What Do You Think?

[Allegracrown]

Part XII

date Jan 30, 2007



Dr. Zaheer and I had this discussion in private. He suggested putting a limit to the length of the responses. I said that even though space and time are important in a face to face debate, in a written debate we have the luxury to explain our views in detail and that the quality of our debate should not be compromised by the length of the responses. Sometimes one paragraph may contain several fallacies that each require several paragraphs to respond to. If the respondent is restricted to give all the evidence, it would appear that he has not enough evidence. This would give a false victory to the one who makes the false claims, not because of the strength of his argument but because of technicalities. I don't think we want to mislead our readers and win the argument through technicalities. We are discussing the truth or falsehood of Islam and not our abilities as debaters. Each side should have ample opportunity to explain his point of view exhaustively. Also, I suggested that Dr. Zaheer continue consulting Mr. Ghamidi. He is a scholar of world repute and his insight will help all of us understand Islam better. Dr. Ghamidi has earned his respect not just by me but by all of our readers and we all want to benefit from his erudition.
Furthermore, it seems to me that Dr. Zaheer is under the impression that by presenting the debate in a different format, the readers will come to a different conclusion. I sincerely doubt that but as I promised to him, I will publish his articles first in their entirety and then respond to them section by section, even if this means publishing them twice. I do this in all my debates and urge my opponents to do the same. I do not want to leave anything out. In this way, all the points raised are answered and nothing is left out. As the readers can see a lot of my questions have been left unanswered.
As for miracles, this is the claim made in the Qur'an and by Dr. Zaheer. I am asking him to show us that "brilliant" and "out of this world" evidence that he claims to have found is in the Qur'an. Mr. Ghamidi repeated several times that Muhammad made "itmam al Hujjat" I want that hujjat. You can't claim that the Qur'an is miraculous and out of this world and then when asked for evidence back off and say that there are no miracles and if you ask for miracles then you don't deserve to believe.
Is there any miracle in the Qur'an? If there is, please produce it. If there is none then stop making that claim. Saying you have to have pure heart to understand is not a good answer. Who are you to judge the purity of my heart? I do have a pure heart and I have demonstrated it. My heart aches when I see a woman stoned to death, a Jew is mistreated, innocent people are blown apart by Muslim suicide bombers, and women are subjugated and beaten. It was my purity of heart that made me see Islam is evil. But if by purity of heart you mean credulity and willingness to close my eyes to the evil and absurdity, then I think we have different understandings of this term.
Yes. I am repeating the demand of the disbelievers of the time of Muhammad. I never said I have found something new. These questions are old, as old as Islam. However they have never been answered. Those who asked these questions were silenced with brute force. Now is the time to answer them. Are you able to do that? We are listening. It is you who said the Qur'an is out of this world, miraculous and brilliant. Now show us what you claim. You say the journey of faith requires intellectual reasoning. Please share that reasoning with us. That is all we are asking. If you had said that your faith is blind, then we had nothing to disagree. However, when you say your faith is logical then you must be able to prove it. If Islam is the only true religion then it must have proof. Otherwise anyone can and in fact does make that claim.

That is what I did my respected friend and that is how I found the Qur'an is full of nonsense and I am sharing my findings with my readers. I showed you four of them so far and I can show hundreds. You on the other hand claim to have found something out of this world in this book. Please tell us about it. If what you found is objective, you can share it logically. If you can't., then it is not objective. You chose to believe in the same way people of all faiths and creeds choose to believe in their religions. You and I know that most of those beliefs are false. So tell us what sets Islam apart from the rest. I see Islam is as illogical as other faiths with the difference that Muslims are militant and want to impose their illogical faith on others with violence. I have no problem with illogical beliefs. But I have problem when people want to shove their illogical faiths on me.
In your last response you emphatically stated that Islam is not faith but fact. Here you are saying that the belief in God is "a hard-earned feeling." These are two contradictory statements. Facts have nothing to do with feelings. My feelings tell me that the Earth is stationary and the Sun is revolving around it. All my senses confirm this. But this is not the fact. My senses are deceiving me. It would be foolhardy to rely on my senses and my feelings to find the truth. Only logic is the measure of the truth. You say Islam is the only logical faith. Great! Please share that logic with us.

You are not answering the question. Are you insinuating that those who are not Muslims do not perform well in the moral domain or do not help people in need? During the earthquake in Pakistan and the Tsunami, it was the non-Muslim nations who helped most. The Muslim countries' help was shamefully dismal. Statistics show (and if you disagree, I can take the time to bring the evidence) that the non-Muslim countries are far more humanitarian that Muslim countries. When in Bam an earthquake killed over 50,000 inhabitants, Israel immediately offered to help and to rescue people trapped under the rubbles. The Mullahs turned that offer down and let people die an agonizing death. Have you apologized for what your country did to the Bangladeshis in 1971? Please do not lecture about "moral domain" to us. What moral domain Muslims have? None! Do Muslims help anyone who is not a Muslim? Muslims' charities are earmarked to promote Islam and not to improve the lives of people. There is always a string attached to every help Muslims give to others. If they help the poor it is to enlist their youth in Jihad.

My esteemed professor: I am not asking you for a magic wand. You said your belief is all logical. I said, fine, please tell us about it. What is it that Allah wants to test us for? Does he want us to be stupid? Does he reward stupidity and punishes intelligence? You said Islam is fact. I ask you to show us that fact. If you can't then at least please withdraw that claim and be honest about it.
I am not asking you for an extraordinary physical phenomenon. The Meccans asked this and Muhammad said categorically that he can't perform any miracles, even though he admitted that other prophets prior to him did perform such miracles. He claimed that his miracle is the Qur'an. I read that book and saw no miracle in it but absurdity and violence. You say you converted to Islam because you saw something out of this world in it. So obviously you saw the miracle. If what you found is logical and objective you should have no problem sharing it with us. Let us say I don't have pure heart, as you claim. Thousands of others are reading our debate and for sure many of them must have pure hearts. So tell it for them. If my heart is sealed, theirs is not. They will benefit from your insight and their faith will strengthen.

Is that logical? We can read about the claims of Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, etc and they make as much, or perhaps even more sense today than when they first postulated them. How is it that the truth of Islam fades with time? Isn't truth eternal? If Islam was eternal truth, it should make sense all the time to everyone. Only then God could punish those who disbelieve. Since according to your own confession the proof of Islam has evaporated with time, God has no moral ground to punish anyone for disbelieving in something that cannot be proven and sounds illogical. Just because a bunch of illiterate bandits in the 7th century Arabia found Islam true, is not good enough for us to accept it.
Conclusion: I asked you four questions. You responded to three of them and your responses were inadequate. You did not respond to the fourth question. Finally you said that since you have seen something out of this world in the Qur'an, you have accepted that book as the book of God and you have closed your eyes to all its errors and violence. That logic is beyond my comprehension but I agreed with it for the sake of argument. So we decided to change strategy. This time I asked you to show us that undeniable evidence you talk about. Now you don't seem to have any and say I do not deserve believing. Is this response logical or is it ad homiem? Assuming I am not worth believing, what about our readers? Don't you think among them there must be someone with pure heart who desperately needs some evidence to believer?
Where shall we go from here? You can't disprove my accusations that the Quran is full of errors and you can't give a single argument to support your claim that this book is out of this world. What shall we talk about now?
PS. I have exceeded the limit of 1000 words that you imposed on me. Do I lose now? Does this mean that Islam is true?

[Allegracrown]

Part XIII
The message of Dr. Zaheer was published in its entirety in the site. Here is that message and my response to it point by point.
February 6, 2007

Dear Dr. Zaheer. I don't think we both agreed on those new rules that you suggested. As far as I am concerned you can respond anytime you like and your response can be as long as you wish. We are discussing the truth or falsehood of Islam, a religion that is believed by over a billion people and is responsible for their miseries and the suffering of the rest of mankind. This belief is threatening the peace of the world and could cause a major holocaust in which millions, if not billions, could perish. Should we sacrifice the truth with deadlines and by not exposing the whole truth because of the restriction on the number of words we are allowed to use? Who will benefit from this? Let the truth be said, Dr. Zaheer. If that is what you and I care about, we must not restrict ourselves with these rules.


Dear Dr. Zaheer: Your views, just like your good self, are very worthy. However, you must realize that I have had thousands of exchanges with Muslims and believe me, there is nothing they say that is new to me. The reason I do not have to think about what Muslims write is because I have heard them thousands of times and I have answered them all already. They all use the same fallacies. These were the same mental blocks that I myself had. You do not say anything that I myself did not say during my days of faithfulness and oblivion. I already did my thinking over what you say a decade ago. Also I respond as I read. This saves me time.

Well, this time I published your entire message first and a day later I am responding to it piece by piece. Do you think in this way you have scored more points and people are going to think you are right? I doubt it. You can present the truth in any shape or form, it will shine always. Let me quote one friend's comment on what you wrote in the site, since I know you can't access the site.
"It is the practice in the academic world to dissect and put grouped sentences under microscope. This is to bring greater objectivity in the issues debated. I don't see how cutting into pieces changes the meaning, unless along the way Ali Sina deceitfully deleted some passages to his advantage. According to my knowledge after following the debate, Dr. Zaheer has not once complained about such an academic crime. That leads me to believe that Ali Sina has published everything in full. Besides, I don't see how Dr. Zaheer's response could mean differently if cut into pieces. I think Dr. Zaheer should at least give us an example to prove his point. He owes this to the readers. Or else, this is such a lame excuse."

I think you are misunderstanding what Jesus said. In Matthew 10:34 Jesus is not advocating violence and war. He is saying that because of their beliefs, the Christians will have their families rise against them and even slay them. In no place in the New Testament you find Jesus advocating violence and hate. Remember that he preached turn the other cheek, forgive the sins of others so thine own sins can be forgiven and let the one who has not committed sin throw the first stone. Advocating hate and violence is not consistent with the whole message of Jesus. On the other hand the Qur'an is full of violence. The message of Muhammad does not become a message of peace and love if he plagiarized a few good words to fool the foolhardy. You can quote any criminal saying wonderful words. This does not transform that criminal into a saint.


It seems to me that perhaps because of the length of my responses, you did not read what I wrote in response to this point. You accuse me of not mulling enough over your responses when I actually know the answer by heart because I heard these same fallacies a thousand times, and yet you do not even read what I write. Let me repeat what I said before.
We are not talking about the killing of murderers but about the killing of those who disagree with Islam. In no civilized society people are put to death for merely disagreeing with the government or with the constitution. People who disagree with the ruling party, form their own opposition parties and with immunity and under the protection of law try to topple the government through the legal means provided to them. Anyone can criticize the constitution and even advocate for changing it and or amending it. The objectors of conscience are not put to death. In Islam the apostates and those who criticize Islam are put death. By comparing apples to oranges you are engaging in a logical fallacy.
If I reduce the size of my responses, will you promise to read them from now on? What is the point of writing if you don't read what I write and repeat the same thing again?

Killing those who commit murder is another topic that does not concern our discussion. Here we are talking about the other two categories of people that according to Islam must be killed - those who cause "mischief" and those who are "unworthy of living in this world anymore after they had denied the clearly communicated and understood message of God."
I already explained that the world fitnah is translated as mischief, opposition and even persecution. What constitutes "mischief?" Anyone who opposes Islam or criticizes it is deemed to be causing mischief. The other category is people who decide to exercise their freedom of conscience and not believe in Islam.
This is evil. That is why we want to expose and eradicate this evil cult. Humanity has fought for its freedom of thought and we must not give in to a barbaric cult that wants to take our hard earned freedom from us.
However, the question that I kept asking and you failed to answer is where is that clear proof you are talking about? I asked you many time, to give me one logical proof that Islam is from God. You talked about everything under the sun but did not answer this question. In your last message all you have done is say how bad is my debating habits but avoided the question that I asked you.
Where is the proof that Islam is from God? This is a simple question. Why the answer to it is so hard? Isn't it because the more you think about it the more you realize that there is no evidence? Up until today, you had not paused to think about this. You are not alone. A billion Muslims, including yours truly had not thought about it. Now you can see for yourself that there is no proof. Muslims believe in Islam merely out of blind faith and because of conditioning. They are not allowed to question it. They simply are forced and brainwashed to believe it. Do you know that the people of North Korea worship Kim Jung Ill. Do you think that that monster is worthy of worship? This is called brainwashing. Stalin did the same. When you disallow any criticism and force your only version under the threat of death, you brainwash people. That is what Islam does. If Muslims were left to investigate the truth and compare, only the brain dead and the criminals would have been interested in Islam. In America it is mostly the jail inmates who find Islam attractive. There are also good people who are deceived. Most of them leave this cult when they learn the truth and then they join us and become staunch critics of Islam. I hope that now you can see that you have been brainwashed too. All along you believed that there is undeniable proof in Islam. You were so convinced that you accepted this challenge to debate with me and when failed to answer my questions about the evilness and absurdity of the Quran you said, all I have to do is see the evidence that you saw in the Quran and then I will forget about all the rest. So I asked you for that evidence and suddenly you can't find it. Shouldn't you leave Islam now? You and Mr. Ghamidi are good men. You don't belong to this evil cult. Islam is made by Satan to make people hate one another and kill each other. God would never order what Muhammad asked his foolhardy followers to do. He would never have allowed his messenger to behave so despicably the way Muhammad has behaved.

The questions that I asked were not naïve and your responses were not logical. They were based on faith. People with faith accept anything. The contradiction on intercession is obvious, just as the contradiction in the question number 4, about what happens after we die is obvious. Do we go strait to hell or heaven or we disappear into nothingness to rise on the Day of Judgment? Despite repeating this question several times, so far you have not even acknowledged it. Why? If you had a good response you would have answered it when asked the first time. That is why I prefer to respond to each argument that my opponent raises point by point. I wish you did the same. I am afraid; you did not make me understand. I doubt you yourself are satisfied with your answer. The errors in the Quran are obvious, except to the believer. Then again, the believers are blind. How can they see those errors?

You did not read my previous responses. I don't think I have to repeat. I made my point very clear.

Muslims are performing poorly is an understatement. They are acting barbarously. They are acting like savages and yes Islam has everything to do with it. You yourself say that those who do not believe in Islam after being given the clear proof should be put to death. Apart from the fact that despite my repeated requests you have not yet shown us the proof, you know that you can't because there isn't any, how can any civilized person say those who do not accept my version of the truth should be put to death? You are not born evil and are not a bad person naturally but what you have embraced and now defend is evil. Is it civility to kill someone just because he does not find any truth in the unproven and unsubstantiated faith that you have espoused? Isn't this the reason Muslims are constantly in war with each other, blaming one another as heretics?
You blame other Muslims. Forget about them. What about yourself? What is the difference between you and Osama Bin Laden? Please explain this to me because I see none. Both of you want to kill those who disagree with Islam, both of you want to spill the blood of those who decide to use their brains and leave Islam. And you criticize and look down at other Muslims? You are mistaken my respected friend, you became evil the moment you embraced Islam.
The tragedy is that you don't know even what is evil anymore. Killing people for what they say or believe is evil. We are not talking about killing the murderers. I did not shed a tear when Saddam was hanged. But how can we call ourselves civilized and endorse or promote a doctrine that teaches killing those who do not agree with it.
If this is the standard then I have more rights to kill the Muslims. You have failed to give a single proof about the clarity of Islam, when I have given hundreds of undisputed proofs that Islam is false. The very fact that I allow all Muslims to publish their rants in our site and never censor them, even when they insult me, is proof that I am not afraid of what they say. On the other hand you banned faithfreedom.org in Pakistan. If what you say is true, then why not let everyone see this truth? Why don't you publish our debate in your site so everyone can see how you established the superiority of Islam? We both know that you know that Islam is defeated.
Everyone thinks he has the truth. This is the fact of life. If we thought our beliefs are false would we hold unto them? Does this mean everyone should start killing those who disagree with his version of the truth? What insanity is this?
Muslims are performing poor? Are you okay yourself? Should everyone become intolerant like you and then the world will become a paradise?
You did not read my long response or you would not say these things. These are embarrassing statements. They are bellow great scholars such as you two. And you say Islam has nothing to do with the dismal and barbaric way that Muslims think and behave?
Dear Mr. Ghamidi and Dr. Zaheer. Islam is evil. Anyone who embraces this cult becomes evil. I only know few good humans who called themselves Muslims. One such person was my grandmother. But the fact is that that blessed soul had no idea how evil is Islam. She died blissfully and in ignorance. Had she known what I know, she would not have remained in this cult one single day. Good people cannot tolerate evil. As we Persians say, the proof of a perfume is in its fragrance. I like that better than its English version that says the proof of the pudding is in eating it. You advocate killing people for not agreeing with your faith and you call yourself good? Evil is he who evil does. Let me give you the news. As long as you believe in an evil man and promote his evil cause, you can't be good. As long as you think people should be put to death for what they believe, you are not good. God does not need murderers and assassins. You are not doing God's work. You have become agents of Satan doing his work. As long as you remain Muslims, your thoughts are satanic, your deeds are satanic and you do evil because you have embraced an evil cause. Is this really what you want to do?
It's time to wake up my respected friends. It is time that you come to your senses and realize that this road that you have taken will take you to hell, both in this world and in the next. People are waking up everywhere. Good people are leaving Islam and are joining the human race. We are one people, one family called mankind. It is not befitting for us to divide ourselves between "us" and "them" for a stupid ideology that cannot be proven and then start killing one another. What tragedy is greater than this? What insanity is bigger than this? How much stupidity is enough? How much?
First you said that there are no errors in the Qur'an. I showed you four out of hundreds and you failed to disprove anyone of them and in fact neglected the forth altogether. Then you deny the obvious and call that "naive". Then you said that since you have seen something out of this world in the Qur'an you are willing to close your eyes to all its errors and evilness, which you yourself said you had seen, and accept that book as a divine revelation. So I asked you to tell us about that thing you saw that impressed you to this degree that you are willing to forego your humanity and shed the blood of innocent people. In these last two responses you talked about everything but what you were supposed to talk about. Dr. Ghamidi repeated several times that Muhammad gave undeniable evidence "itmam al hujjat." I asked you to show us that hujjat. Will you now talk about that? Are you really able to show us that "out of this world" thing that you say you saw in the Qur'an?

[Allegracrown]

Part XIV
February 19, 2007

Dear scholar friends Mr. Ghamidi and Dr. Zaheer.
This time I delayed my response because you had complained that I respond too quickly and the readers cannot absorb what you said properly. I am sure this time they have absorbed everything you said fully since your response has been published nearly a week ago.
I must admit that you have a very unorthodox way of defining tolerance. Muhammad could not tolerate anyone criticizing him and ordered the execution of those who, many years earlier, had ridiculed him. He even had zero tolerance for those who wanted to believe in their own faiths and did not want to submit to his unsubstantiated claims. I am at lost trying to understand your definition of tolerance. This story you are telling us is not the sign of Muhammad's tolerance but an indication of his paranoia and intolerance. Muhammad was a narcissist and as such he was insecure of himself and suspicious of everyone. So he prohibited people saying an Arabic word because he suspected, they were saying something different to mock him, and you think just because he did not "took to task immediately" i.e. did not order their execution, he was a tolerant man? Is this your definition of tolerance? No wonder you call yourself tolerant and moderate when you repeatedly have stated that anyone who does not believe in Islam or anyone who leaves it does not deserver to live in this world. The irony is that Muslims are the most intolerant people on the face of the planet and despite that they think to be tolerant.
My erudite friends, allow me to explain the concept of tolerance as I, and the rest of non-Muslim portion of humanity understand it. Tolerance means you are fair, objective, and permissive toward those whose opinions and religions differ from yours. It means that you treat others with the same respect and consideration that you would like to be treated. How can you be tolerant when you say those who reject Islam do not deserve to live in this world? How would you like to be put to death because of your faith? What would you say to a person who believes you don't deserve living in this world because your religion is different from his? Would you call such a person tolerant? If not, then you are not tolerant and neither was your prophet.

