Leaving Islam



Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina 

Part III Page 9

Back  <    >   Next


In my debate with Mr. Edip Yuksel, the leader of the sect of Submitters, I quoted a few verses from the Quran switching the places of “Muslims” and “non-Muslims”.  Here are a few of them: 

8:12 We will cast terror into the hearts of Muslims. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.  

9:5Then fight and slay the Muslims wherever ye find them,

47:4, Therefore, when ye meet the Muslims, smite at their necks; At length.  

Mr. Yuksel was outraged.  He called me a “theo-fascist” and wrote: 'His [Ali Sina’s] "subhuman" remark was the last, but a venomous drop that filled his cup of hatred and bigotry. He is not a person to reason with, since his mind is filled with toxic hate and his stomach is thirsty for fresh blood…. All that because I quoted the verse of the Quran switching the places of "Muslims" and "non-Muslims"!

Muslims like to do all these evil things to others but they do not like reciprocation. As you rightly said it Islam is not in conformity with the Golden Rule. 

In all the religions, the Golden Rule applies. This is not to say that I agree with these religions. They are a mix bag of good and bad. but Islam is the only religion that is bereft of any good. The Golden Rule is the inner compass with which all the sane people can distinguish between right and wrong. Its application is very simple. I don’t like to be killed, so I must not kill. I do not like to be robbed, so I must not rob. I don’t like to be lied to, so I must not lie. I do not like my wife or daughter be raped, so I must not rape someone else’s wife or daughter, etc. The Golden Rule is an unerring compass. In fact it is so unerring that religions become superfluous. People without religion can follow this Rule and find their way unerringly.

Now let us see why Islam is the only religion that does not follow the Golden Rule. The answer is that all other religions were human constructs and many of those humans were good people, but Islam is made by a very demonic mind. Either Muhammad was a messenger of Satan or he was a psychopath. Personally I do not believe in the existence of Satan. Therefore I would say he was a psychopath.  

Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of Malignant Self Love in an article titled The Cult of the Narcissist writes:

“The narcissist's control is based on ambiguity, unpredictability, fuzziness, and ambient abuse. His ever-shifting whims exclusively define right versus wrong, desirable and unwanted, what is to be pursued and what to be avoided. He alone determines the rights and obligations of his disciples and alters them at will.”

This is exactly how one can describe the teachings of Muhammad. His definition of right and wrong are not based on the Golden Rule. They are whimsical. Some things are halal (licit) and other things are haram (illicit). What is lalal or haram is not self evident. They are based entirely on his whims.

We can understand Muhammad better if we study another psychopath cult leader and compare the two together. Let us take the example of Jim Jones who founded the People’s Temple and his followers drank poison-laced Cool Aid and committed mass suicide to prove their loyalty to him.

Jeanne Mills, one of the better-educated members of People’s Temple who escaped the cult but later was assassinated by a cult member (cult leaders don’t tolerate dissention) commented: “I was amazed at how little disagreement there was between the members of this church. Before we joined the church, Al and I couldn’t even agree on whom to vote for in a presidential election. Now that we all belonged to a group, family arguments were becoming a thing of the past. There was never a question of who was right, because Jim was always right. When our large household met to discuss family problems, we didn’t ask for opinions. Instead, we put the question to the children, "What would Jim do?" It took the difficulty out of life. There was a type of "manifest destiny" which said the Cause was right and would succeed. Jim was right and those who agreed with him were right. If you disagreed with Jim, you were wrong. It was as simple as that. [Mills, 1979] 

