Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina
Part IV Page 25
Back < >
Exposing Ali Sina’s “Golden Rule” Cult – Part 2- $00,000
Debate - My third Response  to Mr. Ali Sina
Ali Sina in his typical racist-foul-mouth mode claimed that all
Muslims are animals without any elaboration and he said: “Muslims
do not possess conscience. Conscience has not evolved in them. The
Golden Rule can only be understood by humans. Animals and Muslims do
not understand it.”
Mr. Zakaria starts his so called
'rebuttal' by saying:
“Ali Sina in his typical racist-foul-mouth mode claimed that all
Muslims are animals without any elaboration”
that kind of example, generously provided by your Excellency do I need
also to elaborate? Your arrogance is enough to make this point clear. You
think arrogance can be used as a cover up for ignorance and you make extensive use of this
Islamic trait in your diatribes.
is enough to study the Quran and the conducts of Muhammad to determine
that Islam is a cult of hate and terror with inhumane tenets. As Mr. Zakaria
himself admitted, Islam is divorced from the Golden Rule and in fact he is
derisive of it. The Golden Rule states: Do
onto others as you would wish them do onto you.
This is basically what defines humanity. The Golden Rule is unique to
human consciousness. Only humans are evolved enough to be aware of the
needs of their fellow beings and treat them with the same consideration
that they would treat themselves and their loved ones. When Mr.
Zakaria derides the Golden Rule, he is mocking the very thing that
distinguishes us humans from animals.
According to Mr.
Zakaria’s skewed sense of morality, it is okay to harm non-Muslims but
the non-Muslims are not allowed to do the same to Muslims. He claims that Muhammad was the person who defined what is right and wrong and the
concept of good and evil must be measured by what he did and not the other
way round. So, if Muhammad raped the women of the unbelievers he did the right thing. If he
had sex with a 9 year old child, if he assassinated his critics, if he
massacred innocent people, it is all good and
dandy because he was the prophet of God and he defined morality. However, Mr. Zakaria does not like Muslims to be treated in this way.
He does not believe in the Golden Rule. According to this truly benighted
individual, only Muslims are allowed to do evil and in fact that should
not be called evil because whatever Muhammad did was good and if Muslims do the
same there is no blame in that.
This is the way animals
think and behave. Animals have no understanding of the Golden Rule. They
live by the rule of Jungle. They are kind to their own pack but have no
concept of fairness and do not respect the rights of others outside their
Mr. Zakaria's thinking is
not very distinct from that of animals. Not all Muslims think like Mr.
Zakaria or Muhammad. The majority of Muslims are “pretend Muslims”.
They erroneously think they are Muslims. I often talk about my grandmother
whom I consider to have been a true saint. She was the embodiment of
goodness. She was kind to everyone. She was nominally a Muslim. Therefore
the mere being born in an Islamic family and erroneously calling oneself
Muslim, does not make one an animal. You must live like Muhammad and think like
him to be qualified for that distinction. Your actions count. Mr. Zakaria is a good example of an
animal Muslim. He supports the terrorists. He sees no wrong in rape and massacre of the children in
calls the coward
terrorists who behead innocent people, “freedom fighters”. This person
has no concept of the Golden Rule. He is a true Muslim and therefore a
real animal. This is the elaboration. I do not call all those who call themselves Muslims animals. I call all those who live by the
teachings of the Quran and follow the examples of Muhammad animals.
It is amazing how Sina makes such gross generalisation of 1.5
billion people; perhaps he is trying to teach us the ‘wisdom’
and ‘loving’ nature of his “Golden Rule”! Ironically, why is
Sina debating with Muslims if they are incapable of understanding
his rule, of course they are incapable because Sina says so. Indeed
it can be said that if a man is so eager to hold debates with people
who he considers as animals he is the one who is really deficient in
his mental faculty! In any case, Sina will now have to bite the
bullet as he also admitted that he was born into a Muslim family. So
here follows the implication of Sina’s utterances: The obvious
implication is that Mr Sina is also a product of two animals, like
the wild beasts cohabiting in the woods.
Of course he may try to mitigate his blunders by claiming that he is
only half an animal as he is a BASTARD child. In which case,
Sina’s mother is an adulterous whore that slept around with
non-Muslims perhaps she was inspired by some ‘freethinker’. Or
that she was raped by non-Muslims who are by definition are
“Golden Rule” followers according to Sina’s above mentioned
statements. Or maybe Sina’s dad was spreading his seed amongst the
“Golden Rule” followers or he raped some non-Muslims woman. Sina
can best answer these points. But also, the old dictum: “charity
begins at home”, so, why Mr Sina does not focus his effort in
civilising the animals that are at his home, not just his parents
but his siblings and the extended family? Judging from his email
more than likely it is Ali Sina that is living like an animal in a
cage as he admitted that he is hiding his work and he even prays
along with his family members!
