Ali Sina' Responds to Wissam Nasr's message of
I am afraid you missed the point about quoting
external sources. The only sources that I rely on are the hadith, the Ibn
Hisham’s Sira and the Quran. All other books are based on these sources.
If they are not: then they are the authors opinion and therefore
unreliable. When I quote Muir I quote him as a historian. I am not
interested in his opinion. Of course he is a Christian and he is writing
within the Christian perspective. But when he is giving the historic
facts; that has nothing to do with his bias. On the other hand when you
quoted the Oxford History of Islam you quoted John Esposito as an
authority. I do not accept the authority of Muir. I am not interested in
his opinion. And by the same token I am not interested in Esposito’s
opinions or anyone else’s. Historic facts are different from opinions.
Let me explain.
When I say Muhammad was a pedophile I am giving my
opinion. No one should take this as a fact unless I demonstrate this claim
by showing factual evidence. All we have of course are those hadithes that
point out to the Prophet’s sexual relationships with a 9 year-old girl.
If Esposito or one of the contributors of Oxford History of Islam can back
their claims with hadith or Sira I have no problem with that otherwise
opinions are just that.
You argued that I have to rely on translations of
Hadith and Quran that hinders my understanding of these books. That is not
true. Although I read the hadith in English, I read the entire Quran in
Arabic several times going back and forth between the translation and the
original and did not go to the next verse unless I fully understood it in
Arabic. If I had to rely solely on English version perhaps my
enlightenment would never have happened. The English translations are
sanitized and they are much softer. It is impossible to fathom the depth
of violence of the Quran just by reading a translation of it.
In defense of your claim that Quran does not say the
Earth is flat, you wrote: “No
sane interpreter of the Quran would (or has) ever accused the Prophet
Muhammad of thinking this. . The sheer absurdity of this claim being
passed off as “rational thinking” should be a big red flag to all of
you that Ali is misinterpreting the words of the Quran and hadith.”
Well as I recall there was this Sheikh Abdulaziz bin
Abdullah bin Baz the highest religious figure in the Kingdom [of Saudi
Arabia], and head of the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and
Prevention of Vice as well as the president of the Islamic University in
Medina who in 1969, declared that the earth was flat. So at least one
person who speaks perfect Arabic “misunderstood” the “clear” book
of Quran. And by all account he was not insane other than being a Muslim.
He had stated that the Sun revolved around the Earth. So convinced was he
that he wrote a paper accusing Riyadh University of heresy because of its
teachings on the solar system. In it, he claimed that God had made the
Earth immovable, and had "fixed it down firmly with mountains in case
the Earth shakes." He was obliged to revise both claims after a Saudi
astronaut flew in a space shuttle and broadcast back to the kingdom
television images providing evidence to the contrary. Such antediluvian
opinions did not disqualify Bin Baz from becoming the President of
Scientific Research, Da'wa, and Guidance Directorates, a position
he has held since 1976 and one that gives him the rank of minister.
You said meanings of the words in Arabic cannot be
translated properly in English and that Jihad means struggling against
evil. I quote you a verse containing Qetal (fight) please translate them
Jihâd (holy fighting in Allâh's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims)
though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is
good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allâh knows
but you do not know. (2:216)
Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties for
(the price) that theirs shall be the Jannah. They fight in Allah's Cause,
so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is
binding on Him in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the
Qur'an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the
bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success.''
fight against the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers
in the Oneness of Allah) collectively as they fight against you
collectively. But know that Allah is with those who are Al-Muttaqun (the
Now please go to this Islamic site where you can read
a whole collection of verses and hadith on Jihad. Please write to them and
tell them they are mistaken and cc your email to us.
You wrote: “That is why
your buddies who claimed to write a Sura in the “style” of the Quran
failed. They did not write it in Arabic. That is like saying I can write
better than Shakespeare and then I write something in Polish. That is
absurd. Show me those imposters writing the verses in Arabic, and I would
be happy to refer it to ANY professor of the Arabic language for his
opinion on whether those fake verses can match up to the Quran. I will
leave this as an open challenge, because you will never find an expert in
the Arabic language agree that those so called verses in the style of the
Quran would ever be more beautiful than the real thing.”
No the Surhas are in Arabic and unlike the Surahs of
the Quran they are flawless. You can call your expert. We have few Arabs
in our group too. Let us meet your challenge. http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/suralikeit/original/index.shtml
You continued by saying. “but
his undoing lies in the fact that he recognizes absolutely NO GOOD in
Islam, and that is where the vast majority of people just won’t agree
with him. Even if we were 50% evil, that means we are 50% good—but he
doesn’t point out ANY of the good, does he? That’s why he is biased,
and that’s why his credibility is shot.”
If I prove that Quran
contains no good that does not mean that Muslims are not good. Muslims
are humans just like everyone else, no better and no worse than others.
