هوس العقاب : نقد الخطاب المحافظ في جدل الإعدام

الملخص EN

With the emergence of new types of crimes, debates on capital punishment have reemerged in Turkey.

As such, we would like to contribute to these debates by offering constructive criticism to both the style and content of the conservative discourse vis-à-vis capital punishment.

Throughout our study, we have explained that the fact that conservatives are unaware of the universal objectives of the primary texts dealing with this issue weakens their discourse and by transforming it into a worldly, ideological discourse, impedes them from developing it into a cogent theory.

This weakness reveals itself in the very concepts and terms used.

Yet another area of critique is that although the Qur’an deals with each and every individual as someone being tested, the debate has been turned into a venue for political polarization and conflict, which only serves to strengthen the argument made by opponents to capital punishment and to draw attention away from the fundamental principle of forgiveness that distinguishes the reality of prophethood from other worldly ideologies.

This stems from an ignorance of the distinction between Meccan and Medinan verses while interpreting Qur’anic verses and/or of the distinction between universal and divisive (AR: kulli and juz’i) ends in the theory of objectives.

Consequently, the more profound moral nuances of primary religious texts are neglected and Qur’anic verses are reduced to texts dealing specifically with worldly disagreements between people.

Our study puts forth an alternative discourse that reflects the Qur’anic challenge and concludes by drawing attention to the challenges that Muslims face with regard to sharia punishments and talion.