Shari'a Law

Thank you very much. 1. Continuation 1.1 Chopping hands of thieves It's not revenge when a nation punishes people strictly. Revenge is the desire toward harming someone merely because he harmed you. Punishment is harming someone because you don't want people to follow his ways and commit the same crime. There's a great difference. When the Qur'an commands that a hand of a thief should be cut off, that is to prevent more of such crimes and let people know that they should beware of crimes. In fact, we can easily compare the robbery cases of e.g. Spain and Saudi Arabia.[1] The difference is enormous. All the nations who top the list have light punishments, such as imprisonment for a while. In Islamic nations, you can clearly see the few cases of robberies, thanks to a much better system of punishment. Moreover, the people who get their lives ruined due to commitment to such crimes are in an extremely greater number than those who get their hands cut off for e.g. robbery. In fact, I think it takes Saudi Arabia 50 years to compare to Spain in that. 1.2 Divine Command theory My answer to the question asked is "both." However, I can merely argue by saying that God commands it because it is good, for the sake of argument. I have made my points clear in some of my debates, and people can look for them. However, I can say that my opponent asks why morality is rooted in the will of God, but I can ask him why it is rooted in whatever he believes it is rooted in. Both answers will be subjective. So, what I can do is to say that the fact that Shari'a Law is the most successful in preserving morality that it preaches than any other society, it lies in the fact that God has ordained it. I will elaborate. 1.3 Unchanging Law It is not true that Shari'a Law is unchanging. Most of it is, but many new things that come to societies need new laws. Guns, for instance, are permitted in Saudi Arabia. If it is proven that they are dangerous, then they can be banned. Regarding the prohibition of pork, my opponent is very mistaken about the wisdom behind it. In Islam, it is forbidden to consume blood of any kind. When we slaughter cows, chickens, etc., we do it at the necks, where we cut the jugular veins, and the entire blood flows out. The pig, however, has no such neck. You cannot kill it and let the blood flow out. The blood is very unhealthy for consumption, and even if the germs are killed, uric acid still remains there. Therefore, the Shar'i system is perfectly befitting for all times. 1.4 Divine inspiration Shari'a Law applies to all times. No law has ever ruled in the world for such a long time without falling apart, yet it is successful at all times. This is evidence of the Islamic prophecies. Moreover, the argument against harsh punishment is nothing but emotional. Islam leans on logic, not emotions. Furthermore, can my opponent name one nonarbitrary law? Perhaps there are some objective ideologies in the world that are perfect? No, there are not. Also, how is Sharia Law not conducive to human well being? It is the only law in the world which has a perfectly functioning system of marriage, guidance in life, etc. It does not impose control, but guidance. When a teenage girl harms herself because her boyfriend cheats on her, what does she need? Freedom? She needs guidance. All those Western laws allow freedom, but freedom does not lead to a happy human being. Our ability to think freely and make safe choices is literally being smashed in Western societies. As much as a woman is directly forced to wear hijab in an Islamic nation, a woman in the West is indirectly forced to wear horribly immodest clothes due to societal pressure. Psychological logic explains all this very well. Then which is worse? A government or a society being oppressive? There is no difference. 2. Rebuttals 2.1 Freedom See, Islam does not use outdated scientific theories to control a society. The "your first ends where my nose begins" argument, when applied to freedom, is backwards and even barbaric. Studies of the brain show that mental pain contributes to physical suffering. Stress is one example among tons of others. So, do people think that Islam should prohibit direct harm (e.g. with fists), but not mental harm? What kind of a religion would this be? Why is a person who keeps harassing another person day by day not a criminal, especially if it leads to a dramatic case (i.e. suicide)? Is this what the world needs? A government which believes that mental pain is nothing like physical pain? God forbid this. Your fist ends where my nose begins and your tongue goes back to its place when my brain feels pain. That is more correct, dear readers. 2.2 Individual happiness It's horribly false to claim that an individual is the best one qualified to seek his own happiness. By this logic, the person who forsakes his children for the sake of his own happiness is doing a good thing; the murderer is doing a good thing; the racist is doing a good thing, ad infinitum. How is this reasonable? And a libertarian society is illogical and utterly barbaric. While it does not have a government to guide people, it has no sense of morality whatsoever. If a man forsakes his family by adulterating, and it leads to horrible consequences for the family, should this be unpunished? Is this consensual harm? Is this logical at all? No, nor has it ever been. 2.3 Oppression Neither men nor women are oppressed if you ask me. They are rather guided. Islam protects women and honors women. The Qur'an mentions the status of the mother like no other holy book. It promotes the rights of a woman and tells the men to protect her and give her goods even if she is much wealthier than he is. It tells him to work and earn money while the woman can merely keep the home well-functioning and take care of the children. Is this oppression? Also, the "voluntaryist system" is not a valid argument against me. When Muslim give birth, they will make their children follow Islamic law, which breaks down the "voluntaryist system." In fact, that is how Shari'a Law prospered. Muslims followed it, spread it, and now lots of them like it. Also, if women were unwilling to wear hijab, we would not see the fastest growing religion in the world having 2/3 of converts being women by their own will. 2.4 Statistic "Pro's entire response is essentially a bare, unsupported assertion." This is entirely false. Pro claimed that the Saudi government doesn't release crime statistics, and what I did was to show a completely valid statistic from their own government which shows that Mecca is plagued by drug trafficking. Why would they ever show such a horrible crime, but not that e.g. many women are raped? Moreover, as I said, Shari'a Law never claims to fully eradicate a societal problem. And permitting intoxicants would lead to horrible family ties cuts and other such gross things. 2.5 Interest There is a reason why Islamic nations have prospered very well with their economies throough centuries. Malaysia is a good example of the modern world. I already explained how Islamic loans are functioning. Read more here: http://www.ruf.rice.edu... 2.6 Punishment As I said before, a government can choose punishment for apostasy if there's a necessity for that. It can be that Muslims are very oppressed by other people and families don't want to lose more members, e.g. by leaving Islam due to non-Islamic propaganda. If the Muslims in Afghanistan start converting to another religion merely because the invading troops propagate lies against Islam, how is this justified? How is it justified that the government lets Muslims forsake their nation, people, and Faith due to propaganda? This is absolute shame. Would my opponent allow his child to cut his body throughout his life because his friends tell him to? I hope not. -- References -- [1] http://www.nationmaster.com...