Dear Ali Sina,
Having come to know about your challenge to Mr. Zakir Naik and other Muslim scholars, I accept your challenge of providing you rational/ logical and psycho-philosophical insights to prove Mohammad’s (pbuh) genuin oneness with supreme reality and prophethood through debate!
I accept your challenge for once, I too, used to think like you! Therefore, I know well that Mr. Zakir Naik could not answer your questions for he himslef is, what Bacon would call , ” an idol of a cave” that have no existance outside his forced abode!
Morever, I would also offer you some post-modern scientific, sociological, psychological and anthropological insights (to be weighed and considered) as well so that you could see the things in totality! The debate would be published on some blogs, including yours, to have wider public attention, feedback to value your (or mine) arguments in exchange.
I would eagerly wait for your kind mail!
Dear Ali Sina,
Thanks for your prompt response! It shows your passion and desire to engage in debate! It is a healthy sign if the debate, as well, is going to be healthy one!
Well, I had cc-ed my previous mail to Indian Muslim Blog and Sunni News and Blog in Delhi. I am hopeful that they would readily publish our debate. However, some of the publishers, in Pakistan & NL would also be interested as they have been publishing my works previously! I will get the debate published after we have reached some conclusion!
You asked for my bio-date:
Well, I have been teaching English Literature and Western Philosophy in some universities. Moreover, I think, I pondered seriously on the conditions and questions of human life on this solitary hospitable planet. Peaceful coexistence of human family has been my main concerns of thought and writings. For last few years, I am working on Encyclopedia of Western Thought with the , so-called, oriental viewpoint. The encyclopedia is going to come out next year.
Moreover, before proceeding, we must settle some norms for our debate. I think, it should not be just point-scoring or ego-strutting! We, as members of human family and meaning-seeking creatures, would try to solve the puzzle of our existence with some perennial and ever-fresh questions before us……..
I heartily wish you best of luck!
Dear Jamshed Iqbal
I don’t know how many of my articles you have read. If you read enough you’d know that the reason I think Islam must go is because it is a doctrine that does not allow peaceful co-existance.
Let us say there is a religion with the following teachings. Do you think you can have any peaceful co-existence with the followers of that religion?
We will cast terror into the hearts of Muslims. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. 8:12
Let not the non-Muslims take for friends or helpers the Muslims. 3:28,
Rouse the non-Muslims to the fight against Muslims. 8:65,
Then fight and slay the Muslims wherever ye find them, 9:5,
Fight the Muslims, and God will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame. 9:14 ,
O ye the non-Muslims take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love Islam.9:23,
O ye the non-Muslims! Truly the Muslims are unclean. 9:28,
O ye non-Muslims! fight the Muslims who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you. 9:123,
Therefore, when ye meet the Muslims, smite at their necks; At length. 47:4,
I hope you agree that such religion has no right to exist, that its followers must be re-educated or if they persist they should be separated from the rest of mankind to maintain peace.
Anyway, I have had many debates with Muslims who at first were confident that they know more and they can easily prove me wrong. The strength of their faith (which is a vice and not a virtue) was no substitute to the strength of their argument.
For more than a decade I have debated thousands of Muslims. I assure you there is no argument that has not been discussed already. Repetition of the same is not exciting. So I require those who wish to debate with me, to at least familiarize themselves with my arguments.
I suggest you read my book first and only after you know my views we should engage in debate. I know your views. There is nothing in Islam that I do not know. I was born a Muslim and studied it thoroughly. I am among very few people who understand Islam. This does not mean I have more knowledge about every detail of Islam. But I understand Islam and Muhammad better than most people and all the Muslims.
So I request that you read my book first. If then you think you have found some flaws in my arguments, I would be glad to listen to you. If you want to tell me things that I have already discussed, there is no point in debating. All you have to do is read more and you will get your answer.
Thank you for publishing our debate. I would be more than glad to take part in this discussion. Now how can we proceed? You can just write a rebuttal to one of my claims. Or you can answer the question that I asked above. I quoted a few verses from the sacred book of a new religion called Malsi. As you can see this faith teaches Muslims are filthy, they should be killed, they are fuel for hell, they are pigs and monkeys, and it encourages its followers to fight against the Muslims, strike their heads and be very harsh with them. Ironically, the Malsians, the followers of Malsi claim their religion promotes peace and they want peaceful co-existence with Muslims. I would like you to instruct me how to respond to these people? I tell them if they want peaceful co-existence they should purge their holy book from all those evil teachings. What I quoted is just the tip of the iceberg. Wait until you read the book. It is full of hate against Muslims. Many Malsians, following the teachings of their prophet, are constantly killing Muslims, burning the mosques have no mercy even on Muslim children. Other Malsians however, repeat ad nauseam that Malsi Faith is a beautiful religion of peace and that it is misunderstood. What do you think we should tell these people? Don’t you agree that they are misguided at best and evil at worst, that their faith is false and they need to be weaned from their faith of hate? Do you think Muslims can have any peaceful co-existence with Malsians while they hold their book of hate and terror sacrosanct? All the best Ali
Hello Mr. Jamshed Iqbal,
Will you kindly send me your bio and let me know which blog will publish our debate?
