Leaving Islam



Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina 

Part IV Page 28

 Back  <   


Final example, Sina suggests that people should voluntarily apply the “Golden Rule” the only way to implement his so-called morality. And this shows his gross naiveté about the world and irrational mindset. No human society has ever functioned without an authority enforcing a set of values. 

If morality is not enforced then the question arises what should be enforced to maintain order and regulation in society? Human beings in general operate to fulfil their desires and needs above anything else; the “Golden Rule” will be the last thing they look to. His example of the US as a “Golden Rule” follower is to the contrary a classic example of a Capitalist State driven by profit not any kind of benevolent values. This is why the US ignored Rwanda , Apartheid South Africa but focused in on the oil-rich Middle East . Its banks and multinational institutions have bled the poorer countries dry, getting them into deeper and deeper debts causing immense human misery but no problem as long as Uncle Sam can have his burgers, shakes and fries. Migrant-coolies like Sina will queue up to endorse such behaviour in return for some benefit.


Mr. Zakaria says it is naïve to expect people to apply the Golden Rule on their own and an authority is needed to enforce any set of values.  Obviously we are having this discussion because Mr. Zakaria confuses the Golden Rule with the rule of law. The Golden Rule can be defined as a personal religion. It is an inner compass for the superior man to act morally. Just as it is up to the individual to follow his religious canon, it is up to the individual to follow the Golden Rule. Just as the observance of religious dictums cannot be imposed and is done voluntarily, so the observance of the Golden Rule cannot be imposed. But this does not mean that it is up to the individual to follow the rule of law or not. The law must be imposed and it must have teeth so it is respected.  

Mr. Zakaria asks if morality is not imposed how a society can be regulated. Once in a while, when he is not engaged in ad hominems and tu quoques, fallacies, Mr. Zakaria can actually ask intelligent questions. Morality cannot be enforced. Can anyone force you not to lust after your neighbor’s wife or not to lie? It is up to you to have moral thoughts and act morally. But if you break the law and for example, sexually molest your neighbor’s wife or commit perjury, you will become responsible for your action and must be punished. Think of the Golden Rule as the religion of the superior man - a religion without all the gobbledygook that usually comes with religions. 

Despite all the impositions and mind control in Islam, in final analysis no one can be forced to believe or observe his religious duties if he does not want to. My illustrious relative can twist my arm and demand that I perform my salat behind him and I may do that out of respect. An Islamic state may coerce its citizens to observe their prayers in public. But can anyone guarantee that people would observer their prayers while alone? The observance of the Golden Rule, just like the observance of religions, is a personal choice. You can’t impose on people to treat others the way they want to be treated. What must be imposed is the observance of the law.  But these are two different things. I have said this several times. Obviously you have a problem with comprehension.  


‘Debate’ Manipulation

Mr Sina has not been honest about the debate. He did not post my response as one coherent piece at the beginning but rather it was embedded in his response for weeks. The result is that my paragraphs are sliced with Mr Sina’s rebuttal below it. The result is by the time you read his twisted slants by referring to my paragraph in isolation of the entire article, and add to this is his continuous tirades, not to mention the irrelevant waffles that even lead him to talk about pre-historic apes, you land on Mr Sina’s imaginary planet!

Also, the reader fails to connect the context of my response which is a response to the previous article of Sina. After several request Mr Sina claimed he was too busy as he had a stupid relative who was making him pray! He wanted to keep this activity secret from him. Is that not surprising for man who is full of self-righteous message and gusto! Or is that a trait clear hypocrite coward behind his keyboard? He still remained silent but only after I posted his response in his forum he was forced to address the issue, I assume out of shame.

As impartial people (that is except his side-kicks that operate fulltime on his forum like Sina) saw clearly he was cheating by no posting both sides response intact and consecutively. Of Course like the money Sina will shout these were the terms of his so-called ‘debate’. How many normal people will conclude that a boxing match is fair if one of the boxers decides to give himself a bit of extra lead weight in his gloves?

