The MuslimSkeptic Website writes (link):  

Atheism Has No Morality:

The overwhelming majority of atheist “criticism” against Islam and religion in general are moral claims. Yet to an intelligent person this does not make sense. How do people without any moral foundation have the audacity to make moral arguments in the first place?

In short there is “objective morality” and then there is “subjective morality.” You see, atheists do not have any objective morality in the first place. What atheism can only do is create subjective morality.

Subjective = opinion, whereas objective = fact (there is no 3rd one).
e.g: “Red is the best color” is subjective, but “2+2=4” is objective.

In other words, atheists are criticizing Islam based on their own subjective personal opinions. They might as well say, “I hate Islam because Muslims like the color green, but my favorite color is blue,” and it be no different than the garbage they say currently.

What Is Morality:

Now morality, just like heaven, is a religious concept. For us, the definition of good (right; justice) is simply obedience to Allah. And the definition of bad (wrong; injustice; evil) is disobedience to Allah. This never changes, they are objective, and based on the wisdom of Allah ... Very simple rules and definitions. We think actions like murder, stealing, rape etc., are wrong simply because Allah forbid these things. By committing these actions we are disobeying Allah and that is why these actions are evil.


Response: Religions also have absolutely no "objective morality"

Islam also has no "objective morality", but it was only the "subjective personal opinions" of so-called Allah (i.e. Muhammad), which Muslim Preachers claim to be "objective morality".

For example, let us see the "subjective personal opinions" of Muhammad/Allah regarding Slavery, where he says:

  • It is ok to rape captive women and small girls (even if they were totally innocent and had no role in the war). 
  • It is ok to turn captives (including small children) into slaves for their entire life.
  • It is ok that coming generations of slave parents are also born automatically as slaves (i.e. Slavery by Birth).
  • It is ok to separate a baby of 6 months (who has got two teeth) from his/her slave parents and sell him/her in the Islamic Bazaars of Slavery. 
  • It is ok for an owner to rape his slave girls. And after fulfilling his lust, it was ok for him to hand her over to his brother or slave. And once all his brothers and slaves have raped her one by one (in Shia Muta Type "TEMPORARY Sexual Relationship), then she could be sold to 2nd master in the Islamic Bazaar of Slavery. And it was ok for the 2nd 2nd to rape her, and then sell her to the 3rd master ....
  • It is ok for an owner to snatch away the wife of his slave, and then rape her, and then return her again to his slave.
  • It is ok for to prohibit slave women to take Hijab. 
  • It is ok that slave women are compelled to move in public with naked breasts ... (Please read all these Sharia Rulings about Slaves here)

All these acts are CRIMES of Islamic Slavery against HUMANITY, which Islamic preachers give the name of "objective morality", and act upon it, without realizing it's criminal nature. 

And when Muslims follow these morals of Muhammad, then this is only an example of the "Master-Slave Morality". 

And Muslims will commit all types of other crimes too (like killing innocent people for leaving Islam), attacking and killing non-Muslim nations in the name of Jihad etc. while they consider it to be an "objective morality".

Similarly, It was only the "subjective personal opinion" of Hindu gods that the "Caste System" is ok. But for religious Hindus, it became a matter of an "objective morality". And it was only the "subjective personal opinion" of the biblical god, where he asked to kill all men, women and children and to leave no survivor (Deuteronomy 2:34). But for religious Jews, it became a matter of "objective morality".


Islamic divine command theory:

The MuslimSkeptic Website wrote (link): 

For us, the definition of good (right; justice) is simply obedience to Allah. And the definition of bad (wrong; injustice; evil) is disobedience to Allah.

This means, whatever acts Allah/Muhammad prohibits, e.g., murder, rape, stealing, etc., are Haram/wrong/evil [if committed against Muslims]. However, the same acts are Halal/good/right [if committed against non-Muslims].

Did Allah/Muhammad forbid such acts because they were wrong? Or are they wrong because He forbade them?

Islam doesn't provide a moral or ethical framework that justifies why an act is considered right or wrong. Rather, it provides a moral code similar to that of the Mafia, the Yakuza, or any other criminal group since Islam was born as such, with Muhammad being the gang leader stealing commercial convoys and raiding other tribes with the assistance of the outlaws and bandits, such as the tribes of Aslam, Ghifar, Muzaina, and Juhaina. [1]

The moral code of Islam forces its members to follow the orders of their gang leader [Muhammad/Allah/Caliphate/Amir], just like the Mafia members have to follow the orders of their Godfather, and the Yakuza members follow the orders of their Kumicho.

