 
Ali Sina Challenge

Please visit: [ https://islamintheuk.wordpress.com/ali-sina-faith-freedom-challenge/]

INTRODUCTION to ALI SINA CHALLENGE to MUSLIMS, from FAITH FREEDOM:

The very fact that most of the insults against Islam, are followed by quotations from Hadith is enough to prove the shallow understanding of Islam by critics like Ali Sina. There is not a single verse in the Qur'an which advocates injustice or unsolicited violence, unless it has been quoted out of context. I hope to get rid of all the false accusations made against Islam by people like Ali Sina of Faith Freedom, using a logical and common sense approach, as described by Al Nawai, Ibn Khaldun and Muhammad (P) himself, based on the principles of Ijtehad.

Ali Sina of Faith Freedom has used several insulting phrases for a man who is held in high esteem by 1.2 billion people worldwide. In an attempt to insult Muhammad (P), I think Ali Sina has gone a bit too far. It is not impossible to have second thoughts about the credibility of the work carried out by a person who spreads such insulting stories, makes his own assumptions and passes his own judgment about other people. Nevertheless, I am quite thankful to Ali Sina, as had he not challenged the Muslims, I would not have bothered with responding to his false accusations against prophet Muhammad (P).

Ali Sina has declared on his website that he will pay $50,000 to anyone who disproves him. Besides, he will not only remove his website but also declare Islam to be a true religion. I think he is simply bluffing himself!

  1. It really does not matter whether or not Ali Sina declares Islam to be a true religion. He thinks that by declaring Islam to be a true religion he can change the faiths of a billion people. To be frank, nobody really cares. Most of the people who seem to be visiting his site are Muslims who simply laugh him off as an idiot who fails to understand the difference between the Quran & Hadith.

  2. Ali Sina says he will remove his site if he is proved wrong. NO, please don't! Critics like him are very important to Islam. Without people like him, how can one acknowledge the misconceptions that some people hold about Islam. He makes it so easy for us by pointing out the controversial verses from the Qur'an and un Islamic traditions of some orthodox and uneducated Muslims. People like him are extremely important to the Muslims in order to recognise and eliminate the un Islamic traditions, generally known to the Muslim world as Wahabism (Arab traditions).

  3. I would request Ali Sina to donate the $50, 000 to poor and needy people rather than Muslims.

Ali Sina suffers with Islamophobia (phobic disorder) and "querulous paranoia" and holds an impression that "all" Muslims are conspiring to harm him as well as the society. This may be linked to a traumatic childhood experiences he has had as a Muslim living in Iran. Although most Iranians and Arabs are very sensible, among them you will find some typical examples of the most uncivilized and ignorant people on Earth. Considering that Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in the west, and as every fifth person in the world is a Muslim, the world would have already been wiped out!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutory_delusions

Let us put forth the Muslims side of the argument, starting with the following verses from the Quran -

"Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious." Noble Qur'ân 16:125

"Let there arise out of you a band of people inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right, and forbidding what is wrong: They are the ones to attain felicity (bliss)" Noble Qur'ân 3:104

A lesson in Logical Fallacies: http://www.tektonics.org/guest/fallacies.html#000

Ali Sina loves talking about logical fallacies but has committed several logical fallcies in his own arguments. In order to realize this, first we will need to understand what is meant by logical fallacy and the different types of logical fallacies in an argument which make it a fallacious argument.

Logical Fallacy – A fallacy is typically defined as, "A mistake in reasoning; a type of argument that may seem to be correct, but that proves upon examination not to be so" (Copi, 632). Some of the types of logical fallacies made by Ali Sina are as follows -

  1. Ad Hominem – Latin for "against the man." One kind of this general fallacy is to discredit an opponent instead of his argument. In most places Ali Sina has resorted to attacking Muhammad (P) and the Muslims to such an extent that he has tried to make their side of the argument appear weak and pointless, due to the "mere fact" that the argument has been debated by someone who is not worthy of listening to due to their lack of worth. In other words it is like sayiing – "Don't listen to him because he is an idiot." Ali Sina's website Faith Freedom is full of these fallacies.

  2. Red Herring (a.k.a. Irrelevant Conclusion, Ignoratio Elenchi) – A Red Herring is an irrelevant topic or premise brought into a discussion to divert attention from the topic at hand. Usually, the irrelevancy is subtle, so that it appears relevant to those not paying close attention. Ali Sina has used this tactic in some of his debates, especially with people like Edip Yuskel. It is simply a waste of time debating with someone like him.

  3. Hasty Generalization (a.k.a. Converse Accident, Leaping to a Conclusion) – The Hasty Generalization is a statistical no-no, when an observation of a rather small group is assumed to apply to a larger group. The most common kind of Hasty Generalization is stereotypes, overly broad generalizations of certain types of people. Eg. Irani and Saudi Muslims oppress their women hence all Muslims are Misogynists. Khomeini issued fatwas to kill non-Muslims and as Khomeini was a Muslim, all Muslims are evil. Muslim invaders attacked and killed non-Muslims hence Islam is a cruel religion. All suicide bombers are Muslims hence all Muslims are terrorists. A majority of critics including Ali Sina have resorted to this tactic in order to prove their point that Islam is evil, completely forgetting that there are 1.2 billion Muslims living

in the world and most of them are peace loving people. What would happen if all of them had been terrorists and killed their neighbour? Would anyone be alive today?

  4. Quoting Out of Context – This is exactly what the name suggests. Ali Sina has quoted several verses from the Qur'an outside the context in order to prove his point. Most of my rebuttal to the Ali Sina Challenge consists of providing the context from the Qur'an with reference and leave it for the reader to decide the worthiness of the arguments made by Ali Sina by exposing his "logical fallacy of Quoting Out of Context."

  4. Wishful Thinking (also, Appeal to Consequences) – Wishful thinking is a fallacy that posits a belief because it or its consequence is desired to be true. Ali Sina has used a lot of Wishful Thinking in his arguments. His modus operandi has been to Quote Out of Context, then using Weak Analogy followed by Wishful Thinking to prove his case. On reading the rebuttal to Ali Sina's Challenge his "logical fallacies" are self evident.

  4. Weak Analogy – There are two common ways to use analogies: using a familiar concept to help understand an abstract concept, or showing a subject has a property because an analogous subject has that property. Using a similar concept to explain an abstract concept is totally acceptable by itself. The only time when it becomes a "logical fallacy of Weak Analogy" is when the 2 concepts being compared are dissimilar. Ali Sina has compared the Quran with the fabricated Hadith to derive the conclusions in most of his arguments. All Muslims believe the Qur'an to be the last and final word of God directly from Muhammad (P). It is a requirement of faith. At the same time any critically thinking Muslim will realise that the Hadith are traditions or sayings "ATTRIBUTED" to Muhammad (P) by his followers. It is NOT the actual "Sunnah."

Looking at the allegations made by Ali Sina of Faith Freedom, although he has quoted some verses from the Qur'an, that too out of context it appears that he has based these allegations mainly on fabricated Hadith. It would be pointless to repeat myself over and over again as we proceed through the rebuttal. It makes the subject very dry and boring. Hence I have exposed the Weak Analogy between the Qur'an and the Hadith on this page so that we can exculde this from our rebuttals. We can then concentrate on exposing the other logical fallacies in the Ali Sina Challenge. Therefore let us examine both the evidence presented by him in greater detail to understand the worthiness of each piece of evidence.

I.The Qur'an \- The Qur'an is widely regarded by Muslims to be that which issued from Muhammad's mouth from AD 610-632. F.E. Peters states, "Few have failed to be convinced that what is in our copy of the Quran is, in fact, what Muhammad taught, and is expressed in his own words... To sum this up: the Quran is convincingly the words of Muhammad, perhaps even dictated by him after their recitation".[6] Peters argues that "The search for variants in the partial versions extant before the Caliph Uthman's alleged recension in the 640s (what can be called the 'sources' behind our text) has not yielded any differences of great significance." Reference: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Muhammad#Historical_authenticity_of_the_ Qur.27an

II. The Hadith \- Early Muslim scholars were concerned that some hadiths may have been fabricated, and thus developed a whole science of criticism to distinguish between genuine sayings and those that were errors or frauds. Overall western academics view the hadith collections with caution. Bernard Lewis states that "the collection and scrutiny of Hadiths didn't take place until several generations" after Muhammad's death and that "during that period the opportunities and motives for falsification were almost unlimited. " In addition to the problem of oral transmission for over a hundred years, there existed motives for deliberate distortion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Muhammad#Historical_authenticity_of_the_h adith_literature

Before proceeding let us list the points relevant to the argument with Ali Sina -

  1. The Quran is considered to be the authoritative book on all matters of religion by all Muslims

  2. The hadith have been known to have so many errors that the Muslim scholars of Hadith had to develop a "whole science of hadith" to diffrentiate between the fabricated and genuine hadith. We all know that sceince is ever developing and only an ignorant person would deny this fact.

  3. The Qur'an "strongly disapproves" the rigid adherence to fabricated hadith in several verses as mentioned on my page Fabricated Hadith .

  4. There are several hadith in Bukhari which are unsceintific and contradictory, hence we know that Imam Bukhari may have made innocent errors in reporting the exact "content" of the hadith.

  5. Imam Al Nawawi, who was a Sunni Muslim, a popular hadith scholar and an authoritative figure in the Shafi Madhab, in his commentary on the collection of Muslim, wrote: "A number of scholars discovered many hadiths in the collections

of Muslim and Bukhari which do not fulfill the conditions of verification assumed by these men." Hence we know that hadith may be fabricated.

  6. Another Islamic scholar, Ibn Khaldun* wrote: "I do not believe any hadith or report of a companion of the Prophet to be true which differs from the common sense meaning of the Qur'an, no matter how trustworthy the narrators may have been. It is not impossible that a narrator appears to be trustworthy though he may be moved by ulterior motive. If the hadiths were criticized for their textual contents as they were for the narrators who transmitted them a great number would have had to be rejected.

It is a recognized principle that a hadith could be declared spurious if it departs from the common sense meaning of the Qur'an from the recognized principles of the Shari'ah, the rules of logic, the evidence of sense, or any other self-evident truth."

  6. A prominent Muslim scholar of our times, Dr. Muhammad Mustafa Azami, M.A., Ph.D. and Professor of Science of Hadith, University of Riyadh, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia writes:

Many scholars criticized Bukhari's work. The criticism concerns about 80

narrators and some 110 ahadith . (Quoted from: 'Studies in Hadith Methodology and Literature' by M. A. Azami, published by Islamic Book Trust, Kuala Lumpur, page 92.) http://www.mostmerciful.com/hadithbook-sectionone.htm

  8. Prophet Muhammad himself has stated in another hadith – "After I am gone differences will arise among you. Compare whatever is reported to be mine with the Book of God (Qur'an); that which agrees therewith you may accept as having come from me; that which disagrees you will reject as a fabrication."

  8. Overall western academics view the hadith collections with caution. Bernard Lewis states that "the collection and scrutiny of Hadiths didn't take place until several generations" after Muhammad's death and that "during that period the opportunities and motives for falsification were almost unlimited."

http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/islam/fiqh/hallaq_hadith.html

It can hence be concluded that not all hadith that are reported to be reliable are actually true. Many muslim and western scholars hold the view that the hadith collection of Bukhari & Muslim are not free from errors. There are some who insist that the "Mutawattir" hadith are those hadith which have been mentioned by such a large number of people that there is no doubt that these are authentic. This is a logical fallacy of Argumentum ad numerum where something is believed to be true simply due to the number of people who believe in it. Therefore the argument that all Mutawattir hadith are authentic is a fallacious argument. I believe that the above observations would be enough to convince any level headed muslim or non muslim who posesses the least amount of common sense. The ones who would disagree are people like Ali Sina.

Heresay Evidence -

At the most, the hadith literature can be considered to be somewhat like "Heresay Evidence." This sort of evidence is not generally accepted in a court of Law, unless under exceptional circumstances. Even if one does manage to put it forth as evidence it would not take long to overturn this sort of evidence based on the views of the scholars above. If "expert opinions" of 4 scholars, including 2 from earlier centuries, 1 modern and 1 western scholar is not sufficient I am quite happy to provide more expert opinions. Generally 4 expert opinions would be more than sufficient to disapprove the trustworthiness of any such ancient document used as "heresay."

There are some hadith scholars who would oppose the views of the above mentioned hadith scholars. This simply means that the subject is so "touchy" that the expert opinions of the hadith scholars are divided as to the authenticity of the hadith. Hence, in any case the hadith used as "heresay" do not live up to the standard of "trustworthiness" required from "heresay evidence," as not all Muslims agree that all hadith are true.

In effect, Ali Sina has failed to prove anything from the hadith that he has mentioned. All he has done is quoted some erronous and fabricated hadith from Bukhari & Muslim to mislead the unsuspecting readers. The evidence he has presented in his favour, if analysed critically, can easily be refuted as unreliable. "The burden of proof

is always on the person asserting something.Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion . The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise." [www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html]

In his challenge Ali Sina has also stated that "Muslims will deny the authenticity of their own religious texts in order to prove their point." The example he has cited is that of Edip Yuskel. Once again this is a typical example of a logical fallacy Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, as Ali Sina has assumed that the hadith are "authentic" without even bothering to prove its "authenticity." Hence, the "burden of proof"in order to substantiate his allegations still lies with Ali Sina. In other words Ali Sina does not have a case at all! I am afraid he will have to work harder to prove the charges made against Muhammad (P) and will still need to provide irrefutable evidence to support the truth in the hadith "content."

Other Sources:

Ali Sina has also quoted from some other sources such as the writings of some of the Imams and historians. Posted below are their confessions!

IMAM TABARI'S STRANGE CONFESSION: "I am writing this book as I hear from the narrators. If anything sounds absurd, I should not be blamed or held accountable. The responsibility of all blunders rests squarely on the shoulders of those who have narrated these stories to me." So, Tabari wrote nothing but hearsay. Mazhabi Dastanain Aur Un Ki Haqeeqat by Allama Habib-ur-Rahman Siddiqui Kandhalwi, Ar-Rahman Publishing Trust, Karachi Tareekhil Umam Wal Mulook (The History of Nations and Kings) popularly called ?The Mother of All Histories. is the first ever "History of Islam" written by Imam Tabari (839-923 CE) at the junction of the third and fourth century AH. He died in 310 AH, three centuries after the exalted Prophet. What were his sources? Not a scrap of paper! ?He told me this who heard it from him who heard it from her and she heard it from so and so, and so on. By compiling his 13 Volume History and his 30 Volume Exposition of the Quran under royal patronage, Tabari became the Super Imam. The later historians until this day have persisted in following the trails of the Super Imam. – Imam Zahri Wa Imam Tabari, Tasweer Ka Doosra Rukh by Muhaddith-ul-?Asr Jaame?-ul-?Uloom Hazrat Allama Tamanna Imadi Phulwari, Ar-Rahman Publishing Trust, Karachi

IMAM RAZI'S HORRIBLE CONFESSION: Most Muslims have heard of one of the most ancient and famous Tafseer-e-Kabeer (The Great Exposition of the Quran) by Imam Fakhruddin Razi. This Tafseer is one of the tops being followed by our Mullahs till this day. After writing his 300 volumes, the great and authoritative Imam confesses: "All my intellectual and supposedly logical statements in the explanation of the Quran turned out to be lame. All the explanations of the Quran done by the so-called Imams (Tabari, Zamakhshari, Ibne Kathir, Bukhari, Muslim etc) are misguided and misleading. All of us were the tools of Satan. Our souls were polluted by our physical desires. All our endeavors and works of this world promise to bring upon us nothing but eternal humiliation, torture and doom." Hadith-Ul-Quran by Allama Inayatullah Khan Al-Mashriqi, 1954 edition, Pg 190.

IBN KATHIR'S CONFESSION: [1301-1373 Abu Al-Fida, 'Imad Ad-Din Isma'il bin 'Umar bin Kathir Al-Qurashi Al-Busrawi] Had Ibn Jareer Tabari not recorded the strange reports, I would never have done so. (Tafseer Ibn Katheer, Khilaafat-e-Mu'awiya-o-Yazeed, Mahmood Ahmed Abbasi)

IMAM AHMAD BIN HANBAL'S CHASTISEMENT: (780 – 855 CE, 164 – 241 AH) (Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Hanbal Abu Abd' Allah al-Shaybani)

Allama Shibli Nomani, on page 27 of his Seeratun Nabi has given a startling quote of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (780-855 CE, d. 241 AH), "Three kinds of books are absolutely unfounded, Maghazi, Malahem and Tafseer." (The exalted Prophet's Battles, Dreams, and Expositions of the Qur?an).

IBN KHALDUN'S THRASHING: [1332-1406 CE, 732-808 AH, Abu Zayd Abdur-Rahman bin Muhammad bin Khaldun Al-Hadrami]

The Muslim historians have made a mockery of history by filling it with fabrications and senseless lies. (Muqaddama)

SHAH ABDUL AZIZ DEHLAVI'S CRITIQUE: [1745-1823 CE] Six pages of Ibn Khaldun's History have been deliberately removed since the earliest times. These pages had questioned the most critical juncture of Islamic history i.e. the Emirate of Yazeed and the fiction of Karbala. [Even the modern editions admit in the side-notes that those pages have been mysteriously missing from the ancient original book. Khilaafat-e-Mu'awiya-o-Yazeed, Mahmood Ahmed Abbasi]

SHAH WALIULLAH DEHLAVI'S CHASTISEMENT: [1703-1762] Imam Jalaluddin Sayyuti's Tarikh-ul-Khulafa is the prime example of how our Historians, Muhaddithin and Mufassirin, each has played like Haatib-il-Lail (One who collects firewood at night not knowing which piece is good and which one is bad).

IMAM RAGHIB'S PROTEST: [Abul-Qasim Husayn ibn Muhammad al-Raghib al-Isfahani 1027- 1109 CE] Tabari, Waqidi, Mas'oodi, Sayyuti wrote any reports they heard. Moreover, Abu Mukhnif, Lut bin Yahya and Muhammad bin Saaeb Kalbi, in whose names the civil wars within Islam during the times of Hazraat Ali, Mu'awiya and Yazeed are reported, never existed. Their names have been concocted and narratives in their names have all been invented by one man, the Zoroastrian "Imam" Tabari bin Rustam.

Please follow the link below in order to view the rebuttals and see how Ali Sina has been exposed through Critical Analysis.

Posted in Ali Sina Challenge - Islam

Leave a Comment

Tags: Ali Sina, Faithfreedom, Islam, Muhammad, Muslims, Quran

Ali Sina Rebuttal – Torturer

I. Evidence from the Qur'an: (Substantial Evidence) – NONE

Ali Sina has really let me down once again. He has not quoted a single verse from the Qur'an to suggest that Muhammad (P) was a torturer. Hence I am unable to disprove this allegation. In order to disprove something it has to be proved first. If Ali Sina does not provide substantial evidence to prove his case in the first place then how can anyone ever disprove him? His only evidence is from "fabricated" hadith quoted from a collection of a Persian (Irani) Imam called Imam Bukhari and the autobiography by Ibn Ishaq. Hence let us find out more about Ibn Ishaq.

Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Yasar (died 767, or 761 (Robinson 2003, p. xv)) was an Arab Muslim historian and hagiographer. He collected oral traditions that formed the basis of the first biography of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. This biography is usually called Sirat Rasul Allah ("Life of God's Messenger"). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Ishaq

[Ibn Ishaq wrote several works, none of which survive. His collection of traditions about the life of Muhammad also called Sirat Nabawiyya or Sirah Rasul Allah, survives mainly in two sources:

  * an edited copy, or recension, of his work by his student al-Bakka'i, as further edited by Ibn Hisham. Al-Bakka'i's work has perished and only Ibn Hisham's has survived, in copies. (Donner 1998, p. 132)

  * an edited copy , or recension, prepared by his student Salamah ibn Fadl al-Ansari. This also has perished, and survives only in the copious extracts to be found in the volumimous historian al-Tabari's. (Donner 1998, p. 132)

  * fragments of several other recensions. Guillaume lists them on p. xxx of his preface, but regards most of them as so fragmentary as to be of little worth.]

Let us look at this logically and see how significant this work is in relation to Muhammad (P). From the above extracts it is clear that the work of Ibn Ishaq was based on "oral tradition," in other words "chinese whispers" and "heresay." Furthermore his work was edited several times and what we have in our posession today is not the original work of Ibn Ishaq but something that was edited and changed several times by his students. Looking at it critically it would only be fair to ask what were the sources of information after 100 odd years after Muhammad (P) on which the history written by Ibn Ishaq (chinese whispers and heresay) was edited? Could there have been political motives for editing the work of Ibn Ishaq? The work of Ibn Ishaq was based on "oral tradition," but is there any other concrete evidence (such as writings, wall inscriptions, excavated material, paintings and drawings etc.) to support the narrations on which he has based his history or is there any evidence to suggest that the information derived from the writing of Ibn Ishaq has ever been verified? As far as I am aware there is not a single historian other than Tabari who has backed him up. Historians like Tabari have simply copied from the writings of Ibn Ishaq and some more "heresay."

To learn more about the strange confessions of Imam Tabari. please read "Other Sources" on my page – Ali Sina Challenge

II. Evidence from Hadith: (Heresay Evidence)

I dont think it is worth wasting everybody's time with what Ali Sina has quoted out of the hadith. The hadith are neither from God, nor from Muhammad (P), but rather something that the people have "attributed" to Muhammad (P). Hence as proved already on the main page of Ali Sina Challenge, they are full of errors and fabrications. If I say Ali Sina is an illegitimate child born from unmarried parents and somebody writes this down and people quote this a 100 years from now, then does this statement become true? It is totally illogical to consider the hadith in an "intellectual" argument. Most Islamic scholars agree that there are several errors in Sahih Bukhari & Muslim!

The history is only as accurate as the one who reports it. I wonder why Ali Sina wishes to trust some of the narrators and some of the hadith in Bukhari and Dawud and reject the others that show the prophet as merciful. One can not pick and choose. He seems too influenced by these hadith, more than any of the other Muslims. My stand as a free thinking Muslim is very clear. Hadith are simply stories about the prophet. Some may be true but most of them are false and have been over exaggerated either by his followers or his enemies. The people in that region were very good at story-telling. The best example is Ali Sina himself who adds his own imaginations to the straightforward verses from the Qur'an. The history that is derived from such narrations more than 1400 years old is totally unreliable. The one who is in power can easily twist it the way he wants by showing one side of the story and hiding the rest. Even if one sees both sides how can one be absolutely sure that the reports are not simply exaggerated and who is telling the truth. Muhammad (P) had a lot of enemies. If they could not win him with the sword they tried it with the pen. Those who loved him made him look like a super hero and the ones who hated him made him look like a devil incarnate. It is totally illogical to rely on such fictitious reports and draw conclusions on any given religion. One can not base his religion on such false reports. If someone really wants to understand Muhammad (P) then they should read the Qur'an which is the best hadith and has remained practically unchanged since the advent of Islam.

Ali Sina Rebuttal – Terrorist

I. Evidence from the Quran: (Substantial Evidence)

I was expecting a list of verses from the Qur'an in this section by Ali Sina. On the other hand he has surprised me by quoting just one verse from the Qur'an. The quoted verse on terrorism is -

And when you journey in the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you distress, surely the unbelievers are your open enemy. (4:101)

This verse is immediately followed by another verse which I believe is self explanatory.

When you [Prophet] are with the believers, leading them in prayer, let a group of them stand up in prayer with you, taking their weapons with them, and when they have finished their prostration, let them take up their positions at the back. Then let the other group, who have not yet prayed, pray with you, also on their guard and armed with their weapons: the disbelievers would dearly like you to be heedless of your weapons and baggage, "in order for them to take you in a single assault." You will not be blamed if you lay aside your arms when you are overtaken by heavy rain or illness, but be on your guard. Indeed, God has prepared a humiliating punishment for the disbelievers.(4:102)

The above verses were revealed at the time of war when the Muslims were under threat from the unbelievers. The unbelievers were fighting the Muslims and wanted to finish them off as stated in the Qur'an, "in order for them to take you in a single assault." Under the given circumstances and in the given context, the unbelievers were indeed an open enemy of the Muslims! When the British were ruling India , the Indians who fought for Independance were an open enemy to the British and the British were the open enemies to the Indians. Therefore it would be totally illogical to say that the Indians and the British are still open enemies of each other because Indian fought the British. Similarly it would be really illogical to argue that Muslims believe that unbelievers are their enemies.

On the contrary the Qur'an states -

"And if any of the unbelievers seeks your protection, then you may protect him so that he may hear the words of God, then let him off to reach his sanctuary. This (kindness) should be done because they are a people who do not know (the beauty of Islam)." (Quran 9:6)

"But if the enemy incline towards peace, thou shall also incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all there is)." (Noble Quran, 8:61)

"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors. (The Noble Quran, 2:190)"

"God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers. (The Noble Quran, 60:8)

II. Evidence from the Hadith: (Heresay Evidence)

I dont think it is worth wasting everybody's time with what Ali Sina has quoted out of the hadith and various commentaries. The hadith are neither from God, nor from Muhammad (P), but rather something that the people have "attributed" to Muhammad

(P). Hence as proved already on the main page of Ali Sina Challenge, they are full of errors and fabrications. If I say Ali Sina is an illegitimate child born from unmarried parents and somebody writes this down and people quote this a 100 years from now, then does this statement become true? Of course not! History is only as accurate as the one who reports it. It is totally illogical to consider the hadith in an "intellectual"

argument. Most Islamic scholars agree that there are several errors in Sahih Bukhari & Muslim!

Posted in Ali Sina Challenge - Islam

Leave a Comment

Tags: Ali Sina, Faithfreedom, Islam, Muhammad, Muslims, Quran

Ali Sina Rebuttal – Rapist

I. Evidence from the Qur'an: (Substantial Evidence)

In spite of trying so hard, Ali Sina could only find 3 verses in the whole Qur'an to suggest that Muhammad (P) was a rapist. Once again I have failed to see how this could be possible from the verses he has quoted. Let us examine these verses in more detail, using common sense and logic.

(1) Qur'an, 4:24: "Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allâh ordained (Prohibitions) against you."

As you see, the above verse has been quoted out of context. If you look at the full verse along with the immediately preceding and following verses, with reference to 4:19, this is what you get -

You are forbidden to take as wives your mothers, daughters, sisters, paternal and maternal aunts, the daughters of brothers and daughters of sisters, your milk-mothers and milk-sisters, your wives' mothers, the stepdaughters in your care- those born of women with whom you have consummated marriage, if you have not consummated the marriage, then you will not be blamed- wives of your begotten sons, two sisters simultaneously- with the exception of what is past: God is most forgiving and merciful- (4:23)

And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, "so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock," not debauchery . And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise .(4:24)

And whoso is not able to afford to marry free, believing women, let them "marry from the believing maids" whom your right hands possess. Allah knoweth best (concerning) your faith. Ye (proceed) one from another; so wed them by permission of their folk, and give unto them their portions in kindness, they being honest, not debauched nor of loose conduct. And if when they are honourably married they commit lewdness they shall incur the half of the punishment (prescribed) for free women (in that case). This is for him among

you who feareth to commit sin. But to have patience would be better for you. Allah is Forgiving, Merciful, (4:25)

[O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should you treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the dowry you have given them - except when they have become guilty of open lewdness. On the contrary live with them honourably. If you take a dislike to them, it may be that you dislike something and God will bring about through it a great deal of good. (4:19) ]

I think the above verses are self explanatory. The Qur'an is defining the list of women a Muslim can marry or not marry. The Qur'an is giving permission to a man to "marry" the women whom his right hand possesses. This term is often used to describe the women from the prisoners of war. If they were women who embraced Islam after having lived in a Muslim community then it is alright to marry them even if they were previously married. As explained already in 4:19 above, this marriage can only take place with the "full agreement" of that woman and not by any force or compulsion. Once a woman is married she had the equal status as any other free believing woman. Often when the army invades any territory they loot, plunder and rape the women. The Qur'an on the other hand not only makes it permissible to marry these women but orders the men not to do so without their will and live with them honourably. I do not see any suggestions of rape here. On the contrary the Qur'an urges the men to be patient and discourages any form of sexual immorality.

The verse 4:25 makes it even clearer that one should marry the captives with the permission of their family members, give them their portion (monetary gift from the man to the woman to improve her financial security) and select someone of good moral character. So where is the question of rape? As far as I can see the Qur'an is asking the men to marry the woman and to take them in honest wedlock and not to commit any sexual immorality. This is if they are worried of comitting a sexual offence. Had rape been the norm then why mention all these verses regarding "marriage?"

(2) Qur'an, 33:50): "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allâh has assigned to thee."

The whole verse goes as follows -

Prophet, We have made lawful for you the wives whose bride gift you have paid, and any slaves God has assigned to you through war, and the daughters of your uncles and aunts on your father's and mother's sides, who migrated with you. Also any believing woman who has offered herself to the Prophet and whom the Prophet wishes to wed- this is only for you [Prophet] and not the rest of the believers: We know exactly what We have made obligatory for them concerning their wives and slave-girls- so you should not be blamed: God is most forgiving, most merciful. (33:50)

The above verse is telling us about the women that were lawful to the prophet. Lawful for what? Lawful for sex and to keep as a mistress as given in the Old Testament? Ofcourse not! If you read the verse it becomes clear that the verse is about marriage. Hence in the given context, the Qur'an says that the women the right hand possesses, are lawful to marry, not rape or sexual gratification.

If any believing woman chooses to "offer herself" to the prophet then he could marry her should he wish to marry her. This is an exception for the prophet. Note the phrase "offered herself" and not "rape" as implied by Ali Sina. Rape is against the will whereas "offered herself" is with consent.

(3) Qur'an, 4:3: "If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice."

Here again Ali Sina has quoted the verse to mean that Muhammad (P) was a rapist. How? As far as I can see this verse is about marriage and not rape. Is the "marriage" same as "rape" to Ali Sina?

Polygamy – Why is it sanctioned in Islam?

One may wonder why the Muslims were allowed to marry more than one woman at the same time? Is this not unfair to the other wife to whom a man is already married? Yes, it may seem unfair but this may have been the best option at the time, with a surplus of women and scarcity of men.

The Qur'an permits the men to marry more than one woman. The reason why the man is being allowed to marry more than one woman is pretty clear from 4:3. So that he can be just to the orphans of the widowed women, take on their financial responsibilities and care for their emotional and educational needs. One may argue that why does he need to marry their mothers in order to take care of the orphans. It is quite simple. The children need the love of both parents. In order to make this possible there should be an emotional bonding between the parents. Sex is an important part of a married relationship and helps to establish that intimacy between the parents. This is then reflected by the bonding and love that the man experiences for his spouse and his spouse's children. The children are excellent at sensing this and this love between the parents helps in the overall psychological development of the child. Have you ever spoken to a child from a broken family? If not, then please go and do so. Not all, but a majority of them have adjustment problems in later life. The Qur'an as you will see is not only addressing the needs of the orphaned child but also the needs of their widowed mother by providing her with the social status and economic security that is important for the woman. Even today, a lot of women in the Indian subcontinent are frowned upon as being of "loose character" or "easily available" if they are unmarried or widowed.

This may seem really far fetched to you, but not from the point of view of a widowed mother who is left at the mercy of the society and deprived of her sexual and emotional needs that can only come from a stable relationship. If all the young men go into battle and half of them get killed, leaving behind their widows and orphaned children, the options would be for the surviving men to marry the war widows or

leave the women to become lesbians to meet their sexual and emotional needs. Not all women would prefer to become lesbians but would rather remarry. If they married the unmarried men then who would marry the other young women of marriageable age? Hence the only feasible option would be to marry the men who were already married. What sounds as a luxury now was a necessity at the time. It was not for pleasure but to prevent sexual immorality.

If you read the Qur'an it becomes quite clear that the Muslims suffered heavy casualties. As a result there were many women who were left widowed. It is but natural that women who were young and attractive and left without a male companion would have the urge to cohabit. What were the options left for these women? Either to become a prostitute and sell their body for sex to support their orphaned children or become a mistress of someone who was already married. This may take care of their sexual needs but their emotional needs would remain unmet.

Polygamy versus Serial Monogamy -

"Serial monogamy" is a very common practice in some countries where the man and a woman cohabit for few years by living in as partners. Once they have a child, the man walks away from the relationship or they break off with children being left dependant on the single mothers. The single mothers then seek another partner or depend on the tax payers' money to take care of the illegitimate child as they find it hard to take care of the children and earn money in a respectful way at the same time. I recently came across a woman who had 5 children from 4 different partners and she was living on benefits with the responsibility of 5 children as a single mother. From her point of view don't you think it would have been better to be in a stable relationship with one man who would care equally for her children even if it meant that she was a second wife? Atleast she would have the financial security and the children would get the the love and care from the father. She would not have to struggle all by herself to take care of the children until she met a 5th partner who too would make her pregnant and then walk away leaving her with the responsibility of 6 children! It is simply a nightmare for females in her position as well as for the social services. I am sorry to say this but in the name of female liberalization her status has been reduced to that of a prostitute. She is not only dependant on others to take care of her children but also deprived of her emotional and sexual needs. Women like her are being exploited day in and day out. Polygamy is frowned upon but there are no problems with "serial monogamy" when the man decides to walk out of the live-in relationship, as and when he wants, for the sake of a younger and more attractive woman, leaving the ex-partner economically, emotionally and sexually devastated, taking on no responsibility for her well being! In an Islamic marriage the man is expected to give monetary benefits to the women at the time of marriage, which can be postponed to a date in future and becomes compulsory if they decide to separate. This monetary benefit could be fixed at anything that is desired by the woman, there is no limit to the amount that is fixed in the marriage contract. It could be anything from a few grands to a marital home, transport and a bank balance providing additional financial security. She is even allowed to remarry without having to return the gifts!

Not only that, but the risk of sexually transmitted infections and cervical cancers caused by HPV are extremely high in case of "serial monogamy" where the sexual partners are changed as frequently as a person changes their wardrobes. Chlamydia

and Herpes simplex are 2 of the commonest sexually transmitted infections in Europe and there are millions of people who are affected by diseases like HIV and Hepatitis B leading to painful deaths all over the world. This is despite the wide availability of condoms and sex education which was non-existent at the time. Besides, it leads to sexual immorality and unstable family dynamics when the other partner is having an affair or if all of a sudden decides to walk out of a relationship. Even if the adults are able to cope with it, in the long run it is the children who have to face the mental trauma of a broken family. As a professional I have dealt with several broken families and faced several depressed patients in the UK whose depression can be traced back to early childhood experiences. It is simply not fair to these children. It is inhuman to bring in a second wife when there is no necessity. But it is even worse to leave the first wife in suspense and walk out on her making her feel exploited. At the face of it the whole idea of having more than one wife sounds really horrible but it is much fairer to both women if there is a surplus of women or a scarcity of men, rather than destabilising the whole family structure and forcing half the women into prostitution or becoming mistresses. Islam guarantees equal rights to all the wives along with financial and emotional stability that is responsible for the foundations of a healthy family structure. It sounds wierd but it is true!

Whether a person agrees or disagrees, is entirely debatable. There is no right or wrong answers. In Christianity a person who divorces his wife and marries another woman is as good as comitting adultery. If this is true then there are hardly any Christians who are practicing Christianity in the developed nations. Most of the people practice "serial monogamy" where they can have as many partners as they like without having any long term commitments. NSA- No Strings Attached! They are all adulterers and adultresses and even the children they have are bastards (children born to unmarried parents). The word that was considered as an abuse has now become the norm.

Majority of Muslims I have known have a monogamous relationship. Polygamy is an exception and not the rule in Islam. It was a special provision made for people at a time when most of the men were killed in battle and many of the women were left widowed with the responsibility of the orphaned children. The whole picture becomes pretty obvious if you read the whole Qur'an. Hence to say that it is same as rape and it was purely for lust is simply ridiculous. It would be much easier for the men to have NSA sex with the women as and when they liked, rather than getting tied up in a marriage and having to take on the financial responsibilities for these women and their orphaned children. Islam on the other hand uplifted the status of women by preventing prostitution, as there were not many jobs available at the time for females. The jobs that may have been available would have been open to sexual exploitation of the women. Some Arabs even today try to sexually exploit female employees working for them by calling them into their private offices. Even if the women did manage to get a decent job who would take care of their emotional and sexual needs? Hence, the main reason for Polygamy was to prevent a moral degradation of the society and not for sexual pleasure and having an orgy as depicted by people like Ali Sina. It would be much easier to visit a prostitute and pay her off for her services rather than take her home. In modern times there is no need for such Polygamy, but should a situation arise, such as an epidemic or a war as in Iraq or Afghanistan where most women have been left widowed with the responsibility of orphans and the market saturated, then Polygamy may again become a necessity.

II. Evidence from Hadith: (Heresay Evidence)

I dont think it is worth wasting everybody's time with what Ali Sina has quoted out of the hadith. The hadith are neither from God, nor from Muhammad (P), but rather something that the people have "attributed" to Muhammad (P). Hence as proved already on the main page of Ali Sina Challenge, they are full of errors and fabrications. If I say Ali Sina is an illegitimate child born from unmarried parents and somebody writes this down and people quote this a 100 years from now, then does this statement become true? It is totally illogical to consider the hadith in an "intellectual" argument. Most Islamic scholars agree that there are several errors in Sahih Bukhari & Muslim!

