Leaving Islam



Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina 

Part IV Page 21


Back  <     >   Next 

Mr Sina’s conniving attempt to assume the position of being right putting the entire burden of proof on us is demonstrated by addressing Mr Sina’s claim that the Prophet was an impostor unless we can prove otherwise. He cites various allegations in an abusive tone as ‘proof’ of why Muhammad (SAW) is not a Prophet. This approach is intellectually dishonest (devious) since even if we refute Mr Sina’s allegations that only establish Muhammad as innocent of those charges – it does not prove his Prophethood, since Mr Sina has not stated what constitutes Prophethood. Otherwise any individual can be identified as a Prophet if he evades Mr Sina’s charges. Had Mr Sina approached the subject objectively, logic (something that he mentions but never seems to apply) would have required for him to define what constitutes Prophethood in the first place and then build his argument from that basis. His lack of definition shows he is not interested in the subject of Prophethood but only how he can legitimise his constant defaming of a person who is not here personally to defend himself. This is something Mr Sina replicated when he abused his relatives behind their back without provocation! How disgusting! These are the traits of a coward who is intellectually bankrupt. Without elaboration on Prophethood Mr Sina’s allegations are unsubstantiated. His charges are subjective, based upon his vague notion of right and wrong allegedly derived from the “Golden Rule” which he is struggling to articulate as being universal and absolute in the first place.


The burden of proof is always on one who makes the positive accession. You are claiming that Muhammad was a prophet of God. Therefore it is up to you to prove such claim. I am claiming that he was a pedophile, a mass murderer, a lecher, a rapist, an assassin, a thief, and a psychopath. It is up to me to prove these charged. You have not given any proof of the prophethood of Muhammad and you are not going to give any because you have got none. However I have proof to all the above charges and I will start on them right after this response.  

These are two different issues. If we both fail to back up our claims with proof, Muhammad is neither a prophet not a monster. He is just an ordinary man and a liar. But if I manage to prove any of my charges then Muhammad becomes a criminal. If I manage to prove all of the above charges then he is indeed a monster.


A more serious problem for Mr Sina is that if he acknowledges Prophethood he is then forced to acknowledge the existence of GOD! Which in turn is made difficult as judging from Mr Sina’s writing he seems to deny the existence of God as he denies the notion of accountability and afterlife? Which is why I am also perplexed why Mr Sina also keeps referring to Satan! 

I am not here to prove the existence or inexistence of God. For the sake of argument I agree with the religious notion of God as believed by the monotheist religions.  Also for the sake of argument, let us suppose that Satan exists. With that premise I can show that Muhammad was more likely sent by Satan than by God. This makes your job really simple. You don’t have to prove the existence of God and Satan. All you have to do is to prove that Muhammad was a messenger of this God you are talking about and not of Satan.


In any case, God Al-mighty is by definition the absolute creator of the universe including Mr Sina. So what right does Mr Sina have to impose his criteria of Prophethood on God? In fact if he did it would be irrational as questioning GOD means to undermine the entity (GOD) that created Mr Ali Sina and his mind. Thus, if GOD is faulty by definition Mr Sina’s mind must also be faulty! The Creator cannot be deficient whilst its created subject right, it is as absurd as expecting the branches of a tree to remain up whilst the root of the tree is severed.


The only faulty thing here is your reasoning. You first assume that Allah is God and my creator and then say I should not question him. This is absurd. You have not yet proven this thing you call Allah is actually the God. I say Allah, or whoever whispered the Quran to the ears of Muhammad, far from being the God is the Satan. Your first task is to prove that Muhammad was the prophet of God. The burden of the proof is on you. However I can easily show the god of Muhammad was satanic. All I have to do is to quote a few verses from the Quran.   

How ludicrous it would be if I tell you that I have brought a message from Jumjum who is the real creator of this universe, and I am his messenger and then demand your absolute obedience and submission to him and myself without providing any proof to my claim? Wouldn’t you ask me for a proof? If you are intelligent you would. If you are not you may believe me without asking for such proof. Why should we be stupid and believe Muhammad who gave no proof whatsoever for his claim?  


