Incorrect. My statement was what mad scientist stated: the shock of public beheading would deter adulterers. That was his whole point, that it’s not enough to let society shun that person, or to let the courts punish them financially, but rather, we should kill them in public to make a point. You misinterpreted what I said.
The rationale was that even in Islamic society with the prescribed punishment (beheading) adultery still occurs. So not only does it not prevent adultery, it actually makes the society barbaric by today’s standards. The point of that statement was to refute mad scientist’s premise.
No one is arguing the merits of adultery vs fornication, just whether or not beheadings are needed and if they prevent adultery. And we have seen in fundamentalist regimes that public beheading occurs regardless of the number of witnesses, often with little or no proof, and women bear the brunt of that punishment. Your argument is idealistic and not at all representative of what actually happens.
What? The person’s moral debt will be dealt with after their death. Any civilized society make the guilty party pay financially, and then let them go. You are assuming that it is up to society to morally purge the sin of the accused, and then later you claim that no one is trying to be God.
We are not debating whether a gay man can be considered Muslim. The point of “gay Muslims” was to show that, just like adultery, despite the violent penalties associated with being gay in a Muslim country, homosexual individuals exist. Thus, violence does not deter them. It simply motivates them to hide what they do. So once again, violence does nothing to deter them, it just makes society barbaric.
You are wrong again. They do not stop out of fear, they simply hide their acts out of fear. What business is it of yours what two individuals do in their own homes? Once again, if someone committed adultery, punish them financially in the divorce proceedings, and then let them go about their business. And who are we kidding? A fundamentalist government will never be interested in rehabilitation, only violent retaliation.
If you are not God, why the fascination with moral purging of sins? A thief either pays a fine, or goes to jail. That’s the debt they have to pay. They do not pay for crime with a public beheading. Why not apply this logic to adultery? Do you see the problem with your line of argument? Unless you also advocate cutting off the hands of thieves.
Why do you think those “good things” do not exist in Muslim lands? Could it be because of fundamentalist governments that insist on violent punishments? You claim that Muslims should be allowed to live in Western countries because of their benefits, benefits that exist in part because of the justice system, and yet you claim that the Muslim countries’ justice system is superior. Flawed logic.
Besides all that, you missed the main argument: do violent punishments prevent adultery? No they do not, you admitted it yourself. So why should society insist on violence then? That’s not the version of Islam I choose to follow.
