|
Javed Ahmad Ghamidi and
Khalid Zaheer vs. Ali
Sina
Part XIX
<< Page
1
March 19, 2007
Dear Mr Ali Sina
Please let me know in your next message the reason why I should not
consider it to be a moral victory for myself in the fact that despite
declaring that you will give a week’s time to your readers to absorb my
message before they read your response to it, you have reversed your
policy. What is so dangerous in my innocuous, brief messages that compels
you to attach your rebuttals immediately?
If you would have concentrated on my example of the new moon, you would
have appreciated what I was trying to say in my theory of
subjective-cum-objective realities. You know that we Muslims are eager to
spot the new moon for confirming the advent of Ramadan and Eid. The moon
is not clearly visible. However, with some concentration, which demands
willingness to see it, one can get a clear view of it. When one catches a
glimpse of it, it becomes increasingly visible. To the one who is not
willing to see, there is no moon on the horizon. Imagine the lack of
willingness of the person who has joined the moon-sighting group with
pre-decided agenda that the moon hasn’t appeared! Likewise is the case
of faith in the claim that Qur’an is the word of God. If you are willing
to see it, you can get, to begin with, an initial glimpse of it. If you
are committed to not seeing it, nobody can help you in getting its
glimpse. Willingness to believe doesn’t demand that you be a gullible
idiot. It demands that you be an honest, open-minded person, who is
willing to call good as good and bad as bad. When you raise certain
objections against the message of Islam, I can see your point. When you
stubbornly reject all clear indications that lead one to see that it is a
message from God as nonsense, I start losing confidence in my assumption
that you are an open-minded person. The lack of willingness can owe itself
to a number of causes. In your cause case it is the open, declared hatred
for the message of Islam. Of
course, you present various reasons for it. Some of them do merit
attention. However, the trouble is that when responses are offered to you,
your rebuttals are, as if, already prepared. Your commitment to rejecting
Islam is so unequivocal that you have become a biased enemy of it. I pray
that you become a more open-minded and rational individual. I have a nice
feeling that in praying for you, I am following the footsteps of my
prophet, who always prayed for his enemies until such time that he
received a confirmation from God that they didn’t deserve his prayers
any more.
In the recent messages, I have been mentioning that the biggest miracle of
the prophet of Islam was that he declared from the very first day that his
enemies are going to be annihilated, like it happened in the case all the
earlier messengers. This fact is so clearly documented in the Qur’an,
the fully preserved book of God, that every sane person can see it. You
objected by asking as to why God had to ask humans to kill fellow humans
on His behalf. I would say that your question is partly relevant. You
should have said that a very strange, out-of-this-world thing did happen
but you were not comfortable with the manner it occurred. This would have
indeed been a rational stance. However, your exaggerated anger at the way
it happened on the basis of your information which is incomplete and only
partly reliable, has blinded you from seeing the truth of the claim. Thus,
like in the case of somebody uninterested in seeing the new moon, you are
uninterested in seeing the truth in Islam.
To question and doubt is a good thing. Believe me, I do a lot of it while
reading the Qur’an. My reference to Bertrand Russell’s writings was
also meant to bring home the same point. I never mentioned that I was
giving my arguments to prove him wrong. You spent unnecessary words to
dismiss something I never claimed. However, to question and doubt for the
sake of
knowing the truth is one thing and to do it for its own sake is quite
another. I use the tool of questioning and doubting to enhance my faith.
Thanks God, it hasn’t failed as yet.
Your response to my claim that the prophet of Islam was the prophet
promised in the Book of Deuteronomy was also disappointing. Your seemingly
strong answer was based on one policy you consistently follow: Criticize
whatever can be picked for criticism and ignore what can’t be answered.
My questions to some of the points you have raised are these: Does the
reality that Ishmael was the son of Abraham and therefore the brother of
Isaac change because there are certain derogatory remarks mentioned in the
Bible against him? Is it not a strange coincidence that the prophecy
mentions that God would put “My words in his mouth” and it is only the
Qur’an that claims, with undeniable evidence, to be the very word of
God, completely preserved?
