My Response:

Mr Sina,
Sorry. Just confirming that you have read this first part before i move on. Have noted quite a few FFI members commenting.
Nothing of much material from them as such. I would request this debate remain between you and me. Inshallah, both of us
should be more knowledgeable in due course,

Zuher

22/07/2007
___________________________________________________________
Ali Sina,
Greetings.
I have started going through the website and trying to steal time, a few minutes here and there, going through the various
debates you have had. I must say, the arguments posed at you by your opponents, were pretty lame and very frail to say the
least. No wonder, your upper hand in most of them.

However, as a point of order, Mr Sina, I shall only concentrate on your alleged incoherence and contradictory nature of
injunctions of the Holy Qura’n, with no reference to Ahadith as yet. There are many incorrect ahadith of dubious origin hence
using them would be quite unscholarly. Of course, I lay no blame on you for using them to push your point against Islam, as I
have noted, but just as general comment after an observation. I cannot defend what is not true and to me, a book that already
contains one error will not be defended in a fool proof manner. So I shall keep to the injunctions of the Holy Qur’an alone. In
my mind, the Great Book has its own Protector. All I will be doing is just bringing a very tiny speck of the knowledge of the book
into light. I am sure that tiny speck, will be blinding light to many a doubting Thomas’.

Ali Sina Wrote:

So you think that if a book contains one error, it should not be accepted in its entirety, therefore the books of ahadith must be
disregarded altogether because they contain some fabricated hadith. You want to stick to the Quran alone, which you
consider to be error free.

Allow me to show the fallacy of this argument. The Books of hadith are collections of stories about Muhammad. The narrators
were humans. Humans are fallible, nonetheless, we do not reject everything they say just because they are sometimes wrong.
There is not a single book that is error free. Shall we discard them all? It is a fallacy to say just because we find errors in the
books of hadith we should throw everything away. Let us say a criminal is interrogated. Should the court throw out all his
testimony because on many occasions he has been found lying?   

This argument that since some of the ahadith are forgeries, we must discard all of them, is a fallacy. Our task is to read them
critically. It is not difficult to separate false ahadith from the authentic ones. For a believer, this may be the case, because it is
hard for him to be objective, but for a critical examiner it is not an impossible task. For example, there are many ahadith
attributing miracles to Muhammad. Shall we accept them as true or as forgeries? The answer is that they are all forgeries.
Why? It is because the Quran says that Muhammad did not perform any miracles and that the Quran is his only miracle. We
can use this evidence as Muhammad’s confession that he never performed any miracles.

My Response:

Oh Gracious Lord! Mr. Sina, I think this feature of you putting your own foot in your mouth very clearly indicates how fallible
you are before the Mighty Allah SWT, maybe more fallible than any debater I have put down in my previous outings. A bit more
crude and even more fallible nonetheless. Allow me to show you. If for once we accept that books of ahadith written by
humans can be critically analysed and the logical ones can be accepted while rejecting those defying your logic. Then with
your own admission and theoretically accepting that Muhammad PBUH wrote the Quran, as you so imprudently put, then why
do you reject the Quran in totality on the basis of just a few “contradictory” verses, of course which you find contradictory, in
your limited knowledge. Sina, according to you, both Quran and books of ahadith have been authored by humans. Then why
the double drumming, why the hypocritical stance and why the duplicitous two faced approach? Can you clarify your stance
once for all on books written by humans that contain errors, whatever the number of your perceived errors? Such rash
statements by yourself are rampant in every one of your debates including this one. Either you accept that Quran being
authored by a human, in this case Muhammad, can be logically and critically analysed and accepted just like your stance on
hadith or both should be rejected purely on the contradictions and errors they have? You do reject Quran as regards its
divinity. That unilateral assertion of yours is clear. I am yet to pose a question to you as regards that. My question is based on
your statement regarding the Quran and hadith all authored by fallible humans.

There are 6666 verses in 114 chapters of the Holy Quran. Can you exactly point out how many verses have contradictions
with each other? Count one verse and its contradictory partner as 2 verses ok. Let’s make this an even battle. Then let me
know how many books of hadith contain erroneous hadith and what is the percentage of such contradictions in both books on
a quantitative scale? Remember; keep aside your verses of hate and terror. Pure contradictions ok, Sina. You are a self
proclaimed expert on Quran aren’t you? I just read that on a thread in the forum. Please enlighten us on the numbers and
figures.

So do you think that your experiences in this world within the very small box of your logical framework can actually capture the
grandeur of the Almighty Creator? While you agree on the fallibility of humans, of which I do suppose you are one, with this
nature as such, you would be able to put the creation causality, beginning and end of this universe all in your rational thought
process. While someone can’t capture the Arabic alphabet, it seems rather circumspect that one can capture the vastness of
this universe and the even the greater might of the Creator? Cut me some slack here, Sina. How can one possibly fathom the
Creator, when you can’t capture its creation in its entirety with your incomplete and slowly evolving “rational” thinking?
Whatever science knows is limited and there are discoveries yet to be made. So every aspect that you put into your scientific
rationale remains incomplete. Or do you believe science has reached its pinnacle and can now explain each and every aspect
of this universe from stellar to the sub atomic level and everything in between through rational thought?

Muhammad PBUH came 1400 years ago. Preached his philosophy, convinced people at the time and left the message, or
whatever you may term it. Today the number of Muslims stands at 1.4billion. Now the onus is on you to prove, in clear terms
mind you, that whatever these 1.4billion believe in are a pack of lies for the last 1400 years, and that you offer a different
rationale to what so far has been preached in Islam. Probably a good starting point is to show your vastness of rationalizing
everything from the stellar to the sub atomic and everything in between. After all, if every argument put against you is a fallacy
you must have the vastness of rational thinking in capturing what is true at all levels. Let me make this a little easier, say for
example I am ready to accept your replacement-of-Islam ideology. What do you propose I replace it with? Remember, I am now
someone right in the middle of a major confusion and require your proving guidance towards a replacement ideology. Take it
away, Sina.

Ali Sina Wrote:

There are also many ahadith that portray Muhammad as a thug, a thief, a rapist, a mass murderer, an assassin, a pedophile,
etc. What is the verdict on these kinds of ahadith? The answer is that they are most likely true. Why? It is because although it
is expected for believers to attribute false stories to their prophet claiming miracles for him, it is unlikely that they will lie
collectively to make their beloved prophet look like a villain.  Furthermore, the stories of Muhammad’s dastardly crimes come
to us from chains of narrators, at times belonging to antagonistic schools of thoughts, and yet they corroborate one another.  
The differences between them are in details, which is understandable because memories fail. However, just because there are
several version of a story, we cannot dismiss all the ahadith because they differ in details.

My Response:

When you say that such hadith as regards the negative character, as perceived by your “logical”, fault finding mind, of the
Holy Prophet PBUH, are most likely true, is there a certain probability that you are attaching to them as being true? If so, what
is this probability? If you have gauged the truth/lies of such hadith, does it mean you are well versed in the science and
interpretation of hadith? Do you know how to validate and invalidate hadith based on commonly accepted principles of
antagonistic schools of thought? After all, you did say they can be looked at critically and accepted after analysis. What is this
analysis process to which you will put such hadith? Please quote examples from any book of hadith and pray tell the readers
how you validated and authenticated such hadith prior to accepting/rejecting them? I am now questioning your logic and
aptitude in the science of hadith, if any.

Ali Sina Wrote:

For example, there are several versions of the massacre of the Bani Quraiza. The numbers of people slaughtered, vary from
600 to 900. This discrepancy is understandable.  Memories fail in details.  However, it is irrational to say that because of this
discrepancy we cannot be sure whether such a massacre ever happened.  No one can prove with certainty how many people
Saddam Hussein killed. Does this mean that he was innocent of all the charges of genocide?  

My Response:

I beg to differ regarding your comment on the campaign against the Banu Qurayza. Let us all for once stop blindsiding the
readers on this website. You make the Banu Qurayza look like the poor Kurds in northern Iraq who did not incite Saddam nor
declare war on him. They were just going on with their daily chores and Saddam over took them with his chemicals. Yes that is
mass genocide, but the Banu Qurayza, on the other hand, were not sitting pretty and waiting for genocide to happen. They
incited war and they got what war gives. Pick up a book of history and read carefully word to word and then we discuss as
regards the Banu Qurayza. Is there any reference you can mention that directly points to the campaign against Banu Qurayza
as being genocide in no uncertain terms? I do not want your interpretation of indirect hadith. Such interpretations can be
easily misconstrued as MISinterpretations, and we would not want that for Mr Sina here, would we? I am asking for a direct
reference, either Quran or hadith, pointing to the campaign being genocide and that Muhammad PBUH committed a wrong act
in the campaign. Desist from throwing comments that are not well informed. I am sure you have been advised that often by
many a debater and probably also others on different forums. Tell you what; let us catch that part later ok. For now, I am sure
we can keep to the Quran alone for now and we shall discuss your peacefully grazing Banu Qurayza later in this debate.

Ali Sina Wrote:

Books written by humans can contain errors. These errors do not invalidate everything those books say.  However, if a book
claimed to be the verbatim word of God contains one single error that claim becomes refuted. Therefore, even though we
know that the books of ahadith contain many false hadiths, we must not dismiss them, but rather try to separate the false ones
from the authentic ones, which is not that difficult. The books of ahadith are biographies of Muhammad. They are not holy
books but books of history. We must refer to them if we want to learn about the historic Muhammad. There is no other source
to learn about him.  On the other hand, the Quran must be discarded as a divine book, because a divine book should not
have even one error. There are hundreds of errors in the Quran. This is a huge flaw in Muslim thinking. Hundreds of errors do
not invalidate the books of hadith as sources of history, but a single error in the Quran invalidates it as a divine book.

My Response:

I have posed a question to you regarding the validation/invalidation of Quran, on assumption that Muhammad PBUH, a fallible
human, did author it, just like hadith writers, and other books humans write.  I await your answer and stance on this. This, once
again is not a question of the divinity of Quran, but based on your assertion, that a human, Muhammad PBUH, authored it. As
regards divinity, that is a far fetched debate with one who does not even believe in Allah SWT as God. So we will come to that
later. For now let us validate/invalidate the Quran, assuming as you assert that it was work of a human, just like other works of
humans.  

