Humanity vs. Muhammad bin
Nov. 15, 2003
This is the long overdue trial of Islam and here are
Defendant: Muhammad bin Abdallah
Plaintiff: Humanity (The non-Muslim portion)
Defense Attorney: Raheel
Shahzad (Any one else is welcome to join)
Courtroom: Public Opinion
Nov. 15, 2003
Hello Mr. Sina,
After having stumbled on
your website about 2 months ago, I have gone through most of the
articles and other material you have on the website.
And I must say that I am very impressed by your intellectual
capability. This is by no means sarcasm, for I truly appreciate your
Of course in this age of
internet and websites, information dissemination has become fairly
easy and can be used for positive or negative purposes, depending upon
a person's own convictions about matters.
Hence, I now found the
reason to write to you because your site certainly is welcoming of
anyone who may seek to have an intellectual discourse about matters of
faith. I did not subscribe to the forum because I myself an a
webmaster of over 30 sites and I know firsthand that forums sometimes
can be very intellectually draining because most of the people are not
exactly very consistent. It's like shouting over a thousand heads in
hopes that someone may hear you.
Now what's the purpose
of my email to you? Well it is probably twofold, and I will write
about it shortly, but before I do that and hope for some kind of
response from you, I would like to let you know something about me so
that you are in a better position to decide to respond or not. I do
want to request that If you do not respond at length, please do just
reply back and say "Not interested" (or something to that
effect), if for nothing else but only as a matter of fellow-human
courtesy. Waiting for email responses is not all it's craked up to be.
Breifly about me then: I
am 33 years old, of pakistani origin, living in USA for about 12 years
now. Before that, I was in Middle East for 20 years, and was born in
Karachi Pakistan. Over the last 2-3 months, I have had a desire to
know some more details about matters of faith, which I had really not
thought about a lot before. Led a normal life (and normal is relative
i know).. but since my parents are muslims, I guess I had to be a
muslim too. I have a Masters Degree in Business, and I have my own
business which produces a healthy profit. I am married for 6 years now
and have no children yet.
So why was this
minibiography needed? Well because I think that if I will be
successful in persuading you to a public debate about what you have to
say about your convictions, then knowing the capacity of the opponent
is important. I know yours from your articles, but I am only an email
to you so far.
Now the two-fold reason
for my email:1- To ascertain whether you actually are serious in your
request for an intellectual counterpoint to your points of view and 2-
To let you know briefly about what I intend to do should you amicably
accept at least in principle to have a intellectual argument.
The first point will be
proven by your response to this email. The second needs brief
mentioning here and will be divulged more in detail should you
I understand the common
theme of your articles, which is basically that
a) the historical facts
as reported are tainted
b) Apologists are scared
to show the real facts
c) Islam is a violent
ideology based on medieval notions of faith
rulers/governments are corrupted by screwed up ideologies
e) The prophet Muhammad
is not at all worthy of anything because his morals leave a lot to be
desired based on what is commonly known to many scholars
f) Allah (or God) may be
a figment of imagination
g) Muslims are by and
large indoctrinated with hatred etc for other religions based on
warped teachings from scholars
I'm sure you may not
agree with this listing, but this is at least what I understood from
your articles. If I have missed the point entirely, I hope you briefly
will correct me.
What I intend to do
through a debate between two intellectuals (and i am shamelessly
calling myself one but there's no other way for me to say it), is to
accomplish 3 things in response to your site's claims and conviction:
A) To prove that your
stance on a lot of subjects is not based on an intellectual appealing
B) That the facts as
presented actually are correct in some ways, and maybe a little murky
in others, which a thinking muslim person can certainly be a moderate
about and respond with equal zeal, because the totality of your claims
is certainly worthy of a response on equal footing
C) To finally let you
ponder about the possibilities which you either intentionally or
otherwise may have missed
Maybe, after the debate,
you may find it in your own mind and heart to take a second look at
your own convictions and not necessarily shut down your site, but
maybe find a more meaningful avenue to vent some of your frustrations
with matters of faith.
I have no desire to shut
down your site, be combative or abusive, nor am I from the "Jihaadi"
school of thought where bombs are the only ways of defeating an
ideology. I really am looking for a stimulating discourse based on
mutual respect of each other's ability to shed more light on what we
collectively call "religion". Since we are talking about
Islam specifically, that will be the focus.