Please remember, I accepted your debate challenge:
§ To prove Mohammad’s (pbuh) genuine oneness with Supreme Reality &
§ Reality of his prophetic experience! (plz go through my previous message)
It meant that my position, in the debate was supposed to be affirmative one, and yours, the other way round. The other point I made clear was that:
§ It should not be just point-scoring or ego-strutting! &
§ We, as members of human family and meaning-seeking creatures, would try to solve the puzzle of our existence with some perennial and ever-fresh questions before us……..
Let me clear you certain points. Problem of the prophet-hood is the question of means, sources and ends of knowledge—the question of epistemology in scholarly terms. Here you were supposed to announce your “position” by clearing, what according to you distinguishes adequate knowledge from inadequate (false) knowledge To lay the basis of your conclusion that Mohammad (pbuh) was ***—**** (nauzu billah). You would have to choose one position among some possibilities:
§ Putting more emphasis on logical and empirical methods, stressing that knowledge is an apprehension of necessary and universal principles. (causal determinism, empirical materialism: Aristotelian position)
§ You had other option to declare that, ” knowledge is merely an awareness of absolute, universal Ideas or Forms, existing independent of any subject trying to apprehend to them” (Idealism: Platonic position)
§ Knowledge is the product of sensory perception, and rationalism which sees it as the product of rational reflection (Post-renaissance scientific empiricism)
§ Knowledge results from a kind of mapping or reflection of external objects, through our sensory organs, possibly aided by different observation instruments, to our brain or mind. (reflection-correspondence theory: if you adopted that position you would have to enter into the mazy realm of language and its relation to reality towards Structuralism & Post structuralism)
§ Knowledge is an empirical statement which comes from analytical truth (Comte’s position: Logical Positivism)
Please, honestly, go through my last messages and see if you had any understanding of my position I declared in the very first message! Please see clearly if you have any understanding of your own position! What you put forward is quite irrelevant at this stage. For:
§ We were to see the issue in light of some perennial and ever-fresh questions (see my first message wherein I discussed about the norms)
What are these perennial questions? The “umbrella question” is “what is truth”. All the branches of sciences and philosophy, in some way or other, have this one question before them. Human beings responded their impulse to know the truth in four distinctive ways:
1. Mythmaking (with the aid of imagination of symbolism)
2. Philosophy (with the aid of reason)
3. Science (Analysis and apparatus)
4. Religion (empathy and intuition)
I am sorry my friend you have even no idea as what the debate is about! What areas of knowledge or disciplines our debate falls in! or even how to debate on these issues!
You were right in inviting Mr. Zakir Naik for he was your good match! And your whole knowledge abut Islam is based on the understandings of Zakir Naiks! You have never been fortunate enough to see those who live Islam or those who found Islam!
You and Zakir Naiks are, in principle, sailing in the same boat—they do not know what they are defending and you don’t know what you are criticizing! Both of you are perspective-less—but perspective is everything!
It goes without saying that you have never bothered to ponder upon these problems quite seriously. Please ask yourself this question in some honest moment! Or you left them for they were far beyond your observational understanding badly entangled somewhere else? So your intellect remained dormant (it tells)—and it was entangled in minor things—in phenomenal world or appearance that is always deceptive!
I am sorry my friend, you have lost the debate before it started! However, I am giving you thirty years’ grace period to let your intellect ripe! To let these perennial questions pinch the sleep from your eyes and pinch rest from your soul—to let your bones melt in pangs of wonder and doubt until you get a peace of truth within you! I pray for that peace for you!
I would salute your honestly if you publish this comment on your blog as well! I would even acknowledge your integrity if you stop challenging Muslim scholars for debate! I would even adore you as a friend if you, honestly, rub out from your heart the prejudice that is product of your myopic understanding! I assure you Mohammad (pbuh) is lovingly offering you a priceless treasure but you are refusing it for your gaze is tenaciously fixed on filth! And one is there where one’s gaze rests!
I have nothing more to say. I will debate when you are ripe! For its question to save the humanity!
Dear Jamshed Iqbal,
Please remember that it was you who accepted my challenge. Did you read it before accepting it? My challenge is simple and clear. I have stated that Muhammad was not a prophet of God . I have also laid a series of charges against that man that disqualify him as a good man let alone a prophet. You said “I accept your challenge” and promised to provide “rational/ logical and psycho-philosophical insights to prove Mohammad’s (pbuh) genuine oneness with supreme reality and prophethood through debate!”
