Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina 

Zakaria's Rebuttal

Part III 

Back  <     >  Next

The “Golden Rule” Cult of Ali Sina

$50,000 Debate - My Second Response [1] to Mr. Ali Sina

I accepted Mr Sina’s offer to debate with him and asked him to clarify the terms of his offer: the practical mechanism in place for determining the winner and verifying the availability of the prize money ($50,000). It is sensible and the norm to clarify the terms of the contract prior to engagement. So, I am perplexed and the readers will surely judge as to why the clarification process can amount to “silly things” or “excuses” or “filibustering”! The only “weasel” like behaviour that I can see is Mr Sina trying to evade this issue!

What was really silly is Mr Sina’s incompetence to recognise that two opponents cannot be expected unilaterally to: declare victory or admit defeat, especially when there is a large some of money is at stake. Commonsense dictates that impartial (not the ‘publics’ visiting Mr Sina’s forum) judicators are required to asses the debate and issue the verdict. Any genuine freethinker even with a miniature “logical gun” would have recognised this simple fact! Time would be far less wasted if Mr Sina admitted that he had lied about the money. We can continue with the debate without arguing about side issues. I have no problem with debating regardless of the money which I would have most probably donated to the various causes.

Before getting to the actual substance of the debate I would like to answer couple of points that Mr Sina cited in his previous response. First of all, had Mr Sina exercised his freethinking ‘capability’ he might have realised that I used the word “disciple” to denote sarcasm, hence it was stated within single quotes. Instead, he should have let his cat answer that point as it might have had a better chance in spotting the sarcasm! Secondly, as followers of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) we use our intelligence correctly to verify His Prophethood and the existence of the creator as opposed to have blind faith in a man who proclaims that he has the truth wrapped up in his so-called “Golden-Rule”! Consequently, we submit to our creator in obedience that is the most intelligent and consistent thing to do. But that is another separate discussion.

Now, lets move on to the real issue of the debate. Mr Sina said that he will be making the allegations against Prophet Muhammad (SAW) on the basis that the Prophet (SAW) has violated the “Golden Rule”. As he says Islam contradicts the “Golden Rule”; the rule is his “criterion” and “yard stick”. Therefore, Mr Sina has to prove the legitimacy of the “Golden Rule” otherwise it is a mere assumption. In the absence of proof, Mr Sina would be violating his first rule which he stated earlier: “he must be able to prove that assumption or withdraw it”!

Allegations are normally brought against someone in a court of law where the criterion of determining the crime is already enforced. But this is not a court of law and Mr Sina should stop assuming in his arrogance that he is in one in the guise of judge, jury and executioner; as he constantly demands that Muslims should come forward to defend the Prophet (SAW) as if the Prophet has already been proven to be guilty by Mr Sina’s constant rants.
We are in fact debating from two different premises with different sets of criteria. Therefore, unless we agree on some common criterion for assessing the allegations of Mr Sina we will only trade accusations and counter accusations as neither of us recognises each others premises, criteria and values.

Mr Sina is the one bringing forward the allegations on the basis of his criterion of the “Golden Rule”. Therefore, the onus is on him to prove that rule as absolute authority by substantiating that it is: comprehensive, self-evident and universal. Once consensus is reached on the “Golden Rule” it will naturally function as a common criterion. Then we can logically proceed to asses the allegations brought forward using the rule as a “Yard Stick”. This is the heart of the debate. Therefore, I have addressed the “Golden Rule” first followed by the other points in the previous response of Mr Sina.

Mr Sina’s “Golden Rule”

First of all, Mr Sina only mentioned the “Golden Rule” abruptly in his first response. Almost halfway into his second response he defined and elaborated it with examples. So, Mr Sina needs to pay attention to what he writes and when he writes and he says:

“The Golden Rule says do to others what you would expect others do to you. This is very simple and easy to understand and apply. I do not like to be cheated, so I must not cheat others. I do not like to be killed, so I must not kill others. I do not want anyone rape my wife, so I must not rape others. This principle works like a Swiss clock. It never fails. You can find all the guidance you need by this compass.”