However once they hearken to the evil teachings of Muhammad they can be
extremely evil. Quran is bad and those who
follow the teachings of the Quran do bad things. Moreover suppose we find
some good in the Quran, it is no proof that this book if from God. You can
find good thins in almost any book. I can show you a lot of good things in
Hitler’s speeches. Muhammad claimed that Quran is the word of God, if he
was right not even one error or evil verse should be found there. Now you
want me to close my eyes and with a microscope search for the good
teachings even if most of that book is wrong and evil?
You wrote: “As for the
accuracy of the Quran, Bernard Lewis, the eminent historian, claims that
“there is no argument about the accuracy and authenticity of the
Canon.” Good luck trying to say that Lewis is an apologist. Ali, I
suggest you don’t even bother, since I have even seen some of your forum
visitors speak of him with admiration."
Bernard Lewis did not read the following article so
he did not know that there is argument about the authenticity of the
Moreover Bernard Lewis was a human and he can be
mistaken. Gandhi also said some good things about Muhammad. I love Gandhi
but he was mistaken.
After writing half a page extolling the Quran and
calling it a miracle you wrote, “Arab
Christians also acknowledge it as the supreme example of the Arabic
Well we have few Arabs among us. Let them speak and
see if they agree.
You wrote: “Although some
claim that the Prophet Muhammad got his ideas from the Bible, it doesn’t
resemble the Bible at all in content or writing style".
That is because he was illiterate and he often forgot
the correct version of the Biblical stories that he had heard in his
childhood. That is why his version contains many gross errors, like
confusing Maria the mother or Jesus with Miriam the sister of Moses and
You wrote: “The point is
that in each hadith, we must not dwell exclusively on the situation per
se, but we must also search for the deeper meaning behind each situation.
What is the meaning or moral of the story?
Okay; please tell me what is the deeper meaning
behind this hadith?
Bukhari Volume 1, Book 5, Number 277:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, 'The (people of) Bani Israel used to take bath naked
(all together) looking at each other. The Prophet Moses used to take a
bath alone. They said, 'By Allah! Nothing prevents Moses from taking a
bath with us except that he has a scrotal hernia.' So once Moses went
out to take a bath and put his clothes over a stone and then that stone
ran away with his clothes. Moses followed that stone saying, "My
clothes, O stone! My clothes, O stone! till the people of Bani Israel
saw him and said, 'By Allah, Moses has got no defect in his body. Moses
took his clothes and began to beat the stone." Abu Huraira added,
"By Allah! There are still six or seven marks present on the stone
from that excessive beating."
Rape and captives in Islam:
On this subject you wrote: “it
is absolutely, utterly, and totally ridiculous, preposterous, and absurd
to think that Muslims can lawfully force themselves on a woman in a sexual
manner. That claim is just so unbelievable, I am actually having a hard
time accepting that I am writing about this. No Muslim can force himself
on a woman. Period….”
What you wrote about the prohibition to rape the captives is just denial.
We quoted the Quran and the hadith to prove our case. But you quote a John
Renard a Catholic who like other Westerners wants to be politically
correct and disculpate Islam from the blame. Facts speak otherwise. You
keep quoting second hand sources. Those are opinions. They cannot be more
accurate than the Quran and Hadith. Muslims who rape and do other
perversities do not read John Renard, Bernard Lewis or Gandhi for their
guidance. They read the Quran and the Hadith. They listen to their Mullahs
to explain the religion to them not to Western apologists. A Pakistani
Mullah gave a fatwa that it is okay for Pakistani soldiers to rape the
Bangali women when the former attacked Bangladesh in 1971. 250,000 Bangali
women were thus raped and 3,000,000 Bangalis mostly the educated class
It is interesting to note that even your source john
Brand who claims that killing and raping are not justifiable in Islam
admits that horrors were perpetrated “in the very name of Islam”. Why
is that so? Isn’t it possible that those Muslims that perpetrated those
horrors understood the Quran differently? He added, “Nothing can excuse
those who engage in such atrocities, whatever their express motivation,
whatever their avowed religious affiliation.” How about the verses of
the Quran that explicitly call the Muslims to hate the Christians and
Jews, not befriend them but humiliate them and impose a penalty tax on
them and kill the kairs? Aren’t these verses good excuses?
Dear Wissam. If really God has to resort to magic and sensationalism to
impress people, He surely is a miserable god. If miracles are proof they
are proof for those who witness them. They are just hearsay for the rest
and therefore useless.
The miracle of splitting the moon took place in Mecca
but as we know after 13 years of preaching and producing the biggest
miracle ever only a hundred or so embraced Islam. This goes to say that if
the story of that miracle is right it really did not work. The advancement
of Islam started after the Prophet became a highway robber and a marauding
chieftain. That seems to be a much more effective miracle.
Now I hope you know that the moon you see in Mecca is
the same one the Chinese, the Europeans, the Indians or the Americans see.
