Leaving Islam



Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina 

Part IV Page 27

Back  <   >  Next


Yet he says he is not here to tell people what to do. Sina is a complete fool and he needs to sort his fundamental arguments out. He constantly says one thing then contradicts it. Like he said earlier Islam is not a religion but it is and then it isn’t! “Golden Rule” has no say on penal code but it is the “basis of the Justice System” according to Sina, what fool cannot see that you cannot have justice without the use or penal codes (retribution) to dispense justice? I am still waiting to see on what grounds Sina will bring his allegations as he has yet to clearly define his premise and arguments which he is constantly contradicting.

Mr. Zakaria accuses me of flip flapping about whether Islam is a religion or not. Obviously this Muslim's brain chip lacks enough RAM to process simple logic and understand human language. I have made it clear that Islam is not a religion in the sense that we commonly understand religion. Islam does not contain any spiritual guidance to uplift human soul and make him more loving, more caring, more enlightened or unite the hearts of the people. Islam is a tool of domination in the guise of religion. Which part of this is confusing? If I call Islam religion, this is because it is known by that name. This does not mean I believe it to be a religion. I also have referred to Muhammad as “the Prophet”. Should this be interpreted as my admission that he was indeed a prophet? I thought commonsense would prevail but obviously commonsense is not that common amongst Muslims.  

I wonder whether Mr. Zakaria reads my responses to him. He is going in circle repeating the same things. Despite oft clarifying this point, this Muslim can’t still distinguish between the Golden Rule which is the standard of ethics and the penal code, which is the application of retribution. Theft is a crime. This is established by the Golden Rule and religions that are inspired by it. How do you deal with the thief and how do you punish him is the question of the penal code. The penal code varies from country to country but the principle of not stealing remains universal. Why we have to repeat these simple concepts several times? Isn’t this enough evidence of the intellectual handicap of the Muslim intelligentsia?  


His other fantastic statements include that the US does not kill civilians en masse, now even many hardcore patriotic Americans would dispute this! It seems someone must explain to Mr Sina what is a nuclear weapons, incendiary bombs, chemical weapons and what happens when those are dropped in civilian cities like Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and Hano. Yet he barks on about his “Golden Rule” being universal because he says so like a fanatic with a blind faith in his cult.  


Mr. Zakaria is virtually unable to let go of America. He is incapable to see that what America did or does has nothing to do with Islam and even if all the Americans are convicted as the villains of the world, in no ways this will make Muhammad a prophet or reduce his crimes. This Muslim is addicted to red herring, straw man and tu quoque fallacies. This jaundiced man blames America of the crimes committed by Muhammad and Muslims. America is a country whose administration changes every 4 or 8 years and new people come to power that may totally disagree with previous rulers. It is absurd to blame "America" as if it were a person and even bomb and kill American civilians for what their rulers did 60 years ago or the ancestors of some of them did 300 years ago. Why this Muslim is unable to see that the man whom he worships and calls prophet, is guilty of genocide of the Jews and Christians in Arabia and instead of questioning his belief in that monster he is trying to find faults in other people? No one is worshipping America or their rulers. If American administrations in the past or present commit mistakes, even if they do something out of malice, the rest of the Americans are not guilty especially when the majority condemn those mistakes. How Hiroshima can justify the ethnic cleansings of the Bani Quraiza, Kheibar, Bani Nadir, Bani Mostaliq or Bani Qainuqa is not clear. Is that a tit for tat fallacy?


How can it be universal while excluding 1.5 billion Muslims forming approx 25% of humanity differs with it and only a handful of people even know the name of this so-called guidance of “Golden Rule”? He makes bold claims like the rule is the “Foundation of our humanity” with no supporting evidence. Indeed, not just Islam but other religion that also contradicts the “Golden Rule” which Mr Sina admitted so where is the universality. I can go on giving examples but how do I teach an old dog new tricks. Sina won’t mind me calling him an animal as he admitted to being one earlier!  