Steven Weinberg famously said: “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”


Humanity within us is ENOUGH to guide us on what is right and what is wrong

When atheists criticize the crimes of Islamic Slavery, then Muslim Preachers defend these evils of Islamic Slavery by claiming that atheists have no so-called "objective morality", and that what they are presenting as criminal/evil practices of Islam, are only their "subjective personal opinions". 

In the own words of the MuslimSkeptic website (link): 

You see, atheists do not have any objective morality in the first place. What atheism can only do is create subjective morality.

Subjective = opinion, whereas objective = fact (there is no 3rd one).
e.g: “Red is the best color” is subjective, but “2+2=4” is objective.

In other words, atheists are criticizing Islam based on their own subjective personal opinions. They might as well say, “I hate Islam because Muslims like the color green, but my favorite color is blue,” and it be no different than the garbage they say currently.

And our response is, we are not criticizing the non-human practices against slaves in Islam, while we like the blue color, but HUMANITY within us is enough to guide us on what is right and what is wrong. Humanity guides us clearly that these Islamic practices are criminal in nature and must be abolished.

Moreover, the example of have a personal liking for a blue colour is a bad example while it has nothing to do with morality. There can be even be many Muslims who could personally dislike the green colour and have a liking for the blue colour. 


Buddha didn't need any Divine Objective Morality, but he created his own system of morality:

Buddha didn't believe in any gods. He didn't claim to be a prophet. But he only used his mind and rational thinking to come up with his teachings. The humanity within him was enough to guide him towards the good.

Muslim Preachers are wrong when they claim that atheists cannot have any morality without any god or religion. They forget that Humanity is above all religions and all gods (including Allah).

Let us ask these questions in other words. 

  1. Do Muslim Preachers believe that Buddha had MORALS? 
  2. If yes, were they the result of objective morality or subjective morality?
  3. If you claim Buddha had only subjective morality due to the absence of following any religious guidance, then do you think Buddha was justified in criticizing the Caste System and telling that all humans are equal, despite having only subjective morality? 
  4. Do you deny the presence of humanity in Buddha? 
  5. Do you deny that Buddha was able to make a whole new system of morality with the help of rational human thinking (i.e. freethinking) under the guidance of humanity within him? And he didn't need any angel to bring any revelation from any god for this new system of morality? 

In simple words, if objective morality exists, then it is only the other name of humanity, while religions have nothing to do with objective morality. All religions follow only subjective moralities of their founders. 

Yes, it is humanity/empathy which provides the basic framework, upon which we create the whole system of morality. 


The Origin of Humanity/Morality lies in our Hormones:

Due to evolution, our bodies produce and release hormones which make us happy when we love or do good to others, or feel empathy towards others.

Let us see this scientific study, which shows that the origin of morality is innate:


Is there an innate moral sense? Scientific evidence, from child development, linguistics, and behavioral economics to neuroscience, moral psychology, and primatology reveals universal drives that constitute a biologically prepared moral architecture within human nature. This innate moral sense is akin to the innate predisposition for smell or language and suggests human beings are born with the prototypes of a sense that fosters anxiety when they witness others in distress and, similarly, promotes positive feelings when that distress is alleviated. Incorporating the concept of an innate moral sense into our models of social and political life would improve ethical analysis.

Nobody tells a baby how to love his/her mother. These are the hormones which are making a baby love his/her mother automatically.

Shortly after you give birth, your doctor will place your baby against your chest. This moment of skin-to-skin contact is important — and often overwhelming — for both mom and baby. Feeling your touch and hearing your voice calms your baby and makes him feel safe. During this skin-to-skin moment, your body releases oxytocin.

In particular, when women give birth, there's a big surge of oxytocin, and oxytocin is also released during breastfeeding.

Oxytocin has been called the "love hormone," even though its effect isn't always that lovely. It's thought to deepen the bond that a mom has with her newborn. But what about the dads, who don't get pregnant or breastfeed? It turns out that a father's interactions with his children produce a similar rise in oxytocin levels.

Researchers have found that emotionally involved fathers feel other hormonal effects: higher levels of prolactin, a lust-squelching hormone that shows up in women during breastfeeding and in men after sexual climax; and higher levels of vasopressin, a hormone linked to bonding as well as the maternal stress response.

It turns out that fathers get many of the same rushes that mothers do from parenthood — but the payoff depends on proximity and interaction. For example, researchers see the effect if the child sleeps with the parents if the father recognizes and responds to the baby's cries if Dad plays with the kids. When that proximity isn't present, the fatherhood effect isn't as strong.

