FaithFreedom.org

Debate with the convert Donald Morgan

Someone told me that the best way to reach many people is to join Facebook. I did and I sent an invitation to everyone in my address book. (I have not yet figure out how one can read many people through FB) Mr. Donald Morgan, aka Saadiq Mohammad, who apparently was one of the people in my address book, responded and joined me there. He challenged me to a debate and said he can prove me wrong. I have stopped debating with unknown people. That is because they repeat the same things and every time I prove them wrong, other Muslims say, but you did not debate with real scholars. So there is no gain for me debating ordinary Muslims. If they are not scholars it is a waste of my time. If they want to learn the truth all they have to do is read many articles written on faithfeedom.org.

I told Donald that he should first read my book. I know that once Muslims read my book they will either leave Islam or will leave me in peace. Donald claimed to have read the book and was adamant that he can prove me wrong. I knew he was not telling the truth. But I was bound by my words. I told him not to expect leniency from me. Because I know he has not read the book and despite that he wants to waste my time, I am going to be ruthless with him. He was nonchalant and confident that he can prove me wrong.

The following is what he wrote and my response to him. It is long. So I am going to publish this debate in parts.

 

 

Donald Morgan

Donald Morgan

 

 

Donald Morgan

Before I begin with this debate, I would like to thank Ali Sina for giving me the opportunity to engage him in a formal debate. I do understand that time is limited, as we both have many things to do, so it thrills me to have this debate with someone of Ali Sina’s stature. Ali Sina and myself may be coming from two different extremes, but it is a true testament to mankind’s ability to come together and question one another without resorting to threats of violence or character insults. I hope that this level of professionalism and respect is maintained throughout our debate, and more importantly, that something can be learned by those who read it in the future.

Now that I have gotten that out of the way, I would like to carry on with the debate. Ali Sina posts a challenge on his website at www.faithfreedom.org which states that if anyone can disprove any of the claims he (Ali Sina) levies against Muhammad, he would shut down his website, declare Islam as being the truth and pay out the sum of $50,000 USD to whomever can disprove his accusations. These accusations can be found in his book, titled ‘Understanding Muhammad, A Physcobiography’. In this book Ali Sina has accused Muhammad of various crimes, including pedophilia and plundering. With so many different topics to choose from, I initially had a hard time picking which one I wanted to debate with Ali Sina about. My difficulty did not stem from my ability or confidence in debating Ali Sina, it came from a overwhelming desire to disprove all of his accusations. This, however is an undertaking that could take months to achieve and since Ali Sina invites all to disprove just one fact, shows us that Ali Sina is fully aware of this fact. When I first spoke to Ali Sina about having this debate, I had the intention of debating him over his accusation of pedophilia. This consequently led me to a debate with one of FFI’s most outspoken writers, Amaar Khan. I engaged this individual in a heated debate on pedophilia that subsequently lead to Amaar Khan trying to block the second part of our debate from being published because it exposed his limited scope on the subject, as well as his contradictory approach to evidence and lack of knowledge. Others who have read the unpublished part of the debate had to concede that Amaar Khan made a poor argument, thus losing the debate. I sent my response to his counter rebuttal, and to this day, I have not heard from him.

So, after this exchange I didn’t want to debate Ali Sina about pedophilia because all I would be doing is repeating facts that Amaar Khan was unable to address. With that being said, I decided that I would like to debate with Ali Sina about his accusations of Muhammad being a narcissist. In Ali Sina’s book he has a chapter devoted to the subject (from page 60 to 73) and this is where I draw my argument against Ali Sina.

 

Ali Sina

You are making an unfounded accusation. I can’t understand what arguments one can present to make us believe that a 53 year old man having sex with an 8 year old girl does not constitute pedophilia. If Amar Khan decided to ignore your second rebuttal, it is because its absurdity is self evident. No matter how many intellectual summersaults you make, an adult having sex with an 8 year old child is a pedophile.

Donald Morgan

NARCISSISM VERSUS NPD

On Ali Sina’s website he offers a challenge. This challenge can be found at http://www.archive2012.faithfreedom.org/the-challenge/. If you read this challenge, Ali Sina levels 12 charges against Muhammad. The very first charge on his list is ‘a narcissist’. This is a very misleading charge to make and contradicts what is written in his (Ali Sina) book. If we look at page 60, of his book he gives reference to the DSM 1994, which is basically the criteria used to diagnose Narcissistic Personality Disorder or NPD for short. Ali Sina wants the public to believe that narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder are one in the same, that these two terms are synonymous with one another. This cannot be further from the truth, as medical professionals see a distinct difference between these two terms. According to people who are qualified in the field of mental disorders, everyone suffers from narcissism. We all have some level of what they refer to as ‘healthy’ narcissism. They also conclude that our very instinct at survival is a form of narcissism. Example, we take pride in our work in the hopes that it gives us a promotion, or at birth, we command the total attention from our parents. Narcissism is an intrinsic part of what drives us to be better at what we do. If you wear a sports jersey and support a particular sports team you have a ‘healthy’ level of narcissism (this is how detailed the subject of narcissism is).

Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a personality disorder that is ‘a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy’ (according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM for short) of Mental Disorders, the diagnostic classification system used in the United States. http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/narcissisticpd.htm). They go further and state that narcissistic personality disorder is closely linked to self-centeredness.


Ali Sina

You obviously misunderstood me. (Actually you did not read the book.) I do not believe that narcissism and NPD are the same. I have explained this on various occasions. The following is what I wrote in an article dated 2008/11/26 describing the buffoon president usurp Mr. Zero a.k.a. Obama/Soetoro.

It is true that we are all narcissists and actually a healthy dose of narcissism is essential for our well being.  It makes us feel good about ourselves, we expect good things to happen to us, believe in our own potential, have a positive outlook at life, be optimistic and happy. However, narcissism as a disorder is an entirely different thing.  Let me explain this with a couple of examples:

Blood pressure is a good thing.  It is vital. Without it we would die. However, when blood pressure becomes too high, it develops into hypertension and becomes a killer.  Take another example: We all have fat in our body. We cannot live without it. But obesity is a killer.

Likewise, a healthy dose of narcissism is necessary.  Pathological narcissism or narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is destructve.   For the scope of this article, when I talk about narcissism I am referring to pathological narcissism.

In nowhere in my book I implied that normal narcissism is the same as NPD. We put salt in our food to make it tasty. So salty is good. But we generally say a food is salty when the amount of salt is too much. When we call someone is a narcissist any rational person understands we mean disproportionately.

This is not a good start. It shows that you did not read my book or your level of comprehension is not adequate. Your argument is a straw man fallacy.

Donald Morgan

The implications here are important because they illustrate a very misleading conclusion, with regards to Ali Sina. It is IMPOSSIBLE to try and prove that a person is not a narcissist because EVERYONE, to some degree, is a narcissist. So When Ali Sina asks us to prove that Muhammad was not a narcissist, he is asking us to prove that Muhammad is without that which makes us and him (Muhammad) human.

 

Ali Sina

In my book, and on several other places, I have shown that Muhammad had many traits that are symptoms of NPD. It is clear that I am talking about the disorder and not the healthy dose of narcissism.


Donald Morgan

To further put the stamp on this section I would like to quote Jesus from the bible. Ali Sina quotes Jesus in his chapter about narcissism on page 62 of his book to try and prove that Jesus was not a narcissist. He does so to give the impression that Jesus is better than Muhammad. I also believe this was added because Ali Sina knows that a majority of people who read his material, support and fund him are Christians who have negative opinions about Islam. I believe in Jesus and Muhammad so it would be ‘un-Islamic’ for me to insult any of these great prophets. Ali Sina says the following in his book:

‘Compare that to the words of Jesus, who when someone called him “good master,” objected and said, “Why do you call me good? No one is good—except God alone’

I would like to take this opportunity to remind Ali Sina and the ignorant Christians who support him about other sayings of Jesus in the bible that would paint him as being a narcissist or an NPD sufferer.

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John14:6)

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. (John 10:11)

I and the Father are one. (John 10:30) (Jesus saying he is God)

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:16) (Jesus is the only begotten son of God according to this passage)

Jesus said to her, “First, let the children (house of Isreal) eat all they want. It’s not right to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs (Gentiles i.e those who are not Jewish). (Mark 7:27). (Jesus refers to all those who are not from the house of Israel (the gentiles) as being ‘dogs’)

So I have an alternate challenge for Ali Sina in light of these few passages. Will you now acknowledge that Jesus was a narcissist? Will you now say he suffered from narcissistic personality disorder (NPD)? I don’t think that you would because those Christians are lining your pockets with money, and I wonder how much of that revenue will be lost if you dare call Jesus a narcissist or an NPD sufferer. It’s funny to see Ali Sina compromise his beliefs for the sake of the almighty dollar! I truly feel sorry for you.

 

Ali Sina

Apart from the fact that you are making a false accusation about Christians lining my pockets with money, the above quotes do not portray Jesus as a narcissist.  Jesus is describing his function as being the “way.”

(We do not get enough donations to even pay for our server, and it is mostly the apostates that pay the little donations that we receive. All this year we received was $400 dollars in donations, One $200, one $100 and two $50 dollars. Our server’s cost alone is $200 dollars per month. Those of us, who run this site, also pay for it. But obviously being a Muslim one cannot expect anything but distorted thinking from you. It is funny that you don’t see anything wrong in Muhammad’s lootings, but have problem with the fact that we receive donations from those who think our service is worth it, even though those donations cover less than half of our costs.)

The words and actions of Muhammad were quite different. Here are some of the things Muhammad said about himself.

· The very first thing that Allâh Almighty ever created was my soul.

· First of all things, the Lord created my mind.

· I am from Allâh, and the believers are from me.

· Just as Allâh created me noble, he also gave me noble character.