The Sura 6 is a Meccan Sura. When Muhammad said these things, he was weak and when one is weak one can't be intolerant. You can be intolerant only when you are strong. When Muhammad went to Medina and became strong he became very intolerant. Sura Maida is Medinan and there is nothing tolerant in the verses 5.57-58 that you quoted. Here Muhammad is saying "take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery or sport,-whether among those who received the Scripture before you, or among those who reject Faith". How do you interpret this as a tolerant teaching? If you find someone urging others NOT to take Muslims as friends and allies because they ridicule trinity, would you say that this person is a tolerant person?
Muhammad was not tolerant. He remembered those who ridiculed him and years later, when he came back to Mecca he sought them and took his revenge despite having promised that if the Meccans surrender with no fight he would spare their lives.
The Qur'an should be read in its context. The so-called tolerant verses of the Qur'an are all Meccan verses while the Medinan verses are violent and intolerant. The following are examples of the kind of verses that Muhammad wrote in Mecca.
1. Be patient with what they say, and part from them courteously.
(Q.73:10)
2. 2. To you be your religion, and to me my religion. (Q. 109:6)
3. 3. Therefore be patient with what they say, and celebrate (constantly) the praises of your Lord. (Q.20:103)
4. 4. Speak good to men. (Q.2:83)
5. 5. We well know what the infidels say: but you are not to compel them. (Q.50:45)
6. 6. Hold to forgiveness; command what is right; But turn away from the ignorant. (Q.7:119)
7. 7. Pardon thou, with a gracious pardoning. (Q.15:85)
8. 8. Tell those who believe, to forgive those who do not look forward to the Days of Allâh. (Q.45:14)
9. 9. Those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians - any who believe in Allâh and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. (Q.2:62)
10. 10. And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best. (Q.29:46)

Now let us compare them to those written later in Medina when Muhammad became powerful.
1. 1. Oh you who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you. (Q.9:123)
2. 2. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off. (Q.8:12)
3. 3. Whoso desires another religion than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him. (Q.3:85)
4. 4. Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. (Q.9:5)
5. 5. Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out. (Q.2:191)
6. 6. Fight them on until there is no more dissention and religion becomes that of Allâh. (Q.9:193)
7. 7. Fight them, and Allâh will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame. (Q.9:14)
8. 8. Make no excuses: you have rejected Faith after you had accepted it. If We pardon some of you, We will punish others amongst you, for that they are in sin. (Q.9:66)
9. 9. You who believe! Verily, the Mushrikûn (unbelievers) are Najasun (impure). So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (the grand mosque at Mecca ) after this year. (Q.9:28)
10. 10. Fight those who do not believe in Allâh and the last day... and fight People of the Book, who do not accept the religion of truth (Islam) until they pay tribute by hand, being inferior. (Q.9:29)

There is a big difference between the Meccan and the Medinan verses. We see that Muhammad is transformed from a preacher to a despot and when he had the power, he did not have to play the "nice guy" and started showing his real face unmasked. And it was ugly, very ugly.

As for your first alibi, at no time the non-Muslims had imposed any war or Muslims. All the wars and hostilities were initiated by Muhammad and his followers just as the Muslims today are the initiators of virtually all hostilities with others.
As for your second alibi, the fables of the Bible are just that - fables. You yourself do not believe in the Bible and at anytime it contradicts your faith you disregard that book, except when you want to justify the evil deeds of your prophet. Furthermore the so-called punishments of God are acts of nature. The biblical prophets had nothing to do with hurricanes, floods, earthquake, etc. Whether these phenomena are ordered by God intentionally to kill people indiscriminately or not is another story. I already talked about that in my previous responses. Let us assume these natural calamities are sent to men deliberately by a malicious and vengeful god. Okay, we have no control over what this god does. All we can do is get away from the danger and abort his malicious attacks on us. Thanks to the science it is now easier to predict when these calamities are going to hit and seek safety. So as you see, we humans are gradually making this old guy helpless and toothless. Anyway, my problem is when a human assumes the role of God and starts massacring innocent people. This is something we must not tolerate. What right did Muhammad have to do that? Your justification of Muhammad's killings is no different from that of Hitler who wrote:
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.
Anyone can claim to be sent by God doing the Lord's work to justify his crimes with divine authority. Playing God is the wet dream of the narcissist. In Uganda, a mad man, Joseph Kony calls himself messenger of God. He is the founder of Lord's Resistance Army (LRA). He kidnaps children and transforms them into killing machines, much like what Muhammad did. He takes them back to their villages and orders them to kill their parents with machete, to prove their faith. If they refuse he massacres the entire family. Just like your psychopath prophet this mad man also has divine justification for his crimes. Muhammad, like Knoy and Hitler was sick in the head.
What about you Dr. Zaheer and Mr. Ghamidi? How can you, who are sane and intelligent people, believe in a monster like Muhammad and justify his crimes? If you believe in God aren't you afraid to stand if front of him one day and respond for your belief in an evil man like Muhammad? How can you cover your shame when your maker asks you, did you think I am so stupid to send a criminal as a prophet? Didn't you think that by taking a pervert sadist like Muhammad as my messenger you were committing blasphemy? The followers of Kony are children. They are brought up by this monster and murder is the only life they know. They can't be blamed. What are your excuses? Even though you, like all other Muslims, have been brainwashed since childhood, you are now adults and quite intelligent. You have no excuses for following a psychopath mass murderer.

I already answered this. You don't seem to read what I write or pay much attention and yet you accuse me of not pondering upon what you say and
respond quickly, despite the fact that I respond to every paragraph you write. What you say is not news to me. These were the same fallacies I used to believe for years. I thought a lot about them 13 years ago and now I have the answer. I do not have to solve a problem that is already solved. However, you have no clue about my side of the story and why I say Muhammad was an imposter and instead of reading my arguments and try to refute them, you simply avoid reading them. As the result you keep repeating the same things in each message.
Even if the prophethood of Muhammad was obvious to those around him, as you say, it is not obvious to us. The truth of his claim is not clear to me and despite asking you several times to give us the evidence that he was a prophet of God, you have not done it yet. You have not done it because you can't. All you can say is that those who saw him were convinced. How do you know that? Maybe many of them were not convinced but afraid to speak out or leave him. This kind of response does not satisfy me. I dismiss it as fallacy. This fallacy that is so close to Muslims' hearts and they use it often is called argumentum ad veracundiam. Those who followed Jim Jones also saw the evidence that he was a great Messiah. They were so convinced that when Jones told them to drink poison and die, they did it happily. Also those who believed in David Koresh, Charles Manson or Shoko Asahara were convinced. Like Muslims they went around killing innocent people. Is the strength of faith enough proof of the veracity of their claim? Each person has to see the proof for himself. You claimed that you have such proof and that your reversion to Islam was logical and not emotional. So where is that proof? Now that I am asking you to show that proof, you renege and talk about everything else but the proofs. You trust the intelligence of some Arabs who lived 1400 years ago and think if Islam was good for them; it is good for you too. What about others who did not see such evidence in Muhammad and did not believe in him despite the fact that they knew him since childhood? Why should I believe that Abul Hakam, Abu Lahab, Abu Sufyan and Nadr ibn Harith were less intelligent than the slaves Aba Dar, Bilal, the violent and bigoted Omar and the butcher Ali?
You are engaging in fallacy after fallacy. It is not logical to put your faith on the understanding of a bunch of Arabs of the 7th century who engaged in highway robbery and rape. You must see the proof for yourself. You claimed to have seen it but now you are saying something else and are shying away from giving that proof. If you saw the proof, show it to us.
When Galileo claimed that the Earth is rotating around the Sun, when Darwin presented his theory of evolution, or when Einstein stipulated that 90% of the mass of the universe is made of dark matter, these were theories. But because they were true, the passage of time revealed their truth. This is the characteristic of truth. Truth has a tendency to self-manifest. And you are telling us that the truth of Islam has faded in time? If Islam is true how can such a thing happen?
This is not logical. If the perceived evidence of the truth of Islam has disappeared, it is because it was never there. If we adhere to the law of logics, we should only conclude that because truth is emerging, falsehood is vanishing. That is why what the ignorant people of the 7th century Arabia thought to be true, does not appear to us as true. We are more intelligent than those barbarians. Those ignorant people had no problem accepting a God that orders robbery, assassination and rape. Now we know that no real God would send a fiend like Muhammad to guide mankind. That is against intelligence and commonsense. The messenger of God must be flawless. Muhammad was evil in the true sense of the word. I do not believe in Jesus as a divine personage but I can't denounce him as evil because he was not. That is why Islam seems false to us and it didn't to those savages. They were barbarians and ignorant and we are intelligent and civilized. Anyway, if the evidence of the truth of Islam has evaporated, as you claim, we can't be held responsible for rejecting it. God gave us intelligence to use it. Once we use our intelligence we see that Islam is nothing but a satanic cult. A just God would not punish us for rejecting something that is illogical and seems to be evil.
Now, let us be honest Mr. Ghamidi and Dr. Zaheer. Do you have any proof that Muhammad was a prophet of God or the proof is lost? It's either one or the other. You made both these contradictory claims, as if you want to have your cake and eat it too. If you have the proof, show it to us without further ado and if the proof is lost then admit that there is no proof and do not make such claims and please admit that your faith is subjective.

Which God are you talking about? That is not the God that Jesus or Zoroaster talked about. In fact Allah is completely inconsistent with the God of Christianity. Jesus said turn the other cheek and Allah says "retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain, the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female." (Q.2:178) In other words, if someone kills your slave, you are allowed to kill his slave and if someone kills your son or daughter, you can kill his son or daughter. What can be more stupid than this? Even Muslims who blindly follow everything Muhammad said do not practice this insane injunction. When a prostitute was brought to Jesus, he said let the one who has not committed sin throw the first stone while in a similar incident Muhammad urged the Jews who had abandoned the barbaric practice of stoning to stone a woman accused of adultery. Jesus sat with sinners, ate with them and befriended them; Muhammad said the unbelievers are filthy (najes) do not associate with them. Jesus said forgive the sins of others so yours can be forgiven in heaven; Muhammad was utterly incapable of forgiving people who had done nothing but mock him. Because Allah is incompatible with the God of Jesus we must not accept him.
Either Muhammad was lying or Jesus was a liar. Their messages are incompatible and their gods are different. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know which one of the two was lying. Muhammad said that Jesus was a messenger of God. If he was not, then Muhammad has said a lie and therefore he can't be a messenger of God. If Jesus was a messenger of God, Muhammad can't be because these two men stand on opposite poles. One is the personification of everything that is divine and the other is the representation of everything that is demonic and evil. Furthermore Jesus warned people of false prophets and he even gave a clue to detect them. He said you would recognize them by their fruits. Look at the fruits of Islam. I think it is enough evidence to conclude that Muhammad was a false prophet. The fruits of Islam are ignorance, bigotry, fanaticism, intolerance, violence, misogyny, discrimination, terrorism, dictatorship, wars, poverty and misery.

The terrorists think they have direct sanction to do what they do and they are right. In no place in the Qur'an it says Jihad must stop after the death of Muhammad or at any other time. In fact in his death bed Muhammad urged his followers to go to war in Tabuk. Jihad must continue until the entire world becomes Dar al Salam. However, since Muslims are divided and each group denounces others and calls them heretics, if they conquer the world they will start killing one another on a massive scale. Islam is a cult of terror and murder. Mr. Ghamidi himself has been the target of Islamic assassination and at the same time he prescribes death for unbelievers and apostates. As long as you are a Muslim, and follow a terrorist mad man you do what he did and you can't be called tolerant. It makes no difference which school of thought or sect one belongs to or how one interprets the Qur'an. All the Muslims believe in the same book of terror and follow the examples set by the same chief terrorist. The difference between the Muslims is in their flavor. In essence they are all made of the same substance and have the same characteristics. You have been honest enough to show us what a moderate Muslim means. If you are the example of a moderate Muslim Islam is dangerous and it must be eradicated.
Killing people for what they believe or don't believe is not something the civilized world can tolerate. You think your understanding of the truth is perfect and so dose everyone else. If we each start killing each other because our truths are different what will become of this world? How can a real God say such a stupid thing? Humans are fallible. People genuinely and with all good intentions make mistake and interpret things, including books claimed to be words of God, in different ways. If each one of us thinks that he has divine sanction to kill those who disagree with what we think is truth then everyone should start killing everyone else.
Assuming Satan wanted to destroy mankind. What better way could he devise than sending someone as the messenger of God who would tell people to kill those who do not believe?

After realizing that I am not going to give up, you finally came up with this answer. Is this response supported by any other verse in the Qur'an or any hadith? This is not a minor statement but a major difference between those who lived at the time of Muhammad and the rest of mankind. It basically shows that God has a two tier system, of which we were not aware yet. If this answer is true and as you say, the companions of Muhammad, who had received his direct message, had the added advantage of surviving in the form of spirit while the rest of mankind would disappear to only rise at the Last Day, this would have been trumpeted in various verses and huge discussions would have been dedicated to it. Nothing of that exists in the entire Islamic literature and the Ulama who have even discussed in detail with which foot one has to enter the toilet, on which side of the body one has to place most of his weight during defecation and how many rocks one has to use for cleaning purposes after responding to the call of the nature, have been uncharacteristically silent on this very important subject. Can you tell us why? I will tell you why. It's because such a thing does not exist in Islam. You just made it up. What else could you say in the face of this obvious discrepancy within the Qur'an?
Every Muslim believes that the souls survive the death and are alive. At the same time they also believe that the death will rise at the Day of Judgment. These are contradictory beliefs. Yet Muslims do not seem to have any difficulty believing in both these mutually exclusive beliefs.
According to Islam the archangel Israfil will sound a horn sending out a "blast of truth". Muslim apologist, John Esposito, in The Oxford Dictionary of Islam says that according to traditions, Muhammad will be the first to be brought back to life.26
Will you please explain how can the companions of Muhammad enter in a spiritual state of existence until the Last Day when he himself doesn't? And if Esposito is wrong, can you show us a few hadith or Quranic verses to corroborate your claim?
What about the punishment of the grave? How do you explain this?
Ibn Abbas narrated: The Prophet once passed by two graves and said, "These two persons are being tortured not for a major sin (to avoid). One of them never saved himself from being soiled with his urine, while the other used to go about with calumnies(to make enmity between friends)." The Prophet then took a green leaf of a date-palm tree, split it into (pieces) and fixed one on each grave. They said, "O Allah's Apostle! Why have you done so?" He replied, "I hope that their punishment might be lessened till these (the pieces of the leaf) become dry." (See the foot-note of Hadith 215) 27
26 Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-512558-4, p.264 2003 27 Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 217
If there is no consciousness after death until the Last Day, how can corpses in the grave be punished? This hadith is reported in several places. Another version of it says that Muhammad actually heard the voices of two humans who were being tortured in their graves.28 Shall we believe in the hallucinations of this mad man?

The only difference is the way you interpret the Qur'an. Can you convince bin Laden or any Muslim that your interpretation is the right one and theirs is not? I think bin Laden's interpretation is the correct one. Furthermore, both of you believe that unbelievers do not deserve to live in this world and that along with the apostates, they should be killed. I honestly do not see much difference between your position and his. All Muslims, irrespective of how they interpret the Qur'an, are victims of a lie. The Qur'an is a very confused book, but not when it comes to killing. The message of hate and violence in the Qur'an is loud and clear.

What about you? Are you capable of changing your mind? I believe you are. But you are not showing it in public. Of course you can't do that and I am not going to press you to do it. I leave that to you and your conscience. Faith blinds, I hope this is not true in your case.
One friend wrote and said he had communicated with you and you were confident that you are winning this debate. In that case may I ask to please publish it in your site so everyone in Pakistan can see how you came out victorious? If you don't I am afraid that this friend will start thinking that you were bluffing and that you have serious doubts about your self declared victory.
28 Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 81

Haven't you made your mind already? Isn't this what all believers do? I have made my mind because I have not seen the evidence of the truth of Islam. On the contrary, I have plenty of evidence against it. However, should you give any evidence in support of Islam; I will acknowledge it and agree with you. Will you please give us a proof to back your claim that Islam is true? Until then you can't pass judgments saying I am not listening or it makes no difference whether you give the proof or not. First you have to present your proof and if I can't refute it and still deny it, then you can pass those judgments.

No, Dear Dr. Zaheer! The Qur'an does not mention anything that is in the Bible more clearly. It simply alludes to those stories casually as if realizing that its audience is already familiar with them and therefore there is no need to explain them in detail. If one has not studied the Bible and has never heard of Job, Noah, Abraham or Moses, one cannot understand the Quran. However, sometimes there are discrepancies between the stories of the Bible and the allusions made to them in the Qur'an. This is due to the fact that Muhammad was an illiterate man with little knowledge of the Scriptures. He relied on hearsay to rehash those stories. For example, he thought that Mary the mother of Jesus is part of trinity. At no time this has been the case. By witnessing the reverence that the Christians had for Mary, he came to this erroneous conclusion. In another place he confuses Mary the Mother of Jesus (Maryam in Arabic) with Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron (also Maryam in Arabic). When those who knew the Bible caught his errors he lost his temper and became angry, lashing out at them he said the Bible is mistaken. This is consistent with his narcissistic personality disorder and megalomania. His gigantic ego would not allow him to admit that he had been wrong and instead of apologizing he pulled out his sock puppet Allah out of his sleeve to support him.
Tabari says, a group of Jews asked Muhammad about the creation. He told them
"God created the Earth on Sunday and on Monday. Then he created the mountains on Tuesday. On Wednesday he created the cities, the vegetation, the rivers, and every development and ruin. [This is word-by-word translation. God created the cities and even the ruins before he created Adam] On Thursday he created the skies and the angels, which lasted to three hours before the end of Friday. Then during the first hour of the remainder of Friday he created ajals, the times of the deaths [I assume it means he established the time of the death of humans]. In the next hour he created the diseases [Yep that is exactly what it says. He created the diseases even before he created Adam] and in the third hour he created Adam. The Jews said; if you had said that God rested on Saturday we knew you were telling the truth. The Messenger of Allah became angry and Allah revealed the verse (46.33): "Have they not considered that Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth and was not tired by their creation?"29
The fact that the fable of creation mentioned in the Bible and the Qur'an is an absurdity and any sane person reading this fable can see it is unscientific is another subject. The point that I want to make is that Muhammad often made errors when plagiarizing from the Bible. He was not a scholar but a very ignorant man, and he got angry if someone pointed his mistakes out.

29 Tabari Vol I Page 30 Persian translation
Thank you for your explanation. I could not agree more. That is exactly what I thought when I read the above story of Muhammad reported by Tabari. Do you still want to follow an indecent and impolite man?

[Allegracrown]

