Counter Rebuttal to Ali Sina's Response to My Counter Rebuttal Regarding 'Looting' (Part 2 of the Debate)


Bassam Zawadi


I recommend people to read the debate from the very beginning. Ali Sina originally wrote his first article here  then I wrote a response to it here then Ali Sina responded back here then I wrote a counter response here   and now Ali Sina responded back here

Now I am responding back...................


Ali Sina said:

Mr. al Zawadi wrote:

Islam promotes nothing but kindness to prisoners of war. Read this article for the evidence

The link I just posted proves from the Quran and Hadith that prisoners of war should be treated well. If there is any incident of Muhammad which goes against the Quran, then it should be disregarded. Even Ali Sina agrees with me. He says later on in this article 

I don't know what constitutes kindness for Muslims. Raiding innocent civilians, killing unarmed people taken by surprise, or massacring their entire male population and enslaving their women and children and even raping them are not acts of kindness. The claim that Islam promotes kindness is an insult to human intelligence. This is like saying Nazism promotes kindness. Islam has advanced by terror and not by kindness. The order to cast terror in the heart of the enemy is mandated in the Quran 3.151, 8.12. The enemy is anyone who Muhammad chose to attack. These people did not have to be hostile to Muhammad or have done anything against him. He decided that those who do not submit to his cult are the enemy and must be subdued. Or those who are wealthy are the enemy.  Muhammad boasted "I have been made victorious with terror" Bukhari 4:52:220   

Yes, if a law in a hadith is contradicts the Quran, the latter is to be taken as authority. However here we are not talking about laws but about events and the actions of Muhammad. The Quran is the collection of Muhammad's sayings attributed to Allah and the hadith is the collection of Muhammad's sayings and his deeds as reported by his companions. Sometimes Muhammad's words are good, but often his actions are not.  Any criminal will tell you doing evil is wrong. Such statement does not make him a good person. He is simply a man whose actions and words do not match. When I was a boy, back in my country of birth, there was a radio program called 'A City within Our City'. Every week the producer interviewed one prisoner, often on death roll. The prisoners explained what made them become attracted to crime. At the end of each interview he would ask the inmates if they had an advice for the youths. The advices of these criminals were all good. I thought sarcastically, if we only listened to the advices of these criminals, the world would become paradise. 

Words are cheap. Actions are what matter. A man who does not walk his own talk is a despicable man. In matters of law, if there is discrepancy between the Quran and the Haidth, the former is the authority. But if  you find in the Quran Muhammad says it is meritorious to manumit the slaves and then you read in the Hadith that he raided people, looted them, massacred them and reduced thousand upon thousands of them into slaves, what shall we make of it? We can't dismiss the Hadith and deny that they are not true just because in the Quran Muhammad says something else. We can conclude that he was a contemptible man whose words and deeds did not match. We can't disregard all the gory stories of crimes committed by this degenerate fiend just because somewhere he said; "be kind to others". The question is why he did not walk the talk? If he knew kindness is better than cruelty, why he acted so ruthlessly? Did he really mean it or he said it to feign holiness?  


My Response:

In my previous rebuttal to him I challenged Ali Sina to show one shred of evidence where Muhammad (peace be upon him)  deliberately attacked innocent and unarmed people that never did anything wrong to the Muslims. I still challenge him on this. 

Ali Sina knows what he is doing. He is trying to show people that Muhammad (peace be upon him) is victorious by spreading terror (as in going around killing innocent people and terrorizing them). Let's look at the hadith fully...


Saheeh Bukhari

Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 220

Narrated By Abu Huraira : Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).


Terror here is the fear that Allah has put into the hearts of the disbelievers and not the kind of terror that Ali Sina wants us to assume. He read this hadith before posting it, why didn't he put what is in the brackets? 


This is what the early commentators of this hadith and the early scholars and the people that knew Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) know what the Prophet meant when he said that. So who is Ali Sina to come and say that the Prophet meant something else. 

Read this article that explains this hadith in detail.


What is this lie that Ali Sina is spreading? He said that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) attacked those who did not even do harm to him. What does the Quran say about this? It says..


Surah 60:8

"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.  


If you believe that Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the author of the Quran and Muhammad (peace be upon him) wanted to go around killing everyone then why didn't Muhammad teach that in the Quran? Show one shred of evidence where Muhammad (peace be upon him) deliberately attacked people that did no wrong to him or weren't planning to do anything wrong to him. 


Ali Sina said:

In response to me saying the battles of Muhammad were raids (qazwah) Mr. al Zawadi wrote:  " Battle of Uhud was not a raid. Battle of the Trench was not a raid. Battle of Badr was not a raid."

Muhammad waged over sixty wars according to Tabari.  With the exception of Uhud and Khandaq (Trench), all of them were offensive and raids. The Battle of Badr was intended to be a raid against the caravan of the Quraish. Abu Sufyan, the head of the caravan dodged the attack by detouring the caravan. The Meccans learned about Muhammad's intention and they came to defend their caravan. The battle of Uhud and Khandaq were legitimate wars. After the Meccans had enough of Muhammad's forays, they came to punish him for his constant taunting of their caravans and his lootings. Unlike Muhammad's raids that were unannounced, the Meccans informed their enemy of their intention,  giving him plenty of leeway to prepare. The war of Khandaq was not fought and the Meccans went back. So what if two out of 67 wars of Muhammad were not raids? Does this acquit him of being a highway robber and a marauding gangster? This is like a criminal accused of more than three scores of armed robberies, murders and assassinations plead innocence on the ground that in two occasions he had to fight back in self defense when his victims turned against him.


Mr. al Zawadi wrote: 

The only incident that I can recall unless Ali Sina refreshes my memory where Muhammad attacked his enemies by surprise was the Banu Mustaliq." 

In that case Mr. al Zawadi should read the Sira again. With the exception of Khandaq and Uhud, virtually all the wars of Muhammad were depredatory. The attack on Mecca was also technically a raid. In this case the population was taken by surprise. A deal was made between the traitor Abbas who was the fifth column in Mecca spying for Muhammad from the start, Abu Sufyan who felt that with 10,000 men at the gates of Mecca there is no chance to win the war and Muhammad. This deal was agreed outside the town in Muhammad's tent. The people of Mecca did not know about this deal and when Abu Sufyan said the city must capitulate to avoid bloodshed, his wife cursed him and said he is not a man. The Meccans were taken by surprise. They had singed a treaty with Muhammad and did not expect a war. Muhammad suddenly appeared at their gates with his army demanding them to surrender or face death.  

The killing of the Jews of Medina technically were not raids. He did not raid them but he laid siege on their quarters and cut the supply of water to them until they surrendered and then he banished them or massacred them.