Can you show me any reference to this most amazing event in the annals of
Anyway despite all the logical absurdities, I
personally have some reservation to reject the miracle of splitting the
Moon as reported in the Hadith. It actually could be true. The reason I
say this is because my own great grand father who was a very saintly man
one day split the Sun. Everybody saw that miracle. This amazing wonder is
not recorded in any historic book for the same reasons that the splitting
of the Moon at the time of the Prophet is not. If you think I am lying,
please disprove me. You have no way to disprove me. If the miracle of my
great grand father that everyone witnessed is no proof for you, despite
the fact that you agree that God can play all sorts of sorcery, just
because YOU did not see it, why should I believe in Muhammad’s alleged
miracles when I did not see them?
As for the Jews, please understand that those stories
in the Bible are fables. No serious scholar takes them for real.
I am sure you know that Muslims or the Semitic
religions are not the only ones who believe in miracles. The Indian
religions and the Native Americans have tales that are also fantastic in
nature. Now of course as a Muslim you do not believe in these religions.
Please tell me why should I accept what you call miracles and reject the
wonderments of these other religions?
Spirit World, the Jinn, and the Unseen.
You start your argument on Jinn by:
“If you believe in any religion, you
believe in the unseen”.
Well that is the whole point. When you start
believing in hocus pocus you lose your rational ability and become
vulnerable to be duped by unscrupulous power hungry charlatans who claim
to have contact with the unseen.
You try to prove the existence of the Jinn because as
you say “more
people are turning to religion and new age spirituality movements’.
First of all that is a false premise! The fact is that more people are
turning AWAY from this hocus pocus business and turning towards reason and
science for the explanation of the unknown phenomena. Secondly the truth
cannot be determined by the consensus of the majority. There was a time
that everyone believed that the Earth is stationary and the Sun is
revolving around it. This was never true even though everyone believed in
it. So even though many people still believe in hocus-pocus, hocus-pocus
remains hocus-pocus. Therefore this kind of reasoning is flawed.
You went on to count a story of a haunted house as
the proof of the existence of Jinns. I am amongst the few rationalists who
accept the existence of a non-material (call its “spiritual”)
dimension, parallel to this universe. I think this is an area that needs
to be studies further. But just because an area of science is not yet
explored that does not justify the religionists to come with their most
ridiculous and unscientific explanations. When Copernicus explained the
movement of the plants around the Sun, Newton had not yet discovered the
law of gravity. So Copernicus thought that angels move the planets around
the Sun. Copernicus was a great scientist but he was still a religious man
believing in the religious absurdities. If Newton were as religious as
Copernicus he probably would not have cared to find the real answer to
this “strange” phenomenon. Today no one believes angels are
responsible for pushing the planets around the Sun. Today’s science
explains the mystery that baffled Copernicus and his contemporaries.
Today we do not know much about “haunted houses”
and other phenomena that we categorize as “occult”. All these
phenomena will be explained in time when we discover new physical laws and
may be worlds that are not made of matter but fall within the purview of
science. Speculation about these subjects prior to understanding them is
fit for the gullible folks with a lot of imagination and little rational
There is a difference between things that we do not
know and things that we know are absurd. The stories of Muhammad about
Jinns fall within the second category. At one time Muhammad claimed that
he fought with Satan while he was prying and said if he could grab him he
would tie him to a column in a mosque so every one could see him. What a
ridiculous story! As he himself claims somewhere else, Satan is made of
spirit. How in the world can you tie a spirit to a column and make him
visible? If spirits can go through the walls, can ropes hold them in
place? In another place he asks his companion not to bring bones for him
to clean his anus because the Jinns find food on them. Now if Jinns are
made of spirits why they need food made of matter? There is no consistency
in the stories of Muhammad. He just wanted to fool his audience. That is
all. In another occasion he claimed to have visited the town of the Jinns
and they all converted to Islam. Well this may explain why those Jinns are
so evil and why they constantly terrorize people. After eradicating Islam
in this world I will try to visit the town of the Jinns and make them
leave Islam too. I bet this will stop them from haunting houses and
You wrote, “But
interestingly enough, I find that you ‘believe’ in souls. Tell me Ali,
what is your direct, scientific evidence that we have souls? What does
they look like? Where are your scientific journals proving that we have
souls? Why should I ‘believe’ in something that clearly defies
As a matter of fact I do not “believe” in souls.
I do believe that there are phenomena that does not fall within the
purview of the known science. These areas must be further studied. I have
had dreams that have come true and my parents dream about me whenever I am
in some sort of distress even though they live half a world apart from me.
I cannot dismiss all that because that would be closing my eyes to the
evidence but I cannot accept the ridiculous statements of a charlatan who
has a history of lying and deceiving people. There is an ample evidence to
be convinced that there is a reality beyond the material world sensed by
us. This is not illogical. Now even science speaks of antimatter of which
we know very little. Therefore I am not going to sit and speculate about
it. What is not rational is to let ourselves be taken by unscrupulous
swindlers who pretend to have answers to these unexplainable phenomena and
make you believe in their spoof.
