Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina
Part IV Page 23
< > Next
Absolute or Subjective – Mr
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
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
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
’s invasion of
is glaringly obvious.
was never historically part of
. 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
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.
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.
, Mr. Zakaria you must update your facts. Here are a few links that give
you the history of
brief history of "
" and sovereignty over it
History in a Nutshell
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 , 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
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.
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.
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
Back to Index