· Were it not for you, [O Muhammad] I would not have created the universe.

As we can see, while Jesus is talking about his credentials and his mission, Muhammad is talking about himself and his own grandiosity. Also, while Jesus acted like a torch of guidance and set a good example, Muhammad acted like a thug and lived like a criminal. Jesus’ words and actions coincide. Those of Muhammad don’t. If Mother Teresa claimed to be a good person you may accuse her of immodesty, but it won’t be a preposterous claim. However, it would be preposterous for Hitler to make such a claim. Muhammad was an evil man. That is what makes his claims of greatness so laughable.

Donald Morgan

QUESTIONABLE RESOURCES OF INFORMATION

In Ali Sina’s book he looks to secondary sources for information on narcissism (I have no problem with secondary, qualified sources). As one reads the chapter devoted to narcissism in his book, one should pay close attention to the sources Ali Sina uses, when trying to define narcissism and its traits. Time after time one sees a familiar name; one Dr. Sam Vaknin, Ph.D. Ali Sina references this person’s writings quite a bit in this chapter. Approximately 95-97 percent of the secondary, ‘professional’, explanations are attributed to Dr. Sam Vaknin. So, it can be easily said that Ali Sina’s argument rests solely, if not all together, on the definitions and writings of this particular person (Dr. Sam Vaknin). Ali Sina gives praise to this individual in his book. He says:

‘Dr. Sam Vaknin is the author of Malignant Self-Love. He is regarded as an authority on the subject. He understands and describes the mind of a narcissist like few do.’ (page 63 of his book)

I went online to do some research on this person. I wanted to know who he was, if he even existed, and if he is truly qualified to speak on the subject of narcissism. What I found was shocking, to say the least. Dr. Sam Vaknin does indeed exist and he even has his own website. On this website you can read all about this man, who he is, and what he has written. The website is http://samvak.tripod.com/. Like I said earlier, I found something shocking about Dr. Sam Vaknin. On his website he has a ‘disclaimer’ which can be viewed at http://samvak.tripod.com/indexqa.html#Warning%20and%20Disclaimer. In this disclaimer he states the following, and I quote:

The contents of this website are not meant to substitute for professional help and counseling. The readers are discouraged from using it for diagnostic or therapeutic ends. The diagnosis and treatment of the Narcissistic Personality Disorder can only be done by professional specifically trained and qualified to do so.

The author is NOT A MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL.’

Anyone who visits this site will see that I have not tampered with this quotation in any way. I want you, the reader to note the part of the ‘disclaimer’ that is put in capitalized, bold lettering (‘The author is NOT A MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL.’). Why would Dr. Sam Vaknin put so much emphasis on this part of his ‘disclaimer’? The answer should be simple to come by. If one takes into account what he has stated in whole, one would see that Dr. Sam Vaknin is NOT truly qualified to speak about matters pertaining to mental disorders, and to an extent, Narcissism. If he were truly a qualified person to speak of such matters, he would not have injected such a disclaimer on his website. Dr. Sam Vaknin obviously wants his readers to know this, as he posts links to this ‘disclaimer’ on every webpage, within his website.

If you look deeper into Dr. Sam Vaknin’s website you will see that his qualifications stem from an institute called ‘Brain Bench’. Dr. Sam Vaknin admits this at the end of his ‘disclaimer’ when he states:

The author is certified in Psychological Counseling Techniques by Brainbench.

He also allows us to see his ‘credentials’ on his webpage. If you scroll down to the fourth link titled ‘certified in psychological counseling techniques’ you will see that Dr. Sam Vaknin received his ‘certification’ from ‘Brain Bench’ (he doesn’t even provide photos or copies of his certificates (I will tell you why later), he just posts e-mail confirmation from Brain Bench saying he has passed their course). After reading this I asked myself, ‘what is Brain Bench?’. The answer to this question was supplied on Dr. Sam Vaknin’s webpage in the form of another link. Brain Bench is an online testing center that allows its participants to take online tests that predict employee success. Dr. Sam Vaknin uses words like ‘certified’ when he speaks about his involvement with Brain Bench. I contacted Brain Bench myself and found out that they don’t offer any programs that would constitute its participants as being ‘certified’ in a graduating program (You can visit their website at http:// www.brainbench.com). They are nothing more than a testing center.

The important question is ‘Is Dr. Sam Vaknin a truly qualified source for information dealing with narcissism or mental disorders?’ In my opinion he is NOT. This is not an opinion that is held by only myself. If you visit http://heliologue.com/2006/07/03/sam-vaknins-self-love/ you will see that Dr. Sam Vaknin is not only unqualified, he is a FRAUD as well. For those who don’t have the time to read what is on this page, let me pull some quotations from this page. We read the following:

‘He’s got an awful little website, you see, in which he hawks the book he wrote called Malignant Self Love – Narcissism Revisited about a personality disorder called “Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)” Yes, you’re probably thinking the same thing: a man clearly in love with himself proffers his “expertise” on Narcissism. It’s just as awesome as it sounds. In fact, Vaknin was diagnosed with NPD in 1996, while serving a prison sentence in Israel.’

Ali Sina is obviously using dirty tactics to push his own book. He refers to this source as ‘Dr. Sam Vaknin Ph.D’ The title Ph.D here is misleading because Ali Sina does not mention what field Dr. Sam Vaknin specializes in to call himself a Ph.D. Ali Sina hopes that the reader of his book assumes that the Ph.D is directly related to Psychology or the study of mental disorders. Most people don’t research the sources given in a book, whether it be in the footnotes or bibliography, and Ali Sina depends on this lack of investigation to legitimize his references.

It just so happens that Dr. Sam Vaknin received his Ph.D in ‘Philosophy of Physics’, from the Pacific Western University, California, USA; a Ph.D. that has NOTHING to do with the study or diagnosis of mental disorders or psychology. What is even more shocking is that Pacific Western University is a ‘distance learning’ university that is NOT ACCREDITED. This means that it is not recognized by the government of the USA, or any ‘body’ of the government that deals with education in the USA as being a legitimate university.

I know that people, who read this and side with Ali Sina will try to defend his actions and his references. To those I pose the following scenario; would you go to a medical doctor for major surgery if you found out that that doctor received his diploma from a ‘distance-learning’ university that is NOT accredited? Worse yet, what if you found out that that doctors Ph.D or MA or even BA was in a field that has NOTHING to do with medicine? Would you be confident in having this doctor cut you open and perform major surgery? I think any sane person would seek a true medical doctor if this were the case.

Ali Sina will argue that it is not the person’s qualifications we should focus on, we should focus on what that person says or the argument they present. This is laughable at best because without qualification, one should not speak about a topic they say they are qualified to speak about. This reminds me of the series of Best Western hotel commercials that came out a while ago. In one commercial a man is about to jump off a building and kill himself. Another man comes to him and eventually talks the man down. The man then asks ‘Do have experience in this (suicide prevention), are you qualified?’ The man then says ‘No I am not, but I once stayed at a Best Western’.

Ali Sina

This long chunk of your so called rebuttal is nothing but red herring and ad hominem.

Dr. Vaknin is a foremost authority on the subject of narcissism. He has authored over 30 books. They are based on the latest research in the field and on scholarly works by the leading experts on personality disorders. Many of the chapters contain detailed bibliographies. That is the hallmark of a true scholarly book.

I am not a theologian and have received no formal training in religion. Nonetheless, I have debated many scholars of Islam and invariably have shown their errors. My book on Muhammad is irrefutable. That is because I base every assertion I make on the authentic Islamic sources and on the accredited scholarly works. The same can be said about Dr. Vaknin’s work.

Vaknin’s seminal book – Malignant Self Love – Narcissism Revisited (now in its eighth, revised, impression) and the content of his Web site are based on correspondence since 1996 with hundreds of people suffering from Narcissistic Personality.

Dr. Vaknin’s online mailing lists alone sport well over 26,000 members – of which 1000 are therapists, social workers, psychiatrists and psychologists.

Everything he writes is backed by extensive bibliographies. You can download some of them here.

Dr. Vaknin has stated on several occasions that he has been diagnosed with the disorder and spent time in therapy and almost a decade discussing it in depth (mainly through correspondence) with mental health professionals the world over. It is his personal experience with this disorder that makes his work so thorough, so perceptive, and so enlightening. Unlike other psychologists, Vaknin’s understanding of narcissism does not come merely from books and second hand sources, but also from his own personal experience. With ruthless honestly, Vaknin lays bare the inner impulses of a narcissist like no other mental health professional can ever do. That is why so many of them gobble his books and have joined his long mailing list.

To say one who suffers from NPD is disqualified to write on this subject is preposterous. It’s like saying those who have suffered from eating disorder are disqualified to talk about it or alcoholic anonymous is a fraud because it relies on alcoholics helping each other. My best friend suffers from borderline personality disorder or extreme mood swings. She is a highly intelligent woman. No one can describe her disorder better than her. In fact the sites that she finds most helpful are those created and run by other BPD sufferers.

Out of 30 books Dr. Vaknin has written, 24 of them are available for download. (hardly a commercial practice). Is this man a fraud?

Vaknin has never claimed to be a mental health professional, any more than I claimed to be a theologian. Nonetheless he is regarded as an authority on this field by thousands of therapists, psychologists and psychiatrist just as I am considered to be among the few who understands Islam and Muhammad.

The fact that Dr. Vaknin is recognized as an authority on narcissism is witnessed by the media and many mental health professionals. Here is a short list of some of those testimonies. See also.

Sunday Times:

Channel 4 (UK) Documentary Egomania:

WebMD

New York Times

The Washington Post

USA Today

New York Press says  ”Sam Vaknin is the world’s leading expert on narcissism.”

Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) says, “Vaknin’s a respected expert on malignant narcissists … He set about to know everything there is about the psychopathic narcissist.”

