Ali Sina responds to Yamin Zakaria 

Mr. Zakaria starts his so called 'rebuttal' by saying:  

“Ali Sina in his typical racist-foul-mouth mode claimed that all Muslims are animals without any elaboration”  

With that kind of example, generously provided by your Excellency do I need also to elaborate? Your arrogance is enough to make this point clear. You think arrogance can be used as a cover up for ignorance and you make extensive use of this Islamic trait in you diatribes.  

It is enough to study the Quran and the conducts of Muhammad to determine that Islam is a cult of hate and terror with inhumane tents. As Mr. Zakaria himself admitted, Islam is divorced from the Golden Rule and in fact he is derisive of it. The Golden Rule states: Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you. This is basically what defines humanity. The Golden Rule is unique to human consciousness. Only humans are evolved enough to be aware of the needs of their fellow beings and treat them with the same consideration that they would treat themselves and their loved ones. When Mr. Zakaria derides the Golden Rule, he is mocking the very thing that distinguishes us humans from animals.  

According to Mr. Zakaria’s skewed sense of morality, it is okay to harm non-Muslims but the non-Muslims are not allowed to do the same to Muslims. He claims that Muhammad was the person who defined what is right and wrong and the concept of good and evil must be measured by what he did and not the other way round. So, if Muhammad raped the women of the unbelievers he did the right thing. If he had sex with a 9 year old child, if he assassinated his critics, if he massacred innocent people, it is all good and dandy because he was the prophet of God and he defined morality. However, Mr. Zakaria does not like Muslims to be treated in this way. He does not believe in the Golden Rule. According to this truly benighted individual, only Muslims are allowed to do evil and in fact that should not be called evil because whatever Muhammad is good and if Muslims do the same they can't go wrong.    

This is the way animals think and behave. Animals have no understanding of the Golden Rule. They live by the rule of Jungle. They are kind to their own pack but have no concept of fairness and do not respect the rights of others outside their own pack.  

Mr. Zakaria's thinking is not very distinct from that of animals. Not all Muslims think like Mr. Zakaria or Muhammad. The majority of Muslims are “pretend Muslims”. They erroneously think they are Muslims. I often talk about my grandmother whom I consider to have been a true saint. She was the embodiment of goodness. She was kind to everyone. She was nominally a Muslim. Therefore the mere being born in an Islamic family and erroneously calling oneself Muslim, does not make one an animal. You must live like Muhammad and think like him to be qualified for that distinction. Your actions count. Mr. Zakaria is a good example of an animal Muslim. He supports the terrorists. He sees no wrong in rape and massacre of the children in Beslan. He calls the coward terrorists who behead innocent people, “freedom fighters”. This person has no concept of the Golden Rule. He is a true Muslims and therefore a real animal. This is the elaboration. I do not call all those who think and call themselves Muslims animals. I call all those who live by the teachings of the Quran and follow the examples of Muhammad animals.  

Muhammad used to order his followers to dismember the corpses of their enemies to "delight the hearts of the believers". Letting you insult me is the least I can do for you to delight your heart. Please don't be shy. You lost the intellectual battle on your own without much input from me, I will let you win the battle of insults also all on your own without much input from me. 

You say  “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!”  

If I really was that naïf to think by debating with likes of Mr. Zakaria I can make them think like humans, indeed I would be deficient in mental faculty. But that is not the reason I debate with people like him. The reason I debate with Mr. Zakaria and his ilk is to highlight the intellectual bankruptcy of Islamic intelligentsia.  It is through these debates that Muslims intellectuals show their cards and expose the real face of Islam. It is through these exchanges that the “pretend Muslims” can see Islam unmasked and leave it.  As the testimony of Muslims leaving Islam posted in faithfreedom.org show, the main reason Muslims are leaving Islam is not because they are swayed by my arguments but by the fact that Muslim apologists like Mr. Zakaria make it clear that Islam is not an ideology fit for decent humans. It is a satanic cult made by a psychopath for thugs.  Since from the 1.2 billion people who call themselves Muslims, over a billion of them are decent humans, I am confident that after they read these debates the majority of them will eventually come to see the light and leave Islam.  

You do not become an animal simply because you are born in a Muslim family. You become an animal when you behave like one. Living according to the Quran and the examples set by Muhammad, will indeed make you an animal undeserving to be called human.  