You wrote: "If
you believe we have souls that are unseen, what do you suppose is the
source of our souls? The Big Bang? Are you telling me that souls are made
of physical elements? Are souls solid, liquid, or gas?”
No I do not believe that soul is made of matter. I
believe that soul is the function of the matter. Take the example of life.
Life is not made of matter either but it is a function of the matter. This
subject cannot be discussed in this debate. I will write an article
explaining it in more detail when I find time for it.
Refuting to have blind faith you wrote: ”I
would not doubt the words of the Prophet Muhammad, because he was known to
be honest (named Al-Amin, “The Truthful,” by people in Mecca even
before his Prophethood) by a great many people, especially the ones around
him, who knew him best”
Said who? This is the most preposterous claim of the
Muslims. The only people who make such claim are his followers. The rest
of the humanity knows that he was an impostor, a liar, and a storyteller.
Do we have any other source except the hadithes written by Muslims to
substantiate this claim? No, he killed all of his opponents. All those who
refused accepting him, who doubted in his honesty, were assassinated and
exterminated by him. Your claim that Muhammad was honest is worthless to
me. Of course you believe he was honest. The followers of Ron Hobart think
he was honest too. The Moonies believe Sun Myun Moon was honest. Those who
gave their lives defending David Koresh thought he was honest. So on so
forth. The followers of all cults believe that their guru is honest. That
is no proof to any rational person. Some western historians have echoed
the same claim based on Islamic sources. All that amounts to no proof. We
can establish Muhammad was a liar just by reading the Quran and
scrutinizing his own words. When we see that he is talking nonsense, we
can be certain that he was lying. And the Quran is full of nonsense.
You wrote, “Furthermore,
the very fact that the Prophet instructs us to learn as much as we can
from as many sources as possible, as well as the Quranic command to think
and use our reasoning to apprehend God’s purpose in creation, shows me
that the God encourages thinking.”
For the sake of heaven! What thinking? Look at the
state of the Muslims. Can you show me one nation as ignorant as Muslims?
Doesn’t this prove that Islam is an impediment to thinking and real
learning? Why you try to fool yourself with these cheap clichés? Are
Muslims allowed to think anything that goes against the Quran? What kind
of thinking is that? It is like erecting a wall of ignorance around
yourself and saying we are free to roam around this precinct. In this very
letter you showed the kind of “thinking” that Muslims are capable of.
You have no problem accepting any unreasonable irrational claim because
Muhammad said so and because you believe that Muhammad was honest. That is
not thinking. It’s believing! Thinking required doubting. But Muslims
are not allowed to doubt. They are encouraged to have faith in illogical
and ridiculous. Questioning the Islamic dogma is a taboo that can cost
one’s life. Please stop fooling yourself with this preposterous claim
that Muslims are encouraged to think. They are not encouraged to think.
They are encouraged to obey and to believe blindly. They are called
Muslims because they submit their intelligence, independence, freedom and
self to a fictitious deity called Allah. How can you be a submitter and a
thinker at the same time? If you think it means you do not submit and if
you submit it means that you relinquish thinking and follow blindly.
You wrote: “Islam came
to eradicate superstitions, such as the practices of drinking the blood of
your enemies in order to make you a better warrior.”
That is a bogus statement. Islam is the very
source of superstitions. Apart from the idea of Jinns that is superstition
and you believe in it because Quran says so; apart from the most obvious
superstition of the splitting the moon; Quran is full of other
superstitions like cursing your enemies. What logic is in this? Why God
has to listen to a creature of his to harm another creature? Is God really
so petite? Isn’t this invoking the curse of God, practiced so often by
Muhammad a stupid superstition? Forget about the immorality of that, just
think, if you are capable of, and ponder on its stupidity. Why should god
want to hurt someone just because that person disbelieve in Him? Why
should God be so desperate to be known? If he is so desperate and really
wants to hurt someone who does not believe in him why he needs someone
else to make this petition? Doesn’t he know better? Was Muhammad wiser
than God to tell him how to run his world and what to do with his
creatures? If cursing had any effect why Muhammad’s enemies were not
harmed by it and why it took him to go after them and personally kill
them? Hitler or any despot with superior military might could do the same
thing. Looks like that the sword of Muhammad’s brainless followers were
more effective than his Allah.
You wrote: “Islam
is not afraid of its adherents thinking on their own.”
That is a bogus statement of course. What is the
punishment of those Muslims who after thinking decide to leave Islam?
Muslims are not allowed to think against the Islamic dogma. They are not
allowed to think against the Quran. If you limit a person’s thinking,
that is not thinking. All Muslims are allowed to do is to interpret the
verses of the Quran and discuss with each other about that book. Beyond
that no thought is allowed. This is called exercise in ignorance. There is
a vast human knowledge beyond the Quran that contradict it, but Muslims
are not allowed to touch it, discuss it or think about it. This is not
You wrote: “If
anything, it encourages it, [Thinking] because it knows that the ultimate
source of truth, and the final destination of your contemplative journey,
will be God, the source of all knowledge."