The history is only as accurate as the one who reports it. I wonder why Ali Sina wishes to trust some of the narrators and some of the hadith in Bukhari and Dawud and reject the others that show the prophet as a kind man. One can not pick and choose. He seems very influenced by these hadith, more than any of the other Muslims. My stand as a free thinking Muslim is very clear. Hadith are simply stories about the prophet. Some may be true but most of them are false and have been over exaggerated either by his followers or his enemies. The people in that region were very good at story-telling. The best example is Ali Sina himself who adds his own imaginations to the straightforward verses from the Qur'an. The history that is derived from such narrations more than 1400 years old is totally unreliable. The one who is in power can easily twist it the way he wants by showing one side of the story and hiding the rest. Even if one sees both sides how can one be absolutely sure that the reports are not simply exaggerated and who is telling the truth. Muhammad (P) had a lot of enemies. If they could not win him with the sword they tried it with the pen. Those who loved him made him look like a super hero. It is totally illogical to rely on such fictitious reports and draw conclusions on any given religion. One can not base his religion on such false reports. If someone really wants to understand Muhammad

(P) then they should read the Qur'an which is the best hadith and has remained practically unchanged since the advent of Islam.

Ali Sina Rebuttal – Paedophile

Let me clarify this issue once and for all. Aisha was NOT 6 years old but nearly 19 years old when she married prophet Muhammad (P). The critics have hurled this abuse on Muhammad (P) several times without bothering to investigate the truth. It is not entirely their fault but the fault of some silly Muslims who hang onto the fabricated hadith in order to satisfy their own paedophilia. Ali Sina too has picked up on this issue. I am thankful to him that he has brought this issue out in the open.

I. Evidence from Qur'an: (Substantial Evidence)

It is worth noting that Ali Sina has not mentioned a single verse from the Qur'an which gives permission to a man to marry an underage girl. On the contrary this is what the Qur'an has to say -

Test orphans until they reach "marriageable age;" then, if you find "they have sound judgement," hand over their property to them. (Quran 4:6)

O ye who believe! Ye are "forbidden to inherit women against their will." Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may Take away part of the dower ye have given them,-except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good. (Quran 4:19)

Now, let us study these verses in detail using common sense and logic. The former verse talks about "marriageable age," of the orphans when they should be tested for "sound judgement." This means that when orphans reach "mariageable" age (obviously after attaining puberty), they are expected to be physically as well as mentally mature. In other words they should be able to give informed consent after making a sound judgement. The legal age for a girl to give informed consent for sex is 16 years in the UK.

The latter verse clearly says that do not inherit (marry – because it mentions the word dower which is a gift given by a husband to his wife) women against their will. Taken together the verses simply mean that one should marry women when (1) they reach marriageable age (2) they should have the ability to make a sound judgement and (3) they should be able to give a valid consent to marriage.

Any child for that matter would not qualify for marriage under the above criteria in the Qur'an. Hence Paedophilia is a crime in Islam akin to raping a child as a child is neither physically nor mentally mature and nor is the child able to give valid consent for marriage. Any Hadith that goes against the Qur'an or contradicts it is considered to be null and void as Muhammad (P) was an example of someone who lived by the Qur'an.

Another verse often quoted by critics:

Although Ali Sina has not mentioned the following verse in his challenge, I would like to have the pleasure of mentioning this verse which is so often (mis)quoted by Islamic critics and translators -

If you are in doubt, the period of waiting will be three months for those women who have ceased menstruating and for those who have not [yet] menstruated; the waiting period of those who are pregnant will be until they deliver their burden: God makes things easy for those who are mindful of Him. (65:4)

The critics argue that this verse legalizes marriage with children on the basis that it considers 3 categories of women with regards to their waiting period in the case of divorce. Namely -

  1. whose menstruation have ceased (yaisna mina almaheedi)

  2. who have not [yet] menstruated (lam yahidna)

  3. and those who are already pregnant (waolatu alahmali)

The case they have presented is relatively straightforward. They argue that the words lam yahidna in case (b) means not yet menstruated. As far as I can see there are only 2 words – lam = not, yahidna = menstruated. They say that lam = not yet, whereas according to the Qur'an lam = not.

Let us examine the 4 verses of Chapter Ikhlas (112:1-4), where the word "lam" is used 3 times.

Qul huwa Allahu ahadun – Say, 'He is God the One, Allahu alssamadu – God the eternal. Lam yalid walam yooladu – He begot not and not was He begotten. Walam yakun lahu kufuwan ahadun – And not is one comparable to Him.'

It is pretty much obvious from the above transliteration and translation that the word "lam" = "not" and it does not mean "not yet" as implied by the critics. Even when the translators did translate the word Lam as "not yet" some of the translators have put the word "yet" in brackets to show that the word is not originally present in the actual transliteration. This should be enough to expose the motive of the critics. But the critics will not contend with this and ask us for more explanation. Hence let us assume that the Qur'anic verse actually did say "not yet menstruated."

The first thought that comes to the mind of an average person when he listens to this verse, is a female who is expected to menstruate and has not yet menstruated. Do you expect a child to menstruate? No! Then to whom is this verse referring? Someone who is expected to menstruate and who has not menstruated yet. In other words, a girl who is approximately 16 to 17 years of age . There are several causes of delayed menarche (delayed onset of periods). These could be familial or genetic, it may be due to stress, excessive exercise or physical hard labour, poor nutrition and anorexia nervosa, low weight or obesity, ovarian causes, hyper and hypothyroidism, and various other hormonal, social and enviromental factors. This is also sometimes seen in female students who have just entered into college. Tuberculosis and other chronic illnesses may also be related to delayed menarche. Only the stupid and perverted men can apply this meaning for small "children."

A lot of 15 year olds in the developed world are having regular sex with their boyfriends. The legal age to consent for sex in the UK is 16 years. If an adolescent girl can have sex with her boyfriend and can get pregnant, then why can she not get married? Marriage will provide her with emotional and financial stability and prevent her from being exploited by her boyfriend who may make her pregnant and walk out with someone more attractive. If she was married to him, he would have equal responsibility for the child if she got pregnant and decided to keep the baby. In Islam a man is required to take full responsibility for the child and provide enough dower to his wife to enable her to support herself and her child, without being dependant on anyone else, should they not get along with each other. As far as I can see, this verse is referring to such young, adolescent women.

[If you decide to look into it a bit deeper, the phrase "not (yet) menstruated" not only includes women in the above category but also includes women who were previously menstruating and have all of a sudden stopped menstruating. If I say I have not had my food yet, does it mean that I have never had any food? No. It simply means that I have not eaten my food on the time I was expected to eat. In other words my eating has been delayed. Using the same logic the phrase could refer to "delayed menstruation." Furthermore, the word "yahidna" means "menstruation" and not "menarche." Hence, this could also mean that the verse is referring to women who have not yet had their menstruation although they were expected to be menstruating and have previously had regular periods. There are various medical conditions that can lead to "secondary" Amennorhoea.]

II. Evidence from Hadith: (Heresay Evidence)

I dont think it is worth wasting everybody's time with what Ali Sina has quoted out of the hadith. The hadith are neither from God, nor from Muhammad (P), but rather something that the people have "attributed" to Muhammad (P). Hence as proved already on the main page of Ali Sina Challenge, they are full of errors and fabrications. If I say Ali Sina is an illegitimate child born from unmarried parents and somebody writes this down and people quote this a 100 years from now, then does this statement become true? It is totally illogical to consider the hadith in an "intellectual" argument. Most Islamic scholars agree that there are several errors in Sahih Bukhari & Muslim!

As I feel deeply for the Muslim girls who get married off by their parents due to such stupid beliefs, who use these hadith to justify the actions of their paedophilic husbands, that I have gone ahead and mentioned other "hadith" to prove that Aisha was not 6 years old but 19 years old at the time.

[An excellent short work presenting such evidence is the Urdu pamphlet Rukhsati kai waqt Sayyida Aisha Siddiqa ki umar ('The age of Lady Aisha at the time of the start of her married life') by Abu Tahir Irfani

1. The famous classical historian of Islam, Ibn Jarir Tabari, wrote in his 'History':

"In the time before Islam, Abu Bakr married two women. The first was Fatila daughter of Abdul Uzza, from whom Abdullah and Asma were born. Then he married Umm Ruman, from whom Abdur Rahman and Aisha were born. These four were born before Islam."Being born before Islam means being born before the Call, ie before 610 CE. Therefore in 1 AH (623 CE) she was definitely more than 13 years old. Hence to believe that she was 6 or 9 years old is totally illogical.

2. The compiler of the famous Hadith collection Mishkat al-Masabih, Imam Wali-ud-Din Muhammad ibn Abdullah Al-Khatib, who died 700 years ago, has also written brief biographical notes on the narrators of Hadith reports. He writes under Asma, the older daughter of Abu Bakr:

"She was the sister of Aisha Siddiqa, wife of the Holy Prophet, and was ten years older than her.... In 73 A.H.... Asma died at the age of one hundred years."This would make Asma 28 years of age in 1 A.H., the year of the Hijra, thus making Aisha 18 years old in 1 A.H. So Aisha would be 19 years old at the time of the consummation of her marriage, and 14 or 15 years old at the time of her nikah. It would place her year of birth at four or five years before the Call (610 CE).

3. The same statement is made by, Ibn Kathir, in his book Al-bidayya wal-nihaya: "Asma died in 73 A.H. at the age of one hundred years. She was ten years older than her sister Aisha." ]

http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm

Although I have proved it that Aisha was 19 years old at the time of her marriage, there are several different hadith which place her age at anything between 14 to 19 years old. I dont see this as something to dwell over because what we are actually doing is using one hadith to negate another hadith. It is totally illogical. Why Ali Sina has chosen age of Aisha to be 6 years and not 19 years is hardly a surprise. It is a typical "logical fallacy" of Weak Analogy where he has used the Hadith to prove an aspect of Islam which is clearly contradictory to the Qur'an.

Fabrications in the Bible: Please visitwww.evilbible.com for more such fabricated material

"When King David was old and well advanced in years, he could not keep warm even when they put covers over him. So his servants said to him, 'Let us look for a young virgin to attend the king and take care of him. She can lie beside him so that our lord the king may keep warm.' Then they searched throughout Israel for a beautiful girl and found Abishag, a Shunammite, and brought her to the king. The girl was very beautiful; she took care of the king and waited on him..." (1 Kings, chapter 1, verses 1–4, New International Version). Is this really what the Jews and Christians do in reality by following their Bible? I wonder how many Jews or Christians depend on young virgins to keep them warm!

I truely believe that all the prophets sent by God were of noble character. What I have mentioned here is just a quote from the present Bible.

Ali Sina Rebuttal – Narcissist

Ali Sina has accused Muhammad (P) of being a Narcissist along with a beautiful definition with all the criterion listed in his argument. He has compared these with the verses from the Qur'an and drawn the inference that Muhammad (P) was a Narcissist. Thank God! He is not a doctor or else he would have filled all the mental assylums with doctors, political leaders, pilots and highly professional people including Pope.

According to his level of understanding, anyone who claims to be excellent at what he does is a "Narcissist."

He has stated that – a narcissistic persontypically is someone who "obsessively" seeks self-gratification, domination, and ambition.

I dont think he observed the word "obsessively" in the above definition. Consider the following scenarios -

(1) You are travelling to Canada and the pilot is trying to land the plane in a fog under horrible conditions. The plane is shaking violently due to turbulence and while everyone is praying for forgiveness, the pilot's voice on the intercom says – "I am pilot Sina. We are facing some tough weather ahead. But please dont worry. I have flown this route before and I am an average pilot. It is quite possible that we may be able to land safely without crashing into the control tower just ahead of the runway. There is only a 50% chance that some of us wont be able to make it."

Would you dare travel with that pilot again? I would rather fly with a pilot who says "I am captain Ali. I am an "excellent" pilot with thousands of hours of flying behind my back. I assure you that this will be the best landing you have ever had."

(2) You have taken your 5 year old child to hospital as he has developed acute appendicitis. You happen to meet Dr Sina out there who assures you like this "Dont worry, I am Dr Sina. I am an average skilled paediatric surgeon. I have operated on children before with a success rate of 50% and I have a feeling that I might be able to save your child."

Would you dare let him touch your child if the surgeon is full of self doubt? I would probably tell him "Thank you, but no thank you" and ask for someone more confident to operate on him. Someone who comes and says "I am an excellent surgeon and I am a specialist at operating on small children with appendicitis. I assure you that your child is in very safe hands."

Ali Sina has forgotten that these are examples of "healthy" Narcissism and is in fact a very positive thing when the morale is low. It is positive thinking and self reassurance that "I am the best" that helps you to become an achiever. The only time Narcissism becomes a real problem is when it gets "pathological."

Hence, simply claiming that you are excellent does not mean that you are a Narcissist but only goes to show that you are self-confident, which is one of the most important qualities of a successful leader. According to "Ali Sina's logic" the confident pilot, the effecient doctor, a powerful leader and a fighting army officer are all examples of Narcissistic personality disorders!

I. Evidence from the Qur'an: (Substantial Evidence)

The verses he has so cunningly referred to out of context, from the Qur'an are as follows -

(1) Excellent pattern -

There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of God an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in God and the Last Day and [who] remembers God often.(33:21)

I dont see any signs of "Narcissism" here. He was inviting the polythiests who were worshipping false gods to worship God alone. The people in Arabia were known to be blood thirsty people who used to kill each other and bury their daughters alive, as explained elsewhere in the Qur'an. So what was wrong if he proved by his own example not to shed innocent blood and kill their infant daughters and said he was an excellent example for the believers. Would you not agree? If my brothers are fighting and if I ask them to follow my example, it does not make me a narcissist. Besides, Ali Sina keeps forgeting that Muhammad (P) was a prophet just like Jesus (P). No wonder Islam is the fastest growing religion in the west! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1324039/Like-Lauren-Booth-ARE-modern-British-career-women-converting-Islam.html

(2) Seal of Prophets -

Muhammad is not the father of [any] one of your men, but [he is] the Seal of Prophets, Messenger of God and last of the prophets. And ever is God, of all things, Knowing.(33:40)

So, does Ali Sina mean to say that there was another prophet who has come after Muhammad (P). If he knows of any prophet who has come or going to come after him then please could he enlighten us? Informing the people that he was the last prophet does not look like "Narcissism." According to "Ali Sina logic" all messengers should then be Narcissists, including Moses (P) who spoke to God and especially Jesus (P) who is believed to be the "Son of God!"

(3) Best of Creation –

Indeed, they who have believed and done righteous deeds – those are the best of creatures. (98:7)

In spite of searching thoroughly, the only verse I found regarding "Best of Creation" is the one above. I could not find the verse which suggests that that the prophet ever said that he is the "Best of Creation" in the Qur'an. Please could Ali Sina provide the reference for that. If he is once again quoting from the hadith, then he is just wasting

everybody's time as I have already proved beyond doubt that quite a lot of them are fabricated. Please see my main page of Ali Sina Challenge.

(4) Exalted above other prophets in degrees -

Those messengers – some of them We caused to exceed others. Among them were those to whom God spoke , and He raised some of them in degree. And We gave Jesus, the Son of Mary , clear proofs, and We supported him with the Pure Spirit... (2:253)

Ali Sina has suggested that Muhammad (P) has hinted that he was exalted above other prophets in degrees. The above verse he has referred to, is in fact praising Moses (P), to whom God spoke and Jesus (P) whom God supported with the Holy Spirit. I dont see the name Muhammad (P) mentioned anywhere, on the contrary he is speaking about "other" prophets here and not himself, unless Ali Sina is reading between the lines and once again giving his own interpretation?!

  6. The preferred one –

  7. And your Lord is most knowing of whoever is in the heavens and the earth. And We have made some of the prophets exceed others [in various ways], and to David We gave the book [of Psalms]. (17:55)

Here Ali Sina has stated that the title "preferred one" refers to Muhammad (P)? I simply can not understand how. As far as I can see, this verse is about David (P). I really can't be that stupid! I am sure that if Ali Sina worked hard enough he will atleast be able to point out one verse where Muhammad (P) claims superiority over the other prophets.

(6) Mercy to the world –

Indeed, in this [Qur'an] is notification for a worshipping people. And We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a mercy to the worlds. (2:107)

Now according to Ali Sina, being sent as a "mercy to the world" is also a sign of Narcissism. May be from an athiest point of view worshipping God leads to all evil conduct in the world. According to me prayer gives a feeling of peace and tranquillity. One who brings peace is indeed merciful! Now if some insignificant person, examplr Ali Sina was to claim that he is a "mercy to the world" then that would be "narcissism". On the other hand if Jesus (P) or even Pope would have said the same thing, would this mean that they were being a Narcissist? Never. In fact, I would probably honour and respect Pope much more if he said that he was a "mercy to the world." Why? Because he is a leader of all Christians, or atleast the Roman Catholics. His claim that he is a "mercy to the world" would help to restore the confidence of the people that he is the one for peace and not war! What my dear friend Ali Sina is forgetting, is that Muhammad (P) was the ruler of whole of Arabia. He was not only the commander of a huge army but also a powerful religious leader. A King, Commander and a Prophet, all in one. This is a proclamation of "peace," not Narcissism.

(7) To a "praised state" –

And some part of the night awake for it, a largess for thee. It "may be" that thy Lord will raise thee to a praised state. (17:79)

[Ali Sina's comments on the above verse\- "to a praised state," (Q.17:79) a station which he said none but he would receive and this is the Station of Intercession at the right hand of the Almighty next to his Glorious Throne. In other words, he would be the person who would advise God as to who should he sent to Hell and who should be admitted to Heaven.]

The above verse says nothing of the order that Ali Sina has made out to be. It clearly implies that God has asked Muhammad (P) to perform additional prayers by getting up in the middle of the night. Even then, it "MAY BE" that God will raise him to a "praised state." Where did all the nonsense about Intercession and right hand of Almighty come from? Either Ali Sina is once again quoting from some stupid commentary or adding his own fanciful thinking to the above verse!

(8) Now, please compare Ali Sina's translation of the verse that he has quoted from the Qur'an with the word to word translation of the same verse –

Ali Sina's translation – Truly, Allâh and His angels send praise and blessings [forever] upon the Prophet. O you who believe! Praise and bless the Prophet with utmost laud and blessing. (Q.33:56)

The transliteraton folowed by "word to word" translation of the same verse –

Inna Allaha wamalaikatahu yusalloona AAala alnnabiyyi ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo salloo AAalayhi wasallimoo tasleeman

Indeed, God and His Angels send blessings upon the Prophet. O you who believe! Send blessings on him and greet him with greetings (33:56)

We know from our study of the Bible that God and the angels have blessed all the prophets, and God even asked Satan to bow down to Adam. So what is unique about God sending his blessings on this prophets? It is nothing new. My parents send blessings on me all the time, so why can God not shower his blessing on the prophet. If anything nice happens to me I say, this is God's blessing on me. My children are a blessing on me from God. Hence if I say "God has showered me with his blessings" does this mean that I am being Narcissistic? I am sorry, but I have missed the point that Ali Sina is trying to make.