As for my cleric relative visiting me, I was not disrespectful towards him at all. In an exchange of emails that we both agreed to be off the record, I confided to you that I have these distinguished relatives as guests and have no time to spend on the site. I also told you that my cleric relative insists that I should stand in prayer behind him despite the fact that I told him I do not pray. Of course I did not tell him that I am the archenemy of  Islam. I don't think that is the kind of information I would volunteer to an elderly beloved relative who has honored me by his presence and has flown hundreds of miles to pay me a visit. I obliged and performed the stupid prayer out of respect for him. He is as dear to me as an uncle. I have broken my ties with Islam but not with my relatives and dear ones. It was utterly unethical of you to publish our private emails after we both agreed they would be off the record. But of course you have no regards for the Golden Rule and do not understand ethics. It was my oversight to consider you a human. I should have known that you are a true Muslim and as such you are not bound by human norms of ethics and morality.   

This was one of those times that I did not have to use my logical gun because you shoot yourself and the battle ended right from the start. 

As for whose nose is bleeding, it is enough to read the entire debate that I had with Mr. Zakaria and is posted in my site. Why Mr. Zakaria did not post the same in his site? Why in his recent diatribe against the freethinkers that he sent far and wide to every Islamic site, he failed to mention my name or make any reference to faithfreedom.org where our debate took place? It is obvious that Mr. Zakaria, despite his mental limitations is quite aware of his bleeding nose. Otherwise he would proudly link to this debate and advertise it.  May I ask you Mr. Zakaria, why you attacked me as if I were a ghost and never mentioned my name or my site in your diatribe? Isn’t it because you are actually embarrassed of your intellectual handicap? Are you willing to prove to us that you are proud of your performance by providing a link to our debate in the sites that you post your invective against freethinkers and me in particular? This surely will go a long way to restore your credibility. Otherwise, how anyone could believe that you are convinced of having smashed my nose when you are reluctant to show it to your readers? You can beat your chest and boast as much as you like, but actions speak louder than words.  

Morality and Ethics.  

Despite the fact that I exhaustively explained this point, Mr. Zakaria is still unable to grasp its basics. We have a morality that derives from the Golden Rule and is absolute. For example the Golden Rule prohibits lying and stealing. According to the Golden Rule lying and stealing are immoral. But each religion or ethos interprets morality in its own way. In Islam lying and stealing are not necessarily bad if the victims are the non-believers and Islam benefits from those actions. Muhammad said “war is a game of deception”. He encouraged his followers to lie and deceive their victims so they [their victims] lower their guards and then stab them from the back. He also raided and looted caravans and villages. In fact Muhammad's immense wealth was entirely accumulated by raiding unarmed civilians and plundering them. The morality of Muhammad justified lying and stealing and he set the examples for others to follow. But this Islamic morality is distinct from, say the Christian morality, the Hindu or the Buddhist morality. Each culture and each religion has its own morality. Polygamy is immoral according to secular ethos and the Golden Rule, but it is not so according to Islamic morality. Animal sacrifice is immoral according to Buddhist ethos, but it is not so according to Islamic morality. So we have an absolute morality that derives from the Golden Rule that we call ethics and we have many relative moralities that derive from religious teachings and personal values.

This is a very simple and a straightforward concept. Why Mr. Zakaria is unable to understand it? Maybe it is because he is a Muslim and as such he is unable to grasp concepts that for others are commonsense.  

Mr. Zakaria says “If there was human consensus on morality we would have probably had far fewer conflicts in human history.”  

But there is a human consensus on morality. All humans agree that the Golden Rule is the ultimate standard of right and wrong. In page 8 of this debate I quoted several statements from various religions and schools of thoughts that each expressed the importance of the Golden Rule. And yes the level of abuse in non-Muslim countries is much lower than in Islamic countries. Honor killing, discrimination, misogyny, human right violations of religious minorities and homosexuals, female genocide mutilation, wife beating, flogging, stoning, mutilation as punishment and many other crimes against humanity are strictly Islamic. Also most of the conflicts both of past and present are/were caused by Islam. Even the crusades were a backlash to Islamic aggression. Even the inquisition was a reaction to Islamic expansionism. But today over 90% of world conflicts are Islam related. The observance of the Golden Rule indeed curbs human conflicts. 

 In fact there is a parody of the Golden Rule even in Islam.  In a hadith we read:

"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths."  

