Ali Sina's response to Dr. Sohail 

<   Back

2007/07/26

Dr. Sohail,  

I do not have enough time to keep responding to your unending questions.  Most of the questions you ask are already answered in my articles.  All you have to do is go through them. The titles will tell you what the article talks about.  

The question of God is irrelevant to the scope and mission of FFI.  Our goal is to prove that Muhammad was a psychopath cult leader.  Whether God exists or not is not the focus of our discussion.  Assuming you prove that there is a God who is the creator, does this prove that Muhammad was his prophet?  This is like the followers of David Koresh try to prove the existence of God when you question them about David Koresh.  We call that red herring and like all other Muslims' arguments is a fallacy.  

Now, as a matter of interest alone I have talked about this subject in an article entitled Chance or Intelligence. You can read it here.  

My existence is not meaningless because I gave it a meaning.  If we want to have a meaningful life it is our responsibility to give it a meaning. You may choose to become a doctor, a writer, a teacher to make your life meaningful. If you think that you are contributing to the betterment of the world, you have found a meaning for your life. It is your responsibility to give meaning to your life.  A life with no meaning is unbearable. I suppose animals do not pose this question because they do not have the capacity.  The problem is that some people, influenced by false beliefs, adopt meanings that transform the world into hell. 

I speak of hell in a figurative language.  This does not mean I believe in the Quranic hell. Hell, paradise, spirit, Armageddon, etc. are terms we have inherited from our ancient forefathers.  They convey the idea and there is no need to throw them away.  For example, to say my heart yearns is technically wrong. Everybody knows that heart has nothing to do with yearning. Yet it is an expression, handed to us by our ancestors.  It sounds awkward to say my brain yearns, or she has a tender brain, etc. I don’t think people misunderstand me when I express myself using familiar terms such as hell, paradise, angels, Satan or God.  If you are confused by such a trivial things how can you understand what I say.  

What good is there in eating when you are bond to become hungry again?  What good is there in planting a tree when you know it will die one day?  What good is there in building a house when for sure it will be destroyed one day?  Why bring a child to this world when we know he or she will eventually die? Nothing lasts for ever.  Even the universe will end.  All we can do is to prolong our existence.  A patient told his doctor in despair, but doc; you are only trying to buy time for me. I am going to die anyway. The doctor responded, “What did you think doctors are for?   That is all we can do - buy more time for our patients. We can't give you eternal life.”  We take care of ourselves to live a little longer.  We know that we are not going to live for ever.  Since we won’t be able to prolong our physical existence beyond certain limit, we try to leave a trace of ourselves -- a book, an invention, a tree, a thought or an act of goodness behind.  Any positive contribution you make to the world extends your existence.  Socrates, Buddha and Lau Zi are not dead.  They  live through what they left behind.  

Good people leave good traces and evil people leave evil traces. Jesus, Buddha, Archimedes, Copernicus and Einstein left traces that inspired mankind and made the world better.  They planted good trees that bear sweet fruits to this day.  Genghis Khan, Muhammad, Hitler, Khomeini and Saddam also left their traces.  The trees that they planted yielded bitter and poisonous fruits.

Nothing exists for ever. When you drop a stone in a pond, it creates ripples. If the impact is big, the ripples will reach far. If it is small the ripples will fade soon. All ripples and waves will eventually die, even if they are tsunamis.  Immortality is chimera.  However, you can leave a trace of yourself that can last for many decades or centuries, even millennia.    

Take the example of genes. Animals and humans strive to leave their genes through their offspring. However, with each generation their genes is diluted until eventually nothing of it is left.  Divide one by two and keep dividing it. Only after ten generations your genes in your descendants is reduced to less than 0.01%. Virtually nothing of your genes will survive after only 300 years.  

Nothing is permanent. The only constant is the law that everything will pass. Natural Laws are permanent, things are not.  

I did not understand your question because you posed it wrongly. You posed it wrongly because you did not understand the concept of being and non-being.  

