Leaving Islam



Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina 

Part III Page 17

Back <    >  Next 

On 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 it.”

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.

Then 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 Germany in the 1930s or the Japanese living within the US just after Perl Harbour ! 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 dictatorship.  

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 America 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 soldiers.  

On 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 its name!

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.


He 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.

I 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!

An 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.  

My 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.

Who 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 US 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 chamber.

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 <    >  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.