Muslim, in his collection of Sahih Hadith narrates the following:

Ibn 'Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi' said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops."  Muslim 19, 4292  

Here the phrase "he killed those who fought" is misleading. This may give the idea that these people were armed and prepared to fight. Not so! People were caught by surprise and unarmed. This was an act of terrorism and not a war.  

My Response:

Raid or battle, the challenge remains. When did the Prophet ever attack anyone that did nothing or were going to do nothing wrong to him or the Muslims first? 

Why doesn't Ali Sina mention the fact that the Prophet had the ability and power to kill all the Meccans in the city if he wished, but he was so merciful that he forgave them all even though they thought he was going to kill them?

As for the Jews of Madinah I made an article filled with links that talk about and address those issues here

Ali Sina said that when the hadith said that those men from the Banu Mustalaq were armed and fought is a lie and that they were unarmed. Where on earth is your evidence Ali? Do you call this a rebuttal? Seriously, are you kidding me? You accept the part of the hadith that supports your argument but reject the parts that don't? Is this logical and fair debating? What kind of debating skills and arguments are you giving? If you accept a source you either accept all of it or reject all of it. If you want to accept parts of it then you must have some evidence for doing so. Your personal and biased opinions carry no weight. 


Ali Sina said:

Actually it was not necessary even in the early days of Islam to warn the victims. The forays of the caravans were not announced. In Nakhlah Muhammad left the instruction to raid the caravan with no warning and in the sacred month when war was sacrilege. This was one of the early raids. The story of the raid at the fortress of Khaibar is one more example that is recorded in detail. If you read Tabari, you become sick of account after account of killing and ransacks in gory details. I do not wish to overwhelm the readers but allow me to quote just one hadith.   

It has been narrated on the authority of Salama (b. al-Akwa') who said: We fought against the Fazara and Abu Bakr was the commander over us. He had been appointed by the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). When we were only at an hour's distance from the water of the enemy, Abu Bakr ordered us to attack. We made a halt during the last part of the night to rest and then we attacked from all sides and reached their watering-place where a battle was fought. Some of the enemies were killed and some were taken prisoners. I saw a group of persons that consisted of women and children. I was afraid lest they should reach the mountain before me, so I shot an arrow between them and the mountain. When they saw the arrow, they stopped. So I brought them, driving them along. Among them was a woman from Banu Fazara. She was wearing a leather coat. With her was her daughter who was one of the prettiest girls in Arabia . I drove them along until I brought them to Abu Bakr who bestowed that girl upon me as a prize. So we arrived in Medina . I had not yet disrobed her when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) met me in the street and said: Give me that girl, O Salama. I said: Messenger of Allah, she has fascinated me. I had not yet disrobed her. When on the next day. the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) again met me in the street, he said: O Salama, give me that girl, may God bless your father. I said: She is for you. Messenger of Allah! By Allah. I have not yet disrobed her. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent her to the people of Mecca , and surrendered her as ransom for a number of Muslims who had been kept as prisoners at Mecca ." Muslim 19, 4345

This was a raid at civilians, women and children. It is a mistake to call these incursions wars. Muhammad himself called them qazwah and terror.


My Response:

We need to understand that it was Banu Fazara that started the whole ordeal. So obviously the Prophet was going to retaliate to take back his property. This is self defense, which is a universal principle. 

Saheeh Bukhari

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 278:

Narrated Salama:

I went out of Medina towards Al-Ghaba. When I reached the mountain path of Al-Ghaba, a slave of 'Abdur-Rahman bin 'Auf met me. I said to him, "Woe to you! What brought you here?" He replied, "The she-camels of the Prophet have been taken away." I said, "Who took them?" He said, "Ghatafan and Fazara." So, I sent three cries, "O Sabaha-h ! O Sabahah !" so loudly that made the people in between its (i.e. Medina's) two mountains hear me. Then I rushed till I met them after they had taken the camels away. I started throwing arrows at them saying, "I am the son of Al-Akwa"; and today perish the mean people!" So, I saved the she-camels from them before they (i.e. the robbers) could drink water. When I returned driving the camels, the Prophet met me, I said, "O Allah's Apostle Those people are thirsty and I have prevented them from drinking water, so send some people to chase them." The Prophet said, "O son of Al-Akwa', you have gained power (over your enemy), so forgive (them). (Besides) those people are now being entertained by their folk."


Ali Sina said: ¨

Blaming the Victim:

My opponent quotes Ibn Hisham who wrote:

News reached the Prophet [pbuh] on Sha'ban 2nd. to the effect that the chief of Bani Al-Mustaliq, Al-Harith bin Dirar had mobilised his men, along with some Arabs, to attack Madinah. Buraidah bin Al-Haseeb Al-Aslami was immediately despatched to verify the reports. He had some words with Abi Dirar, who confirmed his intention of war. He later sent a reconnoiterer to explore the positions of the Muslims but he was captured and killed. The Prophet [pbuh] summoned his men and ordered them to prepare for war. Before leaving, Zaid bin Haritha was mandated to see to the affairs of Madinah and dispose them. On hearing the advent of the Muslims, the disbelievers got frightened and the Arabs going with them defected and ran away to their lives. Abu Bakr was entrusted with the banner of the Emigrants, and that of the Helpers went to Sa'd bin 'Ubada. The two armies were stationed at a well called Muraisi. Arrow shooting went on for an hour, and then the Muslims rushed and engaged with the enemy in a battle that ended in full victory for the Muslims. Some men were killed, women and children of the disbelievers taken as captives, and a lot of booty fell to the lot of the Muslims. Only one Muslim was killed by mistake by a Helper. Amongst the captives was Juwairiyah, daughter of Al-Harith, chief of the disbelievers. The Prophet [pbuh] married her and, in compensation, the Muslims had to manumit a hundred others of the enemy prisoners who embraced Islam, and were then called the Prophet's in-laws. [Za'd Al-Ma'ad 2/112,113; Ibn Hisham 2/289,290,294,295]

It is important to note that Muhammad fabricated excuses for his attacks. In all these excuses he shifted the blame on his victims. For example, when he attacked the Bani Qaynuqa the excuse was that a couple of them had disrespected a Muslim woman. When he attacked the Bani Nadir the excuse was that Angel Gabriel had whispered in his ears that the Bani Nadir were plotting to kill him. When he attacked the Bani Quraiza his excuse was that they had confabulated with the Meccans. This is typical mindset of the narcissist. Narcissists always have excuses for their evil deeds. The claim that Muhammad pre-empted an attack by the Bani Mustaliq is a fabrication of Muhammad himself. It is just an excuse based on a lie. The Bani Mustaliq had no reason to attack Medina. It was always Muhammad who initiated the wars and hostilities. The Bani Mustaliq were not interested in Islam and religious wars in Arabia did not exist prior to Islam. They were Jews. They were an educated and cultured people. They were artisans, herdsmen and farmers. They had made their wealth in commerce and in industry, not through marauding. What reason had they to attack Medina, a city impoverish by Muhammad whose citizens had all become thieves and highway robbers? These are lies concocted by Muhammad to convince his foolish followers that his forays were justified. Despite their savagery, the early believers were still humans and must have felt raiding, massacring and pillaging innocent people with no justification is not right. Muhammad had to give them an excuse. When you attack someone, you must have an excuse. Even Hitler had reasons for his attacks. His reason was "to bring civilization to the less evolved people of the world". The reasons Muhammad gave for his raids were just excuses. With these lies his foolhardy followers placated their conscience willingly and descended to new depths of barbarity.