I did not say that nothingness is immortal.  I said non-being is absolute and eternal.  Non-being is not synonymous to nothingness.  Non-being is everything.  It is the mother of all being.  What is non-being?  It is the Law governing the universe.  It is not an object, not a thing, it is the principle underlying everything.  

Let me explain this concept with another example. Mathematics is a principle.  All things exist in the framework of mathematics.   However mathematics does not have a physical existence.   It is not a being or a thing.  Two plus two is always four. Even if the universe did not exist two plus two would still be four.  It is possible to conceive nothingness, where the universe does not exist, but it is not possible to conceive that two plus two can be anything but four.  This is the Way, the Principle, the Dao.  The principle underlying the existence is self subsisting, unchanging, eternal and omni-present, but it is not a thing or a being. 

Either I did not explain myself adequately or you misunderstood me.  I never said, why be good if there is no afterlife?  This was the title of my article and the question that I posed to answer.  Yes, you need to be good to bring peace.  You can’t bring peace if you are evil.  If you are evil you will leave war and destruction behind.  If you raid, loot, rape, torture, assassinate and massacre, you can’t be an ambassador of peace.  That was the legacy of Muhammad.  How can such a man, who committed so much evil, bring peace?  That is why where Islam goes war and devastation ensues.   

Yes, actually my understanding of peace is very different from the Islamic peace.  When Muslims say peace they mean submission and subjugation.  Only when everyone submits to Islam, feeling himself subdued, and pays his tributes, the Islamic peace will be established. According to Islam all the non-Muslim countries of the world are dar al harb where Muslims are required to wage war until these lands fall under the domination of Islam and submit.  Then and only then they are called dar al salam.  

You Muslims have made a mockery of peace to the extent that for you it means something else.  On July 23, 2007, courtnewsuk.co.uk reported that a Tunisian immigrant beat a man to death with his bare hands and feet believing Allah was telling him how to bring about world peace.  Thirty years old Bearded Laidi Benomor, attacked six people as he went on the rampage in the Harlington near the Holiday Inn at Heathrow to bring world peace the Islamic way.  

The peace that I am talking about is when all the people of the world live freely protected by law.  No one subjugates anyone else and everyone enjoys equal rights.  A prerequisite of such a peace is that all countries become democratic.  That freedom of faith and expression is guaranteed.  And that a world federal government is established to safeguard the independence and sovereignty of all its member states.  In the peace that I envision no country needs to bear arms.  It would be the responsibility of the world federal government to secure the integrity of all its member states and to ensure that the governments of these countries are elected democratically and that the principles of equality and freedom are observed strictly.  

World federalism is the future of humankind.  It can’t be avoided because we can’t live in peace without it.  We won't need to spend trillions of dollars on "defense' when we can cheaply have a world body that would safeguard the integrity and sovereignty of our countries and would also make sure that all governments are democratic and the human rights of every individual is protected. However, world federalism can’t be established until all its member nations are democratic.  Democracy cannot be established without freedom of thought and equality of rights for all the individuals.  All these cannot happen with Islam.  Islam is against freedom of thought, it is against freedom of faith, and it is against equality.  In Islamic countries democracy cannot take root because equality and freedom do not exist.  In Islam the believers are superior to non-believers and men are superior to women.  Islam is anti democratic par excellence.    

How do I want to be an instrument of peace?  By eliminating the biggest obstacle in the way of peace!  When Islam is eliminated, humanity will be light years closer to world peace.  With each person that I help to leave Islam, I am contributing to world peace.  That is why my life is meaningful.  If you choose the same goal in your life, you'll feel the same way.  The loftier is your goal the more meaningful is your life.  I see no goal greater than bringing peace to the world --  the real peace, not the "Islamic peace." Therefore I see no goal greater than getting rid of Islam and freeing Muslims from the claws of this doctrine of hate and stupidity.  I hope many others, whether ex-Muslims or non-Muslims, will do the same.  This will give meaning to your life.  Do whatever you can. As you do more, you'll see more doors are opening and you'll see that the possibilities are endless.  I have chosen this as the goal of my life and I have never felt more fulfilled and happier.  I invite everyone to do the same. In this day there is no goal loftier than eradicating Islam. 

