Leaving Islam



Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina 

Part IV Page 20

Back  <    >  Next 


Exposing Ali Sina’s “Golden Rule” Cult – Part

$00,000 Debate - My third Response [1] to Mr. Ali Sina

Mr Sina states that the “Golden Rule” is the “foundation of the justice system” but paradoxically he says it has no relationship with the issue of retribution and he says:

“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.”

So, what is retribution? Retribution (penal codes) is truly a universal concept applied by all societies to establish justice by punishing the criminal; - retribution is an essential component of justice, they are inseparable as darkness is to light. Therefore, if the “Golden Rule” has “nothing to do with” retribution by implication it is also practically divorced from justice. If that is so then how can the “Golden Rule” be the “foundation of the justice system” as Mr Sina boldly stated! It seems Mr Sina’s ‘scholarly’ mind failed to recognise this fundamental contradiction? His says the “Golden Rule” should be used to evaluate actions but not retribution, which is bizarre since retribution is itself an action that needs to be guided. Otherwise one can exceed the limits of retribution thereby violating the “Golden-Rule”! For example[2] the citizens of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Fallujah, Mei Lai, Sabra-Shatila etc. would certainly argue that point where needless disproportionate-inhumane-systematic-indiscriminate mass executions of innocent civilians took place! These examples never seem to register in Mr Sina’s ‘moral’ conscience. If I were to lower myself to using Mr Sina’s language [3] I would have said he is devoid of human feeling like an animal. Divorcing the “Golden Rule” from retribution proves that then rule is inadequate to provide solutions for addressing numerous complex issues in life. More importantly how can Mr Sina continue to be abusive and rant about the Islamic penal codes and by implication Islamic justice and injustice? Therefore, on what grounds will Mr Sina bring his allegations since much of it is based on the Islamic penal codes for which the “Golden Rule” has no answers according to Mr Sina’s words? This also proved my earlier point that when the anti-Islamic-fascists are asked to elaborate on their alternative they either churn out contradictory statements or exhibit ‘silence’ by going into an abusive mode. If I was Mr Sina I would resign at this point and not suffer further embarrassment by attempting to defend such absurd and contradictory ideas while waving the flag of “logical gun”, “freethinker”, “commonsense”! Moreover, if the diatribe pertaining to the Islamic penal code remains on Mr Sina’s website, he must be either a hypocrite or intellectually inept unable to understand the implications of his own statements! While on the subject of retribution we see the shameless hypocrisy from these anti-Islamic-fascists moaning about retaliation whilst remaining mute on the initial aggression. For example, a quick beheading by a knife is evil but not indiscriminate use of napalm causing severe pain as the victims are roasted to death. Similarly being subjected to slow torture (“softening up”) or sodomised to death in Abu-Ghraib is euphemistically termed ‘abuse’ but any retaliation is ‘terrorism’. Then Mr Sina has the audacity to lecture others about ethics and also you can see why Mr Sina is not interested in the subject of retribution? The Nazis used to hide their natural human emotions and suppress their guilt by releasing the lethal gas from a distance. A behaviour that is being replicated by the likes of Ali Sina as he absorbs uncritically the sanitised version of the war, ignoring the mass beheadings and more, done by the US forces. And if I were to exercise my legitimate right of retaliation [4] I also would have used terms like “animals” and “sub-humans” to describe Mr Sina. But I prefer to remain civil and focused on the actual arguments instead of constantly ranting, abusing and producing lengthy discussion on speculative theories regarding pre-historic apes, all of which has no relevance to the debate. Just to remind everyone my very first response made reference to the issue of keeping decorum but as usual Mr Sina bragged about it then true to his hypocritical nature violated it subsequently.

Mr. Zakaria,  

The Golden Rule and retribution are two different concepts. The Golden rule tells you treat others with fairness. But what if you don’t? What if you abuse their rights and act unjustly? Then a just society that is bound by the Golden Rule must bring you to justice.  

For example stealing is wrong and it is against the Golden Rule. But thieves exist everywhere. Not everyone can live by the high standards set by the Golden Rule. Your own prophet is a good example. He broke all the rules. A just society must bring to justice law breakers like him. 

The purported raison d'être of religions is to guide people to do the right thing. If everyone was doing the right thing then there would be no need for religions. People break the Golden Rule and wrong others. That is when retribution is needed. How this retribution is applied varies from society to society and it depends on how they interpret the Golden Rule.  

Stealing is wrong in all societies. But the punishment for stealing is different from society to society. For example in Canada if you are caught shoplifting and it is your first time you can get away with some hours of community work. In Islamic countries your hands may be chopped. In Western countries pedophilia is an unforgivable crime. You can’t get away with it if you are convicted even decades after committing the crime. In Islamic countries you may not be even charged.  

