evil yet he does not for once address how and why it is still expanding within the West. If it was so evil people would have abandoned it long ago of their own will. Of course he will arrogantly claim he is smarter than the rest to see and know better.

Yes I have explained why Islam kept growing despite being inherently evil. Here is that article:

The Secret of Muhammad’s Success.

He succeeded because he told the biggest lie ever and because he was extremely ruthless towards those who questioned him and disagreed with him. So the secret of Islam’s success is in the fact that Muslims are encouraged to lie and because they are hoodlums and thugs and kill anyone who speaks against them. Hitler used the same method to come to power.

Furthermore, Muhammad was driven, obsessed and relentless. He instilled the same attitude in his followers. This is typical of narcissists, enough to mention Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam, Khomeini, Napoleon or Genghis Khan for example. People with motivation and inner drive win and the peace loving, laid back people lose. There is no mystery in this and it has nothing to do with right or wrong and divine assistance. That is why the world must wake up and not undermine the obsession of a bunch of terrorists. The reason I have dedicated myself to this cause is because there are few people on the side of humanity with dedication and drive. Everyone wants to live the easy life and be happy for now. War is the last thing in their mind. Many westerners foolishly march in the streets for peace. One day they will wake up and have to fight the war imposed on them, but then the price will be too much to pay. If Iran is allowed to have nuclear bomb, millions, if not billions will die. We, who are on the side of humanity, must realize the danger and wake up from our sweet dreams. We need to be driven too. If we want to stop the advance of Islamic terrorism we have to wage war on them just as they wage war on us.

Now, with the advent of the Internet, the critics of Islam can reveal the truth with relative fearlessness. Internet will bring the undoing of Islam. Islam grew through lies and intimidation. That has come to an end, and so the expansion of Islam. Islam has started its fall and I predict that in our own lifetime we will see the total collapse of Islam the way we saw the collapse of communism.

Islam is not the fastest growing religion. In fact Falun Gong with over 100 million new adult converts in less than 10 years is the fastest growing religion, followed by Christianity that has made strides during these recent years in Africa and in India. Islam has lost its adepts in great numbers. More than half of Iranians do not call themselves Muslims anymore and this alone counts for 35 million people. Millions of others are leaving Islam as they see the actions of the terrorists and your defense of them. The only way Muslims are growing in number is through procreation. They are highly filoprogenitive. But rabbits are filoprogenitive too. The excess of number does not add to their strength, but rather to their weakness and poverty. Don’t believe me? Ask the Chinese and the Indians who are doing everything possible to control the growth of their population.

Islam is a religion in fast demise. Maybe you should wake up and smell the coffee.

The last couple of hundred years Islam has not been a dominant force in international relations and in its absence we have had the largest amount of wars and killings in human history!

Islam became dominant not because of any technological advances, but because of looting other people. When that loot ended Muslims sank into poverty. The reason we had a relative period of peace for a few centuries is because Muslims were weak and could not wage jihad. Muslims are instructed to wait, if they are weak and resume the fight when they become strong. Today they feel strong enough to resume jihad and that is why we are facing the threat of another world war.

As I explained earlier Muslims have killed more people during these 1400 years of their existence than people were killed perhaps in all the wars combined. Today they are poised to wipe out millions of people with atomic bomb. They must be stopped at any cost even if it means preemptive attack. I am of the opinion that the world must issue an unequivocal ultimatum that if Muslim terrorists succeed to use atomic bombs in any non Muslim country, many cities in Islamic countries would be nuked immediately. This threat would bring some sense to the majority of Muslims who are supportive of the terrorists and believe if their terrorist “heroes” destroy the Western cities they would issue a condemnation, shed crocodile tear and nothing would happen to them. They must understand that they are responsible for their jihadi brethren. After all it is the average Muslims who are feeding this frenzy and fomenting this hate. They are the ones who are financing the terrorists through Islamic “charities”. These benighted terrorists read your hate laden and fallacious articles and get validation. You are responsible. I am stupefied at the Government of UK that has give asylum to an unabashed enemy of theirs. Why evil people such as you walk free and are protected by the very people whom they want to nuke is something I do not understand. In Islamic countries non-Muslims can’t even practice their faith and worship their God even if they are native people, but Muslim immigrants are free to spew hate in non-Muslim countries and call for their death. This is bizarre.

He rants about raping stealing and killing but this is exactly what the US is doing en masse if you count its victims and all its wars well outside its borders since 1776. The so-called victims of the Muslims will disappear into oblivion when compared to the victims of the US killing machine. This is a fact not propaganda. Mr Sina constantly blusters about rape but he is the biggest endorser of rape through his silence on real rape that rages within the US and in its history.

America is neither raping anyone nor killing en masse. This is a mindless rant and a shameless libel. It is a lie created by sick people who need to have enemies and feel victimized to justify their own hate. America did not invade Iraq to rape and kill, but to liberate the Iraqis and get rid of a monstrous man who was a threat to the world. America and the rest of the world must continue their operation in Iran, Syria and N. Korea. As Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” America must be praised for doing something. But of course you must feel the heat because you are on the side of the evil.

It is estimated that over a million German women were raped by the followers of the “Golden Rule” (according to Mr Sina) near the end of the Second World War. But Mr Sina thinks that is apparently in line with his “Golden Rule” as he considers the rape and murder of Iraqis to be in line with his “Golden Rule”. Likewise the US atrocities in Japan killing civilians en masse when the war was virtually over. Then what about the murderous and needless campaign against the civilians in Germany nearer to the end of the war using incendiary bombs; women, children, and men were burnet alive, their fats reached knee heights in certain places. These are just some small examples I can go on but what Mr Sina alleges he backs up with little evidence and substantiation and when he does it is full of contradictions as I have clearly demonstrated. Yamin Zakaria (The Islamic Novice) London, UK[1] http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/YaminZakariaindex.htm [2] Just to warn the readers that Mr Sina may go at a tangent delving into the examples thereby avoiding the actual argument presented here exposing his blatant contradictions. [3] Mr Sina gets very abusive using terms like Animal and elsewhere he has already used terms like subhuman. It is up to Mr Sina to continue to be abusive and foul mouth instead of focusing on the actual arguments. I intend to keep my decorum to the best of my ability. http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/YaminZakariap11.htm [4] http://www.bahai.org/

Estimated by whom? By Muslims who lie as their religious duty and follow a psychopath war-monger prophet who said “war is a game of deception?”  Americans helped the reconstruction of Germany after the war. Only a nation endowed with superior moral values would extend help to his vanquished foe.  Americans have committed many mistakes, mostly of political nature, but they must be lauded for their superior morality in dealing with their enemies. America is indeed a beacon of light to all the nations. Why Muslims hate America so intensely? It is because they are the opposite pole.

As for Japan, Americans never killed civilians en masse. This shameless lie can only be concocted by a shameless Muslim. Japan after its defeat became the major recipient of American aid and today she is an independent nation competing with America.

If we have any freedom in this world it is thanks to America. Yes you can go on with your lies. This is your expertise and lies are endless. But the fact that today the Germans and the Japanese consider America as their ally is proof that you are a liar. How can nations who were so brutalized, as you describe, love their oppressors so much?

Joseph Goebbel, Hitler’s propaganda minister said: “a lie, repeated often and forcibly, gains the legitimacy of truth.” You are using Goebbels tactic and there is as much truth to your mindless charade against America as there was in Goebbels anti Jewish propaganda.

