Ali Sina's  response to Mr. Abu Saleh of 
Islam Australia Network
2006/05/12

The following is an exchange of emails between Arad , a reader of FFI and Abu Saleh of Islam Australia Network.  

Arda kindly forwarded them to me and I publish it here along with my comments so we can have better understood of the Muslim mind.    

This is a typical response of a Muslim. Note how many logical fallacies this short email contains.   

Mr. Abu Saleh says:

Dictionary.com defines proof as "The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true." 

Do we have any such evidence about Islam? I am offering $50,000 dollars and the promise of removing this site and issuing a public apology if anyone can give me that proof. 

If Allah did not share his proofs with humans, then it is not our faults not to accept his message. If the proof is given then we need to hear it.

He says:

The first part of this statement is absurd and the second part is false.  

If it is not the job of the Muslims to prove that Islam is indeed a true religion, whose job is it then? Didn’t Muhammad claim that he has come with "clear proof" in which "three is no doubt"? Where is that proof? If Allah has given any proof, then it is the responsibility of the Muslims to share it with others. 

Why should anyone believe in something without proof? Why one should believe in Muhammad and not in thousands of other pretenders who also have no proof for their claims?  

The truth is that there is no proof. Primitive people believed in mythologies but they had no proof.  

Aphrodite, Apollo, Ares, Artemis, Athena, Demeter, Dionysus, Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Poseidon and Zeus were some of the Greek gods. People believed in them and took their existence for granted. "Everyone else believes in them, so why shouldn't I"?, they argued. There was no questioning about their existence. The believers did not ask for proof. They simply chose to believe.  

Muslims believe in Allah in the same way primitive people believed in their gods. They ask no question and do not doubt. Just like those primitive people they have no proof for the existence of Allah.  

Here we are not arguing about the existence of God. That is another matter that I see no reason to argue about. I respect this belief and those who wish to have faith in God. People may understand God according to their own intellectual capacity. I personally do not dismiss the existence of God, although I think God is the principle underlying the creation and not a being that thinks and acts like we humans do. I believe in the same God that Espinosa and Einstein believed.  

My beef is with Allah not with God. God does not demand anyone to believe and does not order killing those who don’t. Allah on the other hand is truculent, intransigent and orders those who don’t believe to be put to death or reduced into submission. So it is our right to ask for proof of his existence?  If you want to kill me to accept this god at lease show me that it is the real God and not Satan, or I will have to kill you before you kill me. It's my right to ask for the proof and it is my right to defend myself even if it means killing you.  

In the second part of his sentence Mr. Abu Saleh says:

This is a blatant lie. There is compulsion in Islam.

When Muhammad was in Mecca and weak, he said there is no compulsion in religion but he lied. When he came to power in Medina he compelled people to convert to Islam, wage war for him and pay the tithes, or die.  

Muhammad used the same policy that Hitler used. Take a look at Hitler’s statements between 1933-1939:  

May 17, 1933: "The German Government wish to settle all difficult questions with other Governments by peaceful methods . . . Germany will tread no other path than that laid down by the Treaties . . . The German people have no thought of invading any country."

Nov 10, 1933: "I am not crazy enough to want a war."

Aug 17, 1934: "The German Government, like the German people, are filled with the unconditional wish to make the greatest possible contribution to the preservation of peace in this world."

May 21, 1935: " Germany neither intends nor wishes to interfere in the internal affairs of Austria , to annex Austria , or to conclude an Anschluss [political union]"

Mar 15, 1936: "The German people do not wish to continue waging war to readjust frontiers. Each readjustment is bought by sacrifices out of proportion to what is to be gained."

Sep 26, 1938: "We have assured all our immediate neighbors of the integrity of their territory as far as Germany is concerned. That is no hollow phrase: it is our sacred will . . . The Sudetenland is the last territorial claim which I have to make in Europe . ."

Jan 1, 1939: "In general we have but one wish-- that in the coming years we may be able to make our contribution to this general pacification of the whole world."

Jan 30, 1939: "Only the war-mongers think there will be a war. I think there will be a long period of peace."

Apr 1, 1939: "(We) do not dream of attacking other nations, providing they leave us alone . . ."

[Ref.: R.E. Murphy et al., National Socialism (U.S.Gov. Ptg. Office, 1943), pp. 232- 43  http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/jobrien/reference/ob78.html ]

Do these statements prove that Hitler was a man of peace? Of course not! They prove that he was a liar.

The same is true about Muhammad. When he said there is no compulsion in religion and then he went on to force people into Islam, launching no less than 74 raids according to Ibn Sa'd, the secretary of Waqidi, in just ten years, all it shows is that he was a big liar.  

When he came to power, he said: 

3:85, If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him; 

8:39, And fight them on until there is no more fitnah (dissention) and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere.

Of course "justice" in his view was submission of everyone to him. This is how the mind of the narcissist works.

So as one can clearly see, Muhammad lied when he said there is no compulsion in religion. 

next  >