My Response:

Am I really supposed to take such a pathetic response seriously? Ali Sina OFFERS NO EVIDENCE what so ever for saying that the Prophet fabricated excuses. Notice what Ibn Ishaq said. He said that once the Prophet heard the reports of Banu Mustaliq planning to attack... 

 Buraidah bin Al-Haseeb Al-Aslami was immediately despatched to verify the reports. He had some words with Abi Dirar, who confirmed his intention of war.

This even shows that the Prophet wanted to be extra careful and sure about these reports before he went and attacked them. Ali Sina talks about the Jewish tribes of Madinah making it seem like they were innocent which is far from the truth. Refer here 


Ali Sina said:

Here is what my opponent wrote as the pretext for raiding the Khaibar:  

The Jews of Khaybar were responsible for the uprising of armies against the Muslims in the Battle of the Trench (or ditch). They would go to Makkah and encourage them to wage war against the Muslims. Theses Jews would hide in their fortresses in Khaybar. So obviously they needed to be dealt with. So Muhammad invaded Khaybar. If the Prophet was able to individually punish these people he would have. But they would lock them selves up so the Prophet had no choice. He even tried burning down their trees to scare them so that he would not resort to going inside the fortress to get them. But they left him no choice. Yes, the Prophet Muhammad was a man of mercy, but he was also a man of justice. Does Ali Sina expect Muhammad to forgive all those who fight him? If he did that, then everyone would try attacking Muhammad and would not worry about getting punished if they lost. So Muhammad needed to make an example out of anyone who dared to fight or harm him. This is self defense. This is a universal principle. 

The above give you a glimpse into the mind of a psychopathic narcissist. Narcissists always blame their victims and have justification for their evil deeds. The followers of Muhammad have entered into his narcissistic bubble universe and all of them, to the degree that they emulate him, evince his psychopathology. They deny the evil deeds of their prophet and justify his crimes and their own. See the parts that I highlighted with red and blue! He is saying that Muhammad had no choice but to attack, kill, torture, rape, and enslave his victims. The way he has worded it one might as well think that Muhammad was the victim. . 

Don't just assume that Mr. al Zawadi is talking nonsense. On the contrary, this is how narcissists think. The psychopath narcissist always blames his victims. "he made me do it", is his alibi. The psychopath feels justified to punish you if you resist his demands. 

These are all lies, excuses to assail and mug an entire population of innocent civilians, loot their wealth and take them as slaves and sex slaves. 

For the sake of argument, let us say the leaders of Khaibar were responsible for the "uprising of armies against the Muslims in the Battle of the Trench" (This is of course a lie. Muhammad already massacred all the men of Bani Quraiza and enslaved all their wives and children with the same excuse. Khaibar had nothing to do with the battle of the Trench. The Jews never raised against the Muslims in Medina or anywhere in Arabia and they tried to stay neutral at all times. That was of course a grave error that cost them their lives.) Does this justify to invade a city and massacre its citizens? Does it justify taking their women as sex slaves and forcing the elderly and the unwanted women to till their own confiscated land and and give half of the produce to their conqueror?

Let us read the story of this raid as described in a hadith. Whatever you find in parenthesis are the interpolations of the translator. These are introduced to soften the tone and to justify Muhammad's crimes. For example whenever the hadith talks about 'raid' the words (enemy) and (hostile) are interpolated next to it. This gives an impression that these people were the enemies and Muslims had to fight these wars were in self defense. That is not so. Any person who did not submit to Muhammad was considered to be an enemy. The terrorists are not killing innocent people; they are killing "the enemy". In Khaibar, people had no idea that Muhammad was about to attack them until he was in their lanes with his men on their horses slaying anyone at sight. Just like the gullible westerners of today, the non Muslims of Arabia 1400 years ago, did not know they are "the enemy" and the target. 

Anas said, 'When Allah's Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there early in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet . He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, 'Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.'  He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, 'Muhammad (has come).' (Some of our companions added, "With his army.") We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. 

Dihya came and said, 'O Allah's Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.' The Prophet said, 'Go and take any slave girl.' He took Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, 'O Allah's Apostles! You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.' So the Prophet said, 'Bring him along with her.' So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, 'Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.' Anas added: The Prophet then manumitted her and married her."  

Thabit asked Anas, "O Abu Hamza! What did the Prophet pay her (as Mahr)?" He said, "Her self was her Mahr for he manumitted her and then married her." Anas added, "While on the way, Um Sulaim dressed her for marriage (ceremony) and at night she sent her as a bride to the Prophet .  (Sahih Bukhari 1.367)


My Response:

I already addressed Ali Sina's arguments in my previous rebuttal. He even posts it. I already explain everything. He just highlights what he wanted people to focus on. Let's read what I said in my previous rebuttal...

The Jews of Khaybar were responsible for the uprising of armies against the Muslims in the Battle of the Trench (or ditch). They would go to Makkah and encourage them to wage war against the Muslims. Theses Jews would hide in their fortresses in Khaybar. So obviously they needed to be dealt with. So Muhammad invaded Khaybar. If the Prophet was able to individually punish these people he would have. But they would lock them selves up so the Prophet had no choice. He even tried burning down their trees to scare them so that he would not resort to going inside the fortress to get them. But they left him no choice. Yes, the Prophet Muhammad was a man of mercy, but he was also a man of justice. Does Ali Sina expect Muhammad to forgive all those who fight him? If he did that, then everyone would try attacking Muhammad and would not worry about getting punished if they lost. So Muhammad needed to make an example out of anyone who dared to fight or harm him. This is self defense. This is a universal principle. 

Instead, Ali Sina makes it seem like that it is no big deal about what the Jews of Khaybar did to the Muslims. Ali Sina even goes as far as denying the crimes that the Jews committed against Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), which is recorded by every historian.  Instead he goes on to call me a psychopath. I offered nothing but logical arguments. This is war. Ali Sina is a pacifist who is against war and this is his subjective opinions which are meaningless. Self defense and justice is a universal principle, which Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) followed and exerted legally, sufficiently and fairly.

