Syed Munir Islam 

Email: hunter_bull@yahoo.com

I would like to congratulate NFB for publishing an informative and unbiased academic article by Dr. Ausaf Ali, posted on August 10 in "Readers’ Opinion", and titled: "Response to Various Comments on My ‘Recodification of the Shariah.’"

http://www.bangladesh-web.com/news/aug/10/fv4n653.htm#A2

It was quite tragic to note, however, that one of Mr. Ausaf Ali’s propositions--"no need for badmouthing"--was exemplified on a juxtaposed psychedelic dalliance, humorously titled "Eradication of Islam" [Part 2, conclusion], authored by Mr. Ali Sina. [the reader may scroll down at the above link to delve into the dalliance!]

Once we endeavor to park our natural propensity for clannishness, we ALL should individually and sincerely peruse both articles. And ruminate! Then kindly read the following:

I had selectively enjoyed Mr. Sina’s prior NFB articles. Sadly, however, on the "Eradication of Islam" piece, from noting his prophecy that Islam won't be around for another century...well, I was rather puzzled AND deeply saddened.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I lost my father at 2, and my mother never remarried. I grew up as a Muslim but, by

the time I was 13, I concentrated on living a decent human life WITHOUT the need for performing Islamic rituals. My mother was a pious Muslim but emphasized courtesy, decency, politeness, honesty, care and compassion OVER rituals. My sister was a scholar of History and specialized in teaching History and Architecture, and taught Islamic History and Civilization. Islam and other religions were discussed quite extensively in our home, mostly from their historic origins, and for their hitherto influence on society.

I now consider myself to be a free-thinker. From my readings and introspection I have elected to not become an ideologue—something a free-thinker should never be, anyway. I do not subscribe to the subjective notions of what is "just" WITHOUT evaluating

every issue and its arguments, based upon objective application of standards such as substantiation and evidence.

of a group of people, or maybe of a nameless individual when, it could be reasonably established that, such perception only served to support her personal and subjective conclusions on an issue. Biases, in other words, have no room in my free-thinking world!

I personally agree with such atheist notions that a human must be moral on his own cognizance, and NOT because of his unprovable fears of a supreme being, and of burning in hellfire after death. I agree with the atheist position that the argument that RELIGION as the ONLY moral force serves as a deterrent to criminal behavior is inaccurate, especially in the face of historically documented numerous acts of criminal behavior, perpetrated by the believers of one religion or another.

I logically agree with the atheist position that ALL of the popular concepts of God can NOT be logically validated. Faith to me validates nothing, even though I have the utmost empathy for the faithful. Yet I do not consider putting on the label ‘atheist’ because I find such label to be LIMITING for my personal intellectual growth. Atheism may ONLY disprove the popular notions of God, but it disproves nothing beyond that. I am thoroughly UNconvinced that NOTHING exists beyond our hitherto evolved perceptive levels.

My free-thinking position is fully cognizant of mutual respect and empathy toward others who do not subscribe to my notions. However, I am not a pacifist because, as I see it, a pacifist position on everything may run counter to Darwin’s evolutionary observation of the Survival of the Fittest. Thus, if a war-monger from any deep wells of ideology should attack me physically, well, then they better come prepared with some ice cubes because I am quite capable of delivering in self defense a mean punch—on the nose! [Humor, anyone?]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The observations and erroneous conclusions on Ali Sina’s article that "Muhammad ... was a violent man. He was a lustful, pervert, ruthless, arrogant and a maniac mass murder", quite possibly won't hold up against Michael H. Hart's "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History", in which Michael, being a non-Muslim, placed Muhammad at #1. Hart’s ranking was based on Muhammad’s characteristics quite dissimilar to the ones listed by Mr. Sina. Much to the collective sadness of some, Michael H. Hart is a world-renowned writer who uses his real name, but very few other than the readers of NFB have heard of Ali Sina, quite possibly. Could this also be someone’s pen name?

Some may have thoroughly entertained themselves with the "Eradication" serial. But let me quote this from the FIRST paragraph of Michael H. Hart's essay on Muhammad in the above book: "My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels."