Part XV



2007/02/27
Dear Dr. Zaheer:
There is a difference between warning people of divine chastisement and raiding them, killing them, looting their belongings and enslaving their wives and children and raping them. All monotheistic religions engage in the same scare mongering that if you don't believe in God, He will be offended and will punish you. This threat is harmless, unless you choose to believe in it. If you decide not to believe, it can't hurt you. What the Jehovah Witnesses think will happen to you and me after we die, does not affect us. We will not go to hell because they think we will. However, it would be a different story if they decided to raid our homes, slit our throats and enslave our wives and children or bomb us. Then their belief is no longer funny. We must take serious action and stop them.
If I threaten to kill you and then do good on my threat, am I a prophet? According to your reasoning, I must be. What other proof you need to believe in me? My prophecy came true with precision.
It is mind-boggling that intelligent people should engage in such logical fallacies. What is so miraculous about issuing a threat and then carrying it out? If the victims of Muhammad had perished by natural calamities, without his intervention, after he had forewarned them, then you had a point. That never happened even though at times Muhammad spent thirty consecutive days cursing his enemies. Where is the miracle in threatening people and then cowardly raiding them with no warning and butchering them when they are unprepared and unarmed?
You say that all one has to do to see the miracles in the Qur'an, is read it. I did that and what I found was violence, absurdity and hate. You don't deny that but you say that there are also miracles in that book and so we must not dismiss the book just because it is a violent book. You think that violence is from God. This is absurd reasoning but where is the miracle? Please show them to us. Some speculate that Nostradamus had prophetic visions. Admittedly there are many passages in the book of Nostradamus that can be seen as prophetic. Those who make such claim can back up their claim with concrete evidence. They quote hundreds of his quartets that seem to have come to pass. Not everyone agrees with them but it is undeniable that sometimes his prophecies can be seen as accurate. Can you show us any passage in the Qur'an that even remotely predicts something that happened that was not self-fulfilled by Muhammad himself and his followers?
When I say that the Qur'an is full of errors, contradictions and nonsense, I am showing them to you. All I am asking is that you show us one of the miracles of the Qur'an. You have not done that and you are unable to do it. It's because this perceived miracle that you are talking about is subjective. It is your wishful thinking that makes banal words, seem prophetic and miraculous.
You say that your experience tells you that an objective reading of the Qur'an shows amazing results. If your reading is objective, you should be able to communicate it. That is the difference between objective and subjective. If you can't express something verbally and logically, then it is not objective, but rather subjective.
You say that one must have strong yearning for the truth in order to see the miracles in the Qur'an. To find the truth, you must first doubt. As long as you are a believer you only yearn to validate your belief. You need to be detached to find the truth. It is your strong yearning to believe that makes you see miracles in the Qur'an. A Persian song says I am so much in love with you that whoever I see from afar, I think it's you. Muslims are like that. They are so much enamored with Muhammad and Islam that they see miracles in the most banal things. They see the name of Allah written in clouds, in a tomato, on goats, etc. The Christians on the other hand see the images of Jesus and Mary everywhere. These are all wishful thinking. The miracles of the Qur'an are of this kind. They are wishful thinking of the believers.
There is a difference between yearning to find the truth and yearning to believe. The first is objective. You empty your mind from all preconceived ideas and prepare yourself to find things that may be contrary to your belief. The other is trying desperately to validate what you already believe.
You say that only the Qur'an and the sunnah are reliable and what the historians of Islam have written may not be true. I have been quoting from both the Qur'an and the sunnah. Some Muslims are even embarrassed by hadith and dismiss it as hearsay. That is okay. The Qur'an is enough to show Islam is false.
You say the Qur'an responds to its critics with such clarity and conviction that the reader grows in confidence in the authenticity of its claim to divinity. Will you please show us where we can find this clear response? You have been making this claim since day one and I have been asking you to show that clear proof. Where is the proof Dr. Zaheer?
I compared Muhammad to Hitler and Joseph Kony who also claimed that they were doing God's work. You wonder weathered Hitler could justify his acts on the basis of a convincing book, and reaffirmed that "the Qur'an most clearly presents the reasons why some people were declared eligible to be killed."
What are those reasons? I asked you this question many times. All you could tell me was that Muhammad was a messenger of God and as such whatever he did was justified and it is not up to us to question him. You even said that if I have a problem with that, I must first come to terms with the fact that Muhammad was a prophet of God and once that is established there should be no question why he did what he did. Your rationale is that Allah knows best and it is not up to us humans to question his wisdom. So even though Muhammad and Hitler acted similarly, we should not compare the two because Hitler did not have divine license to kill whereas Muhammad did. This rationale defies logic. God's actions cannot be illogical, unjust and cruel. The very fact that Muhammad acted like Hitler and Kony puts him in their category. A true messenger of God should not act like a criminal sadist. However, I even accepted to agree with this illogical premise and asked you to show us the evidence that Muhammad was indeed a true messenger of God and not a false prophet. I have been asking this in every response I have written to you. You have not given evidence to this claim yet.
Admit it, the only proof you have that Muhammad was a prophet of God is his own words. This is the same proof all cult leaders and impostors can give you. That is not enough for rational and thinking people.
You claimed that the truth of Islam is objective. You said that there are undeniable and clear proofs that Islam is a true religion. Where is that proof? Why do you beat around the bushes and don't give it to us? When I say Muhammad was a pedophile, a rapist, an assassin, a highway robber, a torturer, a liar, a deceiver and a mass murderer, I back up every accusation with examples of his life. I challenge anyone to refute my proofs and I have promised to remove my charges, apologize publicly, and even pay to anyone who can prove me wrong. Your claim that the Qur'an is a miracle is nothing but wishful thinking. There is no miracle in that book of nonsense and asininity.
If you are so sure that the Qur'an is a miracle then why you are so afraid of FFI? When you put light and darkness next to each other, light always wins. If the Qur'an is light and FFI is darkness, then why did you block FFI in Pakistan and why you don't publish our debate in your site? Your argument is stronger and more convincing. Isn't it? You are winning. Aren't you? So why not let Muslims read it and become reconfirmed in their faiths? Often, my respected scholar friend, actions speak louder than words.
You say the Qur'an gives clear reasons why some people were eligible to be killed, but when asked to give those reasons you did not seem to have any. Doesn't this mean that you are willing to kill innocent people for no clear reason at all? If Islam is a lie, you are advocating killing innocent people for a lie. What can be more evil than this? If you were not a Muslim, would you even entertain the though of killing other humans only because their faith is different from yours? Certainly not! This murderous trait in you is not innate. It is all due to your indoctrination. Sadly, you are not alone. All Muslims who know Islam well think like you. That is why I said, there is no such thing as moderate Muslim. We have either ignorant Muslims, those who don't know Islam, or terrorist Muslims. Moderate Muslim is oxymoron. It's like "spherical cube." It makes as much sense moderate Nazi, gentle torturer, honest thief and truthful liar. You are either an ignorant Muslim or a terrorist Muslim but you can't be a moderate Muslim because such a creature does not exist. It is a myth like unicorn. Most ignorant Muslims leave Islam after their knowledge of Islam increases. Some of them become terrorists.
How can we live together in this world dear Dr. Zaheer, when you are saying in our face that those of us who do not share your views do not deserve to live? Do you see now why I only oppose Islam and do not care about any other religion? No other religion teaches this much hatred and violence as Islam does. All other religions are mixed bags of good and bad. Islam is the only religion that has nothing good in it. If one believes in Satan, one is forced to admit that Islam is Satan's way to destroy mankind.
Will you tell us, if God wanted to kill those who disbelieve in him, why he created them in the first place? Didn't know that they will become disbelievers? And if he has to kill them why he does not kill them himself? Why is he depending on Muslims to do his dirty works?
In my previous response I talked about Joseph Kony. This psychopath says that his followers should place obedience to him above everything else and love him more than they love their own parents. Eerily, these were the very instructions of Muhammad too. Now the question that I would like you to answer is what Allah wants to achieve by asking the Muslims to murder the unbelievers? If the point is to kill them because they don't deserve to live in this world, as you say, he can easily do that himself. Why he delegates this dirty job to his followers? What kind of believers he wants to rear? Have you ever thought of it? Do you have an answer for it? Next time, please concentrate on this question. Don't you think this is the reason why Muslims are so violent and are killing one another so much? Each group accuses others of being kafir and then goes about spilling their blood. This is a diabolic teaching not divine.

Yes it is really certain that at no time, no Christian denomination worshiped Mary, the mother of Jesus, as one figure of the trinity. The three persons in trinity are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Mary has never been part of this trio. Muhammad has goofed when made that claim. If you don't believe me, it is up to you to bring one historic text showing there were a group of Christians who worshiped Mary. This alone should be enough for one who really yearns for truth, to see that Muhammad was a liar.

I thought you were questioning my claim that the Christians did never include
Mary in the trinity. Now you seem to be saying something completely opposite
to what you said in your previous sentence. Now you deny that Muhammad ever
included Mary in the Trinity. No, problem. Here is the Qur'anic verse that
shows Muhammad thought Christians worship Mary:

Qur'an.5:116
And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men,
worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?" He will say:
"Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a
thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart,
Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.

Now, let us look at this verse closely. Allah is saying that Allah [sic] will ask,
"did you [Jesus] order people to worship you and your mom?" And the poor
Jesus starts denying and defending himself against this calumny. Doesn't Allah
know already what Jesus said and what he did not say? Why he asks this foolish
question from Jesus when he should be the first to refute this calumny and
defend him? This verse makes no sense at all? Let us say your son is accused of
something that you know for surety that it is not true, for example he is accused
of stealing something in England when you know your son has not been in
England. Will you ask your son, "did you do it?" That would be foolish. You
know he did not do it and you should be the first to come to his defense and
witness on his behalf.

Let me plagiarize the style of the Qur'an and compose a sentence like the verse 5:116.
"Tomorrow Ali Sina will ask Dr. Zaheer: 'Did you say that you are Japanese?' Dr. Zaheer will respond, 'I never said that.'"
If I know you never said that and I am already saying that when asked you will respond in negative, then why would I ask this stupid question from you?
Is this the book you call miracle? Can anyone write anything stupider than this? This verse is ridiculous from every angle you look at it.

Well, here is your chance to show that to us. You have made many claims about the Qur'an but have not given any proof to back those claims. If you show us one verse in the Bible that points to Muhammad in a clear and unambiguous way, in a way that I can't use the same verse to prove my divinity, I will forego all the blunders and absurdities in the Qur'an and become a believer. This is the second question that I would like you to answer in the next round.

You are referring to the chapters 16 to 22 of Genesis. Let us see what these chapters say.
In chapter 16 we read that since Sarah, the wife of Abraham could not bear a child, she suggested that her husband sleep with Hagar, her Egyptian maidservant, so she could bear him a child. When Hagar became pregnant, she also became rude to her mistress Sarah. Sarah complained to Abraham who told her to do with Hagar as she pleases. Hagar then fled to the desert and bore her son Ismael near a spring, called Beer Lahai Roi that was between Kadesh and Bered, beside the road to Shur (nothing to do with Mecca). An angel of God found her and inquired what had happened to her. When Hagar told her story, the angel told her to go back to her mistress and be an obedient maidservant to her and said that she would have numerous descendants. The angel also told Hagar that her son will be a "wild donkey of a man. His hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him. And he will live in hostility toward all his brothers." (Gen 16:12)
Now, this is not flattering at all. Hagar, the alleged mother of the Arabs, is rude and ungrateful. She bites the hand that feeds her. She can't handle being treated with respect. She needs to be treated like a servant so she can be respectful. Ismael is also referred to as a wild jackass of a man who fights with everyone and is hostile to all his brothers. Considering how Arabs behave, one is amazed to see that sometimes the Bible, this book of fairytales and absurdities, can get is so right. I see nothing in these Biblical verses for you to brag about. Is this what you wanted to show me in the Bible?
In the chapter 17 of Genesis God appears to Abraham when he is already 99 years old and promises that he will give him a son, Isaac, and says: "I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come." (Gen.17:7) He also says that through Isaac Abraham will have many descendants and that "The whole land of Canaan,.. I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you".(Gen.17:8) Is he talking about Ismael? No! He is talking about Isaac and his descendants. So if you believe in the god of the Bible then you know why Arabs are losing in Palestine. It is because they are in breach of the everlasting covenant of God. They are fighting against the will of God. The Land of Canaan is promised to the children of Isaac in an everlasting covenant.
Muhammad said that the covenant of God is null and void because the Jews rejected him. Now we have evidence that Muhammad was a liar and the Jews were in their right mind to reject him. God does not break his covenant even if humans do. That would not be godly. The promise that God gave to Abraham was not conditional. Allah is whimsical. He lies, deceives and plots. According to the Qur'an he is khairul makereen (the best of deceivers). However, a true God cannot be like that. Makr (deceit) is not a divine quality. This Quranic verse is enough proof that Allah is not God.
Then Abraham asks that God also bless his other son, Ismael, and God agrees to increase his descendants too. Between you and me, I think that was very shortsighted of God. He knew that the descendants of this wild donkey of a man will have their hands against the hands of everyone else and will be hostile to all mankind. He should not have given in to Abraham in order to please him and he should not have made the descendants of Ismael populous. That was a big mistake. Now we are facing a world crisis because there are too many wild donkeys that kick hard and have even learned to make bombs. Imagine how dangerous it would be if donkeys had horns. Muslims with bombs are more dangerous than donkeys with horns.
When Isaac was born, Ismael, who was 14 years older, started to abuse him. [His descendants and their lackeys (non Arab Muslims) are doing the same to the descendants of Isaac, even though they are a hundred fold bigger. Nothing has changed.] Sarah said to Abraham "Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac"(Gen 21:10). [Well, even though the Arbas have 500 times more land than the Jews, and their land has oil, the descendants of Ismael have no eyes to see the children of Isaac and want to take their tiny land away from them and drown them in the sea. Like father, like son.] So Abraham and Sarah kicked Hagar and Ismael out of their house again.
Abraham was saddened because after all Ismael was his son. God told him, "Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." (Gen.21:12) Did you hear that? Please read it again. However, God added: "I will make the son of the maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring."
The Qur'an says that it was Ismael that Abraham wanted to sacrifice. This is wrong. According to the Bible, God said to Abraham, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering." (Gen. 22:2)
Now, we know that Isaac was not the only son of Abraham. However, God did not even count the other jackass of a man as the son of Abraham. He was simply not important to be counted. Abraham loved only Isaac. Yes, God promised that Ismael will have a lot of descendants. He promised the same to rabbits and pigs too. Having a lot of children is not the sign of importance. The poorest and the most ignorant nations of the world are more procreative. Where in the Bible it says that one of the descendants of this wild donkey of a man will become a prophet and will lead mankind to God?
You have claimed a lot of things, but you are yet to give evidence to those claims. You even went as far as saying that Islam is not "faith" but "fact". And yet, despite repeated requests, you have not shown any fact. Now you say that there is mention of Muhammad in the Bible. Will you show that to us? Which chapter? Which verse?

Dear Dr. Zaheer. I think we already knew from day one that you are the one who are writing these articles and not Mr. Ghamidi. You stated several times that you consult with him before writing your responses. Has anything changed? Have you stopped consulting him and if yes, why? Does Dr. Ghamidi think it is waste of his time to help you defend Islam in front of thousands of people? In the course of a few years this debate will be read by millions. Does he still think it is not worth his time? There are thousands of people, particularly Muslim youths who read FFI. Doesn't he think that it is his duty to show them that I am mistaken so their faiths become stronger? There are also many non-Muslims who read this site and they too are eager to see the undeniable truth of Islam. You don't want them being misled by me. Do you?
There are Muslims who write to various scholars inviting them to debate with me. These scholars either do not respond or respond by telling the Muslim to stay away from me. I wonder why? I hope it is not because they think this would cause embarrassment to Islam. Why not take advantage of this opportunity and show the truth of Islam to the world?
You claimed the Qur'an has undeniable evidence and irrefutable proof and that once that is established then everything else becomes irrelevant. Although I do not agree with this logic and believe that even a single error in the book claimed to be verbatim word of God disqualify it as such, I stopped asking you questions about the Qur'an so you could show us that proof and agreed to abide even by this unreasonable premise. However you did not show us any proof. So I go back asking questions. Here are the two questions I would like you to focus on the next time.
Question #5
If God must kill the unbelievers, why he does not do it himself? Why he asks Muslims to soil their hands with blood and become murderers? What kind of people Allah wants to collect around himself as his followers? Will the paradise be full of assassins, murderers and terrorists? Why Allah has placed so much emphasis on fighting and killing and rewards those who kill for him more than those who don't?

Question # 6
Will you please show us one example where Muhammad is referred to in the Bible? Muhammad said that the Bible mentions his name (Ahmad). I never saw him mentioned in the Bible.
If you like shorter responses, you may respond to these two questions in two parts.
I remain cordially yours
Ali Sina

[Allegracrown]

Part XVI



Dear Dr. Zaheer:
I am accusing your prophet of the most horrendous crimes and instead of trying to defend him you seem to be more interested in talking about the rules of thef debate. We are in round seventeen of this debate. Don't you think it is time to answer to some of the charges brought against Muhammad or try to give proofs that he was not a liar?

Things are either subjective or objective. I know of no other category. Something is objective when it is not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice. Objective arguments are based on facts and facts are demonstrable. A subjective argument on the other hand, exists in the mind and belongs to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought.
When you say there is miracles in the Qur'an, this statement is either objective or it is subjective. If it is objective you must be able to clearly explain it with external facts. For example the claim that the Earth is revolving around the Sun is an objective claim because it is demonstrable. There is no subjectivity here and you can't deny it unless you deny the facts. On the other hand the claim that moon is beautiful is subjective. I am sure if you get closer to this planet you won't find it very attractive. If the miracles in the Qur'an were as clear as the moon in the sky all you had to do is to point to them in the Qur'an and everyone would see them. You have not done so despite my repeated requests. Not only you can't point to these miracles, you even accuse those who do not see what you claim to see as not being objective or not having pure hearts. So in lieu of reason, you resort to ad hominem and accuse us of being blind. Therefore it is fair to say that this proverbial moon that you see in the sky is a hallucination. It is only in the heads of those who choose to believe. If it was real and objective you could show it to us.
You say "The Qur'an tells us that faith comes to those who want to believe;" The translation of this is, only those who want to be fooled will be fooled. This is the same argument that the believers of all faiths and cults make. They say you must have pure heart and want to believe in order to see the truth of our faith. We discussed this point before. There are thousands of beliefs out there. They are all contradicting each other. Not all of them can be true. We must choose, at most, one of them and discard the rest. Which one? Here is where we have to be objective. If all you have to do is to want to believe then how can you be sure that you are not falling into the trap of a charlatan like Jim Jones, Shoko Asahara, David Koresh, Sun Miun Moon, Sai Baba, John De Ruiter, Joseph Kony, Charles Manson and countless other psychopath liars? Please tell us what sets apart Muhammad from these con men? How do we know that Muhammad did not belong to this lot? What did he do and say that sets him apart?
When you want desperately to believe in something you fall into traps. Islam appeals to people who are impressionable and gullible. Consider your own case. You converted to Islam after your father passed away, at a time when you were extremely vulnerable and desperate to believe in something. It just happened that you were born in a Muslim family and Islam was the only religion you knew. Had you been born into a family with a different faith, you would have found your solace in that faith. At first you said that your coming to Islam has been very objective. Now you say that Islam is neither objective nor it is subjective. Of course, this is not possible. One is either pregnant or one is not. You are engaging in the most elemental logical fallacy to cling to your faith and somehow justify your belief. You are far smarter than that and I hope that you realize that these arguments make no sense.
Wanting and being eager to believe will for sure lead you to wrong paths. If you really want to find the truth you must be detached. We should use the scientific method to find the truth. Scientists do not go to the lab with preconceived ideas desperately trying to validate what they already thinks is true and discarding any evidence contrary to their preconceptions. They put aside all their biases and try to find the truth accepting the fact that truth may be very different from what they had originally postulated. This is how one finds the truth, not by eagerly wanting to believe. Now it is clear why you are unable to see what the rest of the world can see. Your methodology is wrong. Instead of desperately wanting to believe you must be detached and become willing to doubt and to question.
Every great achievement in the world has been attained by men and women who were capable of doubting. This world is built by doubters and not by believers. Doubters are leaders of thoughts. Believers are followers. We say those who are unable to doubt and believe unquestioningly, have sheep mentality. There is no pride in believing. Those who are not capable of doubting believe. God gave us brain to doubt, to question, to wonder and to discover new frontiers and not to believe. Galileo was a doubter. Copernicus was a doubter, Darwin was a doubter. Newton, Einstein and all those who left their mark in the history of science and human understanding were doubters. Zakaria Razi, Ibn Sina, Farabi and Khayyam were all doubters. On the other hand Khomeini was a believer. Not all the believers are stupid but all the stupid people are believers.


So you think because Muhammad said if you don't believe in me you will be subdued and then raided his victims and subdued them he was a prophet? This is a blatant logical fallacy. I already answered this fallacious argument in my previous response.
Muhammad signed an agreement with the Meccans that for ten years there should be no hostility among them. Then he broke his treaty after two years, as soon as he became strong, and raided that city. The Meccans were taken by surprise. They were not ready for this raid and not prepared to defend themselves. They had no choice but to negotiate their surrender. What part of this is miracle? This is a tale of treason and deceit.
If Muhammad had threatened his enemies with divine chastisement and then a calamity had fallen on them without his intervention and if this had happened every time that he warned people, so no one could discard it as fluke, then you had a point. But I see no miracle in threatening people and then raiding them and killing them when unarmed. The miracle is in the fact that a billion Muslims see this dastardly act of treachery as a miracle. If what Muhammad did was a miracle, then Genghis Khan also performed many miracles. What was the difference between Muhammad, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Macedonian and Napoleon? The only difference I can see is that Muhammad also lied about being a prophet and those who are gullible enough to believe in him perpetuate this lie and pass it on to the next generations.
It is depressing that intelligent men such as your good selves make these absurd statements. Truth cannot be established by demonstrating who is more ruthless and brute. This is how a narcissist thinks. Muhammad was a narcissist and as such he believed that might is right. By entering in his bubble universe, Muslims have become extensions of his narcissistic mind and they collectively believe in the same absurdities that their prophet believed. It is illogical to say that because someone was more cunning, more ruthless and vanquished his opponents, he must be right. This is the law of jungle. Argumentum ad baculum is not for rational humans. What you think is the greatest miracle of all, is nothing but a great fallacy. Truth cannot be determined by the use of force and by subduing your opponent with violence.

Whether I like God killing people in natural calamities or not is another story. My question was why Allah asked his believers to murder their kind when even most savage animals rarely do such a thing. If Allah is so desperate to be worshiped and so offended when not, that the only way for him to feel relief is by killing those who reject him, why he does not kill the rejecters himself? You did not answer this question. You simply said because he can do whatever he likes. This is not an answer. My question was why Allah wants humans to become murderers? If murdering was such a good thing, why most of good people abhor it? Why we humans do not naturally enjoy the sight of carnage? This tells me that our creator has not made us natural killers. How can Allah be the same creator? How can God make us abhor killing and then order us to kill our kind? What kind of spiritual education is this that involves bloodshed and murder?
If Allah had directly destroyed those who rejected Muhammad then we would know that Muhammad had indeed an invisible friend behind him who was ruthless and bloodthirsty. Of course this would not have meant that Allah is God, but at least we knew that someone called Allah exists outside Muhammad's imagination. However, when we see Allah completely helpless and Muhammad is doing all the killing himself, we are forced to come to the conclusion that Allah is nothing but Muhammad's sockpuppet and a figment of his own imagination.
In many hadiths we read that Muhammad used to curse his enemies for thirty days and yet no harm came to them. They only were vanquished when he cowardly raided their homes and treacherously took them by surprise. These actions are not godly. How can Muslims not see that? How do you distinguish an evil man and a holy man if not by their actions? You believe that Jesus was a prophet of God. What do you think he meant when he warned people of the false prophets? He said you will recognize them by their fruits. Can't you see that the actions of Muhammad were all evil? Can you show me a man as evil as him? You overlook all this man's evil deeds because in your opinion he was a messenger of God. I can't begin to fathom the absurdity of this line of reasoning. My reasoning tells me that no real God would send a murderer to guide mankind. You think that it is possible for God to send a man who acts like a gangster to guide mankind to the true path. Do you have any proof that he was a prophet? You have produced none so far. You gave big promises that there are miracles in the Quran, but all your claims are debunked, one after another.

