Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina
Part III Page 17
Back < >
Democracy and Dictatorship -
Mr Sina says: “Democracy does not mean dictatorship of the majority.
It does not mean letting fascism come to power democratically to
behead that democracy. Hitler and Khomeini came to power through
popular vote. But they did not bring democracy. They strangulated
So if democracy is not the dictatorship of
majority then is it dictatorship of minority? Since he is implying
that democracy is the rule of the people for the people by the
people but not if it violates Ali Sina’s golden rule”! Who ever
decides arbitrarily a party or idea is or is not in compliance to
democracy is in fact by definition a dictator. After all the
acrobatics of what democracy is not, Mr Sina could not say what
democracy is. The more he elaborates the more he exposes his
weaknesses, contradictions and intellectual bankruptcy.
Mr. Sina claims “democracy protects minority”, well not really!
In fact minorities are at the mercy of majority rule of democracy or
the Capitalist elites. Those ‘rights’ of minorities can be
changed overnight as we all saw the so-called human rights abolished
overnight in Camp-X-ray, Bagram, Belmarsh, Abu-Ghraib etc.
Minorities are no more or no less safe than the Jews as minorities
were safe living in democratic
in the 1930s or the Japanese living within the
! Only recently democratic societies have learnt to display a
semblance of tolerate after two world wars and centuries of
intolerance and genocide!
No dear Mr. Zakaria. Democracy
is neither the dictatorship of majority nor the dictatorship of minority.
Democracy is not dictatorship at all. First
of all majority and minority are not static. Various political parties
present their platforms and vie for the public support. The public votes
and elects their rulers. The party that loses does not disappear in
dungeons. They serve the nation as the opposition party and make the
ruling party have a run for their money. The winners are the ones who run
the country but the “losers” are the ones that hold their leash.
Everything is transparent and after four years, the public gets to decide
again who should be in charge. People who voted for party X can
change their mind and vote for party Y. People’s loyalty is to
themselves and their country, not to the parties.
The problem of Islam is that
it is a political movement but pretends to be a religion. That is the
confusion. On one hand it wants to run the country and on the other it
claims to be a religion and demands absolute loyalty. Once you are a
Muslim you can’t get out of it and you can’t vote for anything else.
Muslims will and must always vote for Islamic parties and if they are the
majority that is the end of minorities. This is how Hitler and Khomeini
operated. The minority is not even allowed to express their opposition to
the Islamic ruling party and even if hypothetically they are allowed, they
have no chance of forming the government ever. The danger of Islam is
precisely in the fact that it mixes politics with religion and demands
religious loyalty. This gives birth to a fascistic state such as the
Islamic Republic of Iran or the Taliban Afghanistan and a de facto
In democracies the minorities
are never at the mercy of the ruling party. Every individual, irrespective
of his political affiliation and who is ruling, has exactly the same
rights as others and no one is "more equal”.
As usual you always confuse
the issues. Here you throw in Bagram, Belmarsh, Abu-Ghraib etc. What these
have to do with democracy and our discussion? Abu Ghraib is a prison. In
prisons we don’t have democracy. Prisons are not built to give the
inmates freedom but to take their freedom away. You seem to be a very
confused person. If you are talking about the abuse, then that is another
subject. Yes if the guards break the law and abuse their powers they must
be reprimanded and
has been very determined about it. Some of the abusers of Abu Ghraib
received 15 years jail sentence. That is harsh in my opinion for what they
did. If the accused were civilians they would not be punished so harshly.
I suppose the military judge wanted to make an example of them for other
Freedom of Belief
- Mr Sina says: “Banning
Islam is not in contradiction with democracy and freedom of
thought.” Freedom means unrestrained, opposite of banning or
censoring. You cannot logically have both operating at the same time
and then call it freedom! Once you put any constraint on freedom by
definition it ceases to be free, however for political propaganda
people wave the word ‘freedom’ even when they not only impose
restrictions but use their military powers to kill, rape and loot in
You are wrong Sir. Your
freedom ends where mine begins. You are not free to kill me for my
beliefs, for what I say, or how I live my life. You are not free to preach
hate against me. We are free because no one dictates what we should do or
believe. This is the meaning of freedom. Freedom does not mean having the
liberty to impose our whims on others. Who said freedom in unconstraint?
Freedom is the balance of the rights of all humans; not the unrestricted
freedom of some and the slavery of others. You have a distorted
understanding of freedom. You have a distorted understanding of
everything. That is why you are a Muslim.
said earlier that anyone can believe in any fairy tale as long as it
does not say “they should kill others”. Is that not Mr Sina
dictating to others now? His attitude towards Muslim, or banning of
the Quran and Islam, is a carbon copy of what was preached by Nazi
intellectuals, like Streicher. So, by default, Sina behaves like a
Fascist, Nazi himself. Then Mr Sina makes his fantastic claim that
is illogical, laughable and pretty stupid. He says “I believe in
nothing”, and he also stated “I have no religion. I do not
believe in anything. I am a freethinker.”
You are wrong again. I am not advocating killing
anyone. I am working to bring all the people of the world together. I want
everyone to see the folly of antipathy and division. I want to end
ideologies of hate that divide mankind in “us” and “them”. I
am fighting Islam precisely because it mongers hate and instructs its
befogged followers to kill others. It is the Quran that resembles
Hitler’s Mein Kampf; it is Islam that contains fascistic teachings that
promote hatred of non-believers. Who do you want to fool? We read the
Quran and we can discern. We hear the sermons
of your Mullahs and we know they preach hate. I am not a hate monger.