[The irony is—and this is STRANGE but TRUE—that this is Michael H. Hart is no friend of Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq—who, as some writers have sobbed, is set out to do nothing else in this world but to BLAST every non-believer essayist! Let’s be brave and use professional and respectful methodologies with which to disagree, fellow free-thinkers.] Muhammad was successful at secular levels??? Whoa?! But what about eradicating the religion offered by the perverted maniacal mass murderer???

"My only point has been and is that I want those who reject Islam and Islamic morality and ethics to tell me what morality and ethics they espouse and recommend for today’s Muslims and Muslim society. In other words, I have no problem with anyone’s abandoning that morality and ethics, which is based on the premise of divine revelation.

I only want him/her to tell what morality and ethics a "former Muslim" is replacing it with."

The sad thing is, and rather overtly evidenced by Ali Sina's article juxtaposed to Ausaf Ali's, the negativistic writers against religion MAY NOT have any SOLUTIONS. They may not have any ALTERNATIVES. Many of them have hitherto been hell-bent [Did I swear? Ooh, the pungent smell of hell-fire!] on calling for "eradication"

of Islam. Yet the reality that, as social animals, we need some alternate forms of social contract and moral codes---be that as it may humanistic, atheistic, rationalistic, whatever---has never even been raised, let alone discussed. I’m uncertain whether such avoidance could be due to simple oversightedness, or to clandestinely calculated avoidance of responsibility!

"The same thought had come to my mind, when the press and media were saturated by the talk of the affair of President Bill Clinton with Monica Lewinsky and he and his defenders were making the case that oral sex is not even sex as such. I wondered if that was the message President Clinton, as the First Husband and First Father in the Untied States, was sending to his wife and daughter, too."

Free-thinkers believe that a religion is not necessary to conduct ourselves morally, and that we could maintain social contracts adequately without any creeds of perceived divine origin. I logically agree. However, I was NOT the person caught needlessly prophesying "Eradication" of a world religion. My personal opinion in this context is based on adequately and reasonably defendable observation. I'll play the curious who want to know---from anyone who is either overtly or surreptitiously supportive of Ali Sina's position and language on this essay---which REPLACEMENT set of NON-religious social contract and moral guidelines that we could offer the Muslims, in the highly untenable and apocalyptic event in which Ali Sina’s prophecy materialized, and Islam as we know it was eradicated—within the next century???

Has Mr. Sina got one? Does he feel such a replacement contract and moral codes

are essential to maintain the fabric of a society? Or might he contend that perhaps there would be a non-theistic revelation [oxymoron, perhaps, but no human non-believer is volunteering to write one!] of such a contract?

We all know the West's format of social contract--a medley of Christian and secular elements--has served to accept Bill Clinton for what he did, and to later lie about what he did--regarding Monica Lewinsky. Do some of us feel that perhaps any 'analog' [meaning in this context ‘less than perfect’--of something already IMperfect] copy of the West's version of a secular social contract, based somewhat loosely on Biblical principles, would for sure usher in the JUST SOCIETY that we are aching to bring about after "eradicating" Islam? If not, then offer us one!!

I know much more about the Bible...and the evolution it has undergone. Let me assure you that the "loving" personality of Jesus that Mr. Ali Sina was confirming is not a product from the original Biblical myths, but from a modernized "resurrection" [funny how that word seems very "pro'pah" in this context!] that is vastly different from the original fables about him!! In order to be politically correct for the times, the modern Jesus has been stripped of most of his former, original, and often decidedly vengeful glory. Ali Sina's comparison of Christ to Muhammad may appear suspect of Western funding from special interest groups; such is the level of inaccuracy as would make a discerning writer wonder about the true backers of it.

My first temptation was to embark on a debate with Mr. Ali Sina only within the scope of his clearly rudimentary and often erroneous knowledge of the Bible. However, I asked myself a question: "Would such a re-active writing engagement have any enduring relevance?" The answer, I'm gleeful to admit, was a resounding "No!".

For there is little progress in stooping so low as to engage in a debate against an arguably propagandist vacuity. I like Mr. Sina personally, and empathize with his painstaking endeavors at writing essays, some of which have been quite noteworthy. However, the "Eradication…" essay displayed a predictable propensity to plough into propagandist peregrinations with prosaic prose—and it was personally painful!!!