Call it a mantra or whatever, is it not perplexing that the prophecy is
stating that the prophet to come would present God’s word in His name
and the Qur’an does just that before each chapter. There were many
similarities mentioned between Moses and Muhammad in my message and you
picked for criticism only the one I had mentioned to distinguish them from
Jesus Christ, Allah’s mercy be on all. That’s a style quite peculiar
to you. What about the other similarities? The prophecy states that the
prophet to come would be like Moses and the Qur’an says: “Indeed We
have sent you as an evidence against your nation quite the same way as We
sent a messenger to Pharaoh.” (Qur’an; 73: 15)
Let’s clear these points first, and then proceed to other issues. God
willing, I stand committed to answering all your questions, whether
relevant to pre-destination or anything else.
Khalid Zaheer
(Words: 1023)
|
Here
is the above letter responded paragraph by paragraph.
March 19, 2007
Dear Mr Ali Sina
Please let me know in your next message the reason why I should not
consider it to be a moral victory for myself in the fact that despite
declaring that you will give a week’s time to your readers to absorb my
message before they read your response to it, you have reversed your
policy. What is so dangerous in my innocuous, brief messages that compels
you to attach your rebuttals immediately? |
You may certainly claim moral victory. Winning and
losing are the farthest things in my mind. All I want is to make the truth
known.
When Saddam was defeated in the first Gulf War, he
went on TV and claimed moral victory. In fact he even celebrated it with
fireworks and jubilees. Throughout the history we see people who are
defeated in battles claim moral victory. Obviously this has some psychological
effect on them and makes there defeat more bearable. If you consider
this a battle where one has to lose and one has to win, then you have my
permission to claim moral victory. As I stated in my first message, I see
this as an opportunity to expose the truth. The victory is the victory of
truth over falsehood and when that happens we are all victorious.
Assuming you can impress people for a week until my
response is published. For one week you feel good. Then what about after I
post my response?
Our debate will be read for many years to come. What
about those who would be reading this debate in future? Should we ask them
to read your replies and stop for a week and then read mine?
Furthermore, I assure you, people are not naïve. You
can rest assured that readers will not be swayed by my illogical arguments
if they are not rebutted by you and vice versa. Please give some credit to
our readers. We are writing for intelligent people, many of whom are
much smarter than yours truly and I am sure you are not claiming to be the
smartest person in the world either.
|
If you would have concentrated
on my example of the new moon, you would have appreciated what I was
trying to say in my theory of subjective-cum-objective realities. You know
that we Muslims are eager to spot the new moon for confirming the advent
of Ramadan and Eid. The moon is not clearly visible. However, with some
concentration, which demands willingness to see it, one can get a clear
view of it. When one catches a glimpse of it, it becomes increasingly
visible. To the one who is not willing to see, there is no moon on the
horizon. Imagine the lack of willingness of the person who has joined the
moon-sighting group with pre-decided agenda that the moon hasn’t
appeared! Likewise is the case of faith in the claim that Qur’an is the
word of God. If you are willing to see it, you can get, to begin with, an
initial glimpse of it. If you are committed to not
seeing it, nobody can help you in getting its glimpse. Willingness to
believe doesn’t demand that you be a gullible idiot. It demands that you
be an honest, open-minded person, who is willing to call good as good
and bad as bad. When you raise certain objections
against the message of Islam, I can see your point. When you stubbornly
reject all clear indications that lead one to see that it is a message
from God as nonsense, I start losing confidence in my assumption that you
are an open-minded person. The lack of willingness can owe itself to a
number of causes. In your cause case it is the open, declared hatred for
the message of Islam. Of
course, you present various reasons for it. Some of them do merit
attention. However, the trouble is that when responses are offered to you,
your rebuttals are, as if, already prepared. Your commitment to rejecting
Islam is so unequivocal that you have become a biased enemy of it. I pray
that you become a more open-minded and rational individual. I have a nice
feeling that in praying for you, I am following the footsteps of my
prophet, who always prayed for his enemies until such time that he
received a confirmation from God that they didn’t deserve his prayers
any more.