At the same time, I have also noted that your website contains pictures of disturbing nature and you call them “This is Islam”.
As a facet to our argument, I assure you, Mr Sina, I shall not Google for a picture of a white collobus monkey, and say this is a
Canadian, in a manner, depicting evolution. Or probably surf for a picture of Hitler, Mussolini or Stalin and say this is a typical
European. Or bring a picture of Idi Amin, Mobutu Seseko, Jean Bedel Bokassa or Robert Mugabe and say “This is Africa ”.
That would be childish over generalisation of facts that are only characteristic of a certain individual or group of people within
certain time bound, geopolitical environ and not a synonym to ideals of a total mass of people under a particular country,
continent, race or religion, in an epoch, for that matter. We can find such negative elements in any socio-cultural, geopolitical,
religious setting and they are never representative of the whole mass. In all fairness, no one with even a speck of scholarly
aptitude, as you profess, would make such sweeping generalisations on a mass of people and ideals, after observing the acts
of a few negative elements existent within a people under diverse socio-geopolitical backdrop. Hence generalising Islam on
characters such as Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein is prejudiced and iniquitous, at the very least.

Ali Sina Wrote:

If all the apples on a tree are good and only one or a few are bad, it is unfair to say the tree is bad. However, if you see that
the tree produces nothing but bad apples, year in year out, then it is fair to say that the problem is with the tree.   
Bad people exist in all religions. Nonetheless they are often the exceptions and they are bad because they do not follow the
good teachings of their religion. In Islam bad people are the majority. According to Sheikh Palazzi, 90% of the mosques preach
hate. He is being conservative. Tell me which mosque does not preach hate. Sheikh Palazzi himself was full of hate and rage
when I cordially invited him for an interview. I actually thought since he does not hate the Jews, he may also not hate the
apostates. I was wrong. In another email that he sent to a friend, he showered me with the most venomous vituperations.
However, let us be conservative and say only 90% of the mosques preach hate. This means that 90% of Muslims who go to
the mosques and listen to the sermons are exposed to hate. Some of them may take those sermons to heart, become full of
hate and eventually terrorists.   

My Response:

That is a false analogy Sina. There is no parity between Islam and your tree of apples. Who is Sheikh Palazzi, Sina? A
personal friend of yours? I don’t remember that name in the Quran, do you? I know that he may have been one of your
opponents in a debate. Let us stick to the subject matter. Whatever he preaches, love, hate, frogs falling from the sky, that is
his prerogative, those are his views. Do not generalize him as the face of Islam which you normally tend to do nor are his
comments representative of mine. As you did With Saddam and Bin Laden and obstinately oppose the fact that they both
stand as political figures in their own niche. Hate them or love them, they have no connection to Islam whatsoever. Please do
get that clearly and do not use their lives and work as colour to pour on the portrait of Islam.  We will put Palazzi aside for a
while as we go on. Quran only, Sina. Digression is a vanity seldom entertained in theme bound debates, kind sir. As regards
you equating 90% of mosques preaching hate and 90% of Muslims being exposed to hate sermons. That is rather crude
statistics. If 90% of mosques preach hate and we assume 90% of Muslims were present in such sermons, assuming further
that 90% hear the sermon, after all there are some who will not listen to the sermon, and further assuming 90% understood
the sermon, with a topping assumption that 90% implemented the preaching of sermon, of which 90% of this implementation
was active, Sina. The final figure of Muslims directly falling in your highly exaggerated category of terrorist is 53% give and
take a percentage here and there. That means you say at the very least, 53% of Muslims are terrorists. This is an intellectual
forum; let us indulge ourselves in accurate figures even though they maybe based on crude assumptions. Another crude and
inaccurate generalization. Typical Sina-like.

Ali Sina Wrote:

Not all Muslims are hate mongers. However, it is fair to say that most of those who take their religion seriously are. There are
also wonderful and peaceful Muslims; nonetheless you would have a hard time finding them in a mosque. If you want to find
good people among Muslims, look among the non-practicing non-believing members.  Muslims are most dangerous when they
come out of the mosques and after they listen to the fiery sermons of their mullahs. It does not take a genius to see the
problem is Islam. The more Muslims believe in Islam and practice it the more barbaric and dangerous they become. If some
Muslims are not bad people, it is because they are not good Muslims. And let us cut the PC crap and be honest. It is not true
that the majority of Muslims are good people. The majority of them are actually bad people. How can we deny the effect of
1400 years of indoctrination of sheer evil on Muslims and their culture?

My Response:

Muslims are bad as they preach hate just like their prophet did. Now Sina, let me ask a silly question. From your venomous
vituperations against practicing Muslims, Quran, Islam and Muhammad PBUH and your inciting of readers to launch a massive
campaigns to stop the expansion of Islam, however far fetched that may seem, I wonder, what is the difference between you
and such hateful Muslims? Practicing Muslims hate you and you hate practicing Muslims, assuming the means of showing this
hate is standard, how does that put you head and shoulders above the rest? Do you think for once that your insinuations and
accusations, hateful remarks and crude invective annotations would deter a Muslim form practicing or Islam from expanding
considerably? If anything, don’t you think that you are actually endangering the innocent non-Muslims who maybe caught up
as innocent bystanders in a personal war that you seem to have initiated in your effort to retard the growth of Islam or to
demean its message? I am not only asking you this; I am asking the readers to think for once as free human beings. Not to say
that your insinuations cannot and will not be answered scholarly, of course they will, by all means they will, but as a general
question. What opposite ideology or dictum does Sina give towards Muslims apart from the same hate that Muslims, Islam,
Quran and Muhammad PBUH, allegedly give towards the likes of him? Over to you Sina. This is an important question Sina.
You do realize the repercussions. Anyone wanting to prove that his “rational” stance/ideology is better than that of a “lunatic”
has to offer something different to those reading/listening. Are you offering us the God of Jews, or the God of Christians, or
maybe the God of Zoroastrians, Hindus perhaps, or probably something entirely different? Give us your motto, kind sir.

As you advocate for objective and not subjective dialogue, such generalized references to a group of people is typical of
subjection and not objectivity. The acts depicted therein are not necessarily representative of Islam. Islam, as per my initial
request, is a set of ideals elaborated in the Holy Qur’an. Any deviation from the Remembrance, may it be on an individual or
group level, is not Islam and not part of our debate. I cannot defend what my own brother does, if it does not conform to set
moral standards and his actions will never be illustrative of me, my family or set ideals and moral standards. The apple, Mr.
Sina, does fall far from the tree some times. You exemplify that, in a manner of speaking, as regards your background. You
were a Muslim once were u not? Our argumentative yard stick is the Holy Qur’an and its ideals.

Ali Sina Wrote:

I think we both agree that the focus of our discussion should be on the Quran. You believe that those bad Muslims are those
who fall from the tree of Islam while I am here to prove that those bad Muslims are bad because they take the Quran seriously.

My Response:

If we both agree, let us stick to the same then. Why digress and create a storm in a tea cup over issues that initially had no
bearing on my debate with you, which was the Quran before you took on issues of hadith being acceptable critically, the
peacefully grazing Banu Qurayza and unknown Sheikh Palazzi. It was the Quran was it not?

According to you, it does not take a genius to see the problem in Islam. Would it take a genius to see your mode of
interpretation of the Holy Quran? Its time I showed it out clearly how you have interpreted the holy Book, and I will not quote
any Sheikh Palazzi or a fiery mullah. This is not to say your words are any less fiery and derogatory but let’s move on.

The following verses have been quoted by you as teachings of Islam on the Unbelievers.

(Al Baqarah) 2:191 …………And slay them wherever ye catch them

Now Mr Sina, we do have a problem, don’t we? But as you so aptly said, let the readers decide. I would like to quote you (Mr
Sina) from your debates with Mr Ghamidi & Mr Zaheer:

Sina: “Many Muslims happily live by this dictum” (Debate with Ghamidi & Zaheer pp17). Possible interpretation:
What does this sound like, Sina? What does this imply? You indicate clearly Muslims are a happy lot, probably due to their
faith. This promotes them both socially and financially. So everyone should embrace Islam as it promises happiness. This is, in
brief, how your single statement can be interpreted from that debate. It means that you have in very discrete terms very easily
exonerated Islam and Muslims of their alleged crimes in the debate and in no uncertain terms accepted that there is a general
dictum that Muslims live happily by and that dictum can only be the ideals of Islam. So the only thing remaining for you to do
now is “I stand corrected on Islam. I accept Islam as the true religion. Allahu Akbar”. The preceding words are yours as
well. Can you deny that Sina? Can you deny that both the sentences in quote marks are not yours, in verbatim?

Let me quote another Sina admission: “You could be a murderer, a rapist, a thief, a pedophile, etc. you will be still
forgiven if you just accept me as the prophet of God.” (Debate with Ghamidi & Zaheer pp17).

Possible interpretation: Sina, here, is promising people exoneration from all crimes if we accept him (Sina) as a prophet of
God. So, all you criminals out there looking for reprieve from the long arm of the law, try believing in Sina and maybe, the state
will let you go Scott free. Sina, is promising to shelter all criminals! So basically, it implies quite clearly that your whole sojourn
through this website since its inception and the history you have given the readers in various debates along with your
debasement of Islam, the Holy Quran and especially Prophet Muhammad PBUH, all your articles, debates and posts on the
website and of course your challenge, were all a façade to inculcate yourself as a Prophet of the people probably for a new
religion by dethroning Prophet Muhammad PBUH from his divinely appointed position. In fact, Sina, there is also an admission
from you in the same sentence that there is God “….if you just accept me as the prophet of God.” This is a possible
interpretation among many others such as this one.

I can go on and on, in regards to the number of such admissions and their possible interpretations you have made in your
several debates where in discrete but no uncertain terms you have acceded as to the existence of God, your declaration that
Muslims are a happy lot living by the dictum of ideals of Islam and that you, through your efforts of debasing the Prophet
Muhammad PBUH and instilling the belief of exoneration of people with sin and crime only if they accepted you as a Prophet of
God. This is the same dictum you have lived by all this time. Sina, those who live by the sword, shall die by the sword. Before
even attempting to enumerate your so called errors from the Quran, think of yourself as being the fallible human, and what
can be done to your writing by the Creator’s creature let alone the creator. Believe you me, it would be very easy to interpret
your statements to suit any persons end just like you have done with the Quran. Is it not possible to do that, Sina?

