Hi Azy
Hi Steve, I still love you
I get a bit wound up when someone uses 'the West' as a blanket term.
Fair enough, it was a bit narrow minded of me. I didn't give much thought to it, I was just looking to get rid of the troll
First off you assume that everyone will hold up Democracy as the default/best opposition to Shariah rule. I think since we're deciding which is the best method of government out of all those available we should at least consider the others rather than picking one and comparing it's flaws with your preferred candidate. I would put forward Republic as a better alternative than Democracy, similar in many ways to Sharia.
Yeah I kind of assumed that most non-muslims here would think out of all the systems democracy is the best. I just figured that If anyone had another system they want to compare they'd bring it up. As for a republic, I'm not sure what you mean by that. I take it your referring to the classical term of republican, and not the republicans from American politics; since those seem to have little to do with the genuine meaning of that word nowadays, if ever.
Your points on stability and justification of laws do not apply to the republic and it is easy enough for it to adapt to the point on equality.
True I have to grant a classical republic is better in those terms. However I wonder how practical this is. Can you really represent every minority in a governmental system? I see two practical problems:
1. Obviously you cannot appoint representatives by elections, because minorities would be outnumbered. So the the government would just have to play it fair and grant a voice in the senate to any minority that comes forward and ask for it? Like a person could say, hey I'm autistic, autistic people aren't represented yet, so I demand a position. Or hey I just founded a new religion and I have two followers, we demand our voice in the senate as minority.
2. How do you make decisions? If you want to protect minorities, then you must make sure they cannot be outvoted, so only unanimous decisions go trough? I think that would make it practically impossible to govern. A single minority could take the government hostage by rejecting any law, perhaps even with the intent of making the government fall.
Your argument against pork makes no sense. Keeping pigs does not cause disease to spread any more than keeping any other animal (example, birdflu)
Actually thats not true, keeping pigs
does increase the risk.
Allow me to explain. Consider how a virus works. Many viruses, specifically retroviruses are packed in a coat, and on it is a receptor that allows it to enter in our cells by a lock-key mechanism. The virus enters the cells, imposes as if it were DNA and replicates itself by abusing the cell's mechanisms. The new replicas then exit the cells and go and infect other cells. However as they exit the cell, they take a part of the membrane with them as a new coat to travel intercellular.
(I know, the "coat" sounds silly, but that's actually the official name they gave it. Just look here).
Now the cells are full of receptors on it's membrane, so as a newly replicated virus takes part of the membrane, it also takes a receptor with it. This receptor then works as a key on the receptor of another cell and opens the cell so the virus can enter. So there's this vicious cycle where the cells are constantly supplying the necessary keys to enter the next cell.
Now the thing is, different species have different receptors, that is why we are immune to many animal diseases, the viruses simply can't enter our cells. However we do have a common receptor with pigs, so we
can get pig-diseases. But it doesn't end there. Most creatures have more then just one receptor. So when a newly duplicated virus exist and exits the cell, it either takes type x or type y of that specie. Pigs next to having a common receptor with humans, also have a common receptor with birds. So let's say the birds-pig receptor is called y and the pig-human is called x. As a bird comes into contact with a pig, the pig gets infected with a birdflu in a coat with receptor y, the flu enters the cell and replicates. Now it exits again and takes receptor x with it as it exits. And there you go, we now have a birdflu that people are no longer immune to. You remember the pandemic in Asia a while ago? They actually traced back the origin of the human trait back to a pig farmer who was the first to acquire it. They tested his pigs and they had the bird flu to. On the side of his pig stalls he had planted fruit trees to make an extra buck. And the fruit trees had bats in it who ate the fruit and dropped parts on the floor into pig stalls. The pigs ate the leftover fruit and got infected from the bats. They did a documentary on Nat. Geo. about it. Some birds in turn might have some other receptors in common with yet another animal, and get infected by it. The birds then pass it on to pigs and eventually to humans. So pigs are like the gateway to every disease of the animal kingdom. By eating pig one doesn't only place his own health in hazard by eating an animal with bad cholesterol and which has exceptionally large numbers of parasites, at the same time one also jeopardizes the whole community by risking to introduce new animal viruses into this community.
so that's not a reason not to keep them, unless you're arguing for vegetarianism. I would imagine buying pork in a muslim country (if it happened) would be like finding a halal butcher in the UK. If a few people start eating pork that doesn't mean all food manufacturers in a muslim country are going to start including it, that would be commercial suicide... if my neighbor started eating arsenic I wouldn't rush to the cupboard and check my food just in case people had started using it in all food.
I think you are unaware of how many products actually have pig processed in it. If you want to find out, just print out a list of all the different EXXX numbers that you find on different products and look up what they mean on the internet. The most common is E471. And manufacturers don't put that in just because their neighbors do it, nor to piss Muslims off. They use it simply because waste meat of pig is very cheap! They probably assume that due to the encryptic E-numbers nobody is any wiser, or perhaps that nobody cares. Although I must add in your favor, that lately I'm noticing some changes in the industries. And more and more companies like kraft for example who used to use E471 are now switching over to alternative ingredients like sojachtine instead. Be that as it may, I would much prefer to live in a country where these products are simply not allowed so that I don't have to constantly worry about what I'm eating. I'm not saying that it's that big of a problem to read every label on every food product you buy, but what if you eat out? Do you go ask the chef what ingredients they use? Here in Belgium they even put E471 in industrial flour, so I can't even eat any bread or cakes pizza's or what you have. So yeah allowing pork does have a big impact on Muslims, adding the problems of health care which I just explained in depth to that; I don't see why a country with a majority of Muslims should allow it just for the sake of some who just love the taste.
Causing heartbreak and jealousy are not crimes and are not exclusive to promiscuity, fatherless children and STDs are more to do with acting responsibly rather than promiscuity itself.
True, although you must grant me that you will find either one a lot
more in cultures where promiscuity is accepted.
Hi Gator
Abdul,As I stated in a previous post the problem is the difference between society and the government framework that governs it. For example, promiscuity would still exist in a Caliphate as it does in a democracy, dictatorship, etc. Just because you have laws, doesn't mean everyones going to follow them. Its how it deals with the people when they do fail.
Yes of course, I never meant to imply that they would simply vanish. My point is merely that they would be less common when they are not allowed.