You have not demonstrated anything but the fact that you are a man of hate and lies. You have failed to disprove my charges against Muhammad. You have failed to give evidence to the validity of his claim to prophethood and all you did is spew your venom against America and concoct lies. America has nothing to do with our discussion of Islam. My challenge is “prove that my charges against Muhammad are false”. You have not even discussed the charges. You introduced red herring after red herring to divert the attention of the readers to irrelevant issues. This is a clear proof of your failure.

Instead of America you should have told us how Muhammad dealt with those whom he conquered. He either massacred their men including boys who had gown pubic hair and enslaved their wives and children, or banished them from their ancestral land after taking all their properties and imposed hefty Jizyah on those who had nowhere to go. In Kheibar the jizyah was half of the proceeds of the land that he claimed his. The original owners of the lands became his tenants who were allowed to stay and work the land giving him half of the proceeds. Later Omar expelled them completely because Muhammad in his deathbed said no two religions can be allowed in Arabia.

It is a shame that you are blind to the crimes of Muhammad whom you venerate and it is a shame that you are so deceitful. America is just a country not a prophet. You are indeed a follower of Satan and truth, fairness and honesty has no meaning in your vocabulary.

But wait. You ain’t seen anything yet. I did not have even the chance to bring my charges. So far you were in the offensive, attaching among all things the very concept of fairness. Unfortunately you chose a very wrong target, which means without my help you brought upon yourself ridicule and defeat.

Exposing Ali Sina’s “Golden Rule” Cult – Part 2- $00,000 Debate – My third Response [1] to Mr. Ali Sina  Yamin Zakaria from UKAli Sina in his typical racist-foul-mouth mode claimed that all Muslims are animals without any elaboration and he said: “Muslims do not possess conscience. Conscience has not evolved in them. The Golden Rule can only be understood by humans. Animals and Muslims do not understand it.”

Mr. Zakaria starts his so called ‘rebuttal’ by saying:

“Ali Sina in his typical racist-foul-mouth mode claimed that all Muslims are animals without any elaboration”

With that kind of example, generously provided by your Excellency do I need also to elaborate? Your arrogance is enough to make this point clear. You think arrogance can be used as a cover up for ignorance and you make extensive use of this Islamic trait in your diatribes.

It is enough to study the Quran and the conduct of Muhammad to determine that Islam is a cult of hate and terror with inhumane tenets. As Mr. Zakaria himself admitted, Islam is divorced from the Golden Rule and in fact he is derisive of it. The Golden Rule states: Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you. This is basically what defines humanity. The Golden Rule is unique to human consciousness. Only humans are evolved enough to be aware of the needs of their fellow beings and treat them with the same consideration that they would treat themselves and their loved ones. When Mr. Zakaria derides the Golden Rule, he is mocking the very thing that distinguishes us humans from animals.

According to Mr. Zakaria’s skewed sense of morality, it is okay to harm non-Muslims but the non-Muslims are not allowed to do the same to Muslims. He claims that Muhammad was the person who defined what is right and wrong and the concept of good and evil must be measured by what he did and not the other way round. So, if Muhammad raped the women of the unbelievers he did the right thing. If he had sex with a 9 year old child, if he assassinated his critics, if he massacred innocent people, it is all good and dandy because he was the prophet of God and he defined morality. However, Mr. Zakaria does not like Muslims to be treated in this way. According to this truly benighted individual, only Muslims are allowed to do evil and in fact that should not be called evil because whatever Muhammad did was good and if Muslims do the same there is no blame.

This is the way animals think and behave. Animals have no understanding of the Golden Rule. They live by the rule of Jungle. They are kind to their own pack but have no concept of fairness and do not respect the rights of others outside their own pack.

Mr. Zakaria’s thinking is not very distinct from that of animals. Not all Muslims think like Mr. Zakaria or Muhammad. The majority of Muslims are “pretend Muslims”. They erroneously think they are Muslims. I often talk about my grandmother whom I consider to have been a wonderful person. She was the embodiment of goodness. She was kind to everyone. She was nominally a Muslim. Therefore the mere being born in an Islamic family and erroneously calling oneself Muslim, does not make one an animal. You must live like Muhammad and think like him to be qualified for that distinction. Your actions count. Mr. Zakaria is a good example of an animal Muslim. He supports the terrorists. He sees no wrong in rape and massacre of the children in Beslan. He calls the coward terrorists who behead innocent people, “freedom fighters”. This person has no concept of the Golden Rule. He is a true Muslim and therefore a real animal. This is the elaboration.

It is amazing how Sina makes such gross generalisation of 1.5 billion people; perhaps he is trying to teach us the ‘wisdom’ and ‘loving’ nature of his “Golden Rule”! Ironically, why is Sina debating with Muslims if they are incapable of understanding his rule, of course they are incapable because Sina says so. Indeed it can be said that if a man is so eager to hold debates with people who he considers as animals he is the one who is really deficient in his mental faculty! In any case, Sina will now have to bite the bullet as he also admitted that he was born into a Muslim family. So here follows the implication of Sina’s utterances: The obvious implication is that Mr Sina is also a product of two animals, like the wild beasts cohabiting in the woods.Of course he may try to mitigate his blunders by claiming that he is only half an animal as he is a BASTARD child. In which case, Sina’s mother is an adulterous whore that slept around with non-Muslims perhaps she was inspired by some ‘freethinker’. Or that she was raped by non-Muslims who are by definition are “Golden Rule” followers according to Sina’s above mentioned statements. Or maybe Sina’s dad was spreading his seed amongst the “Golden Rule” followers or he raped some non-Muslims woman. Sina can best answer these points. But also, the old dictum: “charity begins at home”, so, why Mr Sina does not focus his effort in civilising the animals that are at his home, not just his parents but his siblings and the extended family? Judging from his email more than likely it is Ali Sina that is living like an animal in a cage as he admitted that he is hiding his work and he even prays along with his family members!

Muhammad used to order his followers to dismember the corpses of their enemies to “delight the hearts of the believers“. Letting you insult me is the least I can do for you to delight your heart. Please don’t be shy. You lost the intellectual battle on your own without much input from me. I will let you win the battle of insults also all on your own without much input from me.

You say “if a man is so eager to hold debates with people who he considers as animals he is the one who is really deficient in his mental faculty!”

If I really were that naïf to think by debating with likes of Mr. Zakaria I can make them think like humans, indeed I would be deficient in mental faculty. But that is not the reason I debate with people like him. The reason I debate with Mr. Zakaria and his ilk is to highlight the intellectual bankruptcy of Islamic intelligentsia.  It is through these debates that Muslim intellectuals show their cards and expose the real face of Islam. It is through these exchanges that the nominal Muslims can see Islam unmasked and leave it.  As the testimonies of Muslims leaving Islam posted on faithfreedom.org show, the main reason Muslims are leaving Islam is not because they are swayed by my arguments, but by the fact that Muslim apologists like Mr. Zakaria make it clear that Islam is not an ideology fit for decent humans. It is a satanic cult made by a psychopath for thugs.  Since from the 1.2 billion people who call themselves Muslims, over a billion of them are decent humans, I am confident that after they read these debates the majority of them will eventually come to see the light and leave Islam.

You do not become an animal simply because you are born in a Muslim family. You become an animal when you behave like one. Living according to the Quran and the examples set by Muhammad, will indeed make you an animal undeserving to be called human.