This brotherhood however does not extend to everyone. Muslims are only brothers to themselves and are to be inimical towards the non-believers. Quran (9:23) says that the believers should not take for friends and protectors (awlia) their fathers and brothers if they love Infidelity above Islam. Verse (48:29) makes clear that Islam is a fascistic philosophy and is divorced from the Golden Rules: "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.”  

As the above hadith demonstrates, Muhammad was not entirely unaware of the value of the Golden Rule. Nonetheless, being a moral relativist and a narcissist, he did not include everyone in that brotherhood and did not think the non-believers deserve to be treated with fairness. Hence he limited his “golden rule” to his own followers only. There is no value in a limited golden rule. Even hyenas are nice to the members of their own pack but strong against the outsiders. Muhammad’s washy version of the golden belongs to the animal kingdom and not to human realm.     

One example of Islamic moral relativism is expressed eloquently by Mr. Zakaria. In virtually all his “rebuttals” whenever he fails to defend the crimes of Muhammad, he starts attacking the Americans, the Spanish and others for the crimes that their ancestors committed in yester decades and centuries.  How this tu quoque of non-Muslim nations can justify the crimes perpetrated by Muhammad, a man who claimed to be the prophet of God and the best of the creation, is something he should answer. He is comparing the actions of common people to the actions of his prophet. He also talks about the criminals and the psychopaths of the West to justify the crimes of his prophet. The brain of this Muslim is incapable to understand that comparing the criminals of one group to the saints and prophets of other group is also a logical fallacy. No one in the West worships the pedophiles, the rapists or the sadists among them. The fact that these disturbed individuals exist in western societies does in no way justify the crimes perpetrated by Muhammad. 

Apart from the fact that his America reviling is calumnious and Americans are not in Iraq to loot or " to kill innocent people" as he put it, comparing a country to a religion is a logical absurdity that only Muslims are capable of committing.  

Mr. Zakaria is not the only Muslim to commit this fallacy. All the Muslims immediately enumerate the vices of the West to justify the crimes of their prophet. When you say Muhammad was a pedophile, they argue that there are lots of pedophiles in the West too. When you say Muhammad committed genocide, they soon remind us of Hitler who killed more people. If you say Muhammad was a lecher, they will give you the URL of hundreds of porn sites in the West. Somehow Muslims deduce that since there are sinners in none Muslim countries, Muhammad must have been a prophet.      

What is truly  surprising is that instead of defending Muhammad against the charges brought against him, Mr. Zakaria is attacking the very notion of right and wrong. He is not saying Muhammad was not a rapist, a pedophile, an assassin, a mass murderer or a thief. He knows that all those charges are true. So instead of acquitting his defendant from these charges, he has embarked on a very audacious defense strategy and is putting on trial the very concept of right and wrong. He says:  

“Ali Sina …is certainly in no position to bring any charges against anyone on the basis of morality and ethics when he himself is clearly muddled on the issue.”  

Morality is not muddled. The Golden Rule is an unerring compass of right and wrong. The farther you get away from this rule, the more immoral and unethical you become. Islamic morality is the antipode of the Golden Rule and therefore it is utterly immoral.  Unlike most apologists, Mr. Zakaria does not try to rationalize and explain away the crimes perpetrated by Muhammad. He is rather attacking the Golden Rule and is questioning the very notion of fairness and morality. His approach is so unorthodox that I have been taken aback and still wonder whether he is pulling my leg. He has basically handed me the victory just like that. He is not disputing my charges against Muhammad. He is not saying Muhammad was not a rapist, a pedophile, an assassin, a thief, a mass murderer or a liar. He is saying: " prove rape, pedophilia, assassination, theft, genocide and lying are wrong". This Muslim is questioning the very notion of right and wrong. He questions the legitimacy of the Golden Rule and then says since the Golden Rule cannot be taken as the standard, you cannot condemn Muhammad for breaking that rule. He is not defending his client, but rather putting on trial the law itself. It is like a thief, pleading innocence by saying prove to me theft is wrong or a murderer saying, prove that murder is wrong. If Mr. Zakaria was the defendant we could declare him innocent by reason of insanity. However, he is not the defendant. The defendant is Muhammad and no matter how insane Mr. Zakaria maybe, his client is guilty of all the charges.

