Leaving Islam



 Muslims Pooh Pooh the Golden Rule 

By Ali Sina 


I am a Nigerian. I stumbled on your site when I was doing a Google search on prophet Mohammed two months ago, since then I have become addicted to your site. 

I agree with most of the things you say about the prophet Mohammed and find most of your debates quite exciting. However, I would like to know what happened to the debate between you and Yamin Zakaria. Why I am asking is because, if you do a Google search on him you will find him claiming he won the debate, and that you have failed to reply his last rebuttal.  



Dear Akpan,  

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 Hindustan]

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" UDHR. 

In an article entitled Islam and Human Rights the Internet site ntpi.org writes:

“Whilst many Islamic countries, with the exception of Saudi Arabia singed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948, many of them have since modified their stance. For Abu’l A’la Mawdudi there was a clear conflict between the rights of women as enshrined in the UDHR and the need to protect and preserve the chastity of women. Muhammed Naceri, a member of the Morocco Council of Religious Scholars has said:

“The 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!”







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.


"0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">


Home      Articles        Op-ed        Authors       FAQ      Leaving Islam      Library      Gallery      Comments      Debates      Links       Forum

Disclaimer: FFI promotes diversity of thoughts. We do not necessarily agree with the opinions expressed here.  

  ©  copyright Permission is granted to translate and reproduce the articles in this site. Please provide a link to the original page. 






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.