And this is the man who talks big behind his keyboard about annihilating Islam and Muslims. Then like a snake he abused his guest and relative without provocation and bragged about it to a total stranger i.e. to myself! Such irrational, hypocritical and cowardly behaviour proves beyond doubt that Sina lacks basic commonsense and if I were to borrow his terminology a true “SUBUMAN” or an “animal” like the chimpanzee!What is also interesting is that if any Muslim was running such a hate-filled website it would be immediately closed down for inciting hatred but nobody notices when filthy venom comes out from an intellectual midget with a heart of Nazi and the bravery of a chicken. We can go on analysing the implications of Mr Sina’s foolish statements but it may only result in victimising the innocents like Mr Sina’s parents and other family members.

As for my cleric relative visiting me, I was not disrespectful towards him at all. In an exchange of emails that we both agreed to be off the record, I confided to you that I have these distinguished relatives as guests and have no time to spend on the site. I also told you that my cleric relative insists that I should stand in prayer behind him despite the fact that I told him I do not pray. Of course I did not tell him that I am the archenemy of Islam. I don’t think that is the kind of information I would volunteer to an elderly beloved relative who has honored me by his presence and has flown hundreds of miles to pay me a visit. I value family ties and respect elderly people. I obliged and performed the stupid prayer out of respect for him. He is as dear to me as an uncle. I have broken my ties with Islam, but not with my relatives and dear ones. It was utterly unethical of you to publish our private emails after we both agreed they would be off the record. But of course you have no regards for the Golden Rule and do not understand ethics. It was my oversight to consider you a human. I should have known that you are a true Muslim and as such you are not bound by norms of ethics and morality.

Hence, indeed, Sina is a real sinner! Despite such self-indicting statements, from the beginning Mr Sina boasted about his ‘logical’ gun, his menacing debating skills and how he was going to smash my nose. Any impartial reader can really judge whose nose is really bleeding, that is if they can manage to see the entire debate on his website which he has constantly tried spin doctor to present the debate in his favour (elaborated below). It is blatantly obvious Sina is finding it increasingly difficult to present a coherent set of ideas let alone provide a challenge to Islam. My previous response and the following points using Sina’s statements will amplify that again.

This was one of those times that I did not have to use my logical gun because you shoot yourself and the battle ended right from the start.

As for whose nose is bleeding, it is enough to read this debate that is posted in my site. Why Mr. Zakaria did not post the same in his site? Why in his recent diatribe against freethinkers that he sent far and wide to every Islamic site, he failed to mention my name or make any reference to faithfreedom.org where our debate took place? It is obvious that Mr. Zakaria, despite his mental limitation is quite aware of his bleeding nose. Otherwise he would proudly link to this debate and advertise it.  May I ask you Mr. Zakaria, why you attacked me as if I were a ghost and never mentioned my name or my site in your diatribe? Isn’t it because you are actually embarrassed of your intellectual handicap? Are you willing to prove to us that you are proud of your performance by providing a link to our debate in the sites that you post your invective against freethinkers and me in particular? This surely will go a long way to restore your credibility. Otherwise, why anyone should believe that you are convinced of having smashed my nose when you are reluctant to show our debate to your readers? You can beat your chest and boast as much as you like, but actions speak louder than words.

Morality and Ethics In a desperate bid to cover his embarrassment Sina attempts to redefine morality and introduces the word “ethics” to rescue his earlier blunder when he categorically stated that morality was absolute as it was derived from the “Golden Rule”! This is based on the ludicrous assumption that everyone is using the rule as a basis and will interpret the rule in the exact same manner and thus derive the same moral values. Even someone with the brain of a “SUBHUMAN” could not have made such a stupid and naive assumption! And who ensures that the morality deduced from his rule is not faulty? So, Sina now says that morality is not absolute but ethics is and he states:“Slavery has been always wrong. Murder, rape, looting and lying have never been right and will never be right. Morality is the interpretation of the Ethics” If ethics says murder is wrong but what is murder? As usual Sina waves these terminologies without defining them. According to his ‘logic’ murder is defined and interpreted by morality in real life scenario, thus giving ethics its real meaning, so morality is what defines and elaborates ethics! Since morality is subjective according to Sina thus ethics must also be subjective. Ethics may only be absolute if the word is locked up in a vacuum without definition and elaboration but that has no relevance to the real life. In that case nobody will disagree murder is wrong. The distinction between morality and ethics are made by some scholars but that is rather academic the rest agree that they are synonymous. The former states that morality is what you ought to do and ethics is the study of that. Linguistically, ethics and morality are synonymous terms, both meaning customs in their original languages, Greek and Latin respectively. So Sina’s attempt to juggle with words to hide his earlier embarrassment shows he has no bullets in his ‘logical’ gun and presenting such arguments he reminds me of a dog that is chasing its tail! If there was human consensus on morality we would have probably had far fewer conflicts in human history. In reality, differences on morality or ethics are vast, for example in Europe views capital punishment as murder but many states in the US this is just retribution. Abortion is classified as murder by some whilst others view it differently. Ali Sina says murder is wrong but he has no problem in the US military murdering the Iraqis 5000 miles away from the US when they have done no harm to the US. Likewise the genocides that have been committed from the Spanish-American war that continues till today, none of which were defensive but unprovoked American aggression, for Sina, like a good migrant-Coolie he says it is not murder. It is up to Ali Sina to clarify his own confusion and contradictory ideas and juggling with words will not help him. He is certainly no position to bring any charges against anyone on the basis of morality and ethics when he himself is clearly muddled on the issue. More examples of the Mr Sina’s ‘Logic’

Morality and Ethics.

Despite the fact that I explained this point exhaustively, Mr. Zakaria is still unable to grasp its basics. We have a morality that derives from the Golden Rule and is absolute. For example the Golden Rule prohibits lying and stealing. According to the Golden Rule lying and stealing are immoral. But each religion interprets morality in its own way. In Islam lying and stealing are not necessarily bad if the victims are non-believers and Islam benefits from those actions. Muhammad said “war is a game of deception”. He encouraged his followers to lie and deceive their victims so their victims lower their guards and then stab them from the back. He also raided and looted caravans and villages. In fact Muhammad’s immense wealth was entirely accumulated by raiding unarmed civilians and plundering them. The morality of Muhammad justified lying and stealing and he set the examples for others to follow. But this Islamic morality is distinct from, say the Christian morality, the Hindu or the Buddhist morality. Each culture and each religion has its own morality. Polygamy is immoral according to secular ethos and the Golden Rule, but it is not so according to Islamic morality. Animal sacrifice is immoral according to Buddhist ethos, but it is not so according to Islamic morality. So we have an absolute morality that derives from the Golden Rule that we call ethics and we have many relative moralities that derive from religious teachings and personal values.

This is a very simple and a straightforward concept. Why Mr. Zakaria is unable to understand it? Maybe it is because he is a Muslim and as such he is unable to grasp concepts that for others are commonsense.

If there was human consensus on morality we would have probably had far fewer conflicts in human history. In reality, differences on morality or ethics are vast, for example in Europe views capital punishment as murder but many states in the US this is just retribution. Abortion is classified as murder by some whilst others view it differently. Ali Sina says murder is wrong but he has no problem in the US military murdering the Iraqis 5000 miles away from the US when they have done no harm to the US. Likewise the genocides that have been committed from the Spanish-American war that continues till today, none of which were defensive but unprovoked American aggression, for Sina, like a good migrant-Coolie he says it is not murder.

Mr. Zakaria says “If there was human consensus on morality we would have probably had far fewer conflicts in human history.”