This is a dogma not thinking? What if my thinking
rejects the existence of such deity? What if I come to the conclusion that
the above is a false claim? You have accepted a priory a certain precepts
through blind faith, therefore your rational reasoning is already limited.
It is like wearing a certain colored glass that filters some of the
lights. It is oblivious that your perception of reality would be limited
when you view the world only through that glass. The only real form of
thinking is free thinking—free from all preconceived assumptions and
beliefs. Only when you learn to doubt everything you can start thinking,
other than that your thinking is impaired and it is not thinking.
You wrote: “Although
you might not respect our beliefs, the simple fact that the idea of Islam
has transcended both geography and time, both the minds of individuals and
the minds of entire empires, proves that it is a legitimate source of
That is false logic. The fact that Islam has
lasted so far is because it used force to subdue any critical thinking.
Today that thanks to the Internet that power is taken away from the
Muslims; the destruction of Islam is inevitable. As a Muslim you certainly
do not believe in Hinduism. But by your own logic you have to admit that
Hinduism is a more legitimate religion than Islam because it is thrice
older than Islam. The truth of a belief can only be determined by its
concordance with logic. Islam is not concordant with logic. The fact that
it has lasted for 1400 years is because it nipped in the bud any voice of
You wrote: “No one will
agree with you if you say that Islam has not helped to cultivate the very
idea of what a civilization should be. There have just been too many
contributions to the fields of art, science, law, government, religion,
philosophy—the list goes on and on.”
This is absolutely a false statement. First of all
“Islamic civilization” is an oxymoron. Islam is an anti civilization
cult. It is the epitome of barbarity par excellence. Islam crippled the
art, clipped the wings of the poets, prohibited music, banned paintings,
restricted philosophy, interdicted democracy and imposed a loutish
legislation that reduced civilized societies into barbarians. We Iranians
wrote the first Charter of Human Rights and now under the influence of
Islam we stone the single mothers, we chop the hands of the petty thief;
we abuse our young girls as young as 9 years old by licensing marriage at
such tender age. This is all the result of the Islamic “culture”.
You may call it culture but to me it is barbarity.
You wrote: “ we have
the proof of our creator right in front of us. Our minds are there to
apprehend the objects and events around and inside of us as further proof
of an intelligent creation.”
This is a different subject that requires another
discussion. Here we are not discussing the existence of God. Let us
suppose that there is a God who created this universe. This does in no way
prove that Muhammad, that murderer, liar, pedophile man was his messenger.
Let us discuss things one by one. We are not discussing about God for now.
Let us pretend that He exists. My claim for now is that Muhammad was an
impostor for the simple reason that he was a vile, ignominious,
contemptible person. Everything he did was abhorrent. And also because his
book contains absurdities that reveal the fact that he was a stupid man
with no contact with any super power.
In praise of Muhammad you wrote,
“In his conflicts he was never guided by lust for treasure or land.”
The very hadithes that depict his life belie this
statement. We have hadithes that show Muhammad invaded innocent people
just for the lust of their wealth, lands, and women. We have hadithes that
count how he tortured a Jew who had hidden the treasures of the Khaibar
with red iron rod to make him reveal the whereabouts of that hidden
treasure until he died. We have hadithes that say Muhammad’s army raided
cities killed the men and he raped the women whom they captured in those
raids after killing their loved ones. Safiyha and Rayhana were the women
who he raped after killing their male relatives. So stop lying to yourself
about the virtues of Muhammad. That man you call a prophet was no prophet
at all but a shameless conman of no moral values. He was a narcissist. His
morality was as much developed as the morality of a five years old child.
He had no conscience whatsoever. He could kill so heartlessly, because he
had no conscience. He was as evil as Hitler or other famous narcissists.
claim that the Prophet was insane.
You tried to refute my claim that Muhammad was a schizophrenic
and wrote: “A
schizopreenic is usually (broadly) understood to be a person in
psychosis, that hallucinates and hears voices to the point of literally
being unable to continue his or her life.”
Well, Muhammad fits into that description. He heard
voices of angels, Jinns and other shadowy figures. So he was
hallucinating. Didn’t he try to commit suicide? Isn’t this another
proof that he was not sane? Wasn’t he obsessed with religion and God?
This is another clue that he was a schizophrenic. But schizophrenia per se
is not such a bad thing. Today with medications schizophrenics can lead a
normal life and some of them are very intelligent people. Schizophrenics
can also be kind hearted warm people. However, apart from
schizophrenia Muhammad was also a narcissist. It is this combination that
made of him such an evil character. He was a man obsessed with
megalomaniac self-aggrandizing ideas who was also
hallucinating. That is what made him such a monster. He actually believed
in his lies. So in a twisted way there is some truth to his
“reputation” of honesty. This man was so sick that he could not
differentiate the reality from fantasy. So technically we cannot say he
was lying because he actually believed in his hallucinations and
considered them to be real.
