Muslim Objection: Atheism has no Morality

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.

Our 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)

But Muslim Preachers gave these "subjective personal opinions" of Muhammad the name of "objective morality".

Actually, this is an example of the "Master-Slave Morality" of Muhammad and Muslims. 

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" (while in reality, it is nothing else than a blind "master-slave morality").

Similarly:

• It was only the "subjective personal opinion" of Hindu Bhagwan 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). 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, HUMANITY within us is enough to guide us on what is right and what is wrong. 

Humanity within us is enough to guide us that Rulings of Islamic Slavery are criminal and evil and against justice. 

There exists no "objective morality":

What Muslim Preachers claim to be "objective morality", is nothing else than the "subjective personal opinions"  of Muhammad/Allah. 

If "Objective Morality" really exists, it is only another name for "Master-Slave Morality".

If morality is present in a natural form, then it is only innate Humanity within us. 

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 showing foolishness 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 with the help of rational human thinking (i.e. freethinking) under the guidance of humanity within him? And he didn't need any angle to bring any revelation from any god for this new system? 

Be assured, Muslim Preachers can never answer these questions. Either they will come up with Double Standards (where rules for Buddha/Hinduism will become different than for atheists/Islam) or they will come up with lame excuses which will be totally senseless. 

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 they get the right to differ from Islamic morality. 

Our Response:

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. 
• And we don't need a PhD in philosophy first in order to criticize Islam. 

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

• that Islamic morality is evil 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 evil when it kills people for leaving Islam. 
• that Islamic morality is evil 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 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.