This problem has been created due to the wrong explanations of Islam that a westernized mind doesn't accept true Islam but it insists that misinterpreted Islam which is definitely draconian is the real one. In the words of Allama Rashid Raza, "we can serve Islam best by telling the world that we are not Muslims."

Ali Sina's entire website is filled with anti-Islamic diatribe, and he has been too accustomed to defaming Islam, without looking for objective answers and without having a consistent thought basis. Ali Sina is a liability for the Anti-Islamic movement and his constant rants do nothing to help his cause whatsoever. Ali Sina should also stop making himself the judge of his debates and he should stop arrogantly claiming victory after each discussion.

Instead of finding objective answers, his debates have become a "mouse-trap" situation, he continuosly tries to trap the Muslims, and his red herring waffles really are repetetive.

The debate between Ali Sina and Ghamidi/Zaheer was about Islam and whether this religion is true or false. It is expected that an opponent of Islam should criticize it. To say such criticism constitutes libel is absurd. That debate is worth reading.

Ali Sina is the biggest liar and loser in the history of Islamic critics because he is invited many times to debate with Dr.Zakir Naik, but he rejects that.

The reason is simple may be he was not a Muslim before and is just part of Anti Islamic organization who uses this tactic to put doubt Muslims.

But the truth is that they will never EXTINGUISH Islam that's the promise of Allah (swt) no matter what they say against it !

Their intention is to extinguish God's Light (by blowing) with their mouths: But God will complete (the revelation of) His Light, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it). [The Holy Quran 061:008]

I am a new convert to Islam and the more I hear and read about people who support faithfreedom, the more I believe in the Judgment day.

I read the entire debate and was extremely impressed by Ali Sina. His opponents were polite, but could rarely respond logically to Mr. Sina. I believe the truth of who won the debate can be demonstrated by the fact that FFI has been banned in Pakistan. This ban substantiates the fact that Muslims can not tolerate criticism and therefore do everything they can to block their own people from seeing another side if that side is critical of Islam or Muslims. Nevertheless, I am certain that the truth of Islam and its so-called prophet will get out one way or another. I shall email that debate to all of my friends here whether Muslim or non-Muslim.

I am an Ex-Muslim. Of course if you can find me, the Koran gives you the permission to slit my throat. I read the 200+ pages of the discussion that Sina had with the Pakistani scholars, and according to me the Parkistani scholars were not able to provide answers to any of the Islamic issues raised by Sina.

Religion, almost any religion makes a person almost unreasonable. When you look at Dr Khalid Zaheer you could never imagine that this gentlemen can defend a most heinous and indiscriminate killing of a people and making slaves of their remaining women and children. But this so called 'Doctor' defended the annihilation of Bani Qurayza by Mohammad in these words in a Pakistani television programme called 'safre hidayet' (path of enlightment), "Bani Qurayza were not killed by Prophet Mohammed, they were killed by Allah. Allah wanted to teach them a lesson for going against Mohammad and therefore he told Mohammad to stay out of it and He taught them a lesson through one of their own, called Sad bin Muadh, who decided as Allah wished". Any person with an iota of morality can tell that this person who looks as pious as Dr Rowan Williams is almost evil. Pakistani nation will suffer as long as they keep believing the lies of Islam. They need to read their scriptures objectively and decide to either leave islam or alter it drastically.

Ali Sina is a liar and quoting the quran completely out of context.He writes in his book about footprints of the prophet. i tried to find out from authentic sources but couldnt find any historical record of our beloved prophet\\\'s footprints.
May ALLAH offer him hidayah................Aameen