Am I wrong, Sina? Oh, I dint read in context, did I? I thought such arguments you already had covered as long as they
emanated from your opponent.

Now let me give you the paragraph itself, “And I thought the purpose of God in sending prophets was to teach people
how to live righteously and not to sin. How silly of me! Now I know that all that we must do to go to paradise is to
have a little faith in Muhammad. Our conduct is not that important. Actually, many Muslims happily live by this
dictum. They commit all sorts of perversities and sins and yet they have strong faith in Islam and Muhammad to
the extent that they would happily slit the throat of anyone who slights Islam. That is the extent of their religiosity.

Have you noted the difference in implications? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know what this ONE sentence out of the
paragraph implies.

Now the other paragraph.
Sina: “The absurdity of this tale is beyond description. What Muhammad is trying to say is that it really does not
matter how much crime you commit, the Heaven is a hanky panky place and if you just believe in me and become
my follower, I will pull some strings with Allah and rescue you from the Hellfire. Your actions are secondary. You
could be a murderer, a rapist, a thief, a pedophile, etc. you will be still forgiven if you just accept me as the prophet of
God. Just have an itsy bitsy blind faith in me and I will save you from Fire”.

It sounds sick doesn’t it Sina. Being quoted out of context and to add to that interpreted in totally opposite manner to what you
actually meant. You do the same as regards the Quranic injunctions. Now, the implicative difference is massive, isn’t it? One
sentence removed out of its paragraph could imply a hell lot of things and completely opposite when put back in its paragraph.
I would like to settle the nerves of readers and members of FFI that Mr. Sina still remains a staunch atheist and “scholarly”
opponent of Islam, Quran and the Holy Prophet PBUH. But “those who live by the sword shall die by the sword”. I am sure I
read that somewhere.  

This is similar to taking an eye out of the Mona Lisa painting and then telling you this is the worst art work ever done. Only to
realize once the painting is whole and the eye back in place, how dim-witted the comment was as Mona Lisa was one of Da
Vinci greatest works, even though unfinished. Not in the least bit “scholarly”, is it?

These are just examples of paragraphs and I would not like to delve into them per se. I have used them as mere illustrations
as they were meant for a particular debate in response to an explicit comment made by a specific Sina opponent.

Such single paragraph-plucked single sentence implication makes one look quite “disrobed” doesn’t it, Mr Sina? But this is the
same indulgence you have enjoyed and using currently to push your rather iniquitous point against Islam and Quran, without
the proper knowledge or guidance one requires. As scholars there are several issues to be taken into consideration prior to
ensuring a hypothesis is carried as a conclusion in any research work. I do not know how much of that protocol you
understand but before making lewd judgments about any person, Muslim or otherwise, getting ones’ facts in order and
thoroughly researched from all possible angles before drawing conclusions.

Now kindly allow me to go back to verses of the Holy Quran that have been handpicked by you, Mr Sina. I will expound on just
a few, for brevity, and of course, the rest I shall leave to the readers.

Quran 2: 190-195
And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you and do not exceed the limits. Verily, Allah loves not those who
exceed the limit. (190) And kill them wherever you find them and drive them out from whence they drove you out; and mischief
(disbelief) is more grievous than slaughter; and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you therein;
but if they do fight you than slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. (191) But if they desist, then verily Allah is
forgiving, Merciful. (192) And fight with them until there is no (more) mischief (disbelief), and religion be only for Allah; but if
they desist then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors. (193) The sacred month for the sacred month and
reprisal (is lawful) in all sacred things; whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict the like aggression on him as he has
inflicted on you; and fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil). (194) And spend in the way of Allah
and cast not yourselves into perdition with your own hands; and do good; verily Allah loves those who do good. (195)

The context of the verses shows that they were revealed together. The whole talk has only one aim:  permission, for
the first time, of fighting with the polytheists of Mecca. These verses refer to driving them out from whence they drove the
believers out, to disbelief and to reprisal; they prohibit fighting with them at the Sacred Mosque unless they fight the believers
in it. All these matters were connected with the polytheists of Mecca. Also, the sentence: fight in the way of Allah with those
who fight with you, deserves more attention. It is not a condition, i.e., it does not mean, "fight with them if they fight with you".
Nor is it a restrictive clause (as some people think) meaning, "fight with the men, and not with their women and children who
are not in a position to fight with you", because nobody "fights" with those who are unable to fight back. Had it been the aim of
the sentence, it would have been proper to say "do not kill them". Therefore, the words those who fight with you only refer to a
fact fight those who are presently engaged in fighting against you. And it points to the polytheists of Mecca.

These five verses together promulgate a single law covering all its limits and details. And fight in the way of Allah is
the basic law; and do not exceed the limit puts disciplinary restriction on it; And kill them wherever you find them defines the
limits of pressure; and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you therein puts a restriction according
to the place; and fight with them until there is no more mischief (dis¬belief) shows its duration; The sacred month for the
sacred month, and reprisal (is lawful) in all sacred things explains that this legislation is based on the principle of
retaliation in fighting and killing, it is paying them in their own coin; And spend in the way of Allah makes the believers
responsible for the financial preparations for war: they must spend for their own preparation and for that of others. Therefore,
it seems that all the five verses were sent down together about one subject. It is wrong to say (as some have done) that some
of these verses abrogate the others; or that they were revealed separately on different occasions. In fact, the aim of all these
verses is one: permission to fight against the polytheists of Mecca who were fighting the believers.

I ask you Sina, in all your scholarly aptitude that you profess to have, do you not also fight against one who fights you. Do you
not also pay someone in his/their own coin? In fact you pay in more than your opponents’ coins. Then when you have nothing
more to pay you send them to your forum. Why then keep on contradicting yourself in manner that would create doubt as to
your aptitude. I would like to quote you again, from the same debate Ghamidi & Zaheer pp63 “I do not believe in overkill
nor do I consider it scholarly. My objective is to clear the misconceptions and not to rob (rub) the nose of my
opponents to the ground. I get no pleasure in doing that, unless my opponent has been overtly obnoxious and
arrogant. Then humiliating him publicly is therapeutic for his inflated ego.”

And again you contradict yourself with such a paragraph from our debate seemingly a threat to deter me from my objective “I
will disrobe you from all the lies leaving you bare naked in the public. You don’t want that kind of
embarrassment.  Just be rational and logical but do not try to win the day with lies.  It just won’t work with me”
Quite Sina-like isn’t it? Write & contradict in alternate fashion. Sina disrobing me is a scary proposition.

Allah finished this talk on "doing good", and said: and do good; verily Allah loves the doers of good. Doing good does
not mean desisting from fighting, or clemency in killing the enemies of the religion etc. It means doing a wok in its proper way:
Fight when fighting is required; restrain yourselves when restraint is preferred; be strict where strictness is demanded by
reason, and forgive where forgiveness will not embolden the enemy. In short, repulsing the oppressor by the most reasonable
means is to do good for humanity, because this repulsion guarantees humanity its due right, and defends the religion which
would improve man's condition in both worlds.

After all this, Mr. Sina, what asininity has the Holy Quran implied in this verse by asking believers to fight in retaliation with
those who fight them? If you also believe and practice the same, and of course every self respecting person would too, why
hold the Quran responsible for misquoted and misinterpreted asininity, which in general life is actually a noble act? I beg your
pardon, Mr. Sina, for misquoting you. But it was necessary to prove a point I felt which could only be done so by repayment in
ones own coins.

Strangely enough Sina, Sura Al Kafirun, the chapter revealed to the disbelievers is very sober by your standards in
comparison to the verses quoted by you. You have purposely not quoted this chapter because of the translation as follows:
109-1-6

In the Name of Allah, the Beneficient, the Merciful.

Say “oh you unbelievers. I do not worship what you worship. Nor do you worship what I worship. Nor will I ever worship what
you worship. Nor will you ever worship what I worship. To you is your religion, to me is my religion.”

It is very logical that if Allah SWT wanted Islam to be a religion of violence against unbelievers, and imply what you want it to
imply Sina, He would have very easily asked for unbelievers’ heads on a platter in the above Sura and this would have been
duly done with no remorse. How come there is no quote of such verses in any Sina debate? Pick what you feel can be
interpreted in your liking to suit your ends and leave the rest that are probably of threatening nature to your “objective”. Is
there any verse here that will be interpreted to suit your end of showing Islamic violence against unbelievers? If it was to be as
the way you imply as regards violence towards the unbelievers, this would have been the best chapter where Allah SWT would
have quoted it in no uncertain terms. But Alas! This chapter goes unmentioned by Sina. Why? It cannot be adulterated even
by the slightest misinterpretation by whoever intending to create mischief. Whoever practices unprovoked violence in
Islam is a sinner and killing an innocent human being, believer or unbeliever, in Islam is equal to killing the
whole of humanity. This is Islam. It’s quite logical isn’t it? If you want anything to do on Algebra in Mathematics, you will find
it in the chapter of Algebra. However, some touches of algebra can be found in other chapters. This is for those who have
heard school bells before, sir. So if you want to hear Islam’s summary stance on Kafirun (unbelievers) refer to Sura Al Kafirun,
with a few touches in other chapters on how to treat them in various circumstances e.g. war, worship, under Islamic rule etc.

Further, Mr Sina, I shall not defend any of your opponents in your debates as their flow of thought will not match mine in any
circumstance. I will, however, make use of your chronology of arguments wherever you may have mentioned them in your
debates with your opponents.
However, I will request you to be patient with my slowness in argumentation as I am a protracted reader and drowned to my
neck with my PhD thesis. I am not a Muslim scholar per se but I am confident my arguments would be more concrete than the
ones I have read on your website. I reiterate, as a scholar, I shall maintain decorum and prudence in writing not to hit below
the belt as I have seen many of your debates akin to the same. As scholars, we maintain simplicity in arguments as a show of
intelligence and respect. I consider you as my adversary, not my enemy and I would like to think that I can be rest assured of
the same, as regards to you.

