Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina
Back
< > Next
Exposing Ali Sina’s “Golden Rule” Cult – Part 2- $00,000 Debate
- My third Response [1] to Mr. Ali Sina
Yamin Zakaria from UK
Ali Sina in his typical racist-foul-mouth mode claimed that all Muslims
are animals without any elaboration and he said: “Muslims do not
possess conscience. Conscience has not evolved in them. The Golden Rule
can only be understood by humans. Animals and Muslims do not understand
it.”
It is amazing how Sina makes such gross generalisation of 1.5 billion
people; perhaps he is trying to teach us the ‘wisdom’ and
‘loving’ nature of his “Golden Rule”! Ironically, why is Sina
debating with Muslims if they are incapable of understanding his rule,
of course they are incapable because Sina says so. Indeed it can be said
that if a man is so eager to hold debates with people who he considers
as animals he is the one who is really deficient in his mental faculty!
In any case, Sina will now have to bite the bullet as he also admitted
that he was born into a Muslim family. So here follows the implication
of Sina’s utterances: The obvious implication is that Mr Sina is also
a product of two animals, like the wild beasts cohabiting in the woods.
Of course he may try to mitigate his blunders by claiming that he is
only half an animal as he is a BASTARD child. In which case, Sina’s
mother is an adulterous whore that slept around with non-Muslims perhaps
she was inspired by some ‘freethinker’. Or that she was raped by
non-Muslims who are by definition are “Golden Rule” followers
according to Sina’s above mentioned statements. Or maybe Sina’s dad
was spreading his seed amongst the “Golden Rule” followers or he
raped some non-Muslims woman. Sina can best answer these points. But
also, the old dictum: “charity begins at home”, so, why Mr Sina does
not focus his effort in civilising the animals that are at his home, not
just his parents but his siblings and the extended family? Judging from
his email more than likely it is Ali Sina that is living like an animal
in a cage as he admitted that he is hiding his work and he even prays
along with his family members!
And this is the man who talks big behind his keyboard about annihilating
Islam and Muslims. Then like a snake he abused his guest and relative
without provocation and bragged about it to a total stranger i.e. to
myself! Such irrational, hypocritical and cowardly behaviour proves
beyond doubt that Sina lacks basic commonsense and if I were to borrow
his terminology a true “SUBUMAN” or an “animal” like the
chimpanzee!
What is also interesting is that if any Muslim was running such a
hate-filled website it would be immediately closed down for inciting
hatred but nobody notices when filthy venom comes out from an
intellectual midget with a heart of Nazi and the bravery of a chicken.
We can go on analysing the implications of Mr Sina’s foolish
statements but it may only result in victimising the innocents like Mr
Sina’s parents and other family members.
Hence, indeed, Sina is a real sinner! Despite such self-indicting
statements, from the beginning Mr Sina boasted about his ‘logical’
gun, his menacing debating skills and how he was going to smash my nose.
Any impartial reader can really judge whose nose is really bleeding,
that is if they can manage to see the entire debate on his website which
he has constantly tried spin doctor to present the debate in his favour
(elaborated below). It is blatantly obvious Sina is finding it
increasingly difficult to present a coherent set of ideas let alone
provide a challenge to Islam. My previous response and the following
points using Sina’s statements will amplify that again.
Morality and Ethics
In a desperate bid to cover his embarrassment Sina attempts to redefine
morality and introduces the word “ethics” to rescue his earlier
blunder when he categorically stated that morality was absolute as it
was derived from the “Golden Rule”! This is based on the ludicrous
assumption that everyone is using the rule as a basis and will interpret
the rule in the exact same manner and thus derive the same moral values.
Even someone with the brain of a “SUBHUMAN” could not have made such
a stupid and naive assumption! And who ensures that the morality deduced
from his rule is not faulty? So, Sina now says that morality is not
absolute but ethics is and he states:
“Slavery has been always wrong. Murder, rape, looting and lying have
never been right and will never be right. Morality is the interpretation
of the Ethics”
If ethics says murder is wrong but what is murder? As usual Sina waves
these terminologies without defining them. According to his ‘logic’
murder is defined and interpreted by morality in real life scenario,
thus giving ethics its real meaning, so morality is what defines and
elaborates ethics! Since morality is subjective according to Sina thus
ethics must also be subjective. Ethics may only be absolute if the word
is locked up in a vacuum without definition and elaboration but that has
no relevance to the real life. In that case nobody will disagree murder
is wrong.