|
Your example of sighting the moon is clear. The point
is, is it me who is denying the obvious or is it you? Have you given any
clear proof that Islam is from God? The answer is no. I have been asking
this since the beginning while you preferred to beat around the bushes and
avoided the question. The only proofs you gave so far are 1) the claim
that Muhammad was mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:18 and 2) he said he will be
victorious and he was. I discussed these and I showed that the first is
wishful thinking. Anyone can take some vague verses from a old book and
claim they refer to him. In fact to show the absurdity of such claims I am
thinking of collecting all the verses of the Bible that I can claim point
t me. So far I have found several verses that I can use and they are far
more convincing than Deut. 18:18. As a matter of fact that verse applies
to me as much as it applies to Muhammad. Here
and here
the Baha’is prove with clarity (not in your vague style), that Bab was
foretold by the Prophet Daniel and the exact date of his coming was given. Here
they show that Jesus prophesied Baha'u'llah by name in Mark 8:38, Matthew 16:27 and Luke 9:
26. Here
they show that the prophecies of Joseph Smith, the founder of the Seventh
Day Adventists were fulfilled by Baha’u’llah.
In this
page they show, with far
more clarity than you do, that Bab and Baha’u’llah were prophesized in
Islamic scriptures. They even
have found
secret messages encrypted in the passageways
and chambers of the Great Pyramid of Gizah that they claim are prophecies
for the coming of Baha’u’llah. They have found passages in Hindu scriptures, Buddhist
scriptures and Native American traditions that they say point to
Baha’u’llah. With Google you can find more. These are far more
convincing claims than the one you make about Muhammad. Despite all that
Baha'u'llah could not see that Muhammad was not a prophet but a liar.
Should we believe in these prophecies or in our own logic?
You deny
all the evidence that Muhammad was a criminal and cling to a vague
sentence in the Bible, the very book that you say is corrupted and should
not be relied upon, to prove Muhammad was foretold. This is wishful
thinking. You are the one that is unable to see the moon in the sky not
me. In fact you deny even the sun in the sky. The evidences I have given
about Muhammad being a liar are clearer than the sun.
In the sentence that I highlighted, you wrote “Willingness
to believe doesn’t demand that you be a gullible idiot. It demands that
you be an honest, open-minded person, who is willing to call good as good
and bad as bad”
Well willingness
to believe always require you to abandon skepticism and this means agree
to be gullible. However, I could
not agree more on the second sentence. Was Muhammad a good man? Is raiding innocent people,
massacring unarmed civilians, stealing all their belongings, taking women
and children as slaves and raping women thus captured, a good thing? How
would you feel if a lunatic claimed to be a prophet and did the same to
you with complete clear conscience, while his followers asserting that he
is justified to commit all those atrocities because he is a messenger of
God and that you deserve to be punished in this heinous way because you do
not believe in his “clear” warnings? Would you call that still
"good"?
When I
asked you to respond for the evil deeds of Muhammad all you could say was
that he was a messenger of God and therefore authorized to do what he did.
You argued that I must first solve that problem for myself and once I am
convinced of the prophethood of Muhammad, I must shut up and blindly
accept whatever he did. According to your reasoning, God and his
messenger are above the law and scrutiny and they can act as criminals and it is not up
to us humans to question what they do. You think this is open mindedness
and the sign of pure heart. .
I even
agreed to go along with this warped thinking and asked you to give us the
proof of your claim that Muhammad was a prophet of God. You gave
none!
You say the Qur’an gives clear reasons why some
people were eligible to be killed. When asked to give us those reasons,
all you could say was that one must have pure heart to see them. I am
sorry; pure heart has nothing to do with truth. You need rational thinking
to find the truth. You need pure heart for not oppressing people who are
different from you, for feeling the pain of those whom you abuse because
they think differently. You can't have a pure heart if you say those who do not believe in what I
believe do not deserve to live in this world.. When you think like a
Muslim you think it is okay to kill those who do not see what you uncritically have
accepted as truth. This is not pure heart. What you say should be
done to unbelievers stems from a very impure heart and I am talking about
Muhammad here. The problem of Muslims is uncritical thinking.
