Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina
Part IV Page 22
< > Next
a) As a reminder, by not bringing proof Mr Sina is in fact breaking
his first rule confirming his hypocritical nature once again, when
“Let us make this a rule: Each one of us is free to make any
assumption that he pleases but he must be able to prove that
assumption or withdraw it... BUT we must prove it or take it
This is already answered.
If the rule was self-evident and universal I would not be able to
contest it in this manner. His assertions that the “Golden Rule”
does not need to be proved shows his inadequacy and tantamount to a
kangaroo court where the claimant brings the charges against the
defendant even before the rules for evaluating the charges has been
The manner you contested? All you said is that the Golden Rule "is
a cult". This does not show the inadequacy of the Golden Rule. It
only shows your inadequacy to understand the basics of logic.
b) Mr Sina gets himself into a bigger muddle. He says only Islam is
non-compliant to the rule but all the other religions cited are on
the basis of quoting a single reference from each religion. As if
those religions are representative based on that single quote! The
first religion cited by Mr Sina i.e. the Baha’i Faith 
(Heretical sect within Islam) clearly acknowledges Muhammad as a
Prophet (SAW) not an impostor, diametrically opposing Mr Sina’s
allegation. So how can the Baha’i who is
siding with the violators (Islam) of the “Golden Rule” be a
reference for the rule? This is again clear absurdity from Mr Sina
who has got his basic facts wrong not for the first time, yet brags
about his ‘scholarly’ level and menacing debating
I quoted what all other religions and philosophies say about the Golden
Rule to demonstrate the universality of this principle. Under no
circumstance I agree with all these religions who obviously contradict
each other. The point is not that these religions are true, the point is
that the concept of Golden Rule is a self evident and a universal concept.
All the people of the world, irrespective of their religion, agree with
this principle. Muslims are the only exception. Everyone knows doing evil
is bad and ends do not justify the means. Muslims are the only people who
believe good and bad are relative and they can do evil if the end
justifies it. This makes Muslims very dangerous and unpredictable. Mr.
Zakaria's confession should serve as a warning to the people that Muslims
cannot be trusted. They are not bound by the Golden Rule. Kindness to
Muslims will not be interpreted as a sign of goodness and friendship that
needs to be reciprocated but rather as the sing of weakness that must be
paid back with cruelty.
If you feed a dog, eventually he wags his tail and becomes your friend,
but if you feed a wild animal such as a bear, you only endanger your own
life. Wild animals do not have conscience and are not bound by the Golden Rule.
Muslims have the same level of maturity as far as their conscience is concerned.
Kindness to Muslims is a big mistake that could cost your life. First
you have to wean them from Islam and convert them into humans and then be
kind to them. Appeasing Muslims could bring this world to its end. Muslims
must be educated, and weaned from their barbaric cult or crushed but never
Just when you thought it can’t get any
worse well it does. Mr Sina also cites Sheikh Saadi to
support his “Golden Rule” but Sheikh Saadi was a known and a
highly regarded Islamic-poet who openly praised the Prophet in his
poetry that is recited by the millions of Muslims. He says: "He
(Prophet Muhammad) attained the pinnacle of greatness with his
perfection; he dispelled darkness with his beauty; excellent were
all his qualities; shower your blessings on him (Prophet Muhammad)
and his family". According to
Sina’s ‘logic’ Sheikh Saadi, an admirer and a follower of the
Prophet (SAW) should really be an animal, but yet Mr Sina
hypocritically cites him as someone who is compliant to his
“Golden Rule”. Displaying such blatant inconsistencies one can
only conclude he is far from a rational person.