About Dr. Ausaf Ali. I seriously doubt it that many in our group would have the academic strength and objectivity to label him as suspect of "Islam-bashing" and defend her position reasonably convincibly; yet some have attempted just that. For instance, there was an article in "Hinduunity.org" (FIGHTING FOR A HINDU RASTRA! JAI BHARAT MATA!) in which the author, using the initials of "A.K." on an article titled, "Breaking the Manacles of Islam", writes the following:

"I must pay homage to the few braves who took the risk to demystify Islam. Therefore, I say—Long live Salman Rushdie. Long Live Taslima Nasrin.Long Live Anwar Sheikh. Long Live Dr. Ali Sina. Long Live Ibn Warraq. Long Live Prof. Ausaf Ali. Long Live Dr. Jaffor Ullah. Long Live Fatemollah. Long Live Jamal Hasan. Long Live Kamran Mirza. Long Live Khurshed Chowdhury. Long Live Satya Sandhani. Long Live Mohammad Khan. Long Live Avijit Roy Long Live Shabbir Ahmed. Long Live Jahed Ahmed. Long live Narayan Gupta. You are the pioneers." "…Truly, you are the alarm bells of the Mullahs. History won’t forget you for being the Agradoot (harbinger) who are bent on breaking the manacles of Islam."

Link: http://pub6.ezboard.com/fhinduunityislamexposedarchivesonly.showMessage?topicID=170.topic

Could it be that Dr. Ausaf Ali has been a target of some FREE-style Islam-bashers so that people are persuaded to misinterpret his sober approach? Maybe by identifying him as one of their own, they are trying to preempt others from reading him seriously?

If it is truly a deliberate mischaracterization or discrediting, then it is unconscionable. There is a chance that Dr. Ausaf Ali's writing may have contents that make others feel akin to him. But his above article definitely does not square with such branding or mislabeling by anyone else.

It is a brand new day. Let’s have a change of our cerebral underwear—rid our minds of "abusive, negativistic, and deconstructive" thoughts. Let’s take a cerebral shower with some ANTI religion-bashing soap. Let’s stop our anything-goes style vaporific vituperations.

Let’s RECOGNIZE, for the record, that if we could SING no better than "abusive, negativistic, and deconstructive" absurdities and overtly fail to offer a non-religious, replacement social contract and moral codes to the Muslims who, quite likely, will SURVIVE "post the eradication of Islam", then maybe we should endeavor to either:

1. sing a more humanistic tune that seeks and / or offers solutions respectfully,

between Aalaap & NFB: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aalaap

In his article, The Answer My Friend, Is Blowin’ In The Wind! Mr. Syed Munir Islam declared himself to be a freethinker and claimed that “Biases, have no room in his free-thinking world!” 

I am not going to argue with this self-assessment of Mr. Islam as I have yet to find a soul who would admit to the contrary. 

However I was confused when I read him saying: “I personally agree with such atheist notions that a human must be moral on his own cognizance, and NOT because of his unprovable fears of a supreme being, and of burning in hellfire after death” on one hand, and on the other he questioned the possibility of such morality without the influence of religions. He wrote: 

“I'll play the curious who want to know---from anyone who is either overtly or surreptitiously supportive of Ali Sina's position and language on this essay---which REPLACEMENT set of NON-religious social contract and moral guidelines that we could offer the Muslims, in the highly untenable and apocalyptic event in which Ali Sina’s prophecy materialized, and Islam as we know it was eradicated—within the next century??? Has Mr. Sina got one? Does he feel such a replacement contract and moral codes are essential to maintain the fabric of a society? Or might he contend that perhaps there would be a non-theistic revelation [oxymoron, perhaps, but no human non-believer is volunteering to write one!] of such a contract? ” 

May I respectfully ask Mr. Islam to define his position clearly and tell us truthfully whether he agrees with the atheist notion that a human must be moral on his own cognizance, and not because of his fear of a supreme being or he thinks morality without religion is impossible. 

Regretfully Muslim pseudo intellectuals are unable to define their position and like the autumn leaves are “blown by the wind”. I use the adjective pseudo intellectuals when speaking of Muslims because “Muslim intellectual” seems to be a contradiction in terms. I am puzzled and cannot understand why someone who believes that religious moral codes are not replaceable and challenges the freethinkers to write one, would agree with freethinkers that one can be moral without the fear of God. What this contradiction of statements say about the intellectual integrity of Muslim apologists. Isn’t it fair to conclude that their pretension of being freethinkers is just that, a pretension? 

