Religion and Morality 

Humanity vs. Muhammad bin Abdallah 

Part II 

Nov. 18, 2003

This is the long overdue trial of Islam and here are the protagonists

Defendant: Muhammad bin Abdallah

Plaintiff:  Humanity (The non-Muslim portion)

Prosecutor: Ali Sina  

Defense Attorney: Raheel Shahzad  (Any one else is welcome to join)

Courtroom: Public Opinion

Jury: You 

From Rahee Shahzad to Ali Sina

I find your conclusions in Part 1 of the debate entirely premature, bordering on disingenuous and dishonest. I submit that you yourself broke some rules of debate and intellectual discourse which you had setup yourself, and asked me to agree to. You gave the debate the platform of a virtual court case, but then failed to recognize some inherent rules of the setup. 

This is by no means a critique of your ability or commonsense, but the style which you employed in your response. Let me elaborate as to how this is perceived by me: 

You stated very clearly in the beginning you are the prosecutor, but in your response you then became the judge and jury because you actually convicted and passed sentence yourself. Then, if the plaintiff is humanity, you included all of humanity, which includes everyone living past and present, which has to obviously include Muslims too. But what if a certain portion of humanity is not the plaintiff at all. You then included me also as the plaintiff by extension, and then listed me as defense attorney, which I cannot be at the same time. Of course you can say that you and I and everyone reading can employ commonsense and see what you actually used as a context and agree with you in coming to the conclusion. But the commonsense element is not an automatic given for everyone of equal quantity and value, so in essence it is your own commonsense and what you perceive as those sympathetic to your own stated position. This then means that commonsense is entirely under the purview of you and those whose commonsense reaches a variable conclusion is not commonsense but a fallacy. Which means commonsense according to you is not common in many millions, hence then that automatically discards them as being plaintiff or jury. 

The other norm of discourse you broke is one of civility. I mean of course we are only in a virtual debate, but indictment of each other's motives or resources or moral and intellectual capability has really no bearing on the charges you brought. If your desire is one of honest discourse in prosecuting, then indictment of the defense attorney is not the tactic I think you need to employ. I was very open in my introduction to you that you seem a brilliant person, and that I do not doubt your intelligence, but only wanted to address you over issues of faith and it's implication on society at large. 

In the next few paragraphs, I have taken the liberty to digress from the case and invoke the larger picture, and some of it borders on philosophical aspect of FFI mission. I urge the reader to consider it carefully. The following is not in defense of any particular religion, but statements of general disagreements with certain aspects:

Mr.Sina, 

I think then it is disingenuous and dishonest to be saying one thing, and then practicing the entirely opposite. If saving humanity is your cause, then cursing a portion of the humanity or ridiculing a big portion of that humanity throws doubt on your actual motive and mental makeup. I certainly do not want this to be a clash of styles, but I am addressing your own stated mission on this FFI site. And I buy into the idea that you are tired of the hatred that Islam supposedly indoctrinates in all the Muslims equally. But how then does the defense really defend if you yourself are displaying the same hatred yourself which is driving your decisions about life and matters of faith anyway. If love for humanity is so overpowering for you, then what is the purpose of taking a portion of the humanity and attack them implicitly or explicitly. And anyone who follows that particular brand of religion is then automatically incapable of addressing your issues. The tactic you employ to ostensibly ignite the fire of love and acceptance in many people's heart is itself ridden with hate and dislike, at least from your first response to Part 1. In effect, what you really ridicule Islam as preaching (namely hate, which drives some people to irrational actions) is manifesting in you too. Of course you can claim that you are dissatisfied with Islam because it gives a message of hatred, but how does one eradicate hatred with more hatred? Does this not seem circular to you, where declaring a mental war against the same people in effect is supposed to save the same people you actually are fighting? 

I understand that this is going into issues of philosophical differences, but even if you really do not agree or disagree with me at some point, at least as a fellow human I can certainly ask you to please have a second look at your own style and your own view of rationality. Ignore me as a Muslim or whatever, but even if I was an atheist or conformed to your own position, can I not really ask you that I find your tactic intellectually draining. If I agreed with all you said about the religion of Islam, will you then allow me the ability to critique you purely on the basis that I really want to correct you? Just as you are concerned about humanity, can I request that you are also part of humanity to me and that I can wish you well and have an intellectual difference with you? 

If your anger with whatever has transpired in your own life is of such great magnitude that the context of your own and my existence is no value anymore, then how do I really believe that you are really interested in saving humanity? If saving me from the clutches of Islam is not being achieved by you purely on an intellectual basis, how do I believe that you will save others with whatever the essence of your message is? 