But there is a human consensus on morality. All humans agree that the Golden Rule is the ultimate standard of right and wrong. Earlier I quoted several statements from various religions and that expressed the importance of the Golden Rule. And yes the level of abuse in non-Muslim countries is much lower than in Islamic countries. Honor killing, discrimination, misogyny, human right violations of religious minorities and homosexuals, female genital mutilation, wife beating, flogging, stoning, torture and many other crimes against humanity are predominantly Islamic. Also most of the conflicts are caused by Islam. Even the crusades were a backlash to Islamic aggression. Even the inquisition was a reaction to Islamic expansionism. But today over 90% of the world conflicts are Islam related. The observance of the Golden Rule indeed curbs human conflicts.

In fact there is a parody of the Golden Rule even in Islam.  In a hadith we read:

“None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.” Number 13 of Imam “Al-Nawawi’s Forty Hadiths.”

This brotherhood, however, does not extend to everyone. Muslims are only brothers to themselves and are to be inimical towards the non-believers. The Quran (9:23) says that the believers should not take for friends and protectors (awlia) their fathers and brothers if they love Infidelity above Islam. Verse (48:29) makes clear that Islam is a fascistic philosophy: “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.”

As the above hadith demonstrates, Muhammad was not entirely unaware of the value of the Golden Rule. Nonetheless, being a moral relativist and a narcissist, he did not include everyone in that brotherhood and did not think the non-believers deserve to be treated with fairness. Hence he limited his “golden rule” to his own followers only. There is no value in a limited golden rule. Even hyenas are nice to the members of their own pack but strong against the outsiders. Muhammad’s washy version of the golden belongs to the animal kingdom and not to human realm.

One example of Islamic moral relativism is expressed eloquently by Mr. Zakaria. In virtually all his “rebuttals” whenever he fails to defend the crimes of Muhammad, he starts attacking the Americans, the Spaniards and others for the crimes that their ancestors committed in yester decades and centuries.  How this tu quoque of non-Muslim nations can justify the crimes perpetrated by Muhammad, a man who claimed to be the prophet of God and the best of the creation, is something he should answer. He is comparing the actions of common people to the actions of his prophet. He also talks about the criminals and the psychopaths of the West to justify the crimes of his prophet. The brain of this Muslim is incapable to understand that comparing the criminals of one group to the saints and prophets of other group is also a logical fallacy. No one in the West worships the pedophiles, the rapists or the sadists among them.

Apart from the fact that his America reviling is calumnious and Americans are not in Iraq to loot or “to kill innocent people” as he put it, comparing a country to a religion is a logical absurdity that only Muslims are capable of making.

Mr. Zakaria is not the only Muslim to commit this fallacy. All the Muslims immediately enumerate the vices of the West to justify the crimes of their prophet. When you say Muhammad was a pedophile, they argue that there are many pedophiles in the West too. When you say Muhammad committed genocide, they soon remind us of Hitler. If you say Muhammad was a lecher, they will give you the URL of hundreds of porn sites in the West. Somehow Muslims deduce that since there are sinners in none Muslim countries, Muhammad must have been a prophet.

It is up to Ali Sina to clarify his own confusion and contradictory ideas and juggling with words will not help him. He is certainly in no position to bring any charges against anyone on the basis of morality and ethics when he himself is clearly muddled on the issue.More examples of the Mr Sina’s ‘Logic’

What is truly surprising is that instead of defending Muhammad against the charges brought against him, Mr. Zakaria is attacking the very notion of right and wrong. He is not saying Muhammad was not a rapist, a pedophile, an assassin, a mass murderer or a thief. He knows that all those charges are true. So instead of acquitting his defendant from those charges, he has embarked on a very audacious defense strategy and is putting on trial the very notion of right and wrong. He says:

“Ali Sina …is certainly in no position to bring any charges against anyone on the basis of morality and ethics when he himself is clearly muddled on the issue.”

Morality is not muddled. The Golden Rule is an unerring compass of right and wrong. The farther you get away from this rule, the more immoral and unethical you become. Islamic morality is the antipode of the Golden Rule and therefore, it is utterly immoral.  Unlike most apologists, Mr. Zakaria does not try to rationalize and explain away the crimes perpetrated by Muhammad. He is rather attacking the Golden Rule and is questioning the very notion of fairness and morality. His approach is so unorthodox that I have been taken aback and still wonder whether he is pulling my leg. He has basically handed me the victory just like that. He is not disputing my charges against Muhammad. He is not saying Muhammad was not a rapist, a pedophile, an assassin, a thief, a mass murderer or a liar. He is saying: “prove rape, pedophilia, assassination, theft, genocide and lying are wrong.” This Muslim is questioning the legitimacy of the Golden Rule and then says since the Golden Rule cannot be taken as the standard, you cannot condemn Muhammad for breaking that rule. He is not defending his client, but rather putting on trial the law itself. It is like a thief, pleading innocence by saying prove to me theft is wrong or a murderer saying, prove that murder is wrong. If Mr. Zakaria was the defendant we could declare him innocent by reason of insanity. However, he is not the defendant. The defendant is Muhammad and no matter how insane Mr. Zakaria maybe, his client is guilty of all the charges.

Mr Sina previously he made a bold claim that he does not believe in anything and he is “not here to tell people what path they should choose” and he goes on to say: “I leave that to them to decide”. But now we know he wants to dictate to the world his so-called “Golden Rule” cult and he would not be perturbed if that meant genocide as he is supportive of US foreign policy! Also, he is also dictating to the Muslims that they should abandon Islam and he demands that anyone according to his interpretation has a Nazi like views should also be prevented from functioning in society.

My opponent’s low wit is clear from his own statement. He calls the Golden Rule my “cult” that furtively I try to introduce though my writings. This is indeed the most bizarre discussion I have ever had with a Muslim. After debating with thousands of them, I thought I had seen it all. But Mr. Zakaria indeed fills me with amazement. Is there a bottom to Islamic stupidity? The Golden Rule is the principle underlying all religions and social doctrines. This concept has been echoed by all the religious and non-religious philosophers. Islam, Nazism and other misanthropic ideologies are the only doctrines that don’t adhere to the Golden Rule and are divorced from the concept of fairness. Fairness is a principle not a cult.

Mr. Zakaria says: “But now we know he wants to dictate to the world his so-called “Golden Rule” cult and he would not be perturbed if that meant genocide”

How can the Golden Rule be applied for genocide? Is this a rational reasoning? He then continues with his straw man fallacy of accusing America of genocide and me of supporting that genocide. Both accusations are false. They are sheer lies created by an individual bereft of not only human conscience, but also of human reasoning.

Yet he says he is not here to tell people what to do. Sina is a complete fool and he needs to sort his fundamental arguments out. He constantly says one thing then contradicts it. Like he said earlier Islam is not a religion but it is and then it isn’t! “Golden Rule” has no say on penal code but it is the “basis of the Justice System” according to Sina, what fool cannot see that you cannot have justice without the use or penal codes (retribution) to dispense justice? I am still waiting to see on what grounds Sina will bring his allegations as he has yet to clearly define his premise and arguments which he is constantly contradicting.

Mr. Zakaria accuses me of flip flapping about whether Islam is a religion or not. Obviously this Muslim’s brain chip lacks enough RAM to process simple logic and understand human language. I have made it clear that Islam is not a religion in the sense that we commonly understand religion. Islam does not contain any spiritual guidance to uplift human soul and make him more loving, caring, enlightened or unite the hearts of the people. Islam is a tool of domination in the guise of religion. Which part of this is confusing? If I call Islam religion, this is because it is known by that name. This does not mean I believe it to be a religion. I also have referred to Muhammad as “the Prophet”. Should this be interpreted as my admission that he was indeed a prophet? I thought commonsense would prevail, but obviously commonsense is not that common amongst Muslims.

