Skip to comments.Sherlock Holmes and me - (Barbara J. Stock on Ali Sina's debate w. hardcore Islamist)
Posted on 03/13/2005 7:32:11 PM PST by CHARLITE
Professor Moriarty had Sherlock Holmes. Police Commissioner Dreyfus had Clouseau. Boris and Natasha had Rocky and Bullwinkle. Yamin Zakaria has me.
Who is Yamin Zakaria? Anyone who has followed my columns will remember Behold the Face of Islam and Followers of Islam: Can You See the Blood on Your Hands. Both were dedicated to, and about, the Islamic hate that is Mr. Yamin Zakaria. Yamin is a London-based writer and avowed supporter of Islamic terrorists. Consider this the third in a trilogy about the mindless meanderings of one Mr. Yamin Zakaria. Yes, you are entering the Twilight Zone. Welcome to the irrational world of Yamin Zakaria.
I have been following a debate between a rational man, Ali Sina, an ex-Muslim and owner of faithfreedom, and an irrational Islamic fanatic Yamin Zakaria. The "debate" was a joke. Yamin never got his feet out of the starting blocks. Though he is braying like the jack-ass he is that he was victorious, anyone taking time to actually read the un-finished non-debate will realize otherwise. Even Muslims should be ashamed of his showing.
Let me ask this simple question: Do you understand, "Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you?" It's a simple concept. My children understood this "Golden Rule" when they were four years old, but this basic law in the fabric of civilized life baffled Mr. Zakaria. His Muslim mind simply couldn't grasp it. Page after page of "debate" was a calm Ali Sina explaining the concept over and over and Yamin trying to debate what it really meant. Not once did Yamin address the reason for the debate, which was for him to prove that Mohammed was a prophet from God and Islam is the only true religion and for Ali to prove the opposite. More than once Mr. Sina tried to steer the debate back on track, only to have Yamin say, wait, what about this "Golden Rule?" But what else can you say when you have no proof to put forth?
Let's examine some statements made by this rabid supporter of radical Islam and terrorism.
This from a column written by Zakaria titled, What would you rather be: Ethnic Minority, Gentile or Dhimmi: "If anything it is the Muslims that have always shown the greatest degree of tolerance." Yet, in an email to me, he made this statement: (The) prophecy of Prophet Muhammad (SAW), (is) that the end of time will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them all. Prior to that time anti-Semitism will become a virtue not a stigma!" He has even stated that moderate Muslims will have no safe haven. Now that's tolerance!
Yamin goes on to say in this same column that Muslims have "...no track records of the Islamic state forcefully converting people en masse or exterminating them." This statement would put anyone who is in touch with reality into fits of hysterical laughter! How does one explain the genocide in Sudan? The Islamic government has a policy of killing all those who refuse to convert to Islam. That is called extermination and forced conversion in anyone's dictionary but Yamin's. On average, 10,000 people a month are dying of starvation in camps in Sudan because the people have fled the marauding Islamic death squads. Then, the Islamic government blocks the food from getting to the camps. If you can't disembowel them starve them to death. Sudan is but one example, there are many more.
The fact is, Muslims can't even get along with each other. Sunni hate Shia, Shia hate Sunni, and the Wahhabi sect hates everyone.
Another startling statement made by Mr. Zakaria is: "The recent convergences of the European countries to persecute the Muslim communities are not due to any real threats but driven by prejudice." The fact that Muslims are blowing up trains, slitting people's throats, and attacking firemen that dare enter Muslim neighborhoods to put out fires has nothing to do with people becoming intolerant of Muslims. The civilized world is expected to accept the violent and irrational behavior of Islam without question. Muslims are not expected to abide by the laws of the land or respect their host country's culture. It is their right to just be Muslim and all that encompasses. They don't have to "get along." Why? Because they feel they are above the rest of us "infidels."
Yamin's continued attacks on his debate opponent were a combination of twisted words and outright lies. In his epistle called: Freethinkers' VS Islam and the Burden of Proof, Zakaria makes the nonsensical statement: "The clearest evidence of their hypocritical and cowardly nature with pretence of being 'rational' lies in fact that they do not to elaborate on their alternative solutions as vociferously as they express criticisms of Islam and Muslims!" HUH? This is an old Yamin trick, use lots of big words to confuse the ignorant but actually say nothing at all. What did he say here? Those who try to debate with him had better not challenge him because his small, closed mind can't grasp the repetitive explanation of the "alternative solution."