I already gave the answer. The answer is the Golden Rule. It makes no difference whether you are a Satanist, a Muslim, a religious person or an atheist. Do not do to others what you would not like yourself, can be understood by everyone. Any sane person can understand this principle. If you don’t like to be abused, don’t abuse others. If you don’t like to be hurt, don’t hurt others. If you don’t like your human rights violated, do not violate the rights of others. If you like to be treated with respect, treat others with respect.  Why this simple principle is so difficult for Muslims to understand?  Why Muslims cannot adhere to this rule where they have the upper hand?   

I know what you are getting at. As a Muslims you have no understanding of the Golden Rule. You understand good and evil in terms of halal and haram, wanton concepts that have no bearings on the Golden Rule, logics or commonsense. Therefore, if Muhammad said it is okay to marry a six year old child, then that is good, but if he said it is not okay for a woman to show her hair, then that is bad. Raiding non-Muslims, pillaging them, and raping their wives, is good because Muhammad said it and did it, but befriending them, trusting them and becoming their allies is bad because Muhammad prohibited that.   

If you are a Muslim or a neo-Nazi your definition of good does not coincide with the Golden Rule.  For example Islam says that Muslims must wage war in all the countries of the world until only Allah is worshipped. Is this good?  Imagine in a country where Muslims are the minority, and the majority decide to do to Muslims what Muhammad said Muslims should do to non-Muslims. Would Muslims like that?   

Let us read some of the verses of the Qur'an switching the words believers and unbelievers to determine whether the Qur'an is a good book or an evil book:  

We will cast terror into the hearts of Muslims. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. 8:12
Let not the non-Muslims take for friends or helpers the Muslims. 3:28,
Rouse the non-Muslims to the fight against Muslims. 8:65,
Then fight and slay the Muslims wherever ye find them, 9:5,
Fight the Muslims, and God will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame. 9:14,
O ye the non-Muslims take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love Islam.9:23,
O ye the non-Muslims! Truly the Muslims are unclean. 9:28,
O ye non-Muslims! fight the Muslims who gird you about, and let them find harshness in you. 9:123,
Therefore, when you meet the Muslims, smite at their necks; at length. 47:4,  

As you can see, they do not sound very good. Therefore according to the Golden Rule these teachings are evil. The Qur'an is full of them.  

Something evil is evil, no matter who says it.  If it is wrong for me to kill you and rape your wife because you do not agree with my belief, then it is also wrong for you to do the same.  If imposing my faith on you by force is not something you like then you should not impose yours on me.  

Good and evil are independent moral values.  Islam is a moral relativistic doctrine.  For Muslims good and evil are not self explanatory and defined concepts.  They only make sense in the context that they apply.  Is stealing evil?  All the people of the world think it is.  For Muslims the answer is not clear cut.  It depends on who is stealing whom.  If a non-Muslim steals from a Muslim it is the biggest crime that has to be punished in the most sever way, including live dismemberment of the thief, as per examples set by Muhammad.  If the thief and the victim are both Muslims then it is a crime that must be punished by chopping the hand of the thief.  But if the thief is a Muslim stealing from a non-Muslim in the name of Islam and sanctioned by a fatwa, a decree from an imam, then it is Jihad and it is the most meritorious act which will be rewarded in the afterlife.  This situational ethic is characteristic of Muslims and other fascistic doctrines such as Aryan Nation and Creativity Movement.  Even Satanists, who believe in the ethic of reciprocity and an eye for an eye, do not subscribe to this much evil that Muslims and White supremacists do.  