Ali Sina Wrote:

As for your confidence in having all the answers, I am afraid it stems from your unduly placed faith in a bankrupt ideology. Of
course for one who is convinced that Islam is from God, it is hard to accept that Islam has no answers. You assume the reason
Muslim scholars have failed to disprove me is because they did not have enough knowledge. That is a wrong assumption. You
too will fail, not because you are not a skilful debater but because you have embarked on an impossible mission. Islam is a lie.
How can you prove a lie? You may be able to misguide gullible people who don’t know anything about Islam and with lies
portray for them a deceptive picture of Islam. This is a trick you can’t play on us. There have been a few westerners who have
been fooled in believing that Islam is peaceful, beautiful, sweet and gentle, etc. Most of them eventually see the truth and
leave Islam to become its staunch critics. However, you have zero chance of fool us with lies. So I strongly advise you not to
even try. You would be shooting yourself in the foot.  I will disrobe you from all the lies leaving you bare naked in the public.
You don’t want that kind of embarrassment.  Just be rational and logical but do not try to win the day with lies.  It just won’t
work with me.

My Response:

You have declared war Sina, haven’t you? On Islam, Quran, Muhammad PBUH, practicing Muslims, the works. Hate for hate
Sina. That’s your philosophy and theme. I don’t see anything different that you’re offering from what you allege Islam has to
offer. In principle you equate your dictum to that of your alleged enemy, Islam. From where I stand, the only problem is, you
are starting 1400 years and 1.4 billion converts too late. And Muhammad PBUH did not even have the internet. So much for
me embarking on an impossible mission and shooting myself in my own foot. You asked Ghamidi & Zaheer to overlook your
incivility in argument, yet you persist with spitting it out unabated. Oh dear Sina. Not very clever is it. War for war; hate for
hate, but please over look my weapons, even if they do hurt. Quite Sina-like, I must say.

Mr Sina, if I do sense a trend of argumentation based on obstinacy and deliberate disregard to logic and explanations given, I
will consider the debate void of any purposeful continuance. Both of us should be expected to accept where a point has been
made or argued out well. It’s part of being a scholar to know where one has gone wrong and correct the error to mould into a
better person, more knowledgeable and wiser.

Ali Sina Wrote:

I am not obstinate. My debates are published for everyone to see. If you have objective proof to back your claim I will accept
it.  Just do not expect me to bow down to any absurdity because you repeat it ad nauseam or you believe it fervently.  We both
make our points and move on. Our readers will be the jury.  I do not expect you to agree with what I say and you shouldn't
either.  Let the public decide.  My objective is not to mold you.  Your life is yours and it is up to you to decide whether you want
to become a better person or not.  My objective is to expose the fallacy of Islam.  I suggest you also relinquish the thought of
molding me.  Your job is to defend Islam and prove me wrong in the arena of public opinion.  Whether I accept your arguments
or not, should not be of your concern.  Your objective is to convince our readers that Islam is true.  

My Response:

Great. So none of us is going to mold the other. Fantastic. Now hold that thought as we go on. None of is playing guardian
angel for the other, as asserted and confirmed by yourself. Agreed.

I shall start straight away with your recommended debate with Mr Ghamidi & Mr Zaheer and we shall embark on chronology in
staggering our arguments. As was your approach, I begin with intercession.

Volume 1: Surah Baqarah, Verses 47-48
O Children of Israel ! call to mind My favor which I bestowed on you and that I made you excel the nation (47). And be on your
guard against the day when one soul shall not avail another in the least; neither shall intercession on its behalf be accepted,
nor shall any compensation be taken from it, nor shall they be helped (48). And be on your guard against the day when one
soul shall not avail another in the least:

The temporal power and authority, with all its various systems and varying conditions, is based on a necessity of life - the only
justification of this institution is that it fulfils this need in the framework of the prevailing factors of the society. It some times
exchanges a commodity for another, gives up a benefit for another, substitutes an order with another - without any hard and
fast criterion to regulate- such dispensations. The same phenomenon is observed in their judiciary. Logically, a crime must be
recompensed with punishment. Yet some times the judge, because of some extraneous reasons, decides not to punish the
criminal. Some times the criminal rouses in the judge an overwhelming feeling of pity by his passionate appeal for mercy. Or
he wins him over by bribe which induces him to deliver an unjust judgment. Or an influential man intercedes with the judge on
behalf of the said criminal and the judge cannot ignore that intercession. Or, the said criminal becomes a state witness leading
to the conviction of even greater criminals, and is himself, thus, released without any punishment. Or his tribe or colleagues
get him freed from the clutches of the authorities. Whatever the cause may be, it is a well-established custom in the worldly
governments and human societies to let the wrong-doers go free at times.

The ancient tribes and the idol-worshippers believed that the life hereafter was an extension of this one; that the customs of
this world were valid for that one too, and that the next world was permeated by the same actions and reactions which
prevailed in this one. Thus they offered sacrifices and offerings to their deities seeking forgiveness for their sins or assistance
in their needs; the offerings were supposed to intercede on their behalf. Some times a sin was expiated or help was sought by
offering even a human sacrifice. They carried this idea of continuation of the life so far as to bury with a man all types of
necessities of life, not forgetting his ornaments and arms, in order that he might use them on his onward journey; some times
even his concubines and soldiers were buried alive with him to keep him company. You may see a lot of such finds in
archaeological museums around the world. Some such ideas have persisted even among the Muslims - with all their diverse
cultures and languages, albeit in modified forms.

The Qur'an has rejected all such superstitious beliefs and baseless ideas in no uncertain terms:

. . . and the command on that day shall be entirely Allah's (82:19).

. . . and they see the chastisement and their ties are cut asunder (2:166).

And certainly you have come to Us alone as We created you at first, and you have left behind your backs the things which We
gave you, and We do not see with you your intercessors about whom you asserted that they were (Allah's) associates in
respect to you; certainly the ties between you are now cut off and what you asserted is gone from you (6:94).

There shall every soul become acquainted with what is sent before, and they shall be brought back to Allah, their true Master
and what they did fabricate shall escape from them (10:30).

There are many similar verses; and they show that the life hereafter is cut off from the natural causes which govern this life,
and is quite separate from material connections. Once this principle is understood all the above-mentioned myths would
automatically be cleared away. But the Qur'an is not content with this general declaration; it refutes each and every myth and
superstition described above:

And be on your guard against the day when one soul shall not avail another in the least; - neither shall intercession on its
behalf be accepted, nor shall any compensation be taken from it, nor shall they be helped (12:4

. . . . before the day comes in which there is no bargaining, neither any friendship nor intercession (2:254)

The day on which a friend shall not avail (his) friend aught . . . (44:41).

. . . there shall be no savior for you from Allah . . . (40:33).

What is the matter with you that you do not help each other? Nay! On this day they are submissive (37:25 - 26).

And they worship beside Allah what can neither harm them nor profit them, and they say: "These are our intercessors with
Allah. " Say: "Do you (presume to) inform Allah of what He knows not in the heavens and the earth?" Glory be to Him, and
supremely exalted is He above what they set up with Him. (10: 1.

. . . the unjust shall not have any friend nor any intercessors who should be obeyed (40:1.

So we have no intercessors, nor a true-friend (26:100-101).

There are many other verses of the same theme, all rejecting the intercession on the Day of Resurrection.

On the other hand, the Qur'an does not totally reject the intercession; rather it confirms it to a certain extent. For example, it
says:

Allah is He Who created the heavens and the earth and what is between them in six periods and He is firmly established on
the throne; you have not besides Him any guardian or any intercessors; will you not then mind? (32:4)

. . . there is no guardian for them, nor any intercessor besides Him (6:51).

Say: Allah's is the intercession altogether" (39:44).

. . . whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His; who is he that can intercede with Him but by His permission?
He knows what is before them and what is behind them (2:255).

Surely your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six periods; and He is firmly established on the throne;
regulating the affair; there is no intercessor except after His permission (10: 3).

And they say,- "The Beneficent God had taken to Himself a son. “Glory be to Him! Nay! They are honored servants; they do
not precede Him in speech and (only) according to His commandment do they act. He knows what is before them and what is
behind them, and they do not intercede except for whom He approves, and for fear of Him they tremble (21:26 - 2.

And those whom they call upon besides Him have no authority for intercession, but he who bears witness of the truth, and they
know (him) (43:86).

They shall have no authority for intercession, save he who has made a covenant with the Beneficent God (19:87).

On that day shall no intercession avail except of him whom the Beneficent God allows and whose word He is pleased with. He
knows what is before them and what is behind them, while they do not comprehend Him in knowledge And intercession will not
avail aught with Him save of him whom He permits (34:23).

And how many an angel is there in the heavens whose intercession does not avail at all except after Allah has given
permission to whom He pleases and chooses (53: 26).

Some of these verses (like the first three) say that intercession is reserved for Allah, while the rest declare that others too may
intercede with Allah's permission. In any case, all of them confirm the intercession per se. How are these verses related to the
preceding ones which totally reject intercession? It is exactly the same relation that exists between the verses that say that the
knowledge of unseen is reserved to Allah and those which declare that others too may have that knowledge with the
permission of Allah. As Allah says:
Say:

"No one in the heaven and the earth knows the unseen but Allah" (27:65).

And with Him are the keys of the unseen, does not know it any except He (6:59).

The Knower of the unseen! So He does not reveal His secrets to any, except to him whom He chooses of an apostle (72:27).

The same is the case with various verses on the subjects of creating, sustaining, giving death, causality, command, authority
and similar effects. Some verses reserve them for Allah, while some say that others too may do these things. It is a well-known
style of the Qur'an: first it rejects the idea that anyone other than Allah has any virtue or perfection; thereafter it confirms the
same virtue or perfection for others depending on the permission and pleasure of Allah. When read together, the verses show
that nobody has any virtue by his own power and right; whatever excellence there may be, he has got it because Allah has
given it to him. Allah puts much emphasis to this fact; He attaches the proviso of His will even for those things which are firmly
decreed by Him. For example:

So as to those who are unhappy, they shall be in the fire; for them shall be sighing and groaning in it; abiding therein so long
as the heavens and the earth endure, except as your Lord please; surely your Lord is the (mighty) doer of what He intends.
And as to those who are made happy, they shall be in the garden, abiding in it as long as the heavens and the earth endure,
except as your Lord please; a gift which shall never be cut off (11:106 -108).

