Home

 Articles

 Op-ed

 Authors

 FAQ

 Leaving Islam
 Library
 Gallery
 Comments
 Debates
  Links
 Forum

 

 

Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina 

Part I  

Back <     >    Next 

 

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 donít, 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 donít 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 more cruel 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 totally 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 the 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 by any standard. The money I am offering comes from the equity in my house. I have made this offer to get your attention. This is to prove to the 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 the debate with me. 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 donít. In fact one way I win is to show my readers that Muslims canít debate without resorting to ad hominem. Very few Muslims can control the temptation of personal attacks. Those few who succeed have my utter admiration and respect.

As for calling someone ďsubhumanĒ 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 as such. They are savages. They are less than subhumans. They are monsters, beasts and vampires. 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 barbarities and followed his orders? I do not know what is your answer to that but mine is, NO! You can't be called a human if you have no humanity in you. 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 human beings targeting the most vulnerable and defenseless.  

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

So, do not see this as labeling but as a charge. If I make such 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 right to say whatever we want to say without any restriction, BUT we must prove it or take it back. That is freedom of speech with responsibility.

Youíll 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 topic to topic. 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 donít 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 donít, 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 Al Jazeera who so often publish your hate laden articles. 

I trust you find these rules fair and equitable. After all if my charges are nothing but libel, youíll be able to demonstrate that. In that case I will remove that charge. 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 donít 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 donít 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 logics and truth.  

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

 Back <     >    Next 

Back to Index 

 

 

 

 

 

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.