I read every word of this non-debate. First, let me point out that "freethinkers" are not allowed in Islam. Second, Ali Sina made it very clear that he didn't care if people worshipped mushrooms as long as they didn't roam the world killing innocent people on the orders of the head mushroom. To put it simple enough for even Yamin to understand, Sina wanted people to simply live by The Golden Rule of life "Do unto others..." At no time was it stated that Muslims should become Hindu or Catholic or Buddhist. They should be able to live their lives free from fear of their own religion. When that "religion" tells them to kill in God's name, and they follow that command, civilization must stop them. A six year old could understand this but not Yamin.
While Yamin doesn't tote a gun, he uses his words to incite hatred and violence. He enshrines those that kill and urges them to kill more. Sadly, his words are eagerly posted on Islamic sites. Many of these sites don't know the real Yamin Zakaria. I do. I will continue to closely follow his hate filled rhetoric, as are others more powerful than I. From time to time I will report on his more outlandish statements. There is no way to keep him honest, but I will continue to expose his true nature a terrorist who uses words instead of a sword. Yamin fights his wars like he debates: as a coward, hiding behind his computer screen, urging others to do his murderous dirty work.
Yamin Zakaria: "We as Muslims are obliged to support our Mujahideen; we should pray for their victory they are our boys!"
You know, it wasn't very long ago, when Catholics hated Protostants and Protostants hate Catholics. They were burning eachother at the Stake. Look at England and France in the 1500-1700s (that's when it was BAD) post Henry the 8th,
And the Puritans just hated everyone.
There is hope for Islam. Islam turned Malcolm X a former criminal into a great leader.
Oh, and it also wasn't long ago when everyone hated the Jews.
We often say that Mohammad was a pedophile, but wasn't the virgin Mary around 12 when she was impregnated. How long did people really live back then?
We can always rely on Lauralee to offer up the most astonishing non-sequiturs, and she will not disappoint.
Malcolm X a "great leader"? Not even on his very best day.
"Char, Thanks. Can you do me a favor? I don't know how to post an article on FR and this one is important... http://www.faithfreedom.org/Testimonials/Yagmur50313.htm
Read it and see for yourself. Islam is unbelieveably cruel and barbaric. People have to know. If you feel about this one as I do, can you post it for me? thanks, barb
I posted too soon! Lauralee just outdid herself with her second absurd staement in as many minutes!
Liberals LOVE MLK, because MLK was a myth. Malcolm X was a leader. In his later years he was a better leader, unfortunately he was assasinated. But he was a great leader all about personal responsibility.
Bringing up what Christianity did centuries ago is an old Muslim trick. We out grew it. We evolved. They, have not. We never had a grand plan to rule the world. They do. I have been told that the war will not end until the flag of Islam flies over the White House. The PC crap has got to stop. Islam is the most dangerous threat to the world since the Nazi's. If they get a nuke, they will use it. They won't care where as long as they kill as many as they can. If any here wish to live under a regime that stones a woman on a whim, or hangs her for being raped, even when she is 13 years old, I suggest they move to Iran. I will not have it here. There are no great Muslim leaders. Never have been and never will be. Understand that if you understand nothing else.
Christians used to burn men and women at the stake, look at mideaval punishments and the power struggle in Europe. There was cruelty there too.
I'm not saying Islam is not a problem. And Christianity has evolved. But what I am saying is, that I have hope for the Islamic people.
John, You are right. But Iraq is a special case. Most there do not follow Islam. They are what is called "muslims in name only." I get email from soldiers who say the men they work with don't stop when the call to prayers comes during the day. They don't care. They do NOT want an Islamic government there. Yes, there are fanatics and they are the one's doing the killing because they want Iraq for themselves, to join up with Iran. Even Sistani sees the evil of an Islamic government. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. He is now being called a traitor by the fundamentalists. Zakaria did a piece of crap on him calling him a Judas. Actually, the man is lucky he is still alive. Amazingly, it seems there are millions and millions of Muslims in name only. but even 10% of 1.2 billion people is a lot of people.
With this post, I fully agree. I have lived probably 10 years of my life in "muslim" countries, in the Middle East and in Southeast Asia. There ARE sensible muslims, and lots of them.
But Lauralee, they aren't the ones we are worried about.
In many conversations with my Muslim friends, some of them in their respective governments, I emphasize that what is going on today is not so much a fight between Christianity and Islam, it is a struggle within Islam over whether to adapt to the modern world, progress, democracy, moderation of dreams of world conquest, or to go beck to a mythical version of 14th century Islam, with saracen blades and charging steeds, all manifested in the 21st century as suicide bombers and hijacked airliners.
