islamic societies against human rights

Con challenged me to this debate. My position is that Islamic Law is not against human rights. Islamic societies will be ideally defined. I do not believe that there are real Islamic societies today, just Muslim majority countries.DefinitionsIslamic Law: the body of doctrines that regulate the lives of those who profess Islam, and: the code of law derived from the Koran and from the teachings and example of Mohammed. [1]Basic human needs: shelter, clothing, and food. This is agreed upon by the Islamic scholars, based on the following statement of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him): "The son of Adam has no better right than that he would have a house wherein he may live, a piece of cloth whereby he may hide his nakedness and a piece of bread and some water. [Tirmidhi collection of hadith.] A traditional list of immediate "basic needs" is food (including water), shelter, and clothing. [2] [3]Human rights: The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law. [4]RebuttalsCon claims that you can freely convert to Islam, but not apostatize. He further claims that this is with accordance to the Qur'an. That's untrue. The Qur'an nowhere speaks of punishment for apostasy. There is a whole chapter dedicated to freedom of religion (109, The Disbelievers). In addition to this, verses promoting freedom of religion are scattered heavily throughout the Qur'an. Thus, my opponent's claim is as wrong as possible. "For you is your religion, and for me is my religion." [5]Con claims that the punishment for apostasy is the death penalty. The ruling on apostasy has caused many debates between Muslims scholars since the death of the Prophet. There are disagreements on whether an apostate should be punished in all circumstances, or only if he apostatizes by committing acts which resemble those of ancient Jews in Medina, who repeatedly apostatized in order to wreck Islam. However, it is agreed that even if the legal ruling on an apostate is that he should be executed, repentance must always be an option.The most correct ruling is that people who pretend to convert to Islam, then pretend like they apostatize, and thus repeat this act in order to mock Islam and destroy it, should be put to death. Islamic history most probably supports this ruling. 14 centuries back, Jews in Medina often pretended like they became Muslims, then apostatized over and over again. The Prophet therefore said that whoever forsakes the Muslims - by leaving his religion - should be put to death. This is due to the following reasons: Muslims were under heavy oppression from Jews and Pagans. What united them was Islam, and being a Muslim back then meant that one had a permanent contract with the Muslim government, so that Islam could stand strong against its enemies. Because Jews made apostasy a more severe crime than it was (only theologically), Muslims had to deal with it by prohibiting it by law. This ensured that false Muslims could be distinguished from true Muslims, otherwise the entire nation of Muslims would never have been united against the non-Muslim oppressors. Thus, it is ultimately clear that the ruling on apostates is not simply a matter of punishment. The history proves that it should be applied only against those who try to destroy Islam, and as a last resort (i.e., if there is no other way to unite Muslims against heavy oppression). Con further claims that Islam prohibits music and arts. This is untrue to a great extent. Muslims all across the world today embrace music as well as other forms of art. Most notably, Muslims made inventions in medieval ages that are related to music. I believe what Con refers to is the Islamic prohibition for Muslims to draw images of animate beings for unnecessary purposes. This is true, but that is a very small part of art. Moreover, in an Islamic society, non-Muslims would not be forbidden from drawing animate beings. [6] Music would not be prohibited in an Islamic state. Muslims scholars are in disagreement over the ruling, hence an Islamic state would only be justified in letting every man pick his own path in this regard. Moreover, Islam does not necessarily prohibit music. There's no prohibition of music in the Qur'an. In the two most authentic hadith collections (i.e., Sahih Bukhari/Muslim), there is a spot where music is mentioned alongside fornication and adultery in a negative manner. However, the hadith that mentions music in Sahih Bukhari as something prohibited is considered inauthentic, as it is not a part of the numbered hadith. To quote the Islamic orator, Shabir Ally: "As you noted there is no such in the Quran on this subject. As for the hadith, although some texts have been advanced in this regard, as far as I am aware none of them are authentic. Hence we cannot on this basis declare music to be forbidden. On the other hand, we can look at the content, effects, and associations related to various sorts of music and form an opinion of them on that basis, though such a formulation of opinion will not have the force of a clear textual ruling. Some music have clearly bad content, others clearly good, yet others somewhere in between." [7] Con says that Islam prohibits freedom of clothing. This is true to an extent. Islam prohibits men and women from dressing immodestly by religious terms. This doesn't mean that an Islamic society should go as far as to punish men and women who sometimes happen not to follow every single rule. Islam is against such aggressive use of law. What would be prohibited is most likely that men and women display their bodies in public in such a way that it is considered nudity. However, Con will have a tough time explaining how this goes against human rights, especially considering how most Western countries have these laws. Con claims that questioning Islam or its holy figures leads to death penalty. This is untrue. Islam permits people having different opinions, and thus blasphemy is not avoidable. For instance, the Qur'an claims that Christians blaspheme when they compare Jesus (peace be upon him) to God. However, the Qur'an gives them the right to do so, because this is a matter of religion and belief. As much as a Muslim has the right to claim that the Bible is not the word of God, a Christian has the right to claim that the Qur'an is not the word of God. "In an Islamic State, all non-Muslims will have the same freedom of conscience, of opinion, of expression (through words spoken and written) and of association as the one enjoyed by the Muslims themselves, subject to the same limitation as are imposed by law on the Muslims. Within those limitations, they will be entitled to criticise the government and its officials, including the Head of the State. They will also enjoy the same rights of criticizing Islam as the Muslims will have to criticize their religion." [8] There'll be more. Resolution negated. [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.lessonpathways.com... [4] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [5] http://quran.com... [6] http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com... [7] http://alifbata.org... [8] http://www.quranenglish.com...