As for the whole slavery issue in Islam, it is dealt with great detail over here...

It is also recommended to listen to the 2 part audio "Emancipation of Slaves" by Jamal Badawi, which can be found here

To know more about Safiyyah read here.

Ali Sina said: 

What happened to Kinana the young husband of Safiyah? Let us see:

Kinana al-Rabi, who had the custody of the treasure of Banu Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (Tabari says "was brought"), to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going to a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we find you have it (the treasure) I shall kill you?" He said, "Yes". The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest (of the treasure?) he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr Al-Awwam, "Torture him until you extract what he has." So he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud.  [Sirat Rasulallah, page 515]

Any person who after reading these stories can still defend Muhammad and justify his heinous crimes should not be called human. Any person, who justifies what Muhammad did to his innocent victims has evil in his heart, is the offspring of Satan and is a stain on humanity. To say the defenders of Muhammad's crimes are animals is an insult to animals. The defenders of Muhammad's crimes have Satan for father. There is no way a human can have a mind as demonic as this. Lies and deception is the way of the followers of this demon who seduced people disguised as a prophet. See how my opponent twists the truth and calls a raid, "self defense".  

My Response:

Actually the source of this story is invalid. Not because the source is weak, but because there is no source!

Having left Medina and settled at Khaibar, the banu Nadir started hatching a wide-spread conspiracy against Islam. Their leaders, Sallam Ibn Abi-al Huqauaiq, Huyayy Ibn Akhtab, Kinana al-Rabi and others came to Mecca, met the Quraish and told them that Islam could be destroyed." (Allama Shibli Nu'Mani, Sirat-Un-Nabi, p.106, Vol, II)

 This goes to show that Kinana was a war criminal. Let's read on...

" While describing the battle of Khaibar, the histoy writers have commited a serious blunder in reporting a totally baseless report, which has become a common place. It is said that the Prophet ( Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had granted amnesty to the Jews on condition that they would not hide anything. When Kinana Ibn Rabi' refused to give any clue to the hidden treasures, the Prophet ( peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) ordered Zubair to adopt stern measures to force a disclosure. Zubair branded his chest with a hot flint again and again, till he was on the point of death. At last he ordered Kinana to be put to death and all the Jews were made slaves.
The whole truth in the story is that Kinana was put to death. But it was not for his refusal to give a clue to the hidden treasure. He was put to death because he had killed Mahmud Ibn Maslama (also Muslima). Tabari had reported it in unambigious words: " Then the Holy Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) gave Kinana to Muhammad Ibn Maslama (Muslima), " and he put him to death in retaliation of the murder of his own brother, Mahmud Ibn Maslama (Muslima)."
In the rest of the report, both Tabari and Ibn Hisham have quoted it from Ibn Ishaq, but Ibn Ishaq does not name any narrator. Traditionists, in books on Rijal, have explicitely stated that Ibn Ishaq used to borow from the jews stories concerning the battle of the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). As Ibn Ishaq does not mention the name of any narrator whatseoever in this case, there is every likelihood of the story of having been passed on by the Jews.
That a man should be tortured with burns on his chest by the sparks of a flint is too heinous a deed for a Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) who had earned for himself the title of Rahma'lil Alamin (Mercy for all the worlds). After all, did he not let the woman who had sought to poisin him go scot free. Who would expect such a soul to order human body to be so burnt for the sake of a few coins.
As a matter of fact, Kinana Ibn Rabi Ibn al-Huquaiq had been granted his life on the condition that he would never break faith or make false statements. He had also given his word, according to one of the reports, tha tif he did anything to the contrary, he could be put to death. Kinana played false, and the immunity granted to him was withdrawn. He killed Mahmud Ibn Maslama (Muslima) and had, therefore to suffer for it, as we have already stated on the authority of Tabari." (Allama SHibli Nu'Mani, Sirat-Un-Nabi, p.173-174, Vol, II)

So Ali Sina has to stop using this argument of Kinana because there is no proof for it. 

Ali Sina said:

In response to my accusation that Muhammad broke the standards set by the Golden Rule and did to others, things that he himself would not have tolerated if done to him, my opponent wrote:

Muslims believe in equality, which is a universal principle. 

Surah 16:126

And if ye do catch them out, catch them out no worse than they catch you out: But if ye show patience, that is indeed the best (course) for those who are patient.

The reason why the Prophet applied such a brutal punishment to those Bedouins was because the Prophet found out that those Bedouins did the same exact thing to the shepherd. 

You can read the tafsir for that hadith here


This is yet another lie. The Arabs prior to Islam were not as ruthless as Muhammad and his followers. At no time in the history of Arabia Arabs had shown this much savagery that they demonstrated stirred by the teachings of Muhammad. This claim that "the pagans would have done the same" is a lie. As I said above, it is the typical alibi of the narcissist for his own crimes. The narcissist thinks everyone is like him. He thinks others would also break the Golden Rule, are thieves and dishonest, are ruthless and inhumane just as he is. So he feels that since others would do the same he is completely justified to do it to them preemptively. We have no evidence that the non-Muslims of Arabia had been unfair or cruel to Muslims. It has been always the other way round. The claim of persecution is false, as I have demonstrated elsewhere. And this is from the history written by Muslims, whose hatred of non-Muslims and particularly the Jews is unabashedly jarring and conspicuous.

My Response:

Now did I or did I not provide a link to the Tafsir of that Hadith which is done by one of the most prominent Muslims scholars who had evidence and narrations that stated exactly what happened? This is the second time that Ali Sina does this. I refute him using the very same sources that he uses but when they go against him he says that they are fabricated. No evidence at all. No evidence what so ever. This is not a serious debate. I clearly showed from the teachings of the Quran that you cannot harm a person more than he harms you. If the Prophet did not believe in that then he shouldn't have taught that. The Prophet followed and abided by the Quran. This is proven by the evidence. Ali Sina is just too desperate that he goes and discredits it with no evidence for doing so. He offered no evidence for why those narrations are false. 

He said that Arabs back then were not brutal. There are always brutal people in a society.  Especially when they are armed robbers going around murdering people. 

Ali Sina said:

1400 years later, the mindset of Muslims has not changed. Today Muslims are the ones who are on the offensive. They murder, behead and blow up bombs and kill innocent people everywhere, but they always blame their victims.  To understand the mind of the Muslims one must understand the mind of Muhammad and to understand Muhammad one must study pathological narcissistic personality disorder.

When I said Muhammad brought savagery into Arabia , obliterated compassion and established vengeance as the norm, Mr. al Zawadi responded:

In the Battle of Badr, the Muslims captured 70 prisoners of war, of whom only 3 were put to death: Uqba ibn Abi Ma'it, An-Nadr ibn Al-Harith and Tu`aymah ibn `Udday.

