Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina
Part III Page 12
Back < >
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
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
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.
my opponent has no clue about the meaning of Golden Rule. International conflicts are
essentially the same as interpersonal conflicts. Would
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
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.
has occupied the Palestinian territories for the safety of her own people. The wall
is to protect the Israeli lives.
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.
Israelis did not break the Golden Rule. The Palestinians where the one who
broke it and they lost.
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
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?
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
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.
- 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.
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
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
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 < >
Back to Index