The Infinite Mind radio program

United Press International (UPI)

http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/corporatenarcissism.html

Cal Thomas column,

Toronto Sun

CanWest News service and Newspapers Network

You can find the full texts of these articles here.

Santa Cruz Sentinel

Dr. Vaknin’s work is quoted in more than 100 scholarly works (search for “Sam Vaknin” on Amazon and on Google Scholar).

You can download some of the scholarly and media articles which cite Vaknin’s work here.

Everything you use to attack him, you have lifted out of his own Website. What kind of a scammer gives away so much information that can “be used against him”? Vaknin has been brutally honest about who he is. Hardly I know anyone so honest about himself. The fact that he is a narcissist is not his fault. Narcissism is the result of childhood abuse. Narcissists are victims. However, instead of scamming others, as most narcissists do, Vaknin is helping everyone to understand this disorder. That is the testimony to the fact that no matter your circumstances you can always do the right thing. Yes Vaknin is a narcissist, but he is a hero. Kudus to a man who can do so much good work despite his challenges. He is an inspiration to millions of other NPD sufferers and everyone else.  By brining the awareness of this disorder to the world, freely, Vaknin is improving the lives of millions of people who either suffer from this disorder or have someone with NPD in their lives. He is contributing immensely to the betterment of the world.

You failed to find any fault in my arguments against Muhammad or Vaknin’s definition of NPD. All you could do was attack my source and try to character assassinate him. What a cheap shot! All your accusations against Dr. Vaknin are false. I had many other choices to quote from in describing NPD, but I chose Vaknin because he is quoted by most other contemporary sources and is regarded as an authority on the subject. There is hardly anyone alive that knows narcissism and can describe it better than Dr. Sam Vaknin.

Despite that, Vaknin is not saying anything that the researches in this field have not said. I can easily replace all Vaknin’s quotes in my book with quotes from other experts without changing an iota of my book. I chose Vaknin because of the clarity in his writings and his unique insight into this disorder. Vaknin says the same thing, only better.

On the subject of Vaknin’s cerdentials, please read part 3 of this debate.

Donald Morgan

Another reference Ali Sina uses comes to us in the form of a website http://www.muhammadanreality.com. Ali Sina uses this reference when trying to Quote ‘sayings’ of Muhammad. An example of this is the following, from his book:

I am from Allah, and the believers are from me’ (page 62)

‘The Prophet said: I heard your words, and everything you said is indeed true, and I myself am the Beloved of Allah (habibullah) and I say this without pride, and I carry the flag of glory (liwa ul-hamd) on the Day of Judgment, and am the first intercessor and the first whose intercession is accepted, and the first to stir the circles of Paradise so that Allah will open it for me and I shall enter it together with the poor among my Community, and I say this without pride. I am the most honored of the First and the Last, and I say this without pride’ (page 63)

I also checked this source to see if it can be considered qualified, since I was surprisingly disappointed with the references to Dr. Sam Vaknin. To my amazement I was once again shocked because this website is a SUFI website! I have nothing against the Sufi Muslims but I believe that if Ali Sina wants to legitimize his book, he should use sources that represent the majority, not the minority. The mainstream Sunni understanding of Islam is the dominate form of Islam in the world today. Thus, Ali Sina should have used this type of Sunni based sources when quoting anything from the lips of Muhammad. If Ali Sina is going to quote the minority, what’s to stop him from quoting other minority factions within Islam like The Nation of Islam or The 7 Per centers? Ali Sina doesn’t use quotations from these other sources because they are minority representations of Islam and their understanding of Islam is deviant from the original teachings of Islam. I am not going to get into the innovations of the Sufis here because that is whole other topic, but there are many articles written on this subject that you can read online and in books. But, for the sake of playing the devil’s advocate, let us say for a minute that there is nothing deviant or innovative about the practices of Sufis in Islam; this does not disqualify the fact that they are a minority view of Muhammad and Islam. Trying to say or infer that the Sufi is the dominate voice of Islam is taunt amount to saying that the KKK is the dominate voice for white America’s view on minorities and immigration (I’m not putting emphasis on the hateful views expressed by the KKK, I’m putting emphasis on the fact that what they say is a minority view held within the white community).

When I was debating with Amaar khan about pedophilia in Islam, I used references other than the Quran and Hadith. The readers on FFI’s website were quick to scorn me because I used what they called ‘secondary sources’ to prove my points. I hope that those same readers, along with everyone else who read Ali Sina’s book notice that this Sufi website is also a ‘secondary source’, since the footnotes provided do not allude to any reference from the Quran or Hadith; they come from http://www.muhammadanreality.com. If these sayings that Ali Sina says come from the lips of Muhammad and are authentic, he would have quoted Hadith, not this Sufi website. Ali Sina is well aware of the importance the Quran and authentic Hadith are to Muslims but he uses none. Instead he chooses to use a Sufi website!?

Again, like his reference to Dr. Sam Vaknin, Ali Sina is hoping and depending on the readers of his book to do little or no investigation into the sources he uses.

 

Ali Sina

Your argument about the invalidity of this quote because the source is a Sufi site is the same logical fallacy that you used to pooh-pooh Dr. Vaknin’s work.  What is your point? Are you saying that Muhammad did not make those pompous remarks about himself and they are all libels made up by the heretic Sufis? Do they portray your prophet as a narcissist, which you don’t think is fair because the source is unreliable?

Sorry to burst your bubble. The following is a short list of Sunni sites that publish the same quote.

http://www.sunnah.org/ibadaat/tawassul.htm

http://www.allahoo.org/LoveProphet/LoveProphet.htm

and here and here.

This hadith was narrated by Ibn Abbas and was collected by Tirmidhī (824-892) who was a Sunni collector of hadith. Therefore, your scoffing at it on the ground that I pulled it from a Sufi site is garbage. Sufis also quote the Quran. Does that invalidate the Quran?

Is this the level of intellectualism by which you want to beat me? Poor start!

You approached me on Facebook and said you want to refute me. I no longer debate with incognito Muslims. The reason is simple. When I beat them there is no glory for me. Other Muslims say, ah but you did not debate a scholar. So I ask those who want to debate me to read my book first. This is not a free book, but I send it to them for free because I know they are not going to buy it.  Of hundreds of people who received my book not a single one of them wrote back insisting on debate. Most of them never wrote back. Many of them wrote to thank me for opening their eyes and a few also wrote to curse me and tell me what a waste of time it would be for them to debate me. You are the only person who remained defiant after receiving my book.

As I explained this to you before there are three possibilities.

1- You are smarter than all Muslim scholars and can do what they can’t. This is highly improbable, and with what we saw so far, you clearly are not a scholar.

2- You are too dumb and deluded and as such incapable to discern facts.  I said this is also unlikely because it appeared to me that you are a coherent person.

3- You did not read the book and your confidence in defeating me stems from your misplaced faith in Islam and your ignorance of what the book says. This was my original assessment of you and therefore I insisted that you should read the book.

Now you say you read it. I know option 1 is false. You tell me that option 3 is also false. What am I left with?

You are not a scholar Donald. You are engaging in all sorts of logical fallacies and you are wasting my time. There is no glory for me in defeating someone of your caliber. The only thing you can do is once again show that Muslims are incapable of rational thought. But we have plenty of that evidence and hardly yours makes a difference.

For the sake of brevity I will stop here and will respond to the rest of your “rebuttal” in the coming days. Then I will stop debating with you. There is a bigger fish in the pound.  Prof. Pallacken abdul Wahid is a scholar. He has a website dedicated to prove the Quran has predicted all the sciences that were later discovered.  He wants to debate me and I am much interested in that.  He is somebody. Who are you? I can disprove this gentleman and brag about it. I cannot brag about anything by disproving you.

I give you one chance. You can bring along a scholar of fame. He should take ownership of what you say. Only then I will debate with you.   You’ll have a hard time to find someone. These scholars are deluded but not stupid. They know they will not win. Unlike you, they will read some of my debates with other scholars and will not risk their reputation.  However, that is your only chance. If you bring along a reputed scholar of Islam to the table, I am all yours.  Otherwise, I will respond to the rest of your arguments in the coming days and bade you farewell.


http://www.muhammadanreality.com/creationofmuhammadanreality.htm

Tabaqat V. 1, p. 364

Proceed to Part 2

1 2

Short URL: http://www.archive2012.faithfreedom.org/?p=5039

Posted by on Mar 28 2009. Filed under Debates. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

379 Comments for “Debate with the convert Donald Morgan”

  1. buy zynga poker chips…

    Today, considering the fast chosen lifestyle that everyone is having, credit cards get this amazing demand throughout the market. Persons coming from every field are using credit card and people who are not using the credit card have made up their mind…

  2. more info…

    [...]the time to read or stop by the material or web-sites we’ve linked to below the[...]…

  3. Bookmark Links…

    [...]Wonderful story, reckoned we could combine several unrelated information, nevertheless actually really worth taking a appear, whoa did a single discover about Mid East has got far more problerms as well [...]…

  4. employee screening…

    [...]Here are some of the web sites we recommend for our visitors[...]…

  5. ibrahim

    Ali, you cannot go around debating with every Tom, Dick and Harry who come to challange you. As far as Donald Morgan or Sadiq Ali or whatever is concerened, I read his debate with Amar Khan and he used unheard of and secondary sources to prove his point. Though I would not say that Amar Khan is a good debater, the glory was on his side as the facts were on his side.
    I don't understand how a person who has sex with a 9 year old is not qualified to be called a paedophile, especially when it is a know fact that he forced Abu Bakr to give his daughter Ayesha to him in marriage.
    Muslims also point out that marrying kids in those days was a done deal and that Ayesha was engaged to someone else. Lets say that ,considering that the desert Arabs were a primitive lot as most of them still are, child marriage was a done deal in those days, how does that justify the man who is the best of all creation following suite and not rising above the levels of the his contemporaries and discarding this abomination. Muslims claim that arabs would kill their females children (NO PROOF) in the pre-islamic days and Muhammad banned it, then how did the pre Islamic Arabs get to marry 9-10 wives? I mean if killing baby girls was so rampant, the females in the population could not be in such large numbers.
    For the most part Mr. Morgan, indulges in logical fallacies and ignorance of Islam and Islamic texts. Perhaps he should get someone who is an Alim to debate for him instead.

