Shari'a Law

Thanks, Mirza, for agreeing to this debate. My opponent indicated via private message that he accepts the Qur'an, the Sahih Muslim, and the Sahih al-Bukhari as the basis for Shari'a law. The burden of proof will lie primarily on Pro to demonstrate the merits of Shari'a law and show why it ought to be widely adopted; I am tasked only with the burden to negate. 1. Shari'a law is paternalistic; it unnecessarily and arbitrarily, restricts individual freedom. John Stuart Mill writes: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." http://www.scu.edu... Paternalism is a malignant mutation of benevolence that treats people as objects rather than as rational individuals free to seek their own ends and satisfy their needs as they best see fit. Mill continues: "With respect to his own feelings and circumstances, the most ordinary man or woman has means of knowledge immeasurably surpassing those that can be possessed by any one else...He is the man most interested in his own well-being." b. Shari'a oppresses women. Pro has stated previously that he believes all women should be forced to wear hijab (see photo: http://www.travel-images.com...). Supposedly, this is to prevent their sexual degradation, which I see as enormously self-contradictory. Treating people with respect means allowing them to make their own decisions; the idea that women need to be made to dress a certain way for their own good is rooted in extreme, condescending sexism. Women are viewed in the Muslim world as mere objects; too pathetic and helpless to make important choices for themselves. In addition to being nearly universally recognized as symbolic of patriarchal dominance and oppression, the hijab is ridiculously inconvenient. How can a woman participating in athletic activities be expected to do so in hijab? How can women be made to wear hijab outside in ninety degree weather? Or at the beach? Or while hiking? It seems the answer is tied to the general negative attitude in Islam toward such female expressions of independence and self sufficiency. c. Drug and alcohol prohibition are ineffective. Although the Saudi government refuses to release crime statistics, there is good reason to believe prohibition has failed there, as it historically always has. To the extent that it succeeds, it creates extremely negative behavioral incentives. Because it's difficult for people to consume alcohol safely, Saudis have turned to drinking cologne for its methanol content, which is highly toxic and dangerous. http://www.antizol.com... d. Shari'a economic policies are unsound. The ban on charging interest on loans has no rational economic basis; it stems from total ignorance of the crucial role interest plays in a market economy. Disregarding inflation, the "pure" interest rate is a reflection of a time preference. The lender chooses to forsake immediate satisfaction for potentially greater future satisfaction; the borrower chooses to pay interest for the convenience of having immediate access to needed funds. The rate is arrived at by mutual agreement for mutual benefit. Another important factor affecting the interest rate is risk of default. Lending money always involves a measure of risk; without the possibility of profit, lenders have no incentive to take on such risk. All the ban accomplishes is the drastic constriction of credit and hindrance of growth. 2. Shari'a statutes are excessively harsh and unjust. The Sahih al-Bukhari hadith (9:83:17) mandates that apostates be killed. Corporal "justice" is common in Islamic society. In 2003, a Saudi Arabian man had two teeth extracted without anesthetics as part of the literal "eye for an eye" retributive scheme. http://www.amnestyusa.org... This is far from an isolated case. The same year, a man was ordered by a court in Pakistan to be blinded with acid for committing a similar act. http://news.bbc.co.uk... In 2005, an Iranian man had his eyes gouged out for a crime he committed twelve years ago as a sixteen year old boy. http://www.freerepublic.com... This clearly goes beyond punishment; it is state sanctioned revenge. b. Retributive "justice" is morally unsound. As Gandhi famously said, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Exacting revenge is punitive and does nothing to make amends for the crimes committed. I endorse the restorative theory of justice, which places emphasis on repairing the damages caused by criminality. http://www.restorativejustice.org... Rather than having their hands cut off as the Qur'an dictates (Surah 5:38), thieves should be made to work and pay restitution to those from whom they have stolen. 3. Does God command it because it is good, or is it good because God commands it? The Euthyphro dilemma cuts straight to the core of the ethical debate. Regardless of which of the two horns one embraces, the Divine Command theorist is necessarily committed to the existence of unexplained brute facts. On what basis is morality rooted in the will of God? What is the ontological status of morals if they exist independently of God's character? Taking either side results in a slew of problems, therefore, I will leave my opponent to elucidate his own view before I proceed with my criticisms. b. Muslims view Shari'a as the perfect reflection of the immutable will of God. It must, therefore, itself be constant and unchanging. This interpretation is wrong; it is a fallacious conflation of moral absolutism with moral objectivism and the results are predictable. Many of the social mores prevalent in 7th century Saudi Arabia are antiquated. Christians, for example, recognize the Levitical codes as ceremonial law aimed at governing a specific group of people at a specific time. Instead they follow the underlying moral law and the principles outlined in the Ten Commandments. In addition to my previous arguments, consider the prohibition on eating pork. There is no scientific basis for this. During the fourth century AD when the Qur'an was supposedly revealed by God, there existed poor sanitary conditions and the consumption of pork products carried a high risk of trichinosis. http://www.cdc.gov... Today, the risk is virtually non-existent in modern, industrialized society. c. Even assuming Divine Command theory is sound, what evidence is there that the Qur'an and Shari'a law really are divinely inspired? Shari'a prescribes extremely harsh punishments for trivial offenses and dictates arbitrary, counterproductive statutes. Anyone who claims the authority to decide for me what I can and can't eat, what I can and can't wear, whom I may associate with, and on what basis I may conduct voluntary transactions had better be able to present unimpeachable evidence of divine authority. If I've succeeded in showing that Shari'a law is not at all conducive to human well being, is that not evidence of imperfection? If the answer is no, on what basis could the claim to divine inspiration be falsified? == Conclusion == Por's ethical case rests on three dubious assumptions: (1) Divine Command theory is a sound ethical system, (2) The Qu'ran and other sacred writings really are divinely inspired, and (3) they must be interpreted in accordance with the most extreme form of moral absolutism. I've also presented a powerful practical and moral case against Shari'a. In order to win, my opponent will have to respond to my criticisms, build his ethical case up from the ground, and find some way to make his despotic legal system appear palatable.