The second part of the verse has been misinterpreted by Ali Sina and some translators to mean that Muhammad (P) asked the believers to Praise him. The word Praise has been incorrectly added by some translators. If you see the original word to word translation, there is no word "praise" there but it simply says to "send blessings on him and greet him with greetings."

You can cross check the reference here –

http://readquranonline.org/index/view/s/33/a/56

If I ask someone to bless me and greet me with polite greetings, does it make me a Narcissistic?

(9) In order that you (O men) may believe in Allâh and His Messenger, that you may assist and honor Him, and celebrate His praise morning and evening. (Q.48:9)

Here again Ali Sina has misled the readers to believe that this verse is referring to Muhammad (P) alone. I hope you noticed the capital "H" in "Him." The only time a capital "H" is used for "Him," is when the verse refers to God. All prophets including Muhammad (P) are referred to, by a small "h" in "him". I wont go into details as I am getting sick of it now, but please look at the example below -

Indeed, Allah ?and His Angels send blessings upon the Prophet. O you who believe! Send blessings

o n "him" and greet "him" with greetings (33:56)

(10) "And you (stand) on an exalted standard of character" (Q.68:4) -

If a drug addict comes to you and invites you to go and visit a prostitute, and if you refuse to go with him he turns back and calls you a madman, then what are you going to say to him? Will you nod your head and go along with him or will you turn back to him and say that that "I am a man of great moral character?" People like Ali Sina may not hesitate to join him, should they be considered a "narcissistic"!

The following verses are self explanatory of why Muhammad (P) is addressed by God as a "Man of great moral character" -

68:1 Nun. By the Pen and the (Record) which (men) write,- 68:2 Thou art not, by the Grace of thy Lord, mad or possessed. 68:3 Nay, verily for thee is a Reward unfailing: 68:4 And thou (standest) on an exalted standard of character. 68:5 Soon wilt thou see, and they will see, 68:6 Which of you is afflicted with madness. 68:7 Verily it is thy Lord that knoweth best, which (among men) hath strayed from His Path: and He knoweth best those who receive (true) Guidance. 68:8 So hearken not to those who deny (the Truth). 68:9 Their desire is that thou shouldst be pliant: so would they be pliant. 68:10 Heed not the type of despicable men,- ready with oaths, 68:11 A slanderer, going about with calumnies, 68:12 (Habitually) hindering (all) good, transgressing beyond bounds, deep in sin, 68:13 Violent (and cruel),- with all that, base-born,- 68:14 Because he possesses wealth and (numerous) sons. 68:15 When to him are rehearsed Our Signs, "Tales of the ancients", he cries!

From the above verses it is pretty much obvious that why Muhammad (P) has been referred to a man of "exalted character." He was being persecuted by the people who were polythiests. When Muhammad (P) invited them to worship God alone they insulted him and called him a mad man and invited him to join them instead of preaching to them. By the above verses it is clear that these were people who used to take false oaths, slanderers, transgressing beyond bounds, deep in sin, violent and

cruel, and proud due their wealth and sons. Therefore in response God tells him that he is the one with "exalted standard of character," which means not like them. Hence, he should avoid the company of those who were evil. May be Ali Sina would have joined them! If he refused and said that he was a man of excellent character then would he not become a "narcissist."

(11) A lamp giving light –

Ali Sina considers that when a prophet says that he is a lamp giving light then it is narcissism. Then according to his logic even Jesus (P) should be a narcissist because Jesus (P) has said that "nobody goes to the Father except through him!" Muslims already believe in Jesus (P) as a true prophet, so they do not find this to be odd. Why does he think Muhammad (P) was not a prophet? So far, he has failed to prove it to the Muslims that Muhammad (P) was not a prophet. If he refutes this then he has to prove it! All he has done so far is quoted some fabricated hadith.

33:45 O Prophet! Truly We have sent thee as a Witness, a Bearer of Glad Tidings, and Warner,- 33:46 And as one who invites to God's (grace) by His leave, and as a "lamp spreading light." 33:47 Then give the Glad Tidings to the Believers, that they shall have from God a very great Bounty.

Therefore, with reference to context it appears totally perfect that Muhammad (P) is referred to as a "lamp spreading light." He keeps forgetting that the Qur'an is considered to be a revelation by God, just like the Bible. According to his logic, Krishna (P), Moses (P), Jesus (P) should all be narcissists! If he does not believe these to be the word of God – then ask him to prove it. I am really grateful that Ali Sina is not a doctor!

Jesus (P) Vs Muhammad (P)

Ali Sina has asked us to compare the Qur'an with the words of Jesus (P), who when someone called him "good master," he objected and said, "Why do you call me good? No one is good—except God alone." Agreed Jesus (P) was a true messenger of God as believed by all the Muslims.

Now as Ali Sina insists let us see what esle has been "attributed" to poor Jesus (P) by his followers -

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats... And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." (Matthew 25:31-32 and 25:46)

"Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?" (Matthew 26:53)

"... (T)he people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." (Matthew 7:28-29)

"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after

me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it." (Matthew 10:37-39)

"Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always." (Matthew 26:10-11)

"I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel... It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs." (Matthew 15:24-26)

"For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." (Matthew 23:39)

I have not included the commentaries, you can read it here - http://www.buzzle.com/articles/jesus-christ-narcissist.html

When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world." Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."(John 8:12)

Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. (John 6:35)

I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved... (John 10:9)

"I am the good shepherd..." (John10:11)

Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; (John 11:25)

"The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord." (Matthew 10:24)

"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. (John 15:5)

"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star." (Revelation 22:16)

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. (Revelation 22:13)

"Yea; have ye never read, 'Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast "perfected praise'" (Matthew 21:16)

In John 14:13-14 Jesus stated: "And whatsoever ye ask in "my name" I do, that the Father may be "glorified in the son." If ye ask any thing in "my name," I will do it."

Matthew 12:34 ("0 generation of vipers"), and Matthew 23 :27 ("... hypocrites... ye are like unto whited sepulchres.")

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father also." ( John 14:6-7)

Also see -http://www.evilbible.com/why_i_am_not_a_christian.htm

Ali Sina has quoted 11 references from the Qur'an. I have not only disproved most of them but in return I have quoted him 20 references from the Gospels as he insisted on comparing the 2 prophets. Being a Muslim, I believe that Jesus (P) was as humble as Muhammad (P). The Gospels we have today are the Gospels according to Mark, John, Luke and Matthew, there is not a single Gospel according to Jesus (P). These canonical Gospels are somewhat similar to the canonical Hadith of Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi and Dawud. None of these are directly from Muhammad (P).

According to Ali Sina's logic Jesus (P) too should be a "narcissist." Is Sina "selectively blind" too?

II. Evidence from Hadith : (Heresay Evidence)

I dont think it is worth wasting everybody's time with what Ali Sina has quoted out of the hadith and various commentaries. The hadith are neither from God, nor from Muhammad (P), but rather something that the people have "attributed" to Muhammad

(P). Hence as proved already on the main page of Ali Sina Challenge, they are full of errors and fabrications. If I say Ali Sina is an illegitimate child born from unmarried parents and somebody writes this down and people quote this a 100 years from now, then does this statement become true? Of course not! History is only as accurate as the one who reports it. It is totally illogical to consider the hadith in an "intellectual" argument. Most Islamic scholars agree that there are several errors in Sahih Bukhari & Muslim!

Ali Sina Rebuttal – Misogynist

As usual Ali Sina has resorted to quoting from the hadith literature. Even the verses that he has quoted from the Qur'an, he has tried to interpret them using the hadith. Why does he need to depend on the hadith and perverted imagination to see the plain truth? Anyways, much as I would like, it is best not to be judgemental. Let us therefore look at the evidence he has tried to put forth, but first see what the Qur'an says on the status of women is Islam -

[3:195] "Their Lord responded to them: "I never fail to reward any worker among you for any work you do, be you MALE OR FEMALE, YOU ARE LIKE ONE ANOTHER..."

I. Evidence from the Qur'an: (Substantial Evidence)

I have listed below the verses Ali Sina has quoted from the Qur'an, followed by a clear and logical explanation using common sense alone. Ironically common sense is very uncommon these days.

1) "O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they

should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested." 33.59

I am really sorry but I dont see anything wrong with the above verse. Ali Sina has mentioned something like Umar suggesting the veiling of women to Muhammad (P) when this verse was revealed. From where did he get this? How can he be so sure? Is it simply because Bukhari says so? Where is his own common sense and logic that he boasts of? Even then, I do not see anything with regards to the veiling of women. It is true that a lot of Arabs and Middle East men have tried to dominate the women by making them wear a veil etc. This is their own tradition which they have tried to justify in the name of religion. There is not a single verse in the Qur'an which speaks about veiling the women. The above stated verse makes perfect sense in light of reasoning, common sense and logic. This is a picture of a woman wearing an outer garment as suggested by the Qur'an. Please could someone point out what is wrong with a dress like this, which is in full agreement with the above verse?http://www.je551.com/f-catalog/images/LY-1102_6.jpg

On the other hand if a lady wearing a revealing dress goes out after dark in places like Delhi, Mumbai and Goa in India, there is very little chance that she will be able to make it without getting molested. I dont think he has ever seen a lady travel in the local train in Mumbai during the rush hour. Delhi is really notorious for eve teasing, especially by the Punjabis. They are all non Muslims.

In case he has not heard about the famous rape and murder case about a UK teenager, Scarlett Keeling, in Goa then he can follow the links below to read the full coverage and see the the type of revealing dress she used to wear. I do not blame this poor girl. It was her upbringing which led her to her death. You can search for more images of her on Google. No wonder she would get raped. I really hate posting the links below but Ali Sina has left me with no choice but to talk about a dead girl in this manner. At least this could be a lesson for other girls to cover their body appropriately.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03/27/article-1002308-00919C3F00000578-894_468x470.jpg

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1581602/Man-charged-over-Scarlett-Keeling-murder.html

Do you know who raped her? The Christians.Goa is predominantly Christian. Muslims dont go about cursing Christians and Christianity for their actions. They have the basic common sense to appreciate the difference between Christianity and the bad Christians.

Ali Sina has also commented that the so-called moral police in Saudi Arabia drag the women out of their family cars and beat them up for displaying even a flock of hair. This is a totally un Islamic practice. The Qur'an does not forbid the woman from displaying what is naturally apparent. It only forbids nudity and encourages modesty. If Arabs and Iranis get turned on by seeing even a flock of hair or an arm then it is their problem. Why blame Islam for it? Who said they are following Islam correctly? Some of them in fact are the worst examples of Muslims. If they try to dominate the women and oppress them then it is the Arab culture that should be blamed rather than Islam. Indonesia has the highest number of Muslims, closely followed by India and Pakistan. This so called moral policing does not occur in any of these countries. Arab culture has nothing to do with Islam.

If you have never heard of Benazir Bhutto in the past, she was a typical example of a liberated Muslim lady who not only dressed modestly but was also the Prime Minister of Pakistan for several years. Does this powerful lady who had controlled the whole of Pakistan look oppressed in any way http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/images/2007/12/27/bhutto.jpg ? Unfortunately she was assassinated before coming to power for the third time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir.

Megawati, was another Muslim lady who was a President of Indonesia and ranked 8th out of the 100 powerful ladies in the Forbes Magazine.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megawati_Sukarnoputri

Hasina Wazed is the Prime Minister of Bangladesh now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Hasina

2) Q.33:30: O Consorts of the Prophet! If any of you were guilty of evident unseemly conduct, the Punishment would be doubled to her, and that is easy for Allah.

31. But any of you that is devout in the service of Allah and His Messenger, and works righteousness,- to her shall We grant her reward twice: and We have prepared for her a generous Sustenance.

The wives of the prophet were not like the rest of the women but expected to be an example to the rest of the believers. Hence they had a greater responsibility compared to the other believing women. This is why the punishment as well as reward for them would be twice that of other women.

[Muhammad often reminded his wives to behave in a way as not to attract the attention of other men and cover themselves to not become desired by strangers.] Agreed. So, can a loyal husband not expect this from his wife? May be someone like Ali Sina would be happy to parade their wife nude!

32. O Consorts of the Prophet! Ye are not like any of the (other) women: if ye do fear (Allah), be not too complacent of speech, lest one in whose heart is a disease should be moved with desire: but speak ye a speech (that is) just.

33. And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.

Muhammad (P) was not only a prophet but also a powerful leader and a king, hence it is but natural that he would have several enemies who would oppose him in every possible way. Either physically or by telling lies about him. If they could not win him directly they would use other means such as slandering his wives or even trying to molest them. If you were a powerful political leader in a foreign land where most men were really desparate for other women and attack you for your position, would you allow your beloved wife to go out alone at night, wearing a bikini (making a dazzling

display of her nudity)? If yes, then one could not be more foolish. Look at Scarlett Keeling who was raped and murdered in India. She was found nude on a beach after being raped and killed.

3) "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded."(4:34)

Ali Sina has used the above verse to suggest that women are like cattle in Islam that they should need maintenance. The word used for "maintainer" in Arabic is "Qawamma." It literally means care taker / guardian. In most Islamic families the husband is usually the bread winner while the woman is the home maker. Therefore I dont see anything wrong with men taking care of (mantaining / looking after) their women. If one can take care of financial responsibilities for his parents and his grand parents then why not his own wife? The above verse is only referring to financial responsibilities.

The second part of the verse has been translated as "Allah has made some of them to excel others." This is a wrong translation. If you look at the word by word translation of the Qur'an here http://readquranonline.org/index/view/s/4/a/34, it clearly says – "Allah has bestowed some more than others." Most of the translators have simply copied from each other without using any common sense. If you really want to understand the reason for this statement you will need to look at the context or the preceding verses in the same chapter which talk about inheritence laws in Islam -

Concerning your children, God commands you that a "son should have the equivalent share of two daughters." If there are only daughters, two or more should share two-thirds of the inheritance, if one, she should have half. Parents inherit a sixth each if the deceased leaves children; if he leaves no children and his parents are his sole heirs, his mother has a third, unless he has brothers, in which case she has a sixth. [In all cases, the distribution comes] after payment of any bequests or debts. You cannot know which of your parents or your children is more beneficial to you: this is a law from God, and He is all knowing, all wise. (4:11)

From the verse (4:11) it is clear that the inheritance laws suggest that women only inherit half the share as compared to men. The justification for this is given in the verses – (4:33) where God has clearly asked the men to give a part of their share to their wives and verse (4:34) where God has laid the financial responsibility to support the wife on the husband as he gets a greater portion of the inheritance as compared to his sister. Hence the verse (4:34) is not talking about superiority of men but referring to verse (4:11) with regards to a greater portion of the inheritance that is given to men.

We have appointed heirs for everything that parents and close relatives leave behind, including those to whom you have pledged your hands [in marriage], so give them their share: God is witness to everything.(4:33)

"Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has bestowed some of them more than others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded."(4:34)

Women are not required to work outside to provide for their family. Even if they did choose to work, they are not required to financially contribute to the family but keep their money for themselves for their personal use. Her money is her own money. It is the husband who has the responsibility to spend on his wife and family. Most women I know crave for such a luxurious life.

The husband works outside and is obedient to his boss and clients. In return if he expects his wife to listen to him, be loyal to him and guard his secrets in his absence then what is wrong with this? Who would like to come home tired after a hard day's work and face arguments with his wife? Would Ali Sina want to work hard and provide for a wife who flirts with other men while he is away at work? The Qur'an is just educating the men and women of their responsibilities for a healthy family life. The word "Qawamma" unfortunately has been misused to exploit women in Saudi Arabia & Middle East.

4)"And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them."

Ali Sina has suggested that the above verse denotes superiority of men over women. He has failed to notice the word "of advantage" which are there in brackets are the translator's own words and do not exist in the verbatim translation of the Qur'an.http://readquranonline.org/index/view/s/2/a/228

The most appropriate translation of the verse from the word to word translation would be like -

Divorced women must wait for three monthly periods before remarrying, and, if they really believe in God and the Last Day, it is not lawful for them to conceal what God has created in their wombs: their husbands would do better to take them back during this period, provided they wish to put things right. Wives have [rights] similar to their [obligations], according to what is recognized to be fair, and husbands have a degree [of right] over them: [both should remember that] God is almighty and wise.

The Qur'an does not say that women have a greater right over men or men have a greater right over women in general, but it simply says that women have rights that are "similar" and men only have "a degree" of right over women. Therefore the Qur'an is saying that men and women have a similar degree of right over each other. Why the translators have added "advantage" is anyones guess!

5) The following verse from the Qur'an is one of the most controversial and mistranslated verse. Most of the translators, due to their narrow mindedness and male chauvinism have mistranslated the following verse to give an impression that the Qur'an allows the Muslim husband to beat his wife -

"and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

This is an incorrect translation, as the Qur'anic verses repeatedly tell the husbands to treat their women with kindness and to protect them, and seek an amicable solution rather than beat them -

O ye who believe! Ye are "forbidden to inherit women against their will." Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may Take away part of the dower ye have given them,-except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary "live with them on a footing of kindness and equity." If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good. (Quran 4:19)

The Arabic word used for "beat" is "idriboohunna." There are several different meanings for this word. The 2 most common meanings in the context of the above verse are "set forth to them / strike

them."http://readquranonline.org/index/view/s/4/a/34. As the Qur'an insists on showing kindness to the women, rather than harshness, it would be illogical to suggest that God would allow wife beating. It would be much more appropriate to use the former meaning "to set forth." Most translators have unfortunately taken the second meaning in order to justify wife beating. Most Islamic critics have taken advantage of this to discredit Islam by stating that this is a violation of Women Rights. Let us see, what are the Islamic rights of women who are trapped in such a situation where the husband wrongly believes that it is appropriate to physically abuse his wife as and when he likes and if he is such a beast that he doubts his wife most of the time.It would be futile to continue a relationship where there is loss of trust between them. After all the marriage is based on love and mutual respect.

This is what the Qur'an has to say in favour of such woman who are at risk of physical abuse -

"If a wife fears "cruelty" or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best; even though men's souls are swayed by greed. But if ye do good and practise self-restraint, God is well-acquainted with all that ye do. (4:128)"

If you [believers] fear that a couple may break up, appoint one arbiter from his family and one from hers. Then, if the couple want to put things right, God will bring about a reconciliation between them: He is all knowing, all aware. (4:35)

A divorce is only permissible twice: after that, the parties should either hold Together on equitable terms, or separate with kindness. It is not lawful for you, (Men), to take back any of your gifts (from your wives), except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah. If ye (judges) do indeed fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah, there is no blame on either of them if she give something for her freedom. These are the limits ordained by Allah; so do not transgress them if any do transgress the limits ordained by Allah, such persons wrong (Themselves as well as others). (2:229)

Where possible the couple should arrange an amicable settlement. If this is unlikely and there is a fear of marriage break down then an arbitrator should be appointed from either sides and the couple should be encouraged to put things right. When in spite of all efforts it is not possible to save the marriage and if the arbitrators fear that they would not be able to live together in kindness then the woman is free to separate from her husband after returning whatever is left of the gifts. Hence to say that Islam allows victimisation of the women by physical abuse is totally illogical as the woman has full rights to separate from her husband even when she "fears" that she is at risk of physical abuse.

