Sherlock Holmes and me - (Barbara J. Stock on Ali Sina's debate w. hardcore Islamist)

RENEW AMERICA.US ^ | MARCH 12, 2005 | BARBARA J. STOCK

[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!"

[nopardons]

Good grief! The Conservative movement did not come alive because of the net. ROTFLOL

[LauraleeBraswell]

Yes. But she, much more often.

and I don't appreciate her insulting my intelligence or telling me to take Ritalin.

[nopardons]

Now,now,little girl,if indeed you are 1) a girl 2) 18, that's no way to talk.

[LauraleeBraswell]

No, but it was propelled and brought about full force because of the net.

[nopardons]

Isn't it cute that she's using SAT words or using a thesaurus now? :-)

[nopardons]

REALLY? Are you sure of that and if so,prove it!

[LauraleeBraswell]

I would attribute the conservative revolution to a number of factors.
1) Talk radio namely Rush
2) Fox news
3) The Internet

With the net, it became that much harder for the Democratic party to lie. We all became fact checkers and the arbitrators of news.

[mrs tiggywinkle]

**Yes. But she, much more often.**

Laura, that comment reminds me of children complaining that 'she's breathing my airspace' - or 'she hit me first' which makes it equally ok to hit back but harder.

Truthfully speaking, you have a very difficult time accepting criticism of any type, be it constructive or in-your-face.

In the full scheme of things though, I haven't viewed you truly debating an issue. Rather, you hit then run then twist words and change your tune to gain favor. That is not the way to win friends and influence people.

I have offered titles/author of books I have in my library. I hold those particular books dear and tell many people about them. If you choose to take it as an offense, that's your business. But please know...you're wrong on that.

[LauraleeBraswell]

Well, Free Republic has had a profound effect. Website forums such as this one allowed for conservatives from all over the nation to share information.

As a public, we tend to have very short term memories. The internet made it possible to confirm priot events, sort through information, and put two and two together. For example "I remember Senator so and so said it was X last year but now he's saying it's Y" let me google it.

[nopardons]

Sooooooooooooooo... 1)Ronald Reagan was not part of the Conservative Movement 2) the 1994 Congressional elections weren't part of the Conservative Movement 3)Bob Grant et al had nothing to do with the Conservative Movement,though he/they predate Rush by decades 4) history only began since you were born?

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[LauraleeBraswell]

I said it was a number of factors. We keep winning more and more seats every year.

1)Ronald Reagan was not part of the Conservative Movement

yes, he was.I would actually say that Reagan started Modern Conservatism and is the founder of the modern Conservative movement.


""2) the 1994 Congressional elections weren't part of the Conservative Movement ""

With Newt Gingrich and the Contract of America, yes that too.

""3)Bob Grant et al had nothing to do with the Conservative Movement,though he/they predate Rush by decades ""

I have never heard of Bob Grant. Maybe so. All I can tell you is Rush has the worst time slot in talk radio and pulls in the biggest audience.

4) history only began since you were born?

No, but the Internet as we know it began after I was born. And it allowed more people to become involved in politics.


The Internet is an integral part of the Grassroots movement. You cannot dispute that we won these elections because of grassroots too.

[nopardons]

Lauralee,you claim to live on Long Island (though you have also claimed here that you're a New Yorker who lives in the city...by inference/implication) and you're telling me that you have NEVER heard of Bob Grant?

Either you're lying about living in N.Y. state,or you've been living in a cave since birth!

Even Rush has talked about Bob Grant and Joe Pine (who I didn't mention,because he's a bit more obscure and from an even older era)as being THE originators of CONSERVATIVE talk radio and in the forefront of the Conservative Movement;not to mention the fact,that without them and several others,Rush would NEVER have had such a show nor made it in radio.

You're now backpedaling,since I pushed your nose in your own mess. Just give up,now,because this is now ennui inducing in the extreme, so far off topic,as to be beyond hope, and I'm weary of being your teacher cum babysitter.

[LauraleeBraswell]

I do not know who Bob Grant is. But I am now going to google him.

[nopardons]

You're a fraud,Lauralee. Either that,or your "stupid act" isn't an act. Maybe both.

Google to your wee heart's delight,but no Google article is going to really give you all you need to know about Bob Grant.

[LauraleeBraswell]

Hey, if you say so. I just don't know who Bob Grant is. Maybe, you should feel old.

[LauraleeBraswell]

I am not stupid.

[LauraleeBraswell]

Babysit me? I never asked you to be my teacher.

Goodnight, and good riddance.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Er, maybe you should re-read history. Much of the so-called religious hatred had to do more with politics than with religion. In fact, it was a Catholic prime minister of France, Cardinal Richelieu who supported the "Snow King" in his fight against the Spaniards with money during the thirty year's war, also known as the counter-reformation.

But if you think that the 1500 - 1700 was bad, what do you think of the much worse period of time from from about 800 - 1100? Or the nasty time Europe had during the hundred year's war? Neither of these were religious in any sense, but they were more devastating in their effects than the thirty years war (although Germany was extremely devastated during this conflict).

What about the threat from Temujin? He had Europe shaking in their collective boots.

Some Puritans did hate some others, although most seemed to be remarkably tolerant of others' views. Admittedly, the Puritans were heavily involved in England's Civil War, but mostly as the persecutees who eventually became victorious. Even at their height of power, their abuses of power were mainly directed at political and not religious opponents. In America, the Puritans were, for a time, taken over by radicals led by Cotton Mather. This madness was stopped when the Governor's wife was accused of witchcraft. Definitely an object lesson you should learn when extolling such radicals as Malcom X.

[nopardons]

He's still on the radio.

Go call your mother "old" kid; that's not an "insult" to me. LOL

[nopardons]

Oh yes,I fear that you really and most assuredly are. You just haven't managed to figure that out for yourself.