____----****O****----____

The reason this is all important for me to continue is that regardless of how you choose to indict the religion, Allah, Mohammad or whatever else, it is ultimately connected to a bigger picture. And I had said before that the larger picture is of supreme importance to me since I also am part of the humanity that you want to save. Regardless of the number of Muslims, how will they reject a message or messenger that is being indicted, by the person who himself then tends to show the same traits as being indicted. For the nonintellectuals to be ridden from the clutches of Islam is it not important that the intellectuals be convinced first? Who then will have to get in positions of power and then ask the people to reconsider? But if the new message is based on a new messenger (not the divine sense) who is being perceived as having the same kind of moral deficiency that the defendant had according to you. 

We can certainly throw articles and books at each other, but in doing so, what exact goal or mission is desired? On a human level, I too am concerned about humanity just as you state you are. I too see oppression and suffering in many places. I too have the moral code that you stated in your first response. Me being a Muslim suddenly does not negate that I too have feelings of compassion for humanity. My desire to have a debate with you on an intellectual level is still some evidence to me that I find you capable of displaying genuine feelings of honesty and passion. But I get the impression that you seem to get away in our virtual courtroom from the bigger picture that is the crux of the case you brought. 

If somehow or another your stance succeeded, and let's assume you got rid of Islam as your mission states, what options have you really left a big portion of the humanity? In such a complicated case, if establishing crimes of a person is the only motive, then I'm not sure if you really have considered all the dilemmas that it will bring to the society at large. There are just too many considerations here to list, hence I will use the domino effect example: Let's assume that I agreed with your conclusion as you prematurely stated in Part 1, then the bigger picture is that it will then have to lead to rejection of all text attributable to the person indicted here, which in turn will have to lead to rejection of the scripture called Quran, which then will have to lead to the moral dilemma of which scripture is really sacred, which since this current defendant is accused of having concocted will inevitably lead to all prior scriptures being rejected by the same people who rejected the Quranic verses, and then all connection of humanity in any physical form to divinity is entirely suspect, and ultimately the humanity will have to come to terms with the idea that there actually is nothing sacred that actually identifies God, and if God itself is a suspect entity, then all good and evil will have to be judged on human morals, which humans of future times will ultimately have to design for people to follow, and then moral relativism will be the rule of the day. Those in power then may abuse the authority they have over morals, and then the humanity is plunged into the same problem once again of no real code of ethics from any divine connection. Humans may be in a worst position that they are today. Hence eradication of the thought of God, or leaving it entirely open to interpretation without any real framework is a LOT more damaging to me than the damage that is being caused today. And that's how I worry about humanity today. Ultimately, I really agree with your mission, but in a very different way. So compassion for humanity and considerations based on some logic should not be monopolized by those who think there is no God or Islam is evil. And I think your conclusion of Part 1 is to me disingenuous in this regard, because you have not elaborated on what the course of action should be or what dangers will have to be addressed if one followed through on your logic and code. You would have to at some point employ moral relativism yourself, which you actually rejected in part 1 so eloquently. Because without this relativism, you are leaving people really no other choice. If the ostensible leader of the mission, is rejecting what ultimately would have to be employed to further the world in absence of God or any notion of divinity through some physical manifestation past or future, then the people are really screwed. Ultimately, "Morality" will be the religion. And what guarantee is there that morality will not be rejected or changed? Those people following your own brand of God might as well be called "Moralist". 

If your real motive is actually to just look at a small area of a complex subject and you find peace in ridiculing the defendant for some egotistical purposes, then yes I also understand that part. And I am even then not offended by that. You are displaying then a very normal human trait, one of irrational anger pointed at a certain item, without regard to the consequences or consideration of the big picture. And I doubt if humanity can be saved through this tactic. One billion people, or more, if side with Mr. Sina, will have no real framework. It may be a free for all, where crime may be rampant, and regimes may still employ the tactics used today, but only under the banner of "Morality". THAT is a very disturbing outcome. In fact, the oppression may pale the oppression being witnessed today. Or on the other extreme, human decadence is a huge risk. The religion of "Morality" will have it's own leaders, and will still fight other religions on basis of morality. 