I don't think my question was unintelligent. However since the point is clear, there is no reason for me to dwell on it further. I only add one thing and that is in a trial the judge questions all the parties because he does NOT know the facts and wants to find out the truth. If a judge has already made his mind, before even the trial begins, he is presiding over a kangaroo court. Is this how divine justice in Allah's court works? What is the point of setting up such a mock trial when the outcome is already decided? Allah knows the facts and so does the defendant. All he has to do is tell the sinner, I am going to send you to hell for such and such violations. Trial means finding the facts in order to determine the guilt or innocence. If the facts are already known to the judge it is foolish to set up a kangaroo court and conduct a mock trial.
No matter how you look at Islam it turns out to be a foolish religion.

There is only one version of the Qur'an. I am trying to show the world that this book is satanic, while you are trying to make them believe it is a miracle.

Deuteronomy 18:15 reads: "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him."
You say this is about Muhammad? Don't you see that the verse clearly says that this prophet will be raised, "from among your own brothers?" Was Muhammad a Jew? How can anyone in his right mind think this verse is about Muhammad who was not a Jew?
It is important to get into details. It is then that I can show with clarity that every argument Muslims use to prove Islam is a true religion is false.
Now, I am going to ask another question.

Question # 7
If Allah knows who will be a believer and who will be a non-believer and if he has preordained everything, why he created the non-believers, only to burn them for eternity after they die?

[Allegracrown]

Part XVII

I am delighted that you write and please do not worry about the delay. As for points i) and ii), I would not use that language. As for the rest, you got my message right.

I believe I already gave my response. You said that moon is there but only those who have clear eyesight can see it. This is the same kind of reasoning that Muhammad used to make. Anytime people asked him for proof he would say you are deaf, dumb and blind and can't understand the clear proof I am giving you, or that Allah has sealed your hearts. Well, 1400 years later, we are asking the same questions and you are giving the same answers. I am afraid this is not a very convincing argument. Any person can accuse those who disagree with him of being deaf dumb and blind. This is called ad hominem and it is not a logical argument. "If you do not agree with my illogical claims, you are blind," is not a logical argument.
You are telling us that the proof of Islam is as clear as the moon in the sky. We ask you to show that proof to us. You have not done it. The only proof you have given so far is the claim that Muhammad was mentioned in the Bible, which we will discuss bellow.
The other proof you gave was that Muhammad foretold that he would subdue his opponents and he did it. This, as I explained earlier, is not a valid proof either.
I do not recall you give us any other proof as to why we should accept Muhammad as a prophet of God. So it is not fair that you call me blind for not believing in your unproven claim.
Let me give you an example of blindness. Let us say I claim that my friend Joe is a prophet of God; however I have no convincing proof to support that claim. You on the other hand make hundreds of very convincing arguments that Joe cannot be a prophet. For example, you say that Joe is a convicted felon, has been involved in armed robberies and has killed a few people. He has also kidnapped an airplane full of passengers and after killing the men, has raped the women at gunpoint. So, based on all these evidences and his asinine statements about science such as splitting the sun, sperms being created from the shoulder bone, etc, you say Joe cannot be a prophet. But I am a believer and say that I have seem Joe performing miracles such as multiplying food, materializing an apple out of thin air, reading my mind, etc. You tell me that this Joe is a magician and that all his so called miracles are visual illusions and tricks. However, I am reluctant to listen to you and continue believing in him despite all the evidence against him. Then you can say I am blind and you would be right. However, it would be ludicrous if I call you blind for not believing in Joe since I have failed to give any proof. Replace Joe with Mo and you will see who is blind.

First of all I did not use foul language. Would you please give one example? I have accused Muhammad of the crimes that he committed. If he killed, then he
is a killer. If he raped, then he is a rapist. If he robbed then he is a robber. These are not insults but facts. If you disagree with me, all you have to do is prove me wrong and I will withdraw those charges.
You say that you read Bertrand Russell and your faith in Islam grew. Is that an objective and a logical argument? If your inability to see the superiority of the wisdom of Russell over Islam constituted proof of his lack of logic then many people read the Qur'an and are not impressed by it. Is that enough to prove that the Qur'an is nonsense? Or perhaps you are the paragon of all wisdom and only you can decide who is right and who is not? I hope this is not what you say. So as you see your argument is flawed to begin with. You must tell us exactly which arguments of B.R. you reject any why you think they are illogical. I read the Qur'an and found that book is full of nonsense. Why should anyone care what I think? If I had not given examples of the errors of the Qur'an no one would have paid much attention to what I say. The same is true with you and your opinion of Bertrand Russell. Now, I am not a Russell follower. However, he was a brilliant man. I would not be swayed by your dismissal of him unless you tell me which parts of his views are wrong. Anyway, let us not get distracted. Russell is not the subject of our discussion. Let us focus on Muhammad and his claim.


Is this your proof? Do you really expect people to believe in these fairytales of the Qur'an? These fables constitute proof for you because you are a believer. To the rest of us who think the Qur'an is the delirium of a mentally deranged man they mean nothing. Can you show the authenticity of these stories from any book of history? These are fairytales. Some of them are taken from the Bible and the rest is either made up by Muhammad or existed in the lore of the Arabs. Apart from the fact that the story of Lot narrated by Muhammad is different from the one mentioned in the Bible, in no other book we find any reference to Lot, Abraham or Moses. Archeologists have found a lot about Pharaohs, yet they have found no evidence of the claims made in the Bible about what Jehovah did to the Egyptians and yet these events were of great portent. No mention of Moses exists in any archeological find. The Old Testament, particularly the books of Pentateuch, is fairytale. Do you expect us to believe in the Qur'an that plagiarizes this book of fables as evidence? So in your opinion just because Muhammad said Allah punished those people who rejected his prophets, we should believe? What if Muhammad lied? We have no evidence that any of the claims made in the Qur'an are true. We have plenty of evidence that Muhammad lied on many occasions. Why should we assume that these stories are true?
Furthermore, in these stories it is allegedly God that punishes those who disbelieve. In the case of Islam Allah is unable to harm his enemies and relies entirely on his henchmen followers, who like zombies, kill his opponents with no thought of their own. There is a big difference between the killings perpetrated by Muhammad and what happened to the people of Sodom as described in the Bible. The sodomites perished by a natural disaster, while the victims of Muhammad were killed by him, cowardly and treacherously. Anyone can be a terrorist. Muhammad's acts of terror do not prove his claim.
If I tell people I have magical powers and can hurt those who do not believe in me and then something happen to all those who disbelieve in me, then you will not be blamed to believe that maybe I do have magical powers. However if I send a bunch of hoodlums to beat and kill those who disbelieve in me, you will not conclude that I have magical powers but rather that I am a gangster, a mafia godfather. Muhammad claimed that if anyone disbelieves in him he will be humiliated. Yet nothing happened to those who disbelieved in him until he raided them. Does this constitute proof of his prophethood? Any gangster can do what Muhammad did. Do you see how baseless are the proofs you are giving us?

You did not answer my question. My question was if God wanted to kill people why he would not do it himself? Why he asks Muslims to act as his assassins and henchmen? Why he wants to convert Muslims into murderers?
Whether I am comfortable believing in a terrorist god or not is beside the point. The point is that the story of the destruction of Sodom by God because of their impiety is not a fact but a fiction. We can't quote the fables of the Bible to prove the Qur'an is true. This is circular reasoning. This is like I tell you I can walk on water and the proof is that I did it when no one was watching. This does not constitute proof to you. The evidence should be independent of me. As the claimant my own testimony does not count. Did any reliable person see also this miracle happening? If no not then you should not believe me, particularly if you have seen me lie on many occasions and if I have committed many sins. Since we have no evidence that a person known as Lot existed and there is no other book beside the Bible talking about him (The Qur'an only rehashes what the Bible says and even then Muhammad makes mistakes) we can't accept this story as fact. In those days people did not have television and this much entertainments that we have today. When sun went down, they gathered around the fire and narrated stories. These are fireside stories. As rational intelligent people of the 21st century we must not believe in them.
If you tell me in high altitudes there is little oxygen I can verify the truth or falsehood of that claim personally. Is there anyway to verify the claims made by Muhammad about God destroying people for disbelief? Absolutely not! So it would be foolish to believe in something that can't be proven and sounds irrational. Why should we believe in the claims of Muhammad and not in equally irrational and unproven claims of other false prophets and pretenders?
Last year there was an earthquake in Pakistan that killed thousands of people. A year before that there was a tsunami that killed nearly one hundred thousand people mostly Muslims. The year before that there was an earthquake in Bam, Iran that killed over 50,000 Muslims. Is there a message in these? Is God punishing Muslims for believing in a false prophet? I know that some Mullahs were going around telling the gullible Pakistanis that Allah is punishing them for not being good Muslims and not sending their children for Jihad. Now, how can we determine what message actually God is sending? Is he sending these calamities because Muslims follow a false prophet or is he killing them because they do not follow him enough? Do you see the absurdity of your logic? Any person can interpret these natural calamities according to his own penchant. It is foolish to think that these natural events have anything to do with us.
Let us say your backyard is flooded and a colony of ants living there is drowned. Now imagine one ant tells the other ants that this happened because you did not believe in me when I told you I am the messenger of the landlord. Wouldn't that be ludicrous?
As far as this universe is concerned, you and I and our entire species are less significant than ants. In the great scheme of things we don't even count. This Earth is living its own life doing what it is supposed to do as a living planet. Earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tsunamis, rains, droughts are all functions of the life of the Earth. Earthquakes must happen because tectonic plates are constantly in motion. They have been happening for billions of years before we humans existed and will continue to happen billions of years after we are gone. The same can be said about other functions of the Earth. Nature is not aware of our existence. It does its own things. If we have the bad luck to be in its way when it is most active, we can get crushed.
Now, we have ways to predict these acts of nature. We can get out of the way and stay safe. Also we can build better houses to withstand many of these natural disasters such as flooding, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. We can overcome the effects of drought. Does this mean that we have tied the hands of God and he can no longer kill us in his traditional way, i.e. the divine terrorism? To think that these natural phenomena have anything to do with God is childish. It is depressing that intelligent people should think like that. And you are leaders of the community. If leaders think like this, what can we expect of the average Muslims? This is the cause of our backwardness. The enlightened people see the problem and try to solve it, come with ways to overcome the difficulties while Muslims say this was the test of God and continue in their ignorance. As long as Muslims hold to these childish beliefs, there is no hope for them. Why is it that the possibility of a Jew winning the Noble Prize is 2,800 times more than a Muslim winning that prize? It is because of this mentality. While the enlightened people of the world rely on their own powers and face every problem as a challenge, for Muslims, everything is Inshallah. How can they progress with this primitive mentality?
When humanity was passing through the stage of its childhood, people felt helpless. They depended on the forces of the nature. They thought that drought, rain, fertility, health, disease, and natural phenomena were controlled by gods. They prayed to these gods for everything, sacrificed for them, slaughtered animals, or even humans, to appease their gods. They had shamans and medicine-men with power to intercede on their behalf. These men wielded absolute power. Islam is also a primitive fear-based religion and Muhammad is a shaman. He claimed to be the intermediary between a vengeful and unforgiving deity that controlled everything. According to Muhammad Allah has created everything good everything and evil. Yes, even evil is created by Allah. Islam is extremely primitive. It is no different than Voodoo, Shamanism or any other animistic religion. While the animists believe in many gods, Muhammad preached one god. This is the only difference. The philosophy of Islam and animism is the same. Muhammad's mind was very primitive. It is foolish to believe in him. I am giving proof after proof that he was a liar. Where is the proof that he was a prophet?

First of all I do not believe in prophecies. I don't believe that the authors of the Bible could foresee the future. They miserably failed to decipher the mysteries
of the world around them and made countless statements that are scientific heresies. Such men could not certainly see the future. Therefore, those words are neither for Jesus nor for Muhammad. They refer to Josha, whom Moses was preparing to succeed him. Note that the verse 18:15 emphasizes that this prophet will be someone from among the Jews (your own brethren). In the verse 18 it shifts from second person to third person and says "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers." How can we explain this difference? This is because allegedly Moses is speaking of a future generation. This is the only way to explain the discrepancy between verse 15 and 18. "Your brothers" and "their brothers" is the same only if you think of the same people and their descendants. If I address you and tell you that the Pakistanis did such and such thing 50 years ago, I could use both third person plural or second person plural. I could say "you people" or say "your ancestors". Both forms of speeches are correct.
Moreover, in what ways this verse refers to Muhammad? I could claim that it refers to me. I have as much evidence to back up my bogus claim as you have to back up yours.

a) In what ways Muhammad was like Moses? If having natural birth and death is evidence of similarity between the two, can you show me one person who did not have natural birth and death? In that case all
humans qualify.
b) From amongst your brethren, means from amongst YOU the Jews and not from among the Arabs. I already mentioned what the Bible says about Ishmael and that this man was referred to as a "donkey of a man" that would have his hand against every boy's, who would fight with everyone. I also quoted the Biblical verse where God, talking to Abraham speaks of Isaac as the "only son" of him even though we know Abraham's first son was Ishmael. This verse makes it clear that Ishmael had no place or rank in front of the Jewish god. He did not even count.
c) To make such a claim you first must prove that the Qur'an is the word of God. You have not done that yet. Anyone can make such a claim. In fact all the Biblical prophets claimed that it is God that speaks through them. Even today, charlatan cultists such as Warren Jeffs, John de Ruiter, Sai Baba and others have made this very claim. As long as you can't prove that the Qur'an is the word of God, this claim is no more valid than those made by other charlatans prophet pretenders.
d) In this point you make the same unsubstantiated claim as in the previous one and the answer is the same. So far you have not given a single proof that the Qur'an is the world of God. If the Qur'an is a book of satanic verses, these claims must be also false. So not too fast please. First you have to prove that the Qur'an is the word of God and then claim that among all other words of God, it best fits the requisites of the verse Deuteronomy 18:18.
e) And you think just because Muhammad initiated his suras with the mantra "in the name of Allah," it is proof that he really spoke in the name of God? My erudite friends: Speaking in the name of God means speaking truthfully and promoting divine wisdom and love. None of the words and actions of Muhammad was godly. If my actions are unjust, I do not become a just person by saying "in the name of justice." What kind of god is this Allah that is so petty, so ruthless, so unforgiving and so vengeful? Forget the letterhead - pay attention to the content of the suras. The Qur'an is a demonic book. It is written in the name of Satan. Assuming that there is a Satan who wantd to fool people, would he start his letters with "in the name of Satan?" Of course not! He would claim to be God, or an angel of God and once he has the confidence of the gullible, he would convert them into murderous beasts, instilling evil in their minds and hatred in their hearts, inciting them to kill their fellow beings, in the name of God.
In my previous message I asked you about predestination. You did not answer that. Instead you chose to present your proofs that Muhammad was a prophet of God. That is fine. The reason I asked you that question was because I kept asking you for proof and you were not giving them. Now you finally are presenting your proofs. I have answered these claims. So please present more proofs if you have. I think we are now moving forward. It is important to get to the bottom of it and understand the things that attract Muslims to Islam. The point is not that you and I agree. The point is that you prove the prophethood of Muhammad to the world. Several readers have asked me to print this debate or make it available in pdf format for easy download. I would certainly to do that. So please present everything you consider to be undeniable proof. I will add my two cents and let our readers decide.
I remain cordially yours and again reiterate my deepest respect for you and Mr. Ghamidi. Our disagreement is on ideological level. On the human level I have utmost respect for both of you.

[Allegracrown]

Part XVIII

You may certainly claim moral victory. Winning is the farthest things in my mind. All I want is to make the truth known.
When Saddam was defeated in the first Gulf War, he went on TV and claimed moral victory. In fact he even celebrated it with fireworks and jubilees. When in summer of 2006, the Hezbollah was defeated by the Israeli army; they also celebrated their "victory." Throughout the history we see people who are defeated in battles claim moral victory. Obviously this has some psychological effect on them and makes their defeat more bearable. If you consider this debate a battle where one has to win and the other lose, then you have my permission to claim moral victory. As I stated in my first message, I see this as an opportunity to expose the truth. The victory is the victory of truth over falsehood and when that happens we are all victorious.
Assuming you can impress people for a week until my response is published. For one week you feel good. Then what about after I post my response?
Our debate will be read for many years to come. What about those who would be reading it in future? Should we ask them to read your replies and stop for a week and then read mine?
Furthermore, people are not naïve. You can rest assured that readers will not be swayed by my illogical arguments if they are not rebutted by you and vice versa. Please give some credit to our readers. We are writing for intelligent people, many of whom are much smarter than yours truly and I am sure you are not claiming to be the smartest person in the world either.

Your example of sighting the moon is clear. The point is, is it me who is denying the obvious or is it you? Have you given any clear proof that Islam is from God? The answer is no. I have been asking this question since the beginning while you preferred to beat around the bushes and avoided the question. The only proofs you gave so far are 1) Muhammad was mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:18 and 2) he said he will be victorious and he was. I discussed these two points and I showed that the first is wishful thinking. Anyone can take some vague verses from an old book and claim they refer to him.
You deny all the evidence that Muhammad was a criminal and cling to a vague sentence in the Bible; the very book that you say is corrupted and should not be relied upon, to prove Muhammad was foretold. This is wishful thinking. You are the one that is unable to see the moon in the sky not me. In fact you deny even the sun in the sky. The evidences I have given about Muhammad being a liar are clearer than the sun.
In the sentence that I highlighted, you wrote "Willingness to believe doesn't demand that you be a gullible idiot. It demands that you be an honest, open-minded person, who is willing to call good as good and bad as bad"
Well, willingness to believe always require you to abandon skepticism and this means agree to be gullible. However, I could not agree more on the second sentence. Was Muhammad a good man? Are raiding innocent people, massacring unarmed civilians, stealing their belongings, taking their women and children as slaves and raping them a good thing? How would you feel if a lunatic claimed to be a prophet and did the same to you, while his followers asserted that he is justified to do what he pleases because he is a messenger of God and that you deserve to be punished because you do not believe in his "clear" warnings? Would you call that still "good"?
When I asked you to respond for the evil deeds of Muhammad all you could say was that he was a messenger of God and therefore authorized to do anything. You argued that I must first solve that problem for myself and once I am convinced of the prophethood of Muhammad, I must shut up and blindly accept whatever he did. According to your reasoning, the messenger of God is above the law and scrutiny and he can act like a criminal and it is not up to us humans to question what he do. You call this open mindedness and the sign of a pure heart. .
I even agreed to go along with this warped thinking and asked you to give us the proof of your claim that Muhammad was a prophet of God. You gave none!
You say the Qur'an gives clear reasons why some people were eligible to be killed. When asked to give us those reasons, all you could say was that one must have pure heart to see them. I am sorry; pure heart has nothing to do with truth. You need rational thinking to find the truth. You need pure heart for not oppressing people who are different from you and to feel the pain of those whom you abuse and not to abuse them. You can't have a pure heart if you say those who do not believe in what I believe do not deserve to live in this world. This is not pure heart. What you say should be done to the unbelievers, stems from a very impure heart and I am talking about Muhammad here. The problem of Muslims is uncritical thinking.
You don't have to have pure heart to see the sun and the moon in the sky. You don't have to have pure heart to understand that it is not the earth that goes around the sun but the other way round. You don't need pure heart to understand the concept of the Big Bang, or evolution. To understand the truth you don't need pure heart. This is a fallacy. All you need is a rational brain. God has endowed all of us with brain. The problem is that some people are so caught in absurd thinking that refuse to use theirs. Heart has nothing to do with truth. If you practiced what you preach, i.e. "call good as good and bad as bad" you would not remain a Muslim a single minute. If what Muhammad did to his victims was done by someone else, would you still call it good? What Muhammad did was evil. The only reason you accept them as good is because these evil deeds were perpetrated by him and you are unable to accept the fact that this man was evil. Your love for this monster acts as a veil for you. You know stealing, raping, cowardly massacring civilians, butchering prisoners of war and enslaving free people are bad. But when these evil deeds were perpetrated by Muhammad, suddenly you think they are good. If this is not brainwashing, what is?

