I noted with much interest your recent debate with Wissam Nasr, Executive Director of Islamic Institute for Human Rights. Please accept my congratulations on effectively refuting his arguments. As you have made apparent, his arguments consist of half truths and the views of apologists.

In addition to your refutations of his argument concerning the "peaceful expansion of Islam" may I suggest a reading of the book, "Rewriting Indian History" by Francois Gautier. Details of this book may be viewed at http://www.indiastar.com/wallia10.htm

Since Mr Nasr likes to quote historians, I would like to point out the views of Will Durant on the Islamic invasion of India. Durant states, "...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within."

At the risk of belaboring the point, Gautier adds, "Let it be said right away: the massacres perpetrated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese."

Further, Alain Danielou in his "Histoire de la Inde", "From the time Muslims started arriving, around 632 AD, the history of India becomes a long, monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoliations, destructions. It is, as usual, in the name of 'a holy war' of their faith, of their sole God, that the barbarians have destroyed civilizations, wiped out entire races."

I trust this is of interest. Once again, my congratulations on presenting an excellent debate.

To read the debate between Ismahan Levi and the team of our antisite the Faithfreedom.com go here

Hi Ali,

When I went to check on the status of our "debate," I noticed that you added certain parts to your reply well after you had already posted the original. You are adding things to your original reply that should be separated into different sections. Below is the part I am referring to:

Dear Mr. Wissam Nasr

Before we proceed may I ask you if as the Executive Director of Islamic Institute for Human Rights do you defend the human rights of women and the minorities in Islamic countries or you are only interested about the rights of the Muslims, especially Muslim men?

If you agree that all people are humans and their rights must be protected would you please tell us what your Institute has done for the Christians, Hindus or Baha'is that are persecuted systematically in the hands of the Muslims in Sudan, Egypt, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran or other Islamic countries?

Also how can you reconcile the human rights of the minorities in Islamic countries with the law of Jizya that apparently you agree with? Did you defend the right of the guy in Saudi Arabia that was condemned to execution for possessing a copy of the Bible? As a defender of human right please tell us what is your opinion about this report:

The Wall Street Journal, April 9, 2002: In Saudi Arabia, there is the concept of blood money. If a person has been killed or caused to die by another, the latter has to pay blood money or compensation, as follows:

100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man

50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman

50,000 riyals if a Christian man

25,000 riyals if a Christian woman

6,666 riyals if a Hindu man

3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman
That is, a Muslim man's life is worth 33 times that of a Hindu woman

However, if in your opinion the "unbelievers" and the kafirs are less humans than Muslims and their rights are not the same as the rights of the Muslims please disregard this question. Your silence would be an eloquent answer.

What you wrote above was not given to me in your last email and response. This sounds like another one of your deceptive tactics--to wait for my reply, and then to add claims to your original statements, in order to make it look as if I chose not to answer your newer claims. Ali, please stop this unethical behavior. I don't mind, of course, if you wish to write more, but if you do, then please separate your new comments from your old ones. At any rate, I have proven you a liar in my latest email, so I am eagerly awaiting the moment you publish it in order to let the world decide who really won this debate.

I added this part the very day after I posted our correspondence in the site. Here is the discussion I had with my friends. Please pay attention to the date. This is the same day that I posted our debate on the site.

What is added is the report on human rights in SA. That is in different color. This does not change the question but makes is clearer. I believe you are being a little bit paranoid.

Remember that I did not email you my response. I gave you the URL of the Website. If I had sent you an email I would have sent another one with the new questions. You probably copied my response and pasted it in your word processor as soon as you received my email and did not bother to check it again.

You expect me to know about your habits. Which is unreasonable. When I want to comment on a page that I find in a site I open two windows and switch between my word processor and that page. It was just as easy for you to check out the site before sending your email.

However, this is not the end of the world. Instead of calling me names why you don't answer those questions and re-send them? I have not published your response yet and will wait until you add whatever you have to add to it.

Dear Ali,

I see you are up to you old tricks again. I quickly reviewed the response you ALREADY WROTE and noticed that you ADDED more information to it and changed the wording to some parts. For example you added this part:

Please read The Status of Jews and Christians in Muslim Lands, 1772 CE to understand the abuse that these "people of the book" were subjected to in Islamic paradise. Just to whet your interest to read this documentary I quote a few paragraphs from it:

Jews and Christians shall never begin a greeting; if you encounter one of them on the road, push him into the narrowest and tightest spot.' The absence of every mark of consideration toward them is obligatory for us; we ought never to give them the place of honor in an assembly when a Muslim is present. This is in order to humble them and to honor the true believers.

