You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

[–] endlessly_wandering 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Muslim here. It is an interesting article (because its well sourced), but I'm always very skeptical of statistics, especially statistics dealing with human perception and beliefs. I've seen these statistics regarding Muslims thousands of times and its always used as a way to supposedly demonstrate that most Muslims are extreme.

The problem I have with framing the argument in this way is that the argument is purely emotional, and has no basis in a logical argument. Even if you assume the statistics are a 99% reflection of Muslims as a whole, they still don't address the context of the statistic as they relate to Islamic jurisprudence.

Lets use adultery as an example:

When you tell someone: 52% of Muslims favor execution for adultery, they are outraged, since literally nobody is executed (legally) for adultery in the West. Furthermore, adultery is so commonplace in the West that if Sharia law were implemented (since the article stated that 69% of Muslims favor Sharia law), it is probably perceived that Muslims would be dragging women/men out of their houses and mass executing them for their infidelity, if they had their way. It also invokes imagery if misogyny, although it would be applied equally to men and women.

Let me reiterate that framing the argument in this way is purely emotional. It invokes knee jerk reactions in the reader, and is no better than headline journalism that is commonplace is our farcical media. In a similar tone, I could just as simply invoke imagery of American stupidity by stating that 25% of Americans believe the world is flat.

If you really want to discredit Islam's views on adultery, you should instead discuss how sharia law handles cases of adultery, instead of simply spouting off that 52% Muslims want to execute adulterous people.

As far as Sharia law is concerned, the burden of proof for cases of adultery is so unbelievably high that it would a Western notion of "beyond a reasonable doubt" to shame. In order to convict someone of adultery, their needs to be 4 credible witnesses to the act. What credible means in Islam also has stringent qualifications, but I'll not discuss that here. The point here is that the burden of proof is unbelievably high, so high in fact that it would be nearly impossible to convict someone of adultery outside of a confession.

So that brings up the question, if its so hard to convict someone of adultery, then why have a punishment at all? For one, it is to act as a deterrent to adultery. If you tell someone that the punishment for adultery is stoning, they will think twice about committing the act. Second, it provides a means for those who have committed adultery to willingly have the sin of adultery cleansed from themselves so as to avoid hell-fire punishment after death (within the Islamic context this makes sense).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqaqHrIiauw

To reiterate my central point, this is why I'm extremely skeptical of using statistics as an argument. The statistics are completely misleading, since they do nothing to address the differences in points of reference between Islamic jurisprudence and Western perceptions of adultery.

0
1

[–] happykitties [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

So that means such a law is flawed and has absolutely no place in a progressive world. It really doesn't make sense that such a peaceful and forgiving ideology would prescribe something such as death all the apologism aside.

It also doesn't really help that this draconian thought and belief system is defended and protected.

0
0

[–] endlessly_wandering ago  (edited ago)

You really didn't grasp the point of what I was saying. Furthermore, disagreeing with my comment is not an argument, and quite frankly is a perpetuation of the emotional argument mentality I mentioned in my comment.

Also, what exctly is a progressive world? Why do you call Islam a peaceful and forgiving idealogy?

It also doesn't really help that this draconian thought and belief system is defended and protected.

I really don't understand what this is supposed to mean. Please explain it to me.