Further Inconsistencies of the “Golden Rule” Cult

Self-Evident and Universal – I have already dealt earlier with the issue of Retribution and Mr Sina acknowledged this rule is inadequate to cover that sphere. Mr Sina charges on the basis of violating his “Golden Rule” whilst my premise is one of Islam, so “logic” and “commonsense” means we need to agree on some common principles by which we can assess the allegations. Otherwise both sides will only trade accusations and counter accusations. Mr Sina proposed “Golden Rule” as a premise which I disputed by giving five or more categories of reasons and not just simply due to my denial as Mr Sina alleges in desperation and laughably declares victory! Note also that not only I dispute the rule itself as an ultimate arbiter but also its interpretation given the various circumstances! Mr Sina suddenly alleges that he is not required to “prove the legitimacy” of the “Golden Rule” as it is a universal principle and self evident. On the contrary he says I must prove legitimacy of Islam against the assumed “Golden Rule”. So once again Mr Sina wants to turn the debate into an inquisition of the “Golden Rule” shifting the entire burden of proof on my neck – condemned as guilty until I can prove my innocence! I too can make the same claim about legitimacy of Islam especially as there are over 1.5 billion followers that continues to grow, a system that has been around for 1500 years. Hence ‘slightly’ larger than the “Golden Rule” cult followers who are like all the other cults mentioned, recent and ephemeral.

The Golden Rule is not a cult. It is a name for fairness. It says treat others the way you want to be treated. How can this be a cult?  

I wrote an article defining what is cult and proved that Islam is a cult. But how can the Golden Rule be a cult? The Golden Rule is a principle not a group. Looks like you are more confused than I had originally thought. 

A few paragraphs earlier you wrote: Mr Sina must learn the Golden Rule of a debate; - which is a two-way contest, where he must prove his allegations as much I have to prove them to be false.

Here you are asking me to follow the Golden Rule. In other words you are telling me to be fair. So how can fairness be considered a cult? What you say is not only preposterous but also absurd. Fairness is an attitude. Is fairness a cult? This is beyond absurdity. It borders ridicule. 

If the “Golden Rule” is universal and self-evident where are the followers and volumes of books and scholarly materials on the subject? Which society is a practical example of that? In fact there is not even a section on it on his website? Why? The truth is we only discovered his “Golden Rule” during the course of this debate! Mr. Sina is now beginning to sound like an irrational fanatic who is trying to shove down people’s throat the cult of the “Golden Rule” as he admits his blind faith in the issue. So it is Mr Sina that is in denial not me as I have presented numerous arguments against the “Golden Rule” with evidence. But of course there are many readers and most certainly the objective ones will see this as Mr Sina’s open hypocrisy and a complete idiocy after taunting the Muslims for talking Islam at face value. 

There are no volumes of scholarly dissertations on the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is one sentence and it requires no explanation. It is the most obvious principle. It is our inner compass. It tells us how to be fair. No one wrote a book on it because no one is stupid enough to question it. 

Why I never talked about it before? Because you are the first person who are questioning it. I could never believe someone would disagree with the Golden Rule.

Your expertise as a Muslim is "tu quoque". You don't know how to defend Islam. It is not just you, there is not a single Muslim that can defend Islam. But you are all experts in the logical fallacy of tu quoque. That is why you attack the Golden Rule. This is pathetic. I am saying Islam is not fair and you are telling us, but fairness is a cult. Is there anything more absurd and more ridiculous than this?  


Hence, to cover his inadequacies Mr Sina unashamedly borrows statements from other religions to support his case! 

I quoted the statements of other religious traditions to show that the adherence to the principle of the Golden Rule is the common denominator of all of them. Why should this be shameful? I believe it is shameful advocating a religion that is contrary to the Golden Rule. 


He also tries to make a ludicrous analogy between the “Golden Rule” with the tangible realities perceived through our senses. Sense perception of the reality is what the human mind can determine alone using the senses and previous knowledge. Like everyone can verify using their senses that fire is hotter than ice and the night as being darker than day, sun is brighter than the moon. But that is not the case with morality, ethics and principles that are dependent on your external values, beliefs etc. 