My opponent’s low wit is clear from his own statement. He calls the Golden Rule my “cult” that furtively I try to introduce though my writings. This is indeed the most bizarre discussion I have ever had with a Muslim. After debating with thousands of Muslims, I thought I had seen it all. But Mr. Zakaria indeed fills me with amazement. Is there a bottom to Islamic stupidity? The Golden Rule is the principle underlying all religions and social doctrines. This concept has been echoed by all the religious and non-religious philosophers. Islam, Nazism and other misanthropic ideologies are the only doctrines that do not apply the Golden Rule and are divorced from the concept of fairness. Fairness is a principle not a cult.  

Mr. Zakaria says: "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"

Does this Muslim understand the Golden Rule? How can the Golden Rule be applied for genocide? Is this a human reasoning? He then continues with his straw man fallacy of accusing America of genocide and me of supporting that genocide. Both accusations are false. They are sheer lies created by an individual bereft of not only human conscience but also of human reasoning.  

Mr. Zakaria accuses me of flip flapping about whether Islam is a religion or not. Obviously this Muslim's brain chip lacks enough RAM to process simple logic and understand human language. I have made it clear that Islam is not a religion in the sense that we commonly understand religion. Islam does not contain any spiritual guidance to uplift human soul and make him more loving, more caring, more enlightened or unite the hearts of the people. Islam is a tool of domination in the guise of religion. Which part of this is confusing? If I call Islam religion, this is because it is known by that name. This does not mean I believe it to be a religion. I also have referred to Muhammad as “the Prophet”. Should this be interpreted as my admission that he was indeed a prophet? I thought commonsense would prevail but obviously commonsense is not that common amongst Muslims.  

I wonder whether Mr. Zakaria reads my responses to him. He is going in circle repeating the same things. Despite oft clarifying this point, this Muslim can’t still distinguish between the Golden Rule which is the standard of ethics and the penal code, which is the application of retribution. Theft is a crime. This is established by the Golden Rule and religions that are inspired by it. How do you deal with the thief and how do you punish him is the question of the penal code. The penal code varies from country to country but the principle of not stealing remains universal. Why we have to repeat these simple concepts several times? Isn’t this enough evidence of the intellectual handicap of the Muslim intelligentsia?  

Mr. Zakaria is virtually unable to let go of America. He is incapable to see that what America did or does has nothing to do with Islam and even if all the Americans are convicted as the villains of the world, in no ways this will make Muhammad a prophet or reduce his crimes. This Muslim is addicted to red herring, straw man and tu quoque fallacies. This jaundiced man blames America of the crimes committed by Muhammad and Muslims. America is a country whose administration changes every 4 or 8 years and new people come to power that may totally disagree with previous rulers. It is absurd to blame "America" as if it were a person and even bomb and kill American civilians for what their rulers did 60 years ago or the ancestors of some of them did 300 years ago. Why this Muslim is unable to see that the man whom he worships and calls prophet, is guilty of genocide of the Jews and Christians in Arabia and instead of questioning his belief in that monster he is trying to find faults in other people? No one is worshipping America or their rulers. If American administrations in the past or present commit mistakes, even if they do something out of malice, the rest of the Americans are not guilty especially when the majority condemn those mistakes. How Hiroshima can justify the ethnic cleansings of the Bani Quraiza, Kheibar, Bani Nadir, Bani Mostaliq or Bani Qainuqa is not clear. Is that a tit for tat fallacy?

Mr. Zakaria makes laughable statements. He wonders how the Golden Rule can be universal when no one has heard of it.  Dear Yamin, everyone knows what Golden Rule is. You never heard of it because you are a Muslim. Islam has nothing to do with the Golden Rule but all other religions claim to be founded on the basis of it. As a Muslim there are lots of things that you never heard of. As a Muslim you are not in the habit of reading opposing views also. You obviously missed my explanation of the Golden Rule and maybe this is the reason you are making such a fool of yourself. You say “not just Islam but other religions also contradicts the Golden Rule”.  I already quoted the statements of all the religions on the Golden Rule. Obviously all of them acknowledge that the Golden is supreme. Golden Rule means be fair to others. Which religion, apart from Islam, does not agree with that?  But obviously knowing what is right and doing it are two different things. All the religions teach the Golden Rule and pretend to live by it. But most of them fail when it comes to walking their own talk. Their failure to apply the Golden Rule in no ways diminishes the supremacy of this principle.  But at least they strive for excellence and try to be just and fair. Islam goes the opposite way. Islam not only disagrees with the principle of fairness, it actually preaches hate, inequality, violence and abuse. It is one thing to set high standards and not reach it and quite another to go the opposite way. This explains why when people of other religions follow their faiths they become good people but when Muslims follow theirs they become terrorists. Islam is a “religion” that preaches animalistic values.  You don’t become human just because you are an anthropoid. You must also evince the signs of humanness. You can’t do that when you break the Golden Rule and go as far as denouncing it.  