To put it in a simple language, you said you would provide proof that Muhammad was a true messenger of God. I’d love to hear that proof. Where is it?
I asked you a simple question. The question is how can a man**** Muhammad claimed to be the best of the creation and a perfect example to follow. Were his actions exemplary? They were not. So how can such a man guide mankind to good deeds.
You want to discuss epistemology. Who cares whether knowledge is an apprehension of universal principles, an awareness of absolute, a product of sensory perception, or the result of analytical reflection?
Whatever the nature of knowledge, it does not diminish the abhorrence of the acts of Muhammad. It cannot also justify the absurdities of the Quran. Muslims are killing innocent people everywhere. Since 9/11 there have been over 12000 terrorist attacks. That is an average of five per day. People die as the result. And you want to talk about epistemology? This is red herring. What the hell does the nature of truth has to do with the fact that Muslims are terrorists?
Okay, so my intellect is dormant. Can you please awaken it by telling us how your questions on epistemology change the verses of the Quran? I did ponder on these questions Sir. But they have nothing to do with the claim of Muhammad. They are intellectual musings, luxuries allowed to those who live in freedom, something Islam wants to take away.
Islam promotes ignorance. Because of Islam Muslims cannot progress. They are filled with hatred of everyone and want to kill and destroy. They are reduced into beasts. Yes beasts. If one has no empathy for other humans, he is a beast and not a human. Now these beasts have atomic bomb. As the result the world has become powder keg. Mankind has never been more in danger of extinction as it is today. So much stupidity and hatred is thought in the madrassas of Pakistan that that country is about to fall in the hands of the Taliban any time. When that happens, it would be the end. It won’t be just non-Muslims who will die, Pakistan and Iran will be obliterated. And you want to talk about epistemology?
In your second email you wrote “I pondered seriously on the conditions and questions of human life on this solitary hospitable planet. Peaceful coexistence of human family has been my main concerns of thought and writings.”
What do you think is threatening the peaceful coexistence of human family? Is it because people don’t agree on the nature of knowledge or is it because a fifth of people follow a man who told them kill the disbelievers wherever you find them (2:191), murder them and treat them harshly (9:123), fight with them (8:65 ), strive against them with great endeavor (25:52), be stern with them because they belong to hell (66:9) and strike off their heads; then after making a “wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives” for ransom (47:4)?
Were those men who hijacked four planes and killed 3000 innocent people angry because their victims did not know that “knowledge is merely an awareness of absolute,” or did they do it because their prophet told them slay the unbelievers(9:5), no other religion but Islam is accepted (3:85), the unbelievers are najis (9:28), so fight them and kill them until no other religion except Islam is left (2:193)?
Dear Jamhed, what you call “peace of truth,” is peace of ignorance. I quote the young AlwaysAisha who explains this eloquently. She wrote, “After my conversion, I felt a sense of peace and happiness that I had never before experienced in my life, and hope to never experience again. This was the peace that came with knowing with full certainty that I was in the right path. Knowing that there was a Creator who was watching over me and who had a plan for me. Knowing that He had in his infinite mercy bestowed me with the Qur’an, an instruction manual for life so that from now on I could always know the right choice and be certain of my decisions. Knowing that earthly problems did not matter at all, because this life would eventually be over and then I could look forward to paradise.”
She came to her senses and realized that this peace was gained through numbing her senses and silencing her intelligence. Shun this peace. Today you are alive; you must be inquisitive and learn. A time will come when your heart will no longer beat and your mind will be at peace, but until then avoid that peace like a plague. Bertrand Russell said, “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.” The certainty and peace you attain through faith is the certainty of foolishness.
I did publish all your emails. I see the Islamic site http://www.sunninews.co.cc/ where our debate was publish is not accessible. I hope it is a tecnical problem and that page will be back with the new addition. Please also provide the link to this pagehttp://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/04/14/jamshed-iqbal-vs-ali-sina/
See the science that Muhammad brought to the world.http://www.youtube.com
This is the 21st century and these educated Muslims believe the Earth is flat because the Quran says so and the Quran cannot be wrong.
This is the sad reality of the Ummah.
One of our friends, Fisk wrote to Mr. Jamshed Iqbal and got the following response. (see comment # 92)
Greetings to all.
Earlier today I wrote to Jamshed Iqbal, and to my surprise he wrote back. Here is our exchange:
On 16/04/2009, Bill Fisk wrote:
Dear Mr Iqbal
I have just read the final installment of your debate with Ali Sina, and I would like to ask you a question.
Mr Sina opened the debate with a very simple argument, which was to posit a fictional religion whose principal tenets were the hatred, vilification and persecution of Muslims. His question then was, What would you think of such a religion and what would you say to its followers?
What is it about this simple question that you find so difficult?
I notice that you claim to have won the debate, when it is clear to everyone that you didn’t even trouble to take part in it.