I wonder whether Mr. Zakaria reads my responses. He is going in circle repeating the same things. Despite oft clarifying this point, this Muslim can’t distinguish between the Golden Rule, which is the standard of ethics and the penal code, which is the application of retribution. Theft is a crime. This is established by the Golden Rule and laws that are inspired by it. How do you deal with the thief and how do you punish him is the question of the penal code. The penal code varies from country to country, but the principle of not stealing remains universal. Why we have to repeat these simple concepts several times?

His other fantastic statements include that the US does not kill civilians en masse, now even many hardcore patriotic Americans would dispute this! It seems someone must explain to Mr Sina what is a nuclear weapons, incendiary bombs, chemical weapons and what happens when those are dropped in civilian cities like Hiroshima, Nagasaki,Dresden and Hano. Yet he barks on about his “Golden Rule” being universal because he says so like a fanatic with a blind faith in his cult.

Mr. Zakaria is unable to let go of America. He is incapable to see that what America did or does has nothing to do with Islam and even if all the Americans are convicted as the villains of the world, in no ways this will make Muhammad a prophet or reduce his crimes. This Muslim is addicted to red herring, straw man and tu quoque fallacies. This jaundiced man blames America of the crimes committed by Muhammad and Muslims. America is a country whose administration changes every 4 or 8 years and new people come to power that may totally disagree with previous rulers. It is absurd to blame “America” as if it were a person and even bomb and kill American civilians for what their rulers did 60 years ago or the ancestors of some of them did 300 years ago. Why this Muslim is unable to see that the man whom he worships and calls prophet, is guilty of genocide of the Jews and Christians in Arabia and instead of questioning his belief in that monster he is trying to find faults in other people? No one is worshipping America or their rulers. If American administrations in the past or present commit mistakes, even if they do something out of malice, the rest of the Americans are not guilty especially when the majority condemns those mistakes. How Hiroshima can justify the ethnic cleansings of the Bani Quraiza, Kheibar, Bani Nadir, Bani Mostaliq or Bani Qainuqa is not clear. Is that a tit for tat fallacy?

How can it be universal while excluding 1.5 billion Muslims forming approx 25% of humanity differs with it and only a handful of people even know the name of this so-called guidance of “Golden Rule”? He makes bold claims like the rule is the “Foundation of our humanity” with no supporting evidence. Indeed, not just Islam but other religion that also contradicts the “Golden Rule” which Mr Sina admitted so where is the universality. I can go on giving examples but how do I teach an old dog new tricks. Sina won’t mind me calling him an animal as he admitted to being one earlier!

Mr. Zakaria makes laughable statements. He wonders how the Golden Rule can be universal when no one has heard of it.  Dear Yamin, everyone knows what Golden Rule is. You never heard of it because you are a Muslim. Islam has nothing to do with the Golden Rule, but all other religions claim to be founded on the basis of it. As a Muslim there are lots of things that you never heard of. As a Muslim you are not in the habit of reading opposing views also. You obviously missed my explanation of the Golden Rule and maybe this is the reason you are making such a fool of yourself. You say “not just Islam, but other religions also contradicts the Golden Rule”.  I already quoted the statements of all the religions on the Golden Rule. Obviously all of them acknowledge that the Golden is supreme. Golden Rule means, being fair to others. Which religion, apart from Islam, does not agree with that?  Obviously knowing what is right and doing it are two different things. All the religions teach the Golden Rule and pretend to live by it. But most of them fail when it comes to walking their own talk. Their failure to apply the Golden Rule in no ways diminishes the supremacy of this principle.  But at least they strive for excellence and try to be just and fair. Islam goes the opposite way. Islam not only disagrees with the principle of fairness, it actually preaches hate, inequality, violence and abuse. It is one thing to set high standards and not reach it and quite another to go the opposite way. This explains why when people of other religions follow their faiths they become good people but when Muslims follow theirs they become terrorists. Islam is a “religion” that preaches animalistic values.  You don’t become human just because you are an anthropoid. You must also evince the signs of humanness. You can’t do that when you break the Golden Rule and go as far as denouncing it.

Here is another pertinent example of Mr Sina’s ‘logic’. According to Mr Sina, anything that contradicts the “Golden-Rule” is evil and to be worthy in the eyes of Mr. Sina we must comply with his rule. Otherwise, you are excluded from his circle of brotherhood of the cult but this is the very same accusations that he was placing against Islam in his earlier response!

The Golden rule says:  “Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you”. How can you be good if you do on to others things that if done onto you, you’d feel hurt? Of course, if you do onto others what you yourself don’t like, you are hurting them and hence you do not belong to the circle of the brotherhood of mankind. You are not a human at all. You are an abuser and a criminal. You act like animals and you must be locked up. You are a danger to society.

How would you like if I come to your house and do to you and your family what I would find objectionable if done to me? I don’t like anyone come to my house, force me to accept a religion that I don’t like, reduce me into second class citizen, rape my wife and daughter, take me as slave or force me to pay protection tax in order to be able to live in my own home and not be killed. What should be done to me if I come to your house and do exactly those things that I myself don’t like to be done on to me? Don’t you think I should be stopped at any cost including blowing up my brain with a bullet if necessary? If yes tell me why we should not do the same to animals like you who want to do exactly these things to us as part of their religious duty?  Tell me why we should not blow up your manure filled sculls before you lay your hands on our wives and daughters and destroy our lives?

Is this incitement to violence? Nah!  It is a waking call. As to what you want to do with our wives and daughters you are not making it a secret. You will do to them what Muhammad did to his victims. As to how much you are bound by moral and ethical values, this too you have made it clear that you have no regards for such things. So you already spelled out what you want to do with these foolish people who have given you asylum and protect you with their laws. All I want to do is to make your voice reach them and make you heard. Now it is up to them to heed you and protect themselves, their families and their freedom from this Trojan horse called Islam.

Why the great ‘scholarly’ mind of Mr Sina cannot see that Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus and everyone else including the followers of the “Golden-Rule” cult will distinguish themselves based on what they believe and by necessity will discriminate against those who do not. Any form of identity is both inclusive to those who comply and simultaneously exclusive to those who do not, that is a reality! Sina seems to be living in his cloud cuckoo land believing in over simplistic ideas to solve complex issues. I cannot find one reference to any scholar, political leaders, think tanks that actually even just mention his so-called “Golden Rule” cult.

Mr. Zakaria wonders why I can’t see the ‘logic’ of the law of jungle where every man is after his own interest and tries to impose his ways on others disregarding other’s rights. He thinks by advocating the rule of fairness I am living in my “cloud cuckoo land” and that my ideas of fairness are simplistic. He even says he can’t find any reference to the Golden rule anywhere. The Golden Rule is called ‘golden’ because it is universal and can be found virtually in all the cultures (with the exception of Islam and Nazism). But let us see the consequence of what Mr. Zakaria is proposing. Basically he says every man in entitled to discriminate against those who do not agree with him. In clear language he says: “Any form of identity is both inclusive to those who comply and simultaneously exclusive to those who do not”

This is of course not true with secular democracy that treats all the citizens equally irrespective of the how they voted and for whom. But let us put aside the Golden Rule and follow Mr. Zakaria’s ‘code of ethics’ for now. Based on Mr. Zakaria’s own ‘superior’ morality, the non-Muslims are entitled to discriminate against the Muslims just as the Muslims discriminate against the non-Muslims. The rule of jungle applies. Whoever is stronger wins. Today the non-Muslims are superior in every way to the Muslims. They can annihilate the Muslims in a few days. They can use their superior power to subdue, enslave and even exterminate the Muslims. I want Mr. Zakaria to explain to us why they should not do it? If this is what you are advocating, why the non-Muslims should not listen to you, follow your guidance and discriminate against Muslims? You made a very clear statement of what you think is right according to your twisted sense of justice. Now I want you to be just as clear and tell us why others should not take your words to heart and should not do to you what you yourself say is right?