You wrote: “This
man signed treaties and was a fully functioning human being, Ali. By all
accounts he was a great general and even greater diplomat. His closest
companions certainly did not accuse of him of being some out-of-control
maniac that heard and saw random things.”
Hitler was also a functioning man. So were Stalin
and Saddam Hussein. But these people were/are insane. A lot of insane
individuals occupy very sensitive positions. Many of our leaders and
politicians were/are insane. Intellectually they are advanced. They know
how to manipulate and how to take advantage of the gullibility of the
masses but emotionally they have not evolved. Muhammad’s mother was a
careless woman who abandoned her only child to be raised by a Bedouin
woman. This tells us a lot about the emotional statement of Amina (Mo's
Muhammad had a very turbulent childhood. He changed five foster parents
before the age of 12. This man was emotionally a wreck. He never forgave
his mother. 50 years after her death he visits her tomb, cried profusely
but did not pray for her. What does that say about his state of the mind?
And yes people of his time also said that he was a lunatic. He confessed
to that charge in the Quran.
As the proof of the sanity of Muhammad you made
the example of the faith of Umar and said, “no scholar would say he was
insane”. I am also not making such claim. Umar was not insane but he was
gullible. In one occasion he kissed the Black Stone in Kaaba and said, I
know you are just a stone and have no power over anything. Had I not seen
the Prophet kissing you I would not have kissed you. It is clear that he
gave up his own rational thinking and believed in Muhammad who was
superstitious and insane. The whole Muslims are not insane either, but
they follow blindly an insane man.
You asked: “so tell me
Ali, how could Muhammad have such a following if he was irrational and
hallucinatory, like all schizophrenics are?”
I answer your question with a rhetoric question:
How could so many intelligent Germans follow an insane man such as Hitler?
How about Iranians falling under the sway of Khomeini or Soviets hailing
Stalin? Perhaps a sociologist
can answer that question better. But when intelligent people give up
analytical thinking and like you believe in someone blindly and accept the
most irrational fibs such as “splitting the moon” and “Jinns”,
this is what happens. When you find the answer to your irrational belief
in Muhammad's whoppers you will find the answer to your above question.
You write: “ The
Prophet Muhammad was a predictable man: he valued truth, justice, and
other virtues of God, not unlike what Jesus taught. Schizophrenics, on the
other hand, are not even close to being predictable.”
Well Muhammad was unpredictable. Perhaps you have
forgotten or don’t know the story of his “Satanic Verses” or his
You wrote: “you are
using Christian biased writers to support your claims of the Prophet’s
insanity, which are clearly what you use to support your propaganda
against the prophet.”
No Sir. I am using the Quran and the Hadith
to come to such conclusions.
You wrote: “Furthermore,
If he was insane then how did he govern the entire city of Medina so well
(or even at all?). How could an insane person have such aptitude for
military strategy? How could an insane person negotiate contracts and
I think you are confusing intellectual insanity with
emotional insanity. Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Polpot or Napoleon were not
intellectually insane. They had superior intelligence. Their insanity was
emotional. Some Schizophrenics are very intelligent and most narcissists
are highly intelligent.
You wrote: “It
is interesting to note that the arguments that attempt to discredit the
Prophet have not changed for countless centuries.”
Why should they? If they were made up they would
have changed. None of those charges have been answered yet.
You wrote: “Michael H.
Hart, the noted historian, ranks Muhammad as the number ONE most
influential person in history”
First of all look that you are the one who
constantly are quoting third parties to back your claims. I base all my
claims on the Quran and Hadith and the approved history of Islam such as
Sirat. Sometimes I quote reputed Islamic scholars as a secondary backing
of my proof. Secondly I do not disagree that Muhammad was very influential
in the history. My contention is that his influence was extremely
detrimental. He stifled the civilization and choked the intellectual
development of his followers. I have no doubt that if it were not for
Islam with men like Razi, Ibn Sina, Farabi, Kayyam, Birouni and others
Iran would have ushered humanity into the Renascence followed by
Enlightenment five hundred years before Europe. What would be of the world
today if we had the Renascence 900 years ago? What would be of the world
if we had our Industrial Revolution 700 years ago?
But those great men were called heretics, they were shunned and
their philosophical booked destroyed. Look at Iran now! It is one of the
most backward countries of the world. That is what Islam has done to us.
So dear Wissam, don’t fool yourself with this
“number one most influential person in history” tale. Incidentally
many of those influential people were evil people and their influence was
pernicious. No one can question the influence of Changeez Khan, Hitler or
Stalin. Marx had tremendous influence in the 19th and the 20th
century politics. But it was mostly devastation, misery and death. Marx
was not insane at all. He was superbly intelligent and emotionally
balanced. But his theories were wicked, mostly based on hate and therefore
his influence was devastating.