Mr. Zakaria, your responses are posted as one piece in your own column but of course they are not coherent and that is your problem. Your utterly incoherent responses are published twice, once as one piece and then paragraph by paragraph where I respond to them and a third time when you post them directly in the forum. In all fairness I do not have to publish them at all. You are not publishing mine, so why I should give you preferential treatment? You are assuming that I am a dhimmi and demanding compliance while you do not feel any obligation to return the favor. This is how you Muslims arrogantly have been treating your hosts, demanding especial privileges as if you are already their masters and they are your vassals. Had you not been so ridiculous in your 'rebuttals' I would not have posted them at all in retaliation or you not publishing my responses. But I can't let go of this much gobbledygook that you have written and hence it does not matter if you don't publish my rebuttals and are afraid to provide a link to this debate, I will publish yours with pleasure nonetheless. 

The person who is dishonest is you because you not only do not post my responses in your site at all, you even do not give any reference to our debate when you post your diatribe against me in other Islamic sites. Are you afraid that people read our debate and see what an embarrassment you have been?  

You say I should be ashamed for calling my relative stupid. I said I was obliged to perform the stupid prayer to show my deference for him. He is like an uncle to me and commands my respect. You are certainly a pathetic liar.  The only person who must be ashamed is you who broke his word and divulged the content of an email that we both agreed would be off the record. You are a man that can’t be trusted. You lie and you break your promises. You are a true follower of Muhammad and you emulate him in every respect including treason. 


Eventually Sina posted my responses as one piece. However, he continued to do further spinning on the matter. He divided each round as parts each one of course ends with his rebuttal, no surprise there as he wants to have the last word to inflate his ego giving himself a false sense of victory. I pointed out that the parts are clearly misleading as none of the parts ended. Part I has continued to Part II, Part II continued to Part III and so on.

Obviously my rebuttals are hurting you. All your incoherent replies are in one piece. I decide to respond to them part by part. This makes it easier on the readers. They won’t be overwhelmed by a lot of reading at once but every other day they find a few pages to read. Why the way I respond to your harangue should affect you at all?  If my sense of victory was false you won’t be so desperate, wasting our readers’ time, whining about how I publish my responses to you. On the other hand you do not even publish my responses and are afraid to provide a link when you write about our debate. In your public rant against me you even forget to mention my name.   

The mockery does not end there as the links at the bottom of the responses do not work and when you click, no surprise you get Mr Sina’s rebuttal. Likewise click the front page on his website on the debate page at the front, guess where it takes you, yet to Mr Sina’s rebuttal with my responses embedded in his instead of the birds-eye view of all the responses from both sides. Even worse under my column it has my response but it also has Mr Sina’s rebuttal. 

All the links work perfectly. Once you go to index page you can go to any page directly.

When I said secular fascist are dishonest and cowards I did not realise that I would one like this who is as low as this! He in fact implicitly admitted his intention is to trap Muslims into these pseudo debates as opposed to being a genuine exercise in finding objective answers, and he said: “I commend your honesty in this case for not falling into that temptation and for making my job so easy”.

Mr. Zakaria, it is not me who traps you. You trap yourself by putting your foot in your mouth. When you so foolishly attack the very concept of fairness, it is not me who traps you, you do that to yourself. Yes indeed you were honest for not lying about Islam being the 'champion of the Golden Rule'. You honestly admitted that Islam is divorced from the Golden Rule, and you stood by your word up to the end, mocking it and calling it a cult. This makes you honest, at least in this issue but a real fool at the same time. By attacking the Golden Rule you basically hanged yourself and handed me the victory from the start.  


So the temptation will allow Sina to show in intellectual pretext for his venom and hatred that is reminiscent of the Nazis. Note he also admits he is having a difficult time with a Muslim who apparently does not understand his “Golden Rule”. No wonder in desperation Mr Sina rushed to declare himself as the winner and of course his laughable justification the dual role of a player and referee is that we should take his word and trust him as he is the ‘Prophet’ of the “Golden Rule” cult! To give further ‘credence’ to himself now he claims of his support from his side-kicks on his internet forum, real ‘impartial’ judges! I suppose the bright side is that is an improvement from his earlier position of wanting to be the referee and the player. 

