Leaving Islam



 Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina 

Part IV Page 23

Back  <    >  Next  

Absolute or SubjectiveMr Sina still insists that the “Golden Rule” is not subjective but the rule clearly states individuals should decide and behave according to their own evaluation of what is right and wrong! If this is not subjective then someone should explain to Mr Sina what subjective means, these are simple ideas that should be present in a self-proclaimed ‘menacing’ debater and a ‘scholar’! Just to remind the readers he also claimed morality was absolute but now he has done a U-Turn on that issue but his ego has prevented him from admitting the fault and got into further twist (See Part 2). If the “Golden Rule” was not subjective, the implication is everyone naturally concurs on the evaluation of the “Golden Rule” in every specific situation. But that would be going into cloud cuckoo land of Mr Sina. Mr Sina naturally avoided this principle and jumped to argue the example of cheating as being unlawful citing few simple cases as if the law itself is clear covering every scenario. If that was so there would be very few litigations as people would concur in their interpretations of the law. Also, the laws differ on cheating across societies hence so does the notion of cheating, therefore it is subjective. Internally, the laws pertaining to cheating also changes again indicative of its subjective nature. Furthermore, cheating is a moral notion which may or many not be inculcated in legal principles, it encompasses many areas. Some married men think that flirting with a woman is innocent but others would dispute. How does the “Golden Rule” view the issue of abortion, as some people see it as Murder others disagree? And so on. The “Golden Rule” can only be absolute when confined to a jar in a vacuum devoid of all reality, as an abstract notion. Mr Sina’s elaboration with a few simple examples to demonstrate concurrence but that is far from the complete picture. But someone surely needs to explain to MR Sina what is meant by subjectivity otherwise he is still under the absurd assumption.

Morality derived from the Golden Rule is universal. But people adopt their own morality based on their values. These moralities are relative. For example Christian morality is based on Christian values and Islamic morality is based on Islamic values. So morality can be relative but moral relativism is wrong. Only the morality that derives from the Golden Rule is independent of people’s twisted values and is right.  

Values vary from culture to culture, religion to religion and even person to person. But the Golden Rule is a torch of guidance that sheds its light to all the people equally irrespective of their beliefs. The more our values coincide with the Golden Rule the more ethical and righteous we become. The more a culture or religion is divorced from the Golden Rule the more evil it becomes. Nazis had their own values but their values were wrong. They were wrong because they were divorced from the Golden Rule. Islam is completely against the Golden Rule. It is completely evil.  

Light reflects on various objects with different intensities. Objects that are exposed to direct sunshine reflect the light most faithfully. Objects that are hidden from direct sunshine also reflect the light but with less intensity. Objects that are completely away from the light do not reflect any light. So the light of the sun is absolute but each object reflects a different shade of that light and hence light emitted by these objects is relative. Likewise the morality derived from the Golden Rule is absolute. But since people’s interpretations vary their morality is relative to the extent that they interpret the Golden Rule. The closer you follow the Golden Rule the more moral you become. Islam is defiant of the Golden Rule. This makes Islam absolute evil. All other religions are a mix bag of good and bad. Islam is the only doctrine that is bereft of any good.  

The Golden Rule is unerring and necessary inner compass of guidance but this does not mean it is panacea. As the controversy over abortion demonstrates, there are gray areas for which the Golden Rule has no answers. In cases like that the society must strike a balance between protecting the right of the unborn and the health of the mother. There are many other gray areas for which the answer may not come so easily. But who has the answer?  

Mr. Zakaria who is rejecting the Golden Rule claims the guidance is given to us through revelation. But can he prove that this revelation he is talking about actually did take place and was not a hallucination of a mentally deranged man? This is the question I have been asking Mr. Zakaria and he has been avoiding it.  

What if Muhammad lied? What if he was a psychopath? Mr. Zakaria is willing to sacrifice everything, break the Golden Rule and do evil, based on a totally unsubstantiated and unproven claim of a man. Is this logical? Nay; it is the apex of stupidity.  Muslims are killing innocent people everyday. They killed millions since they followed the instructions of Muhammad. More people were killed in the name of Islam than during the world wars. Only in India alone over 80 million people were massacred by Muslims. Then there is infighting among the Muslims who call each others heretics and slay one another. In fact it is very likely that more people were killed in the name of Islam than all other wars and strives in this planet. The slaughter continues. Isn’t it time to question whether Muhammad was telling the truth or he was lying?