Whenever two people want to engage in a war, both brag that they will be victorious. Eventually one side will be victorious. This does not prove that the victor could foresee the future. In the case of Muhammad, he was the only one declaring war on others. Actually he never declared them. He even signed peace treaties, only to break them when he willed. The non-Muslims had no intentions of waging war against him. He took them by surprise and raided them when they were least expecting. These were shamelessly coward attacks on civilians. They were terrorist acts. And you boast that because Muhammad won through his terrorist forays, he proved to be a messenger of God and the greatest miracle was thus accomplished? I don't know even how to answer to this much absurdity. I leave that to the readers to make their minds. This point is clear to all the non-Muslims. Now it is the turn of the Muslims to see the light and do the right thing. Is this your "out of this world" miracle? Muhammad said he will be victorious and then he raided unwary people and butchered unarmed civilians and won, and this proves that he was a prophet of God and anyone who cannot see this "out of this world miracle" is blind and can't see the moon in the sky and should be killed?

Questioning and doubting to enhance one's faith is not the way to find the truth. You are only seeking validation in what you already believe. When your intention is to enhance your faith and not find the facts that may destroy it, you overlook all the evidences contrary to your belief and only pick those things that confirm it. The reason you can't find the truth is because your method is wrong.
The right way to find the truth is the one taught to us by Descartes. He doubted everything, including the world around him and assumed that there is a demon making this world appear to him the way he sees it and that everything is just figment of his imagination. Then he concluded. "I must exist in order to be able to imagine this world, therefore if I think I am. (cogito, ergo sum.)"
To find the truth, you must empty your mind from all preconceptions. Assume that you don't know Muhammad and then come to learn the facts about him. You will read that he took women captured in his raids and raped them, slept with a child, looted and committed genocide and did other atrocious things. Will you accept such a man as the best human and an example to follow? If you are a decent person I doubt that you would. That should be enough proof to reject Islam. Then you want to know the evidences that he presented for his claim. You see the only evidence his followers give is the fact that he said he will become victorious with terror and he was. Is this proof? In logics this is called argumentum ad baculum and it is listed among logical fallacies. Thinking that might is right is a very primitive thinking. And this fallacy is your biggest argument in support of Islam. You even call it the greatest miracle?

The claim that Muhammad is foretold in Deuteronomy is absurd. Of course I can't accept such a baseless claim. Anyone can pick something from any book and interpret it the way he wants to.
Does the fact that the Bible speaks derogatory of Ishmael eliminates him as the legitimate heir of Abraham? Yes it does. According to the Qur'an, 11:42-43 Noah's son was perished because of his rebelliousness. The fact that he was the son of Noah did not give him any privileges. So, according to the Qur'anic logic, being a son of a prophet does not give one any advantages. Therefore, if the Bible calls Ishmael a jackass of a man and God ignores him completely while talking to Abraham and refers to Isaac as his ONLY son, it is clear that Ishmael is out of the picture. He will have many children who will be hostile, fighting with everyone and causing sedition and war, but there is no mention that a prophet will rise from among them. If God wanted to anoint one of Ishmael's descendants as a prophet, he would not have demeaned him to this extent that would call him an ass of a man. It is clear that God of the Bible has no respect for Ishmael and his descendants.
The clear message of Deuteronomy is that we should look down at the Arabs and belittle them. Now this I say if you really believe in the Bible and want to use it as evidence. As far as I am concerned the Bible is a book of fables and rational people should not pay any heed to what it says. Arabs are no less than any other people. The problem is that most of them are infected by the virus of Islam. Once they are cured, they can be as good as anyone else. This is true also about Iranians, Pakistanis, Turks and all other Muslims. No nation is superior or inferior to other nations. It is how we think and behave that makes some excel over others. We can change our thinking and actions through proper education.
In order to claim that the prophecy "I will put My words in his mouth" is about Muhammad, you must first prove that Muhammad was from God. This you have not done yet. Once you do that, then we can determine whether these words refer to Muhammad or to someone else. This is like someone claiming that the Cinderella's lost shoe is hers when she has no feet to begin with. .
The following is what one of our readers wrote about your claim that: Each chapter of the Qur'an begins with this verse: "In the name of God, the most Merciful, the One Whose mercy is lasting. and that this is the fulfillment of "He shall speak those words in God's name."
He wrote: "As everybody knows the basmala is an addition to the text and is a simple formulaic expression of Christian derivation. The Moslem exegetists themselves cannot agree on whether it is part of the revelation or a pious addition. The phrase "b' ismi 'llah" is actually a hebraism and corresponds to the biblical "be shem YHWH", which means "by (the power) of YHWH's name", where YHWH is actually the deity's name while Allah is not. The calc phrase in Arabic therefore doesn't mean anything, unless an Arabic-speaking Jew reads it and understands that the word Allah is used in the same way as "adonai" in the Bible in order to observe the tabu related to the utterance of the divine name. As for the rest of the formula, both the adjectives rahman and rahîm are Aramaic borrowings. Aramaic was the language of the Middle-Eastern Jews and Christians before they were almost completely arabised. Aramaic was not the language of the Arabs from Hijaz. I hope this rings a bell as to where and when the Qu'ran was compiled. I'd like to know from either Mr Ghamidi or Mr Zahiri if they are really sure the adjective rahîm means "the One Whose mercy is lasting" or if either of them was just expressing a personal opinion about the islamic deity."
You say that the prophecy states that the prophet to come would be like Moses and the Qur'an says: "Indeed We have sent you as an evidence against your nation quite the same way as We sent a messenger to Pharaoh." (Qur'an; 73: 15)
Do you call this evidence? This is circular reasoning. This is the "claim", not the "proof."

I think the points are clear. You have made your views known and so have I. Let us now move on and if you have no further evidence and "out of this world" miracles to prove that Islam is from God, please answer my question about predestination. If you have more "out of this world" proofs, please present them first. After all you said once the claim of Muhammad is proven to be true, one must not question anything else and accept whatever he said and did blindly. I find this reasoning absurd. In my view, all we need to prove that a claimant to infallibility is a liar is one error. However, in order to show that I am willing to go the extra mile and compromise, I agreed to withdraw all my charges should you show your, "out of this world" and "undeniable" proof. So far, you gave us circular reasoning, ad baculum, wishful thinking and even ad hominem accusing me of not having pure heart and therefore not being able to see the moon in the sky. I saw no proof yet, just logical fallacies.

[Allegracrown]

Part XVIII

You may certainly claim moral victory. Winning is the farthest things in my mind. All I want is to make the truth known.
When Saddam was defeated in the first Gulf War, he went on TV and claimed moral victory. In fact he even celebrated it with fireworks and jubilees. When in summer of 2006, the Hezbollah was defeated by the Israeli army; they also celebrated their "victory." Throughout the history we see people who are defeated in battles claim moral victory. Obviously this has some psychological effect on them and makes their defeat more bearable. If you consider this debate a battle where one has to win and the other lose, then you have my permission to claim moral victory. As I stated in my first message, I see this as an opportunity to expose the truth. The victory is the victory of truth over falsehood and when that happens we are all victorious.
Assuming you can impress people for a week until my response is published. For one week you feel good. Then what about after I post my response?
Our debate will be read for many years to come. What about those who would be reading it in future? Should we ask them to read your replies and stop for a week and then read mine?
Furthermore, people are not naïve. You can rest assured that readers will not be swayed by my illogical arguments if they are not rebutted by you and vice versa. Please give some credit to our readers. We are writing for intelligent people, many of whom are much smarter than yours truly and I am sure you are not claiming to be the smartest person in the world either.

Your example of sighting the moon is clear. The point is, is it me who is denying the obvious or is it you? Have you given any clear proof that Islam is from God? The answer is no. I have been asking this question since the beginning while you preferred to beat around the bushes and avoided the question. The only proofs you gave so far are 1) Muhammad was mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:18 and 2) he said he will be victorious and he was. I discussed these two points and I showed that the first is wishful thinking. Anyone can take some vague verses from an old book and claim they refer to him.
You deny all the evidence that Muhammad was a criminal and cling to a vague sentence in the Bible; the very book that you say is corrupted and should not be relied upon, to prove Muhammad was foretold. This is wishful thinking. You are the one that is unable to see the moon in the sky not me. In fact you deny even the sun in the sky. The evidences I have given about Muhammad being a liar are clearer than the sun.
In the sentence that I highlighted, you wrote "Willingness to believe doesn't demand that you be a gullible idiot. It demands that you be an honest, open-minded person, who is willing to call good as good and bad as bad"
Well, willingness to believe always require you to abandon skepticism and this means agree to be gullible. However, I could not agree more on the second sentence. Was Muhammad a good man? Are raiding innocent people, massacring unarmed civilians, stealing their belongings, taking their women and children as slaves and raping them a good thing? How would you feel if a lunatic claimed to be a prophet and did the same to you, while his followers asserted that he is justified to do what he pleases because he is a messenger of God and that you deserve to be punished because you do not believe in his "clear" warnings? Would you call that still "good"?
When I asked you to respond for the evil deeds of Muhammad all you could say was that he was a messenger of God and therefore authorized to do anything. You argued that I must first solve that problem for myself and once I am convinced of the prophethood of Muhammad, I must shut up and blindly accept whatever he did. According to your reasoning, the messenger of God is above the law and scrutiny and he can act like a criminal and it is not up to us humans to question what he do. You call this open mindedness and the sign of a pure heart. .
I even agreed to go along with this warped thinking and asked you to give us the proof of your claim that Muhammad was a prophet of God. You gave none!
You say the Qur'an gives clear reasons why some people were eligible to be killed. When asked to give us those reasons, all you could say was that one must have pure heart to see them. I am sorry; pure heart has nothing to do with truth. You need rational thinking to find the truth. You need pure heart for not oppressing people who are different from you and to feel the pain of those whom you abuse and not to abuse them. You can't have a pure heart if you say those who do not believe in what I believe do not deserve to live in this world. This is not pure heart. What you say should be done to the unbelievers, stems from a very impure heart and I am talking about Muhammad here. The problem of Muslims is uncritical thinking.
You don't have to have pure heart to see the sun and the moon in the sky. You don't have to have pure heart to understand that it is not the earth that goes around the sun but the other way round. You don't need pure heart to understand the concept of the Big Bang, or evolution. To understand the truth you don't need pure heart. This is a fallacy. All you need is a rational brain. God has endowed all of us with brain. The problem is that some people are so caught in absurd thinking that refuse to use theirs. Heart has nothing to do with truth. If you practiced what you preach, i.e. "call good as good and bad as bad" you would not remain a Muslim a single minute. If what Muhammad did to his victims was done by someone else, would you still call it good? What Muhammad did was evil. The only reason you accept them as good is because these evil deeds were perpetrated by him and you are unable to accept the fact that this man was evil. Your love for this monster acts as a veil for you. You know stealing, raping, cowardly massacring civilians, butchering prisoners of war and enslaving free people are bad. But when these evil deeds were perpetrated by Muhammad, suddenly you think they are good. If this is not brainwashing, what is?

Whenever two people want to engage in a war, both brag that they will be victorious. Eventually one side will be victorious. This does not prove that the victor could foresee the future. In the case of Muhammad, he was the only one declaring war on others. Actually he never declared them. He even signed peace treaties, only to break them when he willed. The non-Muslims had no intentions of waging war against him. He took them by surprise and raided them when they were least expecting. These were shamelessly coward attacks on civilians. They were terrorist acts. And you boast that because Muhammad won through his terrorist forays, he proved to be a messenger of God and the greatest miracle was thus accomplished? I don't know even how to answer to this much absurdity. I leave that to the readers to make their minds. This point is clear to all the non-Muslims. Now it is the turn of the Muslims to see the light and do the right thing. Is this your "out of this world" miracle? Muhammad said he will be victorious and then he raided unwary people and butchered unarmed civilians and won, and this proves that he was a prophet of God and anyone who cannot see this "out of this world miracle" is blind and can't see the moon in the sky and should be killed?

Questioning and doubting to enhance one's faith is not the way to find the truth. You are only seeking validation in what you already believe. When your intention is to enhance your faith and not find the facts that may destroy it, you overlook all the evidences contrary to your belief and only pick those things that confirm it. The reason you can't find the truth is because your method is wrong.
The right way to find the truth is the one taught to us by Descartes. He doubted everything, including the world around him and assumed that there is a demon making this world appear to him the way he sees it and that everything is just figment of his imagination. Then he concluded. "I must exist in order to be able to imagine this world, therefore if I think I am. (cogito, ergo sum.)"
To find the truth, you must empty your mind from all preconceptions. Assume that you don't know Muhammad and then come to learn the facts about him. You will read that he took women captured in his raids and raped them, slept with a child, looted and committed genocide and did other atrocious things. Will you accept such a man as the best human and an example to follow? If you are a decent person I doubt that you would. That should be enough proof to reject Islam. Then you want to know the evidences that he presented for his claim. You see the only evidence his followers give is the fact that he said he will become victorious with terror and he was. Is this proof? In logics this is called argumentum ad baculum and it is listed among logical fallacies. Thinking that might is right is a very primitive thinking. And this fallacy is your biggest argument in support of Islam. You even call it the greatest miracle?

The claim that Muhammad is foretold in Deuteronomy is absurd. Of course I can't accept such a baseless claim. Anyone can pick something from any book and interpret it the way he wants to.
Does the fact that the Bible speaks derogatory of Ishmael eliminates him as the legitimate heir of Abraham? Yes it does. According to the Qur'an, 11:42-43 Noah's son was perished because of his rebelliousness. The fact that he was the son of Noah did not give him any privileges. So, according to the Qur'anic logic, being a son of a prophet does not give one any advantages. Therefore, if the Bible calls Ishmael a jackass of a man and God ignores him completely while talking to Abraham and refers to Isaac as his ONLY son, it is clear that Ishmael is out of the picture. He will have many children who will be hostile, fighting with everyone and causing sedition and war, but there is no mention that a prophet will rise from among them. If God wanted to anoint one of Ishmael's descendants as a prophet, he would not have demeaned him to this extent that would call him an ass of a man. It is clear that God of the Bible has no respect for Ishmael and his descendants.
The clear message of Deuteronomy is that we should look down at the Arabs and belittle them. Now this I say if you really believe in the Bible and want to use it as evidence. As far as I am concerned the Bible is a book of fables and rational people should not pay any heed to what it says. Arabs are no less than any other people. The problem is that most of them are infected by the virus of Islam. Once they are cured, they can be as good as anyone else. This is true also about Iranians, Pakistanis, Turks and all other Muslims. No nation is superior or inferior to other nations. It is how we think and behave that makes some excel over others. We can change our thinking and actions through proper education.
In order to claim that the prophecy "I will put My words in his mouth" is about Muhammad, you must first prove that Muhammad was from God. This you have not done yet. Once you do that, then we can determine whether these words refer to Muhammad or to someone else. This is like someone claiming that the Cinderella's lost shoe is hers when she has no feet to begin with. .
The following is what one of our readers wrote about your claim that: Each chapter of the Qur'an begins with this verse: "In the name of God, the most Merciful, the One Whose mercy is lasting. and that this is the fulfillment of "He shall speak those words in God's name."
He wrote: "As everybody knows the basmala is an addition to the text and is a simple formulaic expression of Christian derivation. The Moslem exegetists themselves cannot agree on whether it is part of the revelation or a pious addition. The phrase "b' ismi 'llah" is actually a hebraism and corresponds to the biblical "be shem YHWH", which means "by (the power) of YHWH's name", where YHWH is actually the deity's name while Allah is not. The calc phrase in Arabic therefore doesn't mean anything, unless an Arabic-speaking Jew reads it and understands that the word Allah is used in the same way as "adonai" in the Bible in order to observe the tabu related to the utterance of the divine name. As for the rest of the formula, both the adjectives rahman and rahîm are Aramaic borrowings. Aramaic was the language of the Middle-Eastern Jews and Christians before they were almost completely arabised. Aramaic was not the language of the Arabs from Hijaz. I hope this rings a bell as to where and when the Qu'ran was compiled. I'd like to know from either Mr Ghamidi or Mr Zahiri if they are really sure the adjective rahîm means "the One Whose mercy is lasting" or if either of them was just expressing a personal opinion about the islamic deity."
You say that the prophecy states that the prophet to come would be like Moses and the Qur'an says: "Indeed We have sent you as an evidence against your nation quite the same way as We sent a messenger to Pharaoh." (Qur'an; 73: 15)
Do you call this evidence? This is circular reasoning. This is the "claim", not the "proof."

I think the points are clear. You have made your views known and so have I. Let us now move on and if you have no further evidence and "out of this world" miracles to prove that Islam is from God, please answer my question about predestination. If you have more "out of this world" proofs, please present them first. After all you said once the claim of Muhammad is proven to be true, one must not question anything else and accept whatever he said and did blindly. I find this reasoning absurd. In my view, all we need to prove that a claimant to infallibility is a liar is one error. However, in order to show that I am willing to go the extra mile and compromise, I agreed to withdraw all my charges should you show your, "out of this world" and "undeniable" proof. So far, you gave us circular reasoning, ad baculum, wishful thinking and even ad hominem accusing me of not having pure heart and therefore not being able to see the moon in the sky. I saw no proof yet, just logical fallacies.

[Allegracrown]

Part XIX

Dear Dr. Zaheer. What you say here does not really help. Anyone can say these things about his opponents. These statements constitute ad hominen and they are not a substitute for logical arguments. This is a polite way to say you are deaf, dumb and blind or you have some sickness in your heart that does not allow you to see the truth. These were Muhammad's favorite arguments. Unfortunately since Muslims read them in the Qur'an they think they are convincing divine arguments when in reality they are logical fallacies.
I asked you to give us proofs that Muhammad was a prophet of God. At first you said there are brilliant, undeniable, miraculous, out of this world proofs, but you would not give them to us. When I insisted you finally gave two. 1Muhammad said he would be victorious and he was and 2-there is a mention of another prophet like Moses in Deuteronomy 18:18 and this must be refereeing to Muhammad. We saw how both these claims are fallacious. Osama bin Laden also warned in an interview a year before his terrorist act on America that he would do something big and "you will hear about it in the news." Then he did it. In his twisted Islamic thinking and the thinking of all the Muslims, this proves the truth of Allah. The thinking of Muslims is indeed warped. This is psychopathology. One reader of our discussion posted a message showing that this other prophet, Moses was talking about was no other person than Joshua whom Moses was preparing to succeed him. So you did not give us any proof that Muhammad was a prophet. Now you say that my vision is covered with clouds and that if I purify my heart, I will be able to see what you see. These talks are not worth to be debated. I am giving you logical proofs that Muhammad could not have been a prophet. The proof is that he raided people in the middle of the night and after cowardly butchering unarmed people he shamelessly took their children and wives and reduced them into slaves and sex slaves. This man was a terrorist. No decent human would accept such a fiend as a prophet. Most Muslims do not know the truth about Muhammad. Many of those who are learning the truth are leaving Islam. It is sat to see that some Muslims have become so blinded by their zealotry that none of the crimes and evilness of Muhammad bothers them. It is they who have sickness in their hearts.
Do you have any other "out of this world" and undeniable proof to show that Muhammad was a prophet of God?

Islam does not teach you to have empathy for those that disagree with it. Can you show me where it teaches such thing? Islam teaches you to kill them. So you are either plying taqiyyah (hiding the truth for a higher good) or are introducing bid'a (innovation).
Muslims, like all other humans, have many good qualities but those have nothing to do with Islam. If Muslims are good it is despite of Islam. In your previous messages you were emphatic that those who disagrees with Islam after being called to accept it, do not deserve to live and should be killed. That was when you were talking like a Muslim. Now you are contradicting your previous statement. Obviously there is a battle raging within you, between your own humanity and your faith in the demonic cult of Islam. You know you can't have both. You either must espouse Islam totally and lose your humanity or embrace your humanity and leave Islam.

You are in denial. The contradictions in the Qur'an, as well as the questionable conduct of Muhammad are very real. If they were not real you or someone else could point out our misunderstanding. In my rebuttal of Dr. Naik's claim that the Qur'an contains scientific facts I showed that everything this book says is wrong and all Dr. Naik's claims are chicanery and false. All we need to know that Muhammad was not a prophet of God is one single error and we have hundreds.