Hence, if you are right Mr. Sina, and you really wish people to reject Islam, then you would have to impose a moral code on those people who side with you. And your moral code will have to be used I think as an example, based on simple commandments, or lack thereof I guess. If you leave people to fend for themselves and develop their own moralities, then are you guaranteeing that Iran will not impose "Hijaab" on its citizens? And let's say they really allowed people to just go about and have total freedom of thought and actions, then what will happen to those who twist your own moral code? You would then ask them to reject the moral code that they have developed freely. Maybe you will not be offended, but someone from your group may be offended. What if the moral code became so amazingly free that exchanging wives by husbands for a night is the morality in some part of the world, not based on any really code, but just free morals, would you still find that act to be correct? Well then Islam got eradicated, replaced by a new strange religion. And you really cannot expect those you convert in humanity to accept any other religion but basically morality as yardstick. That means you will have to trust the same people you are trying to save that they are actually good decent people who have morals and commonsense. So why is it that their morals are all screwed up if they are branded as Muslims? If they changed that name to "Morality", what changes in practice would you like to see and what government will impose that? 

Hence, I have to invoke this big picture here because A) You did not prove your case with conviction B) You have not left the jury or plaintiff with any real path to follow C) You displayed disregard for the same rules you set yourself and D) You convicted the defendant yourself without the defense counsel or jury having heard the entire case and it's aspects. 

In the next session, I will get back to the case at hand then, which I remind again the readers is not something of trivial value, but the fate of humanity hinges on it, and so the larger picture HAS to be kept in mind. I care about humanity just as Mr. Sina ostensibly cares. I just don't want it to be in a worse shape than what it may be in today.  

I want to continue from Part 1 and address alleged assassinations etc from a more practical point of view.

Ali Sina to Rahee Shahzad

Dear Mr. Shahzad

Allow me to clarify the first two objections that you raised regarding my style and the choice of the title of Humanity vs. Muhammad.  

You accused me of being unfair and that as the prosecutor I have also assumed the role of the judge and the jury.  

That is not true! The jury is the reader. As a prosecutor I am convinced of my own findings and the charges that I level against your client. If I had any doubts I would not have started the suit in the first place. I find it unreasonable for you to ask me to doubt my own statements when I already did that and find the truth and you are still there not allowing any doubt to perturb your solid and yet unfounded convictions.  

Being born in the same Isalmic milieu, I too was overwhelmed by fear and hesitated for a long time to make my doubts come to the surface and then known publicly. Fear is a very powerful instrument of domination and control. Especially the fear drilled at childhood is virtually indestructible. I was not immune to that. Everything I read about Islam did not make sense to me, yet the fear of hell and eternal punishment that was inculcated in my subconscious did not let me sever my umbilical cord from Islam. I did not start my battle against Islam until I overcame that fear and it became absolutely clear to me that Muhammad was not a messenger of any real god but an impostor. That is why I am acting today as the prosecutor against him. I am convinced of him not being anything but a cult leader and and evil man. It is up to you to prove me wrong. And just as I am not holding my breath to convince you that Islam is false and all I am interested is to reach the jury, you too should not be dismayed of my confidence about the end result of this trial but rather you should address them too and convince them of the innocence of you client and that I am wrong. Who cares if I already made my mind? The jury is listening and they have the final say. At the end of this debate, they will decide whether I am right or just a stubborn nutcase.  

You also objected that I used the title Humanity vs. Muhammad. I do not think that is technically wrong. When a prosecutor indicts a John Doe, the case is called: “People vs. John Doe “. But the indictee, his attorney and all his friends and fans are also people yet they are not the plaintiffs. I hope you get my drift. Anyway, not wanting to dwell on the style, I added in parenthesis (the non-Muslim portion of it) in front of the Humanity as the plaintiff. I hope this satisfies you and we can move on to talk about the case.  

You also complained that I indicted the defense attorney. I do not think I did that. My attack is on Islam and not on your fine person. Of course I stated once that I do not have any hopes that you will ever be able to see the truth based of your very unfair statements that assassination and dishonestly if expedient are not always bad and your unfair statement about the American soldiers entering the houses of people and murdering them point plank. This is war crime. If this is happening we want to know the details so we can bring those soldiers to justice. Can you substantiate your accusations or was it just a little libel, the kind of expedient lies or Taqiyah that Imam Ghazali was saying is okay?   

Of course you and I are squared against each other and that is our job. I am here to prosecute Muhammad and it is your responsibility to defend him. I must be convinced of my own statements or I would be a hypocrite and a liar. The same also I expect from you. I could be wrong but I should not be a liar. I am obliged to back up everything I say with exhibits. It is up to you to cast doubt on my exhibits and question their relevance and validity. Likewise you must back up your statements too. When you accuse the American soldiers of war crimes can you back up your statement? Can you produce the evidence and reliable witnesses? If you can do that you should not waste your time in front of your computer. You should be heading to the United Nations right away and letting the International courts follow up your claims.  