Conflicts – The “Golden Rule” has no way to determine and practically invoke a solution to conflicts. Nations do not act on the rule but on their self-interests, especially Capitalist states like the US. I am again perplexed why Mr Sina thinks the US is compliant with the “Golden Rule” especially in the realm of its foreign policy. I gave my example of China in Tibet and Israel in Palestine earlier. Mr Sina forged ahead siding with Tibet against China (Most probably as the US sees China as a potential enemy) but that is simply the interpretation of Mr Sina he as he makes no references to the Chinese side of the argument. What is even more Mr Sina then invokes the right of the US to invade Iraq, kill so many people in the name of liberation? This is after Mr Sina’s constant bragging about murder being evil. Never mind the “Golden Rule” of the Iraqis or who authorised the US. So why the US was right to invade a land that is definitely not within its vicinity but China is wrong to take Tibet which was part of its territory historically. Mr Sina simply made his own interpretation of the facts proving again that the “Golden Rule” is subjective and it is unable to resolve such conflicts taking both sides of the arguments, when both sides equally argue their “Golden-Rule” is violated by the other? Even if we take Mr Sina’s verdict who will enforce it, otherwise the rule is irrelevant can be ignored and will be ignored which is the reality across the world. 

The difference between Chinese occupation of Tibet and America ’s invasion of Iraq is glaringly obvious. Tibet was never historically part of China . You need to check your facts. Chinese have taken away the rights of the Tibetans and have reduced a sovereign country into a colony. The Tibetans are not allowed to vote and elect their own representatives. Democracy, i.e. the rule of people, is stifled and the voices of dissent are gagged. The situation in Iraq is the reverse. Americans are not there to steal anything but to set that country free. They have allowed the Iraqis to elect their own government. America has helped Iraq fanatically and is rebuilding it.  

Only an intellectual midget is unable to see the difference between the illegal occupation of Tibet by the Chinese who are there for no other reason than to conquest and steal and the American invasion of Iraq who are there to free the Iraqis and the world from one of the most brutal regimes of our time.  

Making such comparison is like equating thieves and cops because both carry guns and shoot to kill. Only a person blinded by hate and bereft of discernment is capable of making such comparison.  


Similarly no surprise Mr Sina sided with the Israelis over Palestine (I am sure he does not want his funding to be affected) by referring to post 1948 as if Israel has always existed there. Its existence is a crime as it was the Jews who have come over from Europe to occupy Palestine and with the help of colonial states it was carved out in 1948. Israel is a state for the Jews, the ‘chosen’ people and Mr Sina would be a Gentile whose blood is expendable according to the Talmudic edict. In any case, why is Mr Sina’s interpretation and application of the “Golden Rule” is valid but not ours? Whose “Golden Rule” will prevail probably depend on the “might is right” as the Americans and the Israelis are doing today. If the Golden Rule cannot be used as an arbiter in dispute than how can the allegations against the Prophet be brought concerning all the battles He participated in.

The claim that the Golden Rule cannot be used to determine that injustice and aggressions are wrong is preposterous. Mr. Zakaria makes a fallacious premise and based on that he comes up with an equally false conclusion. He tries to discredit the Golden Rule as measure of right and wrong to establish the legitimacy of Muhammad and justify his crimes. Mr. Zakaria is not trying to defend Muhammad but rather he is putting on trial the law itself and the very concept of fairness. I have to admit that during these years of debate with Muslims, I have seen everything but I never came across a logic as twisted and as bizarre as the one presented by Mr. Zakaria. What he is trying to establish is that the concept of fairness is evil and hence Muhammad should not be condemned for being unfair. It is like a thief arguing that the law of not stealing is an evil concept and he should not be tried for it or a rapist saying you must first prove that rape is bad before condemning me.  

If I had not read Mr. Zakaria’s other essays I would have thought he is an enemy of Islam playing prank and is trying to make Muslims look stupid. For years I have tried to show Islam is evil in its core. I have been quite successful in my effort. But Mr. Zakaria has topped me in few sessions.  With a few Muslim apologists like him, I can soon retire. They are living testimonies that Islam is evil in its core. 

