What Do You Think?

[Allegracrown]

This is a transcript of a somewhat old online debate between Javed Ahmad Ghamidi and Khalid Zaheer vs. Ali Sina

The PDF file might be easier to read, but I know a lot of people are uncomfortable downloading files from unknown locations so I am going to post it here.
The source pdf file I am using I downloaded from:
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/downloads/probing-islam.pdf

http://faithfreedom.org

Regardless of if one agrees or disagrees with the statements made there are a lot of interesting points to think about made by both sides.

I am going to try to split the file up into logical sections but there are several sections I know will not copy, for instance where they use actual Arabic text and some of the quote formatting. But I think it will still be readable. At least enough to get an idea of the discussion and decide to down load the pdf or not.

I hope everyone enjoys and learns a little something from this discussion.

[Allegracrown]

PROBING

ISLAM

Javed Ahmad Ghamidi and Khalid Zaheer vs. Ali Sina


© 2007 Permission is granted to translate, publish and distribute this book by any means, except for financial gain.

The file is an extensive and comprehensive debate between Mr. Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, one of the world’s top Islamic scholars from Pakistan and Ali Sina, one of the leading critic of Islam and the founder of faithfreedom.org.

This debate was arranged when someone invited Mr. Ghamidi to respond to Ali Sina’s criticisms of Islam. Mr. Ghamidi entered into this debate through his student, Dr. Khalid Zaheer.

An invitation to debate

From: Free Inquirer <[email protected]>

[Allegracrown]

Invitation to a Debate
Sep 4, 2006
During the recent years Islam has become the target of sever criticism and vilification not just by members of other religions but by a growing number of ex-Muslims. The Internet has allowed these critics to come out and speak their minds at an alarming rate. These criticisms have had devastating effect on the minds of the Muslim youths who unable to answer the critics on their own are bewildered that the Islamic scholars also have not come forth with satisfactory answers.
In the interest of unraveling the truth about Islam and clearing the minds of the young Muslims I am formally inviting the Islamic critic Ali Sina and the modern Pakistani 'state appointed' Islamic Scholar Javed Ahmed Ghamidi to engage in a debate on Islam.

ALI SINA
Ali Sina is probably one of the most eminent critics of Islam, an ex-Muslim who renounced Islam after reading the Quran. Ali Sina has managed to create a movement against Islam and has grouped together a group of ex-Muslims who share his opinions on Islam. He has challenged Islamic scholars to disprove the fallacies that he has identified in the Quran and Hadith.

JAVED AHMAD GHAMIDI
Javed Ahmad Ghamidi is a respected Islamic Scholar who has been recently appointed by the Pakistani Government to help facilitate the government in 'modern' interpretation of Islam and to do Ijtehad for the development of a cosmopolitan modern Islamic Society. Javed Ghamidi has been under the tutelage of Amin Ehsan Islahi and idealizes the writings of his teacher with utmost reverence. Initially expelled from Jamaat e Islami due to some difference with the party's founder Maududi, Ghamidi has managed to develop a restricted following of his own. He has been actively involved in the government's initiative to revamp and restructure Islamic Ordinances in Pakistan like Hudood Ordinance and Zina Ordinance. He is also the president of the Al Mawrid Institute based in Lahore. Javed Ghamidi also enjoys a good company of his students who teach in various places in Pakistan. Most notable are Moiz Amjad, Asif Iftikhar, Khalid Zaheer & others...Mr. Ghamidi operates through a network of Danish Saras across Pakistan and has some major Islamic Sites to his credit. He also publishes various magazines in Urdu and English like Ishraq and Renaissance.

[Allegracrown]

The Challenge to a Debate

This is an invitation to Ali Sina and Javed Ahmed Ghamidi to debate on the validity of claims made by Islam and whether Islam is a true religion.

Both parties are invited to provide answers to each other's arguments.
. • Both sides have to accept this invitation
. • The debate will be conducted over emails and will be published on the Faith Freedom International Website for the benefit of common public.
. • The points on which the debate shall be done will be agreed upon first by the two parties to ensure that the core issue is addressed properly. However it is preferable that Ali Sina's arguments be thoroughly studied on http://www.faithfreedom.org /challenge.htm to restrict the debate only to main points of disagreement.
. • Complete references should be given by both parties to support their arguments for the benefit of the reader
. • Any other points on which both sides would like to agree upon


The debate is subjected to acceptance on both sides. Failure of acceptance of the debate on any one side shall be deemed as a failure to provide a logical and truthful response to support one's ideas / ideology

Dear Free Enquirer
I published your invitation to announce my acceptance to debate with Mr. Javed Ahmad Ghamidi. It would be an honor to discus important points of disagreement on Islam with such an eminent scholar. Please inform Mr. Ghamidi that I look forward to meet him virtually.
I have given countless proofs that Islam is not a true religion. Mr. Ghamidi is invited to disprove any of my claims, or if he prefers, he could give one single irrefutable proof that Islam is indeed a true religion sent by God.
In either case, should Mr. Ghamidi disprove any of my charges against Muhammad and Islam or provide a single irrefutable proof that Islam is from God, I promise to publicly acknowledge that I have been mistaken and remove this site permanently. Furthermore I am offering $50,000 US dollars reward to anyone who can show Islam is a true religion or at least my charges against Muhammad are unfounded.
Greetings
Ali Sina

I am glad to inform the dear readers of FFI that Mr. Ghamidi has expressed his readiness to discuss Islam with me. I would like to thank Free Inquirer for making this debate possible and for inviting Mr. Ghamidi and myself to take part in this informative and educational debate. I trust this would be a very fruitful discussion. I read some of Mr. Ghamidi's articles and he has made a very positive impression on me. He is one of Pakistan's most respected scholars and I am honored that despite his busy schedule, he has accepted this invitation. Mr. Ghamidi is a man of peace and a moderate Muslim. Here is the letter of acceptance that I received from his office
Ali Sina.
From: "khalid zaheer" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Mr Ghamidi's Response Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006

Dear Free Inquirer
Thank you very much for taking interest in arranging a dialogue between Mr. Ghamidi and Mr Ali Sina.
First of all, we would like you to correct this fact: Mr Javed Ahmad Ghamidi has not been appointed by the Government of Pakistan to help it in interpreting Islam in a modern way. Mr. Ghamidi was asked by the President of Pakistan to be a member of the Council of Islamic Ideology, which is a constitutional body that suggests responses to various issues confronting the people of Pakistan in the interpretation of the message of Islam. He accepted that offer in the spirit of informing the rulers about what he thinks is the right understanding of Islam quite the same way as he has been informing people about it in the last 35 years.

We welcome the initiative you have taken to enable Mr. Ali Sina to ask Mr. Ghamidi questions about of Islam that create doubts in his mind about the truthfulness of the claim that it is a message from God. Mr. Ghamidi has been performing this task for the last three-and-a-half decades and there is no reason why we wouldn't want to share our research with a person like Mr. Sina. However, what he doesn't want to do is to engage in a polemic which results in a senseless competition of rhetoric wherein the contestants are in reality playing a game in the garb of an academic debate. The difference between a polemic and a serious academic exchange is that while the one is a fiercely contested debate with a clear objective to not understand and accept what is true but to defeat the opposing party, while the other engages both parties in a serious exchange of views with a view to know and acknowledge what the truth is. The participants are close-minded in the case of the former and open to truth in the case of the latter. Mr. Ghamidi hates the former and welcomes the latter.

Finally, before starting this process, we would like Mr. Sina to have a look at the attached pages which outline the basic approach Ghamidi Sb follows in forming his religious opinions. It is important that the sources of information he thinks are original for Islamic learning and therefore are the basis of his research should first be understood to preclude any possibility that Mr. Sina demands from him explanation of information and concepts that Mr. Ghamidi thinks do not belong to the original message of Islam.

After Mr. Sina has gone through this message along with the attached outline of Mr. Ghamidi's approach to understanding the message of Islam, we would welcome suggestions from your side to convert this opportunity into a meaningful dialogue.

Khalid Zaheer
(This message has been written in consultation with Mr Ghamidi.)
http://www.khalidzaheer.com/about.html

Dr Khalid Zaheer is an associate professor of Islamic Studies and Ethics at Lahore University of Management Science (LUMS). He has a teaching experience of more than 16 years. Prior to joining LUMS, he taught at IBA and Punjab University for 12 years as a permanent faculty member. He has also taught at various other educational institutions in Lahore. Dr. Zaheer delivers lectures in Pakistan Administrative Staff College, National Institute of Public Administration, Pakistan Audit and Accounts Training Institute, and Lahore School of Economics. Dr Zaheer's PhD dissertation focused on Interest-Free Banking. His areas of interest are Islamic banking and application of Islamic principles in contemporary business environment. He is a member of the task force constituted by the Ministry of Finance to propose measures to convert government domestic borrowing into project-related financing according to Shariah injunctions. He is also a member of the Board of Management of the Pakistan Baitul Mal. He regularly contributes articles to the monthly Renaissance, a leading religious English journal of the country. Dr. Zaheer has appeared in many television programs and has also given sermons at mosques.

[Allegracrown]

Part I

Ali Sina's response:
2006/09/16

Dear Mr. Khalid Zaheer:
I am glad and honored that Mr. Javed Ahmad Ghamidi has accepted the invitation of Free Inquirer to debate with me. I am also pleased that you have agreed to share your knowledge with us and respond to my questions. Unfortunately most Muslim scholars are not as open-minded as your good self and Mr. Ghamidi. They seem to have boycotted me and prefer to ignore me. The truth is that the questions that I have raised are making the public - both Muslim and non-Muslim - talk. The reluctance of Muslim scholars to respond to my questions reflects poorly on them and also on Islam. Therefore it is heartening to find a real scholar who is confident enough to not shirk from confronting a "renegade" apostate like yours truly.
You also emphasized on the futility of engaging in "a polemic which results in a senseless competition of rhetoric wherein the contestants are in reality playing a game in the garb of an academic debate." I cannot agree more and let me add that I admire your positive attitude and your commitment to the truth. This is indeed a rare quality and it speaks volumes about your, and Mr. Ghamidi's integrity as true scholars. Our goal, as you stated, should be to unravel the truth and not to childishly try to win the argument at any cost. Since this debate/dialogue will be posted on the Internet for everyone to see, I am sure our readers do not expect anything less from either one of us. An immature behavior would be tantamount to shooting ourselves in the foot.
When the objective is to find the truth, talking about "defeating the other party" is puerile. How can one be defeated when at the end of the debate truth triumphs and we all learn something? The triumph of the truth means victory for everyone. The one who learns more is the bigger winner and it is in this sense alone that I hope to be a winner. Only those who have inflated egos will feel defeated once proven wrong. I was born ignorant and still I am to a great extent. I learned everything I know from others. I am not ashamed for being ignorant. It is haughtiness, condescendence and obstinacy that are shameful. You know better than me that ego acts as a veil to enlightenment and understanding.
To know that you don't know is the foundation of all wisdom. Willing to doubt what you know is the virtue of the sage. Haughtiness and arrogance are the traits of the fool.
Since we both are after the truth, I am sure this discussion will a win/win for both of us and also for our readers.
I read the page you sent me as attachment and I fully agree with its content. Let me assure you that I am not going to present any argument that is not in the Quran, the Sahih Hadith (Bukhari, Muslim, Sunan Abu-Dawud) and the Sira (Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Ibn Sa'd) as evidence. I may quote Muslims scholars to make an example but our discussion will be only on the above-mentioned sources.

Let us begin without further ado.
I will address now Mr. Ghamidi. I will start with less contentious subjects and move on to more difficult ones. My first question is about intercession.
Dear Mr. Ghamidi; In your book Al Bayan you have made it clear that intercession, as believed by many Muslims, is a myth. You quoted the following verses of the Quran to back up your claim:
"[A reward] from the Lord of the heavens and the earth and all that lies between them; the most Gracious - there is no one who has the authority to speak on His behalf. On the Day when Gabriel and the angels will stand arrayed [before Him]. [The Day] when only they will speak whom the most Gracious allows and who speak the truth."
(78:37-38)
In the footnote you wrote the following explanation: "This and the next two verses strongly negate the philosophy of mediation and intercession. The angels whom the polytheists believe to be their intercessors will themselves respectfully stand before the Almighty on the Day of Judgement. No one will have the position to speak on behalf of the Almighty. Only they will speak whom the Almighty permits and they too will not be able to utter anything false." 1
You also quoted verse 2:48:
1 http://www.renaissance.com.pk/seocqur97.html
And guard yourselves against the day when no soul shall be of use to another in anyway and no intercession shall be accepted and no compensation be taken from it and nor will people be helped.
Then you commented: "There is a negation of three things in this verse: intercession, compensation and help. However, this is just the negation of the outcome: actually the negation is of the existence of someone who can intercede, compensate or help. In other words, what is implied is that on that day there will be no intercession, compensation and help because there will be no person who would do these." 2
This sounds reasonable to me. In fact there are many verses in the Quran that confirm what you said. Here are a few:
O children of Israel, call to mind My favor which I bestowed on you and that I made you excel the nations. And be on your guard against a day when NO SOUL shall avail ANOTHER in the least neither shall any compensation be accepted from it, nor shall intercession profit it, nor shall they be helped.
(2:122-123)
O you who believe! Spend out of what We have given you before the day comes in which there is no bargaining, neither any friendship nor intercession. (2:254)
Whosoever works evil, will be requited accordingly. Nor will he find, besides God, any protector or helper. (4:123)
And warn with it those who fear that they shall be gathered to their Lord - there is no guardian for them, nor any intercessor besides Him - that they may guard (against evil).
(6:51)
Leave alone those who take their religion to be mere play and amusement, and are deceived by the life of this world. But proclaim (to them) this (truth): that every soul delivers itself to ruin by its own acts: it will find for itself no protector or intercessor except Allah: if it offered every ransom, (or
2 http://www.renaissance.com.pk/MayResearCmp2y4.html
reparation), none will be accepted: such is (the end of) those who deliver themselves to ruin by their own acts. (6:70)
Allah it is Who created the heavens and the earth, and that which is between them, in six Days. Then He mounted the Throne. Ye have not, beside Him, a protecting friend or mediator. Will ye not then remember? (32:4) 3
The fact that Muhammad has no power to save anyone from Hellfire is clearly stated in the verse: (39:19)
Is he on whom the word of doom is fulfilled (to be helped), and canst thou (O Muhammad) rescue him who is in the Fire? (Pickthal)
This point seems to be clear enough! Or is it?
Amazingly, despite all these verses, many Muslims believe that Muhammad has the power to intercede for them in front of Allah and save them from the Fire on the Day of Judgment. Ukasha Al-Tayyibi has written a book to prove this very point. He writes:
"On the Day of Judgment Prophet Muhammad (SAW) will be the only prophet who will be granted permission to intercede to save mankind from the terrors of awaiting judgment on the Day of Rising.
[We] must not fail to understand that matters which are great and insignificant, large or small, are preordained confirmed in the knowledge of Allah. Surely Allah mighty has decreed and determined the states of the [in]tercessor, and for whom he intercedes.
Or has taken an analytical approach to prove that [int]ercession can only be granted by Allah's permission, [t]hat Prophet Muhammad (SAW) will intercede for mankind at five various levels, i.e. from the crossing of the Sirat to the height of peoples rank within the garden of paradise.
Each chapter has been carefully researched and examined according to the Quran and Hadith and by reading this book Muslims and non-Muslims alike will
3 See also: 39:43-44, 82:18-19, 17:56-57
have a greater and clearer understanding on the meaning of intercession and what it entails." 4
As you see, Ukasha Al-Tayyibi claims that his book is based on the Quran and Hadith. I have not read his book but I have found many Quranic verses as well as Hadiths that ratify his claim. I will quote a few and I am sure you'll find more proofs in his book.

The Quran:
Who is there can intercede in His [Allah's] presence except as He permitteth? (2:255)
This verse seems to imply that there is at least one person who can intercede with Allah. Let us see if there are more verses confirming this point.

No intercessor (can plead with Him) except after His leave (hath been obtained). (10:3)
On the day when We shall gather the righteous unto the Beneficent, a goodly company. And drive the guilty unto hell, a weary herd, they will have no power of intercession, save him who hath made a covenant with his Lord. 19:85-87

On that Day shall no intercession avail except for those for whom permission has been granted by (Allah) Most Gracious and whose word is acceptable to Him. (20:109)
And We [1st person plural] did not send before you any messenger but We revealed to him that there is no god but Me, [1st person singular] therefore serve Me. And they say: The Beneficent Allah has taken to Himself a son. Glory be to Him.[3rd person singular] Nay! they are honored servants They do not precede Him in speech and (only) according to His commandment do they act. He knows what is before them and what is behind them, and they do not intercede except for him whom He approves and for fear of Him they tremble. And whoever of them should say: Surely I am a god
4 http://www.simplyislam.com/iteminfo.asp?Item=52473
besides Him, such a one do We recompense with hell; thus do, We recompense the unjust. (21:25-29)
No intercession can avail in His Presence, except for those for whom He has granted permission. So far (is this the case) that, when terror is removed from their hearts (at the Day of Judgment, then) will they say, 'what is it that your Lord commanded?' they will say, 'That which is true and just; and He is the Most High Most Great'. (34:23) 5
Verses 43:86 and 53:26 also tell us that no one can intercede with Allah except those whom Allah pleases.
In the above verses we get the confirmation that someone is capable to intercede with Allah.
I also highlighted the pronouns. We see sometimes Allah refers to himself in third person singular, (He) then shifts to first person plural (We) and sometimes to first person singular (I and Me). Will you please explain this unorthodox way of speech? It appears that these are Muhammad's Freudian slips of tongue. It is as if the Prophet keeps forgetting that the Quran is supposed to be the word of Allah and Allah should not allude to himself in 3rd person. We can find this error in the entire Quran. I hope you will give some explanation to this conundrum as well. Is the Quran really the word of God or that of the illiterate Muhammad?
Anyway, let us continue with our main discussion. The following verses are interesting because Muhammad actually starts interceding with Allah for his followers right away even before the Judgment Day.
Those who sustain the Throne (of Allah) and those around it sing Glory and Praise to their Lord; believe in Him; and implore forgiveness for those who believe: "Our Lord! Thy Reach is over all things, in Mercy and Knowledge. Forgive, then, [Now this is clearly Muhammad supplicating to Allah] those who turn in Repentance, and follow Thy Path; and preserve them from the Penalty of the Blazing Fire! And grant, our Lord! that they enter the Gardens of Eternity, which Thou hast promised to them, and to the righteous among their fathers, their wives, and their posterity! For
5 see also 2:254 - 255
Thou art, the Exalted in Might, Full of Wisdom. And preserve them from (all) ills; and any whom Thou dost preserve from ills that Day,- on them wilt Thou have bestowed Mercy indeed: and that will be truly (for them) the highest Achievement." 40:7-9.
These verses surly can't be the words of Allah. If they are the words of Allah, whom is Allah supplicating to? If they are the words of Muhammad, a) why they are in the Quran, and b) don't they contradict 2:48, 2:122-123, 2:254, 4:123, 6:5, 6:70, 39:43-44, 82:18-19, 17:56-57 discussed above?

The Hadith
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: The Prophet said, "A man keeps on asking others for something till he comes on the Day of Resurrection without any piece of flesh on his face." The Prophet added, "On the Day of Resurrection, the Sun will come near (to, the people) to such an extent that the sweat will reach up to the middle of the ears, so, when all the people are in that state, they will ask Adam for help, and then Moses, and then Muhammad (p.b.u.h)." The sub-narrator added "Muhammad will intercede with Allah to judge amongst the people. He will proceed on till he will hold the ring of the door (of Paradise)
and then Allah will exalt him to Maqam Mahmud (the privilege of intercession, etc.). And all the people of the gathering will send their praises to Allah. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 24, Number 553)
This Hadith sounds absurd. The sun coming down to scorch people and they sweat so much to get drowned in their own sweat is surly an art work of imaginative power. But that is not my point. The point I want to make is that this Hadith also states that someone very special has the power to intercede with Allah and make him revise his plans. I wonder who that person might be! Let us find out.
The Prophet added, "Then the prophets and Angels and the believers will intercede, and (last of all) the Almighty (Allah) will say, 'Now remains My Intercession.' He will then hold a handful of the Fire from which He will take out some people whose bodies have been burnt, and they will be thrown into a river at the entrance of Paradise, called the water of life ...6
This hadith makes one to think that Allah is interceding himself. Isn't that an absurdity? Unless Allah has some sort of mental disorder such as schizophrenia, making him talk to himself, pleading with himself to do what he wants to do, the above hadith makes no sense at all. Now, let us see who else beside Allah is given the power of intercession.
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "For every Prophet there is one invocation which is definitely fulfilled by Allah, and I wish, if Allah will, to keep my that (special) invocation as to be the intercession for my followers on the Day of Resurrection."7
Wait a minute! Here Muhammad is wishing to become the intercessor for his followers. But didn't you say that no one can intercede with Allah and that his decisions are irreversible? Oh well, I wish to become a billionaire. There is nothing wrong in wishful thinking. After all you think Islam can be a moderate religion. Isn't that a wishful thinking? It does not mean all the wishes are going to be fulfilled. But it looks like Muhammad thought that his wish is already fulfilled. See the following hadith:
Narrated Ma'bad bin Hilal Al'Anzi: We, i.e., some people from Basra gathered and went to Anas bin Malik, and we went in company with Thabit Al-Bunnani so that he might ask him about the Hadith of Intercession on our behalf. Behold, Anas was in his palace, and our arrival coincided with his Duha prayer. We asked permission to enter and he admitted us while he was sitting on his bed. We said to Thabit, "Do not ask him about anything else first but the Hadith of Intercession." He said, "O Abu Hamza! There are your brethren from Basra coming to ask you about the Hadith of Intercession." Anas then said, "Muhammad talked to us saying, 'On the Day of Resurrection the people will surge with each other like waves, and then they will come to Adam and say, 'Please intercede for us with your Lord.' He will say, 'I am not fit for that but you'd better go to Abraham as he is the Khalil of the Beneficent.' They will go to Abraham and he will say, 'I am not fit for that, but you'd better go to Moses as
6 Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 532s 7 Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 566
he is the one to whom Allah spoke directly.' So they will go to Moses and he will say, 'I am not fit for that, but you'd better go to Jesus as he is a soul created by Allah and His Word.' (Be: And it was) they will go to Jesus and he will say, 'I am not fit for that, but you'd better go to Muhammad.'
They would come to me and I would say, 'I am for that.' Then I will ask for my Lord's permission, and it will be given, and then He will inspire me to praise Him with such praises as I do not know now. So I will praise Him with those praises and will fall down, prostrate before Him. Then it will be said, 'O Muhammad, raise your head and speak, for you will be listened to; and ask, for your will be granted (your request); and intercede, for your intercession will be accepted.' I will say, 'O Lord, my followers! My followers!' And then it will be said, 'Go and take out of Hell (Fire) all those who have faith in their hearts, equal to the weight of a barley grain.' I will go and do so and return to praise Him with the same praises, and fall down (prostrate) before Him. Then it will be said, 'O Muhammad, raise your head and speak, for you will be listened to, and ask, for you will be granted (your request); and intercede, for your intercession will be accepted.' I will say, 'O Lord, my followers! My followers!' It will be said, 'Go and take out of it all those who have faith in their hearts equal to the weight of a small ant or a mustard seed.' I will go and do so and return to praise Him with the same praises, and fall down in prostration before Him. It will be said, 'O, Muhammad, raise your head and speak, for you will be listened to, and ask, for you will be granted (your request); and intercede, for your intercession will be accepted.' I will say, 'O Lord, my followers!' Then He will say, 'Go and take out (all those) in whose hearts there is faith even to the lightest, lightest mustard seed. (Take them) out of the Fire.' I will go and do so."
When we left Anas, I said to some of my companions, "Let's pass by Al-Hasan who is hiding himself in the house of Abi Khalifa and request him to tell us what Anas bin Malik has told us." So we went to him and we greeted him and he admitted us. We said to him, "O Abu Said! We came to you from your brother Anas Bin Malik and he related to us a Hadith about the intercession the like of which I have never heard." He said, "What is that?" Then we told him of the Hadith and said, "He stopped at this point (of the Hadith)." He said, "What then?" We said, "He did not add anything to that." He said, Anas related the Hadith to me twenty years ago when he was a young fellow. I don't know whether he forgot or if he did not like to let you depend on what he might have said." We said, "O Abu Said! Let us know that." He smiled and said, "Man was created hasty. I did not mention that, but that I wanted to inform you of it.
Anas told me the same as he told you and said that the Prophet added, 'I then return for a fourth time and praise Him similarly and prostrate before Him me the same as he 'O Muhammad, raise your head and speak, for you will be listened to; and ask, for you will be granted (your request): and intercede, for your intercession will be accepted.' I will say, 'O Lord, allow me to intercede for whoever said, 'None has the right to be worshiped except Allah.' Then Allah will say, 'By my Power, and my Majesty, and by My Supremacy, and by My Greatness, I will take out of Hell (Fire) whoever said: 'None has the right to be worshipped except Allah.'" 8
This sahih hadith, not only contradicts your claim that there are no intercessors with Allah it is actually a very ridiculous story. Muhammad here is portraying the entire Divine system as a big joke. This story sounds naive. Should really, you and I, in this age of enlightenment read such tales and believe in them? In this hadith Muhammad is predicting what people would do in the Day of Judgment, how they will run to various prophets and how these poor fellows (the prophets) would feel helpless to intercede on their behalf until our hero, Muhammad, would valiantly go to the fearsome Wizard of this Universe to ask forgiveness for his followers and Allah grants all his wishes. All Muslims will be eventually forgiven, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Khomeini, mass murderers and terrorists will all be saved from Hellfire by Muhammad, as long as they had a small amount of faith in him. The unbelievers will of course be left to burn in Hell for eternity because they had the trepidation to use their brain and not accept things that made no sense to them. I like how Muhammad bargains with Allah going back and forth and each time he gets a little more concession. How can one not be grateful to this hard working and kinder than God prophet?
8 Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 601
Now, this story has not yet happened. It will happen on the Day of Judgment. But Muhammad already knew exactly how it is going to happen and what Allah is going to do and say on that Day. It sounds goofy but it makes a fine children's story.
The absurdity of this tale is beyond description. What Muhammad is trying to say is that it really does not matter how much crime you commit, the Heaven is a hanky panky place and if you just believe in me and become my follower, I will pull some strings with Allah and rescue you from the Hellfire. Your actions are secondary. You could be a murderer, a rapist, a thief, a pedophile, etc. you will be still forgiven if you just accept me as the prophet of God. Just have an itsy bitsy blind faith in me and I will save you from Fire.
And I thought the purpose of God in sending prophets was to teach people how to live righteously and not to sin. How silly of me! Now I know that all that we must do to go to paradise is to have a little faith in Muhammad. Our conduct is not that important. Actually, many Muslims happily live by this dictum. They commit all sorts of perversities and sins and yet they have strong faith in Islam and Muhammad to the extent that they would happily slit the throat of anyone who slights Islam. That is the extent of their religiosity.
Abul Husain Muslim also reports a few hadiths that support the claim that Muhammad will be the sole intercessor with Allah on the Day of Judgment, who would be sitting on the right hand of Allah advising him how to run his business, whom to punish and whom to reward.
It is reported on the authority of Abu Zubair that he heard from Jabir b. 'Abdullah, who was asked about the arrival (of people on the Day of Resurrection). He said. We would come on the Day of Resurrection like this, like this, and see, carefully, that which concerns "elevated people". He (the narrator) said: Then the people would be summoned along with their idols whom they worshipped, one after another. Then our Lord would come to us and say: Whom are you waiting for? They would say: We are waiting for our Lord. He would say: I am your Lord. They would say: (We are not sure) till we gaze at Thee, and He would manifest Himself to them smilingly, and would go along with them and they would follow Him; and every person, whether a hypocrite or a believer, would be endowed with a light, and there would be spikes and hooks on the bridge of the Hell, which would catch hold of those whom Allah willed. Then the light of the hypocrites would be extinguished, and the believers would secure salvation. And the first group to achieve it would comprise seventy thousand men who would have the brightness of full moon on their faces, and they would not be called to account. Then the people immediately following them would have their faces as the brightest stars in the heaven. This is how (the groups would follow one after another). Then the stage of intercession would come, and they (who are permitted to intercede) would intercede, till he who had declared: "There is no god but Allah" and had in his heart virtue of the weight of a barley grain would come out of the Fire. They would be then brought in the courtyard of Paradise and the inhabitants of Paradise would begin to sprinkle water over them till they would sprout like the sprouting of a thing in flood water, and their burns would disappear. They would ask their Lord till they would be granted (the bounties) of the world and with it ten more besides it. 9
Not only Muhammad thought that he will have the power to intercede with Allah and influence the Almighty's decisions, he said that even his followers will have that power.
'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that his son died in Qudaid or 'Usfan. He said to Kuraib to see as to how many people had gathered there for his (funeral). He (Kuraib) said: So I went out and I informed him about the people who had gathered there. He (Ibn 'Abbas) said: Do you think they are forty? He (Kuraib) said: Yes. Ibn 'Abbas then said to them: Bring him (the dead body) out for I have heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: If any Muslim dies and forty men who associate nothing with Allah stand over his prayer (they offer prayer over him), Allah will accept them as intercessors for him.10
Isn't that nice? You can commit all the sins in the world and if you have 40 people coming to your funeral praying for you Allah will accept their intercession. What if you don't have 40 friends? My experience tells me that wealthier people have larger funerals. They serve banquets and draw huge crowds. Poorer people often die alone or with few friends and relatives around
9 Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0367 10 Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Number 2072
them. This hadith, not only shows Allah's injustice it is also absurd that he should listen to intercession of 40 people and forgive a sinner. This is not my idea of justice.
Whether it is forty or four billion, it seems absurd to me that humans should have the power to influence God and make him change his mind.
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I shall be pre-eminent amongst the descendants of Adam on the Day of Resurrection and I will be the first intercessor and the first whose intercession will be accepted (by Allah).11
These hadiths, and the above mentioned verses show not only the inherent contradiction in the Quran, but that also Muhammad wanted his followers to be at awe with his powers and know that it is he who has the authority over their destiny, so they better submit to him and serve him in this world.
You say that intercession is a myth. Please take a look at the verse 3:159 where allegedly Allah is telling Muhammad "and ask pardon for them". He is telling his prophet to intercede to him on behalf of his followers. This makes no sense. If Allah wants to forgive someone why is he asking Muhammad to intercede? Does he need someone lobby him to do what he wants to do? Another verse repeats the same absurdity:
So know (O Muhammad) that there is no Allah save Allah,
and ask forgiveness for thy sin and for believing men and believing women. Allah knoweth [3rd person] (both) your place of turmoil and your place of rest. (47:19)
Also: And when it is said to them, "Come, the Messenger of Allah will pray for your forgiveness", they turn aside their heads, and thou wouldst see them turning away their faces in arrogance. (63:5)12
11 Sahih Muslim, Book 030, Number 5655 12 See also 4:64; 9:103; 24:62; 60:12
If Allah does not accept intercessions what are the above injunctions for? Why is he telling Muhammad to ask forgiveness for the believing men and believing women?
The difficulty does not end there. Despite the above verses where allegedly Allah tells his prophet to pray for the forgiveness of his followers, there are verses that actually contradict them and say such prayers will not be accepted.
And do not plead on behalf of those who act unfaithfully to their souls; [speaking in 1st person] surely Allah does not love [shifting to 3rd person] him who is treacherous, sinful; (4:107)
Ask forgiveness for them (O Muhammad), [speaking in 1st person] or ask not forgiveness for them; though thou ask forgiveness for them seventy times Allah will not forgive them. [switching to 3rd person] That is because they disbelieved in Allah and His messenger, and Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. (9:80)
And never (O Muhammad) [1st person] pray for one of them who dieth, nor stand by his grave. Lo! they disbelieved in Allah and His messenger, [switching to third person] and they died while they were evil-doers. (9:84)
And Noah called upon his Lord, [3rd person] and said: "O my
Lord! surely my son is of my family! and Thy promise is true,
and Thou art the justest of Judges!" He said: "O Noah! He is
not of thy family: For his conduct is unrighteous. So ask not
of Me that of which thou hast no knowledge! I give thee
counsel, lest thou act like the ignorant!" [Why when talking
to Abraham Allah uses the correct pronoun and when speaking
to Muhammad he mostly uses a wrong pronoun, suddenly
speaking of himself in 3rd person?] Noah said: "O my Lord! I
do seek refuge with Thee, lest I ask Thee for that of which I
have no knowledge. And unless thou forgive me and have
Mercy on me, I should indeed be lost!" (11:45-47)
The Quran tells us that Abraham prayed to Allah for the forgiveness of his parents.
O our Lord! cover (us) with Thy Forgiveness - me, my parents, and (all) Believers, on the Day that the Reckoning will be established! (14:41)
Forgive my father, for that he is among those astray. (26:86)
Yet, Abu Huraira narrates a hadith from Muhammad saying Abraham's prayers will not be accepted.
The Prophet said, "On the Day of Resurrection Abraham will meet his father Azar whose face will be dark and covered with dust. (The Prophet Abraham will say to him): 'Didn't I tell you not to disobey me?' His father will reply: 'Today I will not disobey you.' Abraham will say: 'O Lord! You promised me not to disgrace me on the Day of Resurrection; and what will be more disgraceful to me than cursing and dishonoring my father?' Then Allah will say (to him): 'I have forbidden Paradise for the disbelievers." Then he will be addressed, 'O Abraham! Look! What is underneath your feet?' He will look and there he will see a Dhabh (an animal,) blood-stained, which will be caught by the legs and thrown in the (Hell) Fire. 13
Isn't it funny that Muhammad knew the discussion that would take place between Abraham and his father in future when he actually could not predict what would happen to him the next day or at least know where Kinana, the youthful leader of Khaibar, had hidden his treasures so he did not have to torture that wretched soul to death to make him talk? Anyway, that is another subject. This hadith confirms your belief that Allah will not accept anyone's intercession. However, it contradicts all other verses and haidths that I quoted above.
So praying for the deceased is not permitted, especially if the deceased was an unbeliever. At least this is what some of the verses say. However, cursing people is okay. Sura 111 is nothing but curse. Allah reveals a Sura to curse Muhammad's uncle and his wife.
Perish the hands of the Father of Flame! Perish he! : No profit to him from all his wealth, and all his gains! : Burnt soon will he be in a Fire of Blazing Flame! His wife shall carry the
13 Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 569
(crackling) wood - As fuel!-A twisted rope of palm-leaf fibre round her (own) neck!
Is really this Sura from Allah? Why would Allah need to curse anyone when he can crush them and destroy them so easily? Isn't it more logical to believe that at least this Sura is made up by Muhammad out of frustration and rage? Which is more logical? Is Allah insane or this sura is made up by Muhammad? Muhammad confesses that at least in one occasion he received Satanic Verses, thinking to be from God. Could the sura 111 also be of the same category?
Sometimes one verse in the Quran is contradicted by the subsequent verse. For example the verse 2:254 says:
O you who believe! spend out of what We have given you before the day comes in which there is no bargaining, neither any friendship nor intercession, and the unbelievers.
And the following verse 2:255 contradicts it and says:
Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth?.
Far from being a clear book the Quran is replete with contradictions. That is why Muslims can find anything they want in the Quran and interpret it in any way they wish. Osama Bin Laden can find verses that justify his crimes against humanity and you can find verses to portray Islam as a moderate religion. I will discuss these contradictions in my future discussion with you, one at a time. My goal is to prove that far from being a book of guidance, the Quran misguides people. Muslims will do much better if they stop following this book of confusion and rely on their own intelligence to find their way, just like other people do. I hope to convince a good number of Muslims that Islam is a lost paradigm. We should not waste our time trying to reform it. Islam can't be reformed. It must be discarded. The Quran is not the word of God. One error in this book disqualifies it as the word of God. If you bear with me I will show you hundreds. We have just started. This was only a token of the humongous errors and contradictions that exist in the Quran - only a drop from an ocean of asininity.
I remain cordially yours
Ali Sina