Mr. Zakaria your fate in this debate was sealed the moment you started questioning the validity of the Golden Rule. It does not take an Einstein to know “Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you” is a good principle. Even a man of your intellectual caliber knows this. When you demand others to treat you fairly and respect your rights, even thought those demands are unjustified, it shows that you like to be treated with fairness. So my dear, "it is not me who slew you, it is Allah who slew you". You dug your own grave by attacking a very wrong target. You were so accustomed to attack the beliefs of your opponents as a substitute of defending Islam that you kept asking me to “unmask” myself so you can attack me. Remember how you were saying a hooded person must not call others ugly?  When I told you I am a practitioner of the Golden Rule you though you found your golden opportunity and foolishly attacked the very idea of fairness. Now even though this was foolish, any sensible person would have changed his position and would have tried to explain off his mistake by making amendments and allowances. If you were intelligent you would have weaseled your way out of this mess that you put yourself in and would have tried to change the strategy. But not you! You either lacked the intelligence or you had become a hostage of  your gigantic Muslim male ego and could not back off. Instead of changing rout, you kept digging your heels deeper and deeper until the hole became too big for you to get out.  

This was one of those debates that I can’t take much credit for winning it. You basically handed the victory to me. It is like you kicking  the ball in your own net and lose the game without me moving a finger.  


Sina carving for publicity wants to publish the debate. However, to be frank, I don’t think any of the mainstream websites will entertain the debate based on his responses, which looks like the words of ranting-racist-hooligan generalising on 1.5 billion Muslims, he lacks knowledge on fundamental concepts as explained earlier with many examples, not to mention his ignorant one-dimensional view of the world.

C'mon now Mr. Zakaris…! We know why you don’t want the debate be publicized. Tell me why when you wrote for Islamic sites attacking the freethinkers and me you did not give a link to our debate? Now if I am this bad as you say, you should be celebrating and advertising our debate. Are you trying to save my image? Thank you! But that is not needed. Please put a link to our debate in your essays and let everyone see what a great mind you are.  


In fact he does not do justice to those who genuinely and intellectually opposes ISLAM. He is a liability for them, but he is more than welcome to try and publish the debate. As for the judicator and money, if Mr Sina was serious about it that would have been ready prior to the debate and I would have instructed my lawyer to ensure the availability of the money in a neutral fund. That is how contracts usually take place; people do not just take other peoples words in these matters and Mr Sina’s ‘integrity’ has already been demonstrated by his unprovoked abuse of his won relatives and the manner he has covered the debate on his website.

You have some cheek Mr. Zakaria. You made a total fool of yourself and you are talking about the reward? Don’t you think it is a bit too late to talk about the money when you have clearly lost the debate? Or is it that you actually don't know you are down and what hit you?  

The judicators can be non-Islamic like writers, journalists who are neutral in the sense that they are not from the Zionist and rightwing camp who foul mouth like Mr Sina, otherwise it is like asking a SS officer to give an objective opinion on a Jew. Finding neutral judicators would be difficult given that Mr Sina’s poor response often deliberately avoiding the key conceptual points he goes at a tangent into prehistoric times, I doubt he would find any volunteers. So, laughably once again Sina now implies that the regular ‘readers’ on his forum are ‘impartial’ judges.  


Obviously you still don't know that you lost the debate long time ago. But I fully agree with choosing adjudicators to announce the victor.  I am sure we can find someone who is not a Zionist or a Muslim sympathizer. 

However, somehow we have to make sure that they won't be assassinated when they announce the victor. Muslims don't like to be humiliated, especially when the reputation of their religion is at stake.  


Lengthy Irrelevant Waffles, but Why?

Mr Sina and the readers will see that by churning out pages of waffle does not help to address the points at hand that are central to the debate. In addition to his incoherencies and contradictions of the arguments are obvious and I gave plenty of examples. You see this is why he is very uncomfortable talking about “Golden Rule” as the more he reveals the more one can see what lies behind the mask. Now surely for a man who wants to take Muslim out of Islam into his “Golden Rule” cult what better and a rational way then to talk about his “Golden Rule” to tempt the Muslims.


The central theme of this debate was supposed to be you defending Muhammad and proving his divine origin. Instead you attacked America, me and the Golden Rule and claimed that what is good is not good, fairness is not fair and the Golden Rule is a cult. 