As for Israel , Mr. Zakaria you must update your facts. Here are a few links that give you the history of Israel in nutshell.  

For a brief history of " Palestine " and sovereignty over it


History in a Nutshell

Nutshell Too


Israel on Trial


Hague Professor of international law: This Is No "Occupation"
Arutz Sheva - Israel National News http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=44235


Reversing the Golden Rule – I gave some earlier examples of Rape, cannibalism and Paedophilia saying that those who would like to be subjected to these things may well argue using the principle of “golden Rule” that they have right to do this to others. Mr Sina as usual avoided the principle and delved into the examples [2], ranting about how such things exists in the Islamic world. My examples were not criticism nor did I claim that things like Cannibalism were widespread etc. Mr Sina pointed out the issue of consent (regarding rape) which is irrelevant as his “Golden Rule” does not refer to it. One may not consent and a rapist would definitely argue that if he is overpowered and raped that is fair game using the “Golden Rule”. So he goes on raping or he is raped in line with the “Golden Rule”! Hence using Mr Sina’s “Golden Rule” the rapists would have a great day! If someone says yes he does not mind to be eaten so why can’t he use the Golden Rule to eat others? If a man does not mind being sodomised why can’t he sodomise others? It is obscene that Mr Sina is trying to legitimise rape, murder and cannibalism etc through the backdoors then he has the audacity to lecture others about ethics. Furthermore, he paradoxically justifies using the “Golden Rule” the murder of the thousands of innocent Iraqis by the US forces which is the aggressor by any standards! Rather the “Golden Rule” is a license for Mr Sina to justify his anti-Islamic-fascist and murderous nature who will be happy to take on the role of migrant-coolie serving at the gates of the new gas chambers!


When I was in third grade elementary, our textbook had a story about a fox inviting a stork for dinner. At the table he served his guest the food on a plate. Of course the stork with his long bill did not get much food and left hungry. The next day it was the turn of the stork to entertain the fox. The stork decided to teach the fox a lesson. At the table he served the food in a narrow necked jar. The fox could not eat anything while the stork, dipped his long straight bill in the jar and had all the food to himself. The morale of the story was that if you want to do a favor to someone, do it on his term not on yours.  

Looks like Mr. Zakaria has not been taught the basics of the Golden Rule and his excuses are of kindergarten grade. The Golden Rule does not allow one who likes to be sodomized to rape and sodomize others. It is not a license for a masochist who likes to be abused to abuse others. Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you, means treat people with the same respect and fairness that you wish to be treated. It does not mean since I like steak, I can feed steak to a new born baby or to my Hindu neighbor. It does not mean because I like to watch basketball I should take my wife to a basketball game for our anniversary when she likes concerts. The Golden Rule is for people with commonsense. It is definitely for those who are mature enough to find the right path on their own. People who lack commonsense or are deficient in intelligence, not only have difficulty interpreting the Golden Rule they can’t apply any rule at all. Despite the fact that laws are spelled out clearly, in all the countries we find people who break them. This shows that the application of the law requires maturity. If you are selfish and immature it makes no difference whether you follow the Golden Rule or the regurgitated religious laws. If you do not have commonsense, are selfish and inclined to do evil, neither the knowledge of the Golden Rule nor the strict religious laws make any difference.  You break them anyway and that is why penal codes and judiciary systems are needed to deal with law breakers. 

The Golden Rule is not a substitute to the penal code and judiciary system. Because some people have no understanding of the Golden Rule and could interpret them the way you do, the laws must be defined clearly so as to leave no ambiguity. If we did not have such laws someone could rape a little child and use the silly logic you used in your previous “rebuttal” saying what difference one day can make? Then say what difference two days can make? So on so forth until he comes to the age of 6 or 4 and justify the rape of the children. If the law says thou shall not have sex with a girl less than 18 you must follow this law. In another country the age of consent may be 17 or 19. You must obey the law of the country. The Golden Rule can give you a general idea of what is wrong or right but for details you must consult the laws of the land. So the Golden Rule is an inner compass but it is not a substitute to laws.  The problem with Islam is that its laws are contrary to the Golden Rule.  

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.