You wrote: “and the
Prophet Muhammad’s case mirrors the case of Jesus”
That is absolutely a false statement. Did Jesus
invade those who disbelieved in him? Did he kill anyone? Did he rape a
9-year-old child or rape women captured in raids? Comparing Muhammad to
Jesses is a gross insult to human intelligence. Jesus is a mythological
personage. Most of the stories attributed to him drive from Mitraism a
Persian religion dominant in Europe prior to the advent of Christianity.
But if we accept the counts of the New Testament as our source of
information about Jesus we find a holy person, sanctified from most vices,
divine in every aspect, unblemished and pure. But what we learn about
Muhammad from the very Islamic sources is anything but. Muhammad was the
embodiment of evil. He was an abomination. A disgrace to human race! How
can one compare Muhammad with Jesus?
You wrote: “As far as
your claims that the Prophet was some kind of sex maniac, let us see what
noted British author Geoffrey Parrinder, wrote in his book…”
It is amazing that you accuse me of using third
party sources. Wake up Wissam. Who cares what others say. Did Geoffrey
Parrinder saw Muhammad? Where did he get his information about Muhammad?
Why should I listen to him or to anyone else when I can go to the source
and find out the truth on my own? The facts that I tell you are based on
the Quran and the Hadith. Anything that contradicts those sources is
opinion not fact.
On this subject you quoted few verses of the Quran
that prohibit lying and a hadith where some kind of lying is permitted.
The point is what Muhammad said and what he did where two different
things. This man was a moral relativist. His whole story of prophethood
was a lie. However here we are not talking about Muhammad but Muslims.
You quoted a hadith that says lying in war is
permissible and wrote: “Second, lying and
deception when on the battlefield is almost a necessity so one can gain a
strategic advantage. All governments, including our own, launch
“disinformation” campaigns to preserve their strategic advantage. It
is often a matter of life and death, or as we say now, ‘national
This is precisely the point. Islam is not a
religion trying to elevate the moral standard amongst the people, teach
them ethics and values but it is a political movement with the ambition to
dominate the world using religious sentiment as a tool of domination.
Because Islam is not a religion but a political force, it has to play the
political game of deceit, misinformation and lies in its struggle for
power. Islam has divided the planet into Dar al Harb and Dar al
Islam; Muslims are encouraged to lie, in Dar al Harb to gain
I hope it clear to every one that when Muslims
claim that they love America, or any other kafir land they are lying. They
are trying to deceive you. Your country to them is Dar al Harb (the house
of war) and as such they are encouraged to lie to you and deceive you in
order to strengthen their foot holes and one day when the time is ripe
launch their Jihad on you. Wake up people! The Muslims among you have no
allegiance to your country even when they are born from you.
Their allegiance is to Islam and Islam is not a religion, as you
know it but a political force of imperialism that wants to take over the
word and dominate your lives. John Walker Lynd may have been a misguided
youth but all Muslims are misguided and all of them would betray their
country and kill their own people for this cult. We Iranians had a man
called Salman who was alive in the time of Muhammad. He converted to
Islam, he betrayed his own country, spied for the Muslims and joined them
in invading Iran and shoulder-to-shoulder with the enemy murdered his own
countrymen to make this religion dominate his own country. If Muslims ever
win, John Walker and his ilk that are now called traitors will be hailed
as heroes just as the Iranian traitor, Salman Parsi is now a hero!
Imam Jafar Sadiq (Ironically Sadiq means truthful)
said: "Associate your opponents only
outwardly and oppose them inwardly." (Ft. #1, Usool al
Kafi, p.244) Jafar is the Imam of the Shiits but this hypocrisy holds true
for all the Muslims.
Actually there is a term for the Islamic deceit.
It is called Taquia. The Prophet himself practiced it in signing treaties
with his opponents. As Mr. Nasr is confessing here, it is admissible to
lie to and deceive your opponents. Perhaps that explains why neither
Saddam Hussein nor Yasser Arafat could be trusted for their words. Anyone
relying on a treaty signed by Muslims would be a fool.
Thank you Mr. Wissam Nasr for being so candid
Mr. Nasr, in your letter you briefly went over the
story of the genocide of the Jews and explained the reasons why Muhammad
besieged, banished, massacred the Jews of Medina, enslaved their wives and
confiscated their belonging. All I can see in you is a man with total lack
of moral values. A man so blinded that cannot distinguish between good and
evil. How can a human being not cringe and even defend the treason and
tyranny of Muhammad against the Jews? You say that the Bani Qurayza was
forced to surrender without condition (That is of course because Muhammad
cut the water to their quarter—very nice for someone claiming to be the
messenger of the merciful God). But then Muhammad chooses Sa’d ibn
Mo’adh to pass the verdict. Of course you did not mention the fact that
this old man had personal vendetta with the Bani Qurayza. And you did not
mention that when he said that the men of Bani Qurayza should be put to
death and their wives and children taken as slaves Muhammad praised him
saying he was inspired by God. Now tell me Mr. Executive Director of Human
Rights, was what Muhammad did right? What is the definition of Human
Rights for you Sir? What an amazing tile you have given yourself!
