Leaving Islam



Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina 

Part III Page 12

Back  <    >  Next 


B) Self-Evident - If the “Golden Rule” was self-evident then it would be universal but nobody upholds this as a fundamental principle for dealing with all matters in life. Otherwise it would manifest as a fundamental yardstick in legal principles, embedded in the constitution etc. The mere fact that the meaning and scope of the “Golden Rule” is disputed it is evidence, that the rule is not universal and self-evident. Therefore, since the authority of the “Golden Rule” is moot, so are allegations of Mr Sina which is based on the rule.

The Golden Rule IS universal. It is the foundation of justice system in all civilized societies. As I quoted earlier, the Golden Rule is the common denominator of all religions and social systems. The only religion that defies the Golden Rule is Islam. Only in Islam, abuse, inequality and injustice is prescribed by the religion itself. Injustice happens in all the societies, but they are transgressions of the law and are against the stated Golden Rule. Islam is the only religion that sanctions and institutionalizes injustice.  

Since it is illogical to imagine that God is unjust and the Quran also claims that justice is a divine Quality, the only logical conclusion is that Islam is not from God. It is either from Satan or from a psychopath.  


C) Conflicts – The “Golden Rule” as defined and elaborated by Mr Sina is not universal as it makes no references as to how it can be used to resolve conflicts of interests e.g. China feels it has the right to occupy Tibet, Russia over Chechnya and Israel over Palestine etc. Lack of answers on such issues is a very serious deficiency in Mr Sina’s “Golden Rule”. Because the “Golden Rule” cannot arbitrate disputes by giving answers which would have been the baseline to judge the actions of the Prophet. Therefore, how did Mr Sina arrive at his allegations against the Prophet’s conduct many of which pertained to resolving conflicts with the pagan Arabs? Undoubtedly, any impartial observer will see that Mr Sina’s charges are based on blind hatred.


Obviously my opponent has no clue about the meaning of Golden Rule. International conflicts are essentially the same as interpersonal conflicts. Would China like to be invaded by a foreign force? Would the Chinese like to lose their freedom and autonomy to an occupying alien power? If not then the Chinese occupation of Tibet is wrong. But knowing what is wrong it does not deter people from doing it. People transgress and break the ethical, moral and legal laws all the time. The Golden Rule is a guideline not a deterrent. We need laws and in this case International laws with teeth to deter aggression. 

Of course each case is different. In the case of Israel, it were not the Israelis who started the war. Arabs initiated it. They lost the war and the only thing they should do to regain their lost territories is to apologize for their stupidity and aggression and promise end of hostility. Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories for the safety of her own people. The wall is to protect the Israeli lives. Israel was always ready to negotiate and return the occupied territories. But they could not because until Arafat was alive, the Palestinians were not ready to give up on violence. Now that he is dead and there is a chance to restore peace, we see Israelis are more than willing to work with the Palestinians and even they released 900 Palestinian terrorists. In my opinion that was a terrible mistake, but it shows to what extent the Israelis are willing to bend backwards to accommodate the Palestinians and end this senseless war that Muslims have been waging on them.  

The Israelis did not break the Golden Rule. The Palestinians where the one who broke it and they lost.  

Now how Muhammad dealt with his problems? He did not apply the Golden Rule. He raided civilian villages with no warning and massacred unarmed people, looted their properties and took as slaves and sex slaves their wives and children. Has Israel done such thing to the Palestinians?  Why it is okay for Muslims to raid and massacre entire populations but it is wrong if others in their own self defense occupy a Muslim land?  

Mr. Zakaria insists that we cannot use the Golden Rule as the parameter to judge the actions of the Prophet. He contends that the Golden Rule is faulty and the actions of the Prophet are superior to that. In that case may we follow the actions of the Prophets vis-à-vis the Muslims and deal with them the way Muhammad dealt with non-believers?

Why should we not cast terror into the hearts of Muslims and strike off their fingertips off them? (8:12)  Why should we not fight against them? (8:65) Why should we not fight them and slay them wherever we find them? (9:5) Why should we not treat the Muslims as najis (unclean) and shun them? (9:28) Why should we not smite at their necks; at length when we meet them? (47:4) If what Muhammad did was better than the Golden rule, why should we not follow his examples and do to Muslims what he did to non-Muslims? 

But the most important question is why Muslims who read these verses are not disgusted of this much evil in Islam? Why they have killed their conscience? What happened to their humanity? Why they have let themselves to be fooled by a psychopath and follow a monster? You have no excuse. If I saw the evil of Islam only by reading the Quran, why can't you? How much you want to fool yourself and act like animals?  I had no help. You have my help and the help of hundreds of others who have made this transition and are extending their hands to help you. 


D) Retribution - How can the “Golden Rule” be used to determine retribution for the countless scenarios? Without this knowledge, the one seeking justice is likely to violate the “Golden Rule” in exceeding the limits of retribution. If the “Golden Rule” was absolute and universal the level of retribution would have been similar at least across nations (democracies) that epitomises it.

However, even within a single democracy there is great variance on the subject of retribution. Even on matters of life and death. For example, capital punishment is applied in some of the US states but not others. Since the rule is incapable of determining the level of retribution then Mr Sina is not in a position to levy charges against the final Prophet (SAW) or any one else engaged in seeking retribution. His yardstick has no measurement!


Mr. Zakaria is confusing the principle of the Golden Rule with retribution. The Golden Rule is a guideline. It teaches us a way to evaluate our actions, do the right thing and avoid the wrong thing. It has nothing to do with penal codes. These are simple concepts. It is unfortunate that we have to explain such simple things to great Muslim scholars. Mr. Zakaria is a known figure in Islamic word. He writes for Al Jazeera and yet he confuses the Golden Rule with the penal code.  Do not steal, is a guideline. How to punish the thief is part of the penal code and it varies from country to country.   


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.