Shari'a Law

Although I'm itching to reply to my opponent's arguments in full, I realize he has a lot to respond to, so I'll keep my round to less than 4,000 characters as he requested. 1. Pro has not offered a substantive reply to my claim regarding paternalism. His response demonstrates a misunderstanding of what is intended by the word freedom. Freedom, in the political sense, is the absence of the fraud and initiatory violence. Oliver Wendell Holmes stated it best: "the right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." http://freedomkeys.com... Pro claims that Shari'a prohibits what is harmful and permits what leads to happiness. This response is circular; its merits need to be considered in light my other arguments. He has also ignored the core of my contention: that an individual is the one best qualified to seek after his own happiness. Different things bring different people varying degrees of happiness; it is subjective. In a libertarian society, individuals make their own determinations without others arbitrarily deciding for them what is in their "best interest." b. In order to keep my round brief as Pro requested, I won't go into detail about sexist practices in Islam at this time. The fact that men are also oppressed under Islam does not justify the oppression of women; two wrongs do not make a right. I fail to see logic behind taking away a woman's ability to make such a choice for herself in the name of upholding her rights; you cannot increase freedom through use of coercive power! Moreover, in a voluntaryist system, women who see the merits of wearing hijab would do so freely without needing to be forced. Muslims who view with disdain the "cultural corruption" of the West would be able to form their own communities, setting their own laws, within which a strict interpretation of Shari'a could be observed. c. Pro's entire response is essentially a bare, unsupported assertion. The only statistic he has cited in "support" of his claim is an article explaining that Mecca is giant drug trafficking hub. My contention is rooted in the simple economic principle of supply and demand. The more something is suppressed, the greater the profits involved, this the greater the incentive to break the law. For this simple reason, drug and alcohol use can be slightly hindered, but never eliminated. Driving the trade underground only increases the risks and magnifies the harm done to the individual user. d. I fail to see how offering loans is "taking money from people who actually need it." As I explained, banning interest only constricts the availability of funds. My opponent also fallaciously sees finance as a zero-sum game. http://www.wordiq.com... By putting the loan to use, say, to start a business or to buy something now rather than having to save and wait until later, the borrower benefits; by receiving interest, the lender benefits and overall prosperity increases. 2. I understand the difficulties that early Muslims had to contend with, and while I sympathize with my opponent's point of view, I fail to see how this justifies punishing apostates with death. On the contrary, this is just as unfair and tyrannical as the suppression of Islam in the past. Moreover, without a compelling case for Divine Command Theory and divine revelation of the Qu'ran, such preferential treatment for Islam is extremely unfair and arbitrary. b. Even if, as my opponent claims, "eye for an eye" punishment is rare, the fact that it is allowed at all is a perversion of justice. Pro also has yet to fully address the moral reasoning behind my opposition to retributive punishment schemes. == CONCLUSION == As I stated earlier, I've kept this round brief at my opponent's request so as to allow him to build his case in support of divine revelation and Divine Command Theory, which I'll respond to in my last round. I feel this is the most crucial part of the debate and look forward to seeing how Pro attempts this. The resolution is negated.