You don’t have to
have pure heart to see the sun and the moon in the sky. You don’t have
to have pure heart to understand that it is not the earth that goes around
the sun but the other way round. You don’t need pure heart to understand
the concept of the Big Bang, or evolution. You don’t need pure heart to
know that pi is needed to calculate the area of a circle. To
understand the truth you don’t need pure heart. This is a fallacy. All
you need is a brain and the ability to use it. God has endowed all of us
with brain. The problem is that some people are so caught in absurd
thinking that refuse to use theirs. Heart has nothing to do with truth.
You need to be apathetic and cold to find the truth. If you practiced what
you preach, i.e. “call good as good and bad as bad” you would not
remain a Muslim a single minute. If what Muhammad did to his victims was
done by someone else, would you still call it good? What Muhammad did was
not good but evil. The only reason you accept them is because these evil
deeds were perpetrated by him and you are unable to accept the fact that
this man was evil. Your love for this monster acts as a veil for you. You
know stealing, raping, cowardly massacring civilians, butchering prisoners
of war and enslaving free people are bad. But when these evil deeds were
perpetrated by Muhammad, suddenly you think they are good. If this is not
brainwashing, what is?
|
In the recent messages, I have been mentioning that the biggest miracle of
the prophet of Islam was that he declared from the very first day that his
enemies are going to be annihilated, like it happened in the case all the
earlier messengers. This fact is so clearly documented in the Qur’an,
the fully preserved book of God, that every sane person can see it. You
objected by asking as to why God had to ask humans to kill fellow humans
on His behalf. I would say that your question is partly relevant. You
should have said that a very strange, out-of-this-world thing did happen
but you were not comfortable with the manner it occurred. This would have
indeed been a rational stance. However, your exaggerated anger at the way
it happened on the basis of your information which is incomplete and only
partly reliable, has blinded you from seeing the truth of the claim. Thus,
like in the case of somebody uninterested in seeing the new moon, you are
uninterested in seeing the truth in Islam. |
Whenever two people want to engage in a war, both
brag that they will be victorious. Eventually one side will be victorious.
This does not prove that the victor could foresee the future. In the case
of Muhammad, he was the only one declaring war on others. Actually he
never declared them. He even signed peace treaties, only to break them
when he willed. The non-Muslims had no intentions of waging war with
him. He took them by surprise and raided them when they were least
expecting. These were shamelessly coward attacks on civilians. These were
terrorists acts. And you boast that because Muhammad won through his
terrorist forays, he proved to be a messenger of God and the greatest
miracle was thus accomplished? I don’t know even how to answer to this much
absurdity. I leave that to the readers to make their minds. This point is
clear to all the non-Muslims. Now it is the turn of the Muslims to see the
light and do the right thing. Is this your “out of this world”
miracle? Muhammad said he will be victorious and then he raided unwary
people and butchered unarmed civilians and won. Does this proves that he
was a prophet of God and anyone who cannot see this "out of this
world miracle" is blind and can’t see the moon in the sky and
should be killed? Okay!
Let us leave it at that my not blind friend, with open mind and pure heart
and let us move on. You gave us the biggest miracle that you think
justifies all the crimes of Muhammad. Let us move on.
|
To question and doubt is a good thing. Believe me, I do a lot of it while
reading the Qur’an. My reference to Bertrand Russell’s writings was
also meant to bring home the same point. I never mentioned that I was
giving my arguments to prove him wrong. You spent unnecessary words to
dismiss something I never claimed. However, to question and doubt for the
sake of
knowing the truth is one thing and to do it for its own sake is quite
another. I use the tool of questioning and doubting to enhance my faith.
Thanks God, it hasn’t failed as yet. |
Questioning and doubting to enhance one's faith is not the way to
find the truth. You are only seeking validation in what you already
believe. When your intention is to enhance your faith and not find the
facts that may destroy it, you overlook all the evidences that may
jeopardize your faith and only pick those things that confirm it. The
reason you can’t find the truth is because your method is wrong. I knew
that all along. It's good that you confessed to that too.