The points below will rationally and factually prove: the so-called “Golden Rule” is not self-evident, not universal, and inadequate to provide comprehensive guidance; - but also Mr Sina actually contradicts this notion. I hope Mr Sina this time pays attention to the actual principle presented instead of going into a tangent by disputing the examples cited, a classic method of filibustering!

A) Contradictions - Mr Sina also claimed that: “Golden Rule is absolute and so the morality derived from”. Yet, his definition of the “Golden Rule” rule clearly states that it is the prerogative of the individuals to interpret the meaning and the scope of the rule as it says “what you would expect” or what you “do not like”. Taking his example of cheating, a trader may think that it is lawful to inflate the image of his goods but the consumer may feel cheated. Hence, the rule is not only subjective but also inadequate and Mr Sina has contradicted himself clearly on this point! Mr Sina, my foot is not in my mouth but firmly embedded in your one track abusive and arrogant foul mouth!

To claim that democratic societies have fixed morality shows the lack of basic knowledge as democratic societies themselves would dispute that! The process of legislation is there catering for changes in morality. We witness everyday certain morals demolished replaced with new ones, homosexuality was once a sin but today it is fashionable. ‘Living in sin’ was a sin at one time but today it is the norm, and so on. Then Mr Sina has the audacity to state that bestiality and incest are sickness, but why? Is there anything inherent in these acts to classify it as good or bad or right or wrong? Has he asked those people who practice such things? Or has Mr Sina determined that from the “Golden Rule”, if so, how?

B) Self-Evident - If the “Golden Rule” was self-evident then it would be universal but nobody upholds this as a fundamental principle for dealing with all matters in life. Otherwise it would manifest as a fundamental yardstick in legal principles, embedded in the constitution etc. The mere fact that the meaning and scope of the “Golden Rule” is disputed it is evidence, that the rule is not universal and self-evident. Therefore, since the authority of the “Golden Rule” is moot, so are allegations of Mr Sina which is based on the rule.

C) Conflicts – The “Golden Rule” as defined and elaborated by Mr Sina is not universal as it makes no references as to how it can be used to resolve conflicts of interests e.g. China feels it has the right to occupy Tibet, Russia over Chechnya and Israel over Palestine etc. Lack of answers on such issues is a very serious deficiency in Mr Sina’s “Golden Rule”. Because the “Golden Rule” cannot arbitrate disputes by giving answers which would have been the baseline to judge the actions of the Prophet. Therefore, how did Mr Sina arrive at his allegations against the Prophet’s conduct many of which pertained to resolving conflicts with the pagan Arabs? Undoubtedly, any impartial observer will see that Mr Sina’s charges are based on blind hatred.

D) Retribution - How can the “Golden Rule” be used to determine retribution for the countless scenarios? Without this knowledge, the one seeking justice is likely to violate the “Golden Rule” in exceeding the limits of retribution. If the “Golden Rule” was absolute and universal the level of retribution would have been similar at least across nations (democracies) that epitomises it.

However, even within a single democracy there is great variance on the subject of retribution. Even on matters of life and death. For example, capital punishment is applied in some of the US states but not others. Since the rule is incapable of determining the level of retribution then Mr Sina is not in a position to levy charges against the final Prophet (SAW) or any one else engaged in seeking retribution. His yardstick has no measurement!

E) Rape, Paedophilia and Cannibalism – Taking Mr. Sina’s own example of rape there are many who find raping and being raped a turn on. There are couples that are into swapping kids. We all witnessed the two consenting adults in Germany engaged in Cannibalism. These categories of people using the logic of Mr Sina’s “Golden Rule” may well argue that since they have no problem if others do to them all those things (Rape, Paedophilia and Cannibalism); they are entitled to do the same to others. Especially, because as the “Golden Rule” is silent on the matter of consent. Hence, Mr Sina’s “logical gun” is backfiring!

