Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina
Zakaria's Response
Part IV Page 5
Back
< > Next
Further
Inconsistencies of the “Golden Rule” Cult
Self-Evident and Universal – I
have already dealt earlier with the issue of Retribution and Mr Sina
acknowledged this rule is inadequate to cover that sphere. Mr Sina charges
on the basis of violating his “Golden Rule” whilst my premise is one
of Islam, so “logic” and “commonsense” means we need to agree on
some common principles by which we can assess the allegations. Otherwise
both sides will only trade accusations and counter accusations. Mr Sina
proposed “Golden Rule” as a premise which I disputed by giving five or
more categories of reasons and not just simply due to my denial as Mr Sina
alleges in desperation and laughably declares victory! Note also that not
only I dispute the rule itself as an ultimate arbiter but also its
interpretation given the various circumstances! Mr Sina suddenly alleges
that he is not required to “prove the legitimacy” of the “Golden
Rule” as it is a universal principle and self evident. On the contrary
he says I must prove legitimacy of Islam against the assumed “Golden
Rule”. So once again Mr Sina wants to turn the debate into an
inquisition of the “Golden Rule” shifting the entire burden of proof
on my neck – condemned as guilty until I can prove my innocence! I too
can make the same claim about legitimacy of Islam especially as there are
over 1.5 billion followers that continues to grow, a system that has been
around for 1500 years. Hence ‘slightly’ larger than the “Golden
Rule” cult followers who are like all the other cults mentioned, recent
and ephemeral. If the “Golden Rule” is
universal and self-evident where are the followers and volumes of books
and scholarly materials on the subject? Which society is a practical
example of that? In fact there is not even a section on it on his website?
Why? The truth is we only discovered his “Golden Rule” during the
course of this debate! Mr Sina is now beginning to sound like an
irrational fanatic who is trying to shove down people’s throat the cult
of the “Golden Rule” as he admits his blind faith in the issue. So it
is Mr Sina that is in denial not me as I have presented numerous arguments
against the “Golden Rule” with evidence. But of course there are many
readers and most certainly the objective ones will see this as Mr Sina’s
open hypocrisy and a complete idiocy after taunting the Muslims for
talking Islam at face value. Hence, to cover his inadequacies Mr Sina
unashamedly borrows statements from other religions to support his case!
He also tries to make a ludicrous analogy between the “Golden Rule”
with the tangible realities perceived through our senses. Sense perception
of the reality is what the human mind can determine alone using the senses
and previous knowledge. Like everyone can verify using their senses that
fire is hotter than ice and the night as being darker than day, sun is
brighter than the moon. But that is not the case with morality, ethics and
principles that are dependent on your external values, beliefs etc. Those
relate to: “what you ought to do” not what the reality of the physical
world is. So the analogy cited by Mr Sina does not support his “Golden
Rule” but to the contrary it proves he does not understand the principle
that he is citing. Either way this is a poor attempt to evade the real
crux of the debate as Mr Sina is being unmasked he feels very
uncomfortable as his superficial thoughts is being exposed, of course
everyone is already familiar with his anti-Islamic-fascist diatribes. The
only other corroborative evidences are some handpicked and borrowed
religious references. Since Mr Sina lacking his own bible of the “Golden
Rule” he unashamedly borrows from the religions that he disbelieves in
the first place! In fact he cannot cite one person or one piece of text
that exclusively talks about his so-called “Golden-Rule” yet we are to
take his word as this is universal? This is again more absurdity from Mr
Sina. Further contradictions are exposed below.
a) As a reminder, by not bringing proof Mr Sina is in fact breaking his
first rule confirming his hypocritical nature once again, when he said:
“Let us make this a rule: Each one of us is free to make any assumption
that he pleases but he must be able to prove that assumption or withdraw
it... BUT we must prove it or take it back”.
If the rule was self-evident and universal I would not be able to contest
it in this manner. His assertions that the “Golden Rule” does not need
to be proved shows his inadequacy and tantamount to a kangaroo court where
the claimant brings the charges against the defendant even before the
rules for evaluating the charges has been agreed.
b) Mr Sina gets himself into a bigger muddle. He says only Islam is
non-compliant to the rule but all the other religions cited are on the
basis of quoting a single reference from each religion. As if those
religions are representative based on that single quote! The first
religion cited by Mr Sina i.e. the Baha’i Faith [4] (Heretical sect
within Islam) clearly acknowledges Muhammad as a Prophet (SAW) not an
impostor, diametrically opposing Mr Sina’s allegation. So
how can the Baha’i who is siding with the violators (Islam) of the
“Golden Rule” be a reference for the rule? This is again clear
absurdity from Mr Sina who has got his basic facts wrong not for the first
time, yet brags about his ‘scholarly’ level and menacing debating
capabilities! Just when you thought it can’t get any worse well it does.