The Golden rule says:  “Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you”. How can you be good if you do on to others things that if done onto you, you’d feel hurt? Are you trying to tell us that your brain is incapable of grasping this simple concept too? Of course, if you do onto others what you yourself do not like to be done onto you, you are hurting them and hence you do not belong to the circle of the brotherhood of mankind. You are not a human at all. You are an abuser and a criminal. You act like animals and you must be locked up. You are a danger to society. What part of this you do not understand? 

How would you like if I come to your house and do onto you and your family what I would find objectionable if done onto me? I don’t like anyone come to my house, force me to accept a religion that I don’t like, reduce me into second class citizen, rape my wife and daughter, take me as slave or force me to pay protection tax in order to be able to live in my own home and not be killed. What should be done to me if I come to your house and do exactly those things that I myself do not like to be done on to me? Don’t you think I should be stopped at any cost including blowing up my brain with a bullet if necessary? If yes tell me why we should not do the same to animals like you who want to do exactly these things to us as part of their religious duty?  Tell me why we should not blow up your manure filled sculls before you lay your hands on our wives and daughters and destroy our lives?  

Is this incitement to violence? Nah!  It is a waking call. As to what you want to do with our wives and daughters you are not making it a secret. You will do to them what Muhammad did to his victims. As to how much you are bound by moral and ethical values, this too you have made it clear that you have no regards for such things. So you already spelled out what you want to do with these foolish people who have given you asylum and protect you with their laws. All I want to do is to make your voice reach them and make you heard. Now it is up to them to heed you and protect themselves, their families and their freedom from this Trojan horse called Islam. 

Mr. Zakaria wonders why I can’t see the ' logic' of the law of jungle where every man is after his own interest and tries to impose his ways on others disregarding other's rights. He thinks by advocating the rule of fairness I am living in my “cloud cuckoo land” and that my ideas of fairness are simplistic. He even says he can’t find any reference to the Golden rule anywhere. The Golden Rule is called ' golden' because it is universal and can be found virtually in all the cultures (with the exception of Islam and Nazism). But let us see the consequence of what Mr. Zakaria is proposing. Basically he says every man in entitled to discriminate against those who do not agree with him. In clear language he says: “Any form of identity is both inclusive to those who comply and simultaneously exclusive to those who do not”  

This is of course not true with secular democracy that treats all the citizens equally irrespective of the how they voted and for whom. But let us put aside the Golden Rule and follow Mr. Zakaria’s ' code of ethics' for now. Based on Mr. Zakaria’s own 'superior' morality, the non-Muslims are entitled to discriminate against the Muslims just as the Muslims discriminate against the non-Muslims. The rule of jungle applies. Whoever is stronger wins. Today the non-Muslims are superior in every way to the Muslims. They can annihilate the Muslims in few days. They can use their superior power to subdue, enslave and even exterminate the Muslims. I want Mr. Zakaria to explain to us why they should not do that? If this is what you are advocating, why the non-Muslims should not listen to you, follow your instructions and discriminate against Muslims? You made a very clear statement of what you think is right according to your twisted sense of justice. Now I want you to be just as clear and tell us why others should not take your words to heart and should not do onto you what you yourself say is right?  

This is the only question I ask you. Will you answer?

Muhammad was a pauper when he married to Khadijah who was a wealthy woman. As soon as he married his “sugar mommy” he stopped working and left Khadijah to take care of his 6 children in addition to her other 3 children from her previous marriages. He himself spent his time in caves, secluded from the society, engulfed in his psychotic reveries. When Khadijah died, Muhammad was again a pauper to the extent that when he arrived in Medina the Ansar and the Jews used to send him dates so he does not sleep hungry. Ten years later, he was the absolute potentate of the entire Arabia . Wherefrom he accumulated this much riches and slaves? Did he work? He became the wealthiest man through looting. Not only he kept 20% of all the spoils of war for himself, when some tribes surrendered without a fight, for example the Bani Nadir or the Bani Quraiza, Muhammad kept everything to himself because, as he argued, Muslims did not fight in those wars. The crooked man did not take into consideration that even though his benighted followers did not fight, the reason these tribes surrendered was because they feared the savagery of Muslims.       