Note that abiding for ever is made dependent on the pleasure of Allah, even in case of the garden; although it is a gift which
shall never be cut off. It emphasizes the fact that even when Allah firmly decrees a thing, it does not pass out of His control or
authority;

"Surely your Lord is (mighty) doer of what He intends" (11:107). When Allah SWT gives a thing, it does not go out of His total
possession. When He denies some thing to someone, it is not done to protect Himself against any need or poverty! I feel that
the alleged contradictions that you have emanate from the misconception or the “thinking within the box” element that one
gets used to with regards to human observations and one tends to create a similitude between human abilities to that of Allah
SWT. There is never a comparison between the Creator and the created, Mr Sina. If in essence, you want to logically
understand the created, one has to start thinking out of the box regarding the Creator. Of course, the Creator being superior
to the created will have unique qualities, not otherwise found in the created. Attributing qualities of the created to the Creator
would be rather imprudent at the very least.

In short, the verses that reject intercession - albeit talking about the Day of Resurrection - do so in the context of intercession
independent of Allah's authority; while the ones proving it, prove it basically for Allah and then, depending on His pleasure, for
others.

Thus the intercession is proved for other than Allah with His permission. Hence, Mr Sina, it is clear that intercession per se is
the prerogative, solely of Allah SWT and He is the One to choose who shall be interceded for and who shall intercede. He is
clear in His statement that there shall be a chosen few who shall have the privilege of intercession, either as intercessors or
those to be interceded for. After all, the Lord Almighty, is Master of His will and His will shall be carried out, ….qun fa ya qun.

Ali Sina Wrote:

Is this your proof? You did not say anything new.  You rehashed the problem and stated that one has to think out of the box to
understand it.  Then you appealed to other contradictions in the Quran as evidence and concluded that since similar
contradictions exist, this contradiction is not a contradiction.   

I fail to see your logic. Thinking out of the box does not mean thinking out of the limits of logic. Logic has a framework that you
have to adhere to or your conclusions would be illogical.  You quoted all the verses that talk about intercession.  In some
verses it says no intercession will be accepted.  In other verses it says some intercessions will be accepted.  So there is a
contradiction.  What is your solution to this problem? You say we should think out of the box.  To think out of the box means to
be creative, imaginative, inventive, etc.  This is a way to find new solutions to old problems. It is not a way to differentiate truth
from falsehood.  You can convince yourself of any absurdity by “thinking out of the box” and stepping out of the confines of
logic.     

This is the problem with believers. They go to extra lengths to make sense out of the senseless and give esoteric meanings to
the meaningless. When presented with absurdities, they become imaginative.  That is not how you find the truth.  The right
approach is to stay within the framework of rationality and reject anything that does not fit in that framework.  Thinking out of
the box when you have to determine the truth or falsehood of a statement is the wrong use of your creativity.  These verses
contradict each other.  Let us say I repeatedly claim that I am the only editor of this site.  Then in other places I announce that
other people have been given the right to edit.  Aren't these two statements contradictory?  How can I be the only editor when I
have already authorized others to edit?  This contradiction is elemental.  If you barter a little bit of your faith with rational
thinking you too will be able to see that Muhammad has goofed.

Furthermore, you did not even consider the logical fallacy of intercession.  A big part of my discussion with Mr. Ghamidi and
Dr. Zaheer was about the incongruity of the very notion of intercession.  You did not address this problem.

If intercession is possible, then we have a logical problem to solve. Doesn’t God know everything? What can possibly any
intercessor tell Him that He does not know already? The Quranic verses say that intercession would be allowed to those who
speak the truth. This makes no sense at all. Can anyone tell a lie to God when he already knows everything? Why does he
need the opinion of others when he knows best? What is the point in talking to God when he already knows what we are going
to say and we know that he knows what is in our heart? Isn't this an exercise in futility? Ghamidi/Zaheer debate pp26

My Response:

You call that an argument??? That’s not an argument. It’s a shame. Anyone with any logic whatsoever will know your
analogies are false. You are basically comparing the Creator to the created. This is your rational comparing an orange to
orange and making statements on an apple! How much of Islam, Allah, Quran or Muhammad did you know before you left it??
Very little, I must say. If you knew so little in the fold, how much do you think you will know out of it? This is where limited and
ever evolving “rational” thinking. Please stop thinking so rationally, you re dropping… as falas safileen. Has it ever occurred
to you that Allah SWT may have wanted to show the level of respect He has for the Prophet PBUH by showing that the prophet
is the one allowed to intercede. Not so much that Muhammad PBUH knew more than Allah SWT but an emphasis on the point
that this man, who you call a “lunatic”, is Rahmatul lil alameen. He will be allowed to intercede by the express and sole
permission of the Lord on the Day of Judgment. Oh come on Sina. An exercise in futility?? From your point of view probably
but not for those you allege who “have to show Him their butts 5 times a day for eternity”. Honestly, you do lack the most
minimum human decency. Is your thinking so petty and so literal that proverbial quotes are a difficulty for you to interpret?
While ironically you use proverbial phrases such as “paying one in his own coin” or “disrobing in public”. Just to clarify, you got
to be in public to disrobe in public, Sina. Allah SWT does not need the opinion of Muhammad PBUH, but as a show of respect
he will be allowed to intercede by the express permission of the Lord except for “Is he on whom the word of doom is fulfilled (to
be helped), and canst thou (O Muhammad) rescue him who is in the Fire?” (39:19). You are just attempting to complicate
simplicity. Now that is an exercise in futility, if there ever was one. (39:44) merely implies that it is by His express, sole
permission that Muhammad PBUH shall be allowed to intercede, that also on behalf of a chosen group of people “on whom
the word of doom is fulfilled”.  Hit me with all you got Sina. In me you shall find a truly steadfast opponent.

Ali Sina Wrote:

Then we have the verse (39:44) that affirms only Allah can intercede.  How does one intercede himself?  This does not make
sense at all.  Is seems that Allah has some sort of personality disorder. Will you please tell us why one would intercede
himself?  There is something logically wrong here.  God is saying, I am the only one who can beg myself to forgive people.  
Please stop thinking out of the box for heaven’s sake. This verse does not make sense.   

You say the Qur'an has rejected all superstitious beliefs and baseless ideas.  Isn’t the Quran itself superstition and baseless?  
There are countless superstitions, and each contradicts the other.  Islam is one of them.  The only way one can claim that
Islam is not superstition is to show that it is logical.  Where is the logic of Islam?  Isn’t the very notion of Resurrection a
baseless superstition?   The Day of Resurrection? Is there anything more ridiculous than this? Even the people of Mecca
laughed at Muhammad for this asinine claim. It's pathetic that 1400 years later an aspiring doctor should engage in such
talks.  

My Response:

Baseless statement. Make an allegation and provide proof that cannot be negated from mutually acceptable sources. The
people of Mecca may have laughed at Muhammad PBUH, but refer to the same sources of antagonistic schools of thought in
Islam and they will corroborate that the same people of Mecca referred to Muhammad as Al Sadiq (the truthful) and Al
Ameen (the trustworthy). You will refer or should I quote you references from “The History of Saracens”. You used the same
sources to provce your stance on the excess that you allege Muhammad PBUH to have committed and the same sources have
a common stance on the titles Muhammad PBUH was given by the people of Mecca. Check and check well.

Ali Sina Wrote:

When you want to find the truth of something you must be rational.  This is not the time to be imaginative or think out of the
box.  Your methodology is wrong.  Your approach is wrong.  That is why you come to wrong conclusions.  

My Response:

Aha, Sina, playing guardian angel now aren’t we? After we agreed that none of us were molding the other. Why continuously
put your foot in your own mouth, I don’t understand. Oh dear oh dear! Now Sina that is the problem with unbelievers.
Everything they try and prove as regards to the non-existence of God has to be within a specific, scientifically incomplete,
limited framework of a continually evolving reasoning ability. Your analogy of you being sole editor is a false analogy. While
you can be the editor of the site, once you claim that you’re the only one with editing rights, this claim cannot be taken back by
you. After all you are the created and limited to what you say and think. And that is a very small boundary wall, I might add.
You want to put an analogy to Allah’s claim, give me an analogy of something you give away in totality and still lay claim over
it? It just won’t fit into your small box, Sina. The Creator still lays claim on everything however firmly decreed by Himself as
given or not given. E.g. life, given to you, is not yours as such, when death claims it, it ceases to be yours. Just like you think
that I have the first objective to prove that Allah is God, in the same manner, let us leave day of Resurrection and intercession
aside for a short while and talk conclusively about death itself. As a rational human being, what is death? What is the nature of
death? Is it certain? Why is it certain if everything in this universe is within human logical framework, and hence under the
control of humans? Do you think in your rationale, death can be postponed or it can be avoided altogether? Why it is that
science/rationale breaks down when it comes to the certainty of death? So with this, can we consider that there are some
matters that cannot fit into your very small box of logical scientific rationale and hence out of human comprehension? All
human beings can do is just to accept the reality and move on. That’s the quandary with unbelievers. When something doesn’t
fall into their undersized thinking box, they immediately reject it as irrational just to come back several years later and lick back
what they spat out as science by then has proved what they once thought was irrational. Talk of death Sina. I want to know
your views on death. Shades of Galileo’s solar system at war with the Church in the 16th century, isn’t it? Do you then accept
that rational thinking is still evolving and science is yet in an incomplete stage and that there are some matters that cannot fall
into human comprehension but still exist and occur continually as we debate?

As regards your argument on 39:19, Is he on whom the word of doom is fulfilled (to be helped), and canst thou (O
Muhammad) rescue him who is in the Fire? (Pickthal). This is quite straightforward, Mr Sina. There is one sin that Allah SWT
shall never forgive even at the behest of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH); Shirk, Polytheism. Hence this stipulation to the Prophet
(PBUH) or to any God-chosen intercessor that none of their intercession shall be of any avail to the one on whom the Fire has
been destined, or who is already in the dreaded place. And whoever of them should say:   

Surely I am a god besides Him, such a one do We recompense with hell; thus do, We recompense the unjust. (21:25-29).

Ask forgiveness for them (O Muhammad), or ask not forgiveness for them; though thou ask forgiveness for them seventy
times Allah will not forgive them That is because they disbelieved in Allah and His messenger, and Allah guideth not
wrongdoing folk. (9:80).

I accede to your argument that even the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) shall not be able to intercede on behalf of those who
have committed the sin of Shirk. I completely agree with you on this issue, Mr Sina. The Prophet PBUH, also, has his limitations
set by the Almighty SWT. I am sure a man of your knowledge and background (tree and apple, if you recall) would be able to
understand the injunctions here.   

And never (O Muhammad) pray for one of them who dieth, nor stand by his grave. Lo! They disbelieved in Allah and His
messenger, and they died while they were evil-doers. (9:84).

