Yamin Zakaria vs. Ali Sina
Part IV Page 20
Back
< > Next
Exposing
Ali Sina’s “Golden Rule” Cult – Part
$00,000
Debate - My third Response [1] to Mr. Ali Sina
Mr Sina states that the “Golden Rule” is the “foundation of
the justice system” but paradoxically he says it has no
relationship with the issue of retribution and he says:
“The Golden Rule is a guideline. It teaches us a way to evaluate
our actions, do the right thing and avoid the wrong thing. It has
nothing to do with penal codes.”
So, what is retribution? Retribution (penal codes) is truly a
universal concept applied by all societies to establish justice by
punishing the criminal; - retribution
is an essential component of justice, they are inseparable as
darkness is to light. Therefore, if the “Golden Rule” has
“nothing to do with” retribution by implication it is also
practically divorced from justice. If that is so then how can the
“Golden Rule” be the “foundation of the justice system” as
Mr Sina boldly stated! It seems Mr Sina’s ‘scholarly’
mind failed to recognise this fundamental contradiction? His says
the “Golden Rule” should be used to evaluate actions but not
retribution, which is bizarre since retribution is itself an action
that needs to be guided. Otherwise one can exceed the limits of
retribution thereby violating the “Golden-Rule”! For example[2]
the citizens of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Fallujah, Mei Lai,
Sabra-Shatila etc. would certainly argue that point where needless
disproportionate-inhumane-systematic-indiscriminate mass executions
of innocent civilians took place! These examples never seem to
register in Mr Sina’s ‘moral’ conscience. If I were to lower
myself to using Mr Sina’s language [3] I would have said he is
devoid of human feeling like an animal. Divorcing
the “Golden Rule” from retribution proves that then rule is
inadequate to provide solutions for addressing numerous complex
issues in life. More importantly how can Mr Sina continue to be
abusive and rant about the Islamic penal codes and by implication
Islamic justice and injustice? Therefore, on what grounds will Mr
Sina bring his allegations since much of it is based on the Islamic
penal codes for which the “Golden Rule” has no answers according
to Mr Sina’s words? This also proved my earlier point that when
the anti-Islamic-fascists are asked to elaborate on their
alternative they either churn out contradictory statements or
exhibit ‘silence’ by going into an abusive mode. If I was Mr
Sina I would resign at this point and not suffer further
embarrassment by attempting to defend such absurd and contradictory
ideas while waving the flag of “logical gun”, “freethinker”,
“commonsense”! Moreover, if the diatribe pertaining to the
Islamic penal code remains on Mr Sina’s website, he must be either
a hypocrite or intellectually inept unable to understand the
implications of his own statements! While on the subject of
retribution we see the shameless hypocrisy from these
anti-Islamic-fascists moaning about retaliation whilst remaining
mute on the initial aggression. For example, a quick beheading by a
knife is evil but not indiscriminate use of napalm causing severe
pain as the victims are roasted to death. Similarly being subjected
to slow torture (“softening up”) or sodomised to death in Abu-Ghraib
is euphemistically termed ‘abuse’ but any retaliation is
‘terrorism’. Then Mr Sina has the audacity to lecture others
about ethics and also you can see why Mr Sina is not interested in
the subject of retribution?
The Nazis used to hide their natural human
emotions and suppress their guilt by releasing the lethal gas from a
distance. A behaviour that is being replicated by the likes of Ali
Sina as he absorbs uncritically the sanitised version of the war,
ignoring the mass beheadings and more, done by the US forces. And if
I were to exercise my legitimate right of retaliation [4] I also
would have used terms like “animals” and “sub-humans” to
describe Mr Sina. But I prefer to remain civil and focused on the
actual arguments instead of constantly ranting, abusing and
producing lengthy discussion on speculative theories regarding
pre-historic apes, all of which has no relevance to the debate. Just
to remind everyone my very first response made reference to the
issue of keeping decorum but as usual Mr Sina bragged about it then
true to his hypocritical nature violated it subsequently. |
Mr. Zakaria,
The Golden Rule and retribution are two different
concepts. The Golden rule tells you treat others with fairness. But what
if you don’t? What if you abuse their rights and act unjustly? Then a
just society that is bound by the Golden Rule must bring you to justice.
For example stealing is wrong and it is against the
Golden Rule. But thieves exist everywhere. Not everyone can live by the
high standards set by the Golden Rule. Your own prophet is a good example.
He broke all the rules. A just society must bring to justice law breakers
like him.
The purported raison d'être of
religions is to guide people to do the right thing. If everyone was doing
the right thing then there would be no need for religions. People break
the Golden Rule and wrong others. That is when retribution is needed. How this
retribution is applied varies from society to society and it depends on
how they interpret the Golden Rule.
Stealing is wrong in all societies. But the
punishment for stealing is different from society to society. For example
in
Canada
if you are caught shoplifting and it is your first time you can get away
with some hours of community work. In Islamic countries
your hands may be chopped. In Western countries pedophilia is an
unforgivable crime. You can’t get away with it if you are convicted even
decades after committing the crime. In Islamic countries you may not be
even charged.