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 19, #2961:

Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab:

Malik ibn Aws al-Hadthan said: One of the arguments put forward by Umar was that he said that the Apostle received three things exclusively to himself: Banu an-Nadir, Khaybar and Fadak. The Banu an-Nadir property was kept wholly for his emergent needs, Fadak for travelers, and Khaybar was divided by the Apostle into three sections: two for Muslims, and one as a contribution for his family. If anything remained after making the contribution of his family, he divided it among the poor Emigrants."

Each of these towns had thousands of inhabitants and they were the most affluent cities of Arabia. The wealth of tens of thousands of people fell entirely into Muhammad's hands. Can you say that he was a poor man living an austere life? He had several houses.

 33.53
"O ye who believe! Enter not the Prophet's houses,- until leave is given you," 

How can a man with several houses be poor? He had also many slaves. Muhammad was so captivated by the beauty of a woman that he gave up seven slaves for her! 

Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 19, #2991:

Anas said: "A beautiful slave girl fell to Dihyah. The apostle purchased her for seven slaves. He then gave her to Umm Sulaim for decoration her and preparing her for marriage."

Muslim 19, 4376:

It has been narrated by Anas that (after his migration to Medina) a person placed at the Prophet's (may peace be upon him) disposal some date-palms growing on his land until the lands of Quraiza and Nadir were conquered. Then he began to return to him whatever he had received. 

As for leaving inheritance, Mr. Zakaria should go back to his Islamic books and read the history of Muhammad. Muhammad’s children all died before him. So the point of inheritance is moot.  The only progeny who survived him was his daughter Fatima the wife of Ali. She received an entire town as her inheritance. Fadak, was a township that Muhammad usurped from the Jews of Kheibar. This village is said to have been the queen of Arabia with the most beautiful gardens and fruit trees. Abu Bakr wanted to take it away from Fatima and this caused animosity between Ali and the first Khalifa, which resulted in schism in Islam and the deaths of millions.

Also the claim that Muhammad was offered "all the riches and beautiful women to abandon his prophethood" is a patent lie that he concocted to fool the gullible. If the Meccans really gave a damn about him they could easily kill him and get rid of him. There was no need to go to that extent to make this nuisance charlatan their king and lavish him with riches and women so he stop lying. This simply makes no sense and is made for the consumption of the most gullible. Do we have any case in the history of mankind that people offer to someone whom they believe to be a liar conman riches and power so he desist lying? This is utterly nonsense and a measure of the naiveté of Muslims. . 

From the Quran itself we learn that the Meccans called Muhammad a madman. Surely they would not have given a madman unlimited riches, their daughters and the leadership of their town to make him stop lying. Are you willing to give any money, let alone your daughter and the leadership of your town, to a loony who claims to be a prophet to make him stop lying? If not then why you think the Meccans would do such thing? They thought Muhammad was a loon. Only a Muslim is capable to fool himself to such an extent and believe in these fairytales. 

The Meccans never gave much importance to Muhammad and they thought of him no more than a cracked loony.  It was after he became a marauding gangster and started inflicting heavy casualties on their caravans and even killing their men that they took him seriously. 

You sound more and more like a broken disk. We already discussed this and I already said that Gandhi was not a scholar on Islam. He was a politician and an appeaser at that. Gandhi’s statements on Muhammad cannot be used as evidence any more than Bush's can be. First because Gandhi was not an authority on the subject that he was opining and second because as a politician he would have caused civil war and senseless bloodshed if he said anything about Muhammad that Muslims did not like. Salman Rushie and Jerry Falwell are nobodies. Yet when they said something about Muhammad that Muslims did not like, innocent bloods were spelt from Bangladesh , to India and from Pakistan to Lebanon. 

As for Muhammad’s “fearlessness” suffice to say that this man who waged 78 wars and cowardly raided unwary and unarmed civilians, never fought in any war personally. In all the wars that he participated, he used to stay behind, giving orders, throwing sand in the direction of the enemy and cursing them while he used to wear, not one, but two coats of mail one on top of the other, which made his movement so cumbersome that he needed the propping of two men to help him stand on his feet.  

