Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina
Part IV Page 21
Back
< > Next
|
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. |
The burden of proof is always on one who makes the
positive accession. You are claiming that Muhammad was a prophet of God.
Therefore it is up to you to prove such claim. I am claiming that he was a
pedophile, a mass murderer, a lecher, a rapist, an assassin, a thief, and
a psychopath. It is up to me to prove these charged. You have not given
any proof of the prophethood of Muhammad and you are not going to give
any because you have got none. However I have proof to all the above
charges and I will start on them right after this response.
These are two different issues. If we both fail to
back up our claims with proof, Muhammad is neither a prophet not a
monster. He is just an ordinary man and a liar. But if I manage to prove
any of my charges then Muhammad becomes a criminal. If I manage to prove
all of the above charges then he is indeed a monster.
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!
|
I am not here to prove the existence or inexistence of God. For the
sake of argument I agree with the religious notion of God as believed by
the monotheist religions. Also for the sake of argument, let us suppose that Satan
exists. With that premise I can show that Muhammad was more likely sent by
Satan than by God. This
makes your job really simple. You don’t have to prove the existence of
God and Satan. All you have to do is to prove that Muhammad was a
messenger of this God you are talking about and not of 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. |
The only
faulty thing here is your reasoning. You first assume that Allah is God
and my creator and then say I should not question him. This is absurd. You have not yet proven this thing you call
Allah is actually the
God. I say Allah, or whoever whispered the Quran to the ears of Muhammad,
far from being the God is the Satan. Your
first task is to prove that Muhammad was the prophet of God. The burden of
the proof is on you. However I can easily show the god of Muhammad was
satanic. All I have to do is to quote a few verses from the Quran.
How ludicrous it would be if I tell you that I have
brought a message from Jumjum who is the real creator of this universe,
and I am his messenger and then demand your absolute obedience and
submission to him and myself without providing any proof to my claim? Wouldn’t you ask me for a proof? If you
are intelligent you would. If you are not you may believe me without
asking for such proof. Why should we be stupid and believe Muhammad who gave no proof whatsoever for his claim?
Further
Inconsistencies of the “Golden Rule” Cult
Self-Evident and Universal
– I have already dealt earlier with the issue of Retribution and
Mr Sina acknowledged this rule is inadequate to cover that sphere.
Mr Sina charges on the basis of violating his “Golden Rule”
whilst my premise is one of Islam, so “logic” and
“commonsense” means we need to agree on some common principles
by which we can assess the allegations. Otherwise both sides will
only trade accusations and counter accusations. Mr Sina proposed
“Golden Rule” as a premise which I disputed by giving five or
more categories of reasons and not just simply due to my denial as
Mr Sina alleges in desperation and laughably declares victory! Note
also that not only I dispute the rule itself as an ultimate arbiter
but also its interpretation given the various circumstances! Mr Sina
suddenly alleges that he is not required to “prove the
legitimacy” of the “Golden Rule” as it is a universal
principle and self evident. On the contrary he says I must prove
legitimacy of Islam against the assumed “Golden Rule”. So once
again Mr Sina wants to turn the debate into an inquisition of the
“Golden Rule” shifting the entire burden of proof on my neck –
condemned as guilty until I can prove my innocence! I too can make
the same claim about legitimacy of Islam especially as there are
over 1.5 billion followers that continues to grow, a system that has
been around for 1500 years. Hence ‘slightly’ larger than the
“Golden Rule” cult followers who are like all the other cults
mentioned, recent and ephemeral. |
The Golden Rule is not a cult. It is a name for
fairness. It says treat others the way you want to be treated. How can
this be a cult?
I wrote an article defining
what is cult and proved that Islam is a cult. But
how can the Golden Rule be a cult? The Golden Rule is a principle not a
group. Looks like you are more confused than I had originally
thought.
A few paragraphs earlier you wrote: 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.
Here you are asking me to follow the Golden Rule. In
other words you are telling me to be fair. So how can fairness be
considered a cult? What you say is not only preposterous but also absurd.
Fairness is an attitude. Is fairness a cult? This is beyond absurdity. It
borders ridicule.
|
If the “Golden
Rule” is universal and self-evident where are the followers and
volumes of books and scholarly materials on the subject? Which
society is a practical example of that? In fact there is not even a
section on it on his website? Why? The truth is we only discovered
his “Golden Rule” during the course of this debate! Mr. Sina is
now beginning to sound like an irrational fanatic who is trying to
shove down people’s throat the cult of the “Golden Rule” as he
admits his blind faith in the issue. So it is Mr Sina that is in
denial not me as I have presented numerous arguments against the
“Golden Rule” with evidence. But of course there are many
readers and most certainly the objective ones will see this as Mr
Sina’s open hypocrisy and a complete idiocy after taunting the
Muslims for talking Islam at face value.
|
There are no volumes of scholarly dissertations on the
Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is one sentence and it requires no explanation. It is the most obvious principle. It is our inner compass. It
tells us how to be fair. No one wrote a book on it because no one is stupid
enough to question it.
Why I never talked about it before? Because you are
the first person who are questioning it. I could never believe someone
would disagree with the Golden Rule.
Your expertise as a Muslim is "tu quoque".