It was in fact a cross question to avoid real question! The real question was about the condition of Enlightenment and genuine prophetic/spiritual experience. I just asked him to declare his position (atheist, agnostic or what???) but he is beating about the bush! His was not a question but an evasive technique.
He wants others to run on the track he is habitual to run on…One who does not even know what to talk about….and what not and how….Whose position is only hatred…and, ironically, he claims to fight against hatred!
What he is doing is just point scoring or showing is only ego-defensive attitude! May be to his loyality to his funders at the cost of being faithful to humanity at large! At the cost of our hospitable home—the earth! This is the common problem with Charlatans or hate-mongers…
I request you to make him declare his position……so that we could go ahead! And please advice him to move away from puffed cliches! This is the matter of life of human family….this is the matter of upcoming innocent angels……not a joke!
The issue we are to decide collectively (as human beings) is locating the source of violence! He says, they are Muslims… is not it a sweeping generalization..and logically speaking…these kinds of generalizations are always wrong! They make healthy debate impossible! Violence is “shared characteristic” of human kind….it is the product of id….it is what we learnt from caves and tribes! We, humans, are basically cave or tribal species! and to be civilized human, one needs to surpass id.And Religion (I am not talking about only Islam…Islam is one of the religions) was, actually, a device to drive it away from within!
I would request you express your comments on his site for it would become difficult for me to answer hundreds of friends…you wrote and thought it improper not to answer you!
You say I avoided the real question, which was “the condition of Enlightenment and genuine prophetic/spiritual experience.”
I am the one who posed the question and challenged Muslims to answer me. You are the one who accepted that challenge. It is you who has to answer my question and not the other way round.
So you want to talk about the “condition of Enlightenment and genuine prophetic/spiritual experience.” What would that prove? Would it prove that Muhammad was a real prophet of God.Please go ahead and prove it. Give me one solid irrefutable evidence that this man was not making things up, and what he said can be proven to be truthful and without resorting to logical fallacies.
If you can provide that proof, I will drop all my charges against him.
Let us say that you can prove Muhammad knew things no one knew. (I heard a lot of such claims, such as the Quran is a mathematical wonder or it has foretold about all the inventions and discoveries. All of them are wishful thinking of Muslims with wild imagination.) Does that prove that that knowledge came from God?
This question is important. The answer lies in the deeds of Muhammad. So assuming you prove Muhammad had extraordinary powers, you still have not proven that he was indeed a prophet of God.
However, let us not even go there because there is no proof that Muhammad had any knowledge that ordinary men of his time did not have.
However, if it is important, and you can’t prove the truth of Muhammad without knowing my position, let me make it simple for you. For the sake of argument I accept whatever is your definition of God. I even agree that Allah, the same deity that was worshipped by the Meccans prior to Muhammad, and the same god that sent Jesus, as Muhammad claimed, is the real God. Now I want you to prove that Muhammad was a messenger of this Allah. Please provide evidence that he did not make up the whole thing to fool the gullible and make them wage war for him and make him rich and powerful.
I am not asking you to prove God. I even recite the first part of shahadah. Ashhado in la ilah illa Allah. Happy? Now please prove that Muhammad was Rasool Allah.
You keep talking about humanity and the need for peaceful co-existence while at the same time you believe in a book that calls for the massacre of all non-Muslims and the submission and subjugation of all mankind. There is a cognitive dissonance between what you profess with your mouth and what you actually believe as your faith. How can you talk of peaceful co-existence when you think words such as “the unbelievers are filthy, the Jews are pigs, the non-Muslims are the worst creatures in the sight of Allah, slay them wherever you find them,” are divine teachings?
Can you have peaceful co-existence with the Malsians whose sacred book mirrors the Quran and incites hatred against the Muslims? You did not answer this question? Would you say that Malsi religion is a peaceful religion?
No! Violence is NOT“shared characteristic” of humankind. People become violent when exposed to violent teachings. Yes, violence dose also have psychological components, such as greed, envy, anger, etc. all byproducts of low self-esteem. However, crowds have a psychology of their own and they can become violent through external influences. We do not expect to see violent behavior among a crowd coming out of a church, a synagogue, a Hindu or a Buddhist temple, or a Zoroastrian or a Baha’i gathering. But if I see a crowd coming out of a mosque towards me, I will run as fast as I can.
Non violent people can become violent when they believe in violent teachings. If religion had no effect in how we humans behave, then what is the point of having religion at all? The very purpose of religion is to influence people and make them do things their way. If their way is peaceful, the believers are likely to behave peacefully and if it is violent, the believers will act violently.
Let us hear now what proof you can present to make us believe that Muhammad was a genuine, prophet.
Many of the Lines of Ali Sina were deleted due to abusive and filthy language.I kept the post for the sake of Neutrality.