Mr Sina also cites Sheikh Saadi to support his “Golden Rule”
but Sheikh Saadi was a known and a highly regarded Islamic-poet who openly
praised the Prophet in his poetry that is recited by the millions of
Muslims. He says: "He (Prophet Muhammad) attained the pinnacle of
greatness with his perfection; he dispelled darkness with his beauty;
excellent were all his qualities; shower your blessings on him (Prophet
Muhammad) and his family". According to
Sina’s ‘logic’ Sheikh Saadi, an admirer and a follower of the
Prophet (SAW) should really be an animal, but yet Mr Sina hypocritically
cites him as someone who is compliant to his “Golden Rule”. Displaying
such blatant inconsistencies one can only conclude he is far from a
rational person.
e) Of the religions cited by Mr Sina there are many that clearly violate
his “Golden Rule” fundamentally. For
example, Judaism considers Mr Sina to be a Gentile and a true subhuman
that exists to serve the chosen people of God (Goyeem). The non-Jews
(Gentiles) like Mr Sina have practically no value. Here are some examples:
“Eating with the
Gentiles is like eating with the animals”
“A Jew cannot be
tried for the murder of a non-Jew but only man slaughter”
“A Jew cannot be
charged for the rape of a Gentile woman”
What Mr Sina was describing about Islam are the very ideas that are held
by such people, some of them no doubt are very strong supporter of Mr
Sina. But
Mr Sina will ignore and remain hypocritically silent on this religion. His
so-called moral conscience will evaporate even if he is put on leash by
the Jews as he is a worthless Gentile in their eyes. I am still perplexed
what is Mr Sina exactly trying to prove by citing those single references
from the various religions which not only violates the rule but one is
even supportive of Muhammad (SAW).
f) “Logic” and “commonsense” states that if a religion is
compliant to the “Golden Rule” on the basis of one reference then it
must be equally considered non-complaint if it violates the “Golden
Rule” in one or more issues. “Logic”
dictates that you can be either compliant or non-complaint but not both
simultaneously! In another paragraph he says: “in all the religions, the
Golden rule applies. This is not to say that I agree with these religions.
They are a mix bag of good and bad” The “bad” that Mr Sina refers to
must be non-compliant to his “Golden Rule”. Thereby rendering these
religions non-complaint by one criterion but also compliant by another
criterion! Clearly this is absurd and illogical. But
this also proves that Mr Sina is not opposed to the violation of the
“Golden Rule” per se since any other faith are given the privilege to
break the rule but not Islam. This is another clear proof of an irrational
man driven by prejudice and blind fanaticism.
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 thin 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.
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. 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.
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 [2], 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 sodomise why can’t he sodomise others? It
is an 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 chambers!
Summary
The “Golden Rule” is deficient in addressing penal code hence by
implication justice according to Mr Sina. It is by definition subjective
and almost abstract as it cannot be used resolve conflicts and numerous
issues of life. Especially as Mr Sina expects individuals to adhere to the
principle of their own will which renders it almost irrelevant since
individuals in most cases will act in their interests violating the
“Golden Rule”. The same argument also applies to nations. So
the premise for bringing Mr Sina’s allegation is getting weaker, hence
he desperately proclaims victory and the rule as being right without
proof. In contrast my allegations that it is he and his philosophy that is
guilty of all those things and as he is being unmasked these are becoming
clearer! As the debate proceeds I will prove that in contrast to Mr Sina I
do not make assumptions and then put the burden of proof on his neck, then
call it a debate. Mr Sina has produced lengthy waffles providing
irrelevant information (filibustering) and more rants and abuse than solid
arguments in establishing the truth of the Golden Rule. The rule is
neither self-evident nor universal and it also poses a danger to society
if used as an absolute arbiter. Since individuals can justify all sorts of
acts using the rule. Mr Sina’s constant ranting and abusive foul
mouthing does not help to prove his case, for a self-proclaimed scholar he
often cites examples without verification e.g. rightwing parties are not
allowed to operate in democracies, morality is absolute etc. He is driven
by blind hatred and fanaticism hence he is selective in his argument. For
example he claims Islam to be evil yet he does not for once address how
and why it is still expanding within the West. If it was so evil people
would have abandoned it long ago of their own will. Of course he will
arrogantly claim he is smarter than the rest to see and know better. The
last couple of hundred years Islam has not been a dominant force in
international relations and in its absence we have had the largest amount
of wars and killings in human history! He rants
about raping stealing and killing but this is exactly what the US is doing
en masse if you count its victims and all its wars well outside its
borders since 1776. The so-called victims of the Muslims will disappear
into oblivion when compared to the victims of the US killing machine. This
is a fact not propaganda. Mr Sina constantly blusters about rape but he is
the biggest endorser of rape through his silence on real rape that rages
within the US and in its history. It is estimated that over a million
German women were raped by the followers of the “Golden Rule”
(according to Mr Sina) near the end of the Second World War. But Mr Sina
thinks that is apparently in line with his “Golden Rule” as he
considers the rape and murder of Iraqis to be in line with his “Golden
Rule”. Likewise the US atrocities in Japan killing civilians en masse
when the war was virtually over. Then what about the murderous and
needless campaign against the civilians in Germany nearer to the end of
the war using incendiary bombs; women, children, and men were burnet
alive, their fats reached knee heights in certain places. These are just
some small examples I can go on but what Mr Sina alleges he backs up with
little evidence and substantiation and when he does it is full of
contradictions as I have clearly demonstrated.
To be continued.
Yamin Zakaria (The Islamic Novice)
London, UK
[1] http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/YaminZakariaindex.htm
[2] Just to warn the readers that Mr Sina may go at a tangent delving into
the examples thereby avoiding the actual argument presented here exposing
his blatant contradictions.
[3] Mr Sina gets very abusive using terms like Animal and elsewhere he has
already used terms like subhuman. It is up to Mr Sina to continue to be
abusive and foul mouth instead of focusing on the actual arguments. I
intend to keep my decorum to the best of my ability.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/YaminZakariap11.htm
[4] http://www.bahai.org/
Back
< > Next
Back to Index
|
