Home

 Articles

 Op-ed

 Authors

 FAQ

 Leaving Islam
 Library
 Gallery
 Comments
 Debates
  Links
 Forum

 

 

Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina 

Part IV Page 26

Back  <   >  Next

 

Morality and Ethics

In a desperate bid to cover his embarrassment Sina attempts to redefine morality and introduces the word “ethics” to rescue his earlier blunder when he categorically stated that morality was absolute as it was derived from the “Golden Rule”! This is based on the ludicrous assumption that everyone is using the rule as a basis and will interpret the rule in the exact same manner and thus derive the same moral values. Even someone with the brain of a “SUBHUMAN” could not have made such a stupid and naive assumption! And who ensures that the morality deduced from his rule is not faulty? So, Sina now says that morality is not absolute but ethics is and he states:

“Slavery has been always wrong. Murder, rape, looting and lying have never been right and will never be right. Morality is the interpretation of the Ethics”

If ethics says murder is wrong but what is murder? As usual Sina waves these terminologies without defining them. According to his ‘logic’ murder is defined and interpreted by morality in real life scenario, thus giving ethics its real meaning, so morality is what defines and elaborates ethics! Since morality is subjective according to Sina thus ethics must also be subjective. Ethics may only be absolute if the word is locked up in a vacuum without definition and elaboration but that has no relevance to the real life. In that case nobody will disagree murder is wrong.

The distinction between morality and ethics are made by some scholars but that is rather academic the rest agree that they are synonymous. The former states that morality is what you ought to do and ethics is the study of that. Linguistically, ethics and morality are synonymous terms, both meaning customs in their original languages, Greek and Latin respectively. So Sina’s attempt to juggle with words to hide his earlier embarrassment shows he has no bullets in his ‘logical’ gun and presenting such arguments he reminds me of a dog that is chasing its tail!

If there was human consensus on morality we would have probably had far fewer conflicts in human history. In reality, differences on morality or ethics are vast, for example in Europe views capital punishment as murder but many states in the US this is just retribution. Abortion is classified as murder by some whilst others view it differently. Ali Sina says murder is wrong but he has no problem in the US military murdering the Iraqis 5000 miles away from the US when they have done no harm to the US. Likewise the genocides that have been committed from the Spanish-American war that continues till today, none of which were defensive but unprovoked American aggression, for Sina, like a good migrant-Coolie he says it is not murder.

It is up to Ali Sina to clarify his own confusion and contradictory ideas and juggling with words will not help him. He is certainly no position to bring any charges against anyone on the basis of morality and ethics when he himself is clearly muddled on the issue.

More examples of the Mr Sina’s ‘Logic’

 

Morality and Ethics.  

Despite the fact that I exhaustively explained this point, Mr. Zakaria is still unable to grasp its basics. We have a morality that derives from the Golden Rule and is absolute. For example the Golden Rule prohibits lying and stealing. According to the Golden Rule lying and stealing are immoral. But each religion or ethos interprets morality in its own way. In Islam lying and stealing are not necessarily bad if the victims are the non-believers and Islam benefits from those actions. Muhammad said “war is a game of deception”. He encouraged his followers to lie and deceive their victims so they [their victims] lower their guards and then stab them from the back. He also raided and looted caravans and villages. In fact Muhammad's immense wealth was entirely accumulated by raiding unarmed civilians and plundering them. The morality of Muhammad justified lying and stealing and he set the examples for others to follow. But this Islamic morality is distinct from, say the Christian morality, the Hindu or the Buddhist morality. Each culture and each religion has its own morality. Polygamy is immoral according to secular ethos and the Golden Rule, but it is not so according to Islamic morality. Animal sacrifice is immoral according to Buddhist ethos, but it is not so according to Islamic morality. So we have an absolute morality that derives from the Golden Rule that we call ethics and we have many relative moralities that derive from religious teachings and personal values.