Yet Mr Sina finds no time even to put some introduction on his website! He wrote pages on irrelevant and speculative issues like groups of apes used to live in Africa millions of years ago is perhaps another example of REAL filibustering. I always have to find my way around the rants and abuses to find the actual points that are pertinent.

Obviously, and I am no more surprised, you did not understand the morale of that story about evolution either. You talked about the survival of the fittest claiming the one who is more aggressive will survive. This you said to justify the violence in Islam and the barbarities committed by your prophet and your terrorist brothers. I explained that unlike what you think the survival of the fittest dose not mean the one who is more violent and aggressive will survive. Our species survived thanks to our ability to cooperate, interact, take care of each other, protect one anther and in essence apply the Golden Rule. Those who were capable of this feat were fit to survive and those who were not, perished. The principle has not changed. Today Muslims are least cooperative, they are an aggressive and violent lot, they do not understand love, cooperation, extending a hand to a fellow human and therefore are the least fit to survive. One reason the Neanderthals were extinct is because in comparison to homo sapience they were more brute, less cooperative and less adaptable to change. Today Muslims are the brute ones of the human species. Naturally Muslims have less chance of survival because they are the least fit. You did not get this message did you? You did not understand why I was talking about the evolution and the survival of the fittest. You thought those are irrelevant issues, tales of some apes that do not concern you. Well, how can I blame a Neanderthal for lack of intelligence?   


Impartial audience will judge delving into side issues, constantly using abusive language, making fantastic claims without any supportive evidence that it is a desperate attempt by Sina to hide his deficiencies in volumes of waffle and convince himself as a ‘freethinker’. Mr Sina should also know that I am mere novice in Islam and not a well-known figure and I do not write for the Al-Jazeera of Qatar but an Al-Jazeera site run by an individual. He does not even acquire the basic facts, which is surprising for a self-proclaimed menacing debater! 

Well Mr. Zakaria I have to admit I was wrong here. I thought the Al Jazeera site belongs to the Al Jazeera Network. So I assumed you must be someone important. After debating with you, I soon realized you are a novice. No sensible debater would attack the Golden Rule and make such a fool of him self. But you served me well. You demonstrated one side of Islam that we often don’t see, i.e. the honest side. The more seasoned debaters often lie. You were honest and a total fool. You put your Islamic cards right on the table and made the world see what you have in your hands. Yes you embarrassed the Muslims but you were great for my cause. 

If Sina cannot pass by a novice like me he has no hope against scholars. No scholar will entertain an ‘intellectual’ midget like Sina who cannot produce a coherent set of ideas as he is getting into a deeper muddle the more he elaborates on his “Golden Rule” cult. His key strategy has been to foul mouth and produce an emotional response and he has failed in that miserably so he stands helpless with his “logical” gun that is empty of any bullets. Mr Sina should learn another Golden Rule of debate: quality is more than quantity; any independent observer will notice that there are few principles and concepts that addressed in his rebuttal.

Mr. Zakaria, foul mouthing is your specialty while deflating the inflated egos is my expertise. Barbara J Stock told me about your super inflated ego and the fact that you are unable to admit error. I told her I will use this weakness of yours to my advantage. I did not have to. You defeated yourself on your own. You made a stupid mistake of attacking the Golden Rule, which has nothing to do with any belief system but is the most basic human principle and the underlying tenet of all the religions. Then your super inflated ego did not let you move on. You could have said: “Okay, you did not clarify this point well at first but now that you make this clear I also agree with you and in fact Muhammad was the champion of the Golden Rule… blah, blah”. But you did not have enough wits to pull yourself out of this hole. Instead you insisted on that foolish notion and handed me the victory in a platter.  


To be continued……
Yamin Zakaria
, UK


Oh really???  

You mean you have something to say?  

I have to confess to you Mr. Zakaria that I enjoyed this debate quite a lot. Now I can understand how my freethinker cat feels when he catches a mouse and plays with it without killing it.  

You did not win the $50,000 dollars reward, but you provided a lot of entertainment for our readers. Please give me your address and I’ll send you a few dollars so you can take your wife to a dinner and be my guest. You were such a great sport and I would like to send to you my token of appreciation.

 Back  <  


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.