We know that Allah sent several revelations in
every occasion when his beloved prophet was in need of them. For example
he sent a revelation to exonerate him from abiding to his own oath when he
promised not to sleep with Maryah the maid of one of his wives. There was
also a revelation telling him that his adoption with Zeid is null and he
can marry with his own daughter in law. Even there was a revelation for
his wives to cover themselves when young men looked at them. Muhammad’s
God was so concerned of his Prophet’s well being that even Aisha s noted
sarcastically “Thy God is oft ready to come to thy succor”. Why Allah
did not send any revelation on such important matter? Didn’t the lives
of 600 to 900 Jews worth as much as Muhammad having sex with Mariah? Why
instead of Allah Muhammad had to seek the judgment of a man who hated the
Bani Qurayza? How convenient hah?
Dear Mr. Executive Director of Human Rights! There
is something inherently evil in your value system. I am ashamed to call
myself human when people like you call themselves defenders of Human
Rights. By not seeing the obvious evil in what Muhammad did with the Jews
of Medina you have demonstrated that you have no moral fiber. How can you
defend the actions of a man who pulls down the pants of the young boys to
see whether they have grown hair over their genitals to determine whether
they have reached manhood in order to decapitate them? What was the fault
of these boys? Where is your humanity Mr. Director of Human Rights? Please
do not disgrace this title.
What have you done to save Amina Lawal from Death
by Stoning? http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=1807
You have done nothing and you will do nothing
because you are not here to defend the Human Rights but the rights of the
Muslims to kill, to murder, to lie. Your job is to defend the right of the
executioners of Amina and not her life.
Please don’t make a mockery of Human Rights Sir.
You wrote: “When you
bring up names like Jose Padilla you are painting all of us as
No Sir. When you defend Muhammad’s terrorist
actions against the Jews, it is you who paint yourself as terrorist. You
are not a follower of terrorist Jose Padilla but you are the follower of
the terrorist Muhammad. As long as you follow a terrorist and you condone
and defend his terrorist acts you are a potential terrorist. What can we
say of a man who holds a mass murderer and an assassin as his leader? Now
of course most Muslims are not aware that their prophet was a terrorist.
Many of them are in denial. But you know and you defend his crimes.
You wrote: “If you wish
to bring up an example of what a Muslims should be like, why don’t you
mention the first four Caliphs, who were companions of the Prophet?”
Oh dear! It seems that you are completely lost! Do
you know that it was Ali who massacred those 600 to 900 men of Bani
Qurayza? What kind of human being can have such heart? Do you know that
this man massacred 4000 of Islamic dissidents khawarej when they sat on
the ground with no weapons in protest? What about Omar? This man was not
as ruthless as Ali. But he was a bigot to the core. Wasn’t he the man
who cleansed Arabia from the Jews and the Christians acting on the last
will of Muhammad? Who said the “rightly guided Khalifs” were symbol of
mercy? They were power hungry tyrants. Three of them were murdered because
of the discontent and as the result of their oppression. The history of
Islam is a history of power, deceit, assassination and tyranny. It is 1400
years of shame.
You wrote: “ The
Prophet himself was a role model to both men and women from all
Yes! And that is the whole problem. When a billon
people take a crazy man like Muhammad as their role model you cannot
expect better from the Muslims. That is why when Muslims try to follow
their prophet to the full extent, they become terrorists. Is there a day
that some Muslims are not in the news for some terrorist activity?
You brought the example of the ambassador of Italy
to SA who accepted Islam. First of all this is no proof that Islam is a
real religion. People do stupid things and one should not judge the
validity of a religion by the understanding of others. I have written
about a prominent psychologist who has become a devotee of John de Ruiter,
a totally insane person who has orgies with his followers. This man swears
that de Ruiter is very sane. Should we believe him because he is a doctor
psychologist? Even educated people do crazy things. The absurdity of Islam
is clear from its sacred writings. No amount of famous followers would
make this religion a true one. Especially when we know that Saudis pay
prominent people to convert to Islam because they consider it the best
investment in their propaganda campaign.
i think you
have slain the goliath! good job. i can see the confusion mr. wissam is
in from his rebuttals. i do not know why he insists on the sources of
your arguments since i see that you are directly quoting from the quran.
this guy seems to believe the oxford history on islam rather than
the quran itself. i for one lost my faith only upon reading the "
word of the almighty god". keep up the good work. we
should get rid of all the religions and start with the most virulent of
them all- islam.
an apostate friend.
1 | 2
| 3 | 4
| 5 | 6