Ali Sina in his typical racist-foul-mouth mode claimed that all Muslims are animals without any elaboration and he said: “Muslims do not possess conscience. Conscience has not evolved in them. The Golden Rule can only be understood by humans. Animals and Muslims do not understand it.”

It is amazing how Sina makes such gross generalisation of 1.5 billion people; perhaps he is trying to teach us the ‘wisdom’ and ‘loving’ nature of his “Golden Rule”! Ironically, why is Sina debating with Muslims if they are incapable of understanding his rule, of course they are incapable because Sina says so. Indeed it can be said that if a man is so eager to hold debates with people who he considers as animals he is the one who is really deficient in his mental faculty! In any case, Sina will now have to bite the bullet as he also admitted that he was born into a Muslim family. So here follows the implication of Sina’s utterances: The obvious implication is that Mr Sina is also a product of two animals, like the wild beasts cohabiting in the woods.

Of course he may try to mitigate his blunders by claiming that he is only half an animal as he is a BASTARD child. In which case, Sina’s mother is an adulterous whore that slept around with non-Muslims perhaps she was inspired by some ‘freethinker’. Or that she was raped by non-Muslims who are by definition are “Golden Rule” followers according to Sina’s above mentioned statements. Or maybe Sina’s dad was spreading his seed amongst the “Golden Rule” followers or he raped some non-Muslims woman. Sina can best answer these points. But also, the old dictum: “charity begins at home”, so, why Mr Sina does not focus his effort in civilising the animals that are at his home, not just his parents but his siblings and the extended family? Judging from his email more than likely it is Ali Sina that is living like an animal in a cage as he admitted that he is hiding his work and he even prays along with his family members!

And this is the man who talks big behind his keyboard about annihilating Islam and Muslims. Then like a snake he abused his guest and relative without provocation and bragged about it to a total stranger i.e. to myself! Such irrational, hypocritical and cowardly behaviour proves beyond doubt that Sina lacks basic commonsense and if I were to borrow his terminology a true “SUBUMAN” or an “animal” like the chimpanzee!

What is also interesting is that if any Muslim was running such a hate-filled website it would be immediately closed down for inciting hatred but nobody notices when filthy venom comes out from an intellectual midget with a heart of Nazi and the bravery of a chicken. We can go on analysing the implications of Mr Sina’s foolish statements but it may only result in victimising the innocents like Mr Sina’s parents and other family members.

Hence, indeed, Sina is a real sinner! Despite such self-indicting statements, from the beginning Mr Sina boasted about his ‘logical’ gun, his menacing debating skills and how he was going to smash my nose. Any impartial reader can really judge whose nose is really bleeding, that is if they can manage to see the entire debate on his website which he has constantly tried spin doctor to present the debate in his favour (elaborated below). It is blatantly obvious Sina is finding it increasingly difficult to present a coherent set of ideas let alone provide a challenge to Islam. My previous response and the following points using Sina’s statements will amplify that again.

Morality and Ethics

In a desperate bid to cover his embarrassment Sina attempts to redefine morality and introduces the word “ethics” to rescue his earlier blunder when he categorically stated that morality was absolute as it was derived from the “Golden Rule”! This is based on the ludicrous assumption that everyone is using the rule as a basis and will interpret the rule in the exact same manner and thus derive the same moral values. Even someone with the brain of a “SUBHUMAN” could not have made such a stupid and naive assumption! And who ensures that the morality deduced from his rule is not faulty? So, Sina now says that morality is not absolute but ethics is and he states:

“Slavery has been always wrong. Murder, rape, looting and lying have never been right and will never be right. Morality is the interpretation of the Ethics”

If ethics says murder is wrong but what is murder? As usual Sina waves these terminologies without defining them. According to his ‘logic’ murder is defined and interpreted by morality in real life scenario, thus giving ethics its real meaning, so morality is what defines and elaborates ethics! Since morality is subjective according to Sina thus ethics must also be subjective. Ethics may only be absolute if the word is locked up in a vacuum without definition and elaboration but that has no relevance to the real life. In that case nobody will disagree murder is wrong.

The distinction between morality and ethics are made by some scholars but that is rather academic the rest agree that they are synonymous. The former states that morality is what you ought to do and ethics is the study of that. Linguistically, ethics and morality are synonymous terms, both meaning customs in their original languages, Greek and Latin respectively. So Sina’s attempt to juggle with words to hide his earlier embarrassment shows he has no bullets in his ‘logical’ gun and presenting such arguments he reminds me of a dog that is chasing its tail!