Sa'di was a great poet and a humanist. But he was a human and humans
are fallible. Sa'di did not know what I know. Many Muslims today are like
Sa'di. They have fallen in love with an Islam that exists nowhere except
in their imagination. That Islam is pure. They are fed with lies about
Muhammad and his virtues. They believe in those lies and venerate that
monster believing him to be a superior being. Sa'di, Gandhi, Bernard Saw
and many other good and great men were ignorant of Islam. Muslims are not
truthful in presenting their religion. Even G.W. Bush said Islam is a
religion of peace. What does he know about Islam? None of these people who
spoke loftily about Muhammad and Islam are authorities on Islam. Sa'di was
born in an Islamic country where criticism of Islam was not allowed. How
could he have known the truth about Islam to form an independent and
unbiased opinion? If you had asked me a decade ago I would have said the
same thing about Muhammad and Islam that Sa'di said. But then my words
were informed by my ignorance of Islam. Today that I know Islam better I
am challenging the greatest Muslim scholars to confront me and prove me
wrong. The wiser ones stay away; the foolhardy accepts the challenge and
is crushed. If Sa'di was alive today, I would have challenged his
statement about Muhammad. I am sure, had Sa'di knew the real Islam, he,
like Haifa, Hamidah
and many others would have left Islam.
There is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad verecundiam. It states that something must be true because an authoritative
person believes in it too. Bill Gates once said that 1 mega bite disk
space is more than enough for any computer user. Just because a person of
authority says something that thing does not become true. What evidence
Sa'di gave in his support of Muhammad? None! He simply echoed the
misconception of others. Sa'di was a great man but this does not mean whatever
he said was right. He was a man and he was fallible.
e) Of the religions cited by Mr Sina there are many that clearly
violate his “Golden Rule” fundamentally. For
example, Judaism considers Mr Sina to be a Gentile and a true
subhuman that exists to serve the chosen people of God (Goyeem). The
non-Jews (Gentiles) like Mr Sina have practically no value. Here are
the Gentiles is like eating with the animals”
“A Jew cannot
be tried for the murder of a non-Jew but only man slaughter”
“A Jew cannot
be charged for the rape of a Gentile woman”
What Mr Sina was describing about Islam are the very ideas that are
held by such people, some of them no doubt are very strong supporter
of Mr Sina. But
Mr Sina will ignore and remain hypocritically silent on this
religion. His so-called moral conscience will evaporate even if he
is put on leash by the Jews as he is a worthless Gentile in their
eyes. I am still perplexed what is Mr Sina exactly trying to prove
by citing those single references from the various religions which
not only violates the rule but one is even supportive of Muhammad (SAW).
(points "c" and "d" are missing or you just made a
mistake in numbering)
I don't recall having read such verses in the Bible. I am sure you
either made them up or you quote them mindlessly after another Muslim lied
about them and you believed him without trying to verify them.
These are false, and not supported in Judaism. Eating
with Gentiles is permitted as
long as the food complies with Kosher restrictions.
A Jew can and will be tried for murder of a non-Jew.
Thou shalt not Murder, the commandment, makes no exceptions for the murder
of Gentiles. The only qualification that can be made concerning this
commandment is that killing (not murder) is acceptable, if it is to save
an innocent life. Imagine killing a person threatening a child
with a weapon.
A Jew can be charged for the rape of a Gentile. This
falsehood comes up most often from anti-semites who claim Talmudic
authority for it- there is none, and when people like Mr. Zakari give a
citation for its source, they often cite books that do not exist.
Nonetheless the Old Testament contains a lot of garbage. I read that book when I was 13 years old
and could not contain my laughter. Later I learned more and found out that
Moses was a mythical person and the OT was written by four Rabbis 700 to
900 years after the alleged life of Moses. A good proof for that is the Deut.
34 This book is allegedly written by Moses. Apart from the fact that
the entire Pentateuch that contains Deuteronomy refers to Moses in third
person, it has this obituary about him.
And Moses the servant of the LORD died there in Moab, as the LORD had
said. 6 He buried him in Moab, in the valley
opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is. ...
10 Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel
It is more than obvious that the Pentateuch was written centuries after
the death of Moses and Moses must have not been such an important person
or the Jews would have kept the trace of his tomb.
OT is a book of myths, legends, some good advise and a lot of nonsense. But Muhammad believed in those Biblical fairytales and
plagiarized that book to make his own religion. The above verses which you
have invented remind us of the Quran and hadith.
Compare the above verses that you agree are bad with these words of
Muhammad that you think are divine:
who believe! Verily, the Mushrikûn (unbeleivers) are Najasun (impure). So
let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (at Makkah) after this year,
well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the
Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected."