I am a peace maker and an iconoclast. If I lash out at Islam and smash
this ideology of hate it is because it is a false idol and a hate based
belief. This is not hatred. This is love. I am breaking your shackles not
your arms. I am removing your blinders not your eyes.
did not mention religion but merely asked for his alternative to
Islam. In any case, religion essentially is a viewpoint towards life
and its purpose. Any alternative you give on that position
regardless of what you call it you have a position, i.e. a religion.
Hence everyone has a religion but it might not be a main stream one
that is established and tested for centuries with billions of
followers! So the statement of not believing is meaningless because
that in itself constitutes a belief, a viewpoint. It is the same
as saying that there should be no laws in society which by default
itself becomes a law, enforced and dictated. Or as illogical as
saying that we are free but except don’t cross the line (“Golden
Rule”) drawn by Mr Sina!
alternative to religion is not another religion. Religions are based on
beliefs. Belief is acceptance of something without evidence. I rely on
doubt not on beliefs. These are two opposing paths. The fact that a
religion is believed by many people does not make it right. This is called
argumentum ad numerum and it is a logical fallacy. Truth cannot be
established by the consensus of the majority.
It is not that I am against religions. I respect people’s choices
to believe or not to believe. I chose not to believe but to doubt, to
question, to investigate and to accept only if something is proven to me.
But not every one can or wants to do the same. Many people find it easier
to believe. There are times that I wish I could believe too. The feeling
is very comforting. However, I can’t believe anymore.
problem with Islam is not because it is a belief system but because it is
a hate system. Islam preaches hate and it incites its followers to kill.
That is why I am against Islam. The fact that Muslims believe that
Muhammad went to the seventh heaven riding on a horsy, or he split the
moon asunder, or talked to an angel, or that Sun sets in murky waters
sound ridiculous but it is not the reason I am against Islam. People must
have the freedom to believe even in absurdities. Islam must be banned
because it crosses the Golden Rule. It is the only major religion that
does that. The Golden Rule is not drawn by me. It is a universal principle
of fairness. We must not permit a religion that says, we kill you but you
should respect our hateful message, to advance. That is not a
religion. That is Satan worshiping.
is bungled up on the issue of Abu-Ghraib?
Mr Sina is the one bungled up exposing his
gross ignorance by regurgitated the cheap propaganda of the
rightwing establishment like the so many migrant coolies! Abu-Ghraib
was ‘abuse’, “letting of steam”, and “cheer leader
exercise” to the US establishment but to the Iraqis it was
“murder”, “torture”, “kidnappings” and “humiliation”
by the American gangsters. A lot more happened in Abu-Ghraib, Umm
Qasr and other US-run prisons then Mr Sina suggests. Seymour Hirsh
saw the video clips of young teen and pre-teen boys screeching
whilst being sodomised by US soldiers. Yes, the real Paedophiles not
the imaginary ones claimed by Mr Sina. The
senator said after seeing the pictures and videos, “it was like
descending into hell but unfortunately it was our creation”. There
are accounts of necrophilia and many disappearing in that horror
Please remember not what
was seen but what was not caught on camera and what was caught but
not shown. Also, not to mention we have not heard the Iraqi side of
the story! Why? Unfair media coverage and the Iraqis have honour and
dignity; they are not going to turn up on the Jerry Springer show
discussing their most intimate details as if they are some kind of
animals devoid of shame! Yes the Jerry Springer folks are the
product of the society advocated by ‘freethinkers’; climbing the
tree of the “Golden Rule” like chimpanzees!
Whatever happened in Abu Ghraib the American Media
broadcasted it; the American politicians condemned it; the American public
denounced it; the American justice system punished its perpetrators. I do
not see anything wrong in that. An entire nation can’t be responsible
for the actions of a few law breakers if they do not condone them. You
would have had a case if the Americans tried to cover up and the
perpetrators went free. I think the Americans are naïf to air such
things. They want to play clean with an enemy that plays dirty.
They should not have shown those pictures that fueled the hatred of hatemongers
such as you and cause more revenge and death of innocent
people. They should have punished the perpetrators but not made those
videos public. Sometimes I truly wonder of the stupidity of the Americans.
Their high ranking politicians and bureaucrats go on air to explain where
lies their weaknesses for terrorist attack, how easy it is to make those
attacks and how much damage such attacks can cause to the nation. We
Iranians say, to be donkey you don't have to have horns.
Now compare that with the heinous crimes of Muslim terrorists. Those people humiliated and molested in Abu Ghraib were
terrorists. The victims of the Islamic terrorists are ordinary and
innocent people who have done no harm to anyone. This is a huge
difference. The American guards humiliated but did not kill those
prisoners. The victims of the Muslim Jihadis are often beheaded in the
most barbaric way. But the biggest difference is the reaction of the
public. The Americans were outraged and indignant. But the Muslims in
general condone the terrorists. You yourself are a good example of that.
You have no qualms defending the barbaric acts of your terrorist brothers.
This shows only one thing. American public in general is good people
who have their bad apples, while Muslims are generally bad apples and the
good ones are rarities. Why is that so? It is because they do not follow
the Golden Rule. They commit all heinous crimes against others but can’t
accept if the same is done to them. This is typical attitude of a
narcissist and since they all follow a pathological narcissist as a
prophet, they all have entered into his bubble universe of self
glorification and contempt for others. Each and every one of them evinces
their leader’s narcissistic traits. The level of narcissism of Muslims
varies from person to person and it depends on the degree that they
believe and follow their model narcissist guru. There are many good humans
among Muslims but they are humans to the extent that they are not Muslims.
Back < >
Back to Index