Ali Sina's Challenge to Dr. Zakir Naik

[Abdur Rafay]

Assalamu Ala Manittabial Huda

I liked this site in a sense that nothing here is claimed to be based on illusions or false theories. I am a Muslim. I would like to accept Ali Sina's Challenge not in order to defend Islam, but to reach the truth wherever it is. The terms and conditions that Mr. Ali Sina set for a debate with Dr Zakir Naik are generally acceptable for me as I can have a lot of time to pursue a detailed writted debate. However, I would like him to initiate a criterian for this debate again for the sake of clarity and reconsiderations if needed before the debate starts.

Thank you

AbdurRafay

[Basileos]

Welcome. If you want to debate with Ali Sina personally, then contact with him by email he gave on the main site.

But be warned, however. Ali Sina is flooded with emails and challenges from very various persons. Because of this, he debates only with scholars.


You can also debate the forum regulars on this forum. Good luck though I doubt you will overcome us.


_________________
Those who make you believe absurdities will also make you commit monstrosities. -Voltaire

[Nadia Khan]

Abdur Rafay ! Welcome to this forum.

Have you read the previous debates of Ali Sina with other Muslims. If not you should first read those debates. Because most of the time Muslims repeat the same answers again and again. Here you will find some of Ali's debate. There are some debates of Ali's on this forum too.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates.htm

If you have something new to say that was not mentioned in those debates then I think Ali will welcome you for debate. But I think you should first prove yourself on this forum by debating with other members that you have a good knowledge and debating skills.

Thanks
_________________
"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light." - Plato

[Majdi]

You seem as a respectable, open minded and reasonnable guy.
I welcome you.
_________________
Majdi : I shall return with this shield or upon it .

[Abdur Rafay]

I don't mind replying to anyone's questions provided that the questions go in one track. If for example, someone asks me how a seed is sown and while answering it, i receive a question what a tree is, not only i, but anyone would be lost. As for a scholar, Ali Sina himself is not a religeous scholar as far as i know. Also, scholarship is a worldly qualification. Having to prove something requires no scholarship. When you quote Einstein, for instance, you are not appreciating his qualifications, but the power of his mind. As far as knowledge is concerned, to prove the authenticity of creationism, logic is enough. But if needed, i shall inshaAllah use the knowledge i possess as well. And yes, i have read Ali Sina and others. On one hand, i was convinced by some of the points they made, but on the other hand, i observed plain ignorance in a number of cases that i am to quote when time comes. It is the simplicity of the task that has convinced me to kick off a debate. Though i would doubtlessly like to talk to Ali Sina directly, yet it will be fun to pass this forum first. So here i am with my first point.

Time, as all know, has been the most significant topic in such debates. An atheist feels free to quote time as an existing entity and most Muslims and other theists avoid talking about it as they are doubtful about its nature. I therefore pick up the gauntlet and pronounce that by means of logic, i can prove that time is a creation. The creation of God. Any doubts? Anybody? Remember, if you admit that time is a creation, everything else becomes creation.

[wachamalit]

Rather than wait for a personal debate with that one person Ali Sina, why don't you jump in and refute what we all say here?
faithfreedom.org is not Ali Sina and Ali Sina alone. And basically you will be discussing the same issues with us just as with him.
Muslims have often tried the "target Ali Sina only mode" tactic as a showmanship to quickly declare victory from his refusal to debate. It's not going to work.
_________________
Out of ideas for a new, witty signature. May add one later, but maybe not since I am too lazy.

[wachamalit]

Back on topic, your last paragraph only described attempting to prove that God exists, not Allah.
Allah is not god even if there is a god. He is a fake god invented by Muhammad. If he is a true god, the Quran that supposedly came down from him wouldn't have so many contradictions. Like one example, we originating from some gushing fluid between the ribs and backbone.
_________________
Out of ideas for a new, witty signature. May add one later, but maybe not since I am too lazy.

[Andraste]

Welcome, Abdur!

We are not hateful people and we do not hate Muslims

" But I think you should first prove yourself on this forum by debating with other members that you have a good knowledge and debating skills"

I think this is good advice and we look forward to debating with you.
_________________
If religion is the opium of the masses, Islam is the rohypnol

[peacebewithyou]

[Phedippedes]

[doubting_thomas]

[Basileos]

[Emmanuel]

Welcome Abdur Rafay, don't start with the grand-Master, to debate with the grand-master,first, I will give you one and only one test, to see how much you know about Muhammad,Islam and Quran. Test # one,
does the Quran permits you to lie. If you answer no, please give us the verse/verses. If you answer yes, please give us the verse/verses.