Let us put these derogatory remarks and character assassinations aside. I don't think they have any place in an intellectual discussion like the one we are having.
A few days ago a couple of Jehovah witnesses came to my door and we engaged in discussion. The husband told me that only Earth has inhabitants. Now this is quite illogical when you consider the size of the universe and the insignificance of our little planet in it. Only in our galaxy, the Milky Way, there are over 400 billion stars, each like our sun and there are between 400 billion to a trillion galaxies in the universe. How can one claim with certainty that only Earth has intelligent inhabitants? I asked why then God created all these galaxies and stars? He said, because he wanted us to enjoy their beauty at night. Then we talked about evolution and the wife said "you have faith in evolution". This fine couple was well dressed and I am sure they were educated. Now how can one qualify these absurd claims? The answer is faith. When faith enters, reason goes the other way. This is true for people of all faiths. That is the nature of faith. It simply kills reason.
The Mu'tazelis wasted their time trying to find harmony between faith and reason. They argued that intellect (aql) is enough to distinguish right from wrong. For example we know instinctively that justice (adl) and telling the truth (sidq) are morally good. Therefore God is under moral obligation to be just and truthful. Likewise we know injustice (zolm) and mendacity are evil (qubh). Consequently, God cannot do evil. This philosophy precludes the need for revelation because it accepts the fact that humans are intelligent enough to distinguish right from wrong. However, in the Qur'an and hadith there are passages and stories that depict Allah and his messenger as unjust, evil and even stupid. How did they get around that? They conceded that there are certain acts that the human intellect is incapable of assigning moral values to them. These are only known through revelation and they become known to be morally good if God orders them, or morally wrong if God forbids them.
With this concession, the Mu'tazelits dug their own tomb. By giving up the precedence of intellect over revelation, they allowed irrationality to dictate over rationality and therefore render futile their entire argument about the harmony between reason and faith. This is like you and I enter into a partnership agreeing to be equals and make our decisions based on mutual consent, with one clause stating that if there is a disagreement between us, my vote prevails. This clause renders futile the entire agreement of equal partnership. In matters that you and I both agree, there is no problem. However, when we disagree it is always my word that rules. So where is the equality?
As you can see, the doctrine of harmony between faith and reason is rendered null and void the moment you give precedence to revelation. The Mu'tazelits vanished, because the harmony between reason and faith is a fallacy. It is essentially an oxymoron. The moment, you acknowledge revelation as a true source of knowledge, you deny the human intellect. The reverse is also true. If you give precedence to reason, revelation becomes superfluous.
The reason Muslim scholars of the 10th century declared that the gates of Ijtihad (religious discourse) has been closed, was because they realized that by recognizing revelation as the ultimate source of guidance, there is little left to reason and to discuss. All major issues of the faith have been resolved and that no new inquiry is warranted.
Today we have a bunch of self proclaimed Muslim reformists going around deluding themselves and the westerners claiming Islam has also a peaceful side which they are trying to revive. They talk about Ijtihad and y claim that they want to remain Muslims because only from within can they reform Islam. They are deluded. Islam cannot be reformed. It is rigid like fossil. You cannot reform it, but you can smash it.
If you embrace reason, you must eschew faith and if you follow faith, you are forced to abandon reason. Faith and reason are mutually exclusive. Their harmony is only a chimera and a fraud. Those who advocate such doctrine are fooling themselves. These people will abandon reason every time reason challenges their faith. Reformation in Islam is misguided. It only buys more time for Islam. Islam must be eradicated and Muslims must be set free from this web of lies. You can't fight one lie with another lie. To get rid of a lie we need to tell the truth.
You say that Mr. Ghamidi saw the mathematical error in the Qur'an in regards to inheritance and instead of admitting that the book is not infallible, he devoted his time and knowledge of Arabic language to understand what the book was really saying. Is that a rational approach? Once it became evident to him that there is an error in the Qur'an, it should have become obvious that this book is not from God. What does he expect to learn from a book that claims to be infallible and yet it is riddled with errors? Then you say that "as a consequence of his research, he came to the clear understanding that the commonly understood version of the law was incorrect and that what the Qur'an was saying was error free". You are losing me here. How can the Qur'an have errors and be error free at the same time? I don't understand. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Please explain how did he come to such conclusion?

There are two errors in this explanation. Firstly these two claims are contradictory and secondly both of them are unscientific.
I understand that the duration of a year is different in each planet. Mars' year is about 2 1/2 times longer than earth's. (Cheer up, because according to the Martian calendar, you and I are still teenagers.) Jupiter takes 12 Earth years to go around the sun, while Saturn makes the trip in just under 30 years, Uranus in about 84, Neptune in 165, and Pluto in just short of 250. The Sun and its planets, traveling at a speed of about 240 km/second take 225 million years to revolve around the galactic center. (Doesn't that make you dizzy? Poor Muhammad could not even understand these astronomical numbers.) The time it takes for each orbit of the Sun is called cosmic year or a galactic year. The Sun has completed about 20 orbits since the solar system was formed. For each orbit, it traveled 150,000 light years of distance. Our sun is 20 galactic years old. It is expected to live another 24 galactic years before it exhausts its nuclear energy. It will die at the young age of 44. What will happen to it depends on whom you ask. If you ask the scientists, they will tell you that as the Sun grows old, its outer layer will expand. It will exhaust its hydrogen and then helium and its core will contact. It cools and become less bright. It will become a red giant star. Eventually the helium atoms in the core will fuse together, forming carbon atoms and releasing energy. After this phase, the outer layers of the Sun drift off into space, forming a planetary nebula exposing the core. Most of its mass will go to the nebula leaving it cool. It will eventually shrink to only a few thousand miles in diameter! At this point, it will be a white dwarf, a stable star with no nuclear fuel. It radiates its leftover heat for billions of years until it will become a cold dark black dwarf. By then it will be a dead star (replete with diamonds, highly compressed carbon).
However, Tabari will have none of this nonsense. He goes straight to the source of divine knowledge and quotes Muhammad who said the Sun and the Moon will go to heaven for their obedience to Allah.
The point I made was about the contradictions. In one place the Qur'an says that the length of each day of Allah is equal to 1000 earthly years and in another place it says it is equivalent to 50,000 earthly years. Now which version is true?
The truth is that both of them are absurd. This very claim presupposes that God is living on a planet that has longer days and that he is very much like us humans - bound by time. For an eternal God who is the maker of time, time should have no existence. Time did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Both time and space were created with the matter. Saying that God's day is equal to 1,000 or 50,000 earthly years reveals Allah and his messenger's total ignorance of the modern science.
Quantum mechanics, i.e. the physics dealing with the very minute subatomic world, challenges the conceptual primacy of time itself. According to the string theory, subatomic particles, the quarks, constantly fluctuate. These fluctuations are well understood mathematically and have been precisely documented experimentally. However, when it comes to time and space, on extremely short time intervals (about a tenth of a millionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second) and distance scales (about a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a centimeter), quantum fluctuations so mangle space and time that the conventional ideas of left/right, backward/forward, up/down, and before/after become meaningless. It is hard for us to even envision such a thing. It means that if you are a quark, you can arrive in a place before reaching there or be in two places at once. Consequently when the entire universe was condensed in a single point, so dense that mater could not exist, time and space could not have existed either. The singularity, the primordial point of existence had no dimensions and was time free. So as you see, saying the day of God is equal to 1000 years or 50,000 years is nonsense. Such talks are fit only for an ignorant man of the 7th century. They are certainly not fit for us who live in the 21st century.
In this author's humble opinion, once we understand the world of subatomic particles, we would be able to explain thoughts and a lot of mysteries such as intelligence, creativity, imagination, telepathy, premonition, dreams and what we call psychic power and paranormal. Subatomic particles can appear as either matter particles or energy waves, meaning that they are made from pure energy. That is the substance thoughts are made of. Quantum mechanics may one day answer a lot of our questions regarding what our ancestors called "spiritual realm." Everything has a scientific explanation. The subatomic world, which is the foundation of the visible atomic world, is yet to be understood. The answer to our enigmas is in the science, not in religion. There is no need to resort to hocus pocus, occult and divine to resolve anything. Science will eventually answer all our questions, including where we get our morality. Religions have been found wrong on everything that could be proven, such as the origin and the shape of the universe and things relating to this world. How can we trust their tales of the other world? There is no other world but this. Part of it we see and know, and the other part is yet hidden and we are only beginning to discover.
Today scientists are seeking to combine quantum mechanics with Einstein's theory of gravity (the general theory of relativity) which would bring us the discovery of the "theory of everything." As Scott Teresi says, "we are on the verge of another major upheaval, one that will pinpoint the more elemental concepts from which time and space emerge. Many believe this will involve a radically new formulation of natural law in which scientists will be compelled to trade the space-time matrix within which they have worked for centuries for a more basic "realm" that is itself devoid of time and space." 30
This is where the enlightened world is today. And where are the Muslims? They are busy discussing the duration of the day of Allah. How pathetic!
The poverty and the backwardness of the Umma begin in their minds. They have nothing to do with Palestine or Zionism my erudite friends. These are all excuses. They have everything to do with Islam and the garbage that Muslims gobble in lieu of science.

Like your above example, about the duration of the day of God, these statements in the Qur'an not only contradict each other and are mutually exclusive, they actually contradict science and commonsense too.
I already discussed this contradiction in my rebuttal of Dr. Naik's story of the Creation of Universe in the Qur'an. There is no need to repeat that. Your explanation does not solve this contradiction.
However, this contradiction pales in comparison when you consider the absurdity of these verses. There is no point to rehash how the world has come to be. These verses only betray the ignorance of their author. Can possibly the maker of this universe have said such a balderdash about the universe? These
30 http://www.teresi.us/html/writing/time_creation.html
are all proofs that Muhammad was an ignorant man of the seventh century. He had no clue how the universe had come to be. If these proofs can't convince you, what does? How can the maker of the universe be so wrong as how the universe is made? What other proof you need to see that Muhammad was a liar? For how long you want to deny the obvious? And you call ME blind?

That is very interesting. I think you are seeing the light finally my dear professor. Welcome to the world of enlightenment. It's time that you surrender to higher reason. Resistance is futile. You know the answer to all these questions better than me. Yes the scientific investigation has made it conclusively clear that the information in the Qur'an on just about everything is wrong. The function of the mountains is not to keep the earth from shaking with us. The mountains are not like pegs. The earth is not flat like a bed. The Sun is not revolving around the Earth. The stars are not in the lower heavens. The moon is not a lamp. Sperms are not created in the backbone. The cow's milk is not produced from amongst its dung and urine. Fetus is not formed the way the Qur'an says. The explanation of water cycle in the Qur'an is wrong. Animals do not have societies like ours. Ants do not understand human language. There are also other claims made in the Qur'an that are outright ridiculous such as pigs and monkeys being descendants of the Jews (or that Allah transformed the Jews into swine and apes), an animal will rise to call people to God, jinns and angels and may other asininities that you find in the Qur'an.. The Qur'an is a book of asininity. It is not befitting for rational people to call themselves Muslims. This name is an embarrassment. Soon, as these facts become known worldwide, this name will become synonymous to stupid as it is becoming synonymous to terrorist. Don't call yourself a Muslim. Leave Islam now. It is embarrassing to belong to this religion of stupidity.
As for the age of Aisha, how are you going to show that she was 16 or 19? All the mutiwatir (diffusely recurrent) ahadith say that she was 6 years old when Muhammad married her and took her to bed when she was 9 years old. There are no other versions of this story.
The other day I asked a Jew who had converted to Islam and had joined our forum, what he thought of the Qur'an's claim that Allah transformed the Jews into pigs and monkeys. He responded, "I am not a scientist to answer that question." Does this gullible soul think that maybe a scientist can explain this absurdity? Of course not! But he simply refuses to think about it. He wants to avoid the question because he knows that this could lead him to awakening and the realization that he has been fooled. That is painful. When I asked what he thinks of the massacre of the Jewish tribe of Bani Quraiza that has been described in detail in dozens of traditions and books of history written by Muslims themselves, he said, no mass grave has been found and also the traditions vary in the account of the number of people massacred, so the whole story is fabricated. This is what happens to one's brain when one becomes a Muslim. One loses his or her rational faculty and becomes incapable of thinking logically. Doesn't he know that corpses turn to dust in only a few decades? Billions of people are buried under the earth, do we find their remains after hundreds of years, especially in cities where people built houses and dug the earth many times over? Sure he does. It is simply not convenient for him to think. He likes to be fooled and will do anything to remain that way. Waking up and realizing how foolish he has been to embrace a demonic cult whose founder hated the Jews with all his being is painful. Truth is not painful; it is the shattering of lies that is painful. How is he going to face his friends and relatives, now that he is even wearing Muslim clothing and has a website promoting Islam? How is he going to explain the embarrassment of being a first class idiot to himself and to those who know him? Accepting that one has been fooled is painful. It is much easier to remain a fool and deny it. This poor man has no choice but to dig his head deeper in the sand and play stupid.
Doesn't this apply to all those Muslims who read this site (faithfreedom.org) and see how Muslim scholars miserably fail to refute a single argument that we present against Islam and yet find no courage to break their shackles and set themselves free? Doesn't this apply to you and to Mr. Ghamidi? What would you do without Islam, when Islam is the source of your livelihood? Breaking the chains of slavery of mind is far more difficult than breaking the chains made of iron. Been there, done that. I should know.
What distinguishes us humans from animals is our rational faculty. So do you see the tragedy? These crazy beliefs dehumanize us. Not only we start babbling nonsense, we even start acting as savage animals and kill each other for an utterly foolish belief.
You justify killing those who reject Islam and say they deserve it while you are still waiting for science to prove the apparently absurd claims made in the Qur'an. Shouldn't you at least delay the killings until the proof is found, just in case?
You say "I agree with you that if the Qur'anic mention is inaccurate, its claim to be divine crumbles" At the same time you express your wish that the proof will be found in future. So why don't you leave Islam now and wait until the proof is found. If the proof is found, both of us can join Islam. If God is just, he will never punish us for not accepting something without proof. If he is not just, he is unworthy of praise. He is certainly not God.
For me to accept Islam, you have to find a new Qur'an completely different from the present one and a new Sira presenting a completely different Muhammad. I will not accept this Qur'an and this Muhammad even if you find one hundred miracles in the Qur'an. If you find anything out of the ordinary in that book I attribute it to Satan and not to God, because the teachings of the Qur'an are satanic and not divine. So far there is no indication that even Satan had anything to do with that embarrassingly stupid book. The Qur'an is raving of a psychopath and nothing more.
The day that the Qur'an is proven to be true, is the day that the Sun will dawn from the west. Actually Muhammad said that this too is going to happen. Here are the words out of the horse's mouth:
Narrated Abu Dharr: I entered the mosque while Allah's Apostle was sitting there. When the sun had set, the Prophet said, "O Abu Dharr! Do you know where this (sun) goes?" I said, "Allah and His Apostle know best." He said, "It goes and asks permission to prostrate, and it is allowed, and (one day) it, as if being ordered to return whence it came, then it will rise from the west." Then the Prophet recited, "That: "And the sun runs on its fixed course (for a term decreed)," (36.38) as it is recited by 'Abdullah. [Bukhari 004.054.421 Also 009.093.520 and Muslim 001.0299]
This is easy to verify. I live on the other side of the word, right beneath your feet. When the Sun sets in your neck of the woods, it rises in mine and vice versa. So between the two of us we have its itinerary all covered. How about you and I watch carefully and see where it stops to prostrate, then write down the exact time and with this we can scientifically determine the coordinates of the throne of Allah. I think that would be the greatest discovery of all times and would certainly make you and I go down the history and maybe even win the Noble Prize. If we keep our eyes open, we might catch the Sun in the act of prostration. It can't hide from us.
Silly scientists think day and night take place because of the rotation of the earth around its own axis. Why don't they read the Qur'an and hadith to learn the truth?

Qur'an 10:92 says, "But We will this day deliver you with your body that you may be a sign to those after you, and most surely the majority of the people are heedless to Our communications." What is so miraculous about this verse?
Qur'an 55:22 says "There come forth from them pearls, both large and small." What part of this statement was unknown to people of the time of Muhammad or any people of any time? Didn't people know that pearls come in all sizes, some large and some small?
Qur'an 31:34 says "Surely Allah is He with Whom is the knowledge of the hour, and He sends down the rain and He knows what is in the wombs; and no one knows what he shall earn on the morrow; and no one knows in what land he shall die; surely Allah is Knowing, Aware."
This verse actually is saying no one but Allah knows what is in the womb. Now, any one can make an ultrasound and determine the sex of the child. So the Qur'an is wrong again. I am surprised you seem to be helping me to reveal the errors of the Qur'an. Are you already on our side?
Also everyone knows that Allah does not send the rain. The rain falls because of very natural phenomena. If a stone rolls down a mountain, it is not falling because Allah makes it fall. It just follows the law of gravity. These kinds of arguments only prove the shallowness of the mind of Muhammad. The next part of this silly verse says "no one knows in what land shall he die." Now does that prove that Allah knows it or that Allah is God? If so why he did not inform Muhammad of his own impending death? We know that Muhammad had no knowledge of the future or the past. When people of Medina accused Aisha of adultery the poor Muhammad was truly distressed and did not know whom to believe. Only after he decided to believe Aisha, nearly a month after she was accused, Allah sent down a revelation confirming what Muhammad had thought was true. Where was Allah all this time? Also when in Khaibar Muhammad wanted to find out the whereabouts of the treasures, he tortured Kinana. Why he did not ask his Allah to tell him where the hidden treasures are? When a woman whose male relatives were massacred by Muhammad prepared for him a lamb tainted with poison, Allah did not stop his prophet from eating. Only after he ate some and one of his followers fell dead, he realized the lamb was poisoned. If Muhammad had any knowledge of the unknown, why did he use to send spies to the towns of his victims to see when they are most vulnerable to raid them? Couldn't Allah or his angel reveal the unknown to him?

Okay. We are now done with the "out of this world" and the "miraculous" and ready for the minor stuff.

These are not miracles. You can find numerical oddities in any book. Ivan Panin claimed to have discovered numerical patterns in the Hebrew scriptures and in the Greek text of the New Testament. His patterns involved counting of letters and words as well as gematria (numerical values of letters).
Michael Drosnin wrote a bestseller called "Torah Codes". He claimed words and phrases are found by picking equally spaced letters from the Hebrew text of the Torah.
If you have enough time on your hand you can find a lot of patterns in any book. When you have millions of star eyed believers with billions of hours on their hands, it is natural to get a lot of such "miracles". None of these claims are worth a second thought.
One of our Muslim readers asked what in my view constitutes a miracle. I will answer that here.
If any of these so called messengers and prophets could have said something that would have been useful to mankind, I would have accepted that as miracle. For example, if they had shown how to make anesthetic, I would have recognized that as miracle. Imagine how much pain people endured when they needed amputation or surgery. If these self proclaimed prophets had told us about viruses and how to prevent contagious diseases, then I would have accepted that as miracle. If they had said that the Earth is revolving around the Sun in a clear language and that the Sun and the Moon are not "lamps" in the sky but one is a planet like the Earth and the other is a star, or that all living organisms are made of billions of tiny cells each carrying a code that is the blueprint of that organism, then I would have accepted that as miracle. There is nothing in the words of any of these prophets that was unknown at their time by their contemporaries. They simply rehashed the false knowledge of the people of their own time. Now their followers desperately try to attribute some hidden meanings to what these prophet pretenders said. For example, we often read Muhammad talking abut the "worlds of God". We all know he is talking about the physical world, the world of the mythical jinns, the worlds of angels, spirits and other fairy beings. I recently read somewhere a Muslim saying by "worlds" Muhammad must have been alluding to the multiverse. You know the theory that says beyond this universe there must be countless other universes that may or may not be similar to ours but belong to other time-space quantum and therefore we will never know about them. This theory is based on the fact that the same laws that made the Big Bang happen must have made other big bangs happen too. When nature does something, it does it in abundance. However, the Big Bang makes the need for a creator redundant. Poor Muslims do not understand this and in their zest to make the Qur'an look miraculous make claims that actually deny God. That is how believers fancy. They try to interpret every word of their holy book and find miracles in the most banal things to justify their faith in absurdities. Doesn't the very notion of the Big Bang that so many Muslims talk about, reject the Qur'anic fable of creation?

Facts are there simply because Muhammad says so? Who is Muhammad to say so? You have not established the authority of Muhammad yet. What facts? You have shown no facts so far. This verse is also a claim and not a proof. You are again engaging in circular reasoning presenting the claims made by Muhammad as proof of his claim. The answer to the question "what is the proof that Joe Blow was a prophet?" is not, "because Joe Blow said so." What if Joe Blow was a lair? You must first prove Joe's or Mo's claim and only then you can use their words as authority. As long as you have not done so, Muhammad is just another pretender. Muhammad's words can only be used as confessions against him and not as proof of his claim. This law applies to everyone and Muhammad is no exception.
Kind regards
Ali Sina

[Allegracrown]

Part XX



Dear Dr. Zaheer;
You raise a very valid point that to find the truth one must not fall into the quagmire of emotionalism but rather be detached and open, and accept the possibility that one may be wrong. I can't agree more. However, you must admit that it is hard for a believer to be unbiased in regards to his or her faith. This is the nature of faith. You made it clear that you love Muhammad more than your own parents. How could you be objective when someone questions that man's honesty, ethics, morality and even his sanity? I have been there myself. I know the difficulty that a believer faces. I wrote about my ordeals and the seven harrowing valleys that I had to cross in the wilderness of uncertainty before I could reach the citadel of enlightenment. Are you sure your understanding of Islam is not boggled by your faith? Faith is the antithesis of reason. It is interesting that you should advise me to not be emotional when you defend faith that is entirely an emotional experience. You presented no rational arguments that Islam is from God.
I think you are confusing passion with emotion. I am passionate about fighting Islam while you are emotional about this belief.
You say that you have based your understanding of Islam on the Qur'an, and the sunnah. I quoted from the Qur'an and hadith (sunnah) to prove my case against Muhammad. If I mentioned the Mu'tazelits, it was to demonstrate that Islam and rationalism do not mix and that there have been others who have tried and have failed.
As for taqqiyah, it is not just a Shi'ite concept. Taqiyyah (lying, misrepresenting, deceiving, hiding the truth) is very much Islamic. It was practiced by Muhammad himself. Your good self also made use of it in your debates. An example of that just happens to be your next paragraph.

