The fact that Muslims claim victory after they lose is
standard. To see who won the debate all one has to do is to read
it. In fact I have made reading that debate a prerequisite for all those who
aspire to debate with me. Mr. Zakaria, in that debate engaged in most of the
fallacies that Muslims engage in and he was answered. To avoid repetition, I ask
all those who want to debate with me to read that debate first. See my challenge.
Mr. Zakaria did not deny my charges against Muhammad. I have accused Muhammad of being a pedophile, an assassin, a rapist, a mass murderer, a highway robber, a plunderer, a deceitful liar, among other crimes. Instead of talking about these charges Mr. Zakaria questioned the validity of the Golden Rule "Mr Sina has to prove the legitimacy of the 'Golden Rule' otherwise it is a mere assumption", he wrote. He even called the Golden Rule a "conspiracy" and concluded that Muhammad should not be judged in accordance to the Golden Rule. In his own words: "The 'Golden Rule' is not universal, not self-evident, subjective, inadequate and not absolute...it is flawed as a fundamental principle. At best it is just a moral advice to individuals to exercise self-restraint. Therefore, the allegations against the final Prophet (SAW) cannot be levied."
The Golden Rule says: “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you”.
I would rephrase it as: “Treat others with the same respect and consideration
as you would have others treat you.” This
debate was long and all Mr. Zazaria did was to claim Muhammad should not be
judged by the Golden Rule because as a prophet of God, he is the one that sets
the rules and he is not obliged to abide by the rules we humans set for
ourselves. He claimed that whatever Muhammad did, even if they seem wrong to us, he is
unblemished because we are in no position to judge a messenger of God. According
to Mr. Zakaria It was okay for Muhammad to treat others in ways that he did not
like to be treated. Instead of trying to disprove the charges levied against
Muhammad, Mr. Zakaria questioned our very notion of right and wrong. He stated
we can’t say Muhammad was a bad man just because he was a pedophile, an
assassin or a rapist because we can’t say for certainly that these crimes are
bad. Mr. Zakaria did not try to acquit Muhammad of his crimes but rather, he put
on trial the law itself.
With Mr. Zakaria I already achieved what I intended to
achieve. This was a very important debate because despite the fact that Mr.
Zakaria did not even touch the subject that we were supposed to discuss, i.e.
Muhammad’s crimes, he exposed the narcissistic nature of Islam. Narcissists do
not abide by the Golden Rule. They believe that they can treat others in any way
they please but others should not do the same to them. They think that
others must abide by the Golden Rule because they advocate it but they (the
narcissists) are exempt from it because they do not believe in it.
Muslims do not view right and wrong in the same way
others do. While the rest of mankind distinguishes right from wrong using
the Golden Rule as the yardstick, Muslims base this distinction on what is haram
and halal (forbidden and permitted). For example you and I believe that
lying is bad, stealing is bad, and raping is bad because we don’t like to be lied
to, stolen or raped. Muslims, when they put their Islamic hats on, do not think
in quite the same way. Like others, they do not like to be abused
and maltreated. They do not like to be lied to, their property stolen or their
wives raped. However, they see nothing wrong in lying to non-Muslims, pillaging
their wealth, raping their women and even killing them. This is consistent with
Muhammad's own teachings and conduct. He strongly prohibited Muslims stealing
from each other and warned those who stole from the booty that the Islamic army had
plundered from the infidels, of sever divine chastisement. Nonetheless the
booty itself was permissible to them. In the words of Amir Tîműr-i-lang,
(1336-1405) the Muslim conqueror of India, "Plunder in war is as lawful as
their mothers’ milk to Muslims who war for their faith, and the consuming of
that which is lawful is a means of grace.” [Amir Tîműr-i-lang: The History
of My Expedition against
The non-Muslims, in Islamic countries, do not have equal rights because according to Muslims their religion is not accepted by Allah. If they are despised by God, why they should be treated with fairness by Muslims? Muhammad, not only did not prohibit abuse, he actually ordered Muslims to abuse and wage war against the disbelievers, deceive them, plunder them, rape them and force them into submission. He himself set the example. So while narcissists demand that you treat them fairly, and in fact preferentially, they do not think they are bound by the same norms. They expect us to live by the Golden Rule and treat THEM fairly because this is what we believe in, but they themselves do not believe in the Golden Rule and do not feel bound by it.
Muslims have their own code of conduct which is not based
on the Golden Rule but on Islam and haram / halal. Take the example of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. The UDHR is based on the Golden Rule and fairness. Muslims do
not abide by it. They have invented their own "Islamic"
In an article entitledthe Internet site ntpi.org writes:
“Whilst many Islamic countries, with the exception of
Universal Declaration of Human Rights was for complete equality for man and
women. For us, women are equal to men in law, but they are not the same as men,
and they can’t be allowed to wander around freely in the streets like some
kind of animal”.
But men can, presumably. So much for equality!”
"0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">