I am a reasonably educated muslim by birth. I have seen ali sina's website and have read articles he has written primarily against the prophet muhammad.I have never seen or met ali sina so whatever I know of him is through his articles and the content of his website.I don't know whether he is an individual or a consortium of indiviuals who is/ are funded by anti islamic/anti muhammad forces. But I want to thank him from the core of my heart.what he has done is that he has taken my belief/faith in islam to a higher level. So I thank you friends.
If ali sina or any one of his companions do stumble upon this message I want to tell them how I feel about him/them. They are perhaps somewhat educated people who have little knowledge about true teachings of islam. Despite their apparent education and repeated claims of being great thinkers and writers I very humbly state that their arguments are completely illogical and devoid of true understanding of islam. On their website they have challenged that whoever will prove their statements about the prophet and islam to be untrue they will reward him/her with $50000 and will shut down their website.this shows their desparation to engage muslims in their meaningless arguments. After all faith freedom is a website which is generating revenues in the form of funds from anti islamic forces and ali sinas are making good money by criticising islam only for the sake of criticism. In fact it has become a trend these days to claim that you are an ex muslim and thereafter to earn money by uttering all kinds of stupidity about islam and muhammad.
Islam has survived criticism for the last fourteen hundred years and during this period many ali sinas have come and gone and centuries have seen islam getting stronger and stronger. Faithfreedom claims that islam is under some kind of threat that never was perhaps because ali sinas have come up with some out of the world arguments against it. However, almost all the arguments raised by ali sinas have been discussed and debated upon since the birth of islam. Ali sinas have not come up with a single new argument against islam. That goes on to show that the claim of ali sina re their superiorty of thought/argument is completely void.
In my humble opinion no muslim scholar or student should argue/debate with ali sinas unless they adhere to some decorum of religious debates and show some degree of respect for the sentiments of the followers of one of the major religions of the world.
All muslims who disagree with ali sina, his unreasonable arguments and rude, illogical manner of his debate are requested to very politely convey their message and feelings to ali sinas. Further all muslims are requested to pray before almighty allah that he may show ali sina the right path because he seems to be an educated person who has gone astray and if he keeps aside all his prejudices and honestly and sincerely try to study islam and muhammad as a devoted student then he may stumble upon the right path with allah blessings only.

Muslim, America wrote : "Ali Sina is the biggest liar and loser in the history of Islamic critics because he is invited many times to debate with Dr.Zakir Naik, but he rejects that".

Well, if you read Mr. Sina's website, the reason why he rejected Dr. Naik's invitation was a live debate not a written debate. If we put you in Mr. Sina's shoe, you will not do a live debate because live debate mean exposing yourself. You know there's fatwa and price on his head. So Mr. Sina is doing the right thing not to reveal himself. Besides, written debate would be a perfect choice, since vievers has more time to verify information. You should read Mr. Sina's rebuttal on Dr.Zakir Naik debate with Dr. Campebell to prove that written debate is more powerful than live debate. On live bebate with Dr. Cambell, not a single viever were aware that Dr. Naik made errors.
There're several invitation for Dr.Naik to "face" Mr. Sina on a written debate. But Mr. Naik refused Written Debate.

About written debate by Ali Sina vs Khalid Zaheer and Ghamidi, if you are neutral and think logically, you'll agree with me that Mr. Sina won that debate. Notice that Mr.Zaheer did not answer few questions.

Dhani, Indon - I have read the entire debate. What questions were not answered by Dr Zaheer? As to your claim of Mr Sina winning the debate, this is quite subjective and may only be your opinion.

In fact I praise Dr Zaheer and Ghamdi for having the patience to deal with a person who was not good at anything other than going round in circles, not sticking to a point till it is settled in order to not just confuse the readers but to exhaust the opponents with his polemic and made them come out of the debate sheer out of frustration. But hats off to both Zaheer and Ghamdi, who dealt him with patience.

From the outset, Sina had realised this time he was confronted by no 'self-proclaimed scholars' but those with substance and knowledge who time and again backed their arguments with references and rational explanations and requested him to stay focussed on a particular line of reasoning until concluded before levelling scores of other unsubstantiated claims. He, however, knew from the very first exchanges of replies that he had to adopt diversionary tactics to disguise his weaknesses.