What makes Muhammad great and Islam grow is ignorance. If people bothered to read the original history of Islam, like Sira, Tabari and al Waqidi, Islam would be eradicated very soon.  

Mr. Zakaria says it is naïve to expect people to apply the Golden Rule on their own and an authority is needed to enforce any set of values.  Obviously we are having this discussion because Mr. Zakaria confuses the Golden Rule with the rule of law. The Golden Rule can be defined as a personal religion. It is an inner compass for the superior man to act morally. Just as it is up to the individual to follow his religious canon, it is up to the individual to follow the Golden Rule. Just as the observance of religious dictums cannot be imposed and is done voluntarily, so the observance of the Golden Rule cannot be imposed. But this does not mean that it is up to the individual to follow the rule of law or not. The law must be imposed and it must have teeth so it is respected.  

Mr. Zakaria asks if morality is not imposed how a society can be regulated. Once in a while, when he is not engaged in ad hominems and tu quoques, fallacies, Mr. Zakaria can actually ask intelligent questions. Morality cannot be enforced. Can anyone force you not to lust after your neighbor’s wife or not to lie? It is up to you to have moral thoughts and act morally. But if you break the law and for example, sexually molest your neighbor’s wife or commit perjury, you will become responsible for your action and must be punished. Think of the Golden Rule as the religion of the superior man - a religion without all the gobbledygook that usually comes with religions. 

Despite all the impositions and mind control in Islam, in final analysis no one can be forced to believe or observe his religious duties if he does not want to. My illustrious relative can twist my arm and demand that I perform my salat behind him and I may do that out of respect. An Islamic state may coerce its citizens to observe their prayers in public. But can anyone guarantee that people would observer their prayers while alone? The observance of the Golden Rule, just like the observance of religions, is a personal choice. You can’t impose on people to treat others the way they want to be treated. What must be imposed is the observance of the law.  But these are two different things. I have said this several times. Obviously you have a problem with comprehension.  

Mr. Zakaria, your responses are posted as one piece in your own column but of course they are not coherent and that is your problem. Your utterly incoherent responses are published twice, once as one piece and then paragraph by paragraph where I respond to them and a third time when you post them directly in the forum. In all fairness I do not have to publish them at all. You are not publishing mine, so why I should give you preferential treatment? You are assuming that I am a dhimmi and demanding compliance while you do not feel any obligation to return the favor. This is how you Muslims arrogantly have been treating your hosts, demanding especial privileges as if you are already their masters and they are your vassals. Had you not been so ridiculous in your 'rebuttals' I would not have posted them at all in retaliation or you not publishing my responses. But I can't let go of this much gobbledygook that you have written and hence it does not matter if you don't publish my rebuttals and are afraid to provide a link to this debate, I will publish yours with pleasure nonetheless. 

The person who is dishonest is you because you not only do not post my responses in your site at all, you even do not give any reference to our debate when you post your diatribe against me in other Islamic sites. Are you afraid that people read our debate and see what an embarrassment you have been?  

Obviously my rebuttals are hurting you. All your incoherent replies are in one piece. I decide to respond to them part by part. This makes it easier on the readers. They won’t be overwhelmed by a lot of reading at once but every other day they find a few pages to read. Why the way I respond to your harangue should affect you at all?  If my sense of victory was false you won’t be so desperate, wasting our readers’ time, whining about how I publish my responses to you. On the other hand you do not even publish my responses and are afraid to provide a link when you write about our debate. In your public rant against me you even forget to mention my name.   

Mr. Zakaria, it is not me who traps you. You trap yourself by putting your foot in your mouth. When you so foolishly attack the very concept of fairness, it is not me who traps you, you do that to yourself. Yes indeed you were honest for not lying about Islam being the 'champion of the Golden Rule'. You honestly admitted that Islam is divorced from the Golden Rule, and you stood by your word up to the end, mocking it and calling it a cult. This makes you honest, at least in this issue but a real fool at the same time. By attacking the Golden Rule you basically hanged yourself and handed me the victory from the start.  