Because, I explained, we won't stand for it. And if we have to sort it out, it will be very messy and much uglier than need be, because we are not as astute as they would be at figuring out just who is who.
The sensible Muslims don't have forever to get this job done. President Bush has been wiser than anyone had any right to expect in creating precisely the conditions that sensible Muslims needed to start this liberating process, and it is already underway.
I think that five years out, the political and cultural landscape across the Muslim world will be in the midst of a democratic transformation of historical proportion.
By the way, you CAN argue with history, and probably most of the wars ever fought have their roots in some sort of argument over who gets to write it.
This is what I've tried to explain to the "antiwar" folks. Bush is trying the soft option now, promoting reform in Arabia and the Muslim world. If this war fails, it doesn't mean the war ends, it means we move onto the hard option. That means millions upon millions of dead Muslims. Americans are NOT going to be defeated in this war. The only question is how the Muslims are going to be defeated, the soft way or the hard way. I've told the "antiwar" folks, that if they truly were antiwar, they'd be backing Bush 100%. But, alas, they are blind.
Unless you consider 1400 years of forced conversions a 'track record'. Of course the people of Egypt, northern Africa, Spain and other might not agree.
Puritans hated everyone? Not so, Laura.
What books are you obtaining your historical information from?
Malcolm X was a great leader? How so?
Mary was approximately 14, which was typical for that era.
incredible, isn't it?
The Puritans desired to experience religious liberty apart from the religion enforced by the King of England or the Roman Catholic church. Coming to the new land was the opportunity to do just that.
It is unfortunate that you seemingly concentrate on the acts of a few rather than the positive aspects of the majority...
1) Why do you believe Martin Luther King, Jr was a myth?
2) Why do you believe Malcolm X was a great leader?
3) Will you be looking into the book selections I suggested?
Where did I call you a shill? I don't recall doing that.
disregard post 25. I found my post agreeing with someone else about you being a shill. I stand by it.
" It is unfortunate that you seemingly concentrate on the acts of a few rather than the positive aspects of the majority...""
That's my point. We concentrate on the minority of Muslims who do these horrific things. Remember, not all Muslims are terrorists but mostly all terrorists are Muslim.
How do you figure the Puritans were fleeing the Roman Catholic Church? In the country the Puritans came from being a Roman Catholic was illegal. Being a priest or sheltering a priest was punishable by death. Catholic weren't allowed to go to universities or be in government. Etc. Puritans had it much better off.
The Puritans were not fleeing the Catholic church.
The Puritans wanted to "Purify" the Anglican chruch of any Catholic influence. When Henry the eigth converted the country he still kept some Catholic rituals in place. The Puritans had a problem with this.
""Catholics weren't allowed to go to universities or be in government. Etc. Puritans had it much better off.""
Yep, and then the Catholics took power under Bloody Mary and killed a bunch of protestants. They were killing eachother all over the place.
Why do you believe MalcolmX was a great leader?
MalcolmX spoke hate against Christians and Jews. His followers have never lost sight of that and continue his mantra to this day.
'We often say that Mohammad was a pedophile, but wasn't the virgin Mary around 12 when she was impregnated'
So you are saying the Holy Spirit was a pedophile?
At that time in history, childhood was very short because the average lifespan was very short.
'We often say that Mohammad was a pedophile, but wasn't the virgin Mary around 12 when she was impregnated'
You, not 'we' brought this equivalency between Mohammed's MHR pedophilia with a 9 yr old 'wife' and compared it to the Virgin birth of Jesus by coming up with a young age for Mary. You have said some inane things before, but even for an 18 yr old Deist from NYC this is a bit much for us cornshuckers in the sticks. You really need to retract this abominable statement.
'because the average lifespan was very short.'
Like Abraham's life?
I don't really believe that Abraham lived to be 900 years old. Do you?
The marriage was consumated when that 9 year old was 12.
Shall we look at the average lifespans of that time?
Abraham wasn't 900 and I don't believe the Bible says he was, but I'll go check. Whatever the Bible says agewise I do believe it.
Are you standing by your equivalency of Mohammeds 'marriage/consummation' and the conception of the Christ?
'Shall we look at the average lifespans of that time?'
I suppose NYC has the actuarial data on lifespans in the Middle East back then, but average age doesn't mean one can't exceed it. Since the Catholics keep track of Mary, I'll have to ping some to find out her age at the birth of Christ.
Could you assist in the determining of Mary's age when she became a mother?