The distinction between morality and ethics are made by some scholars
but that is rather academic the rest agree that they are synonymous. The
former states that morality is what you ought to do and ethics is the
study of that. Linguistically, ethics and morality are synonymous terms,
both meaning customs in their original languages, Greek and Latin
respectively. So Sina’s attempt to juggle with words to hide his
earlier embarrassment shows he has no bullets in his ‘logical’ gun
and presenting such arguments he reminds me of a dog that is chasing its
tail!
If there was human consensus on morality we would have probably had far
fewer conflicts in human history. In reality, differences on morality or
ethics are vast, for example in Europe views capital punishment as
murder but many states in the US this is just retribution. Abortion is
classified as murder by some whilst others view it differently. Ali Sina
says murder is wrong but he has no problem in the US military murdering
the Iraqis 5000 miles away from the US when they have done no harm to
the US. Likewise the genocides that have been committed from the
Spanish-American war that continues till today, none of which were
defensive but unprovoked American aggression, for Sina, like a good
migrant-Coolie he says it is not murder.
It is up to Ali Sina to clarify his own confusion and contradictory
ideas and juggling with words will not help him. He is certainly no
position to bring any charges against anyone on the basis of morality
and ethics when he himself is clearly muddled on the issue.
More examples of the Mr Sina’s ‘Logic’
Mr Sina previously he made a bold claim that he does not believe in
anything and he is “not here to tell people what path they should
choose” and he goes on to say: “I leave that to them to decide”.
But now we know he wants to dictate to the world his so-called “Golden
Rule” cult and he would not be perturbed if that meant genocide as he
is supportive of US foreign policy! Also, he is also dictating to the
Muslims that they should abandon Islam and he demands that anyone
according to his interpretation has a Nazi like views should also be
prevented from functioning in society.
Yet he says he is not here to tell people what to do. Sina is a complete
fool and he needs to sort his fundamental arguments out. He constantly
says one thing then contradicts it. Like he said earlier Islam is not a
religion but it is and then it isn’t! “Golden Rule” has no say on
penal code but it is the “basis of the Justice System” according to
Sina, what fool cannot see that you cannot have justice without the use
or penal codes (retribution) to dispense justice? I am still waiting to
see on what grounds Sina will bring his allegations as he has yet to
clearly define his premise and arguments which he is constantly
contradicting.
His other fantastic statements include that the US does not kill
civilians en masse, now even many hardcore patriotic Americans would
dispute this! It seems someone must explain to Mr Sina what is a nuclear
weapons, incendiary bombs, chemical weapons and what happens when those
are dropped in civilian cities like Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and
Hanoi. Yet he barks on about his “Golden Rule” being universal
because he says so like a fanatic with a blind faith in his cult.
How can it be universal while excluding 1.5 billion Muslims forming
approx 25% of humanity differs with it and only a handful of people even
know the name of this so-called guidance of “Golden Rule”? He makes
bold claims like the rule is the “Foundation of our humanity” with
no supporting evidence. Indeed, not just Islam but other religion that
also contradicts the “Golden Rule” which Mr Sina admitted so where
is the universality. I can go on giving examples but how do I teach an
old dog new tricks. Sina won’t mind me calling him an animal as he
admitted to being one earlier!
Here is another pertinent example of Mr Sina’s ‘logic’. According
to Mr Sina, anything that contradicts the “Golden-Rule” is evil and
to be worthy in the eyes of Mr Sina we must comply with his rule.
Otherwise, you are excluded from his circle of brotherhood of the cult
but this is the very same accusations that he was placing against Islam
in his earlier response!
Why the great ‘scholarly’ mind of Mr Sina cannot see that Muslims,
Christians, Jews, Hindus and everyone else including the followers of
the “Golden-Rule” cult will distinguish themselves based on what
they believe and by necessity will discriminate against those who do
not. Any form of identity is both inclusive to those who comply and
simultaneously exclusive to those who do not, that is a reality! Sina
seems to be living in his cloud cuckoo land believing in over simplistic
ideas to solve complex issues. I cannot find one reference to any
scholar, political leaders, think tanks that actually even just mention
his so-called “Golden Rule” cult.
