Shari'a Law

Thank you very much. I accept the first part as has been agreed upon. Unfortunately, I don't have enough character space to refute all arguments with good details, which is why I will use abbreviations, something I normally refrain from doing. -- Rebuttals -- 1. Shari'a Law doesn't unnecessarily restrict personal freedom. Any political system besides one like anarchism restricts personal freedom. The freedom to murder, rape, steal, etc., all of this is prohibited even in many libertarian ideologies. That does, however, not constitute a negative system whatsoever. Shari'a Law prohibits what is harmful in and itself, while it permits all that leads to a good and happy human being. I have discussed with many people about this, and I have yet to find out why a society permitting tons of "freedoms" is better than one permitting and making it easier for one to be a good and happy person. Shari'a Law does this. 1.1 Sexism, by definition, is favoring one sex above the other. Shari'a Law never does this. As a matter of fact, it is the only theocratic law/guidance world which gives women rights as good as those of men. I can go in deep details, but I don't have enough space. Women are obliged to wear hijab,[1] and that's because Islam favors displaying one's inner beauty, not outer beauty. In the Western world, we have women who starve to be pretty, who pay lots of cash to be pretty, who suffer because they are not feeling pretty, and so forth. In an Islamic nation like Saudi Arabia, they don't have this. They don't have these sad things going on due to outer beauty. Moreover, most people ignore the fact that men are dressed as much as women. In any Islamic nation you will witness this. Saudi Arabia is a good example.[2] They also have beards as a religious duty. Why do people ignore this? Furthermore, it can be very warm in Saudi Arabia, yet these men who are not obliged to dress that much do it regardless, and they even work outside, whereas women take care of homes and children. It is all justified. Moreover, although men are obliged to cover from the navel to the knees, an exception is made in case of fitnah, or fear of temptation. If man works in a minefield, he can uncover to get some fresh air, but if he is among other women, he needs to cover. As for athleticism, it is entirely possible. I have had PE where females wearing hijab performed very well. There are also athletic dresses for women. As for the warm weather, people are very mistaken about the hijab and that. Today, we know very well that skin cancer is caused by exposure to sunlight. The hair can also suffer from negative effects. Incredibly many people die due to this, and treatment can be difficult. I ask, what is the solution to this? Nudity? No, dear readers. It is covering. Sun lotions are not entirely safe (and might cause cancer, as some scientists have said), but the safest method is to cover yourself. In Saudi Arabia, it is very warm, and uncovering your face and hands only is sufficient for vitamin D manufacturing via sunlight. Shari'a Law sets perfect guidelines. As for beach, there are beaches for women only where they can uncover from the navel to the knee, as Islam permits between women. There are also special Islamic dresses for bathing. 1.3 The prohibition on intoxicants are highly effective. Shari'a Law never claims to cleanse a society of evils. It rather helps them in better ways than other systems. Firstly, it is insulting when people say that the Saudi government refuses to release crime statistics. When people say this without evidence, what can I do to refute them? Force the government to give me the statistics? Absolutely not. Westerners always boast about "evidence evidence" ad infinitum, and when it is presented, it is also rejected. The government releases crime statistics as good as can be. They have nothing to fear. They do not fear international laws, so why would they fear showing that 100+ women got raped? Moreover, they have made it perfectly clear that even the holiest city in Islam, Mecca, is the biggest drug trafficking place in the nation.[3] Is this a refusal to release statistics? Secondly, Shari'a Law is perfectly successful in reaching its goal: to prevent family ties being broken due to intoxicants, to prevent alcoholism, to prevent too regretful deeds (due to intoxicants), to prevent ruining your life due to intoxicants, etc. The West suffers from all of this. All of it. So do Islamic nations, but in fewer numbers and much fewer victims of intoxicants. The people who drink cologne are few. I hardly doubt they are many. 1.4 The ban on interest is humane and just, a wise ban indeed. The charlatans who get richer by taking money from people who actually need it are not benefiting the economy. Read on interest-free loans here: http://halalinc.com... As for profit, Islam does not give profit to the loaner. It gives him honor as a helper. And how does the loaner make sure that his loan will not go to waste? In brief, if a person wishes to take a loan, he can ask some people for it. If he asks three people for $3,000 each, and buys a car with that then all until he pays them back, these people are co-owners of the car. If he cannot pay them back in due time, as has been agreed upon, then he has not bought their rights for the car, and they are co-owners. Moreover, in Islam, there are three needs: absolute, important, additional. The first is in cases of choice of life and death; here, one can take an interest based loan if he has no other opportunity to save his life. The second is if you need to buy a car to drive your kids to school, so they can get an education. In this case, it can also be permissible. The Qur'an allows doing sins out of great necessity. The third is buying an new navigator for your car; in this case, there is no permission for riba/interest based loans at all. And I must say that the third option is widespread, and people let the rich get richer because they cannot wait to save money for a new Apple MacBook. 2. Regarding apostasy, please see my argument on that in source #4. Unfortunately, people ignore and are unaware of the sad story of the oppression of Muslims during the final establishment of Islam. When Muslims spread monotheism, they were suppressed and oppressed by the pagans. The first battle between the Muslims and disbelievers explains the sad parts very well. Later on, Muslims ruled with Shari'a Law, and it was important to let Muslims be part of society and not let them forsake the rest, so that they did not act upon treason. Therefore, a Muslim government has the opportunity to choose a strict punishment on apostasy through propagation of other religions. In fact, some people apostatized during the era of the beloved Prophet, but they were not killed. They reverted and apostatized again, and then reverted. The "eye for an eye" punishment is to be used as a last resort. Islam favors justice, and what kind of justice does a prison serve for a murderer? Shari'a Law does not need criminals to improve the economy through labor work. Some people would even enjoy living with hard labor work instead of being dead. Shari'a sets straight guidelines, and we know for sure that a person who removes the eyes of an innocent human being should also have his eyes removed. Jail is nothing, especially not the modern, luxurious ones. To end the round with, I will say that I've got little space to refute all of this, which is unfortunate. I kindly ask my opponent to make his arguments well-measured so I can rebut. -- References -- [1] http://madmikesamerica.com... [2] http://images.google.com...= [3] http://business.maktoob.com... [4] http://www.debate.org...