Ali Sina can be declared defeated on a number of grounds ranging from breaking the rules of the discussions (set in the beginning and accepted by both parties) to resorting to puerile discussions full of gimmicks and no scholarly aptitude. But it is because of this ground alone, I would not consider him defeated as a fight between a light weight boxer and a heavy weight is not technically allowed to proceed. Sina was clearly below par in every aspect except his ability to fill pages with mere empty rhetoric.

This exercise though is a clear guide to serious and sincere scholars not to engage in discussions with someone like Sina until a) he familiarizes himself with the norms of a scholarly debate b) ceases to be his own judge c) agrees to adhere to the rules of a debate. If this does not happen in future, both parties will be losers; his opponents though will be bigger losers wasting their precious time to an emotional and non-serious attention seeker.

Dear All,

I request you to go through the latest debate between Ali Sina & Jamshed Iqbal (an un-known Islamic scholar) who has exposed the reality of Ali Sina. Jamshed Iqbal's premise was Mohammad's (pbuh) genuine prophetic experience and Mr. Ali Sina was to prove otherwise through scholarly and philosophical discussion. I am pasting the final message of Jamshed Iqbal for reader's interest:

Deare Ali Sina,

I accepted your debate challenge:
 To prove Mohammad’s (pbuh) genuine oneness with Supreme Reality &
 Reality of his prophetic experience! (plz go through my previous message)

It meant that my position, in the debate was supposed to be affirmative one, and yours, the other way round. The other point I made clear was that:

 It should not be just point-scoring or ego-strutting! &
 We, as members of human family and meaning-seeking creatures, would try to solve the puzzle of our existence with some perennial and ever-fresh questions before us........
Let me clear you certain points. Problem of the prophet-hood is the question of means, sources and ends of knowledge—the question of epistemology in scholarly terms. Here you were supposed to announce your “position” by clearing, what according to you distinguishes adequate knowledge from inadequate (false) knowledge To lay the basis of your conclusion that Mohammad (pbuh) was charlatan—false pretender of knowledge (nauzu billah). You would have to choose one position among some possibilities:
 Putting more emphasis on logical and empirical methods, stressing that knowledge is an apprehension of necessary and universal principles. (causal determinism, empirical materialism: Aristotelian position)
 You had other option to declare that, ” knowledge is merely an awareness of absolute, universal Ideas or Forms, existing independent of any subject trying to apprehend to them” (Idealism: Platonic position)
 Knowledge is the product of sensory perception, and rationalism which sees it as the product of rational reflection (Post-renaissance scientific empiricism)
 Knowledge results from a kind of mapping or reflection of external objects, through our sensory organs, possibly aided by different observation instruments, to our brain or mind. (reflection-correspondence theory: if you adopted that position you would have to enter into the mazy realm of language and its relation to reality towards Structuralism & Post structuralism)
 Knowledge is an empirical statement which comes from analytical truth (Comte’s position: Logical Positivism)
Please, honestly, go through my last messages and see if you had any understanding of my position I declared in the very first message! Please see clearly if you have any understanding of your own position! What you put forward is quite irrelevant at this stage. For:
 We were to see the issue in light of some perennial and ever-fresh questions (see my first message wherein I discussed about the norms)
What are these perennial questions? The “umbrella question” is “what is truth”. All the branches of sciences and philosophy, in some way or other, have this one question before them. Human beings responded their impulse to know the truth in four distinctive ways:
1. Myth making (with the aid of imagination of symbolism)
2. Philosophy (with the aid of reason)
3. Science (Analysis and apparatus)
4. Religion (empathy and intuition)
I was to tell you about the validity of religious experiences by telling you confines and margins of all other sources! I am sorry my friend you have even no idea as what the debate is about! What areas of knowledge or disciplines our debate falls in! Or even how to debate on these issues!
You were right in inviting Mr. Zakir Naik for he was your good match! And your whole knowledge abut Islam is based on the understandings of Zakir Naiks! You have never been fortunate enough to see those who live Islam or those who found Islam!
You and Zakir Naiks are, in principle, sailing in the same boat—they do not know what they are defending and you don’t know what you are criticizing! Both of you are perspective-less—but perspective is everything!
It goes without saying that you have never bothered to ponder upon these problems quite seriously. Please ask yourself this question in some honest moment! Or you left them for they were far beyond your observational understanding badly entangled somewhere else? So your intellect remained dormant (it tells)—and it was entangled in minor things—in phenomenal world or appearance that is always deceptive!
I am sorry my friend, you have lost the debate before it started! However, I am giving you thirty years’ grace period to let your intellect ripe! To let these perennial questions pinch the sleep from your eyes and pinch rest from your soul—to let your bones melt in pangs of wonder and doubt until you get a peace of truth within you! I pray for that peace for you!
I would salute your honestly if you publish this comment on your blog as well! I would even acknowledge your integrity if you stop challenging Muslim scholars for debate! I would even adore you as a friend if you, honestly, rub out from your heart the prejudice that is product of your myopic understanding! I assure you Mohammad (pbuh) is lovingly offering you a priceless treasure but you are refusing it for your gaze is tenaciously fixed on filth of hatred! And one is there where one’s gaze rests!

