Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina
Part IV Page 27
< > 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.
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
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
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.
Zakaria is virtually unable to let go of
America. He is incapable to see that what
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
of the crimes committed by Muhammad and Muslims.
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
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!
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.
“not just Islam but other religions also contradicts the Golden
Rule”. I already quoted
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.
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!
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
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.
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,
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?
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
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
. 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."
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
< > Next
Back to Index