Originally Posted by Lynx
I know. It will be very difficult because some people cannot live without it.
Moreover, most people don't have their lives ruined due to alcohol so you'd have to justify to them why they should stop drinking (since in their viewpoint no one is forcing you to have that first drink or to go binge drinking etc).
True, there are people that drink sensibly. From experience, however, I've seen drunk people behave inappropriately on the streets and harass those that drink perfectly normal. There are older people that are afraid to go outside at night due to drunkard students.
So I think we need to be balance the benefits of banning alcohol in western countries.
So unless you have a plausible strategy to actually eliminate the demand for alcohol suggesting this as an option is meaningless. Finally, you do realize that it will be more than alcohol that will be banned if Shariah were ever to be implemented, right?
It would not work if the majority want to drink alcohol. I understand that.
Like I said, technically I wouldn't be able to even purchase the Godfather trilogy if I really wanted to in a Shariah state.
Yes, some movies will be banned. I see nothing wrong with this. I know some people will be very upset.
I agree that there will be more structure to family life. Crime rate is actually a product of economic backgrounds, mostly so I don't know if Shariah would actually lower the crime rate in the projects. I don't know anything about animal hunting or how frequently it happens but pornography and gambling might be banned but will re-appear almost instantaneously in the black market along with booze.
Yes, gambling and pornography are more likely to come back.
Let's assume the banking system outlined is *better* or at least as good as the current banking system used in the West (though keep in mind western countries all have differing banking systems). The best conclusion you can draw is that we ought to reform our current banking system with some of the stuff outlined (or even all of it); however, there would be no need to import Shariah in the entirety to achieve this reform and so this interesting tidbit becomes moot in the discussion.
This is true. But I think a better system for a place that consists of both devout Muslims, not-so-devout Muslims and non-muslims is where each group can choose how to live their lives. Thankfully in the West the devout Muslims I've known have been able to practice as freely as they want; the not-so-devout Muslims were free to indulge in their desires without hurting anyone else; and the non-Muslims have been able to enjoy whatever path they've chosen (or still choosing). I am not trying to say liberalism or w/e you want to call it is perfect; I just cannot fathom a system that works better for pluralistic societies than what we have in the west.
I do not mind living in a non-Sharia state, as long as I can practice Islam, I'm happy. I would not force a system on the public that they would not like.
I understand banning alcohol, pornography and gambling will be very difficult but not impossible. It could work by a step by step process but it will be very slow. Many people working in those industries will be forced to leave jobs and there are many other implications. The benefits, however, I think will be significant.