Before ending this
email, I would certainly like to point out that one of the things I
will certainly not do or stoop to is the "apology" for any
facts that you may present, because I understand that facts cannot be
disproven (because then they will not be facts at all). So i accept
your challenge on basis of an intellectual disagreement with your
stance on a lot of subject matter, without resorting to the need for
I await your first
response. Even if you do not see it worth the time to engage in an
intellectual battle of thoughts, I sincerely hope the best for you.
Certainly one day both you and I will die, and if there's any truth or
relevance to life after death, I hope that all of us will be dealt
And if there's nothing
after death, we'll never find out.
Nov. 15, 2003
am very busy for one on one debates. Actually I created the
forum to take off some load off my shoulders. However, I do accept
your challenge. I publish our debate in the debate section of the site
for everyone to see.
will be grateful if in each correspondence you tackle just a few
aspects that you disagree with me. Brevity makes our debate more
Nov. 15, 2003
Dear Mr. Sina,
I am delighted that you
have responded in kindness, which to me establishes one positive
aspect of your personality: honesty!
My disagreement or
agreement is not going to be based then on personality clashes because
I have discerned that you are an intellectual, and you deserve
admiration at least on that level. I also request that in return, my
own conviction about metaphysical aspects be not brought into the mix,
since I know absolutely no way of defending it with physical proofs,
and I doubt heavily that you will be able to counter that with any
physical manifestation too.
Our disagreement or
debate will center on things and ideologies pertaining to THIS world.
What will happen after both of us die is not known to either of us, we
are only told what MAY happen (that's if you take the idea that a
Super Nonphysical deity may have communicated something to us through
mediums such as prophets). Hence, within the context of THIS world, we
can choose to shred apart whatever our intelligence will allow us to
You requested brevity in
subject matter, and that's absolutely understood. Any work of such
magnitude as religious literature becomes overwhelming if tackled all
at once. So we certainly have to do it in smaller pieces, with the
understood underlying principle, that each small aspect is part of a
larger picture, and that the smaller fact cannot be tackled without at
least keeping the larger picture in mind. Sometimes, it may be
necessary to invoke the larger picture if the singular aspect of some
discourse does nothing to conform or nullify the bigger ideology.
I sincerely look forward
to our debate. As i said in my previous email, what may happen to us
after death is not entirely known with certainty to either of us, but
as long as our brains are capable of putting together rational
thoughts, we can certainly challenge each other's system of connecting
to an abstract bigger picture.
Nov. 15, 2003
you said that you are already familiar with my writings, I was hoping
that this time you will start presenting your refutation to my claim
that Islam is false and Muhammad was not a messenger of God but a
mentally disturbed man and a charlatan.
you did not take that initiative, allow me to present my charges one
by one and invite you to refute them.
this debate I will assume the role of the prosecutor and you will be
representing the defendant Muhammad.
us start with the Character of Muhammad. In my view, one who claims to
be a messenger of God must be endowed with spiritual qualities such as
love, compassion, honesty, self-restraint, etc. Muhammad could not be
a messenger of God because he was lecherous, immoral and unethical
man, bereft of human qualities. He was a ruthless mass murderer, a
lustful sex maniac, a shameless pedophile, a cunning assassin, a
marauding chieftain, a schizophrenic narcissist, a pathetic liar and
many other vile qualities that disqualify him to be a decent human
being let alone a messenger of God.
other objection of Muhammad's claim to prophethood is the absurdity
and inanity of the Quran. It is inconceivable that the author of this
magnificent universe be the same person who wrote that asinine book.
Is it possible that God be so ignorant of simple scientific, logical,
mathematical, historical and even grammatical facts as the author of
the Qruan seems to be?
us take one subject at a time.
us talk about Muhammad the assassin to begin with.
accuse Muhammad of being an assassin, a man that has to be despised
and scorned and therefore unworthy of assuming such a lofty task of
becoming the emissary of God amongst men. After you read those stories
I want you to advocate for his innocence and prove that all these
charges are false.
list is long. I am not going to ask you to read all of them. However,
I insist that you read at least four of those stories of
assassinations, verify the authenticity of the sources and then defend
your client Muhammad and prove his innocence.