Mr. Zakaria your fate in this debate was sealed the moment you started questioning the validity of the Golden Rule. It does not take an Einstein to know “Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you” is a good principle. Even a man of your intellectual caliber knows this. When you demand others to treat you fairly and respect your rights, even thought those demands are unjustified, it shows that you like to be treated with fairness. So my dear, "it is not me who slew you, it is Allah who slew you". You dug your own grave by attacking a very wrong target. You were so accustomed to attack the beliefs of your opponents as a substitute of defending Islam that you kept asking me to “unmask” myself so you can attack me. Remember how you were saying a hooded person must not call others ugly?  When I told you I am a practitioner of the Golden Rule you though you found your golden opportunity and foolishly attacked the very idea of fairness. Now even though this was foolish, any sensible person would have changed his position and would have tried to explain off his mistake by making amendments and allowances. If you were intelligent you would have weaseled your way out of this mess that you put yourself in and would have tried to change the strategy. But not you! You either lacked the intelligence or you had become a hostage of  your gigantic Muslim male ego and could not back off. Instead of changing rout, you kept digging your heels deeper and deeper until the hole became too big for you to get out.  

This was one of those debates that I can’t take much credit for winning it. You basically handed the victory to me. It is like you kicking  the ball in your own net and lose the game without me moving a finger.  

You have some cheek Mr. Zakaria. You made a total fool of yourself and you are talking about the reward? Don’t you think it is a bit too late to talk about the money when you have clearly lost the debate? Or is it that you actually don't know you are down and what hit you?  

Obviously you still don't know that you lost the debate long time ago. But I fully agree with choosing adjudicators to announce the victor.  I am sure we can find someone who is not a Zionist or a Muslim sympathizer. 

However, somehow we have to make sure that they won't be assassinated when they announce the victor. Muslims don't like to be humiliated, especially when the reputation of their religion is at stake.  

The central theme of this debate was supposed to be you defending Muhammad and proving his divine origin. Instead you attacked America, me and the Golden Rule and claimed that what is good is not good, fairness is not fair and the Golden Rule is a cult. 

Obviously, and I am no more surprised, you did not understand the morale of that story about evolution either. You talked about the survival of the fittest claiming the one who is more aggressive will survive. This you said to justify the violence in Islam and the barbarities committed by your prophet and your terrorist brothers. I explained that unlike what you think the survival of the fittest dose not mean the one who is more violent and aggressive will survive. Our species survived thanks to our ability to cooperate, interact, take care of each other, protect one anther and in essence apply the Golden Rule. Those who were capable of this feat were fit to survive and those who were not, perished. The principle has not changed. Today Muslims are least cooperative, they are an aggressive and violent lot, they do not understand love, cooperation, extending a hand to a fellow human and therefore are the least fit to survive. One reason the Neanderthals were extinct is because in comparison to homo sapience they were more brute, less cooperative and less adaptable to change. Today Muslims are the brute ones of the human species. Naturally Muslims have less chance of survival because they are the least fit. You did not get this message did you? You did not understand why I was talking about the evolution and the survival of the fittest. You thought those are irrelevant issues, tales of some apes that do not concern you. Well, how can I blame a Neanderthal for lack of intelligence?   

 Well Mr. Zakaria I have to admit I was wrong here. I thought the Al Jazeera site belongs to the Al Jazeera Network. So I assumed you must be someone important. After debating with you, I soon realized you are a novice. No sensible debater would attack the Golden Rule and make such a fool of him self. But you served me well. You demonstrated one side of Islam that we often don’t see, i.e. the honest side. The more seasoned debaters often lie. You were honest and a total fool. You put your Islamic cards right on the table and made the world see what you have in your hands. Yes you embarrassed the Muslims but you were great for my cause. 

Mr. Zakaria, foul mouthing is your specialty while deflating the inflated egos is my expertise. Barbara J Stock told me about your super inflated ego and the fact that you are unable to admit error. I told her I will use this weakness of yours to my advantage. I did not have to. You defeated yourself on your own. You made a stupid mistake of attacking the Golden Rule, which has nothing to do with any belief system but is the most basic human principle and the underlying tenet of all the religions. Then your super inflated ego did not let you move on. You could have said: “Okay, you did not clarify this point well at first but now that you make this clear I also agree with you and in fact Muhammad was the champion of the Golden Rule… blah, blah”. But you did not have enough wits to pull yourself out of this hole. Instead you insisted on that foolish notion and handed me the victory in a platter.  

The entire Zakaria vs. Sina debate can be found here