Ali Sina Wrote:

Oh dear! Where do I start?   

You quote the Quran as if we all agree that this book is the word of God and an undisputable authority.  Shouldn’t you first
prove that Allah is God?  How do we know that Allah was not Muhammad’s sockpuppet?  I have filled this site with evidence
that Muhammad was a liar and Allah was nothing but a figment of his imagination, his invisible friend.  Why should I care what
the Quran says?  I am not asking you to prove the existence of God.  Let us take that for granted.  Where is the proof that
Allah is God?  Where is the proof that Muhammad was his messenger?  How can we be sure that the Quran is not all Satanic
Verses?  How do we know the ghost that Muhammad saw in the cave was not Satan?  Before quoting the Quran and trying to
intimidate me with the hellfire, you must first prove the above claims.

My Response:

Ignorant obstinacy is something one can very easily associate with you. There is a very thin line between one being wisely firm
and obstinately stupid. You have just crossed that line. Why? Every argument brought against you is either nonsensical or
rehashed as you claim. While you keep repeating the same load of crap regarding the Quran and Islam and call them “valid”
arguments while they remain as petty as kitchen politics. It simply implies, that maybe you want to open the Holy Quran, and
out pops Allah SWT claiming His grandeur and maybe a little Muhammad on the side where Allah SWT points at Him saying he
is the Prophet. If that is so Sina, maybe there is no use of that half kilogram mass of meat above our shoulders. That’s why the
Quran was sent to “those who reflect”. If you want rational proof of everything including probably antimatter in The Quran, let’s
wait for a quark or a positron to appear the next time you open the holy Quran. Let’s be serious on our claims Sina and not
adopt obstinacy in an intellectual forum. There is no way you can prove anything without the use of your falsified rehashed
misinterpretation of the verses of the holy Quran or hadith of dubious origin. Look at my interpretation of the just a single
verse of the Holy Quran 2:191-5. It is an actual exegesis and detailed explanation of the verse, its circumstance of revelation
and its actual contextual interpretation while your interpretation is a single line akin to a punch line of a joke, Dr Sina. Comedy,
is that what you called it, kind sir? This won’t work with me either. In fact it won’t work with any Muslim whatsoever. From your
form of presentation and quite questionable interpretation of the Quran, I do not think your website is about exposing truth or
conversion of Muslims, its purely a means to a mud slinging end, and not very good one at that either. When you decide to
provoke a debate with any person as regards their religion, please be a bit more logical in your approach avoiding sweeping
generalizations and dicey interpretations that will be destroyed at any given time. Do not adopt the ostrich stand in such
interpretation by claiming that you do not want to be corrected that you interpreted the verse out of context. You have quite
deliberately and very illogically misinterpreted the verse and it leaves us quite desirous as regards your questionable stance
on Islam. If that’s the type of thinkers we were to get if you remained Muslim, it was better you left the fold, my friend. And
maybe no Muslim should debate with you anymore, after all obstinacy and deliberate disregard to logical arguments are
diseases no logic can cure. Sura Al Kafirun answers you adequately. You can bring a cow to water, but you can’t force it to
drink.

Ali Sina Wrote:

Then you say God never forgives shirk (polytheism).  Why?  Why would the maker of this vast and magnificent universe be so
petty and wretched?  Why should he care if any two legged creature of this tiny planet worship him at all?   This is absurdity.  
The idea that God would torture humans for eternity because they did not believe in him is lunacy. It is actually blasphemy. It
insinuates that God is a needy, insecure, sadist psychopath.
At the time when you should have your feet on the ground and confine your thinking to reason, you think “out of the box” and
fly on the wings of fantasy.  You believe in Resurrection in which corpses that have been reduced to dust will come back to
life. You believe in a petulant deity who has such low self esteem and is so desperate to be worshipped that he punishes
those who don’t show him their butts five times a day, excruciatingly, not for one minute or one hour, but for trillions and
trillions of years, nay rather for eternity.  You believe that an angel brought a message to Muhammad and never wonder how
such an absurdity is possible. Is this claim scientific?   When it comes to believing in nonsense, you are an “out of the box”
thinker.  Yet you have such a hard time in freeing your mind from superstitions.  Your imaginative power is not just out of the
box, but also out of bounds.  Yet, your rational ability is stuck in the sand dunes of seventh century Arabia.

My Response:

You question the concept of resurrection as if it is a belief held solely in Islam. According to Christian belief, dint Christ
resurrect after 3 days? Or your stance is that he never rose, so he never died? Or he did indeed rise after he died
(resurrect)? Do Christians not hold the belief of resurrection and eternal life in the hereafter? It is better you also continued
your debate and illogical misconstrued interpretations in the forum with those of your level of thinking and “highly refined”
rational thought. Looks like you were fool hardy in your opposition to Islam to the extent that you turned a blind eye to similar
beliefs held by Christians and many other religions. Angels with revelations are common beliefs held in Christianity also and
many other religions. Just because the concept of angelic revelation does not fit into your “rational” thinking, that’s doesn’t
mean it cannot be believed. I have adequately shown you the power of belief and how it cures in the placebo effect. According
to your own logic you accept hadith corroborated by antagonistic schools of thought in Islam as regards your alleged excesses
of the Prophet PBUH. Here we have 2 of the greatest religions, antagonistic, both accounting for the better part of humanity in
terms of following, virtually 600 years apart, yet sharing common ideals in terms of angels, revelations and resurrection. If you
are compelled to accept the hadith of antagonistic schools of thought which may have existed side by side and more easily
influenced each other, why do you object to such common ideals held by 2 separate religions eons apart? A case of double
standards clearly. You can very easily fool those who maybe subjective agnostics Sina, but not any objectively thinking person
with even a little bit of knowledge of the 2 religions. You want to run a website on objectivity and proclaim the same while
beating your chest, then do not present such a blatant demonstration of hypocrisy in even that which you call “rational”
thinking.

Besides, as regards your claim and non-belief in resurrection, it’s a non starter in a forum where you actually deny the
existence of God. Even if you do not believe that resurrection is true, what do you have to loose? Why should one go to the
extent of proving to you that resurrection is going to happen? You believe that you will rot in the soil, become the food of
insects and arachnids in the bosom of the earth and that’s that. You won’t have to become a better person anyway. You
remain within the confines of your still evolving scientific rationale There is no final destination, there is no questioning, there is
no day of judgment, there is no heaven, there is no hell, there is no after life, heck Sina, for you there is no God, no religion,
no revelation, no belief, nothing. Absolutely nothing! All you have is the small box that you have confined yourself in calling it
your “rationale” which gauging from your Quranic interpretation leaves a lot to be desired. Wit this inadequate rationale, you’
re trying to look above and beyond your limit and view the universe from the point of the Creator himself. That is the point
Sina; your system of belief is self terminating. Not only for your rationale but for your being as well. I am surprised you haven’t
yet openly declared your affliction of Cleithrophobia.

Ali Sina Wrote:

If there is no other god but God, why should he care if humans worship something else?  Isn't he convinced that there is no
other god but him?  So why would he get so upset?  Is he even jealous of imaginary contenders?  Isn’t it paranoia and
psychopathology?   Let us say I and my harem of wives live in an island where I am the only male.   Wouldn’t you say I am a
mad man if I threaten to beat my wives should they look at other men?  What other men?   If there is no other man but me, why
should I be so paranoid?  If God is sure of himself he does not need the approval of anybody, least of all his creation.    

Muhammad’s god is a narcissist.  He has the same personality disorder of Hitler, Stalin and Saddam.  All these beasts, wanted
to be praised, recognized and worshipped.  They were despots, did as they pleased, responded to no authority and created a
personality cult around themselves.  They had zero tolerance for dissent and those who showed any sign of independence.  
This is how Muhammad depicted Allah.   How can the almighty God have the exact same characteristics of narcissists?  
Therefore Allah cannot be God.  Allah was everything Muhammad wanted to be.  As a dejected orphan he was desperate for
attention, love and respect.  He invented Allah and through him he realized his lust for power and grandeur.  He could not ask
people, to love him and obey him, but he could easily fool the gullible and say love and obey Allah and his messenger;
Fighting is good for you, wage war for Allah and his messenger; One fifth of what you loot belongs to Allah and his
messenger.  Are you sure Muhammad sent Allah's share of the booty to him?  

My Response:

Mr. Sina, the underlined verses of the Holy Quran have a massive logical congruence, if you note, quite clearly. Both quote
the essential nature of belief in Allah SWT & the Holy Prophet PBUH, for intercession to hold any water on the final day.

So know (O Muhammad) that there is no Allah save Allah, and ask forgiveness for thy sin and for believing men and believing
women. Allah knoweth (both) your place of turmoil and your place of rest. (47:19).

The first part of this verse bears testimony to my preceding paragraph. Allah SWT clearly informs His Prophet, that He is One,
and that those who bear witness, in true essence, to His Oneness, be they sinful, shall have the benefit of intercession from
the Prophet (PBUH). Allah SWT clearly informs Prophet as to the qualities of those beneficiaries of intercession from him. Of
course, by the permission of the Almighty SWT.

And when it is said to them, "Come, the Messenger of Allah will pray for your forgiveness", they turn aside their heads, and
thou wouldst see them turning away their faces in arrogance. (63:5)

This verse hold so true even today. Especially when I think of those today turning away from the intercessory favours
bestowed on the prophet PBUH by Allah SWT, as if apart from the prophet PBUH, there are other mediums of such
intercession. If in event, the powers of intercession of the prophet PBUH are not true, I don’t think anyone of us or you, Mr
Sina, have anything to lose. We will still remain in our state as we wait for the factual reality of death to overtake us while in our
sinful oblivion. But if in event, it is true, and we disbelieve in the same as per 9:80 and 9:84, just imagine the loss we would be
in due to our foolishness in disbelief! It is a matter of probability, Mr Sina. As it stands between both of us, it is 50/50, may or
may not be true. But, the reality of death is certain. It’s the hereafter and God that is in question as far you are concerned,
where intercession would come in handy. If your surgeon gave you similar probability for a certain operation’s success with
death on one side and life on the other, with the operation as a simile for intercession, in this instance, what would you take,
Sina? Certain death by avoiding the operation or the half chance of life via the operation? I pray to Allah SWT, you do not
have to face such a life and death choice, but the possibility is real. I am sure, given your state of faith, you would take a 10%
chance of life on the operating table. 50% chance of success would be a boon to anyone, especially you Sina. The hereafter
is not based on probability. If and when it comes to pass and my 50% comes true, and you being as unprepared as you are, I
would hate to imagine what you would be going through, six feet under.

