Leaving Islam



Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina 

Part III Page 10

Back  <     >  Next


Mr Sina’s “Golden Rule”

First of all, Mr Sina only mentioned the “Golden Rule” abruptly in his first response. Almost halfway into his second response he defined and elaborated it with examples. So, Mr Sina needs to pay attention to what he writes and when he writes and he says:

“The Golden Rule says do to others what you would expect others do to you. This is very simple and easy to understand and apply. I do not like to be cheated, so I must not cheat others. I do not like to be killed, so I must not kill others. I do not want anyone rape my wife, so I must not rape others. This principle works like a Swiss clock. It never fails. You can find all the guidance you need by this compass.”

The points below will rationally and factually prove: the so-called “Golden Rule” is not self-evident, not universal, and inadequate to provide comprehensive guidance; - but also Mr Sina actually contradicts this notion. I hope Mr Sina this time pays attention to the actual principle presented instead of going into a tangent by disputing the examples cited, a classic method of filibustering!

A) Contradictions - Mr Sina also claimed that: “Golden Rule is absolute and so the morality derived from”. Yet, his definition of the “Golden Rule” rule clearly states that it is the prerogative of the individuals to interpret the meaning and the scope of the rule as it says “what you would expect” or what you “do not like”. Taking his example of cheating, a trader may think that it is lawful to inflate the image of his goods but the consumer may feel cheated. Hence, the rule is not only subjective but also inadequate and Mr Sina has contradicted himself clearly on this point! Mr Sina, my foot is not in my mouth but firmly embedded in your one track abusive and arrogant foul mouth!

To claim that democratic societies have fixed morality shows the lack of basic knowledge as democratic societies themselves would dispute that! The process of legislation is there catering for changes in morality. We witness everyday certain morals demolished replaced with new ones, homosexuality was once a sin but today it is fashionable. ‘Living in sin’ was a sin at one time but today it is the norm, and so on. Then Mr Sina has the audacity to state that bestiality and incest are sickness, but why? Is there anything inherent in these acts to classify it as good or bad or right or wrong? Has he asked those people who practice such things? Or has Mr Sina determined that from the “Golden Rule”, if so, how?



This is absurd. The Golden Rule is not subjective. It is not lawful for a trader to cheat. Say for example I am a goldsmith. If I sell you gold plated silver claiming it is pure gold; that is cheating. If I am a used car vendor and I secretly lower the mileage of the cars in my lot to make them look newer than what they are, this is cheating. I do not know how you do your business and how you justify your actions, but to me the Golden Rule is very clear. I perfectly know what is cheating, what is lying, what is cruelty, injustice and abuse. There is nothing clearer than the Golden Rule.

You say that morality changes with time, for example homosexuality was one day immoral and now it is not. Then you ask what makes immorality inherently bad and what the Golden Rule can tell us about it

There is a difference between morality and ethics. Morality is the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. But these standards vary from culture to culture and religion to religion such as Christian morality, Islamic morality, etc. With this definition, you are right, morality is relative and subjective.

Morality is also relative to history. The morality of ancient men is considered immoral today and vice versa. In old times slavery was not immoral. Today it is. In ancient times human sacrifices were not immoral. In fact we see Abraham attempting to sacrifice his own son. After him and today, human sacrifice is regarded immoral. Beating one’s wife at one time was not immoral. Today it is and in may civilized countries it is punishable by law. Polygamy at one time was not immoral. Many Biblical figures practiced polygamy. But today polygamy is immoral. Also there are things that ancient men regarded as immoral but modern people don’t see them as such. In some cultures, exposing one’s hair for women was considered immorality. Today it is not.  Therefore societies evolve and their perception of morality changes.

What does not change is ethics. Slavery has been always wrong. Murder, rape, looting and lying have never been right and will never be right. Ethics derives from the Golden Rule. Morality is the subjective interpretation of this ethics.

Societies whose morality is not based on ethics are moral relativistic societies. Moral relativism is a characteristic of Islam. Islam condones evil acts if the outcome of that benefits Islam and the Muslims. Moral relativism means justifying the means by the ends. For example, according to Islamic ethos, murder, rape and theft are bad, if the victim is a Muslim but they are okay if they are done to non-Muslims. One can do evil if with that Islam is benefited.  Islamic morality does not concern itself with ethical values but with halal and haram which are whimsical and do not derive from ethics and the Golden Rule. In fact Islamic ethics is an oxymoron. Islam is not concerned with ethics at all. The discussion of ethics is alien to Muslim philosophers and jurists.   

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 humans 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 equal rights. 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 dictates. For example ethics dictates that beating women is wrong. In Islam it is permissible to beat one's wife. According to ethics, punishment must not exceed the crime; in Islam the punishment of petty thief is chopping the hand. Also the eternal burning of the polytheists in Hell is infinitely superior to their crime, which is an indication of the injustice of Allah.  

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 expression. You are free to think, say and do what you please as long as you do not harm others. In Islam such freedom is inexistent. You would be punished and even brutally executed if you criticize Islam, apostatize, engage in sex out of marriage or have homosexual tendencies. 

In Islam it is halal to 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 loan. 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 with him 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.     

Back  <     >  Next

Back to Index 






Articles Op-ed Authors Debates Leaving Islam FAQ
Comments Library Gallery Video Clips Books Sina's Challenge

  ©  copyright You may translate and publish the articles in this site only if you provide a link to the original page.