Talks are cheap. When you accepted to be the attorney in this court of the public opinion you are bound abide by the same code of ethics that any attorney has to abide and that is honesty. (Okay "attorney" and "honesty" in one sentence somehow elicits smile. But that is another issue). Just be prepared to substantiate whatever you say. That is what I am trying to say.  

This statement is wrong. I am not cursing a portion of humanity. I am denouncing an ideology that a portion of humanity has embraced. Does an ideology become true and sacrosanct when more people adhere to it? At what point it is okay to critique an ideology and at what point it become a taboo? Should we refrain critiquing all the ideologies? How about neo-nazism for example? There are thousands (if not more) people who follow this doctrine religiously. Should stop criticizing Hitler because this might offend the sensibility of white supremacists? Or perhaps it is okay to critique doctrines with smaller followings but we should not critique those that are followed by a substantive portion of humanity? Is that the criteria? So was it okay to critique Islam when it was new and only a handful of people believed in it? But then again we see that Muhammad sent assassins to silence his critics from the very early on. At the same time he was criticizing, maligning and taunting the religion of the Quraish and then that of the Jews and the Christians, saying they have adulterated their religions and what they have is not the true religion anymore.  

So basically what Islam teaches and what you are telling me here is that we are not allowed to critique Islam. That is the crux of the matter. It is okay to critique every other belief but not Islam. Did I understand you correctly?  

This rule is applied in all Islamic countries. Anyone who speaks against Islam and Muhammad will be charged with blasphemy and dealt with mercilessly. However at FFI we critique every ideology. We question and doubt the sanctity of every time-honored belief. And inspired by the wise man Buddha, we doubt everything to find our own light.  

So critiquing Islam is not inseminating hate. Ideologies are not people. 

However when Quran says:  

Slay the idolaters wherever you find them Q.9:5

Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers Q.3:28

or

O you who believe! Verily, the Mushrikûn (unbeleivers) are Najasun (impure). Q. 9:28 

that is inciting hate. That kind of talk must stop.

In this statement you seem to imply that truth is not your main concern. You are more afraid of how the discovery of the truth may affect the society.  

My personal conviction is that truth is always better. Truth may only hurt our feelings for a while. People like to cling to the lies that they hold dear to their hearts and letting go those lies is not that easy. However we get over it. But falsehood can really wreak disasters. False beliefs can be very dangerous.  

Take the example of Nazism. It was based on a false belief that the Arian race came from the lost continent of Atlantis and it was this race that introduced civilization to the rest of the world. As we saw the belief itself may look innocuous but the consequence was devastating. Imagine the nightmare and the loss of so many lives just for a lie about the superiority of the Arain race.  

Today we are heading towards another world scale catastrophe instigated and driven by another lie. This impending catastrophe could be even more horrendous than anything humanity has experienced so far. The lie is Islam. Islam teaches its benighted followers that they are superior to the infidels. That they have to wage war and make Islam dominate the world, that if ten of them confront 100 infidels they will win because Allah will make them victorious.  That at the end the world will become Islamic. That if they die in the battle, they will go to heaven and will get to sleep with a multitude of high bosom virgins. And when a big portion of humanity believes in this lie, it becomes a ticking bomb.  

Frankly I see no other way to stop this disaster than to defuse this bomb. And that is the mission of FFI.  

We want to reach the Muslims and tell them that Islam is false before it is too late. Sometime I have nightmares and think, may be it is already too late. Your brothers are devising chemical WMD. They are planning to kill hundreds of thousands of people this time. If that happen the hell will break loose. The reaction of the world would be devastating. Insanity will prevail and millions if not billions will perish. Is there anyone listening? Are you thinking I am just a rabid mad prophet of doom and gloom just scare mongering? Don’t you hear the threats coming from the Al Qaida? Don’t you see the support that this terrorist group enjoys across the board among the Muslims? This insanity is pushing the world to the brink of destruction. Someone must do something! But who is listening damn it?! Who is paying attention? How many more innocent people should die before the world realizes that the problem is not the terrorists but Islam that breeds these terrorists?