Ali Sina Wrote:

Pascal Wager

This is Pascal’s infamous Wager. The seventeenth century mathematician, Blaise Pascal argued: “If you erroneously believe
in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain
everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously
disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).”
The argument is wrong.  One simply cannot will himself to believe something that he believes to be false.  This is like saying,
even though your reason says 2 + 2 = 4, Joe who claims to be the prophet of God says 2 + 2 = 5.  Now suppose you are right
and Joe is a liar.  So what?  You lose nothing by believing in him. But if Joe is telling the truth and you don’t believe him then
you'll go to hell.  Therefore it is better to believe in Joe, even though what he says sounds irrational.  This is basically the idea
behind Pascal’s wager.  It is just a fallacy.  It is not for rational people.  It is sheer nonsense. If you want to believe in God, you
should believe in him because it makes sense to you, because you can't bring yourself to accept that the universe has come
to exist without a creator, because you are not convinced that evolution alone can produce this much variety in life. That is
fine. At least you have made your choice based on some logical reasoning. You reasons may be flawed but you believe in
them in good faith. To use Pascal's wager as the reason to believe is sheer stupidity. That argument is for fools. You can't
believe in something out of fear.

My Response:

Honestly Sina, let be clear on issues. Pascal’s wager being wrong or right depends entirely on accurate look at the wager. The
only problem is Pascal is dead for over 300 years and yet you do not desist from putting words in his mouth. Where did Pascal
mention Joe and his calculation of 2+2=5? Pascal’s wager is simple. He did not mention, as shown within the quote marks by
you about Lord Joe and his calculation of 2+2. Is this your mode of debating? Putting imaginary words into the speech of even
the dead and proving your “rational” superiority by negating the same claim? You may not have come across the
phenomenon of the Placebo effect, in medicine. Do you know what in essence this phenomenon relies on? Let me educate
you and make you a little wiser than you think you are. It merely relies on the situation of BELIEF. If someone believes that the
placebo will work, more often that not, it does. A fascinating twelve-month experiment reported in the Archives of General
Psychiatry reported on Thursday, June 10, 2004 reveals the power of mind/body medicine and the placebo effect. In the
experiment, Parkinson's disease patients underwent a surgical procedure that transplanted human neurons into their brains.
But half the patients had no neurons transplanted whatsoever and were merely told by their doctor that the neurons had been
transplanted. The result? Even those patients who received the sham operation showed significant improvements in
brain and body function a full twelve months later. In other words, they didn't even have the surgery, but they thought
they did. So their bodies responded and self healing kicked in.

Now here's the bigger story on all this: mind/body medicine is real. A proper patient belief system can overcome practically any
disease. Yet modern medicine utterly dismisses the idea that mind/body medicine can work at all. The "placebo effect" is too
often discarded rather than exploited. If doctors could use the leverage of the placebo effect and actually give their patients
hope, together they could overcome almost any illness. But instead, too many doctors and surgeons destroy patients' belief in
the placebo effect and fill their minds with frightening statistics like, "You only have a one in three chance of surviving this
operation." That's horrifying to patients, and as it turns out, it actually increases the chance that the patient will die during the
operation. (http://www.newstarget.com/001125.html).

There are several such researches done in medicine clearly proving the power of belief and it effects. What does this mean
Sina? Simply the power of BELIEF, even if it maybe in the false, may still work wonders. The catch word here Sina, is BELIEF.
Which you certainly don’t have so I guess the placebo effect means nothing to you. Do you realize the power of belief? This
negates your whole argument on the Pascal wager and the issue of belief. You in fact have actually worked against the
placebo effect by trying to destroy the belief system itself. You present nothing alternate and whatever belief there maybe in
Islam, you want to destroy that too. You’re doing more harm than good. You’re offering nothing and taking away whatever little
there is.

I ask you, do you know the placebo effect?

Ali Sina Wrote:

It is NOT true that we lose nothing by believing in a lie.  We lose a lot.  We lose our intelligence, our humanity, our dignity, our
goodness. We will be reduced to mindless sheep.  There is a string attached in believing in lies.

My Response:

The placebo effect is blind faith in a lie, in true essence. Modern science proves that such “blind” faith works. Science itself
cuts your argument above right down the center rendering it garbage, maybe even worse. So much for you argument of belief
on a lie.

Ali Sina Wrote:

Assuming God exists and assuming he is so evil that he will burn people for not worshipping him, which god is he?  Each
religion has its own god.  There are many gods.  Which one I should believe?  What if by error I believe in a wrong God?  
Each religion and each sect claims to have the monopoly of the truth.  Which one is right?  Even if one decides to submit his
intelligence and believe in absurdities for the fear of punishment, one still could risk going to hell for believing in a wrong
religion and a wrong god.  The Christians believe in God. Did Muhammad think they will go to heaven?  Of course not! He said
they are misguided. The verse 9:29 exhorts Muslims to fight the people of the Book (Jews and Christians) and extort money
from them.  For Muhammad it was not good enough to believe in God.  One had to also believe in him.  “And whoever seeks a
religion other than Islam, it will NEVER be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.” (Q. 3:85) If the
punishment of disbelief is so harsh, why has God not made his existence more clear?   

My Response:

That is a decision everyone has to make on their own. The message has come, the message was clear (unclear according to
you). You have made your choice after a debate in your mind. Everyone stands responsible for their choices. Sadly your
choice is based on massive generalized sweepings, illogical misinterpretations of the Holy Quran.

Ali Sina Wrote:

Pascal’s wager is for people with low intelligence.  There are many intelligent people among religious people, but they never
use Pascal's wager as the basis of their belief because it is foolish and extortionist.  The belief in God must be rational. It must
not be based on threats and extortions. Pascal's wager is Muslims' main argument.  I have not received an email from a
Muslim who has not used this fallacious argument and has not threatened me with the Day of Judgment.  This is another
indication that Muslims do not use their intelligence and consequently are less rational than people of other faiths.

It is NOT true that we lose nothing by believing in a lie.  We lose a lot.  We lose our intelligence, our humanity, our dignity, our
goodness. We will be reduced to mindless sheep.  There is a string attached in believing in lies.  That string is the leash that
such belief places on your necks.  Once you submit to a lie you become a slave, putty in the hands of any con man who can
make you do anything.  Irrational beliefs are used to manipulate people.  You want to wage war?  Evoke the name of God.  
You want to overthrow a government and start a revolution?  Talk to people about God and their duties to him.  You want
them to become suicide bombers, tell them about the the "love" of God. You want to subdue women?  Say God has ordered
them to obey you. You want to beat them? No problem. Tell them God has given you the right to do so.  Just read a few
verses from the “words of God” and you’ll have millions of fools pouring into the streets, foaming their mouths and committing
all sorts of atrocities so you can achieve your goal.  Mirza Malkam Khan (1831-1908), an Armenian who converted to Islam
and together with Jamaleddin Afghani launched the idea of an “Islamic Renaissance” (An-Nahda), had a slogan of unrivaled
cynicism: “Tell the Muslims something is in the Qur’an, and they will die for you.”  

My Response:

That is a biased source and mutually unacceptable. Whatever he says is his opinion and an exception to the general rule.
Sources have to be mutually acceptable and interpreted in a manner that is not subjective and acceptable to both sources.
Until now, you haven’t balanced the other side of the equation.

Ali Sina Wrote:

It is foolish to believe in a lie just because someone threatens you with hell.  No, the chance that one of us is right is not
50/50.  The chance that you are right is ZERO.  I am not going to bet on zero, just because you threaten me.  We live in the
21st century. It is pathetic that one should still believe in such absurdities and nonsense.   Pascal was a smart man. His wager
shows that even smart people can say very stupid things. That is why argumentum as verecundiam is a fallacy.

My Response:

Oh and before you assume that I have forgotten, rest assured, I shall discuss the change in pronoun from first to third by Allah
SWT in Holy Quran. In your debate with Mr. Ghamidi & Mr. Zaheer, I am sure you amalgamated 2 arguments in a single
statement to overwhelm your opponent (s). I would not upbraid you for this. What wouldn’t a man do for glory, eh Mr Sina? But
in edified aptitude, I shall handle argument to argument, for your easier comprehension.

Ali Sina Wrote:

I don’t think there is any need to continue this debate. You berated other scholars including Dr. Zaheer for not understanding
Islam, yet you did not bring anything new to the table and engaged in most puerile logical fallacies.  I suggest you continue
your discussion in the forum.  Dr. Zaheer has earned my utmost respect. He is not only bright but also a good person.  He is
caught in the throes of cognitive dissonance.  He is being torn by his conscience on one hand and his faith on the other.  Don’
t forget that he is a religious scholar.  His livelihood depends on Islam.  For him, losing faith means losing everything.  
Therefore Islam must be true because the alternative is devastating.  Despite that Dr. Zaheer is doing all he can to humanize
Muslims: Defying all odds he tries to make them moderate.  I have nothing but respect for this man and I do not appreciate him
being decried.   

My Response:

I have berated the scholars, Sina? Gosh! The lies and accusations keep getting personal by the paragraph. Where in the
above paragraph have I done so?  Let me remind you:

Ali Sina: You said that you believe in freedom of thought and expression and the reason you are reluctant to publish our
debate in your site is that my tone is “uncivilized”. I am sorry that my tone has been uncivilized but I assure you that I
have not been aware of it myself. Maybe because I am too brute and churlish to even notice how uncivilized is
my tone. (Ghamidi/Zaheer debate pp 73)

I wonder why you had to issue such a statement unless you had started the berating of your “most revered” scholars yourself
in the debate. Or is berating your opponent an express and patented right of you and your organization? Practice what you
preach Sina. Besides, you wouldn’t know civility in speech even if it was sewn on to your retina. This is a self admission Sina
and not my words I assure you. Check in bold.

Now, Sina, as regards the issue you also brought up of the change in pronoun in the injunctions of the Holy Quran. Sina, the
Quran is not your typical, inside the box thinking type of literary work that you drawing comparison towards. Let us observe the
injunctions you have quoted.