Mr. Syed Munir Islam writes “I agree with the atheist position that the argument that RELIGION as the ONLY moral force serves as a deterrent to criminal behavior is inaccurate, especially in the face of historically documented numerous acts of criminal behavior, perpetrated by the believers of one religion or another.” If that is so then why he challenges the freethinkers to propose a “replacement” for the religious social contract and its moral guidelines? 

This is where we witness the dishonesty of those Muslims who pretend to be freethinkers and even agree with freethinkers’ positions in appearance, but they soon drop the mask when their cherished faith to which they have clung tenaciously is attacked and declared superfluous.  

Mr. Islam asks: “Help clarify how you understand this ‘eradication’ proposal of Islam in terms of facing some opposition from the believers? Do you see a strong possibility of eradication by peaceful means—no mass murders needed? How?” 

Of course as a Muslim Mr. Islam has only one model and that is the model of the prophet of Islam who eradicated other religions by invading cities, killing innocent people, looting them and forcing his religion down the throat of the people by sword. It is natural for him to question whether we would use the example of Muhammad in our campaign to   eradicate Islam or it would be through non-violence.  

Let me take this opportunity and assure Mr. Islam that our campaign of eradication of Islam does not need mass murders. We would not want anyone’s nose to bleed. We would be fighting against the ideology of Islam and not against Muslims who are our own blood and flesh and are true victims in this saga. 

The plan we have for eradication of Islam is enlightenment. We would read the Quran to the Muslims and tell them the truth about the Prophet, his life story as is recorded in authentic Islamic sources, and compare his teachings to the standards of humanism, a philosophy of living not revealed by a deity, but inspired by human consciousness, human justice and equality. There are people who are blind and nothing would startle or shock them. These people would not be affected when they learn the truth about Muhammad. Their allegiance is to Muhammad, not to the Truth. But the majority of Muslims would be shocked and they are the ones that would abandon Islam and would enter the rank of freethinkers and humanists. 

Not everyone who calls himself a freethinker is one. Mr. Islam who started his article by making this claim retracted in the middle of the same article and defied freethinkers to produce a replacement to religious morality. This attitude smell of duplicity and makes one wonder why one would say something that he or she does not believe. The answer is obvious. In this way s/he can disguise her/his bias and pretend to be an objective person. Mr. Islam repeated this tactic in another place in his article when he wrote: “I like Mr. Sina personally, and empathize with his painstaking endeavors at writing essays, some of which have been quite noteworthy” or “I had selectively enjoyed Mr. Sina’s prior NFB articles.”   

After these deceivingly sweet talks that are devised to conceal his prejudices, Mr. Islam unshields his dagger, attacks from behind and says: “I consider it propagandist to practice the botched art of writing essays, with which a vague sense of credibility is peddled with selective quotes from a holy book, while the conclusions drawn and harks made therefrom are fallacious at best, and also completely insupportable by the paltry pool of perniciously-presented and proclaimed palinodes from the same book.” 

But the author fails to be specific and tell his readers why he believes the “selective quotes from a holy book” are irrelevant in my writings and what are the “right conclusions”. He fails to address the questions raised completely and draws his own biased conclusion that my “botched” essays are vague. Wouldn’t it have been much more scholarly if Mr. Islam pointed out exactly which “selective quotes” are misrepresented and what conclusions are fallacious? 

Mr. Islam continues: “I find it also without merit when such airy writing is considered acceptable by anyone, if only due to her perception of oppression of a group of people, or maybe of a nameless individual when, it could be reasonably established that, such perception only served to support her personal and subjective conclusions on an issue. Biases, in other words, have no room in my free-thinking world!” 

I would have been much more pleased if Mr. Islam would have tried to disprove my charges against Islam instead of questioning the psychological state of the mind of the questioner by suggesting that those accusations are “due to our perception of oppression” of a group of people. 