The right way to find the truth is the one taught to
us by Descartes. He doubted everything, including the world around him and
assumed that there is a demon making this world appear to him the way he
sees it and that
everything is just a figment of his imagination. Then he concluded, I must
exist in order to be able to imagine this world, therefore if I think I
am. cogito, ergo sum.
To find the truth, you must empty your
mind from all preconceptions. Assume that you don’t know
Muhammad and then come to learn that he took women captured in his raids
and raped them, that he slept with a child, that he looted and committed
genocide. Will you accept such a man as the best human and an example to
follow? If you are a decent person I doubt that you would. That should be
enough proof to reject Islam. However, there are other proofsr. Then you want to know the evidences that he presented for his
claim. You see the only evidence his followers give is the fact that he
said he will become victorious with terror and he did. Is this
proof? In logics this is called argumentum ad baculum and it
is listed among logical fallacies. See this
for yourself. Thinking that might is right is a very primitive thinking
and it is one of the most elemental logical fallacies. Lo and behold, this
fallacy is your biggest argument in support of Islam. You even call it the
greatest miracle?
|
Your response to my claim that the prophet of Islam was the prophet
promised in the Book of Deuteronomy was also disappointing. Your seemingly
strong answer was based on one policy you consistently follow: Criticize
whatever can be picked for criticism and ignore what can’t be answered.
My questions to some of the points you have raised are these: Does the
reality that Ishmael was the son of Abraham and therefore the brother of
Isaac change because there are certain derogatory remarks mentioned in the
Bible against him? Is it not a strange coincidence that the prophecy
mentions that God would put “My words in his mouth” and it is only the
Qur’an that claims, with undeniable evidence, to be the very word of
God, completely preserved?
Call it a mantra or whatever, is it not perplexing that the prophecy is
stating that the prophet to come would present God’s word in His name
and the Qur’an does just that before each chapter. There were many
similarities mentioned between Moses and Muhammad in my message and you
picked for criticism only the one I had mentioned to distinguish them from
Jesus Christ, Allah’s mercy be on all. That’s a style quite peculiar
to you. What about the other similarities? The prophecy states that the
prophet to come would be like Moses and the Qur’an says: “Indeed We
have sent you as an evidence against your nation quite the same way as We
sent a messenger to Pharaoh.” (Qur’an; 73: 15)
|
The claim that Muhammad is foretold in Deuteronomy is
absurd. Of course I can’t accept such a baseless claim. As I stated, the
claims of the Baha'is that the Baha'i faith has been foretold in previous
scriptures, particularly by Daniel, is far more convincing that yours. My
point is that anyone can pick something from any book and interpret it the
way he wants to. Fortunately, Muslims have not been able to find anything
remotely as strong as those that the Baha'is claim to point to their
prophet. Read them for yourself and be the judge. They come with the exact
date of the declaration of Bab and many other details such as the name of
Baha'u'llah stated many times. If you can't buy that, then you have far
less reasons to buy the that Deuteronomy is about Muhammad.
Does the fact that the Bible speaks derogatory of
Ishmael reduce his rank as the legitimate heir of Abraham? Yes it does.
According to the Qur'an, 11:42-43 Noah’s
son was perished because of his rebelliousness. The fact that he was the
son of Noah did not give him any privileges. So, according to the Qur'anic logic, being a son of a
prophet does not give one any advantages. Therefore, if the Bible calls
Ishmael a jackass of a man and God ignores him completely while talking to
Abraham and refers to Isaac as his ONLY son, it is clear that
Ishmael is out of the picture. He
will have many children who will be hostile, fighting with everyone and causing
seditions and war, but there is no mention that a prophet will rise from
among them.
If God wanted to anoint one of Ishmael's descendants as a prophet,
he would not have demeaned him to this extent that would call him an ass
of a man. It is clear that God of the Bible has no respect for Ishmael and
his descendants.
