Leaving Islam



 Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina 

For the sake of clarity I have quoted the rebuttal of Mr. Zakaria and responded to each paragraph separately. Mr. Zakaria believes his rebuttal should be published in one pieces or it loses its eficacy. To read his rebuttal in one piece and be swayed by its power, please read his unbroken response Here

Part II Page 2

Back  <       >    Next

Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina 

Part II  Page 2 

Back  <       >    Next 

Continued from part I 

Yamin Zakaria wrote:

$50,000 Debate - Here is my response to Mr. Ali Sina  

Please note where I have used bold and italics inside quotes to highlight Mr. Sina’s quotations in his previous response.  

a)    You (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? Or is this coming from your “logical gun”? 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 and outbursts. 

Rather, 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 “gambling” with anything but standing on “very shaky ground of faith” in fear of my “logical gun” that any impartial observer would easily see applying basic common sense! It 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 about!

What 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 UK we have a saying “put your money where your mouth is”. Please clarify this important point. 




Ali Sina Wrote: 

No Mr. Zakaria, the referee is the public. I do not expect you to accept your loss even though I would admit if I am wrong. Now are you going to defend Muhammad of the charges that I made against him or are you going to weasel your way out of the debate with these excuses. Remember I did not invite you to debate, you responded to my general invitation and these are the conditions. Take it or leave it. I am not going to waste my time and the time of my readers discussing about silly things. I want to debate about Muhammad and prove the world he is indefensible. If you are not up to the challenge, please clear the way and let a real contender respond.  

Furthermore, I do not have disciples. We are freethinkers. I know this is a difficult concept for you to grasp but let me tell you that even my cat is a freethinker. He has a mind of his own and does not pay any attention to what I say. That is why I like him. He is a freethinking cat. The followers of Muhammad who blindly obey what he told them and have submitted their intelligence to him cannot understand this and do not have a cat's independence of thought. They pride themselves in their submission and slavery. 

You are filibustering Mr. Zakaria. First try to debate. If you sense you are getting any close to winning then you can start talking about the money. Suppose I lie and there is no money. Won't you like to clear your prophet from these charges? Isn't defending Islam enough incentive for you? I am not going to waste my time discussing on this matter.

The more we talk about the form the less we can talk about the substance and this is not my idea of debate.  This is my offer. Take it of leave it. Without the offer, Muslims don't debate, now with the offer they want to talk about the money. How can I get you people talk about your prophet and defend him from the charges I have laid on him? 


b)        You say the following with respect to providing mankind an alternative to Islam:   

“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.”  

You have a mysterious alternative but 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. What 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: “nor would I accept your right to believe in it” i.e. Islam. You sound a like a confused person standing on “very shaky ground of faith and conjecture”

How can you say: I am not here to tell the people what path they should choose. I leave that to them to decide” and 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”? This indicates that you are confused on the fundamental basis of your argument.  

Furthermore, 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!  

HENCE 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.

And 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. 



You keep asking about an alternative. I already clarified this point. I said people must be free to believe in any fairytale they like. However if their fairytale tells them they should kill others, then that fairytale must be stopped. I do not have the right to believe that by killing you I go to heaven and neither you have such right.

Recently a young lady friend of ours in Belgium was threatened and the police captured the assassin before he could carry out his evil design. When questioned, he said, I am a sinner but I want Allah to forgive my sins and send me to heaven. The best way to do that is to kill an apostate. The Belgian police thought he is mentally disturbed. But you and I know that is not true. He is a believer of the lies of Muhammad and he had accomplices. The victim is even frightened to write about her story. This is not the kind of belief free people should tolerate. 

So far Islam has advanced by camouflaging itself as a religion. This must change. People will gradually learn the truth and realize Islam is a dangerous cult that aims to subdue them and subvert their form of life. Then Muslims will be seen as the enemy and they will lose their right to promote and propagate their cult of terror.

Do the Nazis have the right to have their party and promote their cause? I don’t know of any democratic country that allows such thing. Most democratic systems ban racist and fascist movements. Islam is a fascistic ideology. It must be banned.  

Banning Islam is not in contradiction with democracy and freedom of thought. Democracies have been earned through sacrifices and blood. Those who believe in democracy should also protect it. 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.

I want to unmask Islam and let the world see Islam is worse than Nazism. It must be stopped. This is not against democracy. This is protecting the democracy. Democracy has some rules. One rule of democracy is respect of the rights of the minority. We can’t let an undemocratic ideology or a party come to power, using our democratic process, when it does not believe in the rights of the minority. That is why Islam must be stopped.  

I accuse Islam because it is contrary to the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is my yardstick. Islam is diametrically opposed to the Golden Rule and hence a threat to mankind. This is my standard for criticizing Islam. Is that not clear enough? I oppose Islam for the same reasons I oppose Nazism or fascism. These ideologies are ideologies of hate and they are contrary to the Golden Rule. I do not have to tell people what ideologies are best for them. As long as their belief system does not violate the Golden Rule and as long as they respect my freedom of belief, they should be free to believe in whatever they wish.  

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.