Furthermore, Turkey has even issued a "fatwa" stating that "women have equal rights to beat their husbands"in retaliation. Muslim women have even been encouraged to learn martial arts in order to defend themselves by hitting husbands back. This fatwa is based on the following verse in the Qur'an -

We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers. (5:45)

Compare this to what is taught in Christianity, that one is not allowed to divorce his wife. This means that if the wife is caught in an abusive relationship then she has no choice but to suffer in silence. If she is slapped on one cheek then she should offer her other cheek to her husband. There will be some who will argue that Christianity does not allow wife beating. This does not mean that Christian men do not beat their wives. Had this been the case there would be no need for a domestic abuse service. The social services have to deal with these issues everyday where the Christian husband beats his wife in front of their children. Being a doctor I have dealt with a lot of it and seen it all.

6) Ali Sina has quoted the verse below to imply that women were created for men. So what?

Another of His signs is that He created spouses from among yourselves for you to live with in tranquillity: He ordained love and kindness between you. There truly are signs in this for those who reject.

The Qur'an also suggests that men are the garments for their wives and wives are garments for men.

They (your wives) are your garment and "you are a garment" for them. (2:187)

The Qur'an also says that we all were "created" from a single soul, so what is wrong with that?

People, be mindful of your Lord, who created you from a single soul, and from it created its mate, and from the pair of them spread countless men and women far and wide; be mindful of God, in whose name you make requests of one another. Beware of severing the ties of kinship: God is always watching over you.(4:1)

Ali Sina has stated that the Qur'an always talks about women in third person. Yes, he is right. Have you ever wondered why? Because Muhammad (P) was a man. He never used to hang around in the company of women. His companions were all male companions. Men and women have different interests and different topics to discuss. It would be illogical to expect the prophet to sit down among women and gossip or discuss the latest ladies fashion. Being a male it is but natural that his interests would have been masculine and he would be in the company of men rather than women. As his audience were mostly males the females have been addressed in the third person.

Most of the Qur'an actually is addressed to the people as a whole rather than being addressed to the men alone. Eg.

For Muslim men and women, for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in God's praise — for them has God prepared forgiveness and great reward.

[ Quran 33:35 ]

7) Ali Sina has quoted the following verse from the Qur'an in order to prove that 2 women witnesses are equal to one male witness; hence women are inferior in Islam.

And call in to witness two witnesses, men; or if the two be not men, then one man and two women, such witness as you approve of, that if one woman errs the other will remind her. Q. 2:282

If you read the context herehttp :// readquranonline . org / index /view/s/2/a/282, the Qur'an is referring to financial transactions. It is "only in the case of financial transactions" that 2 women witnesses are required instead of one male witness. The reason for this is not because men are superior to women but simply because men are more used to handling the business side of things and women generally are better at managing the home. Both are equally important and complement each other rather than one being superior or inferior to the other. Neither a man nor a woman can be expected to work whole day and take the children to school and to the doctors, do the shopping, clean the house and cook food for the family at the same time. They have to distribute the roles so that neither the business nor the home life suffers in anyway.

On the other hand the women are excellent at handling relationships, expressing emotions, showing care and compassion to others, cooperating with their husbands, taking care of children, doing the shopping, remembering a list of things, organizing events, cooking, being patient and building up the family ties. This could be due to the fact that the male hormones make him much more aggressive and adaptable to outdoor life, whereas the females are more adapted for the family and social life. Women have been gifted with these special skills that are necessary to manage the home life. Leave a man to do this and he will make a mess of it. The children will be late for school; he will burn the shirt while ironing it, forget to get the milk from the shop and probably forget to clean up the house, not to mention the uncooked or burnt food he has to offer. They simply can not do all this monotonously, day in and day out. Men simply lack patience and perseverance. No wonder God chose women to get pregnant. Men have their own limitations in managing home affairs. As men mostly like discussing about business and investments they are generally better with numbers, whereas women are better at linguistic skills and love to talk about fashion and food and chat about current affairs and society.

Hence it makes perfect sense that while dealing with "financial transactions" why 1 male witness is equal to 2 female witnesses. If one of them errs then the other can support her.

Ali Sina has not mentioned other verses from the Qur'an where there is no differentiation between men and women to act as witnesses and the fact that a woman's testimony is actually greater than her husband's and enough to over rule her husband's testimony.

No differentiation between men and women witnesses:

Test orphans until they reach marriageable age; then, if you find they have sound judgement, hand over their property to them....When you give them their property, call witnesses in; but God takes full account of everything you do.(4:6)

As for those who accuse chaste women of fornication, and then fail to provide four witnesses, strike them eighty times, and reject their testimony ever afterwards: they are the lawbreakers, (24:4) except for those who repent later and make amends––God is most forgiving and merciful. (24:5)

The above verse makes it clear that there is no need for the witnesses in matters related to adultery and orphans to be male or female. Hence testimony of a male is clearly equal to that of a female. Critics have simply picked up verses out of context to prove their point.

Wife's testimony is in fact "more valuable" than the husband's testimony:

As for those who accuse their own wives of adultery, but have no other witnesses, let each one four times call God to witness that he is telling the truth, (24:6) and, the fifth time, call God to reject him if he is lying; (24:7) "punishment shall be averted from his wife"if she in turn four times calls God to witness that her husband is lying (24:8) and, the fifth time, calls God to reject her if he is telling the truth.(24:9)

Hence in cases where a wife is accused of adultery her testimony is the "final word."

Qur'an Vs Bible

If a Christian takes a woman as a wife and then accuses her of not being a virgin, her own testimony will not count. This is what the Bible (Deutrenomy) says about Women's' Rights!

22:13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 22:14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: 22:15 Then shall the

father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: 22:16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 22:17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 22:18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; 22:19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days: 22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die : because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

It is so easy for the man to have sex with his virgin wife and then dispose her off like a used condom if she is unable to prove her innocence. She has no voice of her own, not to mention the humiliation to which she is subjected in front of other men. So much, for the status of women in Christianity! Please visitwww.evilbible.com to learn more about the present Bible.

Ali Sina has quoted the verses below using a reference to some vague hadith in order to prove that women inherit less than men. I agree, it does appear that way, hence let us analyse them further.

Concerning your children, God commands you that a son should have the equivalent share of two daughters. (4:11)

Do not covet what God has given to some of you more than others- men have the portion they have earned; and women the portion they have earned- you should rather ask God for some of His bounty: He has full knowledge of everything.(4:32)

It seems unfair that the man should get a larger portion of the inheritence and the women should get less. In order to understand why, one must look at the following 2 verses in the Qur'an which explain the reasons for what seems to be an unfair distribution. As already explained in point number (3) above – The justification for this is given in the verses – (4:33) where God has clearly asked the men to give a part of their share to their wives and verse (4:34) where God has laid the financial responsibility to support the wife on the husband as he gets a greater portion of the inheritance as compared to his sister. The woman on the other hand gets to keep her whole inherited share.

We have appointed heirs for everything that parents and close relatives leave behind, including those to whom you have pledged your hands [in marriage], so give them their share: God is witness to everything.(4:33)

Husbands should take good care of their wives, with [the bounties] God has given to some more than others and with what they spend out of their own money... (4:34)

A practical example – Mr Abdul dies leaving behind a daughter Yasmin and son Rahman, both of whom are married and have 2 children each. He has an estate worth £150, 000. Yasmin gets one share (£50,000) and Rahman gets the remaining two shares (£100,000). Rahman then has to share his part of the inheritance with his wife, Tania (as stated in verse 4:33) and spend it on Tania as he has the financial responsibilities for her (as stated in verse 4:34). This then leaves him with £100,000 / 2 = £50,000. On the contrary Yasmin gets to keep the entire £50,000. Therefore the nett amount that gets credited to their accounts remains the same, ie. £50,000 each. So where is the question of the woman inheriting less? On the other hand, Yasmin not only gets £50,000 from her father's estate but she also gets a share from what her husband inherits. Therefore Yasmin's financial position is in fact much stronger than Rahman's. You just need to analyse and work out the maths!

9) According to Ali Sina's interpretation of the Qur'an –

[Islam regards women as tilth or farmland and one can enter their tilth from wherever they like (ana she'tom). (2.223) "Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will..."

It is not proper to be more descriptive, but it is obvious that the word ana she'tom or wherever allows a man to enter a woman from every hole. The above led Muslims to regard women as nothing but toys created to appease men.]

Therefore let us now examine the truth in his statement. For this you will need to open up an Arabic to English dictionary to see what the words actually mean – http://translate.google.com/#ar|en|

If you copy-paste "Anna Shitum" from http://readquranonline.org/index/view/s/2/a/223 and as it appears in Arabic, into the Google link above, the translation you get is "Wherever you like" and NOT "from wherever you like," as suggested by Ali Sina. This IS a big difference, as explained later. Furthermore if you copy-paste the whole sentence as given in the Qur'an "Nisaokum harthun lakum fatoo harthakum anna shitum" from http://readquranonline.org/index/view/s/2/a/223 in the same link, this what you get – "Your wives are your tillage tilth for you like." Hence in either case the meaning given by Ali Sina is an eye washer. I will explain this sentence using both the meanings as given by Google Translate.

If you use the phrase "wherever you like" as given by Google Translate rather than using Ali Sina's own dictionary, the sentence would read "Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth wherever you like..." There is nothing wrong in this because you can approach your wife in the kitchen, in the bedroom, in the bathroom, on the couch or even a hotel room if you are on a holiday.

The second meaning of the sentence if you translate it as a whole is "Your wives are your tillage, tilth for (as) you like." This means you can tilth, cultivate, plant your seeds in your wife as you like!

I know that critics like Ali Sina will still argue with this, hence let us use the phrase that he has suggested for "Ana She'tom," "from wherever you like" This would make the sentence appear as follows - "Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth from wherever you like..."

This would simply mean that you could approach your wife facing her, from the front or from top (missionary), from behind (rear entry), from below (woman on top) or lying down, from the side! The latter three positions are in fact, preferable and more convenient in pregnancy, when the abdomen comes in the way or to prevent dysparunia (painful intercourse) when the man is well endowed and the birth canal is small. All these positions are referring to the same orifice that is meant for reproduction and not to the different orifices as suggested by some "perverted" critics.

Besides, the critics have been caught in their own web. On one hand Ali Sina accepts that "women are a tilth" for men and on the other hand he says "they are toys" for muslim men because Islam encourages men to approach their wives from any penetrable orifice. He can not make up his mind.

Let us analyse this verse further to see what I mean. The above statement contains 2 parts. The first part says that "women are a tilth." So, what is meant by "tilth?" According to Wikipedia "Good tilth is a term referring to soil that has the proper structure and nutrients to grow healthy crops." Hence the Qur'an is not referring to wives as toys but drawing a simile between the properties of "fertile soil" and "fertility of a woman." We all lknow that a man needs to sow his seeds in the soil in order to get a harvest. Similarly a man needs to sow his seed (deposit his sperms into the birth canal) in order to fertilise the ovum and get children. Hence the word "tilth" has got nothing to do with property or farmland but it is exclusively dealing with the "fertile nature" of good soil and the wives.

The second part of the statement suggests that a man may "approach his tilth (fertile soil) as he likes." Anyone with the least bit of common sense will agree that fertile soil is only useful if a person sows the seed in it to get a harvest. You dont need "fertile soil" to play cricket on it. Therefore when a man approaches his wife as a "tilth" it is with the intent of sowing his seed. Approaching his wife through any orifice other than the one meant for reproduction would simply defeat the purpose.

Hence to say that in Islam the wife is a "tilth" and then say that Islam treats women as "toys" and allows a man to approach his wife from wherever he likes, is not only contradictory but also illogical!

(10) Ali Sina has quoted the verse 53:19-22, to suggest that Muhammad (P) was a misogynist. His reasoning is that he found that the assigning of the 3 female godesses to Allah and retaining the males for themselves as an unfair distribution.

Have you considered Lat and 'Uzza, (53:19) and the third one, Manat–– (53:20) are you to have the male and He the female? (53:21) That would be a most unjust distribution!–– (53:22)

Of course this is an unfair division! The pagans assigned 3 of their female godesses whom they revered so much to Allah and decided to keep the less important male gods for themselves. This is definitely not fair "to them." It would have been fairer "to them" if they gave away 1 male and 1 female to Allah. This way they would not have been at a loss. When one tries to bribe another person he offers the best of what he can afford to win that person over to his side. In spite of being offered the best deal Muhammad (P) rejects the offer and says that these are just invented names.

these are nothing but names you have invented yourselves, you and your forefathers. God has sent no authority for them. These people merely follow guesswork and the whims of their souls, even though guidance has come to them from their Lord. (53:23)

The question here is not that of male or female superiority but of fairness to even his own enemies!

II. Evidence from Hadith: (Heresay Evidence)

I dont think it is worth wasting everybody's time with what Ali Sina has quoted out of the hadith and various commentaries. The hadith are neither from God, nor from Muhammad (P), but rather something that the people have "attributed" to Muhammad

(P). Hence as proved already on the main page of Ali Sina Challenge, they are full of errors and fabrications. If I say Ali Sina is an illegitimate child born from unmarried parents and somebody writes this down and people quote this a 100 years from now, then does this statement become true? Of course not! History is only as accurate as the one who reports it. It is totally illogical to consider the hadith in an "intellectual" argument. Most Islamic scholars agree that there are several errors in Sahih Bukhari & Muslim!

Ali Sina Rebuttal – Mass Murderer

Ali Sina has accused Muhammad (P) of being a Mass Murderer. Let us examine the evidence he has put forward in order to prove his accusation.

I. Evidence from the Qur'an: (Substantial Evidence)

Ali Sina has stated -

"There is a verse in the Qur'an that speaks about the massacre of the Banu Quraiza approving Muhammad's butcheries of their men and taking women and children as prisoners.He caused those of the People of the Book who helped them to come out of their forts. Some you killed, some you took prisoner. (Q. 33: 26)"

I have quoted the verses along with the context so that the reader may be able to follow it better -

And God turned back the disbelievers for (all) their fury: no advantage did they gain; and enough is God for the believers in their fight. And God is full of Strength, able to enforce His Will. And those of the People of the Book who aided them – God did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts. (So that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners.(33:25,26)

http://readquranonline.org/index/view/s/33/a/25

It is clear from the above verses, especially if you read the whole chapter that the verse refers to the time of war. The former verse refers to the people who did not believe in Muhammad (P) as the prophet and were planning to fight with him and kill his followers. God turned them back even though they were furious with Muhammad

(P) who asked them not to worship false gods besides God. If you read the Qur'an you will understand the whole picture. The people to whom Muhammad (P) preached had driven him and his followers along with their families out of their homes. It was only later on that God permitted the Muslim forces to stand up against oppression.

The second verse talks about the "People of the Book (Jews)" who supported the disbelievers. The Qur'an does not say all Jews and Christians but is very specific about only "those" of the People of the Book who supported the disbelievers in their fight against Muhammad (P), whom he killed and took captives. Yes, Muslims did fight and kill, but only when provoked. If you read the Qur'an you will understand that Muslims never started any war. They only fought in self defence to protect their rights. The Qur'an repeatedly instructs Muslims not to initiate any hostilities and when the opponent seeks peace then grant it to them. There is nothing wrong in defending yourselves.

The right of self-defense (according to U.S. law) (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for civilians acting on their own behalf to engage in violence for the sake of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including the use of "deadly force". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense

Furthermore the Qur'an talks about only "some" who were killed and "some" who were taken captives out of only "those" who helped the disbelievers in fighting against Muhammad (P). Had Muhammad (P) been an anti Jew or an anti Christian why would he have spared even a single person. He was victorious. Like Hitler (a Christian) he could have killed everyone, if he really was a "mass murderer". http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm Who could have stopped him? Although there was no UN at the time, he fought only to defend himself and his people and ended the war when his opponents surrendered to him. He did not commit a single war crime.

On the other hand in the same chapter the Qur'an says - Do not give in to the disbelievers and the hypocrites: "ignore" the harm they cause you and put your trust in God. God is enough to trust. (33:48)

It is clear from the above verse that the disbelievers were constantly harassing the Muslims, they were trying to get the better of them and instigating them to begin a fight. Instead of attacking them over every silly thing Muhammad (P) taught his

people to "ignore" the harm they had been causing the Muslims (believers) and to put their trust in God. The fundamental teaching of Islam is not to take advantage of others but to forgive the enemies when possible and to live with them in peace. Any Muslim who kills a non muslim using Islam as a pretext is simply doing it for political reasons. He is not a true Muslim. I sincerely condemn all the attacks on innocent civilians in Israel & US.

II. Evidence from Hadith: (Heresay Evidence)

I dont think it is worth wasting everybody's time with what Ali Sina has quoted out of the hadith. The hadith are neither from God, nor from Muhammad (P), but rather something that the people have "attributed" to Muhammad (P). Hence as proved already on the main page of Ali Sina Challenge, they are full of errors and fabrications. If I say Ali Sina is an illegitimate child born from unmarried parents and somebody writes this down and people quote this a 100 years from now, then does this statement become true? It is totally illogical to consider the hadith in an "intellectual" argument. Most Islamic scholars agree that there are several errors in Sahih Bukhari & Muslim!

The history is only as accurate as the one who reports it. I wonder why Ali Sina wishes to trust some of the narrators and some of the hadith in Bukhari and Dawud and reject the others that show the prophet as merciful. One can not pick and choose. He seems too influenced by these hadith, more than any of the other Muslims. My stand as a free thinking Muslim is very clear. Hadith are simply stories about the prophet. Some may be true but most of them are false and have been over exaggerated either by his followers or his enemies. The people in that region were very good at story-telling. The best example is Ali Sina himself who adds his own imaginations to the straightforward verses from the Qur'an. The history that is derived from such narrations more than 1400 years old is totally unreliable. The one who is in power can easily twist it the way he wants by showing one side of the story and hiding the rest. Even if one sees both sides how can one be absolutely sure that the reports are not simply exaggerated and who is telling the truth. Muhammad (P) had a lot of enemies. If they could not win him with the sword they tried it with the pen. Those who loved him made him look like a super hero and the ones who hated him made him look like a devil incarnate. It is totally illogical to rely on such fictitious reports and draw conclusions on any given religion. One can not base his religion on such false reports. If someone really wants to understand Muhammad (P) then they should read the Qur'an which is the best hadith and has remained practically unchanged since the advent of Islam.