I have nothing more to say. I will debate when you are ripe! For its question to save the humanity!

I just went through this debate and have the feeling that Dr Zaheer or for that matter Ghamidi miserably failed to answer even a single question raised by Sina directly instead they engaged in beating the bushes. All along what they could do was to engage in circular referencing hollow sloganeering of Islam superiority etc: a totally unconvincing effort on their part. what does that mean, it is up to the readers. Regarding T.Mohammad up their comments calling instead Sina unreasonable, I’d like to ask esteemed friend to be specific. Hollow allegation and sloganeering would not work ,we see a lot of that in Pakistan. The high dose of religiosity in Pakistan does not have any positive effect on the ground: the ground realities are such that you can find anything bad under the blue in Pakistan. Why is this paradox? Just come forward and try to prove him unreasonable and disprove at least one of the allegations Sina has made against Islam. The so called scholars and big big ulemas must come forward and face the reality. Burying their heads in sand is no more workable. They cannot leave this matter to the common people to sort it out. They must defend it in a logical way instead of engaging in circular referencing or merely invoking divine curses or sending assassin to answer such queries.

Dear all,

I guess that ALI Sina will become muslim. The way he is trying to criticize Islam may let him end up with Loving Islam.

Salaam alaykum, I have been reading the debate of Ali Sina with most of the scholars of Islam. What I have feel is that if you compare logically (Ali's logic), Christianity could be an easy prey for Ali Sina. Why is he so biased with Christianity? May Allah give him hidaya ameen. And by the way I wish to thank him for arousing an interest in me to read Quran and come further close. I am one of the many fools (according to Ali S) who have actually thanked him. Hayyak Allah.

I think Ali Sina is a rational person but he always attacks Islam and he is out of context. My advice to atheists is to read Dr Zakir Naik's Quran and Science, compatible or incompatible, which will clear everything.

My response to Batoor's comment on Apr 23.

I think you should come out of the frogs (Ali S.) well, and start looking at the refutations to Ali sina. Trust me it is as easy as to find dry grass in grassland. And by the way what reality you need us to face. All I can say is don’t depend upon borrowed knowledge and if you need to judge the holy Quran then make an effort to read the holy Quran with an unbiased mind. I am sure if you are talented enough to judge between Dr. Zaheer or for that matter Mr. Ghamidi and Ali Sina, then you will not find any difficulty in differentiating the message of the holy Quran & lies of Ali S.

Still if you find difficulty in find the refutation please feel free to respond. I will be too glad to tour you.

(This comment was edited to remove copy/paste of an existing comment. The message has not been altered. - Admin)