Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina
For the sake of clarity I have quoted the rebuttal of Mr. Zakaria and responded to each
paragraph separately. Mr.
Zakaria believes his rebuttal should be published in one pieces or it
loses its eficacy. To read his rebuttal in one piece and be swayed by its
power, please read his unbroken response Here
Part
II Page 2
Back
< > Next
Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina
Part II Page 2
Back
< > Next
Continued from part I
Yamin Zakaria wrote:
$50,000
Debate - Here is my response to Mr. Ali Sina
Please
note where I have used bold and italics inside quotes to highlight
Mr. Sina’s quotations in his previous response.
a)
You
(Ali Sina) say that I must take your word as being the judicator as
well as the opponent, oh really! This
is surely a laughable and a farcical position, it is like saying one
of boxers in the ring should also be the referee. Then expect the
other boxer to take his word when the final scoring is done! Is this
how you understand objectivity and fair play?
Or
is this coming from your
“logical
gun”?
This reminds me of one my recent debate with a ‘disciple’ of
yours who after a while started to delete my email response without
reading them (by his own admission) and kept sending me his rants
and outbursts.
Rather,
this demonstrates that you are not serious about the money and you
are using it to get cheap publicity. Since
you want to be the final judicator, for sure you are not
“gambling”
with
anything but standing on
“very
shaky ground of faith” in
fear of my “logical
gun”
that any impartial observer would easily see applying basic common
sense!
It
also demonstrates arrogance on your part thinking that you can be
Judge, Jury and Executioner all at the same time. Perhaps this is
our first glimpse into your “position
of logics and truth” that you so proudly boast
about!
What
I proposed was FAIR – We appoint or agree on judicator(s) and I
would like to further propose that we have a binding contract
through our solicitors who will hold the money into a neutral
account. We should limit the number of exchanges then the judicators
should pronounce the verdict. In the
UK
we have a saying “put your money where your mouth is”. Please
clarify this important point.
|
Ali Sina Wrote:
No Mr. Zakaria, the referee is the public. I do not expect you to
accept your loss even though I would admit if I am wrong. Now are you
going to defend Muhammad of the charges that I made against him or are you
going to weasel your way out of the debate with these excuses. Remember I
did not invite you to debate, you responded to my general invitation and
these are the conditions. Take it or leave it. I am not going to waste my
time and the time of my readers discussing about silly things. I want to
debate about Muhammad and prove the world he is indefensible. If you are
not up to the challenge, please clear the way and let a real contender
respond.
Furthermore, I do not have disciples. We are freethinkers. I know this
is a difficult concept for you to grasp but let me tell you that even my
cat is a freethinker. He has a mind of his own and does not pay any
attention to what I say. That is why I like him. He is a freethinking cat.
The followers of Muhammad who blindly obey what he told them and have submitted
their intelligence to him cannot understand this and do not have a cat's
independence of thought. They pride themselves in their submission and
slavery.
You
are filibustering Mr. Zakaria. First try to debate. If you sense you are
getting any close to winning then you can start talking about the money.
Suppose I lie and there is no money. Won't you like to clear your prophet
from these charges? Isn't defending Islam enough incentive for you? I am
not going to waste my time discussing on this matter.
The
more we talk about the form the less we can talk about the substance and
this is not my idea of debate. This is my offer. Take it of leave
it.
Without the offer, Muslims don't debate, now with the offer they want to
talk about the money. How can I get you people talk about your prophet and
defend him from the charges I have laid on him?
|
b)
You
say the following with respect to providing mankind an alternative
to Islam:
“Yes,
I do have a better alternative to Islam but I am not here to tell
people what path they should choose. I leave that to them to
decide.”
You
have a
mysterious
alternative
but
you do not elaborate on this at all although this is exactly what I
asked for in my first email. This
is Deja vou for me. In any case, from the above one line
‘elaboration’ your alternative seems to be rather contradictory.
What
if the people decided to choose the path of ISLAM by your
criterion of letting people decide freely?
Then by your ‘logic’ your opposition is not to the ideas of
ISLAM as long as they have exercised their free choice in selecting
that path. But,
then you contradict yourself when you later deny that right of free
choice as you say:
“nor
would I accept your right to believe in it”
i.e.
Islam. You sound a like a confused person standing on
“very
shaky ground of faith and conjecture”.
How
can you say: “I
am not here to tell the people what path they should choose.
I leave that to them to decide”
and
then you contradict yourself by dictating that they should not
choose the path of ISLAM as you later say “nor
would I accept your right to believe in it”?
This
indicates that you are confused on the fundamental basis of your
argument.
Furthermore,
when invoking criticism by rational necessity you must have what is
right in your mind to criticise with in the first place. Otherwise
you are like a masked man that calls everyone else ugly!
HENCE
PLEASE NOTE: We do need a comprehensive elaboration on your
alternative to pursue a serious debate as we can only get meaningful
discussion when you know what each side stands for – this is
particularly vital for the audience.
And
it seems you fear to provide alternative as you will end up
contradicting yourself just like I have already demonstrated, as it
is self-evident from your statements.
|
You
keep asking about an alternative. I
already clarified this point. I said people must be free to believe in any
fairytale they like. However if their fairytale tells them they should
kill others, then that fairytale must be stopped. I do not have the right to
believe that by killing you I go to heaven and neither you have such
right.
Recently a young lady friend of ours in
Belgium
was threatened and the police captured the assassin before he could carry
out his evil design. When questioned, he said, I am a sinner but I want
Allah to forgive my sins and send me to heaven. The best way to do that is
to kill an apostate. The Belgian police thought he is mentally disturbed.
But you and I know that is not true. He is a believer of the lies of
Muhammad and he had accomplices. The victim is even frightened to write
about her story. This is not the kind of belief free people should
tolerate.
So far Islam has advanced by camouflaging itself as a religion.
This must change. People will gradually learn the truth and realize Islam
is a dangerous cult that aims to subdue them and subvert their form of life. Then Muslims
will be seen as the enemy and they will lose their right to promote and
propagate their cult of terror.
Do
the Nazis have the right to have their party and promote their cause? I
don’t know of any democratic country that allows such thing. Most
democratic systems ban racist and fascist movements. Islam is a fascistic ideology. It must be banned.
Banning
Islam is not in contradiction with democracy and freedom of thought.
Democracies have been earned through sacrifices and blood. Those who
believe in democracy should also protect it. Democracy does not mean
dictatorship of the majority. It does not mean letting fascism come to power
democratically to behead that democracy. Hitler and Khomeini came to power
through popular vote. But they did not bring democracy. They strangulated it.
I
want to unmask Islam and let the world see Islam is worse than Nazism. It
must be stopped. This is not against democracy. This is protecting the
democracy. Democracy has some rules. One rule of democracy is respect of
the rights of the minority. We can’t let an undemocratic ideology or a party come to
power, using our democratic process, when it does not believe in the
rights of the minority. That is why Islam must be stopped.
I accuse
Islam because it is contrary to the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is my
yardstick. Islam is diametrically opposed to the Golden Rule and hence a
threat to mankind. This is my standard for criticizing Islam. Is that not
clear enough? I oppose Islam for the same reasons I oppose Nazism or
fascism. These ideologies are ideologies of hate and they are contrary to
the Golden Rule. I do not have to tell people what ideologies are best for
them. As long as their belief system does not violate the Golden Rule and
as long as they respect my freedom of belief, they should be free to believe in whatever they wish.
Back
< > Next
Back to Index
|