[Allegracrown]

Part II
Date: Sep 27, 2006
Dear Mr Ali Sina
I don't want to waste your time and that of the visitors of your site by presenting apologies and excuses for being late in the response. I hope and pray that the future responses wouldn't be delayed by as long a duration as the one this message has taken.
I must clarify, by way of a disclaimer, that, now that myself and Mr Javed Ahmad Ghamidi are living in two different cities, at least temporarily, what I am writing is in consultation with him on the basis of a telephonic conversation. I am taking the liberty of writing a much briefer message than what it should have been if I were to mention everything he had suggested. The reason why I am doing so is that I personally believe that relatively brief messages help in attracting a larger readership than the longer ones. So, for instance, whereas Mr Ghamidi would have liked me to quote ten examples to prove a point, I would, for the sake of brevity, confine myself to two. However, if you would so demand, I would go for the longer versions of responses too.
Having said that, here are the responses to the, basically, two problems you've raised on Qur'anic teachings:
1) As for the problems of understanding in the Qur'anic description of intercession in the life hereafter, you've agreed in your message that if that understanding was to remain confined to what is mentioned in the following Qur'anic verse, it would be reasonable and logically acceptable:
"[A reward] from the Lord of the heavens and the earth and all that lies between them; the most Gracious - there is no one who has the authority to speak on His behalf. [It will happen] on the Day when Gabriel and the angels will stand arrayed [before Him]. [It will be the Day] when only they will speak whom the most Gracious allows and who speak the truth." (97:37-38)
We believe that what the rest of the Qur'an says is consistent with the above statement. The following explanation is an attempt to clarify position on the issue: There can be three categories of individuals from the point of view of their attitude and performance in the trial of this worldly life: the good performers who would succeed in the next life on the merit of their own deeds; the criminally inclined, obstinate individuals who wouldn't deserve any mercy from the Almighty; and the in-between performers who mix good deeds with bad ones but nonetheless are not obstinate transgressors. While the first category wouldn't need any intercession, the second category wouldn't deserve one. Intercession would only be needed by, and allowed to, people belonging to the third category.
In our worldly life, we too tend to make a distinction on the basis of attitude while dealing with people who do things that are wrong. An employee who is not extremely efficient but is not seen to be disloyal to the organization gets, or deserves to get, a treatment which is different from the one meted out to the one who is both inefficient and disloyal. Likewise is what God Almighty is going to do in the next life: His less-efficient-but-loyal servants would receive His mercy, albeit through the agency of intercession. The disloyal criminals would deserve no mercy.
Intercession would be used as a mode of applying God's mercy for the less-efficient-but-loyal servants for two reasons: The treatment meted out to them and the high performers should remain distinct and the highest performing servants should get the additional reward of getting the honour of successfully interceding for some other people. Indeed this process of intercession would not violate the basic principle outlined in the above-quoted verse: "[It will be the Day] when only they will speak whom the most Gracious allows and who speak the truth." (97:37-38) In other words, the Almighty would Himself identify the people who would be allowed to intercede and the ones they would be allowed to intercede for. In the process of intercession, they would not speak anything but the truth. Wherever the Qur'an talks about intercession, it does so within the parameters of the above-stated principle.
As for the mention of intercession in ahadith, we have already stated that the only two reliable sources of knowledge of Islam are Qur'an and sunnah, While the Qur'an is the book of God that was preserved through the process of memorizing from the first generation onwards in a way that its originality is beyond doubt, similar is the case of sunnah, the religious practices of the prophet-- in fact the earlier prophets too -- that he performed in the presence of his companions who emulated him even after his death and the next generations followed suit. The authenticity of originality of these sunnah practices -- like for example, prayers, pilgrimage, burial rites etc. -- are at par with the Qur'an. Both have been passed on from generation to another in accordance with God's scheme to preserve the last religion revealed by Him.
The case of ahadith is not the same. These reports about the prophet's life are a record of what he did, said, or what happened during his lifetime, compiled by individuals at their own initiative. Unlike the Qur'an and sunnah, the contents of ahadith do not contain a completely authentic description of the prophet's mission. There could be both inadvertent errors in the hadith literature as well as mentions that resulted out of deliberate attempts at distorting the true picture of Islam. The important thing is that while the Qur'an and sunnah are end result of the God-ordained arrangement, ahadith are the result of human effort. We therefore don't take the responsibility of defending what is mentioned in this literature.
2) The other problem you have pointed out in the Qur'an is regarding the inconsistent use of pronouns for God. To understand why it has so happened, one must appreciate that the Qur'an is not just a bland piece prose in Arabic that was revealed to hand down some instructions to the prophet. It is a masterpiece of Arabic literature. Like other literary masterpieces, the use of pronouns in the Qur'an, as indeed in the case of many other aspects of its styles of presentation, should be viewed from that perspective. The use of third person pronoun by an author may be considered an error by a reader not fully conversant with literary writings. To someone who knows the subtle delicacies presentations that are expressed in the highest level of literary taste, usage of the same pronoun can raise that work from the level of ordinary prose to a much higher level of literary taste. The Qur'an was revealed not just to influence the ordinary people of the Arabian society; it had come to have a deep impact on the elite of the society who wouldn't have been impressed by a message that expressed itself in a simple, dull language. Thus Qur'anic style of presentation should not be critically examined from the point of view of ordinary logic. It has to be appreciated from the standpoint of the richness of its literary stature.
Zamakhshari, a twelfth century exegete, whose literary appreciation of the Qur'an is widely acknowledged, has given several examples of the usage of third person pronouns by the top-grade classical poets of the Arabian society. If needed, I will quote them. The Qur'an had not just to match them in the beauty of their literary style. It had to outperform them to reach the hearts of the elite class and, through them, the ordinary people as well. It shouldn't come as a surprise then that God uses He and Him for Himself on several occasions. In case such usage is to be criticized, it should be done on the parameters of literary appreciation of the classical Arabic.
Just to help appreciate our point, I am mentioning a couplet each from Iqbal and Ghalib, the two most outstanding Urdu poets of the Indian subcontinent.
The translations are my own:

Urdu:
Iqbal bara ubdaishak hay man baatoon main moh laita hay
Guftar ka who ghazi to bana, kirdar ka ghazi ban na saka

Iqbal is a great sermonizer: He wins the hearts through what he says
Despite winning the verbal battle, he couldn't win the battle of character

Urdu:
Atay hain ghaib say yeh mazamin khyal main
Ghalib sareere khama-e naway-e saroosh hay

Ideas come to him from the heavens
Ghalib is only the scribe of the voices of angels

In both cases, the great poets are using third person pronouns for
themselves. Anyone who would accuse them of committing logical error in
presentation would attract the criticism that he is devoid of a taste for
appreciation of literary masterpieces. Likewise is true for the Qur'an.

Khalid Zaheer

Date: Sep 30, 2006 Ali Sina's Response
Drear Mr. Ghamidi and Mr. Zaheer;
Greetings and thank you for the response! You have been brief and to the point. I will try to do the same.
1-In your introduction to Sura Naba Mr. Ghamidi, you quoted the verses 78: 37-40 and in the footnote you wrote:
"This and the next two verses strongly negate the philosophy of mediation and intercession."
I agreed with that and affirmed that intercession makes no sense.
But then I pointed out that many Muslims believe that intercession is possible and I quoted several verses that make that belief plausible.
However in your latest response you indicated, "intercession would only be needed by, and allowed to, people belonging to the third category."
So obviously I had not understood you correctly at first or you are having a second thought. It appears to me that now you are saying that intercession is possible. Is my understanding correct?
If intercession is not possible, I would like you to explain why in so many places Muhammad claims that he will be the intercessor and that others to whom permission has been given can also intercede.
If intercession is possible, then we have a logical problem to solve. Doesn't God know everything? What can possibly any intercessor tell Him that He does not know already? The Quranic verses say that intercession would be allowed to those who speak the truth. This makes no sense at all. Can anyone tell a lie to God when he already knows everything? Why does he need the opinion of others when he knows best? What is the point in talking to God when he already knows what we are going to say and we know that he knows what is in our heart? Isn't this an exercise in futility?
Furthermore, if God's wisdom, compassion and mercy exceed those of his creatures why would he need any creature of him to tell him please be more forgiving and merciful to some of your weaker creatures? Can possibly anyone be more merciful to other humans than God?
When I agreed with you, it was because I understood you say the Quran "strongly negates the philosophy of mediation and intercession". But this does not seem to be the case. So I can't agree with you and you should explain logically why an all knowing, all wise God needs intercessions by his creatures. Is there anything that God does not know that the intercessor can inform him? The philosophy of intercession denies not only the omniscience of God, but also his mercy and fairness. It implies that Muhammad and "those to whom permission is given" know things that Allah does not know, or that they are more forgiving and merciful that him.
You brought the example of an employee who is loyal but not very efficient and that his employer tolerates some of his ineptitudes in consideration of his loyalty. Let us agree with this premise. The question is why this employer needs someone to intercede with him on behalf of this lousy but loyal employee? An intercessor would only make sense if the employer does not have the full knowledge of the situation. So he would ask the opinion of the superior of this employee who knows him best. But if God knows everything better than anyone else, is wiser than all his creatures and his prophets, why would he need anyone's opinion? Doesn't this imply that Muhammad knows something about humans that Allah does not know?
According to Islam, Allah is perfect while Muhammad and Muslims are not. Will you please explain why a perfect being would listen to the opinions of imperfect creatures? If the claim that Allah knows best is true, then intercession by creatures who don't know anywhere close to what Allah knows is not needed at all and is sheer arrogance. Do Muhammad and other devout Muslims know the secrets of people's hearts better than God?
The concept of intercession is nothing but blasphemy. Muhammad is claiming to have the power to act as God's advisor. He even grants this preposterous privilege to his followers. This is absurd. What possibly anyone can tell God that He already does not know? If someone deserves a break because of his loyalty or for any other reason, shouldn't God know that better than his prophet? By claiming that he has the power to intercede with God, Muhammad in assuming the role of the Almighty's partner.
You wrote: "In other words, the Almighty would Himself identify the people who would be allowed to intercede and the ones they would be allowed to intercede for. In the process of intercession, they would not speak anything but the truth."
This makes no sense at all. I can't understand the logic of this protocol. How can an omniscient God appoint some humans to intercede? Let us say God decides to punish someone for a sin. Has he made his decision wisely or not? Is his decision based on knowledge or is it based on ignorance? Then he appoints some good Muslims to intercede on behalf of this individual. These Muslims prostrate in front of Allah and tell him, oh Allah, please forgive this man because he was a loyal Muslim, and Allah, after thinking for while and hearing some supplications, plays with his beard for a moment and changes his mind and says, "Okay, because you interceded I will forgive him." Doesn't this sound ludicrous? If this individual deserves to be forgiven why God does not forgive him in the first place? What these Muslims can possibly tell God that He does not know already and how a bunch of humans can influence the decision of the maker of this universe? Is God so whimsical? Doesn't this imply that his original decision was not right? If it was right why change it? If it was not right because it was based on the faulty information then God is not all knowing.
Funny thing is that Allah already knows that his decision is not right and the person deserves better treatment. So he asks his prophet and some good Muslims to beg so he change his decision and make it right.
We should also remember verse 7.188, where allegedly Allah tells Muhammad to say:
I have no power over any good or harm to myself except as Allah willeth. If I had knowledge of the unseen, I should have multiplied all good, and no evil should have touched me: I am but a warner, and a bringer of glad tidings to those who have faith.
There is also this hadith:

I am a Prophet of Allah but I do not know what will be my end. 14
In one of his sermons, calculated to instill the fear of Allah and the day of reckoning in the hearts of men, Muhammad said:
O people of Quraish be prepared for the hereafter, I cannot save you from the punishment of Allah; O Bani Abd Manaf, I cannot save you
14 Sahih Bukhari, Chapter "Al-Janaiz"
from Allah; O Abbas, son of Abdul Mutalib, I cannot protect you either; O Fatima, daughter of Muhammad, even you I cannot save. (Sahahin) 15
How can then, such a person who has no power over anything except what Allah tells him, and does not know what will be his own end claim to know that he will be an advisor to Allah on the Day of Judgment advocating for the Muslims?
Imagine Allah sitting on his throne and condemning a Muslim to Hell, knowing that this person deserves better. So he turns to Muhammad and tells him to intercede for that Muslim. Mo goes on his knees and supplicates with Allah to forgive tat man. Then Allah smiles and tells the Muslim, I have forgiven your sin because of Muhammad. Now you go to Paradise and be thankful to Muhammad.
This is comedy. It is clear that Muhammad said something at one time and then forgot and said something else at another time. The whole story is just ludicrous. This is enough proof that Muhammad was making it all up.
Now imagine this scene happening billions of times, once for every Muslim that ever lived and had a grain of faith in Muhammad. (All Muslims have that much faith or they would not call themselves Muslim.) Let us say there will be about 3 billion Muslims in total, since the beginning of Islam to the Day of Resurrection and let us say it takes just one minute for Muhammad to intercede on behalf of each one of them. That is really fast justice. At this rate, if Muhammad and Allah work non stop, 24 hours per day and all days of the year, the Day of Judgment will have to last 5,707 years. Now imagine you have lived 60 or 70 years in this world and will have to stand in line over five thousand years to receive your judgment. If there are twice that many Muslims, then the Day of Judgment will last 11,414 years. If the intercession ritual takes more than one minute per person the waiting time will be even longer. If Allah and Muhammad take coffee breaks, you'll have to stand in line a few extra thousands of years. We are not even counting the time that it will take to process the non-Muslims because we assume that they will all be herded to hell like the Jews being sent to Nazi gas chambers and Allah will not waste a minute of his time on them.
15 www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/prophet/prophetdescription.html
If the Quran says intercession is possible, the Quran is engaging in a logical
fallacy. It is undermining the omniscience of God and is confuting His superior
wisdom and mercy.

My dear erudite friends, I think you have a big logical problem in front of you.
You either must accept intercession or reject it. If you reject it, then explain why
Muhammad claims to have that power and if you accept it then you are engaging
in blasphemy, which is even a bigger problem.

2-In response to my second question asking why Allah in the Quran abruptly
changes pronouns and sometimes refers to himself in third person, you said that
it is because the Quran "is a masterpiece of Arabic literature".

I agree that sometimes a speaker or a writer speaks of himself in third person
and this is acceptable. However this is not the recipe to transform a dull writing
into a masterpiece of literature. The Quran is not a masterpiece of literature by
any standard. If we continue this debate long enough, I will show you the errors
in the Quran that prove clearly the author of this book has been indeed an
illiterate man and not the almighty God. Switching from one pronoun to another
without notice only creates confusion and it does not transform a prosaic writing
into a masterpiece of literature.

Sura Fatiha, the first sura of the Quran is the one that all Muslims read regularly.
Let us read it again.

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.
The Beneficent, the Merciful.
Master of the Day of Judgment.
Thee do we serve and Thee do we beseech for help.
Keep us on the right path.
The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favors. Not (the path) of
those upon whom Thy wrath is brought down, nor of those who go astray.

Are these the words of God? Who is God supplicating to?

This topic in my view is clear. The following is my next question:


A Beast as the Messenger of Allah
When Muhammad claimed to be a prophet, people who knew him best laughed at him. They asked for proof. He had none. Then they asked why God does not send an angel so they could be sure? Muhammad's response to them was that God sends human prophets to humans.
People said:
You are no more than a human being like us! You wish to turn us away from what our fathers used to worship. Then bring us a clear authority.
(14:10)
This is logical. If Muhammad did not present any proof, how could people know he is telling them the truth? (see also 23:47)
Allah responded by asking:
Is it a wonder for mankind that We have inspired a man among them?
(10:2)
He further complained:
That was because there came to them their Messengers with clear proofs, but they said: "Shall mere men guide us'' (64:6)
Well, I would like to see that clear proof. If we had clear proof we would not be having this discussion. Then Allah gives his reasons why messengers to humans are always humans and not angels or something else.
And naught prevented mankind from believing when the guidance came unto them save that they said: Hath Allah sent a mortal as (His) messenger? Say: If there were in the earth angels walking secure, We had sent down for them from heaven an angel as messenger. (17:94-95)
We never sent before thee any messengers but lo! they verily ate food and walked in the markets. And those who look not for a meeting with Us say: Why are angels not sent down unto us and (Why) do we not see our Lord! Assuredly they think too highly of themselves and are scornful with great pride (25:20- 21) And We have not sent before you but men from (among) the people of the towns, to whom We sent revelations. (12: 109)
And We sent not (as Our messengers) before thee other than men, whom We inspired. We gave them not bodies that would not eat food, nor were they immortals. (21:7-8)
Ibn Kathir in the tafseer of Sura Isra explains:
And there are many other similar Ayat. Then Allah says, pointing out His kindness and mercy towards His servants that He sends to them Messengers of their own kind so that they will understand what he says and will be able to speak to him directly. If He sent to mankind a Messenger from among the angels, they would not be able to deal with him face to face and learn from him, as Allah says: "Indeed, Allah conferred a great favor on the believers when He sent among them a Messenger from among themselves" (3:164)
Ibn Kathir is right; there are other verses. What I quoted so far is enough to make us understand that for men, only men will be sent as messengers. But we find that Allah contradicts himself.
And when the word is fulfilled concerning them, We shall bring forth a beast of the earth to speak unto them because mankind had not faith in Our revelations. (27:82)
Here Allah is promising that he will send a beast to bring his message to mankind. Doesn't this belie everything he has said in all those above-mentioned verses? Do beasts of the earth speak Arabic better than angels? What kind of beast will be this messenger of Allah? Will it be a jackass, a camel, a crocodile or a chimpanzee? How would we recognize it? According to Islam, Jinns also can appear in the form of animals. Why animals can speak to humans and angels can't?
Then again didn't Muhammad claim to be the last prophet? (33:40) If he was the last one to bring us a message from God, then what is this beast going to be? If this beast is going to bring us a message, he is a messenger and the title of Khatama alnnabiyyeen (the last of prophets) that Muhammad claimed for himself should go to this animal. If 33:40 is right then the verse 27:82 must be wrong.
Furthermore, it is not true that angles do not bring messages from God to humans. The Quran itself testifies that at the time of Solomon there were two angels in Babel, Harut and Marut who spoke to people and said "We are only a temptation, therefore disbelieve not (in the guidance of Allah)." Then the Quran says:
And from these two (angles) people learn that by which they cause division between man and wife; but they injure thereby no-one save by Allah's leave. And they learn that which harmeth them and profiteth them not. (2:102)
Also the Quran says an angel appeared to Zechariah the father of John (Yahya) and brought him the glad tiding that he is going to have a son:
Then the angels called to him as he stood praying in the sanctuary: That Allah gives you the good news of Yahya verifying a Word from Allah, and honorable and chaste and a prophet from among the good ones.
(3:39)
Don't these two verses contradict the previous verses that deny the possibility of angels coming to humans as messengers?
A little further down (3:42, 45) again it is an angel who brings a message to Mary the mother of Jesus, informing her that she is going to have a son. In another part of the Quran, the same angel is appearing to Mary says:
I am only a messenger of your Lord: That I will give you a pure boy.
(19:19)
Either, angels can be messagers of God to humans or they can't. In either case some of the verses of the Quran must be false.
The difficulty does not end here. The above verses are emphatic that the messengers that Allah sends to each species will be of the same species. However, the Quran says that Muhammad was sent as a messenger also to the Jinns.
And when We turned towards you a party of the jinn who listened to the Quran; so when they came to it, they said: Be silent; then when it was finished, they turned back to their people warning (them). (46-29) Then the Jinns said to each other:
And whoever does not accept the-Divine caller, he shall not escape in the earth and he shall not have guardians besides Him, these are in manifest error. (46:32)
The same claim is made in Sura Jinn (72: 1-14)
There are also many ahadith that talk about Muhammad going to the Jinns and teaching them Islam. For brevity I pass them up.
How could Muhammad who was a man, at least according to his own claim, become a messenger to the Jinns when in so many verses he said to each species will be sent a messenger of their own kind?
The Quran claims that both Jinns and men have received messengers from among them.
O assembly of jinn and men! did there not come to you messengers from among you, relating to you My communications and warning you of the meeting of this day of yours? (6:130)
According to the Quran also angels have their own messengers:
Allah chooses messengers from angels and from men, for Allah is He Who hears and sees (all things).(22:75)
All praise is due to Allah, the Originator of the heavens and the earth, the Maker of the angels, apostles flying on wings, two, and three, and four; He increases in creation what He pleases; surely Allah has power over all things.(35:1)
So how could Muhammad go to the Jinns and become their messenger if he was not of their kind? And how come to us humans a beast will be sent to deliver the message of Allah? Could it be that Muhammad was actually a jinn, deceiving people, posing as a prophet?
I remain sincerely yours
Ali Sina Note: I would like to make this very clear, that although Mr. Ghamidi, Mr. Zaheer and this author have diverging viewpoints as far as Islam is concerned, I am strongly supportive of these two scholars and have utmost respect for their great work. Muslim world needs men like them. I appreciate what they do and wish them success. They try to humanize the Umma at the risk to their own lives. It is regrettable that Mr. Ghamidi must be protected by bodyguards to stay safe from the assault of Muslim fanatics.
As our slogan says, we are not against faith but against hate. Anyone who strives for peace and fights against intolerance and hate is our friend and ally. We do not want to see the end of religion. We want to see the end of religiously inspired hate. I believe that Mr. Ghamidi and Mr. Zaheer have embarked on an impossible mission. I applaud them but do not believe they will make it.
Upon informing Mr. Zaheer that I have published my response, he wrote:

Dear Mr Ali Sina
I am finding it difficult to access your site. Can I get your response directly? Thanks.

Khalid Zaheer
This is regrettable. It seems that they have banned faithfreedom.org in Pakistan. Several Islamic countries have banned us. For 1400 years Muslim leaders have kept the masses ignorant. In this way they could rule them better. But for how long they can keep people in the dark?

[Allegracrown]

Part III Date: Oct 5, 2006

Mr. Ghamidi and Dr. Zaheer's Response

Dear Mr Ali Sina
This message is in response to your message to me dated September 30, 2006. I am responding to it after Mr Ghamidi went through the contents of it and apprised me of his views.
Before we comment on the essentially two points that were the subject of our first discussion, I would want to mention the followed two things as a prelude:
i) As I mentioned in one of my earlier messages, since we are doing quite a few other things apart from participating in this discussion, the responses from our side can take longer than what many people would expect. But please bear with us; it is in the interest of the quality and usefulness of this discussion that we take our time and not hurry through with our responses.
ii) Ours is a serious academic debate and not an attempt at providing emotionally consoling material to our respective fan clubs. In fact, if I am not mistaken, what brings us together despite the vast differences in our ideologies is the concern that some people, both religious and non-religious, don't allow their followers to face realities the way they are. We are confident that we, the participants on both sides of this discussion, are equally concerned that the truth should be allowed to lay bare before our readers and that no method be adopted that would take their minds away from what is being discussed. It is this concern that compels us to request you that no third point be raised before the first two are taken to as far as they can go in deciding the truth about them. Raising new points when the earlier ones haven't as yet been resolved helps only in distracting the reader from concentrating on the real issues of the discussion. We want to move step-by-step no matter how long it takes for the journey to end. We have come together to uncover the truth. Let us do it in the best possible way.
Now let me comment on the first two points you have mentioned.
i) Your criticism on the Qur'anic presentation of intercession is that it is inconsistent and self contradictory. You have not been convinced by our response that the intercession to be allowed by the Almighty would be
36
applicable to the case of marginal performers only. We will present our understanding from another perspective now and then take up your reservations one-by-one to show that your criticism doesn't logically apply to the Qur'anic concept of intercession.
Let us take the following Qur'anic passage: "The (acceptance of) repentance is binding on Allah in the case of such people only who do sin in an emotional state and then repent immediately afterwards. Such are the people whose repentance Allah shall most certainly accept. And Allah is most knowledgeable and wise. And repentance of such people is not going to be accepted who continue to sin until death reaches any one of them and he says "I repent now", nor indeed (is repentance) of those (going to be accepted) who die as disbelievers. For such people we have prepared a painful punishment." (4:17-18)
The above passage outlines three categories of people on the basis of their responses to the sins they commit. There are those who sincerely repent immediately after they commit a wrong act. There are others who don't repent until death reaches them. The case of both categories has been clarified in the above passage. However, the case of another category of people has not been mentioned in this verse: those who commit evil but don't repent immediately nor do they delay their repentance till viewing the signs of death. Their case has not been clarified in this passage of the Qur'an. The Almighty has neither declared that they will be forgiven nor has He announced that they are going to be punished. What if a person belonging to such a category was to seek justice from God Almighty on the Day of Judgment? And what if another person, let's say my ordinary self, was to ask the Almighty to forgive him? What objections can be raised against the possibility that such an event will take place before the Almighty makes a clear pronouncement to that effect? Intercession will be nothing more than a request tendered by some individuals to the Almighty to forgive those people whose case will be unclear on the basis of the principles of justice clearly outlined by the Almighty. Such an act will neither be an attempt to add anything to the His knowledge nor will it be instrumental in altering His decision. It will be a mere plea expressed by some individuals to seek mercy for some others who will be falling on the margin of good and bad performers.
On the basis of the above explanation, I am now mentioning our brief comments on some of the observations you have made. (Your observations in quotation marks are followed by our comments.)
a) "You are having second thoughts (about the concept of intercession)." We have consistently mentioned the same understanding of intercession. That understanding is based on one logical, coherent idea that runs through all the statements of the Qur'an relevant to that question.
b) "Doesn't God know everything?" Given the clarification mentioned above, this question doesn't even arise. The fact that a person will plead mercy from God for someone else in no way undermines belief in God's omniscience.
c) "Can possibly anyone be more merciful to other humans than God?" This comment too is not applicable to the explanation we have offered above. In fact, it would be the supreme kindness of God that would allow some people to plead mercy for those people whom He will have already decided, but not openly announced, to forgive. It would be a gesture of graciousness on His part to allow some other people too to participate in that process. In other words, God Almighty could have shown kindness to people on the margin of success-failure boundary directly, but He will let others too to become a part of that process. By embracing others in His process of mercy, God will elevate those others to a very high status of recognition in the eyes of the rest of mankind.
d) "The philosophy of intercession denies not only the omniscience of God but also his mercy and fairness." For omniscience and mercy, kindly refer to our earlier remarks. As for the possibility of a compromise in the principle of fairness, it needs to be pointed out that forgiveness for people who would fall on the margin of good and bad performers would be nothing but a delicate balance between the principle of mercy and fairness coming together to simultaneously play a role.
e) "Do Muhammad and other devout Muslims know the secrets of people's heart better than God?" I hope it is clear by now that this question also doesn't apply to the Qur'anic concept of intercession.
f) "Funny thing is that Allah already knows that his decision is not right and the person deserves better treatment. So he asks his prophet and some good Muslims to beg for him to change his decision and make it right. If it was the best decision, how could anyone dare to ask him to change it?" Again, our hope is that, given our clarifications, the concept would start making sense to all sensible people and would not remain funny any more. Allah Almighty will not change His decision. He will only allow His decision to become manifest in a different way to indicate that while those who are being forgiven didn't strictly fall in the category of clear winners, they are still getting the benefit of His mercy.
ii) You have moved on by making a passing remark that the mere fact that examples of third person pronouns used by authors for themselves do exist in literature of high quality is not an evidence of the fact that such shifts in the Qur'an also enable its text to belong to the same category. Let's discuss this more deeply. Let us have your arguments that support your claim. We have to decide at this point as to whether your claim is correct or not. We will have no problems in accepting your claim provided you present your case properly. Let us go into the classical Arabic literature, the most outstanding example of which we believe is the Qur'an, and find out whether what you have casually referred to is actually true. This discussion must not move on even a step further from here unless this issue is resolved. We will wait for examples from classical Arabic literature coming from your side that would show that sudden shifts of pronouns by the author are unheard of and that it has been a blunder on the part of the author of the Qur'an to have done so. We will then, God willing, proceed to tell you through several examples from masterpieces of Arabic literature as to why we believe that such shifts were common place in that literature. We hope that you do not object to our claim that since your criticism is on a particular style of communication adopted by the Arabic Qur'an, it is the standards of classical Arabic literature, especially belonging to the era when the Qur'an was being revealed, and no other criterion, that should be employed to come to any definite conclusion about the relevance of your criticism. We would like to have your clear view on this point in your next response.
You have suggested a third topic for discussion. We very politely request that the discussion on the third topic will make sense only after the first two have been discussed thoroughly. As we have pointed out earlier, we must help readers to make up their minds on the two points you have raised. It's only after the matter on these two issues has been settled that we should move on to others. We assure you that if you have hundred more points that you think can be raised against the claim that the Qur'an has divine origins, we will discuss each one of them in the same spirit and enthusiasm as we are taking up these two. And in case you will be able to academically prove your point convincingly, you will not find us unwilling to acknowledge that you have done so. Let this debate remain a serious academic exercise in which each point which is being taken up for discussion is debated threadbare. Only then would the truth would unfold itself.
Thanks. Khalid Zaheer