The clear message of Deuteronomy is that we should
look down at the Arabs and belittle them. Now this I say if you really
believe in the Bible and want to use it as evidence. As far as I am
concerned the Bible is a book of fables and rational people should not pay
any heed to what it says. Arabs are no less than any other people. The
problem is that most of them are infected by the virus of Islam. Once they
are cured, they can be as good as anyone else. This is true also about
Persians, Pakistanis, Turks and anyone else. No nation is superior
or inferior to other nations. It is how we think and behave that makes
some excel over others. We can change our thinking and actions through
proper education.
In order to claim that the prophecy “I will put My words in
his mouth” is about Muhammad, you must first prove that Muhammad was from God. This you have not done yet. Once you do that, then
we can determine whether these words refer to Muhammad or to any other
proven prophet that came after Moses. This is like someone in the
story of Cinderella, claiming that the shoe that has been found is hers
when she has no legs to begin with. The first requisite is to
show that she has legs and feet, then we can see if the shoe fits or not.
The following is what one of our readers wrote about
your claim that:
Each chapter of the Qur’an begins with
this verse: “In the name of God, the most Merciful, the One Whose mercy
is lasting. and that this is the fulfillment of
"He shall speak those words in
God’s name."
As everybody knows the basmala is an addition to the text and is a simple
formulaic expression of Christian derivation. The Moslem exegetists
themselves cannot agree on whether it is part of the revelation or a pious
addition.
The phrase "b' ismi 'llah" is actually a hebraism and
corresponds to the biblical "be shem YHWH", which means "by
(the power) of YHWH's name", where YHWH is actually the deity's name
while Allah is not. The calc phrase in Arabic therefore doesn't mean
anything, unless an Arabic-speaking Jew reads it and understands that the
word Allah is used in the same way as "adonai" in the Bible in
order to observe the tabu related to the utterance of the divine name. As
for the rest of the formula, both the adjectives rahman and rahîm
are Aramaic borrowings. Aramaic was the language of the Middle-Eastern
Jews and Christians before they were almost completely arabised. Aramaic
was not the language of the Arabs from Hijaz. I hope this rings a bell as
to where and when the Qu'ran was compiled.
I'd like to know from either Mr Ghamidi or Mr Zahiri if they are really
sure the adjective rahîm means "the One Whose mercy is lasting"
or if either of them was just expressing a personal opinion about the
islamic deity.
You say that the prophecy states that the prophet to
come would be like Moses and the Qur’an says:
“Indeed We have sent you as an evidence
against your nation quite the same way as We sent a messenger to
Pharaoh.” (Qur’an; 73: 15)
Do you call this evidence? This is circular
reasoning. This is the "claim", not the "proof." You
can’t even distinguish between a proof and a claim. You rehash
Muhammad's claim that he was a messenger like Moses, We ask for proof, and
you say because he said so.
My erudite friend: May I humbly suggest that you go
through this list
of logical fallacies and read them? This will help you a lot in every
discussion and debates and will also allow you do see the errors of your
opponents, as much as it will help you to avoid them yourself. It will
definitely make you a better debater.
Let’s clear these points first, and then proceed to other issues. God
willing, I stand committed to answering all your questions, whether
relevant to pre-destination or anything else.
Khalid Zaheer
(Words: 1023)
|
I think the points are clear. You have made your views known and so
have I. Let us now move on and if you have no further evidence and “out
of this world” miracles to prove that Islam is from God, please answer
my question about predestination. If you have more “out of this world”
proofs, please present them first. After all you said once the claim of
Muhammad is proven to be true, one must not question anything else and
accept whatever he said and did blindly. I find this reasoning absurd. In
my view, all we need to prove that a claimant to infallibility is a liar
is one error. However, in order to show that I am willing to go the extra
mile and compromise, I agreed to withdraw all my charges should you show
us your "out of this world" and "undeniable" proof. So
far, you gave us circular reasoning, ad baculum, wishful thinking and even
ad hominem accusing me of not having pure heart and therefore not being
able to see the moon in the sky. I saw no proof yet, just logical
fallacies.
< Back
Next >
|