If the Prophet was a psychopath he would have ordered the execution of all the 70 prisoners. But he only ordered it for those 3. 

The Prophet did not only punish them because they insulted him. When the Prophet was in Mecca , the people insulted and abused him and when he conquered Mecca later on, he forgave them all. He had the power to kill them all but he didn't.  The reason for Nadr ibn Al Harith and Oqba is the same reason for the order of the killing of Kab bin Ashraf. Their insults and public dismay of the Prophet made people rise up and fight against the Prophet. So their words caused a lot of damage. 


See how Mr. al Zawadi contradicts himself? First he says that Muhammad forgave those who insulted him and in the next sentence he says the reason he killed these men was because of "their insults and public dismay of the Prophet". This all makes perfect sense to him. 

My Response:

Read what I said

The Prophet did not only punish them because they insulted him.

Maybe my English was poor here. What I meant to say was that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not punish people only because they merely insulted him. A lot of people insulted the Prophet (peace be upon him). However, these people's particular insults made people rise up and wage war against the Prophet (peace be upon him). So that is different. There is simply making fun of some one and there is speaking against some one to entice people to go and fight that person. 


Anyone can easily see how Ali Sina misquotes me. He says..

First he says that Muhammad forgave those who insulted him and in the next sentence he says the reason he killed these men was because of "their insults and public dismay of the Prophet"

But read what I said:

Their insults and public dismay of the Prophet made people rise up and fight against the Prophet. So their words caused a lot of damage. 

Ali Sina said:

Muhammad was a psychopath. Being a psychopath does not mean acting erratically. Psychopaths are often smart and calculating. Hitler was a psychopath. But he was not a fool. Saddam Hussein is a psychopath, but as one can see, he is very smart. Most psychopaths do not kill for no reason or just for the fun of it as one can see in movies. Some do. Son of Sam or the Unibomber are examples of that. Some psychopaths kill because this gives them the godlike power of taking lives. But even they are smart. Most psychopaths look normal and they are often more successful than the average people because they are calculating and ruthless. They successfully deceive and  embezzle others and because they have thought of everything from the start, when no one had a slightest idea that they will be stabbed in the back, they get away with their embezzlements. Because they can play their cards extremely well, they often rise to power. In countries where they can fool the masses they become dictators, where dictatorship is not possible they become CEOs. They are smart and charming, but ruthless and conniving. 

When psychopath narcissists kill, they always have "legitimate" reasons that to them make perfect sense. They kill those whom they think intervene in their grandiose plans. They think of themselves so important and their ideas so grand that those who stand in their way become dispensable and must be eliminated. They feel perfectly justified to do that and are convinced of their actions. Their cause is so important that the lives of millions of people become insignificant in comparison. 

What would Muhammad gain by killing wantonly all the captives of Badr? Many of those captives were the relatives of his followers. One of them was Abul Aas, husband of Zeinab, his own elder daughter. Muhammad asked the families of the prisoners to pay ransom for their release or he would kill them. He saved them out of greed, not out of kindness of heart!

My Response:

If Prophet Muhammad is a psychopath just like how Ali Sina said then the Prophet would have had them all executed. 

Secondly he did not need their money because he already gained enough war booty from the battle. 

Thirdly, not all the prisoners were able to have their ransom paid for them. 


Taken from 

The ransom for the prisoners ranged between 4000 and 1000 Dirhams in accordance with the captive's financial situation. Another form of ransom assumed an educational dimension; most of the Makkans, unlike the Madinese, were literate and so each prisoner who could not afford the ransom was entrusted with ten children to teach them the art of writing and reading. Once the child had been proficient enough, the instructor would be set free. Another clan of prisoners were released unransomed on grounds of being hard up.

Taken from

Abû `Azîz b. `Umayr, a prisoner who was captured after the battle of Badr, described how the Muslims treated him. He said: "I was among some people of the inhabitants of Madinah when they were returning from Badr. Whenever they received lunch or supper they would give me priority to have the bread and they sufficed with dates because of the recommendation given to them about us by the Prophet (peace be upon him). Whenever a piece of bread would come into the hands of any one of them, he would give it to me."


The main reason for the Prophet releasing the prisoners of war was that he thought that Allah might guide them to Islam after they saw the kind treatment of the Muslims towards them. 

Abu Bakr had said: 

"O Messenger of Allah, these are our cousins, relatives and brothers. I think that you should take a ransom from them so that whatever  we take may strengthen us against the unbelievers. Perhaps Allah may guide them to Islam so that they become our supporters!" (Muhammad Al-Ghazali, Fiqh-Us-Seerah: Understanding the Life of Prophet Muhammad, p 263)


Ali Sina said:

An interesting and perhaps tender story here is that Zeinab sent a gold necklace that she had received from her mother Khadijah at her wedding to ransom her husband. Muhammad upon seeing that necklace and recognizing it as once worn by Khadijah, was moved and agreed to release Abul Aas without ransom provided Zeinab abandon him and join him in Medina . He was incapable of giving anything up without demanding something in exchange. Even his largesse was designed to impress people and win them over. 

Why then he killed those three and did not ransom them? It is because they had humiliated him. Once you humiliate a narcissist he will never forgive you. He will not rest until he takes his sweet revenge. 

My Response:

Zeinab was the daughter of the Prophet who was not allowed to leave Mecca in the first place. Even when she did leave to join the Prophet the Meccans attacked her. 

Read about it here.  


Ali Sina said:

I accused Muhammad for making Allah an accomplice to his crimes. For example he ordered his followers to raid and loot innocent people asking them to bring one fifth of everything to him saying "this is for Allah and his Messenger". I asked why would Allah need those loots?  My opponent's response was:

When it says that the war booty is for Allah and his Messenger, it simply means that it is for the cause of Islam. It does not mean that Allah is going to consume the war booty. 

Why the cause of Islam had to expand with the stolen property? This question is important. Islam has advanced with loot and with blood of innocent people. Why a religion of God should be built upon the death and misery of countless humans?

This loot was only for Muhammad. Allah was just an excuse. If Allah is God, he does not need to steal from people. This is blasphemy. Unless Allah is Satan, he would never order people to kill their kind. To justify his own evil deeds this shameless gangster made the maker of the universe his partner in crime.

My Response:

In my previous rebuttal I explained the complete justification of what Ali Sina calls "looting" in Islam. Ali Sina said that the loot was only for Muhammad. 

This article completely demolishes that argument.


Ali Sina said:

I said that in the sixth year of Hijra Muhammad had promised victory to his foolhardy followers over Mecca and my opponent wrote:

Not true, the Prophet promised his followers that they would make Umrah (the lesser pilgrimage) not victory over Makkah.  Does that really show that their intention was to fight? I do not think so. Read any Islamic history book and it would tell you that their intention to go to Mecca was a peaceful one. 