____----****O****----____

The Bigger Picture

You invited the jury to look at the bigger picture. The bigger picture in your opinion is that the realization that Islam is a false religion is not as crucial as leaving the world without religion. In other words it is better to cling to a false religion than no religion at all. You predicted chaos and the decline of morality. You warned that without religion “moral relativism will be the rule of the day”.  

I disagree. First of all as we saw moral relativism is a characteristic of Islam. It is Islam that condones evil if the outcome of that benefits Islam and the Muslims. Moral relativism means justifying the means by the end.  

However, I do believe that morality is relative but not in the Islamic sense. I believe morality is relative to history and culture. In Islam morality is relative to the interests of Islam and the desire to win at all costs. Islam teaches one can do evil if with that Islam is benefited. 

Islamic ethics does not concern itself with right/wrong, good/bad but with halal (permitted by Sharia) and haram (forbidden by Sharia). In fact Islamic ethics is an oxymoron. Islam is not concerned about ethics at all. The discussion of ethics is alien to Muslims "philosophers".   

Ethics enjoin that the violation of the rights of any human being is wrong. This is not the case in Islam. Islam does not regard as full human beings those who are not Muslims and hence their rights are not the same as the rights given to Muslims. Women in Islam also do not have the same rights as men. In Islam it is the Sharia that dictates what is wrong and what is right.

Ethics is derived from human conscience and the Golden Rule. Any reasonable person is capable to distinguish the right from the wrong using the Golden Rule as the parameter. This is not the case in Islam. Right and wrong in Islam are based on what Muhammad said and did and not on what ethics dictate. For example ethics dictate that beating women is wrong. In Islam it is halal to beat one's wife. According to ethics, punishment of must not exceed the crime, in Islam the punishment of a petty thief is chopping the hand. Islam also concerns itself with "sins of conscience". Ethics does not prescribe any punishment for such "sins". Individuals in ethical societies have the freedom of thought and actions. you are free to think, say and do what you please as long as you do not harm others. In Islam such freedom is inexistence. You would be punished and even brutally executed if you criticize Islam, apostatize, commit consensual, engage in sex out of marriage or have homosexual tendencies. 

In Islam it is halal beat one's wife but it is haram for a woman to expose her hair to strangers. It is halal to be promiscuous and polygamous but the same is haram for women. It is halal to own slaves but it is haram to charge interest on loans. It is halal to deflower a 9 year old girl but it is haram for girls and boys to mingle. It is halal to rape a boy and have pedophilic relationship but it is haram to have homosexual relationship with another adult. Islamic Sharia is against human ethics. Morality in Islam is relative to what Sharia dictates and not to what logics or ethics say.     

Historic and cultural moral relativity is a totally different issue. It is recognition that each culture and in each phase of the history, people had different code of moralities, distinct from ours.  

What is Morality 

Religious people believe that morality comes from religion and when religion loses its grip, people will become immoral. Is morality a product of religion? Are irreligious people immoral? 

You said without religion people will start wife swapping. I had a conversation with a young Muslim who insisted if it were not for religion people would commit incest and nothing would stop them to sleep even with their own mothers. I asked him whether he personally lusted after his mother and whether Islam was the only deterrent that stopped him from fornicating with her? He seemed insulted, but before he responded, I added if you are nauseated even by me mentioning such a thing, then realize that many others are just like you and feel and think the same way.

A big portion of our morality is part of our instinct. Incest for example is not condoned in any society whether religious or not. There are of course individuals with abnormal mental development who are exceptions to the norm. In fact, except for Bonobo chimps of Zair that rub their genitals together for social binding, no ape commits or procreates by incest. Usually the male individual visits other clans to find his mate. The young lions are forced to leave the pride to find mates in other prides while the lionesses stay.

Interestingly, marriages between children that grew-up together in one foster home are rare or non-existent, even though these kids are not related to each other by blood.

But some moral issues are not as clear as the above example. What is moral and immoral depends on time and culture. It may even vary from person to person. What was moral; say, a thousand years ago may be immoral today and vice versa. Also what is moral in one part of the world may not be so in others.

Take the example of promiscuity. Many cultures consider promiscuity to be immoral. Yet there are some cultures that accept it as the norm. To us, “western minded people”, having multiple sex partners simultaneously is considered promiscuity and immoral. Yet for a Muslim who practices polygyny, it is a “mercy of Allah”. In some parts of the world, women practice polyandry. Among the Inuit, a man would offer his wife to his guest to spend the night with, hoping that he may impregnate her. Which practice is immoral? And who is to determine it?