Entrance into Muslim territory by infidels of foreign lands under the pact guaranteeing protection to the tolerated peoples is permitted only for the time necessary to settle their business affairs. If they exceed this period, their safe-conduct having expired, they will be put to death or be subject to the payment of the head-tax,

Their men and women are ordered to wear garments different from those of the Muslims in order to be distinguished from them. They are forbidden to exhibit anything which might scandalize us, as, for instance, their fermented liquors, and if they do not conceal these from us, we are obliged to pour them into the street.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/1772-jewsinislam.html

As well as this part:

Does Mr. Esposito mention the fact that Muhammad in hid death bed ordered all the Jews and Christians to be expelled from Hijaz? An order that Omar executed when he became the Caliph?

Ali, stop changing parts of the original copy. If you have something more to add, then clearly separate it from the original response. When I first accused you of this, you called me "paranoid," and said that the newer parts were clearly marked in green. But, Ali, it seems that the parts that I quote above are not added in green. They are simply mixed in with the rest of your reply.

This is in addition to the fact that you have not published my lengthy response to your original reply. Please publish it immediately. How can you publish my later letters accusing you of adding things to the debate and not my original reply, which was sent earlier than that? Ali, it is clear that you have lost the debate. Take down your site immediately or remove our entire debate. If you cannot give your visitors the full debate, do not give it at all. Also, please publish this letter as part of our debate in its entirety.

PS. The parts you quoted above regarding Omar and the Prophet Muhammad are still NOT CITED. What a surprise.

--Wissam Nasr

Don’t be ridiculous please. I added all those paragraphs in the same day I posted that page. You did not read it. Now you did. So go ahead and make the necessary changes in your response and re-send it to me. You sound so nervous. Cool down.

Don’t count your eggs before they are hatched. You sound so juvenile. Wait to read my response.

Also, Mr Ali,

You have not pubished my complete response to the following questions:

Before we proceed may I ask you if as the Executive Director of Islamic Institute for Human Rights do you defend the human rights of women and the minorities in Islamic countries or you are only interested about the rights of the Muslims, especially Muslim men?

If you agree that all people are humans and their rights must be protected would you please tell us what your Institute has done for the Christians, Hindus or Baha'is that are persecuted systematically in the hands of the Muslims in Sudan, Egypt, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran or other Islamic countries?

Also how can you reconcile the human rights of the minorities in Islamic countries with the law of Jizya that apparently you agree with? Did you defend the right of the guy in Saudi Arabia that was condemned to execution for possessing a copy of the Bible? As a defender of human right please tell us what is your opinion about this report:

Ali, please stop your deceptive tactics. You won't publish my replies because you know I have defeated all of your arguments. Furthermore, the silly article you quoted above in our debate (you know, the part you ADDED AFTER YOUR ORIGINAL REPLY IN ORDER TO MAKE IT LOOK AS IF I DIDN'T ADDRESS YOUR CLAIMS) is the view of a conservative scholar, and is only his opinion. As it says when I click the link:

In 1772 a Muslim scholar in Cairo was asked how Jews and Christians should be treated. The answer is found in this selection, issued four years before the American Declaration of Independence. This answer is not law, but only the opinion of a conservative Muslim. The opinion is in Arabic.

I have also visited the forum that is supposedly in my name, even though when I log in, you have disabled my account and I cannot post any replies even in "my own" forum. I have contacted your staff about this and they have not gotten back to me about it. How convenient that I am silenced in a forum named after me.
The Message I get says:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Either way, I read your forum replies and I found this (written by you).

Mr. Nasr responded to my message. But he does not accept anything without proof, even things that are common knowledge. So in preparing my response to him I would appreciate if anyone can indicate where I can find the following information. Some of my sources are in Farsi. But if you have something on the net please let me know. The more the better.

How foolish of me to not to accept something without proof! Maybe I should be more like you and just take anything written anywhere and take it as evidence without examining it first.

No it is not foolish. But it is surprising that you don’t know simple facts and still you call yourself a scholar.

For example you wrote, “The protection tax that the Islamic Empire charged non-believing communities was not 50%. If Mohammed charged that to anyone, show me where you read that.”

But that is fine. I am going to assume that you have not read the Quran and the Hadith which apparently is true and tell you where you can find all those things.

But more importantly is how you admit in the above message that you cannot even find the information you bring up. That is sad. Ali, you should be more prepared! C'mon Tiger, you still got some fight left in you! I am rooting for you, too, Ali:)

I research and ask questions. Do you think I should be embarrassed for that?