My opponent is right. This is my mistake. The declared intention was just to perform Umrah. As for Muhammad's real intention, it is anyone's guess. But why go to pilgrimage with 1500 armed men?  

My Response:

Well obviously if they went unarmed and the Quraysh knew about it, then what would stop them from massacring the Muslims right on the spot. The Muslims needed to bring their weapons just incase (for self defense) but it was not their intention to go and fight. Obviously it was not their intention. They know they can't invade Mecca with 1400 people wearing Ihram (clothes for Umrah). It was also reported that the Muslims brought sacrificial animals with them so they obviously needed something to sacrifice them with. 


Ali Sina said:

Mr. al Zawadi wrote:

When Ali Sina talks about looting, he is making it seem like the Muslims went around and invaded villages and people solely in order to gain their war booty. He is making it seem like the Muslims were pirates wandering around and pillaging innocent people and stealing their valuables. This is far from the truth. If the Muslims ever waged war or invaded anyone, it was due to self defense or if there was evidence that the other side would attack and the Muslims would attack first for military advantage. 

The lack of conscience in Muslims is mind boggling. Do the stories of the raids of Muhammad that I quoted only in this article look like self defense? 65 out of 67 wars of Muhammad were raids and Muslims still have the cheek to say they were all in self defense. The very history that they wrote is filled with tales of horror that Muslims committed. At times reading those tales become nauseating. Muhammad himself boasted that he became victorious with terror and Muslims are so unabashed in lying that they still say Muhammad's wars were in self defense. Were the raids on Persia , Egypt , Yemen , Syria , or Spain also in self defense? Hadn't Muhammad sign a treaty with the Meccans? Why he broke that and attacked them? He was not in any danger from them, or from any of his victims for that matter. He attacked them because he was hungry for power. He wanted to conquer the world just like Hitler, Genghis Khan, Napoleon or Attila the Hun. Religion and Allah were pretexts. Excuses to rouse people and make them commit murder, wage war without expecting any wages, be ready to kill and even die at his behest. All he had to do was to give them an empty promises - humongous checks to be cashed after they die - and in this, he was most generous indeed.  

My Response:

I did not say that the only reason why the Prophet attacked people was because of self defense. Notice what I said...

If the Muslims ever waged war or invaded anyone, it was due to self defense or if there was evidence that the other side would attack and the Muslims would attack first for military advantage. 

Let me add something on top of that. The Prophet would also wage war on a tribe if that tribe did something wrong to the Muslims first. Just like how the Jews did to the Muslims. 

I already explained what was the meant by the Prophet's statement that he was victorious with terror. 

Ali Sina said that Prophet Muhammad broke the treaty with the Meccans. How far from the truth can this be. The Meccans are the ones who broke this treaty. They violated the treaty by attacking an ally of the Muslims called the Banu Khuza through their own ally called the Banu Bakr.


As for the Muslim conquests you can read about them here 

Not all Muslim nations were from conquests. Visit and see the answer to question no. 4.

Ali Sina said: 

Now, technically it is not precise to say Muslims lie. Because when they say these patent lies, they actually believe them to be true. They are so convinced that the non-Muslims are the enemy that they feel it is completely legit to raid them, butcher them and loot them and all that to them seems self-defense. 

If you see a poisonous snake, you will kill it even though the snake is not attacking you. You perfectly justify this killing as self defense. Why? It is because you are convinced that the snake is your enemy and if you don't kill it, it may kill you. This is how Muslims are brought up to think of non-Muslims. In their mosques, madrassas, textbooks and in their media, they are constantly told that the kafirs are the enemy. They see and distrust you, the way you see and distrust a poisonous snake. In the same way that you justify killing the snake, Muslims justify killing you. Please read this sermon and see what Muslims think of you. 

I just quote a few of the passages. But please read the entire sermon later.

His [the unbeliever's]  heart is so full of envy that it shows itself in his eyes. He is envious of the Muslims because of their blessings and wishes that they could be taken away from them. 

He is so shamelessly envious that he would strive to mislead you so that you will be assembled with him in the Hell-Fire.

The Kaafir plots against the Muslims by night and betrays them in the day. Enmity towards you is vividly shown in his face and his utterances. He bites his fingertips in severe anger against the Muslims and his inner-self is full of evil plans against them. He pretends to be trustworthy and good mannered while he is actually pursuing his own interests. Allaah exposes them when he says:

There are many statements like these, each backed by a verse from the Quran. These hate teachings of the Quran, make those who are exposed to them distrust the non-Muslims as if they were venomous snakes. They feel perfectly justified to hate you and even rejoice when their jihadi brothers kill you and kill your children. 

My Response:

Ali Sina said that all those statements are supported by the Quran. Yet he provides no Quranic references. Let's see what the Quran truly says...


Surah 2:190

"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors. 

Surah 8:61

"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)

Surah 5:28

"If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear God, the cherisher of the worlds. 

Surah 2:193

"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. 

Surah 60:8-9

God forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for God loveth those who are just. God only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.


Ali Sina said: 

Don't blame them. They are victims of this poison. Blame yourself. You are guilty too for letting them vitiate their minds with this venom. They can't help it. But you can help them. Why don't you?   

Take a look at what is going on in our own time. Muslims are massacring innocent people all over the world with their terrorist acts and yet they claim they are under attack and what they do is "self defense". This is how the psychopathic minds of the Muslims work. You can't understand that unless you have been a Muslim at least for a few years.  This is not a normal way of thinking and that is why our strategists and political analysts are failing to address the problem. The problem of Islamic terrorism is not political. It must be studied as psychopathology, not as a political problem. The mind of a psychopath does not work in quite the same way that healthy minds work.

Here what I am saying is that the followers of Muhammad are psychologically and emotionally mangled. This statement is very much politically incorrect. This sounds extreme and anyone saying that could be accused of racism. To hell with political correctness. Political correctness mean lying when telling the truth is offensive. But a lie is lie. It is the lies of political correctness that is killing us. Unless we see Islam as a sick cult and Muslims as sick people, we can't address this problem and the Islamic terrorism will continue to claim more lives.

The problem of Islamic terrorism, is not just political but also religious and consequently emotional and psychological. We need experts in psychology, precisely those who have experience in cults to understand the Muslim mind and to pull us out of this muddle. 

My Response:

More yapping and no evidence. Ali Sina just keeps blabbing out things with no backing of evidence or facts. He has failed to show anything wrong with Islam. 