The person who commits a crime is breaking the Golden Rule. Unfortunately law breakers exist in all the societies. How to make people law abiding, is a painstaking process and it must start by educating families, eliminating poverty, providing opportunities and hopes for the youth, etc. How a society applies retribution after the law is breached also depends on how it interprets the Golden Rule. 

The Golden Rule dictates that the punishment must not exceed the crime. Since Islamic societies are not bound by the Golden Rule but by what Muhammad said, their laws of retribution are often unjust. Stoning the adulterers, killing the apostates chopping the hands of thieves or gauging his eyes are contrary to the Golden Rule. You wrote:    

"Therefore, if the “Golden Rule” has “nothing to do with” retribution by implication it is also practically divorced from justice.  

I could not have said it better. By your own admission, Islam has nothing to do with the Golden Rule and the universally accepted norms of fairness. Therefore it is divorced form justice.  

Again you could not resist the temptation of talking about Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Fallujah, Mei Lai, Sabra-Shatila etc.  

Again I have to remind you that you are engaging in tu quoque fallacy. This debate is not about America. You are here to prove Islam is a religion sent by God. America is just a country and Americans are fallible. How in your mind the sins of Americans justify the sins of Muhammad is beyond me. Are you capable of defending Islam or all you can do is engage in “you too” fallacy?

You ask “on what grounds will Mr Sina bring his allegations since much of it is based on the Islamic penal codes for which the “Golden Rule” has no answers according to Mr Sina’s words?  

Of course the Golden Rule has answers. But the penal code and the Golden Rule are two different things. The penal code must be fair and just and hence in harmony with the Golden Rule. In Islam neither the guidelines given to the individual nor the laws are in conformity with the Golden Rule. The guidance given to the Muslims is unfair and so the laws. In Islam women are not treated equally, the minorities are second class citizens, the apostates must be put to death. These teachings are unfair. Also the laws of Sharia are unjust.    


The more Mr Sina is unmasked the more difficulty he is facing. The above mentioned points proved that he cannot even present a coherent set of thoughts, let alone a comprehensive alternative to Islam. Like I said earlier, anyone can call others ugly behind a mask but once they have to expose their face it is not so easy. Indeed, Mr Sina is feeling very uncomfortable being unmasked as he is so used to hurling insults and abuse at the Prophet (SAW) and the Muslims behind the mask, expecting the Muslims to simply defend as if they are already guilty by Mr Sina’s allegation; and Mr Sina by de facto would be judge, jury and executioner. 

Mr. Zakaria. You keep dodging the main subject. You already talked about my “mask” and me being judge, jury and executioner. Our readers got your point. Leave it to them to be the judge now. Please talk about Islam. You are not here to talk about my mask or me; you are here to disprove my charges against Muhammad. Do you think you are up to it? Or all you can do is talk about my "mask", Hiroshima and Abu Ghraib, filibuster and dodge the main issue which is Islam?  

Thus, Mr Sina makes another desperate attempt to alter the framework of the debate so that he can assume the position of judge, jury and executioner and accordingly he presented his argument and he says:

“The charges are that he was not a Prophet of God but a cult leader and an impostor. The challenge is to prove me wrong. You accepted this challenge. Now you have to prove me wrong or accept defeat and withdraw.”

The challenge was initiated by Mr Sina; rational necessity dictates that the onus is on him to substantiate the charges FIRST and its basis since we are not in a court of law where the legal framework is already in existence and enforced upon the two sides. Furthermore, the statement “Challenge is to prove me wrong” shows his arrogance and devious nature. If we took on the challenge at face value it would mean accepting that Mr Sina is right unless we can prove him wrong, thus giving credence to the allegations. On the other hand we would be presumed to be guilty unless we can prove our innocence to Ali Sina the ‘Prophet’ of the “Golden-Rule” cult! Mr Sina is desperate for that position of being a judge, jury and executioner where the burden of proof is shifted entirely only on our neck! 


Several times I asked you let me present the charges one by one and back them with my proof. Each time you insisted that you want to respond to what I have written already first. I think we are going in circles and you are not adding anything new to the discussion. Therefore I am going to present my first charge whether you are ready for it or not right after this response. We must not keep you waiting any longer.


Mr Sina must learn the Golden Rule of a debate; - which is a two-way contest, where he must prove his allegations as much I have to prove them to be false. I hope Mr Sina’s supporters will make him understand this elementary point and anyone with an atom of sincerity would see what I am stating is fair.

It seems that you know the meaning of the Golden Rule after all. If you are asking me to abide by it lest your rights are violated, why you think you are above it when it comes to the rights of other people?

Yes Mr. Zakaria, I understand this elementary point. It is you who call it "a cult" created by me.  


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.