  6. Shafee al-Zindig

    There appears to be a confusion in Morgan's mind between the words "narcissism" and "self-esteem"'.

    Narcissism is defined as excessive or abnormal self-love or self-admiration. There are many examples from the Quran and "authentic" hadiths of Muhammad's arrogant self-praise. (I have used apostrophes for the word authentic because how can hearsay ever be authentic, except in the minds of Muslims.)

    Self-esteem is normal to every rational person – taking pride in one's achievements, intelligence, education, experience, wisdom and so on. Low self-esteem is extremely unhealthy and allows people to use you as a doormat. A good example is a burka-clad faceless woman who thinks her body is vile and evil and must be covered up.

    Morgan lost all credibility for objectivity and spat on the rules for conducting an honest, intellectual debate when he stooped to write "those Christians are lining your pockets with money". Anybody who does that is not debating in good faith but merely being obnoxious.

    Morgan's true agenda has been revealed, when his false claim to want to debate is used as just an opportunity to hurl unfounded insults at his opponent. To paraphrase – he doesn't let facts get in the way of a good insult. A perfect demonstration of conducting a debate Islamic style.

    Is it any wonder that Ali Sina is reluctant to debates these nobodies? Not that he is afraid of challenges, but having to endure this type of puerile nonsense that they try to palm off as rebuttals and debates.

    I would sooner debate with a doorknob than waste my time with one of these characters.

  7. santiago

    Donald Morgan is trying to prove that Muhammad did not suffer from NPD.He does this by showing all the "good" words & deeds that Muhammad did,because he believes that these deeds which he mentions contradicts that of someone with NPD.
    Ali Sina on the other hand tries to prove that although Muhammad may have said & done these 'good' things,it was at a time of weakness or perhaps a hidden agenda.

    Now,let's take Hitler as another example.Was Hitler a sociopath?
    Wiki defines a sociopath as someone who's unable to experience emotional responses outside of their own personal interests.Also superficial charm & lack of empathy.Serial killers are all sociopaths.

    But sociopaths can pretend to care & empathise with others if they are desperate or have something to gain.
    If we look at all the atrocities that Hitler commited then we can confidently say that he was a sociopath.

    BUT…

    What if we were to ignore all of Hitler's atrocities & only focus on his 'good' words & deeds,then can we still prove he was a sociopath? Of course not.
    Let's look at some of Hitler's 'good' words & deeds:
    Traudl Junge,Hitler's secratary "He was a pleasant boss & fatherly friend.""Kind and paternal man…"
    Richard Spitzy 1938 "Hitler enjoyed telling jokes about the British,He always talked nicely about England-he never wanted to endanger it."
    Erna Flegel,nurse 1945 "Hitler was fond of children…"He was always polite & charming."
    British PM 1936 " A remarkable man"
    I can quote a long list of all his good words & deeds that contradicts his sociopathic behaviour.

    When the courts try a man for robbery,do they focus on the one time that he was honest?
    So according to Donald Morgan,we should ignore all the bad things and focus only on the good.
    I guess you're right then,Hitler and Muhammad did not have any personality disorders.

  8. LeBron

    im indonesian,,, and HALELUYAH i BELONG TO JESUS…

    u know i sick of adzan evrytime i heard that!! my neighboorhood become a JESUS, when they realize something uncertainty inside quran.
    im gonna use indonesian language and quote ike this "tempatkan muhammad ditempat yang tinggi dan mulia, seperti yang kau janjikan" (you can use google translate)
    do you know what its means, their is not certainty that muhammad are going to heaven!!
    and my neighboorhood telling to me if muhammad dont have certainty and just have promised from allah, what about us just following muhammad"…. he said to me like that.

  9. [...] Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, Part Five, Part Six, Part Seven [...]

  10. nukemecca

    I agree with you indonesian

  11. ibrahim

    Woah, it seems I missed out on the part where Donald says that Ali is being finaced by the Christians. I really hope that there are some smart Christians who are willing to finace FFI. FFI realy needs to money to support the cause.

  12. rationalist

    Morgan started off well, but when it came to quoting references, he failed. With primary sources (Quran and hadith) all targetting Muhammad, Morgan will have to accept that Muhammad was a pedophile. Of this there is no doubt at all.

  13. ibrahim

    A question for the Indians.. I wonder why none of you are lobbying for Varun Gandhi? Mr. Radhashyam Brahmachari, why don't you write an artice on him. If FFI can support Geert Wilders it can certainly support Varun Gandhi.

  14. Raisin Head

    Great piece. Muslims in the West try to say Aisha was 15 years old to hide their shame for following a pedo. Now the books said she was a baby in blankets when mo wanted her first. He was made to wait until she was 6 before marriage at which time he thighed her. He actually had intercourse at age 9. How can an old fully grown man sex a child's vagina? I know it must have frightened her for she lost her hair. He had many wives, why a little girl.
    He did it because he suffered from insanity-he was allah. He became allah after seeing how far his rantings of his supposed vision could go in making fools of Arabs, Jews and Arab Christians who followed him. Some did it for money and some did it for power. Some were scared.

    Morgan lost the debate. Really it was no debate. Mr. Sina had no competition.
    My children could defeat Morgan.

    I debate many Muslims and they leave either angry and defeated, or no longer believing. With most I ask one thing: If allah is god why didnt he know the earth was round. The Jews did! Next, why did Muhammad cursed black faces. In order to turn black, one would have to be another color! They have no answer except it's spiritual. I guess black dogs he hated were spiritual also.

  15. mratheist

    I would not even call this a debate. All Morgan did is, trying to devalue Dr.Sina references without giving any facts to prove they are all wrong. It was such a pathetic attempt that fail miserably. As ever, Dr.Sina, your debating skill is top-notch.

  16. Halalpork786

    Very funny !! All these Aisha and pedophile prophet MoHamMad affair : what a joke Ali Sina is debating over a Black spot( Crime called Pedophilia) found on Charcoal( Called Islam) ???

  17. krishna786

    dear Ibrahim,

    What is the point in supporting Varun Gandhi?? I remember his original statements never contained the word muslim.This was noted by TOI.I never knew that muslims had one more name –"any one". I hope you understand,after watching the link.Here is the original link,when the paper first reported — http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Notice-t

  18. Marie

    10 TERMS NOT TO USE WITH MUSLIMS – TOP
    There's a big difference between what we say and what they hear.
    Chris Seiple, Christian Science Monitor, 3/28/09

    Arlington, Va. – In the course of my travels from the Middle East to Central Asia to Southeast Asia it has been my great privilege to meet and become friends with many devout Muslims. These friendships are defined by frank respect as we listen to each other; understand and agree on the what, why, and how of our disagreements, political and theological; and, most of all, deepen our points of commonality as a result.

    I have learned much from my Muslim friends, foremost this: Political disagreements come and go, but genuine respect for each other, rooted in our respective faith traditions, does not. If there is no respect, there is no relationship, merely a transactional encounter that serves no one in the long term.

    As President Obama considers his first speech in a Muslim majority country (he visits Turkey April 6-7), and as the US national security establishment reviews its foreign policy and public diplomacy, I want to share the advice given to me from dear Muslim friends worldwide regarding words and concepts that are not useful in building relationships with them. Obviously, we are not going to throw out all of these terms, nor should we. But we do need to be very careful about how we use them, and in what context.

    1. "The Clash of Civilizations." Invariably, this kind of discussion ends up with us as the good guy and them as the bad guy. There is no clash of civilizations, only a clash between those who are for civilization, and those who are against it. Civilization has many characteristics but two are foundational: 1) It has no place for those who encourage, invite, and/or commit the murder of innocent civilians; and 2) It is defined by institutions that protect and promote both the minority and the transparent rule of law.

    2. "Secular." The Muslim ear tends to hear "godless" with the pronunciation of this word. And a godless society is simply inconceivable to the vast majority of Muslims worldwide. Pluralism which encourages those with (and those without) a God-based worldview to have a welcomed and equal place in the public square is a much better word.

    3. "Assimilation." This word suggests that the minority Muslim groups in North America and Europe need to look like the majority, Christian culture. Integration, on the other hand, suggests that all views, majority and minority, deserve equal respect as long as each is willing to be civil with one another amid the public square of a shared society.

    4. "Reformation." Muslims know quite well, and have an opinion about, the battle taking place within Islam and what it means to be an orthodox and devout Muslim. They don't need to be insulted by suggesting they follow the Christian example of Martin Luther. Instead, ask how Muslims understand ijtihad, or reinterpretation, within their faith traditions and cultural communities.

    5. "Jihadi." The jihad is an internal struggle first, a process of improving one's spiritual self-discipline and getting closer to God. The lesser jihad is external, validating "just war" when necessary. By calling the groups we are fighting "jihadis," we confirm their own and the worldwide Muslim public's perception that they are religious. They are not. They are terrorists, hirabists, who consistently violate the most fundamental teachings of the Holy Koran and mainstream Islamic scholars and imams. (More)

  19. Marie

    6. "Moderate." This ubiquitous term is meant politically but can be received theologically. If someone called me a "moderate Christian," I would be deeply offended. I believe in an Absolute who also commands me to love my neighbor. Similarly, it is not an oxymoron to be a mainstream Muslim who believes in an Absolute. A robust and civil pluralism must make room for the devout of all faiths, and none.