Similarly, Mr Sina talks about murder in absolute terms but what about the animals? Why the animals can be slaughtered en masse for food and used in animal experimentation, violating their “Golden Rule” or is the animal kingdom outside the jurisdiction of Mr Sina’s “golden Rule”. The vegetarian community and the animal rights campaigner might well argue this point.

There are many who subscribe to the Darwin’s principle of: “the survival of the fittest”. If nature is supposed to function in this way, why should this not be extended to human beings? In fact, the free-market model found in most democracies operates on this principle. Accordingly, some would argue as others have practiced in the past, the right of the stronger party to extinguish the weak and the disabled purifying the gene pool. Hence they apply their interpretation of the “Golden Rule” and go on to take out the weaker species or until they themselves get taken out by stronger party.

So, I have made my case based on Mr Sina’s definitions and his principles with clear examples proving that the “Golden Rule” is not universal, not self-evident, inadequate and not absolute. But also Mr Sina himself is muddled on the issue! 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 as MR. Sina himself does not know the meaning of his own rule, its scope and therefore it is from being in a position authority to judge others.

In the absence of proof it also implies Mr Sina like other anti-Islamic zealots has blind faith in the “Golden Rule”, “based on shaky grounds”. Yes, for once I do agree with Mr Sina let us call a spade a spade. Mr Sina is the muddled ‘Prophet’ of the so-called “Golden Rule” who cannot even articulate the basic idea of his rule and later examples will provide corroborative evidence of his muddled mindset.

Mr. Sina will probably feel very uncomfortable if he has managed to follow up to this point with sincerity. Hence, let him now prove his so-called “Golden Rule” by addressing the above points. Otherwise he is also hypocritically breaking his own rule when he said earlier that: “he must be able to prove that assumption or withdraw it”.

Mr Sina’s Logical Gun

Mr Sina casually used terms like “rape”, “paedophilia”, “murder”, “Hate” and other similar ideas in an abusive manner against the Prophet in his two previous responses and in his website. Yet, he is the one that cited his first rule demanding that none of us should make any assumptions without proof. So he has violated his own principle by using such terms without defining and proving it in the first place. The points below will show that he not argue consistently despite bragging about his “logical gun”. Also, he proclaimed himself as a “menacing” debater by email, I am sure our readers have already seen his level of ‘modesty’!

Mr Sina’s references to the actions of individuals do not help to support his case because individuals can act in line or against, divine principles. However, we judge democracies by their actions because there is no holy book of democracy or the “Golden Rule” book that elaborates on right and wrong. If Muslims were to engage in “rape”, “incest” etc as defined by Islam then that is precisely due to the non-adherence to Islam! We have to resort to the Islamic definitions as Mr Sina has not defined his terms and we have not agreed to accept his definitions as correct.

So let us take some of Mr Sina’s examples. Paedophilia is considered to be sexual acts with a child but how is the line drawn between a child and an adult. He considers a nine year girl who has acquired mental capacity and puberty to be a child. But Mr Sina has no problem in accepting that a twelve year old girl in New Hampshire on the eve of her birthday is a child and next day magically transforms into an adult. This is clearly arbitrary. If Mr Sina is really opposed by pre-pubescent sex which was not the case with the Prophet’s marriage then why does he remain silent like a mule on the Rabbinic laws that do permit non-Penetrative sex with pre-pubescent children. Mr Sina is simply selective as he is a hypocrite.

Despite the disparity in age (which is a matter of taste) between two individuals engaged in a normal heterosexual relationship is some how abhorrent but Mr Sina has no problems with homosexual relationships and other forms of deviancies in this age of sexual liberalism where all taboos are broken! It can be further argued heterosexual relationship at least conforms to nature as one procreates. So how did Mr Sina employ his “logical gun” to come to such conclusions? If Mr. Sina investigates further, even a cursory Google Search he will find vast majority of the paedophilia websites, the people running it and the clients and they are NOT from the Islamic world. Does he not see those same types of people raiding the beaches in Thailand and South East Asia for kids that trying to survive in poverty? What about within the US, the various organisations like NAMBLA trying to legitimise Paedophilia?