It is hard to accept that a faith believed and practiced by a billion people could be as evil as Creativity Movement.  And yet this is a reality that we must accept sooner or later.  The Qur'an is plain and clear when it comes to hate, discrimination and violence.  As a matter of fact, Islam is eviler than the Creativity Movement, because the latter is only hate based but claims to be non-violent.  Islam is not only hate based, it also advocates violence.  

The Golden Rule is self explanatory.  Its validity does not require the seal of authority of anyone.  People of all races and cultures have discovered it on their own, preached it and have included it in their moral and ethical codes.  

It is disturbing to see that Muslims are unable to grasp something so elemental that you have to ask whether the person who recommended the Golden Rule was authoritative. Your question makes as much sense as asking who was the first person to suggest  2+2 = 4?  Did he have enough authority to decide whether it is true or not?  Questions such as this tip off distorted minds that are bereft of conscience and humanity.  The fact that two plus two equal four is self evident.  We do not need an authority to testify to it for us to believe in it.  Likewise, the Golden Rule is also self evident.  Every sane person understands it.  Muslims are the only people who don’t.  That is why they are dangerous.  Those who understand the Golden Rule and subscribe to it cannot accept the Qur'an and are leaving Islam.  As the truth about the evilness of Islam becomes widely known, more and more people will start leaving this cult. The end of Islam is imminent. 

I did not say I do not trust other sources.  I said, I can only explain my own thoughts.  I quote anyone as a reference, but do not recognize anyone as absolute authority the way you think of Muhammad.  I try to learn from others, but only accept the part of their teachings that make sense to me and reject what it does not.  I submit to one authority alone and that is my own intelligence.  As limited and as imperfect as our intelligence is, it is the only reliable authority that we have.  If people stopped following "authorities" and followed their own intelligence, much of the wars and bloodsheds would end and the unity of mankind would be attained. We fight because we believe in ideologies invented by others blindly and uncritically. Once we stop believing and start doubting and thinking, we will have world peace.    

Asking who coined the Golden Rule makes as much sense as asking who invented boiled egg.  This principle is understood by everyone since humans came to age.  It has been repeated by sages of different cultures in different languages.  The essence of all those statements is the same.  This is something that Islam lacks. Golden Rule is another term for fairness.  Islam does not teach fairness.  The unbelievers are not treated fairly.  Equality and freedom of belief are the essence of fairness. 

As I said, the question whether God exists or not is not of interest to FFI.  With or without God Islam is false.  Granted that God exists, as YOU say, and granted that he is wise as YOU say, based on YOUR claims, this God cannot send a pervert man such as Muhammad as a prophet.  I am amazed that you ask such trifling questions, doctor.

Okay, let us accept your explanation and say my assumption was wrong.  However, you did not explain what you or Dr. Naik want to tell me to my face that you cannot put it in writing. Why so much insistence in a face to face meeting when all you have to do is write an few pages to refute me ? 

Okay. Let us agree with your explanation. I answered you that all you have to do is disprove one of my charges. Are you going to do that or even that is impossible?

There is a big difference. In the past all those who criticized Islam were caught and put to death and their books were destroyed.  All we know is that some people had criticized Islam and were punished for that.  The average Muslims never had the chance to hear those criticisms.  Today, we have the Internet.  This makes a world of difference.  Now we can prove the fallacy of Islam and our articles are read across the globe instantaneously.  No one can silence us or stop our movement.  First of all our movement does not hinge on one person or one site.  It is a worldwide movement comprising millions of people, and our number is rapidly growing.  FFI is like a café, where the soldiers gather to chat and exchange information.  It is not the only café.  More Internet sites are popping up in all languages and all of them carry the same message that Islam is evil.  This knowledge is spreading fast and with that the days of Islam are shortening.  This lie is finally going to be defeated with truth. Never in history, could such movement take place.  The mullahs are caught unprepared for this mass exodus.  Their desperation to indoctrinate people more is actually firing back and many moderate Muslims are seeing the real face of Islam and realizing that this is not what they want to believe.  There is nothing they can do to stop us. Assuming they kill me, that news will bring millions of people to FFI and it hastens the death of Islam.  Hundreds of millions of people came to see Islam is dangerous when Theo Van Gogh was assassinated.  If you assassinate me those people will seek my articles and this means good bye to Islam.  I am a menace to Islam dead of alive.   