And We [1st person plural] did not send before you any messenger but We revealed to him that there is no god but Me, [1st
person singular] therefore serve Me. And they say: The Beneficent Allah has taken to Himself a son. Glory be to Him.[3rd
person singular] Nay! they are honored servants They do not precede Him in speech and (only) according to His
commandment do they act. He knows what is before them and what is behind them, and they do not intercede except for him
whom He approves and for fear of Him they tremble. And whoever of them should say: Surely I am a god besides Him, such a
one do We recompense with hell; thus do, We recompense the unjust. (21:25-29)

According to Islam, Allah SWT has 99 names, as mentioned in various places of the Holy Quran. Each one describing an
attribute of Allah SWT like no other. All these attributes belong to Allah SWT. I know you have come to that understanding as
regards Islam, however you do not believe in Him. The answer to your question is so apparent in the same verse. It is so clear
that I wonder how it escaped someone of your level of observation. In the first part of the verse, And We [1st person plural] did
not send before you any messenger but We revealed to him…… Allah SWT, here, is referring to all His attributes together.
These are all His names and in all His qualities i.e. The One, The Most Merciful, The Beneficent, The Sublime, The Cherisher,
The Sustainer, The Master, The Most High, The Most Glorious, The Most Holy, The Creator, The Victorious, The Witness etc.
Each one of these qualities is a stand alone attribute, very unique in nature. He is giving clear reference that it is in the ambit
of all His qualities/attributes that He sent messengers with the message. Hence the 1st person plural; a direct reference to ALL
of Allah’s SWT attributes being employed in realizing a single act – sending messengers with the message. What is the
message? This is where the turn happens, doesn’t it Sina? The message is…….. that there is no god but Me, [1st person
singular] therefore serve Me. Here Allah SWT is so clear. He refers to the message as being He is The One. This is a direct
reference to only ONE of his qualities. The Tawheed of Allah SWT. It comes naturally that He being the Lord has the
prerogative of choosing how He refers to Himself. The Tawheed as clearly stipulated in this verse is a reference to just
a single attribute of Allah SWT that He makes, hence the 1st person singular. I am not in anyway asking you to believe in the
Oneness of Allah SWT or His attributes. Please read carefully. All I am doing is giving you a logical explanation as to the
pronoun reference from a grammatical and quotation perspective. Kapish??!! Let me move ahead. And they say: The
Beneficent Allah has taken to Himself a son. Glory be to Him. [3rd person singular]. I wonder how this escaped your
“scholarly” perception, Sina. Allah SWT here is quoting what the Christians believe. The Christians say this while in reference
to Allah SWT as a 3rd person singular and Allah SWT has quoted exactly what they say in verbatim. Now if someone speaks in
regard another who is not party to the conversation, would the former not refer to the later in 3rd person? Simple English
grammar. So naturally the reference to Allah SWT in 3rd person singular. It is so logical. Maybe you needed it to be in quote
commas (“…”), Sina? As I keep arguing this point out, I feel you are just doing this as means of stand off, by any means
necessary. But it must be my biased nature. I am sure; it is an issue of misunderstanding. However, as we go on, we find….
Nay! they are honored servants They do not precede Him in speech and (only) according to………. In essence, Sina, Allah
SWT is now quoting what really should have been said by the speakers in the verse or what reply they got from the group of
believers facing them. Again, if the speakers would have spoken the truth (Nay!....), they would have still referred to Allah
SWT in 3rd person singular. Or if a group of believers was answering them back, they would also have to refer to Allah SWT in
3rd person singular. Once again, simple English grammar.

Ali Sina Wrote:

You call this logical explanation?  This is getting from bad to worse.  So according to your “logical explanation,” if a man is also
a father, a son, educated, talented, funny, handsome, wise, tall, etc., he can refer to himself as "we" because he has a
multitude of attributes?  What part of this explanation is logical?  Why should God switch from 1st person plural to first person
singular when he wants to deliver his message?  It is still the same person with the same attributes.  Why suddenly “We”
becomes “I” and then “I” changes to “He?”  It seems to be a bit too crowded up there. So why do you criticize Christians for
believing in trinity, when you are telling us that God is a multitude?  No, it is not when Allah is quoting others talking about him
that he refers to himself as “He”.  Here is the verse you quoted: “They say: "Allah hath begotten a son": Glory be to Him.-Nay,
to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him.” (2.116) Who is saying Glory be to
him, Nay to Him belongs...?  It is not the Christians who say this but the author of the Quran.  If the author of the Quran is
Allah, why is he referring to himself in third person?  This is like I say, “Ali Sina’s enemies say, ‘Ali is a liar.’ Far from it, he is a
truthful man.”  Is this correct speech? Speaking in the third person about yourself is the sign of mental disorder.  Doesn’t this
confuse the reader as who the speaker is?   

My Response:

Your analogy is false as regards the man with several roles. Each one is a relative quality, educated, talented, funny,
handsome, wise, tall etc. All are relative qualities, relative to whom? Maybe to the next door neighbor? Maybe to the other guy
standing across the street. Allah SWT’s qualities are absolute. Each one a stand alone attribute. Can you differentiate
between relative attributes and absolute attributes and give their English grammatical implications? That is a very weak
analogy Sina. You are discussing attributes of the Creator, and you’re comparing his attributes to the guy next door. Fool
some one else Sina. There are many gullible ones in the FFI forum.

“They say: "Allah hath begotten a son": Glory be to Him.-Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth:
everything renders worship to Him.” (2.116)

Now you have opted to improve the grammatical presentation of the quote because I asked you if you wanted inverted quote
marks haven’t you? Quite lame and unexpected. And here I was thinking you’re a debater with some self respect. So much for
my assumption. 2 can play at that your sick little game, Sina.

“They say: "Allah hath begotten a son. Glory be to Him”.-Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth:
everything renders worship to Him.” (2.116)

Sina, I have put my inverted quote marks where I want them. It’s your word against mine. I ask you the same question, who is
saying Glory be to him? It’s your word against mine as regards who the quoted one is. Keeping everything standard
between us and correcting for all confounding factors, I maybe wrong, but that doesn’t mean you are right either. Get the
logic?

Sina, why beat about the bush and quote nonexistent grammatical errors in the Quran through your limited scientific rationale.
Don’t bother about the English grammar which you’re trying to equate to Quranic Arabic grammar. Mankind has been given an
open challenge by the Author of the Holy Quran:

'If all the humans and all the jinns bonded together in order to produce a Quran like this, they could never produce anything
like it, no matter how much assistance they lent one another.'" (Qur'an 17:88)

And if you are in doubt as to which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a sura like it, and call on your helper,
besides Allah, if you are truthful. (Qur'an 2:23)

Or, do they say: “He has forged it?” Say: “Then bring ten chapters like it forged and call upon whom you can besides Allàh, if
you are truthful” (11:13).

This context shows that the pronoun “it” in “like it” refers to “that which We have revealed to Our servant”, that is, the
Qur’àn. It is a challenge to them to bring a like of the Qur’àn in its inimitable style, meaning, mode of revelation and person
revealed to.

The word “min mithlihi” (= translated here as “like it”) may also be rendered as “from like him”. In that case it will be a
challenge to bring a like of the Qur’àn written by someone like the Holy Prophet. This Qur’àn has been brought by a person
who was never taught by any teacher, who had not learnt these valuable and marvelous truths from any human being, nor
had he taken this most eloquent style from any mortal. If the disbelievers thought that such a man can write such a Book, and
then let them bring its like from some such illiterate man.

Go on, Sina, why bother struggling with English grammar. What better chance than to prove Quran wrong by using the
challenge it gives? Ask an illiterate man, at least in Quranic Arabic, to produce a sura like the Quran. You, I believe may not
know Quranic Arabic well, why bother with all these debates and incivility. Produce a sura just like the Quran in its style, its
revelation, its meaning, the type of person to whom it was revealed. I won’t say the age, which by then was the age of
ignorance, this time where the likes of you exist, can still be entitled the age of ignorance. Bring someone illiterate from among
yourselves and coin a sura just like the Quran. According to your assertion it has errors, so it should be an easy task for you.
It was produced by lunatic, as you assert. A mental asylum of your choice, get someone and ask him there and then to
produce a sura like the one in Quran. Or maybe go to any prison, after all you do assert that Muhammad PBUH committed
crimes against humanity, go and get a prisoner and ask him to write one sura just like the ones in Quran. This is the
impossible task and not mine which you so boldly avow. Don’t bother wasting your time in debates with Muslims all over the
world. What do they know? They have no rationale and lack intelligence by believing in angels and revelations, houris and sex
in paradise. Start your task right away and prove the Quran was indeed written by a lunatic and take up its challenge. Now don’
t go around saying that it would be dangerous to produce another Quran due to the violence it has. After all, what more
violence can there be than what is there now. That would mean a clear admission of your inability to accept the challenge of
the Holy Book.

Ali Sina Wrote:

Your explanation is “It comes naturally that He being the Lord has the prerogative of choosing how He refers to Himself.”     
That is nonsense. God is talking to us humans. He must speak to us in a language that we understand. His speech must be
clear and not confusing and incoherent.  What is the point of sending a message if that message is not clear?  Who said God
is allowed to say any balderdash and break all the rules of grammar?  Language is a contract between two people.  Both sides
must understand the terms of it. If one's speech is incomprehensible to the other, the contract is null. If God's message is not
clear, it is not binding.  Breaking the rules of grammar confuses the readers. Then how could God send to hell those who are
confused and reject him as a result?

My Response:

Come on Sina. Let us be realistic for once. Man can spend a generation trying to decipher the code in the DNA molecule, the
blue print of humanity and yet you ask for God to talk to you in a language you understand? Do you have such low esteem of
humans that in spite of such advances in science and rational thinking, you want a spoon feeding session from God? As you
assert, this message was written by a lunatic was it not? Why the seemingly complicated nature? You have deciphered the
DNA code and you cannot decipher the language of Quran? Ok, let us for once accept your allegation that the language of
Quran is unclear, hence:

Ali Sina Wrote:

Then how could God send to hell those who are confused and reject him as a result?

My Response:

So are you trying to say that the Reminder confused you hence your rejection of faith in God? Or you understood the Quran
well as you have openly asserted severally in this debate and forum hence your rejection? Which is which? Can you clarify so
that we can all draw from your vast “rational” experience? There is no rationality in your argu