Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina
Part IV Page 28
Back
<
|
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.
|
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.
‘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?
|
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?
You
say I should be ashamed for calling my relative stupid. I said I was obliged to perform the stupid prayer to
show my deference for him. He is like an uncle to me and commands
my respect. You are certainly a pathetic liar.
The only person who must be ashamed is you who broke his word and
divulged the content of an email that we both agreed would be off the record.
You are a man that can’t be trusted. You lie and you break your
promises. You are a true follower of Muhammad and you emulate him in every
respect including treason.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
All the links work perfectly. Once you
go to index page you can go to any page directly.
|
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”.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
C'mon now Mr. Zakaris…! We know why
you don’t want the debate be publicized. Tell me why when you wrote for
Islamic sites attacking the freethinkers and me you did not give a link to
our debate? Now if I am this bad as you say, you should be celebrating and
advertising our debate. Are you trying to save my image? Thank you! But
that is not needed. Please put a link to our debate in your essays and let
everyone see what a great mind you are.
|
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.
|
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?
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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?
|
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!
|
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.
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.
|
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.
To
be continued……
Yamin
Zakaria
London
,
UK
|
Oh really???
You mean you have
something to say?
I have to confess to you
Mr. Zakaria that I enjoyed this debate quite a lot. Now I can understand
how my freethinker cat feels when he catches a mouse and plays with it
without killing it.
You did not win the
$50,000 dollars reward, but you provided a lot of entertainment for our
readers. Please give me your address and I’ll send you a few dollars so
you can take your wife to a dinner and be my guest. You were such a great
sport and I would like to send to you my token of appreciation.
Back
<
Back to Index
|