I also noticed that your public call for any evidence has been answered by some of your groupies, but I noticed that some of them did not cite their evidence either. Tell them to do so. Also, don't bother bringing up anything by Daniel Pipes,as Susan suggested. I have articles written by the major newspapers utterly discrediting his biased and distorted views. Don't make yourself look worse by quoting him.

All this and you have not even published my reply. Perhaps this is because you wish to answer my claims first?

No I am waiting for you to go over your message and update it so then you don’t claim that I deceived you. Take your time and do your best. As a matter of fact you can do that even after I publish it. My hope is that we can come up that others can benefit and learn from not to make you look stupid. That is so cheap. I even want my enemies look good. This makes me look good too.

If so, that would be unfair, since I did not have the time to answer your silly claims before you published your own reply. In addition to that, please stop adding things to your original reply, since I cannot do that, can I? I can't very well log into your site and change things that I wrote can I? I CAN'T EVEN LOG IN!

Yes you can change or add things to your replies. Just send me the revised version.

The reason you cannot post messages in the forum is because you subscribed earlier (March 4) and the software will not accept any other person subscribing with the same name. Remember your early password and log in again. If you don’t remember the first password with which you logged in, let me know and I delete you completely so you can rejoin.

Ali, our debate is over. As your readers will soon see in my reply, I have definitively proven you to be a liar and a concealer of facts. If I must debate, then I will debate someone else, so find me a more ethical person to argue against, preferably one that will respect the rules to a debate (i.e. no lying or distorting of facts). No matter what you say at this point, I just won't believe a word of it, since I have caught you lying, my little Ali.

Well’ we’ll see if I lied or you are just making a fool of yourself. After all our discussion is in the open and thousands of people read it. So let them be the judge. Also you don’t have to believe me. Everything I say is backed by evidence. It is the evidence that you have to believe not me. Do you understand that big Wissam?

Publish my reply immediately and allow me to log in so I can continue to discredit your already floundering website. There will be no more communication between us. You have lost the debate and I invite even your own groupies to read our entire, uncensored debate. Which brings me to another point--how will we know who has won? Oh don't bother answering that, since you will never admit defeat--or lie your way out of the corner I put you in.

It is interesting that you guys insult people and even demand them to publish your insult while you are afraid publishing anything we write that refutes your claims. I suppose all that is part of being a Muslim. :)

Mind you that I did not ask for debate. You insisted. Now after receiving one response you act so erratically. Waite until you read my second letter.

After seeing your site for the first time a few days ago, I cannot stop reading all the excellent articles on your site. The articles are very informative and enlightening. I could never imagine that there are people out there that are courageous and enlightened. To be able to say the truth about a religion that promotes hate and instill in their people ignorance and intolerance must be very brave indeed. I salute you and pray for you and others like you to remain steadfast courage in the face of danger and intimidation. May Heaven is indeed smiling on you and pray for the eventual extinction of an intolerant and destructive religion.

PS. Yesterday I wrote an e-mail to Mr. Nasr about I challenge him to convert me to Islam in a peaceful manner and to explain to me about the "blood money concept" as to why Islam is discriminating people.

You still have not answer this on your debate with Mr. Sina. If you really want to convert me to Islam then answer this logically and thoughtfully. Your silence or incoherent explanation or quotation from apologists will not sway me. Let it be your highest challenge (you may enlist Allah's help in your endeavor) in converting me to Islam without resorting to force or intimidation or insults.

The Wall Street Journal, April 9, 2002: In Saudi Arabia , there is the concept of blood money. If a person has been killed or caused to die by another, the latter has to pay blood money or compensation, as follows:

100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man

50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman

50,000 riyals if a Christian man

25,000 riyals if a Christian woman

6,666 riyals if a Hindu man

3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman
That is, a Muslim man's life is worth 33 times that of a Hindu woman

Dear Sir,

I did answer your question and included it in my response. Ali never published it. Perhaps you should ask him about it.

Thanks,

Wissam Nasr

Of course Mr. Nasr never replied to this question. If he had responded and I did not publish it he could have posted it in the forum. As you can see much of our discussion took place in the forum.

Perhaps you or someone should ask Mr. Wissam Nasr, the Executive Director of the Human Islamic Rights, what his organization is doing to save the life of Amina Lawal from Death by Stoning. I assure you that does not fall within the purview of his objectives. He is most concerned to protect the rights of the Islamic terrorists who are active in the West and fight with the media that dares to speak the truth. Human Rights for a Muslim, just like any other word, has a completely different meaning than it has for others.