It is funny that Mr. Islam does not even want to admit that the oppression in Islam is a reality. He calls is the “perception” of oppression. Please someone go to the prisons of Iran and tell those rotting there that their suffering is just a "perception". May be someone could tell to the women of Afghanistan to be happy and stop imagining things because the discrimination against them is just a perception. Or perhaps those Israelis who are blown apart are actually not dying but perceiving to die.   

I would like to remind Mr. Islam that oppression in Islam is very real. He should look at the human rights records of Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and all other Islamic countries prepared by Amnesty International and other human rights organization.  Then he should talk with those oppressors and see that they oppress to uphold the teachings of Islam. The oppression exists in a grand scale and is real thanks to Islam. 

Mr. Islam once again sidetracks and does not respond to the charges. Instead he brags of his own “liberal upbringing” and boasts of his freethinking credentials as if his claim of being a freethinker gives him the authority to dismiss our charges against Islam without having to explain his reasons. He remembers his pious mother and that he has been taught “courtesy, decency, politeness, honesty, care and compassion OVER rituals.” Then he goes on to talk about his sister and her studies of History and Architecture and that “Islam and other religions were discussed quite extensively in their home mostly from their historic origins, and for their hitherto influence on society.”  

What is it that Mr. Islam trying to say? He is trying to establish himself as an unbiased and authoritative person, but he fails to point out why my assertions about Islam are fallacious. In his mind it is enough to present himself as a freethinker and once that is established, people would accept his claims without him having to actually prove anything.  

He concludes: “I now consider myself to be a free-thinker. From my readings and introspection I have elected to not become an ideologue—something a free-thinker should never be, anyway. I do not subscribe to the subjective notions of what is "just" WITHOUT evaluating every issue and its arguments, based upon objective application of standards such as substantiation and evidence.”  

Well, that is fine and dandy Dear Mr. Islam and I am very pleased to know that. Now that we know you are such an objective person and a born freethinker par excellence I would like you to get to work and answer my charges one by one. My Questions are: 

These are the questions that you have to answer Mr. Islam. The fact that you pretend to be a freethinker and deny these charges does not make them go away. 

To avoid answering the charges against Islam Muslims use yet another tactic and that is to attack the messenger. They believe if they discredit the person who raises a question about Islam, they don’t have to answer those questions anymore. Mr. Islam has not missed this opportunity either. He writes: “very few other than the readers of NFB have heard of Ali Sina, quite possibly. Could this also be someone’s pen name?” 

Dear Mr. Islam. Let us assume that Ali Sina is a pen name and my real name is Isaq Yahoody. Let us say I am a paid secret agent of IZIBA (The International Zionists and Imperialists Bloodsucking Association). Does that really change the equation? Does that make all my charges against Muhammad irrelevant? Sir, you have to defend Islam. Establishing yourself as an unbiased freethinking liberal person and me a hoax is not the answer to the question I raised about Islam. 

Your self-adulating tautological assertions of freethinking like “I logically agree with the atheist position that ALL of the popular concepts of God can NOT be logically validated. Faith to me validates nothing, even though I have the utmost empathy for the faithful.” Does not really give you any credibility nor makes you a freethinker. I do not consider myself an atheist either nor I agree with the thesis that “nothing exists beyond our hitherto evolved perceptive levels”. Just like Einstein, Buddha, Plato and Espinosa I do believe that a spiritual reality permeates the entire universe. But that spiritual reality has nothing to do with prehistoric deities such as Allah or Yahweh or the claims of Muhammad who in my opinion was nothing but an impostor fooling people and taking advantage of their gullibility. 

The issue is not whether God exists or it doesn’t. That is a philosophical argument that is not of my interest at this moment. I have my personal views and respect other people’s views. I have no intention to convert people into atheism, prove or disprove God. I am accusing ISLAM for promoting hate, causing wars and endangering the peace and stability of the entire world. The belief in God has nothing to do with Islam that is bereft of any spirituality and divine inspiration. 

Mr. Islam claims that my views of Muhammad being a violent, lustful, pervert, ruthless, arrogant and a maniac mass murderer won’t hold up against Michael H. Hart’s views who places Muhammad at the top of The 100 Most Influential Persons in History. 