You don't know how to defend Islam. It is not just you, there is not a
single Muslim that can defend Islam. But you are all experts in the logical
fallacy of tu quoque. That is why you attack the Golden Rule. This
is pathetic. I am saying Islam is not fair and you are telling us, but
fairness is a cult. Is there anything more absurd and more ridiculous than
this?
|
Hence, to cover his inadequacies Mr Sina
unashamedly borrows statements from other religions to support his
case! |
I
quoted the statements of other religious traditions to show that the
adherence to the principle of the Golden Rule is the common denominator of
all of them. Why should this be shameful? I believe it is shameful
advocating a religion that is contrary to the Golden Rule.
|
He also tries to make a ludicrous analogy between the
“Golden Rule” with the tangible realities perceived through our
senses. Sense perception of the reality is what the human mind can
determine alone using the senses and previous knowledge. Like
everyone can verify using their senses that fire is hotter than ice
and the night as being darker than day, sun is brighter than the
moon. But that is not the case with morality, ethics and principles
that are dependent on your external values, beliefs etc. |
This
is a case of self projection. All the sane people of the world can
distinguish between right and wrong. Muslims are the only exceptions. Yes
our senses can tell us what is wrong, unjust or cruel. Those whose sense
of morality is not numbed by a cult created by a psychopath can easily differentiate
between justice and injustice, kindness and cruelty, honesty and deceit,
etc. with the same certainty that they can differentiate between light and
darkness or warmth and coldness. We use the Golden Rule to determine that.
Why you think "that is not the case with morality"? It is
because as a Muslim you are moral relativist. You are genuinely unable to
see the difference between good and bad. Good and bad, in your twisted
sense of morality do not have any meaning. Good is what benefits your cult
and bad is what endangers your cult. So if by murdering children in Beslan
your cult benefits, that mass murder of innocent children is a good action
and the perpetrators of that heinous crime are "freedom
fighters". But if someone writes a book or an article and tells the
truth about Islam that unmasks it, that is evil and the person who done it
must be put to death.
Morality,
ethics and principles are not dependent on our external values and
beliefs. Rape, pedophilia, murder, theft and assassination are bad
irrespective of our beliefs.
I
am very pleased that you are so straightforward and unlike many other
Muslim apologists are not trying to misrepresent Islam. You are really
unmasking Islam for the world to see. According to your moral relativist
cult all the above sins are good if they are perpetrated by Muslims and
their prophet who according to you defines what is morality and if the
same is done by others they are bad. So you can't really say Murder is
bad. It depends on who is the murderer and who is the victim. If the
murderer is Muslim killing a non-Muslim, then it is okay. If it is the
other way round, that is bad.
Muslims can lie and it is good, but others must not. Muslims can rape
the non-Muslims and
it is good, but if others do it it is crime and must be paid
back with blood. Muslims can bomb and kill thousands of innocent people
and when they do it, it is a divine justice but if the non-Muslims kill by
accident a Muslim this is a crime that all the non-Muslims must pay for
it. This is the essence of what Mr. Zakaria is saying. He says morality,
ethics and principles depend on your external values. If your external
values tell you that you are a superior being by virtue of your belief in
a deity called Allah, you can commit all the crimes and still be a good
person. But if you are an unbeliever even your good works are meaningless
and you'll be burned in Hellfire.
|
Those
relate to: “what you ought to do” not what the reality of the
physical world is. So the analogy cited by Mr Sina does not support
his “Golden Rule” but to the contrary it proves he does not
understand the principle that he is citing. Either way this is a
poor attempt to evade the real crux of the debate as Mr Sina is
being unmasked he feels very uncomfortable as his superficial
thoughts is being exposed, of course everyone is already familiar
with his anti-Islamic-fascist diatribes. The only other
corroborative evidences are some handpicked and borrowed religious
references. Since Mr Sina lacking his own bible of the “Golden
Rule” he unashamedly borrows from the religions that he
disbelieves in the first place! In fact he cannot cite one person or
one piece of text that exclusively talks about his so-called
“Golden-Rule” yet we are to take his word as this is universal?
This is again more absurdity from Mr Sina. Further contradictions
are exposed below. |
The
very fact that all the religions and social philosophies talk about the
Golden Rule prove the universality of this principle. The fact that Islam
is the only exception vindicates the raison d'être of this site. As I
stated in the mission statement, we are not against faith. We are against
hate. The reason we fight Islam is because it is a cult of hate that is
divorced from the basic precepts of goodness and is in defiance of the
Golden Rule.
It
is not that Mr. Zakaria disagrees with the Golden Rule. In fact when he
urges me
to be fair and follow "my" Golden Rule and prove my allegations
to be true as much as he has to prove them to be false, he shows that he knows what
the Golden Rule is. However his Islamic moral relativism makes him demand
that I follow "my" Golden Rule while he considers himself exempt
from it.
The
readers must note that Mr. Zakaria is not making these rules up. He is
faithfully presenting the Islamic morality and ethics. Muslims, invariably
are convinced that they are entitled to harm you but you are not allowed
to do the same. Assuming that Muslims have the same vales as others is a
grave mistake that could cost many lives. Muslims are not bound by the
same morality that others are. They will kill you with clarity of
conscience and without any compunction. Your best Muslim friend will rape
your wife and slash your throat. You do not have to listen to me, just
listen to Mr. Zakaria. He is a true Muslim. He is telling the truth when
he says the Golden Rule is worthless and morality, ethics and principles
depend on your exterior values. To understand what are the Islamic values
all you have to do is to read the Quran. The Quran says you are a filthy
infidel that deserve to be put to death or reduced into slavery and
dhimitude and become subdued, humiliated and a tributary to Muslims.
If
you think you can win the hearts and the minds of Muslims by being kind to
them you are committing a huge mistake. As for Muslims, they think it is your duty to
be good to them but they do not have to reciprocate because they are above
the Golden Rule. Muslims have different values and their morality, ethics
and principles derive from their values and not the other way
round.
Back
< > Next
Back to Index
|