Ali Sina said: 

When I said Muhammad raided the tribe of Hawazin taking 6,ooo women and children as captives and seized innumerable sheep and camels, my opponent wrote: 

Again, we have to see why the Prophet invaded the tribe of Hawazin. You also have to read that it was the Hawazin's fault for they were the ones that brought their women and children with them to the battlefield.

Do you see the pattern? It is always the fault of the victims. 

The reason women and children were caught in the battle tells us that unlike what Muslim historians had stated, these poor people were not coming to war. No sane person would take all his family and all his belonging to war. Muslim historians have claimed that the leader of the Hawazin insisted to carry the women and children to make his men "determined in their fight". This is ludicrous. We are talking of a tribe with over ten thousand people. Would all these people obey a decision so insane?

Why would they want to attack an army of Muslims? What would they gain in this? The accusation makes no sense. You don't have to be a genius to see that Muslim historians lie when they shift the blame on their victims.  

These are all excuses to justify the crimes committed by Muhammad. See how my opponent, with straight face, blames the victims for bringing along their women and children? Does this justify to take them as prisoners and enslave them? Where is the conscience of these people? There is not a shred of humanity left in them. These are not the people that we could share the planet with, let alone our countries. What kind of value will they bring to our world? The world has come out of barbarity and obscurantism for centuries and these people want to take us back. They belong to another world, a world very demonic and evil. 


My Response:

As usual through out this debate when Ali Sina is faced with sources that go against him he rejects it. It is documented history that the tribe of Hawazin were marching against the Muslim army in order to attack them. They also brought with their women and children among with them. Ali Sina also said that they were not coming to war. Then how does he explain how the tribe of Hawazin ended up in the valley of Hunayn. What were they doing there?

The chief of the Hawazin Malik ibn Awf ordered his men as they were leaving for the confrontation, to bring along with them their women, children and wealth, so that every man might be aware of them behind them as he fought and not flee from the battle field. 

Durayd ibn Summah, an experienced warrior, objected to this, saying: "Will anything stop the defeated from fleeing. If you are victorious, all you need are men with swords and spears, and if you are defeated you will be disgraced in the matter of your families and wealth."

Malik scoffed at his idea, however, and insisted on carrying out his plan. (Muhammad Al-Ghazali, Fiqh-Us-Seerah: Understanding the Life of Prophet Muhammad, p 421-422)


Sunan Abu Dawud

Book 14, Number 2495:

Narrated Sahl ibn al-Hanzaliyyah:

On the day of Hunayn we traveled with the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and we journeyed for a long time until the evening came. I attended the prayer along with the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him).

A horseman came and said: Apostle of Allah, I went before you and climbed a certain mountain where saw Hawazin all together with their women, cattle, and sheep, having gathered at Hunayn. (declared authentic by Shaykh Albani in Sunan Abu Dawud hadith no. 2501)


The Prophet returned the captives back to the Hawazin... 


Saheeh Bukhari

Volume 3, Book 46, Number 716:

Narrated Marwan and Al-Miswar bin Makhrama:

When the delegates of the tribe of Hawazin came to the Prophet and they requested him to return their properties and captives. The Prophet stood up and said to them, "I have other people with me in this matter (as you see) and the most beloved statement to me is the true one; you may choose either the properties or the prisoners as I have delayed their distribution." The Prophet had waited for them for more than ten days since his arrival from Ta'if. So, when it became evident to them that the Prophet was not going to return them except one of the two, they said, "We choose our prisoners." The Prophet got up amongst the people and glorified and praised Allah as He deserved and said, "Then after, these brethren of yours have come to us with repentance, and I see it logical to return them the captives. So, whoever amongst you likes to do that as a favor, then he can do it, and whoever of you likes to stick to his share till we recompense him from the very first war booty which Allah will give us, then he can do so (i.e. give up the present captives)." The people unanimously said, "We do that (return the captives) willingly." The Prophet said, "We do not know which of you has agreed to it and which have not, so go back and let your leaders forward us your decision." So, all the people then went back and discussed the matter with their leaders who returned and informed the Prophet that all the people had willingly given their consent to return the captives. This is what has reached us about the captives of Hawazin. Narrated Anas that 'Abbas said to the Prophet, "I paid for my ransom and Aqil's ransom."


Volume 3, Book 47, Number 757:

Narrated Al-Miswar bin Makhrama and Marwan:

When the delegates of the tribe of Hawazin came to the Prophet he stood up amongst the people, Glorified and Praised Allah as He deserved, and said, "Then after: Your brethren have come to you with repentance and I see it logical to return to them their captives; so whoever amongst you likes to do that as a favor, then he can do it, and whoever of you like to stick to his share till we give him his right from the very first Fai (war booty) (1) which Allah will bestow on us, then (he can do so)." The people replied, "We do that (to return the captives) willingly as a favor for your sake."


Volume 3, Book 47, Number 778:

Narrated Marwan bin Al-Hakam and Al-Miswar bin Makhrama:

When the delegates of the tribe of Hawazin came to the Prophet they requested him to return their property and their captives. He said to them, "This concerns also other people along with me as you see, and the best statement to me is the true one, so you may choose one of two alternatives; either the captives or the property and (I have not distributed the booty for) I have been waiting for you."

When the Prophet had returned from Ta'if, he waited for them for more than ten nights. When they came to know that the Prophet would not return except one of the two, they chose their captives. The Prophet then stood up amongst the Muslims, Glorified and Praised Allah as He deserved, and then said, "Then after: These brothers of yours have come to you with repentance and I see it proper to return their captives, so whoever amongst you likes to do that as a favor, then he can do it, and whoever of you wants to stick to his share till we pay him from the very first Fai (i.e. war booty) which Allah will give us, then he can do so." The people said, "We return (the captives) to them willingly as a favor, O Allah's Apostle!" The Prophet said, "I do not know who of you has given his consent and who has not; so go back and your leaders may present your decision to me." The people went away, and their leaders discussed the matter with them, and then came to the Prophet to tell him that all of them had given their consent (to return the captives) willingly. (Az-Zuhn, the sub-narrator said, "This is what we know about the captives, of Hawazin.")


Ali Sina said: 

The choices are very limited. Either we become like them and embrace their cult, which of course means perpetual wars as Muslims have killed more of their own than they have killed others, do nothing until they kill us or reduce us into slavery and dhimmitude or kill them first. 