Ali Sina Rebuttal – Looter

Ali Sina has accused Muhammad (P) of being a Looter. I won't even try to defend this one. Of course he was a looter and he was pretty good at it too. He had to be good or else he would be the one in the firing line. Jesus (P) was the one who did not fight any wars. What did the Jews want to do with him? Crucify him! Muhammad (P) would have suffered the same fate had he not stood up against the oppresson by the Jews and the Pagans and had he not defended his people using clever and cunning strategies. He was an excellent and brave warrior. In a war it is – "Do or Die."

I came across an interesting and a very informative article on Wikipedia on different war strtegies -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_33_Strategies_of_War

It gives an insight into what is expected in a war. War consists of weakening the other side— militarily, financially and morally[Greene, Robert, "The 33 Strategies of War", Viking Adult, 2006].

The National Defence Academies all over the world train their recruits in different war strategies. When they learn to use automatic weapons, what is the purpose of it? To learn how to "shoot to kill." In a war there is no second chance, there is no escape. Speak to the ones who have been in combat. It is all about overpowering the enemies. One of the strategies is to exploit them financially. It is looting in conventional terms. If one does not do this, the enemies will rise again leading to further feuds and bloodshed. One has to make use of their money and their resources to one's own advantage. It is perfectly normal to do this in a war, to prevent them from getting the better of you. In fact it would be foolishness not to destroy their economic means to fight back .

Before you attempt to refute this please read the excerpts from an article which appeared in the Independent, UK.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraqs-oil-the-spoils-of-war-516400.html

Iraq's oil: The spoils of war (By Philip Thornton, Economics Correspondent) -

22/11/2005

Iraqis face the dire prospect of losing up to $200bn (£116bn) of the wealth of their countryif an American-inspired plan to hand over development of its oil reserves to US and British multinationals comes into force next year. A report produced by American and British pressure groups warns Iraq will be caught in an "old colonial trap" if it allows foreign companies to take a share of its vast energy reserves. The report is certain to reawaken fears that the real purpose of the 2003 war on Iraq was to ensure its oil came under Western control.

Yesterday's report said the use of production sharing agreements (PSAs) was proposed by the US State Department before the invasion and adopted by the Coalition Provisional Authority. "The current government is fast-tracking the process. It isalready negotiating contracts with oil companiesin parallel with the constitutional process, elections and passage of a Petroleum Law," the report, Crude Designs, said.

Earlier this year a BBC Newsnight report claimed to have uncovered documents showing the Bush administration made plans to secure Iraqi oil even before the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US. Based on its analysis of PSAs in seven countries, it said multinationals would seek rates of return on their investment from 42 to 162 per cent, far in excess of typical 12 per cent rates.

Taking an assumption of $40 a barrel, below the current price of almost $60, and a likely contract term of 25 to 40 years, it said that Iraq stood to lose between £74bn and $194bn. Andrew Simms, the NEF's policy director, said: "Over the last century, Britain and the USleft a global trail of conflict, social upheavaland environmental damage as they sought to capture and control a disproportionate share of the world's oil reserves. Now it seems they are determined to increase their ecological debts at Iraq's expense. Instead of a new beginning, Iraq is caught in a very old colonial trap."

Louise Richards, chief executive of War on Want, said: " People have increasingly come to realise the Iraq war was about oil, profits and plunder. Despite claims from politicians that this is a conspiracy theory, our report gives detailed evidence to show Iraq's oil profits are well within the sights of the oil multinationals."

I. Evidence from the Qur'an: (Substantial Evidence)

Now let us examine the verses quoted by Ali Sina followed by the ones from the Qur'an to see whether or not what Muhammad (P) did was justifiable under the prevalent circumstances.

Ali Sina's comments -

Several verses of the Quran exhort Muslims to raid the unbelievers promising booty in this world and heavenly rewards in the other.

Allah promiseth you much booty that ye will capture, and hath given you this in advance, and hath withheld men's hands from you, that it may be a token for the believers, and that He may guide you on a right path. [al-Fath 48:20]

And that which Allah gave as spoil unto His messenger from them, ye urged not any horse or riding-camel for the sake thereof, but Allah giveth His messenger lordship over whom He will. Allah is Able to do all things. [al-Hashr 59:6]

Now enjoy what ye have won, as lawful and good, and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [al-Anfal 8:69]

These verses were stated to goad the believers to take part in the wars. They also tell us about the caliber of the people who converted to Islam. Muhammad convinced them that God has instructed them to attack innocent people, take them by surprise, kill them and loot their wives and properties as booty?

I agree with most of the things that Ali Sina has said except the last sentence. Muhammad (P) did go to war and he and his army did loot the enemies in order to gain a political and financial victory. They even captured the ones who did not get killed and took them as prisoners of war (captives). This is completely unacceptable had they been the ones to begin the hostility, but not when they were on the defensive side or if they were retaliating. Islam teaches you to fight against oppression.

Hence let us see the circumstances that led him to lead so many military campaigns and then decide whether or not this was justifiable. It seemed fair to the Americans to

attack Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks. See how the UN responded to Iraq when it refused to co-operate!

(01) "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors. (2:190)"

The Qur'an gives clear instructions to fight only those people who fight you, in other words it is telling the Muslims to fight only in retaliation and agaist only the ones who were trying to oppress and harm the Muslims. It does not instruct the Muslims to go and fight against any innocent person. At the same time, the Qur'an instructs Muslims not to transgress any limits. The injuries that they inflict on the enemies should be proportionate to the harm they themselves had suffered. God does not like anyone who transgresses limits and hence they should stay well within the limits.

It is clear from the above verse that the Muslims were the ones who were being attacked and the only reason they fought back was to defend themselves. They were not the aggressors but they were the victims and they only fought to prevent the others from attacking them. Even when they did fight back, they had to follow the rules and make sure that they did not become the aggressors.

(02) "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers. (2:193)"

Before anyone goes to war they have an aim, a goal to achieve. When US and UK went to war with Iraq and Afghanistan, their motives were to destroy the Al Qaida and liberate the citizens of the country from a regime that was doing more harm than good. In other words they went to war in order to end the persecution. The Qur'an says the same thing. Fight until persecution is no more and religion is for God. The reasons why the Muslims were being persecuted was that they believed in God alone and refused to worship any idols or set up partners with God. Hence their aim should be to fight until there is no more persecution and religion is for God.

At the same time, the Qur'an warns the Muslims that if the ones who were persecuting them desist then there should be no hostilities towards them except for the ones who were wrongdoers, ie. those who continued to attack them. This means that they should end the war immediately if the persecution stopped.The above verse makes it clear that the Muslims were the ones being persecuted. The reason for the war was to end this persecution, with the understanding that the Muslims would end the war immediately and no longer be hostile to anyone should the persecuters agree to stop the persecution.

(03) So if anyone commits aggression against you, attack him as he attacked you, but be mindful of God, and know that He is with those who are mindful of Him. (2:194)

This verse says that if anyone commits aggression then one can attack him in retaliation, that too in a manner that he has been attacked. It is totally justifiable to counter attack. On the other hand if the Muslims have not been attacked then they have no right to attack anyone else. The Qur'an makes it clear that one has to be mindful of God, therefore it is not justifiable to attack the aggressors in a more severe

manner, or else the Muslims would turn out to be the aggressors. The rules are clearly laid out, that one can only attack another person in self defence if they have been attacked first, as aggression is not at all permitted in Islam.

(04)"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). (8:61)"

In the above verse the Muslims are urged that if the enemy want to settle for a peaceful agreement then it is the duty of the Muslims to encourage this and push for a peaceful settlement. As you see, the Qur'an pushes forward for a peaceful settlement at the first given opportunity rather than war.

(05) "God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers. (60:8)"

It is clear from the above verse that one should treat the other person with kindness, even if they belong to the enemy side, provided they have not behaved in a hostile manner. It is therefore totally illogical to suggest that Muhammad (P) ever attacked and killed any innocent person. Especially when the Qur'an makes it clear that God loves just dealers. Besides, the fight was only with those people who had fought with the Muslims and chased them out of their houses on account of their belief in One God. It was in retaliation to the persecution faced by the Muslims.

(06) But God forbids you to take as allies those who have fought against you for your faith, driven you out of your homes, and helped others to drive you out: any of you who take them as allies will truly be wrongdoers. (60:9)

It is only common sense that one should not take their enemies as allies. If you trust the people who have driven you out of your homes, who have helped others drive you out of your homes and fought against you on account of your faith, then it is quite possible that they will team up against you and attack you again at the next available opportunity when you are least suspecting it.

The other thing that becomes obvious from this verse is that it were the Muslims who were driven out of their homes by the unbelievers who fought with them on account of their belief in One God.

(07) If any one of the idolaters should seek your protection [Prophet], grant it to him so that he may hear the word of God, then take him to a place safe for him, for they are people with no knowledge [of it]. (9:6)

Far from looting the wives of unbelievers, the above verse in fact instructs the Muslims that should any of the idolators seek the protection of Muslims at the time of war, then it is their duty to not only protect the idolators but also to escort them to a place of safety so that they are not harmed.

(08) In a Believer they respect not the ties either of kinship or of covenant! It is they who have transgressed all bounds. (9:10)

The unbelievers were constantly harassing the Muslims. They did not respect any ties of kinship with the Muslims even though they were their own blood relatives and disowned them completely for saying "there are no gods but One God." They constantly broke all covenants in order to exploit the Muslims

(09) How could you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, who tried to drive the Messenger out, who attacked you first? Do you fear them? It is God you should fear if you are true believers. (9:13)

The unbelievers not only broke their oaths they made with the Muslims but they even tried to drive Muhamad (P) out of his his home and started attacking him for preaching to them. He was the one who was the victim rather than the aggressor. He was harrassed so much that he was forced to migrate from Mecca to Medina, a journey of some 200 miles through the hot deserts of Arabia.

(10) Remember [Prophet] when the disbelievers plotted to take you captive, kill, or expel you.

They schemed and so did God: He is the best of schemers. (8:30)

The disbelievers who rejected the message of Muhammad (P), even took up arms against him in order to kidnap him and then kill him or expell him from his home town if they failed to kill him.

(11) Those who have been attacked are permitted to take up arms because they have been wronged- God has the power to help them- (22:39)

The Qur'an always allows the ones who have been attacked first and have been the victims to take up arms in order to end the persecution. Islam always encourages the people to fight for justice.

(12) those who have been driven unjustly from their homes only for saying, 'Our Lord is God.'

(22:40)

The only reason why the Muslims were being attacked was for saying "Our Lord is God."

(13) They massed against you from above and below; your eyes rolled [with fear], your hearts rose into your throats, and you thought [ill] thoughts of God. (10:10) There the believers were sorely tested and deeply shaken: (10:11)

The unbelievers (Jews and Pagans) surrounded the Muslims from all sides in the battle field in order to finish him off along with his followers. They fought with the Muslims so agressively that the Muslims were terrified of them and started having second thoughts about their belief in One God.

The above quoted verses from the Qur'an should be sufficient to prove the point to anyone with the least amount of common sense that the Muslims were not the aggressors but they were the victims. The wars which they fought under Muhammad

(P) was simply to stop being persecuted by the unbelievers for their belief in God. They did loot their enemies but this was only because they had been attacked first and their own homes had been destroyed and looted and because they had been driven out from their own homes. They just got back what they had lost including their lost honor. Muhammad (P) promised them with rewards and spoils of war not only in this life but also in the hereafter. Oh, God! I do not mean the 72 virgins. There is no such rewards in the Qur'an.

Note:

There are a lot of critics who will continue to argue that Islam was spread by the sword and this was the reason why the Muslims wanted to fight with the unbelievers. They accuse Muhammad (P) of forcing them into embracing Islam against their wish at the point of the sword. Therefore I have quoted some verses from the Qur'an to prove that "there is no compulsion in religion!"

"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. (2:256)"

"If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then COMPEL mankind, against their will, to believe! (10:99)"

"Say: 'Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger: but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message). (4:54)"

"Say : O ye that reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you your religion, and to me my religion! (09:1-6)"

II. Evidence from Hadith: (Heresay Evidence)

I dont think it is worth wasting everybody's time with what Ali Sina has quoted out of the hadith. The hadith are neither from God, nor from Muhammad (P), but rather something that the people have "attributed" to Muhammad (P). Hence as proved already on the main page of Ali Sina Challenge, they are full of errors and fabrications. If I say Ali Sina is an illegitimate child born from unmarried parents and somebody writes this down and people quote this a 100 years from now, then does this statement become true? It is totally illogical to consider the hadith in an "intellectual" argument. Most Islamic scholars agree that there are several errors in Sahih Bukhari & Muslim!

The history is only as accurate as the one who reports it. I wonder why Ali Sina wishes to trust some of the narrators and some of the hadith in Bukhari and Dawud and reject the others that show the prophet as a kind man. One can not pick and choose. He seems very influenced by these hadith, more than any of the other Muslims. My stand as a free thinking Muslim is very clear. Hadith are simply stories about the prophet. Some may be true but most of them are false and have been over exaggerated either by his followers or his enemies. The people in that region were very good at story-telling. The best example is Ali Sina himself who adds his own imaginations to the straightforward verses from the Qur'an. The history that is derived

from such narrations more than 1400 years old is totally unreliable. The one who is in power can easily twist it the way he wants by showing one side of the story and hiding the rest. Even if one sees both sides how can one be absolutely sure that the reports are not simply exaggerated and who is telling the truth. Muhammad (P) had a lot of enemies. If they could not win him with the sword they tried it with the pen. Those who loved him made him look like a super hero. It is totally illogical to rely on such fictitious reports and draw conclusions on any given religion. One can not base his religion on such false reports. If someone really wants to understand Muhammad

(P) then they should read the Qur'an which is the best hadith and has remained practically unchanged since the advent of Islam.

Ali Sina Rebuttal – Lecher

Ali Sina has used the following verses from the Qur'an in order to prove his point. Having read these verses several times over and over again I have failed miserably to appreciate how these verses could imply that Muhammad (P) could have ever been a Lecher! According to the definition given by http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lecher a lecher is – a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior. Can any of the readers who think straight derive this conclusion that Ali Sina has derived from any of the Qur'anic verses that have been mentioned here?

Prophet, why do you prohibit what God has made lawful to you in your desire to please your wives? Yet God is forgiving and merciful: (66:1)

He has ordained a way for you [believers] to release you from [such] oaths??God is your helper: He is the All Knowing, the Wise. (66:2)

The Prophet told something in confidence to one of his wives. When she disclosed it [to another wife] and God made this known to him, he confirmed part of it, keeping the rest to himself. When he confronted her with what she had done, she asked, ?Who told you about this?? and he replied, ?The All Knowing, the All Aware told me.? (66:3)

If both of you [wives] repent to God??for your hearts have deviated??[all will be well]; if you collaborate against him, [be warned that] God will aid him, as will Gabriel and all righteous believers, and the angels too will back him. (66:4)

His Lord may well replace you with better wives if the Prophet decides to divorce any of you: wives who are devoted to God, true believers, devout, who turn to Him in repentance and worship Him, given to fasting, whether previously married or virgins. (66:5)

The only thing that I can understand from the above verses is that Muhammad (P) had confided in his wife with a piece of information. His wife then divulged this information to someone else. Muhammad (P) was made aware of this fact and he approached his wife regarding this. He then asked his wife and the person to whom she had divulged the information to repent for it and warned her that if God wishes then He could marry him off to other women who were more devout and true believers irrespective of whether they were previously married or unmarried.

One thing that comes to mind is what is the purpose of these Qur'anic verses? If you ponder on this, the Qur'an according to God, contains all the necessary information that is needed for one's social and religious life.

It says – In this Quran, We have set out all kinds of examples for people, yet most of them persist in disbelieving. (17:89)

Therefore it is an example cited in the Qur'an where it is discussing the importance of confidentiality between the husband and wife. When a husband or a wife confides in their spouse then it is the responsibility of the spouse not to divulge the information to anyone else and to keep it in between them. May be someone like Ali Sina does not understand the importance of confidentiality. All that Ali Sina can think of is sex! The other thing that becomes clear is that the focus in the last few verses is on replacing the wives with those who are devout and true believers as opposed to the wives whose hearts had deviated from Islam and who had teamed up against the prophet. The most important thing for a Muslim and more so the prophet is religion. Everyone is sure to die. It is absurd to think that this life and our existence is nothing but fluke! If we are sure to die then why not prepare for the final abode? When you go on a long journey you plan for days and even months ahead. Then why not do the same for your death, which is the journey of no return. What counts is doing good deeds and belief in God as it is illogical to imagine that everything in this universe is a chance occurence. Hence, when Muhammad's (P) wives teamed up against him, he took an oath of not pleasing his wife (may be in a sexual way) and God granted him (and for that matter, any husband following his example an opportunity to dissolve the oath provided the wife turns to God in repentance.

One of the reasons why Ali Sina may have derived this conclusion could be because of his blind faith in people like Imam Tabari who have written 30 volumes to explain something which God says is fully detailed! The only thing that Imam Tabari has done, 300 years after the death of prophet Muhammad (P) is gathered a cocktail of stories similar to Arabian Nights and tried to explain the Qur'an on the basis of these fairy tales. The logical Ali Sina has swallowed this hook, line and sinker.

At this point I think it is worth mentioning the confessions of these "great" imams like Imam Tabari and the like as Ali Sina seems to have quoted extensively from the work carried out by Imam Tabari.

IMAM TABARI'S STRANGE CONFESSION: "I am writing this book as I hear from the narrators. If anything sounds absurd, I should not be blamed or held accountable. The responsibility of all blunders rests squarely on the shoulders of those who have narrated these stories to me." So, Tabari wrote nothing but hearsay. Mazhabi Dastanain Aur Un Ki Haqeeqat by Allama Habib-ur-Rahman Siddiqui Kandhalwi, Ar-Rahman Publishing Trust,Karachi Tareekhil Umam Wal Mulook (The History of Nations and Kings) popularly called ?The Mother of All Histories. is the first ever "History of Islam" written by Imam Tabari (839-923 CE) at the junction of the third and fourth century AH. He died in 310 AH, three centuries after the exalted Prophet. What were his sources? Not a scrap of paper! ?He told me this who heard it from him who heard it from her and she heard it from so and so, and so on. By compiling his 13 Volume History and his 30 Volume Exposition of the Quran under royal patronage, Tabari became the Super Imam. The later historians until this day have persisted in following the trails of the Super Imam. – Imam Zahri Wa Imam Tabari, Tasweer Ka Doosra Rukh by Muhaddith-ul-?Asr Jaame?-ul-?Uloom Hazrat Allama Tamanna Imadi Phulwari, Ar-Rahman Publishing Trust, Karachi

IMAM RAZI'S HORRIBLE CONFESSION: Most Muslims have heard of one of the most ancient and famous Tafseer-e-Kabeer (The Great Exposition of the Quran) by Imam Fakhruddin Razi. This Tafseer is one of the tops being followed by our Mullahs till this day. After writing his 300 volumes, the great and authoritative Imam confesses: "All my intellectual and supposedly logical statements in the explanation of the Quran turned out to be lame. All the explanations of the Quran done by the so-called Imams (Tabari, Zamakhshari, Ibne Kathir, Bukhari, Muslim etc) are misguided and misleading. All of us were the tools of Satan. Our souls were polluted by our physical desires. All our endeavors and works of this world promise to bring upon us nothing but eternal humiliation, torture and doom." Hadith-Ul-Quran by Allama Inayatullah Khan Al-Mashriqi, 1954 edition, Pg 190.

