Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:00:11 -0800 (PST)
"Sohail SA" <[email protected]>
Not very convincing Mr Ali Sina
Mr Ali Sina
Are you scared to die Mr Ali Sina? A person who believes he
is on the right path has nothing to fear like Dr Zakir Naik.
Dr. Sohail Ahmed:
What telling the truth has to do with
putting ones' life in the way of danger? You believe to have the truth. So why
don't you drop yourself from the tenth floor? Do you see the irrationality of
your argument doctor? I am not stupid to put my life and the lives of my loved
ones, especially my relatives in Iran in danger. I am not a crazy lunatic seeking
martyrdom. If I have to die I will die but I am not a fool to seek death on
purpose. I do not call that courage. I call that stupidity.
Dr. Naik does not have to fear
because non-Muslims are not terrorisin Muslims. I have plenty of reasons to fear because
Muslims kill the apostates. I know Islam and I know Muslims under the influence
of Islam are capable of committing any crime with clear conscience. Anyone who
swims in a pool infested by crocodiles is not courageous but a fool. Muslims'
killer-instinct of those who criticize their faith is similar to that of
crocodiles. The instinct to kill the critics of Islam is so deeply rooted in
them that I would say it comes from their reptilian brain. It overrides all
rational thoughts. So comparing Muslims to crocodiles is not really an insult
but a scientific comparison. I suggest this should be investigated by scientists.
Why is it that the first thought that comes to the mind of the Muslims as soon
as they hear someone saying something against their demonic prophet is to kill
him? The order to kill the apostates came from their prophet. So obviously
Muhammad himself had this crocodilian instinct. Even YOU are capable of killing me.
If your faith is strong, that is the first thing
you would want to do. So let us drop this game. These childish tricks
are not going to work with me, unless you have grossly underestimated my intelligence.
You say that Muslims asked you to debate Dr Zakir Naik i.e.
you challenged him. Please, note that when Muslims asked you debate Dr ZN, they
meant in public.
Why? What one can say in public that
one cannot say in a writing?
You say you have more knowledge than Islamic scholars. Here
again your reasoning is weak because firstly had that been the case you wouldn't
quote Quranic verses out of context and secondly your articles contain more of
personal interpretations than context.
In that case you should have no
difficulty to prove me wrong. What are you waiting for? You obviously have seen
how I quote the verses out of context and interject personal interpretations. Why don't you put that in writing and publish it in our
In case of Dr ZN, if you see his public lectures you'll see
that he doesn't even quote other scriptures out of context even if they're
not compatible with Islam. An example of this is demonstrated in his lecture
SIMILARITIES BETWEEN HINDUISM AND ISLAM when he quotes a verse from Bhagwat Gita
of Hindus on Jihad and explains its complete context.
I saw one debate of this person with
Dr. Campbell and concluded he is not a scholar but a showman. I have analyzed
that debate point by point and challenge Dr. Naik or anyone to prove me wrong. Here
At what point did I emphasize that you haven't
memorized Quranic verses, still you constantly remind of it. As for the reason
you ask of Dr ZN for not accepting your written debate challenge, he has given
answer to this in several of his lectures. I will give you some points
1. An internet debate is an individual based method
in which both parties may hide anything they want because in today's world
internet is the easiest way to get away with anything.
Any person can see the reverse is
true. What you say is only possible in a live debate where theatrics take the
place of scholarly acumen. In a
written debate you canít fool people with showmanship. Reasonable people can
see through this sham easily. Only this statement is proof enough to see this
man is a charlatan.
2. Internet maybe a
huge part of our lives but know
this that it's not yet the biggest and most authentic part of media world.
We are not talking about the
importance of the Internet here but about a written debate though the Internet.
It is the written debate that Dr. Naik is afraid of.
3. What you can explain in a public lecture in a
single go to millions of people, you can't do the same on the internet.
This is ludicrous. The reverse is
true. Serious scholarly debates are always conducted in writing. The format of a
public debate is not for deep scholarly studies. It is in writing that you can
go in detail and back up your statements with documentation that must be
verifiable. In writing, if you blunder, your errors will be caught. In written
debates you canít fool people with theatrics and pretend to be the victor
because your lackeys cheer you. In written debate, only facts matter, the way
you dress, the way you perform, the way you play your game, the cheering
and jeering of the audience that dominate the atmosphere, all disappear. Only
facts matter. You can say twenty times more than what you
can say in a few hours of a conference. Organizing a conference is expensive but
debating online costs nothing. One can sit
in the comfort of his home and do it.
4. Using the veil of internet one can say whatever he
wants and do whatever he wants and can still deny it without any proof.
Nonsense! The Internet can veil your
face but it can't veil the fallacy of your arguments. Take for example what you
wrote. It is fallacious and absurd. I could easily catch it and expose its
fallacy. That is because we are debating in writing. Muslims' arguments are
replete with fallacies. In writing you can respond to all of them, in a face to
face debate you will not have enough time for that.
Hope to hear from you soon.
Dr Sohail S. Ahmed.
I am going to make an offer. If Dr.
Naik refutes me in writing and wins, I will agree to debate with him live. Why I
make this offer? For two reasons: One is that Dr. Naik is not that stupid to
ruin his reputation and he will never accept this challenge. He knows where to
draw the line. He will endure the humiliation of being seen as a coward than try
to refute me and then be proven as a loser. As long as he does not debate,
people can suspect he is afraid because he does not know how to answer. But once
he debates, that suspicion turns into certainty. So you can rest assured that he
is not going to respond. The second reason is that there is no chance for Dr.
Naik to win and
therefore I will not have to show my face in public. But if he is sure he can
win, then this is his chance.
All this should really make the fans
of this man see through him and realize he is taking them for a ride Whether he
debates or he doesn't he is losing credibility. Most Muslims are not stupid.
They can easily see this man is afraid. See
this. I am afraid of losing my life. What is
he afraid of? He is afraid of losing his reputation. His livelihood depends on his
Now, don't assume this has anything
to do with my knowledge and acumen. Any person who knows a little bit of Islam
can win in debates against Muslims, as long as they are done in writing where no
tricks can be played.