Is showing parts of your body immoral? In the heart of Amazon Jungle some tribes are completely nude. Is that immoral? That is to them the way of life. In some Islamic countries women are required to cover every part of their body (like children playing ghost). Is that good morality? If that is the definition of morality are all those Muslim women who cover everything except their faces immoral? What about those who dress adequately yet do not use Hijab? Are they immoral? Now what about bikini wearing beach going women? Are they immoral? And finally, what about those who like to show it all in a nudist camp? Are THEY immoral? Your answer to this question depends on who you are and what is your own personal standard of morality.

Let us take another example: Slavery. Is slavery immoral? Slavery was practiced for centuries even by very pious people. Muhammad  not only had slaves but he benefited from reducing free people into slaves and selling them. Was he immoral? If yes; why should we follow an immoral person and if no; why should we condemn its practice?

What about pedophilia? Obviously we all cringe at the thought of it and think that it is a shameful act of immorality. But during the time of the Prophet having sexual intercourse with a 9-year-old child was not immoral. In fact Aisha’s father after a little bit of trepidation consented to give her in marriage to Muhammad when Muhammad suggested it. At that time no one raised an eyebrow. The question is, if sleeping with a nine-year-old child was not deemed bad and therefore was not considered immoral, was it okay? Not everything that a society accepts as moral is right. Having sex with a minor may not have been immoral for Arabs 1400 years ago, but it is as it was then, unethical. Moralities are defined by circumstances, but ethics transcend time and space. They are rooted in logic. Morality can vary from culture to culture, from time to time and from person to person. Who is to determine what is moral and what is not?

A Man in Pakistan may think that if his wife meets her male-cousin with whom she has grown up without the presence of a third person she has committed an immoral act, has sullied his honor and the only way to restore his honor is to kill her. For him the meeting of two cousins is immoral but killing a human being is not.

We have to distinguish between those moralities that harm the society and those that do not. What harms others must be called unethical and discouraged. Slavery, for example, infringes upon the freedom of another human being. Therefore regardless of whether a society or a culture sanctions it, it is an unethical practice. 1400 years ago it was not immoral to have slaves. But slavery is ethically wrong and that transcends time Even the Prophet knew that slavery is wrong. That is why he advised his followers to manumit their slaves as an act of charity. Nonetheless he himself kept adding to his slaves by raiding city after city and capturing free people who were then reduced to slaves.

Interestingly because of what the prophet said, Muslims manumitted their slaves when they were old, could not work and needed care. Manumitting the slaves when they were young was an act of charity and moral but manumitting them at old age without provision was unethical. The Holy Prophet failed to mention that and the old slaves ended up as beggars in the streets while their masters gained the pleasure of Allah on one hand for manumitting them and exonerated themselves from having to take care of them in their old age on the other; thus killing two birds with one stone.

What would have been the right thing to do was not to take slaves in the first place. But the wealth of Muhammad and later on the Islamic rulers came from slave making and trading.

Hijab, no-hijab and even nudism does not have a material affect on anyone except the person who practices it. This is not something that the society should intervene. It must be left to the individual to dress the way he or she deems appropriate. Imposing a dress code is infringing upon the human rights of the individual and restricting his or her freedom. It is unethical. Although I believe licensing nudism in the streets violates the rights of others who do not want to be shocked by exhibitionists, I have no objection for nudists to have a designated place to go and show off and get over it. As long as they do not rub it in my face, I have no right to impose my morality on them. I have no idea what makes nudists to take off their clothes, but if what they do does not materially affect me, it is none of my business.

Despite the Muslim's claim that laxity in dress code breeds violence quite the opposite is true.  The same thing can be said about Hijab. This must be left to the individual. If a person likes to wear Hijab no one should stop her. But no state should enforce it on its citizens by law because that would be violating their freedom.

Now let me answer your concern about wife swapping. Well that is adultery. Even though it is mutual and consensual. Your question is what an irreligious society should do in this regard. My answer is the same that Pierre Trudeau gave in the Canadian Parliament. He said; “The State has no place in the bedroom's of the people”. He delivered that speech more than 30 years ago and the Canadian government took that recommendation to heart. However I do not see my fellow countrymen offering their wives to each other.

Frankly it is none of my business what my neighbors do. As Muslims say, I am not going to be buried with them.  Why you and I should even be talking about it?

Now look at Islamic countries where state regulates the private lives of its subjects. Single mothers are stoned to death in the most horrendous way. Is that moral? People are flagellated for drinking bear. Women are beaten and bloodied because their scarves slipped and some of their hair became visible in the public. Tell me please which morality is more evil?