If there was human consensus on morality we would have probably had far fewer conflicts in human history. In reality, differences on morality or ethics are vast, for example in Europe views capital punishment as murder but many states in the US this is just retribution. Abortion is classified as murder by some whilst others view it differently. Ali Sina says murder is wrong but he has no problem in the US military murdering the Iraqis 5000 miles away from the US when they have done no harm to the US. Likewise the genocides that have been committed from the Spanish-American war that continues till today, none of which were defensive but unprovoked American aggression, for Sina, like a good migrant-Coolie he says it is not murder.

It is up to Ali Sina to clarify his own confusion and contradictory ideas and juggling with words will not help him. He is certainly no position to bring any charges against anyone on the basis of morality and ethics when he himself is clearly muddled on the issue.

More examples of the Mr Sina’s ‘Logic’

Mr Sina previously he made a bold claim that he does not believe in anything and he is “not here to tell people what path they should choose” and he goes on to say: “I leave that to them to decide”. But now we know he wants to dictate to the world his so-called “Golden Rule” cult and he would not be perturbed if that meant genocide as he is supportive of US foreign policy! Also, he is also dictating to the Muslims that they should abandon Islam and he demands that anyone according to his interpretation has a Nazi like views should also be prevented from functioning in society.

Yet he says he is not here to tell people what to do. Sina is a complete fool and he needs to sort his fundamental arguments out. He constantly says one thing then contradicts it. Like he said earlier Islam is not a religion but it is and then it isn’t! “Golden Rule” has no say on penal code but it is the “basis of the Justice System” according to Sina, what fool cannot see that you cannot have justice without the use or penal codes (retribution) to dispense justice? I am still waiting to see on what grounds Sina will bring his allegations as he has yet to clearly define his premise and arguments which he is constantly contradicting.

His other fantastic statements include that the US does not kill civilians en masse, now even many hardcore patriotic Americans would dispute this! It seems someone must explain to Mr Sina what is a nuclear weapons, incendiary bombs, chemical weapons and what happens when those are dropped in civilian cities like Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and Hanoi. Yet he barks on about his “Golden Rule” being universal because he says so like a fanatic with a blind faith in his cult.

How can it be universal while excluding 1.5 billion Muslims forming approx 25% of humanity differs with it and only a handful of people even know the name of this so-called guidance of “Golden Rule”? He makes bold claims like the rule is the “Foundation of our humanity” with no supporting evidence. Indeed, not just Islam but other religion that also contradicts the “Golden Rule” which Mr Sina admitted so where is the universality. I can go on giving examples but how do I teach an old dog new tricks. Sina won’t mind me calling him an animal as he admitted to being one earlier!

Here is another pertinent example of Mr Sina’s ‘logic’. According to Mr Sina, anything that contradicts the “Golden-Rule” is evil and to be worthy in the eyes of Mr Sina we must comply with his rule. Otherwise, you are excluded from his circle of brotherhood of the cult but this is the very same accusations that he was placing against Islam in his earlier response!

Why the great ‘scholarly’ mind of Mr Sina cannot see that Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus and everyone else including the followers of the “Golden-Rule” cult will distinguish themselves based on what they believe and by necessity will discriminate against those who do not. Any form of identity is both inclusive to those who comply and simultaneously exclusive to those who do not, that is a reality! Sina seems to be living in his cloud cuckoo land believing in over simplistic ideas to solve complex issues. I cannot find one reference to any scholar, political leaders, think tanks that actually even just mention his so-called “Golden Rule” cult.

In his usual foul-mouthing mode Sina claims Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was a narcissist yet everyone knows including the most hostile critics of Muhammad (SAW) lived an austere life style. When he died there no great accumulation of wealth left behind for any of his children. In the prime of his youth he was offered money, most beautiful women and power by the Pagan Arabs in return for compromising the message of Islam; And If Prophet Muhammad was a narcissist and an unprincipled person as Sina boldly rants he clearly would have taken that route. Such factors are ignored as it cannot be fitted into Sina’s bigoted mindset.

On the contrary, it is Sina that depicts himself as a narcissist shown by his constant self-praising (“logical gun”, menacing debater etc) and his ego (smashing my nose). More laughably, Sina demonstrates his ignorance and stupidity once more as he cites Ghandi in support of his views but Ghandi actually confirms that Prophet Muhammad was the opposite of a narcissist and he actually offered full praise of Him (SAW) and Ghandi said: "I wanted to know the best of one who holds today's undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind....I became more than convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life.

It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to this friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the 2nd volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of the great life."

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

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

‘Debate’ Manipulation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lengthy Irrelevant Waffles, but Why?

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

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

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

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

To be continued……
Yamin Zakaria
London, UK