Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina
Part III Page 9
< > Next
In my debate with Mr. Edip Yuksel, the leader of the
sect of Submitters, I quoted a few verses from the Quran switching the
places of “Muslims” and “non-Muslims”. Here are a few of them:
will cast terror into the hearts of Muslims. Therefore strike off
their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
Then fight and slay the Muslims wherever
ye find them,
Therefore, when ye meet the Muslims,
smite at their necks; At length.
Yuksel was outraged. He called
me a “theo-fascist” and wrote: 'His [Ali
Sina’s] "subhuman" remark was the last, but a venomous drop
that filled his cup of hatred and bigotry. He is not a person to reason
with, since his mind is filled with toxic hate and his stomach is thirsty
for fresh blood….” All
that because I quoted the verse of the Quran switching the places of
"Muslims" and "non-Muslims"!
Muslims like to do all these evil things to others
but they do not like reciprocation. As you rightly said it
Islam is not in conformity with the Golden Rule.
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. but Islam is the only religion that is bereft of any good. The
Golden Rule is the inner compass with which all the sane people can
distinguish between right and wrong. Its application is very simple. I
don’t like to be killed, so I must not kill. I do not like to be robbed,
so I must not rob. I don’t like to be lied to, so I must not lie. I do
not like my wife or daughter be raped, so I must not rape someone else’s
wife or daughter, etc. The Golden Rule is an unerring compass. In fact it
is so unerring that religions become superfluous. People without religion
can follow this Rule and find their way unerringly.
Now let us see why Islam is the only religion that
does not follow the Golden Rule. The answer is that all other religions
were human constructs and many of those humans were good people, but Islam is made by a very demonic mind. Either
Muhammad was a messenger of Satan or he was a psychopath. Personally I do
not believe in the existence of Satan. Therefore I would say he
was a psychopath.
Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of Malignant Self Love in
an article titled The
Cult of the Narcissist writes:
“The narcissist's control is based on ambiguity,
unpredictability, fuzziness, and ambient abuse. His ever-shifting whims
exclusively define right versus wrong, desirable and unwanted, what is to
be pursued and what to be avoided. He alone determines the rights and
obligations of his disciples and alters them at will.”
This is exactly how one can describe the teachings of
Muhammad. His definition of right and wrong are not based on the Golden
Rule. They are whimsical. Some things are halal (licit) and other things
are haram (illicit). What is lalal or haram is not self evident. They are based entirely on his whims.
We can understand Muhammad better if we study another
psychopath cult leader and compare the two together. Let us take the
example of Jim Jones who founded the People’s
and his followers drank poison-laced Cool Aid and committed mass suicide
to prove their loyalty to him.
Jeanne Mills, one of the better-educated members of
who escaped the cult but later was assassinated by a cult member (cult
leaders don’t tolerate dissention) commented: “I was amazed at how
little disagreement there was between the members of this church. Before
we joined the church, Al and I couldn’t even agree on whom to vote for
in a presidential election. Now that we all belonged to a group, family
arguments were becoming a thing of the past. There was never a question of
who was right, because Jim was always right. When our large household met
to discuss family problems, we didn’t ask for opinions. Instead, we put
the question to the children, "What would Jim do?" It took the
difficulty out of life. There was a type of "manifest destiny"
which said the Cause was right and would succeed. Jim was right and those
who agreed with him were right. If you disagreed with Jim, you were wrong.