Why shouldn’t it? I have no doubt that Muhammad was one of the very influential persons in history and possibly agree with Hart that he was the most influential person. The question is whether that influence was a positive influence or it was a negative one. The Tele evangelist Jimmy Swagart was a charismatic person and influenced many people. But he was a liar and was preaching hateful messages. His influence was not positive. Hitler was extremely influential among the Germans. He even influenced a lot of people beyond his own country and even today almost six decade later there are right wing groups in Europe, America and Canada who worship that monster. Mao Ze Dong also had a great influence on his people. Saddam Hussein has tremendous influence on the destiny of his people and there are many Pan Islamists who respect that man. No one can deny the influence of Khomeini in Iran and the Middle East. He was hailed as the savor and ruined the lives of many people. He gave a boost to Islamism and religious fervor of the Muslims throughout the world. All these people were monsters, yet they influenced a lot of people. In fact it is because of their influence that they turned to have such a negative impact in the course of History.  

I have no doubt that Muhammad had great influence in the History of the world. So many wars were fought in his name, millions of innocent people died because of his lies. Even today people are dying in Philippines, in Indonesia, in Malaysia, in Timor, in Kashmir, in Afghanistan, in Iran, in Israel and Palestine, in Sudan, in Algeria even in Argentine, USA and Europe because of the influence of this man. His influence was pernicious. Did he inspire people to love each other? Did he teach them to respect the women and regard them as equals? Did he promote science and human knowledge? Did he abolish discriminations? No! He fomented hate. He taught that women are inferior. He advanced ignorance. He caused disunity among the people of the world. This man had a great influence yet that influence was extremely negative. Look at the Islamic countries. Is there one country among all of them that has excelled in any thing? Islam is a curse. Any country that has embraced Islam and is practicing it has sunken to poverty, ignorance, barbarity and backwardness. The more a country is under the spell of Muhammad, the more is its incivility. In fact Islam can be used as the index of ignorance of a nation. 

Western Morality vs. Islamic Morality

Mr. Islam commented on the affair of Mr. Bill Clinton with Monica Lewinsky attributing it to the Western Morality and questioned whether an 'analog' copy of that secular social contract that in his opinion “is based somewhat loosely on Biblical principles”, would for sure usher in the JUST SOCIETY.” 

First of all adultery is not “based somewhat loosely on Biblical principles”. Nowhere in Bible it says that adultery is acceptable. In fact Christ is reported to have said it is better to cut your yes and hands, and enter in the Kingdom of God without eyes or hands than entering in the hell with your body intact. Promiscuity in the form of polygyny is based on Islamic teachings. A Muslim married man can still fool around and lust for other women and that is his Allah given right. But I have not seen this encouraged in the Gospels and Christianity. Therefore such a statement of Mr. Islam is another indication of his intellectual dishonesty. 

Secondly marital immorality is not the exclusivity of the Westerners. In the East and among the Muslims this happens with more frequency but it is hidden and rarely come to public's attention. In democracies we hear more of such scandals. In dictatorships the corruption and lewdness is many fold more rampant, but no journalist dares to talk about them. 

However, the main point here is that what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, and in their private lives, as long as it does not affect the rest of the society, is none of our business. I do not care whether my elected representative has a mistress or not. This is what concerns his wife and not others. What concerns me is to make sure that he is a just person, does not steal, does not kill his opponents, does not establish dictatorships, does not run my country like his private hacienda, respects democracy, human rights and finally has good ideas and plans for the economy. 

We who come from Islamic backgrounds have very twisted values that are outdated and primitive. Islam has brainwashed us with its archaic system of values to the extent that we do not even know what is wrong and what is right. In humanistic societies, cruelty towards people is wrong. Infringement of their freedom of expression is wrong. No one is allowed to tell another person what is right and what is not. In Islam we have Amr be ma’rof va nahi men al monkar. Following this principle each person allows him or herself to put his nose where it does not belong and tell other human beings what they should do and what they should not. This is sick. This is infringement of human liberties. In Islam homosexuality is a crime but murder of disbelievers is not. Drinking a beer is a religious offence but beating the wife is not. Holding hands in public is an offence but “marrying” and raping children as young as 9 years old is not. Dancing with a person of opposite sex is a sin but honor killing restores men’s reputation. Our values are distorted. Our culture is sick. What we think is wrong is right and what seems to us right is definitely wrong.  

