Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina
Part II Page 2
< > Next
Continued from part I
Yamin Zakaria wrote:
Debate - Here is my response to Mr. Ali Sina
note where I have used bold and italics inside quotes to highlight
Mr. Sina’s quotations in his previous response.
(Ali Sina) say that I must take your word as being the judicator as
well as the opponent, oh really! This
is surely a laughable and a farcical position, it is like saying one
of boxers in the ring should also be the referee. Then expect the
other boxer to take his word when the final scoring is done! Is this
how you understand objectivity and fair play?
is this coming from your
This reminds me of one my recent debate with a ‘disciple’ of
yours who after a while started to delete my email response without
reading them (by his own admission) and kept sending me his rants
this demonstrates that you are not serious about the money and you
are using it to get cheap publicity. Since
you want to be the final judicator, for sure you are not
anything but standing on
shaky ground of faith” in
fear of my “logical
that any impartial observer would easily see applying basic common
also demonstrates arrogance on your part thinking that you can be
Judge, Jury and Executioner all at the same time. Perhaps this is
our first glimpse into your “position
of logics and truth” that you so proudly boast
I proposed was FAIR – We appoint or agree on judicator(s) and I
would like to further propose that we have a binding contract
through our solicitors who will hold the money into a neutral
account. We should limit the number of exchanges then the judicators
should pronounce the verdict. In the
we have a saying “put your money where your mouth is”. Please
clarify this important point.
say the following with respect to providing mankind an alternative
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
you do not elaborate on this at all although this is exactly what I
asked for in my first email. This
is Deja vou for me. In any case, from the above one line
‘elaboration’ your alternative seems to be rather contradictory.
if the people decided to choose the path of ISLAM by your
criterion of letting people decide freely?
Then by your ‘logic’ your opposition is not to the ideas of
ISLAM as long as they have exercised their free choice in selecting
that path. But,
then you contradict yourself when you later deny that right of free
choice as you say:
would I accept your right to believe in it”
Islam. You sound a like a confused person standing on
shaky ground of faith and conjecture”.
can you say: “I
am not here to tell the people what path they should choose.
I leave that to them to decide”
then you contradict yourself by dictating that they should not
choose the path of ISLAM as you later say “nor
would I accept your right to believe in it”?
indicates that you are confused on the fundamental basis of your
when invoking criticism by rational necessity you must have what is
right in your mind to criticise with in the first place. Otherwise
you are like a masked man that calls everyone else ugly!
PLEASE NOTE: We do need a comprehensive elaboration on your
alternative to pursue a serious debate as we can only get meaningful
discussion when you know what each side stands for – this is
particularly vital for the audience.
it seems you fear to provide alternative as you will end up
contradicting yourself just like I have already demonstrated, as it
is self-evident from your statements.
then go on to say “Almost anything is better than Islam”. So surely you must
have a set of values to judge Islam by otherwise it is empty
rhetoric typical of a bigot, blinded by hate. To
classify something as evil or good you need define and elaborate
your criteria of assessing good and evil.
Something is not evil simply because you say so!
refer to the crimes of the Second World War. By
your criterion of letting people to choose freely, there should be
no objection if they chose the likes of Hitler again! So what
exactly are you espousing Mr Sina? Again does this not show you are
indeed a confused man or a woman?
Or is that your position on
“logic and truth”! Please
elaborate on the above points explain what you exactly mean.
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.”
is difficult fathom why you want to engage in a debate with me and
yet you confess that you do not want read my views as you say
few passages of your articles and gave up”! It
appears to me that you have made up your mind even before engaging
in the debate. Is that how you intend to debate? Please clarify this
important point. Furthermore,
you pass judgments (“Islamic
hate”, “truth”, “love”, “twisted sense of morality”)
me without elaborating on what those terms mean by referring to my
articles but of course you cannot because you have not read them!
Is this not a clear evidence of blind-fanaticism of the type
espoused by the likes of Hitler?
claim my “twisted sense of morality” with no examples or elaboration
but then why don’t you state and define your so-called
“morality”. There is no need to be shy! We want to get a
glimpse of the religion according to Prophet (or read as Profit) Ali
Sina after we leave Islam. So, please elaborate on your morality
and we will be looking forward to seeing this.
wait - According to your earlier stated criteria, truth, hate
morality are all subjective as you said let people decide freely! So
now what ABSOLUTE ‘morals’ are you HYPOCRITCALLY trying to
lecture me with? This all sounds like a position of someone talking
from a position of “belief
standing on “very
shaky ground of faith and conjecture”.
You then go on to make a lot of allegations using terms like “evil”, “humanity”, “savagery”, “rape”, “innocent”,
“murder” etc without defining and elaborating them, and
the basis from which those are derived. You also say:
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
are normally brought against someone in a court of law where the
criteria of determining crime and punishment already exist and are
agreed upon. However
in a debate across different ideologies we need to agree on the
criteria and the definitions of the terms before we can determine
the respective allegations. Otherwise they are mere “assumptions”
or “accusations” herald from a premise not recognised by the
other and vice versa. Hence, by rational necessity this is a
prerequisite before you can establish the truth of your allegation.
To illustrate the point here are two examples which you yourself
We consider those who engage in beheading en masse by the use
of Napalm, B52s and Cluster bombs etc are the real “subhumans”.
soldiers in Abu-Ghraib, Fallujah and elsewhere “engaging in senseless acts of
terror” behaving like real “monsters,
beasts and vampires”. As for the Iraqis they are merely
the heroic resistance fighters defending their lands by whatever
means they have at their disposal. Let us not forget the
not the reverse. So you
see we are at odds as to what is meant by the term “subhuman”
and the other terms, and how they are applied. Similarly, we can
call someone a “murderer” but according to which laws he or she
has committed the crime?
example we consider Homosexuality, Adultery, Rape, Bestiality,
Sadism, Incest, Necrophilia, Snuff Sex, and many other deviant forms
of sexual practices as understood from Islamic texts are
crimes punishable in Islam. But these practices seem perfectly
acceptable to many of the freethinkers around us, and in accordance
to your criteria of letting people decide freely. Similarly you may
levy certain charges against me using your definitions of certain
terms. Hence we must agree on the criteria, definitions then we can
proceed to evaluate your allegations.
Sina, as I stated earlier this is not going to be a debate about
Islam or nothing but Islam and the alternative as you said you have
By rational necessity this has to be the case as issuing criticism
by definition means there are criteria for making that judgement. It
seems you (Mr. Sina) simply want to sit and levy charges against
Islam without elaborating your “better
in fear of exposing yourself. So that others can put your “better
the docks as much you are doing to Islam. Avoiding
this tantamount to intellectual defeat, like the man who wears a
mask and calls everyone else ugly but his so-called “better
kept hidden under the mask because it is in reality very grotesque.
Hence, this is important for our viewers to see objectively both
sides of the arguments, so that they may know what “better
alternative” that they are getting into after leaving
course when we get to the actual debate after you clarified these
above points, it would be constructive for you and others to keep to
one subject at a time rather than go off at a tangent on many other
issues. I see that in your enthusiasm you have touched a lot of
subjects no doubt you will get an opportunity so please be
need not worry about telling me about publishing my response, as not
only I have a website but huge email database and my articles
regularly appear on many websites and newspapers. Issuing such petty
threats like a school boy does not bother me so do not waste your
time going down that venue. If
you do not publish my response the readers will “interpret
this as your lack of confident in your ability to win this debate”.
< > Next
Back to Index