You argue that Aisha was 18 years old when Muhammad married her and to prove that you quote a hadith that says Aisha's sister Asma who was ten years older than her, died in the year seventy-two Hijrah at the age of 100. So when Muhammad migrated to Medina she must have been 28 years old and Aisha 18 years old.
You want me to accept this hadith as proof and overlook dozens of other hadiths narrated by Aisha herself (and others) who clearly state she was 6 years old when Muhammad married her and nine years old when he consummated his marriage with her. In these hadiths Aisha says: Allah's Apostle said to me, "You were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, 'Uncover (her),' and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.31
This hadith shows that Aisha was only a toddler rapped in a cloth and carried by an angel when Muhammad had such dream about her. In other places she has said "that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old."32 And "Allah's Apostle married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old."33
The same hadith is reported in several places, which makes is mutawatir, (recurrent) and therefore most likely to be true.
In one hadith Aisha narrates,
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.34
Please pay attention to the details of the above hadith. Aisha was playing at swing with other girls. Is this the kind of play 18 years old women play? Her mother grabbed her by the hand and rubbed her face with water. How many 18
Sahih Bukhari 9.140 32 Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 33 Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310: 34 Sahih Bukhari 5.234
years old women you know that require their mothers washing their faces? This hadith is also mutawatir 35
In another hadih she is reported saying
When the Prophet married me, my mother came to me and made me enter the house (of the Prophet) and nothing surprised me but the coming of Allah's Apostle to me in the forenoon.36
Nothing surprised her more than Muhammad coming to her in the same morning? Why this should be surprising? Isn't it because this little girl had no idea why this old man was pulling down his pants and doing things to her that she had no idea about?
In one hadith she is reported saying that when she was taken to the house of Muhammad as a bride she was nine and her dolls were with her.37 In another hadith she narrated:
I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)38
Do 18 years old women play with dolls?
Aisha has also said that she was born when her parents were already Muslims.39 Muhammad married Aisha only a month after the death of Khadijah at the age of 51. If Aisha was 18 at the time of her marriage she would have been seven years old when Muhammad started his prophetic carrier at the age of 40.
You overlook all these sahih and mutawatir hadiths and cling to a haidth about Asma. Why is there a discrepancy between this hadith and a score of others that say Aisha was 6 years old when Muhammad married her? The answer is that in
35 Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 41, Number 4915, also Number 4916 and Number 4917
36 Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 90 37 Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3311 38 Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151 39 Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 245
those days people did not have ID cards. Even my own grandmother was not sure about her age. It is only in the last seventy/eighty years that we in the Middle East have ID cards and record the exact date of our birth. Arabs did not pay attention to their birth and still do not celebrate their own birthday. When you are very old, everyone around you is younger. No one knows when you were born. Curiously, we tend to see older people much older than what they actually are. People can easily think you are 100 years old when you are only
90. It is also a trait of us humans to exaggerate and talk in hyperbole. Abu Afak, the Jewish man whom Muhammad ordered to be assassinated in Medina, was said to be 120 years old. People did not live that long in those days. So it is very likely that Asma was only 90 years old, but those around her thought she was 100. You say she was "exactly 100 years old" How did you determine that? "100" is a round figure which means very old. How can this one hadith debunk a score of hadiths that repeat Aisha was 6 years old when Muhammad married her?
Now, you must admit that the very fact that you want to make the age of Aisha older is because you know that it is despicable for an old man to have sexual feelings (let alone acting upon them) for a little child. You are embarrassed by this fact. This speaks highly of you. It shows that you are a man of integrity and honor. Unfortunately, as you well know, the majority of Muslims have no problem with the fact that Muhammad married a 6 years old child. As the result children are married to old men because they consider this shameful practice to be the sunnah.of their prophet.
Since you do not belong to these misguided Muslims, and know what they are doing is un-Islamic, will you please tell us what have you done to stop this evil practice and ban child marriages in Pakistan? Have you, or your esteemed teacher, Mr. Ghamidi, ever written against pedophilia that is so rampant in Islamic countries where it is even recognized by law? If you show us one article that either one of you have written denouncing pedophilia, I would know you are sincere. If up to this day you have remained silent in the face of this despicable crime, all I can conclude is that you know the truth but you are not "truth lovers" and are playing taqqiyah at this moment in order to save the image of Islam because you know, how damaging is this shameful act. This makes your sin much graver. Those Muslims who think what Muhammad did with Aisha was good and dandy, can be forgiven for they are ignorant. We can't forgive you for ignorance. You are guilty of cover up and hypocrisy. You lie to save the image of Muhammad. Which is worse? Being ignorant or lying to cover up a crime?

You maintain that after reading the story of Asma, as a "sane, truth-loving person" I should stop insisting on this point. If your argument was valid, I would have. However, in this instance your evidence is weak. The overwhelming evidence, point to the fact that Aisha was nine years old (eight year nine months in solar years) when Muhammad took her to bed. As a sane and truth loving person, I think it is you who must admit to the fact that what Muhammad did with that little girl was improper and unholy. The problem is that millions of little girls were victimized and continue being victimized because of what that fiend did. This is the tragedy. When sane people follow an insane man, they emulate his insanity.
You accuse me of being a "stubborn person in the wake of reasonable information". Do you still insist on this charge? Isn't perhaps the reverse true? If Aisha was 18 when Muhammad married her, why there are so many hadiths saying she was six years old, playing with dolls? Why is it that no Muslim scholar has ever denounced this practice or has challenged the authenticity of these hadiths? Why is it that only now that the world is paying attention and only for the consumption of the westerners you come up with these denials?
My maternal grandfather was over 50 when he married my grandmother who was 15. He was a just man. However, this was no happy marriage. He died leaving a young wife and several toddlers behind. She could not bear the burden and died soon afterwards. My mother and her siblings grew as orphans. The stories of our people are intertwined with pain, all because of this insanity sanctioned by the despicable conduct of Muhammad. Good people do evil things because they think it is authorized by God. My grandfather was not a bad man. He simply saw nothing wrong in marrying such a young girl because he held Muhammad as his example. Your case is different; you know what Muhammad did was wrong and yet, instead of condemning him, you strive to cover up for him to save his name. You participate in deceit and lie to mankind for your faith.
You say that I may have many other points that I can still rise against Islam and should let go of this one because in your opinion it is already contested. Is it really?
Assuming one or a few of my claims against Islam are unfounded, would that make Islam a true religion? If I am mistaken, it only proves that I am fallible. Have I ever claimed something else? The point that escapes you is that if Islam was a true religion, it should not have a single error in it. One single error is enough to prove that it is false. Interestingly you acknowledge that there are many other valid arguments against Islam but you seem to be reluctant to accept this one.
Yes, we humans should look at each other's good points and close our eyes to one another's faults. That is because we are all fallible. It is better that we watch for the beam in our own eyes and not the speck in the eyes of others. This principle does not apply when you want to evaluate the truth or falsehood of someone claiming to be a messenger of God. In that case you must not close your eyes but keep them wide open and try to find errors in what he says. Only if you find none, should you believe. You close your eyes to thousands of errors, absurdities and evilness in the Qur'an and cling to a few vague notions that you think are miraculous when in reality they are not. It is your wishful thinking and misunderstanding caused by your desire to believe and your religious fervor that makes you see miracles in the most asinine statements of the Qur'an. If this is not emotionalism, then what is?

Did you defend Islam on rational ground? In that case please rest assured that intelligent people will accept your argument and will dismiss mine. The whole point of this exercise is to show both sides of the argument. Smart people will only agree with what is logical. If you are convinced that your arguments have been logical, I see no reason for concern. The fact of the matter is that by not
publishing our debate in your site and by swiftly banning faithfreedom.org in Pakistan you give the impression that you are not that sure about the strength of your argument. You want people to believe in you when you are in doubt. You are sending contradictory messages. Your words claim victory, but your actions concede defeat.
So you think because I respond to you quickly, instead of waiting a week or more like you do, it shows that I lack confidence? Apart from lack of confidence I have other flaws that you kindly did not highlight. Nonetheless, my personal shortcomings do not invalidate the strength of my arguments. If you find flaws in what I say, please point them out, and please tolerate my personal defects as I am not the subject of the discussion.

You expect me to make comments on things that you did not mention. There are mathematical errors in the law of inheritance. You say that Mr. Ghamidi knows about them. Despite that he has been able to explain them. Why you didn't present his discoveries? You are most welcome to write back and tell us about it. If anyone can disprove any of my charges against Islam, I will withdraw that charge.
I do not know how mathematical errors can be explained. According to the Qur'an (4:11,12-176) the share of the inheritance of
Wife (1/8) is: = 3/24 Daughters (2/3) = 16/24 Father (1/6) = 4/24 Mother(1/6) = 4/24 Total = 27/24
This is bigger than the total funds available.
Here are a few more examples that the law does not work: Husband, (1/2) = 1/2 Brother (everything) = 2/2 Total = 3/2
Parents 1/3 =4/12 Wife 1/4 =3/12
Total =7/12
Husband, (1/2) = 3/6 Husband, (1/2) = 3/6 Sister (1/2) = 3/6 Sister (1/2) = 3/6Mother (1/3) = 2/6
Total = 8/6 Mother (1/3) = 2/6 Total = 8/6
Wife1/4 = 3/12 Wife1/4 = 3/12 Mother 1/3 = 4/12 Mother 1/3 = 4/12 Sisters 2/3 = 8/12
Total = 15/12 Sisters 2/3 = 8/12 Total = 15/12
There are many other scenarios where the portions do not add up, such as:
scenario fund distributed surplus
Only a wife: = 1/4 3/4 Only a mother: = 1/3 2/3 Only a daughter = 1/2 1/2 Two daughters = 2/3 1/3 Only a Sister = 1/2 1/2 A mother and a sister = 1/3 + 1/2 = 5/6 1/6 A wife and a mother = 1/4 + 1/3 = 5/12 7/12 A sister and a wife = 1/2 + 1/4 = 3/4 1/4
How can Mr. Ghamidi know about these errors and at the same time call the Qur'an "error-free"?
Which evidence are you talking about? You presented none. What I said in my message is that even if you could present evidence that Muhammad had access to certain secret knowledge, this still does not prove that this knowledge had come to him from God. It could have come from Satan. The reason for that is because the message of Islam is a satanic message of hate, violence and death. There is nothing godly and holy in the Qur'an and the life of Muhammad to conclude that he was a messenger of God. Nonetheless, I told you on several occasions that I will withdraw my charges against Muhammad and will shut down Faith Freedom International, should you prove that there is anything out of this world and miraculous in the Qur'an. I said that despite the fact that the Qur'an is a satanic book, Satan has withheld any secret knowledge from Muhammad. There is nothing extraordinary and out of this world in that book. I showed how every one of the claims that you made about the Qur'an being miraculous is wishful thinking and false.
The message of Jesus is a message of love. The message of Muhammad is a message of hate. These two men were howling from two opposite poles. If the message of Jesus was divine, that of Muhammad must be coming from the depth of hell. Of course I would not accept Islam as a religion of God if you show something "out of this world" in the Qur'an. However, you did not do it. There is nothing brilliant, miraculous or out of this world in this book.

My dear friends: You are smart men. You know that if a person wants to deceive others he will say words that are pleasing. We all receive these emails known as "Nigerian Scams" where the sender salutes you in the name of God and presents himself as the wife of so and so deposed president with millions of dollars to deposit in your account so you could spend it in the name of Jesus for godly causes. Should we give these charlatans some credit because they open their letter in the name of God and speak about love and charity? Please do not expect us to be naïve. The actions of Muhammad speak louder than his words. Of course he had to say something good to fool the gullible. Those gullible people who followed him and committed atrocities, thought he was the messenger of God. Had Muhammad not fooled them with these vacuous nice words, would they have believed in him and sacrificed their lives and wealth for him? The proof of the pudding is in eating it. Was Muhammad fair to those who did not believe in him? Is it fair to raid people in the middle of the night, slay their unarmed men and take their women and children as slaves? You are rational persons. I expect more from you. Do you really expect us to be fooled by some inane clichés that Muhammad pronounced here and there and overlook his evil deeds?
When I was a child, there was a radio show that I used to listen to. It was called "A City within Our City". The producer would interview an inmate every week. These criminals would narrate their life stories, telling how they were drawn to crime. At the end of each session he would ask if the prisoner had any advice for the youths. These criminals had the best advices. I recall thinking to myself, if we only followed the advices of these murderers and gangsters the world would be a paradise. Words are cheap. Even Ahmadinejad, the Hitler wannabe clown president of Iran, who harbors the dream of starting a new holocaust is reported to have said a lot of good words, such as "we want peace for all mankind" and other clichés such as these. Do these vacuous statements make this ruffian a man of peace?

What you did not explain are:
a) What is the proof that Muhammad was a true messenger of God?
b) Why would a loving God want to kill those who disbelieve in him?
c) Why God does not kill his deniers and asks humans to shed the blood of their
kind?

This is like I point a gun at you and tell you that you should surrender to me
with no fight because I am a policeman and that resisting an arrest is against the
law. Well, this sounds logical. However, the problem is that I have not produced
my credentials as police and in fact I have acted like a thief, a murderer, an
assassin, a rapist and a very evil man. Should you still believe my claim and
surrender with no fight?

You start with a fallacy and build on that justifying one fallacy with another.
You are convinced to be right when you have given us no proof. The very
foundation of your belief is wrong and therefore every argument that you build
on it is wrong.

I showed that it was not the Bani Quraiza who violated the term of the contract but it was Muhammad who broke every one of his treaties and even made his suckpuppet Allah to approve them. The sura 9 is called bara'a, precisely because in this sura Allah orders Muhammad to break all his treaties. This is a lie that Muslims have been rehashing since the time of Muhammad. The very history that their historians have recorded shows that it was Muhammad who violated his treaties and not the other way round. Nonetheless, setting an example for his followers, he always blamed his victims, accusing them of conspiring against him to justify his "preemptive" forays.
It was not the Bani Quraiza who proposed Sa'd ibn Mu'az to pass the verdict. It was Muhammad who did it and the reason is that he perfectly knew how this ruffian despised them. He knew that Islam had changed his heart and now he felt nothing but hatred for his former allies. Sa'd was the bodyguard of Muhammad. He slept in the mosque where Muhammad lived. He visited the Bani Quraiza when the confederates had surrounded Medina and upon being received coldly he vowed to Muhammad to kill them all. Muhammad knew perfectly what the decision of Sa'd would be. Furthermore Sa'd had been fatally wounded by the Confederates and was in excruciating pain. He blamed the Bani Quriaza for it for not coming to the aid of the Muslims. His wound had closed and he was recovering. But Muhammad wanted him to pass that judgment. Only he was so ruthless that would order the massacre of the entire tribe. So Muhammad asked him to ride a donkey and make two or three miles of journey. The journey reopened his wound and increased his pain. In such a state, he was unfit to pass judgment. He died as the result of the renewed bleeding. Muhammad got what he wanted and that fool went to hell. Muhammad wanted the Jews dead, but he wanted someone else to pass this judgment so he could wash his hands and claim innocence. This is the kind of mind games and manipulations that psychopath narcissists play.
Was what Muhammad did to those people fair? It is amazing that in one breath you quote us a verse where Muhammad talks about fairness and in the other you defend something as hideous as the massacre of an entire tribe and enslavement of their wives and children without seeing the contradiction. Assuming the charges that Muhammad brought against the Bani Quraiza were true, were all the members of this tribe guilty, including the adolescents who were massacred with men? What about the women and the children who were taken as slaves and raped? Is this your standard of fairness?
We went over this before my respected scholar friends. I brought the example of the atrocities and the crimes that the Pakistani solders committed in Bangladesh and asked whether it would be justice to kill all the Pakistani men and enslave their women in retaliation for the treachery of the Pakistani army and their leaders. This is exactly what Muhammad did, despite the fact that the Bani Quraiza were not guilty of any crime. They were accused unjustly because Muhammad needed their wealth and they were a nuisance to him. One breath taken in fairness is worth a hundred years of mindless worship. Do you still insist that this man was a messenger of God?

I read about this claim and all it shows is the intellectual bankruptcy of Muslims.
The verse 10: 90-92 say "And We took the Children of Israel across the sea, and Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in oppression and enmity, till when drowning overtook him [Pharaoh], he said: 'I believe that there is no god but He in whom the Children of Israel have believed, and I am from the Muslims.' Now [you believe] while you have rebelled before and been among the evil-doers. So today We save you in your [dead] body, that you may be a sign to those who come after you. And verily, many among mankind are indeed heedless of Our Ayah [proofs, evidence, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, ...etc.).
Muslims then claim that according to the above verses the body of Pharaoh was not taken by the sea so that Pharaoh may become a sign to those who come after him.
The person who confirmed this charade was Dr. Bucaille who despite writing a book claiming that there are many miracles in the Qur'an, did not convert to Islam. He received a lot of money as the result from the Saudi king; and his book is sold like hot cake all over Islamic world. However, he was not that fool to believe in his own lies. Why would someone who claims that the Qur'an is a book of miracles not converts to Islam? How much this says about the sincerity of this man?
Bucaille wrote that he conducted "research" and "in June 1975, the Egyptian high authorities very kindly allowed me to examine the parts of the Pharaoh's body that had been covered until then. They also allowed me to take photographs. What may already be derived from this examination is the discovery of multiple lesions of the bones with broad lacunae, some of which may have been mortal although it is not yet possible to ascertain whether some of them occurred before or after the Pharaoh's death. He most probably died either from drowning, according to the scriptural narrations, or from very violent shocks preceding the moment when he was drowned or both at once. Those who seek among modern data for proof of the veracity of the Holy Scriptures will find a magnificent illustration of the verses of the Qur'an dealing with Pharaoh's body by visiting the Royal Mummies room of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo!"40
First of all Pharaoh is not a proper name but a title, like king, president, prime minister. Which pharaoh is he talking about? Why a man who calls himself doctor, would make such a stupid mistake? It is because the Qur'an makes the exact same mistake and Bucaille is writing a book for Muslims to make them happy and to laugh at their naiveté on his way to the bank. He is not writing a book to correct the errors of the Qur'an but to validate the belief of the Muslims that it is a miracle.
Muhammad talks of pharaoh thinking that pharaoh is a proper name. The biblical fable of exodus says that the pharaoh that had enslaved the Israelites drowned in the sea along with his men. However, everyone knew that in Egypt the bodies of pharaohs were preserved. The practice of mummifying the corpses of pharaohs predated Muhammad by at least 2,000 years. Not realizing that there were many pharaohs, the illiterate prophet concluded that Allah must have saved Pharaoh's body as a sign. A sign for what? He does not explain that. Why would Allah do such a thing? It must be because Pharaoh had submitted to Allah right before his death, our illiterate prophet assumes. Muhammad did not know that there were many pharaohs. Had he known that, he could understand that the one who was drowned was a different pharaoh than the pharaohs that are preserved. This verse was his response to this conundrum. By inventing this story, he could reconcile the Biblical fable that says pharaoh was drowned with the fact that the pharaoh's body had been preserved.
So as you seem this verse is not a miracle. It shows the confusion of an ignorant man. What prediction are you talking about? Are you saying that the Arabs did not know that the corpses of pharaohs were mummified and preserved and Muhammad was the first Arab to say that? How could that be possible? Do you have any evidence to prove this absurdity?
40 The Bible, The Qur'an and Science (1978)
The charades of Dr. Bucaille are no less ridiculous than those concocted by Muhammad. He says that upon examining the corps of the Pharaoh, it was clear to him that he had died of drowning (and brings the scriptures as proof) or of a shock. How can one come to such a conclusion by examining the dried up cadaver of a 4000 years old mummy? To make mummies, the Egyptians used to remove all the interior organs, including the brain. Without the organs, how did Dr. Bucaille conclude that the pharaoh that he had examined had died of drowning? He knew that those who would read his book are not educated people and would believe in any gobbledygook to support their faith. So he made up stories that any scientist would laugh at and the poor Muslims gobbled them unquestioningly. Why Dr. Bucaille's "discovery" is not mentioned in any scientific journal and no other Egyptologist knows what he has discovered? Bucaille is not a forensic doctor to make such an autopsy and even a forensic doctor cannot determine the cause of the death of 4,000 years old a mummy.
How did Bucaille determine that it was this particular Pharaoh that was persecuting the Israelites? And again, why there is no mention of Moses and any of the portentous calamities that the Bible says befell on Egypt in any hieroglyph discovered so far? As far as Egyptologists are concerned, Moses and his grand exodus are nothing but myths. The tales of the Bible are not corroborated by archeological finds.

