一种常见的说法是，伊斯兰教不尊重选择的自由。人们常举伊斯兰教禁止饮酒、饮用酒类和售卖酒类为例来说明这一点。在崇尚自由的西方，酒类可以自由流通。如果你想喝，你有这份选择的自由；如果不想喝，你可以选择戒酒。归根结底，饮酒只影响自己的身体，并不会给他人带来任何伤害。因此，作为成年人，你可以为自己做出这个决定，而如果有人或某种宗教阻止你行使这一选择，那就是压迫。

One of the common lines you hear is that Islam does not respect freedom of choice. This is highlighted by Islam’s prohibition of alcohol, its consumption and sale. In the freedom-loving West, alcohol flows freely. If you wish to partake, you have that freedom of choice. If not, you can choose to abstain. Ultimately, alcohol just affects your own body and doesn’t cause anyone else any harm. So as an adult, you can make that decision for yourself and it would be oppressive for a person or a religion to prevent you from exercising that choice.

我们来探究一下。

Let’s investigate this.

所有法律体系都会以某种形式限制人们的选择,而每一种法律体系的规定都有其理据。例如,美国法律要求人们必须持有驾驶执照才能驾驶汽车。这一法律严重限制了人们的出行自由,但它被视为出于现实考虑的必要之举。如果允许人们无照驾车,车祸数量将急剧上升,车祸死亡人数会大幅攀升,人们财产遭受的损失也会成倍增长。因此,这些都是我们需要设立此类法律的现实理由。它的作用在于防止伤害。

All legal systems constrain choice in one shape or another and there are justifications that are given for the laws of that system. For example, US law requires a person to have a driver’s license in order to operate an automobile. That law severely constrains people’s freedom of mobility, but it is seen as necessary for practical reasons. If people are allowed to drive without a license, the number of car accidents will skyrocket. Car accident fatalities will balloon. Damage to people’s property will increase exponentially. So, these are all practical reasons why we would want to have such a law in place. It prevents harm.