In his usual foul-mouthing mode Sina claims Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was a
narcissist yet everyone knows including the most hostile critics of
Muhammad (SAW) lived an austere life style. When he died there no great
accumulation of wealth left behind for any of his children. In the prime
of his youth he was offered money, most beautiful women and power by the
Pagan Arabs in return for compromising the message of Islam; And If
Prophet Muhammad was a narcissist and an unprincipled person as Sina
boldly rants he clearly would have taken that route. Such factors are
ignored as it cannot be fitted into Sina’s bigoted mindset.
On the contrary, it is Sina that depicts himself as a narcissist shown
by his constant self-praising (“logical gun”, menacing debater etc)
and his ego (smashing my nose). More laughably, Sina demonstrates his
ignorance and stupidity once more as he cites Ghandi in support of his
views but Ghandi actually confirms that Prophet Muhammad was the
opposite of a narcissist and he actually offered full praise of Him
(SAW) and Ghandi said: "I wanted to know the best of one who holds
today's undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind....I
became more than convinced that it was not the sword that won a place
for Islam in those days in the scheme of life.
It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet,
the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to this
friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute
trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried
everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the
2nd volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more
for me to read of the great life."
Final example, Sina suggests that people should voluntarily apply the
“Golden Rule” the only way to implement his so-called morality. And
this shows his gross naiveté about the world and irrational mindset. No
human society has ever functioned without an authority enforcing a set
of values.
If morality is not enforced then the question arises what should be
enforced to maintain order and regulation in society? Human beings in
general operate to fulfil their desires and needs above anything else;
the “Golden Rule” will be the last thing they look to. His example
of the US as a “Golden Rule” follower is to the contrary a classic
example of a Capitalist State driven by profit not any kind of
benevolent values. This is why the US ignored Rwanda, Apartheid South
Africa but focused in on the oil-rich Middle East. Its banks and
multinational institutions have bled the poorer countries dry, getting
them into deeper and deeper debts causing immense human misery but no
problem as long as Uncle Sam can have his burgers, shakes and fries.
Migrant-coolies like Sina will queue up to endorse such behaviour in
return for some benefit.
‘Debate’ Manipulation
Mr Sina has not been honest about the debate. He did not post my
response as one coherent piece at the beginning but rather it was
embedded in his response for weeks. The result is that my paragraphs are
sliced with Mr Sina’s rebuttal below it. The result is by the time you
read his twisted slants by referring to my paragraph in isolation of the
entire article, and add to this is his continuous tirades, not to
mention the irrelevant waffles that even lead him to talk about
pre-historic apes, you land on Mr Sina’s imaginary planet!
Also, the reader fails to connect the context of my response which is a
response to the previous article of Sina. After several request Mr Sina
claimed he was too busy as he had a stupid relative who was making him
pray! He wanted to keep this activity secret from him. Is that not
surprising for man who is full of self-righteous message and gusto! Or
is that a trait clear hypocrite coward behind his keyboard? He still
remained silent but only after I posted his response in his forum he was
forced to address the issue, I assume out of shame.
As impartial people (that is except his side-kicks that operate fulltime
on his forum like Sina) saw clearly he was cheating by no posting both
sides response intact and consecutively. Of Course like the money Sina
will shout these were the terms of his so-called ‘debate’. How many
normal people will conclude that a boxing match is fair if one of the
boxers decides to give himself a bit of extra lead weight in his gloves?
Eventually Sina posted my responses as one piece. However, he continued
to do further spinning on the matter. He divided each round as parts
each one of course ends with his rebuttal, no surprise there as he wants
to have the last word to inflate his ego giving himself a false sense of
victory. I pointed out that the parts are clearly misleading as none of
the parts ended. Part I has continued to Part II, Part II continued to
Part III and so on.
The mockery does not end there as the links at the bottom of the
responses do not work and when you click, no surprise you get Mr
Sina’s rebuttal. Likewise click the front page on his website on the
debate page at the front, guess where it takes you, yet to Mr Sina’s
rebuttal with my responses embedded in his instead of the birds-eye view
of all the responses from both sides. Even worse under my column it has
my response but it also has Mr Sina’s rebuttal.