It was as simple as that. [Mills, 1979]
This is exactly how Muslims
behave. Muslims follow two things, one is the Quran and the other
is the Sunnah. The Quran is the words of Muhammad (claimed to be
Allah’s) and the Sunnah are the life examples of Muhammad. The details
of the Sunnah are described in the voluminous books of Ahadith (Plural of
hadith). The doctors of Islamic law study for years to master these
details and the believers do not do anything without consulting these
doctors and learning the correct way of doing things. Sunnah is in effect
the Islamic “prescription for living” based on the examples set by
Muhammad and how he lived. These are the details about Muhammad’s life
reported by his companions and wives. Through Sunnah Muslims learn how to
perform prayers, how to do ablution, how to clean their nose, their feet
and their ears; how to eat, what to eat and what not to eat, how to sleep,
how to dress and how to shave. They learn how to copulate, how to defecate
and how to urinate, with which foot enter the toilet and on which one
place most of the weight while evacuating. They learn which direction to
face during defecation or urination and how many pebbles to use for
cleaning purposes after the call of the nature and with which hand to
clean one’s private parts. They learn what length of the penis can enter
the vagina without annulling their fast and how to clean after having a
wet dream, or even how to fondle their wives and enjoy them when they are
menstruating. Everything is detailed. Every action is prescribed. All
believers have to do is spend years learning these “important”
examples set by Muhammad and follow them mindlessly and meticulously in
the fond belief that he will have fulfilled his duty as a Muslim and will
be rewarded for his “good” deeds.
and bad in Islam have completely different meanings. For the rest of
mankind good and bad can be defined through the Golden Rule. But in Islam
that is not the case. Good and bad in Islam are defined by Muhammad. What
he allowed is good and what he prohibited is bad. According to the Golden
Rule killing, stealing and raping are bad. But in Islam these very acts
are enjoined and are good if they are done in the name of Allah.
Muhammad exhorted his followers to do Jihad, to fight and kill people, to
loot their properties and to rape their wives.
are normally brought against someone in a court of law where the criterion
of determining the crime is already enforced. But this is not a court of
law and Mr Sina should stop assuming in his arrogance that he is in one in
the guise of judge, jury and executioner; as he constantly demands that
Muslims should come forward to defend the Prophet (SAW) as if the Prophet
has already been proven to be guilty by Mr Sina’s constant rants.
I am prosecuting Muhammad in the court of the public opinion. The
charges are that he was not a prophet of God but a cult leader and an
impostor. The challenge is to prove me wrong. You accepted this challenge.
Now you have to prove me wrong or accept defeat and withdraw.
We are in fact debating from two different premises with different sets of
criteria. Therefore, unless we agree on some common criterion for
assessing the allegations of Mr Sina we will only trade accusations and
counter accusations as neither of us recognises each others premises,
criteria and values.
The criteria I have used are the Golden Rule, the commonsense and the logic.
Do you disagree with these criteria? Then please tell us what criteria you use to determine
that Muhammad was a prophet of God and not a liar. Do you have any criteria. Or perhaps you want us to
take Muhammad for his word! This is like asking a criminal to tell
us whether he is innocent or not and believe him. This criterion may
satisfy the benighted followers of Muhammad who are desperate to believe at
any cost, but it sure can't satisfy the rest of us. If we believed
in Muhammad's trustworthiness, why would we question him? The problem with
Muslims is that their logics is so naive that is laughable.
Do you have any criterion to determine Muhammad's truthfulness beside
his words? Please share that with us. That is the whole point we are
having this debate.
Mr Sina is the one bringing forward the allegations on the basis of his
criterion of the “Golden Rule”. Therefore, the onus is on him to prove
that rule as absolute authority by substantiating that it is:
comprehensive, self-evident and universal. Once consensus is reached on
the “Golden Rule” it will naturally function as a common criterion.
Then we can logically proceed to asses the allegations brought forward
using the rule as a “Yard Stick”. This is the heart of the debate.
Therefore, I have addressed the “Golden Rule” first followed by the
other points in the previous response of Mr Sina.
Your consensus is not required. You can keep denying as much as you
please. In fact your denial of the obvious is the very ticket that makes
me the winner in this debate. If in a debate I insist that you should
prove that the sun is brighter than the moon would my filibustering
tactics bring us to an impasse? Hardly so. It in fact is proof of my
inability to reason and this makes you the winner, and me, a clown. I am afraid
your denial of the universal truth of the Golden Rule has the same effect
on you. It only makes you the laughing stuck of our readers. In fact it is
this kind of irrationality that will open the eyes of those good
people who are still under the illusion that Islam is a religion.
< > Next
Back to Index