Date: Oct 9, 2006
Dear Mr. Ghamidi and Dr. Zaheer.
Thank you for your response. You made a very important statement. You said
"what brings us together despite the vast differences in our ideologies is the concern that some people, both religious and non-religious, don't allow their followers to face realities the way they are. We are confident that we, the participants on both sides of this discussion, are equally concerned that the truth should be allowed to lay bare before our readers and that no method be adopted that would take their minds away from what is being discussed."
I am very pleased to read that. It is in this regard that I regret the decision made by your government, to which you are a religious adviser, to block faithfreedom.org from being accessed in Pakistan. Even though I am certain you had nothing to do with this decision, the timing has raised questions in the minds of some people. One friend from Pakistan wrote:
Mr. Ali Sina
For the whole of past week I was trying to access your website to follow up on the debate between yourself and Mr. Javed Ahmed Gamdi. And I was not able to do so. I thought maybe Faithfreedom Int'l was experiencing some technical difficulties and such other problems. But at the back of mind there was this nagging suspicion that perhaps the Pakistani authorities may have blocked your website.
And it so happens I was right, yesterday through an anonymous online proxy I was able to get through to Faithfreedom.org. Yes I live in Pakistan.
For the past 2 years I was able to access your website without any difficulties and let me tell you that you have opened my eyes about the true nature of islam, and suddenly now that you are debating with a prominent Pakistani scholar your website gets banned/ blocked in Pakistan. Is this a mere coincidence or can we safely assume and count two and two together and reach a logical conclusion.
I hope you realize this can only be interpreted as an effort to keep people in the dark. It absolutely violates what you and I believe that no one has the right to withhold the truth from people. Even though I am sure you had nothing to do with this reprehensible act of censorship, the timing has raised a few eyebrows.
They have done a big disservice to you. To reassure the skeptics that you do not agree with this decision, you may want to publish our debate in your site as well. This gesture will send a clear message to everyone that you truly believe in freedom of information and do not approve censorship of thoughts. It also can be seen as proof that you are convinced of the strength of your argument.
Of course it would be commendable if you speak to the authorities in Pakistan and let them know that this banning is reflecting poorly on you and on Islam and that they should lift it at once. You may want to remind them that Islam is truth and truth does not need the heavy hand of censorship --all truth needs to triumph is freedom. If they believe that Islam is truth, what are they afraid of? If we at FFI lie, we are inviting Muslim scholars to write to us and point where we have gone wrong. We provide an open forum for anyone to refute our claim, which Muslims use freely, but to insult us and not to refute us.
Now, as for me introducing a third question, I don't think this is an attempt to distract the readers. As far as the first two points (intercession and the use of pronoun) are concerned I have said what I had to say and I rested my case.
The point is not that you and I should agree. We probably will never agree and frankly, knowing how dangerous is Pakistan and how your lives could be taken away by angry mobs if you agree with me, I do not expect and do not want you to agree with me. I want you good people live long and help your nation to move away from fanaticism and towards moderation and modernity. If you agree with me, that would be your end. So this is not what I am seeking.
I have received words that according to a Hyderabad (India) local news magazine "Muslim Jagaran", Syed Yousaf Bin, the chief patron of the Ulema Board, in Hyderabad has issued a fatwa against my person. According to the sources he has decreed, "if anybody kills Dr. Ali Sina, he will be rewarded with Rs.1,000,000 (Indian rupees one million)". Syed Yousaf Bin was the person behind the fatwa against Indian tennis sensation Sania Mirza.
Haseeb-ul-hasan Siddiqui, a leading cleric of the Muslim organization, the Sunni Ulema Board has also warned me and others behind faithfreedom.org of the consequences that we would have to face if we don't close our website. "According to Islam, the criticisers of Islam should be stoned to death," he is reported to have said.
Safdar Nagori who was the secretary-general of the extremist Islamic outfit
S.I.M.I (Students Islamic Movement of India) till the organization was proscribed under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 has been reported to

have said, "Dr. Ali Sina would be killed within a month, irrespective of wherever his hideout is."
This is happening in the secular India. If anyone issues such blatant death threats and solicit murder in a real democracy, he would have to spend years in jail. India, the largest "democracy" of the world is obviously a banana republic. Muslim goons roam around freely issuing fatwas and offering rewards for the assassination of the critics of Islam and no one dares to call them to account. How poorly this reflects on India and Indians who bend backwards to appease Muslims in their country! Now Muslims in India constitute only 12% of the population. But they are procreating faster than the Hindus. What they would demand when they become 20%? Another partition?
This is happening in India, which is allegedly a democracy. What they would do to you in Pakistan, which prides itself to be a fanatical Islamic country and a dictatorship if you agree with anything I say?
One million rupees are just $21,893 US dollars in today's rate. I thought I was wroth more. But I am not complaining. Jesus was worth only thirty pieces of silver. This is way more. However, why kill me? I am offering $50,000 US dollars (more than twice what these mullahs are offering) to anyone who can disprove me with the promise to remove the content of this site and publish in each existing page one message saying, "I stand corrected on Islam. Islam is a true religion. Allahu Akbar."
Wouldn't that be more effective? Imagine the impact of such a confession worldwide! Muslims don't have to kill anyone for that. All they have to do is write one page disproving me. By killing me, they only prove what I say about Islam is true. Since this site is now managed by several volunteers, (none knows the others in real life) it will continue its job without me. My assassination will become another news sensation and another nail in the coffin of Islam. Killing people is foolish. It worked in the time of Muhammad and made him succeed by casting terror, but it won't work today.
With every act of violence the world is realizing Islam is barbarity and is more repulsed by it. Have you looked at the polls lately? More and more people are becoming disgusted with Islam. It is not because of what we write in FFI, it is because of what Muslims do.
Those who think the world can be intimidated with terror are fools. They do not understand the resolve of free people to keep their freedom. These people have shed their bloods in two revolutions, one in the heart of Europe and the other in America, to gain their freedom and have fought two World Wars to keep it. They are not going to capitulate to a bunch of ragged-head lousy barbarians. There is a limit to their patience. They won't take this terrorism for too long. Once their patience wears out, Muslims will pay dearly and wet and dry will burn alike. So, please wake them up. Help them see their follies. Stupidity does not pay off. I pray for your success, even though I do not hold my breath and doubt you can do much because this tree is rotten from its roots. I, along with other good people in FFI am working towards the same objective, but with a different strategy. We are axing down this rotten tree. We know it can't bear sweet fruits by pruning. If you succeed before we do and end this madness and terrorism, I promise to stop. But I know you won't and we will.
The purpose of this debate is not that you and I come to an agreement. The purpose is that you and I shed light on two different sides of the coin so our readers can see both points of views and make their minds.
Let me put it this way: I am accusing Muhammad of being a false prophet. You are trying to disprove me by showing that he was indeed a messenger of God and all charges made against him are unfounded and false. In other words, I am playing the role of the prosecutor and you are playing the role of the defense attorney. You and I need not agree. All we have to do is expound our respective cases clearly for the jury and convince them to agree with our viewpoints. The jury is the public. Let you and I do what we are supposed to do and let them come to their verdict.
As I see, the second round of our discussion on the topics of intercession and the use of third person pronoun by Allah in the Quran is a repetition of what each one of us said in the first round. I believe both of us explained this point exhaustively. I think our readers have enough information from both sides to make an intelligent decision. So let us move on.
I remain sincerely yours
Ali Sina

[Allegracrown]

Part IV Date: Oct 22, 2006

Dear Mr. Ali Sina
I am responding to your message dated October 10. I had the opportunity of talking to Mr Ghamidi directly this time to get his response on your last message. This is what we have to say on the points you have raised.
Our discussion is for the moment concentrating itself on the contents of the message of Islam in general and the Qur'an in particular. Your view is that the Qur'an is not God's book and therefore Islam is not His message. Our belief is just the opposite of it. We don't endorse many of the things which the contemporary Muslims are doing in the name of Islam. In fact, we both are concerned, for very different reasons though, that the present-day Muslim attitude should change. You seem to hold the opinion that the fanatic Muslim attitude can only change if they give up Islam; we believe that Muslims can only behave properly if they understand and follow the true Islam. However, for the purpose of making this discussion truly purposeful, we would suggest that we be very clear that we are trying to understand whether Qur'an is the word of God or not. For the sake of that purpose, we would request that we focus our attention on this single point and not allow any amount of external circumstances to distract us from it.
In your first message to us you raised these two points against our claim that the Qur'an was the word of God: i) The Qur'anic understanding regarding intercession contains contradictions and ii) the policy for usage of pronouns in the Qur'an for God seems to be inconsistent. We responded by presenting our understanding on both. In your second message you disagreed with the points we had mentioned to defend the Qur'anic presentation, to which we responded in our second response. In your third message (dated October 10) you have urged us to move on and leave it to the readers to conclude from what the two of us have mentioned in our respective messages on the two topics. We are now doing exactly that, assuming that you have nothing more to say in response to what we have mentioned in defense of the Qur'anic teachings on intercession and its usage of pronouns for God.
Your third criticism on the Qur'anic presentation is that there doesn't seem to be any consistency in the manner the Qur'an presents the idea of who should guide whom. At times it seems that it is only men who can guide men; on other occasions we are given to understand that angels can come to guide men, and on still other occasions we get the impression that jinn can also get guided by men. The most prominent part of your comment appears when you present a passage from the Qur'an that mentions the fact that the Qur'an has informed us that at a certain stage an animal would also come to play a role in guiding men. There is thus, according to you, a complete absence of consistency in the manner the Qur'an presents its methodology of guidance.
Before responding to the point raised by you, we would want to emphasize that when one tries to understand the contents of a book as a sincere student who is not out there to pick faults in it but is involved in the serious business of understanding the text, it is important that one appreciates how the book itself presents its arguments and the premises on which those arguments are based. If we were not interested in sincerely understanding your messages and were bent upon picking faults in them, we could have pointed out several contradictions in what you have written to us as yet. However, that would have been a sheer waste of time and an exercise in futility. It is only after you have sincerely understood a text by appreciating the methodology of presentation which the author of the text himself is suggesting that you have a right to criticize the text or else it would come under the category of non-serious criticism. After you understand the scheme of presentation of a text, you have a right to criticize both that scheme as well as the text on the basis of your observation that the text is violating the principles stated by itself.
Now let us briefly mention the scheme presented by the Qur'an regarding the delivery of God's message. We have been informed in the Qur'an that the message of God Almighty comes to the messengers through angels. It is these messenger men who then deliver the message to their fellow humans for the purpose of ensuring that the addressees receive it in the most effective manner. When the message is communicated to humans through fellow men, they are in no position to present any excuse in their defense for denying them. The Qur'an is very clear in its claim that it is only men who can deliver the message of God to their fellow men for the latter to receive it in a manner that its claim to divine origins becomes unmistakable. The reference to the fact that jinn also hear the Qur'an and get guided by it is in the context that since some jinn could hear Qur'an and understand it, they too accepted its claim of divine origins. Had men been able to hear and see jinn, they too would have been obliged to acknowledge the truthfulness of genuine messages of God delivered to that category of God's creation.
As for the mention of the animal, the Qur'an clarifies on several occasions the fact that after people refuse to accept God's message through the normal process of its presentation, He can use any of His signs to let such people know that their denial was not based on any evidence. For instance, on the day of judgment, it is mentioned that the limbs of human body would play the role of witnessing against the perpetrators of crimes. The reference to an animal in a Qur'anic passage is of similar nature. In our opinion, the following is the correct translation of the relevant passage: "You (O prophet) cannot force the dead to listen to your message nor can you force the deaf to hear the call even when they are turning their backs in disinterest. Likewise you can't guide the blind in their misguidance. You can only guide those who are willing to believe in our signs and in submitting themselves to the message. And once the message will be delivered in an undeniable form to them, we might bring out a beast from the land to confirm that these men were not willing to believe in our signs." (Qur'an; 27:80-82) The passage is mentioning that the appearance of a beast, if at all it happens, would only be meant to reinforce the earlier process of communication from the prophet as a final measure confirmation that the deniers were indeed guilty of rejecting a message that was so obvious that a beast could also confirm its divine origins. In other words, the evidence of the beast will not be meant to convince any of the humans to accept the message. Instead, it will be used as a final measure to expose the indefensible stubbornness of the deniers of the message of God.
We would be glad to know if the above presentation doesn't make sense to you. We would also like to know the reasons why you think this presentation is suggesting that the Qur'an is inconsistent in the manner it suggests its message should be communicated to men.

Khalid Zaheer October 24, 2006

Dear Mr. Ghamidi and Dr. Zaheer.

I am glad to hear from you again. I am also glad that the Ramadan is over and you'll have more time to be with us. We really enjoy and value your company and learn from your insights. This exchange of ideas will benefit everyone. Truth is the spark that is flashed when opposing ideas clash. I am certain that if we divest ourselves from prejudices and preconceived ideas, at the end we will find the truth.
Now, let me start with our discussion. Yes, I have nothing else to add to the subjects of intercession and the wrong use of the pronoun in the Qur'an. As for the first topic I am satisfied with what I have already said and so rested my case. As for the use of the wrong pronoun in the Qur'an, you say it is to add beauty to the language and that it should be seen as poetry. I don't know how happy Muhammad would be with this characterization. Apparently he was disdainful of poets to the extent that he wanted to commit suicide when he had that strange vision in the cave Hira and thought he had become a poet. He said there are two groups of people whom he despised most: poets and kahins (soothsayers).
Furthermore, the Qur'an, on repeated occasions reiterates its claim to be a clear book (5:15) easy to understand (44:58, 54:22, 54:32, 54:40) explained in detail (6:114), conveyed clearly, (5:16, 10:15) with no doubt in it (2:1), with clear ordinances, (98:3), of divine nature, (10:37) and full of wisdom (36:2). Yet you tell us that we must first learn its "scheme of presentation" in order to understand its meaning. If that is the case then what shall we make of the above claims of the clarity of the Qur'an? If we first need to learn the "scheme" of the book before we begin to understand it, then the claim that the book is clear and easy to understand is false. Please show me one verse where it says before understanding this book you must first learn its scheme of presentation. What is this scheme of presentation? Will you please explain it to us?
Anyway, by equating the Qur'an to poetry, you basically disarm me completely. I can no longer point to its grammatical, linguistic, scientific or even logical errors because it is a book of poetry and poets are licensed to break all sorts of rules. That is the distinction and the privilege of poets. We let them indulge in fantasies and breach all the norms of language and commonsense if necessary, to stir our soul. If we accept the Qur'an as a book of poetry, we have to acknowledge that it is a very bad poetry.
Then again, the Qur'an adamantly denies being a book of poetry. "It is not the word of a poet; little is it that you believe". (69:41) And, "We have not taught him poetry, nor is it meet for him; it is nothing but a reminder and a plain Qur'an." (36:69)
You see? The Qur'an claims to be plain. Why would you need to study the "scheme of presentation" to understand a plain and clear book?
The main problem in considering the Qur'an as a book of poetry is that as such it ceases to be a book of guidance. You can say it is an inspirational book but you won't be able to call it a book of guidance. A book of guidance must be clear and must not leave room for interpretation. This is the claim made in the Qur'an. If you want to go from A to B, you need a clear roadmap that tells you exactly how to get there. You don't want a poetic direction so confusing that would leave room for different interpretations, or you would get lost. The very fact that you and I both agree that Muslims are lost is that their alleged book of guidance is not guiding them. It is only a bad poetry disguised as guidance. Its spiritual message, if any, is unclear and unintelligible, while its message of hate and violence is loud and clear.
You think by shifting from one pronoun to another the Qur'an becomes a literary work of art. Personally, I do not see much beauty in the Qur'an, but I have no doubt that you do. Let us say beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and move on to the next topic. There was a time that I thought the Qur'an is beautiful. One of the surahs I used to think was beautiful to recite was Surah al Masadd (111). Then I found out that it is nothing but curse. You must agree that in Arabic it rhymes nicely. If you don't know what it says, you may actually enjoy it.
You wrote:

Are you suggesting that we should take first, a course on how to read the Qur'an before reading it? Will you please tell us why a book that claims to be so clear and easy to understand is so complicated? The Qur'an says that the unbelievers are "the vilest of animals"(8:55). How should we interpret this verse? In what scheme these insulting words mean something different than what they appear to mean? This to me sounds a hate speech. How would Muslims react if someone says Muslims are the vilest of animals? The Qur'an encourages Muslims to slay the unbelievers wherever they find them (2:191), to not take them as friends and helpers (3:28), fight them and show them harshness (9:123), and smite their heads ( 47:4). Under what light should we read these and many other gory and hate mongering verses like these so we could instead love all mankind, respect others, mingle in amity with people of all faiths, and be kind, loving and accepting of everyone? Don't you think these verses are responsible for the fact that Muslims are violent and intolerant of others?
Let us say you are right and there is a scheme of presentation that Muslims have failed to see and that is why they have behaved like savages during these 1400 years. Doesn't this make Allah a cruel and cynical deity? Why would he confuse people with ambiguous messages? If Allah wanted us to love all mankind, why he did not say so? Why he said kill the unbelievers wherever you find them? Why there are no verses saying, people of all faiths are your brothers and sisters, love all mankind as members of your family? Why he said: "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are harsh against unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other?" (48:29):
You ask me to be a sincere student and not to "pick faults". Is that your definition of sincerity? I think that is the definition of gullibility. If I try to see no evil, hear no evil and say no evil, I will end up believing in evil. Will you accept any scientific theory in this way, so lackadaisically, so uncritically? Why should we not be equally, if not more, rigorous in finding the truth about God?
If a message is from God, it should not have any faults. If it has a single fault, then it is not from God. What you are suggesting is recipe for disaster. What if a charlatan claims to be a prophet of God? How do I know this person is not lying if I don't try to see his faults? There have been many cults that have seduced many people, leading them to perdition. Just think of cults such and Aum Shinrikyo, whose followers, mindlessly believed in what their guru told them and released sarin gas in the subways of Tokyo, killing a dozen of innocent commuters and injuring hundreds of them for life. What about the cult of People's Temple whose members committed mass suicide in the jungles of Guyana after happily poisoning their own children? What about the cult of Heaven's Gate, Branch Davidian or hundreds of other cults whose followers believed and did not ask some basic questions? They did exactly what you suggest. They tried to be sincere and did not try to find faults in these cults. Can you question their sincerity? They proved their sincerity by sacrificing their lives. Do you question the sincerity of the suicide bombers? Sincerity alone, if not guided by reason and critical thinking can be deadly. Haven't you heard the expression, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions?"
If someone claims to be a messenger of God, we must not accept his claim unless all our questions are answered and we are satisfied that there are no holes in his claim. If there is one, he is not a messenger of God but a shameless liar, an impostor or a madman. God does not err and his religion must be logical. So don't be shy. Try hard to find faults in the claims of prophet pretenders and believe only if you find none. Do not let them intimidate you by saying it is not up to you to test God. You are not testing God. You are testing their claims. If they are indeed messengers of God, they should be able to answer all your questions. If they threaten you with hell, leave them because they are charlatans and liars. This is the only way to find the truth, not by uncritically accepting any nonsense. Do not let anyone fool you with empty promises and bogus claims. The message from God should come with the proof from God and that proof should satisfy our intellect and not insult it.
The reason we have so many faiths, religions, and sects, despite the fact that at most only one of them can be true, is that the followers don't question. They are eager to prove their sincerity and believe blindly without asking some important questions such as "what is the proof?" A simple and yet essential question! They believe, mislead by the feel-good factor and after being swayed by some logical fallacies.
You wrote:

No, it wouldn't. The reason we are having this debate is to find the flaws in each other's arguments. This is not an exercise in futility but the point of this discussion. We want to come to the truth. How else can we do that if we do not highlight each other's errors? You and I see the same things from different perspectives. From your vantage point you can see things that I don't, and vice versa. From where I am standing I may see an object as a disk. Seeing the same object from a different angle you could say, no you are mistaken; it's a cylinder. There may be a depth to the object that I can't see but you can. If you and I point to each other's errors, this is not a slight. We are humans. Our vision and understanding is limited by our vantage point. We don't and can't have the full picture of everything. So it is okay for us to err. And it is okay that we point out to each other's errors. The day I was born I was the most ignorant person in the world. Everything I know, I learned from others. Others like you, who corrected me and showed me my errors. There is no shame in being wrong. We are humans and as such fallible. If I had never come out of Iran, I doubt I would have known what I know today. I probably would have believed in exact same things you believe. In fact in many ways I identify myself with you. I had the same humanitarian ideals that you have while I believed in the same faith that you believe and I could not see the discrepancy and contradiction between my stated belief and my love for mankind. We are to a great extent products of our environments.
As a self proclaimed ignorant, I attest that there is no shame in being ignorant. Shame is in obstinacy and in not willing to see the truth after it has become clear. We can err. However, when an alleged message of God is so beset with errors, we must question its source. The Qur'an claims to be the verbatim words of God. God is not fallible. Therefore if we find one error in the Qur'an, it's enough to disqualify it as the word of God.
There are hundreds of blunders and absurdities in the Qur'an. How can an infallible God err so much? If there were only one or a handful of errors, we could still argue that those verses have crept into the book in later stages. But when the book is replete with scientific heresies, historic blunders, mathematical mistakes, logical absurdities, grammatical errors and ethical fallacies, we must question the legitimacy of its divine origin.
Therefore, what you define as "sincerity", in my view is nothing but gullibility. The believers force themselves to believe in absurdities and call that sincerity. They interpret lack of critical thinking, i.e. simple mindedness, as "purity of heart". A sincere seeker is one who questions and is not satisfied with half-baked answers. A sincere seeker is a doubter. He does not rest until all his questions are answered. How can you claim sincerity when you give up questioning and believe in absurdities? This is recklessness, not sincerity. "If God did not want us to use our brain", asked Galileo, "why he would give it to us?"
Logic is the measure of what is right and what is wrong, not the bogus claims of charlatans and impostors who want us to have faith and not question them. A true God would not expect us to believe in anything unless the clear proof is given. Muhammad himself, on many occasions, claimed that his message is clear. I want to see it. It is not clear to me and to billions of others who do not believe in him. We want proof. Where is the proof? The proof must be logical, irrefutable and conclusive. If I can find a single hole in it, that claim cannot be from God. If I tell you the earth is round, I can prove it. I do not expect you to have faith in my words, and you should not believe me if I resort to violence and force. If I tell you Gabriel visits me every night with a message from God and we play backgammon together, you must ask for proof. If I can't prove my claim, chances are that I am either an impostor or a mentally sick man. It would be foolish for anyone to believe in my claim especially if I demand sacrifices from others and live an ungodly and pervert life as Muhammad did.
Why should we believe in Muhammad and not in equality-unproven claims of other prophet-pretenders and impostors? We know about all the bad things that Muhammad brought to the world, such as religious intolerance and misogyny that did not exist in Arabia before him. (Arabs even believed in a prophetess, Sijah, and women like Salma and Aisha led armies. Such things are inconceivable today.) "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached," asked the wise Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, six hundred years ago. The only answers Muslims had to this question, when it was repeated by Pope Benedict, were riots, burning of churches and killing an elderly nun and her bodyguard. Will you answer this question now? Will you tell us what new Muhammad brought that was not evil? I have counted innumerable evil things that this man brought. Will you tell us of one good thing that he brought?
You wrote:

By whom? By the Quran itself? Isn't this circular reasoning? How do you know this is true? If the Qur'an is a lie, then this claim is also a lie. We ask, what is the proof that Muhammad is a true messenger? You answer, it is written in the Qur'an." We ask, how can we know that the Qur'an is the word of God? You say, because Muhammad said so. This is a logical fallacy, not proof. If there is one error in the Qur'an, then Muhammad is proven to be a liar and if Muhammad is a liar, then the entire story of an angle bringing God's message to him is a fairytale. Since you are yet to prove that the Quran is error-free, we cannot believe in silly stories such as Gabriel brining the message of God to Muhammad.
Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh, who was Muhammad's scribe, realized that Muhammad was making the Quran up. He was not an illiterate man like Muhammad and often suggested better ways to compose the Quranic verses that Muhammad happily would agree. He escaped and went back to Mecca and told his story to everyone, which prompted Muhammad to decide to kill him even though he promised he would not kill anyone in Mecca if they surrendered.
In response to my question about a beast acting as a messenger of Allah you wrote:

First of all disbelief does not need evidence, it is the one who makes a claim that has to provide the evidence. People don't need evidence to not believe in Muhammad. Those who believe in him and try to force that belief on others have to show the proof. Secondly, I am afraid you are engaging in the fallacy of false dilemma. You bring one unproven and unsubstantiated claim such as human limbs acquiring a mouth and testifying against their owner (themselves) to prove that it is easy for animals to talk. This is like saying since 1+1= 3, then 2+2=13. Shouldn't you first prove the claim that human limbs testify against themselves before you use it as evidence to prove animals can also talk?
This is the problem with Islamic thinking. We accept one fallacy and since we have became believers we accept any absurdity afterwards. The following three paragraphs are from my book, Understanding Muhammad.
When Muhammad recounted his tale of ascending to the seventh heaven, Abu Bakr was stunned. He did not know what to make of this. This sounded utterly mad. He had two choices. He had to either admit that Muhammad was a loony and leave him or believe in his fantastical tales. There was no middle ground.
Ibn Ishaq says when Muhammad made his vision known, "many Muslims gave up their faiths. Some went to Abu Bakr and said, 'What do you think of your friend? He alleges that he went to Jerusalem last night and prayed there, and came back to Mecca!' He replied that they were lying about the apostle, but they said that he was in the mosque at that very moment, telling people about it. Abu Bakr said, 'If he says so, then it is true. And what is so surprising in that? He tells me that communications from Allah, from heaven to earth, comes to him in an hour of a day or night, and I believe him, and that is more extraordinary than that at which you boggle!'"
The logic is flawless. Basically what Abu Bakr was saying is that once you give up your rational faculty and believe in an absurdity, you might as well believe in anything. Once you let yourself to be fooled, then you should be prepared to be fooled again and again because there is no end to foolishness. How many people would let a 54 year old man sleep with their 9 year old daughter? Such thing requires extreme foolishness. This much foolishness, that you erroneously call "sincerity" is only possible through blind faith.
You are engaging in the same logical fallacy that Abu Bakr dabbled. You say, since I have accepted the fairytale that human limbs will testifying against their owner (themselves), why should I not believe in this balderdash story of an animal messenger? This logical fallacy does not satisfy those of us who do not believe in the first absurd premise that you present as proof and think that the claim that a beast will be raised as a messenger of God, is ridiculous.
Animals preaching the message of God and limbs testifying against their owner in the afterlife are very much like the fantastic adventures of Alice in the Wonderland. Methinks that the author of Islam, like Lewis Carroll, the author of Alice's Adventures, suffered from temporal lobe epilepsy.
In my book, Understanding Muhammad: A Psychobiography of Allah's Prophet, I have brought ample evidence to show that Muhammad was mentally sick. I would be delighted to send two copies to you fine gentlemen. I promise to publish your refutation in faithfreedom.org right next to where I advertise my book so people can read your refutation even before ordering my book. Compare this offer to the fact that in my previous email I asked you to publish our debate in your site and you did not even acknowledge the request. Compare this offer to the fact that Pakistan has banned faithfreedom.org.
You talked about sincerity! Is this how Muslims prove their sincerity? If I am wrong and you have shown my errors, why not let the world see it? I am giving you the opportunity to expose my errors and prove once and for all that I am mistaken. I am not beating my chest. As I said the only victory I seek is the victory over my own ignorance. But how can we qualify this ban? This message will get through eventually. It is too late to stop it. But this ban will be a torn in the side of Islam. It will be perceived as an admission of defeat.




The evidence of the beast will not be meant to convince any of the humans to
accept the message. Instead, it will be used as a final measure to expose the
indefensible stubbornness of the deniers of the message of God.

What is the purpose of that? Isn't hell enough proof? Why do we need an animal
telling us what we will find soon on our own?

I think you are not comfortable with the fact that this beast is portrayed as the
last messenger - a title Muhammad reserved for himself. You see the
contradiction and try to minimize the role of this messenger beast. In either case
the problem does not go away. The existence of this beast as a messenger of
God does not only contradict other verses of the Qur'an, it is also absurd and the
way you put it, redundant.

You say that the correct translation of the verse is:
=
"And once the message will be delivered in an undeniable form to them, we
might bring out a beast from the land to confirm that these men were not willing
to believe in our signs"
=

Why "might"? Are you in doubt about this claim? The Arabic verse is:
????????? ???? ??????? ?????? ??????????? ?????????? ????????? ?????? ???????

I don't think there is any question about this happening. All the translators of the
Qur'an agree that this beast "will" or "shall" be brought forth from the earth to
speak and there is no doubt about it.

Anyway, I don't know why this would make any difference. Even if the
emergence of this beast is only a probability, as you say, it is still irrational.

=
As for the mention of the animal, the Qur'an clarifies on several occasions
the fact that after people refuse to accept God's message through the normal
process of its presentation, He can use any of His signs to let such people know
that their denial was not based on any evidence
=

The only thing that God should do is to arm his prophets with logical arguments. Any other "sign" is futile.
Chris Angel is a magician. I believe he is the world's top magician. He is even better that Zakir Naik. Dr. Naik plays magic with words. He has fooled many Muslims into believing that the Qur'an contains science. But he can only fool those who are willing to be fooled. I have caught all his tricks and have exposed this charlatan in a book entitled World Greatest Showman. Chris Angel uses different props. I have not been able to catch his tricks. He flies, walks on water, passes through glass divide people in two halves without hiding the body in a box, and does other amazing and unbelievable things. However, he is only a magician. Suppose someone comes and performs magic. Why should we believe in him? It is time that God treat us humans like grownups and stop performing "miracles" to impress us. All he has to do for us to believe in his prophets is to give us logical arguments that satisfy our intelligence. Here is where Allah and his messenger have failed miserably. At least Jesus did some of the things Chris Angel does. Muhammad could not even do that. He acknowledged that other prophets had performed miracles, but claimed that his only miracle is the Qur'an. As we are finding out, this book is anything but miraculous.
I look forward to hear from you soon. After you present your counter-argument, I will show yet another gross blunder of the Qur'an.
I wish you all the best and please remember that I am a fan no matter how we disagree on trivialities. To me, what really matters is the substance and in substance I have no disagreement with you. You and I mean good and work for the same ideals. I hope one day we can meet and I would like to squeeze your hands in friendship and perhaps talk about other stuff that we both agree. It would be an honor to have friends like you. I love good people. It makes no difference to me whether they are Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, or believe in nothing. I value goodness. Beliefs are irrelevant. Some people are colorblind. I am religion-blind. I hope one day, everyone becomes religion-blind. That would be the day of the unity of mankind. What divide us, are beliefs and ideologies. These are not facts. They are just creeds. Belief is acceptance of a proposition without evidence. Wouldn't it be nice to get beyond them and discover that after all we are one people?
I remain sincerely yours.