    7. "Interfaith." This term conjures up images of watered-down, lowest common denominator statements that avoid the tough issues and are consequently irrelevant. "Multifaith" suggests that we name our deep and irreconcilable theological differences in order to work across them for practical effect – according to the very best of our faith traditions, much of which are values we share.

    8. "Freedom." Unfortunately, "freedom," as expressed in American foreign policy, does not always seek to engage how the local community and culture understands it. Absent such an understanding, freedom can imply an unbound licentiousness. The balance between the freedom to something (liberty) and the freedom from something (security) is best understood in a conversation with the local context and, in particular, with the Muslims who live there. "Freedom" is best framed in the context of how they understand such things as peace, justice, honor, mercy, and compassion.

    9. "Religious Freedom." Sadly, this term too often conveys the perception that American foreign policy is only worried about the freedom of Protestant evangelicals to proselytize and convert, disrupting the local culture and indigenous Christians. Although not true, I have found it better to define religious freedom as the promotion of respect and reconciliation with the other at the intersection of culture and the rule of law – sensitive to the former and consistent with the latter.

    10. "Tolerance." Tolerance is not enough. Allowing for someone's existence, or behavior, doesn't build the necessary relationships of trust – across faiths and cultures – needed to tackle the complex and global challenges that our civilization faces. We need to be honest with and respect one another enough to name our differences and commonalities, according to the inherent dignity we each have as fellow creations of God called to walk together in peace and justice, mercy and compassion.

    The above words and phrases will differ and change over the years, according to the cultural and ethnic context, and the (mis)perceptions that Muslims and non-Muslims have of one another. While that is to be expected, what counts most is the idea that we are earnestly trying to listen to and understand each other better; demonstrating respect as a result.

  20. rationalist

    #35 Agree with your views, Mary

  21. Marie

    rationalist wrote:

    #35 Agree with your views, Mary

    Thanks.

  22. [...] Part 1 of this debate is here [...]

  23. Saadiq1977

    I'm Baaaaack.

    Anyways, be fore I post I want to clear the air here for all those who have been deceived. Originally, Ali Sina and myself agreed to a 'full' debate, where I would write an initial debate, Ali Sina would respond, I would counter, Ali Sina would counter, capped of by conclusions. Ali Sina promised me that the debate would not be posted until it was completed. He went against his word when he posted this early and he went against his word, when he decided to end the debate pre-maturally.

    I wrote my counter to this part and i will post it below for all to read. I sent to Ali Sina for reading and posting, and let's just say that when he finished reading it, he knew his argument was on the verge of collapse. So read it and enjoy

    Counter Rebuttal To Ali Sina’s Part 1
    The following is a counter rebuttal to what Ali Sina has written in response to the first part of the debate on NPD I wrote.
    The way I will construct this counter rebuttal is post what Ali Sina has said, post any quotations from my first part of the debate (if needed), and then counter what he has said.
    Ali Sina said the following:
    ‘You are making an unfounded accusation. I can’t understand what arguments one can present to make us believe that a 53 year old man having sex with an 8 year old girl does not constitute pedophilia. If Amar Khan decided to ignore your second rebuttal, it is because its absurdity is self evident. No matter how many intellectual summersaults you make, an adult having sex with an 8 year old child is a pedophile.’
    Many people have read the debate between Amaar and myself. Most people have written me with regards to this debate. All of these people are frequent visitors to Ali Sina’s website, and some are even on Ali Sina’s friends list on Facebook. They are all unanimous in their opinion about Amaar Khan contradicting himself severely. If Ali Sina feels that Amaar Khan won that particular debate, then I wonder why Ali Sina has not provided a link to that debate? More importantly, why did Amaar Kahn request that the second part of the debate, not be published? What was contained in that second part that made Amaar Khan doubt himself? Since FFI did not publish the second part, I had to do so in the thread to that debate and up until now, no one has offered their ‘so called’ insight into the matter. All of your staunch supporters seemed to have vanished after that second part was published Ali Sina. You say I am making an unfounded accusation! Why contradict yourself so early in the debate Ali Sina? You chastise me for making these accusations, but you make them when you state that you believe I did not read your book. Then here, you make another unfounded accusation when you say Amaar Khan ignored my second rebuttal because ‘it’s absurdity is self evident’. I am not surprised because you, like Amaar ‘want your cake and eat it too’. You can’t have it both ways Mr. Sina! You can’t chastise a person for making ‘so called’ unfounded accusations, but then turn around and make unfounded accusations yourself. CONTRADICTION!
    Ali Sina says the following:
    ‘You obviously misunderstood me. (Actually you did not read the book.) I do not believe that narcissism and NPD are the same. I have explained this on various occasions. The following is what I wrote in an article dated 2008/11/26 describing the buffoon president usurp Mr. Zero a.k.a. Obama/Soetoro.’

    It is obvious to me that you did not even read your book! You offer a link to an article you wrote about Obama to prove a point!? This article is NOWHERE to be found in your book Ali Sina. This debate is based on what is written in your book, not some article you wrote in the past. The fact that I didn’t read this argument does not prove that I did not read you book, as this article is NOT in your book. In your book you only reference Narcissistic Personality Disorder once (when referencing the DSM 1994 on page 60). The rest of time you use the term ‘narcissist’. This is misleading because what you indirectly imply to the reader is that the two terms are one in the same. It is more befitting for you to replace the word narcissism with narcissistic personality disorder or NPD for short.

    Ali Sina says:

    ‘It is true that we are all narcissists and actually a healthy dose of narcissism is essential for our well being. It makes us feel good about ourselves, we expect good things to happen to us, believe in our own potential, have a positive outlook at life, be optimistic and happy. However, narcissism as a disorder is an entirely different thing. Let me explain this with a couple of examples:
    Blood pressure is a good thing. It is vital. Without it we would die. However, when blood pressure becomes too high, it develops into hypertension and becomes a killer. Take another example: We all have fat in our body. We cannot live without it. But obesity is a killer.
    Likewise, a healthy dose of narcissism is necessary. Pathological narcissism or narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is destructve. For the scope of this article, when I talk about narcissism I am referring to pathological narcissism.
    In nowhere in my book I implied that normal narcissism is the same as NPD. We put salt in our food to make it tasty. So salty is good. But we generally say a food is salty when the amount of salt is too much. When we call someone is a narcissist any rational person understands we mean disproportionately’

    I agree with some of what you say here. I am glad that you cleared the air here and made a visible, distinguishable difference between NPD and narcissism. But, on your website, in the challenge page you write ‘narcissist’ as one of your claims against Muhammad. Like I said earlier, this is deceiving because we all have a level of narcissism. It is your duty to make this kind of distinction between NPD and narcissism. Your examples are ridiculous Ali Sina. Blood pressure? If you go to a doctor for examination and he/she finds that you suffer from hypertension; will that doctor come to you Ali Sina and say ‘I have some bad news Mr. Sina, you have blood pressure’? Of course not because the doctor knows everyone has blood pressure. The doctor makes the distinction. He/she tells you, you have ‘high blood pressure’ not ‘blood pressure’. Likewise, if you go to a doctor for a physical and after that physical, the doctor finds that you are obese; will that doctor say ‘Ali Sina, I got some bad news, you have body fat’. Of course not because everyone, to some degree, has body fat. Once again, the doctor makes the distinction. He/she tells you that you are obese or have too much body fat. Salty!? Again, you demonstrate your limited scope of the English language. If I give you a cracker, it’s naturally salty. You will eat it and if I asked you to describe the taste, you would say it is salty. If I give you another cracker, and add salt to it & you eat it, you would then make the distinction and say the cracker is too salty. Are these examples as good as it gets for Ali Sina. I was expecting more from a self professed man of knowledge. You may not have implicitly said that NPD and narcissism are the same but you surely infer that they are.

    Ali Sina says:

    ‘Apart from the fact that you are making a false accusation about Christians lining my pockets with money, the above quotes do not portray Jesus as a narcissist. Jesus is describing his function as being the “way.”
    (We do not get enough donations to even pay for our server, and it is mostly the apostates that pay the little donations that we receive. All this year we received was $400 dollars in donations, One $200, one $100 and two $50 dollars. Our server’s cost alone is $200 dollars per month. Those of us, who run this site, also pay for it. But obviously being a Muslim one cannot expect anything but distorted thinking from you. It is funny that you don’t see anything wrong in Muhammad’s lootings, but have problem with the fact that we receive donations from those who think our service is worth it, even though those donations cover less than half of our costs.)

    I will admit that I was a bit hasty when I wrote this part of the debate. Although I may have been hasty it doesn’t take away from the facts. I want the readers to notice something here. Ali Sina only references one of the quotations from the bible I used. He only addressed John 14:6. What about John 10:11, John 10:30, John 3:16 and Mark 7:27? Ali Sina is purposely trying to divert the attention of the readers to one part of the argument. He does this other times in his rebuttal in an attempt to draw people’s attention away from the fact that he has ‘screwed up’ monumentally or has no response for what I have written. You see, Ali Sina doesn’t want to incite the anger of his Christian supporters, that’s why he doesn’t address these other quotes from the bible. Ali Sina, I don’t think there is clearer proof of a person suffering from NPD, than making the proclamation that he is God or equal to God (John 10:30) or that all those who are not Jews, like him (i.e Gentiles) are nothing more than dogs (Mark 7:27). Anyone who reads the chapter of narcissism in your book and applies your flawed logic to these statements will have to admit that Jesus suffered from NPD. Anyways, I will leave this argument behind because it deviates from the topic at hand.

    Ali Sina says:

    ‘The words and actions of Muhammad were quite different. Here are some of the things Muhammad said about himself.
    • The very first thing that Allâh Almighty ever created was my soul.
    • First of all things, the Lord created my mind.
    • I am from Allâh, and the believers are from me.
    • Just as Allâh created me noble, he also gave me noble character.
    • Were it not for you, [O Muhammad] I would not have created the universe.’