Mr. Zakaria makes laughable statements. He wonders how the Golden Rule can be universal when no one has heard of it.  Dear Yamin, everyone knows what Golden Rule is. You never heard of it because you are a Muslim. Islam has nothing to do with the Golden Rule but all other religions claim to be founded on the basis of it. As a Muslim there are lots of things that you never heard of. As a Muslim you are not in the habit of reading opposing views also. You obviously missed my explanation of the Golden Rule and maybe this is the reason you are making such a fool of yourself. You say “not just Islam but other religions also contradicts the Golden Rule”.  I already quoted the statements of all the religions on the Golden Rule. Obviously all of them acknowledge that the Golden is supreme. Golden Rule means be fair to others. Which religion, apart from Islam, does not agree with that?  But obviously knowing what is right and doing it are two different things. All the religions teach the Golden Rule and pretend to live by it. But most of them fail when it comes to walking their own talk. Their failure to apply the Golden Rule in no ways diminishes the supremacy of this principle.  But at least they strive for excellence and try to be just and fair. Islam goes the opposite way. Islam not only disagrees with the principle of fairness, it actually preaches hate, inequality, violence and abuse. It is one thing to set high standards and not reach it and quite another to go the opposite way. This explains why when people of other religions follow their faiths they become good people but when Muslims follow theirs they become terrorists. Islam is a “religion” that preaches animalistic values.  You don’t become human just because you are an anthropoid. You must also evince the signs of humanness. You can’t do that when you break the Golden Rule and go as far as denouncing it.  

Here is another pertinent example of Mr Sina’s ‘logic’. According to Mr Sina, anything that contradicts the “Golden-Rule” is evil and to be worthy in the eyes of Mr. Sina we must comply with his rule. Otherwise, you are excluded from his circle of brotherhood of the cult but this is the very same accusations that he was placing against Islam in his earlier response!


The Golden rule says:  Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you”. How can you be good if you do on to others things that if done onto you, you’d feel hurt? Are you trying to tell us that your brain is incapable of grasping this simple concept too? Of course, if you do onto others what you yourself do not like to be done onto you, you are hurting them and hence you do not belong to the circle of the brotherhood of mankind. You are not a human at all. You are an abuser and a criminal. You act like animals and you must be locked up. You are a danger to society. What part of this you do not understand? 

How would you like if I come to your house and do onto you and your family what I would find objectionable if done onto me? I don’t like anyone come to my house, force me to accept a religion that I don’t like, reduce me into second class citizen, rape my wife and daughter, take me as slave or force me to pay protection tax in order to be able to live in my own home and not be killed. What should be done to me if I come to your house and do exactly those things that I myself do not like to be done on to me? Don’t you think I should be stopped at any cost including blowing up my brain with a bullet if necessary? If yes tell me why we should not do the same to animals like you who want to do exactly these things to us as part of their religious duty?  Tell me why we should not blow up your manure filled sculls before you lay your hands on our wives and daughters and destroy our lives?  

Is this incitement to violence? Nah!  It is a waking call. As to what you want to do with our wives and daughters you are not making it a secret. You will do to them what Muhammad did to his victims. As to how much you are bound by moral and ethical values, this too you have made it clear that you have no regards for such things. So you already spelled out what you want to do with these foolish people who have given you asylum and protect you with their laws. All I want to do is to make your voice reach them and make you heard. Now it is up to them to heed you and protect themselves, their families and their freedom from this Trojan horse called Islam. 


Why the great ‘scholarly’ mind of Mr Sina cannot see that Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus and everyone else including the followers of the “Golden-Rule” cult will distinguish themselves based on what they believe and by necessity will discriminate against those who do not. Any form of identity is both inclusive to those who comply and simultaneously exclusive to those who do not, that is a reality! Sina seems to be living in his cloud cuckoo land believing in over simplistic ideas to solve complex issues. I cannot find one reference to any scholar, political leaders, think tanks that actually even just mention his so-called “Golden Rule” cult.  