IBN KATHIR'S CONFESSION: [1301-1373 Abu Al-Fida, 'Imad Ad-Din Isma'il bin 'Umar bin Kathir Al-Qurashi Al-Busrawi] Had Ibn Jareer Tabari not recorded the strange reports, I would never have done so. (Tafseer Ibn Katheer, Khilaafat-e-Mu'awiya-o-Yazeed, Mahmood Ahmed Abbasi)

IMAM AHMAD BIN HANBAL'S CHASTISEMENT: (780 – 855 CE, 164 – 241 AH) (Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Hanbal Abu Abd' Allah al-Shaybani)

Allama Shibli Nomani, on page 27 of his Seeratun Nabi has given a startling quote of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (780-855 CE, d. 241 AH), "Three kinds of books are absolutely unfounded, Maghazi, Malahem and Tafseer." (The exalted Prophet's Battles, Dreams, and Expositions of the Qur?an).

IBN KHALDUN'S THRASHING: [1332-1406 CE, 732-808 AH, Abu Zayd Abdur-Rahman bin Muhammad bin Khaldun Al-Hadrami]

The Muslim historians have made a mockery of history by filling it with fabrications and senseless lies. (Muqaddama)

SHAH ABDUL AZIZ DEHLAVI?S CRITIQUE: [1745-1823 CE] Six pages of Ibn Khaldun's History have been deliberately removed since the earliest times. These pages had questioned the most critical juncture of Islamic history i.e. the Emirate of Yazeed and the fiction of Karbala. [Even the modern editions admit in the side-notes that those pages have been mysteriously missing from the ancient original book. Khilaafat-e-Mu'awiya-o-Yazeed, Mahmood Ahmed Abbasi]

SHAH WALIULLAH DEHLAVI'S CHASTISEMENT: [1703-1762] Imam Jalaluddin Sayyuti's Tarikh-ul-Khulafa is the prime example of how our Historians, Muhaddithin and Mufassirin, each has played like Haatib-il-Lail (One who collects firewood at night not knowing which piece is good and which one is bad).

IMAM RAGHIB'S PROTEST: [Abul-Qasim Husayn ibn Muhammad al-Raghib al-Isfahani 1027- 1109 CE] Tabari, Waqidi, Mas'oodi, Sayyuti wrote any reports they

heard. Moreover, Abu Mukhnif, Lut bin Yahya and Muhammad bin Saaeb Kalbi, in whose names the civil wars within Islam during the times of Hazraat Ali, Mu'awiya and Yazeed are reported, never existed. Their names have been concocted and narratives in their names have all been invented by one man, the Zoroastrian "Imam" Tabari bin Rustam.

The above explanations from the Qur'an followed by the confessions of the people whom Ali Sina quotes blindly should be enough to expose the weaknesses in the arguments put forward by Islam critics like Ali Sina. I have opened the eyes of the innocent readers and proved my case.

Ali Sina Rebuttal – Cult Leader II

7. The leader is not accountable to any authorities.

All prophets and Messengers of God were accountable to God. An athiest does not believe in God's authority. Hence Hindus, Muslims and Christians get 1 point each. Muhammad (P) / Jesus (P) / Krishna were all unaccountable, although Muhammad (P) had peace treaties with his enemies who constantly kept breaking these and constantly attacked and persecuted him and his followers and kept on provoking the Muslims.

For Muslims, all actions of Muhammad constitute law. He cannot be held accountable for his actions. He is only accountable to God. He was entitled to marry or have sex out of marriage with as many women as he wished. This is a logical fallacy of Ad Ignoratarium and Wishful Thinking as Ali Sina has not shown any evidence to suggest that Muhammad (P) was sexually involved with any other women other than his own wives. I have already disproved most of his allegations in my previous rebuttals. He could raid civilians, kill unarmed men, loot their properties and take their women and children as slaves and even rape them. He could assassinate his critics and torture them to make them reveal where they had hidden their treasures. He could have sex with children. He could lie and deceive his opponents. He could massacre his prisoners of war in cold-blood. This again is a logical fallacy Ad Ignoratarium and Wishful Thinking where Ali Sina has failed to provide any evidence to support his argument. His only evidence is "Heresay" (hadith) which is another logical fallacy of "False Analogy." Anyone with the least amount of common sense will be able to look through these logical fallacies. The only people who would get fooled by people like Ali Sina are those who are either already prejeduced against Islam or those who love to indulge in Wishful Thinking and avoid hearing the truth as the truth is not what they expect to hear. This is what the ostrich does when it fears something, buries its head in the ground. None of that bothers his followers. At first they deny all of the above charges vehemently, accusing you of maligning their prophet, but once the evidence is presented, they suddenly change tactic and defend him, justifying his evil deeds, the very deeds they outrageously denied. I am still waiting for someone to present me with some credible evidence against Muhammad

(P) rather than Heresay. If Ali Sina calls Heresay as credible evidence then I am sorry I do not buy this cock and bull stories as evidence. You may be able to win the elections as a politician by presenting such "evidence" and pushing it down the throat of some ignorant and gullible people but this form of evidence will be thrown out of the court of law even before the case gets a hearing. It does not stand to the test of Critical Analysis as explained on the main page of Ali Sina Challenge. For Muslims,

Muhammad's actions are not measured by what we humans know as right and wrong. Rather he is the standard, the measure of right and wrong. As the result, if a crime was committed by Muhammad, that crime becomes a holy deed and is emulated by his followers unquestioningly. Muslims are capable of committing the most atrocious acts of indecency and savagery with clear conscience, because it is sunnah (performed by Muhammad). I would request Ali Sina to present and logically prove one single peice of evidence for any of the alleged crimes that Muhammad (P) may have committed, without resorting to Heresay but using the Qur'an and within the context of what is being quoted. In fact the Qur'an, hence Muhammad (P) explicitly prohibits the things that have been mentioned by Ali Sina above. People like Ali Sina attributed these fabricated stories to Muhammad (P) so that they could continue carrying on these atrocities in the name of religion without being accused by rest of the Muslims.

8. The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).

As far as I am aware neither Hinduism nor Christianuty allow the things that have been mentioned by Ali Sina. There is nothing to support this in the Qur'an either. Hence all get 0 points. As far as taking money for bogus charity is concerned, please visit the Ali Sina Chalenge on his website Faith Freedom by copy – pasting the link "faithfreedom.org/challenge.htm" in your web browser and see the donation box in the top left hand corner of the page. It is a classical example of the cultist Ali Sina who is asking for a "bogus charity" and putting the blame on Islam!

In Islam, the ends always justify the means. For example, killing is bad, but if it is done to promote Islam, it is good. Suicide is prohibited, but suicide bombing that will cause the death of non-Muslims is a holy act. Stealing from fellow Muslims is prohibited and the thief's hand will be chopped, but looting non-believers was practiced by Muhammad and so is considered acceptable by Muslims. Sexual intercourse out of marriage is taboo, but rape of the women of unbelievers is okay. The goal, which is the establishment of the reign of Allâh on Earth, is regarded to be so lofty that everything else becomes secondary. In the history of Islam, we read that people murdered their own fathers or waged war against them. Such actions are praised as the sign of faith and devotion of the believer. Lying in Islam is prohibited, except when it is said to deceive the non-Muslims and advance the interests of Islam. A logical fallacy of Ad Ignoratariam where Ali Sina has once again made statements assuming that they are correct unless proved otherwise. "Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation. Doesn't all this sound very familiar? Islam critics have been resorting to these tactics for centuries.

9. The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.

Neither the Christians nor the Hindus encourage evil deeds so why pick on Muslims. In fact, it is a good thing to discourage any shameful thing, such as oppressing the people who are weak. Christian – 1, Hindus -1, Muslims -1 point.

Muslims' thoughts tend to be overridden with guilt. If a Muslim does something contrary to what is permitted, other Muslims are required to remind him or her of the Sharia law and demand compliance. Not too bad then. Anything against humanity is against Islam. In most Islamic countries, particularly in Iran and Saudi Arabia , it is the state that makes sure the individuals follow the religious law. In March 2002 Saudi Arabia 's religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress. As a result fifteen girls were burned alive.This again is a STUPID Arab law. It looks like Ali Sina is highly confused between Islam and Arab Nationalism!

10. Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.

Another example of a logical fallacy "Ad Ignoratarium" and "Hasty Generalisation." On the contrary the Muslims are urged not to break ties of kinship and to live with their parents in kindness even if they choose to remain non-Muslims. I am not sure of Hindus / Christians hence all get 0 points for this one. If a Muslim breaks ties with his non-Muslim relatives then he is in not acting in the interest of Islam. The Qur'an is one step ahead of the Islam critics and the verse below is an astounding reply to people like Ali Sina who falsely accuse Muslims of cutting ties with their non-Muslim family members and ill treating their own parents. http://readquranonline.org/index/view/s/31/a/14

We have commanded people to be good to their parents: their mothers carried them, with strain upon strain, and it takes two years to wean them. Give thanks to Me and to your parents- all will return to Me. If they strive to make you associate with Me anything about which you have no knowledge, then do not obey them. Yet keep their company in this life with kindness, and follow the path of those who turn to Me. You will all return to Me in the end, and I will tell you everything that you have done. (31:14, 15)

Muslim converts are encouraged to cut their ties with family and friends if they are not Muslims. I have received countless heart-rending stories from non-Muslim parents whose children converted to Islam with whom they have lost touch completely. Occasionally, they may receive a call or a cold visit, but the visit may be so restricted, so bereft of any love from their children and their Muslim spouses that the outcome further saddens the already heartbroken parents. The purpose of these visits is usually to ask the parents to convert to Islam. They leave, as soon resistance is encountered.May be the verses quoted from the Qur'an above should help people like Ali Sina to remind these Muslims of their duties towards their parents. The stories

that I have heard suggest that it is the relatives who break ties with their children for reverting to Islam.

11. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

Looks like Ali Sina has never heard of Christian Evangelism. I don't blame him. After all, he is so obsessed with maligning the Muslims that he has had no time to look at any other groups. Hence Christians and Muslims, both get 1 point each and in all honesty Hindus get 0 points here.

Muslims' main goal is to promote Islam. This practice of promoting Islam is called da'wa. It is the duty of every Muslim to bring new converts, starting with their own family and friends. Expanding Islam is the main obsession of every Muslim.I agree with Ali Sina on this one. It is a duty of every Muslim to invite others to what is good and prohibit evil. Associating partners in worship to God Almighty is considered as an evil deed by Muslims. God created this universe so that we could worship Him. Worshipping any other God other than Brahma / Jehovah / Allah (different names for the same creator) is considered as unacceptable. Hence it is a doctrine of Islam to invite people to the truth with wisdom and beautiful preaching and in ways that are most gracious. (Holy Qur'an 16:125). Even the Vedas say the same thing but Hindus insist on worshipping idols.

12. The group is preoccupied with making money.

None of the 3 religions are preoccupied with making money hence the score on this one is "0″ for Hindus, Muslims and Christians.

Raising funds for jihad is one of the main objectives of all Muslims. Today this is done through what are known as Islamic "charities." However, during the time of Muhammad, and throughout the course of Islam, raising money for jihad was done principally by looting. Islam's main goal is to establish itself as the pre-eminent earthly power. Yet another logical fallacy of Ad Ignoratarium and Wishful Thinking where a statement is made without the supporting evidence. As explained earlier "burden of proof lies on the one who makes the statement." I wonder if the readers have ever noticed the "Make a Donation" box on the top left hand corner on the page "faithfreedom.org/challenge.htm" of Ali Sina.

13. Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.

Muslims' main preoccupation is Islam. They are required to regularly go to the mosque, attend obligatory prayers five times a day, listen to the sermons, etc. So enwrapped do they become in their thinking about how to perform their religious duties, what to wear, what to eat, how to perform their prayers, etc. that they are left with very little time for thinking of anything else. In fact, they are even told what to think and what not to think. Christians and Hindus denounce the world and become priests or sanyasis. They don't even have time for their own family. In fact, they don't even marry or have children once they decide to become religious. Muslim priests on the other hand, marry, have children, go to work and manage religion side by side with all the other activities. Muslims devote about 30 to 60 minutes out of 24 hours,

2% to 4% of their time to God. This seems like a lot to people like Ali Sina. Considering an average person sleeps for 7 to 8 hours, he has the remaining 16 hours to do the rest.

Hindus / Christians / Muslims have plenty of time to do all their other activities alongside following their religion. Hence all get 0 points.

14. Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

Muslims are taught to shun kafirs and are encouraged to socialize only with fellow Muslims. Yes, but only when they are being mocked by the non-Muslims who make fun of their religion and have no respect for the sentiments of the Muslims. It is just common sense that you mix around with those people respect your values and beliefs and avoid yourself from getting into uncomfortable situations where people start taking you for a ride. No one likes to be teased and humiliated all the time. There are no issues in socializing with those non-Muslims who understand your feelings and are not hostile in any way towards you. The Qur'an prohibits taking friends from among unbelievers (Q.3:28), calls them najis (filthy, impure) (Q.9:28), and orders harshness towards them (Q.9:123). According to Muhammad, the unbelievers are the vilest animals in the sight of God. (Q.8:55)– These are some more logical fallacies of Quoting out of Context. Ali Sina has quoted verses from the Qur'an without mentioning the context. I have helped him by listing the background verses below. From reading the context it is clear that the non-Muslims respected no ties of kinship and did not give any importance to the peace treaties signed with the Muslims. They were constantly harassing and persecuting the Muslims by being openly aggressive towards them. The Qur'an, in verse (3:75) below, clearly differentiates between the good and the evil "People of the Book." It is only the evil ones whom the Qur'an prohibits from taking friends. In fact Muslims are supposed to love the "true" Christians who worship God alone and believe in Jesus as a true messenger of God. It is mainly about using common sense.

Where believers are concerned, they respect no tie of kinship or treaty. They are the ones who are committing aggression. (9:10)

They are indeed like Pharaoh's people and those before them, who denied the signs of their Lord: We destroyed them for their sins, and We drowned Pharaoh's people- they were all evildoers. (8:54) The worst creatures in the sight of God are those who reject Him and will not believe; (8:55) who, whenever you [Prophet] make a treaty with them, they break it, for they have no fear of God. (8:56)

There are People of the Book who, if you [Prophet] entrust them with a heap of gold, will return it to you intact, but there are others of them who, if you entrust them with a single dinar, will not return it to you unless you keep standing over them, because they say, 'We are under no obligation towards the gentiles.' They tell a lie against God and they know it. (3:75)

The word "najis" could refer to physical or spiritual impurity. The non-Muslims who were constantly attacking the Muslims used to indulge in all sorts of sinful activities

as mentioned elsewhere in the Qur'an. Muslims on the other hand are forbidden to get drunk, commit any fornication or get involved in anything that is improper. They are supposed to perform ablution before each prayer and bathe after any sexual activity with their spouse to clean themselves physically. In other words, Islam gives a lot of importance to spiritual as well as physical cleanliness. As the Sacred Mosque, unlike other mosques is very special to the Muslims, it is but natural that the non-Muslims were forbidden from entering the sanctuary.

Believers, those who ascribe partners to God are truly unclean: do not let them come near the Sacred Mosque after this year. If you are afraid you may become poor, [bear in mind that] God will enrich you out of His bounty if He pleases: God is all knowing and wise. (9:28)

In fact in verse 9:28 above, there is a prophecy which holds true even today. God has gifted the Arabs with OIL. The only reason why the other countries mantain a healthy relationship with the Arabs is because of their oil. Saudi Arabia is no doubt one of the wealthiest nations in the world.

Hindus have a caste system where they shun the lower caste people. The Brahmins shun the Shudras and hence they deserve 1 point. Christians, according to the Bible (Old Testament), are supposed to kill non-Christians as stated earlier, hence they too get 1 point. Muslims score 0 points.

15. The most loyal members (the "true believers") feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

The thought of leaving Islam is something so unbearable for true Muslims they can't even entertain it. This is very true. The Muslims who understand the beauty of Islam and follow it in the true sense, fall in love with it. As one can not stay away from the ones he loves, the thought of ever leaving Islam is truelu unbearable. A true Muslim, believes and knows that his days in this life are limited. One day he is going to return to God. He therefore prepares his place in the hereafter by doing good in this life. He tries not to hurt anyone because God does not love transgressors and he constantly engages in remebrance of God, which for him is the ultimate truth. Despite the fact that millions of Muslims have left Islam in recent years, hardcore Muslims remain adamant in believing nobody ever really leaves Islam, that such claims are all fabrications and part of the conspiracy to shake the faith of believers. A true Muslim (believer) would never leave Islam. The only ones to leave Islam would be the ones who have failed to understand the beauty of Islam. Emails I have received from Muslims share one common theme. They all warn me of hellfire in the afterlife. This is a whole website against critics like Ali Sina and not once have I mentioned anything of the order that Ali Sina suggests. I am only asking the people who encourage these critics to take a moment to read and reflect on the verses in the Qur'an using basic common sense and logic. Between the fear of hell and fear of reprisal, Muslims are trapped in a web of terror of their own making. A true Muslim is always busy preparing a place in the hereafter by doing good deeds and constantly remembering God. If the fear of a policeman stops a thief from doing robbery then why should the fear of hell not deter a person from performing evil deeds? If a person does not believe in Islam and wants to leave Islam, then the fear of hell should not

bother him. The fear of reprisal is valid only in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia which account for only 18 to 20 % of the total Muslim population. Muslims in the rest of the world are free to do what they like without any compulsion.

Islam was not created to teach humans spirituality, nor make them enlightened. The spiritual message in Islam is secondary or virtually nonexistent. Piety in Islam means emulating Muhammad, a man who was far from pious. Rituals like prayers and fasting are mere window dressings to lure the foolhardy inside, to give Islam the appearance of sacredness and spirituality. A logical fallacy Ad Ignoratarium!

The above statement does hold true for certain cults within Christianity who call themselves the "chosen-ones" and may be some Hindus, but definitely not for Muslims, accept for those living in Middle East. As the numbers are so limited that it would not be fair to award points on this one to any of the 3 religions without committing a logical fallacy of Converse Accident. Hence all of them get 0 points.