Ali Sina

[Allegracrown]

Part V

Dear Prof. Zaheer,
I published your message for everyone to see. Please don't worry about time. We all know how busy you and Dr. Ghamidi are. As for not understanding the technicalities of computer and the Internet, welcome to the club. I must confess that our entire site is set up and operated by other friends. Our wonderful administrator is the one who has set it up, repairs it and keeps it greased so it runs smoothly. Left on my own I would be left in the cold. I hope now you feel a bit better.
Actually we are so grateful that you realize the importance of this debate and answer the questions that many have about Islam. Obviously, these questions must be answered sooner or later. They have never been answered. In the past, when fundamental questions like the ones we discuss were raised, the ignorant mullahs' response has always been intimidation and violence. Scholars, in the Muslim world, were naturally fearful for their lives to ask these questions openly. Hafiz and Khayyam resorted to very subtle questioning of Islam through their poetries. If anyone was reckless enough to challenge Islam directly, they would have been put to death and their books would have been destroyed. The rationalists were all exterminated. Al Gazzali vaunted that if Plato and Abu Ali Sina were alive, he would have killed them. Zakaria Razi wrote a book refuting all prophets, calling them bearded billy goats, liars and charlatans. All is left from his book are a few paragraphs and that is thanks to an Ismaili scholar who wrote a refutation to Razi's book and quoted those paragraphs in order to refute them. Here is an extract from what this great rationalist wrote:
"All men are by nature equal and equally endowed with the faculty of reason that must not be disparaged in favor of blind faith; reason further enables men to perceive scientific truths in an immediate way. The prophets-these billy goats with long beards-cannot claim any intellectual or spiritual superiority. These billy goats pretend to come with a message from God, all the while exhausting themselves in spouting their lies, and imposing on the masses blind obedience to the "words of the master." The miracles of the prophets are impostures, based on trickery, or the stories regarding them are lies. The falseness of what all the prophets say is evident in the fact that they contradict one another: one affirms what the other denies, and yet each claims to be the sole depository of the truth; thus the New Testament contradicts the Torah, the Qu'ran the New Testament. As for the Qur'an, it is but an assorted mixture of 'absurd and inconsistent fables,' which has ridiculously been judged inimitable, when, in fact, its language, style, and its much-vaunted 'eloquence' are far from being faultless. Custom, tradition, and intellectual laziness lead men to follow their religious leaders blindly. Religions have been the sole cause of the bloody wars that have ravaged mankind. Religions have also been resolutely hostile to philosophical speculation and to scientific research. The so-called holy scriptures are worthless and have done more harm than good, whereas the writings of the ancients like Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, and Hippocrates have rendered much greater service to humanity."
"The people who gather round the religious leaders are either feeble-minded, or they are women and adolescents (suggestible). Religion stifles truth and fosters enmity. If a book in itself constitutes a demonstration that it is true revelation, the treatises of geometry, astronomy, medicine and logic can justify such a claim much better than the Qur'an"
For the first time in history, the critics of Islam have the chance to ask these old questions and not fear for their lives. All that Muslim authorities can do is ban sites like ours, but these cowardly acts will not help them in the long run because the sun is out and no matter how much they try to close the shutters and hide themselves in the basement, the penetrating light of the truth will eventually reach the masses.
Perhaps it is not an exaggeration to say that this is a historic debate. Although I have no claim to be a scholar, I can rehash the old unanswered questions raised by great minds such as Razi and Khayyam. You and Dr. Ghamidi are celebrated Islamic scholars and now for the fist time the public has the opportunity to hear both sides of the story and see how these old questions are answered.
We look forward to your response and I remain
cordially yours, Ali Sina

[Allegracrown]

Part VI
Nov 15 2006
Dear Mr Ali Sina

Let me briefly state where we have reached as yet in our discussion. You first criticized the Qur'an for being inconsistent in its scheme of ideas on the question of intercession. Your other objection was on the alleged haphazard use of pronouns in the Qur'an. While you have conceded that you have nothing to add to what you've already mentioned on the former issue, you have added a new dimension of criticism to what you had previously written on the latter. You have made a very strong case against the claim that Qur'an is a piece of poetry. I have to say that in an attempt at doing so, you have put in my mouth words I never said and then have gone on to criticize them. A basic confidence one should have in one's counterpart in a discussion is that he/she is trying to understand and present one's case correctly before criticizing it. I never mentioned that the Qur'an is a piece of poetry. What I said was that it is a message expressed in the highest level of literary excellence. In trying to prove my point, I quoted two great Urdu poets, Ghalib and Iqbal, to show how they too, in their literary presentations, used pronouns the way the Qur'an has done. I had to give their references because you had created an impression that it is absurd to believe that God, the author/first-person singular for Qur'an, should use first-person plural and third-person singular pronouns as well for Himself. Since you found the idea of shifting pronouns funny, I had to tell you that by the very act of criticizing Qur'anic text on the basis of such an argument you have indicated a worrying absence of appreciation for literary presentations in yourself. To say that Qur'an is a piece of highest literary excellence and that it doesn't violate any of the rules of literary masterpieces is one thing and to call it poetry is quite another thing. Your subsequent criticism on the assumption that Qur'an has been claimed to be a piece of poetry was therefore irrelevant to our discussion.
In your criticism on the question of miracles you have again committed the same mistake: I didn't even talk about miracles. It seems that you have questions about Islam that are causing you to be agitated against the faith and in your exuberance to get answers to them you assume that all Muslims, including us, are saying the same thing on those issues. My mention about the possibility of a beast declaring that "these men were not willing to believe in our signs" was not a statement meant to affirm the appearance of miracles. It was a part of my response to one of your objections. Your objection was that the Qur'an was inconsistent in informing us as to who has been appointed by God to guide man. At times it is suggested that only men can guide men. On other occasions it is stated that angels guide men. On still other occasions one gets the impression that Jinn also get guided by men. And, what agitated you the most was that, on one occasion at least, according to the Qur'an, it will be a beast who will guide men. I had explained, in response to this criticism, in my previous message that "the evidence of the beast will not be meant to convince any of the humans to accept the message. Instead, it will be used as a final measure to expose the indefensible stubbornness of the deniers of the message of God." The idea was to show that, unlike your claim, the Qur'anic presentation on who guides whom was fully consistent. When we'll talk about miracles we will let you know, God willing, that their appearance is as clear and understandable as any other scientific reality. However, we have not as yet reached the stage of discussion where we are talking about miracles.
You have criticized the following part of my translation of the verse "we might bring out a beast from the land to confirm..." by claiming that many notable English translations of the Qur'an are giving an understanding different from mine. I would say that if a statement has been translated by giving due consideration to all aspects of the principles of usage of that language and the context in which it was stated, then the mere claim that other people do not understand that statement the same way is not necessarily a strong evidence to refute the validity of the translation. Indeed for a commoner there might be a reason to be unconvinced about a translation which is different from most others, but those who are keen to know the text in its correct meanings at an academic level must give a good thought to all arguments provided to support a particular translation. I have translated the verb "akhrajnaa" into English with "We might bring out" because in the classical Arabic verbs carried a number of possibilities. Depending upon what the context was, a verb could be taken in the meanings of its ordinary sense, the sense of it being intended, its possibility of happening, its happening at an initial level, its happening at the ultimate level etc. I have translated the verb appearing in the relevant verse to convey the meanings of its (the verb's) possibility because the context accepts that understanding more than any other.
That paves the way for me to address another criticism you have raised: If the Qur'an was so clear, as its author claims, why does it lend itself to so many interpretations? The answer to it is that the clarity of a text is its intrinsic quality. Whether someone would be able to understand it would depend on whether he is making a genuine attempt at doing so or not. The Qur'an was indeed absolutely clear and effective to its immediate addressees. Whether they accepted its contents or rejected it, the meanings it was conveying were unmistakable. The people of the later times had to be well versed with the language and idiom of the Arabic of the era when the Qur'an was getting revealed. Added to that difficulty was the problem that people already had interpretations in mind that prevented them from searching objectively the true meanings of the text. However, even today if one were to know the language of the Qur'anic times (for which the Qur'an itself is the best source) and decides to ignore all extraneous influences in favour of the Qur'an, its text is remarkably clear. The difficulty in understanding the Qur'an is similar to the difficulty one faces in understanding all other clear masterpieces the appreciation of subtleties of whose language and style of expression have become extinct save to those who have undertaken the trouble to master them.
My request to you in my earlier message to make an attempt to understand the scheme of Qu'anic presentation the way the Qur'an presents itself was also meant to do the same thing: To ask you to try to understand the Qur'an the way it is. This is exactly how every text is expected to be understood if it is to be appreciated seriously. You have picked this point of mine too for criticizing in a manner which makes no sense at all. All genuine critics would first satisfy the authors of the texts they are criticizing to ensure that they have understood the meanings of the text properly before criticizing them. If you are criticizing the meanings of a text which its author doesn't even agree that it is emerging from it, how can you criticize it? And if you are criticizing it then what are you trying to achieve in doing so? To all neutral followers of the discussion it would only be an attempt at criticizing a text simply for the sake of it in a non-academic, non-serious manner.
I had requested you earlier that it serves no purpose to burden the readers with scores of topics at one time. In doing so you can do a good job at stirring the emotions of some feeble-minded followers, but you do no service to the cause of a serious discussion like the one we are engaged in. Let's have an exhaustive discussion on the topics we have already touched upon first. If we decide by mutual consent that nothing more needs to be said about them, we can move on to the new areas for discussion. We promise that we will answer each and every question you will ask on the subject under discussion. However, if you are going to throw all your confusions at us at one time, we would beg to excuse from participating in the discussion any more. A good tennis player can return a serve, howsoever good it may be, but he cannot return several serves thrown at him simultaneously. The spectators too are not going to enjoy such a silly game.
You have mentioned that we have not responded to your offer of posting your messages on our site. Let me tell you that the reason for our reluctance to make the discussion available on our sites is not the fact that you are writing against Islam. The reason it is not happening is that your tone is uncivilized. We too strongly believe in freedom of thought and expression.
However, freedom of expression is one thing and insulting someone's revered personality is quite another. While discussing a controversial matter, a decent person would stick to the topic under discussion and not go about making disparaging remarks about individuals who are held in high esteem by the other debating party. We are engaged in a serious academic discussion and not in a match of hurling invectives at each other.
If you are discussing the possibility whether a person is a murderer or not with someone who doesn't share your view, you are expected to stick to the arguments which would lead the other to believe that the accused was indeed a criminal. Before you prove it to the other person that the accused was a killer, you can't go on to insult and disparage him. A young man 'A' considers 'B' his father while 'C' claims that 'B' is not A's father. So long as C hasn't been able to convince A, the latter is convinced that B is his father. Any insulting and uncivilized mention that the truth was otherwise would be unacceptable to all decent people of the world. This truth is quite clear to every intelligent, cultured person. Unfortunately, it is being openly violated regularly in your messages. We Muslims consider Muhammad as the chosen messenger of God. We love him more than we love our parents because we are convinced that he was God's messenger. On the other hand you keep using for him the filthiest of words you can find from the dictionary. You then expect us to post your mails on our sites. We are prepared to post all decent messages of disagreement on our websites. However, we will not, God willing, ever allow any insulting language to be posted about anyone, not even about those with whom we disagree strongly.
You have every right to say that the Qur'an is not the word of God and that Muhammad was not his prophet so long as you are not convinced about our claims. We can go on discussing our respective views in the light of our arguments. We welcomed the initiative taken by you to initiate this discussion. However, if we see any nonsense hurled at our prophet in your future messages to us, this discussion would discontinue there and then.
As always, this message has been written after I was briefed by Mr Ghamidi.
Khalid Zaheer

Dear Professor Zaheer and Dr. Ghamidi
The fact that I rested my case on the question of intercession does not mean that I have "conceded". It means that the case, as far as I am concerned, is explained thoroughly and I see no new information presented by you that needs to be addressed. However, since you raised the point again I will explain what I believe to be obvious.
You stated that verses 4:17-18 talk about three categories of people. A) those who sin and repent immediately. B) Those who sin but don't repent until they are near their death and C) Those who do not believe in Allah and never repent. Then you said that the situations of A and C are clear, but what will happen to people in category B is not explained in the Quran. You added:
What if a person belonging to such a category was to seek justice from God Almighty on the Day of Judgment? And what if another person, let's say my ordinary self, was to ask the Almighty to forgive him? What objections can be raised against the possibility that such an event will take place before the Almighty makes a clear pronouncement to that effect? Intercession will be nothing more than a request tendered by some individuals to the Almighty to forgive those people whose case will be unclear on the basis of the principles of justice clearly outlined by the Almighty.
The reason I did not see a need to answer this argument is because I had already answered it. I do not believe in overkill nor do I consider it scholarly. My objective is to clear the misconceptions and not to rob the nose of my opponents to the ground. I get no pleasure in doing that, unless my opponent has been overtly obnoxious and arrogant. Then humiliating him publicly is therapeutic for his inflated ego. In this case my opponents are two very respectful scholars. My disagreement with you is in the form and not in the substance. The substance is love for humanity, tolerance and respect for human life. In this we both agree. Our differences, although not insignificant, are secondary.
Anyway, in my earlier message, I asked what possibly a creature of God like your good self can tell his maker that he already does not know? Are you claiming to be wiser, more compassionate and more merciful than God? Suppose I am a sinner who have sinned out of ignorance and weakness and not out of malice and really deserve forgiveness. Doesn't God know this already? Why he needs you to tell him what he already knows? Are you kinder to me than him? Do you know the secrets of my heart, my weakness and my sincerity better than him? I hope you responded in the negative to all these questions. So isn't it presumptuous to tell God how to run his business? You want to be more companionate than God. This is even worse than trying to be more catholic than pope.
You are not kinder than God, nor wiser than him, and not privy to the secrets of people's hearts. So what qualifies you to tell the creator of the universe what he should do with me? Assuming that there a life after death and there is a God that punishes and rewards, it is only logical that you seek forgiveness for yourself and I ask forgiveness for myself. It would be arrogant for us miser creatures to tell God what to do as if we know better.
Now, the problem does not end there. Muhammad also thought that not only God would listen to his prayers but he would also listen to his curses. In the verse 3.61 he challenged his opponents to face him in a "cursing tournament" to see who is right. He said, "come on, let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our near people and your near people, then let us curse each other to find out who is telling the truth." Wow! What a fool proof system to find the truth.
But don't be fooled yet. Muhammad might have impressed his gullible followers with these empty threats but in real life he was more pragmatic than to relay on mere curses. He did not just sit there cursing his opponents waiting for Allah to act. He got into action himself. He sent spies to the towns of his to be victims to assess the situation and cowardly ambushed them when they were least expecting.
About 8 years ago a credulous Muslim challenged me to the same. I encouraged him to sit and curse. I told him that Muhammad's cursing seasons lasted thirty days and recommended that he should not stop cursing until his wish is granted. Looks like Allah has not been attentive to this poor Muslim's curses. Maybe more Muslims have to join the battle and curse me in congregation. How about a big Ummah day of cursing all the enemies of Islam? That is an idea! Hey, it is in the Quran, so it must work. Alas few Muslims believe in the power of cursing and instead, like their prophet, they resort to terrorism and violence to prove their points.
Do you really think that the maker of this magnificent universe is a toy in the hands of his creatures? Now if this is really Allah who is making that call, don't you think that he is a fool? Why would he need people to curse each other? If he already knows who is right and who is wrong, why he dose not punish the wrong party, assuming that this is the only way he knows how to make his truth prevail?
This verse depicts Allah as a despicable being who instead of reason resorts to violence to prove he has the ultimate power. This verse alone is enough to prove that Muhammad was a charlatan and had zero understanding of truth. Sadly, so few of his followers have discernment. People are so desperate to be fooled that prefer to keep their eyes shut, lest they see the light and find the truth about the deplorable predicament in which they are trapped.
You wrote: "Such an act will neither be an attempt to add anything to His knowledge nor will it be instrumental in altering His decision. It will be a mere plea expressed by some individuals to seek mercy for some others who will be falling on the margin of good and bad performers".
If your plea is not going to give any new information to God and will in no way affect his decision, what is the point of making that plea? You might as well beseech forgiveness from a wall. Isn't that an exercise in futility?
You wrote that the Quran says "intercession would be allowed to those who speak the truth." Can anyone lie to an omniscient God? Then again, what is the point in saying anything to God who knows everything better than you?
I explained these things already. These are simple logical arguments that debunk the whole theory of intercession. You did not bring anything new to the table. Therefore I rested my case. This does not mean I conceded.
You wrote: "In fact, it would be the supreme kindness of God that would allow some people to plead mercy for those people whom He will have already decided, but not openly announced, to forgive."
Really! I think it is sardonic to tell people pray earnestly when their prayers are not going to have any effect and the decisions are already made. How much respect does a judge deserve who makes his decision first and then listens patiently to the witnesses? Such a judge must be sick in the head. He would be giving people false hope. If the decisions are already made what is the point of supplicating and praying? Such a sadistic god is scornful and not worthy of any praise. It is amazing that you can't see the irony.
One reader commented: "When Allah has already decided to forgive, there is no point in someone else to plead mercy for those people. Whether they plead or not, the decision is already been made to forgive."
Does this point need further clarification? As you can see, the whole concept of intercession is absurd. As rational people we must reject the very notion of intercession. I was glad to read that Dr. Ghamidi had already done that. But then when I quoted the Quranic verses that speak of intercession, you changed your position and felt the need to defend something totally irrational.
Now let us read the verses 4:17-18 again
Repentance with Allah is only for those who do evil in ignorance, then turn (to Allah) soon, so these it is to whom Allah turns (mercifully), and Allah is ever Knowing, Wise. (category A)
And repentance is not for those who go on doing evil deeds, until when death comes to one of them, he says: Surely now I repent; (category B) nor (for) those who die while they are unbelievers. (category C) These (B & C) are they for whom We have prepared a painful chastisement.
As you see, your understanding of these verses is not correct. The categories B and C will not be forgiven. You would be wasting your time praying and interceding for them. This verse says those who delay repentance will not be forgiven. You yourself are saying that God's decision will not change. Will you then explain why intercede? By defending the concept of intercession you are contradicting the above verse. But actually it is the Quran that contradicts itself. You are educated and smart men and yet by trying to defend a lunatic man you are engaging in all sort of irrationalities. Why? Why we have to sellout our intelligence to defend a madman of the seventh century? Why it is so hard to wake up, to come to our senses and to realize that we have been conned? Truth is manifest like the sun, why we don't want to see it?
This is what faith does to people. Rational people do all sorts of mental acrobatics to prove something irrational because otherwise their entire belief system crumbles. Since irrationality cannot be defended rationally, they end up saying irrational things. This is not a slight on you. I did the same when I was a believer. I said so many stupid things to cling to my faith until I could no longer fool myself and once I admitted that one thing is wrong, it had a domino effect and one after another I saw more absurdities that I had never paid attention to before. Islam is a house of cards. One lie is supported by another and all of them hold this religion together. Once one lie is removed this entire edifice of lies will fall at once. All you have to do is admit to one tiny error and at once you will see hundreds and thousands of them. That means the loss of faith. But losing faith is a painful rebirth. That is why Muslims cling to each and every lie so tenaciously. It is much easier to lie to ourselves and prolong our sojourn in the womb of ignorance than see the truth and face the uncertainty of freedom.
As for the second topic you clarified that you never said the Quran is poetry and that I am putting words in your mouth. Well, that is why we are having this discussion. If there is something I misunderstand, you can catch my error. No harm is done. It is good that both of us agree that the Quran is not a book of poetry.
However, you claim that because the Quran is an excellent piece of literature, it does not have to abide by the rules of grammar just as poets often break these rules. I stated that we allow poets to break all sorts of rules, including those of logic to inspire us but this privilege is not extended to someone claiming to have brought a divine book of guidance. Every book has to abide by its own rules. You would make a grave mistake if you try to write a book on science in a poetic language. When writing about science, what matters is clarity. This is also true about a book of guidance.
I also said that switching from one pronoun to another does not transform a prosaic writing into a masterpiece of literature. The main requisite for a book of guidance is clarity. Poets can be as ambiguous as they want, but messengers of God should not. On one hand you say the Quran is not a book of poetry and on the other hand you want us to overlook its poetic vagaries. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Nice try!
A book of guidance must not contain any ambiguity. The excellence of the writing should be attained while adhering to the rules of grammar and at the same time the book must be clear. The Quran does neither of the two. The Bible is an excellent literature. It is a readable book and unlike the Quran that is tedious, it is enjoyable. The Bible does not break any grammatical rules to defraud its readers pretending to be an "excellent literature". It is an excellent literature precisely because it sticks to the norms of grammar and correct speech. Why the Bible is a masterpiece of literature? It is because its authors were learned rabbis and scholars while the author of the Quran was an illiterate man.
You say I am "agitated against the faith" and in my exuberance to get answers to them I assume that all Muslims, including you, are saying the same thing on those issues.
I am only questioning the Quran. What you believe or don't believe is not of my concern. My objective is to prove that the Quran is not a divine book. I know that both you and Dr. Ghamidi are sensible and rational people and have a hard time believing in absurdities. All I want to do is to show how precarious is your position. As rational people you cannot defend Islam, which is utterly irrational.
Rationalism and Islam don't mix any more than water and oil do. Take the example of intercession. What I read from Dr. Ghamidi in his site was very rational. He had quoted the verses (78:37-38) and in the footnote he had written: "This and the next two verses strongly negate the philosophy of mediation and intercession." However, when I showed that the Quran says quite something else also, you and Dr. Ghamidi changed your position on this subject and started to defend something you do not believe. Your options are to defend the indefensible and the irrational, or to admit that the Quran is wrong. Since the latter option is out of question, you will continue bending backwards and do all sorts of mental acrobatics to somehow justify the absurdity of your holy book. The case is clear and I do not need to dwell on it any longer. I prefer to move on to other subjects and once I show you that this book has as many holes in it as wire mesh, you will eventually have to make a choice between rationality and Islam. What I want to arouse in you and in our Muslim readers is cognitive dissonance. Then it would be up to you and them to choose between reason and Islam.
Many people have chosen belief over reason. They are comfortable believing in absurdities and regard fideism superior to rationalism. I have no argument with them. Our paths simply do not cross. Intellectually, we operate in different planes. However, if you claim that Islam is compatible with reason, you are coming into our turf. Therefore I will ask questions and want proof. If you fail to produce the proof I will accuse you of false advertising.
On the question of an animal acting as a messenger of Allah you repeated what you already had said earlier that it is "used as a final measure to expose the indefensible stubbornness of the deniers of the message of God." I have already answered this point in my previous message and therefore I won't take the reader's time repeating.
You also say that the fact that other translators have translated the verse 27:82 differently does not mean that your translation is not right. As I said, even if we translate the verse in the way you have done it, i.e. assume that the emergence of this beast is only a probability; it is still irrational and does not change anything. If I tell you that tomorrow cats will rain; that would be an illogical statement. If I tell you that cats MAY rain, it does not become any more logical. Cats will never rain and animals will never become messengers of God. This idea is ludicrous.
On the subject of the clarity of the Quran you say "the clarity of a text is its intrinsic quality. Whether someone would be able to understand it would depend on whether he is making a genuine attempt at doing so or not."
I beg to disagree. An obtuse text is obtuse no matter who reads it. You may not qualify me as capable of understanding the Quran because I have rejected it completely. Mind you, this has not been the case always. There was a time that I too, like you, believed in this book and admitting that it was all wrong was a painful experience. Now, let us say Allah has sealed my heart and as the result I do not understand it. (That in itself is an interesting topic to discuss.) What about the Muslims who sincerely believe in it? Why they understand the Quran in so many different ways? You disagree with the understanding of the suicide bombers, but do you doubt their sincerity? They are ready to die to prove their faith. Why they do not understand the Quran in the right way, the way you do? How many sects exist in Islam? Muslims read the same book but understand it in so many different ways. Why? Do we need more proof that this book is not clear? There are Muslims with whom you disagree. Some of them have even attempted to assassinate you. Isn't this enough proof that the Quran is not clear for them (or possibly for you)? Are you suggesting that you are the only one who reads the Quran in the right way? The truth is that this book is not clear.
You say: "Qur'an was indeed absolutely clear and effective to its immediate addressees."
Apart from the fact that you can't possibly know this and are making an unsubstantiated claim, let us say that you are right. What about others who were or are not immediate addressees, like you and I and billions of others? Shouldn't the book of God be clear to everyone? If the Quran is for all people and for all times, why only a handful of the immediate addressees should be able to understand it? This argument makes Allah unfair and a cynic who plays pranks with humans.
You say, "even today if one were to know the language of the Qur'anic times (for which the Qur'an itself is the best source) and decides to ignore all extraneous influences in favour of the Qur'an, its text is remarkably clear."
I am not introducing a new topic but since you are making a claim I need clarification. Based on your claim I take that you are among those who understand the Quran. I am going to ask you to explain a few verses of this book. Let us start from the start. The Quran begins with Alif, Lam, Mim. What does that mean? There are many other disjointed letters in other surahs. Can you please explain to us the meaning of these letters? Then it says
Dhalika alkitabu la rayba feehi hudan lilmuttaqeena.
Dhalika means "that". Which book this verse is talking about? If it is talking
about the Quran, then the right pronoun is "this" book, hadha alkitabu. Most
translators have used their logic and corrected Muhammad's error. So they have
translated dhalika as "this". Arberry and Palmer, however, have stood by the
correct meaning of the word and have translated it as "that". Obviously the
Quran is not clear to the extent that it has even confused its translators. Can you
explain why instead of this, Allah says that? Is this also to make the book an
excellent work of literature? It looks like Muhammad did not know how to use
pronouns.

Then the verse continues: la rayba feehi (there is no doubt in it). I am sorry to
inform you that the majority of mankind doubts this book and that is why they
are not Muslims. Yours truly is one of them and I am putting all my doubts in
this site for everyone to see and answer. So far no one has been able to do that.
Let us hope that you will.

In my previous communication I asked you to interpret the following verses:

"The unbelievers are the vilest of animals" (8:55).
"Slay the unbelievers wherever they find them" (2:191)
"Fight them and show them harshness (9:123)
"Do not take them as friends and helpers (3:28)
And "Smite their necks" (47:4)

