Dear Sohail,

You do not address the central question: What cannot be said better in a thoughtful written exchange that requires such prepration for a time proscribed and uncomfortable and expensive face to face encounter?

Ali Sina has said that he welcomes a written exchange with Dr. Zakir Naik, and if he loses he will go on TV to admit his defeat, and it might even be Zakir Naik peace TV.

So instead of expending all this energy for all these fancy arrangements, get Zakir Naik to show where Ali Sina is wrong about Muhammad's character.

regards,
Doubtless.

Dear Mr. Sohail,
I have a few questions?
1- If this invitation has nothing to do with Dr. Zakir Naik, what is it that you are inviting me for?
2- Why do you want to go through this much trouble and expense (50 body guards?) to arrange a live meeting with me when all you have to do is to write a few pages of rebuttals to prove me wrong?
3- What is it that you can only tell me face to face that you can't put it in writing?
4- If what I write is all nonsense, why are you so concerned?
5- If all I say are lies, why can't you or Dr. Naik refute me in writing?
6- Why should I trust you and believe in your guarantees when your prophet ordered the assassination of his opponents instructing his henchmen to lie in order to deceive their victims and then suddenly ambush them and kill them when they were least expecting?
Please answer the above questions before I can respond to your invitation.
Regards
Ali Sina

How can debating on the Internet be time consuming? It is the reverse that is true. If we can't even agree on something that is so obvious, how can we agree on more important things? I just had a long debate with Mr. Ghamidi and his student Dr. Zaheer. We covered a many points from the comfort of our homes. We could not have discussed a fraction of what we did in a live debate and certainly not to this depth. It cost us nothing to do that. Thousands have read this debate and millions will in the coming years.

If I malign Islam all you have to do is refute me. If I lie, all you have to do is to show my lies. It is much easier to lie in a live debate where time and technicality does not allow refuting the fallacious argument of your opponent than in a written debate. No one will buy this excuse. I have already refuted all the arguments of Dr. Naik without any need to debate with him. This is not a context of physical strength where you have to meet your opponent in the ring. Intellectual arena does not have to be a physical place. You can refute someone thousands of miles apart and even thousands of years apart. We do not need to meet Ptolomeo or Aristotle to refute their theories. I refuted Muhammad without meeting him. I am sure if you could refute me, you could do it also without the need to go through all the hassle of setting up a public meeting, paying for my travel expenses and hiring 50 bodyguards. All you have to do is write a few pages. This should not take more than an hour or so of your time.
If we have a debate in writing, it will be read by many people. We can print our debate in a book format and make it available at cost. In this way millions of people, even those who can't access the Internet can read it.

Defending Islam is not a minor issue. It is your religious duty. How can exchanging a few emails be difficult and arranging a public conference, inviting the media, paying for my travel expenses and hiring 50 bodyguards be easy?

I am afraid I do not see the logic of your argument. You are a worshipper of a man who instructed his followers to lie and to deceive their opponents in order to assassinate them. Why should I trust you and believe in your guarantees? Here is a gem from hadith, where Muhammad is reported saying:

"Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allâh and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, 'O Allâh's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?' The Prophet said, 'Yes.' Muhammad bin Maslama said, 'Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Ka'b)." The Prophet said, 'You may say it.'" Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Ka'b, pretended to be have left Muhammad, and even maligned him and as soon as Ashraf lowered his guard and came down to meet him, he stabbed him and killed him. [Bukhari, 5.59.369]
Wish you the best.

Ali Sina

Dear Mr. Sohail
I am afraid it is you who have not answered my simple questions. I asked you to tell us what is it that Dr. Naik is going to say in a public meeting that he can't say in writing? I have already refuted him in writing. It is easy to refute someone in writing, unless you have run out of logical arguments and hope to win the day with showmanship and chicanery. In a written debate that venue is not available. All it counts is the strength of your argument. Even the Muslims are realizing that the real reason behind this avoidance is cowardice.

You are willing to prepare a public conference, invite thousands of people, the media, pay for my ticket to India and hire 50 bodyguards and yet you think writing a few pages refuting me is waste of time? Who are you trying to fool dear Sohail? All these things would cost in excess of $50,000 dollars (in India). Why do you want to go through this much trouble and cost when all you have to do to discredit me is write a few pages? Perhaps you do not think you are up to the task. In that case why not ask your friend Dr. Naik to respond to my charges against him. I have written a book disproving every one of his claims. I am going to make this book available soon for free download. All he has to do is write an article showing I am mistaken. He is not able to do that, but he is willing to come to a conference to disprove me? That makes no sense.

I have even gone as far as to offer to come to any conference anywhere in the world should anyone disprove any of my charges against Muhammad. If you really had any proof that I am in error, isn't this a golden opportunity to lay your hand on me and do with me as your prophet did with his opponents?

I asked you why I should trust you when you worship a man who encouraged his followers to lie and to deceive their victims in order to assassinate them. Now, this is a legitimate question. You give me all the guarantees and empty promises when we both know that not even the guarantees of your prophet were worth anything.
I am afraid you really underestimate people's intelligence. Your guarantees are worth nothing. You worship an assassin as a prophet and you expect me to trust you? Dr. Naik is on record saying every Muslim should be a terrorist and he justified this preposterous statement with the silliest of arguments. How can I trust terrorists like you and him and walk to your trap?