When I said secular fascist are dishonest and cowards I did not realise
that I would one like this who is as low as this! He in fact implicitly
admitted his intention is to trap Muslims into these pseudo debates as
opposed to being a genuine exercise in finding objective answers, and he
said: “I commend your honesty in this case for not falling into that
temptation and for making my job so easy”.
So the temptation will allow Sina to show in intellectual pretext for
his venom and hatred that is reminiscent of the Nazis. Note he also
admits he is having a difficult time with a Muslim who apparently does
not understand his “Golden Rule”. No wonder in desperation Mr Sina
rushed to declare himself as the winner and of course his laughable
justification the dual role of a player and referee is that we should
take his word and trust him as he is the ‘Prophet’ of the “Golden
Rule” cult! To give further ‘credence’ to himself now he claims of
his support from his side-kicks on his internet forum, real
‘impartial’ judges! I suppose the bright side is that is an
improvement from his earlier position of wanting to be the referee and
the player.
Sina carving for publicity wants to publish the debate. However, to be
frank, I don’t think any of the mainstream websites will entertain the
debate based on his responses, which looks like the words of
ranting-racist-hooligan generalising on 1.5 billion Muslims, he lacks
knowledge on fundamental concepts as explained earlier with many
examples, not to mention his ignorant one-dimensional view of the world.
In fact he does not do justice to those who genuinely and intellectually
opposes ISLAM. He is a liability for them, but he is more than welcome
to try and publish the debate. As for the judicator and money, if Mr
Sina was serious about it that would have been ready prior to the debate
and I would have instructed my lawyer to ensure the availability of the
money in a neutral fund. That is how contracts usually take place;
people do not just take other peoples words in these matters and Mr
Sina’s ‘integrity’ has already been demonstrated by his unprovoked
abuse of his won relatives and the manner he has covered the debate on
his website.
The judicators can be non-Islamic like writers, journalists who are
neutral in the sense that they are not from the Zionist and rightwing
camp who foul mouth like Mr Sina, otherwise it is like asking a SS
officer to give an objective opinion on a Jew. Finding neutral
judicators would be difficult given that Mr Sina’s poor response often
deliberately avoiding the key conceptual points he goes at a tangent
into prehistoric times, I doubt he would find any volunteers. So,
laughably once again Sina now implies that the regular ‘readers’ on
his forum are ‘impartial’ judges.
Lengthy Irrelevant Waffles, but Why?
Mr Sina and the readers will see that by churning out pages of waffle
does not help to address the points at hand that are central to the
debate. In addition to his incoherencies and contradictions of the
arguments are obvious and I gave plenty of examples. You see this is why
he is very uncomfortable talking about “Golden Rule” as the more he
reveals the more one can see what lies behind the mask. Now surely for a
man who wants to take Muslim out of Islam into his “Golden Rule”
cult what better and a rational way then to talk about his “Golden
Rule” to tempt the Muslims.
Yet Mr Sina finds no time even to put some introduction on his website!
He wrote pages on irrelevant and speculative issues like groups of apes
used to live in Africa millions of years ago is perhaps another example
of REAL filibustering. I always have to find my way around the rants and
abuses to find the actual points that are pertinent.
Impartial audience will judge delving into side issues, constantly using
abusive language, making fantastic claims without any supportive
evidence that it is a desperate attempt by Sina to hide his deficiencies
in volumes of waffle and convince himself as a ‘freethinker’. Mr
Sina should also know that I am mere novice in Islam and not a
well-known figure and I do not write for the Al-Jazeera of Qatar but an
Al-Jazeera site run by an individual. He does not even acquire the basic
facts, which is surprising for a self-proclaimed menacing debater!
If Sina cannot pass by a novice like me he has no hope against scholars.
No scholar will entertain an ‘intellectual’ midget like Sina who
cannot produce a coherent set of ideas as he is getting into a deeper
muddle the more he elaborates on his “Golden Rule” cult. His key
strategy has been to foul mouth and produce an emotional response and he
has failed in that miserably so he stands helpless with his
“logical” gun that is empty of any bullets. Mr Sina should learn
another Golden Rule of debate: quality is more than quantity; any
independent observer will notice that there are few principles and
concepts that addressed in his rebuttal.
To be continued……
Yamin Zakaria
London, UK
Back
< > Next
Back to Index
|