In final accounts, we must distinguish between what is immoral and what is unethical. Moral issues should be left to the individuals; ethical issues must be taught in schools and be enforced by law or code of ethics. Is promiscuity immoral or is it unethical? The answer to the first part of this question depends on who you are. If you belong to the “ultra” liberal faction of the western society or if you are a practicing Muslim, it may not be immoral for you to have multiple sex partners. But if you are an average westerner, you may think it is immoral. This is a matter of taste, culture and upbringing. We should not be concerned about the morality of this question. What consenting adults do in their bedrooms is none of our business. The question is whether it is ethical?

If promiscuity is institutionalized i.e. polygamy, is it still immoral?  Those who practice it may not think that way but it certainly is unethical. Marriage is a social institution that affects more than those who make the vow. Not only children are affected but the whole society that would eventually have to take the tab to support such families that turn up to be dysfunctional will also be affected. The society has to pay for the education of the kids, their food and clothing as well as suffer the consequences of dealing with misfit individuals that would most likely result from such dysfunctional and highly patriarchal families. Polygyny must be outlawed not for its immorality, that as we said is a personal matter, but because it is unethical. It harms the children and it harms the society.

What is moral is fuzzy. Religious morality does not seem ethical any more. And what we consider to be moral is not so for religions. Polygyny, slavery, animal sacrifice, marriage with the minors, etc are not immoral in Islam. But it is immoral for women to travel alone, not wear hijab or enter in an elevator alone with a stranger.

Therefore morality should definitely be left to the individual’s discretion as it is subject to change. But what is ethical is well defined. Ethical values are driven from logic and the Golden Rule. They are universal and not subject to change In a nutshell, what hurts other people and violates their rights is unethical. In fact, even animals have rights that an ethical society must protect and respect.

The religious morality is the morality of the ancient man. Patriarchal societies imposed codes of moralities on women that would give men more control on their wives. Religious morality is not divinely ordained. It reflects the fears and the possessiveness of the men who made them. Islam imposes Hijab. Has this anything to do with Muhammad's worries as an aging man to control his numerous beautiful wives and protect them from being seen by young men whom he feared as rivals? He constantly kept emphasizing the importance of obeying one's husband. Did this have anything to do with the fact that most of his wives were teenagers an as such rebellious that he needed to control?

Morality is something personal and something that parents should teach to their children. But the true morality is not derived from antiquated doctrines and old beliefs. It is sad that some have made morality a hostage to religion. It is absurd to impose the morality of bygone cultures and vanquished worlds on our modern society. Morality is derived from human consciousness and our spiritual awareness. The more we mature the more sanctified becomes our acts. We won’t have to live a moral life for the greed of a reward or the fear of punishment in the afterlife. We will be moral because it enhances our lives. Morality should be part of who we are, just as our knowledge is part of who we are. The true morality is never in contrast with ethics.

Ethics has little to do with religion. As Gandhi said ethics is the matter of economics. The question is where to invest our vital energy for a higher yield. If you invest your energy into sensual pleasures you will get a temporary gratification. If you invest it in more meaningful things you will get greater satisfaction.

Leading a moral life is not about renouncing pleasure. A life that is not gratifying is not worth living. It is about choices. What we choose for pleasure? That is the question. One who invests his energy in the service of humanity gets more satisfaction than the one who indulges in the pursuit of worldly pleasures.

But this is a personal choice, derived from maturity and spiritual understanding. Morality should not be imposed by a higher authority such as state or religion. An imposed morality is not morality. One who leads a moral life for the fear of hell is not a moral person because he has not made his choices freely. Fear and greed, the traditional contrivances of religions, used as incentives to force people into accepting their morality do not make the society moral. No one and no religion should impose its morality on people. The imposition of morality is unethical. Religions that threaten their followers with the hellfire or lure them with the promises of paradise do not make them moral. Stick and carrot have better results in training animals than educating people. Only the person who chooses the higher road freely can be called a moral person.

A moral person chooses to live morally because it gives him immense pleasure. One, who is honest, takes pleasure in being honest. He would prefer to be tortured than to lie or to deceive. Our morality is directly linked to our spiritual maturity. When we evolve spiritually; knowledge, service to humanity and working for peace gratify us more than indulging in sensual pleasures. Nothing is wrong with sensual pleasures. But we get more pleasure in doing something in the service of humanity than gratifying our senses temporarily.