Total Points: Christians – 10, Hindus – 8, Muslims -7

Criteria | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | T

---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---

Christians | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 10

Muslims | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 07

Hindus | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 08

According to the scores above, after critically analysing and considering each criteria carefully it seems that Christianity is the most cultist, followed by Hinduism and last but not the least are the Muslims. Hindus have satisfied just more than half the criteria, hence they are borderline. Muslims have narrowly missed the mark and Christians have scored a 1st Class. If any religion can be considered a cultist it should be Christianity!

Ali Sina Rebuttal – Cult Leader I

[Ali Sina says - We are often taken aback by the level of fanaticism of Muslims. Millions of them riot, burn churches, and kill completely innocent people because a newspaper has published a few cartoons of Muhammad or because the Pope has quoted a medieval emperor saying that violence is not compatible with the nature of God. People generally are biased towards a belief system that has this many followers. They believe that the sheer size of Islam qualifies it as a religion. But is Islam really a religion?]

The first logical fallacy exposed here is that of "Converse accident / Hasty generalisation." Although there are a small group of Muslims who would act in the manner described above a majority of them do not get involved in such events. Hence to generalise the concept by using the term "millions" is a logical fallacy. The second logical fallacy here is that of False Analogy where 2 different concepts are being considered to come to an inference. Namely behaviour of some anti-social elements is being compared to the belief system (Islam) of a billion odd people. The third logical fallacy is Fallacy of Interrogation / Presupposition when Ali Sina asks "Is Islam really a religion?" Three fallacies in the opening statement itself, and I am still arguing with him! Anyways, let us avoid all this Ad Hominem and get straight to the point as this

rebuttal is pitched at the level of an average reader. Dwelling on the technicality of the argument would mean committing a logical fallacy of Ignoratio Elenchi.

Ali SIna has listed some 15 points and compared it to Muslims to show that they are a cult. Hence. let us first compare "Cult" with "Religion."

Difference Between a Cult and a Religion [ http://www.suite101.com/content/what-is-a-cult-differences-between-cults-and-religions-a272565 ]

In his article "The Difference Between Cults and Religions," Rabbi Brad Hirschfield remarks, "The fact that pretty much every religion has done all of these things [typically ascribed to cults] at some point in history of the group means the line between cults and religions... is not fixed or static." The rabbi references the Hebrew Bible story of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac to God as evidence of cultish threads that run through religions.

The rabbi notes, "Most religions can and do slip into cult-like behavior from time to time."For instance, many religions claim to be the only true church, use fear of damnation to dissuade members from questioning or leaving the organization, and shun members who do leave.

The line between religions and cults can indeed be blurry at times, so how is it possible to tell the difference between the two? The main difference is the degree to which a religious group or organization engages in negative cult-like practices. The second major difference between cults and religions is that, generally speaking, religions are accepted by mainstream society, while cults are not. Religions typically have many followers, while cults have relatively few .

Let us see where Islam fits into the picture based on the above 3 differences highlighted by Rabbi Brad Hirschfield -

  1. Degree to which a religious group or organization engages in negative cult-like practices– We shall compare Islam with Christianity and Hinduism, giving 1 point for each criteria and totalling this towards the end of the rebuttal to see which of the 3 religions get the highest score.

  2. Religions are accepted by mainstream society, while cults are not – Islam is accepted by the mainstream society hence it can not be a "cult."

  3. Religions typically have many followers, while cults have relatively few– Islam has 1.5 billion followers (19.6% – growing), second to Christianity at 2 billion (33% – dropping), followed by Hinduism at 0.95 billion (13.4% – stable) and No Religion 0.77 billion (12.6% – dropping). Interestingly not only Islam is the second largest religion in the world but it is also the only "growing" religion according to http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm. Athiests on the other hand account for only 2.5% of the world population and the Jews only 2%. Hence according to the differences given by the Rabbi, Islam is no where near to a cult. On the other hand it is Ali Sina (Athiest) who is the cultist!

Now we shall look at which of the 3 major religions – Islam, Christianity or Hinduism scores the maximum number of points from the list below -

1. The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

Muslims are extremely zealous about their faith and have an unquestioning commitment to their prophet, whose book, the Qur'an, for them is Truth and Law.

This is true for all religions – Islam (Muhammad – P) -1, Christianity (Jesus – P) – 1, Hinduism (Krishna / Ram – ?P) – 1

2. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

Muslims are forbidden to question and doubt the basic tenets of their faith, and dissent is punishable by death.

This is a logical fallacy Argumentum ad Ignoratiam. Contrary to the above statement the Muslims are encouraged to think and reflect on various aspects of the religion. The Qur'an makes it very clear that it is complete, fully detailed and easy to understand. Below are some of the verses from the Qur'an that encourage Muslims to think and reflect and question their actions and beliefs regarding the message of the Qur'an.

Another of His signs is that He created spouses from among yourselves for you to live with in tranquillity: He ordained love and kindness between you. "There truly are signs in this for those who reflect." (30:21)

This is a blessed Scripture which We sent down to you [Muhammad], for people to "think about its messages," and for those with understanding to take heed. (38:29)

No incongruity canst thou see in the creation of the Gracious God. Then look again. Seest thou any flaw? Aye, look again, and yet again, thy sight will only return to thee confused and fatigued, having seen no incongruity. (67:2-5)

...a group should go out to gain understanding of the religion, so that they can teach their people when they return and so that they can guard themselves against evil. (9:122)

Say `Are those who know equal to those who know not?' Verily, only those endowed with understanding will take heed. (39:9)

And He has subjected to you whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth; all this is from Him. In that, surely, are Signs for a people who reflect. (45:13)

In the creation of the heavens and the earth and in the alteration of the night and day there are indeed signs for men of understanding. ..who remember God

standing, sitting, and lying down, who re?ect on the creation of the heavens and earth: (3:190, 191)

He details the signs for a people who posses knowledge. In the succession of night and day, and in what God created in the heavens and earth, there truly are signs for those who are aware of Him. (10:5, 6)

And He it is Who spread out the earth and made therein mountains and rivers, and fruits of every kind He made therein two sexes. He causes the night to cover the day. Therein, verily, are signs for a people who reflect.And in the earth are diverse tracts, adjoining one another, and gardens of vines, and corn-fields, and date-palms, growing together from one root and others not so growing; they are all watered with the same water yet We make some of them excel others in fruit. There are signs for a people who use their understanding. (13:3, 4)

And say: `Lord, bestow on me increase of knowledge'. (20:115)

He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding. (3:7)

The verse 3:7 above is the bottomline and a clear description of those who twist the words around to suit themselves. Need I say anything else?

On the other hand it is Christianity which strongly discourages questioning and doubt even in the judge and priests. It is punishable by death -

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

I can not say much about Hinduism as they have a lot of different belief systems. Some of them even pray with Muslims and go to Dargahs, so I will not rate them on this one. As far as Islam and Hinduism are concerned they get 0 points and Christianiy – 1.

3. Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

Meditation is common in Hinduism, 1 point. Chanting (Hindu – Mantras/Puja, Christians – Choir/Communion & Muslims – Qiraat/Salah) are common to all hence each get 1 point. Glossolalia (speaking in tongues) is practiced by a very small sect in all 3 religions, some Pentecost, Hindu gurus (sadhus) and Fakirs. Everyone gets 0 points on this one, as it is not a common practice to any of the 3 religions.

Yes, Muslims denounce anything they find objectionable to their beliefs. Christians denounce Hindus – http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/pat_quotes/hindus.htm & Hindus denounce too – http://hinduexistence.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/"hindus-an-alternative-history"-by-dr-wendy-doniger-a-malicious-spy-ware-to-damage-the-net-of-hindu-resurgence/. Everyone scores 1 point for this one.

Five times during the day Muslims stop whatever they are doing and stand for a repetitive and ritualistic prayer and chant the Qur'an. In addition, for one whole month in the year they must fast and abstain from drinking or eating, from dawn to dusk, a practice that can be particularly taxing in summertime.

According to the Qur'an, there are 3 times that are mentioned for the prayer, namely, both sides of the day (dawn and dusk) and some portion of the night. Each prayer takes about 5 to 10 minutes, "including" the time to perform ablution. According to an Athiest, out of 24 hours, spending even half an hour (2% of the time) in remembering God is time consuming. Not to a devout Christian or a devout Hindu or a Muslim. Hindus and Christians in fact devote their full life to religion as in case of Fathers and Sanyasis. According to Ali Sina's logic the Christian Fathers and the Hindu Sanyasis are cultists! Muslims on the other hand mantain a balance between the daily activities as well as remembrance of God. As I am feeling generous, I will not give any negative points to the Hindus or Christians as the people who devote their entire life to religion are in the significant minority. A lot of Muslims pray 5 times a day. This can easily be done during the luch time. According to one hadith, it is perfectly alright to combine the 2 afternoon prayers into 1 and pray it together in less than 10 minutes, including ablution. I find this hardly debilitating. Fasting has been ordained for all believers but the Qur'an makes it very clear that those who can not fast can pay a recompense by feeding another fasting person or by making up the number of days at a later time. Those who can not fast in summer could do postpone it to winter. God does not want to put you in hardships. (2:184. 185 http://readquranonline.org/index/view/s/2/a/184). Hindus too keep fast and the Christians are expected to do the same as well, but they just don't bother http://www.bible.ca/d-fasting.htm. Hence all get "0."

4. The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel, For example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth.

It all depends on what happens on a date. Girls have been known to get raped on dates (date – rape) after being drugged by their boyfriends. Hindus and Muslims preserve their dignity as much as possible hence it is a social taboo to go on a date like what happens in some places. There is no harm however in meeting the girl or a boy in a public place if they are seeking a partner for marriage. No special permission is needed from any leader in Islam. Hindus on the other hand do look at Kundlis for changing jobs and marriages. Christian scriptures believe in killing their children for cursing or hitting their parents. None of the other activities mentioned by Ali Sina with regards to what one should wear (as long as they dress modestly), where to live, bringing up children etc. are mentioned in the Qur'an. Hence Muslims get 0 points on this one. Christianity – 1, Hinduism – 1.

All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT) Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Every detail of the life of a Muslim is prescribed. He is told what is forbidden (haram) and what is permitted (halal), what food to eat, how to dress, and what rituals to follow in order to pray. A Muslim is not allowed to date, and marriages are arranged. Corporal punishment, including torture for disobedience to the authorities, is enjoined, both for children and adults.

Hindus do not eat beef, Bible (Old Testament) and the Qur'an forbid pork and alcohol, a Muslim girl or boy has full freedom to meet and marry a boy / girl of their choice (not necessarily arranged) and corporal punishments are limited only to sexual immorality (adultery). According to the Bible adultery is punishable by death, man who remarries is an adulterer and the rape victim is supposed to be killed as she did not cry for help! Hence it is only fair to award 1 point to each of them.

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT) A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB) If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

5. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members. For example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity.

Raam is considered an Avatar by Hindus, Jesus (P) is considered as God or son of God by Christians, Muhammad (P) was just an ordinary man whose purpose was to deliver the message and live his life according to the scriptures as an example for other Muslims. Christians and Hindus get 1 point each and Muslims too get 1 point as Muhammad (P) is considered to be a prophet in Islam.

Muslims claim special status for their prophet, while they vilify all other religions. They can become extremely violent if their prophet is slighted. They regard themselves as superior to all others, and when in a non-Muslim country, they constantly lobby for concessions and preferential treatments like the special privilege of having a special room set aside in publicly funded schools so that Muslim students can pray there. They are frequently granted exceptions unavailable to members of other religions. Recently in Ontario , Canada , they tried to make Islamic law (Sharia) recognized and binding, so they could bypass Canadian law. They were defeated, thanks largely to the tireless opposition of ex-Muslims.

This is another Red Herring and Ali Sina is drifting from the point being argued. Muslims do not claim any special status for the prophet apart from the belief that he was a man who was highly honourable and an example for other Muslims to follow. Once again Ali Sina is talking about a small group of Canadian or anti-social Muslims and committing a logical fallacy of Hasty Generalisation. A majority of Muslims are much more patient and peace loving. There are a few orthodox or fanatic Muslims everywhere but a majority of Muslims not only like to mind their own business but find ways to work around the problems facing them so that no one else gets affected by their own beliefs. It is totally illogical to live in a non-Muslim country and expect that country to follow the Islamic law. The policy of these countries should be "Take It or Leave It."

6. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.

This is not unique to Islam. Hindus have a caste system where Brahmins are at the opposite end of the spectrum compared to the Chandalas. Chandal is a general derogatory slur used to refer to a filthy, mean or low person in North India. The Old Testament has several verses against non-Christians which even encourage killing all non-Christians. Hindus -1, Christians – 1, Muslims – 1

You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20, Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13

Muslims have a very strong us-versus-them mentality. They call all non-Muslims, regardless of faith, kafir, an expressly derogatory term, which means one who blasphemes God. Kafir is not a derogatory term. It simply means – those who reject God (as in Islam).

For them, the world is forever divided into Dar al Salam (House of Peace) and Dar al Harb (House of War). The non-Muslim countries are the House of War. The concept of non-Muslim countries being a House of War may be something to do with Irani politics rather than Islam. It is a logical fallacy Ad Ignoratariam. On the contrary the Qur'an says –

"God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers (The Noble Quran, 60:8).

It is the duty of every Muslim to wage jihad on the House of War, to fight, kill and subdue non-Muslims and convert that land into the House of Peace. Peace, according to Islam can only be attained by subduing non-Muslims and making them subordinate to Islamic rule. The idea is not so much to convert everyone to Islam, but to make Islam dominant. This again is a typical example of a logical fallacy of "Wishful Thinking."

The non-Muslims can continue practicing their religion, but only as dhimmis, a term which means protected and is only applied to Christians and Jews. The Christians and the Jews (the people of the Book) will be protected, provided they pay the protection tax, known as the jizyah and feel themselves humiliated and subdued, as stated in the Qur'an.[2] If they fail to pay the jizyah, they can be exiled or put to death. This is how the Mafia operates. If you own a business, you could be harassed or even killed, unless you pay them a protection fee to be left alone. As for those unbelievers who are not protected, i.e. the pagans, the atheist, the animists, etc., they have either to convert or be killed. This again is a logical fallacy of "Wishful Thinking." Most of the things stated here are from Ali Sina's own imagination. Yes, the Qur'an did ask the Jews and the Christians to pay a Jizya (tax) but once again Ali Sina is making a logical fallacy of "Quoting out of context."

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, while they are subdued. (Qur'an 9:29)

[ http://readquranonline.org/index/view/s/9/a/13 ]

If you read the preceding verses in the Qur'an it becomes clear that the "People of the Book" had combined forces and waged a war against the Muslims in order to drive them out of their homes. Hence once the Muslims were victorious it is only fair on them to pay the taxes if they wanted to live alongside the Muslims. The Muslims paid "Zakat" which is a compulsory charity paid by a Muslim for the welfare and benefit of the poor and needy. Therefore if the non-Muslims were to stay alongside the Muslims then it is only fair that they too make a contribution towards the welfare of the state if they preferred to remain non-Muslims. Atleast they were given freedom to practice their own religion as long as they paid Jizya (tax) instead of Zakat (charity). The Bible on the other hand advocates killing all non-Christians! Most people pay tax to the government. Have you never heard of income tax raids on those who evade the taxes? The Jizya was nothing but "tax" and the equivalent of Zakat.

Ali Sina Rebuttal – Assassin

I. Evidence from the Qur'an: (Substantial Evidence) – NONE

Ali Sina has really let me down this time. He has not quoted a single verse from the Qur'an to suggest that Muhammad (P) was an assassin. Hence I am unable to disprove this allegation. In order to disprove something it has to be proved first. If Ali Sina does not provide substantial evidence to prove his case in the first place then how can anyone ever disprove him? His only evidence is "fabricated" hadith quoted from a collection of a Persian (Irani) Imam called Imam Bukhari and some more heresay (rumors). Iranians like Ali Sina are experts at story telling.

Rumor: A rumor or rumour (see spelling differences) is often viewed as "an unverified account or explanation of events circulating from person to person and pertaining to an object, event, or issue in public concern." However, a review of the research on rumor conducted by Pendleton in 1998 found that research across sociology, psychology, and communication studies had widely varying definitions of rumor. Thus, rumor is a concept that lacks a particular definition in the social sciences. But most theories agree that rumor involves some kind of a statement whose veracity is not quickly or ever confirmed. In addition, some scholars have identified rumor as a subset of propaganda, the latter another notoriously difficult concept to define. A pioneer of propaganda studies, Harold Lasswell defined propaganda in 1927 as referring "solely to the control of opinion by significant symbols, or, to speak more concretely and less accurately, by stories, rumors, reports, pictures, and other forms of social communication". Rumors are also often discussed with regard to "misinformation" and "disinformation" (the former often seen as simply false and the latter seen as deliberately false, though usually from a government source given to the media or a foreign government). Rumors thus have often been viewed as particular forms of other communication concepts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumor

II. Evidence from Hadith: (Heresay Evidence)

I dont think it is worth wasting everybody's time with what Ali Sina has quoted out of the hadith. The hadith are neither from God, nor from Muhammad (P), but rather something that the people have "attributed" to Muhammad (P). Hence as proved already on the main page of Ali Sina Challenge, they are full of errors and fabrications. If I say Ali Sina is an illegitimate child born from unmarried parents and somebody writes this down and people quote this a 100 years from now, then does this statement become true? It is totally illogical to consider the hadith in an "intellectual" argument. Most Islamic scholars agree that there are several errors in Sahih Bukhari & Muslim!

The history is only as accurate as the one who reports it. I wonder why Ali Sina wishes to trust some of the narrators and some of the hadith in Bukhari and Dawud and reject the others that show the prophet as merciful. One can not pick and choose. He seems too influenced by these hadith, more than any of the other Muslims. My stand as a free thinking Muslim is very clear. Hadith are simply stories about the prophet. Some may be true but most of them are false and have been over exaggerated either by his followers or his enemies. The people in that region were very good at story-telling. The best example is Ali Sina himself who adds his own imaginations to the straightforward verses from the Qur'an. The history that is derived from such narrations more than 1400 years old is totally unreliable. The one who is in power can easily twist it the way he wants by showing one side of the story and hiding the rest. Even if one sees both sides how can one be absolutely sure that the reports are not simply exaggerated and who is telling the truth. Muhammad (P) had a lot of enemies. If they could not win him with the sword they tried it with the pen. Those who loved him made him look like a super hero and the ones who hated him made him look like a devil incarnate. It is totally illogical to rely on such fictitious reports and draw conclusions on any given religion. One can not base his religion on such false reports. If someone really wants to understand Muhammad (P) then they should read the Qur'an which is the best hadith and has remained practically unchanged since the advent of Islam.

Thank you for your patience and hope you enjoyed this ebook. I would like to invite you to -  https://islamintheuk.wordpress.com/ali-sina-faith-freedom-challenge/

for a more detailed discussion, should you have any queries, feedback or comments.