Now, this is not an easy impediment to overcome. I have to admit that it is years that I am fighting against my dislike of the homosexuals. I know by now that they did not choose this on their volition. I know that this is not something that they can control. I know that I am conditioned by my religious upbringing. I consciously treat them as equals, yet subconsciously I have difficulty accepting them. Our values are formed when we are very young. All those values that we learned through this cult of the Arabs are outdated, but we cannot get rid of them easily. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that they are wrong consciously and give ourselves time so we can accept them also on the subconscious level. 

Mr. Islam speaking of Christ stated that he was a vengeful person and that the new version of Christ has been modernized “in order to be politically correct for the times”.

The funny thing is that this self-declared scholar claims to know “much more about the Bible”. 

If Mr. Islam had just a little knowledge of the studies of the Biblical scholars he would have known that many scholars consider Christ to be almost a mythological figure.  No serious scholar takes the Bible and the Gospels literally. Moses is shrouded is such clouds of mystery that some even doubt his existence. The stories about Christ also lack credibility. Yet no one ever has made such an absurd and unfounded claim about Christ. The Gospels were written 30 to 60 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. They are presumed to be all based on a version that is lost since. But there has been no modification or changes since then to the Gospels.  Could Christ become a ruthless tyrant if he had become powerful like Muhammad? That is possible. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. But since Christ never reached the power, we cannot accuse him of sins he did not commit. Personally I think it is doubtful than any person could be as criminally inclined as Muhammad. The two similar episodes that took place in the time of Muhammad and Jesus, clearly demonstrate that Jesus was a superior man when compared to Muhammad. When He was asked what they should do with a prostitute that was brought to him, he responded that the one who has not committed any sin throw the first stone. This requires a great degree of wisdom and compassion. But when Muhammad was confronted with the similar situation, he said stone them. Only a man bereft of human compassion could say such thing. 

We should recall that Muhammad himself did not shy away from lusting after other people’s wives. He even desired his own daughter-in-law, he raped women whose husbands he murdered in the same day and he asked many women to “give” themselves to him to have sex with. His own immoral lifestyle was not an issue to him but he would stone to death women who committed sins much lighter than his own. As a sinner he was bothered by his sins and projected them on others and then relegated them to the hellfire and punished them brutally. Muhammad and Hitler both chose the Jews as the escape goats and let their followers to load their own sins on the Jews and then kill them. 

Mr. Islam also suggested that my comparison of Christ to Muhammad “appear suspect of Western funding from special interest groups” and he wondered about my true backers.

Well, unfortunately I no backers yet and have not received anything so far but I am eagerly looking for sponsorship. Does anyone know of a Christian, Jewish or whatever organization that could be interested in my work? You know, I do not expect much really. A six-figure salary, a car, a water front house in acreage and a 40’ boat are all I ask. A private airplane would be nice but for that I can wait. :) 

It is truly saddening to see ignorant people disguise themselves as intellectuals and just because they have learned to read and write in English and perhaps earned a degree in a university think that they are scholars. These idiots call themselves freethinkers as soon as they stop saying their Salat (obligatory prayers) and learn to differentiate between whisky and rum. What an intellectual disgrace. 

Mr. Islam boasts “My first temptation was to embark on a debate with Mr. Ali Sina only within the scope of his clearly rudimentary and often erroneous knowledge of the Bible. However, I asked myself a question: ‘Would such a re-active writing engagement have any enduring relevance?’ The answer, I'm gleeful to admit, was a resounding ‘No!’”. 

Mr. Islam, I CHALLENGE you to engage in a debate with me. Prove that you were sincere in your statement. If you decline, those who know you not may think that you were bluffing. This does not look very good on a freethinking intellectual scholar like you, does it? Even if you think that such debate between you and I does not have any “enduring relevance” and “there is little progress in stooping so low as to engage in a debate against an arguably propagandist vacuity” like me, you have no option but to accept this challenge and prove me wrong. Now your honor is at stake.  Don't worry about me. I have my ice handy just in case you bleed my nose.

As to the main question in Mr. Islam’s article who asked whether as freethinkers we have "a replacement set of NON-religious social contract and moral guidelines that we could offer the Muslims”, my answer is yes. We do have a replacement to the religious morality. But that would be discussed in another article.