This is a case of self projection. All the sane people of the world can distinguish between right and wrong. Muslims are the only exceptions. Yes our senses can tell us what is wrong, unjust or cruel. Those whose sense of morality is not numbed by a cult created by a psychopath can easily differentiate between justice and injustice, kindness and cruelty, honesty and deceit, etc. with the same certainty that they can differentiate between light and darkness or warmth and coldness. We use the Golden Rule to determine that. Why you think "that is not the case with morality"? It is because as a Muslim you are moral relativist. You are genuinely unable to see the difference between good and bad. Good and bad, in your twisted sense of morality do not have any meaning. Good is what benefits your cult and bad is what endangers your cult. So if by murdering children in Beslan your cult benefits, that mass murder of innocent children is a good action and the perpetrators of that heinous crime are "freedom fighters". But if someone writes a book or an article and tells the truth about Islam that unmasks it, that is evil and the person who done it must be put to death. 

Morality,  ethics and principles are not dependent on our external values and beliefs.  Rape, pedophilia, murder, theft and assassination are bad irrespective of our beliefs. 

I am very pleased that you are so straightforward and unlike many other Muslim apologists are not trying to misrepresent Islam. You are really unmasking Islam for the world to see. According to your moral relativist cult all the above sins are good if they are perpetrated by Muslims and their prophet who according to you defines what is morality and if the same is done by others they are bad. So you can't really say Murder is bad. It depends on who is the murderer and who is the victim. If the murderer is Muslim killing a non-Muslim, then it is okay. If it is the other way round, that is bad. 

Muslims can lie and it is good, but others must not. Muslims can rape the non-Muslims and it is good, but if others do it it is crime and must be paid back with blood. Muslims can bomb and kill thousands of innocent people and when they do it, it is a divine justice but if the non-Muslims kill by accident a Muslim this is a crime that all the non-Muslims must pay for it. This is the essence of what Mr. Zakaria is saying. He says morality, ethics and principles depend on your external values. If your external values tell you that you are a superior being by virtue of your belief in a deity called Allah, you can commit all the crimes and still be a good person. But if you are an unbeliever even your good works are meaningless and you'll be burned in Hellfire.  

Those relate to: “what you ought to do” not what the reality of the physical world is. So the analogy cited by Mr Sina does not support his “Golden Rule” but to the contrary it proves he does not understand the principle that he is citing. Either way this is a poor attempt to evade the real crux of the debate as Mr Sina is being unmasked he feels very uncomfortable as his superficial thoughts is being exposed, of course everyone is already familiar with his anti-Islamic-fascist diatribes. The only other corroborative evidences are some handpicked and borrowed religious references. Since Mr Sina lacking his own bible of the “Golden Rule” he unashamedly borrows from the religions that he disbelieves in the first place! In fact he cannot cite one person or one piece of text that exclusively talks about his so-called “Golden-Rule” yet we are to take his word as this is universal? This is again more absurdity from Mr Sina. Further contradictions are exposed below.

The very fact that all the religions and social philosophies talk about the Golden Rule prove the universality of this principle. The fact that Islam is the only exception vindicates the raison d'être of this site. As I stated in the mission statement, we are not against faith. We are against hate. The reason we fight Islam is because it is a cult of hate that is divorced from the basic precepts of goodness and is in defiance of the Golden Rule. 

It is not that Mr. Zakaria disagrees with the Golden Rule. In fact when he urges me to be fair and follow "my" Golden Rule and prove my allegations to be true as much as he has to prove them to be false, he shows that he knows what the Golden Rule is. However his Islamic moral relativism makes him demand that I follow "my" Golden Rule while he considers himself exempt from it.

The readers must note that Mr. Zakaria is not making these rules up. He is faithfully presenting the Islamic morality and ethics. Muslims, invariably are convinced that they are entitled to harm you but you are not allowed to do the same. Assuming that Muslims have the same vales as others is a grave mistake that could cost many lives. Muslims are not bound by the same morality that others are. They will kill you with clarity of conscience and without any compunction. Your best Muslim friend will rape your wife and slash your throat. You do not have to listen to me, just listen to Mr. Zakaria. He is a true Muslim. He is telling the truth when he says the Golden Rule is worthless and morality, ethics and principles depend on your exterior values. To understand what are the Islamic values all you have to do is to read the Quran. The Quran says you are a filthy infidel that deserve to be put to death or reduced into slavery and dhimitude and become subdued, humiliated and a tributary to Muslims. 

If you think you can win the hearts and the minds of Muslims by being kind to them you are committing a huge mistake. As for Muslims, they think it is your duty to be good to them but they do not have to reciprocate because they are above the Golden Rule. Muslims have different values and their morality, ethics and principles derive from their values and not the other way round.    

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.