Will you please explain what do you understand from these verses? Since my heart is sealed, all I can understand is what I see and what I see is a message of hate and violence. You seem to understand the Quran differently. Please tell us what are the real meanings of these seemingly satanic verses?
I had promised to ask a new question this time. I will wait until you clarify the above verses. I see you have a lot to explain and I am not willing to burden you.
You stated: "The difficulty in understanding the Qur'an is similar to the difficulty one faces in understanding all other clear masterpieces the appreciation of subtleties of whose language and style of expression have become extinct save to those who have undertaken the trouble to master them."
I am not sure which masterpieces you are referring to. But all the literary masterpieces I know are clear. All the philosophical theories presented by both antique and present thinkers that I have read were clear to me. The books discussing scientific theories are absolutely clear. I can read Dante, Shakespeare, the theory of relativity and the quantum physics and understand them. All I need are the meanings of the words, which I can find in a dictionary and I can easily understand what they say. Even the Bible and the Vedas are fairly understandable. That is not the case with the Quran. I do not find any other book as obtuse as this book. The only clear message in the Quran is its message of violence. When it says strike terror, smite the necks of the unbelievers and chop their fingertips, it is very clear. Other than that nothing in this book is clear. If you allow me to go forward I will show how contradictory and confusing this book is. But maybe I am wrong. Will you please give us one example of literature that lends itself to this many interpretations as the Quran does?
If the Quran was clear why so many scholars had to write so many books of tafseer and compendiums to this book? You can read the Bible and understand it with no help from another book. But to understand the Quran you need tafseer. Doesn't the very existence of so many books of tafseer belie the claim that the Quran is a clear book?
Also if the subtleties of the language and style of expression of the Quran are lost to the masses of people, as you have stated, then doesn't this mean that the book has ceased to be a clear book of guidance for all times? Are you telling me that now only an elite can read and interpret the Quran and the rest of us should depend on them alone to tell us what God says. In that case Islam's days are over and it is time for Allah to send another messenger to speak to us in a language that we all can understand.
You insisted again that I should try to understand the scheme of Qur'anic presentation the way the Qur'an presents itself.
What makes you think that you understand the Quran better than me? For one thing you read the Quran subjectively, i.e. through the eyes of a believer. As such you are unable to see its errors objectively. This is normal. Believers are lovers and they cannot see the faults in the object of their love. This is your handicap, which has become clear in our discussion. In the case of intercession you wrote, and I repeat:
Such an act will neither be an attempt to add anything toe His knowledge nor will it be instrumental in altering His decision. It will be a mere plea expressed by some individuals to seek mercy for some others who will be falling on the margin of good and bad performers.
The contradiction in these two sentences is clear to any objective observer, but as a lover and a believer, you are unable to see it despite the fact that both of you are very rational persons with trained scientific minds. Both of you are very intelligent and smart men. However you are forced to defend a very stupid and ignorant man and this is the result. Why do you do it? If Islam was from God, it would have been logical.
In the case of the wanton use of pronouns in the Quran you say these errors are to make the Quran a masterpiece of literature. I am afraid this beauty you are alluding to escapes the rest of mankind. Only Muslims see beauty and art in this jumble known as the Quran. So again, yours is a subjective observation. I am afraid you are the ones who are disqualified to understand the Quran properly, not me. Faith blinds. You say you love your prophet more than you love your parents. Would you trust a son to act as the judge in a case involving his father and mother? Because of this excessive love for Muhammad you are blinded to all his evilness and are disqualified to judge his actions and his words. You are the last persons fit to pass judgment on the Quran and yet you say I am not allowed to do that. Far from it! I am the most qualified to do that because I have overcome my blind faith and now I can see this book in a very objective way that you can't.
Despite that, you have the opportunity to explain the above Quranic verses and tell us in what scheme you interpret them to make them sound less violent and less hatemongering. The ball is in your court.
You complained that I have burdened the readers with "scores" of topics that you fear will stir emotions in "some feeble minded followers."
I hope by followers you mean those who follow this debate because I do not have followers and think "following" is demeaning for rational people. You are right; only feebleminded people are followers. I am glad to say that the standard of the essays in faithfreedom.org is a tad above what you find in other sites. I may be a mediocre writer myself but with the exception of me our writers are among the best. As the result only intellectuals and strong minded people find this site attractive. Feebleminded people get offended and they go away.
Anyway, so far I have presented no more than three topics - the intercession, the wanton use of pronouns and the animal messenger. This is not "scores" of topics. Are there other topics on the table that I am not aware of? If you already feel overwhelmed by just three topics, are you sure you can defend the Quran that contains hundreds of absurdities, contradictions and errors?
I think these topics are exhaustively explained and our readers are also eager that we move to other topics. If you think you have not said everything and still want to add more, the floor is all yours. I am done and I have rested my case. I believe these three topics are crystal clear and there is no need for me to add anything more. Adhering to Occam's razor and lex parsimoniae (law of succinctness), I feel no more additions are needed for me to make my case any stronger.
You said that you believe in freedom of thought and expression and the reason you are reluctant to publish our debate in your site is that my tone is "uncivilized". I am sorry that my tone has been uncivilized but I assure you that I have not been aware of it myself. Maybe because I am too brute and churlish to even notice how uncivilized is my tone. However, I would really be grateful if you could kindly point out exactly where I have been uncivilized so I can correct myself and be more civilized in the future. I am not being sarcastic. I sincerely strive to improve myself everyday in everyway and would like to act like civilized people. Will you kindly help me by being more specific and show me exactly where I have been uncivilized?
Also if I am uncivilized isn't it to your advantage to publish my uncivilized messages on your site so everyone in Pakistan can see them and not be fooled by me? If you click on the "Muslims Comments" in our site you will see that I have published all the insults that Muslims have hurled at my person. I do that because I want to show how these people lack civility and how vile they have become thanks to Islam. Are you trying to protect my reputation by hiding my incivility from your readers? Your job is to save the reputation of Muhammad not mine. On the contrary you must expose me. So it is okay to publish our messages.
You added: "freedom of expression is one thing and insulting someone's revered personality is quite another."
I will have to disagree with you here. Freedom of expression is also freedom to insult someone else's revered personality and belief. Without such freedom there is no freedom. Beliefs don't have to be respected. They must be scrutinized, questioned and if proven wanting, discarded. There are all sorts of beliefs out there. If one has to watch his tongue lest he say something that may offend someone else's belief, then one cannot say anything at all. There are people who have great reverence for Hitler. Are you suggesting no one should say anything against Hitler because someone might be offended? At this moment most of the North Koreans are led to believe that Kim Jung Il is some sort of divine personage. Should we hold our tongues and respect this brute monster because there are people who love him and will be offended if we criticize him? The followers of Jim Jones worshiped that psychopath to the extent that when a few of them managed to escape his cult, others assassinated them. This is true in the case of all cults. Cultists love their leader to the point of worshiping him and are extremely offended if anyone criticizes their leader. In fact this is the main difference between a cult and a religion. Jesus has been vilified on many occasions. Someone with questionable taste placed a crucifix in a jar of urine and call it art. Christians were upset, but mainly because the City of New York had allowed this aberrancy to be shown in the City's Museum at tax payers (their) expense. The protest was against the Museum, not against that idiot "artist". He was never threatened and he has no fear for his life. In contrast Muslims rioted and killed innocent people when a few cartoons of Muhammad were drawn. This alone is enough proof that Islam is a cult and not a religion.
Who said beliefs should be respected? Only those who cannot defend their belief rationally demand protection gainst criticism for their faith. Because their faith is disgusting they want to force others to respect their faith through legislation. If Muslims could answer the criticisms raised against Islam, they would not act so violently. They resort to censorship and violence because they have failed in the arena of reason. Why the followers of no other religion act in this way and why the followers of cults do? It is because this behavior is cultic behavior. Islam is not a religion but an overgrown cult.
Take a look at the forum of our site. It is free for all to come and say anything they want. Many Muslims take this opportunity to come and insult me and yet no one will censor them. Insults don't hurt. I welcome good logic and can easily refute back logic. So why should we ban people at all?
Several Muslim countries have blocked our site because they are afraid of us. We are only a handful of ordinary people and yet, to use Muhammad's favorite expression, we have "cast terror in the hearts" of Muslim authorities worldwide, but unlike him without ever resorting to any violence or calling for it. This is the awesome power of truth. `
Furthermore, I am not insulting Muhammad but telling things as they are. Muhammad slept with a child. The English word for an adult who finds a child sexually attractive is pedophile. These are the most despicable creatures I can think of. He raided unarmed civilians, killed their men and captured their woman and children, while looting their herds, camels and everything they owned. Such a person in English is called a marauder, a gangster. He slept with women captured in his raids right after slaying their husbands, fathers and many of their relatives and allowed his followers to do the same. This in English is called rape. He ordered his followers to assassinate his critics. Such a person is called an assassin. He massacred entire populations while they were his prisoners of war. Such a person is called mass murderer. How do you want me to say these truths about this man without hurting your sensitivity? Why instead of playing victim don't you answer these charges and refute them once and for all? I have made these charges against Muhammad for many years and millions of people have read them and have spread them. I am offering to remove these charges and apologize publicly if someone can prove me wrong. So if I lie, all you have to do is catch my lies and expose me as a liar. By censoring my site and by not publishing our debate you only validate what I say. Yes you can keep the Pakistanis in the dark a little longer, but the world is awakening and this means the end of Islam is approaching. This site is blocked in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and many other Islamic countries. However the truth is spreading like wildfire. Others are taking up this banner and are taking this message far and wide.
Now, let us turn the table and see how good Muslims are in respecting the beliefs of others. Don't Muslims burn churches and synagogues? Don't they insult the deities of Hindus? Didn't they demolish the statute of Buddha in Bamian? You may say that those Muslims who do such things are ignorant, but what about Muhammad? Didn't he insult the Christians' belief of trinity, which he did not even understand? Didn't he insult and eventually destroy the icons of the Quraish? What right did he have to ram into Ka'ba and smash the icons that people held sacrosanct? That temple belonged to the Pagans. He had no right to confiscate it and destroy their idols.
You may say, but Muhammad did this because he was right and others were wrong. Isn't this what everyone thinks about his own belief? Should anyone who thinks he is right kill those who disagree with him and destroy their houses of worship? Don't you agree that the reason Muslims have caused so much havoc throughout these centuries, destroyed thousands of temples in Iran, India and elsewhere and killed your and my ancestors is because they followed the examples of their prophet? Yes it is despicable for you and me to take the side of those who butchered our forefathers.
You ask me not to accuse Muhammad of any crime until I can prove my case. I have actually proven all my charges against him already. If you allow me to carry on, I will prove them to you too. I think you should let go of these three topics. You have already made your point and now you are repeating yourself. Let us move on. As I said, if you can disprove anyone of my charges I will remove them and apologize publicly. So instead of getting offended, let us go through these charges and see if you can show to the world that I am mistaken.
This will have a much bigger impact than saying I should not say anything bad about Muhammad because your skin is delicate and your feelings are tender. Such an evasive strategy hardly convinces anyone. Muslims have been playing that game of victimization ad nauseam and people are developing an adverse reaction to it. The world has had enough of Muslims sensitivity and they do not give a damn anymore. It is time to tell the truth. If you can't stand the truth, that is your problem. Prove me wrong or put up with the rising anger of the world. We have had it up to here with Islamic violence and their game of victimhood. Enough with hypocrisy, enough with lies, enough with terrorism and taqiyyah and enough with your game of victimization!
Then you conclude your message with an ultimatum that "if we see any nonsense hurled at our prophet in your future messages to us, this discussion would discontinue there and then."
First of all none of my charges against Muhammad are nonsense. These are grave and serious charges that definitely show Muhammad was not fit to be called a good man let alone a messenger of God. What he did, deserve contempt not praise. Anyone doing a fraction of what Muhammad did today would be rotting in jail or would be condemned to electric chair. Secondly, how else am I supposed to prove my case if I am not allowed even to bring my charges against your defendant? You are asking me to prove my charges without even laying any charge against him. How can that be done?
The reason Islam has survived so long is precisely because of this fallacious strategy. Muslims will resort to threats in order to intimidate their critics and silence them and then claim victory. That is why a real discussion between Muslim scholars and the critics of Islam has never taken place. The reason is that Muslims cannot tolerate criticism of their prophet. Why? It is because they can't respond to them. As soon as they realize their position is precarious they find an excuse to copout.
I know all this talk hurts you. It hurt me too when I first saw the light of the truth. However, I was all on my own. I could not withdraw from the debate because this debate was taking place in my head. Yes, it was painful. But I was already in the throes of the cognitive dissonance and had to choose. I am happy that I chose reason over blind faith. I decided that an irrational god is no one but Satan and did not want to believe in Satan. You and other Muslims must make this choice on your own.
How do you think your pulling out at this stage will be interpreted by our readers? You can bring all the face saving excuses in the world saying I am uncivilized, I insult your prophet, your feelings are hurt, etc, but people are smart and they know why you don't want to continue. They only conclude that you have run out of answers. If you had answers you would patiently go through all my charges and contest them one by one. So far I have asked only three questions and they look to you "scores" and you already want to back out.
If I am lying, I am influencing millions of people. Why not bite the bullet, continue this debate, expose my lies and put an end to me ones and for all? If you are right, at the end the victory will be yours and who laughs last, laughs more. Actually if you can prove me wrong I will be grateful. This is a golden opportunity. Forget about me. Look with indulgence at my incivility and at my unscholarly nonsensical rambling. Keep in mind that it is not for me that you write. You are writing to enlighten many people, both Muslims and non-Muslims, who wonder why no Muslim scholar has yet managed to answer me and to put an end to this site. Many of them have started to believe that maybe I am right after all. Many have left Islam already. These people will talk to other Muslims and make them doubt too and the snowball will keep growing until Islam falls like an avalanche and will be melted and washed away under the heat of the sun of truth. If Islam is the right religion, shouldn't you overlook my incivility with your magnanimity and forbearance and think about helping these people whom I am misleading?
Please don't leave us dear Mr. Ghamidi and Dr. Zaheer yet. The night is long and we have just begun. I only served you a little appetizer. You must try the main course. I have prepared for you a great feast. The dishes are ready in the kitchen. Allow me to set the table. I promise to bring one dish at a time so you do not get indigestion. One is more succulent than the other and I want you to relish each one separately.
All the best
Ali Sina

[Allegracrown]

Part VII

Estimated erudite scholars, Dr. Ghamidi and Dr. Zaheer:
Respecting beliefs is not a virtue at all. It is actually a fallacy. What is the definition of belief? Belief means accepting a postulate without evidence. Once you have evidence, then it is no longer a belief but a fact. A child may believe that if he eats watermelon seeds, watermelon plant will grow in his tummy. This belief does not have to be respected. Of course, you will smile and may even listen to his stories attentively. You don't ridicule him or put him down. He is after all a child. You love the child but it is ludicrous to say we must respect his silly beliefs too. As he grows and can understand things better, you explain to him that watermelons don't grow in the tummy.
Now what if this child becomes an adult and still wants to hold unto his foolish beliefs? (Much of the beliefs people hold sacrosanct is more ridiculous than the belief of watermelons growing in the tummy.) Do you still have to tolerate his foolish thoughts? Yes! As long as his beliefs do not harm others, you should tolerate them. It is not up to us to decide what people should believe and what they should not believe. This is the essence of freedom of thought. You and I may not agree with Hinduism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism or Bahai Faith. Since these beliefs are not intrusive, we have no right to stop them and force those who believe in them to abandon their beliefs. However, we must not tolerate beliefs that harm others. If a religion teaches, slay those who do not believe wherever you find them; they are unclean, do not associate with them and do not take them as friends, they are worse than animals, God hates them and they are fuel for hellfire, such a religion is dangerous. All mankind must come together to eradicate this evil religion of hate. A similar doctrine of hate brought much death and devastation in the last century. Everyone had to join force to fight it. We must not let this happen again. We must eradicate every evil doctrine. Intolerant beliefs should not be tolerated. When humanity fought to put an end to Nazism, everyone vowed "never again", but a similar or even more dangerous doctrine or hate is raising its ugly head again. People are not opposing it because it is disguised as religion. We must unmask it and say no to it. Islam has brought more death and devastation than Nazism. It must be stopped before it burns the world. Another man in Iran is echoing the exact words of Hitler. He denies the holocaust while he is promising to deliver another. Hitler's book has been the top bestseller in Turkey for several years now. Hitler is a hero to many Muslims. The Qur'an is more violent than Mein Kamph. We must not let Muslims do what Nazis did. Never again, we must let evil become strong.
Let me recapitulate:
. • Beliefs do not have to be respected. All beliefs are subject to scrutiny and criticism and this is an essential part of freedom of expression. One must be free to deny and even to blaspheme God. No idea is beyond criticism.
. • We must be tolerant of all beliefs even if we do not agree with them and retain the right to criticize them. The right to criticize all beliefs does not preclude respecting the right of others to believe in those very beliefs we criticize. As Voltaire said, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."
. • Intolerant beliefs must not be tolerated. Freedom must be preserved and this means we must fight and eradicate intolerant doctrines. They must be hunted down and uprooted. You are free but if you are a danger to others, you forfeit your freedom. This applies as much to people as it does to ideologies.

Free and civilized societies must protect the rights of ALL their citizens to be free. By "ALL" I mean everyone and not just the majority. Without freedom of thought and belief there is no freedom. So what if a group of people decides to impose its beliefs on others? In that case it is the responsibility of the state to subdue this group in order to protect others. Intolerance is not a right. You have the right to criticize any belief but you do not have the right to be intolerant, promote hate and call for violence. Those who do that must be stopped by law. If they do not understand logic they must be stopped by force. Your freedom ends where the freedom of others begins. This is the limit of freedom in free societies where everyone is free. Islam is uniquely evil. It is the only religion that promotes intolerance and hate. Therefore it is incumbent upon all freedom lovers of the world to fight it and eradicate it.
Muhammad did not respect anyone's belief. It is not for this that we blame him. We blame him because he was intolerant of those beliefs.

You are not the only one accusing me of being tactless. I am not prefect, and maybe my approach is not the best approach. Just the other day a friend wrote and said the same thing. I told him that I have been debating with Muslims, since 1998. At first, when I started, I adopted a very soft language. I even used the PBUH salutation every time I mentioned the name of Muhammad deferentially. I must have debated and exchanged emails with thousands of Muslims. Eventually I fine-tuned my methodology and language. I learned through experience that direct and blunt talk is more effective than trying to sugarcoat the words lest I offend someone's sensitivity. Now, I believe in the power of shock therapy. Based on my experience, it works best with Muslims. You know about shock therapy, don't you? Shock therapy is the deliberate induction of shock for the purpose of psychiatric treatment. It has been shown that states of shock can induce improvement in the patient's mental state.
Now, I am not saying that Muslims should be subjected to electroconvulsive therapy such as passing an electrical current through their brain (Although it may be worth a try). I want to apply the shock by exposing them, from early on, to the naked truth about Muhammad. This is how I came to my senses. My shock came to me after I read the Qur'an and I saw the sheer inhumanity of this book. Most of the testimonies of people leaving Islam also have elements of shock in them.
I find Muslims almost dead. They are so weighed down with nonsense and absurdity that it is difficult to make them reason or react to anything. You think calling Muhammad a pedophile is shocking. Believe me; to many Muslims, even this is not shocking. Read our forum and the debates we had with Muslims and you'll see that not only they are not shocked by this knowledge, but they even defend this despicable act of Muhammad. We have had Muslims telling us that they would give their daughters in marriage at nine, just to make the point that there is nothing wrong in this shameful practice. We tell Muslims about Muhammad's massacres and they defend him. We speak of how he tortured Kinana to death and on that very night took his young wife, Safiyah, to bed and they do not blink. They justify his lootings, his assassinations and all his crimes. Nothing shocks Muslims anymore. They are like dead. This is the death of conscience. A human who has no conscience is no better than an animal. This is a tragedy my valued friends.
Does shock therapy hurt? You bet it does. But it works. We have had people offended, cursing us and swearing at us, and yet these very people came back to say, we were right, Islam is indeed evil and Muhammad was a monster.
I have seen result in my "shock therapy" and that is why I do it. I don't say my way is the best way. I say to those who tell me tone down, to start their own site and present the truth the way they think is more appropriate.
One site cannot be everything to everyone. It would be very noble to start a site that tells the Muslims "you are children of love" rather than bluntly telling them "you are bastards." I am all with you. Do it! You have all my support. But that is not my methodology. Why don't you start such a site? You are the best to do it. You believe in Muhammad and love him and you can gently tell Muslims that some of their actions may not be right. Then again, isn't this what you are doing already? Hasn't this been done before, millions of times? What is the result? See where the Muslims are today! Just as the bitter fruit of oil palm will never become sweet as date by pruning the tree, Islam will never become tolerant through reforms. This tree must be chopped down and fed to the fire.
Some people want to dismantle the edifice of Islam slowly, brick by brick. I say good luck to them. It will take another thousand years to do it, if ever. I don't have that much time here and I don't think humanity can afford to wait any longer either. I want to uncork the Champaign and celebrate the end of Islam, with my friends at FFI. I leave others with their chisels and hammers at the rooftop and go to the foundation. I know about Islam's major structural flaw and want to take advantage of that. Islam is built on quicksand, i.e. on lies. All I have to do is to expose its foundation and let the sand wash away from beneath it. This mighty edifice will fall on its own. It will happen at once.
Five years ago I said the end of Islam will happen, give or take, in thirty years. I am now more certain than ever. I must say that I do not believe in prophecies. No one can predict the future. But I believe in projects and goal settings. Things do not happen on their own. We are the architects of our future. We can make things happen. We can build the future the way we want it. I want to be part of that construction crew and help build a world where no one detests another human being because his or her faith is not right. This is my dream. But I am not a dreamer. I rely on planning, strategies and smart work.


You have a valid point. I am not in disagreement with you. However, please acknowledge that the life of Muhammad was full of crimes. One can't talk about him without talking of his crimes. I assure you that I did not bring up these things as new subjects or as you say to "influence and distract the feeble minded." This is a heavy subject and those who read it are generally people with strong views and opinions of their own. As I said before, feebleminded people often get offended by this site and don't read through it. Many of them also can't access this site because it is blocked in their countries.
You made an example. Let me use that for clarification. Suppose while you accuse this man of the charges that you bring against him, the judge asks you, "When did you see him using foul language and teasing that woman?" and you respond, "Just before he took his knife and stabbed her." Although your accusation that the defendant is guilty of murder is not yet proven, you are not at fault in saying that.
Notwithstanding, and to show my good will, I will be extra vigilant to not say anything that you may find the need to rebut beyond the topic that we are discussing. I hope this will expedite our discussion and we can go swiftly over each topic and move on. I have tremendous respect for you because I find you sincere and truthful individuals. This is not what I would say about most Muslim apologists. The very fact that you accepted this invitation to debate is proof enough of your sincerity and conviction. You believe that Islam is true and are not afraid to share what you know with the world. Many other scholars have been invited to debate but they brought excuses, made some ad hominem remarks against me and backed down. They accused me of "misleading innocent Muslims". If that is true, isn't it their duty to guide Muslims by showing them my errors? I am giving them ample opportunity to do that. They can write anything they want and I will publish that or they can use the forum. So aren't they failing their duty to help Muslims see the truth?
What I do and say is not out of malice. Even my enemies acknowledge that I am sincere in my views. There is no personal gain for me in doing what I do. In fact I had to readjust my lifestyle and renounce many luxuries that previously I took for granted in order to be able to carry on with my campaign of eradicating Islam. If what I do is out of ignorance, then no harm will come to me. Unlike the terrorists I am not hurting anyone physically and if I hurt their feelings, that is their problem. Let them grow tougher skin. But what about these "scholars" who accuse me of misleading Muslims and then withhold the truth from people and snob when they are asked to come and show my errors? Who do you think God will punish? If I am wrong, then I am only an ignorant. However, they are guilty of far bigger sins - the sin of haughtiness, of withholding the truth and of pride.
You do not belong to that crowd. You are good people. Now, one of us is wrong (i.e. if both of us are not wrong, which is often the case when two people disagree.) That is no sin. We are both open to learn new things. I learned from you to focus on one charge at a time. Being a positive thinker, I pretend you were not being sarcastic and have learned that beliefs do not have to be respected. People have to be respected but beliefs are there to be scrutinized and criticized. So things look upwards.

Okay, I think we both said enough on this topic. Let us move on.


So your understanding is that Allah wants us humans to have empathy for each other but in practice He will do as he pleases anyway and will disregard our feelings for one another. That sounds quit silly on Allah's part and frankly quite cruel. If he asks us to pray for one another, he must answer those prayers. Otherwise he is taking us for a ride. How do you feel knowing Allah is not going to answer your prayers for your beloved dad and yet he tells you pray for him? Wouldn't that make you feel foolish and let down?

Absolutely! I have never tried to hide the fact that I am biased against Muhammad and Islam. However, I am not prejudiced. There is a difference. If I did not know much about Islam and say, I was indoctrinated from childhood to dislike Islam then you could say I am prejudiced. Judging something before having the full knowledge of it is prejudice. However, once you come to know something up close and then reject it, you can no longer be accused as being prejudiced, because your aversion of that thing is based on knowledge and not on ignorance. If you know a snake is poisonous and warn others, you are just being wise. That is not called prejudice.
My aversion of Islam is based on the knowledge of the fact that it is deadly and dangerous. Thanks to this knowledge, I believe, I am totally qualified to pass judgments on it. The ex-Muslims are the most qualified people to speak about Islam. We do not speak out of ignorance, prejudice or blind faith. There was a time that we were ready to die for our faith. Now that we have learned the truth we want to save mankind from it. We have seen the real face of it and more than anyone else know the threat that it poses to the peace of the world and particularly to the Muslims themselves. Our own relatives are in danger. The city of my birth, where my relatives and my childhood friends live, can go up in smoke because of Islam and the insanity that it has instilled in some of my people. Why there has been always war between Pakistan and India? What was the need for Pakistan to begin with? The very existence of Pakistan, as a separate country, hostile to its own kinsfolk on the other side of the border, is a testimony of the insanity of Islam. The very concept of Pakistan is stupidity upon stupidity. You could have been part of the great nation of India. Now you spend most of your wealth building atomic bombs to kill your own kin just because now you distinguish yourselves as Muslims. Haven't enough people died because of this lie?
It would be unethical if we stayed silent after what we have learned. Let us say people start getting sick and dying in your township. No one knows the cause of it. Somehow, you come to learn that the water reservoir is poisoned. If you remain silent, you are guilty as hell. You must speak out and warn everyone not to drink the water. That is what we are doing at FFI. We are warning everyone, Muslims and non-Muslims, that Islam is poison. This doctrine is killing us. We must get rid of it if we want to save the world.
What is the right approach if someone says the cause of the epidemic death is the city water? Would you force him to shut up? Would you silence him because what he says may cause public panic or make you, the owner of the reservoir lose profit? That would be criminal. What if he is right? The right approach is to test the water. That is what we are asking everyone to do. We are asking the world to examine Islam. Don't be afraid to ask tough questions lest you hurt Muslims' sensitivity. To hell with their sensitivity! Ask the questions because this is a matter of life and death. Those who own this water system advertise it and tell us it is safe, are dying themselves. They must prove that what they sell is safe. We see the result and see that they are sick and dying. Their disease is affecting everyone and others are dying too. Are they going to be offended if we tell them your water is poisoned? Why should we give a damn? Let them be offended. There is much more at stake than the feelings of these people. They are not only offended, their source of income is also in danger, so they kill anyone who says this water is poisonous. That is why we are forced to hide our faces and use the Internet to warn the world. And what do you do? You gag us and block our site so our voice does not reach the Muslims. This makes you accomplice of the terrorists.
I have received countless emails from Muslims who told me they were once filled with hatred of everyone and now that they have left Islam they have started learned how to love all mankind. This is my reward. I don't need a newer car, vacations and dining out. I get all the highs I need when I receive such confessions and know that I made a difference, that my life has a purpose and that I have been an instrument of peace. Would you believe that this was my childhood prayer? Now, my prayer is being answered. What else do I need? Every time someone writes to thank for helping him see the truth, for abandoning the doctrine of hate and for learning to love all mankind, I get the same sensation that one gets when he wins a lottery. That may happen to a few once in a lifetime, but I get that feeling time and again and as the site reaches more people, it is bound to happen more.
What about you? How would you, Dr. Ghamidi, feel when one day you realize you blocked this site in Pakistan and as such prevented many youths from seeing the truth who in turn went on to become terrorists, killed themselves and other innocent people? How will you face your creator and answer to him for what you have done? You did it out of ignorance and "good faith". The road to hell is paved with good faith. Meanwhile lives were lost, people were maimed for life and so many people agonized for the loss of their loved ones. I don't believe in intercession so don't come to me for help. You would be on your own on that day my friend.

I have no doubt that you and our revered friend Dr. Ghamidi are not the average kind of Muslims I am dealing with on daily basis. I can see clearly you are different. I already mentioned that by accepting this invitation you proved your sincerity. You are not only learned but also wise and rational. You are above all polite, which is the hallmark of all great people. You are also fair-minded. This is a quality scarcer than diamond. It is because of these noble traits that I am confident you will eventually come to see the truth. The reason you do not agree with me is because you have not been exposed to the truth yet. All your life you were fed with lies. The truth was hidden from us. I did not know the truth either. I found it on my own and it was not easy. Now that I have found it I want to share it with everyone. I am glad that I was born in this day and age that technology allows me to do what others that preceded me could not do. If we continue this debate you will come to see what I saw too. What would you do with it then is up to you. I do not expect you to do what I do. And as you said, my approach may not be the best approach anyway. You will find your way to bring the Muslims out of darkness and with your knowledge of Islam you can become a shining star and change the course of history. I see that potential in you. (Anytime I say "you" I mean both of you) I am really nobody. This cause is ready to receive its giants - men and women who would make history and will pass to history. There is no nobler cause than awakening the Muslims and saving mankind from another disaster.

You say that your reversion to Islam was the result of a serious intellectual exercise. I read your testimony and saw nothing of that nature. Your beloved father passed away and suddenly you felt distraught and sought your refuge in your ancestral religion, just like anyone from any religion would do. What part of this is intellectual exercise? You were young, impressionable and easy to fleece. Have you read the stories of the suicide bombers? Many of them have been irreligious all their lives. Suddenly, a life crisis hits them and they seek Islam, are filled with zealotry, and then go on to blow up themselves and other innocent people. Thanks heaven when this happened to you Islamic terrorism was not yet a vogue; otherwise you were a perfect candidate to become a terrorist. Today's Muslim youths who have similar experiences, become suicide bombers.
You were influenced by Bertrand Russell. You rejected God and afterlife. Suddenly you could not bear the pain of losing your dear father to nothingness. You needed the comfort of believing that he is still alive. So you went to Islam because Islam claims dead people will go to heaven. This is called emotive decision not rational decision. Let us call the spade a spade.
I am not saying that God and afterlife are fairytales. Most of mankind believes in them and I see no harm in such belief. Personally I never called myself an atheist. I do not believe in the God of most religions. I believe in the Single Principle underlying the creation and that is my God. That is beyond the point. Let us say God exists and He is the creator of the universe. What Allah and Muhammad have to do with God? This is like you decide to believe in God and go to David Koresh. There is no proof that Muhammad was a prophet of God. All evidences point to the fact that he was an insane man. I have written a book to prove just that. Here we are talking about Muhammad, not God. Many people who believe in God do wonderful things. They help those who are in need in anyway they can. They built hospitals, feed the hungry, built schools and try to improve people's lives. What do the believers of Allah do? They build mosques and madrassas to raise more terrorists, to spew hate, to wage jihad. The money raised by the charity of other people goes to help humans who are in need. Muslims pay their charities to expand Islam and promote more hate. I am not against God. I am against Muhammad and his fictitious Allah.
When you read the Qur'an you were vulnerable and as such not objective. In that state of mind you could not have been rational. I read the Qur'an when I was not in any emotional turmoil. I simply wanted to increase my knowledge and deepen my understating. Unlike you, I was not desperate to believe. I was shocked by the asininity and violence of this book.
In your testimony you wrote, "If you approach the Qur'an with strings of conditions attached to your probing, you are bound to fail in your quest."
The only condition I had was rationality. The only expectation that I had was that the book of God must make sense. It didn't. That was enough evidence that this book is not from God. It is insane to read a book and accept anything it says unconditionally. You presumed a priory that the Qur'an is the word of God and then accepted anything it says unconditionally. If this is not lunacy what is? Do you see now how the foundation of your faith is based on a fallacy? How are you going to answer to your creator when He asks you why did you believe in the messenger of Satan, didn't you see he was a pervert and his book was full of errors? Would you then say, "Oh dear God, I just surrendered my intelligence and allowed to be fooled unconditionally taken by empty promises and let myself be scared with dreadful tales of hell?" If God gave us brain, it is because he wanted us to use it. Did you use yours when you read and accepted the Qur'an unconditionally? If you did and if all what you read was rational and logical as you say, you must be able to explain that to us logically. Do not expect us to throw away our reasons and just believe because you tell us how good you feel. You can feel good by using narcotics. Religion is equated to the opium of the less brainy people. Give one single proof that the Qur'an is the book of God and I will throw away this site, which is the fruit of years of my tireless work, in a heartbeat.
People follow all sorts of charlatans believing them to be divine beings. In my book Understanding Muhammad: A Psychobiography of Allah's Prophet, I have talked about cults and how they control the minds of people. Please read the story of John de Ruiter. This conman passes himself as the son of God and there is no dearth of fools who believes in him. They go to his seminars and he sits there in absolute silence. Half an hour passes and he says nothing, just starring ahead like a mummy. You can hear a pin drop. Then some of his brain dead devotees start sobbing. This creates a creepy and suggestive atmosphere, which impresses some feebleminded ones who come out thinking this fool is the personification of God. There is a psychiatrist among his followers who says in his thirty years of practice he has never seen a "saner" person than John de Ruiter. For your information this loony is also a sexual pervert. This is the trait of all insane cult leaders. Should we believe in him? What is his proof? Nothing! It is all sensationalism and playing with emotions. That is how you fell for Islam. Your faith in Islam is just as valid as is the faith of the unfortunate followers of John de Ruiter and other narcissist self proclaimed prophets like Jim Johns, David Koresh, Shoko Asahara, Sun Miun Moon, etc. As long as you can't prove Islam logically, do not call your faith logical. You are a victim of emotionalism. There is nothing rational in your approach and conversion. Emotions mislead people. Millions of people have been misled by emotions and then went on to commit the most insane acts of inhumanity. It is foolish to follow one's emotions.
I am not saying you should abandon your love for God. You can still love God without following any religion. Your late father may at this very moment be lying on his belly close to my grandfather drinking wine while both of them are being massaged by two gorgeous naked houris. (I know that my grandmother would not like this but hey, she is just a woman, why she should matter?) They are semi drunk and laugh their heads off at you and me and what we say to each other. That is all good and dandy. I have no problem with that belief and I wish it were true. My point is that if you want to follow a religion, there are good religions to follow. Follow Christ. He was a good man and his teachings are good. Follow Buddha, to become enlightened like him. Follow Krishna or Zoroaster. If you have to follow someone, at least follow someone good. I am not a follower, but if you have to be one, why follow the most evil man that ever walked on earth? If there is an afterlife, Muhammad is sure in the pit of hell for what he did. Don't hasten to join him.
In your testimony you wrote: "However, if you surrender yourself to that greatest treasure of knowledge unconditionally, its marvelous wisdom will never disappoint you."
First of all you don't "surrender" to knowledge. You grasp it. It is an "AHA". It is a victory. This Freudian slip of tongue shows what you have found is ignorance. Otherwise you would not have used the term "surrender". 2+3=5. This is truth and knowledge. You don't have to surrender to it. It is something you grasp. It is a fact that is self evident and can be proven. But if I tell you 2+x=5 and if you believe it without knowing what x stands for, then you are surrendering your intelligence to me. What if x is a number that makes the equation false? You are relying on me being truthful, but have you checked my credentials to see whether I fit the profile of a truthful person? Now what if I demand you to believe and threaten to kill you and promise that God will burn you for eternity if you don't believe? Would you believe then? I hope not! Then you would know that I am a psychopath for sure. So why do you believe everything Muhammad said unconditionally and without checking his credentials? This man lived a very unholy life. He benefited immensely by making people do anything he wanted including raiding innocent people, bringing him the booty, which included young women and enriching himself. How can he be trusted when he says the most absurd stories about receiving messages from an angel and you can see for yourself that none of his claims add up?
So with all due respect to you my dear friend, you have fallen into the trap of a charlatan and have embraced ignorance. Am I wrong? Prove me wrong. Give me one, just one evidence that the Qur'an is the word of God and I too will become a believer. You say you made a rational choice. Well, show it to us! Talk is cheap. I want some proof. You talk the talk, but are you able to walk the walk?