Would a person who loves knowledge require further incentive to learn than learning itself? Would Einstein, e.g. have delighted more in his scientific discoveries if someone promised him a new car if he could write the theory of relativity? You may offer promise a child an ice cream if he did his homework but that would not be necessary for an adult who seeks knowledge and finds his satisfaction in learning.

Primitive religions treat you like children (if not animals). They want to impose their outdated morality on you by threatening you with hell and bribing you with heaven to accept their antiquated and often unethical morality. Whether you are moral because of this fear and greed or because you find satisfaction in leading a moral life, depends on your maturity and spiritual awareness

The religious morality is not divinely ordained. It is the morality of the ancient people, their sages and (in the case of Islam) their charlatans. We do not need the morality of the ancient man just as we do not need his technology, science or medicine. The morality of the ancient man must be buried with his bones. Modern humans must chart their own morality. Morality must evolve just as human knowledge and his awareness evolves. 

New morality does not mean immorality. It means coming out of the dark ages of ignorance and raising new generations that are responsible. Humans can no more be chained with foolish fears and threats of the afterlife. Science has shed light on the absurdity of religious concepts and shaken the foundation of the beliefs that our forefathers hold so sacrosanct. The manacles of obscurantism are broken forever. Today we have to raise our kids with awareness. They must learn that mankind is One. Just as our parents taught us the religious lies and we believed, we can teach our children the truth and they will believe. The following is one such truth.  

All human beings are limbs of the same body. God created them from the same essence. If one part of the body suffers pain, then the whole body is affected. If you are indifferent to this pain, you cannot be called a human being. -Saadi

We do not need to lie and frighten our children with hellfire to raise them moral, loving and good people. That has never worked. The history of inhumanity of mankind and especially that of the standard bearers of religions stand witness to this claim. 

If we love our children, they learn to be loving. If we are honest, moral and ethical they learn that too. We can build a better humanity by acting humanely today. But first we have to teach them love.

Compare the words of Saadi to the words of Muhammad who said only Muslims are brothers to each other and as for the disbelievers: 

Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers,  9:14, 

As you see my friend, the very belief in Islam is unethical and immoral. We cannot heal Mankind until we do not remove its cancer. This cancer has reached a point that is going to kill us all. It is either the Humanity or Islam. Mankind will not have a future as long as this disease is left untreated. Islam must be eradicated now. Tomorrow it it too late. 

What about other religions: 

I am aware that many people are hooked to religion and life to them without the belief in a personal God and the promise of an afterlife is dreadful. I want to emphasize that my battle is not against religion as a whole. I noticed that you made that connection and claimed that rejecting Islam implies rejecting all other religions, God and eventually the morality. Not so!  I am not a religious person and do not need a religion to live an ethical and meaningful life. I believe my life is quite meaningful and my efforts to bring humanity together and pave the road to peace by removing the biggest hurdle in the road to peace (Islam) is the greatest service one can render to mankind. (I only have to figure out how to pay my bills while I am doing this :-( )

However many people need religion and I respect that. My fight is against Islam only. Not because it is a religion but because it IS NOT. Islam is politics in the garb of religion. It is an instrument of domination and subjugation. It only uses religious mask to penetrate and conquer. 

After this billion people you are talking about leave Islam, they will have the choice to choose any of the existing religions or like me, no religion at all. So please do not panic. The vacuum left by Islam will be filled rapidly as we have enough religions and philosophies to take its place. Many Muslims have already left Islam and they will tell you that they are happier now than ever.

When Islam is dead, a doctrine of hate is dead. It is like removing a cancer. This means freedom for the present day Muslims and a chance to love the rest of mankind. They will be free to embrace their brothers and sisters in Humanity in amity and love. No more Ummah vs. unbelievers. No more House of Islam vs. House of war. No more Us vs. Them.  

It would be the birth of Humanity as One. We will be One Humanity, One People, sharing One Planet. The ONLY planet! There is nothing else out there that can sustain us. This tiny planet, this little blue jewel churning in the dark empty and cold space, is the only home we have. Let us not blow it up for a lie. 

If you HAVE to follow a religion, why follow a religion of hate? 

Your brother in Humanity. 

Ali Sina 

Dear reader. If these words have struck a cord in you, please let others know too. Spread this message as far and as wide as you can. It is now up to us - yes you and me - the little people of this world to save it. Do not falter. This is your calling. The clock is ticking and time is running out. This bomb of hate must be defused or the End will be much closer than you may anticipate. 

next  > 

The Jury may comment here