The person who commits a crime is breaking the Golden
Rule. Unfortunately law breakers exist in all the societies. How to make
people law abiding, is a painstaking process and it must start by
educating families, eliminating poverty, providing opportunities and hopes
for the youth, etc. How a society applies retribution after the law is
breached also depends on how it interprets the Golden Rule.
The
Golden Rule dictates that the punishment must not exceed the crime. Since Islamic
societies are not bound by the Golden Rule but by what Muhammad said, their
laws of retribution are often unjust. Stoning the adulterers, killing the
apostates chopping the hands of thieves or gauging his eyes are contrary
to the Golden Rule. You wrote:
"Therefore,
if the “Golden Rule” has
“nothing to do with” retribution by implication it is also practically
divorced from justice.
I could not have said it better. By your own
admission, Islam has nothing to do with the Golden Rule and the
universally accepted norms of fairness. Therefore it is divorced form
justice.
Again you could not resist the temptation of talking
about
Hiroshima,
Nagasaki,
Dresden, Fallujah, Mei Lai, Sabra-Shatila etc.
Again I have to remind you that you are engaging in
tu quoque fallacy. This debate is not about
America. You are here to prove Islam is a religion sent by God.
America
is just a country and Americans are fallible. How in your mind the
sins of Americans justify the sins of Muhammad is beyond me. Are you
capable of defending Islam or all you can do is engage in “you too”
fallacy?
You ask “on
what grounds will Mr Sina bring his allegations since much of it is based
on the Islamic penal codes for which the “Golden
Rule” has no answers according to Mr Sina’s words?”
Of course the Golden Rule has answers. But the penal
code and the Golden Rule are two different things. The penal code must be
fair and just and hence in harmony with the Golden Rule. In Islam neither
the guidelines given to the individual nor the laws are in conformity
with the Golden Rule. The guidance given to the Muslims is unfair and so
the laws. In Islam women are not treated equally, the minorities are
second class citizens, the apostates must be put to death. These teachings
are unfair. Also the laws of Sharia are unjust.
The more Mr Sina is unmasked the more difficulty he is facing. The
above mentioned points proved that he cannot even present a coherent
set of thoughts, let alone a comprehensive alternative to Islam.
Like I said earlier, anyone can call others ugly behind a mask but
once they have to expose their face it is not so easy. Indeed,
Mr Sina is feeling very uncomfortable being unmasked as he is so
used to hurling insults and abuse at the Prophet (SAW) and the
Muslims behind the mask, expecting the Muslims to simply defend as
if they are already guilty by Mr Sina’s allegation; and Mr Sina by
de facto would be judge, jury and executioner.
|
Mr. Zakaria. You keep dodging the main subject. You
already talked about my “mask” and me being judge, jury and
executioner. Our readers got your point. Leave it to them to be the judge
now. Please talk about Islam. You are not here to talk about my mask or
me; you are here to disprove my charges against Muhammad. Do you think you
are up to it?
Or all you can do is talk about my "mask", Hiroshima and Abu
Ghraib, filibuster and dodge the main issue which is Islam?
Thus, Mr Sina makes another desperate attempt to alter the
framework of the debate so that he can assume the position of judge,
jury and executioner and accordingly he presented his argument and
he says:
“The charges are that he was not a Prophet of God but a cult
leader and an impostor. The challenge is to prove me wrong. You
accepted this challenge. Now you have to prove me wrong or accept
defeat and withdraw.”
The challenge was initiated by Mr Sina; rational necessity
dictates that the onus is on him to substantiate the charges FIRST
and its basis since we are not in a court of law where the legal
framework is already in existence and enforced upon the two sides.
Furthermore, the statement “Challenge is
to prove me wrong” shows his arrogance and devious nature. If we
took on the challenge at face value it would mean accepting that Mr
Sina is right unless we can prove him wrong, thus giving credence to
the allegations. On the other hand we would be presumed to be guilty
unless we can prove our innocence to Ali Sina the ‘Prophet’ of
the “Golden-Rule” cult! Mr Sina is desperate for that position
of being a judge, jury and executioner where the burden of proof is
shifted entirely only on our neck!
|
Several times I asked you let me present the charges
one by one and back them with my proof. Each time you insisted that you
want to respond to what I have written already first. I think we are going
in circles and you are not adding anything new to the discussion.
Therefore I am going to present my first charge whether you are ready for
it or not right after this response. We must not keep you waiting any
longer.
|
Mr
Sina must learn the Golden Rule of a debate; - which is a two-way
contest, where he must prove his allegations as much I have to prove
them to be false. I hope Mr Sina’s supporters will make him
understand this elementary point and anyone with an atom of
sincerity would see what I am stating is fair. |
It seems that you know the meaning of the Golden Rule after all. If you
are asking me to abide by it lest your rights are violated, why you think
you are above it when it comes to the rights of other people?
Yes Mr. Zakaria, I understand this elementary point. It is you who
call it "a cult" created by me.
Back
< > Next
Back to Index
|