This is exactly how Muslims behave. Muslims follow two things, one is the Quran and the other is the Sunnah. The Quran is the words of Muhammad (claimed to be Allah’s) and the Sunnah are the life examples of Muhammad. The details of the Sunnah are described in the voluminous books of Ahadith (Plural of hadith). The doctors of Islamic law study for years to master these details and the believers do not do anything without consulting these doctors and learning the correct way of doing things. Sunnah is in effect the Islamic “prescription for living” based on the examples set by Muhammad and how he lived. These are the details about Muhammad’s life reported by his companions and wives. Through Sunnah Muslims learn how to perform prayers, how to do ablution, how to clean their nose, their feet and their ears; how to eat, what to eat and what not to eat, how to sleep, how to dress and how to shave. They learn how to copulate, how to defecate and how to urinate, with which foot enter the toilet and on which one place most of the weight while evacuating. They learn which direction to face during defecation or urination and how many pebbles to use for cleaning purposes after the call of the nature and with which hand to clean one’s private parts. They learn what length of the penis can enter the vagina without annulling their fast and how to clean after having a wet dream, or even how to fondle their wives and enjoy them when they are menstruating. Everything is detailed. Every action is prescribed. All believers have to do is spend years learning these “important” examples set by Muhammad and follow them mindlessly and meticulously in the fond belief that he will have fulfilled his duty as a Muslim and will be rewarded for his “good” deeds.

Good and bad in Islam have completely different meanings. For the rest of mankind good and bad can be defined through the Golden Rule. But in Islam that is not the case. Good and bad in Islam are defined by Muhammad. What he allowed is good and what he prohibited is bad. According to the Golden Rule killing, stealing and raping are bad. But in Islam these very acts are enjoined and are good if they are done in the name of Allah.  Muhammad exhorted his followers to do Jihad, to fight and kill people, to loot their properties and to rape their wives. 


Allegations are normally brought against someone in a court of law where the criterion of determining the crime is already enforced. But this is not a court of law and Mr Sina should stop assuming in his arrogance that he is in one in the guise of judge, jury and executioner; as he constantly demands that Muslims should come forward to defend the Prophet (SAW) as if the Prophet has already been proven to be guilty by Mr Sina’s constant rants.


I am prosecuting Muhammad in the court of the public opinion. The charges are that he was not a prophet of God but a cult leader and an impostor. The challenge is to prove me wrong. You accepted this challenge. Now you have to prove me wrong or accept defeat and withdraw. 


We are in fact debating from two different premises with different sets of criteria. Therefore, unless we agree on some common criterion for assessing the allegations of Mr Sina we will only trade accusations and counter accusations as neither of us recognises each others premises, criteria and values.

The criteria I have used are the Golden Rule, the commonsense and the logic. Do you disagree with these criteria? Then please tell us what criteria you use to determine that Muhammad was a prophet of God and not a liar. Do you have any criteria. Or perhaps you want us to take Muhammad for his word! This is like asking a criminal to tell us whether he is innocent or not and believe him. This criterion may satisfy the benighted followers of Muhammad who are desperate to believe at any cost, but it sure can't satisfy the rest of us. If we believed in Muhammad's trustworthiness, why would we question him? The problem with Muslims is that their logics is so naive that is laughable.

Do you have any criterion to determine Muhammad's truthfulness beside his words? Please share that with us. That is the whole point we are having this debate.  


Mr Sina is the one bringing forward the allegations on the basis of his criterion of the “Golden Rule”. Therefore, the onus is on him to prove that rule as absolute authority by substantiating that it is: comprehensive, self-evident and universal. Once consensus is reached on the “Golden Rule” it will naturally function as a common criterion. Then we can logically proceed to asses the allegations brought forward using the rule as a “Yard Stick”. This is the heart of the debate. Therefore, I have addressed the “Golden Rule” first followed by the other points in the previous response of Mr Sina.

Your consensus is not required. You can keep denying as much as you please. In fact your denial of the obvious is the very ticket that makes me the winner in this debate. If in a debate I insist that you should prove that the sun is brighter than the moon would my filibustering tactics bring us to an impasse? Hardly so. It in fact is proof of my inability to reason and this makes you the winner, and me, a clown. I am afraid your denial of the universal truth of the Golden Rule has the same effect on you. It only makes you the laughing stuck of  our readers. In fact it is this kind of irrationality that will open the eyes of those good people who are still under the illusion that Islam is a religion.

Back  <    >   Next 

Back to Index 






Articles Op-ed Authors Debates Leaving Islam FAQ
Comments Library Gallery Video Clips Books Sina's Challenge

  ©  copyright You may translate and publish the articles in this site only if you provide a link to the original page.