This is a very simple and a straightforward concept. Why Mr. Zakaria is unable to understand it? Maybe it is because he is a Muslim and as such he is unable to grasp concepts that for others are commonsense.  

 

If there was human consensus on morality we would have probably had far fewer conflicts in human history. In reality, differences on morality or ethics are vast, for example in Europe views capital punishment as murder but many states in the US this is just retribution. Abortion is classified as murder by some whilst others view it differently. Ali Sina says murder is wrong but he has no problem in the US military murdering the Iraqis 5000 miles away from the US when they have done no harm to the US. Likewise the genocides that have been committed from the Spanish-American war that continues till today, none of which were defensive but unprovoked American aggression, for Sina, like a good migrant-Coolie he says it is not murder.

Mr. Zakaria says “If there was human consensus on morality we would have probably had far fewer conflicts in human history.”  

But there is a human consensus on morality. All humans agree that the Golden Rule is the ultimate standard of right and wrong. In page 8 of this debate I quoted several statements from various religions and schools of thoughts that each expressed the importance of the Golden Rule. And yes the level of abuse in non-Muslim countries is much lower than in Islamic countries. Honor killing, discrimination, misogyny, human right violations of religious minorities and homosexuals, female genocide mutilation, wife beating, flogging, stoning, mutilation as punishment and many other crimes against humanity are strictly Islamic. Also most of the conflicts both of past and present are/were caused by Islam. Even the crusades were a backlash to Islamic aggression. Even the inquisition was a reaction to Islamic expansionism. But today over 90% of world conflicts are Islam related. The observance of the Golden Rule indeed curbs human conflicts. 

 In fact there is a parody of the Golden Rule even in Islam.  In a hadith we read:

"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths."  

This brotherhood however does not extend to everyone. Muslims are only brothers to themselves and are to be inimical towards the non-believers. Quran (9:23) says that the believers should not take for friends and protectors (awlia) their fathers and brothers if they love Infidelity above Islam. Verse (48:29) makes clear that Islam is a fascistic philosophy and is divorced from the Golden Rules: "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.”  

As the above hadith demonstrates, Muhammad was not entirely unaware of the value of the Golden Rule. Nonetheless, being a moral relativist and a narcissist, he did not include everyone in that brotherhood and did not think the non-believers deserve to be treated with fairness. Hence he limited his “golden rule” to his own followers only. There is no value in a limited golden rule. Even hyenas are nice to the members of their own pack but strong against the outsiders. Muhammad’s washy version of the golden belongs to the animal kingdom and not to human realm.     

One example of Islamic moral relativism is expressed eloquently by Mr. Zakaria. In virtually all his “rebuttals” whenever he fails to defend the crimes of Muhammad, he starts attacking the Americans, the Spanish and others for the crimes that their ancestors committed in yester decades and centuries.  How this tu quoque of non-Muslim nations can justify the crimes perpetrated by Muhammad, a man who claimed to be the prophet of God and the best of the creation, is something he should answer. He is comparing the actions of common people to the actions of his prophet. He also talks about the criminals and the psychopaths of the West to justify the crimes of his prophet. The brain of this Muslim is incapable to understand that comparing the criminals of one group to the saints and prophets of other group is also a logical fallacy. No one in the West worships the pedophiles, the rapists or the sadists among them. The fact that these disturbed individuals exist in western societies does in no way justify the crimes perpetrated by Muhammad. 

Apart from the fact that his America reviling is calumnious and Americans are not in Iraq to loot or " to kill innocent people" as he put it, comparing a country to a religion is a logical absurdity that only Muslims are capable of committing.  

Mr. Zakaria is not the only Muslim to commit this fallacy. All the Muslims immediately enumerate the vices of the West to justify the crimes of their prophet. When you say Muhammad was a pedophile, they argue that there are lots of pedophiles in the West too. When you say Muhammad committed genocide, they soon remind us of Hitler who killed more people. If you say Muhammad was a lecher, they will give you the URL of hundreds of porn sites in the West. Somehow Muslims deduce that since there are sinners in none Muslim countries, Muhammad must have been a prophet.      