There is only one way to save Islam and that is to prove me wrong.  Leave Dr. Naik alone.  That showman is not going to risk his reputation by debating with me.  He is not a fool and knows his limitations.  He is good only in front of the cameras where he can impress his foolhardy audience with his oratory skills.  Oratory skill is not scholarship.  It is an art, like singing, dancing or showmanship.  Find a real scholar who is confident of his knowledge and ask him to refute me.  Imagine the great service you will be rendering to Islam if someone can prove me wrong.  Also keep in mind that every scholar who declines to refute my accusations is hammering a new nail in the coffin of Islam. 

I am planning to start a campaign of inviting hundreds of renowned scholars of Islam to debate with me. Of course they will not accept.  They may write back with an insult,  like Sheikh Palazzi did, or they may ignore me, like Idris Tawfiq did. This will be a victory for our cause. Then I will make a list of these people with their email addresses so everyone can see.  I want to prove to Muslims that Islam is nothing but a lie.  If there was any truth to it, one person would have been able to disprove me. 

Muir was not a critic of Islam but a historian who despite his vast knowledge of Islam did not fully understand the psychology of Muhammad.  At times he praised that fiend for his virtues and at other times he thought Muhammad was lying.  The fact is that Muhammad was bereft of any virtue and therefore unworthy of praise and because of his mental disorder, he was convinced of his claim and therefore it is not exactly true that he was lying when he made his claim. He lied a lot, fabricating verses and justifying his evil deeds, nonetheless, he was convinced of his mission and felt justified to lie.  

As for Mr. Rushdie, he is a novelist, not a critic of Islam. Apart from a few articles that he has written on the subject of Islam his books are not about Islam.  There have been many great scholars who refuted Islam but their books were mostly destroyed and they themselves were either jailed or killed.

This movement has nothing to do with me.  I am only one among millions.  This is the first time in history that a large number of scholars and ordinary Muslims are probing Islam and highlighting its fallacies in such a large scale.  The criticisms of Islam that you heard in the past were nothing compared to what you hear today.  We are not talking of one individual but an army of writers.  If the critics of the past can be likened to isolated lamps in the darkness of the night, what is happening today is the break of the dawn.  The darkness of Islam will not survive the onslaught of this much light.

Islam is not truth but sheer lies.  If it was true, at least someone could have refuted my charges against Muhammad.  Light is not afraid of darkness and truth is not troubled by lies.  If Islam is true why Muslim scholar are so afraid of debate?  Why this site is blocked in Saudi Arabia, Iran and many other Islamic countries?  The fact that the world is not flat can be proven.  Where is the proof that Islam is from God?  

The crusaders did not try to wipe out Islam but to defeat Muslims.  That is not what we intend to do.  We are dynamiting the very foundation of Islam to set its believers free and make THEM victorious.  Nothing like this has been attempted before.  

We are going to win this war.  If this were not the case, you would not be willing to spend a million dollars to arrange "a meeting" between Dr. Naik and me.  If you are not afraid of us, why bother?  Leave us alone.  Let Allah protect his religion.  If he is God, it should be easy for him. Why does he need you? 

Actually you will see the demise of Islam much sooner than that.  By that date, nothing of Islam will be left.

May God help you FIND the right path!  Do not ask for increased faith, ask for understanding and enlightenment.  The problem of mankind is not lack of faith, it is lack of enlightenment. Faith means accepting a postulate without evidence. Faith is our problem not our solution. The world in such a mess because most people are faithheaded. It's time to give reason a chance.   

You can bank on that.   

Ali Sina 

<   Back