Even when we are grown up, our minds decide if any action is good or bad on the basis of this empathy i.e. if we are doing good to others with our actions, or if we are hurting them with our actions.

Of course, later, there are other factors involved too like social upbringing, religious brainwashing etc. 

Therefore, in an adult person, morality is no longer completely innate. An adult person's own moral views are influenced primarily by three things: empathy, enlightened self-interest, and social pressures. 

 In the case of babies, instincts such as empathy and trust in the parent are a larger influence on their morality than they might be for an adult, and due to the lower intelligence and perceptiveness of a baby, the social influences on their morality are weaker than they will be as the child grows and begins to interact more with society.


Islamic apologists: In the absence of any religious objective morality, Atheists will always have conflicting opinions due to their subjective morality (for example Incest)

An Islamic apologist wrote: 

Do all atheists have an issue with consensual incest with no involvement of pregnancy provided there is consent on both parties, or would they criminalise it if they are in control of society?


Humanity/Empathy in us provides us with the "Fundamental Framework"  for constructing ethical principles. Therefore, there is general agreement on primary moral values such as honesty being good and lies being bad.

However, sometimes variations in viewpoints emerge when addressing secondary matters where there isn't a clear right or wrong response. For instance, some individuals may hold that deception is never acceptable, while others think that under some exceptional circumstances, it could be justified or required to achieve a better outcome. Such divergences of thought on secondary issues are natural and expected.

It's crucial to recognize that:

  • These are only religious people who believe that their god is 100% perfect, and thus he also made 100% perfect world and system of moral code.
  • In contrast, those who aren't religious don't assume 100% perfection in the world or its systems. Consequently, we must assess choices based on the degree of harm or benefit they bring, striving for the most optimal result possible given the circumstances.

Consequently, we (i.e. the non-religious people)  have established a fundamental framework, of how to solve such issues. For example:

  • Our approach involves engaging in open dialogue. 
  • We also use our present and past knowledge and experiences to solve it.
  • We also utilize our intellectual ingenuity to devise new innovative solutions.
  • Through all this, we strive to get the most effective solution, which may not be 100% perfect, but still the most optimal one. 
  • Moreover, we recognize that even with our best efforts, mistakes can still occur. Thus, the freedom of criticism in our society makes it sure that a mistake does not stay as a mistake, but we are compelled to reform ourselves and correct our mistakes. Fortunately, the freedom of critique within our society ensures that errors are identified and corrected, fostering continuous improvement and growth. In religions like Islam, this facet of reformation is absolutely absent, while Divine Sharia laws cannot be criticized and thus cannot be corrected by men.  

The history of incest is as under:

  • Ancient tribes already observed the fact the children from incest relationships were weak and suffering from several diseases. 
  • But ancient tribes were also involved in a lot of fighting and capturing women of other tribes. Thus, they also observed that their children from women of other tribes didn't suffer from that weakness and diseases. 
  • Initially, although incest with siblings and parents was prohibited, but incest between uncle-niece and allowed, like in the Abrahamic religion of Judaism. Till the time of Muhammad, although uncle-niece incest was also prohibited, however, Muhammad still allowed incest between a cousin brother and sister. In order to see the horrible consequences of cousin incest among Muslim communities, please read our article: Cousin Marriages: Allah (i.e., Muhammad) Bears Responsibility for the Miseries of Disabled Children
  • But then a few civilizations also observed the diseases in the cases of cousin incest, and they prohibited it too. You will hardly find any cousin incest marriages in atheist communities today, but Muslims are still unable to get rid of it while it is a part of Objective Morality in Muslims to have cousin incest marriages. 

So, the issue of incest was completely dead in the previous centuries due to diseases in offspring. And it is practically also dead even today in the non-religious West.

However, in this century, after the invention of condoms and abortion operations, religious Islamic preachers came up with a new hypothetical question. They ask:

In the absence of objective morality, what stop atheists to involve in incest relationships, while no harm is possible to any baby today due to condoms and abortion?

Yes, as a non-religious community, we do face this challenge today. And here is the approach that we use to solve it:

  • Firstly, we don't deny the reemergence of this challenge in this century but openly accept it. 
  • Consequently, as mentioned above, we have established a fundamental framework for tackling such issues. Our approach involves engaging in open dialogue, leveraging collective knowledge and experience, utilizing intellectual ingenuity to devise innovative solutions, and diligently working towards finding the most effective resolution. Remember, this solution may not 100% perfect and my not solve the issue 100%, but it should still be the most effective solution. 

The usage of this approach brings us to the following results:

  • Physical Harms: Although they have been reduced, they are still present. It is important to recognize that abortion itself carries inherent risks, and there is no guarantee of preventing pregnancy in every instance.