This is the only question I ask you. Will you answer?

In his usual foul-mouthing mode Sina claims Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was a narcissist yet everyone knows including the most hostile critics of Muhammad (SAW) lived an austere life style. When he died there no great accumulation of wealth left behind for any of his children. In the prime of his youth he was offered money, most beautiful women and power by the Pagan Arabs in return for compromising the message of Islam; And If Prophet Muhammad was a narcissist and an unprincipled person as Sina boldly rants he clearly would have taken that route. Such factors are ignored as it cannot be fitted into Sina’s bigoted mindset.

Muhammad was a pauper when he married to Khadijah who was a wealthy woman. As soon as he married his “sugar mommy” he stopped working and left Khadijah to take care of his 6 children in addition to her other 3 children from her previous marriages. He spent his time in caves, secluded from the society, engulfed in his psychotic reveries. When Khadijah died, Muhammad was again a pauper to the extent that when he arrived in Medina the Ansar and the Jews used to send him dates so he does not sleep hungry. Ten years later, he was the absolute potentate of the entire Arabia. Wherefrom he accumulated this much riches and slaves? Did he work? He became the wealthiest man through looting. Not only to him belonged 20% of all the spoils of war, when a tribe surrendered without a fight, for example the Bani Nadir or the Bani Quraiza, Muhammad kept everything to himself because, as he argued, Muslims did not fight in those wars. The crooked man did not take into consideration that even though his benighted followers did not fight, the reason these tribes surrendered was because they feared the savagery of Muslims.

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 19, #2961:

Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab:

Malik ibn Aws al-Hadthan said: One of the arguments put forward by Umarwas that he said that the Apostle received three things exclusively to himself: Banu an-Nadir, Khaybar and Fadak. The Banu an-Nadir property was kept wholly for his emergent needs, Fadak for travelers, and Khaybar was divided by the Apostle into three sections: two for Muslims, and one as a contribution for his family. If anything remained after making the contribution of his family, he divided it among the poor Emigrants.”

Each of these towns had thousands of inhabitants and they were the most affluent cities of Arabia. The wealth of tens of thousands of people fell entirely into Muhammad’s hands. Can you say that he was a poor man living an austere life? He had several houses.

33.53
“O ye who believe! Enter not the Prophet’s houses,- until leave is given you,”

How can a man with several houses be poor? He had also many slaves. Muhammad was so captivated by the beauty of a woman that he gave up seven slaves for her!

Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 19, #2991:

Anas said: “A beautiful slave girl fell to Dihyah. The apostle purchased her for seven slaves. He then gave her to Umm Sulaim for decoration her and preparing her for marriage.”

Muslim 19, 4376:

It has been narrated by Anas that (after his migration to Medina) a person placed at the Prophet’s (may peace be upon him) disposal some date-palms growing on his land until the lands of Quraiza and Nadir were conquered. Then he began to return to him whatever he had received.

As for leaving inheritance, Mr. Zakaria should go back to his Islamic books and read the history of Muhammad. Muhammad’s children all died before him. So the point of inheritance is moot.  The only progeny who survived him was his daughter Fatima the wife of Ali. She received an entire town as her inheritance. Fadak was a township that Muhammad usurped from the Jews of Kheibar. This village is said to have been the queen of Arabia with the most beautiful gardens and fruit trees. Abu Bakr wanted to take it away from Fatima and this caused animosity between Ali and the first Khalifa, which resulted in schism in Islam and the deaths of millions.

Also the claim that Muhammad was offered “all the riches and beautiful women to abandon his prophethood” is a patent lie that he concocted to fool the gullible. If the Meccans really gave a damn about him they could easily kill him and get rid of him. There was no need to go to that extent to make this nuisance charlatan their king and lavish him with riches and women so he stop lying. This simply makes no sense and is made for the consumption of the most gullible. Do we have any case in the history of mankind that people offer to someone whom they believe to be a liar conman riches and power so he desist lying? This is utterly nonsense and a measure of the naiveté of Muslims. .

From the Quran itself we learn that the Meccans called Muhammad a madman. Surely they would not have given a madman unlimited riches, their daughters and the leadership of their town to make him stop lying. Are you willing to give any money, let alone your daughter and the leadership of your town, to a loony who claims to be a prophet to make him stop lying? If not then why you think the Meccans would do such thing? They thought Muhammad was a loon. Only a Muslim is capable to fool himself to such an extent and believe in these fairytales.

The Meccans never gave much importance to Muhammad and they thought of him no more than a crackpot.  It was after he became a marauding gangster and started inflicting heavy casualties on their caravans and even killing their men that they took him seriously.

On the contrary, it is Sina that depicts himself as a narcissist shown by his constant self-praising (“logical gun”, menacing debater etc) and his ego (smashing my nose). More laughably, Sina demonstrates his ignorance and stupidity once more as he cites Ghandi in support of his views but Ghandi actually confirms that Prophet Muhammad was the opposite of a narcissist and he actually offered full praise of Him (SAW) and Ghandi said: “I wanted to know the best of one who holds today’s undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind….I became more than convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life.It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to this friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the 2nd volume (of the Prophet’s biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of the great life.”

You sound more and more like a broken disk. We already discussed this and I already said that Gandhi was not a scholar on Islam. He was a politician and an appeaser at that. Gandhi’s statements on Muhammad cannot be used as evidence any more than Bush’s can be. First because Gandhi was not an authority on the subject that he was opining and second because as a politician he would have caused civil war and senseless bloodshed if he said anything about Muhammad that Muslims did not like. Salman Rushie and Jerry Falwell are nobodies. Yet when they said something about Muhammad that Muslims did not like, innocent bloods were spelt from Bangladesh, to India and from Pakistan to Lebanon.

As for Muhammad’s “fearlessness” suffice to say that this man who waged 78 wars and cowardly raided unwary and unarmed civilians, never fought in any war personally. In all the wars that he participated, he used to stay behind, giving orders, throwing sand in the direction of the enemy and cursing them while he used to wear, not one, but two coats of mail one on top of the other, which made his movement so cumbersome that he needed the help of two men to prop on his feet.

What makes Muhammad great and Islam grow is ignorance. If people bothered to read the original history of Islam, like Sira, Tabari and al Waqidi, Islam would be eradicated very soon.

Final example, Sina suggests that people should voluntarily apply the “Golden Rule” the only way to implement his so-called morality. And this shows his gross naiveté about the world and irrational mindset. No human society has ever functioned without an authority enforcing a set of values.If morality is not enforced then the question arises what should be enforced to maintain order and regulation in society? Human beings in general operate to fulfil their desires and needs above anything else; the “Golden Rule” will be the last thing they look to. His example of the USas a “Golden Rule” follower is to the contrary a classic example of aCapitalist State driven by profit not any kind of benevolent values. This is why the US ignored Rwanda , Apartheid South Africa but focused in on the oil-rich Middle East . Its banks and multinational institutions have bled the poorer countries dry, getting them into deeper and deeper debts causing immense human misery but no problem as long as Uncle Sam can have his burgers, shakes and fries. Migrant-coolies like Sina will queue up to endorse such behaviour in return for some benefit.