I read your story and it is clear that your choice in coming to Islam has not been rational but very emotive. I haven't read the story of Dr. Ghamidi yet and frankly I have never read a story of someone converting to Islam rationally. All the stories I read so far, and I have read hundreds of them, show that people who converted to Islam, were moved by their emotions and most of the time during a hard time in their lives when they were suggestible and easy to fall pray to any bogus promise for its feel good factor. At the time that you wanted to believe your father is not lost for ever, you had only Islam to give you that promise. What if you were born to a Christian or Jewish family? Then you would have sought these religions as solace and would have become a devote Jew or a Christian. Isn't it clear that your going back to Islam has been anything but rational?
Now, as for your claim that everyone is converging to Islam, I am sorry to burst your bubble. Today, the fastest growing movement is that of the ex-Muslims. Smart people are leaving Islam everywhere. It is not because of what Muslims do, but because the truth is getting out and good people, caught in this web of lies are finding out that they have been fooled.
If Islam had any intellectual or moral base as you claim, you would not have blocked faithfreedom.org in Pakistan. Truth does not fear lies. It is the other way round. It is darkness that is afraid of light. We do not ban Muslims from writing in our forum. They are most welcome and they do come to advertise their religion. Unfortunately, they often end up insulting us before going. Any rational person can see we are not afraid of confronting Islam, logically. It's the Muslims who are afraid of us. As Muhammad used to say "we have cast terror in their hearts." The moment Pakistan blocked this site, they sent a clear signal that Islam is false and that in an arena where reason alone is the rule of the game, Islam is the loser.


So you say that these disjoint letters at the beginning of some suras are a system for identifying the suras? Will you please explain how it works? They seem to be by themselves a source of confusion. A clear classification is something like sura 1, sura 2, sura 3, and so on and it should be either chronological or arranged by content, which the Qur'an is neither. You could even replace the numbers with letters if you like. In those days people used abjad. However, the classification in the Quran is not clear at all. If I find a page from chapter 6 of a book, at the top it says chapter 6 or it has the title of the chapter. If I find a sura of the Quran that starts with Y S, TM, or ALM, how do I know which chapter it is? Both sura 2 and 32, start with ALM. How can two distinct suras have the same distinguisher and why most of the suras do not have any distinguisher? The Quranic suras are named and numbered. So what is this identifier you are talking about for? Yes, please do elaborate! What you explained so far did not explain anything. Furthermore you did not say why the Quran says there is no doubt in it when most people doubt it and why Allah is so confused about the pronouns that calls "this" book, "that" book. You also did not explain those violent and hate laden verses I asked you to explain.


I am glad to hear that you are willing to continue. It is an honor for me. It is really important that we continue this discussion. Your readiness to continue only is proof of your sincerity and your conviction. This is not about winning and losing. You are men of erudition and your main concern is to get at the truth. The silly thought of "who is winning" is for, as you say, the feebleminded ones. Great men like your good selves are after the truth and above these puerile considerations. When the truth is exposed everyone is victorious.
I have not used offensive language. It is beyond my control that you take offence of what I say about Muhammad. You love this man and I am accusing him of horrendous crimes. It is natural that you would be offended. But if I am not allowed to say these things lest I offend you, then what is the point of this debate?
Anyway, I think we have clarified a lot of misunderstandings and particularity those three topics are explained exhaustively by both sides. I would like now to move to the next topic.

Question # 4
This response became too long. So, I will ask a very short question.
Will people be raised from dead on the Last Day to receive their punishment and rewards as verses , 2.260, 21.21, 6.36, 7.57, 30.50, 35.9, 43.11, 72.7, indicate or do they receive it right after their death as it is stated in verse 3.169?
There seems to be a contradiction. Please explain.
2.260, And when Ibrahim said: My Lord! show me how Thou givest life to the dead, He said: [Note how Allah is referring to himself in 3rd person. It is all over the Qur'an.] What! and do you not believe? He said: Yes, but that my heart may be at ease. He said: Then take four of the birds, then train them to follow you, then place on every mountain a part of them, then call them, they will come to you flying; and know that Allah is Mighty, Wise.
21.21, Or have they taken gods from the earth who raise (the dead).
6.36, Only those who listen; and (as to) the dead, Allah will raise them, then to Him they shall be returned.
7.57, And He it is Who sends forth the winds bearing good news before His mercy, until, when they bring up a laden cloud, We drive it to a dead land, then We send down water on it, then bring forth with it of fruits of all kinds; thus shall We bring forth the dead that you may be mindful.
30.50, Look then at the signs of Allah's mercy, how He gives life to the earth after its death, most surely He will raise the dead to life; and He has power over all things.
35.9, And Allah is He Who sends the winds so they raise a cloud, then We drive it on to a dead country, and therewith We give life to the earth after its death; even so is the quickening.
43.11, And He Who sends down water from the cloud according to a measure, then We raise to life thereby a dead country, even thus shall you be brought forth;
72.7 And that they thought as you think, that Allah would not raise anyone:
3.169 And reckon not those who are killed in Allah's way as dead; nay, they are alive (and) are provided sustenance from their Lord;

[Allegracrown]

Part VIII

Dear mr. Ghamidi and Dr. Zaheer.
Thank you for your response. On the subject of intercession we seem to be going in circles. The way you explained my argument on intercession shows that you clearly understand the problem I am posing. However, you seem to avoid the question altogether and instead you talk about how important it is for us humans to pray for each other and care for one another. That is an entirely different subject. It has nothing to do with the contradiction of which we are talking about. The problem is simple to understand. It just has no answer. To be fair you must admit that on this subject Muhammad has goofed.
If the intercession is going to be accepted, it means that God will change his decision upon the request of his creatures. This means that his original decision was not as good as those suggested by his creatures. If on the other hand his decision is not going to change then the whole concept of intercession is farce. It is actually a cruel joke to tell people to pray for one another when those prayers will have zero effect, because the decision is already made. If the decision of God is already made and everything is predetermined, then our fates are already established even before we came to this world. Intercession means pleading with God to change his decision. Perhaps we should also talk about the concept of predestination, which is related to this subject and is another gross fallacy of Islam. We will talk about that in another time if we ever get beyond these three points.


Facts are not subjective. 2+2=4, and the Earth revolves around the Sun even if you and I may think differently. So the argument of "your word against my word" is not a valid one when it comes to logical and scientific facts. Your word against mine is a valid argument only when we are asked to relay an event that we both have witnessed and there is no other way to know what happened except though our words. You claim that the Quran is the word of God. The fact that you strongly believe is not proof for others. There are people who strongly believe in faiths that both you and I know are false. The message of God must be clear and unequivocal. There should be no doubt in it and it must be easy to understand. If the eternal fate of mankind depend on it then it must be clear. If it is not clear then God is unjust. He can't punish humans for disbelieving in things that he has failed to explain clearly.
You say that the Quran is clear and the problem is with my understanding. That is why we are having this debate. I am asking questions and you are trying to explain. So far you have failed to explain convincingly the questions that I have asked. Therefore, I am justified to doubt while I see no justification for your faith. Unless you prove that the Quran is logical your faith is not based on facts.
Alif Lam Mim and other intermittent letters at the beginning of some of the suras are not the names of those suras. Each sura has its own name. If I tell you verse 3 in sura Alif Lam Mim, you won't be able to find it because these letters appear at the beginning of suras 2, 3, 29, 30, 31 and 32. Therefore clearly you are wrong. Alif Lam Mim can't be the name of six suras.
Sura 7 starts with Alif Lam Mim Sad Sura 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 start with Alif Lam Re Sura 13 starts with Alif Lam Mim Re Sura 19 starts with Ke Ha Ein Sad Sura 20 stats with Ta Ha and Ta Ha is also the name of this sura. Sura 26 and 28 start with Ta Sin Mim Sura 27 starts with Ta Sin Sura 36 stats with Ya Sin and Ya Sin is also the name of the sura Sura 38 starts with Sad Sura 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 and 46 start with Khe Mim Sura 50 starts with Qaf and it is also the name of the sura Sura 68 starts with Noon
As you can see there are 28 suras that start with these letters. Only three of them are named the same as the letters with which they start. All other suras have other names. Some of the suras share the same letters. The rest of the Quranic suras have no such letters. You say these letters are the names of the suras. I am showing you that they are not. No one knows shat these letters are. This belies the claim that the Quran is clear.
You are constantly trying to explain the unexplainable and the illogical. This is impossible. All you have to do is admit that the Quran is wrong.


Let me see if I understand what you are saying. You want me to accept the Quran first as the message of God and then conform to it agreeing that since I am a mortal human with limited understanding I should not judge the wisdom of God that is superior to mine but rather try to persuade myself that he knows best and submit blindly. Since I come from where you stand let me even give you a hand and make an example that I used to make during my years of pre-enlightenment. Let us say you are sick and you go to a doctor. He may prescribe some medicine that may not be agreeable to you. However, you still trust his knowledge and take the medicine because you know that he knows what you don't. This is the gist of your argument. You say that it is not up to us humans to judge the divine prescription that is for all times with the standard of our time, which is only a fraction of it.
Here is where the biggest fallacy lies. You put the cart in front of the horse. You start with the assumption that the Quran is the message of God and then try to conform to it. The problem is that once you accept the Quran as the word of God, there is nothing left to question. Yes I would trust the doctor and will follow his recommendations even if they make no sense to me. However, before doing that I would certainly make sure that he is qualified as a doctor. It would be foolhardy to blindly follow the instructions of someone who claims to be a doctor without checking his credentials. I must make sure that he is licensed before and only then follow his prescriptions. Likewise it would be foolish to accept anyone who claims to be a messenger of God before checking his credentials. Before accepting the Quran as a prescription from God and following it blindly, we must make sure that Muhammad was indeed a real messenger of God and not a conman charlatan.
Furthermore, even if I may not understand some of my doctor's recommendations, nothing stops me asking and understanding them. I can research and find everything about my sickness and how to get the cure. I do not have to have blind faith, even in my doctor. Everything is there for me to understand.
You say that Muhammad was the messenger of God. Where is his credential? There are countless psychopaths and charlatans who claim to be messengers of God. David Koresh, Jim Jones, the Japanese Shoko Asahara, the Korean Sun Myung Moon, and even Charles Manson, all claimed to be humanity's saviors, messiahs, and many followed them. In many cases the result was devastating. Those who followed these mentally sick men did exactly what you say. They believed first and tried hard to dismiss their doubts.
It is amazing that you call blind faith "objective". What part of your belief in Islam is objective? You say the message of God should not be judged based on the criteria of right and wrong of our time because it is for all times. Isn't this a fallacy? Is this your definition of objectivity? If a message does not conform to the moral and logical standards of our time, it is not for our time. Isn't our time part of the time continuum?
Are you saying that sometimes in future peoples' standards will change and then they will have no problem with the Quran? If that is true, let us shelf the Quran and wait until such time arrives. It is unfair of God to send a message to us when it makes no sense to us and it goes against our commonsense and our morality. God gave us intelligence; he most likely wanted us to use it. What sense it makes to give us intelligence and then tell us to disregard it when it comes to accepting His word? How can we then distinguish His message from those of thousands other charlatans and swindlers? They all demand blind faith while they have no proof. And you are telling me that God also has no proof?
Baha'u'llah, the founder of the Bahai Faith explained this concept of blind faith that is demanded virtually by all religions, very eloquently. He wrote: "Blind thine eyes, that thou mayest behold My beauty; deaf thine ears, that thou mayest hearken unto the sweet melody of My voice; empty thyself of all learning, that thou mayest partake of My knowledge" Then he clarifies: "Blind thine eyes, that is, to all save My beauty; deaf thine ears to all save My word; empty thyself of all learning save the knowledge of Me; that with a clear vision, a pure heart and an attentive ear thou mayest enter the court of My holiness."16
16 http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/HW/hw-84.html
If this is the standard then all beliefs are acceptable. This is prescription for blind faith. The values of things are determined by comparing them to their likes. If comparison is disallowed, how can good be distinguished from mediocre and bad? If this is the standard I can claim to be the strongest, the wisest, the most hansom, and the most learned man in the world, provided you do not compare me with anyone else. Isn't this what you are saying when you say we should evaluate Islam, with no strings attached?
All those who claim to have brought a message from God fail to give clear and objective proof for their claim and use the same fallacy. Hellen Schucman, the founder of the sect "A Course in Miracles" claimed to have received dictations from Jesus. She has many followers, among them possibly Oprah Winfrey. The "Workbook for Students" is a course written for those who want to learn about this sect. It consists of 365 lessons, an exercise for each day of the year. Their site claims, "This one-year training program begins the process of changing the student's mind and perception." In the introduction to the course it states:
"Some of the ideas the workbook presents you will find hard to believe, and others may seem to be quite startling. This does not matter. You are merely asked to apply the ideas as you are directed to do. You are not asked to judge them at all. You are asked only to use them. It is their use that will give them meaning to you, and will show you that they are true."
By using this method, you do not need to explain anything. People will eventually believe by doing repetitive constant exercises. This is the process through which children are indoctrinated by their parents. Children do not question the validity of the beliefs and practices of their parents. They simply emulate them and eventually, those beliefs and customs become part of their own belief system. Schucman demanded that her followers relinquish their rational thinking and submit to her like sheep. A Course in Miracles continues:
"Remember only this; you need not believe the ideas, you need not accept them, and you need not even welcome them. Some of them you may actively resist. None of this will matter, or decrease their efficacy. But do not allow yourself to make exceptions in applying the ideas the workbook contains, and whatever your reactions to the ideas may be, use them. Nothing more than that is required. (Workbook, p. 2)."
Nothing more than that is required? What else is left to require? Once you submit your intelligence and rational thought to someone else and believe uncritically you lose your rational faculty and become a slave of that person, putty in his hand. I already mentioned the story of Abu Bakr who once accepted the irrational claim of Muhammad to be a messenger of God was forced to accept any absurdity that he said, even though at first it shocked him. When people told him that Muhammad had claimed to have flown to Jerusalem in one night, Abu Bakr thought this is a lie. But once he ascertained that Muhammad did actually say this, he forced himself to believe. When Muhammad asked him to let his 6-year-old child marry him, he at first was shocked, but since he had surrendered his intelligence he had no choice but to accept. Once you submit your intelligence, you become blind and you will do anything. You would murder your own parents and children if asked to. Blind faith reduces man into a brainless zombie. You become bereft of rational thinking and of your humanity.
You say ""The only way of understanding it therefore is to understand it the way it is in an unemotional way, without attaching any strings to the process of your understanding."
First of all there is a contradiction in this statement. Unemotional thinking is the territory of rational thinking and not of faith. Faith, by its very nature is imbued with emotionalism and irrationality. The fact that you think your, or anyone's faith, is unemotional is a fallacy. Faith is an emotional exercise and has nothing to do with rationality. Imam Ghazzali (1058 - 1111) said: "Where the claims of reason come into conflict with revelation, reason must yield to revelation." A similar thesis in defense of foolishness is presented by Saint Paul in 1 Cor. 1:20-25 where he argues "the foolishness of God is wiser than (the wisdom of) men". The statement "Credo quia absurdum" (I believe because it is absurd), often attributed to Tertullian (ca. 155-230), is based on this passage of Paul. In DCC 5 he said: "The Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd." Upon this belief in absurdity fideism is founded and it is the position that has been adopted by Muslims. This fideistic approach allows the believers to abandon reason and accept whatever Muhammad said, even his blatant crimes, without questioning. Isn't this what you did also? You already confessed that you killed your conscience and accepted things that originally you thought were inhumane and ridiculous, once you accepted Muhammad. You destroyed your humanity through your faith. This is the problem with faith. That is why good people cheerfully commit all sorts of crimes when they are influenced by faith. That is why religion is compared to opium of the masses.
What is amazing is the fact that so many intelligent people act so unintelligently when it comes to religion and adopt fideism instead of rationalism. This is the foundation of all faiths. I am stupefied that you describe the process by which you brainwashed yourself and then call it "objective."
Now, you may ask if all faiths are fideistic and irrational why FFI has singled out Islam. Why are we not critical of other faiths? The answer is that our movement is not about fighting religion. We believe in freedom of faith. We love to see people have the freedom to believe in anything they choose even if that thing is not our choice. As a matter of fact the editors and pundits of FFI come from all walks of life and religious convictions. We have Christian priests who write for this site. We have Hindus, Jews and people of other faiths among our pundits. Our objective is not to combat religion but rather make it easy for people to follow any religion they wish. FFI is a common front of people of all faiths and non-faiths who want to protect their freedom by combating totalitarian ideologies of intolerance such as Islam. Islam is uniquely evil. It is an intolerant and fascistic ideology of hate. If the majority of people convert to Christianity, Buddhism or Hinduism, I still can have the right to not believe and live my life the way I choose. I will lose this freedom if Islam becomes dominant. We can either fight for the "truth" which is subjective and for which there will never be a universal consensus or fight for human rights and freedom of belief. These two concepts are diametrically opposed to each other. FFI has opted to fight for the latter and leave the choice of faith to each individual. FFI does not promote any ideology except freedom of faith.
We can't accept the message of Islam in this day and age because it is a message of intolerance, discrimination and violence. Are you saying that in future people will have no problem raiding villages and towns with no warning, killing their men, looting their properties and taking their women and children as slaves like Muhammad did? Muhammad assassinated his critics. Are you saying that a time will come when everyone will understand assassination is divine? Muhammad raped women captured in his raids and allowed his followers to do the same. (Q. 4:24) This to me, and to the people of conscience in our time seems horrible. Will it come a day when humanity will finally realize that raping women captured in war is a good thing to do and will have no problem accepting what Muhammad did? The morality of our time says all humans are created equal and must have equal rights irrespective of their faiths or gender. Will in future, people finally come to see that equality is wrong and discrimination against non-Muslims prescribed in the Quran is good? Will finally people come to appreciate the superiority of men over women and understand the wisdom of Muhammad who said women are deficient in intelligence? Will one day everyone embrace the Islamic "universal ideal of morality" and come to grasp the wisdom of beating women as prescribed in the Quran?
You claim that Islam brings universal ideals of morality and then go on to say that I should not judge it in accordance to the standard of morality of our time. Don't you see there is a contradiction in these two statements? If the message of Islam is universal then it should conform to all times including ours. Islam did not conform even to the morality of 1400 years ago. Read Socrates, Plato, Confucius and Buddha to realize that superior morality existed much before Muhammad was born. Even the pagan Arabs were far more moral than Muhammad and his followers. The Arabs had chivalry. They honored sacred months and never shed blood in those months. Muhammad did. The Arabs honored women. They had women generals. Salma and Aisha are two examples. They even had women prophetesses. Sijah was a prophetess contemporary of Muhammad and she had many followers. After Islam women were reduced to chattel. They are deemed to be dirty, deficient in intelligence and faith.
Furthermore, we are living in this day and age and we have our own morality and commonsense as yardsticks. I don't know about the future and how people will think. By using the morality of our time I see that Islam is evil. Will in future people think all those evil things that Muhammad did and said were divine? I don't know. I would be surprised if they did but even then it has nothing to do with us. Today we must use our own sense of right and wrong to evaluate the faiths that are presented to us.
Now, you may say that the morality of Islam is superior and that we all must drop our morality and accept what is said in the Quran. That is actually what you did. In that case we must compare the two. What yardstick we have for such comparison? We have our own intelligence and our own sense of fairness widely known as the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is the infallible measure of right and wrong. The essence of the Golden Rule is "do not do to others what you would not like to be done to you." Using the Golden Rule as our yardstick, we can see that what Muhammad did was evil.
Muhammad himself knew that what he was doing was evil. One day a group of Bedouins stole his camels and killed his shepherd. Muhammad sent men to find them. He then ordered their hands and feet cut and left them under the scorching sun to die a long agonizing death. It is clear that he did not like people stealing his camels and killing his men. However, the irony is that he had stolen those camels himself and had killed their owners. When he came to Medina he was penniless. He raided villages, killed unarmed men and looted their cattle and herds. He did to others what he did not like to be done to him. He broke the Golden Rule.
His followers do the same all the time. They simply have no concept of the Golden Rule. They come to non-Muslim countries, enjoy equal rights and even demand privileges. Build mosques and promote their faith freely. At the same time they deny the basic human rights to non-Muslims in Islamic countries. And they see nothing wrong in this. They think this is the way it should be. Why Muslims, as a lot, lack conscience? It is because they follow Muhammad who lacked conscience.
Look at yourself! You were a good man. You had conscience before becoming a faithful Muslim. You knew wrong is wrong and did not like discrimination and evil. Once you submitted to Islam, you lost your conscience. Now the thought of sending all non Muslims to hell, killing the apostates, beating wives, stoning adulterers, discriminating against the followers of other faiths, chopping the hand of thief and other savageries prescribed in the Quran do no longer bother you. Even if they do, you try to silence your conscience and accept all these barbarities blindly, because you have stopped using your brain and have submitted your intelligence to Muhammad. The irony is that you call this objective.
The problem with Muslims and your good selves is that you commit a major logical fallacy of accepting Islam as true before checking the credentials of its founder. It should be the other way round. Let us first make sure that Muhammad was not a liar and then accept him. You would not accept any belief before convincing yourself that that belief is indeed right and not the invention of a psychopath conman. Then why when it comes to Islam you suddenly do everything in the reverse order? Judge Muhammad and his claim with the same yardstick that you would judge Jim Jones, David Koresh or any claimant and you'll see that he fails miserably.




I am glad you wrote this. It shows there is actually not much distance between us. You read the Quran and found some horrible things as well as some passages that in your view were "brilliant," "out of this world" and that you thought they could not have been written by anyone but God. So you decided to believe in that book as the word of God and tried to silence your conscience and find justifications for things that you found unconscionable such as killing the apostates, discrimination against non-Muslims, the claim that the unbelievers will all go to hell and other errors such as only God knows about the gender of a child in the womb, etc. Thus you concluded that your approach has been academic, and rational.
Let us analyze this. If the Quran is truly the word of God, could it possibly have any errors in it? Certainly not! So if you find errors, even one error, it shows that this book is not from God. Assuming that there are "brilliant" passages in the Quran as you have supposed, since God is presumably perfect he can't err. So you have two choices, either reject the Quran in its entirety or accept it in its entirety. I chose the first route and you the second. Now let us see who made the right choice.
The problem with your approach is that now you have to go against your own conscience and do the things that you abhor such as killing apostates, beating wives, discriminating against non-Muslims, stoning adulterers, etc. You may not like to do these things yourself, but since you already accepted Islam as the message of God you can't oppose those who do. You may follow your conscience and do not do evil personally but you have become part of the machinery that does that.
Does this reduce your culpability? I don't think so. The Nazis committed many crimes against humanity. They did things that were unthinkable. Not all the Germans liked that. Germans are no more violent than any other nation. Those who did such things were a small minority. However, they could commit all those atrocities because they had the backing of the masses of the peaceful Germans. Could Hitler come to power if he did not have the support of the masses? He was voted into office by the majority of Germans. People loved him and believed in him. The average Germans did not commit any crime. However, they supported those who did. Can we say they were innocent? Of course not! They were guilty as hell and they know it. They carry the burden of that guilt up to this day.
Likewise, when Muslims follow the Quran and do those barbarities that you don't like you are guilty too. Wherever there is a blood of an innocent person shed, even half a world away, in the name of Islam, part of that blood stains your hands and the hands of every Muslim. Any person who supports Islam is guilty of all the crimes committed in the name of Islam.
In an army, not everyone carries a gun to kill; there are hosts of other people who help with the logistics of that army. Actually the entire country is in war because everyone finances the war with his tax money. Now, if my country goes in an unjust war, I may have little control over it because the governments often don't listen to ordinary people. So I have no choice. However, one can leave Islam. Islam is a belief and not a citizenship. All one has to do is stop going to the mosque, paying to Islamic "charities" that we all know is spent to spread Islam and withdraw from Islamic activities. By accepting Islam, you automatically become part of the same army of hate that is killing people everywhere and whether you agree with the terrorists or not you are now part of them. In this case you are guilty because you have a choice and you choose to belong to this terrorist cult and follow a terrorist false prophet. "Moderate Muslim" makes as much sense as moderate Nazi, or moderate gangster. What does moderate Muslim mean? Does it mean that you moderately hate non-Muslims, moderately kill the apostates, moderately despise women and moderately beat them? Moderate Muslim is an oxymoron. You are, either a Muslim and therefore a terrorist, a terrorist sympathizer, supporter, ally, or you are not a Muslim.
Now, let us get to the REAL question. Is there anything in the Quran that is out of this world? Absolutely not! I am offering $50,000 US dollars to anyone who can show me one example of a thing that is out of this world in the Quran. We have talked a lot. It seems that you are not willing to go forward. We are stuck in the first 3 questions. I see you have not even responded to my question number 4. There are hundreds of errors in the Quran and I would like to show you at least a few of them. However, I think it is time to get to the crux of the matter. Since you don't seem to be willing to go forward, I challenge you to show me one passage in the Quran that is out of this world as you say and I will not only remove faithfreedom.org, I will also give you the reward. I have heard all those claims and along with other pundits of FFI have debunked them all. All those claims about science in the Quran are nothing but wishful thinking of believers and are ludicrous. Unfortunately you have no access to our site. You can't read many articles that we wrote showing how all those claims made about the Quran being scientific are bogus and nonsense. The person who is good in spreading this charade is Dr. Zakir Naik. I have refuted each and every one of his claims. You can read my refutation of his claims in faithfreedom.org.17 Send me what you think are "out of this world" passages of the Quran and let us see if they really are.
I will answer to your point number 4 in another occasion. Your response had only 4 points not 5 as you stated in the beginning.
Kind regards
Ali Sina

17 http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellintro.htm

[Allegracrown]

Part IX
Dr. Zaheer wrote:

Greetings Mr. Ghamidi and Dr. Zaheer:
This is my response to the rest of your last letter. It became too long and I decided to divide it in four parts. The first part was part VIII, the rest comes in part IX, X, and XI.
Muhammad on many instances did things that not only were against the universally acclaimed ethical principles, even by the society in which he lived, but he also went against his own stated rules. He basically did whatever he pleased and when that shocked his followers he pulled a verse out of his sleeve and attribute it to his imaginary Allah to justify his actions and silence any critic. With a verse under his belt, anyone whispering a word against his indecency, was denying God and of course, as a denier of God his situation was clear. That was faslul-khitab (the end of discussion) Examples abound. Here are a few:
The Qur'an limits four wives for the believers. However Muhammad thought that he should not be restricted by his own rules and therefore made his Allah reveal the verse 33:49-50 telling him that he is exempt and can have any number of women, as wives, concubines, slaves or "gifts" (habba) as he pleases. Then he added "This only for you, [O Muhammad] and not for the Believers (at large)?in order that there should be no difficulty for you. And Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
What difficulty? The difficulty of having to control his lustfulness, of being a decent human being, faithful to one woman! Are we to believe in a man who found it difficult to control his basest animal instincts as the "best of creation?" Don't actions speak louder than words? On one hand he lived like the vilest beats and on the other hand he spoke of himself so loftily putting words in the mouth of the Almighty to praise him. Remember that while still in Mecca, living off the wealth of his wife; Muhammad did not dare to bring another woman to the house of Khadijah. All his sexual vagaries started when he came to power. Are we to believe that as a young and virile man he did not have difficulty sleeping with an older woman and his difficulties appeared in the last ten years of his life that he was old and beset by all sorts of ailments? Or shall we interpret this as another sign of an aging man gone wild with his newfound liberties and like a child, left unchecked in a candy store, was unable to set the limits?
One day Muhammad visited his wife Hafsa, daughter of Omar and upon meeting her maid Mariyah, he lusted for her. He sent Hafsa for an errand telling her a lie that her father wanted to talk to her. When she went out of the door he took Mariyah to the bed of Hafsa and had sex with her. Hafsa came back when her father told her that he had not sent after her and found what was going on and why Muhammad wanted to get rid of her. Hafsa became upset and started to make a scene. (Ah! Women will be always women!) To pacify her, Muhammad promised to prohibit Mariyah to himself. (Hence the name of the sura Tahrim) However, he still lusted after her. How could he now break his own oath? Well, that is easy when you have a god up in your sleeve. So his god revealed sura Tahrim and told him it is okay to break his oath and have sex with that slave girl who is lawful to him. Actually the maker of the universe acting as a pimp was upset with Muhammad and even rebuked him for denying the carnal pleasures to himself and for promising to be decent once in his lifetime, just to please his wives.
O Prophet! Why do you ban (for yourself) that which Allâh has made lawful to you, seeking to please your wives? And Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Allâh has already ordained for you (O men), the dissolution of your oaths. And Allâh is your Maula (Lord, or Master, or Protector, etc.) and He is the All-Knower, the All-Wise. 66:1-5.
How nice!
Ibn Sa'd writes: "Abu Bakr has narrated that the messenger of Allâh (PBUH) had sexual intercourse with Mariyah in the house of Hafsa. When the messenger came out of the house, Hafsa was sitting at the gate (behind the locked door). She told the prophet, O Messenger of Allâh, do you do this in my house and during my turn? The Prophet said, control yourself and let me go for I make her haram to me. Hafsa said, I do not accept, unless you swear for me. That Hazrat (his holiness) said, by Allâh I will not touch her again."18
As usual, Muslims have justified Muhammad for the breach of his oath. It does not matter what Muhammad did. Muslims will always justify his actions. They have submitted their intelligence to him and have stopped thinking. Ibn Sa'd continues: "Qasim ibn Muhammad has said that this promise of the Prophet that had forbidden Mariyah to himself is invalid - it does not become a violation (hormat). 19
If his oath had no validity, why he made it and if it was valid, why he broke it? There are countless other examples that Muhammad broke his own promise. Here, he had sworn by God and not even that was an impediment to him. His god was a figment of his own imagination and he was not that stupid to let his imagination stop him from having sex with the beautiful Mariyah. The whole idea of inventing that god was to approve whatever he desired and not to lay restrictions on him.
One day Muhammad went to see his adopted son Zeid and there he saw his wife Zainab, in her revealing home clothing. He was aroused by her beauty and could not control his desire. When Zeid learned this, he felt obliged to divorce his wife so Muhammad could have her. Now, it is interesting that a few years earlier, when Muhammad claimed to have ascended to heaven, he said that there he met a woman. He asked about her, they said she is Zainab, the wife of Zeid. (Somewhat anachronistic; but, hey, it's Muhammad heaven made by his wild
18 Tabaqat volume 8, page 223
19 ibid
imagination. So time can be backward or forward in heaven.) Later he told this story to Zeid who thinking that his marriage has been arranged in heaven married her. However, when Muhammad saw her semi nude, he forgot all about his own heavenly story. Of course, no one better than him knew that the whole story of Mi'raj (ascension) was his own fabrication.
His marriage to Zeinab, his own daughter in law, confounded even his followers who were by all means low in intelligence, as generally they are today. To silence them, his Allah came out of his sleeve with a verse saying Muhammad is not the father of anyone but the messenger of Allah and the last prophet. He claimed that his marriage to Zeinab was arranged by God to show people that adoption is a bad thing and it should be annulled. As you can see, just because he could not control his lust, he made his bogus deity tell people that adoption is wrong and thus deprived countless orphans of having a second chance at life. Doesn't this alone disqualify him as a messenger of God? How can the Almighty be offended by adoption, which is perhaps one of the most humane and lofty human institutions? Is Allah really the Almighty, or is he Satan?
Muhammad reintroduced the pagan tradition of fasting during the month of Ramadan. However he found it difficult to abstain from food and water, from dawn to dusk, so he ate whenever he pleased. Ibn Sa'd writes: "The Messenger of Allâh used to say 'We the prophets are required to eat our morning food later than others and hurry in breaking our fast in the evening.'"20
These are just a few examples of how Muhammad did as he pleased and made his Allah approve whatever he did. The young and perceptive Aisha noticed this and perhaps sarcastically, or innocently, said to him "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires." 21
***
As for the verse 5:32 that says whoever kills one person is as if he has killed all mankind, please note that this verse has nothing to do with the teachings of Muhammad. Here Muhammad is rehashing the Talmudic tale of Cain killing Abel and this verse is part of the Judaic scriptures. The logic of this nonsensical statement is that according to the mythology, Abel and Cain were the
20 Tabaqat, Volume 1, page 369
21 Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 311
progenitors of all mankind and by killing one of them; his potential offspring would not have had the chance to be born. This is fairytale. The evolution explains things differently and this Judaic explanation that Muhammad has plagiarized now seems absurd.
Muhammad rehashed a lot of Judaic narratives. You don't kill all mankind if you kill one person. If you kill one person you have killed one person and if you kill two you have killed two, and so on. The verse makes only sense in the context of the story that it was written and it is only a fable.
Why Muslims are so fond of using this Judaic fable as part of Muhammad's sayings? It is because there is so little good in the Quran that they can brag about.