Lauralee......no,Mary wasn't THAT young,when she had Jesus and there isn't any year given for her,ever,in the Bible. We know that she was of marriageable age,because she was betrothed the Joseph,when she became pregnant and the age of betrothal,for a Jewess of that time,was past the age of 13.
Mohamed wed that little girl when she was 6 and consummated the marriage when that little girl was 9.
Lauralee...it really would help,if you refrained from posting about things you don't know anything at all about.
""Abraham wasn't 900 and I don't believe the Bible says he was, but I'll go check. Whatever the Bible says agewise I do believe it.""
No no no. I'm wrong then on that one. But doesn't the bible say that someone lived to be 900?
""Are you standing by your equivalency of Mohammeds 'marriage/consummation' and the conception of the Christ?""
Please twist my words a little bit more.
This Radical Islamofascism was really established around 30 years ago. I feel that when we condemn Islam, we also relinquish all hope that these people will embrace freedom. If Islam is at odds with freedom, can we really expect people to embrace it?
The actions of Terrorists on 9/11 were those of a minority. Had all Islamics felt this way, we would not have emerged victorious in Iraq or Afghanistan. I am not saying we should be blind to the threats or the people that pose these threats. If it was the IRA instead of AlQueda, yes we should be mindful every red haired freckled (just being stereotypical) Irish accented person around us. But we should not condemn them. And just a few days ago, an Islamic Sheik in Brooklyn was found guilty of raising money for foreign terrorist organization. So, yes we have to be aware.
Just think about it,
Many of the people in these Islamic countries have really been isolated from the rest of the world. Think of where the world was 200 hundred years ago. Think of where the rest of the world would be had Democracy been confined to the US and we were all isolated from one and other. Information is shared through trade and travel and people.
You know what? When I saw the photos of the people in Iraq, of the men and women who hold up their ink stained fingers proudly, of the children at school and the adults who watch them play,
These people cannot be apart of an evil cult. If that were true Democracy would never have seceded in Iraq. You would not have had a voting Day in Iraq or Afghanistan, because the Islamic fundamentalists would have seized the government with the help of the Islamic people. If every adherent to Islam believed in dying for Islam- and we are viewed as a threat to Islam- after Saddam was thrust out of power, there would be an extremist fundamentalist gov set up in both nations.
The American Puritans were Christian. Puritans were called Puritan because they wanted to "Purify" the church by getting rid of any Catholic influence. They did not like Catholics. And part of their personal beliefs was that they were the chosen people of God because the Jews had lost favor with God. And they were cruel. Look at the Salem witch trials and the punishments for witchcraft.
Look at the prisons. The Puritans were Christian.
Extreme "Islamic" like Punishments included placing heavy stone on a tied down man's chest until his chest collapsed. These punishments were "cruel and unusual" and probably what our founding father's were referring to when they outlawed these penalties.
An excerpt from Nathanial Hawthorns The Scarlett Letter "http://www.hawthorneinsalem.org/Literature/Quakers&Witches/Quakers/MMD513.html"
An account on three quaker women who were beaten and hung by Puritans. Congregationalists were a sect of puritans.
And England's religious identity Crisis post Henry the 8th. First it was Catholics being burned at the stake then Protestants being burned at the stake, and it was on and off for years, and those were the nice penalize. Mary Queen of Scots did not earn the nickname "Bloody Mary" for her compassion.
France is also an example of widespread persecution of Christians BY Christians.
I will say that during Puritan Oliver Cromwell's martial law reign of England, all other religions were tolerated EXCEPT Catholic. Christianity has also done countless wonderful things for the world too, I am not discounting that. But, these are some of the things done in God's name. I should make the point that pre Westernism (Westernism as we know it today) these horrible things happened under Christianity.
'But doesn't the bible say that someone lived to be 900?'
A couple pre-flood, I beleieve that as well.
'""Are you standing by your equivalency of Mohammeds 'marriage/consummation' and the conception of the Christ?""
Please twist my words a little bit more.'
Your words, your implication.
Do you think that to achieve peace in the middle east, you would have to convert all Muslims to Christianity or just to make it fair, have all types of missionaries. Is Islam that wicked and evil?
'This Radical Islamofascism was really established around 30 years ago.'
No, again you are wrong. Saudi Arabia's history might be of use to you, if you ever could take advice.
The terrs of today are sophisticated. Complex communications/banking define them. The easy are dead or captured.
Now about Mohammed vis a vis the birth of Christ. Even for a Deist, this is offensive, especially this time of year, you need to withdraw the statement.
I can't defend that. I thought she was 12. And when it comes to prophets Jesus wins over Mohammad any day any round.