Furthermore, if Dr. Naik is ready to debate with anyone, why he does not debate with my friend Sam Shamoun of Answering-Islam.org who has offered to meet him in person and debate with him in front of the cameras?

Regards
Ali Sina

Well, I already told you that I debate only in writing and I explained the reasons. This is the only way to make an in dept debate about any subject, especially something like religion.

As it is known, body language has a huge influence is communication. However, body language has nothing to do with facts. It is only an art. It is possible to make a lie look truth through posture, tone of the voice and body language and deceive the gullible. Written words are free from such influences.

I watched the debate between Dr. Campbell and Dr. Naik. In that debate Dr. Campbell dismantled the fallacies of the Quran and demonstrated that this book is all wrong. When Dr, Naik took the stance, he assumed a conceited posture and spoke with such pomposity and derision. That his less than bright audience were unable to see the fallacies of his statements. They were impressed by his posture and his ability to quote verses from memory. They were elated to see their hero “winning” the debate when in reality everything Dr. Naik said was baloney and sheer nonsense. I have published the text of that debate. It’s only when one reads what had been exchanged that one can see Dr. Naik failed to refute anyone of the arguments presented by Dr. Campbell against the Quran. I have shown the errors of Dr. Naik in my book on him The World’s Greatest Showman.

 http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellintro.htm This book has not been contested or refuted. May I ask why? It is not that Muslims have not tried to refute me. Here is a pathetic example of their feeble attempt.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/rebuttal_to_ali_sina_6.htm

And I also told you that your guarantees are worth nothing. I would be a total fool to take your guarantees seriously. You are a Muhammadan who deceived his opponents to kill them. Why should I trust you? What is your opinion about the hadith I quoted about how Muhammad instructed his follower to lie and to deceive Ka’b ibn Ashraf to assassinate him? Are you willing to condemn that despicable act of your prophet, or you want to emulate him?

As far as I am concerned, there would be no televised conferences and I would be dead the moment I am in your hands. It is you that I do not trust. You seem to not understand commonsense. Why are you not trying to refute my arguments? Why are you not trying to find someone to refute me? I said it already that if anyone proves any of my claims against Muhammad to be false, I will present myself to you so you can kill me. Is that good enough? You can’t refute even a single charge that I have made against Muhammad and still cling to him and want to murder people for him? If this is not satanic what is? Are you doing this out of sheer stupidity or out of sheer evilness? You have this feverish desire to cut my throat and I am giving you this golden opportunity to do so. All you have to do is to disprove one of my charges against Muhammad. And yet you can’t do that? Isn’t this enough as proof that Islam is a demonic cult? Doesn’t this show that it is the stupidest of cults? There are a billion Muhammadans and not a single one of them can refute a single one of my charges against him? Isn’t this pathetic?

I will debate anyone in writing. I will debate in public only if someone can prove one of my charges against Muhammad wrong. If you can’t do that, it is clear that Islam is a lie.

Why a public debate with me is so important to you that you are willing to spend a million dollars for it to happen? Am I hurting your religion this much? Suppose you kill me, does this restore the discredited image of your religion? Did the killing of Theo Van Gogh make everyone realize Islam is a true religion? What stupidity is this? All you have to do to restore the credibility of your religion is write a few pages of rebuttals and show I am wrong. That costs you a couple of hours of your time and not a million dollars. You can’t do that? Ask your favorite Muslim scholar to do that. If you or anyone can prove me wrong, I will remove faithfreedom.org, acknowledge my error publicly, give you $50,000 dollars in reward, and come to wherever you say so you can kill me and secure your private brothel after your body is fed to the worms. All you have to do is write, or ask someone to write two pages refuting me in a way I cannot catch your fallacies. Isn’t this a great offer?

The truth is standing out and I do not need to do anything else. All we have to do now is to spread this truth and there are many valiant souls who are doing it. Soon the truth will reach millions of Muslims in Islamic countries in their own languages. I have shown the truth and now it is up to you to disprove me.

I have no need to debate Dr. Naik. I have already unmasked him and have revealed his tricks. I see no point in a face to face debate. All he has to do now is to refute me, in the same way I refuted him – in writing.

I already explained the fallacy of Dr. Naik’s claim. Here http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina51022.htm

I only debate in writing. Which part of this you do not understand?

Yes you did not answer my question, “what is it that Dr. Naik can only say in a face to face debate that he can’t say in writing?”

Yes you got that right. I bet my life that you can’t refute anyone of my charges against Muhammad. I had not made this offer previously. I made that to you for the first time. The truth is that I know for a fact that no one can disprove any of my charges. Muhammad was an assassin, a looter, a pedophile a rapist, a mass murderer, a liar and a deceiver. I have proven all these claims and there is no way anyone can disprove them. So don’t start sharpening your knife yet. You may take your desire to slit my throat to your grave. Then again you may become enlightened and realize the folly of such a wish and join me in enlightening other Muslims. I have many people who once wanted me dead, now working with me to save other Muslims. Who knows, you may become one of them.

I think you misunderstood me. I am not offering to debate with you. All you have to do is write your refutation of my charges and prove me wrong. There is no need to debate. You already had your debate. That goes also for Dr. Naik.

Next  >