    This is a direct quote from your book and I addressed these statements you made in my debate. I pointed out the fact that you have given NO reference for these supposed sayings of Muhammad. Without verifiable references. In my original debate I said the following:

    ‘Ali Sina also makes several fallacious statements about Muhammad. He desperately tries to disguise his own opinion about Muhammad by indirectly inferring that what he says comes from a reputable source. I want the reader to remember that the quotations I pull from Ali Sina’s book have NO footnote or reference from an alternative source. These are merely the biased opinions of Ali Sina. As we all know, anyone can have an opinion, but is that opinion sound? In these cases they are not sound because Ali Sina fails to provide proof or footnotes to back up his sensational claims.

    Ali Sina says the following statements about Muhammad, without reference:

    Page 62 (sayings of Muhammad)
    ‘The very first thing that Allah Almighty ever created was my soul.’
    ‘First of all things, the Lord created my mind.’
    ‘Just as Allah created me noble, he also gave me noble character.’

    You have only repeated what I wrote, but I would like the readers to note that, ONCE AGAIN, Ali Sina FAILS to provide a REFERENCE for these quotations. If what you say is true, then there should be no problem in providing a reference for your words Mr. Sina

    Ali Sina says:
    ‘As we can see, while Jesus is talking about his credentials and his mission, Muhammad is talking about himself and his own grandiosity. Also, while Jesus acted like a torch of guidance and set a good example, Muhammad acted like a thug and lived like a criminal. Jesus’ words and actions coincide. Those of Muhammad don’t. If Mother Teresa claimed to be a good person you may accuse her of immodesty, but it won’t be a preposterous claim. However, it would be preposterous for Hitler to make such a claim. Muhammad was an evil man. That is what makes his claims of greatness so laughable.’

    I find this to be laughable at best. Once again you illustrate your ability to CONTRADICT yourself. Hmm…I remember someone (Ali Sina) chastising me for making unfounded accusations…Your claims here about Muhammad are indeed unfounded, as you provide nothing in the way of a reference to back up your claim. It is easy for any person to spew out opinion, but is that opinion sound? Again, this is your meager attempt to avoid the points I bring up, while at the same time appeasing your Christian readers.

    Ali Sina says:

    ‘Dr. Vaknin is a foremost authority on the subject of narcissism. He has authored over 30 books. They are based on the latest research in the field and on scholarly works by the leading experts on personality disorders. Many of the chapters contain detailed bibliographies. That is the hallmark of a true scholarly book.
    I am not a theologian and have received no formal training in religion. Nonetheless, I have debated many scholars of Islam and invariably have shown their errors. My book on Muhammad is irrefutable. That is because I base every assertion I make on the authentic Islamic sources and on the accredited scholarly works. The same can be said about Dr. Vaknin’s work.’

    What you say here proves nothing. Because a man writes books and has detailed bibliographies, does not mean that that man is a qualified source of information. I can read hundreds of books on Anatomy, write a book about Anatomy, using what I have read, via quotation and paraphrasing, but will my book be taken seriously by the medical community? The answer is no because I am not a qualified medical doctor. Dr. Sam Vaknin is not a qualified psychiatrist, nor is he an authority on the subject of mental disorders. He can write all the books he wants, but if he is not qualified to speak on the subject, anything he says will not be taken seriously by those who are qualified in the field of psychiatry.

    Ali Sina says:

    ‘Vaknin’s seminal book – Malignant Self Love – Narcissism Revisited (now in its eighth, revised, impression) and the content of his Web site are based on correspondence since 1996 with hundreds of people suffering from Narcissistic Personality. Dr. Vaknin’s online mailing lists alone sport well over 26,000 members – of which 1000 are therapists, social workers, psychiatrists and psychologists. Everything he writes is backed by extensive bibliographies. You can download some of them here.’

    I find it funny, that once again, Ali Sina wants to have his cake and eat it too. In your book you point out the hundreds of people that were fooled into following ‘cult’ leaders, such as Jim Jones and the thousands that fell under the spell of Hitler. You even contend that the hundreds of millions of people who call themselves Muslims are deceived or tricked by the person of Muhammad. Well Ali Sina, if it is possible for this multitude of people to be ‘fooled’ into following people you think are ‘cultists’, is it not possible for the 26,000 members of Sam Vaknin’s mailing list to also be deceived? You admit that Sam Vaknin was diagnosed with NPD and in your book, you claim that these people are quite charismatic, easily manipulating people to their will. Can we not take your perspective on this and apply it to Sam Vakin? Any unbiased reader would say yes Mr. Sina.

    Ali Sina says:

    ‘Dr. Vaknin has stated on several occasions that he has been diagnosed with the disorder and spent time in therapy and almost a decade discussing it in depth (mainly through correspondence) with mental health professionals the world over. It is his personal experience with this disorder that makes his work so thorough, so perceptive, and so enlightening. Unlike other psychologists, Vaknin’s understanding of narcissism does not come merely from books and second hand sources, but also from his own personal experience. With ruthless honestly, Vaknin lays bare the inner impulses of a narcissist like no other mental health professional can ever do. That is why so many of them gobble his books and have joined his long mailing list.

    To say one who suffers from NPD is disqualified to write on this subject is preposterous. It’s like saying those who have suffered from eating disorder are disqualified to talk about it or alcoholic anonymous is a fraud because it relies on alcoholics helping each other. My best friend suffers from borderline personality disorder or extreme mood swings. She is a highly intelligent woman. No one can describe her disorder better than her. In fact the sites that she finds most helpful are those created and run by other BPD sufferers.’

    I will agree to an extent that personal experience is important when dealing with most things in life. I want you, Mr. Sina, and others to read the true life story of Frank W. Abagnale Jr. His life story was made into a movie by director Steven Spielberg called ‘catch me If You Can’ and starred tom hanks and Leonardo Di Caprio. This man was the ultimate con man. He was able to successfully pass himself off as a pilot, a lawyer and a doctor, all before he turned 21 years old. He flew commercial planes (Pan Am) throughout the USA, presided over court cases in a court of law and performed medical operations or duties as a doctor. He was able to fool fellow pilots, lawyers and doctors, who all believed he was the real deal. He has no pilots license, no law degree and no medical degree, yet he was able to fool everyone because he did extensive research into these fields before assuming the role. You can read about him at http://www.basicfamouspeople.com/index.php?aid=11… if you think this is not possible.

    He had all of these personal experiences, but Ali Sina, would you trust this man to fly you overseas? Would you trust this man to defend you in a court case? Would you trust this man to perform major, medical surgery on you? If you are sane, and not a liar, you would say no, as anyone else would. The reason we say no is because he was NOT qualified. He had no accredited credentials. Sure he had a lot of experience, but personal experience can only take you so far Mr. Sina. It is not enough to say that Sam Vaknin has personal experience. If he is NOT qualified or accredited, his work is nothing more than ‘crock pot’, even if there is some truth to what he says.

    Secondly, I never said that since Dr. Vaknin suffered from NPD, he should not be considered as an authority! Why are you putting words into my mouth Ali Sina? If you can show me where I said this, I will quit the debate right now and you will never hear from me again.

    Ali Sina says:

    ‘Vaknin has never claimed to be a mental health professional, any more than I claimed to be a theologian.’

    This is very misleading because the comparison you make between a health professional and a theologian is like trying to compare apples and oranges. The medical health field is based on tangible, medical and scientific evidence. One must be well versed and qualified to be considered a mental health professional. A theologian’s point of view on any subject is based on that individual’s perception of what he/she sees, or knows, not science. If you put two theologians together and ask them to describe the concept of God they will have different opinions, depending on their background, personal beliefs, etc. If you put two medical health professionals together and ask them to explain something like the function of the heart, they will have similar, if not exactly the same explanation of how the heart works because science has already shown us how the hearts works. The comparison you try to make between yourself and Sam Vaknin are ridiculous. To an extent, we are all theologians, but not all of us are medical practitioners.

    Ali Sina Says:

    ‘The fact that Dr. Vaknin is recognized as an authority on narcissism is witnessed by the media and many mental health professionals. Here is a short list of some of those testimonies. See also.
    Sunday Times:
    Channel 4 (UK) Documentary Egomania:
    WebMD
    New York Times
    The Washington Post
    USA Today
    New York Press says ”Sam Vaknin is the world’s leading expert on narcissism.”
    Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) says, “Vaknin’s a respected expert on malignant narcissists … He set about to know everything there is about the psychopathic narcissist.”
    The Infinite Mind radio program
    United Press International (UPI) http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/corporatenarcis
    Cal Thomas column,
    Toronto Sun
    CanWest News service and Newspapers Network
    You can find the full texts of these articles here.
    Santa Cruz Sentinel
    Dr. Vaknin’s work is quoted in more than 100 scholarly works (search for “Sam Vaknin” on Amazon and on Google Scholar).’

    Ali Sina has given quite a list here for the readers to investigate. I will not address the ones that have NO link because they are not verifiable. Ali Sina could be truthful in posting these sources without links, but he could also be lying, so with this shadow of doubt lingering, I find it fruitless to address sources here without a link. I will, go through the ones where a link is provided.

    1. Sunday Times: This link does NOT confirm the qualifications or authority of Sam Vaknin. In this article we do see, however, professionals who are mentioned and given credit. Examples from this article are:

    ‘Narcissism: Denial of the True Self, first published in 1985, the American psychiatrist Dr Alexander Lowen’
    ‘Professor Eddie Kane, the director of the Personality Disorder Institute at Nottingham University’
    ‘Professor Peter Tyrer and colleagues from the department of psychological medicine at Imperial College London’
    ‘psychiatrist Dr Paul Moran of the Institute of Psychiatry in London, the author of several papers on personality disorders’
    ‘Professor Jeremy Coid of the forensic-psychiatry unit at St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London’

    This type of homage is NOT given to Sam Vaknin, as the writers of the article know he is NOT a medical professional. The homage he receives is the following:

    ‘Shmuel “Sam” Vaknin, 46, has been diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder twice.’