My erudite friends: I am afraid you are using a wrong analogy. The argument that in some countries capital punishment by death is still practiced is a red herring. Here we are not talking about the punishment of murderers but the persecution and killing of innocent people who want to have freedom of belief. You must really underestimate the intelligence of your readers by presenting this as an argument. No civilized society allows killing people who think differently. In fact in all civilized societies those who dissent with the ruling faction form their own opposition parties and openly criticize them. Their rights are protected under the law. Not only they are allowed to criticize the governing rulers, every four years or so, they are given the chance to topple them in a general election. In civilized societies your rights as an individual are protected and you are free to express your views openly. You can criticize anyone and anything in liberty. There are no hold bars! Nothing is sacrosanct. You can criticize political ideologies, religions or even God. That is why free societies progress. Progress is the result of freedom of thought. Where thoughts are stifled, censored and banned, progress is stifled, censored and banned.
Islam claims to be a religion that wants to rule the world. In other words it is political and wants to have absolute control over every aspect of the lives of all the inhabitants of the Earth, whether Muslims or not, and at the same time it does not tolerate criticism and wants to put to death those who do so. As such it is an impediment to freedom, progress and the expansion of knowledge. It would be insane to let this totalitarian doctrine come to power. We must fight it tooth and nail and be prepared to respond to its aggression with force. Freedom is not free. Those who take their freedom for granted will lose it. The advance of Islam must be stopped at all levels. Since Islam is not just a religion but a totalitarian political ideology, it is the responsibility of political parties and the governments to fight against it.
Despots cannot tolerate dissent. Saddam Hussein is reported to have called his generals only weeks after he had usurped the power and after stating that he had been informed about an impending coupe against him, he took his revolver out and shot a number of them on the spot. No trial was needed and no guilt had to be established. The mere suspicion of opposition to him was enough to kill any number of people. He massacred entire populations simply because a group of them were dissidents. This kind of behavior is the hallmark of the governance of all despots such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao Ze Dong, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and Khomeini. These men were monsters. There is nothing wrong with the mental balance of those who call them with that name. In fact one should question the wisdom of anyone who is unable to see anything wrong in these evil men or worse, believes that they were worthy of praise.
Muhammad ruled in the same fashion that these despots did. You do not disagree with that, but you think he was justified to rape and murder because he received his orders from God. This is a big hurdle for you to overcome. You must first tell us why God, instructed his prophet to act like a criminal. This, for sure, baffles people and any rational person, familiar with what Muhammad did, is impelled to believe that he was a psychopath criminal.
This is a major blunder on the part of Allah. By licensing his prophet to act like a gangster he has made it impossible for good humans to believe. Two kinds of people can believe in such a man, a) those who see nothing wrong in rape, looting and murder of innocent people and b) those who although know these actions are wrong are so brainwashed that are unable to think rationally and they condone whatever Muhammad did blindly. Rational and decent people will always be aghast when they read the tales of murders, assassinations, rapes and lootings committed by Muhammad and his companions. Not everyone is able or willing to fool himself with the fairy tale that God ordered his messenger to act like a beast. Would you follow a man that did what Muhammad did if his name was Charles, David or Jim? You certainly won't. Why then when it comes to Muhammad you abandon rationality and become willing to close your eyes to his crimes? Isn't this the most important decision of your life? Shouldn't you use everything at your possession, particularly your rational ability to make sure that you are not following a wrong path into hell? What kind of people Allah wants to pick as his own - criminals and brainwashed zombies or decent humans? If the latter, why his messenger did not act in a decent way, to attract decent people? Assuming there is a day in which you have to appear in front of your maker, what would you tell him if he asks you "why did you not look at the actions of Muhammad? Wasn't that enough proof that this man was an impostor, liar and deceiver? Didn't I give you a brain? Why did you not use it?" Do you have a good answer to this question? Are you sure you can fool God with silly alibis such as, "I was so afraid to doubt that buried my intelligence under piles of falsehoods and wishful thinking and refused to think?" Will you be able to say I saw something out of this word in the Quran? What would you do if He tells you that you have been deceived by Satan and that you should have judged him by his fruits?
God gave us humans the rational faculty to distinguish between right and wrong, to choose the good and to shun the evil. It is unbefitting for God to send a messenger that does evil things and then expect us to overlook all that and still believe. The rules of God are consistent. See how nature works! The laws of physics don't change and they are predictable. That is why we know they are not made by a whimsical capricious god. God will not trick us. How can we know a claimant is from God and not an impostor if not by evaluating the consistency of his actions and words?
God warned us against Satan. Jesus, whom you believe to be a true messenger of God, warned people to watch for false prophets. When asked how to recognize them, he replied, by their fruits. The fruits of Muhammad are all bitter and poisonous. Yet, you tell us that since he was a messenger of God, it is not up to us humans to judge him by his fruits? Doesn't this belie what Jesus said? If what you say is true, Jesus was a liar. He fooled us. He should have said, follow the one whose actions are most despicable, who sheds the blood of innocent people for only disagreeing with him, who from rags comes to riches by robbing caravans and by looting villages and towns, who raids nomads and villagers with no warning and cowardly kills their unarmed men then takes their wives and children as slaves and rapes any woman that he pleases, for he is indeed the true messenger of God.
Tell us Mr. Ghamidi and Dr. Zaheer: why God plays these kinds of tricks? Why he wants to deceive humans and instead of sending a holy man he sends one whose actions are indistinguishable from other contemptible monsters of history to guide us to the right path? Isn't it God's fault for misleading us? No, it is not God's fault. The only correct answer is that Muhammad was an impostor. God warned us against him. All we have to do is to listen to what Jesus said and we would know that Muhammad was a false prophet. We can recognize this impostor by his fruits. The writings are on the wall. If you choose to close your eyes and not see, you have no one to blame but yourself. If there is a Day of Reckoning, you must answer to your creator for the wrong path that you choose today. The evidence against Muhammad is overwhelming. You have no excuse. For surety the excuse of "I followed the majority," is not going to be accepted and you know that.
Muhammad claimed to have sublime morals (Q.68:4), to be a good example to follow (Q.33:21), a mercy for all creatures (Q.21:107), an honorable messenger (Q.81:19). He bragged a lot about himself. Are any of these claims true? If not then he lied and he cannot be the prophet of God. Would an honorable person have sex with the wife of another man after capturing her in a raid? Is having sex with an 8 years 9 months old child a good example to follow? If today anyone does what Muhammad did he will be taken to prison and perhaps locked for good. "Honorable?" "Good example?" This is how narcissists describe themselves. This is the image Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Saddam, tried to portray of themselves. While they were the vilest creatures, they claimed to be better than anyone else and killed any person who disagreed. How can intelligent men such as your good selves overlook all these evidence and still believe in such a man?
As a child my mother told me a story about Muhammad that I have not yet read in any reliable source. She said that one day a woman complained to Muhammad that her little son was eating too much dates and she requested that he tell the boy not to. Muhammad told her, to come back the next day. When the next day she came, he told the little boy not to eat too much dates. The mother was surprised and asked why you did not say this yesterday? Muhammad replied, because yesterday, I was eating dates myself and I could not tell the boy not to do what I myself was doing. Now, this is a nice story, the kinds of stories parents tell their children to make them love Muhammad. It is however apocryphal, or if true, it was only Muhammad's way to feign piety to fool the gullible. Muslims are taken in by these silly and often false tales. The truth is that Muhammad's words and deeds were very different. He prohibited killing with his mouth but he killed thousands of innocent people because they were not swayed by his lies. As a narcissist he could not tolerate dissent and thought might is right. He told others to be kind to orphans, when in practice he orphaned thousands. He prohibited stealing but he robbed caravans and looted many towns and villages. How did he accumulate his immense wealth? Wasn't everything he owned, spoils from his raids? Was that also an order of Allah? Why Allah needed the possession of a bunch of Arabs? How much shall we fool ourselves? He tortured to death, Kinana, the young husband of Safiyah, whom he took to his tent that very night and had sex with, to make him reveal the whereabouts of the treasures of the Khaibar. Was that also ordered by God? Couldn't this god who was fast to reveal a verse to justify his prophet's sexual vagaries and meet his every needs tell him the whereabouts of the treasures and save that poor soul from torture? Muhammad prohibited sex out of wedlock but he prescribed and practiced rape of women captured in war. In other words sex between two consenting adults was a sin punishable by stoning but rapping a captive woman was good and dandy.
How can any person believe in this monster? Where is Muslims' conscience? Sadly, blind faith takes away our humanity. These things will make any decent person cringe but I know that they make no dent in the faith of the believers. Why? It is because they have submitted their intelligence to Muhammad. And you tell me Islam is rational? Not everything Muhammad said is wrong. There are also some true statements that were said by many before him. One such statement is the verse 8:22 that you quoted. "Indeed the worst beasts in the eyes of God are those men who are deaf, dumb, and blind in that they don't use their intellect." Doesn't this apply to Muslims?
***?
I know nothing can change the mind of one whose mind is set and nothing will wake up one who does not want to wake up. I have a different strategy to help Muslims. I am making these facts known to the non-Muslim world and urge them to spread it for their own good and the good of their children. Let the entire world know the truth about Islam. If what I say is not the truth, tell us the truth. I will publish whatever you write.
I know how much Muslims care about their image. I know a thing or two about narcissistic personality disorder. This was the disorder of Hitler, Saddam, Stalin, and also of Muhammad. Consequently all those who have entered in his bubble universe and try to emulate him are also affected by it. Those who follow evil men, become like them.
The narcissist is mostly concerned about his image. Once their image is soiled worldwide, Muslims will be so humiliated and shamed that they will have no choice but to get serious and come to their senses. Islam must be attacked from every direction. One front of this war is psychological warfare. Muslims are filled with vain glory and false pride. This pride must be crushed with humiliation, derision and public condemnation. When the truth about Islam is spread, Muslims will feel embarrassed of that name and this is the beginning of the end of Islam and their ticket to freedom and enlightenment. We will be victorious because in a confrontation between truth and falsehood truth will always win.

Again, you are engaging in the fallacy of wrong analogy. Yes, polygamy is barbaric and it must be outlawed. A society that does not grant equal rights to its women is an unjust society. Inequality of rights is at the core of polygamy. The fact that a society follows a barbaric rule does not make that rule legitimate and tolerable. Slavery is wrong as it has been always. It is absurd to say that if slavery is legal in a country, that country must be respected and not criticized. This argument comes from the same mentality that thinks might is right. It would be idiotic to tolerate slavery just because it is the law of a country. The same can be said about polygamy. Polygamy should be banned and countries that practice it must be denounced and kicked out of the community of civilized nations. Polygamy is abuse of human rights; it has no place in the civilized world.
In free and democratic societies a man and a woman may decide to share their lives together but may not wish to register their union anywhere. This is their prerogative and it is not up to anyone to put his nose in other people's lives telling them how they should live. Even if a couple does not register their marriage, that union is recognized as "common law" and the couple has the same responsibilities and rights towards each other that married couples have.
However, here we are not talking about polygamy but rape of women captured in war. How can any one follow a man who raped his captives of war? What kind of god would pick such a person to act as his messenger or condone these despicable acts? What Muhammad did and said in the Qur'an in this regard is unconscionable. Polygamy is bad, but rape is quite something else. Having sex with women captured in war is one of the most hideous acts imaginable, especially when their husbands are still alive.
When Pakistani solders invaded Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) in 1971, they raped the women; both Hindus and Muslims, because a Pakistani cleric declared them kafirs. The soldiers of your country massacred 3,000,000 innocent Bangladeshis and raped 250,000 women. How could anyone do so much evil in such a massive scale? It is because they were Muslims and they did what Muhammad did. There was no pang of conscience and no apology was ever issued. The soldiers saw nothing wrong in what they were doing because they were following their religion just as you see nothing wrong in what Muhammad did. How would you feel if someone does to you and your wife what Muhammad and his gang did to their victims?
In Iran the young virgin girls were systematically raped by their Muslim captors before being executed. According to the Shiites God will not send virgins to hell. So to free the hand of God, these Muslim men were told to rape their captives before executing them. They did it cheerfully and convinced that they will be rewarded for their "good" act.
Is it really difficult to see the evil that Muhammad committed? Is it really difficult to see that Muslims do evil because they follow an evil man? Do you think God will reward stupid people who don't want to think?

So, in your opinion, those who criticized Hitler, Saddam, Stalin or Pol Pot were lunatic? Muhammad acted in the same way these monsters did. No, my learned friends! An evil practice does not become legit just because it is the law of the land or is alleged to be from God. It becomes legit only if it conforms to the Golden Rule. A rule that does not conform to the Golden Rule is not from God. The Golden Rule should be our balance. What you are prescribing is moral relativism. One must question the validity of the rules followed in a society with the Golden Rule and the principle of fairness.
Why should criticizing Muhammad be lunacy? The only answer you gave so far is that he was acting under the direction of Allah. You want to shift all the blame on Allah. Is Allah a psychopath? How could any real God instruct his messenger to behave with so much depravity? Is this what you call rational faith? The fact is that mistaking a pervert man like Muhammad for prophet is lunacy.
You must either claim that whatever Muhammad did were good and therefore cheerfully accept the same to be done to you and your family or denounce his actions as evil and repudiate him. If you don't want to be treated the way Muhammad treated his opponents then what he did was not good. Your alibi that since he was a messenger of God he was licensed to do evil is illogical and unacceptable. If so, then one can also suspect that David Koresh and Shoko Asahara were messiahs. Just like Muhammad, they made big claims and like him they lived a vile life. What distinguishes Muhammad from these other sociopaths?
You have not given any evidence to the claim that Muhammad was a messenger of God. You just chose to believe in him and then submitted your intelligence to him. Out of hundreds of errors, absurdities and blunders, I only asked four questions. Are you honestly satisfied with the responses that you have given? You are smart men - far too intelligent to fool yourselves. I see that you avoided answering my fourth question altogether.
However, you stated something important, which is the crux of the problem. You said that despite the fact that even you can see part of the Qur'an is unjust and wrong, you have chosen to submit to it unreservedly because you also saw a part of it is "brilliant" and "out of this world." Well, tell us about it. Let us now ask you to lead this discussion. I will no longer ask questions even thought I have hundreds of them. Let us now see one of those brilliant and out-of-this-world statements in the Qur'an that have swayed you and see if you indeed have stumbled upon something truly magnificent and divine that the rest of us have missed. Or maybe, it's your wishful thinking that is playing tricks on you and you have been misled by your uncritical faith and desire to believe. You say Islam is logical! Okay, bring your proof on. We are eagerly looking forward to hear your undeniable and irrefutable hujjat (evidence).

[Allegracrown]

Part X
Dear readers: Please pay close attention to what Mr. Ghamidi writes. I think this is the climax of our debate and it is indeed the main fallacy that has kept Muslims trapped in the web of lies of Islam. Once the trap is identified, it is much easier to avoid it and I hope after this, those Muslims who are sitting on the fence can see for themselves that Islam is nothing but a huge hoax. I earnestly hope and expect that Mr. Ghamidi and Dr. Zaheer also will see it. They are intelligent and good humans. They are trapped, not through their faults. All of us who were once believers were also trapped in the same web of lies. It is our circumstances that have set us free. I have no doubt that if I had not left Iran during my early teens, I would most likely rehash today the same things Mr. Ghamidi and Dr. Zaheer are so convinced of. The environment influences the way we think. Those living in Islamic countries are kept in total darkness. Our respectable scholar friends contributed to that darkness by banning faithfreedom.org in Pakistan. They genuinely think they did the right thing. I know the feeling and do not blame them. Before my awakening when a friend expressed her curiosity to read Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses," I was angry at her and rebuked her for having such thought. Even though Mr. Ghamidi has blocked this site in Pakistan, to his credit, he has left the line of communication open and we are still talking. It shows he is more enlightened and open minded than yours truly, during my years of faithfulness and oblivion. This is no small feat for a Muslim who has lived his entire life in one of the most benighted Islamic countries such as Pakistan, where the general population is immersed in lies and is cocooned in fallacies. While the masses of Iranians have had enough of Islam, the average Pakistanis would vote for Osama Bin Landen to become their president in a heartbeat. We must always keep in mind the milieu from which Mr. Ghamidi and Dr. Zaheer come from. They are rare gems in a mine of coal even though as Muslims they think it is their responsibility to keep that coal in more darkness.


Let me interrupt you Mr. Ghamidi and tell you that I fully agree with what you said about peace and freedom being two essential requirements of any society and that they must be protected, if necessary through the use of force. I fully agree that if peace and freedom of the world are threatened, the entire world must rise to subdue the party that poses that threat. This happened in the first half of the last century when everyone formed an alliance to combat Nazism because it threatened the peace and freedom of the world. During the Gulf war, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, again we saw all nations coming together to fight him and push him back. Just as no civilized society would tolerate a group of thugs and gangsters threaten the citizens and will use force to quash such hoodlums, the community of nations should also not tolerate a country threaten the peace and freedom of other nations. Like your good self, I am a fervent advocate of peace and freedom and I don't think freedom is free. Freedom must be earned and protected sometimes through war. So, as you see, far from being a pacifist, I strongly support war against aggression, bullishness and despotism. All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
The part that you and I do not see eye to eye is the definition of peace and freedom. To me, peace is attained through fairness where equal rights of everyone is protected and freedom is when each person is free to believe in whatever he pleases and do whatever he wishes provided that his freedom does not infringe upon the freedom of others. Muslims, however, use the same terms but they intend entirely different things. Let us first resolve this problem. We must understand each other's language before we can talk.
When Muslims say peace, they mean non-Muslims should be subdued and humiliated to the extent that they have no strength to rebel. Peace, according to Islam, is therefore achieved through domination and subjugation. This is the kind of "peace and order" Saddam had established in his country. No one could whisper a word of dissent or he was put to rest in peace. To the end he defended his actions and claimed that as the president of Iraq, he acted in accordance to the law - his own law - to secure peace and order in the country. Narcissists are unable to see the harm that they cause to others and have no pang of conscience. They justify all their evil deeds.
Freedom for Muslims also has a totally different connotation. For them freedom is attained through submission to Allah. Paradoxically, you are only free when you have no thoughts of your own and have submitted your entire will to Allah and his messenger. Also this "freedom" is reserved only for Muslims. Non-Muslims must be subdued, humiliated, taxed or simply put to death.
Now that we clarified the difference between Islamic concept of freedom and freedom as the rest of the world understands it, and learned the difference between Islamic idea of peace and peace, the way others view it, you can see that if Muslims achieve their desired "peace and freedom" the rest of us will lose ours. It is important that we understand Muslims and what they mean when they use familiar words. If a wolf invites a sheep to dinner, it is likely that he does not have a meal for two in mind. Unless you know what Muslims really mean, words can be deceiving. As Mr. Ghamidi has made it clear, when Muslims talk about peace and freedom they mean our subjugation, dhimmitude or death. The concept of win/win and fairness is absent in Islamic psyche. Muslims are not satisfied; in fact they feel "oppressed" until they subjugate you or kill you, until you submit to them feeling subdued and humiliated. (Q. 9:29)
Mr. Ghamidi's definition of peace is as follow, which I quote again because of its importance: As you see, the definition of freedom for our illustrious scholar friend is shoving religion down the throat of people with force.

Here is where the problem lies. Muslims want to establish their version of "peace and freedom" through warfare or as they call it "Jihad" which means we would lose ours. Therefore, if we want to protect our peace and freedom we must make sure that Muslims don't succeed in theirs and respond to their jihad and aggression with bigger force. It must be clear by now that Muslims want nothing short of our submission. Sadly, our peace and freedom and theirs are mutually exclusive because our understandings of these terms are different.
***
How can we protect our peace and freedom? This is an important question. The answer is a tough pill to swallow, but we must do it for our good, the good of our children and also for the good of Muslims.
There are three ways we can do it. The best way, is of course, to help them see the light and win them as allies and partners, so they stop seeing others as kafirs and their enemies deserving death and hellfire. This is what FFI is hoping to achieve and we are succeeding to a great extent. However, I am not naïf. Religion is a powerful narcotic and Islam is the most potent of all. We may open the eyes of a few, but the majority of Muslims will never wake up. In fact the masses of Muslims in Islamic countries are barred from accessing sites such as ours. Keeping Muslims ignorant is the duty of every Muslim and particularly their leaders.
The second alternative, that probably is more practical, is to reduce them to such a state of poverty that they forget about jihad and can think of nothing but how to earn their next meal. Only then, Jihad will be temporarily abandoned. According to the examples set by Muhammad, when Muslims are weak they are not supposed to wage Jihad. They have to sign peace treaties, wait for a better opportunity and strike when they are powerful and their chances of victory are great.
Dr. Sobhy, a Muslim scholar, in a footnote, commends the opinion of another scholar named Zarkashi who says: "Allah the most high and wise revealed to Mohammad in his weak condition what suited the situation, because of his mercy to him and his followers. For if He gave them the command to fight while they were weak it would have been embarrassing and most difficult, but when the most high made Islam victorious He commanded him with what suited the situation, that is asking the people of the Book to become Muslims or to pay the levied tax, and the infidels to become Muslims or face death. These two options, to fight or to have peace return according to the strength or the weakness of the Muslims."22
Dr. Muhsin Khan the translator of Sahih Bukhari and the Qur'an into English writes: "Allah revealed in Sura Bara'at (Repentance, IX) [the order to discard (all) obligations (covenants, etc), and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the Pagans as well as against the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizia (a tax levied on the Jews and Christians) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (as it is revealed in 9:29). So the Muslims were not permitted to abandon "the fighting" against them (Pagans, Jews and Christians) and to reconcile with them and to suspend hostilities against them for an unlimited period while they are STRONG and have the ability to fight against them. So at first "the fighting" was forbidden, then it was permitted, and after that it was made obligatory "23
This sentiment was expressed by Dr. Mahathir the ex-Prime Minister of Malaysia who in the OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference) summit that he was hosting in his country in 2003, attended by the leaders of 57 Islamic countries, urged Muslims to put aside terrorism and instead learn science and technology, improve their economy, become strong and with that wealth acquire "guns and rockets, bombs and warplanes, tanks and warships" and then jointly attack "their detractors and enemies" when their victory is assured. Dr. Mahathir was hailed as a moderate Muslim.
So, it is easy to see that to keep our peace and freedom, Muslims must be weakened and reduced to poverty, otherwise they will do what Dr. Sobhi, Dr. Khan, Dr. Mahathir and Mr. Ghamidi say they should. We would be fools if we don't take these "moderate" scholars and Muslim leaders seriously.
This does not mean we should actually do anything to Muslims. It means we should leave them to their own devices and loosen their hands to destroy each other. Left to themselves, Muslims will self destruct. It is important that we subdue Islamic countries that pose danger to us, but we must not go out of our way to help them create democracy and improve their lives. Apart from the fact that Muslims have no use for democracy and despise it, as it is clear from what Mr. Ghamidi wrote, they will never be our friends and allies. Today in Iraq, the Sunnis and the Shiites are killing each other. We should get out of their way until they have had enough of it and sincerely want peace, the real peace, our
22 Sobhy as_Saleh, Mabaheth Fi 'Ulum al- Qur'an, Dar al-'Ilm Lel-Malayeen, Beirut , 1983, p. 270
23 Introduction to English translation of Sahih Bukhari, p.xxiv
version of it that means fairness for all and not their version, which means subjugation of others. Both Sunnis and Shiites are our enemies. So whom are we aiding? We must cripple the Islamic regime of Iran or better topple it, because it is posing a serious threat to the peace of the world and get out of that region. Let nature take its own course. As the ancient Chinese sage Lao Zi said, by doing nothing we will accomplish more than by doing a lot. Let them wage jihad against each other. Muslims need to taste Islam in their flesh before they can say enough. That is what they are asking us too. They want America out of the region so they can tear each other apart. After nearly three decades of Islamic rule, the majority of Iranians have had enough of it. I can say, they are the only people in that region who are ready to get rid of Islam if given the chance. They paid the price to learn this lesson. Other Muslims must pay also to learn their lessons.
The threat of the Muslim immigrants living in the West should not be underestimated. Islam must be declared a subversive political movement and banned, and these Muslims who riot and burn our cities must be systematically rounded up and sent back to the country where they or their fathers or grandfathers came from as soon as they express anti western sentiments. This is consistent with what Muslims do to non-Muslims in Islamic countries. Non-Muslims in Islamic countries have no human rights. Jews have been living in Iran for at least 2500 years and they still are not recognized as full citizens. The Armenian an Assyrian Christians, have been living in Iran for several centuries and they too are not treated as full citizens. As for Zoroastrians, the original owners of Iran, only a handful of them are left. Most of them sought refuge in India, and in recent years they immigrated to Europe and America. The Bahais fare worse, because they are deemed to be heretics. Muslims should be treated in accordance to the Islamic laws when they reside in the West. They should be treated as dhimmis, taxed and lose their freedom. I bet a taste of their own medicine will sober them and they will come to see the evilness of Islam. As long as they are not the recipients of the Islamic injustice, Muslims will never see its evilness. So as you see, leaving them to kill one another is actually good for them too. The alternative is disaster.
The third alternative is confrontation. This means many of us would be killed in continuous Islamic terrorisms and a nuclear holocaust, which would trigger the total destruction of the Muslim world and the massacre of all of them in retaliation. There is a limit to human patience. Beneath this veneer of civility we are all animals and the sense of self preservation overrides all other sentiments. We do not have to get to this stage if we let Muslims do what Muslims do best, i.e. kill one another.
I have been debating with Muslims for the last nine years and I don't think I have ever seen anyone laying bare the truth about the danger of Islam as clearly as Mr. Ghamidi, so eloquently has done it. I urge all those who read this chapter to please let others read it too. Mr. Ghamidi is not just any Muslim. He is one of the top Islamic scholars of the world. He is also not a fanatical Muslim of the Taliban brand. He is, by all accounts, a moderate Muslim. He has actually received death threats and there have been attempts against his life by the more extremist Muslims. Yet this is how he thinks, expressed in clear language.
Mr. Ghamidi supported Dr. Amina Wadud when she led a congregation of men and women Muslims in prayer, when most Muslims condemned her. This tells you how advanced are his thinking. He is exceptionally enlightened. However, don't be fooled. Just as he changed his mind and started defending intercession after having denounced it in his website, when I showed him that the Qur'an supports intercession, he will also change his position on the subject of women as soon as I show him that his views on this subject are contrary to the Qur'an. It would be interesting to learn what Mr. Ghamidi thinks about wife beating. That would be something to discuss in future when we talk about the status of women in Islam. For now, let us focus on the topic at hand. Mr. Ghamidi and Dr. Zaheer are brilliant scholars and naturally good people, but at their hearts they are Muslims. A Muslim, is a Muslim, is a Muslim. Muslims fight amongst each other and denounce one another, but this does not mean that either one of them has the interest of humanity at heart.
Mr. Ghamidi believes that freedom means forcing people to worship in mosques, churches and synagogues and those who promote rationalism, or other religions of which Muhammad was ignorant are causing disruption and disorder. As a Muslim, he thinks that the gravest crime that deserves capital punishment is not worshipping Allah. Ironically, Christians and Jews have little freedom in Islamic countries. They can't, for example, restore their churches without the permission of the government, which is often denied, and they themselves are systematically persecuted. Needless to say, that they are prohibited to proselytize their religions. So, what it boils down to is that only Muslims are entitled to freedom. The rest of mankind must either be put to death or reduced to dhimmitude if they do not want to convert.
One of the scourges of the Islamic republic of Pakistan is its blasphemy law. This law is contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is a blatant affront to the dignity and freedom of humans. Does Mr. Ghamidi support this law? Well, by what he has stated in this article, he clearly does. If I am mistaken, I would like to hear his opinion on that.
Let us continue with Mr. Ghamidi's essay:

Okay, we need to consult our Islamic dictionary to understand what Muslims mean by oppression and injustice. The word in the Qur'an, often translated into oppression and injustice, is fitnah. (See verse 2:193) Fitnah means sedition or disrupting the order. According to Muhammad, those who opposed him were making fitnah. So, whenever Muslims complain of oppression, they mean opposition to Islam. I can't tell you how many times Muslims have complained that I am oppressing them. Now, any sane person can see that I have no means of oppression. All I have is a website where ex Muslims, non-Muslims and even Muslims express their views freely. How can free thought be oppressive to Muslims? If Muslims feel oppressed by that, relief is a click away. However, Muslims feel oppressed because we are exposing their belief and they can't refute our arguments logically. This causes them pain and stress. In their view, I am making sedition, disrupting their peace and as such I am an oppressor. Consequently Muslims feel absolutely justified to kill me. The thought that all humans are entitled to their thoughts and free to express them, does not enter into their crania. The comprehension of such a simple truism is beyond their ken. They may go as far as telling you that you are free to think what you want as long as you keep it to yourself. They simply cannot tolerate criticism and they go berserk if someone does it, as we all saw during the riots for a bunch of cartoons or for the comments made by the Pope.
The second category of people that should be put to death, as stated in the Qur'an is those who still decide to not believe in Islam after they are invited to convert or as mr. Ghamidi says; have received the evidence of Islam. In simple language, once you are called to accept Islam you must either convert or be put to death.
The evilness of such doctrine is self explanatory. Each person has a different understanding of the truth. Even among Muslims, there are hundreds of sects and each thinks others are heretics and only they have found the truth. According to this mentality, all those who think they have found the truth (and this means every person in the world) can, or even must, force others to submit to their way of thinking under the pain of death. Of course, non-Muslims are not intolerant of those who do not agree with their faiths. A Hindu, for example, will never kill another person merely because his faith is different. No Jew, Christian, Buddhist, Sikh, Baha'i, Zoroastrian or atheist will kill you because he thinks your faith is wrong. This kind of intolerance exists only in the most evil totalitarian doctrines such as Nazism, bolshevism (communism) and Islam.
Now, let us suppose everyone converts to Islam. Will this end the bloodshed? Of course not! Despite the fact that hundreds of millions of people have been killed by Muslims during these 1400 years, this number thwarts in comparison to the number of Muslims that have been put to death by fellow Muslims of other sects. Muslims kill more Muslims than they kill non-Muslims. If ever the world is converted to Islam, these bloodsheds over whose interpretation of the Qur'an and Hadith is correct will only augment and mankind will be ushered into an era of perpetual killing and mayhem. This means the end of civilization and return to barbarity. Those who think Satan exists are fully justified to say Islam is his way to destroy the world.
We can clearly see that Islamic countries are barbaric. However, the West still exerts a powerful influence on Muslims and holds them from reverting to total barbarity. Muslims want to impress the West and therefore they feign civility. To Muslims, image is everything. Once the whole world becomes Islamic, (this is only per say, because Islam is exposed and it will fall shortly) this planet will become the planet of apes. The extremists will be emboldened and the insanity that now is reigning in Islamic countries will be magnified a hundred fold, civilization will end and dark ages will begin. Imagine the entire world ruled by invigorated Taliban! They were the only Muslims who did not care about the opinion of the world. Even the wicked Iranian Mullahs and the Saudis are concerned about their image. Since there is no possibility of dissent in Islam and learning any knowledge contrary to the Qur'an is strictly prohibited, the dark age imposed by Islam will never end. The Islamic mentality of might in right will disallow any thinking person to express his views and this planet will be doomed.
Mr. Ghamidi continues: Let us dissect this point as it is crucial. What does shahada mean? Shahada means stating that there is no other God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger, forcefully and emphatically. That is the evidence that Mr. Ghamidi is talking about. Shahada means you must accept Islam or die. This, to Muslims, is proof. Muslims don't think there is any need for logical argumentation as in their view the claim of Muhammad is self evident and those who do not see it are deaf, dumb and blind or arrogant. As you can witness, in all the debates that they held with this author, virtually all of them, with only a few exceptions, resorted to ad hominem, when they failed to defend Islam logically. I was threatened to be found and killed mercilessly or that I would burn in hell. Muslims believe might is right and all they need to do to prove that Islam is true is to overpower their opponents with brute force and threats. If that fails, insults will do.