Mr Sina also claims Islam exhibits hate. But instead of just elaborating his claims and providing his definitions of hate, it is he that displays the hatred towards Islam and Muslims violating his “Golden Rule”. From the tone, content and deliberate uses of certain pejorative terms he incites hatred. Mr Sina’s website confirms that as it only contains anti-Islamic diatribe but nothing on his so-called “Golden Rule”. Why not? Because he wears a mask and calls others ugly and he is afraid to show his face as it can be also put on the dock. Here it is pertinent for me to quote an Old Persian says “If you don’t like what you see in the mirror break your face not the mirror”. Mr Sina must feeling the cracks in his face now and in his words “lost”, “completely disarmed” and “the circuits in his brain are short-circuited”. This only proves that “freethinkers” are unable to pose intellectual argument and provide an alternative that is as comprehensive as Islam, hence all they do behind their masks is it try and provoke a fight ‘below the belt’ by constantly emitting profanity and obscenity like hoodlums!

Another example of the muddled mindset of Mr Sina is that he cannot distinguish between the status of War, declared between nations and actual military operation. He cites one of the raids of Prophet Muhammad as wanton aggression but the war was declared prior to that. Just like the US declared the war on Iraq but it did not give the Iraqis the battle plan telling them when and how they will conduct the raids.

I have decided to provide some entertainment by giving further examples illustrating that he is false and muddled Prophet of the cult of “Golden Rule”. You will have some light entertainment, so please continue. I know it has been long.

On Islam and Religion – Here are a couple of quotes from Mr Sina:

a) “So far Islam has advanced by camouflaging itself as a religion.”

b) “The reason I am against Islam is not because it is a religion but because it is a political movement of imperialism and domination in the guise of religion.”

He says Islam is not a religion in the first quote then he says it is in the second quote, and again in the latter part of the second sentence he says Islam is not a religion. Exactly what Mr Sina is trying to tell us I will let the audiences judge that and he doe not posses a “logical gun” but an “illogical and irrational gun”!

On Nazism and Fascism - Mr Sina says: “Do the Nazis have the right to have their party and promote their cause? I don’t know of any democratic country that allows such thing. Most democratic systems ban racist and fascist movements.”

Well, almost all leading democracies, including US and Europe permits Nazi parties and the likes to operate e.g. the “US Nazi Party” started by Lincoln Rockwell, the “British National Party” of Nick Griffin, and Vlaamsblok in Belgium etc. This is common knowledge. As for Nazis who will decide who is a Nazi or not. It is Mr Sina who is trying to HYPOCRITICALLY dictate to those whom he considers to be Nazis and Fascists like a Nazi. Nazism and Fascism were born amongst democracies not ISLAM. Its birth place and practice was in Europe. Both pertain to the exaltation of their races as their central theme which is diametrically opposed to ISLAM! Why Mr Sina uses such words to charge other when he does not even have the basic rudimentary knowledge on the subject!

On Democracy and Dictatorship - Mr Sina says: “Democracy does not mean dictatorship of the majority. It does not mean letting fascism come to power democratically to behead that democracy. Hitler and Khomeini came to power through popular vote. But they did not bring democracy. They strangulated it.”

So if democracy is not the dictatorship of majority then is it dictatorship of minority? Since he is implying that democracy is the rule of the people for the people by the people but not if it violates Ali Sina’s golden rule”! Who ever decides arbitrarily a party or idea is or is not in compliance to democracy is in fact by definition a dictator. After all the acrobatics of what democracy is not Mr Sina could not say what democracy is. The more he elaborates the more he exposes his weaknesses, contradictions and intellectual bankruptcy.