Mr. Zakaria says it is naïve to expect people to apply the Golden Rule on their own and an authority is needed to enforce any set of values.  Obviously we are having this discussion because Mr. Zakaria confuses the Golden Rule with the rule of law. The Golden Rule can be defined as a personal religion. It is an inner compass for the superior man to act morally. Just as it is up to the individual to follow his religious canon, it is up to the individual to follow the Golden Rule. Just as the observance of religious dictums should not be imposed and should be done voluntarily, so the observance of the Golden Rule cannot be imposed. But this does not mean that it is up to the individual to follow the rule of law or not. The law must be imposed and it must have teeth so it is respected.

Mr. Zakaria asks if morality is not imposed how a society can be regulated. Once in a while, when he is not engaged in ad hominems and tu quoques, fallacies, Mr. Zakaria can actually ask intelligent questions. Morality cannot be enforced. Can anyone force you not to lust after your neighbor’s wife or not to lie? It is up to you to have moral thoughts and act morally. But if you break the law and for example, sexually molest your neighbor’s wife or commit perjury, you will become responsible for your action and must be punished. Think of the Golden Rule as the religion of the superior man – a religion without all the gobbledygook that usually comes with religions.

Despite all the impositions and mind control in Islam, in final analysis no one can be forced to believe or observe his religious duties if he does not want to. My illustrious relative can twist my arm and demand that I perform my salat behind him and I may do that out of respect. An Islamic state may coerce its citizens to observe their prayers in public. But can anyone guarantee that people would observe their prayers while alone? The observance of the Golden Rule, just like the observance of religion, is a personal choice. You can’t impose on people to treat others the way they want to be treated. What must be imposed is the observance of the law.  But these are two different things.

‘Debate’ ManipulationMr Sina has not been honest about the debate. He did not post my response as one coherent piece at the beginning but rather it was embedded in his response for weeks. The result is that my paragraphs are sliced with Mr Sina’s rebuttal below it. The result is by the time you read his twisted slants by referring to my paragraph in isolation of the entire article, and add to this is his continuous tirades, not to mention the irrelevant waffles that even lead him to talk about pre-historic apes, you land on Mr Sina’s imaginary planet! Also, the reader fails to connect the context of my response which is a response to the previous article of Sina. After several request Mr Sina claimed he was too busy as he had a stupid relative who was making him pray! He wanted to keep this activity secret from him. Is that not surprising for man who is full of self-righteous message and gusto! Or is that a trait clear hypocrite coward behind his keyboard? He still remained silent but only after I posted his response in his forum he was forced to address the issue, I assume out of shame. As impartial people (that is except his side-kicks that operate fulltime on his forum like Sina) saw clearly he was cheating by no posting both sides response intact and consecutively. Of Course like the money Sina will shout these were the terms of his so-called ‘debate’. How many normal people will conclude that a boxing match is fair if one of the boxers decides to give himself a bit of extra lead weight in his gloves?

Mr. Zakaria, your responses are posted as one piece in your own column but of course they are not coherent and that is your problem. Your utterly incoherent responses are published twice, once as one piece and then paragraph by paragraph where I respond to them and a third time when you post them directly in the forum of Faithfreedom.org. In all fairness I don’t have to publish them at all. You are not publishing mine, so why I should give you preferential treatment? You are assuming that I am a dhimmi and demanding compliance while you don’t feel any obligation to return the favor. This is how you Muslims arrogantly have been treating your hosts, demanding especial privileges as if you are already their masters and they are your vassals. Had you not been so ridiculous in your ‘rebuttals’ I would not have posted them at all in retaliation of you not publishing my responses. But I can’t let go of this much gobbledygook that you have written and hence it does not matter if you don’t publish my rebuttals and are afraid to provide a link to this debate, I will publish yours with pleasure.

The person who is dishonest is you because not only you don’t post my responses in your site at all, you even don’t give any reference to our debate when you post your diatribe against me in other Islamic sites. Are you afraid that people read our debate and see what an embarrassment you have been?

You say I should be ashamed for calling my relative stupid. I said I was obliged to perform the stupid prayer to show my deference for him. He is like an uncle to me and commands my respect. You are certainly a pathetic liar.  The only person who must be ashamed is you who broke his word and divulged the content of an email that we both agreed would be off the record. You are a man that can’t be trusted. You lie and you break your promises. You are a true follower of Muhammad and you emulate him in every respect including treason.

Eventually Sina posted my responses as one piece. However, he continued to do further spinning on the matter. He divided each round as parts each one of course ends with his rebuttal, no surprise there as he wants to have the last word to inflate his ego giving himself a false sense of victory. I pointed out that the parts are clearly misleading as none of the parts ended. Part I has continued to Part II, Part II continued to Part III and so on.

Obviously my rebuttals are hurting you. All your incoherent replies are in one piece. I decide to respond to them part by part. This makes it easier for the readers to follow. They won’t be overwhelmed by a lot of reading at once, but every other day they find a few pages to read. Why the way I respond to your harangue should affect you at all?  If my sense of victory was false you won’t be so desperate, wasting our readers’ time, whining about how I publish my responses to you. On the other hand you do not even publish my responses and in your public rant against me you even forget to mention my name.

The mockery does not end there as the links at the bottom of the responses do not work and when you click, no surprise you get Mr Sina’s rebuttal. Likewise click the front page on his website on the debate page at the front, guess where it takes you, yet to Mr Sina’s rebuttal with my responses embedded in his instead of the birds-eye view of all the responses from both sides. Even worse under my column it has my response but it also has Mr Sina’s rebuttal.

All the links work perfectly. Once you go to index page you can go to any page directly.

When I said secular fascist are dishonest and cowards I did not realise that I would one like this who is as low as this! He in fact implicitly admitted his intention is to trap Muslims into these pseudo debates as opposed to being a genuine exercise in finding objective answers, and he said: “I commend your honesty in this case for not falling into that temptation and for making my job so easy”.

Mr. Zakaria, it is not me who traps you. You trap yourself by putting your foot in your mouth. When you so foolishly attack the very concept of fairness, it is not me who traps you. Yes indeed you were honest for not lying about Islam being the ‘champion of the Golden Rule’. You honestly admitted that Islam is divorced from the Golden Rule, and you stood by your word up to the end, mocking it and calling it a cult. This makes you honest, at least in this issue, but a real fool at the same time. By attacking the Golden Rule you basically hanged yourself and handed me the victory from the start.

So the temptation will allow Sina to show in intellectual pretext for his venom and hatred that is reminiscent of the Nazis. Note he also admits he is having a difficult time with a Muslim who apparently does not understand his “Golden Rule”. No wonder in desperation Mr Sina rushed to declare himself as the winner and of course his laughable justification the dual role of a player and referee is that we should take his word and trust him as he is the ‘Prophet’ of the “Golden Rule” cult! To give further ‘credence’ to himself now he claims of his support from his side-kicks on his internet forum, real ‘impartial’ judges! I suppose the bright side is that is an improvement from his earlier position of wanting to be the referee and the player.

Mr. Zakaria your fate in this debate was sealed the moment you started questioning the validity of the Golden Rule. It does not take an Einstein to know “Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you” is a good principle. Even a man of your intellectual caliber should know it. When you demand others to treat you fairly and respect your rights, even thought those demands are unjustified, it shows that you like to be treated with fairness. So my dear, “it is not me who slew you, it is Allah who slew you”. You dug your own grave by attacking a very wrong target. You were so accustomed to attack the beliefs of your opponents as a substitute of defending Islam that you kept asking me to “unmask” myself so you can attack me. Remember how you were saying a hooded person must not call others ugly?  When I told you I am a practitioner of the Golden Rule you though you found your golden opportunity and foolishly attacked it. Now even though this was foolish, any sensible person would have changed his position and would have tried to explain off his mistake by making amendments and allowances. If you were intelligent you would have weaseled your way out of this mess that you put yourself in and would have tried to change your strategy. But not you! You either lacked the intelligence or you had become a hostage of your gigantic Muslim male ego and could not back off. Instead of changing rout, you kept digging your heels deeper and deeper until the hole became too big for you to get out.