Which one you like best? These are our options. Are these sane options? If you embrace Islam, as Salman Rushdie puts it, "this least huggable of faiths", you will lose everything you cherish. You will lose your freedom and should kiss goodbye your culture and your civilization for it will be demonized and vilified as taghooti (satanic) and jahilliah (ignorance). Religious police will walk in the streets telling you that your dress is not Islamicly right and will beat you for exposing a few strands of hair. You could even be shot on the spot and killed for eating during the month of Ramadan. Look at Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the Afghanistan of the Taliban - this is Islam. A state run by sharia law is hell. You will be ruled by people like Mr. Bassam al Zawadi, Ahmadinejad and Mullah Omar and opposition to them means opposition to God and you will be jailed or killed. You will have to accept that Arabs are master race, just as today the Pakistanis, the Bangladeshis, the Malays and the Indonesians have accepted it wholeheartedly. Persians have not. They invented their own version of Islam to vilify Arabs and not to submit to them as slaves. At least a shred of dignity is left in Iranians. Frankly my friend, death is better than that life. 

If you don't convert to Islam, you will be subdued, and forced to work and sustain the Islamic state with Jizyah (a penalty tax levied on non-Muslims). You will still be subject to Islamic laws but will have fewer rights than those who convert. If your faith is not recognized as valid you could face execution. 

So what is left? Killing Muslims before they kill you? This sounds logical doesn't it?  

Today I received a copy of a chilling email that is being circulated among some Australians. The email is calling upon Australians to take back their country from the "Lebs" (Lebanese immigrants). How this should be done is blood curling.  Here are a few passages of that message:

The coals were lit when lebs threatened to rape young children on Cronulla beach; lifeguards stepped in to defend them and were bashed. This has been going on for years.

The comoncheros and Bra Boys have as of today given official support to gang rapists and thus must be destroyed if they interfere. They are a group of old has-been, race traitors, junkies and lebs. Aussie Patriots do not need their support.

Failure to fight and win will mean living under the rule of criminals and gang rapists.

This is a real war, make no mistake. cowards WILL BE TREATED LIKE LEBS!

Bring yourself, your mates, anyone you know of fighting age and whatever devices you see fit to defend yourself and your country.

After rallying in Cronulla and Maroubra we will push our way through to Lakemba and Bankstown, we will destroy the mosques in these areas and any leb that gets in our way. We will smash their houses, smash their shops, destroy their ghettos.

The message continues with more angry notes and calls to violence against the Lebanese and Muslims. 

The person who forwarded this message to me, although said she does not support violence, unreservedly agreed with the spirit of this message.

The same is happening in Europe . Racism and blind nationalism is again on the rise. Some good people are dragged into it. We have a difficult time ahead of us. We must embrace ourselves for blood, may be our own blood, running in our streets. Woe to us children of apes, for our monkey thinking is bringing us to our doom.

Is this the way we want to go? What has happened to our species? Is this what is called intelligent life? What part of this is intelligent? Do we have to become beasts and murder our own kind just to survive? Which one of these options is better?

I am offering you another alternative - an alternative that requires neither blood nor slavery. Islam is a disease. It's the disease that we have to eradicate. Why everybody is afraid to attack the disease itself? 

Obviously we can't let the sick infect the world with his deadly disease or the mad man go loose shooting and killing people. But should we kill him? Is this the sane way to cure a sick person? 

For the sake of sanity, why instead of killing the patient, don't we try to cure him from his sickness? Why don't we eradicate Islam? Islam is the disease of the soul and the mind. Islam is the disease that has crippled mankind. A billion people follow a psychopath. This is insanity. This is not comical; it's calamity. Muslims are infirm. But we do not kill infirm people. 

The problem seems to be huge but the solution is ironically simple. All we have to do is to destroy Islam. That is not an impossible task. We can do that, if we just tell the truth. It's as simple as that. We are getting drowned in a glass of water. The solution to all this madness is to tell the truth. Our governments must start telling the truth. The politicians and the media must start telling the truth. In schools, we should teach the truth. The truth is not subjective. There is no 'your truth' and 'my truth'. When it comes to history, facts are the truth. History must be taught honestly and factually. 

The non-Muslims are not entirely sane either. They too have their own mental sickness. They are suffering from political correctness. This combination is lethal. Compare Islam to human immunodeficiency virus HIV and political correctness to immunodeficiency. Political correctness can kill us. It lowers our resistance against the enemy and will make us vulnerable to its advances. The foolish defenders of Muslims are just as dangerous as Muslims. Truth can cure both of them. Those who suffer from political correctness and those who suffer from Islam can both benefit from it and recover. 

Those who find the truth too bitter to swallow must be force-fed. The truth is their medicine. This medicine must reach them willingly or unwillingly. Because their sickness is affecting all of us, they must not have a choice. They must hear it until they recover. The best place to start force feeding the truth is in prison compounds where the terrorists are detained. Don't torture them. Tell them the truth about Islam and once that truth sinks, they will cooperate. Tell them the truth about Islam and they will leave terrorism. It is Islam that converts good people into terrorists and makes them monsters. How to do that? Very simple! Produce radio programs in their own language and make them listen to it several hours per day, every day. We at FFI can produce the right programs. We know how to handle the Muslims and what to tell them. This is how they have been brainwashed. We can un-brainwash them in the same way. 

We must get rid of Islam if we want to avoid a major bloodshed and our species survive. Muslims must be weaned from this satanic cult of madness and terror, for their own good and for our good.

Please read my debates with Muslims and pay close attention to what they write. We are indeed dealing with a demonic force. The way they think is not sane. It is psychopathological. I don't want you to feel safe and comfortable. Be scared - very scared. 

The problem is that our politicians do not understand the magnitude of this threat. Most people do not understand it. As long as we do not understand we are fighting against an invisible enemy. You cannot win a war unless you know your enemy. Do you know your enemy? Does your government know the enemy? Neither of you do. That is why your fate is sealed. 

Please read these debates and particularly pay attention to what Muslims say.  Promote this site. Everyone must see the unmasked face of Islam. People must realize that the world is in danger. The Second World War was a picnic compared to what is awaiting mankind in a very near future. But the future is in our hands. We write the history. Don't be a bystander. Don't let others write the future. Why be a spectator of the history when you can be a protagonist? 

Governments in democratic countries can't do and won't do anything unless people tell them what to do. What are you waiting for? Let people know the truth.  Let them wake up. Invite them to come to this site, read these debates and have a close encounter with Devil itself. If this does not wake them up, nothing will. We need an outcry from bottom up that our governments can't ignore. This won't happen as long as people are kept in the dark and think Islam is just another garden variety of religions.      


My Response:

Is that it? Is this supposed to be the rebuttal? Where are the facts? Where is the evidence? Everything Ali Sina has put forward has been soundly refuted with facts and proof. 

As far as this debate is concerned, it is over. Any objective reader can see that.

Ali Sina failed to show where Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) attacked anyone who did not deserve to be. He disregards any evidence that goes against him. This is very unscholarly and unprofessional.

I await the next debate topic from Ali Sina.


Return to Refuting

Return to Homepage

HomeWhat's new?ChristianityRefutations Contact Me