Then Mr. Sina claims “democracy protects minority”, well not really! In fact minorities are at the mercy of majority rule of democracy or the Capitalist elites. Those ‘rights’ of minorities can be changed overnight as we all saw the so-called human rights abolished overnight in Camp-X-ray, Bagram, Belmarsh, Abu-Ghraib etc. Minorities are no more or no less safe than the Jews as minorities were safe living in democratic Germany in the 1930s or the Japanese living within the US just after Perl Harbour! Only recently democratic societies have learnt to display a semblance of tolerate after two world wars and centuries of intolerance and genocide!

On Freedom of Belief - Mr Sina says: “Banning Islam is not in contradiction with democracy and freedom of thought.” Freedom means unrestrained, opposite of banning or censoring. You cannot logically have both operating at the same time and then call it freedom! Once you put any constraint on freedom by definition it ceases to be free, however for political propaganda people wave the word ‘freedom’ even when they not only impose restrictions but use their military powers to kill, rape and loot in its name!

He said earlier that anyone can believe in any fairy tale as long as it does not say “they should kill others”. Is that not Mr Sina dictating to others now? His attitude towards Muslim, or banning of the Quran and Islam, is a carbon copy of what was preached by Nazi intellectuals, like Streicher. So, by default, Sina behaves like a Fascist, Nazi himself. Then Mr Sina makes his fantastic claim that is illogical, laughable and pretty stupid. He says “I believe in nothing”, and he also stated “I have no religion. I do not believe in anything. I am a freethinker.”

I did not mention religion but merely asked for his alternative to Islam. In any case, religion essentially is a viewpoint towards life and its purpose. Any alternative you give on that position regardless of what you call it you have a position, i.e. a religion. Hence everyone has a religion but it might not be a main stream one that is established and tested for centuries with billions of followers! So the statement of not believing is meaningless because that in itself constitutes a belief, a viewpoint. It is the same as saying that there should be no laws in society which by default itself becomes a law, enforced and dictated. Or as illogical as saying that we are free but except don’t cross the line (“Golden Rule”) drawn by Mr Sina!

Who is bungled up on the issue of Abu-Ghraib?

Mr Sina is the one bungled up exposing his gross ignorance by regurgitated the cheap propaganda of the rightwing establishment like the so many migrant coolies! Abu-Ghraib was ‘abuse’, “letting of steam”, and “cheer leader exercise” to the US establishment but to the Iraqis it was “murder”, “torture”, “kidnappings” and “humiliation” by the American gangsters. A lot more happened in Abu-Ghraib, Umm Qasr and other US-run prisons then Mr Sina suggests. Seymour Hirsh saw the video clips of young teen and pre-teen boys screeching whilst being sodomised by US soldiers. Yes, the real Paedophiles not the imaginary ones claimed by Mr Sina. The US senator said after seeing the pictures and videos, “it was like descending into hell but unfortunately it was our creation”. There are accounts of necrophilia and many disappearing in that horror chamber.

Please remember not what was seen but what was not caught on camera and what was caught but not shown. Also, not to mention we have not heard the Iraqi side of the story! Why? Unfair media coverage and the Iraqis have honour and dignity; they are not going to turn up on the Jerry Springer show discussing their most intimate details as if they are some kind of animals devoid of shame! Yes the Jerry Springer folks are the product of the society advocated by ‘freethinkers’; climbing the tree of the “Golden Rule” like chimpanzees!

As for what the US did to the few escape goats offering light sentences does not remotely constitute justice and largely propaganda trials. So that the likes of Mr Sina can feel good that ‘democracy’ is working. As the crimes were committed on Iraqi soil they should have been judged by the Iraqis and had the situation been reversed this is exactly what the US would have demanded!

Then Mr Sina brings the incident of Kinnan (from the Life of the Prophet (SAW)) which is incorrect analogy. Kinnan was executed for violating the terms agreement with the Muslims. Remember the so-called “Golden Rule” has no way of determining the level of retribution that should be given. The incident was not sadistic torture of innocents like in Abu-Ghraib style for ‘fun’ and satisfying sexual perversions, so the analogy is incorrect. Furthermore, the Prophet by his actions is defining a law so which other laws can be used to judge Him as a Prophet? Indeed Mr Sina is confused on basic principles.