This was one of those debates that I can’t take much credit for winning it. You basically handed the victory to me. It is like you kicking the ball in your own net and lose the game without me moving a finger.

Sina carving for publicity wants to publish the debate. However, to be frank, I don’t think any of the mainstream websites will entertain the debate based on his responses, which looks like the words of ranting-racist-hooligan generalising on 1.5 billion Muslims, he lacks knowledge on fundamental concepts as explained earlier with many examples, not to mention his ignorant one-dimensional view of the world.

Come on now Mr. Zakaris…! We know why you don’t want the debate be publicized. Now if I am this bad as you say, you should be celebrating and advertising our debate. Are you trying to save my image? Thank you! But that is not needed. Please put a link to our debate in your essays and let everyone see what a great mind you are.

In fact he does not do justice to those who genuinely and intellectually opposes ISLAM. He is a liability for them, but he is more than welcome to try and publish the debate. As for the judicator and money, if Mr Sina was serious about it that would have been ready prior to the debate and I would have instructed my lawyer to ensure the availability of the money in a neutral fund. That is how contracts usually take place; people do not just take other peoples words in these matters and Mr Sina’s ‘integrity’ has already been demonstrated by his unprovoked abuse of his won relatives and the manner he has covered the debate on his website.

You have some cheek Mr. Zakaria. You made a total fool of yourself and you are talking about the reward? Don’t you think it is a bit too late to talk about the money when you have clearly lost the debate? Or is it that you actually don’t know you are down and what hit you?

The judicators can be non-Islamic like writers, journalists who are neutral in the sense that they are not from the Zionist and rightwing camp who foul mouth like Mr Sina, otherwise it is like asking a SS officer to give an objective opinion on a Jew. Finding neutral judicators would be difficult given that Mr Sina’s poor response often deliberately avoiding the key conceptual points he goes at a tangent into prehistoric times, I doubt he would find any volunteers. So, laughably once again Sina now implies that the regular ‘readers’ on his forum are ‘impartial’ judges.

Obviously you still don’t know that you lost the debate long time ago. But I fully agree with choosing adjudicators to announce the victor.  I am sure we can find someone who is not a Zionist or a Muslim sympathizer.

However, somehow we have to make sure that they won’t be assassinated when they announce the victor. Muslims don’t like to be humiliated, especially when the reputation of their religion is at stake.

Lengthy Irrelevant Waffles, but Why?Mr Sina and the readers will see that by churning out pages of waffle does not help to address the points at hand that are central to the debate. In addition to his incoherencies and contradictions of the arguments are obvious and I gave plenty of examples. You see this is why he is very uncomfortable talking about “Golden Rule” as the more he reveals the more one can see what lies behind the mask. Now surely for a man who wants to take Muslim out of Islam into his “Golden Rule” cult what better and a rational way then to talk about his “Golden Rule” to tempt the Muslims.

The central theme of this debate was supposed to be you defending Muhammad and proving his divine origin. Instead you attacked America, me and the Golden Rule and claimed that what is good is not good, fairness is not fair and the Golden Rule is a cult.

Yet Mr Sina finds no time even to put some introduction on his website! He wrote pages on irrelevant and speculative issues like groups of apes used to live in Africa millions of years ago is perhaps another example of REAL filibustering. I always have to find my way around the rants and abuses to find the actual points that are pertinent.

Obviously, and I am no more surprised, you did not understand the morale of that story about evolution either. You talked about the survival of the fittest claiming the one who is more aggressive will survive. This you said to justify the violence in Islam and the barbarities committed by your prophet and your terrorist brothers. I explained that unlike what you think the survival of the fittest does not mean the one who is more violent and aggressive will survive. Our species survived thanks to our ability to cooperate, interact, take care of each other, protect one another and in essence apply the Golden Rule. Those who were capable of this feat were fit to survive and those who were not, perished. The principle has not changed. Today Muslims are least cooperative; they are an aggressive and violent lot. They don’t understand love, cooperation, extending a hand to a fellow human and therefore are the least fit to survive. One reason the Neanderthals were extinct is because in comparison to homo sapience they were more brute, less cooperative and less adaptable to change. Today Muslims are the brute ones of the human species. Naturally, Muslims have less chance of survival because they are least fit.

You did not get this message did you? You did not understand why I was talking about the evolution and the survival of the fittest. You thought those are irrelevant issues, tales of some apes that do not concern you. Well, how can I blame a Neanderthal for lack of intelligence?

Impartial audience will judge delving into side issues, constantly using abusive language, making fantastic claims without any supportive evidence that it is a desperate attempt by Sina to hide his deficiencies in volumes of waffle and convince himself as a ‘freethinker’. Mr Sina should also know that I am mere novice in Islam and not a well-known figure and I do not write for the Al-Jazeera of Qatar but an Al-Jazeera site run by an individual. He does not even acquire the basic facts, which is surprising for a self-proclaimed menacing debater!

Well Mr. Zakaria I have to admit I was wrong here. I thought the Al Jazeera site belongs to the Al Jazeera Network. So I assumed you must be someone important. After debating with you, I soon realized you are a novice. No sensible debater would attack the Golden Rule and make such a fool of himself. But you served me well. You demonstrated one side of Islam that we often don’t see, i.e. the honest side. The more seasoned Muslim debaters often lie. You were honest and a total fool. You put your Islamic cards right on the table and made the world see what you have in your hands. Yes you embarrassed Muslims, but you were great for my cause.

If Sina cannot pass by a novice like me he has no hope against scholars. No scholar will entertain an ‘intellectual’ midget like Sina who cannot produce a coherent set of ideas as he is getting into a deeper muddle the more he elaborates on his “Golden Rule” cult. His key strategy has been to foul mouth and produce an emotional response and he has failed in that miserably so he stands helpless with his “logical” gun that is empty of any bullets. Mr Sina should learn another Golden Rule of debate: quality is more than quantity; any independent observer will notice that there are few principles and concepts that addressed in his rebuttal.

Mr. Zakaria, foul mouthing is your specialty while deflating the inflated egos is my expertise. Barbara J Stock told me about your super inflated ego and the fact that you are unable to admit error. I told her I will use this weakness of yours to my advantage. I did not have to. You defeated yourself on your own. You made a stupid mistake of attacking the Golden Rule, which has nothing to do with any belief system but is the most basic human principle and the underlying tenet of all the religions. Then your super inflated ego did not let you move on. You could have said: “Okay, you did not clarify this point well at first but now that you make this clear I also agree with you and in fact Muhammad was the champion of the Golden Rule… blah, blah”. But you did not have enough wits to pull yourself out of this hole. Instead you insisted on that foolish notion and handed me the victory in a platter.

To be continued…… Yamin Zakaria London , UK

Oh really???

You mean you have something to say?

I have to confess to you Mr. Zakaria that I enjoyed this debate quite a lot. Now I can understand how my freethinking cat feels when he catches a mouse and plays with it without killing it.

You did not win the $50,000 dollars reward, but you provided a lot of entertainment for our readers. Please give me your address and I’ll send you a few dollars so you can take your wife to a good halal dinner and be my guest. You were such a great sport and I would like to send to you my token of appreciation.