Mr. Zakaria wonders why I can’t see the ' logic' of the law of jungle where every man is after his own interest and tries to impose his ways on others disregarding other's rights. He thinks by advocating the rule of fairness I am living in my “cloud cuckoo land” and that my ideas of fairness are simplistic. He even says he can’t find any reference to the Golden rule anywhere. The Golden Rule is called ' golden' because it is universal and can be found virtually in all the cultures (with the exception of Islam and Nazism). But let us see the consequence of what Mr. Zakaria is proposing. Basically he says every man in entitled to discriminate against those who do not agree with him. In clear language he says: “Any form of identity is both inclusive to those who comply and simultaneously exclusive to those who do not”  

This is of course not true with secular democracy that treats all the citizens equally irrespective of the how they voted and for whom. But let us put aside the Golden Rule and follow Mr. Zakaria’s ' code of ethics' for now. Based on Mr. Zakaria’s own 'superior' morality, the non-Muslims are entitled to discriminate against the Muslims just as the Muslims discriminate against the non-Muslims. The rule of jungle applies. Whoever is stronger wins. Today the non-Muslims are superior in every way to the Muslims. They can annihilate the Muslims in few days. They can use their superior power to subdue, enslave and even exterminate the Muslims. I want Mr. Zakaria to explain to us why they should not do that? If this is what you are advocating, why the non-Muslims should not listen to you, follow your instructions and discriminate against Muslims? You made a very clear statement of what you think is right according to your twisted sense of justice. Now I want you to be just as clear and tell us why others should not take your words to heart and should not do onto you what you yourself say is right?  

This is the only question I ask you. Will you answer?


In his usual foul-mouthing mode Sina claims Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was a narcissist yet everyone knows including the most hostile critics of Muhammad (SAW) lived an austere life style. When he died there no great accumulation of wealth left behind for any of his children. In the prime of his youth he was offered money, most beautiful women and power by the Pagan Arabs in return for compromising the message of Islam; And If Prophet Muhammad was a narcissist and an unprincipled person as Sina boldly rants he clearly would have taken that route. Such factors are ignored as it cannot be fitted into Sina’s bigoted mindset.  


Muhammad was a pauper when he married to Khadijah who was a wealthy woman. As soon as he married his “sugar mommy” he stopped working and left Khadijah to take care of his 6 children in addition to her other 3 children from her previous marriages. He himself spent his time in caves, secluded from the society, engulfed in his psychotic reveries. When Khadijah died, Muhammad was again a pauper to the extent that when he arrived in Medina the Ansar and the Jews used to send him dates so he does not sleep hungry. Ten years later, he was the absolute potentate of the entire Arabia . Wherefrom he accumulated this much riches and slaves? Did he work? He became the wealthiest man through looting. Not only he kept 20% of all the spoils of war for himself, when some tribes surrendered without a fight, for example the Bani Nadir or the Bani Quraiza, Muhammad kept everything to himself because, as he argued, Muslims did not fight in those wars. The crooked man did not take into consideration that even though his benighted followers did not fight, the reason these tribes surrendered was because they feared the savagery of Muslims.      

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 19, #2961:

Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab:

Malik ibn Aws al-Hadthan said: One of the arguments put forward by Umar was that he said that the Apostle received three things exclusively to himself: Banu an-Nadir, Khaybar and Fadak. The Banu an-Nadir property was kept wholly for his emergent needs, Fadak for travelers, and Khaybar was divided by the Apostle into three sections: two for Muslims, and one as a contribution for his family. If anything remained after making the contribution of his family, he divided it among the poor Emigrants."

Each of these towns had thousands of inhabitants and they were the most affluent cities of Arabia. The wealth of tens of thousands of people fell entirely into Muhammad's hands. Can you say that he was a poor man living an austere life? He had several houses.

"O ye who believe! Enter not the Prophet's houses,- until leave is given you," 

How can a man with several houses be poor? He had also many slaves. Muhammad was so captivated by the beauty of a woman that he gave up seven slaves for her! 

Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 19, #2991:

Anas said: "A beautiful slave girl fell to Dihyah. The apostle purchased her for seven slaves. He then gave her to Umm Sulaim for decoration her and preparing her for marriage."

Muslim 19, 4376:

It has been narrated by Anas that (after his migration to Medina) a person placed at the Prophet's (may peace be upon him) disposal some date-palms growing on his land until the lands of Quraiza and Nadir were conquered. Then he began to return to him whatever he had received. 

As for leaving inheritance, Mr. Zakaria should go back to his Islamic books and read the history of Muhammad. Muhammad’s children all died before him. So the point of inheritance is moot.  The only progeny who survived him was his daughter Fatima the wife of Ali. She received an entire town as her inheritance. Fadak, was a township that Muhammad usurped from the Jews of Kheibar. This village is said to have been the queen of Arabia with the most beautiful gardens and fruit trees. Abu Bakr wanted to take it away from Fatima and this caused animosity between Ali and the first Khalifa, which resulted in schism in Islam and the deaths of millions.

Also the claim that Muhammad was offered "all the riches and beautiful women to abandon his prophethood" is a patent lie that he concocted to fool the gullible. If the Meccans really gave a damn about him they could easily kill him and get rid of him. There was no need to go to that extent to make this nuisance charlatan their king and lavish him with riches and women so he stop lying. This simply makes no sense and is made for the consumption of the most gullible. Do we have any case in the history of mankind that people offer to someone whom they believe to be a liar conman riches and power so he desist lying? This is utterly nonsense and a measure of the naiveté of Muslims. . 

From the Quran itself we learn that the Meccans called Muhammad a madman. Surely they would not have given a madman unlimited riches, their daughters and the leadership of their town to make him stop lying. Are you willing to give any money, let alone your daughter and the leadership of your town, to a loony who claims to be a prophet to make him stop lying? If not then why you think the Meccans would do such thing? They thought Muhammad was a loon. Only a Muslim is capable to fool himself to such an extent and believe in these fairytales. 

The Meccans never gave much importance to Muhammad and they thought of him no more than a cracked loony.  It was after he became a marauding gangster and started inflicting heavy casualties on their caravans and even killing their men that they took him seriously. 


On the contrary, it is Sina that depicts himself as a narcissist shown by his constant self-praising (“logical gun”, menacing debater etc) and his ego (smashing my nose). More laughably, Sina demonstrates his ignorance and stupidity once more as he cites Ghandi in support of his views but Ghandi actually confirms that Prophet Muhammad was the opposite of a narcissist and he actually offered full praise of Him (SAW) and Ghandi said: "I wanted to know the best of one who holds today's undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind....I became more than convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life.  

It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to this friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the 2nd volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of the great life."



You sound more and more like a broken disk. We already discussed this and I already said that Gandhi was not a scholar on Islam. He was a politician and an appeaser at that. Gandhi’s statements on Muhammad cannot be used as evidence any more than Bush's can be. First because Gandhi was not an authority on the subject that he was opining and second because as a politician he would have caused civil war and senseless bloodshed if he said anything about Muhammad that Muslims did not like. Salman Rushie and Jerry Falwell are nobodies. Yet when they said something about Muhammad that Muslims did not like, innocent bloods were spelt from Bangladesh , to India and from Pakistan to Lebanon. 

As for Muhammad’s “fearlessness” suffice to say that this man who waged 78 wars and cowardly raided unwary and unarmed civilians, never fought in any war personally. In all the wars that he participated, he used to stay behind, giving orders, throwing sand in the direction of the enemy and cursing them while he used to wear, not one, but two coats of mail one on top of the other, which made his movement so cumbersome that he needed the propping of two men to help him stand on his feet.  

What makes Muhammad great and Islam grow is ignorance. If people bothered to read the original history of Islam, like Sira, Tabari and al Waqidi, Islam would be eradicated very soon.  


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.