It is up to Ali Sina to clarify his own confusion and contradictory ideas and juggling with words will not help him. He is certainly in no position to bring any charges against anyone on the basis of morality and ethics when he himself is clearly muddled on the issue.

More examples of the Mr Sina’s ‘Logic’

What is truly  surprising is that instead of defending Muhammad against the charges brought against him, Mr. Zakaria is attacking the very notion of right and wrong. He is not saying Muhammad was not a rapist, a pedophile, an assassin, a mass murderer or a thief. He knows that all those charges are true. So instead of acquitting his defendant from these charges, he has embarked on a very audacious defense strategy and is putting on trial the very concept of right and wrong. He says:  

“Ali Sina …is certainly in no position to bring any charges against anyone on the basis of morality and ethics when he himself is clearly muddled on the issue.”  

Morality is not muddled. The Golden Rule is an unerring compass of right and wrong. The farther you get away from this rule, the more immoral and unethical you become. Islamic morality is the antipode of the Golden Rule and therefore it is utterly immoral.  Unlike most apologists, Mr. Zakaria does not try to rationalize and explain away the crimes perpetrated by Muhammad. He is rather attacking the Golden Rule and is questioning the very notion of fairness and morality. His approach is so unorthodox that I have been taken aback and still wonder whether he is pulling my leg. He has basically handed me the victory just like that. He is not disputing my charges against Muhammad. He is not saying Muhammad was not a rapist, a pedophile, an assassin, a thief, a mass murderer or a liar. He is saying: " prove rape, pedophilia, assassination, theft, genocide and lying are wrong". This Muslim is questioning the very notion of right and wrong. He questions the legitimacy of the Golden Rule and then says since the Golden Rule cannot be taken as the standard, you cannot condemn Muhammad for breaking that rule. He is not defending his client, but rather putting on trial the law itself. It is like a thief, pleading innocence by saying prove to me theft is wrong or a murderer saying, prove that murder is wrong. If Mr. Zakaria was the defendant we could declare him innocent by reason of insanity. However, he is not the defendant. The defendant is Muhammad and no matter how insane Mr. Zakaria maybe, his client is guilty of all the charges.

Mr Sina previously he made a bold claim that he does not believe in anything and he is “not here to tell people what path they should choose” and he goes on to say: “I leave that to them to decide”. But now we know he wants to dictate to the world his so-called “Golden Rule” cult and he would not be perturbed if that meant genocide as he is supportive of US foreign policy! Also, he is also dictating to the Muslims that they should abandon Islam and he demands that anyone according to his interpretation has a Nazi like views should also be prevented from functioning in society.  

 

My opponent’s low wit is clear from his own statement. He calls the Golden Rule my “cult” that furtively I try to introduce though my writings. This is indeed the most bizarre discussion I have ever had with a Muslim. After debating with thousands of Muslims, I thought I had seen it all. But Mr. Zakaria indeed fills me with amazement. Is there a bottom to Islamic stupidity? The Golden Rule is the principle underlying all religions and social doctrines. This concept has been echoed by all the religious and non-religious philosophers. Islam, Nazism and other misanthropic ideologies are the only doctrines that do not apply the Golden Rule and are divorced from the concept of fairness. Fairness is a principle not a cult.  

Mr. Zakaria says: "But now we know he wants to dictate to the world his so-called “Golden Rule” cult and he would not be perturbed if that meant genocide"

Does this Muslim understand the Golden Rule? How can the Golden Rule be applied for genocide? Is this a human reasoning? He then continues with his straw man fallacy of accusing America of genocide and me of supporting that genocide. Both accusations are false. They are sheer lies created by an individual bereft of not only human conscience but also of human reasoning.  

 

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.