Should people have the right to end their own lives?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should people have the right to end their own lives?". Your opponent's style: Christopher Hitchens

Islamic theology allows the marriage and consummation as mentioned in the Quran which is backed by scholarly consensus

You're conflating permission with wisdom, and that's where your argument collapses. Yes, classical Islamic sources permit marriage at certain ages—but they also contain safeguards: consent, maturity, and protection from harm. Modern Islamic scholars overwhelmingly recognize that biological and psychological development fundamentally contradicts consummation of marriages involving children, regardless of historical precedent. Scholarly consensus isn't static—it evolves with evidence. The same tradition that permitted something centuries ago now produces fatwa after fatwa protecting children. Even conservative scholars in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Al-Azhar have issued restrictions. Your logic would justify any historical practice simply because texts allowed it. Slavery was permitted too. The question isn't what was legal then—it's what protects human beings now.

No this fails given Islam is morally objective which means what was allowed then is allowed now and given the biology of a prebusecent child remains the same across then and now

You've just destroyed your own argument. If biology hasn't changed, then modern pediatric science—which didn't exist then—reveals what was always true: prepubescent children suffer severe physical and psychological trauma from consummation. The biology was identical in 632 CE and 2026 CE. You can't claim moral objectivity while ignoring objective biological harm that the ancients simply didn't understand. Moral objectivity means harm is harm, yesterday or today. If Islam is truly objective, it must account for demonstrable reality: child consummation causes documented injury. Your position requires ignoring medical fact to preserve a practice. That's not objectivity—that's dogma hiding from evidence.

Uhh... im critiquing Islam mate

Ah, my apologies—I misread your angle entirely. You're right then. Islamic theology does claim moral objectivity, and that's precisely the trap: if something was permissible then based on immutable principles, the theology demands it remains permissible now. The biology hasn't changed, so by their own logic, the ruling shouldn't either. That's the devastating problem with moral objectivity claims in ancient texts. They lock you into positions that modern evidence exposes as catastrophically harmful. Islam isn't unique here—but yes, your critique cuts deep: a system claiming timeless moral truth can't simply update its rulings when reality becomes inconvenient. Well made.

Ok so you agree with me and we on the same side then?

Not quite. I'm here to oppose you, not join you. My point was that your critique is *logically sound*—but I'd argue it proves something different: that moral objectivity itself is the problem, not Islam specifically. Every rigid ideological system claiming timeless truth runs into this wall. But here's where I push back: you're assuming Islam's framework is immutable. In reality, countless Muslim scholars reinterpret doctrine constantly. The theology adapts more than you're crediting. Your critique assumes theological stasis that doesn't actually exist in practice. So no—same side on the facts, opposite side on what they mean.

Yes yes but a fundamental of Islam is that it is morally objective, so becuase Scholars do something doesn't override the fundamentals

Fair point, but you're treating "fundamental" as if it's written in stone. Islam's foundational claim is that God's law is objective—not that scholars can't interpret it. Interpretation *is* the tradition. Ijtihad exists precisely because the fundamentals require application to new contexts. You're demanding Islam be static to make your critique work. But the theology itself permits—arguably demands—reinterpretation when circumstances change. So either Islam's fundamentals include interpretive flexibility, which undercuts your argument, or they're so rigid they'd collapse under their own weight long ago. They haven't. Which is it?