The victors of war can decide
upon the definition of justice. They have the authority to rephrase the essence
of justice , making it so that it bends towards their ideals and their way of
life. Just so you know, Batman is my
cousin, and so we share our knowledge of justice. No, this is not just a
blunder to release excess exam stress, but a summary of thoughts produced after
inquiring a number of fictional characters of their world views.
I was engaged in a debate about Islamic
laws. No, I wasn't involved, I was just an ignored bystander, as I was unable
to match their ability to produce quick responses and sharp retorts. Don't blame my inability, blame the education.
My friends somehow reached an unofficial consensus that they wish to able to be
freed of the shackles of Islamic laws; meaning that they can voice out whatever
opinion they have, Muslims can convert to other religions at whim, and although
said indirectly, they suggested that Islamic laws are somewhat barbaric and out
of place; inhumane and impractical. Sorry if my summary is incorrect, but after
a number of similar arguments we had, these are the impressions you created
upon this fickle mind of mine.
As for the reason to why they want
to be freed of the shackles of Islamic laws , I have absolutely no idea.
Perhaps that one of their siblings had their hands cut off, or their
grandparent's head were severed, but I doubt that ever happened. It could be
that when they tried to express their
world views, they were attacked with a flurry of death threats and anthrax in
envelopes, but they are still alive and kicking to this day. We were different
from every aspect of living, that every time we converse, I am unable to say a
word. I really feel that I am a failure as a person.
They brought up a case where a
Maldivian girl was sentenced to a hundred strokes for adultery, and claimed
that it was based upon a false judgement. Amnesty International condemned the
case and called upon human rights activists to protest against this , but then
again, that is the fault of the false judgement, not hudud itself , is it?
It is the same when a man is
falsely sentenced to death- that is the fault of prosecutors ,not the law
itself, is it? If it becomes the fault of the law, then we have to amend the
law every time there is a false judgement. I suppose that that is irrelevant.
Hudud laws serve as a
punishment and a deterrent. Punishment for the crimes that were done, and
deterrent for the community as a whole. Prevention
is better than cure?
Adulterers are caned 100
times in front of the public. The argument here is that it is too degrading for
a human being, cruel and inhumane. Well then, if such a punishment is displayed
to the people, would there be any person who would ever commit adultery? There
will be, but it would be at a number 99
percent smaller than the advocates of free sex nowadays. We should take into
consideration the negative effects that occur when the law of God is not being
followed. There are hundreds of thousands children who are born without
fathers. Teens as young as 11 being pregnant is no more a rarity. Divorce is
much more frequent than marriage. The so-called family institution collapsed years ago when people decided that sex is
plainly for fun. Cheating spouses had become so common that people talk of it
as normal as if Arsenal had lost another game. Women are treated as sexual
objects, and the amount of hentai on the net is too damn high. This list is
endless, my friend.
What is better , a collapsed
family constitution, or only 4 or 5 people sentenced to caning each year and
solves all the problems above?
I was raised to believe
in Islamic laws blindly, as I was unable to understand the reasons behind it.
But as I grew up, I am able to recognize the perfection of the laws that Allah
dictated for us human beings. Suppose that a man has his hands cut off due to
thievery, will the people ever resort to stealing ever again? What is better,
having hundreds of robbery cases daily, with convicts and ex-prisoners stealing
repetitively, or a perfect act
of prevention?
I said earlier that the victors of
war can rephrase the definition of justice. Should the Caliphate won the first
world war and enacted Islamic laws, will this argument even exist? We had been
taught by the victors of war of human rights and their freedom, and so we tend
to feel that their law is better and much more compatible. Amnesty's definition
of justice is nothing more than a set of words taught by the imperialists to
suit their necessities.
Perhaps the fact that we haven't
seen the effects that Islamic laws can bring causes us to doubt it all over
again, and perhaps we have the impression that the current social condition has
no cure. But my friend, we surely can't forget that those people who defined
justice have only won the war less than a hundred years ago, and before that
period, the caliphate had created an era which women are being respected,
family institution became the pillar of nations, and crime levels were brought
down so low.
Then we pondered upon the view that
there is no absolute truth. You suggested that in an interfaith debate, none of
the religions can claim to be the one and true religion, and only then we can
sit together and debate; because if one staunchly believe in his faith without
any chance of compromise, there is no use to argue. It becomes pointless. You
seek for compromise between religions. This is my answer; I can bring forth
every form of proof and evidence that my religion is true, and my religion is
the absolute truth. That is the essence of a debate; the one with the best
evidence and proof is the better argument of the two sides. I wish to question
then; what is your reason not to believe?
What is the reason that my
friends despise this religion so much that they wish to escape from its
guidelines? Why is that when they speak of people who staunchly exercised
Islamic laws, they speak of it with disgust and disbelief ? You can't speak of
these laws as if they are ancient tribal laws, when the Prophet who brought it
forth was the one who was able to civilize Badouins. The Arabs killed and
robbed and disregard laws. They have no respect for women, and they are the
ones who bury newborn girls out of shame. How come the laws that turned them
into civilized men be regarded as 'tribal' or 'inhumane'?
What is the reason then? Is it
because old people who wear turbans and keep long beards look old-fashioned and
silly? Or perhaps it is because the ones who advocated Islamic laws did not
graduate from Oxford? It can be because with these laws, there will be no
freedom with liquor, no more free sex and no more porn on the net, but my
friends are good people with healthy minds, not to mention them being
excellent
scholars.
I don't know. I have
no idea.