    I truly believe that you did not read this article because it says damaging things about Sam Vaknin. Here are some examples, from the article:

    ‘Shmuel “Sam” Vaknin, 46, has been diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder twice. He is unusual in that he accepts the diagnosis, uniquely turning it into a way to provide an international source of narcissistic supply. Born in Israel, since the mid-1990s he has written extensively about himself and NPD, both on the internet and in books, including his magnus opus, Malignant Self Love – Narcissism Revisited. Hundreds interact daily on his websites. He insists that he offers help and advice only to ensure a narcissistic supply of attention that confirms his superiority, intelligence and specialness – not because he cares.’
    ‘Vaknin is an unsettling combination of the chilling and the charming. In conversation, it’s hard to disentangle truth from the narcissist’s tools of the trade – exaggeration, flattery, grandiosity and the display of fake vulnerability and self-pity to elicit sympathy. He is a verified economist, award-winning writer, poet, philosopher, journalist and financial consultant’ (note that they did not say he is an authority or qualified in the field of psychiatry here).
    These statements written about Sam Vaknin do nothing, but strengthen my argument that he is NOT a qualified or an authority in the field of psychiatry.
    2. Channel 4 (UK) Documentary Egomania; this is an article written by Sarah Myers about NPD. Dr. Sam Vaknin is NOT mentioned in this article even ONCE and his works are not mentioned ONCE in this article. Ali Sina, why are you trying to lie to the readers of this debate?
    3. WebMD: this is nothing more than a medical search engine. You can type in key words or phrases and get information, based on what you typed in the search bar. Ironically enough, when I entered ‘Sam Vaknin’ in the search, I received ZERO results, meaning he is nowhere to be found on this search engine. Ali Sina, again I ask, whay are you lying to us?
    4. The New York Times; this article does NOT confirm Sam Vaknin’s qualifications or authority in the field of psychiatry. Again, I believe you did not read this article because it says damaging things about Sam Vaknin. It says:
    ‘Mr. Vaknin's expertise stems in part from his having received a narcissistic personality diagnosis from a prison psychologist in Ramla, Israel, in 1996. Mr. Vaknin served 11 months there for engaging in stock manipulation while he was a well-known and widely celebrated director of an Israeli investment firm, Mikbatz Teshua.’
    It says his expertise stems from him having NPD. It does not say he has qualified formal education in psychiatry or anything to that effect.
    5. The Washington Post: this article is about a football player named Terrell Owens and his run ins with his former team, the Eagles. SamVaknin is referenced once in this article. It says:
    ‘According to Sam Vaknin, author of "Malignant Self Love — Narcissism Revisited," narcissists are disruptive on several levels. They are unable to abide criticism, they work autonomously, refuse to succumb to guidelines. And they provoke intense emotional counter-reactions from colleagues. "They mentally monopolize," he said. No doubt, that will sound familiar to the Eagles. I want the readers to notice that the writers did not refer to him as being a Ph.D or a doctor, nor did they refer to him as being qualified or an authority in the field of psychiatry. All it says is that he wrote a book and they quote it.
    6. USA Today: This article talks about celebrities. Sam Vaknin is NOT the author of this article and his name does NOT appear once in the article. His book or his writings are NOT quoted in this article either.
    Ali Sina, you call me a liar and accuse me of not reading your book, yet you have lied about Sam Vaknin being in an article 3 times now!
    7. New York Press: indeed it says what Ali Sina says it says but the readers of this article should look at the comments written about this article. Many writers were quick to point out mistakes in this article. One writer even says the following:
    ‘He (Sam Vaknin) has a Ph.D from a Degree Mill, has absolutely no medical or psychiatric training, yet he is being touted as an "expert"? Hardly! He is an expert of his particular manifestation having lived with it and not of the disorder, and I am shocked that so many people have not looked into the background of this individual to put his books and self-marketing into its perspective.’
    Once again I believe that you did NOT read the full article Ali Sina. This is indeed very damaging to the character of Sam Vaknin.
    8. Australian broadcasting Corporation (ABC): This is an article written mostly by Ian Walker. Sam Vakin appears briefly in one section when Ian has a conversation with him. Ian Walker never said ‘Vaknin’s a respected expert on malignant narcissists … He set about to know everything there is about the psychopathic narcissist.’, as Ali Sina claims he said. This is to be found NOWHERE in this article. Again, Ali Sina is lying to all of us.
    9. The Infinite Mind Radio Program: In this article Sam Vaknin is mentioned but not in the way Ali Sina wants us to think. Here is how Sam Vaknin is introduced:

    ‘Guests include Dr. Jeffrey Young, the founder and director of the Schema Therapy Institute of New York and the Cognitive Therapy Centers of New York and Connecticut and co-author of "Reinventing Your Life"; Sandy Hotchkiss, a licensed clinical social worker and the author of "Why is it Always About You? The Seven Deadly Sins of Narcissism"; Dr. Corinne Pache, an assistant professor of classics at Yale University and a fellow at Harvard University's Center for Hellenic Studies in Washington D.C., who talks about the myth of Narcissus and Echo; poet Tony Hoagland, whose latest collection is called "What Narcissism Means to Me"; and Samuel Vaknin, who has been diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder and has written extensively about the topic.’

    Notice how the writers listed the guests in order, based on their importance and expertise to the subject matter. Notice how Sam Vaknin’s name is very last, even the poet Tony Hoagland is more important than Sam Vaknin (At least the poet had his put in nice bold lettering, unlike Sam Vaknin. This article proves nothing in the way of qualification. They don’t even refer to Sam Vaknin as being a doctor (Dr.).

    10. Cal Thomas Column; this article talks about pedophilia, not narcissism. Sam Vaknin is mentioned here and is quoted, but his quotes are about pedophilia, not narcissism. This article proves nothing because NOWHERE does it refer to Sam Vaknin as being a doctor, or one who is qualified in the field of psychiatry. Did you read this article before posting it Ali Sina? I think not sir!
    11. Santa Cruz Sentinel: this is a small newspaper, with an impressive site. The link Ali Sina provides, leads to it’s main page, not an article about Sam Vaknin or an article with Sam Vaknin in it. It has a search engine as well. When I typed in ‘Sam Vaknin’ in the search engine I got ZERO hits, meaning Sam vaknin is NOWHERE to be found on this webpage. Ali Sina, I hate to sound as if I am repeating myself but you leave me no choice! Why Are you lying about Sam Vaknin being in this page? I am losing count as to how many times you have lied about Sam Vaknin being in an article!
    12. Amazon and Google Scholar: Everyone knows that Amazon sells books so it is of no surprise to see Sam Vaknin’s book being sold here; so this proves nothing, other than the fact he wrote a book. On Google Scholar you can read Sam Vaknin’s book online. Like Amazon, google scholar offers people the chance to read the book. Google scholar also provides citations where quotes or sections from his book have been used by others. If you look at the citations that relate to narcissism, you only count 26, not hundreds as Ali Sina claims. Again, this proves nothing as to the legitimacy of Sam Vaknin’s authority or qualifications in the field of psychiatry. If I write an article about Sam Vaknin and quote his book, it will show up on Google Scholar as a citation, even if I wrote negative things about the man.

    So what have we learned from all of this? Well we learned that Ali Sina has lied to us about Sam Vaknin appearing in an article at least 4 times, and that NONE of these articles verify whether or not Sam Vaknin is truly qualified in the field of psychiatry. Since Ali Sina has FAILED to prove his case, we should NOT consider Sam Vaknin as being a qualified source of information about narcissism. Shame on you Ali Sina!

    Ali says the following:

    ‘Everything you use to attack him, you have lifted out of his own Website. What kind of a scammer gives away so much information that can “be used against him”? Vaknin has been brutally honest about who he is. Hardly I know anyone so honest about himself. The fact that he is a narcissist is not his fault. Narcissism is the result of childhood abuse. Narcissists are victims. However, instead of scamming others, as most narcissists do, Vaknin is helping everyone to understand this disorder. That is the testimony to the fact that no matter your circumstances you can always do the right thing. Yes Vaknin is a narcissist, but he is a hero. Kudus to a man who can do so much good work despite his challenges. He is an inspiration to millions of other NPD sufferers and everyone else. By brining the awareness of this disorder to the world, freely, Vaknin is improving the lives of millions of people who either suffer from this disorder or have someone with NPD in their lives. He is contributing immensely to the betterment of the world.’

    You ask why Sam Vaknin would expose himself like this if he were a fraud. The answer can be found in one of your articles you posted Mr. Sina. You hold him to high standards and regard him as being a hero. This is a false picture because in Sam Vaknin’s own words his mission is not to help others, his mission is to feed his desire for attention and superiority, which fuels his NPD. He stated this clearly in the first article You posted by the Sunday Times (number 1 on my list above). Here is the quotation again, for those who forgot:

    ‘He insists that he offers help and advice only to ensure a narcissistic supply of attention that confirms his superiority, intelligence and specialness – not because he cares.’

    So clearly he was not interested in what people may find out about him, he is only interested in feeding his desire for attention and superiority, which fuels his NPD.

    Ali Sina says:

    ‘All your accusations against Dr. Vaknin are false. I had many other choices to quote from in describing NPD, but I chose Vaknin because he is quoted by most other contemporary sources and is regarded as an authority on the subject. There is hardly anyone alive that knows narcissism and can describe it better than Dr. Sam Vaknin.