  • Psychological Harms: The desire to have children is deeply ingrained in human nature, and entering into an incestuous relationship already introduces psychological pressure. In non-incestuous relationships, even if partners initially have doubts about having children, there are numerous cases where individuals ultimately choose to embrace parenthood despite their initial reservations. However, in the context of incestuous relationships, the ability to reverse an earlier decision and proceed with pregnancy and raising children is not feasible. This intensifies the psychological burden on individuals involved, as they may be grappling with conflicting emotions and desires. The inability to alter their earlier decision further exacerbates the psychological strain. Even if non-incestuous parents are willing to consider abortion, the procedure itself can inflict significant psychological pressure on them. The decision to terminate a pregnancy is a complex and emotionally challenging one, and it can have long-lasting effects on the mental well-being of those involved. It is also important to note that people's desires and circumstances can change over time. However, in an incestuous relationship, individuals are effectively bound to their initial decision, with no option to reverse course. This lack of flexibility can lead to feelings of being trapped and contribute to further psychological distress within the relationship.

  • Power Dynamics within a family: The power dynamics at play in these relationships make them taboo for a reason. Family members can exert considerable control over one another, making it difficult to break free from their influence even after reaching adulthood. This is why teachers are not allowed to have relationships with their students, even in colleges and universities, where the students are adults. For instance, a girl may be influenced and brainwashed by a family member from childhood to engage in a romantic relationship with her cousin brother, and then continue to be influenced by them to only love him and not seek other relationships. Such a girl may find it challenging to escape this influence and brainwashing even after reaching adulthood. Moreover, if a dispute occurs, then it breaks the whole family. 




Muslim Tactic: CONFUSING people, so they don't dare to criticize the evils of Islamic morality

Modern Muslim Preachers use different tactics so that normal people become CONFUSED and don't dare to start questioning the evils of Islamic morality against humanity. These tactics are:

  • Quoting/Misquoting atheist philosophers (like Nietzsche, John Stewart Mill, Jeremy Bentham etc.), or using terms like Utilitarianism, Hedonism, The Harm Principle etc. Normal people never heard these names and terminologies, thus they become confused and stop criticizing the evils of Islamic morality. 
  • Moreover, they tell normal people that they are not "qualified" enough to criticize Islam. They should first learn philosophy and only then do they get the right to differ from Islamic morality. 


The answer is "NO":

  • We don't need to read or follow the teachings of any atheist philosopher. We read them only to deepen our knowledge, but we don't have a "Master-Slave Morality" relationship with these atheist philosophers like Muslims have with Muhammad. 
  • Moreover, all such things like Humanity, Empathy, Utilitarianism, Hedonism, the Harm Principle etc., there is hardly any difference among them, and one comes to the same final results in one way or another. 
  • And we don't need a PhD in philosophy first in order to criticize the wrong things in Islam. 

And the "humanity" within us is fully enough to guide us:

  • that Islamic morality is criminal when it allows raping innocent captive women and even small girls, although they have no role in wars, or when it practices "Slavery by Birth", or when it snatches away a baby with two teeth (i.e. 6 months old) and sell the baby in the Islamic Bazaars of slavery .... 
  • that Islamic morality is criminal when it kills people for leaving Islam. 
  • that Islamic morality is criminal when it incites hatred against non-Muslims, and incites Jihadists to attack non-Muslim states and impose Islamic Sharia there forcefully. 

Remember, Buddha didn't know any atheist philosophers or terms like Utilitarianism, Hedonism, the Harm principle etc., but humanity within him was fully enough to guide him towards the good. 

Remember, we ex-Muslims also didn't know any atheist philosophers when we were Muslims. Still, the humanity within us was also telling us clearly at that time too (when we were Muslims) that Islamic morality regarding poor slaves and apostasy and hating non-Muslims was wrong. Yes, we were also brainwashed during our whole religious life as Muslims that Islamic morals are from Allah and thus they cannot be challenged. Still, humanity within us kept on challenging this religious brainwashing and won this war in the end. 

Even moderate/progressive Muslims feel today that Slavery is wrong, killing people for simply leaving Islam is wrong, It is due to the presence of humanity in them. Therefore, they try to CHANGE these Islamic Rulings in the name of Reforming Islam. (Note: It was the same with Buddha too, who didn't ended the caste system altogether, but reformed it by claiming that all four castes are equal, and preference is only based upon Karma). 

The lesson is, you neither need a PhD degree first to enter in Islam nor to criticize Islam nor to leave Islam.