[Abdur Rafay]

Ha ha ha... this is how Allah allows a Muslim to read minds filled with conspiracy accurately. When I kicked off the debate I said something to infer that no human being on earth would be able to reply so many questions at the same time. As according to doubting_thomas, who posted the largest message, Ali Sina says:

((
Ali Sina wrote:

I receive countless requests from Muslims to debate with them and mostly the challengers are not scholars. Obliviously I can't debate with a billion people. So please don't write to me requesting debate. All you have to do is prove the above charges against Muhammad are wrong. You don't need to debate with me for that. I can prove Socrates, Marx and Freud were wrong even though these guys are dead. Consider me dead. Prove my charges are wrong. Read my previous debates. You can start from here.

Once you wrote your refutation of my charges, post it in the forum.
))

If Ali Sina cannot reply to all challenges simultaneously, how can I? So let me begin with Ali's wish: "Once you wrote your refutation of my charges, post it in the forum."

And according to wachamalit:
"Rather than wait for a personal debate with that one person Ali Sina, why don't you jump in and refute what we all say here?
faithfreedom.org is not Ali Sina and Ali Sina alone. And basically you will be discussing the same issues with us just as with him."

So instead of targetting Ali Sina alone, let me begin a random check (Are you providing me a chance to benefit from the diversity of messages or am I just smart?)

Theodore M. Drange charges God of claiming to have a certain qualities at the same time, which according to him are opposite to each other and no one can have them all together.

He writes:

10. The Justice-vs.-Mercy Argument
The last argument to be considered in this survey pits property (j) against property (k). It may be formulated as follows:

1. If God exists, then he is an all-just judge.
2. If God exists, then he is an all-merciful judge.
3. An all-just judge treats every offender with exactly the severity that he/she deserves.
4. An all-merciful judge treats every offender with less severity than he/she deserves.
5. It is impossible to treat an offender both with exactly the severity that he/she deserves and also with less severity than he/she deserves.
6. Hence, it is impossible for an all-just judge to be an all-merciful judge (from 3-5).
7. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 6).

I say:

Theodore M. Drange has clearly formed a DEFENSIVE point by misstating that God is all-merciful and all-just at the same time. The Arabic word "ArRahman" does not mean all-merciful, but "the merciful one" and the word "AlAdl" means, "the just one". One might say "All the same...". Not exactly. There is no element of entirety in these meanings allowing both the qualities to be present in One at the same time. Now the remaining question is "How can someone be both just and merciful at the same time?". Simple. Just means according to Dictionary.Com:

1. guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness: We hope to be just in our understanding of such difficult situations.
2. done or made according to principle; equitable; proper: a just reply.
3. based on right; rightful; lawful: a just claim.
4. in keeping with truth or fact; true; correct: a just analysis.
5. given or awarded rightly; deserved, as a sentence, punishment, or reward: a just penalty.
6. in accordance with standards or requirements; proper or right: just proportions.
7. (esp. in Biblical use) righteous.
8. actual, real, or genuine.

Meaning #5, 6 and 7 apply to the current case to define the Arabic version of the word precisely. This combination refers to the quality of GIVING in right proportions, to the righteous and deserving. Now for example, A is a good man and B is a bad man. A has done mistakes and has shown redemption while B has been stubborn. Now the principle of justice requires both to be punished at various degrees. Suppose A deserves 10% punishment while B deserves 20% punishment. Now mercy forces the judge to punish A at only 05%, but at the same time, B gets a 20% punishment which is against the principle of justice. So "the just one" and "the merciful one" has the option to punish B by only 10% maintaining a ratio of 1:2 by the principle of justice and reducing the punishment of both by the principle of mercy.

There may now be a question that if B deserved 20% punishment, why was it reduced? Is it not against the principle of justice? The answer is no. Because the Arabic word "Adl" refers to justice that distributes something in two halves which includes at least two people. So it is relative, not independent.

If there is any answer to this explanation, I welcome, otherwise, the charge must be removed.

Wa billahit taufeequi
Wa maa alaina illal balagh

[yeezevee]

Abdur Rafay says