    Despite that, Vaknin is not saying anything that the researches in this field have not said. I can easily replace all Vaknin’s quotes in my book with quotes from other experts without changing an iota of my book. I chose Vaknin because of the clarity in his writings and his unique insight into this disorder. Vaknin says the same thing, only better.’

    How are my accusations wrong? All the information I found out about Sam Vaknin, come from a website written, edited, controlled and maintained by SAM VAKNIN! So if I am a liar, is Sam Vaknin a liar as well? I even showed damaging evidence, from your own articles about Sam Vaknin. So Ali Sina, if Sam Vaknin’s Own website is full of lies, who website should I use, when speaking about the man? Your argument here is idiotic at best.

    As for your claims about Sam Vaknin’s work mirroring other works by qualified professionals; I have already shown earlier how anyone can write a book about anything and quote qualified sources. This proves nothing other than a person’s ability to research and paraphrase. I would like you to provide some examples, from qualified sources that mirror or are exactly the same as what Sam Vaknin writes. Your claims here are unfounded, if you cannot provide some examples to back up your point.

    I would like to close on this section dealing with Sam Vaknin by pointing out some facts. I want the readers to notice that Ali Sina did exactly what I said he would do. In my debate I said:

    ‘Ali Sina will argue that it is not the person’s qualifications we should focus on, we should focus on what that person says or the argument they present. This is laughable at best because without qualification, one should not speak about a topic they say they are qualified to speak about.’

    The reason I said this was to warn people about the deceitful tactics Ali Sina will use in this debate. I have read many of his debates and I have seen him use this tactic many times. In a sense, Ali Sina is trying to distract the readers. He is basically saying ‘hey guys over here! Don’t bother to look at Sam Vaknin’s qualifications, they are not important, look over here instead’. Ali Sina is trying his best to divert the reader’s attention to ‘facts’ that are less important. He tries to put so much emphasis on Sam Vaknin’s work, in an attempt to divert us from the fact that Sam Vaknin is NOT a qualified psychiatrist. I have this to say in response; I have proven:

    1. Sam Vaknin is not a qualified person in the field of mental disorders or psychiatry (he says so on his own website in his disclaimer I provided)
    2. His Ph.D comes from a ‘distance’ learning university that is NOT accredited
    3. His Ph.D is in philosophy, a subject that has NOTHING to do with mental disorders or psychiatry.
    4. His related ‘certification’ in the field of psychiatry comes from Brain Bench, an online testing facility that offers No certification, as it does NOT offer graduating programs
    5. He has NO medical license that would allow him to practice psychiatry in any country

    I want to ask a question here to all the readers, and Ali Sina himself. If you had a loved one, someone close to you, who you loved, who suffered from depression and suicidal thoughts, would you seek the help of Sam Vaknin or a qualified professional in the field of psychiatry? Would you trust the life of your loved one with the credentials I mentioned above? If you say yes you are either a liar or a fool. If you say no then you are a person with sense. If you say no, then you must agree that Sam Vaknin is not a qualified source for information.

    Here is my secondary challenge to Ali Sina. You have posted links to writings of Sam Vaknin. Are any of these writing in recognized medical journals? If he is as great as you say he is and if he is qualified as you say he is, then surly you should be able to find a medically recognized medical journal with an entry written by Sam Vaknin. I have searched and found NONE! Maybe you can find one and post it for us to read Ali Sina.

    Ali Sina says:

    ‘Your argument about the invalidity of this quote because the source is a Sufi site is the same logical fallacy that you used to pooh-pooh Dr. Vaknin’s work. What is your point? Are you saying that Muhammad did not make those pompous remarks about himself and they are all libels made up by the heretic Sufis? Do they portray your prophet as a narcissist, which you don’t think is fair because the source is unreliable?
    Sorry to burst your bubble. The following is a short list of Sunni sites that publish the same quote. http://www.sunnah.org/ibadaat/tawassul.htm http://www.allahoo.org/LoveProphet/LoveProphet.ht
    and here and here.
    This hadith was narrated by Ibn Abbas and was collected by Tirmidhī (824-892) who was a Sunni collector of hadith. Therefore, your scoffing at it on the ground that I pulled it from a Sufi site is garbage. Sufis also quote the Quran. Does that invalidate the Quran?
    Is this the level of intellectualism by which you want to beat me? Poor start!’

    I would like the readers to note that Ali Sina has failed to provide a reference from the Hadith to prove his point. What he has done, as he did with Sam Vaknin, is post links to mainstream Sunni websites. Ali Sina does this in a pathetic attempt to pass himself off as one with certain knowledge. I have already exposed each link he provided as being a lie or misleading, when speaking about Sam Vaknin and he is trying to do the same here again.

    In Ali Sina’s first link, http://www.sunnah.org/ibadaat/tawassul.htm, we can read about the concepts of intercession. Ali Sina has purposely given me a link that is too general. This is why I have taken such long time to respond to Ali Sina. He gives general links and then asks us to find specific information that is supposedly supposed to be somewhere in that link. This is the equivalent of the ‘finding a needle in a hay stack’ saying, as there is too much information one has to pour through in order to find a single quote. I would have expected Ali Sina to provide a specific link, so we are directed to the exact page he says his proof is in. I have done this in my debate because I have nothing to hide. The second link Al I Sina posts, http://www.allahoo.org/LoveProphet/LoveProphet.ht… is suspicious because the author of the site is unknown. There are NO names of the people who are responsible for creating this website. Secondly, when Hadith are quoted, the writer fails to provide a considerable reference. They only refer to the Hadith writer, as they do not provide a volume or book number or even a quote number. The quotation you say is in there is there, but who is the source, according to this sight. Its not Bukhari, or Muslim, etc. They attribute this quote to ‘Mawahib-e-Ladunniyah related by Hazrat Abdurrazzaq’. As for the other two links Ali Sina provides, marked ‘here and here’ these quotations, when shown in their entirety do not prove NPD on Muhammad’s part. You only quoted one line from the Hadith, in your book, to give a false impression but when the entire Hadith is read, it is obvious that Muhammad was speaking of his position amongst the prophets of God. What Muhammad says about his position here is no different than what the Christians say Jesus’ position is with God. The Christian contention, however, is that intercession with God is the sacrifice, at the cross Jesus made to wipe clean the sin of mankind, whereas, the Muslim contention is that intercession comes from the defense of Muhammad. The concept of intercession does not paint the Christian view of Jesus as being narcissistic in anyway and the same can be said here about Muhammad.

    You then say ‘Sufis also quote the Quran. Does that invalidate the Quran?’, which is a foolish statement to make. The Sufis, the Nation of Islam, the 7 per centers and others quote Quran but it is not the Quran that is invalidated, it’s their understanding and interpretations that are invalid. What a stupid position to take Ali Sina. You Quote Quran yourself but that does not invalidate the Quran, your understanding of what the Quran means and your interpretations are invalid. There is a difference between the validation of a book and the validation of different interpretations of that book, but you obviously can’t see the difference which is a deficiency on your part Ali Sina.

    I will not quote your whole conclusion, since it is long but I will talk about it here, in short.

    You say you only debate scholars, but this is NOT what you say in your challenge on your website at http://www.faithfreedom.org/the-challenge/ you make no such assertion. You call on anyone and everyone to come and try to disprove you. The fact that you now say you only debate scholars is contradictory to your challenge. Where does it say in your challenge that your challenge is only for people who are famous or scholars? Can you show me this please? You have made the challenge, so expect Muslims, from all walks of life and levels of intelligence to come and debate you. If it is your contention to debate famous Muslims or Islamic scholars, make it clear in your challenge.

    You like to boast that all the Muslims who read your book, never came back to you with a challenge to a debate. You make this perfectly clear when you say:

    ‘Of hundreds of people who received my book not a single one of them wrote back insisting on debate. Most of them never wrote back.’

    I find it ironic that you boast like this, but when you are finally confronted by a Muslim who is eager to respond, and wants to respond, you cut that Muslim off by saying the debate is over once you finish your response. If this is what you do, then don’t boast like this because it shows the hypocrite in you Ali Sina.

    My counter rebuttal to Ali Sina’s part 2 is coming soon.

  24. Anti-Jihad

    "but when you are finally confronted by a Muslim who is eager to respond, and wants to respond, you cut that Muslim off by saying the debate is over once you finish your response."

    Ironic because that's exactly what the mullahs and Islamobots do whenever anybody attacks their touchy-feely sensibilities about Islam.

  25. proudkafir

    I would say cut the crap what a load of BS.Come to the point
    1.NPD or not did the rasool rape a little child aged 6?
    2.Did the rpaist rasoll have sex with his daughter?
    3.Cut the Bs and let us see the answers. Allahmiya being pimp is no use.but for a few pennies and few free screwing s you get

  26. Saadiq1977

    #40 Anti-jihad

    i finally find someone here who sees beyond the smoke screens put up by Ali Sina. What Ali Sina has done is post a response that is full of lies, I proved it here in part 1, and then ends the debate becuase he knows that i will uncover these lies and expose him. I have pleaded with Ali Sina to continue the debate, he has refused. i offered to pay the expense to send the entire debate, icluding his counter rebuttal and our conlusions if he decides to continue, to any debate house in Toronto, he has refused. Why is he fefusing? he says he gets no glory from debating me and says since i am not a scholar, he doesnt want to debate; but wait a second here….Ali Sina makes no statement like this in his challenge to the Muslims! He puts forth a challenge to any Muslim, regardless og scholarship or knowledge. i find it funny that Ali Sina likes to take his time to respond to Muslims who wish to pray for his death in 90 days but decided to leave this debate early. I am not a mullah or anything like that, i am still here, knocking on Ali Sinas door but he refuses to answer the call. i have not hidden, Ali Sina has!

  27. I haven’t checked in here for a while because I thought it was getting boring, but the last handful of posts are really great quality so I guess I’ll add you back to my daily bloglist. You deserve it my friend. :)

Leave a Reply