Home

 Articles

 Op-ed

 Authors

 FAQ

 Leaving Islam
 Library
 Gallery
 Comments
 Debates
  Links
 Forum

 

 

Date:

Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:00:11 -0800 (PST)

From:

"Sohail SA" <[email protected]>  

Subject:

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 forum?

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 it is

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. 

Thank you

Yours truly,

 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 reputation.    

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Articles Op-ed Authors Debates Leaving Islam FAQ
Comments Library Gallery Video Clips Books Sina's Challenge
 

  ©  copyright You may translate and publish the articles in this site only if you provide a link to the original page.