Muhammad used to order his followers to
dismember the corpses of their enemies to "delight the
hearts of the believers". Letting you insult me is the least I can do for you to
delight your heart. Please don't be shy. You lost the intellectual battle
on your own without much input from me, I will let you win the battle of
insults also all on your own without much input from me.
You say “if a man is so eager to hold debates with people who he
considers as animals he is the one who is really deficient in his mental
I really was that naïf to think by debating with likes of Mr. Zakaria I
can make them think like humans, indeed I would be deficient in mental
faculty. But that is not the reason I debate with people like him. The
reason I debate with Mr. Zakaria and his ilk is to highlight the
intellectual bankruptcy of Islamic intelligentsia. It
is through these debates that Muslim intellectuals show their cards
and expose the real face of Islam. It is through these exchanges that the
“pretend Muslims” can see Islam unmasked and leave it. As
the testimonies of Muslims leaving Islam posted in faithfreedom.org
show, the main reason Muslims are leaving Islam is not because they are
swayed by my arguments but by the fact that Muslim apologists like Mr.
Zakaria make it clear that Islam is not an ideology fit for decent
humans. It is a satanic cult made by a psychopath for thugs. Since from the 1.2
billion people who call themselves Muslims, over a billion of them are
decent humans, I am confident that after they read these debates the
majority of them will eventually come to see the light and leave Islam.
do not become an animal simply because you are born in a Muslim family.
You become an animal when you behave like one. Living according to the
Quran and the examples set by Muhammad, will indeed make you an animal
undeserving to be called human.
And this is the man who talks big behind his keyboard about
annihilating Islam and Muslims. Then like a snake he abused his
guest and relative without provocation and bragged about it to a
total stranger i.e. to myself! Such irrational, hypocritical and
cowardly behaviour proves beyond doubt that Sina lacks basic
commonsense and if I were to borrow his terminology a true
“SUBUMAN” or an “animal” like the chimpanzee!
What is also interesting is that if any Muslim was running such a
hate-filled website it would be immediately closed down for inciting
hatred but nobody notices when filthy venom comes out from an
intellectual midget with a heart of Nazi and the bravery of a
chicken. We can go on analysing the implications of Mr Sina’s
foolish statements but it may only result in victimising the
innocents like Mr Sina’s parents and other family members.
for my cleric relative visiting me, I was not disrespectful towards him at
all. In an exchange of emails that we both agreed to be off the record, I
confided to you that I have these distinguished relatives as guests and
have no time to spend on the site. I also told you that my cleric relative
insists that I
should stand in prayer behind him despite the fact that I told him I do
not pray. Of course I did not tell him that I am the archenemy of Islam.
I don't think that is the kind of information I would volunteer to an
elderly beloved relative who has honored me by his presence and has flown hundreds
of miles to pay me a visit. I value family ties and respect elderly
people. I obliged and performed the stupid prayer out of respect for
him. He is as dear to me as an uncle. I have broken my ties with Islam but
not with my relatives and dear ones. It was utterly unethical of you to
publish our private emails after we both agreed they would be off the
record. But of course you have no regards for the Golden
Rule and do not understand ethics. It was my oversight to consider you a
human. I should have known that you are a true Muslim and as such you are
not bound by human norms of ethics and morality.
Hence, indeed, Sina is a real sinner! Despite such self-indicting
statements, from the beginning Mr Sina boasted about his
‘logical’ gun, his menacing debating skills and how he was going
to smash my nose. Any impartial reader can really judge whose nose
is really bleeding, that is if they can manage to see the entire
debate on his website which he has constantly tried spin doctor to
present the debate in his favour (elaborated below). It is blatantly
obvious Sina is finding it increasingly difficult to present a
coherent set of ideas let alone provide a challenge to Islam. My
previous response and the following points using Sina’s statements
will amplify that again.
This was one of those times that I did not have to
use my logical gun because you shoot yourself and the battle ended right
from the start.
for whose nose is bleeding, it is enough to read the entire debate that I
had with Mr. Zakaria and is posted in my site. Why Mr. Zakaria did not
post the same in his site? Why in his recent diatribe against the
freethinkers that he sent far and wide to every Islamic site, he failed to
mention my name or make any reference to faithfreedom.org where our debate
took place? It is obvious that Mr. Zakaria, despite his mental limitations
is quite aware of his bleeding nose. Otherwise he would proudly link to
this debate and advertise it. May
I ask you Mr. Zakaria, why you attacked me as if I were a ghost and never
mentioned my name or my site in your diatribe? Isn’t it because you are
actually embarrassed of your intellectual handicap? Are
you willing to prove to us that you are proud of your performance by
providing a link to our debate in the sites that you post your invective against
freethinkers and me in particular? This surely will go a long way to
restore your credibility. Otherwise, how anyone could believe that you are
convinced of having smashed my nose when you are reluctant to show it to
your readers? You can beat your chest and boast
as much as you like, but actions speak louder than words.
Back < >
Back to Index