See also 005.060
sanctioned the rape of women captured in war even if they are previously
"Also (prohibited are) women already married,
except those whom your right hands possess":
Abu Juhaifa said, "I asked, [Ali] 'What is
(written) in this sheet of paper?' Ali replied, it deals with The Diyya
(compensation (blood money) paid by the killer to the relatives of the
victim), the ransom for the releasing of the captives from the hands of
the enemies, and the law that no Muslim should be killed in Qisas
(equality in punishment) for the killing of (a disbeliever).
I condemn both books. The difference is that the Jews know their book
is a book of stories and do not take it verbally. Certainly we do not see
Jews practicing the hatred of Gentiles today. But Muslims have not reached
that maturity. They believe Muhammad defined the good and the bad and
whatever he said should be obeyed.
So how is it that you condemn the Bible and follow the Quran that is
worse? Isn't this hypocrisy
and double standard? Of course it is and you are not even hiding it. You
believe in moral relativism. You don't think hadith and Quran are evil
even though they echo the same evil concepts that you falsely allege are
in the Bible and criticize them. You are capable of slandering others
of your own crimes and find them guilty to justify
f) “Logic” and “commonsense” states that if a religion is
compliant to the “Golden Rule” on the basis of one reference
then it must be equally considered non-complaint if it violates the
“Golden Rule” in one or more issues. “Logic”
dictates that you can be either compliant or non-complaint but not
both simultaneously! In another paragraph he says: “in all the
religions, the Golden rule applies. This is not to say that I agree
with these religions. They are a mix bag of good and bad” The
“bad” that Mr Sina refers to must be non-compliant to his
“Golden Rule”. Thereby rendering these religions non-complaint
by one criterion but also compliant by another criterion! Clearly
this is absurd and illogical. But
this also proves that Mr Sina is not opposed to the violation of the
“Golden Rule” per se since any other faith are given the
privilege to break the rule but not Islam. This is another clear
proof of an irrational man driven by prejudice and blind fanaticism.
Mr. Zakaria, you do not understand neither logic nor commonsense. These
religions are manmade. I do not believe any religion is divine. Men are
fallible. The point is that these religions acknowledge the Golden Rule as
the principle but this does not mean that they always follow it. I can
bring cases where all the religions fail to comply with what they preach.
However Islam is the only religion that brazenly denies the Golden Rule.
This makes a colossal difference.
Because all other religions at least ostensibly agree to submit to the
Golden Rule they share common values. Good and bad is equally understood
by all of them. In Islam this is not the case. When Muslims talk about
good and bad they mean totally different things. The non-Muslims can
easily be fooled and misled by these words. For example if a Muslim says
my Prophet instructs me to be good and just to you, the non-Muslims is
deceived. He interprets this "goodness" and "justice"
according to his own values derived from the Golden Rule and he lowers his
guard thinking this Muslim is also a human like him with the values that
all of us humans share. But this lack of understanding of Islam could be
his doom. The Muslim does not interpret good and justice in accordance to
the Golden Rule. He interprets them in accordance to what Muhammad
ordained and prohibited. Muhammad ordained killing the non-Muslim, looting
him and raping his wife. This is how the Muslim interprets goodness and
justice. As you explained so eloquently, Muslims do not follow the Golden
Rule. Muhammad is for them the one who defined what is good and bad and he
set the standard. So while the non-Muslim thinks the Muslim is going to be
just to him and interprets that justice like the rest of the people, the
Muslim stabs him in the back, rapes his wife and steals his money,
praising Allah while committing these crimes. He is happy because he
thinks he has done the good thing and has fulfilled his duty to his
When you say you do not follow the Golden Rule, you say a lot and
reveal the real face of Islam for the world to see.
The Jews who have those stupid teachings in their book do not follow
those teachings because they give more weight to the Golden Rule and the
Golden Rule says those verses belong to dustbin. The Jews read them but do
not register them and do not follow them because they know that the Golden
Rule should define the values not the other way round. Muslims read
similar and worse verses in their books and since they do not follow the
Golden Rule, they have no inner balance of right and wrong and they
happily commit all sorts of crimes without even knowing what they do is
wrong. This makes Muslims extremely dangerous and untrustworthy. You never
know when your best Muslim friend is going
to slash your throat.
< > Next
Back to Index