Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina 

Zakaria's Response 

Part IV Page 4

Back  <   >    Next

Exposing Ali Sina’s “Golden Rule” Cult – Part 1


$00,000 Debate - My third Response [1] to Mr. Ali Sina


Mr Sina states that the “Golden Rule” is the “foundation of the justice system” but paradoxically he says it has no relationship with the issue of retribution and he says:


“The Golden Rule is a guideline. It teaches us a way to evaluate our actions, do the right thing and avoid the wrong thing. It has nothing to do with penal codes.”


So, what is retribution? Retribution (penal codes) is truly a universal concept applied by all societies to establish justice by punishing the criminal; - retribution is an essential component of justice, they are inseparable as darkness is to light. Therefore, if the “Golden Rule” has “nothing to do with” retribution by implication it is also practically divorced from justice. If that is so then how can the “Golden Rule” be the “foundation of the justice system” as Mr Sina boldly stated! It seems Mr Sina’s ‘scholarly’ mind failed to recognise this fundamental contradiction? His says the “Golden Rule” should be used to evaluate actions but not retribution, which is bizarre since retribution is itself an action that needs to be guided. Otherwise one can exceed the limits of retribution thereby violating the “Golden-Rule”! For example[2] the citizens of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Fallujah, Mei Lai, Sabra-Shatila etc. would certainly argue that point where needless disproportionate-inhumane-systematic-indiscriminate mass executions of innocent civilians took place! These examples never seem to register in Mr Sina’s ‘moral’ conscience. If I were to lower myself to using Mr Sina’s language [3] I would have said he is devoid of human feeling like an animal. Divorcing the “Golden Rule” from retribution proves that then rule is inadequate to provide solutions for addressing numerous complex issues in life. More importantly how can Mr Sina continue to be abusive and rant about the Islamic penal codes and by implication Islamic justice and injustice? Therefore, on what grounds will Mr Sina bring his allegations since much of it is based on the Islamic penal codes for which the “Golden Rule” has no answers according to Mr Sina’s words? This also proved my earlier point that when the anti-Islamic-fascists are asked to elaborate on their alternative they either churn out contradictory statements or exhibit ‘silence’ by going into an abusive mode. If I was Mr Sina I would resign at this point and not suffer further embarrassment by attempting to defend such absurd and contradictory ideas while waving the flag of “logical gun”, “freethinker”, “commonsense”! Moreover, if the diatribe pertaining to the Islamic penal code remains on Mr Sina’s website, he must be either a hypocrite or intellectually inept unable to understand the implications of his own statements! While on the subject of retribution we see the shameless hypocrisy from these anti-Islamic-fascists moaning about retaliation whilst remaining mute on the initial aggression. For example, a quick beheading by a knife is evil but not indiscriminate use of napalm causing severe pain as the victims are roasted to death. Similarly being subjected to slow torture (“softening up”) or sodomised to death in Abu-Ghraib is euphemistically termed ‘abuse’ but any retaliation is ‘terrorism’. Then Mr Sina has the audacity to lecture others about ethics and also you can see why Mr Sina is not interested in the subject of retribution? The Nazis used to hide their natural human emotions and suppress their guilt by releasing the lethal gas from a distance. A behaviour that is being replicated by the likes of Ali Sina as he absorbs uncritically the sanitised version of the war, ignoring the mass beheadings and more, done by the US forces. And if I were to exercise my legitimate right of retaliation [4] I also would have used terms like “animals” and “sub-humans” to describe Mr Sina. But I prefer to remain civil and focused on the actual arguments instead of constantly ranting, abusing and producing lengthy discussion on speculative theories regarding pre-historic apes, all of which has no relevance to the debate. Just to remind everyone my very first response made reference to the issue of keeping decorum but as usual Mr Sina bragged about it then true to his hypocritical nature violated it subsequently.


The more Mr Sina is unmasked the more difficulty he is facing. The above mentioned points proved that he cannot even present a coherent set of thoughts, let alone a comprehensive alternative to Islam. Like I said earlier, anyone can call others ugly behind a mask but once they have to expose their face it is not so easy. Indeed, Mr Sina is feeling very uncomfortable being unmasked as he is so used to hurling insults and abuse at the Prophet (SAW) and the Muslims behind the mask, expecting the Muslims to simply defend as if they are already guilty by Mr Sina’s allegation; and Mr Sina by de facto would be judge, jury and executioner. Thus, Mr Sina makes another desperate attempt to alter the framework of the debate so that he can assume the position of judge, jury and executioner and accordingly he presented his argument and he says:



“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.”



The challenge was initiated by Mr Sina; rational necessity dictates that the onus is on him to substantiate the charges FIRST and its basis since we are not in a court of law where the legal framework is already in existence and enforced upon the two sides. Furthermore, the statement “Challenge is to prove me wrong” shows his arrogance and devious nature. If we took on the challenge at face value it would mean accepting that Mr Sina is right unless we can prove him wrong, thus giving credence to the allegations. On the other hand we would be presumed to be guilty unless we can prove our innocence to Ali Sina the ‘Prophet’ of the “Golden-Rule” cult! Mr Sina is desperate for that position of being a judge, jury and executioner where the burden of proof is shifted entirely only on our neck! Mr Sina must learn the Golden Rule of a debate; - which is a two-way contest, where he must prove his allegations as much I have to prove them to be false. I hope Mr Sina’s supporters will make him understand this elementary point and anyone with an atom of sincerity would see what I am stating is fair.

Mr Sina’s conniving attempt to assume the position of being right putting the entire burden of proof on us is demonstrated by addressing Mr Sina’s claim that the Prophet was an impostor unless we can prove otherwise. He cites various allegations in an abusive tone as ‘proof’ of why Muhammad (SAW) is not a Prophet. This approach is intellectually dishonest (devious) since even if we refute Mr Sina’s allegations that only establish Muhammad as innocent of those charges – it does not prove his Prophethood, since Mr Sina has not stated what constitutes Prophethood. Otherwise any individual can be identified as a Prophet if he evades Mr Sina’s charges. Had Mr Sina approached the subject objectively, logic (something that he mentions but never seems to apply) would have required for him to define what constitutes Prophethood in the first place and then build his argument from that basis. His lack of definition shows he is not interested in the subject of Prophethood but only how he can legitimise his constant defaming of a person who is not here personally to defend himself. This is something Mr Sina replicated when he abused his relatives behind their back without provocation! How disgusting! These are the traits of a coward who is intellectually bankrupt. Without elaboration on Prophethood Mr Sina’s allegations are unsubstantiated. His charges are subjective, based upon his vague notion of right and wrong allegedly derived from the “Golden Rule” which he is struggling to articulate as being universal and absolute in the first place. A more serious problem for Mr Sina is that if he acknowledges Prophethood he is then forced to acknowledge the existence of GOD! Which in turn is made difficult as judging from Mr Sina’s writing he seems to deny the existence of God as he denies the notion of accountability and afterlife? Which is why I am also perplexed why Mr Sina also keeps referring to Satan! In any case, God Al-mighty is by definition the absolute creator of the universe including Mr Sina. So what right does Mr Sina have to impose his criteria of Prophethood on God? In fact if he did it would be irrational as questioning GOD means to undermine the entity (GOD) that created Mr Ali Sina and his mind. Thus, if GOD is faulty by definition Mr Sina’s mind must also be faulty! The Creator cannot be deficient whilst its created subject right, it is as absurd as expecting the branches of a tree to remain up whilst the root of the tree is severed.

Back  <   >    Next

Back to Index