You can read this sentiment expressed clearly in their emails to me, in the Muslims' Comments section of this site. They challenge me to meet them face to face if I am truthful. "If you are telling the truth, then why are you afraid of dying? Come forth and show your face," is the recurring theme in most emails they write. Muslims genuinely believe that once they kill the critics of Islam the supremacy of Islam is established and the hujjat (evidence) is completed. This is what the Muslim historians have claimed after Asma and Abu Afak were assassinated in Medina a few months after Muhammad established his rein of terror in that city. The ethos of might-is-right is the law of jungle that dominates the Islamic mindset.
In logics, this is called argumentum ad baculum. Argumentum ad baculum is when one tries to overpower his opponent with violence and threat of violence, and force him into submission. This threat can be of two kinds, overt and covert. The overt form is the use or threat of physical violence such as "slay the unbelievers wherever you find them." (Q. 9:5) The covert form is threatening the detractors with divine retribution, such as, "On the Day of Judgment We shall make him taste the Penalty of burning in Fire." (Q.22:9) There are many examples of both overt and covert threats in the Qur'an and in the history of Islam. Muslims believe threat is a good substitute for logical arguments. This was the way Muhammad made his conquests, he raided unwary villages with no warning, when people had gone out after their daily business and were not armed and after slaughtering their men and taking as slaves their women and children he claimed Allah made him victorious. It was actually terrorism, and cowardice that made him victorious. He would besiege a fortress and tell its inhabitants to submit or to face extermination. He called that ultimatum, itmam al hujjat (giving the undeniable proof).
***
Dear Mr. Ghamidi and Dr. Zaheer: Up till now I have been asking questions showing the errors of the Qur'an and you were defending that book. You gave your responses to the first three questions (I leave that to the readers to decide whether they were satisfactory or not) and you avoided the fourth. The fourth question was about whether souls will go to heaven/hell right after death occurs or they will disappear into nothingness until corpses arise in the Last Day to receive their judgment. Both these contradictory statements are made in the Qur'an. Which one is true and which one is a "satanic"? (put in the mouth of the prophet by Satan). Both can't be true.
I know this is a thorny question and few Muslims think about it. Since this question has no answer, it is better not to think about it because it may cause doubt and that is something that must be avoided at all costs. Muslims' solution to keep their faiths strong is to keep their heads deep in the ground. No wonder you blocked this site in Pakistan. If you had satisfactory answers to all my questions, why not let Muslims see the fallacy of our argument?
Believe me, this is not the most difficult question. I did not want to scare you so I asked the easy ones first, hoping to increase the heat gradually. I am sorry that you stopped answering them already. Or perhaps it is a good sign. It shows that you are thinking and realizing that this book you call the word of God is full of gross errors, absurdities and contradictions and that you can not logically defend it. The seed of doubt is sown in your mind. Unless you kill it because of your love for worldly power, this small doubt will grow and will have a domino effect. Soon you will come to see more errors in the Qur'an on your own and things that before made sense to you, will no longer do. This is the beginning of your enlightenment. You are good men. You don't belong to this evil cult. You are smart. This cult is made for stupid people, not for people like you. This was how I received my enlightenment. It all started with a small doubt and then it grew like a snowball until I was freed completely. The process was painful but the pain was not caused by finding the truth. It was caused by shattering the lies. The more I was attached to a lie, the more painful it was to get rid of it. Truth does not hurt. Nothing feels better than freedom of mind. I have been on both sides of the fence and I can tell you, enlightenment and freedom are better than slavery of mind - much better.
The question remains how you could earn your living without Islam. Well, that is something you should resolve. I know a few people who also depended on Islam for their livelihood and who have done it. You can too. Like your, they are good people who genuinely believed in Islam. My recommendation to them was to go slow. Find something honest to do. Making money by spreading lies and obscurantism is not an honest way of living. Whatever you do, please do not let the commodities that Islam offers you in this world impede you from accepting the truth.
***
Now, let us change roles. Please tell us about that hujjat, that "undeniable evidence" that you are talking about. Please give us one example of it. I can show you hundreds of very stupid mistakes in the Qur'an and all I ask is that you show me one undeniable proof and I will declare you the victor of this debate and remove this site.
It is only logical to believe that if the Qur'an was from God, it should not have a single error. Only one error is enough to disqualify it as the word of God. We find hundreds of them in that book. However, let us be illogical. Let us overlook all the errors of the Qur'an and try to find a single "out of this world" verse in that book as if that would be enough to make Islam a true religion. This is how you, Dr. Zaheer, and most other Muslims have come to believe in this book, and that is why despite all the evil in it you can't let it go. Many Muslims are smart. They see there are parts of the Qur'an that are unjust or plainly wrong, however they close their eyes to all that and are hooked by something that they think is miraculous and out of this world. I was one of them myself. It was not that I could not see anything wrong in Islam. But I silenced my conscience telling myself, "look at the big picture." Eventually I realized the big picture is made of all these errors and stupidities and it is very evil. There is, of course, nothing miraculous in the Qur'an. So, please show us at least one example of that undeniable proof. The ball is now in your court.

My erudite friends: you are building a tall tower, by placing one fallacy upon another. First of all, where is that "unveiled truth in its ultimate form?" I read the Qur'an and found nothing but factual inaccuracies, scientific heresies, historic blunders, mathematical mistakes, logical absurdities, grammatical errors and ethical fallacies. We have shown hundreds of those errors in this site and you can find more elsewhere. Will you now show us that undeniable truth of which you are talking?
Secondly, if you interpret natural disasters as punishment of God, then God must be punishing Muslims more because more of them die in these natural calamities. Of course it is absurd to think that the wise and compassionate maker of this universe resorts to such senseless acts of terrorism and kills wholesale so many people indiscriminately in order to punish some. If God had such a low self esteem that the disbelief of his own insignificant creatures hurt his feelings and if killing them was the only way he knew how to deal with this pain, (which would make him a true psychopath narcissist unworthy of worship) couldn't he just kill the disbelievers selectively through, say, heart attack, stroke, cancer, etc, or just blow them into pieces and leave innocent children unharmed? Why is it that in these "acts of punishment" as you define them, mostly children are killed, who are by all accounts innocent? How can learned and intelligent men of your stature make such a statement?
Thirdly, you say that Allah gave Muhammad and his nation the right to wage war against the unbelievers whose mere disbelief is oppressing him. Will you please tell us, if this was what he wanted, and if he has any power, why he needed henchmen? Can't Allah kill those who disbelieve in him without asking humans to shed the blood of humans? Is the god of Islam helpless to kill his detractors? Why Allah relies on his followers to do his dirty work for him like a gangster godfather? Doesn't he know that humans are fallible and as such it is possible that many of them kill others thinking they are doing God's work when in reality they are mistaken? Tell me, are Shiites in the right when they kill the Sunnis or is it the other way round? Who gave them this idea that by killing they are doing God's work? Don't you see that the root of all these fratricides and problems affecting the Islamic world is the Qur'an? What kind of god is this Allah that orders people to shed the blood of their kind?
Fourthly, earlier, in defense of intercession that you yourself had originally repudiated, you said that God wants us to be compassionate towards one another and that is why he wants us to intercede for each other. Why this same god now wants us humans to shed the blood of our kind and become murderers and assassins? If he wanted people to have compassion for one another, shouldn't he have told them to be tolerant and forgiving of each other? What kind of people he wants to collect in his paradise? Are you sure he is God and not Satan? Allah's teachings are satanic. As they say, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. If the teachings of the Qur'an sound satanic and the result is death and constant war, it is likely that it is a book of Satan and not of God. This is how you should have interpreted the parts of the Qur'an that you thought are out of this world. However, I assure you that there are no such parts in the Qur'an. So even if Satan has dictated this book of violence and absurdity to Muhammad, he has not given him a single secret of the unknown.
Can't you see how Muhammad fooled and manipulated the ignorant people around him to wage war and conquer the world for him? This man gave his foolhardy followers, vacuous promises of debauchery and eternal sex and they killed and died for him to make him the emperor, so he could have everything he promised them in the other world, in this world. As a viceroy of God, he assumed all His powers and had control over life and death of everyone. This is the wet dream of a narcissist psychopath. And you can't put the two together and read the mind of that sadist? This man, like Hitler, was a psychopath narcissist. All he cared for was domination. Allah was only his alibi. There is no way that the Almighty God can be as stupid and as evil as Muhammad portrayed him.
Islam is blasphemy. It is an insult to God. How can the almighty maker of this universe be so evil as Muhammad has described him? On one hand Muhammad called Allah merciful and on the other, he portrayed him as a petulant, needy, unforgiving, ruthless tyrant. How can anyone worship such a miserable despicable deity? Allah is not God. He is the figment of the sick mind of a psychopath narcissist. He is everything Muhammad wanted to be. He is nothing but that mad man's alter ego, his other alias. A billion people worship the creation of the mind of a narcissist and because of that, act like narcissists. They think they are superior and kill anyone who disagrees with them. And you have the chutzpa to call others idolaters? Islam is idolatry. Anyone whose god is loving, forgiving and tolerant believes in the real God even if he calls it with many names. Allah is an evil deity. This makes Muslims the only idolaters and Satan worshippers in the world. If anyone has to be sent to hell or punished for idolatry it is Muslims. What idolatry is greater than worshipping the fantasies of a mentally deranged man? If this is not tragedy what is? Now that we have a better understanding of the world around us, we can see that nearly every statement in the Qur'an is false. One error is sufficient to discard that book and not even hundreds of them perturb your faith. Is this how you perceive logic?
Compare Muhammad to Jesus. How can God send two men, so diametrically different, as messengers to mankind? Is God getting senile by any chance? Was he drunk when he sent Muhammad? No sane person could say that Jesus and Muhammad are part of the same school and put them in the same category.
How can you be sure that it was not Satan who visited Muhammad claiming to be Gabriel? Do you have "undeniable evidence" to refute this hypothesis?
Paul in a letter to Galatians 1:8-9 says: "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"
In another place he says, "And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds."24
Muhammad's actions were satanic. The Qur'an is also satanic. Isn't it logical to conclude that Allah is Satan and the ghost that visited Muhammad was Lucifer posing as Gabriel? Look at the misery of Muslims in Islamic countries. This is not because Muslims are less intelligent than other nations. It is simply because
24 2 Corinthians 11,14-15
they follow a satanic cult. How else can you explain the fact that virtually all Muslim countries are backward, barbaric and poor? The only exceptions are those that pump oil from the ground with the kafir technology to be used in kafir made cars. When that dries up, this Islamic euphoria will also dry up. Muslims will put aside Jihad when hungry and weak. So we should keep them hungry and weak for their own good. Why is it that the more Islamic is a country, the more backward it becomes? If Islam is good, why do you want Muslims to be moderate? Should we be moderate in something so good?

[Allegracrown]

Part XI

The following is another chapter of the book written by Dr. Ghamidi, where he explains the concept of jihad. As you read this piece, I would like you to keep in mind that Dr. Ghamidi is a moderate Muslim. This article will show you how moderate Muslims think and you will learn about their stance on jihad and how they think the non-Muslims should be treated.

There seems to be a gross miscalculation on the part of Allah, who appoints fallible people to judge the faith of others and if in their opinion it does not
measure up, kill them. Consequently Muslims, following this directive, engage in acts of terrorism and wage war against others and each other. It is natural that each person thinks he has found the truth. These directives of Allah entitle them to declare war on those who do not think like them and kill them, with clarity of conscience, thinking that they are doing God's work. It is irrational to believe that God needs humans to do what should be strictly his work.

If we are to believe that these natural calamities are Divine punishments, then we must conclude that God punishes Muslims most because they generally are affected more by these natural calamities. Furthermore, if Allah has such a low self esteem and is offended so much by the disbelief of his creatures that only by killing them he can feel better; why not kill only those who disbelieve? Can't he make his detractors fall dead with a stroke, heart attack or by blowing them into pieces? Why should he resort to these acts of terrorism, killing so many people indiscriminately? Generally in these "acts of God" children are the ones who suffer most. If truly God is this insane, he is for sure unworthy of praise.
These natural calamities have nothing to do with God. They are acts of nature. It just happens that we are in the way and get caught. The claim that natural calamities are acts of God is yet another fallacy. Only this illogical claim is enough to discredit Islam or any religion that makes such ridiculous claim.

Is reducing people into assassins and murderers moral purification? What kind of morality are we talking about? Muhammad was given asylum in Medina and his payback was to divide the population and then subdue, banish and massacre its original inhabitants. Is this moral? No wonder this is what Muslims intend to do in Europe. The point is that Muslims have a totally different understanding of the term evil. In the Muslims' eyes, assassination, raiding, looting, raping and even genocide are not evil and immoral acts when the victims are non-Muslims. However, freedom of thought is an evil thing that has to be eradicated.


And you don't see anything wrong in this picture? Muhammad treacherously assassinates his critics, among them a centenarian man called Abu Afak and a nursing mother of five named Asma. He banished entire tribes, looting their property and butchering hundreds of men, falsely accusing them of conspiring against him with his enemies, the Ahzabs (Confederates). If that accusation was true, then why the Ahzab left and did not attack Medina? Lies and deceptions were the traits of Muhammad. He made this false accusation to justify his evil acts, kill those who had hurt his gigantic ego by rejecting him and took possession of their wealth. Who was Sa'd to pass such a cruel judgment on so many innocent people? Wasn't Muhammad in touch with Allah? Why this Allah who was so fast to reveal verses to justify Muhammad's lustfulness and often acted as his pimp, when it came to such an important decision that involved the lives of an entire population, left it all to a ruffian thug, a wounded and dying man in pain, a bodyguard of Muhammad, to pass judgment? Was that judgment fair? Even if the psychopath Muhammad rejoiced and said Sa'd had judged with Allah's wisdom, why Allah did not stop this insane butchery? Assuming the lies of Muhammad about the Banu Quraiza were true, did all the men in this tribe deserved death? Did that warrant such punishment? Muhammad ordered the inspection of the genitals of boys to determine if they had grown pubic hair and if they had, he counted them amongst men and beheaded them. Is this justice? What was the guilt of the women and children who became slaves?
Here is where Dr. Ghamidi that you have to show your humanity. It is here that you have to denounce Muhammad and say in a clear language that what he did was evil. By justifying this monstrous crime one become less human. What defines us as humans is our humanity.
In 1979, the Pakistani soldiers and the Pakistani president committed despicable acts of barbarity in Bangladesh, massacring 3,000,000 unarmed civilians and rapping 250,000 women (God knows how many more did not report out of shame or were part of those killed after being raped). This is a real crime, not like the bogus accusations made by Muhammad against the Banu Quraiza. What do you think should be done to the entire Pakistani nation? Should every Pakistani man be put to death and all their women and children taken as slaves? This is what Muhammad did to the Banu Quraiza. It is unconscionable to defend those acts. Everything Muhammad did was egregious. Any person who can't see the evilness of this massacre must have evil in his or her heart.

Here Muhammad put to death people who had ridiculed him. You can't escape the wrath of a narcissist after humiliating him. To a narcissist this is the gravest crime. He is mostly concerned about his ego. Among the victims of Muhammad were a street performer poet Ibn Khatal and his two dancing girls, who had mocked him when he was in Mecca. He did not forget that. A narcissist never forgets and never forgives. The god of Muhammad resembles him. Allah too is a vengeful psychopath narcissist because he is Muhammad's own alter ego.

I think the implication for us also must be clear. Muslims will make treaties as long as they are weak, once they become strong, they do not need anymore to make any treaties and will fall on the weaker nations forcing them to convert or be killed. Dr. Ghamidi is spelling the evilness of Islam in a very clear language. We would not pay heed to what he says at our own peril.


Thank you Dr. Ghamidi for your candidness and for not trying to dissimulate the truth. You stated the facts better that me. These confessions coming from you carry far more weight than when they are said by me in the form of accusations. You are a Muslim of the moderate variety and yet you see no wrong in all these evil deeds and acts of intolerance and inhumanity perpetrated by Muhammad. You are not trying in anyways to pretend to be apologetic but are telling things as they are.
The implication for us kafirs should also be clear. Muslims are not going to deal with us any better than their prophet dealt with the non-believers of his time, should we let them get the upper hand. If now they show restraint and are not engaged in wholesale massacre of non-Muslims, it is because they are weak. As Dr. Ghamidi explained, Muhammad did not kill anyone when he was living in Mecca, was weak and knew that he could be punished for his crime. Once he was safe amongst his followers and untouchable, he committed all sorts of crimes, assassinations and murders. Today Muslims are weak. They do as their prophet did. They wait until they gain the strength. Then they will not stop until they subdue each and every person on this planet, kill them or reduce them into dhimmitude.


Hold on Dr. Ghamidi. The fact that what Muhammad did was utterly evil is beyond proof. You justify all his crimes because in your opinion he was following the orders of the Almighty. This is however what you have yet to prove and we are waiting for that "undeniable proof".
Please tell us how did you conclude that those directives have ended and the further attacks of Muslims on non-Muslim nations are unwarranted? Is this a personal opinion or is it something you can back up with the Quran? All other Muslims who engage in Jihad today seem to have missed this verse. Will you please show us where does it say, after the conquest of these eight nations, jihad must end? I can show you that Muhammad broke even his own (allegedly Allah's) words in the Qur'an. In no less than two places he said he came for the Meccans and for its surroundings. (6.92, 42.7) Also in verses 32.3 and 36:6 he said that he was ordered to admonish people whom no warner has come to them. This excludes the people of the Book. Muhammad lied and made rules as situation dictated.

Legitimate reason? Do you really think the massacre of an entire population is legitimate under any circumstance? Is it legitimate to raid and massacre those who want to worship a god different to yours or not worship at all? Do I and those who think like me, have the same right to massacre the Muslims because we are convinced that Muslims are blasphemers and idolaters and that Allah is Satan?

The above short paragraph contains no less than five fallacies.
1- The first fallacy is that when Muhammad was in Mecca, he had no more than 70 or 80 followers; most of whom were renegade youths or dispossessed slaves and therefore he had no choice but to refrain from any violence. Only when he came to Medina and could get away with his crimes he showed his real face. Even the most hardened criminals, act with self restraint when they know they can't get away with their crimes. Only if they can behave when they are free, can we say that they are reformed. Son of Sam is an American psychopath who had killed many people just for the fun of it and for having the public attention. Now that he is caught and has no possibility of killing he has become a born again Christian, feigning piety and preaching "hope". This monster would again start killing if he could get away. The fact that Muhammad did not kill anyone when he could not do it is not proof that he was a good man. Even Hitler did not kill anyone while he could not do it.
2- The second fallacy is the claim of persecution. The Qurish did not persecute the Muslims for their faiths. They were polytheists and as such they could not care less what others worshiped. Polytheists are tolerant of differing beliefs by their very nature. It's only the monotheists who think they are the sole possessors of the absolute truth and often are intolerant of other faiths. In Arabia, prior to Islam, there were a multitude of faiths, all living side by side in harmony. Although Arabs fought with one another for the same reasons that other people fought in those days, religious animosity and persecutions were unheard of. Ka'ba alone housed 360 deities, each a patron of a different tribe. There were also many Christians, Jews and Sabeans who practiced their faiths freely. Khadijah was a Hanifi and her cousin was a Christian monk. So accusing the Quraish of persecuting the Muslims for their faith is preposterous. Muhammad taunted the Meccans for 13 years and they did not harm him. There is no proof whatsoever that they intended to kill him when he claimed to have received intimation from Allah that this was what they were planning to do. In verse 8:30 Allah guesses that they were about to "keep you in bounds, or slay you or get you out (of you home)." The All knowing Allah is unaware of what the Quraish were about to do. It is clear that this verse was concocted by Muhammad himself. As a narcissist he was paranoid. Paranoid people have persecution complex. This was true of Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Charles Manson and virtually all other psychopath narcissists. The origin of this bogus claim should be sought in Muhammad's psychopathology and not in the actions of the Meccans.
3- The third fallacy is your claim that war was imposed on Muslims by the Quraish. It is amazing that you should say that when just a few paragraph earlier you stated "Consequently, after consolidating their rule in the Arabian peninsula, the Companions (rta), in order to implement this judgment of the Almighty, launched attacks against these countries giving them two options if they wanted to remain alive: to accept faith or to accept a life of subjugation by paying jizya (the non-Muslim tax)."
None of the victims of Islam, including the Quraish, initiated the hostilities. All hostilities were initiated by Muhammad and his marauding gang. It was Muhammad who kept raiding the Meccan caravans and making life impossible for them, forcing them to come to the defense of their caravan at Badr and then try to attack Medina during the war of Khandaq to put an end to the nightmare that Muhammad had caused them. The first blood shed in Islam was the blood of a Meccan caravanier that Muhammad's men killed cowardly during an ambush in Nakhlah, in the sacred months, while treacherously posing as pilgrims. Qazwa means raid not defensive war. Muhammad launched 78 qazwas in the last ten years of his life.
You are not twisting the truth. You are simply repeating a lie, that all Muslims so uncritically rehash and none pauses for one minute to see the contradiction. This is a lie concocted by Muhammad, who on one hand was the victimizer and on the other hand claimed to be the victim. Not a single person among his one billion followers wonders how one can reconcile the claim of persecution with the qazwas and the Quranic verses that call for murder of the unbelievers. No wonder Muslims on one hand praise Osama Bin Laden and the terrorists and on the other hand they deny that Islam has anything to do with those terrorisms and point fingers at the CIA and the Zionists, instead. I am not blaming you Dr.
Ghamidi, because I too was caught in this web of lies. I simply did not think about the contradiction. It was much easier not to think and just believe uncritically. You are a smart man. Once you manage to break the shackle of Islam, and see it from outside, you will be able to see countless contradictions and absurdities, far better than me. That is because you are an expert in Islam while I am only a layman.
4- The forth fallacy is your claim that "clear instructions were given that no non-combatant person should be touched nor the assets not relevant to the battle be destroyed." Since with few exceptions, virtually all the wars of Muhammad were cowardly raids with no warning, those who were killed, were unarmed and even if they were physically able to defend themselves, had they had the chance to prepare themselves, caught off-guards and unarmed, they did not qualify as combatants. Muhammad's raids, were cowardly acts of terrorism, launched on unwary citizens, and not act of war. He himself bragged that he owed his victories to terror.
5- The fifth fallacy is about not destroying the assets of his victims. The hadith and Sira clearly mention even to the head count the amount of cattle and herd that Muhammad looted in each raid. Also it is recorded that he cut and burned the palm trees of the Banu Nadir and Taif when he laid siege on them. In the Qur'an he made his suck puppet Allah to approve that crime.

The stories of Pentateuch and Joshua are fables. The Deuteronomy that is allegedly one of the books of Moses, contains his obituary stating that Moses was a great man whose tomb is lost and no one knows where he is buried and that since him no other prophet as great as him has risen among the Israelites. Now how can one write something like this about himself? The Old Testament is a book written by a few rabbis around 700 BC, when the Jews were in captivity. It is hot air and bravado of a vanquished people who were oppressed and made up these stories about how they were once powerful chastising others. None of that is true. Please read the book Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard E. Friedman. Muhammad's crimes are real. They actually happened. And you want to justify real crimes with fairytales? Assuming the stories of the Bible about the genocides of Moses are true, you can't justify one wrong with another. We must denounce both of them.

First of all you have not given a single proof to the claim that Muhammad was the prophet of God. So the question is moot! It is like I ask you "Do you deny the money I gave you?" when in fact I gave you no money. Secondly, even if he did these things as instructed by Allah, which is enough to conclude that Allah is evil and he can't be the almighty compassionate creator of the world. It defies his wisdom to create humans knowing that they would become unbelievers to then punish them in such a savage way. Only Satan can be so careless about destroying what God has created.

You are convinced through your rational reading? If so share those rational proofs with us too. We can't wait to see them.


First you say you don't have to justify anything that Muhammad did and have decided to believe in him no matter what, uncritically. This is the truth and this is the cause of the downfall of Muslims. It's called blind faith. Then you go on to give your justification as to why he had so many women. Do you really buy your own reasoning? Did Muhammad have to have sex with a score of young girls to accomplish his task as a messenger of God? Did Jesus fail fulfilling that task by being celibate? Why did Muhammad have to have sex with these women and how by having sex with them he was providing comfort for families? Which families were comforted though Muhammad's copulations? The families of most of these girls who were the shares of Muhammad from the booty were massacred. So explain please about this "comfort" because you have left me dumbfounded. This logic beats me.
Who said messengers of God need to have privileges? If so what sets them apart from charlatans and conmen like James Jones, Shoko Asahara and David Koresh? Shouldn't a prophet of God act with self restraint and dignity to set a good example? What example did Muhammad set? Isn't he the reason why Muslims are so barbarous, backward and uncivilized? They all try to emulate their prophet and demand special privileges wherever they live.
There is a hadith that says when Muhammad raided the town of Bani Jaun , he entered in a house and Jauniyya, a young girl, accompanied be her wet nurse was brought to him. The Prophet said to her "Give me yourself as a gift." The girl responded "Can a princess give herself to an ordinary man?" Muhammad raised his hand to strike her, when she exclaimed, "I seek refuge with Allâh from you," and he stopped.25 Was this also ordered by God?

25 Bukhari Volume 7, Book 63, Number 182

Actually one should not wonder why he does not believe in any book. You should rather ask yourself why you choose to believe in a certain book. If the belief in the Qur'an is rational, then share that with us in a rational way. So far we have not heard anything rational. When Dr. Zaheer claimed that his reversion to Islam was rational and explained the details, it was clear that it was anything but rational.

Muslims kill today for the same reasons you say they should. They think anyone resisting Islam is opposing it and anyone who opposes Islam is creating disorder. Therefore his blood is halal. Muslims correctly understand Islam. Assuming others don't, obviously you believe that you do. The way you described Islam for us is shear evil. Islam is correctly understood and that is why the Muslim world is in shambles and there is so much killing going on. The solution is in abolishing Islam.
In FFI we are trying to understand Islam correctly. We have an open forum where everyone can post and express his/her point of view freely. Truth can manifest only when opposing ideas collide. For the first time in history, we are analyzing Islam critically without the fear of being killed. For the first time truth and falsehood are placed next to each other for the world to see. Up until now, falsehood in Islamic countries had succeeded because truth had been censored and those who spoke it were put to death. Falsehood needs censorship, truth doesn't. We must know the truth for only truth will set us free.
However, reform is only a chimera. Islam cannot be reformed. Take a look at what you wrote. Are you a reformed Muslim? Is this the kind of reform you are talking about? I am afraid it is not good enough. You are saying anyone who criticizes Islam must be put to death, anyone who is an idolater must be put to death, and the people of Book must become dhimmis and pay religious tax. If your reform includes censorship of thoughts, and killing the apostates that is not reform. When you censor thoughts you are invariably helping lies. Truth does not need the heavy hand of censorship to prevail. It actually needs freedom of thoughts to prevail. It's only lies that need protection through censorship of opposing thoughts. Muslims don't need reform. It is Islam that has to be reformed and that requires throwing out most of the Qur'an.
You described Islam very well and what you described is evil. This debate is a clear poof that Islam cannot be reformed; however, it can be eradicated. We cannot tell Muslims that Muhammad was a messenger of God but please do not follow him because then you would be acting like a criminal. We can however show them that this man was a charlatan psychopath and that it is not befitting for rational and decent people to believe in a fiend like him. The eradication of Islam is within our reach and with the truth out, it is going to be inevitable.
Why do you think it would be disastrous to get rid of a lie? The disaster is in believing a lie. Islam is the disease of the mind and the society. Would it be disastrous to get rid of a disease? Please tell us what disaster will take place if everyone realizes that Muhammad was a conman and decides to throw the Qur'an, this book of asininity and violence, into dustbin? This is absurd. It's an unfounded fear. It is only the addiction to Islam that makes you think you depend on Islam. You will be far better without this disease and addiction.
Muslims are triumphalists and constantly beat their chests saying "Islam is the fastest growing religion," Now, the only way Islam is growing is through procreation. If that is something to be proud of then rabbits beat Muslims. However, once it becomes clear that many people are actually leaving Islam, their zealotry will die and those Muslims, who are desperate to keep their income, will start talking about reform to keep people from leaving. Killing will have no effect because now, the apostates are in touch with each other and they know they are not alone. They are also smart to know how to stay alive and promote their cause.
So, what would be the result of this massive exodus? The mosques will be empty and under-funded, the Mullahs will have to find a decent job to make their living and become productive. The madrassas will be closed and the children will go to real schools to learn real knowledge. The youths will not opt to become jihadis and suicide bombers but rather become scientists and entrepreneurs. Half of the Muslim population, the women, which is unproductive today and is kept in ignorance will be free to enter into the work force and compete with men. The governments, instead of making "Islamic atomic bombs" to wipe Israel off the map or destroy India, will start cooperating with all the countries of the world to improve science and technology and all this money that now is funding the military will be spent for the well-being of the citizens. All these changes will catapult the ex-Muslim countries into acme of power and glory. So, what disaster are you talking about? The only people who would face disaster will be the mullahs and those who make a lucrative living by selling the lies of Islam to the foolhardy masses and are hard at work to keep them in the dark. Everyone else will benefit.
Many of us who have left Islam are happier. Now we live free without the constant fear of the bogyman Allah and the hatred and distrust of the kafirs. Now we can love all mankind as our brothers and sisters and truly feel we are humans, part of the human race, without the constant paranoia that someone is trying to destroy us. Now, we see no enemy around us. We see all mankind as members of one family and related to each other. The only enemy left is ignorance that is keeping a big portion of humanity in slavery of mind and that is what we are fighting to eliminate.
Once the truth about Islam spreads, first the non-Muslim world will start to wake up and then it would be the turn of Muslims to see the light and come to their senses. Once the elite start seeing the light and start leaving Islam, the masses will soon follow. The elite are already leaving Islam. Soon we will have millions of Wafa Sultans, Nonie Darwishs, Walid Shoebats, Ibn Warraqs, Ayan Hishi Alis and many others who have joined FFI and are openly condemning Islam. These are the lights of mankind and particularly the Muslim world. On the heroic efforts of these enlightened souls rests the peace of the world and the unity of mankind. Kudos to all the valiant apostates of Islam! They are the lions and the lionesses of the field of understanding. I sincerely hope that you will join them too and lead millions out of the darkness of ignorance. Don't be a slave of a psychopath charlatan. Muhammad lied. He can only lead you to hell. Join the army of light, lead it to more victories, hoist the standard of freedom, become a torch of guidance, make history and become part of the history. This is the century that will be recorded in history as the century of freedom from ignorance, the century of unity of mankind. Make sure that your name is written in gold at the very top of this glorious page along with the names I mentioned above.

If Islam is fact, as you claim, now is your chance to show us that fact. You may as well forget whatever I wrote, if you please and just give us one fact that shows without any doubt that Islam is a message from God. We are waiting.
Kind regards
Ali Sina