I already discussed this verse as an example of the errors of Muhammad and I am surprised that you are presenting it as proof of the miracle of the Qur'an. Let me quote the verse.
Surely Allah is He with Whom is the knowledge of the hour, and He sends down the rain and He knows what is in the wombs; and no one knows what he shall earn on the morrow; and no one knows in what land he shall die; surely Allah is Knowing, Aware.
This verse is written to show that Allah knows things that no one else can possibly know such as the sex of the baby in the womb. This is confirmed in a hadith
Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) said, "Keys of the unseen knowledge are five which nobody knows but Allah . . . nobody knows what will happen tomorrow; nobody knows what is in the womb; nobody knows what he will gain tomorrow; nobody knows at what place he will die; and nobody knows when it will rain."41
Now any medical doctor can determine what is in the womb and the meteorologists can predict when it will rain up to five days ahead. The only miracle I see is that intelligent men such as you are unable to see this verse is wrong and think it is a miracle.

The verse 55:22 says "There come forth from them pearls, both large and small." Why in your opinion this verse is miraculous? People have been diving searching for pearls and corals, both in sweet and in salty waters for thousands of years. Pearls come in various sizes. Why do you think stating something so obvious is a miracle? Are you telling us that there are Muslim clerics who are so stupid that they even argue about this point and that some of them think all pearls come in one size? Don't they know that pearls grow?
41 Bukhari 2, 17,149
It is mind boggling the kind of verses that you pick to show that the Qur'an is miraculous. Muhammad said some pearls are large and some are small. It is a miracle. He said rain falls from the sky. It is a miracle. He said all animals come in pairs. It is a miracle. He said every living being depends on water. This is a miracle. He said embryo looks like leech. It is a miracle. He named bee in feminine gender, (using the same word all other Arabs used for bee). It is a miracle. What part of these banal statements is miraculous? These silly claims prove only one thing and that is Muslims are bereft of commonsense.

I have not counted the number of times "yaums" is repeated in the Arabic Qur'an, but the number of "days" repeated in the English Qur'an is 509 time and not 365 times.42 The truth is that Muslims lie to attribute miracles to the Quran. This is very normal for them to do and they actually think it is their religious duty to lie in order to make Islam look miraculous.
Nonetheless, one can find oddities in any book and this does not constitute any miracle. Apart from the fact that there are 354 days in an Islamic year and not 365, what does this prove? The only thing that would prove a book to be from God is that its message must be godly. The message of the Qur'an is demonic. If the Qur'an contained some useful tips such as how to make aspirin, how to prevent contagious diseases or how the universe is made, we could have accepted it as miracle. The information in the Qur'an is absolutely useless and wrong. Assuming there are some oddities in the Qur'an why should we consider them as proof that this book is from God? If I claim to be a physician I must be able to cure. If I am ignorant about medicine, the fact that I can make summersault and swallow sword does not prove that I am a physician.
42 http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=simple&q1=day&size=All

My respected professor: I am afraid you don't seem to have a clue about science. Science is constantly advancing. It is expected that our understanding of it change. This does not make science invalid. It makes it living. It is like a tree. It's never the same because it keeps growing. This is a plus, not a minus. Two years from now, the state of the art computer that you are using today would be obsolete and ten years from now you have to throw it in the dumpster. Does this mean the computer that you are using today is worthless? Tomorrow's science will evolve and would make today's science obsolete. This does not mean that today's science is false and that truth can be found elsewhere. The bogus claims made in the Qur'an are true. The fact that every day we are discovering new mysteries about our earth does not mean that one day we will find out that the Qur'an was right and the Earth is actually flat like a bed (mehad) or that the stars are in the lower heaven, or that sperms are generated in the backbone, as the Qur'an says.
Science is expanding and therefore our knowledge of it is relative. This does not mean that something that is absolutely false has a chance of being proven to be true one day.

Assuming that there is a God who is moving everything in the universe, what this has to do with Muhammad, David Koreah or Joseph Kony? Every time we ask for proof of the claim of Muhammad, Muslims want to prove to us the existence of God. This is red herring. If you wish to believe in God, please do so. I have utmost respect for the believers in God. I am myself a believer in God, although I understand it in an entirely different way that the religionists understand it. God has nothing to do with Allah and Muhammad. Recently I saw a few videos of Muslims who had converted to Christianity. Their testimonies were moving. What moved me was not their belief but the love that they had found. If I believe in God, I would believe in a loving God. I have found God in my love for humanity. They found it in Jesus. We went through different paths, but we came to the same destination. They were empty and some of them full of rage and hate, after leaving Islam and finding Jesus they were reborn. 43
On the other hand I saw also videos of people who converted to Islam. They have become monsters, filled with hatred, and think murder of children and innocent people is acceptable. Yvonne Riddley is one such person and Joseph Cohen, (now Yusuf Khattab) is another.44
I have no problem with God and people who believe in God. I have problem with Islam because it is satanic. I call upon you and all the Muslims to leave Islam. If you don't find rationalism to your liking then choose a godly religion. Do not be a slave of Satan, for Allah is no God.

You seem to be convinced that it is perfectly okay to slay the idolaters and the fact that the Qur'an is not as harsh on the people of the Book as it is on idolaters is a great thing. Not so my learned friends. All humans have equal rights.
Furthermore, according to Muhammad, even the Jews and the Christians are to be counted amongst the polytheists because:
43 www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39980
44 www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJLsdydjSPo
They believe in idols and false deities and say of those who disbelieve: They are better guided in the path than those who believe. Those are they whom Allah has cursed, and whomever Allah curses you shall not find any helper for him. 4:51-52
The Quran is full of contradictions. When Muhammad was still weak and was humbugging the Jews to accept him as another Biblical prophet, he lavished them with praises and rehashed the Biblical lore. He even chose Jerusalem as his qiblah. In one verse he said:
Surely those who are Jews, Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.
2.62
When he realized that they were not going to buy his charade, he changed his tune. He no longer was interested to narrate Biblical stories. Instead the verses of the Qur'an became angry and despiteful of the Jews and the Christians. Here is a sample:
Abasement and humiliation were brought down upon them, [the Jews] and they became deserving of Allah's wrath; this was so because they disbelieved in the communications of Allah and killed the prophets unjustly; this was so because they disobeyed and exceeded the limits.
2:61
We said to the Jews who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected." into apes. 2:65- 66
The Jews and the Christians should be disgraced in this life and would be punished in the next world for believing in parts of their scripture and not in other parts 2:85
Allah has cursed them on account of their unbelief; 2:88
Jews are the greediest of men for life (greedier) than even those who are polytheists; 2:96
Allah is the enemy of those who reject faith 2:98
None rejects Islam except those who are perverse 2:99 Whoever disbelieves in Islam it is a loser. 2:121
Those who reject the clear proofs of Islam will be cursed by Allah and those who curse shall curse them (too). 2:159
Those who die in disbelief, on them is the curse of Allah and the angels and men all. 2:161
And they shall not come forth from the fire. 2:167
They are deaf, dumb and blind and do not understand 2:171
The Christians and Jews who conceal any part of the Book that Allah has revealed and take for it a small price, they eat nothing but fire into their bellies, and Allah will not speak to them on the day of resurrection, nor will He purify them, and they shall have a painful chastisement. 2:174
The unbelievers beckon you to fire. It is better not to marry them until they believe. 2:221
They [Christians and Jews] say: The fire shall not touch us but for a few days; and what they have forged deceives them in the matter of their religion. However they are mistaken and will not fair well in the Day of Judgment 3:24-25
Allah does not like the unbelievers 3:32 and Muslims should not take them as friends 3:28
Believe no one unless he follows your religion [Islam]. 3:73
Muslims should not take for intimate friends from among others than their own people. 3:118
And we will cast terror in the heart of the disbelievers (like the Jews in Medina , Khaibar and other places). Their adobe will be the fire 3:151
Those who ascribe a partner to Allah (like Christians who believe in trinity) will not be forgiven. They have "invented a tremendous sin." 4:48, 4:116 As for those who disbelieve in Our communications, [do not convert to Islam] We shall make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, We will change them for other skins, that they may taste the chastisement; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise. 4:56 [Yep, great wisdom]
Those who assert that they believe in what has been revealed to you and what was revealed before you, [Christians and Jews] they desire to summon one another to the judgment of Satan, though they were commanded to deny him, and Satan desires to lead them astray into a remote error. 4:60
Those who do not believe in Muhammad are "hypocrites turning away from you with (utter) aversion." 4:61
Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of Satan. Fight therefore against the friends of Satan.
4:76
Jews will suffer a painful chastisement because they lend money. 4:161
Allah made a covenant with the children of Israel , ..But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard;... and you shall always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them; 5:12-13
[With the] Christians, We made a covenant, but they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of, therefore We excited among them enmity and hatred to the day of resurrection. 5:14 [Nice work! And you thought God wants peace on Earth.]
In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. 5:17
Don't take Jews and Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them. 5:51
Jews and Christians are losers 5:53 Don't take Jews and Christians as guardians who mock your religion.
5:53
Most of the Jews and Christians are transgressors. 5:59
Those who befriend those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide. 5:80
Jews called some of messengers of God liars and some they slew.5:70
Christians will go to hell for saying Jesus is God. "Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the fire. 5:72
Fight against Christians and Jews "until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
9:29
Jews and Christians imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them. 9:30
Islam must "prevail over all religions, however much the disbelievers are averse to it" [through force]. 9:33
Many [Jewish and Christian] doctors of law and the monks eat away the property of men falsely, and turn (them) from Allah's way; and (as for) those who hoard up gold and silver and do not spend it in Allah's way [give to Muhammad], announce to them a painful chastisement. [which was done by Muhammad] 9:34
One Day He [Allah] will say, [to Christians] "Call on those whom ye thought to be My partners," and they will call on them, but they will not listen to them; and We shall make for them a place of common perdition. 18:52
It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son... and woe to the unbelievers because of the (coming) Judgment of a Momentous Day! 19:35-37 Allah taunt the Christians on the Day of Judgment and will say "Where are those whom you deemed to be My associates?" The Christians bring some excuses but "it will be said: Call your associate-gods. So they will call upon them, but they will not answer them, and they shall see the punishment" 28:62
The Christians who ascribe partner to Allah "would certainly be of the losers." 39:65
There is more, but this should suffice as evidence that Muhammad hated the Jews and the Christians as much as he hated the polytheists. He hated anyone who disagreed with him. He was a narcissist and as such intolerant of rejection. Rejecting a narcissist is the biggest sin you can commit. He will kill you for that. Narcissists are psychopaths and the Qur'an is a manifesto of a psychopathic mind.

You keep repeating this argument as if it has as big effect on you. What you say is a combination of at least three logical fallacies called argumentum ad baculum, argumentum ad antiquatem and argumentum ad numerum. The gist of these fallacies is as follow:
Argumentum ad baculum: (from Latin: Argument from the stick). According to this fallacy an argument that can win through force (stick) must be right. Adherents of this fallacy often resort to violence, threats and censorship to impose their irrational and unsubstantiated point of view. This argument remains unchallenged as long as the force is exercised. It relies entirely on the threat of violence or it will be defeated. Islam has been successful because it has managed to eliminate all criticisms through violence and threat. Where Muslims rule, the critics of Islam are jailed and executed and where they don't, the critics are assassinated. Muslims riot and demand respect for their belief. The assassination of Theo Van Gogue, the jailing of Muslim dissidents in Islamic countries, the riots over the speech of the Pope and the banning of Islamocritic sites such as faithfreedom.org are examples of argumentum ad baculum.
Argumentum ad antiquitatem: (appeal to antiquity). This fallacy asserts that if something has survived the test of time it must be good. This is a fallacy because it does not take into consideration that perhaps the thing that has survived has done it thanks to the use of force and by silencing any whisper of criticism. The opposite of this fallacy, argumentum ad novitatem, claims that the new is better than the old.
Argumentum ad numerum and its closely related Argumentum ad populum consist in asserting that if a large number of people favor something, that thing must be good. This is certainly not true because considering the silliness of humans and their penchant for fables, generally masses of people are more likely to be wrong than right. At one time everyone believed that the Earth is flat and the centre of the cosmos. Despite the popularity of this belief it was never true. Truth cannot be attained though the consensus of the majority.
So the claim that Islam must be true because it has survived for 1400 years, and that it has many adherents, or the false claim made by Muslims that it is the fastest growing religion are all logical fallacies. None of them prove the truth of Islam. Argumentum ad baculum is the logic of the primitive man where the stronger is always right. Unfortunately, Muslims are among the very few humans who still hold unto this fallacy and believe that since Muhammad managed to subdue his opponents, even through treachery and dastardly acts, he must be from God. Rational people are amazed at this much absurdity but to Muslims winning by bullying constitutes the biggest proof.
The verses 43:41-42 that you quoted above, clearly reveal the narcissistic personality disorder of Muhammad. Please read my book Understanding Muhammad: A Psychobiography of Allah's Prophet where I have analyzed the mind of the Arabian prophet. That book will help you interpret the Qur'an and understand the mind of Muhammad.


I agree that I grew up in an environment where lies where thought as truth and I had accepted them for their face value and uncritically. Haven't you? Haven't all the Muslims? Are Muslims allowed a comparative study of all religions and beliefs? You and all Muslims are fed the same lies that I was fed. You know zilch about any other belief system. All you know are the lies of Islam. Censorship does not allow you to learn alternative views and you now make sure others also remain ignorant by becoming part of this machinery of suppression of information.
However, I do not agree with your claim that I have not searched to make sense of what seemed to me senseless. I did that with far more sincerity that you are prepared to do. My apostasy took two years and another two for me to decide to become an instrument of change. I did my homework and I am still doing it. You and I exchanged many ideas. I repeatedly asked you to present your proof. You did your best but as any reasonable person can see, your best was not good enough. You and Mr. Ghamidi know this also. You are intelligent and knowledgeable persons. Of course you know that your arguments were weak. The very fact that you are not publishing this debate in your site and have banned faithfreedom.org in Pakistan is a loud and clear admission that in an arena where logic rules, Islam loses. You accuse me of having lost my balance and being insane, which prevent me from accepting what you claim to be the "out of this world" truth of the Qur'an. This is ad hominen and a fallacy. You failed to provide a single proof and now content yourself calling me insane. Let us say you are right. We already agreed that we are writing for the benefit of others. If you are convinced that your logic is superior and that you have managed to prove Islam right, I urge you to publish our debate in your site.
People are smart. They can see I am unbalanced and what you say is logical and undeniable. So what are you afraid of? Only by publishing this debate you would show that you believe that you had the upper hand.

Farewell my erudite friends. It was an honor and a pleasure to exchange these notes with you. I must admit that despite our differences of opinions, you have made very positive impression on me and I grew respecting and admiring you more. I have debated with many Muslims but with the exception of a few, none were as scholarly as you. Your tone and language and your adherence to decorum, despite being hurt by my relentless pounding on your cherished faith, only demonstrate your greatness.
I also commend you for being an excellent debater. Your problem was not your skills but the indefensible position that you tried to defend. This is like going to war with no ammunitions. You may be the best fighter but if all you have is an air gun, you will not win. Islam gives you nothing but lies. How can one win with sheer lies? In this debate truth has won and this makes both of us victorious.
Unlike you, I am not disappointed that you did not budge from your position. I did not expect such thing. I fully understand your predicament. You depend on Islam for your livelihood. Islam brings you prestige and it places food on your tables. It would be egotistic on my part to ask you to leave Islam. I know the hurdles that you face. The very thought of what would happen to you if you decide to doubt Islam sends shiver down your spines. You will do everything to not see the truth because in your case truth is far more painful than say in my case. I was living in the West, I had my profession. I had many friends who were not Muslims. I could easily make the transition without suffering any consequences. Despite that I fought tooth and nail to cling to this lie. In your cases you would not only lose your jobs, friends, prestige and family but also your lives. This is not what I wish for you.
Let me tell you that there are many who are in your predicament. They know the truth about Islam. Despite that they remain silent and continue doing what they do. However, in their hearts they are no longer Muslims. A few of them even wrote to me. I have received emails from enlightened ex-Muslims who have told me about their apostasy while still pretending to be believers. I always tell them to use kitman and gradually try to sever their ties from Islam. One such person was a member of an Islamic council like CAIR in a western country. Another was an Imam in a Muslim country and another was a teacher in an Islamic school. I received an email from someone representing a group of people from one of the most cardinal Islamic countries, whose position is so sensitive that I can't even give you a hint nor the country from which he was writing. He told me their group fully supports FFI and that they are tying to bring some changes from the top (at great risk to their lives). I am sure there are many more.
Let me quote you a part of the testimony of Aisha. This is what she wrote:
I ran into your site six months ago. At first I thought you were absolutely mad and made a vow to study Islam harder and become a better Muslimah. My faith, however, had to be restored because your articles are written in a very powerful and uncompromising way. I decided to show some of your articles, especially about misogyny, to my Imam.
He is not hateful at all and strongly condemns all acts of violence. Even though he is imam and a well-educated man in the Islamic science, I now doubt he has ever read the Quran! He is so peaceful and is often denounced by hard-line Muslims.
When I headed for the mosque, I thought we would just laugh together at your stupidity.
I handed your articles to him. To tell the truth, I expected him to burst out into laughter, but he began to read your writings carefully. When he finished, he told me that he had learnt the truth. My eyes were blank and I barely could respond to him. He then continued. As a matter of fact, he has known that Islam is false for some time. He said he was too old (70 years) to change his life and so he kept on preaching sermons in mosques. Of course, he chose some more or less peaceful verses from the Quran. But it was not all! I will just quote what he said. "I'm old.
My life is coming to an end. But you, Aisha, are young. Run, girl, run before it is too late!"
Can you imagine how shocked I was by his words? I've mentioned that he is such a nice and lovable man so I simply couldn't help believing him. I, however, decided to carry out my own research.
I leave you with these notes and wish good health and happiness for both of you. Remember that you don't have to do anything to leave Islam. All you have to do is to admit to yourself the truth. Leave it at that and do not talk about that to anyone.
Islam's end is near. This edifice of lies will fall soon. If we are not killed in an Armageddon, caused by Islamic madness, (Pakistan is in grave danger. Your atomic bomb could spell the end of your ersatz country) we will see the end of Islam in our own lifetime. This is not a prophecy. I am only forecasting the future the way an economist forecasts the future of the stocks. The writings are all on the wall. Islam is about to fall. What I can't tell you is whether this would be a violent fall, in which billions would perish, or it would be a peaceful one, collapsing from within, the way communism did. We are doing our best at FFI to make Islam implode, rather than explode. We are puncturing holes in it and deflating it before it explodes. We hope that it would have a peaceful end and not a violent one. For that, of course, Muslims must wake up and end this insanity.
Within the coming quarter of century or so, Islam will be eradicated. Many people wonder how a religion, believed so fiercely, by over a billion people can be eradicated in such a short time. To these "unbelievers" I say, One billion people are one billion individuals. It does not take centuries to make an individual see the truth. For some it may take days and for others it may take years, but the bottom line is that no one wants to continue fooling him or herself and live in a lie. Once Muslims are shown the truth, they will eventually leave Islam. There would be resistance at first, but at the end truth will prevail. Therefore, our challenge is to make the truth reach to this billion plus individuals. This is a big challenge because the bulk of Muslims are poor and uneducated. They are cut off from the rest of the world and live in a cocoon of lies. Nonetheless, technology is coming to our aid. It is difficult to keep the light out when the sun is at its zenith. Those who learn the truth will pass it to others and this message will spread exponentially, like wildfire.
We actually do not have to reach to every Muslim. Once a couple of hundred of million Muslims leave Islam, the rest will follow. Islam is based on hypes. It's lies such as "Islam is the fastest growing religion", and "the Qur'an contains science and miracle" that fills Muslims with pride and bravado. Once the reverse is demonstrated to be true, this house of cards will collapse. To bring Islam down is easier than anyone can imagine.
You played a magnificent role in our struggle to find the truth. I sincerely thank you for your courage, your sincerity and your perseverance. You demonstrated to be true scholars and real gentlemen. I hope that you would join us soon. Good people such as you don't belong to Islam. Islam is made by a psychopath terrorist and is only good for terrorists. You do not belong to this benighted crowd.
This debate will be available as an e-book for free download and in print, at cost.
The lies of Islam must be deflated with truth. Only truth will save mankind from its looming doom. I don't know whether it is too late already or not, but we must try. I urge all those who read this debate, to send it to others and encourage Muslims to read it. Truth will set them free and will bring peace to the world. So let the truth spread.
I remain respectfully yours,
Ali Sina