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
I don't know. I have no idea.