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
|