Twisted Morality and Iraq War

The birth of US was soaked in the blood of seventy million peaceful Native Americans, followed by the brutal African slave trade. Then the colonial expedition of terrorising the world started with the phoney Spanish-American wars killing over 500,000 Philippinos and she also terrorised Central and Latin America. The killing of innocent civilians climaxed in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Vietnam, Korea, etc. where the art of real mass terrorism was developed. I can go on giving endless examples. Yet none of this seems to register in Mr Sina’s scale of twisted morality. Mr Sina needs to understand that the US is propelled by corporate profit as a capitalist state not by any principle like the so-called “Golden-Rule”.

The criminality of the Iraq war was in violation of the UN charter clearly stated by Kofi Anan and the rest of the international community. Iraq has NEVER launched an attack against the US or UK in its short history hence the war was unprovoked. The US also violated Mr Sina’s “Golden Rule” since if you don’t like to be attacked or invaded you should not do that to others constantly in distant lands. Hence, any subsequent attacks or deaths as a result of this illegal war are to be blamed on the US. Yet, Mr Sina refers to humanity but note the vast majority of HUMANITY actually opposed the US aggression as massive demonstrations all over the world including within the US and UK, coupled with the opinion polls clearly proved this point. It is Mr. Sina that is on the side of true inhumanity that is dispensed by the US military.
Mr Sina then has the gall to speak on behalf of the Iraqis without even asking them. If the Iraqis were happy with the US they would not be killing the US soldiers daily and the freedom fighters could not operate without the support of the indigenous Iraqi population. The earlier opinion polls showed 92% - 95% viewed the US as occupiers. If the Iraqis felt liberated the US soldiers would be showered with roses not bombs and bullets and their leaders would not be sneaking in and out of Iraq like oil-thieves and pirates.

Mr Sina makes laughable claims like “Americans never target the civilians, never kill non-combatants” as if he is a guest on Fox-TV. This is the apex of ignorance and not just the Iraqis but the Vietnamese, Japanese, Koreans, South Americans, Hispanic, Afro-Americans and a long list of people would certainly disagree about the US not targeting civilians. As stated earlier the US and UK practically invented the art. There are even videos on the net showing US soldiers executing Iraqi civilians for fun. The eminent TV journalist John Pilger showed in a TV documentary that farmers in desolate places were bombed even the sheep were not spared! When the US drops 500 pound bombs on civilian areas instead of letting their ‘brave’ marines in for a hand-to-hand combats claims of not deliberately targeting civilians is irrational. Now wonder the US does not want to sign up to the International Criminal Court.

It is the American gangsters who have come across the ocean to kidnap people, committing high-tech beheadings en masse using missiles and bombs. This is acceptable to Mr Sina’s twisted morality but not the couple of beheadings done in retaliation using the low-tech methods of knives. The Nazis detached themselves from the victims as they released the gas from the distance, just like Mr Sina is absorbing the sanitised version of the war as morally superior from a distance! Mr Sina is the one displaying true Nazi like behaviour. How perverted and sick yet he has the audacity to charge others with Nazism and twisted morality! If Mr Sina was attacked by burning Phosphorus or Napalm bombs he would be begging Musab Al-Zarqawi to behead him in order to relive the pain. Even the father of Nick Berg courageously made this point that at least his son was not tortured to death like the Iraqis suffered in the horror chambers of Abu-Ghraib and Camp-X-Ray!
Anyway, I can go on refuting few of his remaining points but Mr Sina has enough on his plate and his first task will be to prove his so-called “Golden-Rule” otherwise no allegations can be brought forward and he would be in violation of his first rule as explained earlier.

Yamin Zakaria
London, UK

Back  <     >  Next 

Back to Index